The Pakistan-United States romance
Our lopsided relationship with the US is more a result of our actions than of the US need to interfere in our affairs.
The writer is the Chairperson of the Department of History, Forman Christian College, and tweets at @BangashYK
On television last night, our former ambassador to the United States Sherry Rehman summed up Pakistan’s attitude towards the US in one sentence. She said that we should understand that we are not “either a lost love or a hidden wife”. Truly, we have an almost romantic attitude towards the US, and sadly, this impression continues just as our prime minister is visiting the US. I shall leave comment on what Nawaz Sharif should do and not do for more qualified minds, but comment on some historically significant points.
First, Pakistan chose to ally itself with the US at the time of its inception. Initially, the US was not even interested in Pakistan and till the early 1950s, usually took the lead of the British Foreign Office in relations with Pakistan. The US did not even immediately appoint an ambassador to Karachi and took almost six months to send one. On the other hand, Pakistan immediately signalled to the US that it was willing to support it in the Cold War in return for aid. Jinnah, in his address of welcome to the US ambassador in February 1948 noted: “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 the countries.” This was hoped because Jinnah exclaimed: “I assure you that my government and I will do all that lies in our power to give you every assistance in the fulfilment of what is our common desire and objective.” The subsequent trip of Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan to the US in May 1950 cemented Pakistan’s tilt towards the Western bloc in return for significant economic and military aid. The invitation for this trip was prompted by Pakistani officials in the US, since the Soviet Union had already invited Liaquat, but the Pakistani establishment was keen on getting closer to the US and hence, obtained this invitation. Thereafter, beginning with the Mutual Defence Agreement of 1954, Pakistan became the most ‘allied ally’ of the West in this part of the world. We chose to ally ourselves with the US when we had the chance of either veering towards the USSR or staying neutral.
Secondly, we chose to support the US because we wanted their military and economic aid, and we go it — a lot of it. For example, by 1966, Pakistan had received over a billion dollars in US aid (several billion in current terms) and scores of our developmental programmes — from village aid programmes, to tractors, infrastructure, the building of the Punjab University new campus and the now Quaid-e-Azam University, were spearheaded using American money. In military terms, the primary reason we can stand up to India even after that country being over four times larger than ours and with a better economic base is due to US military assistance. US aid to Pakistan in total terms runs into the tens of billions and Pakistan ranks in the top five recipients of US aid over the last century. Furthermore, we have never given anything to the US free of cost. We charged the US for every logistical support we gave since the 1960s and continue to do so. The billions we get under the Coalition Support Fund are not merely to support us in our anti-terror activities, but are primarily payment for logistical support. Just a few days ago, we received $322 million under the Fund, not an insignificant amount.
Thirdly, and most importantly, we are not in a love affair with the US. I know this is common sense, but for some reason, it still escapes us. Pakistan is still somehow locked in a ‘brotherhood’, ‘friendship’ paradigm, which sadly does not exist. Any student of international relations learns on the first day of class that states act in self-interest, and that self-interest might lead to relations with one country one day and another, a day later. Interests guide countries, not family relations or love affairs.
Our lopsided relationship with the US is more a result of our actions than of the US need to interfere in our affairs. The US is a world power and as we also know, it only interferes in Pakistan when it is in its own interests. However, we even lament when it leaves us alone and are hurt when it interferes — perhaps, it is unrequited love indeed.
Published in The Express Tribune, October 22nd, 2013.
First, Pakistan chose to ally itself with the US at the time of its inception. Initially, the US was not even interested in Pakistan and till the early 1950s, usually took the lead of the British Foreign Office in relations with Pakistan. The US did not even immediately appoint an ambassador to Karachi and took almost six months to send one. On the other hand, Pakistan immediately signalled to the US that it was willing to support it in the Cold War in return for aid. Jinnah, in his address of welcome to the US ambassador in February 1948 noted: “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 the countries.” This was hoped because Jinnah exclaimed: “I assure you that my government and I will do all that lies in our power to give you every assistance in the fulfilment of what is our common desire and objective.” The subsequent trip of Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan to the US in May 1950 cemented Pakistan’s tilt towards the Western bloc in return for significant economic and military aid. The invitation for this trip was prompted by Pakistani officials in the US, since the Soviet Union had already invited Liaquat, but the Pakistani establishment was keen on getting closer to the US and hence, obtained this invitation. Thereafter, beginning with the Mutual Defence Agreement of 1954, Pakistan became the most ‘allied ally’ of the West in this part of the world. We chose to ally ourselves with the US when we had the chance of either veering towards the USSR or staying neutral.
Secondly, we chose to support the US because we wanted their military and economic aid, and we go it — a lot of it. For example, by 1966, Pakistan had received over a billion dollars in US aid (several billion in current terms) and scores of our developmental programmes — from village aid programmes, to tractors, infrastructure, the building of the Punjab University new campus and the now Quaid-e-Azam University, were spearheaded using American money. In military terms, the primary reason we can stand up to India even after that country being over four times larger than ours and with a better economic base is due to US military assistance. US aid to Pakistan in total terms runs into the tens of billions and Pakistan ranks in the top five recipients of US aid over the last century. Furthermore, we have never given anything to the US free of cost. We charged the US for every logistical support we gave since the 1960s and continue to do so. The billions we get under the Coalition Support Fund are not merely to support us in our anti-terror activities, but are primarily payment for logistical support. Just a few days ago, we received $322 million under the Fund, not an insignificant amount.
Thirdly, and most importantly, we are not in a love affair with the US. I know this is common sense, but for some reason, it still escapes us. Pakistan is still somehow locked in a ‘brotherhood’, ‘friendship’ paradigm, which sadly does not exist. Any student of international relations learns on the first day of class that states act in self-interest, and that self-interest might lead to relations with one country one day and another, a day later. Interests guide countries, not family relations or love affairs.
Our lopsided relationship with the US is more a result of our actions than of the US need to interfere in our affairs. The US is a world power and as we also know, it only interferes in Pakistan when it is in its own interests. However, we even lament when it leaves us alone and are hurt when it interferes — perhaps, it is unrequited love indeed.
Published in The Express Tribune, October 22nd, 2013.