US-Pakistan Ties: More Symbolism Than Substance, Expert Warns

A leading expert states that despite improved optics and high-level visits, the core US-Pakistan relationship remains unchanged. She argues that Pakistan's regional utility has yielded symbolic gestures but not concrete economic or military benefits. The expert notes frustration in Islamabad, citing a lack of delivered investment and the need for Pakistan to purchase high-end military equipment itself. She also outlines the domestic limits for Pakistan in any potential Gaza peacekeeping role.

Key Points: US-Pakistan Relations: Symbolism Over Substance, Expert Says

  • Symbolic optics over structural change
  • Frustration over unmet bilateral gains
  • Military aid replaced by need to purchase
  • Economic investment hindered by security
  • Gaza role limited to peacekeeping
3 min read

Substantively, nothing has changed in US-Pakistan relationship: Expert

A South Asia expert says high-level US-Pakistan engagement hasn't translated into tangible economic or military gains for Islamabad.

"Substantively, however, I do not think much has changed - Aparna Pande"

Washington, Feb 18

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."

- IANS

Share this article:

Reader Comments

P
Priya S
Symbolism over substance seems to be the theme for Pakistan's foreign policy. They want to be seen as a key player in the Muslim world, especially on Gaza, but are scared of real commitment. The economic reality is harsh—no money for fancy weapons, and no security for investors in Balochistan. Tough spot.
R
Rohit P
As an Indian, I read this with mixed feelings. On one hand, a unstable, economically weak Pakistan is a concern for regional peace. On the other, their inability to gain real traction with the US means less military leverage against us. The focus should remain on our own growth and diplomacy. đŸ‡®đŸ‡³
S
Sarah B
Interesting perspective from Aparna Pande. It highlights a common pattern in international relations—the gap between diplomatic optics and ground realities. The mention of Balochistan's insurgency as a barrier to investment is a crucial, often overlooked point. Stability is the real currency.
V
Vikram M
The part about Pakistan's troops in Gaza is telling. They want the photo-op of being peacekeepers for the Ummah, but not the responsibility of actual combat, especially if it involves Hamas. It's all about domestic political mileage, not genuine problem-solving. Classic.
K
Karthik V
While the analysis is sharp, I respectfully think it downplays the long-term strategic patience of the US. Relationships evolve. Calling it merely symbolic might be premature. However, the economic constraints for Pakistan are very real and likely the biggest hurdle.
<

We welcome thoughtful discussions from our readers. Please keep comments respectful and on-topic.

Leave a Comment

Minimum 50 characters 0/50