Syeda Mazhar
United States has emerged, undoubtedly, as the most powerful and unprecedented superpower of known human history and hence the nature and dynamics of her relationship with any state is a matter of prime concern more than ever. In view of the matter, this position of power is often exploited and the smaller states are bullied into submission.
In terms of its origin, Pak-US relations can predominantly be explained as a “marriage of convenience” between Pakistan’s Indo-centric threat perception and the US doctrine of Containing Communism. It has a history of turbulent connections, involving numerous turning points and even U-turns based on accusations and counter-accusations, consisting of intense engagements followed by periods of estrangement, mainly because of shifting American interests in Pakistan’s geo-strategic importance.
In the early hours of November 26th 2011, NATO helicopter gunships attacked an isolated Pakistani border outpost in FATA. The blistering aerial attack killed twenty four soldiers and nearly destroyed the already fragile Pak-US relationship. As Pakistan has always been on the smaller, weaker and recipient end of the partnership, the national interest of United States has always dictated its relations with Pakistan. Hence, convergences have generally been of operational and tactical nature, while, the divergences existed at the strategic level.
A predictable official reaction ensued where sensing the public mood and realizing that they had nothing more to gain from this one sided relationship, the Defence Committee of the Cabinet (DCC) decided to: a) Close NATO’s transit routes through Pakistani territory with immediate effect; b) Ask the US to vacate Shamsi airbase within 15 days; c) “Revisit and undertake a complete review” of all “programmes, activities and cooperative arrangements” with US, NATO and the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), including in “diplomatic, political and intelligence” areas; d) Announce a whole range of further measures apropos Pakistan’s future cooperation with US, NATO and ISAF.
“This is an attack on Pakistan’s territorial sovereignty, “said Masood Kasur, the governor of Pakistan’s northwestern Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa province. “Such cross-border attacks cannot be tolerated any more. The government will take up this matter at the highest level and it will be investigated.”
Pakistan has been seeking ways of wriggling out of a largely non-productive and unequal relationship. Many were of the view that the attack on Salala was the final nail in the coffin. This, however, was not be the end of the road for the two countries because in international relations there are no permanent friends or enemies, only permanent interests.
Pragmatically, it put forth conditions for the resumption of the Nato supply route through Pakistan. The first depends on how the US feels about the ‘package’ deal contained in the parliamentary guideline after the joint session of parliament in Islamabad has endorsed it. Consequently, Pakistan immediately forgave its apparent superior “friend” when Hillary mentioned, in passing, that they are sorry for the loss of Pakistani lives and reopened the routes for NATO supplies into Afghanistan and that too without charging any transit fee. Well don’t we all accept the love we think we deserve?
Early signs didn’t look too promising either and not surprisingly. The PNCS report had this to say about the Salala attack: ‘The attack was a breach of international law and constitutes blatant violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty and territorial integrity; the Pakistani government should not only seek an apology but those behind the attack must also be brought to justice’. For starters, the US had already decided not to prosecute the perpetrators of the Salala attack. And naturally Pakistan let it go in the past because of “maintaining diplomatic relations”.
The Salala incident had prompted Pakistan to conduct a policy review of its ties with the United States. We sure did demand that the US issue a high level apology over the incident, and end drone strikes before the routes would be reopened. Even though the US, on numerous occasions expressed regret over the incident, never once did it offer a clear apology as demanded by Pakistan. ISAF Commander General Allen has also offered a “personal apology” to the Pakistan then Army Chief but the drones still keep wandering back into our territory.
However, all was not in vain, the US did manage to put a price to the ultimate breach of Pakistani sovereignty and the loss of twenty four lives. The United States released about $1.1 billion to Pakistan’s military as part of a deal that saw Islamabad life the blockade on NATO supply convoys into Afghanistan. The money, from a US “coalition support fund” was designed to reimburse Pakistan for the cost of counter insurgency operations, was initially withheld due to tensions between the two countries and Islamabad’s closure of the supply route.
It must be understood that despite the current hurt and anger Pakistan would still have to engage with the US on a number of issues. The important thing to understand is that no matter what happens in the future national interest must come foremost. We should not blunder into one sided relationships. The engagements should not be driven by security concerns alone but should cover larger issues affecting the lives of the common man. Never again should we allow our young men to become cannon fodder in somebody else’s war.
