Thinking in DC

Nawaz Sharif hasnt received a telephone call from President Donald Trump yet. The Trumps team wasnt amused the last time when their boss called Sharif. But there could be more that is spooking the new administration. A briefing paper released on February 6 by Washington DC-based think tanks, Hudson Institute and Heritage Foundation, puts into some perspective evolving mood on Pakistan in US capital.

Titled, A New U.S. Approach to Pakistan: Enforcing Aid Conditions without Cutting Ties, the report, the paper, which has inputs from scholars from a number of other DC think tanks, seeks to provide the Trump administration with some recommendations on how to manage relations with Pakistan. One of the papers two authors is Pakistans former ambassador to the US, Hussain Haqqani.

The paper warns that the US should no longer settle for Pakistans excuses for delaying a full-throttle crackdown on terrorism, that it should no longer sacrifice its anti-terrorism principles in the region for the sake of pursuing an even-handed South Asia policy, and that it must break the habit of trying to balance policies toward India and Pakistan.

The briefing paper recommends some sharp measures on how to deal with Pakistan. It calls the US government to avoid viewing and portraying Pakistan as an ally, to lay out a sequence and timeline for specific actions for Pakistan to combat alleged terrorism from its soil, to put counter-terrorism conditions on US military aid, etc. And then If Pakistans overall conduct does not change, the authors suggest it would be better for US to review whether Pakistan can be classified as a state sponsor of terrorism.

The paper has an overwhelming focus on security. And one understands why the specialists working for US think tanks tend to view bilateral relations primarily from US national-security lens. While this column is no foreign policy expert, we see four issues that lack necessary discussion in this paper.

One, by asking the Trump administration to get tough on Pakistan, the authors seem to over-estimate current US leverage on Pakistan. Military aid is already at a trickle; for now there is no CSF cash, or any F-16s. Tanking civilian aid meant for education, health, and livelihood programs would hurt the wrong audience. Remember, the last time US imposed biting sanctions on Pakistan, circa 1990s; it didnt stop Pakistan from changing either its means or ends. The country eventually went nuclear in 1998, against President Bill Clintons exhortations not to go down that path.

Two, the report doesnt recognize the root-cause of decades-long violence in this region: the Kashmir dispute. Granted, resolution of the Kashmir issue wont guarantee total, lasting peace in the region, but any middle-of-the-road solution would help the matters. On the contrary, the authors urged President Trump to avoid mediating in this conflict, ignoring that bilateral approach has long been dead in the water.

Three, once a beacon of hope; America under Trump is depleting its global goodwill by the day. US soft power (norms, values, culture, etc.) and its hard power (security commitments, trade pacts, etc.) may be in for some serious recession under Trump. Meanwhile, Pakistanis are being wowed by iron brother Chinas long-term investments under CPEC. While the jury is out on the Chinese investments long-term socioeconomic impact, Pakistanis like it that the Chinese dont badger them in public to do more.

Its a tough nut to crack, to get Pakistan and the US to see eye to eye on issues that affect them both. Instead of arguing for a break in relations, the DC think tanks could have done well to think of a new approach that works not only for the US but also takes care of Pakistans genuine concerns and is interest of the regional security as a whole. Hostile rhetoric may only serve to deepen the current stalemate and burn the bridges once more.