On April 6, 1971, a communication was transmitted by a group of twenty officials from the United States Consulate General Office in Dacca to Washington, DC as a passionate message to rethink American policy that appeared tilted heavily towards Pakistan. The message ended with the ardent appeal: “We, as professional public servants, express our dissent with current policy and fervently hope that our true and lasting interests here can be defined and our policies redirected in order to salvage our nation’s position as a moral leader of the free world”.
Much of this and the attendant developments have been compiled into a book titled “The Blood Telegram” by the author of the message, Garry J Bass. That was forty-seven years ago. A lot has changed since then, but much more is in a flux. The dream of assuming the moral leadership of the free world having vanquished since those heady days of the seventies, the US is still trying to assert its right to lord over the world and gain further in avenues of strategic targets and profitable markets on its own terms and conditions.
While immense material can be collected in support of the flawed approach of the US, the debilitating spots adorning the fascist faces of a bulk of the countries at the receiving end of this pernicious paradigm would make us blush profusely. By virtue of the prerogatives of birth or fortune arrogated by a sequence of despotic leaders who rule by mercilessly curbing, curtailing and culling the rights of their hapless subjects, there does not appear to be a remedy in the offing. The multiple efforts for emancipation have only led from one bloody regime to a bloodier one.
Pakistan has been relatively more fortunate. We even have a shade of democracy in the country, tarnished only by the dictatorial mindset and gross corruption of its ruling elite.
There has already been a peaceful transition from one democratic government to the next and another such transition is due during the year 2018. But, because of the ineptness and incompetence of the ruling elite emanating from their infatuation with making money rather than earning their place in history through service at the grassroots, the art of governance has suffered to the detriment of the state and its people.
Into the 21st century, the world has taken gigantic steps not only in terms of changing policies and perceptions, but, more importantly, in terms of encouraging the evolving of a mindset that delivers newer paradigms to contemplate and implement.
The zero-sum game is a legacy of the past and the leaderships of the world have acquired the ability to deal with other countries at multiple levels encompassing both convergences and divergences. It may not be the easiest thing to do, but it is definitely productive with all countries benefitting from bilateral and multilateral engagements across divides and divisions. It is a concept of sharing the spoils among nations based on their input and effort in making partnerships work.
Even in the best of times, US and Pakistan were often rattled by sharp divisions of approach to a number of issues.
Through decades of partnership in pacts like Central Treaty Organisation (CENTO), South-East Asia Treaty Organisation (SEATO) to it becoming a non-NATO ally, Pakistan has always complained that the US was, at best, a transactional partner and it did not have any faith in establishing a permanent strategic relationship. During various rounds of our track-II dialogue, the question was often debated with the US side, at times, coming up with the pertinent query: what is wrong in a transactional relationship after all?
Consequently, it can be surmised that the US never had the requisite level of faith in Pakistan to look at it as a permanent partner, be it in the war against communism resulting in the ouster of the former Soviet Union from Afghanistan, or, more recently, in the war against terror. Pakistan was always expected to play a subordinate role under the US shadow.
But, then, one cannot blame the US. This is something that Pakistan accepted to do because of its own weaknesses, be these in the domain of corrupt leaderships, economic dependencies, military hardware and software requirements, or even ones emanating from its traditional proclivity to be in a relative comfort zone dealing with the west, particularly the US. The close and effective association between the militaries of the two countries has been a significant component of the bilateral partnership in its heyday which, at times, was even at variance with the state of the overall relationship between the two countries.
One major issue that Pakistan has always been confronted with has been its inability to change with times in conformity with the shifting dynamics and requirements within its borders as well as around it in the larger region. It appears to be suffering from a penchant to remain mired in a policy zone, often grossly flawed, that it is reluctant to divorce. This policy zone also becomes its comfort zone. But, comfort zones, more often than not, are far removed from the uncomfortable realities that one may need to address.
This has been Pakistan’s principal dilemma and it does not show more poignantly than in its relations with the US. It is the disequilibrium in its expectations of the US against actual delivery that has often caused it immense consternation.
But it is also Pakistan’s inability, or reluctance, or both in terms of accepting the evolving realities which has proved to be its Achilles heel. The junior partner in a relationship with a super power is expected to adjust more quickly than the senior and more powerful partner. And, if there are also chinks in the junior partner’s armoury, and serious ones at that, the relationship becomes untenable, as the current one between the US and Pakistan has. Can it be mended?
Now that, much against one of the principal recommendations of the track-II interactions spread over the last year regarding not bringing bilateral disagreements in the open and exercising quiet diplomacy to tide over these, President Trump’s tweet has unravelled it all, it would be appropriate for Pakistan to get down to doing a comprehensive appraisal of the nature of its outstanding problems with the US and also looking at possible options and opportunities that it still has to tackle the mess that this relationship has become today.
I am one of those who believe that this is a relationship that should not only survive through difficult times, none more so than what it faces now, but become vibrant and sustainable in the future. And it can if a serious effort is made to understand the changing dynamics within and around us.
Pakistan cannot afford to continue nurturing its grandiose ambitions which the world construes to be disproportionate with its genuine strategic requirements. It also can no longer survive with its dichotomies and paradoxes imperiling its anti-terror effort. The hydras of radicalisation and militancy are demons that threaten the very existence of the state, and which it gives an impression, at best, of being oblivious to. This is not the most propitious of policy options that Pakistan can live with and prosper.
Pakistan’s growing partnership with China runs counter to US strategic perception in the region. This perception has accentuated in direct proportion to the progress on the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) paradigm. This mistrust is not likely to subside just as much as there is no likelihood of CPEC slowing down its momentum. The contrary may be truer. This remains another component of the existent conflict zone between the US and Pakistan.
At this critical juncture, the best that Pakistan should seek with the US is comfortable coexistence rather than a permanent partnership.
But, even for that to happen, Pakistan will have to take a number of initiatives to palliate the United States concerns with regard to internal handling of certain groups which the United States considers inimical to its burgeoning interests in the region, and even those to its partners in the larger strategic paradigm, most notably India.
From the blood telegram to the twitter blast in the New Year, US-Pakistan relations have presented a picture of disturbing upheavals. It may take a long time to bridge existent trust deficit and a lot of effort to work on developing shared ideals and interests. In the meanwhile, a comfortable cohabitation is all that Pakistan can hope for, and should work for.
That would be a pragmatic approach. Ditching the US is not an option, and it should not be reckoned as one.
Published in Daily Times, January 3rd 2018.
