Abu Muqawama: Post
Abu Muqawama retains its autonomy and the views and beliefs expressed within the blog do not reflect those of CNAS. Abu Muqawama retains the right to delete comments that include words that incite violence; are predatory, hateful, or intended to intimidate or harass; or degrade people on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. In summary, don't be a jerk.
Away from the Pakistan headlines
As everyone has been getting all excited about the "new relationship" the Pakistanis and Americans have been forging in Washington, I've been trying to figure out a way to express my pessimistic grumblings without coming over like a grouchy old git who enjoys letting the air out of the footballs local kids kick into his garden.
Finally, I've figured out a way. I'm gonna let a former Reuters colleague look like the man who stole Christmas.
Michael Georgy has a great story from Swat spelling out the reality in Pakistan in the places that are no longer in the headlines.
"The drive to win over the population by providing better economic opportunities and basic services is moving at a slow pace, as evidenced by grim living conditions, joblessness and lack of industries."
The point highlighted by the story is that, yes, you can talk about developing infrastructure, social services and the rest of it. But it all means very little without the ability to make it a reality on the ground. And, in Pakistan, the gap between commitment and realisation is the sticking point.
"We expect a lot from the government," said one of the men, who looked far older than his 47 years, perhaps from the stress of fighting and the ruins it left behind. "We have no jobs now."
I don't want to be a
I don't want to be a pessimist, either, because that's a cheap and easy attitude to bring to, well, anything.
However, to be argumentative: how is this any kind of "new" relationship? Isn't it the old historical one? The one where the United States tries to buy off Pakistan - or governmental and other elements within - in order to get some sort of cooperation?
To be even more argumentative: what if, in stabilizing the country a bit and making things better for people, and creating a little bit more wealth, all the international community is doing is giving confidence to the powers-that-be? So that they are even more likely to pursue traditional national goals regarding their neighbors?
The basic assumption (I seem to be in love with that word, today) is that development leads to a populace and a government that will align its goals with ours. Why should that be the case?
Also, what do you think of this:
"On the one hand, Pakistan believes it has convinced Americans that U.S. success is highly dependent on Pakistani cooperation. In return for cooperation, the U.S. has recognized Pakistani concerns vis-a-vis India in Afghanistan. Pakistani sources report that this was in part exhibited by the marginalization of the Indians at the Afghan conferences in London and Turkey....
....Pakistan believes it holds all the cards for success in Afghanistan. However, a number of factors could possibly ruin Pakistan’s hand. A highly decentralized Afghan Taliban may not be responsive to calls to reconciliation by Taliban leaders captured in Pakistan far from the fighting. Or U.S. resolve in Afghanistan may not last and an antagonized Taliban may fail to cooperate or even turn on Pakistan after the Americans leave. The list goes on.
The chips are on the table. Let’s see how this hand plays out."
http://www.pakintel.com/
(I know nothing of the subject, so just wondering?)
What new relationship?
What new relationship?
I agree with your point,
I agree with your point, please share with us more good articles.1990 Buick Century AC Compressor
Add your comment