U.S. bristles at stiff Pakistani NATO fees
- Thread starter RayKalm
- Start date
VCheng
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2010
- Messages
- 48,460
- Reaction score
- 57
- Country
- Location
Not just repair, but build too: Pakistan should use these funds to build up anything that serves its future needs: Highways along the west bank of the Indus, better links to Gawadar, general updates to bridges and dual carriageways every where there is a need etc.
PS: Drones have NEVER been used for destroying infrastructure.
Vassnti
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- May 29, 2009
- Messages
- 3,167
- Reaction score
- 1
- Country
- Location
Come on you can throw out that and leave it hanging Developero. I admit though perhaps better informed than average im a Pakistan novice but that said the US could throw in every thing on Sherry Rehman's wish list and the $5000 dollars a truck and the US would still be hated by half of Pakistan.
Your statment implies there is a simple solution the US fails to impliment because they basically dont give a ****, perhaps im reading that wrong but if there is such a solution i would love to know what you think it is.
Safriz
BANNED
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2010
- Messages
- 20,845
- Reaction score
- -1
- Country
- Location
President Asif Ali Zardari announced a total of 20 million US dollars aid for Afghanistan, out of which five million dollar for Afghan national security forces whereas remaining 15 million US dollars for training and other equipments.
Speaking to Nato Summit on the future of Afghanistan in Chicago on Monday, he said that Pakistan wants peace in Afghanistan. He said that spread of Afghan Transit Trade to Tajikistan and other countries was an open example of it.
He said that Pakistan would continue playing its role to eradicate terrorism. Pakistan Army stil combating against terrorist, he stated.
President Zardari said that Nato attack on Salala checkpost was a big set back to Pakistan's effort against terrorists.
Pointing out the Nato supply resumption, President Zardari said that all the political parties urged to review ties with Nato. He said that Parliament of Pakistan gave a road map regarding ties with Nato and Isaf.
All democratic powers endorsed the Parliamentary decision, President Zardari said, added that, they were bound to implement the decision of Parliament and democratic institutions. He said that ties were depend on mutual interest and sovereignty.
He said that Defence Committee had directed concerned officials to resume ground talks with Nato and Isaf. He said that Pakistan was vowed to kick out foreign terrorist and insurgents from the country.
President Zardari said that Pakistan needs help of international community. He also said that besides terrorism their was need of battle against poverty, drugs and illiteracy.
Speaking to Nato Summit on the future of Afghanistan in Chicago on Monday, he said that Pakistan wants peace in Afghanistan. He said that spread of Afghan Transit Trade to Tajikistan and other countries was an open example of it.
He said that Pakistan would continue playing its role to eradicate terrorism. Pakistan Army stil combating against terrorist, he stated.
President Zardari said that Nato attack on Salala checkpost was a big set back to Pakistan's effort against terrorists.
Pointing out the Nato supply resumption, President Zardari said that all the political parties urged to review ties with Nato. He said that Parliament of Pakistan gave a road map regarding ties with Nato and Isaf.
All democratic powers endorsed the Parliamentary decision, President Zardari said, added that, they were bound to implement the decision of Parliament and democratic institutions. He said that ties were depend on mutual interest and sovereignty.
He said that Defence Committee had directed concerned officials to resume ground talks with Nato and Isaf. He said that Pakistan was vowed to kick out foreign terrorist and insurgents from the country.
President Zardari said that Pakistan needs help of international community. He also said that besides terrorism their was need of battle against poverty, drugs and illiteracy.
Chicago declaration: In the face of pressure, Pakistan offers no quarter
CHICAGO: Despite intense pressure and Nato’s public call for reopening supply routes through Pakistan in a summit declaration, President Asif Ali Zardari made no promises in Chicago.
In a short speech on Monday to leaders from countries in the Nato-led force in Afghanistan, President Zardari gave no indication that Islamabad would be reopening vital Nato supply routes anytime soon without the preconditions Pakistan’s Parliament had put in place.
He told the gathering of more than 50 nations that “Pakistan believed in partnerships based on trust and respect. Partnerships that will secure the future of our people.”
The president, however, did address the pressing matter of the reopening of Nato supply routes, saying Islamabad had ordered negotiators to conclude a deal with the United States.
Zardari said the cabinet’s Defence Committee “decided to direct the relevant officials to conclude negotiations for resumption of the Ground Lines of Communication” needed to supply foreign troops in Afghanistan.
In his address, Zardari called the botched air raid “a serious setback” that “required that we review our engagement and cooperation.”
The parliament “has spoken in favour of cooperation and a partnership approach,” he said, adding that Pakistan was bound by the advice of parliament and the democratic forces.
“Our parliament has also recommended that foreign fighters and non-state actors seeking to destabilize Afghanistan and the region, if found on our soil, must be expelled. We are devising a comprehensive plan for this purpose. This would require the support of the international community both in terms of resources and capacity building. It will also require measures aimed at the economic well-being of the people of the areas affected by the military action,” he added.
Afghan reconciliation
The president said Pakistan’s destiny was inter-linked with Afghanistan while expressing support of all efforts for peace and reconciliation in the war-torn country.
“We firmly believe that only an inclusive intra-Afghan dialogue can lead to sustainable peace in Afghanistan,” he said.
US-Pakistan bilateral talks
Earlier, Pakistan and the US ended their Chicago consultations on the side-lines of the Nato summit, “agreeing to disagree” on almost all their mutually contentious issues but seemingly pushed by their respective national interests to continue talking to seek ways to bridge the trust deficit which refuses to disappear.
Even the quick handshake between President Obama and President Zardari before the start of the consultations among participants of the summit this morning appeared to have failed to break the ice. However, unconfirmed reports claim that the two presidents met for short while after the handshake but details of what transpired between the two were not readily available.
Briefing by secretary general
At the end of the final day of the summit, the Nato Secretary General while briefing the media said that it was in Pakistan’s interest to have a stable Afghanistan and voiced optimism that Pakistan would reopen a vital supply route for foreign troops in Afghanistan despite failing to reach a deal at a summit in Chicago.
“We did not anticipate an agreement on the Pakistan transit routes to be reached at this summit. That was not planned,” Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen told reporters.
But he added: “I express some optimism as regards the possibility to see the reopening of transit routes in the very near future.”
The secretary general went on to add that President Asif Ali Zardari was invited “because we wanted to engage with Pakistan. We need to have a positive engagement with Pakistan. I met President Zardari, I was encouraged by his statements.”
NATO declaration
The Western alliance agreed to hand control of Afghanistan over to its own security forces by the middle of next year, putting the Western alliance on an ‘irreversible’ path out of an unpopular, decade-long war.
In a declaration at a summit in Chicago, the alliance expressed appreciation to Russia and Central Asian governments for allowing supply convoys through their territory in what seemed to be a cautionary statement directed towards Pakistan and said “Nato continues to work with Pakistan to reopen the ground lines of communication as soon as possible.”
“The countries in the region, particularly Pakistan, have important roles in ensuring enduring peace, stability and security in Afghanistan and in facilitating the completion of the transition process,” the declaration said.
Pressure on Pakistan
The seemingly intense pressure being put on Pakistan was reflected in the Monday edition of The Wall Street Journal, which said that US tensions with Pakistan complicated the opening day of the Nato summit as the US had failed so far to reach a deal with Pakistan to reopen key supply routes into Afghanistan.
“Zardari was invited to attend the two-day summit at the last minute in hopes that would lead to a deal, but the two sides remain at odds over how much the US and its allies should pay Pakistan per container,” it further said.
It seems the bottom line was dollars at the summit for both the Western alliance and Pakistan as the former is seeking substantial contributions from its recession-battered members, amounting a total of $4.1 billion, to finance its withdrawal and support the peace aftermath, while the latter is suffering from one of its worst economic squeezes in history and is looking forward to cashing in on the Afghan withdrawal concerns by proposing that the transit fees per container be raised to as much as $5,000 from the current $250, a demand that Washington and its allies have rejected as excessive.
The refusal of President Obama to have an official one-on-meeting with President Zardari is being used as pressure meant to make the latter “feel uncomfortable,” the WSJ said, quoting an unnamed senior US official.
The Chicago Tribune on Monday said that the two-day summit, the largest in the military alliance’s 63 year history, came as White House officials made clear they were furious at Pakistan’s continued refusal to reopen ground routes used to move fuel and other war supplies into Afghanistan, a six month standoff the White House had hoped to resolve before the summit.
Pakistan’s version
Pakistanis on their part led by President Zardari appeared to be putting up a brave face in the face of intense pressure as they publicly stuck to their stand that both a US apology and cessation of drone strikes were not off the table as far as they were concerned and that they would not settle for anything less than what they are demanding as a transit supply fee.
The unflappable presidential spokesperson Farhatullah Babar and a media savvy Ambassador Sherry Rehman effortlessly kept their cool while fielding some very searching questions from a group of Pakistani media representatives at their late evening briefing on President Zardari’s engagements.
Their brave faces indicated that either Pakistan had not realised the gravity of the situation or they had come prepared not to sign on the dotted lines, come what may, and therefore were ready face the consequences.
Or perhaps both US and Pakistan are deliberately sending well orchestrated signals for the benefit of their respective parties while having already reached some kind of accord on major issues to be made public at a mutually agreed time. As both the Democrats in the US and the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) enter election mode, they may be seeking to extract the maximum political advantage– or minimum political damage – from this deal.
Babar said the two sides while agreeing to disagree on their contentious issues sought to continue talks to bridge the trust deficit, which he thought was a positive aspect of the meeting between Zardari and Clinton.
“We searched for convergences and tried to reduce the points of divergences. We dispelled the misperception regarding the alleged links with Pakistani militants … The Secretary of state was informed that the US has not paid a single penny under CSF head since July 2010. President Zardari reiterated that Pakistan needed trade rather than aid, stoppage of drone attacks, and would like speedy implementation of reconstruction opportunity zones.”
US president’s speech
Meanwhile, in his opening remarks on the final day of the summit the US President welcomed Nato allies and partners that make up the International Security Assistance Force (Isaf) in Afghanistan and particularly mentioned the presence of Afghan President Karzai, as well as officials from central Asia and Russia: “nations that have an important perspective and that continue to provide critical transit for Isaf supplies.” He did not name Pakistan even once in his speech.
US President Barack Obama and his 27 military allies also ordered military officers to begin planning a post-2014 mission to focus on training, advising and assisting Afghan troops and special forces.
“As Afghans stand up, they will not stand alone,” Obama said.
Meanwhile, in a sign of growing impatience within the alliance, new French President Francois Hollande refused to back down from his decision to pull troops out in 2012, a year earlier than planned.
(Read: Chicago hiccups)
Published in The Express Tribune, May 22nd, 2012.
CHICAGO: Despite intense pressure and Nato’s public call for reopening supply routes through Pakistan in a summit declaration, President Asif Ali Zardari made no promises in Chicago.
In a short speech on Monday to leaders from countries in the Nato-led force in Afghanistan, President Zardari gave no indication that Islamabad would be reopening vital Nato supply routes anytime soon without the preconditions Pakistan’s Parliament had put in place.
He told the gathering of more than 50 nations that “Pakistan believed in partnerships based on trust and respect. Partnerships that will secure the future of our people.”
The president, however, did address the pressing matter of the reopening of Nato supply routes, saying Islamabad had ordered negotiators to conclude a deal with the United States.
Zardari said the cabinet’s Defence Committee “decided to direct the relevant officials to conclude negotiations for resumption of the Ground Lines of Communication” needed to supply foreign troops in Afghanistan.
In his address, Zardari called the botched air raid “a serious setback” that “required that we review our engagement and cooperation.”
The parliament “has spoken in favour of cooperation and a partnership approach,” he said, adding that Pakistan was bound by the advice of parliament and the democratic forces.
“Our parliament has also recommended that foreign fighters and non-state actors seeking to destabilize Afghanistan and the region, if found on our soil, must be expelled. We are devising a comprehensive plan for this purpose. This would require the support of the international community both in terms of resources and capacity building. It will also require measures aimed at the economic well-being of the people of the areas affected by the military action,” he added.
