This is probably one of the most sensible pieces of opinion I have read on the President’s visit to France and UK. Majority of the authors focus more on his personality than the need of the President’s visit.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Look both ways before attacking Pakistan

Source: Financial Times

By Hilary Synnott

Published: August 4 2010 22:48 | Last updated: August 4 2010 22:48

Nuclear armed, a haven for terrorist groups and on the front line with Afghanistan, Pakistan bears directly on British and American interests. It is a transit route for fuel and military material to Afghanistan. Its security forces fight al-Qaeda in its own tribal badlands. Three out of four UK terrorist plots have links in the region. In short, Pakistan matters.

President Asif Ali Zardari’s visit to London this week therefore comes at a crucial moment. Arguably it is Pakistan, not Afghanistan, that now poses the greatest security threat in the region. Following the offence taken over David Cameron’s justified accusation that the country looks “both ways” in Afghanistan, relations must be brought back on an even keel. But to do so we must face up to realities.

Pakistan is in the grip of multiple crises, the current tragic natural disaster being but one. Its precarious stability will be jeopardised further if Mr Zardari proves to be right and the war against the Taliban is being lost. Pakistan’s security forces have already lost more lives tackling militancy since 2001 than all 47 countries in Afghanistan. The weakness of non-military institutions has been obvious during the inept civilian response to the current floods. Pakistan’s economy, meanwhile, runs on IMF assistance, while poverty, illiteracy and unemployment are widespread.

This is a country that has suffered from decades of corrupt and self-serving leadership, with successive military coups weakening civil society and the elected system. But the problems are not all self-inflicted. After American prompting, the Pakistani army’s 2004 entry into the western tribal areas pitted its soldiers against fellow Pakistanis. Reacting against “Washington’s war”, insurgent groups sprang up and suicide bombings, hitherto largely unheard of, became widespread. A recent Pew poll suggests that, despite many billions in aid, 68 per cent of Pakistanis view the US unfavourably. Now, concerned that their nation will be left to deal with the consequences of US withdrawal, Pakistan’s leadership has been thinking of its own national interests and acting accordingly.

The trouble is that these national interests are still judged mostly by what is good for the army. This means an overwhelming focus on India. As the arbiters of national policy, the army also commandeers scarce economic resources and takes most of the aid provided by the US, with Pakistani citizens seeing little benefit. Wider social development, such as it is, has been dependent on other external aid, of which the most effective and durable bilateral programme has been that of the UK.

The US and its partners therefore face huge dilemmas. It is unacceptable that Pakistan’s army should give sanctuary to groups that operate against the coalition in Afghanistan. But at the same time the army is needed to keep the country together, and to help fight al-Qaeda.

On the other hand, Pakistan’s longer term stability requires massive investment in education, health, power and water, and, more fundamentally, a rebalancing of power away from the army and towards the development of more effective political structures. If the army intervened again, as seems possible, Pakistan’s fragile progress towards democracy would be set back even further.

There are many, especially among US military analysts, who argue that Pakistan cannot be trusted and that the west should get tough with it, halting a proposed US civil aid programme. But to indulge such a temptation would be disastrous. A policy of sanctions or coercion would drive this nuclear country towards even greater radicalisation. Instead, every effort should be made to wean it away from noxious terrorist groups. Mr Zardari’s personal position is weak, but his government and its eventual successor should also be helped to make better use of the considerable new aid already in the pipeline.

Most importantly, the past errors of reinforcing military autocrats at democracy’s expense must not be repeated. Pakistan’s leadership should be helped to provide the population with more promising alternatives. For all its flaws, this fragile democracy needs support, not criticism. And before Mr Zardari rebukes Mr Cameron overly harshly for his remarks, he too should remember that Pakistan needs all the help that it can get.

The writer is the author of Transforming Pakistan: Ways out of Instability and a former UK High Commissioner to Pakistan

Comments

comments