What's new

Will the US’ ‘Carrot & Stick’ policy to Pakistan work?

Banglar Bir

SENIOR MEMBER
Mar 19, 2006
7,805
-3
3,879
Country
United States
Location
United States
Will the US’ ‘Carrot & Stick’ policy to Pakistan work?
Salman Rafi, July 23, 2017
usarmypak.jpg
If we were to describe the nature of Pak-US relations in one phrase, uncertainty and trust deficit would undoubtedly feature in it. Clouds of uncertainty have become even more obvious ever since the beginning of Trump era. Amid the on-going talks in Washington about designing a new strategy for Afghanistan and the region, a lot of emphasis has been put on re-defining the US’ approach to Pakistan. Undoubtedly, the expressed intention seems to be to put more pressure on Pakistan to ‘do more’ in counter terrorism efforts.

It has been made particularly clear in the US State Department’s annual “Country Report on Terrorism 2016.” The central idea of the report is that Pakistan has ‘failed’ to take adequate action against the Pakistan-based terrorist “safe heavens.”

While the report does realize that Pakistan “remained an important counterterrorism partner in 2016”, it goes on to claim that a significant number of terrorist groups are located inside the country but the target of their attacks wasn’t Pakistan.

This, the report implies, is part of Pakistan’s policy of selectively targeting anti-state elements. For example, the report mentions while Pakistan supports “political reconciliation” between the Afghan government and the Afghan Taliban, Pakistan “failed to take significant action to constrain the ability of the Afghan Taliban and HQN to operate from Pakistan-based safe havens and threaten U.S. and Afghan forces in Afghanistan.”

A detailed examination of the report makes it clear that the US-Pak bi-lateral co-operation has progressively decreased with the US State Department having to “conduct certain programs in third countries due to the (Pakistan) government’s non-issuance of visas for trainers.”

The report is an explicit show of how the US views Pakistan’s anti-terror operations and its regional interests. Although it doesn’t specifically explain what policy Pakistan is following in the region, it does make it implicitly clear that both Pakistan and the US are not on the same page as far as the question of Afghanistan reconciliation is concerned.

The views expressed in the State Department report also seem to be echoing in the White House, where the newly appointed director for South and Central Asia, Lisa Curtis, is particularly known as an advocate of a hard stance towards Pakistan.

Prior to this appointment, Lisa had co-authored a report with Pakistan’s former ambassador to the US, Hussain Haqqani, in which they ‘advised’ the US government to warn Pakistan that its major non-NATO ally status could be revoked in six months.

“Thinking of Pakistan as an ally will continue to create problems for the next administration as it did for the last one,” said the February report, published by the Hudson Institute.

The report, “A New U.S. Approach to Pakistan: Enforcing Aid Conditions without Cutting Ties”thus seem to advocate a policy of ‘carrot and stick’ to mould Pakistan into a reliable ally, one element of which is to “enforce counter-terrorism conditions on U.S. military aid and reimbursements to Pakistan.”

The report also advanced the option of taking unilateral action against the Pakistan-based terror groups. Unsurprisingly, the US has already resumed drone attacks in Pakistan with first drone strike taking place as early as March 2017.

Even within the US defence establishment, Pakistan hardly seems to figure in as a reliable partner. In a separate report submitted to the US Congress by the Pentagon, Pakistan was blatantly accused of supporting Afghanistan-focused militant groups, including the Taliban and the Haqqani Network, who it said retained “freedom of action” within Pakistan. It called Pakistan “the most influential external actor affecting Afghan stability”, further claiming that “the trust deficit resulting from Pakistan’s support of and inaction against Afghan-oriented extremists hampers the bilateral military collaboration required to achieve enduring security.”

It is obvious that within the new US policy for Afghanistan, Pakistan has been cast as a villain, requiring to be dealt with strong measures. But such measures could equally prove counterproductive for the US because it might propel Pakistan further into the China-Russia regional camp.

