The Pak-US Relationship
- Thread starter Interceptor
- Start date
Energon
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2007
- Messages
- 1,077
- Reaction score
- 0
Just to clarify upon this point (which IMO has always resulted in misunderstanding and subsequent hostility)....
1. Back Channel diplomacy isn't and shouldn't be equated to conventional/recognized/official modes of diplomacy. This however does not mean that the former method of diplomacy is any less potent. Given the premise of this thread and the involvement of the US or international mediation in an official capacity, I was referring to traditional diplomacy. Terrorism is a game stopper when it comes to official international diplomatic exchanges. Sorry for not having clarified this earlier.
2. Just because there are/were talks doesn't mean there will/was going to be a delivery of the final product. There has always been a propensity to over exaggerate the "near misses" in chronic conflict situations without taking into account some of the core problems which always seem to remain constant.
3. "Pull the plug" axiom (as I've heard a Pakistani expert aptly put it). There was always a tacit understanding in Indo-Pak back channel negotiations that the PA could always "pull the plug" and arrest the terrorism/militancy at will. This fundamental concept was factored into the Musharraf negotiations as well (who had a lot of credibility in regards to this as a military dictator). But as it turns out, this rudimentary assumption isn't really feasible afterall, not because Musharraf didn't want it to be, or that he didn't try; but rather because he couldn't(this of course is a different topic altogether which I'll address at another time).
I personally support the theory that back channel negotiations are the only way to go, not standard diplomatic exchanges (which is also the approach the Obama administration has taken). That they have always been involved in such occult and "off the books" negotiations through thick and thin isn't indicative of anything by itself; it is rather a byproduct of certain cultural quirks that both societies share. This however does not guarantee that there will be a resolution to anything. Uncontrolled militancy that poses an imminentthreat to India and probably an existential threat to Pakistan is the only real impediment here, and only Pakistan has the ability to address this issue for themselves. Attempts to tack it on to foreign policy requirements of other states is not going to work, and will most probably result in a colossal disaster.
This is a misnomer.
1. GoI has only resisted official dialogue with international mediation.
2. India is just as eager to get over with this issue as Pakistan is, and there's already an end result model that has been formulated to meet the requirements of both parties.
3. I don't know if you're referring to cross border terrorism as "pressure"; but even if that is the case, it will no longer work in Pakistan's favor. India's primary motivator behind the Kashmir settlement is economics. Cross border terrorism, which is an extension of uncontrolled terrorism in Pakistan is now a definitively prohibitive factor because it directly affects the more important aspect of said economics.
Sorry have to run, this post might come off as incoherent and cryptic... but Ill elaborate a bit more later
ARTICLE (May 07 2009): Imagine you are the head of a sovereign state. You have been invited to visit another country by its head. A week before your visit, the head of the government in that country tells the whole world that your government is extremely fragile, that it is not able to gain the support and loyalty of the people of your country, that your government's hold on power was weak because it could not provide basic services to the people, including education, health care and a widely accepted system of law and judicial administration.
Leaving feelings aside, what would you do in a scenario of this kind? Would you ignore the inopportune and discourteous broadside? Would you lodge a strong protest? Would you recall your ambassador? Would you call off the visit? Side by side with this belittling of Pakistan's civilian authority by the US, there are signs of extolling the military, through both official and formal, as well as informal channels.
Almost every visit abroad by the President or Prime Minister is followed by a visit by the Army Chief Kayani. Probably the foreign ministers and heads of state get more sense out of him than from the confused set of our political leaders and government functionaries, many of whom were chosen without considerations of merit and experience any way.
Contacts between the US army people (General Petraeus for example) and General Kayani have been on the increase. General Petraeus is reported to be seeking a special budget allocation of $400 million for a new "Pakistan Counterinsurgency Capability Fund" (PCCF) for the rest of 2009 with an additional $700 million for 2010, which would be channelled directly through US Central Command.
This scheme is in addition to and distinct from Foreign Military Financing funds and will be a military to military affair. A news headline of last Saturday reads "Pentagon seeks wartime powers for dealing with Pakistan". Under the proposal "the US Central Command will have the same unfettered authority in its dealings with Pakistan as it enjoys in the combat zones of Iraq and Afghanistan". This is hair-raising.
Is any one here bothered or even knowledgeable about the implications? The first question that comes to mind is whether Obama's remarks were chance, off-the-cuff remarks, and not the result of careful, calculated foresight on the subject.
This reminds me of the "chance" meeting President Musharraf had with Israel's Prime Minister Sharon (the butcher of Schattila) during a United Nations gathering, when Musharraf walked up to Sharon to shake hands. When asked about the "chance" meeting later, Sharon quipped "with me there is nothing by chance" or words to that effect.
So much for the "chance" remark theory! Question two is did President Obama take into account the possibility that his remarks might lead to calling off of the visit or may be sour relations to the extent that the visit may not yield any results. Here again it would be naïve to think that Obama did not consider the possibility. Most likely he did and reached the conclusion that the President of Pakistan was in no position to take a drastic step in response.
MONEY, MONEY AND MORE MONEY In the first place, whenever President Zardari talks to America, he ends up asking for more money, more than anything else. Total dependence on America for the very survival of Pakistan as a viable state is evidenced by his statements about the relationship between the two countries. Our policies and actions indicate an attitude towards our "great ally" no less servile than those under Musharraf.
There is no indication that the government is working on any contingency plan to deal with a situation of sudden and total cut off of "aid" (actually mainly interest bearing loans) due to whatever reason. In this situation President Obama may be forgiven for thinking that America can walk rough shod over Pakistan (a country of 180 million people) or its government, without the risk of a strong unpleasant (for US) reaction.
The question is, need US-Pak relations be really so lop-sided? If we need America to help us get out of the financial mess we have landed ourselves into, over the decades, under successive governments, does not America (presently reeling under its own financial crisis which is playing havoc with its economy) need us as badly, to get out of the mess of its own creation in Afghanistan?
Can it do without the supply lines to its increasing troop count in that country - supply lines that pass through this country for which there is no viable alternative? Can America fight the Taliban in Afghanistan (whose government it toppled in the wake of the 9/11 disaster) or at least make an "honourable" exit without active support - logistic, manpower and intelligence - from Pakistan?
