01-26-2009, 08:25 AM
By Shahid Javed Burki
Barrack Obama – both the man and the administration he is now leading – will be more consequential for Pakistan than was the case with his predecessor, George W. Bush and his government.
During Bush’s uneasy sojourn in office, Pakistan became, once again, the front line state for a conflict that America was then engaged in.
When Pervez Musharraf was in office, Pakistan was enlisted to aid the American effort in the “war on terror.”As was the case with the Pakistani administrations led by Presidents Ayub Khan and Zia ul-Haq, Pakistan under Pervez Musharraf, pledged support to the Americans in the pursuit of Washington’s strategic interests.
During Ayub Khan’s time, it was the American fear about the spread of Communism that brought Pakistan to the front line. When Zia ul-Haq was in office, the Americans engaged Pakistan to expel the Soviet Union from neighbouring Afghanistan.
Pakistan’s military leaders were always eager to help. They needed the money the Americans provided for economic development as well as for building their country’s military strength. They needed external financial support since the country was not able to raise enough resources from within to achieve these objectives.
The Americans may have compensated the country for the help it provided in the former’s pursuit of its strategic interests, but it made Pakistan dependent on external support. Some of the structural changes the economy needed were not undertaken because of the easy money that was available from the outside. This is likely to change with Barrack Obama in the White House.
How Obama is likely to deal with the developing world is revealed by his autobiography, the numerous statements he gave while campaigning for the presidency and his much give-and-take with the press during the period of transition. Bush had simple views that he promoted with zeal. People were either good or evil. You were either with America or against it. Democracy is the way God willed man to manage his affairs. It was America’s job to implement God’s wish and to spread democracy to the parts of the world that had not benefited from it.
If America’s security was threatened, it was legitimate for it to use military force. Military force could be used preemptively if there was some fear that America’s interests might be harmed.
Bush also believed in personal relations. Those who agreed with his world view were America’s friends to be rewarded and helped in their time of need. All this became the basis of Bush’s support for Pervez Musharraf and for Pakistan. Musharraf offered America support when Washington needed it after 9/11. He continued to support America’s mission even when his life was threatened.
Musharraf was not a democrat and his system of governance was not democratic. However, he had promised to bring democracy to his country. Bush was not worried about the form of democracy or its real content. Elections and simple manifestations of the system satisfied him.
Musharraf promised elections and went on to hold them. That was sufficient for Washington. America needed Pakistan on its side and Pakistan needed American support to develop. That was enough for a solid relationship. During Musharraf’s time in office, United States provided close to $11 billion to Islamabad but did not worry how this large sum of money was used.
There is no doubt that Obama and his administration will remain engaged with Pakistan but there is also no doubt that the quality of that engagement will be profoundly different. Based on what he has written and what he said in the long campaign period and based also on his inauguration address, there will be three major differences in America’s involvement with Pakistan.
One, his approach to other places in the world will not be based on the friendships he forms with other leaders but on what governments are doing for their people and how they are working with Washington.
Two, it will want the country to show that it has a political and economic structure that is responsive to the needs of the less privileged. This principle will guide Washington not just in Pakistan but in all developing countries.
And three, he will expect Pakistan to be one of the leaders in the troubled Muslim world. What will these approaches mean exactly for Pakistan.
In a detailed conversation with the editors of The Washington Post, Obama went into some detail about his expectations about the development of political systems in the developing world.
“The incoming Obama administration seems to be inclining in its foreign policy towards a philosophy that says: Voting matters, but maybe not as much as economic development, or women’s rights, or honest judges” wrote Fred Hiatt, the newspaper’s editorial page editor after the meeting with Obama.
In his discussion with the editors, “Obama went on to say that Bush had mistakenly equated democracy with elections. The first question, Obama said is ‘freedom from want and freedom from fear. If people are not secure, if people are starving, then elections may or may not address those issues, but they are not a perfect overlay.” Applying these principles to Pakistan will naturally affect relations between Pakistan and the United States.
The fact that free and fair elections were held in February of last year, that power was transferred to the elected representatives of the people, that the military leaders seem to be getting their direction from the civilian-dominated government will be seen as positive developments.
The fact that the parliament has not been fully empowered, that relations between the federal government and the Punjab remain tense, that the government has not clearly articulated a strategy aimed at solving some of the more intractable problems the country faces, will be viewed negatively by the Obama administration.
In his inaugural address, Obama signaled that he will approach the Muslim world differently. Unlike his predecessor who dictated the policies he wished other countries to follow, Obama signaled a desire to work with all partners across his country’s borders by attempting to understand their positions.
“To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual trust.” But, at the same time, “we will not apologize for our way of life nor will we waver in its defence. And for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you now.”
The meaning of all these words is clear. It should provide comfort to those in Pakistan who want to build a durable relationship with the sole super power that, in spite of the battering it has received in the field of finance and on the battlefield, remains inherently economically and militarily strong.
It should be comfortable to build this relationship on the basis of mutual interests rather than on the basis of friendship between two leaders. Pakistan would benefit from such a relationship but it would come about only if it is able to set its political and economic house in order.
There is growing tension between the two largest political groupings in the country. The strategy for resolving the many problems faced by the economy has not been formulated. On the political, economic and financial fronts, there is much that remains to be done for Obama’s America to stay close to Pakistan.
http://www.dawn.com/2009/01/26/ebr19.htm
Barrack Obama – both the man and the administration he is now leading – will be more consequential for Pakistan than was the case with his predecessor, George W. Bush and his government.
During Bush’s uneasy sojourn in office, Pakistan became, once again, the front line state for a conflict that America was then engaged in.
When Pervez Musharraf was in office, Pakistan was enlisted to aid the American effort in the “war on terror.”As was the case with the Pakistani administrations led by Presidents Ayub Khan and Zia ul-Haq, Pakistan under Pervez Musharraf, pledged support to the Americans in the pursuit of Washington’s strategic interests.
During Ayub Khan’s time, it was the American fear about the spread of Communism that brought Pakistan to the front line. When Zia ul-Haq was in office, the Americans engaged Pakistan to expel the Soviet Union from neighbouring Afghanistan.
Pakistan’s military leaders were always eager to help. They needed the money the Americans provided for economic development as well as for building their country’s military strength. They needed external financial support since the country was not able to raise enough resources from within to achieve these objectives.
The Americans may have compensated the country for the help it provided in the former’s pursuit of its strategic interests, but it made Pakistan dependent on external support. Some of the structural changes the economy needed were not undertaken because of the easy money that was available from the outside. This is likely to change with Barrack Obama in the White House.
How Obama is likely to deal with the developing world is revealed by his autobiography, the numerous statements he gave while campaigning for the presidency and his much give-and-take with the press during the period of transition. Bush had simple views that he promoted with zeal. People were either good or evil. You were either with America or against it. Democracy is the way God willed man to manage his affairs. It was America’s job to implement God’s wish and to spread democracy to the parts of the world that had not benefited from it.
If America’s security was threatened, it was legitimate for it to use military force. Military force could be used preemptively if there was some fear that America’s interests might be harmed.
Bush also believed in personal relations. Those who agreed with his world view were America’s friends to be rewarded and helped in their time of need. All this became the basis of Bush’s support for Pervez Musharraf and for Pakistan. Musharraf offered America support when Washington needed it after 9/11. He continued to support America’s mission even when his life was threatened.
Musharraf was not a democrat and his system of governance was not democratic. However, he had promised to bring democracy to his country. Bush was not worried about the form of democracy or its real content. Elections and simple manifestations of the system satisfied him.
Musharraf promised elections and went on to hold them. That was sufficient for Washington. America needed Pakistan on its side and Pakistan needed American support to develop. That was enough for a solid relationship. During Musharraf’s time in office, United States provided close to $11 billion to Islamabad but did not worry how this large sum of money was used.
There is no doubt that Obama and his administration will remain engaged with Pakistan but there is also no doubt that the quality of that engagement will be profoundly different. Based on what he has written and what he said in the long campaign period and based also on his inauguration address, there will be three major differences in America’s involvement with Pakistan.
One, his approach to other places in the world will not be based on the friendships he forms with other leaders but on what governments are doing for their people and how they are working with Washington.
Two, it will want the country to show that it has a political and economic structure that is responsive to the needs of the less privileged. This principle will guide Washington not just in Pakistan but in all developing countries.
And three, he will expect Pakistan to be one of the leaders in the troubled Muslim world. What will these approaches mean exactly for Pakistan.
In a detailed conversation with the editors of The Washington Post, Obama went into some detail about his expectations about the development of political systems in the developing world.
“The incoming Obama administration seems to be inclining in its foreign policy towards a philosophy that says: Voting matters, but maybe not as much as economic development, or women’s rights, or honest judges” wrote Fred Hiatt, the newspaper’s editorial page editor after the meeting with Obama.
In his discussion with the editors, “Obama went on to say that Bush had mistakenly equated democracy with elections. The first question, Obama said is ‘freedom from want and freedom from fear. If people are not secure, if people are starving, then elections may or may not address those issues, but they are not a perfect overlay.” Applying these principles to Pakistan will naturally affect relations between Pakistan and the United States.
The fact that free and fair elections were held in February of last year, that power was transferred to the elected representatives of the people, that the military leaders seem to be getting their direction from the civilian-dominated government will be seen as positive developments.
The fact that the parliament has not been fully empowered, that relations between the federal government and the Punjab remain tense, that the government has not clearly articulated a strategy aimed at solving some of the more intractable problems the country faces, will be viewed negatively by the Obama administration.
In his inaugural address, Obama signaled that he will approach the Muslim world differently. Unlike his predecessor who dictated the policies he wished other countries to follow, Obama signaled a desire to work with all partners across his country’s borders by attempting to understand their positions.
“To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual trust.” But, at the same time, “we will not apologize for our way of life nor will we waver in its defence. And for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you now.”
The meaning of all these words is clear. It should provide comfort to those in Pakistan who want to build a durable relationship with the sole super power that, in spite of the battering it has received in the field of finance and on the battlefield, remains inherently economically and militarily strong.
It should be comfortable to build this relationship on the basis of mutual interests rather than on the basis of friendship between two leaders. Pakistan would benefit from such a relationship but it would come about only if it is able to set its political and economic house in order.
There is growing tension between the two largest political groupings in the country. The strategy for resolving the many problems faced by the economy has not been formulated. On the political, economic and financial fronts, there is much that remains to be done for Obama’s America to stay close to Pakistan.
http://www.dawn.com/2009/01/26/ebr19.htm