Patchwork in Pak-US ties

Pervaiz Iqbal Cheema

For a very long time, the American policy in South Asia appeared somewhat inconsistent, confused and reactive rather than calculated, long term and innovative. While the confusion is influenced by regional dynamics of South Asia, the inconsistency in its regional policy is the product of both internal American factors including periodic changes in administration and significant global developments.

Washington has never been able to properly gauge the intensity of hostilities between the major the states of South Asia. It views Indo-Pak relations from a global perspective, frequently disregarding the aspirations of the regional actors. The reactive aspect of the policy is not only derivative from global considerations, but it has also something to do with the American belief of their own puritanical streak. Its reactive enthusiasm to do something immediately without considering its long term implications and the psyche of the people involved in the target area is product of strong belief in its own sense of righteousness. Massive enthusiasm, initially exhibited, often subsides with the passage of time as the proper realization of long term and other considerations sink in.

The post cold war era has been gradually witnessing transformation in US South Asia policy. The new American South Asian policy is also the product of radical transformation in the global environment. During the cold war the political imperatives were governing the relations between the nations while the economic imperatives were relegated to a secondary position. The new post cold war era has seen the reversal of governing imperatives. However it needs to be mentioned that in case of South Asia the policy seems to be a combination of both economic and political imperatives.

The new American policy in South Asia revolves around 'India First' approach. While many in Pakistan view it as a major break from the past in which India was a dependable friend of the Soviets whereas Pakistan was a loyal American ally, it needs to be recalled that even during the cold war the American efforts to befriend India never ceased. Some analyst even believe that the Americans were all the times using the Pakistanis to lure India out of the lap of the Soviets. A comparative analysis of the economic assistance given to India during the cold war era and the total assistance extended to Pakistan in the same period clearly point towards 'option retention' policy. This is not surprising. Almost all nations tend to work out a long list of favorable options.

What seems somewhat confusing for some analysts is why alienate Pakistan in order to cultivate India. During the cold war the American policy was to simultaneously strengthen strategic ties with Pakistan and to cultivate India despite the intense rivalry between the two South Asian nations. Yet Pakistan demonstrated a remarkable degree of loyalty and dependability and rarely questioned America's India policy even when it was directly impinging upon its own interests. Ignoring the established record of friendship, the pursuit of 'India First' policy amounts to what some would like to call reconciliation with the emerging realities. However there are others who see contradictory duality in American South Asian policy. For instance a soft US approach towards sanction imposed on India following nuclear explosions but much harder attitude towards Pakistan does give birth to misgivings. Is it a repetition of what the American pursued and called 'an even handed policy' following the outbreak of 1965 Indo-Pak war when they imposed arms embargo? According to many western countries' perceptions and strong advocates of non-proliferation both India and Pakistan had committed the same crime and deserved same punishment in terms of sanctions. But the new American policy generate the feelings that the punishment for India would be much milder and would soon be reduced whereas the one imposed on Pakistan would continue to remain harder and may last much longer.

Recently US Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage stressed that Pak-US relations should not be determined by third party considerations. Both countries should establish mutual relations in bilateral terms. Interestingly there are many who consider the latest warming in Indo-US relations is a product of third party considerations. Evolving Indo-US friendship appears to be part of emerging tendency within American circles to contain China. Once again the American are applying different yardstick for Pakistan.

Shifting perceptions of global and regional interests coupled with negligible emphasis on former friends needs and aspirations seem to be the hallmark of new American policies. Friends of cold war era are no longer suitable in the post cold war period. While one can easily comprehend that the emerging realities might dictate the change of horses, but to jeopardize the interest of former friends and allies so quickly in order to accommodate the radically changed interests reflect certain amount of shortsightedness. Not only to promote friendship at the cost of another friend effectively impedes the advent of a sound and lasting relationships but also continuously takes a heavy tool of a country's image.

Each nation has a right to change policies in congruence with the dictates of its own national interests but the global powers also have responsibilities to promote peace and stability in conflict prone regions. No global power would be in a position to contribute towards peace unless it opts for a neutral and balanced approach. Perhaps that's why the Americans have not been really successful in securing peace either in the Middle East or South Asia. Just as Mr.Armitage felt no hesitation in referring to earlier American policy in South Asia as 'unbalanced', there is no reason to believe that the current one is balanced.

In view of the existing Indo-Pak rivalry pursuing two different policies towards India and Pakistan but simultaneously denying linkage with China factor is not going to be all that easy. In addition, inviting Pakistan's foreign minister for a mere patchwork in Pak-US relations could hardly pacify the fast emerging negatives feelings. Already the imbalanced American policy in the Middle East, more specifically the strong support extended to the Israel and Israelis' unceasing pursuits of killings of the innocent Palestinian civilians, have invoked strong angry reactions within the Islamic world.
Cognizant of US importance as the sole super power in the post cold war era, Pakistan has been continuously demonstrating willingness to cooperate with Washington as far possible within the operative regional constraints. The Americans also need to reciprocate positive gestures with constructive engagement. Mere patchwork would neither pay desired dividends nor last long.