In a recent article, former Pakistani diplomat Shamshad Ahmad notes that it is the U.S. military, rather than the State Department, that is now leading U.S. diplomatic efforts overseas. This, he says, causes anti-U.S. resentment, particularly in Pakistan.
Ahmad was Pakistani foreign secretary; in Pakistan, the foreign secretary serves directly under the foreign minister.
In his article, Ahmad blames the U.S. government for "nearly abandoning" its public diplomacy efforts, which he says could project the cultural values of the American people. Noting the difficulty of the task of U.S. image-building in Pakistan, he adds that the October 2009 visit to Pakistan by U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had revived hopes of change in U.S.-Pakistan relations, but that "the way things are unfolding, it seems we are heading into another cul-de-sac."
Following are excerpts from the article:[1]
"Since 9/11, It Has Been the U.S. Military or the CIA that Communicates with Foreign Audiences... U.S. Image-Building is Now Left To the Pentagon"
"The post-World War II generation grew up admiring America's ideas and ideals, and always felt inspired by its universal values of freedom and democracy. As students in the 1950s and '60s, we were regular visitors to USIS (the United States Information Service centers), the best reading places in town with books on all subjects and journals and newspapers for every taste. In that intensely bipolar world, there could not be a better instrument of public diplomacy.
"With the end of the Cold War, that approach is now history, and that diplomacy is nowhere in sight. Since 9/11, it has been the U.S. military or the CIA that communicates with foreign audiences. American diplomacy in Pakistan, in particular, is a classic example of this new approach. Our most distinguished frequent diplomatic interlocutors from Washington are not State Department officials but hardcore military commanders from the Pentagon and CIA functionaries. Admiral Mike Mullen, General David Petraeus, and General Stanley McChrystal are now household names in Pakistan.
"According to a veteran U.S. diplomat, this 'mission creep' has gotten way out of hand. Pentagon-led U.S. public diplomacy is a dismal failure. Critics all around, Washington insiders and the public beyond the Beltway, members of both major political parties, even America's friends abroad, all recognize that U.S. public diplomacy has had a great fall. A number of separate studies, reports and findings on American public diplomacy issued by governmental and non-governmental commissions and groups also endorse this conclusion while urging remedial measures.
"The common theme in these reports is that the U.S. now has totally different priorities to be followed in the world. In the past 10 years, its budget for foreign public diplomacy, which had been originally conducted by the U.S. Information Agency and now the State Department, has remained static. On the other hand, there has been a disproportionate increase in resources available to the Defense Department, for 'public affairs.' Thus, U.S. image-building is now left to the Pentagon, with very little left to non-military institutions for articulating America's 'ideas and ideals' overseas and advancing its foreign policy goals."
"The U.S. Government Has Nearly Abandoned its Public Diplomacy Efforts to Project the Cultural Values of the American People"
SUPPORT OUR WORK
"It is 10 years since the U.S. government reorganized its public diplomacy effort, but one has yet to see any coherent display of U.S. public diplomacy that is sufficiently effective in long-term relationships and image-building. Instead, the relationship-building effort is limited to academic exchanges while the image-building efforts are left to the Pentagon, rather than the State Department. The U.S. government has nearly abandoned its public diplomacy efforts to project the cultural values of the American people through cultural presentations or full-fledged libraries, relying almost exclusively on provision of informational material via the Internet.
"Even the laudable 'American Corners' – for all their value – are but small parts of larger institutions, such as local libraries that have their own missions. They can never present American culture the way that USIS libraries and centers once did. No wonder we are witnessing a clueless U.S. public diplomacy in Pakistan. Never in our history did we have so much public resentment against U.S. policies and behavior..."
"Despite the America's expansive diplomatic footprint, the U.S. Embassy in Pakistan could not anticipate the backlash to the Kerry-Lugar Bill and also has not been able to handle the issue involving the movement of its diplomatic and consular vehicles. The Vienna Convention on diplomatic privileges and immunities provide the U.S. Embassy and the Pakistani Foreign Office a clear framework to resolve this issue amicably. Apparently, the U.S. Embassy has been bypassing normal channels and instead dealing directly with governmental agencies and functionaries in handling cases that could be best dealt with through the normal channels."
