What's new

Zardari calls for unconditional talks with India

It does since zardari and gillani are just playing political game to bring Mr. Holbrooke back in the Kashmir game. I believe they are doing it for there self interest (political approval) because Holbrook clearly stated washington is not entertaining the kashmir issue between India and Pakistan right know.

It does not matter what US says. US has absolutely no bargaining chip to offer India. Usually in relations between nations, either the deal has to benefit both countries or there is some give and take.

Indian position has nothing much to give - It says we'll talk as soon as the Mumbai culprits are brought to book. On the other hand US has nothing to give. India is not asking for aid, weapons or nuclear deals.

Seen from a give & take perspective, it might be just simpler for US to pressure Pakistan govt. to take the case up to supreme court and then claim to India that Pakistan is doing its best.

I think at this point I should add a disclaimer. I have never been involved in international negotiations. I have taken a couple of classes on it though and from what I know the end result of a negotiation is always proportional to the hand each party has to play.
 
.
If Zardari can sort this out early enough and get some money for Pakistan through trade or some early payment from India on the gas pipeline, he may benefit from it. It is not solving Kashmir that will help, but the benefits of peace. Having the country hopeful about a peaceful future might also get a short term economic boost.

But that's a really big if... However the deal gets sorted out, the opposition will paint that out as a compromise/appeasement. Look at how people are complaining about Pak support of US or complaining about Lal Masjid / Swat operations. Both I think were cases of the government doing the least minimum what was needed to have a stable Pakistan - but opposition paints both of them as unpatriotic.

Manmohan Singh has more flexibility there - he was on the brink with the nuclear deal issue and later on with Mumbai attack response. Both times he stood his ground and it seems like the nation stands by him too (more or less). So he can afford to do the right thing.

The only good thing going for for Zardari is that there is not much else to lose - so he is going to try and hit a sixer or get caught out.

Whatever the accusations about him in the past has been, so far he is doing things more or less pragmatically. The rare slip-up has been when he tried to get hold of ISI and had to back off. Quite unlike Gilani, who is popular but keeps contradicting himself or makes public announcements of half-baked news. I don't know if the Olive branch was something he believes in or simply reflects the consensus among people around him.

The pipeline is tied into India's relationship with the US and in turn with the US's relationship with Iran (which will become clearer post Iranian elections). In addition it will be a long term project, likely completed after his government completes its term (fingers crossed). So it will have little impact on any of the issues currently facing him.

Similarly, no one expects Kashmir to be resolved anytime soon, even if dialog is restarted, so I don't see him banking on that as a means of boosting his popularity.

I think dialog with India is what he believes in as a matter of principle, and has been sincere when he has talked about improving the relationship and moving forward. Dialog and a possible reduction of tensions also potentially allows his military to allocate even greater resources towards its fight against extremism, victory or progress in which will boost his popularity.

So while I agree that there are benefits to his position of calling for dialog with India, I don't believe they are immediate or tangible enough in terms of what little direct short term impact dialog will have) for him to call for dialog merely to boost his popularity as Jeypore suggested.

In fact, as you pointed out, his lack of popularity makes it even harder for him to offer meaningful concessions or compromises that might move the dialog forward.
 
.
BTW, seems like rediff is really doing a good job covering this. They are not relying (apparently) on news agencies for their reports. A larger story, this time with direct quotes.

---------------------------
Obama wants to engage with India; sends PM letter: Rediff.com news

Richard Holbrooke, the United States Special Representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan, has asserted that the Obama administration "believes that what happens in Afghanistan and Pakistan is of vital interest to our national security and that India is a country that we must keep in the closest consultations with."

Holbrooke has just returned from a trip to Pakistan after reviewing the Pakistani military's offensive against the Taliban in the Swat valley and to assess the refugee situation in the wake of the heavy fighting in that area.

Briefing reporters at the State Department, Holbrooke said at midnight on Tuesday he had spoken with US Under Secretary of State William Burns, who is currently in New Delhi in discussion with senior Indian officials, and disclosed that Burns is "carrying a presidential letter to the Indian government."

"He is carrying the messages that I would have carried if I had had time to go to New Delhi on this trip, but I couldn't do it," he said, but pointed out, "On my first two trips to the region, I went to New Delhi."

Next week Holbrooke will meet again with India's Ambassador to the US Meera Shankar, who is also currently in New Delhi for consultations and to participate in the discussion between Burns, External Affairs Minister S M Krishna, Foreign Secretary Shiv Shankar Menon and other senior Indian officials.

"I've already met her twice," Holbrooke said, and reiterated that "we consider India an absolutely critical country in the region. They're not part of the problem, but they are vitally affected, and we want to work closely with them."

When asked what President Barack Obama had said in the letter that Burns was carrying, he said, "It's a private letter," but in virtually giving more than a hint in what was contained in this presidential letter, noted, "The important thing is that the number three person in the Department of State has gone to India to reaffirm immediately after the election -- the Indians were very frank with us. They wanted to keep in touch with us during the election period, but they had to wait through the election, just like we do. It's the world's two greatest democracies."

"But Bill Burns is now beginning the dialogue with the newly elected government in an atmosphere of great positive feelings. And without getting into Indian politics, all I can say is that all of us -- Secretary (of State Hillary) Clinton, Bill Burns, myself, President Obama -- everyone looks forward to working with the newly elected Indian government."

Holbrooke said he believed that this time the Pakistani army seemed capable of holding Swat and unlike in previous times, preventing the return of the Taliban.

"The previous experiences were quite different in scope," he argued, and noted, that "the Pakistan army has moved a great deal of troops to the west this time, a very large number, and it's made a difference."

When it was contended that India has stated that actually the number of troops that have been moved to the west is "simply back to the pre-Mumbai bombing levels," and consequently seemed that "it's a status quo, as opposed to significant change," and asked to give some details on exactly how many troops Pakistan has on the western front, Holbrooke refused to provide any such information.

"I'm not going to give you figures for the simplest of reasons," he said. "It's for the Pakistan government to announce their own force deployments, not for me to make a headline here. But I will say that the number of troops that have been moved west is clearly larger than the number that were moved east after the Mumbai bombing. And, I don't believe there would be any question on that."

In his opening remarks, Holbrooke said that "what I saw in Pakistan on this trip was the slow emergence of a consensus behind the government's action."

He said he had spent "a good deal of time" with former prime minister Nawaz Sharif, and now leader of the Opposition, "just after he had his political rights restored. Also, a lot of time with President Asif Ali Zardari , "time with General (Ashraf) Kayani and his top team, including (Lieutenant) General (Shuja) Pasha, the head of the ISI, and with members of civic society. And everywhere, there was a dramatic change in attitudes from my previous trips because of the outrages of the Taliban and their supporters, and this was widely recognised."

Holbrooke said, "All of us are impressed by the military's initiatives in recent weeks. But the military themselves will say that they fully understand that the test is still to come -- the second test."

"But I want to underline, because so much of what we say here bounces out in Islamabad in a different context, that we are very supportive of what the government is doing, and we look for every way we can to support them. And while we are all focused on the relief effort now, it is the reconstruct -- it is the return and reconstruction phase and security to be provided them that will be the basic test."

Asked pointedly if in his discussions with the political leadership in Pakistan, he felt that the Zardari government is strong enough to carry the fight through and win -- both politically and on the military side, Holbrooke said, "I think they are." But he did not elaborate.
 
.
Pakistan welcomes Indian PM's peace gesture
Wed, Jun 10 05:05 PM

Pakistan welcomed on Wednesday comments by India's prime minister that New Delhi would meet its neighbour "more than half way" if it cracked down on militants.

India put a pause on the slow-moving peace talks after tension sharply rose between the two nuclear-armed neighbours following November attacks on Mumbai which New Delhi blamed on Pakistan-based militants.

Buoyed by a resounding victory in last month's elections, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on Tuesday urged Pakistan to bring Islamist militants, including perpetrators of Mumbai attacks, to justice and said New Delhi was willing to meet Pakistan "more than half way" if it showed resolve for peace.

Pakistan said the two old rivals, which have fought three wars since their independence in 1947, should resume dialogue for the sake of regional stability.

"We welcome any step that leads to resumption of resulted-oriented peace process between our two countries," foreign ministry spokesman Abdul Basit said.

"We agree with India that in order to have peace between our two countries and for a viable stability for our region, it is absolutely important that our two countries talk to each other and resolve our bilateral issues peacefully."

India last week said it wanted to normalise relations with Pakistan but reacted angrily to the release of the founder of Lashkar-e-Taiba militant group it blamed for the Mumabi attacks by Pakistan's Supreme Court.

Pakistani officials say they will request the court to review its decision.
 
.
Gilani says India, Pakistan can't afford war

Thu, Jun 11 12:00 PM

Quetta, June 11 (ANI): Pakistan Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani has said India and Pakistan cannot afford to be engaged in military combat.

Addressing national and foreigner army officers at the Command and Staff College here, Gilani said neither Pakistan nor India could afford war and expressed his desire that bilateral talks between both countries should resume as soon as possible.

Gilani said both India and Pakistan were facing a common threat so, it was important for the leadership of the two countries to resume talks to settle pending issues for establishing peace in the region.

"India and Pakistan were facing common problems and it was in the interest of the whole region that both countries having nuclear powers start negotiation to settle the disputes and resume the dialogue which was stopped after Mumbai attack," The Nation quoted Gilani, as saying.

"Pakistan will offer the Indian leadership an olive branch to resume composite dialogue," Gilani added.

Commenting on the Swat military offensive, Gilani said Pakistan was fighting a war against terrorism for its own survival.

He said the government had no option but to resort to military action, as the Taliban was trying to establish a parallel government in the region.

"The government would not tolerate those elements that cast evil eyes on the sovereignty of Pakistan and establish parallel government in the country. It would fulfill all requirements of army for the defence of the country," Gilani said.

Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi also said Pakistan is more desirous of dialogue with India.