Afghan reconciliation
The president said Pakistan’s destiny was inter-linked with Afghanistan while expressing support of all efforts for peace and reconciliation in the war-torn country.
“We firmly believe that only an inclusive intra-Afghan dialogue can lead to sustainable peace in Afghanistan,” he said.
US-Pakistan bilateral talks
Earlier, Pakistan and the US ended their Chicago consultations on the side-lines of the Nato summit, “agreeing to disagree” on almost all their mutually contentious issues but seemingly pushed by their respective national interests to continue talking to seek ways to bridge the trust deficit which refuses to disappear.
Even the quick handshake between President Obama and President Zardari before the start of the consultations among participants of the summit this morning appeared to have failed to break the ice. However, unconfirmed reports claim that the two presidents met for short while after the handshake but details of what transpired between the two were not readily available.
Briefing by secretary general
At the end of the final day of the summit, the Nato Secretary General while briefing the media said that it was in Pakistan’s interest to have a stable Afghanistan and voiced optimism that Pakistan would reopen a vital supply route for foreign troops in Afghanistan despite failing to reach a deal at a summit in Chicago.
“We did not anticipate an agreement on the Pakistan transit routes to be reached at this summit. That was not planned,” Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen told reporters.
But he added: “I express some optimism as regards the possibility to see the reopening of transit routes in the very near future.”
The secretary general went on to add that President Asif Ali Zardari was invited “because we wanted to engage with Pakistan. We need to have a positive engagement with Pakistan. I met President Zardari, I was encouraged by his statements.”
NATO declaration
The Western alliance agreed to hand control of Afghanistan over to its own security forces by the middle of next year, putting the Western alliance on an ‘irreversible’ path out of an unpopular, decade-long war.
In a declaration at a summit in Chicago, the alliance expressed appreciation to Russia and Central Asian governments for allowing supply convoys through their territory in what seemed to be a cautionary statement directed towards Pakistan and said “Nato continues to work with Pakistan to reopen the ground lines of communication as soon as possible.”
“The countries in the region, particularly Pakistan, have important roles in ensuring enduring peace, stability and security in Afghanistan and in facilitating the completion of the transition process,” the declaration said.
Pressure on Pakistan
The seemingly intense pressure being put on Pakistan was reflected in the Monday edition of The Wall Street Journal, which said that US tensions with Pakistan complicated the opening day of the Nato summit as the US had failed so far to reach a deal with Pakistan to reopen key supply routes into Afghanistan.
“Zardari was invited to attend the two-day summit at the last minute in hopes that would lead to a deal, but the two sides remain at odds over how much the US and its allies should pay Pakistan per container,” it further said.
It seems the bottom line was dollars at the summit for both the Western alliance and Pakistan as the former is seeking substantial contributions from its recession-battered members, amounting a total of $4.1 billion, to finance its withdrawal and support the peace aftermath, while the latter is suffering from one of its worst economic squeezes in history and is looking forward to cashing in on the Afghan withdrawal concerns by proposing that the transit fees per container be raised to as much as $5,000 from the current $250, a demand that Washington and its allies have rejected as excessive.
The refusal of President Obama to have an official one-on-meeting with President Zardari is being used as pressure meant to make the latter “feel uncomfortable,” the WSJ said, quoting an unnamed senior US official.
The Chicago Tribune on Monday said that the two-day summit, the largest in the military alliance’s 63 year history, came as White House officials made clear they were furious at Pakistan’s continued refusal to reopen ground routes used to move fuel and other war supplies into Afghanistan, a six month standoff the White House had hoped to resolve before the summit.
Pakistan’s version
Pakistanis on their part led by President Zardari appeared to be putting up a brave face in the face of intense pressure as they publicly stuck to their stand that both a US apology and cessation of drone strikes were not off the table as far as they were concerned and that they would not settle for anything less than what they are demanding as a transit supply fee.
The unflappable presidential spokesperson Farhatullah Babar and a media savvy Ambassador Sherry Rehman effortlessly kept their cool while fielding some very searching questions from a group of Pakistani media representatives at their late evening briefing on President Zardari’s engagements.
Their brave faces indicated that either Pakistan had not realised the gravity of the situation or they had come prepared not to sign on the dotted lines, come what may, and therefore were ready face the consequences.
Or perhaps both US and Pakistan are deliberately sending well orchestrated signals for the benefit of their respective parties while having already reached some kind of accord on major issues to be made public at a mutually agreed time. As both the Democrats in the US and the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) enter election mode, they may be seeking to extract the maximum political advantage– or minimum political damage – from this deal.
Babar said the two sides while agreeing to disagree on their contentious issues sought to continue talks to bridge the trust deficit, which he thought was a positive aspect of the meeting between Zardari and Clinton.
“We searched for convergences and tried to reduce the points of divergences. We dispelled the misperception regarding the alleged links with Pakistani militants … The Secretary of state was informed that the US has not paid a single penny under CSF head since July 2010. President Zardari reiterated that Pakistan needed trade rather than aid, stoppage of drone attacks, and would like speedy implementation of reconstruction opportunity zones.”
US president’s speech
Meanwhile, in his opening remarks on the final day of the summit the US President welcomed Nato allies and partners that make up the International Security Assistance Force (Isaf) in Afghanistan and particularly mentioned the presence of Afghan President Karzai, as well as officials from central Asia and Russia: “nations that have an important perspective and that continue to provide critical transit for Isaf supplies.” He did not name Pakistan even once in his speech.
US President Barack Obama and his 27 military allies also ordered military officers to begin planning a post-2014 mission to focus on training, advising and assisting Afghan troops and special forces.
“As Afghans stand up, they will not stand alone,” Obama said.
Meanwhile, in a sign of growing impatience within the alliance, new French President Francois Hollande refused to back down from his decision to pull troops out in 2012, a year earlier than planned.
(Read: Chicago hiccups)
Published in The Express Tribune, May 22nd, 2012.
Developereo
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2009
- Messages
- 14,093
- Reaction score
- 25
- Country
- Location
I listed a few things the US (or any country) can do to forge a relationship with the Pakistani nation.
The bottom line is that the US administration has decided that its interests (i.e. American interests) are best served by coddling a few self-serving leaders than by directly engaging with the Pakistani people. The reason, unfortunately, is that American interests in the region diverge with Pakistan's long term interests. It is only when the US matures through the growing pains of a multipolar world that the situation will subside.
Vassnti
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- May 29, 2009
- Messages
- 3,167
- Reaction score
- 1
- Country
- Location
Such as this perhaps?
ISLAMABAD — Even as U.S.-Pakistani cooperation on anti-terrorism programs is withering, the United States is considering backing the construction of a giant, $12 billion dam in Pakistan that would be the largest civilian aid project the U.S. has undertaken here in decades.
Read more here: U.S. considers funding Pakistani dam project, despite tensions | McClatchy
and
Problem is big projects take time and are going to cost millions now for a benefit 10 years down the track that are then soon forgotten.
Who these days gives any credit for the Tarbella dam to the US. Yes aid can be better distributed thats already been covered many times, though i respect your opinion i just dont see things as being as simple as buy the right presents and all is forgiven.
ISLAMABAD — Even as U.S.-Pakistani cooperation on anti-terrorism programs is withering, the United States is considering backing the construction of a giant, $12 billion dam in Pakistan that would be the largest civilian aid project the U.S. has undertaken here in decades.
Read more here: U.S. considers funding Pakistani dam project, despite tensions | McClatchy
and
Problem is big projects take time and are going to cost millions now for a benefit 10 years down the track that are then soon forgotten.
Who these days gives any credit for the Tarbella dam to the US. Yes aid can be better distributed thats already been covered many times, though i respect your opinion i just dont see things as being as simple as buy the right presents and all is forgiven.
Developereo
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2009
- Messages
- 14,093
- Reaction score
- 25
- Country
- Location
Yes, it is complex. People also look at the big picture.
Drone attacks and CIA operations, US-led global media demonization of Muslims, US saying 'how high?' every time Israel says 'jump', etc.
The US does a lot of good for Muslims around the world also, and Anglophone countries (US, UK, Aus, NZ) provide better rights to their Muslim citizens than do many other countries but, given the strength of American power, it can do immense harm as well as good, and the harm tends to dominate the perception. The basic question becomes: does the good outweigh or excuse the harm?
FaujHistorian
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2011
- Messages
- 12,272
- Reaction score
- 43
- Country
- Location
I am not fan of PPP and especially not Zardari.
However the accusation in your post is baselss. Knowing the realities at this stage, everyone from American Congress, to Pak army to NATO are looking at every $ being sent to Pakistan. It will be hard for Zardari to take any amount from these funds.
peace,.
Safriz
BANNED
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2010
- Messages
- 20,845
- Reaction score
- -1
- Country
- Location
me too..very impressed by his bold and no none sense approach...and careful but potent wordings...
but still i wont vote for him....
Zardari has demanded an apology from the US for the killing of the 24 Pakistani troops in November in return for reopening supply lines. He is also proposing that the tariff for each vehicle be raised from $250 to $5,000. The US is bitter about this, noting the amount of American military and other aid that goes to Pakistan annually.
Obama, at the opening of the second day of the Nato summit on Monday morning, showed his displeasure with the Pakistan government by singling out for mention the Central Asia countries and Russia that have stepped in to replace the Pakistan supply route and made no mention of Pakistan. Zardari was in the room at the time.
Obama declined to meet Zadari one-to-one because Pakistan is refusing to re-open its Afghanistan border to Nato, which means the US and others are having to resupply their military forces through the slower and more expensive routes from the north and Russia.
US-Pakistan tensions deepen as Obama snubs Zardari at Nato summit | World news | guardian.co.uk
Zardari at last minute accept invitation to Chicago Summit
Zardar was last minute addition to the list of leaders at the summit meeting.
I think, Hina Khar has successfully buying alot of jewelry and golds in the shopping mall.
NATO Summit: It was a very, very successful visit, says Khar
Khar said that they had good dialogues with every major player in the US administration.
CHICAGO: Despite the bad press that has dogged the Pakistani delegation during their trip, Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar appeared upbeat and sounded positive about the outcome of the attendance of the Pakistani delegation, headed by President Asif Zardari, at the Nato Summit in Chicago.
Speaking to Express News, Khar said, “When there’s a debate about Afghanistan taking place, in your opinion, should a country like Pakistan, which is a responsible regional player, an important neighbour, and a country that has huge stakes in peace and stability in Afghanistan, not participate?”
Khar said that Pakistan had the highest stakes among the 60 countries that participated in the summit. “The spillover effect of instability in Afghanistan is instantaneous in Pakistan, and if there is stability in Afghanistan, the effect of that in Pakistan too should be instantaneous. I will completely disagree with anyone at all who says that Pakistan should not participate in such a forum.”
She added that Pakistan was an important neighbour of Afghanistan and a responsible regional player.
Khar also took umbrage to how the Nato summit was debated in Pakistan. “The US side, the Nato secretary general and the government said that this was an unconditional invite.”
However, she added, that there was a debate on whether this was conditional, and when we would make an announcement about the re-opening of the Ground Lines of Communication (GLOCs).
“We have proven that we are going to conduct foreign policy in a very transparent manner and that should give people confidence and that we are trying to move forward in a transparent manner.”
“What we need to do is engage with the world, in giving our perspective on what the reality checks are and what the challenges are. For that you need extensive engagement with the rest of the world, and I think Chicago provided an excellent opportunity for that.”
“This is the question for Pakistan – what message do we want to give the world? Are we an enabler, a facilitator, a responsible country on the road that leads to Afghan stability, or do we want to give the message that we are a blocker, a disabler, to the international efforts towards peace and stability. We want to give a very strong message that the Afghan people’s future is important to us, that we would like to enable peace and stability in Afghanistan to the best of our abilities, and we have been doing that at great cost to Pakistan,” she said.
Responding to a question, Khar said that no hostile attacks were made on Pakistan during speeches and remarks at the Nato summit.
On the matter of the GLOCs, Khar said that the Nato partners attach a great deal of importance to the supply routes and “they will, because it makes a difference to them. That’s why we have said this in Pakistan as well, the narrative needs to go into a positive zone [in Pakistan], that the issue of Nato supply routes is not about US-Pakistan relations, it affects relations with 50 odd countries that are part of Nato and are partners.”
Khar highlighted that during Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s interview on CNN, he said that they were working in the “friendliest of environments” that have been possible. She added that Prime Minister Gilani would also be visiting Kabul soon.
US-Pakistan relations
Speaking about relations between the US and Pakistan, Khar said, “We are engaging with them on all issues, nothing is off the table, so we have to move on each of the issues. We have started a useful engagement process, and want to achieve good results for good US-Pakistan bilateral relations, Pakistan’s relations with Nato countries and its relations with Afghanistan.”
On the issue of US-operated drone operation in Pakistan, Khar said that Pakistan’s position remains clear, that they [drones] are “unlawful, illegal and counterproductive”.
“What we need to emphasise even more is how they are counterproductive. Drones are a means to an end, they are there to achieve a certain objective, so if you can achieve those objectives with different tools, which are acceptable to you and me, isn’t that a better tool? So we are trying to look for tools that are mutually acceptable. There is a lot of work that we have done together, and I am fairly optimistic that we can formulate a roadmap to lead to a way where drones are not required in Pakistan.”
Khar said that they had good dialogues with every major player in the US administration that they met on the sidelines of the Nato Summit, and that they has a productive meeting with US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
She added that they emphasised the importance of the parliamentary review and were moving forward on the basis of its recommendations.
Khar said that engagement with the US would continue on many levels in Washington and Islamabad. “I’m a bit assured by the fact that I see a commitment on both sides to make it work. I am more confident than I was before that we can make it work.”
The foreign minister said that they were not compromising on Pakistan’s national interests, and unlike what happened in the past, when they would reach a decision, it would be made public.
When asked if it was a mistake by Pakistan to not attend the Bonn conference on Afghanistan in December 2011, after the Salala incident, Khar said, “I will never as a foreign minister choose to disassociate myself with any international discussion. However, at that time Salala was a great national tragedy, and in many ways it was crossing multiple red lines in Pakistan-US relationship.”
She said that Pakistan’s sovereignty must be respected, and there was a consensus that not attending the Bonn conference was a way to send that message to the world.
“I think it was the need of the hour. But that was the need of the hour then, its always an evolving situation.” She said that Pakistan wanted to a closure on the episode and that an apology would help in achieving it.
When asked if they had anything to announce for the future, Khar said that it was a continued engagement process, and that they were in touch on various levels. She added that Pakistan was given the honour of being invited at the conference, and was the only neighbour of Afghanistan that had been invited.
“I think we should take things positively, and not go into conspiracy theory mode thinking that everything is happening against Pakistan, we have to make it ourselves; our first responsibility is to ourselves, and to protect our national interest and then pursue a track that protects it.”
NATO Summit: It was a very, very successful visit, says Khar
Khar said that they had good dialogues with every major player in the US administration.
CHICAGO: Despite the bad press that has dogged the Pakistani delegation during their trip, Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar appeared upbeat and sounded positive about the outcome of the attendance of the Pakistani delegation, headed by President Asif Zardari, at the Nato Summit in Chicago.
Speaking to Express News, Khar said, “When there’s a debate about Afghanistan taking place, in your opinion, should a country like Pakistan, which is a responsible regional player, an important neighbour, and a country that has huge stakes in peace and stability in Afghanistan, not participate?”
Khar said that Pakistan had the highest stakes among the 60 countries that participated in the summit. “The spillover effect of instability in Afghanistan is instantaneous in Pakistan, and if there is stability in Afghanistan, the effect of that in Pakistan too should be instantaneous. I will completely disagree with anyone at all who says that Pakistan should not participate in such a forum.”
She added that Pakistan was an important neighbour of Afghanistan and a responsible regional player.
Khar also took umbrage to how the Nato summit was debated in Pakistan. “The US side, the Nato secretary general and the government said that this was an unconditional invite.”
However, she added, that there was a debate on whether this was conditional, and when we would make an announcement about the re-opening of the Ground Lines of Communication (GLOCs).
“We have proven that we are going to conduct foreign policy in a very transparent manner and that should give people confidence and that we are trying to move forward in a transparent manner.”
“What we need to do is engage with the world, in giving our perspective on what the reality checks are and what the challenges are. For that you need extensive engagement with the rest of the world, and I think Chicago provided an excellent opportunity for that.”
“This is the question for Pakistan – what message do we want to give the world? Are we an enabler, a facilitator, a responsible country on the road that leads to Afghan stability, or do we want to give the message that we are a blocker, a disabler, to the international efforts towards peace and stability. We want to give a very strong message that the Afghan people’s future is important to us, that we would like to enable peace and stability in Afghanistan to the best of our abilities, and we have been doing that at great cost to Pakistan,” she said.
Responding to a question, Khar said that no hostile attacks were made on Pakistan during speeches and remarks at the Nato summit.
On the matter of the GLOCs, Khar said that the Nato partners attach a great deal of importance to the supply routes and “they will, because it makes a difference to them. That’s why we have said this in Pakistan as well, the narrative needs to go into a positive zone [in Pakistan], that the issue of Nato supply routes is not about US-Pakistan relations, it affects relations with 50 odd countries that are part of Nato and are partners.”
Khar highlighted that during Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s interview on CNN, he said that they were working in the “friendliest of environments” that have been possible. She added that Prime Minister Gilani would also be visiting Kabul soon.
US-Pakistan relations
Speaking about relations between the US and Pakistan, Khar said, “We are engaging with them on all issues, nothing is off the table, so we have to move on each of the issues. We have started a useful engagement process, and want to achieve good results for good US-Pakistan bilateral relations, Pakistan’s relations with Nato countries and its relations with Afghanistan.”
On the issue of US-operated drone operation in Pakistan, Khar said that Pakistan’s position remains clear, that they [drones] are “unlawful, illegal and counterproductive”.
“What we need to emphasise even more is how they are counterproductive. Drones are a means to an end, they are there to achieve a certain objective, so if you can achieve those objectives with different tools, which are acceptable to you and me, isn’t that a better tool? So we are trying to look for tools that are mutually acceptable. There is a lot of work that we have done together, and I am fairly optimistic that we can formulate a roadmap to lead to a way where drones are not required in Pakistan.”
Khar said that they had good dialogues with every major player in the US administration that they met on the sidelines of the Nato Summit, and that they has a productive meeting with US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
She added that they emphasised the importance of the parliamentary review and were moving forward on the basis of its recommendations.
Khar said that engagement with the US would continue on many levels in Washington and Islamabad. “I’m a bit assured by the fact that I see a commitment on both sides to make it work. I am more confident than I was before that we can make it work.”
The foreign minister said that they were not compromising on Pakistan’s national interests, and unlike what happened in the past, when they would reach a decision, it would be made public.
When asked if it was a mistake by Pakistan to not attend the Bonn conference on Afghanistan in December 2011, after the Salala incident, Khar said, “I will never as a foreign minister choose to disassociate myself with any international discussion. However, at that time Salala was a great national tragedy, and in many ways it was crossing multiple red lines in Pakistan-US relationship.”
She said that Pakistan’s sovereignty must be respected, and there was a consensus that not attending the Bonn conference was a way to send that message to the world.
“I think it was the need of the hour. But that was the need of the hour then, its always an evolving situation.” She said that Pakistan wanted to a closure on the episode and that an apology would help in achieving it.
When asked if they had anything to announce for the future, Khar said that it was a continued engagement process, and that they were in touch on various levels. She added that Pakistan was given the honour of being invited at the conference, and was the only neighbour of Afghanistan that had been invited.
“I think we should take things positively, and not go into conspiracy theory mode thinking that everything is happening against Pakistan, we have to make it ourselves; our first responsibility is to ourselves, and to protect our national interest and then pursue a track that protects it.”
Similar threads