"Washington's Continued Insensitivity to Popular Sentiment In Pakistan Only Reinforces the Global Perception That the U.S. Is Not a 'Steadfast and Reliable' Friend"
"It has been our experience that as soon as the U.S. achieves its objectives vis-à-vis Pakistan, it loses interest in cooperating with us. Pakistan has been either consigned to benign neglect or hit with a succession of punitive sanctions that left in their trail resentment and a sense of betrayal. This sequence of 'highs and lows' turned into a love-hate relationship between the two countries. Every U.S. 'engagement' with Pakistan was issue-specific and not based on any shared perspectives.
"Washington's continued insensitivity to popular sentiment in Pakistan only reinforces the global perception that the U.S. is not a 'steadfast and reliable' friend and that over the decades, the U.S. neglect and 'self-serving' exploitation of its friends had been contributing to most of the current problems in the world. There is no consistency between America's values and ideals and its actual practices. In fact, it follows two sets of values, one for itself and the other for the rest of the world."
"Ms. Clinton Must Have Also Seen How Disturbed the Pakistanis Are About Their Country Being Treated as America's Traditional Fall Guy; They Consider the U.S. Responsible for All Their Terrorism-Related Problems"
"During her recent visit, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton left a positive message in Pakistan. After eight years of the Bush administration, during which suspicions between the two countries had deepened, Pakistan now had a 'friendly' new administration in Washington, where, according to her, both she and her president, Barack Obama, were seeking to build a new bilateral relationship to be based on mutual respect. Getting this message across was an uphill task, as she herself admitted, even as she hoped that her visit would be the turning over of a new page in U.S.-Pakistan relationship.
"Turning one page, it seems, was not enough. It has not changed the 62-year-long history of a relationship which has lacked continuity, a larger conceptual framework, and a shared vision beyond each side's 'narrowly based and vaguely defined' issue-specific priorities. It has been a curious, if not enigmatic, relationship, as it never had any conflict of interest, and yet it experienced repeated interruptions in its intensity as well as integrity.
"We expected a positive turnaround in our relationship after her visit. But the way things are unfolding, it seems we are heading into another cul-de-sac.
"Besides their persistent trust deficit, the two countries have had no control over the growing list of irritants. There are scary Blackwater stories, almost daily incidents involving interception of suspicious U.S. diplomatic and consular vehicular movement with fake identity papers for the vehicles involved, continuing drone attacks, non-disbursement of Coalition Support Funds, lack of any progress on market access and ROZs [Reconstruction Opportunity Zones proposed by U.S.], and now the inclusion of Pakistan in a short list of 'special interest' countries whose nationals will be subjected to enhanced screening on arrival in the U.S.. These are some of the irritants that need to be resolved through mutual discussions and diplomacy.
"Ms. Clinton must have also seen how disturbed the Pakistanis are about their country being treated as America's traditional fall guy. They consider the U.S. responsible for all their terrorism-related problems. They are concerned over the growing Indo-U.S. nexus, beginning with their defense and nuclear deals three years ago and now developing into a multi-dimensional strategic partnership with ominous implications for the critical balance of power in the region and for Pakistan's legitimate security interests. This situation needs correction through a criteria-based approach for transfer of nuclear fuel and technology."
"We Thought Washington's New Focus Would Be On the Pakistani People – Rather Than the Corrupt Ruling [Elite]... We Have Yet To See Any People-Centered Projects in the Cards"
"One fears that the KLB [Kerry-Lugar Bill, now the Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act of 2009] issue was the beginning of yet another 'estrangement' phase in our troubled relationship. For her part, Ms. Clinton wanted us to forget the unpleasant past and look to a promising future. She assured our people that this time the U.S. would not abandon them as it did after the Soviet withdrawal. She repeatedly said that the current U.S. engagement with Pakistan is going to be enduring, not transitory. These were welcome assurances.
"Hillary Clinton had promised that she and her president were determined to redress this historic sense of injustice among the Pakistani people. The change of leadership in Washington did provide a watershed opportunity for 'remaking' of the U.S.-Pakistan relationship. We hoped Vice President Joe Biden's vision of a new people-centered approach in transforming this 'transactional' relationship into a normal one would soon become reality. But there is no sign of this equation moving beyond the question of terrorism anytime soon.
"Also on disbursement of U.S. aid under the KLB, we thought that Washington's new focus would be on the Pakistani people – rather than the corrupt ruling political and bureaucratic elite who have always abused this relationship for their own self-serving purposes. We have yet to see any people-centered projects in the cards. This is also an issue on which the U.S. missions in Pakistan must engage in, in a well-calibrated public diplomacy."
[1] The News (Pakistan), January 13, 2010. The article has been lightly edited for clarity.
