Obama's New Policy Souring US-Pak relationship?

[ajpirzada]

WASHINGTON: US President Barack Obama’s new strategy is causing serious differences between the United States and Pakistan over how to fight the militants hiding in the Pak-Afghan region.

US think-tanks and the media believe that the differences revolve around two major issues: India’s role in Afghanistan and the drone attacks at suspected terrorist targets inside Pakistan.

They acknowledge that India is using its overwhelming presence in Afghanistan to create problems for Pakistan in Balochistan and other places.

Some experts say that in recent meetings Pakistanis officials asked the United States to use its influence on India to stop its interference in Balochistan but the Americans are not willing to do so.

This, according to them, explains why Tuesday’s talks in Islamabad between Americans and Pakistani officials ended on a sour note, indicating clearly that the two sides have serious differences.

In a report distributed on Wednesday, the US Council on Foreign Relations noted that in their meetings with America’s special envoy Richard Holbrooke and Chairman of US Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen, Pakistani officials contended that Washington showed disproportionate support for India in its bilateral relations with Pakistan.

Also on Wednesday, the Foreign Policy magazine quoted James Traub as saying that ‘Pakistan feels as if it’s falling apart … (and) American policy has arguably made the situation even worse’.

Mr Traub, a US scholar who writes for the New Yorker magazine and The New York Times, noted that the Predator-drone attacks along the border, ‘though effective, drive the Taliban eastward, deeper into Pakistan. And the strategy has been only reinforcing hostility to the United States among ordinary Pakistanis’.

The council, which has produced several foreign policy leaders, noted that Pakistani officials were also criticising the parameters of Ambassador Holbrooke’s ‘Af-Pak’ mission, saying a more productive assignment would include mediation of the India-Pakistan conflict in Kashmir.

Many experts believed that the Kashmir dispute was ‘inextricably linked with problems of militancy in other parts of Pakistan and Afghanistan’, the council observed.

But the council pointed out that while talking to journalists in India, Mr Holbrooke denied that he was pushing for new peace dialogue between India and Pakistan.

The US think-tank reported that on Tuesday rifts emerged between Mr Holbrooke and his negotiating counterparts in Pakistan, as Islamabad flatly rejected a proposal for joint military operations in Pakistan’s tribal areas.

According to the report, Mr Holbrooke and Admiral Mullen also alleged that the Taliban’s senior leadership was currently hiding in Balochistan.

The Foreign Policy magazine noted that the US administration justified the drone attacks by claiming it would deny the militants a ‘safe haven’ in Pakistan.

‘This line of argument sounds persuasive, but it falls apart on closer examination. For starters, it is not clear that al Qaeda requires a safe haven to do damage, especially since the original organisation has metastasised into smaller groups of sympathisers.’

The magazine pointed out that only a large-scale invasion could eliminate al Qaeda from the region but such an invasion was impossible and therefore there was little reason to continue the drone attacks.

‘US military strikes in Pakistan —even limited ones —tend to undermine the Pakistani government and increase the risk that Pakistan will become a failed state,’ the report noted.

On differences between Pakistan and the US over India, the Wall Street Journal pointed out that Washington was finding it difficult to ‘pursue a cohesive strategy that eradicates militancy in Pakistan and Afghanistan but doesn’t heighten tensions among three countries whose shared history is rife with violence and mutual suspicion’.

The newspaper reported that US policy-makers initially considered including Kashmir as part of the US strategy but India balked.

‘US officials subsequently have taken discussion about Kashmir off the table, even though it remains a central flashpoint in tensions between India and Pakistan,’ the newspaper noted. ‘Pakistani officials have complained that the US needs to consider all conflicts in the region as it seeks to solve them.’

DAWN.COM | World | Obama?s new strategy sours US-Pakistan ties

 

[ajpirzada]

‘I’ve got to run’: Holbrooke’s sham press conference



Comment

Thursday, April 09, 2009
By Qudssia Akhlaque

ISLAMABAD: US Special Envoy Richard Holbrooke’s much awaited first press conference here on Tuesday turned out to be an utter anti-climax, if not a sham, with the unaccommodating American diplomat not conceding an inch to the curious Pakistani media.

For many journalists, it was a three-hour-long wait for his joint press conference with Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mullen and Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi after their bilateral talks at the Foreign Office. However, the press conference ended in about just 15 minutes with Holbrooke taking no more than two questions and then abruptly declaring: “I‘ve to run” ostensibly to escape live telecast of some piercing and embarrassing questions that he was bound to face following the announcement of the new US strategy for Pakistan last month. Instead, as it transpired later, Holbrooke preferred to have a chat with a select group of journalists handpicked by the US Embassy at the American ambassador’s residence.

Notably, it was Holbrooke’s first press conference in Pakistan after his appointment as the US president’s special representative for the region this January. However, he made an exit rather ungraciously after only two questions, one of which came from an American journalist accompanying him.

Also, curiously the supposedly seasoned American diplomat spoke less and whispered more at the crowded press conference that was consumed mostly by the opening statements from both sides.

Holbrooke, who was here on his second visit since assuming his new position, was put on the defensive by Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi’s uncharacteristically hard-hitting opening statement in which for the first time Pakistan-US sharp differences on key issues, particularly the drone strikes, surfaced loud and clear.

Holbrooke seemed disconcerted by Qureshi’s straight talk in the open about the existing irritants in the ongoing cooperation in the war on terror between the two allies: the gap on drone attacks, the vital questions of trust deficit and mutual respect and certain “red lines” that Pakistan will not allow the US to cross, which include no foreign boots on its soil in any hot pursuit for al Qaeda or Taliban militants and no joint operations with US in the tribal areas against militancy. The bottom line being: no blank cheques from Pakistan to the US to act unilaterally in the fight against terrorism.

