Pak U.

S Relations

By:

Amir Nawaz (BCE-FA08-001)

Mashood Saleem (BCE-FA08-009)

Kashir Saeed (BCE-FA08-023)

M.Adil Nawaz (BCE-FA08-027)

Comsats Institute Of Information

Techonolgy,Lahore.
 Contents

1) Introduction
2) Geopolitical importance
3) US involvement & interests in South
Asia since 1945
4) PAK US relations through time to time
5) War against terrorism
6) Waziristan war
7) Costs
8) Benefits
9) Policy recommendations for USA
10) Policy recommendations for Pakistan
11) Conclusion
12) Summary
Introduction:
Pakistan was founded on 14 August, 1947 along with India when the two nations achieved
independence from the British Colonial Empire.The partition of the sub-continent
occurred and Pakistan was created in those adjoining territories that had majority Muslim
populations. Thus the country of Pakistan with seventy million people had above 90%
Muslim population. On the other hand, India had a majority Hindu population but
Muslims were also a sizeable second minority group comprising 15% of the Indian
population. The regions comprising Pakistan included the provinces of Sind, Punjab,
Balochistan and Northwest Frontier Province on the western side of India and the province
of East Bengal in the east of India. The two wings of eastern and western Pakistan were
separated by a thousand miles of Indian territories. India inherited most of the
infrastructure from the colonial establishment and Pakistan received some share out of
assets. However, the regions comprising the land of Pakistan were less developed as
compared to India and the administrative infrastructure was also limited. Both countries
gained some military assets left over after the end of the World War Two. The main
challenges that Pakistan faced at the time of its independence were related to its security
fears, lack of infrastructure in the country and limited financial resources. The creation of
two separate states and the division of the countries over religious lines had created a large
migration across the two countries. The partition of the sub continent had created large
problems. India and Pakistan had disputed division of assets as well as territories of the
two countries. The state of Kashmir was a major cause of dispute as both India and
Pakistan made claims for the state. The dispute led to a limited war in 1948 that resulted in
one third of the Kashmir state occupied by Pakistan and the other two thirds overtaken by
India.
After the second world war two super powers aroused in the world one was U.S.A.
(United States Of America) and the other was U.S.S.R. (United Soviet Socialist
Republic).Both powers tried their best to make an alliance with India after the partition of
sub-continent in 1947,but when India decided to live neutral both powers rushed towards
Pakistan. But Pakistan due to western culture and many other reasons for example as most
of the Bureaucrats, Technocrats and officers were educated and trained in western
countries so they had a natural attraction to America therefore Pakistan decided to
become an Alliance with America and Western countries. Now first we see what is the
importance of this region that both super powers tried their best to keep an hold in this
region in the form of alliances. As we see the map of South Asia it is clear that it is one of
the most important regions of the world.

Geopolitical Importance:
Geopolitically, this region is very important India in the centre and all the other countries
of South Asia (Pakistan, China, Bhutan, Nepal, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka) are situated
around it. The location of South Asia is important to west. It is located between the oil lane
of Iran, Indian Ocean known as Indian pacific due to its importance and the borders to
Russia and China. The air or sea routes that connect the Europe and Middle East with the
Far East and Australia pass through or near the South Asia region. It also serves as a
bridge between East Asia and West Asia and also between Central Asia and East Asia.
Moreover strategically, South Asia is not only important in itself but have the potential to
effect the development in the others areas of great significance of the world as well.
Arabian Sea in the West really increases its importance. The renowned naval strategist
Alfred Mahan describes importance in the following words, "Whoever controls the Indian
Ocean dominates the Asia, It is a key to seven seas. In the 21st century the destiny of world
would be decided on its waters."
In fact, the Mahan's views about the Indian Ocean are value able because Indian Ocean
enjoys significance due to rivalry of super power in the region. It connects South Asia to
Africa, Indonesia, and the Antarctica to South. In South West it links to the Atlantic Ocean
and in South West it is connected to Pacific Ocean. Moreover the strategic importance is
also linked with the concentration of many if raw material resources of the world such as
oil, rubber, manganese, copper, gold, tea, cotton and rice. Therefore, South Asia is a major
supplier of export items to the Indian Ocean and it is a junction between the Western and
Eastern halves of the ocean.
South Asia has been recognized as a geopolitical area of the major strategic significance
through which the routes connecting Europe, Africa and Asia pass. The region of South
Asia is important because of its connection with the very important sea lines of
communication in the Indian ocean and is being sandwiched between two politically
volatile and economically critical regions i.e. the Persian Gulf and Southeast Asia. Thus
South Asia is the most important single geographical unit in the world. Moreover, the
major actors of region, India and Pakistan were in the second half of the twentieth century
divided in terms of polarization between the United States of America, the Soviet Union
and Pakistan acted as an ally to West in relation to moderate Muslim countries in the
middle East and in relation to China.
United States of America's Involvement and
Interest in South Asia since 1945:
Despite the inherent geopolitical importance of South Asia , the United States involvement
in the region has fluctuated, depending upon its intensity and style of competition with
other great power at global level. Historically, South Asia is an area about which
Americans know little, where they have a restricted set of interests. American strategic
Interests and perspective regarding South Asia from the very beginning were strongly
influenced by British, who sought to guide the United States of America to lead the world
and control the strategic zones previously dominated by British. Olaf Caroe, the British
advised the United States of America about the protection of Western interests in South

Asia. In fact, American's are not a natural Asian power. The one of the major American
interest was to prevent the absorption of area into the communist orbit.
The political Involvement of United States of America in South Asia is relatively recent
phenomenon. It started only after 2nd world war, form which United States of America
emerged as a leading world power.
United States of America's policy towards South Asia, however has been basically
confused, inconsistent and reactive rather than calculated and long term. The dimension of
super power interests in South Asia can be defined in various categories such as political,
economic and strategic to achieve specific goals.

United States f America's political interest in South Asia:

The United States of America entered in the subcontinent principally by way of Middle
East and South East Asia to protect the interest of industrialized nations. Its concept was
the containment of Sino-Soviet bloc and which required a chain of its allies around it.
India's image in the eyes of United States of America's future planners was that it was not
capable of providing leadership to South East Asia in struggle against communism.
Pakistan, in their perceptions, appeared better place to deal with this problem. Pakistan's
assets, such as its religious identity with the Muslim countries of the Middle East and above
all its potential and willingness to act as a regional balancer to India were indeed tempting.
There was also a general feeling by the American policy makers that by extending military
assistance Pakistan's friendship could be won. The United States also realized that with
Pakistan the Middle East could be defended and without Pakistan it would be difficult to
do so.

U.S Pakistan Relationship through Time to

Time:
From 1947 to1979:
After the creation, Pakistan followed a pro-western policy. Pakistan was the only country
in South Asia and within the Muslim world which developed a close bilateral and multiple
relations with the West in 1950's. Pakistan was looking for strong friend in order to face
its bigger and much stronger neighbor India and to strengthen 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 founding father of
Pakistan sent its representative to U.S. Government for financial and military assistance.
Pakistan based its case on the post cold war Scenario of confrontation between the Soviet
Union and the West. Pakistan contended that the Soviet Union wanted to get access to the
Arabian Sea and to increase its influence in Middle East. Pakistan as a Muslim sub-
continent state and due to history and culture had no sense of affiliation with the
communists and was a natural ally for the United States and the West. In start U.S. was
less interested in getting involved in the emerging conflicts of South Asia. Pakistan wanted
to strengthen their relation with the U.S. so as to get an advantage in their confrontation
with India. This was the time when Pakistan was becoming increasingly anxious to obtain

U.S military and economic assistance without creating a problem for China or Soviet
Union. In general Pakistan's purpose to make alliance with America and the West was not
to contain communism but to bargain with India and to strengthen its defense. In 1952 the
Pak U.S. relations were improved when republicans came in power Pakistan pushed its
case as an ally that can provide support for Middle East security and in return it asked for
military and economic support for its failed economy. Unstable domestic politics had led to
political and economic distress while the bureaucratic and military officers were getting
stronger in the country. Pakistan became an ally of West in May 1954, when mutual
defense assistance agreement was signed with United States in 1954 -55. Pakistan became a
member of SEATO and Baghdad Pact (later known as Cento) which led to close military
relationship with U.S. Washington had a chance to establish military bases in order to
protect the oil reserves of the Middle East. In 1959 Pakistan also signed a bilateral
“Agreement of co-operation” with the United States and Pakistan was associated with the
United States through not only one but four mutual security agreements.
The New York Times stated that discussions on a military alliance were to begin on the
condition that Pakistan was willing to consider an exchange of airbases for military
equipment. Moreover, the Pakistan military elites, Especially general Ayub Khan,
Constantly pressed for larger allotments of arms and economic aid. His arguments were
supported by many us officials who was convinced that Pakistan had adopted a firm Anti-
Communist policy, argued that it could only play a role in regional defense if it were given
more arms than originally planned. Policy makers seemingly believed that Pakistan
assessed the soviet military pressure as a significant danger, which made co-operation with
the West desirable. In fact some important officials apparently thought that Pakistan
regarded the Soviet threat as a close second to that posed by India, thus Pakistan did
become a member of Western military pacts and was sometime regarded as American’s
most ally in Asia.
The problem of survival from the implacable hostility of India, political analyst Nirad
Chaudhary quite logically argued that
“India held the pistol on the head of Pakistan, until in 1954, the American alliance
delivered the country from the nightmare. Under the influence of alliance policy, Pakistan
felt it hard come off better than India.
Therefore military alliances with Pakistan became a necessity and an image of USA
became in India that ‘A friend to Pakistan and opposed to India’, Moreover the U.S
military aid to Pakistan alienated India pushed it towards Soviet Union. Subsequently
India’s willingness to expand relations with the communist countries enhanced its
International Stature and made other Asian countries more respective to Soviet Union. The
Soviet Union backing of India against Pakistan strengthened New Delhi’s resolve to stand
on Kashmir topic rather seek a compromise , just as the alliance with the United States of
America to think it might pressuring India to be more accommodating. Thus, within a
decade Independence the two major nations of the region were caught up in the cold war
and their involvement in great power politics enabled them to extract material benefits.
In the late 1960’s and in the early 1970’s the United States almost withdrew from South
Asian affairs. The U.S. adopted a neutral stance between the Indo-Pak war of 1965 and
1971 and terminated military aid to both India and Pakistan, which hurt Pakistan more
than India. The U.S. neutrality made the Pakistan elites painfully aware that their “Long

lasting American Friend” would not be available in a time of crisis. Great challenges to the
U.S neutrality occurred during the Indo-Pak war of 1971. Because Soviet India partnership
and the treaty of 1971 successfully neutralized the USA and China. The U.S. and China
just gave a verbal support to Pakistan’s territorial Integrity and as a result Pakistan broke
in two parts and eastern Pakistan emerged as a new country named Bangladesh on the
map of the world.
From 1979 to 1989:
The region today called Afghanistan has been predominantly Muslim since AD 882. The
country's nearly impassable mountains and desert areas have contributed to its problems.
Pashtuns are the largest politically and culturally group in the country; however the
national population also consists of Tajiks, Hazara, Aimak, Uzbeks, Turkmen and other
small groups.Many Soviet Muslims in Central Asia had tribal relationships in both Iran
and Afghanistan.
Russian military involvement in Afghanistan has a long history, going back to the so-called
"Great Game" between Russia and Britain, begun in the 19th century with such events as
the Panjdeh Incident, a military skirmish that occurred in 1885 when Russian forces seized
Afghan territory south of the Oxus River around an oasis at Panjdeh. This interest in the
region continued on through the Soviet era, with billions in economic and military aid sent
to Afghanistan between 1955 and 1978.
In February 1979, the Islamic Revolution removed the US-backed Shah from
Afghanistan's neighbor Iran and the United States Ambassador to Afghanistan was
kidnapped and killed by Islamists despite attempts by the Afghan security forces and
Soviet advisers to free him.
The United States then deployed twenty ships to the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Sea
including two aircraft carriers, and there was a constant stream of threats of warfare
between the US and Iran.
March 1979 marked the signing of the US-backed peace agreement between Israel and
Egypt. The Soviet leadership saw the agreement as a major advantage for the United
States. One Soviet newspaper stated that Egypt and Israel were now “gendarmes of the
Pentagon”. The Soviets viewed the treaty not only as a peace agreement between their allies
in Egypt and the U.S.-supported Israelis but also as some form of military pact. In
addition, the Soviets found America selling more than 5,000 missiles to Saudi Arabia and
also supplying the Royalists in the North Yemeni Civil War against communist factions.
Also, the Soviet Union's previously strong relations with Iraq had recently soured. In June
1978, Iraq began entering into friendlier relations with the West and buying French and
Italian-made weapons instead of Soviet weapons (though the vast majority still came from
the Communist countries of the Soviet Union, their Warsaw Pact allies and China.
The analysis shows that the decade of 1980's started disastrously for international and
regional security and for the global system, because it changed the shape of the regional
and global politics. It also seriously threatened the security of weak states. Pakistan's
perception was that the soviet-India axis desired to use the Afghan crisis to destabilize
Pakistan, because Moscow believed that Pakistan was giving substantial support to the
Afghan Mujahideen. India's intension was perceived as being to destroy the structure of
Pakistan's armed forces or capture a sizeable portion of territory for the achievement of
dominant power status in the region. The Soviet Union's goal was perceived as the

