STRATEGIES OF USA-PAKISTAN RELATIONS IN THE POST 9/11 PERIOD: HURDLES AND PROSPECTS

From that moment forward, the Pak-US relationship will be rocky, and it will challenge both countries' foreign strategies. As a result of its dire needs, Pakistan has come to rely heavily on the United States (US). After the country's liberation, Pakistan may play a significant role in the region. However, it was still difficult to imagine being in a relationship. The lack of trust between you and me is a significant factor in determining the nature of any future commitment. September 11 altered the trajectory of relationships and the depth of commitments. This event marked a turning moment in the mending of fences between the two parties. Since then, various factors have influenced who is responsible for what. The inclusion of the manual shows serious dedication. The willingness to commit is based on the extent to which one is helped. The US military's strategic outreach to Pakistan during the War on Terror solidified US interest in Pakistan and transformed it into a technologically advanced partner. Frustrations also contribute to a decline in teamwork. After 9/11, the globe saw both bright and less promising times due to three central defining moments: the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, the rise of the US as a global champion, the consolidation of territorial security, and the fear-based oppressor onslaught. This war against mental oppression envisioned a new alliance between the US and Pakistan; during this time, Pakistan faced challenges and emerged as a crucial ally for Americans in South Asia's war against fear. The relationship between the US and Pakistan was a cornerstone of American foreign policy. The approach to South Asia prior to the collapse of the Soviet Union. The US provided Pakistan political, economic, and military aid during the Cold War. The re-arming of Islamic militants against the Soviets posed new problems for the US. U.S. foreign policy experts' sense of urgency following the September 11 attacks led them to rethink their country's ties to Pakistan. Fears that Osama bin Laden and Islamic mercenaries are hiding near Pakistan's borders have been a top issue for Americans. Expanded US-India collaboration has been effectively constrained by the long-term goal of containing China and thwarting terrorism. Given those presumptions, this research looks into the ties between the US and Pakistan.


INTRODUCTION
The United States (US) laid down discretionary ties with the recently constituted territory of Pakistan on October 20, 1947. At the time, the US was one of the early states to do so, and there were not many other states doing so. The USA recognized the geostrategic importance of Pakistan in order to limit the influence of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) in the region.
The US and Pakistan have always had a tumultuous and tense relationship, and this state of affairs has persisted throughout their entire history. The degree of commitment was overshadowed by the presence of uncertainty, which dominated the relationships. The relations between the two parties and the strategic talks that take place between them have been impacted by various factors. The historical context of this commitment can be traced back to 1951. In this year Liaquat Ali Khan made their first trip to the USA and demonstrated an affinity for the Soviet Union. This event marked the beginning of the connection between the two countries, as it was the time when Pakistan made public its orientation toward the US. The commitment and separations across the various stages, as the US suggested, will create an atmosphere devoid of confidence. The events of September 11 shifted everything, and Pakistan became an extremely important part of Operation Freedom. Around that time, Pakistan was subject to strict authorization as a result of 14.
In the course of their long history, relations between Pakistan and the US have never been stable; rather, they have gone through a series of highs and lows, all of which can be traced back to the fact that at various points in time, the two countries national interests have been at odds with one another.
Relationships on a diplomatic level Pakistan is in the form of a defensive mode as a result of the events of September 11, which have brought India and the US closer together. It is because Pakistan has Kashmir's cause and dealings to ha bilateral relations with the US and her motivation to resolve the issue of Kashmir. According to Guihong (2003), the relationship has always been statecentric, and he stated that this had been the case since 9/11, bringing India and the US closer together.

PAK-US Relations Post 9/11
Pakistan relationshipwith the US during the virus fight and enlisted in the past intergovernmental military collusion of the (SEATO) and (CENTO) to hold in line the powers of socialism driven by the USSR (See Appendix). During the 1970s, Pakistan gave a political take-off platform to the US to converse with the People's Republic of China (PRC), which prompted defrost in the relations between the US and the PRC. In the 1980s, during the intrusion of Afghanistan by the USSR, their relations came to another degree of understanding. The two nations' political and intelligence apparatuses worked side by side to offer help, as far as monetary, preparing and planned operations for mujahedeen development in Afghanistan. Eventually, the aggregate exertion of the two countries prompted the withdrawal of the USSR from Afghanistan in 1989.

Changes In Global System
During the most recent fifteen years, three significant defining moments merit special consideration for their effects on the international circumstance in South Asia (by and large) and Pakistan (primarily): • The First was the loss and, at last, breaking down of the USSR in 1991, which ended the Cold War contention between the two superpowers, seeking impact, and the US arose as the sole superpower. • The subsequent occasion originated from the actual district, which had exceptional importance for the US with a large group of ramifications for worldwide and territorial security. This was obvious atomic weapons try and statement of atomic power by India and Pakistan in May 1998. These plain atomic blasts in the Sub-Continent were a rapid test to the limit of significant powers and the United Nations (UN) to safeguard the believability of atomic restraint systems. The course of the organization of atomic weapons improved the gamble of a flare-up of atomic conflict to the front in South Asia. • The third was the militant psychological assaults of September 11, 2001, which were so awful and disastrous that they changed the whole world radically. These assaults changed the discussion of international strategy on the issues essential to double America's character as a "majestic republic" (Litwak, 2007, p. 37). The US has the world's biggest economy, overpowering military power, and the prevailing situation in global organizations with enemy tormenting social and philosophical powers. Robert Gilpin composes that "a prevailing power characterizes the principles of worldwide security and makes the repercussion for little powers in rethinking international strategy" (Gilpen, 1981, p. 33). The conflict showed another link between North America and South Asia, which are at opposite ends of the world regarding political issues. Since World War II, America has been a world power, but it was in bad shape. The power place, on the other hand, was an unnoticed system that held on to an exiled Saudi nonconformist named Osama bin Laden and his group Al-Qaeda (Military Base), which called itself an enemy of the U.S. and all Zionists and crusaders. Afghanistan and sixty other countries, such as Pakistan, Egypt, and Sudan, gave Al-Qaeda help (op. cit, 2007: 38). Most people agree that this non-state entertainer left.
Pakistan was also at a crossroads. It could either act reasonably to be a part of the global-local area or keep acting irrationally to stay separate. Since the Cold War, Pakistan has been an essential part of U.S. plans for South Asia because of its unique location. The U.S. has never forgotten about Pakistan when dealing with South Asian issues, which usually determine its strategy cycle. Whether during the Cold War or after the psychological oppressor attacks, which changed the geopolitical situation, Pakistan chose to join the global alliance to fight the war on fear because it was in the best interest of its people (Musharraf, 2006).

Problem Statement
It looks at the relationship between Pakistan and the US after 9/11 and political and territorial changes. Pakistan stayed a key US ally during the War in which caused turmoil. After 9/11, there were a lot of armed fights inside Pakistan's borders. In this study, we try to find and list significant changes in Pakistan's teaching strategies that happened soon after September 11 in the US. It is based on how the US and Pakistan work together, the problems they face, how meaningful their relationship is to each other, and what the future holds for it.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Naeem Ahmad's exam paper, "Re-characterizing US-Pakistan Relations," looks at how the events of September 11 affected efforts to improve relations between the US and Pakistan. With this commitment, the War on Terror that followed went forward. The expert looks at this decade's commitment from three points of view: • The help that was sent to Pakistan.

•
The fact that the Bush administration and the Musharraf government worked together even though the US was talking in favor of a vote-based system in Pakistan.

•
The problems that arose in the relationship because of different events that were the center of attention.
The US had been asking Pakistan took action against different TTP groups and stop giving on places to stay in Pakistan. This constant interest started to bother people in Pakistan. The anger of the Pakistani people was made worse by drone strikes in particular (Ahmad, 2011).
Well-known economists and thinkers like Andre Gunder Frank and Raul Prebisch researched the relationship between the Core (developed countries) and the Periphery (developing countries). They added to what is known about it. They say that the Core is the only organization that can help the Periphery grow (Bhattacharya, 2009, p. 131). In the years following World War II.

US FOREIGN POLICY: RISE & DECLINE
Also, Pakistan's economy became dependent on U.S. aid because of how much money the U.S. gave to Pakistan. However, in exchange, it got a "good" partner close to other West Asian countries. In this situation, the economic ties between the periphery countries give the core country more political power and make the receiving country less democratic (Balaev, 2008, p. 35). In Pakistan, the elite section has often chosen the "objective" over its interests. Due to the terrorist attack on the U.S. on September 11, 2001, Pakistan and the U.S. are working together more than ever. Once again, it has changed the way that Pakistan and the U.S. work together. President George W. Bush has asked the rest of the world to make a clear choice between the US and terrorist groups. Bush's famous campaign slogan was, "Either you are on our side, or you are fighting against us." The U.S. has pushed Pakistan as a key strategic ally in the fight against terrorism. After that, the Bush administration came up with a new plan to eliminate all the sanctions that had been put on Pakistan. Lashkar-e-Taiba, Jaish-e-Muhammad, and Sipah-e-Sahaba are three of the most well-known terrorist groups. In 2002, President Musharraf put an end to the group after condemning religious fanaticism and making five terrorist groups illegal. Pakistan is the one that stands out the most. As a sign of goodwill, the US paid off Pakistan's $1 billion debt in 2003. When President Musharraf went to the US in July 2003, he met with President Bush. As part of a five-year plan, the Bush administration gave $ 3 billion in economic and defense help because of Musharraf's visit. However, the US Congress had to agree to this aid package for it to work. In 2004, President George W. Bush's Bush administration officially recognized Pakistan as a non-NATO ally. During the Bush administration, Pakistan could buy cutting-edge military and strategic equipment.

