The capture and killing of Osama bin Laden from a safe house in Pakistan raises several important questions about the future of US-Pakistan relations and the future of the US-led 'war on terror'. America's assertion that Pakistan was not informed of the raid (Operation Geronimo) on bin Laden's hideout in Abbottabad indicates the growing trust deficit between the two countries. Bin Laden's death came at a time when US-Pakistan relations were already strained over several issues like the continued US drone attacks on militants on Pakistan's side of the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, scepticism in the US about aid to Pakistan and L'affaire Raymond Davis.
While details about the operation are not clear, the raid shows either Pakistan's complicity in hiding Osama bin Laden or its utter incompetence in dealing with the threat of terror. Neither of these scenarios shows Pakistan in good light. US-Pakistan relations are in for a phase of turbulence, with charges being traded by both sides everyday. In a sign of deteriorating relations, the US has demanded that Pakistan name the ISI officers responsible for sheltering Osama. In return, Pakistan leaked the name of the CIA station officer in Islamabad. Interestingly, this is not the first time that Pakistan has done so; a Pakistani newspaper had named the CIA station chief after the Raymond Davis episode as a result of which the officer had to leave the country. However, the US has no option but to engage with Pakistan because of several reasons.
Pakistan is the US' most important ally in the war on terror. Osama bin Laden's death does not change this. In the short-term, the US has to engage with Pakistan as the supply routes to American troops serving in Afghanistan run through Pakistan. The US also needs Pakistan's help to facilitate a deal with the 'good' Taliban.
1 Operation Geronimo might hasten the drawback of American troops from Afghanistan; but even after the Americans withdraw, Pakistan's cooperation would be needed to ensure that Afghanistan remains stable and that it does not fall to radical regimes. America needs Pakistan's intelligence support in its operations against terrorists. Also, with the leadership of many terrorist outfits hiding in Pakistan, it would be difficult for the US to fight terrorism emanating from the region without Pakistan's support. The US needs Pakistan to crack down on Taliban fighters in Waziristan and along the Afpak border.
Second, the death of Osama bin Laden and the fact that he was able to hide so long in Pakistan shows that he had, like President Obama said, "some kind of support structure" in Pakistan. This proves, if any more proof was needed, the radicalisation of Pakistani society and the threat that this poses to Pakistan itself. An unstable Pakistan or a failed state is in no one's interest, particularly in the light of its nuclear arsenal. Therefore, the US has to continue engaging with Pakistan to ensure that radical elements do not get control of its nuclear weapons. For this, the US could seek the help of other countries which have a stake in regional stability.
Third, one needs to take note of the Sino-Pakistan relationship as well. Pakistan's importance to the major powers has been due to its geo-strategic location. The Chinese have an 'all-weather' alliance with the Pakistanis and are already giving large amounts of aid to them. China in its official reaction to the Osama raid has steered clear of condemning Pakistan and its statements in fact have been largely supportive of the Pakistan government. If the US disengages from Pakistan after its troop withdrawal from Afghanistan, the strategic space that it vacates in Pakistan might be taken over by the Chinese.
A related issue is the effect of Osama bin Laden's death in Pakistan on US aid policy towards Pakistan. Pakistan is the third largest recipient of US aid after Israel and Afghanistan. Since 9/11, the US has committed $20 billion in aid to Pakistan, most of it being security assistance. This has now come under question. Several Congressional leaders have questioned Pakistan's commitment to the war on terror and have called for reviewing US aid to Pakistan. Some have even called for an end to the US aid programme to Pakistan. The Republican Congressman Ted Poe introduced a bill last week "to prohibit any foreign aid from being sent to Pakistan until it can demonstrate that it had no knowledge of Osama bin Laden's whereabouts". The pressure on the Obama Administration to stop aid is therefore building up. However, the aid programme is likely to continue, with some cuts, more strings attached and better targeting mechanisms built into the aid conditions. The US could probably insist that the Pakistanis start their own de-radicalisation programmes and reform the education system. The US should in fact continue the aid programme so that Pakistan's economy does not get derailed and employment is provided to the many unemployed youth
2, who are the ones most easily attracted to the ideology of radical forces. The focus of US aid should shift to promoting the institutions of democracy, strengthening civil society, women's empowerment and aiding poverty reduction programmes.
Similarly, Pakistan needs US aid to prop up its economy and improve its military capabilities vis-à-vis India. It cannot afford to antagonise the US which has leverage over the IMF and other international financial institutions, which give loans to Pakistan. Thus, both countries have much to lose if the US disengages from Pakistan. Therefore, US-Pakistan relations are likely to overcome their present turbulence and continue being an alliance of convenience for both. Senator Lindsey Graham's recent statement after the death of Osama bin Laden, "Pakistan, you can't trust 'em and you can't abandon 'em," sums up the US dilemma in Pakistan in a nutshell.
Even in the long term, the US has no option but to remain engaged with Pakistan as Pakistan's economy is now dependent on US aid/external aid. Its economy, which is already in a mess, will if US aid is stopped. That could lead to even more radicalisation in the country. As many studies have shown, more than ideology, it is money which attracts many of the foot soldiers to organisations like the Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Aid to civil society, reform in education, thrust to women's education, etc must be the conditions. An unstable Pakistan or a failed state is in no one's interest, particularly in the light of the fact of its nuclear weapons programme. Therefore, instead of the US, other countries which have a stake in regional stability like India, Iran, Russia, China must step in with aid. Similarly, the EU could also step in. The IMF and the World Bank could also start infrastructure projects, which would inject money into the system and provide employment to this country in which unemployment is at percent.
1< class="text10verdana">President Obama's Afpak strategy talks of making deals with the moderate sections of the
Taliban.
2< class="text10verdana">Pakistan's unemployment rate is around 15% percent and there is massive
underemployment in the country.
The capture and killing of Osama bin Laden from a safe house in Pakistan raises several important questions about the future of US-Pakistan relations and the future of the US-led 'war on terror'. America's assertion that Pakistan was not informed of the raid (Operation Geronimo) on bin Laden's hideout in Abbottabad indicates the growing trust deficit between the two countries. Bin Laden's death came at a time when US-Pakistan relations were already strained over several issues like the continued US drone attacks on militants on Pakistan's side of the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, scepticism in the US about aid to Pakistan and L'affaire Raymond Davis.
While details about the operation are not clear, the raid shows either Pakistan's complicity in hiding Osama bin Laden or its utter incompetence in dealing with the threat of terror. Neither of these scenarios shows Pakistan in good light. US-Pakistan relations are in for a phase of turbulence, with charges being traded by both sides everyday. In a sign of deteriorating relations, the US has demanded that Pakistan name the ISI officers responsible for sheltering Osama. In return, Pakistan leaked the name of the CIA station officer in Islamabad. Interestingly, this is not the first time that Pakistan has done so; a Pakistani newspaper had named the CIA station chief after the Raymond Davis episode as a result of which the officer had to leave the country. However, the US has no option but to engage with Pakistan because of several reasons.
Pakistan is the US' most important ally in the war on terror. Osama bin Laden's death does not change this. In the short-term, the US has to engage with Pakistan as the supply routes to American troops serving in Afghanistan run through Pakistan. The US also needs Pakistan's help to facilitate a deal with the 'good' Taliban.
1 Operation Geronimo might hasten the drawback of American troops from Afghanistan; but even after the Americans withdraw, Pakistan's cooperation would be needed to ensure that Afghanistan remains stable and that it does not fall to radical regimes. America needs Pakistan's intelligence support in its operations against terrorists. Also, with the leadership of many terrorist outfits hiding in Pakistan, it would be difficult for the US to fight terrorism emanating from the region without Pakistan's support. The US needs Pakistan to crack down on Taliban fighters in Waziristan and along the Afpak border.
Second, the death of Osama bin Laden and the fact that he was able to hide so long in Pakistan shows that he had, like President Obama said, "some kind of support structure" in Pakistan. This proves, if any more proof was needed, the radicalisation of Pakistani society and the threat that this poses to Pakistan itself. An unstable Pakistan or a failed state is in no one's interest, particularly in the light of its nuclear arsenal. Therefore, the US has to continue engaging with Pakistan to ensure that radical elements do not get control of its nuclear weapons. For this, the US could seek the help of other countries which have a stake in regional stability.
Third, one needs to take note of the Sino-Pakistan relationship as well. Pakistan's importance to the major powers has been due to its geo-strategic location. The Chinese have an 'all-weather' alliance with the Pakistanis and are already giving large amounts of aid to them. China in its official reaction to the Osama raid has steered clear of condemning Pakistan and its statements in fact have been largely supportive of the Pakistan government. If the US disengages from Pakistan after its troop withdrawal from Afghanistan, the strategic space that it vacates in Pakistan might be taken over by the Chinese.
A related issue is the effect of Osama bin Laden's death in Pakistan on US aid policy towards Pakistan. Pakistan is the third largest recipient of US aid after Israel and Afghanistan. Since 9/11, the US has committed $20 billion in aid to Pakistan, most of it being security assistance. This has now come under question. Several Congressional leaders have questioned Pakistan's commitment to the war on terror and have called for reviewing US aid to Pakistan. Some have even called for an end to the US aid programme to Pakistan. The Republican Congressman Ted Poe introduced a bill last week "to prohibit any foreign aid from being sent to Pakistan until it can demonstrate that it had no knowledge of Osama bin Laden's whereabouts". The pressure on the Obama Administration to stop aid is therefore building up. However, the aid programme is likely to continue, with some cuts, more strings attached and better targeting mechanisms built into the aid conditions. The US could probably insist that the Pakistanis start their own de-radicalisation programmes and reform the education system. The US should in fact continue the aid programme so that Pakistan's economy does not get derailed and employment is provided to the many unemployed youth
2, who are the ones most easily attracted to the ideology of radical forces. The focus of US aid should shift to promoting the institutions of democracy, strengthening civil society, women's empowerment and aiding poverty reduction programmes.
Similarly, Pakistan needs US aid to prop up its economy and improve its military capabilities vis-à-vis India. It cannot afford to antagonise the US which has leverage over the IMF and other international financial institutions, which give loans to Pakistan. Thus, both countries have much to lose if the US disengages from Pakistan. Therefore, US-Pakistan relations are likely to overcome their present turbulence and continue being an alliance of convenience for both. Senator Lindsey Graham's recent statement after the death of Osama bin Laden, "Pakistan, you can't trust 'em and you can't abandon 'em," sums up the US dilemma in Pakistan in a nutshell.
Even in the long term, the US has no option but to remain engaged with Pakistan as Pakistan's economy is now dependent on US aid/external aid. Its economy, which is already in a mess, will if US aid is stopped. That could lead to even more radicalisation in the country. As many studies have shown, more than ideology, it is money which attracts many of the foot soldiers to organisations like the Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Aid to civil society, reform in education, thrust to women's education, etc must be the conditions. An unstable Pakistan or a failed state is in no one's interest, particularly in the light of the fact of its nuclear weapons programme. Therefore, instead of the US, other countries which have a stake in regional stability like India, Iran, Russia, China must step in with aid. Similarly, the EU could also step in. The IMF and the World Bank could also start infrastructure projects, which would inject money into the system and provide employment to this country in which unemployment is at percent.
1< class="text10verdana">President Obama's Afpak strategy talks of making deals with the moderate sections of the
Taliban.
2< class="text10verdana">Pakistan's unemployment rate is around 15% percent and there is massive
underemployment in the country.
The views expressed above belong to the author(s). ORF research and analyses now available on Telegram! Click here to access our curated content — blogs, longforms and interviews.
PREV
