One most important relationship is, of course, with itself –– rent asunder by the various egos and haymakers in the many powerhouses. But it has never been able to live in isolation from the outside world. To keep itself afloat it has needed, from the outset, the support and assistance of what is now the sole superpower, the USA.
Way back in February 1948, founder and first governor-general Mohammad Ali Jinnah, when accepting the credentials of the first American envoy, remarked: “I am glad to learn that Your Excellency and the great country and people you represent will give your cooperation to us in order to advance our economic and cultural relations for the mutual benefit of both countries. I am hopeful that the good relationship and friendship already existing between the peoples of America and Pakistan will be further strengthened and the bonds of friendship between our two countries will be more firmly riveted.”
Prior to the ending of 1947, America had already received a plea from Jinnah for “cooperation” to advance Pakistan’s economy –– in other words, for hard cash. Just as it was in the beginning, so it was ever after. As for bonds of friendship, well they have been there and then they have not been there and when absent, Pakistan has ignored reality and given to moaning and groaning about being left high and dry. It has never been able to admit to being in a position to be happily estranged from its main benefactor, frequently caught in a quandary of basically its own making.
Enduring commitment is not part of the American make-up. They have attempted to learn from and absorb the words of their first president, statesman and general, George Washington, who in his farewell address to his nation in 1796 laid down its future policy:
“‘Tis our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronising infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maximum no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But in my opinion, it is unnecessary, and would be unwise, to extend them.
“Taking care always to keep ourselves, by suitable establishments, in a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.
“Harmony, and a liberal intercourse with all nations, are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest. But even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand; neither seeking nor granting exclusive favours or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying, by gentle means the streams of commerce, but forcing nothing; establishing, with powers so disposed, in order to give trade a stable course, to define the rights of our merchants and to enable the government to support them, conventional rules of intercourse, the best that present circumstances and mutual opinion will permit, but temporary, and liable to be, from time to time, abandoned or varied, as experience and circumstance shall dictate; constantly keeping in view that it is folly in one nation to look for disinterested favours from another; that it must pay, with a portion of its independence, for whatever it may accept…”
Published in The Express Tribune, April 28th, 2012.
COMMENTS (7)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
I would like to thank the author for reproducing GW's speech which gives great insight into American psyche as well as edifice of their foreign policy. They may not wish to have enduring commitment, but at least they are honest in saying that. We should remember that in 1796 America was just a new born nation like any other, not even a power, least a super power. Neither the petrol discovered nor the capitalism was found, no colony of its own. But, the speech had all the makings of a super power.
Merit, merit and merit is the only answer. Time has come to do away with the quota system, parchi syatem, biradari, nepotism and all other bureaucratic vices. Our fouled system has pushed us into this abyss. If we do not elect to transform, change will thrust itself on us.
Pakistan wants the money and complains fir anything asked in return. That game is over. USA no longer has that much cash and Pakistan's games have been exposed.
As per realist school of international politics, there are no permanent allies or enemies in international politics, and only national interests dictate the foreign policy objectives. The U.S. has always followed the realist perspective when defining its foreign-policy objectives. Having lived in this country for almost thirty years, I can also say that Americans in general are good helping people but being yarran day yaar(Punjabi style deep friendship) is not a part of the American culture. There is a common expression in this country and that is " there is no free lunch." One has to wok to buy it and believe me an average American works very hard to buy their lunch. The fault lies with policy makers of Pakistan who look at short term and mostly self-serving objectives and its people look at foreign policy matters through very emotional eyes. There are some ground realities that dictate Pakistan's foreign policy. Pakistan is internally divided and externally vulnerable. That makes it difficult for it to pursue its own foreign-policy objective. Add dependencia and world system school (core and periphery) and we have the answer. There is another article on Punjab's caste system by Ajmal Kamal (a very learned gentleman and social historian) in today ET. Hope you are familiar with the rural caste system of Punjab and perhaps also of the rest of Pakistan. International politics works exactly like Punjab's social stratification where Chuadaries, Maliks, and Khans run the show and the artisan classes popularly known as kammis (little disrespectful word and my apologies to your esteemed readers) do whatever they are told to do. Are they happy doing. I am sure, they are not.
Excellent - George Washington basically stated in the 18th century that there is no such thing as a free lunch - or to put a apply a more Faustian angle to this statement (that may appeal to both Pakistanis and Iranians), do a deal with the devil (or the Great Satan) and forfeit your soul; and thus Pakistan's soul was mortgaged to the US in the first few years of its existence. The difference in Pakistan's case is that there have been no signicant inflection points in this trajectory; it has consistently seen fit to offer its services to the US in return for a cash infusion; and while many in Pakistan believed that the relatively stable bonhomie (at least till the Pressler amendment days) signified a strategic relationship, from the US point-of-view, it was the cheapest deal possible - a mercenary army that controlled a country - all for a few dollars.
Prior to the ending of 1947, America had already received a plea from Jinnah for “cooperation” to advance Pakistan’s economy –– in other words, for hard cash.
Could someone please explain how "cooperation" to advance Pakistan's economy necessarily means "hard cash?" Could it not mean free trade or any other non-hard cash avenues of cooperation?