The Pak US conundrum

Charles de Gaulle once said “You may be sure that the Americans will commit all the stupidities they can think of, plus some that are beyond imagination”. Well, the “stupid” Americans spearheaded the liberation of France, allowed the Free French Army to lead the march into Paris contributing to De Gaulle being declared a national hero eventually becoming President of France.

Similarly, the Americans have pumped over $ 45 billion in direct military and economic aid to Pakistan since Independence, $ 21 billion since 9/11 alone in effect making a huge contribution to stabilizing an impoverished nation. In return almost daily, Pakistani leaders like Imran Khan and Syed Munawar Hasan among others, accuse the United States at minimum of murder, genocide and meddling in internal affairs. This shows that stupidity is not restricted to a particular nation or people.

To be sure Americans are not saints and have committed their share of stupid acts all over the world including in Pakistan, latest being the alleged murder of three Pakistani citizens in Lahore by “Rambo” Davis and his support team. We also know that previous American support for military dictatorships in Pakistan has contributed to weaknesses in the country’s civilian democratic institutions arguably better placed to fight intolerance and extremism.

Perhaps both Pakistan and the United States need to reconsider their bilateral relations in context of Mr. M.A. Jinnah’s broadcast talk to the people of the USA in February 1948 when he said: Our foreign policy is one of the friendliness and goodwill towards all the nations of the world. We do not cherish aggressive designs against any country or nation. We believe in the principle of honesty and fair-play in national and international dealings, and are prepared to make our contribution to the promotion of peace and prosperity among the nations of the world. Pakistan will never be found lacking in extending its material and moral support to the oppressed and suppressed peoples of the world and in upholding the principles of the United Nations Charter.

I think that a great deal of the mistrust and animosity between Pakistan and the United States stem from cultural differences exacerbated by poor communication which sometimes leads to serious misunderstandings. It would be fair to say that Pakistanis are an overly emotional and sensitive people for whom the Americans can come across as insensitive and overbearing! The fact that Pakistan is an economic basket case and reliance on US aid to stay afloat will always mean an unequal partnership heavily skewed in favour of the United States.

I am reminded of an amusing incident when in the early 60s, US Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson (LBJ) on a goodwill mission visited Karachi and met Bashir Ahmad in a group of camel drivers on a roadside. LBJ pressed the flesh even patting the camels and used a phrase he had regularly said in his travels, “You all come to Washington and see us sometime” but was completely surprised when Bashir accepted his offer. With the press hot on his heels after the acceptance, LBJ took advantage of the People-to-People program to fund Bashir’s travel expenses.

Evidently, President Kennedy (JFK) jokingly noted about the visit, “I don’t know how Lyndon does it. If I had done that, there would have been camel dung all over the White House lawn.” This “politically incorrect” remark from JFK would have caused a furor in Pakistan today!

A Pakistani journalist covering Bashir’s US visit described it as “don’t conquer a country, don’t conquer a government. If you wish to conquer, conquer the hearts of the people.” Finally, at the end of his stay, as a gesture of further goodwill, LBJ made arrangements for Bashir to visit Mecca on his way back to Pakistan, this act of friendship apparently bought tears to the eyes of the destitute camel driver.

Well in the present charged environment, the Americans can’t hope to “conquer the hearts” of the people of Pakistan. LBJ’s charming Southern drawl and nice gestures may have worked in Bashir’s naïve Pakistan of the 60s but it is impossible to see similar gestures working on a suspicious and insecure Pakistani populace of today.

So let’s agree that Pakistan and the United States can’t be friends but have only shared interests. Firstly, that the ISI fully cooperate with the CIA in the joint fight against disrupting international terrorism and arresting and interrogating terrorist suspects, nicely as possible please!

In return, the US should recognize Pakistan’s strategic interests in Afghanistan and accept the fact that the Pakistan army can’t be seen to be a glorified regional police force for the US military.
Secondly, the US should strongly encourage India Pakistan dialogue to resolve the Kashmir issue and jumpstart trade between the two countries. Genuine peace efforts and trade will hopefully shape the psyche of the Pakistani ruling-elite and intelligentsia away from a costly arms race towards investment in education, health and welfare.