achievement of access to the Persian gulf and the complete encirclement of China. The
Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in December 1979 and the subsequent withdraw obviously
offers itself as an example of International crisis. In the nineteenth century, Afghanistan a
mountainous country in the mouth of South and South West Asia had been a focal point
for nearly a century of Anglo Russian competition called as great game. None of the powers
succeeded in subjugating Afghanistan. Soviet invasion of the Afghanistan in 1979
introduced a grim dimension to the power structure between Moscow and Washington.
The Soviet invasion into Afghan triggered a wave of responses across the globe and
particularly the security and Foreign policy postures of Pakistan and United States. These
countries emerged as the key actors in the unfolding situation whose perception, action and
interactions would determine the counters of crisis. This was a struggle between United
States and the Soviet Union for the global influence. Both powers employed a variety of
methods to maintain their power and influence. It participated the collapse of Soviet Union,
leaving Soviet Communism to be remembered largely as the 20th century's most extra
ordinary political and intellectual aberration.
From 1989 to 1999:
From 1989 after the with drawl of soviet forces from Afghanistan, relation between
Pakistan and USA became cold. USA stopped military and financial aid to Pakistan and
left it alone to fight against the terrorist groups formed during the Afghan war. USA also
applied many sanctions on Pakistan due to its nuclear program.
August 1990: Pressler Amendment Sanctions The 1985 Pressler Amendment authorized
banning most military and economic assistance to Pakistan if an annual presidential
determination that Pakistan did not possess a nuclear device was not given. In 1990,
President George H.W. Bush was the first to withhold such a determination.
May 1998: Pakistani Nuclear Test Sanctions After Pakistan's May 1998 nuclear tests,
President Bill Clinton imposed additional sanctions on Pakistan, invoking the 1994 Glenn
Amendment, which authorizes sanctions on non nuclear weapon states that detonate
nuclear explosions, and the Symington Amendment, which prohibits military and economic
assistance to any country that delivers and/or receives nuclear assistance.
October 1999: "Democracy Sanctions" After Musharraf's October 12, 1999, coup,
Congress invoked Section 508 of the Foreign Assistance Act, prohibiting all U.S. economic
and military aid toward Pakistan.
Sep./Oct. 2001: Sanctions lifted after 9/11 The Glenn, Symington, and Pressler sanctions
were waived by President George W. Bush under the authority given him by an earlier
piece of legislation known as Brownback II. Congress voted to allow President Bush to
waive the "democracy sanctions" imposed on Pakistan through September 30, 2003. These
democracy sanctions have since been waived annually.
December 2004: Ackerman Amendment This amendment to the Intelligence
Authorization Act requires the CIA, over a five-year period, to make annual reports to
Congress about Pakistan's nuclear activities, democratic development, and counter terror
efforts.

War against terrorism:

After the 9/11 attacks on world trade center in America, US launched a war against the
Muslim countries in the name of "War against Terrorism" and Pakistan again became an

ally of USA in this war. IN this war Pakistan arrested many Al-Qaeda leaders e.g. The
Saudi born Zayn al-Abidn Muhammad Hasayn Abu Zubaydah was arrested by Pakistani
officials during a series of joint U.S. and Pakistan raids during the week of March 23, 2002.
During the raid the suspect was shot three times while trying to escape capture by military
personnel. Zubaydah is said to be a high-ranking al-Qaeda official with the title of
operations chief and in charge of running al-Qaeda training camps. Later that year on
September 11, 2002 Ramzi was arrested in Pakistan after a three-hour gunfight with police
forces. He is known to have shared a room with Mohammad Atta in Hamburg Germany
and to be a financial backer of al-Qaeda operations. It is said Ramzi was supposed to be
another hijacker; however the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services rejected his visa
application three times, leaving him to the role of financier. The trail of money transferred
by Ramzi from Germany to the United States links Mohammad Atta.
On March 1, 2003, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was arrested during CIA-led raids on the
suburb of Rawalpindi, nine miles outside of the Pakistani capital of Islamabad.
Mohammed at the time of his capture was the third highest ranking official in al-Qaeda
and had been directly in charge of the planning for the September 11 attacks. Escaping
capture the week before during a previous raid, the Pakistani government was able to use
information gathered from other suspects captured to locate and detain Mohammed.
Mohammed was indicted in 1996 by the United States government for links to the Oplan
Bojinka, a plot to bomb a series of U.S. civilian airliners. Other events Mohammed has
been linked to include: ordering the killing of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl,
Mohammed has described himself as the head of the al-Qaeda military committee.
According to Pakistan Embassy officials in Washington, D.C., Pakistan has deployed more
than seventy thousand of its troops to the Afghan border and has launched more than
thirty-eight major successful operations to flush out foreign terrorists. More than three
hundred Pakistan army and paramilitary troops have been killed, and an even larger
number have been injured, accounting for more casualties than any other U.S. ally in the
war on terrorism. Additionally, the intelligence provided by Pakistan has led to successes
against terrorism around the world. For example, all of the top al-Qaeda leaders captured
to date have been apprehended in Pakistan with the government's help, while Pakistan
itself has arrested more than seven hundred terror suspects. The country has also banned
or placed on watch lists a large number of sectarian and militant organizations and has
enacted numerous antiterrorism laws, freezing thirty-two bank accounts suspected of
belonging to terrorist organizations. Finally, Pakistan is currently creating a national
criminal database and is the first country to successfully install PISCES, a terrorist-
interdiction program set up at seven Pakistani airports and at border crossings with India.
Pakistan has cooperated with the United States in a number of ways, by granting logistics
facilities, sharing intelligence, and capturing and handing over al-Qaeda terrorists. Says
Christine Fair in her book, The Counter terror Coalitions:
U.S. officials acknowledge that "Pakistan has provided more support, captured more
terrorists, and committed more troops than any other nation in the GCTF (Global
Counterterrorism Force)." Additionally, Pakistan has sealed off its western border and has
made two naval bases, three air force bases, and its airspace available to the U.S. military

Despite all this, in 2006, Pakistan was accused by NATO commanding officers of aiding the
Taliban in Afghanistan; but NATO later admitted that there was no known evidence
against the ISI or Pakistani government of sponsoring terrorism. However in 2007,
allegations of ISI secretly making bounty payments up to CDN$ 1,900 (Pakistani rupees. 1
lakh) for each NATO personnel killed surfaced. The Afghan government also accuses the
ISI of providing help to militants including protection to the recently killed Mullah
Dadullah, Taliban's senior military commander, a charge denied by the Pakistani
government. India, meanwhile continues to accuse Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence of
planning several terrorist attacks in Kashmir and elsewhere in the Indian republic,
including the 11 July 2006 Mumbai train bombings, which Pakistan attributes it to
"homegrown" insurgencies. Many other countries like Afghanistan and the UK have also
accused Pakistan of State-sponsored terrorism and financing terrorism.
The upswing in American military activity in Pakistan and neighboring Afghanistan
corresponded with a great increase in American military aid to the Pakistan government.
In the three years before the attacks of September 11, Pakistan received approximately $9
million in American military aid. In the three years after, the number increased to $4.2
billion, making it the country with the maximum funding post 9/11. Such a huge inflow of
funds has raised concerns that these funds were given without any accountability, as the
end uses not being documented, and that large portions were used to suppress civilians'
human rights and to purchase weapons to contain domestic problems like the Balochistan
unrest.

Waziristan War:
In 2004 the Pakistani Army launched a campaign in the Federally Administered Tribal
Areas of Pakistan's Waziristan region, sending in 80,000 troops. The goal of the conflict
was to remove the al-Qaeda and Taliban forces in the region. After the fall of the Taliban
regime many members of the Taliban resistance fled to the Northern border region of
Afghanistan and Pakistan where the Pakistani army had previously little control. With the
logistics and air support of the United States, the Pakistani Army captured or killed
numerous al-Qaeda operatives such as Shaikh Mohammed, wanted for his involvement in
the USS Cole bombing, Oplan Bojinka plot and the killing of Wall Street Journal reporter
Daniel Pearl. However, the Taliban resistance still operates in the Federally Administered
Tribal Areas under the control of Hajji Omar. The War in North-West Pakistan is an
armed conflict between the Pakistani Army and Islamist militants made up by local
tribesmen, the Taliban and foreign extremists. It began in 2004 when tensions rooted in the
Pakistani Army's search for al-Qaeda members in Pakistan's mountainous Waziristan area
(in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas).Clashes erupted between the Pakistani troops
and al-Qaeda's and other militants joined by local rebels and pro-Taliban forces. The
Pakistani actions were presented as a part of the War on Terrorism, and had connections
to the war and Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan. Since the conflict began, Pakistan has
lost more than twice the number of its soldiers compared to the number of US troops killed
in Afghanistan. However, as of September 2008, the number of militants killed by the
Pakistan Army reached the 4,500 mark.

Tribesmen declare war against the Taliban:

By the beginning of September 2008, Pakistani tribal elders began organizing a private
army of approximately 30,000 tribesmen to fight the Taliban. A lashkar, or private army,
composed of Pakistani tribesmen, began torching the houses of Taliban commanders in
Bajaur, near the Afghan border, vowing to fight them until they are expelled. A local jirga
decided to form the lashkar in the wake of the increasing presence of the local Taliban in
the area. The lashkar began torching houses, including the house of a local Taliban
commander named Naimatullah, who had occupied several government schools.A tribal
elder named Malik Munsib Khan, who heads the lashkar, said that tribesmen would
continue their struggle until the Taliban were expelled from the area, adding that anyone
found sheltering Taliban militants would be fined one million rupees and their houses will
be torched. The tribesmen also torched two important centers of the Taliban in the area
and gained control of most of the area. The main reasons for this was that the operations
that were taking place in the federally Administered Tribal Areas had displaced some
300,000 people while dozens of citizens have been killed in clashes between the militants
and military. This showcases why the Taliban have become highly unpopular with the
tribal elders and their tribesmen.

Intensified US Strikes:
Since the end of August, the United States has stepped up its attacks in the Federally
Administered Tribal Areas. On September 3 a commando attack took place in a village
near the Afghan border in South Waziristan, and there have been 3 strikes from
unmanned drones in North Waziristan, culminating on the morning of 8 September 2008,
when a United States Air Force drone aircraft fired a number of missiles at a "guest house
for militants arriving in North Waziristan", which unsuccessfully targeted Jalaluddin
Haqqani killed 23 people. On September 25, 2008, following exchanges of gunfire between
US and Pakistani forces on the frontier on Thursday, President Zardari told the United
Nations that Pakistan would not tolerate violations of its sovereignty, even by its allies. The
incident happened after two US military helicopters came under fire from the Pakistani
side, a US military spokesman said, insisting that they had been about a mile and a half
inside Afghanistan. President Zardari told the United Nations, "Just as we will not let
Pakistani's territory to be used by terrorists for attacks against our people and our
neighbors, we cannot allow our territory and our sovereignty to be violated by our
friends," he said.

U.S.-Pakistan Engagement: The War on Terrorism:

The current U.S. engagement with Pakistan may be focused on the war on terrorism, but it
is not confined to it. It also addresses several other issues of concern to the United States:

national and global security, terrorism, nuclear proliferation, economic and strategic
opportunities in South Asia, democracy, and anti-Americanism in the Muslim world.

The current U.S. engagement with Pakistan offers certain lessons for U.S.
policymakers. These are related to the risks involved in basing policy on principles
without having a strategy, isolating a country that has the capacity to harm, and
nation-buildin g in a country ambivalent or resistant to the United States'
embrace. The United States must help Pakistan pursue a path that meets its
people's democratic aspirations and socioeconomic needs. Only such a course can
help Pakistan become a stable and responsible member of the international
community, at peace with itself and with its neighbors. Sanctions toward Pakistan
should not be a policy option. However, the United States should put some
pressure on Pakistan to keep the country's reform effort on track and to induce it
to act as a responsible nuclear power. For this purpose, the United States should
not allow Pakistan to feel that the United States needs Pakistan more than
Pakistan needs the United States. An assured and secure Pakistan is more likely to
define its future in economic terms, peace with India, and be a natural ally of the
United States. Therefore, Pakistan's peace process with India must be supported
by the United States. Anti-Americanism exists in Pakistan but it can be removed if
the United States reaches out to liberal forces, the business community, and the
female population. The United States should also reach out to the younger
generation in Pakistan, which may resent U.S. power but not its ideals. Indeed,
youth in Pakistan support a U.S.- backed normalization of relations with India, the
fight against religious extremism, and educational and institutional reforms. U.S.-
Pakistan relations will stand or fall based on whether they benefit the Pakistani
nation. And in their success or failure lies the future of Islamic extremism in the
country.

What is real in Pak-US Relation:

The cold war and communist threats, Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the ongoing war
on terror have been three key milestones in Pak-US relationship since the establishment of
Pakistan. All of these strategic interests were deep fabricated in the US policy and none of
these was entirely a Pakistani interest although their consequences might have some direct
implications for security and stability of Pakistan. But Pakistan pursued and safeguarded
these interests in the region more actively than even the United States. On the other hand
there have been some other ‘landmarks’ in history, which were entirely related to
Pakistan’s security (the wars of 1965 and 1971 etc). One more thing, which has become
increasingly real in Pak-US relations, is the influence of Americans in Pakistan’s
internal affairs. Having been engaged in war on terror with the General (retd)
Pervez Musharraf for about 7 years, the United States feels now uncomfortable
with the new political government in Pakistan. The US brought tremendous
pressure on the coalition government not to pursue the restoration of judges or

the impeachment of the former president, who resigned on 18 August to avoid

impeachment. Senior US diplomats and flag officers paid frequent visits to their
Pakistani counterparts with the same message: Don’t Rock the boats.

Costs:
US foreign policy has always been driven by the adage that “US has no permanent
friends or allies”. As long as it suits US they keep a friendship but once the
purpose is served they drop a friend like a rock. For Pakistan this is a familiar
scene since it gained independence in 1947. First US refused to help Pakistan in its
fight against India when it supported separatist movement of Awami League of
East Pakistan. Second, it used Pakistan as a frontline state in its cold war with
Russia especially during the Afghan occupation. But as soon as Russia withdrew
from Afghanistan US left Pakistan on its own to deal with the Afghan problem. The
result was the proliferation of drugs, weapons and extremism in the moderate
Pakistani society. Soon after Afghan war and Russian break up US imposed
Pressler amendment on Pakistan effectively blocking all aid and stopping the
delivery of F-16 fighter jets for which money was already paid for.

The friendship between US and Pakistan can, at best, be termed as

unilateral. Pakistan has always been on the giving end while US has always been
pushing for more. Pakistan accepted the membership into US sponsored coalitions
of SEATO and CENTO to provide counter against growing communist influence in
the region. Pakistan also allowed US to use its air space to fly U-2 spy planes over
Russian territory. It ultimately embarrassed Pakistan when a U-2 was shot down
by Russians damaging diplomatic relations deeply. In early 1970s, Pakistan was
also instrumental in arranging first secret meeting between then US Secretary of
State Henry Kissinger and Chinese government which resulted in opening trade
ties between US and China. The highest price Pakistan paid for US friendship was
when it agreed to become a frontline state to support Afghan Mujahideen against
Russian occupation. That role resulted in growing extremism in Pakistan as well as
an attack on its social fabric in the form of drug addiction and small arms
proliferation among political and sectarian parties. These arms are now fully
utilized by extremist element to fight the law enforcement agencies of Pakistan in
large parts of NWFP and Balochistan.

Benefits:
In terms of gains, Pakistan has mainly got the monetary and military benefits whereas the
US has always secured its strategic interests in the region throughout the highs and lows of
Pak-US relationship. The monetary benefits and some strategic benefits. Military aids and
military pacts helped strengthen defense of Pakistan. Pakistan military itself has been a
potent factor in retaining the alliance with the US. This had its own implications, which
have become now more visible in form of weak state and political institutions, and
mutilated democracy.
For its part, in the three years after September 11, the United States extended grants to
Pakistan equaling $1 billion and wrote off $1 billion in debt. In June 2003, the U.S.
announced a $3 billion assistance package for Pakistan to start in October 2004 and to be
distributed over five years, with roughly equal amounts going to economic aid and security
assistance. Additionally, a framework agreement on trade and investment (TIFA) has been

signed, and the two countries have begun negotiating a bilateral investment treaty. On the
security front, the U.S. approved a $1.2 billion arms-sale package that includes roughly
$950 million for the purchase of P3C Orion aircraft. In March 2005, President Bush
authorized the sale of a yet-to-be-specified number of F-16 fighter jets to Pakistan. The
United States has also reinstated a military-training program through which some three
hundred officers have received instruction at U.S. military institutions since 2001.

Policy recommendations for USA:

US image has suffered in the Muslim world by adopting dual policy. At one hand it
wants to introduce democracy among Muslims to counter extremism and on the
other hand it supports autocratic rulers like General Musharraf to gain support for
fight against terrorism. This approach encourages extremist elements to blame
the declining social conditions on US duality and offer salvation by returning to
conservatism. If democracy is good for Iraq then it should also be good for
Pakistan. US should also understand that social reforms can not be achieved
through weapons. It requires patience, negotiations and understanding. West
should also realize that almost 70% of the Muslim population is 30 years olds as
compared to an average age of 45 in the western world. There is no way a 45
years old can win a fight from a 30 something youth. After 9/11, General
Musharraf provided unconditional support to US largely to protect his own rule.
What is required for the United States in most Islamic countries, including Pakistan, is to
create and support pressures for social change and mental and cultural habits that sustain
an open political process and democratic way of life. To do so, the United States needs
influence and for that, in most Islamic countries, the United States may have to face the
challenge of navigating between illiberal but friendly regimes on one hand, and liberal but
unfriendly forces on the other. This is not an easy task. There is also a powerful force of
reactionary elements in the Islamic world that must be contended with, a force resisting not
only U.S. influence but also social change and liberal habits of thought. Now United States
.
will have to contend with anti-Americanism Anti-Americanism in Pakistan is framed by
four concentric circles: general reaction to U.S power, America's current international
conduct, relations between Islam and the West, and the history of U.S.-Pakistan relations.
Indeed, as the most powerful nation on earth, the United States increases disturbance
around the world for its personal interests. As for America's international conduct, its
legitimacy and self-centeredness have been under challenge, especially after September 11.
Regarding Islam and the West, the picture is even more complex. Islamic societies that
have invariably experienced colonialism or varied forms of Western domination have been
experiencing conflict in their search for national identities, political stability, and effective
ways of absorbing modern liberal values. They have also been coming to terms with anti-
Western feelings that have interloped into their culture. Across the Islamic world, the
West, especially the United States, is believed to have historically complicated this search
by becoming a party to this conflict. The war on terrorism has sharpened the tensions
between Islam and the West. The history of U.S.-Pakistan relations has generated its own
anti-Americanism, which is triggered by a perception that the United States has not been a
reliable ally and has not helped Pakistan much in its conflict with India. Now this anti-

Americanism is being exploited by the Islamists to gain popular support.

