PRIME Minister Nawaz Sharif’s three-day trip to Washington concluded last week. Having observed the visit closely, and in talking to some of those involved, it seems to have gone better than expected.

First, the fact that the trip took place as a full-fledged ‘official’ visit and entailed a broad cross-section of consultations across the US government and beyond is quite an achievement for those involved in planning it on both sides.

There was ample concern about the optics of the visit in the run-up to it. The initial consideration was for a one-day trip to Washington. Then there were efforts to make something work in New York during the United Nations General Assembly sessions. That would only have been a quick meeting between the leaders.

What ultimately panned out was perhaps the preferred option for both sides, particularly the Pakistani delegation. And there is now relief that it happened the way it did: both parties seem satisfied with the proceedings during the three days Prime Minister Sharif was in Washington.

Second, it was an odd visit in at least one significant way: there wasn’t too much difference between what the Pakistani and US sides said in public and what happened behind closed doors. For a relationship that has been constantly castigated for being hypocritical in its public versus private persona on key issues from counterterrorism cooperation to use of assistance money, this was welcome.

You could pick up the prime minister’s public speech at the US Institute of Peace for instance, and you would have gotten a summary of the keynotes he hit in virtually all his meetings.

US official statements during the three days and media briefings on the meetings also accurately depicted what really went on.

Third, and flowing from the above, there is no indication of the jilted lover syndrome this time round. Because both sides laid out their positions and were open about their concerns — and because these were pretty much known in advance — expectations were realistic.

This is truly a first: for too long, we had heightened and unrealistic expectations dictate conversations; this led to disappointment after disappointment, and often to anger and mudslinging.

Of course, the upshot is that there were no major shifts in stated positions on the key contentious issues. When it comes to lack of trust on counterterrorism, on Pakistan’s regional role, on America’s India policy, etc they remain firmly intact.

Fourth, because realism guided the visit, the two delegations managed to pull off what to me is the single most significant outcome of the engagement: a fairly progressive joint statement.

Of course, such statements are always full of platitudes and the one that came out of this trip is no exception. But it does do more than any of the previous ones in that it provides a direction for forward movement which is driven by economics, not tactical security concerns.

The difference may not be important for an average observer but it is significant in the policy arena given that doubts are regularly cast on the longevity of this relationship in the post-2014 context.

For the naysayers who don’t see a future for the partnership, the message is that both governments understand the need to broaden the discussion and allow non-security issues greater prominence in the coming days and months.

Not trivial by any means, the bilateral strategic dialogues resume this month: energy, defence, and nuclear in quick succession — ultimately leading up to a ministerial dialogue in March.

It is true that these went on for some time before the rupture in ties in 2011; and some would argue with good reason that they didn’t deliver as much as they promised.

Quite frankly, they may not again — I myself am not terribly optimistic that any major game-changers will come out of them. But the point is that the two sides are back to discussing a broad set of issues in a structured format, and with positive intent. Not doing so would have given the naysayers far more space than warranted.

Fifth, the take of Washington’s policy pundits on the PML-N government: much better than before.

Given the frustrations with the previous government’s performance, the initial response to PML-N’s team has been positive. But people also quickly caution that the honeymoon won’t last forever. Come the ministerial dialogue in March, the evaluation would be based on performance — on the IMF deal, on tax collections, on the Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan, on Afghan reconciliation.

It is easy to forget that the PPP’s rise to power was also seen as extremely positive by many in the West. Its lack of performance cost it goodwill fairly quickly. The same could happen — or not — depending on where things stand in a year’s time. As of now however, the prime minister’s visit seems to have ended in the positive.

So what does all this mean?

Simply, that there is an opening created by both sides to generate fresh momentum in the relationship.

To be sure, this is no more than a mere start. It doesn’t change the bottom line that in the US public and among vast majority of policy interlocutors, Pakistan is not trusted, it is seen as a negative force in the region, its linkage to militants is taken more or less as a given, its position on drones is seen as duplicit and its policies are seen as counterproductive.

It also does not say that the positive intent can’t be taken over instantly if one or two major incidents akin to 2011 were to reoccur.

All one can say is that we are at a slightly better place than we were before the visit — and from where we could have been had the visit been undertaken with unrealistic expectations.

None of this changes due to Pakistani posturing in the wake of Hakeemullah Mehsud’s killing and calls for a review of US-Pakistan ties. That is only that: posturing.

The writer is a foreign policy expert based in Washington D.C.