What's new

The New Pakistan US Relationship (After the Salala Check-Post Attack)

since americans are incapable of being true friends with anyone, they need to end their relationship with the pakistan just to save the relationship with pakistan now (lest the hatred and contempt for them escalate yet further)
 
Why We Should End Our Relationship With Pakistan

By Abigail R. Esman

508098068.jpg

A Pakistani protester holds a burning U.S. flag during a Jan. 11 demonstration against drone attacks in Pakistani tribal areas. (S.S. Mirza/AFP/Getty Images)

As Pakistanis burned American flags and the Washington Post wrote of “a new normal” in US-Pakistani relations earlier this month, it looked like the beginning of the end of five decades of friendly alliance between the two countries. Errant US air strikes resulted in the deaths of more than 20 Pakistani troops last November, infuriating Pakistan, even as most US counterterrorism officials and pundits believe — with reason — that Pakistan deliberately kept Osama bin Laden’s whereabouts secret as he took shelter within a fortified compound in Abbottabad. Now Pakistan is busy reconsidering its ties to the US.

But while the US-Pakistan alliance has its strategic advantages — particularly in light of the war in Afghanistan — the truth is, we should have parted ways long ago. As work by non-governmental groups, dedicated reporters, and women’s rights advocates brings the truths of Pakistani culture to light, it has exposed the alarming horror of the country’s brutal tribalism and human rights abuses, its rampant religious extremism, and its barbaric oppression of women and non-Muslims in all areas of life. Meantime, American intelligence officials, especially Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, believe strongly that the Pakistan government — specifically, its Inter-Services Intelligence Committee (ISI) has ties to some of the most dangerous terrorist groups in the country, including the Haqqani insurgent network. Over and over again lately I am reminded of the words of a former CIA agent, a Pakistani-American who told me, years ago, “We don’t belong in Afghanistan and Iraq. The real problem is in Pakistan, and we need to address it before it is too late.”

Well, we didn’t.

And now it nearly is too late.

There’s a lot you don’t hear about Pakistan if you simply follow the news — even off-beat news. You might not have read, for instance, about the man by the name of Jurian who, in 2002, signed his name on a national identity document, calling himself “Jew Jurian” and was subsequently declared Jewish. Except that Jurian isn’t Jewish; he’s Christian, which is bad enough in Pakistan as it is. Soon after, he was arrested and charged with blasphemy — a charge which, in Pakistan, can carry the death penalty. According to a report in the Express Tribune, although he was released in 2003, he continues to receive death threats. Such is the plight of Jews in this country we call our ally and our friend.

But it’s not just Jews, of course. Any non-Muslim is exposed to the possibility of death at any time, and that includes Ahmadis, a sect whose members call themselves Muslim but are nonetheless forbidden by Pakistani law to do so. According to a report from Human Rights First, in a similar case, the Pakistani Supreme Court “asserted that self-identification of the Ahmadis as Muslims offends and outrages the religious feelings of Pakistan’s Sunni Muslims. Approximately 3.5 million Ahmadis live in Pakistan,” though they are forbidden by law to recite Islamic prayers or fast on Ramadan.

“Offending” the religious feelings of Pakistanis is a concept that should be familiar to most of us in the West by now: it was just such “offense” that caused the deaths of eight people when a bomb exploded at the Danish embassy in Islamabad — the Pakistani way of responding to the so-called Danish cartoons in 2008. (It is worth noting that the cartoons themselves were published in 2005. It seems they have a grudge problem in Pakistan.)

Women, too, suffer hideously in Pakistan, where 77 percent of all honor killings go unpunished, according to a recent report. And even in Pakistani families in England and the USA, forced marriages are not uncommon; British authorities estimate a whopping 3,000-8,000 such arrangements take place among Pakistani-British (and Bangladeshi) families each year, while girls who refuse risk becoming the victims of honor killings.

