The Rediff Special

'Troubles abound, but for outsiders, the bottom line is that Pakistan is here to stay'

US Ambassador to Pakistan Thomas W Simons, Jr discussed regional stability in South Asia at the prestigious United Service Institution, New Delhi, last week. This is what he had to say:

The US and Pakistan

All of this is what I tell my Pakistani contacts and friends, as I seek to explain the country that I represent. I tell them that Pakistan is an important country to the United States precisely because we Americans see reflected in Pakistan a commitment to many of the same values by which we Americans define ourselves.

Pakistan's political history, including that of recent weeks, has been less straightforward and more tumultuous than yours. I know the depth of your concern over instability, terrorism, and the rise of religious radicalism. But there is another side to the story.

In a country so much smaller and less endowed with resources than its larger neighbour, so different in its institutional structures, and so profoundly challenged to define nation-building values and ideology, it seems quite natural to me that there have been steps forward and steps back in Pakistan's national development.

It is most encouraging, however, that over the past decade or so the forward steps have much surpassed the backward. The political system remains committed to democracy. The rule of law seems to have been toughened by challenges, and relations among the branches of government are being clarified. Successive elected governments have maintained the country's political commitment to broad and deep economic reform. Granted, troubles abound. But for outsiders, including India, the bottom line is that Pakistan is here to stay.

Your neighbour to the west is the seventh most populous country in the world, small only in comparison with India. And Paksitan has demonstrated more than mere staying power: it has emerged as an important candidate member of the world community of market democracies, and a fitting partner in that community's efforts to grapple with the emerging global agenda. Closer to home, it has also become a fitting partner for negotiations with India to reduce the very real tension which grip you both.

Pakistan is working hard to establish its own brand of democracy and to modernise, compete and open up its economy to the flourishing international marketplace. Pakistan is also where the battles against terrorism and narcotics trafficking are being fought, where bilateral co-operation is essential to any sort of progress. For all that specific reasons and others, we therefore see Pakistan as a necessary partner in the emerging world order I just outlined, one which we must engage.

In the past, the US-Pakistan relationship was rooted in government-to-government ties, often based on aid and military arrangements. Much good came out of those ties and as a government servant I would be foolish to dismiss the critical import of the official relationship. In fact, the Brown Amendment, which President Clinton signed into law earlier this year, has helped remove some of the anomalies introduced into the relationship by the Pressler sanctions.

The military equipment released under the Brown Amendment does not overturn the strategic equation in South Asia. Release of that equipment, for which Pakistan had paid, was a pre-requisite for a sensible relationship between the US and Pakistan and thus to our ability to engage Islamabad on a number of issues which, incidentally, are of some considerable import to Delhi.

There is certainly a growing recognition around the world that the government's proper role is to create favourable conditions for trade and commerce and then get out of the way and let the private sector create jobs and wealth. US companies are already playing a noteworthy role in Pakistan, and I regularly remind my contacts that these business connections represent the real future of the US-Pakistan relationship.

They have not been entirely comfortable with my explanations. Some of them would still prefer the older definition of security interests and geostrategic partnerships of the Cold War period, when the world was neatly divided and priorities were crystal clear.

I am looking forward to our discussion here, but I imagine some of you will also not be comfortable with this message. My sense is that elite opinion in both countries is still very attached to the concepts which prevailed during the Cold War, and that these more recent developments may be as distasteful here as in Pakistan. But new realities are emerging.