Daily Times

On May 13 a joint session of parliament unanimously adopted a resolution condemning the killing of Osama bin Laden by a group of American commandos on May 2 without the knowledge and concurrence of the Pakistani authorities and, among other things, called upon the government to review its ties with the US. Denunciations of the operation in Abbottabad brought forth angry responses from American politicians and media. Relations between the two countries appeared to have come under heavy strain. Senator John Kerry came to see if he could help mend them. It seems that he was successful to a degree. Both Pakistani and American officials declared that each country needed the other. Pakistani officials admitted their failing in as much as they had remained unaware of Osama’s presence in Abbottabad for five years. It was also understood that action against the more notable al Qaeda functionaries located in Pakistan would be taken jointly by the two sides. Where do we go from here?

The US happens to be the wealthiest and militarily the most powerful state in the world at this time and probably for the foreseeable future. It has had objectives in this region, well-conceived or not, for the attainment of which it has received Pakistan’s assistance and paid it several hundred million dollars annually for many years. In accord with this policy, Pakistan became a member of the American-sponsored anti-communist multinational organisations, namely SEATO and CENTO. The US suspended its military and economic aid to Pakistan after the latter went to war against India in September 1965. In the 1980s, Pakistan served as a conduit for American supply of funds and weapons for the Afghan resistance against the Soviet invasion and occupation of their country. Following the al Qaeda attacks in New York and Washington, DC, on 9/11 of 2001, Pakistan aided the American invasion and toppling of the Taliban regime in Kabul.

Currently Pakistan is a participant in the American campaign against extremism and terrorism sponsored by al Qaeda and the Taliban. Public opinion in Pakistan is divided over the nature of this campaign. Many politicians and media people, notably Imran Khan, head of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), think that this is the US’s war which Pakistan should not be fighting. Others say it may be the US’s war but it is Pakistan’s own war also. Still others believe that the government of Pakistan should invite the Taliban and their allies to talks, see if their grievances can be removed and their aspirations met, and peace made. Sceptics maintain that this would be an attempt in vain because the Taliban are inflexible in their demand for radical change in Pakistan’s political and social order, which they say they themselves will manage. In other words, they want the present ruling elite to abdicate in their favour. If this interpretation of the two sides’ disposition is correct, there is no room here for negotiations between them.

Recent polls conducted in the US and Pakistan show that the great majority of people in each country does not regard the other as a friend. It is recognised on all hands that there is a “trust deficit” in their relationship, meaning that neither side fully trusts the other. One part of the reason for this situation may be that the government of Pakistan routinely makes false representations and does not implement the promises it has made and assurances it has given to other parties. Not only outsiders but even people within the country do not believe what it says.

It is generally believed in Pakistan that the US dominates its policy choices and actions as a result of the military and economic assistance it provides. In this interpretation the government of Pakistan cannot go anywhere without American officials guiding it every step of the way. Critics urge that Pakistan should stop requesting or accepting American assistance in the form of loans and grants if it is to retrieve its national independence and honour. It is also said that Pakistan can increase its own revenues by revising its tax structure and other means. It will then not need to go out with a begging bowl to the US or any of the American-dominated international lending institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank. In the same vein it is recommended that the government of Pakistan should formulate and pursue an independent foreign policy.

These gentlemen, I think, overstate their case. There is no hard evidence to show that now, even after the Cold War has been over for more than two decades, the US dictates the direction of Pakistan’s foreign relations. It seems to me that Pakistan is free to fashion its relations with China, Japan, Russia, the nations of South and Southeast Asia, the Middle East, North Africa, the European Union, among others, as it may deem fit in its own interest. The same is essentially the case with Pakistan’s domestic affairs. We may assume that American advisers have something to say regarding the operation of specific projects that they are funding. They may also advise the government to increase its revenues and decrease its expenditures. In this connection it is noteworthy that the present government is reckless in its outlays. It spends money that it does not have. It borrows at home and abroad, and the country’s debt now runs into trillions of rupees.

The parliamentary resolution referred to above condemned the US’s drone attacks in Waziristan and the FATA areas and asked the government to stop them. The military spokesmen assured parliament that they would shoot down the drones if so ordered. These attacks have continued since then and the government has done nothing to deter them. American officials seem to have decided that the Pakistani parliament may say what it will, they will do what they consider to be necessary. It is clear that the government in Pakistan is weak and ineffective, not because it is wanting in the requisite numbers in the National Assembly, but because it lacks the will to take the needed action.

Indeed this may be the case because it does not want to govern, a task that requires the willingness and ability to make tough decisions. One may then regretfully conclude that no review of Pakistan’s relations with the US will be undertaken while Mr Zardari and Mr Gilani occupy the highest offices of the state. Things will remain as they are, and for better or worse, the Americans will continue to dominate Pakistan’s policies and actions to the extent that they do now.

The writer, professor emeritus at the University of Massachusetts, is a visiting professor at the Lahore School of Economics. He can be reached at anwarsyed@cox.net