Pakistan Options

Owen Bennett-Jones for the Stanley Foundation has a new paper out on Pakistan, "US Policy Options Toward Pakistan: A Principled and Realistic Approach"

The United States is providing massive quantities of aid to Pakistan—as much as $20 billion since 9/11. This has enabled Pakistan to go through a period of lavish military spending, but there have nonetheless been serious reverses both in the military battle against the radical Islamists and in the transition to democracy. It is tempting for US policymakers to react to these developments by switching support from the army to civilian politicians. The United States, however, should not forget that whatever form of government exists in Pakistan, the army, for good or ill, will continue to be a major force in Pakistani society for many years to come. Given the widespread agreement that the war on terror is going to last at least 20 years, the United States should think about longer-term policies. With that perspective in mind, the goal of persuading Pakistanis to turn their backs on radical Islam, alongside democracy promotion, can best be achieved by spending the bulk of the US aid on education and promotion of the rule of law.

This seems reasonable enough. But as I've observed in other contexts, the big problem with focusing efforts on promoting the rule of law is that our toolkit on this subject is really crappy. If the developed countries had rule of law promoting methods at our disposal, the world would be a much better place since Pakistan is hardly the only country that could use the rule of law most of all. Thomas Carothers made some key points about this in a 1998 Foreign Affairs article on "The Rule of Law Revival" and he has a book called Promoting the Rule of Law Abroad: In Search of Knowledge.

Which isn't to say that a focus on the rule of law is the wrong idea, but merely that one should be cautious about one's prospects for success here rather than simply assuming a can opener. For better or for worse, we can't control Pakistan's destiny.

Comments

What is meant by the "rule of law". Pakistan has a parliament, a judiciarly, legislation on all subjects from charities to ports.

Do they mean a better, speedier judiciary system& A superiod document management system? A stronger anti-corruption police force? (E.g Ehtesab commmission) .

Is "Rule of law" the latest mumbo-jumbo? What specific measures does it include?

Posted by Ikram | February 21, 2008 2:56 PM

Consistent rule of law is at issue. It's not consistent if the Army cans the Supreme Court or vacates Parliament whenever it doesn't like the direction the civilians are going.

Posted by cmholm | February 21, 2008 3:49 PM

"Rule of law" is called "handwaving" in any other context.

The quoted piece is correct that until the Pakistani corrupt military system is revised Pakistan is going to have a hard time being democratic, have a hard time resisting the Islamic militarization of the population, and in general not be worth much in the so-called "War on Terror".

The notion that the "War on Terror" is going to "last longer than 20 years" is basically nonsensical as well. The US could remove itself as a target for terrorists in a day by simply changing its foreign policies - and then committing to those changes visibly and publicly by its actions.

Pointless to suggest it, however, since it's not going to happen as the oil companies, the military-industrial complex, and the Israel Lobby are running this country.

People concerned about the Pakistani military need to look closer to home, since OUR military and its corporate brethren are running THIS country.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | February 21, 2008 3:53 PM

Well, I slogged my way through the paper and I now understand the meaning of the phrase "the stupid, it hurts".

Two examples:

"One bomb dropped from a drone in the tribal areas can undermine millions of dollars worth of pro-American attitudes purchased by civilian aid programs."

Note the word "purchased". You can't just "purchase" people like that, with any good effect. This is more properly called a bribe. And even if you can bribe, people won't stay bribed.

"Finally, most Pakistanis do not support the US war on terror because they do not think the threat posed by Islamic extremism is all that grave. In terms of their own lives it is a perfectly reasonable conclusion: even though there are frequent Islamist attacks in Pakistan, most Pakistanis are much more likely to suffer a premature death as a result of poverty or nonexistent medical services as they are from an Islamist attack."

Well, of course. This is true in the United States, as well. You are far more likely to die by accidents or medical conditions in America than from terrorism. In fact there are more than 15,000 murders each year in America - five 9/11:s. That's more than 30 9/11:s in criminal murders in America since 9/11, but the propaganda has been very effective at making the American population scared of terrorists. The American people being easily led who believe their own media like a baby believes its Momma doesn't help.

All in all the policy is a sorry mess of meddling and bribery.

The paper also seems to reveal no curiosity for how people react in Pakistan to foreign meddling - financial or otherwise. It illustrates the danger of reasoning without curiosity.

Posted by Bengt Larsson | February 21, 2008 5:30 PM

Also, where does a country whose president routinely issues signing statements declaring himself exempt from legislation get off talking to anybody else about the rule of law?

Posted by Michael Bloom | February 22, 2008 8:52 AM

Leaving aside the relative merits of the US and Pakistani legal systems, how exactly are we supposed to "invest" in "the promotion of the rule of law" in Pakistan?

And how are we going to work out the "aid to education" particulars with our Saudi allies who have already staked out significant turf in this area?

We might be better off giving out more visas for Pakistani military and cultural exchanges, including for immigration, and recruiting intelligence agents from among them. And putting pressure on whatever government is in Islamabad by moving closer to India.

Posted by Robert Powell | February 22, 2008 1:25 PM

hmm , enjoy

Posted by nasrettin hoca | February 23, 2008 2:28 PM