What long term effects the killing of the Al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden the 1st of May 2011 will have on the relations between the United Sates and Pakistan is yet too early to distinguish. The viable questions that can be asked at this time are how the situation and policies changed to this day has and will the changes be permanent? Will the relations between the states ease up or will an even tenser situation between them two come out of the events May 1st 2011? And how may the changes the relations seen so far have an impact on the future relations between The United States and Pakistan? This essay is going to examine and discuss the changes that have occurred in U.S. foreign policy towards Pakistan after the killing of Osama Bin Laden.
The relations between the United States and Pakistan have been very strained since the attack that resulted in Osama Bin Laden’s death. The situation between the two states further worsened after the U.S. forces killed 24 Pakistani soldiers in what was claimed to be a mistake based on mistaken identity of the Pakistani soldiers. In a recent nuclear safety summit in Seoul leaders of the two states met and President of the United States Barrack Obama stated to the Pakistani Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani “There have been times – I think we should be frank – in the last several months where those relations have experienced strains” (http://www.huffingtonpost.com).
The two parts have concerns surrounding their relations since the attacks in 2011; the main concerns for Pakistan have seemed to be the disrespect of Pakistani sovereignty from the United States. On the other hand the concerns from the U.S. side is regarding national security and the threat posed towards the U.S. by terrorist ...
... middle of paper ...
...ons between the U.S and Pakistan had been extremely tense during the last year there is brighter prospects in view. The both states has in the recent summit in Seoul showed an more open attitude concerning the bilateral relation and now only time can tell how it will further evolve.
Works Cited
1. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/27/obama-pakistan-relations-strained_n_1381948.html 1-4-2012-15.53
2. http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/columns/31-Mar-2012/developing-the-new-terms-of-engagement
3. http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2011/05/162339.htm
4. http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/05/9977091-obama-vows-us-will-stay-worlds-top-military-power
5. http://www.aljazeera.com/news/americas/2011/05/20115633712747260.html
6. http://www.cfr.org/pakistan/us-pakistan-relations-year-past-year-ahead/p27314
In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, the United States was incredibly eager to strike back at the nations thought to be responsible for this horrific tragedy. These attacks were quickly attributed to the terrorist group al-Qa’ida, led by Osama bin Laden, and to the Taliban-run government of Afghanistan, which had provided sanctuary to al-Qa’ida. In response, Washington approved a covert plan led by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to directly attack those responsible in their Middle East safe haven. Initiated on 26 September 2001 with the approval of the warlords of the Afghan Northern Alliance, with whom the CIA had formed an intelligence liaison relationship, Operation Jawbreaker resulted in the fall of the Taliban regime, the killing and capture of a significant amount of al-Qa’ida leadership, and elimination of a terrorist safe haven by early December 2001. Moreover, the Taliban’s collapse denied al-Qa’ida a pseudo-nation-state partner, serving to reduce the organization’s sanctuary to areas residing along the Pakistani border. Operation Jawbreaker, one of the first post-9/11 covert operations carried out by the United States in support of its national security interests, had proved successful. Word of the operation’s swift success astounded those back in Washington; dubbed the CIA’s “finest hour,” it signified the first of many victories by deposing the Taliban’s control of Northern Afghanistan.
Hook and Spanier describes the current relationship of U.S. with other countries as "ambivalent" and "erratic" with a "love-hate relationship with the world (p.20)". The authors also claimed that the Cold War and other pertinent historical events forward pertinent impacts to the current foreign policy scene.
Relations between the U.S. and the Middle East are strained at best. The troops deployed in the area face constant threat of attack by a militant group. These broken relations between the U.S. and the Middle East started over 50 years ago, with the Iran Hostage Crisis. The root causes of the crisis were many. One was U.S. greed over oil in Iran.
As Lester B. Pearson once said “Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.” Politics may create disagreements and conflict between two countries, but it can also affect countries relations. When Canadian Prime Minister Diefenbaker refused to accept American warheads it has set back Canadian and American relations. However In many ways we still help each other out. Canada benefits from close ties to the United States of America because it helps our economy, forms our culture, and they provide military protection.
Failure of the Détente Between the Superpowers The French word ‘détente’, which the Oxford English Dictionary describes as “the easing of strained relations, especially in a political situation” (www.oed.com), first appeared in this context when a German newspaper used it to describe the visit of a British monarch at the beginning of the 20th century (Froman, 1991). In this essay, I will attempt to explain the cold war détente between the superpowers of the USA and the USSR in the 1970’s, concentrating first on its positive developments between 1971 and 1973 and then on the events that lead to its ultimate failure, symbolised by the soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. The first real steps of relaxation of tensions were taken with the Moscow summit and the signing of the SALT 1 (Strategic Arms Limitations Talks) agreement in May 1972. The SALT agreement was a staring point for attempts to control nuclear arms, to restrict the impact and spread of nuclear weapons and to secure a balance due to ‘Mutual Assured Destruction’ (the notion that a nuclear attack from one side would lead to a retaliation from the other and therefore both sides would be greatly damaged) between the two superpowers and were to be followed up by further arms limitations talks within the next five years (Kent and Young, 2004). Also, agreements were reached on lowering the risk of accidental confrontation and on cooperation in science, health and environmental issues.
Conflicts involving foreign relations still occur today, even if they are unnecessary. Hopefully in this day of age, the U.S can sort out their conflicts peacefully, unlike their choices in
Russia, a vast country with a wealth of natural resources, a well, educated population, and diverse industrial base, continues to experience, formidable difficulties in moving from its old centrally planned economy to a modern market economy. President Yeltsin's government has made substantial strides in converting to a market economy since launching its economic reform program in January 1992 by freeing nearly all prices, slashing defense spending, eliminating the old centralized distribution system, completing an ambitious voucher privatization program, establishing private financial institutions, and decentralizing trade. Russia, however, has made little progress in a number of key areas that are needed to provide a solid foundation for the transition to a market economy.
The people of India and Pakistan hate each other with a burning passion that goes back thousands of years. Because of the constant border wars you had to be stealthy when talking to people. For example if we were both on India's land and were both Indians we could be buddies; on the flip side if you spoke Sindhi, a derived form of Hindi, and I spoke Hindi I can assume you were Pakistani and we would have to fight it out.
"U.S. Response to Terrorism Follow-up: al Qaeda Leader bin Laden Killed by U.S. Forces in Pakistan." Issues and Controversies on File. N.p., 1 May 2011. Web. 24 Oct. 2013.
While analyzing past interactions between Hinduism and Islam, we can see some outstanding tensions that arise from territorial conflict between India, a predominantly Hindu country, and Pakistan, a predominantly Muslim country.
From the beginning of their establishment, the bilateral relations between the United States of America and China have changed throughout the time. The bilateral relations of the two countries emerged from 1970’s with the ‘Ping-Pong’ diplomacy and there have been many pauses in their mutual relations. The US and China enjoyed cooperation in economic and military spheres and the mutual relations grew massively during until the end of 1990’s. The heads of the two states began visiting each other’s countries and the economic ties were tightening year by year. However, the issues of human rights and free speech declined mutual Sino-American relations. The American principle of democracy promotion and human rights protection minimized the Sino- American relations after the Tiananmen Square events in 1989, the US Presidents-George Bush and Bill Clinton- playing a key role in determining the further American foreign policy towards China.
Amidst a border war, India and Pakistan’s conflict escalated to a point where a nuclear attack seemed imminent. The Pakistani prime minister, Nawaz Sharif, came to the U.S. for assistance on July 4, 1999. Had the two powers continued to clash, a nuclear exchange would have almost definitely occurred. These bombs would have turned vast areas into wasteland
The first paradigm of international relations is the theory of Realism. Realism is focused on ideas of self-interest and the balance of power. Realism is also divided into two categories, classical realism and neo-realism. Famous political theorist, Hans Morgenthau was a classical realist who believed that national interest was based on three elements, balance of power, military force, and self interest (Kleinberg 2010, 32). He uses four levels of analysis to evaluate the power of a state. The first is that power and influence are not always the same thing. Influence means the ability to affect the decision of those who have the power to control outcomes and power is the ability to determine outcomes. An example of influence and power would be the UN’s ability to influence the actions of states within the UN but the state itself has the power to determine how they act. Morgenthau goes on to his next level of analysis in which he explains the difference in force and power in the international realm. Force is physical violence, the use of military power but power is so much more than that. A powerful state can control the actions of another state with the threat of force but not actually need to physical force. He believed that the ability to have power over another state simply with the threat of force was likely to be the most important element in analysis the power of as state (Kleinberg 2010, 33-34).
“India and Pakistan: Tense Neighbours.” BBC. N.p., 16 Dec. 2001. Web. 15 May 2011. .
...on between the hostile nations in anticipation of such an eventuality, that disarmament efforts proving futile. The Indo-Pakistani war was fought over the Kashmir issue.