What's new

Can we trust the Americans?

Muse,

I have not excused the faults and flaws of Pakistan herself, and there is no question that we need to cold heartedly pursue our interests, no point babbling about 'building trust' and 'friendship between nations' or any such idealism. But that does not mean we allow this facade of a benevolent US playing the nice, stern grand pappy with good intentions for the world to continue either.
 
Last edited:
.
In International relations there is no such thing as trust only national interests and the country which safe guards its national interests in the end is winner.

Stop trusting others and have trust in yourself.:hitwall:
 
. .
RAW is supporting the Taliban in Pakistan. This is an article detailing their involvement and the proof is the militants who have admitted to it themselves
this article doesn't support the assertion that RAW gave money to these 3 terrorists. all it offers is heresay (actually, its heresay of heresay). where is the cash? where are the paper trails? and what could "[the militants] took a lot of time to break in and make confessions" mean??? you had the opportunity to introduce an ignorant american to the atrocities of raw and you picked a forcemeat article like this to do it? that journalist shouldn't be allowed to airbrush a comic strip.

also, you can address me by name and my nation as america or usa. no more "you guys". america has official policies, they are debated even here. i don't know why the u.s. violated non-proliferation and allowed india to get the bomb. i am curious to learn more about the indo-pakistani wars in the military history forum. looking back at your article, it appears pakistan ought to veer away from hiring off-duty bounty hunters (or were they on-duty?) to execute intelligence operations if it expects the world to trust it with nuclear bombs.
 
Last edited:
.
IMO sooner or later we have to fight; so far we are trying to prevent war but I am not seeing these efforts will succeed coz India is blocking the water of Pakistan and US is equally supporting them by increasing pressure from the west. Now how long can we bear this?
 
.
My reading of the situation is that Zardari miscalculated. He thought that by screaming "default" and asking for 100 billion dollars, and for pakistan to be "saved", his words would jog international friends, partners and institutions into handing Pakistan a lifeline. By doing so, he instead showed how weak Pakistan are, and a subsequent "hardening" of attitudes followed.

It should be remembered, even if you apply a loan for your home or business, if you sound poor, meek and humble, you probably won't get it. However, if you come across as strong, astute, and give the impression you don't really need it, you will surely get it.

Zardari's cry showed how desperate we were, and now US and allies are trying to leverage as much as they can, and squeeze the lemond dry, so to speak.
darkStar, my friend, the US, IMF and World Bank know more about our financial condition than probably our own finance Minister.

I’m sure you know who Shaukat Aziz was and why he was appointed Finance Minister.


 
Last edited by a moderator:
.
I have not excused the faults and flaws of Pakistan herself, and there is no question that we need to cold heartedly pursue our interests, no point babbling about 'building trust' and 'friendship between nations' or any such idealism. But that does not mean we allow this facade of a benevolent US playing the nice, stern grand pappy with good intentions for the world to continue either.


What facade? On the other hand we do not need to be belicose - we have a serious range of choices available between obsequious and belicose.


Look, even you go back to earliest posts, you will note that I for one am no fan of this "relationship" between US and Pakistan --- The relationship failed/ended, the day the US allowed the NA to enter Kabul.

On the other hand, as long as Pakistan decided to pursue relations with the US and not build relations based primarily on trade, it allowed itself to be placed in a position where it would remain vulnerable to it's structural problems.

US is, or at least was, a benign power, perhaps not towards Pakistan, but US has it's own structural problems and it can not, repeat, can not, have meaningful relations with any Muslim majority country, particularly, Pakistan --however; Pakistan's relations with China (recall when we were first warned of problems in that relationship), it's problematic reationship with Saudi and Gulf states, it's non-relations with EU -- have led it to trek "the long and winding road" (sorry could not resist that reference, it just seemed apt)

Why do you suppose China, Saudi and Gulf countries do not want to help?? Perhaps the investors in these countries are leaning on their governments to get them answers from this government about the state of their investment?
 
.
CIA, Pakistan set to bury the hatchet

Mutual suspicion and mistrust may be forgotten with recent victories over Taliban and al-Qaida

Jonathan Manthorpe, Vancouver Sun

Wednesday, October 29, 2008

Efforts to construct this week a working relationship between America's Central Intelligence Agency and Pakistan's Directorate of Inter-Service Intelligence (ISI) will be eased by what appear to be significant battlefield victories against the Taliban and al-Qaida.

General Ahmed Shuja Pasha, the new head of Pakistan's intelligence and security service, ISI, is in Washington to meet his CIA counterpart Michael Hayden in an attempt to bury the mutual suspicion and mistrust that has undermined joint operations against al-Qaida and Taliban forces holed up in Pakistan's lawless border region with Afghanistan.