Can it afford to lose us as an active partner in its war in Afghanistan? If it cannot - and it is certain that it cannot - why do we need to be so servile in dealing with our great "ally" in the west?
Those wretched people who continue to desperately defend our foreign policy vis-à-vis America in TV discussions frequently come up with the rhetorical question: can we fight America? The "logic" behind the question is, since we cannot, so you must do whatever America tells you to do. These people cannot see any thing but black and white. The short answer to them would be: go say that to Iran, to Cuba, to Venezuela, to North Korea!
An interesting theory going round which seeks to explain Obama's attack on the government in Pakistan is that Zardari had reneged on a secret agreement he had with US and Obama showed his displeasure by his unusual verbal onslaught.
Ominous prophecy Right on the heels of Obama's discourteous statement, came an ominous prophecy from the increasingly interfering US Central Command chief David Petraeus that "if militants were not defeated within the next few weeks, the Pakistani government may collapse".
The cold water being thus thrown on the aspirations of our rulers makes one wonder what the great idea behind it might be. As expected, there followed damage control statements from Holbrooke, saying America has full confidence in Pak civilian government. This doublespeak, this hypocrisy is despicable, to say the least. But it is unfortunate that there is no one to tell it to the Americans.
And this is not the first time. Less than two weeks ago Secretary of State Clinton alleged that the Pakistani Government was abdicating to the Taliban and other militants and that "nuclear-armed Pakistan was becoming a mortal threat to the world". A few days later she came out with a retraction of sorts apportioning part of the blame for the mess in Afghanistan to America's non-action for several years.
As we write this, in yet another doublespeak, Holbrooke (emerging as the main damage limiting expert for the US) has sought to assure the civilian set up in Pakistan that US is fully behind the civilian government and has no intention of supporting military rule in Pakistan and that the US goal "must be to support and help stabilise a democratic Pakistan headed by its elected president, Asif Ali Zardari".
Will the damage done to the present civilian set up in Pakistan by the scathing attack on it by the President of the United States of America, be rectified by this retraction of sorts by only the US especial envoy, is a moot point. While the President lay low, the Prime Minister took it upon himself to counter Obama and in an indirect swipe at US said his government had been in power for only one year, while Washington tolerated General Musharraf's non-democratic regime for nine years.
That was good tit for tat. But the fact is that it is difficult to disagree with Obama's assessment that that the civilian government in Pakistan is fragile. It is another matter that a considerable part of the fragility can be traced to our "partnership" with Mr Obama's country.
As for the "only one year" of civilian rule in the PM's statement, one is aghast at how many blunders and missteps were committed by our civilian government in that "only one year". The list is long, vexing and exasperating in the extreme.
Starting with reneging on written agreements with other parties, poor handling of the Mumbai incident and of Indian air force intrusions into our territory, hurriedly taken decisions recanted soon in a volte-face, resisting tooth and nail the popular and just demand for restoration of illegally deposed judiciary and later succumbing to pressure to agree to the demand, allegedly putting together a docile judiciary to get the decisions of one's choice, dragging one's feet on the issue of restoring the power of the parliament, antagonising the major allied political party by (allegedly) illegally dismissing its provincial government, by highly partisan policies defying democratic norms, inducting huge unwieldy cabinets, adopting lavish life styles, travelling around in chartered planes with large entourages as political favour, appointment of incompetent cronies to positions of high responsibility, over concern for (prohibitively expensive) self security by President down, are some of the reasons why the government under President Zardari has lost much ground already and continues to slide by the month. (owajid@yahoo.com)
Friday, May 08, 2009
WASHINGTON: The US Congress Committee has approved $1.9 billion in additional assistance to Pakistan, Islamabad ambassador to Washington Hussain Haqqani said on Friday.
Speaking to media persons here, Haqqani said: The United States wants enduring bilateral ties with Pakistan.
Terming the approval of $1.9 billion by the US committee a great success, he said that it was a proof that America wants better relations with Islamabad.
We have told the US that no compromise will be made on the countrys sovereignty,
WASHINGTON: The US Congress Committee has approved $1.9 billion in additional assistance to Pakistan, Islamabad ambassador to Washington Hussain Haqqani said on Friday.
Speaking to media persons here, Haqqani said: The United States wants enduring bilateral ties with Pakistan.
Terming the approval of $1.9 billion by the US committee a great success, he said that it was a proof that America wants better relations with Islamabad.
We have told the US that no compromise will be made on the countrys sovereignty,
US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton made a speech at an American think tank, complaining of incoherence in Washingtons policy towards Pakistan. This has elicited one-sided comment in Pakistan. The point raised by Ms Clinton pertained to Americas traditional no friendship or enmity is permanent foreign policy shibboleth which also underpins its cut and run practice in military operations abroad. She appealed for more coherence of policy towards Pakistan, indicating the seriousness of President Obamas policy approach to Pakistan.
The comment in Pakistan, correctly arrived at, ran along familiar lines, but needs to be balanced for the sake of Pakistans own correctness of vision. One comment went as follows: Pakistan and the United States have ostensibly been allies since the early days of the Cold War. America has pumped billions into this country in the form of cash and weapons and we, in turn, have readily done its bidding, most notably during the fight against the Soviets in Afghanistan. The US also bankrolled the Musharraf regime in the years following 9/11, a time marked by impressive economic growth and a skin-deep sense of prosperity.
While not quarrelling with the above assessment, one can add some insights for the sake of balance and as guidelines to any future policy planning in Pakistan. It is unwise to describe the Cold War equation between the US and Pakistan as the former pumping in money and the latter doing its bidding. Pakistan went into a relationship with the US with pragmatism, unlike what most critics think. It was pitted against India and had had its first war with it the year it was born. In the Cold War, which had just begun, India had clearly chosen not to side with the US against the Soviet Union.
Many people favour the left wing analysis of how unfairly Pakistans first prime minister, Mr Liaquat Ali Khan, went to the US on a state visit when he should have gone to the USSR. But if you look at the fruits of this relationship in the ensuing years of the Cold War, it was a good foreign policy decision, if foreign policy is to be based on the self-interest of the state and not on passions. Pakistan was nurturing a nationalism based on a fear of India, whereas America was nurturing a nationalism based on fear of the USSR. The bilateral equation was carried forward on a complex reconciliation of these two fears. Pakistan did not do Americas bidding blindly; it relentlessly pursued its India-centred objectives. It is another matter whether this was a wise long-term objective or not.
