Magnificent Delusions (9 page)

The Pakistani spin on the visit, however, was markedly different. The visit was meant partly to bolster Liaquat's prestige at home and partly to keep alive the anticipation of American largesse, which was necessary in order to maintain national self-confidence.
Dawn
described the meetings with Johnson and Bradley as “secret” and implied that Pakistan's request for arms was being seriously considered. Liaquat ostensibly made the argument that military assistance “would serve the interests of the entire free world.” He “stressed his nation's strategic position and the fighting qualities of her anti-Communist Muslim warriors.”
⁷⁵
In response to these reports, there was great excitement in Karachi. Pakistan's media ran details of every event the prime minister attended, such as a dinner at International House New Orleans, and depicted it as a breakthrough in winning American hearts and minds.

Liaquat's decision to visit the United States for three weeks when he had not undertaken a similar long trip to any of the Muslim countries was criticized by Islamists and others, who wanted to focus Pakistan's external relations on the Islamic world. Pakistani diplomat Samuel Martin Burke offered an explanation for the relatively long duration of the visit. After the formalities of Washington, Liaquat had spent the rest of his visit introducing Pakistan to Americans, which was necessary because “the real reasons for the establishment of Pakistan were not sufficiently understood abroad.” Pakistan, Burke argued, was seen as “a backward theocratic state as compared to a forward-looking secular India.”
⁷⁶

And Liaquat had encountered several reminders of Americans' ignorance about Pakistan. When introducing Liaquat to the US Senate, Vice President Alben S. Barkley described him as the prime minister of Pakistan, “which originally was a part of India.” A British embassy cable wryly wondered whether the Pakistani prime minister had succeeded in convincing US policy makers of Pakistan's importance. “Mr. Liaquat Ali Khan probably learnt more about America than Americans learnt about Pakistan,” the cable noted. According to the British diplomat writing the cable, at a luncheon a California businessman asked Liaquat “whether the blank space between the two parts of Pakistan as shown on the menu card was Africa.”
⁷⁷

Although the American media covered Liaquat favorably, there were fewer stories about his visit than there had been about Nehru's earlier sojourn. The
New York Times
described his anticommunist statements as “heartwarming” and saw them as a “pledge that the Pakistanis will stand and be counted among those who are devoted to freedom, regardless of the cost.”
⁷⁸

In a Foreign Policy Association meeting in New York, Liaquat elucidated Pakistan's security needs in relation to India while also declaring unequivocal opposition to communism. “There have always been certain sections of opinion in India which resented the birth of Pakistan,” he said, adding, “if they accepted it they did so with strong mental reservations.”
⁷⁹
According to Liaquat, even after the creation of Pakistan, its territorial integrity was constantly under threat. But the creation of Pakistan would not lead to instability in Asia, as many people believed, but instead to stability. Pakistan could be a useful ally for the West, and the United States should grasp the hand of friendship that Pakistan was extending.

Liaquat emphasized Pakistan's key strategic location in Asia with its eastern wing bordering Burma, making it a part of Southeast Asia. In addition, Pakistan's western wing bordered Iran and Afghanistan and was thus important with respect to any “communications to and from the oil-bearing areas of the Middle East.” His argument was simple: if Americans helped with Pakistan's existential challenges, Pakistan could help protect American strategic interests in both Southeast Asia and the Middle East. Earlier in the trip, during his press conference at the National Press Club, Liaquat was asked how large an army he envisaged for Pakistan. He replied that this depended on “this great country of yours. … If your country will guarantee our territorial integrity, I will not keep any army at all.”
⁸⁰

In response, George Kennan, counselor of the State Department, decided to reply candidly to Liaquat's plea for America to assume responsibility for Pakistan's security. After Liaquat's speech at the Foreign Policy Association, Kennan said that the United States had to act with “great prudence and restraint and observe the utmost care not to enter into relationships which might become the subjects of misunderstandings either here or in the partner-country or elsewhere.”

Kennan's message was clear: Pakistan should not pin inflated hopes to the United States. “We want our friends to understand the complexities of our situation and to refrain from expecting us to do things which we cannot do,” Kennan went on. “You will note I say our friends must not expect us to do things which we cannot do. It is no less important that they should not expect us to be things which we cannot be.”
⁸¹
But the overall success of the prime minister's visit prevented Kennan's message from being fully understood in Pakistan. Defense Secretary Mirza and others supposed that military aid would now be forthcoming.

Coinciding with Liaquat's visit to America, North Korea began its invasion of South Korea, leading to the Korean War. Pakistan then supported the US effort to send troops to Korea under the UN flag and even lobbied Arab states in the United Nations on Washington's behalf. When Secretary of State Dean Acheson thanked Ispahani for Pakistan's support
⁸²
officials in Karachi immediately saw an opportunity to ask for military equipment as payoff for Pakistani support. But Ispahani warned Mirza in a letter that Mirza was being “overly optimistic.”

Advising realism, Ispahani wrote, “We have had in the past promises for the sympathetic consideration of our demands but unfortunately none of them have so far borne fruit. I shall therefore, be pleasantly surprised if anything materializes on this occasion as well.” Commenting on Mirza's request to ask the Americans for two hundred latest-type tanks, Ispahani observed, “Your optimism really startles me. Those are still on the top secret list and have not yet been made available to even the Atlantic Pact countries.”
⁸³

The Pakistani embassy in Washington had a clearer idea of the conditions that the United States might attach if it agreed to provide arms for the Pakistani military. Pakistan, Ispahani explained, would most likely have to limit the use of American weapons to legitimate self-defense and guarantee that it would not undertake any act of aggression against any other state. Mirza saw no problem with the conditions. “Pakistan will be expected to help with her armed forces in a situation like Korea where the UN asked the nations for armed help against North Koreans,” Mirza retorted. “But in the view of
what has happened in the past, Pakistan can limit her help to declarations in favor of the UN.”
⁸⁴

As the war in Korea began, the United States sought troops for the war from several countries, including Pakistan. Based on Liaquat's conversations during his trip, the Pentagon considered Pakistan a prime candidate for providing a contingent for the UN force assembled under the command of General Douglas MacArthur. Indeed, the only reference to Pakistan in Truman's
Memoirs
relates to MacArthur's discussion about the countries from which he expected to draw troops.

These American requests in turn created a false impression in Karachi. Liaquat and his team overestimated the American need for Pakistani soldiers. Liaquat told Ambassador Avra Warren that if the United States needed Pakistan's help, it should reciprocate by helping Pakistan in its disputes over Kashmir and Afghanistan. “Liaquat said bluntly that now is the time for decision,” Warren reported to Secretary of State Acheson. Pakistan would move with the Americans “not only in Korea but also in [the] Middle East and to commit themselves irrevocably” to issues of interest to the United States, but the “US must give him a commitment that will assure his people.”

Liaquat then offered “one or more division for use in Korea out of seven now under arms” in return for US support “against Nehru's defiance of the UN with the threat of a rigged election in Kashmir this summer.” According to Warren, Liaquat also wanted the United States to “bring our influence to bear” in Afghanistan and put an end to what Liaquat described as “the Pashtun nonsense.” US Ambassador Warren sympathized with Liaquat's proposed quid pro quo and, in response, recommended strengthening the UN resolution on Kashmir and accepting the offer of a Pakistani infantry division for Korea. He also suggested that “we ask Liaquat what practical assistance he needs” for Pakistan's military and industrial posture “to assist in defense of Middle East from Commie aggression.”
⁸⁵

But Acheson, known for being one of the “wise men” of the emerging US foreign policy establishment, wrote back, saying that the United States did not need Pakistani troops in exchange for “complete and unqualified support” on Kashmir and Pashtun issues.

Pakistan, Acheson replied, should send troops to Korea “as a responsibility” under the UN Charter and should not use it as a “bargaining tool.” The United States would equip and maintain the Pakistani division in Korea but could not accept Liaquat's proposal. According to Acheson, aligning with Pakistan in its regional disputes would completely alienate India and Afghanistan and thus limit US freedom of action in dealing with “complex present and future issues in Asia.”
⁸⁶

Pakistan had proposed a transactional relationship, but Acheson had turned it down. The decision reflected the State Department's annual policy statement, which identified relatively modest goals in US-Pakistan relations. It described, “the orientation of its government and people toward the US and other Western democracies and away from the USSR” as America's fundamental interest in Pakistan.

The US government understood that “Pakistan remains dependent upon outside assistance for defense and for economic development” and was willing to “assist Pakistan within the limits of our capabilities.” But the United States gained no advantage by getting entangled in regional issues on behalf of Pakistan. The Truman administration also sought to discourage any notion of America having unlimited capacity or intention to assist Pakistan in its defense and development.

“If disruptive forces remain in check,” the US policy statement predicted in 1950, “Pakistan will emerge after India as the strongest power between Turkey and Japan on the periphery of Asia.” But it also said prophetically that the United States would have to “remind the Pakistanis that we are neither pro-Indian, pro-Israel nor anti-Muslim.”
⁸⁷

Although Acheson and his colleagues preferred not to get involved in the India-Pakistan rivalry, India's refusal to support the West in the evolving Cold War continually annoyed them. For instance, India sided with the Soviet Union and communist China in opposing the Peace Treaty with Japan on grounds that it failed to provide for return of the island of Formosa (Taiwan) to China. Further, Indian Prime Minister Nehru did not support the US position on Korea, suggesting instead that if Beijing had its rightful representation in the UN Security Council, war could have been averted.
Acheson later observed in his memoirs that Nehru “was one of the most difficult men with whom I have ever had to deal.”
⁸⁸

The United States' refusal of his conditional offer of support in Korea stunned Liaquat. Nonetheless, his government did not give up hopes of getting arms and political support from America to use against India and Afghanistan. Meanwhile, the urgency of US economic assistance for Pakistan in order to maintain the balance of payments eased somewhat as the global market price of principal commodities rose due to what came to be known as the “Korean War Boom,” though the need for defense assistance persisted. Pakistani officials considered that a stronger anticommunist stance in Karachi was the right formula for getting what Pakistan really wanted from the United States.

Then, in October 1951, Liaquat was assassinated while addressing a public rally in the garrison town of Rawalpindi. The lone gunman was a disgruntled Pashtun, motivated by what he perceived to be the prime minister's un-Islamic attitude. The killing came on the heels of a coup attempt by disgruntled military officers earlier in the year, and this had been tenuously linked to a group of communist intellectuals. The officers seeking to overthrow the government wanted more robust military operations in Kashmir. Although he had sought arms for Pakistan's military ostensibly to fight communists, the two issues that cast a long shadow on Liaquat's time as prime minister were ultimately the Pashtun and Kashmir disputes.

Liaquat was Jinnah's undisputed successor, and his assassination left Pakistan without a unifying charismatic leader. Power passed into the hands of a group of civil servants led by Ghulam Muhammad and Iskander Mirza. This group had been most eager in pursuing the option of large-scale American aid as the means of consolidating the fledgling Pakistani state. Now that Liaquat was out of the way, they had a powerful ally in Sandhurst-trained General Muhammad Ayub Khan, who had become the first Pakistani to command its army after taking over from British general Sir Douglas Gracey. The enthusiasm Jinnah's campaign generated for Pakistan had by now begun to wane. The Muslim League splintered into factions, resulting in frequent changes of government ministers and increasing re
liance on the military as the source of stability. The ill-defined ideal of a South Asian Muslim homeland was now mired in fractious feudal politics as generals and civil servants scrambled to put together plans for their country's security and prosperity.