P a g e | 0

Page 1

P a g e | 1

Contents

Definition 3The initial years 1947-1952 The evolving relations & Ayub Era 1952-1969 4Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto Era & relations between 1971-1979 5Grand Mosque Seizure 7Soviet Afghan War 91988-1998 11The 9/11 attacks 13Obama’s new strategy & Pak-US relations 16 Drone attacks 172011 19F-16Conclusion 20

P a g e | 2

Submitted To:

Sir Zeeshan Hanif

Submitted By: Group 2 Members:

Abdul Samad 129Hira Qayyum 162Areej Fatima 131 Abdullah Butt 167Khurram Nadeem 156

P a g e | 3

A country's foreign policy, also called the foreign relations policy, consists of self-interest strategies chosen by the state to safeguard its national interests and to achieve its goals within international relations milieu.

Defination

The father of the nation, Quaid-e-Azam defined Foreign Policy towards other countries of the world in 1948, as follows Our Foreign Policy is one of friendliness and good-will towards all the nations of the world. We do not cherish aggressive designs against any country or nation. We believe in the policy of honesty and fair play in national and international dealings and are prepared to make our utmost contribution to the promotion of peace and prosperity among the nations of the world. Pakistan will never be found lacking in extending its material and moral support to the oppressed and suppressed peoples of the world and in upholding the principles of the United Nations Charter.

Basic Goals of Pakistan's Foreign Policy:

1. Maintenance of territorial integrity.

2. Maintenance of its political independence.

3. Acceleration of social and economic development.

4. Strengthening its place on the globe.

5. Keeping cordial and friendly relations with all countries.

Guiding Principles of Pakistan's Foreign Policy.

The initial years 1947 -1952

After the creation of the two countries, Pakistan followed a more pro western policy whereas the Indian government defined its foreign policy with a more leftist to non aligned stance. Pakistan was looking for strong friends in order to persuade its bigger and much stronger neighbor India to give in to its claims over the territory of Kashmir. Pakistan also needed financial support for its infrastructure development and modernization of its armed forces. Right from the beginning the founder father of Pakistan sent its representative to the US government

P a g e | 4

for financial and military assistance. Pakistan based its case on the post World War scenario of confrontation between the Soviet Union and the West. Pakistan contented that the Soviet Union wanted to get access to the Arabian Sea and to increase its influence in the Middle East. Pakistan was a nation beyond Afghanistan that could avert such Soviet designs. Pakistan as a Muslim state had no affiliations with the communists and was a natural regional ally for the United States.On theother hand, the ruling party in India, the Indian National Congress, and India’s leaders were closer in ideology to socialism and the Soviet Union. As a US ally in the region, Pakistan could provide a foot hold for the US in the region against any Soviet expansionist efforts in South Asia.From the US perspective, the United States was more occupied in the post war reconstruction in Western Europe and Japan, its containment efforts in South East Asia and the Middle East. The United States in the initial years of Pakistan was less interested in getting involved in the emerging conflicts of South Asia. The Pakistanis wanted to strengthen their relations with the US so as to get an advantage in their confrontation with India over Kashmir. On the other hand, the US did not see the usefulness of a strong relationship with Pakistan and US interests in Pakistan were limited. The Kashmir dispute dragged on despite UN Security Council resolutions that were agree upon by both Pakistan and India in 1949 for a ceasefire and proposal for a plebiscite. The Kashmir issue remained unresolved and became the main bone of contention between India and Pakistan resulting in three subsequent wars.

The evolving relations & Ayub Era 1952-1969

Prospects for Pakistan’s relations with US improved after Republican Eisenhower came to power in 1952 in the White House. Pakistan pushed its case as an ally that could provide support for Middle East security and in return it asked for military and economic support for its flail economy. Unstable domestic politics had led to political and economic distress while the bureaucratic and military officers were getting stronger in the country. The Republican government was more receptive of the Pakistani position and its claims of anti communist stand and an available allied state. Pakistan joined with Turkey as member of the Middle East Defense Organization (MEDO) in 1954. This allowed Pakistan to formally seek aid as a regional ally of the US. In January 1955, Pakistan joined South East Asian Treaty Organization (SEATO) with a view to adding security to the East Asian flank of anti communist alignment. However, it was not clear how Pakistan’s role in both these organizations would actually materialize in the case of an actual conflict. However, for the Pakistanis, becoming part of these alliances allowed the country to create stronger links with the US administration and seek increasing aid. In September 1955, Pakistan became a member of the Baghdad Pact organization which later became known as CENTO. Turkey, Iran and Iraq were its earlier members with the US as the backer of the security arrangement. The role of this organization was similar to the earlier MEDO as a northern-tier defense arrangement against communist influence in the Middle East. "In the end, neither the Baghdad Pact not SEATO amounted to much militarily. …Joining the Baghdad Pact and SEATO gave Pakistan a strengthened claim on US resources and, in turn, the US acquired an even larger stake in Pakistan’s well being. As Pakistan’s president Ayub Khan put it in his biography, “Friends Not Masters”, Pakistan had become America’s “most allied ally in Asia’’

P a g e | 5

A key development from Pakistan’s perspective was the amount of development and military aid that started in 1954 and increased to $500 million by 1957 as a result of Pakistan’s joining the regional defense organizations and allying with the USA. During the second Eisenhower term, the relations between the two countries became even stronger. Pakistan’s Army Chief staged a military coup in 1958 and later became the President of Pakistan. Field Marshal Ayub Khan had developed strong relations with the Americans and his era from 1958 to 1969 turned out to a strong era of US- Pakistan relations. In 1959, Aub’s government allowed the US to set up an intelligence facility in Badaber, NWFFP province and operate U2 surveillance flights over the Soviet Union from its Peshawar Airport. This arrangement and the closer relationship of the Pakistani government with the US administration allowed it to acquire increasing military hardware and arms for its defense services. The issue troubling the US was Pakistan’s closer relations with China. The Indians and Chinese had fought a war in 1962 in which China had given India a bloody nose. As a result Pakistan moved to improve and strengthen its relations with China in order to position itself as a stronger foe for India. However, Pakistan’s growing friendship with communist China irked the US who was facing a proxy war against the communists in Vietnam. Pakistan and India fought a war in 1965 that was an ill fated affair started by a limited guerilla war in Kashmir that Ayub started in order to pressurize India to come to the negotiating table over Kashmir. However, as the war spread, Pakistan could not sustain a long term conflict and asked for a truce and both forces moved back to their previous borders.

Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto Era & relations between 1971-1974

Being an important ally for US during the cold war, United States supported Pakistan, despite the arms embargo. Pakistan also assisted president Richard Nixon in making his first visit to Peoples’ Republic of China. During 1971’s war, US is speculated to have provided Pakistan with arms and military aid, in order to discourage India from penetrating further into the cities of Pakistan because losing Pakistan meant losing an important ally in the soviet war.Moreover, as per the elections result, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto was elected as the president of Pakistan and later on became the prime minister in 1974. Although Bhutto was considered a socialist, he was a close and respected friend of president Nixon, which went in Pakistan’s favour.

1976-1979

President Jimmy Carter, an anti-socialist, won the presidential election of US and announced to seek a ban on nuclear weapons. Bhutto lost the favours he enjoyed whilst Nixon was US president as Carter did not

P a g e | 6

appreciate his policies and tightened already placed embargoes on Pakistan. However, Bhutto managed to procure items to enhance his atomic bomb project. President Carter and his administration allegedly threatened Bhutto to disrupt the process of atomic proliferation and research to which the latter did not agree, leading to his differences with the Americans.

Bhutto’s search for a nuclear counter to India pressure was seen as a threat to American policy of controlling nuclear proliferation. The U.S. was adopting a discriminatory nonproliferation policy around the world. Pakistan became a target of the nonproliferation policy while such nations as Israel and South Africa, which had already crossed the nuclear threshold, were ignored, and even India was treated leniently. Pakistan had refused to sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty when it came into being on March 5, 1970, saying that it would sign the treaty only if India did the same. The United States regarded Pakistan’s nuclear program as being defense oriented. Whereas Pakistan claimed that it was for peaceful purposes.

Pakistan had signed an agreement with France on March 18, 1976, by buy a fuel reprocessing plant. The U.S. reacted sharply against this agreement, arguing that Pakistan intended to use the plant to develop nuclear weapons. France came under temendous pressure to cancel the agreement, and on December 16, 1976, discontinued the export of reprocessing facilities to Pakistan.20 Furthermore, American development aid to Pakistan was suspended in April 1979. The U.S. policymakers did not realize that such methods would in the long run be counterproductive, as Pakistan would eventually build a nuclear facility on its own, and without safeguards, while the French reprocessing policy was to be under safeguards. The United States’ policy generated ill will between the two countries, which began to drift away from each other. The administration in Washington, D.C. failed to understand that Pakistan was subjected to tremendous political and military pressures from India, and that all means of defending its territorial integrity had to be explored. Pakistan’s desire to develop a nuclear facility did not necessarily mean that a nuclear device was in the offing; rather, the intention was to develop nuclear facilities and research to such an extent that the option of becoming a nuclear power remained a possibility.

Whatever the U.S. thought of Pakistan’s nuclear program, the people of Pakistan regarded it as an important element of their security vis-à-vis India. For the average Pakistani, nuclear development became a sacred national duty, and those who opposed it were looked upon as enemies of the national cause. It is not surprising that Pakistan-U.S. relations plunged to a new low and even the seizure of power by the military did not improve the situation. In fact, it worsened. General Zia ul Haq continued the nuclear program and added to the American opposition by throttling democracy and violating human rights.

While giving an interview to Time magazine in March 1978, General Zia admitted that Pakistan’s relations with the United States under President Carter’s administration had reached “the lowest point”. The main cause, he said, was the controversy over the nuclear reprocessing plant. General Zia called U.S. policy “unfair” and “real arm-twisting”.21 Explaining the nuclear reprocessing plant controversy, in another interview,

P a g e | 7

General Zia Said:

In 1976, the agreement was reached with France within the knowledge and the presence of the representatives of the International Atomic Energy Commission (and) the Agreement was signed between the two free independent states of Pakistan and France. What has changed between 1976 and 1977 - that forced France to go back on their own word - to retract their steps? Nothing. The condition of Pakistan still remains the same; the condition of France still remains the same. The only change that took place was that the United States of America had a new President - President Carter who came with a program and crusade of fighting against nuclear proliferation - a very noble cause, we support it; but what happened? He tried with the Germans, the Germans refused to go back on their word for providing a nuclear reprocessing plant to Brazil. He tried with South Africa who still have a nuclear reprocessing plant without international safeguards. They talked to India and India after their conversation not only have previous two nuclear plants, had a third nuclear reprocessing plant and refused to get them under the international safeguards. What are the results? The United States of America agreed to give them heavy water. They said you have it; have it in a big way; here is heavy water for your nuclear reprocessing plants.

