Usa Pakistan Relations

UNITED STATES’ INTERESTS IN SOUTH ASIA – IMPLICATIONS FOR REGIONAL SECURITY AND PAKISTAN
[pic]

Introduction 1. After the events of 11 September, there has been a major transformation of US thinking. Combating international terrorism has now become the single-point focus of her attention. Other short and long term US objectives in South and Central Asian region could be to control natural resources, to contain China, to uproot Islamic fundamentalism in the region and other than economic gains keep a watch on Pakistan’s strategic assets. 2. South Asia is one of the major markets for the US arms in the world due to the ongoing conflicts between major countries of the region. The geographical location of the region and existence of important sea lines of communication (SLOCs) also increase her military interests in the region. The US’ security concerns in South Asia are more pronounced after the advent of two rival nuclear powers in the region and Kashmir as potential flashpoint between them, discoveries of nuclear trafficking and the growth of terrorism[i]. 3. A superpower conducts its foreign policy within the global context; its policies aim at containment of its rival powers and the expansion of its own orbit of influence[ii]. In pursuit of her strategic interests, the United States adopted a wholesome approach encompassing military intervention and economic reconstruction of affected regions / sub regions. 4. In this article an effort has been made to analyse the US changing interests in South Asia with a view to study the implications for the region in general and Pakistan in particular.
Aim
5. To bring under the sharp focus the United States’ interests in South Asia with a view to examine implications for regional security and Pakistan.
Scope
6. The article will unfold as under: - a. Part – I Significance of South Asia. b. Part – II United States’ interests in South Asia c. Part – III US approach to attain her strategic interests. d. Part – IV Analysis of implications for regional security and Pakistan e. Part – V Recommendations

PART – I
SIGNIFICANCE OF SOUTH ASIA “Asia is rich in people, rich in culture and rich in resources. It is also rich in trouble.”
Hubert H. Humphrey[iii]

Geostrategic Location 7. The South Asian region is one of the most densely populated regions around the globe. It lies on the junction between South East Asia, the Middle East and Central Asia. China, Central Asia and Russia are towards the north of South Asia. On its south western side it provides access to the Persian Gulf while on south eastern side it provides an access to the Malaccan Strait. Indian Ocean on its south has remained strategically important during the Cold War. Its importance has further increased after the establishment of US base at Diego Garcia[iv], just south of Maldives[v]. 8. Overt nuclearisation of the region and post 9/11 scenario has further enhanced its importance. India is aspiring to be the sole regional power, vying for a permanent seat in UNSC. Whereas, Pakistan has also been able to project herself as an important player in the region due to its status as a front line state in the war against terrorism and being the only Muslim country having nuclear capability.
South Asian Economy 9. South Asia stands on the brink of becoming a major economic and military power. The region’s economy is rapidly growing and many multinational firms depend on it.[vi] South Asia also affords great economic opportunities for the United States. Within South Asia, the United States views India as the most promising partner which can check China’s growing economic strength. In bilateral terms, the United States – India nexus would yield more economic benefits for the United States as compared to India. The United States has the advantage of access to cheap labour, expansion of her defence industry and availability of broad based free market. India would benefit in fields of commercial aircraft manufacture, ship building, factories to make giant power plants, steel making plants, mining and drilling hardware and petrochemical plant building facilities.
Global War on Terrorism “Americans have a right to grieve and remember those who died on 9/11,” wrote Gary Young in the Guardian News. “But they have no monopoly on memory, grief or anger. Hundreds and thousands of innocent Afghanis, Iraqis and Pakistanis have been murdered as a result of America’s response to 9/11”[vii] 10. South Asia, on account of a number of factors, has been at the centre stage in this global war on terrorism. First[viii], the alleged suspects of these attacks were traced back to Afghanistan. The propinquity with a Taliban-ruled Afghanistan brought the war on terrorism to the doorstep of South Asia as Pakistan shares border with Afghanistan and had formal diplomatic relations with Afghanistan. Secondly, the reliable intelligence, ability to launch air strikes from adjoining Pakistani airbases, made Pakistan and therefore South Asia an important ally in global war on terrorism. Thirdly, the danger of nuclear terrorism and nuclear proliferation with a concern that nuclear weapons may fall in the hands of non state actors due to the presence of strong radical elements in a nuclear South Asia.
Balance of Power – Regional / Global 11. China’s rise represents the key driver in the changing security landscape in Asia. China is now attracting regional states with its economic power and is offering a competing vision to the United States-centric “hub and spoke” system of alliances. China’s more active involvement in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization is believed to be her attempt to develop an alternative security group to the United States’ security partnerships in the region[ix]. China’s increasing economic, diplomatic, and military strength is compelling countries to rethink existing security arrangements and take initial steps that may lead to the formation of regional groupings of nations with common interests and values. On the other hand, the US is developing her relations with other regional players particularly India to counter weight China. The nexus between the US and India is viewed with concern by Pakistan, Iran, China and to some extent Russia. In the given situation, it is likely that these states find it an opportune moment to enter into alliance to counter the threat posed by the US – India strategic partnership. 12. Military Power Potentials. Eight of the world’s top 25 spenders on defense are in Asia[x]. While the US is concerned over China’s expanding military capabilities, it is developing closer ties with India, a state that has one of the most rapidly expanding defense budgets in Asia. China’s military modernization has two main drivers; one with a clear operational objective (Taiwan) and the other with a clear strategic objective (to build a modern military). 13. New Great Game.[xi] It focused on containing and curbing the forces the US considered threat to its global ambitions. First of all, Washington betrayed the Afghan mujahedeen, who had won the war for it against the Soviets, and in return it induced a civil war because a radical Islamic government in Afghanistan was considered as a threat to its interests. Then hastily, the US took on the Iraqis in 1991, who had emerged stronger after the Iran-Iraq war. Later, it turned towards Somalia and encouraged its neighbours to invade the country and finally brought about a regime change. While the ‘New Great Game’ was being implemented, the 9/11 attack filled the American hearts with revenge. Afghanistan was invaded because it had committed the unforgivable sin on sheltering Osama bin Laden, whom reportedly American themselves had funded and supported against the Soviets.

PART – II
UNITED STATES’ INTERESTS IN SOUTH ASIA
General
14. South Asia, which was long considered a “strategic backwater” from Washington’s perspective, has emerged in the 21st Century as increasingly vital to core US foreign policy interests, according to the Congressional Research Service (CRS). In its updated report on US-India relations, the CRS says India, the region’s dominant actor with more than one billion citizens, is now recognised as a nascent major power and “natural partner” of the United States, one that many analysts view as a potential counterweight to China’s growing clout. Washington and New Delhi have since 2004 been pursuing a “strategic partnership” based on shared values such as democracy, multiculturalism, and rule of law.[xii] 15. South Asia faces many challenges – mainly terrorism, nuclear proliferation, democratization and poverty. Presently, the US policy pursues a multi-pronged strategy in South Asia comprising counterterrorism, economic integration and building foundations of democracy[xiii] where Pakistan has been acting as key frontline state in the Global War against Terror since 9/11.[xiv] A clear understanding of US interests in the region as a whole will lead us to the basis of its relations with Pakistan, China and India and then the areas of convergence and divergence purely motivated by its own interests. US interests in South Asia were defined by Clinton’s administration. The clearest definition came from the Assistant Secretary of State Jhon Malott in April 1993 when he delivered a statement to the US Congress on American policy in South Asia which was called “Even Handed Approach”. This approach can be translated into five fundamental objectives[xv]:- a. Prevention of War. The first and foremost objective is to prevent any war in the region and spread of the weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and their means of delivery. Any armed conflict in South Asia cannot be regarded as regional one when both Pakistan and India are declared nuclear states. US have high economic stakes in India and China and can ill afford any war between the two countries. b. Support Economic Reforms. After the end of Cold War the geo-political notion on the alliances have been replaced by geo-strategic and geo-economic notions. South Asia is expected to become world’s most populous area and potentially the largest market in the near future. The economies of these countries are becoming more attractive to foreign investments as they continue to liberalise their policies. Thus US interest remains seeking expanded economic cooperation, lifting trade barriers and allowing a free market economy in the South Asian countries. c. Democracy. Democracy has assumed a greater importance in the eyes of US policy makers. It offers best chance for the US to protect its national interests in the region, just for example, a relatively free economic system seems necessary to the transition of democracy; market economies tend to flourish in democratic settings. d. Militancy. Religious militancy has been put high on US foreign policy objectives towards South Asia. US feels concerned over the armed Islamic groups in Pakistan and increase in ethnic and sectarian violence. e. Drugs and Narcotics. Continued expansion of narcotics production and associated drug culture mainly in Pakistan and Afghanistan holds out threats to economic distortion and social disruption that impact far outside the region. Drug exports to the Central Asian states are presenting a more serious problem than export of Islamic fundamentalism.
US Primary Interests in South Asia 16. Containment of China. China borders thirteen countries with a population of 1.3 billion people. Overall, the future ascension of China to a great power status is inevitable if it follows its current economic and military course. While it will be many years before China poses a threat to US interests in Asia, US policy makers have already begun planning on how to counter China’s growing power. Beijing has interpreted the strengthening of US-Japan security alliance, US-Indian strategic partnership, increased US presence in the Asia-pacific region and efforts to expand NATO as manifestation of Washington’s strategy.[xvi] China is trying to undo the shackles in South Asia by developing Gwadar and Chittagong ports to radiate its influence. China uses Pakistan as a strategic pressure point against the United States.[xvii] 17. Control of Indian Ocean. The Indian Ocean provides major sea routes connecting the Middle East, Africa, and East Asia with Europe and the Americas. Developing countries bordering the Ocean, however, seek to have it made a "zone of peace" so that they may use its shipping lanes freely, though the United Kingdom and the US interest is to keep the sea lines of communication open for oil supplies to east Asia and Europe. Not only the US ‘unipolar’ hegemony in the Indian Ocean facing a challenge, but the strategic triad US-Western Europe-Japan, which has ruled the international political economy for the past few decades is now under question.
US Economic Interests 18. US share many interests with the countries of the region. A commitment to free markets is relatively new, but economic reform has strong intellectual support, and there is a growing middle class committed to opening the economies of the region. South Asia offers great economic opportunities to the US. The region ensures massive expansion of consumer borrowing, thus allows the US to maintain her economic power. Important sectors of interest for the US include energy, information technology (IT) and arms sale.

19. Interests of US Multinationals[xviii] a. US Multinationals have been an important determinant of US foreign policy. The functioning of a National Economic Council at the apex level parallel to the National Security Council is indicative of the high priority given to US economic interests. b. In South Asia, India’s size, its vast market, industrial infrastructure and economic potential as compared to the smaller nations of the region, would ensure her primacy today in US multinational’s plans, and hence in US foreign policy. The economic and strategic potential of India’s IT industry and its dovetailing with US businesses are an irresistible draw. c. Even in the comparative China-India context India is gradually gaining ground it terms of investment with special reference to IT. China’s heartland is saturated with US, Japanese and South Korean investments. China’s current drive for foreign investments in her western region, i.e., Xinjiang etc for strategic reasons, may not allure US investments - the reason being that political stability of these peripheral regions of China despite rigid Chinese control, is not assured. 20. US Tilt Towards India. If India is important to American foreign policy, then opening the economy should be Washington 's first priority in India. Plans and ideas of mutual cooperation in defense, space, and environmental protection all depend on India having the resources to carry out its side of the bargain. Many economists, both within India and abroad, predict high growth levels in the decades ahead that will propel India to "great power" status. The U.S. economy is already closely intertwined with the Indian service sector, and the growing Indian middle class provides a huge market for American businesses and investors. Without continued progress in economic liberalization, India 's potential will remain unrealized.20[xix]
US Military Interests 21. Defence Collaboration with India. The framework agreement on India-US Defence Relations is a major step to harness India to serve the US strategic goals in Asia. Special relationship between New Delhi and Washington has been elevated to a higher level by the Indian government by signing of the Framework Defence Agreement. The 10-year agreement was signed during the visit of Defence Minister Pranab Mukherjee to Washington[xx]. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, during her recent visit, challenged India to expand its traditional sphere of interest from South Asia to neighboring regions to compete with increasing Chinese assertiveness. Clinton sought to nudge India to project its influence eastward, toward China 's backyard in Southeast Asia and the Pacific Rim, as well as boost engagement in Central Asia, on China 's western flank. She said the U.S. and India shared values that made them powerful partners in promoting security, democracy and development in these areas.[xxi] 22. US Naval Interests in India. India 's strategic location in the Indian Ocean, astride the Sea Lanes of Communication (SLOC) linking West Asia and East Asia, makes India attractive to the US military.[xxii] The US Navy wants a relatively neutral territory on the other side of the world to provide ports and bases to support operations in West Asia. India possesses the necessary infrastructure for providing this support. 23. Indian Bases. The US military hopes to gain access to not only Indian bases and ports, but also its training facilities. India has a variety of terrains, from ice-clad mountains to desert, and this would help the US as its military training facilities are shrinking and becoming increasingly controversial in the US[xxiii]. 24. Maintain Deterrence for China.[xxiv] Chinese strategists are concerned about India 's intentions and its collaborations with US. In "Will India Become a New Barrier to Obstruct China?" Lan Jianxue of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences voices his suspicions that the U.S. will use India as a "potential balancing force against China." The Nuclear deal has been signed by India and the US as part of the Indo-US Agreement. Indo-US nuclear deal comes at a time when the US is actively working to contain China. The US approach manifested in this agreement is to prop up India as a counterweight.[xxv] 25. Defence Procurement by India. To support its defense industry, US has been offering India to buy its weapons and equipment. India has also been interested to buy some US weapon systems like Patriot missiles, AWACS, UAVs etc. These purchases are in the interest of both India and US. 26. Cooperate with Major Armies in the Region. US keeps ascertaining the state of military preparedness of countries in various regions including South Asia. This gives it state of preparedness and combat efficiency of a nation’s army. As the South Asian armies are the major contributors to the UN peace keeping forces, cooperation of US forces with these armies facilitates their joint employment around the globe.
PART – III
US APPROACH TO ATTAIN HER STRATEGIC INTERESTS
Approach in General 27. America is a corporate entity from government down to private environment. A corporate system thrives on competition and in every sphere of life there is a cut-throat competition. US uphold the law, but supports dictators; they preach justice but see it one way only and use intimidating tactics to run it that way. [xxvi] The accusations against the security establishment of Pakistan after the discovery of Bin Laden in Abbotabad add to Pakistan 's discomfiture. [xxvii] So to say, the twisting of facts and coercive diplomacy have been the hallmark of US approach to attain her interests.
South Asia – Nuclear Standoff 28. South Asia remains a potential nuclear flashpoint between Pakistan and India due to numerous unresolved issues including the Kashmir and water disputes. Any conflict between Pakistan and India that may lead into a nuclear exchange, contradicts the United States’ strategic interests. Therefore, the United States encourages maintenance of a bilateral cease-fire and continued, substantive dialogue between Pakistan and India.

