Pakistan and South Asia; A Personal Perspective

 

I read recently that one of the prompts for an American Foreign Policy class was “Pakistan: Friend or Foe.” This made me think about how experts often name the strategic Pakistan-US relationship as a “marriage of inconveniences” and how this has been a recurring topic throughout my life.

My first memory of the mention of the USA in relation to Pakistan was watching a video of President Muhammad Ayub Khan’s visit to the USA in the early 1960s. JFK, along with his wife, received Ayub at the airport and accompanied him during the rare ticker tape parade in New York City. The visit included state dinners and a barbecue at LBJ’s ranch. Now that I think about it, I can’t recall any military dictator being revered publicly by the US as much as Ayub. America’s public display of affection to a dictator and simultaneous encouragement of democracy is what surprised me when I saw the video.

As I grew up, I learned more, and found out that the overthrow of arguably the most popular civilian leader (Zulfiqar Bhutto) in modern-day Pakistan’s history was celebrated by circles in the US, and General Zia-Ul-Haq, an army general turned military dictator who ruled from 1978 until 1988, was a ‘close ally’ till the day he died, still in office. For context, I will highlight here that the Soviet expansion into Afghanistan made Zia an ally of the US who would bear the brunt of checking the Soviets in the region in exchange for arms and money. It was Zia who popularly turned down President Carter’s $400 million aid offer as ‘peanuts.’

The reason I talk about Zia and the US’ love for him is his role in today’s Pakistan. Zia used Islam as a tool to strengthen his hold over the country and in doing so, set fire to the social, cultural and traditional fabric of Pakistan. Islam and Pakistan became synonymous and even the official name of the state was changed into the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. It was during Zia’s time that the USA funded and trained the ‘mujahideen’ who later turned into groups like Al Qaeda and were a precursor to modern day militant groups. Part of their training included indoctrinating them against the ‘atheist communists’ who they have to ‘fight for God.’ Zia modified the structure of the government and added religious elements to it. He gave a religious twist to the constitution. The state sponsored everything religion related and anything deemed nonreligious was discouraged, even banned. Zia was the case against a dictatorship. Zia is a case against totalitarianism. While some may argue his rule was not completely totalitarian, it definitely leaned towards totalitarianism on the authoritarian-totalitarian spectrum.

From the perspective of the people, American support to Zia made America seem actively involved in whatever he was doing, since American support was his insurance in power. Almost everyone who lived during his time can link the rising militancy in the region to his tenure and policies that were enforced. I believe it was American support to him, which prolonged his tenure and uprooted the democratic traditions of Pakistan. Even though Pakistan is nowhere near what it was socially in Zia’s time (reader please knock on wood), many ills present today can be attributed to his policies and measures taken in his tenure. So, sponsoring militancy and a lack of democracy, the two main things Pakistan needs to ‘correct’ took place under the watchful eye and to an extent, with the support of Uncle Sam himself.

From 1988-99, Pakistan had around six transfers of power. These included two terms of Benazir Bhutto, the first female Prime Minister of a majority Muslim country. Yes, Pakistan elected a female leader long before many in the countries that blame South-Asian culture of sexism considered doing so. Regardless, American-Pakistani relations during this time, if graphed as a curve would be a multimodal curve. There were bans by the US after Pakistan became a nuclear power, there were state visits by the then first lady Hillary Clinton along with her daughter, and there were things that built confidence and things that created tensions.

However, after General Pervez Musharraf, another military dictator, came into power, US-Pakistan relations strengthened and Pakistan became a major non-NATO ally. America’s affair with another military dictator continued, but following Musharraf’s 7-8 years in power, two successive civilian governments have not been able to make relations with the US as good as the military dictators could. Ironically, it was the US who brokered the deal which led to Musharraf stepping down.

From this brief personal recount, it seems like the US is more sympathetic towards a Pakistan under dictatorship than towards a civilian-led Pakistan. The wrongs Pakistan is blamed for today developed during American support to these dictators. Today, Trump’s Pakistan policy is feared in policy circles, as Pakistan and India are being dealt with at the expense of each other. This has made Pakistan grow closer to China and both the countries are strengthening strategic and economic ties with the recent China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, which is termed as a ‘game-changer’ in the region.

One thing is clear. Double standards can not reciprocate subservience. Pakistan has its faults and I am not oblivious to them. But it is not the only player in the region who is to be blamed for the way things are today.