The only poor country that President Carter could get hold of for achieving his aim was Pakistan and he forced France and President Giscard; somehow or the other. I think, he come under pressure from the United States and refused to give us plant

The United States' suspicion of Pakistan's nuclear program became a major impediment to any improvement in relations between the two countries. On August 14, 1979, the Pakistani government issued a strongly worded statement against the US policy. The statement read in part:

Pakistan has deeply regretted the escalation of campaign by the United States against Pakistan's nuclear program. The U.S. Ambassador was summoned to the Foreign Office here today and informed of the Government of Pakistan's serious concern over the escalation of the campaign of threats and intimidation in regard to Pakistan's peaceful nuclear program.

US economic aid remained discontinued as a reaction to Pakistan uranium enrichment program.

In April 1979, President Jimmy Carter cut off economic assistance to Pakistan, except for food assistance, as required under the Symington Amendment to the Foreign Assistance act of 1961.

GRAND MOSQUE SEIZURE:

The Grand Mosque Seizure on November 20, 1979, was an armed attack and takeover by armed Islamist dissidents of the Al-Masjid al-Haram in Mecca, Saudi Arabia, the holiest place in Islam. The insurgents declared that the Mahdi, or redeemer of Islam, had arrived

P a g e | 8

in the form of one of the insurgents' leaders, Abdullah Hamid Mohammed Al-Qahtani and called on Muslims to obey him.

The seizure shocked the Islamic world as hundreds of pilgrims present for the annual hajj were taken hostage, and hundreds of militants, security forces and hostages caught in crossfire were killed in the ensuing battles for control of the site. The siege ended two weeks after the takeover began with militants cleared from the mosque.

Pakistani SSG commandos were rushed to Mecca from Pakistan on Saudi Government's request. The insurgents broadcast their demands from the mosque loudspeakers, calling for the cutoff of oil exports to the United States and expulsion of all foreign civilian and military experts from the Arabian peninsula. Pakistan Special Services Group (SSG), Brigadier Tariq Mehmood and Saudi authorities then used tanks to ram the doors of the mosque and Pakistani Commandos then resorted to spraying the mosque with non-lethal gases in order to subdue the occupiers, and dropped grenades into the chambers through holes drilled in the mosque courtyard. The Pakistani commandos stormed the mosque, and used the least amount of force possible to avoid damage to the mosque. They killed most of the insurgents, and managed to force the surrender of the survivors.

The battle had lasted more than two weeks, and had officially left "255 pilgrims, troops and fanatics" killed "another 560 injured ... although diplomats suggested the toll was higher." Military casualties were 127 dead and 451 injured.

Moreover, the result of this was that in November of 1979 the United States' Embassy in Islamabad was burned down by a mob five-hour siege began as an organised student protest outside the locked gates of the embassy compound. But the demonstration grew violent as protesters pulled down part of the outer wall and broke into the compound itself.

It was done under the mistaken belief that America was behind the attack on the Great Mosque in Makkah. Several members of the Embassy staff died.

American relations with Pakistan are already at a low point after the US cut off aid in April over Pakistan's nuclear ambitions, and criticised the human rights record of Pakistani leader General Mohammed Zia ul-Haq.

“In 1979, the Iranian revolution and

the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan,

renewed American interest in

improving the US-Pakistan

P a g e | 9

relationship.”

SOVIET AFGHAN WAR:

Pakistan's relations with the United States were at their lowest when the Russians decided to invade Afghanistan in 1979. This completely changed the American perspective on Pakistan.

In 1979, the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan to try to prop up the communist government there, which was being attacked by Muslim Mujaheddin fighters.

In 1980, Ronald Reagan became president of the USA. As a strong anti-communist, he called the Soviet Union the "evil empire" and increased spending on arms.

The USSR entered neighboring Afghanistan in 1979, attempting to shore up the newly-established pro-Soviet regime in Kabul.

Twin events in 1979, the Iranian revolution and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, renewed American interest in improving the US-Pakistan relationship. Pakistan suddenly became a key geostrategic player as it served as a buffer between the USSR and the Persian Gulf.

The United States then decided to fight a proxy war in land-locked Afghanistan, and America sought Pakistan’s support to spearhead this fight. General Zia ul Haq who had assumed control of Pakistan in a 1977 military coup offered America Pakistani support in the effort to drive the Soviets from Afghanistan.

