Obama tells PM he's 'very fond of Pakistan'

[xenia]

Obama met earlier in the day with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, who urged the US leader to put pressure on Pakistan to rein in extremists responsible for the grisly 2008 assault on Mumbai.

The White House made no explicit mention of the Indian concerns in its account of the meeting with Gilani.

Obama meets Singh India conveys to US concerns over Pakistan

By Anwer Iqbal and Masood Haider



WASHINGTON, April 11: Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh met US President Barack Obama on Sunday, conveying his country’s concerns over American military aid to Pakistan and over the situation in Afghanistan.
Although the talks, held ahead of a two-day nuclear summit in Washington, focussed on nuclear security, India’s relations with Pakistan and Islamabad’s growing stature in Afghanistan also figured, Indian officials said.

President Obama walked across the White House to meet the Indian prime minister at the Blair House, the US President’s official guest house. It was their second meeting in five months.

Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani was to meet the US president a few hours later. The US wanted a trilateral meeting, but the Indians refused to participate in direct political talks with Pakistan. They also refused to hold bilateral talks with the Pakistani leader.

Officials briefing the Indian media on the meeting said Mr Singh repeated India’s request for the extradition of Pakistani-American suspect David Coleman Headley, who is accused of plotting the Mumbai terror attacks. India wants direct access to the suspect.

Mr Singh also conveyed to Mr Obama India’s apprehensions over the end-use of the US military aid to Pakistan.

India claims that US military supplies and financial assistance to Pakistan are often used against Indian interests.

He also shared his concerns over the situation in Afghanistan with the US president.

Mr Singh informed President Obama that India would continue to play its role in Afghanistan as it had vital interests in that country.

Indian officials said New Delhi had made it clear that it would stick to its commitment in Afghanistan “with or without America” as it had crucial stakes in the stability of the country on its periphery.

India has been involved in a number of developmental projects in Afghanistan and has vowed to continue with them despite frequent attacks by Taliban on its interests there.

The officials said that India’s policy on Afghanistan would be determined by its own interests and not by what others did.

They noted that India and the US had common goals in Afghanistan and wanted to stabilise that country.

Mr Singh also discussed the controversy concerning the US Civil Nuclear Liability Bill with the American president.

The bill is caught in a political quagmire in India with opposition parties strongly objecting to certain aspects of the proposed legislation.

The US has been pushing for an early passage of the bill by the Indian parliament, pointing out that American companies are feeling left behind in the race for nuclear contracts in India as other major players from countries like France and Russia have already signed deals with New Delhi.

The Indian delegation comprised National Security Adviser Shivshankar Menon, Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao and Indian Ambassador Meera Shankar. The US team included Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs William Burns.

President AFP adds: Obama voiced support for giving India access to Mumbai attack planner David Headley, in talks with Prime Minister Singh, a senior Indian official said. Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao said Singh asked for access to Headley. “He was fully supportive of our request for provision of such access,” Rao told reporters.


washington, april 11: indian prime minis- ter manmohan singh met us president barack obama on sunday, conveying his country’s concerns over american military aid to pakistan and over the situation in afghanistan. although the talks, held ahead of a two-day nuclear summit in washington, focussed on nuclear securi- ty, india’s relations with pakistan and islamabad’s growing stature in afghanistan also figured, indian officials said. president obama walked across the white house to meet the indian prime minis- ter at the blair house, the us president’s official guest house. it was their second meeting in five months. prime minister yusuf raza gilani was to meet the us president a few hours later. the us wanted a trilateral meeting, but the indians re- fused to participate in direct political talks with pakistan. they also refused to hold bi- lateral talks with the pakistani leader. officials briefing the indian media on the meeting said mr singh repeated india’s request for the extra- dition of pakistani-american suspect david coleman headley, who is accused of plotting the mumbai terror at- tacks. india wants direct ac- cess to the suspect. mr singh also conveyed to mr obama india’s apprehen- sions over the end-use of the us military aid to pakistan. india claims that us milita- ry supplies and financial as- sistance to pakistan are often used against indian interests. he also shared his concerns over the situation in afghan- istan with the us president. mr singh informed presi- dent obama that india would continue to play its role in afghanistan as it had vital in- terests in that country. indian officials said new delhi had made it clear that it would stick to its commitment in afghanistan “with or with- out america” as it had crucial stakes in the stability of the country on its periphery. india has been involved in a number of developmental projects in afghanistan and has vowed to continue with them despite frequent at- tacks by taliban on its inter- ests there. the officials said that india’s policy on afghanistan would be determined by its own interests and not by what others did. they noted that india and the us had common goals in afghanistan and wanted to stabilise that country. mr singh also discussed the controversy concerning the us civil nuclear liability bill with the american president. the bill is caught in a polit- ical quagmire in india with opposition parties strongly ob- jecting to certain aspects of the proposed legislation. the us has been pushing for an early passage of the bill by the indian parliament, pointing out that american companies are feeling left be- hind in the race for nuclear contracts in india as other ma- jor players from countries like france and russia have al- ready signed deals with new delhi. the indian delegation com- prised national security adviser shivshankar menon, foreign secretary nirupama rao and indian ambassador meera shankar. the us team included secretary of state hillary clinton, white house chief of staff rahm emanuel and under secretary of state for political affairs william burns. president afp adds: obama voiced support for giv- ing india access to mumbai at- tack planner david headley, in talks with prime minister singh, a senior indian official said. foreign secretary niru- pama rao said singh asked for access to headley. “he was fully supportive of our request for provision of such access,” rao told reporters.

 

[naved_kam]

Agreed then that the KLL tangibly does little in terms of imposing any conditions on Pakistan that Pakistan does not agree with.

Actually I implied exactly the opposite here considering that there has been one exact experience of Pakistan of not getting the "paid for" F-16s due to one similar waiver that was required from the POTUS (??). So my view will be just the same to happen for the bill by M/s Kerry and Lugar too once Pakistan is inclined to not tow the line, but then your window on this is surely different then mine so best to leave it at that....

As far as dealing with the military vs GoP, I think the current setup is to everyone's advantage for the time being. The GoP has its hands full domestically, and attempts to focus on those issues, while the Military sits behind the scenes and influences foreign policy. The US can point to a 'democratic government' , the GoP gets to not play in an area where it is out of its depth (for now) and the Pakistani military is assured that the the GoP won't muck up walking a very delicate tightrope on foreign policy.

While I agree with most of your above part, I would also like to add that the congnizance in the world of the practicality of dealing with the Pakistani Army has more to do with the fact that Pakistan can only exist in periodic aberrations without reverting back to being a military regime. So "der saver" it will become the same. We may disagree about the methods of the systemic decimation of the democratic structures by a vested Pakistani Army, but the facts (numbers) clearly speak the inclination of Pakistani Army to run the country. So it is safe to assume that any move detrimental to the supremacist existence of the Pakistan Army in the establishment will be promptly done away with irrespective of whether it is a domestic policy or a foreign policy initiative.

There are several inaccuracies in your comments. First, there are two entities here that you are mixing up. The Afghan Taliban and the Pakistani Taliban (TTP). The TTP rose in the Tribal areas of Pakistan after the US invasion of Pakistan, and the focus of their activities has been Pakistan, not Afghanistan. Pakistan had nothing to do with this group, and their decimation is, as I said, very advantageous in that it frees up Pakistan from an internal threat.

Actually, I meant as referring to them as the same. They are, I think for the world too. The good taliban & bad taliban are actually singularly parts of only Pakistan's dictionaries. But I can surely see the distinction from the Pakistani perspective = Taliban which seeks to annihilate all supporters of U.S (the basic premise of the so called Jehad in Afganistan) & by its extension the Pakistan Army is bad Taliban and the Taliban which is still amiable and malleable to be part of the Pakistani Army's foreign policy is good taliban aka Haqqani & Co. The scope of this differentiation of the good and the bad taliban I think is quite adaptable to account for new developments on the short notice. The idea for Pakistan Army is always try to be visibly just on the right side of things with loosing as less control on these assets and least damage to them as possible.

The Afghan Taliban were supported by Pakistan (though we did not create them either) in the pursuit of stabilizing Afghanistan through a pro-Pakistan regime. The goal was the opposite of this 'benevolent anarchy' you attribute to Pakistan. Pakistan wanted trade, oil and gas pipelines from the CAR's, and it wanted a return of the millions of Afghan refugees on its soil and the lawlessness in Afghanistan that was impacting Pakistani businessmen seeking to do business in Afghanistan and through Afghanistan. The alternate opinions on Pakistan's rationale for supporting the Taliban after the Soviets are distorted concoctions meant to demonize and dehumanize Pakistan, mostly by the Indian intelligentsia.

The direct impacts of your above vision for Afganistan and the vigorous trade that you carried out with them was starkly visible to us when our civilian aircraft was sitting on the Tarmac at Kabul airport. Your allies sent back to us 2 dead bodies of a newly married couple. They were from my current town of residence when in India. The sheer coincidence of them being your hired help quite starkly alludes to them being your henchmen. But of course, we will disagree here too so..... but good to see that you have kept Maulana Azhar Masood quite healthy even though his taste for opium has been a common place story in the Indian Army intelligence community.

Re the role of the Indian intelligensia, though I wish it was true of their capabilties but I think that they cannot run the information offices of CIA and other intelligence agencies around the world. Knowing how well read you are, I would not dare to direct your attention to the easily accessible information on the internet in this regard attributed to these very agencies.