The basis of the relationship was not in any values. Pakistan, as the politically unstable revisionist state veered to military rule and Islamisation. At the best of times, American think tanks and Congress voiced opinions highly critical of Pakistan which Pakistani politicians at times take as official opinion but Cold War exigencies prevailed over principle. When the USSR sent its army into Afghanistan, the process of US-Pakistan mutual disenchantment was at its peak. Pakistan was broke after the Bhutto interregnum of democracy and General Zia-ul Haq saw his patrons in the Middle East spoiling for a jihad that would rain dollars on Pakistan. He went into Afghanistan because of a confluence of policy with the US. And he got big money for it too.
One cant fault General Zia for this realistic decision. And in the end he hardly did Americas bidding. What Pakistan got out of it was its nuclear bomb, hardly a result of the supineness that policy critics often bemoan. In fact if you look closely, it is Pakistan which appears to be milking the US constantly. General Pervez Musharraf did the same sort of thing to the US. There was no money in the kitty after a decade of unstable democracy; and the dollars poured in when he joined the war on terror but drew a line when asked to send troops to Iraq in 2003.
The US-Pakistan relationship has endured because both have needed each other. There is hardly any incoherence in that. There have been vicissitudes in it because one has global worries to take care of, and the other is regionally obsessed with India. Without reference to the US, it is for Pakistan to meditate over its single-item foreign policy: can it go on risking its survival by following an uncreative and imitative approach to its big neighbour, India.
WASHINGTON (May 22 2009): A US congressional committee Wednesday approved an aid package for Pakistan but more political dealing was expected amid controversy over the conditions it imposes on Islamabad. The House Foreign Affairs Committee approved a plan to triple US aid to 1.5 billion dollars annually through the 2013 fiscal year, with a focus on development including improving education.
US President Barack Obama has endorsed plans to ramp up aid to Pakistan, hoping it will boost his administration's key goal of rooting out extremism both in the nuclear-armed Islamic nation and neighbouring Afghanistan. But lawmakers will still need to reach a compromise as a bill before the Senate would similarly step up assistance but without imposing the same level of conditions.
The House bill would require a detailed account of spending and seek proof that Pakistan is clamping down on al Qaeda and Taliban militants - including ending alleged support to extremists by rogue intelligence elements. Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari's government has bristled at such conditions, saying they were politically unfeasible at a time that many in his country were already suspicious of US intentions.
Howard Berman, chairman of the House committee, rejected the criticism, saying the bill allowed flexibility if it was impossible to ascertain Pakistan's actions. "Contrary to what some have said, these are not 'rigid' or 'inflexible' conditions," Berman said. He said the bill would "strengthen the critical US-Pakistan relationship and support US national security objectives in South Asia."
John Kerry, who heads the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said earlier this month after meeting Zardari that the two chambers of Congress would finalise the bill quickly. The United States on Tuesday offered a separate 110 million dollars in emergency aid to Pakistan to help civilians fleeing a major military offensive against militants.
RabzonKhan
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2008
- Messages
- 4,289
- Reaction score
- 3
- Country
- Location
Can U.S. Aid Win the War in Pakistan?
Many U.S. Officials Admit That Their Aid Has Created Little Goodwill Among Pakistanis
By NICK SCHIFRIN
DADAR, Pakistan, May 28, 2009
If you ask the man with the white beard behind the small store counter here, the one selling bowls of homemade ice cream to children eagerly waving their rupees in the midday sun, all the United States needs to do to reverse rampant anti-Americanism in Pakistan is provide a little milk.
It goes without saying that the $5,000 grant Badr-ul Islam received from the United States to buy refrigerators for his fledging dairy business is an infinitesimally small portion of the $11 billion in military and humanitarian aid the United States has given this country since 9/11.
And yet many U.S. officials admit their money, much of which has disappeared or been spent on the Pakistani military, has created little goodwill among average Pakistanis. Indeed, Pakistanis who describe themselves as pro-American do so only privately these days, and say they are shocked by the level of venom spewed toward the United States in private and in the media.
So the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) escorted an ABC News team into this beautiful mountain town to show off the other side of U.S. investment in Pakistan: about $200 million for the area hit by the devastating 2005 Kashmir earthquake, which killed 70,000 people. In total, USAID, which oversees most non-military foreign aid, has invested $3.4 billion to help develop Pakistan.
Here, among the lush hills and the bumpy roads and the buildings still lying in rubble, the United States hopes rebuilding schools, creating agriculture projects, assisting medical centers -- even giving grants for refrigerators -- can do more to win over locals than any amount of military aid can do. It hopes that its investments here help fill a vacuum of poor education and governance that militants in Pakistan often exploit.
It is a hope that the U.S. embassy in Islamabad also tried to deliver today, when it announced it would spend an additional $26.6 million to help those displaced by the ongoing war in the Northwest Frontier Province.
Pakistan launched that war against the Taliban more than a month ago in part because of U.S. pressure to crack down on fighters roaming freely a few hours from the capital. Pakistan's government has called it a war for the country's "existence," but the war has also created the country's largest humanitarian crisis in Pakistan in more than 60 years.
Destroyed Homes, Disappearing Aid, Drone Strikes Anger Pakistanis
About 2.4 million people have fled their homes since late April, according to the United Nations, and many have little food or water and are at risk of disease in sprawling, sizzling tent camps. On a visit to one of those camps, the U.S. ambassador to Pakistan, Anne Patterson, was asked if the battle had been worth the suffering.
"It is certainly true that an ongoing government military operation contributed to this situation," she said. :But it is also crucial to remember the reasons for that operation. The alternative is living a life under fear and intimidation by extremists who would rule without justice or compassion. They have shown no mercy and no morality to the citizens. Flogging, beheading, and cold blooded murder has been their way of life. Children like those in this camp deserve better futures than those offered by terrorists."
It is those futures that critics of U.S. policy in Pakistan accuse the United States of failing to provide when it gave then president and Army Chief Gen. Pervez Musharraf billions of dollars to spend, largely at his discretion.
For lack of any other visible presence these days, most Pakistanis associate a single policy with the United States: CIA-sponsored drone attacks along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border.
