The Pak-US strategic dialogue

[fatman17]

The strategic dialogue

Thursday, March 18, 2010
Ikram Sehgal

In a few days Pakistan and the US will be engaged in a strategic dialogue having far-reaching consequence for the region and its peoples. Pakistan’s battlefield successes in Swat and South Waziristan changed the dynamics of the geopolitical equation from what it was less than a year ago. US vice-president Joseph Biden was the first as a US senator to recognise the rank injustice done to Pakistan over the years and the need to have a more pragmatic even-handed policy. Once President Obama took office and carried out a thorough review, US decision-makers, including Hillary Clinton, Gen James Jones, Admiral Mike Mullen and Gen Petraeus—joined by the battlefield commander in Afghanistan, Gen Stanley McCrystal—are now unanimous in recognising Pakistan’s crucial role as the centre of gravity to resolve the biggest US headache at present, Afghanistan.

George W Bush’s closest advisors, led by Condoleeza Rice, were heavily weighted in favour of India at the expense of Pakistan, and that too without geopolitical logic. Unfortunately, Pakistan’s military dictators have historically sold Pakistan short at the negotiating table to ensure their own survival, despite the fact that they were always in a position to drive a hard bargain. That selfish failure undercut Pakistan’s core national interests.

Gen Patraeus put it best the other day, that there must be recognition that each country has to go with its own national interest, and work towards convergence of interests, and narrowing the gaps. The US has its own core national interests, as has Pakistan. With a timeline limited to only up to another two years, fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan to a standstill and then exiting without leaving the vacuum will take some doing.

US abandonment of the region in the 90s resulted in the rise of the Taliban, and subsequently Al-Qaeda. Someone has to full the vacuum, maybe not as a US proxy, as is the common perception, but to ensure common national interests.

Afghanistan is a predator society and it will take decades of peace to change the existing mindset. For centuries Afghans have used their geographical crossroads location to live off the traders who passed through their territory. Necessarily Afghanistan is dependant on Pakistan for nearly everything, whether it comes from or through Pakistan. While everyone and his uncle blames Pakistan for “hosting” Taliban sanctuaries within its borders, they well know Pakistan has done all within its resources to curb this access but are mostly unable to stop two-way traffic across the Durand Line. We have suffered grievously for it, and continue to do so in more ways than one. At a recent security conference in Brussels there was stony silence when the rather unpalatable subject of the three-million-plus Afghan refugees in Pakistan today for decades was raised, as well as the astonishing fact that not one Afghan government official of note had ever visited them over the years to find out about their fate. (At least 1.6 million of these are in refugee camps, and the rest dispersed in Pakistani cities.) Eloquent about the $1.2 billion Indian aid given over the past decade, the mathematics about $2 per individual per day on food spent on the refugees by Pakistan and that it came to $2 billion per year (or $20 billion on food alone) over the past decade, was lost on the Afghans present (and others).

India’s economic interests in Afghanistan cannot be denied or ignored. Access through the land route through Pakistan must be subject to the Kashmir and water issue being satisfactorily settled. However, Indians cannot rival the interests of Pakistan, which is Afghanistan’s immediate neighbour. While the “strategic depth” theory is nonsense, Afghanistan’s dependence on Pakistan’s economy and agriculture are overwhelming facts of life to consider in the formulation of any policy to bring peace and stability to Afghanistan.

The Pakistani army has destroyed the Taliban and Al-Qaeda in Swat and South Waziristan, and now lately their traditional route of infiltration into Pakistan through Bajaur. This has caused the dismantling of their logistics infrastructure and thecapture of many Taliban leaders, as their network has collapsed and sanctuaries exposed to interdiction. Despite his anti-Pakistan tirade, Pakistan has been supportive of Karzai in the Afghan presidential elections. During his recent visit to Pakistan we saw a born-against Karzai—or is he a tremendous actor?

