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

[The Eagle]

@The Eagle

What was wrong with my post.

View attachment 777839

Baseless accusations against Pakistan. And you know that. Period

Regards,

 

[araz]

Here comes the reassessment ! I had called this to happen 10 years ago. Was late by 10 years, but with the US out of region, watch the area get super hot, with PTM, Pashtunistan, Balouch Liberation. Here it comes: (Pakistan needs to be ruthless or else this tiger's tail will be difficult to hold on to)

Could Washington Support Balochistan Independence?

The possibility that a future American administration may try a “Kuwait” solution with Balochistan is growing.

nationalinterest.org

I think there are complexities with this line of thinking. If the US was convinced the time for it was 2010 when it was deeply entrenched in Afghanistan and Pakistan was fighting a war against the TTP. Stoking the fire of separatism from Near by would have been a lot easier than sitting thousand of miles away. Secondly and most importantly the worst fear of the US is the nuclear arsenal falling into rogue elements hands( although that itself can be used as a premise to incite sanctions but I think you can only play a card once and too often the second iteration can backfire). Another important factor is the fencing and mining of borders with Afghanistan and Iran which might make infiltration and support from these areas difficult. You can see how Iran is crying hoarse at the prospect of its porous border with PAKISTAN BEING SEALED OFF. This does reduce the chances of infiltration. On its own Baluchistan accounts for 8% of the Population with Baluchis being less than half of them(Ethnic Pashtuns are also settled in Baluchistan). You just do not have enough mass of people to keep a rebellion going so eventually people will be forced to settle down and make deals individually/collectively. The Chinese have moved into Baluchistan and are deeply invested. They will not allow their investment to be jeopardised and would want the matter resolved one way or another. You may have noticed a regional intelligence officials meeting a few days ago, including Russia,China, Iran, Pakistan and the CA states. I think in the presence of a joint effort to stabilize Pakistan as most nations see it as an opportunity to gain access to warm water ports, it might prove difficult to destabilize Pakistan . On al l the grounds presented, I think US will not go down that route. It might resist access but once procured would actually want to join in to gain from free trade in the region.
A

 

[VCheng]

On al l the grounds presented, I think US will not go down that route. It might resist access but once procured would actually want to join in to gain from free trade in the region.

I have presented my arguments many times before that it is simply not in US national interest to destabilize Pakistan in any way. The only worries that arise come from trends in the persistent and rising inability of its governance structures to deal with internal threats and issues.

 

[mudas777]

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.

I can't seem to get my head round to the statement, then how Syrian, Libyan ISIS and other terrorists are being funded by the US. Should US not be in the black list themselves or these laws and regulations are applied to the Muslim countries alone. Should we amend our religion name a bit and start calling ourselves Moslems so computers can't pick up. FATF is all bull crap at the end, if your economy is weak and you got Nawaz like rulers FATF segregation automatically applies.
If you got IK like PM then why worry you get it done for free, US doesn't even have to pay for it. Before even we brought Taliban to the table we should have a set of demands for the US to full fill as all aid at that point was stopped anyway like FATF removal and Asifa release. Trump could have been told clearly he only going to be president for another 5 years we can wait while US will be spending billion dollars a day if we added bit more petrol to the hot weather and fire and we could be holding the carrot.

 

[VCheng]

I can't seem to get my head round to the statement, then how Syrian, Libyan ISIS and other terrorists are being funded by the US. Should US not be in the black list themselves or these laws and regulations are applied to the Muslim countries alone. Should we amend our religion name a bit and start calling ourselves Moslems so computers can't pick up. FATF is all bull crap at the end, if your economy is weak and you got Nawaz like rulers FATF segregation automatically applies.

As I said before, FATF only ensures compliance with a set of standards for global financing, nothing else. USA meets those standards, and Pakistan is working towards meeting them. If Pakistan thinks FATF is bullcrap, as you opine, then of course it is free to decide whether it wants to participate in the global banking system, or not, and rely on alternative means, which are also available.

 

[mudas777]

As I said before, FATF only ensures compliance with a set of standards for global financing, nothing else. USA meets those standards, and Pakistan is working towards meeting them. If Pakistan thinks FATF is bullcrap, as you opine, then of course it is free to decide whether it wants to participate in the global banking system, or not, and rely on alternative means, which are also available.

Actually US is less in complaint with the list of criteria then Pakistan is and we are still in the grey list that's why its just a political tool for bashing.

 

[Desprado]

@The Eagle i mean can any country bring this old issue and will FATF accept as it is not in agenda of FATF.

I mean will it impact Pakistan performance, which has done everything.

 

[VCheng]

Actually US is less in complaint with the list of criteria then Pakistan is and we are still in the grey list that's why its just a political tool for bashing.

Actually, that part in bold is incorrect. Please present any proof of your contention, thanks. Besides, Pakistan or an other country can raise this issue before FATF if it wishes to do so.

 

[Menace2Society]

This administration has been very rude to you. So strange considering all these years they have wanted a full democracy in Pakistan and now there is one and they are engaging passive aggressively? Do they want an idiotic corrupt tyrant in charge and then they get friendly?

 

[Desprado]

Actually, that part in bold is incorrect. Please present any proof of your contention, thanks. Besides, Pakistan or an other country can raise this issue before FATF if it wishes to do so.

Just want ask no country can bring this Haqanni issue in FATF right and it will not be problem for Pakistan right?

 

[VCheng]

Just want ask no country can bring this Haqanni issue in FATF right and it will not be problem for Pakistan right?

What Haqqani issue are you referring to here? FATF is tasked with compliance with a set of common standards in global financing, that is all. As long as Pakistan meets those standards, there should be no issue at all.

 

[Desprado]

What Haqqani issue are you referring to here? FATF is tasked with compliance with a set of common standards in global financing, that is all. As long as Pakistan meets those standards, there should be no issue at all.

Sir i mean to ask is that FATF will only follow it's giving action plan with Pakistan no country bring other agenda like Haqanni or etc.

 

[mudas777]

Actually, that part in bold is incorrect. Please present any proof of your contention, thanks. Besides, Pakistan or an other country can raise this issue before FATF if it wishes to do so.

I have seen the list on the PDF forum not on this thread and am sure some one can remember it on which FATF thread and please forward to this thread so the gentleman can be satisfied.

 

[VCheng]

Sir i mean to ask is that FATF will only follow it's giving action plan with Pakistan no country bring other agenda like Haqanni or etc.

Of course FATF will follow only its mandate, and that is to ensure compliance with global banking standards. Any country wishing to raise an issue will have to demonstrate how its falls within FATF's purview.

 

[VCheng]

If you got IK like PM then why worry you get it done for free, US doesn't even have to pay for it. Before even we brought Taliban to the table we should have a set of demands for the US to full fill as all aid at that point was stopped anyway like FATF removal and Asifa release. Trump could have been told clearly he only going to be president for another 5 years we can wait while US will be spending billion dollars a day if we added bit more petrol to the hot weather and fire and we could be holding the carrot.

All I can say here, without raising the ire of na maloom afraad, is that Pakistan may have overplayed its hand and importance one too many times. Let us see how things play out in the future for both sides.