LUSAKA, Zambia, April 30 (UPI) -- The notion that the United States and its allies in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization can help backward countries become modern by imposing "democracy therapy" through military force is not a good model.
The administration of Republican President George W. Bush confidently tried to impose that "therapy" on both Iraq and Afghanistan, leaving behind two ongoing and intractable conflicts that have been inherited by its successors in the Democratic administration of new U.S. President Barack Obama.
The record of the United States and its allies in these two conflicts is, at best, a mixed one. U.S. and NATO forces, despite theoretically commanding the resources of 28 nations with a combined population of well over 800 million people, are not doing well in Afghanistan. The Islamist Taliban is surging in popularity and power, and the writ of embattled U.S.-backed President Hamid Karzai runs only as far as the boots of U.S. and allied soldiers are there to uphold it.
U.S. forces have been faring better in Iraq over the past two years, thanks to the successful and skillful counterinsurgency policies of Gen. David Petraeus. But the conflicts there, while suppressed to a considerable degree, are far from over and have certainly not been resolved. And even the current relative lull has only been achieved after successive U.S. governments have expended an inordinate amount of time and resources.
No one in the United States in either the Republican or Democratic parties' foreign policy establishments wants to risk trying the same medicine in Pakistan -- a much larger and much more populous country. Where Iraq has a population of around 28 million, Pakistan's population is currently estimated to be in excess of 170 million, and its armed forces control an arsenal of nuclear weapons.
The best that can be done -- and this may still fail -- is to create an international environment that would simplify somewhat the job of the fragile democratic government in the Pakistan capital of Islamabad.
Every possible tool should be used to ease the economic crisis, to help Pakistan modernize its economy and to help Pakistani companies find export markets. While improved economic conditions are not the ultimate answer, increased poverty and more despair certainly would not help.
By the same token, the West, plus China, Saudi Arabia, Russia and other major nations, should be able to create an international negotiations framework that would help manage the India-Pakistan bilateral relationship. Ultimately this will be all about creating mutual trust. In the first stages of this process, internationally approved diplomatic moves should be undertaken under the political cover of an umbrella structured by credible international brokers.
This cautious process may have a greater chance of succeeding than the ambitious go-it-alone diplomatic imitative currently being pursued by U.S. envoy Ambassador Richard Holbrooke with the enthusiastic support of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Barack Obama.
In the end, it will be up to Pakistan to find its way to peaceful modernity. But the nation's intrinsic weakness and the virulence of the radical Islamist malady within its society should invite actions aimed at creating an international context that may have a chance of helping the forces of modernization there.
It is at best questionable whether outside nations can succeed in any initiative of this kind. But if the United States and its allies do little or nothing and Pakistan fails, the consequences will be horrendous for everyone.
--
(Paolo Liebl von Schirach is the editor of SchirachReport.com, a regular contributor to Swiss radio and an international economic-development expert.)
--
(United Press International's "Outside View" commentaries are written by outside contributors who specialize in a variety of important issues. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of United Press International. In the interests of creating an open forum, original submissions are invited.)
