Strategic Studies

Pakistan’s foreign policy objectives in the post-

September 11, 2001 era
A. Z. Hilali *

T he tragic events of September 11, 2001 were a watershed in international

politics which not only changed the international system, but also
fundamentally transformed the basic fabric of foreign policy in different
countries of the world. The U.S. sidelined ―moral superiority‖ and started flexing
its military muscle without diplomatic consensus or the backing of its allies and
involved itself in an unending war on terror. For Pakistan, the events also marked
a turning point as the U.S. accused that the extremists who had successfully
conducted terrorist attack in the U.S. had allegedly received training in the
Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) of Pakistan. Left with little choice,
Pakistan was forced to change its policy and side with the U.S. to topple the
Taliban regime in Afghanistan.
Pakistan’s foreign policy after 9/11
The foreign policy of Pakistan is shaped largely by geographical and
historical considerations, by its political and social system, by virtue of economic
dependence and military vulnerability, by its relative power position with
reference to the adversary, by the policies of other countries and by the world
contemporary environment. Historically, Pakistan’s foreign policy was primarily
focused on India, but the events of 9/11 made Pakistan a front-line State in
defending U.S. interests in the region. The country had already suffered due to
the Cold War; this new situation placed Pakistan in a position where it had to
defend itself against the barrage of allegations and look for closer cooperation of
friendly countries to avoid international isolation.
Besides, it is also believed that the country’s elites decided to support the
U.S. because of their desire to receive economic and military assistance and also
to gain political support to legitimize the then undemocratic regime of General
Parvez Musharaf.1 Given all that, Gen. Musharaf laid the foundation of a
strategic partnership between the U.S. and Pakistan, and promised to cooperate
on the issues of terrorism and to prevent nuclear proliferation.
Change in Afghan policy

The events of 9/11 also made it impossible for Islamabad to continue its

*
The writer is Professor of International Relations, Department of Political Science,
University of Peshawar, Peshawar.

160
Pakistan’s foreign policy objectives in the post-September 11, 2001 era

diplomatic support to Taliban in Afghanistan. Thus, Pakistan carefully evaluated

the pro-Taliban policy which was perceived to be costly, and changed its Afghan
policy which was isolating the country within the entire region, both among its
friends and foes. On the other hand, Pakistan had a fundamental national interest
in Afghanistan’s stability, unity and territorial integrity as decades of war had
furthered terrorism and extremism which posed significant threats to
Afghanistan’s transition to a modern democratic State and to its fragile economy.

During his official visit to Kabul on December 4, 2010, Syed Yousuf Raza
Gilani, the then Prime Minister of Pakistan, said that Pakistan had always wanted
a peaceful, stable and friendly Afghanistan. The destinies of the people of
Pakistan and Afghanistan were deeply interlinked. Pakistan had been aspiring
closer economic and commercial ties with the resource-rich Central Asian States
and had plans for establishment of energy and trade corridors with them. But all
of them invariably depended on a peaceful Afghanistan.2

Similarly, General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, Chief of Army Staff, during his
visit to Brussels (Belgium), made it clear that Pakistan has a traditional stand on
Afghanistan and that is the well-being of
the people of Afghanistan. He said, ―We The events of 9/11 and the
cannot wish for Afghanistan anything global “war on terror” not
that we don’t wish for Pakistan.‖3 only changed the
Pakistan is making a significant fundamental fabric of
contribution to the socio-economic Pakistan’s foreign policy,
development of Afghanistan as peace and but also complicated
prosperity of the two countries could Pakistan’s diplomatic stance
only be ensured through their economic
on the Kashmir dispute. The
progress.
new situation made it
Change in Kashmir policy difficult for Pakistan to
provide diplomatic and
The events of 9/11 and the global moral support to Kashmiri
―war on terror‖ not only changed the indigenous freedom
fundamental fabric of Pakistan’s foreign movement as the
policy, but also complicated Pakistan’s circumstances provided
diplomatic stance on the Kashmir India an opportunity to
dispute. The new situation made it project it as “Islamic
difficult for Pakistan to provide militancy” and to gain
diplomatic and moral support to sympathies of the
Kashmiri indigenous freedom movement international community.
as the circumstances provided India an

161
Strategic Studies

opportunity to project it as ―Islamic militancy‖ and to gain sympathies of the

international community.

Subsequently, in an effort to handle the matter diplomatically, President

Musharaf addressed the nation on September 20, 2001. He said that:

Our main concerns are they [USA] can be hurt and harmed. And they can also
devastate our main power, our main cause, Kashmir … They are to see what the
intentions of our neighboring countries are. They [India] have offered all their
military facilities to the United States. Very conveniently, they [India] have
offered their logistic support and all their facilities to America. They want that
America should come and side them and they want Pakistan to be declared a
terrorist State, and thus damage our Kashmir cause. 4

The government under President Mushararf defined the parameters for

Kashmir struggle and pledged that ―no organization will be allowed to indulge in
terrorism in the name of Kashmir and strict action will be taken against any
Pakistani individual, group or organization found involved in terrorism within or
outside the country.‖5 At the same time, Musharaf also asserted Islamabad’s
commitment to Kashmir struggle and said: ―Kashmir runs in our blood. … We
will continue to extend our moral, political and diplomatic support to Kashmiris.
We will never budge an inch from our principled stand on Kashmir.‖6

Similarly, Prime Minister Syed Yusuf Raza Gilani also stated, ―Pakistan
remains firmly committed to its principled stance on Jammu and Kashmir, based
on the relevant UN Security Council resolutions.‖7 On another occasion, he
stated that ―the just struggles of people for self-determination and liberation from
colonial or foreign occupation cannot be outlawed in the name of terrorism.‖8

Thus, Pakistan acted according to the U.S. desire and also maintained its
traditional stand that ―Kashmir problem needs to be resolved through dialogue
and peaceful means in accordance with the wishes of the Kashmiri people and
the UN resolutions.‖9 Pakistan also urged the international community, especially
the U.S., to play an active role in resolving the Kashmir dispute for the sake of
durable peace and harmony in the region.

Change in India’s policy

The history of Pakistan-India relations is full of distrust since independence

in 1947. Both the countries have fought three wars (1948, 1965, and 1971) and
also have had hostilities in Kargil in 1998. The outstanding issues such as

162
Pakistan’s foreign policy objectives in the post-September 11, 2001 era

Siachen, Sir Creek, Kishanganga Dam and above all the core issue of Kashmir
have remained unsettled to date. On top of it all, the situation is alarming because
of the presence of nuclear weapons in both the countries.

Their relations received a serious blow after the suicide attack on Indian
parliament in December 2001; and got further worsened after the Mumbai
carnage in November 2008. India referred to the Mumbai attack as ―India’s 9/11‖
and described the city as a hub of commercial and entertainment activities and a
symbol of modern India.10 New Delhi blamed Pakistan for the terror incidents
and was ready to attack Pakistan, but Islamabad denied the charges and matched
India’s military moves.11

Tensions between the two countries were defused with the help of the
international community, particularly the U.S, as hostilities between the two
countries could have had a negative impact on Pakistan’s efforts in the war on
terror. Demands were also made that Pakistan should stop supporting groups
operating in Kashmir like the Lashkar-e- Taiba (LET). Pakistan assured India
that it would extend full cooperation to unearth the Mumbai conspiracy, but that
also did not stop India from severing the ongoing dialogue process with Pakistan.

