Pakistan–US Relations (Post-1947 to Present)

1. Background

Early Alignment with the US (1947–1965)

o Pakistan joined the US-led capitalist bloc in 1949.

o Received $3 billion in socio-economic aid from the US (1947–1965).
o Military assistance worth $650 million (1953–1965).
o Joined US-led defense alliances:
 SEATO (1954)
 CENTO (1955)
o Relations soured when Pakistan improved ties with China (1963).
o US deferred a $4.3 million loan for Dhaka airport construction.

Cold War Shifts (1970s–1989)

o Relations declined but improved during US–China rapprochement (1970s).

o Soviet invasion of Afghanistan (1979) led to renewed US-Pakistan ties.
o US$3.2 billion package (1981) and $4 billion financial support under
Reagan.
o Pakistan exempted from Symington & Glenn Amendments.
o US-Pakistan relations declined after Soviet withdrawal (1989).
o Pressler Amendment (1990) suspended aid over Pakistan’s nuclear
program.
o Comprehensive US sanctions (1998) after Pakistan’s nuclear tests.

2. Introduction to Pakistan–US Relations

Geo-strategic Significance:

o Pakistan is a nuclear-capable Muslim state with a vital strategic location.

o US interests in Pakistan have been short-term and interest-driven.

Post 9/11 Realignment (2001–2010)

o Pakistan became a frontline ally in the US War on Terror.

o Allowed NATO supply lines and US military bases.
o Received $19 billion (2002–2010) in military and economic aid.

Rising Tensions (2008–Present)

o Kerry-Lugar Act (2009) caused tensions due to oversight clauses.

o US-India Nuclear Deal (2008) alienated Pakistan.
o US drone attacks and ‘Do More’ demands worsened relations.
o Key events damaging relations:

 Raymond Davis incident (2011) – CIA operative killed Pakistanis.

 Osama Bin Laden raid (2011) – Violation of sovereignty.
 Salala checkpoint attack (2011) – 24 Pakistani soldiers killed.
  India’s invitation to Bonn Conference (2011) – Pakistan isolated.

o CPEC (2015–Present) seen as a US strategic loss to China.

3. Realist Analysis of Pakistan–US Relations

Classical Realism Perspective:

o States prioritize national security, power, and self-interest.

o Alliances are temporary and shift based on power dynamics.
o US prioritized strategic needs and abandoned Pakistan post-Soviet war.

Structural Realism Perspective:

o International system is anarchic and forces states to act in self-interest.

o The US as a hegemon dictates global policies through institutions like IMF &
FATF.
o Pakistan is forced to comply with US demands due to systemic pressure.

4. The 9/11 Attacks: Reinvigorating Pakistan–US Relations

Pakistan’s Isolation in the 1990s:

o Post-Soviet withdrawal, US left Pakistan to handle Afghan instability.

o US imposed Pressler Amendment & economic sanctions.
o Criticized Pakistan’s nuclear program & pressured it to sign NPT.

Post-9/11 Shift (2001)

o US needed Pakistan’s support for military action in Afghanistan.

o Pakistan quickly agreed without concrete demands.
o US incentives:

 $1 billion debt relief (2003).

 Non-NATO ally status (2004).

Realist Explanation:

o US invasion of Afghanistan aligned with classical realism (ensuring security).

o Pakistan’s compliance aligned with neorealism (systemic pressure from the
US).
o US used "carrot & stick" strategy, warning Pakistan:

 “Either you are with us or with the terrorists” (Bush Doctrine).

5. Drone Strikes & ‘Do More’ Demands: Rising Tensions

US Drone Attacks in Pakistan:

o First drone strike (2004) killed Taliban leader Nek Muhammad.

 o Over 414 drone attacks (2004–2016), killing 3,700 people (civilians
included).
o Last drone attack (2016) killed Taliban leader Mullah Akhtar Mansour.

US Justification (Realism):

o National security priority – Prevent another 9/11-style attack.

o Eliminate threats at all costs, even violating sovereignty.

Pakistan’s Dilemma:

o Musharraf secretly approved drone strikes, but publicly protested them.

o Pakistan had to balance systemic pressure with domestic backlash.

The Blame Game:

o US failed to defeat the Taliban despite 20 years of war.

o Blamed Pakistan for:

 Porous Afghan border aiding militants.

 Alleged safe havens for terrorists.
 Terror financing networks operating in Pakistan.

‘Do More’ Pressure:

o US demanded Pakistan crack down on:

 Haqqani Network (Afghanistan).

 Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP).
 Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) & Sipah-e-Sahaba (SeS).

o Pakistan resisted immediate action due to:

 Local support for these groups.

 Risk of social unrest.
 Gradually developed an anti-narrative and conducted military
operations.

6. Recent Developments & the China Factor

US Tactics to Pressure Pakistan (2018–Present):

o FATF grey-listing and threats of blacklisting.

o IMF loan restrictions with unfavorable terms.
o US Indo-Pacific Strategy to counter China.

US-Pakistan Rapprochement (2019-Present):

o US needed Pakistan’s help for Afghan peace talks.

 o Pakistan leveraged its ties with the Taliban to mediate the Doha
Agreement (2020).
o US exit from Afghanistan (2021) shifted Pakistan-US ties once again.

The Year 2011: Deterioration of Pakistan–US Relations

1. Raymond Davis Saga (January 2011)

 Incident:
o CIA operative Raymond Davis killed two Pakistani men in Lahore, claiming
self-defense.
 US Pressure on Pakistan:

o US Congress threatened to cut aid unless Davis was released.

o Senator John Kerry visited Islamabad to de-escalate tensions.

 Resolution:

o Davis was released under Islamic law principle of "Diyat" (blood money).
o US paid $2.3 million to the victims' families.

 Realist Interpretation:

o The US exerted systemic pressure on Pakistan to secure its citizen’s release.

2. Osama bin Laden Operation (May 1, 2011)

 Event:

o US conducted a unilateral raid in Abbottabad, Pakistan, killing Osama bin

Laden.
o Operation violated Pakistan’s sovereignty.

 US Justification:

o Accused Pakistan of harboring bin Laden, as he was found near a military

academy.

 Pakistan’s Response:

o Condemned the violation but did not take severe diplomatic action due to
global scrutiny.

 Realist Perspective:

o Pakistan was under extreme systemic pressure and could not retaliate
openly.

3. Salala Checkpoint Incident (November 26, 2011)

  Event:

o NATO attacked two Pakistani military checkpoints, killing 24 soldiers.

 Pakistan’s Response:

o Closed NATO supply routes for seven months.

o Demanded an official US apology before reopening the supply lines.

 Realist Explanation:

o Ensuring territorial integrity was vital; non-reaction would have shown

weakness.

Outcome of 2011 Events

 Pakistan realized it was paying a heavy price for its US alliance.

 Geo-strategic shift:

o Strengthened ties with Russia, China, Iran, Turkey, and Middle Eastern
states.

CPEC & The US–Pakistan Split (2015 Onward)

China–Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) (April 20, 2015)

 51 MOUs worth $46.5 billion were signed.

 CPEC Benefits for Pakistan:

o Economic boost and infrastructure development.

o Increased geo-strategic importance as a trade corridor for 64 countries.
o Strengthened ties with China, a UNSC veto power.

US Opposition to CPEC

 China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) (2014):

o US saw it as a threat to its global dominance.

 US Strategy to Counter BRI:

o Backed Aung San Suu Kyi’s regime change in Myanmar, leading to

termination of the China–Myanmar Corridor.
o Pressured Pakistan to abandon CPEC, but Pakistan refused.

 Pakistan’s Defiance:

o First time Pakistan rejected US demands, leading to a further split.

Pakistan’s Shift Away from the US

  Key Reasons:

o US–India Strategic Partnership (2005 nuclear deal).

o US sovereignty violations (Raymond Davis, bin Laden raid, Salala incident).
o US failure to curb India’s role in Afghanistan.
o CPEC’s economic promise and China’s support.

 Realist Explanation:

o To counterbalance US dominance, Pakistan aligned with China.

o China was perceived as a reliable partner, unlike the US.

Conclusion: Realignment of Pakistan’s Geo-Political Strategy

 Pre-2011: Pakistan remained a reluctant but dependent US ally.

 Post-2011: Pakistan shifted towards China, Russia, and regional powers.
 Key Takeaways:

o Pakistan no longer trusted the US due to repeated betrayals.

o Economic and strategic dependence shifted towards China via CPEC.
o Realist theory explains Pakistan’s move—states act in their own self-
interest when systemic pressure increases.

Pakistan-US Relations: Realism in Action

1. Introduction: A Marriage of Convenience

Pakistan-US relations have historically been shaped by strategic interests rather than
long-term cooperation.

Over the years, ties have fluctuated between alliance and estrangement, dictated by
US interests in the region.

The relationship has been characterized by military and economic aid from the US in
exchange for Pakistan’s strategic cooperation.

2. US Pressure on Pakistan for Compliance

2.1 Suspension of the Coalition Support Fund (CSF)

In 2018, the Trump administration suspended $900 million in aid under CSF as a
punitive measure against Pakistan.

Further cuts of $300 million were made to tighten control over Pakistan’s policies.

Additional measures:

Restrictions on Pakistani diplomats’ movements.

Termination of military and educational programs.

2.2 FATF Grey List & Political Influence

Pakistan was placed on the FATF grey list in 2018 due to deficiencies in Anti-Money
Laundering (AML) and Combating the Financing of Terrorism (CFT).

FATF's decision was politically influenced by the US to pressure Pakistan into aligning
with American regional policies.

Contradictions in FATF’s assessment:

Basel AML Index (2017): Pakistan ranked 46 out of 146 countries—better

than Tajikistan (4), Mali (7), Kenya (11), etc., none of which were on the grey
list.

US motives behind FATF listing:

Pressuring Pakistan to distance itself from China.

Undermining the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC).

Ensuring US strategic dominance in South Asia.

2.3 IMF Loans & Conditionalities

Pakistan faced a $12.4 billion balance-of-payment crisis in 2018.

Despite financial assistance from Saudi Arabia ($6 billion) and the UAE ($3 billion),
Pakistan had to turn to the IMF.

The US leveraged its influence over the IMF, imposing strict conditions to curb
Chinese influence in Pakistan.

US Secretary Pompeo explicitly opposed the IMF bailout, citing US taxpayers should
not be repaying Chinese loans.

3. Human Rights Concerns as a Foreign Policy Too

The US selectively applies human rights concerns as a diplomatic instrument to

pressure Pakistan.

Post-9/11, US aid to Pakistan increased by 2273% despite human rights concerns.

US criticisms focus on:

Blasphemy laws (Sections 295 & 298 of Pakistan’s Penal Code).

Persecution of religious minorities (Ahmadi Muslims, Christians, Hindus).

Extrajudicial violence and intolerance.

 The US has historically ignored human rights violations when it suits its strategic
needs (e.g., during military rule in Pakistan from 1979–1989 and 2001–2008).

4. US–Taliban Negotiations: A Convergence of Interests

4.1 US War on Terror & Pakistan’s Role

Post-9/11, Pakistan became a key US ally in Afghanistan.

The US depended on Pakistan’s support for military operations and logistical supply
routes.

Relations soured due to drone strikes, do-more demands, and the Indo-US nuclear
deal.

4.2 US Realization of an Unwinnable War

Initial US reluctance to negotiate with the Taliban (Bush & Obama administrations).

Under Obama, the “Kill and Talk” strategy failed to divide the Taliban.

Pakistan facilitated US-Taliban negotiations in 2011, which led to:

 Taliban opening a political office in Doha, Qatar (2012).

 US recognizing the Taliban as a key actor in the Afghan peace process.

4.3 The 2020 US-Taliban Peace Agreement

Trump administration appointed Zalmay Khalilzad as Special Adviser for Afghanistan in

2018.

With Pakistan’s assistance, six rounds of peace talks led to the February 29, 2020
agreement.

US policy shift: From sanctions to rapprochement, acknowledging Pakistan’s

strategic role.

5. Conclusion: Realism in US Foreign Policy

Pakistan-US ties have always been transactional, driven by strategic imperatives

rather than long-term trust.

The US follows classical realism, using every tool—economic aid, sanctions, military
cooperation—to further its interests.

Pakistan’s policy aligns with neorealism, where systemic pressures dictate its
foreign policy choices.

US influence remains dominant, but Pakistan continues to maneuver between

global powers to safeguard its interests.
Key Takeaways:

✅ US-Pakistan relations are transactional and pragmatic, shaped by power dynamics. ✅ The
US strategically uses FATF, IMF, and human rights to pressure Pakistan. ✅ Pakistan remains
geopolitically crucial but faces systemic constraints. ✅ Realism best explains the US
approach: allies are dispensable once they outlive their utility.