A Friend in Need ...

How bad can a relationship between two military allies get? Pakistan and the U.S. keep us guessing.

In the wake of a NATO attack killing 25 Pakistani soldiers this weekend, Pakistan has indefinitely shut NATO supply lines through the country and said it was re-evaluating its military, intelligence and diplomatic links with the U.S. It also gave the U.S. two weeks to pull out of a Pakistani air base that Washington has used in the past to launch covert drone strikes on Taliban militants. Pakistan is also threatening to pull out of next week's Bonn conference on Afghanistan, at which key stakeholders will attempt to draw up a plan for transition from a US-led NATO command to an Afghan security force by December 2014.With Pakistan's co-operation considered key to an orderly and peaceful transition, the Afghan authorities urged Islamabad to reconsider.

With plans of a pull out starting as early as next year, this may not be the first strategic mistake the US had made in this war, but it could yet prove the costliest. The short-term response is not as troubling as the long-term implications. The closure of NATO supply lines will make Barack Obama more dependent on Vladimir Putin's goodwill, and the northern supply route through which 60% of troops and military cargo to Afghanistan now travel. But, of itself, the closures will be a temporary problem. Of greater significance is the erosion of Pakistani public support for the US fight against the Taliban. Images of the funerals of the young martyrs filled television screens across Pakistan on Sunday and protests against the attack were held throughout the country. “Imagine how we would feel if it had been 24 American soldiers killed by Pakistani forces at this moment,” Senator Richard J. Durbin, Democrat from Illinois, said on Fox News Sunday.

Hilary Clinton and Pentagon big shots responded with the usual regrets and worthless determinations to investigate, without admitting responsibility - all while Pakistan's own death toll from the "war on terror" rises, it struggles under an excess of American demands that are contrary to its own national interest, and as uninformed, people-pleasing US-senators and Republican presidential candidates continue to pick on this infinitely more important country.

The thought that destabilized, poor Pakistan has no choice but to slavishly obey what the master says could be one of the biggest misconceptions of this century. If bullied for long enough, it could learn to firmly and politely tell the US that it must, from henceforth, conduct its war on terror by itself and that while Pakistan is willing to be a friend, it is unwilling to destabilise and destroy its own stability for the neocon cause. Then, Pakistan has other friends to turn to: alternative alliances with China or Russia could lead to a completely different ball game.

Pakistani soldiers carry coffins of their comrades killed in a NATO air strike during a funeral ceremony in Peshawar
Photo: AFP PHOTO / A. MAJEED

Reminiscing Carter

As the sun set today on the sixth day of widespread protests in Egypt, the Obama administration continued to walk a difficult line on what is generally agreed to be its most challenging foreign policy test to date. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that the US wants to see an "orderly transition" to a "democratic, participatory government." This pretty much made clear that the US administration was not ready to demand or even suggest the overthrow of its longtime ally, President Hosni Mubarak. 


This is all too reminiscent of Tehran in 1978 - Jimmy Carter had found himself in the middle of a dilemma, too. He had to decide whether to remain loyal to the long-standing American-backed dictatorship or to dump the Shah and support the popular uprising demanding democracy and human rights. Carter tried to play smart and have it both ways - he modulated his support to the Shah, called for political liberalization, and warned the Shah against the use of state violence. Obama seems to be doing the same.


Just like the coalition of secular liberals and religiously inspired political activists that brought down the Shah, a consensus has emerged from the Egyptian streets that Mubarak must go. But after the Shah's fall came Ayatollah Khomeini and that is probably what the Obama administration fears: that after Mubarak an anti-Western, Islamist regime will come to power, most probably through the popular election of the Muslim Brotherhood. The Brotherhood is actually much more moderate than Khomeini's Shi'ite clerics. But if and when it comes to power, it will remind the Egyptian people that it was billions of American military aid dollars that kept Mubarak's 30-year regime afloat. 


From past experiences, Washington this time should make sure that it stays on the side of political reform and change and show that it is not aligned with the Arab status quo. America needs to display that its interest in the Middle East is not driven by its addiction to oil. Washington clearly needs to say that it will support any regime that will come to power through fair elections - even if that means supporting the Brotherhood.


Obama won many Muslim hearts with his speech in Cairo in June 2009. It is now time for him to show that those were more than just words.