Blinken says US will assess Pakistan ties over Afghanistan's future

[Hyde]

It’s nothing surprising we are only partners in US led war and not partners in peace

US does not have any true friend as it does not intend to make one. It only chooses friends and foes to achieve certain goals and friends can be foe after that goal is achieved. The truth is US can never be true friend of Pakistan or any nation in our region as it does not share common interests with us. Our rulers have blindly relied on US in the past and every time they ditched us.. be it 1971 or 1990s and once again it will be in 2022 may be

 

[313ghazi]

Hopefully they decide to cut ties. Maybe even sanction certain individuals with economic interests in Amreeka. Something needs to be done to drag the leaches from sucking the poison of America.

 

[FuturePAF]

While this may not be a popular opinion,

Pakistan has a "multiplicity of interests some that are in conflict with ours."

"It is one that is involved hedging its bets constantly about the future of Afghanistan, it s one that s involved harboring members of the Taliban ... It is one that s also involved in different points cooperation with us on counterterrorism," Blinken said.

“... but also the role we would want to see it play in the coming years and what it will take for it to do that," he said.
The United States and Western countries are in a difficult balancing act in the aftermath of the Taliban s victory - reluctant to recognize the Islamist group while accepting the reality that they will have to engage with them to prevent a looming humanitarian crisis.

It is also considered as one of the two countries, along with Qatar, with the most influence over the Taliban

the most important lines IMHO.

Similar to Qatar, they need help to keep the Taliban in check, to save face at home. The cooperation in counter-terrorism is noted, but just like the Qataris trying to convince the Talibs to have a more inclusive government, they want Pakistan to not recognize them until they at least give some power to the other parts of society in Afghanistan. This US administration needs a final peace it can live with and can be seen to be working with. In this regard, Pakistan would be savvy if it can convince the Talibs to open up minstries to women and more minorities. Even the west knows that it is a Taliban government, but it needs people it can be seen to be working with.

they also want to prevent China from getting un-impeded competition free access to rare earths in Afghanistan, and for Pakistan to advocate for US companies to have access to mine or build transit infrastructure like the TAPI pipeline in Afghanistan. So to get the US to see the potential business opportunities, Pakistani companies should ask the Talibs if they can start open pit mining in a big way, and employing thousands of Afghans. If Afghanistan starts exporting more, and China start operations, US companies can be told that they too can mine if they can get permission from the US government ...

Before this gets blown out of proportion, we should see the two areas that Blinken is hinting at, and IMHO, work to cooperate on those, so we can transition to a more simple mutually beneficial relationship, and prevent the Pak-US relationship from getting derailed by other actors. If it’s on a productive course, in the next months and years to come, it will be harder for a future US administration to derail it. (Pakistan needs to work with this unique US administration in a way that a new hardline Republican government in 2024 is left with a stable fair accompli, and would be doing more harm to overturn the apple cart then to let it keep going along)

should the US carry out punitive measures, such as remove Pakistan from MNNA status or sanctioning high ranking people, it will only harm its own interests in the region, undermining efforts to limit Chinese or Russian influence in the region.

 

[The Eagle]

So in other words, they want Pakistan to ensure US desired outcome in Afghanistan which themselves couldn't achieve in 20 or so years. I don't see Pakistan ever ensuring anything on the scale of such desires of others. Pakistan did support the peace talks & arranged a peaceful environment. What Blinken now say is the same thing over & over again like good cop bad cop. ... carrot & stick but if we look at the track record, once US is out of a trouble; Washington never remember the helping hand. It's just like that the habit of US, as it seems. NO surprise, after all.

 

[Hakikat ve Hikmet]

While this may not be a popular opinion,


the most important lines IMHO.

Similar to Qatar, they need help to keep the Taliban in check, to save face at home. The cooperation in counter-terrorism is noted, but just like the Qataris trying to convince the Talibs to have a more inclusive government, they want Pakistan to not recognize them until they at least give some power to the other parts of society in Afghanistan. This US administration needs a final peace it can live with and can be seen to be working with. In this regard, Pakistan would be savvy if it can convince the Talibs to open up minstries to women and more minorities. Even the west knows that it is a Taliban government, but it needs people it can be seen to be working with.

they also want to prevent China from getting un-impeded competition free access to rare earths in Afghanistan, and for Pakistan to advocate for US companies to have access to mine or build transit infrastructure like the TAPI pipeline in Afghanistan. So to get the US to see the potential business opportunities, Pakistani companies should ask the Talibs if they can start open pit mining in a big way, and employing thousands of Afghans. If Afghanistan starts exporting more, and China start operations, US companies can be told that they too can mine if they can get permission from the US government ...

Before this gets blown out of proportion, we should see the two areas that Blinken is hinting at, and IMHO, work to cooperate on those, so we can transition to a more simple mutually beneficial relationship, and prevent the Pak-US relationship from getting derailed by other actors. If it’s on a productive course, in the next months and years to come, it will be harder for a future US administration to derail it. (Pakistan needs to work with this unique US administration in a way that a new hardline Republican government in 2024 is left with a stable fair accompli, and would be doing more harm to overturn the apple cart then to let it keep going along)

should the US carry out punitive measures, such as remove Pakistan from MNNA status or sanctioning high ranking people, it will only harm its own interests in the region, undermining efforts to limit Chinese or Russian influence in the region.

No US government, till $ dominates, can afford to see any genre of "Al Qaida" type orgs getting their holds in Afganistan, especially from the PR (=peer) pressure POV!! So, Pak, I am pretty sure, will keep on doing what she has to do....

 

[FuturePAF]

So in other words, they want Pakistan to ensure US desired outcome in Afghanistan which themselves couldn't achieve in 20 or so years. I don't see Pakistan ever ensuring anything on the scale of such desires of others. Pakistan did support the peace talks & arranged a peaceful environment. What Blinken now say is the same thing over & over again like good cop bad cop. ... carrot & stick but if we look at the track record, once US is out of a trouble; Washington never remember the helping hand. It's just like that the habit of US, as it seems. NO surprise, after all.

He needs to say something to save Face. His comments were expected to be boilerplate, so what he’s saying isn’t a surprise. as far as being forgotten once US is out of trouble, Pakistan should double down on pivoting to a relations based on Geo-economics; something if done right will create enough growth and profits, that international business can’t ignore it. By international I mean both west and east as well as Russia and Iran. Interconnected and mutually beneficial economics will make nations think twice and prevent conflict.

which is why Pakistan should make sure its rebuilding of Mainline 1 railway is made in such a way as to keep shipping costs as low as possible, and not the fastest passenger speeds. “The transit Quad” ; Uzbekistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-US, was the olive branch Pak-US relations need, and should not be forgotten. Pakistan should be studying the freight rail system in the US and the Indian dedicated freight rail corridors; especially the western one.

 

[Desprado]

This will not impact negatively on Pakistan FATF , where he said we harbored Haqani in Pakistan?

@The Eagle @waz @Reichsmarschall

 

[VCheng]

Pakistan has a "multiplicity of interests some that are in conflict with ours."

Of course it is entitled to that. No nation has a complete alignment of national interests with another. Both USA and Pakistan will work together where there are common interests that can be identified as being important, and not where they are not. It is as simple as that, for both sides, equally.

 

[The Eagle]

This will not impact negatively on Pakistan FATF , where he said we harbored Haqani in Pakistan?

@The Eagle @waz @Reichsmarschall

You mean the usual policing tool to keep pressure?

 

[Desprado]

You mean the usual policing tool to keep pressure?

I mean actual one.

 

[VCheng]

This will not impact negatively on Pakistan FATF , where he said we harbored Haqani in Pakistan?

@The Eagle @waz @Reichsmarschall

FATF is there only to ensure that all nations that choose to participate in the global banking system follow a set of similar procedures to prevent financing of terrorist organizations, that is all. Every nation is free to decide whether to participate or not. The FATF requirements are applicable only if a country decides to participate. Therefore, it is up to Pakistan to decide what it wants to do, and what conditions to comply with if it wants to participate.

 

[Desprado]

@The Eagle do reply the one assement impact and pressure tactics impact as well.

FATF is there only to ensure that all nations that choose to participate in the global banking system follow a set of similar procedures to prevent financing of terrorist organizations, that is all. Every nation is free to decide whether to participate or not. The FATF requirements are applicable only if a country decides to participate. Therefore, it is up to Pakistan to decide what it wants to do, and what conditions to comply with if it wants to participate.

But this have any impact on state of Haqani one even if we continue to participate?

 

[The Eagle]

I mean actual one.

Yeah a system designed for particular nations as an influencing tool to legalize the pressuring & meddling in affairs. Otherwise, how much of the other countries including top Westerners or US to be precisely supporting several organizations but in the name of the lame tactical strategy.

 

[VCheng]

But this have any impact on state of Haqani one even if we continue to participate?

If Pakistan chooses to meet FATF standards, then of course it will continue to participate. The Haqqani issue is not directly relevant here.

 

[SuvarnaTeja]

@The Eagle

What was wrong with my post.