The Obama administration coined a new phrase upon taking office, “AfPak,” to refer to the importance of tackling Afghanistan and Pakistan’s problems in a coherent way. With the firing of General Stanley McChrystal, it’s clear the White House is reformulating its policy toward the Karzai government in Kabul. But what has happened to Pakistan policy?

Pakistan Soldiers Exercise

Washington and Islamabad appear to have different objectives while speaking about common goals: While both are fighting terrorism and militancy, the United States is looking for a safe military exit out of a stabilized Afghanistan while ensuring that al Qaeda does not re-emerge. Pakistan seeks to secure its own territory against an active homegrown insurgency, while keeping a wary eye on India to its east.

Last year, other observers and I raised an alarm about the urgent need to stabilize the Pakistan economy and better equip its military to withstand the rise of militancy and insurgency inside this key non-NATO ally. A nuclear-armed Pakistan, occupying a key strategic location near India, Iran, the Arabian Peninsula, Afghanistan and Central Asia, risked being isolated and mired in economic difficulties—and unable to afford to mount the war on terror within its own borders.

The U.S. responded with some far reaching measures: a long-term aid package in the form of the Kerry-Lugar-Berman Bill; the appointment of Ambassador Richard Holbrooke as Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan; and the opening of a high-level dialogue with civil and military authorities in Pakistan. For its part, Pakistan’s fledgling democracy turned back some of the egregious constitutional restraints of the autocratic regime of President Pervez Musharraf; re-ordered the relations between the federal government and the provinces; and prepared to impose a nationwide value-added tax to buy itself some fiscal space.

But my latest analysis for the Atlantic Council, “Pakistan in the Danger Zone,” notes that too much has been left undone and the speed of actions inside Pakistan and from abroad is too slow.

Start with aid. The 24-nation Friends of Democratic Pakistan promised $5.6 billion in April 2009 and has to date delivered just $725 million. The amount of U.S. aid has been woefully inadequate to the job at hand: no more than $2 billion a year compared with $30 billion spent in Afghanistan. Military equipment for the army to fight insurgents is still sparse and slow in coming. Pakistan needs helicopters, jamming devices, and engineering equipment to build roads and bridges in the borderlands, as well as better personal protection for its troops.

Then there’s trade. The U.S. market remains closed to Pakistan’s most globally competitive industry, textiles. A “trade not aid” model might win Pakistani hearts and minds, and cost the U.S. taxpayer less to boot. But the Obama administration has not shown any political will to extend the same kind of tariff cuts to Pakistan that it has extended to other trading partners.

At home in Pakistan, the government of Asif Ali Zardari has had its own problems consolidating its power and getting the economy back on track. The finance ministry has been a revolving door. Pakistan needs to grow at 7% to 8% to keep ahead of population growth, not its current target of 3%. Public spending has huge leakages and taxes are burdensome. But without aid to tide the government over and trade to jumpstart more sustainable growth, the country’s immediate economic prospects are dim.

Without a stronger economy, Pakistan will have a difficult, if not impossible time combating the insurgency within its own borders—an insurgency that threatens to spill over into Afghanistan.

The U.S. can help. First the Obama administration can follow through on its promises and rapidly deploy promised development and military aid. With Washington’s urging, other donors can be spurred into action, too. Second, the U.S. can lead an effort to free trade with Pakistan, especially in key sectors like textiles and apparel. Third, the U.S. could open a dialogue on a civil-nuclear deal as a symbol that it wants to bring Islamabad into the fold of responsible nations. Fourth, Washington can help launch infrastructure projects to knit the country together and provide much-needed jobs. Lastly, the two nations could establish education centers to upgrade human capital and strengthen civil society.

For its part, Pakistan must take ownership of the aid program by preparing sound project plans with performance indicators built into them. The government must rid itself of corruption and cronyism and establish institutions to better manage development and to build on recent reforms. And it could offer an olive branch to its neighbor, India, and offer to liberalize trade. The current bilateral trade of $2 billion between the neighbors could rise to more than $50 billion if the borders were opened and nontariff barriers removed. This would lift incomes on both sides of the border.

It’s not too late for the U.S. to retool its Pakistan strategy, but time is running out. The people of Pakistan need jobs just as much as they need security. Without economic prosperity, neither is possible. That’s a scary prospect for a country that’s a key ally in the war on terror—an ally that cannot, and should not, be ignored by the White House.

Shuja Nawaz is director of the Atlantic Council’s South Asia Center in Washington and the author of “Crossed Swords: Pakistan, Its Army, and the Wars Within” (Oxford 2008). This article is adopted from “Pakistan in the Danger Zone: the Tenuous U.S.-Pakistan Relationship” (Atlantic Council, 2010).

