Low expectations

Pakistan has greeted the new White House incumbent with neither joy nor anger but fear, writes Graham Usher in Islamabad

---

In an interview with The Washington Post on 16 November Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari was asked about the new American presidency of Barack Obama. "We think we need a new dialogue," he said. "And we're hoping that the new government will understand that Pakistan has done more [in the 'war on terror'] than they recognise."

Zardari was then asked about CIA-controlled missiles from Afghanistan that are currently strafing Pakistani territory -- and killing Pakistanis -- at a rate of one strike every four days. "We have no prior notice of them," he said. He was opposed to them. The US "point of view" is that the attacks "are good for everybody", because they occasionally take out Al-Qaeda suspects. "Our point of view is that [they] are not good for winning the hearts and minds of the people."

The president's protestation would have been more convincing had the interview not led with the scoop that he had agreed to the US attacks last September. Strong-armed by the Bush administration, he did so with the prayer that there would be no more US ground incursions into Pakistan's tribal areas on the Afghan border. An assault there by US Special Forces on 3 September killed 20 tribesmen and caused outrage across Pakistan, including within the army.

Bush reportedly gave Zardari no such assurance: it would depend on Pakistan's tolerance of the cross-border air strikes and the severity of Pakistan army actions against Al-Qaeda and Taliban "havens" in the tribal areas, he was told.

Zardari had a tough baptism with Bush. But Pakistani attitudes to Washington's first African-American president expressed neither joy nor hatred but fear. Spiked by Obama's threats during the presidential campaign to invade Pakistan "if we have Osama bin Laden in our sights and the Pakistan government is unable or unwilling to take him out," polls showed that 64 per cent of Pakistanis viewed America -- rather than the Taliban or Al-Qaeda ----as the "greatest single threat" to their nation. Obama's victory has not assuaged them.

"The common man in Pakistan is frightened of America," says Mohamed Younis, a college lecturer in Islamabad. "What does it want from us? Why is it bombing the tribal areas? Do the Americans want to 'civilise' us? And, if they do, why is there no money for development?"

The sentiment is shared by Raha, a 20-year-old psychology student. She wants to finish her studies in the US but "I'm frightened I might be put on trial for being a Pakistani." As for Obama, "he wears his prejudices lightly -- he has made some very hard statements against Pakistan."

America matters to Pakistan. Since 9/11, Washington has dictated Pakistan's foreign policy not just in Afghanistan but also towards India. During the past seven years it has paid the army at least $10 billion, making Pakistan the largest recipient of US military aid after Israel and Egypt. The American economy is the main destination for Pakistani exports and the main source of remittances.

And, for the last 18 months, Washington has micromanaged Pakistan's tortuous transition to a more civilian kind of government, shifting allegiance from the "dictator" Perez Musharraf to the "democrat" Zardari. As Washington goes, so goes Islamabad.

But which way will Obama go? Will his watch mark change or continuity with Bush? The consensus in Pakistan is that policy will be a variant of the latter but expressed in the language of the former.

For example, an Obama presidency will not stop the CIA missile strikes into Pakistan. Throughout his campaign, he was incandescent that Afghanistan remained "the central front in the war on terror" and that Al-Qaeda in Pakistan's tribal areas represented America's "single greatest national security threat". Under Obama's stewardship, "the US-led coalition is not going to abandon Afghanistan," predicts Talat Masoud, a retired general and analyst.

Obama has pledged to triple non-military aid to Pakistan to some $15 billion over the next 10 years. This will be welcomed by many in Pakistan, given the disproportionate amount of US aid that historically has gone to the army. But the idea that such largess will not come with a tag is imaginary.

In September Zardari assured all that, given the "strategic" importance of Pakistan's role in the "war on terror", America would help bale his country out of its worst economic crisis in a decade. In fact, America urged all allies to refrain from aiding Islamabad until and unless it accepted an economic remedy dictated by the IMF.

Last week the IMF agreed to loan Pakistan $7.6 billion to meet its balance of payments deficit. In return the government will cut public expenditure and raise taxes but leave the $4.3 billion defence budget untouched. This has long been the "Washington consensus" when it comes to economic reform in Pakistan. It is naïve to believe Obama would depart from it.

Finally there is Obama's endorsement of democracy. "We can't coddle, as we did, a dictator, give him billions of dollars and then he's making peace treaties with the Taliban and militants," he said prior to his election. "We're going to encourage democracy in Pakistan, expand our non-military aid to Pakistan so that they have more of a stake in working with us, but insisting that they go after these militants."

Couched in these terms, Obama's blessing is a curse for any Pakistani government. It strengthens the Islamists' charge that the US seeks democracy only as the vessel to promote its military agenda.

None of Pakistan's "strategic decisions" -- like submitting to the US missile strikes or accepting the IMF loan -- have been taken by the "sovereign" parliament. They have been taken by Washington or by unelected advisors in Abu Dhabi. Zardari has the same "dictatorial" powers enjoyed by Musharraf save for those he has willingly devolved to the army, the IMF and America. "Bush saw Zardari as an ally because his government had no policy focus, is mired in debt and represented the most pro- American force in a country steeped in anti-Americanism," says one analyst, who didn't want to be attributed.

Obama will like the Pakistan government for the same reasons. He will certainly not cultivate the democratic wishes of its people, 89 per cent of whom want no truck with America's "war on terror".