The Pak-US Relationship

[muse]

US and internationalism

Brian Cloughley
Saturday, July 16, 2011

At least we now know Pakistan’s standing with the US government: slightly above Burkina Faso but below Outer Mongolia. Recent statements about Pakistan by central figures in Washington have made it clear that the US demands and expects nothing but total obedience and subservience from those nations unfortunate enough to be associated with it. It’s similar to the way Rupert Murdoch has treated successive British governments – with a combination of insolent menace and patronising disdain.

US international influence is immense, but Washington chooses to ignore the fact that power should involve responsibility. It is apparent that internationalism is acceptable to the US government only if America’s authoritarian dominance is unquestioned.

On July 10 the New York Times reported that “the Obama administration is suspending and, in some cases, cancelling hundreds of millions of dollars of aid to the Pakistani military, in a move to chasten Pakistan for expelling American military trainers and to press its army to fight militants more effectively.” The story was fed to the NYT by the usual anonymous sources who were “congressional, Pentagon and other administration officials granted anonymity to discuss the politically delicate matter.” In other words, the campaign of anti-Pakistan invective has the direct authorisation of Mr Obama and Congress. The gloves are off, and outright bullying is official policy.

But the discarded gloves of Washington are somewhat bloodstained. Take, for example, the case of the CIA ‘contractor’ Raymond Davis who went free after murdering two Pakistani citizens. This squalid affair encapsulated Washington’s attitude to internationalism and to Pakistan in particular. Imagine what would have happened if an ISI employee – or any foreigner – had shot dead two Americans on the streets of New York. There would have been hysteria throughout the country, and not the slightest possibility that the killer might ever be released. The frenzy of the media and Congress would have equalled the post 9/11 passion. But the CIA can, with impunity, kill people on the streets of a nation which the US treats as a petty puppet, even going so far as to proclaim that the Pakistan Army does not fight militants “effectively”, which is not just grossly insulting, but also sheer nonsense.

Since the US invasion of Afghanistan in 2001-2002, before which Pakistan had no suicide bombings and no insurrection in the tribal areas or Taliban terror attacks in its cities, the army has suffered the deaths of over 3,000 soldiers at the hands of extremists, which is double the number that the US has had killed in Afghanistan. And now Pakistan has over 140,000 troops in the west of the country fighting a war that was caused directly by the influx of militants from Afghanistan after the US Crusade.

The current instability in Pakistan is almost entirely the responsibility of the US whose politicians and generals whine that Pakistan is “not doing enough” and which intends to “press its army to fight militants more effectively.” (The Pakistan army’s decisive defeat of the Taliban in the Swat region in 2009 is ignored because it doesn’t fit in with the propaganda.)

The insults don’t stop at accusing Pakistan’s soldiers of incompetence. The senior military figure in the US, Admiral Mullen, appeared intent on denigrating the country’s leaders with his bizarre declaration that the vile murder of Saleem Shahzad, the brilliant investigative journalist, “was sanctioned by the government” of Pakistan. This is a statement with grave implications of criminality. The US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has made a public proclamation to the effect that the government of Pakistan authorises murder. To make such an important pronouncement requires solid intelligence, so incontrovertible evidence must exist that details precisely how and by whom Saleem Shahzad was killed, and on exactly whose orders the murder was committed.

The crime has international connotations, in that one country has declared another responsible for an action that is patently in violation of the principles of International Law, because the alleged offending nation, Pakistan, could be guilty of a crime against humanity. So International Law and procedures should now be invoked, and the evidence that has been gathered by the United States must be produced to the world at large.

The problem is that the US detests internationalism. The International Court and the United Nations Organisation are anathema to Washington which does as little as possible to further their objectives. Take, for example, UN peacekeeping.

Pakistan has 9,582 soldiers serving with UN peacekeeping missions worldwide. Guess how many the US has on such duty. Go on -10,000, perhaps? That would be a reasonable number. But perhaps it’s not quite so many. Maybe half that would be a better guess, given American troop deployments at over 800 bases all round the world. So could we suggest 5,000? We could, but we would be wrong, because the United States of America, with military forces totalling 1,477,896, contributes exactly thirteen uniformed personnel to UN global peacekeeping. This, alone, is a clear indication of Washington’s approach to its international responsibilities.

But in spite of the US attitude, let there be an independent UN inquiry into the death of Saleem Shahzad. It could run concurrently with an International Criminal Court investigation of the murders committed by Mr Ray Davis. That would demonstrate real international accountability by all concerned. Are you holding your breath?



The writer is a South Asian affairs analyst. Website: Brian Cloughley

 

[VCheng]

from: Petraeus warns of deteriorating US-Pakistan relations | World | DAWN.COM

PARIS: US General David Petraeus admitted Wednesday there was no option but to work on troubled relations with Pakistan, days after standing down from his job at the helm of coalition forces in Afghanistan.

Speaking in Paris on his way to his new job as CIA chief, the most celebrated military leader of his generation said Afghanistan’s neighbour wanted to eliminate Al-Qaeda and Taliban militants but was struggling.

“They’ll be the first to say that there are limits to how much they can do,” said the man who headed the United States’ longest-running war for the last year, with less territory controlled by militants today but civilian deaths up.

“They have a lot of short sticks in hornets nests right now and they have to consolidate some of those gains.”

Petraeus said Pakistani anti-militant operations have been impressive but they “clearly need further effort to deal with some of the other elements, like the Qaeda network in North Waziristan and the Taliban in Balochistan”.

“This relationship is in a difficult stage,” Petraeus said, blaming WikiLeaks revelations, the arrest of CIA agent Raymond Davis as well as the killing by US forces of Al-Qaeda kingpin Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan in May.

He said it was believable that Pakistani intelligence did not know that Bin Laden was hiding out in Abbottabad, home to much of the Pakistani military establishment, when he was killed there.

“It is credible to me that they did not know. We received no intelligence whatsoever to indicate that there was any awareness that he was there.” But while “we see the Bin Laden raid as an extraordinary success, intelligence together with military forces, Pakistan sees it as an affront to their national sovereignty, we’ve got to work our way through this”.

“We know what happens when we walk away from Pakistan and Afghanistan, we’ve literally seen the movie before, it’s called ‘Charlie Wilson’s War’ (about covert US support for anti-Soviet Afghan fighters) and indeed that is not in my view a good option.

“However difficult the relationship may be it’s one we need to continue to work, it’s one where we need to recognise what our Pakistani partners have done, they’ve sacrificed several thousand soldiers and police and their civilians have suffered substantial levels of violence.”

 

[muse]

THis Editorial (NYT Duh!) should have been titled "Beating a Dead Horse" -- A strategic shift has already taken place, US refuses to acknowledge it - The US imagines that what it calls the "double game of Pakistan" is confined to Afghanistan - However, with the IMF unlikely to give the Pakistani elites another fix - well, something's gotta give...



July 28, 2011
Holding Pakistan to Account

The Obama administration’s decision to suspend $800 million of its $2 billion in annual security aid to Pakistan inevitably raises the question of why the United States should continue to give Pakistan any military aid at all.

The White House acted after Osama bin Laden was found living near Pakistan’s leading military academy and Pakistan then expelled American military trainers. Islamabad should see this as a serious warning that Washington has all but run out of patience with its double games. Both sides will pay a high price if this goes on too long.

Ending all military aid would be a serious mistake. This country tried that before with disastrous results. In the 1990s, Washington — incensed about Pakistan’s illicit nuclear program and no longer worried about a post-Soviet Afghanistan — cut off nearly all support. Pakistan’s military and the rest of the country are still bitter about it.

A total cutoff would destroy any hope of Islamabad’s continued cooperation, as limited and cynical as it is, which is essential to defeating Al Qaeda and other militants. The Pentagon needs Pakistan as a supply route for troops in Afghanistan. If there is any possibility of a political deal with the Taliban, Pakistan will have to be involved.

Ending $1.5 billion in annual civilian assistance — for energy, schools and other projects — would make even less sense. The aid needs to be better managed, but the hope is that over time it will contribute to a more stable, less suspicious Pakistan.

The administration’s challenge is how to calibrate the military aid suspension to maximize leverage without pushing Islamabad even closer to the extremists or to the edge. We don’t minimize the difficulty. If there is any chance of getting the Pakistanis to clean up their act, and fending off deeper cuts in Congress, this is the moment.

Of the military aid withheld, $300 million was to compensate Pakistan for deploying 100,000 troops on the Afghan border to combat terrorism. They are battling militants in the FATA region — and taking casualties — but not the Haqqani network targeting American troops in Afghanistan. An additional $500 million worth of equipment — body armor, rifles, radios, night-vision goggles and helicopter spare parts — hasn’t been delivered or is being held in Pakistan until the government grants visas to the American trainers and to 200 or more diplomats and civilians assigned to the United States Embassy in Islamabad. After suggesting that they didn’t need American aid, and would rely more on China and Iran, Pakistan’s powerbrokers may be taking the suspension more seriously. Lt. Gen. Ahmed Shuja Pasha, head of Inter-Services Intelligence, visited Washington recently and a senior American official said those talks made progress.

President Obama has offered Pakistan a broad relationship and its best chance to chart a new path. Rather than seize this opportunity, Pakistan’s leaders have stoked intolerance, anti-Americanism and an exaggerated fear of India. Perhaps most delusionally, they continue to see the fight against extremists as a favor to Washington. They are running out of time to salvage Pakistan’s future.

Mr. Obama needs to keep working with Islamabad. But he is right to show that the days of unconditional American support are over.

 

[muse]

Gilani and more importantly, Kayani, seem to be learning to say "uncle" - but the US would be mistaken if they think problem solved - The PPP government is looking at the next 5 years and of course the "need" for aid, however, this line may not have any political legs as far as the public are concerned



Misunderstandings with US to be removed, says PM
By Baqir Sajjad Syed | From the Newspaper
(11 hours ago) Today

ISLAMABAD: Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani said on Thursday that Pakistan was ready to sort out its fractured relationship with the US, adding the move had the backing of the armed forces.

“There are some misunderstandings with the US and we are ready to resolve them,” he said after inaugurating a photo exhibition held at the Pakistan National Council of Arts to commemorate 50 years of the country`s participation in UN peacekeeping operations.

The latest denouement in ties that began with the US raid on Osama bin Laden`s compound continues despite several initiatives from both sides to halt the downslide.

After partial suspension of military aid and initiation of a bill for restrictions on civilian aid to Pakistan in the US Congress, ISI chief Gen Shuja Pasha visited Washington for mending troubled intelligence cooperation and an impression was subsequently given that the two sides were backing down from brinksmanship that had characterised their relations over the past months.

But soon afterwards the arrest of Kashmiri leader Ghulam Nabi Fai in the US for allegedly illegally lobbying for Pakistan was taken here as an indicator of changing US policy nuances towards the region.

Responding to a question about the military`s position on ties with the US, the prime minister said: “We are all on the same page.”

The military made a similar indication in ISPR`s curtain raiser on the event issued to the media: “Pakistan Army understands the cost of peace and is always prepared for any sacrifice for the sake of national as well as international peace and security.” At the core of the frayed ties is a strategic disconnect over counter-terrorism strategy and certain operational differences.

Some even see the recent military operation in Kurram Agency as a prelude to an operation in North Waziristan for which the US has been pressing hard for long.

Although military officials deny the link, they agree that the new operation has restricted the operational space for militants based in North Waziristan.

In his inaugural speech at the exhibition, the prime minister spoke about the Pakistan-US disconnect and the need for realigning strategies. He called for a `partnership approach`.

Asking the US to end blame game, he cautioned that it was unhelpful for eliminating terrorism.“There is a need to align our respective anti-terror strategies with the broad objectives to achieve results. We also expect our allies to be more sensitive to our sensibilities[/I].”

 

[VCheng]

They will toe the line, just a bit hesitatingly.

 

[muse]

And the trainers will return? Visas for all?? The Mighty Kayani says "the Pakistan Army understands the cost of peace and is always prepared for any sacrifice for the sake of national as well as international peace and security.”

Is he saying North Waziristan? Or is he saying India centric and Islamism are history?

 

[VCheng]

And the trainers will return? Visas for all?? The Mighty Kayani says "the Pakistan Army understands the cost of peace and is always prepared for any sacrifice for the sake of national as well as international peace and security.”

Is he saying North Waziristan? Or is he saying India centric and Islamism are history?

Yes to all, but only slowly, and with typical public derision and private collusion.

 

[Romel]

Pakistan should realize these facts:

1. The US foreign policy around the world is significantly shaped by powerful influential group AIPAC. AIPAC's top priority is the interest and security of the state of Israel and maintaining strong relations between Israel and US.

2. The online encyclopedia Wikipedia says "India and Israel enjoy strong military and strategic ties. Some analysts have dubbed the alliance between India and Israel as the new "axis in the war on terror", while Israeli authorities consider Indian citizens to be the most pro-Israel people in the world. Apart from being Israel's second-largest economic partner in Asia, India is also the largest customer of Israeli arms in the world." Now on one hand, the US foreign policy in South Asia is eager to maintain a strong relation with India in recent times and both countries have own intelligence data about Pakistani affairs which they share to each other under the pre-text of war on terror. And on the other hand, Pakistan does not recognize India as dominant military power in this region due to practical reasons and traditional competition between both states.

3. The current Iranian regime regards US hostile towards Iran and they do not approve US presence in Iraq and Afghanistan bordering Iran. Iran is most vocal in criticizing Israeli policies against Palestinians and US support for Israel. Moreover, according to Israeli propaganda, Iran is the number one threat to Israel's existence. The propaganda accuses Iran of trying to acquire nuclear armaments and then simply bomb Israel without much thinking. Pakistan, a nuclear state, borders Iran. Both Israel and the US, Israel's saviour in the UN and other International bodies, know that. What if Israeli fighter jets cross Iran and actually bomb Pakistani nuclear reactors and facilities. Technically, with the help of US isn't it possible? Anyway, a wild thinking

4. The US has declared it's policy of preemptive strike long time ago and ordered by the President, they even now conduct covert operation inside other sovereign state. Pakistan has seen such an operation recently. Who knows how many such operations to follow. And not to mention about the overt operations by the UAVs.

5. The United Nations was never an effective and impartial International body that it was supposed to be. Pakistan may not gain anything from UN regarding dispute with US, even with the help from China.

6. Muslim extremist groups creating chaos inside Pakistani society is the image of Pakistan in western media. Pakistan's success in it's military industry and nuclear capabilities have been reported negatively in International media compared with India, deliberately. Pakistan's brilliant scientist and a national hero Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan has been portrayed as a dangerous person on earth. Though he was working for his Country and it's Government. Pakistan is being continuously portrayed as a failed state. After the covert operation to hunt Osama Bin Laden, questions were raised in US and other western media about Pakistan Armed Forces' links with extremist militant groups and also it's capabilities to safeguard it's nuclear weapons. Now, under the slogan of the war on terror, US can do a lot against Pakistan if they want.

Therefore Pakistan should consider:

1. Bring to an end it's ties with US slowly but SURELY and stop taking financial aid.

2. Engage most closely with China.

3. Improve bi-lateral relation with India, may be in a way where both states oppose external influence (US, China) in their region.

4. Pakistan must build a good image of it in outside world. The civil-military relationship should reach in a new level to reflect democracy, freedom in media and a tolerant society that is free from extremist elements.

 

[U-571]

My heart says let's leave Afghanistan and Pakistan. They don't want us. We can put half as much resource into a "fortress America" defense instead of this power projection offense we have been pursuing for 10 years. But my head says that we should help Pakistan, Iraq and Afghanistan to develop, since we caused or abetted so much destruction in these three countries. If the American people were allowed to vote on a referendum: "Should the USA withdraw all military forces from Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan?"; the answer would probably be 80%: YES, HELL, YES!!!!

lol, where have you americans developed anything in this whole world, did you develop in veitnam??north korea??, in iraq??, somalia??

just buzz off, and never return

 

[U-571]

Hard to believe that this was just 1 year back

atleast pakistani men are attractive enough to attract clinton, can indian do this??

 

[Shabz Nist]

atleast pakistani men are attractive enough to attract clinton, can indian do this??

Lol, i feel pity for you. No homo bro....

 

[Hulk]

atleast pakistani men are attractive enough to attract clinton, can indian do this??

glad you feel happy about it, the same lady threw him out Indirectly.

 

[muse]

The containment of Pakistan
Talha Jalal



As I have developed an odd proclivity for drawing parallels between apparently disparate objects of interest, David Rothkopf’s blog post for Foreign Policy magazine, titled ‘Innovations in diplomacy: introducing the anti-ally alliance’, caught my eye at once. Rothkopf is a lifelong Washington insider so one should not dismiss him lightly. Hillary Clinton’s recent statement in India, as Rothkopf suggests, is a proclamation of an alliance to contain Pakistan — an idea that he fervently supports.

It is now obvious that the Pak-US ‘partnership’ is becoming frustrating for both sides and the frustration is being vent on petty tit-for-tat manoeuvres. But, let me concur that the idea of a US-led containment of Pakistan is an interesting prospect; it is, at first sight, quite a fantastical idea. However, it is far from an innovation in American foreign policy.

There is a striking parallel between the relationship the US shared with the Soviet Union during World War II and the one it has with Pakistan during the ongoing war on terrorism. The Soviet Union was a wartime ally and a post-war threat at the very same time. So, it seems, is Pakistan. Pakistan’s military has been dependent on American aid throughout the duration of the post-9/11 conflict in Afghanistan and within Pakistan; so was the Soviet army. The USSR was relying, although to a lesser extent than Pakistan, on an American lend-lease programme during the World War. Moreover, the alliance with the Soviet Union, much like the one with Pakistan, was a transactional alliance. The post-war agendas of both sides differed greatly.

It was the anticipation of the post-war scenario that led to the standoff with the Soviet Union, and a very similar scenario is leading to an intensifying confrontation with Pakistan.

In February 1946, after the Truman administration had reached a virtual impasse on its policy towards the USSR, a relatively junior diplomat based in Moscow, George F Kennan, broke the ice with his 8,000 word ‘long telegram’ — paving the way for the long haul of containing the massive communist mammoth. And, as we see things now, there is once more a breakdown of relations with a wartime ally and Washington is again looking to re-invent its relationship with a wartime ally in a post-war scenario.

The US’s relationship with Islamabad has always been viewed with scepticism on both sides — there never was any trust between the two allies — much like the relationship with the Soviet Union. Even while the war was going on, as John Lewis Gaddis argues in his Strategies of Containment, US President Roosevelt was conscious of the risks of Soviet influence in post-war Europe. And, as it happens, Pakistan’s duplicity in the fight against the Taliban and al Qaeda is a similar predicament forerunning the endgame in Afghanistan.

This whole story makes up for a nice prologue to a Cold War against Pakistan. But analysts sitting in crisis-embroiled Washington should not run towards a conclusion just yet. Pakistan is no communist Soviet Union, nor is it run by Taliban-style ideologues. And, moreover, Afghanistan is no Germany to be stabilised, tamed and reined in like post-war Europe.

With some (ground) reality checks and some historical sense, the fantastical idea of containing Pakistan starts seeming vague and impractical.

What would be the objectives of such ‘containment’? They can be vague at best. Pakistan is run by nationalist forces and has a deeply divided populace of diverse ethnicities. There is no common national ideology, unlike communism in the case of the Soviet Union. Pakistan is a broken country, while the Soviet Union was a superpower. Let us assume, for once, that a containment policy would seek to weaken Pakistan to the point where it disintegrates or Balkanises (an idea being backed by many anti-Pakistan lobbies). This would mean a catastrophe for the whole of Asia. In whose hands would Pakistan’s strategic assets, which are spread across the country, fall? And, more importantly, who would volunteer to pacify a (massively armed) civilian population that is already brimming with anti-Americanism and is fiercely anti-India?