This artictle was originally posted on the Wall Street Journal web site.

Source: http://www.acus.org/new_atlanticist/formula-fix-americas-pakistan-policy

In an interview with the BBC in July, Clinton called on Pakistan to deal with the Haqqani network, a branch of the Afghan Taliban operating in Pakistan that Gen. David H. Petraeus recommends be blacklisted as terrorists. Clinton said that if an attack on the U.S. were to originate in Pakistan, U.S.-Pakistan relations could be compromised.

Apart from the stern talk about combating terrorism, Clinton’s remarks also focused on the skepticism she says many in Pakistan still harbor about America’s intentions. Qureshi echoed her concerns: “The opinion about the United States in Pakistan will change when the people of Pakistan see how, through this partnership, their lives have changed,” he said during a press conference with his American counterpart.

Clinton’s announcement is “a step in the right direction,” says Ashraf Qazi, chairman of the Council of Pakistan Relations, a Washington, D.C., group that lobbies to improve U.S.-Pakistan ties. Qazi described the meeting as “positive” but says he and his organization were hoping for the U.S. to make a greater commitment to larger-scale infrastructure programs—something he says could serve as a metaphorical “made in USA” banner and tangible symbol of U.S. good intentions at a time when only 17 percent of Pakistanis have a favorable opinion of America, according to a recent Pew Research Center poll. ??

The Wall Street Journal reports that $100 million of the aid will help small and medium-size businesses while another $50 million is earmarked for developing new technologies. ??The announcement comes as Pakistan faces a growing economic imbalance at home, where those with the lowest incomes shoulder the heaviest tax burdens. A New York Times story reports that Pakistan’s broken tax system, in which the country’s wealthiest—often politicians—pay little or no tax, helps feed “a festering inequality in Pakistani society … That is creating conditions that have helped spread an insurgency that is tormenting the country and complicating American policy in the region.” ??In addition to the aid Clinton unveiled, another sign of positive activity in the region came today when Pakistan signed a trade deal with Afghanistan, which the U.S. Embassy in Kabul lauded as “the most significant bilateral economic treaty ever signed” between the two countries. The agreement means landlocked Afghanistan will now have access to the sea and to markets in India, as well as a healthy upswing in imports that may boost stability in the country. But the world will have to wait to see whether the economic benefits for both Afghanistan and Pakistan will put a dent in economic inequality and militant insurgency in the region. ??Clinton arrived in Kabul on Monday for an international conference where leaders will discuss Afghanistan’s plan for future development, governance, and stability. President Hamid Karzai and United Nations chief Ban Ki-moon will chair the conference, scheduled to begin Tuesday.

The Obama administration is working hard to cultivate top Pakistani officials. There are regular high-level visits. In March, a senior Pakistani delegation visited Washington for a strategic dialogue with the Americans that seems to be building trust and cooperation across a range of government agencies.

An April visit to Islamabad by the president’s national security adviser, Gen. James Jones, and Leon Panetta, the director of the Central Intelligence Agency, was a reminder of the limits of American power. They warned officials of severe consequences if an attack on American soil is traced back to Pakistan. Given Pakistan’s proximity to Afghanistan, its nuclear arsenal and the fragility of its government, it is not clear how much punishment Washington would ever mete out.

Pakistan has its own horrifying reminders that the fight against terrorism is not just America’s fight. On Friday, gunmen and suicide bombers stormed two mosques in Lahore, killing at least 80 worshipers.

Pakistan’s Army has mounted big offensives against Pakistani Taliban factions in the Swat Valley and South Waziristan. It has hesitated in North Waziristan where Faisal Shahzad, the suspect in the failed Times Square bombing, reportedly received support and training. Intelligence-sharing has improved, but there is a lot more to be done as the Shahzad case showed.

So why isn’t Pakistan doing all it needs to?

Part of that is the strategic game. Islamabad has long used extremist groups in its never-ending competition with India. Part is a lack of military capability and part political cowardice. While some of Pakistan’s top leaders may “get it,” the public definitely does not.

The United States still does not have a good enough strategy for winning over Pakistan’s people, who are fed a relentless diet of anti-American propaganda.

As The Times reported on Wednesday, the United States is often blamed for everything from water shortages to trying to destroy the Pakistani state. The Obama administration came in determined to change that narrative. When he was in the Senate, Joseph Biden, now the vice president, worked with Richard Lugar on a $7.5 billion, five-year aid package that would prove American concern for the Pakistani people (not just the military) by investing in schools, hospitals and power projects.

Congress approved the first $1.5 billion for 2010, but the State Department is still figuring out how to spend it. The projects need to move as quickly as possible. And Pakistani leaders who demand more help, but then cynically disparage the aid, need to change their narrative.