The changes that occurred both in Afghanistan and in Iran brought the United States closer to the Pakistani perception of threat. It is ironic that President Carter, who stressed human rights criteria in the foreign policy endeavors, was compelled to support a dictatorial regime in Pakistan. General Zia gave the impression that he was prepared to replace the Shah of Iran to pursue American interests in the region, and that he would go to any extent in order to do so. He even risked annoying the new Iranian regime by issuing hostile statements toward Iran. It should be mentioned here that General Zia was the first ruler after the inception of Pakistan to adopt a hostile attitude toward Iran. He was critical of the U.S. for not coming to the rescue of the Shah of Iran. Answering a question on the change of government in Iran in an interview to CBS television in Rawalpindi on February 22, 1979, he said: “I think it is the result of the American policies in this region which we are now seeing. The American administration has not been able to realize what is going on. They have been too late in all instances”. When General Zia visited Washington in December 1982, he had a detailed discussion with President Reagan and it was reported that there existed now "an identity or a similarity of approach to such problems as [those in] Iran and Middle East”. The military regime in Pakistan had expressed its concern regarding the increasing Soviet activity in Kabul in October 1979, shortly before the Russian invasion, and had pleaded with the United States for action.

P a g e | 10

The United States was visibly upset by the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan, coming as it did on the heels of the developments in Iran. The US promised to grant all necessary help to Pakistan. On January 7, 1980, President Carter made the following statement:

The United States was visibly upset by the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan, coming as it did on the heels of the developments in Iran. The US promised to grant all necessary help to Pakistan. On January 7, 1980, President Carter made the following statement: “We have already assured President 'Zia, who is the leader of Pakistan, directly after the invasion, and since then through emissaries that we are willing to join other nations in giving necessary protection to Pakistan and meet their legitimate defensive military needs”.

The revolutionary changes that occurred in Iran from 1977 to the beginning of 1979 were misread by the US Stale Department and mismanaged by President Carter. The Americans were taken by surprise by the strength of the anti-Shah forces which they attributed to the pro Soviet elements in Iran. This single-minded policy analysis had the support of Zbigniew Brzezinski, the National Security Advisor, who in the later stages of the revolutionary movement suggested that the US prompt a military coup. General Robert Huyser visited Iran in the last days of the Shah to investigate the position and strength of the Iranian armed forces. But by that time the "military was already in the process of collapse”. These moves caused a backlash by the Iranian people and when the Shah was admitted to a New York hospital, on November 4, 1979 Iranian students in Tehran seized the American embassy. The American hostage issue dragged on for more than a year and created further hostility between the two countries. Although the hostages were finally allowed to leave Iran on the day Ronald Reagan was inaugurated in 1981, the damage had been done.

General Zia rejected as "peanuts" the American offer of a $400 million economic and military aid package. He said that the United States' proposed aid package was insufficient to ensure Pakistan's security and buys you greater animosity, particularly of another country, and a superpower, which now happens to be our neighbor. Pakistan's expectations from the United States were based on the fact that the latest threat to its security had come not from its eastern borders but from a Communist superpower. During the 1965 and 1971 wars between Pakistan and India, America's position had been that it would assist Pakistan militarily in case of Communist aggression or threat of aggression. The United States under President Carter was hesitant to make the kind of security commitment Pakistan expected. Negotiations between the two countries broke off and it was not until Ronald Reagan assumed the office of president in January 1981 that a meaningful dialogue took place.

By 1985, the Soviet Union was in trouble. In 1985, Mikhail Gorbachev became leader of the USSR. He withdrew from Afghanistan.

In the brutal nine-year conflict, an estimated one million civilians were killed, as well as 90,000 Mujahideen fighters, 18,000 Afghan troops, and 14,500 Soviet soldiers.

P a g e | 11

At the same time, Pakistan responded to India’s nuclear development program by beginning the development of its own nuclear capability. Although the United States was strongly opposed to the proliferation of nuclear weapons, it effectively turned a blind eye to these developments because Pakistan was its most important ally in the containment of Soviet southward expansion. When the Soviet Union left Afghanistan in 1988, the US interest in South Asia began to wane. Afghanistan, at that time, was in deep turmoil as a result of a decade of Soviet occupation and civil war. Against the advice of Pakistani leadership, America left Afghanistan.

America’s treatment of Pakistan was not much better. Not only was its promised aid of $4.02 billion to Pakistan withdrawn, the United States imposed sanctions on Pakistan for pursuing the development of nuclear weapons. The “blind eye,” no longer obscured by the threat of Soviet expansion, began to see. It was at this time that President Zia ul Haq, along with some of his top military generals and the US Ambassador, were killed in an airplane crash in what many believed was an act of terrorism.

Unstable Democratic Governments, the Taliban and the Nuclear Explosion (1988 — 1998)

The US government give $600 million aid to Pakistan after 1988 elections when Benazir Bhutto winning the election very effectively. After the 1988 elections, Benazir Bhutto came into power. “Since the US and Pakistani interests had diverted with the Soviets retreating from Afghanistan and the US getting actively involved in the Middle East” (Mazari, 2004) the sanctions were revived and the Pakistanis yet again felt isolated and betrayed by their "old friend" and "ally". "The Clinton Administration had a tilt towards the more democratic Indian government during this time. The Pakistanis contented that the Pressler Amendment was specific to Pakistan and the sanctions were unjustified (Kroastodt, 2004). By 1996 Pakistan's Afghan efforts were bringing some success and the Taliban government was established in Afghanistan. "The US administration initially welcomed the prospects of peace in the country but later opposed the Taliban regime based on their extreme fundamentalist views and gross violations of human rights" (Ahmad, 2004). Although a new nuclear deterrent had been established between India and Pakistan, another wave of international sanctions followed from the international community. This put further pressure on the already weak politic economy of Pakistan and fragile Pak-U.S. relations (Kroastodt, 2004). “The US had a new interest in Afghanistan by mid 1998 after the terrorist attacks on US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania by an organization belonging to Osama Bin Ladin” (Dasgupta, 2004) . The US officials and high authorities wanted Pakistan to use their influence and powers on Taliban to surrender but Taliban refused and new animosity started in the region.

