The Global Think Tank - Click here to learn more...

Stop Enabling Pakistan's Dangerous Dysfunction

George Perkovich Policy Outlook, September 6, 2011 Comments
Pakistan As the United States begins to look to the end of its heavy fighting role in Afghanistan, it needs to confront the more important question of Pakistan’s future. The United States has been a major player there for sixty years; if Pakistan is dangerously dysfunctional, Washington helped enable it to get this way. Because withdrawal from Afghanistan means that the United States will be less dependent on Pakistani supply lines into that country, this is a rare opportunity to reconsider and dramatically revise American policies and practices in this strategically important country of almost 200 million.
 
The United States has frequently cited its interests in Pakistan: securing Pakistan’s growing nuclear arsenal; preventing war between it and India; counterterrorism; inducing Pakistan’s cooperation in stabilizing Afghanistan; and fostering development and democratization in what will soon be the world’s most populous Muslim-majority state. But overwhelmingly, these interests all boil down to one: the security of Pakistanis. If Pakistanis are more justly governed, more educated, more employed, and therefore more able to define and pursue a constructive national identity and interest, they will expunge terrorists to secure themselves. The United States will be better off as a result. Getting from here to there may be impossible, but it certainly will not happen if the United States continues to treat Pakistan as it has until now: as the means to pursue U.S. security interests outside the country.
 
For decades that posture has had the unintended but undeniable effect of empowering Pakistan’s grossly oversized and hyperactive military and intelligence services at the expense of the country’s civil society and progress toward effective governance. Washington’s collusion with the Pakistani security establishment has amounted to enablement—the indulgence and augmentation of a friend’s self-destructive outlook and actions. To stop doing harm, the United States would first have to give up the illusion that it can change the Pakistani military’s mindset, and stop offering money to do so. It would have to pause and then redesign a large aid program so hamstrung by anti-corruption and security measures that it antagonizes recipients and seems designed to fail. It would mean removing barriers to Pakistani imports into the United States, and, not least, undertaking determined efforts to correct the impression that Pakistani interests and lives mean less to the United States than Indian interests and lives.
 

Comments (5)

 
  • Omar 4:21 PM September 9, 2011
    Yes!
  • Tariq 3:07 PM September 11, 2011
    A very objective and candid analysis with correct focus on way forward. Hope US policy makers pay heed to such advices!!! Also worth following by Pakistani political leadership.
  • Azhar 1:23 PM September 26, 2011
    Spot on. The US owes this to the Pakistani nation and definitely its in US own interest as well. The sooner the two sides realize this the better it is.
  • Report Abuse
Resources available for this publication
Source: www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=45489
Featured Event
Friday, September 9, 2011 Washington, D.C.

U.S. Policy Toward Pakistan

U.S. Policy on Pakistan Ten years after the attacks on September 11, the United States and Pakistan have little to show for the strategic cooperation they proclaimed in the aftermath of the attacks.

Related Publications
 

Carnegie Resources

Quotes on Carnegie - Praise for the Global Think Tank
“[Carnegie is]…one of the centers of gravity of thinking about national security matters in our country.” – General Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
“Carnegie remains a first-rate source of policy analysis and practical guidance on all the major international issues and I rely on the advice and counsel of many Carnegie scholars.” – John McCain, U.S. Senator
“The Carnegie Endowment has been a training ground for many of the all-stars in the State Department….” – Madeleine Albright, Former Secretary of State
“I appreciate its work in the area of peace.” – Kofi Annan, Former Secretary-General of the United Nations
“I cannot think of a better alignment of communication, information, and getting people together.” – Eric Schmidt, Executive Chairman of Google
“The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace is the #3 think tank in the world.” University of Pennsylvania 2011 Global Think Tank Rankings
“[T]his great vision of becoming a global think tank [is] badly needed in an interconnected world.” – Nicholas Burns, Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs
“One of the most globally trusted talking-shops.” The Economist
“The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace is the #3 think tank in the United States.” University of Pennsylvania 2011 Global Think Tank Rankings
“It is truly a global think tank…completely and appropriately reflective of the nature of the challenges that we face today.” – John Kerry, U.S. Senator
“A force for global peace and security for 100 years.” – John Brennan, Homeland Security Advisor
“An excellent institution that does important work to help establish stronger international laws and organizations.” – His Royal Highness Prince Turki Al-Faisal
“The Carnegie Moscow Center is the top think tank in Central and Eastern Europe.” University of Pennsylvania 2011 Global Think Tank Rankings
“The Carnegie Endowment…has for a century been dedicated to understanding and preventing war and its myriad causes.” – Robert Gates, U.S. Secretary of Defense
“The Carnegie Endowment is known on both sides of the aisle with great deal of respect for your active international engagement….” – Michael Turner, U.S. Congressman
“[This event is]… a testament to the success that you’ve had in transforming Carnegie… into a truly global think tank.” – Leon Panetta, U.S. Secretary of Defense
“The Carnegie Middle East Center is the top think tank in the Middle East and North Africa.” University of Pennsylvania 2011 Global Think Tank Rankings

From Carnegie's Global Network

Lebanon Edges Closer to Syrian Crisis

Paul Salem
Thursday, May 17, 2012

As armed clashes last weekend show, north Lebanon is becoming a growing support base for the Syrian revolution. Sunni mobilization in support of the uprising in Syria is mounting and the Lebanese government is losing its ability to maintain its policy of neutrality.

Future Challenges for U.S.-China Relations

Michael D. Swaine, Yan Xuetong, Paul Haenle, John Pomfret, Yuan Peng
Tuesday, April 17, 2012

The U.S. pivot to the Asia-Pacific has created both tension and opportunity in its relations with China.

In Germany, Divide on Left Is Transparent

Judy Dempsey
Tuesday, May 15, 2012

The success of Germany's Pirates party is the result of its transparency and accountability. Sustaining that enthusiasm through national elections in 2013 will be a challenge, however.

What Should We Expect During Putin’s Third Term?

Mykola Siruk, Lilia Shevtsova
Tuesday, May 15, 2012

Putin has returned to the Kremlin, but he faces a significantly different Russia, because the country's situation has changed drastically. The previous Putin’s consensus between those in power and society has fallen apart.

Connect with Carnegie

Stay in the Know

Sign up for Carnegie announcements and publications—including Carnegie This Week—by filling out the form below. Note—fields marked with an asterisk (*) are required.

Personal Information
 
 
 
1779 Massachusetts Ave. NW Washington, DC 20036-2103 Phone: 202 483 7600 Fax: 202 483 1840