 |
|
Donald Trump's relationship with Pakistan has been a rollercoaster, marked by stark contrasts and sudden reversals. In early 2018, as president, Trump launched a scathing attack on Pakistan, accusing the nation of deceiving the United States despite receiving over $33 billion in aid. He alleged that Pakistan provided safe havens for terrorists operating in Afghanistan, essentially betraying the US efforts in the region. This led to the suspension of security assistance, reflecting a deep distrust and a perceived failure of Pakistan to align with American interests. However, a remarkable transformation has occurred, particularly evident during Trump's potential second term. General Michael Kurilla, the head of US Central Command (CENTCOM), has recently lauded Pakistan as a "phenomenal partner in the counter-terrorism world." Furthermore, General Asim Munir, the Pakistani Army Chief, has reportedly been invited to a grand military parade hosted by Trump, coinciding with the US Army's 250th anniversary. This invitation is a clear signal of warming relations, prompting the critical question: why is the US now seemingly appeasing the very military establishment it once vehemently condemned? The officially stated reason revolves around counter-terrorism. With the resurgence of militant groups like ISIS-K in the region and the ongoing instability in Afghanistan after the US withdrawal, Pakistan's geographic location and intelligence capabilities are deemed valuable assets. Pakistan provides crucial overflight access, potential staging areas, and intelligence cooperation that could potentially prevent large-scale terror threats to US interests. The extradition of Mohammad Sharifullah aka Jafar, an ISIS-K member, to the US by Pakistan has been specifically cited as evidence of this cooperation. Sharifullah was charged by the US Justice Department for his involvement in the 2021 Kabul airport suicide bombing. However, while the counter-terrorism explanation appears plausible, it seems overly simplistic when considering the significant shift in diplomatic stance. It is more likely that deeper geopolitical considerations are driving the US to re-engage with Pakistan's military establishment, possibly with objectives that extend beyond mere counter-terrorism efforts. One of the key factors influencing Trump's softening stance towards Pakistan might be related to potentially lucrative deals offered by Pakistani leaders, including Munir, to a cryptocurrency company, World Liberty Financial, owned by Trump's sons, Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr. This connection raises questions about potential conflicts of interest and whether financial incentives are playing a role in shaping US foreign policy. This potential direct benefit to Trump and his family adds a layer of complexity and cynicism to the relationship.
Beyond potential financial incentives, several strategic imperatives could be driving Trump's pivot to Pakistan. The escalating tensions in the Middle East, particularly the increasing likelihood of an Israeli military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities, necessitate a reassessment of regional alliances and strategic partnerships. The US has already taken precautionary measures, such as evacuating non-essential personnel from diplomatic missions and military outposts across the region, suggesting serious contingency planning for a potential conflict. In this volatile environment, Pakistan's role becomes strategically significant. As a large Muslim-majority nation with nuclear capabilities and strong ties within the Islamic world, Pakistan's position on a US-backed or Israeli-led strike on Iran carries substantial weight. The US may be seeking to secure Pakistan's tacit support, including the potential use of its military bases and assets, and ensure its neutrality or even assistance during a wider regional conflict involving Iranian proxies. Moreover, Pakistan shares a border with Iran through Balochistan, a region where anti-Iran insurgent groups operate, allegedly with tacit support from Pakistan. In the event of an escalation of the Israel-Iran conflict, Pakistan could serve as a discreet front for logistical or intelligence operations for US military planners. This potential role in a conflict with Iran underscores the strategic importance of Pakistan to the US, outweighing previous concerns about its alleged support for terrorism. Another crucial strategic dimension involves the growing Chinese influence in Pakistan, particularly through the multi-billion-dollar China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), a flagship project of Beijing's Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). The US views CPEC as a long-term threat, fearing that China could establish a secure land route to the Arabian Sea and potentially use ports like Gwadar for military purposes. By re-engaging with Pakistan, especially its powerful military, the US aims to counterbalance China's influence in the region. While reversing Pakistan's deepening ties with China might be unrealistic, the US hopes to diversify Pakistan's dependencies by offering military aid, diplomatic legitimacy, and economic incentives in exchange for strategic concessions. This strategy is designed to prevent Pakistan from becoming overly reliant on China and to maintain a degree of US influence within the country.
The US's approach to Pakistan can also be interpreted as a strategic move in relation to India. Despite the significant improvement in US-India relations in recent years, friction persists, particularly regarding trade, technology transfer, and India's reluctance to fully align with US geopolitical priorities, especially in its stance on Russia and the Ukraine conflict. India has resisted unequivocally condemning Russia and continues to trade with Russia in oil and weapons, much to the dismay of the US. By warming up to Pakistan, the US might be signaling to India that it has alternative options in South Asia. This serves as leverage in trade negotiations and defense deals, potentially pressuring India to make concessions on tariffs, data localization laws, or arms procurement. Essentially, the US is using its outreach to Pakistan as a diplomatic tool to extract more favorable terms from India. This strategic balancing act demonstrates the complex and multi-layered nature of US foreign policy in the region. In Pakistan, foreign policy, particularly concerning the US, is primarily controlled by the military, rather than the civilian government. By engaging directly with Pakistan's army leadership, the US is dealing with the true center of power in Islamabad. The military is not only capable of delivering on security guarantees but also possesses significant autonomy and continuity, especially compared to Pakistan's often unstable civilian governments. By inviting Army Chief Asim Munir to the high-profile military parade, the US is sending a clear signal: the bilateral relationship is being restored, and it is firmly anchored in ties with the military. For Trump, who is known for valuing transactional diplomacy, dealing with Pakistan's generals may seem like a more predictable and pragmatic approach. While official statements often emphasize counter-terrorism, the US re-engagement with Pakistan is more likely driven by a confluence of broader strategic imperatives. The Pakistani military, once shunned by Trump for alleged duplicity, is now being courted as a crucial player in America's strategic calculus. Trump's volte-face reflects the realpolitik that often characterizes US foreign policy. If interests align, a former adversary can become an ally. A similar approach was seen in Syria, where the US removed the bounty on Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) leader Ahmed al-Sharaa, after he led a successful offensive. This demonstrates the flexible and pragmatic nature of US foreign policy, where alliances can shift based on evolving strategic needs.
For Pakistan's military, the positive attention from Trump is a significant victory. It indicates that, despite past grievances, it remains an indispensable actor in regional geopolitics. This recognition reinforces the military's influence within Pakistan and its importance to the US in achieving its strategic objectives in the region. In conclusion, the evolving relationship between the US and Pakistan under Donald Trump highlights the complex interplay of strategic interests, geopolitical considerations, and potential financial incentives that shape US foreign policy. While counter-terrorism remains a stated rationale, the underlying motivations are likely far more nuanced, encompassing concerns about China's growing influence, the potential for conflict with Iran, and the desire to maintain leverage over India. The US's willingness to re-engage with Pakistan's military, despite past accusations of duplicity, underscores the pragmatic nature of international relations, where alliances can shift based on evolving circumstances and strategic calculations. The situation is a dynamic interplay of power, influence, and competing interests, and it reflects the ever-changing landscape of international relations, particularly in the strategically vital region of South Asia. The future of this relationship will depend on how these competing interests are balanced and how effectively both countries can navigate the complex geopolitical challenges that lie ahead. The potential benefits and risks associated with this re-engagement will need to be carefully considered to ensure that it serves the long-term interests of both nations. The situation showcases that in the realm of geopolitics, there are no permanent friends or enemies, only permanent interests.
Source: Mollycoddling Munir: What's Trump planning with Pakistan military?