Eventually terrorism will be reduced to one of the regular threats that can be addressed
with a range of normal military, intelligence, and foreign policy options, but for the
United States problem of' reengagement with Pakistan' may live on. To meet challenges
beyond the war on terrorism, the U.S.-Pakistan relationship must be broadened to include
a strong economic partnership, educational and cultural linkages, and a shared perspective
on democracy, nonproliferation, and peace in South Asia. Only then will the relationship
enjoy strong domestic support in both countries.

India and Pakistan

Some of the U.S. foreign policy concerns are also rooted in India-Pakistan tensions. U.S.
relations with India and Pakistan, therefore, should be designed to advance the prospects
of regional peace and stability. Relieved by the apparent success of the India-Pakistan
dialogue, the United States may support the peace process. But the fact is, favorable
changes in multiple contexts(domestic, bilateral, and international) are required for the
resolution of long-standing conflicts. In that sense, more U.S. steps in South Asia are a
necessary for the peace process. Indeed, if the peace process fails, the United States will be
blamed by the people of Pakistan on one hand for seemingly "pressuring" Pakistan to
normalize relations with India and on the other for weakening Pakistan's hold in Kashmir
with the war on terrorism. The United States must therefore be engaged in the peace
process to insure its success.
Additionally, a successful normalization of relations between Pakistan and India benefits
the United States in more ways than one. It could, for instance, ease Pakistan's security
fears and help lower the army's political profile, opening the way for democratization, and
advance the prospects of an integrated South Asia market linked to energy-rich Central
Asia, increasing opportunities for U.S. investment there.
Peace between India and Pakistan will also ease fears of a nuclear war, may open up the
possibility of their incorporation into the international nuclear community, and will help
strengthen their command and control structure, which will encourage nonproliferation.
Though the United States will not let India and Pakistan be accepted into the Nuclear Non-
Proliferation Treaty regime as nuclear powers, the United States is keen to sign on both
Pakistan and India to the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI). But Pakistan is not likely
to join the PSI without India's participation. To get Pakistan and India on board, China's
help should also be taken. As a nuclear power with complex relations with both South
Asian states, China can be an important contributor to strategic stabilization in South Asia.
Institution Building and Democracy
The U.S. strategic community has emphasized institution building and reforms. Pakistan's
problems are not lack of institutions but the disrespect of the institutions. If institutions are
not working, especially the police, judiciary, and administrative services, it is because they
have been undermined by the dominant centers of power. They can only be reformed if
social and political structures are first reformed. Education and social sectors, however,
are not in a functional state and in need of urgent help and Pakistan will achieve minimum
stabilization, enable, if United States is able to set its priorities toward addressing issues
such as democracy .

Educational Reforms
USAID considers educational reform to be the most important current development
project in Pakistan. In July 2002, more than $100 million was dedicated to a five-year
education reform plan. USAID and Pakistan's Ministry of Education are working together
to improve (1) policy and planning, (2) teacher and administrator training, (3) adult and
youth literacy programs, and (4) partnership development and community building
between the public and private sectors. USAID also has projects dedicated to improving
teacher training and developing teaching materials; to building and furnishing schools in
the Federally Administered Tribal Areas; to training Pakistani educators in the United
States; and to promoting democratic values in teachers and students. These extensive
efforts will only succeed if they are implemented countrywide and emphasize local solutions
for meeting educational goals rather than impose unworkable or culturally insensitive
solutions from the outside. Besides, the current levels of U.S. aid allocation for educational
reforms do not appear to be enough to the task and may have to be doubled, at least.
Given the problems already identified with Pakistan's bureaucracy, the United States has
an understandable distrust of the government machinery for channeling U.S. aid to
education reforms. The United States has turned to nongovernmental organizations
(NGOs) as an alternative mechanism for implementing change in the education sector. An
uncritical trust of NGOs is also a risk, however many are themselves a product of self-
serving system. Pakistan should be encouraged to follow the example of Bangladesh, where
grass-roots-based NGOs have a stronger sense of public service. Indeed, the United States
should help Pakistan build civil society, the most important institution-building challenge
in the country after education.
According to Pakistan's minister of education, the government has vastly enhanced his
ministry's budget to carry out wide-ranging reforms in the education system, including
increasing teacher salaries, opening new schools, especially in villages, and modernizing the
curriculum. The government has given him a budget allocation of 5.5 billion rupees to
reform madrassahs by introducing science subjects and the teaching of English to their
curricula, provide computers for classroom use, and upgrade their physical infrastructure.
To date, madrassahs have been hesitant to accept such government intervention for
reform.
However, there is a high risk that such policies will end up strengthening the madrassahs
without actually reforming them. Their funding is already drying up, and reform will only
give them a shot in the arm. Over the long run, with an expanded and reformed public
educational system, Instead of bailing them out, they should be gradually absorbed into the
mainstream educational system.

Political Islam
The U.S. relationship with Pakistan must show some immediate results to demonstrate that
there is an alternative vision for Pakistan and that it is working. The engagement must not
fail because the alternative, an extremist Pakistan that itself becomes a U.S. target, will be a
policy nightmare.
To be successful, the engagement must be geared toward benefiting the people, not just the
regime. This will raise the people's confidence in the country's relationship with the United
States. Additionally, the United States must not appear to be in conflict with Islam.
Political Islam is not something out there that the United States can combat and conquer.