Finally, support for democracy in Pakistan should be the cornerstone of US foreign policy. No more should the United States be identified with supporting dictators for short term expediency. In turn, Pakistani democratic governments should guarantee the rule of law, an end to corruption and economic growth and progress for all. Hopefully, over time these shared interests will lead to a reduction in frictions between Pakistan and the United States.

Does America Suffer From Solution-ism?

Does America suffer from Solution-ism? by Saad Hafiz

America suffers from ‘solutionism’", an ex-Marine running a Washington law practice resignedly remarked to me at a Conference in Vermont recently. We were talking about how America was embroiled in conflict resolution and nation building around the world with few results to show for it; while serious problems like leadership gridlock and fiscal deficits were festering at home.

Solutionism means that for every intractable problem there is logical and available answer. H.L. Mencken, the American journalist and humorist said "for every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong". Increasingly, in the last few decades, the buzz word in America has been "solutions". Every problem has an easily attainable outcome that is nicely packaged and sold to the public-little attention is paid to the problems.

Many Americans are questioning that while the U.S. economy is in the doldrums, the government continues to engage in bitter partisanship while losing voter confidence. The political elite ignores the widening wealth gap, the suffering of tens of millions on food stamps, while U.S. leaders continue to "spread democracy" with troops, drones and righteous lectures to other countries on how to be like America.

I am reminded of a conversation with an American investment professional before the Second Gulf War in 2003 just as President George W. Bush was preparing to remove Saddam Hussein from power. Responding to my concern on where the US intervention in Iraq would lead, the individual, brimming with pride, said with absolute certitude that the U.S. could do anything including reshaping the Middle East to introduce freedom and democracy.

He cited how America had successfully transformed German and Japanese societies after World War II from fascism and militarism to freedom and democracy. It is clear however that conditions were vastly different after World War II that they are today. America enjoyed nearly unlimited power in the post war era to influence outcomes in the Free World. This mentality is still around, despite the reality that many solutions like regime change in Iraq have cost upwards of three trillion dollars and thousands of American and Iraqi lives thus far and whose benefits to America have yet to be realized.

American solutionism was satirized in The Ugly American, a 1950’s best selling political novel about Sarkhan, a fictional Southeast Asian country. The novel was later made into a movie starring the late Marlon Brando. The American officials are shown as overwhelmingly arrogant, rude, and incompetent. The reader wonders, who needs an enemy like communism, when you are already your own worst enemy?

A Catholic priest from Boston name Father Finian is assigned to Sarkhan. Unlike American officials, Father Finian says to the people "it is your country, your souls, your lives… I will do what we agree upon." In contrast, American "experts" who were full of ideas from their experiences back home offered to improve the quality of local chickens and increase the chickens’ egg yield when locals were only interested in developing canals and mechanized farms. The tone deaf nature and lack of local knowledge not only handicapped the expert’s ability to actively engage the local population; it actively undermined their ability to determine their own political, economic, and social stability in the future.

Amusing fiction aside, the most devastating consequence of American solutionism is Pakistan, where for over 60 years, America has endeavored to create a strong, democratic ally by doling out billions of dollars in economic and military aid, only to watch with horror as it emerged as one of the most virulently anti-American countries in the world and seen as a covert sponsor of terror. Instead of being grateful, many Pakistanis deride America, questioning its motives for involvement in the country. America’s argument that it is fulfilling its responsibility as the leading global power to ensure that Pakistan does not implode does not convince Pakistanis.

What can the U.S. do to replace the unbridled unilateral solutionism despised by many? While isolationism is certainly not the answer, America needs to explain its motives more clearly. Also, a bit of Father Finian’s advice to "do what we all agree upon" might help. But above all America must realize that a lack of specific solutions on the horizon is not necessarily a cause for despair as it may be the beginning of true realism in American foreign policy.