Ties between Pakistan and the United States are experiencing heavy turbulence these days. The first warning came years ago when the US pressingly insisted that Pakistan should act against the militant groups hiding in its territory. The second when high level officials spoke publicly about distrusting Pakistani military and civilian leadership. “Although I would defend them in front of Congress and to the press to keep the relationship from getting worse - and endangering our supply line from Karachi – I knew [the Pakistanis] were really no ally at all,” former Secretary of Defence Robert Gates wrote in his book, Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War.
He also referred to his visit to Islamabad in early 2010 when he met with the Pakistani leadership. Gates said he returned convinced that “Pakistan would work with the US in some ways - such as providing supply lines through Pakistan, which were also highly profitable - while at the same time providing sanctuary for the Taliban and other extremists, so that no matter who came out on top in Afghanistan, Pakistan would have influence. If there was to be any reconciliation, the Pakistanis intended to control it.”
Gates said further: “My message was consistent: we were committed to a long term strategic partnership; we needed to work together against the ‘syndicate of terror’ placing Afghanistan, Pakistan and India at risk; we needed to remove safe havens on both side of the border; Pakistan needed to better control anti-Americanism and harassment of Americans; and the Pakistani army’s ‘extra-judicial killings’ were putting our relationship at risk.”
These were enough indications for Pakistani leadership to correct the course. The passage of the National Action Plan provided breathing space, and yet the actions have been mostly too little and definitely too late.
The distrust, resultantly, continued.
Two years later, the US Congress resolved to practice a ‘carrot and stick’ policy. In March 2015, the US House Committee on Foreign Affairs froze 150 million dollars in Foreign Military Financing and put a hold on the delivery of a number of used Navy cutter vessels. “We remain deeply concerned that Pakistan has failed to take meaningful action against key Islamist terrorist groups operating within its territory,” the committee’s chairman noted in a letter sent to the State department.
Months later, the Congress first rejected Pakistan’s request to purchase eight F-16 fighter jets, though then it resorted to allow the sale but without any subsidy. “While Congress has approved the sale, key members have made clear that they object to using FMF to support it. Given Congressional objections, we have told the Pakistanis that they should put forward national funds for that purpose,” the State Department said after the decision.
This meant that Pakistan would pay at least 700 million dollars for the weapons deal from its national resources. Before the hold, it was supposed to pay around 270 million dollars and the rest from the subsidy. Pakistan missed the deadline to respond and thus the F16 deal was scrapped. “I continue to oppose taxpayer dollars being used at this time to support this sale given that Pakistan is providing safe haven to terrorist groups and refusing to target the Haqqani network, which attacks US troops and threatens the future of Afghanistan,” said Senator Bob Corker, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Pakistan denied such allegations, but half-heartedly. “We have to use these levers and [have] restricted their movements, restricted their access to hospitals and other facilities, and threatened them that ‘if you don’t come forward and talk, we will at least expel you’,” Sartaj Aziz told a large audience during his visit to the US. “We have hosted enough for 35 years, and we can’t do it anymore because the whole world is blaming us just by [Taliban] presence here,” he said.
The commentary was not taken lightly in Washington. The excuse that Pakistan will take action against the Taliban, Quetta Shura or the Haqqani network at its own pace didn’t bode well. This resulted in a unilateral targeted drone strike in Balochistan that killed Taliban leader Mullah Mansour. Pakistan has claimed that the strike violated its sovereignty, but many in the US are wondering if sheltering a Taliban leader wasn’t violation in the first place.
These recent problems have hurt the relationship, forcing the administration to put it on auto-pilot before it could come crashing down. A low level delegation has met with the army chief and others. “They will talk about some of the recent activities - that include the strike that took out the Taliban commander - and our ongoing concerns about security along the border region, the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, and more broadly our desire to see an Afghan-led and Afghan owned peace process, [....] or talks between the Taliban and the Afghan government,” the State Department deputy spokesperson John Kirby said last week, adding that talks about other areas of cooperation on counterterrorism with Pakistan were part of discussion too.
Meanwhile, the Congress is planning to decrease military assistance to Pakistan through the National Defence Authorization Act. The House version of the bill calls for blocking 450 million dollars of the 900 million dollars aid, while the Senate version has reduced both the figures to 300 million dollars and 800 million dollars respectively.
The White House, however, has defended the assistance, saying that any imposed condition would “unnecessarily complicate” progress in bilateral ties and would be against the US interest. “We share the Committee’s concerns regarding the threat posed to our forces and interests in Afghanistan by the Haqqani network and we continue to engage with Pakistan at the highest levels regarding the need for concerted action specifically against the group,” the White House has said.
The NDAA is due to be amended or passed soon enough. The Obama administration is trying to keep the relationship afloat. The results depend on how the Pakistani leadership acts on its promises.
He also referred to his visit to Islamabad in early 2010 when he met with the Pakistani leadership. Gates said he returned convinced that “Pakistan would work with the US in some ways - such as providing supply lines through Pakistan, which were also highly profitable - while at the same time providing sanctuary for the Taliban and other extremists, so that no matter who came out on top in Afghanistan, Pakistan would have influence. If there was to be any reconciliation, the Pakistanis intended to control it.”
Gates said further: “My message was consistent: we were committed to a long term strategic partnership; we needed to work together against the ‘syndicate of terror’ placing Afghanistan, Pakistan and India at risk; we needed to remove safe havens on both side of the border; Pakistan needed to better control anti-Americanism and harassment of Americans; and the Pakistani army’s ‘extra-judicial killings’ were putting our relationship at risk.”
"We have hosted them for 35 years, and we can't do it anymore"
These were enough indications for Pakistani leadership to correct the course. The passage of the National Action Plan provided breathing space, and yet the actions have been mostly too little and definitely too late.
The distrust, resultantly, continued.
Two years later, the US Congress resolved to practice a ‘carrot and stick’ policy. In March 2015, the US House Committee on Foreign Affairs froze 150 million dollars in Foreign Military Financing and put a hold on the delivery of a number of used Navy cutter vessels. “We remain deeply concerned that Pakistan has failed to take meaningful action against key Islamist terrorist groups operating within its territory,” the committee’s chairman noted in a letter sent to the State department.
Months later, the Congress first rejected Pakistan’s request to purchase eight F-16 fighter jets, though then it resorted to allow the sale but without any subsidy. “While Congress has approved the sale, key members have made clear that they object to using FMF to support it. Given Congressional objections, we have told the Pakistanis that they should put forward national funds for that purpose,” the State Department said after the decision.
This meant that Pakistan would pay at least 700 million dollars for the weapons deal from its national resources. Before the hold, it was supposed to pay around 270 million dollars and the rest from the subsidy. Pakistan missed the deadline to respond and thus the F16 deal was scrapped. “I continue to oppose taxpayer dollars being used at this time to support this sale given that Pakistan is providing safe haven to terrorist groups and refusing to target the Haqqani network, which attacks US troops and threatens the future of Afghanistan,” said Senator Bob Corker, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Pakistan denied such allegations, but half-heartedly. “We have to use these levers and [have] restricted their movements, restricted their access to hospitals and other facilities, and threatened them that ‘if you don’t come forward and talk, we will at least expel you’,” Sartaj Aziz told a large audience during his visit to the US. “We have hosted enough for 35 years, and we can’t do it anymore because the whole world is blaming us just by [Taliban] presence here,” he said.
The commentary was not taken lightly in Washington. The excuse that Pakistan will take action against the Taliban, Quetta Shura or the Haqqani network at its own pace didn’t bode well. This resulted in a unilateral targeted drone strike in Balochistan that killed Taliban leader Mullah Mansour. Pakistan has claimed that the strike violated its sovereignty, but many in the US are wondering if sheltering a Taliban leader wasn’t violation in the first place.
These recent problems have hurt the relationship, forcing the administration to put it on auto-pilot before it could come crashing down. A low level delegation has met with the army chief and others. “They will talk about some of the recent activities - that include the strike that took out the Taliban commander - and our ongoing concerns about security along the border region, the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, and more broadly our desire to see an Afghan-led and Afghan owned peace process, [....] or talks between the Taliban and the Afghan government,” the State Department deputy spokesperson John Kirby said last week, adding that talks about other areas of cooperation on counterterrorism with Pakistan were part of discussion too.
Meanwhile, the Congress is planning to decrease military assistance to Pakistan through the National Defence Authorization Act. The House version of the bill calls for blocking 450 million dollars of the 900 million dollars aid, while the Senate version has reduced both the figures to 300 million dollars and 800 million dollars respectively.
The White House, however, has defended the assistance, saying that any imposed condition would “unnecessarily complicate” progress in bilateral ties and would be against the US interest. “We share the Committee’s concerns regarding the threat posed to our forces and interests in Afghanistan by the Haqqani network and we continue to engage with Pakistan at the highest levels regarding the need for concerted action specifically against the group,” the White House has said.
The NDAA is due to be amended or passed soon enough. The Obama administration is trying to keep the relationship afloat. The results depend on how the Pakistani leadership acts on its promises.