Those attacks have killed at least 10 of a continuously refilled list of 20 senior al Qaeda and Taliban leaders, U.S. officials say. But they have also caused civilian casualties and are like kryptonite for Pakistan's democratic government, pushing the story line that Pakistan is fighting the Taliban because it's the United States' war rather than its own.
As Qudratullah Khan, a farmer in the Kurram tribal agency, recently told a visiting cameraman during an anti-U.S. protest: "This is not against the Taliban," he said of the drone strikes. "They are killing our innocent children."
Where USAID Has Succeeded in Winning Hearts and Minds
In Mansera, the people benefiting directly from U.S. assistance sing a very different song when it comes to the United States.
The Government Centennial Model High School in Dadar, one of the largest schools in the Mansera district, was mostly destroyed by the earthquake. Pictures from the day after the quake show a crumbled building, its roof fallen in on itself. One student was killed and more than a dozen injured, according to Mohammad Irfan, who was the school's principal during the earthquake.
Today, the school is full of shiny new buildings, one of which displays a large USAID plaque. Irfan said he is proud to have received U.S. help.
"We were destroyed; we were ruined at that time," he said of the days immediately after the earthquake. "Now, we feel very, very happy with America. We now feel long live America, long live USA, long live Pakistan."
U.S. officials point out that education is particularly important here, in Pakistan's volatile Northwest Frontier Province, where the majority of attacks against the security forces take place. The literacy rate in the Northwest has been estimated at about 50 percent, although that number is closer to 20 percent among women, according to the Ministry of Education.
One of the other priorities here has been health. Down the road from the high school, the Basic Health Unit at Koti Bali sees dozens of patients a day. It, too, was largely destroyed in the earthquake, and the adjacent building where some of the staff used to sleep still hasn't been fixed.
The United States helped invest hundreds of thousands of dollars in the facility, which is the only location to offer preventative care in an area of 25,000 people. The head doctor trains nurses to help educate a community where diarrhea can be a major killer and fewer than half of all children are immunized. During a recent visit, of the six people who walked through the front door, all were women, and five had recently given birth. They received free vaccines for their babies.
"The government does not have the capacity to give all the things required over here," said Dr. Javeria Swati, the health services technical advisor for Pride, the non-governmental organization that spends USAID's money on health in this area. "They are doing what they can to their extent, but they need support in that."
USAID's efforts in Pakistan has its critics. Greg Mortenson, a Nobel peace prize nominee who has spent much of the past 15 years of his life building schools in Kashmir and in eastern Afghanistan, criticizes the agency as bloated and "overstretched." He said he can build a school in Pakistan for a fraction of what USAID spends.
But U.S. officials defend their efforts and say there is a larger point: That even if some of their money is spent ineffectively, the public sees that they're trying, and that's what convinces them to support the United States.
For Badr-ul Islam, the dairy seller, it's as simple as this: The U.S. has directly affected his life for the better.
"The people who oppose America," he said, "they should see how they've helped me. And they will change their minds."
Many U.S. Officials Admit That Their Aid Has Created Little Goodwill Among Pakistanis
By NICK SCHIFRIN
DADAR, Pakistan, May 28, 2009
If you ask the man with the white beard behind the small store counter here, the one selling bowls of homemade ice cream to children eagerly waving their rupees in the midday sun, all the United States needs to do to reverse rampant anti-Americanism in Pakistan is provide a little milk.
It goes without saying that the $5,000 grant Badr-ul Islam received from the United States to buy refrigerators for his fledging dairy business is an infinitesimally small portion of the $11 billion in military and humanitarian aid the United States has given this country since 9/11.
And yet many U.S. officials admit their money, much of which has disappeared or been spent on the Pakistani military, has created little goodwill among average Pakistanis. Indeed, Pakistanis who describe themselves as pro-American do so only privately these days, and say they are shocked by the level of venom spewed toward the United States in private and in the media.
So the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) escorted an ABC News team into this beautiful mountain town to show off the other side of U.S. investment in Pakistan: about $200 million for the area hit by the devastating 2005 Kashmir earthquake, which killed 70,000 people. In total, USAID, which oversees most non-military foreign aid, has invested $3.4 billion to help develop Pakistan.
Here, among the lush hills and the bumpy roads and the buildings still lying in rubble, the United States hopes rebuilding schools, creating agriculture projects, assisting medical centers -- even giving grants for refrigerators -- can do more to win over locals than any amount of military aid can do. It hopes that its investments here help fill a vacuum of poor education and governance that militants in Pakistan often exploit.
It is a hope that the U.S. embassy in Islamabad also tried to deliver today, when it announced it would spend an additional $26.6 million to help those displaced by the ongoing war in the Northwest Frontier Province.
Pakistan launched that war against the Taliban more than a month ago in part because of U.S. pressure to crack down on fighters roaming freely a few hours from the capital. Pakistan's government has called it a war for the country's "existence," but the war has also created the country's largest humanitarian crisis in Pakistan in more than 60 years.
Destroyed Homes, Disappearing Aid, Drone Strikes Anger Pakistanis
About 2.4 million people have fled their homes since late April, according to the United Nations, and many have little food or water and are at risk of disease in sprawling, sizzling tent camps. On a visit to one of those camps, the U.S. ambassador to Pakistan, Anne Patterson, was asked if the battle had been worth the suffering.
"It is certainly true that an ongoing government military operation contributed to this situation," she said. :But it is also crucial to remember the reasons for that operation. The alternative is living a life under fear and intimidation by extremists who would rule without justice or compassion. They have shown no mercy and no morality to the citizens. Flogging, beheading, and cold blooded murder has been their way of life. Children like those in this camp deserve better futures than those offered by terrorists."
It is those futures that critics of U.S. policy in Pakistan accuse the United States of failing to provide when it gave then president and Army Chief Gen. Pervez Musharraf billions of dollars to spend, largely at his discretion.
For lack of any other visible presence these days, most Pakistanis associate a single policy with the United States: CIA-sponsored drone attacks along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border.
Those attacks have killed at least 10 of a continuously refilled list of 20 senior al Qaeda and Taliban leaders, U.S. officials say. But they have also caused civilian casualties and are like kryptonite for Pakistan's democratic government, pushing the story line that Pakistan is fighting the Taliban because it's the United States' war rather than its own.
