Pakistan and United states Relations 2.PPT

PAK-US
RELATIONS

Cold war -Bipolar world
•.
Capitalism/
Containment of
communism
Communism/
Expansion of
communism
USSR
U.S.A
1945
-
1991

Soviet threat to world

•search for validation and security drove
Pakistani elites to forge a long-standing military
relationship with Washington in the early ...

TROUBLED RELATIONSHIP
•Not a smooth affairs
•Marked by many ups & downs

Cold war era

ss
Strange
fellows
Unequal partners

.
•A relationship spanning over 65 years, both
partners have sustained it, sometimes happily,
other times not so happily.
•Marked by mistrust.

.
•Engagements & Disengagements
•Marked by periods of both
cooperation and discord

Period of Friendship –1 (1947-1960s)
Pak Again A Front Line Ally –3 (1979-1987)
Decade of Disenchantment –4 (1987-9/11)
Alliance Restored –5 (9/11-to date)
Gone Apart –2 (1960s-1979)

1: 1947 –60s
Friendship journey starts…
•Pakistan-Security issue
•For US-Pakistana platform in
South Asia
•Integral part of SEATO & CENTO
•$3.2 Bn aid.
•U-2 incidence
•Pak good choice
•Cool relation with India
due to its
non-aligned posture

In July 1957, U.S. PresidentDwight D. Eisenhowerrequested permission from Pakistani
Prime MinisterHuseyn Shaheed Suhrawardyfor the U.S. to establish a secret U.S.
intelligence facility inPakistanand for theU-2spyplane to fly from Pakistan.
•US was forced to admit its role as a covertsurveillanceaircraft when the Soviet government
produced its remains (largely intact) and surviving pilot,Francis Gary Powers. Coming just over
two weeks before the scheduled opening of an East–West summit inParis, the incident was a
great embarrassment to the United Statesand prompted a marked deterioration in its relations
with the Soviet Union.

.
•Pakistan’s foreign policy-An appraisal
By ShahidM. Amin-Oxford
: “Do not play with fire, gentlemen, we have
red marked Peshawar on the map of
Pakistan.”

1962-India–China war .. US comes closer to India.
•1965war-Betrayal by US’
•1971-US neglected Pakistan.
•1976-77 Nuclear program & US anxiety-
Symington law
2:1960s –1979 Coolness of ties…

3: 1979 –1988
2nd term of friendship
•Soviet invasion in
Afghanistan
•US, Pakistan & jihad-
•$3.5 + 4 Bn aid & waiving off Symington
law.
•Pressler’s law

.
•Zia changed the motto to, Faith, piety & Jihad in
lieu of Unity, Faith & Discipline coined by
Jinnah.
•State sponsored jihad industry was cultivated by
funding madrassas.
•Blending of Saudi wahabism with Deobandi
ideology was propagated.

4: 1989-2001-
•The usefulness of Pakistanended.
•Estrangement between both
End of Cold War
& NWO
US takes control of the world.
•Democratization
•Human right issues
•Women empowerment
•Development

Break up of Soviet union-1991

•.
Unipolar
World

4. 1989-2001-Estrangement
1.Nuclear sanctions
2.Terrorism issue
3.1998 test + sanctions
4.Democracy sanctions
Pakistanwas sanctioned to
the eyeballs & seriously struggling....
“In 1999,
Pak was at the verge
of destruction & was
aboutto become a
failed state..”
Musharraf-Geo i.v

.
•While rightly noting that Pakistanis hate only the U.S. more than they
hate Musharraf, it is worth pondering why that is the case. By his own
admission, Musharraf, who, recall again, was actively
funding and expanding the Taliban as a proxy force
across Afghanistan as of September 10, 2001, only decided to support
the U.S. in order to avoid a strategic bombing campaign
•At best, Musharraf can be labeled a reluctant ally—which is why he’s
done no more than we have in pursuit of Osama bin Laden, and why he
tacitly acceded to the Talibanizationof Pashtunistan. Put simply: even
as Afghanistan descended further into chaos and madness, he still
cared about Indian Kashmir (recall again that Musharraf engineered
his coup over Sharif during the fallout of the KargilWar he started). As
such, the Taliban were not a concern. It is only as he undertook actions
that, by his own logic, went against Pakistan’s interest—again, under
the threat of U.S. bombs—that his popularity flagged.
•Similarly, Musharraf has done precious little to encourage the
neutralization of al-Qaeda’s leadership, save cutting sweetheart deals
with local tribesmen to avoid any tough fighting

Post 9/11………
3
rd
phase of friendship-
(An unpleasant alliance)
•A day to remember…
•Bin Laden turned four civilian
airliners into missiles…
•Wanted to offset the
overwhelming strength of
America

...A Shock, Not a Surprise
The 9/11 attacks were a shock
“None of us will ever forget
it”.
“Shock and tears—and fear—
soon gripped us, as we saw
the chilling pictures…”

George Bushasked “you are
with us or against us”.
Musharaf made a
U-turn and sided with
the US in its war
against terrorism.

.
•Plusses:
•$33 Bnaid so far (2017)
•Including $7.5 Bn
(Kerry Lugar)
•lifting of sanctions,
•Major Non-Natostatus
(2/3
rd
for military, mostly through
CSF) and
1/3
rd
for
economic assistance

•Minuses:
•Pakistancapture of several hundred Al-
Qaida terrorists
•Allowed the US to execute military
operations from its land, air and sea bases.
•Tribal area operation by Pak Army
(June-2002)
Hot pursue policy

•The armed conflict began in 2004 when tensions,
rooted in the Pakistan Army's search for Al-Qaeda
fighters in Pakistan's mountainous Waziristan area (in
the Federally Administered Tribal Areas), escalated into
armed resistance. Pakistan's actions were presented as
its contribution to the international War on Terror.
Clashes erupted between Pakistani army troops and
Arab and Central Asian militia forces. The foreign
militants were joined by Pakistani non-military veterans
of the War in Afghanistan (2001–present) which
subsequently established the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan
and other militia organizations

.
•As aftermath of Battle of ToraBora, the formal deployment was begun by the Pakistan Army, at the request of
the Pakistan Government, in 2002. The XI Corps, under its core-commander Lieutenant-General Ali Jan
Orackzaie. The XI Corps entered the TirahValley in the Khyber Agency for the first time since Pakistan
independence in 1947. The troops were later proceeded to move into the ShawalValley of North Waziristan,
and later South Waziristan. The Naval Special Service Group established the reconnaissance base and began to
monitored the suspicious activities emerged in the area. The troubles mounted as the Tribes began to see
Army's deployment and repeated Air Force's flights in the region as an act of subjugation.
•In December 2003, two assassination attempts against President Pervez Musharraf were traced to Waziristan.
The government responded by intensifying military pressure on the area, however the fighting was costly and
government forces would sustain heavy casualties throughout 2004 and into early 2005 when the government
switched to a tactic of negotiation instead of direct conflict.[29]
•[edit] Fighting breaks outFurtherinformation: 2004 in Pakistan
•Main article: Battle of Wana
•On March 16, 2004, a bloody mountainous battle between Pakistan Army and the combined Taliban and Al-
Qaeda fighters ensued. Both International and National media speculated that Pakistan Armed Forces had
surrounded a "High Value Target" in the mountainous region, possibly Al-Qaeda's Second-in-Command
Aymanal-Zawahiri. The battle was concluded after the Army had conquered(?) the entire mountainous region,
and captured hundreds of Al-Qaeda fighters. However, the Army failed to capture Aymanal-Zawahiri as he
had either escaped or never been among the fighters

Pak carries out successful
Operations in
SW, Bajaur & Swat

.
•“Thanks to the leadership of President
Musharraf”. (Bush, 2004)

•(Pak-US relations that apparently ran smoothly from
September 2001 till 2005, developed hiccups and ever
since the relations have been uneasy)
•The alliance cracks...

•1. Pak performance &
“Do more”

•“Pak playing double game of astonishing
magnitude”.(LSE report-June 2010)
•Five of ''most dangerous bad guy groups''
based in Pak: (Holbrooke…Aug, 10)
•“Pak Govt & military unwilling to confront
terrorists”. (After tankers’ issue.. Oct 10)

,
•Western intelligence officials believe the ISI
has close relations with Taliban
•... Angry US officials warned Pakistan of the
potential consequences of...
• (The Guardian-17-Dec-2014)

.
•
Haqani network
2. Operation
against
Haqqani
10000-15000 militants
The Obama administration warned Pakistan that it must do
more to cut ties with the Haqqani network and help eliminate its
leaders, adding that "the United States will act unilaterally if
Pakistan does not comply

.
•.
3. Drone attacks/
Sovereignty

Reaction……
Collateral damage

.
4. Kerry Lugar bill-$ 7.5 Bn-
conditions…
“Take it or leave it”. (Kerry-Oct.09)

.
•September 2010... Pakistan Enhanced
Partnership Agreement. The Governments of
the United States and Pakistan signed a five-year
Partnership Agreement .

.
•5. Jan-Feb 2011: Raymond Daviscase…

.
6. May 2011-Abbottabad operation-relations
torn apart….
•Credibility erodes…Rift deepens…
•Joint intelligence failure
(Abbottabadcommission report)

.
7. Nov-11… NATO’s attack on Pak
soldiers. (Salala)
NATO supply;
Samsibase,
Bonn

.

.
1.Performance/“Do
more”
2.Haqqani operation
3.Drone attack
4.Kerry Lugar bill
5.Raymond Davis
6.Abbottabad operation
7.NATO’s attack
1.Afghanistan factor
2.Nuclear factor
3.Iran pipeline
4.Hafiz Saeedfactor
5.Dr. Shakil…
6.Gawadarissue

.Prolonged slump….. From bad to worse
Apr 12-Kabul; Attack on NATO
May 12-Hilary issuing warning to
Pak from Delhi
May 12-US refuses to accept
Pak demands
Congress approves
conditional aid
( Also $1.2 bn withheld)
Chicago conference..
ISI chief cancels visit
4th July, 12-
US apologizes…
Pak resumes NATO
supply

•Temporary relief……
•Energy dialogue
•Economic cooperation
•Despite the easing of tensions in recent
months, there are still plenty of sore spots in
the relationship.

Down grading of ties continue
•2013-
•Gawader
•Iran pipeline
•“Pak to face sanctions if pipeline project not
abandoned”. (Clinton)

.
•June 2014
•ZarbeAzb; US not satisfied

.
•2015
•Kerry's visit & asking to do more (Haqqani
controversy continues to date)
•Susan Rice’s visit; gives blunt warning

.
•Oct 2015-Nawaz visits USA
•Two issues
•Afghnpeace plan
•Concerns over Pak’s tactical nuclear weapons
•India opens Military office (Rapid deployment force) in Pentagon
•Nov 2015-RahilSharif’s visit…protocol…
US….
•Afghnpeace plan
•Eliminate haqani, LeT
•Tactical weapons-show restraint
•Congress passes resolution not
to abandon Pak ….
•Commits refund of $900 mn
•Investment in energy, dams, development ..
Pak….
•Indianterrorism/ LoCviolation
•Kashmir needs 3
rd
party ie. US
•Pak doing more
•Aid to be continued due to our
instability
•Assures safety of nucweapons

.
•2016-Drop scene….like 1990s
•F-16 issue

.
•2016-
•Drop scene of relations…
•April; F-16 issue
•Not to give F-16 on subsidized rates to Pak due
to its dubious role.
India puts pressure….
•“Pakistan, a bigger headache than Kabul”.
•The New York Times (May 2016) in its editorial
captioned “Time to Put the Squeeze on
Pakistan”
F-16 issue with USA is closed
(Sartaj Aziz, 16 June 2016)

.
•Pak-US relations reach stalemate as key
Congress leaders opposemilitary aid
•May 20, 2016
•HoRs-277/ 147 votes…. To block $450 Mnif
Pak doesn’t take specific action against Haqqani.
•…As if Pakistan is their vassal state, where they are the masters
and Pakistanis are the slaves. They do not want Pakistan’s
cooperation but total submission and compliance of their orders.
But what else one can expect when nation’s elites have, over the
years, been genuflecting before American adventurists.

.
•May 2016-Drone kills UmarMansur

.
•“Will continue to go after threats on
Pakistan soil…. Pakistan must deny safe
heaven to terrorists ”. Obama

.
•June 2016-
•The Senate version authorises$800 million under a provision
called the `Pakistan Security Enhancement Authorisation’
(PSEA).
•It also fences $300m behind a similar Haqqaninetwork provision that has existed in
the annual defenceauthorisationacts since the fiscal year 2015.
•CSF expires in the current financial year, ending in October. because it was linked
with a specific US mission in Afghanistan, which has formally ended.
•While adopting the new provision, the Senate Armed Services Committee used the
CSF model to restructure security support for Pakistan. But it focuses specifically on
Pakistan’s own security needs instead of tying it to a broader coalition.
•In doing so, the new provision delinks Pakistan from Afghanistan, by recognisingit as
a country with its own strategic value for US interests.
•In a report filed with the draft DefenceBill, the US Senate Armed Services Committee
called Pakistan "a long-standing strategic partner" and stressed the need to continue a
strong relationship with the country.

.
•Aug 2016
•Parrikarand Carter signed deal on military
logistics exchange-the Logistics Exchange
Memorandum of Agreement (LEMOA),
first mooted in the early 2000s.
•U.S. designation of India as a “Major Defense
Partner” (MDP) earlier this year.

.
•Sept 2016-Bill in US house seeking
designationof Pakistan as a state sponsor of
terrorism.
•Ted Poe & Dana Rohrabacher….
•After Urriattack & when Prime Minister was to address
G/A
•An untrustworthy ally which has aided enemy of US for
years.
•From harbouringOsama to Haqanis.
•Time to stop paying Pak for its betrayal…
•Kerry urged Nawazto stop terrorism & to not
extend nuclear prgm

.•Dec 2016-
US' $618 Billion DefenceBudget (2017) Boosts Ties
With 'Major DefencePartner' India
•It will enhance military cooperation with "major defence
partner" India
•It also imposes conditions on Pakistan for it to be eligible
for aid
•…. conditions nearly half of the funding to Pakistan
on a certification that it is taking demonstrable steps against
the HaqqaniNetwork and other terror groups.
….. asks DefenceSecretary and Secretary of State to take
steps necessary to recogniseIndia as America's "major
defencepartner".

.
• Jan 2017
•Trumpmean business…..
•Looking through the prism
of Afghanistan (AF-PAK)
•Confusion persists

.
•James Mattis
•…to restore the trust.
But, at the same time, he
urged to “neutralise” militant groups
•National DefenceAuthorisationAct
(NDAA) 2017
•Imposes four conditions on Pakistan to be
eligible for US $400 million

.•Jan 2017-Pak under pressure
•Hafiz Saeed'shouse arrest (China /America?)
•Americans warned Pakistan to rein in Saeedor
risk sanctions.
•To dissuade Trump from adding Pakistan to the list of countries
•Trump’s relationship with Modibothering Pak.
•Hafiz Saeeddoesn’t pose a direct threat to China’s investment, but so
long as he walks free he poses a direct threat to India-Pakistan relations.
•Feb 2017-Radd-ul-Fasad

.
•AizazChaudhrysummarisedthe results of the
recent diplomatic outreach by Pakistan, the crux
being that Pakistan faces diplomatic isolation
•…. what steps could be taken to prevent the
drift towards isolation. Chaudhry’sreply was
direct and emphatic: the principal international
demands are for action against MasoodAzhar
and the Jaish-i-Mohmmad; Hafiz Saeedand the
Lashkar-i-Taiba; and the Haqqaninetwork.

.•Pakistan isolated because it gives freedom
to non-state actors, Aitzaztells joint session
•‘Pakistan has become isolated and needs to
change its foreign policy’
•

Dealing With Hafiz Saeed Not
Easy For Pakistan Because
JuD Commands Great Street
Power

.
•National DefenceAuthorisationAct (NDAA)
2017
•Imposes four conditions on Pakistan to be eligible
for US $400 million of the US $900 million of the
coalition support fund (CSF).
•Early this year, US DefenceSecretary Ashton Carter
refused to give a similar certification to Pakistan due
to which it was not given US $300 million under
coalition support fund.

Conclusion
•Confusion persists
•US considers America as a trouble some ally
•So is Pakistan’s perspective
•Growing international isolation of Pakistan

.
•The critical issue is not the US-Pak relationship,
but the targeting of the Pakistani Armed Forces, to
malign them, through a well orchestrated media
campaign, and to break their unity. A very
dangerous move indeed, as AnatolLieven, the
author of the book “Pakistan: A Hard Country”
warns: “How American folly could destroy
Pakistan, by inducing mutiny in the Pakistan
Army. Washington, grotesquely might contribute
to the destruction of the state it is trying to save
and a historic triumph for extremism. Pakistan’s
tragedy would then become one of the entire
world.”

.•America built a liberal international
orderafter 2
nd
WW
•Its democracy in recession
•Authoritarianismof Trump
•From liberalism ie. Multilateral trade pacts & global
alliances, diversity, liberty, equality, opportunities for
all, march of freedom, defender of free world…….,
now US is on the path of “Illebralism”.
•Trump has questioned America’s very idea of cooperation & democracy.
•The shift in american foreign policy is evident as trump has attacked liberal order
•More defence spending, more nuclear weapons, more use of unilateralism
•Curtail america’s participation in International organizations
•Militaristic executive orders
•Building walls…. Close borders-Limit trade-

Rex W. Tillerson
Secyof State
US doest not want to win the wars, it just wants to
disrupt the things as its doing in ME

.
•Inconsistency in ties/ statements….

.
•Issues will remain as such…..
•Unsteady course
•Wobbly/ Uncertain / Perilous
•Talks are cosmetic as Pak, USties based on
doctrine of necessity
Carrot & stick policy
Shallow appreciation
Engagement/Disengagement

.
•Failure to Halt Pakistan-Based Militants Is Linked to U.S. Terror
Plots-RAND Review News for Summer 2010
•The rising number of terrorist plots in the United States with links to
Pakistan,
•…. because Pakistani leaders continue to support some of the groups
and have not yet developed a counterinsurgency strategy that
successfully protects the local population, holds territory, and develops
more-effective governance.
•“While Pakistan has had some success halting militant groups since
2001, these groups continue to present a significant threat not only to
Pakistan, but to the United States and a host of other countries,” said
Seth Jones, the study’s coauthor and a RAND senior political scientist.
“A number of militant networks —including al Qaeda, Lashkar-e-Taiba,
and Jaish-e-Mohammad —remain entrenched in Pakistan and pose a
grave threat to the state and the region.”
•Beyond al Qaeda, many foreign and domestic militant groups have
established networks in Pakistan,

.
•Right-wing Islamic parties and organizations in Pakistan
that regularly pull thousands of supporters into the
streets to protest against the U.S. have less of an
incentive to speak out against the Taliban. The two
share a desire to impose Islamic law in the country even
if they may disagree over the Taliban's violent tactics.
Pakistan's mainstream political parties are also
often more willing to harangue the U.S. than direct
their people power against Islamist militants shedding
blood across the country, partly out of fear and partly
because they rely on Islamist parties for electoral
support.

.
•US treats Pak like a mercenary
•Fractious partnership

.
•Despite our stepped up operation, perceptions
in Washington have not changed
•Deep mis-trust
•Frenmies
•Both sides frustrated

Pak hosts
many
Taliban…
&
Alqaeda…
SOURCE:Counter
insurgency in
Pakistan, 2010.

Conclusion
•Manto’s letters… (Maliha Lodhi)
•“My country is poor but why is it ignorant”?
•He loved his country , however poor &
ignorant.
•The stark truth was that “We neither know
how to live nor how to die”.

Conclusion
•Until now US has treated Pak as an instrument for
fighting or spying on territory around Pak.
•Need based engagement-Transactional ties
•Less appreciation more pressure
•Post Abbottabad situation… Pakistan at
crossroads.
•An absurd alliance
•Dilemma-Both can’t divorce each other...
Reluctant allies

US-India
•2004-Civilian nuclear deal
•2009-Defencedeal
•2016-Logistics agreement
•2016-Indo-Russia defencedeal (Missile system
& 200 helicopters)…… “One old friend is
better than two new ones”. (Modi)

Ending note
•July o6, 14-
•US think tank-“Ignoring Pakistan will be
short sighted, dangerous……”.

Exam questions
•2014-Discuss the impact of AFPAK policy on Pak-Us
relations.
•2012-Discuss the impact of foreign aid on Pakistan in
post 9/11 scenario.
•2010-How Pak & US can over-come their trust deficit?
•2009-Discuss various dimensionsof Pak-US relations in the
light of on going war on terrorism.
•2006-While maintaining its relations with US, Pak has to
fulfill lot of responsibilities & liabilities. Discuss.
•2004-Pak-US relations lack cordiality & sincerity.Do you
agree with the statement? Discuss.
•----US always consider Pak as its satellite state. Discuss.
•---US & Pak relations are based on expediency. Discuss.

.
•2013 (Faisalabad)-Discuss the negative &
positive aspects of Pk-US relations & their
importance.

Af-Pak policy

.•2013-Pakistan received a total of $25.91 billion from the US in
terms of military and economic aid since Sept 11, 2001.
•The US had budgeted approximately $17.22 billion in military
(2/3
rd
for military. mostly through CSF) and $8.68 billion
(1/3
rd
) in economic assistance
•The break-up of security related aid shows that from 2002 to
2012 Pakistan got $10.68 billion as Coalition Support Fund,
$2.75 billion as Foreign Military Financing, $2.35 billion under
Pakistan Counter insurgency Fund, $312 million for global
training and equipment, $265 million out of Counter-Narcotics
Funds of Pentagon, $27 million under International Disaster
Assistance, $717 million under International Narcotics Control
and Law, and $115 million under Anti Terrorism

.•Assistance.Thedetails of economic aid under different heads
show that Pakistan got $6.61 billion under Economic Support
Fund, $704 million International Disaster Assistance, $572
million as Food Aid, $286 million as Development Assistance,
$249 million for Child Survival and Health, $248 million under
Migration and Refugee Assistance, and $17 million under
Human Rights and Democracy Funds
•.In the next few years, the US expects to spend more than $1.5
billion a year, as authorisedby the Enhanced Partnership with
Pakistan Act of 2009. Through this bill, better known as the
Kerry-Lugar-Berman bill, Congress authorised(but has not yet
appropriated) a tripling ofUS development assistance to
Pakistan to $7.5 billion over five years to improve Pakistan’s
governance, support its economic growth, and invest in its
people.

.
•“Pakistan should know, if you construct
pipe-line, America llsend you into the
economic devastation from which you ll
never recover.” (Oct, 2010)

Pk-India-Questions
•Pak India peace process is irreversible. Discuss. (2003)
•Peace process can not move forward without the sincere & positive efforts of India & Pak
nevertheless both the parties Should be mentally prepared to accommodate each others
sensitivities. Discuss the statement. (2004).
•Peace process can be propelled in the forward direction by de-linking Kashmir issue from
it. Discuss. (2009)
•Discuss how Pak & India can overcome their trust deficit.
(2010)
•What is climate change impact? What are its implications on Pakistan? How to manage
climate change in policy and practice?(2011)
•Resolution of Kashmir bet. India & Pak can bring peace & stability in South Asia
(2013)
•Evaluate the significance of water conflict between India and Pakistan in
perspective of water management projects in India held Kashmir (2014)

Afghanistan-CSS Questions
•Broad based govtin Afghn.
•“True federation” is the only prescription to
the Afghnproblems.
•Post American withdrawal situations…
Implications for Pak. (2013)

.
•ValiNasr -Washington’s high-handed
management of ties with Pakistan has denuded it
of influence. He attributes this failure to the
president “handing foreign policy over to the
Pentagon and the intelligence agencies”. After the
raid that killed Osama bin Laden, the CIA and the
Pentagon “didn’t want relations with Pakistan, just
cooperation”.
•

China-CSS Questions.
•Pak-China ties have always been stable.
•China has remained a dependable & time
tested friend of Pak.
•Post 9/11/2001 Chinese projects in Pak.
•Indo-China nexus & its impact on Pak.
•Importance of Pak-China ties. Discuss their
impact on the political & security
environment in the region. (2013)

CURRENT AFFAIRS PAPER 2013
•Q.2 Discuss the successes and failures of
political parties in bringing about a meaningful
political change in Pakistan.
•Q.3 Discuss the current socio-political and
security situation in Afghanistan and its
implications for the neighboring countries.
•Q.4 How will “Arab Spring” effect the political
and security environment in the Arab World?

•Q.5 Discuss the importance of Pak-China
relations. How does this relationship effect the
political and security environment in South Asia?
•Q.6 Discuss the causes of extremism and militancy
in Pakistan society. Suggest ways and means for
the state organs to overcome these problems.
•Q.7 Resolution of Kashmir Issue between India
and Pakistan can bring peace and prosperity in the
region. Discuss.
•Q.8 Critically evaluate the causes of Energy crisis
in Pakistan and its consequences for the economic
growth and social fabric in the country.

Trust deficit
Pak
•Exploitation/betrayal
•Carrot & stick treatment
•Conditional aid
•Nuclear assets
•Iran Pak p. line.
•Increasing space violation
•Drones/ sovereignty
US
•Weapon used against India
•Corruption
•Embezzlement in money
•Double game-protecting
Taliban
•Nuclearisation despite
promises

Essays
•Charity begins at home
•Pak in 21
st
century
•Beggars can not be the choosers (2011)
•What are the hurdles in our way to
becoming a truly independent state? (2012)
•Let me take care of today, tomorrow shall
take care of itself.(2013)

Exercise…..
•Pakistan -US relations have a chequered
history. Pakistan should put renewed emphasis
on its outreach to China and Iran as possible
alternative partners. Discuss.
•Regional alliance to reduce dependence on US.
•Pak-US vs. Indo-US?
•US interests (& concerns) in South Asia
•(Issue based/ Tactical, Doctrine of necessity)
•Identify “irritants”.
•Self-sufficiency & trade ….

.
•Confronted with a “directionless America”,
Kayanionce offered this advice: “If you want
to leave, just leave....but don’t do any more
damage on the way out”. (The Dispensable
Nation: American Foreign Policy in Retreat
2013 by ValiNasr )

.
•June-2011Partnership mantra is dead
•In-camera parliament session’s CD transferred to US. We are ourselves selling
our national secrets ….
•KL bill were to be afloat with new clauses
•Shattered Pak US relationship.
•Disillusionment.
•US, the biggest patron of our army by supplying $2 bnevery year.
•Army eating up 23% of our budget at the expense of social welfare of the
Pakistanis for 6 decades.
•Kayaniacknowledged at NDCU (June 2011)
•“We have mortgaged ourselves to US… We are helpless”. Pak has its
own strategic compulsions & it is unwise to be emotional about US .
The interests are better served by pursuing non-isolationist outlook.
Pak ill affords antagonizing the world.

Objectives
•US ambassador-Richard G. Oslon

.
•LiaquatAli Khan…. Harry Truman

.
•In May 1950, Prime minister Ali Khan paid a
statevisitto the United States

.
•SEATO & CENTO

.
•Russian invasion in Afghanistan

.
•Reagan, Carter, Nixon, Clinton

.
•Zia’s plane crashed in………

.
•Symington amendment in 1976
•Pressler –1985
•Glenn amendment
•Brown amendment-1995

.
•Bush’s visit to India & Pak
•Obama’s visit

.
•Post 9/11 aid to Pak. Harassment

.
•Pak resumed NATO supply on…….

.
•John Panetta…..

.
•The idea of Pakistan is written by…….

.
•The Dispensable Nation: American Foreign
Policy in Retreat
( 2013 -ValiNasr )

.
•Water-Gate scandal

.
•Memogatescandal

.
•Bob Woodward………..

.
•Indo-US nuclear deal was signed in…….

.
•John Kerry…….

.
•COIN……..

.
•Drone attacks are being controlled from…..

.
•Raymond Davis was ………

.
•Salalacheck post was attacked on……

.
•Abbott bad operation was conducted on…..

.
•Hot-pursue policy

.
•AF-Pak policy…..

.
•Operation, Enduring freedom

.
•Exit policy

Sept 11
•Attack on US embassy in Kabul
•Murder of Rabbani
•Mullen statement
•Kyaniwarns US of unilateral action
•Gilaniasks US to mind its own mess
•Mullen’s own failure
•Blame on Pak
•Army’s defiance
but Pasha visits US…
•Kyani’smeeting with
JCS

.
•.

