Pakistan and the U.S.: A new beginning?

[Haseebullah]

A new beginning my brown Pakistani arse!

 

[VCheng]

By Sherry Rehman

............

Significant progress could be made toward resetting the relationship between our countries if the U.S. were to:

•Finally apologize for the battlefield deaths at Salalah.

•Reimburse the Coalition Support Funds — U.S. repayments to Pakistan for the cost of battling terrorism — owed to Pakistan, a very small part of the $78 billion that Pakistan has lost on account of the war against extremism since 2001.

•Increase the sharing of counterterrorism intelligence to assist our military in combating extremism.

•Cease the controversial drone operations that violate our sovereignty and the norms of international law.

•Shift to a policy of trade not aid by providing enhanced access to U.S. markets for Pakistan's exports.

...................
A better relationship for U.S., Pakistan - chicagotribune.com

1. Not likely in a US election year.

2. Likely only after supply routes reopen under reasonable conditions.

3. Not until Pakistan stops its internal leaks.

4. Any enhanced access must be within WTO confines.

....... or would she like the whole list with cream, sprinkles and a cherry on top? I don't think so,

 

[Haseebullah]

1. Not likely in a US election year.

2. Likely only after supply routes reopen under reasonable conditions.

3. Not until Pakistan stops its internal leaks.

4. Any enhanced access must be within WTO confines.

....... or would she like the whole list with cream, sprinkles and a cherry on top? I don't think so,

Not likely unless US understands the meaning of "Partners".

 

[VCheng]

Not likely unless US understands the meaning of "Partners".

Being "partners" applies to both sides. Having to kill OBL in Abbottabad where he lived for years doesn't really shout "partner" all that loudly, and neither does the "partner" being "selective" in eliminating terrorist sanctuaries, now does it?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Being "partners" applies to both sides.

Absolutely.

Backstabbing Pakistan by carrying out the OBL raid covertly despite all the intelligence cooperation provided by Pakistan that allowed the US to track down OBL was a betrayal by the US of the 'partnership'.

Insisting that a lunatic CIA Contractor, who shot two men in cold blood in broad daylight on a busy Lahore street, be freed without any trial is a betrayal by the US of the 'partnership'.

Refusing to reimburse Pakistan billions of dollars for logistical and military support expenses, despite having agreed to do so, is a betrayal by the US of the 'partnership'.

Refusing to apologize for the murder of 24 Pakistani troops in cold blood is betrayal by the US of 'partnership'.

Refusing to halt unilateral military operations, which are illegal under the UN Charter, on Pakistani soil, is a betrayal by the US of the 'partnership'.

 

[Mech]

Absolutely.

Backstabbing Pakistan by carrying out the OBL raid covertly despite all the intelligence cooperation provided by Pakistan that allowed the US to track down OBL was a betrayal by the US of the 'partnership'.

Really ?....Really ?...You had him living in a mansion with close proximity to the kakul military academy ! Who back-stabbed who exactly ? The US does not acknowledge any pakistani assistance to their little project. Since they do not acknowledge it and goes out of their way to "vehemently" deny it, its probably true that pakistan had no role to play in here.

Insisting that a lunatic CIA Contractor, who shot two men in cold blood in broad daylight on a busy Lahore street, be freed without any trial is a betrayal by the US of the 'partnership'

They insisted, you obliged. Now whose fault is it really ? The government who sought to protect its own citizens ? Or a government who chose to write off their citizens lives for a few extra bucks ? When Italian marines shot dead Indian fishermen, the Italian govt insisted that their men be let off without trail in India. Did we oblige ? No. Did we extend any favors? No. Instead we denied them bail and sent them to central jail.

Refusing to halt unilateral military operations, which are illegal under the UN Charter, on Pakistani soil, is a betrayal by the US of the 'partnership'.

Hey if pakistan were capable of looking after itself or dealing with Islamic terror, the US or any other country for that matter wouldn't have had to interfere.

 

[yyetttt]

@Mech

Don't know how it goes in India but we don't strip search someone for living in a mansion near a military academy...

 

[Gin ka Pakistan]

US has not lunched a major offensive for the last six months and the result is 2/3 of Afghan is in free hands of Taliban.
Not good for US and the newly train Afghan army to sit and do nothing in the lawless areas.

On the other hand

Pakistan need to make budget for the current year and the corrupt government has no money to finance the defense of Pakistan , how long they will take loans just for paying salaries to the establishment. The current GOP has broken all records of borrowing from creation of Pakistan.

Pakistan needs US money to run its business and US needs supplies to counter summer offense

So I think both have no time to waste and $2500 per truck is a good amount

 

[Mech]

@Mech

Don't know how it goes in India but we don't strip search someone for living in a mansion near a military academy...

Does the military not secure the perimeter around its own premises ?

 

[Zarvan]

CHICAGO – U.S. tensions with Pakistan complicated the opening day of the NATO summit in Chicago, where allies gathered to solidify a strategy for ending the war in Afghanistan.
The Obama administration has so far been unable to reach an agreement with Pakistan to reopen key supply routes into Afghanistan that were closed after a Nov. 26 U.S. strike on two border posts that killed two dozen Pakistani troops.
U.S. and NATO officials intend to use the summit to intensify pressure on Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari to cut a deal to reopen the supply routes, though hopes for an immediate breakthrough have faded, The Wall Street Journal reported.
Zardari was invited to attend the two-day summit at the last minute in hopes that would lead to a deal, but the two sides remain at odds over how much the U.S. and its allies should pay Pakistan to move cargo through the route.
FOX News Channel reported that US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton met with Zardari, with a State Department spokesperson saying, "They discussed the importance of reopening the NATO supply lines" and of addressing terrorist threats from "Al Qaeda and the Haqqani Network."
"The United States is committed to a strong, mutually beneficial relationship built on concrete actions to enhance the security and prosperity of Pakistan, the United States and the region," the spokesperson said.
The impasse quickly became an undercurrent of the summit, which already was confronting Obama with an election-year balancing act: rallying NATO leaders around a plan to remain engaged in Afghanistan through 2024 and spotlighting his commitment to withdraw U.S. troops from a war that has grown deeply unpopular at home, the Journal reported.
Obama stressed Sunday that under the U.S. and NATO allies' plan, within the next two years "the Afghan war, as we understand it, is over." At the same time, speaking after meeting with Afghan President Hamid Karzai, Obama said summit attendees are "also painting a vision" for Afghanistan over the long-term, one in which the U.S. will have a central role.
Karzai, in turn, said Afghanistan is looking forward to the time when it "is no longer a burden" to the international community and thanked the U.S. for the "support of your taxpayers' money" since the war began in the fall of 2001.
John Allen, the commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, played down the impact of the closure of Pakistan's border crossings on the day-to-day military campaign. He said the U.S. does not know when a deal might be reached, but "sooner is better than later."
But according to U.S. officials, Pakistan has proposed raising transit fees per container by as much as 3,000 percent or 30-fold, a demand that Washington and its allies have rejected as excessive.
Pakistan's closure of the supply routes has forced the U.S. to expand an alternative northern distribution network, which winds its way from Baltic and Caspian ports through Russia, Central Asia and the Caucasus.
Transporting a container to Afghanistan through the northern network costs more than 21 times as much as it would to bring the same container through Pakistan before the supply routes were closed.
Click for more from The Wall Street Journal.


Read more: US-Pakistan rift complicates NATO summit in Chicago | Fox News

 

[Zarvan]

Pakistan supply routes row hits Nato summit

The US is unhappy about Pakistani demands for higher transit fees
Continue reading the main story
Taliban Conflict

Nato's crisis
Tipping point?
Rogue soldiers
Taliban strength
A row between the US and Pakistan over supply routes to Afghanistan is threatening to overshadow the summit of Nato leaders in Chicago.

The two sides have been unable to reach agreement on Pakistan's conditions for reopening the routes, closed after a US air strike killed several troops.

The summit goes into a second day with troop withdrawals from Afghanistan dominating the agenda.

France insists that its troops will return by the end of 2012.

AFP news agency quoted new President Francois Hollande as saying the issue was "non-negotiable because it was a question of French sovereignty".

The handover is expected to be completed by 2014, but several other Nato leaders are under domestic political pressure to bring troops home earlier.

More than 50 leaders are attending the summit, including heads of state and government from the 28 Nato countries, along with President Karzai and and Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari.