But mostly, it’s the Jews they hate. (There was, after all, Daniel Pearl.) According to a Memri report, the following beliefs are not uncommon among our Pakistani friends:

Polio Vaccination Campaign — A Dangerous Jewish Conspiracy
The U.N. — A Jewish Conspiracy
Valentine’s Day and April’s Fool Day — Used by Jews and Hindus against Muslims
Ahmadi Muslims — Agents of Israel/India
Video of Taliban Flogging Woman — Made by Jews to Smear Pakistan
Facebook — A Jewish Conspiracy
Pakistan’s Nuclear Weapons — Targeted by Jews/Israel
Faisal Shehzad’s Times Square Attack — A CIA/Mossad Plot to Implicate Pakistan

It gets better. Also according to Memri, “Pakistan has seen a wave of suicide attacks in recent years. There is a trend of explaining such threats to Pakistan as emanating from outside Pakistan. For example, the Pakistani leaders generally accuse the Taliban militants of being agents of the United States, India and Israel.” Even more bizarre is the thinking that, Memri explains, underlies the polio vaccine conspiracy theory:

In October 2009, Mahnama Banat-e-Aisha, an Urdu-language monthly magazine which is part of the Haftroza Al-Qalam group of publications belonging to the militant group Jaish-e-Muhammad, alleged in a lengthy article that the international polio eradication campaign was a “dangerous Jewish conspiracy.” The article, “Polio: Disease or Dangerous Jewish Conspiracy,” read in part:

“The Jews, who dream of ruling the world, have invented different types of vaccines, drugs, and injections in an organized way to weaken Muslims in their beliefs on spiritual, practical, and moral levels, and make their bodies contaminated.

“The oral polio vaccine campaign is being run under a worldwide conspiracy — except in the Zionist countries. Its total focus is now on South Asian countries — India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. The U.S. has already marked this area as an extremely strategic region…”

There’s nothing new, of course, about NATO playing with countries whose human rights abuses we find anathema, at best, and certainly nothing new about NATO’s friendships with countries so openly anti-Semitic; but when we join countries like Saudi Arabia on the global playground, we create our strategy, at least, with our eyes open (before we deliberately close them, anyway). In dealing with Pakistan, we have stubbornly kept our eyes glued shut, and even in the wake of the discovery of bin Laden hiding there in plain sight, we have by and large failed to look directly at the atrocities that really go on within its borders. It is as if Pakistan’s nuclear capabilities — and geographic circumstance — have bought them free reign — allowing them to enjoy benefits with the US (especially) that we denied to Russia and South Korea, and are preparing to deny Iran.

Why?

Fortunately for NATO and America, Pakistan is all but ready to break ties, even if we can’t see the advantages. According to the Pakistan Observer, “The overwhelming majority of public (more than 90 %) is against Pak-US relations. Just like US military-industrial complex, a powerful lobby in Pakistan supports Pak-US relations to protect its profits in US and Afghanistan.”

The Observer is also clear-eyed about the fundamental ideological conflicts between Pakistan and its Western allies. “There are fundamental differences in Pak-US policies on human rights, Constitutions, economic models, political systems and even the internet,” it reports. (Glad someone out there is paying attention.) But in a spectacular example of the twisted Pakistani mind, it then goes on, “Pakistan and America cannot get along due to fundamental differences. The violation of human rights including use of drones, no accountability for forced sterilization, police state and racism is part of America’s policies. Unlike US, the extra judicial killings, racism and forced sterilization are crimes in Pakistan. Our Constitution envisages a welfare state, a parliamentary form of government, no fixed term for the PM, independent judiciary, Sharia based law, Freedom of Information, internet freedom, and a government obliged to protect rights of weak against strong including equitable wealth distribution.”

Yup. They really wrote this — about Pakistan, that country where, as Mira Sethi observed in The Wall Street Journal, “Last year saw the assassination in broad daylight of Salmaan Taseer, the governor of Pakistan’s largest province, whom media had vilified for criticizing the country’s notorious blasphemy laws and championing the cause of a Christian woman sentenced under them. Taseer’s assassin — one of his own bodyguards — instantly became a hero in many quarters. Four months later, investigative journalist Saleem Shahzad was abducted, tortured and killed after he exposed al Qaeda’s infiltration of the Pakistani Navy. ISI involvement in Shahzad’s killing is widely suspected though it was officially denied by a recent commission of inquiry led by a supreme court judge.”

And then, you know, that Bin Laden thing.

(In fairness, it might be worth considering that the Pakistani author’s utter inability to compose a grammatically-correct sentence in English might also suggest an inability to fully comprehend any information he receives in English, which would explain his complete and utter inability, too, to get his facts right.)

And yet, even as Pakistan reviews its ties to Western states, rejecting even a visit from Washington envoy Marc Grossman; even with evidence of collaborations between the ISI and the Haqqani ntwork — which just happens to be among the terrorist groups fighting the US-NATO forces in Afghanistan as allies of the Taliban — the US continues to maintain, almost pleadingly, the insistence that Pakistan serves a vital purpose in NATO’s efforts to exit gracefully — and safely — from the Afghan conflict. “Pakistan’s cooperation is regarded as crucial,” Reuters reports, “because of its long history of association with militant groups, to efforts to persuade the Taliban to join negotiations.” In other words, we want to stay friendly with Pakistan because they are the friends of the enemy; yet what few are willing to recognize is that we are endangered by Pakistan for the very same reason.

Those who oppose cutting ties argue, as Shuja Nawaz did in the New York Times last May, that to do so would pose “disastrous” consequences for both countries. “The U.S. would lose primary access via Pakistan for its supplies to fight the war in Afghanistan at a critical stage in that conflict, Nawaz stated.

Well, we’re exiting Afghanistan. How important is that access now? And have we ever really had it? Or have we been kidding ourselves, again?

Nawaz also worries — as do others — about the outcome of America’s cutting aid to Pakistan — some $3 billion a year, which, he argues, helps fund Pakistan’s “war against terrorism and the Pakistani Taliban.”

Except that, in real life, Pakistan doesn’t seem to be interested in fighting terrorism or the Pakistani Taliban. To the contrary, they seem to be better buddies with the terrorists and AfPak Taliban leaders than they are with most Western diplomats — or, for that matter, with their own Ambassadors. Indeed, one has to wonder, given the proliferation of Pakistan-based terrorist training camps, the number of Pakistani (and Pakistani-British) terrorists who have been arrested in recent years (and those whose efforts at mass murder were thwarted only by their own incompetence), where, exactly, that money is really going.

For her must-read WSJ piece, Sethi interviewed Hussein Haqqani, the country’s former Ambassador to the US (who is now suspected of treason) in his home country. Haqqani (who bears no known relation to the network of the same name) spoke candidly about the US-Pakistan situation, and his concerns about the Obama administration. It “does not have the human resources right now to fully understand the complexities of Pakistan and engage with them,” Haqqani told the Journal. “They don’t have the people who understand.”

Exactly. But the bigger question is whether anyone in American power really does.

Abigail R. Esman is an award-winning journalist based in New York and the Netherlands. The author of “Radical State: How Jihad Is Winning Over Democracy In the West” (Praeger, 2010), she pens a weekly column for Forbes.com. Her work has also appeared in The New Republic, Salon.com, Foreign Policy, The Nation, the Wall Street Journal, and numerous other publications internationally. Her personal website is at AbigailEsman.com.

Why We Should End Our Relationship With Pakistan | Middle East, Israel, Arab World, Southwest Asia, Maghreb

Dont waste your time....
 
since americans are incapable of being true friends with anyone, they need to end their relationship with the pakistan just to save the relationship with pakistan now (lest the hatred and contempt for them escalate yet further)

Relationships are only for convenience. In CW, Pakistan needed US as a bulwark (having first approached US rather than join NAM); now US needed Pakistan to get rid of their threat perceptions.

Your country is doing nothing different. Sweet words are only meant to please without any actual substance behind it.
 
yes yes yes great please do it its my biggest wish of life to see pakistan clear without a single amercan there and pakistani ambbasy in USA empty :enjoy: welcome . look like this guy is only well wisher of pakistan and think same as pakistani nation :yahoo: need few more like him and job will be done
 
The problem with West is that while they are quick to pounce upon the others, they suffer from same problem of self denial? that there would be a reaction of action? I was watching the CNN yesterday with Farid Zakriya talking about Arab Spring. I was astonished on the stupidity of so called american intellectual who claimed that the Arab spring was basically the blessing of US which restored democracy in Iraq. And it made others laugh, the main contributor busted him by saying,"If i may ask a simple question? if this spring is inspired by US's love for democracy, then why US has a history of supporting dictatorships and Royal Families?". Here is the other side of the picture is which deliberately kept dark by the so called human rights champions
Muslim Discrimination Cases Disproportionately High In U.S.

(Reuters) - American Muslims face a rising tide of religious discrimination in U.S. communities, workplaces and schools nearly a decade after the September 11 attacks, a congressional committee heard on Tuesday.

Evidence of growing anti-Muslim bigotry, aired at a Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing, poses a challenge for President Barack Obama as his administration works to foster good relations with American Muslims and secure their help against the threat of home-grown terrorism.

But the challenge is compounded by remarks by public officials and others in prominent positions that have inflamed public debate and threaten to facilitate discrimination, according to witness testimony.

"We continue to solicit and receive the support of many Muslim Americans who love this nation and work with our government to protect it," said Democratic Senator Dick Durbin, who chaired the proceedings.

"At the same time, many law-abiding Muslim Americans face discrimination and charges that they're not real Americans simply because of their religion."

Senator Lindsey Graham, the panel's top Republican, sounded a more hawkish tone, saying he supported Muslim rights but calling on Muslim Americans to do more to protect the United States from attack.

"Get in this fight," Graham said. "You're going to have to help your country, probably uniquely compared to anyone else, understand what's going on and fight back. The front lines of this war are in our own back door and our own neighborhoods."

Living In Fear

Thomas Perez, the assistant U.S. attorney general for civil rights, told the panel that anti-Muslim sentiment has brought a surge last May in the number of federal discrimination cases involving zoning boards and other local authorities that have acted to prevent mosques from opening in their communities.

That comes on top of more than 800 incidents of violence, vandalism and arson against people believed to be Muslim, Arab or South Asian, that the Justice Department has investigated since the September 11 attacks.

Perez said there has been a 150 percent jump in workplace discrimination against Muslims, often over religious dress and worship schedules, while Muslim youth can often become the victims of school yard bullying.

"In each city and town where I have met with (Muslim) leaders, I have been struck by the fear that pervades their lives," Perez told the panel.

Muslims have also witnessed a fierce debate over a Florida minister's threat to burn a Koran, as well as efforts in half a dozen U.S. states to ban the use of Muslim religious law on the pretext of a threat to the American legal system.

Perez praised Obama and former President George W. Bush for using the presidential pulpit to speak out eloquently against anti-Muslim sentiment. But witnesses complained that not all public servants have followed suit.

"In the last several months, anti-Muslim rhetoric has reached a disturbing new level. Prominent religious, military and even political leaders have joined the fray, feeding fear and hysteria," said Farhana Khera, a former Senate aide who now heads a group called Muslim Advocates.

Durbin became embroiled in a spat with Peter King, the Republican chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, who held a controversial hearing on radicalization in the U.S. Muslim community earlier this month.

King blasted Durbin's proceedings in the media as an exercise in political correctness that would "perpetuate the myth that there is a serious anti-Islam issue in this country."

Durbin responded with a veiled reference to controversial remarks attributed to King and Newt Gingrich, a former Republican House speaker now considering a bid for the White House.

"A leading member of Congress stated bluntly: 'There are too many mosques in this country.' A former speaker of the House falsely claimed: 'America's experiencing an Islamist cultural political offensive designed to undermine and destroy our civilization'," said Durbin, the Senate's No. 2 Democratic leader.

"Such inflammatory speech from prominent public leaders creates a fertile climate for discrimination," he added.

(Additional reporting by Jeremy Pelofsky, editing by Philip Barbara)

Copyright 2010 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions
Muslim Discrimination Cases Disproportionately High In U.S.
 
Today's America is very different from the America of Kennedy or America of Reagan.

American government will do anything to please Zionists and Israel, so better for Pakistan to end this "friendship".
 
Today's America is very different from the America of Kennedy or America of Reagan.

American government will do anything to please Zionists and Israel, so better for Pakistan to end this "friendship".
America was always friendly and will always be friendly to Israel, there were no exceptions to this rule which is an important pillar for their foreign policy
 
They have the power to mold the truth in their favor, Muslims like to own plazas, jets, cars and bars. Jews are way much smart and strategic.
Seven Jewish Americans Control Most US Media
From John Whitley
11-21-3

From southern France, Christopher Jones summarizes and comments on a report on the assassination of President Kennedy. Need I stress that WAIS censors only direct attacks on other WAISers and grossly improper laguage.

Christopher says: "I glanced at the Kennedy assassination site and found this; it fits into our discussion of Hollywood stereotypes and the slavish behavior of the US press after the 9/11 tragedy and in the run up to the invasion of Iraq. In a quick rundown, the website recapitulates an old story that I heard back in the late sixties and early seventies in California: that Kennedy was liquidated by the mafia whose kingpin was Meyer Lansky (pal of Lucky Luciano). In fact, I could add a small tidbit which the author may or may not have covered: that Marilyn Monroe was murdered by the mafia as a warning to her lovers; Bobby and Jack Kennedy. The story of the Corsican hit squad was documented in a TV documentary in Europe. Of course it would be interesting to know more about Auguste Ricord and his collaboration wih the Gestapo and if he had anything to do with our old friend, Mandel Szkolnikoff.

"Today, seven Jewish Americans run the vast majority of US television networks, the printed press, the Hollywood movie industry, the book publishing industry, and the recording industry. Most of these industries are bundled into huge media conglomerates run by the following seven individuals:

Gerald Levin, CEO and Director of AOL Time Warner

Michael Eisner, Chairman and CEO of the Walt Disney Company

Edgar Bronfman, Sr., Chairman of Seagram Company Ltd

Edgar Bronfman, Jr, President and CEO of Seagram Company Ltd and head of Universal Studios

Sumner Redstone, Chairman and CEO of Viacom, Inc

Dennis Dammerman, Vice Chairman of General Electric

Peter Chernin, President and Co-COO of News Corporation Limited

Those seven Jewish men collectively control ABC, NBC, CBS, the Turner Broadcasting System, CNN, MTV, Universal Studios, MCA Records, Geffen Records, DGC Records, GRP Records, Rising Tide Records, Curb/Universal Records, and Interscope Records.

Most of the larger independent newspapers are owned by Jewish interests as well. An example is media mogul is Samuel I. "Si" Newhouse, who owns two dozen daily newspapers from Staten Island to Oregon, plus the Sunday supplement Parade; the Conde Nast collection of magazines, including Vogue, The New Yorker, Vanity Fair, Allure, GQ, and Self; the publishing firms of Random House, Knopf, Crown, and Ballantine, among other imprints; and cable franchises with over one million subscribers."

I coul d add that Michael Eisner could depart Disney tomorrow but the company will remain in the hands of Shamrock Holdings, whose principal office is now located in Israel".

http://wais.stanford.edu/History/history_KennedyAssassination(092803).ht ml


Bronfman Group Buys Time Warner Music

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Time Warner Inc. (TWX.N: Quote, Profile, Research) on Monday said it would sell its Warner Music business to a group led by media mogul Edgar Bronfman Jr. for $2.6 billion, in a move to trim the media group's debts and signaling a return of the former Seagram chairman to the music business.

The Bronfman group beat out a bid by EMI (EMI.L: Quote, Profile, Research) for the recorded music portion of the business for an estimated $1 billion.

By choosing the Bronfman bid, Time Warner is forsaking $250 million to $300 million in cost savings it could have realized by combining with EMI, home to such acts as The Beatles and Radiohead. Warner Music artists include Madonna, Led Zeppelin and R.E.M.

On the other hand, Time Warner is getting more cash up front by selling the entire business, which includes the music publishing company, and will have an easier path to regulatory approval. In the past, European and U.S. regulators have frowned on consolidation within the music business.

Bronfman's team, backed by some of America's biggest private equity houses including Thomas H. Lee Partners, is betting it can slash costs and turn Warner Music around ahead of a comeback in sales, a major challenge in an industry currently in decline.

Bronfman has had long ties to the music business, first as a songwriter for the likes of Dionne Warwick and Celine Dion, and later as head of Seagram when he bought entertainment group MCA from Japan's Matsushita for $5.7 billion. On his watch, the renamed Universal Music bought Polygram, creating the world's largest record company.

Bronfman merged his family's entertainment empire with France's Vivendi three years ago, only to see the family fortune disintegrate. When Vivendi put its entertainment assets on the block earlier this year, Bronfman led a group to buy the assets back but was ultimately outbid by NBC.

Hit by rampant piracy and competition from other entertainment such as video games, music sales are expected to fall for the fourth year in a row in 2004.

Earlier this month Sony Music (6758.T: Quote, Profile, Research) agreed to merge with Bertelsmann AG's (BERT.UL: Quote, Profile, Research) BMG.

© Reuters 2003. All Rights Reserved.
Seven Jewish Americans Control Most US Media
http://www.altermedia.info/civil-rights/96-of-media-owned-by-6-jewish-companies_906.html
 
oh no, wt will we ever do without them (sarcasm), moving on
 
Relationships are only for convenience. In CW, Pakistan needed US as a bulwark (having first approached US rather than join NAM); now US needed Pakistan to get rid of their threat perceptions.

Your country is doing nothing different. Sweet words are only meant to please without any actual substance behind it.
of course relationships only last as long as geopolitical interests allow them to be. and true and perpetual friendship is possible where geography permits, like china and pakistan.

what i was saying is that the existence of u.s. is a threat to all the norms of geopolitics. the destruction of u.s. power must be done not in the name of china and other nations' geopolitical interests but in the very name and very possibility of geopolitics. that is why i've always insisted that american power must be broken in the name of friendship per se.
 
This article points out the real differences in the mindsets very well I think:

from: US-Pakistan divergences | Opinion | DAWN.COM

US-Pakistan divergences
Khalid Aziz | Opinion | From the Newspaper


The US defence secretary, Leon Panetta, has disclosed that Dr Shakil Afridi who ran an anti-polio campaign in Abbottabad succeeded in obtaining DNA samples that led to the discovery of Osama bin Laden and his subsequent death at the hands of US Special Forces during the May 2 raid last year.

This statement places in perspective the reasons behind the deterioration of relations between the US and Pakistan.

Underlying Bin Laden’s death is a raft of more serious questions. One is the report that the government commission constituted to uncover the facts about the May 2 incident has recommended a case of treason against Dr Afridi.

Yet the UN Security Council, vide resolution 1390 of 2002, defined Bin Laden as a proscribed person who was not to be allowed within the territory of any member state. His detection within Pakistan could therefore lead to serious repercussions that could isolate the country further.

In October 2008, Gen Petraeus said that “There is no question … that Osama bin Laden is in the tribal areas of Pakistan bordering Afghanistan”. Therefore, Pakistani officials’ repeated denials — that they had not known of his whereabouts — is considered by US officials as disingenuous at best.

To revive the credibility of the Pakistani interlocutors it has become necessary to use regular institutions such as the Foreign Office and parliament to define the country’s foreign and security policies. The current de-institutionalised approach to the formulation of policy is harmful.

One can speculate that many of the events that have since transpired between Pakistan and the US, including the tragic episode of Salala and the upheaval caused by ‘memogate’, are part of this sad interaction between the two countries’ national security goals and the dynamics of interpersonal relationships: the breach of trust between the military leaders of the two sides plays a major role in the existing tussle. It has isolated Pakistan in terms of the Afghan peace process.

It is possible to conclude, therefore, that it was the breakdown in inter-institutional communications that was responsible for the Salala attack. The Pakistan military believes that excessive and disproportionate force was used and the attack lasted till the last soldier was killed, despite GHQ’s communication with Isaf.

It may be thus fair to presume that behind the worsening US-Pakistani bilateral relations is the differing negotiating style of the representatives of the two countries.

This difference arises out of the different cultural backgrounds of the two nations, the asymmetry of the US-Pakistan relationship and Pakistan’s assumption that the US will leave it to pick up the pieces after its own strategic purpose is fulfilled.

A recent review regarding the negotiating style of the two nations, Howard and Terresta Schaffer’s How Pakistan Negotiates with the United States, throws light on this complex world where national, cultural and realpolitik concerns coincide.

Some of their important findings regarding the stance of Pakistani military officers in this matter are: Pakistanis insist that they will not be dictated to by India or the US, yet at the same time demand top-of-the line US military equipment; US civilian negotiators know nothing of military matters; Pakistanis begin negotiations, blame the army’s problems on the US and make their American counterparts feel guilty about Pakistan’s difficulties.

The authors: “When [Pakistani] military officers are leading the government, they also play hardball, insisting that unless all their demands are met disaster of one sort or another will follow.” US officials observed that the ISI routinely deceived them, and this led the CIA to develop independent links with the Afghan insurgents. Furthermore, “US negotiators should expect that inconvenient truths will be kept from them”, according to the researchers.

It is thus clear that the asymmetric relationship, differing styles of negotiation and divergent strategic goals in Afghanistan has caused the US-Pakistan alliance to become dysfunctional. It would be correct to conclude that most of the divergence comes from different outcomes expected in Afghanistan after 2014.

Pakistan would like to have in place an Afghan government that is soft towards Pakistan, is Pakhtun-dominated and keeps India marginalised. The US, on the other hand, would want an effective Afghan government that rules the country well and has a strong counterterrorism capacity. The US is not committed to bringing in a Pakhtun-dominated government or one that is pro-Pakistan.

Thus, besides the strategic divergence that exists between the US and Pakistan, there is also now a severe trust deficit in terms of statement by Pakistan, particularly after the discovery of Bin Laden and the denial of our alleged role in other occurrences inside Afghanistan. That this relationship is unravelling at this critical juncture as far as Afghanistan is concerned is unfortunate.

Although the Pakistani security narrative does not perhaps agree with this perspective — neither did I, till some time ago — the metrics in Afghanistan don’t look too bad from the US perspective.

The surge approved by President Obama in 2009 and the night operations against the Taliban ordered by Gen McChrystal and Gen Petraeus have successfully eliminated many of the Taliban mid-level commanders and have forced the top Taliban leadership to accept negotiations in Qatar.

However, as the last chapter of the Afghan war unfolds with the spring offensive in the eastern districts alongside Fata, it will cause Pakistan more headaches. It could result in cross-border incursions by Isaf. Ending hostilities is often more difficult than starting a war. This is yet another reason to resolve the crisis between the two nations.

The writer is chairman of the Regional Institute of Policy Research in Peshawar.
 
Back
Top Bottom