The Pak-US strategic dialogue

[Fighter488]

Pakistan needs friendly Afghanistan ​

By Robert Grenier


As in all primitive societies, the social structure in Washington is made up of many tribes. Among the tribe of foreign policy specialists, there are many clans and sub-groupings, who in turn are divided along geographic and substantive lines.

One finds among their ranks a motley assortment of retired government officials, greying military officers, scholars, think-tankers, NGOers, and others who nurse the memories of influence lost or who indulge their fantasies as political "wannabes" by acting as informal briefers and advisers to those with real, current power and influence.

It was at one such gathering in recent days, where a group of reputed experts on Pakistan were dispensing their wisdom to a senior government official, that I heard one of them say something quite profound: "Beware the word 'must'," he said.

Indeed, that is a word one hears constantly with reference to Pakistan: Pakistan "must" deal with the religiously-based militancy permeating its society and "must" get over its decades-long obsession with the security threat from India.

It "must" eradicate the dangerous extremist groups in its midst, "must" move aggressively to route militants from the Tribal Areas, and perhaps most importantly of all, "must" break all ties with the Afghan insurgents, arrest their leaders, and unambiguously aid the Kabul government in its quest to defeat the Afghan Taliban.

I do not disagree with any of that. The problem is that discussions as to how Pakistan is to be induced to do what it "must" usually come down to sterile, two-dimensional formulations regarding the use of "pressure" and "leverage" to induce the Pakistanis to do what they would not otherwise do on their own.

The fact of the matter, however, is that no country will reliably do what it believes to be against its national interests.

That is as true of Pakistan as it is of any other country.

Friendly neighbour needed

With regard to the Afghan Taliban, and their insurgent allies in the so-called Haqqani group and Gulbuddin Hekmatyar's Hezb-i-Islami (HIG), Pakistan's ambivalence – if that is not too mild a word – in the face of demands from Washington and Kabul derives from its perception of its strategic national interests.

Long concerned about its lack of "strategic depth" in confronting its huge nemesis to the east, Pakistan is understandably concerned about having a friendly regime to its west.

A Kabul government dominated, as it is, by Pakistan's old Northern-Alliance antagonists hardly qualifies, particularly given the eagerness with which it solicits and supports a strong Indian presence.

And lest we dismiss Pakistan's fears of military confrontation with India as some sort of irrational preoccupation, we need only remember the heated war-advocacy of some political elements in India as recently as November 2008, in the wake of the Mumbai attacks.


A strong government in New Delhi was able to resist such calls, but who is to say what might happen in the face of another perhaps worse terrorist outrage emanating from uncontrolled – and largely uncontrollable – militants based in Pakistan?

Given Pakistan's inability to stop such attacks even on its own soil, how could any Pakistani strategist or military planner dismiss the possibility of another Indo-Pakistani crisis like the one we witnessed in May 2002, when a previous attack on the Indian Parliament brought the fully-mobilised armies of the two powers to the very brink of war?

To say that Pakistan is largely at fault for this state of affairs is not to dispel the danger.

Doubts about Washington's willingness to stay the course in Afghanistan have been exacerbated by Barack Obama, the US president, himself, given his talk of a US draw-down beginning as early as summer 2011.

As Pakistan contemplates the possibility of a near-term US withdrawal, is it any wonder that they are unwilling to unilaterally and, in their minds, gratuitously sacrifice links with the only elements through whom they could hope to exert influence in a country of such strategic importance to them?

I have been heartened by indications that civilian officials, at least, in the Obama administration understand that the key to changing Pakistani policy on Afghanistan and the Taliban insurgency is to change the strategic environment in which such Pakistani decisions are made.

But while the concept might be right, actually changing the strategic environment – which most likely would require a combination of substantial changes in Afghan government policy toward India and very significant, sustained progress against the Taliban on the ground – will be very difficult.

Changing the strategic environment

No doubt, the urgency surrounding these questions was stepped up several notches this week during US discussions with Pakistan's Chief of Army Staff, General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, who is visiting the US to participate in the Pakistan-US Strategic Dialogue.

Indeed, it is hard to imagine a more opportune time for such discussions in light of Pakistan's recent arrest of the Taliban's second most senior official, Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, and the reported arrival in Kabul of a senior delegation of the HIG.

It is true that there are persistent rumours in Washington which indicate that the arrest of Baradar was something of a "happy accident", and that his detention, along with those of several other Afghan Taliban officials, do not yet indicate a strategic shift in Pakistani policy.


Pakistani newspapers reported the capture of Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar [AFP]

Meanwhile, others suggest that Pakistan's arrest of Baradar was motivated by concerns that his rumoured involvement in political talks aimed at intra-Afghan reconciliation could leave the Pakistanis out of the loop.

Leaving all of this aside, now is clearly the time for the US and Pakistan to engage in serious talks about both the conditions and prospects for genuine political reconciliation in Afghanistan.

It seems to me that any sort of rational calculus would suggest that the legitimate interests of the US, the Afghan government, and Pakistan do not greatly diverge.

The current Taliban demand for US withdrawal as a precondition for talks is not only a practical non-starter; it would surely lead to renewed Afghan civil war, which cannot be in Pakistan’s interest.

A full break

On the other hand, anything less than the full break with al-Qaeda demanded by the US of Afghan insurgents would be likely only to condemn the region to re-live the past, recreating the conditions which led to the US intervention in Afghanistan in the first place.

Only a peaceful reconciliation which subjects the Taliban to some sort of democratic accountability can assure both continued unity and stability in the country, while ensuring the Pashtun influence on Afghan national policy which Pakistan sees as a safeguard of its own interests.

Make no mistake: I cannot see the current senior Taliban leadership accepting such a future, or such a role for itself.

However, the point of a realistic and constructive dialogue on these issues between the US and Pakistan would be to bring the two countries to the point of actual operational cooperation on the political front.

With eventual three-way agreement on the aims and principles of a political reconciliation process, Pakistan - rather than blindly tolerating a violent and recalcitrant Taliban leadership as its only viable fall-back option for the future - might instead be motivated to break with the irreconcilables in favour of more accommodating leaders.

Pakistan cannot be allowed to, dictate the future of Afghanistan. Without its active and willing co-operation, however, no lasting Afghan peace will ever be won.

To those engaged with Pakistani leaders this week, I would repeat: Beware the word 'must'.

Robert Grenier was the CIA's chief of station in Islamabad, Pakistan, from 1999 to 2002. He was also the director of CIA's counter-terrorism centre.

The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy.



Al Jazeera English - Focus - Pakistan needs friendly Afghanistan

 

[BATMAN]

^^ Lousy editing job.

SHIREEN M MAZARI
The much awaited - primarily by Pakistan - Pak-US strategic dialogue will begin today in Washington. The major players, including the COAS of Pakistan, are already gathered in that capital and are being feted like never before. The Americans are being clever by laying out the red carpet for their main Pakistani guests, including not putting them through the notorious scanners but getting their immigration done while they were still in the plane! Now that really is a first for the Yanks. The COAS is especially being softened, with Petreaus being a welcoming host offering military-style entertainment. The ridiculous grin on the face of one of the Pakistanis accompanying General Kayani in the official picture released by the US military says it all - and explains why the Americans think that if they make all the right PR moves before the dialogue, the Pakistanis will have been softened enough to take US dictation. And there will be plenty of hard demands put before the Pakistanis again - let us make no mistake on that count.
The issue for us, though, is that are the Pakistanis prepared to stay the course and stick to some basic demands that they need to make, or will we have a repeat of the Kerry-Lugar drama where our foreign minister effectively became an apologist for the Americans and sought to justify a most demeaning and intrusive piece of Pakistan-specific legislation? So what are the main issues Pakistan needs to focus on and demand a positive response from the Americans?
First, and a basic issue is for the US to deliver on all past outstanding commitments, some made immediately after 9/11 when Musharraf committed this nation to the US's debilitating and erroneous "war on terror". Amongst these unfulfilled commitments are: access to US markets especially for our textiles, payment of the Coalition Support Fund for services rendered primarily by the military and the whole ROZ drama which may actually be more costly for Pakistan in terms of conditionalities, so perhaps we need to do a rethink on this since the Americans have not moved yet on this project.
Second, an end to the drone attacks - including a decisive withdrawal of the permission which the US claims successive Pakistani governments have given them. Here the Pakistan military must make its position clear also. Given how for decades we have done quite well without US military weapon systems, why should the army suddenly feel so desperate for these knowing what happens in terms of spares and so on if we fall out of synch with US demands and expectations?
Third, an end to the continuous raising of the proliferation issue which has become a tool of pressure on Pakistan, despite the fact that the US knows that all our safeguards and legislation in this regard are not only in place, they are far more stringent than anything the US or India have in place. The A Q Khan issue must end with a firm commitment on the part of the US, because keeping this issue alive is pushing him to the edge with the sort of disastrous consequences to our national security in terms of "confessionals". Given the US's ongoing proliferation to Israel, and now to India through the 123 Agreement, it is hardly in a position to berate Pakistan and its citizens on this count. The Pakistani state must also stop going on the defensive, given how the reality is that neither it nor any of its citizens actually did anything illegal. As for issues of command and control, it is the US that continues to have problems as the world witnessed when two US bombers flew off with live nukes with no authorisation and no one knew where they were headed!
Fourth, Pakistan also needs to demand from the US a civil nuclear deal similar to the one signed with India - and then Pakistan can study it and see whether it is actually in their interest to accept such a deal. The Indians are already hysterical at even a hint that Pakistan may be offered such a deal, quite forgetting their own rather dismal past proliferation record which is public knowledge. Nevertheless, regardless of Indian histrionics, Pakistan should be cautious about a US offer in the nuclear energy field, and first ensure that it will not operationalise the unacceptable and highly intrusive conditionalities of the Kerry-Lugar Act. But all these issues will only come up when the US shows its intentions of offering us a civil nuclear deal similar to the Indian one. That will show the intent of the US towards Pakistan - as a strategic partner or a vassal state. But the US cannot be allowed to hold a nuclear agreement as bait or a lure for us to do still more of their bidding which goes against our own interests.
Pakistan also needs to put an end to the free run the US has gained in Pakistan with all manner of private contractors and covert operatives proliferating through the length and breadth of the country. It needs to make clear to the US that it cannot have immunity in terms of its activities being exposed in the press either. No one can be above the law, and certainly not foreign intruders up to all manner of harmful antics. As for the US intent of putting in money in the fields of education and development, the schemes they come up with need to be studied very carefully to examine the costs to Pakistan in non-financial terms and the usual conditionalities. As the US never fails to point out: there is no such thing as a free lunch! But the US has been lunching and dining free in Pakistan since 9/11, thanks to the pusillanimity of our successive leaders.
The Pakistanis also need to come clean on Dr Aafia and demand the US return her to Pakistan as well return her children if they are still alive. The fate of these innocent Pakistani children needs to be known.
As for US demands on Pakistan - they should not be making any, since these and our willy nilly compliance have already destroyed our country. We need to ensure that we extricate ourselves from the present debilitating alliance with the US before it proves completely fatal for us - which may be the end goal of the US in any case if one is to believe their analysts writing in official publications.
Finally, what should be our red lines if the US does not meet our demands? We certainly should not end up begging again in Washington - they need us more than we need them right now so let us make this apparent to them. Apparently the prime minister has actually been having discussions on our post-dialogue policies and actions if we do not get what we seek. One does not know what red lines the PM has formulated, but in case the dialogue has no substantive results for Pakistan, we should make some hard decisions including: delinking clearly and visibly from cooperation in the so-called "war on terror"; cutting down on the US access in Pakistan and in terms of the numbers of US personnel present in the country; halting of all NATO supplies into Afghanistan; and revaluating the whole gamut of Pakistan-US relations. It is time we played hardball with the Americans who are in a quagmire in this region. This is a rare opportunity which we must recognise and exploit instead of always putting ourselves up for abuse by the Americans.

 

[Speaker]

Any cooperation for development between the US and Pakistan is welcome. As far as the common man is concerned, basic needs take priority over usual rhetoric. Roads, Education, Health, Energy, Water/Food sufficiency etc are all issue that need to be addressed.

As far as the Nuclear Deal goes, I find it impossible to conceive at this stage. Pakistan has the AQK controversy on its back and if you believe him, the government is directly to be blamed. Either which way, a person in a position of power indulged in proliferation which will never wash away that easily.

As for getting the waiver from the NSG, I wonder if more than a couple of countries, apart from China, would voluntarily support the cause. But that is not even the issue. Almost all the Republicans and most Democrats would be anti this. Passing it through Congress will be a nightmare for Obama, assuming he even has the will to do it.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Any cooperation for development between the US and Pakistan is welcome. As far as the common man is concerned, basic needs take priority over usual rhetoric. Roads, Education, Health, Energy, Water/Food sufficiency etc are all issue that need to be addressed.

