Cardamom or Carbombs? Pakistan's Love-Hate Relationship with the US

Pakistan has been playing hard to get. The US has taken the country out to a nice dinner ($7.5 billion in aid over five years), bought them flowers (schools, health centers, earthquake retro-fitting), and complimented them (tips of the hat on global strategy), and yet they back off and claw at Americans. The New York Times now reports that Pakistani security officials have allegedly been harassing US diplomats.

Perhaps they are reacting to Washington's use of military drones and contractors? Perhaps Obama came on too strong? Maybe the relationship can be saved by Cosmopolitan Magazine with one of those lists like "Top Ten Ways to Please your Pakistan."

Granted my last time in Pakistan was August 2001 when some kid in Peshawar threw rocks at my head and a grown man threatened to strangle me, but I am compelled to weigh in here on the incredibly delicate and nuanced role Pakistan has in global peace and security, on behalf of Pakistanis.

The vast majority of Pakistanis are sweet, peaceful people who just want to enjoy family and find meaning in their life like anyone else. It's an incredibly diverse country, as diverse as the US, so it is hard to say "Pakistanis are..." Instead, it is important to keep an open mind that there are not only a dozen ethnic groups but also millions of individuals choosing between extremes in a volatile situation...

The conundrum is that while Western-friendly Pakistanis who truly appreciate US aid rally around the open democratic or at least moderate political parties which take time to listen and debate issues, the militant anti-Western parties with very decisive leadership and simple rally cries consolidate their support among the rest of the population rather quickly. Extremists who aim to overthrow the government and kick the US out are chewing hungrily around the edges.

The leading moderate parties have no choice but to build a strategy which appears more defense than offense. If the moderates move too quickly toward democracy or Western civil society, ultra-conservative critics will abandon them for the militant parties, potentially bringing the kind of momentum rebels are looking for to pull the rug out, seize power, and control the nuclear launch codes. This isn't hyperbole.

To the point, although Pakistani government leaders don't need to kick American ass, they do need for public relations purposes to appear, if not be, somewhat cold to the US, even while receiving US aid as part of their budget. That may even include harassing US officials at least as much as they harass local citizens in terms of security sweeps. I don't mean to forgive the action, but simply to portray the complexity here.

The act of postponing or denying visas to Americans, even aid workers, may be extremely painful to diplomats and aid teams. It is likely a ricochet from the recent allegations that security contractors and, potentially, intelligence gatherers may have been posing as aid workers. To continue to let everyone in without scrutiny or pause would make Pakistani officials look to the public-at-large like they are continuing to facilitate the movement of US spies as they have in the past on record.

Last year, like many others I had my aid worker visa delayed by the Sudanese government for six weeks and it did affect an aid mission, so I understand this can be very difficult. But as the Pakistani man who threatened to strangle me back in 2001 shouted as he grabbed at me (this was the reason he did so, without provocation), many poor and conservative Pakistanis don't think it's fair how their government lets Americans do whatever they want in the country when so many Pakistanis suffer lack of employment, lack of power over the aid flow, and lack of visas to go to places like the US. I'm not fully agreeing with him or people like him, but stability in Pakistan does likely have more to do with what the angry man on the street thinks than it does what kind people at home think.

It is not that the Pakistani leadership is ungrateful for America's $7.5 billion in partnerships meant to improve security for Americans as much Pakistanis. It's that they have to work hard to prove to critics and anti-Western militants, many of whom are ungrateful, that they are acting independently from the West. The moderate Pakistani government barely, if at all, holds a mandate for leadership. The country is so incredibly diverse that if the ruling party is labeled more and more effectively as puppets of the US, they like so many other Western-friendly parties will be swept away by the powerfully decisive ultra-conservative Islamic parties, or the rather independent military.

One issue which still confuses me, admittedly, is the Pakistani security services, the ISI. Like the rest of the government they obviously need to walk the line of being Islamic and anti-Western enough to satisfy the rural population and yet open-minded enough to negotiate collective security with the US, UK, and others. And yet the ISI has been at times caught shuffling favors, if not financing, from the US to the Taliban. (See, Steve Coll's book, Ghost Wars) Now that the Taliban is fighting against the ruling government, considering the ISI traitors for abandoning them, perhaps the ISI is cracking American knuckles to claim to act for Pakistan independently from the US strategy for the region?

Before joining the discussion here, please consider some background reading on one of Pakistan's major papers (for example, Dawn) and review some of the truly great things US foreign aid have accomplished in Pakistan at the UN site, Reliefweb.

As for the Obama Administration's strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, maybe it's time to factor in the role of Pakistani public opinion on the success of Pakistan's internal security effort. The Pakistani government, as much as it pains Americans, may have a better chance of succeeding in wooing some of the opposition away from the insurgency (to Pakistani, Afghani, and American benefit) not only through economic means and ridding itself of corruption and un-democratic practices, but also by acting as an independent Pakistani body, rather than as a tool of US foreign policy. And I write this with the best interests of both countries at heart.

[Photo: Pakistan fans, Beech Boy]