Joint sitting of Parliament today to discuss new terms for Pak-US relations

[Hyde]

Joint sitting of Parliament today

The joint session of the parliament will be held today to discuss new terms for Pak-US relations.

Both the houses of the Parliament will meet Tuesday forenoon at a joint sitting to discuss the recommendations of the Parliamentary Committee on National Security to revisit relations with the United States and NATO.

Speaker of the National Assembly Dr Fehmida Mirza will chair the session summoned by President Asif Ali Zardari in exercise of powers conferred upon him under Clause (1) of Article 54 of the Constitution.

During the sitting, expected to continue for three days, the Parliament will discuss about new terms of engagement with the US and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).

It is for the first time since suspension of the NATO supplies after killing of around two-dozen Pakistani military personnel at Salala check post in Mohmand Agency near Pak-Afghan border that the joint sitting of the Parliament is going to discuss the future dynamism of relations.

Source: Dunya News: Pakistan:-Joint sitting of Parliament today...

 

[Icewolf]

They can spend so much time on discussing US-Pak relations, but cannot spend one minute discussing what our nation has become because of democracy.

 

[Hyde]

US to monitor parliamentary review debate

US to watch Pakistani parliament's review of bilateral relations with interest.

The US State Department s spokesperson, Victoria Nuland was asked Monday about the US administration s expectations as the parliament in Islamabad from Tuesday starts discussing the best way forward for Pakistan’s relations with U.S.

"We will obviously watch the parliamentary debate with interest, and we look forward to re-engaging with the Government of Pakistan when it has a sense of the results of that review," she stated.

On the time elapsed during the review process, she said the US had no issues with it. "We have said that we will give Pakistan the time and the space to have this parliamentary review," Ms Nuland pointed out.

Referring to President Zardari s address to the joint parliamentary session on Saturday, she said "President Zardari made a speech underscoring the importance of the relationship that we have together."

"One of the points in Pakistani discussions is that it has paid a heavy price in fighting terrorists along the Afghan border and its soldiers and civilians have been killed. And there is not enough acknowledgment of its role and the sacrifices it has made. What do you think about this point, which is discussed a lot in Pakistani media and think tanks?," asked a reporter during the briefing.

"Well, a point that we make almost every time we talk about the importance of US-Pakistani counter-terrorism cooperation is how much Pakistan has suffered -– its civilians as victims of terror and its soldiers in trying to defeat terror," the spokesperson acknowledged.

"So we understand the risk to Pakistani society, and that is among the reasons why we are so intent on trying to help and trying to work together to beat this scourge," she asserted.

The parliamentary review of the relationship with US started after the NATO attack on Salala check-post on November 26 last year that killed 24 Pakistani soldiers. Pakistan has since closed down ground supply routes for NATO from its territory in protest besides going for the overall review of the nature of bilateral ties.

Source: Dunya News: Pakistan:-US to monitor parliamentary review debate...

 

[VCheng]

This debate (and its eventual outcome) is crucial for moving forward. Let's see what comes of it.

 

[kuo724]

let's see what will happen

 

[VCheng]

The complete story is at: Parliament sets out to reorder US ties | Newspaper | DAWN.COM

but a few comments on the recommendations listed therein:

In brief, the committee recommendations are:

It was previously reported that there are 23 recommendations. Does anybody know of the complete list or are some recommendations being kept secret?

Pakistan’s sovereignty “shall not be compromised” and Pakistan-US relationship should be based on mutual respect, independence and territorial integrity of each other.

Noble words.

“The US must review its footprints in Pakistan” and that would mean cessation of drone attacks inside Pakistan’s territorial borders, “no hot pursuit or boots” on Pakistani territory, and activity of foreign private security contractors to be transparent and subject to Pakistani law.

Cessation of drone attacks is not likely unless there is a proper operation mounted by the Paksitan side. Enforcing the law for private contractors is an internal matter for Paksitan.

Pakistan’s nuclear programme and assets cannot be compromised and Pakistan should seek a treaty or facility similar to Indo-US civil nuclear agreement, and that Pakistan’s strategic position vis-à-vis India on the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty must not be compromised.

Pakistan can seek a treaty on the basis of parity with India, but it is not going to get it.

The government of Pakistan should seek an unconditional US apology for the Nov 25-26 raid on Salala border posts in addition to bringing those responsible to justice, assurances and effective measures to prevent such attacks, parliamentary approval for any use of Pakistani bases by foreign forces, and drafting new flying rules by the defence ministry/PAF and Isaf/US/Nato for areas contiguous to the border.

Military regrets have already been communicated. A formal apology from the President is unlikely in the middle of an election year, but a more soothing statement is very likely coming from the high military command. The measures to prevent another Salala-like incident are already being implemented and will be increased further in effectiveness once Paksitanis are back on board, I am sure.

Parliamentary approval for use of foreign bases is an internal matter for Pakistan, if the armed forces are willing to give up this authority exercised up till now by them exclusively. The new flying rules are a good idea, providing they can be enforced and take into account surveillance and counter-measure overflights.

Any consideration regarding reopening Nato/Isaf/US supply routes “must be contingent upon a thorough revision of the terms and conditions of the arrangement, including regulation and control of movement of goods and personnel which shall be subject to strict monitoring within Pakistan on entry, transit and exit points”. No verbal agreements regarding national security to be entered, and, regarding use of Pakistan’s territory by US/Nato/Isaf for logistic purposes, the government should revisit a memorandum of understanding (MOU) signed with the United Kingdom on June 19, 2002 and renew, if required, with new terms and conditions, another MOU signed with the US defence department on Feb 9, 2002.

New MOUs would be a good idea.

No overt or covert operations inside Pakistan to be tolerated.

What cannot be cured must be endured. If covert operations are not to be "tolerated", what could be the realistic response?

Any new agreements or MOUs, including military cooperation and logistics, to be circulated by the foreign ministry to all concerned ministries and attached departments for their views, to be vetted by the law ministry and PCNS, and the concerned ministers to make policy statements in both houses of parliament.

Again, this is an internal matter for apportioning authority between the armed forces and civil government structures.

Prior permission and transparency on the number and presence of foreign intelligence operators in Pakistan.

Totally naive demand, with no practical idea of how it might be implemented.

Fifty per cent of US/Isaf/Nato containers he handled through Pakistan Railways.

Good idea to force the improvement of Railways.

Taxes and other charges to be levied on all goods imported in, or transiting through, Pakistan “for use of infrastructure and to compensate for its deterioration”.

Just pay Pakistan more. Good strategy, specially if it leads to infrastructure improvements.

Pakistan must actively pursue greater market access for its exports to the US, other Nato countries and global markets.

That it must do anyway. Duh!

“In the battle for hearts and minds, an inclusive process based on primacy of dialogues and reconciliation should be adopted and efforts be made to promote a genuine national reconciliation in an Afghan-led and Afghan-owned process.

Adopted by whom?

Pakistani territory not to be used for attacks on other countries and all foreign fighters to be expelled.

All fighters, or only "foreign" fighters? What about "indigenous" fighters?

A fast-track process of billing and payments with regard to what is called Coalition Support Fund and other leviable charges be adopted.

Good idea. Any plans for auditing these accounts by both sides?

The government needs to review the present foreign policy focus keeping in view people’s aspirations, including a continuing focus on creating a peaceful environment in the region, result-oriented dialogue with India on issues including Kashmir, deepening strategic partnership with China, further strengthening relations with Russia, support for peace in Afghanistan and active pursuance of gas pipeline project with Iran.

Kashmir is not going to be part of the Afghan solution, and the IP gas line is likely not going to be built either. Dialogue with India and building relations with Russia and China are good goals, but what has that to do with US-Pakistan bilateral relations?

Having said that, the carefully worded responses of the US ambassador should be kept in mind.

Excerpt from: Munter to reply

Ambassador Cameron Munter said on Tuesday the United States would wait for the conclusion of parliamentary debate on Pak-US relationship and would respond “openly and honestly”.

But he acknowledged that while “some of things are not gonna be easy”, it was important for Washington and Islamabad to “re-set and recalibrate” some of the processes important to the two countries.

.........................

But when asked about Pakistan’s demands for an end to drone strikes in the tribal regions and an unconditional apology for the attack on the Salala checkpost, Ambassador Munter acknowledged those issues could prove to be difficult to overcome.