P a g e | 12

Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s Era of 1990-1998:

The courtship between the United States and Pakistan during the final decade of the Cold War was followed by a decade of declining cooperation highlighted by sanctions in the Pressler Amendment that prohibited US aid to Pakistan unless the President certified that Pakistan was not in possession of nuclear weapons. Although there were four democratically elected governments in Pakistan during the 1988-98 period, they focused mainly on petty internal politics to the strategic detriment of the country. In many re- spects, it was a lost decade for Pakistan. In May 1998, Pakistan again seized center stage in South-Asia when it exploded six nuclear devices in response to the Indian nuclear explosions in Pokharan . The United States responded by further tightening sanctions against Pakistan. As a consequence, Pakistan’s economic condition worsened while ethnic and sectarian extremism began to build. During this period, the newly liberated Central Asian Republics (CARs) provided the majority of economic and trade opportunities for Pakistan. However, the instability in Afghanistan continued to impede Pakistan’s relations with the CARs. Starved for energy resources and hoping to access Central Asian markets via the shortest route, Pakistan initiated its relationship with the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.6 Growing discontent among Pakistan’s masses along with successive corrupt governments and the immediate fallout of the conflict with India in Kashmir, served as catalysts for the bloodless coup of October 1999. The Chief of Staff of the Army, General Pervez Musharraf, assumed administrative control of the country with an agenda for reform, economic revival, and eradication of 88 Parameters extremism. President Musharraf’s approach to governance was essentially different from previous military regimes. He did not impose martial law, did not limit freedom of the press, and did not attempt to appease the religious right .His rule also different from that of the four previous civil governments that lost credibility due to their corrupt practices. By way of contrast, President Musharraf rid his own administration of the corruptelite; this included bureaucrats, politicians, and even senior military officers. Regarding the situation in Afghanistan, President Musharraf endeavored to convince American leaders of the threat posed by al Qaeda and offered Pakistan’s support to counter it.

President Musharraf — 9/11 and Partners in the Fight against Terror

In the period of President General Pervaiz Musharraf "Pakistan was moving closer to a "failed state" case and it's nuclear and missile programs were a constant concern for policy makers in Washington” (Zehra, 2004). “9/11 changed the nature of US — Pakistan relations once again The US President George Bush asked the world to make a clear choice to side with the US with the slogan you are either with us or against us" (Zehra, 2004).

The US department of state and CIA defines terrorism as:

P a g e | 13

“Premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against non-combatants targets by sub-national groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience” (Khan, 2006:370). The terrorism in the real sense means any kind of threat or act of aggression against the people who did not do this to counter it and they were innocent people.

The 9/11 attacks:

It was a bright sunny morning in the American city of New York. The people were busy in their routine work. Previous to that day, September 11 was not a special day for the citizen of US While in future that day would become the most important day for the people of America. When the clocks were at 8: 45 am, an American airline which named as Boeing 767 tore into the north tower of the World Trade Centre (WTC). That tower was a symbol of American giant economy. After the first crash nobody knows that, this was only the begging. Shortly after the first plane hit the North tower another Boeing 767 of United Airlines flight no 175 crashed into the South tower of World Trade Centre. The fire broke up and a large number of people in those towers and also on the streets were killed. The third plane which named flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon building, which is a symbol of American military power. That third plane crashed killed 64 people on board and 125 inside the building. The forth and last plane crashed in Pennsylvania, 44 people which were in the plane were killed, and also the crew members of the plane and hijackers. It was confirmed later that the passengers fought with the hijackers in the plane, that’s why the hijackers could not succeeded to destroy their perceived target that was the White House Building.

THE US RESPONSE OVER 9/11 ATTACKS:

It was the most tragic event in the history of US According to few people, that incident was compared with the Pearl Harbour incident (Japan attacked over pearl harbour, and killed a large number of people. that heap on the World War 2.) that shocking and very sad incident of 9/11 killed more than 3000 people and economic loses reaches to a hundred billion dollars. That sad news spread very fast into the whole world and especially in US The Americans were wanted to take revenge of that incident (Sattar, 2009). Immediately after the incident of 9/11, the US media and the policy makers in the country pointed fingers on to the Al- Qaeda. They believed with certainty without any investigation, that only Al – Qaeda could do this to them. So the Americans wanted to punish the Al- Qaeda and its members for the attack over its people. It was stated with confidence, that because Al-Qaeda was involved in bombing of US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and also had its hand in a small attack over world trade centre before September 11. President George W Bush was also very tense and in grief situation at the sad incident of 9/11. The world community looking towards Bush, that what he will decided to do. On

P a g e | 14

September 15, 2001 President Bush stated: “I am going to describe to our leadership what I saw; the wreckage of New York City, the signs of the first battle of war. We are going to meet and deliberate and discuss.... but there is no question about it, this act will not stand; we will find those who did it; we will smoke them out of their holes; we will not only deal with those who dare attack America we will deal those who harbour them and feed them and house them” (Hasnat, 2008: 261). After the 9/11 incident US wanted to get the world community support to attack over Al-Qaeda. All the countries of the world believed that being a Super Power US could initiated an attack over militants unilaterally. It seems final that US decided to take revenge from terrorist, but in spite of ability to bypass all other countries of the world and take an action, US wanted a combine effort in war against terror

THE U.N & WORLD COMMUNITY RESPONSE:

All the members of United Nation were stunned at the sad incident of 9/11 which killed large number of people. All members of U.N condemned these terrorist acts and supported the US action against them. The Security Council passed three resolutions on different days.

i. The resolution 1368 passed on September 12, 2001.

ii. The resolution 1373 was passed by the Security Council on September 28,

2001.

iii. The third resolution came in on September 28, 2001 that numbered as

1377.

The U.N ask for global cooperation on terrorism by all its member states and also stresses on freezing of assets by the terrorist groups involved in the 9/11 (Rizvi, 2005) All the countries of the world supported US in any kind of effort to punish Al-Qaeda. Afghanistan, the country where it was assumed that masterminds of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, were hiding had not been with the United States.

Since the war on terror started in 2001, Pakistan has received an estimated amount of $20 billion from United States; however, in the wake of OBL’s raid US withheld $800 million of aid to Pakistan.

PAKISTAN’S WEAKNESS IN NEGOTIATIONS:

Pakistan decided to support US and coalition partners in war against terror. Few people think that, the hasty decision from Pakistan to agree upon all seven demands of US shows

P a g e | 15

weakness of Pakistan in negotiation, these people believed that Pakistan should deal the whole process with ease; it should gain more time to consult with people inside the country and round the world. While gaining some time Pakistan could devise its policy in a more sophisticated way.

Musharraf should talk to US authorities on nuclear issue and especially the Kashmir issue. Through that tactic he might be successful on putting extra pressure over India to give right of self-determination to the Kashmiri people. It was stated that after 9/11 US was not in position to confront with Pakistan, so ultimately it had to accept the Pakistani demands. Without help from Pakistan US will never know exactly about the Al- Qaeda and Taliban hideouts. So the air operation might not be as successful as it was after the Pakistani support (Faruqui, 2008). A former US ambassador Tereshita Schaffer is of the view that Pakistan and US have few different goals and agendas concerning the South Asian region. Pakistan and US agreed on the safety and security of Pakistan, but there are few divergent points in these two countries agendas.

1. The first main point of divergence between Pakistan and US is Kashmir issue,

both countries have their own views on Kashmir, Pakistan wanted to resolve the

Kashmir issue in favour of itself, while US could not do this because of Indian

pressure.

2. Pakistan wanted a clear cut differentiation between the campaign launched inside Afghanistan by US and its coalition partners and the freedom struggle in Kashmir by Kashmiri people. The US has its own agenda, concerning that issue.

3. The third main goal of Pakistan is that, it wanted to establish a friendly government in Afghanistan after the fall of Taliban regime, while US just wanted to install a stable government after the early crisis (Faruqui, 2008).

US Pressure to “Do More” & Afghan blame game over Pakistan:

Pakistan joined the coalition forces in war against terrorism, it suffers more than anybody else participating in this war. In spite of all effort from Pakistani side US consistently pressurizing to “Do More”. The situation for Pakistan is not as simple as the western countries leadership thinks, Pakistan never sent its military inside the tribal areas before. It was first time in history of Pakistan that the tribal elders allow the military to come in their areas, for that reason Pakistan must consider the customs and traditions of tribal people (Rana, Gunaratna, 2007) These tribal areas always have unique history, they never bear any outside pressure, so it was very difficult for Pakistani Army and other law enforcement agencies to fulfil the US demand of do more .US always demanded more troops on the border, but the reality is that US

P a g e | 16

itself has a deficiency of army in Afghanistan to control the situation. The other fact is that, the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan is very porous, there are very large mountains, and it is very difficult to secure the border between the two countries. In fact Pakistan is also suffering, because Taliban and other terrorist from Afghanistan come into Pakistan and create internal security problems for Pakistan (Rana, Gunaratna, 2007). Pakistan always stresses on Afghanistan to stop the blame game over Pakistan, and work with coordination to each other to resolve the common problem of terrorism. Pakistan’s President Musharraf categorically rejected the Afghan allegation and urges that Afghanistan must stop the blame game over Pakistan. He stresses in his address to the community and political leaders in his two days visit to Afghanistan “Certainly, I completely agreed that Al - Qaeda and the Taliban are operating both in Afghanistan and Pakistan, Certainly there are some who are crossing from Pakistan to Afghanistan, it was not sponsored by his government, and this blame game has to stop. We have to stop this blame game on both sides.... and trust each other” (Haq, 2007:26).

OBAMA’S NEW STRATEGY AND PAK – US RELATIONS

Since taking charge Obama administration has to face a worsen security situation in Afghanistan which include the enlarge militant Presence in some areas, growing dissatisfaction and resentment toward the Afghan Government under president Hamid Karzai, Penetration of Taliban and militant from the Safe havens in Pakistan and the growing number of civilian and military deaths. So Obama administration has to adopt a clear strategy toward Afghanistan to handle these core issues. Joint Chief of Staff chairman Admiral Mike Mullen stated in this regard that “I am not sure we are winning: in Afghanistan (Katzaman, 2009).

