Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
DECONSTRUCTING THE DYNAMICS OF
RELATIONS: AN ANALYTICAL STUDY OF PAK-US
RELATIONS (1979-2015)
By
Syed Nouman Ali Shah PhD in International Relations
Session 2015-2020
Roll No.16
Supervisor
Dr. Gulshan Majeed
DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE
UNIVERSITY OF THE PUNJAB,
LAHORE
DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE
This thesis is submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the award of
Degree
Ph.D. in
DECONSTRUCTING THE DYNAMICS OF RELATIONS: AN ANALYTICAL
STUDY OF PAK-US RELATIONS (1979-2015)
Supervisor Submitted by
Dr. Gulshan Majeed Syed Nouman Ali Shah
Department of Political Science Roll No. 16
University of the Punjab, Lahore. Session: - 2015-2020
Department of Political Science University of the Punjab Lahore
i
DEDICATED TO
My family and especially my mother Zahra Batool and my Father Syed Rauf
Ali Shah without whom efforts I could not be able to reach till this stage, along with
my wife Waniya and to all those who strived for me to complete this research work.
ii
DECLARATION
I, Syed Nouman Ali Shah Ph. D. Scholar at Department of Political Science,
University of the Punjab, Lahore hereby declare that the present thesis titled
DECONSTRUCTING THE DYNAMICS OF RELATIONS: AN ANALYTICAL
STUDY OF PAK-US RELATIONS (1979-2015)
Has been written by me and is my original and personal work.
________ __________________
Dated Signature of Deponent
iii
CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that present thesis titled DECONSTRUCTING THE
DYNAMICS OF RELATIONS: AN ANALYTICAL STUDY OF PAK-US
RELATIONS (1979-2015) has been written by Syed Nouman Ali Shah as the
requirement for Ph. D degree in International Relations from the University of the
Punjab, Lahore. The research described in this thesis is original work of the author
and has been carried out under my direct supervision. The thesis has been prepared
according to the prescribed format for the award of the degree under codal procedure
of the University. To the best of my knowledge the thesis is based on original
research.
Dr. Gulshan Majeed
Supervisor
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
All praise to Almighty Allah, Most Beneficial and Merciful, Who bestowed
on me the passion and capabilities to complete my research. I am very much grateful
to my supervisor, Dr. Gulshan Majeed with whom I started my Ph.D. research. Her
valuable suggestions, consistent encouragement and extensive technical guidance
made me able for concluding my research.
I present my special thanks to Dr. Syed khawaja Alqama, my friends,
colleagues and my family who supported me throughout this research and encouraged
me to peruse my Ph.D. degree.
Syed Nouman Ali Shah
v
ABSTRACT
Deconstructing the dynamics of Relations: An analytical study of Pakistan-
United States relations sheds lights upon the long standing problematic relationship of
Pakistan and United States of America. As Pakistan sought independence from
British colonized Indian Sub-continent U.S. relations refers to the Re-
constructing/Re-viewing/Re-visiting/Re-establishing of the various (Political,
Militarily, Economic) dynamics of long-standing Pakistan-U.S. relationship. In-depth
analysis of Pak-U.S. problematic relations and its Impacts /consequences upon
Pakistan will be reviewed. This dissertation de/constructs the Pakistan United States
relations from a diverse perspective of trust and trust deficit which remained a central
feature of the tormented relationship. Pakistan entered into an alliance with the
United States of America soon after independence, the relation from then is
problematic and complex. Pakistan-U.S. relations are mostly based upon
convergences and divergences. This dissertation attempts to de/construct the various
dimensions of Pakistan-U.S. relations. Pakistan aligned with United States of
America from late 1940‘s to 2015 and this relationship is more than six decades old
but in this relationship neither ally is pleased with the each other because most of the
time they keep on blaming each other, US blames Pakistan of not concluding the
signed deal with her and sometimes Pakistan the same to U.S.A and tilting towards
her arch rival India, this relation comprises of Mutual trust and Mutual distrust.
Supporting each other on one side and pulling each other down on the other. This
study will examine in-depth the problematic relationship and labyrinth of US-
Pakistan engagement where historical explanation is sin quo none of the relationship.
Whereas historical explanation enlightens in detail about the causes of this
problematic relationship. In order to understand the complex nature of the
vi
relationship between the two states we have to look it at three levels (A). Global
level/perspective (Cold war & containment of socialism) Pakistan and United States
relations have been analyzed on the global level where the allies interacted in the
greater context of the cold war politics and most of the time the relationship faced
numerous ups and downs, (B). Regional level (South Asia) both of the allies
interacted with each other and the alliance of Pakistan and United States
deconstructed in the regional level where Pakistan always played a vital role vide
assisting her ally to achieve her goals in the region of South Asia. The geographical
location of Pakistan and her neighboring states made her an important stakeholder
and the relations between the two converged when USSR intervened in Afghanistan
and the United States needed Pakistan to contain the expanding Soviet influence and
then with the initiation of war on terror the relations between the two took a new turn
(C). Bilateral level (U.S.A & Pakistan) at bilateral level the relations between the two
are analyzed extensively and the ups and downs, convergences and divergences are
examined in detail. The Pakistan-United States relations depict the clear picture of
―Influence‖ in the relationship between the two states. Deconstruction gives a new
way of thinking towards the Pak-US relations. ―Derridean deconstruction‖ has
applied to rethink the complex nature of the bilateral relationship. Influence in
International Relations has played its diverse role in the establishment of alliances
among the States so is the case of Pakistan and America (Tahir-Kheli, 1982). The
theory of Influence has been implied as a superpower (USA) and a third world State
(Pakistan) tries to influence each other on the issues of vital National Interest. The
problematic relations of Pakistan and America can be best explained as Thomas
Schelling posed about ―Strategic Realism‖ when State‘s leaders face the problems of
foreign policy decision making for military or diplomatic issues, they think
vii
(strategically, instrumentally with strategic thought) to be successful. Andrew Kydd
gives an encouraging portrayal of the Pak-American alliance and entangled it with the
International Anarchy that leads the states to distrust each other. Trust and Mistrust
between ―Pakistan and America‖ are damaged or built through cooperative or
aggressive behavior of the respective state, trustworthiness, and chance for
cooperation further fortifies trust and mistrust between the above-mentioned states.
Andrew Kydd introduces the term ―Bayesian Realism‖. While explaining the trust
and mistrust in relations between States. Trust between Pakistan and American is
created by promises, Commitment, integrity, and emotions (Robert C, 2003). Trust as
explained by Solomon ―Blind Trust‖ which is ―Unconditional‖ the ―need is of
Authentic Trust‖ among the two allies for the smooth moving of congenial
relationship (Robert C, 2003). ―Conditional Trust‖ also prevailed among the two A
mixed methodological approach in association with descriptive, historical and
analytical research techniques will be utilized to complete the research process.
Whereas mix methodology approach is applied in a combination of Theory and
Empirical study along with survey and interviews adopted. The study primarily will
focus on the long standing complex relationship between the two states. It will
provide a deeper understanding of the complex relation. In the beginning national
interest itself has become a problematic for the two states. Further this research will
be beneficial for mending the long standing complex relationship between Pakistan
and United States of America. The results of the dissertation makes it clear that
complexities between the relationship is causing harm to the national interests of both
the states which must be dissolved for the betterment of Pakistan and United States.
viii
ABBREVIATIONS & ACRONYMS
APA American Psychological Association
AFG Afghanistan
APC Armored Personnel Carrier
ADB Asian Development Bank
ABM Anti-Ballistic Missile
APNSG Additional Protocol of Nuclear Suppliers Group
ACDA Arms Control and Disarmament Agency
AAMS Anti-Aircraft Missile System
BTS Black Thunder Storm, Pakistan Military Operation against
Taliban
BM Ballistic Missile
BOP Balance of Power
CN Counter narcotics Funds
CSH Child Survival and Health
CTBT Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty
CW Cold War
DDIA Director Defense Intelligence Agency
DSOS Deputy Secretary of State
ESF Economic Support Funds
FPDM Foreign Policy Decision Making
FMF Foreign Military Financing
GWOT Global War On Terrorism
ix
GGM Ground to Ground Missile
HRDF Human Rights and Democracy Funds
IR International Relations
IRT International Relations Theories
IO International organization
IMET International Military Education and Training
ISRO Indian Space Research Organization
IUSSTF Indo-US Science and Technology Forum
IPE International Political Economy
ISI Inter-Services Intelligence
INCLE International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement
IDA International Disaster Assistance (Pakistani earthquake, flood,
and internally displaced persons relief)
JC Joint Communique
JD Joint Declaration
LEMOA Logistic Exchange Memorandum Agreement
LSA Logistic Supply Agreement
MOFA Ministry of Foreign Affairs
MRA Migration and Refugee Assistance
NADR Nonproliferation, Anti-Terrorism, Demining, and Related
NPT Nuclear Proliferation Treaty
NDS National Defense Secretary
NFUD No First Use Doctrine
x
NSG Nuclear Suppliers Group
OBL Osama Bin Laden
OD Organization of Defense
PAK Pakistan
PCF/PCCF Pakistan Counterinsurgency Fund/Pakistan Counterinsurgency
Capability Fund
RAM Rational Actor Model
RT Rationality Theorem
SA South Asia
SEATO South East Asian Treaty Organization
SOS Secretary of State
SD Strategic Depth
SI Strategic Interest
SAARC South Asian Association of Regional Cooperation
STATE’S United States Of America
SAFTA South Asian Free Trade Area
TOL Theory of Liberalism
TOR Theory of Realism
USDS United States Department of State
US United States Of America
UAV Unmanned Aerial Vehicle, Drone
USSR United Socialist Soviet Republic
WOT War on terror
5P Five Permanent (US, UK, Russia, China, France)
xi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE NO.
DEDICATION ................................................................................................i
DECLARATION.............................................................................................ii
CERTIFICATE ...............................................................................................iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ..............................................................................iv
ABSTRACT .....................................................................................................v
ABBREVIATIONS & ACRONYMS ............................................................viii
TABLE OF FIGURES & GRAPHS ..............................................................xiv
LIST OF TABLES ..........................................................................................xv
LIST OF MAPS...............................................................................................xvi
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................1
1.1 The Pakistan – United States relations: The initiation. ...............................6
1.2 Objectives of the Study ...............................................................................7
1.3 Research Questions .....................................................................................7
1.4 Significance of the study .............................................................................7
1.5 Research Methodology ...............................................................................9
1.6 Literature Review........................................................................................9
1.7 Chapterization ............................................................................................ 21
References .........................................................................................................27
CHAPTER 2
PAKISTAN AND THE UNITED STATES RELATIONS” (1979-2015) A
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK .................................................................30
2.1 Pakistan geostrategic location and United States grand strategic goals and
objectives. ..........................................................................................................30
2.1.1. Trust, International Relations, and International Political
system. .......................................................................................................33
2.1.2 Pak-U.S. relations and the prevailing mistrust. ................................33
2.1.3. Pakistan - United States alliance in the broader outlook of the
theoretical framework ................................................................................36
2.2. Jimmy Carter (1977-1981) and American distrust in Theoretical
Explanation. ......................................................................................................40
xii
2.3. Ronald Reagon (1981-1989) and the American mistrust in Theoretical
Formation. ..........................................................................................................41
2.4. George H W Bush (1989-1993) and theoretical deconstruction of
trust. ...................................................................................................................42
2.5. Bill Clinton (1993-2001) and India-Pakistan Atomic Tests and:
Whether a Threat to US Strategic Interest .........................................................44
2.6. George W. Bush (2001-2009) and the bilateral relations allies ..................46
2.7. Barack Obama (2009-2017) and Pak-U.S. relations: in a theoretical
framework ..........................................................................................................48
2.8. US Strategic Interest in South Asia and the role of Pak-U.S. relations and its
links to Global Political Goals and Objectives. ................................................50
References ..........................................................................................................53
CHAPTER 3
PAKISTAN-US RELATIONS IN BROAD-SPECTRUM. (VARIOUS
DIMENSIONS) ...............................................................................................55
3.1. The beginning of Pak-US from a diverse perspective ...............................56
3.2. Geostrategic location of Pakistan and its geopolitical incentives for its
alliance with the US. ........................................................................................58
3.2.1. Geographical Significance of Pakistan and relations with the regional
States. .........................................................................................................60
3.2.2 Pakistan-and America relations in the context of Afghanistan, Iran, and
Gulf Arab states on America-Pakistan Relations. ......................................61
3.3. United States - India‘s relations and its impact upon Pakistan and the United
States of America relations. ..............................................................................64
3.4. Sino-Pak friendship and its impact on the bilateral relationship between
Pakistan and the United States. ........................................................................67
3.5. Military Governments in Pakistan and the Pak-US relations ....................72
3.6. Civilian elected Governments and Pak-U.S. relations ..............................78
3.6.1. The Bush administration 1989-1993 the Pakistan and
America relation ........................................................................................78
3.6.2 The Clinton Years (1993-2001) and Pak-US relations ....................81
3.7. Pak- US relations upon broad-spectrum (various levels of analysis global
regional and bilateral (Iran, Afghanistan, China, and India) ............................83
References ........................................................................................................90
xiii
CHAPTER 4
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF PAK-U.S. RELATIONS
1947-1979 ...........................................................................................................92
4.1. Pakistan and United States relations the beginning .....................................92
4.2. The Evolution of Pak-U.S. relations ............................................................93
4.2.1 Pakistan Indian crisis and the role of the United States of
America. ................................................................................................95
4.3. Pak-U.S relations and the nightmare of the friendly relationship of military
alliances. (1947-1958) ........................................................................................98
4.4. Pakistan and America relations the age of defying friendship.
(1958-1969) ........................................................................................................100
4.5. The problematic years of Pakistan and United States relations.
(1970-1979). .......................................................................................................102
4.6 The labyrinth of Pak-US relations and the myth of Kashmir (Pak-India
relations). ............................................................................................................111
References .........................................................................................................115
CHAPTER 5
DECONSTRUCTING THE PAK-U.S RELATIONS FROM
1979 TO 2015 ......................................................................................................117
5.1. Deconstructing Pak-U.S relations. (An overview). ......................................117
5.2. Deconstructing the Pak-US relations (1979-1989) .......................................121
5.3. Deconstructing the Pak-U.S relations {1989-1999) the waning of U.S
Interests or end to military rule in Pakistan .........................................................124
5.4. Deconstructing the problematics of Pak-U.S relations (1999-2008)
military rule. .........................................................................................................126
5.5 Deconstructing the complexities of Pak-U.S relations (2008-2015) the
beginning to an end. .............................................................................................129
5.6. Deconstructing the problematic of the complex nature of bilateral Pak-U.S
relations for diverse dynamics. ............................................................................133
References ...........................................................................................................166
Chapter 6
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..............................................167
BIBLIOGRAPHY ...............................................................................................190
xiv
TABLE OF FIGURES & GRAPHS
Figure 3.1- Reflexes the U.S policy in perspective of CW 61
Figure 3.2- Pak Collaboration with China 69
Figure 3.3- presents the disbursement provide to Pak 2002-2015 77
Figure 3.4- Locating Pakistan with its regional states 84
Figure 4.1- Shows the picture of subcontinent Pre and Post-independence
of Pak
96
Figure 5.1- Shows the terror attacks in Pakistan 1997-2015 134
Graph 3.1- Describe the debt of Pakistan 69
Graph 5.1- Shows the assistance to Pak years 2011-2015-16 135
xv
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1- Shows the points of conversions and divergence between the
two allies
35
Table 2.2- Pakistan got support from U.S 2002-2009 (near in millions of
dollars)
47
Table 2.3- Indo US Defense Exercises and its impacts 50
Table 2.4- Significant terms in shaping the foreign policy of the state
towards South Asia
52
Table 3.1- Reflects the strategic importance of Pakistan in fighting the
menace of extremists after the attacks of September 2001
60
Table 3.2- Shows the deals and agreements signed between India and U.S 66
Table 3.3- Pakistan Military Industry benefiting from Chinese
Collaboration
67
Table 3.4- Chinas loans to Pakistan (U.S$ Millions) 68
Table 3.5- Chinas loans and grants to Pakistan 70
Table 3.6- The table presents the details of U.S aid to Pakistan 2002-2012
( in millions of dollars)
75
Table 4.1- Analysis of relations between the two allies 105
Table 4.2- Summary of economic and military aid to Pakistan 108
Table 5.1- The grants, Loans and Credits by US and China Comparison
(Figures are in US $million)
118
Table 5.2- Estimates of foreign assistance (rounded to the nearest billion) 135
Table 6.1- Drone attacks and its impacts upon Pakistan 2002-2013 173
Table 6.2- Depicts the consequences that Pakistan beard during
participation in GWOT
173
xvi
LIST OF MAPS
MAP-2.1 Shows the geographical location of Pakistan 32
MAP-2.2- Depicts the cold war policies and status of Pakistan 33
MAP-3.1 USSR map with her inclinations for SA states 59
MAP-3.2 SA with major cities which depicts their strategic importance 62
MAP-3.3 SA demonstrating the importance of Pakistan 64
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
The first and foremost Chapter deals with a description of how the entire
study is to be conducted. It also enlightens the image which appears in mind after
reading the title of research so that the topic of research being discussed in detail.
Soon after Pakistan sought independence from Britain it tended to be in the
good books of the United States of America. For her very survival in the International
community, to become part of democracy and capitalism. Pakistan right from the
beginning took an anti-communist stance to get close to the United States of America.
To be safer from the expansion of communist Soviets as they tended to dominate the
region. Pakistan entered into an alliance with the United States of America soon after
independence, the relation from then is problematic and complex. Pakistan-U.S.
relations are mostly based upon mutual trust and distrust.
To understand the complex nature of the relationship between the two states
we have to look at it at three levels (A). Global level/perspective (Cold war&
containment of socialism), (B). Regional level (South Asia), (C). Bilateral level
(U.S.A & Pakistan). At the bilateral level, U.S.A failed to appreciate or recognize
Pakistan's security obsession vis-à-vis India. Although it did help Pakistan to build
and strengthen its military arsenal, in the hours of need refused to stand with Pakistan.
However, throughout the Afghan war, U.S.A completes full support to
Pakistan to restrain Soviet Expansion. After 9/11 Pakistan accepted all U.S.A
demands to fight the menace of terrorism. The long periods of Dictatorial rule and
revival of Democracy provide an interesting study of how a superpower and a
champion of Democracy, Human rights, and anti-nuclear proliferation advocates
2
supported two military dictators in Pakistan for the purpose of attainment of her
policy goals dealt with them ( 1979-1989) Zia-ul-Haq and (1999-2008) General
Musharraf the revival of Democracy (2008-2015). During the rule of two military
dictators and then with the revival of democratic governments in 2008 relations
between the two states were a combination of trust & trust deficit which is one of the
core research areas. Whereas from 2008 onwards till 2015 the problematic
relationship between the two allies would also be analyzed.
Further, it will also assist to speculate the future nature of the relationship
between the two states.
Pakistan threatened by the Soviet Union aligned with the United States of
America and perceived refuge in aligning with U.S.(Jalal, 2014) Briefs that Pakistan
to raise her military and economic capability to cater to her bitter neighbor India
aligned with the United States of America. It also signed defense agreements with
U.S.A (SEATO and CENTO) in 1954 and 1955.
After the wars of 1965 and 1971 with India Pakistan realized that it was all
useless to be in any defense Agreement with the United States as She refuses to lend
any support which disillusioned Pakistan and for not being supported much by the
United States of America and was exposed to the harsh reality of the balance of
power, tilting in the favor of India. To balance the Indian increasing power Pakistan
decided to go nuclear and then met with the imposition of harsh economic sanctions
and snub from the U.S.A with threats of more severe consequences.
Sino-U.S entente was initiated and facilitated by Pakistan when the secret visit
of Henry Kissinger was arranged, resulted in a wave of the congenial relationship
among Pakistan and the U.S.A. In 1979 when USSR attacked Afghanistan and United
States of America tended to contain the expansion of communism, the relations
3
between the two States took a U Turn and with a new phase of cooperation, United
States of America also tended to counter the expansion of USSR in Afghanistan as
she was adopting the policy of containment. Furthermore, with the restoration of the
Democratic process in Pakistan, the relation between the two moved towards a new
era. (Sattar, 2013)
The disastrous events of 9/11 changed the entire dynamics of Pak-U.S.
relations. When the United States of America was hit by terrorists and while fighting
with them sought assistance from Pakistan so engaged once again Pakistan in an
alliance with herself and considered Pakistan as a means to an end and in this manner,
Pakistan became a major non-NATO ally supporting the United States of America to
achieve her strategic goals in Afghanistan. Pakistan gained maximum support from
the United States in retrospect of providing her assistance and coalition forces in the
war against terrorism.
Pakistan aligned with the United States of America from the late 1940s to
2015 and this relationship is more than six decades old but in this relationship neither
ally is happy because sometimes US claims Pakistan of not concluding the signed
deal with her and most of the time Pakistan blames of betraying the US and tilting
towards her rival India, this relation comprises of Mutual trust and Mutual distrust.
Supporting each other on one side and pulling each other down, assisting non-state
actors like extremists elements, terrorists, and destabilizing democracy and covering
up a dictatorship. So this study is to clarify the problematic relationship and labyrinth
of US-Pakistan where the historical explanation is sin quo none of the relationships.
South Asia as a region has become an interacting playground for the two
powers namely U.S.A and China which has emerged as an economic giant and a
military power to be reckoned with. The complexities of Pak-U.S. relations in the
4
regional dynamics or the South Asian Context will be analyzed. Pakistan has to
position itself in this complex game as a small state but having an important strategic
geographical placing. Pakistan has allied itself with China to counter India, its arch-
enemy, and its immediate neighbor. South Asia may turn into a new playing field of
International Politics. (Khan Z. 2016)
To investigate the complex relationship of friendship and animosity between
the United States of America and Pakistan with a specific focus on the Zia and
Musharraf era, it is during these two periods we find the high and low points of
relationship between the two states. Maximum military and financial support were
extended to the two military rulers, it is also believed that during the Musharraf era
trust deficit between the two states reached an alarming stage. The thesis focuses on
two periods of interest, cooperation, and distrust.
Deconstruction of Pakistan and United States relations sheds light upon the
concept of Derrida's theory of deconstruction by criticizing political institutions.
Deconstructing the reality of Pak-US relations from a new dimension. Pakistan and
America relations interpreted from a new perspective to resolve the complexity of a
problematic relationship. Explanation of Pak-U.S. relation[ns from a diverse point of
view. Pakistan and American relations have been deconstructed to find out different
points of view in the long-standing relationship. Pakistan and America's alliance
mostly consists of misunderstandings (Guney, 2008).
Influence in International Relations has played its diverse role in the
establishment of alliances among the States so is the case of Pakistan and America
(Tahir-Kheli, 1982). The theory of Influence has been implied as a superpower (USA)
and a third world State (Pakistan) tries to influence each other on the issues of vital
National Interest.
5
The problematic relations of Pakistan and America can be best explained as
Thomas Schelling posed about ―Strategic Realism‖ when State‘s leaders face the
problems of foreign policy decision making for military or diplomatic issues, they
think (strategically, instrumentally with strategic thought) to be successful. Pakistan's
alliance with the United States of America consists of mistrust in spite of trust.
foreign policy and Diplomacy of the US is a rational Instrumental activity (Sorensen,
2003). prevailing between Pak-USA because each state in the search for the
protection of its Interests which may collide with each other distrusts each other.
Another explanation that breaks down the sense of trust in International
relations is that propagated by Andrew Kydd. Andrew Kydd gives an encouraging
portrayal of the Pak-American alliance and entangled it with the International
Anarchy that leads the states to distrust each other. Trust and Mistrust between
―Pakistan and America‖ are damaged or built through cooperative or aggressive
behavior of the respective state, trustworthiness, and chance for cooperation further
fortify trust and mistrust between the above-mentioned states.
Andrew Kydd briefs the problem of mistrust between Interacting States
(Pakistan and America) also explains the bases of distrust. Security dilemma played a
vital role in the Pak-US alliance, which caused Trust and Mistrust between them. The
Ups in the relationship was the result of efforts of cooperation of the respective side
to achieve its Interests. (Kydd, 2005) the argument about the impact of past
experiences and its consequences upon the future nature of the longstanding
relationship of Pak-U.S. problematic relationship.
Pakistan relations with America analyzed through the work of Hoffman as the
relations developed upon trust when the respective side believed that its Interest
would not be harmed by the other state. Pakistan trusted America anticipating that the
6
US would help Pakistan during the times of need for example 1965, 1971, and 1999
but was betrayed. For cooperative relationships leaders should believe that their
counterparts are trustworthy.
Trust between Pakistan and American is created by promises, Commitment,
integrity, and emotions (Robert C, 2003). Trust between the two allies defined by
their respective choices and commitments. Mutual cooperation between the two is the
result of trust of the respective side while conspiracy rooted distrust, Solomon's
argument of trust between two states propagates that trust between the US and
Pakistan is a necessity for future engagements, Economic cooperation depends upon
trust between cooperating states and their trusting relationships. Trust between Pak
and US-made wonders like the disintegration of the Soviet Union. While the distrust
created crisis situation as after September 2001. Removing distrust can pave the way
for building a congenial relationship between the two allies as fulfillments of mutual
commitments can do this happen.
The relation between Pakistan and America depicts the form of trust as
explained by Solomon ―Blind Trust‖ which is ―Unconditional‖ the ―need is of
Authentic Trust‖ among the two allies for the smooth moving of congenial
relationship (Robert C, 2003). ―Conditional Trust‖ also prevailed among the two
allies.
1.1 The Pakistan – United States relations the initiation.
Pakistan and United States relations are as old as Pakistan sought
independence from the British colonized Indian Subcontinent. The association marks
the beginning of bilateral relationship consisting upon the achievement of the mutual
benefits (Qureshi, 2019).
7
1.2 Objectives of the Study
To investigate the complex nature of conflicting and converging interests from
1947 onwards, the ups and downs of Pakistan United States relationship and
the peak of the relationship.
To investigate the problematic nature of the bilateral relationship of conflict-
cooperation between Pakistan and America within the South Asian context
and the emerging International Order.
To revisit the changing dynamics of Pak-U.S. relations after 9/11 and to
measure its impact on the changing regional scenario of South Asia.
1.3 Research Questions
1. What were/are the complexes of Pakistan and the United States of America's
relationship since 1947 and when did Pakistan enjoy congenial Relationship
with the United States of America?
2. What were the reasons for the problematic relationship? regarding emerging
International order and from the south Asian perspective
3. How Pakistan and the United States of America are interacting soon after
9/11?
1.4 Significance of the study
Deconstructing the myth of the problematic relationship between the two
states is favorable for realigning with the United States of America and making sure
the strategic importance of Pakistan in the region of South Asia. Most importantly the
protection of Pakistani national interest in international Arena. The study area of this
research primarily concerns with Pakistan and United States of America it will be
beneficial for mending the long-standing complex relationship of both the States and
8
for initiating new horizons of cooperation and development and mutual progress in
Pakistan. Specifically, the crisis in Afghanistan and Pakistan's internal security issues
be mended as with Peace in Afghanistan.US-Pakistan relations on the righ t move can
also secure Pakistan's National interest world-wide make clear to India that Pakistan
Also has friends in the international community.
Furthermore, the need for this particular research work is initial to solve the
contemporary issues prevailing between Pak-US relations. Moreover, a renewed
approach will be inculcated in the present analysis of the situation and will clear the
nature of the relationship and further ally with each other.
This study also briefs the relationship between the United States of America
and Pakistan with a specific focus on the Zia and Musharraf era because it is during
these two periods we find the high and low points of relationship between the two
states. Further with the revival of Democracy in Pakistan the strained relations
continued which is to be examined in depth, whereas maximum military and financial
support were extended to the two dictators, it is also believed that during the
Musharraf era trust deficit between the two states reached an alarming stage. The
thesis focuses on two periods of interest, cooperation and distrust.
The significance of the research is to explore the significance of long
relationships gone now. Trust during the cold war to contain the Soviet Union was
prevailing during the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan. 9/11 took a different turn
which lies upon trust and Distrust in the relationship between the two states was the
hallmark of the Musharraf era will be examined in detail. Research focuses on two
paradigms Zia ul Haq and Musharraf era to analyze and examine the problematics of
the relationship between Pakistan and the United States of America.
9
1.5 Research Methodology
Research methodology is of primary importance in research dissertation.
Mixed methodology approach in association with Descriptive, Historical and
Analytical research techniques has been adopted by the researcher to carry out the
entire dissertation. Furthermore Qualitative and Quantitative research methods have
been applied keeping in view the research questions and objectives to get the optimal
results and analysis. The data has been collected from books, journal, articles,
magazines, research studies, newspapers, official documents, speeches, surveys,
government documents, original reports and media reports etc. Researcher collected
primary data in the form of Questionnaires and face to face interviews with relevant
personalities.
Furthermore a survey has been conducted to get the primary resource for the
analyzing the problematic relationship between the two allies. A questionnaire has
been deigned to carry out the entire task where questions has been asked from the
respondents rom different fields of life to get the research finalized.
1.6 Literature Review
This portion explains in detail the research work of scholars in the relevant
field. The methodology adopted by various researchers and their findings has been
discussed in detail to lay down a framework of the present research work.
Schofield (2012) has discussed in detail the labyrinth of Pakistan-united states
of America‘s relationship in-depth, the study identifies the pros and cons of the
complex nature of relationship where soon after independence threatened from soviet
expansionist design Pakistan sought safety to be in alliance with the United States of
America. Pakistan's relationship with the United States of America could not be
10
explained just in the backdrop of the war on terror alone which the United States of
America initiated soon after terrorist attacks of 9/11/2001. Pakistan was an ally of the
United States of America during the cold war and assisted against Soviet intervention
in Afghanistan in the late 1980s. Pakistan sought the cover of the United States of
America to counter the influence of India to balance her power in the long run, the
refusal of the US to assist in the 1965 war with India and 1971 when Pakistan was
segregated disillusioned Pakistan. US-Pakistan relations are marked by episodes of
close cooperation alternating with periods of Mutual incomprehension and suspicion.
―There were certainly highs and lows in the relationship between George W. Bush
and Musharraf, but the current Obama administration claims to seek a TRUE bilateral
relation with Pakistan without the usage of coercive diplomacy‖.
Pakistan was tagged as ―a non-NATO major ally‖(Rhode, 2004) by the US in
the war against terrorism which cost more than it received from her Ally strategies
were destroyed which Pakistan has adopted to counter Arch-rival India influence in
South Asia.
The alliance of Pakistan in war against terror was entitled as renewed special
relationship with the US but reality portrays a different picture where Post 9/11 US
Pakistan special relationship is not as special it is often depicted, it reflects a complex
combination of the phenomena of war on terror, regional alliances, geopolitical
realities, and India-Pakistan arch rivalries.
Further, it is explained that why the Pakistan-US relationship is often regarded
as a combination of trust and distrust including betrayal from both sides because each
state wants to be solid in protecting and maximizing her national interests.
11
US-Pakistan friendship is vital but the survival of Pakistan in the region links
her with other stakeholders of the region as well where not even rhetoric but practical
support was provided by China.
Nazar (2011) Has unveiled the harsh realities of the US-Pakistan relationship
by critically evaluating the objectivity of relationship and making it clear that ―The
US has never helped Pakistan in any war. Indeed, it has stopped the supply of military
and economic aid at most crucial times of Pakistan.‖ Further US after allying Pakistan
in the war against terrorism announce that it[ is not supporting US interests in the
region while moving away from the fact that what we are doing with her?
Continuously enhancing the relationship with India to the next level and keep on
reiterating Pakistan to do more. Numerous events make the picture crystal clear the
US is involved in weakening democratic norms in Pakistan because they believe that
the military alone could be compelled to secure US interest in the region.
Markey (2014) describes the US's long-standing interests in the region and the
strategic importance of Pakistan to fulfilling them. Further, it is in-depth argued that
Pakistan has a long-standing relationship with the United States of America. The
relationship is tragic and often tormented. U.S.-[Pakistan relationship offers the only
way to save Pakistan from a dark and violent future, the only way to protect America
from the dangers that lurk on Pakistan soil. U.S.-Pakistan relationship if of regional
significance where China-Pakistan and U.S.-India alliance has a pivotal role to play in
the international arena.
Khan (2016) Argues that the region of South and Southeast Asia is of
geostrategic importance and the alliances in this region are of geopolitical in nature
and the India- U.S. engagement and Sino-Pak alliances have reshaped the dimensions
of relations between Pakistan and the United States of America. U.S.-India
12
engagement has weakened the significance of the United States alliance with Pakistan
because the former wanted to check the expanding economic activity of China and
India plays a significant role in doing so due to India‘s animosity with her.
(Mustafa F. B., Volume 22, Number 2, Autumn 2014) Unveils that Pak-U.S.
relations have been most of the time in history tumultuous and precarious. Pakistan
allied with the United States to protect herself from Indian aggression, while the
alliance of the mid-1950s between the two depicts that the respective side was, for the
protection of respective National Interest one side wanted to suppo[rt and assistance
to check the Indian threat while the other wanted the containment of communism.
Further, it is argued that during the times of need the United States extended its
support to Pakistan and abandoned whenever its objectives are achieved. After the
events of 9/11 2001, a new chapter in Pak-U.S. relations emerged with the renewed
threat of State security and global terrorism.
Hussain (2016) Describes that Pak-U.S. relations in its cyclical pattern of
Cooperation and estrangement, the internal and external factors which influence this
relationship during the Cold war, Post-Cold war and Post the events of 9/11.
Historically Pak-U.S. relations have never been consistent it went through many ups
and downs all because of convergence and divergence of National Interests during
different periods. The relations between the two nations kept on moving from
friendship to friction. The dominant perception in Pakistan has been that the U.S.
gained more during the times of convergence of interests but not so during
divergence. ―Most allied ally‖ was the title given to Pakistan. During the 1950s, the
1980‘s and after 9/11 2001 Pakistan gained less because U.S. did not support or
assisted Pakistan during her hard times and U.S. Left Pakistan during wars with India
in 1965 and 1971.
13
Khan (2010) Briefs that the U.S.-Pakistan relationship is flimsy. The
relationship between the United States and Pakistan relies upon diverse strategic and
sometimes incompatible strategic interests, U.S.-Pakistan alliance has gone through
various engagements and estrangements and the role played by the geopolitical and
geostrategic factors in bringing the United States of America closer to Pakistan. The
geostrategic location of Pakistan played a key role to bring it closer in alliance with
the United States. The United States always came closer to Pakistan to win support or
to carry out United States international agenda or to eradicate any threat to United
States interests directly or indirectly, containment of communism, as well as the war
against terrorism all these goals, were impossible to achieve without Pakistan support.
Mushtaq (2014) Depicts the picture of Pak- U.S. problematic relations with
the inception of Pakistan in 1947, the relationship strengthened when Pakistan signed
agreements with the United States of America (SEATO, CENTO) and United States
Assured of Military and Economic assistance to Pakistan. During the times of need of
Pakistan, the U.S. suspended military aid to Pakistan in 1965, 1971 and 1975 which
caused a sense of distrust among Pak and its masses that the former might not be
trusted blindly. The America came into a close alliance with Pakistan. The Soviets
invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 highlighted the common interest of Pakistan and the
United States of America to establish peace and stability in SA. Later in the 1990‘s
the relationship beard [a serious setback and the United States Imposed sanctions
Pressler Amendment and Glenn Amendment as Pakistan sought to become Nuclear.
The mistrust seems to persist on both sides.
Akhtar (2012) Unveils that Pak-U.S. relations hold greater significance. Since
Independence Pakistan and the United States are cooperating in various sectors. The
United States of America has always assisted and provided support to Pakistan and
14
has been one of the key allies in 1providing funds. There have been times of mistrust
and suspicion. Pakistan's relationship with the USA has been one of the significant
features of Pakistan‘s foreign policy. A democratic and stable Pakistan is vital to U.S.
interests. After 9/11 Pakistan came closer to the United States as both joined the war
on terrorism despite Pakistan has to face domestic outrage and the consequences of
supporting the U.S. Since history there are many ups and downs in the Pak-USA
relationship. The United States desperately needed Pakistan to support in the war in
Afghanistan, to create stability in South Asia by normalizing relations between India
and Pakistan and back in 1979 containment of the Soviet Union in 1979 all objectives
of USA was impossible to achieve[ without Pakistan.
Aslan (2018) Discusses Pak-USA relations in a different dimension where he
unveils that the United States of America has backed two military Coup‘s one 1n
1958 and second in 1977in Pakistan and U.S. also provided a significant economic
and military support to the respective rulings of Ayub Khan and Zia ul Haq. United
States of America policy towards Pakistan during the cold war and post-cold war was
dominated by U.S. entanglement with Pakistan military, as the U.S. eventually
recognized military governments in Pakistan and worked with them at the expense of
weakening the civilian parties and institutions. Further, it has also been unveiled the
mechanisms and instruments involved when the U.S. played its role in the military
coups d‘état.
Sattar (2013) Says that Pak-U.S. relations passed through setbacks when the
former sought to balance the power in the region of South Asia by building nuclear
enrichment facility for peaceful and defense purposes. Further Pak-U.S. relations
soured when the latter imposed sanctions on Pakistan in 1977 and 1978 Symington
and Glenn amendments cut off economic aid to Pakistan and imposed other
15
restrictions upon Pakistan alone and India Left uninterrupted in its nuclear program as
the U.S. was keeping a check on China through India. The relationship between the
two relaxed when Zia took over and USSR invaded Afghanistan in December 1979.
After 9/11 2001 Pak-U.S. relations reinvented as the latter needed the advantage of
Pakistan strategic location in the GWOT, Washington dismantled sanctions, resumed
military sales and revived economic assistance. The relations disrupted in 2011 again
when U.S. national claimed embassy personnel killed two Pakistani people in Lahore.
