Time for a new type of association
Governments in Pakistan treating the country as a national security state have turned for help to the US for political support, arms and ammunition and economic aid. As the welfare of the people was of a secondary consideration the economic aid received had little impact on the lives of the common people. Certain factors associated with Pak-US relations also alienated the people and contributed to the growth of an anti-US sentiment in Pakistan. The US administrations being content with the support provided by the government cared little for the opinion of the masses.
Successive US administrations developed close ties with Pakistan’s governments whenever strategic reasons required this. Once the American goals were achieved, the special relationship came to an end. The governments in Pakistan failed to realise that the US helped them not out of any altruistic motive but because Pakistan was in a position to fulfil some of its urgent needs. Also ignored was the fact that the US was keen to pursue its own strategic interests rather than those of Pakistan. The military or economic aid was considered by Washington as payment for the work done. The US often acted as a master rather than friend which irked Pakistani leaders who then complained against the US.
The patterns of relationship were set during the first phase of Pak-US ties which began within years of the creation of Pakistan and continued till the Ayub era. Over the last fifty odd years the US bolstered three military regimes comfortably forgetting its avowed commitments to democracy.
Pakistan’s military started dominating the political landscape while remaining in the background in early ‘50s. Being in need of arms and ammunition, it was keen to court the US, which had replaced the United Kingdom as the major world power after WWII.
The US on its part wanted allies against the Soviet Union. In 1949 the US Joint Chiefs of Staff had already taken note of the strategic importance of Pakistan as a base for air operations against the USSR. Pakistan was subsequently drawn into defence pacts that included Seato and Baghdad Pact, subsequently renamed Cento. The country received military aid in return.
Within years of the alliance Washington was to support the military takeover by Ayub Khan. What the people of Pakistan got as a result was dictatorship. Political parties were disbanded, their leaders arrested, civil liberties curtailed and the media put in chains.
Anti-communism being the centrepiece of the US policy, Pakistan too had a taste of McCarthyism. The Communist Party was banned, trade unions were suppressed and communist literature was proscribed. An anti-US sentiment came into existence
The common man was also unhappy with the country’s new foreign policy. The Arab world, which was held in high esteem in Pakistan, considered the Baghdad pact ‘the first stab in our back’. Pakistan’s initial policy on Suez Canal led to protests inside Pakistan. A little later the US emerged as the strongest supporter of Israel. This was to become a major complaint against the US.
When the American wheat was sent with “Thank You America” emblazoned on bags, this was widely considered to be a slight. Pakistan’s establishment complained that the US had failed to come to its help in the 1965 war, forgetting that this was not a part of the bargain. The common man, who was fed on lies regarding friendship with the US, also considered this an act of betrayal. Ayub Khan soon found that the US attitude was humiliating.
America’s relations with ZAB’s elected government were less than warm. Many people in Pakistan ascribed the overthrow of the PPP government to Washington’s unhappiness over Bhutto’s nuclear program. Washington’s ties with Ziaul Haq’s military regime after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan again followed the same old pattern. The invasion had provided the US an opportunity to avenge its defeat in Vietnam. Pakistan was best suited to play a key role in America’s victory in Afghanistan,
Zia had become a pariah in the international community as a result of the military coup which led to Bhutto’s hanging. He had introduced the worst form of repression in the country. Lacking legitimacy, he sought the support of the religious parties by enacting laws that degraded women and led to the persecution of the minorities. But Zia still lacked international support and was willing to help the US in Afghanistan to get it.
The alliance with the US strengthened the military dictator while it led to further heightening the anti-US sentiment in the country. What the people got from the relationship was the endorsement of a repressive regime, three million Afghan refugees, the country flooded with lethal weapons and induction of the deadly heroin by the so called mujahideen. The jihadis funded by the US and Saudi Arabia and trained by ISI were to subsequently turn into present day terrorist groups that have killed over 50,000 civilians and army men.
The US and is allies fully supported Zia in violation of their avowed love for democracy, human rights and opposition to religious persecution. There was a recurrence of the familiar patterns of relationship under Musharraf also. Like his military predecessor, Musharraf too was keen to come out of international isolation imposed after his overthrow of the elected PML-N government.
The US wanted an end to terrorism which accorded with the wishes and interests of the people of Pakistan. This led the left and the liberal sections of society also to support the two policies. For the first time in the history of relations with Pakistan, Washington was seen doing something laudable
After 9/11 the US wanted to overthrow the Taliban regime in Kabul. Due to Pakistan’s proximity to Afghanistan and the information and links possessed by the ISI, Musharraf was considered the best tool. Once the military ruler agreed to help in the war on terror, the man who was being treated as an ‘untouchable’ by the US and its allies suddenly turned into a celebrity.
Under the PPP government (2008-2013) two new developments, this time positive, emerged in Pak-US relations. For the first time some of the interests of the people of Pakistan seemed to coincide with those of the US. Washington showed keenness to support democracy. While this happened only after the army stopped cooperating with Washington in the war on terror, this was a welcome development. Democracy survived due to greater maturity in politicians, support from the civil society and Supreme Court, and on account of international support.
Again, the US wanted an end to terrorism which accorded with the wishes and interests of the people of Pakistan. This led the left and the liberal sections of society also to support the two policies. For the first time in the history of relations with Pakistan, Washington was seen doing something laudable.
For a number of years there was opposition from the army leadership to the dismantling of the terrorist network. ISI chief Shuja Pasha considered Baitullah Meshud a patriot and the militants in tribal areas Pakistan’s assets in case of war with India. There was reluctance to take action against the Haqqani network as it was considered an asset in the post-US withdrawal Afghanistan. Gen Kayani suspected the US of planning to lay hands over Pakistan’s nuclear stockpile. The perception was strengthened by a number of reports appearing in the US media
The situation has radically changed after Gen Raheel Sharif took over command as the new COAS. An operation has been launched in North Waziristan Agency and a national action plan drawn to eliminate terrorism has been put into action.
It is time for a new type of relationship between the US and Pakistan. Pakistan needs to uproot all terrorist networks from its soil who target any country in the world. Equally important is to fight extremism in all its forms in shapes. Instead of seeking US aid Pakistan should concentrate on developing its economy. To expand trade and live in peace it has to improve relations with its neighbours. Pakistan, with a population of about 200 million and on road to progress, cannot be ignored by the international community. It should meanwhile seek friendly relations with the US as with other big powers like the EU, China and Russia. The old patterns of relations requiring reliance on the US have become obsolete and unworkable. What is required is a paradigm shift.