The truth is probably a bit of both. He seemed genuinely interested in a new relationship with Pakistan, but was loath to publicly abandon a long-standing friendship with India. This would be acceptable to Pakistan as long as India does not use Afghanistan as a platform to foment trouble in Balochistan, of which there is no doubt.

One must forgive Fareed Zakaria for his constant tirade against Pakistan, as an Indian Muslim he has to show himself to be more “loyal than the king.” His intellectual dishonesty in turning the once-respected Newsweek into an anti-Pakistan propaganda machine is appalling. If that was not enough, a recent article by Selig Harrison on “Zardari’s courage” was nothing but paid advertisement against the Pakistani army. Shuja Nawaz of the Atlantic Council recently gave testimony before the US Foreign Relations Committee that while Pakistani intelligence agencies may have had links decades ago with organisations like the Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) because of Kashmir, to suggest the existence of a continuing connections is baseless—even ludicrous, given the battlefield casualties Pakistan is suffering. Shuja’s elder brother, the late Gen Asif Nawaz Janjua, would have been proud of him.

What a wonderful ambassador for Pakistan in the US this outstanding and credible intellectual would make! In contrast, the present incumbent is not worthy of comment. With such people representing Pakistan in a crucial country like the US, what does Pakistan expect in a strategic dialogue? Kayani should have had the good sense and propriety not to meet with Haqqani recently, Mr Haqqani is now going around claiming he got Shuja Pasha the year’s extension, and has ensured Kayani’s as COAS. Hopefully Kayani won’t take him along into the Pentagon discussions. God knows what else he is likely to claim!

The US is supporting Pakistan generously. Unfortunately it is not enough, neither economically and certainly not in military aid. In key areas of economy, agriculture, power sector, communications and telecommunications, health, etc we require massive injection of funds. Above all, we need to be brought in from the nuclear cold to overcome our dire energy deficiencies. Vital to US success in Afghanistan, Pakistan is getting only a fraction of what it should get, comparatively others get much more for doing much less. The strategic dialogue should be a joint national security strategy session for a comprehensive review of all relevant factors encompassing mutual interests in geo-politics and economics.

The strategic dialogue is crucial for the region’s stability, as well as for peace and prosperity in Pakistan. The armed forces have changed the equation with their magnificent performance on the ground. However, this could not have been possible without the democratic dispensation in Pakistan today, however ugly it is. It is important that the system must stay. The US can stay on top of the game in Afghanistan, and the region, by betting heavily on the proven successful formula, the Pakistan Army and Pakistan.

The writer is a defence and political analyst. Email: isehgal@pathfinder9.com

 

[fatman17]

VIEW: Pakistan’s new Afghanistan outlook —Syed Talat Hussain

Because Pakistan was not in control of its border, dealing with militarily strong Taliban commanders was not possible. These black holes of the past have increasingly disappeared ever since Pakistan’s forces have advanced to the country’s northwestern borders, hoisting the national flag that previously flew only in name

The upcoming visit to the US by Pakistan’s Chief of Army Staff (COAS) General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani — only partly related to the strategic dialogue process that the Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi is heading — will afford him the opportunity to most comprehensively detail Pakistan’s security interests before the entire spectrum of the US leadership. The army chief will have one-of-a-kind bilateral engagement that would cover not just operation plans in Afghanistan but also the peace regime in South Asia.

Specifically on Afghanistan, it should not surprise anyone if General Kayani and his military assistants speak their minds about the situation in a manner that is jarring to some ears in Washington. Pakistan’s security establishment is sensing a widening opportunity in Afghanistan to have a greater, louder voice. It is far more confident and clear about the centrality of role in its vast backyard than ever before, and is likely to use this important forum in Washington to state its case.

This case is shaped by the new realities informing Pakistan’s Afghan policy, which, in more ways than one, is different from the policy of physical and proxy engagement of the 1980s and the 90s. The first and most visible change can be illustrated by recalling two terms from the days of the British Raj in the Subcontinent: the ‘forward policy’ and its opposite, the ‘closed border policy’.

After 1872, the British administration, fearing that instability in Afghanistan might cause the Russian influence to spread into the realm of their influence, became hands-on in dealing with the affairs of the lands that now form Balochistan and NWFP. They were involved in pretty much everything that happened there: from the feuds among the sardars to their resolution, from the goodwill of the Khan of Kalat to its relations with the local population; and from building alliances and dispensing patronage in the borderlands to the favourites while punishing those who resisted control.

Pakistan treaded the ‘forward policy’ path in the 1980s and the 90s and the result was a border with Afghanistan that, aside from historical reasons, became a complete thoroughfare for militant activity and covert operations. This has now changed, and effectively Pakistan is now pursuing the equivalent of the ‘closed border policy’ of the British, which had argued for softer control through more deliberate interaction, but never leaning too much towards the northwest.

For Pakistan, the Pak-Afghan border has acquired a new and added sanctity and strategic significance. While Islamabad continues to wield influence, it is doing so from the baseline of a well-demarcated and tightly controlled border, marked by miles-long ditches, hundreds of check-posts and regular patrolling with the help of horse-mounted sentries and gun-ready vehicle-borne paramilitary troops. This is a huge shift from the days when a deliberate attempt was made to erode the borderlines and allow the monitoring along this long stretch in the northwest to become non-operative.

The present comprehensive border planning, whose implementation is going to speed up in the coming months, would not have been possible without the Pakistani state’s practical writ getting extended to these areas. FATA operations have allowed the Pakistan Army to physically occupy this strip of Pakistan’s land. The US surge in the south of Afghanistan has forced the Pakistani military establishment to enhance its border footprint in Balochistan.

The impact of these two factors on Pakistan’s Afghan policy needs to be properly understood. For the first time in 62 years of our history, Pakistan’s security policy makers are in a position to plan and execute strategies in the northwest from a position of actual strength and real life presence on the border. This changes almost entirely the previously available range of options open to them. In the past, the absence of a functioning force in control of the contours of the border required the establishment to extensively rely on shady interlocutors. Religious parties, their madrassa affiliates, local khans, thugs and fixers for rent became strategically relevant. Also, intelligence officials, whose covert presence and influence was used as a substitute for actual control of the border situation, became policy drivers, whose agendas sometimes second-guessed and surpassed those of their bosses sitting in Islamabad. And, finally, the Taliban had a free run in carving out their zones of influence in and across this entire region. Because Pakistan was not in control of its border, dealing with militarily strong Taliban commanders was not possible. These black holes of the past have increasingly disappeared ever since Pakistan’s forces have advanced to the country’s northwestern borders, hoisting the national flag that previously flew only in name. The Pakistani establishment is increasingly confident of its ability to make policies that are purely its own and are not derailed by interlocutors or hijacked by intelligence operatives who think themselves super patriots and pretend to know the world better than anybody else.

It is this determination that actual control of a situation brings which is informing the new confidence General Kayani and his military assistants have as they set out for Washington. They think they can make things happen and can prevent things from happening far more directly and decisively than before in the northwest of Pakistan. But still they will have a lot of talking to do in the US. The country’s media elite is caught in a time warp. Farid Zakaria of Newsweek and CNN fame proved last week that the best selling is not always factually the most compelling. In his opening remarks to the interview of Richard Holbrooke, US’s ageing czar on Afghanistan and Pakistan, he admitted that there is a “shift in the approach of the Pakistani military”. But he levelled the admission to the ground with the second part of his sentence. “How big a shift, we don’t know, but it is a shift...”

Unfortunately, analysts like him who sit thousands of miles away from the subjects and areas they build their expertise and fame on, are still determining the discourse in the US about Pakistan’s policy in this region, which, in essence and in form, has changed much more than the world realises.

The writer is a leading Pakistani journalist

 

[EjazR]

Fareed Zakaria an American Muslim of India origin. He has been in American since the 70s and one of the most if not the only muslim american voice on international affairs in the American media and well respected through out the world. Infact one of his interview with Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao was nominated for an Emmy award.

Just because the author might not agree with his views in Pakistan (which btw are much less biased than many other western media outlets like say Fox for eg) does not mean that he should be singled out. Unless of course once again an opportunity is being used to instead address valid points to make a blanket statements on an esteemed American (and probably only)Muslim news anchors's credibility just because he is of his Indian origin. Why not point out the rabid right wing media outlets in other American media outlets who keep harping about Pakistan as well?

Not sure who is showing their intellectual dishonesty in this regard.

Here is a better critique of his recent Washington Post article on Obama's policy in the region although I don't necessarily agree with it.
What Fareed Zakaria gets right -- and wrong -- on Obama's Pakistan policy

 

[ajpirzada]

singled out on the basis of adding his own lines at the end of official's statement to make sure it sounds as one.
these self declared experts who have never lived in the region and only rely on news lead to much confusion for the masses.
if he is an anchor then act as an anchor. and if he want to become analyst then come to this part of the world and live here for some considerable period of time

 

[EjazR]

I would really be interested to some some video or news article where he does something like that, Wrongly quoting official statements that is, if that is the only reason.

Looking at his latest article on Pakistan, and his interview with Holbrook, it was not very different from any skeptical journalist. I (and I'm sure many non-Pakistanis as well) agree that the security establishment (not referring to general public here) has done a shift from the previous stance by arresting top Afghan Taliban leadership for the first time.

But now is it a complete change where all extremists groups that use the name of Islam and Jihad will be slowly but surely disbanded including India-centric groups?
Or is it part of half and half approach where Afghan Taliban and TTP are targeted but India centric groups are kept low profile until needed?
Or is it a change just under American pressure and money as well as the public opinion backlash that has made the security establishment change their mind?

I guess only time will answer these questions conclusively, but as I said earlier there are many other American and UK news anchors / journalists not of Indian origin who write and speak about rabid anti-Pakistani news items with out with credibility but the authors still had to choose Fareed. At least the second article tried to quote what he didn't like about him - namely questioning whether the shift is big enough for Americans to be happy about - but the first article just went ahead with a blanket statement.

P.S.: He doesn't write only about Pakistan. You can read up on his work on Iran, Palestine, Iraq or even Afghanistan to get a better view of his work

washingtonpost.com

 

[ejaz007]

No compromise on national issues: troika
Friday, March 19, 2010
Pakistan to seek $35 bn terror war compensation; civilian, Army leadership discusses Pak-US strategic dialogue
By Asim Yasin

ISLAMABAD: The top political and military leadership on Thursday resolved not to make any compromise on strategic national issues and decided the forthcoming Pak-US strategic dialogue needs to cover the full spectrum of relationship to establish the confidence of the people.

The decision was taken at a meeting of the troika — President Asif Zardari, Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani and Chief of Army Staff Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani — along with Foreign Minister Shah Mehmud Qureshi here at the Presidency in which matters relating to strategic dialogue with the US and issues relating to the war against militants were discussed.

The dialogue with the US would broadly cover economic, defence, security and social sectors. A number of other proposals like structured-dialogue process envisaging sectoral track cooperation with the US, to review the status of ongoing programmes and projects, will also be taken up.

According to sources, the meeting gave the final shape to the strategy for the strategic dialogue with the US. Foreign Minister Qureshi briefed the troika about the dialogue, starting on March 24 in Washington.

Sources said the foreign minister briefed them about proposing 10 tracks of sectoral engagements in economy, energy, defence, education, science and technology, counterterrorism strategic stability and non-proliferation, health, communication, agriculture and public diplomacy.

Sources said the political and military leadership expect the US to understand its concerns both in the realm of security and economic development. Earlier, Prime Minister Gilani chaired the second session of a high-level meeting at the Prime Minister’s House to evolve a comprehensive, coherent and well-coordinated approach for the forthcoming strategic dialogue. He said the forthcoming strategic dialogue needs to cover the full spectrum of relationship to establish the confidence of the people.

He asked for mutually developing a periodic review mechanism/regime to monitor decisions taken in the strategic dialogue so that there was a visible impact in areas of relevance to ordinary people as well as efforts to fight terrorism.

While briefing the meeting, the foreign minister highlighted the broad policy parameters vis-a-vis the Pakistan-US strategic dialogue. He mentioned three tiers had been identified for the dialogue, which were ministerial level, secretary level and sectoral level (for specific areas of cooperation).

The foreign secretary, in his presentation, elaborated upon subjects covering diplomatic, security, economic and social sectors. Foreign Minister Qureshi, COAS Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, Minister for Petroleum Syed Naveed Qamar, Minister for Water & Power Raja Pervaiz Ashraf, Minister of Sate for Finance and EAD Hina Rabbani Khar, Special Assistant to the PM on Social Sector Shahnaz Wazir Ali, Special Assistant to PM on Water & Power Kamal Majidullah, foreign affairs, petroleum, water & power, commerce, defence, food and agriculture, finance, information technology, science & technology, education and interior secretaries attended the meeting.

Online adds: During the troika meeting, it was decided that Pakistan would conserve its strategic interest in strategic dialogue with the US. It was formally decided to ask the US in upcoming Pak-US strategic dialogue to compensate $35 billion loss it has suffered in the ongoing war against terrorism and extremism.

Addressing the meeting, President Zardari said Pakistan would also ask the US to compensate for $35 billion losses, which we had to face in ongoing war against terrorism and extremism. The US would also be asked to honour pledges, which it had made with Pakistan, he added.

Overall the country’s security situation, Pak-Afghan relations, the ongoing operation against Afghan Taliban in Helmand and other matters were also discussed during the meeting at length, sources said.

Earlier, Gen Kayani and Director-General Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) Lt Gen Ahmed Shuja Pasha separately met Prime Minister Gilani and discussed the strategic dialogue and issues related to military and defence.

No compromise on national issues: troika

 

[ejaz007]

We have done a lot, it’s time for US to deliver: Qureshi
Friday, March 19, 2010
By Mariana Baabar

ISLAMABAD: Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi heads Pakistan’s delegation to Washington for the strategic dialogue on March 24, in what is being seen as a “make” or “break” situation for the entire region in the year 2010.

Amongst others in Qureshi’s delegation will be Foreign Secretary Salman Bashir, COAS General Kayani and DG ISI General Pasha. The foreign minister, interacting for two hours with the media at the Foreign Office, delcared: “We have done too much and no other nation has paid the human price that we in Pakistan have. Now you (US) deliver. Innocent Pakistanis have paid with their lives. We have delivered and now it is your turn.“I will engage with more confidence as all this (fight against terror and successful military operations) has given us more strength. We have delivered and parliament is behind my voice”, said the minister.

He pointed out that Pakistan would stress on substance and not process. “We have had too many meetings. I will stress on mutually-agreed goals and a roadmap. We want a precise timeline with a method in place to measure our progress.

“My message to Washington is we have been talking a lot and it is time to walk the talk.” Qureshi said that Pakistan was seeking a stable and long term relations based on mutual respect, mutual interests and shared values.

“The forthcoming visit will provide a good opportunity to rebuild confidence and trust on both sides. We need to build comfort on all sides. We have to clearly orient our partnership in a direction that is mutually beneficial, sustained and which has a very substantive bilateral content.

“We expect the US to understand our concerns both in the realm of security and economic development. I am sure that an in-depth exchange of views on all matters of bilateral cooperation would enable both sides to develop broad policy parameters for taking forward Pakistan-US relations in the 21st Century,” he added.

The minister said that 2010 was a very crucial year and if the tide had to turn, it would in 2010. “Pakistan can play a key role in the stability of Afghanistan and Pakistan is required to play such a role. There is recognition in the US and in its think tanks that the interest of the US lies in the east of Afghanistan,” he said.

The minister said that the past three engagements had not been result-oriented because the base of these engagements was narrow and many of the four tracks never met. The past engagements were ‘security related’ hovering around near-term priorities.

“Now we will have annual meetings of the foreign minister and the US secretary of state. The foreign secretary will meet with Richard Holbrooke and there will be follow-ups. The 10 tracks will meet regularly according to a calendar and this cycle will be completed before the next round of the strategic dialogue,” he said.

The minister said that these tracks include economy, energy, education, defence, science and technology, strategic stability and non-proliferation, counter terrorism, agriculture, health and public diplomacy.

“Pakistan has delivered in the last 18 months and the international opinion about Pakistan is well deserved. We have had successful military operations and Pakistan is no longer a safe haven. The change in perception was seen at the London Conference where Pakistan appeared to be part of the solution,” he added.

The minister brushed aside criticism of allowing his foreign secretary to visit GHQ where the COAS presided over a meeting of senior bureaucrats. “When you work as a team, I think it really does not matter who goes where. The objective is Pakistan’s interest. When in the past has a COAS visited the Foreign Office? This is a new precedent and a new relation where institutions are being strengthened. We have put to rest murmurings about disconnect. We are all players of the same team. National security input is needed by us. We are one team,” he explained

The minister to a query about how the success of the dialogue would be measured replied that this was a process and should not be seen as a one-off. “We will renew the process and give it meaning and provide leadership to the process. Our confidence is such that results will follow. The tracks pursued and followed will make a difference. We will focus on poverty alleviation. Today on every issue we have a concept paper e.g. water, energy etc,” he said.

When asked about the obstacles being put in the way by India and Israel, the minister only tackled India. “We cannot only focus on our western borders as we have our eastern borders which we cannot overlook. Stationing thousands of soldiers on our western borders has been a significant shift. We cannot remain oblivious of our eastern borders. When we talk of peace, India and Pakistan matters and the US understands this. The international community has respect for this,” he added.

He said that India had the right to have bilateral relations with the US. “We should not be India-centric,” he advised. But he said Pakistan could not ignore India’s buying spree but did not want to start an arms race.

“India has the doctrine of Cold Start and we cannot ignore this. There is no clarity inside India where after the foreign secretaries meeting, there appeared to be a state of indecision in India to engage with Pakistan.

“They are still living in an old mindset and we are not interested in talks for the sake of talks. India talks about a step by step approach. Then what is the Composite Dialogue if not a step by step approach?” the minister asked.

When asked to comment on the recent decision by Fata senators to return home after they were asked to go through body scans, the minister said, “Where is the mutual respect? This is an issue of concern. Pakistan from day one has taken up this issue and Richard Holbrooke was told to reconsider and revisit this policy. It has been criticised by the UN and human rights groups”.

When asked if he and his delegation would also return in a similar scenario, he replied, “Better sense will prevail”. He was asked if Pakistan would ask the US to declare Pakistan a nuclear state. “Do I need to? We are a de facto nuclear weapon state,” was the response. The minister said that a civil nuclear deal for Pakistan on the lines given to India by the US was an option that he was studying.

“We are facing energy deficiency. There are huge gaps in our supply and demand side. We want to overcome this gap. There are many ways such as hydel power, coal and renewable energy like wind and solar. Nuclear energy is clean energy and Pakistan is producing it. This is an option we are looking at,” he said.

We have done a lot, it’s time for US to deliver: Qureshi

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Fareed Zakaria an American Muslim of India origin. He has been in American since the 70s and one of the most if not the only muslim american voice on international affairs in the American media and well respected through out the world. Infact one of his interview with Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao was nominated for an Emmy award.

Just because the author might not agree with his views in Pakistan (which btw are much less biased than many other western media outlets like say Fox for eg) does not mean that he should be singled out. Unless of course once again an opportunity is being used to instead address valid points to make a blanket statements on an esteemed American (and probably only)Muslim news anchors's credibility just because he is of his Indian origin. Why not point out the rabid right wing media outlets in other American media outlets who keep harping about Pakistan as well?

Not sure who is showing their intellectual dishonesty in this regard.

Here is a better critique of his recent Washington Post article on Obama's policy in the region although I don't necessarily agree with it.
What Fareed Zakaria gets right -- and wrong -- on Obama's Pakistan policy

Zakaria is an extremely biased commentator when it comes to Pakistan, and was flat out wrong in his predictions on Swat and his criticism of PA strategy and tactics in Swat.

The author is correct in pointing out that Zakaria weasels in his own biased opinion casting doubt on Pakistani motives when Hollbrooke's comments were largely unambiguous.

 

[Gin ka Pakistan]

Zakaria is an extremely biased commentator when it comes to Pakistan, and was flat out wrong in his predictions on Swat and his criticism of PA strategy and tactics in Swat.

The author is correct in pointing out that Zakaria weasels in his own biased opinion casting doubt on Pakistani motives when Petraeus's comments were largely unambiguous.

I think Obama made so many mistake as he was reading his book on the current issues

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I think Obama made so many mistake as he was reading his book on the current issues

Zakaria has been vociferous in advocating India's case as the regional leader and the nation with which the US should depend upon for success in Afghanistan on his show and in his writing.

His positions have been unambiguously anti-Pakistan - quite frankly he is the Indian version of an AIPAC member - advocate support for Israel (India) and Israeli policy (Indian policy) regardless of the long term consequences and feasibility of those policy prescriptions.

 

[Gin ka Pakistan]

 

[EjazR]

@AM

The point I'm making is why single out the only American Muslim voice just because of his India origin or because his views are "perceived" anti-Pakistan when what he is doing is focusing on US interests. What about say Rush Limbaugh disparaging Pakistan continuously or the other FOX news anchors. There are no shortage of western media commentators who are even more "biased" and anti-Pakistani than him.

Anyways, I'm not gonna push this any further, but I just wanted to point out that for example when GoP did the Swat deal with Sufi Mohammed, Fareed Zakaria was possibly the only mainstream News anchor who was somewhat supportive of GoPs stand and stressed on the need to differentiate on the micro-minority who like AQ believe in "world Jihad" vs local political Islamists. Instead of what the mainstream media generally does where even a religious Muslim at least subliminally if not overtly gets equated with a terrorist.

Zakaria: Learning to Live With Radical Islam - Newsweek.com

And to understand why he is considered favorably by many Americans muslims and Americans in general, I suggest a read of the article that actually bought him into spotlight after 9/11 challenging Bush's view and questioned the knee-jerk explanations that simply blamed Islamic "religious" intolerance.


Why Do They Hate Us?

 

[ajpirzada]

New approach in ties with US
By Baqir Sajjad Syed
Thursday, 18 Mar, 2010


Islamabad feels it is time to tell Washington to move on from symbolism and concretely address Pakistan’s core security concerns and economic needs. –Photo by AP
FRONT PAGE
Ties with Pakistan go far beyond security, says US
Ties with Pakistan go far beyond security, says US
ISLAMABAD: In a qualitative difference in Pakistan’s approach to the United States, Islamabad will, at the renewed Strategic Dialogue with Washington, seek ‘tangible deliverances’ particularly on its strategic concerns and wouldn’t settle for short-term relief measures.
The fourth round of the Strategic Dialogue on March 24, being dubbed by Pakistan’s foreign policy gurus as the ‘renewed process’, is expected to be one of the most intense diplomatic engagements the two countries had in the recent past.

Major politico-security stakeholders, including several federal ministers, army chief, director-general of ISI, and a number of federal secretaries will leave for Washington on Saturday to attend the meeting. The US representation at the dialogue, upgraded to ministerial level, will be equally strong. The team will be headed by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Other members will be National Security Adviser James Jones, Special Envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan Richard Holbrooke and a number of other top officials of the Obama administration.

The level of participation by both sides, analysts believe, is indicative of the desire of Islamabad and Washington to give a new meaning to their bilateral relations hitherto marred by trust deficit.

“This round is going to determine the future of Pakistan’s relations with the United States,” a top official told Dawn, after attending one of the preparatory sessions aimed at developing a unified perspective among the country’s state organs for this engagement with Washington.

Pakistan is often referred to by Washington as a ‘key regional player’ and a ‘major non-Nato ally’ with whom it eyed a ‘long-term engagement’, but it is probably the first time that Islamabad’s strategists are feeling that the time has come to tell Washington to move on from symbolism and concretely address Pakistan’s core security concerns and its immediate economic needs.

Among the issues on which Islamabad desires solid assurances are protection of its legitimate interests in Afghanistan; normalisation of relations with India, including resolution of the Kashmir issue; end to instability in Balochistan; accepting Pakistan as a declared nuclear weapons state and thereby quashing all rumours that the US was secretly working to defang the country.

On Pakistan’s wish-list is also a strong desire for civilian nuclear cooperation on the pattern of India-US deal. Although Pakistan primarily wants nuclear cooperation to meet its growing energy needs, the issue has a political connotation also because Islamabad doesn’t want to see itself discriminated against and at a disadvantage vis-à-vis India.

Strong emphasis from the Pakistani side, senior diplomats at the Foreign Office say, is also expected on market access for its products to US and economic assistance at the dialogue, which now includes new strands like strategic stability, security, public diplomacy and health.

The Pakistani contingent will specifically tell the American interlocutors that the economic assistance needed to be fast tracked to arrest the economic decline believed to have been worsened because of the war on terror. The disbursement of Coalition Support Fund, a mechanism for repaying expenses incurred by Pakistan for supporting US counter-terrorism operations, has been sluggish and so has been the release of funds under the Kerry-Lugar-Berman Act. Only $400 million has so far been released under the aid legislation enacted last year.

Pakistan this year slashed its public sector development programme by over Rs150 billion because of shortage of funds.

Quite pragmatically, Pakistani policymakers are not deluding themselves into believing that their ties with the US will transform overnight and they will gain major concessions. But, they want the process to start.

“The extent to which the US is ready to accommodate our concerns and constraints will be a test of this engagement,” a senior army officer engaged in preparations for the visit remarked.

Senior officials say they will try to carefully use their leverages, which are largely Afghanistan related, to make the most of the dialogue.

DAWN.COM | Front Page | New approach in ties with US

 

[ajpirzada]

lets see what can we achieve. im not quite optimistic.

their recognition of our role in afghanistan is nothing big. instead they need us for their survival in afghanistan.
civil nuclear deal - i doubt it.
recognising us as a nuclear state - im still to understand how will this benefit us.
all other projects - they will come out of kerry lugar bill as far as i can see.
only real thing they can help us with is market access.

 

[T-Faz]

The conversation will go like this

Zardari > Paisa de, paisa de aur paisa de.

American > Milega, depends on who is captured.

Z > Nuclear Deal de, Nuclear deal de, nuclear deal de.

American > India ko bhi paanch saal se kuch nahi mila, tumhe kaise milega.

Z > Weapons dedo sir, jahaz dedo aur drone de do.

OK

A > Call India and tell them Pakistan has more weapons now and India puts an order of billions.

Americans happy, Pakistan Happy, India Happy.