We have been hearing about 'proverbial straws on the camels back' for years now, and none of it has come true now has it? This straw on the camel thing is like a fetish for those who wish to see Pakistan dismembered, and every little event in Pakistan sends these people, already salivating at the thought of Pakistan's implosion, into raptures - but you know what they say, 'if wishes were horses ...'

Yeah, if wishes were horses, they would surely have bolted..... and a single straw can be one too many ..... but the verbose bit aside, I do not think that the world is looking at the developments in regions in your country where you have no control as positive. The reason is not because of any love with Pakistan but the only worry is that that any motivated terrorist activities emanating from that zone will only give the Pakistani establishment of expounding more "non-state" actors theories.

The Afghan Taliban, if they do outlast NATO in Afghanistan, will end up courting Pakistan again, regardless of the arrests and bombings - interviews with Afghan Taliban leaders posted after the Baradar arrest suggest as much. If the Taliban do not outlast NATO, well then, that is why we have an outreach campaign with Karzai and others going on, and why we are successfully, so far, restricting India's military footprint in Afghanistan and an increased Indian role in training the Afghan military.

The idea has always been to outlast NATO and ambling against Taliban only when completely cornered and necessary. I agree with you there. Re the limiting of the Indian footprint, the fact that it took ISI with all the depth with the Taliban so long to make an impact suprises me. To me it looks more like that ISI has lost its touch. But yes, there is not much that India can do there in the current scenario because we do not have similar approaches towards creating spheres of influence. But the last is quite to be seen on that front I would imagine.....the gloves on this I do not think are off yet....

The Taliban in Pakistan have completely lost support from the Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa population, more so than the rest of the country. As such the possibility of the Taliban redirecting their movement into a nationalist Pashtun movement is almost impossible at this point. The protests in Hazara are based on inter-provincial domestic politics of ethno-linguistic identity and have little to do with the Taliban.

I will take your view here. I am much distanced from the politics in that region since mostly the news that comes out has been typed on a Pakistani Army type writer and the free world has not access to these regions.

How is the end result of the conflict in Afghanistan, as outlined by Kiyani, different from that of the US? I assume you have read the comments attributed to Kiyani?

Yeah, I have read also a few intrepretations of the same. Some innocuous ones from Pakistani commentators which are very similar to what your have extrapolated on this forum. But then these commentators had attributed pretty similar philanthropic ideas about Taliban to earlier Pakistani leaders too. The problem with these is the practice of publishing self gratifying biographies. They give most of the retrospect thinking away. So being a Indian out of habit, I will just take our intrepretations on this and hold my breath till the next biography is published.

I think the dream by some in the US of a 'Jeffersonian democracy' in Afghanistan is long gone - what is left is a pragmatic idea of what can be accomplished, and on that count there is synergy between broad US and Pakistani goals.

The only synergy currently between the U.S with Pakistan is that of compulsion. The expecations shorten with the dimmening of the available resources and time etc. However, if there is any school of thought with the view that U.S will completely wind up and leave, I think they might be disappointed. They will not commit the same mistake twice. Pakistan has been much too irresposible to be left with open season in a country as vulnerable as Afganistan. And the Iran story is yet to be played out too. So.....

Pakistan cannot cease that which does not exist, i.e 'State support for terrorist groups'. And as reports around the events in the US suggest, the US isn't really pushing that line either, so Indian is really having no luck with its propaganda being pushed by the US government through tangible pressure on Pakistan.

On the Pakistan side, the arrest and trials of Shah, Lakhvi and others more than establish the intent to take the alleged Mumbai attack masterminds to task.

Yeah..... this argument is heard very often on our side of the border. Something like various versions of some "non-state" actors. But the recent astounding increase in the inconsistency from various writers in Pakistan on this aspect is quite surprising. In fact, I was just reading I think only a couple of days back an article posted on this forum why the writer thinks that India has to make peace with Pakistan to stop the terrorist acts emanating from camps being run in Pakistan. Regarding the intent of the Pakistani establishment, nothing can be established short of closing down of the terror camps being run in Pakistan.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Actually I implied exactly the opposite here considering that there has been one exact experience of Pakistan of not getting the "paid for" F-16s due to one similar waiver that was required from the POTUS (??). So my view will be just the same to happen for the bill by M/s Kerry and Lugar too once Pakistan is inclined to not tow the line, but then your window on this is surely different then mine so best to leave it at that....

The waivers in the KLL relate to US aid - prior waivers related to a much wider assortment of activities, including military sales. The current order for Block52 F-16's is being paid for by Pakistan, and not funded through US aid, therefore a waiver would not impact it.

Even assuming the worse case scenario, almost all the Block52's are scheduled to be delivered by the end of this year, so the chances of those getting sanctioned are remote. In addition, the US does not have the appetite for another war, and if engagement with Pakistan does the trick in terms of relative regional stability and keeping AQ at bay, it will engage with Pakistan.

While I agree with most of your above part, I would also like to add that the congnizance in the world of the practicality of dealing with the Pakistani Army has more to do with the fact that Pakistan can only exist in periodic aberrations without reverting back to being a military regime. So "der saver" it will become the same. We may disagree about the methods of the systemic decimation of the democratic structures by a vested Pakistani Army, but the facts (numbers) clearly speak the inclination of Pakistani Army to run the country. So it is safe to assume that any move detrimental to the supremacist existence of the Pakistan Army in the establishment will be promptly done away with irrespective of whether it is a domestic policy or a foreign policy initiative.

That is a rather myopic view of what has propelled the PA into taking charge in Pakistan. The absolute incompetence shown by the political parties in running the affairs of the country has played a part as well. The changes wrought during the Musharraf years are however deep, and past templates are not necessarily sufficient or accurate. The current model obviously works to the liking of the current military leadership. Any future intervention by the military in domestic politics will arise out of domestic instability, and not any desire for maintaining the 'supremacist existence of the Pakistan Army in the establishment'. That is one of the usual canards propagated by Indian intelligentsia in an attempt to dehumanize Pakistan and therefore inculcate hatred against it - the rationale being that if every policy of Pakistan can be pinned on the Army, then it makes hating Pakistan through hating the institution of the Pakistan Army much easier. The alternative would of course be coming to terms with the fact that the Army comes form the people, and largely represents opinion from the Pakistani masses, albeit with a more Hawkish bent, as is the wont of most militaries.

Actually, I meant as referring to them as the same. They are, I think for the world too. The good taliban & bad taliban are actually singularly parts of only Pakistan's dictionaries. But I can surely see the distinction from the Pakistani perspective = Taliban which seeks to annihilate all supporters of U.S (the basic premise of the so called Jehad in Afganistan) & by its extension the Pakistan Army is bad Taliban and the Taliban which is still amiable and malleable to be part of the Pakistani Army's foreign policy is good taliban aka Haqqani & Co. The scope of this differentiation of the good and the bad taliban I think is quite adaptable to account for new developments on the short notice. The idea for Pakistan Army is always try to be visibly just on the right side of things with loosing as less control on these assets and least damage to them as possible.

The 'good taliban and bad taliban' is vocabulary you introduced in this discussion, not me. I classified the Taliban as 'Afghan and Pakistan (TTP) Taliban'. Referring to them as the same misses their divergent goals and origins and focuses solely on the similarities in their ideology and ethnicity. Your reference is therefore inaccurate.

The direct impacts of your above vision for Afganistan and the vigorous trade that you carried out with them was starkly visible to us when our civilian aircraft was sitting on the Tarmac at Kabul airport. Your allies sent back to us 2 dead bodies of a newly married couple. They were from my current town of residence when in India. The sheer coincidence of them being your hired help quite starkly alludes to them being your henchmen. But of course, we will disagree here too so..... but good to see that you have kept Maulana Azhar Masood quite healthy even though his taste for opium has been a common place story in the Indian Army intelligence community.

Pakistan's 'vision' never really came to fruition since Afghanistan never really stabilized. Since neither the Taliban nor Pakistan had any role in the Hijacking, using that as an example is rather irrelevant. The intransigence of the Taliban in terms of accepting compromises with the NA and on other issues was not something predicted by Pakistan, and the lack of progress does not negate the fact that Pakistan's goals behind supporting the Taliban were as I explained in my last post.

Re the role of the Indian intelligensia, though I wish it was true of their capabilties but I think that they cannot run the information offices of CIA and other intelligence agencies around the world. Knowing how well read you are, I would not dare to direct your attention to the easily accessible information on the internet in this regard attributed to these very agencies.

My comments on Pakistan's rationale behind supporting the Taliban are derived form the excellent works of Ahmed Rashid (Taliban) and Steve Coll (Ghost War's) - both argue that Pakistan's search for a faction to support (initially Hekmetyar, and later the Taliban) was driven by a desire to stabilize Afghanistan and take advantage of trade with the CAR's and Pakistan's strategic location to become an 'energy hub', and deny the ascent of an anti-Pakistan regime.

Comments on the net arguing 'benevolent anarchy' or what have have no grounding in fact.

Yeah, if wishes were horses, they would surely have bolted..... and a single straw can be one too many ..... but the verbose bit aside, I do not think that the world is looking at the developments in regions in your country where you have no control as positive. The reason is not because of any love with Pakistan but the only worry is that that any motivated terrorist activities emanating from that zone will only give the Pakistani establishment of expounding more "non-state" actors theories.

I don't think Pakistanis are looking at the lawlessness in the North West as positive either - that would be why we have deployed close to a 150,000 troops in the region to combat that lawlessness, and retaken Swat, Bajaur and South Waziristan, and are now engaged in Orakzai and Kurram.

But the point is that these 'dooms day drums' were being beaten with ferocity last year around this time too - we all know what has happened since then.

The idea has always been to outlast NATO and ambling against Taliban only when completely cornered and necessary. I agree with you there. Re the limiting of the Indian footprint, the fact that it took ISI with all the depth with the Taliban so long to make an impact suprises me. To me it looks more like that ISI has lost its touch. But yes, there is not much that India can do there in the current scenario because we do not have similar approaches towards creating spheres of influence. But the last is quite to be seen on that front I would imagine.....the gloves on this I do not think are off yet....

Of course the idea has been to outlast NATO, since NATO will one day leave. Pakistan however cannot choose to not be Afghanistan's neighbor. Pakistan has hedged its bets with respect to the Taliban, and cannot be blamed for doing so when it saw the US abandon Afghanistan once more to go wage war in Iraq. We see falling domestic support for the Afghan occupation in the US, and therefore the potential of the US leaving the job half done, and we also see the potential of the US coming to a political arrangement in Afghanistan given its domestic compulsions and a 'coming to terms' with the reality of Afghanistan (corruption and devastated institutions).

The Pakistani military and political leadership has engaged with the US leadership extensively since Obama announced his policy on Afghanistan. Comments attributed to the Pakistani leadership in the media indicate that the US has assured Pakistan that there will be no withdrawal (along the lines of what is assumed) in 2011, and there will be no 'abandonment' of Afghanistan again.

I would therefore argue that Pakistan is prepared for a situation in which NATO will remain in Afghanistan for several years, and in fact prefers such a situation.

I will take your view here. I am much distanced from the politics in that region since mostly the news that comes out has been typed on a Pakistani Army type writer and the free world has not access to these regions.

The only regions off limits are the areas of conflict in FATA. Swat is now open as is most of the Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa, which is where the majority of the Pashtun live. Opinion polls in Pakistan have consistently shown a declining trend in support for the Taliban, with the last few polls showing single digit support (5% nation wide in the latest one). The same polls have also consistently shown the Taliban as having the least amount of support in K-P, compared to the other provinces.

The protests by the Hindko speaking population of K-P are also in areas open to the media, and have been covered in the Pakistani media. The reasons behind them are obvious and you can read about them in the National Politics section on this forum.

Yeah, I have read also a few intrepretations of the same. Some innocuous ones from Pakistani commentators which are very similar to what your have extrapolated on this forum. But then these commentators had attributed pretty similar philanthropic ideas about Taliban to earlier Pakistani leaders too. The problem with these is the practice of publishing self gratifying biographies. They give most of the retrospect thinking away. So being a Indian out of habit, I will just take our intrepretations on this and hold my breath till the next biography is published.

Believe what you wish as an Indian, however as a Pakistani, and someone who has read into the dynamics and events surrounding Pakistan's support of the Taliban after the Soviets, the 'popular definition' of Strategic Depth never made any sense and never seemed backed by any facts.

Kiyani's comments reaffirmed what many of us had argued for a long time, that Pakistan's interests in Afghanistan lay in a stable Afghanistan that would not be an anti-Pakistan entity.

The only synergy currently between the U.S with Pakistan is that of compulsion. The expecations shorten with the dimmening of the available resources and time etc. However, if there is any school of thought with the view that U.S will completely wind up and leave, I think they might be disappointed. They will not commit the same mistake twice. Pakistan has been much too irresposible to be left with open season in a country as vulnerable as Afganistan. And the Iran story is yet to be played out too. So.....

Pakistan does not appear to be interested in 'taking over Afghanistan' at this point. Our leadership appears to be more interested in getting assurances from the US that they won't be leaving this time and that we can count on them to continue handling their share of the responsibility. The entire premise behind Pakistan's 'hedging of bets' is that we cannot trust the US to follow through in Afghanistan.

As such US and Pakistani goals are broadly the same, there is however a lack of trust on each side with respect to the other doing its share.

Yeah..... this argument is heard very often on our side of the border. Something like various versions of some "non-state" actors. But the recent astounding increase in the inconsistency from various writers in Pakistan on this aspect is quite surprising. In fact, I was just reading I think only a couple of days back an article posted on this forum why the writer thinks that India has to make peace with Pakistan to stop the terrorist acts emanating from camps being run in Pakistan. Regarding the intent of the Pakistani establishment, nothing can be established short of closing down of the terror camps being run in Pakistan.

I have not read the thread so I cannot comment on it, but an end to the Kashmir dispute (acceptable to all parties) would put an end to the motivation for various groups to fight Indian occupation forces in Kashmir, and that is a premise with some validity.

 

[Creder]

im confused why did you quote me and then put this, i dont see the relation ?

Obama meets Singh India conveys to US concerns over Pakistan

By Anwer Iqbal and Masood Haider



WASHINGTON, April 11: Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh met US President Barack Obama on Sunday, conveying his country’s concerns over American military aid to Pakistan and over the situation in Afghanistan.
Although the talks, held ahead of a two-day nuclear summit in Washington, focussed on nuclear security, India’s relations with Pakistan and Islamabad’s growing stature in Afghanistan also figured, Indian officials said.

President Obama walked across the White House to meet the Indian prime minister at the Blair House, the US President’s official guest house. It was their second meeting in five months.

Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani was to meet the US president a few hours later. The US wanted a trilateral meeting, but the Indians refused to participate in direct political talks with Pakistan. They also refused to hold bilateral talks with the Pakistani leader.

Officials briefing the Indian media on the meeting said Mr Singh repeated India’s request for the extradition of Pakistani-American suspect David Coleman Headley, who is accused of plotting the Mumbai terror attacks. India wants direct access to the suspect.

Mr Singh also conveyed to Mr Obama India’s apprehensions over the end-use of the US military aid to Pakistan.

India claims that US military supplies and financial assistance to Pakistan are often used against Indian interests.

He also shared his concerns over the situation in Afghanistan with the US president.

Mr Singh informed President Obama that India would continue to play its role in Afghanistan as it had vital interests in that country.

Indian officials said New Delhi had made it clear that it would stick to its commitment in Afghanistan “with or without America” as it had crucial stakes in the stability of the country on its periphery.

India has been involved in a number of developmental projects in Afghanistan and has vowed to continue with them despite frequent attacks by Taliban on its interests there.

The officials said that India’s policy on Afghanistan would be determined by its own interests and not by what others did.

They noted that India and the US had common goals in Afghanistan and wanted to stabilise that country.

Mr Singh also discussed the controversy concerning the US Civil Nuclear Liability Bill with the American president.

The bill is caught in a political quagmire in India with opposition parties strongly objecting to certain aspects of the proposed legislation.

The US has been pushing for an early passage of the bill by the Indian parliament, pointing out that American companies are feeling left behind in the race for nuclear contracts in India as other major players from countries like France and Russia have already signed deals with New Delhi.

The Indian delegation comprised National Security Adviser Shivshankar Menon, Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao and Indian Ambassador Meera Shankar. The US team included Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs William Burns.

President AFP adds: Obama voiced support for giving India access to Mumbai attack planner David Headley, in talks with Prime Minister Singh, a senior Indian official said. Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao said Singh asked for access to Headley. “He was fully supportive of our request for provision of such access,” Rao told reporters.


washington, april 11: indian prime minis- ter manmohan singh met us president barack obama on sunday, conveying his country’s concerns over american military aid to pakistan and over the situation in afghanistan. although the talks, held ahead of a two-day nuclear summit in washington, focussed on nuclear securi- ty, india’s relations with pakistan and islamabad’s growing stature in afghanistan also figured, indian officials said. president obama walked across the white house to meet the indian prime minis- ter at the blair house, the us president’s official guest house. it was their second meeting in five months. prime minister yusuf raza gilani was to meet the us president a few hours later. the us wanted a trilateral meeting, but the indians re- fused to participate in direct political talks with pakistan. they also refused to hold bi- lateral talks with the pakistani leader. officials briefing the indian media on the meeting said mr singh repeated india’s request for the extra- dition of pakistani-american suspect david coleman headley, who is accused of plotting the mumbai terror at- tacks. india wants direct ac- cess to the suspect. mr singh also conveyed to mr obama india’s apprehen- sions over the end-use of the us military aid to pakistan. india claims that us milita- ry supplies and financial as- sistance to pakistan are often used against indian interests. he also shared his concerns over the situation in afghan- istan with the us president. mr singh informed presi- dent obama that india would continue to play its role in afghanistan as it had vital in- terests in that country. indian officials said new delhi had made it clear that it would stick to its commitment in afghanistan “with or with- out america” as it had crucial stakes in the stability of the country on its periphery. india has been involved in a number of developmental projects in afghanistan and has vowed to continue with them despite frequent at- tacks by taliban on its inter- ests there. the officials said that india’s policy on afghanistan would be determined by its own interests and not by what others did. they noted that india and the us had common goals in afghanistan and wanted to stabilise that country. mr singh also discussed the controversy concerning the us civil nuclear liability bill with the american president. the bill is caught in a polit- ical quagmire in india with opposition parties strongly ob- jecting to certain aspects of the proposed legislation. the us has been pushing for an early passage of the bill by the indian parliament, pointing out that american companies are feeling left be- hind in the race for nuclear contracts in india as other ma- jor players from countries like france and russia have al- ready signed deals with new delhi. the indian delegation com- prised national security adviser shivshankar menon, foreign secretary nirupama rao and indian ambassador meera shankar. the us team included secretary of state hillary clinton, white house chief of staff rahm emanuel and under secretary of state for political affairs william burns. president afp adds: obama voiced support for giv- ing india access to mumbai at- tack planner david headley, in talks with prime minister singh, a senior indian official said. foreign secretary niru- pama rao said singh asked for access to headley. “he was fully supportive of our request for provision of such access,” rao told reporters.

 

[maverick1977]

Obama's roomate at Harvard were from Pakistan. Thats where he learned about Iqbal and Mirza Ghalib.

 

[Nahraf]

Actions speak more than words. May be some Pakistanis are happy with this statement. Pakistan needs Free Trade Agreement (FTA) and Civilian Nuclear deal and nothing has happened on that front.

...........
Obama opened the meeting "by noting that he is very fond of Pakistan", ........[/SIZE][/COLOR][/B]

 

[Creder]

Actions speak more than words. May be some Pakistanis are happy with this statement. Pakistan needs Free Trade Agreement (FTA) and Civilian Nuclear deal and nothing has happened on that front.

well its the change in their attitude thats important, Pakistan and US cannot succeed in their missions if their goals pit them against eachother. We will keep facing foreign insurgencies and they will be tied down in Afghansitan forever, by aligning our goals even though for different interest, we can find a common ground and devise a policy that will serve the interests of both nations.

 

[ajpirzada]

Obama tells Pakistani leader about ditching press
Associated Press, 04.12.10, 08:23 AM EDT

WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama was overheard Sunday telling Pakistan's Prime Minister about the kerfuffle he caused a day earlier when he breached protocol and left the White House without members of the press in tow.

"Apparently I caused quite a problem," Obama told Yusuf Raza Gilani, noting that the media was unhappy about missing the trip to one of his daughter's soccer games.

Article Controls

EMAIL
REPRINT
NEWSLETTER
COMMENTS
SHARE
YAHOO! BUZZ
Saturday morning, Obama left the White House about two hours before reporters were told to be in position to cover presidential activity. The White House press corps traditionally travels with the president anywhere he goes.

Obama and Gilani met Sunday in advance of a nuclear security summit this week in Washington.

Copyright 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.


Obama tells Pakistani leader about ditching press - Forbes.com

 

[Omar1984]

President Obama wants to see a strong, prosperous Pakistan: FM ​

Whoever wants to see a strong, prosperous Pakistan is my good friend but actions speak louder than words Obama.

 

[Windjammer]

GEO Pakistan
Obama accepts invitation to visit Pakistan: Qureshi
Updated at: 0350 PST, Monday, April 12, 2010
WASHINGTON: US President Barack Obama has accepted invitation to visit Pakistan, Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi told media after the meeting between Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani and US President on Sunday and termed the meeting 'positive'.

Both the leaders agreed to take the strategic dialogue further, he added.

US President Barack Obama on Sunday held talks with Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani.

US president, accompanied by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, strode across Pennsylvania Avenue to Blair House to hold talks with Prime Minister Gilani on the eve of a 47-nation summit on improving nuclear security.

Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi and Ambassador Hussian Haqqani were also present during the meeting.



Obama accepts invitation to visit Pakistan: Qureshi - GEO.tv

 

[pkd]

Obama says Gilani has raised his stature

WASHINGTON: Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani got an unexpected and welcome boost on Sunday evening when President Barack Obama showered special praise on him while discussing the constitutional developments in Pakistan, saying: “You have increased in your stature.”

Mr Gilani was elated by the comment and at a private meeting with me in his special suite at the Four Seasons Hotel, he felt it was a tribute to Pakistani democracy. In our meeting, Dr Maleeha Lodhi, Ambassador Husain Haqqani and his wife Farahnaz were also present.

While most of our talk was off the record, Mr Gilani looked very confident and was beaming with the impression that most of the US and western concerns about Pakistan and its nuclear programme had been removed and it was now smooth sailing for Islamabad.

He specially noted that the body language of the US president was very cordial and friendly. Even the flags of the two countries were placed in a way that Obama was sitting in front of the Pakistani flag and Mr Gilani before the US.

When I wanted to know whether this was a ‘work in progress’ or whether in his view actually Pakistan had crossed this huge psychological barrier, Mr Gilani thought for a while and then his considered answer was: “We have crossed this obstacle.”