Transit dispute
The summit is expected to endorse plans to hand over combat command to Afghan forces by mid-2013 and seek progress in opening routes for troop withdrawals.

They also hope to reach a commitment on who pays how much towards funding Afghan forces after 2014.

Some nations - including the US, Australia, Britain, and Germany - have pledged to contribute to an international fund to help Afghan forces after the Nato pullout.

Washington is expected to pay half of an estimated $4bn (£2.5bn) needed every year.

The US invited Mr Zardari to the summit, in the hope of signing a deal to reopen the Pakistan-Afghanistan border to US transport.

The route was closed in November after a US drone attack killed several Pakistani troops.

But in return for reopening the routes, Pakistan has called for:

A public apology for the killings
A review of US policy on drone attacks inside Pakistan
An increase of the transit charge from $250 (£158) to $5,000 per vehicle.
US Defence Secretary Leon Panetta said before the summit that it was "not likely" that the US would be prepared to pay the higher amount demanded by Pakistan.

Correspondents say US President Barack Obama is unhappy about the fee, given that US is already giving Pakistan large amounts of aid.

US officials say no bilateral meeting is being planned between Mr Zardari and Mr Obama, although the Pakistani leader met Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Sunday evening.

Different messages
As talks began on Sunday, President Obama spoke of a "transformational decade" in Afghanistan and the enormous sacrifices of the American people on the road to peace, stability and development.

He warned there were still "great challenges ahead", urging leaders to "pool resources".

 

[Leviza]

Pakistan supply routes row hits Nato summit

The US is unhappy about Pakistani demands for higher transit fees
Continue reading the main story
Taliban Conflict

Nato's crisis
Tipping point?
Rogue soldiers
Taliban strength
A row between the US and Pakistan over supply routes to Afghanistan is threatening to overshadow the summit of Nato leaders in Chicago.

The two sides have been unable to reach agreement on Pakistan's conditions for reopening the routes, closed after a US air strike killed several troops.

The summit goes into a second day with troop withdrawals from Afghanistan dominating the agenda.

France insists that its troops will return by the end of 2012.

AFP news agency quoted new President Francois Hollande as saying the issue was "non-negotiable because it was a question of French sovereignty".

The handover is expected to be completed by 2014, but several other Nato leaders are under domestic political pressure to bring troops home earlier.

More than 50 leaders are attending the summit, including heads of state and government from the 28 Nato countries, along with President Karzai and and Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari.

Transit dispute
The summit is expected to endorse plans to hand over combat command to Afghan forces by mid-2013 and seek progress in opening routes for troop withdrawals.

They also hope to reach a commitment on who pays how much towards funding Afghan forces after 2014.

Some nations - including the US, Australia, Britain, and Germany - have pledged to contribute to an international fund to help Afghan forces after the Nato pullout.

Washington is expected to pay half of an estimated $4bn (£2.5bn) needed every year.

The US invited Mr Zardari to the summit, in the hope of signing a deal to reopen the Pakistan-Afghanistan border to US transport.

The route was closed in November after a US drone attack killed several Pakistani troops.

But in return for reopening the routes, Pakistan has called for:

A public apology for the killings
A review of US policy on drone attacks inside Pakistan
An increase of the transit charge from $250 (£158) to $5,000 per vehicle.
US Defence Secretary Leon Panetta said before the summit that it was "not likely" that the US would be prepared to pay the higher amount demanded by Pakistan.

Correspondents say US President Barack Obama is unhappy about the fee, given that US is already giving Pakistan large amounts of aid.

US officials say no bilateral meeting is being planned between Mr Zardari and Mr Obama, although the Pakistani leader met Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Sunday evening.

Different messages
As talks began on Sunday, President Obama spoke of a "transformational decade" in Afghanistan and the enormous sacrifices of the American people on the road to peace, stability and development.

He warned there were still "great challenges ahead", urging leaders to "pool resources".

The route was closed in November after a US drone attack killed several Pakistani troops

First of al lit was not US drone which killed troops it was planned US attacks..

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Really ?....Really ?...You had him living in a mansion with close proximity to the kakul military academy ! Who back-stabbed who exactly ? The US does not acknowledge any pakistani assistance to their little project. Since they do not acknowledge it and goes out of their way to "vehemently" deny it, its probably true that pakistan had no role to play in here.

1. It was no mansion (so you are caught lying/propagating the lies of the US 'Deep State')

2. Pakistani institutions were not 'having him live there', something the US herself has admitted (though reluctantly since the US Deep State would love to tie OBL to Pakistani institutions somehow), so you are caught lying

3. The US herself has admitted that KSM provided initial intelligence on the 'courier', and KSM was captured and handed over the US (along with hundreds of other AQ leaders/members) by Pakistan. Some US officials have also admitted that Pakistan provided the intelligence of the cell phone of the courier, which allowed the US to piece together the puzzle and track OBL down. So yes, it is absolutely true that Pakistan had a very significant role to play in tracking down OBL, through the intelligence cooperation it provided.

They insisted, you obliged. Now whose fault is it really ? The government who sought to protect its own citizens ? Or a government who chose to write off their citizens lives for a few extra bucks ? When Italian marines shot dead Indian fishermen, the Italian govt insisted that their men be let off without trail in India. Did we oblige ? No. Did we extend any favors? No. Instead we denied them bail and sent them to central jail.

More like the US 'arm-twisted', and I agree, the Pakistani government is answerable to its people for why it capitulated to US demands, but in the context of an ally (US in this case) betraying the partnership/alliance with Pakistan, blame does fall on the US for taking the route it did on the issue.

Hey if pakistan were capable of looking after itself or dealing with Islamic terror, the US or any other country for that matter wouldn't have had to interfere.

Pakistan is capable, and Pakistan has offered various feasible alternatives to unilateral and illegal US military strikes/operations on Pakistani soil such as:

1. Pakistan operated drone strikes based on US-Pak intelligence
2. PAK-US operated drone strikes based on US-Pak intelligence
3. PAF led airstrikes based on US-Pak intelligence
4. Joint intelligence operations such as the ones that led to the arrest of KSM and the neutralization of hundreds of other AQ leaders and members

In the presence of the above proposals, US arguments justifying unilateral drone strikes/military ops on Pakistani territory are invalid, and US military actions on Pakistani territory completely illegal.

Your attempt at criticizing Pakistan has been exposed as nothing more than a regurgitation of the flawed talking points of the US Deep State propaganda and smear campaign against Pakistan.

@Mech

Don't know how it goes in India but we don't strip search someone for living in a mansion near a military academy...

It was no mansion - it was a run down compound. Many middle class families in Pakistan have better looking homes ...

 

[VCheng]

Absolutely.

Backstabbing Pakistan by carrying out the OBL raid covertly despite all the intelligence cooperation provided by Pakistan that allowed the US to track down OBL was a betrayal by the US of the 'partnership'.

Insisting that a lunatic CIA Contractor, who shot two men in cold blood in broad daylight on a busy Lahore street, be freed without any trial is a betrayal by the US of the 'partnership'.

Refusing to reimburse Pakistan billions of dollars for logistical and military support expenses, despite having agreed to do so, is a betrayal by the US of the 'partnership'.

Refusing to apologize for the murder of 24 Pakistani troops in cold blood is betrayal by the US of 'partnership'.

Refusing to halt unilateral military operations, which are illegal under the UN Charter, on Pakistani soil, is a betrayal by the US of the 'partnership'.

I am sure that a similar list, and more, can be compiled from the US point of view, but why should I raise your ire?

Further, angling for absolute parity in a partnership usually does not work. The balance keeps tilting one way or another depending on how the partnership progresses in face of changing circumstances. Hence, it cannot be static either.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I am sure that a similar list, and more, can be compiled from the US point of view, but why should I raise your ire?

Not really - that pretty much is the extent of the US list, a result of paranoia and smear campaigns by the US Deep State.

I have not even gone into the fact that the US sheltered one of Pakistan's most wanted terrorists, Brahamdegh Bugti, in Kabul for years, facilitated his escape to Europe, and even now continues to allow both its politicians and organizations campaigning in favor of terrorism in Balochistan and the breakup of Pakistan, free reign in the US.

Further, angling for absolute parity in a partnership usually does not work. The balance keeps tilting one way or another depending on how the partnership progresses in face of changing circumstances. Hence, it cannot be static either.

Hey, you were the one claiming 'being partners applies to both sides'.