What Next for Pakistan?

The United State’s secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, has said ‘sorry’ to Pakistan over the infamous Salala incident. The incident in contention where NATO forces attacked a Pakistani border check posts led to the deaths of twenty four Pakistani soldiers. Pakistan responded by closing NATO supply routes. This added significantly to the costs of war. The issue stood as a metaphor for poor relations between Pakistan and the United States. The issue now stands apparently resolved and Pakistan is re-opening the NATO supply routes. Incidentally, a few days ago, Taliban, in act of ire and retribution against the Pakistani state murdered and beheaded seventeen Pakistani soldiers. This gory and ghastly incident received some press attention. And that was the end of it.

The question is why did Pakistan make an issue out of the Salala incident? What explains Pakistan’s truculence? What explains the stance toward the United States and the muted reaction at the murder of Pakistani soldiers by the Taliban? Does this dichotomous stance reflect the nature of the Pakistani state-a schizophrenic entity tugged at by contradictory pulls and pressures? What does the future bode?

Pakistan’s stance, after the Salala incident, can be explained by a host of inter related reasons. The country had to register a protest and harden its stance against the United States to assuage the widespread and deep anti Americanism prevalent in Pakistan. It could not be seen as ‘cravenly caving’ into alleged infringement of its sovereignty.  Second, as cynical as it may sound, the incident was heaven sent to Pakistan. It allowed the country to play hard ball in negotiations over America’s or the west’s exit from Pakistan and extort monies in the process. Pakistan’s economy is in doldrums and given the diminishing value and utility of the ‘global war on terror’, monies for this would dry up. Pakistan had to seek an alternate source of income. Third, playing hard ball may also have been meant to demonstrate Pakistan’s value (albeit a nuisance value) to the United States. This is rendered poignant because the United States is exiting Afghanistan and Pakistan may have feared that the sole superpower would abandon Pakistan in an eerie echo of the end of the Cold war. These clusters of reasons may help explain Pakistan’s attendant truculence.

This is worrisome and sad. Why? Because it reflects the entity that Pakistan has morphed into. Essentially, the country touts its value to the United States and the world as a potential rogue and plays up its nuisance value to eke out benefits which it deems to constitute its national interest. Roughly speaking, the components of this national interest are some form of influence and control in Afghanistan also known as ‘strategic depth’, attempts to wrest Kashmir from India, forging a security paradigm built around nuclear weapons and also nurturing the global jihad nursery. This meant  a proxy war in Kashmir, and encouraging and helping the Taliban to control Afghanistan and the employment of nukes as a shield under which to pursue these objectives.

This , in turn , mean encouraging the forces of extremism in Pakistan and the instrumentalization of Pakistan’s youth bulge to pursue these ends. Post September II, Pakistan, had to perforce review some these policies and paradigms and make the famous ‘U turn’. This entailed offending and taking the forces of extremism head on. Pakistan played a bit of a double game and eked out geopolitical space for itself in the cracks of these policies. To be convincing, it had to tackle some of these forces it had nurtured and incubated and alienated them. This double game had a price. The Pakistani state became Janus faced: it ostensibly pretended to be on the United State’s side in the ‘war on terror’ and at the same time used these forces as trump cards. The attendant schizophrenia alienated all and Pakistan essentially came to at war with itself. The murder of seventeen soldiers by the Taliban is explained by this Janus faced posture.

The question now is what should the Pakistani state do now? Should the United State’s ‘soft apology’ be the end of the matter? The answer is a clear cut no. It is or should be time for serious introspection by the Pakistani state. The grist and mill of this introspection should be how Pakistan can become a normal, healthy entity and a fully functioning member of the international system and community. It should also mean reviewing its alliance with the United States. This alliance in the nature of a transactional alliance should be accorded depth and vigor. While it can never be an alliance of equals, it can potentially be a salubrious one. It bears mention here that Pakistan needs the United States more than the United States needs it. As such, Pakistan should present itself in an idiom and form that is not predatory. The boundaries of the alliance should be clear cut and Pakistan should seek assistance from Pakistan that enables the country to morph into a normal entity- at peace with itself and the world. Ancillary aspects of this review should be a rejigging  of Pakistan’s posture towards India and Pakistan. Normal relations with India could release Pakistan’s energies and sublimate these towards salubrious ends.

Continuing on the same old trodden path is laden with risk and danger. Pakistan can potentially implode. This will be besides being axiomatically bad for the country be bad for the subcontinent and the world at large. It behooves the Pakistani establishment to stock take, review and revamp. The stakes are too high. The status quo is insalubrious and negative for all. Let Pakistan digest the apology and move on.