Cash gk
Senior Member
- Sep 20, 2015
- 6,187
- 5,970
- Country of Origin
- Country of Residence
The relationship between the United States and Pakistan has long been marked by an asymmetric power dynamic, where Pakistan's sovereignty has frequently been compromised in favour of U.S. interests. This quasi-colonial relationship can be traced back to the 1950s and has evolved through various phases of manipulation, military alliances, and economic dependence.
The Cito Centre Agreement in 1954 was one of the first major events that signalled the beginning of U.S. control over Pakistan's foreign policy. Officially a military pact to counter the Soviet threat, it allowed the U.S. to establish military bases on Pakistani soil in exchange for financial and military aid. This marked the beginning of a pattern where Pakistan was forced into a position of dependence, its sovereignty undermined as U.S. personnel enjoyed privileges that made them exempt from local laws—similar to how colonial powers once treated their subjects.
The U-2 incident in 1960 was another glaring example of Pakistan’s compromised sovereignty. The U.S. was using Pakistani airbases to launch spy missions over the Soviet Union without Pakistan's consent, and when a U-2 spy plane was shot down, it was Pakistan that bore the diplomatic fallout. Pakistan’s role as a pawn in Cold War geopolitics was exposed, with the U.S. treating its territory as a mere staging ground for its own global strategies regardless of the potential dangers to Pakistan.
During the 1971 Indo-Pak war, the U.S. betrayed its supposed ally. Pakistan, under Yahya Khan, believed it had American support, but the Nixon administration was playing a double game, secretly favouring India. The U.S. manipulated Pakistan, using the war to further its own geopolitical goals, only to abandon Pakistan when it was defeated, leading to the loss of East Pakistan (now Bangladesh). This betrayal underscored the colonial nature of the relationship, where Pakistan's interests were disposable in the face of American objectives.
In the 1980s, Pakistan became a critical tool for the U.S. during the Afghan Jihad against the Soviet Union. The Reagan administration funnelled billions of dollars through Pakistan to arm the Afghan Mujahideen, but Pakistan paid a steep price for this so-called alliance. The country became a hub for weapons and drugs, and its internal stability deteriorated as a result. While the U.S. achieved its strategic goals by weakening the Soviet Union, Pakistan was left to deal with the fallout: an influx of radicalised fighters, refugees, and a growing culture of extremism. Once again, Pakistan had been used to serve U.S. interests with little regard for the consequences it would face.
After the Cold War ended, the U.S. discarded Pakistan once more, imposing sanctions through the Pressler Amendment in 1990 over Pakistan’s nuclear ambitions. This was a clear signal that Pakistan’s value to the U.S. was purely transactional. During the Afghan war, Pakistan had been a key ally, but once the Soviets were gone, it became expendable. India, meanwhile, pursued its own nuclear ambitions with far less interference from Washington, exposing the double standards in U.S. foreign policy.
The post-9/11 era saw Pakistan thrust into the frontlines of America’s War on Terror. Under immense pressure, President Pervez Musharraf had little choice but to comply with US demands. Pakistan became a battleground for drone strikes, which killed thousands of civilians and caused widespread destruction. America’s War on Terror was, in many ways, a propaganda line that cost Pakistan more than $150 billion in economic losses, infrastructure damage, and human lives. NATO supply convoys heavily damaged Pakistan's roads, and the Taliban, seeing Pakistan as an American ally, took revenge by launching attacks across the country. It was a bizarre situation where, on one hand, the U.S. called Pakistan an ally, yet on the other, it conducted deadly drone strikes on Pakistani soil. The toll on Pakistan was immense: over 100,000 people were killed, and its internal security and economy were pushed to the brink.
Pakistan's role in America's global strategy is as crucial as that of Ukraine or Palestine. The U.S. sees Pakistan as key to its survival in the current world order, controlling not only the South Asian region but also Central Asia and the broader Muslim world. Pakistan, with its population of 250 million, the second-largest Muslim population in the world, and its nuclear arsenal, is far too important for the U.S. to lose control over. American influence in Pakistan has long been maintained with the complicity of Pakistani generals and politicians like Nawaz Sharif and Asif Ali Zardari, who have been key facilitators of U.S. interests. The U.S. is deeply aware that losing Pakistan would mean losing a major geopolitical asset, which is why American diplomats, such as Donald Lu, were allegedly involved in the political machinations that led to the ousting of Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan.
The stakes for the U.S. in Pakistan are as high as they are in Ukraine or Palestine. America will do everything in its power to maintain control over Pakistan, because controlling Pakistan means influencing the entire Central Asian region and maintaining leverage over the Muslim world. Pakistan’s nuclear capability makes it even more critical to U.S. strategy. A weak Pakistan, with a crippled economy, is easier for the U.S. to control. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank, both heavily influenced by the U.S., have been key tools in keeping Pakistan dependent on foreign loans, forcing it to adopt policies that weaken its economic sovereignty. A weakened economy forces Pakistan to bend to U.S. demands, ensuring it remains on its knees and unable to challenge American interests.
The U.S. also exerts control through Pakistan’s military. Hillary Clinton once commented that the U.S. uses Pakistan’s army to control the country. Washington deals with both Pakistan’s political leaders and its military, often playing one against the other to maintain its grip. Pakistani generals, eager for U.S. military aid and support, have historically facilitated American operations in the region, further entrenching Pakistan in its role as a client state.
This ongoing manipulation, where America plays a decisive role in Pakistan’s political and military affairs, reflects the deeper colonial mindset that has defined U.S.-Pakistan relations. Despite being an independent nation, Pakistan remains tethered to U.S. influence, with its leaders often forced to prioritise American interests over their own. Whether through military pacts, economic dependency, or covert operations, the U.S. continues to treat Pakistan as a modern colony, ensuring that it remains under Washington’s control in the broader game of global power politics.
The Cito Centre Agreement in 1954 was one of the first major events that signalled the beginning of U.S. control over Pakistan's foreign policy. Officially a military pact to counter the Soviet threat, it allowed the U.S. to establish military bases on Pakistani soil in exchange for financial and military aid. This marked the beginning of a pattern where Pakistan was forced into a position of dependence, its sovereignty undermined as U.S. personnel enjoyed privileges that made them exempt from local laws—similar to how colonial powers once treated their subjects.
The U-2 incident in 1960 was another glaring example of Pakistan’s compromised sovereignty. The U.S. was using Pakistani airbases to launch spy missions over the Soviet Union without Pakistan's consent, and when a U-2 spy plane was shot down, it was Pakistan that bore the diplomatic fallout. Pakistan’s role as a pawn in Cold War geopolitics was exposed, with the U.S. treating its territory as a mere staging ground for its own global strategies regardless of the potential dangers to Pakistan.
During the 1971 Indo-Pak war, the U.S. betrayed its supposed ally. Pakistan, under Yahya Khan, believed it had American support, but the Nixon administration was playing a double game, secretly favouring India. The U.S. manipulated Pakistan, using the war to further its own geopolitical goals, only to abandon Pakistan when it was defeated, leading to the loss of East Pakistan (now Bangladesh). This betrayal underscored the colonial nature of the relationship, where Pakistan's interests were disposable in the face of American objectives.
In the 1980s, Pakistan became a critical tool for the U.S. during the Afghan Jihad against the Soviet Union. The Reagan administration funnelled billions of dollars through Pakistan to arm the Afghan Mujahideen, but Pakistan paid a steep price for this so-called alliance. The country became a hub for weapons and drugs, and its internal stability deteriorated as a result. While the U.S. achieved its strategic goals by weakening the Soviet Union, Pakistan was left to deal with the fallout: an influx of radicalised fighters, refugees, and a growing culture of extremism. Once again, Pakistan had been used to serve U.S. interests with little regard for the consequences it would face.
After the Cold War ended, the U.S. discarded Pakistan once more, imposing sanctions through the Pressler Amendment in 1990 over Pakistan’s nuclear ambitions. This was a clear signal that Pakistan’s value to the U.S. was purely transactional. During the Afghan war, Pakistan had been a key ally, but once the Soviets were gone, it became expendable. India, meanwhile, pursued its own nuclear ambitions with far less interference from Washington, exposing the double standards in U.S. foreign policy.
The post-9/11 era saw Pakistan thrust into the frontlines of America’s War on Terror. Under immense pressure, President Pervez Musharraf had little choice but to comply with US demands. Pakistan became a battleground for drone strikes, which killed thousands of civilians and caused widespread destruction. America’s War on Terror was, in many ways, a propaganda line that cost Pakistan more than $150 billion in economic losses, infrastructure damage, and human lives. NATO supply convoys heavily damaged Pakistan's roads, and the Taliban, seeing Pakistan as an American ally, took revenge by launching attacks across the country. It was a bizarre situation where, on one hand, the U.S. called Pakistan an ally, yet on the other, it conducted deadly drone strikes on Pakistani soil. The toll on Pakistan was immense: over 100,000 people were killed, and its internal security and economy were pushed to the brink.
Pakistan's role in America's global strategy is as crucial as that of Ukraine or Palestine. The U.S. sees Pakistan as key to its survival in the current world order, controlling not only the South Asian region but also Central Asia and the broader Muslim world. Pakistan, with its population of 250 million, the second-largest Muslim population in the world, and its nuclear arsenal, is far too important for the U.S. to lose control over. American influence in Pakistan has long been maintained with the complicity of Pakistani generals and politicians like Nawaz Sharif and Asif Ali Zardari, who have been key facilitators of U.S. interests. The U.S. is deeply aware that losing Pakistan would mean losing a major geopolitical asset, which is why American diplomats, such as Donald Lu, were allegedly involved in the political machinations that led to the ousting of Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan.
The stakes for the U.S. in Pakistan are as high as they are in Ukraine or Palestine. America will do everything in its power to maintain control over Pakistan, because controlling Pakistan means influencing the entire Central Asian region and maintaining leverage over the Muslim world. Pakistan’s nuclear capability makes it even more critical to U.S. strategy. A weak Pakistan, with a crippled economy, is easier for the U.S. to control. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank, both heavily influenced by the U.S., have been key tools in keeping Pakistan dependent on foreign loans, forcing it to adopt policies that weaken its economic sovereignty. A weakened economy forces Pakistan to bend to U.S. demands, ensuring it remains on its knees and unable to challenge American interests.
The U.S. also exerts control through Pakistan’s military. Hillary Clinton once commented that the U.S. uses Pakistan’s army to control the country. Washington deals with both Pakistan’s political leaders and its military, often playing one against the other to maintain its grip. Pakistani generals, eager for U.S. military aid and support, have historically facilitated American operations in the region, further entrenching Pakistan in its role as a client state.
This ongoing manipulation, where America plays a decisive role in Pakistan’s political and military affairs, reflects the deeper colonial mindset that has defined U.S.-Pakistan relations. Despite being an independent nation, Pakistan remains tethered to U.S. influence, with its leaders often forced to prioritise American interests over their own. Whether through military pacts, economic dependency, or covert operations, the U.S. continues to treat Pakistan as a modern colony, ensuring that it remains under Washington’s control in the broader game of global power politics.
Source:
Article
Article
