America’s Election Frenzy and Pakistan

Written by S.G. Jilanee • February 2012

This is election year in the United States. Republicans are out like a pack of hounds run mad. In their frenzy they are tilting at every windmill. They are targeting Barack Obama, who is their main rival. But, he is the succulent bone of contention. Therefore, before going for his jugular, they have to fight it out among themselves. The survivor in this dogfight will face him.

In the beginning there were so many candidates, it seemed as if the entire Republican kennel was out in the ring. The list included Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, Rick Perry, Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, Jon Huntsman, Herman Cain, Michelle Bachmann, Tim Pawlenty, Thaddeus McCotter and even Donald Trump. However, one by one, all dropped out leaving four contenders in the field: Paul, Santorum, Gingrich and Romney. As Jon Huntsman suspended his race for presidential candidate and endorsed Romney, the latest to withdraw and endorse Gingrich was Rick Perry.

At home, the issues are jobs and taxes. But it is foreign policy that provides the opportunity for high drama. People admire macho men, fearless, brave and aggressive. And in the United States no one can imagine becoming president unless he is endorsed by Israel.

Therefore, the candidates are competing with one another in jingoist jargon and allegiance to Israel. Gingrich has “written off” the Palestinians with a flourish. Each would annihilate Iran in his own way. Romney rejects talks with Taliban, because they are killing American soldiers. But, that is risible for, Taliban are doing the same to US soldiers what Romney would do to any alien who invades the United States. Ron Paul is the only one to talk of bringing the US troops back home from Afghanistan. He is against doing to other people what Americans would not like other people to do to them.

After Afghanistan, it is Pakistan’s turn to receive their tongue-lashing. Here are a few quotes from their juicy remarks. According to Michele Bachmann, Pakistan is “a nation that lies, that does everything that you could imagine wrong.” Huntsman called it “a nation-state that is a candidate for failure.” And Rick Perry claimed, “They (Pakistan) have showed us time after time that they can’t be trusted.”

So, what are they going to do? Would these two-legged volcanoes cease all engagement with Pakistan? Utter balderdash! Friendly and engaged relations with Pakistan are as indispensable today for America’s own strategic interests in the region as they have always been.

True, even a cooling off in the relations would have adverse effects on Pakistan’s economy and its defense potential. But the country could manage like others under UN sanctions. For far too long, a large part of Pakistan’s revenues has been squandered on military toys. Pakistan, with its nuclear capability can defend itself against any invader, even if military assistance from America stops.

But the US would lose some facilities of critical importance to its regional strategy. Pakistan, for instance, is an ideal watchtower from which to monitor events in Central Asia and particularly China. Neither India nor Afghanistan can provide such convenience. India would not let the USA carry out any covert surveillance against China from its soil.

A rethink in US-Pak relations would, therefore be the only advisable course. And indicators show that that is what is happening. In Pakistan, a parliamentary committee’s draft recommendation over the whole gamut of relations with the USA is now awaiting national assembly’s approval.

In Washington, well thinkers are recommending a similar exercise. Bruce Riedel, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution who led a policy review for President Obama on Pakistan and Afghanistan in 2009, in an op-ed in the New York Times wrote, “America needs a new policy for dealing with Pakistan.” Elaborating he went on to argue, “It is time to move to a policy of containment, which would mean a more hostile relationship. But it should be a focused hostility, aimed not at hurting Pakistan’s people but at holding its army and intelligence branches accountable.” This was published in October 2011, before the Salala tragedy.

Yet, Riedel does not advocate a freeze in relations with Pakistan. His ire is actually against the army. He therefore argues for switching US assistance from military to civilian needs, including offering trade facilities.

So, would a Republican incumbent in the White House adopt a hostile attitude to Pakistan? Would he go on with the war in Afghanistan for which popular support in the US is sagging with every passing day? Or would he try to end the war and bring American troops home? If he opts for this alternative, he would need to engage with Pakistan whose cooperation would be vital for any enduring peace in Afghanistan. India may play a role because it has invested $2 billion in aid to Karzai government. Yet it cannot replace the relationship Pakistan enjoys with the Afghans.

The rant of the Republican presidential candidates need not overly rattle Pakistan, because, it is nothing but a competition in the display of machismo to win party nomination. Moreover, candidates promise many things when they campaign but fail to deliver when they are finally elected. A case in point is President Obama, who amongst other things, promised to close Guantanamo when he campaigned but had to retract when he was elected.

However, Pakistan needs to keep a watchful eye on the developments and be ready to adjust to any change. As Foreign Office spokesman, Abdul Basit said at his latest media briefing, Islamabad is already prepared “to resume full spectrum of ties with the US.”

The Parliamentary Committee on National Security (PCNS) has completed the review of the relations with Washington and submitted 35 recommendations for ratification by a joint sitting of the parliament. These recommendations are said to be comprehensive, seeking to renew the “important” relationship based on “mutual respect and mutual interest.” Details of the suggestions are not public property yet but it is hoped that the committee would have advanced the idea of switching from military aid to trade.

The New York Times has repeatedly advocated this course of action through its editorials. And Bruce Riedel is the latest to weigh in with the remark that, “Mr. Obama should instead announce that he is cutting tariffs on Pakistani textiles to or below the level that India and China enjoy.” If only the president listened.