US-based think tanks play a prominent role in making sense of the delicate and volatile situation not only in Pakistan, but also in other parts of the world that are of concern to the US. There exists a synergic relation between the intellectual powerhouses and the policy makers, where both are believed to influence each other.
However, there are several shortcomings as well. These think tanks, for the most part, are so intricately intertwined with the needs of the policy makers that they often appear unable to provide a fresh outlook. In fact, it’s the needs of the policy formulators that provide the research framework for them to follow. The other dimension of the challenge is politics. Some of these institutions have their own political leanings and this colours how they see various issues and policies. Moreover, since US has by far the most extensive array of think tanks and research centres, their conceptualisation also shapes and frames the perceptions of others in the world.
The Washingtonians are pretty aware of these tendencies and are generally not as much concerned about the direction of the flow of influence, or how the think tanks function. However, they are more worried about accurately assessing the ground situation in different regions of the world and the how people perceive US policies. On any given day, newspapers and journals are filled with statistics presenting the shift in public opinion on key themes such as extremism, drone attacks, and the Arab Spring. The findings of the reports are also widely quoted by the international media.
For the purpose of gauging public perceptions, some of the think tanks have special programmes, through which promising scholars from different nations are invited to spend some time at these institutions. This helps the US in not only getting an in-depth understanding of the local dynamics but also in creating future ambassadors for the US. When these visiting scholars go back to their countries and rise through the echelons, they become the conduits that make the conduct of US business smoother.
With the focus on Pakistan in recent years, many of the Washington based think tanks now have Pakistan origin scholars heading the South Asia centres. These analysts are frequently called upon to present their thinking on the political, social, economic and security dynamics of the country. However, it’s not clear how realistically they are able to present the prevailing situation or how influential they are in shaping the US foreign policy.
More than anything else, these scholars are often found playing an unusually delicate balancing role. The priorities of US foreign policy established by the legislative and executive branches, create the positions they occupy, and thus their research scope is pretty much predetermined. On the other hand, from time to time, these scholars also appear to be lobbying for various power centers in Pakistan. As oppose to developing any dramatics policy vision or options, they are primarily working to develop a better understanding between the two countries.
The overt part of the American foreign policy deals with the role of Pakistan in the context of Afghanistan, India and China. It would be rare to see a report that discusses the role of Pakistan beyond this narrowly defined structure. Most of seminars and workshops are related to if the Islamists are becoming influential enough to takeover the nation’s nuclear weapons. As the US begins to withdraw from Afghanistan, there is an ongoing assessment of the various political and institutional forces of the country, and what it means for the US interests.
One of the other emerging concerns for policy makers in Washington is if an Arab Spring style uprising possible in Pakistan. However, the subject of how US-Iran tensions impact the US-Pakistan relations and Afghan reconciliation has been entirely missing. The debate about what would happen to Afghan reconciliation if there were an attack on Iran has also been seriously lacking.
There is also an interesting question of who shapes the views of the politicians, which then influences the policy makers. Speaking about his recently published book at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), former US national security advisor Zbigniew K Brzezinski commented that its not the policy debates that are defining the campaigning US presidential candidates, but ironically, it is increasingly how much money they can raise.
In addition to the think tanks, the US has numerous other ways and layers to assess the ground situation. Nonetheless, they are all still looking at the world using an American lens, whereas the reality is increasingly asymmetric and multidimensional. As US falls short of defining some of the issues more broadly, other countries are also failing to see the full scope of the challenges they may have to confront in the future.
The writer is the chief analyst for PoliTact (www.PoliTact.com and http:twitter.com/politact) and can be reached at [email protected]
