By: Azhar Azam
At the time of Independence in 1947, Pakistan had the option to ally either with United States or the Soviet Union – Pakistan favored the US. At the same time, United States was one of the foremost countries that formed diplomatic ties with Pakistan.
In fact, it was the United States that needed Pakistan badly as it was eyeing to establish a CIA base in Pakistan to oversee Soviet Union activities – a request Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan declined to President Harry S. Truman in his first-ever trip to the United States.
In a rejoinder to license United States to fly spy mission to Soviet Union from the Pakistan territory – President Ayub Khan was warmly welcomed by President John F. Kennedy supplementing First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy, Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson, and former President Dwight D. Eisenhower.
Pakistan concurrence to US base installation in Peshawar almost conceded national security and ‘brought soviet ire on Pakistan’ when Soviet Union shot down a US spy plane and captured its pilot – though Pakistan charged US for deceiving on such ‘clandestine spy operations’ against USSR from its soil.
Eventually Pakistan paid the cost when Soviet Union retaliated within a decade to dissect Pakistan in 1971. So the unprecedented and unconditional Pakistan support toward the United States has repeatedly been stung and returned with toxins of treachery since long.
Pledging the deployment of aircraft carrier in 1971 by President Nixon into 16 years of war on terror – the attitude of the United States has always been skeptical, fallacious and flimsy to its so-called the most important strategic and non-NATO ally, Pakistan – despite compromising the largest national security interest.
On the other hand Pakistan – from facilitating the United States counter to national interest, aiding US to normalize the relations with China, foiling US cold war foe, Soviet Union’s expansion ambitions in Afghanistan to suffering nearly $125 billion of economic loss and 80,000 human lives in US war on terror – has invariably been stabbed in the back by its ‘dearest fiend’, United States over the years.
Just this minute; later to a protracted ‘drama’, Congress blocked a proposed sale of eight F-16 jets to Pakistan for app. $700 million; highlighting US not to use taxpayer’s money for F-16 to Pakistan despite Obama’s administration intent to conclude the deal.
The verdict is given by the US powerful Senate Foreign Relations Committee headed by Senator Bob Corker, to lift the hold on aid only if Pakistan cracks down on Haqqani Network, talking to NYT. According to an understanding between Pakistan and the United States, $270 million was to be paid by Pakistan while US to provide the rest of the amount under foreign military financing (FMF) fund.
Pakistan ex- envoy to the United States Hussain Haqqani also made untiring efforts to stopping this F-16 sale to Pakistan reasoning that it may be used against ‘US close friend, India’ and stressing on ‘proxies used by Pakistan in Afghanistan and Kashmir’.
The US State Department earlier stated ‘this proposed sale contributes to US foreign policy objectives and national security goals by helping to improve the security of a strategic partner in South Asia’. ‘This is a situation -- we think this is a capability that will help Pakistan in its counter-terrorism effort and we think that's in the national security interests of the United States.’
This sale always took into account the regional security situation. We look at our relationship with Pakistan and our relationship with India as separate relationships. And we think this is important capabilities for the Pakistanis to go after terrorists in that country. And as a result, we don't think it should cause concern for India.'
Shouldn’t this Congressional action be considered the defiance to US foreign policy objectives and national security goals? Didn’t Congress forfeit the United States’ security by refuting its strategic partner & major non-NATO ally, Pakistan, with the armory required to counter terrorism, a mutual threat to the United States and Pakistan?
Isn't it a loud message to Pakistan that it is being once again left alone in the middle of a war as it did at the time of Soviet Union’s withdrawal from Afghanistan leaving Pakistan ‘in vulnerable condition but with traumas of troubled economy, disturbed infrastructure and population burden of millions of Afghan refugees’? Indian interests are more valued than Pakistan or even the United States itself?
In 1980s, same kind of tactic was employed by the United States when it received cost of F-16s from Pakistan but Congress froze the deal over nuclear ambitions. Years passed, it neither return the advance money nor provided F-16s before lastly adjusting funds for wheat and other commodities.
Rarely there is an article in the United States media which acknowledges Pakistan contributions to the interests and security of the United States but for sure there is always a an effort to enfeeble Pakistan, not missing out to cite the 'generosity' of providing few billion dollars in welfare, economic and military aid.
Recent example to which is an editorial by The Editorial Board of The New York Times Time to Put the Squeeze on Pakistan' crosses all limits accusing it 'duplicitous and dangerous partner' and 'double game'. This is not the first time when the United States media reported negatively about Pakistan as Fareed Zakaria and Kevin Hulbert in The Washington Post and The CIPHER Brief whereas Carlotta Gall in the same newspaper The New York Times have all spread their ill-thoughts about Pakistan.
A country who is considered to be the most important strategic ally of the United States is branded with such stupid, irrational captions – The Key to Solving Puzzle in Afghanistan is Pakistan; Too Big to Fail; Pakistan’s Hand in International Jihad; and now Time to Put Squeeze on Pakistan.
Media could have an excuse of freedom of expression but what about the United States administration that constantly hides in the verdicts of the Congress which never greeted Pakistan role in assuring the United States’ security and strategic interests.
There seems to be nothing changed in the United States erratic, illusory and double-faced policy towards Pakistan for decades unlike China remained extensively cordial and highly trustworthy whenever Pakistan needed.
It is about time for Pakistan to end its reliance on the U.S., stop watch-dog role in region for U.S. interests, let it deal challenges and threats itself, prioritize defense and nuclear expansion, protect state and people, and 'focus on better impeccable ties with all countries'
including Russia, maintaining a far-better chronicle than the United States.
At the time of Independence in 1947, Pakistan had the option to ally either with United States or the Soviet Union – Pakistan favored the US. At the same time, United States was one of the foremost countries that formed diplomatic ties with Pakistan.
In fact, it was the United States that needed Pakistan badly as it was eyeing to establish a CIA base in Pakistan to oversee Soviet Union activities – a request Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan declined to President Harry S. Truman in his first-ever trip to the United States.
In a rejoinder to license United States to fly spy mission to Soviet Union from the Pakistan territory – President Ayub Khan was warmly welcomed by President John F. Kennedy supplementing First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy, Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson, and former President Dwight D. Eisenhower.
Pakistan concurrence to US base installation in Peshawar almost conceded national security and ‘brought soviet ire on Pakistan’ when Soviet Union shot down a US spy plane and captured its pilot – though Pakistan charged US for deceiving on such ‘clandestine spy operations’ against USSR from its soil.
Eventually Pakistan paid the cost when Soviet Union retaliated within a decade to dissect Pakistan in 1971. So the unprecedented and unconditional Pakistan support toward the United States has repeatedly been stung and returned with toxins of treachery since long.
Pledging the deployment of aircraft carrier in 1971 by President Nixon into 16 years of war on terror – the attitude of the United States has always been skeptical, fallacious and flimsy to its so-called the most important strategic and non-NATO ally, Pakistan – despite compromising the largest national security interest.
On the other hand Pakistan – from facilitating the United States counter to national interest, aiding US to normalize the relations with China, foiling US cold war foe, Soviet Union’s expansion ambitions in Afghanistan to suffering nearly $125 billion of economic loss and 80,000 human lives in US war on terror – has invariably been stabbed in the back by its ‘dearest fiend’, United States over the years.
Just this minute; later to a protracted ‘drama’, Congress blocked a proposed sale of eight F-16 jets to Pakistan for app. $700 million; highlighting US not to use taxpayer’s money for F-16 to Pakistan despite Obama’s administration intent to conclude the deal.
The verdict is given by the US powerful Senate Foreign Relations Committee headed by Senator Bob Corker, to lift the hold on aid only if Pakistan cracks down on Haqqani Network, talking to NYT. According to an understanding between Pakistan and the United States, $270 million was to be paid by Pakistan while US to provide the rest of the amount under foreign military financing (FMF) fund.
Pakistan ex- envoy to the United States Hussain Haqqani also made untiring efforts to stopping this F-16 sale to Pakistan reasoning that it may be used against ‘US close friend, India’ and stressing on ‘proxies used by Pakistan in Afghanistan and Kashmir’.
The US State Department earlier stated ‘this proposed sale contributes to US foreign policy objectives and national security goals by helping to improve the security of a strategic partner in South Asia’. ‘This is a situation -- we think this is a capability that will help Pakistan in its counter-terrorism effort and we think that's in the national security interests of the United States.’
This sale always took into account the regional security situation. We look at our relationship with Pakistan and our relationship with India as separate relationships. And we think this is important capabilities for the Pakistanis to go after terrorists in that country. And as a result, we don't think it should cause concern for India.'
Shouldn’t this Congressional action be considered the defiance to US foreign policy objectives and national security goals? Didn’t Congress forfeit the United States’ security by refuting its strategic partner & major non-NATO ally, Pakistan, with the armory required to counter terrorism, a mutual threat to the United States and Pakistan?
Isn't it a loud message to Pakistan that it is being once again left alone in the middle of a war as it did at the time of Soviet Union’s withdrawal from Afghanistan leaving Pakistan ‘in vulnerable condition but with traumas of troubled economy, disturbed infrastructure and population burden of millions of Afghan refugees’? Indian interests are more valued than Pakistan or even the United States itself?
In 1980s, same kind of tactic was employed by the United States when it received cost of F-16s from Pakistan but Congress froze the deal over nuclear ambitions. Years passed, it neither return the advance money nor provided F-16s before lastly adjusting funds for wheat and other commodities.
Rarely there is an article in the United States media which acknowledges Pakistan contributions to the interests and security of the United States but for sure there is always a an effort to enfeeble Pakistan, not missing out to cite the 'generosity' of providing few billion dollars in welfare, economic and military aid.
Recent example to which is an editorial by The Editorial Board of The New York Times Time to Put the Squeeze on Pakistan' crosses all limits accusing it 'duplicitous and dangerous partner' and 'double game'. This is not the first time when the United States media reported negatively about Pakistan as Fareed Zakaria and Kevin Hulbert in The Washington Post and The CIPHER Brief whereas Carlotta Gall in the same newspaper The New York Times have all spread their ill-thoughts about Pakistan.
A country who is considered to be the most important strategic ally of the United States is branded with such stupid, irrational captions – The Key to Solving Puzzle in Afghanistan is Pakistan; Too Big to Fail; Pakistan’s Hand in International Jihad; and now Time to Put Squeeze on Pakistan.
Media could have an excuse of freedom of expression but what about the United States administration that constantly hides in the verdicts of the Congress which never greeted Pakistan role in assuring the United States’ security and strategic interests.
There seems to be nothing changed in the United States erratic, illusory and double-faced policy towards Pakistan for decades unlike China remained extensively cordial and highly trustworthy whenever Pakistan needed.
It is about time for Pakistan to end its reliance on the U.S., stop watch-dog role in region for U.S. interests, let it deal challenges and threats itself, prioritize defense and nuclear expansion, protect state and people, and 'focus on better impeccable ties with all countries'
including Russia, maintaining a far-better chronicle than the United States.