The U.S. expressed disappointment on this Indian decision. Voicing the

Pakistani desire to restart the dialogue process with India, former Prime Minister
Yousaf Raza Gilani appeared on India’s CNN-IBN and said that ―Pakistan and
India must not be held hostage to the Mumbai attack because the beneficiaries
will be terrorists and dialogue is the only best solution‖.12

The quest for national security

Following the events of 9/11, Pakistan found itself in an extremely

vulnerable position as former President George W. Bush declared that ―every
nation, in every region, has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are
with the terrorists.‖13 He also mentioned that ―from that day forward, any nation
that continues to harbour or support terrorism will be regarded by the United
States as a hostile regime.‖14 Bush further stated: ―We will meet aggression and
bad faith with resolve and strength.‖15 At that time, the U.S. required the
airspace, bases, and logistical support of the neighbouring countries to conduct a
successful invasion of Afghanistan.

As Pakistan borders both the Indian Ocean and Afghanistan,16 America

sought to gain Pakistan’s support through coercive diplomacy and Wendy
Chamberlain (U.S. Ambassador to Islamabad) was assigned the task of

163
Strategic Studies

negotiations with President Perviaz Musharraf.17 America made it clear to

Pakistan that it wanted intelligence support, the use of Pakistan’s airspace, and
logistical support.18 Liam Collins has mentioned in the Irish daily, Sunday
Independent that a senior officer of the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad told President
Musharraf that Pakistan should either abandon support to Taliban or be prepared
to be treated like the Taliban.19

On September 16, 2001, Islamabad announced that it would join the global
coalition against terror20 Three days later, Musharraf addressed the nation and
explained the country’s position by saying:

We in Pakistan are facing a very critical situation. Perhaps as critical as the

events in 1971. If we make the wrong decisions our vital interests will be
harmed … Our critical concerns are our sovereignty, second our economy,
third our strategic assets (nuclear and missiles), and fourth our Kashmir cause.
All four will be harmed if we make the wrong decision. We have to save our
interests. Pakistan comes first, everything else is secondary … 21.

Following Musharraf’s declaration, America lifted the economic and military

sanctions that had been imposed under the Pressler, Glenn, and Symington
Amendments and also Section 508 of the Foreign Assistance Act. All these
sanctions were waived by Bush under the authority of Brownback II, 22 and in
response, Pakistan extended cooperation for Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF).
Pakistan agreed to provide blanket flyover and landing rights, access to naval and
air bases, and critical petrol supplies. Much of the logistical support was initially
provided without any formal agreements or user fees that are normally required
for such privileges; thus demonstrating Pakistan’s full support.23

This support provided by Pakistan played a critical role in the success of the
OEF. Furthermore, it is also pertinent to highlight that Pakistan captured more
terrorists and committed and lost more troops than any other nation in the
world.24

Pakistan’s place in the regional and international system

Pakistan has been actively involved in international affairs both within and
beyond the South Asian region. The country has continued its partnership with
the United States and the industrialized Western world based on strategic
affinities and common interests in economic and trade affairs.

164
Pakistan’s foreign policy objectives in the post-September 11, 2001 era

In this regard, Dr. Abdul Hafeez Shaikh, Finance Minister of Pakistan,

elaborates Pakistan’s economic foreign policy objectives and mentions that ―as a
set of commitments, those objectives constitute the broad aspirational tenets of
the country’s approach to its economic development and, if consistently adhered
to, it will render the policy predictable and in line with our perception of the kind
of nation we seek to be, and the kind of world we wish to live in. Thus, there
must be one yardstick which is the quality of economic development and that is
the only useful policy tool.‖25

India, being a largest democracy in the world ,is taking full advantage of its
image in the world and is on the path to economic development, whereas
Pakistan has repeatedly seen long years of political unrest and military takeover,
thereby discouraging foreign investors.

To promote soft image of Pakistan

Pakistan’s diplomatic and moral support to Taliban has badly damaged its
global image and its own multi-cultural society. The violence began when
Taliban introduced strict interpretation of Islam and propagated that America
and the West is the root cause of all evil. Following the 9/11 incidents, elements
with similar views gained ground in Pakistan that resulted in increased
militancy in society with suicide blasts becoming almost a routine matter for
the people in Pakistan. The brutal acts of Taliban not only brought a bad name
to the country but also tarnished the image of Islam.

Their nefarious and immoral activities have led many to believe that Islam
is a religion of intolerance, militancy and terrorism. As Rahul Bedi has written
in Asia Times, ―Due to the activities of Taliban and militants, it has led
increasing numbers of Western people to link Islam with fundamentalism,
extremism, and terrorism.‖26 Pakistan is struggling with its limited resources to
restore peace and security in the country not only because the international
community wants it to take on the militants, but also because these elements are
bent upon destroying the social fabric of the country and impose their ideas and
way of life on the people of Pakistan. These efforts by Pakistan have been
acknowledged by the international community which has helped in improving
Pakistan’s image across the world.

To gain economic assistance for development

Since independence, Pakistan has never enjoyed a stable economy and is an

economically dependent country. Therefore, Pakistan’s foreign policy has been

165
Strategic Studies

traditionally driven either by the quest for security or to receive massive

economic assistance.

In the early years of 2000, Pakistan was close to an economic default. The
country had been subjected to a wide range of U.S. sanctions under the Pressler,
Glenn and Symington Amendments to Section 508 of the Foreign Assistance
Act. The military coup of General Musharaf in 1999 also limited all economic
and military assistance to Pakistan.27 According to the World Bank, Pakistan was
in a ―position of extreme vulnerability‖ due to its immense debt and was
categorized as a low-income economy which failed to maintain the development
growth and progress.28

From 1998 to 2001, foreign exchange reserves were not sufficient and
financial indiscipline was downgraded.29 It also pointed out that Pakistan had
severe economic shortcomings, notably its failing education system, growing
inequality between the rich and the poor, faltering public infrastructure and lack
of investment in private and public sector including research and development.

However, the events of 9/11 bailed-out Pakistan from political and economic
difficulties. In response to Islamabad’s cooperation to the U.S.-led war on terror,
the Bush administration waived sanctions under the authority of Brownback II
and awarded around $18 billion tangible economic and military aid including
$11.5 billion as military assistance.30 The U.S. administration provided
legitimacy to General Musharraf’s military regime and Washington showed
willingness to reschedule Pakistan’s outstanding $400 million debt.31 It also
supported loan rescheduling for Pakistan by various financial institutions,
including the World Bank, IMF and ADB, and helped alleviate Pakistan’s $38
billion foreign debts.

The Bush administration announced $1 billion aid package to Musharraf

government for the purpose of border control, refugee assistance and poverty
alleviation.32 During 2001-2002, IMF and the Paris Club were pleased with
Pakistan’s economic progress and rescheduled much of its foreign debt and
extended fresh credits.33 From 2002 to 2008, the U.S. provided approximately
$5.174 billion and also estimated that an additional $80 - $100 million would be
given each month in coalition support fund, a total of $ 4.75 billion till August
2006.34

The Barak Obama administration in its latest annual budget has approved
$1.6 billion in military assistance (2009) and about $1.4 billion (2010) as civilian
assistance.35

166
Pakistan’s foreign policy objectives in the post-September 11, 2001 era

According to the Department of Defence (DoD), the military assistance

which has been provided to Pakistan is approximately $7.345 billion as Coalition
Support Fund (CSF) for its support of the U.S. military operations in
Afghanistan.36 The Obama administration has also increased non-military
assistance to Pakistan, which is mainly attributed to the Kerry-Lugar-Berman bill
which grants $7.5 billion in five-year (2009-2014) programme.37 Since the war
on terror began, the policy makers have formulated an agenda that ―War on
Terror‖ is one of the factors which can enrich Pakistan across the board and the
country will get foreign aid for socio-economic uplift or institutional
development.

Thus, achieving sustainable economic growth in the country is the civilian

government’s priority and its international dimension is important for all
departments in State sector. To attain its objectives, the government has proper
coordination at the policy and working levels and they are working towards an
integrated ―economic foreign policy.‖38

For this purpose, the government has formulated a comprehensive

programme for international interaction in the fields of trade, commerce and
technological exchange and cultural exchange as well. Pakistan’s prosperity has
always depended on its international economic links. A large part of the
country’s financial resources are based on international donors, foreign trade and
investment.

In this regard, the country’s agricultural industries completely depend on

access to international markets. As a result of the ―war on terror‖ the country’s
trade and investment has increased and barriers to trade have got lowered down.
Taxation reforms have enhanced productivity, deregulation, and strengthened
infrastructure, the rate of inflation and a low interest rate climate.

All these became vital factors to enhance foreign investment. Pakistan

equally needs to utilize the concept of globalization for rapid growth and poverty
reduction and for economic competition in the world market. The country can
afford favourable impact on the overall growth rate of the economy because the
process of globalization cannot only increase the GDP and GNP but also benefit
both big and small businesses, together with the people.

Alignment with the global economic system radically pushes forward

reforms in favour of a more open and market oriented economy which will
strengthen the country’s position. Moreover, newly opened markets around the

167
Strategic Studies

world will create new opportunities for economic growth and hopefully the
benefits of globalization will offset any costs. Globalization will also increase
prosperity through trade, aid, investment and technological change and as a result
employment opportunities will enrich society.

To maintain minimum deterrence

Former Prime Minister
Since inception of the country in Gilani dismissed Western
1947, Pakistan has been facing grave media perceptions about
security problems from India. The Pakistan’s nuclear
international community has failed to programme and said:
play a decisive role against Indian “Pakistan would continue
aggression, particularly in 1971 when the to follow a responsible
Eastern wing of the country was severed.
policy of maintaining
At the same time, the detonation of
Indian atomic devices in 1974 and later credible minimum
in May 1998 made Pakistan realise that deterrence capability
in order to maintain minimum commensurate with
deterrence, Pakistan had no choice but to regional environment and
go nuclear. Indian reluctance to settle future requirements.
disputes, particularly the core dispute of Pakistan is not in arms
Kashmir, was also a factor. race with India but would
never compromise on its
This situation is best described by national security.
Avery Goldstein that ―Nuclear
deterrence will remain at the core of the
security policies of the world’s great powers and will continue to be an attractive
option for many weak or less powerful States worried about adversaries whose
capabilities they cannot match.‖39 The situation has become even more
complicated with the signing of a comprehensive nuclear deal between India and
the U.S. Pakistan has repeatedly made it clear to the world that it does not want
to indulge in an arms race with India.

Former Prime Minister Gilani dismissed Western media perceptions about

Pakistan’s nuclear programme and said: ―Pakistan would continue to follow a
responsible policy of maintaining credible minimum deterrence capability
commensurate with regional environment and future requirements. Pakistan is
not in arms race with India but would never compromise on its national
security.‖40 On another occasion, he reiterated that ―Pakistan believes in peaceful
co-existence; nevertheless, it is the government’s policy to maintain minimum
credible deterrence that is imperative for safeguarding the frontiers of the

168
Pakistan’s foreign policy objectives in the post-September 11, 2001 era

country.‖41 Thus, in view of the situation prevailing in South Asia, it is

imperative for Pakistan to maintain its minimum deterrence policy.

To fight terrorism

Immediately after the attacks on the Twin Towers, Pakistan strongly

condemned and unequivocally declared that terrorism is never sanctioned by
Islam. A prominent Pakistani religious scholar, Mufti Nizamuddin Shamzai,
condemned terrorists’ activities, and while giving an interview to the New York
Times, he said: ―It is wrong to kill innocent people and it is also wrong to praise
those who kill innocent people.‖42 Another Muslim scholar, Shaykh Hamza
Yusuf, also stated that ―terrorism is a perversion of religion, and those who
attacked the Twin Towers have also hijacked the faith.‖43 In this context,
Pakistan’s decision to fight against terrorism marked the beginning of a new era
in Pakistan-U.S. relationship.

President Bush also made it clear that taking U.S.-Pakistan relationship on a

higher plane was one of his administration’s highest priorities. After Musharaf,
the new civilian government under President Asif Ali Zardari also made it clear
that ―democratic government will not let terrorism to hijack the country’s foreign
policy,‖ and voiced his government’s commitment ―to pursue a full international
agenda against terrorists.‖44

U.S. Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, also praised the ―valuable‖ Pakistani
cooperation in fighting extremism and said that Pakistani leadership has
―recognized that standing firm against the threat was important for the country’s
future.‖ She further said: ―The horrific events of September 11 have required a
broad-based, long-term strategic support from Pakistan and the civilian
government in Islamabad has contributed more meaningfully towards the
unprecedented global effort to prevent terrorism.‖45

In an interview with CNN, President Zardari said: ―Pakistan and the United
States will together root out and bring to justice those who use terrorism to
damage both countries’ relations. We need no convincing that the killers and
their accomplices are trying to pervert Islam to use it for justifying their appalling
crimes.‖46

Pointing out that terrorism was posing a serious threat to the social fabric of
Pakistan, Prime Minister Gilani declared: ―War against terrorism is our own war
because threat of terrorism to Pakistan’s national interest is most acute; it has
jeopardized the country’s stability and solidarity‖.47 The then Foreign Minister
Shah Mahmood Qureshi also stated that Pakistan itself is a victim of terrorism

169
Strategic Studies

and is not allowing and would not allow anyone to use its land against
any country.48

While praising Pakistan’s efforts in the war against terror, The Wall Street
Journal advised Washington: ―Pakistan is facing blowback of the international
effort to contain terrorism in the globe, but the U.S. and its Western allies must
have to realize that Pakistan alone cannot defeat terrorism and concrete results
are also not possible without active support and assistance to Pakistan.‖49 The
Mutahidda Ulema Council of Pakistan comprising different factions of Islam
condemned the militant acts at home and abroad, issued a fatwa against a
deformed concept of jihad and the use of suicide-bombing in Pakistan, described
Taliban’s acts as counter to the teachings of the divine religion and opposed to
the message of Islam.50 In this regard, capacity-building of the security
institutions in Pakistan will be important as mentioned by Leon Hadar: ―It is
necessary to strengthen Islamabad’s counter-terrorism capacity because without
that it is hard to achieve objectives.‖51

Bilateral relations and multilateral cooperation

Pakistan is a country which depends on the strength of its bilateral relations

around the world to advance its national interests. The market access outcomes of
the Uruguay Round (1986-94) and the Doha Conference (2001) of multilateral
trade negotiations are essentially a series of bilateral agreements. In joining the
war against terrorism, one of Pakistan’s main objectives was to encourage other
countries to help Pakistan financially and develop the capabilities needed to deal
with terrorist groups. Similarly, Pakistan is playing a vital role in the United
Nations and is focusing its effort on the issues directly relevant to its interests.

Multilateral policy and objectives

In recent times, the traditional concept of a nation State has changed and
most countries are constantly losing some degree of sovereignty. Pakistan is no
exception to that. It is therefore the responsibility of the country’s missions
abroad to focus on multilateral issues in formulating their objectives and should
forge a link between bilateral and multilateral relations. In fact, the new global
environment, more than ever before, requires Pakistan’s foreign and defence
policy to be harmonized in a comprehensive security policy. Involvement in
international forums such as the UN, the NAM, SAARC, ECO, OIC, and the
Commonwealth, however, requires preparations and deliberations of a different
nature. To develop consistent and comprehensive policies is the need of the hour
which will help Pakistan explain its view point in a better way at political forums
abroad.

170
Pakistan’s foreign policy objectives in the post-September 11, 2001 era

The international community is

expecting Pakistan to assume an The international
important role in some organizations. It community is expecting
has been recommended by experts that Pakistan to assume an
Pakistan should wholeheartedly support important role in some
and participate in the newly formed organizations. It has been
economic and socio-cultural recommended by experts
organizations under the charters of UN. that Pakistan should
Such associations with the new regional wholeheartedly support and
institutions will provide an important participate in the newly
forum within which issues such as formed economic and socio-
political dialogue, the strengthening of cultural organizations
democracy and threats to peace and under the charters of UN.
stability of the sub-region can be Such associations with the
addressed. Moreover, Pakistan has a new regional institutions
leadership role to play in the multilateral will provide an important
forums. It needs a clear vision as well as a forum within which issues
clear set of objectives. such as political dialogue,
the strengthening of
Struggle for access to European
democracy and threats to
markets
peace and stability of the
The country’s elites must remember sub-region can be
that the arena of economics is highly addressed.
competitive and irreversible because once
the country loses the opportunity; the time will never come back. Globalization
has generated significant options for Pakistan because this phenomenon has
provided opportunities for foreign investment by providing facilities to foreign
companies for investing in different fields of economic activity. For this purpose,
the removal of constraints and obstacles for MNCs in Pakistan, allowing local
investors to enter into foreign collaborations and also encouraging them to set up
joint ventures abroad; carrying out massive import liberalization programmes by
switching over from quantitative restrictions to tariffs and import duties are all
imperative. To engage with globalization is also necessary to avoid any major
economic crisis because the country has earlier faced a foreign exchange crunch
which dragged the economy close to default.

Commitment to Non-Proliferation

Pakistan remains firmly committed to global disarmament with the

conviction that the world should get free of the atomic danger. The country is

171
Strategic Studies

also supporting the principle of equal and legitimate security for all. Pakistan has
a logical stand for the complete prohibition and thorough destruction of weapons
of mass destruction (WMD), including nuclear, biological and chemical
weapons, and is firmly against the proliferation of such weapons and their means
of delivery. The country firmly supports international non-proliferation efforts.
For this purpose, Pakistan has suggested that the international non-proliferation
mechanism should be constantly improved and proliferation issues should be
dealt with through dialogue and international cooperation. The fundamental
purpose of non-proliferation is to safeguard and promote international and
regional peace and security, and non-proliferation measures should be
meaningful.

Pakistan supports the United Nations to play its due role in the area of non-
proliferation and has signed all international treaties and joined all the relevant
international organizations. The country joined the International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA) in 1957 and voluntarily placed its civilian nuclear facilities
under IAEA safeguards. Pakistan was the country which asked the United
Nations General Assembly to declare South Asia nuclear weapon-free zone.52 It
ratified the International Convention on Nuclear Safety and the Chemical
Weapons Convention in 1997 and also ratified Amended Protocol 11 of the
Certain Conventional Weapons Convention, which regulates the use of
landmines.53

Pakistan has been elected (1997) to the Board of Governors of the

International Atomic Energy Agency for a two-year term and supported the
IAEA’s efforts to prevent potential nuclear terrorist activities. Pakistan also
played an active and constructive role in amending the Convention on the
Physical Protection of Nuclear Materials. In addition, Pakistan is party to
Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) and Biological Weapons Convention
(BWC) which are disarmament treaties.

Pakistan agreed to the Convention (1984) on the Prohibition of the

Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and
Toxin Weapons and on their destruction (BWC), and has strictly observed its
obligations under the Convention. The country also supports the Prohibition of
Chemical Weapons (OPCW) and has earnestly fulfilled its obligations under the
CWC. Islamabad has promulgated and implemented relevant law, has established
the National Authority for the implementation of the CWC, and has submitted
initial declarations and various annual declarations.

172
Pakistan’s foreign policy objectives in the post-September 11, 2001 era

Furthermore, Pakistan participated in the universal non-proliferation efforts

with the view that global rules must be fair, impartial and non-discriminatory and
the non-proliferation regime must be ensured. For this purpose, Pakistan has
demanded a balance between non-proliferation and international cooperation for
peaceful use of nuclear technology. It demanded of the developed nations to
provide scientific know-how to developing countries to utilize and share dual-use
of scientific and technological achievements and products for peaceful purposes.

Although Pakistan is not a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty

(NPT) and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) and is opposed to the
Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty (FMCT), the country has the official stand that it
would join the global non-proliferation treaty if the world community formally
recognize Islamabad as a nuclear state.54 Pakistan has also played an active and
constructive role alongside China in amending the Convention on the Physical
Protection of Nuclear Materials.

Since the War on Terror has started, the U.S. and Western media has initiated
psychological warfare against Pakistan’s nuclear programme and its nuclear
scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan that he established extensive illicit nuclear supplier
network in the 1990s55 and provided nuclear enrichment technology to Iran,
Libya, and North Korea. They also express the fear that Pakistan’s nuclear assets
will fall into the hands of extremists. Pakistan’s policy makers have continued
their struggle to counter Western propaganda against its nuclear programme and
have introduced multilayered, foolproof system of internal monitoring.

Besides, Islamabad has over the past initiated many advanced security
mechanisms, from tightened physical safety to technical controls on the nuclear
weapons. This fact has been recognized by the international regulatory
authorities and they have acknowledged the efficacy of Pakistan’s
comprehensive command-and-control structure, which has made the country’s
nuclear assets impervious to any internal or external threat.56

Furthermore, the Pakistan Nuclear Regulatory Authority (PNRA) was

established on January 22, 2001 under the obligation of International Nuclear
Safety Convention’s Article 8(2) to ensure effective separation between the
functions of the regulatory body (PNRA) and those of any other body or
organization concerned with the promotion or utilization of nuclear energy.

The National Assembly separately adopted the Nuclear Export Control Bill
on October 5, 2004 with the purpose of preventing the proliferation of sensitive
technologies in accordance with UNSCR Resolution No. 1540.57 Pakistan also

173
Strategic Studies

prepared the Nuclear Security Action Plan and joined the IAEA’s Illicit
Trafficking Data Base (ITDB) information system, and showed its willingness to
share data on seizures with the Agency.

In this regard, Pakistan endorsed the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear

Terrorism initiative in the UN General Assembly and issued fresh lists of
technologies and materials related to the nuclear and biological weapons that will
be subject to an intrusive export control system.58 Pakistan also issued a
comprehensive National Control List (NCL) of various controlled items based on
the European Union (EU) system of classification and the lists drawn up by the
Australia Group, the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), and the Missile
Technology Control Regime (MTCR).

Additionally, Pakistan established a Strategic Export Control Division in

2007 under the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which also has an Oversight Board
that would independently supervise the implementation of the Export Control Act
2004 and other laws relating to the illicit trafficking and export control
mechanisms. In this context, Pakistan joined the Global Initiative to Combat
Nuclear Terrorism, which demonstrates its determination to effectively uproot
the menace of nuclear proliferation.

During the Inter-Sessional Process Meeting of Experts to the Biological and

Toxin Weapons Convention, Islamabad endorsed the basic objectives of the
Convention regime.59 In addition, the country has also established a number of
institutions and mechanisms to oversee nuclear power generation and to manage
safety and security issues in accordance with the International Atomic Energy
Agency’s (IAEA) requirements.

The Physical Protection of Nuclear Material and Nuclear Facilities document

was used as the model for inspection and enforcement objectives.60 Pakistan has
adopted highly responsible policies and measures to prove itself a responsible
country and has consistently striven to fulfil UN obligations under the diverse
elements of the international nuclear non-proliferation regime, including
specifically with respect to the United Nations Security Council Resolution.

Stable regional security

A stable regional security environment is fundamental to Pakistan’s national

security interests. The country has established defence relationship with the
United States to ensure a balanced security environment in the region which will
enhance bilateral diplomatic dialogues on economic and security issues and

174
Pakistan’s foreign policy objectives in the post-September 11, 2001 era

would help promote greater understanding with and shared interests in the region.
For this purpose, Islamabad is strengthening counter-terrorism links with the
neighbouring countries and using its established network of bilateral counter-
terrorism experience to help others detect threats and prevent further terrorist
attacks.

Pakistan’s understanding with India and Afghanistan and other regional

countries has built extensive cooperation between the regional countries which
will help contain transnational threats to Pakistan and the region’s security. In
this context, Pakistan’s relationship with the U.S. involves wide-ranging anti-
terrorist activities. The U.S.-led war on terror provided opportunities for the civil-
military establishment to train and operate the forces in the war torn areas. For
this purpose, Pakistan is taking an incremental approach to build defence
relationship with the U.S. and European countries on the basis of shared interests.
So, Pakistan’s security ties with U.S., Britain, France, Germany, Belgium and
other European countries are important. In this regard, Pakistan shares exchange
programmes with different European countries such as visits to the Staff College
(Quetta), the National Defence University (NDU) and offers professional
courses.

Furthermore, the relationships among the major powers are fundamental to

the security interests in the region because these powers have the ability to shape
the regional security environment. In this regard, the U.S. strategic presence in
the region is the most significant and perceived by some to be productive.
Pakistan has a strong desire to resolve all outstanding issues with India through
peaceful means including the Kashmir dispute which is a flashpoint of the world
and without its resolution it is difficult to defuse tension in South Asia.
According to Ramneek Mohan, an Indian peace activist, the day the Indian
establishment would resolve disputes with Pakistan, that consequent situation
would give the two countries a strong mutual stake in the region’s stability. Even
understanding between New Delhi and Islamabad is also important to counter
terrorist threats in the region, and India should help regional countries including
Pakistan to take necessary steps to build their counter-terrorism capacities.61

In this context, the international community has only limited influence over
the seemingly intractable tensions between nuclear-armed neighbours whereas, a
stable relationship is important for the success of the war against terrorism.
However, Pakistan has already done a lot and could do more but Pakistan’s
responsibility is confined to ensuring that its territory is not being used by Al-
Qaeda or Taliban against any other country. Let it be absolutely clear that
Pakistan cannot afford to alienate its own people to --- the United States.

175
Strategic Studies

Participation in international and regional organizations

Pakistan has always played an active and constructive role in accordance

with its commitment to the principles and purposes of regional and international
organizations. The stature that Pakistan enjoys as one of the leading Muslim
countries is manifested by its consistent success in elections to various global and
intra-regional organizations including the United Nations (UN), the Non-Aligned
Movement (NAM), South Asian Association of Regional Cooperation (SAARC),
Economic Cooperation Council (ECO), Organization of Islamic Countries (OIC)
and Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO).

Thus, Pakistan was elected to the UN Committee on the Elimination of

Racial Discrimination (1998), the Non-Governmental Organizations Committee
(1999), Commission on Human Rights (1999), UNICEF Executive Board,
Commission on Human Settlements (2002), the Inter-governmental Working
Groups on International Standards of Accounting and Reporting (2003), the
Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (2004),
member of executive boards of United Nations International Children's
Emergency Fund (2005), UN Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal
Justice (2005), and the UN System Chief Executives Board for Coordination
(2006).

Pakistan is also an active member of NAM which represents the voice and
political and economic interests of the developing world. At the NAM forum,
Pakistan has helped the evolution of consensus on disarmament and arms control
issues and the United Nations reform process. Pakistan is also a member of
SAARC because it provides a useful framework to its eight member states
(Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Bhutan, India, the Maldives, Nepal, and Sri
Lanka) collectively to promote peace, stability, cooperation, and progress in
South Asia. At all SAARC gatherings, Pakistan has advocated its conviction that
a peaceful and secure environment in the region is indispensable for the
promotion of economic development, progress and prosperity. Pakistan believes
that SAARC would receive a tremendous boost if the underlying causes of
tension are removed. At the 10th SAARC Summit in Colombo, Sri Lanka, in July
1998, and at the 16th Summit held at Thimphu, Bhutan, in 2010, Pakistan
launched a Peace, Security and Development Initiatives which essentially
underscored the need for promoting a regional process on security and
cooperation.62

Pakistan, Iran and Turkey are the founding members of the Economic
Cooperation Organization (ECO), the successor organization of the Regional

176
Pakistan’s foreign policy objectives in the post-September 11, 2001 era

Cooperation for Development (RCD). ECO

has played an important role in Pakistan calls for the
strengthening and promotion of multi- establishment of a new
dimensional cooperation and sustained international order based
socioeconomic growth among the member on fair distribution of
states. The other members are: Afghanistan, resources and transfer of
Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic, Tajikistan, modern technology and
Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Azerbaijan. skills to the developing
Besides strengthening the centuries old ties countries. Pakistan
that exist between the people of these
believes that the new
countries, ECO is intended to build
infrastructural links, and promote business international order can
exchanges and economic development. In surely safeguard world
terms of infrastructure, the ECO is focusing peace and promote
on the development of a modern transport common development and
and communications system, a network of human progress in the
gas and oil pipelines and interconnection of world.
power grids within the region. Pakistan’s
interest in ECO reflects its belief in regional cooperative arrangements which
foster regional development and economic progress and prosperity through
collective endeavours. On the other hand, the SCO is an intergovernmental
international organization founded in Shanghai on 15 June 2001 by six countries,
i.e., China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan.
However, the organization has also granted observer status to three additional
regional countries, that is, Pakistan, India, and Iran. It seems that the SCO is set
to play a major role in the emerging geo-political scenario in the region, and
indeed, in the world.63 Pakistan, which currently is an observer, cannot remain
distant from such an important organization. In fact, geo-political and geo-
economic realities necessitate that Islamabad should be a member of this vital
organization because the country can be an energy corridor for the SCO member
countries.

Equitable international economic order

The establishment of a new international economic order is a universal desire

and in common interest of the people of all developing countries. Pakistan is
working jointly with all other developing nations of Asia, Africa and Latin
America to bring about a just and equitable new international economic order and
for creating a new world of lasting peace and common prosperity. Pakistan calls
for the establishment of a new international order based on fair distribution of
resources and transfer of modern technology and skills to the developing

177
Strategic Studies

countries. Pakistan believes that the new international order can surely safeguard
world peace and promote common development and human progress in the
world. Furthermore, developing countries have the view that advanced countries
have to rebalance the unbalanced world economic system, especially in Asia and
Africa where debt crisis has badly damaged economies of many countries.

Pakistan is committed to the promotion of an equitable international

economic order and requires restoration of stable and sustained global economic
growth, especially in the developing world. This can be attained through more
balanced and non-discriminatory trade relations, enhanced economic and
technological cooperation, including transfer of technology, resolution of the
debt burden, monetary stability and food security. Pakistan desires that the
principles of the United Nations Charter and other universally recognized
principles governing international relations should become the basis of the new
international economic order.

Furthermore, it must be based on equality and mutual benefit of all the peace
loving countries and peoples. Yousaf RazaGilani, former Prime Minister of
Pakistan, explicitly pointed out that ―it is imperative to build a new international
economic order with the aim of putting an end to economic hegemony of some
countries, and the new international economic order should be based on equality
and should meet the needs of the countries with different systems and different
levels of development.‖64

Thus, the new world economic system should meet the fundamental interest
of people of all countries of the world as it is the need of the time and the urgent
desire of all nations. In this regard, Pakistan has played an active role. As a
member and Chairman of Group of 77, Pakistan has supported the Northern-
South dialogue as a means of creating a more just and equitable international
economic order, through joint efforts of the developed and developing nations. In
order to overcome the economic crisis affecting the developing countries, it is
imperative to bring about rationality and equity in international economic
relations, particularly in the international monetary and trade systems and also in
technological and industrial cooperation.

Demand of a strong UN system for stable security

Since joining the United Nations, Pakistan has made constant efforts to
strengthen the UN’s role in safeguarding regional and global peace and
promotion of socio-economic development and human security in the world. The
country is also playing a constructive role in accordance with its commitment to

178
Pakistan’s foreign policy objectives in the post-September 11, 2001 era

the principles and purposes of the UN charter. Pakistan, like many others
countries, seeks to strengthen the efficiency and effectiveness of the United
Nations and has supported efforts for reform in the UN but also has serious
reservations regarding enlargement of the Security Council.65 Pakistan and a
group of like-minded countries were successful in moving a resolution adopted
through consensus in the UN General Assembly at its 53rd session, which called
for the support of two-thirds of the UN membership for any decision relating to
the expansion and reform of the Security Council.66

After the end of the Cold War, the international system has radically changed
which carries an important consequence for international security. This change
has proved to be a watershed with regard to United Nations because nations have
tended to reorient and redefine the world organization in a new strategic
environment. Many UN members are
demanding restructuring of the United The UCP has logical stand
Nations and asking for a more powerful that permanent
General Assembly as compare to Security
membership for only some
Council. In this regard, Pakistan has the
logical perception that the nature and individual states would
intensity of the new millennium desires deny the opportunity for
reforms in the world body because without equitable representation to
global cooperation, peace and stability other countries of the
would be meaningless. Moreover, the world and the matter can
reforms for UN and for stronger General be resolved through an
Assembly would better serve the interests acceptable formula with
of its members and particularly the increase in non-permanent
interests of the weak and small states. members and rotation can
provide the means for such
However, Pakistan has rejected the
equitable representation
idea of expansion in the UN Security
67
Council and has supported a Uniting for for all the countries.
68
Consensus Group (UCP) that opposes
new permanent members in the UN Security Council. Pakistan also has strongly
advocated expansion in the non-permanent category. The UCP has logical stand
that permanent membership for only some individual states would deny the
opportunity for equitable representation to other countries of the world and the
matter can be resolved through an acceptable formula with increase in non-
permanent members and rotation can provide the means for such equitable
representation for all the countries.69 Such rotation, combined with regional
representation, may also offer possibilities for a fuller representation of member
countries of various groups of states.

179
Strategic Studies

Abdullah Hussain Haroon, Pakistan Ambassador in the UN, has mentioned

that the UN position could be improved through working methods and only
adding more permanent members to the body and expansion is not logical.70 A
larger number of permanent members will further aggravate the exclusive and
elitist culture of the Security Council, and any expansion must be accompanied
by re-balancing the representation of various regions of the world on an equitable
basis.71 In this regard, the opponent countries have their own opinion that ―the
expansion of Security Council would serve to accommodate the interests of a few
countries only, and conversely, alienate the small and medium sized countries,
who constitute an overwhelming majority in the General Assembly.‖72

Raza Hayat Hiraj, Pakistan’s Minister of State, has also cleared Pakistan’s
position during the plenary meeting of the UN General Assembly on the question
of equitable representation and an increase in membership of the Security
Council. He said, ―Pakistan firmly believes that objectives of reform and
expansion of the Security Council should be to promote greater democracy, and
participation, and transparency, and accountability, in the work of the Security
Council.‖73 Many experts and practitioners believe that there is neither a
comprehensible criterion nor a definitive logic in the UN Charter for permanent
members without veto power in the Security Council, and in the absence of veto
power the addition of permanent members would undermine the leverage of the
non-permanent members to keep the veto power in check.

Conclusion

In the literature of international relations, foreign policy of small or weak

countries is the product of constraints and opportunities and it responds
differently as compared to the great powers. By contrast, domestic political,
economic and military vulnerabilities of small or weak countries assumed to play
a greater role in the formulation of foreign policy and cannot afford the pressure
of great power in any crucial circumstances. In this regard, the terrible incidents
of September 11,2001 gravely influenced Pakistan’s foreign policy which has
created far-reaching consequences for Pakistan.

In the changing circumstances, Pakistan divorced its cost oriented realist

foreign policy and adopted the idealist policy with a view to avoiding
confrontation with neighbours and the United States. Pakistan asserted that a
rigid stance will provide a basis for the whole edifice of global pressure which
might result to crumble the country’s national interest. This precludes the
possibility of mature relationship with the United States in which Pakistan can
protect its national values and national security.

180
Pakistan’s foreign policy objectives in the post-September 11, 2001 era

In this context, a soft policy has not only significantly reduced the U.S.
pressure but in turn also covered Pakistan’s desperate economic and military
needs by avoiding the country to become a possible victim of global isolation.
The new policy considerably warmed U.S.-Pakistan ties and secured the
country’s economic and strategic interests vis-à-vis sovereignty and territorial
integrity. It appeals, furthermore, to the imperialist rhetoric about Islam and on
the regional front; it has resulted in less friction with neighbouring countries like
India, Afghanistan and Iran. On the global front, the U.S. and Pakistan both are
moving towards greater strategic cooperation against terrorism and both are
engaged to establish durable permanent relations. They are gradually in the
process of taking measures to reduce the level of trust deficit between the two
unequal powers.