Obama adopted a new strategy named “Strategic Review” which was announced on March 27, 2009 in advance of April 3-4 2009 in NATO summit. The key goals of this new strategy are:

1. Destroy the Terrorist networks in Afghanistan and Pakistan and reduce their aptitude to launch international terrorist attack.

2. Establish and maintain a strong capable government in Afghanistan.

3. Provide training to Afghan security forces and make them able to conduct counter insurgency with the minimum US assistance.

P a g e | 17

4. Sought help from international community to fulfill these objectives in practical terms.

5. 17,000 additional combat forces are to be sent to Afghanistan to insure security in the region.

6. Promote reconciliation with the Taliban leaders who accept the Afghanistan’s constitution and lay down their arms.

7. Increase cooperation on bilateral bases between Afghanistan, Pakistan and US Provide military assistance to Pakistan’s army to destroy militant networks in their country and provide 1.5 billion per year economic assistance for the next five years.

US would support “Reconstruction opportunity zones” areas of Afghanistan Pakistan and US for cooperation in economic field.

8. US sought to establish a “Contact group” which would be consist of all states whose security is highly linked with the Afghanistan e.g. NATO allies, US’s other partners, central Asian States, Iran, Pakistan, Russia, India China etc (Katzman, 2009; Khan 2009).

Obama’s new strategy toward Afghanistan and Pakistan is slightly different from the Bush administration. Obama did not mainly focus on the adding of more military troops in Afghanistan but also adopted a reconciliation strategy toward Taliban and militants and give importance to the reconstruction of Afghanistan rather than only targeting Taliban networks. The new strategy provides a more close relationship with Pakistan in developing its economy as well as helping in destroying terrorist networks in Pakistan. Pak-Afghan’s bilateral relationship is not so good for decades, US would help to establish a friendly relationship between both countries because both Pakistan and Afghanistan faced terrorist attacks at a large scale which posed danger to their security as well as sovereignty.

DRONE ATTACKS:

US military used unmanned airborne vessels (UAV), or popular named as drones, first time in Kosovo and Bosnia for only surveillance purposes, but this new technology got importance in Afghanistan and Iraq war, especially in Pakistani tribal areas (khan, 2011). C.I.A using the Drone technology in Pakistan from 2004, after the arrival of Barack Obama in White House the use of Drones on Pakistani areas is increased. Pakistani public stated against the Drone Attack on Pakistani soil in which many innocent people were killed. US has no loss in that technology, because in that plane there is no pilot. United States could not give any legal reason over the use of drone on a independent country, because US always violates the sovergnity of Pakistan. On the other hand it was realized by few American policy makers and also Pakistani government, that Drone Attacks are counterproductive for US, because when a drone killed an innocent person, the family member of that person joined the militant organizations to take a revenge of their loved ones. In that way militants have many suicide bombers, who are willing to

P a g e | 18

sacrifice their lives for sake of revenge (khan, 2011). US launched Predator Drone Attacks within the Tribal areas of Pakistan to destroy the terrorist network of Taliban and militants. These Drone Attacks achieved considerable success in targeting the Taliban and other terrorist networks. According to some US officials; “Drone strike have paved the way for a complete “Al-Qaeda” Defeat” (Pape; Eldman, 2010:23). US wanted to launch free action against the militant in Pakistani federal administrative Tribal Area (FATA), where it perceived that these militants were hiding. The best way to destroy their networks is to attack by using the instrument of Hellfire missile, Liftoff from Predator and reaper unmanned Arial vehicle (UAVs); which also commonly known as Drones (Synnott, 2009). These drones are based on automatic or remote control technology which conducted accurate attacks in suspected area in FATA, without the need of ground forces in Pakistan.

These drone attacks are directly the violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty, Pakistani government protested on this policy. US administration showed its intention that US would respected Pakistan’s sovergnity but there is no evidence to follow this commitment in practical terms. These drone attacks got little success in targeting Taliban and other terrorist but the innocent civilian deaths are at large scale which resulted in counterproductive in terms of losing Pakistan’s public support to cooperate US in this war further more. Public polls show that between 75-90% Pakistani bitterly opposed the drone attacks. The Pakistani press, Pak government and public bitterly condemned these attacks. Even US counter insurgency experts also condemned them as counterproductive efforts because that destabilizes Pakistan. In spite of all these consequences, Obama administration is also committed to his former Bush policies and authorized to increase drone strikes in Pakistan (Oakley; Hammes, 2010). CIA launched dozens of drone attacks in Pakistani territory which brought innocent people death at a large scale with minimum number of terrorist deaths. It is reported by a Pakistan based newspaper that CIA launched 60 strikes between 2006- 2009 in which 14 al-Qaeda leaders killed with 687 innocent civilian’s death (Synnott, 2009). These drone attacks produced anti-American sentiments among Pakistani public and as little number of people favours that Pakistan has to cooperate with the US International Republican institute Poll concluded that only 2% of the Pakistan people were in favour of Pakistan’s good relations with the US (Oakley; Hammes, 2010). Pakistan government is protesting about this violation of its sovereignty; but it is a fact that it did not bitterly protested at this activity. It is predicted that Both states has a bargaining commitment with each other that US would continues committed to drone strikes and Pakistani government formally protested to counter the public opinion in this regard.

Exit Strategy:

In an interview Obama said that “There needs to be an “Exit strategy” for Afghanistan so that US policy does not appear to be perpetual drift” (Katzman, 2009: 30).

P a g e | 19

President Obama announced that US forces would be started to withdraw from Afghanistan in the beginning of 2011 and will completely withdrew until 2014 (James; James, 2011).This war has affected bitterly, the US economy and also provoked negative public opinion among US public. In spite of congress demand to close cooperation, the NATO allies have divergent views over it, some says that, for reconstruction and stabilization in the Afghanistan, NATO forces should remain there for some time more than 2014. The others have divergent views and wanted to quit from Afghanistan as soon as possible. ISAF has the number of core mission in Afghanistan before complete withdrawal:

1. Train the Afghan army, police and Judiciary

2. Maintain strong government in Afghanistan which could be able to counter narcotics efforts

3. Develop market system

4. Suppress Taliban as a whole (Morells, 2009).

These contradictory polices brings anxiety among the stakeholders especially for Pakistan and China. The increase of US partnership with India and its growing influence in Afghanistan is not seen as good for Pakistan and China’s strategic interests. All stakeholders except India strongly favored the withdrawal of US coalition forces from Afghanistan. The long-term presence of US forces brought great changes in regional balance of power.

2011

  In the beginning of 2011, Raymond Davis, a CIA agent in Pakistan killed two Pakistani men in Lahore, claiming that they came to rob him. Davis was taken into custody for killing civilians, however, American officials claimed that he was entitled to diplomatic immunity and must be released immediately. Raymond Davis was later acquitted of the murder charges and was sent to United States. In the May of 2011, Osama bin Laden was killed in an operation conducted by US Navy Seals in Abbottabad, Pakistan. President Barrack Obama claimed that the information pertaining to the operation conducted in Abbottabad was not shared with Pakistan Army. However, ISI claimed that the operation was conducted jointly, a claim which was blatantly denied by President Asif Ali Zardari. Since the war on terror started in 2001, Pakistan has received an estimated amount of $20 billion from United States; however, in the wake of OBL’s raid US withheld $800 million of aid to Pakistan. US-Pakistan relations plummeted again when 24 Pakistani soldiers died in an air strike by the US Army. Afghan and US officials claimed that the firing was a result of the attack

P a g e | 20

launched from the Pakistani side of the border, however, the Pakistani military and government denied the claims. As a result of the attack, Pakistani government ordered US army to evacuate Salala air base which was being used to launch offensive on Taliban and militants. Moreover, the government also halted Nato supplies for United Sates.

ISLAMABAD: Why Pakistan has abandoned F-16 Deal with US

Pakistan and US had struck a deal for 8 F-16 Fighter jets which was to be materialised by May 24, 2016. However US Congress did not approve the required funding of $430 millions which was to be provided as a subsidy to be paid by US as a partner of Pakistan in War against terrorism. An amount of $270 million was supposed to be paid by government of Pakistan as the total amount of the 8 F-16 was calculated at $700 millions. After US refusal to pay the subsidy of $430 millions Pakistan government has decided to abandon the F-16 Deal with United States.Pakistan is mulling the options of acquiring some other fighter jets for its Air Force and the likely option includes Chinese J-10 or in future Chinese latest J-31 may also be considered.It is not the first time that United States has betrayed Pakistan in this regard. After the Afghan War when Pakistan acted as front line state against the Soviet Union, United States did not deliver Pakistan 28 F-16 fighter jets for which even Pakistan had paid the price. Pressler Amendment and the subsequent sanctions against Pakistan banned F-16 sale and it had to buy wheat and Soya been oil in lieu of the huge amount of money $658 millions that it had paid to US for the purchase of F-16 fighter jets. While at the same time reportedly India has been offered by US F-16 sale along with the production factory.

Conclusion

Pak-US relations transformed drastically after 9/11 incident. Pakistan became the closer ally of US Asian allies. US is still waging war in Afghanistan and Pakistan’s role in this war is of pivotal importance, Pak has a role to play in the future politics of Afghanistan and also in exit strategy of US. Relation between the two countries were cold after the killing of Osama Bin Laden. Pakistan also has its reservation on drone attacks on its soil. The need of the time is that Berkeley Journal of Social Sciences Vol. 2, Issue 3, March 2012. 14 both old friends sit together and discuss the matter of common interest and also discuss the exit strategy of US, because as long as US will not withdraw from Afghanistan, situation could not get better in the region. In the War on Terror Pakistan destroyed their economy, trade and the defense capabilities. Pakistan wants a good relationship and become a reliable ally for the US government in War against Terrorism. Pakistan plays a vital role in the stability of Afghanistan. From vendetta oriented political leaderships and dictatorial regimes Pakistan is moving slowly

P a g e | 21

South Asian Studies 29 (1) 304 and surely towards sustainable democracy and political stability. From a military centric concept of security Pakistan has realized the importance of a broader concept of security with the emphasis on economic and internal stability. These are paradigm shifts and the nation needs both time and space, internally and externally, to absorb these and steer the course to progress and prosperity.

P a g e | 22