The Promotion of Democratic Governance in Pakistan by USA: A Post-9/11 Perspective

Introduction
Although South Asia is a culturally and ethnically diverse region, Pakistan and India stand out amongst South Asian nations on account of their importance as regional players ( ) vital to the global political stratagems of leading powers such as the U.S. In the mid 1970s, due to geo-political exigencies South Asia featured less prominently on the US foreign policy agenda (Rudolph & Rudolph, 2006). With the end of the Cold War, the strategic importance of Pakistan to Washington declined as the U.S looked with disfavor upon Pakistans clandestine development of nuclear weapons. However, the events of 9/11 greatly restored Pakistans strategic importance to Washington as the latter sought to win support for its War on Terror (Chou, 2003). In the aftermath of 9/11, the strategy of the American Government towards South Asia underwent a significant transformation. The strategy became premised on the US taking a pragmatic approach to addressing issues of peace, security and cooperation in the region (Epstein et al, 2007). Although the two countries have enjoyed a fairly constant, if not stable, relationship based on convergence of interest in security, political and economic areasi since the 195Os, in recent years the US-Pakistan relationship has been shaped by Pakistans growing geopolitical importance. However, it is interesting to note that even though Pakistan happens to be of vital interest to the current American agenda, the U.S attitude to the promotion of democracy in other countries has been ambivalent. However, as Forner (2003) notes in some cases U.S foreign policy has been ambiguous in its objectives. For instance, Forner contends that the SpanishAmerican War of 1898, which elevated the U.S to global-power status in an imperialist age (Paterson, 1998) was fought for a variety of reasons, only one of which was to promote what today would be called human rights for Cuban suffering at the hands of the Spanish. This lends credence to the idea that the U.S foreign policy has not always been primarily aligned to the promotion of democracy during intervention in the affairs of other countries. A further example of the ambivalence of the U.S agenda as to the promotion of democracy can be found in the case of the Vietnam War. U.S involvement is believed to have been precipitated by the fear that communism, which most Americans believed to be an antithesis of all they held dear (Rotter, 1999), would expand into South east Asia (Gelb, ..). It would appear that instituting democracy was not the primary driver for this intervention. Today, a majority of American policymakers, political opinion-setters and the public think that promoting democracy should (emphasis mine) be an objective of U.S foreign policy (Outline of U.S History), a belief that that echoes President Franklin D.Roosevelts (1940) view that
1

America must serve as the great arsenal of democracy.ii While the central theme of the U.S foreign policy seems to be opposition to using military force or the threat of military force to bring about democracy in non-democratic nations, at the same time, there is evidence that the U.S does feel a moral obligation to promote democracy through non-coercive and cooperative methods such as working through the United Nations. An analysis of the United States foreign policy reveals that, depending on the circumstances, the country has employed both soft and hard power to promote democracy. In some cases, American policymakers have been inclined to use coercive force to promote democracy in friendly authoritarian countries even if it may lead to unfriendly governments; in other cases, a large majority of policymakers have favoured putting diplomatic and public pressure on governments to respect human rights. An instance of hard approach would be U.S actions in Afghanistan where it has deployed a large number of military peccrsonnel with a view to subduing the Taliban. Another example would be Iraq, where the U.S has used military force to bring about regime change ( ). The U.S soft approach is exemplified in its dealings with Pakistan. In the discussion that follows, I will how the U.S has developed a relationship with the Pakistani government through diplomatic channels with a view to achieving not only its objectives but also to promoting democracy. The promotion of democratic governance as an integral part of the U.S foreign policy gained greater prominence and sanction with the events of 9/11. The first decade of the new millennium unleashed a new threat to the peace and the democracy in the shape of the 9/11 terror attacks. Against the backdrop of this calamitous event President George W.Bush (2005) announced that the best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in the entire world.iii Amongst the skeptics, Khan (2006) observed that Bush was drawing on democracy to fight Islamist terrorism and spread liberty, an endeavor he suggested as embodying a complex blend of American self-interest and the paternalistic American desire to reform the world. Notwithstanding reservations over Bushs proposed democratization of Muslim nations, this was a significant statement signaling as it did a shift in the thinking of the American leadership and a dramatic turn in its foreign policy ( ).

As discussed earlier, Pakistan and the U.S have always had a fairly sustained but somewhat erratic relationship. Pakistan came into being under very difficult conditions and continued to faced serious internal and external problems of existence. An analysis of Pakistans history reveals that the democratic process in the country has been a tenuous one convulsed by many downturns and upheavals. Today, in spite of the establishment of democracy in Pakistan after a long hiatus, the country remains vulnerable due to the Pak-Afghan border conflict and political crisis, which in turn have powerfully affected Pakistan and U.S relations. iv