It has, in this writer’s view, proved that the change in the foreign policy has
served the security interests of Pakistan because Islamabad is effectively
involved in curbing terrorist threats. Pakistan will continue following the soft
policy option because it has restricted India’s influence in Washington. Pakistan
will also remain a cornerstone of the Western world and strategic interest of the
latter lies in cooperation with Pakistan, not in fanciful attempts to contain it.
However, Pakistan must remember that its political honeymoon with the U.S. is
for short time and not for a blissful long duration.

Notes & References

1
Stephen Philip Cohen, ―America and Pakistan: Is the Worst Case Avoidable?‖
Current History, March 2005, p. 132.
2
See Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani, Prime Minister of Pakistan’s statement ―Afghan peace
crucial for Pakistan‖, Daily Times (Lahore), February 1, 2012, Kabul Times (Kabul),
December 4, 2010.
3
General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, Speaking in the backdrop of his trip to Brussels,
where he put across Pakistan’s point of view on Afghan conflict. See details in Dawn
(Islamabad), February 7, 2010.
4
―Address by the President of Pakistan General Pervez Musharraf to the Nation on 19
September 2001.‖ See The Washington Post (Washington DC), September 20, 2001;
Dawn, September 20, 2001; and also The Nation (Islamabad), September 20, 2001.
5
―President Pervaz Musharraf address to the nation‖. See Dawn (Islamabad), January
12, 2002.
6
―Text of President General Pervez Musharraf’s speech at SAARC Summit‖, The
News, Rawalpindi), 6 January 2002 &, January 13, 2002; and see also Dawn
(Islamabad), January 13, 2002.

181
Strategic Studies

7
―Gilani seeks meaningful dialogue on Kashmir‖ The News (Rawalpindi), February 6,
2011.
8
―Kashmir: The Victim of Global War on Terror‖, The Washington Post, February 13,
2011; and see Dawn (Islamabad), February 14, 2002.
9
Prime Minister Syed Yusuf Raza Gilani’s address to the joint session of AJK-LA and
Kashmir Council on February 4, 2011 at Muzaffarabad. Ibid, February 5, 2011.
10
Angel Rabasa, Robert D. Blackwill and Ashley J. Tellis, The Lessons of Mumbai
(Santa Monica: RAND Corporation, 2009), pp. 1-6.
11
Ramesh Thakur, ―India’s Moves and the Pakistani Puzzl‖, Global Brief, February 18,
2011.
12
See Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani’s interview with India’s CNN-IBN television
channel on 28 January 2010 and see also Dawn (Islamabad), January 29, 2010.
13
George W. Bush, address to a Joint Session of Congress following 9/11 attacks,
September 20, 2001; see more detail in Washington Post (Washington D.C.),
September 21, 2001.
14
Walter LaFeber, ―The Bush Doctrine,‖ Diplomatic History, vol. 26, no. 4 (2002), pp.
543–58.
15
Ibid.
16
Liam Collins, ―US Diplomacy with Pakistan Following 9/11: A Case Study in
Coercive Diplomacy‖, Washington, DC: Forum of International Diplomacy, 2008, p.
5.
17
John F Burns, ―A Nation Challenged: The Ambassador; U.S. Envoy to Pakistan
Thrust into Limelight,‖ The New York Times (New York), November 24, 2001.
18
See ―Address by the President of Pakistan General Pervez Musharraf to the nation on
19 September 2001‖; and also see Dawn (Islamabad), September 20, 2001.
19
Barbara Slavin and Bill Nichols, ―US Pressures Pakistan’s leaders to help bring in
bin Laden‖, USA Today, September 14, 2001, p. A4.
20
Liam Collins, ―United States Diplomacy with Pakistan Following 9/11: A Case
Study in Coercive Diplomacy‖, May 16, 2008, pp. 5-8; and see also Robert G.
Wirsing, ―Precarious Partnership: Pakistan’s Response to US Security Policies‖,
Asian Affairs, An American Review (Summer 2003), p. 70.
21
See details in President Pervaz Mushrraf’s address to the nation on 19 September
2001. See Dawn, September 20, 2001; and also see The Nation (Islamabad),
September 20, 2001.
22
Touqir Hussain, ―US-Pakistan Engagement: The War on Terrorism and Beyond‖,
Washington: US Institute of Peace, (Autumn 2005), p. 5.
23
Christine Fair, ―The Counter Terror Coalitions: Cooperation with Pakistan and
India‖, RAND Publication, 2004, p. 15.
24
Ibid, pp. 15-27.
25
Abdul Hafeez Shaikh (Finance Minister of Pakistan) Press Conference, See Dawn
(Islamabad), November 16, 2010.
26
Rahul Bedi, ―Taliban ideology lives on in India‖, Asia Times (Hong Kong),
December 12, 2001.

182
Pakistan’s foreign policy objectives in the post-September 11, 2001 era

27
Touqir Hussain, ―US-Pakistan Engagement: The War on Terrorism and Beyond‖,
Washington: US Institute of Peace, (Autumn 2005), pp. 2-6.
28
See the World Bank Annual Report 2008-2009, ―Survey on Pakistan Economy‖,
Washington, DC: The World Bank Publications, 2010, pp. 34-67.
29
See State Bank of Pakistan Annual Reports 1998-1999 and 2000-2001, Islamabad:
State Bank of Pakistan Press, 2000, and 2002, pp, 23-43 and pp. 18-37.
30
See Deccan Herald, February 6, 2011 and also see The Times of India, February 23,
2010.
31
Ibid.
32
―US Special Assistance to Pakistan‖, The New York Times (New York), October 27,
2001.
33
See ―Doubts Engulf an American Aid Plan for Pakistan,‖ Dawn (Islamabad), April
23, 2002; Indian Express (New Delhi), March 28, 2007 and New York Times (New
York), December 25, 2007; ―US Aid Failing to Reach Target,‖ BBC News
(London), May 16, 2008.
34
C. Raja Mohan, ―US military aid to Pakistan: Managing a troubled alliance‖ Indian
Express (New Delhi), March 28, 2007.
35
Susan B. Epstein, ―US Aid to Pakistan After 9/11‖, The New York Times (New
York), February 6, 2011 and see Anwar Iqbal, ―Hillary urges rich Pakistanis to pay
more tax‖, Dawn (Islamabad), February 8, 2011.
36
―Pakistan got $18bn aid from US since 2001‖, See The Times of India (Mumbai),
February 23, 2010.
37
The architects of the Pakistan aid bill — Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Richard
Lugar (R-Ind.) and Rep. Howard Berman (D-Calif.). See more details The
Washington Post (Washington DC), August 24, 2010.
38
See the Prime Minister’s Speech in the National Defence University, Islamabad, The
News (Rawalpindi), December 13, 2010.
39
Avery Goldstein, Deterrence and Security in the 21st Century: China, Britain,
France, and the Enduring Legacy of the Nuclear Revolution, Stanford: Stanford
University Press, pp. 11-43.
40
See Prime Minister Syed Yousaf Raza Gilani’s address to the Scientists and
Engineers at Khushab Nuclear Complex on February 19, 2010, and see The Nation
(Islamabad), February 20, 2010.
41
Yousuf Raza Gilani, ―Pakistan to maintain minimum credible deterrence‖, See Daily
Times (Lahore), 3 February 2010 and see also The Hindustan Times (New Delhi),
February 2, 2010.
42
―Statements by Muslim Leaders of the World on September 11, 200 1
Tragedy‖, The New York Times (New York), September 28, 2001; and see
http://www.islam101.com/terror/sept11/index.htm
43
See Shaykh Hamza Yusuf, ―The worst enemies of Islam are from within", Q-News
(Europe’s largest Muslim magazine), June 8, 2010; and see also Seasonsali,
http://seasonsali.blogspot.com
44
―Pakistani soil not to be used by terrorists‖, President Asif Ali Zardari. See Dawn
(Islamabad), September 13, 2008.

183
Strategic Studies

45
Hillary Clinton’s (the US Secretary of State) interview to BBC English programme
on February 19, 2010; and see also Daily Times (Lahore), February 18 & 20, 2010.
46
―Pak-US unity to step up the campaign against militants‖, The New York Times (New
York), February 9, 2009.
47
―Gilani urges global community to help Pakistan against terrorism‖, The News
(Rawalpindi), February 16, 2011; and see also Dawn (Islamabad), February 16,
2011.
48
―Pakistan itself a victim of terrorism‖, Shah Mehmood Qureshi, Times of India
(Mumbai), June 17, 2009; and see also ―Terrorism is bleeding wound for Pakistan‖,
The Nation (Islamabad), June 18, 2009.
49
―Pakistan cannot stand alone‖, Wall Street Journal (New York), October 26, 2010.
50
―Suicide bombing un-Islamic, only state can declare jihad‖, Fatwa: Muttahida Ulema
Council demands parliament formulate its policy on anti-terror war. See Daily Times
(Lahore), October 16, 2008; and see also The Frontier Post (Lahore), May 7, 2010.
51
Leon T. Hadar, ―Pakistan in America’s War against Terrorism: Strategic Ally or
Unreliable Client?‖, Policy Analysis, no. 436 May 8, 2002, pp. 23-29.
52
Two months later, the UN General Assembly approved the Pakistani proposal by a
vote of 82-2, with India and Bhutan voting against it. See The New York Times (New
York), September 18, 1974 and November 21, 1974.
53
Seymour M. Hersh, ―Defending the Arsenal: In an unstable Pakistan, can nuclear
warheads be kept safe?‖ The New Yorker (New York), November 16, 2009; Yayan
GH Mulyana, ―Developing nuclear safety and security‖, Maria Sultan, ―Safety and
security of Pakistan's nuclear assets‖, Dawn (Islamabad), October 2, 1997; and
David Sanger, ―So, What About Those Nukes?‖ The New York Times (New York),
November 11, 2007.
54
―Pakistan and Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty‖, see IRNA, February 13, 2004; and
also see ―Pakistan blocked negotiations on Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty‖, The
Nation (Islamabad), February 19, 2011.
55
Jim Walsh, ―Multilateral Non-proliferation Regimes, Weapons of Mass Destruction
Technologies and the War on Terrorism‖, Belfer Center for Science and
International Affairs, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, February
12, 2002, pp. 6-19.
56
See Imran Gardezi, ―Pakistan’s Stabilizing Arsenal‖, Foreign Affairs (July/August
2010).
57
The United Nations Permanent Mission in Pakistan had sent note verbal
S/AC.44/2007/1 to the Chairman United Nations Security Committee regarding
Pakistan's role in prevention of nuclear proliferation and Weapons of Mass
Destruction. The document was to be released on June 3, 2008 while it was released
on August 3, 2010. The UNSC Committee was established pursuant to resolution
1540 (2004) for the prevention of nuclear proliferation and WMDs. See Dawn
(Islamabad), October 6, 2004; October 6, 2004; and June 4, 2008.
58
―UN Report on Arms Control and Disarmament‖, See Dawn (Islamabad), October 9,
2005.

184
Pakistan’s foreign policy objectives in the post-September 11, 2001 era

59
―Pakistan’s position on Chemical Weapons Convention and Biological Toxin
Weapons‖, see The News (Rawalpindi), August 11, 2008.
60
Zulfqar Khan, (Visiting Fellow, Islamabad Policy Research Institute-IPRI)
―Pakistan’s Non-Proliferation Policy‖, www.mei.edu/Portals/0/Publications/
Zulfiqar_pakistans_non-proliferation_policy.pdf; and see also more detail in Ken
Berry, ―How Safe Are Pakistan’s Nuclear Facilities?‖ EastWest Institute Policy
Paper 2/2008, February 2008, http://www.ewi.info/pdf/SecurityPakistan.pdf
61
Ramneek Mohan, ―India Must Facilitate Pakistan to Fight against Terrorism‖, Dawn
(Islamabad), July 6, 2009.
62
Address by Prime Minister Syed Yusuf Raza Gilani at the Sixteeth SAARC Summit
at Thimphu (Bhutan), 28 April 2010. See The News (Rawalpindi), 30 April 2010.
63
Rizwan Zeb, ―Pakistan’s Bid for SCO Membership: Prospects and Pitfalls‖, Central
Asia Caucasus Analyst, (July 26, 2006), p. 52.
64
―Pakistan proposed changes in New International Economic Order‖, see Prime
Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani’s speech at the 15the NAM Summit in Sharm el
Sheikh, Egypt in 2009, The Nation (Islamabad), July 16, 2009.
65
Japan, Germany, India and Brazil are aspiring to become the new permanent
members in an expanded UNSC.
66
See Resolutions adopted by the UN General Assembly at its 53rd session: UN
reform: measures and proposals; strengthening of the UN system A/53/PV.101-
GA/9561- A/53/L.77, June 8, 1999.
67
The Security Council, which is entrusted with maintaining international peace and
security, is composed of 15 members, five veto-wielding permanent members,
Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States, and 10 non-permanent
members that are elected for a two-year term.
68
Uniting for Consensus Group (UCG) is a movement that developed in the 1990
against the opposition of possible expansion of the United Nations Security Council.
The leaders are Italy, Pakistan, Mexico and Argentina. In February 2011, it was
reported that the group’s membership has increased with new member countries such
as Canada, Colombia, Costa Rica, San Marino, Spain, and Turkey.
69
See Munir Akram, Pakistan’s Ambassador to the United Nations, addresses to the
UN General Assembly on November 14, 2007; and see details in The Nation
(Islamabad), November 15, 2007.
70
Abdullah Hussain Haroon, Pakistan Ambassador to the UN, in a closed-door session
of the General Assembly mentioned to the committee members. See The Nation
(Islamabad), June 18, 2010.
71
Ibid.
72
See Sixty-fourth UN General Assembly GA/10887 Plenary 45th & 46th Meetings
Report. New York: Department of Public Information News and Media Division
2009, pp. 2-13; and see also ―Pakistan’s Proposal for Security Council Reforms‖,
The Express Tribune (Islamabad), November 12, 2010.
73
Raza Hayat Hiraj, Pakistan’s Minister of State for Information Technology
Parliamentary Affairs, Law, Justice and Human Rights, address to the UN General
Assembly, The Nation (Islamabad), October 18, 2003.

185