What's new

Barack Obama's secret offer to Pakistan over Kashmir, claims book

shuntmaster

BANNED
Joined
Nov 10, 2010
Messages
2,916
Reaction score
-26
Country
Malaysia
Location
Australia
Barack Obama's secret offer to Pakistan over Kashmir, claims book

Washington: US President Barack Obama secretly offered Pakistan in 2009 that he would nudge India towards negotiations on Kashmir in lieu of it ending support to terrorist groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba and Taliban, but much to his disappointment Islamabad rejected the offer.

"Since the 1950s Pakistan had wanted an American role in South Asia. Now it was being offered one. In the end, Pakistan would have to negotiate the Kashmir issue directly with India. But at least now the American president was saying that he would nudge the Indians toward those negotiations," Pakistan's former Ambassador to the US Husain Haqqani writes in his book 'Magnificent Delusions', which hit the stores today.

This is Haqqani's interpretation of the secret letter written by President Obama to the then President Asif Ali Zardari, which was personally hand delivered by his then National Security Advisor Gen (rtd) James Jones.

The letter's content is for the first time being disclosed by Haqqani, the then Pakistan's envoy to the US.

In his book, spread over 300 pages, Haqqani writes that in November 2009, Jones travelled to Islamabad to hand deliver a letter written by Obama to Zardari.

Dated November 11, 2009, through the letter Obama offered Pakistan to become America's "long-term strategic" partner. The letter "even hinted at addressing Pakistan's oft-stated desire for a settlement of the Kashmir dispute," he writes.

"Obama wrote that the United States would tell countries of the region that 'the old ways of doing business are no longer acceptable'. He acknowledged that some countries - a reference to India - had used 'unresolved disputes to leave open bilateral wounds for years or decades. They must find ways to come together'," Haqqani writes.

"But in an allusion to Pakistan, he (Obama) said, 'Some countries have turned to proxy groups to do their fighting instead of choosing a path of peace and security. The tolerance or support of such proxies cannot continue'," the former diplomat writes quoting from the letter.

"I am committed to working with your government to ensure the security of the Pakistani state and to address threats to your security in a constructive way," the book says, citing Obama's letter to Zardari.

"He (Obama) asked for cooperation in defeating Al Qaeda, Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan, Lashkar-e-Taiba, the Haqqani network, the Afghan Taliban and the assorted other militant groups that threaten security. Obama then wrote of his 'vision for South Asia', which involved 'new patterns of cooperation between and among India, Afghanistan and Pakistan to counter those who seek to create permanent tension and conflict on the subcontinent'," Haqqani wrote.
 
Question is not of the offers. Question is whether they are trustworthy. 
P.S Learn where to post threads already.. this is a Kashmir related issue and belongs in that section.
 
Question is not of the offers. Question is whether they are trustworthy.
Why did Pakistan reject the offer?
How could Pakistan decide whether the offer was trustworthy or not?
 
Why did Pakistan reject the offer?
How could Pakistan decide whether the offer was trustworthy or not?

Because there was no guarantee on whether the US would actually carry out its promise. And the US has a sketchy history with Pakistan on carrying out promises.
 
Because there was no guarantee on whether the US would actually carry out its promise. And the US has a sketchy history with Pakistan on carrying out promises.


What was there in the promise? An offer to make India, post 26/11, open to negotiation on Kashmir? That would have done what? Most Pakistanis don't seem to get it that if the U.S. is unable to get Pakistani to do what it(U.S.) wants in Afghanistan, on terror groups, what realistic chance would the U.S. or anyone else have of influencing a much larger India? Pakistanis keep harping on 3rd party mediation , on international pressure on India, without being able to comprehend this simple fact.
 
Because there was no guarantee on whether the US would actually carry out its promise. And the US has a sketchy history with Pakistan on carrying out promises.
and Vice Versa..
 
loli pop offered in return of leaving the stretegic accets and chaos in the whole nation.what an offer.amazing.waah oh obama shabash hai
 
American Government cannot be trusted. They are nothing but double dealing lying SOB's in the US Government.
 
Because there was no guarantee on whether the US would actually carry out its promise. And the US has a sketchy history with Pakistan on carrying out promises.
Whether US honours it's promise or not, but supporting terrorists group is, how do i put it, cowardice... Any way, thanks for acknowledging that pakistan supports terrorist groups...
 
Question is not of the offers. Question is whether they are trustworthy. 
P.S Learn where to post threads already.. this is a Kashmir related issue and belongs in that section.

When it comes to straight business, something akin to barter, then it is less about trust and more about the potency of deliverance.

I would be surprised if Pakistani statesmen would take American offers as potent ones, when it concerns India, Pakistan, and Kashmir. It is not Nixon's era when the White House could so easily override the consensus of the Congressional Hall. I would say Pakistan's reaction did not take into account Obama's commitment to his word and to the settlement of the region, rather it was more a reflection of Obama's potency vis a vis Kashmir issue. It's nothing about trust.

When they promise what they cannot deliver, why pay any attention at all?
 
Whether US honours it's promise or not, but supporting terrorists group is, how do i put it, cowardice... Any way, thanks for acknowledging that pakistan supports terrorist groups...

The Chinese brand Tibetian nationalists as terrorists. So in their view India is a terrorist supporter as well. And I am not blinded by jingoism or hate to not acknowledge that Pakistan has and does to an extent support/allow terrorism to breed on its soil. But that takes guile and honesty , do you have that? 
When it comes to straight business, something akin to barter, then it is less about trust and more about the potency of deliverance.

I would be surprised if Pakistani statesmen would take American offers as potent ones, when it concerns India, Pakistan, and Kashmir. It is not Nixon's era when the White House could so easily override the consensus of the Congressional Hall. I would say Pakistan's reaction did not take into account Obama's commitment to his word and to the settlement of the region, rather it was more a reflection of Obama's potency vis a vis Kashmir issue. It's nothing about trust.

When they promise what they cannot deliver, why pay any attention at all?

That is quite relevant as well, but the issue of trust is another matter that does prevail in US Pakistan relations and so perhaps the decision was a mix of both. After all, as such the International community cannot do much regarding Kashmir other than ask for India to promote greater transparency. Yet Pakistan continues to make efforts to bring attention onto the issue which means that there is a policy statement that sees some benefit(unbeknownst to me) of keeping international attention on Kashmir.
 
The Chinese brand Tibetian nationalists as terrorists. Do in their view India is a terrorist supporter as well. And I am not blinded by jingoism or hate to not acknowledge that Pakistan has and does to an extent support/allow terrorism to breed on its soil. But that takes guile and honesty , do you have that?
None of the Tibetan groups are declared terrorist organisation. But LeT and the ilk are. That is the difference.
 
Because there was no guarantee on whether the US would actually carry out its promise. And the US has a sketchy history with Pakistan on carrying out promises.

NO.... the primary reason for rejection could be the condition put across was by Obama.... Control LeT aka strategic assets.....
 
Why did Pakistan reject the offer?
How could Pakistan decide whether the offer was trustworthy or not?
The answer is simple. Pakistan's foreign policy especially in regard to India and Afghanistan is run by the PA and not the government of Pakistan. The PA is NOT really interested in solving the Kashmir dispute as keeping the dispute simmering serves the Pakistan Army's Raison d'être for its very existence . Without this issue, the PA would be sidelined, affecting its military budget and also it's hold on the State.

Then there is the Zia doctrine of 'bleeding India with a thousand cuts' as revenge for Pakistan's 1971 disaster. This cannot be accomplished by any conventional means but by using militant organizations as proxies to fight the Army's 'war' against India, never mind even if this results in no more than pin pricks where India is concerned.

In a nut shell, where the PA is concerned, solving Kashmir is not the issue. It is retribution for the 1971 debacle when India split Pakistan.
 
The Chinese brand Tibetian nationalists as terrorists. So in their view India is a terrorist supporter as well. And I am not blinded by jingoism or hate to not acknowledge that Pakistan has and does to an extent support/allow terrorism to breed on its soil. But that takes guile and honesty , do you have that? 


That is quite relevant as well, but the issue of trust is another matter that does prevail in US Pakistan relations and so perhaps the decision was a mix of both. After all, as such the International community cannot do much regarding Kashmir other than ask for India to promote greater transparency. Yet Pakistan continues to make efforts to bring attention onto the issue which means that there is a policy statement that sees some benefit(unbeknownst to me) of keeping international attention on Kashmir.

They have taken asylum in India and we dont arm them and talk against china or allow them to conduct any anti chinese activity in India.if granting asylum is supporting terrorism.i dont know what to say.

If the offer was true and was rejected because of lack of trust..an NS going to US recently and asking for help to resolve the Kashmir issue ,both these dont add up....
 
Back
Top Bottom