Course: Foreign Policy of Pakistan-I (4661)

Semester: Spring, 2020

ASSIGNMENT No. 1
Q.1 Elaborate the role of economic development as a determinant of foreign policy.
National Interest is a vague and ambiguous term that carries a meaning according to the context in which it is
used. Statesmen and policy-makers have always used it in ways suitable to them and to their objective of
justifying the actions of their states. Hitler justified expansionist policies in the name of “German national
interests.”
The US presidents have always justified their decisions to go in for the development of more and more
destructive weapons in the interest of “US national interest.” To build up a strong nuclear base at Diego Garcia
was justified by the USA in the name of meeting the challenge posed by erstwhile USSR as well as for
protecting the US interests in the Indian Ocean. During 1979-89, (erstwhile) USSR justified its intervention in
Afghanistan in the name of “Soviet national interests”.
China justified its border disputes with India and the Soviet Union in the name of attempts to secure the national
interests of China. Now the P-5 countries talk of Non- proliferation and arms control in terms of the national
interests of all the nations.
All these and many more examples can be quoted to stress the ambiguity that surrounds the concept of National
Interest. This ambiguity hinders the process of formulating a universally accepted definition of National
Interest. However, several scholars have tried to define National Interest.
(1) National Interest means: “The general, long term and continuing purpose which the state, the nation, and the
government all see themselves as serving.” —Charles Lerche and Abdul
(2) National Interest is: “What a nation feels to be necessary to its security and well being … National interest
reflects the general and continuing ends for which a nation acts.” —Brookings Institution
(3) “National Interest is, that which states seek to protect or achieve in relation to each other. It means desires
on the part of sovereign states.” —Vernon Von Dyke
(4) “The meaning of national interest is survival—the protection of physical, political and cultural identity
against encroachments by other nation-states”. —Morgenthau
(5) National Interest means: “The values, desires and interests which states seek to protect or achieve in relation
to each other” “desires on the part of sovereign states”. —V.V. Dyke
National Interests can as defined as the claims, objectives, goals, demands and interests which a nation always
tries to preserve, protect, defend and secure in relations with other nations.
Components of National Interest:
In describing the national interests that nations seek to secure a two-fold classification is generally made:
(A) Necessary or Vital Components of National Interest and
(B) Variable or Non-vital Components of National Interests.

1
 Course: Foreign Policy of Pakistan-I (4661)
Semester: Spring, 2020
(A) Necessary or Vital Components:
According to Morgenthau, the vital components of the national interests that a foreign policy seeks to secure are
survival or identity. He sub-divides identity into three parts: Physical identity. Political identity and Cultural
identity.
Physical identity includes territorial identity. Political identity means politico- economic system and Cultural
identity stands for historical values that are upheld by a nation as part of its cultural heritage. These are called
vital components because these are essential for the survival of the nation and can be easily identified and
examined. A nation even decides to go to war for securing or protecting her vital interests.
A nation always formulates its foreign policy decisions with a view to secure and strengthens its security. The
attempts to secure international peace and security, that nations are currently making, are being made because
today the security of each state stands inseparably linked up with international peace and security. Security is,
thus, a vital component of national interest. Each nation always tries to secure its vital interests even by means
of war.
(B) Non-vital or Variable Components of National Interest:
The non-vital components are those parts of national interest which are determined either by circumstances or
by the necessity of securing the vital components. These are determined by a host of factors—the decision-
makers, public opinion, party politics, sectional or group interests and political and moral folkways.
“These variable interests are those desires of individual states which they would, no doubt, like to see fulfilled
but for which they will not go to war. Whereas the vital interests may be taken as goals, the secondary interests
may be termed as objectives of foreign policy.”
These objectives have been listed by V.V. Dyke and his list includes: Prosperity, Peace, Ideology, Justice,
Prestige, Aggrandisement and Power. Though each state defines these objectives in a manner which suits its
interests in changing circumstances, yet these objectives can be described as common to almost all states. Thus,
national interest which a nation seeks to secure can be generally categorized into these two parts.
Classification of National Interests:
In order to be more precise in examining the interest which a nation seeks to secure, Thomas W. Robinson
presents a six fold classification of interests which nations try to secure.
1. The Primary Interests:
These are those interests in respect of which no nation can compromise. It includes the preservation of physical,
political and cultural identity against possible encroachments by other states. A state has to defend these at all
costs.
2. Secondary Interests:
These are less important than the primary interests. Secondary Interests are quite vital for the existence of the
state. This includes the protection of the citizens abroad and ensuring of diplomatic immunities for the
diplomatic staff.

