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

U.S. Policy Toward Pakistan

George Perkovich, Karen DeYoung Friday, September 9, 2011 – Washington, D.C.

 

The United States has been a major player in Pakistan for sixty years; if Pakistan is dangerously dysfunctional, Washington helped enable it to get this way. As withdrawal from Afghanistan means that the United States will be less dependent on Pakistani supply lines, Washington has a rare opportunity to reconsider and dramatically revise its existing policies and practices in a country of great strategic importance.

Carnegie’s George Perkovich discussed ways in which the United States could redesign its approach to Pakistan after decades of empowering the nation’s hyperactive military and intelligence services at the expense of effective governance. Karen DeYoung of the Washington Post moderated. 

Enabling Pakistan’s Dysfunction

  • Decades of collusion: Since the early 1950s, the United States has worked with the Pakistan Army and intelligence services to advance U.S. strategic interests. Following the 9/11 attacks in 2011, Washington funded and relied on Pakistan security forces to defeat the Taliban government and drive al-Qaeda out of Afghanistan. Perkovich argued that this collusion has amounted to empowering of the Pakistan military establishment, which has directly ruled the country for more than half of its existence, without changing its obsession with contesting India. This posture is also leading Pakistan to ruin and precluding its full cooperation with U.S. objectives in Afghanistan. 
     
  • The military’s external projection: The Pakistan Army and Inter-Services Intelligence’s (ISI) obsession with India has led to over-projection of power externally and under-projection of state resources and attention to deal with internal crises, Perkovich said.  
     
  • Grave internal problems: Pakistani citizens lack a singular national identity and the institutions of a progressive modern state. Perkovich argued that the Pakistan state, led by the army, has done too little to redress domestic injustices, economic failure, and poor governance. These problems would remain grave even if India did not exist and cannot be effectively redressed as long as the Army dominates the political economy.  

A Necessary Strategic Shift

  • Need for democratization: If Pakistanis are more justly governed, more educated, more employed, and more able to define and pursue a constructive national identity and interest, they will expunge terrorists to secure their own futures, Perkovich asserted. 
     
  • The struggle is theirs: There is little the United States can or should try to do to organize Pakistani progressives. Perkovich contended that the most important ways the United States can help the Pakistanis is to stop enabling the nation’s dysfunctional actors and to diminish the U.S. footprint in Pakistan and fingerprints on civilian assistance. 

Recommendations for U.S. Policymakers

  • Stop pushing Pakistan to fight America’s battles:  Perkovich argued that the United States should recognize the futility of demanding that the Pakistan army enter North Waziristan. If Washington stops pressing Islamabad to conduct military operations along the Afghan border, it can also withdraw the pledge of billions of dollars in military assistance to support operations in this theater. If Pakistanis do not welcome the mission, they do not need the funding for it, he added.
     
  • Stop blocking Pakistani imports:  Pakistani goods currently suffer from extremely high tariffs, making it difficult for Pakistan to compete with other low-income, textile-producing nations. Perkovich contended that the United States should lower tariffs on Pakistani textiles and apparel to help attract investment and spur economic growth. Most of the ensuing Pakistani imports into the United States would displace products from China and other Asian suppliers, rather than American producers.
     
  • Stop over-indulging India:  The United States needs to correct the impression that Pakistani interests and lives mean less than those of Indians, Perkovich said. When Indians are killed by terrorists linked to Pakistan, Washington rightly decries the loss of life and demands that Pakistan bring the perpetrators to justice. The United States must be similarly vocal when Pakistanis and Muslims are killed in Kashmir and other parts of India.
     
  • Reinvent U.S. aid to Pakistan: American aid to Pakistan is deeply unpopular in Islamabad for its heavy-handed requirements and in Washington for its seeming ineffectiveness. In order to better meet the needs of both sides, Perkovich suggested that the United States temporarily pause assistance to Pakistan in order to explore alternative models, such as establishing a resource bank – staffed by multi-national experts – to review and fund local development projects
 
Source: www.carnegieendowment.org/events/?fa=eventDetail&id=3360
Featured Publication
Policy Outlook, September 6, 2011

Stop Enabling Pakistan's Dangerous Dysfunction

Pakistan Because the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan means that Washington will be less dependent on Pakistani supply lines, it presents a rare opportunity to reconsider American policies and practices in Pakistan.

More Related Publications...
Related Events
 

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