LIKE the rest of the world, I’ve had the dubious pleasure of watching the long-running US-Pakistan soap opera/relationship plunge to new lows over recent weeks.

True, it made good headlines and certainly the cast of characters is interestingly colourful. Tough, gun-toting generals, shifty security officials, ruthless terrorists and — a new addition — a beautiful and classy woman, crowded on to an already very full stage, jostling for attention.

But frankly, like many observers, I could barely suppress my yawns. These repeated public squabbles, accusations and counter-accusations, finger-pointing, followed by angry sulks and much chest-beating and thumping are getting extremely tedious.

It’s time to innovate and get a bit more creative. At a time when even Bollywood is thinking outside the box, US and Pakistani foreign policy scriptwriters need to rethink the old-fashioned and outdated formula. The danger of following the well-worn genre is clear for both sides.

The US risks really losing face and patience with its once and future partner as Pakistani leaders run amok, suddenly morphing from friends into adversaries. Pakistan, meanwhile, is in danger of becoming known worldwide as a schizophrenic and unpredictable partner, unable to make up its mind on whether it wants to be known as a progressive Muslim nation or one which provides succour to its ally’s worst enemies.

For the moment, both sides seem to be enjoying the drama and passion. Top US officials, including the now retired Adm Mike Mullen, certainly hit the headlines by describing the Haqqani network as a “veritable arm” of the ISI and responsible for the attack on the US embassy in Kabul.

The entire world has always had strong suspicions about the ISI-Haqqani ties — but nobody as yet has made the accusation in public. That of course enraged all of Pakistan with politicians of all sorts discovering a brief moment of brotherhood and solidarity as they ranted against the US.

There were passionate references to sovereignty and patriotism. Was it impressive? Did the rest of the world sit up and listen?

Not really. It was just more proof that politicians in the country can only unite to vent against a common enemy — the US in this case but often, of course, India.

The Pakistani military was once again painted as heroes — all references to their failure to ‘discover’ Osama Bin Laden in Abbottabad and their various humbling run-ins with insurgents including at the Karachi naval base, erased from memory. As Gen Ashfaq Kayani and the ISI chief Shuja Pasha emerged smelling of roses — proving once again that the country’s politicians run to the military’s tune — Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar took to the American airwaves to complain about inappropriate behaviour from an ally.

And then of course, there were the usual references by Pakistan to the country’s only true ‘all-weather’ friend China and that other strong backer of democracy and human rights, Saudi Arabia. ‘Who needs America when we have China on our side’ goes the predictable Pakistani mantra. Although this time, Beijing’s embrace did not seem to be that warm — after all China has its own fears of Pakistan-based militants making their way into their country. And Saudi Arabia is too busy keeping its eye on the Arab Spring to pay attention to Pakistan.

Adding to the excitement, India and Afghanistan signed up for a ‘strategic partnership’ after President Hamid Karzai indulged in his traditional monthly tirade against Pakistan. He then went on to say Islamabad should have no worries since Pakistan and Afghanistan were “twin brothers”.

We did not have to wait long for the back-tracking to begin. Having put the cat among the pigeons, Adm Mullen reiterated the need to somehow maintain the alliance. “A flawed and strained engagement with Pakistan is better than disengagement,” he said. Defence Secretary Leon Panetta said the US should build a “cooperative and trusting” relationship with Pakistan, where both countries pursue the goal to eliminate terrorism as their major effort. “What we’ve got to do is build a trusting relationship where we both understand that our major effort has to be to end terrorism, period,” he said, describing the US-Pakistan relationship as complicated but necessary.

But he pointed out that there’s no such thing as a good terrorist. Pakistan could not “pick and choose among terrorists. If you’re against terrorism, you’ve got to be against all terrorism”. It’s good advice but likely to go unheeded of course.

While the nation raged against the US, the rest of the world read and sympathised over the plight of thousands of people made homeless by the recent torrential rains in Sindh, the spread of dengue fever and of course rising anger in the country over power cuts.

As one newspaper report pointed out, “concerns over blackouts, inflation and unemployment are a far more pressing worry for many in the country of 180 million people than the risk of the militant bombings or sectarian attacks that periodically rock Pakistan’s cities”. As far as the country’s army, security and political establishment are concerned, it appears that relations with the US are a far stronger priority than making sure that Pakistan’s factories keep running, schools and hospitals can function properly, taxes are paid and that proper action is taken to tackle repeated flooding caused by global warming.

The day that Pakistanis unite to work for progress, growth and development instead of burning the US flag, yes, the world will be impressed.

The writer is Dawn’s correspondent in Brussels.