united states - What can Pakistan do; so as to be treated by the USA as an ally with the advantages countries like Japan or South Korea enjoy

What could the Pakistan or the Pakistani Prime Minister do to adjust the nature of the relationship between the USA and Pakistan, such that advantages that firm allies like Japan and South Korea receive are received by Pakistan?

Would Pakistan need to abandon its friendship with China or surrender to India's political priorities in the region to achieve this?

To be moved to commentary section:

As far as I understand, Pakistan needs a total overhaul, from civic sentiment to foreign policy, like the one Mustafa Kemal did it Turkey. But, I don't believe that would be sufficient enough to convince the USA to embrace Pakistan as a true ally. Just like USA is preoccupied with Israel in the Middle East, it would be preoccupied with India in this region.

Alternatively, Pakistan can develop its economy (as Japan and South Korea did) so strong that it can market itself as an example in the world theatre.

Either of the options are damn hard to achieve.

6 Answers

  1. Leander- Reply


    Well, let's start with population is is by and large friendly to USA and not actively hostile to it, like majority of people living in Pakistan are and were. Japanese and South Koreans fit, and thus their government doesn't have to choose between being friendly with USA and being thrown out.

    Second, be a easily-recognizable democracy (key word being recognizable, being one for real is less important. Witness Al-Sisi's government, that is as close to an ally as USA can have in the Arab world but is being hated on by western liberals because they are somewhat harsh to Islamists threatening it).

    Third, don't conduct policies hostile to US interests (support for Taliban and other Islamist groups by ISI; letting Bin Ladin stay there for years; share nuclear information with undesirable-for-USA countries).

    Fourth (predicated on the first one), let USA base in-country thus offering USA something of value geopolitically.

  2. Lee- Reply


    They can't. Exigencies of US diplomacy in that region mean that Pakistan's domestic and foreign priorities will never be in alignment with US goals.

    Afghanistan and Pakistan differ only in the competency of their government and their military arsenal; and we certainly don't consider Afghanistan an ally in any meaningful sense of the word.

    In practice we would benefit more leaving Pakistan in the sphere of China and then having good relationships with China and India instead. Cheaper too.

  3. Leo- Reply


    Pakistan is a very complex situation. It is a relatively secular government, with a lot of religious extremism within its borders. Pakistan doesn't even fully control the border areas with Afghanistan - it's an uneasy pact with the local warlords.

    So, Pakistan can't afford to be seen to be too friendly with the US or any western nation, as that might give the extremists more motivation. The primary motivation of groups like ISIS and Al Qaida is resisting western influence in their home land.

    Whether they are actually close to the US under the covers, is simply not known. And the rulers there are wise enough to keep it quiet, if they are still close with the US.

    The bin Laden situation is anything but clear. If you look at photos of the compound he was living in, it looks more like a prison than a house: high walls, narrow windows, guard house, right near a Pakistan army base. If you were bin Laden looking to hide with a low profile, would you build a very obvious armored citadel right near the Pakistan army? Not likely.

    One possible scenario was that Pakistan captured bin Laden, milked him for all he was worth in an isolated prison, and then cut a deal with Obama to let him get the credit for taking bin Laden out and boost his re-election bid, in return for additional funding.

    And Pakistan couldn't be seen to cooperate with that, for fear of stirring up the Sunni extremists. Gosh darn it, we tried to catch that big noisy Chinook helicopter with supersonic F16's, but just couldn't do it. (fly lower, you're showing up on our radar screens)

    You don't keep a government going in the political climate of that part of the world by being fools.

  4. Leonard- Reply


    The problem is that there are active factions/elements within the Pakistan government (their intelligence services) and huge sections of the country that are strongly anti-US and extremist (not equating the two things) in their views. They support and aid terrorist elements, so we can't fully trust Pakistan with vital information we'd need for them to be able to cooperate fully with us. This is illustrated by the policy of carrying out strikes within Pakistan's borders (bin Laden raid an obvious example) without informing the government, which would often cause anger and denunciations (covered in my NY Times link further down).

    Military.com: Why Pakistan supports the Taliban

    CFR: The ISI and Terrorism - Behind the Accusations

    Brookings Institution: On Pakistani Anti-Americanism

    It is my understanding, though, that the general feelings of anti-American sentiment over large portions of the country are at a lower level than they were five to ten years ago.

    In any case, the main thing that Pakistan would need to do is become a nation where the Taliban and other extremist elements were not allowed support by factions within the government or by the populace, at large. That's not a thing that's probably within the control of the government to do.

    At the current time, I believe the state of relations is that we support the current government mainly to prevent those more extreme factions from taking over control. Because the more moderate elements are in power by a not especially dominant majority of public sentiment and political power, the US is careful not to push to strongly for measures that would inflame national sentiment and possibly cause the government to be toppled. It's entirely possible that not informing them of more controversial actions also gives the government deniability and the ability to denounce the USA, which might be more helpful to them, politically, than being closely in the loop. By the same token, if the ruling regime seemed to friendly and/or deferential to the USA, that might also spark anger or push-back, as well.

    NY Times: Two-faced Allies - Pakistan and the US

    Any movement to a more fully-trusted relationship is one that can only happen gradually, over time, I'd think.

  5. Leopold- Reply


    Pakistan would have to be needed by America, as they were for example when they were helping with the war in Afghanistan. Pakistan would have to show it can be trusted as an ally - they screwed that up by harboring Bin Laden but also in a lot of other ways. That trust would need to be deepened by a long term alignment of interests.

    To take for example South Korea, they were needed as a bulwark against communist expansion during the cold war. They showed through decades of military cooperation that they could be trusted as an ally in that struggle. At the end of the cold war they deepened the trust by aligning their interests politically and economically. Politically, they became a freedom loving democracy. Economically they had become important trading partners.

    One final note, the friendship can't be too expensive, as Taiwan has learned. Taiwan certainly gets a lot of benefits from its relationship with America, but the relationship isn't as close as it would be if China wasn't so important to America and wasn't constantly threatening trouble with anyone who recognizes Taiwan's independence.

  6. Loren- Reply


    1. Do not trust American advice.

      Argentina is an A student of the USA, and they showed the world what not to do. The Soviet in 1990s trusted America, they were ruined for good. One can smile and smile and be a villain.

      American national character is more like a coquette: as soon as you think of them as a big deal, they stop respecting you. Take a look at American WWII allies. Where are they now? GB lost its empire immediately afterwards; KMT lost China, fled to Taiwan and was betrayed by the US later on; the Soviet suffered decades-long sanctions by the US and eventually undone by American intrigues. The Philippines used to be sentimental with their American bros; now they begin to wise up.

      America's founding principle is "every man for himself, god for us all." There are no truer American allies than American soldiers, yet any veteran who forgets to fend for himself will be instantly cannibalized or discarded by fellow Americans - this explains why you hear so much noise about altruism - pay attention to what image people try to project, which may clue you off what they try to cover up. Friendship is built on mutual profit; sacrificing yourself with the purpose of gaining gratitude will earn you contempt instead. As a matter of fact, what is true of Americans is true of everyone else: gratitude has never been a politically important sentiment.

      No countries killed more Americans than Germany, Japan, China and Vietnam, yet the first three are among the most prosperous countries today - this is a curious fact from an anthropologist's point of view - and there are good reasons to expect Vietnam to join their ranks soon. All of them fought on the wrong side, but no one died in vain. They earned respect.

      South Korea and Japan were basically given the opportunity to work their butt off. If anyone thinks Korea and Japan owe their prosperity to American largess, they have misunderstood the situation. Germany was prosperous before the war and was prosperous afterwards once they were let live. The so-called American technologies are actually foreign made. Real American can't figure out anything; they relied heavily on immigrants from Europe and East Asia. The climate in South-west Pakistan is very similar to California; it might as well become the next California.

      China continues to rise in spite of American sanctions, embargoes and even naked invasions, and thrives in American media disparagement. China went American way in the sense that China adopted the American idea of free enterprises, as opposed to state owned enterprises. There is still a lot China can learn from the US; most of it is about what not to do. Soon there will be all-out space cooperation between the two because there is nothing they know we don't. America is going downhill due to demographic shift; there is nothing one can do about it. The next president is very likely to be an Irish with Indian roots.

    2. Borrow money as much as possible from American private sector, not the government. The government doesn't care ROI while the private sector does and they have lobbying power. Whoever lent you money will naturally wish you the best. The last thing they want is to see you perish before they get their money back.

    3. Build infrastructure. Emerging economy has very high growth rate, which in investors' terms means very high ROI. Once infrastructure is in place, people will beg you to use their money. Repeat step 2 will send you to an upward spiral.

    4. Increase the general purchasing power for the ordinary people. There are a lot of business models that are tried and true in other markets; just copy the model and finance some starter-uppers to make it happen; this can decrease unemployment rate and push you towards labour shortage virtually over night. Once you are rich enough to be a potential buyer for Boeing, GE, etc. people will begin to kiss your butt.

    5. Use your market for political quid pro quo. Americans will nudge you towards open market blah blah. Don't listen them. Open one sector at a time in exchange for some political favour.

    6. Raising the living standards of the people is the best way to fight terrorism. American organized crimes disappeared by itself in late 1990's due to low unemployment rates.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You can use these HTML tags and attributes <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>