Investigating the nature of U.S-Pakistan relationship with special reference to the use of American foreign policy as an instrument for promoting democracy in non-democratic nations is of great significance within the current scenario. Hence, the purpose of my study will be to analyze the US-Pakistan relationship and U.S cooperation in promoting democracy in Pakistan, especially between the post-9/11 to 2007 period. This period will be considered because a fledgling democracy has been established following President Musha rrufs ouster from power. In my study, I will address the following questions: o To what extent has the U.S contributed to the promotion of democracy in Pakistan? o Has the U.S helped Pakistan to flourish as a democracy or not within this period? o What was the rationale behind the US cooperation in promoting democracy? o Is the US more committed to democracy or to its own interests? What happens when its interests contradict with those of democracy? The ebb and flow of Pakistans relationship with the US has been captured well in this extract from An Outline of US History: Pakistan had lengthy Stretches of formal alliance with Washington, in earlier decades even earning the enviable reputation as Americas most allied ally. Its reputation among Americans has been glaring inconstant, however, slipping in the 1960,rising swiftly during the Afghan war(1979-1989),falling again in the years following the soviet Unions collapse in 1991,and then, following September 11,again rebounding.v It is interesting to note how the relationship between the two countries has reflected highs and lows in correspondence with the waning and waxing of US interests in the region. It is an observation of considerable value to this study, which is an attempt to gauge the nature and extent of US commitment to democratic governance in Pakistan. The next section will review literature on U.S ideology, rhetoric, and practice in the context of promoting democratic governance around the world in order to establish whether or not the U.S rhetoric matches its practice.

Literature Review;
The promotion of democratic governance around the world as an integral part of the U.S foreign policy stems largely from Americas puritan heritage and City on the Hill vision and the ideology of liberal internationalism. Americas interest in promoting democratic governance worldwide needs to be understood in this particular context.
3

Puritanism, which began as a movement for reform in the Church of England in late 16 th century, arrived in America with the English puritan pilgrims who had migrated to America in search of a new life based on their religious and political ideals. Puritanism has had a profound influence on social, political, ethical, and theological ideas of the Americans. With its emphasis on religious freedom, the presence of a democratic rather than hierarchical structure within the Church and the concept of popular sovereignty or self-rule, early Puritanism played a key role in the establishment of the American democratic regime (Kang, 2009). Based on these Puritan values, America went on to develop a tradition to support democracy and promote it around the globe. One of the early American Presidents, Thomas Jefferson, who played a key role in the making of the American constitution, was the first to insist that a peaceful world order in which America could fully contribute needed to be constituted by democratic states. The concept of national self-determination and political freedom was also embedded in the Monroe Doctrine of 1823 thereby affirming an American commitment to democratic governance. From a desire to strengthen democratic governance at home emerged Americas commitment to democracy and democracy promotion everywhere. In the 19th century, America became committed to the development of a world order which opposed imperialism and foresaw the establishment of independent, self-determining, preferably democratic states bound together through international organizations dedicated to the peaceful handling of conflicts, free trade, and mutual defense throughout the world. This perspective came to be known as liberal democratic internationalism, which will be discussed further in the next part of the discussion. This worldview was popularized during the presidency of Woodrow Wilson (19131921), Hence, Wilsonianism became a term synonymous with liberal democratic internationalism, (Smith..). Next to Puritanism, the second major influence on American political thought is that of Liberal Internationalism. Broadly speaking, liberal internationalism has been defined as a general foreign policy orientation characterized by international cooperation, international law and institutions, economic interdependence, international development, diligence in seeking arms control and restraint in the use of force (Farer, 1988). Liberal internationalism, although reinvented many times during the past century and the present, is rooted in Kants (1795) concept of a free federation of liberal republics with some form of representative government that would flourish in conditions of perpetual peace, under an agreement by nations to abjure from aggression and in the presence of a market economy. However, Kant did not see the development of such a world order resting upon self less altruism; indeed, he expected all nations to pursue their national interests but by peaceful means. Within the American context, liberal internationalism seems to have evolved into a distinctively American internationalism resting upon the belief in the necessity of leadership by liberal democracies in the construction of a peaceful world order through multilateral cooperation and effective international organizations (Gardner, 1990 in Burley, 1992). Ikenberry (2009) elaborates that

It is possible to identify three major versions or models of liberal international order The first is associated with the ideas that Woodrow Wilson and Anglo-American liberals brought to the post-World War I international settlement; the second is the Cold War liberal internationalism of the post-1945 decades; and the third version is a sort of posthegemonic liberal internationalism that has only partially appeared and whose full shape and logic is still uncertain. In its early twentieth century form, liberal order was defined in terms of state independence and the building of an international legal order that reinforced norms of state sovereignty and non-intervention. In the early twenty-first century, liberal order is increasingly defined in terms of the reverse. It is an evolving order marked by increasingly far-reaching and complex forms of international cooperation that erode state sovereignty and reallocate on a global scale the sites and sources of political authority Recent developments such as 9/11, the Iraq war, military action in Afghanistan etc support Ikenberrys assertion that intervention rather than the earlier credo of non-intervention characterizes the newest version of Liberal internationalism. It is held that the Bush administration interpreted the idea of benevolence in a more openly unilateralist way (Kiely, 2005: 51-52) increasingly invoking liberal internationalist ideas to justify its actions while holding fast to a new doctrine of national security based on provocative ideas of American global dominance, preemptive force, coalitions of the willing, and struggle between liberty and evil (Chew, 2009: 7). Some feel that Bush is following Wilsons commitment to spreading democracy abroad (Smith, ) whereas others see Bushs version of liberal internationalism as actively resisting Wilsons vision for a collaborative and rule-centred world order (Knock : Slaughter, ). It is therefore not difficult to understand why there exists the perception that although democracy and freedom are presented as the end goal of the United States in its engagement in the international arena, the pursuit of that goal remains relegated to a secondary priority, depending upon the protection of perceived interests ( Folensbee, 2009: 82). When Bush came to power in the year 2000, it was clear that he and his team of advisers favoured greatpower realism over idealistic notions such as nation b uilding or democracy promotion but September 11 fundamentally altered this picture leading the Bush administration to shower Pakistans Musharraf with praise and attention, waive economic sanctions, disburse large-scale aid and restart military cooperation (Carothers, ). Post 9/11, the Bush administration provided strong support for President Musharraf and his governments efforts to maintain internal stability and implement much-needed political and economic reforms while assisting the coalition in the war on terrorism.vi The next chapter will provide a brief history of how the U.S has promoted democracy around the world over the years to provide the background for its support for democratic governance within Pakistan itself.

