The Problem, Stated Plainly
For decades, Pakistan's relationship with the United States has been trapped in a destructive binary: America as an omnipotent savior or a malevolent saboteur. This emotional oscillation, from fawning admiration to furious condemnation, has crippled Islamabad's ability to craft a coherent, interest-driven foreign policy. Generations of Pakistani analysts, politicians, and the public have projected their deepest desires and fears onto Washington, mistaking transactional engagements for enduring friendship or insidious enmity. The stark, uncomfortable truth is far more mundane: the United States, like any other sovereign nation, pursues its own interests, and those interests rarely align perfectly or permanently with Pakistan’s. Our persistent failure to acknowledge this fundamental geopolitical reality has left us vulnerable, reactive, and perpetually disappointed, diverting precious intellectual and diplomatic resources from the urgent task of defining and securing our own strategic objectives.
Our Obsession Blinds Us to Realpolitik
Washington's foreign policy towards Pakistan, and indeed towards any other nation, is a calculation of its own strategic imperatives, not a reflection of affection or animosity. From the Cold War's anti-communist alliances to the post-9/11 'War on Terror,' Pakistan's utility to the US has been precisely that: a utility. When Pakistan served as a bulwark against Soviet expansion, it received considerable military and economic aid. When the Soviet threat receded, so did Washington's intense focus on Islamabad, culminating in the Pressler Amendment. The tragic events of 9/11 thrust Pakistan back into the spotlight as a 'frontline state,' indispensable for logistics and intelligence in Afghanistan, again unlocking significant assistance. These shifts were not about the US suddenly 'liking' or 'disliking' Pakistan; they were about Washington's evolving security concerns and its need for partners to achieve specific, time-bound objectives.
Today, with the US withdrawal from Afghanistan and a renewed focus on great power competition in the Indo-Pacific, Pakistan's strategic relevance to Washington has undeniably diminished. This is neither a betrayal nor a punishment; it is a natural consequence of shifting global priorities. Expecting the US to maintain the same level of engagement or aid when its core interests have moved on is not merely naive, it is a dangerous delusion. Pakistan's foreign policy establishment must internalize that American engagement is cyclical and conditional, driven by dynamic geopolitical exigencies, not sentimental ties. Our continued obsession with dissecting every nuanced statement from Foggy Bottom for signs of favour or disfavour distracts us from the urgent need to define and pursue our own sovereign agenda in a multipolar world.
A History of Transactional Diplomacy
A dispassionate review of history reveals a consistent pattern of transactional engagement, not enduring partnership. Pakistan's participation in SEATO and CENTO alliances during the Cold War was a strategic decision, earning it security guarantees and significant military hardware. When geopolitical winds shifted, and Pakistan pursued its nuclear program, the US response was the Pressler Amendment, a stark reminder that even allies face consequences when their actions diverge from American non-proliferation interests. Post-9/11, the infusion of billions in aid and military equipment was directly tied to Pakistan's support for the US mission in Afghanistan. This was not altruism; it was a payment for services rendered, a cold calculation of costs and benefits.
The narrative often peddled within Pakistan, that the US 'used and discarded' us, mischaracterizes the very nature of international relations. Nations engage where their interests converge and disengage when they diverge. Washington's consistency lies not in its 'friendship' or 'enmity' towards Pakistan, but in its unwavering pursuit of its own national security and economic objectives. Our national discourse, instead of acknowledging this basic premise, often descends into self-pity or conspiratorial rage. This historical amnesia, or perhaps wilful ignorance, prevents us from learning critical lessons about self-reliance and pragmatic diplomacy. It is imperative that Pakistan ceases to view itself as a victim of external powers and instead takes ownership of its own historical trajectory, understanding that every engagement, every alliance, carries a price and a temporary utility.
The Counterargument — And Why It Fails
Some argue that the United States is indeed an active antagonist, deliberately undermining Pakistan's stability, or conversely, that it ought to be a steadfast friend due to past sacrifices and shared democratic ideals. Both perspectives, while emotionally resonant for different constituencies, fundamentally misread the global chessboard. The claim of active US malevolence often veers into unsubstantiated conspiracy theories, attributing every internal Pakistani challenge to an external hand. While US policy can certainly have unintended consequences or pursue actions antithetical to Pakistan's immediate comfort, mistaking strategic indifference or a focus on its own priorities for active enmity is a profound error. The US does not need to destabilize Pakistan; our internal governance issues, economic vulnerabilities, and struggles with extremism often achieve that quite effectively on their own.
Equally flawed is the notion that shared democratic values or past military cooperation should translate into unconditional friendship. International relations are not predicated on sentimentality. Democracies often find themselves at odds, and alliances are formed and dissolved based on shifting power dynamics and strategic exigencies. Pakistan's 'sacrifices' in various conflicts were compensated for and, crucially, aligned with Islamabad's own perceived interests at the time. No nation, least of all a superpower, acts purely out of altruism. To expect otherwise is to indulge in a dangerous form of idealism that leaves one perpetually unprepared for the realities of power politics. The US is a complex entity with diverse, often competing, internal interests, not a monolithic villain or saviour. Our analytical frameworks must reflect this complexity, rather than reducing it to simplistic binaries.
What Should Actually Happen
Pakistan must embark on a radical reorientation of its foreign policy, shedding the emotional baggage of its US relationship and embracing a strategy of proactive self-interest. First, diversify strategic partnerships. Over-reliance on any single power, be it the US or China, creates dependency and limits autonomy. Islamabad must cultivate robust, multi-faceted relationships with Europe, Russia, the ASEAN bloc, Central Asian states, and the Middle East, based on tangible economic, technological, and security cooperation. Second, strengthen internal resilience. A strong, stable, and economically vibrant Pakistan is the most potent tool for an independent foreign policy. This means urgent reforms to address our fiscal deficits, tackle corruption, improve governance, and invest in human capital. A nation perpetually seeking bailouts cannot dictate its terms on the global stage.
Third, define and articulate Pakistan's core interests with clarity. What does Pakistan unequivocally need from the world in terms of trade, technology, security, and climate adaptation? These interests must then form the bedrock of all diplomatic engagements, replacing reactive responses with a principled, pragmatic approach. Fourth, invest heavily in diplomatic capacity and independent analysis. Our foreign service needs to be empowered, professionalized, and equipped with the intellectual tools to navigate a complex world. We must foster indigenous think tanks capable of generating nuanced, non-partisan policy recommendations, free from ideological leanings. Only by becoming a self-assured actor, dictating its own terms from a position of strength, can Pakistan truly achieve respect and sovereignty on the international stage.
Conclusion
The time for Pakistan to oscillate between America-worship and America-hatred is over. Such emotional extremes betray a profound immaturity in our foreign policy outlook, hindering our ability to engage pragmatically with the world. Washington's policy towards Islamabad has always been, and will always be, a function of its own national interests, which are neither constant nor altruistic. Pakistan's path to genuine sovereignty and regional influence lies not in a futile quest for a permanent friend or foe, but in a relentless, clear-eyed pursuit of its own defined interests. Only when Pakistan learns to treat itself as its own best friend will others truly respect its agency.