POLITICAL SCENARIO
The US coerced Pakistan into playing a part in the war on terrorism that they had envisioned for it, despite the high costs of doing so. The internal tranquility of Pakistan is being affected by the growing violence in its bordering areas. The author, the Khan, shared his perspective on the world as it was in 2011. Suicide bombs, heightened security, and the murder of foreigners are all shown in the novel in the context of a post-September 11 world in which the American agenda is also affecting the speech of the Pakistani people.
On February 29, 2020, the US and the Afghan Taliban signed a peace accord officially known as the Doha Agreement. Doha, the capital of Qatar, inspired the name of this accord. 9/11: A PRIORITY EVENT History was changed on the morning of September 11, 2001. Pakistan was permitted to test nuclear weapons, and most lawmakers thought that Gen. Musharraf's military takeover meant the government had to impose sanctions. This event set off a wave of progress all over the world. Pakistan needs to change what will happen in the future. According to US agreements and details of the conversation that were made public later, it was decided on September 11 that a clear message to leave would be sent to Pakistan, Afghanistan, and the Arab World (Sattar, 2010). Al-Qaeda has been blamed for attacks in the US.
• Pakistan decided to join the American war in Afghanistan because it was hard to be objective. Because of this one event, Pakistan became an important partner in the War on Terror. This show wowed people all over the world. The UN Security Council agreed on goals 1368, 1373, and 1377 in three days. Sohrab and Chaudhary (2012), page 4. The whole world was asked to decide, and it was decided to stop giving money to people who spread fear (Rizvi, 2005, p. 5). The US and the Taliban used to get along well, but that changed when the Taliban refused to hand over Osama Bin Laden. Pakistan had to use its power to try to get the Taliban to change. After that, Pakistan had to decide if it would cut ties with the Taliban or deal with the results.
• Pakistan quickly saw this new relationship with the US was a good thing. The first step to ensure the new association was to waive approvals and help; Brownback-II Amendment authorized the US President to forego' majority rules government authorizations' • Waiver of approvals and assistance was the first step that ensured the new association; • The relationship between Pakistan and the US following 9/11 He stated that the relationship between USA and Pakistan had changed significantly following the World Trade Center incident on September 11, 2001. Pakistan has emerged as an essential player in the fight against psychological oppression, and its role has shifted from minor to central. General Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan's then-President, invited the US to join the global fight against psychological oppression, a critical decision reflecting Pakistan's geostrategic position in the region and the Islamic world. The Pakistan-US relationship grew out of a desire to contribute to the region's harmony, success, and security. The two nations extended assistance to one another, and there was a requirement to make the long link haul feasible, which was critical for the general supportability of the region. This general circumstance has also influenced homegrown aspects and the modification of various strategies with the supported modernization strategy.

DISCUSSION
Due to external and internal factors, Pakistan's international strategy changed after 9/11. The academic literature on the political effects of 9/11 on Pakistan is devoid of logic and predictability. 9/11 influenced Pakistan's domestic and foreign policies, and it was predicted that the significant event would be remembered differently and from a new angle. The idea impacted governmental policies, especially those related to the educational system, in addition to the nation's foreign policy.
The apparent truth is that preparation is crucial when public events occur. Improvement and advancement in education must be achieved by detailed planning, diligent preparation, and significant financial resources allocated to this essential field. Pakistan now allocates only 2% of GDP to training, far less than the international benchmark established for developing countries. As a result of the country missing the UN's focus on the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), the education rate of the country has remained at 58%. While the authorized education rate was set at 88% until 2015, the enrollment proportion in grade schools, which was set at 100 percent, was 57% by the end of the 2011-12 school year. Additionally, education has become a common topic following the devolution of powers to the territories and the adoption of the 18 th Constitutional Amendment in 2010. According to statistics, the education rate in the Punjab territory is 62%, Sindh is 56%, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa is 53%, and Baluchistan is 46%.
History shows that US assistance to Pakistan, whether as a punishment or a reward, has been an ineffective tool for balancing the US and fundamental Pakistani requirements (Cookman & French, 2011). Pakistan might be subject to extremely high tension from the US (IFIs) through international financial institutions. Some strategic experts suggest that the US might use its influence in IFIs to pressure Pakistan, given Pakistan's economic difficulties and its increased need for outside investment. US influence is a result of its participation and voting power in these foundations (Individual Correspondence March 2018). Pakistan has a long history of receiving loans from the IMF, whose most recent bailout totaled $6.6 billion in 2013. (International Monetary Fund, 2013). As a result, it could use its influence over the IMF to separate desired ways of acting since Pakistan will undoubtedly need a bailout as CPEC-related obligations mature (Kugelman, 2017). For instance, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo stated in August 2018 that there is no apparent justification for the US to assist Pakistan with an IMF bailout package in exchange for managing Chinese credits (Rana, 2018a). The new Pakistani government is endeavoring to study its possibilities for settling the economy and has not yet moved to approach the IMF for a bailout (Rana, 2018b).
As a result of the Pakistan-explicit authorizations mandated by the Pressler Amendment, the ten years of decreased participation followed the period of romance between the US and Pakistan during the final ten years of the viral war. Although Pakistan had four legitimately elected legislatures from 1988 to 1998, they primarily focused on minor political concerns, which seriously harmed the nation. In many aspects, it was a lost ten years for Pakistan. When Pakistan exploded six nuclear devices in May 1998 in response to the Indian nuclear explosions in Pokharan, it once again maintained control over all critical strategic locations in South Asia. In response, the US strengthened the sanctions against Pakistan. As a result, both Pakistan's financial situation and the rise of political and racial fanaticism accelerated. The recently liberated Central Asian Republics (CARs) also provided Pakistan with several open financial and trade gateways. Whatever the case, Afghanistan continued to serve as a shaky border between Pakistan and the CARs. Pakistan started assisting the Taliban regime in Afghanistan due to a lack of energy resources and a desire to reach the Central Asian business sectors quickly. Combating Terrorism US holds that Pakistan had to be notify into the fight against terrorism in the wake of September 11. In reality, the two countries have been working together to combat terrorism for almost a decade. Some terrorists' allegation for the 1998 assaults on USA embassies, including Ramzi Yousef, Amil Kansi, and Siddique Odeh, were caught thanks to this collaboration. After the terrorist attacks on September 11, Pakistan's president, Pervez Musharraf, pledged "unreserved support in the fight against terrorism." Therefore, it seemed inevitable that Pakistan would comply with a request from the Bush administration for help in the fight against terrorism. Pakistan has allowed the US to utilize its airspace, provided logistical support (including the use of three air bases), and shared intelligence with the US in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. President Bush lauded Pakistan's contributions to the war on terror in a press conference on February 13, 2002, calling Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf "a leader with extraordinary courage" and calling Pakistan "a major partner in the global coalition against terror." President Musharraf's harsh anti-terrorism measures have targeted 7 Seven terrorist organizations inside Pakistan.
More than two thousand members of these organizations' activist ranks, including their leaders, have been detained, and access to their resources has been cut off. Resistance from these factions has included the kidnapping and murder of Wall Street Journal writer Daniel Pearl. However, the government is still dedicated to eliminating terrorism and "handling it with an iron fist." Pakistan has also sent troops to the border with Afghanistan to capture and bring to justice more than a hundred al Qaeda members. Concurrently, robust procedures have been implemented to fortify banking and financial operations to freeze terrorist funds and prevent future use. While the US has widespread support for its fight against terrorism, it must tread carefully to avoid inflaming coalition relations on several potential points of contention. The first step toward a lasting victory over terrorism for the US is recognizing that its root causes must be addressed.
As President Musharraf highlighted in his address to the UN General Assembly in November 2001, the fight against terrorism must do more than sever the tree's limbs; it must also get at the disease's core.
9 Second, there needs to be a separation between terrorism and the democratic right to selfdetermination fought for by people under foreign rule. Attempts at self-determination by peoples like the Kashmiris and the Palestinians, both of which have been recognized by the UN, have been unfairly tarnished by the false association of these movements with terrorism on the part of some nations. Indeed, both sides in the Palestinian-Kashmiri conflict are responsible for terrorist acts. However, Pakistan, itself a victim of terrorism and the people of Kashmir have consistently condemned those on both sides who are responsible for such atrocities. When many Kashmiris fight for their freedom, it is unfair to designate them all as terrorists.
Just as it is offensive to label terrorists as "Islamic," so too is it offensive to use such a label. Religion is not a justification for terrorism, and no religion condones it. The desire to identify terrorists according to their Islamic ancestry is unproductive because it generates hatred and suspicion between religious communities inside civilizations and encourages the causes that have led to terrorism.

POST 9/11
The events of September 11, 2001, changed the course of history. Following the attacks, President Musharraf swiftly offered the US his full support in the fight against psychological warfare. According to some records, he agreed to more requests than the US Administration had hoped when Secretary Colin Powell recorded them. Musharraf's willingness to compromise too easily and cede too much to the US without fair payback has been a frequent criticism in Pakistan. His direct response was presumably motivated by the realization that the US and Pakistan might put together an interpretation of the extreme religious and terrorist elements expanding in the region. Musharraf was proceeding in that direction. His consistent support for the US, rather than going back and forth, has helped create severe tension points between the US and Pakistan. In light of this, Pakistan has been anticipating a pivotal and active role in the psychological warfare campaign.

The Way Forward
Relations between USA and Pakistan have been renewed since September 11. Their anti-terrorist effort has been highly successful so far. Pakistan's strategic position at Muslim words and within the Muslim world has been bolstered by President Musharraf's decisive decision to join the international. Islamabad and Washington now have overlapping priorities. Encourage restraint in the use of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles in South Asia; foster religious and ethnic harmony; put an end to terrorism; secure Afghanistan's peace and stability; open up the region's energy supplies; mediate tensions between Pakistan and India, especially over the Kashmir conflict; and open up the region's energy markets. Pakistani and American interests are converging, and President Musharraf's visit to the US from February 12 to 14, 2002, a follow-up to their meeting on November 10, 2001, in New York, served to underline this. The Joint Statement and Fact Sheet, signed on November 10, 2001, and January 13, 2002, outline a course for developing bilateral relations. Together, these documents lay out the framework and parameters for how the two countries will interact in the future. Washington has promised to back President Musharraf's efforts to reform Pakistan's educational system and strengthen the country's democratic institutions, providing aid for Pakistan's economic recovery, debt relief, and market access. A Joint Economic Forum, a Defense Consultative Group, and a Joint Working Group on Law Enforcement, including counterterrorism and counternarcotics cooperation, are all examples of the formalization of the two countries' ties in many spheres. Cooperation in the space industry and the advancement of science and technology have also been proposed as avenues for interaction. Both nations agree that a broad-based, multiethnic, representative government in Afghanistan, formed through consensus among Afghans and under the supervision of the UN, is necessary for the country to achieve peace and stability, which will have repercussions for the region and the world at large. They have asked Pakistan and India to negotiate with one other to find a solution to the Kashmir conflict that satisfies both countries and the aspirations of the Kashmiri people. Concerned about the threat posed by the spread of ballistic missiles and other weapons of mass destruction, they have decided to step up their efforts to prevent their spread on a global and regional scale. As such, the bilateral relationship between Pakistan and the US has evolved significantly from its prior one-dimensional nature. The two sides have expressed their resolve to pursue relations that are not dependent on a third problem or nation but are substantial in and of them.

CONCLUSION
Words and promises, however, must be followed by actions. Pakistan, for its part, must follow President Musharraf's agenda for political, economic, and social reform, particularly by reining in religious fanatics who oppose moderation and modernity. The president is responsible for promoting peace, stability, and progress with other countries, particularly Afghanistan and India. However, he can only accomplish progress if his counterparts are willing to listen to his suggestions. Maintaining US involvement with Pakistan, including assisting Pakistan with its reform agenda and developing regional collaboration, is a critical priority. Many Pakistanis recall the 1990s and question whether the US will repeat its past mistakes and leave the region once its war on terrorism is declared or remain engaged with Pakistan.The viability of President Musharraf's vision for Pakistan depends on the success of his economic reform and resurrection programs. It thus raises the question of whether the US will maintain its approach of aiding the government of President Musharraf. Peace and security in South Asia, which would provide Pakistan and the other nations of the region with the political space to develop and expand, will also be decided by the efficacy of Pakistani-U.S. collaboration, especially the degree of U.S. engagement. For reconstruction and rehabilitation to be successful in Afghanistan, the US in particular, must commit to restoring peace and stability there. Prospects for peace between Pakistan and India hinge as much on the accountability and prudence of the two countries as on any U.S. commitment to aid the two neighbors in resolving their difficulties, especially over Kashmir. The US will not achieve its long-term goals in South and Central Asia if it continues to take a passive position and focus only on the war on terrorism.