Taking the long view in Pakistan

by Brian Vogt | February 26th, 2008 | |Subscribe

Last week Raj Purohit wrote that now that the Pakistani electorate has clearly rejected the status quo that it is time for Musharraf to step aside.  While I agree that the long term outlook for Pakistan would be much improved if Musharraf were listen to the will of the electorate, I think that we all must admit that the likelihood of him stepping down is fairly remote.  Although Musharraf’s party lost the parliamentary elections, thanks to his stacking of the court, he claims that he still legally can remain in power.  Until Musharraf loses the confidence of the military, we’re likely to see him in power for the foreseeable future.  No, I’m not happy with that reality, but I also recognize that US policy towards Pakistan is unlikely to force Musharraf from power.  If we focus our attention primarily on the removal of Musharraf, I fear that we are setting ourselves up for failure. 

No, the most encouraging result I heard from the Pakistani elections came not from Nawaz Sharif nor from President Musharraf, but rather from Senator Joe Biden when he called on the US to get serious about its long term Pakistan policy.  He called on the US to:

  1. The U.S. must triple non-security aid, to $1.5 billion annually for at least a decade.  This aid would be unconditioned.  It would be the U.S.’s pledge to the Pakistani people.  Instead of funding military hardware, it would build schools, clinics, and roads.
  2. The U.S. must condition security aid on performance. We should base our security aid on clear results.  The U.S. is now spending well over $1 billion annually, and it’s not clear we’re getting our money’s worth.
  3. The U.S. must help Pakistan enjoy a “democracy dividend.”  The first year of democratic rule should bring an additional $1 billion – above the $1.5 billion non-security aid baseline.  Sen. Biden supports tying future non-security aid – again, above the guaranteed baseline – to Pakistan’s progress in developing democratic institutions and meeting good-governance norms. 
  4. The U.S. must engage the Pakistani people, not just their rulers.  This will involve everything from improved public diplomacy and educational exchanges to high impact projects that actually change people’s lives. 

For too long America’s relationship with Pakistan has been a result of a realist approach to foreign policy that has placed perceived short term US interest ahead of long term democratic development.  While some might argue that placing undue emphasis on “luxuries” such as democratic development means that we may lose ground in our fight against Al Qaeda, I would argue that it is only by taking a long term approach in Pakistan that we actually have hope of rooting out the violent extremism that has been our overriding concern.  Biden’s proposal presents exactly what our policy towards Pakistan has so far lacked – a long term vision that conditions our support both on the building of democratic institutions that benefit the Pakistani people and that deemphasizes reliance on a strong man.  For too long, our policy has emphasized personality over performance.  It’s time that we return to a US foreign policy that emphasizes the very ideals that our country stands for – the rule of law and democratic institutions.  We must have faith that support of these core tenets will benefit us in the long run.  Otherwise, we just end up propping up another regime that can talk a good game, but in the end, is just a house of cards. 

We must be prepared to make the long term commitment to the people of Pakistan.  The irony is that only through this approach will we ultimately be successful in our campaign against Al Qaeda.  A comprehensive long term policy towards Pakistan that prioritizes the people of Pakistan is something that both Democrats and Republicans should be able to support.  However, it’s going to require that Pakistan be more than a political talking point in campaign speeches.  It’s going to require long term political will and resolve. 

Related posts:

  1. The red corvette of international affairs
  2. The Enemy of My Enemy
  3. Adapting Along the Road to Copenhagen

2 Comments »

  1. abhinav wrote,

    sir, i have been puzzled for a long time about why would the US want a democratic government in pak anyway? does it equate to a non-military government?
    if you can, do mail me the answer

    abhinav.arora [at] gmail.com

    Comment on February 27, 2008 @ 4:00 am

  2. Welcome | Project on Middle East Democracy wrote,

    [...]  Brian Vogt from Partnership for a Secure America, agrees that the US should abandon its short term “realist approach” that emphasizes reliance on a “strong man” and should adopt a long term approach that emphasize the “very ideals that our country stands for – the rule of law and democratic institutions” that would benefit the Pakistani people. Vogt cites Senator Joe Biden’s call for the US to “triple non-security aid, to $1.5 billion annually for at least a decade, condition security aid on performance, help Pakistan enjoy a democracy dividend, and engage the Pakistani people, not just their rulers,” as step in the right direction. [...]

    Pingback on February 27, 2008 @ 8:05 am

Leave a comment

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI