NATO Summit: Pakistan Offers No Quarter

[iPhone]

Chicago declaration: In the face of pressure, Pakistan offers no quarter

CHICAGO: Despite intense pressure and Nato’s public call for reopening supply routes through Pakistan in a summit declaration, President Asif Ali Zardari made no promises in Chicago.

In a short speech on Monday to leaders from countries in the Nato-led force in Afghanistan, President Zardari gave no indication that Islamabad would be reopening vital Nato supply routes anytime soon without the preconditions Pakistan’s Parliament had put in place.

He told the gathering of more than 50 nations that “Pakistan believed in partnerships based on trust and respect. Partnerships that will secure the future of our people.”

The president, however, did address the pressing matter of the reopening of Nato supply routes, saying Islamabad had ordered negotiators to conclude a deal with the United States.

Zardari said the cabinet’s Defence Committee “decided to direct the relevant officials to conclude negotiations for resumption of the Ground Lines of Communication” needed to supply foreign troops in Afghanistan.

In his address, Zardari called the botched air raid “a serious setback” that “required that we review our engagement and cooperation.”

The parliament “has spoken in favour of cooperation and a partnership approach,” he said, adding that Pakistan was bound by the advice of parliament and the democratic forces.

“Our parliament has also recommended that foreign fighters and non-state actors seeking to destabilize Afghanistan and the region, if found on our soil, must be expelled. We are devising a comprehensive plan for this purpose. This would require the support of the international community both in terms of resources and capacity building. It will also require measures aimed at the economic well-being of the people of the areas affected by the military action,” he added.

Afghan reconciliation

The president said Pakistan’s destiny was inter-linked with Afghanistan while expressing support of all efforts for peace and reconciliation in the war-torn country.

“We firmly believe that only an inclusive intra-Afghan dialogue can lead to sustainable peace in Afghanistan,” he said.

US-Pakistan bilateral talks

Earlier, Pakistan and the US ended their Chicago consultations on the side-lines of the Nato summit, “agreeing to disagree” on almost all their mutually contentious issues but seemingly pushed by their respective national interests to continue talking to seek ways to bridge the trust deficit which refuses to disappear.

Even the quick handshake between President Obama and President Zardari before the start of the consultations among participants of the summit this morning appeared to have failed to break the ice. However, unconfirmed reports claim that the two presidents met for short while after the handshake but details of what transpired between the two were not readily available.

Briefing by secretary general

At the end of the final day of the summit, the Nato Secretary General while briefing the media said that it was in Pakistan’s interest to have a stable Afghanistan and voiced optimism that Pakistan would reopen a vital supply route for foreign troops in Afghanistan despite failing to reach a deal at a summit in Chicago.

“We did not anticipate an agreement on the Pakistan transit routes to be reached at this summit. That was not planned,” Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen told reporters.

But he added: “I express some optimism as regards the possibility to see the reopening of transit routes in the very near future.”

The secretary general went on to add that President Asif Ali Zardari was invited “because we wanted to engage with Pakistan. We need to have a positive engagement with Pakistan. I met President Zardari, I was encouraged by his statements.”

NATO declaration

The Western alliance agreed to hand control of Afghanistan over to its own security forces by the middle of next year, putting the Western alliance on an ‘irreversible’ path out of an unpopular, decade-long war.

In a declaration at a summit in Chicago, the alliance expressed appreciation to Russia and Central Asian governments for allowing supply convoys through their territory in what seemed to be a cautionary statement directed towards Pakistan and said “Nato continues to work with Pakistan to reopen the ground lines of communication as soon as possible.”

“The countries in the region, particularly Pakistan, have important roles in ensuring enduring peace, stability and security in Afghanistan and in facilitating the completion of the transition process,” the declaration said.

Pressure on Pakistan

The seemingly intense pressure being put on Pakistan was reflected in the Monday edition of The Wall Street Journal, which said that US tensions with Pakistan complicated the opening day of the Nato summit as the US had failed so far to reach a deal with Pakistan to reopen key supply routes into Afghanistan.

“Zardari was invited to attend the two-day summit at the last minute in hopes that would lead to a deal, but the two sides remain at odds over how much the US and its allies should pay Pakistan per container,” it further said.

It seems the bottom line was dollars at the summit for both the Western alliance and Pakistan as the former is seeking substantial contributions from its recession-battered members, amounting a total of $4.1 billion, to finance its withdrawal and support the peace aftermath, while the latter is suffering from one of its worst economic squeezes in history and is looking forward to cashing in on the Afghan withdrawal concerns by proposing that the transit fees per container be raised to as much as $5,000 from the current $250, a demand that Washington and its allies have rejected as excessive.

The refusal of President Obama to have an official one-on-meeting with President Zardari is being used as pressure meant to make the latter “feel uncomfortable,” the WSJ said, quoting an unnamed senior US official.

The Chicago Tribune on Monday said that the two-day summit, the largest in the military alliance’s 63 year history, came as White House officials made clear they were furious at Pakistan’s continued refusal to reopen ground routes used to move fuel and other war supplies into Afghanistan, a six month standoff the White House had hoped to resolve before the summit.

Pakistan’s version

Pakistanis on their part led by President Zardari appeared to be putting up a brave face in the face of intense pressure as they publicly stuck to their stand that both a US apology and cessation of drone strikes were not off the table as far as they were concerned and that they would not settle for anything less than what they are demanding as a transit supply fee.

The unflappable presidential spokesperson Farhatullah Babar and a media savvy Ambassador Sherry Rehman effortlessly kept their cool while fielding some very searching questions from a group of Pakistani media representatives at their late evening briefing on President Zardari’s engagements.

Their brave faces indicated that either Pakistan had not realised the gravity of the situation or they had come prepared not to sign on the dotted lines, come what may, and therefore were ready face the consequences.

Or perhaps both US and Pakistan are deliberately sending well orchestrated signals for the benefit of their respective parties while having already reached some kind of accord on major issues to be made public at a mutually agreed time. As both the Democrats in the US and the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) enter election mode, they may be seeking to extract the maximum political advantage– or minimum political damage – from this deal.

Babar said the two sides while agreeing to disagree on their contentious issues sought to continue talks to bridge the trust deficit, which he thought was a positive aspect of the meeting between Zardari and Clinton.

“We searched for convergences and tried to reduce the points of divergences. We dispelled the misperception regarding the alleged links with Pakistani militants … The Secretary of state was informed that the US has not paid a single penny under CSF head since July 2010. President Zardari reiterated that Pakistan needed trade rather than aid, stoppage of drone attacks, and would like speedy implementation of reconstruction opportunity zones.”

US president’s speech

Meanwhile, in his opening remarks on the final day of the summit the US President welcomed Nato allies and partners that make up the International Security Assistance Force (Isaf) in Afghanistan and particularly mentioned the presence of Afghan President Karzai, as well as officials from central Asia and Russia: “nations that have an important perspective and that continue to provide critical transit for Isaf supplies.” He did not name Pakistan even once in his speech.

US President Barack Obama and his 27 military allies also ordered military officers to begin planning a post-2014 mission to focus on training, advising and assisting Afghan troops and special forces.

“As Afghans stand up, they will not stand alone,” Obama said.

Meanwhile, in a sign of growing impatience within the alliance, new French President Francois Hollande refused to back down from his decision to pull troops out in 2012, a year earlier than planned.

(Read: Chicago hiccups)

Published in The Express Tribune, May 22nd, 2012.

Are my eyes deceiving me? I'm in shock and awe over here. Is this the same Zardari? Excellent work there, man. Finally somebody showed backbone. Somebody put forth a strong stance for Pakistan. Obama must be in shock. Interesting development ahead.

 

[lem34]

NATO summit: Obama's Pakistan gamble falls flat
The White House fails to reach a deal on supply routes to Afghanistan. The summit does produce a formal agreement on the withdrawal from Afghanistan.

President Obama chats with leaders of Afghanistan and Pakistan


May 21, 2012, 11:10 p.m.
CHICAGO — When the White House sent a last-minute invitation for Asif Ali Zardari to attend the two-day NATO summit, they were taking a highly public gamble. Would sharing the spotlight with President Obama and other global leaders induce the Pakistani president to allow vital supplies to reach alliance troops fighting in Afghanistan?

But long before the summit ended Monday, the answer was clear: No deal.

Zardari's refusal to reopen the supply routes left a diplomatic blot on a summit that NATO sought to cast as the beginning of the end of the conflict in Afghanistan. The Chicago gathering did produce a formal agreement by the alliance to hand over lead responsibility for security to Afghan forces by mid-2013, and pull out nearly all U.S. and other NATO troops by the end of 2014 even if the Taliban-led insurgency remains undiminished.

U.S. officials insist ample fuel and other supplies are being delivered via much longer and more expensive land routes in Russia and other nations north of Afghanistan. But the Pentagon says reopening the land route in Pakistan will be essential to hauling vast stores of military equipment and vehicles out of Afghanistan during the withdrawal.

Obama's irritation at the impasse was clear Monday when he addressed more than 50 world leaders and publicly thanked Russia and Central Asian nations "that continue to provide critical transit" of war supplies into Afghanistan. Zardari sat only a few feet away, but Obama pointedly did not mention Pakistan.

Later at a news conference that closed the two-day summit, Obama did not try to downplay the strains in a relationship that has spiraled from crisis to crisis since U.S. Navy SEALs secretly flew into Pakistan to kill Osama bin Laden last May. Nor did Obama suggest, as his aides had done earlier, that a quick resolution was likely.

"I don't want to paper over real challenges there," Obama said. "There's no doubt that there have been tensions between [the NATO military coalition] and Pakistan, the United States and Pakistan over the last several months."

Pakistan closed the main NATO supply route after U.S. airstrikes hit two border posts Nov. 26 and killed 24 Pakistani soldiers. Islamabad has demanded an unconditional apology, and more than $5,000 per truck, up from about $250 in the past, to let supplies flow again. The Obama administration has refused to apologize, saying both sides committed mistakes, and it says the new truck toll is far too expensive.

The White House was careful not to let Zardari appear completely snubbed Monday, worried that could worsen tensions. Obama had ruled out a formal meeting with Zardari when it was clear no deal was forthcoming, but aides ensured that the Pakistani leader managed to bump into Obama twice Monday, once for a brief one-on-one chat and later with Afghan President Hamid Karzai. The White House quickly told the media of the encounter and tweeted a photo of the three leaders in conversation.

Obama indicated that the discussion was far from substantive, however, describing it as "very brief as we were walking into the summit."

Obama also offered a glimpse of how his thinking has evolved on the use of military force during his three years in office, reflecting on an issue that officials have said increasingly has been on his mind: the tensions that develop when U.S. troops are deployed in distant wars for years on end.

"Frankly, the large footprint that we have in Afghanistan over time can be counterproductive," Obama said. "We've been there 10 years. And I think, you know, no matter how much good we're doing and how outstanding our troops and our civilians and diplomats are doing on the ground, 10 years in a country that's very different, that's a strain. Not only on our folks, but also on that country."

Obama dismissed the notion that the U.S. may be planning for a "premature withdrawal" in Afghanistan, but he also committed to the 2014 timetable regardless of whether the Taliban-led insurgency is defeated. Signaling the shrunken ambitions for the mission, Obama said sometimes you just have to pick a time and leave.

"I don't think that there's ever going to be an optimal point where we say: 'This is all done. This is perfect. This is just the way we wanted it. And now we can wrap up all our equipment and go home,' " he said. "There's a process. And it's sometimes a messy process. Just as it was in Iraq."

Obama indicated that he was so wary of major troop commitments that he had applied clear limits for U.S. special operations and other military units battling groups affiliated with Al Qaeda in Yemen, Somalia and other places. The goal, Obama said, is to "stay focused on the counter-terrorism issue, to not overextend ourselves."

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization announced last week that it had invited Zardari to the long-planned summit. U.S. officials said they had hoped a meeting with Obama might provide an incentive for a deal on resuming supply shipments. When that strategy did not work, they tried to raise the pressure through what appeared to be a series of carefully calibrated slights.

"The invitation was an inducement to get them back into the international fold," said a senior U.S. official, speaking anonymously because of the sensitive issues. "But the Pakistanis couldn't get their own act together" in time for the summit. "The main issue, it seems, is money."

Pakistan's ambassador to the United States, Sherry Rehman, sought to downplay the dispute during an evening news conference at Chicago's Ritz Carlton Hotel.

"We are seeking to narrow differences," she said, adding, "I don't think there is a haggle going on with the price."

Farhatullah Babar, a spokesman for Zardari, said negotiations to reopen the supply route were ongoing, but "no timeline can be given."

Earlier, the Pentagon had announced that Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta had "expressed his deep appreciation" to officials from Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan at a meeting Monday. NATO has trucked more than half its nonlethal supplies through those countries since the Pakistani route closed, and flown the rest in on cargo planes.

Some U.S. officials said the Obama administration's approach could backfire by humiliating Zardari, leaving him politically weaker and even less able to overcome the intense anti-U.S. feeling in Pakistan over the attack on the border posts, years of lethal CIA drone attacks on Pakistani territory and other divisive issues.

Without access to Pakistan, equipment leaving Afghanistan would have to go by cargo plane and by the northern routes, which stretch thousands of miles through Russia and Central Asia to ports on the Baltic Sea or through Georgia to the Black Sea. Many of the countries refuse to allow the U.S. to ship ammunition and other lethal equipment through their territory, forcing those supplies to go by air.

The U.S. military and NATO allies shipped about 260,000 tons of nonlethal supplies into Afghanistan last year. About 40% went through Pakistan, although that had dropped to about 30% by the fall.

Before the summit adjourned, officials said additional countries had promised in closed-door discussions to provide money for Afghanistan's army and police after 2014. The Obama administration has sought to raise about $1.3 billion in annual contributions from allies as part of a plan to provide $4.1 billion to Afghanistan's security forces after foreign troops withdraw.

The U.S. has promised $2.4 billion and Afghanistan has offered $500 million. British Prime Minister David Cameron said Australia, Denmark, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Estonia and others had made pledges Monday that added "almost" $1 billion. He said more pledges were expected soon.

So refreshing that Pakistan is holding its own and insisting that if routes are to be reopened they are done so on Pakistan's terms. So much for Pakistan's enemies who say Pakistan cannot and has no choices and were predicting roots would be reopened within weeks

 

[VCheng]

First of all, this is the source: NATO summit: Obama's Pakistan gamble falls flat - latimes.com

And importantly, this is the key quote, indicating the level of economic necessity on the Paksitani side. It is only a matter of time before a deal is truck, and the final figure will say it all, very objectively:

NATO summit: Obama's Pakistan gamble falls flat
................
"The invitation was an inducement to get them back into the international fold," said a senior U.S. official, speaking anonymously because of the sensitive issues. "But the Pakistanis couldn't get their own act together" in time for the summit. "The main issue, it seems, is money."..................

PS: "Routes" or "Roots"?

 

[lem34]

First of all, this is the source: NATO summit: Obama's Pakistan gamble falls flat - latimes.com

And importantly, this is the key quote, indicating the level of economic necessity on the Paksitani side. It is only a matter of time before a deal is truck, and the final figure will say it all, very objectively:



PS: "Routes" or "Roots"?

Ah so I do not proof read big deal-

As far as your predictions that routes will reopen in 30 days I suggest that you stop being a mouthpiece for American propaganda against Pakistan.

Clearly any deal will have to be in Pakistan's interest and terms.

 

[SamranAli]

CHICAGO: Despite the bad press that has dogged the Pakistani delegation during their trip, Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar appeared upbeat and sounded positive about the outcome of the attendance of the Pakistani delegation, headed by President Asif Zardari, at the Nato Summit in Chicago.
Speaking to Express News, Khar said, “When there’s a debate about Afghanistan taking place, in your opinion, should a country like Pakistan, which is a responsible regional player, an important neighbour, and a country that has huge stakes in peace and stability in Afghanistan, not participate?”
Khar said that Pakistan had the highest stakes among the 60 countries that participated in the summit. “The spillover effect of instability in Afghanistan is instantaneous in Pakistan, and if there is stability in Afghanistan, the effect of that in Pakistan too should be instantaneous. I will completely disagree with anyone at all who says that Pakistan should not participate in such a forum.”
She added that Pakistan was an important neighbour of Afghanistan and a responsible regional player.
Khar also took umbrage to how the Nato summit was debated in Pakistan. “The US side, the Nato secretary general and the government said that this was an unconditional invite.”
However, she added, that there was a debate on whether this was conditional, and when we would make an announcement about the re-opening of the Ground Lines of Communication (GLOCs).
“We have proven that we are going to conduct foreign policy in a very transparent manner and that should give people confidence and that we are trying to move forward in a transparent manner.”
“What we need to do is engage with the world, in giving our perspective on what the reality checks are and what the challenges are. For that you need extensive engagement with the rest of the world, and I think Chicago provided an excellent opportunity for that.”
“This is the question for Pakistan – what message do we want to give the world? Are we an enabler, a facilitator, a responsible country on the road that leads to Afghan stability, or do we want to give the message that we are a blocker, a disabler, to the international efforts towards peace and stability. We want to give a very strong message that the Afghan people’s future is important to us, that we would like to enable peace and stability in Afghanistan to the best of our abilities, and we have been doing that at great cost to Pakistan,” she said.
Responding to a question, Khar said that no hostile attacks were made on Pakistan during speeches and remarks at the Nato summit.
On the matter of the GLOCs, Khar said that the Nato partners attach a great deal of importance to the supply routes and “they will, because it makes a difference to them. That’s why we have said this in Pakistan as well, the narrative needs to go into a positive zone [in Pakistan], that the issue of Nato supply routes is not about US-Pakistan relations, it affects relations with 50 odd countries that are part of Nato and are partners.”
Khar highlighted that during Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s interview on CNN, he said that they were working in the “friendliest of environments” that have been possible. She added that Prime Minister Gilani would also be visiting Kabul soon.
US-Pakistan relations
Speaking about relations between the US and Pakistan, Khar said, “We are engaging with them on all issues, nothing is off the table, so we have to move on each of the issues. We have started a useful engagement process, and want to achieve good results for good US-Pakistan bilateral relations, Pakistan’s relations with Nato countries and its relations with Afghanistan.”
On the issue of US-operated drone operation in Pakistan, Khar said that Pakistan’s position remains clear, that they [drones] are “unlawful, illegal and counterproductive”.
“What we need to emphasise even more is how they are counterproductive. Drones are a means to an end, they are there to achieve a certain objective, so if you can achieve those objectives with different tools, which are acceptable to you and me, isn’t that a better tool? So we are trying to look for tools that are mutually acceptable. There is a lot of work that we have done together, and I am fairly optimistic that we can formulate a roadmap to lead to a way where drones are not required in Pakistan.”
Khar said that they had good dialogues with every major player in the US administration that they met on the sidelines of the Nato Summit, and that they has a productive meeting with US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
She added that they emphasised the importance of the parliamentary review and were moving forward on the basis of its recommendations.
Khar said that engagement with the US would continue on many levels in Washington and Islamabad. “I’m a bit assured by the fact that I see a commitment on both sides to make it work. I am more confident than I was before that we can make it work.”
The foreign minister said that they were not compromising on Pakistan’s national interests, and unlike what happened in the past, when they would reach a decision, it would be made public.
When asked if it was a mistake by Pakistan to not attend the Bonn conference on Afghanistan in December 2011, after the Salala incident, Khar said, “I will never as a foreign minister choose to disassociate myself with any international discussion. However, at that time Salala was a great national tragedy, and in many ways it was crossing multiple red lines in Pakistan-US relationship.”
She said that Pakistan’s sovereignty must be respected, and there was a consensus that not attending the Bonn conference was a way to send that message to the world.
“I think it was the need of the hour. But that was the need of the hour then, its always an evolving situation.” She said that Pakistan wanted to a closure on the episode and that an apology would help in achieving it.
When asked if they had anything to announce for the future, Khar said that it was a continued engagement process, and that they were in touch on various levels. She added that Pakistan was given the honour of being invited at the conference, and was the only neighbour of Afghanistan that had been invited.
“I think we should take things positively, and not go into conspiracy theory mode thinking that everything is happening against Pakistan, we have to make it ourselves; our first responsibility is to ourselves, and to protect our national interest and then pursue a track that protects it.”
NATO Summit: It was a very, very successful visit, says Khar – The Express Tribune

 

[VCheng]

............
Clearly any deal will have to be in Pakistan's interest and terms.

Of course. Both sides will try to jockey for the best deal, whatever it turns out to be. It is good that both sides are approaching a potential care with due care rather than rushing into something that would fall apart sooner rather than later.

 

[lem34]

Of course. Both sides will try to jockey for the best deal, whatever it turns out to be. It is good that both sides are approaching a potential care with due care rather than rushing into something that would fall apart sooner rather than later.

But time is not on Obama or America's side.

 

[VCheng]

But time is not on Obama or America's side.

IF that is true, then surely it will translate into increasing US willingness to meet Pakistan's demands then. So when USA apologizes and pays $10k per truck, you will know whether that is true or not.

 

[lem34]

IF that is true, then surely it will translate into increasing US willingness to meet Pakistan's demands then. So when USA apologizes and pays $10k per truck, you will know whether that is true or not.

Mate I think it is unlikely to offer $10k per truck. But I must say that American diplomacy appears not to be quite working out at the moment. Obama and & co seem more to me day by day like the proverbial spurned woman in their dealings with Pakistan

 

[iPhone]

I think over all PPP handled themselves very well. I would have never expected Zardari and Co. to take such a strong stance against American demands.

Obama administration must be awe struck. Gone are the days where Pakistani leadership were arm twisted into American will. Whitehouse is used to such handling of affairs with Pakistan.

Get the job done, willingly or unwillingly, pay minimal afterwards and call it aid. No if's and's or but's about it. No going to parliment, or discussion on wheather the American job is in Pakistan's interest.

If there are screw ups, ala, Raymond Davis, again usethe tough tone and frowned face and get Pak's cooperation. They expected the same after Salala.

Now, not only their demands aren't being met but Pakistan's is looking at them eye to eye and demanding a competitve pay for services rendered and future cooperation. Americans aren't used to this kind of behavior from Pakistan.

Obama is damaged goods. Chances are very unlikely he'll be elected again as the President. A simple apology to Pak wont effect that outcome. He has done Pakistan wrong on many an occassions.

He lied through his teeth when he called Raymond Davis an American diplomat. He bathed innocent Pakistanis in blood with his relentless and illegal drones. If he has a little bit of integrity left, he should look himself in the mirror and realize how his actions have hurt Pakistan.

He's not going to be in office next year, stop trying to appease the whities around you. Do the right thing. It turns out Americans are paying $ 17,000 a container to Centeral Asian nations, Pakistan is only asking for 5. And it also turns out that out of $250 a container they used to pay Paks, after the money channeled through, Pakistan gov't only got 8 dollars a container.

But still Pakistan's cooperation continued. Now it's US's turn to show some generousity. A simple apology isnot going to hurt you, releasing the coaloition funds which is rightfully Pakistan's, isn't going to hurt you. Giving $5,000 a container for barely two more years isn't going to hurt you.

You enjoyed a free ride for 11 years. If you have to pay for two years, that isnot going to hurt you. If you really are a friend then prove with your actions.

 

[VCheng]

Mate I think it is unlikely to offer $10k per truck. But I must say that American diplomacy appears not to be quite working out at the moment. ............

Well, the final figure will reveal how successful each sides' diplomacy has been. I will say that the US policy, imperfect as it is, does seem to be working far better than the confused frenzy emanating from Pakistan.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Well, the final figure will reveal how successful each sides' diplomacy has been. I will say that the US policy, imperfect as it is, does seem to be working far better than the confused frenzy emanating from Pakistan.

What confusion?

I'll say again:

1. Apology for the murder of 24 Pakistani troops by the US
2. Jointly operated drone strikes on Pakistani soil
3. A higher transit rate on NATO supplies through Pakistan

The three points above have been largely the same since the US murder of Pakistani troops, and since the PCNS recommendations came out, so what is so incoherent about the Pakistani position?

The argument that the 'Pakistani position is 'incoherent' is just the latest 'talking point' to malign Pakistan out of the US Deep State's propaganda arm.

 

[RazPaK]

Good job for sticking your guns Pakistan.


This was highly unexpected.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Pakistan deserves US apology over NATO attack: Bilawal Bhutto

ISLAMABAD, May 22 (APP): US President Barack Obama should “show some courage” and apologise to Pakistan for a cross-border air strike by NATO forces in Afghanistan that killed 24 Pakistani soldiers last year, PPP chairman Bilawal Bhutto Zardari has said.“I urge President Obama to show some courage. I understand he is running for re-election but if he is the same man who inspired the world with his message of hope and change, the future of the NATO mission in Afghanistan should be more important than poll numbers, The Times of India Reported. The 23-year-old nominal chief of the PPP also demanded that the US end drone strikes within Pakistani territory.He made the remarks while addressing a gathering of party workers and supporters in New York on Monday night.Bilawal said he was visiting America at “what may be the most critical point in the 65-year relationship between Pakistan and the US.” Islamabad’s ties with Washington plunged to a new low after the NATO air strike on two border posts killed 24 Pakistani soldiers in November last year.

Associated Press Of Pakistan ( Pakistan's Premier NEWS Agency )

 

[Safriz]

Good job for sticking your guns Pakistan.


This was highly unexpected.

This was a job well done by Zardari..Deserves appreciation..seriously..

(Laikin vote phir bhee imran kaa )