Pakistan Social Sciences Review P-ISSN 2664-0422

December 2018, Vol. 2, No. 2 [121-132] O-ISSN 2664-0430

Pakistan Social Sciences Review

www.pssr.org.pk
RESEARCH PAPER
United States Foreign Policy towards South Asia: A
Critical Analysis
Dr. Muhammad Muzaffar 1 Erum Hanif 2 Imran Khan3

1. Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science GC Women

University, Sialkot
2. Ph. D Scholar Department of Political Science GC Women University,
Sialkot
3. Ph. D Scholar, Department o Political Science and IR Govt. College
University Faisalabad
PAPER INFO ABSTRACT
Received: This paper examines the United States interests and its
October 04, 2018 strategies in South Asia. The region has emerged as
Accepted: progressively vibrant interest to United States foreign
December 21, 2018 policy in the 21st century. During the Cold War era, the
Online: U.S. interests were to save the region from communist
December 30, 2018
expansion. But, the recent changes in global power
Keywords: affiliations have made South Asia an important region.
United States After September 11 tragedy and the Indo-US strategic
South Asia collaboration the situation have changed the framework of
Foreign Policy relationship between the United States and South Asia.
Interests Present involvement of the U.S. in Afghanistan and
Pakistan, Indo-Pak contention, concerns about the
Corresponding
author proliferation of nuclear armaments, struggle with
Erum Hanif terrorism, and rising of Chinese influence in the region
has considerably increased the importance of South Asia
erumchoudhary@hot in the United States policy making. United States must
mail.com
enhance the strategic partnership with the countries in
the South Asian region for peace and stability.
Introduction
South Asia consists of seven countries Pakistan, India, Nepal,
Bhutan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Maldives. Lately, Afghanistan has
also been included in the regional grouping SAARC as a member.
However, this article will focus on Pakistan and India, with peripheral
references to Afghanistan, as and where needed, mainly because the
 United States Foreign Policy towards South Asia: A Critical Analysis
United States looks at Pakistan and India as the principal players in the
geopolitical construct of this region. Secondly, it will elaborate the
United States concern of South Asia after the end of the Cold War and
subsequently, in this way, extending history as and where required
rather than make a historical survey from the time of the emergence of
these states as independent nations. South Asia is a vast land and
consists of one quarter of the world's population. It has much
importance in international politics today.
Strategically located at the cross roads of Asia, this region lies
on the perimeter to China. It is separated by a narrow strip of Afghan
territory (the WA khan) from Central Asia (Welcome to South Asian
Regional Development Gateway November 21, 2008). Furthermore, it
links the Middle East with South East Asia and forms the most
important strategic area bordering the Indian Ocean. In this context,
the U.S. as the Super power has some vital interests in the region. In
reconsideration, the U.S. did not see South Asia as a region of strategic
importance. Before Second World War, the U.S. interests in South Asia
were very partial and were mostly commercial in nature. The end of
the Cold War and the dissolution of Soviet Union in 1991 changed the
global strategic landscape in favor of the United States. The United
States adopts its foreign policy in a way to fulfill all its interests and
rule the world. Thus the two main concerns of United States in the
region are Counter Terrorism and Nuclear non Proliferation.
Counter Terrorism
The menace of terrorism and terrorism associated activities
will continue a vital threat to the U.S. interests in the region and also to
the South Asian states. In this perspective, the U.S. has a long term
interests and strategy in the region regarding the threats posed by
terrorist organizations.
Geopolitically, South Asia represents a unified security zone,
with India in the middle. That’s why the region of south Asia is called
Indo centric. Terrorism and political violence are not new challenges in
South Asia. They have long been used by groups supporting a wide
variety of causes, including national self-determination or separatism
for both right- and left-wing politics, and militant religious extremism.
In many cases, the delicacy of somewhat young political systems and
emerging democracies has also generated an accommodating
environment for the use of political violence. In addition, militant
religious groups are exploiting local grievances and drawing on
international events to promote radical and extremist causes, though

122
Pakistan Social Sciences Review (PSSR) December 2018, Vol. 2, No.2

the underlying objectives of many of these groups remain the capture

of state power and the transformation of systems of government
(Akhmat, 2013). All these factors make South Asia a fertile ground for
terrorist organizations. Moreover, suspicion, distrust, and hostility that
describe the political relationship between states have been a major
obstacle in the way of operative regional collaboration in South Asia.
The efforts of SAARC cannot be ignored in this regard to tackle
common challenges posed by terrorism, its efficacy is frequently held
hostage to the political hostility between the two main South Asian
actors - India and Pakistan. Since the beginning of 'War on Terror' by
the U.S. in Afghanistan, South Asia has become a breeding ground of
international terrorism. It can be declared without any doubt that the
occurrence of terrorism as a threatening factor in South Asia has put in
danger the whole quest for peace and progress (Ishtiaq, July 12, 2011).
Nuclear Non Proliferation
The non-proliferation issue did figure prominently in The US
regard of South Asia at this time nuclear non-proliferation has been a
keystone of the U.S. foreign policy and this policy has to some extent
engaged the U.S. in South Asian affairs. In South Asia the main concern
comes from the stiffness between India and Pakistan (possibly leading
to nuclear attack), and the way nuclear energy and weaponry are
developed, stored, transported, and used (Lamb Robert D 3, 2014) In
May 1998, India conducted underground nuclear tests and on 28 and
30 May 1998, Pakistan fallowed by conducting six nuclear tests. These
tests created a global storm of criticism, and a serious setback for
prolonged U.S. nuclear non-proliferation efforts in the region. On 13
May, 1998 the U.S. president Clinton imposed military and economic
sanctions on India, mandated by section 102 of the Arms Export
Control Act (AECA), and on 30 May the same sanctions were extended
to Pakistan (Blood 2002). However in the next years, these sanctions
were lifted as they could not convince India and Pakistan to stop their
nuclear weapons program. A nuclear attack by one country or the
other would be shattering to regional peace which has upraised the
concerns of U.S. in the region. Moreover, the U.S. worries about
nuclear weapons in Pakistan are intensive not only on preventing their
intentional or accidental use against India but also on Pakistan's
security structures and controls of those weapons. Thus the stoppage
of the proliferation of all type of Nuclear weapons and material, and to
stop the nuclear attack between the two nuclear states in South Asia -

123
 United States Foreign Policy towards South Asia: A Critical Analysis
India and Pakistan, is the vital interest of U.S. policy makers in the
South Asia.
United States Foreign Policy
There are a few factors that influence the direction of the U.S.
foreign policy in a specific region. These elements incorporate the level
of progression of the U.S. interests, the consideration, and nature of
information accessible at different levels of government, the limitations
that exist on the U.S. government and the imperatives that exist with
the region and the kind of impact and number of nongovernmental
intrigues that are found in the region (Kochanek, 1993). In this
structure, the U.S.' South Asia policy can be termed as a progression of
ups and downs. These examples have been founded on various
calculations of what constitutes the U.S. interests.
Post-Cold War period
In the post-cold war period things began to change. The end of
Afghan War in 1989 and the demise of Soviet Union in 1991 have led to
change the U.S global, regional, and bilateral relations not just with
South Asia, but with the whole world. The post-Cold War period was
marked with the remarkable shift in the patterns of relationships
among the nations in international politics. Thus a new strategic
scenario was viewed with the collapse of Soviet Union and the end of
Cold War (Crokkatt, 1997). According to Cohen and Dasgupta,’ the
U.S. had several identifiable interests in South Asia during the
immediate phase of the post-Cold War era. These were:
 Developing a strong economic and strategic relationship with
India.
 Preserving the integrity of Pakistan.
 Curbing Islamic extremism.
 Containing terrorist activity in Pakistan and Afghanistan.
 Preventing a potentially dangerous arms race on the Sub-
Continent.
 Promoting peace process between India and Pakistan relating
to Kashmir (Cohen, 2001).
So, in the post-Cold War era the importance of South Asia for
the U.S. increased. At first President Clinton did not considered South
Asia as an area of importance. But from 1994 onwards, he settled the
U.S. policy towards South Asia. He improved the economic and
military relations with India and Pakistan. Clinton also tried to check
India and Pakistan from obtaining nuclear weapons and to reduce the
tension between these countries on Kashmir issue.

