Former US ambassador to Pakistan William Milam - Photo by authorFormer US ambassador to Pakistan William Milam - Photo by author
The year 2010 witnessed a dramatic deterioration in trust and diplomatic relations between the United States and Pakistan. The two strategic partners in the war on terror traded allegations on the Raymond Davis affair, the raid on Osama bin Laden’s compound, drone strikes, Admiral Mike Mullen’s assertion about ISI’s alleged contacts with the elements of Taliban who attacked the US embassy in Kabul, and the attack by Nato forces on Salala check post, which killed 24 Pakistani soldiers.
So, what is the future of the US-Pakistan relationship? Dawn.com spoke exclusively to William Bryant Milam, a former US ambassador to Pakistan (1998-2001) and Bangladesh (1990-1993). Milam is a currently a Senior Policy Scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington DC, where he completed a comprehensive study on modern Pakistan and Bangladesh.
Q: Some experts in Pakistan say the US does not seem to have a clear Pakistan policy. Others say Washington is ‘confused’ over whatever Pakistan policy it has at the moment. Do you agree?
A: The United States does have a Pakistan policy. In fact, it has had several Pakistan policies at different times. It has not been confused about Pakistan but it has had different situations to deal with Pakistan at different times. What we see today is the outcome of a long history of errors and misassumptions on both sides. In fact, it is a time when both countries will hopefully start reviewing the way they have been behaving and dealing with each other. At the moment, it is a pretty bad relationship.
Q: How would you evaluate Pak-US relationship in 2010? Were you expecting the developments that strained the relationship?
A: No. I think no one was expecting these events. I have contributed a chapter in the newly released book ‘The Future of Pakistan.’ I had written the first draft of my paper two years ago and subsequently revised it twice but even then things changed to such an extent in 2010 that when the book was published in 2011, much of the subject matter seemed out of date.
In early 2010, the US thought Pakistan could be an ally they could work with as a strategic partner, by helping develop it as a state instead of exclusively expecting it to cooperate in the war on terror. When the US passed the Kerry-Lugar Bill, it thought of Pakistan as a strategic partner. With the Raymond Davis affair, it became clear there was no free exchange of information between the two countries. The raid that killed Osama bin Laden highlighted the faulty exchange of information between both sides. It also became clearer that the two countries did not trust each other. Since then, the relationship has been limping along on distrust.
Q: How can a strategic relationship succeed when, with respect to drone strikes, Pakistanis feel that the US does not respect Pakistan’s sovereignty?
A: I presume Pakistan has been complicit in drone strikes. In fact, I think the government and military looked at the drone attacks on al-Qaeda and the Pakistani Taliban in Pakistan’s interest for a long time. There has always been misunderstanding on the part among the public.
As far as the Osama raid is concerned, distrust between the United States and Pakistan had already reached such a point that the United States did not feel that it could inform Pakistan about an important target like bin Laden. They could not gamble on such a rich target being warned before conducting the raid and obviously did not inform the Pakistanis.
Q: So what was the reaction of retired diplomats and scholars when bin Laden was found and killed in Pakistan?
A: Well, everybody knew that he was hiding in Pakistan. His presence in Pakistan did not surprise us but the fact that he had taken shelter in Abbottabad was surprising. We all envisioned him hiding somewhere in a cave but he was found in a mansion in Abbottabad. I think the Pakistani government was not officially complicit in this but it leads to questions about their capabilities.
Q: How do the Americans look at the upsurge in anti-Americanism in Pakistan, their ally?
A: Pakistan has recently experienced the enormous growth of anti-Americanism in public opinion. It was always present but it was submerged much of the time. The real problem is that the Pakistani military officers and political leaders are all driven by this anti-American public opinion, which is fanned by the media. One example of how anti-Americanism can appeal to public opinion is the emergence of Imran Khan as a politician of consequence. The basis of his philosophy is anti-Americanism. Anti-Americanism among politicians is understandable as they have to move with public opinion but the rise of similar feelings in the military has surprised a lot of Americans.
Q: Do you see an end of US engagement with Pakistan after 2014, when it withdraws troops from Afghanistan?
A: I think our engagement with Pakistan will continue beyond 2014, but it’s important to address the issue Pakistan’s impending failure as a state. One of the things currently bringing Pakistan down is its economy. The country’s economic situation is influencing the behaviour of its people.
Q: Will the (US) presidential elections influence America’s policy on Pakistan?
A: I don’t think so. Pakistan is going to remain geo-strategically important to the US even after the Afghanistan withdrawal. Pakistan remains vitally important to America’s interests in the South Asian region in terms of ensuring peace and curbing terrorism, be it from Pakistani soil or elsewhere, so that it does not spread across the region and the world.
The Bush administration dealt with Pakistan differently from the way the Obama administration did. It is clear that every administration will have its own way of working with Pakistan, but their interests will remain the same. If President Obama gets re-elected, you will see almost the same policy towards Pakistan. Nonetheless, the emphasis on Afghanistan, due to the withdrawal, may change. If the Republican presidential candidate gets elected, I do not foresee any policy change.
Q: It is ironic that the US castigates Pakistan for having contacts with different factions of Taliban but it also continues to have secret communication with some sections of the Taliban movement, such as the Haqqani Network. The US no longer discourages or rules out negotiating with Taliban.
A: For a long time, I didn’t know that the United States had contacts with the Haqqani Network. There are different types of Taliban within the Afghan Taliban and the Pakistani Taliban. The Afghan Taliban are further divided between the Haqqani Network and the Quetta Shura while the Pakistani Taliban are also divided between the Taliban in tribal region and the Punjabi Taliban. You can’t lump them all together.
When President Obama was elected, we thought of trying to find a peaceful and political solution to the Afghan problem. This would allow us to draw down the number of US troops present in Afghanistan. From the initial days of President Obama, we were looking for ways to push for a political settlement. I think we should have made it a South Asian regional settlement from the very beginning. This could be something akin to the international agreement on the neutralization of Switzerland, in which all the neighbours would guarantee the neutralization of Afghanistan. Thus, none of these regional states would have a reason to push their own interests inside Afghanistan through their ethnic followers.
We started with the idea that we needed to reconcile with the reconcilable Taliban. At that point, it did not include the Haqqani Network. It only included some members of the Quetta Shura. You remember that we began to know about this when the ISI picked up Abdul Ghani Baradar, one of the reconcilable Taliban, who was supposedly talking to the Afghans and others.
As our relations worsened because of the Raymond Davis affair and the bin Laden raid, we thought it was necessary to get the Haqqani Network involved in negotiations. I don’t know how much we are talking to the Haqqani Network now. Whatever contacts remain there, they are mainly through the ISI. My guess is that our contacts with the Haqqanis are a very recent phenomenon.
Q: Is Afghanistan becoming a proxy battleground between Pakistan and India?
A: I sincerely hope not. In my article in the recently published book, The Future of Pakistan, I say we should try to build the kind of peace and political process in Afghanistan which will bring Indians and Pakistanis together so that they work with each other. Otherwise, the alternative may turn out to be that Afghanistan becomes a proxy battleground between the two. It is clear that one of the things that has been bothering Pakistan for a long time is the Indian presence in Afghanistan. I don’t think that is going to change much.
Q: It is paradoxical that many American diplomats and scholars complain about Pakistan’s India-centric approach although they know it emanates from the unresolved conflicts between India and Pakistan. Can the United States help in settling the problems between the two countries so that Pakistan gives up its burden of history?
A: The US can’t do anything in a tangible way as far as the dispute over Kashmir is concerned. We tried that years ago and failed miserably. We can help in formulating a peace process in Afghanistan that brings the two countries closer to each other to work together for a peaceful, stable and neutral Afghanistan which will benefit the interests of both countries. Another idea, which seems more likely, is to improve relations between the two countries by promoting bilateral trade.
We should stress our interests in both countries working to resolve their differences. Countries can have normal relations despite having differences. That is actually harder without a normal relationship. Pakistan and India need to normalize their relationship to resolve their differences, which can only happen over time. If they do not normalize relations by encouraging trade and allowing people-to-people contacts, they will never resolve their problems. I don’t believe there is anything the US can do in a specific way to help Pakistan accomplish its goals in Kashmir. Pakistanis have also started to understand this reality.
Q: How significant was the recent Bonn Conference without Pakistan attending it?
A: The Conference was a serious attempt to get things started on a regional basis. It was a serious problem that the Pakistanis boycotted the conference because of the killing of the Pakistani soldiers, which I think was basically an accident.
Q: Is the recent opening of a Taliban office in Qatar another attempt to distance Pakistan from the future solution of Afghanistan?
A: I don’t think it has anything to do with moving Pakistan out of the picture. Pakistan has legitimate interests in a viable, peaceful solution in Afghanistan. The Taliban had been looking for an office and it does not push them further apart from Pakistan than they are today. We have to know which Taliban we are talking about. If it is the TTP, they are already hostile against the state of Pakistan and they are determined to bring it down. If it is the Quetta Shura or the Haqqani Network, they are already friends with Pakistan.
Q: What are the immediate challenges Pakistan faces in near future?
A: Pakistan’s real and immediate dangers are internal, and, at the moment, primarily economic. The economy is about to collapse, which is a problem that cannot be solved overnight or without sacrifices on the part of the political leadership. The political leadership should develop policies that encourage growth and stop inflation. A second immediate danger is an armed insurgency from the Pakistani Taliban. Thirdly, related to the economic coming economic tsunami, the 18th Amendment has not been implemented well, which is likely to trigger inter-provincial disharmony, increasing risks that endanger the very survival of the federation.
If you look closely at these problems, the external threats, such as the Indian involvement in Afghanistan, pale by comparison. Pakistan’s internal problems are eating away at the vitals of the state. Pakistan may muddle through in the next five to ten years, but the present direction is sliding toward failure. There are some strong and positive institutions, such as the military and the judiciary, which will not let Pakistan fail. However, I hope the military does not take the economic situation as a pretext to grab political power.
Q: Today the future of democracy in Pakistan is once again in danger because of visible rift between the civilian government and the strong military in the wake of the Memogate which somewhat indirectly involves the United States. What are your thoughts on Memogate?
A: I am totally befuddled. When I saw the text of the memo, I wondered how anybody could think it was genuine. It seemed a ridiculously phony document. I am confused why intelligent people are trusting the memo is real, and why intelligent people who are accused of having written it would have done so. The memo has clearly worsened relations between Pakistan’s senior military and civilian leadership. We don’t know what is going to happen as a result of that.
There are now rumours of ousting Prime Minister Gilani and replacing him with somebody else. This all looks weird to us outsiders. Pakistan is falling apart economically and here the leaders are caught debating a very questionable memo and making it into a cause celebre, when there are riots over electricity and gas shortages, raging inflation, and rapidly increasing poverty.
The memo struck me from the beginning that somebody was being set up. I find it a weird preoccupation at a time when the country is sinking fast economically. I hope the investigation conducted will be fair, objective, transparent – and quick so the leaders can get back to Pakistan’s real existential problems.
Malik Siraj Akbar is a freelance journalist based in Washington DC.
Print This Post 
Email This Post
People are aware (as noted from the learned comments above) but they need to act (rather than just cheering the internal or external arguments); otherwise, khuda na khwasta, country may implode or explode due to these pressures.
Startling comments but quite true. Pakistan needs good governance, control law & order situation and provide employment to its teeming unemployed youth. The Government needs to wake up soon and address the economic, social and development issues as they are turning people towards militancy. Moreover emphasis on war footing has to be placed on sectors like education, health, energy and investment inorder to ensure sustenance for the coming generations.It’s trade and not aid that we need to get up on our own feet. A strong economy, good governance, impartial and transparent justice system and strong democratic institutions can revitalise this fledgling nation into the next Asian Tiger. May sanity and rationale prevail in the Land Of The Pure once again, Inshallah.
Pakistan’s problems are INTERNAL and self-inflicted. This nation has twice the land for each of its citizen since the day it was created; yet wages overt war and covert war through Jihadis, for more land. Violence against internal population and its neighbors has become a way of life; The Nazis, Fascists and Japanese-Racial-Samurais during second world war, practiced similar perpetual violence and brought enormous destruction to others and their own people. Pakistan still have a great opportunity to learn from other nation’s mistakes, and build a great future for itself based on peace and prosperity.