2012 statements.
•Pakmilitary playing'double-game' in Bara: Washington Post
....
•27 Jul 2012 –: The growing influence of the Taliban and
continued fighting in various parts of the Khyber Agency, and
in particular the Bara district, ...
•Pakmilitary playing double gameon Afghanistan: NYT |
Pakistan...2 Jul 2012 –
•Pakistanmilitary playing double gameon Afghanistan: NYT -
2 Jul 2012 –New York: Slamming Pakistanfor refusing to cut
ties with the Haqqaninetwork of militants,
•Pakmilitary playing double gameon Afghanistan: Report -
Indian ...
•Analysis: Pakistan's double-game: treachery or strategy? |
Reuters… 28 Sep 2011 –

.
•U.S. Officials See Waste in Billions Sent to
Pakistan
•By DAVID ROHDE, CARLOTTA GALL, ERIC SCHMITT
and DAVID E. SANGER
•ISLAMABAD, Pakistan—After the United States has spent
more than $5 billion in a largely failed effort to bolster the
Pakistani military effort against Al Qaedaand the Taliban, some
American officials now acknowledge that there were too few
controls over the money. The strategy to improve the Pakistani
military, they said, needs to be completely revamped.
•In interviews in Islamabad and Washington, Bush administration
and military officials said they believed that much of the
American money was not making its way to frontline Pakistani
units. Money has been diverted to help finance weapons systems
designed to counter India, not Al Qaeda or the Taliban,

.•Sept, 11-Republican senator Lindsey
Graham, "The sovereign nation of Pakistan
is engaging in hostile acts against the US
and our ally Afghanistan that must cease.
We should instead rely on India ….“
•Apr 12-Pak to face sanctions if pipeline
project not abandoned. (Clinton)
•“Drone attacks to continue”.

Sep. 12
•WASHINGTON: Former US envoy to Pakistan Cameron
Muntersays both the countries have different priorities and
mindset for peace and stability in Afghanistan and hence
their bilateral relations could fail them again.
•“Pakistan and the US do not see eye-to-eye on various
issues including the reconciliation process in Afghanistan,”
•the Americans thought that Pakistanis took their money
and betrayed them, while Pakistanis believed that the
Americans used them for their interests and left them
hanging in the air to deal with the consequences.
•On the post 2014 scenario, he doubted any major change in
the relations.
•

.
•Pak-US relationsmay fail again, says
Munter(27-Sep-2012)
•Oct 12-Washington—Pakistan Ambassador to the
United Nations Abdullah Hussain…lamenting that
American aid is too often given for military equipment,
and not enough to help Pakistan bring its own people
up from poverty.
….Angry at what he considers a “punitive
relationship,” where Pakistan “is still scapegoated,” he
said

•Pakistan has rejected an American media report
that the U.S. drone hits were taking place with the
"tacit consent" of the Pakistan government, a
Foreign Ministry statement said ... Sep 12
•According to the Wall Street Journal report, the
intended target areas are "outlined" to the
Pakistani intelligence service which then gives an
unspoken consent to the U.S. forces to conduct
these strikes within its borders by clearing the
airspace and does not "interfere physically with
the unpiloted aircraft in flight."
.

The Economist-Oct 01
•“…Pak turning a blind eye to the location
and attacks of the Haqqani network is just
cultivating future problems.
•… most disturbed about Pakistani militia
throwing their "crazies" into Afghanistan”.
•You reap what you sow. The CIA actively
promoted militant Islam during the 1980s,
and now their brainchild has turned into
their worst enemy.

.
•It is clear that he is the most powerful man in Pakistan leading an
institution that dominates the political system as well. It is a
myth to say that Pakistan's democracy enjoys a normal division
of powers.
•Kyaniis the most powerful man…his indirectly pro-Taliban
strategy –
•He was insensitive to the implications of such decisions as the arrest
and prosecution of Raymond Davis , the angry closure of the NATO
supply route, and the sentencing of the doctor
•Army orchestrating a 'pro-Taliban' electoral alliance behind the scenes
•With his extensions in service, General Kayaniqualifies as the de facto
ruler of Pakistan from behind the scenes -or not too much from
behind the scenes if you look at the activism of ISI under him
(Khalid Ahmed-)

.
•According to Pakistani Afghanistan expert
Ahmed Rashid, "between 1994 and 1999, an
estimated 80,000 to 100,000 Pakistanis trained
and fought in Afghanistan" on the side of the
Taliban

.
•that "20–40 percent of [regular] Taliban soldiers
are Pakistani.“The document further states that
the parents of those Pakistani nationals "know
nothing regarding their child's military
involvement with the Taliban until their bodies
are brought back to Pakistan.“According to the
U.S. State Department report and reports by
Human Rights Watch, the other Pakistani
nationals fighting in Afghanistan were regular
Pakistani soldiers especially from the Frontier
Corpsbut also from the army providing direct
combat support. (Ahmed Rashid)

.
•Murder of SalimShahzad
(Inside Alqaida& the Taliban)

.
•Oct-12 PESHAWAR: Criticisingthe attack on the 14-year-
old peace activist MalalaYousafzai, the Peshawar High
Court Bar Association (PHCBA) President Abdul Lateef
Afridion Wednesday asked the federal government and the
army to review policies towards the Taliban and bring
about peace or else a civil disobedience movement would
start in the country.
•
•Speaking at a meeting of the PHCBA convened after the attack
on MalalaYousafzai, the PHCBA president said, “The law-
enforcing agencies are interfering in politics instead of
maintaining law and order to protect the citizens.

.
•Oct. 15-12
•If elected PM, Pakistan Army and ISI will be
kept under check: ImranKhan (IBN/CNN)

Oct, Nov, Dec 2011
•Oct-Clinton’s visit-The bitterness….
•Ties with Pakistan in a mess, admits US military
official ………………………………………….
Nov-NATO kills 26 paksoldiers in Mommand
agency… It could have serious repercussions………
US asked to vacate Shamsibase, also NATO supplies
stopped.. Pak boycotts Bonn conference
The Soviet Union in comparison had 300,000 troops in the 1980’s and while
occupying the cities, could never pacify the countryside. The US and
NATO presence at about 65,000 is almost laughable when facing a
population of 31 million

.
•Nov, 11-Like aniceberg deciding to form a coalition with the
Titanic, the post-9/11 US-Pakistan alliance was doomed from the start.
The only unknown factor was how bad the inevitable collision would be
and when it would take place. We now may have an answer.
Recently, President AsifAli Zardari, trying, as always, to appease the
Americans said that the government would take action against the
Haqqani network. The official US response was to scoff. What they
previously said privately was now being proclaimed publicly: it doesn’t
matter what the government of Pakistan says if the script isn’t being
written by the military.
•Every successive incident has people wondering how long the
partnership between the two countries can last. The Raymond Davis
saga was seen as a speed bump, the Osama bin Laden killing a red
light and the tussle over the Haqqani network a multi-car pileup. But
the consensus seemed to be that both countries would eventually get
over it because they needed each other —the US needs Pakistan to kill
the Taliban and Pakistan needs the US to pay its bills.

.
•It may be more realistic to see each incident not as a minor marital spat but as grounds for
divorce. Both sides are loath to admit it, but the relationship between them is a transactional
one, not an ideological one. We make the occasional arrest of an al Qaeda operative and count
the bounty money as they are packed off to Guantanamo Bay. We sometimes take military action
so that our shiny new toys, to be pointed in the direction of India, can be delivered to us. And the
US pays us despite being an unsatisfied customer because, really, what else can they do? The
Americans have neither the appetite nor the logistics to launch a full-scale invasion of the tribal
areas, preferring instead to send robots in the sky. So they hold their noses and pay us off.
Now might be the time for both countries to acknowledge the reality of the relationship. A middle
ground can be found between the pretencethat their interests perfectly align and a complete break in
ties. On those rare occasions when both sides share a common purpose, such as tackling the
Pakistani Taliban, we can expend our blood and energy and the US its dollars. This would have the
benefit of ending the endless rigmarole over the Haqqani network. We would simply say that we do
not want to take military action against them and the US can cut its aid as it sees fit.
•If we are to be perfectly honest, this scenario was going to naturally play itself out anyway in a
couple of years. The US public, sick to death of endless war at a time of economic hardship, is
ready to wash its hands off the region and the American military will soon follow. Most likely,
there will be a rerun of the 1990s, when the US no longer saw any need to get too closely involved
in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Because of our nuclear capability, the US will never completely lose
interest in us, but its attention will certainly be diverted. Ties between the two countries will have
to be reappraised then. Let’s just speed the process up before another diplomatic scuffle leads to
a permanent break in relations

.
•Jan-2012: In view of worsening bilateral relations, US aid
flows to the military remain suspended, including $2 billion in
payments under the Coalition Support Fund. The disbursement
of non-military aid, including the $7.5 billion pledged under the
Kerry-Lugar Bill (KLB) has also been very slow. A US
Congressional panel had reported reaching an agreement in
December on freezing $700 million in aid to Islamabad, unless
Pakistan stops the movement of fertilisersthat militants in
Afghanistan use in Improvised Explosive Devices to target
American troops.
•Feb. 2012: NATO supplies resumed….

.

.
•Apr. 12-Zardariblamed Pak Army for dual role: Newsweek
NEW YORK: American magazine Newsweek in one of its articles claimed
that Pakistan President AsifAli Zardarihad accused Pakistan Army of playing
a dual role in the ongoing war on terror.
•The detailed report of a former CIA official published in Newsweek, also
claimed that Lashkar-e-Tayeba, which had been involved in Mumbai attacks,
today enjoyed patronage of Pakistan Army.
•In order to seek clarification on these allegations, the ISI Chief had also been
summoned by a US court.
•The Newsweek report claims that tensions between Islamabad and
Washington had reached its peak during the recent months.
Washington, April 19 : Pakistan President AsifAli Zardarihas accused the
army, which covertly supports the 2008 Mumbai attacks perpetrator Lashkar-e-
Taiba(LeT), of playing a double game in the ongoing war on terror, and an
"abundance of evidence backs him up," Bruce Riedel, a former CIA officer,
has said.
http://www.newkerala.com/news/world/

Conclusion
Pakistan –the next US
Pak-US relations: A bad marriage

.
•Why is Pakistan so important, this was answered quite succinctly by Mitchell Shivers
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Asian & Pacific Security Affairs in his
testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on 25 June 2008 when he said the following:
•Firstly, Pakistan is the second most populous Muslim state, the sixth most populous country in
the world, and is located at the geopolitical crossroads of South and Central Asia.
•Second, Pakistan possesses nuclear weapons and has already fought three conventional wars with
another nuclear nation next door, India.
•Third Pakistan has a large, growing moderate middle class striving for democracy.
•Fourth, elements of extremism and terrorism are at work within Pakistan.
•Fifth, the whole-hearted assistance of the Pakistani people and their government will help the
United States achieve its national security objectives in Afghanistan. Sixth, and most importantly,
militants and terrorists within the border region of Pakistan constitutes a direct threat to the
United States homeland.
•Former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger in an article in the Washington Post in March
defined US objectives in Pakistan as “control of nuclear weapons, counter-terrorism cooperation
and resistance to Islamic radicalism” and believes Pakistan could turn “into the wildcard of
international diplomacy.”

Conclusion
•Pak-US have suffered because of lack of clarity
•Damage control is still possible
•Pak needs to get over the obsession with being a
frontline state; readjust relations with US to
what is doable –free of exaggerated mutual
expectations & the most importantly put its own
house in order.
•US to show mutual respect, honor our
sovereignty & realize our limitations

Conclusion
•2012 starts with drone attacks.
•The Pak-US relationship has generally remained
transactional and marred by mistrust.
•This is indeed a strategic dysfunction that is
undercutting the durability and maturity of these
relations
•America is quick to bail out Pak when….
•Then walks back.
•Soon, the cycle restarts!

.

.
•Communismis a revolutionary socialistmovement to create a classless,
moneyless, and statelesssocial orderstructuredupon common ownershipof the
means of production, as well as a social, politicaland economicideology that aims at
the establishment of this social order.
•Common ownership
•Leninismadds to Marxism the notion of a vanguard partyto lead the proletarian
revolution and to secure all political power after the revolution for the working class,
for the development of universal class consciousnessand worker participation, in a
transitional stage between capitalismand socialism.
•construction of full communism to begin immediately upon the abolition of capitalism
•. the bourgeoisieconstantly exploits the proletariat for its manual labourand cheap
wages, ultimately to create profit for the bourgeois; the proletariat rise to power
through revolution against the bourgeoisie such as riots or creation of unions. The
Communist Manifesto states that while there is still class struggle amongst society,
capitalism will be overthrown by the proletariat only to start again in the near future;
ultimately communism is the key to class equality
•Abolition of property in landand application of all rentsof land to public purposes. A
heavy progressiveor graduated income tax. Abolition of all right of inheritance.
•Centralisationof creditin the hands of the State, by means of a national bankwith
State capitaland an exclusive monopoly.

.
•Communism, Marxism, and revolutionary socialismdisagrees with capitalism and
economic liberalismon a fundamental basis, in that communism advocates communal ownership
over the means of production and economic decision-making of a society, with the abolishment
of private property and government. Friedrich Engels, one of the founders of modern socialist
theory, advocated the creation of a society that allows for the widespread application of modern
technology to rationaliseeconomic activity by eliminating the anarchy in production of
capitalism.
[10][11]
Marxism argues for collective ownership of the means of production, the
elimination of the exploitation of labor,
[12]
and the eventual abolition of the state, with an
intermediate stage, of indeterminate length, in which the state will be used to eliminate the
vestiges of capitalism. Some Communist statesclaimed to have abolished capitalism, although
some Marxist theorists describe them as state capitalist, rather than anti-capitalist.
•Socialism includes various theories of economic organization that advocate public or direct
worker ownership and administration of the means of productionand allocation of resources, and
a society characterized by equal access to resources for all individuals, with an egalitarianmethod
of compensation.
[6][7][8]
Socialists argue for cooperative/communityor state controlof the
economy, or the "commanding heights" of the economy,
[9]
with democratic control by the people
over the state, although there have been some undemocratic philosophies. "State" or "worker
cooperative" ownership is in fundamental opposition to "private" ownership of the means of
production, which is the defining feature of capitalism. Most socialists argue that capitalism
unfairly concentrates power, wealth and profit, among a small segment of society that controls
capitaland derives its wealth through exploitation, stifling technological and economic progress
by maintaining an anarchy of production.

.
•Marxism as a political theory is over 160 years old. In that time it has gone through various
phases, titles, and schisms, including critical, post, and anti-Marxism.
•Marxism as a political idea was a failure from the beginning, Tismaneanucontends, because of
“its lack of sensitivity to the psychological makeup of mankind,” and because it underestimated
“the needs of many for deep spiritual or cultural sources of meaning, and thus the profound
importance of the human right to privacy.” When Vladimir Lenin implemented Marx’s ideas into
“a potent political weapon of ideological transformation of the world,” he put totalitarianism into
action.
•Capitalism, despite being an imperfect system with many problems, understands what Marx failed
to grasp: if you socialize the means of production, you undermine the incentives to work and
produce poverty instead of wealth. Furthermore, anyone in the communist system unlucky
enough to be born in the wrong class or ethnic group were branded enemies of the regime,
becoming helpless victims in the mass killings that so often took place in the name of ideology.

.
•Fascism
•Main article: Fascism and anti-capitalism
•Fascismhas mixed stances on capitalism; while supportive of private property rights, fascism upholds statism
and corporatismand is hostile to the concepts of laissez-fairecapitalism, free marketsystems, free trade,
economic individualism, consumerism, and bourgeoisculture. Like Marxists, fascists maintain that class conflict
is a feature inherent in capitalist societies
[citation needed]
and seek to remedy it by government means.
•Neoliberalism
•Neoliberalismis a label for economic liberalizations, free tradeand open markets. Neoliberalismsupports the
privatizationof nationalized industries, deregulation, and enhancing the role of the private sectorin modern
society. It is commonly informed by neoclassicalor Austrianeconomics. The term neoliberaltoday is often
used as a general condemnationof economic liberalization policiesand advocates.
[1][2]
Neoliberalismshares
many concepts with mainstreamschools of economic thought.
•Friedrich Hayek,
[29]
Milton Friedman, David Harvey
[30]
and Noam Chomsky
[31]
do not agree about the meaning
of neoliberalism.
•for adopting minimal government interference in the economy
•Additionally, many theories were developed which showed that the free market would produce the socially
optimum equilibrium with regard to production of goods and services, such as the fundamental theorems of
welfare economics

.
•Our ties have never been wrinkle free,
•Interstate relations are cruel in world
•This is the demise of Pak US ties.
•Every time US inflicts new injury & old wounds
are renewed.. Pak cant continue even if it wants.

.
•In theory, Haqqani is accused of trying to rope the Americans into
what should be the exclusive domain of Pakistan’s national politics. If
he is to be reprimanded for doing this, then the pioneer of this trend
was none other than LiaquatAli Khan, Pakistan’s first prime minister.
•LiaquatAli Khan did not write or instruct the then ambassador to
send any secret memorandum to the Americans. He was pretty open
about it. During his first trip to the United States in 1950, he met the
press at the National Press Club in the American capital. A reporter
asked how large a standing army Pakistan wanted. LiaquatAli
Khan’s reply was quite simple to the inquisitive American reporter
and here is a direct quote from the prime minister’s answer: “If your
country will guarantee our territorial integrity, I will not keep
any army at all.”
•So if Pakistan now has an all-powerful army, it is partly thanks to the
American hesitation in extending the guarantee Pakistan’s first prime
minister was seeking. (Memogate& history, by Haider
nizamani-Dawn Nov 27 2011)

.
Has the countdown begun?-August 31, 2011
•For quite some time, the Americans have been earning less and spending more, producing less and
consuming more, with the result that the US has almost gone bankrupt. In view of its economy that is
in dire straits, the entire balance of global economic power could shift, since the economic strength is
basic to remain predominantly military power. In other words, power ascendancy correlates strongly
with the available resources and economic durability; whereas, on the other hand, military overstretch
and a concomitant relative decline are consistent threats to the powers whose ambitions and security
requirements are greater than their resource base can provide for. It was, perhaps, against this
backdrop that two prominent authors Nick Turseand Tom Engelhardtwrote an article under the
caption A fight against the odds published in Asia Time Online. The concluding sentence of the
article was revealing, which read: “The fact is -Al-Qaeda is not an apocalyptic threat. Its partisans
can cause damage, but only the Americans can bring down this country.” The USA’s current account
deficit in 2010 was $479.26 billion that is 3.2 percent of the GDP.
•As a matter of fact China is financing America’s current account deficit to a large extent; it has
invested $1.17 trillion in the US Treasury Bills. Yet, the USA continues to spend on defencein a
reckless manner and the average is around $600 billion a year, which is more than the defence
budgets of the member-states of the EU, Russia, Japan, India and China. America has 16 intelligence
agencies plus Homeland Security Department that cost it a huge part of the defencebudget.
Reportedly, the US alone has spent about $3 trillion on the Iraq and Afghanistan military operations,
and this figure exceeds the cost of the 12-year Vietnam War. Its GDP is $14.7 trillion and debt-ceiling
$14.29, which has been raised by $2.4 trillion in two stages enough to keep borrowing into 2013. The
agreement between President Barack Obama and congressional leaders called for $2.4 trillion in
spending cuts over 10 years. So the question arises: Can America sustain its position when its
economy is in a shambles? Certainly not!

.
•It is our national character that we swing wildly between love &
hate.
•The foreign policy can be formulated on the basis of emotions.
•We need to be careful in defining friends & enemies on the basis
of our likes & dislikes. (Hussain Haqani-2011)
•We need to response to the needs of new era & old
ways of responding to the crisis will not work.
•We have to find the ways not to see the world with the
eyes of jihadists.
•The current policies are no more sustainable.

Latest….May 11-Alliance under stress…
•Working under new US dictates
In awarding the certificate to Pakistani top hierarchy that, “nobody at the top of
the tree knew that Osama bin Laden was here (Pakistan), the visiting US
Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, was vocal enough to say that, “somebody,
somewhere” was surely assisting him somehow.
Instead of being regretfulon violating the Pakistani sovereignty on May 2, 2011,
the visiting US delegate was more forceful, dictatingand demanding. The
delegate demanded Pakistan to give details and launch military operations (may
be a joint operation) against five militant leaders wanted by US. These US
wanted militants include; Aymanal Zawahiri; deputy of late OBL, Siraj
Haqqani of the Haqqani network, IlyasKashmiri, the head of the Harkat-ul-
Jihad-al-Islami, AtiyaAbdel Rahman, al-Qaida operations chief, and Mullah
Omer; the Taliban leader.
… indirectly accused Pakistanof “vicious terrorists” having found sanctuaries
on Pakistan soil and Afghan militants operating from safe havens in FATA, and
demanded Pakistan to bring an end to this practice. Even in a threatening tone,
Hillary Clinton said that, failure of Pakistan of taking a decisive action against
these terrorists, “could irreversibly harm itself.”She was rather blunt…..

.
•US President BarackObama, said many a time
that, in case another such like target, is traced
inside Pakistan, US would unilaterally actagainst
it. There have been many such like statements
from other officials of the State Department as
well as the Pentagon.

;
The US-Pak relations are tell tale of many ups
and downs -from friends to accusations and then
strategic partners. Upon its independence,
Pakistan on the cost of annoying the Soviet
Union sided with the US and even joined
organizations like the SEATO and CENTO
that were meant to safeguard the US
interests. Pakistan got a massive aid in return
just after the Korean War to bolster its defence
requirements. However, the relations between
the two countries were bitterly strained when
India attacked Pakistan in 1965and USA stopped
all its military aid to Pakistan, despite the fact
that Pakistan was its ally being member of
CENTO / SEATO. Pakistan as a protest delineated
itself from these organizations.

Aslam Beg May 11
•1982-1989, joined by “40,000 jihadis from Pakistan and over 60,000 from
70 countries of the world.”The Pakistani army had no involvement, except
General Ziaul Haq and a few of his close aids. The Pakhtuns living on both sides of the
Durand Line provided the hardcore base for the resistance against the Soviet occupation
forces, who ultimately accepted the defeat in good grace and asked for a safe exit that
was granted by the Afghan mujahideen. Hence, the Soviet troops exited unscathed.
The CIA, which had worked hand-in-glove with the ISI, was awed by our agency’s
professional prowess in defeating the Soviets -a superpower. The Americans, therefore,
decided to demonise the mujahideen and pressurised Pakistan to “clip the ISI’s wings.”
The Pakistan government accepted the demand. The then serving DG ISI, Lt Gen
Hamid Gul, was replaced by Lt Gen Kallu, a retired officer, and the purging of the ISI
started as early as 1989. The officers and the operatives having any kind of contact with
the Afghan mujahideen were removed, so much so, that in 1994, when the Taliban
emerged, the ISI had no role in Afghanistan. In fact, by 2001, when Pakistan joined the
US in their war on Afghanistan, the ISI’s role was reversed, as the enemy of Taliban.
•
In 2003, on the issue of the involvement of Pakistani tribals in
Afghanistan, Musharrafagreed to pull out the ISI from the border areas and
allowed the CIA and the marines to monitor the entire border belt from Swat to
Balochistan
•

•The US secret designs against Pakistan and negative role of India
played a big role in widening the trust deficit. Both the US and India
worked on an engineered program to harm Pakistan under the garb of
friendship. With no troops and no responsibility, it suited India to keep
expanding its influence in Afghanistan and in Central Asia and at the same
time harming Pakistan through covert war without having to face hazards of
guerrilla war.
•With eyes on Pakistan nukes and on Gwadar Port, seen as a jump off
point in envisaged energy corridor from Central Asia to Indian Ocean via
Afghanistan and Pakistan, it suited USA to weaken Pakistan and make it
toe its line.Commonality of objectives impelled USA, India, Israel, Britain
and Afghanistan under US installed Karzai regime to gang up against
Pakistan. Ignoring Pakistan’s security concerns, USA helped India in
consolidating its presence in Afghanistan.
•The CIA and other allied agencies have been assiduously operating in
Pakistan to destabilize the targeted regions of FATA, settled areas of Khyber
Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan from 2004 onwards. Psy war and ‘do more’
mantra were unleashed from 2005 onwards to malign Pakistan’s premier
institutions. In 2008, the US started targeting ISI and Army and in 2009
terrorism was brought into major cities of Pakistan with focus on Peshawar,
Lahore, Rawalpindi and Islamabad

•By December a vast network of CIA spies-Blackwater-USSpecial Forces
operatives-RAW agents linked with local militant groups in tribal belt and in
urban centers, anti-state elements and pro-US and pro-Indian elements was
established. The network was protected by foreign embassies as well as some
purchased Pakistani officials holding key appointments. In this timeframe,
governed by wicked design, maximum pressure was exerted on Pakistan to
launch an operation in North Waziristan (NW). Pakistan’s reluctance because
of its host of compulsions became a source of friction.
•While the US pressed Pakistan to play the game in accordance with its
dictates in return for financial munificence, Pakistan military wanted to play
within defined parameters so as not to compromise its core national interests.
It tried to guide USA onto the winning path but the latter misguided by India
and Israel chose to adopt the self-destructive path

•Both Pakistan and USA are now pursuing divergent agendas and are disinclined to
accommodate each other’s strategic concerns. The US alleges that the ISI has old
ties with Haqqani network and is supporting SirajHaqqani. Lashkar-e-Taiba, allegedly
linked with ISI is now seen as a threat not only to India but also to the world. It claims
that Al-Qaeda leadership and Afghan Shuraare housed in NW and Quetta
respectively and protected by the Army. It suspects that because of Army’s softness
towards Taliban, it is reluctant to undertake a major operation in NW, which in its
calculations is the hub center of terrorism.
•These lurking doubts and suspicions have frustrated Obama’s administration so
intensely that White House came out with a 36-page cockeyed report on 6 April and
sent it to the Congress. The crux of the report is that Pak Army doesn’t have the ability
to crush militants. It says Pakistan’s 144000 strong forcehas been fighting the
militants along Afghan border but was unable to achieve any victory. The report says
that conversely the US forces have succeeded in weakening al-Qaeda network in
Afghanistan and in that Pak forces had no role to play. The US has been gradually
penetrating deeper and deeper into Pakistan under various deceptive ruses. The
major tools it had to make our leaders go flaccid were its coercive and aid giving
capacities and overplaying of threat of terrorism. CIA-FBI outposts were made on the
plea that it would help in tracing wanted high value al-Qaeda targets. Control over
immigration on airports was also taken over on similar pretext. Permission to use
drones from Shamsiairbase in Balochistanwas obtained to hit targets in
inaccessible areas in FATA. 2002 and 2008 elections were rigged to ensure subservient
parliament and make the top man all-powerful. Blackwaterelements were
positioned in Pakistan major urban centers in 2008 with the connivance of Pak
leadership

•The eternal embrace —Shahzad Chaudhry
•
Treat the war as two separate warswithout one being
answerable to the other. Let each fight his way using
whatever works best for them to appease, conciliate,
reintegrate and mainstream people back into the peaceful
fold of the past
From the most preferred allies bound in a proclaimed
strategic relationship, the US and Pakistan find themselves
estranged and increasingly adrift. This was a relationship
founded on weak fundamentals, not one of choice but of
convenience. This was a need-based relationship, has
always been. For the two to gradually drift apart is but
natural and an inevitable end to a cyclical association.

.
•The Indo–Soviet Treaty of Peace, Friendship and Cooperation was a treaty signed between India and
the Soviet Union in August 1971 that specified mutual strategic cooperation. The treaty was a
significant deviation from India's previous position of Non-alignment in the Cold War[1] and in the
prelude to the Bangladesh war, it was a key development in a situation of increasing Sino-American
ties and American pressure.[2][3] The treaty was later adopted to the Indo-Bangladesh Treaty of
Friendship and cooperation in 1972.[4]
•India's relation to the Soviet Union initially after the former's independence was ambivalent, guided
by Nehru's decision to remain non-aligned, and his government's active part in the Commonwealth of
Nations. However, in February 1954, the U.S. administration of President Dwight D.
Eisenhower announced the decision to provide arms to Pakistan, followed a month later
by Pakistan joining the SEATO and subsequently the CENTO. These agreements
assured Pakistan the supply of sophisticated military hardware and economic aid.[4]
•The developing situation alarmed New Delhi, which had uncomfortable relations with Pakistan. Since
Pakistan also bordered the Soviet Union, it also provided Moscow with the necessity as well as the
opportunity to develop its relations with New Delhi. India’s status as a leader of the Non-aligned
Movement would also allow the USSR to bolster Soviet policy in the Third World. India and the USSR
therefore pursued similar policies based on common security threat born out of the US interests in
Pakistan. It was in this context that India and Soviet Union exchanged military Attaches.[4] Although
Indo-Soviet cooperation had begun, the investment of soviet-military aid to India only begun in the
context of deteriorating Sino-Soviet and Sino-Indian relations. Following the 1962 Sino-Indian war, the
Sino-Pakistani axis was also an impetus for growing cooperation between India and the Soviet
Union.[4]

•The U-2 incident in 1960severely compromised
Pakistan security and worsened relations
between the Soviet Union and Pakistan. As an
attempt to put up a bold front, Pakistani
General Khalid Mahmud Arifwhile
commenting on the incident stated that,
"Pakistan felt deceived because the US had kept
her in the dark about such clandestine spy
operations launched from Pakistan’s territory."

•SOVIET RELATIONS WITH PAKISTAN
•Copyright: Johanna Granville, "Pakistan, Relations with." In The Encyclopedia of
•Russian History, edited by James R. Millar. New York: Macmillan Reference USA,
•2004.
•An affinity between Pakistan and the Soviet Union would have seemed natural,
•given the former’s status as a British colony (until 1947) and the latter’s role as
•supporter of nations oppressed by capitalist imperialists. However, in 1959 Pakistan
•–along with Turkey and Iran ---joined the Central Treaty Organization (CENTO),
•which was engineered by President Dwight Eisenhower’s energetic Secretary of
•State, John Foster Dulles. The security treaty replaced the Baghdad Pact and was
•intended to provide a southern bulwark to Soviet expansion toward the Indian
•Ocean and the oil fields of the Persian Gulf. CENTO also enabled the United States
•to aid Pakistan and cement a close security relationship with the country that has
•thus become the cornerstone of U.S. policy in South Asia for more than three
•decades. This relationship reinforced Moscow’s efforts to maintain close relations
•with Pakistan’s rival, India. Beginning in June 1955 with Indian Prime Minister
•Jawaharlal Nehru’s visit to Moscow, and First Secretary Nikita Khrushchev’s
•return trip to India in the fall of 1955, the foundations were laid for cordial Soviet-
•Indian relations. While in India, Khrushchev announced Moscow’s support for
•Indian sovereignty over the Kashmir region. Leading to the eventual partition of
•British India in 1947, Kashmir has been a key source of contention for centuries
•between Hindus and Muslims.

.
•
•Making love to a cactus: U.S.-Pakistan
relations at a dangerous moment
•U.S. -Pakistan, a cursed alliance

•It has not yet ended but is almost there. Somewhere in July and beyond in 2010,
there was this increased need for the two military commanders of each side to
meet more often and develop a commonunderstanding of the motives,
objectives and strategies that needed to bring some success to the Afghan War.
There may have been some understanding reached but mostly it was a case of
both sides talking through the other; the camaraderie that both enjoyed till then
seemed to have taken a clear back seat. First in Geneva, at a NATO and their
allies meet, and then in October at the Pakistan-US strategic dialogue, General
Kayani, Pakistan’s Army chief, spelt out in clear terms Pakistan’s apprehensions
and hopes on how the situation in Afghanistan could be moved towards a
respectable resolution.No, it was not about ‘strategic depth’, that most
commentators in Pakistan use to lash out at the military, nor a government of
Pakistan’s choice in Afghanistan after the US left, but simply a case of Pakistan
being given her rightful place at the table as the endgame is played out in
Afghanistan. Pakistan already stretched in the east, and likely to be heavily
engaged internally in a long war to eliminate extremist strands from Pakistan’s
societal midst, cannot afford a third frontin the shape of either an inimical
Afghanistan or a placid Afghanistan under inimical influence —read India. The
reformulation of Pakistan’s threat perception into a less hostile determination is
possible but, for that to happen, relations on the India-Pakistan front will need
dramatic improvement,something unlikely in the short run.

•But I digress. The US and Pakistan are in an unequal relationship.
The concept of sovereign equality works well between two evenly
matchedstates but where the tenor is more patron-client,
sovereignty is a fabled dream. Pakistan’s politics is American-
sponsored; no major party with a reasonable possibility to assume
power will ever want to annoy the US with critical statements. The
Raymond Davis case is a typical example; when he was finally
released, all hell broke loose in phenomenal grandstanding, but
while he was still in and the government seemed at a loss on how
to appease all quarters, the president sought an All Parties
Conference to find a way out of the imbroglio; not a soul moved —
so much for Pakistan’s political double-speak. With a government
in power, and others like the Sharif brothers indirect beneficiaries
on the back of an American-sponsored National Reconciliation
Ordinance (NRO), it is unlikely that Pakistan can break loose
from this eternal embrace.

•Similarly, Pakistan will not tax its electorate —the PPP, its agricultural support base and
the PML-N and MQM, its trader groups. As such Pakistan stays perpetually indebted to
American handouts as the Kerry-Lugar Bill (KLB) arrangement or the IMF-World Bank-
Asian Development Bank (IFIs) facilitation. The US carries majority votes in each of
these institutions, which are critical to keeping the Pakistani economy afloat during this
war against militancy and extremism. The PPP in power has been bereft of any ideas on
how to move the economy under a convenient ruse of the economy being a war economy
and hence okay to remain impoverished. Not that there are no options. The PPP has
never had the economy on their radar, so Pakistan continues to languish.
Militarily too, Pakistan has been traditionally US-provisioned. It is no gainsaying that
Pakistan’s difficult neighbourhood imposes its own dynamics, making it imperative to
seek a bigger bang for every buck that the military must spend. The military espouses a
reasonably well-founded professional tradition built around some real cutting edge
capabilities. Most are American in origin, others are either not as good or as cost-
efficient. The F-16 remains the easiest bogey in Pakistani discourse but most forget that
prior to the recent induction of 18 later-model versions, the other fleet is approaching
three decades of service with the PAF. Most other fighters are even older. Yet these were
paid for with Pakistani money. What the military now covets however is the three billion
dollars in aid over the next five years that will bring some newer technologies to the army,
which remains desperately short on much desired improvements. This too keeps
Pakistan beholden to the US.

•Get to the war now. What began as one war has slowly degenerated into a two-war reality. When political aims,
strategic objectives and operational strategies remain different, when geo-politics rules end-state culmination, when
latent objectives remain latent and do not get shared and when in operational terms the two armies that operate in
two distinct geographic regions, even though contiguous, have centres of gravity that are literally poles apart in
geographic terms —Kandahar and North Waziristan —there is little if any operational synchronisation in their
application. Led by two different commanders, these are two different wars fought by two different armies with
significantly different capabilities. It is best to recognise these as two different wars that, in effect, since these are
being fought with the common purpose of eliminating extremism and militancy, feed into the supra-strategic level and
help the same larger cause but in their own separate ways. Come to think of it, a constant US blame of Pakistan not
doing North Waziristan, Pakistan blaming US drone attacks and her many special operatives active in its
midst, the CIA and the ISI suspecting each otherwhole hog but keeping up appearances and Gary Ackermann
popping the inevitable on the US’s misplaced regional preferences, and all of the US wondering what in this world
these Pakistanis think of themselves when not playing to the tune of the US when she is the one that pays their bills.
All this, and then some, lead to this irremediable acrimony.
My solution:treat the war as two separate wars without one being answerable to the other. Let each fight
his way using whatever works best for them to appease, conciliate, reintegrate and mainstream people back
into the peaceful fold of the past, ensuring that vulnerabilities are not allowed to re-emerge. Even the Taliban,
around another time, will be a lot smarter than to play the international crusader. To appease Ackermann and Co, if
KLB may not come through let the IFIs alone sustain Pakistan in the short-term; in the meanwhile, Pakistan must
find some spine to reform and rekindle her economy. The military should restructure and reorient based on political
direction that should be returned its flexibility to work problems with India, the Taliban, and in Balochistan on
politico-economic planks.
That way, when we tout sovereignty, it will make an agreeable noise. That way we would obviate the need for any
drones to test our sovereignty on a daily basis. We would also stop demeaning ourselves around the baseless banter of
being listless. The true sovereign is Allah alone. That should put all else to rest.

Gossip 1
•1947-Both embark on the course of firm friendship. US & its people anticipated a long
history of close & cordial relations.
•“ Pakistan is the queerest countryof the world. You even can not draw its map”.
•Oct.1949-Nehru’s 1
st
visit to US.
•May 1950-Liaquatvisits US. “We have chosen the path of free democracy, no room for
theocracy”. ( he remained in US for two months).
•May 1960-U-2 on its espionage mission. Khrushchev asserted, “Peshawar will be
annihilated by Russian rockets if repeated”.
•1961-Ayub-Kennedy meeting Ayubsaid, “We hope that you will have the same amount
of interest in our affairs|.
•1962-Sino-India war. Us sends its Enterprise in to bay of Bengal to show its solidarity
with India. The war was a water shed.
•Khrushchev on this war said, “China is our neighbor & India is our friend”
•By end of 1962 US arms & planes starting flowing to India with supplies. By 1963, Delhi
had more US brass than Islamabad. Pakistan was certainly quick to express its dismay at
the volume of arms to India.
•“ Our aim is to have most friendly & peaceful relation with as many countries as possible.
•1963-“Pak & China laid the foundation of normal & good neighborly relations”. ( At
boundary settlement).

Gossip 2
•Pak.-America alliance: Stresses & Strains. (Article in 1964).
•Darkest phase/ Brightest phase of Pak. Us relations.-1965 war-Ayub sent
formal request to US administration to provide assistance against Indian
aggression to invoke 1959 pact
•Dec.1965-Ayub visits president Johnson. The later declares war , a tragic
with conflict. It was an inconclusive war. Tashkent declaration-3
rd
jan.66.
•1971-Indira wanted to cripple Pakistan permanently.
•Dec.15, 1971-Bhutto speaks to UN, tore up copy of resolution &
denounced the UN & stormed out the session.–The same day US
nuclear air craft carrier, Enterprise, enters Bay of Bengal.
•Dec.30, 1971-Kissinger said, “ Our relations with Pakistan were marked by
superficial friendlinessthat had little concrete contents”.
•Simla agreement , unable to settle fundamental issues.

Gossip 3
•1974-India” test.” “How a country with a population of over 500 mn, most of them with
a postal address below poverty line afford to explore a nuclear device? Vital & valuable
food was being snatched from the mouths of Indian starved nation.. With emaciated
hands clutching a begging bow”.
•Bhutto describes the blast as a fateful development, A threat to pak.’ security .The
explosion introduced qualitative change in situation…between India & Pak. Many
assurances from India in the past, have regrettably remained unhonoured…. Yet India
has indulged in the luxury of going at a very great cost, very great risk…
•1976-Symington amendment
•1982-Zia in Washington. Reagan speaks for “unflinching support to Pakistan&
stresses that Washington will not waiver in its commitment to Islamabad. “Deep
relationship”.
•1985-Pressler,
•1993-Pakistan firmly rejects US decision to put Pakistan on the watch list of terrorist
states.
•1993-US said India using heavy force in Kashmir.
•1993-Kashmir under Presidential rule.
•1994-India –Us on the road of friendship. Us appreciates India ‘s progress in ec.field&
wanted to work jointly. Indian prime minister N.Rao’svisit to Us was water shed.
•1995-India-US also sign defense deal.
•1995-Brown amendment
•1996-Pak. receives & 124 mnunder brown amendment.1997-Vajpayee as p.m. Ind-US
to work in hi-tech areas
•India can play important role in Asia-Pacific region.
•1997-India in a position to play a key role in international affairs-US admits.

Gossip 4
•Dec.99-SubsequenttoPak.Tests,USimposedfurthersanctionsagainstpakunder
Glennamendment.
•Oct.99-SanctionsappliedagainstPak.Forremovingdemocraticgovt..
•Feb.2000-USconcernsoverterrorism&absenceofdemocracyinPak.
•Mar.00-USannouncesseparate&distinctpoliciesforbothIndia&Pak.
•Mar.00-ClintonvisitsIndia.HighlightsvisionstatementonnewIndia-USagendaof
partnershipfor21
st
century.AlsoregretsforignoringIndiafor2decades.
•India&US–naturalallies.USalsoadmits&admiresIndia’sleadershipintheregion&
world.
•Dec.00-USimposesmissilesanctionsonPak.Pak.Says,sanctionsunjustified.
•Dec.00-BrownbackamendmentadoptedallowingPak.Fundsinbasiceducation.
•Jan.2001-Bushtakesoveraspresident.UrgesVajpayeeinwritingtostartdialoguewith
pak..AseparateletteralsohandedovertoMusharafforsame.
•CanUSstandbyPak.Throughthick&thin?
•CanIndiaPak.overcomePursuitthepathofreconciliation&rapprochement?Can
webuildtensionfreerelations&legacyofdistrust&hostility?
•2001-RelationswithPak.Inthepasthaverelativelybeenfalse.
•Disenchantedallies.–DenisKlux.
•2000-Pak.RejectsaccusationsthatitacquiredmissiletechnologyfromChina.

Gossip-5
•Sep. 23, 2001. Bush lifts nuclear related sanctions on India & Pak.
•Sep.28, 01-Bush lifts democracy related sanctions after 11 years.
•Nov.01-Bush-Musharafmeeting in new York. $ 1 bngiven.
•July 2009-Hillary in India-Announces Strategic partnership with India & Defense deal.
India’s relations strengthening on Israel-US pattern
•1-Sided friendship. Superficial/ False relations.
•Pak-US relations run by strategic necessity/ expediency.
•Uncomfortable partners not enlightened partners-Complex partnership.
•Korean war was the 1
st
in a series of projected communist aggression to Asia.
•Pak always had subservient/ subsidiary allincewith west. There was no outlet for Pak.
But no public opinion was sought. So Pak by doing so earned the implacable hostility of
Soviets, which offered whole some support to India on Kashmir & to Afghover
pukhtunistan. By joining Seato& Cento, Pak decided to forego ideology.
•Kennedy offeredunilateralarm sale to India. Arms also rushed from UK, & other
commonwealth countries against Chinese thrust.
•Pak’s simmering discontent with west in 1962 on treatment between an ally & a neutral.

Gossip-6
•Pak was converted into a military spring board by west in South Asia in 1960
against USSR, India, China & Afghhanistan & oter Asian countries & US
strenghtened control over Pak.
•1962-A watershed in China’s attitude towards India.
•China wanted Pak to detach from US & it it saw in Pak a pliable tool to
project its image in west especially in Afro-Asian countries.

India-US & Pakistan
•Upgrading of ties between US & India since Clinton time (After
cold war era)
•Different policies for India & Pakistan. No parity in treatment.
•India is the counter-piece of US policy. Transformation of
relations as India is a rising major power.
•Defense & nuclear deals.
•Sharp contrast in the behaviors of Clinton & Bush’s visits.

.
•After Pakistan refuses to back America to attack
Iran, moves are underway to destabilize
Pakistan.

.
•We need to work on “Regional diplomacy”

.
•As a super power US wanted engagements in all
regions of the world. It needed India in south
Asia. Pak is just a part of the region…..Pak
expects a lot from US but the later has its
limitations with all stake holders

.
•Pak, an indispensable ally…but US doesn’t treat
it as an ally…huge trust deficit… The US
neither shares its ambition s& plans for the
region with Pak nor is ready to disclose its
strategy to its vital partner.
•Americans say one thing & do the other

•During the tenure of theClintonandBush
administration, relations between India and the United
States blossomed primarily over common concerns
regarding growingIslamic extremism, energy security
and climate change.[3]
•According to some foreign policy experts, there was a
slight downturn in India-U.S. relations following the
election ofBarackObamaas thePresident of the
United Statesin 2009. This was primarily due
toObama administration's desire to increase relations
with China,[4]

•In July 2005, President Bush hosted Prime Minister Singh in Washington, DC. The
two leaders announced the successful completion of the NSSP, as well as other
agreements which further enhance cooperation in the areas of civil nuclear, civil space,
and high-technology commerce. Other initiatives announced at this meeting include:
an U.S.-India Economic Dialogue, Fight Against HIV/AIDS, Disaster Relief,
Technology Cooperation, Democracy Initiative, an Agriculture Knowledge Initiative, a
Trade Policy Forum, Energy Dialogue and CEO Forum. President Bush made a
reciprocal visit to India in March 2006, during which the progress of these initiatives
were reviewed, and new initiatives were launched.
•In December 2006, Congress passed the historicHenry J. Hyde United States-India
Peaceful Atomic Cooperation Act, which allows direct civilian nuclear commerce with
India for the first time in 30 years. U.S. policy had opposed nuclear cooperation with
India because the country had developed nuclear weapons in contravention of
international conventions and never signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The
legislation clears the way for India to buy U.S. nuclear reactors and fuel for civilian use.

•TheHAL Dhruvhelicopter of theIndian ArmydeployingU.S troopsduring
a joint military exercise.
•In July 2007, the United States and India reached a historic milestone in their
strategic partnership by completing negotiations on the bilateral agreement
for peaceful nuclear cooperation, also known as the "123 agreement." This
agreement, signed by Secretary of State Rice and External Affairs Minister
Mukherjeeon October 10, 2008, governs civil nuclear trade between the two
countries and opens the door for American and Indian firms to participate in
each other's civil nuclear energy sector. The U.S. and India seek to elevate the
strategic partnership further to include cooperation in counter-terrorism,
defense cooperation, education, and joint democracy promotion.
•[edit]Economic relations

•The United States is also one of India's largest direct investors.
From 1991 to 2004, the stock of FDI inflow has increased from
USD $11.3 million to $344.4 million, totaling $4.13 billion. This
is a compound rate increase of 57.5% annually. Indian direct
investments abroad were started in 1992]. Indian corporations
and registered partnership firms are allowed to invest in
businesses up to 100% of their net worth. India's largest
outgoing investments are manufacturing, which account for
54.8% of the country's foreign investments. The second largest
are non-financial services (software development), which
accounts for 35.4% of investments.
•[edit]Trade relations
•
•

•U.S. PresidentGeorge W. Bushand Indian Prime MinisterManmohan Singhduring a
meeting with Indian and American business leaders inNew Delhi.
•The United States is India's largest trading partner. In 2007, the United States exported
$17.24 billion worth goods to India and imported $24.02 billion worth of Indian
goods.[9]Major items exported by India to the U.S. includeInformation
TechnologyServices,textiles,machinery,ITeS,gemsanddiamonds,chemicals,ironan
dsteelproducts,coffee,tea, and other edible food products. Major American items
imported by India includeaircraft,fertilizers,computer hardware,scrap metaland
medical equipment.[10][11]
•The United States is also India's largest investment partner, with American direct
investment of $9 billion accounting for 9% of total foreign investment into India.
Americans have made notable foreign investment in India's power generation,
telecommunications, ports, roads, petroleum exploration/processing, and mining
industries.[11]
•In July 2005, U.S. President George W. Bush and Indian Prime MinisterDr.
Manmohan Singhcreated a new program called theTrade Policy Forum. I

,
•US and fundamentalism
•Of the 32 armed conflicts at the turn of this century, two-thirds involved Muslims. A
decade down the line, the situation remains almost the same. Even worse, the “clash of
civilisations” thesis presented by Bernard Lewis in 1964, amplified by Samuel Huntington
(1993) and Osama bin Laden (9/11), is continuously invoked both by the crusaders and
the jihadis.
Amid all the noise, it is never mentioned that Washington ‘s oldest ally in the Middle East
is not Israel but Saudi Arabia . Since Roosevelt’s declaration in 1943, “the defenceof
Saudi Arabia is vital to the defenceof the United States.” This policy, in 1957, translated
into the Eisenhower Doctrine pledging direct US protection to any Gulf nation
willing to acknowledge the “communist threat.” The doctrine was, in fact, equally
aimed at Arab nationalism.
Eisenhower saw GamalAbdel Nasser as a Soviet tool. Eisenhower later wrote: “To check
any movement in this direction we wanted to explore the possibilities of building up King
Saud as a counterweight to Nasser . The king was a logical choice in this regard: he at
least professed anti-communism, and he enjoyed, on religious grounds, a high standing
among all Arab nations.”
To save the Middle East from communism, Washington ‘s turn to “Political
Islam” was a lesson learnt from British experience in the region. In August
1919, the British General Staff Intelligence Department in Egypt succeeded in obtaining
from the grand mufti of Al Azhar, ShaikhMuhammad Bakhit, a fatwa against
Bolshevism. The effect was directly contrary to what it had anticipated. Some
newspapers, like the Ahali, a mouthpiece of the Fabian SalamahMusa, and the
nationalist Wadi-en-Nil, attacked the fatwa and defended the Bolsheviks. The
independent Al-Ahram published an interview of Lenin with a German journalist, giving
his definitions of communism, which were taken by the reading public to be a refutation
of the mufti.

.
•Similarly, in Iraq during the unsettled years after the Wathbahof 1948 and the
Intifadahof 1952, when the Iraqi Communist Party emerged as a mass party, the
classes in authority tried to avail themselves of religion to stem the advance of
communism. Significantly, the initiative came from the representatives of English
power. P B Ray, an intelligence officer, wrote in a letter to the director of Iraq ‘s secret
police dated April 20, 1949: “Communism will never be completely eradicated by what
we may term ‘police methods’ alone.” Among the “corrective” methods recommended
by Ray was what he called “the religious approach.” The great Arab historian, Hanna
Batatu, remarks: “It was apparently in pursuit of this line that later –on Oct 6, 1953 –
Sir John Troutbeck, the English ambassador to Iraq , made direct contact with the
chief Shiite Mujtahid, ShaikhMuhammad Al-Hussein Kashiful-Ghata. He visited the
shaikhat his school in Najaf and discussed with him, as the shaikhsubsequently put it,
the matter of ‘the common enemy’... In the course of the conversation, the
ambassador is said to have taken trouble to impress upon the shaikhthat ‘the
combating of communism is dependent upon the awakening of the ulemaand the
spiritual leaders, and their proper guidance in the schools and clubs.
While Britain sought local solutions to a regional threat, the United States , wisely
enough, projected fundamentalism as a bulwark against communism across the
Muslim world, as well as against Arab nationalism. Lebanese intellectual Gilbert
Achcaraptly remarks: “The present strength of Islamic fundamentalism is a direct
product of very direct US policies... Secular nationalism has been weakened and
destroyed by the United States as its main enemy. In the 1960s, the dominant trend in
the Muslim world in general was secular nationalism and, in the Arab world, Arab
nationalism as embodied by Egyptian president GamalAbdel Nasser The United
States fought this brand of nationalism, basing itself on the most reactionary brand of
Islamic fundamentalism implemented and propagated by the Saudi kingdom.”

.•ronically, the Eisenhower Doctrine was put to test in Jordan first of all, where anti-US
nationalists were brutally crushed, with the Muslim Brothers on the monarchy’s side,
by King Hussein. Ever since, civil liberties have been curtailed in Jordan. Washington,
however, applauded King Hussein’s “gallant fight to eject subversive elements from
his country and government.”
To wrest Syria from Nasser ‘s embrace, the CIA gave a Syrian stooge £500,000 to
organisea coup. British MI6 had its own plan, codenamed Straggle, to overthrow the
nationalist government of Syria, which was then part of a federation with Egypt, called
the United Arab Republic, a name which Egypt continued to use as its official title
until the 1970s despite the break-up of the UAR. In the 1950s this federation was
luring Lebanon and Yemen and nationalists in Iraq. Earlier, in 1951, the Iranian
parliament had voted to nationalisethe Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. Shortly
afterwards, Mohammad Mossadeq, the main architect of the nationalisationpolicy, was
elected prime minister. The Eisenhower administration was suspicious of Mossadeq’s
ties to Moscow, his association with the communist TudehParty and his attempts to
undermine the Shah’s autocratic powers. Hence, he was overthrown in a coup in 1953
staged by the CIA. AyotollahKashaniwas siding with the coup plotters. For his
services, the CIA operative in Iran dispatched a hefty sum of money to the Ayotollah’s
home.
Hizbollah’srise is often attributed to Iran. However, an equally important fact is that
Israel, according to Achcar, “very deliberately disarmed all groups that were based on
secular ideologies with a multireligiousmembership –communist or nationalist or
other. And they didn’t disarm communalist groups, whether Shiite or Druze, not to
mention their Christian allies...But they disarmed, of course, the PLO and the
Lebanese left.”

•The case of Al-Qaeda is too well-known to deserve space here.
A symbiosis of US-Saudi-Pakistani spy agencies, Al-Qaeda was
armed, trained and funded to counter the Red Army in
Afghanistan in the 1980s. Wikileaks’ revelations about a banquet
Maulana Fazlur Rehman hosted for US ambassador Anne
Patterson is hardly a leak. An ISI sleuth, Brigadier Tirmizi, in his
memoir recalls that dollars were showered on the JUI leadership
during the anti-Bhutto campaign while Jamaat-e-Islami activists
were busy chanting “Long Live USA” outside the US Consulate
in Lahore. The Jamaat’s tribute to the US consulate during the
anti-Bhutto campaign was not a coincidence. Imperialism
sponsored all the fundamentalists to counter the Bhuttos. Some,
like Osama, turned out to be the Sorcerer’s Apprentice.

•Pakistan: trapped in the US game plan;
Article by Dr. Shireen Mazari
By Hammad Cheema | 1051
Views | | Opinion Articles,Pakistan

•Badaber was an excellent location because of its proximity to Soviet central Asia. This
enabled monitoring of missile test sites and infrastructure and other communications.
The U-2 "spy-in-the-sky" was allowed to use thePakistan Air Force
portionofPeshawar airportto gain vital photo intelligence in an era before satellite
observation.[2]
•On April 9, 1960, a U-2C spyplane of the specialCentral Intelligence Agency(CIA)
unit "10-10," piloted by Bob Ericson, crossed the southern national boundary of the
Soviet Union in the area ofPamir Mountainsand flew over four Soviet top secret
military objects: theSemipalatinsk Test Site, theDolon air basewhereTu-95strategic
bombers were stationed, theSurface-to-Air Missile(SAM) test site of theSoviet Air
Defence ForcesnearSaryshagan, and theTyuratammissile range (Baikonur
Cosmodrome). The plane was detected by the Soviet Air Defense Forces at 4:47 when
it had flown more than 250km over the Soviet national boundary and avoided several
attempts at interception byMiG-19andSu-9during the flight. The U-2 left Soviet air
space at 11:32 and landed at an Iranian airstrip at Zahedan. It was clear that the U.S.
Central Intelligence Agency had successfully performed an extraordinary intelligence
operation. In spite of the negative Soviet diplomatic reaction,[vague]the next flight of
the U-2 spyplane from Peshawar airport was planned to take place on April 29.[

Strategic dialogue
•The process of dialogue between the government's wedding procession and the "US Empire" is
mere eyewash. Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari government's supporters and opponents are
busy in comments and discussions while the Pakistani community in the United States does not
attach any importance to this dialogue. They say Pakistan neither was nor will be free to make its
own decisions. Pakistan ahs always been governed by the Army. Democratic governments are
nothing more than puppets.
•
The Pakistani community feels that the Army is supporting the incumbent regime as well. Some
segments feel that General Kayani enjoys the same status as generals of yore enjoyed in Pakistan.
Only a dictatorship and dictatorial democracy in Pakistan suits the United Stats. The incumbent
government has come to power, apparently, through peace's votes. However, it is looking for
scaffoldings to complete its term. Pakistan has an elected president as well. However, the real
force comes from the Army and Army is considered synonymous with the United States. The
segment, weary of Army and the so-called democratic regimes feels that the Army has very
cleverly taken advantage of civil government's weakness.
•
Interference in Pakistani Politics
The United States considers the civilian government corrupt and inefficient whereas the Army is
carrying out successful military operations, is arresting wanted terrorists, cooperating fully with
the United States in war on terror. That is why Army is the focus of this dialogue.

•Nixon's and Kissinger's efforts to establish communication with China in the fall of 1970.Since
the beginning of his presidency in early 1969, and even earlier, Nixon had been interested in
changing relations with China, not least to contain a potential nuclear threat but also, by taking
advantage of the adversarial Sino-Soviet relationship, to open up another front in the Cold War
with the Soviet Union.It took time, however, for Nixon and Kissinger to discover how to carry
out a new policy toward Beijing and such complications as the U.S. invasion of Cambodia in 1970
created detours in White House efforts to sustain a dialogue with Beijing.(2)
• Earlier efforts to make contact with China having gone nowhere, in September 1970 Nixon
directed Kissinger to renew the effort.An October 1970 meeting with Pakistan's ruler Yahya
Khan (seedocument 3) had some potential for expediting contacts because Pakistan had provided
a channel for earlier Sino-American communication in 1969.(3)Nevertheless, as the documents
show, Kissinger was also trying other channels, such as the Romanian government and an old
friend, Jean Sainteny, who had connections at the Chinese embassy in Paris.The Pakistani
channel produced an important message from Zhou in December 1970, which quickly generated
a White House response (see documents5and7).In April 1971, both sides were engaged in
important signaling---the Chinese with "Ping Pong diplomacy" and Nixon with public statements
of interest in visiting China--while Kissinger was waiting for Beijing's response to the message
sent in December.On 27 April 1971, he was about to make another effort to contact Sainteny
when the Pakistani ambassador delivered Zhou Enlai's belated reply (seedocument 16).Mao
Zedong's and Zhou's interest in receiving a visit from Nixon laid the way for Kissinger's secret
trip in July 1971 and the beginning of the U.S.-China effort to discuss the issues that had divided
them over the years.

•HOME>Resources>Diplomatic History>Events and IssuesNixon's China's Visit and "Sino-U.S. Joint
Communiqué"
2000/11/17
•
•Towards the end of the 1960s, President Nixon, after entering the White House, wanted to
improve Sino-U.S. relations so as to increase U.S. assets by conducting a foreign policy of
"maintaining the global balance". He stressed that U.S. policy in Asia has entered a dead alley and
repeatedly expressed his desire to move in the direction of a "Sino-U.S. rapprochement" and taking the
initiative through Pakistan and Romania to pass on messages to China. In the early 1970s, Chairman Mao
Zedong and Premier Zhou Enlai, proceeding from the strategic requirements of adjusting the big triangular
relations between China, the United States and the Soviet Union, sent out such messages through such means
as requesting the American writer Edgar Snow to pass on the message and inviting the American Table Tennis
Teams to visit China, to the effect that China is willing to have contact with the American side and to bring
about a thaw in the statement of Sino-U.S. relations. On 21 April, the Chinese Government sent a verbal
message to the U.S. Government on the U.S. proposal of holding a high-level dialogue between the two sides:"
If the relations between China and the USA are to be restored fundamentally, the U.S. must withdraw all its
armed forces from China's Taiwan and the Taiwan strait area. A solution to this crucial question can be found
only through direct discussions between high level responsible persons of the two countries

Blessed are the WikiLeaks
revolutionaries
•The book –“The American role in pakistan,
1947-58 –written by prof.Venkataramani….It
was collection of declassified

•I remember when I came across the first book based on
diplomatic papers declassified by the US State
Department in 1982. The book —The American Role
in Pakistan, 1947-1958 —was written by Professor M
Venkataramani. As the book was not available in
Pakistan, it was with great difficulty that I managed to
get a photocopied version (pardon me for copyright
violation). The book is not just a collection of
declassified papers, but Venkataramani has used the
information to trace the history of the US’s role in
Pakistan.

