1

12
INTRODUCTION

● Every “great leap forward” Pakistan has taken in “appeasing” Washington “has been
followed by two steps backwards.” This time, however, it could be an
● Vaciliated between good and bad
● Pakistan has no permanent importance for Washington, nor any lasting place in its
foreign policy. Pakistan’s importance has varied according to fluctuating American
interests in the region, putting it sometimes alongside Washington, and sometimes
against it. Even when the two countries were fully aligned, there were different reasons
for that. No wonder each side’s interests have historically been met only partially, and at
the cost of some other important interests. That is why the relationship never really
enjoyed a strategic consensus in either country, nor did it develop enduring public
support.
● The two countries’ diverging interests kept their alliance mostly transactio​nal. The latest
example is the United States’ 17-year-long war in Afghanistan.
● It is not Pakistan but its services that have been important to the US.

HISTORY
Bittersweet Frenemies
Pakistan has been allied with the United States since the era of SEATO (South-East Asia Treaty
Organization) and CENTO (Central Treaty Organization). This alliance, though
off-again-on-again, was further cemented following the 1978 Saur Revolution in Afghanistan,
which paved the way for military intervention by the Soviet Union in December 1979.

More recently, Pakistan was given the status of a non-NATO ally of the United States following
the 9/11 terrorist attacks. That devastating event forced the world’s sole superpower to topple
the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, from where the al-Qaeda terrorist network masterminded the
attacks in Washington D.C. and New York City.

THE IR THEORY EXPLAINING THE RELATION

As per conventional wisdom about small states and their foreign policy formation, neo-realism or
systemic and structural-level theories provide rich insight to predict small states’ foreign policy
priorities given their focus on the dynamics between ‘power’ and ‘security’. According to the
neo-realists​, small states are driven to form alliances with big powers due to their external
constraints, more specifically motivated by their ‘security’ concerns rather than by their domestic
or internal compulsions.

Historically at first glance, Pakistan’s case appears to be a simple case of a small state seeking
an alliance with a big state like the United States to maximise its security through economic and

1
2

M.HASSAN
032166073
 2

military assistance during the duration of the alliance.

MAIN IRRITANTS
● US PRESIDENT’S AFGHAN POLICY AND TOUGH STANCE ON PAKISTAN, 2017,
○ "We have been paying Pakistan...."
○ Pakistan Response
■ Pak FM postponed meeting with US State Official, Alice Wells
■ Cozying up to Russia, China, Turkey, M.East
● The Indian Factor/ Indo-US bonhomie
○ America - Indo trade: Trump and Modi leaderships have been at the centre of a
robust Indo-US economic alliance. Bilateral trade crossed​ $142 billion in 2018,
long considered to be en route to the $500 billion mark.
○ For an American president, for the first time, to formally call on India to deepen its
footprint on territory that Pakistan claims New Delhi already uses for
anti-Pakistan activities—this is nothing short of a nightmare scenario for
Pakistan.
○ Conventional arms deal with the US and Civil-Nuclear cooperation
○ INDIAN PRESENCE
■ Soft Presence
● Construction of Afghan Parliament
● Roads
● 5000 scholarships
● $3 billion invested
■ Hard Presence
● Indo-Afghan Strategic Partnership 2012 Agreement
● Training of more than 35000 Afghan soldiers
● Weapons and helicopters
■ Intelligence
● RAW-NDS nexus ...77 percent of NDS recruits from India
● Attack on Chinese consulates by the BLA in Karachi
● PC Gwadar attack
● Khulbushe Yadev’s Revelations
● US AID
○ According to the Center for Global Development, the United States gave nearly
$67 billion to Pakistan between 1951 and 2011
○ reached a new low in January when President Donald Trump suspended US
security assistance to Islamabad over the alleged presence of Afghan militant
groups in Fata.
○ The Trump administration recently froze some $255 million in aid to Pakistan for
continuing to harbour “terrorists” – in this case, Afghan Taliban.
○ CSF

M.HASSAN
032166073
 3

■ $800 million that have been withheld by the US as part of the Coalition
Support Fund (CSF) that undermines Pakistan’s ability to execute
anti-terrorist operations
By cancelling and refusing to reimburse Pakistan with the ​$300 million
■
Coalition Support Fund (CSF) money — wrongly labelled as ‘aid’ by many
— Washington,
■ This $300 million CSF fund is legitimately owed to Pakistan given its
commendable sacrifices in the war on terror
● TRUMP’S TWITTER OUTRAGE
○ "We have been paying Pakistan billions and billions of dollars at the same time
they are housing the very terrorists that we are fighting," the US president
claimed. "That will have to change and that will change immediately."
○ The first volley of words came during an interview with Fox News, when out of
nowhere ​Trump blasted Pakistan for not doing a “damn thing” for the
United States​, despite receiving billions of dollars in aid.
○ Khan’s Response:​ the US should do a serious assessment of why, despite
140,000 Nato troops plus 250,000 Afghan troops and reportedly $1 trillion spent
on war in Afghanistan, the Taliban today are stronger than before,” Imran Khan
said in a tweet.
○ Intriguingly, Trump chose to up the ante at a time when his administration is
engaged in direct talks with the Afghan Taliban.
○
● CPEC
○ Mike Pompeo: ​An arrogant warning by US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo that
an IMF bailout of Pakistan must not be used to help repay Chinese debts that
Pakistan has incurred under CPEC has made clear that the incoming PTI
government will have little time to adjust to the realities of power at the national
and international levels.
○ The US defence secretary’s statement that, “Washington cannot support
connectivity projects that raise ​sovereignty concer​ns” visibly smells of Indian tilt
and support when it comes to dealing with Pakistan.
○ Alice Will's scratching criticism of the CPEC
● PROXIES AND HAQQANIS
○ “We have expressed our concern over the fact that terrorist proxy groups
continue to be able to enjoy safe haven in Pakistan,” the State Department’s
Alice Wells sa​id. “We are urging the government to do more to bring pressure to
bear against these organizations and externally-oriented terrorist groups.” Wells
is the head of the South and Central Asian bureau at the State Department.
○ Responding to the allegations that the Afghan Taliban are using Pakistani
territory, the then Foreign Minister of Pakistan, Khwaja Asif had responded:
“​They do not need our territory anymore. Almost 40 per cent of Afghan territory
is now under the direct control of the Taliban,” ​he told BBC.
M.HASSAN
032166073
 4

○
● A History of Hard Tactics
○ “​Hard tactics​” currently being pursued such as the FATF “grey-listing”, Coalition
Support Fund, Nuclear Suppliers Group and IMET military training cuts.
■ The problem with deploying “hard tactics” in diplomacy is that they rapidly
erode bilateral political capital and goodwill in​ a region that in this
case already geo-strategically pivots towards the East.
■ “​Soft diplomacy​” would have been a wiser option for Washington in a
genuine battle for “winning hearts and minds”.
● Ethnic Environment of Afghanistan and American Blunder
○ For its part Pakistan historically gave good advice to the Americans to which they
failed to listen — namely that by​ alienating the Pashtun who have a national
majority, and aligning with the Tajik-led Northern Alliance ​as well as not
engaging with what at the time were regarded as ‘moderate’ Taliban who had
direct experience of governance in the Afghan context, the ground was prepared
for the bloody morass that has developed
● TRUMP’S SOUTH ASIAN STRATEGY
○ “The president was clear that he’s not setting any arbitrary ​timelines​,” Mr Tillerson said. “Our
patience is not unlimited.”

○ President Trump`s new strategy for Afghanistan, which he announced in an address to his nation
on Monday night, also warned against the possibility of ​Pakistan`s nuclear weapons​ falling into
the hands of terrorists and being used against the United States.

○ Called upon Pakistan to `demonstrate its commitment to civilisation, order and to peace` and
identified the country a ​safe haven​ for `agents of chaos, violence and terror`

○ He added insult to injury ​by urging India to play a greater role​ in Afghanistan, ignoring
Islamabad`s fears that New Delhi might use its growing influence there to stir trouble in Pakistan.

○ Threats for Pakistan in the Strategy

■ Third, the US has reportedly formulated plans to ‘seize or destroy’ ​Pakistan’s nuclear
capabilities in a crisis​. Obviously, its special forces in Afghanistan are likely to be used
for this purpose.

■ Fourth, Russia and Iran are openly suspicious of the US relationship with​ IS/Daesh.​ It is
strange that IS has emerged in Afghanistan under America’s watch. It could spread from
Afghanistan to neighbouring countries. It requires a collective effort, including Afghan
Taliban cooperation, to eliminate this virulent brand of terrorism.

■ Second, the US has obviously not ‘done enough’ to eliminate the​ TTP, JuA, IS​ and
affiliated terrorist groups which conduct cross-border attacks on Pakistan from their
Afghan ‘safe havens’. It is plausible that the US has endorsed Indian-sponsored terrorism
against Pakistan, perhaps to disrupt the CPEC project.

