37
Ambassador Teresita C. Schaffer – Photo courtesy of Centre for National Policy
It’s a rare opportunity to come across an American diplomat who understands the South Asian culture and speaks fluent Urdu and Hindi. Former ambassador Teresita C. Schaffer, 66, is one of those rare individuals who are not only aware of the cultural nuances of the Indo-Pak region, but happens to be an elegant speaker of Hindi and Urdu. An ex-Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for the Near East and South Asia, Schaffer, in her 30-year diplomatic career, has served as the US ambassador to Sri Lanka and worked at diplomatic missions in Pakistan, India and Bangladesh. She has authored Pakistan’s Future and US Policy Options (2004) and India at the Crossroads: Confronting the Challenge of HIV/AIDS (2004). One of her popular books she co-authored with her husband Howard B. Schaffer, also a former US ambassador, is How Pakistan Negotiates with the United States.
A widely respected expert on South Asia, Ambassador Schaffer spoke exclusively with Dawn.com about Pakistan’s negotiating style with the United States.
Q. The United State and Pakistan have had three ‘marriages’ and two ‘divorces’. Are the interests that lead to an eventful marriage and factors which caused divorce always the same or do they keep changing with every new partnership?
A. The immediate impetus for the three marriages came from factors external to Pakistan such as the Cold War and Afghanistan. What caused the two divorces is different.
The first divorce came in 1965 during the Pakistan-India war when Pakistan used US-supplied weapons which Washington had warned were not supposed to be used against each other.
Pakistan’s nuclear program caused the second divorce. In the 1980s, the US restored a large aid program to Pakistan, but to get the aid through Congress, it also had to pass the Pressler Amendment. In 1990s, the US could no longer certify that Pakistan possessed a nuclear explosive device because of which its assistance had to be cut-off.
In both cases, divorce was the culmination of Pakistan’s unwillingness to accept US terms and conditions.
Q. What would you describe as the striking findings of your study about Pakistan’s negotiating style with the United States?
A. There are three big influences on Pakistan’s negating style with the United States. The first is Pakistan’s view of its place in the world with India as the perpetual enemy and the US as an unfaithful ally. The second is the supreme importance of personal connections in the Pakistani culture. The third influence is the complicated structure of the government and complex relationship between the military, civil administration and the bureaucracy.
Pakistan tries to put the United States on a guilt trip and has been remarkably successful in doing that.
Q. The United States has historically personalised rather than institutionalise relations with Pakistan. How much has that benefitted both the countries?
A. Both the sides have personalised the relationship. Without some degree of personalisation you are not going to get anywhere with a Pakistani leader. But by allowing the personal relationship to substitute for an institutional one, the United States makes itself vulnerable to the guilt trip.
Q. Do you see a dichotomy between the objectives of a US-Pakistan strategic alliance and expectations of both the countries from each other?
A. Yes. This is the real challenge of US-Pakistan relationship. The assumption during all three alliances was that our strategic interests were the same. In fact, they had some points in common, but were not the same. The key to these differences in each case has been India.
For Pakistanis, India is the long-term existential threat. For the United States, India is not an enemy. In Afghanistan, Pakistan’s prime objective is to minimize Indian influence but the US goal is to minimise the al Qaeda influence. These are not the same.
Q. How much is the growing US-India alliance going to influence US-Pakistan ties?
A. I have no doubt that the US-India relationship makes a lot of Pakistanis uncomfortable. They see this as inconsistent with US-Pakistan relationship. If you had a real economic revival in Pakistan at rates comparable with India, you would see the balance of Pakistan’s interests changing in such a way that the US-India relationship would seem less threatening to Pakistan.
Q. Why has the United States rephrased the term “Indo-Pak” and categorised Pakistan into the newly coined term “Af-Pak”?
A. I hate the term Af-Pak. It sounds demeaning in Pakistan. The term and the bureaucratic structure are the products of the decision by President Obama and Secretary Clinton to bring in Richard Holbrooke as the envoy.
Richard Holbrooke was a man of enormous talent. I think the term was his because he meant you can’t only talk about Afghanistan and forget Pakistan. He was trying to convey the message that Afghanistan was sitting next door to Pakistan.
There was a lot of speculation whether Ambassador Holbrooke’s mandate should include India. From the American point of view, the decision not to include India was correct, because a special envoy whose chief responsibility is Pakistan cannot effectively broker with India.
Q. Why is the United States reluctant to play the role of a mediator between India and Pakistan on Kashmir dispute?
A. The US believes that without the strong support of both India and Pakistan no such effort could succeed. India hates the idea of third-party intervention. The US has urged both countries to work things out directly on their various problems, including Kashmir.
Q. In your book, you mention the element of lies in diplomatic relations. Do both the countries lie to each other? What have been the biggest historic lies told to each other?
A. In American court rooms when you are sworn in as a witness, you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth or nothing but the truth. “Nothing but the truth” is the easiest standard to meet while “the whole truth” is the hardest standard to meet. Neither of the governments has met the standard of telling the whole truth. We have, on a number of occasions, withheld things from one and other.
Sometimes, Pakistan has also fallen short of the standard of “nothing but the truth.” For example, when President Musharraf came to the United States and was asked about Daniel Pearl, he said he was “sure” that Pearl was alive. Afterwards, it became clear that Daniel Pearl was already dead and it seemed likely that Musharraf actually knew this. He may have considered that as the right thing to do in protecting Pakistan’s security interests.
We need to understand the impact lies have on both sides. An American official who believes he has been lied to takes this as a real insult to his intelligence and friendship with the other side.
Having lived in Pakistan, I would say it is almost impossible that no one in the army knew that Osama bin Laden was living in Abbottabad.
Q. Are there any phases in the US-Pakistan relation where you find Pakistan successfully influencing American policies?
A. Yes. Pakistan achieved some of its objectives by applying American cultural traits. One instance is Pakistan’s success in 1999 in obtaining a refund of the money it had paid for F-16 aircraft. The Pakistani diplomats based their argument to the United States on the concept of fairness —- which is very important in US culture— and hired a lawyer to file a lawsuit against the US government. Everyone accuses the Americans of being overly legalistic but this time the Pakistanis turned the tables. They used their understanding of US procedure and culture to obtain a result that was very important.
Q. Which US government in the history would you rate as the most Pakistan-friendly?
A. There are a lot of governments which have done really important things for Pakistan. The whole China connection for President Richard Nixon was something that fit in his strategic framework. George W. Bush initiated the big aid program for Pakistan which was carried over by the Obama administration.
Q. What do you think are the causes of growing anti-Americanism in Pakistan?
A. Some anti-Americanism is the inevitable byproduct of the United States being the most powerful country in the world, which makes it a magnet for discontent. Anti-Americanism has become much stronger now because there is a widespread perception in the Islamic world and particularly in Pakistan that the Muslims are being treated with injustice by the west in general and the United States in particular.
This is intensified by the message that is being put out not just by the Islamic militant groups and right-wing parties but also by the government of Pakistan suggesting that Pakistan’s present troubles are entirely the fault of the United States. I don’t agree with that statement. I think frankly no country can blame its entire troubles on anybody else.
If enough important people in Pakistan pointing fingers at the United States for its domestic troubles then it becomes easier to believe that than to search for the roots of homegrown problems.
Q. Pakistanis complain that the Americans do not sufficiently acknowledge and appreciate their contributions in the war on terror.
A. The Americans value Pakistan’s contributions but they also feel betrayed by some of the moves Pakistan is making particular by continuing the relationship with insurgent groups in Afghanistan which are killing American soldiers. Both sides have some reasons to complain that the other side is not respecting their sensitivities. In order to achieve an American policy that is in some sense more responsive to Pakistan’s need, you also need a Pakistani policy that is more responsive to US needs.
Q. Will Pakistan and the US be able to avoid a third divorce this time?
A. I hope so. We have always tried to develop a strategic relationship in which the Americans and Pakistanis know that they are both together for long term. That is desirable but not feasible at the moment. A lot of damage has been done since the beginning of 2011. The fallout from the Raymond Davis case and the aftereffects of the bin Laden raid have left the army feeling embarrassed and the Americans feel betrayed. This is not a good recipe for both the sides embracing each other. What we need now is to have some smaller, more specific successes, and build on those. Perhaps the recent arrest of Al-Mauritani will be a good beginning.
Malik Siraj Akbar is based in Washington DC as a Hubert Humphrey Fellow at the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ), a project of the Center for Public Integrity.Twitter: @MalikSirajAkbar
It is so sad that India and Pakistan continue to distrust each other. I worked in the Gulf some years ago and I had more friends among Pakistanis. My heart goes out to the people struggling from floods in Pakistan. India has a glut of foodgrain stocks and Pakistan is just across the border. Why can't we help each other?
There is a saying countries don't have permanent friends, only permanent interests. The US uses Pakistan, but Pakistan also uses the US. We will continue this unhappy marriage until our interests diverge, then maybe divorce again? only to find each other again…
USA will never prefer trade over aid in relations with Pakistan. It is obvious that by doing trade, Pakistan will become financially more stable and independent. Only way out of this slave-master relationship is Pakistan's strong relations with China and Iran.
Fundamentally, Pakistanis make the mistake of assuming that Pakistan as a nation is equal to the US. That will simply lead you away from reality. In my opinion, the US has been over-generous and overtly tolerant even in the face of the expected back-stabbing and incompetent behaviors of Pakistani leaders.
I completely agree with Yawar's comment and his views!
I strongly agree with Mr Yawar views and comments.
that was very nice analysis, this ordeal of fighting terror by us and pakistan cannot be achieved by merely funding and spending both money and manpower,on miltary and intelliegence areas, pakistan needs to improve it's general finaces in the area of schooling, health, ( basically for activity improving the lives of pak citizens) industry has to grow there by increasing employment opportunities, citizens of economically strong country will not tend to extremism so easiy, so i propose more us aid to pakistan inthe areas of society improvement
Quite an intresting anology by the author. Author is quite right however she forget to share, that west rediscover, how to rule. Divide and rule. Muslim countries i.e Iran,Iraq,Libya, Pakistan are victoms. Karachi, and Baluchistan disturbances should not be unknown. US brought 100000 men might to fight a few al qaeda, not at all, either you hand over nuke and all minerals or face ultimate might. China must support Pakistan.
China is not the answer to all the problems Pakistan has. solutions lie within the borders of your state. make the country get some form of democracy by limiting military interference and focus on education .
I read author bio- she has done a very good job of sharing her views-quite close not there. Pakistan army and government should stand strong.The road ahead of Pakistan is very tough we will weather it, Pakistani are resilient nation. Indeed Pakistan internal problems are not purely US related and our poor governance has a due share. Pakistan
My opinion is simple…
She is talking sense. Lets listen to that guys!!
As long as Pakistan has a perception of India being the enemy and is unable / unwilling to restrain these so called freedom fighters, jihadists from attacking India, people on both sides of the border are going to suffer.
All USA wants Pakistan to act against terrorists
Why is pakistan unwilling ? when Pakistan itself is being
targeted by these terrorists
Unless these terror acts dont stop there will be not much
economic progress
Look at North Korea they have missiles but no food for people
Having Nuclear weapons dont make Pakistan a powerful nation
In present world its economic growth
From India USA makes money thru trade but to Pakistan it gives aid with no return SO who is more important to them ?
eye opner quote for those who really wanted to open
Pak ploicy suffers from india bias.it will embrace anybody it thinks will get it upper hands against india.pak recent exprrssion of us betrayal is amusing considering osama raid pak taliban closeness to china etc.and just thi.k what us has given it arms money support throughout cold war period .time for introspection
please give it a break. people of pak and ind wake up. we are two siblings, one raised by the mother and the other by the father after a complicated divorce. one day, we will reunite, and realize the lies planted in us for 'their' benifit.
Pakistan will inshAllah overcome it's hurdles.
There is no question about reunite.we can only live as good neighbours.
Yes, India & Pakistan cannot reunite and it should not.It is the religion alone that prevents the unity.But that does not mean that we cannot live like good neigbours.A healthy respect to each other religion should be encouraged.
64yrs and still so much hate
one thing is missing,in us-pak relations which is not mentioned by the ambassoder that is genuine long term economic integration of two countries.if us policy makers want to win the hearts and minds of pakistani people they must contribute towards long term economic development of pakistan. We need trade not aid.we need research and development not missiles and helicopters.
The US has successfully done this (trade) with other countries. With Pakistan, it finds it difficult, because of the skewed influence of the military on domestic polity.
Pak must borrow more funds from IMF and other financial institutions or demand more aid from donors to strengthen its nuke capability
I fully agree. Pakistan yet needs lot of arms and equipment for its national security. It must divert more funds and borrow from what ever source to build the best nuclear arms pile in the world for its security against any nation in the world
No American, whether he or she claims to know the language or the region REALLY understands what their behaviour in the past has done to South Asia. She say NOTHING new and uses the typical language of 'double-speak'! Why don't they get out and leave us alone?
Do they still have doubt about that?
The divorce and marriage game cannot continue for ever. Pakistan has got nukes she would never want to give up; America knows the danger and would never want to
accept the status quo for ever. The rest is your imagnation.
Well said Sir………
Just like other americans she speaks only about americans interests.They believe that because they pay so they should be served by us.can we really cannot be survived without american aid?i think NO
I find it a common trait amongst American chatterati where they side-step the issue of American policies that produce terror. No where in her replies did she think that maybe, just maybe, "anti-americanism" is there because of the drone terror that visits Pakistanis in KP, or the raymond davis affair.
As usual holier then thou attitude of American diplomats. She not only does not understand the culture of Pakistan but is extremely biased as well. She speaks from a position of authority, nowwhere it sounds that America does or did anything wrong. Way to go
"Anti-Americanism has become much stronger now because there is a widespread perception in the Islamic world and particularly in Pakistan that the Muslims are being treated with injustice by the west in general and the United States in particular." As recognized by Ms. Schaffer, this observation is not simply a perception, it has become a fact over time. This fact is not simply based on current events, all past events have piled on top of each other to recognize the injustices of the West and America done on the Muslims. Just the mere fact that the West and America continues to manipulate and control the government infrastructures of the Muslim countries is the source of a big discontent among the Muslims. When it came to liberating(?) Kuwait from Saddam Hussains's Iraq, it was accomplished in days and months. But when it came to liberating Palestinians from Israelis and and Kashmiris from India, the peace process is not allowed in any oppressed one's lifetime. Besides, the Iraq & Kuwait matter was an internal Muslim affair / dispute. After all Kuwait was a creation of the British to divide it out of Iraq to manipulate their leaders.
Hi-
I am an american citizen from Pakistan- I believe that,Amb. Schaeffer provided very guarded and reserved answers to your questions- Her answer's are teh same as you might find in manual written by a desk jockey in Washington. She completely Zeroed out Pakistan's unbelievable support and sacrifice during teh Afghan war! Thousands of Pakistanis killed, the war brought US supplied weapons from Afghanistan to Pakistan, with some very, very unsavory element….Pakistan's woes to this day are rooted in the afghan war… The united states basically walked away laughing after Russia collapsed, leaving pakistan with 3 million afghan refugees. Thousands of Mullahs with Machine guns and rockets…willing to Kill and Die! I have total disregard of what she was saying…just another US hawk out with a stick to keep teh Brown people in line..
Very well summarised.
I believe the issues in Pakistan are largely Pakistani. That is not to say Americans have ever been true friends of Pakistan. The never were but they could have been if Pakistan has its house in order. In fact the whole world would embrace Pakistan if the country and its people build the culture of reason, responsibility, and respect for others. From my time growing up in Pakistan back in 70's to now, it feels that as a nation, we have gone backwards on our human growth be it social, intellectual or just plain human traits of caring for one another. Our leaders are more corrupt than ever, the worst of it is that these leaders reflect the state of the country, its people, as well as its value system and resultant culture. What Pakistan need is a team of social scientist that can re-engineer this broken society. Or may be we are even past that point. My heart bleeds for Pakistan, I see my country breaking down, I see my people going wayward, and I see no light at the end of the tunnel. We need divine intervention, a miracle to reign in this runaway train to nowhere.
AOA,
As a Muslim we do believe in divine interventions close to end of times, but in current situation, Pakistan needs everyone to do their job properly.
Our influential people can not pass this message to general public as they have lost their credibility and you and I can't pass it to public as nobody would listen to us.
What we need is, someone who we trust. (And for me, I don't have that person)
I would say, some social engineers, as you suggested, should start by trying to build trust among people, and from there they can build a better society.
Great artical to understand from other perspective. the whole truth or nothing but the truth. “Nothing but the truth” is the easiest standard to meet while “the whole truth” is the hardest standard to meet. Teresita C. Schaffer mangage to tell "nothing but the truth" …