What's new

Pakistan Victors Want Dialogue With Militants

t-birds

FULL MEMBER
Joined
Sep 27, 2007
Messages
323
Reaction score
0
By CARLOTTA GALL and JANE PERLEZ
Published: February 20, 2008

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — The winners of Pakistan’s parliamentary elections said Tuesday that they would take a new approach to fighting Islamic militants by pursuing more dialogue than military confrontation, and that they would undo the crackdown on the media and restore independence to the judiciary.

Johan Spanner for The New York Times
Asif Ali Zardari told reporters in Islamabad that many unpopular policies would be scrapped. More Photos »
With nearly complete returns from Monday’s vote giving it the most seats, the party of the assassinated opposition leader Benazir Bhutto, led by her widower, Asif Ali Zardari, made clear that a new political order prevailed in Pakistan.

Mr. Zardari, the leader of the Pakistan Peoples Party, said the new Parliament would reverse many of the unpopular policies that fueled the strong protest vote against President Pervez Musharraf and his party.

Bush administration officials said the United States would still like to see Pakistan’s opposition leaders find a way to work with Mr. Musharraf, a staunch ally for more than six years, but conceded that the notion appeared increasingly unlikely.

Though Mr. Zardari said he wanted a government of national consensus, he ruled out working with anyone from the previous government under Mr. Musharraf.

Instead he said he was talking to the leader of the other main opposition party, Nawaz Sharif, whose party finished second, about forming a coalition.

Although the resounding victory of the two parties was broadly welcomed in Pakistan, there were immediate memories of the failings of civilian governments here in the 1990s. American officials were particularly skeptical of Mr. Zardari, who has faced corruption charges in Pakistan and abroad and has come to his current position of leadership only through his wife’s death.

Mr. Sharif was twice prime minister in the 1990s and faced numerous corruption charges himself after being ousted by Mr. Musharraf in a coup.

Mr. Sharif quickly announced several conditions for joining a coalition. They included the impeachment of Mr. Musharraf and the restoration of the chief justice and other Supreme Court judges suspended by the president in November.

Mr. Zardari was less categorical, not calling for Mr. Musharraf’s impeachment, for instance. The struggle to end military rule and bring a return to democracy is a long, uphill battle, he said.

“We might have to take soft, small steps,” he said at a news briefing at his home in the capital after a meeting of 50 senior members of the party.

Still, the first order of business will be to undo restrictions on the media and restore the independence of the judiciary, he said.

But Mr. Zardari did not specifically call for the reinstatement of the chief justice and his colleagues; there are corruption charges still pending against him.

Though he has little experience in such matters, Mr. Zardari criticized the antiterrorism policies of Mr. Musharraf, saying that he had played a double game that had led to an increase in militancy. “We feel they in the government are running with the hare and hunting with the hounds,” he said.

The two opposition parties share similar views of how to tackle the terrorism problem. The new approach is more likely to be responsive to the consensus of the Pakistani public than was Mr. Musharraf’s and is more likely to shun a heavy hand by the military and rely on dialogue with the militants.

Mr. Zardari said his party would seek talks with the militants in the tribal areas along the Afghan border, where the Taliban and Al Qaeda have carved out a stronghold, as well as with the nationalist militants who have battled the Pakistani Army in Baluchistan Province.

Many in Pakistan, including several parties that boycotted the elections, have been strongly opposed to Mr. Musharraf’s use of the army to battle tribesmen in the name of the campaign against terrorism, which is seen as an American agenda.

“We will have a dialogue with those who are up in the mountains and those who are not in Parliament,” Mr. Zardari said. “We want to take all those along who are against Pakistan and working against Pakistan.”

Some analysts saw opportunities for the United States if a new civilian government could persuade Pakistanis to get behind the fight against the militants. But past attempts to deal with the militants have left them stronger, and any policy too accommodating is likely to raise concern in Washington.

A former chief of staff of the Pakistani Army, Gen. Jehangir Karamat, said the election of a new government should help the United States if it was looking to work with moderate forces.

“It’s an opportunity to rejuvenate this whole relationship,” General Karamat said. “What we are seeing through these elections is moderate and liberal forces, which is absolutely great.”

Other analysts agreed. The emergence of a moderate Parliament should be good news for the United States, said Shuja Nawaz, a Pakistani military analyst based in Washington.

“If Parliament will now have a stronger hand than before in national decision-making, then the United States should be pleased, since it will not have to beg and cajole Pakistan to act in its own interests against the terrorists,” Mr. Nawaz said.

But the results left the Bush administration, which has leaned heavily on Mr. Musharraf, scrambling to find new partners in the campaign against Islamic militants in the region. The election of a hostile Parliament is expected to further marginalize the president, or even push him out, in a country where power traditionally lies with elected prime ministers or the military chiefs who have overthrown them.

Mr. Musharraf was re-elected to another five-year term by national and provincial assemblies in October, but the constitutionality of his standing for office was vigorously contested. The new Parliament could revive that challenge and even impeach him.

Election returns, which were nearly complete, showed the Pakistan Peoples Party led by Mr. Zardari earning 87 of the 268 contested seats in the National Assembly, while Mr. Sharif’s party, the Pakistan Muslim League-N, got 66 seats.

The former governing party that had supported Mr. Musharraf, what is known as the Q faction of the Pakistan Muslim League, won only 38 seats. It was a crashing fall for the party. At least 10 of its ministers and senior leaders lost seats.

The remaining seats were divided among seven smaller parties and factions and 27 independent candidates. Ten seats remain uncounted, according to the Election Commission.

Mr. Zardari hailed the results as proof of the national appeal of his Pakistan Peoples Party. It won seats in all four provincial assemblies and is in a position to participate in governments in three of them. “We believe that no other party has the leadership and the ability to get Pakistan out of this difficulty,” he said.

Mr. Musharraf told visiting United States senators that he had accepted the election results and the defeat of his party, and would work with any coalition government that was formed.

But Mr. Zardari and Mr. Sharif have reasons to bear grudges. Mr. Zardari, who returned from exile only after Ms. Bhutto’s death, spent eight years in prison on murder and corruption charges under the government of Mr. Sharif. Mr. Musharraf was army chief at the time.

Mr. Sharif was thrown out of the government in 1999 by Mr. Musharraf, who mounted a coup and arrested and then exiled him. Many Pakistanis agree that the governments of Ms. Bhutto and Mr. Sharif did not distinguish themselves. Both were ridden with corruption.

Neither Mr. Zardari nor Mr. Sharif ran for parliamentary seats themselves and so cannot immediately serve as prime minister. Mr. Zardari is expected to run for a seat to qualify, though, and Mr. Sharif could do the same.

For now, the deputy leader of the Pakistan Peoples Party, Makhdoom Amin Fahim, is one candidate for prime minister. The choice would clearly depend on the coalition forged, however.

Mr. Zardari faces rumblings and distrust in his party, and it was not clear how well the negotiations between him and Mr. Sharif would proceed. The talks, which are expected to begin soon, are likely to be protracted.

Mr. Zardari discussed Pakistan’s options with the militants in an interview last week. He said the campaign against terrorism needed to be redefined in Pakistan. He said it needed to be better explained to the people so they understood it was not America’s war they were fighting, but a threat to their own nation.

Mr. Zardari said that Mr. Musharraf had lost popular support for the campaign and that the morale of the army had plummeted, asserting that only a popularly elected government with the backing of Parliament could reverse that.

He added that a counterinsurgency should be waged by the police in the tribal areas, and that Pakistan had to train and equip its police forces to curb much of the lawlessness. The army is a blunt instrument and should be used selectively so that militants are awed by its power, he said.
 
Now this will be an interesting development. How will the US take this specially after a new government is to be formed in US aswell which by the way does not take pakistan much friendly and sincere in their commitment for WOT.
 
First stupid decision being made by the new government. Hopefulyl Kayani will convince the government that this problem needs to be dealt with.
 
Hi,

U S is never responcible for anything that happens in any country even if it forced that country into submission---u s has a tendency to walk out of that nation---they walk out without any remorse or conscience---you know why---because that is what they are---you look at their personal relations---you look at their employment---almost all jobs are at will terminations unless they are union or govt jobs.

So any civilian govt that comes in has to decide what is better for pakistan---we don't have any written contract with america---they will leave us when they chose to.
 
Actually I am fine with this. This was the one foreign policy loophole that I thought Musharraf had...it was a one-man stop...US could exert all the pressure on him and get whatever they wanted even if the requests ran contrary to Pakistan's own interests. So if the Western Europeans andTurks can rely on their public opinion to guide them through their foreign policy issues (and say No to the US), so can Pakistan.

Let democracy play out with all its good and bad! :pakistan:
 
Actually I am fine with this. This was the one foreign policy loophole that I thought Musharraf had...it was a one-man stop...US could exert all the pressure on him and get whatever they wanted even if the requests ran contrary to Pakistan's own interests. So if the Western Europeans andTurks can rely on their public opinion to guide them through their foreign policy issues (and say No to the US), so can Pakistan.

Let democracy play out with all its good and bad! :pakistan:

:victory::victory::victory::enjoy:
 
First stupid decision being made by the new government. Hopefulyl Kayani will convince the government that this problem needs to be dealt with.

They are our people and no one should tell us how to treat our people. We have fought our people in the past and what we got was disintegration of the country that is why Pakistan is so keen on talking, because 1971 is still fresh on our minds. What is needed is a three step solution first dialogue needs to occur, then economic progress needs to occur and if all fails the elements should be eliminated. I think dialogue if it works should happen, but at the same time I think we shouldn't negotiate with the foreign element who have come into the region.
 
One other thing the new govt needs to do is take over complete control of all "secret" predator bases in Pakistan. It is completely ridiculous for Musharaff to give permission to the CIA to create a sick real life video game where they blow up anyone in western pakistan WITHOUT PERMISSION. That is the most outrageous and ridiculous report I have ever heard of. If the excuse is that there are taliban sympathisers in the pak military then they can create a new small independent department in PAF where all the officers are psychologically screened and certified as loyal to the state.

Why is the CIA so anxious to kill some of these people without interrogation? Afraid of some dirty secrets coming out in a trial, or what?
 
Actually I am fine with this. This was the one foreign policy loophole that I thought Musharraf had...it was a one-man stop...US could exert all the pressure on him and get whatever they wanted even if the requests ran contrary to Pakistan's own interests. So if the Western Europeans andTurks can rely on their public opinion to guide them through their foreign policy issues (and say No to the US), so can Pakistan.

Let democracy play out with all its good and bad! :pakistan:

I disagree with this. America can bomb Pakistan, and it can find a reason to do it (WoT, terrorism). Musharraf did not have a choice - he could not say no.

Diplomacy is just a cover. Musharraf was striking deals with the militants constantly. The same will happen with the new government. Plus a few bombings. If Pakistan stops going after Al Q, then the US will..because it can. Turkey and Western Europe are a different matter. That was what Musharaff called, "walking the tightrope".
 
I don't really see the US bombing Pakistan because lets face it, at no time in recent history has the US ever attacked another power in a situation where that other power can wipe out tens of thousands of US troops almost immediately in retaliation. First it would have to scam Pakistan into giving up tactical nukes, missiles etc etc just like how Saddam was scammed into giving up WMDs and then after years of sanctions during which time the utmost effort was made to weaken Iraq the certain commanders in the Iraq military were again seduced into agreeing to be invaded to save the Iraqi army massive casualties in an initial conflict. I don't think the pakistan military is that easily scammed, seduced or blackmailed but I could be wrong.

And I'm not saying either that the US does not have the tactical ability to destroy almost all fixed pakistani military assets within hours, starting anytime but it just won't do it like that.
 
