The US rarely learns from its mistakes, because it suffers from what late political scientist Hans Morgenthau called “strategic narcissism.” Each US president seems to believe the world is waiting for American direction and devises policies based on this flawed assumption. For example, US President Joe Biden seems determined to repeat past blunders by resuming the US’ coddling of Pakistan.
Successive US presidents have failed to appreciate that the US’ long-standing partnership with Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency has allowed Pakistan to institutionalize terrorism by employing armed jihadists in low-intensity asymmetric warfare against neighboring countries.
For example, Pakistan has always sought to colonize Afghanistan by installing a regime that would do its bidding, so the ISI created the Taliban in the early 1990s. With the Taliban back in control after the ISI engineered the US’ humiliating defeat in Afghanistan, Pakistan has gotten its wish.
Pakistan itself has become an extremist mecca that hosts multiple UN-designated terrorist entities. The US found al-Qaeda’s Osama bin Laden — the mastermind behind the worst terrorist attack in US history — living next to the Pakistan Military Academy. Other plotters of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks were also captured in Pakistan.
Yet, despite its terrorist ties, Pakistan’s politically powerful military, including the ISI, has got off scot-free.
On the 21st anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks this month, Biden pledged to continue monitoring and disrupting terrorist activities “wherever we find them, wherever they exist,” adding that it took “10 years to hunt down and kill Osama bin Laden.”
Yet, disturbingly, Biden has reversed the policy of former US president Donald Trump to keep Pakistan at arm’s length until it ended its unholy alliance with terrorist organizations.
Biden could have taken advantage of Pakistan’s desperate need for an IMF bailout to compel it to sever its links with state-backed terrorist groups. Instead, his administration helped the country stave off an imminent debt default by securing the IMF board’s approval for the immediate disbursement of a US$1.1 billion aid package.
This is not the only leverage over Pakistan that the Biden administration has been reluctant to use. With US and Chinese support, Pakistan is close to exiting the “gray list” of the Paris-based Financial Action Task Force (FATF), an inter-governmental agency combating terrorist financing and money laundering. That Pakistani authorities have not addressed the reason their country was placed on that list in 2018 — tolerating terrorist financing — appears to matter little.
Pakistan should have been placed on the FATF’s most punitive “black” list, a status that usually invites Western sanctions. However, US troops were fighting the Taliban at the time and the US, seeking to moderate Pakistan’s approach to Afghanistan, successfully lobbied against it.
Nothing better illustrates Biden’s embrace of Pakistan than the US$450 million deal unveiled this month to modernize the cash-strapped country’s US-supplied F-16 fleet, despite the risk that it might harm the US’ close strategic relationship with India. For decades, the US had armed Pakistan to the teeth, a role subsequently taken over by China as a maneuver against India. The F-16s were given to Pakistan as a reward for serving as the staging ground for the covert US war against the Soviet forces occupying Afghanistan in the 1980s, when Pakistan also launched its clandestine nuclear program.
The US justified the deal by disingenuously claiming that equipping Pakistan’s F-16s with cutting-edge avionics would advance counterterrorism.
However, the move — announced without warning India — will likely renew skepticism toward the US among Indian officials.
Biden has said nothing about China’s 28-month-long frontier aggression against India, and the US Department of State remained neutral by urging the two powers to find “a peaceful resolution.” By strengthening Pakistan — China’s client state — the F-16 deal further imperils US-India relations.
Biden’s re-engagement with Pakistan dismisses those who called on the US to punish Pakistan for its pivotal role in the Afghanistan debacle. Far from imposing sanctions or adding Pakistan to the State Department’s list of state sponsors of terrorism, his administration has championed the country as a “major non-NATO ally,” a status conferred on 17 other countries as well — but not India.
This approach should not come as a surprise. The US did not impose sanctions on Pakistan even after it aided and abetted the Taliban’s killing of US soldiers. Instead, the US treated Pakistan as a gatekeeper of its geopolitical interests in the region.
Washington’s weakened position following its Afghan fiasco has only increased its dependence on the ISI, which continues to facilitate the Biden administration’s outreach to the Taliban.
The recent assassination of al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri in Kabul by a US drone strike would not have been possible without US access to Pakistani airspace, which explains US Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s commitment to “expanding the US-Pakistan partnership.”
However, at the heart of this partnership is a Faustian bargain whereby the Biden administration condones Pakistan’s harboring of known terrorists and eases sanctions on the brutal Taliban regime, despite its close ties with al-Qaeda.
The Biden administration’s reluctance to learn from previous US failures ensures that geopolitical considerations will continue to drive US foreign policy, despite the strategic damage to the US’ interests. Biden’s approach will nurture a major hub of terrorism, allowing Pakistan to set fires while pretending to be a firefighter.
Brahma Chellaney is a professor of strategic studies at the New Delhi-based Center for Policy Research and fellow at the Robert Bosch Academy in Berlin.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry