In his few hours in Pakistan, President Clinton spoke of long-term friendship and cooperation. But from a Pakistani point of view, his message was somewhat more ominous, and seems to mark a shift toward India. PNS commentator Muddassir Rizvi is a Pakistani journalist specializing in development issues whose work appears in several weekly and monthly publications.

ISLAMABAD, PAKISTAN -- President Bill Clinton's sugar-coated hard talk to the people of Pakistan reflects the U.S. desire for this country to stop its rogue actions and walk on a path leading to non-violence, peace and democracy.

Indeed, many saw the speech as a charter of U.S. demands which Pakistan must accept to survive in a world governed by economic and not ideological compulsions. The choices are limited: transform the country or face increasing international isolation, like Libya and Iraq.

Although in his speech Clinton recalled five decades of close and cordial bonds between Washington and Islamabad, he made it clear that the friendship would continue only if Pakistan decided to restore democracy, end confrontation in South Asia, withdraw from the nuclear arms race and cooperate on crushing terrorism.

"I hope you will be able to meet the difficult challenges. If you do not, there is a danger that Pakistan may grow even more isolated, draining even more resources away from the needs of the people, moving even closer to a conflict no one can win," Clinton said.

While the country's military government is playing down this statement, the fact is Pakistan and the United States stand very far apart on important issues such as nuclear weapons, democracy and terrorism.

"The Pakistan-U.S. dialogue had not resulted in convergence of views on nuclear disarmament -- their approach to nuclear disarmament is global, while we carry a region-based approach," commented Pakistani Foreign Minister Abdus Sattar.

Pakistan failed to make any commitment to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty -- against a backdrop of stiff resistance from Islamic parties, whose student wings staged countrywide protests against Clinton's visit despite an official ban on political rallies. The country's most respected poll reported 95 percent of those interviewed were opposed to signing the treaty.

"When the United States has not ratified the CTBT, why should we be compelled to sign the treaty -- especially when India is pumping huge money to develop its nuclear weapons program?" asked Tahirul Qadri, chairman of the right-wing Pakistani Awami Tehrik (Peoples' Movement).

The United States even turned down Pakistan's long-standing demand for mediation on Kashmir, over which the two South Asian countries have fought three wars. Instead, Washington appeared to have moved closer to New Delhi's stand that requires Islamabad to create an environment conducive to a peace dialogue.

The military government has assured the U.S. of full cooperation to fight terrorism, but there seems to be a wide difference in how the two countries define terrorism. For Pakistan, terrorism means a few sanctuaries in Afghanistan, providing training and refuge to Arab nationals allegedly involved in sabotage of primarily American installations. But radical Islamic groups actively working in this country, running training camps, collecting funds and brandishing arms in the name of Jihad in Indian-controlled Kashmir and Chechnya, are not considered terrorists.

The one positive outcome of Clinton's six-hour stopover seems to be the establishment of a high-level contact between Washington and Pakistan's military rulers. "Clinton's visit has revitalized the relations between the two countries," said Dr. Maleeha Lodhi, Islamabad's ambassador to Washington.

Clinton's remarks were not unexpected given the emerging partnership between the United States and India. Washington sees South Asia in terms of American corporate investment and Indian human resource. But that partnership cannot bear fruit without peace in the region, and Pakistan seems to be the biggest obstacle.

The U.S. evidently believes that Pakistan can be controlled through economic curbs.

But the cricker-turned-politician Imran Khan summarized widespread concerns over the future, especially because of Kashmir. Khan predicted it could turn into "another Kosovo if the doors of mediation are closed."

Clinton's visit to Pakistan reflects the emerging U.S. outlook on South Asia. In the words of respected newspaper commentator Talat Hussain, "Washington does not see India and Pakistan as two peas on the pod to be treated equally. American policy-makers are no longer hung up on the principle of evenhandedness....Post-visit India and Pakistan will fall in different policy categories."