China and Iran: Strong Alternatives to the U.S. for Pakistan
Published in Iranian Democracy
(Iran) on 19 August 2011
by Hussein Gol Jamas (link to original)
Islamabad is looking for new allies. The ominous shadow of Osama bin Laden has landed the Pakistanis in trouble even after his death. The nightmare of Osama hiding in Pakistan has not yet released its hold on this country, though him being killed by U.S. military commandos has put an end to a decade of chase by the West’s intelligence agencies. Since then, the U.S. has criticized Pakistan’s actions and been talking about cutting its financial aid to Islamabad.
Iranian Democracy and Pakistani journalist Hussein Gol Jamas discussed the future of tensions between Pakistan and the United States and how the approaching U.S. presidential elections would affect the relations between Washington and Islamabad.
ID: Although it has been a while since the capture of Osama, the tensions between Islamabad and Washington still seem to exist. What is the reason for the tensions?
HJ: Islamabad is not a natural ally of Washington. This alliance as we know it today was formed after 9/11. Pervez Musharraf, the military ruler of the time, dominated Pakistan, and looking after a kind of political legitimacy, he extended the hand of friendship and union to Washington. China, on the other hand, should be considered as the natural and traditional ally of Pakistan. Politically and geographically, the distance and the differences between the U.S. and Pakistan are far and many.
The history of the relations and union between Beijing and Islamabad goes back to about 50 years ago. They have had a friendly and tight-knit relationship so far, while the U.S. and Pakistan’s relationship is hardly more than a decade old.
All the same, Pakistan has not been very disposed to this friendship and alliance with the U.S. in the past decade and this reluctance is rooted deeply in the differences between the two countries. The best example here would be Afghanistan. Islamabad and Washington’s strategies toward Kabul are significantly different from each other. Pakistan asks for U.S. troops to leave Afghanistan immediately; however, the United States is determined to maintain its military presence in Afghanistan.
The Americans know that staying in Afghanistan would prevent China from gaining power and also stops the increase of Russian influence in the area. Thus we see that the United States’ strategy is 180 degrees different from Pakistan’s. And accordingly, Pakistan has hardly ever wholeheartedly cooperated with the U.S.
The Pakistani government knows that their cooperation with the United States means the survival of Americans in Afghanistan, which is exactly contrary to Islamabad’s wish. The reason behind the continual tensions lies in this very issue.
ID: The United States threatened Pakistan that it might cut off its financial aid. What are the consequences of such threats on the relationship between the two countries?
HJ: Under an agreement with the U.S., Pakistan has been involved in the conflict on its border with Afghanistan. In fact, this is a military agreement between the two countries where the U.S. is supposed to provide Islamabad with $3 billion as expenses of combat for the next five years. Pakistan has already sent out several thousand troops and equipment to the border region called North and South Waziristan, at the request of the U.S.
Contrary to what Americans imagine, the U.S. warnings after the killing of Osama about the possibility of the end of financial aid to Pakistan will not only not teach Islamabad anything, but will eventually come as a blow to the U.S. In the event of the cutting of American financial aid, Islamabad would have to recall its military troops from the border with Afghanistan. Therefore, cutting off financial aid, in the long term, would be to the detriment of the U.S. in its fight against terrorism. Accordingly, I do not know what strategy or reasoning Washington employs in its assumption that it can put pressure on Islamabad by blocking this financial aid.
Another point that is not usually taken into consideration is that the economy of Pakistan has suffered losses of nearly $65 billion in the past 10 years in the fight against terrorism that the Americans initiated. The U.S., in spite of the promises it has made, has only paid Pakistan a total amount of $12 billion in all these years. So this alliance with the U.S. has actually cost Pakistan $65 billion.
Based on this experience, Pakistan today has come to the conclusion that the union with Washington has been more detrimental than beneficial. So Islamabad finally decided that it would be for the better just to pass on the remaining amount of the promised financial aid.
ID: Recently we have seen comprehensive increases in the diplomatic relationship between Pakistan and China. Is Islamabad looking for another international alternative to the U.S.?
HJ: China is considered a serious friend of Pakistan and has helped it a lot. But the truth is that Pakistan holds China as a guarantee for a rainy day. The answer to your question is yes, Pakistan is looking for an alternative in China. Geographically, they are close to each other, and due to this proximity, Beijing can give Islamabad whatever Washington was providing more easily, at a cheaper cost and without any preconditions. For instance, if ever the Pakistani army needs military hardware or fighters, Beijing could provide them with it. Another issue is that Pakistan has serious problems in the domestic energy department and requires investment in this sector. In addition to China, Iran can also help Pakistan in these areas. That is the reason why Islamabad doesn’t need Washington’s economic or political friendship at all.
ID: The U.S. presidential election is approaching; do you think that Obama will put more pressure on Pakistani authorities to win the public vote? What is your prediction of Obama’s policies toward Pakistan and Afghanistan in the remaining year until the election?
HJ: Well, this is true that Obama has been caught in a very serious crisis. He’s faced with a significant drop in his approval rating. The statistical report in the recent few days signifies that his approval rating is at an all-time low in the last few years. Both Obama and the Democrats are dealing with a lot of problems.
I believe that the Democrats will take preemptive action in order to raise Obama’s approval rating. Obama has adopted the term AFPAK for the areas of Afghanistan and Pakistan; this indicates that the White House has adopted a single strategy for both of these regions. Therefore, in order to the show the effectiveness of his decisions, Obama will take a more active path toward Pakistan. We will also be hearing more orders and instructions from the White House concerning Pakistan.
