US Ambassador Anne Patterson comes across as a sweet person. But she is no George Bush, who could be given the benefit of doubt for being either naïve or conversely pretentious about antagonism that the world’s sole superpower has to cope with.
Last week, Ms Patterson drew an exclamation mark over this “anti-Americanism” among Pakistan’s middle class during a speech she addressed to the Management Association of Pakistan in Karachi.
Let’s first look at some excerpts from the speech before reviewing the remarks, which are especially critical to understanding the issue:
“I see often in the press that the United States only wants to resolve Pakistan’s problems by force, or is pressing Pakistan’s government to use force at the expense of social and economic development.  Let me assure you my government would not pursue such a foolish policy.
“But I have been surprised — you will say I should not have been — by the depth of anti-Americanism here in Pakistan, particularly among the growing middle class. 
“I suspect that those who oppose American engagement in Pakistan have a limited understanding of how our partnerships — the economic, assistance, and financial interactions — affect the lives of everyday Pakistanis in real and positive ways. 
“Pakistan now has a newly elected democratic government.  The parties in power have not been in government for a long time and are finding their way, just as they would in any other country.  The United States firmly supported the democratic transition with resources and influence, and we want to do everything possible to help the new government succeed.
“Some of the critics believe that the United States has only a short-term interest in Pakistan as we seek cooperation in the war against terror.
“With your country’s new government now in place, the Embassy has held a series of meetings and briefings with your new leaders.  We want to make sure they have a full picture of American assistance programs that are under way in Pakistan, and what those programs are achieving.
“We also want to dispel rumors that the United States only works with your military.  This is simply not true.  We set our priorities and design our programs in close coordination with Pakistanis, both in the public and private sectors, to ensure that the assistance we provide meets real concerns, and that it will help the people who need it most.
“Security assistance is certainly an important part of our engagement with Pakistan.  Extremists killed more than 1,000 Pakistanis in the last year; your military and security forces, and their civilian employees and dependents, have been specifically targeted by militants and suffered heart-rending losses.”
First of all, let’s give credit to Ms Patterson for at least conceding that the “Bush Administration had made mistakes” even if she appended it with those “made by administrations before it”.
It is a slightly welcome departure from the brazen and arrogant administration she represents, which largely epitomizes the ‘might-is-right’ axiom.
However, to move to more serious issues she touched in her speech, one really has to be naïve, if not actually pretentious, to see the tidal wave of anti-Americanism in not just Pakistan but across the globe‚ thanks to the exceedingly blind neo-con agenda being followed by the Bush Administration.
Leave the worldwide breakdown aside and focus on Pakistan, since Ms Patterson’s speech, according to the grapevine making sense of the situation in this turbulent south Asian nation.
The self-styled war-on-terror was imposed on Pakistan post Nine-Eleven, and as has been amply demonstrated in seven years hence, at great cost to the country’s stability and integrity.
Worse still, this theatre has been conducted on Bush Administration’s terms without any real effort to seek a local solution. The lack of patience that is needed in a sincere dialogue, which a conflict of this profound nature requires, rather than unchecked use of force, is clearly missing.
By her own admission, fighting this war has cost the lives of a thousand Pakistani military personnel — which, most will agree, is a questionably low figure — but what is not accounted for in the American ambassador’s stats is the lethal damage this war has wrought on Pakistan in terms of loss of civilian lives as a result of the unprecedented scale of suicide bombings and material damage.
Significantly, understated in most American analyses is how the war has impacted on peace, stability and security in these years: virtually, shaking the very foundations of this once promised land.
The Pakistani Army has been used like a mercenary force in this totally counter-productive war. Worse still, by engaging with a power-monger like Musharraf, who had — and continues to have — his own stakes in perpetuating the ill-conceived war, the US is equally culpable in letting him destroy the pillars of a democratic order, systematically.
The American envoy can talk all milk and honey about the range of assistance Washington affords Islamabad, including in civilian areas, but can she honestly even attempt to configure how its lopsided military engagement with a dictator continues to prop even past his sell-bye date has come at a huge cost to Pakistan and her people?
How can she, or by extension Washington, not see the grievous injury it has caused Pakistani people? As if the loss of lives, peace and security was not enough of a bane, they have watched and continue to despair at how her administration continues to interfere blatantly into Pakistan’s internal matters, most recently into what kind of government this country should have and how it should be run.
Pakistanis have still not forgotten — how could they, for, it was so obvious? — the way US Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte and Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian States were running up and down Pakistan and directly influencing the formation of a government following the February 18 elections.
Poignantly, the two were cavorting with Musharraf when a new prime minister was taking a vote of confidence!
Only last week, Boucher, dropped anchor in London to play the guardian in the failed talks between Asif Zardari and Nawaz Sharif. Ms Patterson may not realize this but her administration’s obvious bias against Sharif, for instance, who was belittled by Bush in saying he didn’t trust him even though the gaffe-ridden president admitted he did not know the PML-N leader well — angers Pakistanis, majority of whom voted him as the country’s most popular leader in all the major opinion polls last year and rewarded him with a major say in the parliament.
The US needs to understand that Pakistan has undergone a cataclysmic shift with regards to what she wants post-March 9 last year when Musharraf first sacked the chief justice, triggering a massive public upheaval.
The defining movement for restoration of judges led by indefatigable lawyers, helped by a resilient media as well as rearguard civil society, will not countenance solutions imposed by foreign powers on the new evolving Pakistan.
Fortunately, the embassy headed by Patterson showed some understanding of the ground situation by likely persuading her administration to reconsider the appointment of Major-General Jay Hood as the head of defence office at the embassy following global outrage over his deplorable role as commandant of the notorious Guantanamo Bay prison in 2005 when Muslim inmates were maltreated and the Holy Quran desecrated on purpose to break them.
In the light of some of these observations, is it any wonder that there is a strong current of anti-Americanism, Ms Patterson?