Farooq Hameed Khan With all the recent hype and the drumbeat about the Pak-US strategic dialogue, did Pakistan make any worthwhile strategic gains? With losses estimated to the tune of $43 billion in the so-called war on terror, will the five year $7.5 billion aid package truly compensate Pakistan for its colossal destruction in terms of material and infrastructure? Is the US prepared to help its energy-starved ally achieve its strategic energy goals? The US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, ruled out the possibility of transferring civilian nuclear technology to Pakistan until the American and Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) concerns over Pak-China civilian nuclear cooperation are addressed. Not surprisingly, she continued to harp on the long buried Dr A.Q. Khan episode. The US opposition to the Pak-China nuclear cooperation nevertheless smacks of double standards. On the one hand, the US rewards India with civilian nuclear technology, with many Indian nuclear reactors not under the IAEA umbrella; while, on the other, it creates hurdles in the way of transfer of Chinese nuclear technology to Pakistan for its legitimate energy needs. China has already supplied Chasma 1 and 2 nuclear power plants (600MW combined) which fully comply with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspections and safeguards, and so would the additional two 625MW nuclear power reactors to be set up under the Pak-China peaceful nuclear cooperation programme. If the Americans are sincerely committed to helping Pakistan overcome its energy crisis, then funding (even partially) at least one mega dam project, like the 4500MW Bhasha Dam or the 1000MW Thar coal fired power plant, would have created a greater economic impact rather than supporting small-scale power or irrigation projects, like Gomal Dam (17.4MW) and Satpara Dam (17.36MW). Similarly, instead of installing solar power systems in Beaconhouse schools that cater for the rich elite, the large-scale electrification of villages and schools in extremism-prone backward areas in FATA and South Punjab would have been more appropriate. The $500 million aid programme appears more tactical than strategic. Pakistanis often ask that if they would ever reap the benefits of the US assisted mini-development projects in the fields of agriculture, energy, health, irrigation, etc. The much-awaited Reconstruction Opportunity Zones (ROZs) in FATA, the region which has suffered the most in terms of human, material and infrastructure losses, should have been accorded priority. However, if the American administration desires to win the hearts and minds of the people of Pakistan, they need to follow the Pak-China strategic partnership model. Based on mutual trust, sincerity and respect, this longstanding and mutually beneficial relationship is manifested real time in the form of mega projects - the fruits of which are enjoyed by the common Pakistani. The Karakorum Highway, Gwadar Port, the aeronautical and defence industries in Taxilia (Heavy Industries Taxila -HIT) and Kamra (Air Weapon Complex - AWC), Chashma nuclear power plants, the mineral development and the telecom sector are projects of national importance that truly reflect the strategic depth in the Pak-China relationship. Furthermore, where the Chinese completely outclass the Americans is in their open-hearted transfer of technology with no strings or preconditions. Can we ever imagine a joint Pak-US drone manufacturing facility in Pakistan similar to the Pak-China JF-17 Thunder fighter jet co-production programme at Kamra? On the Al-Qaeda and Taliban leadership issue, the American obsession with Osama Bin Laden and Mullah Omar remains a central theme in almost every visit by the high-ranking US civil and military leadership. Secretary Clinton was emphatic that both were hiding in Pakistan, while the top leadership in Islamabad has persistently denied it and declared that both were operating from inside Afghanistan. Few months earlier, too, she had accused the Pakistani officials of knowing the whereabouts of the Al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders, thereby implying that Pakistan was protecting and harbouring them. The question is, would it be wise and imaginable for Bin Laden to live in the midst of US intelligence infested Pak-Afghan border belt? Moreover, if the Americans are so convinced about their stance, then why have they failed to provide actionable intelligence about the location of Al-Qaeda and Talibans topmost leadership in Pakistan? Here lies another contradiction. When asked by one of the TV anchors, whether the US would act if it had information on Bin Laden and Mullah Omars presence in Pakistan, Ms Clinton replied that their current whereabouts are not known. Imagine the state of trust deficit that even after dozens of strategic dialogues and interactive sessions between top level US and Pakistani civilian and security experts, the topmost American leadership refuses to believe its Pakistani counterparts on the Bin Laden and Mullah Omar issue. It seems that when Ms Clinton sought tougher action and additional steps by Pakistan to combat militants, she forgot to acknowledge the role of 150,000 strong Pakistani officers that suffered over 8,000 casualties, including around 2,600 soldiers killed and over 6,000 wounded in action in FATA since 2007. The US Secretary should have remembered that 43 nations under the US and NATO command with 143,000 troops in Afghanistan had lost only 1,600 men since 2001. Instead of the traditional do more mantra, Ms Clinton is advised to take some time off to pay homage to our shaheeds at the Martyrs Memorial on her next visit to the General Headquarters (GHQ). However, when the US carrots come, the stick may not be far behind. In a TV interview, Hillary Clinton minced no words when she said: There is no doubt in anyones mind that should an attack against the United States be traced to Pakistan it should have a very devastating impact on our relationship. She obviously meant fresh sanctions, suspension of the aid programme and obviously unilateral strikes in Waziristan. This is the typical arm-twisting and coercive US diplomacy, traditionally unfortunately reserved for its oldest and staunchest ally. Remember, even after the failed Faisal Shahzad bomb attack in New York a few weeks ago, she had threatened Pakistan with severe consequences should another terrorist act in the US were to be linked to Taliban in Waziristan. Such threats coming repeatedly from senior American leadership only tend to heighten anti-Americanism amongst the common Pakistanis and neutralise any little impact of American aid programme. Furthermore, when it came to US mediation on the Kashmir dispute or the condemnation of Indian atrocities in IHK, Hillary Clinton had nothing to say, except that being Indias internal matter, this dispute needed to be resolved through bilateral negotiations. Likewise, on the water issue with India all that Pakistan gained were more of a snub, with the advice to internally manage the problem more efficiently. Given Ms Clintons profound attraction and praise for Pakistani mangoes, the export of this delicious fruit to the US could lead to Pakistans real 'strategic breakthrough in Pak-US relations. If the Americans were to develop taste for the Pakistani mangoes, the same that brought down Ziaul Haqs C-130 near Bahawalpur, perhaps, mutual suspicion and mistrust may some day be the forgotten legacy of the past The writer is a retired brigadier Email: fhkhan54@gmail.com