A strange irony besets the Pak-US relationship - the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's visit here, over the weekend, tends to expose the lingering perceptional mismatch of their respective world views, instead of strengthening the commonality of their interests.
Of course, as in the past when she was here, in March, to lead the American delegation to the first round of the fondly called Strategic Dialogue, she articulated Obama administration's position on a number of bilateral issues with rare candidness and clarity.
But that also highlighted an impression that the two sides are essentially not on the same page. Take the case of the 'new' aid for over a dozen projects she announced with considerable fanfare in Islamabad. Is it new and in addition to the 7.5 billion dollars worth of military and non-military assistance committed under the Kerry-Lugar-Bermen Act, the law that remains controversial in Pakistan?
Then, we are talking of assistance yet to be appropriated for Pakistan and at present, is only part of the said act, leave alone the disbursement conditionality. Such is the public attitude towards foreign assistance, that, rightly or wrongly, the people are never enthusiastic about it. So, one is not surprised at the cold reception accorded to her announcement of 500 million dollars worth of project aid.
Indeed, like all inter-state relations, the Pak-US relationship also carries a baggage of convergence and divergence. They share a part of history as members of CENTO and SEATO, when they were together in the fight against international communism, culminating in the Afghan Jihad, and read from the same book on how democracies should function. But the divergences that beset their bilateralism are, perhaps, far more potent as they tend to influence and reshape the commonality of their interests.
And if the articulation of Secretary Clinton during her stay in Islamabad and on arrival in Kabul on the day after, is any guide, it wouldn't be wrong to say that the two sides nurture sharply conflicting positions on quite a few issues of strategic importance to Pakistan.
She disputed Pakistan's right to gain international access to nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, even opposed its deal with China for two additional nuclear power reactors, absolutely oblivious of the fact that her country contracted to supply India a range of duel-purpose nuclear technology in violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
She also refused to accept that Pakistan rightfully used its right at the Conference of Disarmament to veto the Fissile Materials Cut-Off Treaty (FMCT). Will the United States play some role in convincing India to settle with Pakistan the Kashmir and water disputes, she responded with a big 'no'. If she wasn't seen to be seeing eye to eye with her hosts in Islamabad on issues of strategic importance to Pakistan, what credence would her words carry with the people of Pakistan that "We are committed to build a partnership that goes beyond security, to the economy".
Undeniably, a trust deficit plagues the Pak-US relationship. And so far, this deficit has refused to be abridged, a failure clearly reflected from the widening gap in the approaches the two governments have adopted towards fighting terrorism in this region. Heartlessly brushing aside Pakistanis' immense sacrifices Secretary Clinton's comment that Osama Bin Laden is hiding in Pakistan is nothing but a cruel joke; if she is so certain of that, why don't they divert one of the drones from its civilian-killing missions to target the al Qaeda leader's hideout.
With borders common with China, Afghanistan and Iran, Pakistan has stakes in good neighbourly relations with all three. But to our utter disappointment we see the United States carving a strategic role in Afghanistan for a non-neighbour, India. It is our expectation that the Obama administration would allay our fears that stem from its patronising deals with India.
Instead of harping the 'do more' mantra, we expect Washington to weigh in with New Delhi that it should positively respond to Islamabad's moves for a constructive dialogue on issues like Kashmir and Pakistan's right to the Himalayan glacier melt, in line with international laws and the Indus Water Treaty. Washington needs to harmonise its policies in the region with the reality on the ground.