There is one big problem that is mostly ignored in any analysis on Pakistan — its population. Pakistan’s population is analogous to a ticking time bomb. According to safe projections, it is soon to become the world’s largest Muslim country in terms of population. If containing Pakistan means alienating an already disgruntled 180 million-strong nation, it is inevitably going to prove to be a disastrous policy.

Drawing parallels does seem, on the face of it, quite a neat exercise. But history, as it happens, is not neat at all — it is full of contradictions and paradoxes that cannot be lumped together. There are fundamental differences between both the plot and the principal actors in the present dilemma facing the US and the one that it faced in 1946.

At present, a quid pro quo policy towards Pakistan seems to be dysfunctional at best. A campaign to build public pressure on Pakistan through controlled leaks to the international press has not yielded much fruit, nor has the Pakistani military yielded to the suspension of the $ 800 million military aid; the army, in a recent corps commanders conference, shrugged off the punishment imposed by the US by largely ignoring it. While the carrot and the stick both seem to be ineffective, revisiting the experience with the Soviet Union might seem like an easy policy solution for the US. But it is not. Dialogue is still a better option.

The reality is that Pakistan is an immediate neighbour of Afghanistan, sharing with it a 1,610 miles long porous border — and a foreseeable long future too. Moreover, Pakistan has a larger Pashtun population than Afghanistan itself. While the US is looking for cooperation from Pakistan in view of its short-term objectives — those of troop withdrawal and Obama’s re-election — Pakistan on the other hand has to deal with Afghanistan for the long haul. It is the failure to recognise the fact that Pakistan has a genuine interest in the endgame in Afghanistan that has led to the present stalemate. A solution to this stalemate is the reconciliation of American short-term objectives with Pakistan’s long-term relationship with the Afghans. And such a solution can only be arrived at with negotiated give-and-take from both sides. But, at the same time, Pakistan must also shun the manner in which it deals with the US — a now obsolete routine that has an aura of duplicity. The Pakistani leadership should come clean with the US, telling it clearly what they can and cannot do.

Containment, however, should be left to the books of American history students.

The writer is a consultant with the Centre for International Media Ethics and a freelance writer. He can be reached at talhajalal@hotmail.com

 

[muse]

Context


Looking towards East: Spy chief on a mission to Beijing
By Kamran Yousaf
Published: August 1, 2011



ISLAMABAD: As military ties with the United States continued to sour, the head of Pakistan’s leading intelligence agency flew to Beijing on a secret trip that is seen as part of Islamabad’s wider efforts to reduce its dependence on Washington and open a “broad-based strategic dialogue” with Beijing.

The visit by Lt Gen Ahmed Shuja Pasha, chief of the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), comes just weeks after a trip by another senior Pakistani military commander to Beijing and on the heels of the sudden departure of the US Central Intelligence Agency’s (CIA) station chief in Islamabad.

Last month Lt Gen Wahid Arshad, the Chief of General Staff, undertook a week-long trip to China to discuss what the officials in Islamabad described as “the option of a strategic dialogue between the two countries on the pattern of the engagement between Pakistan and the United States.”

“General Pasha was due to leave for Beijing on Sunday evening,” disclosed a security official requesting anonymity. He would not give further details of his itinerary nor the exact nature of his trip.

The ISI has refused to confirm or deny the visit.

When approached, a senior official of the intelligence agency told The Express Tribune that such visits are classified and he cannot offer any comment on it.

The back-to-back trips by senior military and intelligence officials to China are believed to be necessitated by the simmering tensions between Pakistan and the US.

It comes amidst reports of a fresh row between Islamabad and Washington over the Pakistan government’s new restrictions on the movements of US diplomats in Pakistan and the unexpected departure of the CIA station chief.

American media reports claim that the undercover CIA station chief in Islamabad left Pakistan abruptly, ostensibly ‘on medical grounds.’ However, some reports indicate his sudden departure was part of the ongoing tension between the ISI and CIA. In recent weeks, Pakistan’s security establishment launched a crackdown against the ‘private CIA network’ and attempted to restrict the movement of American intelligence operatives in the country following the US midnight raid in Abbottabad to kill Osama bin Laden on May 2.

The outgoing CIA officer was believed to have played a central role in tracking down the world’s most wanted man.

US and Pakistani officials told the American news channel ABC they hoped the station chief’s departure would pave the way for smoother ties between the CIA and Pakistan’s ISI intelligence agency, noting the departing officer had an “extremely tense” relationship with his counterparts in the ISI.

Yet Pakistani officials continue to look to Beijing, a historical ally of Islamabad and increasingly looked upon as the rising power in Asia.

“China is our long-term partner and we have very close cooperation and consultation with them on all major issues including the ongoing tension with the US,” said a military official. He said China believes in ‘quiet diplomacy’ and that was one of the reasons that Pasha’s visit was being kept under wraps.

The official said the Chinese leadership had offered Pakistan a broad-based strategic dialogue in order to help the country meet its growing needs in energy, defence, and other important fields. The move is part of a long-term plan to minimise dependence on the US, he added.

However, another official said enhanced strategic partnership with China does not necessarily mean that “we want any confrontation with the US.”

“At present we heavily rely on the US military hardware … the Americans are the main suppliers of artillery, gunships and our air defence system,” he said. “The Chinese contribution is also increasing but we cannot afford a complete breakdown of our relationship with the US.”

 

[VCheng]

May be things are not as bad as they seem.

from: US urges Pakistan to help revive Silk Road | Newspaper | DAWN.COM

WASHINGTON: The new US strategy for South and Central Asia sees Pakistan as a useful partner in a new Silk Road that links the two regions, says the State Department.

Briefing journalists on the fourth core group meeting in Islamabad this week, the department’s spokesman Mark Toner made it clear that the US considered Pakistan strategically vital but stressed the need for Islamabad to gel with the regional economy.

The core group represents the US, Pakistan and Afghanistan, the countries that are expected to play a crucial role in ending the Afghan conflict. The United States sent its special envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, Mark Grossman, to Islamabad for the meeting.

While in Islamabad, Ambassador Grossman met the core group to discuss “the process of Afghan-led reconciliation, as well as regional economic development along the vision of the new Silk Road that Secretary Clinton laid out in Chennai,” Mr Toner said.

During a visit to Chennai last month, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton urged India to work with other regional states to revive the Silk Road.

“Historically, the nations of South and Central Asia were connected to each other and the rest of the continent by a sprawling trading network called the Silk Road,” she said.

“Indian merchants used to trade spices, gems, and textiles, along with ideas and culture, everywhere from the Great Wall of China to the banks of the Bosporus. Let’s work together to create a new Silk Road.”

Pakistan links South and Central Asia and there can be no land trade between the two regions without Pakistan’s participation.

The State Department’s spokesman said that Ambassador Grossman had “a very productive set of meetings” in Islamabad on both issues: the Afghan reconciliation process and the revival of the new Silk Road.

Besides attending the core group meetings, Ambassador Grossman also held meetings with President Asif Ali Zardari, Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani, Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar, Foreign Secretary Salman Bashir, Army Chief Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, and ISI chief Lt-Gen Shuja Pasha, the State Department said.

“In his meetings, in general, the two sides reaffirmed their commitment to the shared interest of our two countries, and acting on those interests in a joint way,” the spokesman said.

“We have said all along that we recognise that there are challenges in our relationship with Pakistan, but it’s in our strategic – both country’s strategic interest to work through those challenges and to build a long-term partnership.”

Mr Toner, however, refused to answer questions on drone attacks, saying he would not address that issue at all.

Responding to a question about the next round of the US-Pakistan strategic dialogue, which was scheduled in April but has not yet been held, the US official said he had nothing to announce.

The US, however, has continued to engage Pakistani officials on a number of levels.

Initially, it was the arrest of a CIA contractor in Lahore that caused the first delay but the dialogue was postponed indefinitely after the May 2 raid that killed Osama bin Laden.