As far as the Nuclear Deal goes, I find it impossible to conceive at this stage. Pakistan has the AQK controversy on its back and if you believe him, the government is directly to be blamed. Either which way, a person in a position of power indulged in proliferation which will never wash away that easily.

As for getting the waiver from the NSG, I wonder if more than a couple of countries, apart from China, would voluntarily support the cause. But that is not even the issue. Almost all the Republicans and most Democrats would be anti this. Passing it through Congress will be a nightmare for Obama, assuming he even has the will to do it.

Again, the deal is not going to be passed in two days or a month. What Pakistan is likely looking for though is a start of the process that would lead to an NSG waiver and nuclear deal.

I don't think anyone in the GoP or PA is naive enough to believe that a complex contract will be negotiated in a matter of a few days or months. The GoP/PA are well aware of the concerns over AQ Khan and proliferation, nuclear security and the safeguards the US/NSG is likely to demand - we watched the entire process unfold with India after all.

At the moment, just the fact that the US has dropped its past knee jerk refusal of even considering civilian nuclear cooperation with Pakistan is a huge step forward.

 

[Barack Obama]

Well,
US will not walk the talk, they will only discuss it.
Civil Nuclear Deal does not seem a possibility at the moment.

Best wishes though if it happens.

 

[Gin ka Pakistan]

last year in US all Pakistani issues were on the back burners but the need of US has put Pakistan on the US friend list again.

Pak Army once again ignored Pakistani Ambassador to US (he was in no closed door meetings) well I don't blame army for that as he has shown his hate and made fun of Pak Army in his writings and speeches in the past, well he can get all the spot light with Pakistan Air force.

 

[Speaker]

Again, the deal is not going to be passed in two days or a month. What Pakistan is likely looking for though is a start of the process that would lead to an NSG waiver and nuclear deal.

I don't think anyone in the GoP or PA is naive enough to believe that a complex contract will be negotiated in a matter of a few days or months. The GoP/PA are well aware of the concerns over AQ Khan and proliferation, nuclear security and the safeguards the US/NSG is likely to demand - we watched the entire process unfold with India after all.

At the moment, just the fact that the US has dropped its past knee jerk refusal of even considering civilian nuclear cooperation with Pakistan is a huge step forward.

I agree, that could be one way to look at it. But my point (also made in an earlier post) is that it is just a cosmetic development. The Indian media is whipping up frenzy and Pakistani media is also talking a lot about it. But not one of the western media outlets even mention this. I agree this is just at the consideration stage, but if the US media even got a whiff of it, they'd have created a storm by now. Such is the paranoia with Pakistan (or any Islamic country) and the word 'nuclear'. Some of the lobbies here will never let this deal happen. The trade-off could be if Pakistan signs the NPT as a precondition. But all that is if it even gets to that stage.

The other reason why I find US non-serious is Hillary Clinton's interview to a Pakistani journalist (you can find the video on NDTV). Hillary never says no to the possibility of discussing the civilian nuclear deal, but then she never once says yes directly. She always clubs it in the "wide range of issues". The reporter asks her a couple more times with the valid reason of energy crisis and she starts discussing other options for meeting the energy needs. I don't know if others grew as skeptical watching that video. It could be that she didn't want to have problems on the eve of Qureshi's visit, but considering her usual directness, that was not what I inferred.

 

[Storm Force]

This is a bit harsh.

But some ground reality is needed.

USA and India are at the beginning on a new path whereby USA will become a very important ally STRATEGICALLY in the coming decade. Primarily to Give USA a relatively STRONG ally against the massive chinease growth.

India is looked upon as a large very important country in South Asia which has common interests to USA ie containing china.

For this reason nuke tech., F18SH,fdi at 2 way trade will very forthcoming india,s way.

Pakistan ticks none of these boxes.

USA will be polite and smile BUT DELIVER just scraps

 

[Omar1984]

 

[Omar1984]

 

[ejaz007]

US to speed up arms supply
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Hillary says ‘new day’ begins with Pakistan

Pledges access for Pak products to US; $125m aid for three thermal power units; backs ‘in-depth’ Indo-Pak dialogue as Pakistan seeks US engagement on Kashmir.


