US POLICY SHIFT – A DEAD END TO ITS REGIONAL INTERESTS 1

United States’ Policy Shift

A Dead-End to its Regional Interests
Tabish Qayyum

University of Management and Technology (UMT)

Presented to : Sir Owais

Course: Foreign Policy of Pakistan

Author Note
Any correspondence to the following research should be addressed to Tabish Qayyum, Department of Social
Sciences, University of Management and Technology (UMT), Lahore.

Contact : tabesch.umt@gmail.com
US POLICY SHIFT – A DEAD END TO ITS REGIONAL INTERESTS 2

Abstract

Pakistan is of the pivotal role in the foreign policy, military and strategic challenges of different powers and
states, especially United States, in Middle East and South Asia. US may have well lost the Cold War if Pakistan
had not supported the US Policy. Pakistan was an important factor for US to create and maintain its hegemony
over the Middle East, its states and most importantly, China. United States’ Policy shift towards India, in order
to contain China, will not only cost them their key ally in the region, but no way out of the conflicts US have
intervened in its history.

Discussion

Pakistan, being an ally to United States for over 4 decades, a broker of peace between China and United
States, a key help in defeating the Soviets, and a key player in helping the United States preventing the Soviets
in achieving their goals in Middle East, contrary to India which failed because of its non-aligned policies, this
changed after India lost its border war with China in October of 1962, which prompted United States to invite a
new ally against the mutual enemy and emerging power, China. With United States, in an effort to contain
China, equipping India with Uranium so as to enable it as a Nuclear Power while also equipping them with state
of the art technology, Pakistan became unhappy and unsatisfied with the ongoing development of relationship
between United States and India so Pakistan started to strengthen its ties with China, moulding the mutual
coordination into a strong military and economic support. United States was worried of the increasing Nuclear
arsenal of Pakistan because for US, Pakistan had enough arsenal to deter India. This proved that the US policy
with Pakistan was miserably failing.

India played a key role in the failure of US policy with Pakistan. For example, India carried out Nuclear
tests in 1998 even though they had already been declared a Nuclear power in 19741, but since they knew
Pakistan would follow and conduct the tests, and it did, United States implemented further sanctions onto
Pakistan; cutting off the loans from IMF and World Bank2. Saudi Arabia, on the deferred payments for three
years, sold oils to Pakistan3. China also played a helping hand. The Saudi’s support to Pakistan in these times
maligned the US’ concept of using a soft power, Saudi Arabia in this case, to contain Pakistan increasing its
Nuclear arsenal; thus further deteriorating the US policy with Pakistan. Therefore, US switched from using a
soft power to hard power in achieving its interests. Then came the interventionist regime of G.W. Bush, thus
changing the geo-political map of Middle East by hard force. United States was convincing its public that
Pakistan was a rogue-turned state.

This did not stop here, not only did India alleged Pakistan of conducting terrorist attacks on Indian
Parliament4 but its scientists of having to equip Al-Qaeda of Nuclear weapons5. Robert Grenier, CIA’s station

1
Sublette, Carey. "Nuclear Weapon Archives". Retrieved January 20, 2013.
2
1985 Pressler Amendment
3
C. Christine Fair, Sarah J. Watson, Pakistan’s Enduring Challenges, 195, University of Pennsylvania Press, 2015.
4
Vishnu, J T (17 December 2001). "ISI supervised Parliament attack Main coordinator of Jaish, two others arrested". The Tribune. Retrieved 23
October 2014.
5
Obama’s Worst Pakistan Nightmare, New York Times, 8 January 2009.
US POLICY SHIFT – A DEAD END TO ITS REGIONAL INTERESTS 3
chief of that time, citing Washington, agreed with India6. India was playing every card to turn on to Pakistan for
geo-political reasons.

The US sanctions suffered a great loss to Pakistan’s economy. Despite the provision of annual
certificates for Aid in 1985 to 1989, US declined to issue the certificate in 1990, cutting of $700 million in
assistance, despite being pledged to provide annually during 1988-94. Not only did US cut off the promised aid,
but declined to permit the transfer of F-16 aircrafts, for which Pakistan had paid a billion dollars in cash.7 The
amount was however rectified in 1995 with the acknowledgment of unfairness, by President Clinton. Japan
however did not follow US sanctions, although the economy still suffered severe jolts with debt burden grown
to $38 billion from $3 billion a year during the 1990s.

Another factor which prompted a threat to maintaining the hegemony of United States in the region was
the fact that Pakistan was building Gawadar, as opposed to Chah Bahar, with the cooperation of China, the very
same goals for which the Soviets fought in Afghanistan; rendering it into a rubble. Then happened 9/11 which
completely changed how United States looked upon as Pakistan. Rendering friends into foes, United States
prompted Pakistan to take a subtle action against Taliban and Al-Qaeda, whom Pakistan supported in the 80s
against Soviets. But since Pakistan had a use for Afghan Taliban just like both US and Pakistan had for them in
the 80s. Pakistan’s policy had been quite consistent since 1980 uptill today. G.W. Bush warned Pakistan either
it supports United States or get ready to be bombed8. Pakistan agreed to support United States and there it paved
a way for United States to enter Afghanistan so as to punish Taliban and Al-Qaeda; one of the many initiatives
riddle with US interests.

Pakistan’s relations with United States have undergone major fluctuations in the past. Of the many
elements contributing to the consistently deteriorating relation, Islamabad’s quest for a nuclear reprocessing
plant evoked a strong reaction. With Pakistan agreed to accept all international safeguards laid down by the
IAEA, on the condition of universal application of laws, for Pakistan’s rival India rejoiced the freedom under no
conditions since being not a signatory to NPT. Another US’ concern was Pakistan’s nuclear shift could tilt the
balance of power in the Arab-Israeli context. Pakistan’s close ties with China conceived more distrust in Pak-
US relations. For Pakistan, on the compromise of diplomatic relations with US, the relations with China meant
diplomatic support at critical periods against its rival India.

The normalization process of relations with neighboring countries was affected by various reasons;
Kashmir dispute, communal riots in India, Arms ratio between the two powerful rival states, nuclear-weapon-
free South Asia and security problems. The post-Mujibur Rehman Bangladesh posed a welcoming gesture to
steady developments in Pakistan-Bangladesh relations in late 1977.

With superpowers competing for influence in economy, military and other notable aspects, Pakistan
could not have a risk-free course. The consequences and the interests of the time molded the foreign policy of
Pakistan in such a way it could preserve its interests whilst maintaining stable relations with the concerned
states it could rely upon if ever in isolation or in critical periods.

6
L. Grenier, Robert, 88 Days to Kandahar, A CIA Diary, 2015.
7
Talat Farooq, Pakistan’s Strategic choices in the 1990s, Routledge, 2016.
8
Editorial, You are either with us, or against us!, The Washington Post, http://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/11/06/gen.attack.on.terror/
US POLICY SHIFT – A DEAD END TO ITS REGIONAL INTERESTS 4

Since 2001, a large number of American officials have admitted their defeat. The war is facing extreme
criticism by the public. According to the U.S. Department of Defense, as of October 2016, there had been 2,386
U.S. military deaths and 20,049 soldiers wounded during the Afghan War9. So, in order to satisfy his voters and
the American public, Donald Trump had to bring something new, and therefore, he announced to them a new
strategy.

He started his speech saying, “I am here tonight to lay out our path forward in Afghanistan and South
Asia.” The new policy would be not only for Afghanistan alone but for the entire South Asia.

Instead of admitting the fact that it was Pakistan that suffered great losses, because of the so-called
American War on Terror, he said, “Pakistan often gives safe havens to agents of chaos, violence, and terror. In
Afghanistan and Pakistan, America’s interests are clear: We must stop the resurgence of safe havens that enable
terrorists to threaten America, and we must prevent nuclear weapons and materials from getting into the hands
of terrorists and being used against us, or anywhere in the world for that matter,” he further added. 10

So the new American policy essentially is:

• To control Pakistan’s nuclear assets
• To teach Pakistan a lesson for supporting the ‘terrorists’
• To support India by all means in order to contain China, and keep a check on Pakistan
• To send more troops to Afghanistan
• To limit U.S. financial support for Afghanistan and to let
• India take a wider role in Afghanistan’s development

President Trump threatened, “America’s enemies must never know our plans or believe they can wait us
out. I will not say when we are going to attack, but attack we will.” This was a veiled attempt at threatening all
those trump perceives as acting against U.S. interests, including Pakistan. Trump or any other U.S. leader or
policy maker should know that it would be beyond crazy to attack a formidable nuclear power such as Pakistan,
that not only enjoys support of powerful allies but is well known for its overt and covert capabilities. Secondly,
the U.S. must ponder over its troubles in Afghanistan. If the modestly armed Taliban have managed to deal a
humiliating defeat to U.S. forces and allies, imagine the consequences of fighting one of the leading armies of
the world.

As far as China is concerned, it is wishful thinking for the U.S. to be able to harm or contain China, by
supporting India. Trump’s trade-war against China will only weaken the U.S. economy further. China is already
on its way to become the face of global free trade, with its OBOR project with the U.S. moving towards an
isolationist approach. U.S. economic hegemony is on its way to become a thing of the past, as more and more
states in the world no longer would have to rely on the U.S. for protecting their interests.

9
"OEF | Afghanistan | Fatalities By Month". iCasualties. 2010-05-28. Retrieved 2016-07-18
10
White House Remarks, President Donald Trump, August 21, 2017, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-
president-trump-strategy-afghanistan-south-asia/
US POLICY SHIFT – A DEAD END TO ITS REGIONAL INTERESTS 5
India, led by a person famously known as the butcher of Gujarat, a country known for its illtreatment of
minorities and its brutal and oppressive occupation of Jammu-Kashmir, is incapable of controlling a few
freedom fighters in the occupied valley. A major part of its military budget and personnel is dedicated to
prolonging its occupation of Jammu-Kashmir in which it is loosing its grip fast.11 A combined Chinese and
Pakistani onslaught would leave the Indian military outmatched. Conventional wars between India and Pakistan
had long proved that a much smaller Pakistan was well capable of battling any Indian maneuvers or advances.
As Pakistan expanded its nuclear arsenal, India was left only with the option of fighting a low intensity war,
such as we see routinely on the LoC, or paying its proxies to carry out terror activities inside Pakistani soil. The
fake ‘surgical strikes’ drama was part of a media propaganda campaign, launched for the same purpose.

In Afghanistan, one begs to ask the question, what would 4000-5000 U.S. troops do what one hundered
thousand NATO troops couldn't do?

“We will also maximize sanctions and other financial and law enforcement actions against these
networks to eliminate their ability to export terror12,” Trump said. This statment was directed at Pakistan, but
Pakistan already offered the U.S. an immediate tour of any location they may think these networks exist. It was
meant to please India in order to lure it to expand its role in Afghanistan to reduce American costs. Pakistan on
the other hand has refused American aid and is no longer dependent on the U.S. for acquiring military
technology. The U.S. has remained a silent spectator, or rather given a tacit approval to Indian funded terrorism
being exported to Pakistan from Afghan soil. Indian financial support to terrorist organizations operating in
Baluchistan was conveniently ignored.

Indigenous Kashmiri armed movements battling Indian occupation, who although had nothing to do
with threatening attacks on U.S. soil were designated as global terrorists by the U.S., on India’s call. Kashmiri
freedom-fighting groups do find moral support and sympathy in Pakistan, but none formally operates from
Pakistani soil. Trump’s statements are once again indicative of Indian appeasement, for advancing his own
selfish objectives using India’s resources. This is a classic example of the much-spoken-about American
double-standards that have continued to be a part of U.S. foreign policy for decades. It is a policy of good
foreign occupation vs bad foreign occupation.

According to Mr. Trump, the Afghan Taliban have their bases and safe havens inside Pakistan and
Pakistan is supporting them. The question is do the Taliban really need a safe haven outside Afghanistan?
Pakistani counter-terror operations have left room for no militant organization to operate, why then would the
Afghan Taliban choose an unsafe environment for their bases. More than 40% of the Afghan land is being
governed by the Taliban, where they enjoy complete public support. Close to 30% is contested between them
and the Afghan regime. Why would they be leaving their own land, that is much safer for them, and cross the
border to come over to Pakistan?

Furthermore, the U.S. has been carrying drone strikes inside Pakistan since 2004. Alleging the entire
Afghan Taliban movement to be based in Pakistan implies that the 406 illegal drone attacks conducted in the

11
Ashraf, Muhammad, Kashmir First, https://www.kashmirfirst.com/articles/politics/disinvest_kashmir.htm
12
White House Remarks, President Donald Trump, August 21, 2017, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-
president-trump-strategy-afghanistan-south-asia/
US POLICY SHIFT – A DEAD END TO ITS REGIONAL INTERESTS 6
Pak-Afghan border regions have achieved nothing. U.S.’s inability and incapability of dealing with its own
enemies is demonstrated by its own admittance in this way. It is left only to blame Pakistan for its own failures.

In the U.S. War on Terror, Pakistan is the country which has suffered the most, far more than America
itself. In comparison to 2,386 U.S. soldiers, 28,731 innocent Pakistanis have lost their lives (in terrorist attacks).
13The number of victims in terrorist attacks prior to 9/11 was 3,421 since Pakistan’s birth. Acknowledging these

sacrifices doesn’t mean to pay a lip service, it means that the country that has suffered the most from terror, it is
unimaginable that it would harbor terror. What needs to be further clarified, quite clearly, is that resistance
movements that are battling hostile foreign aggression and occupation are legitimate according to international
law. Terrorism must not be confused with genuine movements for freedom.

According to President Donald Trump, India has played a great role in Afghanistan and that he expects
more from India. One of India’s ‘great role’ is the nurturing of terrorists in Afghanistan, through its intelligence
agency RAW, in collaboration with NDS, that has carried out hundreds of attacks on innocent Pakistanis14. The
Kalbhoshan Yadev episode, Latifullah Mehsud and Ehsan Ullah Ehsan’s confessions are more than enough to
prove direct Indian involvement in terrorist attacks in Pakistan, using Afghan soil.

The Afghan security forces, on the dictation of India, attacked our borders several times in recent
months.

The contribution of India to Afghanistan has been this. Pakistan on the other hand is striving to create a
settlement between opposing factions in Afghanistan, that is otherwise under a stalemate, by facilitating peace
talks and negotiations through a tri-lateral and quadrilateral process. India is a threat to peace in Afghanistan,
quite contrary to what trump believes.

After partition in 1947, India became an ally of USSR; a matter of grave concern for Pakistan and its
security. Consequently, Pakistan established its relations with the U.S., and began cooperation on multiple
fronts. Since then Pakistan has felt U.S. pressure on several issues. Pakistan had to face several U.S. sanctions
for its nuclear program, something the U.S. would till day prefer dismantling. Pakistan enjoyed very good
relations with Afghanistan prior to 9/11, but under U.S. coercion and intense pressure, Pakistan had to open its
doors for the NATO forces. Our ports, roads and airbases became accessible to America. Pakistan moved
against several al-Qaeda operatives that were a threat to its own soil, as the U.S. kept demanding ‘DO MORE’.
As a result, it faced a powerful wave of attacks and it took a decade and multiple operations to finally destroy
the threat. It was a result of U.S. invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, and its years of unjust interventions in the
middle-east and beyond that became the root cause for anger aross the Muslim world, a narrative that the
terrorists exploited to use to their advantage.

The tune of United States with Pakistan changed after its consistent coordination of mutual interests
with China. Since US wanted to have a dominant position over the region through the puppet states (it occupied
or intended to occupy) so as to dictate over China, the developments in the Pak-China ties worried United

13
C. Christine Fair, 2014, Measuring political violence in Pakistan: Insights from the BFRS Dataset
14
NDS-Raw nexus fuelling terrorism in Pakistan, The Nation, Published 28 September 2015, Retrieved 16 July 2017
US POLICY SHIFT – A DEAD END TO ITS REGIONAL INTERESTS 7
States. Their diplomats and senators made trips to Pakistan and praised their efforts against terrorism and
offered any help they could to the economy of Pakistan.

From a search to the agreeable solution with India to coping with the isolation so as to win a
mainstreaming role, despite being diplomatically sidelined in not only South Asia but global political space,
Pakistan managed to survive through a withering, however apparent, isolation, winning geopolitical and
strategic importance.

After 16 years of fighting, with an approximately 2500 American soldiers dead and more than 20,000
wounded with more than half a trillion dollars wasted, United States was losing the war in Afghanistan. A
blatant truth that if the guerilla fighters are not losing, meaning they are winning, is somewhat finally
understood by United States. However, as absurd as it may seen, the Trump administration is keen to implement
every Trump’s tweet, however idiotic it may seem, rendering it into a US policy decision. Trump not only
decided to re-escalate the war in Afghanistan by sending about 5,000 more troops but decided to offensively
engage with Pakistan, a key ally to the soverignty of US interests in the region.

Not only did the Trump administration suspend all the diploamtic, strategic and security aid to
Pakistan15 but also cut off the coalition support funding, thus adopting a hardline approach to a nation which has
not only perceived assymetric military solutions by nature but has a geographical, strategical and tactical
advantage over the region.

The West, in an effort to pull India into the West’s orbit, believed that India could successfully compete
with China for leadership of Asia. But India’s hegemonic motives, proclivity to exploit power disparity,
personal preferences vitiated its relations with other countries in Asia. Therefore, Pakistan was in every way a
viable option for United States. Richard Olson, United States ambassador to Pakistan from 2012 to 2015 and the
special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan from 2015 to 2016, writes in his New York Times article,
“The geography that defines Pakistan’s security worries has also been a bane for the United States. For the past
16 years our military efforts in landlocked Afghanistan have been dependent on transit through and especially
overflight of Pakistani territory. Absent an implausible similar arrangement with Iran, other options are not
good. Supply through the Central Asian states to the north is theoretically possible, but would rely on Russian
good will. Enough said. Without Pakistani cooperation, our army in Afghanistan risks becoming a beached.”16

Finally, the tone of United States was changing with Pakistan. The new policy essentially comprises of
not only controlling the Pakistan’s nuclear assets, but also a punishment for providing safe-haven to what US
termed ‘terrorists’.17 The United States adapted to support India by all means in order to contain China, and
keep a check on Pakistan. By a pivotal policy shift, limited and no at all U.S. aid to Afghanistan and Pakistan,
respectively, US wants India to take a wider role in any developments that come up through Afghanistan.

15
Twitter, Donald Trump, https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/947802588174577664
16
G. Olson, Richard, Opinion, New York Times, 2017, https://nytimes.com/2018/01/09/opinion/pakistan-trump-aid-engage.html
17
Twitter, Donald Trump, https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/947802588174577664
US POLICY SHIFT – A DEAD END TO ITS REGIONAL INTERESTS 8
Conclusion

In the 70-year history of Pak-US relations, It is Pakistan that has suffered while the U.S. always used us
for its interests and has always supported our enemies against us. Being an independent country and a brave
nation, Pakistan must now take its own, independent decisions. It is clear that the U.S. administration itself is
unclear over how to resolve the mess it created itself, and to satisfy the U.S. public, has started blame games on
other countries.

Pakistan is winning new friends every passing day. Through CPEC, Pakistan can establish closer
strategic relations not with China alone, but with several powerful players in the region. Pakistan’s position in
the Islamic Military Alliance puts it in a very key position. What Pakistan needs to do is to strengthen ties with
its friends and forge powerful alliances. The Muslim Ummah is not dead, if revived it is a bond stronger than
any other bond in the world.