Was Pakistan a dicey United States ally?
We are not sure of what to make of US president Donald Trump's tweet attacks on Pakistan. We are not even sure if sensitive foreign policy matters should be promoted through Twitter, or if such foreign policy promos should be taken seriously as expression of intent or just a pressure release mechanism. That has become a $33 billion debate.
The president of the United States (POTUS), true to his by now well-known cavalier style, warned of "strict" actions — without going into the specifics. Pakistan responded with the usual bluster, with the Pakistan air chief Marshal calling for the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) to shoot down US drones over Pakistan airspace.
This time around, politicians alone are doing the talking. The only similarity between the statements is that they are more in line with expression of interest rather than a mission statement.
The problem may have its roots in the US being peeved at Pakistan's reluctance or inability to rein in the Haqqani network in Afghanistan. The most deadly of the Afghan Taliban operate from the Afghan-Pakistan border and enjoy active Pak patronage. Patronage along the lines of that enjoyed by the Lashkar e Taiba (LeT) and the Jaish e Mohammad (JeM). Hectic, high-level diplomatic parleys, including visits by the US secretary of defence and joint chief of staff’s chairman, seem to have failed in finding common cause between these long-term allies.
Coercive economic action has followed. The US withheld $350 million meant for Pak forces deployed along the restive Afghan border, following this up with blocking $225 million-worth military aid to Islamabad. This time around, it was not bluster. There were some economic ramifications. For the TV experts across our national media jumping in glee, the US Congress had reportedly dropped a provision that linked US aid to action on ground against the LeT before the diplomatic parleys. It was not a rosy picture for us.
Has Pakistan been a dicey ally for the US? Yes, of course. Allies who do not do the bidding of superpowers are termed dicey. Power blocs often realise that allies have domestic compulsions that are sometimes at variance with the goals of the bloc. These Talibs were basically created by Pakistan — the covert funding allegedly came from the US and its allies to push out the competing superpower from Afghanistan. They succeeded. The same Talibs were hailed as liberators as they overran Afghanistan. With one superpower withdrawing, the need for the instrument of their removal ended. But then carefully indoctrinated, trained armed forces are not in the habit of dissolving away silently.
The factions fought and Afghanistan went back to the medieval times. Then some more international realpolitik ensued, and images and visuals of hardy Northern alliance fighters making their way across dusty plains and valleys of Afghanistan in their tanks and armoured carriers were all across global television. Our venerable channel was there documenting history - however how a loose alliance managed to procure so many MVTs and APCs in a matter of months was conveniently overlooked and brushed under the carpet soon afterwards.
The struggle in Afghanistan continued.
The primary US objective in Afghanistan was achieved. However, the US does not share a border with Afghanistan. Pakistan does. It was never oblivious, always in connivance, but there was this lingering question of what to do with a few thousand well-armed, trained and battle hardened veterans — assets that the superpower no longer needed. Pakistan was left to deal with them as best as it could. It could do little. Some of the energy was diverted to the issues of liberating Kashmir and jihad against India. But that theatre had only limited "employment" opportunities. Inside Pakistan, the assets were soon turing into liabilities.
In not drawing a conclusion it was intended that situations be seen in a proper context - the larger picture is there for all to see. The second conclusion from Tuesday's primetime war of words across channels threw up another logic: Pakistan can now defy the US because of its relations with China. Any coercive military action would result in repercussions and resultant regional instability.
Let’s cut to the chase: China does not have the cash to run Pakistan. Even if it had it would not have bankrolled Pakistan's government or military. All-weather allies are not necessarily all-expenses paid. For that matter, any coercive military action by the superpower against Pakistan seems a remote possibility.
How far will the US go?
That would depend on the superpower's ability to find a market for military hardware in the neighbourhood. As the global economy slows down, the superpower's need for a partner and ally that can pay its own bills has increased exponentially. The same holds true for the Dragon too — albeit after a certain point of time.