Interview of outgoing US Consul General Zachary Harkenrider
Zachary Harkenrider was interviewed by Moeed Pirzada.
Below is the transcript of interview of outgoing US Consulate General Zachary Harkenrider:
Moeed Pirzada: I am now joined by United States’ outgoing Consul General in Lahore Mr. Zachary Harkenrider. Mr. Zachary Harkenrider has completed three years in Pakistan. He first served as the deputy head of the political affairs in Islamabad. Before serving in Pakistan he has also served in Afghanistan and India. And as he recently mentioned in one of his op-ed pieces that was published in a newspaper in Pakistan that he had seen Pakistan through the eyes of Afghans and Indians which was not necessarily a very charitable view. So let me start by welcoming him and asking him that how his view changed. A very warm welcome to you Mr. Harkenrider!
Zachary Harkenrider: Thank you for your warm welcome Moeed and thank you for having me on your program this evening, I very much look forward to our conversation.
Moeed Pirzada: Thanks for joining; I know that you are flying out very soon. Mr. Harkenrider, as you mentioned in one of your op-ed pieces, recently, that before coming to Pakistan; you had seen Pakistan through the eyes of Indians and Afghans. It was not a very charitable view. How has your view changed in the last three years?
Zachary Harkenrider: I would never say that my own view is uncharitable. And I’m trying to be a bit of a South Asia expert so I have served previously in India and Afghanistan. And of course as you know, these regional neighbors have their own perspective on your country. So when I came to Pakistan, I was determined to come with a very open mind. And I did that.
And what I’ve learnt in the past three years has been really significant. It filled a massive lacuna in my regional knowledge or regional expertise. So I leave Pakistan, as I said in that very same op-ed in Friday times that I’m a guarded optimist about Pakistan’s future. What I’ve learnt here in my years here both in Islamabad and in Lahore, observing affairs both national and regional in Punjab, able to discern a couple of significant, positive trend lines that argue well for this country’s future. There are areas in which the United States is helping Pakistan to achieve some successes. So I leave here, not only a guarded optimist about Pakistan’s future, but as an optimist about the condition of the relationship.
Moeed Pirzada: But Mr. Harkenrider you refer to yourself as a guarded optimist, not as a full optimist. Why?
Zachary Harkenrider: Because when predicting the future, one should have a sense of humility. And while I regard Pakistan as a country that has the potential to be the next great Asian economic success story, we know that there will have to be some tough decisions made to make that happen in reality. But yeah, many of the foundational elements, whether they’re on security or energy, are increasingly coming into play. And I do believe that this can happen.
Moeed Pirzada: Mr. Harkenrider when I look through your writings and some of your television interviews as well, some of the places you mentioned, you offered your comments, I see you’re full of praise for Pakistan in various sectors, whether it is Zarb-E-Azb or energy or the economic performance or Punjab government’s performance. Yet we see (and most of my viewers will agree with that feeling) a very negative contrast when we hear the commentary in the United States’ mainstream media; whether it is New York Times or Washington Post or Los Angeles Times or American Television like CNN. At the same time, the voices and sounds that continue to emanate from the House and the Congress, the Senate; so why is there such a contract? Between your positive view, your changed view and their cynicism?
Zachary Harkenrider: First I think we need to look at the US Pakistan relationship in a historical perspective. It’s been a strong relationship for over sixty years. And I suspect it will be a strong relationship for the next sixty years as well. There are many diverse viewpoints in America as you can imagine. Our House and Senate are large and there is a diversity of views. Senator McCain was recently here, he is the Chairman of our Armed Services Committee and a man who’s been a strong advocate of the US Pakistan relationship for over thirty years. He was able to travel to Waziristan to see, firsthand, some of the tremendous gains that have been made by operation Zarb-E-Azb. And along with Senator Graham and other strong supporters of the relationship I think he left here, very favorably impressed by what he saw by spending time on the ground. As I noted in some of my Op-eds, there is a tendency in the media, both international and domestic, to follow the old ethos of “If it bleeds, it leads’. But that tendency means that often stories that present a more positive counter-point get subsumed and these over arched narratives of concern. So I think when you look deeper, you notice some of the positive things that are happening.
Moeed Pirzada: What do you really mean by the expression “when it bleeds, it leads”?
Zachary Harkenrider: At least in the United States it’s a common, old Journalistic axiom. It means the tendency of the media to put, at the top of the page, the scariest sort of story, the most dramatic or sensational sort of story. And those are the newsworthy items too, and they’re certainly true. But the more mundane, if perhaps more fundamental stories are often elided over as a consequence. So bombings, terrorist strikes, violence; these sort of things are always accorded prominence both in our media and in yours. But what is sometimes ignored in the mix are the quieter, positive stories on economics, social change, on long term security gains, things that are happening underneath the surface. And what I’ve argued is that we need to be alive to those stories as well. And if there’s one thing I think that you get from spending significant time in Pakistan is the more textured and nuanced sense of the country’s trajectory. Not just the scary headlines that you see in the West, but all of the positive realities that are there underneath the surface that are best appreciated up-close.
Moeed Pirzada: Mr. Harkenrider, when you mention the term “media in general” whether it is United States’ media or the global media “when it bleeds it leads”, when we see that there are so many problems in India, there are so many massive insurgencies in the North Eastern corridor of India, people being slaughtered, the violation of the minorities, look at what’s happening in Kashmir for the past couple of weeks, the treatment of women, the other minorities, the Shadur caste. If you follow the same principle of “if it bleeds, it leads’ none of that gets the same kind of prominence in the American media. Anything negative in Pakistan sells, anything positive in Pakistan doesn’t sell, what is the reason for that?
Zachary Harkenrider: I think you tend to get, and I’ll offer some free media criticism which is not my area of expertise, you tend to get into these dominant narratives, which elide over nuances and alternative stories. So how do we change the dominant narratives on Pakistan? Well I think the very real gains that you’ve made on security through operation Zarb e Azb and associated measures, the very real gains that you are making on bringing additional energy productive capacity, relaying the foundation for what could be a very different and positive narrative about Pakistan in the future. But that media narrative will be a lagging indicator of your success. The success will first be realized on the ground and will later be reflected through the press. Comparing the dominant media narrative about your neighbor today, than what it was fifteen to twenty years ago, it’s a very different story. I know, I served in India back in those days. And the international media perception is very different from what it is now. So it shows that narratives can shift over time.
Moeed Pirzada: But Mr. Harkenrider, one fundamental reason for the narrative about India changing in the last fifteen or twenty years, is that India used to be an ally of the Soviet Union in the cold war era, and Pakistan was an ally of the United States. But now India is an important plank in the overall US geo-strategy and Pakistan is not. Perhaps it isn’t an issue of performance, but mostly an issue of United States’ changing interests.
Zachary Harkenrider: I disagree with that; a presumption. In fact, I think the main reason that you saw a shift in the quality and texture of media narratives on India is due to the fact that for over a decade, they have had an extremely sustained rate of economic growth. And you mentioned some of the challenges that India still faces today. Those challenges haven’t gone away. It’s important to recognize that you don’t have to get everything right in order to change the narrative then also change the ground reality. You just have to get some things right. And I think in particular, high sustained economic growth of the sort, accompanied by reforms, that can attract the attention of, first domestic, then international investors, can go a long way towards changing the narratives and then towards changing the ground realities. Now you’ve mentioned the US-India relationship; indeed, we’ve seen a significant evolution in the US-India relationship over the last fifteen or sixteen years. Really going back there I think president Clinton visited there in 2000 and continuing down to the president at the moment. It’s important to understand that that relationship exists independent of the US-Pakistan relationship, just as the US-Pakistan relationship exists independently of the US-India relationship. We do not view these things as a zero sum game. We do not view these things as being mutually exclusive in any way. We welcome strong relationships with both countries. Pakistan’s been a great ally of the United States for sixty years. That’s not going to change. Administrations in our government, administrations in your government, for sixty years they preserved that relationship because they recognized its value.
Moeed Pirzada: Mr. Harkenrider two questions come to my mind by your response. You mentioned high economic growth; In General Musharraf’s time, Pakistan had very high and steady economic growth (6 percent, 7 percent) and Pakistan had various reforms, in the banking sector, an explosion of the media market, telecom sector, Pakistan engaged India on Kashmir, the four point formula, and for this first time in Asia, Pakistan had very effective local governments and police reforms. None of them really changed Pakistan’s image across the American media.
Zachary Harkenrider: Well I very deliberately said, high and sustained. And it’s important to sustain these trend lines over time. We know that that’s essential for the sort of transformational growth that can pull people up out of poverty and change lives. And we are trying to advance that, through not only assistance which amounts to over 30 Billion Dollars since 2001, but also through more and more investments which is why we brought 200 Pakistani companies to New York in June to match make with American companies, to try to drive that economic narrative forward. So we’re not just talking about these ideas in the abstract, we’re actually doing things on ground, to try to help make them happen.
Moeed Pirzada: You also said that the United States has a separate relationship with India and an independent relationship with Pakistan and these do not necessarily affect each other. But recently, only in the last few months we have seen how the Indian lobbies within the United States have been able to influence the F16 deal and they got away with it. The US component of the aid was rejected. We’re seeing it very clearly; The Indian lobby is affecting the Pakistan-US relationship.
Zachary Harkenrider: As a point of fact that is not correct. The reason why the congress did not support the extension of foreign military financing for the F-16 deal had little to do with the Indian lobby, if anything at all. It had to do with the concern among members of congress with the ability of the Haqqani network and other anti Afghan elements to use areas of Pakistan to stage and guide direct attacks against Afghanistan and against U.S. forces in Afghanistan. That was the core of the issue on the F-16, not the Indian lobby, so let’s get that straight. We’ve conveyed that as well from the government and its for that reason we really welcome General Raheel’s statement on July 6th in Waziristan that the Pakistan military, intelligence, law enforcement agencies will do everything they can to deny space here to those who would act across your borders to harm the Afghans. We also recognize of course that we must do everything that we can, together with our Afghan partners, to deny anti Pakistan actors the space, the safe havens within Afghanistan and I think in two recent instances, two very recent high-profile effective strikes, we’ve proven a capacity to do that. To remove dangerous actors who are attacking Pakistan as well. So these issues, the issues of regional stability and how you bring peace to Afghanistan, those loom the largest in American eyes when we’re looking at the situation right now.
Moeed Pirzada: But look at the other contrast, when Sartaj Aziz, Pakistan’s national security advisor, the defacto foreign minister, meets Senator John Kerry, he praises Zarb-e-Azab and this is something which ambassador David Hale does, which you do, so many other people do. At the same time look at the house move from Matt Salmon, the house foreign affairs committee where the congressman are not only demanding to cut Pakistan’s financial aid but are also demanding for sanctions against Pakistan. I mean there is a huge contrast. It appears as if the US diplomats and officials praise Pakistan only within Pakistan and this is some sort of carrot and stick policy. Within the United States the US government looks totally helpless. People and good diplomats like you look totally helpless in changing the perception within US media.
Zachary Harkenrider: Well the point of fact, the United States like Pakistan is a large, vibrant and diverse democracy and there are wide varieties of viewpoints that are held by members of congress, members of the public and the media. We need to look at what the administration’s policy actually is. This administration has been very clear both here and domestically that we value the relationship with Pakistan highly and that we are prepared to do our part to support the joint goals that we share. Just this year, fiscal year 2017, the administration’s request for foreign assistance to Pakistan on the civilian side is $860 million. We continue to provide almost $900 million budgeted in coalition support funds to support the work the Pakistan military is doing to bring stability to its Western frontier. Those are facts. Opinions are many. Facts are few. But the facts illustrate clearly where this administration stands on Pakistan policy. It’s a relationship we value highly.
Moeed Pirzada: But Mr. Harkenrider, the actions or the positions of the congressmen who are heading the foreign affairs committee or sub-committee, congressmen like Dana Rohrabacher and William Keating. These are not just columnists in the media. I mean these are very important members of the US political establishment.
Zachary Harkenrider: Indeed it is true. We have 435 members of the House of Representatives, we have 100 senators, and each one is entitled to his or her views. At the end of the day though, I would ask you to judge the relationship based on what is actually implemented, what is actually done. What is actually implemented, what is actually done is over $30 billion of assistance since 2001 and a significant ongoing commitment to security assistance as well. We’re looking at an over $800 million deal right now on attack helicopters AH1Z Zulu attack helicopters and associated munitions that will help the Pakistan military to achieve its counter insurgency and counter terrorism goals. Those are the facts.
Moeed Pirzada: Mr. Harkenrider, let me address this question in another way, which is very important to many Pakistanis. You have continuously been talking, you consider yourself to be a great friend, an admirer, and you’re a part of the social life in Lahore. Your positive ideas and positive statements are all being quoted in Pakistani media. Why do they never get quoted, and same goes for the ambassador David Hale and the other ambassador before? Why don’t these positive sentiments travel on to the US media like New York Times, Washington Post, and Los Angeles Times? What is the problem?
Zachary Harkenrider: Well I don’t know, assessing and parsing media structures at that level is beyond my pay grade or capacity. But I think what we all have to do as advocates for the US Pakistan relationship, Pakistani and American advocates, is to make the case about the ways in which the narrative and the reality that drives the narrative is evolving in some important ways and I think the advent of the quadrilateral group supporting Afghan reconciliation in which Pakistan has played a very positive role is important. I think the efforts Pakistan has made over the course of the 3 years that I have been here, to materially improve the security situation and stability of the country, is important. I think the advances you are making in energy are important. I think the effects that we are achieving through US assistance for instance we have achieved 2400 megawatts of generation into the national grid over the last 5 years generating enough electricity for 28 million people. Those are important stories to tell too and again as I said that we are looking at this in some sort of historical perspective, dominant media narratives take time to change, the facts on the ground will change first. Those narratives will be lacking indicators but all we can do is keep focusing on the good work we are doing together with your government to advance more positive future for the people of Pakistan and I’m confident that our efforts will bring that.
Moeed Pirzada: Let me come to a very disturbing situation, which concerns the common Pakistani. You have only maintained counselor services in Islamabad and Karachi. Lahore is a city of 10 million people. It is surrounded very closely by cities like Faisalabad, Gujranwala, and Sialkot. I mean there are people, businessmen, and students, it’s a huge population center of 30 million plus and there is no visa and counselor service in Lahore. Why is it so?
Zachary Harkenrider: Well it’s interesting we have not had visa services in Lahore since 1998. We have continued to provide them through counselor service in Karachi and the embassy in Islamabad, as you know that. The main reason is that frankly our consulate in Lahore is a very small, old building, which does not have frankly have the capacity to handle the sort of flow of persons that will come if we start issuing visas. So we are trying to identify and acquire land to build a new consulate general in Lahore. If we are successful in doing that, down the road, then we could definitely look at the option of offering visa services here again but it is really a question of the limitation afforded by our physical facility.
Moeed Pirzada: But look at its implications, look at its impact. Lahore is a mega center of population. It is a mega city and it is surrounded by large cities like Sialkot, Gujranwala, and Faisalabad which are centers of commerce and activity and full of students, colleges, universities and so on. Islamabad on the other hand is a city with less than a million population and people from Lahore, Faisalabad, Gujranwala, and Sialkot have to either rely upon the courier services or have to travel to Islamabad, which is very difficult. They have to come, they have to stay, its unfamiliar surroundings for them, which are facts. I wonder why you are here, I mean with friends like you why has this issue not been taken up? Why it is not under discussion?
Zachary Harkenrider: I have to tell you that it’s a question of limited facilities. Our current old building is not adequate to accommodating those counselor services but we are working hard with your government to try to identify land where we can build a brand new facility. If we can do that and we get help from your government, in doing that, we could look at the issue of providing visa services in Lahore. There’s plenty of logic to that idea and I would personally advocate for it but we just don’t have the facility to do it right now.
Moeed Pirzada: The Government officers and diplomats always love statistics but media hates them. But I have some statistics. I have looked at India and looked at Pakistan, with India several consular services in New-Delhi, Chennai, Calcutta and Mumbai. In 2016, almost one million non-immigrants Visa had been issued to Indians and Linkages with U.S is very important in contemporary world in terms of Cultural growth, in terms of education, in terms of flow of information. Only 51,000 non-immigrant Visas from which 29,000 were issued from Islamabad and 22,000 from Karachi, so in contrast to the 50,000, it is twenty times more issued to India with population of just eight times more.
Zachary Harkenrider: There are many factors that drive this, not only raw population numbers but economic ties. If you look at the statistics on U.S-Pak trade relationship, we are pretty good at around $5.5 bn. a year in bi-lateral trade. We are one of Pakistan’s largest export markets; we are also one of your largest sources of foreign direct investment (FDI). We want to see that grow much more. I believe there is a huge upside to the potential for U.S-Pak economic growth and with that growth comes more business travel in both countries. I look forward to the day when rising visa issues, those statistics will be one of many indicators of increasingly vibrant and strong U.S-Pak economic relations. But I would not under-estimate the importance of those sixty thousand Visas issued each year that gives, to tens and thousands of Pakistan citizens, the chance to travel to my country for education, for business and tourism and for visiting friends and families, to develop relationships and to understand America better.
Moeed Pirzada: I have another statistic that worries me more, as I have studied in the U.S, I was at the Colombia University and that relationship was very important for always maintaining. I have been a great critic of the U.S foreign policy, but that has never stopped me and the U.S embassy, maintaining a very close relationship, because of my educational background. But look at the educational situation, 77,000 students got F-1 Visa, which is the student Visa in the year 2015 from India as compare to only 2,365 Pakistani Students who got the F-1 visa. This is in fact thirty times a distance, and Pakistani students wanted to go to U.S, now have started to go to countries which offer them less substantive education, like New Zealand, Australia, Hong Kong and even the United Kingdom. U.S educational link is very important, but visas are not coming forth.
Zachary Harkenrider: Well you know that presumes a great deal; in terms of relative issuance rates and you don’t have the statistics honestly to make that argument. What I would tell you though as that we strongly welcome Pakistani students to the U.S. We have the USEF in Pakistan which has, for the better part of seventy years, been working hard to explain to students how they can avail themselves to higher education opportunities in the U.S and I know I meet countless Lahoris who have their children going to the U.S to study, we welcome that with open arms and we are happy to see more Pakistani students to take up education in U.S and I would tell your viewers that the USEFP, which has offices in Islamabad Lahore and Karachi is there to help them chart a course that will bring them to the U.S and realize their dream of an American Education.
Moeed Pirzada: But don’t you think that the F category visa which is actually, the educational visa, the student visa for undergraduate or masters degrees is a very good indicator of the educational links, I mean in a country that is desperate for U.S education, people not getting into the U.S.
Zachary Harkenrider: Well you imply people are not getting into the U.S and point of fact, we issue a significant number of student visas and I think those numbers have risen over the years. They have risen in India too, obviously. We encourage more. We will be happy to see additional Pakistani students, going to the U.S to study in American universities and I want to make sure that your viewers know that, that is a very real option. We have a diverse array of private and public universities in the U.S., many of which offer significant financial aid, and again the USEFP exists in large measure not only to run our full bright programs but to help students understand what the course is to go to the U.S. I think a lot of Pakistani families, for historical reasons, have looked to the U.K as a place for higher education or some other common wealth countries that have the same A-levels and O-levels systems, but as we have seen in other common wealth countries, India being a prime example, where you have seen a steep rise in the number of students going to the U.S over the years. There is a great upside; there is great potential for students coming out of a British style system to continue their education in the U.S system too and we’d love to see more of them. We welcome students and we would be happy to issue visas to all qualified students.
Moeed Pirzada: Let me come to another very, I would say difficult set of questions. You have been on record many times, quite recently as well, the Ambassador has been, and every U.S official has been, that you say that we continue to support democracy in Pakistan. But the issue is how you define Democracy? Is democracy only the absence of the military or is democracy only the strengthening of institutions? I mean the electoral mechanisms, rule of law, the policing, the accountability, I mean, how can the dynastic rule in Pakistan at every level, I mean why the U.S never takes position from the macro word democracy into the micro definition of the elements and components of democracy?
Zachary Harkenrider: Well I think that at some level you run the risk of interfering in the internal affairs of a friend and an ally, if you start to lecture in too much minute detail on all of the necessary components. Of course a fully articulating definition of democracy includes all of those things but we recognize from history, our own history and the history of democracy around the world, that the organic evolution of democracy within each country is unique to that country and there is no one model to follow, but time on task is pretty essential and so that is why, we are so heartened to see that Pakistan has concluded now two national elections back to back, in 2008 and 2013 and a peaceful transfer of power from one elected government to another. That process is going forward into the future. Again time on task matters, but it also takes time as we know from our own national experience, to build a truly democratic culture to go along with democratic governance systems. But again I would not presume to lecture my Pakistani friends on exactly how they have to do that. It is very much their business. The U.S will continue to be a friend and ally and an advocate for Pakistani democracy as you evolve it in your own way.
Moeed Pirzada: When the U.S says repeatedly that we support democracy, it also is sort of telling Pakistan that what kind of system of governance the Pakistanis should have. It actually tells them what direction to follow and which is actually a kind of interference. At the same time it is not prepared, it shies away from taking the elemental position that democracy means improving accountability, democracy means better governance, the criminal justice system, the rule of law, the accountability the transparency all these things are missing.
Zachary Harkenrider: I have strong confidence in the ability of the Pakistani people to define what democracy means for them and to demand those things which are essential to its elaboration.
Moeed Pirzada: What would be your final message to the people of Lahore, the city you fell in love with?
Zachary Harkenrider: Lahore is a great City, it has a great and amazing history but also a great and amazing future. I see that future when I go to things like plan 9 and plan X software incubation centers at Arfa Technology Park. I see it in the restoration of historic monuments in the old city, to which we are contributing as well. I see it in the vibrancy, entrepreneurial ethos of the people. I have a lot of confidence in Pakistan’s future. I see strong economic growth, real potential to become one of the top Asian economic success stories. So Lahore can draw some inspiration, as we all try to do, from its rich history and use that to fashion a future, that is democratic, safe, secure and stable and also I hope growing in ways that help Pakistanis realize their tremendous potential. It has been a privilege for me to see that potential in my years here. I hope the rest of the world starts to see it soon as well.
Moeed Pirzada: Thank you Zach. This was Zachary Harkenrider, the outgoing US Consul General in Lahore; we wish you good luck in your career.