As Qudratullah Khan, a farmer in the Kurram tribal agency, recently told a visiting cameraman during an anti-U.S. protest: "This is not against the Taliban," he said of the drone strikes. "They are killing our innocent children."
Where USAID Has Succeeded in Winning Hearts and Minds
In Mansera, the people benefiting directly from U.S. assistance sing a very different song when it comes to the United States.
The Government Centennial Model High School in Dadar, one of the largest schools in the Mansera district, was mostly destroyed by the earthquake. Pictures from the day after the quake show a crumbled building, its roof fallen in on itself. One student was killed and more than a dozen injured, according to Mohammad Irfan, who was the school's principal during the earthquake.
Today, the school is full of shiny new buildings, one of which displays a large USAID plaque. Irfan said he is proud to have received U.S. help.
"We were destroyed; we were ruined at that time," he said of the days immediately after the earthquake. "Now, we feel very, very happy with America. We now feel long live America, long live USA, long live Pakistan."
U.S. officials point out that education is particularly important here, in Pakistan's volatile Northwest Frontier Province, where the majority of attacks against the security forces take place. The literacy rate in the Northwest has been estimated at about 50 percent, although that number is closer to 20 percent among women, according to the Ministry of Education.
One of the other priorities here has been health. Down the road from the high school, the Basic Health Unit at Koti Bali sees dozens of patients a day. It, too, was largely destroyed in the earthquake, and the adjacent building where some of the staff used to sleep still hasn't been fixed.
The United States helped invest hundreds of thousands of dollars in the facility, which is the only location to offer preventative care in an area of 25,000 people. The head doctor trains nurses to help educate a community where diarrhea can be a major killer and fewer than half of all children are immunized. During a recent visit, of the six people who walked through the front door, all were women, and five had recently given birth. They received free vaccines for their babies.
"The government does not have the capacity to give all the things required over here," said Dr. Javeria Swati, the health services technical advisor for Pride, the non-governmental organization that spends USAID's money on health in this area. "They are doing what they can to their extent, but they need support in that."
USAID's efforts in Pakistan has its critics. Greg Mortenson, a Nobel peace prize nominee who has spent much of the past 15 years of his life building schools in Kashmir and in eastern Afghanistan, criticizes the agency as bloated and "overstretched." He said he can build a school in Pakistan for a fraction of what USAID spends.
But U.S. officials defend their efforts and say there is a larger point: That even if some of their money is spent ineffectively, the public sees that they're trying, and that's what convinces them to support the United States.
For Badr-ul Islam, the dairy seller, it's as simple as this: The U.S. has directly affected his life for the better.
"The people who oppose America," he said, "they should see how they've helped me. And they will change their minds."
By Brian Cloughley
undefined Pakistan and America have different problems concerning terrorism. And one of the greatest problems is the arrogant presumption by Washington that Islamabad must do as it is told
The American General David Petraeus said last week that anti-US sentiment has been increasing in Pakistan, and that if more of the appalling photographs of torture of US-held prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan were released by the Pentagon to be seen by the world, then loathing would become even more intense.
He is right about the level of anti-American feeling, and acknowledged that 63 percent of Pakistanis still oppose cooperating with US counter-terror operations. It is doubtful, however, that release of another batch of pictures showing American soldiers subjecting people to the most hideous indignities would raise that percentage by much.
But nobody can blame anyone in Pakistan for objecting strongly to the fact that American counter-terror operations involve illegal attacks on the sovereign territory of Pakistan that have killed so many women and children.
US Predator or Reaper drones firing Hellfire missiles (what saliva-dribbling, wild-eyed, mentally warped whiz kid thinks up these names?) have eradicated a dozen or so militant leaders. Some of the hundreds killed were foot soldiers, and probably included some apprentice boy-bombers being instructed in the irreligious art of killing by committing suicide, and other people without whose presence the world will certainly benefit. But by far the greatest number killed were ordinary tribesmen and members of their families. Scores of women and children have died. Nobody can deny that America was responsible for their deaths.
Naturally, the indignation of the citizens of Pakistan has been increased by the manner in which their country is treated by Washington. Let us face the fact that the average educated Punjabi (or Sindhi, Kashmiri or Baloch) doesnt care greatly about the inhabitants of the tribal areas. And the average illiterate citizen, of whom there are far too many, doesnt care, either, because he or she has quite enough personal problems, involving day-to-day survival, to even think about affairs in the northwest of the country.
But both educated and illiterate citizens of Pakistan are now aware that Americans have been killing innocent Pakistanis.
Is it surprising that they disapprove of the fact that their fellow citizens are being blown to pieces by foreigners?
America was grief-stricken and furious following the death of some 3000 people in the terror attacks in New York and Washington in September 2001. This was understandable. It was reasonable that US citizens would be vehemently resentful of the brutal assault on their nation, and most other countries joined them in their anger, because they considered that such atrocities were horrific, and understood Americas reaction.
But the understanding stops there because Washington doesnt, wont or cant understand that when nationals of a country other than America are killed in attacks by a foreign power then there is valid reason for that nations citizens to detest the country that attacks them.
The author Steve Coll, writing in the New Yorker last week, pronounced that Pakistans government, although it apparently facilitates the drone attacks in private finds it necessary to vocally oppose them in public, knowing how unpopular they are.
Mr Coll then delivered a penetrating observation about this state of affairs, in that Opportunism and hypocrisy hardly seem the foundation for a sustainable political-military partnership [in Pakistan] that breaks with the unhappy past.
Quite so: if it is indeed a fact that the US has successfully pressured the government of Pakistan to accede without objection to Predator attacks and cross-border forays by US special forces in Afghanistan, then there are some points to be considered.
If the government of Pakistan has colluded with Washington in killing Pakistani citizens, this would raise the question of whether or not it can properly claim to be representative of the people. The Constitution, after all, states that no action detrimental to the life, liberty, body, reputation or property of any person shall be taken except in accordance with the law. And it is clear that the killing of Pakistani citizens on their own soil by foreigners is illegal.
Not only that, but it is against the letter and spirit of the United Nations Charter, which is be regarded by some as a quaint and old-fashioned document but is, nevertheless, the nearest this horrible world has come to an international Constitution aimed at limiting conflict.
If India had attacked madrassas in eastern Pakistan with drone missiles or conventional air strikes, as appeared possible immediately after the Mumbai atrocities last year (and thank goodness Dr Manmohan Singh was prime minister; it might have been disastrous otherwise), there would have been furious reaction in Pakistan. There is little doubt that there would have been war. Pakistan could not have accepted an attack on its territory, no matter if the result had been eradication of some very nasty people.
Why accept attacks by US missiles when similar attacks by India would be regarded as supremely hostile action?
General Petraeus says that Pakistanis are angered by cross-border operations and reported drone strikes that they believe cause unacceptable civilian casualties. But if he considers this to be such a grave matter, why doesnt he say that the drone attacks must stop?
It is obvious to the general, and now to the US Congress to whom he was testifying, that severe damage has been done to US-Pakistan relations. If this is not to become even more counter-productive to the wars being waged by the US in Afghanistan and by Pakistan against fundamentalist loonies in its own country, then they must be stopped.
Make no mistake: the Pakistan Air Force is more than capable of shooting down drones, be they US or of any other nationality. The PAF has not been given orders to do so, although its radars automatically detect airspace violations. Is the government of Pakistan content to accept the continuing intrusion of drones that kill its citizens?
Pakistan and America have different problems concerning terrorism. And one of the greatest problems is the arrogant presumption by Washington that Islamabad must do as it is told.
undefined Pakistan and America have different problems concerning terrorism. And one of the greatest problems is the arrogant presumption by Washington that Islamabad must do as it is told
The American General David Petraeus said last week that anti-US sentiment has been increasing in Pakistan, and that if more of the appalling photographs of torture of US-held prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan were released by the Pentagon to be seen by the world, then loathing would become even more intense.
He is right about the level of anti-American feeling, and acknowledged that 63 percent of Pakistanis still oppose cooperating with US counter-terror operations. It is doubtful, however, that release of another batch of pictures showing American soldiers subjecting people to the most hideous indignities would raise that percentage by much.
But nobody can blame anyone in Pakistan for objecting strongly to the fact that American counter-terror operations involve illegal attacks on the sovereign territory of Pakistan that have killed so many women and children.
US Predator or Reaper drones firing Hellfire missiles (what saliva-dribbling, wild-eyed, mentally warped whiz kid thinks up these names?) have eradicated a dozen or so militant leaders. Some of the hundreds killed were foot soldiers, and probably included some apprentice boy-bombers being instructed in the irreligious art of killing by committing suicide, and other people without whose presence the world will certainly benefit. But by far the greatest number killed were ordinary tribesmen and members of their families. Scores of women and children have died. Nobody can deny that America was responsible for their deaths.
Naturally, the indignation of the citizens of Pakistan has been increased by the manner in which their country is treated by Washington. Let us face the fact that the average educated Punjabi (or Sindhi, Kashmiri or Baloch) doesnt care greatly about the inhabitants of the tribal areas. And the average illiterate citizen, of whom there are far too many, doesnt care, either, because he or she has quite enough personal problems, involving day-to-day survival, to even think about affairs in the northwest of the country.
But both educated and illiterate citizens of Pakistan are now aware that Americans have been killing innocent Pakistanis.
Is it surprising that they disapprove of the fact that their fellow citizens are being blown to pieces by foreigners?
America was grief-stricken and furious following the death of some 3000 people in the terror attacks in New York and Washington in September 2001. This was understandable. It was reasonable that US citizens would be vehemently resentful of the brutal assault on their nation, and most other countries joined them in their anger, because they considered that such atrocities were horrific, and understood Americas reaction.
But the understanding stops there because Washington doesnt, wont or cant understand that when nationals of a country other than America are killed in attacks by a foreign power then there is valid reason for that nations citizens to detest the country that attacks them.
The author Steve Coll, writing in the New Yorker last week, pronounced that Pakistans government, although it apparently facilitates the drone attacks in private finds it necessary to vocally oppose them in public, knowing how unpopular they are.
Mr Coll then delivered a penetrating observation about this state of affairs, in that Opportunism and hypocrisy hardly seem the foundation for a sustainable political-military partnership [in Pakistan] that breaks with the unhappy past.
Quite so: if it is indeed a fact that the US has successfully pressured the government of Pakistan to accede without objection to Predator attacks and cross-border forays by US special forces in Afghanistan, then there are some points to be considered.
If the government of Pakistan has colluded with Washington in killing Pakistani citizens, this would raise the question of whether or not it can properly claim to be representative of the people. The Constitution, after all, states that no action detrimental to the life, liberty, body, reputation or property of any person shall be taken except in accordance with the law. And it is clear that the killing of Pakistani citizens on their own soil by foreigners is illegal.
Not only that, but it is against the letter and spirit of the United Nations Charter, which is be regarded by some as a quaint and old-fashioned document but is, nevertheless, the nearest this horrible world has come to an international Constitution aimed at limiting conflict.
If India had attacked madrassas in eastern Pakistan with drone missiles or conventional air strikes, as appeared possible immediately after the Mumbai atrocities last year (and thank goodness Dr Manmohan Singh was prime minister; it might have been disastrous otherwise), there would have been furious reaction in Pakistan. There is little doubt that there would have been war. Pakistan could not have accepted an attack on its territory, no matter if the result had been eradication of some very nasty people.
Why accept attacks by US missiles when similar attacks by India would be regarded as supremely hostile action?
General Petraeus says that Pakistanis are angered by cross-border operations and reported drone strikes that they believe cause unacceptable civilian casualties. But if he considers this to be such a grave matter, why doesnt he say that the drone attacks must stop?
It is obvious to the general, and now to the US Congress to whom he was testifying, that severe damage has been done to US-Pakistan relations. If this is not to become even more counter-productive to the wars being waged by the US in Afghanistan and by Pakistan against fundamentalist loonies in its own country, then they must be stopped.
Make no mistake: the Pakistan Air Force is more than capable of shooting down drones, be they US or of any other nationality. The PAF has not been given orders to do so, although its radars automatically detect airspace violations. Is the government of Pakistan content to accept the continuing intrusion of drones that kill its citizens?
Pakistan and America have different problems concerning terrorism. And one of the greatest problems is the arrogant presumption by Washington that Islamabad must do as it is told.
Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani has asked the visiting US envoy for Pakistan and Afghanistan, Mr Richard Holbrooke, to convey his request to Washington for the writing-off of a $1.35 billion Pakistani debt to the United States. Mr Holbrookes response was that the US would look into the matter. Mr Gilani welcomed the $300 million additional American assistance to the refugees from Malakand-Swat and asked that the annual aid package of $1.5 billion be expedited.
From Mr Holbrookes remark that measures were being taken to accelerate military supplies to Pakistan one can infer that the American support to the Pakistan Army at this critical juncture is an important factor in Pak-US relations. Mr Gilani pointedly hoped that the major European and Muslim countries would follow the US lead and come up with timely assistance.
Pakistan is in dire straits with nearly three million refugees stranded after the military operation in Malakand Division. Most of them are being looked after on the basis of Pakhtunwali, the tribal code of hospitality, as hot-weather refugee camps cope unsteadily with people displaced from their cold-weather homes. Pakistans manufacturing economy is half-shut and maintaining macro-economic stability is difficult unless injections of assistance from outside keep coming.
The IMF stand-by arrangement and the Friends of Pakistan group of countries have come forth for Pakistan because of American persuasion. The share of the Muslim countries, especially the oil-rich Arab states, has been less than generous in this hour of need. The PPP government, confronted with fast declining economic indicators, had first approached its Arab friends for concessions on Pakistans oil payments; but with no notable success. And the European Union is not famous for shelling out bilateral money out of human sympathy.
How is one to interpret all this? After President Obamas Cairo University speech, most Pakistani comment was based on lack of trust and a fundamentally negative understanding of the United States. There were voices that condemned Pakistan for aligning itself with the enemy of the Muslims. Worse, some looked back on the past half-century of bilateral relations and saw only American perfidy in it. That is why the current reliance of Pakistan on US money will be seen by some political leaders as something that Pakistan will live to regret.
Yet, now as never before, the national consensus in Pakistan is that the Taliban have to be fought rather than talked to. This consensus has not prematurely sprung up from nowhere. People have seen the savagery with which the Taliban have treated innocent Pakistanis and continue to see such acts of sacrilege as blowing up people in the mosques through suicide-bombers shouting Allah-u Akbar. The Senate in Islamabad surprised everyone on Friday when a majority of the senators lashed out at the Taliban in front of the once-dominant pro-Taliban members.
What should we make of the still current TV and newspaper myth that the Taliban are indeed bad but they are an ally of the US and India? How should we understand the undying rhetoric that the US is interested only in setting India up as a regional hegemon with Pakistan meekly behaving as its satellite? Not long ago, the same sources who spread these analyses around loved the Taliban because they were fighting the American invasion.
The US remains realistic when it says it is helping Pakistan in pursuit of its own national interest. Why shouldnt Pakistan follow the same realistic principle if it finds it impossible to overcome the current xenophobic environment? Some experts on TV channels keep insisting that Pakistan has enough hidden wealth that it can tap by squeezing its rich classes. Others put honour above economics and ask for martyrdom in the war against America.
But the truth is that after the dust of passions settles down the national economy gets the upper hand. To avoid getting the last fatal judgement pronounced by the economy, Pakistan must mend its fences in the region where it is located and join any power in the world that is willing to help it defeat the Taliban. A close look at the actual strength of these enemies of the Pakistani state tells us that Pakistan will not be able to fight them alone.
Nuclear Weapons give you security only. Rest you have to earn the hard way.
Last edited by a moderator:
RabzonKhan
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2008
- Messages
- 4,289
- Reaction score
- 3
- Country
- Location
IDPs an opportunity for America and Pakistan
June 11, 2009
* US congressman says scorched Earth campaign risks undoing successes * ICG warns extremists seeking IDPs support through relief efforts
WASHINGTON: The US needs to help Pakistan deliver urgently needed aid to millions of internally displaced persons (IDPs) to protect them from the Taliban, a US lawmaker and experts have said.
Around 2.5 million people have streamed out of northwestern areas since the government launched a campaign against the Taliban and Al Qaeda. The giant homeless problem poses risks as extremists might go in there and give relief and get some favour from the local population, said John Tierney, who heads the US House Oversight Committees subcommittee on national security. But its also an opportunity for the Pakistani government, with the help of the US and the international community, to be the ones to show the population that a popularly elected civilian government can deliver, he added.
Sapping support: Tierney said that while Pakistan now appeared determined to fight the Taliban, the military was engaging in a scorched Earth campaign that risked undoing any successes. Thats going to risk serious collateral damage that will ultimately exacerbate difficulties, as has been charged against US efforts in both Afghanistan and Pakistan, Tierney said on Tuesday at the Centre for American Progress, a left-leaning Washington think-tank. We discovered in our own efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan that just clearing extremist militants on a one-time basis is not a solution, he said. Its going to require a comprehensive strategy.
The International Crisis Group, the global think-tank seeking to resolve conflicts, warned in a report that Pakistans heavy use of force threatened to sap support for the campaign. Samina Ahmed, the groups South Asia project director, believed most IDPs supported strong action against the Taliban after seeing their harsh rule first-hand. But she said that Pakistan was adopting the wrong tools.
Heavy artillery, helicopter gunships and jet fighters in heavily populated areas do not lead to success, Ahmed said. If calming an insurgency is winning hearts and minds, 80 percent of your effort should be devoted to other than military operations, she said. She said Pakistanis had finally come to see the fight against extremism as their war, citing outrage after a video surfaced in April showing a Taliban member flogging a girl 34 times as she screamed in agony.
Other front: But the International Crisis Group warned that extremist groups already had their sights on the displaced. It said the Lashkar-e-Tayyaba was offering food and transport to displaced people through the Falah-e-Insaniat Foundation. Wendy Chamberlin, the US ambassador to Pakistan at the time of the September 11 attacks and later the number-two at the UN refugee agency, said UN-led relief operations for the displaced were too slow to get off the ground. This could become a crisis if it stays at the same level that it is, said Chamberlin, now head of Washingtons Middle East Institute. afp
June 11, 2009
* US congressman says scorched Earth campaign risks undoing successes * ICG warns extremists seeking IDPs support through relief efforts
WASHINGTON: The US needs to help Pakistan deliver urgently needed aid to millions of internally displaced persons (IDPs) to protect them from the Taliban, a US lawmaker and experts have said.
Around 2.5 million people have streamed out of northwestern areas since the government launched a campaign against the Taliban and Al Qaeda. The giant homeless problem poses risks as extremists might go in there and give relief and get some favour from the local population, said John Tierney, who heads the US House Oversight Committees subcommittee on national security. But its also an opportunity for the Pakistani government, with the help of the US and the international community, to be the ones to show the population that a popularly elected civilian government can deliver, he added.
Sapping support: Tierney said that while Pakistan now appeared determined to fight the Taliban, the military was engaging in a scorched Earth campaign that risked undoing any successes. Thats going to risk serious collateral damage that will ultimately exacerbate difficulties, as has been charged against US efforts in both Afghanistan and Pakistan, Tierney said on Tuesday at the Centre for American Progress, a left-leaning Washington think-tank. We discovered in our own efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan that just clearing extremist militants on a one-time basis is not a solution, he said. Its going to require a comprehensive strategy.
The International Crisis Group, the global think-tank seeking to resolve conflicts, warned in a report that Pakistans heavy use of force threatened to sap support for the campaign. Samina Ahmed, the groups South Asia project director, believed most IDPs supported strong action against the Taliban after seeing their harsh rule first-hand. But she said that Pakistan was adopting the wrong tools.
Heavy artillery, helicopter gunships and jet fighters in heavily populated areas do not lead to success, Ahmed said. If calming an insurgency is winning hearts and minds, 80 percent of your effort should be devoted to other than military operations, she said. She said Pakistanis had finally come to see the fight against extremism as their war, citing outrage after a video surfaced in April showing a Taliban member flogging a girl 34 times as she screamed in agony.
Other front: But the International Crisis Group warned that extremist groups already had their sights on the displaced. It said the Lashkar-e-Tayyaba was offering food and transport to displaced people through the Falah-e-Insaniat Foundation. Wendy Chamberlin, the US ambassador to Pakistan at the time of the September 11 attacks and later the number-two at the UN refugee agency, said UN-led relief operations for the displaced were too slow to get off the ground. This could become a crisis if it stays at the same level that it is, said Chamberlin, now head of Washingtons Middle East Institute. afp
WASHINGTON (AFP) The US House of Representatives on Thursday voted to ramp up aid to Pakistan but lawmakers still need to resolve deep differences on how many strings come attached.
The House voted largely along party lines, 238 to 183, to triple US aid to 1.5 billion dollars annually through the 2013 fiscal year, focusing on development spending aimed at weaning Pakistanis away from Islamic extremists.
"This legislation helps to lay the foundation for a stronger, more stable Pakistan," said Howard Berman, who heads the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
President Barack Obama has strongly endorsed boosting assistance to fight Al-Qaeda movements in Pakistan and neighboring Afghanistan, which he has made a top priority of his young administration.
While key members of the rival Republican Party support boosting aid to Pakistan, the lawmakers mostly voted against the House bill, arguing that its conditions for Pakistan to keep receiving the aid were too onerous.
The Republicans have found unlikely common cause with Senate Democrats such as John Kerry, who has agreed with Islamabad's case that strict aid conditions risk alienating a Pakistani public already suspicious of US goals.
"Our Democratic colleagues decided to load this bill up with ill-conceived provisions to micro-manage US security assistance to Pakistan," said Dan Burton, the top Republican on the House committee handling South Asia.
"This is not just a debate between (US lawmakers), this is about war and peace and the survivability of Pakistan as an independent nation. It's about winning or losing the war in Afghanistan," he said.
House and Senate members will need to reconcile their two bills, a process which lawmakers say could take a couple of months.
House Democrats vowed to fight to leave in requirements that the United States keep a detailed account of how Pakistan spends the money and seek proof that Pakistan is clamping down on extremists.
"We are simply asking Pakistan to follow through with the commitments it has already made," Berman said. "And in the process, we lay down an important marker that Congress will no longer provide a blank check."
WASHINGTON (Reuters) The U.S. House of Representatives on Thursday approved tripling U.S. aid to Pakistan to about $1.5 billion a year for each of the next five years in a key part of a strategy to combat extremism with economic and social development.
The bill also includes military aid with conditions that require the Obama administration to certify that Pakistan remains committed to combating terrorist groups -- a provision that was criticized by the key U.S. ally in South Asia.
The $1.5 billion in annual funding includes money for Pakistani schools, the judicial system, parliament and law enforcement agencies.
The action came the same day that U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon appealed to major donors for more funding for Pakistan, saying it was at risk of a "spiraling secondary crisis" without more international aid.
The bill, which includes $400 million in annual military aid for 2010-2013, also passed as Pakistan's military opened a second front against domestic Taliban militants who U.S. officials fear could destabilize nuclear-armed Pakistan.
Fighting in the Bannu district of the Waziristan tribal region flared up on Thursday as the Pakistani military was completing the last stages of an operation to clear Islamist fighters from the Swat valley, near Islamabad.
"The current conditions in Pakistan underline the importance of moving urgently on this legislation," said Democratic Representative Chris Van Hollen. "This is the time to send a signal and initiate a policy of economic development in these difficult regions," he added.
Van Hollen's amendment to the legislation, which must still be harmonized with a similar bill in the U.S. Senate, sets up so-called Reconstruction Opportunity Zones in border areas of Pakistan and Afghanistan, from which textiles and other items can be exported duty-free to the United States.
The zones represent an effort by the Obama government to combat al-Qaeda and Taliban recruitment of insurgents by creating jobs for unemployed youth in underdeveloped parts of the two countries.
"Support in Congress for aid for Pakistan will strengthen the resolve of the Pakistani people and government in confronting violent extremists and terrorists," said Pakistan's ambassador in Washington, Husain Haqqani.
He also said his government was unhappy about the conditions tied to some of the aid.
"Some conditional language that has been included in the aid bill is not conducive to promoting the objectives of counterterrorism cooperation," the ambassador said, adding that he hoped the Senate would remove those terms when they complete passage of the aid package.
But Howard Berman, chairman of the House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee, said Congress was "simply asking Pakistan to follow through with the commitments it has already made."
"In the process, we lay down an important marker that Congress will no longer provide a 'blank check,'" he said in a statement.
On Wednesday, Richard Holbrooke, the U.S. envoy to Pakistan and Afghanistan told a news briefing he had noticed a dramatic improvement in Pakistan's attitude toward fighting Islamist extremists during his visit there last week.
Similar threads
- Article