Objective

Objective of the Study

This thesis aims to explore U.S intentions and efforts to build a long-term partnership with Pakistan with a view to encouraging pluralism, democracy and strengthening civilian rule in the country.

Research Methodology
This study employs a qualitative approach and makes use of primary and secondary documents, books, journals. The data will be interpreted according to the theory of liberal internationalism.

Research Questionss
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. What does U.S seek to promote in Pakistan What is the U.S concept of democracy? Why does U.S want to promote democracy What is the U.S intention in this area? Are Pak-U.S relations with reference to the expansion of democracy based on unilateral interests, bilateral interests or a combination of both? 6. Has there been a significant change in U.S policy in Pakistan since 9/11?

Organization of Study
Chapter 1 discusses the rationale for the study and reviews literature linked to key concepts such as Puritanism and Liberal Internationalism. Chapter 2 I discussedexamines the history of U.S democracy promotion abroad in the light of American historical events such as. the basis of democracy, whats the democracy, what are the essential elements of democracy, how we promote democracy in a country, and what is liberal internationalism how it become the US goal. Chapter 3 discusses the nature of democracy and essential elements within this construct. It also looks at the ideological underpinnings of U.S foreign policy. historical background of democracy in Pakistan. how after 9/11 Pakistan and US relationship changes, how US interests and goals changes in, after that I discuss the promotion of democracy in Pakistan post 9/11, how much hurdles democracy face in Pakistan, restrictions on media and politic s by Musharrfs government, and what role US foreign policy plays at that time.
6

Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, 16 pt, Bold

In the endChapter 4 , I discussedreviews U.S democracy promotion within Pakistan after 9/11 and examines the congruence or absence of congruence between US intentions and practice towards the promotion of democractic governance in Pakistan.. Chapter 5 discusses the research findings of this study.the future of democracy in Pakistan. Are the military leaders, Pakistani nation, and US wants flourished Democracy in Pakistan. The political leaders and peoples of Pakistan support democracy in future or not. And what efforts are made on the bases of external or internal influence?

Bibliography;
1. Hagerty, Deviant, South Asian in The World politics: New York, Oxford University Press , 1st edition,2006 2. Kidwai, M.saleem, US Policy towards South Asia: Delhi, Academic Excellence,1st edition,2008 3. Kronstadt ,K. Alan Pakistan-U.S. Relations :Congressional Research Service, The Library of Congress .Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division.2005
7

4. Munoz, Heraldo, Democracy Rising :US, Lynne Publishers, 1st edition,2006 5. Markey, Daniel, A False choice in Pakistan :Foreign Affairs ,July/August 2007 6. Outline of US history, Bureau of international information US Department of state http://usinfo.state.gov/,2005 7. Susan B. Epstein, Nina M. Serafino, and Francis T. Miko Democracy Promotion: Cornerstone of U.S. Foreign Policy?: Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division,2007 8. W.Kegley,Charles,Jr,R.Wittkopf, Eugene American Foreign Policy: New York, St.Martin, s Press ,5th edition,1996

GLOBAL DIALOGUE Volume 8 Number 34 Summer/Autumn 2006Exporting Democracy

Forcing Them to Be Free: Bushs Project for the Muslim World

End Notes:
i

Kidwai, M.saleem, US Policy towards South Asia ,Delhi, Academic Excellence(2008)1st

edition ,p.226
ii

Outline of US history, Bureau of international information US Department of state

http://usinfo.state.gov/(2005),p.214

iii

Outline of US history, Bureau of international information US Department of state

http://usinfo.state.gov/(2005),p,322
iv

Munoz,Heraldo, Democracy Rising US ,Lynne Publishers(2006) 1st edition ,p.45 Hagerty,Devint, South Asian in The World politics New York ,Oxford University

Press(2006), 1st edition,p.136

vi

Hagerty,Devint, South Asian in THE World politics New York ,Oxford University

Press(2006) 1st edition ,p.55