At another point in our discussion the prime minister said issues like Dr AQ Khan were no more raised, there was no talk of “do more” from the US side and Mr Obama was very happy with the progress that had been achieved by the Pakistan military in Swat, Malakand and South Waziristan.

“They cannot believe that we solved the huge problem of 2.5 million displaced persons who returned to their homes in just two months. Everyone thought it would take years. This is probably a world record. They believe that Pakistan has made a lot of sacrifices and they recognise it.”

Mr Gilani was also asked about the political developments in Pakistan, specially whether he thought the 18th Amendment Bill will pass through the Senate as easily as it did in the lower house. On this, he was confident but at one point he said he would go to the Senate and be there as soon as he returns to Pakistan from the US.

This indicated that he expected the Senate debate to continue for a few days as he will be landing in Islamabad not before the morning of April 15. But if the bill is passed before he returns, it will be a bonus.

During Mr Gilani’s interaction with the media on Sunday evening at the hotel dinner, he wanted to speak out and not just leave the talking to the experts, the diplomats or the Foreign Ministry people. Two persons got his unusual attention. He was specially impressed with Mr Masood Khan, Pakistan’s ambassador to China who has been handling the negotiations and the talks on the nuclear summit on behalf of Pakistan.

The PM was also interested in talking to Dr Maleeha Lodhi, the former ambassador to the US and the UK and called her twice, once at the dinner table and again in his suite for a private discussion.

In our discussion, the PM was asked by me how and in what language President Obama had raised the issues which PM Dr Manmohan Singh had pointed out about Pakistan.

Mr Gilani’s answer was revealing. He said Obama did not raise these issues himself but it was when our side talked about the bilateral relations, Mr Obama, just in passing, mentioned that Dr Singh had also come to see him and was talking about the two things which, if resolved, could help India and Pakistan get on the track to discussing their problems and making progress.

This way Mr Gilani did not see the Obama remarks as any message he was conveyed on behalf of the Indians. His perception was that the Indian points of concern were just discussed in passing and if he had not talked about India-Pakistan relations, Mr Obama would not have mentioned them.

On being asked several times what Pakistan expected from the high profile nuclear summit in Washington, Gilani was of the opinion that by inviting Pakistan to the summit it has been recognised and conceded that we are a responsible nuclear nation. “Even President Obama made a statement two days back that Pakistan’s nuclear assets are secure, so we have achieved the basic point already. But we are here to safeguard our national interest in any way required.”

After meeting President Obama, Hillary Clinton and other US leaders, Gilani was still of the view that while the US leadership was trying to help and support Pakistan the perception of the Pakistani people about America was still very low and negative and there has to be some serious image building to change this view.

“They are helping us in projects which will take months and years to complete but they need some shock therapy to shake and better their image. Like if they had released Dr Aafia Siddiqui, it would have created a huge ground swell of support and goodwill.”

But in another context Mr Gilani asked whether it was not strange that Dr Aafia’s daughter suddenly appeared at the doorstep of her house. “Should we also expect that some day Dr Aafia will also be found knocking her own door,” he asked in a lighter vein.

I left our meeting with the PM on the 4th floor with the impression that while Mr Gilani would not discuss the details he has clearly asked the Americans to take some big steps to help Pakistan overcome its energy crisis and do something quickly to make a difference which people can feel on the streets. That is how they can improve their image, he believes.

But he also agrees that the energy issue was mishandled by his own water and power minister which cost him and his government a lot of political capital and damaged image.
Obama says Gilani has raised his stature

 

[Creder]

Well now Gilani has power, lets see what he does with it. If he can grow out of zardaris shadow and bring all parties together i think democracy may yet flourish

 

[Omar1984]

He is much better than Zardari but still he has the power to do so much more for Pakistan.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

In our discussion, the PM was asked by me how and in what language President Obama had raised the issues which PM Dr Manmohan Singh had pointed out about Pakistan.

Mr Gilani’s answer was revealing. He said Obama did not raise these issues himself but it was when our side talked about the bilateral relations, Mr Obama, just in passing, mentioned that Dr Singh had also come to see him and was talking about the two things which, if resolved, could help India and Pakistan get on the track to discussing their problems and making progress.

This way Mr Gilani did not see the Obama remarks as any message he was conveyed on behalf of the Indians. His perception was that the Indian points of concern were just discussed in passing and if he had not talked about India-Pakistan relations, Mr Obama would not have mentioned them.

Ok, from the Prime Minister himself.

Does this answer all the questions about 'Obama's lecture to Gilani at the behest of India' raised by the Indian media?

 

[prithwidw]

Offtopic, but when US requests Gilani/Pakistan to do something, we call it 'US lectures Pakistan'. When US requests India to do something, you guys term it 'US snubs India'.

While we are busy scoring points at each other in every possible occasion in every other forum, it is the US of A which gets away with all accolades.