THE Obama administration is having a rough time. Last week, it was revealed that the US economy has ground to a virtual halt, growing by only 0.4 per cent in the first half of this year.

Revised figures for the total loss of economic output during the 2007-09 recession also painted a more dismal picture, with estimates going up from 4.1 per cent to 5.1 per cent.

Meanwhile, the US Congress remained locked in a nasty battle over how to raise the debt ceiling. On Friday, Republicans barely managed to pass a bill through the House of Representatives that calls for billions of dollars in spending cuts, only to have Democratic senators reject it. Without a compromise, the US government faces the prospect of running out of money and being unable to make social security, military and interest payments. But what does all this have to do with Pakistan?

The mixed messages being exchanged within Washington are not a patch on the chaotic signals the US and Pakistan are sending each other. Earlier this month, the US suspended more than one-third of military aid to Pakistan, even while the House Foreign Affairs Committee of Congress voted 39-5 not to block all aid to Pakistan.

In a new twist, the House last week passed a bill significantly cutting overall US multilateral assistance and mandating conditions on aid to Pakistan, Yemen, Egypt, Lebanon and Palestine. A separate bill voted on by the House Appropriations Committee subcommittee on State and Foreign Operations called for tough restrictions on civilian aid to Pakistan, tying it to Islamabad’s progress in fighting terrorism and checking nuclear proliferation. US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton promptly vowed to fight these aid restrictions.

On the military side, too, the sparring continues. US military chief Adm Mike Mullen announced that the military-to-military relationship between the US and Pakistan was passing through a difficult phase (and just to rub it in, he added that US-India military ties are developing swimmingly well). As if in response, Maj-Gen Ashfaq Nadeem told the Abbottabad commission that the US had not alerted the Pakistan Army about the May 2 raid targeting Osama bin Laden in what was perceived as a great violation of trust.

The stormy US-Pakistan relationship, seen against the backdrop of the US’s mounting economic woes, crystallises a major dilemma facing the Obama administration: can the US continue to champion its role as the world’s policeman, and globally promote its values and democratic outlook? Or must it now adopt more pragmatic, isolationist policies that prioritise its national — read economic — interests?

This question has dogged US President Barack Obama since he took office. In his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech, he acknowledged the challenge of balancing idealism and realism when it came to foreign policy. The choice, he implied, was between privileging national interest and defending moral obligations, between engaging with states or societies.

During Obama’s tenure, the freedom-and-democracy rhetoric of the George W. Bush years has been toned down, and the US has engaged with hostile or reluctant actors such as Iran and China at the expense of focusing on human rights violations. But this does not mean that the debate has been settled.

The Arab Spring and Iran’s Green Movement truly tested the Obama administration’s foreign policy doctrine, forcing it to clumsily toe the line between idealism (acknowledging the desire of the citizens of Egypt and Tunisia to be free from tyranny) and realism (the need for institutional stability across the Middle East). Libya pushed the test even further, forcing the US to support humanitarian intervention in a country where it has minimal interests.

Of course, the idealist/realist binary is further complicated by the fact that the rise of China and India is seen as the greatest threat for the US in terms of economic viability. In this regard, the US cannot seek to succeed domestically if it does not strike the right chord internationally through trade and other agreements across South, Central and Southeast Asia, as well as South America. In an era of globalisation, even US isolationism requires international engagement that will constantly challenge the integrity and resilience of American values.

How the US resolves this dilemma is crucial for Pakistan. As an idealistic, values-defending world policeman, the US will strive for a stable and prosperous Pakistan that can participate in a vibrant economic corridor stretching from Central to South Asia and be a linchpin of regional stability through robust bilateral relations with India, Afghanistan and Iran. For this scenario to work, the US and Pakistan must have a strong relationship that emphasises mutual respect in the context of the Afghanistan endgame, sustained civilian aid, Pakistan government capacity-building initiatives, development projects and more.

On the other hand, an isolationist, realist US has narrower interests in Pakistan: to prevent terror attacks against US targets originating on Pakistani soil and to stem nuclear proliferation. This scenario is far uglier, requiring containment rather than engagement, and potentially involving economic sanctions, US bullying through various international fora, unilateral strikes and an exaggerated tilt towards India on security issues that could ultimately worsen regional dynamics.

It is extremely unfortunate that US-Pakistan relations are currently falling victim to the US’s ongoing identity crisis. For its part, Pakistan must acknowledge and address this crisis, rather than planning for its third divorce with the US through overtures to China, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and even India. Pakistan should remember that bilateral relationships do not unfold in vacuums, and that how the US frames its foreign policy in coming years could determine how the rest of the world interacts with Pakistan as well.

The writer is a freelance journalist.

huma.yusuf@gmail.com