What's new

The Pak-US strategic dialogue

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.

i really like this
 
.
WASHINGTON, March 26: The United States has made a “strategic priority” to strengthen its partnership with Pakistan, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has said.



We’ve made it a strategic priority to strengthen our partnership with the Pakistani people, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said. –Photo by AP​

In a testimony before the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee, she also noted that US efforts in Pakistan were vital for America’s success in Afghanistan.

Thursday’s hearing helps set the stage for the upcoming debate this spring over the White House requests for $33 billion in new war funding coupled with $4.5 billion in foreign assistance, chiefly for Afghanistan and Pakistan. “In Pakistan, our efforts are vital to success in Afghanistan, but also to our own American security,” she said. “We’ve made it a strategic priority to strengthen our partnership with the Pakistani people.” She also warned the American people not expect a quick victory against the extremists in the Pak-Afghan region.

“I’m under no illusion that success in this arena will come quickly or easily,” she said, noting that only a year ago the extremists were less than 100 miles from Islamabad and they met little resistance in launching attacks on American troops from border areas.

Noting that the situation had changed drastically since last year, she credited the Pakistani military for this success. “Since then, the Pakistani government has launched important offences in Swat, South Waziristan and throughout the country,” she said.

Secretary Clinton said the supplement, which went beyond the White House’s original funding request, would help the United States achieve its goals in all of what she called “frontline states”.

“Our request addresses urgent demands that will advance our efforts to bring stability to Afghanistan and Pakistan and ensure a smooth transition to a civilian-led effort in Iraq,” she said.

“Success requires a fully integrated civilian and military effort, one in which security gains are followed immediately by economic and political gain,” she said. Across the border in Pakistan, where the United States pressed the government itself to be more aggressive against Taliban forces, the wreckage left has “created new humanitarian needs that, if not addressed immediately,” Clinton said, “could make these areas ripe for extremism”.

Appearing before the same panel, US Secretary of Defence Robert Gates expressed “guarded optimism” about US progress in Afghanistan but predicted “many tough and long days ahead” as evidenced by the sheer number of ticklish questions he faced on everything from police training contracts to the Afghan opium crop and alleged human rights abuses by Pakistan military units.


DAWN.COM | Front Page | Pakistan now a strategic priority: US
 
.
it is all TALK nothing else!!!! these americans are very good at just talking!
 
.
If there’s a cross on which Pakistan has found itself frequently crucified, it is the one carrying the legend ‘strategic’. What follies have we not committed in the pursuit of strategic goals? Even our present preoccupation with terrorism is a product of our strategic labours in times past (hopefully, never to return).
So when a fresh batch of graduates speaks of a ‘strategic dialogue’ with the United States—our principal ally and, often, the cause of our biggest headaches—there is reason to be wary.

We have been here before, travelled down this route many times, our obsessive insecurity driving us time and again into American arms, each time to be left high and dry when the initial enthusiasm, or necessity, had passed. But we never seem to learn and each time begin our quest for the holy grail—of permanence in our American connection—as if there were never any heartbreaks before.

Barely six months ago the US viewed Pakistan through sceptical, even distrustful, eyes. The army had yet to go into South Waziristan and the phrase Quetta Shura was on the lips of every half-baked security analyst across the Atlantic. South Waziristan, the unspoken acceptance of drone strikes and greater cooperation with the CIA in nabbing shadowy Taleban figures in Pakistan changed all this. American faces now light up at the mention of Pakistan, no smile more beaming than on the face of Gen David Petraeus.

As part of this mood swing, the Americans have taken to lionising Pakistan’s army commander, Gen Ashfaq Kayani, who is very much the flavour of the moment; just as—frightening thought—Pervez Musharraf was once upon a time. It is sobering to remember that when Musharraf signed on with the US post-September 11, conceding far more than anyone in the Bush administration was expecting, no leader on earth was more feted than him.

So we should try and keep things in perspective. The Americans may be gushing over us now but that’s only because we are crucial, perhaps indispensable, for the success of their mission in Afghanistan. Or even for a face-saving exit from that quagmire. There are two fronts to this war, the one in Pakistan being by far the most important.

The ‘strategic dialogue’ is thus not pegged to any abstract love for Pakistan. It arises from the grim necessity of the war in Afghanistan. We should be under no illusions about the window of opportunity that this dialogue offers. This window will remain open and serviceable only up to the moment when the Americans begin withdrawing from Afghanistan. To assume otherwise, and give way to misplaced euphoria—something at which we are rather good – is to court the ways of folly and set ourselves up for another ‘betrayal’ at American hands. The wish list Pakistan has carried to Washington has Kayani’s thumbprint all over it. It has not been lost on anyone that in the driving seat as far as our delegation is concerned sits not the foreign minister or anyone else but him. It would also not have been lost on anyone that the brief prepared by our side for the talks was put together not in the Prime Minister’s office or anywhere else but in General Headquarters, with key federal secretaries in attendance and Kayani, not the prime minister, presiding.

Kayani is a smart man, very articulate and extremely good at putting his point of view across (his presentation at NATO Headquarters in Brussels has been widely talked about). But what is this we are hearing about the shopping list prepared under his aegis? Which world are we living in? Which planet does GHQ still inhabit?

We have just a year and a half, not eternity, to get what we want from the US. It behoves us ill to ask the US to help restart our composite dialogue with India. If India is playing hard-to-get on this count, we should be able to keep our cool and wait for India’s attitude to change. Even if the composite dialogue doesn’t get going for the next two years, the glaciers will not melt and the Himalayas will not march down to the seas.

We should be mature enough to understand a few things clearly. America is not going to ask India to talk Kashmir with us. It is not going to solve our water problems with India. It is not going to give us the kind of nuclear deal it has concluded with India.

To go by the hype generated in official quarters, it almost appeared as if we were expecting a string of nuclear power plants from the US. And what happens? Hillary Clinton announces a gift of 125 million dollars to set up thermal power plants. A colder splash of water on the fires of our misplaced ardour could not have been poured. What Burke said of England in the context of America’s war of independence: “Light lie the dust on the ashes of English pride”…we can use to define our predicament: light lie the dust on the embers of our strategic relationship.

Sooner or later we will have to discover the reasons for this talent for selling ourselves cheap. We have always behaved thus in our dealings with the US, assuming obligations unthinkingly, never asking for the right price and then moaning about betrayal and the like when the Americans, taking us at our word, leave us with very little.

Hosni Mubarak got Egypt’s American debt (7 billion dollars, and this was in 1991) written off when he joined America’s first Gulf war. The Turks asked for 25 billion dollars to allow American troops territorial passage prior to the Iraq war in 2003. That the US refused is beside the point. The Turks did not allow themselves to be taken for granted. We settle for peanuts and call it a ’strategic relationship’.

GHQ is aghast at the thought of the Indians training the Afghan army. In Kayani’s phrase, even when trainers depart, they leave their mindset behind. Given the vehemence of our position on this point, maybe the Americans give us ground on this. And we will hail it as a major victory. But we should be playing for higher stakes instead of tilting at windmills.

So the old questions remain: how to emerge from the darkness into the light? How to manage Pakistan’s affairs better? Most important of all: whence will come the liberation of the Pakistani mind? One thing is for sure: not from GHQ.

Ayaz Amir is a distinguished Pakistani commentator and Member of National Assembly (parliament). For comments, write to opinion@khaleejtimes.com

Strategising a Relationship
 
.
Mods Can you please shift the thread to Strategic & Geopolitical Issues Board!

And Thanks Steve for pointing it out for me.
 
.

The talk about Strategic Dialogue is a gimmick

The ground realities and perceptions on both sides are oceans apart to generate any tangible result that would really benifit Pakistan... It will continue to remain a transactional relationship. The US prefer's it that way and will continue to keep it within this domain... As and when required it will show some carrots and use a stick now and then.
 
.
well ill tell you wat it is.

we need an afghanistan with no indian influence and US needs a graceful exit to win next elections. its only for the short term that our interests have converged. once this game is over then we will be back to our usual relations :)
but i hope it wont be as bad as 90s now that we have already made our nuclear bomb.

in long run, US can not ignore indian market. which means we should prepare ourselves for PP (pressure and propaganda) in a medium run which is say 2014.

and im quite sure till then both countries will try to exploit their positions to maximum with a million dollar simile on their face... but till then its only luveeee:smitten:
 
.
To go by the hype generated in official quarters, it almost appeared as if we were expecting a string of nuclear power plants from the US.

Did Pakistani officials express this sentiment? My impression was that the 'hype' was media driven, specifically the Indian media, that was hysterical at the possibility of Pakistan not being discriminated against.
 
.
Did Pakistani officials express this sentiment? My impression was that the 'hype' was media driven, specifically the Indian media, that was hysterical at the possibility of Pakistan not being discriminated against.

I think the whole speculation started when the US ambassador to Pakistan made a comment about this..Dont think any one with real understanding of realities was thinking about the possibility of Pakistan getting a nuke deal anytime soon...
 
.
I think the whole speculation started when the US ambassador to Pakistan made a comment about this..Dont think any one with real understanding of realities was thinking about the possibility of Pakistan getting a nuke deal anytime soon...

Correct - and the Ambassador's words pointed to the start of a dialog rather than some instant breakthrough.

With all the reports and posts on this issue, I forget whether the GoI issued any official statements contradicting their earlier position defined by the following comments by then External Affairs Minister, Pranab Mukerjee:

"India has indicated it would not mind the United States entering a civil nuclear deal with Pakistan, saying it believed every country has the right to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.

"We will like to encourage civil nuclear cooperation for peaceful use of nuclear energy," external affairs minister Pranab Mukherjee said at a press conference after signing the bilateral 123 agreement with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

"We believe every country has the right to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes," he said when asked about Islamabad's demand for an India-like nuclear deal with the US.

India not against US-Pakistan N-deal: Pranab - India - The Times of India
 
.
well ill tell you wat it is.

we need an afghanistan with no indian influence and US needs a graceful exit to win next elections. its only for the short term that our interests have converged. once this game is over then we will be back to our usual relations :)
but i hope it wont be as bad as 90s now that we have already made our nuclear bomb.

in long run, US can not ignore indian market. which means we should prepare ourselves for PP (pressure and propaganda) in a medium run which is say 2014.

and im quite sure till then both countries will try to exploit their positions to maximum with a million dollar simile on their face... but till then its only luveeee:smitten:


I guess the US wont backaway this time the way it did in 90s. The reagion still bears importance for US interests and hence its engement with Pakistan also matters . Despite the troops withdrawl . The US will maintain a sufficent presence through intel or covert ops and Pakistan is best positioned to facillitate such. Further i dont see any chance that Pakistan-US relations would deteriate to a level that US would again impose sanctions onto Pakistan . That scenario is simply out of the question .
 
.
Pakistan, US officials review defence cooperation
Updated at: 0500 PST, Friday, June 11, 2010

ISLAMABAD: Pakistani and the United States defence officials met from June 7-10 at Pakistan's Joint Staff Headquarters in Rawalpindi to discuss issues of common interest under the rubric of the strategic dialogue process.

The defence-working group, known as an Exchange on Defence Planning, was the first sectoral working group within the framework of the strategic dialogue since the Ministerial level U.S.-Pakistan strategic dialogue meeting held in Washington, D.C., in March this year.

The Pakistan side was led by Lt. Gen. Athar Ali (retd), Pakistan's Secretary of Defence, and the US side was co-chaired by Mr. David Ochmanek, US Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defence for Force Development; and Mr. David Sedney, US Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defence for Afghanistan, Pakistan and Central Asia.

Both sides were assisted by officers from relevant departments and ministries, says a press release issued by the US Embassy here on Thursday.

Both sides discussed and reviewed cooperation in Defence relations, focused on the mutual challenges associated with multi-year cooperation between Pakistan and the US, and reviewed mechanisms for prioritizing and integrating security and defence capability requirements.

They also exchanged views on security cooperation and areas of potential future cooperation between the two sides.

The US delegation praised Pakistan's efforts in addressing the threat of violent extremism and recognized the courage and extraordinary sacrifices made by Pakistan's military, law enforcement agencies and the public in the fight against violent extremism.

The Pakistani side also expressed appreciation for the US support and assistance provided to Pakistan's security forces in the fight against extremism.

The talks were held in a cordial and friendly atmosphere and both parties agreed to meet again in a follow-on exchange of defence planning.

Pakistan, US officials review defence cooperation
 
.
Back
Top Bottom