Marking the 75th anniversary of bilateral relations, both Pakistan and the United States still appear to be in an uneasy marriage of convenience. The ties between the two nations have more commonly been described as transactional – primarily known for the on-and-off trajectory.
In recent years – particularly after the withdrawal of the US forces from Afghanistan, the fragility of the relationship between Islamabad and Washington appears to have been exposed – with both sides expressing some level of mistrust.
And just when there was a hint of healing, the heartache returned with US President Joe Biden’s remarks that labeled Pakistan as “one of the most dangerous countries in the world which had “nuclear weapons without any cohesion”.
The 79-year-old US leader, who has a propensity for veering off script, delivered the scathing observation in a speech at a private reception of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, in which the president unexpectedly questioned Pakistan’s nuclear weapons safety protocols, leaving his press team and even the US Department of State scrambling to spin his comments.
Within hours of it being reported by the media, Pakistan’s diplomatic and political apparatus sprang into action. A strong pushback from all quarters was recorded, culminating in the newly appointed US Ambassador being summoned for an explanation by the foreign ministry.
While US experts view this as an off-the-cuff remark – not particularly reflective of broader concerns and policies in the region, they admit that its reception in Pakistan could further fray ties between the two nations. “There have been many conspiracy theories about the timing and motivations behind Biden's comments. In reality, it is doubtful he thinks much about Pakistan these days and it's likely that his comments were triggered by reading a recent intelligence briefing that reminded him about Pakistan's broader volatilities,” said Michael Kugelman, director of the South Asia Institute at the Wilson Center.
The South Asia analyst said that the president’s comments were made in an offhand way in a speech to donors and wasn't a policy statement. “Pakistan was not his intended audience, and he wasn't trying to send a message to Islamabad,” he said. Responding to questions by email, the Washington-based expert said: “It is fairly common for a president or other head of state or government to make a surprising comment that officials later walk back. This certainly happened with President Trump. I'm quite confident that what Biden said did not reflect US policy, and in fact it may well have contradicted US policy-if one interprets his comments as expressing concerns about Pakistan's nuclear stability,” he said. “If this wasn't the case, then there wouldn't have been a State Department clarifying statement. The department clearly wanted to issue a clarification, but also do damage control to ensure Biden's comments wouldn't jeopardize recent momentum in US-Pakistan relations,” Kugelman explained.
The damage from Biden’s remarks was obvious. Without wasting any time, the US State Department backtracked on the president’s alarm over Islamabad’s ability to secure its nuclear assets. “The United States is confident of Pakistan’s commitment and its ability to secure its nuclear assets. It has always viewed a secure Pakistan as critical to US interests,” US State Department spokesman Vedant Patel told reporters.
Derek Grossman, senior analyst with RAND Corporation, whose views on defense and national security policy issues are widely quoted, sees the development from a different perspective. “With the recent domestic political turmoil in Pakistan, Biden was updating this concern by insinuating, perhaps, that extremist elements within Pakistan—i.e., not exclusive to terrorists—might be able to get a hold of nuclear weapons,” he said of US President’s statement.
“As always, the partnership is strained and transactional, and just limped through one of its worst periods in decades and survived. So I don’t think anyone's comment will make much of a difference,” Grossman said by email from Santa Monica, where he is based. In Pakistan many express agreement with Grossman’s assessment of the fragility of Washington’s association with Islamabad.
While Biden’s remarks and the subsequent clean up by the US Department of State has left several inside Pakistan with the belief that there is an apparent disconnect between the White House and those who steer US diplomacy at Foggy Bottom, US experts present a different view on the development. “I don’t see a disconnect. Presidents are people and people make off-the-cuff remarks but US policy towards Pakistan is still carefully crafted and revised. India-Pakistan relations present a real nuclear security threat. But the idea that Pakistan will collapse and nukes fall into the hands of terrorists is one that occupies too much space in the minds of some folks in Washington,” said Adam Weinstein, Research Fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. President Biden, Weinstein said, has expressed concerns about Pakistan’s vulnerability since he was a senator. “Before becoming vice president he publicly warned that a victorious Afghan Taliban would look to Pakistan next. In some ways the re-emergence of the TTP has proven him right,” he added.
