United States Institute of Peace • www.usip.org • Tel. 202.457.1700 • Fax. 202.429.6063

UNITED STates institute of peace

© USIP 2011 • All rights reserved.

“While a difficult pill for 

both Americans and Pakistanis 

to swallow, the strategic partnership must develop beyond 

a transactional relationship.”

March 22, 2011

The Future of Pakistan

Summary

•	 Growing economic and political instability, rising support for extremism and increasing tensions in Pakistan’s relationship with the United States currently threaten the country’s prospects for a stable future. 

•	 Domestic actors with the capacity to build consensus across Pakistan’s fractured society must 

address the widening divergence of opinion among Pakistanis regarding responsibilities of 

the state and citizenry. 

•	 Until Pakistan feels more secure within its perception of regional threats, Islamabad will likely 

resist enacting and implementing strict counter-terrorism policies. 

•	 To improve and sustain the U.S.-Pakistan relationship, the U.S. needs to continuously signal its 

resolve to remain committed to the partnership, apply innovative diplomatic gestures to engage 

Islamabad, resist the temptation to oversee Pakistan’s day to day domestic affairs and widen the 

policymaking lens to ensure a more holistic understanding of Pakistan and its neighbors. 

•	 Despite incongruities between Pakistan and U.S. interests, the bilateral alliance is imperative 

to the U.S.’s regional and security interests, and remains a central aspect of both countries’ 

calculus for the future.

Introduction

In recent months, growing manifestation of extremist support in Pakistan, the devastation of 

the summer 2010 floods and the weakness of the political leadership have increased pessimism 

regarding Pakistan’s future. On January 31, 2011, the United States Institute of Peace (USIP) and the 

Brookings Institution co-hosted an event titled “The Future of Pakistan,” which brought together 

experts to analyze the country’s future. The event built upon the “Bellagio Papers,” a collection of 15 

scholarly essays examining factors and variables impacting Pakistan’s future, produced as part of 

a Brookings Institution project, and supported by USIP and the Norwegian Peace Foundation. This 

Peace Brief summarizes the views of the event’s 11 panelists, drawn in part from the analysis of the 

“Bellagio Papers.” The panelists discussed potential trajectories for Pakistan, and policy implications 

Pakistan and the United States should consider as Pakistan navigates this uncertain period. 

Domestic Challenges and Prospects for Posterity

Heightened tensions in Pakistan’s current sociopolitical environment have the potential to push 

the country further from achieving the economic or security-based indicators emphasized as 

Stephanie Flamenbaum

E-mail: sflamenbaum@usip.org

Phone: 202.429.3849

Megan Neville

E-mail: mneville@usip.org

Phone: 202.429.3828

Constantino Xavier

E-mail: cxavier@brookings.edu

Phone: 202.797.6048

peaceBrieF85
© USIP 2011 • All rights reserved.

The Future of Pakistan

page 2 • PB 85 • March 22, 2011

central to stabilizing not only Pakistan, but also South Asia as a whole. Panelists identified the 

following factors that need to be addressed by domestic and international actors. 

Economy 

Pakistan’s economy is headed toward a fiscal crisis that threatens sociopolitical development and 

could fuel social unrest. Serious structural reforms, previously blocked by the country’s economic 

elite, are needed to avoid crisis and renew confidence in Pakistan’s economy. Without reforms, the 

international community is likely to become donor shy toward Pakistan. A withdrawal of aid could 

further compound economic challenges.

The country’s youth bulge is another looming dilemma for Pakistan’s weak economy, as projected economic growth rates cannot support demographic growth. High unemployment and 

heightened food insecurity will continue unless efforts are undertaken to address the economic 

factors behind these trends. In the short term, Pakistan needs to consider revising its taxation policies to increase domestic tax rates and better enforce collection. In the long term, Pakistan must 

adopt policies that help boost growth rates and reduce reliance on foreign aid.

Identity Crises 

Pakistan is a fragmented society, divided along ethnic and sectarian lines, torn between moderate 

and extremist views, and politically destabilized by the power imbalance between its civilian and 

military leaders. From these divisions a complex notion of the nature of citizenship has emerged. 

Though in many ways Pakistan’s factional politics represent a microcosm of Pakistani society’s 

ideological and socioeconomic fissures, the country’s political parties ultimately remain positioned 

to cultivate political and ideological reconciliation through their capacity to aggregate interests 

and build consensus. 

Consensus building is necessary as the threat of “vigilante Islamism” rises in Pakistan.1 These 

acts partially represent citizen mistrust of the civilian leadership’s ability to govern effectively. The 

power and social influence held by political Islamist groups, however, is overemphasized by some 

domestic and external observers. Such assumptions disregard the reality that Islamist groups, 

while used by the state for political and strategic purposes, lack legitimate political power. State 

inculcation of religious radicalism, however, exists in a tenuous balance with civic identity and notions of the state. This was recently demonstrated by Pakistan’s ideological swing toward increased 

conservatism and a growing acceptance of “vigilante Islamism.” Acts of “vigilante Islamism” carried 

out to correct a perceived state-driven heterodoxy, such as the assassination of Salman Taseer, 

evidence a de-legitimization of the Pakistani state as it is currently defined.

Terrorism

There is considerable evidence to suggest that Pakistan uses domestic terrorist networks to help 

protect its strategic interests in India and Afghanistan. Internally, however, Pakistan faces threats 

from insurgent terrorist networks that aim to disrupt and destabilize. The Pakistan government 

and military must reconcile regional interests with domestic stability as promoting sponsored 

networks while fighting against others will likely prove unsustainable in the long term. The 

challenge of achieving this balance has led many to debate Pakistan’s capacity to address militancy 

within its borders versus its willingness to do so. Critics regularly point to Pakistan’s ability to 

make direct strategic gains against militant groups when pressured despite claims that security 

apparatuses cannot achieve what external demanders expect. The country’s ability to engage on 

multiple fronts with militant groups, however, remains untested. Until Pakistan feels its regional 
© USIP 2011 • All rights reserved.

The Future of Pakistan

page 3 • PB 85 • March 22, 2011

position can be secured and maintained without the use of state sponsored networks, is it unlikely 

that Pakistan will attempt to dismantle these and other militant networks. 

Regional Threat Perception

Pakistan’s current perception of regional threats merits attention in order to avoid potential Black 

Swan events. Pakistan’s Indo-centric foreign policy stance has appeared to shift in recent months 

toward heightened concern over the widening internal threat of militancy, and by extension, how 

resolution of conflict in Afghanistan will impact the capacity of militant groups. Political resolution 

in Afghanistan subsequently may create collaboration opportunities for India and Pakistan to establish mutually beneficial regional relationships. A political process in Afghanistan will also impact 

the U.S.-Pakistan relationship. The July 2014 drawdown date’s encouragement of old fears of U.S. 

abandonment also signals a changing balance of power in the region. This could affect efforts to 

address mutual security threats as U.S. priorities in the region change alongside the reduction of 

U.S. regional presence. 

Considerations for U.S. Foreign Policy 

A stable Pakistan is central to U.S. foreign policy in South Asia. Unfortunately for U.S. policymakers, 

the only reliable forecast is the uncertainty of Pakistan’s future. While there is no “silver bullet” 

solution capable of reversing recent trends of increasing instability in Pakistan, the U.S. must try to 

implement policies to protect and strengthen its strategic partnership with Pakistan. Panelists made 

the following policy recommendations for Washington to consider as it identifies future options. 

Signaling 

In the short term, the U.S. has a unique opportunity to subtly redefine the U.S.-Pakistan relationship during the upcoming visits of President Zardari to the U.S. and President Obama to Pakistan.2

These heads of state will undoubtedly discuss their common interests in combating terrorism 

and stabilizing South Asia. While these discussions should be substantive in addressing policy 

alignment, the symbolic potential of the visits should not be overlooked. The reception of each 

other’s administration is an opportunity for both governments to reconfirm their commitment to 

the strategic partnership, both privately and publicly. The U.S. government should signal to the 

Pakistani and American public that the U.S.-Pakistan alliance is advantageous for both nations, 

and encourage the Pakistan government to do the same. Specifically, the U.S. administration 

could confer greater legitimacy on Pakistan’s civilian government, and look for ways to work with 

Pakistani opposition, nongovernmental organizations and civil society.

A New Big Idea

As the policies and parameters that previous U.S. administrations used to define the U.S.-Pakistan 

relationship become ineffective, policymakers must not hesitate to introduce innovative approaches for engaging Islamabad. Since Pakistan’s inception, U.S. policies have largely relied on 

monetary carrots to enlist cooperation. While a difficult pill for both Americans and Pakistanis to 

swallow, the strategic partnership must develop beyond a transactional relationship. Monetary aid 

alone cannot determine outcomes in Pakistan or alter its strategic outlook. 

The civilian aid package sponsored by Senators John Kerry and Richard Lugar and Representative Howard Berman signifies a change in U.S. conventional wisdom that Pakistan’s military elite is 

the sole guardian of stability. However, the drafters of the Kerry-Lugar-Berman Bill acknowledge 
© USIP 2011 • All rights reserved.

The Future of Pakistan

page 4 • PB 85 • March 22, 2011

that despite their efforts, there were few substantive structures that could be implemented to 

amend the U.S.’s reliance on aid for defining its relationship with Pakistan. To restructure the 

primarily one dimensional alliance with Pakistan, the U.S. could recognize Pakistan as a nuclearcapable, key international and regional stakeholder. Pakistan has sought such recognition following the U.S.’s recent civilian nuclear deal with India. A similar vote of recognition for Pakistan could 

create space for communication to discuss alignment of American and Pakistani interests on topics 

including terrorism, Afghanistan and India. These efforts should not prevent communication to 

Islamabad that further civilian aid is contingent on its progress in long-term capacity building, 

both in terms of continued civilian power and economic reform. 

U.S. Involvement in Pakistan’s Domestic Stability

The U.S. and others with a vested interest in Pakistan’s future must be open to the possibility that 

Pakistan will have to traverse tenuous periods of political and social unrest for stability to take 

root. The path toward political and economic stability may involve the formation and collapse of 

many coalition governments, which will undoubtedly appear chaotic to outsiders. The U.S. needs 

to reconsider policies that may directly or indirectly undermine the civilian democratic process. 

The U.S. has typically preferred quick solutions, bypassing the civilian establishment in the wake 

of growing political instability. This shortcut has led to costly consequences in the medium- and 

long-term and prolonged Pakistan’s chronic civil-military imbalance. U.S. policies intersecting with 

Pakistan’s domestic politics must be focused on long-term stability, and must allow Pakistan the 

space to define its own democratic narrative. 

Regional Focus

The U.S. should be mindful of holistically considering the regional context in designing policies 

toward Pakistan. Key stakeholders in Pakistan live and operate according to various regional pressures. Yet, Washington’s bureaucratic structure and conceptualization of South Asia often compartmentalize Pakistan issues in a manner that obscures the interconnected reality of the region. U.S. 

diplomatic, foreign policy and intelligence departments should consider reorganizing their South 

Asian bureaucratic structures to improve the regional coherence of their operations. 

U.S. stabilization operations in Afghanistan would especially benefit from a more integrated 

approach to dealing with the areas key actors and developments. The importance of the India 

dimension in the Afghanistan-Pakistan theatre cannot be overemphasized. Pakistan and India’s 

competition for leverage in Afghanistan may jeopardize U.S. stabilization efforts in Afghanistan. 

Therefore, U.S. efforts to substantially support the normalization of India-Pakistan relations would 

likely have propitious effects on U.S. operations in Afghanistan.

Thinking Back, Looking Forward

The constant amid the uncertainty about Pakistan’s future course is affirmation of the importance 

of continued partnership between Pakistan and the U.S. Despite the aforementioned challenges, 

it is clear that solutions must and can be found to improve and sustain the bilateral relationship. The immense domestic political implications of Pakistan’s current economic, political and 

security threats require urgent attention from domestic actors. Whether the military will forcefully 

intervene in the face of the divisive domestic debate generated by the Islamist threat depends on 

Pakistan’s civilian politician’s ability to mitigate the issue. Likewise, the potential for resolution of 

the Kashmir conflict will rely on relevant decision-makers seeking consensus on both sides of the 

border, a process which may facilitate dialogue on other regional challenges. Washington’s role 
© USIP 2011 • All rights reserved.

USIP provides the analysis, training and 

tools that prevent and end conflicts, 

promotes stability and professionalizes 

the field of peacebuilding.

For media inquiries, contact the office 

of Public Affairs and Communications, 

202.429.4725

2301 Constitution Ave., NW

Washington, D.C. 20037

The Future of Pakistan

page 5 • PB 85 • March 22, 2011

as events in Pakistan unfold will require consensus on goals and means of achieving them. With 

consensus, the U.S. may prove able to support without defining solutions to these domestic challenges as the two countries work toward a mutually beneficial future. 

Endnotes

1. The term “vigilante Islamism” refers to vigilante acts undertaken toward Islamist causes. As 

defined by Joshua T. White, “the permissibility of a nonstate actor to take unilateral action, through 

violence if necessary, to enforce the sharia apart from the hand of the state.” For more complete 

background on this term, visit http://www.currenttrends.org/research/detail/vigilante-islamism-inpakistan. 

2. This event took place before the arrest of Raymond Davis in Pakistan. Subsequent to the arrest 

and growing diplomatic tensions between the U.S. and Pakistan, it is unclear whether or not these 

visits will take place.

About This Brief

This report is based on views 

expressed by 11 panel chairs and 

panelists during the January 31, 

2011 event, “The Future of Pakistan,” hosted by USIP’s Center for 

Conflict Management and the 

Brookings Institution. This Peace 

Brief was written by USIP program 

assistant Stephanie Flamenbaum 

and research assistant Megan 

Neville, and Constantino Xavier, a 

senior research assistant with the 

Brookings Institution’s 21st 

Century Defense Initiative.