Introduction
In the beginning of 1947, the global struggle between United States and former Soviet Union was “hardening into the cold war”[1] . With a futuristic vision and owing to its close proximity with Soviet Union, U.S was keeping a close surveillance of the developments taking place in the subcontinent, which was being partitioned into India and Pakistan by August 1947. Indeed US started looking at India in 1941-42, during World War-II, once Japan attacked its naval fleets at Pearl Harbor in the Pacific and later Japanese troops had reached to the suburbs of India after capturing Burma (Myanmar) and Malaya.
U.S established its mission in New Delhi in 1942 with President Roosevelt’s special representative and former assistant secretary of war, Mr. Louis Johnson as the head of mission[2] . Under a seasoned statesman and a diplomat, this mission is considered to be the formal beginning of its involvement in the affairs of subcontinent. Towards the end of the Colonial rule, U.S made vital efforts for maintaining the unity of India, by convincing the leadership of Indian National Congress and Muslim League. But it could not be succeeded mainly owing to the obvious apprehensions of Hindu dominations by Muslims of the subcontinent, who wanted an independent homeland for themselves. In fact U.S thought that it could accrue more benefits by maintaining the integrity of India against the spread of Communism[3] rather having smaller and weaker states, unable to sustain the pressure of Union of Soviet Socialist Republic (USSR).
After independence of Pakistan, United States formally established its diplomatic relations with it in early in 1948, once Paul Alling, a career diplomat arrived Karachi, then capital of Pakistan. In October 1948, during annual General Assembly session, held in Paris, Prime Minister Liaquat Ali khan met then U.S Secretary of State, Mr. Marshall, on the sidelines of meeting and assured him that Pakistan would never support Communism. In return, the Premier however requested for the economic assistance for the uplift of the newly independent state and US military support to meet the overwhelming Indian military threat[4] . Thus the first formal interaction by any Pakistani high-ups with U.S officials started from the position of weakness. Although U.S hailed the Pakistani gesture against Communism, however in the subsequent year-1949, President Truman invited Mr. Nehru, the Indian Prime Minister for an official visit to US, thus ignoring Pakistan from the very beginning. Indian Premier visited the US in mid October 1949, and addressed the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate on October 13, 1949[5] .
In retribution to Indian Prime Minister’s visit to U.S, Pakistani Premier got an invitation for official visit to Soviet Union. The visit however could not be materialized owing to a multiple reasons like; the pro-Indian approach of USSR and insulting remarks of Marshal Stalin against Pakistan, during his visit of New Delhi[6] . It is also thought that Premier Liaquat Ali Khan deliberately avoided the visit because of Red Army’s brutalities against Muslims of Russia and Central Asian States on the directive of Stalin, or else owing to anti Muslim sentiments of Communist Russia. Some analysts even believe that since Pakistani establishment was pro-western from the very beginning, therefore they did not let the visit materialized.
Irrespective of the factual position, after the invitation from USSR, officials at Whitehouse become vigilant and immediately invited Mr. Liaquat Ali Khan, who then toured U.S for three weeks in May, 1950. In the initial years of Pakistan’s independence, the extent of this visit flabbergasted US officials too, who thought as if the premier had nothing to do at home. This visit was declared a great success both by US and Pakistani authorities and indeed marked the formal beginning of the Pak-US relations. The visit was projected more in the milieu of Indian Premier’s approach of neutrality, which he exhibited by showing no inclination to become an ally to either bloc of the Cold War or even indicating any opposition to the Communism, as wished by US authorities[7].
In the subsequent history, as described by Edward M. Rowell, the President Diplomatic and Consular Officers, US; Pakistan’s relations with United States have “careened between intimate partnership and enormous friction-reflecting the ups and downs of global and regional geopolitics and disparate national interests”[8]. While maintaining a balanced relationship with India, US relations with Pakistan have been “intense and extraordinary volatile.[9] ” Analysts view that Eisenhower, Nixon and Reagan maintained good relations with Pakistan whereas, in the periods of; Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Bush senior and Clinton, there remains chill in the relations of both countries. The two tenures of President George W. Bush, from 2001 to early 2009, have mostly been a period of improbability, owing to the so called global war on terror.
Because of Pakistan’s alliance with U.S and Western world throughout during the cold war, its relations with the former Soviet Union remained at the lowest ebb. The western association indeed more frequently irritated USSR, which considered Pakistan as an enemy. The former Communist union threatened Pakistan many a time of the dire consequences for acting as a proxy of United States. However, sequel to Soviet invasion in Afghanistan, Pakistan provided all out assistance to U.S and west in their covert guerilla war, which resulted into disintegration of the former in early 1990s. This western strategy of promotion of global Jihad against former USSR left deep rooted effects on the Pakistani society in the form of extremism, weapon and drug culture and many other social ills, Pakistan is anguishing nowadays. Following the incident of 9/11and the subsequent US actions against Taliban and Al-Qaeda, who then intruded into Pakistani territory, there is an absolute absence of normality of life in tribal areas of Pakistan and some parts of Balochistan.
A majority of Pakistani masses considered that the ongoing instability and extremism in Pakistani society is because of its crestfallen alliance with the US since 1950s. While disregarding Pakistani contributions and sacrifices, it made for the US in its entire history, more recently, United States has made a long term alliance with India. Even today Pakistani nation is combating a militancy twisted by US and west for the implementation of their aims and objectives. As per the impartial analysts, these militants are being supported and financed by all those with whom US is making alliance or is already thick and thin with them. Some analysts strongly view that the Taliban leaders in Pakistan like; Baitullah Masud and Fazlullah are on the payroll of the countries operating as hand in gloves in Afghanistan. They along with their accomplices are being protected by it during military operations by Pakistani Security Forces. Indeed Pakistan’s alignment with US has entailed risks and dangers to a level that its sovereignty and integrity is at real stake.
The paper therefore aims to, analyze the embittered alliance between Pakistan and United States in the entire period of this interest driven potholed journey while highlighting ups and downs in the relationship, its fallouts on Pakistan and finally finding a doable a way-out.
Pakistani Geopolitics; a Compelling Rationale for Alliance
As generally assumed and history validates that geography of Pakistan has been the most resilient factor in the shaping of its overall strategies. In the same context, the famous academician, writer and scholar, Stephen P. Cohan, highlighted the strategic significance of Pakistan in the words; “while history has been unkind to Pakistan, its geography has been its greatest benefit. It has resource rich area in the north-west and people rich in the north-east”[10] . Indeed by virtue of its geo-political location, Pakistan acts as Asian junction and a pathway from resource efficient countries to resource deficient countries.
In the primordial history, Pakistani territory had been used as a part of Great Game[11] between British India and Tsarist Russia for a win over each other. Afghanistan, FATA and NWFP were center of the activities between these colonial powers. The rugged mountains of the FATA became barrier either for Russians or British Empire during the great game. During the period of cold war, from 1945 to 1991, because of its strategic location, Pakistan had been used as a launching pad for the Cold War strategies of US against USSR. Apart from terrorism, the foremost crisis facing today’s world is the ever increasing energy shortages and by virtue of its geopolitical location, it is considered as a future energy corridor for the Asian countries[12]. Owing to its geo-political location, the country is still being used as a frontline state in the global war on terror, as a prologue to a new great game.
Moreover, the country is located in a volatile region, troubled by historical instability in neighbouring Afghanistan and hegemonic India, ever since of its creation in 1947. In the words of former US Secretary of State Mr. George Schultz, “Pakistan occupies, strategically one of the most important areas on the world and its position in South Asian region is remarkable for the security of free world and Japan”[13]. Close proximity of Pakistan to the Gulf Region has a lot of attraction for the east and west alike, because of Gulf States have approximately over 60% of world oil reserves and a huge quantity of natural gas reserves.
Pakistan’s Makran Coast overlooks the extremely strategic and politically volatile gateway to the Gulf Region. The Gawader port with its deep waters attracts the trade ships of China, CARs and South East Asian Countries. Pakistan offers the land locked Central Asian Republics the shortest route to the sea. Its 600 Km long Makran coast lays a beam of the energy and trade routes out of the Straits of Hormuz. As the Chinese own ports are located 4500 km away from its semi autonomous region; Xinjiang, the deep sea Gawader port of Pakistan located only 2500 km from it and is most ideally located to economically support it. In the same way, Pakistan offers to CARs the shortest route of 2600 km as compared to Iran (4500 km) or Turkey (5000 km). Currently Pakistan is also supporting NATO, US and other coalition forces operating in Afghanistan logistically through Pakistani soil.
The Dictates of Pak-US Alliance
In its history, Pakistan has been the “most allied ally” of United States of America. Being a small country with vulnerable borders of its eastern and western wings to the much larger and hostile eastern neighbour, India, Pakistan, found US friendship as a big backing to its security and defense. Indeed, it had the experience of physical countering the Indian aggression soon after its independence once the former invaded Kashmir, a Muslim majority princely state in October 1947, which was to become its part on the basis of Indian Partition Plan of June 3, 1947.
On its part, United States considered geopolitics of Pakistan as of utmost importance, and taking the advantage of Pakistan’s defense requirements obliged it to an extent that it formally tied itself to the Capitalist Western camp under United States, once it become part of two renowned U.S sponsored defense pacts of that time namely; SEATO and CENTO (Baghdad Pact). Indeed both were meant to contain the Communism and Soviet influence in Southeast Asia and oil rich Middle Eastern region. Apart from these, Pakistan was also part of Middle East Defense Organizations (MEDO) and as a U.S Military alliance of 1959[14].
Although Pakistan felt much relieved by becoming part of these pacts at that time, but in essence, these were neither meant nor practically endowed any help to Pakistan, even once it was attacked by India in 1965 and 1971, where the later was able to disintegrate the former by use of Military force. The western allies of Pakistan, particularly U.S never came to its help; rather its military assistance was ceased by the U.S and other western countries, whereas India was continuously getting military and economic support from its ally, the former Soviet Union.
The dependability of US for Pakistan can be imagined from the fact that, after Pakistan defended itself well in 1965 war against Indian aggression, US admonished her for using its supplied weapons against India, which as per the U.S plans were meant to be used for the containment of Communism[15]. On the other hand, it went running to provide all out military and diplomatic support to India, once it encountered a war with China over Sino-Indian border dispute. President John Kennedy immediately ordered dispatch of heavy military consignment to India, which was delivered at Calcutta and Assam air bases through U.S transport aircrafts[16].
Britain too provided heavy quantity of arms and ammunition to India against China. Indeed, the war with China was short and swift, where India was defeated. The Anglo-American arsenals however were later used against Pakistan in 1965 and 1971 wars. In 1971, President Nixon, though apparently ordered shifting of 5th U.S Naval Fleet into the Bay of Bengal, for the protection of East Pakistan against planned Indian aggression, but practically it did not happen and India was not contested by West and U.S once it disintegrated Pakistan on December 16, 1971[17]. It is worth mentioning that in the sway of same President Nixon, Pakistan made great contributions once it established a friendship between China and U.S through a secret diplomacy and did not demand anything in retribution. In the subsequent history, in spite of US betrayal during the two wars, Pakistan once again supported it once Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in December 1979 and destined with yet another infidelity following the disintegration of USSR.
Import of Extremism and Terrorism in Pakistani Society
Until the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, Pakistan was a country where its citizens could leave their homes unlocked and go to sleep without any thought of sudden or violent incident. Terrorism, extremism, violence and suicide attacks were alien acts for Pakistani society. It was never the panorama of nonsensical violence and unpitying massacres even until 2003[18]. The incident of 9/11 was a milestone in the current history of Pakistan.
This inopportune incident has caused inconceivable domestic turbulence in Pakistan. In reality, the incident was fallout of Western sponsored Jihad against the invasion of former Soviet Union in Afghanistan (1979 -1989)[19]. After disintegration of Soviet Union, the former Jihadists (religiously motivated volunteers from all over the world) were left out of work, as US lead West left the region in haste. A vast majority of jihadists especially Arabs and Central Asians were not even acceptable to their native countries, thus kept itinerant in Afghanistan in the garb of factional fighting and later under Taliban regime until September 11, 2001.
Following the U.S attack on Afghanistan and thereafter under the strong US and NATO pressure, some of them took refuge in tribal areas of Pakistan along Pak – Afghan border. For Pakistan, their presence in tribal areas was mulled over as a budding risk; therefore security forces launched operations to flush them out. Astoundingly these militants put up strapping resistance to the military operations by security forces. However their militancy remained restricted to North and South Waziristan only. After 2005, their activities were stretched over to the rest of tribal areas and settled areas of North West Frontier Province (NWFP). And by 2007, they successfully made inroads into the major cities and carried out suicidal attacks and bomb blasts against our national sensitivities and innocent masses throughout the length and breadth of the country.
Over the years these militants were strengthened by acquisition of latest weaponry and equipments and an unending financial support by forces operating from outside the Pakistani borders, having historical rancor against its existence or else having eyes on the strategic arsenals of Pakistan. The country has suffered and still suffering enormous losses in terms of men and material and internal flux at the hands of so called Islamic militants; the Taliban, al-Qaeda and their accomplices, all sponsored from across the borders. Thousands of people including; security forces personnel, general masses, both; women and children have been killed by these inhuman militants. The collateral damage in the process of combating the militancy has also caused colossal losses to the innocent masses of the area.
In fact the number of causalities Pakistan has suffered during this so called war on terror is much more than the collective casualties, it afforded during combat operations in 1965[20] and 1971 wars with India. In reality during Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the Afghans people, selected Pakistani and Jihadists from across the globe achieved what rest of the world could not for years and years of cold war. In fact, Pakistani and Afghani fought for their security concerns and against invasion of USSR, but US made the long term investment for accomplishment of its global agenda[21]. In a way both countries have and are still being used for the accomplishment of agendas set by major powers, especially by United States nowadays.
The Potholed Passage and Beneficiary of Alliance
In a bid to evoke the history, on May 7, 1960, USSR shot down a U.S; U-2 spy plane and captured its pilot, Gary Powers. Since US spying missions were operating from Peshawar base, therefore, the Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev, while revealing the details of the U-2 in Moscow, threatened Pakistan in the words; “we warn those countries, that make their territory available for launching planes with anti Soviet intentions: Do not play with fire, gentlemen! The governments of Turkey, Pakistan and Norway must be clearly aware that they are accomplices in this flight”[22].
Taking this incident as a formal confirmation to its apprehensions of Pakistan’s assistance in U.S spying of USSR; Mr. Khrushchev, cornered the Pakistani ambassador during a reception arranged on the eve of Czech Republic’s national day on May 9, 1960. Pakistan was told in clear terms that, “if any American plane is allowed to use Peshawar as a base of operation against the Soviet Union, we will retaliate immediately.” Earlier Khrushchev, while pointing towards Pakistan said, “where is this place Peshawar? We have circled it in red on our maps[23].”
This was neither first nor the last threat Pakistan received for the dire consequences from former Soviet leadership. The Communist state remained as a constant headache for Pakistan and kept the later under pressure either itself or through its ally, India; the so called non-aligned country on Pakistan’s eastern borders. It did not let the just solution of Kashmir issue by blocking the UNSC resolutions through a number of vetoes.
In the initial years of US covert actions against USSR in Afghanistan, with the aim to get a guaranteed support from Pakistan, on December 6, 1982, U.S. Secretary of State George Shultz, during his meeting with former Pakistani President, late General Muhammad Zia Ul Haq, expressed his keenness that U.S. was looking forward for the long term bilateral relationship with Pakistan, which in his opinion would “grows over time and is strong enough to survive disagreements and problems which inevitably occur”[24]. The late President Zia however responded cautiously to the Secretary of State and said that U.S and Pakistan indeed were a “union of unequals and incompatible in terms of culture, geography and national power, even though they had strong common interests”[25].
These historical remarks hold good even today, as Pakistan has no parallels with a super power like United States, in terms of economic, military or diplomatic standing at the global level. It is also true that Pak-US relationship is indeed a history of turbulent connections, and there is no harm in admitting that Islamabad’s ties with Washington were dictated by specific politico-military interests with no deep-rooted historical and ideological union. Otherwise in the international politics, there exist neither the permanent friends nor the everlasting foes. It is the national interest of a country which dictates its relations with other state. And so has been the Pak-US relationship in almost last sixty years.
The former US policy makers and think tanks now openly admit that not only the Pak-U.S. partnership in Afghanistan was a marriage of convenience, but throughout during the long years of cold war, Pakistan has served the US interests against the former Soviet Union. They acceptably opine that Pakistan too has benefitted from this partnership especially in the field of economy and military assistance in ensuring its security in the region against militarily much stronger enemy, India. But perhaps they are unenthusiastic to accept the reality that because of these U.S. aids; Pakistan was betrayed from the passageway of self sufficiency and over the period of time became a foreign aid dependent state. This dependency has brought along the dictations, in its history, which is continuing today even at the cost of its sovereignty.
With respect to the mutual trust between Pakistan and U.S, there always have been mutual qualms. Even among the heat of global war on terror, on March 4, 2006, President Bush during his visit to Islamabad, said in a press conference that, “he had come to Islamabad to determine whether or not the Pakistani leader was as committed as he had been in the past to the war on terror”[26]. In the same press conference, Bush while padding President Musharraf, said, that he is courageous man and stressed him “to do more” for curbing the militancy and stopping cross border infiltration of Taliban into Afghanistan. This was the limit of mortification to a leader and a country that did a lot for United States in history of their alliance.
On the other hand, during the first leg of his visit to South Asia, at New Delhi, President Bush spoke well of India for its rising power and economic development. Bush declared India as “an emerging world power” and awarded it with the “civilian nuclear technology deal”[27]. In the opinion of Dr. Mohammad Ahsen Chaudhri, the former chairman of international relations Department, Karachi University, “the American policies towards Pakistan and India have had a direct bearing on their mutual relations to the point of generating deep misunderstanding between them. The people of Pakistan have often been at a loss to understand why India, an avowedly non-aligned country, should receive a more favourable treatment at the hands of the United States than Pakistan which, despite being aligned, failed to get U.S support even on such a crucial issue as her security[28].”
The Sanctions Regime
U.S Congress passes a legislation in 1985 that until and unless, White House certify that Pakistan is not embarked on the preparation of nuclear weapons programme, sanctions will be imposed on the economic and military assistance of Pakistan. Until 1990, U.S President kept certifying that Pakistan has neither embarked on the preparation of nuclear weapons nor has any plan to do so. In fact the legislation, commonly known as Pressler Amendment was passed by Congress in the midst of the Afghan war and U.S had still a lot at stake with respect to the pivotal role of Pakistan against Russia in Afghanistan.[29]
Upon attainment of the U.S objectives, which included; Soviet defeat and withdrawal from Afghanistan and its subsequent disintegration in 1990, the same Whitehouse guard refused to certify the non possession of nuclear weapons by Pakistan. Thereafter the Pressler amendment became effective and sanctions were imposed on the U.S assistance to Pakistan[30]. It was a worst time, because Pakistan was recovering from the shocks of the Afghan war and a lot of economic aid was needed to resettle and rehabilitate all those who got affected due to Afghan war including the Pakistani Jihadists. Over and above to these hazards, Pakistan was bearing a huge burden of the Afghan refugees, 3.5 millions in total. Pakistan still has approximately 2.5 million Afghan refugees and managing them without any international assistance.
Indeed, Pakistan neither started nor completed its nuclear programme in 1990 or from the period from 1985 to 1990. Its programme started much earlier and being a sovereign state, it did not consider essential to get U.S blessing for it. Otherwise not only U.S, but world as whole knew about the nuclear programme of Pakistan much earlier. By putting sanctions on Pakistan at this point in time U.S has exhibited its narcissism. It perhaps thought that now it has no peer competitor in the region where Pakistan’s help could be needed in the future. But certainly, it was a miscalculation of the world power, as proved by subsequent events at global arena.
Throughout in 1990s, US continued pressing Pakistan to give up its nuclear programme, but being an issue of national interest, successive Pakistani governments refuse to accept the unfounded U.S demands. In 1998, following the nuclear explosions of India, Pakistan also exploded its nuclear weapons by conducting several confirmatory tests of its nuclear explosive devices. The United States immediately imposed sanctions on Pakistan. U.S forced many other countries to put sanctions on Pakistan. Sanctions were imposed on India too, but were lifted in the subsequent months.