Sources privy to the 70-minute meeting at the Foreign Office told this correspondent that Qureshi ably presented and advocated Pakistan’s case during the delegation-level talks with the top American civilian and military officials. Their view was that the foreign minister articulated Pakistan’s position as forcefully behind the closed-doors as he did during the joint press conference.

Perhaps taken aback by Qureshi’s loaded opening remarks, Holbrooke whispered twice something to Mullen who stood next to him and for most part fielded the questions. Compared to the foreign minister’s opening statement, Holbrooke made a brief diplomatic statement in which he did not even once refer to the controversial US drone attacks that have been among Pakistan’s overriding concerns.

While Mullen responded to a question regarding the US drone attacks which have killed hundreds of civilians, Holbrooke went up to the foreign minister and whispered something to him as well. Minutes later, the press conference was wrapped up with key questions reflecting serious concerns of the Pakistani nation going unanswered.

As Holbrooke simply refused to take even half a question more, his host Qureshi tried to pacify the fuming media members who had been waiting there for hours, saying: “He has to go for an important lunch.” His reference was to the lunch hosted by US Ambassador Anne Patterson at her residence where the special guests were the “Sharif brothers”.

“Understandably, the luncheon menu must have been much easier to swallow for Holbrooke compared to the questions that he would have had to face at the press conference that was beamed live on all national and some foreign TV channels,” remarked one journalist.

Holbrooke left for Delhi later in the evening where unlike Pakistan he was not granted an audience by the Indian president and the prime minister. He was only received by the external affairs minister and the foreign secretary on Wednesday. Significantly, Holbrooke’s interaction with the Indian media during which he completely ignored a key question about the Kashmir dispute exposed his discriminatory attitude towards Pakistan. This raised serious questions about his being a credible interlocutor and more importantly his role as an honest peace-broker in this troubled region.

The US marines and security men along with the Foreign Office (FO) staffers and local security personnel kept a close watch on all movements and a gunship helicopter with commandos hovered over the FO building to guard the top American officials amid reports of a serious threat of another suicide bomber striking the capital city that day. Ironically, the rampant suicide bombings are believed to be a direct consequence of the drone attacks sanctioned by the government of these top US officials hosted by the Foreign Office on Tuesday.

‘I’ve got to run’: Holbrooke’s sham press conference

 

[ajpirzada]

Pak-US ties at the lowest ebb

Thursday, April 09, 2009

By Hamid Mir

ISLAMABAD: Pakistan suffered a loss of more than US$34 billion and received only US$11 billion as aid in the last seven years for participating in the war against terror. Pakistan Army, the FC and the police lost more than 2,100 lives in the tribal areas and the NWFP. Over 50 officials of the ISI were also killed and 74 injured by the militants but even then the Army and the ISI are not trusted by the US government.

All these losses and causality figures were shared with top US officials Richard Holbrooke and Michael Mullen in their visit to Islamabad by their Pakistani counterparts. They were told repeatedly that the US must stop its drone attacks in Pakistan but Holbrooke and Mullen did not make any promise.

Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani chaired a high-level meeting on law and order just one day before the arrival of top US officials in Islamabad. Four chief ministers and Interior Adviser Rehman Malik were also present in that meeting. DG of Intelligence Bureau Shoaib Suddle informed this meeting that US drones had missed their actual targets in most of the cases. Only 10 per cent of the attacks were successful and in 90 per cent cases only innocent people were killed. Next day, it was not only PM Gilani who opposed the drone attacks but PML-N leader Nawaz Sharif and Chief Minister of Punjab Shahbaz Sharif also condemned the drone attacks in strong words in their meetings with Holbrooke and Mullen.

While their was no positive response from the visiting guests, the US defense secretary announced the same day that he was going to buy 50 more drones for the US Army next year at the cost of two billion dollars.

Pakistani officials told the US visitors that some recent statements from top US advisers and many CIA leaks to the American media against the ISI had increased the frustration level within the Pakistan Army ranks.

This mistrust is not only a total waste of sacrifices and losses of Pakistan in the war against terror but also a political and diplomatic failure of the new civilian government. Pakistan has become a very complicated case for most of the Americans not only in the State Department but also in top US think-tanks and universities.

Many Pakistani officials in Washington do not try to defend their country, in fact they agree privately with US officials. Top American universities are running after Pakistani government to help them in hiring the services of some Pakistani scholars to teach about Pakistan in the US but they are not getting any positive response.

Quaid-i-Azam Chair of Pakistan Studies at University of California Berkeley is empty for the last four years. This chair was established in the Centre for South Asia Studies, UC Berkeley, in the 1990s for prominent Pakistani scholars to come to the one of the most prestigious universities of the world and teach American students about Pakistan. Only one Pakistani professor utilised this opportunity for one year in 2004. UC Berkeley has repeatedly written to the Pakistani government for filling the vacant Quaid-i-Azam Chair but nobody from Islamabad or the Pakistan Embassy in Washington DC felt any urgency for promoting “Pakistan Studies” in a country where Pakistan is being viewed as the world’s most dangerous place these days.

The Centre has also managed a “Berkeley Urdu Language program” for 30 years, which was permanently based in Lahore. This program trained a large number of American scholars in advanced Urdu for a long time.

Unfortunately, this language program was suspended after 9/11 because US State Department travel warnings for Pakistan stopped American students from visiting Pakistan and now this program is temporarily run through the American Institute of Indian Studies in Lucknow, India.

Pakistan is under discussion in the American media for many years for many reasons. Lots of young American students want to understand Pakistan but they are missing Pakistani experts in their universities. What should the university do then?

They are trying to provide understanding about Pakistan to their students through non-faculty experts. Last week, the Centre for South Asia Studies and the Graduate School of Journalism in the UC Berkeley jointly invited me to speak about the rising wave of terrorism in Pakistan. I was also invited to the prestigious Commonwealth Club of California in San Francisco, the Asia Society in New York and the Yale University in New Haven to discuss the security situation in Pakistan with young students as well as prominent American scholars, journalists and the State Department officials. It was a great opportunity to understand the thinking of American intelligentsia about Pakistan. I can say without any doubt that Pakistan is the most misunderstood country in America today. Pakistan can do a lot to remove these misunderstandings by simply presenting some facts but unfortunately some of the high-ups are not doing that because they have high stakes in America not in Pakistan.

Most of the Americans think that Muslims in general and particularly Pakistanis are terrorists. They fear that Taliban and al Qaeda will soon take over Pakistan and this country may collapse within six months. Top-level American policy makers have no trust in the new Pakistani civilian government. They think that President Asif Ali Zardari is weak and surrounded by corrupt people and he has no capability to lead Pakistan.

In a dinner hosted at the US Embassy in Islamabad, Holbrooke met many politicians, journalists and civil society activists. He mostly asked the same questions from most of his guests: “Do you think President Zardari must be removed now? How can you remove him?” Lawyers leader Athar Minallah responded by saying that Zardari could be removed only through parliament and not through any undemocratic way. But the questions of Holbrooke surprised many on the table, including Sartaj Aziz and PPP MNA Farah Naz Isphahani, who militantly defended her president.

Moreover, the Obama administration now has some serious reservations about Army Chief General Ashfaq Pervez Kayani as well. During my visit to the Asia Society in New York, one senior journalist and Asia Society member Mary Anne Weaver openly claimed that the State Department officials provided her an opportunity to listen to the alleged telephonic conversation between General Kayani and al-Qaeda leader Jalaludin Haqqani.

A top Pakistani diplomat was present in the meeting. He looked very disturbed on that allegation. Mary Anne confirmed his suspicions that the State Department and the CIA were secretly sponsoring the propaganda campaign against the Pakistan Army and the ISI in the American media. Holbrooke was the head of the Asia Society until a few months ago and he also spoke negatively many times about the Pakistan Army with many American journalists. Washington Post correspondent David E Sanger mentioned the changed thinking of the US administration about General Kayani in his latest book “The Inheritance”. He quoted some top-level US intelligence officials who have telephonic intercepts of Pakistani Army chief in which he is saying that Jalaluddin Haqqani is an “asset” for Pakistan.

Despite all the tall claims of friendship, the two countries have lot of mistrust at the top level. Pakistani security officials suspect the Americans are playing a double game to destabilise the only Muslim state with nuclear weapons in the world. They think that violence in Balochistan province was escalated only after the arrival of the US troops in Afghanistan. They have complained to American officials many times that India is allegedly helping the Baloch separatists.

Americans too have complained many times that the ISI is secretly helping the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Pakistani officials have tried to convince Holbrooke and Michael Mullen that the main trouble spot in the country is the tribal area, which is just three per cent of Pakistan. US drone attacks in these areas are providing justification to the tribal militants to organise attacks in big cities like Lahore and Karachi. If US wants to stop the cross border movement of these militants into Afghanistan, it must improve the security on border.

Presently, the Pakistan Army has deployed 117,000 troops on the 2,700- kilometer-long Pak-Afghan border and established more than 821 check posts. On the other side, the ISAF coalition troops have only 25,870 troops in the east and 22,330 troops in the south of Afghanistan, with only 120 check posts.

Causality rates of coalition troops in Afghanistan are far less than Pakistani casualties. Pakistani officials are of the view that it is not only the tribal area that is becoming a safe haven for the militants but east and south of Afghanistan is also ruled by the Taliban and the coalition forces need to improve the situation on their side also.

Prime Minister Gilani has now decided to implement a new strategy to fight terrorism with the support of parliament. A special parliamentary committee on national security will come up with this new strategy on April 9. This strategy will focus on dialogue and development in the tribal areas. It will recommend inflexible attitude towards the drone attacks. PM Gilani will no more tolerate any diplomats, ministers and advisers who are not ready to follow this new strategy.

Despite all the Pak-US misunderstandings, I am hopeful that we can move forward together with a new agenda with new priorities. I am hopeful because lot of young American students told me that they wanted peace not war. Many of them condemned the US drone attacks in the Pakistani tribal areas because these attacks were a violation of the international law.

They wanted to separate fiction from reality. We can definitely make each other secure by identifying the real problems with right solutions.

Pak-US ties at the lowest ebb

 

[ajpirzada]

US criticised for ignoring Pakistan’s concerns By Our Correspondent

Thursday, 09 Apr, 2009 | 12:17 AM PST | The Americans don’t address the fears that force Pakistan to keep an option other than the one offered by the US: Diplomatic observers in Washington.—Reuters

WASHINGTON: When they ask Pakistan to sever its alleged ties with the Taliban, US officials focus on three militant leaders, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, Commander Jalaluddin Haqqani and Commander Nazir.

Diplomatic observers in Washington, however, acknowledge that while urging Pakistan to end its links to the militants, the Americans do not address the concerns and fears that force Pakistan to keep an option other than the one offered by the United States.

The observers point out that the Pakistanis feel the need to cultivate militant leaders because they fear India’s overwhelming presence in Afghanistan.

Not addressing these concerns ‘leaves Pakistan exposed to Indian encirclement,’ says Aqil Shah, a US expert of Pakistani origin associated with the Columbia University.

Pakistan sees the evidence of this encirclement ‘in New Delhi’s alleged support for the insurgency in Pakistan’s resource-rich Balochistan province and in the Indian funding for a 135-mile road connecting Afghanistan’s Nimroz province with the Iranian port of Chabahar,’ Mr Shah adds.

According to other experts, the Pakistanis have almost no influence over the current Afghan government. The traditional Taliban leadership, including Mullah Omar, too does not trust Pakistan because of its alliance with the United States.

This forces them to cultivate militant leaders like Mr Hekmatyar and Commander Haqqani, two key militant leaders fighting the American and allied forces in Afghanistan.

Commander Nazir, a Pakistani tribal militant, is useful for Islamabad because of his differences with Baitullah Mehsud who is a greater threat to Pakistan than any other militant leader.

But in Washington, Commander Nazir is seen as a greater threat to US interests than Mr Mehsud because he sits right on the Afghan border and is believed to have links with the Afghan Taliban.

For Pakistan, however, Commander Nazir is a proven asset. They have already used him once to beat Mr Mehsud’s Uzbek supporters.

Recently, US experts have also begun to acknowledge that the Indian presence in Afghanistan forces Pakistan to maintain the ties it developed with the militants during the Afghan war.

‘I think it is unfair to dismiss the notion that Pakistan’s apprehensions about Afghanistan stem in part from its security competition with India,’ says Christine Fair, a leading US expert on South Asia.

'Anyone seeking to wean support for extremists and terrorists in the country has to address Pakistan’s legitimate security needs,’ says Shaun Gregory, a British expert and director of the Pakistan Security Research Unit at the University of Bradford.

Mr Shah says that ‘it should not be surprising that the Pakistani military continues to patronise groups it sees as useful in the regional race for influence’ because of what the Indians have been doing in Afghanistan.

'They seem to be saying: the Pakistanis did it to us in Kashmir, so we will pay them back in Balochistan and elsewhere.’

During a recent visit to the Indian mission in Zahedan, Iran, Ms Fair found that ‘issuing visas was not the main activity’. India, she says, has also ‘run operations from its mission in Mazar Sharif and is likely doing so from the other consulates it has reopened in Jalalabad and Kandahar along the (Pak-Afghan) border’.

While Washington tries to persuade Pakistan to end its links to Mr Hekmatyar, it has not publicly objected to the Afghan government’s efforts to reach a deal with him.

In Kabul, Mr Hekmatyar is seen as a useful contact. Unlike Commander Haqqani, who is not willing to join any peace talks as long as US troops are in Afghanistan, Mr Hekmatyar is not only willing to talk but also has allowed some of his lieutenants to join the government.

There are at least five governors and seven advisers in the Kabul government who are from the Hekmatyar group. But for Pakistan, the Americans have a different strategy: Regard India as a friend, not a competitor in Afghanistan. Islamabad, they argue, should focus on fighting the militants, who are the real enemy.

However, as an Indian expert of South Asian affairs, Sumit Ganguly, points out, Indian activities in Afghanistan make it difficult for Pakistan to accept India as a friend.

Mr Ganguly, a professor of Political Science at Indiana University, acknowledges that Indian objectives in Afghanistan are ‘not purely humanitarian’.

India, he says, is working on ‘a pincer movement designed to relieve the pressure in Kashmir’. Mr Ganguly says he also knows that ‘the Indians have mucked around in Sindh in retaliation for Pakistani involvement in the Punjab crisis.’

DAWN.COM | World | US criticised for ignoring Pakistan?s concerns

 

[ajpirzada]

A new stance
Dawn Editor
Thursday, 09 Apr, 2009 | 08:18 AM PST | US envoy to Pakistan and Afghanistan, Richard Holbrooke, left, shares a point with FM Shah Mahmood Qureshi during their joint press conference in Islamabad. — AP

The statements coming from Islamabad point not to posturing but the adoption of a clearer stance on dealings with Washington. For the first time since the two joined hands in the battle against militancy, both sides have publicly acknowledged that they differ markedly on how the fight should be fought.

Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi was particularly forthright on Tuesday in his joint press conference with Admiral Mike Mullen and special envoy Richard Holbrooke. Stressing the trust deficit between the two allies, he maintained that ‘We can only work together if we respect each other’. Instead of the usual formal complaints, it was publicly made clear to the Americans that drone attacks in Pakistan were unacceptable.

Later, what the army feels is vilification of the ISI in the US media was criticised by Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani. Islamabad also rejected a proposal for joint operations in the tribal belt. Accustomed to talking while the other side listens, the visitors were reportedly taken aback by Pakistan’s decision to go on the offensive.

It shouldn’t have come to this for officials should talk to officials, not through the media. Washington is to blame here because it set the precedent and Islamabad finally reacted. But there is an upside as well. Only when differences are openly acknowledged can progress be made towards their resolution. There may be a political dividend as well.

As far as relations with the US were concerned, this government had come to be seen by many as a continuation of the Musharraf regime. America dictated, and we took notes. The new approach could mark a break from the past. It also suggests that the elected government and the security establishment may finally be on the same page vis-à-vis the fight against militancy and terrorism. Unfortunately, the Obama administration’s policy on Pakistan is similar to that of its predecessor. Its tone, in fact, is even more aggressive and threatening.

