WASHINGTON: Abandon Pakistan and embrace India was the message a US congressional panel sent to the Obama administration after a White House report to Congress complained that Pakistan was not doing enough to combat religious extremists.
The White House report also indicated a major difference between the two allies on their threat perceptions. While Pakistan sees India's increasing presence in Afghanistan as a threat to its security, the US seems to believe that Pakistan's obsession with India is harming the fight against extremists. “As India continues to dominate their strategic threat perception, large elements of Pakistan's military remain committed to maintaining a ratio of Pakistani to Indian forces along the eastern border,” the White House told Congress in its report on the Pak-Afghan region.“This deprives the Pakistani COIN (counter-insurgency) fight of sufficient forces to achieve its 'clear' objectives and support the 'hold' efforts and causing available army forces to be bogged down with 'hold' activities because there are insufficient trained civilian law-enforcement personnel to assume that responsibility,” the report said.
Building on this concept, some members of a congressional panel that oversees US ties with South Asia, urged the Obama administration to forsake its efforts to improve its ties with Pakistan.
“Pakistan is about to go broke or collapse,” said Congressman Gary Ackerman, a New York Democrat. “The brightest light in South Asia's constellation and the strategic centre of gravity for the region is India.”
He also depicted Afghanistan as a hopeless case and dismissed Pakistani and Afghan leaders as incompetent.
India, on the other hand, “has been on a sustained path towards economic and political empowerment”, Mr Ackerman observed. “As the world's largest democracy India is a natural partner for the United States.” The panel's chairman Steve Chabot, an Ohio Republican, noted that “years of Pakistani mistrust of the US has resulted in a relationship in which cooperation on certain issues is often accompanied by obstruction on others”.
Congressman Chabot also acknowledged basic differences in strategic interests of the two countries. “The fact remains that Pakistani and US strategic interests diverge on certain issues — especially those concerning Islamist terrorist groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba, which the Pakistani ISI continues to view as a strategic asset vis-a-vis India,” he said.
US Assistant Secretary of State for South Asian Affairs Robert Blake also underscored the importance of US ties to India. “The strategic partnership with India will remain among our top foreign policy priorities,” Mr Blake said. “With India assuming its rightful place in the world, we have a historic opportunity to make this relationship between our countries a defining partnership for the century ahead.”
Daniel Feldman, the US State Department's deputy special representative for Pakistan and Afghanistan, defended America's ties with Pakistan but not many in the panel appeared interested in his advice. “Challenges must still be overcome in our relationship with Pakistan, as distrust lingers on both sides,” Mr Feldman said.
“And as recent events underscore, we need to work together carefully to prevent misunderstandings and disagreements from derailing progress.”
Mr Feldman conceded that there were differences between the two countries “but it is critical that we remain engaged in Pakistan”. He also emphasised the importance of helping Pakistan's democratically elected leaders in addressing the challenges they faced, whether on religious freedoms or economic policy.
But Mr Ackerman would have nothing of it. “So if we gave another $20 billion, I guess, would they like us in the morning — (laughter) — as we gave $20 billion through another night?” he scoffed.
Mr Feldman made another bold attempt to defend the administration's continued engagement with Pakistan. “We are in a partnership with Pakistan for the long haul, and our investment is evidence of that,” he said.
Assistant Secretary Blake also tried to convince the lawmakers that the US needed to retain Pakistan. “We are trying to — and very successfully — our strategic relationship with all elements of the Pakistani government,” he said.
“A difficult partnership with Pakistan is far better than having a hostile Pakistan. This is a country that's vital to our national security interests. We have to do this,” he insisted.
But Dana Rohrabacher, a California Republican, shot him down. “I've been hearing that for 50 years. And I will tell you, a realistic relationship, rather than basing the relationship on wishful thinking, is what will bring about peace in that part of the world,” Rohrabacher said.
“Those people in Pakistan now look at us — as do several other groups of people — like we're patsies.”
Dear visitor, the comments section is undergoing an overhaul and will return soon.