The Global Agenda of United States
Following the over ambitious Bush policies of global domination by United States, there has been a global decline of American popularity among both friends and foes. It’s unrealistic Indo-U.S Nuclear Deal in violation of NPT and US own laws have been criticized even within U.S establishment. With the known vertical proliferation record, India is being projected as the natural ally of US to contain China, after it has been exempted from the international laws with respect to NPT. In this context, while showing his reservations, the former US Secretary of State, Colin Powel said about Indo-US Nuclear Deal that, “we also have to protect certain red lines that we have with respect to proliferation.”
With respect to the U.S agenda of global domination through intervention, Professor Hafeez Malik, of the Villanova University USA, writes, “Thirty cases of U.S’s interventions in Latin America and Caribbean, East Asia, the Middle East and Southern Europe. Some interventions are well known, and some less”[31]. U.S has indeed become an imperial power at the international level. In the post cold war scenario US foreign policy in South Asia is driven by its long term collaboration with India, with the aim to enabling it to act as a counter weight to China. However, U.S foreign policy specifies for Pakistan, to fight an elongated war against the so called Taliban and Al-Qaeda[32].
Having the strategic planning to encircle China, US traces back the Chinese rising power with the famous wordings of Napoleon he uttered two hundred years ago about China, that; “there lies a sleeping giant. Let him sleep; for when he awakes he will move the world”[33]. Perhaps this sense of insecurity or the fear of unknown is forcing U.S to make new allies in the outer periphery of China. In the East Asia, it is obliging Japan, South Korea and Taiwan- a Chinese province through strategic pacts and alliances, whereas ASEAN countries are otherwise closely associated with U.S since the demise of cold war and under the fear of rising China. In South Asia, U.S is seriously working with India through provision of massive military and economic assistance to later to prepare it as a counter weight to China.
Long terms stay in Afghanistan and establishing itself in Central Asia are all corollaries to US multipurpose strategies in the region. It is widely believed that while based around Afghanistan and Central Asia, United States has a global agenda to put into practice. In the views of analysts, the long terms agenda include; containment of China through a multi prong approach, planned to be implemented through its allies in East Asia, Southeast Asia and South Asia as mentioned above. At the same time US is highly conscious of the resurgent Russia and would go all out to contest this power balancing phobia. Some of the recent Russian actions like attack on Georgia, test firing of long range intercontinental ballistic missile and strong opposition of missile shield in the countries of Eastern Europe by US are tangible factors in Russian resurgence, which really bothers United States.
Domination, if not possession of the hydro carbon rich Central Asian region has always been an American dream. U.S desires its companies to explore and further sellout these resources elsewhere in the world market while denying their access to Russia, China or any third country. Iran, a bone of contention for the U.S, share borders with Afghanistan and Central Asia. U.S desires neutralization of its role in the regional politics as well as bludgeoning of its nuclear programme. Till date both aspects are being seriously guarded by Iran. Pipeline politics is yet another area of interest for U.S, where it desires that neither Russian nor Iranian soil be made use of for the pipelines from CARs and Caspian regions to Europe or elsewhere in the world.
Pakistan’s nuclear programme is otherwise under debate since its nuclear blasts in 1998. More often, U.S officials and think tanks have been showing their concerns over the safety of Pakistan’s strategic assets, especially with regards to growing militancy of Taliban and al-Qaeda. Authorities in Pakistan considered these as a misperception by US and west design to force Pakistan for a possible denuclearization. Indeed the command and control system of Pakistan’s strategic assets has been founded on such a strong footings that, what to talk of militants, world’s modern nuclear experts would never be able to have a smell of these[34].
Some of U.S writers, scholars and a number of think tanks have been found continuously conspiring against Pakistan. A Pentagon based retired colonel Ralph Peter had the guts to imply and anticipate new map of Pakistan and many other Muslim countries, through his infamous article entitled; “Blood Borders”[35], published in U.S Armed Forces Journal in July 2006. Similar maps and false speculations based on personnel or institutional whimsical theories have more frequently been published in the international media. These are the propaganda campaigns designed to confuse the masses and are planned and executed on behest of all those having larger agendas. Pakistani nation is alive of these unfounded and uncalled for theories and is united to withstand the media and scholarly trials of its allies.
The New U.S Strategies and Sovereignty of Pakistan
The Drone Syndrome
There have been over 300 CIA driven drone attacks in the Tribal areas of Pakistan to date.[36] Report released by Bureau of Investigative Journalism compiles that since first drone strike on June 17, 2004, 248 missiles were fired during President Obama’s first three years, [37] coming to a tally of well over 80% hell-fire rounds between 2008 and 2011. Although these attacks are aimed at targeting terrorists and foreign elements, they have killed more than 2900 innocent citizens of Pakistan. The foreigners and wanted criminals killed during these attacks total less than a hundred in number. Sustaining these attacks over the years has caused the alienation of the affected communities and, consequently, has led to a further deteriorating security situation by furthering the grievances of even larger segments of society. It is not only the Pakistani government, but also the civil society and human right activists that have been strongly condemning these attacks and demand to halt them. Admiral (retired) Dennis C. Blair of the U.S. Navy is one of those who have declared the drone attacks as being counterproductive and undermining support for the U.S. in its campaign against terror. However, Defence Secretary Leon Panetta asserts that the “campaign of drone strikes had seriously—–weakened the Al Qaeda leadership,”[38] and has rejected the unanimous call to abandon these.
From the U.S. perspective, a legal impetus was provided for the first time on 25th March, 2010, by State Department legal Advisor, Harold Koh. Mr. Koh, who said that the United States was “… in an armed conflict with al-Qaeda, as well as the Taliban and associated forces, in response to the horrific 9/11 attacks, and may use force consistent with its inherent right to self-defense under international law.”[39] And he further emphasized in his speech that the US complied in all its drone strikes with principles of the laws of war, notably the principle of distinction and proportionality.
What Mr. Harold Koh failed to address in his speech were arguments made by a UN special reporter Richard Alston. UN Special Reporters Richard Alston in his report argued that if targeting of individuals was considered prima facie valid simply under the basis of self-defence then the war in Gaza, and hostilities against civilians, Congo etc would need not to be discussed by relevant UN bodies.[40] In other words, as Zakaria commented, if all extra-judicial targeted killings were so easily justified based on the premise of self-defence then any nation could be allowed under the flimsiest of pretexts to encroach on another’s territory to kill individuals they believed were involved in hostile acts against it.
Moreover, legality of these airstrikes are complicated by the fact that till date Government of Pakistan has not officially acknowledged that it has granted Americans the permission to launch drone strikes inside her territory. If Pakistan has not provided any consent to these strikes than drones hovering over Pakistani territory amount to infringement of Pakistan’s sovereignty. And infringement of sovereignty, under the provisions of UN Charter, is considered as an act of aggression.
Even if it is established that Islamabad’s consent is there, still U.S. and its allies stand guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity in the light of Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Geneva Convention and the Charter of United Nations.
Strategic significance of drone attacks from American perspective has been highlighted by the Wall Street Journal which stated that “the Central Intelligence Agency’s drone programme is important to Washington because areas of Pakistan remain a haven for Taliban and al Qaeda militants operating in Afghanistan”[41]. However, analyzing the effectiveness of these attacks from a viewpoint of security & threat perception, U.S. military commanders and even the CIA confirm the successful elimination of not more than a handful high value Al-Qaeda operatives during last seven years.[42]
From the perspective of the people of Pakistan, these drone attacks are a serious violation of its sovereignty. Political repercussions have been even more devastating as these strikes have fuelled the process of radicalization and have resulted in bringing further instability inside Pakistan.
Moreover, besides more than 300 drone attacks to date, there have been occasions where ISAF troops conducted ground attacks in Pakistani territory and caused heavy losses in terms of men and material. Some analysts believe that the CIA has the tacit approval of the Government of Pakistan for these attacks and that they are being carried out from the Shamsi Air Base in Balochistan. The Pakistani government and its military establishment, however, have denied this and have even demanded that the U.S. to vacate the base, which was given on contract to the UAE. Indeed, these attacks have serious implications for Pakistan. Firstly, drone attacks by foreign forces are a violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty in the light of the UN charter. Secondly, these attacks are causing massive collateral damage in the form of the deaths of innocent civilians, including a vast majority of women and children. These killings fuel anti-American sentiment and create a sense of infringement among the masses; this is something of particular concern when considered that the victims belong to a tribal culture, where revenge as justification for being wronged is part of tribal tradition. This in turn increases the likelihood of adding to the terrorists’ numbers. Thirdly, drone attacks have displaced a huge number of affected people to other areas, where they face multiple problems, including difficulty in acquiring shelter and food. Fourthly, the failure of the Government in stopping these attacks incurs anti-government sentiment among the people, gravely damaging the national integration and internal stability in the country.
As per a report of the London-based Bureau of Investigative Journalism, a neutral forum, it has been found that, under the Obama administration, there has been, on average, one drone attack after every four days (80%).[43] The last seven years of drone attacks have killed over 168 children. The forum found that only four percent of the 2900 people[44] killed so far in drone attacks were militants. The Brookings Institution, however, calculates that for every militant taken down, 10 innocent civilians are killed.[45] “As a marker of what may come to be, May 11, 2011, witnessed one of the heaviest drone bombardments Pakistan has ever seen, with four separate strikes killing over 50 people.”[46] These attacks are a serious violation of international law. Mr. Philip Alston, the UN Special Envoy on Extrajudicial Killings, believes that drones attacks in Pakistan are “undermining the rules designed to protect the right of life.”[47]
Effects of AfPak Policy
President Barack Obama’s AfPak policy mainly centered on the shared dealing of Afghanistan and Pakistan, with the focal goal being to dislocate, dismantle, and overpower the terrorists groups of Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, and to prevent their resurgence.[48] The policy was discriminatory, as it tagged Pakistan, a nuclear power, with war-ravaged Afghanistan. The core of the policy, as articulated by President Obama, is that the soil of Afghanistan and Pakistan must not be used as a base to launch attacks against the U.S. Homeland.[49] However, following a surge in U.S. troops and the announcement of the “U.S. Exist Strategy” from Afghanistan, the actual motives of the AfPak policy have raised fears about the future intentions of the U.S. towards the region.[50] It would not be amiss to say that if the AfPak Policy has achieved anything so far, it has been the uniting of militants on both sides of the Pak-Afghan border.[51]
As the policy now unfolds, some Afghan Provinces, like Kunar and Nuristan, have become “Safe Havens for Terrorists”, who, as a matter of routine, attack and target Pakistani security forces, installations and innocent civilians. As per the DG ISPR, these hideouts are housing some very “high level terrorists,”[52] including the likes of Fazlullah, Faqeer Muhammad, Abdul Wali, Hakimullah, etc. He categorically stated that, “the recent terror attacks from Afghanistan have testified our words; we have already voiced our concern over the pull out of NATO and Afghan forces from these areas.” [53] Destabilizing Pakistan was and continues to be the sole objective of all these terrorists and the spying agencies abetting them. A pertinent example is the creation of the TTP (an umbrella organization of 13 terrorists groups) in 2007 under Baitullah Mehsud, a former detainee of Guantanamo Bay; it was aimed at penalizing Pakistan on various accounts.
With U.S. and NATO having pulled out of the area, these terrorists have been given a free hand. Moreover, there is hardly any deployment of the Afghan National Army (ANA) or even its paramilitary forces. On the other hand, there are over 1100 security check-posts established all along the border by the Pakistan Army, with over 150,000 trained military personals. The fact is that the “low number of Afghan security check post and inaction by the Afghan security forces is one of the main reasons behind the increasing terrorist infiltration.”[54] However, the question that arises is whether this lacks of check-posts on the Afghan side of the border a deliberate state of affairs or the result of compulsion. After all, it must be remembered that there have been no attacks by Afghan militants from any of its bordering provinces into Pakistan, even during periods of extreme tension between the two countries.
The hasty withdrawal of the ISAF from the two bordering provinces appears to be part of the strategy to enable and encourage attacks, either by terrorists of the TTP hiding in Afghanistan or by Afghan militants on the bordering areas of Pakistan, such as Dir and Chitral. Analysts feel that attacks by militants from Afghan soil appears to be the real unfolding of the AfPak policy, as this act would concurrently destabilize Pakistan and Afghanistan, thereby providing the U.S. with an excuse to operate anywhere, the essence of AfPak. Furthermore, U.S indeed, desires a state of confrontation between Pakistan and Afghanistan to give India an excuse to fill the space on its partial thinning out. Another aim of the policy was to incorporate Pakistan into the Afghan theatre of US war and get maximum benefit for itself. The U.S. was not winning in Afghanistan and the fact remains that over 80% of Afghanistan is not under U.S. sway. Accusing Pakistan for not taking action against Haqqani in NWA is also part of the same strategy of making Pakistan a scapegoat for the American failure and generating excuses for twisting the arm of Pakistan. Owing to the Pakistani military leadership’s refusal to be coerced by U.S. demands, the latter – in particular its spy agency, the CIA – set about defaming the armed forces of Pakistan and, in particular, Pakistan’s premier intelligence agency, the ISI, through official statements, and with the aim of its media, in a malevolent campaign.
As was recently revealed, the new CIA Chief General David Petraeus is launching a covert U.S. campaign against Pakistan to implement U.S. quasi-military operations. Since the CIA already has a covert presence in Pakistan, the only need would be for it to evolve again, or at least intensify in its present form. It is worth mentioning that despite having doffed his uniform as CIA Director, General Petraeus “will be a battlefield commander, in charge of a robotic air force and a small army of U.S. and Afghan paramilitaries, many of whom are former special operations soldiers.”[55] Furthermore, “under U.S. law, Petraeus’s campaign in Pakistan will be a civilian-led covert action, authorized under Title 50 of the United States Code. To Pakistan, it will look a lot like war.”[56]
The Raymond Davis Case: A Major Twist in Pak-U.S. Relations
The distrust between Pakistan and the United States was added to, after the arrest of Raymond Davis, a covert CIA operative in Pakistan. He was arrested on charges of committing the murder of two Pakistani nationals in Lahore on January 27, 2011. In addition, he was involved in several anti-Pakistan and espionage activities, including maintaining linkages with terrorist groups operating against Pakistan. Though he was eventually released, his arrest left in its wake a wide gulf of mistrust in the already ailing Pak-U.S. relationship. It is a measure of his value that, in addition to other voices within the U.S., President Barrack Obama himself pressed Pakistan for his immediate release. Pakistan was relentlessly called on to accord him diplomatic immunity as per the Vienna Convention, despite the fact that in Davis’s case, such immunity did not apply. Senator Johan Kerry, known for his favorable leaning towards Pakistan, also visited and tried to prevail on the Pakistani leadership for his release.
Although, Raymond was released after paying the blood money owed to the murdered men’s families, the U.S. did not hide the fact that it was deeply displeased. The succeeding intensification of drone attacks and intensifying the pressure on Pakistan with reference to cross-border issues appeared to be a retaliation of sorts for the Raymons Davis affair. Nevertheless, his interrogation revealed that there are large numbers of CIA operatives involved in similar activities, spread all over the country, whose whereabouts may be known to very few in Pakistan. It should, perhaps, not be a surprising revelation, given the fact that Xe and Blackwater employees have been found, openly demonstrating their weapons, in various cities of Pakistan since 2009.
The Killing of Osama Bin Laden (OBL)
After the killing of OBL by U.S. Navy SEALs without Pakistani authorities being taken into confidence, many questions arose about the mutual distrust between these two unequal allies. Until then, the possibility of such an operation being undertaken on Pakistani soil without having sought the prior permission of, or at least having informed, the Pakistani leadership, was considered unthinkable. However, the repeated denial by the Pakistani defence authorities and the Government of Pakistan has convinced the Pakistani public that this was indeed what had transpired. Furthermore, the CIA Director Leon Panetta made it clear that the CIA did not share the operational details with Pakistan over fears that it could have compromised the target. As per Pakistani military officials, “it was the ISI which had initially provided a lead on Osama in the shape of cell phone details of his most trusted courier Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti, which the CIA pursued and developed.” [57]
Leon Panetta, while indicating his dismay at the Pakistani intelligence setup, perhaps forgot that it was Pakistani intelligence which for the want of American government tracked down, captured and handed over to US authorities some of the top leaders of al-Qaeda. Although upon the killing of OBL, US President Barack Obama said that this is “the most significant achievement to date in our nation’s efforts to defeat al-Qaeda.”[58] But what comes to the fore is the question of whether this death would end Al-Qaeda’s global agenda and whether, consequently, the United States’ so-called War on Terror would come to an end as well. The U.S. may at least have achieved the tactical benefit of satisfying its domestic audience, which had started questioning their leadership’s rationale behind for the indefinite engagement of U.S. Armed Forces in Afghanistan.. The fact must not be ignored that U.S. authorities have failed so far in giving the world solid and logical proof of OBL’s demise. The authorities have yet not released any video or photographs of the operation, thereby creating room for suspicion.
Analysts believe that, the incident may kick-start Obama’s election campaign, but the more mature minds within U.S. domestic circles ask for verifiable evidence of OBL’s killing, a failure to provide which may become a point of embarrassment for the Obama Administration in the days to come. The people of Pakistan have lot of questions from the Government, safeguarding the sovereignty being the top most.
The Way Forward
The Indo-US and Indo-Afghan Aspects.
After the demise of cold war and particularly in the post 9/11 scenario, U.S has been endeavoring to assign India, the role of regional policeman in the South Asia. It also wishes that Pakistan should submit to U.S desires without any pre-condition and even at the cost of its national interest. In the environments prevailing since the Mumbai terror attacks, Pakistan is being constrained to forfeit its independence and sovereignty to the Indo-US security arrangements in South Asia. With respect to India, Obama administration should adopt a realistic policy and compel it to stop its anti Pakistan subversive activities in FATA and Balochistan, implementing through its consulates and covert launching pads established all along the Pak-Afghan border. Apart from India, Israel and many other regional and extra regional countries are also contributing in these anti Pakistan terrorist activities in Pakistani territory. Being in physical control of Afghanistan, U.S must thwart these anti Pakistan forces to stop meddling into the affairs of Pakistan. Being the sole super power, it should act as a facilitator in resolving the root cause of the sixty two years conflict, rather protecting the Indian interests at the cost of UN resolutions and violations of human rights of over five million people of the Kashmir.
The Major Power Politics
Apart from this basic root cause, the ubiquitous instability in Pakistan is because of Afghan conflict and major power’s deep involvement in the affairs of the region. Even if today international community arranges closure of Pak-Afghan border and start discouraging the conspiracies against Pakistan by other countries, Pakistan would become internally most stable and economically well off a state without any foreign assistance like 1.5 billion annual aids in the world arena in a matter of few months.
Minimizing the Trust Deficit
There is a need that U.S should adopt a clear and balance policy towards Pakistan, which is based on mutual respect for the sovereignty of each other. Its policies should neither be governed through impulsive decisions made from time to time as a patch work nor should be driven by anti Pakistan lobbies sponsored by traditional enemies of Pakistan[59] . Over the last few years, there exists a great mistrust between the historical allies, therefore, U.S, as the real beneficiary of Pakistan’s contributions need to shore up the Pakistan’s commitment to counter terrorism on tangible terms by providing the needed weapons and equipment to Pakistani security forces on permanent basis, rather the fortnightly basis as being practiced specially with reference to surveillance equipments.
Sovereignty and Equality
Washington should demonstrate its long terms partnership with Pakistan on the basis of equality while maintaining the sovereignty of later at all costs. The episode of the post Soviet invasion of Afghanistan (1979-1989), should not be repeated, where Pakistan, under sanctions was left all alone to face the former Jihadists, now renamed as terrorists. U.S must play the long desired task of rehabilitation of the unemployed people of the disturbed tribal belt through establishment of human resource base and reconstruction opportunity zones in tribal areas.
Evade Public Rebukes
U.S should avoid public rebukes and threatening language, like imposition of sanctions or physically doing that. These are counterproductive acts and would only further the mistrust between the two. As a moral obligation, U.S should release all those consignments for which there exist basic agreements and pacts. Provision of F-16 aircrafts is one such aspect needs immediate resolve.
Securing Pakistan’s Regional Interests
U.S should help Pakistan in securing its regional interests[60] . By close partnership of India and Afghanistan, Pakistan fears a strategic encirclement by India. U.S should use its good offices to reduce the growing Indian involvement in Afghanistan and all along the Pak-Afghan border, which is ultimately aimed to destabilize Pakistan through the promotion of militancy.
Preventing Militant’s Intrusion into Pakistan
The coalition forces should stop the militant’s infiltration from Afghanistan into Pakistan. In the recent past U.S commanders in Afghanistan has accepted for the first time that there are clear signs that militants Taliban are frequently crossing over to Pakistani territory from Afghanistan. Moreover the country (Afghanistan) is in effect under their occupation since October 2001, therefore, the unchecked and boundless influx of these militants is further spreading the militancy and an insurgency like situation everywhere in Pakistan besides, tribal areas and Swat. It is not possible that security forces of Pakistan can reach everywhere in chasing these militants.
Blocking the Reinforcement of Militants
It is the moral duty of US and NATO to help ceasing the supply of the sophisticated arms and equipment and uninterrupted flow of finances to these militants, operating into Pakistani territory. This too has been accepted by U.S officials that weapons stolen from its forces in Afghanistan are being used by the militants in Pakistan; perhaps the one who cross over from Afghanistan to Pakistan for the militancy. Controlling these two aspects would surely reduce the militancy in the tribal belt to a substantial level with an apparent signal of sincerity from the coalition partners.
Re-visiting the AfPak Policy
In the words of Dr. Maleeha Lodhi, former Pakistani Ambassador to U.S and UK, “If the flawed concept of AfPak has achieved anything so far it is to unite the militants on both sides of the border in a new alliance to resist the impending military troop reinforcements in Afghanistan”. Therefore, the hazy AfPak policy, should be reviewed and reconciled for a logical forward-thinking while taking historical context of both countries in view. Afghanistan and Pakistan have different backgrounds, culture and values. A country under foreign occupation cannot be equated with a sovereign nuclear power of the world. Moreover the regional approach proposed in the AfPak policy, should include the countries having the geographical contiguity with Afghanistan without having any vested interests. The idea of “extended neighbourhood” should have no room in the proposed policy for obliging India.
Drone Attacks Dilemma
The coalition partners should let Pakistani security forces to operate against the militants within geographical limits of the country. Drone or any other attacks in Pakistani areas by U.S and NATO has only fuelled the militancy with enhancement in their strength as a retaliation as observed in the past. Otherwise US cannot be given a free hand to operate anywhere in the Pakistan and keep causing collateral damages in the form of killing of the innocent people, rather it should share the intelligence with security forces of Pakistan for taking punitive action by them. Washington must realize that peace cannot be achieved in Afghanistan or in the region without the help of Pakistan. And the people of Pakistan would never support any US action. Moreover allies should otherwise respect each other’s sovereignty. The speculations of expanding the US drone attacks to Balochistan, would deteriorate and escalate the situation to an unbearable level, therefore must not be exercised.
Backing for Economic and Human Development
It is a considered view that Pakistan has done more than its capacity for the cause of international community during the long eight years as a front line state in the GWOT. In the process and as vengeance, it has suffered a lot, both; security wise as well as economically. As an important step, instead of provision of $1.5 billion annual financial assistance to Pakistan, which otherwise is a peanut as compared to the financial losses the country has suffered ever since the commencement of GWOT, U.S and international community should help in the establishment of industrial and human resource bases where jobless local youth of the tribal area could get their employment opportunities. Pakistan has no capacity to be stretched anymore. International community should assist Pakistan in its enduring anti militant drive through cessation of militant’s infiltration from Afghanistan, impeding the cropping up of the anti Pakistan conspiracies and strengthening its economic base by encouraging foreign direct investment (FDI) and allowing Pakistani exports in international markets. After all the allies too have some moral obligations and responsibilities towards Pakistan; a country which always responded positively to the global calls even at the cost of its national interest.
Circumventing the Misperceptions
In the comity of nations, Pakistan has behaved as the most responsible, civilized and cooperative nation in its entire history. It is a highly responsible nuclear power, with a firm command and control system. In spite of militancy and mild nationalistic sentiments, today the nation stands united against militants, conspiracies being transpired from across the borders and challenges to its integrity and sovereignty. Therefore the global misperceptions like drawing the new regional maps, blood borders or news about collapse of Pakistan within six months must be strictly circumvented by the originators. Since most of these disinformations have their foundations in U.S, therefore, as a responsible super power, it should take note of all such imaginary scholars and so called think tanks which are mostly known for their conniver activities, rather as constructive and visionary contributions needed for the betterment of humanity or international community.
Conclusion
The birth of Pakistan in 1947 and the beginning of cold war coincided. The genesis of cold war was the emergent rivalry between Communist Soviet and Capitalist West. Two factors governed the subsequent history of Pakistan: firstly, the lack of democratic institutions, which lead to authoritarian and personalized way of governance and decision making with no long terms vision for the future of Pakistan. And secondly; a constant fear of Indian aggression along the eastern frontiers of Pakistan. Both factors pressed Pakistan to become a western ally under the umbrella of United States, which in the subsequent years drew it into the cauldron of the post imperialistic world.
In spite of the frequent ups and downs in the interest driven Pak-U.S alliance, over the period of time Pakistan became heavily dependent on U.S. The level of dependency reached to an extreme stage once in 1980s, Pakistan had to play a pivotal role of organizing Islamic Jihadist against Soviet invasion in Afghanistan, on behest of United State, which resulted into disintegration of USSR in 1990. Then there came a process of reversal and Islamic Jihadists become Islamic terrorists after 9/11. All actions from their creation to the current stage of divorce were undertaken through Pakistani geopolitics; mainly the Tribal belt, whose third generation is now paying the price of proxy wars.
In the aftermath of 9/11, Pakistan has played a role of front line state, in the so called global war on terror (GWOT). It has gone all out to facilitate the progress of operations of the coalition partners in Afghanistan by extending dedicated assistance like: logistics support through its territory from Arabian Sea to the Pak-Afghan border, sharing of intelligence and deployment of over 100,000 regular troops along the Pak-Afghan border to seal off any likely infiltration. This is the maximum assistance Pakistan could render.
Regretfully, instead of acknowledging and appreciating the Pakistani contributions, the U.S and other coalition partners have shown a deep mistrust over the former. Through the rhetoric like “do more” and by conducting drone attacks on innocent people, the sovereignty of Pakistan has been severely undermined. And now through AfPak policy, U.S is equating Pakistan with a foreign occupied country by giving more roles to Pakistan’s historical adversary (India), through regional approach. Pakistan is being pushed to the walls, with no option, except to quit the coalition with no more cooperation with U.S in the future. After all, it is a nuclear power with 170 million population and 7th largest Army; therefore, it cannot be over powered by any other country in the world.
End Notes
[1] Dennis Kux, The United States and Pakistan, 1947-2000 Disenchanted Allies, Oxford University Press New York, 2001. P. 15
[2] Ibid. p. 5
[3] Tauqeer H. Taki Sirgana, The Policy Role of the United States in South Asia; Constraints and Opportunities for Pakistan, Defence Journal, April 2009.
[4] Ibid.
[5] A Voyage of Discovery, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru’s speech in the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate, Washington D.C. October 13, 1949.
[6] Air Marshal (retd) Ayaz Ahmed Khan, Pak-US Ties: Past and Present, Defence Journal, March 2007.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Dennis Kux, The United States and Pakistan, 1947-2000 Disenchanted Allies, Oxford University Press New York, 2001. P. 26
[9] ibid
[10] Stephen Philip Cohen; The Idea of Pakistan, Brookings Institute Press; Washington D.C 2004.
[11] Stephen Philip Cohen, (ed), The Security of South Asia: American and Asian Perspectives, Vistaar Publications, New Delhi, 1988. P. 85.
[12] Stephen Philip Cohen, (ed), Nuclear Proliferation in South Asia; The Prospects for Arms Control, Lancer International, New Delhi, 1991. Pp.184-191.
[13] Leon T. Hadar; Pakistan in America’s War against Terrorism Strategic Ally or Unreliable Client? Policy Analysis, Number 36, Cato Institute, May 8, 2002.
[14] Dr. A. Z. Hilali; US-Pakistan Relationship: Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan , Ashgate Publishing Company, England, 2005.pp. 32-35.
[15] Air Marshal (retd) Ayaz Ahmed Khan, Pak-US Ties: Past and Present, Defence Journal, March 2007.
[16] Ibid. P46.
[17] Ibid. p 46.
[18] Khaled Ahmed; Pakistan: The State in Crisis, Vanguard Karachi; 2002. P.28.
[19] Soofia Mumtaz , Jean Luc Racine and Imran Anwar Ali (ed); Pakistan: The Contours of State and Society, Oxford University Press; New York , 2002.pp. 252-257.
[20] Lawrence Ziring; Pakistan: At the Crosscurrent of history, Manas Publications New Delhi, 2005.
[21] Brigadier (retd) S Raza Ali, The Shadow War: The Great Game Replayed, Defence Journal, March 2009.
[22] Dennis Kux, The United States and Pakistan, 1947-2000 Disenchanted Allies, Oxford University Press New York, 2001. P. 112-113. > Quoted in Michael Beschloss, Mayday; Eisenhower, Khrushchev and the U-2 Affairs; New York: Harper and Row, 1986. P 60.
[23] Ibid. p.113
[24] Leon T. Hadar; Pakistan in America’s War against Terrorism Strategic Ally or Unreliable Client? Policy Analysis, Number 36, Cato Institute, May 8, 2002.
[25] Brigadier (retd) S Raza Ali, The Shadow War: The Great Game Replayed, Defence Journal, March 2009.
[26] Zahid Hussain; Frontline Pakistan; The Struggle with Militant Islam, Penguin Viking, New Delhi, 2007.p.185.
[27] Ibid.p. 186.
[28] Mohammad Ahsen Chaudhri; Pakistan and the Great Powers, Royal Book Company, Karachi, 2000. Pp. 30-31.
[29] Guardian, October 13, 2007.
[30] International Herald Tribune June 26, 1992.
[31] Hafeez Malik, U.S Relations with Afghanistan and Pakistan; The Imperial Dimension, Oxford University Press, New York; 2008. P.9.
[32] Ibid. p.xv.
[33] Ibid.
[34] An informal interview with Brig (retd) Naeem Salik, former Director of SPD, June 30, 2009.
[35] Ralph Peters, Blood Borders: How A Better Middle East Would Look, AFJ Armed Forces Journal, July 2006.
[36] ‘386 civilians died in 300 drone attacks’, Dawn, October 16, 2011, accessed at http://www.dawn.com/2011/10/16/386-civilians-died-in-300-drone-attacks.html
[37] See above
[38] Daily Dawn, August 18, 2011.
[39] ‘The Obama Administration and International Law’, U.S. Department of State, March 25, 2010, accessed at http://www.state.gov/s/l/releases/remarks/139119.htm
[40] Rafia Zakaria, ‘Are drone attacks legal?’, Dawn, March 31, 2010, accessed at http://archives.dawn.com/archives/18762
[41] Jay Solomon, Siobhan Gorman and Matthew Rosenberg; U.S. Plans New Drone Attacks in Pakistan, The Wall Street Journal, March 26, 2009.
[42] Ibid.
[43] http://www.bobtuskin.com/2011/08/11/168-pakistani-kids-killed-by-us-strikes.
[44] Ibid.
[45] Ibid.
[46] Robert Haddick, ‘This Week at War: Petraeus’s Next Campaign’, Foreign Policy, July 15, 2011, accessed at http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/07/15/this_week_at_war_petraeus_s_next_campaign
[47] Alice Ross, Drones: Untangling the Data, The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, August 10, 2011.
[48] John Prados; No Exit? The AfPak Paradox, Counterpunch, April 8, 2009.
[49] Reza Pirbhai; New Rhetoric for Old Wine?, Osama’s Afghanistan Plan and India-Pakistan Relations; Counter Punch, April 10-12, 2009.
[50] Scott Lucas; How Many Troops is enough?, The Guardian, April 9, 2009.
[51] Maleeha Lodhi; Perils and Possibilities of Obama Plan, Khaleej Times, April 9, 2009.
[52] Dr. Raja Muhammad Khan, Unfolding AfPak Policy, Pakistan Observer, July 18, 2011.
[53] ‘Afghan border areas terror heavens: Pakistan’, The Nation/ANN, July 15, 2011, accessed at http://business.asiaone.com/print/News/AsiaOne%2BNews/World/Story/A1Story20110715-289322.html
[54] ‘Militant safe heavens in Afghanistan, says ISPR’, Dawn, July 15, 2011, accessed at http://www.dawn.com/2011/07/15/militant-safe-havens-in-afghanistan-says-ispr.html
[55] Robert Haddick, This Week at War: Petraeus’s Next Campaign, Small Wars Journal, July 15, 2011. Available at, http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/this-week-at-war-petraeuss-next-campaign.
[56] Robert Haddick, This Week at War: Petraeus’s Next Campaign, Small Wars Journal, July 15, 2011. Available at, http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/this-week-at-war-petraeuss-next-campaign.
[57] Baqir Sajjad Syed, ‘Kayani orders probe into intel failure, seeks cut in US personnel’ Dawn, May 6, 2011, accessed at http://www.dawn.com/2011/05/06/kayani-orders-probe-into-intel-failure-seeks-cut-in-us-personnel.html
[58] Press Briefing by Senior Administration Officials on the Killing of Osama Bin Laden, White House, May 2, 2011, transcript accessed at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/05/02/press-briefing-senior-administration-officials-killing-osama-bin-laden
[59] Daniel Markey, A False Choice in Pakistan; Foreign Affairs, volume 86, number 4; July/ August -2007.pp. 96-98.
[60] Ibid. p. 99.
