The Pak-US Relationship

[usama18]

Pakistan is Playing its Positive Role against Terrorism in Wana Operations with the Help of Us. the war against Terrorism is the Anchor of Pak-US Relationship.

Takmeel-e-Pakistan Ideology of Pakistan and Its Takmeel.

 

[masijames]

Pakistan and the US —Dr Syed Mansoor Hussain

Once Afghanistan is pacified, al Qaeda eliminated from this area and the US forces out of Afghanistan; Pakistan will remain in the US calculation only as a nuclear armed country capable of considerable mischief

I rarely write about US-Pakistani relations. The reason is that I have difficulty in being objective about either country. My problem, as I have said before, is summed up in the refrain from a song made famous by Mary MacGregor in the 70s, “Torn between two lovers, feelin’ like a fool. Loving both of you is breakin’ all the rules.”

When things seem to look up between the US and Pakistan, I do get a bit excited but sadly not for too long. The relationship between these two countries is rarely based on mutual respect. Almost always it is a matter of mutual need and unfortunately for Pakistan it needs the US more often than the other way around.

It all really started when in 1953 Bogra, our man in DC, was brought back to become prime minister of Pakistan. It was about getting US aid, wheat and money then, and in some way or the other that is what it is still all about. The US needed Pakistan to become a part of US-led anti-communist alliances that encircled the USSR. And Pakistan was quite happy to oblige in return for financial and military largesse. A Faustian bargain?

My awakening to the world of international politics happened 50 years ago during the U-2 crisis. For those that might not know or do not remember, U-2, a US spy plane piloted by Gary Powers flew from the US air base in Pakistan at Badaber and while over the USSR was shot down and the pilot captured.

This created a major international incident but for me it all became relevant when Nikita Khrushchev, the leader of the USSR, announced that he had put a red circle around Peshawar. Meaning of course that Pakistan was going to be a target in any future nuclear war. For many months after that announcement I would have nightmares about a nuclear explosion that would destroy us all. Today this might seem quaint but at that time it seemed real enough.

During the India-Pakistan war in 1965 it became clear that the US was not going to help Pakistan out in any local conflict. Clearly for the US, Pakistan was an expendable ally and sadly that is the way it is and will always be. Yes, the famous ‘tilt’ by US president Richard Nixon towards Pakistan during the 1971 war between India and Pakistan probably prevented India from taking over ‘Azad Kashmir’; clearly a big deal but that was about it.

Recent history of bilateral relations between these two countries has revolved around Afghanistan. First the Reagan-Ziaul Haq collaboration in defeating the USSR forces in Afghanistan, then the Bush-Musharraf collaboration in getting rid of the Taliban in Afghanistan and now the Obama ****** strategy against the resurgent Taliban.

The question then is, what does Pakistan need the US for and does the US need Pakistan for anything besides the help it gives in controlling the Taliban in Afghanistan? Obviously as long as the Pakistani economy is in the doldrums and the Pakistan Army continues its fight against the extremists, Pakistan will need the US both for financial and military aid.

As far as the US is concerned, ‘summits’ and recent US pronouncements notwithstanding, Pakistan but for its role as a safe haven for al Qaeda and a refuge for the Taliban fighting against the US and NATO forces in Afghanistan is of no interest to the US. Once Afghanistan is pacified, al Qaeda eliminated from this area and the US forces out of Afghanistan; Pakistan will remain in the US calculation only as a nuclear armed country capable of considerable mischief.

From the Pakistani perspective this is however a great opportunity. What Pakistan needs most at this time is help in putting its economic house in order and the US seems willing to do so. And that is the best part of the scenario. Pakistan is under a democratic dispensation and not a military dictator whose only concern is in prolonging his personal rule and getting money to support the corporate interests of his constituency — the Pakistan Army.

What Pakistan can demand from the US for its support in the ****** scenario are three things besides night vision goggles. First, direct aid to end its problem with the ‘circular’ debt that is crippling power production. Second, aid to set up new power production and third, to open up US markets to Pakistani textile products. If Pakistan can get that help now, it will put the Pakistani economy back on its feet.

Obviously what Pakistan needs right now is not more F-16s but more power generation. And that is the conundrum facing the Pakistani ‘establishment’ at this time. Surely the establishment must realise that it cannot survive if the country that pays for it is no longer a viable economic entity. If the establishment accepts this idea, then Pakistan will not only grow as a functioning democracy but will also have a decent chance of becoming economically independent and stop being subservient to the US and international donor agencies.

The US also expects something from Pakistan beyond the ****** scenario if it is to continue its support. First and foremost, Pakistan must control the extremist impulse within the country that makes it a base for terrorism against its neighbours and even the US. Second, Pakistan must convince the world that its nuclear facilities are safe and will never fall into the hands of the extremists.

Finally, the US expects that Pakistan will become a viable member of the international economic community that minds its own business, does not export terrorism and definitely does not interfere in its neighbours’ affairs. This is going to be the biggest challenge for the Pakistani establishment. Old habits die hard!

And no, the US and Pakistan never were and never will be ‘natural’ allies because as a ‘people’ they have nothing in common.

Syed Mansoor Hussain has practised and taught medicine in the US. He can be reached at smhmbbs70@yahoo.com

Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan

 

[ali_raza]

united states always use pakistan for its intrests atleast for now we shuld not terust USA

 

[Omar1984]

Finally, the US expects that Pakistan will become a viable member of the international economic community that minds its own business, does not export terrorism and definitely does not interfere in its neighbours’ affairs. This is going to be the biggest challenge for the Pakistani establishment. Old habits die hard!

The only neighbour that Pakistan will have to interfere in is India because that country occupies most of Kashmir, a disputed territory recognized by the United Nations and the entire international community as a disputed territory and is claimed in full by both Pakistan and India so yes when it comes to Kashmir it concerns Pakistan. Kashmir is the only thing that concerns Pakistan where India is also involved. Assam and all the non-disputed states of India doesnt concern Pakistan.

And no, the US and Pakistan never were and never will be ‘natural’ allies because as a ‘people’ they have nothing in common.

What do we have in common with China, Pakistan's closest natural ally. Culture? Language? Religion?

We have cultural and linguistic similarities with North Indians but they are our worst enemies. We have no cultural or linguistic similarities with China but they are our best friends.


TRUST IS VERY IMPORTANT TO BECOME NATURAL ALLIES.


Almost all Pakistanis trust China while most Pakistanis dont trust U.S. government and no Pakistani trusts india.

So trust is the most important thing to become natural allies.

 

[karan.1970]

Pakistan is a complicated country, needs US support: Holbrooke - Pakistan - World - The Times of India

WASHINGTON: Noting that Pakistan is a complicated country, which faces huge economic, energy and water shortage, a top Obama Administration official has said that the country needs the US' support.

In a session 'Conversations with America', Special US Representative for Pakistan and Afghanistan Richard Holbrooke also said the Taliban continue to have sanctuaries in Pakistan and continue to cross over the border for attacks inside Afghanistan.

"Pakistan is a complicated country that faces huge economic, energy and water problems. It has a long-standing set of concerns vis-a-vis its giant nature (sic) to the east, which have to be dealt with, and it faces an insurgency in the west, which is very dangerous both to them and to the US because it's from that area, in western part of the country, that attacks are launched against American and NATO troops," Holbrooke said yesterday.

"In this overall context, the Pakistanis are dealing with their problems. But it needs our support," Holbrooke said at a session 'Conversations with America', the first in a series of live video discussions regarding Department of State and US foreign policy.

Last year, the Kerry-Lugar-Berman Bill passed by US Congress and signed by President Barack Obama authorised USD 7.5 billion over five years in economic assistance.

Holbrooke said the US is working hard with the IMF, to make sure that the standby agreements are extended.

"We are working with the Pakistani leadership on every one of the economic water and energy issues that we can. This is a vast undertaking. And because we have worldwide commitments, we, the United States, cannot do it all alone."

However, he appreciated the international community to have come forward to help Pakistan.

"We went to Tokyo last April and had a major conference which raised USD 5-1/2 billion of commitments. They haven't all arrived yet, but they're still in the process of arriving. And we want to do more than that for Pakistan," Holbrooke said.

The US is in Pakistan without military troops but with a vast array of economic, political, psychological and other instruments, in order to strengthen Pakistanis who have their own set of problems -- economic, political and regional -- in order to strengthen them, he said.

"This is not an easy policy. No one pretends otherwise. So once again to go back to your core question, we're there because our homeland security, our national interests, require it. We will persevere because we have to," he added.

 

[Creder]

Taliban continue to have sanctuaries in Pakistan and continue to cross over the border for attacks inside Afghanistan.

These cowards have the audacity to tell us that we provide sanctuaries to talibs when 700 of the TTP that we have been fighting for over a year escaped into Kunar and NATO couldnt do jack !

 

[ejaz007]

Pakistan-US: A new deal?
By Nasim Zehra

At the April 12-13 Nuclear Security Summit (NSS) organised in Washington DC on the personal initiative of US President Barack Hussain Obama, the “P” word was missing from the entire formal proceedings of the conference. The objective was to globally underscore the great risk and the grave dangers of nuclear terrorism. The bottom line was that the conference participants must deny terrorists, through strict and stringent security systems, the opportunity to make “dirty bombs”. All nuclear materials must be prevented from getting into the hands of terrorists.

Perhaps the rules of the conference precluded the possibility of any delegate criticising another country by name. Interestingly, even the US mainstream press had no usual ‘scoops’ singling out Pakistan’s nuclear programme or on the danger of terrorists accessing Pakistani nuclear facilities because of the allegedly weak security around these facilities, or even some new purported scoop on the AQ Khan network. The tone of the US media during the three days of the conference was indicative of the beginnings of a change in the US attitude. The April 12 front-page story of the New York Times, for example, while reporting on Pakistan’s new nuclear facility, linked it to India’s expanding nuclear arsenal. The usual singling out of only Pakistan was missing.

However, it was at the conclusion of the NSS summit that a senior NBC reporter accused the US president of diluting his concern for the security of nuclear weapons and nuclear material when it came to Pakistan. An NBC reporter asked Obama that while Pakistan was not a Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) signatory and had proximity to al Qaeda, yet it appeared it was expanding its nuclear programme. Hence, the reporter added, “It appears as if Pakistan is playing by a different set of rules” and that “should there not be more pressure internationally on Pakistan, not just coming from the US, but the world?”

Obama rejected the reporter’s concerns, stating, “I have actually seen progress over the last several years with respect to Pakistan’s nuclear security issues. I feel confident about Pakistan’s security around its nuclear weapons programmes.” He also said, “I don’t think Pakistan is playing by a different set of rules.”

To illustrate the point that all nuclear security programmes needed to be improved, the US president, to everyone’s surprise, recalled the nuclear accident that took place in the US in which “nuclear-tipped missiles on a bomber were flying across the US and nobody knew about it. And Secretary Robert Gates took exactly the right step, which was to hold those in charge accountable and to significantly alter our practices to make sure something like that didn’t happen again.”

Then in a rare show of humility, Obama concluded that “It’s important to note that every nuclear power, every country that has a civilian nuclear energy programme, has to take better steps to secure these materials. We aren’t, either.”

While Obama’s Pakistan-specific statements focused on the nuclear factor alone, several indicators pointed towards the beginnings of a potentially more credible US policy towards Pakistan. In his meeting with the Pakistani prime minister, he was positive and complimentary. He recalled he had met Gilani first at the Willard Hotel in Washington while he was still a presidential candidate. He complimented Gilani on Pakistan’s “continued democratic successes.” Referring to the passage of the 18th Amendment he said, “I want to congratulate you on the continued democratic successes. Prime minister your democratic status has grown domestically and continues to grow at the international level.”

On bilateral relations, an upbeat Obama said he had got “excellent reports” on the outcome of the Washington round of the Strategic Dialogue. Promising Pakistan the long awaited support for the Reconstruction Opportunity Zones (ROZs), facilitating the release of the IMF tranche due early May and lobbying with the Europeans for early release of pledges made at the Friends of Democratic Pakistan Forum, Obama told the Pakistani prime minister, “I will take it to the heights where it has never been taken before.” Obama’s Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Senator John Kerry, during their call on the prime minister, reinforced Obama’s message. Kerry even discussed the use of nuclear technology for peaceful purposes.

However, it is now within a relatively positive overall context that this relationship would proceed forward. Many elements contribute towards the making of a positive context. Eight are noteworthy.

One, the candid, continuous and across-the-board engagement between the political leadership and the civil-military bureaucracies of the two countries has yielded the much-needed candour in the bilateral interaction. While engagements are about processes and not events, there are always eye-openers and turning points that actually represent markers for the shifts. In this relationship, the US secretary of state’s trip to Pakistan was the eye-opener and the Strategic Dialogue in the US was the turning point. If Hillary Clinton witnessed the scale and depth of the Pakistani resentment over Washington’s ‘double standards’ with Pakistan, at the March Strategic Dialogue the two sides set up fast-track mechanisms to resolve specific issues.

Two, the numerous steps, legal and administrative, taken by Pakistan for the security of its nuclear programme, nuclear material, and to control smuggling of fissile materials have finally convinced the key players in the international community that Pakistan’s nuclear programme is secure. The US has itself provided technical assistance and funds setting up effective security mechanisms. Finally the stigma of the AQ Khan network is gradually disappearing.

Three, there is now within the Obama Administration acknowledgement of Pakistan’s legitimate security requirements which includes its nuclear programme. In a definite departure from non-stop innuendos, leaks and indirect attacks on Pakistan’s programmes coming from US officials and legislators, the US president himself chose to reassure the Pakistani prime minister during the April 11th Blair House meeting that Pakistan need not have any fears that the US has any designs on Pakistan’s programmes. This was thus a first official acknowledgement of Pakistani suspicions that the US would ultimately want to ‘rollback’ or ‘take out’ Pakistan’s nuclear programme. “Do not be fearful of our designs on your programme and we are not fearful of your programme. We only do not want the weapons to get in the wrong hands.”

Four, there is now a public acknowledgment that Pakistan’s nuclear programme is linked to the regional situation, and hence despite the growing Washington-Delhi strategic nexus, it is no longer tenable to treat Pakistan’s nuclear programme as one de-linked from the Indian investment in nuclear weapons. Accordingly, the US administration recognises that without lessening of tensions in South Asia, neither can there be greater cooperation to stop smuggling of nuclear material, nor put brakes on the nuclear arms race in the region. At his April 13 press conference Obama himself said, “I want to lower tensions throughout South Asia when it comes to nuclear programmes.”

Hence the Obama Administration’s policy of de-hyphenating of Pakistan-US within its policy context was as short-lived as the regional dynamic would have allowed it. Pakistan-India now stand re-hyphenated. Speaking on April 13 to this scribe, the US State Department spokesman Peter Crawley said that the US president met with both the prime ministers and discussed the issue of restarting the Pakistan-India dialogue. Crawley said the US president also discussed with the two prime ministers the issue of nuclear arms in the context of the South Asia nuclear arms race. Reiterating the Obama Administration’s position the spokesman said, “Both countries are here and both are nuclear nations and with that come special responsibilities.”

Five, having recognised the fundamental flaws of its ill-conceived ****** policy, in which the two vastly different quality of states were equated together as a problem, Washington and the international community views Pakistan as a key country whose role in facilitating some semblance of peace and security is needed.

Six, a clearly articulated policy shift is discernible within the Obama administration towards the non-NPT nuclear states. The Obama Administration now focuses on calling on the widely acknowledged non-NPT nuclear states like Pakistan and Israel to sign the NPT as opposed to pushing for counter-proliferation. We may therefore see before the 2011 NPT conference, Pakistan acknowledged as a nuclear state. Meanwhile, Pakistan has been upfront in linking the issues of nuclear arms race and the production of fissile material to peace and stability in South Asia. Meanwhile, as a nuclear state, Pakistan reiterated its mid-nineties proposal of establishing a Nuclear Restraint Regime in South Asia, which would promote nuclear and missile restraint, a balance in conventional forces, and conflict resolution.

Seven, there is now a gradual but discernible paradigm shift in the Obama Administration’s approach to international affairs. “Do we have an international one world law enforcement mechanism – no we don’t, we have never had – we depend on the goodwill – that’s the way international affairs work.” In a sharp contrast to Bush’s preference for unilateralist policies, which ignored the UN and opted for illegal and militaristic notions of pre-emptive military strikes, the Obama Administration has opted for multi-lateralism and bilateralism. It has shown its preference for not ‘going it alone’ even on volatile issues like sanctions against Iran and to work within the discipline of the UN.

Recent decisions taken by the Obama Administration to stop compulsory screening of all flight passengers from 15 Muslim countries and stop the use of jihad within the context of terrorism suggest that the Obama Administration is keen to identify the weak links in its post-9/11 policies.