US Arm-twisting and Reverberations 29. 11 September 2001 provided a justification to the United States for waging a war without borders[xxviii]. Project for the New American Century, presented in a document titled Rebuilding America 's Defences in September 2000[xxix] clearly spells out United States’ aspiration for global hegemony. If the US wants to disengage from Afghanistan in an orderly manner, it needs Pakistan 's help. An upset Pakistan military will not provide that. Thus the stoppage of US assistance of $800m to the military for its past operations is bizarre. In the 140th Corps Commander 's meeting the military has decided not to seek further US assistance in the war on terror.[xxx]
Af-Pak Policy 30. On 27 March 2009, President Barack Obama unveiled a new strategy to deal with the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan with the primary goal to disrupt, dismantle and defeat Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan[xxxi]. According to this policy, the future of Afghanistan is inextricably linked with the future of Pakistan[xxxii]. The Kerry Lugar Bill was made in the backdrop of the same policy which was met with strong opposition in Pakistan as it was felt to be interference in the sovereignty of the country. The linking of Afghanistan with Pakistan has serious effects on Pakistan and was perceived to enhance American interference in the country. The US policymaking establishment has lost direction in the Af-Pak region and has begun making ill-considered decisions that will harm the chances of peace in the region. More sanity needs to prevent in US-Pakistan relations, if the US exit from Afghanistan is to be orderly.[xxxiii] The incidents of Raymond Davis and killing of Osama Bin Laden have acted extremely negatively for already dipped down Pak-US relations.
United States – India Strategic Partnership 31. The US – India Defence Deal. On 28 June 2005, a deal was signed between the US and India, aimed at expanding defence trade, improving cooperation between their armed forces, and co-producing military hardware[xxxiv]. On 2 March 2006, the US and India reiterated their intention to build the foundation of a durable defence relationship that would continue to support their common strategic and security interests. They agreed on Maritime Security Cooperation, expanding scope of counterterrorism cooperation, mutual logistic support, defence trade and nonproliferation[xxxv]. 32. US – India Nuclear Deal. Nuclear deal between the United States and India was approved by Congress on 1 October 2008[xxxvi]. It provides for United States’ assistance to India 's civilian nuclear energy programme. At the same time, it fundamentally reverses half a century of United States’ nonproliferation efforts, undermines attempts to prevent states like Iran and North Korea from acquiring nuclear weapons, and potentially contributes to a nuclear arms race in Asia.
US Approach towards China 33. The US treats China as a mega power to be held in check before it becomes the dominant force in the region[xxxvii]. India, due to her growing economic and military potentials, is enlisted to work with the US to offer a strategic counterweight to China, in the United States’ policy of containment towards China. 34. Taiwan Issue[xxxviii]. For Beijing, the Taiwan issue has turned into an irritant to its rise as a great power. The US has been supporting Taiwan for last 50 years to contain China. The United States continues to support Taiwan with the weapons and equipment to “keep Taiwan’s needs for necessary defense capacity”. Recently, the United States announced plans to sell advanced weapons to Taiwan. 35. Tibet Issue. For more than 700 years, China has continuously exercised sovereignty over Tibet. No country has ever recognized Tibet as an independent state. Dalai Lama clique provided an opportunity to some anti-China forces to discredit China on issues related to human rights and religious freedom. In the recent past, President Obama’s met the Dalai Lama at the White House which received resilient response from China[xxxix].
Safeguarding Sea Lanes of Communication (SLOCS) 36. Concern over sea lanes and chokepoint security has abated considerably since the end of the Cold War. Now, however, the threats to maritime chokepoints stem less from direct attack than from indirect threats such as piracy, collisions, and regional instability. When taken together, these indirect threats to a natural resource can impede passage through maritime trade routes or make them economically scarce and subject them to a greater likelihood of conflict.[xl] 37. At present, forty percent of the worlds’ oil and commerce pass through the Indian Ocean. Any blockade of these sea lanes would directly affect the United States. In order to thwart the posed threat, the United States has finalized an agreement with India on Maritime Security Cooperation to ensure a secure maritime domain. Furthermore, presence of United States’ forces in and around Indian Ocean also enhances the security of sea lanes. At present there are a total of six United States naval bases in Asia namely NSA Bahrain, Diego Garcia, NSA Sasebo, NAF Atsugi, NSA Yokosuka and NSA Chinhae, which substantially safeguard United States’ interests with regard to sea lines of communication.
PART – IV
ANALYSIS
IMPLICATION FOR REGIONAL SECURITY AND PAKISTAN
Security Concerns of South Asia 38. It is questionable whether Afghanistan deserved retribution for 9/11 in the first place. Of the 19 hijackers involved in the 9/11 attacks, 15 were from Saudi Arabia, one was Egyptian, another Lebanese and two were from the UAE. None of them were from either Afghanistan or Pakistan. However, Americans ire fell primarily on Afghanistan and Iraq, while Pakistan was also deeply affected.[xli] The security situation in South Asia is brittle due to numerous factors. First and foremost is the pursuit of domination by one state over the other which is a recipe for instability. Second, the prevailing asymmetry between larger and smaller states of South Asia, in terms of economy and military forces promotes distrust and leads to destabilization. Third, the Kashmir dispute which remains contentious between the two nuclear rivals. Fourth, the security situations of adjacent regions vis-à-vis relations of the regional states with external powers or adjacent regions. Fifth, the United States’ asymmetrical approach in the region, seeking to build up India as a counterweight to China, compounds the tension in South Asia. 39. US’s Motives. The 9/11 attacks lend the United States an invaluable pretext for attacking Afghanistan in a war that had clearly been planned in advance. It allowed the United States to proceed for a strategy in accordance with her global ambitions. The overriding motivation for this political façade was that the United States was beginning to run out of secure hydrocarbon energy supplies. The increasing demand was leading to increasing dependence on foreign oil supplies for the United States. 40. Effects on South Asia. The United States led war on terror has made the region highly unstable. First, instability in Afghanistan did not remain confined within the Afghan borders; rather it spread into the neighboring states particularly Pakistan. The second factor of instability is related to the Indian efforts to manipulate the situation in her favor. India tried to brand the self-determination movement in Kashmir as a terrorist movement and accused Pakistan of supporting cross border terrorism to portray it as a state sponsoring terrorism.
Post Osama Bin Laden Pak – US Relation 41. Relations between Pakistan and the US and cooperation between their militaries are at their lowest ebb. As matters now stand, Pakistanis suspect that the US is contemplating coercive actions that may reduce levels of friendship with that country. If that happens, it will mean that Osama bin Laden 's strategy for bringing nearer the 'battle of Khorasan ' would have succeeded. [xlii] From the cosy bear hug of the Bush-Musharraf era to a short-lived but vibrant bonhomie between Shah Mehmud Qureshi and Hillary Clinton, and meetings between General Kayani and Petraeus, to the eyeball-to-eyeball confrontation of spymasters, Panetta and General Pasha, the official Pakistan-US relationship has nosedived sharply, since the removal of Osama bin Laden.[xliii]
Reverberations on US – India Strategic Partnership 42. Pakistan – US Relations. Interstate relations with America are akin to living on a river bank that changes its course every four years, leaving the other party either in flood or drought. However, in case of Pakistan these relations function on day to day basis with each side issuing ‘to-do lists’ frequently. Nevertheless, stresses caused by this sort of perpetual ‘breathing down the neck’ approach causes frequent ruptures. [xliv] Pakistan’s commitment to help the US achieve its objectives in the region at the perils of its own security was based on the premise that in return the United States would ensure safeguarding Pakistan’s security interests in the region. The US – India strategic cooperation, aimed at making India a global military power rebuts any such presumption by Pakistan. This could impact strategic thinking within Pakistan thus forcing it to re-evaluate its strategic priorities and work on the contingencies in which Pakistan may seek alliances other than with the United States. 43. US – China Relations. China perceives that the United States, instead of pursuing a globalisation based on equality and mutual respect, is seeking Americanisation. China vehemently opposes the idea of "hegemony" in any world order and instead supports "multi polarity" of power. China has her reservations on the United States nuclear and defence deals and perceives that the enhanced defence cooperation between the United States and India would go beyond the balance of power in the region. 44. Indo – Russian Relations. The United States – India strategic partnership does have its effects on Indo – Russian relations. In November 2007, Indian Ministers for External Affairs and Defence were unable to meet Russian Foreign Minister and the President which was a significant departure from past precedents. This was a clear message to India showing Russian displeasure on growing relations between the United States and India. Russia has strategic leverages over India in terms of her predominantly Russian-origin military inventories. Despite this fact, India endorsed a deal for fighter aircraft with the United States. The deal valued more than $10 billion which was not received well by Russia.

Control of Sea Lanes of Communication (SLOCs) 45. The Indian Ocean is home to important SLOCs and maritime choke points. A large volume of international long haul maritime cargo from the Persian Gulf, Africa and Europe transits through this ocean. Some of the primary items transported are energy products - mainly oil and gas. Closure of the Strait of Hormuz practically cuts off Gulf supplies to the East altogether and also affects the West considerably. Similarly, the closure of the Straits of Malacca can seriously threaten the economies of Southeast Asia and the energy intensive economies of China and Japan. The security and control of SLOCs in the region also figures out as a major US military interest in South Asia.[xlv]
Military Balance 46. On the face of it, the United States’ approach towards South Asia and China appears to be based on maintaining the balance of power but in actual context it would go beyond the balance, thereby lending a power advantage to the United States. Defence agreement between the United States and India is a start point, which may help the United States to ensure counter balance for China. However, in case of Pakistan, it would tilt the conventional military balance in favour of India. Equally United States – India nuclear agreement, once implemented, would enable India to make quantitative and qualitative improvement in its nuclear arsenal.
PART – V
RECOMMENDATIONS
General 47. Generally, Pakistan’s decision of supporting the US against Taliban turned out to be the beginning of a short term solution for long term problems. Dedicated efforts should be made to transform our existing tactical relations with USA into long term strategic relations. This can only be done if we remain relevant to their interests in the region, through a broad based engagement. Being constantly mindful of her power potential, Pakistan must learn to pursue her national interests “by riding the waves rather than fighting them”. 48. Economic Stability. The major motive for the United States to develop strategic relations with India was Indian growing economy. Without a strong economic base Pakistan would never be in a position to have her say. Pakistan has the potentials but a deliberate execution policy is needed. Pakistan should exploit the opportunities not only with the United States but also with other countries including Central Asian States, China, Russia, France and Japan etcetera. 49. Nuclear Capability. Pakistan’s nuclear weapons are perceived as ticking time bombs against the security of the US, not because Pakistan intends to attack the US but because the Americans donot believe in taking chances in the post-September 11 world.[xlvi] Whether the next US target is North Korea, Iran or Syria, there is no doubt that Pakistan would be dealt with at appropriate moment, simply because a nuclear Pakistan doesnot fit in the equation of the ‘Global Pax-Americana’[xlvii]. In the wake of nuclear deal between the United States and India, Pakistan does have minimum strategic deterrence with sufficient capability to meet current and future challenges. However, in terms of conventional balance, India would be at an increasingly advantageous position in the future. To counter this conventional military imbalance, Pakistan has two options, which are; either increase in defense expenditure in order to maintain some sort of conventional parity, or increase reliance on nuclear deterrent and re-evaluate minimum deterrent posture. 50. Civil Nuclear Facilities. India is not a signatory of nuclear non proliferation treaty but civil nuclear facilities are being extended to her. Basing on this, Pakistan should also seek civil nuclear deal to meet her energy requirements. In case the United States does not enter into such a deal for Pakistan, alternatives like China and Russia should be pursued. Furthermore, Pakistan should also look for civil nuclear deals with other member countries of Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) who have nuclear technology on offer. 51. Indigenous Defence Capability. Pakistan should improve her indigenous conventional defence capability, thus reducing dependence on the United States and other countries. New avenues for transfer of technology and collaboration may be sought with countries in Europe. 52. Technical Education. It is a strong industrial base that affords a strong economic base. For industrial progress, technologically skilled manpower is a pre requisite. Instead of asking for financial assistance, Pakistan should encourage international investors to set up globally recognized technical institutions in Pakistan. 53. Trust Deficit. Pakistan should maintain a balanced and friendly relationship with the United States. The major impediment is a trust deficit that continues to characterise the relations between the two countries. The trust deficiency can not be attributed to a single state but it has developed over a period for which both counties are responsible. Hence, both the states have to play their own role to bridge this gap. Furthermore, Pakistan has to maintain its relevance in the security calculus of the United States, without which the bilateral relations may not last for long. 54. Pak – China Friendship. China is a time tested friend. This friendship holds great importance for both the countries and is priceless in terms of common interests. Pakistan’s relations with the United States should not affect Pak-China friendship. The United States policy toward South Asia and her strategic partnership with India affords an opportunity for Pakistan and China to transform their relations into strategic alliance. Thus, countering growing United States’ influence in the region and Indian global aspirations. 55. Relations with European Union. A secure and stable Pakistan is of great interest to European Union due to its trade potentials. The most promising sectors for European Union exports include oil and gas (exploration and transportation), agro-industry, information technology, textile machinery, gem mining, precious and semi-precious stone cutting, franchising, consumer goods and environmental technologies. Pakistan should endeavour to develop a strategically focused partnership with European Union embracing security, humanitarian and development assistance. 56. Relations with Muslim World. Pakistan is a moderate Muslim country that has constructive influence in the Persian Gulf and the Middle East; a region with which United States needs better relations. Pakistan is the most powerful Muslim country in the world, in terms of military strength. Pakistan is considered as both the vanguard and backbone of Islamic world as described by King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. Pakistan needs to maintain her leading position in the Muslim world. To some extent, it would ensure Pakistan’s importance for the United States in particular and global powers in general. 57. Relations With Iran and Afghanistan. Pakistan must take concrete steps for normalization and establishment of friendly relations with Iran and Afghanistan. Pakistan must consider the possibility of entering into some defence pact with Iran adding to its defensive capability. 58. Civilian Nuclear Technology. Pakistan should try to get civilian nuclear technology from China. It may not be technologically matching American technology but something is better than nothing. 59. Regional Alliances. Pakistan, for most of its military and economic needs, has remained dependant on the United States. There is a need to break this shell and Pakistan should look forward to developing stronger relations with other regional powers like Russia and China. In this regard, Pakistan should seek membership of Shanghai Cooperation Organization or some other security arrangements with Russia and China. 60. Kashmir Issue. India links the Kashmiri struggle to cross-border terrorism. We need to counter this propaganda but not from a defensive posture. Instead, we must distinguish between terrorism and freedom struggles, something that the United Nations also does, and insist that India should accept deployment of more international observers on the Line of Control as well as in Indian Held Kashmir. America’s growing association with India should be exploited to achieve this end.
Conclusion
61. Today’s world is a complex combination of cooperation in one area and disagreement in the other. When the pull of the national interests is more, it overcomes the centrifugal forces of discard. US relations with South Asian countries are no exception in the contemporary scenario. 62. South Asia is a region that stands on the brink of becoming a major economic and military power. A little over a decade ago South Asia was regarded by the United States as a third-class backwater. Today this attitude has largely dissipated. It is not only Pakistan 's and India 's nuclear capabilities that have drawn the attention of the United States and other developed nations, but also the region 's rapidly growing economy.[xlviii] 63. The United States strategy in South Asia is, and was, derived from its global strategy, which sought to strengthen its ability to direct affairs in all areas of the world and prevent any major power from challenging its leadership[xlix]. The pattern of US relations with South Asian countries is likely to follow the counters the “economic interests” rather than Cold War friendship. Given the present state of affairs, Pakistan does not surface very high unless we put our house in order and do not just bank on America for every bail-out. “The devil you know is better than the one you don’t.”[l]
-----------------------
END NOTES
[i] John E. Peters, War and Escalation in South Asia. (Santa Monica: RAND Corporation, 2006), p. 57.
[ii] Hasan Askari Rizvi, “United States – India Relations Following the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan” Pakistan Journal of American Studies, 1999, p 19.
[iii] http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/keywords/asia.html. Accessed on 30 July 2011
[iv] Diego Garcia is a tropical, footprint-shaped coral atoll located south of the equator in the central Indian Ocean at 7 degrees, 26 minutes south latitude. It is part of the British Indian Ocean Territory [BIOT] and is positioned at 72°23 ' east longitude. The atoll is approximately 1,800 nautical miles (3,300 km) east of the African coast and 1,200 nautical miles (2,200 km) south of the southern tip of India. Diego Garcia lies at the southernmost tip of a long chain of coral reefs, atolls, and islands comprising the Laccadives, Maldives, and the Chagos Archipelago, in which Diego Garcia is geographically situated. Local time is GMT + 6 hours year-round (no daylight time change). Diego Garcia is the largest land mass in the Chagos Archipelago (w includes Peros Banhos, the Salomon Islands, the Three Brothers (Islands), the Egmont Islands and the Great Chagos Bank), being an atoll occupying approximately 174 square kilometres (67 sq mi), of which 27.19 square kilometres (10 sq mi) is dry land. The continuous portion of the atoll rim stretches 40 miles (64 km) from one end to the other, enclosing a lagoon 13 miles (21 km) long and up to 7 miles (11 km) wide, with a 4 miles (6 km) pass opening at the north. Available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diego_Garcia. Accessed on 30 July 2011.

[v]Views to News, http://viewstonews.com/index.php/geo-strategic-importance-of-south-asia. Accessed on 25 July 2011.
[vi] Dana R. Dillon, “U.S. Strategic Objectives in South Asia”. Heritage Lecture #889. Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific of the House International Relations Committee, 7 July 2005. (online) available http://www.heritage.org.
[vii] Cited in ‘Understanding Obama and his America by Dr Haider Mehdi, THE Nation dated 17 MAY 2011.

[viii] Prof. Dr. Razia Musarrat, “US War on Terrorism and its Impact on South Asia”. (online) available http://www.pu.edu.pk/polsc/jops/Currentissue.
[ix] Emma Chanlett, Abery Bruce Vaughan, CRS “Report for Congress, Emergig Trends in the Security, Archiecture in Asia; Biletral and Multilateral Ties Among the US, Japan, Korea and Australia”. 7 January 2008.
[x] 25 Top Spenders, Defense News, 11 September 2006.
[xi] Aslam Beg, Mirza, “Challenges for Obama”, The Nation, November 28, 2010.

[xii] http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007%5C01%5C09%5Cstory_9-1-2007_pg7_23. Accessed on 30 July 2011.
[xiii] Richard A Boucher, “The United States and South Asia: An Expanding Agenda”, May 17, 2006, (http://www.state.gov./p/sca/rls/rm/2006/66374.htm dated 3 Sep 2006).
[xiv] Christiana B Rocca, “United States Interests and Foreign Policy Priorities in South Asia”, June 22, 2004, (http://www.state.gov./p/sa/rls/rm/33774.htm dated 3 Sep 2006).
[xv] Stanley A Kochanek, “US Foreign Policy in South Asia” Pakistan Horizon. July –Oct 1993. P.24.
[xvi]Adam Worlfe, Yevgeny Bendersky, Dr Federico Bordonaro, “India’s Project Seabird and the Indian Ocean’s Balance of Power”, (http://www.pinr.com/report.php?ac=view_report&report_id=330&language_id=1)
[xvii] Dr Subhash Kapila, “China’s Foreign Policy Challenges”, (http://www.saag.org)
19 South Asia Analysis Group Papers – Paper No. 181 by Dr. Kapila Subhash. Available at http://www.saag.org/papers/paperindex.html. Accessed on 24 July 2011.

20 The Heritage Foundation U.S Strategic Objectives in South Asia by Dana R.Dillon Lecture #889 July 7, 2005.
[xviii] Maj Gen Dipankar Banerjee (Retd) Director, IPCS, “Defining India-US Defence Relations”. [online] Available //www.ICPS.org/US_related_articles2.jsp/.

[xix] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/20/clinton-india-asia-pacific-china-_n_904233.html. Accessed on 31 July 2011.
[xx] L Venkateshwaran IPCS scholar,” Indo-US Military Cooperation: US Perceptions” [online] Available http://www.ipcs.org/US _ Related_Topics2.jsp/.
[xxi] Ibid 27.
[xxii] Lan Jianxue ,"Will India Become a New Barrier to Obstruct China?" An article for the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.
[xxiii] Ibid 9.
[xxiv] Jerral A.R, “The Fallout of Raymond Davis Affair”, The Nation, February 23, 2011.
[xxv] Future of ties with America by Khalid Aziz, The Dawn, dated 15 July 2011.
[xxvi] Michel Chossudovsky, Al Qaeda and the "War on Terrorism", Global Research, 20 January 2008. http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7718.
[xxvii] Ibid.
[xxviii] Aziz Khalid, “Future of ties with America”, The Dawn, July 15, 2011.
[xxix] Aparajita Kashyap “Af-Pak Strategy“ Institute Of Peace And Conflict Studies 77, July 2009, p-5.
[xxx] Dawn News, 21 July 2009.
[xxxi] Aziz Khalid, “Future of ties with America”, The Dawn, July 15, 2011.
[xxxii] South Asian Strategic Stability Institute, Research Report 9, “The Indo-US Strategic Relationship and Pakistan 's Security”, December 2007.
[xxxiii] Ibid.
[xxxiv] Council on Foreign Relations, Esther Pan and Jayshree Bajoria, The U.S.-India Nuclear Deal, 02 October 2008. Updated: 20 November, 2009. (online) Available http://www.cfr.org/publication/9663/.
[xxxv] Ibid.
[xxxvi] Jaime Flor Cruz, CNN, 2 February 2010.

[xxxvii] Dan Twining, “Could China and India go to war over Tibet?” 10 March 2009.

[xxxviii] Donna J. Nincic, Globalization and Maritime power. (Washington DC: NDU Press, 2002), Chapter 8.
[xxxix] Reflections on the Afghan war by Khalid Aziz, The Dawn, dated 01 July 2011.
[xl]Aziz Khalid, “Future of ties with America”, The Dawn, July 15, 2011.
[xli] Naseer S.M, “Future of US Aid”, The Dawn, July 12, 2011.
[xlii] Iqbal Khalid, “The Sea-Saw of Pak-US relations”, The Nation, March 28, 2011.
[xliii] Amit Kumar,”Indo-US Cooperation: Next step in the Indian Ocean “.[online] Available. www.ipcs.org/US_related_articles2.jsp.
[xliv] Dr Noor ul Haq,”Unipolarism and Pak-US Relations” IPRI Journal Winter 2006,P 93-115,
[xlv] Dr Pervez Iqbal Cheema, “A Contrived Vilification Campaign”,” The News International (Islamabad),23 November 2003.
[xlvi]http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture/us-strategic-objectives-in-south-asia. Accessed on 30 July 2011.
[xlvii] South Asian Strategic Stability Institute, Research Report 9, “The Indo-US Strategic Relationship and Pakistan 's Security”, December 2007.
[xlviii] Cited in ‘Crossed Swords – Pakistan, its Army and Wars within’ by Shujah Nawaz, p. 87.

Cited: in ‘Crossed Swords – Pakistan, its Army and Wars within’ by Shujah Nawaz, p. 87.