Already Pakistan has become a full member of SCO, which means that Pakistan’s Afghan policy is likely to synchronise well with that of Russia and China. It is an open secret that both Russia and China don’t see the Afghan Taliban as a threat, and that both of them have been advocating a negotiated end of the Afghan war.

Will then alienating Pakistan suit the US or will it further jeopardize the US position in Afghanistan and the region?

A recent visit of a Congress delegation reached a markedly different conclusion with regard to the importance of the US-Pakistan relationship than the ones reached in the above mentioned reports. According to John McCain, who was leading this delegation, “we will not have peace in the region without Pakistan.”

Notwithstanding the delegation’s view, the small delegation also strongly reflects the small support base Pakistan has in Washington, and this base that will continue to shrink if Pakistan does not do enough on the diplomatic front.

The various reports quoted above make it explicitly clear that the US government, think tanks, and defence establishment has succumbed to a typical anti-Pakistan narrative emanating from Pakistan’s rival neighbouring countries.

While it seems to be a debateable question if Pakistan needs to ‘do more’ on the anti-terror front or not, what is clear here is that Pakistan does need to do a lot more on the clash of narratives to buttress its place in the global anti-terror coalition.

Certainly, Pakistan wants to be seen not as a sponsor of terrorism but a victim of terrorism. Indian projections in this behalf seem to have outweighed those of Pakistan. To change this, Pakistan must not fall for a typical narrative on Afghanistan that presents the Afghan problem as the one existing between the US/the Afghan Government and the Taliban only.

There is a lot more to Afghanistan. And, one crucial element that has been obstructing Afghanistan’s rise ever since the toppling of the Taliban regime is the inability and the stark failure of the US-backed Afghan government(s) to deliver. Afghanistan is a house bitterly divided against itself, and it is something that is not the doing of either of Pakistan or the Taliban.

If the various Afghan regimes have failed to deliver, it is only because the US has failed to cultivate a genuine democracy in the country. It is about time that the US realizes that as long as Afghanistan remains under the its direct and indirect occupation, the problem will not end.

[Salman Rafi Sheikh is an independent journalist based in Pakistan. His areas of interest include politics of terrorism, global war on terror, ethno-national conflicts, foreign policies of major powers, application and consequences.]
http://southasianmonitor.com/2017/07/23/will-us-carrot-stick-policy-pakistan-work/
 
Will the US’ ‘Carrot & Stick’ policy to Pakistan work?
Salman Rafi, July 23, 2017
usarmypak.jpg
If we were to describe the nature of Pak-US relations in one phrase, uncertainty and trust deficit would undoubtedly feature in it. Clouds of uncertainty have become even more obvious ever since the beginning of Trump era. Amid the on-going talks in Washington about designing a new strategy for Afghanistan and the region, a lot of emphasis has been put on re-defining the US’ approach to Pakistan. Undoubtedly, the expressed intention seems to be to put more pressure on Pakistan to ‘do more’ in counter terrorism efforts.

It has been made particularly clear in the US State Department’s annual “Country Report on Terrorism 2016.” The central idea of the report is that Pakistan has ‘failed’ to take adequate action against the Pakistan-based terrorist “safe heavens.”

While the report does realize that Pakistan “remained an important counterterrorism partner in 2016”, it goes on to claim that a significant number of terrorist groups are located inside the country but the target of their attacks wasn’t Pakistan.

This, the report implies, is part of Pakistan’s policy of selectively targeting anti-state elements. For example, the report mentions while Pakistan supports “political reconciliation” between the Afghan government and the Afghan Taliban, Pakistan “failed to take significant action to constrain the ability of the Afghan Taliban and HQN to operate from Pakistan-based safe havens and threaten U.S. and Afghan forces in Afghanistan.”

A detailed examination of the report makes it clear that the US-Pak bi-lateral co-operation has progressively decreased with the US State Department having to “conduct certain programs in third countries due to the (Pakistan) government’s non-issuance of visas for trainers.”

The report is an explicit show of how the US views Pakistan’s anti-terror operations and its regional interests. Although it doesn’t specifically explain what policy Pakistan is following in the region, it does make it implicitly clear that both Pakistan and the US are not on the same page as far as the question of Afghanistan reconciliation is concerned.

The views expressed in the State Department report also seem to be echoing in the White House, where the newly appointed director for South and Central Asia, Lisa Curtis, is particularly known as an advocate of a hard stance towards Pakistan.

Prior to this appointment, Lisa had co-authored a report with Pakistan’s former ambassador to the US, Hussain Haqqani, in which they ‘advised’ the US government to warn Pakistan that its major non-NATO ally status could be revoked in six months.

“Thinking of Pakistan as an ally will continue to create problems for the next administration as it did for the last one,” said the February report, published by the Hudson Institute.

The report, “A New U.S. Approach to Pakistan: Enforcing Aid Conditions without Cutting Ties”thus seem to advocate a policy of ‘carrot and stick’ to mould Pakistan into a reliable ally, one element of which is to “enforce counter-terrorism conditions on U.S. military aid and reimbursements to Pakistan.”

The report also advanced the option of taking unilateral action against the Pakistan-based terror groups. Unsurprisingly, the US has already resumed drone attacks in Pakistan with first drone strike taking place as early as March 2017.

Even within the US defence establishment, Pakistan hardly seems to figure in as a reliable partner. In a separate report submitted to the US Congress by the Pentagon, Pakistan was blatantly accused of supporting Afghanistan-focused militant groups, including the Taliban and the Haqqani Network, who it said retained “freedom of action” within Pakistan. It called Pakistan “the most influential external actor affecting Afghan stability”, further claiming that “the trust deficit resulting from Pakistan’s support of and inaction against Afghan-oriented extremists hampers the bilateral military collaboration required to achieve enduring security.”

It is obvious that within the new US policy for Afghanistan, Pakistan has been cast as a villain, requiring to be dealt with strong measures. But such measures could equally prove counterproductive for the US because it might propel Pakistan further into the China-Russia regional camp.

Already Pakistan has become a full member of SCO, which means that Pakistan’s Afghan policy is likely to synchronise well with that of Russia and China. It is an open secret that both Russia and China don’t see the Afghan Taliban as a threat, and that both of them have been advocating a negotiated end of the Afghan war.

Will then alienating Pakistan suit the US or will it further jeopardize the US position in Afghanistan and the region?

A recent visit of a Congress delegation reached a markedly different conclusion with regard to the importance of the US-Pakistan relationship than the ones reached in the above mentioned reports. According to John McCain, who was leading this delegation, “we will not have peace in the region without Pakistan.”

Notwithstanding the delegation’s view, the small delegation also strongly reflects the small support base Pakistan has in Washington, and this base that will continue to shrink if Pakistan does not do enough on the diplomatic front.

The various reports quoted above make it explicitly clear that the US government, think tanks, and defence establishment has succumbed to a typical anti-Pakistan narrative emanating from Pakistan’s rival neighbouring countries.

While it seems to be a debateable question if Pakistan needs to ‘do more’ on the anti-terror front or not, what is clear here is that Pakistan does need to do a lot more on the clash of narratives to buttress its place in the global anti-terror coalition.

Certainly, Pakistan wants to be seen not as a sponsor of terrorism but a victim of terrorism. Indian projections in this behalf seem to have outweighed those of Pakistan. To change this, Pakistan must not fall for a typical narrative on Afghanistan that presents the Afghan problem as the one existing between the US/the Afghan Government and the Taliban only.

There is a lot more to Afghanistan. And, one crucial element that has been obstructing Afghanistan’s rise ever since the toppling of the Taliban regime is the inability and the stark failure of the US-backed Afghan government(s) to deliver. Afghanistan is a house bitterly divided against itself, and it is something that is not the doing of either of Pakistan or the Taliban.