The US needs to realise that drone attacks on Pakistani soil are counterproductive. A few militants may be taken out but many civilians are also killed in the process. This causes outrage amongst tribesmen whose support is critical in the battle against the Taliban. Moreover, such violations of national sovereignty give new impetus to anti-American sentiments across the country and weaken the credibility of the Pakistani government. Then there is the curious expectation that Pakistan will do more even as inflammatory stories are planted in the American press.

On the Pakistani side it has to be accepted that this is primarily a fight for our own survival. Right now the militants have the upper hand and we need to put more boots on the ground and improve intelligence-gathering to reverse the tide. If we can’t defeat the enemy, others may feel justified in filling the breach.

DAWN.COM | - NWFP | A new stance

 

[ajpirzada]

so wats next?? should we expect drone attacks to stop anytime soon or is it still too early??

 

[BaburCM]

'Americans had been given a sharp message to back off'

Both sides looked a little ill at ease during Tuesday's press conference

The body language said it all.

The normally urbane and mild-mannered Pakistani Foreign Minister, Shah Mahmood Qureshi, was firm and spoke in categorical terms.

Meanwhile, Richard Holbrooke chatted quietly with Admiral Mike Mullen - an act that, whatever the intention, was perceived as rude and contemptuous by those present.

The US special envoy and chairman of joint chiefs of staff were holding a press conference with Mr Qureshi after "frank" discussions.

'Safe havens'

They were on their first visit to Pakistan since Barak Obama unveiled his new strategy to fight the Afghan war.

The American president has placed Pakistan firmly at the centre of it, stressing the importance of eliminating alleged al-Qaeda and Taleban "safe havens" in the country's border region near Afghanistan.

Mr Holbrooke and Adm Mullen had come to discuss the detail of the strategy and deepen co-operation. Instead, their visit highlighted quite publicly clear differences between Pakistani and American views.

There were two main bones of contention.

One was American missiles strikes carried out against suspected militants on Pakistani soil by unmanned drones. These are expected to continue and possibly increase, despite objections from Islamabad.

"We did talk about drones and let me be frank, there's a gap between us and them," Mr Qureshi told journalists.

American officials have implied that the government has given tacit agreement to a tactic which they say has eliminated al-Qaeda operatives and disrupted the group.

But the missiles also kill civilians and are deeply unpopular. Critics argue the strikes compound anti-Americanism, deepen resentment of the government and further destabilise the country.

Pakistan's Dawn newspaper reported that the Americans were asked by government officials to transfer the drone technology and authority to the Pakistan Army. Adm Mullen dodged the question.

The Pakistani stance came as a rude shock to the Americans, who had so far been taking the civilian and military leadership for granted

Dawn newspaper

Mr Qureshi's terse statement about the drone attacks reflects a solid consensus in both political and military circles against the policy, the latest of which was a statement by a parliamentary committee on national security that condemned the strikes in the "strongest terms" and demanded an immediate end to them.

The second bone of contention was what's perceived here as an American "slander campaign" against Pakistan's main military intelligence agency, the ISI.

Since the announcement of Mr Obama's strategy, American generals have publicly voiced long-held suspicions that elements of the ISI are supporting some militants, including the Afghan Taleban.

Counter-productive

"The challenges are associated with the ISI's support historically for some of the [militant] organisations and I think it's important that that support ends," Adm Mullen told a small gathering of Pakistani and foreign journalists. "It's important that we work together to address this threat."

However, when pressed for hard evidence on allegations that the Taleban leadership was based in the Pakistani city of Quetta, Mr Holbrooke said only: "I hear there is a Quetta Shura because people tell me about it," without saying who these people were.

When asked whether the public pressure on the ISI wasn't counter-productive, the special representative talked about the importance of the Pakistani and Afghan intelligence agencies overcoming historical distrust and working together against a common enemy.

"We're putting on as much pressure as the system can bear," he said, "but we're not beating up on anyone."

But the Pakistani perception is that they are. Both the army and the ISI have rigorously denied the charges. And a security source told the BBC that the Americans had been given a sharp message to back off.

The Army Chief of Staff, General Ashfaq Kiyani, explained that "this kind of criticism was in no way helping us".

At the root of this public discontent is Pakistani frustration with perceived American high-handedness.

Analysts say the army feels it's being treated like a hired gun. Dawn Newspaper echoed that sentiment: "The Pakistani stance came as a rude shock to the Americans, who had so far been taking the civilian and military leadership for granted."

"The bottom line," Mr Qureshi said at the press conference, "is the question of trust… We can only work together if we respect and trust each other. There is no other way, nothing else will work."

Source: BBC NEWS | World | South Asia | Tensions emerge in Pakistan-US relations

 

[ajpirzada]

For America, the problem is Pakistan
By Anatol Lieven

Published: April 7 2009 20:11 | Last updated: April 7 2009 20:11

We will need to remind ourselves often in the next few years that the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan is not the Obama administration’s fault. It inherited from George W. Bush a crisis so deep and so horribly complex that dealing with it would tax the powers of St Peter, let alone a US government with many other things on its mind and on its grossly overstrained budget. Improving the situation is the best that we can hope for. Finding a “solution” to the Afghan war and its repercussions in Pakistan is not even a possibility.

On Afghanistan itself, the administration’s new strategy, set out last week, strikes most of the right notes. In particular, it is correct to emphasise the critical importance of building up the Afghan National Army, without which nothing can be achieved in Afghanistan in the long term; and on the need for the US to work towards an exit strategy rather than engage in empty rhetoric about “staying the course”. Talk of creating a modern, western-style democracy in Afghanistan has been drastically scaled back.

The administration has also done something that should have been obvious from the very beginning and reached out to Afghanistan’s northern and western neighbours. When the US eventually leaves Afghanistan, regional powers – perhaps grouped in the Shanghai Co-operation Council – will have to try to manage Afghanistan’s ongoing conflict.

As the administration seems to have understood, Iran is critical in this regard. Iranian support saved the opponents of the Taliban from complete defeat before 9/11 and will be essential to preserving whatever regime the US leaves behind in Kabul when it eventually withdraws. Trade with Iran is vital to the Afghan economy, and aid from Iran could be vital to Afghan development. Finally, because the US and Iran share the same basic agenda in Afghanistan, the US administration is quite rightly using talks on Afghanistan as an avenue towards improving the wider relationship with Tehran.

So as far as Afghanistan is concerned, so far so good. The problem is Pakistan. As the new strategy recognises, the two countries are now hopelessly interlinked, with a Taliban insurgency rooted in the Pashtun populations of each raging on both sides of the border. Putting greatly increased US pressure on the Afghan Taliban will indeed be immensely difficult if this is not accompanied by real help from the Pakistani state and military against Taliban support on their soil.

Yet the US may well have no choice but to proceed without Pakistan. Here, it seems to me, the Obama administration still does not fully recognise the depths of the problem it is facing, or the tremendous risks it will run by trying to bend Pakistan to its will over the Afghan war. For as both opinion polls and my own research on the ground have made abundantly clear, the truth is that a large majority of ordinary Pakistanis are bitterly opposed to Pakistan helping the US, especially if this involves the Pakistani army fighting the Taliban.

It is true that calculations by the Pakistani security establishment and intelligence services also play a part in limiting Pakistani actions against the Taliban; but the basic problem is a democratic one. A democratically elected government cannot afford simply to defy a public opinion this strong. Nor indeed can an army that has to recruit its soldiers from Pakistani villages – not from Mars or Pluto – and ask them to risk their lives. As a Pakistani general put it to me last year: “We can survive without American money and arms if we have to, though of course we don’t want to. But we cannot survive without the loyalty of our jawans [men].”

If the Obama administration wants to have any hopes of transforming such public attitudes in Pakistan then it will need to fund Pakistan to a vastly greater degree than is envisaged in its new strategy, in ways that will visibly transform the lives of many ordinary Pakistanis. This requires above all massive investment in infrastructure – especially relating to water – in ways that will also generate many jobs. At $1.5bn (€1.1bn, £1bn) a year, the new US aid that is promised sounds like a lot – until you remember that Pakistan now has about 170m people. Eight dollars per head is not going to transform anything much in the country. More-over, the US statement emphasises that the aid will be made conditional on Pakistan’s help to the US against the Taliban. This is a recipe for constant hold-ups, congressional blockages and the wrecking of any consistent, long-term programmes.

Unfortunately, it seems as if the new administration has not recognised two critical facts about Pakistan. The first is that the stabilisation and development of this country is not merely an aspect of the war in Afghanistan, but a vital US interest in itself. Indeed, Pakistan in the long term is far more important than Afghanistan. The second is that changing Pakistani opinions will mean changing Pakistani society, and that is a project that will require massive, sustained and consistent aid over a generation.

If on the other hand Washington thinks that it can play Pakistani governments like a fish on an aid hook in order to extract much greater help in the Afghan war, then it will undermine and finally destroy those governments, as it did that of Pervez Musharraf. Even more importantly, if it does succeed in forcing the Pakistani army to do things that its soldiers detest, it may destroy the army. This would be a catastrophe for the US that would dwarf even defeat in Afghanistan.

The writer is a professor in the War Studies Department of King’s College London and a senior fellow of the New America Foundation in Washington DC. He is currently researching a book on Pakistan

FT.com / Asia-Pacific / Pakistan - For America, the problem is Pakistan

 

[BaburCM]

For many journalists, it was a three-hour-long wait for his joint press conference with Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mullen and Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi after their bilateral talks at the Foreign Office. However, the press conference ended in about just 15 minutes with Holbrooke taking no more than two questions and then abruptly declaring: “I‘ve to run” ostensibly to escape live telecast of some piercing and embarrassing questions that he was bound to face following the announcement of the new US strategy for Pakistan last month. Instead, as it transpired later, Holbrooke preferred to have a chat with a select group of journalists handpicked by the US Embassy at the American ambassador’s residence.

Holbrooke is a coward.

 

[ajpirzada]

For many journalists, it was a three-hour-long wait for his joint press conference with Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mullen and Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi after their bilateral talks at the Foreign Office. However, the press conference ended in about just 15 minutes with Holbrooke taking no more than two questions and then abruptly declaring: “I‘ve to run” ostensibly to escape live telecast of some piercing and embarrassing questions that he was bound to face following the announcement of the new US strategy for Pakistan last month. Instead, as it transpired later, Holbrooke preferred to have a chat with a select group of journalists handpicked by the US Embassy at the American ambassador’s residence.

Holbrooke is a coward.

well wateva he is but these two were definately not expacting this kind of respnose from pakistani side. like some american sources said that it was a rude shock for the two who were taking both civilian and military leadership for granted. im so glad our gov finaly woke up

 

[fatman17]

Editorial: US-Pak: Agreeing to disagree

A joint Pak-US press conference at the Foreign Office in Islamabad has yielded predictable results. The US Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, Richard Holbrooke, and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen were visiting after a barrage of statements from important sources in the Obama Administration that Pakistan’s ISI was complicit in the terrorism of the Taliban. Their host Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi rejected the charge and was suitably aggressive when he took the opportunity to rebut President Obama’s reference to the blank cheque: “I expect no blank cheques and we will not issue any blank cheques”.

