Mumbai Attacks

[pkpatriotic]

Secretary Condoleezza Rice's Remarks:En Route London, to India.

Secretary Condoleezza Rice
En route London, England
November 30, 2008

SECRETARY RICE: Given the lateness of the hour, I’ll happily just take your questions. But obviously, I’m going to go first to London for consultations with the British. This was a previously planned trip on our way to the NATO ministerial, but obviously, given the events in India, and the relationship between Pakistan and India -- we and Britain have very close ties. We have maintained very close contact. We’ve cooperated very closely on issues concerning Pakistan, concerning India. And so I think this is fortuitous that I’m going to be in London for these discussions.

I’m then going on to the NATO ministerial. And as you now know, we will depart the NATO ministerial a little early and go to New Delhi. The President has asked me to do that to express our sympathies with and our solidarity with the Indian people, and to express our absolute determination to help in any way that we can to help end this terrorist threat and to bring those who perpetrated this horrible crime to justice, to – because I would just underscore that we share the grief and the anger of the Indian people, but of course, Americans were also killed in this attack and they were killed deliberately because they were Americans. And that makes this of special interest and concern to the United States.

QUESTION: Do you – when – one of the militants who was arrested after the bombing has said that he was trained in Pakistan and was part of one of the two main Pakistani Muslim militant groups. Do you believe the Pakistani Government when they say there was absolutely no Pakistani involvement at all?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, what we’re emphasizing to the Pakistani Government is the need to follow the evidence wherever it leads, and to do that in the most committed and firmest possible way. And I’ve spoken with President Zardari. I’ve spoken with Foreign Minister Mukherjee. Steve Hadley has spoken with his counterpart. And on all scores, the Pakistanis have emphasized their desire to get to the bottom of this and to help in any way that they can. And so I don’t want to jump to any conclusions myself on this, but I do think that this is a time for complete, absolute, total transparency and cooperation. And that’s what we expect.

QUESTION: In your discussions with the Pakistanis, have they assured you that they have played no role in this at all as far as they know? And you said that you were going to be, you know, working together with the Indians to prevent this kind of terrorism threat. How are you going to do that? Do you – are you going there with any specific ideas for the Indians?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, we’ve already had very good cooperation with India, and we have a number of U.S. Government agencies that are helping support in any way that we can the investigation. Obviously, information is the long pole in the tent when one deals with terrorist situations. But of course, we have been concerned about this for some time. The embassy bombing in Kabul was reason for concern. And so we will help and cooperate in any way that we can.

In terms of Pakistan, again, the Pakistani Government has said that it will be cooperating, it wants to cooperate, and that it’s prepared to follow the leads wherever they go. And that’s what we expect.

QUESTION: Do you think the Pakistani Government should send their head of intelligence in India as it was at first scheduled, and then abandoned?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, this is a decision for the Pakistani Government. But I do think that it is extremely important that there be the highest levels of cooperation between Pakistan and India at this point, and that means all institutions. And I assume that there is going to be law enforcement cooperation as well as intelligence cooperation in getting to the bottom of this.

QUESTION: Are you concerned that this could escalate Pakistan-India tensions to the point of actual conflict?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, I’d just note that the lines of communication are open between them; that when I speak with the Indians, they talk about the very good initial statements from the Pakistani Government. They have talked on the telephone. This is a different relationship than it was a number of years ago. Obviously, they share a common enemy, because extremists in any form are obviously a threat to the Pakistanis as well as to the Indians.

So this obviously is a difficult task for this new Pakistani Government. It’s still early in the civilian government’s existence. But in speaking with President Zardari and in speaking with the Foreign Minister, they know that this is a time to step up to the task that they’ve got.

QUESTION: Do you have any updates on the number of Americans killed, and do you have any more details on that? There were still people who were at risk.

SECRETARY RICE: Yes. And the latest that I have is what’s being reported. The number is six, I think, that was most recently reported. There are still unfortunately a bit of a – well, it’s no longer really a rescue operation, but an operation to identify and – but as far as I know, six. And the word that we’re getting is, to the best of our knowledge, all known Americans are accounted for at this point.

QUESTION: And do you think that this marks sort of a new era in terrorism in some ways because Americans were singled out, as were other foreigners? Are you afraid that this might escalate and that somehow, this was different from other attacks?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, clearly, Americans were targeted. Brits were targeted; foreigners were, in a sense, targeted by the very targets that they chose. But this terrorism threat has been very deep and growing for a long time. We’ve made a lot of progress against these organizations. But yes, I do think that this is an element that bears watching, and that gives us every more reason to make sure that we get to the bottom of it, and as quickly as possible. I think we should sit down --

MR. MCCORMACK: Okay, guys.

SECRETARY RICE: Okay.

QUESTION: Thank you very much. We really appreciate it.

2008/T30-1
Released on December 1, 2008

QUOTE:
She should discuss with Pakistani counterpart to have their point of view on such issue, in the way prior to visit India.

 

[Goodperson]

CNN video on Indo-Pak tension
Videos: Search for answers in Mumbai - CNN.com

 

[batmannow]

GEO Pakistan
US has no reason to doubt Pakistan: White House
Updated at: 2005 PST, Monday, December 01, 2008

WASHINGTON: The United States has no reason to doubt the Pakistani government's assertion that it was not involved in the recent deadly attacks in Mumbai, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said Monday.

many of our commrades, did posted the same artical, does it make any sense!

 

[batmannow]

Minister Quits Over Mumbai Intel Failures

December 01, 2008
Australian Associated Press

India's interior minister resigned on Sunday as anger grew over intelligence failures leading up to the devastating attacks on Mumbai and the government mulled suspending a peace process with Pakistan.

Home Minister Shivraj Patil said he took "moral responsibility" for the assault by heavily armed Islamic militants, which left at least 172 people dead and transformed parts of Mumbai into a war zone for three days.

India's powerful national security adviser MK Narayanan also submitted his resignation, officials said, but it was not clear if it had been accepted.

The Indian government has pointed the finger at "elements in Pakistan", and security sources say they believe most if not all the highly trained gunmen were Pakistani.

The future of the nuclear-armed neighbours' peace process now appears in doubt.

"There is a view in the government that India should suspend the peace process... to show that it is not going to take lightly the deadly carnage in Mumbai," official sources told the official Press Trust of India (PTI).

The government, "including Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, is very upset as it feels that Pakistan has not kept its promise made at the highest level to end terrorism directed at India", PTI said.

Opening cross-party talks on Sunday, Singh said he intended to boost security, give more funds to anti-terrorism units and set up a federal agency of investigation.

"We have had terrorist attacks before ... but this attack was different. It was an attack by highly trained and well armed terrorists targeting our largest city," Singh said.

"They came with the explicit aim of killing large numbers of innocent civilians, including foreign visitors. They sought to destroy some of the best known symbols of our commercial capital."

Security officials said they believed the Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Toiba was behind the extremely well planned assault, which took thousands of Indian commandos, police and soldiers 60 hours to stop.

Lashkar, which is fighting Indian control of the disputed Kashmir region, was behind a deadly 2001 assault on the Indian parliament that pushed New Delhi and Islamabad to the brink of war.

But Pakistan, which has fought two wars with India over Kashmir, moved quickly to deny any links with the attacks. Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari urged India not to "over-react".

Zardari warned that the militants were "looking for reaction" and pledged prompt action against anyone responsible.

Lashkar, which operated openly in Pakistan until it was outlawed after the September 11, 2001, attacks, has denied responsibility.

Around a dozen militants launched their assault on Wednesday evening when they split into groups and struck targets across Mumbai, including the main railway station and a hospital.

Security forces regained control of the city 60 hours later when they killed the last three gunmen holed up inside the Taj Mahal hotel.

On Friday elite troops had stormed a Jewish centre and killed two gunmen - but found eight dead Israeli hostages.

Another luxury hotel that was attacked, the Oberoi/Trident, was cleared of militants later in the day, with scores of trapped guests rescued and dozens of bodies found.

The overall toll was at least 172 people dead and nearly 293 wounded.

About 30 foreigners were killed including five Americans, two French, two Australians and two Canadians.

In a telephone call on Sunday, President George W Bush told Singh he had ordered US agencies to devote whatever resources were necessary to help hunt down those behind the attacks, White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe said.

Some militants entered Mumbai by boat, while others had arrived a month ago to stockpile arms and explosives and infiltrate the targets.

They had enough ammunition to kill 5,000 people and never issued any demands for the hostages' release, officials said on Sunday.

 

[JK!]

India makes protest to Pakistan

India has summoned Pakistan's high commissioner to lodge a formal protest over the attacks in Mumbai.

Indian officials have repeatedly said in recent days there is evidence the militants behind attacks that killed nearly 200 people had Pakistani links.

Islamabad has denied involvement and warned against letting "miscreants" inflame tensions in the region.

India's new home minister has vowed to "respond with determination and resolve" over the crisis.

At least 188 people were killed - including 22 foreigners - and more than 200 were injured after the attackers opened fire in several locations, including a railway station, a popular restaurant, a hospital, two hotels and a Jewish centre.

The attacks on the two hotels - the once luxurious Taj Mahal Palace and Oberoi-Trident - and the Jewish centre resulted in nearly three days of running battles between elite commandos and the gunmen before the sites were secured.

'Avoid blame game'

India's foreign ministry said it had summoned Pakistan's high commissioner.

"He was informed that the recent terrorist attack on Mumbai was carried out by elements from Pakistan," the ministry said in a statement.

India "expects that strong action would be taken against those elements, whosoever they may be, responsible for this outrage," the high commissioner was reportedly told.

A spokesman for the Pakistani high commission played down the meeting, saying discussions were held in a "cordial atmosphere".

But there is no doubt India is slowly turning the heat on Pakistan following the attacks, the BBC's India correspondent Sanjoy Majumder says.

Following the attacks, the focus is on the lone gunman who survived and who is now in police custody.

According to Indian media reports, Azam Amir Qasab is from Pakistan and linked to the Pakistan-based Kashmiri militant group, Lashkar-e-Toiba, or Army of the Pure. The group denies involvement.

India's Deputy Home Minister, Shakeel Ahmad, told the BBC it was "very clearly established" that all the attackers had been from Pakistan - echoing similar comments from other officials in recent days.

Indian Minister of State of External Affairs Anand Sharma called the attacks a "grave setback" to the normalisation of relations with Pakistan.

Pakistan's Prime Minister, Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani, has said his country "would itself take action against the miscreants if there is any evidence against a Pakistani national".

But he cautioned India against making allegations in the media. "The blame game should be avoided at all costs as (it) may affect the state of relations between the two countries," he said.

The White House says it has heard nothing to suggest the Pakistani government was involved.

"We have been encouraged by the statements by the Pakistanis that they are committed to following this wherever it leads," spokeswoman Dana Perino said. "We would expect nothing less of them in this instance."

'Deep shock'

Indian Home Minister Palaniappan Chidambaram vowed to take action over the attacks

"I want to assure the people on behalf of the government that we will respond with determination and resolve to the grave threat posed to the Indian nation," he told reporters.

"I recognise that there is a sense of anguish and deep shock among the people of India. This is a threat to the very idea of India, very soul of India."

The government is facing growing anger over its handling of the attacks and perceived intelligence failures.

Maharashtra state's chief minister on Monday joined his deputy and Mr Chidambaram's predecessor in resigning over the attacks.

According to reports, the personal belongings of 15 men were found aboard an abandoned ship from which the attacks were launched. This has raised questions as to whether all the gunmen have been found.

Only 10 militants have been identified, but, according to a private TV channel, Azam Amir Qasab apparently confirmed there were 15 attackers.

Questions have also been asked about India's failure to pre-empt the attacks, and the time taken to eliminate the gunmen.

A report in the Hindustani Times newspaper said a militant from Lashkar-e-Toiba arrested and questioned in February told intelligence services he had inspected the five-star Taj Mahal Palace and Oberoi-Trident hotels and several other buildings in December 2007.

Quoted by his interrogator, the militant said he had passed on information to the group's operational commander.

Also, Reuters news agency quoted Damodar Tandel, head of Maharashtra's main fishermen's union, as saying he had warned the government about attempts to bring RDX explosives to Mumbai by sea but no-one acted on the information.

Unlike other countries that have been the victims of frequent terrorist attacks, India has no discernible or coherent counter-terrorism strategy that focuses both on the causes of the threat and its prevention, the BBC's defence and security correspondent Rob Watson says.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is reported to have said he plans to increase the size and strength of the country's anti-terrorist forces.

Source: BBC NEWS | World | South Asia | India makes protest to Pakistan

 

[Al-zakir]

India demands swift Pakistan action over Mumbai | International | Reuters


India demands swift Pakistan action over Mumbai


By Krittivas Mukherjee

MUMBAI (Reuters) - India said on Monday it had called Pakistan's envoy and informed him that deadly attacks in Mumbai were carried out by militants from Pakistan and demanded swift action against those responsible.

Indian investigators said the Islamist gunmen who launched the attacks on India's financial capital, killing 183 people in a three-day siege, had months of commando training in Pakistan.

The fallout prompted a second top politician from the ruling Congress party to resign, amid growing fury among many Indians at apparent intelligence lapses.

The attacks against Mumbai's two best-known luxury hotels and other landmarks in the city of 18 million are a major setback for improving ties between nuclear-armed India and Pakistan.

India fired the first formal diplomatic salvo late on Monday after days of fingerpointing, releasing a foreign ministry statement describing the actions it expects Islamabad to take.

"It was conveyed to the Pakistan high commissioner that Pakistan's actions needed to match the sentiments expressed by its leadership that it wishes to have a qualitatively new relationship with India," the statement said.

"He was informed that the recent terrorist attack on Mumbai was carried out by elements from Pakistan. Government expects that strong action would be taken against those elements, whosoever they may be, responsible for this outrage," it said.

RICE TO VISIT

The White House said U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice would visit India on Wednesday, underscoring the seriousness with which Washington viewed the attacks. [nN30456922]

"I don't want to jump to any conclusions myself on this, but I do think that this is a time for complete, absolute, total transparency and cooperation and that is what we expect (from Pakistan)," Rice told reporters traveling with her to London.

She played down the threat of conflict between two countries, which almost came to war in 2002 after an earlier attack on India's parliament which also was blamed on Pakistani militants.

"This is a different relationship than it was a number of years ago. Obviously they share a common enemy because extremists in any form are a threat to the Pakistanis as well as the Indians," Rice said.

The White House said it had heard nothing from investigations so far to suggest Pakistani government involvement.

"We have been encouraged by the statements by the Pakistanis that they are committed to following this wherever it leads," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said.

Teams from the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation and Britain's Scotland Yard were in Mumbai to help with the probe into the attacks, in which six Americans and one Briton died.

 

[smeaglegolum]

Bush sends Condi Rice to India to manage response towards Pak
1 Dec 2008, 1314 hrs IST, Chidanand Rajghatta, TNN


WASHINGTON: US President George Bush is sending Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to New Delhi this week in a show of American support for India after the terror attacks in Mumbai last week, the White House announced on Sunday.

Rice, who left for London on Sunday night on a previously scheduled trip to attend a Nato meeting, will arrive in New Delhi on Wednesday.

"Secretary Rice's visit to India is a further demonstration of the United States' commitment to stand in solidarity with the people of India as we all work together to hold these extremists accountable," the White House said in a statement.

Rice’s visit is also aimed at tempering Indian response toward Pakistan and discussing the best options for India and US to act in concert, analysts reckon. Washington is evidently concerned that any unilaterally punitive measures by New Delhi will undermine the US war on terror on Pakistan’s western front, going by the expression of concern from numerous US lawmakers.

The Bush administration is also expected to send senior military and intelligence officials to Islamabad to ask for action to dismantle the terrorism apparatus fostered by renegades in the ISI.

Rice left Washington even as India’s foreign secretary Shiv Shankar Menon arrived here to brief US officials about the events in Mumbai and its aftermath. Menon was originally coming here with a wider brief, including possible meetings Barack Obama’s transition team, but the Mumbai massacre and growing evidence of Pakistani fingerprints in the carnage has infused the visit with a more urgent agenda -- getting the U.S to take the problem of Pakistani terrorism more seriously and initiating action to counter it.

Among the actions being considered in informal exchanges is to strive for a UN resolution empowering a coalition of affected countries to dismantle terrorist camps in Pakistan, including in Azad Kashmir. Countries affected by these camps include the US, U.K, India, China, and Russia, and because of its victims in the Mumbai massacre, several EU countries and Israel. Such a resolution would send a powerful signal to Pakistan’s military, which is alleged to have funded and maintained these terror camps through its intelligence agency ISI, that is has antagonized the whole world.

In a pointed statement over the weekend, President Bush said the ''leaders of India can know that nations around the world support them in the face of this assault on human dignity. And as the people of the world's largest democracy recover from these attacks, they can count on the world's oldest democracy to stand by their side.''

The US President has already ordered a full-scale support, including technology inputs, aimed at helping investigation into the Mumbai massacre. The fact that six Americans (at last count) died in the carnage has also galvanized Washington, which was otherwise distanced from the multiple terrorist attacks India has suffered for years.

On the military front, India is expected to seek the kind of predator technology and know-how the US is using to take-out terrorist infrastructure and jihadi compounds inside Pakistan. Washington is expected to ramp up intelligence aid to India, including technology inputs, under directions from President Bush. New Delhi will also press for greater scrutiny of U.S military aid to Pakistan.

Washington, like New Delhi, is still giving the new civilian government of Pakistan the benefit of doubt over its involvement in the Mumbai massacre. But there seems little doubt where the sympathies of the hard-line Pakistani Army and its intelligence agency ISI lie, and much of the U.S-India dialogue is now focused on understanding the dynamics of the relationship between the civilian and military leadership in Islamabad, which seems to be rupturing.

In a commentary over the weekend, Bruce Riedel, a former CIA analyst and an Obama advisor on South Asia, noted that the Lashkar e Taiba, the principle accused in the Mumbai carnage, was banned in Pakistan in 2002 but continues to operate there under a number of cover names including Jamaat ud Dawah. ''The extent of its continuing relationship with the ISI is much debated. The Pakistani authorities claim none exists but the fact is that the organization has been tolerated in Pakistan despite the 2002 ban,'' he said.

Riedel also said for the first time in sixty years. Pakistan’s president Asif Ali Zardari has also promised to get (civilian) control over the ISI and ''to stop its policy of both chasing and supporting terrorism in Pakistan.'' But his ability to do so is still very much in doubt, he added. Much of the Indo-US dialogue will now focus on how to strengthen Zardari’s hands and see if he is genuine in his commitment to wipe out terrorism sponsored by Pakistan’s military, which ironically has also been much more of a U.S client than the country's political parties.

 

[jeypore]

Among the actions being considered in informal exchanges is to strive for a UN resolution empowering a coalition of affected countries to dismantle terrorist camps in Pakistan, including in Azad Kashmir. Countries affected by these camps include the US, U.K, India, China, and Russia, and because of its victims in the Mumbai massacre, several EU countries and Israel. Such a resolution would send a powerful signal to Pakistan’s military, which is alleged to have funded and maintained these terror camps through its intelligence agency ISI, that is has antagonized the whole world.

If this are not empty words, then Pakistan will definitely have a civil war in there hands.

 

[EagleEyes]

If this are not empty words, then Pakistan will definitely have a civil war in there hands.

You wish.

On the other hand.

Pakistan should tell Rice to not tell us what to do and what not to do. Either that or Rice comments have been taken out of the context. No third world country has the right to demand actions.

 

[Chanakya.10]

You wish.

On the other hand.

Pakistan should tell Rice to not tell us what to do and what not to do. Either that or Rice comments have been taken out of the context. No third world country has the right to demand actions.

You wish.

On the other hand.

America will tell pakistan what really it should do or not. As they have done till now, always.

Any single instance where pakistan have dared to say to America that 'NO, i wont do that'.
If any i would really want to kno......

 

[EagleEyes]

You wish.

On the other hand.

America will tell pakistan what really it should do or not. As they have done till now, always.

Any single instance where pakistan have dared to say to America that 'NO, i wont do that'.
If any i would really want to kno......

Stop being a copy cat. Why dont you do some research by yourself?

 

[pkpatriotic]

Remarks With United Kingdom Foreign Secretary David Miliband

Secretary Condoleezza Rice
London, England
December 1, 2008

FOREIGN SECRETARY MILIBAND: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. And welcome to One Carlton Gardens. Above all, welcome to my colleague and friend, Condi Rice, for her nearly 24-hour visit in the UK. So we’re delighted to have you back.

It’s not like it’s a quiet time in foreign affairs at the moment, so I don’t want to tempt fate by saying this is necessarily your last visit to London, but it may be the last occasion I get the chance to say publicly what I’ve said privately, which is that you have had a record of incredible distinction in all of the posts that you’ve held in U.S. Government, first National Security Advisor and then as Secretary of State. And you’ve carried out your task with determination, with incredible energy, and with a resolute focus on getting results. Because I think for you, diplomacy has only ever been about getting things done and making a difference. You’ve also carried out your task with enormous charm and grace and friendship, and for that we are extremely grateful. And I believe you’ve always seen the U.S.-UK friendship and partnership as being at the heart of the drive to build security and prosperity around the world.

There is talk about a successor being appointed, I gather. Suffice to say that you will be a very hard act to follow, Madame Secretary. We’ve got a series of discussions today and tomorrow morning before you fly off to Brussels for the NATO summit. We’ve dedicated ourselves over the last hour and a bit to talking about the situation in India. Both of our countries have lost innocent people in the terrible atrocities last week. Both of us have very strong ties to India and to Pakistan. And I think we know that violent extremism is a threat to the very integrity of both those countries. And so for that reason, we intend to do all that we can to work to use our influence to ensure that those who are responsible for the atrocities are brought to justice and that the drive to reconcile India and Pakistan to build links between those two great countries are taken forward.

Secretary Rice is traveling from here to India after the stop in Brussels. And that will be very important to that shared drive. No doubt over the next nearly a day, we’ll talk about a whole range of other issues on which we are working closely together, but maybe we can leave that for questions.

Condi, if you would say a few words, to say hello to our friends from the press, and then we’ll take some questions.

SECRETARY RICE: I’ll gladly do that, David. Thank you very much. And I just want to thank you, as my colleague and as my friend, for the wonderful working relationship that we’ve enjoyed. I do think this is likely my last official visit to London. But it, fortunately, won’t be my last visit to London, that’s for certain. And I hope that we can stay in touch. You’ve brought tremendous energy and skill to this position.

But I just want to say that you read about, as a student of international politics, the special relationship but you don’t know really how special it is until you’ve experienced it. And we have had extraordinary challenges, extraordinary tasks, but also extraordinary opportunities. And I hope that when the final history of this period is written, that it will be said that we dealt resolutely with the challenges, but we also explored and pursued the opportunities, and that we did so on the basis of the great values that unite our country and the great values that, when they are pursued, really do ke not only for a more secure world, but a more just one.

We have indeed had a very good discussion of the tragedy in India and the subsequent events there. David was just in the region. And we had talked shortly after you returned. And I am on my way there. Obviously, this is a time when everyone in the civilized world needs to unite not just in condemnation of these terrorist attacks, but also in a commitment to be decisive in following up whatever leads there are in making certain that the people who perpetrated these attacks are brought to justice.

It was, of course, a terrible day for India, and we have – we extend our condolences to the people of India. It was also a terrible day for the United States and for Great Britain and for a number of other countries as we lost nationals. And in the case of Great Britain and the United States, these were people who were singled out because they were British and because they were Americans, and that gives us a qualitatively different character from the point of view, certainly, of President Bush and, as I understand it, the British Government.

And so we will be working with India. We intend to work with Pakistan as well. The people who perpetrated this must be brought to justice. And ultimately, the terrorists have to be stopped because they will keep trying to bring down the civilized values and the civilized world as long as they are not challenged. And that means that challenging them and resolutely going after them is the only choice that we have.

FOREIGN SECRETARY MILIBAND: Good. Who wants to fire off? Michael (inaudible) from the Times.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) from the Times. President Bush was pretty adamant in the Bucharest summit in April that he wanted Georgia and Ukraine to join NATO, or at least to join the membership action group. Now it seems as if this is not going to be offered to them at the NATO foreign ministers meeting. Was it just the war in Georgia that changed your mind? And will you support the resumption of NATO relations with Moscow?

SECRETARY RICE: First of all, let me point back to the Bucharest declaration, which was very clear in its statement of NATO’s intention concerning Georgia and Ukraine, and that is that Georgia and Ukraine will one day -- will be members of NATO. I think the sentence is actually very clear: Georgia and Ukraine will be members of NATO.

We believe strongly in NATO’s open-door policy that states that are prepared for NATO membership and can assume the responsibilities therein should be welcomed into the organization. But there is a long road ahead for both Georgia and Ukraine to reach those standards. And the United States stands resolutely for those standards, meaning that there should be no shortcuts to membership in NATO.

We have the Ukraine and Georgia commissions, which – the Ukraine commission has been in place for some time. The Georgia commission was created at our last meeting in Brussels. And we believe that those commissions can be used to continue to help prepare these states for eventual membership in NATO. And so we will be in Brussels tomorrow. I’m certain that we’ll have a broad discussion of this. But I think there’s – you can talk about tactical difference among – differences among the allies, but no one wants to see a circumstance in which Ukraine and Georgia are shut out. And that’s why the Bucharest declaration reads as it does.

And as to the question of NATO-Russia ties, we have, in principle, no problem with the resumption of ties between NATO and Russia. Indeed, there have been, at lower levels, the resumption of those discussions. But it’s simply a matter of what is appropriate and what was appropriate at a time when, clearly, Russia’s behavior in Georgia was quite contrary to all of the values and principles on which NATO stands.

FOREIGN SECRETARY MILIBAND: I think it’s worth saying that the heads were absolutely clear when they met in April. They settled the theology of this issue in the declaration. And now the task is one of practice: How do we implement what the heads have decided? And anyone you talk to, not just in NATO, but anyone you talk to in Georgia or in Ukraine, will tell you that there are important practical steps that need to be taken to help boost their own capacity, and that is the first thing that is going to be essential. And I think we can find a lot of common ground about the implementation of the agreement that was come – that was came to last April.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Madame Secretary, you said earlier that the Pakistani Government is a very young, civilian government. How confident are you that this government is going to get all the cooperation it needs from the Pakistani military and intelligence?

And Mr. Miliband, the Secretary is going to India this week. Do you plan to go to India, too, in the next few days?

SECRETARY RICE: We treat the Government of Pakistan as a whole. And the President of Pakistan is the elected Pakistani President and he has, therefore, the legitimacy that comes with election and that is the legitimacy that comes from the Pakistani people. That is true also of the Prime Minister and, of course, the military serves now in a civilian government. And we expect that that will be the case going forward. We have obviously good contacts with all Pakistani officials from various institutions through our various bilateral institutional ties. But the Government of Pakistan has a legitimate and elected president and that is whom we will – with whom we will deal concerning the situation.

FOREIGN SECRETARY MILIBAND: I’m pleased to be able to have the opportunity to report that I spoke with the Indian Foreign Minister just before our lunch today. I obviously expressed the condolences of the British people to the Indian Government and also our thanks for the way they’ve – the efforts they’ve put in to deal with the crisis. I also emphasized how committed we are, not just as a government but as a country, given our very large populations of Indian and Pakistani origin to seeing better relations between India and Pakistan as the foundation of stability in that region of the world. These are two great countries that should be trading -- even sometimes arguing – but certainly working together.

And it seems to us absolutely essential that everyone understands now that violent extremism is a threat to the very integrity of Pakistan, but also the integrity and character of India as the world’s largest multi-faith democracy. And so the stakes are very high indeed. They are stakes that we are determined to work with the Indian and Pakistani authorities separately. But they also need the Indian and Pakistan authorities to work together. And that’s real responsibilities for both sides, quite demanding on both sides, to chase down the people who have perpetrated this atrocity to work together at all levels to ensure that this is done and to translate what I think is a popular understanding that these countries have to live and work together into real action together.

QUESTION: Will you be going to --

FOREIGN SECRETARY MILIBAND: I’m sorry. I don’t have any immediate plans, but obviously we keep that under very close review.

QUESTION: Tim Marshall Sky News. Welcome, Madame Secretary. Do you think Hillary Clinton would make a good Secretary of State, regardless of the name and the position? Any words of advice for your successor?

And Foreign Secretary, do you accept that India has to be seen to respond in robust fashion, that its population demands it after Mumbai?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, let me start by saying I suppose the announcement is going to be shortly. I’ve tried to avoid and to give the President-elect the courtesy of making the announcement. But since we’re in different time zones, let me respond.

The first time that I met Senator Clinton was actually a world away from Washington, when she brought her freshman daughter to Stanford University where I was provost. And so our relationship goes back quite a long way. And I am very fond of her. I think she has worked very hard on behalf of the country. I think she really comported herself very well in the campaign. And she’s an inspiration to a lot of people and a lot of – not just women, a lot of people. I know that she will bring enormous energy and intellect and skill to the position. And most importantly, I know her to be somebody who has what you need most in this job, which is a deep love for the United States of America and for its values, a respect for differences that we may have with friends and allies, but always recognizing that the core of who we are as Americans unites us with very many around the world, particularly Great Britain.

As to advice, I’ll give her that advice privately, and then she won’t and you won’t hear from me again, because – (laughter) – I will certainly not make the effort to comment on everything that is done. I think that we’ve had a good run, but I’ll tell you something. The two-year term is not a bad idea.

FOREIGN SECRETARY MILIBAND: The two-year term?

SECRETARY RICE: No, sorry, the two-term – four years. (Laughter.)

FOREIGN SECRETARY MILIBAND: The two-term -- the term limits?

SECRETARY RICE: The term limits, American term limits.

FOREIGN SECRETARY MILIBAND: Well, we’re looking forward to today’s announcement as well. Obviously, Senator Clinton brings an enormous breadth of experience to her role. The point that I would account, I think, is a determination to defy fatalism. She’s someone who believes that human effort can engineer change, and I think that’s a profoundly important quality that she shares with Secretary Rice, and it’s one that I think will bring a great deal to international affairs. And we very much look forward to working with her.

