US want to kill more Pakistan people because you will understand the lines between in Leon Panetta's comments, as we speak. According to the law, it is illegal to kill more Pakistan people.
Challenges ahead
Pakistan is under squeeze, largely for its frustratingly snail-paced review process as well as inner contradictions.
Ahead of a Nato summit in Chicago which is to review the military effort in Afghanistan and take stock of progress towards reconciliation, Pakistani and US officials are negotiating a way out of the impasse that began with the Nov 26 attack on the Salala checkpost.
The Gordian knot the two sides are trying to untie in Islamabad is over an overdue apology for the intermittent attack that not only bruised egos in Pakistan but also brought the bilateral relationship to a grinding halt – a turning point that also gave Pakistan the opportunity to review its terms of engagement with the US. Pakistan did well by putting parliament at the centre of the ‘reset’. It made the resumption of the ground lines of communications (GLOCs) practically contingent upon the apology as well as a halt to drone strikes in its tribal areas.
As a result, the talks have reached a deadlock, adding to the frustration of the US-led Nato. US patience is also seemingly wearing thin, manifest in two latest developments:
Defence Secretary Leon Panetta has vowed that the US will do everything it can, use whatever operations they have to, in order to protect the US, including drone strikes while the US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton has also followed suit, saying she was ‘well aware’ that the Pakistani government had not yet taken steps to help secure Hafiz Saeed’s conviction, who is wanted over the 2008 Mumbai attacks.
Clearly, Pakistan is under the squeeze, largely for its own frustratingly snail-paced review process as well as inner contradictions. This primarily represents the serious challenges ahead.
Key officials, for instance, say the parliament’s role in foreign policy is the new reality of Pakistan and Washington must adjust to it. But other officials say they are trying to clinch a deal with the Americans, regardless of what the parliament recommended. What is the reality then?
Secondly, what will the hyped up ‘reset’ actually mean? Will the new transactional deal delink cooperation with, and assistance for Pakistan from occasional frictions arising out of new acts of terror in Kabul?
Thirdly, will this mean that the new deal will ensure a continuous flow of money from the Coalition Support Fund, which the US administration and Congress still treat as aid and not reimbursements to Pakistan? Will the status of these funds really change into “reimbursement against services rendered?”
The fourth challenge comes from Leon Panetta‘s reiteration on the “indispensability of drone strikes.” Clearly, the American position is in sharp contrast to parliament’s demands. How will the government circumvent the PCNS recommendation on the issue? Can the Pakistani interlocutors really dissuade Americans from such attacks, or persuade them for a – even if symbolic – joint management of the remotely controlled predators? If not, then what about the PCNS being the key to our foreign policy? Or will it be business as usual ie overt condemnation and covert approval?
Unfortunately, Pakistan is pitched against heavy odds. On the one hand, past associations with militant groups, and the unbridled anti-India/US activism of the Defense of Pakistan Council render its protests and verbal belligerence ineffective vis-à-vis the US-led international community which is currying favour with India too. One the other hand, Pakistani tendency to embed its arguments in morality and reference to international law, unfortunately weighs little when viewed against the global geo-political objectives of the US-led Nato.
The only way out of this extremely unfavourable situation is to invoke pragmatism, indulge in introspection, shun contradictions and focus on reviving and strengthening the economy. That will largely remain contingent upon the sweet will of the US-led Nato and much, therefore, will depend on to what extent can the ministry of foreign affairs, the General Headquarters and the political leadership narrow down their intellectual and tactical discord into a long-term strategic framework, urgently needed to deal with internal and external challenges.
Published in The Express Tribune, May 8th, 2012.
Pak-US ties: Challenges ahead – The Express Tribune
--------------------------------
PML-N, JUI-F, PTI, call for Defence Minister to resign over 'ill-informed' comments
ISLAMABAD: The Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz (PML-N), the Jamiat Ulema Islam -Fazal (JUI-F) and the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf (PTI) called for the resignation of Defence Minister Ahmed Mukhtar on Monday for issuing a controversial and irresponsible statement regarding the reopening of Nato supply routes.
Defence Minister Ahmed Mukhtar on Sunday had hinted at mounting pressure on the government to reopen the supply routes. He told reporters in Lahore that Pakistan could face economic sanctions if it did not unplug the routes.
On Monday, the PML-N’s Raja Zafarul Haq, speaking on a point of order in the Upper House of the Parliament, demanded that the Defence Minister resign, claiming that it is against the spirit of resolution of the Parliament and recommendations of the Parliamentary Committee on the National Security. PML-N members then boycotted Monday’s proceedings of the House in protest of the statement by the Defence Minister.
The JUI-F also staged a token walkout in Senate on this issue. Maulana Abdul Ghafoor termed the Defence Minister’s statement as an insult to the Parliament. “He must quit the office of Defence Minister,” JUI-F senator Haidiry added.
Ill-informed Defene Minister should quit: PTI
Chiding the Defence Minister for his “irresponsible” statements, the PTI called for him to resign. “This assertion [statement] was absolutely incorrect and the Defence Minister needs to educate himself on international law,” an official statement issued by PTI Central Secretariat on Monday read.
“It is dangerous to have an ill-informed Defence Minister who chooses to make statements without getting proper information first,” added the statement signed by PTI Senior Vice President Dr Shireen Mazari.
Challenges ahead
Pakistan is under squeeze, largely for its frustratingly snail-paced review process as well as inner contradictions.
Ahead of a Nato summit in Chicago which is to review the military effort in Afghanistan and take stock of progress towards reconciliation, Pakistani and US officials are negotiating a way out of the impasse that began with the Nov 26 attack on the Salala checkpost.
The Gordian knot the two sides are trying to untie in Islamabad is over an overdue apology for the intermittent attack that not only bruised egos in Pakistan but also brought the bilateral relationship to a grinding halt – a turning point that also gave Pakistan the opportunity to review its terms of engagement with the US. Pakistan did well by putting parliament at the centre of the ‘reset’. It made the resumption of the ground lines of communications (GLOCs) practically contingent upon the apology as well as a halt to drone strikes in its tribal areas.
As a result, the talks have reached a deadlock, adding to the frustration of the US-led Nato. US patience is also seemingly wearing thin, manifest in two latest developments:
Defence Secretary Leon Panetta has vowed that the US will do everything it can, use whatever operations they have to, in order to protect the US, including drone strikes while the US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton has also followed suit, saying she was ‘well aware’ that the Pakistani government had not yet taken steps to help secure Hafiz Saeed’s conviction, who is wanted over the 2008 Mumbai attacks.
Clearly, Pakistan is under the squeeze, largely for its own frustratingly snail-paced review process as well as inner contradictions. This primarily represents the serious challenges ahead.
Key officials, for instance, say the parliament’s role in foreign policy is the new reality of Pakistan and Washington must adjust to it. But other officials say they are trying to clinch a deal with the Americans, regardless of what the parliament recommended. What is the reality then?
Secondly, what will the hyped up ‘reset’ actually mean? Will the new transactional deal delink cooperation with, and assistance for Pakistan from occasional frictions arising out of new acts of terror in Kabul?
Thirdly, will this mean that the new deal will ensure a continuous flow of money from the Coalition Support Fund, which the US administration and Congress still treat as aid and not reimbursements to Pakistan? Will the status of these funds really change into “reimbursement against services rendered?”
The fourth challenge comes from Leon Panetta‘s reiteration on the “indispensability of drone strikes.” Clearly, the American position is in sharp contrast to parliament’s demands. How will the government circumvent the PCNS recommendation on the issue? Can the Pakistani interlocutors really dissuade Americans from such attacks, or persuade them for a – even if symbolic – joint management of the remotely controlled predators? If not, then what about the PCNS being the key to our foreign policy? Or will it be business as usual ie overt condemnation and covert approval?
Unfortunately, Pakistan is pitched against heavy odds. On the one hand, past associations with militant groups, and the unbridled anti-India/US activism of the Defense of Pakistan Council render its protests and verbal belligerence ineffective vis-à-vis the US-led international community which is currying favour with India too. One the other hand, Pakistani tendency to embed its arguments in morality and reference to international law, unfortunately weighs little when viewed against the global geo-political objectives of the US-led Nato.
The only way out of this extremely unfavourable situation is to invoke pragmatism, indulge in introspection, shun contradictions and focus on reviving and strengthening the economy. That will largely remain contingent upon the sweet will of the US-led Nato and much, therefore, will depend on to what extent can the ministry of foreign affairs, the General Headquarters and the political leadership narrow down their intellectual and tactical discord into a long-term strategic framework, urgently needed to deal with internal and external challenges.
Published in The Express Tribune, May 8th, 2012.
Pak-US ties: Challenges ahead – The Express Tribune
--------------------------------
PML-N, JUI-F, PTI, call for Defence Minister to resign over 'ill-informed' comments
ISLAMABAD: The Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz (PML-N), the Jamiat Ulema Islam -Fazal (JUI-F) and the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf (PTI) called for the resignation of Defence Minister Ahmed Mukhtar on Monday for issuing a controversial and irresponsible statement regarding the reopening of Nato supply routes.
Defence Minister Ahmed Mukhtar on Sunday had hinted at mounting pressure on the government to reopen the supply routes. He told reporters in Lahore that Pakistan could face economic sanctions if it did not unplug the routes.
On Monday, the PML-N’s Raja Zafarul Haq, speaking on a point of order in the Upper House of the Parliament, demanded that the Defence Minister resign, claiming that it is against the spirit of resolution of the Parliament and recommendations of the Parliamentary Committee on the National Security. PML-N members then boycotted Monday’s proceedings of the House in protest of the statement by the Defence Minister.
The JUI-F also staged a token walkout in Senate on this issue. Maulana Abdul Ghafoor termed the Defence Minister’s statement as an insult to the Parliament. “He must quit the office of Defence Minister,” JUI-F senator Haidiry added.
Ill-informed Defene Minister should quit: PTI
Chiding the Defence Minister for his “irresponsible” statements, the PTI called for him to resign. “This assertion [statement] was absolutely incorrect and the Defence Minister needs to educate himself on international law,” an official statement issued by PTI Central Secretariat on Monday read.
“It is dangerous to have an ill-informed Defence Minister who chooses to make statements without getting proper information first,” added the statement signed by PTI Senior Vice President Dr Shireen Mazari.
