Washington, Feb 18 (NationPress) Despite a more favorable appearance and elevated interactions over the previous year, the core of the US-Pakistan relationship remains fundamentally unchanged, a prominent expert on South Asia remarked, cautioning that the symbolism has yet to yield any significant economic or military benefits for Islamabad.

Pakistan's involvement in the forthcoming Board of Peace meeting is being portrayed in Islamabad as proof of revitalized connections with Washington. However, Aparna Pande from the esteemed Hudson Institute indicated that this shift is more about symbolism than any structural changes.

“This visit is primarily for attending the Board of Peace meeting,” she explained, emphasizing that the Pakistani delegation would likely highlight “the altered US-Pakistan relationship from last year” and the “closer personal ties” between the Pakistani Prime Minister, the Army chief, and President Trump.

Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif is expected to arrive in Washington this week to take part in the inaugural meeting of the Board of Peace, convened by Trump.

Islamabad is also anticipated to underscore trade relations and may pursue a bilateral discussion on the sidelines. “Whether this bilateral meeting occurs remains to be seen,” she remarked.

“Symbolically, the relationship appears strong,” Pande noted. “However, substantively, I don’t believe much has altered in the last year to year and a half within Pakistan.”

Regarding Gaza, she mentioned that Pakistan has historically sought to “assume a role in any Muslim-majority nation and in matters concerning Muslims and the Muslim Ummah.” Participation in the Board of Peace as well as involvement in Gaza would, to some extent, be welcomed domestically.

However, she set clear boundaries. “As long as Pakistani forces are strictly there for peacekeeping and do not engage with local civilians,” it would be acceptable. If they were “expected to dismantle Hamas and engage in actual combat,” it would “not be viewed positively by the Pakistani populace.”

Pande expressed that if Pakistani troops were perceived as “pro-Israel rather than supportive of the Palestinian citizens, it wouldn’t reflect well.” Overall, while “symbolically it may appear favorable,” Islamabad would seek clarity on the role its forces are expected to play in any international stabilization initiative in Gaza.

On internal political matters, she stated that members of Congress “might pose questions,” but “I don’t believe the Trump administration will raise any concerns… as it doesn’t hold significance for them.”

Pande asserted that Pakistan has “effectively leveraged its geographical position… to serve the current American administration’s interests in Iran and Gaza.” From Islamabad’s viewpoint, this regional utility should lead to bilateral advantages.

“Currently, this has resulted in mere symbolism and some investment announcements… but has not delivered more,” she stated. She highlighted frustration in Pakistan, referencing a recent comment by the country’s defense minister describing Pakistan as being “used like a toilet roll by the United States.”

Regarding military relations, she was straightforward. “This administration isn’t inclined to provide high-end military equipment. Pakistan will need to procure it.” While nations like Saudi Arabia or Turkey could potentially fund such acquisitions, “Pakistan lacks the economic means for this.”

On the economic side, she mentioned that American firms “may invest in critical minerals,” but many resources are located in Balochistan, where “the insurgency… deters many companies from entering a country that does not guarantee their safety.”