Other nationals I met in big numbers, French and Japanese especially, Austrians, Chinese, Italian, Norwegian and German working in private business, as teachers, journalists or in the NGO sector. I met these people in the country, not just behind walled DHA mansions. But where are the Americans who make sure that all that money is actually spent as aid and not just contributed to be able to show off high numbers and use them as a leverage? Where are the Americans who explain Ann Patterson what happens outside her armoured vehicle, outside her Embassy compound, who explain Holebrook what’s going on while he is not there? Continuously relying on Pakistani informants who they then can blame again of not cooperating enough seems to be the credo.

Especially Japan, who is equally contributing extensive amounts of money in development projects in Pakistan, is showing how “Aid” actually becomes Aid (how extensive “Aid” can be counterproductive, erroding local structures is shown here on a recent example). They send well trained staff, most speaking one Pakistani language already when they arrive, who do not need armoured cars for safe passage but work without much clamour about their contribution. I know Japanese who rode a bycicle from Cantonement (Lhr) to Lower Mall where their office was (training police officers), who acted in Punjabi stage plays and the women were so adapted that they mounted the motor bike side-saddle. Of course, not being heavily involved in the area politically or in connection with the “war on terror” they are less a target for possible aggresion from locals. But that doens’t count as an argument, since people like Greg Mortensen or Todd Shea seem to manage.

(Update: my bad, they actually do mingle in public, she is the head of the consulate in Lahore – I really miss “Eye Spy” for Sunday breakfasts!)

Bajauris singing “Pakistan Zindabad” where probably paid by the Army to do so and the Dhol Wallah had to be flown in from Lahore.

But I fail to see, why this conclusion allows us to immediately jump to the assumption, that US presence (and probably the whole NATO presence as well, since when the US would leave, countries like Germany and Britain will hardly be made to stay) should be stopped in the region. Is our only target to make sure we are not attacked from a make-shift camp by bearded men? Are we only worried about having blood in our own streets? What about the countries of the region? Afghanistan is economically and educationally speaking in a dire situation, major areas in Pakistan are not doing any better and countries like Turkmenistan and Kirgizstan are neither sporting promising records. While other nations like Japan and Norway have long understood, that making a difference in this region takes patience, time and skilled labour we are only discussing money, arms and our own casualties.

As Ahmed Rashid recently pointed out to one of the few Americans who were venturing Pakistan outside their Islamabad embassy recently “You want to win over the people? Show me one school the Americans have built. Show me a road, a hospital, a railway.” . Other European countries (with a few exceptions) have an equally poor record. Some NGOs pull in after major disasters but leave soon after. There is seldom a long term commitment. As Rashid has pointed out in his recent book , the opportunity for Nation Building may have already passed, and other writers have argued that the US should not linger around anymore with this argument, since its record was poor enough in this respect . But an effort to bring a lasting peace to the region and aim for an economic development including surrounding regions (Iran, Xinjiang, Balochistan, Ferghana) should be made and attempted now. This does at the moment still include army presence, the Afghan army and police are far away from managing the situation themselves and the Pakistanis can in this regard unfortunately still not be trusted (especially the ISI). But while dismembering al-Qaeda should still be a good reason to stay and even enlarge CIA presence , there are other issues apart from our homeland security, that should make us aware of our responsibilities abroad.

Further Reading

Who’s Afraid of A Terrorist Haven?; Washington Post, 16th of September 2009

Rashid, Ahmed; Descent into Chaos – The United States and the failure of Nation Building in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Central Asia; Allan Lane 2009

http://www.realisticforeignpolicy.org/archives/2009/09/coalition_issue.php

http://www.zeit.de/politik/ausland/2009-09/afghanistan-cia-ausbau

[originally posted on 20/09/2009 on here-ware]

Think Tanks like the Foreign Policy AfPak channel, a source I generally trust generates news on the area faster than the truth can run. Tiedemann writes that the FATA is a “lawless region” – just because it doesn’t obey American law doesn’t mean its without any of it. The way many experts shape our image of this area is dangerous – the wrong perception we get leads us inevitably to wrong decisions.

Information that we is just as disheartening but at least not manipulated by opinion-shapers are the newest opinion polls of the Pakistani public by IRI.

An interesting discussion highlighting what the people in Pakistan think of it all is currently raging at LUMS, already discussed in the national media. As far as I understand the issue, these discussions are on the one side reason for optimism (ultimately these people (Pakistanis and Afghanis, Central Asians) will find a solution to the whole mess of the area, not the “experts” around the US and Europe), on the other side, they do still point in an ideologic direction which I find worrisome.

[originally posted on 1/10/2009 at here-ware]

Yes of course they are tricking the CIA and the Americans. They always have and will do until we learn to speak their language, until we are willing to listen to them and understand their demands as well. We are not. The West wants the ISI to cooperate for its own National security and not for Pakistani interests – just telling them “but the Taliban are your enemy too”, something Pakistan understands is obviously not enough.

Michael Crowley at the New Republic.

Max Fisher at the Atlantic.