By Jehangir Khattak
The US-Pakistan relations remain in the cold following November 26 NATO attack on a Pakistani check post on the country's border with Afghanistan. The incident, that killed 28 Pakistani soldiers, has virtually brought two of the most critical allies in the war against terror on a collision course.
Pakistanis are still seething with anger at the incident. They have stopped supplies for NATO troops in Afghanistan, asked the US to vacate Shamsi airbase in Pakistan's Balochistan province (which was reportedly largely used for drone operations) and boycotted the Bonn conference on the future of Afghanistan.
US is investigating the bloody incident while General Ashfaq Pervez Kiyani, the Pakistan’s powerful army chief, has authorized his troops, deployed on the country's border with Afghanistan, to pull the trigger in case of any future hostile violations of its airspace by anyone, NATO included.
Will Washington and Islamabad overcome their acrimony in the short term? May be not. Unlike in the past, this time around it may take longer to bury the hatchet. Pakistan has seen anti-US/NATO demonstrations across the country. The public ire is not just at what Islamabad believes was an unprovoked attack. It is also because of a wave of frustration at what many in Pakistan call American ingratitude towards Islamabad that, according to the Pakistanis, suffered the most human and economic losses -- 35,000 civilians dead and over 70 billion dollar damage to its economy -- in a war that they believe was not initially theirs.
Situation in the US is also hardly any different. Pakistan remains a punching bag both in the media and political arena. Pakistan-bashing has emerged as a favorite pastime of many conservative politicians. Listen to some of the Republican political extremists vying for party's presidential nomination and one will feel as if they are talking about an avowed enemy and not a country that has remained a staging ground for American game plans in Afghanistan for the past three decades.
Why so much anger and bellicosity in the Republicans' leadership cadres for a country that remains America's best hope for success in Afghanistan? The answer could be long but can be summed up in a nutshell -- Pakistan's apparent policy contradictions about Afghanistan and its largely one-sided negative portrayal in the US media. Public trial of Pakistan may prove self-defeating and reconfirm suspicions on the streets of Pakistan that the US is no longer a trusted friend and ally.
If willing, the two sides can do much through an honest and open-ended dialogue. The two sides have to rebuild the relationship from the bottom up. The US can and should stop using aid as a policy tool in dealing with Pakistan. So far it hasn't worked for the people of either country. It wouldn’t work in the future as well. Instead preferential trade should become a policy instrument that gives Pakistanis on the street enough stakes in the relationship. Washington should also cut a business deal with Islamabad for ferrying supplies through its ports and roads for ISAF troops in Afghanistan. A fair and honest transactional relationship will be more transparent than the delusion of strategic alliance, which can become a reality only when the two sides have the same friends and enemies at least in Afghanistan. In fact The US should stop throwing American tax dollar on waste projects such as "educating the Pakistani parliamentarians" -- price tag $40 million. It should instead adopt big signature projects such as construction of Bhasha Dam. Such projects could become the most effective tool of public diplomacy and improve America's image among a suspecting people.
Reasons for the current tensions are plenty. But mutual suspicions and competing regional agendas are at the heart of the growing discord. The time has come the two sides bring their rhetoric down, sincerely investigate the border incident, NATO and US apologize to Pakistan and pay appropriate compensation if their troops are found erring, revisit their short-term and long-term goals in the region and try to come on the same page as much as possible. Any effort that shies away from addressing the contradictions in their policies and regional goals will be nothing short of cosmetics. It will continue to stoke instability in the region. Certainly that is not expected on the agenda of either side. And that should be the stepping stone for rebuilding a new relationship that is so critical for regional and international peace.
