Whither Pakistan?
By Dr Zafar M. Iqbal
Chicago , IL
Those born after the Subcontinent partition may have retired by now, or would be close to it.
Over the past 64 years, what has persisted between India and Pakistan is mutual distrust. Unless both sides decide to take a radically new approach, the situation is likely to continue and their 2,190 Km long border would remain, as it has been for decades, “the most dangerous in the world.”
Lingering conflicts between these nuclear neighbors continue to drain their resources, as their armies stand face-to-face across the border. Neither side, despite many attempts at conciliation, wants to seek mutually beneficial alternatives. This, what I call the ‘subcontinent psyche’ for over the past two generations, is now firmly rooted in both countries, as the flames of hatred and suspicion are periodically stoked over the unresolved Kashmir, terrorism and other issues.
Pakistan has flirted with democracy only between dictatorships and emergency rule. Mired for years in sectarian conflicts, fundamentalist intolerance and extremism, while Pakistan is going through economic and political turmoil (and more so since 9/11), its neighbors to the northeast and southeast have become major technological and economic powers, internationally.
In the US, the founding fathers are invoked at every national occasion, how about in Pakistan on this Independence Day anniversary?
Imagine what Jinnah had in mind when he achieved the near impossible, with his unprecedented resolve against heavy odds – two parts of the new independent country, separated by over 1,000 miles. In the first 25 years, however, and mostly under the military rule, East wing of the country Jinnah had wrested off the British Raj over fierce opposition by the Indian leaders, was lost.
He was essentially a secular man most of his personal and political life, though portrayed by many as a zealot bête noire of the partition. Deeply steeped in Western democratic principles, I doubt if he would now feel very comfortable in the country he founded, almost single-handedly.
A few years ago, my colleague, Dr. K.D.L. Khan, had cited in these pages the 2001 book, “The United States and Pakistan (1947-2000): Disenchanted Allies,” by Dennis Kux, an American expert in South Asia expert, who worked in the US State Department for 20 years and spent four years in Pakistan (1957-59 and 1969-71). In his book, Kux recalls a private meeting in March, 1948 that Paul Alling (first US Ambassador to Pakistan) had at Jinnah’s residence by the sea. Among many things discussed was this interesting bit as they walked on the beach: Alling mentioned to Jinnah that US wanted to see India and Pakistan as friendly neighbors. In response, Jinnah is reported to have said, “Nothing” was “closer to [his] heart.”
Based on internal memos, Kux adds: “What he [Jinnah] sincerely wished was an association similar to that between the United States and Canada…. Jinnah said he had told Gandhi and Nehru that Pakistan desired a defensive understanding with India on a military level… with no time limit, similar perhaps to the US arrangements with Canada.”
Still a dream -- a dream no political descendant of these three leaders has yet tried to fulfill!
Just look at some relevant facts:
US and Canada share a 12,034 km border (including 2,477 km between Alaska, US and Canadian Yukon and British Columbia), which is about six times longer than the India-Pakistan border. The US and Canada also enjoy the world’s largest bilateral trade relationship, with total trade in 2006 exceeding US $533.7 billion. They are the largest trade partners of each other. Though the US is the dominant partner, Canada happens to be the largest exporter of energy to the US. Trade flow over Ambassador Bridge between Windsor (Ontario) and Detroit (Michigan) alone -- one of the several transport routes between the countries -- is about as much as total trade between the US and Japan.
As with any trading partners, they also have problems periodically, but none too disruptive of the relationship. According to the government estimates, in March, 2005, e.g., 300,000 individuals moved daily across the border, engaged in the US$ 1.2 billion trade, goods and services.
The US-Mexico border is about one-third of the northern border with Canada. Though long plagued with illegal immigration and drug trafficking, US still imports about 90% of the Mexican products, and remains Mexico’s biggest trading partner.
Despite the post-9/11 ‘new reality’ and related security concerns, the trade flows smoothly across these “smart borders,” which, in order to ensure mutual economic security, remain open for business but closed to known or suspected terrorists and criminals. This is quite unlike the Indo-Pak border for decades.
Another example India and Pakistan can consider is the European Union (EU). Just five years after the end of WWII, the French Foreign Minister, Robert Schuman, first asked his West German counterpart if they can form European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), a mutually beneficial economic community and a common market. It was soon signed on by them and four other European countries ( Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg). This led to Treaty of Paris (1951), then to European Economic Community (EEC) by 1967, and after the Maastricht Treaty (1993) eventually to the EU.
With 27 current members and others interested in joining, EU has developed into a single powerful market, with several political and economic initiatives continually strengthening it. Now with a combined population of over 500 million (1.6-times more than in the US of nearly 312 million), the EU was responsible in 2010 for around one-quarter of the total global economy or around US$16 trillion, compared to US economy which was one-fifth of the world, according to recent estimates. With permanent diplomatic missions around the world, including representation in UN, WTO, G-8 and G-20, EU also has major political influence. EU members share borders, over 11,200 km long, allowing unrestricted travel and trade and no conflicts to speak of (unlike the subcontinent neighbors).
Keeping their individual identity, EU members have learned to move ahead, after a much longer history of hostilities and wars. One wonders why can’t the neighbors in the Subcontinent do the same even after six decades?
Disparities between India and Pakistan are huge (In vs Pk) -- from population (1.2 B vs 175 M), GDP (1,430 vs 175, US$ B; ranked 10th vs 47th in the world) and its annual increase (8.2 vs 2.8, %), defense budget (38.4 vs 5.2 US$ B) to army troops (1.1 vs 0.55 M). These are IMF, IISI and National Statistics figures.
Not surprisingly, only in the nuclear stockpiles (according to American Federation of Scientists), do they have some parity -- 80-100 warheads India; 90-110 Pakistan; none deployed. “As India grows in wealth and power, so do fear and obsession in Pakistan,” The Economist put it recently.
Bilateral trade between India and Pakistan is low by any comparison, and the best 2010-2011 estimates are around $2 billion, as compared to India’s trade with Sri Lanka, around $3 billion. Pakistan is planning to grant India the Most Favored Nation status by October, 2011 (over six decades in the making), which should considerably increase their bilateral trade, and can only improve relations.
Bordering these two countries, China makes this nuclear neighborhood a major global concern. China is Pakistan’s chief ally, its major arms supplier, and one that pursues, according to Reuters, an “all-weather friendship” with Pakistan -- after amicably settling a border disagreement. After the 1962 war over their border, China and India may not be quite back to being ‘Hindi-Cheeni Bhai Bhai’ again, but China is now the largest trade partner of India (despite trade deficit issues) and both have collaborated on such issues as climate change and global finance reform. India regards China-Pakistan friendship with deep suspicion. Although the cricket diplomacy and a recent visit to India by the young Pakistani Ambassador, Hina Rabbani Khar, seemed a promising change to the younger generation on either side, Mumbai and LeT terrorism are still fresh in Indian minds.
The weakest link in this Asian nuclear neighborhood is still India-Pakistan.
In its editorial 7/28/11, The New York Times was brutally frank on the US-Pakistan relationship:
(i) “The Obama administration’s decision to suspend $800 million of its $2 billion in annual security aid to Pakistan inevitably raises the question of why the United States should continue to give Pakistan any military aid at all.”
(ii) “ Islamabad should see this as a serious warning that Washington has all but run out of patience with its double games. Both sides will pay a high price if this goes on too long.”
(iii) “Ending all military aid would be a serious mistake.”
(iv) “The Pentagon needs Pakistan as a supply route for troops in Afghanistan. If there is any possibility of a political deal with the Taliban, Pakistan will have to be involved.”
(v) “Ending $1.5 billion in annual civilian assistance — for energy, schools and other projects — would make even less sense.”
(vi) “President Obama has offered Pakistan a broad relationship and its best chance to chart a new path. Rather than seize this opportunity, Pakistan’s leaders have stoked intolerance, anti-Americanism and an exaggerated fear of India.”
(vii) “Mr. Obama needs to keep working with Islamabad. But he is right to show that the days of unconditional American support are over.”
Bin Laden’s death did aggravate US-Pakistan relations, which had never been smooth or trouble-free since the US left Pakistan in the 1990s after Pakistan went nuclear. The unannounced US raid in Abbottabad in May has done nothing but deepen mutual concerns and distrust.
Considering that US has good relations with China and India (though the 2008 US-India nuclear technology agreement did upset Pakistan) and has been providing assistance to Pakistan after 9/11, and depending on Pakistan’s cooperation in US military transports to Afghanistan, this region may now be fertile for some kind of Clintonian ‘Triangulation’.
On this anniversary, I ask the long-feuding neighbors in the Subcontinent to seek lasting peace.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