2
 Course: Foreign Policy of Pakistan-I (4661)
Semester: Spring, 2020
3. Permanent Interests:
These refer to the relatively constant long-term interests of the state. These are subject to very slow changes.
The US interest to preserve its spheres of influence and to maintain freedom of navigation in all the oceans is
the examples of such interests.
4. Variable Interests:
Such interests are those interests of a nation which are considered vital for national good in a given set of
circumstances. In this sense these can diverge from both primary and permanent interests. The variable interests
are largely determined by “the cross currents of personalities, public opinion, sectional interests, partisan
politics and political and moral folkways.”
5. The General Interests:
General interests of a nation refer to those positive conditions which apply to a large number of nations or in
several specified fields such as economic, trade, diplomatic relations etc. To maintain international peace is a
general interest of all the nations. Similar is the case of disarmament and arms control.
6. Specific Interests:
These are the logical outgrowths of the general interests and these are defined in terms of time and space. To
secure the economic rights of the Third World countries through the securing of a New International Economic
Order is a specific interest of India and other developing countries.
International Interests:
Besides these six categories of national interest, T.W. Robinson also refers to three international interests—
identical interests, complementary interests and conflicting interests.
The first category includes those interests which are common to a large number of states; the second category
refers to those interests, which though not identical, can form the basis of agreement on some specific issues;
and the third category includes those interests which are neither complementary nor identical.
However, this classification is neither absolute nor complete. The complementary interests can, with the
passage of time, become identical interests and conflicting interests can become complementary interests. The
study of national interest of a nation involves an examination of all these vital and non-vital components of
national interest. The six fold classificatory scheme offered by T. W. Robinson can be of great help to us for
analyzing the national interests of all nations. Such a study can help us to examine the behaviour of nations in
international relations.
Methods for the Securing of National Interest:
To secure the goals and objectives of her national interest is the paramount right and duty of every nation.
Nations are always at work to secure their national interests and in doing so they adopt a number of methods.
The following are the five popular methods or instruments which are usually employed by a nation for
securing her national interests in international relations:

3
 Course: Foreign Policy of Pakistan-I (4661)
Semester: Spring, 2020
1. Diplomacy as a Means of National Interests:
Diplomacy is a universally accepted means for securing national interests. It is through diplomacy that the
foreign policy of a nation travels to other nations. It seeks to secure the goals of national interests. Diplomats
establish contacts with the decision-makers and diplomats of other nations and conduct negotiations for
achieving the desired goals and objectives of national interests of their nation.
The art of diplomacy involves the presentation of the goals and objectives of national interest in such a way as
can persuade others to accept these as just and rightful demands of the nation. Diplomats use persuasion and
threats, rewards and threats of denial of rewards as the means for exercising power and securing goals of
national interest as defined by foreign policy of their nation.
Diplomatic negotiations constitute the most effective means of conflict-resolution and for reconciling the
divergent interests of the state. Through mutual give and take, accommodation and reconciliation, diplomacy
tries to secure the desired goals and objectives of national interest.
As an instrument of securing national interest, diplomacy is a universally recognized and most frequently used
means. Morgenthau regards diplomacy as the most primary means. However, all the objectives and goals of
national interest cannot be secured through diplomacy.
2. Propaganda:
The second important method for securing national interest is propaganda. Propaganda is the art of
salesmanship. It is the art of convincing others about the justness of the goals and objectives or ends which are
desired to be secured. It consists of the attempt to impress upon nations the necessity of securing the goals
which a nation wishes to achieve.
“Propaganda is a systematic attempt to affect the minds, emotions and actions of a given group for a specific
public purpose.” —Frankel
It is directly addressed to the people of other states and its aim is always to secure the self-interests—interests
which are governed exclusively by the national interests of the propagandist.
The revolutionary development of the means of communications (Internet) in the recent times has increased the
scope of propaganda as a means for securing support for goals of national interest.
3. Economic Means:
The rich and developed nations use economic aid and loans as the means for securing their interests in
international relations. The existence of a very wide gap between the rich and poor countries provides a big
opportunity to the rich nations for promoting their interests vis-a-vis the poor nations.
The dependence of the poor and lowly- developed nations upon the rich and developed nations for the import of
industrial goods, technological know-how, foreign aid, armaments and for selling raw materials, has been
responsible for strengthening the role of economic instruments of foreign policy. In this era of Globalisation
conduct of international economic relation has emerged as a key means of national interests.

