Aragorn
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2009
- Messages
- 105
- Reaction score
- 0
HONG KONG It was a difficult weekend in Pakistan. The body of a British Red Cross doctor was found, beheaded, dumped by the side of a road in Quetta. A C.I.A. drone strike killed three suspected militants in an old schoolhouse. And talks last week about a reset of the deeply troubled relationship with the United States went nowhere, partly because of Washingtons refusal to apologize for an earlier air attack that killed 24 Pakistani soldiers.
The Dawn newspaper in Pakistan quoted police officials as saying the kidnapped doctor, 60, was killed because no ransom had been paid, and the Pakistani Taliban claimed responsibility. The body was found wrapped in white plastic with the doctors name, Khalil Rasjed Dale, written on the side in black marker. An examining physician said a sharp knife had been used to cut off the head.
The so-called resetting talks had an ambitious agenda. Pakistan wants the United States to stop the drone attacks, apologize for the air attack last November and make payment of more than $1 billion in overdue military assistance. And there are plenty of other demands.
For its part, Washington wants Pakistan to reopen critical NATO supply lines into Afghanistan and assist in efforts against the Haqqani militancy. The U.S. side, led by the special envoy Marc Grossman, has refused to end the drone effort and so far has shown no inclination to apologize for the airstrike.
The relationship, everyone agrees, is in a terrible place, complicated by the planned U.S. pullout from Afghanistan, dwindling military aid to Pakistan, a weakened government in Islamabad, Washingtons diplomatic coziness with India and upcoming elections in both countries. And there are plenty of other issues.
The apology is the real sticking point, according to Pakistani and U.S. analysts, in part because the apparently inadvertent burning of some Korans by U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan brought such quick apologies from President Barack Obama and U.S. military leaders.
The Pakistani Parliament has demanded an unconditional apology from the U.S. and that those held responsible for the killing of the Pakistani soldiers be brought to justice, says Munir Akram, a former Pakistani ambassador to the United Nations, in a commentary in Dawn.
It would be difficult and dishonorable for Pakistan to go back to business as usual without an unconditional and public U.S. apology, Mr. Akram writes. Whatever else may be contested, it is incontrovertible that U.S. aircraft and helicopters fired on Pakistani outposts within Pakistans territory resulting in the death of 24 Pakistani soldiers. There is no excuse for the failure to apologize for this grave transgression.
Shabbir Cheema, writing in The Express-Tribune from Lahore, says an unconditional apology will be difficult for the Obama administration to do in an election year, adding that a compromise is likely, resulting in a declaration of remorse by the U.S. that falls short of a formal apology.
A recent Gallup poll found that just 15 percent of Americans now view Pakistan favorably. Only Iran, North Korea and Afghanistan were more unliked and not by much. The likes of Syria, Libya, Iraq and Cuba scored higher.
After the breakdown of the talks late last week, Dawn reported that President Asif Ali Zardari had indicated a willingness to restore NATO supply lines under new terms in a bid to get the apology as quid pro quo, but the Americans appeared to be uncompromising.
Shuja Nawaz, director of the South Asia Center at the Atlantic Council, sees two sets of electoral complications.
President Obama is in a difficult position on whether to accept wholesale the Pakistani demands, he writes on the AfPak Channel blog of Foreign Policy. Whatever he concedes gives fodder to his opponents on the Hill and on the campaign trail.
Inside Pakistan, an election may also be looming. The rising nationalistic forces of anti-Americanism will excoriate any politician who makes deals with the United States.
The C.I.A. drone strikes are accorded a special loathing by Pakistanis, and Parliament demanded as recently as April 12 that the attacks cease.
But the drones also generate a special fear among Taliban and Qaeda militants, according to my colleague Pir Zubair Shah, who has written a compelling account of the drone war and its huge day-to-day effect on Taliban fighters.
The United States has refused to end the highly secret drone program, saying that its the only effective way of getting at those militants who are dug into the rough terrain along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. (A comprehensive and quantitative analysis of the drone program is here, on the Web site of the New America Foundation.)
Mr. Obama said recently that the drone effort is being kept on a very tight leash.
For the most part, theyve been very precise precision strikes against Al Qaeda and their affiliates, the president said, and were very careful in terms of how its been applied.
Do you think the United States should apologize for the attack that killed those two dozen Pakistani soldiers? Is it a small thing that might help to unfreeze the relationship? Or is it too big a thing politically, militarily and diplomatically? Were interested to know. And please, speak freely.
Lack of a U.S. Apology Is Sticking Point for Pakistan - NYTimes.com
The Dawn newspaper in Pakistan quoted police officials as saying the kidnapped doctor, 60, was killed because no ransom had been paid, and the Pakistani Taliban claimed responsibility. The body was found wrapped in white plastic with the doctors name, Khalil Rasjed Dale, written on the side in black marker. An examining physician said a sharp knife had been used to cut off the head.
The so-called resetting talks had an ambitious agenda. Pakistan wants the United States to stop the drone attacks, apologize for the air attack last November and make payment of more than $1 billion in overdue military assistance. And there are plenty of other demands.
For its part, Washington wants Pakistan to reopen critical NATO supply lines into Afghanistan and assist in efforts against the Haqqani militancy. The U.S. side, led by the special envoy Marc Grossman, has refused to end the drone effort and so far has shown no inclination to apologize for the airstrike.
The relationship, everyone agrees, is in a terrible place, complicated by the planned U.S. pullout from Afghanistan, dwindling military aid to Pakistan, a weakened government in Islamabad, Washingtons diplomatic coziness with India and upcoming elections in both countries. And there are plenty of other issues.
The apology is the real sticking point, according to Pakistani and U.S. analysts, in part because the apparently inadvertent burning of some Korans by U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan brought such quick apologies from President Barack Obama and U.S. military leaders.
The Pakistani Parliament has demanded an unconditional apology from the U.S. and that those held responsible for the killing of the Pakistani soldiers be brought to justice, says Munir Akram, a former Pakistani ambassador to the United Nations, in a commentary in Dawn.
It would be difficult and dishonorable for Pakistan to go back to business as usual without an unconditional and public U.S. apology, Mr. Akram writes. Whatever else may be contested, it is incontrovertible that U.S. aircraft and helicopters fired on Pakistani outposts within Pakistans territory resulting in the death of 24 Pakistani soldiers. There is no excuse for the failure to apologize for this grave transgression.
Shabbir Cheema, writing in The Express-Tribune from Lahore, says an unconditional apology will be difficult for the Obama administration to do in an election year, adding that a compromise is likely, resulting in a declaration of remorse by the U.S. that falls short of a formal apology.
A recent Gallup poll found that just 15 percent of Americans now view Pakistan favorably. Only Iran, North Korea and Afghanistan were more unliked and not by much. The likes of Syria, Libya, Iraq and Cuba scored higher.
After the breakdown of the talks late last week, Dawn reported that President Asif Ali Zardari had indicated a willingness to restore NATO supply lines under new terms in a bid to get the apology as quid pro quo, but the Americans appeared to be uncompromising.
Shuja Nawaz, director of the South Asia Center at the Atlantic Council, sees two sets of electoral complications.
President Obama is in a difficult position on whether to accept wholesale the Pakistani demands, he writes on the AfPak Channel blog of Foreign Policy. Whatever he concedes gives fodder to his opponents on the Hill and on the campaign trail.
Inside Pakistan, an election may also be looming. The rising nationalistic forces of anti-Americanism will excoriate any politician who makes deals with the United States.
The C.I.A. drone strikes are accorded a special loathing by Pakistanis, and Parliament demanded as recently as April 12 that the attacks cease.
But the drones also generate a special fear among Taliban and Qaeda militants, according to my colleague Pir Zubair Shah, who has written a compelling account of the drone war and its huge day-to-day effect on Taliban fighters.
The United States has refused to end the highly secret drone program, saying that its the only effective way of getting at those militants who are dug into the rough terrain along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. (A comprehensive and quantitative analysis of the drone program is here, on the Web site of the New America Foundation.)
Mr. Obama said recently that the drone effort is being kept on a very tight leash.
For the most part, theyve been very precise precision strikes against Al Qaeda and their affiliates, the president said, and were very careful in terms of how its been applied.
Do you think the United States should apologize for the attack that killed those two dozen Pakistani soldiers? Is it a small thing that might help to unfreeze the relationship? Or is it too big a thing politically, militarily and diplomatically? Were interested to know. And please, speak freely.
Lack of a U.S. Apology Is Sticking Point for Pakistan - NYTimes.com
