US locked in unhappy alliance with Pakistan

Islamabad: When US President Barack Obama inherited Washington's partnership with Pakistan, he kept the money flowing in hopes that stronger ties would help end the Afghan war and give Pakistan more tools to keep its nuclear arsenal from falling into extremists' hands.

What Washington has received for its billions, however, is limited progress on clearing militant strongholds on the Afghan-Pakistan border and a souring relationship that included threats this month to limit CIA drone strikes and require Pakistani clearance for Washington spy operations.

Adding to the complications is the narrow nature of the relationship. America's interests in Pakistan — transformed by the 9/11 attacks — are built almost entirely around high-stakes security issues and the bonds between the CIA and Pakistan's spy agency.

Washington expects its massive aid to Pakistan should buy it broad cooperation and wide latitude to strike at militants, including those backing the Taliban in Afghanistan. But in Pakistan, there are growing calls to rein in US operations, particularly in the wake of a bitter diplomatic dispute after a CIA contractor fatally shot two Pakistanis in January.

Both need each other

Pakistan also sees the US alliance in practical terms: a way to keep pace with rival India and prop up its flagging economy.

"Ultimately, both sides will suffer an unhappy relationship because we oddly need each other," said Christine Fair, assistant professor at the Centre for Peace and Strategic Studies at Georgetown University in Washington, who closely follows Pakistan's military and intelligence affairs.

"They need our money and our weapons to keep up with India and to maintain their state economy," she added. "We need them because we are scared about their nuclear weapons, the militants and the intersection of the two."

Both sides make no secret of their gripes.

Pakistan is frustrated by stepped up drone attacks and accusations it is weak against militants despite nearly 3,000 dead soldiers, a five-year war in its tribal areas and dozens of arrests of suspected Al Qaida operatives or affiliates.

Washington grumbles that Taliban-backed groups still find sanctuaries in Pakistan and other jihadi factions — some with links to Al Qaida — are growing in strength. Obama's policies also are on the line. He abandoned the US protocol of engaging almost solely with Pakistan's military.

He chose instead to embrace a costly programme of support for Pakistan's civilian political system, expecting it would lead to efforts to wipe out domestic extremists. They include Lashkar-e-Taiba, which carried out the 2008 Mumbai attacks and has suspected links to the Pakistan's intelligence service.

Media outrage

In Pakistan, newspapers express near daily outrage over an "arrogant" America which kills Pakistanis with impunity and pulls the strings of the weak government of Asif Ali Zardari. They also claim Pakistan is being made the scapegoat for US and Nato shortcomings in Afghanistan.

But Nita Lowey, the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Subcommittee that oversees the US State Department and foreign operations, said: "It's in the interest of the national security of the United States that we continue to work with them. They are an important ally."

Yet some say Washington's support for Pakistan's transition to democracy has taken a back seat to security concerns.

Samina Ahmad, who heads the International Crisis Group in Pakistan and Afghanistan, said the Pakistani military still appears to seek to appease some militant groups and differentiate between "good and bad militants."

"If indeed it is a partnership then you [Pakistan] have to deliver on your side of the bargain," said Ahmad.