Eight, the Obama Administration will be more proactively involved in cooling down the world’s ‘hot-spots’. At the April 13 press conference, Obama’s words were loud and clear, replacing the coy and cautious approach. “Hot spots in the world are linked to US national security,” he declared. As the world’s major military power, the US is pulled into every major global conflict and then we pay in blood and money. Hence he declared the US would proactively attempt to remain a global military power.

Clearly these changes flow from the compulsions of a strategically altered South and South West Asian security context and from an emerging paradigm shift that drives US foreign policy. The two are of course inter-related and are essential outcomes of the Bush and subsequently to some extent, of the Obama Administration’s highly unsuccessful post-9/11 policies.

The cumulative impact of these factors can be the reduction in the trust deficit that has hampered evolution of a genuine Pakistan-US partnership. In an environment of improved credibility, there will be a greater appreciation of each other’s concerns and expectations linked to the relationship. Pakistan needs to see early action from the US in the areas of market access, soft credits and support in the energy sector on an urgent basis. As for the big ticket items, ranging from Pakistan’s border security to tackling the roots of terrorism spread from Afghanistan to India and from the formal recognition of Pakistan as a nuclear state to support for non-discriminatory access to civil nuclear technology, the onus of establishing the legitimacy of Pakistan’s demands is on Islamabad’s political leadership. In addition to the legitimacy, there is enough that the Pakistani leadership can leverage from within a positive bilateral context to acquire Washington’s support on these items.



The writer is an anchor and Director Current Affairs at a private TV channel

Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan

 

[srsrsr]

"Friends are (only) among equals" - as simple as that.

So I dont think US and Pak are going to be true friends ever. For a moment think of different dimensions of the US-Pak relationship and figure if there's one platform for equality

Economy: None. Pakistan is eager to get a share of US market ( especially textiles) however its going to be tough fight with China already dominating. Its more of gain for Pakistan on this relationship and US is least bothered about. US can always get its imports, if not from Pakistan, from China, India, Korea, SE Asian countries. If US truly cared about Pakistan, it shd have opened up lots of channels long back ( Guess what, South American countries like Brazil, Argentina, which dont have any political strategic relationship, have better economic relations with US, than that of Pakistan)

People, Culture: Pakistanis hate the whites and Whites "ignore" Pakistanis. Its the fact. For US, their country is world and every other nation is ignorable. Though its moving away from this thought ( esp after 9/11), still its a long way for US folks to accept other nations citizens. Only exception is the "European whites" recognized/respected by US. A decade back, I'm sure 90% of US commoners wouldnt have been able to spot Pakistan on the map, though on paper, these 2 countries enjoyed 'true long lasting friendship' since 50-60s. What's kind of friendship, if you dont know where your friend lives?

Military Strategy: This is one area, both countries came together but with their own agenda. US collaboration with Pakistan started with this objective - the only one - anti USSR/Communism. Do note that Pakistan was/is least bothered about Communism and has no 'in-principle-enemity' with USSR. However Pakistan went along with strategy for the gains it gets a)Strengthening its military, primary to ward off any Indian threat b) Highlight Kashmiri struggle and garner support from US and c)Its always good to have a 'Big Brother' around to scare your opponents. As you could clearly this is more circumstantial partnership than in principle. And pakistan can leverage ( leech?) as much as possible during this period.
However with current economic crisis, Pakistan is having much dependancy ( beyond military aids) with US to run the nation. This mess up is primarily due to the Governments/execution by the Country and has nothing to do with the US relationship. However US is in catch 22 situation now. Though its least bothered about Pakistan economy or people, it cant snub its partner for its role in anti-taliban fight.


As you could see, there isnt no equality among US and Pakistan. Even if this kind of relationship exists for another 100-200 years, still I wont call these countries "True friends", for there is nothing binding these 2 countries naturally.


There was another posting, which stated 'China' the most trusted partner. What? Spare a moment, and think 'Are you equal with China - in any dimension' ? Why is China interested in Pakistan's friendship ( common enemy - India?). Simple questions like these clearly bring out that these relationships are tactical in nature and more likely fall in same lines as that of US-Pakistan relationship, China want to be Asia's superpower and using Pakistan for its purpose.

Assuming 'China-the-trusted-power' feeling truly exists among Pakistanis, as stated by the post, then Pakistan is treading the same path it took with US 50 years back.

Its very evident that Pakistan has been used as pawn (and Pakistan to certain extent was OK as long aids flew to country) for long time.

If Pakistan need true friends, look out on countries, where you've natural friendship ( based on religion, region, economic aspirations, people friendship). Afghan/Iran/Iraq/Turkey etc is more acceptable as true friend than US/China/USSR.

 

[Crypto]

ISLAMABAD: Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, has arrived in Islamabad for a two-day visit that will focus on economic aid and Pakistan's role in the war in Afghanistan, Geo News reported Sunday.

Clinton arrived here today to attend at least one public event in Islamabad. Her talks on Monday will include several senior Pakistani officials, including Shah Mahmood Qureshi, the foreign minister.

The US top diplomat will meet President Asif Ali Zardari and Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani today.

Clinton is slated to attend strategic dialogues tomorrow.

 

[SQ8]

"Friends are (only) among equals" - as simple as that.

So I dont think US and Pak are going to be true friends ever. For a moment think of different dimensions of the US-Pak relationship and figure if there's one platform for equality

Economy: None. Pakistan is eager to get a share of US market ( especially textiles) however its going to be tough fight with China already dominating. Its more of gain for Pakistan on this relationship and US is least bothered about. US can always get its imports, if not from Pakistan, from China, India, Korea, SE Asian countries. If US truly cared about Pakistan, it shd have opened up lots of channels long back ( Guess what, South American countries like Brazil, Argentina, which dont have any political strategic relationship, have better economic relations with US, than that of Pakistan)

People, Culture: Pakistanis hate the whites and Whites "ignore" Pakistanis. Its the fact. For US, their country is world and every other nation is ignorable. Though its moving away from this thought ( esp after 9/11), still its a long way for US folks to accept other nations citizens. Only exception is the "European whites" recognized/respected by US. A decade back, I'm sure 90% of US commoners wouldnt have been able to spot Pakistan on the map, though on paper, these 2 countries enjoyed 'true long lasting friendship' since 50-60s. What's kind of friendship, if you dont know where your friend lives?

Military Strategy: This is one area, both countries came together but with their own agenda. US collaboration with Pakistan started with this objective - the only one - anti USSR/Communism. Do note that Pakistan was/is least bothered about Communism and has no 'in-principle-enemity' with USSR. However Pakistan went along with strategy for the gains it gets a)Strengthening its military, primary to ward off any Indian threat b) Highlight Kashmiri struggle and garner support from US and c)Its always good to have a 'Big Brother' around to scare your opponents. As you could clearly this is more circumstantial partnership than in principle. And pakistan can leverage ( leech?) as much as possible during this period.
However with current economic crisis, Pakistan is having much dependancy ( beyond military aids) with US to run the nation. This mess up is primarily due to the Governments/execution by the Country and has nothing to do with the US relationship. However US is in catch 22 situation now. Though its least bothered about Pakistan economy or people, it cant snub its partner for its role in anti-taliban fight.


As you could see, there isnt no equality among US and Pakistan. Even if this kind of relationship exists for another 100-200 years, still I wont call these countries "True friends", for there is nothing binding these 2 countries naturally.


There was another posting, which stated 'China' the most trusted partner. What? Spare a moment, and think 'Are you equal with China - in any dimension' ? Why is China interested in Pakistan's friendship ( common enemy - India?). Simple questions like these clearly bring out that these relationships are tactical in nature and more likely fall in same lines as that of US-Pakistan relationship, China want to be Asia's superpower and using Pakistan for its purpose.

Assuming 'China-the-trusted-power' feeling truly exists among Pakistanis, as stated by the post, then Pakistan is treading the same path it took with US 50 years back.

Its very evident that Pakistan has been used as pawn (and Pakistan to certain extent was OK as long aids flew to country) for long time.

If Pakistan need true friends, look out on countries, where you've natural friendship ( based on religion, region, economic aspirations, people friendship). Afghan/Iran/Iraq/Turkey etc is more acceptable as true friend than US/China/USSR.

If your logic to be taken in context of religion, region etc.. the Greeks should have the least to do with Egypt, instead of having one of the most time trusted relations.
Relations aren't necessarily a product of region, religion and economic aspirations. All things considered relations are based on Mutual benefit the most. Im not friends with the man in the office below me even though each of us takes the same route home, has similar timings and both of us offer our prayers together. My relations are best with the person working in the telco three blocks away even though he and I rarely ever meet. But, due to his position I have forehand knowledge of what my competitors are offering in the market and what his needs are. Consequently I can provide him with a better and cheaper solution for his demands so he can please his boss.
if friends were based on equality.. the Singaporeans should be the last people the US should be friends with.. heck new york is bigger than that island. Yet a strong military to military bond exists between them.

Economically we are eager for a share of any good market, where we can sell our homegrown exports..(so is Bhutan,India, Ecuador, Chile etc etc).
Question is, what does America export apart from weapons?.. Fast food?.. There is a negligible market for American goods such as electronic testing equipment, or high tech hospital products.. and although there are a wide range of products .. there are cheaper alternatives to it all around the world. The only economic gain for America in Pakistan is investment in existing firm..we dont have oil.
The US is least bothered about our economy, but it is bothered that with a tattering economy, there is a fair chance for militants to take their hold and threaten(as they see it) the fabric of Pakistani society.
We know this, we beat the banter in the back channels all the time.
But our demand is not more AID... its market access, we make a lot of cotton.. and that has to go somewhere.. Brazil can have access since its cheaper for a store like say..Wal-mart to order textiles from Brazil than from Pakistan..but thats already said.

off-topicish..

The Chinese on the other hand have a good market for their goods which range from hair combs to motorcycles. And while the automobile market has been difficult to crack, the Chinese make everything else sold here, almost every product which you buy in Pakistan has something to do with China, so not matter what.. the Chinese have a cut from every sphere of Pakistani consumers.Secondly, Chinese companies are given access to construction contracts, mineral excavations etc. something they cant expect from a country they are closer to. This allows them to outsource some of their labor here for work in almost every field.
We export food products, raw material including a large volume of trade now opening between Xinjiag and Gilgit-baltistan.
Economically, both Pakistan and China, are mutually benefiting.

Militarily we are better friends with the Arab states, we train a large sector of their forces and hold regular exercises with them as compared to the US or China. Our bond with China is due to our consumption of a large number of their military products. Which is also beneficial for the Chinese in another way since they have a large market for their products here. And the fact that Pakistan still has better relations with markets normally dominated by western goods, they hope to make a breakthrough in these sectors using Pakistan.
For us, we get unrestricted access to weapons systems which is almost never guaranteed in the west. Considering that we are now co-producing products with China, relations could not be better.

People to people, lets face it, 90% if Americans still dont know where Afghanistan is.. But the fact is that Pakistan has little attraction for Americans who prefer the exotic. And considering we are poles apart the American people aren't really friends with anybody.. except themselves.. and that too on a rare occasions...they are however, in all my experience.. very friendly people and apart from bad apples.. Wonderful people to live with. But this is off track. People to people .. we have a lot more exposure to the Chinese and Arabs then them to us. However, unlike the Arabs the Chinese never considered us third grade and in all my interactions. Every Chinese I met knew a lot more about Pakistan and its people.
Chinese are employed all over Pakistan, from masseuse to head engineers in construction projects. And till recently 80% of Chinese Muslims used Pakistan as their port of call for pilgrimage.

Pakistan was used by the US as its bullwark against communism in the Central Asia region. But never has friendship ever existed between two countries. Nor do I prefer using friendship in diplomatic relationships. Since it is always mutually benificial somewhere, However, the "myth" of the US being a big brother was shattered way back in 65 and 71.
compared to that, throughout every crises, the Chinese have lent insurmountable help.. and while they do want India balanced via Pakistan..we too want to see India afraid of a China, its a simple I scratch your back ,you scratch mine. This may not qualify as friendship.. but it definitely fits the title of best possible relations between two nations.

 

[dudah]

Well, I can tell you one thing this former Ahmadi, better known to people as Nabeel Qureshi, is ruining bonds Muslim Pakistani relations with Americans within the United States by claiming that Islam is a violent religion. He even claims he was once a Muslim! Even small things like this are bond to have serious, long-lasting repercussions. You all can see his video here:

 

[muse]

Pakistan, the US claims, is a major non-NATO ally (whatever else it means, it does not mean "ally") We have argued that given the previous relationship, the CENTO treaty alliances and such and more specifically the sanctions, Pakistan and the US, can and must,no longer have the kinds of relations they once had.

US policy in a effort to "calibrate" between accusations of playing a double game and simultanesouly providing arms and $$ and Pakistani charges of US duplicity suggest that neither countries and populations trust the other, that there is no foundational basis for this "relationship". We have argued based on empiracal data that US government engages in a healthy manner only where US interests lead and that it is TRADE, mutually profitable commercial interests that be the foundation for a viable Pakistan-US relationship - The US congress is opposed to this notion, it finds it more comfortable to throw aid money at Pakistan, Pakistani politicians and bureaucrats as well, find this preferable.

Below is a editorial from the NYT, a paper that ofen serves as a mouth piece for a section of the US intelligence and Dept of State (same difference) communities - please do review and comment if necessary, we would ask if the substance of trade or commercial relations, is or ought to be altruism, or imagination in the pursuit of mutually profitable enterprise :



August 17, 2010
Pakistan: A Trade Deal to Help Rebuild

One of the best long-term ways to help Pakistan — and improve America’s image there — is to help Pakistanis help themselves. That is why President George W. Bush and now President Obama have pushed for slashing protective tariffs on the textiles and apparel products that are Pakistan’s biggest exports to the United States.

Congress has instead chosen partisanship and protectionism over such good sense. We hope this tragedy will finally get lawmakers to do what’s needed. Reducing or eliminating tariffs costs the American taxpayer nothing, lowers consumer prices here and the benefits would flow directly into the Pakistani civilian economy where it is desperately needed.

The trade legislation that finally emerged from the House last year was so hemmed in with protectionist limits that it was almost worthless.

It covers only exports from mountainous border provinces where the terrain and security conditions are inhospitable to industry and from which transport costs to Pakistan’s main port of Karachi are prohibitive. It reduces tariffs mainly on textile products, rather than the apparel items where Pakistan is most competitive — cotton shirts, blue jeans, trousers, socks and underwear.

The Senate has failed to pass any tariff reductions largely because Republicans have objected to sound language in the House bill endorsing basic international labor standards for Pakistani export workers. These are especially important in a country rife with child labor abuses and a justice system that winks at the crimes of the well connected. President Obama needs to go back to Capitol Hill and press both houses to pass a far bolder trade liberalization bill.

Any legislation must knock down tariff barriers on all Pakistani textile and apparel exports — wherever they are produced. That includes the restive border area, the flood-ravaged heartland and the more industrialized coastal region.

Despite what the dwindling number of American producers say, reducing or eliminating those tariffs would mainly cut into the sales of other Asian-made jeans and T-shirts.

Until now, textiles and apparel accounted for 60 percent of Pakistan’s total exports and 40 percent of its manufacturing jobs. The industry is sure to be staggered by the floods, which washed away 20 percent of the annual cotton crop and destroyed major power stations that supply electricity to factories. Reviving this industry is critical to Pakistan’s hopes for future stability and prosperity.

American companies, and their Congressional supporters, will scream at easing tariffs. They should not be allowed to trump America’s national security interest.

 

[muse]

Allies at cross purposes
By Huma Yusuf
Sunday, 19 Sep, 2010



American President John F. Kennedy famously conceded that the only thing “worse than being an enemy of the United States was being an ally”.

The accuracy of that insight has been reiterated with the recent declassification of documents pertaining to US-Pakistan exchanges in the days immediately following Sept 11, 2001.

Once again, we have proof that Islamabad and Washington habitually engage at cross purposes. The documents reveal that post-9/11, Pakistan quickly recommended the US enter into a dialogue with the Afghan Taliban.

But Washington “bluntly” rejected that offer, and warned then ISI chief Mahmoud Ahmed that his meetings with Mullah Omar should not delay military planning.

It also becomes clear that from the outset Pakistan asked the US to clarify its goals in attacking Afghanistan: were they after Osama bin Laden, Al Qaeda, or the Taliban?

Nine years on, one has to admire the Pakistanis’ prescience, and wonder how things might have been different if the US was willing to seriously engage with Islamabad’s suggestions.

The documents say that the US presented Pakistan with a list of seven demands (including territorial and naval access, landing rights for operations, intelligence-sharing, and isolating the Taliban).

Interestingly, these demands echo various conspiracy theories — and legitimate concerns — regarding US intentions in the region that have proliferated in Pakistan in recent months: US troop presence in Pakistan; the use of Pakistani airbases; the presence of private security forces; and the influx of CIA agents.

Of course, Pakistan was not the only astute party in 2001. In the declassified documents, American officials raise concerns about the Pakistani intelligence’s continuing ties with the Taliban.

Tellingly, the ‘double game’ accusation against Pakistani security and intelligence officials continues to dog US-Pakistan relations — particularly in the wake of the WikiLeaks episode.

Given this context, it is not surprising that the trust deficit between the US and Pakistan endures. Similar suspicions existed before 2001, as a consequence of the Pressler amendment, the abrupt US withdrawal from Afghanistan, and the imposition of sanctions on Pakistan as a result of nuclear testing.

With 9/11, the US and Pakistan seem to have missed an opportunity to start over. The fact that the declassification of these documents has not sparked a media furore indicates that miscommunication and miscalculations between Islamabad and Washington are old news.

Then, as now, the two countries fail to connect, and, instead, make sweeping demands, and even more sweeping concessions, without confronting the fact that they have fundamentally different strategic outlooks for the region.

Indeed, in June this year, Adm Mike Mullen admitted that one of the toughest challenges facing the US was the struggle to earn Pakistan’s trust.

If one were optimistic, one might surmise that Washington and Islamabad have learnt something from history. After all, the US is now willing to negotiate with the Taliban: in January this year, the Obama administration announced that the Peace and Reintegration Trust Fund would finance incentives for Taliban militants to put their guns down.

Washington also continues to support Afghan President Hamid Karzai as he reportedly reaches out to Mullah Omar with an invitation to participate in reconciliation talks.

On this point, Jonathan Powell writing in the Guardian best explains the pattern of western engagement with terrorists: “First we fight them militarily, then we talk to them, and eventually we treat them as statesmen.”

For its part, the Pakistan government seems more willing to own up to its role in the controversial drone attacks. Although September has seen the most intense drone campaign to date — 75 alleged militants killed this month — Pakistan has not raised objections.

Instead, Information Minister Qamar Zaman Kaira has expressed appreciation for the international community’s ‘support’ in fighting the terrorism that Pakistan could not manage on its own.

But it would be pre-emptive to assume that Islamabad and Washington are progressing beyond the preoccupations that engendered a climate of distrust and disagreement in the immediate wake of 9/11. Conversely, nine years after that fateful event, the US and Pakistan remain caught in a familiar quagmire.

Although US President Barack Obama steps up to podium after podium to clarify that his country’s only goal is to dismantle Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, his administration’s actions suggest otherwise.

On Sept 1, the US declared the Pakistani Taliban a terrorist organisation, froze the group’s US-based assets and placed a $5m bounty on Hakeemullah Mehsud and Waliur Rehman.

Moreover, the intensified drone attacks are targeting members of the Haqqani network, an extremist group that Pakistan is reluctant to pursue.

Pakistan, meanwhile, continues to enjoy the benefits of US aid while its intelligence agencies refuse to give up links to militant groups, preparing for a post-US-withdrawal redistribution of power in Afghanistan.

Veteran Washington Post columnist David Ignatius has described the US and Pakistan as “tempestuous” lovers who fall in and out of love with each other.

On a less romantic note, I would suggest the two countries are more like an aged married couple who persistently shout at each other, but can no longer hear what the other is saying.

The declassified 9/11 documents show that Islamabad and Washington have been quibbling over the same issues for almost a decade. There is no evidence to suggest that the terms of engagement will improve soon.

To bridge the trust deficit, then, the two countries need to take concrete, quantifiable and transparent steps.

Pakistan should own up to its cooperation in American counter-insurgency initiatives, and come clean about its Afghanistan agenda.

For its part, the US should keep up with aid payments, draft a civilian nuclear deal for Pakistan and open American markets to Pakistani goods — in the hope of empowering Pakistan to take control of its own growth and stability. Only then can the next decade begin with a new chapter of US-Pakistan relations.

huma.yusuf@gmail.com

 

[muse]

Forum readers, whether Pakistani, Chinese, Indian, Israeli, Arbi and Americans others who may be interested in this thread, may find asking themselves Why does the US continue to suggest that the relationship between US and Pakistan, is one that OUGHT to be saved and furthered --- It's a mystery to me -- below, in a theme - as above - that we should have gotten used to, is yet another reminder that the US if it wants friendship and meaningful relations with not just Pakistan but any Muslim majority country, must be at peace with Islam and with US Muslims - for the present political setup in Washington, US wants a win, but for US only US must win all others must lose, this kind of thinking has died everywhere except in Washington - Does Zardari have it in him to ensure that it dies in Washington?? Either that thinking will die or Zardari will - one way or the other


you likes, great, you no likes, great!:

Averting catastrophe in South Asia
Harlan Ullman



We can joke that the US and Great Britain are two nations divided by a common language. But the gap between the US and Pakistan is neither humorous nor easily reconciled. Only a fundamental improvement in mutual understanding can rectify the enormous misunderstandings and misperceptions on both sides that threaten this crucial relationship and our mutual security.

Despite two American presidents declaring Pakistan a major non-NATO ally and promising to implement a new strategic relationship, from Islamabad’s view, the flowery prose has not been accompanied by deed. And, seen from Washington, Pakistan is often a truculent, uncooperative and difficult partner.

Pakistanis believe that American presidents have virtually unlimited power and authority to make things happen and are angry over what is seen as non-delivery of promises. The Americans do not appreciate that the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) is in a coalition government needing 42 additional seats to hold a majority in a National Assembly of 342 members. Unfortunately, the White House has reversed the pitfalls of a coalition government (as in Britain or Iraq) with a perception of an absence of political leadership in Islamabad. Perhaps the loss of both Houses in November will change its mind.

Pakistanis ask what their country has gotten out of its relationship with the US so far. The US’s war on terror has cost them dearly: more than 31,000 civilian and military casualties; a spreading insurgency; and a haemorrhaging economy even before the super floods ravaged the nation.