The spy chiefs' meeting to set out terms for strategic cooperation comes as America's highly regarded General David Petraeus takes over as the new United States strategic commander in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

The meetings between Pasha and Hayden will be buoyed by reports from Pakistan's border region that recent attacks by missiles fired from American unmanned, radio-controlled Predator aircraft have killed at least four senior al-Qaida and Taliban leaders.

The Americans have dramatically increased their use of the unmanned drones for attacks against militants in recent weeks after a raid from Afghanistan by U.S. special forces on September 3 drew public outrage in Pakistan. More important, Washington was publicly rebuked by the head of the Pakistani army, Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani whose help NATO forces in Afghanistan need to eradicate the militants' safe havens.

On October 16 a Predator drone attack in Pakistan's South Waziristan tribal area killed Khalid Habib, reputedly appointed by Osama bin Laden in January as chief of al-Qaida in Pakistan and listed by the CIA as fourth in the organization's hierarchy.

Khalid's mandate was to cement ties between al-Qaida, the Taliban and the increasingly important domestic insurgency in Pakistan that has grown in reaction to government assaults on militant strongholds in the tribal border regions.

On Sunday there appears to have been an even more successful Predator drone attack on another compound in South Waziristan.

Reports from different sources, each with their own links in the region, indicate that three local militant leaders were killed.

One set of reports says Sunday's attack on a compound near the territorial capital Wana killed 20 people including Eida Khan and Wahweed Ullah, both with records of leading attacks against NATO forces in Afghanistan.

Khan and Ullah were linked to Jalaluddin Haqqani, a senior Taliban leader associated with al-Qaida and near the top of the CIA's list of targets. Several attempts have been made to kill Haqqani using drone-fired missiles, but without success though several members of his family and some of his leading followers have died.

Other reports from the area say another victim of Sunday's attack was Mohammad Omar, a top Taliban commander closely linked to Nek Mohammed, another Taliban leader, killed in a U.S. Predator strike four years ago.

Washington identified Pakistan as an essential ally very soon after the September 2001 terrorist attacks on America and confirmation that al-Qaida's sanctuary was in Afghanistan. But despite pledges of loyalty and assistance form the Pakistani government, Washington and its allies saw clear evidence that ISI was protecting and assisting the Taliban.

NATO resentment at the duplicity of ISI boiled over in July when it was clear the Pakistani spy agency had a hand in the terror bombing of India's embassy in the Afghan capital Kabul.

Army commander Kayani immediately replaced the ISI chief with Pasha and four generals with prior knowledge of the embassy bombing were removed.

The events of this week and the last few days thus appear to represent a fresh start in a conflict that has already lasted over seven years.

jmanthorpe@vancouversun.com
 
.

WAJID NAEEMUDDIN

ARTICLE (November 04 2008): Let us see how far is the brave Parliamentary
Resolution for a review of our policy on the "war against terrorism" and other related matters, is allowed to make progress, especially after its subsequent reinforcement by a Senate resolution.

It is a pity that President Zardari and Prime Minister Gilani, just as Musharraf before them, have already committed the country to be America's partner in its "war against terror" and have repeatedly, during their visits to that country, and on several other occasions, owned up the war as "our own war" in parrot-like reiteration.

Thus there is much to repudiate and a great deal to live down, before our policy can change tracks. As for America, it has made its "point of view" abundantly clear by a missile attack on our soil on the very day the Parliament passed its resolution pledging to protect the country's sovereignty and asking the government to "repel" armed intrusions into the country.

One cannot forget that there was a similar attack on our soil during our President's visit to America during which President Zardari expressed his appreciation (how out of synch one can get?) of America's help in Pakistan's war against terror. The attacks have continued relentlessly despite all and even after the President and the Prime Minister have (at last, belatedly) spoken unequivocally against them.

Ever since one can remember, whenever there was any move for a dialogue with the "Taliban" or "militants" or "miscreants" or "terrorists" or "extremists" (take your choice), there were immediate rumblings of strong protest and reproach from Condoleezza Rice, or Robert Gates (Secretary of State of USA and her deputy, respectively), among other functionaries of the US Government.

"How can you talk to people who should be fought against and eliminated" they questioned and chided in effect. Several times the dialogue process got off to a promising start and a welcome and promising lull in suicide attack and assaults on military check-posts was seen.

Especially following elections in the country and formation of a civilian government and a strong initiative by the ANP government in the NWFP, there was a cessation of hostilities which lasted the best part of two months. But then, inexplicably, things started to go sour. Attacks, of all the people, on ANP leaders and ANP government which had started the reconciliation process, can only be interpreted as a master stroke of sabotage activity.

From past experience we can at least strongly suspect that FBI and CIA of America, through overt and covert activities, directly and through paid agents and mercenaries, are busy over time to kill any move towards reconciliation between Taliban and many other disparate groups on the one hand and the Government of Pakistan on the other. This is no idle conjecture.

Students of political upheavals in Iran, for example, will recall how, over a quarter of a century ago, street demonstrations in support of popularly elected Prime Minister Mossadegh (who was to be punished for nationalising the Anglo Iranian Oil Company) were brutally put down and disrupted by muscle men in the pay of CIA, so that the increasingly unpopular Shah could continue his brutal reign.

These admissions were made in a documentary "The End of An Empire" produced in the West, which has a tradition of clearing its conscience by admitting to its misdeeds thirty or forty years after its illegal and immoral deeds have served their momentary purpose!

IPI PIPELINE - THE SPANNER IN THE WORKS! Another area in which America is playing the role of Pakistan's arch-enemy is the proposed IPI pipeline project which is to bring Iran's surplus gas to Pakistan and possibly onwards to India for the two energy-starved countries. Its implementation could be an ideal, cost-effective solution to Pakistan's desperate need for energy in a relatively short time frame.

Talks on a pipeline from Iran across Balochistan in Pakistan and then on to India (IPI) have been going on since the mid nineties ie for over a decade now, but have remained inconclusive. America has been strongly opposed to the project as part of its policy of trying to isolate Iran, which country (under Israel's relentless pressure and all-encompassing influence) it keeps at the top of its hate list.

America is bothered that a pipeline to Pakistan and India from Iran would not only bring income to Iran but also create a bond between the three countries which runs counter to American (read Israeli) policy of isolating Iran. Parallel with its opposition to the IPI pipeline America has been trying to persuade Pakistan to go for other options for its desperate energy needs.

One such option, the Turkmen-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India pipeline project (TAPI), has moved much faster than IPI despite being less feasible from Pakistan's point of view than the IPI project. Faced with its desperate need for energy Pakistan appeared at one time to have resolved to brave America's displeasure and to finally move decisively on this much delayed project as well.

Accordingly, in April 08 Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made a stopover visit to Pakistan and had high profile meetings with our president and prime minister. The visit it was thought, had removed any existing hitches in the IPI agreement, allowing the highly feasible project to be launched in 2009 and gas from Iran to be on tap in Pakistan in 2012. All this appears to have been put on the back-burner, for now.

Not surprisingly ADB is agreeable to financing the TAPI project but for financing the IPI project Pakistan and Iran must fend for themselves. The long hand of America is also seen at work in this difficulty. None of the major financial institutions in the world can move without America's approval.

WILLY-NILLY TO IMF, HANDS AND FEET BOUND At one time in the not-too-distant-past we celebrated our "escape" from the need to go to IMF. And now IMF is being approached as the court of last resort to help us get back from the default precipice. There is much confusion about IMF's potential for help or harm to Pakistan. Some herald it as the savior and a panacea to all our current financial problems, while others see it as harbinger of disaster for a great majority of the people of Pakistan.

While some of the conditionalities of IMF may be considered to be bitter medicine - painful but necessary for putting a belated check on the free spending habits, luxurious life styles and corruption of our ruling classes, past and present - the one calling for end to subsidies will bring misery to a large section of our population and could lead to large scale riots, a "trailer" of which was seen only recently across the country in several cities when power rates were raised while load-shedding was rampant.

Our failure lies in our inability to communicate to our friends in the West (assuming we can give them the benefit of doubt) that unlike in their countries, poor and unemployed people in Pakistan and other developing countries do not have the luxury of hefty social welfare payments to cushion the impact of abolition of subsidies.

Withdrawal of subsidies on power, gas and food items at this time would be a cruel, unacceptable step which has the potential to tear the fabric of our society through violent, spontaneous, uncontrolled protests. Unfortunately the "Friends of Pakistan" club, the World Bank, ADB, Saudi Arabia and others will not give us any help in cash or kind till IMF gives its nod.

If President Zardari had any hope that Pakistan's senior partner on the war against terror would bail it out in this time of distress, such hopes were dashed. Just look at America's hypocrisy and double standards.

Only recently Sarah Palin the Vice Presidential candidate had to face charges that as Governor of Alaska "she charged the state for her children to travel with her, including to events where they were not invited, and later amended expense reports to specify that they were on official business", in all a matter of $21,012.

It is the same America whose government under Bush brokered the NRO deal between Musharraf and the present rulers, which allowed corrupt people in the country to go scot-free with their alleged loot running into billions of Dollars! And now America treads the high ground in administering IMF's bitter medicine to us.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom