Revision as of 18:22, 10 August 2025

TIMELINE

US- Pakistan relations milestones
The Times of India

In 2016 Congressman Ted Poe moved a bill to get Pakistan declared a terrorist state, but still…
The Times of India

US- Pakistan relations were at a low in 2016, but still…
The Times of India

TIME LINE: Chronology Of Pak-US Relations

Dawn

August 1947: The US welcomes the independence of India from British rule, and becomes one of the first countries to recognise Pakistan.

1950: Pakistan’s first PM Liaquat Ali Khan turns down an invitation by the former USSR for a visit to Moscow, opting to pay a state visit to the US after being invited by Washington.

1954: Amid concerns about Soviet expansion, the US and Pakistan sign a mutual defence agreement. Military aid to Pakistan between 1953 and 1961 totals $508 million.

1955: Pakistan joins two US-sponsored regional defence pacts — South East Asia Treaty Organisation (SEATO) and the Central Treaty Organisation (CTO). As a result, Islamabad receives nearly $2 billion in US assistance from 1953 to 1961, including $508 million in military aid.

1962: The Indo-China War sees the US reaching out to India and offering it both military and economic aid. President Kennedy had assured Pakistani President Mohammed Ayub Khan that if the United States decided to give India military aid, he would talk with Khan first. His failure to do so in November 1962 deeply offended the Pakistani leader. To reassure Pakistan, Washington reaffirms its previous assurances that it will come to Pakistan’s assistance in the event of aggression from India

1965: Second war with India over Kashmir. The US cuts off aid to both nations. The Pakistanis are embittered at what they consider a friend’s betrayal

1971: The US again suspends military aid to Pakistan because of the India-Pakistan conflict.

1975: The US resumes limited financial aid to Pakistan

1979: The US suspends military aid after Pakistan constructs a uranium enrichment facility.

1980: he US pledges military assistance to Pakistan following Soviet intervention in Afghanistan. It also turns northern Pakistan into a base and conduit for US and Saudi-armed Afghan resistance fighters

1981: The US offers Pakistan a $3.2 billion, five-year economic and military aid package. Pakistan becomes a key ally of the US in the Afghan war.

1985: A section of the Foreign Assistance Act known as the Pressler Amendment requires the president to certify to Congres that Pakistan does not possess nuclear weapons.

1990: US military aid is again suspended under the provisions of the Pressler Amendment.

1992: The US relaxes sanctions on Pakistan to allow food and economic assistance to non-governmental organisations.

1998: Pakistan conducts its own nuclear tests after India explodes several devices. The US sends Pakistan $140 in economic and agricultural aid but imposes full restrictions on all non-humanitarian aid because of continuing nuclear tests.

1999: Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif overthrown in military coup led by General Pervez Musharraf. The US sanctions limited aid to countries under coup governments come into effect.

September 2001: President Musharraf assures President Bush of ‘unstinted cooperation in the fight against terrorism’, as Powell asks Pakistan leaders if they were for or against the terrorists and their supporters in Afghanistan. In exchange, the US lifts some sanctions placed on Pakistan after the nuclear tests of 1998 and the coup of 1999. Large amounts of aid begin to flow to Pakistan. Congres grants the president special waivers to coup-related sanctions on Pakistan through 2003.

October 2001: US Under Secretary of State, Alan Larson, offers preferential treatment to some of the Pakistani export items, discuss generous treatment of Pakistani $3 billion debt at the Paris Club. Promises that the US will not leave Pakistan in a lurch after achieving its objectives in Afghanistan.

2002: The US cobbles together a $350 million package for Pakistan, earmarking $512 million for military financing.

2003: President Bush announces a five-year, $3 billion package for Pakistan. Legislation to both extend and to end the waiver of coup-related sanctions is presented to Congres.

2004: The US declares Pakistan ‘major non-NATO ally’

2005: Following the tragic October earthquake, the US announces a $510 million commitment for earthquake relief and reconstruction.

2006: Diplomatic ties strengthen as President Bush visits Pakistan in March.

2007: Washington tries to broker a power-sharing arrangement between President Musharraf and opposition leader in exile Benazir Bhutto.

2008: President Musharraf resigns as Washington appears to be distancing itself from him. His resignation signals the end of an important era in US-Pakistan relations.

Credits: Council on Foreign Relations (www.cfr.org) and PBS Foundation (www.pbs.org)

The class character of the relationship

The nature of our [Pakistan's] ties with the US

By M. Abul Fazl

Dawn

Pakistan's neo-colonial relationship with the US

We do not have to travel to a “banana republic” to study the neo-colonial phenomenon. We only have to make a dispassionate observation of our own society to arrive at a scientific definition of the term. For, seldom before has a nation of one hundred and seventy million souls managed the feat. But, as AJP Taylor says: ”Impossible is what one gets from history.”

The positive aspect of the problematique is that the clarification of a situation, the revelation of its inner laws of development, leads to clarity of thought and, therefore, to effective action.

The dictionary of political economy defines neo-colonialism as: ”Its origin lies in the inconsistency of the old colonial policy with the crumbling of the imperialist system. The material base of the existence of neo-colonialism is situated, in the first place, in the fact that the developing countries, which have integrated themselves with the system of international capitalist division of labour, continue to be economically dependent upon the imperialist countries and, secondly that the foreign capital, above all imperialist monopolies, preserve an important place in the economies of these countries.”(Economia Politica, Diccionario, Editorial Progreso, Moscu, 1985.)

This definition leaves out two important conditions:(a) there should exist, within the backward country, a class in whose own interest it would be to retain a client relationship with the advanced country concerned and,(b) the population should be de-politicised or, at least, kept out of politics.

Our neo-colonial relationship with the US is not a continuity of our relationship with Britain, though it is not entirely unrelated to it. Our old colonial status had oriented us to the Anglo-Saxon world. But we developed a neo-colonial relationship with the US as a result of our own internal developments from 1954 onward. Today it has matured and is undisguised. President Bush and Secretary Rice tell us of their preferences in Pakistan. The US ambassador and her staff feel no hesitation in making public their views about how Pakistan’s affairs should be managed. Persons from various political parties are incessantly calling on them to explain matters or solicit help.

The strongest emphasis in all these pronouncements, theirs and ours, is on moderation. This is not just in opposition to the creed of religious militants. It is also meant to exclude from the political discourse, any discussion of social changes, of a re-distribution of wealth.

The Pakistan Movement: a stir of the nascent Muslim bourgeoisie

The roots of our present situation can be traced to the nature of our struggle, or the lack of one, for independence. Muslim League was not a feudal organisation, as claimed by Nehru. It was the party of the nascent Muslim bourgeoisie. The economic basis of the upper-class Muslims of northern India was, mainly, the land, which, of course, does not increase. It was disappearing with the increase in inheritors. Its natural substitute as the field of economic activity would be the capitalist sector.

This was closed to them by the Hindu capitalists, who dominated this sector for historical reasons. As a substitute, the Muslims demanded quotas for themselves in government employment, as these could be created in state organisations but not in the private sector. Thus Hamza Alavi’s derisive remark about the struggle of the “salariat” is misplaced. State jobs are often the first step towards the embourgeoisement of the pre-capitalist class.

This crisis of feudalism existed in UP and Bihar. The Bengali Muslims’ struggle was more straight-forward – that of Muslim peasants against Hindu landowners. Thus the Muslims of these provinces were striving for participation in capitalist development, the road to which was closed to them. There was no such feudal crisis in Punjab and Sindh, where the landed class was comfortable due to the recent cutting of the canals.

The Muslims had to make no sacrifices for national independence. [Indpaedia editor's note: Not for Pakistan, true. But hundreds of Muslims were martyred and countless imprisoned while fighting for Indian independence.] In fact, very few took part in nationalist struggle after Gandhi practically ousted them from it by scuttling the non-cooperation movement of 1921 at its height. Even when the Muslims rallied around the Muslim League with the demand for Pakistan, their struggle could not acquire a mass character as the masses were not Muslim in the area of feudal crisis. They could only struggle constitutionally. Therefore, while the Congrs made sacrifices for freedom, the Muslim League bargained to get its share in it.

Newborn Pakistan lacked grassroots leaders

This placed Pakistan in a strange situation on its independence. The bulk of the party which had led the movement for Pakistan had been left in India. Those who were in Pakistan, or migrated from India, had no experience of organising or leading a mass movement. The government was, therefore, without a political tool to administer the country. Secondly, Muslim League had demanded Pakistan in order to create a national capitalist market for the rising Muslim bourgeoisie.

But the feudal class was very strong in West Pakistan. And it had been further strengthened recently when it drove away the Hindu money-lenders to whom it owed large sums. This feudal class prevented land-reforms and, ultimately, destroyed the nascent Pakistani industrial bourgeoisie. The party in East Pakistan was bourgeois but its influence on the central leadership was not strong.

Power passes to the civil and military bureaucracies

In this situation, effective power passed to the well-organised civil bureaucracy, which drew in its military counterpart too. The two bureaucracies, drawn mainly from the middle class, had a bourgeois outlook. They launched a state-financed and supported programme of industrialisation, which had, by the mid-sixties, got Pakistan well into the first stage of industries – textiles and other light manufactures and even started with the second stage. An industrial bourgeoisie also began to emerge as a class-for-itself. During this period, the civil-military bureaucracy not only kept the East Pakistani leaders away from power but had the upper hand vis-à-vis the West Pakistani feudal class too.

However, the two bureaucracies, not wanting to lose power, were opposed to the holding of elections. When a part of the civil bureaucracy did, nevertheless, collude with the East Pakistani politicians to frame a constitution and set the date for the first general elections, the army made a putsch and the bureaucracy seized power in its own name.

A client relationship with the USA

Before this, the bureaucracy sought a solution to the problem of defence against relentless Indian menace, not by mobilising the masses, an action which would have gone against its nature, but by entering into a military alliance with the US. This was done by the trio of Ghulam Mohammad, Iskandar Mirza and Ayub Khan in 1954, going over the political government’s head. The alliance brought us some arms but, like any alliance between a great power and a weak country, it served essentially the interests of the US. For example, it was on the US’s advice that we refrained from acting in Kashmir during the Sino-Indian war of 1962. Again, in 1965, we stopped just short of cutting India’s link with Kashmir under US’s threat. Lastly, the treaty did not save East Pakistan from Indian invasion. So much for the three foolish bureaucrats’ hare-brained scheme of taking arms from the US on the pretext of fighting communism and using them to take Kashmir.

This alliance, no doubt, created a client relationship with the US. But it was an uneasy relationship because a weak but growing industrial bourgeoisie was exerting a nationalist influence upon our policies. What provided a material basis for our slide from clientelism to a neo-colonial relationship with the US was the destruction of this national bourgeoisie by the People’s Party government, which came to power after the separation of East Pakistan.

The break-up was the result of the maturing contradictions of prolonged military rule. However, the civilian government which followed in West Pakistan was dominated entirely by the feudal classes of Punjab and Sindh, which were still powerful in the absence of effective land reforms in this wing.

The PPP, being a populist party, used the rhetoric of the Left to disguise its reactionary nature for a while. But its actions served the interests of the class it represented. It destroyed Pakistan’s weak industrial bourgeoisie by mass nationalisation of industries, but sparing the foreign capital in Pakistan and any capital working in partnership with foreign capital. It thus promoted the compradorisation of the remaining capitalist class.

Its sham “land reforms” actually increased the individual land-holdings. And all this was done in the name of “socialism.” This must be the only instance where socialism strengthened the feudal class and the comprador bourgeoisie, while destroying the national bourgeoisie. The attack on the latter was motivated by a desire to safeguard the power of the feudal class. But it blocked all prospects of Pakistan’s independent economic development.

The feudal leadership did not touch the army, whose alliance with the now mainly commercial and comprador bourgeoisies remained intact. However, they were not important enough to afford it an adequate social base. So it allied itself with the feudal class, too, while retaining the fealty of the mauled bourgeoisies.

The feudal class can be a good and loyal partner for colonial rule. But it cannot be a viable neo-colonial partner for a foreign power, as its links with the world capitalist market are not vital for its existence. A neo-colonial partnership can be provided only by a comprador bourgeoisie. In the face of the weakness of this class, the US’s alliance with Pakistan was reduced to an alliance with the Pakistan army. This development was all the more easy because, from the beginning, our alliance was dominated by the political rather than the economic instance.

The economic instance of the alliance is provided by our close links with the IMF-WB-WTO trio. Under its tutelage, we sell off our vital industrial assets, decide to specialise in textiles, the most primitive stage of industry, without any ambition to produce textile machinery, and open our economic space to the rampaging rentier capital. Our economic policy consists of building passages for others’ goods instead of making those goods ourselves. Indeed, we must be the only major country to take the globalisation prattle seriously. The reason is the transformed nature of the state.

The role of the bureaucracies, specially that of the army, was progressive until the end of the sixties. It was truly bonapartist, in that the army stood in for the bourgeois class until the latter could wield power itself. The decisive mistake it made was not to carry out drastic and effective land reforms. If that had been done, the succeeding regime, emanating from the general elections, would have been bourgeois and carried the country forward. In the absence of such reforms, the elections brought a reactionary leadership, which actually threw the country back.

The People’s Party has now been selected by the US to provide a political cushion to the army in the fight against the Taliban. It interprets it to mean that the army would share power with it. But if power is shared, it would not be power. Only the government can be shared, and the benefits that it affords. So, one supposes, bargaining and pressure tactics can bring it an agreement on a division of benefits but not a share in power.The important point is that, in all these quarrels, in all these pressures and manoeuvres, no social question has been raised by either side. There is no talk about serious industrialisation of the country, about the regeneration of a strong national industrial bourgeoisie, about land reforms. Not a breath about re-distribution. The masses are again outside politics. There is emphasis only on human rights, which, since they do not include the right to eat, become, essentially, an upper middle-class fad.

If the masses wish to seize politics as its subjects and not just objects, they would have to wage the struggle which they missed while getting national independence.

US- Pakistan relations, anti-US sentiment

A Matter Of Perception

By Humair Ishtiaq

Dawn

There appears to be a gulf between how the masses and their rulers perceive American intervention in our affairs

WHEN Samad Khurram recently turned down his Harvard scholarship as a mark of protest against the US strike on Pakistani territory, he basically wanted to underline the chasm that exists between the two divergent ways in which the rulers and the masses perceive American interference in our affairs.

That his decision was met with thunderous applause from the audience only shows the intensity of the prevailing anti-US sentiment as far as the Pakistani people are concerned.

When it comes to the leadership, however, it is an entirely different matter. Successive governments have failed to acknowledge the simple anthropological fact that in the event of an unnatural friendship between a tiger and a deer, the former will always call the shots. The ‘deer’ can have visions — illusions, if you like — of having some say in some affairs, but they will always be just illusions. The moment there is even a semblance of difference between the two, the writ of the latter becomes the destiny of the former. And yet, Pakistani leaders have continued to court Uncle Sam who has never believed in undertaking the guilt trip over being the designated global thug.

As recorded in history, the Quaid-i-Azam told Lord Ismay before Partition that Pakistan would have to ally itself with one of the superpowers. He enumerated three of them: the erstwhile Soviet Union, the United States and the Great Britain. He ruled out the first one immediately, and preferred the British over the Americans because “after all, the devil you know is better than the devil you don’t.” Yet, recorded in history is the fact that a mere two weeks after independence, the government of Pakistan sounded out the US about lending a couple of million dollars. As expected, nothing came out of it.

The policies followed by those who followed the Quaid are also there in the record books. Declassified American papers, for instance, show Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, taking his two close aides — Ghulam Mustafa Khar and Hayat Sherpao — to meet the US ambassador at the time to assure him that their anti-US stance was basically for public consumption and there was nothing to be worried about. It is no wonder, then, that the politicians today believe that access to Islamabad is routed via Washington. Perhaps it does. Things being what they have been, who knows?

It is interesting to see what the other side — the tiger — has been doing all this while. A State Department memo to White House as far back as May, 1950, saw the potential of Pakistan “as a place from which US aircraft could operate.” This is almost exactly 58 years ago. Interesting, isn’t it? But there is more to it. After talking of the said potential, the memo hastened to add: “However, this should not be openly stressed since it negates our oft-expressed interest in helping the region for economic reasons.” Clear in mind. Cut-throat in approach. The tiger at its best.

During the 1971 crisis when the US openly condemned Indian movements across the border, President Nixon showed the true colour of American policy while discussing South Asia with his close aides. He showed great understanding of the Indian desire, saying that breaking up Pakistan is what he might to do if he were in New Delhi. The record of this meeting is dated August 11, 1971 — some four months before the fall of Dhaka, and, ironically, just five weeks — 34 days, to be precise — after Pakistan had facilitated Henry Kissinger’s historic trip to China!

Despite all this, and much more, being on record, the leadership in Pakistan — both civil and military — has, without fail been dazzled by the crumbs that Washington keeps throwing its way. In fact, things have only gone from bad to worse in terms of both arm-twisting and the blatant manner in which it is executed.

From times when the US ambassador would hold a discreet meeting with the leaders, things have come to such a pass that American officials of all denominations today openly visit the politicians, members of civil society, media organisations, even city government and water board offices. This only adds to the antipathy among the masses, but who cares? The American machinery in Pakistan certainly doesn’t.

Against this backdrop, what Samad Khurram did is indeed praiseworthy for he did it in the presence of the US ambassador which in itself takes a lot of doing in view of the fact that timidity, not defiance, is what the Americans expect of Pakistanis. As Madam Ambassador and her seniors would have realised, the leaders and the masses often represent two different — sometime divergent — entities.

Investments by Pakistan in the USA

Pakistani deal with crypto co in which Trump kin has 60% stake

Pradeep Thakur, May 15, 2025: The Times of India

New Delhi : US President Donald Trump’s attempt to be a broker in the conflict between India and Pakistan has put the spotlight on a deal the hostile neighbour recently negotiated with World Liberty Financial (WLF), a cryptocurrency venture in which the president’s family has 60% stake.

The deal was signed between WLF and the hastilylaunched Pakistan Crypto Council, which early last month appointed as its advisor Changpeng Zhao — a Chinaborn Canadian who is founder of the world’s largest cryptocurrency exchange Binance — with the ambitious objective of making Islamabad South Asia’s crypto capital.

Though Crypto Council was barely a month old, WLF sent its heavy guns, including Zachary Witkoff, son of Trump’s golf buddy Steve, to Islamabad where they were feted by Pakistan PM Shehbaz Sharif, and more crucially, army chief General Asim Munir, who just days later “cleared” the mass killing in Pahalgam. 


WLF’s stakeholders include Trump’s two sons Eric and Donald Trump Jr, who, along with their brother-in law Jared Kushner, have been scouring different parts of the world for lucrative business deals and have attracted allegations of leveraging their links to the White House.

Even Witkoff’s association with the venture was enough to vest it with heft. Witkoff, who, like Trump, is a real estate billionaire focused on New York, is seen as the “man-to-go” in Washington DC. A regular at Mar a Lago, Trump’s golf resort in Florida, Witkoff attracted global attention when he got Israel and the UAE and Bahrain to sign Abraham Accords during the incumbent US President’s first term. Trump has now tasked him with getting Russia and Ukraine to sign a peace deal.

With Trump suddenly pivoting away from his “it is for them to sort out” hands off stance towards the conflict between India and Pakistan and arrogating unto himself the role of a firefighter, many seem to be wondering whether Pakistan’s dramatic foray into crypto currency in partnership with WLF has already started paying dividends.

Visits by US Presidents

Why Obama never visited Pak

Shailaja Neelakantan, Dec 4, 2016: The Times of India

"It's complicated", is the answer the White House press secretary gave to that question by the media, a day after US President-elect Donald Trump reportedly told Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif that Pakistan is an "amazing country," according to a Pakistan government press release.

"The US relationship with Pakistan is one that's quite complicated, particularly when you consider our overlapping national security interests," said press secretary Josh Earnest. "The relations between our two countries, particularly over the last eight years, have not been smooth -- consistently smooth, particularly in the aftermath of the raid on Pakistani soil that President Obama ordered to take Osama bin Laden off the battlefield," Earnest added.

Compared to the frosty relations lately between Washington and Islamabad, US President-elect Trump appeared to exhibit a rare bonhomie with Pakistan PM Sharif, the Pakistan government said in a press release.

"On being invited to visit Pakistan by the Prime Minister, Mr. Trump said that he would love to come to a fantastic country, fantastic place of fantastic people," the press release by Pakistan's Press Information Department said.

Although the Trump transition team later played down the conversation, that's what prompted the media's questions on Obama and Pakistan. The White House press secretary said that "at one point in his presidency", Obama expressed a desire to travel to Pakistan. But, "for a variety of reasons, some of them relating to the complicated relationship between our two countries at certain times over the last eight years, President Obama was not able to realize that ambition."

Washington has been unhappy with what it sees as Islamabad's inaction against homegrown terror like the Haqqani network, Masood Azhar and Hafiz Saeed. In May this year, the US House of Representatives voted to increase restrictions on military aid for Pakistan. The House said it was frustrated over what it called Islamabad's failure to crack down on the Haqqani network.

Given this backdrop, the US President hasn't really found the right time to make a diplomatic visit to Pakistan. And not visiting, does send out a signal, just like visiting does. The White House press secretary acknowledged that too.

"One thing we do know is that it sends a powerful message to the people of a country when the President of the United States goes to visit. And that's true whether it's some of our closest allies, or that's also true if it's a country like Pakistan, with whom our relationship is somewhat more complicated," Earnest said.

He refused to comment on what US President-elect Trump's policy might be, except to say that the US State Department has always been a great help to any US President. "... ultimately, when President Trump begins planning his overseas travel, he'll have a range of places to consider, and Pakistan would certainly be one of them," Earnest said.

Nuclear bomb

‘Zia told Reagan Pak wouldn’t acquire N-bomb’

[timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/pakistan/zia-told-reagan-pak-wouldnt-acquire-n-bomb/articleshow/56801721.cms Omer Farooq Khan, Zia told Ronald Reagan Pakistan wouldn’t acquire nuclear bomb, reveal documents, Jan 27, 2017: The Times of India]

HIGHLIGHTS

CIA has made public a July 5, 1982 letter of former Pak Prez Gen Zia-ul-Haq written to the then US Prez Ronald Reagan

That was in reply to a letter from Reagan, in which he expressed concern about Pak’s clandestine N-project

Zia wrote back that Pak’s nuke programme was designed for peaceful purposes

The documents made public by CIA include a letter to former US President Ronald Reagan from the then Pakistan President, General Zia-ul-Haq, assuring him Pakistan would not build nuclear weapons.

The July 5, 1982 letter was in reply to a communication from Reagan, sent through US envoy Vernon Walters, in which he expressed concern about Pakistan's clandestine nuclear project. "It's saddening that Vernon Walters told me that the US had certified information about Pakistan's plan to acquire nuclear weapons," Zia replied. The letter quoted him telling Reagan that all such information was baseless and that Pakistan would never take a step in the nuclear arena that would affect American interests and bring it shame. He wrote that Pakistan's nuclear programme was designed for peaceful purposes. Despite all these assurances, it is commonly believed that Pakistan had built its atom bomb during Zia's regime.

Another declassified file was a CIA report examining Pakistan-US ties against the backdrop of India-USSR relations. "Pakistan is likely to continue basically pro-Western, despite annoyance at the US part in the UN handling of Kashmir and at the US position on North Africa in the UN," the document said. According to a side note on the same document, Pakistan's pro-Western orientation stemmed from fear of India and USSR rather than any basic sympathy with capitalism or Christian civilisation. "It is more negative than positive," it observed. Another handwritten note on the document said, "Pakistan is not likely to align itself firmly with the West except in exchange for substantial benefits." Other documents include: Indo-Pak friction, Pakistan's nuclear programme development, Zia-ul-Haq's decision on Zulfikar Ali Bhutto's execution.

Petraeus precedent gets Raphel reprieve

The Times of India, Oct 12 2015

Matt Apuzzo, Mark Mazzettti & Michael S Schmidt

Case against US ex-envoy `spying' for Pak falls apart

Last fall, US federal agents raided the home and office of Robin L Raphel in search of proof that she, a seasoned member of America's diplomatic corps, was spying for Pakistan. But officials now say the spying investigation has all but fizzled, leaving the justice department to decide whether to prosecute Raphel for the far less serious charge of keeping classified information in her home. The fallout from the investigation has in the meantime seriously damaged Raphel's reputation, built over decades in some of the world's most volatile countries. If the justice department declines to file spying charges, as several officials said they expected, it will be the latest example of American law enforcement agencies bringing an espionage investigation into the public eye, only to see it dissipate under further scrutiny .

Last month, the justice department dropped charges against a Temple University physicist who had been accused of sharing sensitive information with China.

In May , prosecutors dropped all charges against a government hydrologist who had been under investigation for espionage. Raphel, in negotiations with the government, has rejected plea deals and has been adamant that she face no charges, according to current and former government officials, particularly because the justice department has been criticised in recent years for handing out inconsistent punishments to American officials who mishandle classified information. Both the justice department and a lawyer for Raphel, Amy Jeffress, declined to comment.

The Raphel case has also been caught in the crosswinds of America's tempestuous relationship with Pakistan. Raphel has for decades been at the center of shaping American policy toward Pakistan, and she has maintained close ties to Pakistani officials even as many of her colleagues became disenchanted with what they saw as Islamabad's duplicity in the fight against terrorism.

In discussions with prosecutors, according to several government officials, Raphel and her lawyer have cited the Petraeus case as the vital precedent. If passing secrets -including notes on war strategy and the names of covert officers, which Petraeus shared -and lying about it amount to a misdemeanor, then, Raphel says, she should not face any charges.

PART B: DEFENCE ISSUES

F-16 fighter jets

Dec 13, 2019 Times of India

WASHINGTON: The US reprimanded Pakistan Air Force chief in August for misusing F-16 fighter jets by undermining their shared security platforms and infrastructures, a media report here has said, months after the Indian Air Force shot down an F-16 jet of Pakistan Air Force during an aerial combat over Kashmir.

Andrea Thompson, the then-undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs, wrote a letter to Pakistan Air Force chief Air Chief Marshal Mujahid Anwar Khan in August over the matter, US News reported.

While the letter written did not directly mention the incidents in the immediate aftermath of the February 26 Balakot airstrikes, US News quoted a source as saying that the communication served as a direct response to America's concerns about the F-16 use over Kashmir in February.

"While we understand from you that these aircraft movements were done in support of national defense objectives, the US government considers the relocation of aircraft to non-US government authorised bases concerning and inconsistent with the F-16 Letter of Offer and Acceptance," Thompson said in his letter. A suicide bomber of Pakistan-based Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) terror group killed 40 CRPF personnel in Jammu and Kashmir's Pulwama district on February 14.

India launched a counter-terror operation against a JeM training camp in Balakot on February 26. The next day, Pakistan Air Force retaliated and downed a MiG-21 in an aerial combat and captured its pilot Wing Commander Abhinanadan Varthaman, who was later released. The IAF had said that during the aerial engagement on February 27, one of its MiG-21 Bison shot down a F-16.

The Indian Air Force on February 28 displayed pieces of the AMRAAM missile, fired by a Pakistani F-16, as evidence to "conclusively" prove that Pakistan deployed US-manufactured F-16 fighter jets during an aerial raid targeting Indian military installations in Kashmir.

"Such actions could subject sensitive US-technologies to diversion to or access by third parties and could undermine our shared security platforms and infrastructures," warned Thompson, who has now left the government. The State Department and the Embassy of Pakistan has refused to comment on the letter.

According to US News, in her letter, Thompson raised concerns about American access to the bases and the US-made equipment there.

Thompson said it had been four years since Office of Defense Representative of Pakistan – the office that carries out defense cooperation with partner countries – had been allowed to perform an assessment of the security vulnerabilities on the Pakistani bases, the news report said.

2019/ US approves sales to support Pakistan's F-16 jets

July 27, 2019: The Times of India

US approves sales to support Pak's F-16 fighter jets for 24x7 end-use monitoring

WASHINGTON: Days after the meeting between President Donald Trump and Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan, the Pentagon notified the Congress on Friday of its decision to approve military sales worth USD 125 million that would result in 24x7 end-use monitoring of the F-16 fighter jets of Pakistan.

US officials asserted that the freeze in security assistance to Pakistan on Trump's direction since January 2018 was still in place and the latest decision would help it in 24x7 end-use monitoring of the F-16 fighter jets in that country as this would require the assignment of 60 contractor representatives there to assist in the oversight of the F-16 programme.

"There has been no change to the security assistance suspension announced by the president in January 2018. As the president reiterated this week, we could consider the restoration of certain security assistance programmes consistent with the broader tenor of our relationship," a state department spokesperson told PTI.

He referred to the notification sent in this regard by the Pentagon to the Congress on Friday.

"This proposed sale will support the foreign policy and national security of the United States by protecting American technology through the continued presence of US personnel that provide 24x7 end-use monitoring," he said.

"The State Department has made a determination approving a possible Foreign Military Sale to Pakistan for Technical Security Team (TST) in continued support of the F-16 program for an estimated cost of USD 125 million," the Defense Security Cooperation Agency said in a statement.

The Pentagon delivered the required certification notifying the Congress of this possible sale on Friday.

According to the statement, Pakistan had requested a continuation of technical support services -- US government and contractor technical and logistics support services -- and other related elements of logistics support to assist in the oversight of operations in support of the Pakistan Peace Drive advanced F-16 programme.

Pakistan has used the F-16 fighter jets against India, the latest being in the aftermath of the Balakot airstrike inside Pakistan by India.

In its notification, the Pentagon asserted that the proposed sale of this support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.

"Implementation of this proposed sale will require the assignment of 60 contractor representatives to Pakistan to assist in the oversight of operations as part of the Peace Drive F-16 program," the statement said.

According to F-16.Net, the aircraft order by Pakistan was designated as "Peace Drive I", continuing with a long tradition of naming the F-16 international sales programmes with the word "Peace".

The programme raised the total number of F-16s ordered by Pakistan to 54. The Pakistan Air Force received its first F-16, in the block 15 F-16A/B configuration, in 1982. The country has been operating the Lockheed Martin aircraft since 1963, when it received C-130B airlifters.

The "Peace Drive I" order was for 12 F-16Cs and six F-16Ds, all powered by the Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-229 engine.

PART C: YEAR-WISE DEVELOPMENTS

2018

April: relations worsen

Chidanand Rajghatta, Corralled and constrained, Pakistan struggles to find feet against US, April 13, 2018: The Times of India

HIGHLIGHTS

Ties between US and Pakistan continue to spiral down with reports suggesting both countries are poised to constraint diplomats from the other side from free movement

The situation has been aggravated by what some sections of the Pakistani media saw as humiliating treatment of Shahid Khaqan Abbasi during a recent visit to the US

Crossed red lines, jumped red lights and a relationship that is anything but red hot. The already frigid and flaccid ties between the United States and Pakistan continue to spiral down with reports suggesting both countries are poised to constraint diplomats from the other side from free movement in tit-for-tat action following yet another spat involving what Islamabad alleges is reckless behaviour by an American diplomat.

The new row, recalling the notorious Raymond David episode in 2011 in which an undercover CIA contractor was charged with killing two Pakistanis in a highway shootout, centers this time on US military attaché Col Joseph Emanuel. In footage that has been widely and repeatedly telecast on Pakistani television since the April 7 incident, the American official allegedly jumped a red light in Islamabad, smashing into a motorcycle coming crossroad and causing the death of the rider and injury to one other person.

He was apprehended by Pakistani authorities after he left the scene and taken to a police station, but he had to be freed on account of his having diplomatic immunity as per the Geneva Convention. He remains at the US mission in Islamabad, amid continuing tensions about a resolution to the case.

Pakistani officials have since been insisting that Col Emanuel be prosecuted and put on trial either in Pakistan or in the US, even as the family of the man killed has gone to court demanding that he be arrested, and the police have sought to put him on the exit control list. Apologies from the US Ambassador over the accident after he was summoned to the Pakistani foreign office has not pacified hardliners in the Pakistani establishment already smarting under Washington’s tough new policy towards Islamabad, including holding it accountable for terrorism-related incidents.

While the Raymond Davis case was largely resolved by paying blood money to families of the victims, the establishment in Pakistan does not appear to be considering such a possibility this time. The situation has been aggravated by what some sections of the Pakistani media saw as humiliating treatment of the country’s prime minister Shahid Khaqan Abbasi during a recent visit to the US, when he had to go through security checks sans protocol, although Abbasi himself maintained he was on a private visit and did not mind the checks.

It now transpires that both sides are hardening their positions, with Washington reportedly notifying Pakistan that its diplomats in Washington DC will have to get special permission to travel beyond a 40km perimeter around the capital. While officials in Islamabad and Washington have denied the new strictures arise from the Col Emanuel episode (the US notification predates the Emanuel incident), the Dawn newspaper reported that notice to this effect was shared with the Pakistan Embassy in Washington and sent also to the ministry of foreign affairs in Islamabad, indicating that the restrictions could be imposed from May 1 if certain issues remained unresolved.

The unresolved issues are many. Even before the current spat and Washington’s hardball response, Pakistan had not endeared itself to the Trump administration with its relentless patronage of terrorist groups and extremist leaders despite mealy-mouthed pledges that it is cracking down on terrorism. Islamabad’s attempt to mainstream UN- and US-designated terrorist leaders such as Hafiz Saeed, under the specious excuse that its courts had not convicted, did not go down well with the Trump administration given the copious evidence of his involvement in terrorism and Pakistan’s glossing over it and dragging its feet on prosecuting those involved in 26/11 terror attack on Mumbai.

Pakistan’s continued defiance of the US Afghanistan and South Asia strategy -- part of which involves recognising and acknowledging India’s primacy in the region -- has also turned off the Trump administration as it seeks a safe exit from the region.

Travel curbs on Pakistani diplomats

Omer Farooq Khan, US official confirms travel curbs on Pak diplomats from May 1, April 19, 2018: The Times of India

A senior official of the Trump administration has confirmed that Washington will impose travel restrictions on Pakistani diplomats in the US from May 1, stating that they would not be allowed to move freely without permission from relevant authorities in the state department.

In an interview with Voice of America’s (VOA’s) Uzbek service, US under secretary of state for political affairs Thomas Shannon said this restriction was placed in response to the same conditions imposed by Islamabad on US diplomats in Pakistan.

The Trump administration had recently communicated to Islamabad that its diplomats stationed at their embassy in Washington and at consulates in other cities would seek permission at least five days ahead of an intended travel beyond 40km from their offices. “Our diplomats are under travel restrictions. They can travel further than 40km, but they have to notify the government of Pakistan. It’s very common in diplomacy,” Shannon said.

According to Pakistani authorities, they have not imposed any travel restrictions on US diplomats but have taken security measures intended to protect them. They argue that the state department also does not allow its diplomats in Pakistan to visit volatile tribal regions bordering Afghanistan, Karachi and certain other places out of security concerns.

The US official also stressed the need for Pakistan to step up pressure on militants, who still have a presence in the country. Shannon said that Islamabad also needed to understand the concerns of Central Asian countries about “remnants” of militancy in Pakistan. “I’m not sure how much we can help... this is really something that the Pakistanis have to understand.”

Nov: Trump, Imran troll each other; further decline in ties

Chidanand Rajghatta & Omer Farooq Khan, November 20, 2018: The Times of India

US President Trump and Pakistan’s PM Imran Khan trolled each other on Twitter on Monday with snide remarks pointing to a continued dysfunction in ties between two countries stuck in a mutually recriminatory loop.

Following a Fox News interview over the weekend in which President Trump accused Pakistan of hiding Osama bin Laden and berated it for not doing a “damn thing” for the United States, Khan pushed back on Monday tweeting, “Instead of making Pakistan a scapegoat for their failures, the US should do a serious assessment of why, despite 140000 NATO troops plus 250,000 Afghan troops & reportedly $1trillion spent on war in Afghanistan, the Taliban today are stronger than before.”

“Record needs to be put straight on Mr Trump’s tirade against Pakistan: 1. No Pakistani was involved in 9/11 but Pak decided to participate in US War on Terror. 2. Pakistan suffered 75,000 casualties in this war & over $123 bn was lost to economy. US ‘aid’ was a miniscule $20 bn,” he said in a second tweet.

In a third tweet, Khan said “Our tribal areas were devastated & millions of ppl uprooted from their homes. The war drastically impacted lives of ordinary Pakistanis, “ before asking, “Pak continues to provide free lines of ground & air communications . Can Mr Trump name another ally that gave such sacrifices?”

Earlier, Dr Shireen Mazari, minister for human rights in Khan’s cabinet, responded to POTUS acerbically on Twitter. Trump, she said, “suffers conveniently from perpetual amnesia!” His statement “should be a lesson for those Pakistani leaders who kept appeasing the US especially after 9/11”, she tweeted.

Within four hours of Khan’s tweets, Trump returned to the subject again, tweeting, “Of course we should have captured Osama Bin Laden long before we did. I pointed him out in my book just BEFORE the attack on the World Trade Center. President Clinton famously missed his shot. We paid Pakistan Billions of Dollars & they never told us he was living there. Fools!..”

“....We no longer pay Pakistan the $Billions because they would take our money and do nothing for us, Bin Laden being a prime example, Afghanistan being another. They were just one of many countries that take from the US without giving anything in return. That’s ENDING!” he added.

Trump’s Twitter tirade also involved retired US Admiral William McRaven, who led the operation that killed bin Laden, and who has since criticised Trump on various issues, including his denigration of the media and his attacks against ex-CIA chief John Brennan. Trump dismissed McRaven as a “Hilary Clinton backer and an Obama-backer”, in the Fox interview although the admiral had made nopolitical pronouncement before Trump began attacking the US security establishment.

2019

US revises visa policy for Pakistanis

US visa duration for Pakistani citizens reduced to 3 months, March 6, 2019: The Times of India

The visa duration for Pakistani nationals has been reduced to three months from five years, said a spokesperson of the US embassy in Pakistan.

Apart from civilians, the new visa policy will also be applicable to Pakistani journalists. The scribes will be issued visas for three months, ARY News reported quoting the US embassy spokesperson.

The US government has also increased visa application fees for the Pakistani citizens to $192 from $160.

The move, announced on Tuesday, comes after Pakistan took reciprocal steps in modifying the visa policy for US citizens, including reduction of visa period and fee increment in applying for the document, the spokesperson said.

However, issuance of visas to the government officials will be made in view of their working period by the US administration, the spokesperson added.

In May last year, Pakistan foreign ministry had announced travel restrictions on US diplomats in a tit-for-tat move, after the US had imposed similar restrictions on Pakistani diplomats in that month, amid the rocky ties between Islamabad and Washington.

The US government had stated that Pakistani diplomats at its embassy in Washington DC and consulates will not be allowed to travel over 40 km from their posts without prior permission, according to ARY News.

Washington has repeatedly told Islamabad + that it should take to stop providing support and safe haven to terrorists operating in Pakistani soil.

This came in the wake of the terror attack in Jammu and Kashmir's Pulwama district on February 14, which claimed the lives of 40 CRPF personnel + , the responsibility of which was claimed by Pakistan-based Jaish-e-Mohammed.

The US has also suspended financial aid worth millions to cash-strapped Pakistan for not taking serious steps to tackle terrorism.

US stalls Turkey’s fighter helicopter sale to Pakistan

July 20, 2019: The Times of India

The US has stalled the sale of Turkishmade T129 ATAK helicopter gunships to Pakistan, days ahead of the first meeting between PM Imran Khan and President Trump, a media report said.

Turkey and Pakistan signed a $1.5 billion deal for the Turkish-made helicopter gunships on July13, 2018. The delivery date of the first helicopter was pushed back after the Pentagon last year “refused” to issue the Turkish firm with an export license for the delivery of the gunships’ CTS800 engines, which was part of the T129 ATAK helicopter, the EurAsian Times reported.

T129 ATAK ia s multi-role, all-weather attack helicopter. Developed by Turkish Aerospace Industries with partner AgustaWestland, the helicopter is designed for advanced attack and reconnaissance missions in hot and high environments and rough geography in both day and night conditions.

The US’ decision is part of the Trump administration’s move not to provide any security assistance to Pakistan till the time it takes decisive and irreversible actions against terrorist groups. While Turkey is exploring the possibility of engines from other suppliers in Poland and France, the US decision would delay in delivery of T129 ATAK helicopters to Pakistan. The deal was for the delivery of 30 of these helicopters.

Procurement of such helicopters would have given more teeth to Pakistan’s airpower as its current AH-1F Cobra gunships lack the capability to perform adequately over the higher altitudes of the Hindu Kush mountain range, separating Afghanistan and Pakistan, the EurAsian Times reported. PTI

2025

Pakistan is back in favour

Chidanand Rajghatta TNN, June 20, 2025: The Times of India

Washington : The ploy was plain and didn’t cost Pakistan a cent. By the simple expedient of massaging Donald Trump’s ego and playing on the US President’s long-stated desire for a Nobel Peace Prize as a “peace-maker”, Pakistan’s army chief Asim Munir has manoeuvred his country back into the US calculus.


In the process, he has trumped both his domestic rivals and Pakistan’s civilian brass — by gaining recognition as the country’s de facto ruler — and New Delhi, which holds him responsible for triggering war with India by initiating the Pahalgam terrorist attack following an incendiary speech. “I was honoured to meet him today,” Trump gushed after a private lunch he hosted for Munir in the White House. “The reason I had him here was I wanted to thank him for not going into the war (with India) and ending it.”


Trump also praised PM Modi for the de-escalation. “Two very smart people decided not to keep going with the war. Those are two big nuclear powers.” But considering Delhi had just repudiated a mediatory US role, Munir took the plaudits. Shortly before the lunch, White House candidly revealed the basis for the invitation: Munir’s advocacy for Trump to receive Nobel Peace Prize — ostensibly for his efforts in de-escalating the IndiaPakistan military standoff. This played into Trump’s long-standing grouse he has been denied a Nobel despite his record as a peace-maker. “They gave one to Obama immediately upon his ascent to the presidency, and he had no idea why he got it. You know what? I got us out of wars. I made deals that nobody thought were possible,” Trump said in one of his public gripes on the issue. Even before playing the Nobel card, Munir had laid the foundation for his Trump outreach with a crypto gambit.


In April, a privately owned US cryptocurrency firm, World Liberty Financial (WLF), signed a letter of intent with Pakistan’s nascent Crypto Council. The deal grants WLF the authority “to integrate blockchain technology across Pakistan’s financial institutions, paving the way for asset tokenisation, stablecoin development, and establishment of regulatory sandboxes for decentralised financepilot projects”, all aimed at transforming Islamabad into the “crypto capital of South Asia”.


Trump’s sons Eric and Donald Jr, and son-in-law Jared Kushner, collectively hold a 60% stake in WLF. WLF delegation that visited Islamabad was led by Zachary Witkoff, son of Steve Witkoff, a long-time associate of Trump and currently his special envoy to West Asia. Munir personally welcomed them and participated in a closed-door meeting alongside PM Shehbaz Sharif.