What's new

Under Biden, Pakistan and the US face a dilemma about the breadth of their relationship

nahtanbob

BANNED
Sep 24, 2018
8,418
-39
2,761
Country
United States
Location
United States

After the unpredictability of the Trump years, Pakistan approached Joe Biden’s win and the new administration with both expectation and apprehension. It hoped that the administration would buy its pitch for a reset and for broadening relations beyond Afghanistan, but it worried about “baggage” that the Biden team could bring from its experience during the Obama years — the second half of which was a relative low point in the U.S.-Pakistan relationship. Nearly 100 days into the new administration, it appears that redefining U.S.-Pakistan relations isn’t going to be quite as easy as Islamabad had hoped, even as Pakistan concertedly pushes a new geo-economic vision.


President Biden has not yet spoken to Prime Minister Imran Khan. Nor did Biden invite Pakistan to a planned leaders summit on climate change later this month, though the leaders of India and Bangladesh will be there, and Pakistan was the only country among the world’s 10 most populous to not receive an invitation. Its absence is all the more pointed given Pakistan’s efforts to mitigate climate change, including its commitment to plant a billion trees. Khan claims he’s not bothered. Biden’s Special Envoy for Climate Change John Kerry, meanwhile, is currently in the region — visiting India and Bangladesh, but not Pakistan. Separately, Pakistan continues to play a key role in the Afghan peace process.

Trump took a transactional approach to Pakistan, which worked well in some ways. What Pakistan wants now is a relationship with the U.S. that is broader in scope, and includes trade and investment. Will Biden deliver?

WHAT PAKISTAN WANTS
In recent months, Pakistan’s civilian and military leadership have together been promoting a new focus on “geo-economics” — an approach that emphasizes regional trade and connectivity, and stresses that Pakistan is open for business. The new focus recognizes that a geostrategic approach only goes so far, and if Pakistan is to rise on the world stage (as its neighbor India has done), that position will have to be predicated on economic growth.

In tandem, Pakistan says it wants to co-exist with its neighbors and wants a peaceful outcome in Afghanistan. It seeks a potential détente with India: In February, the two agreed to honor a 2003 ceasefire agreement along the Line of Control in Kashmir, and there might be more in the offing on a rapprochement. In a recent speech in Islamabad, Pakistan’s chief of army staff, General Qamar Javed Bajwa, notably said: “We feel that it is time to bury the past and move forward.”


akistan also wants a more broad-based relationship with the U.S., one that goes beyond strategic concerns and the war in Afghanistan. It is conveying openness to the West, with its leadership stating that the country’s economic fortunes are not wedded to China — and the $62 billion China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), a flagship project of China’s Belt and Road Initiative — alone. In his speech last month, Bajwa said: “While CPEC remains central to our vision, only seeing Pakistan through CPEC prism is also misleading. Our immensely vital geostrategic location and a transformed vision make us a country of immense and diverse potential.” Pakistan’s foreign minister has also said as much: “[Americans] have to understand that our relationship with China is not a zero-sum game for them. They should come, compete and invest.” The problem with this pitch is that Pakistan’s regulatory climate is less than ideal for investors.

The foreign minister and other officials have also suggested that Pakistan can serve as an interlocutor in the U.S. relationship with China, harkening back to an approach that worked well half a century ago. But in 2021, the U.S. likely won’t take Pakistan up on this.

A TOUGH START
Pakistan’s relationship with the Biden administration got off to a bumpy start. On January 28, Pakistan’s supreme court upheld a lower court’s judgment acquitting Omar Saeed Sheikh, the man convicted of masterminding the kidnapping of Wall Street Journal journalist Daniel Pearl in 2002 — a kidnapping that led to his murder. The Biden administration swiftly denounced the court’s decision, calling it an “affront to terrorism victims everywhere, including in Pakistan,” adding that the U.S. expected “the Pakistani government to expeditiously review its legal options to ensure justice is served.”


The decision came the day before Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s first calls with the foreign ministers of India and Pakistan. The juxtaposition of the two readouts presented a sharp, unavoidable contrast. In his conversation with Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi, Blinken focused on America’s concern with the Sheikh judgment; in his conversation with Indian Minister of External Affairs S. Jaishankar, he emphasized the importance of the U.S.-India relationship moving forward.

THE AFGHANISTAN FACTOR
The Biden administration looks at Pakistan through the lens of Afghanistan, much like the Trump administration did. Special Envoy Zalmay Khalilzad continues his regular visits to Islamabad and the army headquarters in Rawalpindi for discussions on the peace process. But while the Trump administration privileged Pakistan over all other third parties on Afghanistan, the Biden administration hasn’t done so. In a leaked letter to Ghani, Blinken notably mentioned India and Iran as well as Russia, China, and Pakistan as countries that could help in the peace process. The mention of India, in particular, worries Pakistan. Ultimately, at the troika-plus-one (China, Russia, and the United States, plus Pakistan) talks on the Afghan peace process that were held in Moscow last month, Pakistan was the “plus one,” but it seems likely that India will play a greater role going forward than it has in the past few years.


The dilemma is that the U.S. wants more from Pakistan on Afghanistan, including to try to get the Taliban to agree to a ceasefire. Pakistan insists that it is doing all that it can, that it has already done a lot by bringing the Taliban to the negotiating table, and that there are real limits to its leverage over the group. There is truth to those limits, given that the Taliban has evolved away from Pakistani control since the 1990s, and Pakistan’s influence over Taliban field commanders, in particular, may be a lot less than we imagine. While Pakistan wants to retain its key position in the Afghan peace process, one it attained precisely because of the leverage it has over the Taliban, Pakistanis tend to begrudge the demand to “do more” to rein in the Taliban, particularly after the U.S. negotiated a peace deal with the group. Across recent U.S. administrations, of course, the thinking has been that Pakistan’s support for the Taliban (including sanctuaries for the group in Pakistan) caused the United States to lose the war in Afghanistan. The two countries continue to see past each other, bedeviling the relationship.

Through it all, the U.S. ends up privileging Pakistan’s military — its usual partner and the one institution in Pakistan it perceives as effective — over its civilian officials.

THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION
Biden knows Pakistan well through his years on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and as vice president. Pakistanis had hoped that that would be enough for a reset and for widening the scope of the relationship, but the reality is that Biden is too busy elsewhere — with more pressing concerns both domestically and abroad — to focus on Pakistan beyond the Afghanistan issue, at least for now. Pakistani officials have acknowledged privately that the Biden administration “was not giving encouraging signals.”

Washington will likely continue to see Pakistan through the prism of countries in its neighborhood: Afghanistan, India, and China in particular. Paradoxically, Trump’s unorthodoxy had soothed some of Pakistan’s fears; its leaders felt for a time as if America’s relationship with Pakistan was decoupled from its relationship with India. That feeling is unlikely to last. In Pakistan, the old perceptions that Republican administrations are better for it than Democratic administrations and that the U.S. favors India at Pakistan’s expense are never far from the surface.


The legacy of the Obama years likely weighs heavily, and not just on the issue of Afghanistan and safe havens for the Haqqani network in Pakistan, which became a sticking point in the relationship during Biden’s time as vice president. The Navy Seal raid on Abbottabad in May 2011 that killed Osama bin Laden marked a low point during those years. For Pakistan, this raised the issue of sovereignty. For America, the episode laid bare a greater issue: that it could not trust Pakistan, and the Obama administration’s relationship with the country never recovered from this. (Pakistanis have their own grievances from that year, when a CIA contractor, Raymond Davis, shot and killed two Pakistani men in Lahore, and a NATO attack in November accidentally killed 24 Pakistani soldiers.)

LOOKING AHEAD
Pakistan has made it clear that it wants a different relationship with the U.S. But what’s equally clear is that the United States isn’t buying its new geo-economic pitch quite so easily. Part of this is because it is unrealistic: Pakistan doesn’t yet have the economic depth needed for this new approach. But it would still be useful for the Biden administration to look beyond its singular Afghanistan lens at Pakistan. The country has changed since 2016; it knows it needs a new paradigm, and business as usual is not enough. This presents a good time to rethink U.S. engagement with Pakistan. Climate change would have been an obvious new issue on which to cooperate, and not engaging with Pakistan in that arena could be a missed opportunity.

For a new approach for getting the relationship to work, both countries will have to do more to meet each other somewhere in the middle. The Biden team needs to keep an open mind and look at Pakistan with a broader lens. And if Pakistan doesn’t want strategic concerns to dominate its relationship with the U.S., it needs to offer up something more than words: real economic incentives.
 
Apr 22, 2019
4,520
-29
6,937
Country
Pakistan
Location
United Kingdom
... Pakistan has made it clear that it wants a different relationship with the U.S. But what’s equally clear is that the United States isn’t buying its new geo-economic pitch quite so easily. Part of this is because it is unrealistic: Pakistan doesn’t yet have the economic depth needed for this new approach. ...
And, that's that.

I think it's about time Pakistanis stop shouting how important their geo-location is, especially in relation to Central Asia.

Its not important and no one is really interested in it.
 

ziaulislam

BANNED
Apr 22, 2010
16,111
10
15,705
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
And, that's that.

I think it's about time Pakistanis stop shouting how important their geo-location is, especially in relation to Central Asia.

Its not important and no one is really interested in it.
We should be happy that we are ignored

What we should do is to look for any stability in afghanistan and open up trade which will not be feasible in a civil war and probably not even after as USA santions take place
 

nahtanbob

BANNED
Sep 24, 2018
8,418
-39
2,761
Country
United States
Location
United States
We should be happy that we are ignored

What we should do is to look for any stability in afghanistan and open up trade which will not be feasible in a civil war and probably not even after as USA santions take place
I do not think your military & civilian elite wants to be "ignored"
 

nahtanbob

BANNED
Sep 24, 2018
8,418
-39
2,761
Country
United States
Location
United States
Military is happy ..civilians elites like bhuttos and shareefs arent..
IK is very happy..

This is the best we can hope for in impending takeover of afghanistan by talibans
your military is not going to look the other way when USA props up India against China
 

ziaulislam

BANNED
Apr 22, 2010
16,111
10
15,705
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
If USA leaves afghanistan and pak can calm afghanistan down pak can be care free about of western boarder like we were in late 1990s to early 2000s.
Now because of india, pak western boarder is hot, all of leaders of insurgency are in afghanistan OPENLY supported by both india and a so called afghan govt..the intensity is fizzling out ..

IMO USA lost afghanistan because it listened more to india rather then pakistan

How can one hope for pakistan full support if the afghan govt DOESNT EVEN RECOGNIZE PAKISTAN AND CLAIM OFF IT AS ITS OWN
 

ziaulislam

BANNED
Apr 22, 2010
16,111
10
15,705
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
your military is not going to look the other way when USA props up India against China
Thats already happening since 1960s when pakistan got banned in 1965(except a very small window from 2002-2005)

Problem back in 1965 was no weapons available outside USA

These days everything is available from china italy turkey
 

nahtanbob

BANNED
Sep 24, 2018
8,418
-39
2,761
Country
United States
Location
United States
Thats already happening since 1960s when pakistan got banned in 1965(except a very small window from 2002-2005)

Problem back in 1965 was no weapons available outside USA

These days everything is available from china italy turkey
you are assuming Pakistani military can pay market prices for weapons. all weapon sales from china are being underwritten by soft loans

given proximity to China expect sensitive technologies not to be sold to Pakistan. Italy and Turkey could not sell anything remotely sensitive without getting docked
If USA leaves afghanistan and pak can calm afghanistan down pak can be care free about of western boarder like we were in late 1990s to early 2000s.
Now because of india, pak western boarder is hot, all of leaders of insurgency are in afghanistan OPENLY supported by both india and a so called afghan govt..the intensity is fizzling out ..

IMO USA lost afghanistan because it listened more to india rather then pakistan

How can one hope for pakistan full support if the afghan govt DOESNT EVEN RECOGNIZE PAKISTAN AND CLAIM OFF IT AS ITS OWN
USA was not in Afghanistan in 1990s. Neither was India. We know how that decade turned out
 

Rafi

ELITE MEMBER
Jul 23, 2010
11,250
12
18,872
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
you are assuming Pakistani military can pay market prices for weapons. all weapon sales from china are being underwritten by soft loans

given proximity to China expect sensitive technologies not to be sold to Pakistan. Italy and Turkey could not sell anything remotely sensitive without getting docked


USA was not in Afghanistan in 1990s. Neither was India. We know how that decade turned out
Don't worry injun Bob, we want good relationships with all country, and the US is A very important country, but if the US don't want, then they can fck off, we are already friends with the new Superpower.
 

ziaulislam

BANNED
Apr 22, 2010
16,111
10
15,705
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
you are assuming Pakistani military can pay market prices for weapons. all weapon sales from china are being underwritten by soft loans

given proximity to China expect sensitive technologies not to be sold to Pakistan. Italy and Turkey could not sell anything remotely sensitive without getting docked


USA was not in Afghanistan in 1990s. Neither was India. We know how that decade turned out
God sake read somwthing before jumping in

Usa left a huge mess from 1990 onwards with massive funding and bombing, school buses hijacks etc of pakistan by north alliance warlords for money that came from india

But when talis took over things got much more calmer(1996 onwards)
 

Adonis

FULL MEMBER
Sep 14, 2010
1,411
-20
926
Country
New Zealand
Location
New Zealand
Military is happy ..civilians elites like bhuttos and shareefs arent..
IK is very happy..

This is the best we can hope for in impending takeover of afghanistan by talibans
IK is happy? "Absolutely Not"
 

nahtanbob

BANNED
Sep 24, 2018
8,418
-39
2,761
Country
United States
Location
United States
God sake read somwthing before jumping in

Usa left a huge mess from 1990 onwards with massive funding and bombing, school buses hijacks etc of pakistan by north alliance warlords for money that came from india

But when talis took over things got much more calmer(1996 onwards)
Please sell the crap to the uninformed and brainwashed.

Every cold war battleground has returned to normalcy within a few years from the end of the cold war - Cambodia, Angola, Mozambique, Nicaragua. If it did not return it is courtesy of local powers to be. In case of Afghanistan it is the Pakistani establishment
 

Ghessan

FULL MEMBER
Feb 28, 2018
1,043
0
1,037
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
first of all this article is dated from April whereas things have changed a lot.
we have had a lot of statements from NSA, from PM IK from FM and a briefing to the parliamentary committee. which says the opposite. they have taken a stance already and it seems it is worked out well.

on the other hand the way Taliban are advancing and capturing districts, only yesterday afghan army surrendered several places to Taliban hands down. people leaving their country to central Asian republics.

World has seen people leaving Afghanistan in cargo planes, even Indians were seen leaving in videos viral on social media.

even experts are talking about "Kabul will take some time to be captured by Taliban" why the thinking went so far?
Afghan Taliban has refused any help to TTP defining their agenda against Pakistan.

this troika going to lose US leaving the other two very well engaged in Afghanistan in the future and they have high stakes there, let alone giving major role to India in current scenario? it is not too far away what World will see.
 
Apr 22, 2019
4,520
-29
6,937
Country
Pakistan
Location
United Kingdom
your military is not going to look the other way when USA props up India against China
I don't think India wants to be propped up against China.

Indians may not have realised yet, but the US doesn't really need India anymore now that they're on their way out of Afghanistan.

India was the West's darling since September 2001 just to keep pressure on Pakistan during the war in Afghanistan, however, that war has almost come to an end.

The only other way India can serve Western interests is by attacking China and that's it. I think the US Navy's freedom of navigation operations in Indian claimed waters was a confirmation of this - that either fight China or we go our separate ways.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)


Top Bottom