HE three-day meeting of the Strategic Dialogue between Pakistan and the US concluded on October 22 on an upbeat note. Islamabad claimed that the dialogue “imparted new vigour to bilateral ties” as the two countries made progress towards concrete cooperation in development areas and the top US leadership renewed its commitments to enduring partnership with Pakistan.

Reassuring words, but do they tell the whole truth? The issue bears analysis. The major achievement from Pakistan’s standpoint has been the offer of a $2 billion military aid package spread over 5 years beginning in 2012. This package will help pay for equipment needed in counter-insurgency and counter-terrorism operations. The package is subject to Congressional approval but will most likely come through. Pakistan will received $300 million in the current fiscal year (2010-11) and another $350 million in the next fiscal year. The aid package falls under the US Foreign Military Financing (FMF) programme, which provides grants and loans to countries to purchase weapons and defence equipment produced in the US. It is worth noting that the package is meant primarily not to improve the defence profile of Pakistan over the long term but to meet its current requirements for capacity building towards fighting extremists, rather than a major land conflict. The significance of this aid for Pakistan’s long-term defence buildup can be well gauged. No strings are attached to the package but the US expectation is that the Pakistan army shall soon launch the much-awaited operation in North Waziristan. Should Pakistan insist on determining its own timeline as asserted by Foreign Minister Qureshi, it could lead to US pressure and bilateral strains. Secretary of Defence Robert Gates is on record for having demanded the operation “as soon as possible.”

An intriguing part of the aid announced at the conclusion of the talks was Prime Minister Gilani’s statement that the package announced by Washington is less than the amount Pakistan has already spent. It raises the question about precise nature of this package. Is it a reimbursement of the expenses already incurred or a separate allocation? Gilani rightly maintains that “Pakistan military is patriotic and cannot give wrong advice to the government.”

The clarification regarding the nature of this package assumes importance in the context of the report that $100 million announced by the US during the pledging conference of Friends of Democratic Pakistan in 2008 and the current $500 million for flood relief were also to come out of the $7.5 billion 5-year package under Kerry Lugar Bill. The recycling of the same amount and showing it as a separate allocation is pure and simple deception.

Information minister Kaira says the session focused on “achieving progress in development areas within specific time lines.

The earlier discussion identified areas where the US could help bolster capacity of Pakistan’s institutions, strengthen stability, enhance capability to fight against terror and step up the development process — these include economy, defence, food security, healthcare — so in this dialogue a number of projects have been identified and approved and time line set for progress.”

The narrative reads well but such description in generic terms without identifying specific areas and projects or funding is a subtle attempt at covering up lack of action or progress in any of the 13 social sectors identified by the two sides. After four years of this dialogue, all we are told is that 13 working groups on issues from water to energy have agreed on plans to immunise 90 per cent of school children, improve electric supply and help farming families get back to their fields after the devastating flood.

In regard to defence cooperation and the fight against terror too, there are still some influential officials and congressmen who harbour doubts about Pakistan’s real intentions and performance. In a recent report to Congress, the administration alluded that “Pakistan forces have avoided direct contact with Al Qaeda and related militants, in part for political reasons.” Foreign Minister Qureshi spoke about the trust deficit in emotional terms at his joint press conference after the conclusion of the talks.

“Pakistan has sustained 30,000 civilian deaths in a daily fare of suicide and other attacks. 7000 Pakistani soldiers and police have lost their lives in the struggle — more than the combined Nato losses in Afghanistan. Nonetheless it unfortunately seems easy to dismiss Pakistan’s contribution and sacrifices. There are still tongue-in-cheek comments, even in this capital, about Pakistan’s heart not really being in this fight. We do not know what greater evidence to offer than the blood of our people.

Madam Secretary, we are determined to win this fight.” The statement is self-explanatory on the crisis of confidence that afflicts the two sides and renders the strategic partnership of little lasting value.

Not only is the Obama administration not fully satisfied with Pakistan’s efforts, but in a move to put the Pakistan Army under pressure, The New York Times in a report hinted that the Pentagon is about to apply the Leahy Amendment which bars US military assistance to foreign armed forces suspected of committing atrocities. It refers to an alleged report of an accident captured on video showing the execution of civilians in Swat by personnel in Pakistan army uniform.

On other civilian issues, including Kashmir and the civilian nuclear deal, Pakistan drew a blank as expected. On Kashmir, US repeated its known position. Pakistan was advised that this was a matter to be settled between India and Pakistan. The emotional call by Foreign Minister Qureshi to President Obama to honour his election pledge on Kashmir failed to draw any response. The US expressed concern over the growing nuclear cooperation between Pakistan and China and the news of two additional reactors being built in Khushab with the assistance of China. So much for “shared concerns” and a “strategic partnership.”

The writer is a former ambassador.