The State Department also needs to move faster to implement its public diplomacy plan for Pakistan. Officials need to think hard about how to make sure Pakistanis know that aid is coming from the United States — like the $51 million for upgrading three thermal power plants announced by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton in October. It is a delicate issue, but the “made in America” label has to be affixed.

The State Department has committed to spend $107 million over two years to help Pakistanis better understand the United States. Plans include bringing 2,500 Pakistani academics and others on exchange visits and expanding after-school English classes in Pakistan. There also are proposals to bring more American academics to Pakistan and to reopen cultural centers. They should move ahead. An initiative to make more American officials available to speak directly to Pakistanis has shown promise.

Changing Pakistani attitudes about the United States will take generations. The Shahzad case is one more reminder that there is no time to lose.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/29/opinion/29sat1.html



On June 22nd, the Council on Pakistan Relations hosted a successful event for Congressman Van Hollen (D-8th).  The event was well attended by a diverse and active group of Pakistani Americans in the Washington D.C. area.

]

The purpose of the event was to discuss U.S.-Pakistan relations, with a focus on trade given the Congressman’s leadership role on this issue.  The son of a Foreign Service Officer, Congressman Van Hollen was born in Karachi.  Last year, he sponsored legislation to give Pakistan greater access to the U.S. market through the Reconstruction Opportunity Zones (ROZs) legislation.  He has also worked hard to engage the Pakistani American community and hear their views on what the U.S. can do in Pakistan to improve America’s image in the country and ensure that U.S. assistance reaches the people of Pakistan.

During the question and answer session, Congressman Van Hollen expressed support for CPR’s objectives.  He welcomed CPR’s support in advancing the ROZ legislation as well as the Council’s efforts to give the Pakistani American community a greater voice in Washington on issues important to us.  Members of the community pointed out some of the shortfalls of the legislation and the Congressman expressed his willingness to take this into account during the reconciliation process between the house and Senate version of the bill.  The Council on Pakistan Relations is proud to support Congressman Van Hollen.

CPR will be following up with Congressman Van Hollen’s office on these and other issues of importance to our community.  The Council would like to acknowledge Mr. and Mrs. Currier for graciously hosting the event at their residence.

WASHINGTON, DC — ”If the U.S. and Pakistan cannot work together then the war in Afghanistan may well be lost inside Pakistan,” warns the Atlantic Council’s new report,june 2010Pakistan in the Danger Zone: a Tenuous U.S.-Pakistan Relationship by Shuja Nawaz, Director of the Council’s South Asia Center. Nawaz adds that the “situation in Pakistan remains on edge.”

The report will be released at 2:30 PM on June 28 at an event at the Council’s downtown office. Former Pakistan Foreign Secretary Riaz Mohammed Khan and Washington Post foreign correspondent Pamela Constable will comment on the report and the US-Pakistan relationship.

Atlantic Council President and CEO, Frederick Kempe, stresses the importance of this issue, declaring that “no bilateral relationship in the world matches that of the United States and Pakistan when it comes to its combustible combination of strategic importance and perilous instability.”

In the report, Nawaz traces developments in the first eighteen months of the Obama Administration and the attempts to shore up the US-Pakistan partnership. But he comes to the conclusion that relations between the United States and Pakistan “remain in trouble and require change in how both sides are managing the relationship.”  A weak civil government has been unable to muster the momentum to change the underlying conditions that foster insurgency and militancy. A military solution is not possible, since it addresses the symptoms not the causes of the problems besetting Pakistan today. Neither is external aid enough. Pakistan needs to find its own solutions and will need help in that regard.

Pakistan in the Danger Zone is a follow up to the February 2009 Council report, co-chaired by Senators Chuck Hagel and John Kerry, that outlined specific steps that the US needed to take to help Pakistan. It presents a report card on the steps suggested last year and offers new ideas to allow Pakistan to stabilize its economy and polity. The somber conclusion is that, because the center of gravity of the war in Afghanistan is Pakistan, if the U.S. and Pakistan cannot work together, then the war in Afghanistan may well be lost inside Pakistan.

The production and dissemination of this report was funded by ML Resources, LLC, Washington DC. Copies of the report will be available at the event on June 28. Advance electronic copies are available for members of the media. For further details contact Shikha Bhatnagar at 202 778 4997 sbhatnagar@acus.org or Shuja Nawaz at 202 778 4983 or at snawaz@acus.org.

###

Please contact Mary Micevych, Assistant Director of Public Affairs, at press@acus.org or (202) 778-4993 for more information.

http://www.acus.org/files/publication_pdfs/4794/Af_Pak_Theater_Nawaz_Pakistan.pdf

http://www.brookings.edu/multimedia/video/2010/0604_at_brookings_podcast.aspx