What's new

Right step, wrong direction

third eye

ELITE MEMBER
Joined
Aug 24, 2008
Messages
18,519
Reaction score
13
Country
India
Location
India
http://www.thefridaytimes.com/tft/right-step-wrong-direction/

tft-37-p-6-a.jpg


It has never happened before. Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif began his Washington visit with a courtesy call on the US Secretary of State John Kerry at the State Department – a shocking visual for most Pakistanis indeed.

Heads of governments usually go to the White House, while the Secretary of State calls on them. They visit the State Department only for a conference or a trilateral meeting hosted by the US government.

But in this case, in a travesty of standard diplomatic practice, Sharif himself walked in to John Kerry’s office in an apparent bid to win the US over, probably too eager to enlist American support.

Regardless of whether the prime minister gets something tangible other than John Kerry’s sympathy, his appearance at the State Department came as a rude shock to most Pakistanis, and flew in the face of all those officials and commentators who used to deride General (r) Pervez Musharraf for regularly courting low-ranking US officials such as Christina Rocca and Richard Armitage. Tariq Fatemi, now Nawaz Sharif’s foreign affairs adviser, and stalwart Shamshad Ahmed frequently criticized Musharraf for allowing “deputy and assistant secretary level US officers into his office.”

It is not likely that the odd move will actually help remove the deep-seated mistrust and misunderstandings that have dogged ties between the US and Pakistan for decades, for the simple reason that the relationship is beset with, and often disrupted by, mutually conflicting narratives, misplaced expectations and historical suspicions.

In the words of Husain Haqqani, Pakistan’s former ambassador to Washington, quoted in a New York Times interview recently, “the suspicion in Pakistan is that the United States wants to defang Pakistan’s nuclear program, that the United States cannot accept a Muslim country having a strong military, and that America wants Pakistan to be subservient to India, just as it wants the Arabs to be subservient to Israel.”

Without a marked shift in Pakistan’s security paradigm, the nature of its relations with the United States will largely remain tactical

The misunderstanding, he says, lay in Pakistan’s expectation that the United States would help build it up against communism (during the cold war era) as well as ensure its parity with India. These expectations also became a means of “generating public opposition to the United States in Pakistan,” as an attempt to get leverage in relations with Washington.

Haqqani, derided in Pakistan for his alleged role in the farcical Memogate affair that discredited former ISI chief General Ahmed Shuja Pasha beyond redemption, also points to the American misconception about Pakistan. The Americans have believed all through that they can somehow bend Pakistan to their will simply with the leverage of aid. Aid has never given the Americans the leverage they thought they would have. “As far as the American public is concerned, it has never really seriously engaged with Pakistan, and the understanding of most Americans about Pakistan is through single-issue prisms: nuclear program one day, terrorism the other. There has never been an effort to understand 180 million people and their aspirations.”

These views resonate the long litany of chequered US-Pakistan relations – what Pakistanis view as “arrogance and high-handedness,” is indeed considered as a normal behavior by the sole super power that has often tended to treat individual countries as “projects” – as dictated by its geo-political considerations.

The fact that the US withheld much of the coalition support funds in the aftermath of Osama bin Laden’s elimination in May 2011, and that President Obama requested the Congress to release $1.6 billion in CSF and other assistance two days before Nawaz Sharif’s arrival in Washington, only reinforced this perception. Once again, it seemed, the US administration used the usual “aid bait” to extract commitment of cooperation from Sharif, who probably believes that key to solving Pakistan’s multiple crises rests with the US.

The US administration used the usual “aid bait” to extract commitment of cooperation from Sharif
The US undoubtedly holds the key to international and multi-lateral funding and a single step by Washington always entails a ripple effect across all important commercial and political capitals, but the American goodwill has its limits. While Pakistanis legitimately demand greater access to trade in American and European markets, they also need to understand that the real solution to Pakistan’s problems lies at home.

Without a marked shift in Pakistan’s security paradigm, the nature of its relations with the United States will largely remain tactical, fraught with mistrust and occasionally marred by misunderstandings.

- See more at: http://www.thefridaytimes.com/tft/right-step-wrong-direction/#sthash.oW40um8l.dpuf
 
.
Love these am chair journalists who can write pages without knowing anything about the topic
NS is foreign minister and defense minister as well
 
.
Love these am chair journalists who can write pages without knowing anything about the topic
NS is foreign minister and defense minister as well

Yes of course, Nawaz Sharif is all of that.......and even more. For instance; he is the Head of a Political Party, a Member of the National Assembly, a Husband, even is a Father; apart from being a Prime Minister.
So in which of all these above roles was Nawaz visiting the US and in which of these roles was he being received in the USA?
The lowest one or the highest one of all of these?

Give that a thought! :azn:
 
.
Well have we thought of this issue from Pakistan's POV.

@Bang Galore @Capt.Popeye @Dillinger@third eye

What is the one desire all Pakistani's have?
Its not that they become a developed country, its not that they become the leading power in research.

Their one wish is to have parity with India. It is ingrained in every Pakistani. They have to be equals of India.

As Hussain Haqqani has put it - they get angry at US because they want US to arm Pakistan and fund Pakistan to be the equal of India.
And regardless of how much they have to bow and scrape in front of the US or the Arabs, they eventually do get the aid.
Billions of dollars in civil aid, billions of dollars worth of military aid - which does give them weapons and an economic balance sheet that always allows them to remain strong enough to be a major irritant to India in almost every sphere.

So would you not say that Pakistani polity and military have very successfully achieved what they wanted to achieve. A thought to ponder on.
 
.
Well have we thought of this issue from Pakistan's POV.

@Bang Galore @Capt.Popeye @Dillinger@third eye

What is the one desire all Pakistani's have?
Its not that they become a developed country, its not that they become the leading power in research.

Their one wish is to have parity with India. It is ingrained in every Pakistani. They have to be equals of India.

As Hussain Haqqani has put it - they get angry at US because they want US to arm Pakistan and fund Pakistan to be the equal of India.
And regardless of how much they have to bow and scrape in front of the US or the Arabs, they eventually do get the aid.
Billions of dollars in civil aid, billions of dollars worth of military aid - which does give them weapons and an economic balance sheet that always allows them to remain strong enough to be a major irritant to India in almost every sphere.

So would you not say that Pakistani polity and military have very successfully achieved what they wanted to achieve. A thought to ponder on.

What you say does make some sense.

Its all about the fact that our Pakistani neighbors have always thought themselves to be siblings of India; right from that "Midnight Hour"; years ago.
That was not so incorrect then and even had some validity. However years (and events) have shown differently. Mr.Jinnah was not incorrect in hoping that that the relationship would be akin to the "Canadian-US relationship". But he did not reckon with his sucessors, who turned out to be complete 'intellectual pygmies' without any vision whatsover of where they wanted to go and what they really wanted to be.
So the easiest (and most convenient thing) was to want to be like India.

But the task became increasingly impossible over the years as increasingly ambitious men of decreasing vision ascended to power in Pakistan. So then; the only hope of achieving any of that was to tag on to "some coat-tails". That seemed to be an easy short-cut.

There have been some interesting articles in "The Friday Times" of Pakistan written by Mr.Ishtiaque Ahmed on Partition and how and why it happened. I've only been able read from Part III onwards. But the main body of the articles and the comments of readers (thereon) make for some interesting reading. Do take a look there.
 
.
Would be happy if you can post some links to the Articles you refer.

The entire point was that Pakistan have indeed achieved what they want - to be able to stand up to India each and every time and show the middle finger.

That they have to bow down to US and Arab states is inconsequential to them. India and Indians however take that to be some sort of indication of the failure of Pakistan. We are wrong. Pakistan achieves what it wants to achieve.

The fact however sad it maybe is that all they want to achieve is be equal and opposite of India.

The only way to beat them at this game is by economy, not military. We see how hard it has become for them to keep up in the last decade.
Yet...we are faltering again.
 
.
Would be happy if you can post some links to the Articles you refer.

The entire point was that Pakistan have indeed achieved what they want - to be able to stand up to India each and every time and show the middle finger.

That they have to bow down to US and Arab states is inconsequential to them. India and Indians however take that to be some sort of indication of the failure of Pakistan. We are wrong. Pakistan achieves what it wants to achieve.

The fact however sad it maybe is that all they want to achieve is be equal and opposite of India.

The only way to beat them at this game is by economy, not military. We see how hard it has become for them to keep up in the last decade.
Yet...we are faltering again.

"Real Power" does NOT flow out of a barrel of a Gun, it sits in the drawer of a Cash Register.
My apologies to Mao Tse Dong who was incorrect in his formulation.

Equality is ruled out, whether economically, diplomatically or in moral stature.
Opposition may exist for ever; but its tenor will remain unequal.

About the links to Ishtiaque Ahmed's articles, you'll find them in the link to The Friday Times provided in the post#1 in this thread. I propose to give them (and the comments) a good read by and by.
 
.
Its all about the fact that our Pakistani neighbors have always thought themselves to be siblings of India; right from that "Midnight Hour"; years ago.

[...]

So the easiest (and most convenient thing) was to want to be like India.
You do realise that the whole demand for Pakistan came out of this delusional search for Muslim parity with Hindus?

Mr.Jinnah was not incorrect in hoping that that the relationship would be akin to the "Canadian-US relationship". But he did not reckon with his sucessors, who turned out to be complete 'intellectual pygmies' without any vision whatsover of where they wanted to go and what they really wanted to be.
Jinnah had 'hoped' for one thing and then did just the opposite.

If he had really hoped for a relationship akin to 'Canadian-US' relationship, he probably wouldn't have, among many other things, accepted Junagadh's accession, instigate Nizam of Hyderabad and, the mother of all fvck ups, allowed Kashmir to become a malignant tumor.

It is futile to blame his successors to be 'intellectual pygmies' or short sighted, when Jinnah had himself paved that road for them.
 