If the various Afghan regimes have failed to deliver, it is only because the US has failed to cultivate a genuine democracy in the country. It is about time that the US realizes that as long as Afghanistan remains under the its direct and indirect occupation, the problem will not end.

[Salman Rafi Sheikh is an independent journalist based in Pakistan. His areas of interest include politics of terrorism, global war on terror, ethno-national conflicts, foreign policies of major powers, application and consequences.]
http://southasianmonitor.com/2017/07/23/will-us-carrot-stick-policy-pakistan-work/

I do not see the problem. Enough Pakistanis are in the Chinese camp.
 
Pakistan is in Chinese camp...so I guess Pakistan will not miss US and its aid much, as Pakistan is getting huge money in the form of CPEC from China.

Carrot and Stick policy is over.In the very near future it will be only a big stick from Amreekis

I don't know if US enjoys as much influence on Pakistan as it was...seeing the US Pakistan relations, I can say there won't be much US influence in next five years in Pakistan.
 
A detailed examination of the report makes it clear that the US-Pak bi-lateral co-operation has progressively decreased with the US State Department having to “conduct certain programs in third countries due to the (Pakistan) government’s non-issuance of visas for trainers.”

LOL you start wondering why these Americans are so desperate to get into Pakistan to train and interact with our forces...

On a different note, the Americans have only themselves to blame. They chose to enrich India and isolate Pakistan. The Americans chose to play the blame game in the hope Pakistan would succumb to pressure. It all backfired once China and Russia nullified US warmongering in Afghanistan.

LOL at the old carrot and stick approach. Not a single American approach will work. Pakistan has already switched camps. America should think about using Indian supply routes to Afghanistan... :-) Stop making use of Pakistani supply routes because your narrative has big holes. You blame Pakistan for all the ills in the world yet you keep using our roads, ports and air space to feed your soldiers in Afghanistan. That is hypocritical and double faced. Put your money where your mouth is.

If the Americans think they can withhold reimbursement and impress Pakistan they are sorely mistaken. The more these Americans agitate Pakistan the better. It has done a whole lot of good for Pakistan. From CPEC to SCO and defeating Afghan/Indian sponsored terror in Pakistan. The progress is enormous.
 
Last edited:
Will the US’ ‘Carrot & Stick’ policy to Pakistan work?
Salman Rafi, July 23, 2017
usarmypak.jpg
If we were to describe the nature of Pak-US relations in one phrase, uncertainty and trust deficit would undoubtedly feature in it. Clouds of uncertainty have become even more obvious ever since the beginning of Trump era. Amid the on-going talks in Washington about designing a new strategy for Afghanistan and the region, a lot of emphasis has been put on re-defining the US’ approach to Pakistan. Undoubtedly, the expressed intention seems to be to put more pressure on Pakistan to ‘do more’ in counter terrorism efforts.

It has been made particularly clear in the US State Department’s annual “Country Report on Terrorism 2016.” The central idea of the report is that Pakistan has ‘failed’ to take adequate action against the Pakistan-based terrorist “safe heavens.”

While the report does realize that Pakistan “remained an important counterterrorism partner in 2016”, it goes on to claim that a significant number of terrorist groups are located inside the country but the target of their attacks wasn’t Pakistan.

This, the report implies, is part of Pakistan’s policy of selectively targeting anti-state elements. For example, the report mentions while Pakistan supports “political reconciliation” between the Afghan government and the Afghan Taliban, Pakistan “failed to take significant action to constrain the ability of the Afghan Taliban and HQN to operate from Pakistan-based safe havens and threaten U.S. and Afghan forces in Afghanistan.”

A detailed examination of the report makes it clear that the US-Pak bi-lateral co-operation has progressively decreased with the US State Department having to “conduct certain programs in third countries due to the (Pakistan) government’s non-issuance of visas for trainers.”

The report is an explicit show of how the US views Pakistan’s anti-terror operations and its regional interests. Although it doesn’t specifically explain what policy Pakistan is following in the region, it does make it implicitly clear that both Pakistan and the US are not on the same page as far as the question of Afghanistan reconciliation is concerned.

The views expressed in the State Department report also seem to be echoing in the White House, where the newly appointed director for South and Central Asia, Lisa Curtis, is particularly known as an advocate of a hard stance towards Pakistan.

Prior to this appointment, Lisa had co-authored a report with Pakistan’s former ambassador to the US, Hussain Haqqani, in which they ‘advised’ the US government to warn Pakistan that its major non-NATO ally status could be revoked in six months.

“Thinking of Pakistan as an ally will continue to create problems for the next administration as it did for the last one,” said the February report, published by the Hudson Institute.

The report, “A New U.S. Approach to Pakistan: Enforcing Aid Conditions without Cutting Ties”thus seem to advocate a policy of ‘carrot and stick’ to mould Pakistan into a reliable ally, one element of which is to “enforce counter-terrorism conditions on U.S. military aid and reimbursements to Pakistan.”

The report also advanced the option of taking unilateral action against the Pakistan-based terror groups. Unsurprisingly, the US has already resumed drone attacks in Pakistan with first drone strike taking place as early as March 2017.

Even within the US defence establishment, Pakistan hardly seems to figure in as a reliable partner. In a separate report submitted to the US Congress by the Pentagon, Pakistan was blatantly accused of supporting Afghanistan-focused militant groups, including the Taliban and the Haqqani Network, who it said retained “freedom of action” within Pakistan. It called Pakistan “the most influential external actor affecting Afghan stability”, further claiming that “the trust deficit resulting from Pakistan’s support of and inaction against Afghan-oriented extremists hampers the bilateral military collaboration required to achieve enduring security.”

It is obvious that within the new US policy for Afghanistan, Pakistan has been cast as a villain, requiring to be dealt with strong measures. But such measures could equally prove counterproductive for the US because it might propel Pakistan further into the China-Russia regional camp.

Already Pakistan has become a full member of SCO, which means that Pakistan’s Afghan policy is likely to synchronise well with that of Russia and China. It is an open secret that both Russia and China don’t see the Afghan Taliban as a threat, and that both of them have been advocating a negotiated end of the Afghan war.

Will then alienating Pakistan suit the US or will it further jeopardize the US position in Afghanistan and the region?

A recent visit of a Congress delegation reached a markedly different conclusion with regard to the importance of the US-Pakistan relationship than the ones reached in the above mentioned reports. According to John McCain, who was leading this delegation, “we will not have peace in the region without Pakistan.”

Notwithstanding the delegation’s view, the small delegation also strongly reflects the small support base Pakistan has in Washington, and this base that will continue to shrink if Pakistan does not do enough on the diplomatic front.

The various reports quoted above make it explicitly clear that the US government, think tanks, and defence establishment has succumbed to a typical anti-Pakistan narrative emanating from Pakistan’s rival neighbouring countries.

While it seems to be a debateable question if Pakistan needs to ‘do more’ on the anti-terror front or not, what is clear here is that Pakistan does need to do a lot more on the clash of narratives to buttress its place in the global anti-terror coalition.

Certainly, Pakistan wants to be seen not as a sponsor of terrorism but a victim of terrorism. Indian projections in this behalf seem to have outweighed those of Pakistan. To change this, Pakistan must not fall for a typical narrative on Afghanistan that presents the Afghan problem as the one existing between the US/the Afghan Government and the Taliban only.

There is a lot more to Afghanistan. And, one crucial element that has been obstructing Afghanistan’s rise ever since the toppling of the Taliban regime is the inability and the stark failure of the US-backed Afghan government(s) to deliver. Afghanistan is a house bitterly divided against itself, and it is something that is not the doing of either of Pakistan or the Taliban.