Fair (2010) Elaborates Pakistan became a crucial partner in the U.S. counter-
attack on al Qaeda and al Qaeda‘s ally the Afghan Taliban. Pakistan permitted the
U.S. to use its air space, granted overland access to Afg and employed its army,
police and paramilitary organizations to capture al Qaeda activists. The United States
provided Pakistan some $11 billion in assistance between September 11, 2001, and
the end of 2008. The United States of America established an alliance with one man
and his institution President and General Musharraf and the Pakistan Army. After
eight years of U.S. funding to Pakistan, no amount of money has convinced
Pakistan‘s government to engage in effective and comprehensive counterinsurgency
operations. The U.S. supported a strong man to pursue her interests. The United
States' engagement from 2001 to 2008 eight years focused upon an individual
(Musharraf) and his institution the Pakistan Army. The United States has not invested
in building a civilian government in Pakistan. U.S. funding to enhance civilian
capabilities through investment in the police and rule of law, the parliament, and
human development has been relatively small.
Kheli (1982) Enunciates the United States and Pakistan relations and briefs it
as the study of influence in International Relations. Few relationships in the post-
World War II period have experienced such wild fluctuations from friendship and
16
alliance to recrimination and alienation as that of the United States and Pakistan.
Since the 1980s each has reason to explore anew the possibility of cooperation but
each is keenly mindful of the serious dilemmas and pitfalls that impede the
reestablishment of trust and meaningful ties. The cold war had brought the two
countries together. The United States for Containment of the Soviet Union and
Pakistan for its security and survival received large quantities of the weapon from
U.S. the United States and Pakistan was unable to agree on the main enemy or on the
steps needed to consolidate their friendship and domestic considerations changed
their attitude toward each other.
Haqqani (2013) Says Pakistan and United States have often been described as
America‘s most difficult external relationship. Pak-U.S. relationship is as old as
Pakistan itself but the relationship between the[ two has never been friction-free.
Even in its heyday during the 1950s and 1960s, the USA-Pakistan partnership was far
from an alliance based on shared values and interests, instead, each of the two
partners was always preoccupied with confronting different enemies and pinning
different expectations to their association. Pakistan‘s motive in pursuing an alliance
with the United States has been driven by its quest to secure herself from much bigger
enemy India while the United States of America poured money and arms to protect
Asia from communist dominance. The relationship between the United States and
Pakistan is a tale of exaggerated expectations, broken promises, and disastrous
misunderstandings.
Clark (2008) Argues that Pakistan and the United States' engagement is
deceptive. Pakistan‘s nuclear capability is the [result of the deception of the leaders
and the agencies of the United States to their motherland the United States. The
intelligence mechanisms traced backed since the initiation of the program but
17
snubbed by the respective governments in the U.S. as it wanted a buffer state against
Communism, as the Soviets attacked Afghanistan and captured Kabul as well as a
threat was prevailing that the red army might reach Iran where a prime USA ally has
in 1979. After the U.S. led war on terror from 2001 Pakistan and the United States
relations have been more than that of congenial one because Pakistan offered
unwavering support to the U.S. to attack Afghanistan.
Cohen (2004) Discuses over the years, America‘s relationship with Pakistan
has been one of engagement and withdrawal. At one time, Pakistan was regarded as
―the most allied‖ of American allies. As a democratic Ally, Pakistan was often held
up by the United States as a model for the Islamic world, although no other Muslim
state regarded it as such. The relationship between the two reached its lowest point
when a mob of students burned the U.S. embassy in Islamabad in 1979. Pakistan was
viewed as irritation in a comparison with emerging India. The 9/11 attacks led to the
re-establishment of the Pak-U.S. alliance as the Bush administration sought Pakistani
support [in a war in Afghanistan. Pakistan and America relation has been
discontinuous and episodic, depending upon respective sides diverging National
interests.
RIEDEL (2011) Is of the view that Pakistan and the United States have been
locked in a deadly embrace for decades. The relationship between Pakistan and
America is a fascinating yet muddled story, moving through the periods of friendship
and enmity. The relations between the two are confusing and spreading distrust. The
United States on several occasions helped the foes of democracy in Pakistan and
aided in the development of the very enemies it is fighting now in the region. He
further unravels the torturous relationship between the two prolonged allies.
18
Javaid (2006) Explains the Pak-U.S. relations in the context of the war on
terror and beyond. Pakistan under Musharraf regime found itself in a new set of
circumstances as Bush administration asked from Pakistan that either with us or
against us, So Pakistan was left with no opportunity but to support The United States
in war against and it was the rational only viable step taken by Musharraf as it was
beneficial for Pakistan in long run. The U.S. removed sanctions and provided military
and economic assistance to Pakistan, then engulfed by various Scio-economic and
political problems. Pakistan was also given the role to play of front line state against
terrorism. Apart from the consequences of being a front line state in the war against
terrorism Pakistan grabbed reasonable economic and military benefits from the USA.
Ali (2013) Explains the role of Pakistan in the war against terrorism as well as
its repercussions upon Pakistan. The war on terror has affected socio-political security
and economic conditions in Pakistan. The U.S. drone attacks in the tribal areas of
Pakistan have led to the breeding of more terrorists. The Post 9/11 era introduced a
major shift in Pak-U.S. relation. During the WOT, U.S. extended maximum support[
to Pakistan‘s army and during the times of disasters like a deadly earthquake of 2005
and 2010 floods, it‘s supported and assisted Pakistan. Further, The United States'
inability to contain the terrorists in Afghanistan has also been linked with Pakistan to
do more for the United States.
Javaid (2011) Briefs Pakistan and the United States of America alliance soon
after the 9/11 attacks and highlights the impacts of the engagement, when Pakistan
became a front line state in the GWOT. It has also explained that the withdrawal of
the United States of America from Afghanistan poses serious security concerns for
Pakistan. As the militants had infiltrated into Pakistan and carried out terr[orist
19
activities in Pakistan. Pakistan had lost a lot while fighting the war on terror both
domestically and internationally.
Javaid (2011) Describes Pakistan and United States alliance soon after 9/11
when the later compelled Pakistan to provide full-time support in her war on terror.
Pakistan and the United States are in alliance with each other since 1947 with the
Inception of Pak, the relationship between two has passed through many ups and
downs. Whenever the U.S. realized the significance of alliance with Pakistan it
exploited the relationship as during the 1950s and later on in 1979 when Soviets
invaded Afghanistan and later after the terrorist attacks on the U.S. mainland in 2001.
All the times of need Pakistan provided Support to U.S. and alliance soon after 9/11
is the continuity of the process. Pakistan beard dire consequences as with the
establishment of an ally in the GWOT.
Coutto, (2015) Demonstrates that the U.S. Pakistan Relations during the Cold
War era has been precarious. Pakistan established an alliance with the U.S. to secure
its newly got independence from British Colonial rule. Further Pak-U.S. relations
consists of the preservation of one‘s National interest in the inter[national political
arena. The United States of America allied with Pakistan to contain Communists
States while Pakistan to get assistance and support to fortify its military and economic
sectors and counter its neighbor India. Pakistan was left helpless during her hard
times of 1965 and 1971 war with India whereas the U.S. utilized Pakistan during the
Soviets attack on Afg in the 1980s and then again in the wake of GWOT soon after
the September 11 attacks. Lastly, Pakistan once again left in the middle of nowhere
when withdrawing forces from Afghanistan.
Waheed (2017) Opines Pakistan and United States relations as the relation of
a client to its Patron, where Patron enjoys[ influence over its client. Pakistan's U.S.
20
relations from its very beginning are dubious in nature. Further Pakistan most of the
time in its history is dependent on the assistance provided by her Ally. Approximately
since 1947, the U.S. has provided more than $70 Billion US Dollars but it had little
not ultimate control over the policymaking affairs of Pakistan. Pakistan blamed the
United States of America for betraying during the times of need while the U.S.
believed Pakistan for not fulfilling the status of Most Allied Ally that it has granted to
the former for the sake of the containment of the rising communists' threats within
South Asia. Further Pak-U.S. relationship always stood fragile for the reasons of
diversifying and sometimes conflicting respective National Interests because the
United States continuously provided aid to counter its rivalry with the communist
bloc while Pakistan wanted to check the massive expanding power of its rival India.
Lastly, Pakistan-United States Relations have been affected by the role played by
China in making Pakistan to some extent self-sufficient.
Mian (2012) Diagnoses Pakistan alliance with the United States of America
as more than six decades old. Pak-U.S. relations often claimed as a marriage of
convenience where both of the stakeholders kept on pursuing respective Interests.
Pakistan kept on blaming the U.S. for continuous betrayal and previously while being
a major non-NATO ally in War against terror Pakistan border area was attacked by
the collation forces and raid on the compound in Abbottabad provided evident proof
of betrayal. While the United States of America declares Pakistan as duplicitous and
blames the government of General Musharraf for diverting the aid granted to crush
the enemies of the United States of America utilizing it for the latter‘s interest.
21
1.7 Chapterization
Chapter no 1 (Introduction).The first and foremost Chapter deals with a
briefing about how the entire study is to be conducted. It also enlightens the image
which appears in mind after reading the title of research so that the topic of research
being argued in detail.
Chapter no 2 (Pakistan-United States relations 1979-2015 A Theoretical
Framework). The available literature which is related to the topic of research is to be
explored in the second chapter of the dissertation. Further available writings related to
Pakistan U.S. relations in the context of the current research study also be discussed
in this chapter. It also identifies the gapes present in the available literature which
provides a solid ground for contemporary research to be carried out in the present
area.
The international Political scenario of the global world is interdependent upon
each other and relations between the states are as old as the inception of the modern
sovereign state system. Relations between the states have vital significance as
modern-day economic and political imperatives result in the establishment of
relations, for the preservation and promotion of National Interest being the core
objective. Similarly, the Pakistan-United States of America relations are as old as the
inception of the Pakistan itself. Pakistan entered into an alliance with the USA in
1947 refraining from the concept of Non Aligned status while India stuck to it.
Pakistan bonded with the United States of America soon after getting
independence for the purpose to get economic and militarily assistance and to secure
to newly independence status Sattar (2013). Pakistan-United States of America
relations are the result of the realist explanation of States interacting with each other.
22
Further Pakistan‘s strategic location makes her vital for being the ally of
American for strategy of dominance and protection of latter‘s goals in this region of
SA and for the purpose of attainment of its grand Strategy. Pakistan geo strategic
location in the region of South Asia makes her a wonderful opportunity for the super
powers to deal with for the sake of achieving their vested National interest. In the
broader sense Pakistan‘s geographical location is vital for the stake holders. As
Afghanistan, Iran, India and China are the States which shares direct borders with
Pakistan. Any State with its stake in this region of South Asia has to build its alliance
with Pakistan. To further extent Pakistan geostrategic location became more
significant for the States who have to protect its interests in this region.
Chapter no 3 (Pakistan-US relations on broad-spectrum various
dimensions). This chapter briefs the entire methods of research and the process
through which the data is collected and analyzed, the details of the research method is
also explained in this chapter. The researcher has applied a mixed-method approach
with the association of descriptive, historical and analytical research techniques.
This chapter briefs the entire argument of Pakistan United States relations on the
broad spectrum while discussing its various dimensions which play an important role
in the establishment of the longstanding problematic relationship. Pakistan soon after
its independence from the British colonized Indian subcontinent engulfed by
numerous problems and insecurities. Amongst the various problems and difficulties
faced by the newly independent State, one was the presence of all time‘s active
enemy army in form India. While Pakistan was newly independent state and for the
purpose of its survival and progress Pakistan has to be dependent upon some stronger
so that its sovereign presence may not be threatened by enemy in the global political
23
system. for the very objective Pakistan Sought to establish her alliance with America
(Sattar, 2013).
Furthermore the geostrategic location of Pakistan also provided stimulus in
establishment of its alliance with the United States. The domestic crisis which took
birth along with the creation of Pakistan, geographic location, topography and
geopolitical location paved the way for Pak-U.S. relations.
Chapter no 4 (Historical Background of Pak-U.S. relations 1947-
1979). This chapter deals with the explanation of the relationship between the United
States of America and Pakistan briefing the two paradigms: (1) 1947- 1958 (2) 1958-
1969. To trace back the roots of the Pakistan-U.S. relationship a review of the
historical paradigm is conducted. (Sattar, 2013)Briefs that Pakistan soon after getting
independence from British Colonial rule was engulfed with wars with arch-rival India
so was in a desperate need of getting support from International Community and
sought refuge in Establishment of relationship with the U.S. furthermore in this
chapter of research all the events or the bindings of relationship be explained. The
agreements signed between the United States of America and Pakistan from the
beginning of engagement into an alliance be analyzed and what Pakistan got from the
agreement also taken into consideration. This chapter mainly enunciates/describes the
High and Low points in the relations between U.S. & Pakistan.
This unit clarifies the relationship between United States of America and
Pakistan, moreover from beginning to bottom clarification of the Pak-US relations
keeping in view the foundation of trust and distrust and the building up of congenial
relationship and weakening of friendly ties between the two, have examined in detail
in this part of current study. For this purpose the chapter has been divided into five
ideal models: (1) 1947-1958 (2) 1958-1969.(3) (1970-1979).
24
To follow back the primary foundations of the Pakistan-U.S. relationship a
survey of the recorded worldview be led in the global perspective along with regional
level at South Asia level and local level between Pakistan and America interaction.
As sooner as Pakistan got autonomy from British colonized Indian subcontinent in
1947 would, in general, be in the great books of United States of America. (Sattar,
2013)Briefs that Pakistan not long after in the wake of getting freedom from British
Colonial principle was inundated with wars with most despised opponent India, so
Pakistan was in an urgent need of getting support from International Community and
looked for shelter in Establishment of alliance with the U.S.
Chapter no 5 (Deconstructing the Pak-U.S relations from 1979 to
2015). Chapter 5 explores the complexities of relationship However during the
Afghan war the U.S. extended full support to Pakistan to contain Soviet Expansion.
After 9/11 Pakistan accepted all U.S.A demands to fight the menace of terrorism. The
two long periods provides an interesting study of two military dictators in Pakistan
(1979-1989) Zia-ul-Haq and (1999-2008) General Musharraf. During the rule of two
military dictators relation between the two states was a combination of trust & trust
deficit which is one of the core research areas. Further, it will also assist to speculate
the future nature of the relationship between the two states.
Deconstructing the Pak-US relations has reviewed the bilateral relationship
from the renewed perspective in which it has been analyzed that the prolonged
relationship, which was constructed on the golden principles of mutual cooperation
and mutual gain has complexity of distrust and betrayals. The analytical study of the
tormented relationship has been carried out and it has been pointed out that the
alliance of Pak and US was a marriage of convenience, Pakistan didn‘t compelled the
25
United States to form an alliance with rather it was the geographical location of
Pakistan which compelled the other side to form an alliance with Pakistan.
Pakistan and America relations has been deconstructed and analyzed from a
diverse perspective as propagated by Derridean Deconstruction . Chapter 5 explores
the complexities of relationship, as it has been found out that the bilateral relationship
was the result of the needs of the both sides of the alliance as propagated by Thomas
Schelling in his theoretical explanation of Strategic realism (Sorensen, 2003). the
argument has made under soon after independence of Pakistan it needed security
cover from Indian aggression it entered into an alliance with USA vis a vis US
needed to contain the expansion and influence of Communism as of Cold war politics
was prevailing the US policy and Socialism an alliance was formed with Pakistan.
Chapter no 6 (Recommendations and Conclusion). This chapter of the
dissertation deals with the results of the research study and the conclusions drawn
from the entire study conducted. Recommendations or a guide or the future
researchers also presenting this segment of research. Including the genesis of the
research work Recommendations and Conclusions depicts the broader outlook of the
entire work done.
There is a history in ties between Pakistan and the United States of America of
mutual trust and mutual distrust, uncertainty, convergences and divergences,
collaboration and controversies, and amid all the difficulties and uncertainties, ups
and downs Pakistan faces many obstacles and has many chances to be in coalition
with the United States of America.
This section of the thesis deals with the outcomes of the research study and
the conclusions of the analysis as a whole. Also present in this research segment are
recommendations or a guide or future researchers. Including the origins of the
26
research work Recommendations and Conclusions shows the wider perspective of all
the work done.
This chapter of the dissertation deals with the results of the research study and
the conclusions drawn from the entire study conducted. Recommendations or a guide
for the future researchers interested in the bilateral relationship of Pakistan and
United States, also presenting this segment of research as unique of its kind.
Including the genesis of the research work Recommendations and Conclusions
depicts the broader outlook of the entire work done.
27
REFERENCES
Akhtar, S. (2012). Dynamics of USA-Pakistan Relations in the Post 9/11 Period:
Hurdles and Future Prospects. International Journal of Humanities and Social
Science , 2(11), 205-213.
Ali, U. J. (2013). War on Terror Partnership: Problems and Prospects for Pkistan .
Journal of Political Studies, 51-66.
Aslan, O. (2018). The United States and Military Coups in Turkey and Pakistan.
Switzerland: palgrave macmillan.
Cohen, S. P. (2004). The Idea of Pakistan . Washinton, D.C.: The Brookings
Institution .
Haqqani, H. (2013). Magnificent Delusions Pakistan, the United States, and an Epic
History of Misunderstanding. New York: Public Affairs.
Hussain, M. (2016). Pak-US Relations: An Historical Overview . Pakistan Journal of
History and Culture, Vol XXXVII,No. 2, 61-76.
Jalal, A. (2014). The Struggle for Pakistan A muslim Homeland and Global Politics.
London: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Javaid, U. (2005). Pakisatn's Non NATO Ally Status . Asian Profile, 69-75.
Javaid, U. (2006). Challenges and Opportunities for Pakistan after 9/11. Journal of
Central Department of Political Science, 112-122.
Javaid, U. (2011). The War on Terror: Pakistan's Apprehensions. African Journal of
Political Science and International Relations, 125-131.
Javaid, U. (2011). War on Terror Partnership: Effects, Concerns and Implictaions for
Pakistan and USA. Research Journal of International Studies, 85-92.
28
Khan, M. (2014, June). Pakistan-U.S. Relations: A New Chapter, A New Theater.
Retrieved from www.issi.org.pk: http://www.issi.org.pk
Kronstadt, K. A. (2012, May 24). Pakistan-U.S. Relations. Retrieved from
Congressional Research Service: www.crs.gov
Kydd, A. (2005). Trust and Mistrust in International Relations. Princeton: Princeton
University Press.
Lieven, A. (2012). Pakistan A Hard Country. London: Penguin Group.
Mansbach, Y. H. (2012). Globalization The return of borders to a borderless world?
New York: Routledge.
Markey, D. S. (2014). No Exit From Pakistan America's tortured Relationship with
Islamabad. Delhi: Cambridge University Press.
Mushtaq, U. J. (2014). Historical Perspective of Pakistan USA Relations: Lessons For
pakistan. A Research journal of South Asian Studies, 29( 1), 291-304.
Mustafa, F. B. (Autmn 2014). Pak-US Security Relations: Challenges & Prospects for
Pakistan. Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities: Volume 22, Number 2,
1-24.
Nawaz, S. (2008). Crossed Swords Pakistan, its Army, and the Wars Within. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Nazar, Y. (2011). Balkanisation and the Political Economy of Pakistan. Karachi:
National News Agency.
Robert C, S. a. (2003). Building Trust : In Business, Politics,Relationships and Life.
Oxford Scholarship Online.
Sattar, A. (2013). Pakistan's Foreign Policy 1947-2012 A Concise History. Karachi:
Oxford University Press.
29
Schofield, U. B. (2012). Pakistan The US, Geopolitics and Grand Strategies. New
York: Pluto Press.
Scott-Clark, A. L. (2008). Deception Pakstan, the United States, and the Secret Trade
in Nuclear Weapons. New York: Walker & Company.
Waheed, A. W. (2017). Pakistan's Dependence and US Patronage: 'The Politics of
Limited Influence'. Journal of Asian Security and International Affairs, 4 (I)
69-94.
Zia Mian, S. K. (2012, March). America's Pakistan. Retrieved from Middle East
Report Online: http://www.merip.org/mero/interventions/americas-pakistan
30
CHAPTER 2
PAKISTAN AND UNITED STATES RELATIONS” (1979-2015)
A THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Outline of the chapter, Pakistan geo strategic location and United States grand
strategic goals and objectives. Trust, International Relations, and International
Political system. Pak-U.S. relations and the prevailing mistrust. Pakistan - United
States alliance in the broader outlook of theoretical framework. Jimmy Carter (1977-
1981) and American distrust in Theoretical Explanation. Ronald Reagon (1981-1989)
and the American mistrust in Theoretical Formation. George H W Bush (1989-1993)
and theoretical deconstruction of trust. Bill Clinton (1993-2001) and India-Pakistan
Atomic Tests and: the US objectives in peril. George W. Bush (2001-2009) and the
problematic relations of the estranged allies. Barack Obama (2009-2017) Indo-US
enterprise: an initiative for the protection and preservation of foreign policy
objectives of America. US, South Asia, International Community, and her foreign
policy goals.
2.1 Pakistan geostrategic location and United States grand strategic
goals and objectives.
The international Political scenario of the global world is interdependent upon
each other and relations between the states are as old as the inception of the modern
sovereign state system. Relations between the states have vital significance as
modern-day economic and political imperatives result in the establishment of
relations, for the preservation and promotion of National Interest being the core
objective. Similarly, the Pakistan-United States of America relations are as old as the
31
inception of Pakistan itself. Pakistan entered into an alliance with the USA in 1947
refraining from the concept of Non Aligned status while India stuck to it.
Pakistan bonded with the United States of America soon after getting
independence for the purpose to get economic and militarily assistance and to secure
to newly independence status Sattar (2013). Pakistan-United States of America
relations are the result of the realist explanation of States interacting with each other.
Further Pakistan‘s strategic location makes her vital for being the ally of
American for the strategy of dominance and protection of the latter‘s concerns in this
region of SA and for the purpose of attainment of its grand Strategy. Pakistan's geo-
strategic location in the region of SA makes her a wonderful opportunity for the
superpowers to deal with for the sake of achieving their vested National interest. In
the broader sense Pakistan‘s geographical location is vital for the stakeholders. Like
Afghanistan, Iran, India, and China are the States which share direct borders with
Pakistan. Any State with its stake in this region of South Asia has to build its alliance
with Pakistan. To further extent Pakistan's geostrategic location became more
significant for the States who have to protect its interests in this region.
32
Map 2.1 shows the geographical location of Pakistan.
Source:http://www.alearningfamily.com/main/south-asia-political-map/
Analysis: map depicts the geographical location of Pak in the wider context of
her alliance with U.S. which made her an important player in the region.
Pakistan and America alliance is the outcome of the significant geostrategic
location of Pakistan. Pakistan became an ally of America soon after its independence
and became an important player of her in containing (1945-1990) the expanding
influence of the Soviet Union in this region of South Asia. In 1954 SEATO and 1955
CENTO defense agreements Pakistan signed with America to become her ally in
South A sia. Moving forward Pakistan stood with America whenever she needs
for achievement of her goals in this region of SA. U.S. war against the expansion
(1979-1989) of the Soviet Union or War against terrorism (9/11/2001) Pakistan
remained on the side of America. Pakistan's strategic location makes her a significant
choice for America to achieve her national goals in this region.
33
Map 2.2 depicts the cold war politics and the Status of Pakistan
Analysis: ―Map depicts the picture of the US and Soviet‘s Cold-War confrontational
alliance: NATO, WARSAW. and depicts the place of Pakistan as an ally of America
in its cold war Policy. ‖
Map depicts the role of Pakistan as an ally of the United States of America
2.1.1. Trust, International Relations, and International Political system.
The standard way of explaining trust and its significance in IR characterizes
trust as a mental state, in achieving the goals held regarding the thought processes and
goals achiever thinking. However while a stakeholder may believe that another can be
believed, one may assert that what makes a difference for the presence of a believing
―trusting‖ relationship between interacting States, is that one of the two states regards
the decision of other Ally.
2.1.2 Pak-U.S. relations and the prevailing mistrust.
Pakistan reinforced with the United States of America not long after getting
freedom for the reason to get financial and militarily help and to verify to recently
34
autonomy status Sattar (2013). Pakistan-United States of America relations are the
consequence of the pragmatist clarification of States interacting with one another but
the element of mistrust prevailed during the entire period of an alliance.
In global Political framework trust might be characterized in following words,
"when we state we believe somebody or that somebody is reliable, we in a
roundabout way imply that the likelihood that he will play out an activity that is
useful of in any event not hindering to us is sufficiently high for us to think about
taking part in collaboration with other." Touqir Hussein (a former ambassador)
groups Pakistan-US confide in deficiency as characteristic of the more profound issue
instead of the issue itself. Pakistan and United States have clashing international
strategies and policy goals in any event when their common advantages especially
covered. Both the nations mesmerize to accomplish their short-lived objectives to the
detriment of more extensive key goals.
Nationwide vital National Interest of both of the States was at loggerheads
which depicts or anticipates, the clear picture of the problematic relation between
America and Pakistan . while the capability to influence the weaker state by a
superpower is evident from the alliance of the U.S. and Pakistan.
The Post- CW affairs marked by the extraordinary model of pragmatist
agenda led by the neo Realist school of thought to multi-polarity.
Convergences and Conflicting (Diverging): National Interests between
Pakistan and America during the time of engagement and estrangement.
The Pakistan-American relationship depends upon many converging and
conflicting National Interests. The following is illustrative: Convergences and
Conflicting (Diverging) points between Pakistan and America during the time of
35
engagement and estrangement. following are the policy goals or objectives of Pak-
U.S. relations.
Table 2.1 shows the points of convergence and divergence between the two allies.
Convergences Divergences
Eliminating Global extremism.
Stable Afghanistan
Maintaining balanced relations
Peace in South-Asia
Economic interests in Central Asia.
Relations with Iran remain a point
of disagreement.
Growing US-led Indian
involvement in Afghanistan.
Pakistan‘s All weather friendship
with China.
Pakistan‘s nuclear build ups.
Source: Reaearcher interview with chairman Kashmir committee (Imam, 2019).
Analysis: the table briefs the points of similarities and differences in the
bilateral association of the allies. where there are diverse agendas and most of the
time complexity in the friendship.
In keeping with the above, description it may be argued that the above-given
points are some of the common goals between Pakistan and the United States during
the time of the friendly relationship between the two allies and complexity of alliance
lied is when the United States achieves her policy goals in which Pakistan can play its
role it recalls all the points of divergences which invite estrangement in the
relationship and including the sense of mistrust among its ally Pakistan.
Bush along with his administration visited Pakistan in 2006 along with various
officials of his cabinet, while there was military rule in Pakistan and war on terror
was at its peak (Haqqani, 2013) as because there was convergence of Interest between
the two estranged allies.
36
2.1.3. Pakistan - United States alliance in the broader outlook of the theoretical
framework
In global Political scenario trust might be explained as the phenomena in
which the interacting States believe upon each other while dealing in matters of trade
or Political support. Furthermore the political situations worldwide are reliant upon
one another and as the relations between the states are as old as the origin of the
current sovereign state System. Relations between the states have indispensable
essentialness as advanced monetary, military and political necessities bring about the
foundation of relations, for the safeguarding and advancement of National Interest
being the central objective. Comparably Pakistan-United States of America relations
are as old as the initiation of Pakistan as an independent state itself. Pakistan went
into collusion with the USA in 1947 ceasing from the idea of Non Aligned status
while India adhered to it.
Deconstruction of Pakistan and America relations sheds light upon the
concept of Derrida's theory of deconstruction by criticizing political institutions.
Deconstructing the reality of Pak-US relations from a new dimension. Pakistan and
America relations interpreted from a new perspective to resolve the complexity of a
problematic relationship. Explanation of Pak-U.S. relations from a diverse point of
view. Pakistan and American relations have been deconstructed to find out a different
point of view in the long-standing relationship. Pakistan and America's alliance
mostly consists of misunderstandings (Guney, 2008). Further Pak-US relations have
been rethought or deconstructed for the purpose to solve the problematic nature of the
complex relationship (Guney, 2008). Deconstruction gives a new way of thinking
towards Pak-US relations. ―Derridean deconstruction‖ has applied to rethink the
complex nature of the bilateral relationship. As deconstruction is a poststructuralist
37
theory it implies the renewed approach of ―Iterability‖ in Pakistan American relations
which means to analyze the complexity of relationships in different contexts.
Influence in International Relations has played its diverse role in the
establishment of alliances among the States so is the case of Pakistan and America
(Tahir-Kheli, 1982). The theory of Influence has been implied as a superpower (USA)
and a third world State (Pakistan) tries to influence each other on the issues of vital
National Interest. Pak-US relations never remained uniform as an influential
relationship has numerous shifts and nuances. Ups and downs have been evident in
the problematic relationship of the allies since 1947-2015.
Further the American alliance with Pakistan depicts the clear picture of a
relationship between a Big Power and a weaker State. whereas Influence is a
manifestation when influencing state A (USA) affects through nonmilitary means
directly or indirectly the behavior (response) of state B (Pak).
The problematic relations of Pakistan and America can be best explained as
Thomas Schelling posed about ―Strategic Realism‖ when State‘s leaders face the
problems of foreign policy decision making for military or diplomatic issues, they
think (strategically, instrumentally with strategic thought) to be successful. Pakistan's
alliance with the United States of America consists of mistrust despite trust. foreign
policy and Diplomacy of the US is a rational Instrumental activity (Sorensen, 2003).
States do not think morality or what is good ? or what is bad? but what is to be
achieved and How to make its policy successful ?. Threats of war used to influence as
the US threatens Pakistan to attain her vital goals. Pakistan joined America in its
global war against terror is the result of coercion and threat of America. Strategic
realism further propagates mutual distrust prevailing between Pak-USA because each
38
state in the search for the protection of its Interests which may collide with each other
distrusts each other.
Another explanation that breaks down the sense of trust in International
relations is that propagated by Andrew Kydd. Andrew Kydd gives an encouraging
portrayal of the Pak-American alliance and entangled it with the International
Anarchy that leads the states to distrust each other. Trust and Mistrust between
―Pakistan and America‖ are damaged or built through cooperative or aggressive
behavior of the respective state, trustworthiness, and chance for cooperation further
fortifies trust and mistrust between the above-mentioned states.
Andrew Kydd briefs the problem of mistrust between Interacting States
(Pakistan and America) also explains the bases of distrust. Security dilemma played a
vital role in the Pak-US alliance, which caused Trust and Mistrust between them. The
Ups in the relationship was the result of efforts of cooperation of the respective side
to achieve its Interests. (Kydd, 2005) the argument about t[he impact of past
experiences and its consequences upon the future nature of the longstanding
relationship of Pak-U.S. problematic relationship. Most of the time pan of Pak-US
relations have been marked by the episodes of mutual distrust, Trust, and Mistrust in
International Relations give a significant depiction to the investigation of complex
relationships as that of Pak-US. Andrew Kydd introduces the term ―Bayesian
Realism‖. While explaining the trust and mistrust in relations between States.
The belief (trust) of Pakistan that her ally USA would not threaten the vital
national Interest of her resulted in its collaboration with the United States and the
same trust from the US resulted in the alliance while during the downs in Pak-US
alliance was the result of mistrust because the sense of insecurity was prevailing
among the interacting states. Further, Andrew Kydd briefs the explanation of trust
39
and mistrust which depicts Pak-US relations as well ―trust is a belief that the other
side prefers collaboration to exploit one‘s own cooperation, while mistrust is a belief
that the other side prefers exploiting one‘s own cooperation to returning it.
Pakistan relations with America analyzed through the work of Hoffman as the
relations developed upon trust when the respective side believed that its Interest
would not be harmed by the other state. Pakistan trusted America anticipating that the
US would help Pakistan during the times of need for example 1965, 1971, and 1999
but was betrayed. For cooperative relationships leaders should believe that their
counterparts are trustworthy.
Trust between Pakistan and American is created by promises, Commitment,
integrity, and emotions (Robert C, 2003). Trust between the two allies defined by
their respective choices and commitments. Mutual cooperation between the two is a
result of trust of the respective side while conspiracy rooted distrust, Solomon's
argument of trust between two states propagates that trust between the US and
Pakistan is a necessity for future engagements, Economic cooperation depends 1upon
trust between cooperating states and their trusting relationships. Trust between Pak
and the US made wonders like the disintegration of the Soviet Union. while the
distrust created crisis situation as after September 2001. Removing distrust can pave
the way for building a congenial relationship between the two allies as fulfillments of
mutual commitments can do this happen.
The relation between Pakistan and America depicts the form of trust as
explained by Solomon ―Blind Trust‖ which is ―Unconditional‖ the ―need is of
Authentic Trust‖ among the two allies for the smooth moving of congenial
relationship (Robert C, 2003). ―Conditional Trust‖ also prevailed among the two
40
allies as Pak halted logistic support and assistance of US-led NATO forces when
these forces attacked Pakistan check post at ―Salala‖.
Pakistan trusted the US for the purpose to show her that She is a friend of her,
an alliance of Pakistan with America on various occasions shows the security
dilemma of Pakistan when Pakistan thought that the US would secure Pakistan from
the enemy threat (Wheeler, 2012). Psychological dynamics caused mistrust between
Pakistan and America. Mistrust between Pakistan and America resulted in the
imposition of amendments to Pakistan (Symington and Glenn). Another case of
mistrust was the movement of Pakistan and Indian armies near to border in the late
1990s and early 2000. International anarchy destabilized the alliance and further
mistrust aroused which inculcated the sense of insecurity on both sides that policy
objectives would not be achieved so betrayal is a good option. Common ideological
goals like capitalism fortified the trust and relationship.
Pakistan-American relations moved forward in spite of mistrust because
neither state can exactly foresee the future dynamics (calculate the Costs and benefits,
risks), Pakistan joined US war without knowing the repercussion of the war of
President Bush. Trust or distrust of a state depends upon the key decision-maker of
any state in the case of Pakistan is the Pak-Army (Nazar, 2011) Kargil crisis depicts
the picture of distrust between the arch-rivals.
2.2. Jimmy Carter (1977-1981) and American distrust in Theoretical
Explanation.
Pakistan's alliance with America is as old as the independence of Pakistan
itself, but here the relations among the two states have been discussed from a diverse
perspective. Pak-US relations consisted of mutual distrust during the Carter
administration (Wheeler, 2012).
41
The entire decade of 1970‘s Pakistan –US relations were at odds, in late 1970
the U.S. embassy was attacked by an angry mob and the killings of two American
Nationals along with the Carter administration was critical to Pakistan of her Nuclear
build-ups, the military takeover by Zia ul Haq in 1977‘s coup and the Hanging of
Prime Minister ZA Bhutto by Zia military Government (Tahir-Kheli, 1982). America
to contain the expansion of Soviets, allied with Pakistan for the protection of her
National Interest in this region. National Security advisor Brzezinnksi along with the
Carter administration realized they need to support Pakistan as mujahedeen fighting
in Afghanistan versus Soviet needs help from Pakistan or they could not defeats the
communists.
While the U.S left its Non-proliferation policy aside as Pakistan was pursuing
its Nuclear Program and assisted Pakistan with more arms along with aid. Zia during
his1980‘s visit to UN and there a military ruler has welcomed the grave issues of
violations of Human Rights, Nuclear issue., all was put aside and Pakistan-America
relations reinvented as the US needs logistics and land support of Pakistan (Sorensen,
2003). The entire phenomenon can be best explained through the eyes of Strategic
Realism propagated by Thomas Shelling.
2.3.Ronald Reagon (1981-1989) and the American mistrust in
Theoretical Formation.
Ronald Reagon perused the policies of carter administration Ronald Reagon
continued with dictator along with Nuclear Proliferation but compelled Pakistan not
to conduct tests. Blind Trust and Authentic Trust was prevailing between Pakistan
and America during Ronald Reagon administration, as propagated by Robert .C
Solomon where it was understood that both sides would not exploit the national
interests of each other (Robert C, 2003). During Ronald Reagon administration Pak-
42
U.S. relations was at top echelons of friendly relationship where the U.S. negated all
the complexes of Pakistan as human rights violations and Nuclear Proliferation policy
and the dictatorship of Zia all because to achieve her national interest to defeat her
cold War rival.
Ronald Reagon administration in 1984 sent Vice President G.H.W Bush to
visit Pakistan to further ―solidify‖ the relationship which developed over three
decades. In 1986 the US offered to provide aid (military-economic US 402$ Billion)
one time next year. In Feb 1989 USSR withdrew from civil war broke out from
Afghanistan, USSR collapsed in 1991. With the cold war reached to its ended
America interest waned in Pakistan, it‘s started looking the point of contentions
between Pakistan America, so in 1990 US stopped arms flow to Pakistan.1985
Pressler Amendment imposed upon Pakistan August 1985 that Pakistan is pursuing
Nuclear weapons by President Ronald Reagon Administration.
2.4. George H W Bush (1989-1993) and theoretical deconstruction of
trust.
During the Bush administration 1989-1993, the Pakistan and America relation
was problematic as America was raising the issues like nuclear proliferation, state-
sponsored terrorism, and Pakistan as an element of regional instability as the interest
of America and Pakistan diverged and America did not ready to realize the security
dilemma of Pakistan, whereas Pressler sanctions upon Pakistan as a foreign policy
goals have waned from Pakistan with the Soviet withdrawal that resulted in sense of
betrayal of Pakistan and it will maybe argue that the absence of Pakistan military in
rule the Pakistan and America relations also became weaker and complex. (Gennace,
2017).
43
Pakistan had not the ability of nuclear weapons. In May 1990, the relationship
between Pakistan and America would take a deep turn for the bad. The Bush send the
deputy national security advisor Robert Gates visited the region of SA to meet the
Pakistani and Indian leaders to discuss the apprehensions over Kashmir and to come
up with a simple conclusion and criticized Pakistan on the subject of its nuclear plan.
Robert Gates visited South Asia; intelligence proved Pakistan are making bomb cores
from machining uranium metal, it was the final step to making nuclear weapons.
(Wheeler, 2012)Mistrust was prevailing in the white house that Pakistan is near to
establish nuclear missiles (Kydd, 2005). At the point Pakistan and America complex
relations were at its lowest end as in September 1990, Ambassador Oakley
pronounces it as ―community suicide‖ in Pakistan and America relation, if Pakistan
does not roll back its nuclear program, America withhold its military and economic
Support to Pakistan. In October 1990, America froze 564$ million in military and
economic aid to Pakistan.
America also refused to deliver 71 F-16 aircraft ordered by Pakistan to
America in 1989. America also refused even refund the money paid by Pakistan by
28 crafts. The relation between Pakistan and America was very critical and
problematic because where there was no sign of trust among the allies. Yaqub Khan,
foreign minister traveled to America in October 1990 to discuss with Secretary of
State James Baker to avoid the economic sanctions evaporated by America upon
Pakistan. Baker refused when Yaqoub offered to freeze the nuclear program if
America agrees to left the sanctions, Baker said that the president should issue
important documentation under Pressler, Pakistan should relieve their bomb cores and
roll back her build-ups of Nuclear plan. If Pakistan accepted the American demands
than the Baker negated the imposition of sanctions. Yaqub asked Baker that it was not
44
possible to roll back, the matter was lost and there was no chance of integrity. The
America and Pakistan cooperation after a long period, as a result, America decides to
file for separation.
America was near to declare Pakistan as a state which sponsors terrorism as
Pakistan was implicitly supporting the freedom movement in Kashmir, the message
was conveyed to Pakistan ambassador Abida Husain on her visit to American
Undersecretary of state Kantar, made clear the Pakistan and America relationship
may have come to its end and those days may be the dark days on Pakistan and
America relations. the need was to build trust between the two disillusioned allies as
propagated by Andrew Kydd (Kydd, 2005).
2.5. Bill Clinton (1993-2001) and India-Pakistan Atomic Tests and:
Whether a Threat to US Strategic Interest.
Pakistan –America relations with the withdrawal of Soviets from Afg strained
and the boom in the relations was not seen much in the decade of 1990s, as
previously US had blind trust and Authentic trust upon Pakistan (Robert C, 2003)
Was waned and the crisis situation has built up. Conditional trust propagated
by Solomon explains the problematic relationship between the two prolonged allies
where the U.S. is ready to trust Pakistan based on a condition that Pakistan
completely fits her non-proliferation agenda and anti-terrorism policy while it has
almost overlooked all these complexities during the decade of 1980s. the
Phenomenon can also be understood through the theoretical explanation of Andrew
Kydd trust and distrust approach.
In 1993, President Bill Clinton inherited the bad relationship of Pakistan and
America and continuing the nuclear program, Clinton administration and
45
fundamentals of American Government wanted to connect with Pakistan, rather cut
off from it. Assistance Secretary of state Robin Raphel was the strongest supporter to
enhance the better Pakistan and America relations, she was deputed by President
Clinton in the office of South Asian Affairs, her responsibility was to convince that
the friendship of America and Pakistan would be very useful and it will give strength
to American interests in the Islamic World. She first visited SA in fall 1993, she told
the reporter that America did not acknowledge the progression of Kashmir to India,
which makes Islamabad happy, and the Indian press became angry.
American Secretary of Defense, William Perry wanted to improve Pakistan
and America relations, he also shared the wish of Raphel. The American defense
institutions were not pleased with the relationship with Pakistan and they were
searching to reestablish the relationship, like Raphel. The Pentagon also sees Pakistan
as a friend; she was a very helpful partner in Western Asia and the Middle East. Six
thousand troops were sent to Somalia by Pakistan Army, in which three thousand
people took part in the peacekeeping mission in Bosnia, both aids were vital to calm
down the efforts there. Perry was the first American official who visited Islamabad in
January 1995 to build trust and to remove distrust in many years to suggest the steps
to establish security ties. Dennis Kux took an interview to Brown, he told him that he
supported good U.S.-India relations and he told him that he visited South Asia on the
congressional trip, and he said that sanction on Pakistan was very harmful to
American interests, whereas Brown planned to ease the sanctions to raise the ban on
economic assistance and they had to release all the military equipment under by
America, it includes F-16s, then he realized he should give aircraft in 1997, the
aircraft includes his effort to simplify sanctions.
46
Clinton's visit to India and Pakistan marked another episode of complexity
and distrust between Pak-U.S. relations and over the security concerns. Indian Prime
Minister Vajpayee welcomed Prime Minister Clinton and he made a statement as ―no
possible, your visit marks the beginning of a new voyage in the new century by two
countries which have all the potential to become natural allies‖. The Clinton visit
Pakistan was quite all the way different from that of India where he spends five days
in India and Five hours in Pakistan, and a meeting held with a closed-door meeting
with then-President Musharaff conveying the message that Pakistan should deal with
the threat posed by Afghanistan Taliban seriously, skipping a standard photo session
with Musharaff, he stated that ―Danger that Pakistan may grow even more isolated,
draining even more resources away from the needs of the people, moving even a
close conflict, no one can win‖.
The Pakistan America relation during the 1990s and Bush and Clinton
administration was not quite good as both of the presidents miss the opportunity
because of distress, betrayal, and hate from America.
2.6. George W. Bush (2001-2009) and the bilateral relations allies
Pakistan and United States relations were at logger's heads during the 1990s
and this relation was further aggravated when Pakistan detonated her nuclear missiles
and this problematic relationship reinvented with the change in administration and
with the terror attacks of September 11, 2001, on U.S. mainland. U.S. interests
changed in the region of South Asia as the United States was eager to kill the
mastermind and perpetrators of the attack on the U.S.
Change in the priorities of America changed the entire dynamics of her
relations and dealing with Pakistan. Blind trust as propagated by Solomon (Robert C,
2003) and the deconstruction of the Pak-U.S. relations from a diverse perspective of
47
Mutual Trust and Distrust along with the conflicting and converging interests of both
allies. Whereas the Derridean Deconstruction has the answers to this complex and
problematic relationship between Pakistan and America (Guney, 2008)
―You are either with us or against us‖ secretary of state Colin Powell said
Musharaf on a phone call. As the Capitol Hill and Bush administration needs Pakistan
to assist them in the war against their enemies In Afghanistan so wanted Pakistan to
become their partner in the War. ― Operation Enduring Freedom‖ was against the
Afghanistan Taliban regime by Bush in October, 2001. Pakistan-America
reconnected to defeat the Taliban with support from Pakistan. America depends upon
logistics support of troops, U.S lifted arms embargo from Pakistan. Pakistan involved
against the War against terror initiated by America
Table 2.2 Pakistan got support from U.S. 2002–2009 (near in millions of
dollars)
Category 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
2008 2009
CSFs 1,169 1,247 705 964 862 731 255 200
FMF 75 225 75 299 297 297 298 300
Other security 102 33 38 50 101 87 221 631
Economic Support
Fund
615 188 200 298 337 389 347 603
Other economic
support
39 86 96 90 202 132 102 747
Total 2,000 1,779 1,114 1,701 1,799 1,636 1,223 2,481
Source: Kronstadt, 2008c, p. 99.
Analysis: the table presents the picture of the support given to Pakistan while
it was enjoying congenial relations with the west in the wake of GWOT.
48
Pakistan and United States relations took a U-Turn and the U.S. allowed and
increased military-economic aid to Pakistan. The coalition support fund was
introduced in 2002 by Bush. In 2004 Bush declared Pakistan a ―major on Nato Ally‖.
When the US compelled the Pakistan military to move FATA Muslims to catch the
Taliban. Mistrust was at its peak in 2004. When the US introduced a new strategy of
―Drone Attacks ―in 2004 by taking secret permission from General Musharaf from
Shamsi Airbase Baluchistan.
Benazir Bhutto stated in Washington DC in 2004 ― at this time of political
crises in Pakistan, with a military authoritarianism destroying our constitution,
America should stand for its values, principles and rejected despotism. General
Musharraf exploits Pakistan‘s importance to America in Afghanistan to further his
own dictatorship. This is at the cost of the humans and democratic rights of the people
of Pakistan‖.
While explaining the Indo-US association it may be argued that the military
and security arrangements with State‘s and it may be assumed that the association
between the two India and States depicts the clear picture of a true friend ,which is
making her ally stronger and stronger. which also results in the level of mistrust
between the two allies (Cohen, 2004).
2.7. Barack Obama (2009-2017) and Pak-U.S. relations: in a
theoretical framework.
Pakistan and United States relations were problematic as there was a civilian
government in power in Pakistan from the ousting of a military dictator in 2008.
Derridean deconstruction approach reconstructs the problematics of complex nature
bilateral relations of Pak-U.S. (Norris, Deconstruction: Theory and Practice, 2004).
The theoretical explanation of Influence between Pakistan and America as implied by
49
Tahir Kheli in her study (Tahir-Kheli, 1982) has been reapplied with its revised
technique to deconstruct the complex nature of Pak-U.S. relations.
Trust and Mistrust in International Relations as argued by Andrew Kydd
explains the complex relation of bilateral relations during the Obama and Prime
Minister Gillani and Zardari government in Pakistan (Kydd, 2005). Conditional Trust
between Pakistan and America during the Obama administration has been an
awesome depiction of the explanations of Robert Solomon (Robert C, 2003). Obama
took office in 2009 Pakistan America relations became goods once again. Vice
president Joe Biden stated ―if u don‘t get Pakistan right, u can‘t win in Afghanistan‖.
US increased military assistance for Pak during PPP Asif Ali government which came
in Power in 2008 and America (Obama) also tripped its economic aid to promote
political stability along with economic growth.
America was disillusioned with Pakistan when they came to know about
Pakistan's policy of good Taliban and bad Taliban. (Waziristan tribe) (Mehsud TTP
including in destructive achieving inside Pakistan).
A ―chairman joint chiefs of staff stated in 2011 Admiral Mike Mullen that
(Wazir-allied) with Haqqani network was operating from FATA was support of Pak.
Then in May 2011 the raid over hiding out Osama Bin Laden in Abbottabad by
American (Navy seals). By 2014 Pakistan America was at odds as from January
2011, where Raymond Davis, CIA contractor killed two innocent civilians resulted in
massive outrage in Pakistan. (when CIA director. falsely claiming that he has a
connection with CIA). then the destructive event of November 26, 2011 24 Pakistan
forces was killed by NATO forces mistakenly considering them insurgents Salala
check post. (Border with Afghanistan)
50
Pakistan closed the route of NATO supply till July 3, 2012, Shamsi airbase in
Baluchistan was vacated by Pakistan on America‘s this action and relation between
Pakistan and America started going downwards. America aid to Pakistan began to fall
as America was withdrawing from Afghanistan (2011 onwards) American distrust
that the Pakistan army and ISI provide covert support to the Taliban and other
militant organizations to fight against America in Afghanistan further aggravated the
tormented Pak-U.S. relations during the Obama administration (Markey, 2014).
Table. 2.3. “Indo-US Defense Exercises and its Impact
The American & Indian militaries have
participated in a number of bilateral
exercises, including
YUDH ABHYAS, COPE INDIA,
MALABAR & VAJRA PRAHAR.
In 2014, India participated firstly in the
multilateral maritime exercises RIM
PACIFIC EXERCISES. It has also taken part
in RED FLAG.
India conducts more military exercises with
the US than with any other country.
The US Army , Blue Navy, Air Force,
Special Forces & Marines seals have
participated in exercises with India.
In 2014, Asian powers Singapore,
Australia & Japan also participated in
MALABAR Naval exercises with India.
US policy of joint military exercises in
Indian ocean was the strategic connectivity to
give India prominence among the US Asian
allies.
Recently, he India‘s PM endorsed Japan‘s
continued indulgence in maritime exercises.‖
Analysis: Table explores the US-India military exercises and its impact upon
Pakistan, proves the increasing US-India strategic conglomeration and reality of US
policy towards India which adversely impacts Pakistan and her association with the
State‘s. States continually empowers the arch-rival of Pakistan
2.8. US Strategic Interest in South Asia and the role of Pak-U.S.
relations and its links to Global Political Goals and Objectives.
American strategic interests in the region of SA stands upon the grand strategy
of dominance and leading the affairs of the world. The U.S. for achieving her foreign
policy objectives in the region of SA relied on the theoretical pillars of Strategic
51
Realism put forward by Thomas Schelling (Sorensen, 2003) and misperception
between Pakistan and America to form an alliance. America's strategy in SA consists
of its diverse policy of alliance with India, the war in Afghanistan, and ideological
confrontation with the Soviet Union and Communist China and Pakistan being her
ally of achieving its policy goals. The American Interest in South Asia has been
achieved by its alliance with Pakistan.
To argue about the goals of U.S. in this region has diverse explanation as
firstly She wants to keep a firm check upon China its economic competitor, Secondly
to put pressure upon Iran where is a firm animosity of ideological confrontation,
thirdly to contain the influence of CW rival Russia, fourthly to get rid from the
situation in war ravaged Afg and Lastly to maximize her economic interests with
India. U.S.
Further mistrust on Pakistan is based upon its misperception that the Pakistan
army and ISI provide clandestine support to the Taliban and other militant groups to
fight against America. Another survey helps to understand severe disagreement with
US engagements in the name of
52
Table 2.4.Significant Terms in shaping the foreign policy of the state towards
“South Asia.
Source:https://courses.lumenlearning.com/americangovernment/chapter/approaches-to-foreign-policy.
Analysis: the table depicts different policies of United States while dealing
with Pakistan and in the greater SA context of allies. Most of the period while the
States just kept on developing her status to become more successful in times to come
by adopting the policy of Isolationism.
While concluding the chapter it can be stated that the theoretical framework explains
in detail the problematic nature of Pakistan and United States of America
relationship. Pakistan and United States relationship has been deconstructed through
various dimensions keeping in view the mistrust in between the two stakeholders.
Pakistan-United States relations has been analyzed and revisited during the time span
of 1979-2015.
“Foreign Policy Description of Policy Position
Isolationism Country stays out of foreign entanglements, keeps to itself; non-
involvement.
Engagement Country maintains military presence; engagement through
alliances & installations
Containment Country tries to limit spread of opposing ideological viewpoint or
military expansion
Détente Among the countries the policy of easing hostilities & strained
relations
Entente To construct & consolidate informal alliances betwixt the states &
increase friendly understanding
Pre-emption
Country uses threat of our actual use of force to promote policy
goals
Retaliatory Country counters measures taken by another country; economic,
political, military
Intervention Country intervenes for humanitarian reasons; economic aid, health
resources, etc.
Interdependence Country tries itself to other countries through political, economic
& defence policies‖
53
REFERENCES
Cohen, S. P. (2004). The Idea of Pakistan . Washinton, D.C.: The Brookings
Institution .
Guney, A. (2008). A Brief Description Of Jacques Derrida's Deconstruction and
Hermenutics. e-Journal of New world Sciences Academy.
Heywood, A. (2015). Key Concepts in Politics and Intrnational Relations. London:
Palgrave .
Imam, S. F. (2019, April 28). Speaker National Assembly (1985-1986 ) . Chairman
kashmir commiittee 3/2/2019. (S. N. Shah, Interviewer)
Jaffrelot, C. (2015). The Pakistan Paradox: Instability and Resilence. New York:
Oxford University Press .
Jalal, A. (2014). The Struggle for Pakistan A muslim Homeland and Global Politics.
London: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Kydd, A. (2005). Trust and Mistrust in International Relations. Princeton: Princeton
University Press.
Laymont, C. (2015). Research Methods in International Relations. London: SAGE.
Nazar, Y. (2011). Balkanisation and the Political Economy of Pakistan. Karachi:
National News Agency.
Norris, C. (2004). Deconstruction. London: Routledge.
Norris, C. (2004). Deconstruction: Theory and Practice. London and New York:
Routledge.
Robert C, S. a. (2003). Building Trust : In Business, Politics,Relationships and Life.
Oxford Scholarship Online.
54
Rolfe, G. (2004). Deconstruction in a Nutshell. In G. Rolfe, Nursing Philosophy (pp.
5, 274-276). http//:onlinelibrary.wiley.com: Blackwell Publising.
Sattar, A. (2013). Pakistan's Foreign Policy 1947-2012 A Concise History. Karachi:
Oxford University Press.
Schofield, U. B. (2012). Pakistan The US, Geopolitics and Grand Strategies. New
York: Pluto Press.
Sorensen, R. J. (2003). Introduction to International Relations Theories and
Approaches. New York: Oxford University Press Inc.
Tahir-Kheli, S. (1982). The United States and Pakistan The Evolution Of An
Influence Relationship. New York: Praeger Publishers.
Wheeler, N. J. (2012). Trust-Building in International Relations. South Asian Journal
of Peace Building.
55
CHAPTER 3
PAKISTAN-US RELATIONS ON BROAD-SPECTRUM.
(VARIOUS DIMENSIONS)
Outline of chapter, The beginning of Pak-US from a diverse perspective.
Geostrategic location of Pakistan and its geopolitical incentives for its alliance with
the US. United States- India‘s relations and its impact. Sino-Pak friendship and its
impacts Military Governments in Pakistan and the Pak-US relations Civilian elected
Governments and Pak-U.S. relations Pak- US relations upon broad-spectrum (various
levels of analysis global regional and bilateral (Iran, Afghanistan, China, India,
CARS)
This chapter briefs the entire argument of Pakistan United States relations on
the broad spectrum while discussing its various dimensions, the establishment of the
longstanding problematic relationship. Pakistan soon after its independence from the
British colonized Indian subcontinent engulfed by numerous problems and
insecurities. Amongst the various problems and difficulties faced by the newly
independent State, one was the presence of all time‘s active enemy army in form
India. while Pakistan was a newly independent state and for the purpose of its
survival and progress Pakistan has to be dependent upon some stronger so that its
sovereign presence may not be threatened by the enemy in the global political system.
for the very objective, Pakistan Sought to establish her alliance with America (Sattar,
2013).
Furthermore the geostrategic location of Pakistan was vital in the
establishment of its alliance with the United States. The domestic crisis which took
56
birth along with the creation of Pakistan, geographic location, topography and
geopolitical location paved the way for Pak-U.S. relations.
3.1. The beginning of Pak-US from a diverse perspective
The beginning of Pak-U.S. relations in the strategic thinking of the founder of
Pakistan Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah ―Pakistan (is) a democracy and
communism (does) not flourish in the soul of Islam. It (is) clear that our interests (lie)
more with the two great democratic interests namely, the U.K and the U.S.A, rather
than with Russia‖. Pakistan's alliance with the United States was one of the diversity
of its kind. Pakistan got liberation and for the purpose of its security entered into an
alliance with the western bloc with America.
Both states have strategically exploited (used) each other in achieving there
often conflicting National interests. Pakistan America relations have risen and fallen
according to the objectives of the U.S in South Asia, U.S provided military and
economic assistance to Pakistan while achieving her military objectives or to counter
USSR. America overlooked all the clashing point, (A) absence of democratic rule. (b)
Military aggression towards India. (c) Backing of militant organizations (d) nuclear
weapons program for her logistic and strategic support. America for her objective
allied Pakistan to counter contain the expansion of the USSR.
Pakistan allied with the United States for the protection of her sovereignty and
territorial integrity as well as the promotion of the goals and objectives for her
survival allied with the US, similarly, the United States also allied with Pak for the
procurement of interests in SA as to counter /contain the expansion of USSR.
Secretary of the state ―John Foster Dulles‖ visited SA in 1953 and emphasize
America concerns in Pak as a primary CW partner due to its geographic location
nearing USSR, China Pak was only Asian Nation in SEATO, CENTO (US defense
57
agreements for checking USSR expansion and aggression). Pakistan and America
relations were a marriage of convincing.
Further America‘s interest in Pakistan increased as Indian first Prime Minister
Nehru announced to remain nonaligned which was a threat that the
USSR/communism may flourish in India as stated by ―President Eisenhower‖ while
Pakistan has been allied with the U.S and received US economic aid also was the trust
of America. Much like today, the benefit of Pak to US policy-makers in the early
1950s resulted from the threat of communism and an anticipated shift in the global
balance of power in favor of the USSR and the People‘s Republic of China (PCR).
Within two months of the creation of Pakistan Quaid‘s request U.S.A $2 billion over
5 years of time span.
Pak-US relations are complex in nature as there are many different problems
and there is no easy solution, as Dr. Tahir-Kheli indicates as she guides us through
the policy in which a superpower and Third World country try to influence each other
on issues of vital national interest. The assumed widespread belief that America
benefits from influence with ―the Pakistani military‖ in power and the ―Pro
Pakistani‖ proclivities of a Richard Nixon or a Henry Kissinger determined U.S.
policy. Washington found that, from the onset, the relationship with Pakistan was
based on a false principle and differing perceptions of the nature of ―the threat‖ i.e.,
for America, it was the Soviet Union and China; Pakistan on the other hand, always
felt India be the primary threat.
Pakistan and American alliance are of dynamic Nature of Pakistan America
relations shifting from ―most allied ally in Asia‖ to lies and deception ―. there is a
focus on post-1971 relations when a weaker Pakistan did not come under the
American influence umbrella but instead actively multiplied its option. Two key
58
issues, namely arms sales and nuclear policy, are examined in detail since they
provide the focal point of relations.
3.2. Geostrategic location of Pakistan and its geopolitical incentives
for its alliance with the US.
The geographical and strategic location of Pakistan makes it an important
player in the regional political scenario as Pakistan is being surrounded by India, Iran,
China, and Afghanistan. Pakistan has enjoyed being in the spotlight due to its
geographical location. Pakistan shares a border on the southwest with Iran which is a
Middle Eastern country, bordered at South- East with India, North-West with
Afghanistan which is semi central Asian country, North with China which is East
Asian country. At South, Pakistan is bordered with the Arabian Sea that ends with
Oman and Iran. It‘s the biggest trading partner and the military supplier in China.
Pakistan has signed trade agreements with individual countries in its region
including.The geographical location of Pakistan compelled the U.S. to make an
alliance with her to contain Soviet Russia and red China.
59
Map 3.1 USSR Map with her inclinations for SA States.
Source: http://www.maps-of-the-world.net/maps/maps-of-asia/soviet-union-east-and-
south-asia-large-map-1987.jpg
Analysis: map identifies the USSR inclinations for the region of SA when it
invaded Afg.
U.S. policy towards Pakistan change overnight as with the Soviet‘s attack on
Afghanistan. Carter stated the combined session of congress on January 23, 1980
―any attack by an outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be
regarded as an assault on the vital interests of America and such an assault will be
repelled by any necessary means, including military force.
60
Table 3.1 reflects the strategic importance of Pakistan in fighting the menace of
extremists after the attacks of September 2001.
Source:http://www.pewglobal.org/2011/07/13/chapter-2-views-ofthe-u-s-and-american-
foreignpolicy/
Analysis: the table depicts the geographical significance of Pak including its
Strategic importance which compelled United States to form an alliance with. And
the percentage that Pakistan supported in eradicating the GWOT.
3.2.1. Geographical Significance of Pakistan and relations with the regional
States.
The below given figure reflecting the geographical importance of Pakistan in
the American context.
61
Figure 3.1 Reflexes the US Policy in Perspectives of CW.
Source:―http://westerncivguides.umwblogs.org/2009/12/04/expanding-the-cold-war‖.
Analysis: The figure illustrates the US and USSR CW animosity and the geographical
proximity of Pakistan. NATO & WARSAW, The US policy of interacting with the
international Community vide its policy of restraining the USSR and Socialism and
its expansion.
3.2.2 Pakistan-and America relations in the context of Afg, Iran, and Gulf Arab
states on America-Pakistan Relations.
No nation at present can think of survival without interacting with the other
nations. Every state has to build her relations with other countries for the sake of its
economic and political survival, in the fields of technology and industry. Pakistan
started individually but then came into relations with a major power. Relationships
with Afghanistan were at crossroads since the inception of Pakistan As an
independent State Afghanistan was against the creation of Pakistan.
62
Map 3.2. SA with Major Cities which depicts their Strategic importance.
Source:http://www.maps-of-the-world.net/maps/maps-of-asia/detailed-political-map-
of-asia-with-allcapitals-and-major-cities-2008.jpg
Analysis: map identifies the SA capital cities along with their geographical and
political significance who is willing for attaining its strategic goals in the region.
Pakistan open doors to the West when not being supported by East, many
Afghans suspect that the current troubles between Washington and Islamabad are
evidence of the beginning of the end for U.S.-Pakistan cooperation. Future Afghan
decision-making is likely to be strongly influenced by efforts to secure foreign
economic assistance and investments. Afghanistan is aware of its weak economic and
military conditions and thus looks upon foreign superpowers such as the United
States, China, and Iran for any future assistance by digging into its relations with
other neighbors and Pakistan.
A range of decisions made by Afghan leaders in Kabul will affect U.S.
relations with Pakistan.
63
Pakistan and Iran relations
Pakistan foreign policymakers view Iranian as important, but not at the very
top of their list of strategic concerns. Pakistani-Iranian relations have gone through
four phases since Pakistan‗s independence. The first phase (1949-1979) was a period
of friendly relations between the two countries: Pakistan saw Iran as the first country
to recognize its independence, and in 1950, the two countries signed a Treaty of
Friendship.
A tension emerged between the two countries in the second phase (1979-
1990). Following the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran, top Pakistani leaders were
suspicious that Iranian officials were trying to radicalize Pakistan‗s Shia minority.
The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan saw Iranian and Pakistani leaders spar over
support for different Afghan ethnic groups and Pakistani cooperation with the United
States. Bilateral tensions mounted considerably in the third phase (1990 – 2001).
Pakistan and the Gulf States
Finally, there are reasons to believe that Gulf Arab states tend to consider
Pakistan of relatively low importance. From this perspective, the GCC‗s true concern
is not instability in Pakistan, but whether or not a cash-strapped and the war-weary
United States will continue to guarantee the security of Gulf Arab countries. The new
head of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), for instance, failed to mention Pakistan
once in a major, lengthy policy address on GCC priorities. In February 2011, when
the Pakistani foreign minister proposed that the GCC sign a security treaty with
Pakistan
At the same time, there is some evidence to support the argument that both the
GCC countries and Pakistan play important roles in the internal affairs of one another.
Bahrain recently requested thousands of Pakistani security contractors to assist the
64
suppression of Shia protesters in Manama. And Saudi Arabia—or at least individual
Saudi donors—continues to exercise tremendous leverage in
Lastly, rising competition between Saudi Arabia and Iran could have
implications for security in Pakistan, where peace between Sunnis and Shias can be
especially weakened.
Map 3.3. of SA demonstrating the importance of Pakistan
Source:http://www.maps-of-the-world.net/maps/maps-of-asia/detailed-political-map-
of-asia-continentwith-relief-2009.jpg
Analysis: map depicts the clear picture of the unique geopolitical importance
of Pak in the broader regional SA perspective which high lights the founding grounds
of Pak-US alliance.
3.3. United States - India’s relations and its impact upon Pakistan
and the United States of America relations.
The United States and India relations have been one of its diverse kinds. The
US views India as a hegemon in the zone of South Asia. While the US believes that in
65
spite of the nonaligned stature of India it can assist the US in achieving its global
targets of countering the growing influence of China in this region.
As the two leaders gossip with each other and the message has been conveyed to the
participants of the meeting the association between the two is of cordial in nature.
Indo-US alliance causes severe distrust and also disrobes the BOP of the region of
SA.
Indian-American association which results in a sense of betrayal among the
Pakistani governments and the masses while the stakeholders in Pakistan see this
entire shift in American foreign policy as the duality of the US while dealing with
Pakistan.
The entire quagmire results in the trust deficit between Pakistan her alliance
with America. the motto of alliance with America vanishes as Pakistan loses strategic
depth in the region all the difficulties which Pak has a beard in her alliance with the
US are in vain.
66
Table 3.2 shows the deals and agreements signed between India and US.
―1990s
Indo-US S&T Fellowship Program
DST-NSF S&T Program
NASA-NOAA/ISRO-DST MoU
Health and Medical Science Programs
2000 INDO-U.S. SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY FORUM
2001 High Technology Cooperation Group
2002 GSOMIA ( General Security of Military Information Agreement)
2005 Indo-US Strategic Partnership
2005 Indo-US S&T Agreement / Joint S&T Commission
2006 US-India Agricultural Knowledge Invitiative
2008 NASA-ISRO Agreement on Civillian Space Cooperation
2008 MOES-NOAA Agreement on Earth Observation & Earth Sciences
2009 MoU on Energy Security, Energy Efficiency & Clean Energy and
Climate Change
`2009 Indo-US R&D Endowment Board
2010 Indo-US Joint Clean Energy R&D Centre
2011 Obama-Singh 21st Century Knowledge Initiative
2014-15 CISMOA (Communication Interoperability and Security Memorandum
Agreement)
2014-16 LSA (Logistics Support Agreement)
2014-16 BECA (Basic Exchange and Cooperation Agreement)‖
Source: Created by the researcher by Collecting Data from CIA Fact Book.
Analysis: Table show numerous deals that has been signed between the allies
in the context of achieving the vested goals in SA. Through deliberated move onto
India and put Pakistan aside, American elite policymakers advanced the strategy to
avail the strategic opportunity for world political absolute gains as by attaining its
national interests from India.‖
67
3.4. Sino-Pak friendship and its impact on the bilateral relationship
between Pakistan and the United States.
China is the only all-weather friend of Pakistan. in the global community.
Which stood through each thick and thin with Pakistan either it was the traditional
enemy or the natural calamities. With help of China, Pakistan possesses fissile
material for the development of weapons by mid-1980;s Pakistan Nuclear bomb was
almost ready to carry out but halted due to pursuing from America until 28 May 1998
when under Navy government Pakistan became seventh Nuclear Nation, America has
imposed sanction upon Pakistan whereas has already suspended military aid to
Pakistan in 1990. 46$ Billion investment in CPEC. for the purpose to bond Western
China with Gawadar port on the Pak Arabian coast. China provided 200 million
dollars to economic aid to Pakistan on November 14, 1970.
Table 3.3 Pakistan Military Industry Benefiting from Chinese Collaboration
Industry Location Year Manufacturing
Karachi Shipyard
and Engineering
Works (KSEW)
Karachi 1950s Builds F-22P Frigates, Agosta 90B Khalid
Class
Submarine, Fast Attack Craft (Missile),
Jalalat Class Missile Boat and involved in
shipbuilding, ship repair and general
engineering.
Pakistan
Aeronautical
Complex (PAC)
Kamra 1973 Initially assembled F-6 and French Mirages.
Produces ‗Mushak‘ trainer aircraft,
assembly of ground-based radar, the
Chinese developed JF-17 lightweight
fighters, K-8 Karakorum advanced jet
trainers.
Heavy Industries
Taxila (HIT)
Taxila 1979 Comprises of six major production units,
involved in manufacturing, rebuilding,
upgrading and developing Tanks, Tank
Guns & APCs, such as Tank Al-Khalid 1,
Tank
Al-Khalid, Tank Al-Zarrar, APC Talha
(with 12.7 mm protection), 125 mm Smooth
68
Bore Tank Gun, Command Vehicle
(SAKB).
Air Weapons
Complex (AWC)
Kamra 1993 Manufactures a variety of air-delivered
weapons, including extended range bombs,
target penetration bombs and infra-red
search and track systems. The AWC product
range includes HAFR-1: Anti Runway
Weapon; IRST: Infra-red search and track
system; 250 kg pre-fragmented bomb; 250
kg MK-82 steel bomb; 500 kg MK-83 steel
bomb; 1000 kg MK-84 steel bomb; air burst
electronic fuses (impact and detonating);
low/ high-drag tail units; 25 lbs and 6 kg
practice bombs; GPS: Global positioning
system; and the Mushak Trainer Aircraft.
Source: Pakistan Senate Defence Committee and Pakistan Ministry of Defense
Production.
Analysis: Table explains the level of attachment between Sino-Pak alliance
where the latter has benefitted from the earlier in building her defense installments. A
Chinese diplomat, once confronted by a US delegate about Beijing‘s uncompromising
support for Pakistan, sarcastically responded: ‗Pakistan is our Israel‘ (Small, 2015).
Table 3.4 Chinese Loans to Pakistan (US$ Million)
http://ead.gov.pk/pubDetails.aspx
Analysis: table shows the loans provide to Pakistan by China from 2006 on wards.
69
Figure 3.2 Pak collaboration with China
Source: 1200 x 720- www.herald.dawn.com/
Analysis: The South Asian alliance between China and Pakistan consists upon
mutual understandings. As Pakistan get numerous products manufactured from china.
Graph 3.1 describes the debt of Pakistan.
Source: Created by Scholar collecting Data from the book of Andrew Small, The
China Pakistan Axis
70
Analysis: The graphical representation in Graph 4 briefs the manner in which
China has replaced the US as the principal financier of Pakistan is apparent from
waning of her goals with Pak.Sino-Pakistan alliance is an example of its own kind in
the region and China always assisted Pakistan during the times of her need and
China is the benefit of Pakistan.
In the great game of global politics and the role of china it might be not wrong
to state that the has increased her influence in the entire world and Specifically Asia
which includes her policy of making a close alliance with Pakistan in the SA
context. China is well aware of the hegemonic designs of India regarding expanding
her influence in the region. Moreover the government in Beijing herself is quite
aware of the plan of India. Remembering worry regarding past Indian intervention in
Tibet, on which China fought a skirmish in 1962 with China (Sattar, 2013), the
Chinese constantly believe the significance of an established and empowered Pak as
a wealth to hinder and to keep a firm check, restrain upon India.
Table 3.5: China’s Loans and Grants to Pakistan
Source: Dreher, A., Fuchs, A., Parks, B.C., Strange, A. M., & Tierney, M. J. (2017).
71
Analysis: Tables unveils the loans and grants provided to Pak, which is clear
message of trust and mutual cooperation and the element which imbibes distrust and
hate between Pak-US relations as the later believes that the former is more associated
with China.
China anticipates the importance of every nation and believes in the policy of
not intervening in the domestic matters of any Autonomous nation. But china does
recognize the strategic and political significance of each independent State and
realizes her economic developmental opportunity and China does trust in maintaining
friendly relations with CARS Central Asian Republics. China backs Pakistan and for
the retrospect, Pakistan also takes in consideration of China as her foremost ally,
Sino-Pak collaboration to construct a port at Gwadar in Pak bears obstruction as
Indo-Iranian port venture in Chabahar, Iran.
America and her relations with China are not quite as good as that of Pakistan
and the US. While China and States are in the struggle to compete with each other in
every field of life. Beginning from the CW rivalry and its remnants between the US
and China persists. China and America are arch-rivals in their economic battle where
India is an enemy of China and for States, she is more than an opportunity, China is
an all-weather friend of Pakistan while States exploited Pakistan and went away like
an opportunist rather betrayed Pakistan during the times of need. states always left
Pakistan behind during her crisis with India while China stood by Pakistan. mistrust
prevails between Pakistan and States.
China imports large amounts of goods from Pakistan and provides Pakistan
with a maximum amount of assistance from the previous decade moreover Chinese
investment has been increasing by each passing year. China had invested 46$ Billion
72
investment in CPEC and assisting in building a deep seaport, Gawador port on the
Pakistan Arabian coast (Small, 2015).
―Pakistan is china‘s Israel (Small, 2015).‖ as it is an anarchic world no state
has nothing to deal with the Pak-US association as both of the States interacted with
each other for their respective goals. The point of Argument is the Sino-Pakistan
alliance to some extent affects the bilateral relationship. if the Sino-Pakistan alliance
is of critical importance then Indo-American close association is worth criticizing and
it also has its negative impact upon the problematic relationship between Pak and U.S
has unable to opt between India or Pakistan keeping in consideration the importance
of both states . The US backs India and further India backs Afghanistan and Iran to
encircle Pakistan to deprive the latter for attaining her strategic Depth. India while
adopts all this policy to obstruct from backing Pakistan the Kashmir dispute.
To argue in SA context it is debatable that there are numerous U.S. policy
goals in Asia and that Pak is likely to be a fundamental associate in accomplishing
many among them. Washington pursues to avoid change in the regional BOP that will
risk U.S. interests. Further the United States pursues to reinforce its associations with
Asian allies, especially India.
3.5. Military Governments in Pakistan and the Pak-US relations
Pakistan ruled by military rulers for a total of 36 years (1958-1971), (1978-
1988), (1999-2008) (Akins, March 2018). Pakistan's American relations were at its
peak during the military rule of Pakistan co-incidentally. as it is generally believed
that Pakistan military exercise power rather Pakistan foreign and defense policy over
civilizing governments in power and outside power. The U.S. believed that Pakistan's
army is one of the few effective regional forces that‘s why try to establish friendly
73
relations with Pakistan army vis-à-vis Pakistan and in the same manner the aid of
America acted also (Shah, 2014).
. The relationship was at peak during 1954-61 as Pakistan military was
enjoying a congenial relationship with America. A very long and old friendship
between Ayub and Nixon was prevailing in the backdrop of Pakistan and America
relations, General Yahya Muhammad Khan displaced Ayub on March 25, 1969, was
not unwelcomed in Washington.
Ayub Khan (his government) was called ―American stooges‖ when he passed
his powers resigned in 1969. Nixon asked General Yahya Khan to create a friendly
relationship between Washington and China. Yahya agreed and he promised to carry
out the task in extreme confidentiality.
Zia's military rule was seen as a good opportunity in Washington, during his
1980‘s visit to the UN in New York invited to the white house, where he was
welcomed Human Rights, Nuclear issue was put aside. Reagon pursued the policies
of Carter administration Reagon continued with dictator along with Nuclear
Proliferation but compelled Pakistan not to conduct tests. Pakistan America
reconnected to defeat the Taliban with support from Pakistan. Pak-US relations were
at the top once again and trust was also prevailing as the interests converged between
the two allies during the military regime of Zia as in the theoretical explanation given
by Robert Solomon (Robert C, 2003).
America depends upon Pakistan during her pursuit to defeats the Soviets in
Afghanistan, logistics support of troops. The U.S lifted arms embargo from Pakistan.
Pakistan involves terror initiated by America allowed and increased military-
economic assistance to Pak. Despite all Pak American relations were at its peak
during the military rule of Pakistan co-incidentally. Where Pakistan's military
74
exercise power rather Pakistan foreign and defense policy over civilizing
governments in power and outside power (Nazar, 2011).
Pakistan was quite worried regarding India-Afghan Soviet conspiracy against
Pakistan. Pakistan under Zia was threatened that the USSR with the collaboration of
Afghanistan, India, and her own sake will attach Pakistan to reach hot waters of the
Persian Gulf. ISI with the assistance of America CIA aided mujahedeen to defeat
USSR in Afghanistan got more aid through Reagon administration. Sino-Pakistan's
relation is ―All-weather friend‖ of Pakistan, as she supported in wars against India.
Zia rejected 400 $ Billions Pray Carter as calling its ―Peanuts‖ to get from America as
he wanted to get more.
75
Table 3.6. the table presents the details of US aid to Pak 2002-2012(in millions of dollars)
Program or Account
FY2002-
FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010
FY2011
(est.)
Program or
Account
Total,
FY02-11
FY2012
(req.)
1206 — 28 14 56 114 — A 212 a
CN 8 24 49 54 47 43a 63 288 A
CSFb 4,085c 862 731 1,019 685 1,499 D 8,881d D
FC — — — 75 25 — — 100 —
FMF 674 297 297 298 300 294 295 2,455 350
IMET 5 2 2 2 2 5 4 22 5
INCLE 186 38 24 22 88 170 114 642 125
NADR 24 9 10 10 13 24 25 115 23
PCF/PCCF — — — — 400 700e 800 1,900 1,100
Total
SecurityRelated 4,982 1,260 1,127 1,536 1,674 2,735 1,301 14,615 1,603
CSH/GHCS 77 28 22 30 34 30 28 249 2
DA 123 38 95 30 — — — 286 —
ESF 1,301f 338 394g 347 1,114 1,292 919 5,705 1,360
Food Aidh 78 55 — 50 55 124 51 413 —
HRDF 5 1 11 — — — — 17 —
IDA — 70 50 50 103 232 145 650 —
MRA 28 10 4 — 61 49 — 152 —
Total
EconomicRelated 1,612 540 576 507 1,367 1,727 1,143 7,472 1,362
Grand Total 6,594 1,800 1,703 2,043 3,041 4,462 2,444 22,087 2,965
Sources: U.S. Departments of State, Defense, and Agriculture; U.S. Agency for International Development..
76
Analysis: The support given to Pak during the years 2002-2012 has been briefed in
the up given table which points out the era of converging interests.
Pak-US relations were once again at peak during another military regime of
General Musharraf who took over the elected government of Nawaz Sharif but
Pakistan America relations continued U.S. policies towards Pakistan are complicated
and complex because most of the time during the alliance the US maneuvered rather
betrayed Pakistan. Since the relations consist of Distrust. Where Pakistan feels that
she has to be bluffed and abused by the ally. Like Musharraf military usurper engaged
Pakistan into another's war but got US assistance in return. But despite all the
consequences Pakistan fought the war of America on its soil.
77
Figure 3.3 Presents the disbursements provide to Pak 2002-2015
Source: U.S. Departments of State, Defense, and Agriculture; U.S. Agency for International
Development
Explanation: Figure portrays the economic assistance got by Pak while during
the GWOT which negatively proven for the economic development of Pakistan. As
with the withdrawal or with the Plan of withdrawal the extremists tilted to ravage
Pakistan stability.
78
3.6. Civilian elected Governments and Pak-U.S. relations
An argument prevails that Pak-US relations have always been tormented and
complex during the civilian political governments in Pakistan (Haqqani, 2013).
Divergences between Pak and the United States increase during the civilian
governments in Pakistan. The Bust Era 1989-1993 and the civilian political
government Benazir Bhutto was at crossroads with each other With the USSR
departure from Afg as America was strictly against the nuclear program of Pak which
she was from the previous several years and threatened Pakistan of economic
sanctions.
Benazir Bhutto while her State visit to U.S. Speaking to Hillary Clinton on June 5,
1989. Bhutto was on her mission to mend the estranged relations between the two
States. As the democracy revived the attempt was being done by her to restore the
congenial relationship, which waned as with the disintegration of USSR.
while the revival of democracy in Pakistan in 2008 opened a new Chapter in the
history of Pakistan, the leadership of US to deal the situation in Afg met with newly
sworn in PM Gillani in Islamabad.
3.6.1. The Bush administration 1989-1993 the Pakistan and America relation
During the visit of Pakistan army in 1989 Chief Mirza Aslam Baig's message
was conveyed by the Bush administration that America is going to import sanctions
upon Pakistan if Pakistan did not stop its nuclear program. Bush wanted to message
the Bhutto that he wished to carry on the special attachment with Pakistan, but doing
so, it can completely affect the suspension of the nuclear program. Bush says that,
America was changing its nuclear policy issues and uncertain terms with USSR
departure from Afg and the immediate end of the CW. The absence of the Soviet
threat, there was pressure from nonproliferation advocates in congress makes them
79
stronger and the basis for not imposing sanctions on Pakistan would be for less
convincing. The ambassador of Pakistan, Robert Oakley was a very forceful man, he
warned Islamabad, ―if u take any action on the nuclear program and you go past the
line…. (Bush) will blow out a whistle and invoke sanctions‖ (Gennace, 2017).
Further Pakistan had not yet the ability to detonate nuclear weapons. In May 1990,
the relationship between Pakistan and America would take a deep turn for the bad.
The Bush send the deputy national security advisor Robert Gates visited SA to
discuss with the Pak and Indian leaders to argue the apprehensions over Kashmir
rivalry and to come up with what was in fact of a challenge to Pakistan regarding its
nuclear plan. Robert Gates visited South Asia; intelligence proved Pakistan are
making bomb cores from machining uranium metal, it was the final step to making
nuclear weapons. Mistrust was prevailing in the white house that Pakistan is near to
establish nuclear missiles.
At the point Pakistan and America complex relations were at its lowest end as
in September 1990, Ambassador Oakley pronounces it as ―committing suicide‖ in
Pakistan and America relation, if Pakistan does not roll back its nuclear program,
America withholds its military and economic assistance to Pak. In October 1990,
America froze 564$ million in military and economic aid to Pakistan.
America also refused to deliver 71 F-16 aircraft ordered by Pakistan to
America in 1989. America also refused even refund the money paid by Pakistan by
28 crafts. The relation between Pakistan and America was very critical and
problematic because where there was no sign of trust among the allies. Yaqub Khan,
foreign minister traveled to Washington in October 1990 to discuss with Secretary of
State James Baker to avoid the economic sanctions imposed by America upon
Pakistan. Baker refused when Yaqoub offered to freeze the nuclear program if
80
America agrees to left the sanctions, Baker said that the President should issue
important Sanctions under Pressler, Pakistan should relieve their bomb cores and roll
back the other side of the line. If Pakistan agreed to the American demands than the
Baker would not suggest the documentation. Yaqub asked Baker that it was not
possible to roll back, the matter was lost and there was no chance of integrity.
The Pakistani‘s became very angry over the Pressler amendment as it targeted
Pakistan.
America was biased towards India as India became nuclear in 1974 but no
action was taken by America. The relationship was very problematic and complex as
America did not need Pakistan support in the region as with the fall of the USSR,
before which an entire decade of the 1980s with the military regime in power was
quite good of relations. America abused and betrayal during the time of need.
America was near to declare Pakistan as a state which sponsors terrorism as
Pakistan was implicitly supporting the freedom movement in Kashmir, the message
was conveyed to Pakistan ambassador Abida Husain on her visit to American
Undersecretary of state Kantar, made clear the Pakistan and America relationship
may have come to its end and those days may be the dark days on Pakistan and
America relations
During the Bush administration 1989-1993, the Pakistan and America relation
was problematic as America was raising the issues like nuclear proliferation state-
sponsored terrorism and Pakistan as an element of regional instability as the interest
of America and Pakistan diverged and America did not ready to realize the security
dilemma of Pakistan, whereas Pressler sanctions upon Pakistan as a foreign policy
goals have waned from Pakistan with the Soviet withdrawal that resulted in sense of
81
betrayal of Pakistan and it will be argued that the absence of Pakistan military in rule
the Pakistan and America relations also became weaker and complex.
3.6.2 The Clinton Years (1993-2001) and Pak-US relations
In 1993, President Bill Clinton inherited the bad relationship of Pakistan and
America and continuing the nuclear program, Clinton administration and
fundamentals of American Government wanted to connect with Pakistan, rather cut
off from it. Assistance Secretary of state Robin Raphel was the strongest supporter to
enhance the complex Pakistan and America relations, she was selected by President
Clinton in the Bureau of South Asian Affairs, her responsibility was to convince that
the friendship of America and Pakistan would be very useful and it will give strength
in the Islamic World. She first visited South Asia in fall 1993, she told the reporter
that America did not accept the succession of Kashmir to India, which makes
Islamabad happy, the Indian press became angry.
The American establishment was not pleased with the relationship with
Pakistan and they were searching to reestablish the affiliation /Perry was the first
American official who visited Islamabad in January 1995 to build trust and no ore
distrust in many years to suggest the steps to establish security ties. Dennis Kux took
an interview to Brown, he told him that he supported good U.S.-India relations and he
told him that he visited South Asia on the congressional trip, and he was swayed that
sanction on Pakistan was very harmful to American interests, whereas Brown planned
to ease the sanctions to raise the ban on economic assistance and they had to release
all the military equipment under by America, it includes F-16s, then he realized he
should give aircraft in 1997, the aircraft includes his effort to simplify sanctions.
Brown, Republican Senator faced a lot of problems, he faced hard resistance
in the American congress and in the Indian American society who put forward that
82
the transform would disturb the BOP in SA, the transfer of weapons would have
small contact with a crisis between Pakistan and India and loosening of sanction on
Pakistan will have a good impact on Pakistan and America tormented/broken
relationship and America strategic interest could not be achieved relationship between
Pakistan and America reestablished, so the Brown was not in the favor of revival
between Pakistan and America relation and Clinton administration agreed about that
unfairness and bitterness of Pressler Amendment on Pakistan.
The second term of Bill Clinton Administration from 1996, India exploded
five nuclear devices on May 11, 1998, exploiting NPT and CTBT, President Clinton
imposed sanction under 1994, nonproliferation act, while Clinton talked to Nawaz
Sharif four times on telephone to pursued him not to retaliate and show restrain as
America resumed that Pakistan has achieved the capability to detonate its weapons to
counter India and balance the power while Nawaz Sharif was facing public outrage to
tests its missile.
Pakistan under the administration unable to bear the public pressure to answer
the India nuclear test on May 28, 1998 balancing the power and the region, and
Pakistan and America stayed on the dark side of mistress, betrayal, and complexity.
This move of Nawaz Sharif further aggravated Pakistan and America's relationship.
The democratic leaders made respective efforts to reform the complex relationship.
The terrorist attack the American embassies in 1998, killed more than 200
people was led by the Taliban from Afghanistan led (finance /planned) by Osama Bin
Laden, the U.S. attacked by Guise slips America balanced Pakistan military and
Islamabad of supporting Taliban insurgents. Nawaz was caught in a situation of crises
when Clinton administration was requesting Nawaz to apprehend Osama Bin Laden
83
and transfer him the U.S but this against the policy of Pakistan, America National
Interest diverged, both the sallies failed to influence each other.
A sense of mistrust was prevailing between Pakistan and America both of
them missed the opportunity of procuring their respective National Interest. The
beginning of the 21st century in South Asia was not a positive note. Pakistan and
India's relations became terrible in January 2000; many of them took distress over
differences between the two nuclear states. President Clinton announced to visit
South Asia in January as he postponed his trip twice in March; he wanted to release
the tensions in the region. In the beginning the anti-American felled insecure for the
state and they were worried about Clinton's safety when he visited there.
Over the security concerns and the anti-American President Clinton gave five
days visit to India and five hours to Pakistan. Indian Prime Minister Vajpayee
welcomed Prime Minister Clinton and he made a statement as ―no possible, your visit
marks the beginning of a new voyage in the new century by two countries which have
all the potential to become natural allies‖. The Pakistan America relations during the
1990s and Bush and Clinton administration was not quite good as both of the
President miss the opportunity because of distress, betrayal, and hate from America.
3.7. Pak- US relations upon broad-spectrum (various levels of
analysis global regional and bilateral (Iran, Afghanistan, China, and
India)
the regional politics of Pakistan has its own dynamic interpretation as Pakistan
is surrounded by the states which have significance to Pakistan because the
neighboring states play a vital role in the decision making the process of any State
84
(John Baylis, 2015).Pak-US relations in the South Asian context and the divergence
of economic and political objectives in Asia.
Figure 3.4 locating Pakistan with its regional States
https://www.refworld.org/pdfid/4edc8dc62.pdf
Analysis: the figure depicts the significance of Pak in the greater regional
context of SA. Pakistan's relations with States have been affected by Pakistan's
continuous relations with Iran which has a history of friendship and mutual respect.
Iran was the first State to welcome Pakistan after its independence from
British Subcontinent. Iran was the foremost nation that accepted Pakistan As a
sovereign Islamic Republic in 1947. Pak – Iran relations consist of Mutual Respect
and integrity. here the point of concern is the troubled relations of Iran and US has a
deep impact upon Pakistan as US views Iran as her enemy as the series of events in
Tehran changed the honeymoon period between Iran and America as with the fall of
Source:
85
Iranian dictator Muhammad Shah Musadiq, the destruction of US embassy in Tehran,
1979 the Islamic revolution and the major dispute with the build-ups of Nuclear
technology along with the extremist agenda. The US has imposed various sanctions
upon Iran (Cohen, 2004).
Afghanistan and her alliance with Pakistan has far grave consequences for the
bilateral relationship as the States has continuous and varying objectives in the war-
ravaged state. Afghanistan was the state which was against the creation of Pakistan as
a sovereign state. If-Pak relations hah at crossroads most of the time of the history.
Afghanistan voted against the creation of Pakistan in the United Nations. because of
irredentist claims of Afghanistan upon the tribal areas of Pakistan and the refusal of
Afghanistan to accept the Durand line. But the point of Argument here is the impact
that Afghanistan has upon the bilateral relations Pakistan and States. Afghanistan
plays a significant rule in the relations as the USSR infiltration in Afghanistan in
1979 or the 2001 episode has impacted the Pak-US alliance severely. (Gillani, 2019)
The complex alliance has no other reasons but the Indian element involved as
to argue about the conflicting relations of Pakistan and India no one is unaware of the
fact that the crisis which has merged soon after the independence of Pakistan.
1948,1965,1971,2000 are the dark days in the history of Pakistan and India relations.
But the point of the argument is the severe impact that this crisis has upon the
bilateral relationship. the independence of Pakistan even not welcomed in India where
the Hindu extremists and radicalizes were against the separation of the Indian
subcontinent. Pakistan association with States primarily to get support against Indian
but this could not happen and the sense of distrust prevailed in the bilateral relations
as The States has not assisted Pakistan during her conflict with India. Which
disillusioned Pakistan with her bilateral relations and sense of distrust emerged and
86
various attempts made by the successive leaders to build the trust but the Indian
element destroyed the relations and its smooth evolution (Schofield, 2012).
Sino-Pakistan relations are deeper than oceans and higher than Himalayas
(Gillani, 2019). Pakistan and china's friendship is often regarded as one of the best
examples of the alliance in the International community. The alliance of Sino –
Pakistan has a critical impact upon Pak-U.S. relations as Pakistan considers China as
her best friend because she supports her during the times of need and the US betrays
Pakistan when there comes India in between the two. China believes in the principles
of nonintervention in the domestic matters of any state so does Pakistan. China
assisted Pakistan on the issues upon which the States have rejected to back Pakistan
as of nuclear policy which has empowered India (enemy of Pakistan) against
Pakistan.
The bilateral relation has affected by the Sino-Pakistan alliance which
Pakistan cannot oversee and the US envy of the alliance.
The States has its diverse plans while dealing with the Asian states mostly the
economically developed nations and it establishes bilateral trade agreements with the
nation for the purpose of maximizing her political and economic powers because
economics and politics are interconnected with each other (Goldstein, 2004). The
United States has a tendency to alter Pakistan, with economically stable nations in
Asia specifically India by signing numerous deals and agreements with her.
The complex dynamics of Pak-US relations have been investigated as the U.S.
foresees little constructive objectives in Pakistan further than achievements of her
objective from her and the region. There are lesser chances that Pak becomes more
viable option for States agenda in SA. The relations have been tormented, given the
traditionally assumed association and the misperception in the minds of the
87
Stakeholders in the west should be removed that will also help in making the complex
and problematic association correct.
Pak could become more stable with building its structures with its neighboring
States It could be built trade and industrial collaboration with India and improves its
connection that South and East Asia with those of Central Asia.
Its collaboration with China have its own significance for Pakistan while
surviving in the International community and increasing the political capability and
for the purpose of Political developments as well because China has nothing to do
with the domestic matters of Pakistan as States cherish the designs to back the
military rule in Pakistan for the purpose o her interests which She cannot grasp while
there are political governments in Pakistan.
India, unlike Pakistan, has US intervention in Asia because it is fruitful for her
but the increased role of the US in Asia and the marginalization of Pakistan is not
welcomed in Pakistan. Delhi views more worried about a rushed U.S. exit from the
region with pulling out of NATO and ISAF forces from Afghanistan as their presence
can be fruitful for Indian goals in the region.
States have to restructure and rebuilt her South Asian policy in the context of
her objectives in the region and assign Pakistan the central role as has been Assigned
during the war against the USSR and terrorists in Afghanistan. Pakistan should be
consulted as did during the times of the needs of the global hegemon. Because
Pakistan has beard uncountable losses with her alliance with her.
The recent $800 million provisions in U.S. to Pak cannot work as a problem
solver between the two states until and unless US puts aside India and Consider Pak
as it deserves to be , while dealing with the matters of SA specifically (Akins, March
2018).
88
Pakistan - India’s relations and the role of the United States of America.
The slightest decrease in India‘s economic rate can delay India‘s development
and end its capability to play as a major player role in SA which, Washington wishes
to see in the decades to come, including concerning balancing Chinese expanding
influence and power in Asia.
Pak- India's political bondage has always been worse, since its independence
in 1947.
Pakistan and India got involved in a 1948 war over Kashmir that ended into
animosity and set the direction for future association.
According to 3rd June 1947, the partition plan, it was decided that all the
princely states were to join either state upon the popular will. The rulers of some
larger states were intending to look upon for liberation but they were granted the said.
Pakistan-India relations were seen as mostly negative waves as situational weather
lesser or more.
Though there were some temporary limits of peaceful existence together.. As
democracy in Pakistan revived, during the tenure of Benazir Bhutto in 1988 and Rajiv
Gandhi in India, there was an enthusiasm experienced in politics and the media that
the two young leaders of Pakistan and India, who do not pay heed to envious ties of
partition, would commence a renewed practical and congenial relations amongst the
two- enemy neighbors.(Gupta, 2005, p. 87 )
The last phase lasts from 2004 to 2014. On the side-lines of 12th SAARC
Summit held in Islamabad (January 4-6, 2004), Despite furious unrest between
Pakistan and India, both neighbors took strong measures to minimize the nature of
enmity and tried to rebuild a friendly affiliation between them.
89
The Lahore Declaration 1999 too quoted ―the two sovereigns should avoid
intervention and adopt non-interference policy‖ and ―refrain from their condemnation
of terrorism in all its forms and manifestation and their determination to combat this
menace‖. (The Lahore Declaration, 1999).
90
REFERENCES
Akins, H. (March 2018). Between Allies and Enemies : Explaining the Volatility of
the U.S.-Pakistan Relationship, 1947-2018. knoxville:
http://bakercenter.utk.edu/publications.
Cohen, S. P. (2004). The Idea of Pakistan . Washinton, D.C.: The Brookings
Institution .
Gennace, J. (2017, January 21). US-Pakistan Relations after the Soviet Withdrawal
from Afghanistan: The Bush and Clinton Years. Retrieved April 23, 2020,
from The Daily Journalist: http://thedailyjournalist.com/the-historian/us-
pakistan-relations-after-the-soviet-withdrawal-from-afghanistan-the-bush-and-
clinton-years/
Gillani, S. Y. (2019, May 2). Speaker National Assembly ( ) . Prime Minister of
Pakistan 2008-19 June2012. (S. N. Shah, Interviewer)
Goldstein, J. S. (2004). International Relations. Delhi: Pearson Education
(Patparganj).
Haqqani, H. (2013). Magnificent Delusions Pakistan, the United States, and an Epic
History of Misunderstanding. New York: Public Affairs.
Jaffrelot, C. (2015). The Pakistan Paradox: Instability and Resilence. New York:
Oxford University Press .
Jalal, A. (2014). The Struggle for Pakistan A muslim Homeland and Global Politics.
London: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
John Baylis, S. S. (2015). The Globalization of World Politics An Introdution to
International Relations. Oxford University Press.
91
Nazar, Y. (2011). Balkanisation and the Political Economy of Pakistan. Karachi:
National News Agency.
Robert C, S. a. (2003). Building Trust : In Business, Politics,Relationships and Life.
Oxford Scholarship Online.
Sattar, A. (2013). Pakistan's Foreign Policy 1947-2012 A Concise History. Karachi:
Oxford University Press.
Schofield, U. B. (2012). Pakistan The US, Geopolitics and Grand Strategies. New
York: Pluto Press.
Shah, A. (2014). The Army and Democracy Military Politics in Pakistan. Harvard
University Press.
Small, A. (2015). The China-Pakistan Axis Asia's New Geopolitics . New York:
Oxford University Press.
Sorensen, R. J. (2003). Introduction to International Relations Theories and
Approaches. New York: Oxford University Press Inc.
92
CHAPTER 4
(HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF PAK-U.S. RELATIONS
1947-1979)
4.1. Pakistan and United States relations the beginning
(The Initiation).
This unit clarifies the relationship between United States of America and
Pakistan, moreover from beginning to bottom clarification of the Pak-US relations
keeping in view the foundation of trust and distrust and the building up of a congenial
relationship and weakening of friendly ties between the two, have examined in detail
in this part of the current study. for this purpose the chapter has been divided into
three ideal models: (1) 1947-1958 (2) 1958-1969.(3) (1970-1979).
To dig out the primary foundations of the Pakistan-U.S. relationship a survey
has been conducted with respondents from different professions of life to unveil the
Pak-United States relationship in the global perspective along with the regional level
at South Asia level and local level between Pakistan and America interaction. As
sooner as Pakistan got autonomy from the British colonized Indian subcontinent in
1947 would, in general, be in the great books of the United States of America. (Sattar,
2013)Briefs that Pakistan not long after in the wake of getting freedom from the
British Colonial principle was inundated with wars with most despised opponent
India, so Pakistan was in an urgent need of getting support from the International
Community and looked for shelter in Establishment of alliance with the U.S.
Besides this chapter of research demarcates the ups and downs or the ties of
relationship among Pakistan and America clarified in its historical details. The
understandings marked among the United States of America and Pakistan from the
93
earliest preliminary point of commitment (alliance) to the rise of diverging Interests
between the disillusioned alliance of Pakistan and America. Further to explain what
Pakistan got from the problematic alliance and complex relationship has also been
explained chronology in this chapter of the dissertation. Including this part mostly
articulates/depicts the High and Low points in the relations between the U.S. and Pak.
(Sattar, 2013)
The genesis of Pak and America's relationship lies in the commonality of
Interest as Pakistan seeking her independence from the British colonized Indian
Subcontinent resulted in its Bloody partition with the ending of World War II. (Akins,
March 2018) .As Quaid the founding father of Pakistan stated ―Pakistan (is) a
democracy and communism (does) not flourish in the soul of Islam. It (is) clear that
our interests (lie) more with the two great democratic interests namely, the U.K and
the U.S.A, rather than with Russia‖. Within two months of the creation of Pakistan.
Quaid‘s request to U.S.A for $2 billion over 5 years of time span.
As secretary of state ―John Foster Dulles‖ visited SA in 1953 and emphasized
America's objectives in Pakistan as a primary cold war ally due to its geographical
location nearing USSR, China (Akins, March 2018). Pak was only Asian State in
SEATO, CENTO (US defense agreements for checking USSR expansion,
aggression). America's interest in Pakistan increased as Indian first Prime Minister
Nehru announce to remain non-aligned which was a threat that UUSR/communism
may flourish in India as stated by ―President Eisenhower‖ while Pakistan has been
allied with the U.S and received US economic aid also was the trust of America.
4.2. The Evolution of Pak-U.S. relations
Upon the request of M.A.H. Isphahani, Pakistan‘s first Ambassador to
Washington, Truman briefed: ―We are opening a new chapter in the relations
94
between East and West. We stand ready to assist Pakistan in all appropriate ways
which might mutually benefit our two countries and the world and we have profound
hope for the continuing peaceful and constructing collaboration between Pakistan, her
sister dominions and other countries‖ (New York Times, Oct, 9 1947).
Pakistan got freedom from the British colonized Indian Subcontinent in 1947
and the Pak-U.S. relations are as old as Pak independence. On the one side, Pakistan
not long after its creation needs to confront the hostility of a very neighbor India
which was against its development and it investigated every possibility to create
unrest in Pakistan. On the subsequent side, United States of America was ensnared in
the problematic CW competition with the Soviet Union, Pakistan built up a friendly
association with the United States of America as Pakistan needed to contain Indian
threat and the extending impact of USSR in SA so the partnership of Pak-U.S. was a
marriage of comfort, while India stayed joined with Non Aligned status.
Pakistan consented to Mutual Defense Assistance Arrangement with the
United States of America and looked for shelter in a coalition of the United States
(Sattar, 2013). Pakistan was made an associate of the United States of America
because the later needed to advance its inclinations in South Asia. In 1954 Pakistan
joined the United States of America with all due respect settlement SEATO and one
year from now in 1955 likewise turned into the piece of another safeguard
understanding CENTO (Central Treaty Organization) (Jalal, 2014). Pakistan-US
relations from the earliest starting point fortified in a friendly way however it couldn't
breeze through the assessment of time. In the mid of 1960s, the U.S. forced a one-
sided ban upon Pakistan while keeping India with circumstance and the same was the
arrangement in 1971 (Markey, 2014). Pak-U.S. relations during the 1970s were sharp
as on the grounds that the United States of America was against Pakistan's goal to get
95
atomic innovation as it repudiates its atomic non-multiplication arrangement. Not
long after the USSR of Afg in 1979 Pak-U.S. gone into another period of
collaboration as the United States of America would in general break down the USSR
while setting up a suitable association with Pakistan alongside an arrangement of
military and monetary help (Waheed, 2017). Pak-U.S. relations irritated after the
USSR fall in Afg in 1989 and with the start of Post-CW governmental issues. During
the time of the 1990s, Pakistan-United States relations confronted antagonism since
Pakistan was furnishing itself with Nuclear Technology with the U.S. loathed. The
dangerous connection at that point goes into another period of vital commitment by
and by when the United States of America required Pak's help in the GWOT in Afg.
The war against psychological warfare brought the two disillusioned partners together
(RIEDEL, 2011). Pakistan-United States relations started not long after the autonomy
of Pakistan and more often than not the key association of the two went through the
ear of question and doubt. The connection between the two comprises of good and
bad times, trust and trust shortfall, faithfulness, and double-crossing. Pak-U.S.
relations relies on the intermingling and dissimilarity of Interests of both of the Sates.
The time of CW governmental issues (1945-1990) and the unipolar universe of the
1990s (with the crumbling of USSR) alongside the change in Global Political
situation with the psychological militant assaults of September 11, 2001, Pak-U.S.
relations went through various trough and peak, the whole partnership has
problematics to disclose.
4.2.1 Pakistan Indian crisis and the role of the United States of America.
The Independence of Pakistan and India was the ultimate result of the bloody
separation of the British colony of the Indian Subcontinent which was the omen of a
vestige of British imperialism as with the consequences of the horrible destruction of
96
the Second World War (1939-1945). the independence and the unwavering efforts
Muhammad Ali Jinnah and his Associates while the rehabilitation movement imitated
by Sir Syed Ahmed Khan and Dr. Iqbal has worth Impact upon the Establishment of
Pakistan. the segregation of Subcontinent was marked by the numerous flaws which
the Britishers left unresolved and which caused various loopholes and which emerged
as the issues of conflict and crisis between the newly emerging states.
The unresolved issue of the Princely States of Subcontinent and the major
conflict of Princely states among the independence of Pakistan, Pakistan it was
consisting of two Parts West (current-day Pakistan) and East till December 15, 1971,
afterward it became (Bangladesh) on 16 December 1971 while declaring its
independence from Pakistan, with India in the center bifurcating the two wings with
hundreds of miles..
Figure 4.1. Shows the picture of Subcontinent Pre and Post-Independence of
Pak.
Pre-Partition Post-Partition
―Source: Map of Indian Subcontinent, 1945-1971 (www.emory.edu)‖
Analysis: figure 4.1 shows the picture of Indian Sub-continent pre and Post partition
identifying the East Pakistan as a geographical importance of Pakistan vide her
alliance with U.S.
West Pak
East Pak
97
As the geostrategic location of Pakistan is of vital importance in this region of
SA. After World War II, the world was facing the issue of a bipolar world and two
hegemonic nations were at the heads of each other. one was pursuing and trying to
expand Capitalism and democracy while the other was trying to expand communism
and controlled market economy Pakistan was to assume a pivotal position in setting
up strength in Central and Southeast Asia through helping its foreign policy
objectives to balance the expanding socialist agenda and danger propelled by
Soviets.
Furthermore Pakistan's international strategy has distracted At that time when
the capital of Pakistan was Karachi, which was stuck legitimately in opposition to
New Delhi's authoritative expansion. The Kashmir issue as a consistent bone of
contention between Pakistan and India as well as military and financial misery for
both newly emerged nations.
American involvement did a little bit in solving the dispute between India and
Pakistan. It has been briefed in a well-known western Journal that the dispute
between the subcontinent rivals and neighbors has deep roots of animosity that crisis
between the two is not to be controlled or managed, that "We should acknowledge
what Britain and Russia have constantly comprehended, that the Eastern
Mediterranean bowl and Middle Eastern nations, circumscribing it are portions of one
political complex. This complicated currently stretches out similarly as Pakistan and
another line from Karachi North to Kabul must go into the figuring‘s of Washington
as it has for a long time into those of Moscow and London" (Sherani, 1979:40).
98
4.3. Pak-U.S relations and the nightmare of the friendly relationship
of military alliances. (1947-1958)
Pak-US relations emerged as Pakistan got independence and in this manner
President Truman introduced the ―Point Four‖ practical Support program with Pak in
December 1950. This was the expansion of his doctrine providing parallel aid to
Greece and Turkey. 9. In February 1952, America gave economic aid to Pakistan as
―defense support‖ the opportunity of greater cooperation connecting the two
countries.
America's interest in Pakistan increased as Indian first Prime Minister Nehru
announce to remain nonaligned which was a threat that UUSR/communism may
flourish in India as stated by ―president Eisenhower‖ while Pakistan has been allied
with the U.S and received US economic aid also was the trusted friend of America.
Dulles was pleased with getting the base at Peshawar, a valuable place for the
procurement of strategic interests of the U.S. and for her foreign policy goals since
1952 in the SA region.
In addition U.S. ambassador to Pakistan, Horace Hildreth, had established
close relations with Iskander Mirza, who was the defense minister in 1953, and the
Muhamad Ali Bogra, who had taken over as prime minister in 1953 after having
served as Pakistan‘s ambassador to Washington. The daughter of Hildreth married the
son of Mirza in October 1954, and he continued to represent America until 1957.
President Eisenhower said in Feb 1954 that the United States would provide military
assistance to Pakistan.
Accordingly, as negotiations regarding the nature of the military assistance
progressed toward a successful conclusion, discussions were already underway for
Pakistan to join a suitable alliance. Thus the signing of the U.S-Pak Mutual Defense
99
Agreement on May 19, 1954 was soon followed, on September 8, 1954, by Pakistan
joining the (SEATO).
Ayub traveled to Washington with Prime Minister Bogra in October 1954, and
they pressured the U.S. officials in the state and Defense Department to increase their
original share for the military aid of $29.5 million in the first year to $50 million, with
the four year program for modernizing and equipping five Pakistani divisions.
America cost almost $175 million of this total program. While In the Baghdad pact,
the stage was set for Pakistan‘s membership. This pact latter transformed into
CENTO with the rising up to it by Turkey, Iraq, Britain, and Iran in October in 1955.
The relationship was at peak during 1954-61 as Pakistan military was enjoying a
congenial relationship with America. Between 1953 and 1979 Pakistan as benefited
5.7 Billion dollars in U.S economic and military aid (Tahir-Kheli, 1982).
The standing of Pakistan to U.S. policy-makers in the early 1950s resulted
from the fear of communism and a supposed threat of a change in the global BOP in
favor of the USSR and the People‘s Republic of China.
The general observation that America enjoys influence with ―the Pakistani
military‖ has to be confirmed as does the theory that the ―Pro-Pakistani‖ proclivities
of a Richard Nixon or a Henry Kissinger determined U.S. policy. Washington found
that, from the onset, the relationship with Pakistan was based on a false principle and
differing perceptions of the nature of ―the threat‖ i.e., for America it was the Soviet
Union and China; Pakistan on the other hand, always felt India be the primary threat.
The U.S policy towards Pak became even more constructive in its nature as
the formation of a ―Northern Tier of defense‖ became an early goal of the Eisenhower
administration. It is in the sense that a buildup of the Pakistani military competence
was seen as an extension of the U.S. Fighting power in Asia. This was a tall order. In
100
particular, demand for security guarantees exceeded any price that the U.S. leaders
could comfortably pay. Openly acknowledging that India posed a threat to Pakistan
security would have annoyed India and Indian supporters in the United States. But, at
the same time, Washington could not state that India was not a threat because this
would be quite unacceptable to the Pakistanis.
Moreover, it would make it very difficult, if not impossible, for the Pakistani
elite to enter into any meaningful mutual defense agreement with the United States.
So America came up with an ambiguous settlement that left the nature of the threat
deliberately vague. This vagueness has plagued U.S-Pakistani relations ever since
1954 and has led to much misunderstanding with regard to the nature of the
relationship in later years. Events turned dramatically sour, whenever the interest of
Pakistan American relations conflicted with each other.
4.4. Pakistan and America relations the age of defying friendship.
(1958-1969)
In December 1958, Ayub Khan, then President quoted: ―We need friends for
our security; we shall hold fast to those we have and we shall seek new friends
because the more friends we have the better it is for our country. We shall stand by
our commitments and prove that we are steady, dependable friends‖ (Khan,
1966:28).
In November 1960, Democratic President J.F. Kennedy accepted power. with
the assumption of office he Kennedy administration believe that the expansion of
communism or socialism is posing threat to the American interests in the region of
South Asia and American alliance with Pakistan is not enough to check the threat
rising from these ideologies so there is a strong need to depend upon India for the
procurement of US interests in the region. Like the vast majority of the other
101
American pioneers around then, Kennedy additionally viewed socialist China as her
nation's essential enemy. He was among those congresspersons who had reprimanded
the dogmatic alliance to contain a socialist threat.
During Ayub Khan visit to US her concerns were cleared by the US
government as he raised the issues. Kennedy guaranteed Ayub Khan that on the off
chance that America offered arms to India, Pakistan would initially be counsel (Khan,
1967:138).
Persuading Pakistan at all for a few reasons. In any case, the Sino-Indian
fringe conflict had been incited by India herself. Also, Pakistan had not been taken
into confidence rather ignored, as guaranteed by Kennedy, before providing military
assistance to India against China. Large amount military assistance to India disturbs
the level of influence in the region to the impediment of Pak and consequently, Pak
thought of it as a 'Disagreeable Act'. Pak's genuine stress was that Western military
and economic aid. Pakistan was absolutely overlooked during that time of Indo-US
arrangement. Kennedy's primarily believed that the American alliance with India can
harm China much more than her alliance with Pakistan appeared to have been taking
advantage of the war between China and India, US-supported to India to contain
China. Pak-US relations were problematic consisting of mutual distrust during the
decades of the 1960s.
Ayub's foreign policy act was the conclusion of the Bilateral Agreement of
cooperation with the United States in March 1959. Pakistan provided space to the U.S
for spying on USSR. U.S suspended all military assistance to Pakistan in the wake of
the 1965 war with India and in the wake of UN resolution to 211 (which called for a
ceasefire and to retreat to August 5 position).
102
Pakistan request America for military support but America refused. ZA
Bhutto in the 1960s when serving a foreign ministry continued to educate the Nuclear
weapons program for Pakistan. He famously states ―Pakistan will eat grass on leaves,
even go hungry‖ to build a Nuclear weapon. ZA Bhutto in the 1960s when serving a
foreign ministry continued to educate the Nuclear weapons program for Pakistan. He
famously states ―Pakistan will eat grass on leaves, even go hungry‖ to build a Nuclear
weapon.
4.5. The problematic years of Pakistan and United States relations
(1970-1979).