Pakistan can come out of its current low status within 15 years if certain fundamentals change. 1. Increase education budget as a percentage of GDP and proportionally decrease the defence allocation over the same period. 2. Revisit the schools curriculum and bring it line with modernity. 3. Bring ‘Khuda’ back in and send identification with Arabs packing. Pakistanis need to be sub-continental people as they always have been. 4. Settle Kashmir with LOC as a starting point. That is the only way it can work. Musharaf realised that and started negotiations on that basis.5. Start looking at the moon from the scientific perspective as opposed to the religeous one. 6. Pakistanis should elect a government of national Unity as opposed to a feudal ‘democracy’. 7. Stop calling everybody a ‘shaheed’. A shaheed is the one who willingly dies for the good of his family or country. The current ‘lexicon’ of shaheeds includes politicians who were instrumental in bringing Pakistan to its current situation. 8. Stop applauding the assasins of decent people. This list of humble suggestions will change the ethos of the country and make it much more secure, prosperous happy and less dependent on external support.
Are they talking about 2010 or the year 2011 that just ended? I suspect 2010 has to be corrected to 2011 at the couple of places in the interview.
Not only Pakistan, any state want to live peacefully must build their fundamentals correct(Economical, Educational,Social Hormony, Fair Democracy etc…). The working youth and leading Senior citizens must think about it and make the land peaceful.
Pakistan in the past has prospered only under Military rule. Army needs to take over in Pakistan, and the country needs to follow Islamic principals and be under strict sharia law. That would create a stable Pakistan which would be beneficial for India.
Good comment by Mr. Malik. While the assessment of Mr. William is valuable as per its economic aspects, we shall remember that Pakistan’s partnership with US must not be a strategic or a geopolitical one. It should be only a trade partnership on equal footings. If Pakistan can’t come out of the geopolitical sphere of US, then it will continue to be in the saga of neo colonialism as the west heavily relies on our cheap raw material and our inability to process it into final form. I should say, all of our problems are rooted in our neo-colonial setup aided by our elite.
Pakistan has twice the land per person, compared to India; this is more than a fair division of land; and whatever the land Pakistan already has, needs good governance. Hence it has to focus internally and build a great society based on peace and prosperity. The Pakistani army has proven to be a poor governance model for Pakistan; they have depleted the nations resources, and seem to start a war anytime they want to, just to reinforce the country’s dependence on them. How else could one explain, Pakistani obsession for continuous conflicts with its neighbors, and its lack of sincerity with USA. No one seems to have the honesty to state so- but the drone attacks are a last-ditch act of self-defense to protect the Nato troops, sine Pakistan is not only unwilling to fight the Jihadis, but also passing on information to them when it is shared. Additionally, no matter how much the Pakistani want it, not even a single country in the world is ever going to equate Pakistan with India and play the zero-sum game. The world and its resources are sufficient enough for both India and Pakistan to succeed. A peace loving, non-militant, inward facing Pakistan, is a great Pakistan and will also be an example for so many others nations to emulate. A militant Pakistan on the other hand is not sustainable as a state.
Let’s not talk about fair divisions; since we all know it’s not the size but the quality of land that maters. Otherwise, Afghans have a lot more per person land; yet it is not worth providing their food. Pakistani crops don’t get water when needed or the crops get over flooded when water is not needed.
I do agree with Mr Milam But in reality this is our responsibility to get root of problems but nevertheless any stranger told this thing so Mr Milam thank you and thank you to DAWN and its whole team
@Mohsin – We have failed in our responsibilities for the last 60 years. What makes you think we will somehow change now.
Well said William Milam. However, the Pakistani government, the military and the nature of the geopolitical state, all of them work hand in glove in opposition to a functional exsistance. It’s time to Balkanize the Pakistani state.