Long and winding road
Despite all the ebbs and flows, observers believe US-Pakistan relationship remains interdependent – but need-based. Since being established more than seven decades ago, US - Pakistan engagement has developed a reputation of being seasonal, in which Washington has been assured security and succor in exchange of financial support by Islamabad. Once the security concerns diminish, the relationship retracts to a point where the two share minimum common interests and reasons to collaborate.
Successive US Presidents since Richard Nixon have availed Islamabad’s services. Nixon himself used Islamabad’s backdoor support to facilitate his ice-breaking visit to Beijing nearly half a century ago. Similarly, Ronald Reagan found an ally in General Ziaul Haq in his efforts to drive the Soviet forces out of Afghanistan. Most recently, Pakistan played a pivotal role in George W Bush’s war on terror. But that came at a huge price for Islamabad. It suffered significant losses and instability at home.
Since the abrupt withdrawal of US forces from Afghanistan, many analysts believe Pakistan may have slipped from the United States’ strategic radar screen, prompting demands from Islamabad to be treated as an equal ally and not just a country solely taken along to the battlefield to combat ad hoc threats and terrorists.
So far, those demands have fallen on deaf ears in Washington. The relationship between the two remains one that only witnesses bonhomie during the period the US requires Pakistan’s assistance in the region or elsewhere.
However, at Wilson Center Kugelman believes the ties have gained some strength. “We've seen ample high level engagement in recent months, after a long period where there was much less of it. I attribute this momentum to several factors. There is finally a formal US ambassador in Islamabad after a gap of several years,” he said. The new government in Islamabad, Kugelman noted, is more supportive of Washington than its predecessor and this has opened up healthier spaces for the two sides to explore future cooperation. “The floods have opened up new opportunities for cooperation. The US is not as concerned as it used to be about threats to the US from Pakistan-based terrorism,” he added.
Expressing measured optimism for the future of Pak-US relations, the Washington-based expert on South Asia cautioned that the recent progress in relations should not be ‘overstated’. “The baggage, mistrust, and ill will of the past die hard. Most importantly, there's still no clear trajectory for the relationship. There's still no sense of what will anchor the relationship now that the US has left Afghanistan. There's no clarity on how, or if, the relationship can enjoy forward movement despite intensifying US-China competition, and growing US-India and China-Pakistan relations,” Kugelman added. Each country, he pointed, has close ties with the other's main rival. “The geopolitical constraints to greater partnership are real,” the expert warned.
Referring to a recent visit to Islamabad by Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman, Grossman from the RAND Corporation said: “Washington wanted the relationship to be circumscribed to counterterrorism cooperation, mainly because of American distrust of Pakistan in the latter’s likely support of the Taliban.”
“But then, a breakthrough occurred a couple of months ago when Pakistan reportedly helped the US in a drone strike against the head of al-Qaeda, Ayman al-Zawahiri.” “Since then, we have seen a flurry of activity, to include a decision by Washington to sustain Pakistani F-16s,” he added.
Biden’s National Security Strategy
In a recent article, Marwan Bishara, senior political analyst at the Doha-based Al Jazeera described President Biden’s newly released National Security Strategy as ‘ambitious — and delusional about America’s role in the world’. The strategy manual, which every administration is required to release, outlines the US President’s security and foreign policy priorities, which for now, focus on competition with Beijing and efforts to limit Putin.
Flagging China as a threat, Biden declared India as a partner and skipped Pakistan completely in the 48-page document. While the omission raises doubts about the significance of the ties between the two sides, senior analysts believe it may be for Islamabad’s good that it has not been mentioned in the document.
“I actually think it could be a positive thing that Pakistan wasn’t mentioned because it wouldn’t have been included for the right reasons. It is time to refocus the relationship away from narrow security cooperation,” said Adam Weinstein from the Quincy Institute. At the RAND Corporation, Grossman had similar views about the omission. “It is very likely a purposeful decision to skip Pakistan because the US doesn’t want to worsen relations,” the expert said.
However, commenting on Biden’s National Security Strategy, Wilson Center’s Kugelman believes that when it comes to Washington's South Asia strategy, Pakistan is largely left on the outside looking in. “It's not part of the US national security strategy or Indo-Pacific policy, given that it's closely aligned with the country, China, that both strategies aim to counter. But this omission can actually be an opportunity for US-Pakistan relations. It creates more space for the two to focus more on non-security relations – a safer, less tension-filled space for the relationship,” he explained.
In principle, despite geopolitical limitations, Kugelman said, there is no reason why the two can't pursue greater cooperation on energy, education, climate change, health, and the like. “Not everything needs to be a zero sum, even in an environment of intensifying US-China competition,” he added.
The Imran Khan factor
Since being ousted, former prime minister Imran Khan has accused the US of meddling in Pakistan’s affairs to the extent that he pinned the blame on Washington for the demise of his government. Experts in Washington acknowledged that Biden’s recent comments might provide a lifeline to the populist leader's dying claims.
“I’m sure this didn’t sit well in Islamabad, and it only perpetuates an environment of deepening distrust of US intentions that was brought to the fore most recently by Imran Khan,” said Grossman, RAND Corporation’s senior analyst. “Frankly, it was curious that Biden made this comment at a political fundraiser, and I wonder whether it was part of his prepared remarks—I suspect it wasn’t. Assuming it wasn’t, then this gives you a glimpse into his true concerns,” he added.
Concurring with Grossman’s views, Kugelman said: “It's true that Biden's comments have given a boost to Khan, in that they play to his relentless allegations that the Biden administration has designs on Pakistan and wants to meddle in its affairs.”
“This is significant for several reasons. It will harden Pakistani public perceptions that US policy is not to be trusted. And it comes at a moment when Khan has actually been toning down the "US regime change" rhetoric. In effect, Biden's comments could galvanize Khan and his supporters and bring more anti-US sentiment into Pakistan's broader political and public discourse,” the expert from Wilson Center explained. According to Kugelman, Biden's comments will make it more politically risky for Islamabad to move closer to Washington.
Looking forward
The long history of the US-Pakistan ties has been dotted with needs, concerns, and the constant calls to ‘do more’. Analysts believe that the way forward for both countries would be to seek incremental improvements in ties that will require long-term thinking and patience. “US-Pakistan ties are in a holding pattern–neither good nor bad. The days of major policy pivots to or away from Pakistan are over. What is needed now is incremental improvements in ties which will require long-term thinking and patience,” said Adam Weinstein, Research Fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft.
Over the past few months, there has been considerable diplomatic shuttling between Islamabad and Washington. Before President Biden’s comments on Pakistan’s nuclear assets, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif was seen in a photograph with the first couple – taken at an official reception. Foriegn Minister Bilawal Bhutto was also seen in Washington DC with his counterpart, Antony Blinken at the US Department of State.
At the Wilson Center, Kugelman sees the flurry of diplomatic exchanges as symbolic – without any new or substantive agreements between the two sides. “The recent high level engagements in Washington should be seen for what they were – engagements. They didn't yield many if any new agreements or substantive outcomes. Talks were exploratory in nature,” Kugelman said. “It also bears noting that the US and Pakistan are marking 75 years of relations this year, so many of these high level engagements have been merely symbolic, albeit notable for their frequency,” he explained.
While Pakistan seeks a relationship that is focused on “geo-economics” — an approach that prioritizes regional trade and connectivity, the US seems to have limited interest in that at this point. The State Department, predictably, cleaned up Biden’s comments by stating it does not have concerns over the security of Pakistan’s nuclear program, but the administration has not displayed any visible signs of the president’s intentions to directly engage with the leadership in Pakistan. Since the Trump administration in 2018 severely curbed security assistance to Pakistan, and the US withdrew from Afghanistan in 2021, the partnership, many analysts believe, has suffered tremendously.