There is a focus on post-1971 relations when a weaker Pakistan did not come
under the America influence umbrella but instead actively multiplied its option. Two
key issues, namely, arms sales and nuclear policy, are examined in detail which
pollutes the bilateral relationship, since they provide the focal point of relations.
In the 1970s Pakistan America relations began to improve ―President Nixon to
mend relations with Pak to use Her as a way toward Sino American rapprochement as
with Henry Kissinger visit to Beijing facilitated by Pakistan. In return Nixon
approved economic assistance to Pakistan and removed arms embargo, continued
economic aid so that Pakistan could use it to resolve unrest in East Pakistan. America
has no concern with East Pakistan but to remain West Pakistan intact.
Ayub Khan (his government) was called ―American stooges‖ when he passed
his powers resigned in 1969. While1972 diplomatic relations between Sino-U.S
emerged, Pakistan America relations fell back.1970‘s entire decade of Pakistan –US
relations were at odds because as ―Carter ― administration was critical to Pakistan
Nuclear build-ups, Zia ul Haq 1977 coup. Hanging of Prime Minister ZA Bhutto by
103
Zia military rule. 16. 1973 Pakistan left SEATO as the US did not support either war
with India, Pakistan pull out from cento in 1979 resulting to its failure.
U.S congress along with President Carter called Zia not to hang Bhutto, but all
in vain. Indian Nuclear test on May 18, 1974, refuted Pakistan to go Nuclear.24
December 1979 USSR invaded Afghanistan. To contain Soviets, National Security
advisor Brzezinnksi along with carter administration realized they need to support
Pakistan as mujahedeen fighting in Afghanistan versus Soviet needs help from
Pakistan. The U.S left its Non-proliferation policy aside and assisted Pakistan with
more arms along with aid.
Zia during the 1980‘s visit to the UN in New York called to the white house,
where the autocrat was welcomed and Human Rights, Nuclear issues where put aside.
Reagon perused the policies of Carter administration Reagon continued with dictator
along with Nuclear Proliferation but compelled Pakistan not to conduct tests. Pakistan
America reconnected to defeat the Taliban with support from Pakistan. Pak-US
relations were at the top once again and trust was also prevailing as the interests
converged between the two allies as in the theoretical explanation given by Robert
Solomon (Robert C, 2003).
America depends upon Pakistan during her pursuit to defeats the Soviets in
Afghanistan, logistics support of troops. The U.S lifted arms embargo from Pakistan.
Pakistan involves in the war against terror initiated by America allowed and increased
military-economic aid to Pakistan. Pakistan ruled by military rulers for a total of 36
years (1958-1971), (1978-1988), (1999-2008). In spite of all Pakistan American
relations were at its peak during the military rule of Pakistan co-incidentally. where
Pakistan military exercise power rather Pakistan foreign and defense policy over
civilizing governments in power and outside power (Nazar, 2011).
104
Pakistan was quite worried regarding India-Afghan Soviet conspiracy against
Pakistan. Pakistan under Zia was threatened that the USSR with the collaboration of
Afghanistan, India, and her own sake will attach Pakistan to reach hot waters of the
Persian Gulf. ISI with the assistance of America CIA aided mujahedeen to defeat
USSR in Afghanistan got more aid through Reagon administration. Sino-Pakistan's
relation is ―All-weather friend‖ of Pakistan, as she supported in wars against India.
Zia rejected 400 $ Billions Pray Carter as calling its ―Peanuts‖ to get from America as
he wanted to get more.
India tested May 18, 1974 nuclear missiles which had a great threat of
Pakistan as she fought three wars with India over Kashmir. whereas Bhutto pursuit of
Nuclear weapons was driving force of Pakistan foreign policy as Bhutto wants to
deter India‘s behavior (aggressions) and to secure Pakistan, Upon letter/request of Dr.
AQ Khan to Bhutto from providing his expertise and services to Bhutto for building
uranium missile for Pakistan, ZA Bhutto‘s mission 706 in 1976 under the dictatorship
of Khan.
In the beginning Pakistan's army was quite skeptical to accept Bhutto formula
but they thought this will take leverage to form them but later also strikes to this
policy. The populist ZA Bhutto was against following US dictation along with anti-
Indian Stance along with Nuclear Proliferation.ZA Bhutto's anti-Americanism was
lessened when he assumed office Prime Minister.
Due to the geopolitical situation of Pakistan it had significant place in later
policy goals. Pak was titled with the 'most associated partner' of America. In any case,
the Sino-India conflict changed the entire situation, and the US policy goals diverted
towards India, confronted the issue of keeping up the harmony between India and
Pakistan, while at the same time averting of the later 'tilt' towards China. Due to US
105
dependence on India and continuous betraying Pakistan during the times of need is
not a new but a practice of her.
Pakistan could have provided grounds for the accomplishment of US benefits
in SA, containing Soviets. Pakistan was the most Allied Ally for the US against the
USSR domination in the 1950s.US choose Pakistan in the situation because India
made the decision to remain non-aligned. Pakistan additionally got leverage of
interest from USA-Pakistan ties. Pak got military help from $1.2 billion to $ 1.5
billion from the US While in an additional type of agribusiness product, specialized
help, monetary improvement awards from 1947 to 30th June 1965 was almost $3
billion.
Zia authoritarianism in Pakistan prolonged for 11 years. Pak transformed into
a subordinate of the USA in the war of the USA against Afg. In 1981 congress agreed
to provide a $ 3 billion aid to Pakistan extensively comprising forty F-16 flying jets
and assure to grant $ 4 billion more assist with the next five years however Pak would
be a guide for mean a funnel to Mujahedeen combating against the USSR. An
additional group/organization developed as Taliban in Afg against the USSR.
Pakistan‘s ISI and CIA of USA gave armed forces training to the Taliban who was
strict radical and the USA likewise awarded forces gear to their preparation.
Table 4.1 “Analysis of relations between the two allies.
Per
iod
State of Cold War
Tensions
Importance of
Pakistan to the US
(and the West)
Remarks
195
0s
High
_
- High
- Military alliance
- Massive military aid
Developments in Middle
East and Iran
196
0s
Détente
,
- Reduces
- Low after 1965
sanctions
China moves closer to
Pakistan to
reduce US influence
106
China-Pakistan strategic
relationship starts
197
0s
Mild till 1978 (when
Second Cold War
starts)
Low, in spite of "tilt"
in
1971
Increased pressure on
non- proliferation
- China's support for nuclear
programme - Strong US non-
proliferation pressures
-US embassy burned
198
0s
Intense - Very high
"Frontline state" to
fight the
soviet union in
Afghanistan - Massive
military and economic
assistance
- Pakistan's
nuclear weapons
programme ignored
- China supplies ballistic
missiles
199
0s
-By 1990 soviet Union
starts to disintegrate
-End of Cold War -
Afghanistan - experiments
(Mujahideen and later
Taliban) backfire)
- Very low
-Sanctions and arms
embargo
,
.
200
0s
- 9/11 and the war
against terrorism -
Increasing importance of
access to energy resources
of
Central Asia
- Iraq War
- "Frontline
state" again,this time
against "global
terrorism" - Taliban
and Al Qaeda escape
into Pakistan
Concerns about radical
Islam
and Al Qaeda in and
from
Pakistan
Pakistan's role in creation of
Taliban and Al Qaeda
ignored, and US engagement
with, and support for,
Pakistan increasing
,
Source: Mathew Joseph, Pakistan in a Changing Strategic Context (New Delhi: Knowledge World,
2004)‖, p.78
Analysis: Table 4.1 clarifies the detailed investigation of Pakistan-America
relations. Pak-U.S. alliance which emerged soon after the independence of Pakistan,
107
this brief table explains the ups and downs in the prolonged problematic and complex
relationship compiling of trust and mutual distrust From the earliest starting point
during the 1950s the relationship was its tops as Pakistan marked safeguard
agreements and consequently got a military and monetary assistance. Further, this
table portrays the image of Pakistan and the United States' convergences of interests,
high and low points of the complex relationship. The United States assisted Pakistan
with military and economic assistance during the decades of the 1950s and in the
1980s and then in 2000. Onwards in the 1990s when the United States interests
diverged with that of Pakistan it cut off assistance and forced sanctions to obstruct
Pakistan from building its atomic weapons
U.S. - Pakistan relations in the last six decades have been tumultuous and
moved in a cyclical pattern with recurrent ups and downs, with frequent alternating
episodes of close partnership and mistrust —reflecting engagement and estrangement
in global and regional and interstate geopolitics. The high points and low points of the
alliance between Pakistan and America depicts the presence of trust and Distrust
between. U.S.- Pakistan alliance, describing the primary elements of the association,
Kashmir, Indo-Pakistan crisis, American Cold War coalitions, the 1965 and 1971
wars, the role of China, Pakistan's quest of atomic technology, U.S led to war in
opposition to the Soviets, expansion of socialist and communist regimes and post-
September 11 war in opposition to the terrorists and extremist insurgents shaped the
entire dynamic of the complex relationship of Pakistan and America.
108
Table 4.2 summary of economic and military aid to Pakistan
“Summary of US Economic and aid to Pakistan 1948-2010
Year Economic
Assistance, Total
Economic Assistance
(through USAID)
Military
Assistance, Total
Coalition
Support Funds
Note: All figures are in US$ (millions). Figures are adjusted for inflation and presented
in 2009 constant dollars
Source: Wren Elhai, Center for Global Development, 2011
1948 0.77 0 0
1949 0 0 0
1950 0 0 0
1951 2.89 0 0
1952 74.25 73.55 0
1953 748.29 286.23 0
1954 156.95 152.24 0
1955 733.15 477.18 266
1956 1065.67 700.89 1086.5
1957 1079.65 619.9 437.59
1958 968.22 589.59 533.13
1959 1367.93 985.25 366.81
1960 1689.84 1181.35 230.39
1961 989.53 780.04 260.47
1962 2334.65 1446.28 549.02
1963 2066.77 1063.68 292.31
1964 2222.66 1334.16 187.55
1965 1928.9 1041.58 77.38
1966 816.28 691.28 8.4
109
“Summary of US Economic and aid to Pakistan 1948-2010
Year Economic
Assistance, Total
Economic Assistance
(through USAID)
Military
Assistance, Total
Coalition
Support Funds
1967 1213.36 719.38 26.33
1968 15
01.68
672.5 25.98
1969 541.76 504.31 0.5
1970 968.32 570.93 0.87
1971 474.25 31.21 0.73
1972 692.87 261.87 0.42
1973 715.35 387.63 1.24
1974 381.97 219.13 0.95
1975 614.34 326.02 0.92
1976 644.1 336.78 1.28
1977 319.16 209.4 0.92
1978 214.92 55.49 1.52
1979 128.81 23.31 1.2
1980 137.53 0 0
1981 164.16 0 0
1982 400.6 200.07 1.2
1983 534.18 383.29 499.77
1984 568.05 415.84 555.9
1985 607.26 447.53 583.53
1986 623.56 460.91 545.82
1987 599.07 469.53 534.54
110
“Summary of US Economic and aid to Pakistan 1948-2010
Year Economic
Assistance, Total
Economic Assistance
(through USAID)
Military
Assistance, Total
Coalition
Support Funds
1988 769.14 635 430.69
1989 559.72 421.27 367.06
1990 548.07 422.37 283.44
1991 149.59 141.78 0
1992 27.14 0.57 7.2
1993 74.19 7.98 0
1994 68.43 0 0
1995 23.13 10.1 0
1996 22.79 0 0
1997 57.17 0 0
1998 36.32 0 0
1999 102.14 6.72 0.22
2000 45.72 0 0
2001 228.02 0.54 0
2002 937.34 744.74 1739.7 1386.06
2003 377.93 284.81 1760.23 1450.98
2004 406.12 316.56 891.39 794.11
2005 490.42 374.04 1397.06 1050.15
2006 689.43 488.46 1246.1 916.13
2007 688.62 498.91 1079.72 755.74
2008 614.48 392.05 1378.32 1014.9
2009 1353.65 1076.25 1114.26 685
111
“Summary of US Economic and aid to Pakistan 1948-2010
Year Economic
Assistance, Total
Economic Assistance
(through USAID)
Military
Assistance, Total
Coalition
Support Funds
2010 1867.13 1529.53 2524.61 1220.5
Source:www.theguardian.com/global-development/poverty-matters/2011/jul/11/us-aid-to-pakistan‖.
Analysis:
The data in up given table explains the Pak-U.S. relations briefing the
economic perspective of the relationship. Where chronological details have been
given in details from 1948 to 2010 with also briefing in detail of military and
economic aid along with the assistance given in the terms of coalition support fund.
further the table also depicts the clear picture of the prolong alliance. This shows the
bright explanation of the provide backing to Pakistan during the diversity amid the
relationship. This table also makes the problematic nature of the relations clear as it
presents the data and facts which Pakistan has got from her alliance with US during
the time of her alliance with her.
Since the independence of Pakistan, it allied with US and military assistance
has been provided by her to Pakistan to meet the needs of the newly separated state,
assistance from the American People has also been granted to Pakistan. then with the
passage of time in the association, the coalition support fund which has been provided
to Pakistan while the US was at war with the Soviets a then with the extremists
radicalized terrorists in the landlocked the State of Afghanistan.
4.6 The labyrinth of Pak-US relations and the myth of Kashmir
(Pak-India relations).
The dispute of Kashmir is the bone of contention between the two nations, as
they sought independence from the British colonized Indian Subcontinent in 1947.
112
with the emergence of the States as sovereign States the conflict was not completely
resolved between Pakistan and India while left as souring the estrangement of
relations between the two. As Kashmir was a princely state among the other 562
princely states in the Indian subcontinent and according to the decided policy its
future has to be decided as per the Whims and Wishes of masses of the occupied
Valley where till he present-day India is committing great crimes against humanity
(Imam, 2019) (Sattar, 2013). Pakistan and India both the states procured weapons
from America Pakistan grabbed the weapons to fight with the expanding intervention
in the USSR in Asia while India got the same to use them against Chinese influence
in the region.
The two nations do not utilize weapons, provided by the US for the sake of
containing socialism, rather against one another. "We have talked about numerous
issues in the past however never more difficult issues than this… to Pakistan Kashmir
is like a jugular vein apart from which Pakistan cannot survive and it is a symbol of
identity for the masses of Pakistan. Letting Kashmir go to fell prey in the hands of the
enemy will not be acceptable for the people of Pakistan. Whatever the circumstances
may be Pakistan is not going let Kashmir go to the hands of India (Imam, 2019). Will
battle with the world but Kashmir might not be given up whatever the circumstances
she has to face. Providing that the US betrayed Pakistan in the hour of its need and
has not regarded her decades' old alliance and partnership" remarked by a renowned
stakeholder of Pakistan.
Presumably the most significant approach is that the Kashmir is the sign of
National integrity and symbol of unity of the Muslim community of Pakistan. As
Kashmir is considered to an essential part of Muslims and Pakistan same is the
feelings of the people of India but with a diverse perspective and sense of destructive
113
feelings towards Muslims and Pakistani‘s. The people of India believe that the
Kashmir is an essential part of Greater India and Kashmir has to be amalgamated with
India.
US government has reiterated the rebuilding of India and its annexation of
Kashmir to be revisited, relations to be incorporated a huge proportion of
independence for the occupied region, and the establishment of a prominent rule
there. The oppressive government wants to annex the Valley. The peaceful settlement
will help Pak rather the region and the Valley, an assurance of real Pak's inclinations
in water assets and the long run the easing of the border between India and Pakistani
Kashmir to allow free trade of individuals between two parts of the Indian held State.
There has been the least chance that any compromise may occur in between
two enraged and enemy parties because one side is strong is having all the resources
of the place being annexed and the occupying the of weaker community and while the
supporting State Pakistan backed with a supporting "Self Determination" right for the
destitute and exploited people. as far as the support of the International Community is
concerned, as on the violations of Basic Human rights in the enslaved region is
concerned is nil and the backing of the plebiscite to decide about the future of the
region.
The other option about the future of the enslaved and destitute region depends
upon the whims and wishes of the people and the Plebiscite might be the best solution
of their grief and sorrows, which Indian has imposed upon them since 1947.
A self-ruling administration based on their very own preference, come to
welcome the monetary focal points of staying with India, the crisis situation between
India and Pakistan will have been significantly removed from under Pakistani fight of
their anxiety for the interests of the Kashmir‘s". While US for most of the time being
114
remained least concerned with Pakistan-Indian conflict over the disputed territory of
Kashmir where despite Human Rights violations have unmatchable violations.
Such stressed relations proceeded Richard Nixon expected office toward the
finish of the 1960s. Strikingly, his rule, asserted himself to be the companion of
Pakistan yet found a way to figure a strategy, great to Pakistan.
The policy of States has been continuous in flux while dealings with Pakistan
and India in this region because the United States realized that it is good to achieve
the objective from any State or ally despite truth or betrayal (Sorensen, 2003).
Propagated by Thomas Schelling as Strategic Realism. The United States exploited
the geostrategic location of Pakistan and then went away leaving Pakistan alone in
her struggle Against the extremists and the Human Rights violator India as she has
been committing atrocities against humanity for more than seven decades. Pakistan
has fought three major wars with its neighbor upon the crisis situation of the Valley
and problem is still unsolved. United Nations has given various ruling upon Kashmir
issue that it might be solved according to the wishes of the masses and decide that a
plebiscite must be held in the Indian annexed valley of Kashmir.
Most of the time it has been argued in the greater political circles of States
that Pakistan is a misery whereas India is an opportunity for her. Pakistan is limited to
its own National Interests and never assists to balance the rising economic power of
China in the region whereas India has its own atrocities against the economic
progress of China. India It will keep on keeping up with great relations with us
(U.S.)… since we are Pakistan's biggest guide contributors…
115
References
Akins, H. (March 2018). Between Allies and Enemies : Explaining the Volatility of
the U.S.-Pakistan Relationship, 1947-2018. knoxville:
http://bakercenter.utk.edu/publications.
Imam, S. F. (2019, April 28). Speaker National Assembly (1985-1986 ) . Chairman
kashmir commiittee 3/2/2019. (S. N. Shah, Interviewer)
Jalal, A. (2014). The Struggle for Pakistan A muslim Homeland and Global Politics.
London: The Belknap
John Baylis, S. S. (2015). The Globalization of World Politics An Introdution to
International Relations. Oxford University Press.
Markey, D. S. (2014). No Exit From Pakistan America's tortured Relationship with
Islamabad. Delhi: Cambridge University Press.
Nawaz, S. (2008). Crossed Swords Pakistan, its Army, and the Wars Within. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Nazar, Y. (2011). Balkanisation and the Political Economy of Pakistan. Karachi:
National News Agency.
Riedel , B. (2011). Deadly Embrrace Pakistan, America And The Future Of The
Global Jihad.
Sattar, A. (2013). Pakistan's Foreign Policy 1947-2012 A Concise History. Karachi:
Oxford University Press.
Sorensen, R. J. (2003). Introduction to International Relations Theories and
Approaches. New York: Oxford University Press Inc.
Tahir-Kheli, S. (1982). The United States and Pakistan The Evolution Of An
Influence Relationship. New York: Praeger Publishers.
116
Waheed, A. W. (2017). Pakistan's Dependence and US Patronage: 'The Politics of
Limited Influence'. Journal of Asian Security and International Affairs, 4 (I)
69-94.
117
CHAPTER 5
(DECONSTRUCTING THE PAK-U.S RELATIONS FROM
1979 TO 2015)
Outline of the Chapter. Deconstructing Pak-U.S relations. (An overview).
Deconstructing the Pak-US relations (1979-1989).Deconstructing the Pak-U.S
relations {1989-1999) the waning of us Interests or end to military rule in Pakistan.
Analysis of Pak-U.S relations (1999-2008) military rule. deconstructing the
complexities of Pak-U.S relations(2008-2015) the beginning to an end.
Deconstructing the problematic of the complex nature of bilateral Pak-U.S relations
for diverse dynamics.
5.1. Deconstructing Pak-U.S relations. (An overview).
Deconstructing the Pak-US relations has reviewed the bilateral relationship
from the renewed perspective in which it has been analyzed that the prolonged
relationship, which was constructed on the golden principles of mutual cooperation
and mutual gain has the complexity of distrust and betrayals. The analytical study of
the tormented relationship has been carried out and it has been pointed out that the
alliance of Pak and US was a marriage of convenience, Pakistan didn‘t compel the
United States to form an alliance with rather it was the geographical location of
Pakistan which compelled the other side to form an alliance with Pakistan.
118
Table 5.1 : the Grants, Loans and Credits by US and China in Comparison.
(figures are in US $million)
Source: Pakistan Economic Survey Statistical Supplement.
Analysis: the table briefs the aid and grants given to Pak by china and U.S.
from the year 1980‘s on wards which depicts the clear difference in provision of
support Pakistan during the times similar foreign Policy and the provision of the same
by China to Pakistan.
The support Pakistan got from US till 2000 was more then it got from China
but with the emergence of China as a global economic might the all-weather friend
increased the support of Pak.
Pakistan and America relations have been deconstructed and analyzed from a
diverse perspective as propagated by Derridean Deconstruction. Chapter 5 explores
119
the complexities of a relationship, as it has been found out that the bilateral
relationship was the result of the needs of both sides of the alliance as propagated by
Thomas Schelling in his theoretical explanation of Strategic realism (Sorensen, 2003).
The argument has made as under soon after the independence of Pakistan
needed security cover from Indian aggression it entered into an alliance with USA vis
a vis US needed to contain the expansion and influence of Communism as of Cold
war politics was prevailing the US policy and Socialism an alliance was formed with
Pakistan. US Pakistan relations during the late 1940s have been marked by episodes
of close cooperation and mutual incomprehension (Schofield, 2012).
Throughout the Soviet's war of 1979 the U.S. provided maximum assistance
to Pakistan to hold Soviet Union Expansion and to defeat her in Afghanistan. Once
again after the dark period of Pak-US relations from 1989-1999 or was the civilian
rule in Pakistan. The US After 9/11 increased its leverage upon Pakistan as the later
accepted all U.S.A demands to fight the menace of terrorism.
The two long periods of military rule in Pakistan and the US-Pak relations
have been seen as dual policies of the US while dealing with Pakistan. Further the
sense of betrayal and the mistrust and its cause has also been deconstructed. The Pak-
U.S. relation provides an interesting study of two military dictators annexation of rule
in Pakistan (1979-1989) Zia-ul-Haq and (1999-2008) General Musharraf. During the
rule of two military dictators relations involving Pakistan and America was a
combination of trust & sometimes trust deficit as well which is one of the core
research areas.
Further, it will also assist to speculate the future nature of the association
between the two states. Deconstructing the Pak-US relations (1979-1989) unveils the
problematic of Pakistan and States relationship. The Pak-U.S relations {1989-1999)
120
and the waning of US Interests in assisting Pakistan or the end to military rule in
Pakistan. including Analysis of Pak-U.S relations (1999-2008) wide, the military rule
of General Mushraff was imposed martial law on October 12 1999. Revisiting the
tormented relationship of the United States with Pakistan and her alliance to remove
the complexes Pak-U.S relations(2008-2015) the beginning to an end of the direct
military in Pakistan. Deconstructing the problematic of the complex nature of
bilateral relationships for diverse dynamics.
There is a history in ties between Pakistan and America of mutual trust and
mutual distrust, uncertainty, convergences and divergences, collaboration and
controversies, and amid all the difficulties and uncertainties, ups and downs Pakistan
faces many obstacles and has many chances to be in coalition with the United States.
Challenges presented below to Pakistan phases along with Pakistan‘s opportunities.
As the frontline country in the war on terror, Pakistan faced security threats
that have caused Pakistan various problems. In view of the various challenges faced
by Pakistan in its alliance with the United States, the domestic economic and social
problems that have arisen as a result of the insecurity created by Pakistan's alliance in
the fight against terrorism with the United States. Anti-Americanism in the form of
public outrage once existed in the late 1970s with the destroying and dissolution of
the U.S. Embassy, and situations as Raymond Davis should be dealt with closely in
Pakistan for the possible development of Pak-U.S. links.
Another harsh reality is the impression that has to be suppressed among the
crowds of anti-Americanism. It should be made clear to the United States that
Pakistan has always served its security, and that it should also recognize Pakistan's
difficulties. Past US efforts to make Pakistan less dangerous have failed mainly
because they relied on incentives that have actually rewarded the country for its
121
irresponsible behavior. Thus, the goal for the U.S. is to build a set of persuasive
approaches that can change the cost-benefit equation of Pakistan. The inability of the
US to implement these persuasive policies will mean accepting that Pakistan would
become increasingly dangerous while being funded by US citizens and multilateral
institutions.
5.2. Deconstructing the Pak-US relations (1979-1989)
Pakistan assisted America in her struggle against the defeat of USSR from
Afghanistan by backing the Jihadists in Afghanistan and the later did so not forgetting
military or civilian assistance from America but to gain strategic depth against her
born enemy India (Schofield, 2012) and the bilateral alliance entered into the new
phase of cooperation and trust deficit was nowhere. the dramatic ending to the
support of the extremist outfits leads to the breach of trust between the two allies.
deconstructing the Pakistan alliance with America needs the explanation of Sino-
Pakistan friendship as well. to explore the prolonged relationship of Pakistan with
china it may not wrong to state that there are fewer relationships in this universe than
that of Pakistan and China. She supported Pak during thick and thin further to argue
that the Sino-Pakistan alliance has a deep impact on the Pakistan relations with
America. China supported the issues the divergences among Pakistan and America
like the issue of Nuclear buildups as china supported Pakistan but America opposed
Pakistan. China provided assistance to Pakistan for building her Nuclear program in
the 1970s.
Pakistan and her alliance with the United States of America have tormented
history and complexity in its relationship. while it has been argued this entire study
revolves around the problematic relationship of Pakistan and America where each
side often passes through the era of mistrust and betrayal. Pakistan and America
122
alliances have numerous ups and downs and during the times of military regimes in
Pakistan the Pak-US relations were at the height of friendship between the two allies.
it has been evident from the research the Pak-U.S. relations has complexity in their
alliance.
With the Soviets invasion of Afghanistan on 24 Dec 1979 (Akins, March
2018) the tormented relations Pakistan's internal security problems can be mended as
with Peace in Afghanistan. Relations between the US and Pakistan on the right path
can also protect Pakistan's national interest throughout the world. Pak-U.S. Relations
must be mended so that India should be given a clear message that in the international
community, Pakistan also has allies.
In addition, the need for this specific research work is initiated in order to
resolve the contemporary issues that prevail between Pak-US relations. In contrast, in
the current situation study, a revived strategy will be inculcated, which will explain
the nature of the relationship and further alliance with each other.
The history of the Pakistan-U.S. alliance with all its obligations and
strangulations, following a discussion on each stage of such relationships, the
following could be concluded:
The United States and Pakistan's links soared again in the eighties and now in
the post-9/11 phase ‘international discontent, like the 1950s. Just like in the 1960s as
well as in the 1970s then again in the 1990s, under relaxing conditions, these
partnerships have degraded. What was exceptional about the partnership between the
US and Pakistan is the time of close association and its prevalence to the destruction
of the same alliance with the waning of the respective national interests of the allying
states.
123
The United States has empowered her ally‘s ability to defend itself and its
economic development potential. But in doing so, the U.S. has tended to cultivate
undemocratic trends in the state, it can also be argued that during the times when
America needed Pakistan there was a military government in Pakistan and the US
provided assistance to the military government s and grabbed their national interests
from the geostatic location of Pakistan or the case may be either way where the States
has been on the backing of military coups in Pakistan (Nazar, 2011).
The problematic about the complex relationship has been the tormented part
of the prolonged alliance that usually breaks down as soon as the U.S. reached its
targets with respect to Pakistan in recent agreements. Pakistan's alliance with
America was either misused by her ally or was humiliated by imposing economic
sanctions during the times of estrangement between Pakistan and America. These ups
and downs In the relations made this relationship complex and problematic, an anti-
Americanism among the Pakistani masses and the feeling in the American people that
her alliance with Pakistan is nothing more than a way to earn assistance and support,
further plagued the relationship with mistrust and hate and to more explain the
dynamics of the relationship it would not wrong to state that the relationship consists
of love and hate. Such anti-Americanism was caused primarily by the belief that the
US was not a reliable partner that is used and manipulated Islamabad whenever it
needed its national welfares, that, after every interaction, it was left alone and
discarded, yet, in the dispute with India, Pakistan has not been helped by her ally.
Unlike prior commitments, the primary relationship might cause each ally the major
cost because each ally betrays each other which sow the seeds of distrust and hate,
future engagement is in threat.
124
If Pakistan had surrendered its democracy in a military regime, around that
particular time some U.S. political expediency will call on Pakistan Army to remain
in Pakistan to fulfill the U.S. national security interests. In response, the US offered
the power to all the oppressive governments in Pakistan's sad history. The sad
conclusion of the above is that the Pakistan Army is not only an impenetrable barrier
between the Pakistani citizens and their appetite for human rights and democracy,
however, but it is also America's influence that upholds the supremacy of the Pakistan
Military.
It has been evident from this research study that Pakistan's alliance with
America has cost Pakistan the most where Pakistan lost more and achieved less.
Another diverse perspective is that the Pak and States relation has a history of distrust
and misperceptions. There is also a sense of resentment and mistrust in the United
States that proposes that Pakistan always deceived America.
5.3. Deconstructing the Pak-U.S relations {1989-1999) the waning of
us Interests or end to military rule in Pakistan
Most Pakistanis sincerely believe that they have viewed their nation poorly
and wrongly. This writer was repeatedly pointed out by three chief complaints: first,
the inability of Washington to assist Pakistan during the war with India in 1965;
Secondly, the US mocking of Pakistan "like the Kleenex used" when there was no
need of logistic support from Pakistan then the friendly alliance also waned between
the allies as evident from the episode of Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan and
afterward when the objects achieved imposed sanctions upon Pakistan making the
plea of Nuclear proliferation. Despite Sanction imposed upon Pakistan it gone nuclear
because the same practice has been done by India but the response was different in
125
this way America policy only impacted Pakistan and only influenced India until the
nuclear tests of May 1998.
Mutual ties between the two countries are focused from time to time on the
alignment of common/ mutual benefits. When the US wanted flight monitoring
equipment from U2 Pakistan provided her land and that was during the military rule
in Pakistan and a Russian intelligence center (1959-1968), secret diplomacy with the
help of Pakistan to reinvent her relations with China (1970-72), the military
involvement towards the Soviet forces in Afghanistan (1980-88) as well as the new
war on terrorism (2001) have expanded their utmost efforts to promote military and
economic assistance and military dictatorships.
The partnership was common with a small country traditional of U.S.
connections. Traditionally, Pakistan has reacted to regional tendencies, while the US
continues to accept international trends in its relations. Historically, the U.S. has
overlooked the security concerns of Pakistan and overlooked the depth of Pakistan's
dedication to its nuclear plan, and Pakistan has refused to see that an unrealistic U.S.
relationship with Islamabad has no complete power.
Pakistan was pursuing her nuclear agenda from the 1970s onwards and the US
was well aware of the designs of Pakistan but who quite due to achieve her interests
from Pakistan, the US looks politically away, regularly supporting the pretense that
Pakistan was not doing so. The activity lasted until American national interests were
fulfilled in the region and Pakistan was no longer needed in the achievement of her
foreign policy objectives.
Anti-American sentiments in Pakistan have a nuanced history. It may be
briefed in four focused spheres: a common backlash to U.S. hegemony and control,
America's existing Global political behavior, Islam-West ties, and the past of the
126
United States and Pakistan relations. Furthermore, as the most dominant and
narcissistic country in the world, the United States incite distrust and resentment
across the globe. As for America's foreign dealings, its credibility and selfishness,
particularly since September 11, have been questioned. The picture is even more
complex when it comes to Islam and the West.
A retrospective look at the recent U.S. policy against Indo-Pak noticeably
shows a change towards India in U.S. policy. throughout his trip to Pakistan in March
2006, President Bush refused Pakistan's offer to procure nuclear technology for
domestic purposes parallel to that of the United States and Indo nuclear deal based on
the fact that Pakistan and India have different origins clearly demonstrates that the
relationship among these three nations is shifting. It also indicates that, while Pakistan
is regarded as one of the most important players and General Musharraf as a friend,
the United States is unable to see Pakistan use civilian nuclear means with the latest
technology or alternative energy source. The United States ' disillusionment with
Pakistan implies that it is only a crisis of time before the judgment on Pakistan's
potential direction of ties with the United States is created. (So it seems like we're
going back to strange things).
5.4. Deconstructing the problematics of Pak-U.S relations (1999-
2008) military rule.
Deconstructing the bilateral relationship and figuring out the complexes of the
prolonged and tormented alliance there were various ups and downs during the
military rule of General Musharraf in Pakistan and President George w. Bush
administration of America (Schofield, 2012).
The above debate testifies to the reality that US-Pakistan affairs have never
been focused on the alignment of shared benefits rather than just comfort for
127
America's strategic interests. When the US demanded facilities for flight monitoring
as well as intelligence network against the Russians, China backdoor policy, it has
made every effort to expand operations towards the Soviet Union in Russia, to
overthrow the state of the Taliban in Afghanistan and, lately, to combat terrorism.
Accordingly, while providing support to military dictators in Pakistan including the
provision of economic and military Assistance during their rule in Pakistan. There
was American support for Pakistan. Pakistan had modest success in receiving U.S.
economic assistance and funding by the World Bank and the IMF during this period.
Nevertheless, all these commitment spells are focused on the recognition of American
benefits. Each short period of dedication gave a long strangulation time full of misery
and frustration to Pakistan.
Deconstructing the United States' earlier period attachments with Pakistan and
the rapidly changing circumstances of the current U.S. involvement, it looks like most
probable that history will repeat itself. In its effort to protect its strategic interests and
boost its economy, Pakistan has compromised its sovereignty (with the drone attacks
which was approved by the military government of Mushraff) and security. As a
replacement for praising and acknowledging Pakistan for its contributions, through
atomic proliferation and strategic partnership with India, it was exposed to extreme
power imbalances. Currently, Pakistan is positioned at the crossroads and looking to
be rapidly moving into water shedding. Currently, our borders and autonomy are not
protected, just as there is no stable democratic structure.
The confidence in the nuclear deterrence falls on the one side and the disputed
territory of Kashmir and the Indian violations and control over it on the other hand.
Pakistan alliance with America has negatively impacted the domestic structure of
Pakistan as Our nation has gone through turmoil, suicide attack, sectarian strife,
128
widespread corruption, the transfer of national resources for privatization, the
secularism of education, the system as well as its laws, Westernization of our culture
has become the norm of the day on the grounds of moral indifference, political
victimization, and top judicial degradation. By investigating the origins of these
illnesses, it is observed that the US and its strategies have stakes of varying degrees
and severity. It seems like the US is about to quit again, and the anarchy will strike
us.
The American government's opinions on the latest judiciary turmoil in
Pakistan indicate that problems including the stability of Pakistan's political structure
had insufficient implications for Washington relative to military government security.
Every resident of Pakistan today wonders how long it'll take to sue in the United
States for another divorce. As a result, United States imperialism's disdain is growing
fast and enthusiasm for its liberal democratic ideology is increasing correspondingly.
The disparities must be dealt with by America while dealing with Pakistan as
she sticks with the policy of not exiting from Pakistan. This dual trend must be left
behind to further carry on her alliance with Pakistan. United States will note that this
was Pakistan's position and efforts that allowed the U.S. triumph over her war against
the Soviet and Communist expansion.
Pakistan as highly been praised for its critical participation in the war to
contain terrorism, retrospect it has been punished with amendments, the opportunity
to become nuclear-capable which be used for peaceful purposes, as the same has
provided to her arch-rival and non-aligned India.
Although refusing Pakistan the due right, President Bush stressed that for the
US, Pakistan has the leverage and the role to play as a front-line country to fight with
the menace.
129
Pakistan is supposed to deal with all extremists‘ outfits as well as introduce
stability to the Middle East. It could not have been given nuclear power to Pakistan
because the US threats that if it fell in the hands of the extremist mindset outfit then
the security of world can be at stake which argument is quite a nightmare because It is
not possible in the military-led security of Pakistan, though, because it has a different
background.
Nevertheless, he has not expanded on the past to which he spoke, the
background of our contributions, or even the background of American deception.
Bush gave Musharraf leverage and decided to continue its alliance with Pakistan,
compelling Pakistan to ―do more‖ or be prepared to bear cuts in economic support.
Pakistan is under pressure for a host of demands such as eliminating the Taliban,
bombing your own people from tribal areas and not negotiating peace with them,
announcing the Islamic Republic of Pakistan's secularization process, giving up the
Kashmir cause, Antagonize jihadists, deter political forces of amalgamation and
reinforce internal forces of disagreement, and encourage United States forces to
pursue those within Pakistan's geographical borders. All this implies the Hobbesian
rule of law is reinstated, not morals but laws of justice. Unfortunately, Pakistan's U.S.
relationship history reflects grim picture-lacking moral and ethical framework shades.
Without dismissing her previous behavior, one seems tempted to ask the United
States to serve as a fair partner and a globally accountable participant contributing to
the international system and cultural-political equality.
5.5 Deconstructing the complexities of Pak-U.S relations (2008-2015)
the beginning to an end.
It should be remembered then-President George Bush has called "the non-
negotiable requirements for violation of human dignity should be obstructed: rule of
130
law, limitations on state power, individual liberty, respect for women, private
property, equal justice, religious tolerance" these should be provided to the people of
Pakistan, although they are widespread principles and want to help humans all over
the world. To see Bush live up to his promise, the whole planet is still waiting upon
the completion of Bush Promise.
