US spells out terms of engagement with Pakistan

[AGENT-47]

10/10. Great post. Clear. Concise. Logical.

Thanks

 

[Indus Pakistan]

Thanks

Now do me a favour. Think of year 2000. Pakistan along with UAE and KSA was one of the few governments that recognized Taliban as the legal government of Afghanistan. Accordingly we had a embassy in Kabul and they had embassy in Islamabad. Pakistan had been pro Taliban for some years and even provided some support for it to defeat the Northern Alliance.

Then comes 2001. US tells Musharaf to dump Taliban and give them access to Pakisatan military bases, ports and airspace to attack Taliban. Or get bombed to stone age. And Musharaf obliges by saying "yes sir" to Bush. Was that a U-turn or not?

 

[Hareeb]

Beware US, you just lost your leverage over Pakistan by using this stick and carrot strategy. Well, Pakistan has nothing to lose now but you does everything.

 

[Fawadqasim1]

From my own personal analysis and assessment I do not see Musharaf making a U-turn.

Absolutely it was a 180 degrees u turn but was it cold politics chess game or was it survival mode.

Beware US, you just lost your leverage over Pakistan by using this stick and carrot strategy. Well, Pakistan has nothing to lose now but you does everything.

There is no carrot this time just stick

 

[MultaniGuy]

Now do me a favour. Think of year 2000. Pakistan along with UAE and KSA was one of the few governments that recognized Taliban as the legal government of Afghanistan. Accordingly we had a embassy in Kabul and they had embassy in Islamabad. Pakistan had been pro Taliban for some years and even provided some support for it to defeat the Northern Alliance.

Then comes 2001. US tells Musharaf to dump Taliban and give them access to Pakisatan military bases, ports and airspace to attack Taliban. Or get bombed to stone age. And Musharaf obliges by saying "yes sir" to Bush. Was that a U-turn or not?

At that time there was no choice. USA had the upper hand in world politics at that time and there was no alternatives to USA and their industries and products.

Also Pakistan was not a very strong nation back then in the year 2000. Pakistan had just gotten nuclear weapons a few years back before year 2000.

Now it is 2018. Much has changed since then.

With China on the rise, Russia resurgent, and the EU having problems with USA, i doubt USA hegemony will last in the 2020's.

 

[Fawadqasim1]

At that time there was no choice. USA had the upper hand in world politics at that time and there was no alternatives to USA and their industries and products.

Also Pakistan was not a very strong nation back then in the year 2000. Pakistan had just gotten nuclear weapons a few years back before year 2000.

Now it is 2018. Much has changed since then.

With China on the rise, Russia resurgent, and the EU having problems with USA, i doubt USA hegemony will last in the 2020's.

But sir they can disrupt our economy fatf blacklist is around the corner.

 

[MultaniGuy]

But sir they can disrupt our economy fatf blacklist is around the corner.

Is that all USA can do? Just arm twist? Why don't they go after Pakistan for real then? USA is losing leverage over Pakistan and they know it.

 

[AGENT-47]

Now do me a favour. Think of year 2000. Pakistan along with UAE and KSA was one of the few governments that recognized Taliban as the legal government of Afghanistan. Accordingly we had a embassy in Kabul and they had embassy in Islamabad. Pakistan had been pro Taliban for some years and even provided some support for it to defeat the Northern Alliance.

Then comes 2001. US tells Musharaf to dump Taliban and give them access to Pakisatan military bases, ports and airspace to attack Taliban. Or get bombed to stone age. And Musharaf obliges by saying "yes sir" to Bush. Was that a U-turn or not?

You are absolutely correct. But Pakistan would have become the next North Korea if we hadn't complied to the US demands...

• Imagine US as the sole superpower in 2001... no one would have dared to stand in its way back then
• Russia was a collapsed empire with a dwindling economy, they could barely sustain themselves. Besides, we could not trust them due to obvious reasons: 1) we fought them just a decade ago, 2) they were, and still are very close to India.
• China wasn't as influential or powerful as it is today, so I highly doubt they would have stood with Pakistan, especially, after 9/11 mass hysteria and an international consensus on Afghan war...
• Pakistan would have been branded as "terrorist supporter" and a rogue state... all ties cut, all aids withdrawn... we were a new nuclear power, but without the missile capabilities... so, all they had to do, was send a naval fleet into the Arabia ocean, and you can imagine where it would have gone from there... India, our neighbor, would have been more than happy to extend help...

So, what happened post-9/11 was unfortunate, but inevitable... In my view, Pakistan's biggest geopolitical blunders were made later, e.g., allowing Drone Strikes, OBL operation (everyone knows CIA couldn't have done it alone... plus, where is the body??) etc. We allowed Americans to gain too much influence over us... blackwater and CIA used to operate openly, and gave them military basis, etc., while USA was openly supporting anti-Pakistani elements in Afghanistan (India included).

 

[UserUnknown2025]

This is what it's al about. United States policy in South Asia even as far back as 1960s has been largely determined by the China factor. America wants -

• India to focus on being a bulwark against China and Pakistan to support India in that effort instead of hindering it. This practically means it requires Pakistan to accept Indian hegemony in South Asia and give India free hand in Afghanistan.
• In that sense Pakistan is paying the price for US displeasure thanks the China Factor. We have reached critical point in history. China must step forward and insure Pakistan for the cost it is bearing thanks to the China Factor.
• China needs to step up and offer substantive help to offset the costs for the China Factor. This should be extra grants, investment and preferential trade access.
• If China does not step up in effect Pakistan is taking punishment thanks to China without Beijing compensating which makes the Sino/Pak relationship a expensive proposition.
  
• Pakistan needs to revisit the relationship with Beijing and ask for a more fairer deal.

This was readily apparent even at the dawn of US invasion of Afghanistan. We knew the change about to come in Kabul could easily end up favouring India as the status quo that wa about to be removed favoured Pakistan. Pakistan failed to have a Plan B in place and has suffered ever since.

In what ways has the Sino-Pakistan been unfair? Do you value an expensive proposition over the alternative? I’m curious.

 

[Cybernetics]

China needs to step up and offer substantive help to offset the costs for the China Factor. This should be extra grants, investment and preferential trade access.

Actually this is an ongoing debate within China's intellectual circles and is still a learning process for China. A growing number of Chinese economists and scholars are talking about the unfairness of equality in trade agreements when dealing with other nations. It was referring to relationship building with other developing nations and strategic partners. Due to certain competitive factors of China's economy, it is not a normal developing nation. For example if China treats developing country X the same as China and enters into a free trade agreement, it is likely that China gains much more than the country X. China and Chinese companies may have no nefarious intentions but that is likely the outcome of normal economic interactions. The other side may gain also but when gains are lopsided, sentiment of unfairness may arise.

There is a group in China advocating for inequality of treatment of certain trade partners, by that they mean establish relatively free trade with these nations but allow for them to set up certain barriers that protect their strategic interests at home (of course too much restriction isn't good for them either and erodes gains from trade), while they can more freely operate within China's market. Now it seems like China is getting the wrong end of the stick, but they also say to reward allies. The trade off is China acquires strategic interests from these friendly nations and they in return get economic prosperity at some expense of China. Economically it isn't exactly detrimental to China as it undergoes an economic upgrade, higher value industries are tied with strategic relations, such as setting industrial standards. This group doesn't think equality is the best way to frame relationships with strategic partners, actually they think it is quite stupid that a friendly nation (and one that is paying costs for strategic partnership) gets the same economic treatment as a non-friendly nation. Another point they make to the public is that as a major nation, China should shoulder heavier burdens of its world order, as they put it "the big brother needs to shoulder more responsibilities than its siblings", it is just the way of nature, fairness on paper isn't the right way to understand this.

Incentives are important when it comes to creating favorable conditions and China will likely use them in the future. Though to some this may seem to erode a "rules-based international order" if too much favoritism is present.

It is in my opinion that China should pursue a policy to reward allies with economic incentives. Equality of treatment is an unrealistic and sometimes unreasonable proposal.

There are no real true friends in international politics ,it's just interests .China is on your side today but you never know the future.
It's foolish to put all your eggs in a single basket ,China is not the solution if it was, NK would have been in a much better situation than what they are in today after all they had even closer relationship with them than what you have with China today

North Korea was dependent on China and mostly the Soviet Union for their economy post Korean war and did well up until the mid 70s when it diverged from South Korea's per capita gdp. The problem came when both nations where in no position to support its economy through aid. China was very poor up until the turn of the century, it didn't have the capacity to support North Korea economically by itself and Russia was busy contending with economic issues at home. This turned North Korea into a Hermit Kingdom and pushed it to adopt an even more hardline policy domestically and diplomatically. Much has changed since that time and the current rapprochement between China and North Korea merely is an adjustment to new realities. Actually this came a bit earlier than previously expected due to the early death of Kim Jong Il, his entire generation of leaders were supposed to retire or die out before this happened. To remove the instability of this early power transition, Kim Jong Un was compelled to initiate a widespread purge within the North Korean polity.

Strategic reliance upon a powerful nation isn't exactly a negative situation to be in under the right conditions, South Korea developed quite well under those conditions. At the time China wasn't in any position to sustainably support North Korea's economy.

If all developing countries are willing to trade mutually beneficial relationships for some bs aid as low as 300 million, then China might as well just surrender right now to the US. There’d be no point in resisting.

All developing nations want money, this is quite natural and a reality one must deal with. Money means a decent lifestyle that many strives for, it usually supersedes desires for costly political aspirations of the individual. Costly political aspirations are built upon the basis of an existing decent lifestyle. The pursuit of betterment one's own family's lifestyle is a noble one, poverty is not glorious.

I remember talking to an Afghan about the ANA and Taliban situation, one guy told me that most Afghans don't really care which side they fight for, it is which side gives them money and a decent lifestyle.

Russians, even though apprehensive about India-US ties, realize that this alliance is not directed against their interests. In other words, its China's problem, let them deal with it... however, to counter US's weight in the region, they are building ties with Pakistan as a contingency, just in case India succumbed to US's pressure and decided to let go of the Russians. I say this, because I don't see them threatening India with sanctions, the way US is threatening Pakistan... in fact, they are going ahead with S-400 and Su-35 deal (even when they realize these will be used against China and Pakistan... wtf is Russia up to??... only interested in selling weapons?)... So, I wouldn't count on the Russians to become hostile towards India anytime soon (in fact, it's more likely to be the other way around), even though ties with Pakistan continue to improve...

In the current situation Russia neither has the desire or capacity to threaten India with sanctions. Russia doesn't have economic nor technological dominance in the global arena. They need arms exports for hard currency and to maintain their military industrial complex. Russia is quite in favor of building deeper ties with India to check China in Eurasia. Take SCO for example, China really only wanted Pakistan to join but for Russia to have agreed, India would have to join as a member state as well.

 

[MultaniGuy]

You are absolutely correct. But Pakistan would have become the next North Korea if we hadn't complied to the US demands...

• Imagine US as the sole superpower in 2001... no one would have dared to stand in its way back then
• Russia was a collapsed empire with a dwindling economy, they could barely sustain themselves. Besides, we could not trust them due to obvious reasons: 1) we fought them just a decade ago, 2) they were, and still are very close to India.
• China wasn't as influential or powerful as it is today, so I highly doubt they would have stood with Pakistan, especially, after 9/11 mass hysteria and an international consensus on Afghan war...
• Pakistan would have been branded as "terrorist supporter" and a rogue state... all ties cut, all aids withdrawn... we were a new nuclear power, but without the missile capabilities... so, all they would have to do, was to send a naval fleet in the Arabia ocean, and you can imagine where it would have gone from there... India, our neighbor, would have been more than happy to extend help...

So, what happened post-9/11 was unfortunate, but inevitable... In my view, Pakistan's biggest geopolitical blunders were made later, e.g., allowing Drone Strikes, OBL operation (everyone knows CIA couldn't have done it alone... plus, where is the body??) etc. We allowed Americans to gain too much influence over us... blackwater and CIA used to operate openly, and gave them military basis, etc., while USA was openly supporting anti-Pakistani elements in Afghanistan (India included).

Bhai, back then in the year 2000, the times were so different.

Yes China was not the economic giant it was that it is today. Russia was still recovering from the collapse of the USSR.

EU was under the thumb of USA.

The whole world was under the thumb of USA back in the years 2000 and 2001.

But now the times have changed. USA is losing leverage over Pakistan.

 

[Fawadqasim1]

Is that all USA can do? Just arm twist? Why don't they go after Pakistan for real then? USA is losing leverage over Pakistan and they know it.

Sir Who will be indias counterweight then Afghanistan or Bangladesh

 

[UserUnknown2025]

Naya Pakistan must play USA and China against each other

I like what you proposed here, something no American allies would dare to do, but history tells us it’s very difficult for a chess piece to become a chess player. Also, playing China and the US against each other may not be the best for this region. Most importantly, you must be independent in your economic, military, as well as cultural sector of China and the US in order to pull this off. These are my two cents on the topic.

 

[MultaniGuy]

Sir Who will be indias counterweight then Afghanistan or Bangladesh

Yes I am aware of that.

Even in the bigger chess game, Pakistan is used as a pawn against India. I know that.

Anyways, Pakistan first!

 

[Fawadqasim1]

They want pakistan Rattled and under their thumb. That's not going to happen this time insha allah