If the various Afghan regimes have failed to deliver, it is only because the US has failed to cultivate a genuine democracy in the country. It is about time that the US realizes that as long as Afghanistan remains under the its direct and indirect occupation, the problem will not end.

[Salman Rafi Sheikh is an independent journalist based in Pakistan. His areas of interest include politics of terrorism, global war on terror, ethno-national conflicts, foreign policies of major powers, application and consequences.]
http://southasianmonitor.com/2017/07/23/will-us-carrot-stick-policy-pakistan-work/
Well there was a time when Pakistan was totally dependent on US defence and economic assistance , that time carrot and stick used to work. But, now situation is very much change, due to Chinese factor and US itself economic conditions.
Also , Afghanistan is tribal society and Pakistan has its reservation due to Indian influence and cultivating hatred against Pakistan. Its complicated and not easy to resolve. We wish Afghan live in peace and get rid from all state and non state actors and those who are using its land for there personal gain.
 
I do not see the problem. Enough Pakistanis are in the Chinese camp.
even today most of the politicians and Generals prefer to be friend with Americans instead of chinese.. so its not about camps.. and nobody in policymakers wants deteriorated relation with USA..


Relation between USA-PAK started to deteriorate, when USA bring India into Afghanistan and when they(USA) were provided proofs of indian involvement in creating chaos in Pakistan via Afghanistan, they either reject proofs or turned blind eye on indian activities in Afghanistan..

And one of the Biggest treachery American did During the start of Operation Zarb-e-Azb is that they were said to deploy more combat forces on Pak-Afghn border to eliminate terrorists by attacking them on both sides, but instead of deploying more troops they vacant almost whole border to let in terrorists in afghanistan safely..


as for action against Haqqani Network. i would like to quote former ISI chief Assad Durrani's remarks.

"Pakistan does not have capacity to handle more enemies in the volatile region"
 
even today most of the politicians and Generals prefer to be friend with Americans instead of chinese.. so its not about camps.. and nobody in policymakers wants deteriorated relation with USA..

Relation between USA-PAK started to deteriorate, when USA bring India into Afghanistan and when they(USA) were provided proofs of indian involvement in creating chaos in Pakistan via Afghanistan, they either reject proofs or turned blind eye on indian activities in Afghanistan..

And one of the Biggest treachery American did During the start of Operation Zarb-e-Azb is that they were said to deploy more combat forces on Pak-Afghn border to eliminate terrorists by attacking them on both sides, but instead of deploying more troops they vacant almost whole border to let in terrorists in afghanistan safely..


as for action against Haqqani Network. i would like to quote former ISI chief Assad Durrani's remarks.

"Pakistan does not have capacity to handle more enemies in the volatile region"

Pakistan might have to strike a deal over Afghanistan.

The ability of your government to shoot themselves in the foot is beyond parallel. The only things that saves them is the relative incompetence of governments in the whole region
 
Also , Afghanistan is tribal society and Pakistan has its reservation due to Indian influence and cultivating hatred against Pakistan. Its complicated and not easy to resolve. We wish Afghan live in peace and get rid from all state and non state actors and those who are using its land for there personal gain.

Good point. Pakistan shares same culture and ancestry with Afghans. Indians don't, they deceive Afghans by spreading hate and ignorance in the name of "development". Indians really care about Pashtun majority Afghan? Hell no, Indian have deep seeded hatred for Pashtun since they've history of conquering and ruling Delhi for years.

Afghans need to start thinking for themselves
 
I see this as a failure of Pakistan to sell its accomplishments in War on Terror to Washington and Kabul. Pakistan needs to revamp its foreign policy structure.

US can choose to use sticks on Pakistan but it is not going to win any hearts-and-minds within Pakistan with a hard-line stance. Sooner or later, COAS will have to explain to the public what went wrong and what course to take.

It is slowly becoming apparent that existing policy is not going to work.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)


Back
Top Bottom