"Pakistan is more desirous of dialogue as it cherishes peace that could not be brought about without parleys with its neighbours, Qureshi said.(ANI)

ANI
 
.
As expected US is talking to both sides.
-------------------
DAWN.COM | World | US pushes Pakistan over Mumbai attacks

NEW DELHI: A senior US diplomat visiting India said Thursday that President Barack Obama’s administration was piling pressure on Pakistan to bring those guilty of last year’s Mumbai attacks to justice.

India blames neighbouring Pakistan for harbouring those who planned the attacks, and one Pakistani national is on trial in Mumbai accused of being the only gunman who survived.

‘Pakistan has a special responsibility to act immediately and fully and thoroughly,’ William Burns, the US under secretary for political affairs, told reporters in New Delhi.

‘We continue to push hard for the Pakistani government to act firmly to bring those responsible to justice and more broadly to crack down on terrorist infrastructure,’ he said.

The Pakistan-based group Laskhar-e-Taiba is widely thought to have been behind the attacks, in which 166 people were killed and more than 300 wounded.

Burns, the US’s senior career diplomat, also announced that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would visit India next month in her first trip to the country in her new role.

‘The secretary’s visit is a reflection of the importance attached to this relationship,’ he said after talks with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, who was returned to power in recent elections.

‘She wanted to do it quickly after the formation of the new government precisely to seize the opportunity before us to try to build on the foundation that already exists in our partnership,’ he said.
 
.
I think this line of argument goes back to the popular fallacy amongst Indians that Kashmir somehow erases the memories of Pakistanis over how their government is failing them - it does not.

On the contrary, one cannot deny the psyche of the Pakistanie population regarding Kashmir, a politician that talks the loudest on the kashmir issue, will stir up emotions and brings the politician in a favorable position. The timing of Zardari is well calculate based on Holbrooks arrival in the region. One can clearly see that Zardari is trying to push the kashmir issue with the Americans.
 
.
It does not matter what US says. US has absolutely no bargaining chip to offer India. Usually in relations between nations, either the deal has to benefit both countries or there is some give and take.

Indian position has nothing much to give - It says we'll talk as soon as the Mumbai culprits are brought to book. On the other hand US has nothing to give. India is not asking for aid, weapons or nuclear deals.

Seen from a give & take perspective, it might be just simpler for US to pressure Pakistan govt. to take the case up to supreme court and then claim to India that Pakistan is doing its best.

I think at this point I should add a disclaimer. I have never been involved in international negotiations. I have taken a couple of classes on it though and from what I know the end result of a negotiation is always proportional to the hand each party has to play.


It does matter what US says regarding the Kashmir issue, if it did not then why is GoP is trying so hard. Clearly Obama previous statement before presdency and after tells one a lot about the United States decision on the kashmir issue, leave it alone!!!
 
.
Hi, i m new to the site. So please let me know if i said anything wrong.

The thing i fail to understand is why our dear president is urging India to start the dialogues again. While they keep on blaming us for what ever goes wrong in their country. And well if Kashmir had a chance of freedom they would have got it long time back. All i ever hear is talk and no action. Talking isn't helping, why is our government so eager to butter them while they are blaming us for everything.

:coffee:And i just saw a line on the tv stating that our CIA director said that Osama is in Pakistan. Well do u think it is right making such sort of statement. I mean we are already under a lot of pressure, and he made that statement while knowing that it will put Pakistan under more pressure. Why are we offering safe routes to American drones through our statements?

And ISI which is one of the best agencies in the world can't catch him on its own soil. I mean how ironic until unless they don't want to because he doesn't exist. Americans flipped Afghanistan over in search of this guy and they couldn't find him makes me wonder where America the best of the best stand.:undecided:
 
Last edited:
.

NEW DELHI: US Under Secretary of State William Burns on Wednesday asked New Delhi to drop their conditions and resume dialogue for the sake of peace and security in the region. Burns met Indian External Affairs Minister SM Krishna, after discussing a wide range of topics, including Indo-US relations and the regional situation with Home Minister P Chidambaram and Foreign Secretary Shivshankar Menon. Burns said India was a major foreign policy priority for the US and was a crucial global partner for the 21st century. He said he was looking forward to further deliberations on Thursday to “chart together ambitious bilateral agenda for the next phase in the strategic partnership” between the two countries. Burns is expected to meet Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and National Security Advisor MK Narayanan today (Thursday).
 
.
There is not such agreement between the two nations with regards to the exchange of wanted people by either country. Pakistan too has a similar list, i can ask the same question why is GOI so hesitant to hand over the people, people like Col Purohit for example.

Ice Cold

That remark of mine was a sarcastic remark against GoI ......:cheers:
 
.
As far as India knows Mumbai attack is directly linked with Kashmir issue, then why Mumbai is hurdle in talks. There was time when Indian had full support of west to prolong Kashmir issue much as possible, but now this privilege is gone. Because whole area is affected by terrorism. If India resolve Kashmir issue with Pakistan, that would give peace of mind from one end. And Pakistan army can easily concentrate on Afghan border.Basically West and US is fighting their own interest in that region, Indian stand for Kashmir has no valve for them. Thats one of the reason European Union or US never condemn any armed resistance in Kashmir. But on other side of coin, Kashmir issue pushing India buy more weapons from west.
 
.

Latest posts

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom