The AFPAK Channel
Inside the war for central asia Twitter Facebook RSS
Daily Brief Latest from the Blog Latest from FP

Stumbling over Pakistan

By Shuja Nawaz, December 5, 2011 Share

After a week of delay, as anger against the United States mounted inside Pakistan over the November 26 attack by U.S. forces that killed two officers and 22 soldiers of the Pakistani army at border posts Volcano and Boulder in Mohmand agency, the President of the United States finally entered the picture directly. He called Pakistan on Sunday to express his sorrow at this incident that is threatening to take the teetering Pakistan-U.S. alliance off the precipice. According to the White House:

Earlier today the President placed a phone call to Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari to personally express his condolences on the tragic loss of twenty-four Pakistani soldiers this past week along the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan. The President made clear that this regrettable incident was not a deliberate attack on Pakistan and reiterated the United States' strong commitment to a full investigation. The two Presidents reaffirmed their commitment to the U.S.-Pakistan bilateral relationship, which is critical to the security of both nations, and they agreed to stay in close touch.

About time, many would say, that the President got involvedin saving this relationship. The signaling effect of his personal interventionis huge, especially since it follows a "business as usual" approach to the promised investigation up until now. The U.S. Central Command had said it would take three weeks to produce a report on this incendiary incident that has led to the formal closing of the ground line of communication into Afghanistan and theremoval of U.S. personnel from Shamsi air base in Balochistan -- a delay that allowed the wounds to fester inside Pakistan.

But why did President Obama call President Asif Ali Zardari and not Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani? Pakistan has had a parliamentary system of government since April 8, 2010, when President Zardari was reducedto a mere constitutional figurehead. Prime Minister Gilani now heads thegovernment, and indeed has been the point-man in denouncing the United Statesin the days following the Mohmand attack. He should have been the one thatPresident Obama called. By calling President Zardari, President Obama may havebeen led to the source of political power in the Pakistan Peoples Party towhich both Zardari and Gilani belong. A pragmatic move perhaps in light of Zardari's tight hold over the party he took over from his murdered wife BenazirBhutto, but also one that downgrades the prime minister. This call will likely be seen in the eyes of many Pakistanis as a snub of their constitutional system.  By this logic, they might ask, would President Obama call President Pratibha Patil or Mrs. Sonia Gandhi in India rather than Prime Minister Manmohan Singh?

The United States has been trying to forge a long-term and consistent relationship with Pakistan during the Obama administration. But 2011has been the annus horribilis betweenthese two estranged allies. The Pakistani government has used the recent attackto stoke public anger and garner support for its tough stance against theUnited States, partly to counter the power and prestige of the military in thepublic's eyes. The feedback loop created by government and the army's own toughlanguage against the United States will make it difficult for either to resilefrom its position. The signaling effect of President Obama's call to thePresident of Pakistan and not to the Prime Minister may well magnify thatdivide and be felt in Pakistani politics and on the street, where every nuanceof words coming out of the White House is parsed and debated.

Recall that President Zardari's personal popularity has beensinking, and with it his ability to affect public opinion in Pakistan. The PewGlobal Survey of June 2011 had his popularity at 11 percent. A later GallupPakistan poll of July 2011 had his negative rating 39 percent. Gilani cameout better, with 29 percent negativity rating overall, but also in the red. Inthe same Gallup survey, the Pakistan army got an approval rating of 15 percentin fighting terrorism. But the people of Pakistan also gave it a negativerating of 12 percent in running the country and a 3 percent negative rating inits political activities. Yet the military seems to be calling the shots onforeign policy, especially after its recent losses at the hands of U.S. forces.

If the United States is to mend its relations with Pakistan,it must recognize the need to heed the wishes of the people of Pakistan and toconnect with them more than the political leaders who appear to have lost theconfidence of their citizens. Turning back the clock to the Musharraf regime,when the President of Pakistan was the be-all end-all of decision making, isnot the best move. President Obama can retrieve the situation by acceleratingthe investigation into the November 26 attack and sharing credible evidencewith Pakistan of what happened and why. And, if it turns out that it was amistake on the part of the coalition and U.S. forces that caused the tragedy atVolcano and Boulder, an apology would be in order. Better that than having toput together a new policy for the troubled South Asian region without Pakistan.

Shuja Nawaz isdirector of the South Asia Center at the Atlantic Council in Washington DC

Arif Ali/AFP/Getty Images

 

ANON45

10:18 PM ET

December 5, 2011

There are two prisms to look at this through.

The prism of Pakistan as an inevitable adversary, and the prism of Pakistan as a potential ally.

Through the prism of Pakistan as an inevitable adversary, obviously we should pay no heed to Pakistan's desires and do whatever we can to secure our interests (we being chiefly the United States, but also the European and otherwise members of the ISAF) before we inevitably part ways with Pakistan due to diverging interests.

