What's new

Pak nixed US idea of non-aggression pact with India

Jade

SENIOR MEMBER
Joined
Mar 5, 2010
Messages
5,622
Reaction score
-1
Country
India
Location
United Kingdom
WASHINGTON: Pakistan rejected a US suggestion to sign a non-aggression pact with India, arguing that its public would not support the idea unless Washington treated the two countries on an equal footing and New Delhi reduced its "footprint" in Afghanistan.

The US proposal was mooted by Senator John Kerry in exchanges with Pakistan's Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani in February this year, according to a cable sent to the state department by the American Ambassador to Pakistan Anne Patterson which forms part of the controversial WikiLeaks cabledump. Kerry, who chairs the powerful Senate Foreign Relations Committee, also pressed Pakistan to present the Indian government with its plan to tackle terrorism, saying this would be a clear "confidence builder" that would make India more willing to move forward in talks about Kashmir and water disputes.

"He (Kerry) emphasized that India, Pakistan and the United States' futures depended on their governments' willingness to 'challenge old suspicions' and work together, and suggested that Pakistan and India sign a non-aggression pact. Kerry said that the US. and other countries of goodwill would be prepared to help in any way possible," the cable records.

But Gilani ignored the suggestion to present an action plan on terror, and instead, "noted that in order to gain public support for this process, the US had to 'treat India and Pakistan equally.'" He added that India would need to gain Pakistan's trust and indicated that reducing the Indian footprint in Afghanistan and halting Indian support of militants in Balochistan would be steps in the right direction, the cable records.

While India's alleged role in Balochistan features in more than one cable, at no time does Pakistan present any evidence to substantiate this nor do American interlocutors endorse the Pakistani charge.


Put on the defensive by the American Senator, the February 19 cable reports that Gilani agreed to present Kerry's proposal to the the GOP leadership. "He was amenable to the idea of a rapprochement in the India-Pakistan relation, but expressed concern that the public would not support the idea," it records, adding that Kerry said that in order to gain public support for this initiative, Pakistan needed to clearly outline the long-term economic benefits of improved bilateral relations, such as improvements in social development and increased investments and trade, to the Pakistani people.

Another cable suggests that the Pakistani leadership lacks the skill and the inclination to make such a case to the Pakistani people involved as they are in internecine battles.

A separate cable which records Senator Kerry's meeting with President Zardari at the same time also shows the Pakistani leadership reluctant to push for peace with India unless Islamabad's suspicions and fears, which the US clearly believes are unfounded, are addressed. Told by Kerry that cooperation on counter terrorism with the Indians could lead to Indian compromises on key Pakistani issues such as Kashmir and water use in subsequent meetings, Zardari "justified continued suspicion of India, citing recent 'confirmation' that there was Indian involvement in the Mumbai attacks," the cable notes.

The Pakistani President, who has been variously described as dimwitted, inept, and corrupt in some of the cables, then argues that India had increased its military spending 30 percent this year and describes this as a direct threat to Pakistan. "When Kerry pointed out the Chinese threat to India, Zardari responded that Indian tanks cannot operate in the Chinese border region and could only be intended for an attack on Pakistan. India has 4,700 tanks, he explained, while Pakistan has only 2,600," notes Patterson's cable, quoting Zardari as saying, "Capability creates a fear."
 
This is totally unreasonable on the part of the US.

The Pak Army's sole existential reason is India and they are trying to take away that. :lol:
 
may be a diversion tactic by the yanks,for Pakistani troops to concentrate more on their job rather than preparing against india,as their dead line in coming nearer..
 
The non-aggression pact already exists in different nomenclature (via the erstwhile Shimla Agreement).

"In Jammu and Kashmir, the line of control resulting from the ceasefire of December 17, 1971, shall be respected by both sides without prejudice to the recognised position of either side. Neither side shall seek to alter it unilaterally, irrespective of mutual differences and legal interpretations."

Pakistan tends to violate bilateral agreement. Officially once (Kargil) and unofficially (Terrorist attacks) several times. This is precisely why our government is pessimistic about talks with pakistan.
 
