Substantively, nothing has changed in US Pakistan relationship: Expert
Washington: Despite improved optics and high-level engagement over the past year, the substance of the US-Pakistan relationship remains largely unchanged, a leading South Asia expert said, cautioning that symbolism has yet to translate into tangible economic or military gains for Islamabad.
Pakistan’s participation in the upcoming Board of Peace meeting is being projected in Islamabad as evidence of renewed ties with Washington. But Aparna Pande of the prestigious Hudson Institute think-tank said the shift is more symbolic than structural.
“This is a visit primarily to attend the Board of Peace meeting,” she said, noting that the Pakistani side would likely emphasise “the changed US-Pakistan relationship as of last year” and the “closer, personal relationship” between the Pakistani Prime Minister, the Army chief, and President Trump.
Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif is scheduled to be in Washington this week to participate in the inaugural meeting of the Board of Peace, convened by President Donald Trump.
Islamabad is also expected to highlight trade ties and may seek a bilateral meeting on the sidelines. “Whether the bilateral happens, we’ll have to wait and see,” she said.
“Symbolically, the relationship is doing very well,” Pande observed. “Substantively, however, I do not think much has changed in the last year, year and a half inside Pakistan.”
On Gaza, she said Pakistan has long wanted to “play a role in any Muslim majority country and in any issue which involves Muslims and the Muslim Ummah.” Participation on the Board of Peace and a role in Gaza would, at one level, be welcomed domestically.
But she drew clear limits. “As long as Pakistani troops are only there for peacekeeping and do not get involved with local residents,” it would be acceptable. If they were “supposed to actually… dismantle Hamas and get involved in actual… combat,” it would “not be looked upon… positively by the Pakistani citizenry.”
She added that if Pakistani forces were seen as “pro… Israel, rather than pro-Palestinian citizens, it won’t look good.” Overall, “symbolically it’ll look good,” but Islamabad would want clarity on what its troops are expected to do as part of any international stabilisation force in Gaza.
On domestic political issues, she said members of Congress “may ask questions,” but “I don’t believe that in the Trump administration will ask any questions… because… it is not of concern to them.”
Pande argued that Pakistan has “very successfully leveraged its position… its location… to be useful to… the current American administration’s interests in Iran and in Gaza and Palestine.” From Islamabad’s perspective, that regional utility should translate into bilateral gains.
“As of now, what it has translated into is symbolism and some announcements or potential announcements of investment… but it hasn’t delivered more,” she said. She pointed to frustration in Pakistan, citing a recent remark by the country’s defence minister describing Pakistan as being “used like a toilet roll by the United States.”
On military ties, she was blunt. “This administration isn’t the kind which… will give high-end military equipment. Pakistan will need to buy it.” While countries such as Saudi Arabia or Turkey could potentially finance such purchases, “Pakistan doesn’t have the economic resources for it.”
On the economic front, she said American companies “may invest in critical minerals,” but many deposits are in Balochistan, where “the insurgency… means that many companies are unwilling to go into a country which will not provide them security.”