home > by publication type > daily analysis > U.S.-Pakistan Alliance in Trouble
Email
| Author: |
|---|
Pakistani tribal villagers rally after an alleged U.S. missile attack near the Afghanistan border on May 15, 2008. (AP/Mohammad Sajjad)
Increased military action by U.S. forces in Afghanistan to target suspected terrorists in Pakistan's tribal areas is putting a strain on Washington's already tense relationship with Islamabad. A June 10 U.S. air strike (IHT) in which Pakistan's army says eleven of its soldiers died was followed, just weeks later, by NATO forces firing into Pakistan (LAT) after being struck by rockets launched from Pakistani territory. The U.S. and Afghan governments consistently blame militants ensconced in safe havens in Pakistan's tribal areas for violence in Afghanistan, even though the Pakistani government says it's doing all it can to prevent such attacks. But now, patience on both sides has frayed. Afghan President Hamid Karzai last week threatened to send troops (Guardian) inside Pakistan to hunt down the militants. On June 25, Afghan officials publicly accused Pakistan’s intelligence service of plotting to assassinate (NYT) Karzai in April, further escalating tensions between the countries. Pakistan called the allegations baseless (AFP).
U.S. and NATO officials have expressed concern about the Pakistani's strategy toward militants in the tribal areas. Specifically, they warn that ongoing peace talks between Pakistan's newly elected government and tribal leaders in the border region may be leading to increased violence in Afghanistan. NATO spokesman Mark Laity cautioned (Dawn) against the peace deals, saying that such accords have fueled the Afghan insurgency in the past. Amid the ongoing peace talks, militants executed a twenty-two-member peace committee of tribal elders (al-Jazeera). Even so, polls continue to show a majority in Pakistan favor talks with the militants over military action. For instance, a May poll by Terror Free Tomorrow (PDF), a group that includes Sen. John McCain and 9/11 Commission co-chairs Lee Hamilton and Thomas Kean on its advisory board, found that 58 percent of Pakistanis surveyed favored negotiations, while only 19 percent favored U.S. military action against al-Qaeda and the Taliban.
Meanwhile, serious political differences exist within Pakistan's ruling coalition on issues relating to constitutional amendments, proposals to impeach President Pervez Musharraf, and the reinstatement of judges deposed during a November 2007 state of emergency. Lisa Curtis, South Asia expert at the Heritage Foundation, believes the political maneuvering in Islamabad is distracting the Pakistani government from dealing with growing militancy in the tribal areas. Experts say the unclear power dynamic between the newly elected civilian leaders and the army, arguably the country's dominant institution, raises questions about the long-term viability of the partnership. A new report by RAND Corporation's Seth G. Jones goes further, charging that some individuals in the Pakistani government continue to support (PDF) militant groups inside Pakistan.
But experts caution against taking Pakistani political rhetoric, often aimed at a domestic audience, at face value. Newsweek's Michael Hirsh reports that Pakistan has been quietly discussing counterinsurgency plans in the tribal areas with Gen. David Petraeus, the next commander of U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), under which the Afghan conflict falls. At the same time, many worry that unilateral military action by the United States would be counterproductive. Ashley J. Tellis of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace writes in The Washington Quarterly that the Pakistan polity, army, and intelligence services "are still deeply suspicious of long-term U.S. intentions in the region" (PDF). Xenia Dormandy of Harvard's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs argues: "If America wants to succeed in the War on Terror, it needs the support of Pakistan. Refocusing the problem to address Pakistan’s needs is the only way of doing this."
Weigh in on this issue by emailing CFR.org.
Explore international efforts to curb nuclear proliferation with a new interactive from CFR's program on International Institutions and Global Governance.
To order Task Force reports, Council Special Reports, and Critical Policy Choices, please call, fax, or order online from our distributor, the Brookings Institution Press: phone +1.800.537.5487, fax +1.410.516.6998.
For information on other reports that are not for sale, or for general publications information, please call +1.212.434.9516 or email publications@cfr.org.
In War of Necessity, War of Choice, Richard N. Haass contrasts the decisions that shaped the conduct of two wars between the United States and Iraq involving the two presidents Bush and Saddam Hussein, and writes an authoritative, personal account of how U.S. foreign policy is made, what it should seek, and how it should be pursued.
In Cuba: What Everyone Needs to Know, Julia E. Sweig presents a remarkably accessible portrait of Cuba’s unique place on the world stage over the past fifty years, including its internal politics, its often fraught relationship with the United States, and its shifting relationship with the global community.
As Ray Takeyh shows in Guardians of the Revolution, behind the famous personalities and extremist slogans of Iran is a nation that is far more pragmatic—and complex—than many in the West have been led to believe.
Complete list of CFR Books
This report finds that nuclear weapons will remain a fundamental element of U.S. national security in the near term, and makes recommendations on how to ensure the safety, security, and reliability of the U.S. deterrent nuclear force, prevent nuclear terrorism, and strengthen the nuclear nonproliferation regime.
About Independent Task Forces at CFR
Complete list of Task Force reports
The Canadian oil sands present an important challenge to policymakers: they promise energy security benefits but present climate change problems. Michael A. Levi assesses the energy security and climate change effects of the oil sands and makes recommendations for U.S. policymakers within the context of broader bilateral relations with Canada.
This report explores an important element of the maritime policy regime: the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Author Scott G. Borgerson examines the international negotiations that led to the convention, the history of debates in the United States over whether to join it, and the strategic importance of the oceans for U.S. foreign policy today.
Complete list of Council Special Reports
To request permission to reprint or reuse CFR material, please fill out this permissions request form (PDF), referring to the instructions on page 1.
Copyright 2009 by the Council on Foreign Relations. All Rights Reserved.