By Patricia Lee Sharpe
Who came up with the idea of calling Hillary Clinton’s visit to Pakistan a “charm offensive”? First of all, the term is sexist. Imagine sending Richard Holbrooke on a charm offensive! Secondly, the concept is insulting to Pakistan. As if that proud and prickly country would take kindly to the publically-declared notion that it could be seduced into dancing for America. Finally, and most important, anyone who is in the least aware of the complexities of the relationship between the U.S. and Pakistan would know that what’s needed in this relationship is insight, persistence and constancy, not a three days’ flirtation which would be only too reminiscent of the on-and-off romance that the U.S. has been so angrily and so often accused of. This week included.So Washington is shocked that Hillary didn’t sweep particulars under a lovely Baloch or Kashmiri carpet? I am going to take issue and suggest that she did exactly what was needed. She let some fresh air into the discussion. She got serious. Most likely we shouldn't assume that her comments about someone surely knowing the whereabouts of al Qaeda or about trust needing to be a two-way street or about Pakistan’s needing to take responsibility for education were bloopers, blunders, or obnoxiously preachy. I think they were carefully embedded in the innocuous stuff. Lawyers know how to do this.
I have read every interview text on the Department of State website, particularly the questions with which Secstate Clinton was peppered by journalists, students and tribal leaders. (Whoever was responsible for the recordings that yielded so many “inaudibles” should be fired!). These were good discussions, and I find it regrettable that the American press so frequently framed the story so as to deserve a headline like this: “Clinton Suffers Barbs and Returns Jabs on Pakistan Trip.” Here is more of such misrepresentation:
She submitted [itals mine] to four round-table interviews...in which Pakistan’s leading journalists took their best shots at her, and she even counterpunched once or twice. By the time she left...she appeared to have fought Pakistan’s fourth estate to a draw.
What’s offensive about such a description? It’s inaccurate. It’s inappropriate. What was going on was more like the first phase of a negotiation. Everything gets laid on the table. The fears. The resentments. The angers. The misunderstandings. The disappointments. Unless you get through that stage, you can never progress to anything like productive cooperation.
However, Mark Lander, who was responsible for the above phraseology, also let us know something important. “Mrs. Clinton said she had expected a rough reception,” he wrote. This is important to know. Having been to Pakistan five times before, she surely knew something of the Pakistani style, which is extremely direct, if not blunt in debate-like situations. (I know because I dealt with it for two years.) Tough questions demand equally tough answers, at least part of the time, or the visiting dignitary will be dismissed as fluff—or as condescending—or as purely evasive. None of these labels would have served U.S. interests well. As Pakistanis digest this in depth encounter with Hillary Clinton, the relationship is more likely to be strengthened than weakened, which may perhaps lead Washington observers to get over their shock and realize that sometimes you have to say what you think. Hillary may not be loved in Pakistan, but she will be respected. That matters more.
So far as short term reaction is concerned, Sethi’s assessment holds up. The Nation is usually a virulent critic of the U.S.
Meanwhile, two other things have been accomplished during this visit. Influential media people, business people and students have had the satisfaction of asking difficult questions and of telling the Secretary of State herself exactly what they think. All the big issues in this love-hate relationship have been tabled. (And kudos the the U.S. mission in Pakistan for making these encounters possible.) For the most part I have heard nothing new, which is a bit of important news. But, since most of these resentments are deeply ingrained, it is absurd to call the visit a failure just because a troubled relationship has not been transformed overnight. The best that could ever have been hoped for is that door to better understanding would have been opened a crack. Being listened to respectfully can lead people to be willing to open such a door.
Mark Lander quotes Pakistan’s most respected journalist Najam Sethi as saying, “She did well to interact....She may not have made many new friends, but she certainly didn’t make new enemies.”So far as short term reaction is concerned, Sethi’s assessment holds up. The Nation is usually a virulent critic of the U.S.
Did the US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton really think that she could win the hearts and minds of the Pakistani people with her glib talk and fake honesty? Anyone half as intelligent as her should have known that it would take more than that to douse the fire of anti-US sentiment spreading in the streets of the country she’d come to charm.... She had nothing substantial to say on issues that needed to be addressed most urgently. When asked about the drone attacks, she refused to comment....She advised the Pakistanis not to feel angry about it as “there is a war going on”.... She feigned ignorance about the nefarious activities of private security companies working with the US embassy here and of US citizens going around Islamabad with unlicensed arms. When asked by businessmen for access to the US market,...she advised them to trade with India. And when she found herself cornered on the Kerry-Lugar-Berman Act by senior media-persons, she arrogantly told them not to accept it if it was so. unpalatable.See? That “charm” idea was not a good one. Meanwhile, Dawn’s reaction is measured but receptive and worth quoting in its entirety:
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is in Pakistan on a mission, it seems, to mend fences with the Pakistani public, media and opposition. Ms Clinton is the highest-ranking official of the Obama administration to have visited Pakistan in an attempt to mollify detractors here who have been aggrieved by the strictures contained in the Kerry-Lugar bill and the army and the government’s role in the ‘US war on terror.’
The words she has elected to use have been sensible. ‘Let us discuss and air the differences as friends and partners and let us not magnify them to the extent of exclusion of many areas of agreement and cooperation.’
Topping the list of those ‘areas of agreement and cooperation’ are two things — which many here are loath to admit: one, dollars flowing directly from the US treasury and indirectly from the IFIs that have helped stave off disaster for the economy; and two, cooperation in the fight against Al-Qaeda which menaces the state here and poses a threat to regional stability. Neither has gained much traction with the public or created goodwill for the Americans because the focus has been on the other ‘sins’ of a profligate, not-very-competent Pakistani government and the American ‘hidden agenda’ to undermine Pakistan’s security and territorial integrity. Be that as it may, and in fact reversing public opinion in Pakistan in the near term may be a lost cause, it is good to at least see a softer side of American diplomacy, one that emphasises opportunities and not threats.
Unfortunately, when it comes to strategic issues — the real meat of Pak-US relations — Ms Clinton’s trip has come perhaps a few weeks too soon. Reportedly President Obama will make a decision on his new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan after the presidential run-off in Afghanistan on Nov 7. What course Mr Obama elects to choose from the many, many options that have been debated internally and in the international media will have far-reaching implications on Pak-US relations in the years ahead. At the moment, the few signals being sent by a cagey White House indicate that the cut-and-run option is off the table and so is a significant drawing down of US troops in Afghanistan in the short term. Nor does a ‘Pakistan first,’ purely counter-terrorist strategy appear to be imminent. But between those baselines and Gen McChrystal’s full-blown counter-insurgency plan are many options, and the one finally chosen will be studied very closely in Islamabad and Rawalpindi for the implications on strategic relations between Pakistan and the US going forward.