4
 Course: Foreign Policy of Pakistan-I (4661)
Semester: Spring, 2020
4. Alliances and Treaties:
Alliances and Treaties are concluded by two or more states for securing their common interests. This device is
mostly used for securing identical and complementary interests. However, even conflictual interests may lead to
alliances and treaties with like-minded states against the common rivals or opponents.
Alliances and treaties make it a legal obligation for the members of the alliances or signatories of the treaties to
work for the promotion of agreed common interests. The alliances may be concluded for serving a particular
specific interest or for securing a number of common interests. The nature of an alliance depends upon the
nature of interest which is sought to be secured.
Accordingly, the alliances are either military or economic in nature. The need for securing the security of
capitalist democratic states against the expanding ‘communist menace’ led to the creation of military alliances
like NATO, SEATO, CENTO, ANZUS etc. Likewise, the need to meet the threat to socialism led to the
conclusion of Warsaw Pact among the communist countries.
The need for the economic reconstruction of Europe after the Second World War led to the establishment of
European Common Market (Now European Union) and several other economic agencies. The needs of Indian
national interests in 1971 led to the conclusion of the Treaty of Peace, Friendship and Cooperation with the
(erstwhile) Soviet Union. Alliances and Treaties are thus popular means for securing national interests.
5. Coercive Means:
The role of power in international relations is a recognized fact. It is an unwritten law of international
intercourse that nations can use force for securing their national interests. International Law also recognizes
coercive means short of war as the methods that can be used by states for fulfilling their desired goals and
objectives. Intervention, Non-intercourse, embargoes, boycotts, reprisals, retortion, retaliation, severance of
relations and pacific biocides are the popular coercive means which can be used by a nation to force others to
accept a particular course of behaviour or to refrain from a course which is considered harmful by the nation
using coercive means.
War and Aggression have been declared illegal means, yet these continue to be used by the states in actual
course of international relations. Today, nations fully realize the importance of peaceful means of conflict-
resolution like negotiations, and diplomacy as the ideal methods for promoting their national interests. Yet at
the same time these continue to use coercive means, whenever they find it expedient and necessary. Military
power is still regarded as a major part of national power and is often used by a nation for securing its desired
goals and objectives.
The use of military power against international terrorism now stands universally accepted as a natural and just
means for fighting the menace. Today world public opinion accepts the use of war and other forcible means for
the elimination of international terrorism.

5
 Course: Foreign Policy of Pakistan-I (4661)
Semester: Spring, 2020
All these means are used by all the nations for securing their national interests. Nations have the right and duty
to secure their national interests and they have the freedom to choose the requisite means for this purpose. They
can use peaceful or coercive means as and when they may desire or deem essential.
However, in the interest of international peace, security and prosperity, nations are expected to refrain from
using coercive means particular war and aggression. These are expected to depend upon peaceful means for the
settlement of disputes and for securing their interests.
While formulating the goals and objectives of national interest, all the nations must make honest attempts to
make these compatible with the international interests of Peace, Security environmental protection, protection
of human rights and Sustainable Development.
Peaceful coexistence, peaceful conflict-resolution and purposeful mutual cooperation for development are the
common and shared interests of all the nations. As such, along with the promotion of their national interests, the
nations must try to protect and promote common interests in the larger interest of the whole international
community.
All this makes it essential for every nation to formulate its foreign policy and to conduct its relations with other
nations on the basis of its national interests, as interpreted and defined in harmony with the common interests of
the humankind. The aim of foreign policy is to secure the defined goals of national interest by the use of the
national power.
Q.2 Critically analyze the effects of size of any country on its foreign policy.
Foreign policy is country’s orientation towards other countries and group of countries. It includes vast array of
subjects ranging from language, culture to technology. Diplomatic relations are always aimed at maintaining
good and positive relationship. Foreign policy never aims at negative relationship. Sometimes it's situational
call to have negative relations.
Foreign policy is very crucial in development of nation. The domestic needs can be met through other countries.
Being self sufficient is just a concept. No country can ever become self reliable and self sufficient. Resources
are spread over the globe. This resources can be utilized only through efficient policies. Let's discuss some
examples, USA is biggest consumer economy of the world; whereas China is biggest manufacturer. In this way,
two largest economies are interdependent. In same way at regional level all countries are interdependent. India
relies for cotton, palm oil, onion on neighborhood.
Foreign policy includes orientation towards global governance. How the global resources expected to be
utilized collectively, to ensure global development as well as national development. In this context, there is
pressing demand to reform united nations organization structure.
On other hand, global problems like Global warming, Poverty ,women empowerment, violence demands global
coordination. The new era in foreign policy is about coordinating all countries. This demands skillful policy and
rules. Foreign policy is inclusive. In recent past, there was debates about global monetary governance. This
aspect is relatively not focused in era of globalization, which led to inequality of accessibility to resources.

