The relations between Pakistan and the United States (US) are a topic of much speculation and conjecture. This is an effort to analyze the “dialectics within the ivory towers of the global status quo.” The two authors in question and their respective articles appeared in the one of the most esteemed foreign policy publications by the name of “Foreign Affairs”(1) run by one of the most deeply entrenched think tanks named Council of Foreign Relations (2) in the US. Stephen Krasner authored the “Talking Tough to Pakistan”, (3) while Alexander Evans wrote a critique of Krasner’s aptly “Tough Talk is Cheap”, (4) to which Krasner had the last word in a response to Evans.
Evans correctly summarizes Krasner’s main point in “Talking Tough To Pakistan that “ the only way the United States can actually get what it wants out of Pakistan is to make credible threats to retaliate if Pakistan does not comply with US demands” even so far as to use “malign threat” and “active isolation.” Evans central argument that upping the ante with Pakistan has not worked in the past when the US was forced to put sanctions on Pakistan multiple times leaving them no leverage in Islamabad or in the region citing concerns about angering its “nationalist elite.”
The narrative of Evans begins to lose luster when he starts talking about the shared interests of the two nations namely security of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal, regional stability and extremism emanating out of Pakistan. Pakistani stability is in shambles because of the terror that has its origins in US occupied Afghanistan. The TTP (5) and BLA (6) type organizations have safe harbors of operations to collect money, and weapons and retreat in Afghanistan every time Pakistani military actions have them on the run in the tribal belt. Thus US occupation is directly a factor in Pakistani deteriorating law and order situation. Afghanistan is more easily understood in that the US occupation fuels the insurgency and there is nothing Pakistan can do about it. Also, just how safe are US nukes anyways? (7)
Krasner is simply out to have the US place sanctions against Pakistan since he fails to comprehend the historical evidence that every time a US push comes to a shove, the US just simply loses a fairly pliant nation to sanctions and loses any leverage in the region. Krasner clarifies that the US does not need Pakistan for supply routes since as much as 60% of supplies already are routed through Central Asia.
Krasner does not believe that Pakistan could rely on its Middle Eastern friends like Saudi Arabia and old trust worthy China since given China’s stance of North Korea, Syria etc would make it less likely to be seen amicable to another pariah state. Krasner fails to understand that it is China and Saudi Arabia keeping the US dollar afloat. There has been a large movement in Saudi Arabia against US bases there. A return of US boots on the ground in Saudi Arabia could put the US long time strategic partner the Saud-Wahabi collusion in peril domestically. Asking the Saudi Khawarij (8) to choose between Pakistan and US may not be as clear cut option for the US. Besides just how many nations is the US going to sanction without there becoming a distinct emergence of an Anti-American coalition in the region? A diplomatic and economic hazing of Pakistan has the potential of what Samuel Huntington feared the most: a Sino-Pak led precipitation of a clear Muslim world alliance with China, and if that occurs there will be the dawn of a new Cold War.
Krasner continues with his open mouth insert foot mentality that “Pakistan’s interests are not aligned when it comes to Islamic extremism and transnational terrorism” in regards to India and Kashmir. The terrorism Krasner talks about has its roots in India, (9) but Krasner would not know that. Also, the Kashmir issue was never framed along terrorist lines before the Sept 11th event and has been bubbling ever since the creation of the two states. And it is not in the interest of the American people for the US ruling elites to advocate Indian positions in their dealings with Pakistan. Pakistan would not be averse to a relationship between India and US as long as the US keeps out of the fray about Kashmir if it cannot or does not desire to force India to do justice according the UN resolutions. The US and its ruling elites can sanction airpower over Libya in no time, and create and carve two Christian entities out of Muslim majority nations but cannot help Muslims under duress in Palestine and Kashmir? Pakistan cannot do anything about libertine Muslims wanting to resist oppressors as they see fit whether it’s the US confronting Afghan resistance or India struggling with its restive Kashmir.
Krasner openly challenges whether it would have been wise to inform the Pakistani authorities of the impending raid on the Bin Laden compound. Here Krasner engages in “Diplomacy by Insinuation” by alluding that Pakistani authorities were in on Al-Qaeda leadership’s hiding in Abbottabad. In fact, his article “Talking Tough on Pakistan” in its opening paragraph openly states that “The United States gives Pakistan billions of dollars in aid each year. Pakistan returns the favor by harboring terrorists, spreading Anti-Americanism, and selling nuclear technology abroad.” Its is obvious that Krasner gave no heed to the US authorities not assigning any guilt of collusion with Bin Laden; not the intelligence agencies, not the military nor the ruling political elites. Recently released documents by the US government on Bin Laden captured from his compound do not implicate Pakistan governmental structures at all either.
It is clear the chief ideologues, even though they engage in healthy debates about issues, are mired in stagnant self perpetuating paradigms, isolated from reality group think of sorts, or outright propaganda. The establishment fails to realize that the causation of Anti-Americanism is a long established practice of US patronage to the same Islamists who collude with the generals, the drone attacks that have left disproportionate amount of innocents dead and injured (10), while Al-Qaeda mushrooms up in Mali, Somalia, Yemen, Libya etc. Elements within this foreign policy establishment openly engage in unsubstantiated insinuations as a matter of policy and propaganda while money is spent to buy (11) favorable press in Pakistan. It is high time that the ruling elites of the US to take stock of their working assumptions and go back (12) to the drawing board, since obviously nothing they do is working. Either the US stop drone attacks and the "diplomacy of insinuation" or declare open war against Paksitan, but to purchase good press, bribe its military and political leaders while claiming Pakistan is an ally is counter productive and is the central causation of the rise of Anti-Americanism in Pakistan.
(1) http://www.foreignaffairs.com/
(2) http://www.cfr.org/
(3) http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/136696/stephen-d-krasner/talking-tough-to-pakistan (4) http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/137537/alexander-evans-stephen-d-krasner/tough-talk-is-cheap
(5) http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/ttp.htm
(6) http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7705
(7) http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/columnists/pavel-podvig/us-nuclear-weapons-security-a-silly-notion
(8) http://www.ofthedevil.com/Forum/view/58/Concepts-and-Terms/1903/Kharijis-and/or-Khawarijis.html#1903
(9) http://www.ofthedevil.com/Book-Reviews/the-meadowkashmir-1995-where-the-terror-began.html#addcomments
(10) http://pakistanbodycount.org/home
(11) http://tribune.com.pk/story/243969/us-funding-for-pakistani-journalists-raises-questions/
(12) http://nationalinterest.org/issue/may-june-2012
The article was originally published here: http://ofthedevil.com/Media/critiquing-evans-and-krasner-on-pakistan.html
Comments
Post a Comment