THE hallmark of US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's recent visit to Pakistan was an innovative style of diplomacy. Never before had a high-level American official come to this country with a mission to go beyond the state and meet society.

Such is the demand of the times we live in. The deficit of trust between what senior American diplomat Dennis Kux described as two disenchanted allies came to a head in the wake of the passage of the Kerry-Lugar bill by the US Congress last month. Americans took the controversy the bill generated seriously. First, they issued an explanatory note. Then, they decided to launch an exercise in public relations, engaging with the people of Pakistan.

The idea in Washington was to clear the mist around the bill by addressing the reservations of the articulate sections of Pakistani society. The hosts of Hillary Clinton duly obliged. The idea in Islamabad was to avail this opportunity to communicate the government's own grievances to policymakers and lawmakers in Washington. Both agreed to give public diplomacy a chance.

It will be debated in the inner circles of the two governments as to who succeeded in impressing the other and managed to push its own agenda forward. Conversely, both sides will shy away from going public about their disillusionment with the way certain issues were raised in the new context of open-door diplomacy.

Ms Clinton's public events in Islamabad and Lahore exhibited a concern with cultural, religious and educational pursuits in Pakistani society. Visits to the Bari Imam shrine, the Badshahi mosque, Government College University and the National Council of the Arts aimed at responding to the sensitivities of 'good-hearted' and 'noble-spirited' Pakistanis.

Everywhere people asked several questions that had been aired in public many times drone attacks, Kashmir, the US-India civilian nuclear deal, micro-management of aid in Pakistan, the channelling of a part of aid back to the US, American support for military ruler Pervez Musharraf and suspicions about Washington's pro-democracy profile, among others.

What happened to the charm offensive? Ms Clinton was first cheerful and relaxed. Then, she grew cautious and concerned as she faced an avalanche of angry questions. The more she sensed cynicism in her audience, the more she became candid, even straightforward in her style, which is not the stock-in-trade of a diplomat.

The American secretary of state brought her own bagful of concerns and anxieties. She reiterated American suspicions regarding the Pakistan Army's attempt to root out terrorism, removing the presence of Al Qaeda's leadership from Quetta and not eliminating those Taliban who were operating from Pakistan across the border in Afghanistan. She re-stated the American pressure on Pakistan to 'do more'.

The traditional American understanding of extremism and terrorism in terms of the social, political and economic frustration of the masses provided an undercurrent to Hillary Clinton's argument in favour of civilian aid. She pointed to American money meant for schools, women and other social welfare projects to put an end to alienation in disadvantaged parts of society.

Ms Clinton regretted that the Pakistani public did not acknowledge American aid for IDPs. She referred to billions of dollars given to Pakistan under Musharraf, for which there was no accountability. She reminded her audiences of the continuing concern of the American establishment about nuclear proliferation and its fear of fissile material falling into the hands of terrorists.

Secretary Clinton sought to clarify the American position of 'hands-off' as far as the Kashmir dispute between India and Pakistan was concerned. Her idea that it was up to the two countries themselves to sort out their differences on this count reflected the typical western approach of supporting the status quo in Kashmir. Of course, she offered her services on the water issue. The visitor was relatively more cautious about the issue of sovereignty of Pakistan in the perspective of the Kerry-Lugar bill. She complimented the Pakistan Army for its institutional potential and professional expertise. She praised the democratic leadership at the same time. Some questioned her for her all-inclusive approach regarding Washington's willingness to work with both. The query seemed to probe as to who was the favourite.

One can imagine that Hillary Clinton was happy to bring the wider public on board. However, she might have felt that the exercise was tedious and was moving in circles. The diplomats in Islamabad and Washington carefully watched this ambitious attempt at public relations, which was in a sense overdue. It served to bring the attitudes of mistrust operating as the undercurrent of the strategic alliance out in the open.

What impact will Ms Clinton's visit have on Pakistan-US relations? Most probably it will be more of the same. Both sides are bound with each other in a war that none of them wanted. Both have their hands tied. For the US, Pakistan is a pivotal state in the region which includes Afghanistan, Iran and the Gulf, and a key actor in the current war. On the other hand, turning away from American friendship has never been a realistic option for Pakistan.

The US State Department has gathered valuable insight into the nationalist fervour and what it considers profuse insularity of the Pakistani worldview. Clinton has taken the two-way dialogue deeper into Pakistani society in order to add substance to Washington's policy and posture about the war against terror. On their part, Pakistanis are happy to put across their message. However, this will not change their position.

The brainstorming visit of Secretary Clinton to Pakistan has been characterised by a high-profile, fast-paced and multi-dimensional exchange of opinions in public. On a personal note, the visit is expected to give the lady an authentic voice in the foreign policy establishment on matters relating to Pakistan.