WASHINGTON: US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Wednesday US pledged a $125 million aid to boost the energy sector in Pakistan, besides allowing Pakistani products access to US markets and speeding up military equipment transfers, Geo News reported.

In a joint press briefing with Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi here after holding the strategic dialogue with the Pakistani delegation, she termed the strategic sitting important not only for Pakistan but also for the US administration.

She pledged American assistance to develop the agriculture sector in Pakistan besides extending assistance to maximise the exports of Pakistan. “Pakistani products will now have access to US markets,” she said, adding that the US would provide cooperation in the establishment of three thermal power plants to lessen the power crisis in Pakistan. The US would also help Pakistan expand the Benazir Income Support Programme (BISP), she said.

Clinton said that the US would sign a letter for “significant road infrastructure” in Pakistan’s troubled northwest without offering a figure. “Pakistan is on the frontline of confronting violent extremism that threatens us all, and Pakistan’s civilian and security forces continue to bear the brunt of that fight,” Clinton said.

Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi said that US suspicions of his country have evaporated, with officials no longer questioning Islamabad’s commitment to fight extremism. Qureshi, who was holding a first-of-a-kind “strategic dialogue” with the United States, said “the mood was completely different” from previous visits to Washington.

“I was at the Senate; I was at the House. It’s a 180-degree difference,” he told a joint news conference with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. “There were no more question marks, there was no suspicion, there was no ‘do more,’” he said. “There was appreciation for what we had already done.”

“We’ve agreed to fast-track our requests, that have been pending for months and years, on the transfer of military equipment to Pakistan,” Qureshi told said. Hillary Clinton, earlier in the dialogue, said that the US supported dialogue between India and Pakistan, while Shah Mehmood Qureshi called for a “constructive engagement” by the United States on Kashmir.

Asked about Qureshi’s remarks later at the joint news conference, Clinton said that the US supported reconciliation efforts between India and Pakistan. “The issues that are part of that dialogue need to be addressed and resolution of them between the two countries would certainly be in everyone’s best interest,” she said, without explicitly mentioning Kashmir.

Clinton said that the United States wanted to be a partner of Pakistan on “a full range of matters.” “We can’t dictate Pakistani foreign policy or Indian foreign policy. But we can encourage, as we do, the in-depth discussion between both countries that we think would benefit each of them with respect to security and development,” she said.

Speaking at an early-morning ceremony, Hillary Clinton said the US had started a “new day” with Pakistan in hearing its concerns. Clinton said she wanted to speak directly to its people, acknowledging that the two nations “have had our misunderstandings and disagreements in the past.”

“There are sure to be more disagreements in the future, as there are between any friends or, frankly, any family members,” she said. “But this is a new day. For the past year, the Obama administration has shown in our words and deeds a different approach and attitude toward Pakistan.”

“The dialogue we seek is not only with the government of Pakistan, but you the people of Pakistan,” she said, vowing that both she and President Barack Obama had a “personal commitment” to building ties with Islamabad.

Clinton said stability of Pakistan was in the world’s interest. Pointing to Pakistan’s growing action against extremism, she pledged full support, saying, “Its struggles are our struggles.” Reiterating US support in the fight against terror to the nation, she affirmed that the Taliban were trying to consolidate in Pakistan, and it would be a threat for humanity as well as for the region.

She said that the Taliban wanted to destabilise Pakistan, and “we have to work together for their complete eradication.” She said that the both nations are looking for a successful composite dialogue, as it would not be a one time dialogue.

She also lauded the role of Pakistan towards the establishment of peace in South Asia and termed the security and stability of Pakistan a top priority. “Pakistan’s military has mounted successful military operations against terrorists. Pakistan’s security agencies have captured many notorious al-Qaeda and Taliban terrorists,” she said.

She made it clear that during the conversation, the United States will address Pakistan’s energy needs for the citizens of the nation. Clinton said that the stability and security of Pakistan was important for the world and the US would continue its maximum help to strengthen Pakistan.

She said, “We know that Pakistan is facing a severe problem due to the energy shortage in the country. And we will not let Pakistan alone in these intermingled problems and the US would always be on the side of Pakistan in its hour of need. The people are facing severe blackouts due to unavailability of electricity. Farmers are worried about the future of the agriculture sector due to the shortage of water in the country.”

Qureshi expressed gratitude for US assistance and pledged that Pakistan would keep up the fight against extremism. But he made it clear that Pakistan wanted benefits in return. Qureshi said that Pakistan was seeking “non-discriminatory” access to energy resources as well as a “constructive” role by the United States on its dispute with India over Kashmir. “Such a partnership, we are convinced, is good for Pakistan, good for America and good for international peace, security and prosperity,” he said.

“Pakistan is committed to doing its part to facilitate the world community’s effort for peace and stability in Afghanistan,” Qureshi said. “We hope the world community will be equally responsive to our legitimate concerns and help advance common interests,” he said.

He said the war against terrorism had seriously damaged Pakistan’s economy, as Pakistan has got nothing but bomb blasts in response to waging war against terrorism. Defence Minister Ahmed Mukhtar, US defence Secretary Robert Gates and Pakistan Army chief Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani and Chairman Joint Chiefs Staff Admiral Mike Mullen, senior advisers and officials attended the dialogue.

News Desk adds: The US has also agreed to pay Pakistan its military spending in anti-terror operations in two installments.

US to speed up arms supply

 

[third eye]

Al Jazeera English - CENTRAL/S. ASIA - US and Pakistan explore better ties

US and Pakistan explore better ties



The US and Pakistan pledged to improve relations in an effort to overcome mistrust that has arisen between the two nations in recent years over the fight against terrorism.

"It is the start of something new," Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, said after the opening of high-level talks
with Shah Mehmood Qureshi, the Pakistani foreign minister, and his delegation in Washington on Wednesday.

"Our countries have had our misunderstandings and disagreements in the past and there are sure to be more disagreements in the future as there are between any friends or family members," Clinton said.

"But this is a new day. For the past year, the Obama administration has shown in our words and deeds a different approach and attitude toward Pakistan."

Qureshi said that there was "a 180-degree difference" in relations after the "stratgeic dialogue" go under way.

"There were no more question marks, there was no suspicion, there was no 'do more,'" he said. "There was appreciation for what we had already done."

'Common interests'

Qureshi pledged support for action against extremism but said that Pakistan has key requests for the US.

"Pakistan is committed to doing its part to facilitate the world community's effort for peace and stability in Afghanistan," he said.

"We hope the world community will be equally responsive to our legitimate concerns and help advance common interests."

Qureshi also said that Washington had agreed to pay $2bn owed for Islamabad's role in past military operations by the end of June.

Pakistan had earlier presented a wish list to the US, including requests for military equipment and nuclear co-operation to be discussed during the talks on Wednesday and Thursday.

The 56-page document also sets out other priorities, such as water and electricity requirements for energy-starved Pakistan and better access to US markets.

Humayun Gauhar, a political columnist and editor-in-chief for Blue Chip Magazine, Pakistan's leading business periodical, said the success of the wish list would be a sign of how far Washington was willing top go to improve ties.

"It all depends on how desperate America is in this new strategic partnership that it is trying to form with Pakistan, and the new responsibility and role it wants Pakistan to acquire," he told Al Jazeera.

"It also depends on how hard [Pakistan] bargains.

"Pakistan has been at a moment like this many times in the past, where it went out of its way to do something for the world and the United States and the West, but got very little in return primarily because [it] asked for very little."

Pakistan's security

On the security front, the US is considering ways to improve Pakistan's ability to fight pro-Taliban and al-Qaeda forces along its border with Afghanistan.

According to a senior defence official, who spoke to news agencies on condition of anonymity, Islamabad could be supplied with some unmanned drones for surveillance and intelligence gathering.

Although it does not confirm such attacks, the US military and CIA spy agency are believed to have used the drones to carry out more than 90 drone raids in Pakistan since August 2008, killing more than 830 people, according to local sources.

US officials say they have killed senior al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters in the attacks, but the Pakistani government wants more control over military operations in its own country.

Meanwhile in Pakistan, at least 21 Taliban fighters were killed on Wednesday during a military assault on suspected Taliban hideouts in the Orakzai tribal region near the Afghan border, military officials said.

The operation began hours after a suspected US drone aircraft fired two missiles into a compound in the North Waziristan tribal district, killing at least six suspected fighters, the AFP news agency reported, citing Pakistani officials.

Nuclear deal

Pakistani officials have also made it clear they would like a similar nuclear co-operation deal granted to neighbouring India by the previous US administration.

"We hope non-discriminatory access to vital energy resources will also be made available to us, so that we too can pursue our economic and industrial development plans," Qureshi said during the talks on Wednesday.

However, Clinton has said that India's arrangement came after "many, many years" of dialogue.

"I think on the energy issue specifically, there are more immediate steps that can be taken that have to help with the grid, have to help with other sources of energy, to upgrade power plants," she told Pakistan's Express TV earlier.

Kamal Matinuddin, a nuclear and security analyst in Islamabad, told Al Jazeera he did not see a nuclear deal with the US being made.

"The nuclear issue is not so much about Pakistan being recognised as nuclear power ... it wants a nuclear deal for peaceful purposes because it is an energy deficient country," Matinuddin said.

"Even if a deal is made, it would take many years [to implement]. It took five years for India to get the nuclear deal, similarly Pakistan would have to wait for another 5-7 years for them [US] to even accept Pakistan's point of view [on this].

 

[fatman17]

VIEW: Strategic dialogue’s weakest link —Syed Talat Hussain

Even if Pakistan is able to prevent itself from being short-changed this time by insisting on concrete timelines for the fulfilment of every promise, a disastrous domestic situation shall remain the weakest link in negotiations with the US.


Pakistan’s re-entry into the
limelight of positive international attention is astounding. Not many months ago, the country was in the doghouse. It was constantly asked to “do more” by Washington on the terrorism front. It was dragged over burning coals for being insensitive to Delhi’s sensibilities on matters concerning the Mumbai attacks. British Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, came here and delivered verbose lectures on the urgent need to expedite the trial of the proscribed Lashkar-e-Tayyaba (LeT) leadership to placate Delhi. His US counterpart, Hillary Clinton, was rude even in her famous charm offensive in Pakistan on the issue of US aid to Pakistan under the contentious Kerry-Lugar-Berman Act. “Take it or leave it,” she said to the Pakistani nation in a tone that made Richard Holbrooke sound like a humming bird.

This situation encouraged the Indians to pile more pressure on Pakistan. They threatened war, surgical strikes and other retributive actions in case “another Mumbai-like incident happened”. For a while, a nuclear-armed state began to look like a cardboard country, diplomatically fragile in the extreme, and for which everyone had a slap to spare, and a fist to show.

Not any longer. As the details of the strategic dialogue in Washington show, Pakistan is negotiating from a position much better than before. Praise is rather frequent for its performance in FATA and Swat against terrorists. The sizzling rhetoric against the Quetta Shura has also gone down. Commentators wired to official circles are speaking of a “paradigm shift” in Pakistan’s policy towards the Afghan Taliban.

The Indians are a better gauge of Pakistan’s changed situation. At the beginning of this year, they were drawing vicarious pleasure out of Islamabad’s diplomatic travails. Now they are stunned and sullen. “Washington and London are both mollycoddling Islamabad at the expense of Delhi” was the screaming lament that rang throughout a two-day long seminar in London, where senior Indian analysts and former diplomats exchanged views with their Pakistani and British counterparts.

What is going on? For answers, look towards Afghanistan. In the West the realisation is sinking in fast that the entire project of creating a successful and stable state out of the Afghanistan mess is headed towards a definitive failure. The Obama administration is now exposed to the prospect of its military surge proving to be too little too late to bring the obstreperous resistance movement under control. Also, independent assessments in the aftermath of the Marjah Operation in Helmand suggest that stabilising nearly 80 districts (or ‘critical terrain&#8217 in the next two years by the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) looks next to impossible. Dialogue with the various factions involved in fighting, therefore, is a strategic imperative to make headway in Afghanistan. If this headway is not made, NATO shall not be able to look itself in the mirror. The Republicans shall laugh the Democrats out of Congress and out of presidency in the next term. The Taliban will declare victory against another superpower. The Russians would throw a global celebration party. The Chinese will join them through special invitation. World power architecture, still Washington-centric, might take another form. This is where Pakistan, with its almost exclusive zone of access and influence in the south and east of Afghanistan, becomes critical to widening the window of opportunity to engage with the resistance groups: Taliban under Mullah Muhammad Omar; Haqqani network; and Hezb-e-Islami of Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. If this engagement can lead to a modicum of stability in Afghanistan’s most troubled areas, the path to a graceful exit, saleable to the voters back home, and saving blushes to NATO and ISAF, can be carved. In this context, showering generous attention on Pakistan and bringing some sanity in the manner the country is diplomatically treated is part of the effort to make Islamabad happy.

This policy makeover provides Islamabad breathing space and a reasonable hope to get a better deal from Washington. Hence the rather long wish list of must-do things Pakistan has taken to the table of strategic dialogue. In all probability, Washington will not say no to them. Pakistan’s good offices are far too valuable at this point in time to be lost. If a yes can save the day, it shall be said, even if more important strategic allies like India find it nauseating.

But Washington’s changed mood, and its positive effect elsewhere, is a tactical adjustment desperately needed before Congress elections and review of the success of Obama’s surge policy become due. What Pakistan makes of this limited diplomatic break from a long and horrid spell of mistreatment depends on how hard it bargains on the table. One reason General Kayani has been so active in the current negotiations is to ensure that Pakistan makes the best of these circumstances. Pretensions aside, the GHQ is now completely in control of Pakistan’s defence and foreign policy. “We have about till the end of this year to turn this opportunity to our advantage,” General Kayani reportedly said in casual conversation at a dinner table a few weeks ago. These are the six months that the US needs Pakistan the most to make its Afghanistan campaign look like a success. Incidentally, six months is just about the time the general has before he retires from his present assignment.

But even if the Pakistan Army pulls its full weight to maximise the dividends of Pakistan’s new relevance to Washington, there is a big question mark over the possibility of the US actually delivering on its commitments in this span of time. US diplomats have spoken big words in the past without adequate follow-up. Cash and kindness both have been in short supply. Even now there is a quantum jump in the media hype over the strategic dialogue — witness the flurry of self-serving interviews of Hillary Clinton on Pakistani channels. If past practice is any guide, this is generally done to compensate for lack of substance or sincerity of purpose in diplomatic engagements. But even if Pakistan is able to prevent itself from being short-changed this time by insisting on concrete timelines for the fulfilment of every promise, a disastrous domestic situation shall remain the weakest link in negotiations with the US. It is like a sieve from which every chance of real turn around in the country’s fortunes is seeping away. The gains in Washington are already lost in Islamabad.

The writer is a leading Pakistani journalist

 

[ambidex]

I am aware that things will move at very slow pace but till today there is nothing constructive as far as what pakistan has been expecting from this stretegic dialogue.
However what has came up more in light (i have read in WAB before; how libral US has been to Pak for buying products) is pakistan's depency on USA for export of domicilliary products. I think Pakistan should change its approach to reach globally and earn wealth with vigrous diplomatic efforts rather wasting time on convincing USA and singinging Kashmir.

How on earth you be stasfied with USA snubbing you on kashmir (may be making india to itch temporarly gives more fun every time), Whats the benefit getting few millons for local power plants when you WOT bill has already gone passed 10s of billions. Why would you be happy that they are not asking you to do more this time cause you never know when they will start pulling your legs for the same.
Regards.

 

[Speaker]

I am aware that things will move at very slow pace but till today there is nothing constructive as far as what pakistan has been expecting from this stretegic dialogue.
However what has came up more in light (i have read in WAB before; how libral US has been to Pak for buying products) is pakistan's depency on USA for export of domicilliary products. I think Pakistan should change its approach to reach globally and earn wealth with vigrous diplomatic efforts rather wasting time on convincing USA and singinging Kashmir.

How on earth you be stasfied with USA snubbing you on kashmir (may be making india to itch temporarly gives more fun every time), Whats the benefit getting few millons for local power plants when you WOT bill has already gone passed 10s of billions. Why would you be happy that they are not asking you to do more this time cause you never know when they will start pulling your legs for the same.
Regards.

The Kashmir issue has now grown bigger than the country itself. They also face the threat of a political/military/militant backlash if they were to ever put Kashmir in the back-burner.

On the WOT issue, I don't see how they could have done it any differently. The mood of the Americans post 9/11 has been to power through any opposition to their war. If Pakistan had not supported them, they'd have gone about doing what they are now, with more impunity and disdain. At least this way, Pakistan has some control over its border regions and feels part of the decision-making process. Having said this, they are doing their best to salvage pride by asking for American help in return for their services. As far as I see it, they were forced into this war and they are trying to get whatever little they can out of this.