The Kerry-Lugar-Berman Act approved $ 1.5 billion a year in support for five years or a total of $ 7.5 billion. But, only about 10 percent has been transferred for year one and most Pakistanis believe no money has arrived. Since September 11th, the US has underwritten the Pakistan Army to the tune of about $ 1 billion a year. Unfortunately, that funding has come in drips and drabs. Further, from Islamabad’s perspective, the US has done little to facilitate better relations between India and Pakistan and the $ 3.5 billion arms deal signed between New Delhi and Washington did not help.

Finally, given its stand on human rights, American silence over India’s martial crackdown in Kashmir signals to Pakistanis a double standard. The conviction and sentencing by a Federal Court in New York of Dr Aafia Siddiqui to 86 years in prison for terrorism and attempted murder have precipitated a huge backlash intensified by NATO’s hot pursuit of Afghan terrorists into Pakistani territory this Monday. These and other incidents underscore profound Pakistani doubts over US reliability and sincerity in defining a new strategic relationship.

The Americans have equally powerful points of contention and legitimate grievances with Pakistan. The White House worries that excessive cronyism prevents competent people from serving in Pakistan’s government. Corruption remains a divisive issue. And, US leaders do not see that its strategy in Afghanistan is fully supported by Pakistan, and perceive it as even opposed. Repeated delays in obtaining visas for US military and government personnel have disintegrated into full-blown mini-crises. And Pakistan’s longstanding policy on “fraternisation with foreigners” precludes Pakistan Army officers meeting socially with foreign contemporaries without permission, which further contributes to this trust deficit.

But Pakistan is in or close to extremis precipitated by simultaneous security, economic and now humanitarian crises. Worse, a fourth, politically charged showdown between the chief justice and the government looms. The consequence could be political chaos if the chief justice rules part of the 18th Amendment unconstitutional and denies presidential constitutional immunity over allegations of wrongdoing prior to taking office.

Parallels are inexact. Watergate and the impeachment of Bill Clinton over the Affaire Lewinski crippled our government. So too, Pakistan’s government could effectively be shut down or dissolved by a chief justice preoccupied with enhancing his own authority rather than focusing on the destructive consequences for the nation.

Some misunderstandings and grievances may not be resolvable. That does not mean we cannot try. The last chance may be a very serious meeting between the two presidents to work out these differences and begin re-strengthening this strategic relationship that is absolutely vital to achieving even a modicum of peace and stability in the region.

After Pearl Harbour and US’s entry into the war, Roosevelt and Churchill understood the need for intense, intimate and continuing dialogue. A weekend meeting at Camp David or some other remote location for the two leaders could begin such a process. Careful, advance preparation by both sides, of course, must be assured.

The driving force is the explosive ignition of Pakistan’s security, economic and political crises by the humanitarian catastrophe that Pakistan cannot handle alone. Here, even the possibility of the floods putting Pakistan in extremis is strong enough a rationale to get this vital strategic relationship back on track while closing the trust deficit and mitigating the legitimate differences that deeply divide us. Otherwise, the US and Pakistan will profoundly suffer. The only question will be how much.

The writer is senior advisor at the Atlantic Council in Washington, DC and Chairman of the Killowen Group that advises leaders in business and government

 

[@rrows]

Saidu Airport not being handed over to US: ISPR

MINGORA: People of Swat district are concerned due to rumours that the United States and Nato intend to permanently stay in Swat on the pretext of building a warehouse to store relief goods for the flood victims at the Saidu Sharif Airport in Kanju. However, ISPR has strongly denied the rumours.

Local people expressed grave concern at unconfirmed reports that they would be displaced from their houses to allow expansion of the airport to accommodate the US and other foreign troops arriving in the area in the near future. Noted social and political figures in the area said that they would never allow foreigners to occupy their native land and turn it into another Afghanistan.

Former provincial minister and Jamaat-e-Islami (JI) leader Hussain Ahmad Kanju said that any decision to hand over the airport to foreigners would have far-reaching consequences. He argued that the US could deliver aid to the affected people through the Pakistan government or the Pakistan Army instead of occupying the airport in Swat. He said the US could also distribute aid through a trustworthy organisation instead of deploying its troops to seek a foothold in Swat. He warned that the Swatis would never allow any such step taken in connivance with the Pakistan government.
“We are ready to provide support to our own Army to acquire land required for the expansion of the Saidu Sharif Airport. But we don’t want to do so for the sake of Americans,” said Sher Khan, President of the anti-militants Kabal Peace Jirga. “The people of Swat don’t need any assistance from the US if it was given with the objective to take hold of our land and eventually occupy our motherland,” he stressed.

“Earlier, the militants destroyed our area and then the floods played havoc with Swat. The whole Malakand region would plunge into violence if the US and Nato troops were deployed in Swat,” Sher Khan said.
Idrees Khan, who is leading the pro-government Kabal Defence Committee, asked as to why the US and other countries were not distributing relief through the Pakistan Army and Pakistan government departments.
He warned that the people in Swat would be compelled to launch a protest movement against aid distribution through foreigners. “We have strong reservations over the role of the US as its policies have brought instability in the region and triggered violence.”

Senior nationalist leader Afzal Khan Lala said that one could never expect such a decision from the Pakistan Army to hand over strategic facilities to foreigners. About the aid distribution, he said the Army promptly responded to the flood situation as it was capable of helping the people. He felt it was no more than a rumour that the Swat airport would be handed over to the Americans or any other foreign force. Pakistan People’s Party-Sherpao (PPP-S), Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Deputy Secretary Fazal Rahman Nono said the government had the capacity to provide relief to its people and there was no need for foreigners to be permanently deployed for the purpose in Swat or anywhere else.