Go to next slide and discuss 1971 war, U.S. siding with Pakistan, the formation of Bangladesh and Nixon/Kissinger attitude towards India and Indira Gandhi.
Pakistan run by military dictator Yahya Khan.Yahya Khan wanted to crush the Bengali Nationalist movement in East Pakistan. East and West Pakistan had more differences than similarities. The religion of Islam was pretty much all they had in common. Despite East Pakistan having a smaller territory, they had a larger population than West Pakistan, but that did not translate to political influence. Most political power was reserved for those in West Pakistan and Bengalis in East Pakistan confronted widespread discrimination in the Pakistani army.Linguistic differences: Urdu in the West and Bengali or Bangla in the East.The Pakistani Army, in early 1971 began a territory-wide campaign to simultaneously cut off East Pakistan’s communications with the rest of the world, gain control of strategic territory and to capture or kill the maximum number of political and student leaders.While achieving most of their objectives, prominent East Pakistani activists went into exile and they declared independence as the new nation of Bangladesh on March 26, 1971.Indo-Pakistani War of 1971. Two weeks long (13 Days) in early December. Pakistani pre-emptive airstrikes against India, began the war and it was found in the air, on the ground and in the waters of the off the coats of the countries involved. Result: Decisive Indian Victory, Bangladesh’s independence was secured but at a cost of over 2 million civilian deaths in Bangladesh, hundreds of thousands of Bangladeshi women raped by the Pakistani army and nearly 10 million refugees fleeing to India. Leading to increased Pakistani fears of India and added motivation for their nuclear program to act as a deterrent to their larger, more powerful, more populated neighbor.
And what was the U.S. doing during 1971?!?! Did we support Bangladesh in the struggle for independence and self-determination? No…not so much. Go to next slide and discuss 1971 war, U.S. siding with Pakistan, the formation of Bangladesh and Nixon/Kissinger attitude towards India and Indira Gandhi.
Policy #1:The U.S. should continue the current policy of nominally trading economic & military aid for Pakistan’s assistance with GWOT activities in Afghanistan and, at times, within Pakistan itself.
Policy #2:Stop pretending that the U.S. and Pakistan are not enemies; label Pakistan as a state supporter of terror & a nuclear proliferator and place strict conditions upon any future economic or military aid.
Policy #3:The U.S. should work will all parties with a stake in the Afghanistan-Pakistan (AFPAK) region such as the EU, Iran and particularly India, China & Saudi Arabia to take a holistic approach (including some elements of the Ijaz Memo to ADM Mullen) to strengthening Pakistan’s infrastructure & social institutions and fostering greater integration with the regional and world economies.
During those administrations, U.S. aid to Pakistan was reduced or cut and sanctions placed on Pakistan for various reasons: Most related to their Nuclear program, such as the Pressler Amendment, which required the President to certify that Pakistan does not have nuclear weapons in order for Pakistan to be eligible to receive ANY U.S. aid.Conversely, Pakistan has been on the receiving end of the greatest measure of American generosity during periods of Military Dictatorship. The Muhammad Zia ul-Huq days of 1978 – 1988 and the Pervez Musharraf days of 1999 – 2008. Not only did Pakistan get MASSIVE military and economic aid during these years, much of the money was diverted to support their nuclear program and to purchase major weapons systems for use against India.
Private humanitarian organizations will provide better solutions to Pakistan’s educational dilemmas than the alternative of Saudi-sponsored radical, Wahhabi Madrassas.Structural Adjustment Loans from the World Bank will provide oversight and stipulations to ensure infrastructure projects are completed without funds being diverted to military projects. IAEA inspections will help safeguard against the problems of loose nukes, should we get Pakistan to sigh on to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
In reference to the main political parties in Pakistan, AnatolLieven, author of Pakistan: A Hard Country said that, “The local political groupings which are the building blocks of these parties are themselves based on local dynasties. Hence the phenomenon of a woman such as Benazir Bhutto rising to the top of the political system in an extremely conservative male-dominated society. This was power by inheritance, and says not much more about ordinary women’s rights in modern Pakistani society than the inheritance of the throne by Queens Mary and Elizabeth from their father said about ordinary women’s rights in sixteenth-century English society.”Lieven, Anatol (2012-03-06). Pakistan: A Hard Country (p. 15). Perseus Books Group. Kindle Edition.
Pakistan is one of the more DISCONNECTED, and thus DANGEROUS places in the world. It will take the collective efforts of the global community, particularly those countries that have the greatest personal interest in Pakistan’s stability, to increase Pakistan’s level of connectivity. And that is why I think my THIRD ALTERNATIVE POLICY is the best approach to take towards Pakistan in the days and years ahead.
Northrop-Grumman X-47 UCAS: Unmanned Combat Air SystemStealthy • Autonomous • Armed • Carrier Capable • Mid-Air Refuelable • Can be operated from the Carrier it is launched from and not from a control room on the other side of the world. The Future of U.S. Naval Power Projection
To enable to the structural integrity needed for so small an aircraftto handle the pounding of carrier launch & recovery, large amounts ofTITANIUM are needed in the construction of the X-47.Additionally, as a very high-tech system utilizing state of the artminiaturization, considerable RARE EARTH ELEMENTS are required formany of its components. Domestic sources for these two CRITICAL COMPONENTS are lacking. Titanium is most abundant in Russia, while China possesses most of the rare earth elements. Just as was done to obtain the titanium needed for the landing gear of the famed SR-71 Blackbird, the CIA has been setting up dummy companies in Russia & China to support the X-47 program.
The Cyber-Warfare specialists (Hackers) of the PLA have uncovered the identities of some of the CIA front companies and have shared this information with Russian officials. In addition to political fallout from suchdisclosures, there are concerns that unfriendly powers may be able tosteal technology that will assist them in reverse engineering and otherefforts to enhance their indigenous drone programs. What are the policy optionsmoving ahead, with regard to thepractice using covert operations toobtain critically needed resourcesfrom denied areas to support ourVITALLY IMPORTANT drone agenda?
HELL…I DON’T KNOW!AREN’T WE ALL SICK OF HEARING ABOUT DRONES BY NOW? Let’s just talk about something else instead, shall we?
U.S. – Pakistan Relations:Options for the Way Ahead ADRIAN | OTAPAmerican Foreign Policy (POL 4733) Fall 2012
The Islamic Republic of Pakistan andthe United States of America have had along and tumultuous relationship. To understand the dynamics of thisrelationship, the American side must beviewed through the dual prisms of theCold War with the Soviet Union andAmerican self-interest, while thePakistani side should be viewed throughthose of its conflict with India and itsneed to prevent self-destruction at thehands of its own internal problems.
To reach this understanding, it isnecessary to first review the origins andhistory of Pakistan and the initial reasonsbehind its relations with the United States. What we know as the modern state ofPakistan was formed on August 14, 1947. The United States was one of the firstcountries to establish diplomatic relationswith Pakistan, starting on October20, 1947. It is a relationship that has beenbased almost exclusively on military andeconomic support.
When India gained independence fromGreat Britain, it was partitioned alongreligious lines at the behest of Dr.Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the founder ofPakistan. Those areas that had a majority Muslimpopulation became Pakistan, while theremaining areas with Hindu majoritiesbecame the Republic of India. The problem with this partition plan wasthat Muslims were in a majority on oppositesides of India. Thus East Pakistan and WestPakistan formed a single country, in twonon-contiguous parts, separated by 1000miles of Indian territory.
The partition of India gave rise to the largestmigration of people in history: Muslims going toPakistan, while Hindus, Sikhs and others went to India.These mass movements of people did not always gosmoothly or peacefully, resulting in the deaths ofhundreds of thousands.
At this point, the U.S. had a choice ofwhat to do about these two poor, heavilypopulated countries in Asia. America chose only one of the twocountries to become the beneficiary ofour friendship and over the followingdecades, poured billions of dollars intothat country’s economy; training andequipping its military and intelligenceservice with the goal of creating areliable ally with strong institutions anda vigorous democracy.
India was spurned thisopportunity of American friendshipand support because, despite beinga founder of the Non-AlignedMovement, it was seen as tiltingtoward the Soviet Union, whilePakistan was seen as more of astaunch supporter in the struggleagainst communism.
And what has been the end result 65 years later?
It is India that has become the nationthat the U.S. had hoped Pakistan wouldturn out to be. It is the world’s largest democracy –and a robust one at that. They have therule of law and secular legal institutionsheld over from the British days. India is arising global economic power; the “I” ofthe BRIC countries. They are militarily powerful, shareAmerican interests and the United Stateshosts an Indian diaspora that is becomingmore politically important domestically.
Pakistan, meanwhile, is one of themost anti-American countries on earth, astate-sponsor of terror and a nuclearproliferator. Socially, economically and politically, itverges on collapse. It is a failed state thatpretends that it isn’t. It has beendescribed as not so much a country, but anarmy that pretends it is a country. Even then, it has a government that isunable to control much of its territory andan intelligence agency, the ISI, whicheffectively functions as a state-within-a-state.
Not to mention the issues of regionalinstability caused by the ongoing Cold Warbetween India and Pakistan – a standoff wheretraditional MAD Doctrine does not apply,despite both being Non-NPT nuclear states.
Pakistani Anti-American Sentiment: Why do they hate us?#1: Is it because of our freedoms, values and decadent culture, as so many suggest?#2: Or is it, as suggested by Michael Sheuer, former head of the CIA’s bin Laden Unit & author or “Imperial Hubris”, because of our actions and policies in the Middle East and greater Islamic World?
Pakistan has been ruled by 4 militarydictatorships and has had the post of PrimeMinister abolished 5 times in its shorthistory. Even when Pakistan is not under thecontrol of the military, its legitimate politicalparties are dynastic, representing theinterests of the few select familiesdominating the political scene. Thus, there is widespread corruptionresulting, not from a lack of values in theWestern sense, but because of ancientvalues of loyalty to family and clan, which islooked upon positively in the region, despitethe nepotism that stems from it.
Policy Alternatives:Alternative Policy #1: The U.S. should continue thecurrent policy of nominally tradingeconomic & military aid forPakistan’s assistance with GWOTactivities in Afghanistan and, attimes, within Pakistan itself.
Policy Alternatives:Alternative Policy #2: Stop pretending that the U.S. andPakistan are not enemies; labelPakistan as a state supporter ofterror & a nuclear proliferator andplace strict conditions upon anyfuture economic or military aid.
Policy Alternatives:Alternative Policy #3: The U.S. should work will all partieswith a stake in the Afghanistan-Pakistan(AFPAK) region such as the EU, Iran andparticularly India, China & Saudi Arabia totake a holistic approach (including someelements of the Ijaz Memo to ADMMullen) to strengthening Pakistan’sinfrastructure & social institutions andfostering greater integration with theregional and world economies.
Policy #1:PROS: • Least amount of change required • Consistent; Maintains status quo • Current U.S. interests are servedCONS: • Continued public condemnation of drone strikes • Civil – Military split will remain in place in Pakistan • Must use careful target selection
Policy #2:PROS: • Drone strikes continue • No need to ask for Pakistan’s “permission” • Less likely that U.S. funds/arms used to support terrorists or military regimeCONS: • Condemnation of drone strikes increased • Pakistan’s civilian government destabilized or overthrown by military
Policy #3:PROS: • Not just the U.S.’s problem – Responsibility shared among a number of countries • Lessened tension between India & Pakistan • Pakistan globally integrated & stableCONS: • Strong resistance from Army and ISI • Terrorist proxies no longer under control
Policy Recommendation: Policy #3 is the course we shouldpursue going ahead. A more stablePakistan that is integrated, both internallyand with the rest of the world is ineveryone’s best interest. Over the course of our six-decaderelationship with Pakistan, we haveprovided them with untold billions ofdollars in assistance. To say that we havenot received a very good return on thisinvestment would be an understatement.
It is time to cut our losses, butwithout cutting Pakistan looseentirely. They should not be written offcompletely as a bad debt. Pastexperience during the Carter, H.W.Bush and Clinton administrationshas shown that bad thingsgenerally happen when Pakistan isleft bereft of foreign aid and left toits own devices.
The United States has not beendealing with Pakistan on the basis of along-term strategy to build them up,better integrate them into the worldeconomy and fostering lasting stabilityalong the lines of our policies withrespect to Germany, Japan or SouthKorea. Still, Pakistan shares much of theblame for their for their situation –having relied too heavily on U.S. aidinstead of responsibly pursuing theirown internal development.
Pakistan presently has a civiliangovernment in place willing to work withus to take bold steps for reform. This is an opportunity that should notbe ignored. There will still be areas where U.S. aidcan play a role, but NGO’s andinternational organizations will berequired to fulfill the promise of buildingthe foundations, infrastructure and inter-connectivity needed to stabilize Pakistanand then the whole of South Asia as well.
Improvement in the areas of humanrights and women’s right issues shouldalso go a long way towards long-termstability for Pakistan.
“…it’s disconnectedness that definesdanger. If you think aboutglobalization as a process ofintegration, then the definitions ofcrisis we now face, like a 9/11, areinstances where connectivity isdisrupted.” Thomas P.M. Barnett Author of “The Pentagon’s New Map”