The press conference was clearly a showcasing on the part of Pakistan of the differences that exist between the two sides on how terrorism is to be combated. Islamabad wanted to come clean on the issue of the American drone attacks and put it before the Pakistani public in deference to the “national consensus” against American plans to violate Pakistan’s sovereignty and escalating the alienation of the Pakistani population affected by these attacks. Because of the bad blood created by statements against the ISI, Pakistan reacted by rejecting proposals of further cooperation with the US on Afghanistan, including “joint operations” against the Taliban.

Is this the parting of the ways? No, if you read into Foreign Minister Qureshi’s announcement that discussion of the “differences” will be carried forward in the Afghan-Pak-US talks coming in the first week of May in Washington. Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani rallied behind his foreign minister by saying that Pakistan was capable of defeating terrorism, although the world is yet to see the first demonstration of this capacity. There was a promise of retreat from partnership in this as he complained of the non-receipt of the pledged $1.5 billion meant for setting up special industrial zones in the tribal areas.

The two sides are definitely testing each other on their separate needs to remain inside the anti-terror alliance. The US knew that General Musharraf had a covert Afghan policy that partly negated his overt support of the war against terror. He wanted to protect the Afghan Taliban as his proxy in case the Americans decided to leave Pakistan. The Obama Administration, while aware of this strategic game on the Afghan Shura issue, wanted to see whether Pakistan’s Afghan policy had changed after the exit of General Musharraf from the scene. It has found out that it has not, and that Pakistan’s sensitivity to the presence of India in Afghanistan has actually increased.

Pakistan is testing America on its oft-repeated recognition that Pakistan is pivotal to the resolution of the Afghan problem. It has drawn a red line on how much Pakistan will “give” to the roster of demands made on it by Washington, in fact delineating the limit beyond which Pakistan will encash unilaterally on its pivotal importance for Afghanistan. Without articulating it, Pakistan is signalling that it cannot give up on its old policy on Afghanistan based on the use of counterforce to prevent India from using Afghanistan to destabilise its tribal territories inclusive of Balochistan. There is no doubt that the Pakistani government is also under pressure from the “national consensus” emerging in the parliament in Islamabad.

The Pakistani electronic media is also opposed to the drone attacks and keeps the government under pressure with an anti-American message. This message is absorbed not only in the settled areas of Pakistan but also in the tribal areas now under the control of the Taliban. To remove any misperception of our tribal areas, it should be kept in mind that Pakistani TV channels have considerable coverage there. The top tribal agency Bajaur has 60 percent coverage while the lowest coverage at 20 percent is enjoyed by South Waziristan. This means that our TV channels mould attitudes not only in Pakistan but also in the tribal areas where the Taliban too assess the effect of their strategy by interpreting the message of the media.

But that is not to say that Pakistan is ready to forfeit the $7.5 billion aid package it expects to get from the United States over the next five years; nor is it ready to spurn the funds being made available to it through multilateral organisations like the IMF. In fact it expects the US to use its persuasion during the next meeting of the Friends of Pakistan group of countries to give it more money. Pakistan’s ambassador to the US, Mr Husain Haqqani, has in fact asked Washington to prepare a Marshall Plan for Pakistan to give it additional $30 billion. But the bottom line is that one can’t ask for this big money while giving nothing in return.

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk

 

[BaburCM]

well wateva he is but these two were definately not expacting this kind of respnose from pakistani side. like some american sources said that it was a rude shock for the two who were taking both civilian and military leadership for granted. im so glad our gov finaly woke up

I agree. The firm and resolute response by the Pakistani authority has stunned the Americans. This is exactly what's required in these times.

 

[muse]

Holbrooke reaches out to Hekmatyar
By Syed Saleem Shahzad

The recent meeting between a deputy of Richard Holbrooke, the United States special representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan, and an emissary of Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, leader of Hezb-i-Islami Afghanistan (HIA), is by all accounts a landmark move in the United States' stated aim of involving militant groups in ending the conflict in Afghanistan.

The choice of Hekmatyar also indicates just how desperate the US is in finding an escape route from the escalating crisis in Afghanistan. Hekmatyar is a declared terrorist with a reported $25 million price on his head. The 61-year-old engineer from Kunduz province and his anti-government fighters are responsible for large numbers of attacks against Afghan and international forces, mainly in the northeast of the country. For years, Washington has



branded Hekmatyar an irreconcilable militant.

The HIA, founded by Hekmatyar, was one of the most effective mujahideen groups to fight the Soviet invasion during the 1980s. But, according to reports, the party became a favorite of Pakistan's intelligence agency and Hekmatyar's men were known as the most fundamentalist of all Afghan resistance fighters.

To date, however, the US has failed miserably in attracting mainstream Afghan forces of the past back into the political process, including tribal warlords, the Taliban, the Northern Alliance and the HIA. This means, as Peter Lee wrote last month in Asia Times Online, "...the unpredictable Hekmatyar, who has survived the jihad, the civil war, defeat at the hands of the Taliban, exile in Iraq, an assassination attempt by the CIA, and return to Afghanistan as an insurgent leader, is the great hope of all parties as the only Pashtun strongman untainted by al-Qaeda and possibly capable of taking on the Taliban." (See Taliban force a China switch, Asia Times Online, March 6, 2009.)

The insurgents loyal to Hekmatyar have now emerged as the most important component of anti-Western coalition resistance in Afghanistan. While most of Taliban-led resistance is situated near the Pakistan Afghanistan borders, insurgents loyal to Hekmatyar hold complete command over Kapissa province's Tagab valley, only 30 kilometers north of Kabul. The HIA, whose political wing has offices all over Afghanistan and keeps 40 seats in the Afghan parliament, is fully geared to replace President Hamid Karzai in the upcoming presidential elections.

Now, eight years after the US attack on Afghanistan, Washington is initiating dialogue with Hekmatyar through his longtime lieutenant Daoud Abedi, the link between the Hekmatyar and the West. Abedi is an Afghan-American based in California as well as a prominent businessman, social worker and a former representative of the HIA.

In an exclusive interview from his home in Los Angeles, Abedi explains what was discussed between himself and the US official representing Holbrooke and the White House.

ATol: Please shed light on your recent visit to the region of Pakistan and Afghanistan and your meeting with US officials on behalf of Hezb-e-Islami Afghanistan.

Dauod Abeidi: Brother Shahzad, first of all, I thank you for the call and I appreciate your attention regarding Afghanistan and international affairs. I always read your articles and I am enlightened by your writings. May Allah reward you. ... As you know, I represented HIA in the US. Yes, I was approached by the US government here and we did speak. We want a new policy of the US for Afghanistan and [we want] to bring peace to this war-torn country. ... Based on that, I spoke to some people here and al-Hamdullilah [thank God] the results of the talks were positive ... This is something which I personally started and forwarded to our Hezb brothers in Afghanistan ... The purpose of those meetings was to see how we can bring peace Afghanistan and to make sure foreign troops leave Afghanistan as soon as possible.

ATol: Could you please name the officials who you met?

DA: I think since talks are still going, it is best to keep that [quiet] for the moment. You will hear more about the talks [but] since they are ongoing I think it is better to keep it that way.

ATol: Could you please confirm whether Pakistan is involved in this dialogue process - or is this just between the HIA and the US?

DA: I have not met with any Pakistani official at all. This is my personal initiative since I know what the HIA wants and what the Taliban wants in order to see if we could make a situation possible in which foreign troops leave Afghanistan as soon as possible. This is the demand of both sides, the HIA and the Taliban. This is the first priority: that foreign troops must leave Afghanistan as soon as possible. And based on that we [want] to find the way to bring peace to this war torn country.

ATol: Have the Americans agreed to any schedule for the withdrawal of their troops from Afghanistan?

DA: President Obama has mentioned many times that they are not staying there forever. They want to leave Afghanistan as soon as there is a peace through the Afghans and [create] a possibility that allows [them] to leave. So we are hopeful and there is no other way to bring peace to Afghanistan except that foreign troops leave and that the Afghan people decide their own future and their own type of government.

ATol: Were Taliban on board for this dialogue process, or were they just apart?

DA: There was the discussion about the Taliban. Taliban are also the sons of Afghanistan. They are sacrificing for Afghanistan and for the freedom of Afghanistan so we are hopeful that they will give a positive answer to our request as well.

ATol: Is there any chance that HIA shall join the Afghan government in the near future?

DA: No. There is no such chance because we want to solve the problems through all Afghans. We are not planning to take sides against one another. The HIA's stance is to bring peace in Afghanistan and we all know that peace cannot come to Afghanistan without Hezb-e-Islami. Because of that issue, we are trying to work with all sides especially with the Taliban and with the US. The Kabul government has not been able to bring peace to Afghanistan and based on that we are hoping Kabul will also understand [it is] time for the Afghan people to choose their own future leaders in the government.

ATol: Has Hekmatyar given approval for these talks [with the US]? Is he ready for any immediate truce with NATO [North Atlantic Treaty Organization] troops?

DA: Brother Hekmatyar has approved my talks. But as I have mentioned, this was started by myself and later he gave his approval with the condition of the departure of foreign troops from Afghanistan.

ATol: Would [Hekmatyar] agree to any immediate ceasefire with the NATO troops?

DA: A ceasefire is possible once talks are over and we know the exact schedule for the departure of the foreign troops. This has not been discussed yet, but we are hopeful that if there is an accepted date for the departure of the foreign troops, then all sides could talk - the HIA, Taliban and the foreigners - and see if we could agree on a ceasefire as a goodwill gesture. But that can be done only when there is a confirmed date of departure.

ATol: What would be the future of al-Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden once any peace deal is signed between the HIA, the Taliban and NATO? Where would they stand [on such a deal]? DA: First of all, nobody knows where Shiekh Osama Bin Laden is. It is not proven that he is in Afghanistan. The second thing is, al-Qaeda doesn't have big numbers of members. Foreign forces searched Afghanistan inch by inch and they could not find one al-Qaeda member. If they are somewhere else, we are not aware. As far as Afghanistan is concerned, they are not there.

Syed Saleem Shahzad is Asia Times Online's Pakistan Bureau Chief. He can be reached at saleem_shahzad2002@yahoo.com.

 

[HAIDER]

Well Hikmatyar has fought along US against Russians. Both knows each other well and found to be well trusted person during the first few years of Afghan liberation from Soviet invasion. But still Hikmatyar carry little political weight, he need to bring more afghan militant in his band wagon to head for peace deal with NATO and provide safe exit for all. But problem lies, who ever US talk in Afghanistan taliban next day count that person as enemy. So, it better for US to go for direct dialogue with good or bad taliban. Otherwise cancer is spreading in south east asia.Now even India is feeling the ripple affect.
If the carrot and stick policy is helpful or not ? or its time for US govt to review its decades old policy of controlling small countries .......

 

[ajpirzada]

should i say that comin afghan elections are quite important??