US, Pakistan lock horns in deepening crisis
Wednesday, 11 May 2011
Lachlan Carmichael of AFP from Washington
The United States and Pakistan locked horns May 9 over the US raid that killed Osama bin Laden in what looks increasingly like the two countries' worst crisis since they became war-on-terror allies. One expert found it hard to see how the two would emerge from the crisis, another said the two at least recognized the danger to their relationship and a third urged a last-ditch bid to right what he saw as lopsided ties. Analyst Lisa Curtis said Washington had first thought it would be able to press Islamabad to cooperate more in counter-terrorism after the May 2 raid that killed the world's most wanted terrorist on Pakistani territory. "Instead, Pakistan is digging its heels in and trying to make themselves look like the aggrieved party," said Curtis, a former CIA analyst and State Department advisor on south Asia now with the Heritage Foundation think tank. Islamabad on May 9 warned it would retaliate against any future strikes on its territory, even as Washington refused to apologize for killing the Al-Qaeda leader on Pakistani soil. Rather than trying to "assuage" US officials over questions of complicity with bin Laden living in their midst, Curtis told AFP, Pakistani officials are "upping the ante" and resorting to "brinksmanship." The approach, she said, will only cause US lawmakers who control the purse string to increase demands to withhold billions of dollars in annual economic and military aid to Pakistan until Islamabad provides more cooperation. "I think US-Pakistan relations are at an all-time low, maybe at the lowest point they've ever been in history. And it's difficult to see a way forward at this point," Curtis said. Both sides have much at stake in the relationship, which may or may not brake a worsening slide, according to analysts. The Obama administration needs the Pakistani port of Karachi and its roads to supply US forces in landlocked Afghanistan. It also needs to keep US intelligence operatives on the ground in Pakistan. Last but not least, it wants to remain engaged with Pakistan to make sure its nuclear weapons "stay out of the hands of terrorists," Curtis said. Pakistan, meanwhile, needs US aid while it also relies on US influence with the International Monetary Fund to boost its flagging economy, Curtis said. "I think they both need each other," Curtis said. Analyst Michael O'Hanlon observed "some efforts to keep things cordial" on both sides as the two grapple with what he said is "probably" the worst crisis in ties since they became allies after the September 11, 2001 attacks. The good news is "both sides are treating it as a serious issue and both sides recognize that there's some danger to where the relationship is," the Brookings Institution analyst told AFP. But O'Hanlon warned: "I'm not predicting a happy outcome." "Both sides have a huge investment in the relationship, both sides need the relationship. It doesn't mean that it's guaranteed to succeed or survive," he said. "I think that if reason prevails on both sides, we will find a way to work through this but it can't just be by sustaining the status quo. This thing is in trouble," O'Hanlon said. Leslie Gelb, president emeritus at the Council on Foreign Relations, urged the United States to take a radical new approach with a Pakistan that he says fools the United States into providing aid in return for minimal counter-terror intelligence. "Either we put this relationship on a sound footing or we can give the pleasure of Pakistan to China. Let them worry about it," Gelb told AFP. He said he has made the suggestion to administration officials who feared this would be a "strategic gain" for China. "I said 'not if they have to take care of it,'" Gelb added. "We sucker ourselves by thinking that Pakistan is one of the most critical countries in the world and that we can save it," said Gelb. He accused the Pakistani authorities of having "consistently lied" to Washington over what he says is their support for the Afghan Taliban and Al-Qaeda. "As long as they have this mania that they're screwing us in Afghanistan as part of their war with India, there's nothing much we can do," he said. Pakistan, fearful of being abandoned by the United States and not wanting to fight militants who do not pose a domestic threat, is said to remain close to the Afghan Taliban and their allies, the Al-Qaeda-linked Haqqani group. The thinking goes that when the Americans withdraw from Afghanistan these groups will remain and their alliances with Muslim Pakistan can help offset the perceived threat posed by arch rival and regional superpower India.
The United States and Pakistan locked horns May 9 over the US raid that killed Osama bin Laden in what looks increasingly like the two countries' worst crisis since they became war-on-terror allies. One expert found it hard to see how the two would emerge from the crisis, another said the two at least recognized the danger to their relationship and a third urged a last-ditch bid to right what he saw as lopsided ties. Analyst Lisa Curtis said Washington had first thought it would be able to press Islamabad to cooperate more in counter-terrorism after the May 2 raid that killed the world's most wanted terrorist on Pakistani territory. "Instead, Pakistan is digging its heels in and trying to make themselves look like the aggrieved party," said Curtis, a former CIA analyst and State Department advisor on south Asia now with the Heritage Foundation think tank. Islamabad on May 9 warned it would retaliate against any future strikes on its territory, even as Washington refused to apologize for killing the Al-Qaeda leader on Pakistani soil. Rather than trying to "assuage" US officials over questions of complicity with bin Laden living in their midst, Curtis told AFP, Pakistani officials are "upping the ante" and resorting to "brinksmanship." The approach, she said, will only cause US lawmakers who control the purse string to increase demands to withhold billions of dollars in annual economic and military aid to Pakistan until Islamabad provides more cooperation. "I think US-Pakistan relations are at an all-time low, maybe at the lowest point they've ever been in history. And it's difficult to see a way forward at this point," Curtis said. Both sides have much at stake in the relationship, which may or may not brake a worsening slide, according to analysts. The Obama administration needs the Pakistani port of Karachi and its roads to supply US forces in landlocked Afghanistan. It also needs to keep US intelligence operatives on the ground in Pakistan. Last but not least, it wants to remain engaged with Pakistan to make sure its nuclear weapons "stay out of the hands of terrorists," Curtis said. Pakistan, meanwhile, needs US aid while it also relies on US influence with the International Monetary Fund to boost its flagging economy, Curtis said. "I think they both need each other," Curtis said. Analyst Michael O'Hanlon observed "some efforts to keep things cordial" on both sides as the two grapple with what he said is "probably" the worst crisis in ties since they became allies after the September 11, 2001 attacks. The good news is "both sides are treating it as a serious issue and both sides recognize that there's some danger to where the relationship is," the Brookings Institution analyst told AFP. But O'Hanlon warned: "I'm not predicting a happy outcome." "Both sides have a huge investment in the relationship, both sides need the relationship. It doesn't mean that it's guaranteed to succeed or survive," he said. "I think that if reason prevails on both sides, we will find a way to work through this but it can't just be by sustaining the status quo. This thing is in trouble," O'Hanlon said. Leslie Gelb, president emeritus at the Council on Foreign Relations, urged the United States to take a radical new approach with a Pakistan that he says fools the United States into providing aid in return for minimal counter-terror intelligence. "Either we put this relationship on a sound footing or we can give the pleasure of Pakistan to China. Let them worry about it," Gelb told AFP. He said he has made the suggestion to administration officials who feared this would be a "strategic gain" for China. "I said 'not if they have to take care of it,'" Gelb added. "We sucker ourselves by thinking that Pakistan is one of the most critical countries in the world and that we can save it," said Gelb. He accused the Pakistani authorities of having "consistently lied" to Washington over what he says is their support for the Afghan Taliban and Al-Qaeda. "As long as they have this mania that they're screwing us in Afghanistan as part of their war with India, there's nothing much we can do," he said. Pakistan, fearful of being abandoned by the United States and not wanting to fight militants who do not pose a domestic threat, is said to remain close to the Afghan Taliban and their allies, the Al-Qaeda-linked Haqqani group. The thinking goes that when the Americans withdraw from Afghanistan these groups will remain and their alliances with Muslim Pakistan can help offset the perceived threat posed by arch rival and regional superpower India.