Non Aggression pact with India would only be a piece of paper no worth its price. Because either the pact will be heavily favored towards India in terms of opening up sales of sophisticated war toys while we are given the same worn out rhetoric of democracy. This will lead to imbalance of already delicate Pakistan India relations. Also given the India's record of political lieing, deception and back stab I would hold little credit to any agreement with India.
 
Pakistan tends to violate bilateral agreement. Officially once (Kargil) and unofficially (Terrorist attacks) several times. This is precisely why our government is pessimistic about talks with pakistan.

And India never violated the international right of sovereignty towards neighbors, nor trained guerrillas not funded and supported separatist leaders. Only cry foul out of fear of being paid back in same coin.
 
if the GoP sign a Non Aggression Pact with India, most of the people in Pakistan would hang themselves including some elite members and moderators from this forum.

even though i hate wars to the core, i wish to see a fullscale war between India and Pakistan but at the end of the day only one should stand be it India or Pakistan. only then future generations can have a peaceful life in this damn subcontinent.

and for those Baluchistan stuff, i dont think Pakistan have any right to blame India since they are doing the same for 6 decades.if you people want cut your enemy 1000 times then you guys should be ready to accept 10000 cuts from your enemy. if you people are not ready to accept you should keep your mouth and a** shut, should not cry like a coward
 
And India never violated the international right of sovereignty towards neighbors, nor trained guerrillas not funded and supported separatist leaders. Only cry foul out of fear of being paid back in same coin.

Out of fear ?
Even if I believe for a moment that mukti Bahini was created by India,the whole process took not more than 2-4 years culminating into Independence of Bangladesh.

You have been sending Mujahideen since last 21 years still no declared military action(besides your kargil drubbing and humiliation).

Now go figure which army and nation is afraid of whom.
:wave:
 
Its not US idea US doing this on the behalf of indian government, indians thought after such peace pact they can walk freely in Afghanistan. :lol:
 
The reason is clearly given. Historically Pakistan has been asking India to sign the Non-Aggression Pact.

The reason for this was that Afghanistan wasn't being included into the deal. The Aggression from Afghanistan needs to come to a halt as well other wise the whole thing doesn't make any sense from the Pakistani perspective.

If the US would have secured guarantees (which we can tell it tried from the Wikileaks) but the India sold Karzai refused to reign in on Bugti. So seriously who really refused this, needs to be revisited. Twisting the leaks to suit your own demented interpretation of events is shameful.
 
if the GoP sign a Non Aggression Pact with India, most of the people in Pakistan would hang themselves including some elite members and moderators from this forum.

even though i hate wars to the core, i wish to see a fullscale war between India and Pakistan but at the end of the day only one should stand be it India or Pakistan. only then future generations can have a peaceful life in this damn subcontinent.

and for those Baluchistan stuff, i dont think Pakistan have any right to blame India since they are doing the same for 6 decades.if you people want cut your enemy 1000 times then you guys should be ready to accept 10000 cuts from your enemy. if you people are not ready to accept you should keep your mouth and a** shut, should not cry like a coward

What is the possibility of a full blown war with pakistan - and how much india is willing to take damage in terms of nukes for a disproptinate retaliation on pak against its nukes.
 
India and Pakistan can't be treated equally. Parity is impossible.

Once that sinks in, reconciliation is possible. Otherwise we will just be going round the bush.
 
What is the possibility of a full blown war with pakistan - and how much india is willing to take damage in terms of nukes for a disproptinate retaliation on pak against its nukes.

tats completely in the hands of Pakistan. IMO it may be a chain reaction like misadventure from Pakistan(something like 26/11)-> Indian strikes at terrorist camps-> Pak retaliates and then u have a full scale war..
but if Pakistan takes action against terrorist camps or try to find a diplomatic solution for Indian Strikes then there will not be any war in this subcontinent.
 
And India never violated the international right of sovereignty towards neighbors, nor trained guerrillas not funded and supported separatist leaders. Only cry foul out of fear of being paid back in same coin.

Yet, we are not called "Safe heavens of terrorists", "Unstable region", "****** region", "nuclear black marketeers". Oh yeah, i know. The RAW in collaboration with CIA and Moosad is trying to defame pakistan and its peaceful policies.
 

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom