Obstacles to Reviving US-Pakistan Ties

The American ambassador’s visits to Gilgit, Hunza, and Muzaffarabad in September drew criticism from India, which claims these areas as its integral parts under Pakistan’s illegal occupation.

It’s possible that China was also concerned about Pakistan hosting an American official in areas adjacent to Xinjiang. China has long claimed the northern valleys of Jammu and Kashmir as part of its larger strategic sphere and important staging points south of the Himalayas. Beijing anticipates that Pakistan will seek her permission before allowing US officials to enter such sensitive areas. China has previously objected to Pakistan allowing American geologists to visit Gilgit-Baltistan, prompting the local authorities to cancel the trip.

Many Pakistani analysts believe that relations between Pakistan and the United States have improved since the IMF approved the life-saving loan. Islamabad reacted favorably to a recent offer from the White House to support Pakistan in thwarting the threat posed by TTP’s domestic terrorism. TTP is also a major source of concern for Chinese interests in Pakistan and Afghanistan, as TTP’s leadership holds China responsible for Uyghur Muslim genocide. Pakistan had previously accused India and Iran of supporting the TTP. However, as a result of China’s intervention, Iran has moved closer to Pakistan, with India bearing the majority of the blame.

The British Dominion of Pakistan received official US recognition on August 15, 1947. The strategic relationship between the two countries grew when the Crown of England, as Pakistan’s sovereign, included her in anti-Russian coalitions such as CENTO, SEATO, and the Baghdad Pact. Pakistan’s participation in the coalition grew as it received assistance from the member-states to counter the threats from Soviet-backed Afghans. Further, western money and weapons helped Pakistan fight back against India’s ambitions in Afghanistan, where the Indian embassy in Kabul was frequently accused of supporting Pashtun and Baloch separatists. China’s emergence as a Western ally against the Soviet bloc also aided Pakistan’s collaboration with China to contain a common enemy, India.

The main benefit of Pakistan joining the anti-Soviet bloc, however, was receiving Western favors against India in Kashmir. As historians tell, the United States’ diplomatic assistance prevented Pakistan from a complete defeat in all of the wars it initiated against India. Pakistani strategic commentators agree that without American pressure on India, Pakistan’s Gilgit map would look very different today. Under American pressure, Indian forces refrained from marching on to Gilgit and POJK in 1971, when they were assisting Bangladesh in its liberation from Pakistani occupation. Many Pakistani military generals are still grateful to the United States for critical assistance in retaining their border with China.

With the advent of BRI, CPEC, QUAD, and India Middle East Economic Corridor (IMEC), Americans are being persuaded to reconsider their Kashmir policy, and Pakistan has accepted that the main attraction in US-Pakistan relations has vanished. Today, the United States and Pakistan have opposing viewpoints and divergent strategic interests in Afghanistan, China, and India. As the US moves closer to India, Pakistan remains firmly opposed to joining any anti-China bloc. In a rapidly changing modern world, China has replaced the US as the new guarantor of Pakistan’s illegal control over Gilgit.

Many well-sought-after American experts, such as Michael Rubin are of the view that the United States could no longer afford to view Kashmir as a byproduct of the Indian partition debacle. He will tell you that siding with Pakistan in Gilgit is the same as giving China more strategic space south of the Karakoram range, and thus in the Arabian Gulf and the Indian Ocean.

Kashmir, Xinjiang, and Tibet are not only geographically connected, but also politically connected, and one cannot deny China strategic space in Xinjiang and Tibet without first denying it in Gilgit and Kashmir. Therefore supporting Pakistan or opposing India in Kashmir indirectly assists China in maintaining aggression over Tibet and Xinjiang, which is contrary to US interests.

On the other hand, Pakistan welcomes China’s communist party having a firm grip on these three territories and ruling the locals with an iron fist. While Pakistan claims to be the Muslim nation’s bulwark, it is shamelessly siding with the Chinese corporations seizing Muslim lands in Gilgit, Baltistan, and Muzaffarabad, and committing genocide against Uighur and Kazakh Muslims in Xinjiang.

Indians believe that the politics of the Indo-Pacific, Gilgit, and Kashmir are inextricably linked because India faces the same aggressor – China – in all three locations. As a result, the United States cannot assist India in strengthening its capacity in the oceans while ignoring or undermining Indian interests in the mountains.

It is vital for the USA to make QUAD a force to reckon with to contain China’s exploitative expansion. Moreover, the USA is going to need India’s help in the MENA region to build a road and rail network as an alternative to China’s BRI. The success of both QUAD and IMEC lie in India being equipped to tackle China on all fronts.

There is a greater need for US officials to discuss human rights issues in Kashmir without undermining India’s sovereignty over the Karakoram territories that effectively work as a buffer with China. As a strong Pakistan translates into a strong China; recognizing India’s legal ties to Kashmir and Gilgit would boost American efforts to expose China as a regional aggressor. In this regard, encouraging India’s bid to host the G20 in Kashmir and Ladakh marked a slight shift in American Kashmir policy.

Since the US withdrawal from Afghanistan, China has been working tirelessly to establish strategic footholds in Afghanistan and Central Asian republics, even at the expense of its ally, Russia. A few months ago, China hosted the C+C5 summit in Xian without Russia, implying that it is eager to replace Russia in the Soviet historical hinterlands. According to a deal brokered by China, three countries, Uzbekistan, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, may establish rail links in the coming years.

Often called the BRI darling, China is luring Pakistan with grandiose promises but with little to show for it on the ground. A recent report suggests that China would not add more projects to CPEC in light of Pakistan’s overtures to Washington DC. According to the Express Tribune, Pakistan has not even realized one-fifth of the BRI/CPEC potential and only $25 billion of China’s $60 billion commitment has been marked for the start of approximately 20 projects.

China, like Nepal and Sri Lanka, pressures Pakistan’s rulers to advocate for its interests against India and the US. Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Bhutto was in India a few months ago to attend the SCO Summit. Visiting India when the BJP is in power is considered suicidal by any Pakistani regime. However, Bilawal swallowed the pill, demonstrating Beijing’s deep involvement in Pakistani politics.

Pakistan stands by China’s side to help expand strategic depth in the Gulf countries. Recent Chinese overtures to Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Palestine demonstrate that America must abandon traditional engagement patterns in the Middle East and shift its focus to India to make IMEC a reality in the shortest possible time.

China’s penetration in the MENA region is much more venomous than anticipated. China’s foreign minister, Wang Yi, recently met with his Iranian counterpart and expressed a desire to unite Islamic voices on the Palestinian issue. Li Rui, a CCP-affiliated Phoenix TV reporter, was in Tehran on October 8 to celebrate “Hamas’ victory over Israel.” Furthermore, Abbas Zaki, a member of Fatah’s central executive committee, believes that China will help in their long quest to defeat Israel. China could deploy Hamas and Islamic Jihad credentials to destabilize IMEC in the coming years, and both Iran and Pakistan may act as China’s long arms.

Pakistan and the United States disagree on how to define terrorism or gauge terrorist activity. It is too early to speculate on what kind of assistance Pakistan might receive from the US to combat domestic terrorism. The Indo-US economic and strategic relations have matured to the point where the US would consider India’s interests before extending any assistance to Pakistan. Previous experience indicates that the majority of the military assistance provided by the US to Pakistan to combat terrorism was used against India or to hurt its own Pashtun and Baloch citizens.  The White House issued a joint statement during PM Modi’s visit indicating cooperation in identifying and designating terrorist organizations. This could help weaken Pakistani interference in Kashmir; halt Islamabad’s assault on Afghanistan, and expose the presence of high-profile Khalistani terrorists on Pakistani soil.

Throughout the decades of bilateral relations between the United States and Pakistan, Pakistan has never kept its promise to combat all forms of terrorism. The rulers remained reluctant to contain military-protected terrorist organizations like Jaish-e-Muhammad and Lashkar-e-Taiba. America squandered much of its money on Pakistani officials who were running with the hare and hunting with the hounds. The taxpayer funds spent to improve Pakistani defense capabilities were wasted due to Pakistani generals’ lack of commitment.

Despite the fact that Pakistan has been removed from the grey list, FATF is apprehensive about compliance because UNO-banned organizations openly solicit donations in Pakistani mosques with impunity. Nonetheless, the US should maintain pressure on Pakistan to crack down on terrorist groups and individuals by using multilateral institutions for communication as well as enlisting the help of mutual Arab allies.

The lens through which Washington views Pakistan has evolved to include China. The US wants to prevent Pakistan from acting as a proxy for China, while Islamabad wants a compelling reason to abandon its sole ally. Pakistan has realized that supporting China helps pull American levers and reaps the same strategic dividends as nurturing terrorists did previously.

Despite Pakistan’s inconsistency and double game, normalizing relations remains a priority for the Biden administration, and the White House has shown interest in stabilizing the ties without involving military aid or equipment transfer. In 2008, the US Congress introduced the Pakistan-Afghanistan Reconstruction Opportunity Zones Bill to help boost the regional economy. Some senators, including Senator Van Hollen, supported duty-free imports of textile and apparel goods from Pakistan as recently as 2021 under the Pakistan-Afghanistan Economic Development Act. The recent deterioration of Pakistan-Taliban relations, on the other hand, suggests that such projects may not bear fruit.

While Afghanistan and Pakistan remain terror hotspots, the US emphasizes the importance of the two countries sharing intelligence against potential threats. Pakistan’s selective approach to dealing with specific terrorist groups, on the other hand, undermines any such mission.

Maintaining open lines of communication is also critical for tracking and securing Pakistan’s nuclear assets and other weapons of mass destruction. Training Pakistani military personnel through the US security assistance programs (IMET) previously aided to some extent; however, ensuring transparency remains a greater challenge.

Despite India’s objections, a visit by a US official to Gilgit or Muzaffarabad might have assisted in learning about human rights violations and China’s open aggression against locals. It’s only a matter of time before we find out whether the US administration supports the locals or their usurper, the Pakistani regime. Given the United States’ track record of advocating for international human rights, the ambassador should inform Pakistani rulers that charging locals with treason and terrorism for defending local lands and advocating for basic human rights is not acceptable. This is taking place in an environment where real terrorists are free to roam in military protection.

Without interfering in Pakistani politics, the US ambassador should state unequivocally that Pakistani rulers cannot restrict local religious freedoms under the guise of blasphemy. Furthermore, the United States should stand with locals to ensure that media freedom, the right to dissent and civil liberties are guaranteed in Gilgit-Baltistan. Failure to do so would expose American double standards in how it handles issues on the Indian side of Kashmir versus the Pakistani side.

The US ambassador should speak with India and Pakistan about opening the roads between Ladakh and Baltistan. He should alert the Pakistani government to the dangers that aggressive Chinese exploitation poses to local glaciers and other bodies of water. The US could assist Pakistan in joining the Energy Resource Governance Initiative (ERGI), which would aid in monitoring natural resource abuse in Gilgit-Baltistan.

In the past, the State Department and USAID served critical interests of the people of Gilgit-Baltistan. The assistance provided by the United States in the form of exposure trips, fellowships, professional training, and mentoring programs has assisted journalists, gender specialists, social scientists, and academics in reaching new heights and contributing to society.

It’s as clear as day that the collusion of Pakistan and China is threatening not only India and the United States, but also the people of Gilgit-Baltistan. For any eventuality and unforeseen consequences, it is critical for the United States to establish direct relationships with the people of Gilgit-Baltistan in order to economically empower them to face China’s onslaught.

The International Development Finance Cooperation (IDFC) could collaborate with Gilgit-Baltistan’s business owners and entrepreneurs to modernize the tourism industry as well as the agricultural sector to create fruit and dairy export mechanisms. American investment in wind and solar energy could help alleviate local energy issues and create green jobs to help the economy recover. American assistance would be vital in mitigating climate-related environmental impacts as raging floods have become a common occurrence in Gilgit-Baltistan wreaking havoc on local infrastructure and livelihoods.

Furthermore, the State Department could encourage friendly countries such as Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, South Korea, and Japan to invest in Gilgit-Baltistan. Recently, the Azerbaijani ambassador to Pakistan met with the Chief Minister of Gilgit to discuss mineral exploration and trade opportunities. India might object to such initiatives for obvious strategic benefits to Turkey.

The United States’ strategic space in Pakistan is shrinking. Pakistan appears to be moving closer to China as US equities in India rise. America has no reason to intentionally isolate Pakistan or irreparably harm the relationship. However, the terms under which Pakistan wishes to offer space to the US no longer serve its strategic interests.