Pakistan is merely being true to its national interests
Go Deeper.
Create an account or log in to save stories.
Like this?
Thanks for liking this story! We have added it to a list of your favorite stories.
Another Afghanistan policy review, and again, "Pakistan seen as weak link," as the Star Tribune headline put it on Dec. 15.
Pakistan cannot -- or will not -- control dangerous insurgents. We've said this before, we'll say it again, and Pakistan still won't do what we want. Why not?
Because we're asking Pakistan to serve our national interests, not its own. And the business of any government is to serve its own national interests, not somebody else's. As we look at Pakistan's actions, we are committing one of the most basic fallacies of analysis, called "mirror-imaging" in the intelligence community. We're assuming that everyone looks at the world the way we do -- that the world actually is what we see when we look in the mirror -- when it isn't.
Why should Pakistan do what we want it to do? Some say that we give it a lot of money in arms and aid, and in exchange should get what we want. Well, we give Israel a lot of money as well, but President Obama couldn't get a settlement building freeze from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in exchange. Why not? Because, rightly or wrongly, Israel does not see such a freeze as in its national interests. And governments protect their national interests above all.
Turn Up Your Support
MPR News helps you turn down the noise and build shared understanding. Turn up your support for this public resource and keep trusted journalism accessible to all.
Then we say that the insurgents pose a threat to Pakistan itself, so it should be in Pakistan's national interest to attack the insurgents. And indeed, Pakistan does need to make sure it isn't sacrificing long-term stability for short-term convenience. Again, the same thing could be said about Israel: a settlement with the Palestinians would be in Israel's own interests, ensuring its future as a democratic, Jewish state in the face of demographic challenges and international criticism. Israel needs to make sure it isn't sacrificing long-term stability for short-term convenience.
But, again, we are neither Pakistan's government nor Israel's. The only way we can operate in those areas is by understanding how people there understand their situations, not how we would like them to.
Why doesn't Pakistan want to attack the Taliban aggressively? Because for Pakistan, the Afghan Taliban is an ally, not an enemy. The Taliban brought order -- harsh as it may have been -- to Afghanistan in the 1990s, when the vacuum there after the Soviet withdrawal and our loss of interest led to chaos.
That chaos caused two problems. First, it drew resources from what Pakistan sees as its primary national security threat, India. And second, it threatened Pakistan's territorial integrity if the Taliban's ethnic base in Afghanistan -- the Pashtuns -- allied with the Pashtuns in Pakistan and tried to create an independent state (not an irrational fear, by the way).
For Pakistan, a friendly, Pashtun-dominated government in Kabul is essential to national security. Today, we keep asking Pakistan to support a Tajik-dominated government in Kabul, which has closer ties to India than to Islamabad. For Pakistan, this is a mortal threat.
So what can we do? Leaving aside the larger questions of what our real national interests there are, our policy would have much greater chance of success if we quit mirror-imaging, and instead:
Accepted that Pakistan, which lives in the neighborhood, has far more at stake there than we, who are only visiting.
Recognized that India plays an essential role in this area, and that its active presence in Afghanistan is increasing tension in Pakistan, not reducing it.
Understood that Pakistan must pursue its national interests, which include a larger place for the Taliban in Afghanistan than we would like.
The world is a complex place. What we see when we look at it is only rarely what other peoples and nations see. We are more likely to get our key policy goals met when we work at understanding what other nations see and what they consider fundamental national security interests -- rather than trying to convince them that they are wrong and that our vision from thousands of miles away is somehow better.
--
William Davnie retired after a 26-year diplomatic career in the U.S. Foreign Service and now lives in Minneapolis. He has traveled in Afghanistan and served in its northern neighbor, Tajikistan, as well as in Russia and Iraq.