Through the prism of Pakistan as a potential ally, listening to Pakistan's needs now is far too late for there to not be a bloodletting to US interests, and even then Pakistan will never have even close to the same view of the US as it has of ,say, China, our prime geopolitical adversary. The populace is utterly against the US, they cheer for every ISAF death, especially every American death, they have no respect for the US, and in fact view the US with utter disdain. After everything we've gone through (Pakistan and the US) there is nothing that can change these dynamics in the next 10 years, long after we've left Afghanistan and Pakistan once again becomes a footnote to American political consciousness. Basically, how far would the United States be willing to go to sell out its own interests, long and short term, for Pakistan to become verbally congenial again (but still be more friendly with China) until 2014?

 

KHURRAM NAZIR

1:55 AM ET

December 6, 2011

A Timely Article

Thanks for writing on this important subject.

I feel that heat of closure of logistic routes would be felt soon and Mr Obama will be ready to do much more; we just need to hold firm.

On the Pakistani side, this is a golden opportunity to realign our policy closer to public perceptions as well as making terms of cooperation with United States realistic, balanced and fruitful.

The Afghan growing hostility remains a concern which can be reduced through more engagement at bilateral level and through interjecting some well thought out CBMs.

Finally sir, we need people like you to write and speak more.

Thanks

 

MARTY MARTEL

6:17 AM ET

December 6, 2011

Mollycoddling a terrorist State

U. S. has mollycoddled Pakistan at the expense of Afghanistan right from the beginning.

America has known all along the duplicitous game that Pakistani State has been playing since 2001. Bush administration just consciously decided to keep it under wraps after Pakistan joined America’s fight against terrorism that Pakistani State itself created.

The seeds of the ‘current Afghan tragedy’ were sowed in Washington when Bush administration decided to allow Musharraf to spirit away by airlift hundreds, if not thousands, of Taliban operatives cornered by the advancing Northern Alliance in Kunduz in November, 2001. Pakistan relocated those Taliban cadres including Mullah Mohammed Omar to Quetta, the provincial capital of Baluchistan (now relocated to Karachi by Pakistani ISI to protect them from possible US drone attacks) and Haqqani network (HQN) to North Waziristan from where Mullah Omar’s QST and Haqqani’s HQN have been planning raids in Afghanistan ever since.

U. S. has deliberately deluded itself about Afghan Taliban’s Pakistani connections in fueling and sustaining Afghan insurgency as reported by Matt Waldman in ‘The sun in the sky‘ on 6/13/2010, corroborated by WikiLeaks leaks on 7/25/2010 and then further corroborated by Chris Alexander, Canadian ambassador to Afghanistan from 2003 to 2005 and Deputy Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General for Afghanistan from 2005 until 2009 in his article on 7/30/2010 titled ‘The huge scale of Pakistan‘s complicity‘.

Duplicitous Pakistan has successfully cornered U. S. - U. S. can NOT use its aid leverage to force Pakistan to stop supporting terrorist groups who kill US/NATO troops in Afghanistan day in and day out since 2001 because US needs Pakistan’s help in ferrying supplies to those very US/NATO troops.

Adm Mike Mullen had following to say about America’s primary ally in its fight against terrorism, to the foreign news media on 1/13/2011: “I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, it [Pakistan] is the epicenter of terrorism in the world right now. It is absolutely critical that the safe havens in Pakistan get shut down. We cannot succeed in Afghanistan without that. It’s not just Haqqani Network anymore, or Al Qaeda or TTP (Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan), the Afghan Taliban, or LeT (Lashkar-e-Tayyeba), it’s all of them working together.”

Previous US ambassador Anne Patterson to Pakistan, wrote in a secret review in 2009 that ‘Pakistan's Army and ISI are covertly SPONSORING four militant groups - Haqqani‘s HQN, Mullah Omar‘s QST, Al Qaeda and LeT - and will not abandon them for any amount of US money‘, as diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks show.

Ambassador Patterson had NO reason to mislead her own State Department and U. S. government.

With an ally like Pakistan, U. S. does NOT need an enemy to lose in Afghanistan.

 

KHURRAM NAZIR

10:30 AM ET

December 6, 2011

Marty!

From the length and contents of the comments it seems Mr (so called) Marty has nothing else to do!

I find similar comments on almost all posts about Pakistan: Whom do you you represent ?

Why so much venom about Pakistan?

A balanced view would carry more weight.

Think!!

 

DR. KUCHBHI

11:28 AM ET

December 6, 2011

Unfortunately

the people of Pakistan don't make Pakistani foreign policy. So wooing them does absolutely nothing. Nor does Gilani or for that matter, to be fair - even Zardari.

Zardari does have the political cojones to make attempts (howsoever feeble and unsuccessful) to throw over the yoke of the Pakistani military and the ISI.

So outside of calling it like it is, and just calling the head of the Paki military or ISI, Obama did the right thing by talking to Zardari.

Comparisons with India don't make sense. Yes Sonia Gandhi is the power behind the throne but Manmohan Singh has a significant say in the policies being set at the center - including foreign policy. Pratibha Patil is the President but that ceremonial post is very very different in capability, power and influence than what Zardari wields in Pakistan. And of course, calling the Indian military would be useless since they'll just redirect you to the yellow pages.