.
You do realise that the whole demand for Pakistan came out of this delusional search for Muslim parity with Hindus?
No.
The whole demand for Pakistan came out of the land lords and the wealthy who knew that under a modern India, their titles and their land would be stripped away - which is exactly what happened in India.

What they did to preserve that was form a new country by exploiting the anxiety of Muslims who were worried about retribution by the Hindus and Sikhs for centuries of being given second grade status.

And they exploited this anxiety very effectively. The common Muslim on the street thought it was about Muslims achieving parity with Hindus, but they were merely the foot soldiers of the land lords.

Today, those who did formulate the grand plan are long dead, but the canard they fabricated and spread- of being equal and against India permeated the generations.

Yet if you subscribe to the view that a weak Pakistan is good for India - and think about this thoroughly - the more Pakistani's keep believing in Islam and Ummah and become more fundamentalists - the more they lose, the more India gains.
 
.
No.
The whole demand for Pakistan came out of the land lords and the wealthy who knew that under a modern India, their titles and their land would be stripped away - which is exactly what happened in India.

What they did to preserve that was form a new country by exploiting the anxiety of Muslims who were worried about retribution by the Hindus and Sikhs for centuries of being given second grade status.

And they exploited this anxiety very effectively. The common Muslim on the street thought it was about Muslims achieving parity with Hindus, but they were merely the foot soldiers of the land lords.
The demand for Muslim reservation came from the salariat class who feared the predominance of Hindus will wipe them clean, not the landlords. The landlords etc. joined the bandwagon later on. Even when they joined, their agenda aside, the core objective behind the demand for Muslim reservation and later demand for a separate homeland, was to seek parity with the Hindus.
 
.
Love these am chair journalists who can write pages without knowing anything about the topic
NS is foreign minister and defense minister as well
Don't try to obfuscate the issue. The fact is that as the Prime Minister of Pakistan, he is supposed to be equated with none lesser than the President of the United States of America, not some darn secretary of state.

But then Pakistan has been America's pet parrot since the early 50s. It's been dancing to Americas tunes since then, and subordination to the Yanks is deeply engraved in its DNA.
This smiley says it all.....
respect-061.gif
 
.
The views thus far expressed are rather simplistic and show how Indians like to see Pakistan. Nothing particularly wrong - we all have interests, wishes and biases. But what makes this interesting is that all this comes out of NS's visit to Kerry. All the theories that Indians love to have about Pakistan come out for a bit of victory dance. But do you realize that this is just a bit self-validating. You are seeing what you wish to see.

My dear fellow forum-members from India, what Pakistan was, is not what Pakistan is. What Pakistan is, shall not be what Pakistan would yet be. I am not old, per se, but I have seen a visible shift and I can tell you that all your pet theories are off the mark. My parents were / are from Jallundhar. They cherished their memories, but they never showed any interest in India as such. They had moved on. So have we. Pakistanis do not view themselves in relation to India. Our identity is certainly not contingent upon India. That may have been the case for the generation who changed their identities from Indian to Pakistani as adults. The first generation attaining adult-hood in the new country probably inherited that view from their parents. But do you realize how out of whack your theories sound to people born in 70s, 80s, 90s?

Ever since 1998, there is no fear of India as such. There is institutional inertia, yes, but that is not a determining factor. In fact the direction of change would indicate something contrary.

If you are a Pakistan-watcher, then thing to note is that Pakistanis are busy defining themselves in this day and age. Our current problems have very much to do with that. It is a chaotic and confusing process, but not something that would likely stretch for many years.

If you are a Pakistan-basher then go ahead and come up with even more self-satisfying theories. Its a free world and theories are very free.
 
.
Don't try to obfuscate the issue. The fact is that as the Prime Minister of Pakistan, he is supposed to be equated with none lesser than the President of the United States of America, not some darn secretary of state.

But then Pakistan has been America's pet parrot since the early 50s. It's been dancing to Americas tunes since then, and subordination to the Yanks is deeply engraved in its DNA.
This smiley says it all.....
respect-061.gif

without further "Obfuscating" the issue, know your augaat then complain, you are comparing Prime minister of Pakistan; a bagger nation; to president of USA; a giver nation.
but the funny part is any citizen of Pakistan complaining about it, a citizen who probably had never given anything to his country but taken, give strength to your leader by paying your dues, oops sorry i forgot only the politicians are chore among all the angels
 
Last edited:
.
Yes of course, Nawaz Sharif is all of that.......and even more. For instance; he is the Head of a Political Party, a Member of the National Assembly, a Husband, even is a Father; apart from being a Prime Minister.
So in which of all these above roles was Nawaz visiting the US and in which of these roles was he being received in the USA?
The lowest one or the highest one of all of these?

Give that a thought! :azn:

he is a son too and maybe thats the role he was playing there.

remember the phrase "beggers cant be.......", this was specifically written for Pakistan, not the country but the people
 
.
Back
Top Bottom