27/09/2025
Only for CSS aspirants.
Protocols are temporary, price is permanent
In the great game of global power, Pakistan has always been a pivotal player. Its geographic location, nuclear capability, and strategic significance have kept it at the center of international attention. Yet, the question persists: has Pakistan ever truly leveraged these relationships for its independence, sovereignty, and development? Or has it repeatedly compromised long-term national interests in exchange for temporary protocol, political support, and short-lived economic relief?
The history of Pakistan’s engagement with the United States runs as deep as the nation’s own existence. The choices made in its formative years determined the trajectory of decades to come.
Liaquat Ali Khan’s Choice: Washington Over Moscow
Soon after independence, Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan received state visit invitations from both the Soviet Union and the United States. He chose Washington. This early tilt toward the West aligned Pakistan with the American bloc at a time when the young nation was desperate for economic assistance, defense equipment, and international recognition.
The U.S. delivered on those fronts, but in return, Pakistan was expected to align its foreign policy with Western interests. This was the first instance where sovereignty was traded for short-term benefits—a pattern that would repeat itself time and again.
---
Ayub Khan and the Cold War
Under Ayub Khan, Pakistan became firmly entrenched in the U.S. camp during the height of the Cold War. By joining alliances like SEATO and CENTO, Pakistan’s geography became part of Washington’s defense calculus.
In exchange, Ayub Khan received military and economic support, along with diplomatic backing. Yet, when war with India broke out in 1965, the United States abruptly suspended military aid. The message was clear: U.S. ties were conditional and interest-driven, leaving Pakistan to face isolation in its hour of need.
---
Zulfikar Ali Bhutto: From Partnership to Defiance
Zulfikar Ali Bhutto began as a close ally of the West, deeply familiar with its politics and diplomacy. But when he advanced the agenda of sovereignty and pursued Pakistan’s nuclear program, relations soured.
Through the Islamic Summit Conference, Bhutto sought to unify the Muslim world. His defiant declaration—“We will eat grass, but we will make the atomic bomb”—cemented his clash with Washington. By the late 1970s, the United States had deemed him unacceptable. His eventual ouster through a military coup and judicial ruling symbolized how fragile Pakistan’s independence was under external pressure.
---
Zia-ul-Haq and the Afghan Jihad
General Zia’s rule marked the zenith of U.S.–Pakistan cooperation. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan transformed Pakistan into America’s frontline state. CIA operations, Mujahideen training, weapons, dollars, and covert missions all funneled through Pakistan.
The U.S. showered Zia with protocol, financial aid, and global legitimacy. But the long-term costs for Pakistan were devastating: extremism, the proliferation of weapons, and a refugee crisis. Afghanistan rid itself of Soviet influence, but Pakistan inherited deep instability.
---
Pervez Musharraf and the “War on Terror”
After 9/11, Washington once again turned to Pakistan. General Pervez Musharraf acceded almost instantly, opening up airbases, land routes, and intelligence networks. In return, he received international recognition and support for his military regime.
Pakistan was declared a “major non-NATO ally,” billions of dollars flowed in, and Musharraf’s global profile rose. But Pakistan paid a crushing price: more than 70,000 lives lost in terrorist violence, a crippled economy, and widespread insecurity.
---
Imran Khan and the U.S. Withdrawal
As the United States prepared to withdraw from Afghanistan, Pakistan once again played a central role. During Imran Khan’s tenure, Islamabad facilitated Taliban–U.S. negotiations, from Doha’s talks to Kabul’s eventual transition.
Washington extended protocol, amplified Khan’s speeches on global platforms, and momentarily embraced Pakistan’s narrative. Domestically, supporters celebrated this as newfound international recognition. Yet, it was short-lived—once the withdrawal was complete, relations cooled to indifference.
---
Shehbaz Sharif, General Asim Munir, and the Present Moment
Today, as Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and Army Chief General Asim Munir receive extraordinary protocol, red-carpet receptions, and hold high-level meetings in Washington, political elites and establishment circles celebrate. Media headlines trumpet that Pakistan has regained global significance.
But history raises an uncomfortable question: whenever Washington extends protocol, the price is steep. What will it be this time?
---
Israel or India: The Underlying Calculations
One school of thought argues that this new warmth is linked to the Abraham Accords, with pressure mounting on Pakistan to recognize Israel—particularly as Saudi Arabia and Gulf states move in that direction. Were Pakistan to follow, it would resonate strongly across the Muslim world.
Another perspective suggests that Pakistan is being positioned as a counterbalance to India. With New Delhi emerging as a global power, the U.S. is wary of it falling fully into Russia or China’s orbit. Pakistan, therefore, could once again be used as a strategic lever.
---
Lessons for Pakistan
History has consistently shown that Pakistan’s ties with the United States have been transactional and short-lived.
First comes the protocol, aid, and recognition.
Then, inevitably, America steps back—and Pakistan is left to deal with the fallout alone.
The critical question is whether Pakistan’s current leadership can learn from this cycle. Can the state finally anchor its policies in sovereignty and long-term national interest? Or will it repeat the pattern of temporary gains followed by lasting losses?
---
Conclusion
There is no denying that Pakistan has secured short-term advantages from its partnership with the U.S.—whether in the form of aid, legitimacy, or military assistance. But the costs have been disproportionately high: isolation after the 1965 war, extremism in Zia’s era, chaos under Musharraf, and cold neglect after Imran Khan.
Today, as Shehbaz Sharif and General Asim Munir receive extraordinary protocol, the pressing question remains: what price will Pakistan pay this time? Will it involve recognition of Israel, or will it be about pressuring India?
Ultimately, Pakistan must decide whether to continue repeating its history—or to chart a new course. For protocol is fleeting, but the costs are borne for generations.
(From the wall of Sabahat Hussain)
CSS Learners Academy
Css Exam Forum
CSS Times
Css & Pms Guidelines
CSS with S.R.Naqvi
