‘Romney: the Pakistan perspective’
THIS is apropos article ‘Romney: the Pakistan perspective’ (Oct 26). While mentioning the low and high points of the US-Pakistan relationship, the writer has omitted the circumstances that led to, occurred during or resulted after those bilateral events.
Of the two major superpowers of the time, the USSR had sent a state visit invitation to Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan in 1948.
That invitation was set aside and a similar one from the US was waited on for two more years till 1950 when President Truman, reportedly disillusioned by India’s resolutely nonaligned stance, finally sent one to Pakistan.
As the article also noted, the American president throughout 1947 to 1950 period was a Democrat.
During the Indo-China war of 1962 not only did president Kennedy wrest an assurance from the then Pakistani dictator Gen Ayub Khan that Pakistan wouldn’t take advantage of India’s engagement on the McMahon Line, he also provided American arms to an avowed enemy of its ‘most allied ally’ that were predictably used against it in the Indo-Pakistan war of 1965.
Pakistan has historically had a better relationship with Republican administrations in Washington compared to their Democrat counterparts.
President Obama has been the only notable exception to this perennial trend. He has stood by Pakistan despite the discovery of his nation’s enemy number one from our heartland.
Conversely, the United States has had better relations with Pakistan that is ruled either by a military dictator or the Pakistan People’s Party.
RAVEZ JUNEJO
Karachi
It is clear even to the most ignorant of foreign affairs that the US relationship with Pakistan has always been transactional from day one. Why it remained this way? The Pakistani establishment never asked this question. Instead of building the country’s economy, the governments both military and civilian were quite content with relying on US aid. The politicians blame the army and the army blames the politicians for all the problems. Blame become the only solution to all the problems.
President Obama has been the only notable exception to this perennial trend. He has stood by Pakistan despite the discovery of his nation’s enemy number one from our heartland.
A laughable statement!
The USA is notorious for walking away from issues and problems when their public runs out of patience. It is better for Pakistan to maintain peace and prosperity on its own.
Your second sentence makes sense. Your first sentence merely repeats the absurd claim of Pakistani generals that the US “walked out of Afghanistan”. The US was engaged in Afghanistan when they needed help against the Soviet invaders. When the invader was kicked out with US help, the US left. This would indicate to any objective observer that the US did not seek to simply replace the Soviets with US control. But then, no once accused Pakistani ISI generals who created the taliban after the US left Afghanistan to be objective observers. They are seeking to deflect attention from themselves by painting the US as the villain.
The Taliban were created to fight the Russians , and not after their withdrawal. Please correct yourself.