Turning a new page

By Ayesha Siddiqa

That Pakistan needs an alternative vision and leadership is beyond doubt. Any forward movement will depend on our national ability to recreate ourselves in our own eyes before we can have an impact on how people think about us or what they are willing to offer.

Such were my thoughts as I stood in the company of some 300 Pakistani expatriates at the US State Department. We were all there at a reception during the US-Pakistan strategic talks.

The Pakistani embassy staff was jubilant about the positive atmospherics. They believe that the US is being positive and forthcoming in dealing with Pakistan. The US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, spoke about bilateral relations turning a new page where ties would not be focused on military security but would involve socio-economic development as well. Washington hopes to cooperate in areas such as water, energy, education, health and larger social development. Apparently, both sides also agreed to use a better framework for communication to build confidence at all levels, especially with reference to fighting the war on terror.

One of the new dimensions of this strategic dialogue is that it will bring in the private sector to collaborate with the public sector and take on board the Pakistani expatriate community to share its rich experience and capital for the development of Pakistan.

Pakistan’s foreign minister, Shah Mehmood Qureshi, who spoke next, also endorsed that the strategic dialogue was about a new chapter in bilateral relations. He also implored the Pakistani expat communicate to use its expertise and resources to build Pakistan.

There was definitely a lot of positive energy in the room and one could have a sense of the US turning the page. But the million-dollar question is whether Pakistan is ready to do the same. We must bring about change at two levels: bilateral and domestic.

From the standpoint of US-Pakistan ties the major question is whether we are willing to deliver more to the US in exchange for a broader role in the region than what we delivered before. The US is back to talking to the military as well. The fact that the army chief received greater attention and better treatment than visiting army chiefs from other states normally get in Washington, indicated the Obama administration’s desire to take both the civilian and military leadership together.

For Senator David Lugar, who was present, the US couldn’t do much if the Pakistanis wanted a lame civilian government. America’s demand is for Islamabad to clamp down on all terror networks including those we are fighting and others that we have links with. This demand is linked to the US concern about rabid elements taking over weapons of mass destruction after assuming control of the Pakistani state.

We have been keeping some of the ‘strategic assets’ because of the Pakistani military’s concern for India’s nefarious activities in Afghanistan. Let’s say that we manage to convince the US to give us a role in Afghanistan where we could ensure our larger strategic interests. Would we then be willing to shut down the jihad machine?

These are tough questions which we cannot answer without, as my friend Sabira Qureshi pointed out, starting a strategic dialogue inside Pakistan.

The conspiracy theorists will naturally question America’s logic for treating Pakistan fairly this time. Perhaps, political realism buffs may understand that in this changing world no country can afford to adopt neo-conservative tools and attitudes any more. Washington might have realised that it will have to listen to Pakistan and feel concerned about Pakistan’s inherent insecurity vis-à-vis India’s role in Afghanistan. The fact of the matter is that the Afghanistan problem cannot be solved without the US, India and Pakistan abandoning their neo-conservative approach and adopting realism, which is not about the use of force all the time, but that involves measured movement.

This means using both force and negotiations depending on a particular situation. It also means understanding the inherent limitations of the use of force. Brute power cannot be advantageous all the time nor is overestimating one’s strength. Pakistan’s internal dialogue would require an assessment of how far it can go in using force to draw benefits and estimating strategic benefits and costs. While it must aim for gaining a foothold in Afghanistan to secure its position, a policy to force other neighbours out would prove counter-productive. It would help if Islamabad combined the acquisition of a role in Afghanistan with multilateral assurances that India or any other country would not threaten its core interests.

Furthermore, an internal dialogue entails building and strengthening institutions at all levels. The foreign minister spoke of the expat community investing in Pakistan. However, he did not mention improving accountability and ensuring transparency in governance. Perhaps that was not the right forum to give guarantees of improving the state system. Nevertheless, nothing that he said demonstrated a willingness to do so.

A glance at the audience indicated that those present might be very intelligent and successful, but they were also part of a crowd that eventually didn’t allow reforms to happen and opportunities to reach a larger group of people than the most affluent and well-connected.

The bottom-line is about the need to change our mindset first and adopt a new framework that will help in maximising our gains domestically, regionally and internationally. Realism is not about muscle power but about the sense to make a good bargain. We will not be able to force our competitors out of South Asia even if we wanted to. The best option, hence, would be to learn to coexist and make gains by adding to the peace initiative. So, when the US seems prepared to broaden the nature of the relationship the question we must ask ourselves is whether we are ready to turn a new leaf.