EDITORIAL: US View Of Pak Ties

The US ambassador in Islamabad, Mr. Ronald Spiers, has made a speech on Pakistan-US relations which is truly remarkable for its candour. At the very start of his address to the Karachi institute of foreign relations on April 20, Mr. Spiers spoke of “a number of mutual disappointments” in the past and of “different and occasionally diver­gent perspectives between the two countries.” And while listing the two areas of common interests – the economic development and security of Pakistan – he was at pains to underscore certain points. The US military aid was meant for use only in self-defence against possible pressures emanating from Afghanistan as a result of the Soviet mili­tary presence there. Despite its political differences with India, Washington did not consider New Delhi as “anyone’s proxy.” Not content with this formulation, he said; “Most of our past problems, I think, have stemmed from a diffe­rent view about the purpose and open-endedness of the security ties that have existed between us since the early 1950’s. A principal Pakistani concern has been India; the principal concern for the US and other CENTO members were the potential threats and pressures from the Soviet Union.” He was at pains to emphasize that this remained America’s perspective and that, in its view, India did not intend to attack Pakistan.

The ambassador then spelt out what he called vulner­abilities in the US-Pakistan relationship. This is by far the most important part of the address which deserves attention in this country. He listed four such “vulnerabilities” directly and one not so directly. First, “the concern in the US that a positive relationship with Pakistan will be misunder­stood as anti-Indian”. The Soviet “occupation” of Afghani­stan had “lessened this factor as a barrier to cooperation.” But “if India and Pakistan succeeded in the efforts to com­pose their differences there will be less domestic criticism of our policies of supporting Pakistan in the military area”. Secondly, “it is no secret that the United States feels more comfortable and has the greatest political affinity with other democracies. The fact that Pakistan has a martial law gov­ernment has been a source of continuing reservation among important sectors of opinion in the United States. To the extent ways and means are found to move to a more re­presentative system of government in Pakistan, this poten­tial pitfall in our relationship will be diminished. For many Americans one of the basic human rights is the right to participate in the political process.”

Mr. Spiers listed narcotics as the third source of pos­sible discord between the US and Pakistan, noting that “about 70 per cent of the heroin on American streets is now coming from South-West Asia, much of it through Paki­stan”, and the nuclear issue as “the final shadow on the horizons of the US-Pakistan relations.” He also explained at great length America’s West Asia policy apparently be­cause he had found that “the US position is widely mis­represented in this country”. While he did not categorically say that West Asia, too, could be a source of misunderstand­ing between Washington and Islamabad, his formulation suggested that he visualized such a possibility. The ambas­sador also used the occasion to deny General Zia-ul-Haq’s statement (of course without naming him) that the US had sought base facilities in Pakistan.

Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.