In respect of the situation in India, I think that the Indian people, like people anywhere in the world when they’re struck by terrorism, want to know that their government develops a plan to tackle that terrorism. That doesn’t mean symbolic acts. It means real acts with real partners to effect real change. My conversation with the Indian Foreign Minister today was about those real acts that are going to be necessary, not just from India to improve its own defenses, but from its neighbors, notably from Pakistan.

And I think it is very important that the whole world says that Prime Minister Singh on the one hand, President Zardari on the other, are two men who are committed to the proposition that India and Pakistan have so much more to gain from working together than from being divided. They know the costs of division between those two countries. Their early work together over the last few months has opened up the economy across the line of control, has developed political talks, and now those are under the greatest possible scrutiny and the greatest possible strain. I think it’s precisely at this moment of strain and scrutiny that we need very strong statesmanship and leadership to assert that it is joint action and cooperative action that will make the difference between stability and instability. And that’s certainly what we’ll be working for.

QUESTION: Yes. Madame Secretary, the degree of closeness that both the Pakistani Government -- the proceeding one and the current – and the Indian Government have had to the United States have been a problem for both of them over the last year in various respects. By going to India now and by highlighting the fact that Americans were killed and that the United States takes special interest in this act as a result, do you risk heightening tensions either between India and – or anti-Americanism in either country?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, first of all, Anne, in terms of the relationship with India, we’ve just been through a kind of banner year for U.S.-Indian relations. The United States spearheaded the reentry – or the entry of India into the IAEA framework and a civil-nuclear deal that I think was of extraordinary importance to India and is seen to have been as such. And I was just in India, as you know, and I find there that the level of comity and, indeed, friendship between India and the United States is unparalleled, really, throughout our history.

We also were the ones, along with Britain and others, who championed the free and fair elections in Pakistan and the coming to power of a civilian government. And so we have had – we don’t always have agreement, but we have good relations with these two governments, good relations with these countries. And when I say that Americans were killed, I’m stating a fact. I’m also stating yet another reason why our solidarity with victims of terrorism in India after this latest attack – or, for that matter, victims of terrorism in Pakistan who have suffered at the hands of these extremist.

I think what it is is a message that this is, for all of us, a great challenge. But it is – it’s a war that we’re all fighting together, because these extremist have gone after Americans, they’ve gone after British citizens. They’ve also, of course, killed more Pakistanis and Indians than anyone else.

FOREIGN SECRETARY MILIBAND: All right. Thank you very much. Thanks.

2008/T30-2
Released on December 1, 2008

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Any single instance where pakistan have dared to say to America that 'NO, i wont do that'.

Who do you think tried to stop Pakistan's nuclear program, and eventually its testing, and then sanctioned her?

Who do you think tried to stop Pakistan's development of its indigenous missile capability?

Why do you think they are still critical of how Pakistan is handling the WoT on its side?

I have warned you already, don't spout the typical Indian lines to flame here please.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

If this are not empty words, then Pakistan will definitely have a civil war in there hands.

Chidu Raj is a jingoistic and virulently anti-Pakistan journalist.

His reports are almost full f distortions and quasi factual, and this observation is from years of reading him.

For example, while most other sources may say that the US and Pakistan held talks on XYZ issue, Chidu Raj's presentation will be along the lines of, "US tells Pakistan what to do on XYZ". etc. etc.

Not the most reliable source by a long shot.

 

[jeypore]

Chidu Raj is a jingoistic and virulently anti-Pakistan journalist.

His reports are almost full f distortions and quasi factual, and this observation is from years of reading him.

For example, while most other sources may say that the US and Pakistan held talks on XYZ issue, Chidu Raj's presentation will be along the lines of, "US tells Pakistan what to do on XYZ". etc. etc.

Not the most reliable source by a long shot.

Putting him aside AM, Condiees own words are:

"I don't want to jump to any conclusions myself on this but I do think that this is the time for a complete, absolute, total transparency and cooperation and that is what we expect," she told reporters accompanying her on a trip to Europe.

"What we are emphasising to the Pakistani government is the need to follow the evidence wherever it leads and to do so in the most committed and firmest possible way," she said.

Reading between the line (time for complete, absolute, total transparency), she is actually telling the ISI will need to come clean if there is any evidence. And secondly also reading between the line (Pakistan gov';t needs most committed and firmest possible way) she is actually saying that gov't needs to take over the agency and really go after this rogue terrorist camp.

Would you not agree?