―It is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of
democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture with the ultimate
goal of ending tyranny in our world.‖
The return of Democratic governments in 2008 in Pakistan was warmly
welcomed by the U.S., as the revival of democratic processes was according to the
fundamental of the foreign policy of America. the problematic of the bilateral
relationship was at the lowest ebb with the beginning of President Obama
Administration. the new sworn in the democratically elected government of PPP
under the leadership of President Asif ali zardari who took over the reins of the
Bhutto‘s Peoples Party with the assassination of Benazir Bhutto the daughter of ZA
Bhutto on 27 December 2007 while she was rallying for her elections at Liaquat Bagh
in the outskirts of Islamabad. the relations between the two allies entered into the
renewed module of cooperation. Pakistan and America alliance entered into a new
phase of mutual cooperation from 2008 onwards as it increased the economic
assistance packages under the famous Kerry-Luggar Act which tended to increase the
US nonmilitary assistance to Pakistan more than five times to 1.5 $ billons.
A stable, democratic, prosperous Pakistan involved in the war on sectarian
militancy is deemed essential to the priorities of the United States. American fears
regarding Pakistan cover regional and international extremism; neighboring
Afghanistan peace efforts; nuclear proliferation; Pakistan-India Kashmir issue and
131
unrest; decentralization and human rights preservation; and economic expansion. U.S.
officials commended Pakistan for its post-2001 partnership with counter-terrorism
and trigger-insurgency initiatives driven by the U.S. While long-held concerns
regarding Islamabad's contribution to some of America's strategic interests in 2011
are far deeper. A combined archive of the fight against Islamist extremism involves
continuing evident support for Afghan rebels and anti-India protesters working from
their territories.
May 2011 alleges that Al Qaeda founder Osama Bin Laden (OBL) seemed to
have taken refuge in Pakistan for years added to widespread criticism of the formerly
deeply disturbed bilateral ties by her alliance with America. The highest United States
armed general made unusually heavy and detailed allegations in September that
Pakistan was helping Afghan militants targeting U.S. interests, leading to already
tense ties. Anti-American feelings and xenophobic conspiracy theories remain
prevalent among average Pakistanis. Pakistan's unstable market conditions and
polarized political environment continue to pose serious threats for U.S. officials with
precarious safety environments and a record of strained community relations.
Since the 9/11 terrorist atrocities, the Pakistan alliance with America
continued more than a decade and there was a lack of mistrust and a waxing
friendship. Regardless of all commonalities with achieving of interests in the region
of South Asia. but there remain the complexes in the relationship United States
alliance with Pakistan, the answers to several core issues of bilateral ties related to
U.S. interests remain skeptical consisting of distrust and along with insufficient
explanations.
To what extent is Pakistan truly committed to the U.S. priorities of fighting
extremism, strengthening the peace process in Afghanistan, and to what level
132
Pakistan plays her role while creating a sustainable post-withdrawal government in
Kabul? to what extent influence will the United States put to monitor Pakistan's
actions?
Based on the diplomatic relations or global trends is the foremost change in
contemporary U.S. strategy towards Pakistan is needed? What are the probable threat
and favors associated with a change in the favor of Pakistan? The States fund
supports programs in Pakistan achieving meaningful evolution in their policy goals.
In promoting presumed national interests, should Pakistan tend to discriminate
between Islamist insurgents and terrorist groups, retaining relations with some?
Will the governments of Pakistan and India find ways to substantially reduce
the friction rates and the capacity for vulnerable struggle among them? Is Pakistan
vulnerable to leakage of nuclear materials and technology? Would the politicians and
political societies of Pakistan be capable of removing the historically dominant
security services of the country from significant influence over international and
national security policies?
Islamist terrorism and sectarian violence are key issues of Pakistan's
American external strategy. The possibly growing influence inhibits progress against
main United States goals, along with the destruction of Al Qaeda as well as another
anti- United States targets. Extremist groups, Afghanistan's reconstruction, and the
settlement of Pakistan-India's intense rivalry which undermines the region's security
and has a nuclear aspect.
On May 1, 2011, the killing of Osama Bin Laden by America through a
clandestine military maneuver in the Pakistani city of Abbottabad, many in Congress
began to question more violently the credibility of the contemporary U.S. policy
while dealing with Pakistan where Pakistan made a stance that they do not know
133
about the hideout. Several people openly lobbied for curtailing and significantly
reducing U.S. foreign assistance to Pakistan.
5.6. Deconstructing the problematic of the complex nature of
bilateral Pak-U.S relations for diverse dynamics.
The argument above leads to another conclusion that the US prefers martial
law over the democracy of Pakistan. In the 1960s, military dictators, a butcher of
nascent democracies, supported Pakistan with military bases throughout America,
orchestrated a clandestine visit to Beijing by Henry Kissinger in 1970, and made
Pakistan the scene of the covert and open battle to disintegrate USSR in Afghanistan
in the late 1970s.
After 9/11, the sponsorship for General Musharraf by Washington has
strengthened the common popular myth that the US favors dictatorships that lose
authority on the domestic ground, readily yield to their requests (Shah, 2014).
134
Figure 5.1 shows the Terror Attacks in Pakistan, 1997-2015
Source:https://transnationalthreatscsis.carto.com/builder/569674cb-2eca-4d30-9143-
6e29f315ae04/embed
Analysis:
Despite these attacks, recent trends suggest that violence levels have notably
deteriorated an indication that Pakistan security agencies have likely made progress
against extremist groups. As Figure 2 shows, there was a significant decrease
beginning in 2014. Pakistan has conducted a range of counterinsurgency and
counterterrorism operations across the country, including in the FATA, against
135
Table 5.2: Estimates of Foreign Assistance. (rounded off to nearest billion)
Source: Ministry of Finance, Government of Pakistan, Annual Budget Documents.
Analysis: Table displays the comparison of amount of aid provided to Pakistan by
China and US. As with the policy of withdrawal from Afg the assistance also goes on
decreasing from U.S.side. Which was clear message of betrayal.
Graph 5.1 shows the assistance to Pak. Years 2011-2015-16
Source: Pakistan Economic Survey.
Explanation: the graph Shows the economic support to Pak by US which is
continuously diminishing 2010 onwards while the support from china increasing with
the passage of each year .
136
Opportunities for Pakistan
To inspire confidence in the international community, Pakistan should bring
its own political house in order and seriously address the three intertwined issues of
democracy, security, and economy. Islamabad needs to develop a realistic plan to
reform its tribal agencies in order to replace the approach to firefighting in recent
years. This counterinsurgency strategy must be systematically and effectively applied
and rooted in a series of interlocking political processes, to restore civilian
institutional power at the regional level to ensure continuity of security priorities.
Pakistan and the United States need a vastly improved partnership in this
effort to restore internal stability and counter-militancy and face global challenges. It
needs the following address:
To remove The trust gap and build a trusting relationship.
Public perceptions are mutually negative foreign policy goals.
In both nations, lack of political and community unity to endorse common goals.
Tactical variations in how common expectations can be met.
Given the complexity of the issues at hand, it is important to balance strategies
and approaches on key issues. Each side must show a greater understanding of the
security concerns of the other in the process of enhancing mutual confidence. Yet
Washington should prove in action, not just in terms, that it will no longer pursue an
"America alone" strategy.
The strategic location of Pakistan, along with its continuing significance to the
United States, is a significant reason why Pakistan could not be overlooked and no
government can disregard its needs and desires. If the US wants to do so in the
137
current scenario, this would not be feasible for it to continue according to its planned
path.
If the United States were to follow its South Asian strategies and goals, China
will certainly decline to do so. The impacts will be like creating havoc, a challenge to
South Asia's plans and strategies, rather than maintaining South Asia's balance of
power.
The enduring opportunities for a good U.S.-India partnership are determined
by the number of conditions that may or may not give permission to materialize U.S.
grand design. Pakistan will, therefore, be equipped for the situation in which the
Washington master plan comes into existence.
While the US is known to have certain involvement in India, Pakistan should
not move toward India to dwell on hyphenation or any other kind of distinction or
comparison. Instead, Islamabad needs to make efforts to establish its importance to
the United States in provisions her policy in Afghanistan and Iran along with its
affiliation with the United States to address global issues such as violence, narcotics,
and anti-proliferation. For that kind of cause, Pakistan will make a concerted effort to
force on the U.S. its pivotal role across South Asia and should also remember its
geopolitical nature together with the perspective-forming spheres in Washington on
the U.S. government.
="There was a term ' strategic balance ' which implies the comparable
capacity of the two states to follow each other's strategic interests and goals. When
we speak regarding India, it could be its strategic goal to pursue Indian hegemonic
objectives in the South Asian area as a strong democratic force. Their aims might be
to maintain the protection from internal and external threats, freedom of action,
territorial integrity to establish its relationship with all other countries with its own
138
style of life which would be completely free of foreign interference and to restrict the
attempts of Indian hegemony in South Asia.
The balance of power in South Asia is determined by two main players,
nuclear capability as well as the role of main powers in this region. This is a matter of
attention that the U.S. pays in politics of South Asia also plays a key role in
maintaining the political security of both states in this region; particularly after the
nuclear explosions in India and Pakistan.
The United States has always participated in a major part in creating up
security hardware for Pakistan and ensuring economic support. Under these
circumstances, tilting the U.S. to India may be more disastrous for Pakistan's security
interests. The general alignment of U.S. priorities in line with India's strategies will
also cause the U.S. to think of India as more relevant than Pakistan. Therefore, the US
will undoubtedly prioritize India on various fronts, Such as financial, political, and
security along with global sides that might change South Asia's power balance as a
whole.
To achieve its special interests, by retaining a hegemonic role in that
particular region, all world powers are always trying to expand the ample
opportunities to retain their hegemony against their adversaries. The US also has an
intense desire to combat Beijing in Central Asia and sees it as a reason for keeping its
domestic policy in India's favor to develop bilateral ties toward India, the largest
democratic state in the world.
"The study shows that an Indo-US strategic partnership is a pre-emptive
American strategy to establish a hegemonic framework of international stability of
US supremacy. But if the Pentagon helped India as per its policy to combat China, it
will pose a significant threat to the stability of Central Asia."The U.S. also supplied
139
India with atomic technology to stop India from carrying out nuclear tests. Unless
India violates that provision, the U.S. has the right to revoke the deal, but no
provisions have been rendered with regard to Indian nuclear testing arrangements
with other NSG countries.
A strategic partnership deal's primary goal is India's funding for nuclear-
related equipment as well as offers India with a new and conventional arms sale that
involves highly sophisticated missiles, supersonic fighter jets, and other equipment.
This arms sale paves the way for further enhancing the existing imbalance between
South Asia's two nuclear states. Pakistan must update its policy for credible
deterrence with respect to high-tech warfare systems consisting of "nuclear weapons
development capability" along with India's security process delivery system.
With the nuclear agreement, India has been given the freedom to grow its
nuclear weapons both qualitatively and quantitatively. The treaty also provides an
overview of civil nuclear facilities, on the other side there is no talk of infinite
quantities as well as weapons program capability. This deal does not tell Indian policy
about restrictions on their fissile material production.
Relations among Islamabad and Washington have a background of mutual
trust and mutual distrust, uncertainty, integration and fragmentation, collaboration,
and exploitation, yet amid all these difficulties and uncertainties, Pakistan-U.S. ups
and downs. Because they need one another, it has its own critical importance for both
countries. Links between the U.S. and Pakistan waxed then waned as U.S. ambitions
either entirely gained or lost in conjunction with their relationship with Pakistan.
Particularly Pak-U.S. Relationships are based on shared trust and confidence.
During times of need, the United States betrayed Pakistan and supported its
enemy, which gave rise to Pakistan's level of mistrust. Pak-U.S. complexity the
140
contrast between U.S. foreign policy decisions in similar situations. Pak-U.S.
mistrust. Relationships led to the search for new allies to secure Pakistan's interests.
Further, Pakistan's engagement with America is of vital importance as the U.S. is a
global hegemon, and Pakistan as a developing country needs U.S. assistance in
various matters (technology, modern military equipment, and to attain economic
stability ). Pakistan is facing numerous challenges and has a myriad of opportunities
for Pakistan to be part of alliances with the US. It would be in Pakistan's favor, given
all the concerns and obstacles, to cooperate with America in securing and advancing
its various national interests.
The dissertation offered various dynamics into how Pakistan's neighbors and
their political instability impact its relations with the US, attempt to influence the
problematic relationship. Further the research dig outs the fact that Pakistan and
United States alliance must be consisting of mistrust and divergences of policy
objective for both of the states.
From the debacle of East Pakistan, it is important to understand that in spite of
Islamabad's rhetoric to the contrary, The Chinese are reluctant and therefore unable to
plug the gaps that the U.S .- Pakistan alliance has created. In addition, incentives for
Sino-American coordination in Pakistan, especially in the field of economic
development, may be worth exploring.
The exit of the United States from this region of South Asia is the issue of
grave concern for India as well and more than Pakistan as the former has enjoyed
more perks with lesser drawbacks as has born‘ in her alliance with America. While
China feels more comfortable with America leaving this region of South Asia for
more than two decades.
141
From the west of Pakistan, Iranian officials are now starting to see Pakistan as
their good friend in their quest to get rid of the harm they have been facing from the
wrath of America.
A nation where anti-Americanism is prevalent. Afghan officials anticipate an
eventual split in the United States and Pakistan ties, and confusion about the role the
global hegemon is going its play in South Asia, may form their existing international
relations with countries such as Pakistan. Most interests of Gulf Arab rulers tend to be
guided through regional relations to America, and they are also likely to place their
policies and perceptions of Pakistan inside the United States orientated framework.
U.S. relations to Pakistan may never smoothly fit in the future into a broader
concept of America's Asia agenda. If that is so, the best way to serve American
interests is to pursue leverage with Pakistan by communication with the dominant
states of each country.
America may try to present its Asian policies in ways that will make relations
with Pakistan more nominal, however, the large population of Pakistan, the
relationship between the two commences of individual policy goals mostly US
attachment with Pakistan revolves around the enclosed circle of nuclear bud ups,
extremism and terrorism and the policy of America to maintain her hegemonic
influence in the region of South Asia.
Pakistan- U.S. ties are of vital importance for Pakistan as the U.S. is a global
hegemon and can support Pakistan to achieve its goals from the international
community and, most notably, from its neighbors in East Asia.The issue of the
problematic partnership between the two states is conducive to realigning with the US
and retaining the geopolitical importance of Pakistan in the South Asian zone.
142
The security of Pakistan's national interest in the international arena is of
particular importance.
The focus of this study is on Pakistan and the USA and will be beneficial to
mend the long-standing complex relationship between the two States and to launch
new horizons of cooperation and development and mutual progress in Pakistan.
U.S. Interests in Asia and the role of Pakistan
The US's primary concern in Asia is to sustain and promote opportunities for a
stable, safe environment favorable to the US and global economic growth. Asian
markets are drivers for international expansion, prospects for US growth, and
foundations of the international political and monetary system. China and Japan have
more than $2 trillion. Securities from the treasury.
Through unveiling preparations for a "rebalancing" policy in late 2011, the
Obama administration indicated its recognition for U.S. participation in Asia. The
new approach was reflected in the remarks made to the Australian assembly in
November 2011 by President Barack Obama and the article published in the same
month's Foreign Policy by State Secretary Hillary Clinton, "America's Pacific
Age."Like Hillary states, "Maintaining peace and security across the Asia-Pacific is
increasingly critical to global progress."
China's partnership is at the core of any U.S. policy to foster Asia's stability,
prosperity, as well as economic expansion. When China converts years of incredible
economic development through global influence as well as military strength
America put effort to reconcile two priorities. On the one hand, America
needs collaboration reciprocally favorable, particularly where the two economies are
profoundly interdependent in terms of do business and development. On the other
side, Washington is also fighting for regional and global dominance with Beijing. At
143
a minimum, a successful U.S. policy should allow China to collaborate whenever
feasible, compete in cooperative conditions under mutually agreeable laws and cope
with other conflicts in peace.
Successful relations with China are therefore a must for Asian security and
economic development. Normally, such diplomacy happens in bilateral contexts such
as the new "shirtsleeves meeting" in June 2013, but there is no difference in U.S. -
China ties. The U.S. will have a better chance of counterbalancing Chinese
dominance by collaborating with powerful states around the globe, if not directly to
regulate and curtail it. Nevertheless, the U.S. has a strategic interest in preserving
relations between governments such as Japan and Korea and building ties towards
countries such as Singapore and Vietnam, partly with their grounds and partly as the
way to boost U.S. connection with China.
Thus the wish of the Obama government to create a more prominent and
effective role in Asia reflected throughout the restructuring policy. Such participation
includes extended negotiations on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Free Trade
Agreement, U.S. sponsorship of the East Asia Conference.
Similarly, despite its position throughout the area as well as its massive
potential in Asia as a U.S. collaborator, the U.S. has tried to establish closer ties with
India. Not only is Washington interested in building a closer relationship with the
New Delhi; its desire to contribute to India's economic and military expansion has
been unambiguous among the top U.S. officials of the Obama administration. To be
sure, the US would be interested in traditional ties with a major Asian country such as
India, regardless of whether it was already attempting to influence Beijing. And the
little question can be asked as to how Beijing has increasingly brought together
Washington and New Delhi to use their newly found wealth and power.
144
Given America's role in the economies of Asia, Whether or not they are
directly linked with China, America might be worried about the potential for global
security issues. That being said, flash-points with both the ability to escalate United
states .- China territorial tensions, such as with the Taiwan Strait, North Korea, as
well as the South China Sea, gain increased strategic importance. America seems to
have a strong incentive to prevent these events, even, if impossible, in increasing the
chances of uncertainty which would place America in direct contradiction with China
which puts the world economy in danger.
A questionnaire was filled by 80 respondents among the respondents were students,
Intellectuals (Professors,etc) lawyers, journalists, Government officers, others which
include retired army officers, retired officials and lay man. Response of these
individuals regarding the different questions has been evaluated in form of Bar
graphs. Each question has been evaluated in one graph, which consists of two parts.
One graph depicts the response of every category of individuals while the other part
of same graph shows the overall response of all categories regarding different
options. The interpretation of each graph has given below of it. An effort has been
made by the researcher to highlight the diverse point of view of different class of
people through conducting a survey in the form of questionnaire.
Q no 1.What sort of relations Pakistan does have with United States of America since
its independence?
145
In response to the question, What sort of relations Pakistan had with the U.S
since its independence 12 students, 3 academician‘s, 3 journalists, 1 Government
servant, 4 others which include retired army officers, retired officials and lay man
perceived that the relations between the two allies has been good. 27 students, 5
academicians, 2 lawyers, 5 government servants and 4 others believe that the relations
between the two are congenial. 1 student, 2 academicians and others are of the view
that relations between the two are bad. 1 academician, 2 government servants and 2
others perceive the Pak-U.S relations as worse soon after its independence.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
students acadamicians
Lawyers journalists
GovServants
others
Good 12 3 0 3 1 4
Congenial 27 5 2 0 5 4
Bad 1 2 0 5 0 3
Worse 0 1 0 0 2 2
12
3 0
3 1
4
27
5 2
0
5 4 1 2
0
5
0 3
0 1 0 0 2 2
Q no 1 Good Congenial
146
1a. In response to the question what sort of relations Pakistan do have with
U.S. since its independence 23 respondents considered that the relations between the
two allies as good one while 43 respondents felt that the relations are congenial , 11
believe that that relations are bad and 5 believe that the relations are worse
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Good Congenial Bad Worse
23
43
11
5
147
Q no. 2. Was assigning the SEATO/CENTO proved a permanent strategic wedlock
for future emerging ties between the two actors?
In response to the question, was assigning the SEATO/CENTO proved a
permanent strategic wedlock for future emerging ties between the two actors? 9
students, 1 academician‘s, 2 journalists, 1 Government servant, 3 others which
include retired army officers, retired officials and lay man perceived it proved as
permanent wedlock. 29 students, 5 academicians, 2 lawyers, 2 government servants
and 2 others believed that SEATO/CENTO did not prove as permanent wedlock. 2
students , 4 academicians, 3 Government servants and 5 others neutral. 1
academician, 2 government servants and 3 others have no idea.
05
101520253035404550
students acadamicians
Lawyers journalists GovServants
others
Yes 9 1 0 2 1 3
No 29 5 2 0 2 2
Neutral 2 4 0 0 3 5
No Idea 0 1 0 0 2 3
9
1 0 2 1 3
29
5 2 0 2 2 2 4
0 0 3 5
0 1 0 0 2 3
Q No 2 Yes No Neutral No Idea
148
2. a. In response to the question, SEATO/CENTO proved a permanent strategic
wedlock for future emerging ties between two actors. 16 respondents considered that
it proved as permanent wedlock. 40respondants felt that it was not, while 14
respondents were neutral and 6 respondents have no idea.
Q no. 3.Does US know Pakistan was making a-bomb.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Yes No Neutral No Idea
16
40
14
6
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
students acadamicians
Lawyers journalists GovServants
others
Yes 15 1 1 2 3 6
No 18 5 1 0 2 4
Neutral 7 4 0 0 0 3
No Idea 0 1 0 0 3 0
15
1 1 2 3 6
18
5 1 0
2 4
7 4
0 0 0 3
0 1 0 0 3
0
Q No 3 Yes No Neutral No Idea
149
In response to the question, does U.S know Pakistan was making a bomb? 15
students, 1 academician, 1 lawyer, 2 journalists, 3 Government officers, 6 others
which include retired army officers, retired officials and lay man perceived that U.S
know Pakistan was making a bomb. 18 students, 5 academicians, 1 lawyer, 2
Government officers and 4 others believed that U.S didn‘t know Pakistan was making
a bomb. 7 students, 4 academicians and 3 others were neutral. 1 academician and 3
Government officers have no idea.
In response to the question, does U.S know Pakistan was making a bomb? 28
respondents believe that U.S know Pakistan was making a bomb, 30 respondents
didn‘t believe that U.S know Pakistan was making a bomb, while 14 were neural and
4 respondents have no idea.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Yes No Neutral No Idea
28
30
14
4
150
Q no 4. Does the Musharraf regime supported the US cause in the region?
In response to the question, does the Musharraf regime support the US cause
in the region? 37students, 6 academician‘s, 2 journalists, 8 Government servant, 2
lawyers and 4 others which include retired army officers, retired officials and lay
man perceived that Musharraf support the U.S cause in the region. 2 students, 5
academicians and 4 others did not perceived that Musharraf support the U.S cause in
the region. 1 student and 2 others were neutral. 3 others have no idea.
05
101520253035404550
students acadamicians
Lawers journalists GovServants
others
Yes 37 6 2 2 8 4
No 2 5 0 0 0 4
Neutral 1 0 0 0 0 2
No Idea 0 0 0 0 0 3
37
6 2 2
8 4 2
5 0 0 0
4 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0
3
Q No 4 Yes No Neutral No Idea
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Yes No Neutral No Idea
59
11
3 3
151
In response to the question, does the Musharraf regime support the US cause
in the region? 59 respondents perceived that Musharraf support the U.S cause in the
region. 11 respondents did not perceived that Musharraf support the U.S cause in the
region. 3 respondents were neutral while 3 no idea.
Q No 5.Was in 2011 US Obama administration surgical strike In Pakistan the breach
of political sovereignty of Pakistan?
In response to the question, was in 2011 US Obama administration surgical
strike In Pakistan the breach of political sovereignty of Pakistan? 39 students, 4
academician‘s, 1 journalists, 8 Government servant, 1 lawyers and 8 others which
include retired army officers, retired officials and lay man perceived that the breach
of political sovereignty of Pakistan was in 2011. 1 student, 3 academicians, 1 lawyer
and 1 journalist not perceived the breach of political sovereignty of Pakistan was in
2011. 4 academicians and 5 others have no idea.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
students acadamicians
Lawyers journalists GovServants
others
Yes 39 4 1 1 8 8
No 1 3 1 1 0 0
No Idea 0 4 0 0 0 5
39
4 1 1
8 8
1 3
1 1 0 0 0 4
0 0 0
5
Q no 5 Yes No
152
In response to the question, was in 2011 US Obama administration surgical
strike In Pakistan the breach of political sovereignty of Pakistan? 56 respondents
perceived that the breach of political sovereignty of Pakistan was in 2011. 6
respondents not perceived the breach of political sovereignty of Pakistan was in 2011
Q no. 6.What type of relationship does Pakistan and United States of America usually
have?
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Yes No No Idea
56
6 7
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
students acadamicians
Lawyers journalists
GovServants
others
Good 3 3 1 2 3 6
Congenial 34 5 1 0 2 4
Bad 2 1 0 0 2 3
Worse 1 2 0 0 1 0
3 3 1 2 3
6
34
5 1 0
2 4
2 1 0 0 2 3
1 2 0 0 1 0
Q No 6 Good Congenial
153
In response to the question, what type of relationship does Pakistan and
United States of America Usually have? 3 students, 3 academicians, 1 lawyer, 2
journalists, 3 government servants and 6 others which include retired army officers,
retired officials and lay man perceived that the relations between the two are mostly
Good, 34 Students,5 academicians, 1 lawyer, 2 Government servants and 4 others
believes that the relation between two is congenial. 2 students, 1 academician, 2
Government servants and three others believe that the relationship between these two
countries is bad. 1 student, 2 academicians and 1 Government servant‘s believes that
the relationship between these two countries is worse.
In response to the question, what type of relationship does Pakistan and
United States of America usually have? 18 respondents believe that the relationship
between these two counties is good. 46 respondents believe that the relation between
these two counties is congenial. 8 respondents believe that the relationship between
these countries is bad while 4 respondents believe that the relationship between these
two countries is worse.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Good Congenial Bad Worse
18
46
8
4
154
Q no.7 What are the complexes of Pakistan and United States of America relationship
regarding emerging International order and in south Asian perspective?
In response to the question, what are the complexes of Pakistan and United
States of America relationship regarding emerging International order and in south
Asian perspective? 8 students, 2 academicians, 1 lawyer, 3 Government servants and
3 others which include retired army officers, retired officials and lay man perceived
that Pakistan U.S relations depend upon trust. 25 students, 4 academicians, 1 lawyer,
2 journalist, 2 Government officers and 3 others perceived that the complexes of
Pakistan U.S relations are due to prevailing distrust among them. 4 students, 5
academician, 1 Government servants and 3 others felt that there is misperception
between the two allies, whereas 2 students, 2 government servants and 4 others have
no idea of the situation.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
students acadamicians
Lawyers journalists
GovServants
Others
Trust 8 2 1 0 3 3
Distrust 25 4 1 2 2 3
Misperception 4 5 0 0 1 3
No Idea 2 0 0 0 2 4
8
2 1 0 3 3
25
4 1 2 2 3 4 5
0 0 1 3 2
0 0 0 2
4
Q No 7 Trust Distrust
155
In response to the question, what are the complexes of Pak-U.S. relations? 17
respondents perceived that there is ample trust between the two allies. 37 felt that the
complexity of the relation between the two is the distrust among the two and most of
the problems between the two are due to the prevailing mistrust among the two
States. 13 respondents believe that there is misperception which is causing the ups
and downs in the relationship. While 8 respondents have no idea regarding the issue.
Q No. 8. How many attempts were made by the successive rulers of Pakistan to
improve its relationship with the United States?
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Trust Distrust Misperception No Idea
17
37
13
8
05
101520253035404550
students acadamicians
Lawyers journalists
GovServants
others
Numerous 27 7 1 0 4 6
Few 11 2 1 2 2 7
Neutral 1 2 0 0 0 0
No Idea 1 0 0 0 2 0
27
7
1 0 4 6
11
2 1 2 2 7
1 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0
Q no 8 Numerous Few
156
In response to the question, how many attempts were made by the successive
rulers of Pakistan to improve its relationship with the United States? 27 students, 7
academicians, 1 lawyer, 4 Government officers and 6 others which include retired
army officers retired officials and lay man perceived that numerous attempts were
made by the successive rulers of Pakistan. 11 students, 2 academicians, 1 lawyer, 2
journalists, 2 Government officers and 7 others perceived that few attempts were
made by the successive rulers of Pakistan. 1 student and 2 academicians were neutral.
1 student and 2 Government officers have no idea.
In response to the question, how many attempts were made by the successive
rulers of Pakistan to improve its relationship with the United States? 45 respondents
believe that numerous attempts were made by the successive rulers of Pakistan. 25
respondents believe that few attempts were made by the successive rulers of Pakistan.
3 respondents were neutral while 3 have no idea.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Numerous Few Neutral No Idea
45
25
3 3
157
Q no 9.When did Pakistan enjoy congenial Relationship with United States of
America?
In response to the question, when did Pakistan enjoy congenial Relationship
with United States of America? 25 students, 2 academicians, 12 professionals, 1
Government officers and 6 others which include retired army officers retired officials
and lay man perceived that Pakistan enjoy congenial Relationship with United States
during democratic government. 1 student, 3 academicians, 1.8 professionals, 2
lawyers, 3 government servants and 3 others perceived that Pakistan enjoy congenial
Relationship with United States during authoritarian government. 14 students, 6
academicians, 3 professionals, 4 government officers and 4 others were neutral.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
students
acadamicians
professionals
Lawyers
GovServant
s
others
During Democratic Gov 25 2 12 0 1 6
During Authoritarian Gov 1 3 1.8 2 3 3
Neutral 14 6 3 0 4 4
25
2
12
0 1
6
1 3 1.8 2 3 3
14
6 3
0 4 4
Q no 9 During Democratic Gov During Authoritarian Gov Neutral
158
In response to the question, when did Pakistan enjoy congenial Relationship
with United States of America? 46 respondents perceived that Pakistan enjoy
congenial Relationship with United States during democratic governments. 13
respondents felt that Pakistan enjoy congenial Relationship with States during
authoritarian government while 31 are neutral.
Q no 10.How Pakistan and United States of America are interacting soon after 9/11?
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
DuringDemocratic
governments
DuringAuthoritariangovernments
Neutral
46
13
31
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
students acadamicians
Lawyers journalists
GovServants
others
Friendly 23 3 1 1 5 6
Like enemies 1 5 1 1 2 5
Neutral 16 3 0 0 1 2
23
3 1 1
5 6
1 5
1 1 2 5
16
3 0 0 1 2
Q no 10 Friendly Like enemies Neutral
159
In response to the question, Pakistan and United States of America are
interacting soon after 9/11? 23 students, 3 academicians, 1 lawyer, 5 government
servants and 6 others perceived that Pakistan and America are interacting friendly. 1
student, 5 academicians, 1 lawyer, 1 journalist, 2 government officers and 5 others
perceived that Pakistan and America are interacting like enemies. 16 students, 3
academicians, 1 government officer and 2 others are neutral.
In response to the question, Pakistan and United States of America are
interacting soon after 9/11? 39 respondents believe that Pakistan and America are
interacting friendly. 15 respondents believe that Pakistan and America are interacting
like enemies as U.S. has continuously betrayed Pak during the times of her close
alliance. While 22 respondents are neutral.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Friendly Like enemies Neutral
39
15
22
160
Q no . 11. What are the reasons for problematic relationship?
In response to the question, what are the reasons for problematic relationship?
3 students, 4 academicians, 1 lawyer, 4 government officers and 5 others which
include retired army officers retired officials and lay man perceived that the reasons
for the complex and problematic relationship of the two is betrayal of U.S. as during
the times of need of the Pak She refused supporting the latter.27 students,1
academician,1lawyer,2 government servants and 5 others felt that trust prevails
among the two.10 students,6 academicians,2journalists,2 government servants and 3
other see distrust as the sole cause of problematic relationship of Pak and U.S.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
students acadamicians
Lawyers journalists GovServants
others
Betrayal 3 4 1 0 4 5
Trust 27 1 1 0 2 5
Distrust 10 6 0 2 2 3
3 4 1 0
4 5
27
1 1 0 2
5
10 6
0 2 2 3
Q no 11 Betrayal Trust Distrust
161
In response to the question, What are the reasons for problematic
relationship?17 respondents believe that the relation of these two countries have a
complex and problematic nature as sense of betrayal prevails would be. 36
respondents believe that the relationship between the two lies upon trust. 23
respondents believe that distrust is the root cause of the complex nature of bilateral
relationship. Distrust `should be reduced to the minimum level for the sake of mendin
the problematic relationship.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Betrayal Tust Distrust
17
36
23
162
Q no 12. How do you see the future of Pak-U.S relations, as the United States of
America is withdrawing her troops from Afghanistan so she needs Pakistan no more?
In response to the question, how do you see the future of Pak-U.S relations, as
the United States of America is withdrawing her troops from Afghanistan so she
needs Pakistan no more? 12 students, 1 academician, 1 lawyer, 2 government officers
and 2 others which include retired army officers retired officials and lay man
perceived that the relation of Pakistan and America would be good in future. 1
student, 2 academicians, 1 lawyer, 1 journalist, 3 government officers and 2 others
perceived that the relation between Pakistan and America would be bad in future. 17
students, 8 academicians, 1 journalist, 3 government officers and 6 others that the
relation between Pakistan and America would be average in future. 10 student and 3
others have no idea about it.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
students acadamicians
Lawyers journalists GovServants
others
Good 12 1 1 0 2 2
Bad 1 2 1 1 3 2
Average 17 8 0 1 3 6
No Idea 10 0 0 0 0 3
12
1 1 0 2 2 1 2 1 1
3 2
17
8
0 1 3
6 10
0 0 0 0 3
Q No 12 Good Bad Average No Idea
163
In response to the question, , how do you see the future of Pak-U.S relations,
as the United States of America is withdrawing her troops from Afghanistan so she
needs Pakistan no more? 18 respondents believe that the relation of these two
countries would be good in future. 35 respondents believe there would be average
relation between these two countries. 10 respondents believe that relation between
these two countries would be bad in future. 13 respondents have no idea about it.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Good Average Bad No Idea
18
35
10
13
164
Q no. 13. How do you see the Role of Pakistan in the South Asian context of US
policy?
In response to the question, how do you see the Role of Pakistan in the South
Asian context of US policy? 23 students, 4 academicians, 2 lawyers, 1 journalist, 2
government officers and 4 others which include retired army officers retired officials
and lay man perceived that they saw the major role of Pakistan in south Asian contest
of U.S policy. 10 students, 5 academicians, 1 journalist, 2 government officers and 4
others perceived that they saw the minor role of Pakistan in south Asian contest of
U.S policy. 15 students, 2 academicians, 4 government officers and 3 others
perceived that they saw the supporting role of Pakistan in south Asian contest of U.S
policy. 1 student and 2 others perceived that they saw the betraying role of U.S. in
south Asian context of U.S policy while dealing with Pak.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
students acadamicians
Lawyers journalists
GovServants
others
Major 23 4 2 1 2 4
Minor 10 5 0 1 2 4
Supporting 15 2 0 0 4 3
Betraying 1 0 0 0 0 2
23
4 2 1 2
4
10
5
0 1 2 4
15
2 0 0
4 3 1 0 0 0 0
2
Q No 13 Major Minor Supporting Betraying
165
In response to the question, how do you see the Role of Pakistan in the South
Asian context of US policy? 36 respondents felt that they saw the major role of
Pakistan in south Asian context of U.S policy. 32 respondents believe that they saw
the minor role of Pakistan in south Asian context of U.S policy. 24 respondents
believe that they saw the supporting role of Pakistan in south Asian context of U.S
policy. 3 respondents believe that they saw the betraying role of U.S. in south Asian
context of U.S policy while dealing with Pakistan.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Major Minor Supporting Betraying
36
22 24
3
166
REFERENCES
Akins, H. (March 2018). Between Allies and Enemies : Explaining the Volatility of
the U.S.-Pakistan Relationship, 1947-2018. knoxville:
http://bakercenter.utk.edu/publications.
Cohen, S. P. (2004). The Idea of Pakistan . Washinton, D.C.: The Brookings
Institution .
Gillani, S. Y. (2019, May 2). Speaker National Assembly ( ) . Prime Minister of
Pakistan 2008-19 June2012. (S. N. Shah, Interviewer)
John Baylis, S. S. (2015). The Globalization of World Politics An Introdution to
International Relations. Oxford University Press.
Lieven, A. (2012). Pakistan A Hard Country. London: Penguin Group.
Nazar, Y. (2011). Balkanisation and the Political Economy of Pakistan. Karachi:
National News Agency.
Sattar, A. (2013). Pakistan's Foreign Policy 1947-2012 A Concise History. Karachi:
Oxford University Press.
Schofield, U. B. (2012). Pakistan The US, Geopolitics and Grand Strategies. New
York: Pluto Press.
Shah, A. (2014). The Army and Democracy Military Politics in Pakistan. Harvard
University Press.
Sorensen, R. J. (2003). Introduction to International Relations Theories and
Approaches. New York: Oxford University Press Inc.
167
CHAPTER 6
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The entire research revolves around the complexes of Pak-U.S. relations
which comprises of the distrust and betrayal from either side, it has been withdrawn
from the research work that the bilateral relations has passed through numerous ups
and downs. Mistrust resulted in a sense of deception between the two allies which
became disillusioned with each other. While the complex nature of the relationship
between the two states have analyzed at three levels (A). Global level/perspective
where the U.S. – Pak alliance has passed numerous ups and downs (Cold war&
containment of socialism), (B). Regional level (South Asia) where the relations faced
problems as the States gave leverage to India over Pak, (C). Bilateral level (U.S.A &
Pakistan). At the bilateral level, U.S.A failed to appreciate or recognize Pakistan's
security obsession vis-à-vis India and during the times of need betrayed the later.
Although it did help Pakistan to build and strengthen its military arsenal, in the hours
of need refused to stand with Pakistan.
