The visit of US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to Pakistan has been radically different from her predecessors’. The visit came at a time when Pakistan’s relations with the US had entered a contentious phase.

Anti-American sentiments have continued to intensify in the country even at a time when there is growing consensus against the militants.

Clinton’s visit was therefore important for both sides. For Pakistan, it represented an opportunity to sensitise her to the country’s core concerns. For Clinton, the visit gave her the opportunity to reach out to the country’s major stakeholders to reduce if not eliminate the misgivings that have plagued relations.

Admitting that she was ‘greatly disturbed by the level of mistrust between the US and Pakistan’, Clinton chose to be frank, even blunt, in her responses. She pointed to the bipartisan support for the Kerry-Lugar bill, to buttress her contention that Washington now appreciated better the significance of Pakistan’s role in the region.

Clinton spoke of ‘dismay’ in Washington, at the adverse reaction to the bill, now law, wondering why Pakistan’s concerns had not been raised earlier.

While commending the army’s efforts in Swat and South Waziristan, Clinton did not shy away from characterising some of the actions of our agencies as ‘incomprehensible’.

Asserting that it was ‘hard to believe’ that Pakistani officials had no idea where the Al Qaeda leaders were, she chided those who condemn drone attacks, wondering why there was little concern for the violation of Pakistan’s security, when foreign terrorists operated from there. She also alluded to Washington’s fear that the army was going after militants attacking Pakistan and not those attacking US forces, which highlighted another difference between the perceptions of the two countries.

Clinton’s comments confirmed that the administration has little faith in Pakistan’s institutions, which explains Congress’s effort to ‘micromanage’ the aid package. US misgivings on other issues too remain strong, as reflected in an amendment to the US defence authorisation bill, incorporating tough conditions on military assistance to Pakistan.

This includes requirement of certification that Islamabad is waging a concerted fight against terrorists and that US military assistance ‘will not adversely impact on the balance of power in the region’. Given India’s overwhelming superiority over Pakistan in conventional weaponry and its declared aim to acquire billions of dollars worth of sophisticated weapons systems, this reference to ‘balance of power’ is yet more evidence of American mistrust as a result of our alleged shenanigans.

While Clinton assured us that ‘our relationship goes beyond security matters’ and offered US help in building infrastructure, health facilities and energy projects, she failed to acknowledge Pakistan’s concern over increasing Indian influence in Afghanistan. In fact, Washington views Indian initiatives as reinforcing its own efforts in that country.

Moreover, US intentions to strengthen the number of security personnel in the Afghan National Army and the police, drawing primarily from non-Pakhtun tribes, is likely to cause fresh misgivings here. A security force of this size will require massive resources that Afghanistan will not be able to afford, which means that they will be subject to foreign influence and may become another divisive factor within Afghanistan.

The US will keep faith with a democratic Pakistan, as a strategic choice that should be pursued with full commitment. But this can only be done by recognising Pakistan’s legitimate security concerns especially vis-à-vis India. Merely echoing Indian misgivings is not helpful to regional peace and cooperation.

In fact, by refusing to entertain Pakistan’s request that the US consider playing an active role in the Pakistan-India normalisation process, an idea first floated by Obama during the election campaign, she proved once again that the US is not willing to dilute its strategic ties with Delhi.

It is also true that on the issue of terrorism, perceptions differ widely. While the US believes that Pakistan needs to fight this war for its own survival, many Pakistanis are convinced that terrorism in Pakistan is a product of the US occupation of Afghanistan.

Even on Afghanistan, there are widely differing views, with the US convinced that a strong and stable Afghanistan would help stabilise Pakistan as well. But many here suspect that a strong Afghanistan, where India is the dominant power, cannot be to Pakistan’s advantage.

While there is growing national consensus on the need to confront the militants, some experts are convinced that it is only a matter of time before the US exits the scene. In such a scenario, Pakistan fears it will have to face the twin challenges of a hostile India and a chaotic Afghanistan.

It is somewhat unfortunate that Clinton should have visited Pakistan at a time when the present government is viewed as incompetent and corrupt, as well as submissive in its dealings with the US, whether over drone attacks or the Kerry-Lugar bill, while allowing American security and intelligence agencies a free run of the place. Nevertheless, Clinton’s efforts should be appreciated, especially as her intensive interactions are likely to have a positive fallout on bilateral ties.

Policymakers and the public, especially in Pakistan, have to however understand that foreign perceptions are a reflection of domestic reality and that any relationship that is fundamentally unequal is also inherently imbalanced.

The relationship between giver and taker can never be without friction. While mutual trust and respect are essential to build durable ties, in our case, the burden of history continues to hang albatross-like around our necks.

Hopefully, if mutual cooperation can expand beyond its current focus on terrorism and develop into meaningful economic linkages that include greater trade and bigger American investment in critical sectors of the economy, along with an irrevocable US commitment to promoting democracy in Pakistan, the tide can be turned and a truly strategic relationship built.