On the other hand, the U.S. will surely launch more attacks against the Taliban’s headquarters in Afghanistan. Obama will try to prove to the American voters that they are winning the war on terrorism in Afghanistan and Pakistan. So we will definitely see more political pressure on Pakistan and military battles in Afghanistan.
Iranian Democracy and Pakistani journalist Hussein Gol Jamas discussed the future of tensions between Pakistan and the United States and how the approaching U.S. presidential elections would affect the relations between Washington and Islamabad.
ID: Although it has been a while since the capture of Osama, the tensions between Islamabad and Washington still seem to exist. What is the reason for the tensions?
HJ: Islamabad is not a natural ally of Washington. This alliance as we know it today was formed after 9/11. Pervez Musharraf, the military ruler of the time, dominated Pakistan, and looking after a kind of political legitimacy, he extended the hand of friendship and union to Washington. China, on the other hand, should be considered as the natural and traditional ally of Pakistan. Politically and geographically, the distance and the differences between the U.S. and Pakistan are far and many.
The history of the relations and union between Beijing and Islamabad goes back to about 50 years ago. They have had a friendly and tight-knit relationship so far, while the U.S. and Pakistan’s relationship is hardly more than a decade old.
All the same, Pakistan has not been very disposed to this friendship and alliance with the U.S. in the past decade and this reluctance is rooted deeply in the differences between the two countries. The best example here would be Afghanistan. Islamabad and Washington’s strategies toward Kabul are significantly different from each other. Pakistan asks for U.S. troops to leave Afghanistan immediately; however, the United States is determined to maintain its military presence in Afghanistan.
The Americans know that staying in Afghanistan would prevent China from gaining power and also stops the increase of Russian influence in the area. Thus we see that the United States’ strategy is 180 degrees different from Pakistan’s. And accordingly, Pakistan has hardly ever wholeheartedly cooperated with the U.S.
The Pakistani government knows that their cooperation with the United States means the survival of Americans in Afghanistan, which is exactly contrary to Islamabad’s wish. The reason behind the continual tensions lies in this very issue.
ID: The United States threatened Pakistan that it might cut off its financial aid. What are the consequences of such threats on the relationship between the two countries?
HJ: Under an agreement with the U.S., Pakistan has been involved in the conflict on its border with Afghanistan. In fact, this is a military agreement between the two countries where the U.S. is supposed to provide Islamabad with $3 billion as expenses of combat for the next five years. Pakistan has already sent out several thousand troops and equipment to the border region called North and South Waziristan, at the request of the U.S.
Contrary to what Americans imagine, the U.S. warnings after the killing of Osama about the possibility of the end of financial aid to Pakistan will not only not teach Islamabad anything, but will eventually come as a blow to the U.S. In the event of the cutting of American financial aid, Islamabad would have to recall its military troops from the border with Afghanistan. Therefore, cutting off financial aid, in the long term, would be to the detriment of the U.S. in its fight against terrorism. Accordingly, I do not know what strategy or reasoning Washington employs in its assumption that it can put pressure on Islamabad by blocking this financial aid.
Another point that is not usually taken into consideration is that the economy of Pakistan has suffered losses of nearly $65 billion in the past 10 years in the fight against terrorism that the Americans initiated. The U.S., in spite of the promises it has made, has only paid Pakistan a total amount of $12 billion in all these years. So this alliance with the U.S. has actually cost Pakistan $65 billion.
Based on this experience, Pakistan today has come to the conclusion that the union with Washington has been more detrimental than beneficial. So Islamabad finally decided that it would be for the better just to pass on the remaining amount of the promised financial aid.
ID: Recently we have seen comprehensive increases in the diplomatic relationship between Pakistan and China. Is Islamabad looking for another international alternative to the U.S.?
HJ: China is considered a serious friend of Pakistan and has helped it a lot. But the truth is that Pakistan holds China as a guarantee for a rainy day. The answer to your question is yes, Pakistan is looking for an alternative in China. Geographically, they are close to each other, and due to this proximity, Beijing can give Islamabad whatever Washington was providing more easily, at a cheaper cost and without any preconditions. For instance, if ever the Pakistani army needs military hardware or fighters, Beijing could provide them with it. Another issue is that Pakistan has serious problems in the domestic energy department and requires investment in this sector. In addition to China, Iran can also help Pakistan in these areas. That is the reason why Islamabad doesn’t need Washington’s economic or political friendship at all.
ID: The U.S. presidential election is approaching; do you think that Obama will put more pressure on Pakistani authorities to win the public vote? What is your prediction of Obama’s policies toward Pakistan and Afghanistan in the remaining year until the election?
HJ: Well, this is true that Obama has been caught in a very serious crisis. He’s faced with a significant drop in his approval rating. The statistical report in the recent few days signifies that his approval rating is at an all-time low in the last few years. Both Obama and the Democrats are dealing with a lot of problems.
I believe that the Democrats will take preemptive action in order to raise Obama’s approval rating. Obama has adopted the term AFPAK for the areas of Afghanistan and Pakistan; this indicates that the White House has adopted a single strategy for both of these regions. Therefore, in order to the show the effectiveness of his decisions, Obama will take a more active path toward Pakistan. We will also be hearing more orders and instructions from the White House concerning Pakistan.
On the other hand, the U.S. will surely launch more attacks against the Taliban’s headquarters in Afghanistan. Obama will try to prove to the American voters that they are winning the war on terrorism in Afghanistan and Pakistan. So we will definitely see more political pressure on Pakistan and military battles in Afghanistan.