Obviously, this is a reaction of the stand Pakistan Army has taken . We are not falling apart, but external forces want us to fall on their feet. Stand united, and as Mr. Iftakhar Chaudhry said that Pakistan will see good days very soon. InshAllah.
Please have the courage to listen to truth, wherever it is coming from. These are facts and challenges Pakistan is facing and need to be addressed on emergency bases. No one will have the courage to intervene if you dont give them chance…please stop listening to Zaid Hamid and his ideology….
@Baloch – I absolutely agree with you. Pakistanis need to get real.
Thank you Mr Ambassador Bill Wilam. You have hit the nail on the head. It is very clear to we all expat pakistanis that we should focus on economic and social issue which is a key to our success as a nation and NOT our strategic depth in Afghanistan or the Kashmir issue. Pakistan’s ideology should be that of prosperity, economic and social progress and not persuing our failed policies in the region that has brought violent extremism to our country. We should be challenging our generals for their failures, incompetence and the shame they have brought on us and NOT the politicians who are bullied by the military and hence are only interested in survival and plunder.
Many thanks……Dr Kadar Khan FRCS
very well said Dr. Kardar Khan
This seems to be a fair assessment of Pakistan.Stabilize and strengthen your economy and things will will fall in place.
Another ominous December 16 is inevitable due to only domestic problems just like in 1971.
I think Pakistan will survive inspite of all its odds and present economic crisis with the help from China but should be
careful about China’s real intentions.
I wish Pakistan well with relationship with America.
You expect the Chinese to pull us out of the grave that we ourselves are digging for us??
China is an officially atheist country, I’m sure that their help will go down well very with extremists. Ditto for the Shia of Iran.
Your best bet is Turkey and the Gulf States.
However, both are very strong allies of the U.S, so it’s not going to work if there is a completely antagonistic relationship with the U.S. There has to be at least some acceptance that both can coexist on this little planet.
tht’s really objective interview i’ve read bout the situation in pakistan. somehow this narrative is completely missing in pakistani adminstrator’s agendas sooner they sort out there fight to grab power better it will be for those they promise to serve.
A very good perspective about Pakistan’s real challanges. But at the same time very little hope from an incredible incompetent government, political hierarchy and a nation in denial.
Great interview. I would like to highlight two things though:
1. Imran Khan is not an anti-american. He is more of an angry philanthropist who is disturbed about the drone strikes and growing radicalism because of it. Secondly, if you were to pay close attention to his campaign, you will also notice that he will be willing to work in US in the long-term, as long it is based on mutual respect.
2. Your surprise on anti-americanism in the army. It has 2 reasons for it. One is many soldiers see growing US-India alliance as a threat (for whatever reason). Secondly, they feel like they are being pushed into war with civilians of their own country because of US only.
Plain and simple, Pakistan and USA are not Philosophical compatible, never were and never will be but relationship of need and greed. Philosophically India and USA are identical following reason as a fact of life and the other hand Pakistan and Islamic world are enshrined in fundamental of truth. It has never worked and it will never work, as day has nothing to do with night and night has nothing to do with light of the day, one can not exist without the other, Just two opposing forces trying to imagine some thing not workable.
Excellent and true interveiew, 100% correct. I sincerely wish Pakistan could rectiy in time beofre becoming an Economically Failed State.
I agree 100 percent with him. Because there are no Islamic brotherhood in the country. Those who built the nation they are already dead. Young generation and some politicians have no feeling about their country, only they are interested how to accumulate money and transfer public money for the benefit of their children.
One sided answers from a foreign power that does not care for the poor downtrodden people as long as their interests are served. . The only difference between them (advocating so called democracy)and the Colonial British are the British want to live and rule at the same time. The West will always be the West and the East will always be the downtrodden East and the twain shall only meet under the boots of the West. It is our own fault we less than the west people only dream of ruling/raping/pillaging our own and we can not think beyond our own greed rather than living in peace and letting everyone else live in peace. We are living like the Bedouins before Islam came in the picture.
It is quite true that real problem with Pakistan is internal, and that problem is actually the corruption infested governing systems that are still all colonial. If we could only reform one system: Police, then 70% of Pakistan internal problems will disappear.It is the mini-fiefdoms that are the problems.