•Those who are now crying wolf and loss of sovereignty to the US should read
this book to get the right historical perspective.Unfortunately, ultra-
nationalist friends forget that the Americans were invited to dinner by
the founder of Pakistan: “On May 1, 1947, Mohammad Ali Jinnah,
leader of the Muslim League, received two American visitors at his
Bombay residence. They were Raymond A Hare, Head of the Division
of South Asian Affairs, Department of State, and Thomas E Weil,
Second Secretary of the US Embassy in India…he sought to impress on
his visitors that the emergence of an independent, sovereign Pakistan
would be in consonance with the Americaninterests.
•Pakistan would be a Muslim country. Muslim countries would stand together
against Russian aggression. In that they would look towards the United States
for assistance.” The meeting was reported by the US Charge de Affairs in
Delhi, George E Merril, on May 2, 1947.

•This is not the only incident that shows how Pakistan offered to play a strategic role to
defend the region from ‘Russian aggression’, i.e. communism, and the spread of
‘Indian imperialism’ in the region.Right from day one, Pakistan has been asking
for US arms to protect itself from the ‘Indian threat’. Liaquat Ali Khan followed
this policy and, in his trip to the US in early May 1950, stressed: “Pakistan
therefore politically, ideologically and strategically, holds the position of great
responsibility…In addition to this, Pakistan is resolved to throw all its weights
to help the maintenance of stability in Asia.”
•In 1999, Oxford University Press published a book, The American Papers —
Secret and Confidential, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh Documents, 1965-1973,
compiled and selected by Roedad Khan, a former senior Pakistani
bureaucrat.These papers give an insight into behind-the-doors American diplomacy
during the liberation struggle of Bangladesh and the happenings before and after the
Pakistan-India 1965 war.As it does not include all the papers and the selection
was done by Roedad Khan, one wonders what the criterion for this selection
was. But, unlike WikiLeaks, the compilation is from the archives that had been
declassified officially.

•While the media is outraged about the US administration and Pakistani politicians’ axis, they have
underplayed the interference in Pakistan by the Saudi government.The Saudis have accepted that they
are not just mere observers in Pakistan’s politics but were “participants”.Their interference in Pakistan’s
politics and unabated support to the Islamic extremist groups has damaged the country’s peace.
•Whether it is an issue of our leaders, closeness with American and British diplomats or unabated drone attacks,
outraged media and some politicians shout from the pulpit that our sovereignty is being violated by the big
powers. But very seldom do these protagonists of sovereignty mull over the fact that our political and territorial
boundaries are breached by other countries. When we speak against the interference of foreign powers in our
politics —and rightly so —we should keep in mind the basic principle of international laws regarding
sovereignty. These laws have evolved over the last many centuries.
•According to Professor Dr Douglas Stuart, “State sovereignty still remains an ambiguous and convoluted
theory. As one looks at the role of state sovereignty in today’s international system, it is important to set some
basic guidelines.” He argues that “the empowerment of local movements by strong international non-state
actors poses a serious challenge to the theory of state sovereignty”.
•This is where Pakistan’s predicament begins with its paranoia about India. Dictated by the same sense of
insecurity and myopic view, our establishment has also gotten itself stuck in the quagmire of Afghanistan. The
desire to have a client state in Afghanistan has made us pushy to the extent that most governments in Kabul
have remained unhappy with Islamabad. And in the process we have willingly become a client state of the US
and Saudi Arabia.
•Source:Daily Times

•KEY IRRITANTS
•There is mistrust on a range of issues, from security cooperation
to how aid is delivered. Many Pakistanis feel the United States is
only a reliable partner when its own strategic interests are at
stake, citing previous cases of abandonment, particularly after the
Soviets left Afghanistan.
•Most opinion polls show a majority of Pakistanis hold an
unfavourable view of the U.S. government and are suspicious of
its intentions. Pakistan's government bristles when Washington
complains it has not done enough to tackle militants, countering
it has "already done too much" in a war that has killed more than
2,000 soldiers and weighed on the economy

•There is also public anger because of civilian deaths from U.S. pilotless drone attacks in northwest
Pakistan. Pakistan's government privately allows the attacks but this support is not voiced publicly
because of a feared voter backlash.
•A recent source of U.S. irritation has been delays in granting visas for U.S. officials wanting to
audit how aid is spent. Pakistan complains about increased security checks for its citizens visiting
the United States. A group of Pakistani parliamentarians from the tribal areas cut short a trip to
the United States this month after refusing to have full-body scans at an airport serving
Washington, D.C.
•AID PROGRAM
•The United States is Pakistan's biggest aid donor and has given about $15 billion in direct aid and
military reimbursements since 2002, about two-thirds of it security related.
•While Pakistan is being propped up by an $11.3 billion International Monetary Fund loan, a new
U.S. aid package triples non-military assistance to Pakistan to $1.5 billion a year over the next five
years.
•The spending plan is still being worked out but the flow of money is being held up as the Obama
administration changes how it distributes that aid. Instead of largely using U.S. contractors and
non-governmental organizations, it wants to funnel much of the aid via the Pakistani government
and domestic NGOs in the hope this will bolster local capacity.

•Pakistan wants the United States to do more to help resolve tensions with
India and is concerned about the increasing role of its rival in Afghanistan.
Islamabad also wants the United States to press India to resolve the core
dispute between the nuclear-armed South Asian rivals --the divided region of
Kashmir. India is opposed to outside involvement.
•NUCLEAR COOPERATION
•Pakistan would like a civilian nuclear cooperation deal with the United States,
similar to the one Washington has with India, and plans to raise this during
the talks.
•But the U.S. response has been lukewarm to this proposal, amid fears over
how it would affect Washington's ties with India. In addition, such a move
would require consensus approval from the 46-nation Nuclear Suppliers
Group as well as U.S. congressional backing, which was a lengthy process
with the Indian deal

•In the 1980s, Pakistan agreed to pay $658
million for 28F-16fighter jets from the
United States; however the American congress
froze the deal citing objections to Pakistani
nuclear ambitions. Under the terms of the
American cancellation, they kept both the
money and the planes, leading to angry claims of
theft by Pakistanis.[5

•Reasons for capture
•U.S. analysts have said that Baradar's capture is a significant shift in Pakistan's
position, since Pakistan had been giving shelter to him and to other Taliban leaders
until this capture.[22]But others said Pakistan captured Baradar to stop his
negotiations with the Karzai government, so that Pakistan would get a seat at the
table.[23]Still others said that the capture was a lucky accident, as Baradar was picked
up along with others in a raid based on U.S.-supplied intelligence.[24]Another view
contends that Pakistani General Ashfaq Parvez Kayaniis using the series of Taliban
arrests to help extend his own career beyond his slated November retirement date, the
theory being that this would raise his standing among American policymakers and thus
press the Pakistani government to retain him.[25]Aftermath
•Pakistan arrested several other Taliban on information from Baradar. Mullah Abdul
Salam was included among such detainees.[citation needed] Pakistan indicated on
February 24 that it would extradite Baradar to Afghanistan if formally asked to do
so.[26]The following day the Afghan government announced that its extradition
proposal was accepted by Pakistan
•Video results for mullah baradar
•Joint CIA ISI Operation in Pakistan captures

•CIA Director Leon Panetta and other officials have proposed moving Mullah Baradar to the US-run prison at
the Bagram Air Base north of Kabul," The Dawn quoted a report in the US media, as saying.
"Mullah Baradar is an Afghan, so it's only logical that his home country might be considered as an ultimate
destination," said a US official.
The reports came just hours after Pakistan Interior Minister Rehman Malik said that Baradar would not be
handed over the US in any case.
Malik said Pakistani agencies would first investigate Baradar's links with the banned terrorist network, and
could hand him over to Afghanistan if the need arises but not to the US.
"First we will see whether they have violated any law.If they have done it, then the law will take its own course
against them, but at the most if they have not done anything, then they will go back to the country of origin,
not to the US," Malik said.
According to some reports the CIA was denied direct access to Mullah Baradar for about two weeks after his
arrest, and had since worked alongside Pakistani interrogators who continued to control the questioning.
It is also believed that Mullah Baradar had longstanding ties Pakistan's intelligence agencies, and this is the
prime reason why Pakistan is reluctant to hand over the Taliban deputy to the US.
•--ANI

•The capture of senior Afghan Taliban leaders in Pakistan represents the culmination of months of pressure by the
Obama administration on Pakistan’s powerful security forces to side with the United States as its troops wage
war in Afghanistan, according to U.S. and Pakistani officials.
•A new level of cooperation includes Pakistani permission late last month for U.S. intelligence officials to station
personnel and technology in this pulsating megacity, officials said. Intercepted real-time communications handed
over to Pakistani intelligence officials have led to the arrests in recent days of Mullah Abdul GhaniBaradar, the
Afghan Taliban’s No. 2 commander, and two of the group’s “shadow” governors for northern Afghanistan.
•—
•Gareth Porter, writing for Inter Press Service, goes behind the official story of the US-Pakistan joint operation to
break the “Old Taliban” in Afghanistan with the capture of the organisation’ssecond-ranking leader:
•Contrary to initial U.S. suggestions that it signals reduced Pakistani support for the Taliban, the detention of
Mullah Abdul GhaniBaradar, the operational leader of the Afghan Taliban, represents a shift by Pakistan to
more open support for the Taliban in preparation for a peace settlement and U.S. withdrawal.
•Afghanistan: The Latest on the US Military-Covert Offensive
•Statements by Pakistani officials to journalists prior to the arrest indicate that the decision to put Baradarin
custody is aimed at ensuring that the Taliban role in peace negotiations serves Pakistani interests. They also
suggest that Pakistani military leaders view Baradaras an asset in those negotiations rather than an adversary to
be removed from the conflict.
Pakistan has long viewed the military and political power of the Taliban as Pakistan’s primary strategic asset in
countering Indian influence in Afghanistan, which remains its main concern in the conflic

•Militia members brandish weapons while
dancing in a show of force in Khar, the main
town in the tribal enclave of Bajaur, which lies in
Pakistan's tribal area along the Afghan border.
The men had gathered to show their numbers
during a media trip organized by the Pakistani
army. The army routed militants from Bajaur in
fierce fighting that left some 75 militants dead.
It's the latest Pakistani offensive that has been
lauded by the United States.

•A series of Pakistani army offensives against domestic militants and a string of
arrests of senior Afghan Taliban members signal a new understanding
between Pakistan and the United States.
•As Pakistan accelerates action against extremists, Washington has
reciprocated with stepped up delivery of military hardware and praise for the
Pakistani government.
•For years, Pakistan denied that senior members of the Afghan Taliban were
on its territory. But those denials were cast aside last month when Pakistani
and American intelligence agents arrested Mullah Baradar, the Afghan
Taliban's deputy leader, in a joint raid in the Pakistani port of Karachi
•But retired Pakistani Brig. Talat Masood says his country's policy is changing.
•"I think Pakistan has realized that it cannot continue to support militants
[and] at the same time be an ally with the United States. I think there is a shift
taking place. It is a gradual shift, but the realization is there. I think we have
to understand that," Masood adds

•Sethi says Pakistan has grasped that the Afghan Taliban is not separate from the
Pakistan Taliban, with whom the country is at war.
•We are in a race for the fate of Pakistan.
•-a U.S. official
•"The Pakistanis now have come around to the fact that this is a seamless network in
many ways. And the CIA is doing its job of intelligence, and the Pakistanis are doing
their job of physical nabbing," Sethi adds.
•But Moeed Yusuf, South Asia adviser at the U.S. Institute of Peace, does not see the
recent string of arrests as a strategic shift. Pakistan reportedly fears being excluded
from any talks with the Afghan Taliban to end the fighting in Afghanistan.
•Yusuf says Pakistan helped capture the Afghan Taliban's second in command, Mullah
Baradar, to stay relevant and to ensure a place for itself at the table when the parties
explore a negotiated end to the Afghan war.
•"This was a very clear message from the Pakistani establishment to the U.S. as well as
to the Afghan Taliban that, 'We are going to be the main interlocutors,' " Yusuf says.
"Pakistan, because of its own paranoia that it may be left out, will continue to signal
this off and on."

•High Marks From The U.S.
•Whatever differences exist over the handling of the Afghan Taliban, American officials
give high marks to Pakistan's campaign against its homegrown Taliban.
•The Pakistani army has been busily sweeping militants from their strongholds in the
treacherous tribal belt along the Afghan border.
•
•Julie McCarthy/NPR
•Damadolain Bajaurhad been considered a Taliban bulwark for almost seven years.
Pakistani security forces discovered a honeycomb of caves that provided safe haven
for an assortment of extremists that was at one time believed to have included al-
Qaida.
•This past week in Bajaur, the smallest of Pakistan's seven tribal districts, a civilian
militia of 1,000 men brandished guns and sang songs to celebrate the defeat of the
Taliban there.
•Pakistan's army unearthed a honeycomb of caves there that the top brass described as
a nerve center for the Taliban, and a one-time haven for al-Qaida. It attracted an
assortment of extremists, who launched attacks against Pakistani targets as well as
NATO troops next door.

•MullahAbdul GhaniBaradar(Dari/Pashto:
ردارب ینغلادبع; born c. 1968),[1]also called Mullah
BaradarAkhund, is an AfghanTalibanleader.
The deputy of Mullah Mohammed Omarand
leader of the Quetta Shura, Baradarwas largely
seen as the de factoleader of the Taliban as of
2009.[2]He was captured by U.S. and Pakistani
forces in Pakistan on February 8, 2010, in a
morning raid.[3]

5: 9/11/01 to date
3
rd
bond of alliance
Sep.01 -Alliance -War Against Terrorism
Sep.01-Pakistan’s support sought

Debt rescheduled
Sanctions Lifted
Major Non NATO Ally
Till 2010 -US $12 bn Aid

9/11 -01 to date
Price
Kashmir & Afghan policy
120,000 Pak troops
Sovereignty eroded.
National interest

2006-Spread of war… Ambivalence in American attitude
“Do-More”
2008-09 -Drone attacks
Jan . 2009 Obama’s agenda
Pak under intense pressure –Malakand operation

•Kerry Lugar bill (law)-$ 7.5 bnBut with
conditions.
•Strings attached to military aid (Oct.09)

Heavy military operation-South Waziristan
IDPs-2 waves
Pak in deep trouble due to internal instability.
Terrorism permeated. US encirclement policy & Black
Water issue
Conditionalities of Aid ( Kerry Lugar bill). “Take it or leave
it”. (Kerry-Oct.09)
New conditions on military aid.
Ambivalent remarks/ attitude-“Do More Mantra”.
CURRENT SITUATION-09

Atlantic Council -“Pakistan faces dire
economic and security threats”
(Feb. 2009)

The council underlines that Pakistan is on a “rapid
trajectory towards becoming a failing or failed
state”.Adding, “that trajectory must be reversed
now”.(Feb. 2009)

Pakistan bigger worry than Kabul:
(Christopher Dell, Mar. 2009)

“Pakistan is a mortal threat to the world”
“America is responsible for drifting of Pakistan into
extremism”.
(Hillary Clinton –Apr.09)
‘US wronged Pakistan for 30 years’
( Hillary again admits in May 2009)
Pak reluctant to destroy militants’ network.(Paterson-
Sept)
US made a mistake by abandoning Pak after Afghan
war.(Hillary-Nov.09)

Period of Friendship –1 (1947-1960s)
Gone Apart –2 (1960s-1979)
Pak Again A Front Line Ally –3 (1979-1987)
Decade of Disenchantment –4 (1987-9/11)
Alliance Restored –5 (9/11-to date)

CONCLUSION
Pak, a colony of America
Short term Engagement with different interests
Incoherent bond-How long Pak can afford?
Pak to go for other options.

Updated analysis-09
•May, 09-Hillary said, she was impressed with the recent efforts by pak.,
following her recent criticism on Islamabad.
•June, 09-“Pak. & US have different problems concerning terrorism. And one
of the greatest problem is the arrogant presumption by Washington that
Islamabad must do as it is told”. (Brian Claughghley).
•“US has taken backseat driving… The only to get out of US interference is by
charting our own course”.
•Aug.09: Mehsud’s deathcould help to quell some of public anger over
US drone strikes, launched from secret bases in pak. with govt.’ tacit
approval.
•Aug.09: Joint task force to be formed to over-come energy crisis ( but Pak to
withdraw from Iran pipe-line deal).

Pakistan pays heavy price…
•Pakistan pays heavy price:
•WOT has become Pakistan’s own war. Upsurge in domestic terrorism.
•Musharaf regime avoided the lasting bring institutional reforms necessary to sustain
sound economy. Only 9% of aid spent on development.
•Musharaf manipulated a series of political manipulations designed to increase his own
power unconstitutionally. His flawed devolution plan, attack on Judiciary & his various
provisional orders did not evoke any opposition from US… All contributed in bits &
pieces towards re-enforcing military domination.
•This all contributed to prolonging the political pathologies now familiar in Pakistan-
alliance with Terrorists, extremism, under-development, absence of strong & legitimate
centers of moderation & continuing dominance of a rural feudal class.
•2008 elections also did not change situation & failed to arrest political decline.
•The world now considers Pakistan as the epi-center of terrorism/ a failing state/ A
mortal threat to the world…
•Confusion-how to tackle so many challenges of Pakistan. How to reverse the
trajectory.

COST OF RELATIONSHIP
Pak -A client state.
Dependency syndrome.
Democracy

COST OF RELATIONSHIP
•Interference
•High Jacking of Foreign Policy
•Carrot & Stick Policy
•Extremism & political instability.
•Russia, Afghanistan & India-our common foes.
Continued …….

Latest developments/ Comments
•July 09-India concerned about US aid to Pakistan that it is being used/
diverted to train terrorists against India.
•Would we like to be rid of the dependence on this rich and demanding uncle?

Questions??
•1-Sided friendship. Superficial/
False relations.

.
2. Pak US relations run by
strategic necessity/ expediency.

.
3. Uncomfortable partners not
enlightened partners-Complex
partnership

.
4. Different policies for India &
Pakistan. No parity in treatment.
•India is the counter-piece of US
policy. Transformation of
relations as India is a rising
major power

.
5. Pak US relations lack
sincerity.

.
6. Has Pak become a US
colony?

.
7. Pak pays heavy price for
its friendship with US.

.
8. Can Pak US engage with
each other on long term
basis?

.
9. How Pak can transform its
single foreign policy?

.
•10. Rift in the public.

Gossip 1
•1947-Both embark on the course of firm friendship. US & its
people anticipated a long history of close & cordial relations.
•“ Pakistan is the queerest countryof the world. You even can not
draw its map”.
•Oct.1949-Nehru’s 1
st
visit to US.
•May 1950-Liaquatvisits US. “We have chosen the path of free
democracy, no room for theocracy”. ( he remained in US for two
months).
•May 1960-U-2 on its espionage mission. Khrushchev asserted,
“Peshawar will be annihilated by Russian rockets if repeated”.
•1961-Ayub-Kennedy meeting Ayubsaid, “We hope that you will
have the same amount of interest in our affairs|.
•1962-Sino-India war. Us sends its Enterprise in to bay of Bengal to
show its solidarity with India. The war was a water shed.

•Khrushchev on this war said, “China is our neighbor & India is our
friend”
•By end of 1962 US arms & planes starting flowing to India with
supplies. By 1963, Delhi had more US brass than Islamabad.
Pakistan was certainly quick to express its dismay at the volume of
arms to India.
•“ Our aim is to have most friendly & peaceful relation with as many
countries as possible.
•1963-“Pak & China laid the foundation of normal & good neighborly
relations”. ( At boundary settlement).

Gossip 2
•Pak.-America alliance: Stresses & Strains. (Article in 1964).
•Darkest phase/ Brightest phase of Pak. Us relations.-1965 war-Ayub sent
formal request to US administration to provide assistance against Indian
aggression to invoke 1959 pact
•Dec.1965-Ayub visits president Johnson. The later declares war , a tragic
with conflict. It was an inconclusive war. Tashkent declaration-3
rd
jan.66.
•1971-Indira wanted to cripple Pakistan permanently.
•Dec.15, 1971-Bhutto speaks to UN, tore up copy of resolution &
denounced the UN & stormed out the session.–The same day US
nuclear air craft carrier, Enterprise, enters Bay of Bengal.
•Dec.30, 1971-Kissinger said, “ Our relations with Pakistan were marked by
superficial friendlinessthat had little concrete contents”.
•Simla agreement , unable to settle fundamental issues.

Gossip 3
•1974-India” test.” “How a country with a population of over 500 mn, most of them with a
postal address below poverty line afford to explore a nuclear device? Vital & valuable food was
being snatched from the mouths of Indian starved nation.. With emaciated hands clutching a
begging bow”.
•Bhutto describes the blast as a fateful development, A threat to pak.’ security .The explosion
introduced qualitative change in situation…between India & Pak. Many assurances from India
in the past, have regrettably remained unhonoured…. Yet India has indulged in the luxury of
going at a very great cost, very great risk…
•1976-Symington amendment
•1982-Zia in Washington. Reagan speaks for “unflinching support to Pakistan& stresses that
Washington will not waiver in its commitment to Islamabad. “Deep relationship”.
•1985-Pressler,
•1993-Pakistan firmly rejects US decision to put Pakistan on the watch list of terrorist states.
•1993-US said India using heavy force in Kashmir.
•1993-Kashmir under Presidential rule.
•1994-India –Us on the road of friendship. Us appreciates India ‘s progress in ec.field& wanted
to work jointly. Indian prime minister N.Rao’svisit to Us was water shed.
•1995-India-US also sign defense deal.
•1995-Brown amendment
•1996-Pak. receives & 124 mnunder brown amendment.1997-Vajpayee as p.m. Ind-US to work
in hi-tech areas
•India can play important role in Asia-Pacific region.
•1997-India in a position to play a key role in international affairs-US admits.

Gossip 4
•Dec.99-SubsequenttoPak.Tests,USimposedfurthersanctionsagainstpakunder
Glennamendment.
•Oct.99-SanctionsappliedagainstPak.Forremovingdemocraticgovt..
•Feb.2000-USconcernsoverterrorism&absenceofdemocracyinPak.
•Mar.00-USannouncesseparate&distinctpoliciesforbothIndia&Pak.
•Mar.00-ClintonvisitsIndia.HighlightsvisionstatementonnewIndia-USagendaof
partnershipfor21
st
century.AlsoregretsforignoringIndiafor2decades.
•India&US–naturalallies.USalsoadmits&admiresIndia’sleadershipintheregion&
world.
•Dec.00-USimposesmissilesanctionsonPak.Pak.Says,sanctionsunjustified.
•Dec.00-BrownbackamendmentadoptedallowingPak.Fundsinbasiceducation.
•Jan.2001-Bushtakesoveraspresident.UrgesVajpayeeinwritingtostartdialoguewith
pak..AseparateletteralsohandedovertoMusharafforsame.
•CanUSstandbyPak.Throughthick&thin?
•CanIndiaPak.overcomePursuitthepathofreconciliation&rapprochement?Can
webuildtensionfreerelations&legacyofdistrust&hostility?
•2001-RelationswithPak.Inthepasthaverelativelybeenfalse.
•Disenchantedallies.–DenisKlux.
•2000-Pak.RejectsaccusationsthatitacquiredmissiletechnologyfromChina.

Gossip-5
•Sep. 23, 2001. Bush lifts nuclear related sanctions on India & Pak.
•Sep.28, 01-Bush lifts democracy related sanctions after 11 years.
•Nov.01-Bush-Musharaf meeting in new York. $ 1 bn given.
•July 2009-Hillary in India-Announces Strategic partnership with India & Defense deal.
India’s relations strengthening on Israel-US pattern
•1-Sided friendship. Superficial/ False relations.
•Pak-US relations run by strategic necessity/ expediency.
•Uncomfortable partners not enlightened partners-Complex partnership.
•Korean war was the 1
st
in a series of projected communist aggression to Asia.
•Pak always had subservient/ subsidiary allince with west. There was no outlet for Pak.
But no public opinion was sought. So Pak by doing so earned the implacable hostility of
Soviets, which offered whole some support to India on Kashmir & to Afgh over
pukhtunistan. By joining Seato & Cento, Pak decided to forego ideology.
•Kennedy offeredunilateral arm sale to India. Arms also rushed from UK, & other
commonwealth countries against Chinese thrust.
•Pak’s simmering discontent with west in 1962 on treatment between an ally & a neutral.

Gossip-6
•Pak was converted into a military spring board by west in South Asia in 1960
against USSR, India, China & Afghhanistan & oter Asian countries & US
strenghtened control over Pak.
•1962-A watershed in China’s attitude towards India.
•China wanted Pak to detach from US & it it saw in Pak a pliable tool to
project its image in west especially in Afro-Asian countries.

India-US & Pakistan
•Upgrading of ties between US & India since Clinton time (After
cold war era)
•Different policies for India & Pakistan. No parity in treatment.
•India is the counter-piece of US policy. Transformation of
relations as India is a rising major power.
•Defense & nuclear deals.
•Sharp contrast in the behaviors of Clinton & Bush’s visits.

4: 1989 -9/11
•1990-At the time, Pakistanwas the third-highest
recipient of
US aid;
•At this point the main occupationof the Pakistan
was to:
1.try to create a friendly mujahideen regime in
Afghanistan,
2. continue to develop its nuclear and missile
program and
3.support the Kashmirmovement.
•Since the US and Pakistani interests had diverted
at this point...
End of Cold War
& NWO

•.
Unipolar
World

•Mismanagement, political instability and US
sanctions created large fiscal deficits and the
governments borrowed heavily from donors
•Additional sanctions were placed after Pakistan
acquired M11 & delivery systems technologyfrom
Chinawhich violated the MTCR regime.
•1998-another wave of sanctions-putting further
pressure on the already weak economyof Pakistan.

•Fed up with the costs of the warand covert operations by
the mujahideen, supported by the CIA and the Pakistani
ISI, by 1988, the Russians had had enough and were ready
for a respectable evacuation from Afghanistan. The
usefulness of Pakistanfor the USAwith respect to
Afghanistan, thus, ended when Mikhail Gorbachev agreed
to a retreat in April 1988.
•Gross fiscal mismanagement, political instability and US
sanctions created large fiscal deficits and the governments
borrowed heavily from international lenders. The Clinton
Administration had a tilt towards the more democratic
Indian governmentduring this time. The Pakistanis
contented that the Pressler Amendment was specific to
Pakistanand the sanctions were unjustified. Additional
sanctions were placed after Pakistanacquired M11 missiles
and delivery systems technologyfrom Chinawhich violated
the MTCR regime

•1999-General Musharraftook power at a time when
the economic situation of the country was in deep
trouble. The rupee was sliding, foreign reserves had
been depleted and rampant corruptionhad messed up
the infrastructure.
•By year 2000, Pakistanafter more than 53 years of
independence was still struggling...
•From the United States perspective, Pakistanwas
moving closer to a “failed state” case and it’s nuclear
program was a constant concern for US.
•
•A failing economycould easily lead to another coup
backed by the Islamists and the country could fall in
fundamentalisthands along with its nuclear weapons

Pakistan and United states Relations 2.PPT

About This Presentation

Slide Content

Tags

Categories

Download

Quick Actions

Statistics

Related Slideshows

Pakistan and United states Relations 2.PPT

About This Presentation

Slide Content

Slide 1

Slide 2

Slide 4

Slide 8

Slide 9

Slide 10

Slide 11

Slide 12

Slide 13

Slide 14

Slide 15

Slide 16

Slide 17

Slide 18

Slide 19

Slide 20

Slide 21

Slide 22

Slide 24

Slide 25

Slide 27

Slide 28

Slide 30

Slide 32

Slide 33

Slide 34

Slide 35

Slide 36

Slide 37

Slide 38

Slide 39

Slide 40

Slide 41

Slide 42

Slide 43

Slide 44

Slide 46

Slide 47

Slide 48

Slide 49

Slide 50

Slide 51

Slide 52

Slide 53

Slide 54

Slide 55

Slide 56

Slide 57

Slide 58

Slide 59

Slide 60

Slide 61

Slide 62

Slide 63

Slide 64

Slide 65

Slide 66

Slide 67

Slide 68

Slide 69

Slide 70

Slide 71

Slide 72

Slide 73

Slide 74

Slide 75

Slide 76

Slide 77

Slide 78

Slide 79

Slide 80

Slide 81

Slide 82

Slide 83

Slide 84

Slide 85

Slide 86