Zimpapers Logo

of almost all social sciences. The quest for tracing Pakistan-USA relations and its ups and downs, however, does not fall in the ambit of that obscurity. Traced back to the early days of Pakistan’s independence by most historians and even before that by some others, the history of fragile relations between the two countries abounds in brief eras of friendship, estrangement, suspicions, mistrust, and some patches of cooperation.

Unlike its relations with neighbouring China which are well founded and time-tested, Pakistan’s complete efforts to establish, maintain and strengthen its relations with the USA seem to have been undermined by constantly changing international and domestic dynamics. From the beginning of their relationship almost all of Pakistan’s expectations met disappointing blows at the hands of American policy-makers. Nascent Pakistan’s decision to ally itself with the USA, the so-called and self styled leader of the capitalist block, at the cost of alienating neighbouring USSR has been a favourite subject of critics.
Facing a hostile country in it’s neighbourhood, India, with it’s declared intentions and designs threatening newly born Pakistan’s existence, security as well as territorial integrity, it sought protection by establishing friendly relations with China and with the USA to ensure its security in the event of any misadventure.

On the other hand the American interest in bringing Pakistan on its side lay in its policy of preventing states from falling in the Soviet block. But to the shock of the Pakistani nation, Americans turned a deaf ear and a blind eye to its sincere ally by failing to fulfil its obligations in the 1971 war that led to a near split of Pakistan.
Indian intervention and the role played in the disintegration of Pakistan ostensibly had a tacit approval of Americans whom neither intervened during that critical juncture, nor provided any political or material support. It was America’s cold shoulder and India’s aggression that trapped Pakistan in a complex security dilemma.

The fall of East Pakistan and the role-played by India made it clear that any fluctuation in balance of power in the region could threaten its very existence. Sole reliance on so-called “Powerful Friends” was nothing more than a myth or a fallacy.
The lesson Pakistan learnt was to strive to fully match the military capability of its rival India and adopt a policy of self-reliance in terms of its security needs – the reason for Pakistan’s nuclear programme.
India’s nuclear programme of the 1970s alerted Pakistan but ironically the same American leadership that congratulated India on its successful nuclear tests, condemned Pakistan’s and labelled it as the “Islamic Bomb.”

This was even decades before 1998 when Pakistan actually conducted its nuclear tests. The US led condemnation was a vivid demonstration of double standards as to how American, British and French nuclear weapons were never regarded as “Christian Bombs” nor were the Soviet and Chinese nuclear weapons ever known as “Communist Bombs” and neither were the Israeli nuclear weapons branded as “Jewish Bombs.”
Why on earth would the Pakistani nuclear programme be labelled as “Islamic Bomb”? America did not confine its despise of Pakistan’s nuclear programme to negative labelling alone. Through imposing sanctions on Pakistan and by making the pioneer of Pakistan’s nuclear programme Mr Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto “A horrible example”, it declared its intentions. The lacklustre and mistrustful relations continued until the invasion of the USSR on Afghanistan at the peak of the Cold War. This nightmarish incident drastically changed America’s attitude overnight and it realised that Pakistan was the only country that could play an important role in its proxy war against the Soviets.

It was Pakistan that actually fought America’s war against the USSR that eventually led not only to the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan but also subsequently to the disintegration of the USSR itself.
While for Americans it was a moment of jubilation, Pakistan was facing gigantic problems of more than three million Afghan refugees on its soil that brought with them serious demographic issues as well as evils like narcotics, sophisticated weapons and rise in crime.
After fall of East Pakistan and American double standards on nuclear issue, that was third occasion when America in a show of selfish and opportunistic unconcern isolated Pakistan to tackle the aftermath of Soviet withdrawal on its own.

Adding insult to injury, America also imposed sanctions on Pakistan thus ensuring indirectly that it remained stuck resolving it’s multi faceted problems. The relationship failed another litmus test and Pakistan was left licking its wounds of a war that was never its own. The new millennium brought events that proved to be game changers. The rise of Neo-conservatives in the White House and the Pentagon, theories of “Clash of Civilisations” and the mysterious incident of 9/11 changed the course of history.
America, that claimed to be the sole and unchallenged superpower after the fall of the USSR, over night found a new enemy that according to them was responsible for 9/11. The pursuit of that alleged mastermind ironically brought America to the same Afghanistan that it had abandoned a decade ago.

