Developments in Pakistan-US Relations: Implications for India

Pakistan-US relations have improved in the last few months despite several challenges. President Barack Obama has granted economic aid and allowed sale of military equipment to Pakistan. He has also shown willingness to take into account Pakistan’s regional perceptions. The US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton has also publicly acknowledged Washington’s incoherent policy towards Islamabad. The overtures illustrate a shift in US policy towards Pakistan and the region. It appears that the Obama Administration is seeking to build a long-term and durable relationship with Pakistan. The developments in Pakistan-US relations as also Pakistan’s long-standing strategic relationship with China could have far-reaching implications for India.

Under the US foreign policy sweep, Pakistan and Afghanistan continue to occupy centre-stage. President Obama unveiled a new Pakistan-Afghanistan policy on March 27, 2009 in order to bring peace and stability in the region. The key points of new policy include: disrupt, dismantle and defeat Al-Qaeda and Taliban terrorists in Pakistan, post economic aid to Pakistan to about $ 7.5 billion over five years, boost civilian government in Pakistan and strengthen economic opportunities for Pakistanis, urge UN to mobilise world assistance for Pakistan, and strengthen efforts to build Pakistani security forces capable of defeating terrorists. President Asif Ali Zardari has welcomed President Obama’s new policy for Pakistan and the region, in what looks like the beginning of a new diplomatic entente.

However, US economic assistance to Pakistan is tied with condition – tackling terrorism. The US assistance package also contains provisions for extension of economic assistance for another five years. It appears that the US has been seeking a long-term and durable relationship with Pakistan. The Obama Administration has expressed that it wants to avoid mistakes that successive administrations committed. President Obama said: “To avoid the mistakes of the past, we must make clear that our relationship with Pakistan is grounded in support for Pakistan’s democratic institutions and the Pakistani people.”

The US assistance to Pakistan also includes military assistance. Reports suggest it will include increased military assistance for helicopters to provide air mobility, night vision equipment, and training and equipment specifically for Pakistan’s Special Operation Forces and their Frontier Corps. A report also suggests that the US is planning to provide $ 2.8 billion over the period 2009-2013 as military assistance. Besides, direct communication has been established between the Pentagon and the GHQ, Rawalpindi which is a significant development. US Secretary of Defence Robert Gates and General David Petraeus, who heads the US Central Command, are working to create a new Pakistan military assistance programme: a $ 3 billion ‘Pakistan Counterinsurgency Capability Fund’, which will effectively bypass the US State Department and Pakistan’s Foreign Ministry. The recent direct military to military contacts have raised the level of comfort in Washington with the Pakistan Army after a stormy relationship over the ISI affair that appears to have now subsided.

Nevertheless, the Pakistan-US relationship is not free from friction. The recent months also witnessed a marked souring of relations on the government-to-government level. Washington’s open criticism of Islamabad’s inaction in the fight against terrorism did not go down well with the Pakistan establishment. Pakistan Army’s senior officers have been uncomfortable with the repeated criticism of the ISI. The US has not only questioned the capacity, but also the motives of the Pakistan military and intelligence agencies, especially in context of the war against militancy. However, the US is pleased that Islamabad has launched military operations against the Taliban to eliminate militancy.

President Obama said in May 2009: “I am gravely concerned about the situation in Pakistan…more concerned that the civilian government there right now is very fragile and don’t seem to have the capacity to deliver basic services…for the majority of people. And so as a consequence it is very difficult for them to gain the support and the loyalty of their people”. President Obama’s remarks was seen in Pakistan with distaste. Significantly, Obama’s comments came just before President Zardari arrived in Washington to meet him to discuss Pakistan’s role in the Afghan war and the strategy to deal with counter-insurgency in Pakistan. The remarks clearly nailed President Zardari. Richard Holbrooke, US special envoy for Pakistan and Afghanistan, quickly launched damage control measures, saying that Pakistan’s civilian government was fully capable of governing and resolving the issues being confronted by the country. He said that the US was “not abandoning it (Pakistan), nor are we distancing ourselves from Zardari”.

Hillary Clinton’s remark on the civil-military relationship did not go down well in Pakistan’s political establishment. She said: “In Pakistan, it’s a very difficult environment because of the confusion among the civilian and military leadership about how to prioritise what is the greatest threat to Pakistan going forward.” General Petraeus apparently tried to drive a wedge between Zardari and Pakistan Army Chief General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani by saying that Pakistan Army is “superior” to the “civilian government led by President Zardari”.

Despite friction on some issues, there is growing convergence of views between Pakistan and the US on the issue of Afghanistan. Both Pakistan and the US view that India’s presence would complicate efforts for peace in Afghanistan. The US expects a rollback of Indian presence in Afghanistan. But India should strengthen its relations with Afghanistan since it has gained access after tremendous efforts. India should continue a peace dialogue with Pakistan and should create negotiation space politically, diplomatically, publicly, and privately. There should be a composite dialogue – economic, diplomatic, and military.

The growing influence of China in the region, particularly in Pakistan has become a source of concern in the US. The ongoing US economic assistance and military sales could actually lessen China’s influence in Pakistan. Still, the US will avoid policy that is not be desired by China in this climate of global economic recession. US-China cooperation will increase if global economic recession continues.

The Obama Administration is encouraging some states to get engaged in stabilising Pakistan – China, Saudi Arabia and the European countries. Richard Holbrooke has sought China’s help in providing stability to Pakistan. It may herald a broader US-China understanding on the region. The growing convergence of the US and Chinese views on Pakistan and regional issues may change the regional security scenario. Possibly the US may allow China to manage regional security issues as China and Russia are involved in settling North Korea’s nuclear issue. There are also indications of growing China-Japan relations. China has played a significant role in Sri Lanka’s war against the LTTE by supplying arms to Colombo.

The United States’ changing perceptions towards Pakistan (with the Chinese playing backroom games) will have far-reaching implications for India. First, India’s role in the region will not remain as to be perceived. Second, it will put a restraint on India’s pre-eminent role in the region. Third, the US military aid will boost Pakistan’s military capability that will adversely affect India’s security. Fourth, Pakistan may escalate conflict in Kashmir. This could lead the US to apply political and diplomatic pressures over India to settle the Kashmir issue, a political pressure-cooker India can do without. Fifth, It may diminish India’s presence and role in Afghanistan. Sixth, Pakistan-US ties, the Pakistan-China relationship, and US-China ties may further affect settlement of the Indo-China border dispute. 

(Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not represent the views either of the Editorial Committee or the Centre for Land Warfare Studies).