Cost of friendship with America

In the end-1940s /early 1950s, the first prime minister of Pakistan had invitations from both the USSR (ex) and the USA for paying official visit to those countries. However, the visit to USA did materialise.
Why the prime minister chose to visit USA is still a controversial issue because some people say that despite diplomatic endeavours, formal dates for the visit to the USSR were not forthcoming while others view that it was exclusively the prime minister's decision.
The unprecedented welcome of the Pakistani prime minister (by the USA president) paved the way for relations between the two countries.
It is difficult to term it a "friendship" because these relations were always based on expediencies and the interest the Americans had in this country.
As a corollary to these relations, Pakistan became a member of the Baghdad Pact which was renamed as "CENTO" [Central Treaty Organisation] after dethroning of the Iraqi king in the late 1950s and the military take-over of Iraq.
Later on, Pakistan also became a member of another defence pact with USA ie "SEATO" (South East Asia Treaty Organisation).
Basically, these pacts were designed to safeguard American interests of containing the expansion of communism beyond its then frontiers.
True that an outcome of these pacts was receipt of economic and military assistance from America which considerably helped in strengthening our economy and the armed forces. But the immediate disadvantage to Pakistan was with regard to the Kashmir dispute with India as the then prime minister of India, Jawaharlal Nehru backed out of his commitment made at the global level to hold plebiscite in Kashmir as per the resolutions passed by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC).
By virtue of these pacts, we bought the enmity of the then USSR which put a red mark against our city Peshawar and threatened us when an American U-2 plane which flew from our territory for surveillance was shot down by the USSR and its pilot captured.
The USSR continued to block the resolution of Kashmir dispute by exercising veto whenever the matter went to UNSC for discussion.
The pacts, "CENTO" and "CENTO", did not help us in our wars with India but in the 1965 war America suspended shipment of spare parts for our military hardware.
It is argued that America saved the existing Pakistan in the 1971 war with India. Is it the whole truth? Certainly not.
The Big Powers plan their strategies for ensuing half a century [or even more]. American strategy must have required that the existing Pakistan should exist for furtherance of its policies in due course of time.
Had America been sincere with Pakistan, it would have intervened a fortnight earlier with a view to saving the entire Pakistan.
That the existing Pakistan was so vital for America is substantiated by the subsequent events and more particularly the proxy war Pakistan fought for it in Afghanistan (1979-89) to expel the USSR.
That America's relations with us have been/are based on expediency and solely American interest would be evident from the fact that so long as American war in Afghanistan was continuing, the American president used to issue certificates to the American congress for exemption from the sanctions imposed through Symington/ Pressler amendments and immediately after the USSR pullout, America came up with the stringent sanctions and also denied delivery of F-16 aircraft purchased by us from our own resources. Incidentally, it was not the first expediency.
The sanctions imposed on us after the 1965 Indo-Pakistan war were also lifted/softened after the USSR intrusion in Afghanistan in 1979 when we chose to become a front-line State for America and fight its war.
The third expediency cropped up after September 11/2002 events when America again needed Pakistan for invading Afghanistan and for fighting terror and as in the past the sanctions were again lifted.
How long this expediency continues is not possible to predict at this stage. It is likely to continue for quite long time as any thinking on the part of America to find equitable solution to the problems breeding terrorism is not yet visible.
True that Pakistan benefited financially [and militarily in 1950/1960s] on account of the so-called friendship with America, but we have paid more than what we owed to it as it would not have been possible for it to become the sole Super Power of the globe without Pakistan's active help in 1979-89 Afghan war.
Some time, in 2003 figures released by the US Defence Department had put the Pakistan's losses in the war against terrorism at $10 billion. But we, Pakistanis, are very loyal to America and our finance minister promptly contradicted that report and discounted the Pakistani losses by 90 percent and consequently America wrote off our one billion-dollar debt.
These days there is a lot of talk about American efforts in the matter of solution of the Kashmir dispute but nobody talks of holding plebiscite as per the UNSC resolutions.
How the wishes of the Kashmiris will be ascertained is still a big question mark?
One should, therefore, hope for the good and keep the fingers crossed in view of the tripartite strategic relationship (America, Israel and India) currently being developed, which is likely to put pressure on Pakistan to accept a certain solution obviously favouring India.