● THE US SEES PAKISTAN THROUGH THE AFGHAN PRISM

M.HASSAN
032166073
 5

UNITED STATES OPTIONS FOR COERCING PAKISTAN TO FALL IN LINE WITH ITS
DEMANDS
● Financial sanction
○ According to Professor Joshua Whit of Johns Hopkins University’s School of
Advanced International Studies, the ​United States can make use of its
influence in international financial organizations to pressure Pakistan. The
United States has a strong voice in both the World Bank and Asia
Development Bank, for instance.​ ​I
● State sponsor of terror
● Drone
○ 472 Pakis have been killed since 2010 in Drones
● Hot pursuits
● Evoking Status as MNNA, major non NATO ally
○ Military equipment
○ Already stopped sale of F 16s
● ECONOMIC
○ FTAF
○ IMF

PAKISTAN EFFORTS FOR AFGHAN PEACE

● Afghan Peace
○ Islamabad released a number of high-level Taliban prisoners, including the
movement’s co-founder, Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar. These prisoner releases
are widely seen as a US-directed move aimed at encouraging the Taliban to
participate in the talks.
○ Add more FROM THE AFGHAN PEACE DOCUMENT

RECENT HISTORY OF STRAINED PAK-US RELATION

● OBL
● R Davos
● U.S.-led NATO forces killed 28 Pakistani soldiers in a 2011 airstrike in Salala

OPTIONS FOR PAKISTAN

● DETERIORATING RELATIONS WITH THE US WILL PUSH PAKISTAN INTO A WIDE
OPEN EMBRACE OF CHINA AND MOSCOW / PAKISTAN’S OPTIONS
● CHINA
○ CPEC
○ TRADE

M.HASSAN
032166073
 6

■ The total volume of Pak-US bilateral trade is standing at $5.78 billion,

($142 billion with India) while bilateral trade between the two Asian
neighbors (Pak and China) amounts to a whopping $13.36 billion

● With the US
○ Supply routes
■ 67 percent of logistics of US military
■ Torkham and Chaman
○ Afghan Peace

WHY THE US NEEDS PAKISTAN?

● Afghan peace
● Ensuring safety of Nukes
● Countering influence of China / reducing dependence of Pakistan on China
● Geographical significance of Pakistan
● Prospective market of US weapons
● Counter- terror cooperation

WHY PAKISTAN NEEDS THE US?

● USA’S influence in international financial institutions
● For resolution of the Kashmir dispute
● Purchase of sophisticated weapons
● Political clout of the US
● NON-Nato ally of Pakistan
● American aid in the social sector
○ USAID
● Denying influence of India in Capitol Hill
● The US is a close ally of KSA and Middle Eastren countries

REGIONAL IMPLICATION
● MOSCOW AND BEIJING ARE INTERESTED IN DIALOGUE WITH THE TALIBAN
● Russia and China have spearheaded a series of talks to end the long-standing war
in 2016 and 2017. Washington has not taken part in any of the
China-Russia-Pakistan meetings on Afghanistan.

PAKISTAN’S REDUCED DEPENDENCE ON AMERICAN MILITARY EQUIPMENT

M.HASSAN
032166073
 7

●
● when Congress blocked sale of eight F-16s to Islamabad. So, Pakistan shifted its focus
from F-16s to the ​JF-17 fighter jets i​t is developing with China, and which is catching up
with the F-16 in terms of capabilities.
● Since 2010,​ US weapons exports to Pakistan have plummeted from $1 billion to
just $21 million last year. During the same period, those from China have also
fallen, but much more slowly, from $747m to $514m​, making China the biggest
weapons exporter to Pakistan.
● US President Donald Trump’s decision to suspend ​$2bn of military aid​ to Pakistan —
announced in January — further exacerbated the situation.
● In the 1980s and 1990s, Beijing provided supplies and technical knowledge to help
Pakistan develop its nuclear weapons, and in the early 1990s shocked Washington by
selling its neighbour more than 30 M-11 missiles, capable of carrying nuclear warheads.
● In October 2016, just a month after the US refused to subsidise new F-16s, ​Beijing
agreed to sell eight attack submarines to Pakistan for about $5bn —​ the biggest
single arms export deal in the country’s history.
● Pakistan purchased helicopters, MI 35 from Russia and joint military programs.

RECENT PUSH FOR PEACE IN AFGHANISTAN

● Khalilzad
● Mention from Afghan Peace document

RECENT IMPROVEMENT IN RELATIONS

1. Marked improvement in Pakistan’s security environment was a result of its successful
counterterrorism operations and efforts to secure the Pakistan-Afghanistan border.”
2. American Senator, Lindsy Graham.

M.HASSAN
032166073
 8

3. Trump’s letter to PMIK for role in Afghan reconciliation

4. PMIK’s visit to the US
a. 21-07-2019
b. Trump’s offer for mediation in Kashmir
5. President Donald Trump ​authorised the resumption of Pakistan's participation
in a US military training and educational progr​amme in order to strengthen
military-to-military cooperation on shared priorities and "advance US national
security", senior US diplomat Alice Wells said on Saturday. (December, 2019)
6. PAKISTAN'S role in the Afghan Peace
7. IK meets Trump at DAVOS january 20, 2020 (sidelines of World Economic Forum)

QUOTES
● Chinese FM
○ PAK has been at forefront of of global anti terror efforts her effort must be
acknowledged.
● US SENATOR, REPUBLICANS, LINDSY GRAHAM
○ A previously transactional relationship, based on rewards for services
rendered, should be replaced by “strategic engagement”, including a
free trade agreement, he said.
● Nikey halley
● Cameron munter
● Musharraf
● Farid zakria
● Hassan Abba's book: ​Pakistan's Drift Into Extremism: Allah, then Army, and
America's War Terror
● "I think the important takeaway for the Pakistani government last night is that, you know,
they should understand that they’re on notice from this president, from this
administration,"
○ National Security Council (NSC) Spokesman Michael Anton

RECOMMENDATIONS
● For Pakistan
○ Do More should be replied with No More: Pakistan has successfully
asserted its international standing
■ Secretary of State Rex W Tillerson delivered a threat to the Pakistani
leadership that if Pakistan didn’t “do more”, the US would neutralize the
enemy “in a different way”. “That’s not a threat”, the secretary believes.
With a shrug, he said, “It’s just a matter of fact”.

M.HASSAN
032166073
 9

■ Pakistan made it abundantly clear that it will not be obliged to “do more”, while
already navigating other diplomatic fronts in the region. Concrete examples
include membership to the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), reaping
benefits from the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), backing Iran under
the auspices of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), an outright
refusal to fight in Yemen, diplomatic rapprochement with Moscow, a campaign to
‘buy Turkish products’ (after the US-Turkey kerfuffle), hosting the Economic
Cooperation Organisation (ECO), negotiating anew the
Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India (TAPI) pipeline, the Central Asia-South
Asia (CASA) power project as well as a wider regional focus on Afghanistan
under the auspices of the quadrilateral mechanism with regional powers.
■ Settling trade dispute with Russai
○ The growing perception of a transactional, client state status is increasingly unpalatable
to average Pakistanis who aspire for a new, more equitable, mutually-beneficial
relationship with the US.
○ Boldly convey concerns regarding the Kashmir issue and India’s clamp down. The US
should be told how Kashmir issue is affecting the Afghan Peace process
○ The US should be told that the just as the American aid to Pakistan was not against the
Russian interests, the CPEC is not against any country. Moreover, CPEC is part of larger
BRI and it includes economic corridors in other countries too. If these corridors are not
posing any threat to regional security, how can CPEC pose a threat?
○ Safety of Nuclear programme
○ From a client state relation to a relation based on trade
○ Second, the government should employ effective soft power to persuade the US to
recognise our invaluable sacrifices rendered in the ongoing war on terror. The US
is fully aware that Pakistan has sacrificed more than 50,000 lives and lost over
$120 billion in the continuous war against terrorism and militancy
○ the US should be goaded into condemning brutal atrocities being committed by
Indian forces in Indian Occupied Kashmir (IOK). On account of its security and
economic objectives, Washington has always remained a silent spectator on
India’s oppressive policies in the valley. The underlying reason is that the US has
made India its strategic partner in order to contain China in South Asia and the
Indo-Pacific region. A
○
ANALYSIS
● Pakistan has to understand it is dealing with a capitalist country with an advanced democracy,
where foreign policy is heavily influenced by domestic politics and is produced by the mechanics
of many different pulls and pushes. Issues like terrorism, jihadism and a failing Afghanistan war
incited high public concern and put the spotlight on Pakistan.
● It is not Pakistan but its services that have been important to the US.
● But why has the relationship persisted​? Because at times both have faced challenges that neither
could solve without the other’s help. The US critically needed Pakistan’s intel and military help in
Afghanistan at the time of the final battle of the Cold War, and then post 9/11. And Pakistan’s
leadership at the time was desperate for the American embrace as it searched for security
assistance and aid for the troubled national economy. The relationship served some important
M.HASSAN
032166073
 10

strategic and security interests of the US. But its value for Pakistan remained questionable.
Between the military rule and the fallout of the US connection, Pakistan has never been the same
again.
● It has been alleged that the US wants persistence of conflict and seeks permanent presence in
Afghanistan.
●

M.HASSAN
032166073