.............

“None of things you mentioned are gonna be easy,” he said, adding that both countries needed to work together to find ways acceptable to them.

Asked if the US would offer an apology for the Salala incident, Mr Munter said that US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen Martin Dempsy and Secretary Clinton had expressed their regret and sorrow over what he described was an “accident” that had not been done on purpose.

However, he said, the US would deal with it when the parliament concluded its discussion.

..........................

Saying that the US had given $ 2 billion assistance to Pakistan since 2009, Mr Munter argued that no assistance programme could fix Pakistan. “Pakistan has to fix Pakistan”, he remarked, adding that it required honest and competent leadership to show the way forward.

 

[Jango]

I laughed at this part ''Pakistan’s sovereignty “shall not be compromised” and Pakistan-US relationship should be based on mutual respect, independence and territorial integrity of each other.

As if Pakistan can harm the territorial integrity of the US!

But the words are right, the idea is there, let's see if it can be implemented.

 

[VCheng]

A good editorial in Dawn:

Excerpts from: Seoul meeting | Newspaper | DAWN.COM

We hope that both Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani and President Barack Obama realise what is at stake when they meet in Seoul on Tuesday. The Salala incident is now four months old, but the two sides have still not overcome the consequences of its trauma. .....................

Indeed, some of its responses — getting the Americans to vacate the Shamsi airbase and boycotting the Bonn conference — were steps that cannot be undone. But the Nato supply-line cut-off is an ongoing issue and needs to be sorted out in the light of the parliamentary body’s recommendations. ........................

The sticking point the prime minister and the US president will be dealing with is the continuation of the drone strikes. It is true that the CIA-operated unmanned aerial vehicles unleash their lethality in mountainous terrain where logistical difficulties inhibit the Pakistan Army’s operations. ............................

Islamabad needs to speed up the review process. ......................

Clearly, this moratorium is in nobody’s interest. Pakistan has to look at the situation in view of the realities of a unipolar world and not succumb to pressure from undemocratic forces. What Islamabad must realise is that the delay affects Pakistan’s relations not just with America but the world at large.

 

[VCheng]

Excerpts from: The ball

..............journalists often use the term “kicking the ball into the long grass” to describe inaction and procrastination by bureaucrats and politicians. ...................

Thus, following the uproar after the American attack at the Afghan border in November that accidentally killed 24 Pakistani soldiers, the government kicked the ball into the long grass. The intervening four months have allowed tempers to cool while a parliamentary committee took its time to come up with a long list of recommendations.

........................

In its eagerness to avoid confrontations with the military, the media and the courts, this government has allowed its authority and prerogatives to seep away. Desperate to complete its term, it has rolled over whenever anybody has said “Boo!” The only exception is the Prime Minister’s refusal to send a letter to the Swiss authorities ................................

...........in allowing a vital element of our foreign policy to be subject to the uncertainty of a parliamentary vote, this government has surrendered its right to shape the future of its relationship with the United States.

For instance, how many politicians will have the courage to vote for a continuation of the American drone programme? Saying ‘no’ would clearly be the easy and popular move. And yet, the US ambassador to Pakistan has already said his government will continue these selective attacks. Will we then shoot the drones down, incurring the very real possibility of American retaliation? One reality our media pundits refuse to face is that drones are the only effective tool to target militants that are killings coalition and Afghan forces and civilians across the border. Given our army’s unwillingness or inability to attack these sanctuaries on Pakistani soil, and our refusal to allow foreign troops to operate in the tribal areas, what options are left?

Those who clamour loudest about national honour should remember that to claim sovereignty over a territory, we must first exercise control over it. And clearly, the Pakistani state has never enjoyed full control over large swathes of the border areas with Afghanistan. Currently, Pakistani and foreign militants are the ones who call the shots there, making life hell for the locals.

So while parliamentarians might wish to score points over this deeply controversial policy, their vote will effectively pit the government and the military against the world’s sole superpower. And those gung-ho armchair warriors urging exactly this confrontation would do well to reflect on the fate of the Iraqi armed forces in both the Gulf wars.

Our talking heads on TV chat shows and our generals are both convinced that the Pakistani overland routes for coalition supplies gives us enormous leverage in Washington. This is a dangerous error. As we have seen, Nato forces have got along fine despite our blocking hundreds of trucks headed for Afghanistan following the Salala incident last November.

.....................

Again, by seeking parliamentary approval for re-opening these routes, the government risks allowing this agreement to become hostage to popular street sentiment. And if we increase transit cost, it will seem that this entire exercise was conducted to extort more money from the Americans.

Another problem with getting parliamentary approval for normal, day-to-day relations is that once it is given, policies become set in stone. Any changes will again require a debate before a joint session of Parliament. In effect, the government’s hands will be tied if it has to react quickly to changed circumstances.

.....................

Raza Rabbani’s parliamentary committee has, among other things, proposed that the US be asked to sign a civilian nuclear deal similar to the one it has signed with India. The good senator must be joking. Washington has already rejected a Pakistani request along these lines because of our terrible record on proliferation.

....................

As citizens, we would all like to see transparency and parliamentary oversight in policy-making. But in the real world, governments need flexibility and room to manoeuvre. By outsourcing the process to parliament, this administration has further enfeebled itself.

 

[VCheng]

excerpts from: Parliamentary oversight | Opinion | DAWN.COM

..................

The text, competent though it was, showed the strain of various factors that weighed on PCNS’ deliberations. First, it could not be assumed that the executive had referred sensitive foreign policy issues to parliament because of a fundamental change in its outlook; it may simply have been an expedient to conceal failures of its muddled US policy under the cloak of parliamentary consent.

Secondly, PCNS addressed the task of reflecting the will of the people without any assurance that the executive had the resolve or the capacity to implement recommendations that Washington would push back against even as it repeats sanctimonious clichés about respecting Pakistan’s parliament.

Third, the committee did not, apparently, feel that it could sketch a comprehensive framework of Pakistan’s external relations with any greater detail than customary phrases about national sovereignty and bare-bone recommendations about China, Russia and Iran.

..........................

Rhetorical demands for ending drone attacks are liable to wither away for two major reasons: one, the offensive use of unmanned vehicles — an increasingly lethal weapon of choice — is a growth industry; two, Washington is likely to return to leaks that drone attacks are often carried out with clandestine approval from Pakistan. Pakistan’s parliament will probably make little impression on this CIA operation; its ability to rule out Pakistan’s own secret assent, at least in some drone attacks, is also not assured.

The issue of Nato supplies is emotive and will attract sharp partisan politics if the government does not handle it with tact.

Depreciation of Pakistan’s infrastructure by its large-scale use for Nato supplies amounts to billions of rupees. Failure of international users to compensate Pakistan adequately with much higher taxes and tolls would fuel resistance that may not only be conceptual.

The committee was strangely weak on ‘foreign intelligence operatives’. The international system tolerates their limited presence as duly accredited ‘diplomats’ in foreign missions but what has happened in Pakistan with undeniable complicity of government functionaries is simply outrageous. Parliament’s task is to reduce this pervasive foreign ‘footprint’ to acceptable levels available only in embassies.

PCNS’ recommendations about deepening relations with China, about pursuing Pakistan-Iran gas pipeline and about strengthening the initiative to build a qualitatively different relationship with Russia would have better traction if parliament can pursue them robustly and with expertise comparable with, if not superior to the specialised institutions. Foreign affairs committees would need to meet more frequently and draw upon experts within and outside the government. Similarly, parliament must create a tradition of informed and professional engagement abroad and eliminate the deeply rooted culture of inane tourism in the name of foreign policy, worst seen in ‘projecting’ the Kashmir issue.

...........................

 

[VCheng]

Excerpts from: Obama-Gilani meeting | Newspaper | DAWN.COM

............. one substantive point also became clear: between Pakistan’s emphasis on its sovereignty and America’s emphasis on its security, upcoming negotiations on the future shape of Pakistan-US ties will not be straightforward. Given Mr Obama’s prioritisation on Tuesday of the need to protect the US from terrorist attacks, several recommendations made by the national security committee could become roadblocks if approved by parliament, including an end to drone strikes, no boots on the ground even in hot pursuit, no covert operations and increased transparency about American spies in Pakistan.

..................

What all of this implies is that both countries will have to get less stubborn and more pragmatic. Pakistan will have to conduct a realistic cost-benefit analysis of its demands, keeping in mind its need to run the economy, prevent cross-border infiltration from Afghanistan, have input into the process of shaping Afghanistan’s future, and sincerely combat terrorism and militancy. The US, too, needs Pakistan’s help with the difficult Afghan reconciliation process and in combating terrorists that could use Pakistani territory for attacks against it. That would mean, for instance, Pakistan permitting selected drone strikes carried out with its input and approval, and the US trusting Pakistan enough to plan strikes jointly. That is just one example, but a clear-eyed view of the relationship makes it plain that such compromises will be necessary.

 

[VCheng]

The charade continues:

Excerpts from: PCNS session ends in futility as Fazlur Rehman

ISLAMABAD: A session of parliamentary committee aimed at reaching consensus on new terms of engagement with the United States ended in futility again, on Monday, after major political parties remained uninvolved.

Members of the Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz (PML-N), Jamiat ul Ulema Islam (JUI-F) and Pakistan Muslim League-Q (PML-Q) remained absent from the meeting, DawnNews reported.

The Parliamentary Committee on National Security’s (PCNS) session was presided over by Senator Raza Rabbani at the Parliament House in Islamabad.

Rabbani said that the members of the PML-N and PML-Q were unable to attend the meeting due to their participation in the national energy conference.

However, JUI-F chief Fazlur Rehman refused to attend the session and Rabbani requested him to end the boycott of the parliamentary committee sessions.

Rabbani said that if JUI-F has any reservations, it should present an opposing note in the meeting.

....................

 

[VCheng]

from: Parliament approves PCNS proposals on US ties | DAWN.COM

ISLAMABAD: Parliament has unanimously approved new guidelines for the country’s troubled ties with the United States on Thursday, in what could be an important step in putting relations back on track.

The revised recommendations of the Parliamentary Committee on National Security (PCNS) presented in joint session of the parliament declared that sovereignty of Pakistan shall not be compromised and relationship with the United States should be based on mutual respect for sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of each other.

The 14-point recommendations presented by PCNS chairman Senator Raza Rabbani, say that US footprint in Pakistan must be reviewed. This would mean an immediate cessation of drone attacks inside Pakistan cessation of infiltration into Pakistani territory on any pretext including hot pursuit.

Pakistani territory including its air space shall not be used for transportation of arms and ammunition to the Nato forces in Afghanistan.

The recommendations also say that Pakistan’s nuclear program and assets including its safety and security cannot be compromised.

The US-India civil nuclear agreement has significantly altered strategic balance in the region and therefore Pakistan should seek from the US and others a similar treatment.

The strategic position of Pakistan as well as India on the subject of FMCT (Fissile Material Cut off Treaty) must not be compromised and this principle be kept in view in negotiations on this matter.

Pakistan should seek an unconditional apology from the US for November 26, 2011 unprovoked Salala check post incident.

Those held responsible for Mohmand Agency attack should be brought to justice. Pakistan should be given assurances that such attacks or any other acts impinging on the country’s sovereignty will not recur.

Ministry of Defense and Pakistan Air Force PAF should formulate new flying rules for areas contiguous to the border.

As per revised recommendations no verbal agreement regarding national security shall be entered into by the Government or any department or organization with any foreign Government or authority.

Washington has been eagerly awaiting the results of the parliamentary review, saying it will be key to reopening supply lines to Nato troops in neighboring Afghanistan. Islamabad closed the supply lines in November to protest US airstrikes that killed 24 Pakistani soldiers on the Afghan border.

The new guidelines call for an end to US drone strikes, but also stated that the supply lines should be reopened, albeit with a higher fee charged to US and Nato forces.

Parliament approved them late Thursday in a vote.

The government will now formulate policy based on the guidelines.

 

[Jihad]

No selfrespect, no dignity, no honor.
The current government has disgraced our nation to the core.

American officials must be laughing their ***** off.
Whatever our parliament may approve or accept, it makes no difference, what America says, it will do, and the Pakistani dogs in charge of our nation may bark a few times, but they'll act accordingly once Uncle Sam raises his voice.