124
Pakistan Social Sciences Review (PSSR) December 2018, Vol. 2, No.2

After 1994, the Clinton administration takes many steps to

improve their relations with India. There were many reasons for the
President Clinton to develop relations with India like; the dissolution
of Soviet Union had devastated the base of India's foreign policy and
defense. India could no longer use Soviet Union as a counter weight to
Washington. The strategic value of Pakistan in the U.S. eyes also
declined after the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan. The Indian
economic reforms during 1990s have transformed her economy.
United States considered India as a major power in Sub-
Continent so; India became center of attention to the U.S. for
maintaining regional peace and stability. Finally, geopolitics concerns
were also taken into account in Clinton’s policy towards India(Indo-
U.S Relation during the Clinton Administration: Upward Trends and
Uphill Tasks Ahead Febrauary 9, 2018). Though he promoted a
strategic partnership with China, yet at the same time he considered
India as a counter weight to China.
The Clinton administration also tried to stop the proliferation
of Weapons in South Asia. On 11 May, 1998 India conducted nuclear
tests using China thereat as an excuse. On 28 May, Pakistan also
claimed that it had set off five nuclear devices; followed by further tests
on 30 May. On 15 July, 1998 the Congress passed the India-Pakistan
Relief Act, commonly known as Brownback Amendment that relaxed
sanctions on both of these countries (India-Pakistan Nuclear Tests and
U.S Response February 10, 2018).
Thus the Clinton administration's nuclear policy towards
South Asia was not so operative that it could check the further nuclear
tests by India and Pakistan in future. Then the two newly nuclear
armed states move toward another conflict in Kargil from May to July
1999. Third, another military takeover occurred in Pakistan in October
1999. A new set of sanctions were enforced on Pakistan for violation of
a US law Whereas India was perceived as an opportunity, Pakistan
was considered to be a threat and concern. It was weak and politically
unstable. It was also alleged to be an increasingly fundamental Islamic
state and having relations with the isolated Taliban regime in
Afghanistan. After the Kargil chapter and the subsequent military coup
in 1999, the United States considered Pakistan as worrisome, whose
internal instability was to be expected to have unsafe repercussions in
the region. Pakistan at that time was seen by United States under two

125
 United States Foreign Policy towards South Asia: A Critical Analysis
considerations, weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and perceived
links with terrorism.
The US moved its focus from the strategic necessities of the
Cold War era to problems like terrorism, non-proliferation and drug
trading. Hence during the last decade of the 20th century, the most
imperative policy of the US toward South Asia related to the control of
deadly weapons by both India and Pakistan and avoidance of both
countries from any action that would destabilize regional security and
global stability. This primary aim was stated in a report presented to
the Congress of United States entitled ‘A National Security Strategy for
‘a New Century, January 2000(News Archive 2018).
The Report made the following observations: ‘The
development of Indian and Pakistani nuclear programs raise three
immediate and one long term concern for the United States, that the
two nations do not use their nuclear weapons in a crisis; that their
nuclear weapons not add to regional instability or figure in an
Inadvertent detonation; and that the technology to produce these
weapons not be transferred to other nations or non-sovereign rogue
groups’.
Post September 11 Strategy
The terrorist attacks on the twin towers of World Trade Centre
and Pentagon on 11 September, 2001 transformed the U.S. global
strategy. The global war on terrorism became the first strategic priority
for the U.S. policy makers and all other priorities were left behind to
secondary status. The top U.S. foreign policy goals in the South Asian
region would be fighting terrorism and the eliminating situations that
breed terror in the frontline states of Afghanistan and Pakistan. These
terrorist attacks changed the situation of regional security in South
Asia and Pakistan became front line ally to US. There were two factors
behind this status of Pakistan. First, Pakistan had close geographical
link with Afghanistan. Second, in the U.S. eyes Pakistan itself has two
major security dangers: WMD and the perceived links with terrorism.
Pakistan supported the US action and the sanctions those were
imposed on India and Pakistan removed by US and got Economic
Support Fund.
The global war against terrorism started and US invaded
Afghanistan in order to take over the Taliban regime due to its support
for Al-Qaeda leaders. Gen. Pervez Musharraf agreed to give full
support for the new war. The United States close cooperation with
Pakistan has led to trouble the Indo-U.S. relations for the short span of

126
Pakistan Social Sciences Review (PSSR) December 2018, Vol. 2, No.2

time. But, this bitterness between the U.S. and India over Pakistan were
not to affect a long term interests. The United States communicated to
India that it would have to reset primacies to meet the new challenges
but also gave hint that, once the immediate threat in Afghanistan was
handled, India’s concerns would also be addressed.
On January 2004 an Independent Task Force that is sponsored
by the Council on Foreign Relations and Asian society brought out a
report entitledSouth Asia:’ US policy towards India, Pakistan and
Afghanistan which suggested that the US and India must (1) develop
political, military and intelligence cooperation, (2) increase dialogue on
trade and economic issues, and (3) assign a trade agreement on
services. And US should (1) ease restraints on India in respect to
collaboration in the civilian satellite sector; (2) grant Indiafriendly
country status and (3) ease restrictions on the export to India. As
regards to Pakistan, the Task Force report noted that US-Pakistan
relations had much improved since 9/11 because of Pakistan’s role in
thewar against terrorism but felt that the interests of the two
countriescoincided only partially. It mentioned different insights of the
two countries about freedom fighters and militants in Kashmir, as well
as Pakistan’s reluctance to restrain Taliban elements in Afghanistan
from using its tribal territories as safe sanctuaries. It also revealed US
worry that continuing India- Pakistan disputes May badly affects US
relations with India’(Task Force Report 2004 on U.s, India and Pakistan
Relations February 10, 2018).
Shortly after the Task Force report came out, a top level US
delegation visited India in June 2004 to hold negotiations with India
about transfer of technology associated to the missile defense system.
In July 2005, Indian Prime Minister Man Mohan Singh and President
Bush met in United States and agreed to work for betterment of
bilateral relationship. The two most noteworthy agreements signed in
the meeting, within the new structure of the road-map, were about US
military sales to India of advanced- tech objects, and a civilian nuclear
cooperation agreement. The nuclear cooperation agreement was
exceptional, because a NPT-signatory country was offering nuclear
technology to a non-NPT signatory country (Afzal 2006). Pakistan also
requested to United States for a similar deal but request rejected.
Alternatively, with Pakistan it continues to be a relationship of
more of the same as has acquired in the former years. Obviously there
is a great emphasis on Pakistan’s economic development, with a main

127
 United States Foreign Policy towards South Asia: A Critical Analysis
element of economic development funds, as against former aid
packages of military support. At the same time, the US continued its
policy to pressurize Pakistan to deal with terrorism and extremism.
Obama’s Strategy
Under President Obama administration, there were no
significant change in United States policy toward South Asia it
continued to pursue the policies of his predecessor. Obama continue to
build a strategic partnership with India (Rahawstri, 2010). Obama, like
Bush fully supports the emergence of India as an emerging power.
During the term of Bush period, the U.S. recognized that India would
be a major power in 21st century. Therefore, they supported India in
every way. Obama administration in spite of focusing on Pakistan as
the key partner in the war against terrorism continues to recognize
India as a valuable strategic partner.
The first foreign policy initiative of Obama administration
immediately upon his assumption of office in 2009 was to address the
worsening situation in the Afghanistan and Pakistan border area. This
historically 'wild' area considered to be as the safe haven for the
Taliban, al Qaeda and similar other terrorist and militant groups
(Ewen, 2009). Obama had promised during presidential election to
make 'Afghan-Pak' theater his number one priority, down grading the
Iraqi theater of 'War on Terror'. Thus, shortly after President Obama
took office, he announced his policy toward this region of great
importance for United States. The security agenda continued to be the
supreme objective in this region.
Donald Trump’s Policy
As in different parts of the world, Donald Trump's triumph in
the November 2016 US presidential race came as a noteworthy shock to
Southeast Asia. Barely any eyewitnesses had truly tolerated a Trump
win, and what it may mean for Southeast Asia, President Trump’s
administration has a mixture of change and continuity in the country’s
foreign and security agenda.
South Asia looks like to be on the top of United States regional
concerns and its policy, primarily to secure its enormous interests from
this region. Trump’s new policy on South Asia has focused on role of
India as the main concern state in new policy.
President Donald Trump declared to launch the new US policy
in Afghanistan and throughout South Asia on August 21. In his speech
he said,We can no longer be silent about Pakistan’s safe-havens for
terrorist organizations, the Taliban and other groups that pose a threat

128
Pakistan Social Sciences Review (PSSR) December 2018, Vol. 2, No.2

to the region and beyond. Pakistan has much to gain from partnering
with our effort in Afghanistan. It has much to lose by continuing to
harbor criminals and terrorists. In the past, Pakistan has been a valued
partner. Our militaries have worked to together against common
enemies. The Pakistani people have suffered greatly from terrorism
and extremism. We recognize those contributions and those sacrifices.
But Pakistan has also sheltered the same organizations that try every
single day to kill our people. We have been paying Pakistan billions
and billions of dollars. At the same time, they are housing the very
terrorists that we are fighting. But that will have to change. And that
will change immediately. No partnership can survive a country’s
harboring of militants and terrorists who target US service members
and officials. It is time for Pakistan to demonstrate its commitment to
civilization, order, and to peace."(Remarks by President Trump on the
Strategy in Afghanistan and South Asia 21, August)
Donald Trump mentioned the deployment more than 4,000 US
troops to Afghanistan, adding to the 8,400 already stationed there. The
focus of Trump’s new strategy concerns not only for Afghanistan, but
South Asia more broadly. Trump nominated Pakistan as a country
which provided’ safe haven’ to the Taliban and other armed militants
who attacked US forces(Pakistan in the Crosshairs of Trump's Afghan
Strategy 2018). Yet he also stressed India to provide economic and
development support in Afghanistan. Donald Trump needs Indian
support to limit Pakistan to stop giving ‘safe heavens’ to terrorist
groups. An explanation of what Trump called the White
House’sprincipled realism was that Americawill no longer use
American military might to construct democracies in faraway lands, or
try to rebuild other countries in our own image. … Instead he
states,We will work with allies and partners to protect our shared
interests (Remarks by President Trump on the Stretegy in Afghanistan
and South Asia 21 Aug).
Even though President Trump may have had a crash course on
the history of Afghanistan and South Asia, It seems US has completely
forgot the frontline role played by Pakistan in the war on terror. It was
the outcome of this war that has carried the fury of terrorism to
Pakistan, and the whole region. The essential support provided by the
Pakistan to the alliance forces against the Taliban seems to have fallen
on the side. Trump’s policy on Afghanistan is based on basic ground
realities and not on a time-based approach, which also shows Trump’s

129
 United States Foreign Policy towards South Asia: A Critical Analysis
disposition to stay in Afghanistan for strategic influence. The states in
South Asia may observe the policy differently from one another that
could intensify the conditions especially between India and Pakistan.
on the other hand, it would be good for President Trump to not forget
that it is not just American nationalists and soldiers that must be
honored, but also the brave soldiers, and civilians men women and
children - in Pakistan that have laid down their lives in a war that was
so forcefully imposed on them (Najam, n.d.).
Conclusion and Recommendations
Hence from the above narrative of the United States’ main
interests and policies towards South Asia after the Cold War era to the
present time, it can be proclaimed that this region of the world has
always remained a dynamic area where the United States interests and
foreign policy primacies has been fluctuating with ups and downs or
engagements and disengagements. Though, After the end of cold war
US was the unilateral super power of the world that wants to see
Europe or Asia free from hegemony by any hostile power. In the
United States policy calculations, in the 21st century China is emerging
such a power. Hence as long as the "China Threat" rests in the minds of
the United States policy makers the US will treat India as its partner in
the South Asian region. At the same time, as long as the terrorism is
not reduced and Afghanistan is not changed into a peaceful and
established country free from terrorism and militants, the U.S. will try
to maintain its current policy. Pakistan as a front line state in so
calledwar against terrorism and India as a state of having ability to
become a regional power has made this region very important for
United States.
Although the United States is the world's leading power, but it
cannot act alone and succeed to solve global problems such as
worldwide terrorism and the production of weapons of mass
destruction .No doubt the United States is in a position to take the lead
and to gain all its interests in the region but it is not possible without
having the cooperation of two important states of this region Pakistan
and India. In reconsideration, the US foreign policy has always
remained India first; United States must acknowledge that in this war
Pakistan has suffered loss of billions of dollars and human. The long
term peace in the region is not possible if South Asia remained to be
the’ Great Game ‘zone of world powers. United States must enhance
the strategic partnership with the countries in the South Asian region.

130
Pakistan Social Sciences Review (PSSR) December 2018, Vol. 2, No.2

References

Ahmad Ishtiaq, (2011). Terrorism in South Asia: Retrospect and

Prospect, Paper Presented at International Seminar on Terrorism
in Retrospect and Prospect, Organized by London Institute of
South Asia (LISA) on 12 July.

Akhmat G, Zaman k, Tan S, Sajjad F. (2013). Exploring the Root Cause of

Terrorism in South Asia: Everybody Should be Concerned, Quality &
Quantity. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-013-
9941-2.

Cohen Stephen P. (2001) and Sunil Dasgupta, U.S.-South Asia: Relations

under Bush, Brookings Oxford, Analttica.

Crockkatt Richard, (1997) The End of Cold War, in Steve Smith (ed.),
The Globalization of World Politics, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Ewen MacAskill,Barack Obama Sets out New Strategy for Afghanistan

War, the Guardian, March27,2009,
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/mar/27/obama-
new-strategy Afghanistan-war.

Kochanek Stanely A. (1993), The U.S. Foreign Policy in South Asia,

Pakistan Horizon, 46(3), pp. 17-25.

Lamb, R. D. Sadika Hameed and Kathryn Mixon, 3 (2014) South Asia

Regional Dynamics and Strategic Concerns: A Framework for U.S.
Policy and Strategy in South Asia2014-2026, A Report of the CSIS
Program on Crisis, Conflict and Cooperation, Centre for Strategic
and International Studies (CSIS).

Najam Rafique, (n.d)Trump’s New Strategy for Afghanistan and South

Asia: A Recipe of Disaster,, 4.

Peter R Blood, (2002). Indo-U.S. Relations, CRS Issue Brief for Congress,
Foreign Affairs Defense and Trade Division.

Rahawestri Mayong A. (2010), Obama's Foreign Policy in Asia, More

Continuity than Change, Security Challenges, 6 (1), 109-120.

131
 United States Foreign Policy towards South Asia: A Critical Analysis
Remarks by President Trump on the Strategy in Afghanistan and South
Asia, www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-
office/2017/08/21/remarks-president-trump-strategy
Afghanistan-and-south-Asia.

Remarks by President Trump on the Strategy in Afghanistan and South

Asia, www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-
office/2017/08/21/remarks-president-trump-strategy-
afghanistan-and-south-asia

Shaheen, A.(2006).The US-India Nuclear Deal. Pakistan Vision,

December.7.(2)

South Asia Regional Overview. (2018) South Asian Regional

Development Gateway. Accessed on 10 February 2018, Retrieved
from http://www.sardeg.org/marketana.asp.

Task Force Report 2004 on US India Pakistan Relations-Google search

accessed February10, 2018

Webmaster, Indian Significance, Pak Observer (blog), December 7, 2017,

https://pakobserver.net/indian-significance/.

132