The soil was the same but interestingly enough the enemy was different. This time it was none other than the same Mujahideen that America had created, nurtured and armed to fight Soviets. It was at this critical juncture that America once again needed its forsaken ally Pakistan for help.
The required help not only included use of Pakistani soil, its Air force bases and transit route for American supplies but also taking a U-turn by alienating the Taliban with whom it had developed good relations.
The military government of General Pervez Musharraf that lacked political legitimacy was bound to say yes to American demands at the cost of yet another war that it had got nothing to do with. Ever since that fateful consent of a military dictator to American demands, Pakistan has been in a constant state of war.

America lost approximately 3 000 citizens and some buildings on 9/11 whereas Pakistan has lost more than 36 000 people and had to bear more than 70 billion dollars in terms of the cost of war. Other economic losses in a series of terror incidents have continued uninterrupted since Pakistan’s decision to become a frontline state in America’s so-called “War on Terror”.
It was with the help of Pakistan that America ousted the Taliban government in Kabul and placed the Government of Hamid Karzai there. Taliban and Al Qaida’s military might as well as training centres across

Afghan soil were crushed due to the role played by Pakistan. It was Pakistan’s logistic support that NATO and ISAF forces are stationed in landlocked Afghanistan for over a decade. Pakistan’s contribution in making this world free from terrorism and it’s sacrifices in this regard would ideally have been rewarded, however, on the contrary. The “time-tested” fair-weather friend is once again in a hostile mood. This time the Americans have raised a genuine threat to its frontline ally in its war on terror accusing Pakistan of having collaborated with terror networks involved in attacks on the American Embassy in Afghanistan.

What it accomplished in this decade long adventure will remain a debatable issue for years to come, but the fact that the sole super power has to leave this soil without showing concrete achievements needs some serious face saving. American tax payers can punish the candidate in the next presidential elections who not only deviated from his past election promises but also brought an “AAA” category country to “AA”level. So “what to do” and “how to save face” are the questions facing the Obama administration.

The way the series of accusations have started against Pakistan, reminds us of American withdrawal from Vietnam when a handful of Vietcong’s forces forced the world’s strongest military to withdraw from its soil and accusing neighbouring Cambodia for its failure in an attempt to save face. Doesn’t the history seem to be repeating itself?
The world’s strongest military has to leave Afghanistan licking the wounds at the hands of a few thousand of Talibans. Pakistan is the most convenient scapegoat to blame for American failures in Afghanistan. But the question is can the international opinion support such baseless and face saving war mongering any more? Can the crippling global economy allow mindless and endless wars against peace loving and peace seeking countries like Pakistan that sacrificed so much to protect the world from havoc of terror?

With Osama bin Laden, the alleged mastermind of 9/11 and the prime target in war on terror, dead and with nose diving economies of America and its western allies, American forces are bound to leave. American tax payers are not likely to fall in the traps of jingoism any more. With its debts starting to exceed its total GDP and with the fall of European economies leading to the brink of failure of “Euro”, it would be extremely unwise on the part of American policy makers to create a déjà vu of Cambodia in Pakistan. Will the tumbling economies in Europe endorse this endless war-mania?

Previously Russian, then Al Qaeda, after the death of Osama Bin Laden the Taliban and now Haqani Network. Has America ever thought of why there are so many terrorist organisations against her only in the world. The people of the USA should also think about this issue. America is fighting a non-ending war on the globe with no achievement at all. There may be some personal gain for few Kitchen Cabinets of Bush era but which only provided killing and destruction in the world and collapse of economy with high unemployment for American Nation. The message is very clear from all corners of Pakistan that defence will never be

compromised. The vast majority of the people of Pakistan do not want Talibanisation at all. They are peace loving and trust on dialogues to maintain harmony, peace and stability not only in the region but all over the world.

Admiral Mike Mollen failed to produce any evidence between the links of ISI Pakistan and the Haqani Group. This is a new world and nobody will accept accusations like weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
The time is ripe for the world’s opinion to mature and free itself from the baseless propaganda spread by western media any more. The world’s resources should be spent on construction not destruction. Misuse of resources leads to destruction and hatred. The experiments of interventionism, doctrines of preemption, destruction in the name of and for the sake of reconstruction have all miserably failed.

Billions of dollars wasted on weapons must be diverted to improve education, health, infrastructure, poverty alleviation and creating economic opportunities for the oppressed people of the world. Money spent on making lethal weapons like drones that ultimately bring death and hatred could be better used to uplift standards of living that can create good will and harmony.

• Dr Shah is a medical practitioner and political analyst.