Actually I am fine with this. This was the one foreign policy loophole that I thought Musharraf had...it was a one-man stop...US could exert all the pressure on him and get whatever they wanted even if the requests ran contrary to Pakistan's own interests. So if the Western Europeans andTurks can rely on their public opinion to guide them through their foreign policy issues (and say No to the US), so can Pakistan.
Let democracy play out with all its good and bad! :pakistan:
you have a great point. I think now that the world knows that we were threatened to be "bombed back to the stone age" we can openly refuse to submit to aggression. ever since the WoT started next door, strange enough, suicide bomb attacks started to happen. we all know what's happening and for example the resurgence of the BLA.
As soon as the WoT took root in the middle east, turkey started to see the rise of kurdistan movement. however, they didn't give any chance to terrorists to gain strength so they launched airstrikes into other territory.
 
you have a great point. I think now that the world knows that we were threatened to be "bombed back to the stone age" we can openly refuse to submit to aggression. ever since the WoT started next door, strange enough, suicide bomb attacks started to happen. we all know what's happening and for example the resurgence of the BLA.
As soon as the WoT took root in the middle east, turkey started to see the rise of kurdistan movement. however, they didn't give any chance to terrorists to gain strength so they launched airstrikes into other territory.

I completly agree with you. We are in better position today then we were 7 years ago. The U.S. will never declare all out war on Pakistan, I mean they cant even do that with Iran. One way to stop U.S. agression is by strengthening our economy.
 
I don't really see the US bombing Pakistan because lets face it, at no time in recent history has the US ever attacked another power in a situation where that other power can wipe out tens of thousands of US troops almost immediately in retaliation.

They could just pull them out to the US, then bomb.

First it would have to scam Pakistan into giving up tactical nukes, missiles etc etc just like how Saddam was scammed into giving up WMDs and then after years of sanctions during which time the utmost effort was made to weaken Iraq the certain commanders in the Iraq military were again seduced into agreeing to be invaded to save the Iraqi army massive casualties in an initial conflict. I don't think the pakistan military is that easily scammed, seduced or blackmailed but I could be wrong.

There's not a thing Pakistan could do to repulse a US attack by air or missile.

And I'm not saying either that the US does not have the tactical ability to destroy almost all fixed pakistani military assets within hours, starting anytime but it just won't do it like that.

Why not?
 
They could just pull them out to the US, then bomb.

Pull out everyone from Afghanistan, Iraq and the gulf and then bomb pakistan with ICBMs? Yeah technically but its a big hassle and a momentous political decision which nobody would want to take because it is somewhat pointless and would involve releasing all military bases in the ME and CA entirely. A bit inconvenient to say the least.

There's not a thing Pakistan could do to repulse a US attack by air or missile.

There is a realistic chance that Pakistan can launch a counter attack on Afghanistan, Iraq, Bahrain, Q8, Qatar, Diego Garcia even and knock out tens of thousands of US troops. This ability acts as a deterrent. Deterrents repulse attacks before they are launched.


Because it is a political decision too. I just explained how Iraq was defanged, scammed, invaded and occupied over the course of decades with minimal US casualties. I think it was less than 50 deaths or something ridiculous like that for taking over Iraq entirely? Now instead of using cunning an guile why would the US use this purely military method to destroy a country like Pakistan? It wouldn't...hasn't done so since Normandy.

It's just little defenceless places like Afghanistan, Grenada or Panama that get trashed by the US "on impulse" if you check the history of the last 60 years or so.
 
Hi guys,

There is no more threat of any attack on pakistan. If you don't live in america, you have no clue how bad america is hurting economically---it is bent over double in pain---the days of ICBM type attacks are gone---any attack would have a devastating effect on the world economy---the price of oil will jump between 5 to 10 times a barrell---ie from a $100 to $500---$1000 a barrell of oil.

American economy will be shattered so would the european, chinese, japanese and indian economy. Each and everything is attached to the price of oil.

There was a small fire in a texas refinery about 4 days ago. The priceof oil jumped from $90 to $100 the next day. So, fear not aout any attacks.

There is no reason for the govt to take over any bases given to the u s---let them be for now. They may ask the u s to close those bases at a later date. It is better to take these al qadea out in combat or raids---rather than capture them---because of liability issues---they need quick justice---what better than the fear of ever lingering death---flying overhead---a silent killer---a blinding flash---an everlasting eternity thereafter.
 

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom