An Islamabad student, a journalist in Bonn, a U.S. Navy veteran outside Seattle — these are some of the people adding their names to The Call for a New U.S. Policy Towards Pakistan.

The list of signers has grown to include corporate managers, professors, lawyers and others across multiple continents.

Consider joining The Call.

Now is the time to support the rule of law and democracy in Pakistan.

Read the statement / Sign the statement

For too long, U.S. foreign policy has supported individual Pakistani leaders and dictators at the expense of Pakistani civil society and democracy.  This needs to change, and you can help.

A core group of independent  scholars, activists, and human rights advocates has authored The Call for a New U.S. Policy Towards Pakistan.  Freedom Forward is proud to be one of the participants in this effort.

Read the statement / Sign the statement

We urge you to end America’s “one-leader” approach to Pakistan, an approach that has long prioritized supporting individual Pakistani political leaders or dictators at the expense of Pakistani civil society and democracy.

For too long, Pakistani citizens have struggled under corrupt and undemocratic leaders who undermined the rule of law.  Of these leaders, the most damaging have been the military dictators who ruled Pakistan for more than half its existence. Each of these dictators undermined Pakistani democracy while receiving U.S. aid for supporting U.S. foreign policy.

These dictators prioritized military budgets and personal wealth over the development of society. They encouraged and leveraged militant groups for their regional rivalries. They even expropriated land, making Pakistani military officers the largest landowning class in the country today.  Pakistan faces many problems as a result, including underdevelopment, terrorist attacks, and an insurgency in the tribal areas.

Pakistani citizens have repeatedly challenged this authoritarian legacy and sought accountable government and the rule of law.  In 2008, Pakistani voters peacefully rejected both Islamist parties as well as candidates tied to the outgoing dictator, Pervez Musharraf. In 2008 and 2009, hundreds of thousands participated in two major “Long Marches.”  These citizen-led movements challenged Musharraf’s dictatorship, as well as the corruption and manipulative actions of democratically-elected President Asif Zardari.

Unfortunately, Pakistani reformers have often faced a major obstacle when seeking to rebuild democracy:  U.S. foreign policy.  Successive U.S. administrations have repeatedly pursued a “one-leader” policy that prioritized supporting specific individual Pakistani leaders in exchange for their allegiance, no matter how much they undermined Pakistani democracy.

In the 1950s and 1960s, military dictator Ayub Khan received American aid for aligning with the U.S. during the Cold War.  Along the way, Khan weakened democratic forces at home and pursued policies that increased economic inequality.

In the 1980s, dictator Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq received massive U.S. military and monetary support to build a Mujahideen resistance against the Soviet occupation in Afghanistan.  Zia simultaneously used religion to subvert democratic institutions and legitimize undemocratic rule at home.

Most recently, Pervez Musharraf received billions of dollars from the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush.  The Pakistani public eventually forced this last dictator from power, but his mismanagement of domestic infrastructure continues to plague the nation.  As a result, extended power shortages and blackouts undermine Pakistani commerce and are now a daily fact of life.

Elements of the U.S. “one-leader” policy have even continued today.  In 2009, hundreds of thousands of Pakistanis peacefully marched on Islamabad to call for a restoration of an independent judiciary and an end to current President Asif Zardari’s corruption.  Despite this promising movement for democracy, U.S. officials publicly focused concern on “reconciliation” between rival political leaders, instead of the fundamental civil society demands for reform.

In doing so, U.S. leaders inserted themselves into what should have been an internal process of democratic change.  Not only that, but the U.S. call for “reconciliation” between powerful political elites undercut the broader civil society push for government reform.

Pakistani ruling elites do bear significant responsibility for the current dilemmas and challenges that Pakistan faces.  However, one cannot ignore the history of U.S. government support for unelected and/or corrupt Pakistani leaders. These governments have received billions of dollars in short-sighted U.S. military aid, regardless of the impact of their policies on Pakistani society.  While individual dictators might have, on occasion, pursued policies that were of short-term benefit, the overall impact has been one of profound damage to the rule of law and accountable government.

Not only has this approach hurt Pakistanis, but it has hurt the U.S. as well.  The Bush administration squandered billions in U.S. tax dollars on the recently ousted military government of Pervez Musharraf.  It is now apparent that during Musharraf’s reign, Taliban-affiliated militants further entrenched themselves in Pakistan’s tribal areas.  Across the country, Pakistanis witnessed a horrific rise in terrorist attacks, leading to many civilian deaths.

Today, U.S. soldiers are waging war in Afghanistan against the very Taliban militias whose networks and predecessors once received support from Pakistani dictators backed by the U.S.  As U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated at a press briefing on May 19th, 2009:

…I think that it is fair to say that our policy toward Pakistan over the last 30 years has been incoherent. I don’t know any other word to use.

We came in in the ’80s and helped to build up the Mujahideen to take on the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. The Pakistanis were our partners in that. Their security service and their military were encouraged and funded by the United States to create the Mujahideen in order to go after the Soviet invasion and occupation.

The Soviet Union fell in 1989, and we basically said, thank you very much; we had all kinds of problems in terms of sanctions being imposed on the Pakistanis. Their democracy was not secure and was constantly at risk of and often being overtaken by the military, which stepped in when it appeared that democracy could not work.

And so I think that when we ask that question it is fair to apportion responsibility to the Pakistanis, but it’s also fair to ask ourselves what have we done and how have we done it over all of these years, and what role do we play in the situation that the Pakistanis currently confront.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s candor is a step in the right direction.  So too are efforts to prioritize development aid over military support, such as legislation introduced by U.S. Senators John Kerry and Richard Lugar.

However, the U.S. government needs to go further.

The Obama Administration should pledge that the U.S. will never again pursue a “one-leader” policy in Pakistan.  U.S. diplomatic and military support should not go towards subsidizing the very military and political elites who have stood in the way of Pakistani citizens’ demands.

Instead of aligning with individual Pakistani political leaders, the U.S. should support the goals of Pakistani civil society, which seeks to build functioning government institutions that are held accountable under the rule of law.  These civil society movements are profoundly healthy for the long-term development of Pakistani democracy.  As these movements continue to challenge Pakistani political elites, U.S. foreign policy should be one of noninterference.

Sincerely,

Sahar Shafqat
Associate Professor of Political Science
St. Mary’s College of Maryland

Samad Khurram
Harvard University

Wajiha Ahmed
Masters in Law and Diplomacy
Fletcher School of International Affairs
Board of Directors, Freedom Forward

Sanjeev Bery
Board of Directors, Freedom Forward

Sabahat Ashraf
Writer and Technologist
MS, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institue

To join the statement, click here.