Pakistan & USA Strategic Dialogue

The Pakistan & USA strategic dialogue has taken place, with Pakistan having arranged comprehensively for an work out that the USA looks to be using to reinstate the old treaty system it developed at some stage in the Cold War to throw a ring around the USSR. Pakistan was passionate about the treaty system, being the only country separately from the USA, Turkey and the UK to be a part of more than one treaty, as being a member of both the Central Treaty Organisation (Turkey and Iran being the other members, the former also being a member of NATO, the main anti-Soviet armed coalition) & the South East Asia Treaty Organisation (which also had as members the Philippines, Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia). Pakistan joined SEATO because of East Pakistan, and left it when it seceded. CENTO broke up around the same time, and the replacing economic organisation, Regional Cooperation for Development (RCD), did not evolve, unlike ASEAN, which took SEATO’s place.

The USA has avoided local coalitions since the conclusion of the Cold War, excluding NATO, which it is increasing to incorporate former Warsaw Pact members, although it has affianced in a progression of strategic dialogues, frequently with countries that may have a variance, and therefore would not like to be part of an coalition method. For example, India, which the USA encouraged since the 1950s, preferred to favour the USSR, never became part of any coalition method or alliance system, but it is a dialogue associate with the USA since 2006, and the ‘dialogue’ is biannual, with visits to both countries by the other’s delegation. This is not just for the reason that India after the Cold War is in search of a relationship with the USA that will be harmful to Pakistan, but because the USA wants it as a barricade against China. One more motive is that there is no alliance in the region which India can join. SAARC is un-productive, not even economically, not even after it expanded to include Afghanistan, and the USA has found that it can best connect in a dialogue procedure. USA also has gone for a dialogue with Israel and Saudi Arabia, both of which would have not been prepared to unite for a local coalition with the other as a member, even if one had existed, not that it does.

The strategic dialogue is best comprehended in terms of the joint ministerial commission, though non-official members, members of the parliament/legislation or businessmen, are supposed to be part, though they are not this time. The dialogue terms appears limited to the USA, though it looks that China might opponent of it. After all, China has not only had a dialogue with Pakistan, it also has a strategic dialogue about to begin with the UK. In principle, the USA should not maintain a control. Any bilateral association can be the topic of a dialogue between the two, and one can wait for an occasion when the ‘dialogue’ term might be used to explain talks between two opponents, as like India and Pakistan. If one only recognize, Pakistan and India have involved in a dialogue now for more than 60 years, a dialogue which has been deep enough to cover three wars and the Kashmir issue as well.