However, throughout the Afghan war, U.S.A completes full support to
Pakistan to restrain Soviet Expansion. After 9/11 Pakistan accepted all U.S.A
demands to fight the menace of terrorism. The long periods of dictatorial rule the
relations between the two at the highest level of friendship while with the revival of
Democracy the relations between the two worsened. U.S supported two military
dictators in Pakistan for the purpose of attainment of her policy goals (1979-1989)
Zia-ul-Haq and (1999-2008) General Musharraf the revival of democracy (2008-
2015). During the rule of two military dictators and then with the revival of
democratic governments in 2008 relations between the two states were a combination
of trust & trust deficit which is one of the core research areas. Whereas from 2008
168
onwards till 2015 the problematic relationship between the two allies would also be
analyzed. Further, the future nature of the relationship between the two states.
There is a history of ties between Pakistan and the United States of America
of mutual trust and mutual distrust, uncertainty, convergences and divergences,
collaboration and controversies, and amid all the difficulties and uncertainties, ups
and downs Pakistan faces many obstacles and has many chances to be in coalition
with the United States of America.
This section of the thesis deals with the outcomes of the research study and
the conclusions of the analysis as a whole. Also present in this research segment are
suggestions or a guide or future researchers. Including the origins of the research
work conclusions and suggestions show the wider perspective of all the work done.
Recommendations/ Suggestions or a guide for future researchers interested in the
bilateral relationship of Pakistan and the United States, also presenting this segment
of research as unique of its kind. Including the genesis of the research work As it
depicts the broader outlook of the entire work done.
To reconstruct/revisit /review/rebuilt the problematic relationship between
Pakistan and America, Pakistan and America need to arrive at some commonality of
national interest, foreign policy goals, and vital diplomatic objectives. For smooth
evolution of Pakistan America friendly relationship, it is necessary that the structure
of Pakistan decision making may be reviewed, Pakistan alliance with America as of
significant important and like ways that of America, keeping in view the common
points, their foreign policy goals and putting behind the book, the conflicting interest
of each other and also building trust upon each other. Further, the America and
Pakistan relationship can only we reinvented when America considers Pakistan
integrity to be of vital importance to its overall policy and South Asia.
169
The West has supported the military governments in Pakistan to overrule the
popular say of the people as because they don‘t have trust upon elected
representatives as they felt insecure with the democratic governments that they tend
to support the radicalism there might be a possibility that the nuclear arms fell in the
hands of extremists then there will be a persisting threat to the world peace and
security. (Schofield, 2012).The bilateral relationship between Pakistan and America
continued at a slow pace or fast and despite converging or contrasting goals.
Ups and downs in Pakistan America relations due to the flow of declining it
and a weakening America relationship with Pakistan army, this resulted in distrust,
and dignity between the two. As the U.S. believed that Pakistan's army is one of the
few effective regional forces that‘s why She try to establish friendly relations with
Pakistan army vis-à-vis Pakistan and in the same manner the aid of America acted
also.
Since September 11 and with the re-emergence of America‘s policy goals in
Pak compelled her to overlook the issues of conflicting interests between Pakistan
and her, the relationship reestablished putting aside all the differences just for the
sake of promotion of her interests with the geopolitical significance of Pakistan tilted
back to Pakistan after a period of utter disillusionment, the conclusion of that conflict
was to be expected to contribute to a renewed period of U.S. withdrawal by Pakistani
assistance.
The tormented nature of the history of the U.S. - Pakistan engagement
confirms the assumption, even though United States leaders continue working
together to retain an increased influence upon the policy of Pakistan (Tahir-Kheli,
1982), together in the battle against security threats and in the pursuit of peace and
economic growth.
170
The formal and administrative omission of Pakistan from its wider Asia policy
by the Obama administration compounds the problem of U.S. participation. For
example, Pakistan is distinctly exempt from formal U.S. re-balancing declarations,
unlike neighboring India. And the policies of Washington will be in line with their
rhetoric. For example, new U.S. efforts designed to promote regional cooperation
stop at the Indian frontier by providing her military and economic build-up. American
defense programs in Asia which have more probably incorporated India, but have
never Pakistan, there is a different statement in dealing with a prolonged ally and a
simple State.
As a result, Islamabad's leaders and decision-makers are compelled to make
their own choice on U.S. priorities across Asia and how they might direct U.S.
strategy in Pakistan. She prefers to comprehend Washington's restructuring as an
approach toward Beijing, one of the only trade partners of Pakistan; pivoting to India,
the arch-enemy of Pakistan; and refusing to acknowledge Pakistan.
Generally, the old United States strategy for incorporating Pakistan with
Afghanistan and excluding it out of the broader SA strategy is counter-productive in
countering Pakistan's anxieties. History shows that uncertainty has seldom caused
Islamabad to restraint, especially with regard to Indian supremacy chaos. Just like in
the past, Pakistan's government is much more likely to spend in modern weapons and
nuclear warheads a greater proportion of government resources, and there is a chance
that it is more willing to turn to militant it extremist groups (like as LeT) as an
asymmetric weapon for battling India's larger size and military power. (Haqqani,
2013).
Islamabad would eat grass rather than yield to the dominance of New Delhi to
quote great Pakistan's former prime minister, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. A potential grass-
171
eating would, of course, intensify a ferocious circle of poor growth in the economy,
local infrastructures, and facilities of Pakistan. This would make Pakistan far less able
to meet its citizens ' educational and economic aspirations, leaving Islamabad more
likely to face destructive challenges overtime at local and national levels. Such
changes would be most unexpected amid Washington's worries over Pakistan's
nuclear build ups and blaming of her support for expanding terrorist groups — to say
nothing of U.S. involvement in the SA regional politics.
Rather than pursuing a technique that reinforces the connections of Asia's
security and economic development between Pakistan and the US concerns, U.S.
leaders could more concretely demonstrate America's long-term commitment in
addressing Pakistan's multiple challenges, matter what happens in neighboring
Afghanistan. In the same period, by supporting a coherent vision of the
transformation of Pakistan towards a prosperous and peaceful nation, U.S.
policymakers should encourage the growth of Islamabad and the development of a
trusting relationship between the two disillusioned allies in a manner that will benefits
for America and Pakistan as well.
Deconstructing Pakistan and U.S. relations is to reconnect Pakistan with her
ally for the purpose of achievements of Interests of Pakistan from global hegemon,
the usefulness of such a double approach might obstruct on Pakistan's own techniques
and course. If Pakistan, faced with U.S. efforts, could or would not follow the path to
appropriate national economic assimilation.
The United States should place more emphasis than how to protect its vital
national interests but should also keep in mind the proximity and volatility of
Pakistan. Inappropriate because it would be, Washington is offering at least a
multiple-pronged approach with just a creative fall-back plan.
172
Islamabad must eat grass rather than yield to New Delhi's hegemony to restate
Pakistan's former PM ZA Bhutto and his commitment which depicted in his saying
of. a possible grass-eating becomes a mild stone in foreign policy that his State would
go nuclear whatever the consequences may be, intensify a violent cycle of scarce
growth of Pakistan's economy, local structures, and facilities. This decision may have
led Pakistan to enter into a closed-ended street and had indulged in a critical situation,
Islamabad far less worthy of meeting its people's educational and economic ambitions
and making it more prone to disruptive threats at the state and national levels across
time. Such changes would be most unexpected amid Washington's fears over
Pakistan's atomic plan vis a vis its security and the issue of global security. and
terrorist/extremist outfits — to say nothing of U.S. involvement in the wider region.
Instead of pursuing a policy outlining the ties among Pakistan and U.S.
priorities in isolation the later must form realistic policies from which the entire
region of Asia along with the entire world can earn the benefit of the South Asia's
stability and development. U.S. leaders must realistically demonstrate America's
enduring commitment to solve the numerous problems confronting Pakistan,
regardless of what happens in neighboring Afg. Around the same period, by fostering
a clear vision for the integration of Pakistan into a peaceful and prosperous nation,
U.S. politicians will assist Pakistan's progress in traditions that will undoubtedly be
more admired and useful than past American aid programs.
Pakistan's own strategies and direction would rely on the performance of this
two-pronged strategy. Unless Pakistan cannot or will not follow a road to successful
regional economic cooperation and economic integration, given U.S. attempts, the
U.S. should alter in its policy-making process that Pakistan has most of the times of
173
her need assisted her National interest whether it at bilateral level or regional South
Asian perspective /undesirable as this situation would be.
Table 6.1 Drone attacks and its impact upon Pakistan: 2005-2013
Year Incidents Killed Injured
2005 1 1 0
2006 0 0 0
2007 1 20 15
2008 19 156 17
2009 46 536 75
2010 90 831 85+
2011 59 548 52
2012 46 344 37
2013 24 158 29
Total 286 2594 310+
Source:http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/countries/pakistan/database/Droneattack.htm
Analysis: table 6.1 depicts the drone attacks and casualties caused by it in Pak.
Time is needed to strengthen relations between both nations and if certain principles
have to be followed, relationships could be strengthened on a long-term basis.
Table 6.2 depicts the consequences that Pak borne during participation in
GWOT.
Year Civilians Security Force
Personnel
Terrorists/Insurgents Total
2003 140 24 25 189
2004 435 184 244 863
2005 430 81 137 648
2006 608 325 538 1471
2007 1522 597 1479 3598
2008 2155 654 3906 6715
174
2009 2324 991 8389 11704
2010 1796 469 5170 7435
2011 2738 765 2800 6303
2012 3007 732 2472 6211
2013 3001 676 1702 5379
2014 1781 533 3182 5496
2015 940 339 2403 3682
2016 308 151 623 1082
Total 21185 6521 33070 60776
Source: South Asia Terrorism Portal
Analysis: the table depicts the consequences in the sense of Human Capital as
a result of being ally in GWOT. in Pakistan were increasingly aggressive to U.S.
actions in Pakistan. This is attributable to United States drone attacks on FATA
zones. Based on the most recent one report, 60 percent of Pakistanis. drone strikes on
Pakistani territory are one of the explanations that ties between the two countries have
worsened. Such drone attacks violated Pakistan's airspace on a daily bases, according
to Pakistan press. 263 men, including the terrorists, have been killed in 30 drone
attacks since August 2008. Secret understanding existed between U.S. officials and
then-President Musharraf .according to U.S. officials. Likewise, Zardari may join into
the same deal, but both governments have formally refused any kind of compromise.
According to one report 2692 were killed in 285 drone attacks by January 2012.
Suggestions for the further Pak-U.S. alliance in the light of entire research
carried out.
Pakistan's location compelled the U.S. to make an alliance with her to contain
Soviet Russia and red China. The nuclear issue in Pakistan and India rays the
mutual distrust among them also poisoned the relationship.
175
To shift away from Afghanistan and Pakistan approach and execute Pakistan's
wider two-pronged Asia strategy which includes the benefits of Pakistan also,
the subsequent international, diplomatic, and economic steps should be taken
by the United States, both preceded by a restructuring of instable government.
The United States should take the following steps to enable a deep-term
emphasis for the broader Asian region on Pakistan-based security threats, U.S.
officials in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs will secretly aim to start a
conversation with their Chinese colleagues on Pakistan. Past conflicts in
South Asia (political upheaval in Afghanistan, standoffs in Indo-Pakistan)
have ignited episodic communication and collaboration among America and
China, but early tactical opportunities in the United States will note these
achievements and display the necessitate to avert similar situations.
Nevertheless, U.S. officials will continue to build policies and positions for
crisis management, particularly prompt release of highly classified
information. Discussions must be held individually from certain traditional
U.S and China discussions, such as Diplomatic and Financial Dialogue, in
order to prevent on going deviations from an overcrowded bilateral agenda.
Along with the prospect of building American forces and defense bases or
secret mission in India to counter terrorist threats from Pakistan to post-
Afghanistan withdrawal. Such talks would be politically sensitive. As bilateral
talks proceed, the Pentagon will collaborate with U.S. intelligence community
representatives to establish detailed on the ground action execution strategies
in India.
Planning for such a probable scenario in which neither Kabul nor Delhi have
sufficient basing facilities for United States armed forces and intelligence
176
campaigns towards Pakistan's security threats, the CIA and the Pentagon must
find to establish new sites, most preferably on the Arab Territory and at sea, in
which such activities can be continued or extended over the long term if
needed. Although substantial, these bases will become less expensive than
maintaining infrastructure in volatile Kabul, and far less probably to raise
Pakistan's concerns than the sites of India.
Ministries of Defense and State will deal with the new domestic and foreign
authorities of Pakistan that will provide post-2014 aid to Pak forces engaged
in domestic security activities and to sustain preparedness, weapons, and
economic support to current heights. Congress must approve the current $400
million annually and provide adequate funding. The "reimbursements" of the
Coalition Support Fund (CSF) to Pakistani army activities in assistance of
international troop‘s involvement in Kabul should be limited in accordance
with the number of American troops stationed around and Pakistan's
involvement in maintaining Afghanistan's stability.
In contrast to the CSF, Pakistan's latest the United States military assistance
must not be attached to the US mission in Afghanistan. Nonetheless, this
should concentrate on the attempts of Islamabad to resolve domestic security
challenges, from the Militant group to extremist religious organizations, and
the broader determination of Pakistan to fight extremism and terrorism around
its territory. As in recent years, Congress needs to concentrate carefully with
the Pentagon and the Treasury division to adjust payments of aid in retort to
particular techniques and endeavors in Pakistan, promoting and endorsing
positive initiatives while avoiding others.
177
The U. S must explicitly demonstrate to Pakistan and other regional powers
that, through the following steps, it plans to pull Pakistan into its wider Asian
strategy:
The U.S. foreign ministry in Islamabad will publicly demonstrate
Washington's attempts to include Islamabad being a significant ally and
partner in its larger international political anarchic order and to provide
Pakistan with a specific place in its decision-making process and pursue the
policy of establishing trust among the two partners (Sorensen, 2003). While
devising a strategy in a larger U.S. national economic development program
and giving the leverage to Pakistan in spite of considering India as a core ally.
When part of their Asian re-balancing partners list, top U.S. leaders should
include Pakistan.
The Department of state would endorse a Track II diplomacy (non-
governmental) discussion going on the issue of broader Asian interests,
including Chinese, Indian and Pakistani stakeholders from related academic
and policy-making mechanisms. In order to promote involvement, the forum
must first look at areas of common interest (like technical and scientific
education) by excluding warm-button issues (along with Kashmir as well as
other territorial disputes). If the triangular prism platform operates annually
and establishes a network of frequent members, it should welcome official
government engagement after many years and should also start to address
more contentious regional issues such as nuclear weapons proliferation,
transportation, electricity, and water.
178
While America could not require Pakistan to be amalgamated throughout the
broader Asian region on its own, the subsequent measures should be taken to
facilitate these progress:
Negotiators from the United States and government officials need to seek a
favorable United States business entry agreement for Pakistan, Afghanistan,
and India concentrated on lowering bilateral-regional trade barriers. The
double role of Arcing Afghanistan and India into the initiative of enhancing
legislative opportunities to facilitate and promote the Indo-Pakistani
standardization process.
To facilitate so, the Central and South Asian Relations and East Asia and
Pacific divisions of the Department of the state; the Council for Pakistan and
Afghanistan of the Special Representative, together with the related U.S.
agencies. The Government of America as well as the Ministry, to a lesser
degree, are the Global development Association (USAID) as well as the
United States. Commerce Officials must contact their Pakistani colleagues in
the United States. - Pakistan Strategic Dialog Working Groups to define the
technology, legislative and diplomatic discrepancies among these two local
initiatives. To order to secure international funding and development to link
infrastructures like bridges, Security, and power lines breaks, Negotiators
from the U.S. and Islamabad need to cooperate together to involve the ADB
as well as other potential donors including Japan. While the plan fails, United
States diplomats need to collaborate with Islamabad to hold a meeting global
conferences to address emerging technical barriers to regional trade and
transportation (similar to the International Conferences on Economic
Cooperation in Afghanistan).
179
That feasible. Nonetheless, despite forecasts of stagnant and diminishing U.S.
support budgets, Pakistan's annual civilian assistance is expected to reach $1
billion a year. As a result, U.S. funds for fields such as education and health
will need to be diverted from other development projects. In order to
compensate for the shortcomings,
Pakistan and American interests diverge in the backdrop of politics of SA,
Islamabad must orchestrate development programs, and further, it may also be
calculated than the reunion in Pakistan and American alliance depends upon
the policy shift from both of the sides of the alliance as America should
reconsider Pakistan importance and retrospectively Pakistan should take care
of interests of an ally in the regional and bilateral level. Blame games and
mistrust may be left behind, congenial relationship on behalf converging
national interests may be built upon both of them. America may negate
relating economic aid to security problems that are unregulated by Pakistan's
civilian representatives and have caused major problems for the law and order
situation of Pakistan.
Pakistan's ties with the USA, there are some obstacles that need to be
overcome to strengthen relationships. Similarly, the US also misread
Islamabad's relations with Iran and China. State actors and non-state actors
have similar positions in this whole conflict. Due to decades of US interest-
based policy, there is also cynicism among the citizens of Pakistan about the
US. The GWOT can finish the deficit of trust linking the two countries is
minimized.
Several drone attacks have been enhanced in 2010. Despite NATO's assault
on the Salala check post on November 26, 2011, the parliament took a tough
180
decision to vacate USA's Shamsi airbase. Communications between two
countries were abused due to drone attacks which take civilian lives of
activists as well.
The causes that generate obstacles in relations are America's anti-Islamic pr-
opaganda but the reality is totally different. Many terrorists have been found
to be non-Muslims in the GWOT. Another aspect among these reasons is that
the US still wants aid to India rather than an exchange with Pakistan.
Throughout time, we realize that in Pakistan-US ties there have been ups and
downs. The USA through its actions recognizes and retains India's dominance
in SA which is unacceptable for Pak. Her links with India often build
partnership hurdles. Similarly, closer relations between Pakistan and China
are also a barrier in relations between the two nations.
Problematic relations of Pakistan and America depicts the clear picture of
mistrust and betrayal further Pak as a part and parcel of its policy of dealing
with Afghanistan or perceives and deals with Pakistan as an important partner
in its broader or policy to keep her influence the region of SA.
The U.S. policy against Pakistan is largely grounded in post-9/11 Afg-Pak
issues: the Afghan war and counter-terrorism program. Such political focus is
also expressed in Washington's administrative diplomatic-making processes,
where both the U.S. State and defense agencies and the thinking National
Security Council of America has restructured at different levels to remove the
distrust and complexes of the past decade to strengthen cooperation and
extend U.S. policy capabilities across the Af-Pak frontier. To the diverse
degree of the U.S. strategy has seen Pakistan in a broader sense, it would have
concentrated on anarchy in Afghanistan, such as through Broader Conferences
181
on Economic collaboration and how to care with the economic integration of
China, Pakistan, and the entire region.
The main reason for continuing to pursue this policy to Pakistan is that in the
Afg-Pak portfolio, the United States has some unfinished business.
Nevertheless, in Afg, America has achieved major wins against Al-Qaeda
with the assistance of Pak, the Obama administration has evidently
decided to reduce the U.S. military footprint in Afghanistan. Even so, the U.S.
still has a long list of unmet objectives for Pakistan that are directly linked to
anti-terrorism so fighting Afg-Pak strategy.
Pakistan provides with the strategic opportunity of how to remove from
Afghan battlefields a large stock of U.S. weapons, vehicles, and equipment.
The roads and ports of Pakistan offer the fastest, cheapest route home, but
recent experience has taught the U.S. that it cannot take for granted the
unimpeded flow of war material through Pakistan. More specifically,
Islamabad will play an important role in deciding whether even the scaled-
back plans of Washington for Afghanistan after 2014 will be effective. For
instance, how Pakistan utilizes its alliance with Afghan Taliban members will
have a significant impact on the outcome of both Kabul and Washington's
reconciliation talks.
More controversial bilateral problems that are yet to be addressed concern the
presence of safe havens on Pakistani territory for foreign militants and the
usage of drones by the US to target them. In contrast to Al Qaeda and its
affiliates, Washington has significant questions regarding many militant
terrorist groups operating in Pakistan, many of which have enjoyed the aid of
Pakistani military and security services, including Lashkar-e-Taiba.
182
Considerable resources, but leaked documents suggest that Washington
continues to devote huge intelligence resources to the security threats to the
region. Pakistan in addition remains one of the world's biggest beneficiaries of
U.S. aid, with an approximation for FY2013 of over $350 million in the
military and $800 million in civilian assistance. Compensation of combat
activities in Pakistan in support of the fight in Afghanistan averages up to.
The Asia-centric strategy would have two main points, backed by a
deconstructing policy-making system that highlights Pakistan's ties to greater
Asia rather than Afghanistan. The first strand will include initiatives to
prevent or quarantine Pakistan-based security challenges. Unlike the status
quo, the main focus shifts away from Afghanistan and to the rest of Asia,
where in the long run the US will have far larger economic and strategic
interests of its own. The second point is dedicated to improving Pakistan's
internal security and prosperity. Unlike the status quo, this initiative would be
pursued mainly by seeking to incorporate Pakistan into the Asian region's
positive economic trends, beginning through trade and investment, rather than
through massive, specific U.S. assistance programs. Have no solid reason to
stop the assistance to Pakistan. However, in other situations where U.S.
intelligence meetings or clandestine missions were targeted toward risks the
Pakistani government has refused to address, such as the Haqqani network or
LeT, America might require re-thinking the folly of being heavily reliant on
U.S. forces and conveniences currently located in Afghanistan. times to come
(and possibly even earlier if America is incapable to reach a suitable
comprehensive security accord with Afghan insurgents), it is possible that
183
keeping a foothold in landlocked Afghanistan as a means of dealing with
Pakistan-based security threats will be exceedingly hard and expensive.
is the natural U.S. answer to Afghanistan in spite of Pakistan's geographical
location. Washington and New Delhi have taken steps in recent years to
broaden their counter-terrorism partnership with a view to developing
protections against future attacks such as the November 2008 Lashkar - Taiba
raid on Mumbai.
Despite on going threats of terrorism and Pakistan's apparent lack of capacity
(and inclination in some cases) to counter them, Washington would need to
significantly increase its efforts in India, perhaps even to the extent of setting
up intelligence and military bases on Indian land. However any such strategy
will directly challenge India's residual ambivalence over closer relations with
the U.S. A confirmed U.S. military/intelligence involvement in India, while
focused toward security threats originating in Pakistan, is a diplomatic
nonstarter in New Delhi, where Indian politicians jealously guard their
independence from contractual partnerships.
The short to medium term, the alternative U.S. basing arrangements on the
Arab Peninsula would probably prove more diplomatically feasible.
Nonetheless, in the sense of an Asia-centric Pakistan policy, pursuing closer
cooperation with India to resolve Pakistan-based security threats would still be
a high priority for Washington. In addition to providing the strongest strategic
perspective for U.S. intelligence and military activities toward Pakistan-based
security risks, stronger working partnerships would be built to serve the wider
U.S. cooperation objective with India.
184
Indo-America relations might not be built upon the cost of Pakistan. Further,
an Asia-oriented strategy towards Pakistan would suffer. Therefore, U.S.
attempts to strengthen counter-terrorism coordination with India should be
harmonized by strategic policy to China. The main goal of the U.S. would be
to promote stability in Islamabad and warn Beijing. Thankfully, China's keen
concern in a stable western border, fears of religious radicalism, and
aspiration to maintain trade in India and Central Asia have led Beijing to share
at least a profound desire with Washington to see Pakistan's restriction in its
extremists and lessen apprehensions with India.
Broadly, American policy based on security concern would antagonize
Pakistanis and perpetuate a toxic animosity from the appointed and ill-
informed government of Pakistan. U.S. attempts to promote Pakistan's
incorporation into Asian markets and political-economic institutions as a way
of expanding Pakistan's economy and, by implication, increasing its chances
of stability and international collaboration would, therefore, describe the
second prong of the U.S. strategy. The Asian Development Bank (ADB)
predicts expansion in Asia's developing countries by 6.6 percent in 2013, well
above 3.7 percent in 2012. If Pakistan attracts more foreign trade and
investment, it would have a far greater chance of gaining from relatively low
labour costs and lucratively occupy its rising youth rather than hardships from
the sometimes associated social and political disorder of an enormous youth
prominence.
This would not only boost chances for the internal security of Pakistan, but it
would also reduce the likelihood that Pakistan will become a threat to global
stability.
185
Question for Washington is how finest to support Pakistan incorporate into the
broader state economy. There are two ways that the United States would have
to deal with the issue: First, by building motivation for Pakistan and its
neighbors to break down existing political and regulatory obstacle to trade and
development, and by redeploying substantial American support and funding
for road and rail network projects such as bridges and pipelines to minimize
trade and transportation costs.
For example, on the opportunity side, Washington could provide her market
access to Pakistan as a way of promoting Indo-Pakistani exchange fallouts.
Numerous program might be initiated by America to the existing U.S.
development schemes in Pakistan, as well as hydroelectric dam systems,
would remain relevant as part of a wide-ranging approach to persuade foreign
involvement in Pakistan's industrial segments. Power deficits and electricity
blackouts are estimated to have expenditure Pakistan 4 % of its domestic
production in the contemporary era.
The U.S. policy regarding her alliance with Pak entails political and
programmatic improvements backed by reorganized governments in both of
the States. The reforms will certainly create additional delays and expenses,
but there will be reasons for believing that it would be easier for the United
States to adopt an Asia-centered policy for Pakistan and step away from the
current Afg-Pak method.
The primary issue with the Pak-Afg policy is that from the Pakistani point of
view, the continuing dedication of the United States to the security of
Afghanistan is no longer credible.
186
The timeline for military withdrawal and transition of power to Afghan forces
/people by the Obama administration in2014 and it might be expected that the
lessening of American foreign policy goals impacts the bilateral relationship
coercively. Many American guiding principles, such as retaining the "zero
alternatives" open for U.S. forces since 2014 in Afghanistan, also raised
Pakistan's expectations, it is evident from the exit of US from the Afghan
region there is an obvious change in the dealings of America with Pakistan
and this bilateral relationship looks to become more fragile and weaker.
Pakistan's perspective is consistent with U.S. war policy, The American
assistance has waned with her withdrawal from Afghanistan as she has
achieved her interests and needed Pakistan no more.
This sense, the lack of long-term U.S. involvement under Pakistan often
suggests a U.S. policy that connects Afghanistan and Pakistan. Since
September 11 and the crisis in Afghanistan and its war took the U.S. back to
Pakistan after a decade of comparative disillusionment, the anticipation of that
conflict was likely to result in another era of U.S. withdrawal by Pakistani
estimates.
The United States and Pakistan partnership's as tormented intervals consisting
of ups and downs, but here it is important to mention that both the nations
could not withdraw from each other whatever the circumstances might
(Markey, 2014), in the battle against security threats and in the pursuit of
peace and economic growth.
The tangible and bureaucratic omission of Pakistan from its wider Asia
strategy by the Obama administration compounds the problem of U.S.
engagement. For example, the US Supporting India and overlooking Pakistan
187
and its interests are clearly excused from official U.S. re-balancing
announcements. And the actions in Congress are in accordance with their
slogans. For example, new U.S. efforts to facilitate regional cooperation
through South and Southeast Asia stop at the Indian frontier, such as the Indo-
Pacific Economic Corridor. While policy objectives of US defense priorities
in the region (Asia}, are more expected to incorporate India as her primary
ally and negating never Pakistan and her sacrifices for America, a different
point holds.
As a result, Islamabad's leaders and observers are quite worries about the US
policies in the broader sense of her security concerns in South Asia while
negating the importance of her alliance with Pakistan. How the objectives
have direct America strategy in Pakistan. While Pakistan prefers to
comprehend the deconstructing of America policy as a strategy against China
in the Global anarchic political system (Sorensen, 2003), the all-weather
friend of Pakistan always assisted Pakistan through thick and thin. the only
ally of Pakistan which continues to strengthen Pakistan and it's the economy
and Military sectors. further the enemy of both allies is the same in the
presence of India. Sino-Pakistan relations does not follow the pattern similar
to that of the two estranged allies.
The current U.S. policy of connecting Pakistan with Afghanistan while
excluding it from the larger Asian strategy is counterproductively increasing
Pakistan's anxieties.
When it comes to balancing the Indian aggressive designs which are causing
harm to Pakistan's national interests the later never think about its economic
prosperity and development rather tended to balance the power in the region.
188
argue about Pak-America relations these all the times in history became worse
as the US trended to accommodate India.
Finally, Pakistan could increase cooperation with the United States in
international institutions, particularly on nuclear disarmament matters. It is
clear how best to manage U.S. relations with Pakistan to encourage these
changes.
Due the part of GWOT Pak, most families have lost their loved ones. Sense
of uncertainty aroused as extremists turn over in Pak and spill over affect put
Pak in chaos. All this has created sentiments among Pakistani citizens of
hatred for the U.S. and its Programs are required to change the perception of
the U.S. among Pakistani masses and build confidence and eliminate mistrust
among both countries ' people.
If both governments strive to improve the system of education, like all
governments have long-term relationships, health care, job opportunities, and
economic development. For the effective use of U.S. support, for the
cooperation with Pakistani civilians and ensure proper use of U.S. assistance.
Both the states have to build trust for future alliance
Projects are needed to enable citizens from one community to travel abroad
during holidays in order to build United States empathy towards Pakistanis.
The persecution of Pakistanis in America must be revealed to the citizens of
Pakistan. Even U.S. soldiers and women saving lives in Pakistan could not
alter the U.S. view after the tragedy in Muzzafarabad and Mansehra in
October 2005. The U.S. is also investing $1 billion on earthquake efficiencies
with this, but there is no effect of establishing good wishes among the
Pakistani people for Americans. Travel restrictions must be restrained and
189
residents should be able to visit for business and educational purposes.
Through removing the mistrust of individuals, relationships can expand over
long periods of time.
Similarly, any US-India agreement or arrangement poses concerns for Pak.
Considering the importance of United States-Pakistan relations in different
areas with the need to improve the SA political-strategic situation, it is
obvious that Pakistan and the US should also continue to work together from
now on. Collaboration is required in several ways, and then both are unable to
do something with that kind of important development effort and regional and
international scenario.
Changing US policy toward Pakistan will bring about strategic improvements.
Although the reforms will generate additional complexities and expenses,
there must be grounds to believe that a step away from the current Afg-Pak
strategy would be safer for the US to pursue an SA oriented plan for Pakistan.
190
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Books
Ali, T. (2008). The Duel Pakistan On The Flight Path Of American Power. New
York: Scribner.
Aslan, O. (2018). The United States and Military Coups in Turkey and Pakistan.
Switzerland: palgrave macmillan.
Aziz, M. (2008). Military Control in Pakistan. Newyork: Routledge.
C.Christine Fair, K. C. (2010). Pakistan Can the United States Secure an Insecure
State? Santa Monica: Rand Corporation.
Cohen, S. P. (2004). The Idea of Pakistan . Washinton, D.C.: The Brookings
Institution .
Fawn, M. B. (2004). Global Responses to Terrorism. Afghanistan and Beyond.
London : Routledge.
Goldstein, J. S. (2004). International Relations. Delhi: Pearson Education
(Patparganj).
Haqqani, H. (2013). Magnificent Delusions Pakistan, the United States, and an Epic
History of Misunderstanding. New York: Public Affairs.
Heywood, A. (2015). Key Concepts in Politics and Intrnational Relations. London:
Palgrave .
Husain, L. E. (1985). United States-Pakistan Relations. Berkeley: Institute of East
Asian Studies, University of california.
Jaffrelot, C. (2015). The Pakistan Paradox: Instability and Resilence. New York:
Oxford University Press .
Jalal, A. (2014). The Struggle for Pakistan A muslim Homeland and Global Politics.
London: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
191
John Baylis, S. S. (2015). The Globalization of World Politics An Introdution to
International Relations. Oxford University Press.
Kydd, A. (2005). Trust and Mistrust in International Relations. Princeton: Princeton
University Press.
Laymont, C. (2015). Research Methods in International Relations. London: SAGE.
Lieven, A. (2012). Pakistan A Hard Country. London: Penguin Group.
Lodhi, M. (2011). Pakistan Beyond The 'Crisis State'. Kararchi, Pakistan: Oxford
University Press.
Mahmood, S. (2002). Pakistan Political Roots & Development 1947-1999. Karachi,
Pakistan: Oxford University Press.
Mansbach, Y. H. (2012). Globalization The return of borders to a borderless world?
New York: Routledge.
Markey, D. S. (2014). No Exit From Pakistan America's tortured Relationship with
Islamabad. Delhi: Cambridge University Press.
Mohanty, N. (2013). America, Pakistan, and The India factor. New York: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Muhammad Ahsan, M. M. (2012). Academic Research, Writing and Publisihing.
Lahore: CLASSIC.
Nawaz, S. (2008). Crossed Swords Pakistan, its Army, and the Wars Within. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Nazar, Y. (2011). Balkanisation and the Political Economy of Pakistan. Karachi:
National News Agency.
Norris, C. (2004). Deconstruction. London: Routledge.
Norris, C. (2004). Deconstruction: Theory and Practice. London and New York:
Routledge.
192
Rajain, A. (2005). Nuclear Deterence In Southern Asia. Cina, India and Pakistan.
New Delhi: SAGE Publications.
Rashid, A. (2008). Descent Into Chaos The United States and the Failure of Nation
Building in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Centeral Asia. NewYork: Viking.
Riedel, B. (2011). Deadly Embrace Pakistan, America and The Future Of The Global
Jihad. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.
Riedel, B. (2011). Deadly Embrace Pakistan, America, and the Future of the Global
Jihad. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.
(Rizvi, The Military and Politics in Pakistan 1947-1997, 2000)
(Rizvi, Military, State and Society, 2003)
Sattar, A. (2013). Pakistan's Foreign Policy 1947-2012 A Concise History. Karachi:
Oxford University Press.
Schofield, U. B. (2012). Pakistan The US, Geopolitics and Grand Strategies. New
York: Pluto Press.
Scott-Clark, A. L. (2008). DECEPTION Pakstan, the United States, and the Secret
Trade in Nuclear Weapons. New York: Walker & Company.
Shah, A. (2014). The Army and Democracy Military Politics in Pakistan. Harvard
University Press.
Small, A. (2015). The China-Pakistan Axis Asia's New Geopolitics . New York:
Oxford University Press.
Sorensen, R. J. (2003). Introduction to International Relations Theories and
Approaches. New York: Oxford University Press Inc.
Syed, A. H. (1974). China & Pakisan Diplomacy of an Entente Cordiale . Amherst:
The University of Massachusetts Press.
193
Tahir-Kheli, S. (1982). The United States And Pakistan The Evolution Of An
Influence Relationship. New York: Praeger Publishers.
Journals
Afzal, A. M. (2015). Pakistan-US Relations: Looking Beyond War on Terrorism. The
Journal of Political Science, vol.27.15-25.
Ahmed, N. (2012). Re-defining US-Pakistan Relations. Pakistan Journal of
International Relations, VII(3), 211-233.
Akhtar, S. (2012). Dynamics of USA-Pakistan Relations in the Post 9/11 Period:
Hurdles and Future Prospects. International Journal of Humanities and Social
Science , 2(11), 205-213.
Ali, U. J. (2013). War on Terror Partnership: Problems and Prospects for Pkistan .
Journal of Political Studies, 51-66.
Asghar, A. (2015). Pak-U.S Relations Re-define after 9/11. International Research
Journal of Social Sciences, 4(1), 74-78.
Aslam, M. (2011). A critical evalution of American Predator strikes in Pakistan:
Legality, Legtimacy and Prudence. Critical Studies on Terrorism, 4, (3), 1-19.
Bhattacharya, S. (2016). US-Pakistan Relations in the Context of 21st Century. In S.
Bhattacharya, US Foreign Policy:Rise & Decline (pp. 70-88). New Dehli.
Byman, D. (2006). Remaking Alliances for the War on terrorism. The Journal of
Strategic Studies, 29(5), 767-811.
Coutto, L. S. (2015). U.S. Pakistan Relations during the Cold War. The Journal of
International Relations, Peace Studies and Development, Vol.1: Iss1, Article
6.
Faisal, M. (2016, August). Pakistan-US Relations: Impediments and the Way
Forward. CISS Insight: Quarterly News and Views, pp. 22-32.
194
Ganguly, S. P. (2007). The Transformation of U.S.-India Relations: An Explanation
for the Rapproachment and Prospects for the future. Asian Survey, 47,(4),
642-656.
Hussain, M. (2016). Pak-US Relations: An Historical Overview . Pakistan Journal of
History and Culture, Vol XXXVII,No. 2, 61-76.
Javaid, G. F. (July - December,2018). US Strategy in Afghanistan: Unprecendented
Closeness With India and Trust Deficits with Pakistan. Journal of the
Research Society of Pakistan, 239-251.
Javaid, U. (2005). Pakisatn's Non NATO Ally Status . Asian Profile, 69-75.
Javaid, U. (2006). Challenges and Opportunities for Pakistan after 9/11. Journal of
Central Department of Political Science, 112-122.
Javaid, U. (2011). The War on Terror: Pakistan's Apprehensions. African Journal of
Political Science and International Relations, 125-131.
Javaid, U. (2011). War on Terror Partnership: Effects, Concerns and Implictaions for
Pakistan and USA. Research Journal of International Studies, 85-92.
khan, J. (2010). US-Pakistan Relations: The Geo-strategic and Geopolitical Factors.
Canadian Social Science, 61-79.
Khan, Z. (2016). Strategic Conundrum Of US - China and India - Pakistan : A
Perspective. Margalla Papers, 37-61.
Mushtaq, U. J. (2014). Historical Perspective of Pakistan USA Relations: Lessons For
pakistan. A Research journal of South Asian Studies, 29( 1), 291-304.
Mustafa, F. B. (Autmn 2014). Pak-US Security Relations: Challenges & Prospects for
Pakistan. Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities: Volume 22, Number 2,
1-24.
195
Mustafa, F. B. (Volume 22, Number 2, Autmn 2014). Pak-US Security Relaton :
Challenges & Prospects for Pakistan. Journal of Social Sciences and
Humanities, 1-24.
M.Hoffman, A. (2002). A Conceptualization of Trust in International Relations .
European Journal of International Relations , 375-401.
Momani, B. (2004). The IMF, the U.S. war on terrorism and Pakistan. Asain Affairs,
Vol.31,No.1. 41-50.
News Papers
Gennace, J. (2017, January 21). US-Pakistan Relations after the Soviet Withdrawal
from Afghanistan: The Bush and Clinton Years. Retrieved April 23, 2020,
from The Daily Journalist:http://thedailyjournalist.com/the-historian/us-
pakistan-relations-after-the-soviet-withdrawal-from-afghanistan-the-bush-and-
clinton-years/
Rhode, D. (2004, March 19). U.S. Will Celebrate Pakistan As a 'Major Non-NATO
Ally'. Retrieved from The NewYork Times:
http://www.mobile.nytimes.com/2004/03/19/world/us-will-celebrate-pakistan-
as-a-majkor-non-nato-ally.html
Websites
Akins, H. (March 2018). Between Allies and Enemies : Explaining the Volatility of
the U.S.-Pakistan Relationship, 1947-2018. knoxville:
http://bakercenter.utk.edu/publications.
Clemmitt, M. (2011, August 5). U.S.-Pakistan Relations. Retrieved from CQ
Researcher , 653-676: http://Library.cqpress.com
Gilani, T. (2006). US-Pakistan Relations: The Way Forward. www.arz-e-
pak.com/documents/ebooks/GenTariqGilani-PakUsRelations.pdf: online.
196
Guney, A. (2008). A Brief Description Of Jacques Derrida‘s Deconstruction and
Hermenutics. e-Journal of New world Sciences Academy.
Hussain, T. (2005, August). U.S.-Pakistan Engagement The War on Terrorism and
Beyond. Retrieved from United States Institute of Peace: http://www.usip.org
Khan, M. (2014, June). Pakistan-U.S. Relations: A New Chapter, A New Theater.
Retrieved from www.issi.org.pk: http://www.issi.org.pk
Kronstadt, K. A. ( 2006, May 9). Pakistan-U.S. Relations. Retrieved from
Congressional Research Service: www.crs.gov
Kronstadt, K. A. ( 2009, February 6). Pakistan-U.S. Relations. Retrieved from
Congressional Research Service: http://www.crs.gov
Kronstadt, K. A. (2012, May 24). Pakistan-U.S. Relations. Retrieved from
Congressional Research Service: www.crs.gov
Robert C, S. a. (2003). Building Trust : In Business, Politics,Relationships and Life.
Oxford Scholarship Online.
Rolfe, G. (2004). Deconstruction in a Nutshell. In G. Rolfe, Nursing Philosophy (pp.
5, 274-276). http//:onlinelibrary.wiley.com: Blackwell Publising.
Sial, S. (2007, June 26). Pak-US A Balance Sheet of Relations. Retrieved from
Pakistan Institute of Peace Studies: http://www.SouthAsia.net
Tellis, A. J. (2010, January 07). U.S. strategy: Assisting Pakistan's transformation.
The Washinton Quarterly, pp. 97-116.
Waheed, A. W. (2017). Pakistan's Dependence and US Patronage: 'The Politics of
Limited Influence'. Journal of Asian Security and International Affairs, 4 (I)
69-94.
Walt, S. M. (2001/02). Beyond bin laden. Reshaping U.S. Foreign Policy.
Internatinal Security, 26, No.3, 56-78.
197
Wheeler, N. J. (2012). Trust-Building in International Relations. South Asian Journal
of Peace Building.
Reports
Gillani, S. Y. (2019, May 2). Speaker National Assembly ( ) . Prime Minister of
Pakistan 2008-19 June2012. (S. N. Shah, Interviewer)
Imam, S. F. (2019, April 28). Speaker National Assembly (1985-1986 ) . Chairman
kashmir commiittee 3/2/2019. (S. N. Shah, Interviewer)
Jones, D. G. (Feb 6, 2018). U.S.-Pakistan Relations : Reassesing Priorities Amid
Continued Challenges. House Committee on Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on
Asia and the Pacific (pp. 1-11). WASHINGTON, D.C.: Center For Strategic
and International Studies (CSIS).
Qureshi, S. M. (2019, May 4). Foreign MInister of Pakistan. (2008-2011). (2018-till
date). (S. N. Shah, Interviewer)
Shah, A. (2019, September 7). Discussing the complexes of Pak-U.S. relations (1979-
2015). (S. N. Shah, Interviewer)
Zia Mian, S. K. (2012, March). America's Pakistan. Retrieved from Middle East
Report Online: http://www.merip.org/mero/interventions/americas-pakistan
198
Appendices
Transcript of Questionnaire
1. What sort of relations Pakistan does have with United States of America since
its independence?
Good Congenial Bad Worse
2. Was assigning the SEATO/CENTO proved a permanent strategic wedlock for
future emerging ties between the two actors?
Yes No Neutral no idea
3. Does US know Pakistan was making a-bomb.
Yes No Neutral No idea
4. Does the Musharraf regime supported the US cause in the region?
Yes No Neutral No idea
5. Was in 2011 US Obama administration surgical strike In Pakistan the breach
of political sovereignty of Pakistan?
Yes No No idea
6. What type of relationship does Pakistan and United States of America usually
have?
Good Congenial Bad Worse
7. What are the complexes of Pakistan and United States of America relationship
regarding emerging International order and in south Asian perspective?
Trust Distrust Misperception No idea
8. How many attempts were made by the successive rulers of Pakistan to
improve its relationship with the United States?
Numerous Few Neutral No idea
199
9. When did Pakistan enjoy congenial Relationship with United States of
America?
During Democratic Governments
During Authoritarian Governments Neutral
10. How Pakistan and United States of America are interacting soon after 9/11?
Friendly like enemies Neutral
11. What were the reasons for problematic relationship?
Betrayal trust distrust
12. How do you see the future of Pak-U.S relations, as the United States of
America is withdrawing her troops from Afghanistan so she needs Pakistan no
more?
Good Bad Average No idea
13. How do you see the Role of Pakistan in the South Asian context of US
policy?
Major Minor supporting Betraying
Deconstructing the Dynamics of Relations: An Analytical Study of Pak-US Relations
(1979-2015)
200
Transcript of Interview
Interview with Syed Yousaf Raza Gillani. (Prime Minister of Pakistan 2008-
2013)
Reference : Gillani, S. Y. (2019, May 2). Speaker National Assembly ( ) . Prime
Minister of Pakistan 2008-19 June2012. (S. N. Shah, Interviewer)
Interview Questions:
1. What sort of relations Pakistan do have with United States of America since
its independence?
Ans. You have mentioned about the Pakistan us relations since 1979-2015
infect there have been ban-ban relations sometimes good and sometimes bad
and primarily because of mistrust. as there was no trust during Zia-ul-haq time
there had been sanctions upon Pakistan on the areas of defence and economy it
was known as pressler amendment because of the pressler amendment there
had been troubles in Pakistan during my tenure I was the speaker of NA and to
undo the pressler amendment there was a brown amendment for the brown
amendment I visited united states on the invitation of association of Pakistani
(doctors) they are almost a role opf lobbyist of Pakistan and they have links
with the congressmen and senators and they got me introduced to several
congressmen and senators along with the Maliha lodhi and Jalil Abbas jillani
the ambassador of Pakistan to US and also foreign secretary and that
amendment was passed therefore during our tenure we were working very
close with united states especially in the fields of economics and defuse as a
front line state we were fighting a war against terrorism and extremist and the
united states of Pakistan there CIA our ISI they were working together and all
high value targets of Alqaida they were achieved with the cooperation of CIA
and ISI therefore we have the closest relations and you must recording that
there must be economic package for Pakistan that was known as karry lugar
bill but there were doubts in the eyes of military that their economic assistance
was bracketed with democracies that is some misunderstanding but later it was
resolved and we have been fighting a war and there had been a collateral
damage and work with both presidents Bush and Ubama and I also had
201
worked with Condoleezza Rice and also worked with secretary Clinton and
policy is all the same and at the same time I was in the Government during the
time of president Bush I have good relations with them and with president
Ubama as well and during the nuclear conference in America and Seoul we
have the best of connotation but there was disturbance when SALALA event
took place and we stopped the supply roots as aftermath of salala incident near
afghan border also we boycotted the bonn conference and also we vacated the
shamsi airbase and we deferred the matter to parliament and the community to
national security and forgiving the terms of engagement of Pakistan with
united states and guessed all the decisions were made between the two
countries and we compelled with president Obama to apologize publically for
the mishap which he did and we stored the supply roots to the united states
But u must know that we know the importance of united states as we want to
work together with us and Benazir Bhutto she played a important role during
the Bush senior and Bibi‘s tenure she visited the united states and broke the
ice and we came little closer and PPP has been criticize for pro-western
policies with the us and EU that we were working very closer to them as
therefore during our government we also grabbed GSP plus status from
European union
A part from the successive dictatorial regimes we got good support from
united states
2. Was assigning the SEATO/CENTO proved a permanent strategic wedlock for
future emergent ties between the two actors?
Ans. It proved as temporary .
3. What were those dynamic necessities or strategic interests that made Pakistan
always a subservient to the United States?
Ans. The geostrategic location of Pakistan .
4. Why America? There was not any other power or nation to whom Pakistan
could be loyal.
Ans : it was the priority of people in power.
202
5. Is the terrorism in South Asia US-Pakistan strategic relations‘ product and if
then why?
Ans: no .
6. Why US trusted Pakistan for her economic and strategic concerns. And why
Pakistan remained in first grade diplomacy of the United States?
Ans: Yes of course.
7. Has US utilized to maximize and protect her regional and world political
interests on the cost of Pakistan‘s identity of ideological nation and how?
Ans: to some extent.
8. Always emphasizing on democracy then why the Pakistan military regimes
remained well-suited to the US options and strategies in the South Asia
region?
Ans; it could be coexistence.
9. US know Pakistan was making a-bomb then why it was not halted coercively
well in time? Was US courtesy with Pakistan and if then why?
Ans: As because Pak was ally of USA.
10. Was the US CIA constructively posed friendly to be silent on striving for
making an atomic the status of Pakistan?
Ans; to some extent.
11. Why the Musharraf regime supported the US cause in the region?
Ans; it was in the greater interest of Pakistan.
12. Was in 2011 US Obama administration surgical strike In Pakistan the breach
of political sovereignty of Pakistan?
Ans; NO answer.
13. Are the current deficits the real productions of Pakistan‘s practical loyalty
with the Superpower?
Ans; No it is because of multiple factors.
203
14. Currently where the US-Pakistan stand-on after assigning the CPEC?
Ans; Pakistan and United States are on same pages.
15. What type of relationship does Pakistan and United States of America usually
have?
Ans: Peaceful.
16. What are the complexes of Pakistan and United States of America relationship
regarding emerging International order and in south Asian perspective?
Ans. mutual distrust is the cause of Problematic relationship.
17. How many attempts were made by the successive rulers of Pakistan to
improve its relationship with the United States?
Ans: Our PPP government actively pursued the friendly policy with the United
States of America.
18. When did Pakistan enjoy congenial Relationship with United States of
America?
Ans: During the Peoples Government in Power.
19. How Pakistan and United States of America are interacting soon after 9/11?
Ans : A close ally in war on terror , which is also the Policy of our Party.
20. What were the reasons for problematic relationship?
Ans: misperceptions and distrust.
21. How do you see the future of Pak-U.S relations, as the United States of
America is withdrawing her troops from Afghanistan so she needs Pakistan no
more?
Ans : there would be some problems but both the parties have to manage as Pakistan
assisted US in the Global War on terror.
22. How do you see the Role of Pakistan in the South Asian context of US
policy?
204
Ans; Pakistan plays her vital role in south Asian context of South Asian
Politics .
Transcript of Interview
Interview with Shah Mehmood Qureshi. (Foreign Minister of Pakistan 2008-
2012)
Reference : Qureshi, S. M. (2019, May 4). Foreign MInister of Pakistan. (2008-2011).
(2018-till date). (S. N. Shah, Interviewer)
Interview Questions:
1. What sort of relations Pakistan does have with United States of America since
its independence?
Ans ; It is the global power, economy power, military power, technological
power and we had long relations with them for the last seven decades it had
ups and downs but it is an important relationship and Pakistan would like ‗to
have good bilateral relations with united states there is a convergence of
interests today we have which is peace and stability in Afghanistan and we are
collectively working to achieve that firstly secondly there is convergent of
interest averse extremism there is a convergence of interest to defeat terrorism,
for socio economic development of south Asia we clearly ready to work with
US
No, they have their foreign policy objectives remain constant
2. Was assigning the SEATO/CENTO proved a permanent strategic wedlock for
future emergent ties between the two actors?
Ans. Yes, for the time being.
3. What were those dynamic necessities or strategic interests that made Pakistan
always a subservient to the United States?
Ans. The strategic interest of United States of America.
4. Why America? There was not any other power or nation to whom Pakistan
could be loyal.
Ans: Because US is global hegemonic Power.
205
5. Is the terrorism in South Asia US-Pakistan strategic relations‘ product and if
then why?
Ans. No, it is not.
6. Why US trusted Pakistan for her economic and strategic concerns. And why
Pakistan remained in first grade diplomacy of the United States?
Ans. As it was need of that time.
7. Has US utilized to maximize and protect her regional and world political
interests on the cost of Pakistan‘s identity of ideological nation and how?
Ans. No, there was convergence of Interest between the two.
8. Always emphasizing on democracy then why the Pakistan military regimes
remained well-suited to the US options and strategies in the South Asia
region?
Ans. No, it is not like that.
9. US know Pakistan was making a-bomb then why it was not halted coercively
well in time? Was US courtesy with Pakistan and if then why?
Ans. It was in the longer strategic interest of USA to behave in that manner.
10. Was the US CIA constructively posed friendly to be silent on striving for
making an atomic the status of Pakistan?
Ans. No comments
11. Why the Musharraf regime supported the US cause in the region?
Ans. It was a need of that time.
12. Was in 2011 US Obama administration surgical strike In Pakistan the breach
of political sovereignty of Pakistan?
Ans. It was with the joint collaboration
206
13. Are two current deficits the real productions of Pakistan‘s practical loyalty
with the Superpower?
Ans. no, we cannot call it like that.
14. Currently where the US-Pakistan stand-on after assigning the CPEC ?
Ans. CPEC is a game changer for Pakistan, economic zones are to build under
this agreements I do not see it will impact the US Pakistan relations severely.
It is an opportunity for everyone American investors can come and invest.
15. What type of relationship does Pakistan and United States of America usually
have?
Ans. Friendly.
16. What are the complexes of Pakistan and United States of America relationship
regarding emerging International order and in south Asian perspective?
Ans. Not such.
17. How many attempts were made by the successive rulers of Pakistan to
improve its relationship with the United States?
Ans: It depended upon the Governments in Power.
18. When did Pakistan enjoy congenial Relationship with United States of
America?
Ans. Most of the time in the history Pakistan had good relationship with
America.
207
19. How Pakistan and United States of America are interacting soon after 9/11?
Ans. The alliance between the two became more fortified as the interest of the
both states converged with each other.
20. What were the reasons for problematic relationship?
Ans. The problematic between the two relationship was the result of
misperception between the two allies.
21. How do you see the future of Pak-U.S relations, as the United States of
America is withdrawing her troops from Afghanistan so she needs Pakistan no
more?
Ans: the future of Pakistan US relation is bright as US and Pakistan on same
pages on this issue.
22. How do you see the Role of Pakistan in the South Asian context of US
policy?
Ans: Pakistan plays a major and significant role in the regional policy of US
regarding South Asia.
Transcript of Interview
Interview with Syed Fakher Imam. (chairman Kashmir committee, former
speaker and minister )
Reference :Imam, S. F. (2019, April 28). Speaker National Assembly (1985-1986 ) .
Chairman kashmir commiittee 3/2/2019. (S. N. Shah, Interviewer)
208
Interview Questions:
1. What sort of relations Pakistan do have with United States of America since
its independence?
Ans ; there has been a long history of Pakistan US relationship and most of
the time Pakistan enjoyed congenial relationship with America along with
several ups and downs in relationship.
2. Was assigning the SEATO/CENTO proved a permanent strategic wedlock for
future emergent ties between the two actors?
Ans. No, the alliances were not provided the permanent strategic alliance with
the US.
3. What were those dynamic necessities or strategic interests that made Pakistan
always a subservient to the United States?
Ans. The geo strategic location of Pakistan made her significance manifold to
the united states of America.
4. Why America? There was not any other power or nation to whom Pakistan
could be loyal.
Ans. because she was the suitable state which the Pakistan leaders thought can
assist Pakistan achieving her objectives.
5. Is the terrorism in South Asia US-Pakistan strategic relations‘ product and if
then why?
Ans. no, its not.
6. Why US trusted Pakistan for her economic and strategic concerns. And why
Pakistan remained in first grade diplomacy of the United States?
Ans. Pakistan geo political location compelled her to do so.
7. Has US utilized to maximize and protect her regional and world political
interests on the cost of Pakistan‘s identity of ideological nation and how?
209
Ans. yes, we can say it like that.
8. Always emphasizing on democracy then why the Pakistan military regimes
remained well-suited to the US options and strategies in the South Asia
region?
Ans. it is because there was coincidence that whenever US has congenial
relation with Pakistan there was military rule in Pakistan.
9. US know Pakistan was making a-bomb then why it was not halted coercively
well in time? Was US courtesy with Pakistan and if then why?
Ans. US wanted to contain the Soviet Union and that purpose compelled her to
overview Pakistan nuclear program.
10. Was the US CIA constructively posed friendly to be silent on striving for
making an atomic the status of Pakistan?
Ans. yes, of course.
11. Why the Musharraf regime supported the US cause in the region?
Ans. it was need of time.
12. Was in 2011 US Obama administration surgical strike In Pakistan the breach
of political sovereignty of Pakistan?
Ans. yes, it was.
13. Are the current deficits the real productions of Pakistan‘s practical loyalty
with the Superpower?
Ans. no, it is about the achievement of vested national interest of Pakistan.
14. Currently where the US-Pakistan stand-on after assigning the CPEC?
Ans. CPEC had some negative impact upon Pakistan US relations but there
alliance has historically ups and downs.
15. What type of relationship does Pakistan and United States of America usually
have?
Ans. they have friendly relationship.
210
16. What are the complexes of Pakistan and United States of America relationship
regarding emerging International order and in south Asian perspective?
Ans. distrust between the two is a major cause of problematic relationship
between the two states.
17. How many attempts were made by the successive rulers of Pakistan to
improve its relationship with the United States?
Ans: Various attempts have been made by the different rulers of Pakistan to
improve the problematic relationship of Pakistan and America.
18. When did Pakistan enjoy congenial Relationship with United States of
America?
Ans. whenever united states needed Pakistan the relation between the two
were good.
19. How Pakistan and United States of America are interacting soon after 9/11?
Ans. It was a marriage of convenience has United States need Pakistan and its
war against terror
20. What were the reasons for problematic relationship?
Ans. the dual policy of United States of America was a main cause of a
problematic the relationship between the two.
21. How do you see the future of Pak-U.S relations, as the United States of
America is withdrawing her troops from Afghanistan so she needs Pakistan no
more?
Ans. the relationship tended to become more worse.
22. How do you see the Role of Pakistan in the South Asian context of US
policy?
Ans. Pakistan has significant role to play in south Asia as Pakistan once
considered as major non NATO ally of America.
211
Transcript of Interview
Interview with Ahmed Shah. (Vice President Rovi , American National )
Reference: Shah, A. (2019, September 7). Discussing the complexes of Pak-U.S.
relations (1979-2015). (S. N. Shah, Interviewer)
Interview Questions:
1. What sort of relations Pakistan do have with United States of America since
its independence?
Ans. Pakistan has have very long relationship with United States since 1947 as
it got independence and started as a country. that formed from India-Pak
subcontinent over the course of years, as United States emerged as one of the
Super Powers it increase its influence in the region and became very clear that
India was being somewhat resistant to foreign influence United States reached
out and stared creating alliance with Pakistan but this did not take off until
after Russia invasion in Afghanistan.
2. Was assigning the SEATO/CENTO proved a permanent strategic wedlock for
future emergent ties between the two actors?
Ans; to some extent.
3. What was the nature and spirit of US-Pakistan relations during Zia‘s era?
Ans. I think thesis very good follow up on the previous conversation we were
having when Russia invaded Afghanistan, United States needed to have an
ally and someone that they can use to counter the invasion of Russia in
Afghanistan and Pakistan became an ideal candidate for that for many reasons
primarily being the fact that Pakistan was bordering country that became a
primary source of logistic support to take all the equipment and gear they were
providing to the resistant forces, they relied on Pakistan to create, train and
send those forces which were to became Taliban to run a proxy war at that
time and as a result they had to forge really good relationships with Pakistan
212
and at that time Zia ul Haq and his regime was an ideal candidate and
therefore we had a very reasonably long period of time when Pakistan and
United States has fantastic relationship and United States gave Pakistan a lots
of aid not only militarily but also to build the infrastructure which was then
used to provide equipment , gear, armaments and various other military
equipment‘s provide to Afghan rebels.
4. What were those dynamic necessities or strategic interests that made Pakistan
always a subservient to the United States?
Ans. the strategic location of Pakistan.
5. Why America? There was not any other power or nation to whom Pakistan
could be loyal.
Ans: I think it became circumstantial as we just have discussed earlier on at
that time two major Super Powers Russia and United States, when Russia
invaded Afghanistan and her attempt to gain influence in this region the only
logical option for America to come and alliance with Pakistan and Now on the
other hand no other alternative she had because Russia was already in
Afghanistan and Pak had to find an ally and that U.S. knowing and Pakistan
accepted that.
6. Is the terrorism in South Asia US-Pakistan strategic relations‘ product and if
then why?
Ans. No, its not.
7. Why US trusted Pakistan for her economic and strategic concerns. And why
Pakistan remained in first grade diplomacy of the United States?
Ans. because of geo political location of Pakistan.
8. Has US utilized to maximize and protect her regional and world political
interests on the cost of Pakistan‘s identity of ideological nation and how?
Ans. no, it was the marriage of convenience.
213
9. Always emphasizing on democracy then why the Pakistan military regimes
remained well-suited to the US options and strategies in the South Asia
region?
Ans. it may be co incidence.
10. US know Pakistan was making a-bomb then why it was not halted coercively
well in time? Was US courtesy with Pakistan and if then why?
Ans. it was the strategy of United states.
11. Was the US CIA constructively posed friendly to be silent on striving for
making an atomic the status of Pakistan?
Ans. may be.
12. Why the Musharraf regime supported the US cause in the region?
Ans; Excellent question I think in a way when looking at era 9,11 had just happened
and Bush had stood up and said ―Either u are with us or against us‖ and somewhere in
Pakistan was at the centre of all this because Afghanistan had started to became a
centre of terrorist activities and united states had come through Pakistan establishes
its places Pakistan really in a way do not had much of choice and they were either to
become an ally or to become a target, at that time Musharaf look at that and said that
―if he resist he might be invaded at the same time he saw it as an opportunity
Musharaf cooperated and once again that would open up US support under the name
of war on terror and the US gave assistance to Pakistan to use it as to build its
infrastructure.
13. Was in 2011 US Obama administration surgical strike In Pakistan the breach
of political sovereignty of Pakistan?
Ans. No, its not like that.
14. Are twhe current deficits the real productions of Pakistan‘s practical loyalty
with the Superpower?
Ans. no.
15. Currently where the US-Pakistan stand-on after assigning the CPEC?
Ans: That is very interesting observation you have made Pakistan has always
tried to build relationship with a local power which was china from their core
214
at one time united states and Russia were big super powers when china also
started to exert influence in as we know that India and china were at odds due
to borders issues such similarly china saw that as an opportunity to creating
balance in the region and they reached out and build relationship with Pakistan
in early day and that relationship always existed. More recently CPEC became
the next step of the relationship of Pakistan and china as u know last few years
china had really stepped up and they had started to exert their influence
because some people believe that china wants to be the super power of the late
21st century so they see that has an ideal way for them to counter the power of
rising india on the one hand and on the other hand china started to build
infrastructure projects in Pakistan to create a stronger relationship between
china and Pakistan. They intended to accomplish three goals 1. They want to
create strong counter balance to india 2.they want to started making alliance
Pakistan in a way attempt to take this relationship between Pakistan US away
so that they can become more influential power. 3 china has great economic
vision for the region and they see CPEC as a way to open up port all the way
through Pakistan and CPEC.
16. What type of relationship does Pakistan and United States of America usually
have?
Ans. friendly.
17. What are the complexes of Pakistan and United States of America relationship
regarding emerging International order and in south Asian perspective?
Ans. Donald trump has also announced to troops from Afghanistan. I feel
moving forward as a troops are started to go we will see a waning interest of
us with Pakistan at the same time us starting to set more closer with India so I
think in the long term this will have somewhat negative impact on Pak us
relationship the only thing I can see in moving forward if we do have an
increase in terrorism us can whoever the president they may have no other
alternative but to build comeback to Pakistan to use Pakistan against terrorism.
215
18. How many attempts were made by the successive rulers of Pakistan to
improve its relationship with the United States?
Ans. various attempts were made.
19. When did Pakistan enjoy congenial Relationship with United States of
America?
Ans. when the interest of both the states became similar.
20. How Pakistan and United States of America are interacting soon after 9/11?
Ans. a strategic ally.
21. What were the reasons for problematic relationship?
Ans. it might be distrust or misperception.
22. How do you see the future of Pak-U.S relations, as the United States of
America is withdrawing her troops from Afghanistan so she needs Pakistan no
more?
Ans: As long as us withdraws her troops from Afghanistan, us may not need
Pakistan to built in future she would needs to keep some sort of influence for 2
reasons 1. I think us wants to create a counter balance to keep check on India
2. There will still be terrorists outfits which wanted to counter power, it‘s
started to increase its influence.
23. How do you see the Role of Pakistan in the South Asian context of US
policy?
Ans. Pakistan plays a major role.
216
Map of South Asia
Source: http://www.maps-of-the-world.net/maps/maps-of-asia/detailed-political-
map-of-asia-continentwith-relief-2009.jpg
217
Soviet Map with South Asia
Source: http://www.maps-of-the-world.net/maps/maps-of-asia/soviet-union-east-and-
south-asia-large-map-
1987.jpg
218
South Asia with Major Cities
Source: http://www.maps-of-the-world.net/maps/maps-of-asia/detailed-political-
map-of-asia-with-allcapitals-and-major-cities-2008.jpg
219
Lists of Pictures
Image 2.1 the official visit of Bush administration while during the rule of
Mushraff .
Source:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan%E2%80%93United_St
ates_relations#/media/File:Bush_in_Islamabad,_Pakistan.jpeg
Image 2.2 Pervez Musharraf briefing with Bush in United States.
220
Source:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan%E2%80%93United_States_relations#/media/
File:2006_Musharaff_at_the_White_House.jpeg
Analysis: Mushraff along with Bush talks to U.S. media which is a clear sign of close
alliance between the two , on Friday, September 22, 2006 during a joint session of
press talk at the White House in the wake of GWOT.
Image : 3.1 George W Bush meets with then PM Manmohan Singh at the G8
Summit.
Source ―https://www.thequint.com/news/world/deqoded-indo-us-civil-nuclear-
deal-manmohansinghs-finest-hour”
Analysis: the picture depicts close friendship of the State‘s and India.
221
Image 3.2- Modi Hugs Obama at the IGI airport.
Source: Figure -Modi-obama-US and India marked historic day with Obama
visit to India.
Analysis: the picture depicts close friendship as the leaders of both the States
warmly welcomes the moves of each other and US signs historic nuclear deal as well.
Image 3.1 Benazir Bhutto paying state visit to the U.S., 1989.
Source:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan%E2%80%93United_States_relations#/media/
File:Prime_Minister_Benazir_Bhutto_1988.jpg
222
Image 3.2 Nawaz Sharif meets with William Cohen, Secretary of Defense
Source:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan%E2%80%93United_States_relations#/media/
File:Sharif_meets_Cohen_in_1998.jpg
Analysis: Prime Minister Sharif visited The States for the purpose to mend the
problematic relationship and met Defense Secretary of State on Dec 3 1998.
Image 3.2. Prime minister Gillani and Hillary Clinton in a meeting.
223
Source:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan%E2%80%93United_States_relations#/media/
File:Hillary_Rodham_Clinton_in_Pakistan.jpg
Image 4.1. Liaquat khan with Truman.
―Source:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan%E2%80%93United_States_relations#/media
/File:Nawabzada_Liaquat_Ali_Khan_President_Truman.jpg‖.
Explanation: The Picture depicts the initiation of friendly ties between
Pakistan and America.
224
Image 4.2 Ayub khan with President Kennedy on his visit to U.S.
―Source:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan%E2%80%93United_States_relations#.‖
Explanation: The picture is of Ayub khan visit to Washington Dc of 14 street
where the crowd is cheering for president Kennedy and Ayub khan.for the purpose to
rebuild the lost trust of America upon Pakistan as the US was allying with India and
overlooking Pakistan and her Interests in the US alliance with India where India also
adopted the Status of nonalignment and Pakistan was allied with the US.
225
Image 4.3 Ayub Khan welcomes President Johnson in Karachi
―Source:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan%E2%80%93United_States_relations#.‖
Analysis: President Johnson on his visit to Pak on 23rd
Dec 1967 . where he was on
his visit to Pak to review cold war rivalry with USSR and her alliance with Pak.
Image 4.4 . Then President Yahya Khan with President Richard Nixon, 1970.
―Source:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan%E2%80%93United_States_relations.‖
226
Explanation: The picture describes the closeness of Association Between the two
estranged allies during the rule of Yahya Khan.
Image 4. 5. ZA Bhutto meeting with President Richard Nixon in 1971.
―https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan%E2%80%93United_States_relations#/media/File:Me
eting_with_the_President_of_Pakistan_in_the_Oval_Office_-_NARA_-_194749.tif‖
Analysis: the picture depicts the meeting of ZA Bhutto with President Nixon in 1971.
]\
227
Image 5.1 Nawaz Sharif U.S. and meets President Obama and Prime Minister
Nawaz Sharif.
Source:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan%E2%80%93United_States_relations#/
media/File
Explanation: the picture depicts the attempts made by the respective
democratic governments to restore the trust among the estranged allies. Nawaz Sharif
is present at white house.
228
Image 5.2. PM Gillani with President Obama
Source: PM Gillani meets President Trump America provided a business export of
2.6$ billion in 2001 to 5.6 $ billion in 2009.by 2009 Pakistan. America is also the
largest credit provider in Pakistan (Schofield, 2012).
Instruments of Agreements
Fact Sheet: U.S.-India Defense Relationship
Context
The United States is committed to a long-term strategic partnership with India.
We respect India as a regional and emerging global power as well as a provider of
regional security. We see a growing convergence with India on our strategic outlook
for the Asia-Pacific region and India‘s role in shaping the Asian landscape.
The past decade has been particularly transformative in the bilateral
relationship, culminating in President Obama‘s successful January trip to New Delhi
as the Chief Guest for India‘s 66th Republic Day celebrations. The president‘s visit
resulted in several key defense outcomes, including finalizing the 2015 Framework
for the U.S.-India Defense Relationship. This Framework provides our two nations
229
with guiding principles for defense engagement for the coming decade, including our
military exchanges and exercises, a promising outlook on defense trade, and
increasingly close consultations on regional security issues and maritime security.
U.S.-India Defense Relationship: Recent Milestones
2005
The United States and India sign the New Framework for the India-U.S.
Defense Relationship, ushering in a decade of tremendous growth in the defense
relationship and setting the U.S. and India on a path to increasingly broad, complex
and strategic cooperation.
2012
Secretary Panetta appoints then Deputy Secretary of Defense Carter to lead a bold,
new initiative now known as the Defense Technology and Trade
Initiative (DTTI). DTTI, launched in 2012, is an unprecedented joint endeavor that
brings sustained leadership focus to the bilateral defense trade relationship, creates
opportunities for U.S.-India co-production and co-development, and fosters more
sophisticated science and technology cooperation, all while ensuring that bureaucratic
processes and procedures do not stand in the way of the progress.
2014
President Obama and former Prime Minister Singh endorse the India-U.S.
Declaration on Defense Cooperation, a document that reflects the United States'
and India's commitment to a long-term strategic partnership, through which our
countries cooperate to increase the security and prosperity of our citizens and the
global community.
2015
230
President Obama travels to India as Chief Guest for India's 66th Republic Day
Celebrations. The visit results in key several defense outcomes, including:
The completion of the 2015 Framework for the U.S.-India Defense Relationship,
which will guide and expand our nations' bilateral defense and strategic partnership
over the next 10 years;
Agreement to pursue four pathfinder projects under the DTTI as well as
cooperation on Aircraft Carriers and Jet Engine Technology; and
Joint Strategic Vision for the Asia-Pacific and Indian Ocean Region, which
affirms the shared vision for promising prosperity and stability in the region.
Key Partnership Activities
Defense Technology and Trade Initiative (DTTI)
The DTTI seeks to deepen defense cooperation between India and the United States
by elevating dialogue on cooperative research & development and defense trade to
the highest levels of government.
As a key outcome from President Obama's January visit to India, the United States
and India decided to pursue four pathfinder DTTI projects for possible co-
development and/or co-production, as well as cooperation on aircraft carriers and jet
engine technology. Since that time, the United States and India have reached
agreement to implement two government-to-government DTTI projects: Mobile
Electric Hybrid Power sources and Next Generation Protective Ensembles for chem-
bio protection.
Maritime Security
As strategic interests continue to converge in the Indian Ocean and Asia Pacific
regions, both President Obama and Prime Minister Modi have highlighted maritime
security as a key area of cooperation.
231
Naval engagements, such as the bilateral MALABAR exercise, improve the
cooperation of U.S. and Indian maritime forces and contribute to both sides' ability to
counter threats at sea, from piracy to violent extremism. These engagements also
present opportunities to engage with other partners. Knowledge Partnership in
Defense Studies
During President Obama's January trip to India, the president and Prime Minister
Modi launched the U.S.-India Knowledge Partnership in Defense Studies. The leaders
welcomed the initiative as a new area of defense cooperation that will serve to expand
our bilateral defense relationship, build greater linkages in the field of professional
military education, and strengthen our people-to-people ties.
Building linkages in professional military education is a strategic priority recognized
in the 2015 Framework for the U.S.-India Defense Relationship.
PAKISTAN SPECIFIC U.S. LEGISLATIONS
Symington Amendment: Adopted 1976. Sec. 101 of the Arms Export Control Act,
formerly Sec. 669 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 as amended.
Prohibits most U.S. assistance to any country found trafficking in nuclear enrichment
equipment or technology outside of international safeguards. President Jimmy Carter
found Pakistan in violation of the Symington amendment in 1979 because of
Islamabad's construction of a uranium enrichment plant. U.S. aid to Islamabad was
possible between 1982 and 1990 only through the use of presidential waivers.
Glenn Amendment: Adopted 1977. Sec. 102(b) of the Arms Export Control Act,
formerly Sec. 670 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 as amended.
Prohibits U.S. foreign assistance to any non-nuclear-weapon state (as defined by the
nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty) that, among other things, detonates a nuclear
explosive device. President Bill Clinton imposed Glenn amendment sanctions against
232
India on May 13, 1998, on its nuclear explosion of 11th
May. President Clinton
invoked similar sanctions against Pakistan on May 30, 1998, following Islamabad's
retaliatory detonation on 28th
May.
Pressler Amendment: Enacted in 1985. Sec. 620E[e] of the Foreign Assistance Act
of 1961 as amended.
The Pressler Amendment stipulated that most military and economic assistance to
Pakistan could only be authorized after an annual certification by the U.S. president
that Pakistan did not possess a nuclear explosive device and that the provision of U.S.
aid would significantly reduce the risk of Pakistan possessing such a device. The
President George H.W. Bush did not offer certification in 1990, resulting into a series
of punitive measures including banning most of the economic and military assistance
to Pakistan. Pressler amendment prohibitions damaged the most to U.S.-Pakistan
relations.
Brownback I: Adopted 1998. The India-Pakistan Relief Act of 1998, incorporated
into the fiscal 1999 omnibus appropriations bill (Public Law 105-277).
Provides the president with authority to waive, for a period of one year, Glenn,
Symington and Pressler amendment sanctions on India and Pakistan, except for those
pertaining to military assistance, dual-use exports and military sales.
Brownback II: Adopted 1999. Incorporated into the fiscal year 2000 defense
appropriations bill (Public Law 106-79).
The president was authorized to waive off provisions of the Glenn, Symington and
Pressler amendments with respect to India and Pakistan. It States that the broad
application" of export controls on Indian and Pakistani government agencies and
private companies suspected of having links to their country's nuclear or missile
programs is "inconsistent" with the national security interests of the United States,
233
and urges the application of U.S. export controls only against agencies and companies
that make "direct and material contributions to weapons of mass destruction and
missile programs and only to those items that can contribute to such programs.47
October 1999-"Democracy Sanctions: After Musharraf's October 12, 1999, coup,
Congress invoked Section 508 of the Foreign Assistance Act, prohibiting all U.S.
economic and military aid toward Pakistan.
Post 9/11 Waivers: President George W. Bush waived the Glenn, Symington, and
Pressler sanctions under the authority given to him by the legislation known as
Brownback II. Congress voted to allow President Bush to waive the "democracy
sanctions" imposed on Pakistan through September 30, 2003. These democracy
sanctions have since been waived annually.
December 2004: Ackerman Amendment: This amendment to the Intelligence
Authorization Act requires the CIA, over a five-year period, to make annual reports to
Congress about Pakistan's nuclear activities, democratic development, and counter
terror efforts.