Economic and Security Assistance and Sanctions Policy

The United States needs to find a new path for its relationship with Pakistan. The weak
sanctions of the 1990s that offered Pakistan no steps for change did not work. In the future,
sanctions should not be a policy option as long as there are strong reasons for the United
States to be engaged with Pakistan and to help its reform efforts. Reform should be an end
in itself, as a reformed Pakistan is in the interest of the United States. Additionally, the
United States needs to build a broader coalition of countries to support Pakistan's reform
efforts, including highly visible donors such as Japan.
The United States must also help Pakistan create a strong economy that generates
employment. To this end, the bilateral investment agreement between the two countries
should be made. It will be seen by the international business community as an affirmation
of Pakistan's economic stability, and thus raise investor confidence in the country. Indeed,
U.S. and Japanese companies should be offered special incentives to invest in Pakistan.
Pakistan considers the free-trade agreement with the United States an essential component
of its economic development program. In the meantime, both the United States and Japan
should provide greater market access for Pakistani textiles as an effective measure for
relief.
The U.S. aid program toward Pakistan should focus heavily on supporting poverty
reduction strategies. There is already a perception among Pakistanis of increased poverty
in the country, concerns about rising inflation, and discontent over the army's growing
domination of the civilian institutions, not to mention a host of other internal tensions in
the country.
The ability of the United States to help reform Pakistan will be strengthened if the United
States appears to be less in need of Pakistan than Pakistan is in need of the United States.
U.S. interests go well beyond the war against terrorism. Any increase in the existing levels
of security assistance, or any further sale of major defense equipment beyond the F-16s,
should be linked to Pakistan's cooperation on these issues, as well as on the war on
terrorism. What is needed is a broader framework for its relationship with Pakistan, one in
which the war against terrorism is at the center of the agenda but does not cover other

Policy recommendations for Pakistan:

Pakistan’s foreign policy should be driven by due considerations given to its geopolitical
situation, its position in the Muslim world and its economic dependence on certain
countries. Based on these three considerations we can not afford to have a confrontational
position with India as well as weaken our relationship with China. Similarly we have to
create partnership with Iran to help create stability in the region as well as provide a
bridge for them to negotiate with West on their peaceful nuclear program. In the Muslim
world Pakistan should take a leadership position considering its size, military strength and
intellectual depth. Pakistan is rightly emphasizing on restructuring of the Organization of
Islamic conference (OIC) to make it a central player in bringing the Muslim world together
to negotiate its issues with the Western societies. For its economic development Pakistan
should view India and China as two large markets for its exports instead of fearing them as
competitors. Pakistan should also form trade blocks with Middle Eastern countries which
can benefit from deep human pool of Pakistan as well as improve trade and investment.
Recent Arab investment in banking, real estate and retail industries is a positive
development are positive developments. Sovereignty can not be achieved by Pakistan
unless it resolves its internal conflicts, progress economically and understand its true role
in the Muslim ummah. It is a good time for all of us to come together to gain a dignified
position for ourselves and create peace in the region. Pakistan's economic development will
remain limited if the country does not come to terms with problems of poor public services,
corruption, income distribution and high illiteracy rates. Above all Pakistan needs a new
organizing idea and an improved relationship between its provinces and center. For
example, the province of Balochistan is significant for Pakistan's future economic
prospects. It is rich in mineral resources that are strategically located near vital sea lanes
and two oil-bearing regions, the Persian Gulf and Central Asia. But the development of
Balochistan is resisted by tribal chiefs who fear their traditional authority will be
undermined there. (Similarly, the sharing of water resources for irrigation and
hydroelectric power are also issues between the central government and the provinces.)
The problem is political, not economic. Only through better management of relations
between the central and provincial governments—which may even require constitutional
adjustments—can Pakistan realize its full economic potential. Political stability and
peaceful internal order are essential for attracting critically needed foreign investment for
economic development. The ability to provide such security depends upon the integrity and
effectiveness of Pakistan's political process. In other words, economic development and
democracy are interdependent. Economic change will foster a middle class that may help
lead the balance of economic and political power away from the feudal landlords. Pakistan
has to make the best possible use of the current U.S. engagement but also keep in mind two
facts. First, Pakistan has to change and reform on its own. (Thus far, the United States'
principal interest has only been in stabilizing Pakistan.) Second, while in the past Pakistan
criticized the United States for lack of commitment to the relationship, Pakistan itself
showed little regard for Washington by pursuing policies that defied U.S. concerns, such as
those related to terrorism and the export of nuclear technology. Pursuing these policies
served no conceivable national interest of Pakistan. Pakistan needs to come clean about the
past and assure the United States about the future. It is best to discuss the past now while
the relationship is strong enough to absorb any further shocking problems.

Conclusion:
Fulfilling conflicting objectives without sacrificing any of them is a central policy of the
United States. Both Pakistan and the United States need each other to address the
complexity of this challenge.
Future U.S. interests in the region may be defined, not just China, but also of India and
possibly of Russia. China is already positioning itself to fill any future power vacuum
caused by any receding U.S. standing in the region and has begun building bridges with
Iran and India. As a result, the U.S.-Pakistan relationship will increasingly intersect with
issues that go far beyond the war on terrorism.
There is therefore a compelling demand for the United States to remain engaged in the
region. And given its geopolitical environment and dependence on borrowed power,
Pakistan could remain a friend and possibly even an ally.

Summary:
- After the second world war two super powers U.S.A and the other was U.S.S.R tried
their best to make an alliance with India after the partition of sub-continent in 1947,but
when India decided to live neutral both powers rushed towards Pakistan. But Pakistan had
a natural attraction to America therefore Pakistan decided to make an Alliance with
America and Western countries.As we see the map of South Asia it is clear that it is one of
the most important regions of the world.

- South Asia has been recognized as a geopolitical area of the major strategic significance
through which the routes connecting Europe, Africa and Asia pass. The region of South
Asia is important because of its connection with the very important sea lines of
communication in the Indian ocean and is being sandwiched between two politically
volatile and economically critical regions i.e. the Persian Gulf and Southeast Asia. Thus
South Asia is the most important single geographical unit in the world. Moreover, the
major actors of region, India and Pakistan were in the second half of the twentieth century
divided in terms of polarization between the United States of America, the Soviet Union
and Pakistan acted as an ally to West in relation to moderate Muslim countries in the
middle East and in relation to China.

-The United States of America entered in the subcontinent principally by way of Middle
East and South East Asia to protect the interest of industrialized nations. Its concept was
the containment of Sino-Soviet bloc and which required a chain of its allies around it.
India's image in the eyes of United States of America's future planners was that it was not
capable of providing leadership to South East Asia in struggle against communism.
Pakistan, in their perceptions, appeared better place to deal with this problem.

-After the creation, Pakistan followed a pro-western policy. Pakistan was looking for
strong friend in order to face its bigger and much stronger neighbor India and to
strengthen its claims over the territory of Kashmir. Pakistan also needed financial support
for its infrastructure development and modernization of its armed forces.

-Pakistan became an ally of West in May 1954, when mutual defense assistance agreement
was signed with United States in 1954 -55. Pakistan became a member of SEATO and
Baghdad Pact (later known as Cento) which led to close military relationship with U.S.
Washington had a chance to establish military bases in order to protect the oil reserves of
the Middle East. In 1959 Pakistan also signed a bilateral “Agreement of co-operation” with
the United States and Pakistan was associated with the United States through not only one
but four mutual security agreements.

-In the late 1960’s and in the early 1970’s the United States almost withdrew from South
Asian affairs. The U.S. adopted a neutral stance between the Indo-Pak war of 1965 and
1971 and terminated military aid to both India and Pakistan, which hurt Pakistan more
than India.

-The analysis shows that the decade of 1980's started disastrously for international and
regional security and for the global system, because it changed the shape of the regional
and global politics. It also seriously threatened the security of weak states. Pakistan's
perception was that the soviet-India axis desired to use the Afghan crisis to destabilize
Pakistan, because Moscow believed that Pakistan was giving substantial support to the
Afghan Mujahideen. India's intension was perceived as being to destroy the structure of
Pakistan's armed forces or capture a sizeable portion of territory for the achievement of
dominant power status in the region. The Soviet Union's goal was perceived as the
achievement of access to the Persian gulf and the complete encirclement of China. The
Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in December 1979 and the subsequent withdraw obviously
offers itself as an example of International crisis. In the nineteenth century, Afghanistan a
mountainous country in the mouth of South and South West Asia had been a focal point
for nearly a century of Anglo Russian competition called as great game. None of the powers
succeeded in subjugating Afghanistan. Soviet invasion of the Afghanistan in 1979
introduced a grim dimension to the power structure between Moscow and Washington.

-From 1989 after the with drawl of soviet forces from Afghanistan, relation between
Pakistan and USA became cold. USA stopped military and financial aid to Pakistan and
left it alone to fight against the terrorist groups formed during the Afghan war. USA also
applied many sanctions on Pakistan due to its nuclear program.

-After the 9/11 attacks on world trade center in America, US launched a war against the
Muslim countries like Afghanistan & Iraq in the name of "War against Terrorism" and
Pakistan again became an ally of USA in this war.

-U.S. officials acknowledge that "Pakistan has provided more support, captured more
terrorists, and committed more troops than any other nation in the GCTF (Global
Counterterrorism Force)." Additionally, Pakistan has sealed off its western border and has
made two naval bases, three air force bases, and its airspace available to the U.S. military

-Despite all this, in 2006, Pakistan was accused by NATO commanding officers of aiding
the Taliban in Afghanistan; but NATO later admitted that there was no known evidence
against the ISI or Pakistani government of sponsoring terrorism. However in 2007,
allegations of ISI secretly making bounty payments up to CDN$ 1,900 (Pakistani rupees. 1
lakh) for each NATO personnel killed surfaced. The Afghan government also accuses the
ISI of providing help to militants including protection to the recently killed Mullah
Dadullah, Taliban's senior military commander, a charge denied by the Pakistani
government. India, meanwhile continues to accuse Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence of
planning several terrorist attacks in Kashmir and elsewhere in the Indian republic,
including the 11 July 2006 Mumbai train bombings, which Pakistan attributes it to
"homegrown" insurgencies? Many other countries like Afghanistan and the UK have also
accused Pakistan of State-sponsored terrorism and financing terrorism.

-In 2004 the Pakistani Army launched a campaign in the Federally Administered Tribal
Areas of Pakistan's Waziristan region, sending in 80,000 troops. The goal of the conflict
was to remove the al-Qaeda and Taliban forces in the region. After the fall of the Taliban
regime many members of the Taliban resistance.

-By the beginning of September 2008, Pakistani tribal elders began organizing a private
army of approximately 30,000 tribesmen to fight the Taliban. A lashkar, or private army,
composed of Pakistani tribesmen, began torching the houses of Taliban commanders in
Bajaur, near the Afghan border, vowing to fight them until they are expelled.

-Since the end of August, the United States has stepped up its attacks in the Federally
Administered Tribal Areas. On September 3 a commando attack took place in a village
near the Afghan border in South Waziristan, and there have been many strikes from
unmanned drones in North Waziristan.
-US foreign policy has always been driven by the adage that “US has no
permanent friends or allies”. As long as it suits US they keep a friendship but once
the purpose is served they drop a friend like a rock. For Pakistan this is a familiar
scene since it gained independence in 1947.

-In terms of gains, Pakistan has mainly got the monetary and military benefits whereas
the US has always secured its strategic interests in the region throughout the highs and
lows of Pak-US relationship. The monetary benefits and some strategic benefits. Military
aids and military pacts helped strengthen defense of Pakistan.

-What is required for the United States in most Islamic countries, including Pakistan, is to
create and support pressures for social change and mental and cultural habits that sustain
an open political process and democratic way of life. To do so, the United States needs
influence and for that, in most Islamic countries, the United States may have to face the
challenge of navigating between illiberal but friendly regimes on one hand, and liberal but
unfriendly forces on the other. This is not an easy task. There is also a powerful force of
reactionary elements in the Islamic world that must be contended with, a force resisting not
only U.S. influence but also social change and liberal habits of thought.

-Eventually terrorism will be reduced to one of the regular threats that can be addressed
with a range of normal military, intelligence, and foreign policy options, but for the
United States problem of' reengagement with Pakistan' may live on. To meet challenges
beyond the war on terrorism, the U.S.-Pakistan relationship must be broadened to include
a strong economic partnership, educational and cultural linkages, and a shared perspective
on democracy, nonproliferation, and peace in South Asia. Only then will the relationship
enjoy strong domestic support in both countries.

-Pakistan has to make the best possible use of the current U.S. engagement but also keep
in mind two facts. First, Pakistan has to change and reform on its own. (Thus far, the
United States' principal interest has only been in stabilizing Pakistan.) Second, while in the
past Pakistan criticized the United States for lack of commitment to the relationship,
Pakistan itself showed little regard for Washington by pursuing policies that defied U.S.
concerns, such as those related to terrorism and the export of nuclear technology.