The US of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton cocluded her visit to Pakistan and left for UAE. According to Dawn editorial, she was on a mission to mend fences with the Pakistani public, media and opposition. The newspaper further writes:

The words she has elected to use have been sensible. ‘Let us discuss and air the differences as friends and partners and let us not magnify them to the extent of exclusion of many areas of agreement and cooperation.’

Topping the list of those ‘areas of agreement and cooperation’ are two things — which many here are loath to admit: one, dollars flowing directly from the US treasury and indirectly from the IFIs that have helped stave off disaster for the economy; and two, cooperation in the fight against Al-Qaeda which menaces the state here and poses a threat to regional stability. Neither has gained much traction with the public or created goodwill for the Americans because the focus has been on the other ‘sins’ of a profligate, not-very-competent Pakistani government and the American ‘hidden agenda’ to undermine Pakistan’s security and territorial integrity. Be that as it may, and in fact reversing public opinion in Pakistan in the near term may be a lost cause, it is good to at least see a softer side of American diplomacy, one that emphasises opportunities and not threats.

The News editor wrote:

Hillary Clinton’s three-day visit to Pakistan, her first as US secretary of state, marks a fairly distinct break with the past. Unlike her tough-talking and deliberately abrasive predecessor, Condoleezza Rice, Ms Clinton went out of her way to be charming, open and to talk to a wide range of people. Her experiences in the US Senate also meant she brought in a mature handling of queries and a better understanding of how complex the regional situation is. The interaction with students at the Government College University in Lahore should have been especially instructive for the person who will be playing a key role in devising foreign policy in Washington. The students who lined up to question her were not hostile. But they made it clear they shared with the majority of citizens a lack of trust for the US and scepticism about intentions. To her credit Ms Clinton accepted there were good grounds for this lack of faith. Her assurance that the Obama administration represented real change is one that will need though to be proven through deeds and not just words. The sometimes startled response from the secretary of state to the far tougher questions thrown at her by a TV panel made up of top anchor people suggests the government functionaries she met in Islamabad may have offered up a typically sanitized picture of prevailing sentiments. It is, therefore, encouraging that despite the immense security concerns Hillary Clinton made it a point to see the ‘real’ Pakistan, also holding a meeting with Mian Nawaz Sharif in his home city.

But for all her pleasant smiles, Ms Clinton did not shy away from making some things quite clear. She stated that she believed the Al Qaeda leadership was indeed in Pakistan, she stressed an all-out effort on every front was needed against terrorism and she focused on how much Pakistan had to gain, especially in economic terms, by normalizing ties with India. If we are honest, we cannot deny that much of what she said was true. For reasons buried in ideology, many of us, whether we draw influence from the right or the left of the political spectrum, have difficulty in suggesting that an alliance with the US could benefit Pakistan. It would also be naïve to assume that Washington wishes to ‘help’ Pakistan as an ally. International relations are after all geared around self-interest and self-preservation. There is nothing noble about Washington’s focus on Islamabad. But it is possible that at this particular moment in history the interests of both nations coincide. This is something we should use to our advantage.

Overcoming the militant threat and entering in to a less acrimonious relationship with India would benefit most citizens. There are segments that would stand to lose, but ways must be found to prevent them from subverting the interests of the majority. They have done so repeatedly through the decades since 1947. The current US setup seems to have recognized some of this. Ms Clinton also emphasized in this respect a dramatic change in policy from those of the George W Bush-led team. The Bush administration’s virtually blind backing for former president Musharraf created a number of the problems we face today. Our political leaders must assess the way we can most effectively counter these. In realistic terms, going beyond rhetoric or wishful thinking, it is inevitable that we will need to work with the US at least for some years to come. We cannot on our own hope to conquer that monster of terrorism that Washington’s policies helped create. Nor do we have the economic or moral wherewithal to do this. Hillary Clinton has demonstrated a willingness to better understand concerns in Pakistan and to open wider the doors of communication. There are still plenty of reasons to be wary of US intentions. But for now, the opportunities for a more open relation laid out by the secretary of state need to be seized and utilized to pull our country out of the pit into which it has stumbled as a result of errors made in the past.

Whereas The Nation’s editor chose these words for her visit to Pakistan:

IF Secretary Hillary Clinton suspected Pakistan of hiding the truth about Al-Qaeda, she would have known by the time she left for home that those with whom she had interacted here had not been so enamoured of her rationalisation of questionable deals between the two governments. They had been, in fact, put off by her evasiveness when confronted with questions of concern to them and doubted her explanations in equal measure. Imagine as high a US official as Secretary of State visiting a frontline state in the war on terror, who is unfailingly kept abreast of important developments by the vast official propaganda machinery! And then imagine Ms Clinton being unaware of the incident of US diplomats caught roaming around with unlicensed arms on the streets of Islamabad at 3 O’clock in the morning. Remember that since they hold diplomatic passports, it becomes a direct concern of the State Department whose portfolio she holds. She must have felt embarrassed while pleading ignorance, no doubt, though schooled in diplomatic norms first as the First Lady and now as the top US diplomat she managed to hide her embarrassment well. But she must have felt that her remarks cut no ice with the audience. The same story would hold good for her assurances that the Kerry-Lugar Act did not impinge on Pakistan’s sovereignty.

When Secretary Clinton met PML-N leadership, including Mian Nawaz Sharif, Chief Minister Mian Shahbaz Sharif and Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan, during her visit to Lahore on Thursday, she found the discussion centring round Washington’s disregard of Pakistani nation’s sensitivities. Be it the drone attacks that callously destroy innocent lives, occasionally taking out an Al-Qaeda operative, or the humiliating conditionalities of the Kerry-Lugar Act, or be it the loose canon Xe Worldwide (Blackwater) and its subsidiaries – all reflect painful onslaught on Pakistan’s sovereignty. In the face of stark facts, her denials just did not work. Apart from expressing reservations on these issues, which Mian Nawaz asked Ms Clinton to remove, he also drew her attention towards President Obama’s thesis (now lying buried under the Indian pressure) that peace in South Asia hinges on a just solution of the Kashmir dispute.

Generally her visit was not all threatening as it has been during the Bush administration, however, United States has to do a lot more if it wants Pakistan’s cooperation in the war on terror in the region. Pakistan has lost and losing the lives of men women and children many folds than any other partner in the war on terror.