6
 Course: Foreign Policy of Pakistan-I (4661)
Semester: Spring, 2020
Multinational corporations which forms a third of world GDP can not be outside the ambit of foreign policy.
MNCs affects foreign policy as never before. MNCs play crucial role in utilizing global resources. But in that
context, MNCs are not regulated holistically. That is why, MNCs tend to utilize laws in various nations to draw
their value chains. For example, addidas products are manufactured in more than 80 countries. The same is true
with many other MNCs. Foreign policy is important to protect national resources and utilize it effectively. At
the same time, Domestic MNC companies relies heavily on foreign policy of concerned country to form their
strategies. Example, Apple Inc, Microsoft, Coco Cola ,Pepsi, General Electric, Siemens and many more.
Foreign policy is important to achieve national goals. Global issues can be solved only through multilateral
coordination,arrangements and groupings.
Foreign policy in coming years likely to include space research, Biotechnology, Technology for better human
welfare.
Foreign Policy is like having dietary guidelines when you have a goal such as losing weight. It doesn't matter
what the goal is, but the guidelines will get you there if you stick to them - and if you don’t have any guidelines,
you’ll never achieve your goal. Of course, you need some flexibility in certain situations if you expect to meet
your goal without losing everything important to you: for example, you know that you'll need to decline cake
from a distant friend if you’re avoiding sugar (a close friend would either eat it for you or not ask in the first
place) but if your boss offers you a slice of his wife’s cake, you may try it (at least for appearences), knowing
you can cut something out of your diet later that day or work it off at the gym.
In other words, foreign policy, while it isn't “the goal” - it is still the guiding means to achieve a nation’s
interests long term (and it should be flexible enough to still help a nation achieve them while navigating various
circumstances with other nations). This is why having a (at least vaguely) defined foreign policy is important.
Good advisors and leaders understand this and possess the strategic diplomatic skills necessary to develop and
maintain it.
If you are interested in understanding more about foreign policy in a general sense, read up on various US
presidents’ “doctrines”.
(I have a graduate degree in history, specializing in the history of US foreign relations/diplomatic history. This
is how I explain what foreign policy is to high school students or incoming college freshman.)
Foreign policy is important because it determines the state of relationships between countries and guides the
diplomats in negotiations. If a country is too aggressive and refuses to take into the legitimate interests of other
countries, it may face a push back or even an armed conflict. A peaceful can be taken advantage of by others or
made a tool in the hands of stronger country. Country that is strong and confident in its ability to protect itself,
and is not looking to grow its influence or become an empire, can afford to pursue balanced and consistent
foreign policy. Foreign policy is executed by the diplomats supported by its economic, political and military
might.

7
 Course: Foreign Policy of Pakistan-I (4661)
Semester: Spring, 2020
Foreign policy exists to give some consistency and predictability to national choices in a very complex world. It
helps the policymakers keep control of the situation, or at least feel like they’re doing all they can. It gives
guidelines to the lower-level representatives of the government.
A diplomat’s main job is to point out inconsistencies in his interlocutor’s foreign policy in order to get him to
change it. Diplomats are always arguing over why something is or isn’t an exception to a long-established,
unchanging foreign policy. (The truth is that they make it up as they go, but try to dress it up in precedent.)
To see the foundations of our U.S. foreign policy, see our legislation. Each presidential administration explains
the broad outlines of its foreign policy on The White House web site and the Department of State web site.
Here is a picture of a previous administration’s National Security Council. This is the President’s highest
advisory body with regard to foreign policy. Their job is to work out all the differences of opinion among the
departments and agencies of the government. Then the National Security Advisor takes their united
recommendations to the President.
Foreign policy is very much crucial in this globe for any country or nations, wheather they want or not. this is
important for many ways these are following: we know that there have no self reliable and self sufficient
country or nation, Each and every nation are interdependence, that is why, maintaining foreign policy is
important, To reduce global problem, collective initiative is necessary, so foreign policy is important here, In
brief, for the welfare of self country and the welfare of world, foreign policy is very important.
Q.3 Discuss Liaqat Ali Khan’s visit to the United States of America and the benefits that Pakistan
gained from that visit.
In August 1947, Pakistan emerged as an independent state on the map of the world. Liaquat Ali Khan became
the first Prime Minister of Pakistan after independence. He had to decide the kind of foreign policy that
Pakistan was going to adopt. At that time the whole world was divided into two blocs or in the other words
there were only two super powers in the world. One super power was America and the other was Soviet Union.
Now there were two options for Pakistan, one was that it becomes an alley of America or it Joins Soviet bloc
and the other was that it remains neutral. Pakistan as a newly born state could not remain neutral for many
reasons so it had to join one bloc as Liaquat Ali Khan declared ‘Pakistan can not afford to wait. She must take
her friends where she finds them.’
American Invitation to India and not to Pakistan:
In 1949, Truman invited Nehru to pay a state visit to the United States while Liaquat Ali Khan did not receive
any invitation from America. The relations between Soviet Union and Pakistan were also cold at that time, but it
is surprised to note that suddenly Pakistan received an invitation from Moscow to pay a state visit to Moscow.
This invitation was perhaps generated from Moscow due to the special efforts of Ghanzanfar Ali. This
invitation was a major political coup especially as the Moscow had yet to invite India. Due to this invitation
greatly increased American interest in Pakistan and this was what Liaquat Ali Khan wanted. He readily

8
 Course: Foreign Policy of Pakistan-I (4661)
Semester: Spring, 2020
accepted the invitation and decided to pay a state visit to America. By then the Soviet visit had gone off the rails
and what was the exact reason behind it, it’s still a mystery.
Liaquat’s Visit to America:
On the afternoon of May 3, 1950 Liaquat Ali Khan reached America. When he reached there, Truman
welcomed him warmly. In America, he tried to explain what were the needs of Pakistan as well as of the third
world countries in economic, technological and scientific fields and how America could help them in order to
overcome the grievances of the people of Pakistan and of the third world countries. The U.S press covered
Liaquat’s trip in a friendly manner but relations were soon deteriorated when America asked Pakistan to send its
forces in the Korean War. In reply to this Liaquat said that Pakistan will help America in Korean War if
America would agree in solving the Kashmir and Pashtun issue. America rejected the request of Liaquat and
Liaquat rejected the Americans demand. By June and July 1951, Pakistan’s relations with U.S. were further
deteriorated, with Nehru visiting the United States, pressuring Pakistan to call back her troops from Kashmir.
Further Deterioration of Pak-Us Relations:
Another test of Liaquat Ali Khan came when America demanded that it had to use her influence over Iran for
the US efforts to secure the transfer of Iranian oil fields. Liaquat rejected her demand. On his response U.S
threatened him that it will not help Pakistan in Kashmir issue then he replied that U.S can evacuate Pakistani air
bases. His demand was a bombshell for Washington. Declassified documents reveal that after Liaquat demand
to evacuate Pakistan air bases, America now thought him as an obstacle in her way because they were dreaming
to invade Russia through Pakistan. So after it they made a plan to assassinate him. In order to kill him they
secured the help of Kabul by dealing with them that they would help them in creating one Pashtoonistan state
by 1952. So Pashtoon leaders choose Akbar in order to kill Liaquat Ali Khan who assassinateed him in 1951
while addressing a public meeting in Rawalpindi. Evidences prove that behind Liaquat’s assassination, America
was involved. The type of bullet that was used to kill him was not an ordinary bullet, it was the bullet that was
“use by high-ranking American officers”, and was “not usually available in the market.”
Conclusion:
It is the opinion of many scholars that he sold Pakistan to America. This is not true. He did not accept any
demand of America that go against Pakistan. The examples can be given in this regard is the Korean War, Iran
oil issue etc. We can say that it were the subsequent governments of Pakistan that are responsible to make
Pakistan as a sort of colony of America not Liaquat Ali Khan.
Q.4 Why had Pakistan discarded independent foreign policy and adopted the policy of alliances with the
West? Elaborate the reasons of this shift in foreign policy.
IT is nearly ten years since Pakistan became an ally of the West. In May 1954, Pakistan signed the Mutual
Defense Assistance Agreement with the United States. Later in that year it became a member of SEATO along
with the United States, Britain, France, Thailand, the Philippines, Australia and New Zealand. A year later, it
joined the Baghdad Pact, another mutual defense organization, with Britain, Turkey, Iran and Iraq. The United

9
 Course: Foreign Policy of Pakistan-I (4661)
Semester: Spring, 2020
States has not joined this organization, but has remained closely associated with it since its inception. In 1958,
when Iraq left this pact, it was renamed CENTO (Central Treaty Organization): it continued to comprise
Turkey, Iran and Pakistan as its regional members. Early in 1959, Pakistan signed (as did Turkey and Iran) a
bilateral Agreement of Coöperation with the United States, which was designed further to reinforce the
defensive purposes of CENTO.
Thus Pakistan is associated with the United States through not one, but four mutual security arrangements. In
this sense, it has been sometimes termed "America's most allied ally in Asia." It is the only Asian country which
is a member both of SEATO and CENTO.
At the rhetorical level, Pakistan’s commitment to shifting its foreign policy focus away from Washington has
been in place for quite some time. In this regard, these recent changes that Islamabad has touted by and large
deal with the country’s increasing economic dependency on China and Russia’s growing interest in Pakistan.
Arguably, Pakistan may have gained some tactical leverage vis-à-vis the U.S. by increasing its economic
dependency on other regional states, but that in no way demonstrates that the country is in a position to follow
an independent foreign policy. Pakistan cannot fully exercise the options of a sovereign state that can pursue an
independent foreign policy unless the country overhauls a prevailing national narrative that propagates the idea
of a clash of civilizations between Islam and the West. It must also end existing institutional confrontations in
the country and become economically independent.
Pakistan’s foreign policy is hostage to an ad hoc process dominated by special institutional interests that
continue to exploit systemic ignorance to bend the country’s foreign policy to their advantage. The use of
excessive rhetoric dealing with an independent foreign policy remains one of the common tools that Pakistan’s
ruling elite employ to demonstrate the country’s military, economic, and political strengths domestically.
Declarations at the state level that Pakistan can shift its international relations at will are then nothing more than
the chest-thumping and posturing of a country that remains hostage to the entrenched interests of the political
and military establishment, which continue to remain at loggerheads with each other. The country’s civilian and
military elite remain divided over the question of who can effectively manage strategic affairs related to
Pakistan’s foreign policy. While the country’s foreign minister might believe that his country needs a strategic
shift in its foreign policy, it’s unlikely that his constitutionally mandated role and office can take any credible
action of introducing such changes.
Besides domestic institutional divisions, Pakistan also remains hostage to its so-called Islamic identity and
associated ideologies that remain a considerable hindrance in the way of pursuing a more rational foreign
policy. Among other things, the deep Islamization of the country doesn’t allow Pakistan’s ruling elite to freely
follow an independent foreign policy without worrying about a widespread backlash at home. For instance, a
section of Pakistan’s ruling elite believes that good economic and diplomatic relations with India, and perhaps
Israel too, which Pakistan doesn’t accept as a state, can serve Islamabad’s national interests better than the
ongoing perpetual hostility towards them. However, popular public opinion in Pakistan continues to cast these

10
 Course: Foreign Policy of Pakistan-I (4661)
Semester: Spring, 2020
two states and the West, in general, as an enemy of Islam, Pakistan, and its national interests. Therefore, any
action by the state, proposing good relations and exchange is likely to be contested in streets, mosques, schools,
and political gatherings. So far, not a single government in Pakistan has openly and aggressively pursued a
policy that demonstrates rationalism in domestic politics that can create an environment where domestic and
foreign policy issues complement each other.
While Pakistan may have found new partners to carry its monetary baggage, particularly China, the country is
not in a condition to stand on its own economically, let alone thrive as a regional economic power that can make
independent foreign policy choices. While Beijing has leveraged its recent economic investments in Pakistan to
its advantage, Pakistan has not been able to leverage China’s economic concentration in the country to its favor.
Moreover, Pakistan’s dependency on China has put the former in the role of Beijing’s camp follower rather than
a country that is willing to negotiate on equal footing to protect its national interests. Certainly, China’s
rhetorical flourishes regarding Pakistan’s likely rise as an economic power will not impart Islamabad the status
of a regional power. On the other hand, however, Pakistan has to work on its domestic economic base to boost
its local economic output, build institutional strengths and improve living standards of common citizens to
become a state that is respected regionally and globally and can pursue its national interest vigorously.
The country needs to demonstrate that it has the necessary national consensus and institutional unity to secure
its national interests without any domestic political, ideological and institutional handicaps derailing the policy
process. For now, any so-called change in Pakistan’s foreign policy will only be an empty commitment based
on rhetoric rather than actions.
Q.5 What was bilateral agreement of Defense of March, 1959 between Pakistan and the United
States and in what terms it was different from the Mutual Defense Agreement of 1954?
World War II brought in its wake many new developments and events. The most immediate outcome of the war
was the coming of a bipolar world being dominated by capitalist United States and the communist Soviet
Union. Subscribing to two different and antithetical ideologies, the two powers indulged in a cold war as US
wanted to preserve and strengthen capitalism whereas USSR aspired towards a world revolution. Both started
vying for allies and extended economic and military aid whenever needed. Initially the center of cold war was
Western Europe but soon attention shifted towards Asia where new events attracted the great powers.
After World War II, Britain could not sustain its hold over its colonies due to the wreckage it had underwent
during war. Therefore, it deemed it expedient to give independence to its colonies. Thus, it is in the backdrop of
these events that Indian subcontinent was partitioned and Pakistan and India came into existence. The partition
was a lopsided event in the sense that it created a very strong India while Pakistan was very unstable and shaky.
Added to this was the hostility of Indians who never countenanced the idea of vivisection of their motherland.
Every attempt was made to undo Pakistan; in this respect it was denied its due share of military equipment,
ordnance factories and an amount of 750 million dollars. India also made aggression on Kashmir and annexed it
forcefully by suppressing its people ruthlessly. They also went on a war over the Kashmir issue. Referring the

11
 Course: Foreign Policy of Pakistan-I (4661)
Semester: Spring, 2020
matter to UN and other international bodies did not make much headway. Thus, soon after impendence Pakistan
confronted a precarious situation whereby her very survival was at stake. A sense of insecurity and aggression
from a much powerful and bigger India constantly haunted her. In order to preclude such a prospect, Pakistan
desperately needed to strengthen its defenses and security. Thus, Pakistan badly needed a powerful ally who
could provide her with the needed military assistance and also to act as an equalizer against India. As military
innovation and equipment is necessary for national survival, Pakistan was fulfilling these necessities of by
buying from other countries at very inflated prices which put a heavy drain on its financial situation. During
these years Pakistan also suffered from severe famines and food shortages which resulted in a very chaotic
situation. So faced with such daunting problems, Pakistan could not have kept pace with Indian might had it not
been for an alliance with an effective partner.
Under Truman doctrine, US had embarked upon a policy of containment _ the policy of checking the
expansionist ambitions of Soviet Union. The reason why US became concerned with South Asia was china
falling in communist bloc. United States was afraid lest other states of Asia might not be affected by this. Thus,
US turned towards India and Pakistan to form a strategic bulwark against Sino_ Soviet communism. Initially
United States showed little concern for Pakistan and was more inclined towards India trying to woo her into an
alliance. However, India was committed to a non-aligned stance. Her policy of non-alignment, refusal to join
US-sponsored pact in 1951 and denial of Chinese aggression during Korean War (1950-19531) led US to
become inclined towards Pakistan. Besides, Pakistan’s condemnation of North Koreans as aggressors and
responsiveness towards American policies and overtures were enough to force Americans to consider an
alliance with Pakistan as an alternative. Hence, Pakistan and United states drew close together and entered into
a mutual defense assistance agreement in 19 May 1954.  It also resulted in Pakistan’s joining of SEATO and
Baghdad pact _ later CENTO.
By signing these defense pacts, Pakistan was guaranteed military and economic aid. In return, Pakistan’s soil
was used a base for conducting reconnaissance operations against Soviet Union. Pakistan got substantial gains
from these pacts as US poured in money and equipment to strengthen Pakistan against Sino-Soviet ambitions in
south Asia and Middle East. US extended over s900 million worth of military equipment under the mutual
defense assistance agreement. Pakistan’s army was significantly updated by variety of equipment including
tanks and jet fighters. Its communication and radar system was also reorganized. It received equipment for one
additional armored division, four infantry divisions, and one armored division, and received support elements
for two corps. The Pakistan air force received six squadrons of modern jet aircraft including F-104, B-57, F-86
and c-130; the navy also received twelve ships. Besides, ports of Karachi and Chittagong were modernized. Due
to this army was transformed into a well-organized and well equipped force working on the modus operandi of
United States forces. Hundreds and thousands of Pakistani officers were given training by US officers. By these
pacts Pakistan made up for its deficiencies suffered at partition and now her army had considerably become

12
 Course: Foreign Policy of Pakistan-I (4661)
Semester: Spring, 2020
modern thereby acting as deterrent against the aggression of India. Though, the balance of power still tilted
towards India, yet by these incorporations Pakistan felt confident enough to hold out Indian belligerence.
Tensions in Pak-US relations were bound to occur given the diverging interests of both were concerned. United
States was concerned with extending her policy of containment and the aid was aimed at defending non-
communist countries from the aggression of communism. However, for Pakistan it primarily was to increase her
defenses and military and economic capability vis-à-vis India. The leaders of Pakistan were first and the
foremost concerned with the security and safety of Pakistan which was on numerous occasions threatened by
India. Secondly they thought USA might be helpful in settling the Kashmir dispute by pressuring India for
arranging a plebiscite in the area. Thus, it was basically Indian aggression that brought Pakistan into the lap of
us sponsored pacts. Pakistan emphasized that threat of Indian aggression was a more a great evil than
communism and that aggression should be resisted wherever it came from. In fact, Pakistan was not so much
threatened by soviet aggression. Us was still reluctant to let go of India and did not want to antagonize her.
Therefore India was assured that Pakistan would not use its weapons against India. Pakistan’s decision to join
western pacts had invited the wrath of Soviet Union which threatened to attack Pakistan after the U2 incident.
On the other hand it led India to look towards Soviet Union for help which she readily extended to India against
Pakistan.
Pakistan’s disillusionment with USA began when during Sino-Indian border dispute US provided lavish
economic aid to India as it still nurtured the hope of drawing India close in containing Sino-Soviet communism.
Pakistan was agitated as it clamored that India would use these weapons against Pakistan and that India was
more inclined towards communists then what was the rationale for extending this aid. Pakistan’s disconcert with
US_ that US was more inclined towards non-aligned India than its ally_ led it to search for other venues and
therefore Pakistan tried to forge cordial relations with china and Soviet Union.  United States greatly resented
this change and could not gauge the true motive behind it. Further dissentions grew when US aid to Pakistan
diminished and it was altogether stopped during 1965 war. During the 1965 war, United States put an embargo
on supply of aid to both Pakistan and India and adopted a neutral stance. Pakistan was badly hurt by this
decision as India was receiving military aid from Soviet Union as usual while Pakistan’s ally _united states_
stopped its aid.
Thus, it is true that in a relationship between disparate powers, the weaker side always suffers. Likewise
Pakistan despite the fact that it got considerable military and economic aid from United States suffered a lot due
to the volatile nature of US alliance. US never showed concern for Pakistan’s security and cut off the supply of
aid when Pakistan made overtures of friendship to china consequent upon US aid to India. For US giving aid to
India which was a pro-communist was legitimate, whereas the action of Pakistan was culpable even though it
was undertaken under duress. Thus, United States betrayed Pakistan by giving aid to India and left her in the
lurch at a critical juncture of 1965 war when Pakistan desperately needed its ally.

13