The Pak-US Relationship

Discussion in 'Strategic & Geopolitical Issues' started by Interceptor, Jul 21, 2008.

Share This Page

  1. Interceptor
    Offline

    Interceptor SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    2,038
    Ratings:
    +0 / 119 / -0
    Pakistan's uneasy alliance with US

    The US and Pakistan remain allies in the international fight against terrorism but relations have been worsening. The US is accusing Pakistan of failing to rein in Taleban and al-Qaeda militants that take refuge in its border region and, as Barbara Plett reports, there is growing anger among Pakistanis towards the US.


    "When soldiers here die fighting the pro-Taleban tribesmen in their border region, there is a debate about whether or not they are martyrs"


    About a thousand soldiers have died since Pakistan joined America's so-called "war on terror".

    So the funerals of 11 more, killed last month along the Afghan-Pakistan border, should not have been anything unusual.

    But those who attended the services described a feeling that had been absent in the past.

    Many of the family members were clearly proud. They considered their sons martyrs who had died for the homeland.

    Pakistani soldiers who were supposed to be fighting hand-in-hand with US forces against the Taleban had, in fact, been killed by US missiles.

    The Americans said they had been aiming at militants. Pakistan called it an unprovoked act of aggression.

    When soldiers here die fighting the pro-Taleban tribesmen in their border region, there is a debate about whether or not they are martyrs. Some religious scholars say that honour belongs to the Taleban, not to troops fighting their own people.

    This time, according to those at the funerals, there was no such ambivalence.

    These soldiers were killed by Americans... non-Muslims, said the Imams, bent on harming Islamic countries. "May God destroy the alien forces," they prayed.

    'Busharraf'

    During my time here, there has always been antipathy to American foreign policy, as in other Muslim countries where the "war on terror" is seen as little more than a war against Islam.

    Lately though, the anti-Americanism has swelled to a tide, not only in the border region but in the more Westernised urban centres as well.

    Even the usually cloistered American ambassador, Anne Patterson, felt the chill.

    "I'm surprised at the depth of anti-Americanism," she admitted in a recent meeting with Pakistani businessmen, "especially in the middle classes."

    She reminded her audience of how Pakistan benefits from US economic assistance and that it shares the same long-term interests. "It is the prosperous middle class that would be the first to suffer should the extremists win," she said.

    A few weeks later she was snubbed by a member of that prosperous middle class while handing out awards for academic excellence. A Pakistani university student brushed past her, strode to the podium and made a 20-second protest speech.

    The young man, who is studying at Harvard, became a celebrity. He was praised by the media and inundated with thousands of messages of support.

    His moment of defiance was endlessly replayed on YouTube.


    "There is a growing sense that Pakistan has been sucked into an unwinnable war"


    In his speech he told the ambassador he was protesting against "repeated US air strikes that kill many innocent Pakistanis," and what he said was US tacit support for an unconstitutional president.

    He was referring to George Bush's support for Pakistan's erstwhile military leader Pervez Musharraf, who seized power in a coup.

    The US president called the general Washington's most "allied ally" in the international fight against terrorism. Pakistanis called him "Busharraf".

    But cynicism turned to anger when Mr Bush continued to back his friend, despite a popular movement against Mr Musharraf for illegally purging the judiciary and despite the defeat of the president's supporters in February's general elections.

    Military involvement

    America's key relationship in Pakistan has been with the army, especially since 9/11.

    Put simply, the US pays the Pakistani army billions of dollars to fight the "war on terror".

    US legislators refer to this relationship as transactional but many Pakistanis say it is mercenary.

    In recent trips with the army to the border region, I got the feeling the tag is beginning to hurt.

    The military's high profile cooperation with the Americans has triggered waves of revenge attacks within the country, many targeting the army.

    "There is a growing sense that Pakistan has been sucked into an unwinnable war."

    "The only way we can guarantee peace is to kill every last tribesman," one Pakistani general said to us. He was only half joking.

    America's war

    The US also accuses Pakistan of failing to stop the movement of Taleban fighters to Afghanistan from sanctuaries in Pakistan.

    But it is true that policing a mountainous border 2,400 km (1,500 miles) long is an enormous challenge, especially when the Afghan government refuses to recognise the frontier.


    "As long as it is the army that is leading the way... many Pakistanis will continue to see this as America's war"


    "We can't do it," the same general told us. "The only way is to put up a sophisticated fencing system, and that's an international responsibility."

    Pakistan does face a serious threat from Islamist militancy. But as long as it is the army that is leading the way, with little apparent support from the people, many Pakistanis will continue to see this as America's war.

    That is why the army itself is advocating a debate in parliament, so the country can evolve its own policy.

    Some (the real pessimists) say the only way to win crucial public backing for the battle against Islamist violence, is to de-link it from America's war in Afghanistan.

    That seems impossible.

    No matter how much the people here oppose America's Afghan policies, no Pakistani government or army can scupper the relationship with Washington. They depend too much on US assistance.

    It is a fundamental contradiction that is fuelling tensions and explains why families feel proud that their soldier sons were martyred by Pakistan's most important ally.

    BBC NEWS | Programmes | From Our Own Correspondent | Pakistan's uneasy alliance with US
  2. muse
    Offline

    muse PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2006
    Messages:
    13,074
    Ratings:
    +0 / 12,451 / -0
    God bless America, long live Pakistan



    In the national interest

    Monday, July 21, 2008
    Kamal Siddiqi

    The writer is editor reporting, The News

    As the Americans gather on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, we are told that an offensive is about to be launched from that side. It’s not as simple as the Pakistan Army pushing the militants from this side and the US troops catching them as they enter Afghanistan – like the shikars that were once played in the sub-continent. This is a more complicated shikar. One is now not sure which is the tiger and which is the shikari. We are not even sure if this is the age of the tigers any more. So far, everyone seems to be acting like foxes and wolves.

    We are warned that there are tough times ahead. The month has seen much action on our border with Afghanistan. Our prime minister has said that he fears another 9/11 if foreign militants are not dealt with “sternly”. At the same time, his government seems to have lost the plot on the war on terror. The whole idea of a ‘homegrown’ policy lies abandoned. Once again, we are being told what to do.

    But things are heating up. NATO recently retaliated over what it said was attacks from North Waziristan. One fears this is just the beginning. Many want to know who is in charge. While there is talk of coordination and consultation, the recent attacks on a Pakistani border post by American planes which led to several deaths is a case in point. The US says that it was never informed of the presence of such a post. Pakistan says that this is not true. In the confusion, precious Pakistani lives were lost.

    One thing is for sure, however. The US administration feels, as usual, that the Pakistanis are not doing enough. We are being blamed for the faults and near-sightedness of others, apart from ourselves. President Bush says he is troubled by the consistent intrusions from the Pakistan side and so we have to do more. Not only do we have to stop the militants from causing havoc in Pakistan, we need to also stop them from crossing over into Afghanistan. Are we up to this challenge?

    To sweeten the deal, the Americans have promised us more aid. Now the money will be tripled and once again linked to performance. One wonders whether we should be overjoyed or wary. We also want to know on behalf of the American taxpayer what happened to the earlier installments. Where was the money used and who benefited? We see almost none of the money that was promised to be injected in the tribal areas and the NWFP. What happened to the pockets of industry that were promised? Or for that matter, the madressah reform plans.

    With an election approaching, the American government also wants to do more. Our prime minister has been summoned to the US for some “consultations”. By month end, our prime minister and his team will be told of what is expected of his government. The agenda for the months leading up to the elections will be set. It is hoped that it will be clear sailing from then on.

    Not to be outdone by President Bush, the presidential hopefuls are also giving in their two cents’ worth on what to do in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Both Mr Obama and Mr McCain said that the focus should now shift to Afghanistan (and by default, Pakistan) where they advocated more soldiers to fight the war. This is worrisome of all of us.

    For the Americans, intrusion onto Pakistani soil is not an issue. It’s more an issue of when, not if. In one of his trademark speeches, however, Prime Minister Gilani has assured us that no one will be allowed onto Pakistani soil and our sovereignty will remain intact. Long live America. God bless Pakistan
    .

    Wise men have asked their families to move out of the border areas. Many of these families are ending up in Karachi and such is the influx that the MQM feels that the movement may alter their vote bank in some areas. The MQM is warning of the Talibanization of Karachi. One wonders what is happening in the rest of Pakistan.

    The militants too are in a mood for a fight. After storming a fort in Hangu, they are now engaging our forces in different areas. Baitullah Mehsud has also given the NWFP government a deadline to step down or else face an armed movement from the militants. The militants say that the government violated the agreement. The government says it’s the other way round. Who do we believe? The bottom line is that people are afraid and nervous. Things are going from bad to worse.

    In all this, our jetsetting leaders feel that there are other issues to focus on. We are expecting another round of talks between Mian Nawaz Sharif and Asif Zardari, once again outside Pakistan. The two leaders are spending more time abroad than they are in the country. Why are they so eager to leave? Mr Sharif promises that this will be the deciding round. One can only hope so. We need to focus on more important issues like law and order as well as the economy. It seems these are not a priority of the Peoples’ government.

    Meanwhile the costs of keeping our elected representatives happy continue to increase. The diversion of the prime minister’s plane from Kuala Lumpur (where he went to attend the D-8 summit) to Dubai iInstead of landing at Islamabad cost the tax-payer more than Rs10 million. The plane was diverted, according to a report, because the prime minister had to attend a party meeting.

    We are also told that four persons of the ruling coalition alliance enjoy VVIP protocol at our expense. The president also enjoys this protocol. But with the Peoples’ government in place, the four “blessed” people are the prime minister himself, Mr Nawaz Sharif, Mr Asif Zardari and the de-facto interior minister Rehman Malik. This includes hundreds of police personnel as well as vehicles that are bullet proof and bomb proof and are imported for millions of rupees. The VVIP protocol also means that when these personages are in some town or city, roads are blocked and traffic is stopped so that they can pass through. Most Pakistanis wonder whether it is worth it
    .

    One can only wonder what the priorities of this government are. The Sindh chief minister seems to have all the time to dress up for diplomatic receptions but cannot find time to address the real problems that plague the province he governs. We are told that the ‘new jiyalas’ are now running the show in the province.

    Instead of focusing on the economy, the government seems more intent on ousting President Musharraf – we are not even sure if that is true. However, Mr Zardari also wants Mr Sharif to come along with him to the US to talk to American officials. Together they are expected to convince the Americans why the president has to go. But Mr Sharif doesn’t seem to be playing along – President Musharraf may yet survive.

    The battle rages between America’s strategic interests, as defined by its presidential election and Pakistan’s assumed sovereignty. While it will be unpatriotic to speculate on who will win, it would be in order to try and ascertain the implications of the moves that are being planned and thought over.


    President Bush has called Pakistan an “all-weather friend”. For our government, the priority should be the Pakistani electorate, not American voters. We are hopeful that after so many wrongs, our elected representatives get some things right. It is a hope, but then that is what we have been living on for so many years. Why not for a few months more?


    Email: kamal.siddiqi@thenews.com.pk
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  3. genmirajborgza786
    Offline

    genmirajborgza786 PDF VETERAN

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2006
    Messages:
    3,593
    Ratings:
    +5 / 3,873 / -0
    Country:
    Canada
    Location:
    Canada
    Mullen sees a ‘syndication’ of extremist groups in FATA
    US army chief says no firm evidence of Qaeda fighters shifting from Iraq to Afghanistan
    * Says timetable for US troop withdrawal from Iraq can jeopardise political progress

    WASHINGTON/IRAQ: There has been a “joining and a syndication of various extremist and terrorist groups” in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas, which pose an internal threat to Pakistan and cause an increased flow of fighters across the border into Afghanistan, US Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman (JCSC) Admiral Mike Mullen said on Sunday.

    In an interview on Fox Television, Mullen, who recently visited Pakistan and Afghanistan, said there is “no firm evidence that Al Qaeda is shifting its fighters from Iraq to Afghanistan.” He said that during his visit to the region, the whole issue of FATA and safe havens for foreign fighters of Al Qaeda and the Taliban had come up. He claimed that the insurgents are now “freely, much more freely able to come across the border. They are a big challenge for all of us and will have an adverse effect on our ability to move forward in Afghanistan.” He said the concern is that a safe haven exists in Pakistan where “these fighters, these additional foreign fighters,” have shown up.

    Timetable: A fixed timetable for withdrawal of US combat troops from Iraq can jeopardise political and economic progress, the Associated Press quoted Mullen as saying on Sunday.

    He said that the agreement between President George W Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki to set a “general time horizon” for bringing more troops home from the war was a sign of “healthy negotiations for a burgeoning democracy”.

    “I think the strategic goals of having time horizons are ones that we all seek because we would like to see US forces draw down and eventually come home,” Admiral Mullen said, adding, “This right now doesn’t speak to either time lines or timetables based on my understanding of where we are.”

    The best way to determine troops’ levels, the JCSC said, was to assess the conditions on the ground and to consult with American commanders. “Based on my time in and out of Iraq in recent months, I think the conditions-based assessments are the way to go and they’re very solid. We’re making progress and we can move forward accordingly based on those conditions,” he said.

    The Iraqi prime minister was quoted by a German magazine over the weekend as saying that US troops should leave “as soon as possible”. He called Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama’s suggestion of 16 months “the right timeframe for a withdrawal”. Mullen, asked about the possibility of withdrawing all combat troops within two years, said, “I think the consequences could be very dangerous.”

    “It is hard to say exactly what would happen. I’d worry about any kind of rapid movement that would create instability. We are engaged very much right now with the Iraqi people,” Mullen said. khalid kassan/ap

    Home | National

    Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan
  4. fatman17
    Online

    fatman17 PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2007
    Messages:
    16,807
    Ratings:
    +9 / 16,016 / -1
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Pakistan
    US expert defends Pakistan military aid, sees ties at high point

    WASHINGTON, July 23 (APP): The United States and Pakistan currently have a relatively high point of military relationship despite ups and downs, a noted American defense expert said while also strongly defending U.S security assistance for Islamabad’s conventional balance with India.

    “Today, the relationship is a relatively high point,” defense analyst David Smith said, citing close cooperation between the two countries in the post-9/11 period at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think-tank.

    Smith, who is associated with Pentagon as a senior director on Pakistan (policy), was expressing his personal views during a discussion Tuesday on U.S.-Pakistan military relations in the context of counter terrorism challenges. Pakistani expert Shuja Nawaz and former State Department adviser Lisa Curtis also participated.

    “Pakistan is an indispensable ally in the war on terror, our desire for long-term relationship is not confined to military aspect alone, we are working very hard to find ways to increase our economic and social development programs in Pakistan and find ways to demonstrate to the people of Pakistan the value of the strategic relationship.”

    In the context of ‘rocky nature of the past relationship between the two countries, he acknowledged the importance of overcoming trust deficit and the need for the United States to demonstrate to Pakistan that “we are in Afghanistan to finish the job and are a reliable security partner now and in future.”

    At the same time, he observed that any agreements with tribal leaders on the Pakistani side of the Afghan border need to be enforceable to stop militants from having any sanctuary and conducting any attacks into Afghanistan and Pakistan itself.

    The U.S., he said, “cannot allow al-Qaeda to regroup and plan attacks.”

    Commenting on Pakistan’s security concerns in respect of U.S. strategic ties with India he said, the U.S. realizes that India and Pakistan have had a very troubled past, had three wars and a major mobilization of forces of both armies in 2002. “Pakistan is concerned about the direction of U.S. strategic relationship with India, is concerned about things like civilian nuclear deal, India’s presence in Afghanistan and fears that the future arms sales by the United States to India may alter the conventional military balance in the sub-continent in India’s favor.”

    He said the U.S. has to convince both sides that its relationship with them is not a series of zero-sum games, “that we share the same goals, certainly countering terrorism and we want sustainable long-term relationship with both countries.”

    Defending the U.S. military assistance for Pakistan vis-vis conventional military balance between Pakistan and India, he said the U.S. has committed itself to meeting Pakistan’s legitimate security needs.

    Any assessment of the conventional military balance between the two countries shows that in almost every category India is expanding, he noted in response to a question.

    “Now the list of equipment we are in the process of providing to Pakistan is very modest by the scales of present plans for modernization of the Indian armed forces.

    “So I dont see there is a significant shift in the conventional military balance by any of the systems that I listed,” he stated, referring to New Delhi’s massive defense purchases and modernization plans and the U.S. provision of F-16 jets, maritime surveillance aircraft and other equipment.

    Shuja Nawaz, a Pakistani expert and author of the book “Crossed Swords: Pakistan,

    Its Army and the Wars Within,” underlined the need for meeting insurgency challenges in the border region through a multifaceted strategy instead of a uni-dimensional emphasis on military component. He pointed out the need for addressing governance problems on the Afghan side including nexus between drugs and violence.

    Nawaz said the U.S. can play an important role in removing frictions between Pakistan and India, who are engaged in a peace process to resolve outstanding issues including the thorny Kashmir dispute. Washington, he stated, could help ease border strains between Afghanistan and Pakistan.

    “It may be a good idea for the U.S. to recognize this is an issue,” he said in reference to the oft-voiced need for prodding Kabul on formal acceptance of Durand Line as the border.

    Lisa Curtis, senior fellow for South Asian Studies at the Heritage Foundation, favored deployment of more troops on the Afghan side of the border and said both the Democratic and Republican presidential candidates recognize the need for more deployments in the insurgency-hit country.

    APP.com | Asbury Park Press | Monmouth and Ocean counties news, community, entertainment, yellow pages and classifieds. Serving Monmouth and Ocean counties, NJ
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  5. dk33
    Offline

    dk33 MEMBER

    New Recruit

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2007
    Messages:
    38
    Ratings:
    +0 / 15,629 / -0
    I'm not really sure what to make of these public pronouncements of 'all is well' from the US side periodically.

    The reality seems to be that there has been no apparent effort from the US side on encouraging the GoA to move on settling the Durand Line issue, nor has there been any apparent effort at playing a role in bridging India-Pakistan distrust in order to remove an important factor from the scene.

    Add to that the refusal to get the GoA to accept something as simple as biometric ID's or fencing in select areas.

    Just seems like a lot of hogwash and platitudes from the Americans - strategically they want to offer nothing (and lest the lurking 'apathetic' West take umbrage - I do not consider aid any strategic concession), yet demand that Pakistan bend over backwards to support their strategic interests.
  6. batmannow
    Online

    batmannow ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2008
    Messages:
    11,780
    Ratings:
    +1 / 4,242 / -4
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Thailand
    ALL, isnt well , actully these people and these tihnk tanks, always try to satisfay pakistan with these kind of speeches but on the the other hand , they keep supporting... INDIA+ ISRAEIL..........????
  7. pkpatriotic
    Offline

    pkpatriotic SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2008
    Messages:
    2,566
    Ratings:
    +0 / 852 / -0
    Dear AgNoStIc MuSliM, I appreciate your real visionary and true assessment,:tup: I agreed more then 100% with you...............here I would like to add few more words that, if they were really sincere with us and they wish to support their major & important strategically partner i.e.,. Pakistan (as they always chant), then why didn’t they offer real relexations by declaring Pakistan as most preferred nation, (this package is benefitted in wide sense, specially duty free or minimal duty on imports from those preferred countries) which enabling Pakistan to markable increase of its exports to USA, to strengthen its economy & obviously society as well in real sense, as they did for other countries like Mexico, Jordan, Egypt, Kuwait, Dominican republic, Argentine, and more ......:cool:!

    Hope this simple example is enough to clear the actual intentions of our so-called friend and leading partner in WOT, (The reality of War On Terror, that what objectives actually behind this title, will elaborate in some other post later).:smokin:
    Last edited: Jul 24, 2008
  8. xea
    Offline

    xea FULL MEMBER

    New Recruit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2008
    Messages:
    78
    Ratings:
    +0 / 11 / -0
    Pakistan Wants 'Partnership' With U.S., Official Says

    Foreign Minister, on D.C. Visit, Conveys Interest in Moving Beyond Security-Based Ties

    The new government of Pakistan is seeking a "partnership" with the United States and wants tangible signs that the Bush administration will increase aid and embrace Pakistani democracy, Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi said yesterday.

    "We want to be positive, we want to cooperate, we want a long-term relationship, we want a partnership. So how serious are you in broadening that relationship -- that is what we want to know," Qureshi said in a wide-ranging interview with Washington Post editors and reporters.

    Qureshi, who met with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice yesterday in advance of a visit to Washington later this month by Pakistan's prime minister, Yousaf Raza Gillani, said that U.S. officials have answered "yes" to his question but that "it has to be demonstrated in form."

    Since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the United States has provided Pakistan with about $10 billion in aid -- much of it in military assistance -- and has pledged $750 million over five years to aid the federal tribal areas bordering Afghanistan. Rice spoke with Qureshi about ways to help Pakistan cope with soaring food and energy prices, spokesman Sean McCormack said.

    Qureshi, in the interview and later at an appearance at the Brookings Institution, said the new civilian government is trying to shift from the predominantly security-based relationship with the United States when President Pervez Musharraf ruled the country. The new government is led by the party of assassinated former prime minister Benazir Bhutto, and Qureshi stressed that the Bush administration should bolster the triumph of democracy represented by the sidelining of Musharraf.

    Musharraf remains a figurehead leader, and Qureshi sidestepped questions over how long he should remain in office.

    "Our position is that President Musharraf has played an important role, but things have changed significantly, and the message of the people is very clear, and that message has to be understood," he said. Qureshi said the country was undergoing a "very delicate transition" from dictatorship to democracy, adding: "Musharraf will stay as long as the Parliament thinks he should stay -- and let the Parliament take that decision."

    Though the Bush administration was long a firm backer of Musharraf, Qureshi said: "I think they are beginning to realize that they have to see beyond Musharraf. Individuals are important, individuals do provide leadership. But ultimately you have to rely on institutions."

    On Pakistan's often troubled relationships with its neighbors, Qureshi said the new government was seeking to "build bridges and create goodwill" in Afghanistan and plans a major effort to improve ties with longtime antagonist India.

    But he said the U.S.-led war against the Taliban in Afghanistan is problematic "because there are a lot of people in Afghanistan questioning the way things are being governed." And Qureshi became animated when he discussed the prospects of a rapprochement with India. He said he had just visited New Delhi, where he said he told Indian officials, "an opportunity has come and if they do not grab, it will go." The response from Indian officials was positive, he said.

    "I see a desire on both sides for normalization," Qureshi said. "My feeling is that people have outpaced the governments. . . . This region has suffered because of our acrimony and hostility, and the world is moving on and we are lagging behind. Nobody is going to be waiting for us."

    GOD BLESS:pakistan: AMEEN.

    LINK: Pakistan Wants 'Partnership' With U.S., Official Says - washingtonpost.com
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 24, 2008
  9. xea
    Offline

    xea FULL MEMBER

    New Recruit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2008
    Messages:
    78
    Ratings:
    +0 / 11 / -0
    Implications of US Coercive Diplomacy on Pakistan.

    In the aftermath of the September 11 events, when a number of states joined the US-led alliance against terrorism, Pakistan which is playing the role of a frontline state has become a special target of the American coercive diplomacy in turn. Every time, America has emphasized Pakistan to ‘do more’ against the Islamic militants especially in the north-western tribal areas without caring for any internal backlash. However, US duress on Islamabad is bringing about far reaching implications which are not only affecting Pakistan but even the sole superpower.


    As regards the coercive diplomacy, renowned realists and neo-realists such as Machiavelli, Hobbes and Morgenthau, while mentioning the power as the main determinant of international politics, in form of bargaining, threats, pressure and violence strongly support the strategy of coercion in one way or the other. Particularly Schelling and Kissinger also believe in the coercive diplomacy of power and influence of the great countries, particularly of the US.


    Americans also followed the realist method of coercive diplomacy in seeking the cooperation of the weak states. It was because of this reason that after the 9/11, small countries like Pakistan, Indonesia, Yemen and almost all Gulf states decided to join the Bush anti-terrorism enterprise. This was due to the helplessness of the weak sovereign states, that their own non-sovereign entities organized themselves and starting checking the US-led powerful allies in another way. Power has also been employed by the Islamic activists in such a manner that even the most powerful nation like the United States has become the least powerful. Stiff and prolonged resistance of the Islamic activists in Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Palestine and Kashmir might be cited as an instance in this connection.


    Negative impact of the American coercive diplomacy on the US itself could be judged from some other developments. A number of small countries have refused to come under the threat and pressure of Washington. In this context, the defeat of Israel by Hezbollah in 2006, Iran’s determination to continue her nuclear programme, Syrian stand in relation to Lebanon and Palestine—North Korea’s signing of an agreement with America in accordance with her favourable terms and refusal of the Venezuela’s President Hugo Chavez to yield to the US pressure in relation to oil supply might be cited as an example in this context.


    Meanwhile, Iraq war has entered its sixth year on March 20, 2008. In his message, the US president Bush has still defended his decision to invade Baghdad, stating that international community and America are safer today than before. On the other side, democratic candidate, Obama while describing daily attack on Americans and deathtoll of 4000 American military personnel in Iraq, pointed out that the world and America are more unsafe today.


    Nevertheless, on the whole, there are multi-faceted implications of the US anti-terrorism conflict on global and regional level, which has crossed the tenure of World War 1 and World War 11. American cost of war has reached approximately 6 trillion dollars—decline of dollar, soaring prices of oil and acute recession inside the country have given a greater blow to the US economy vis-à-vis other developed countries.



    One of the drastic consequences of the ongoing ‘different war’ is that particularly Pakistan is facing a perennial wave of the suicide attacks in 2008 which has reached the very heart of the country, resulting in a greater political and economic instability in wake of the success of moderate parties in the elections.



    While, American political leaders including their media have been continuously propagating against Pakistan regarding the Afghan insurgency and cross border terrorism. In this respect, apart from previous strikes, on March 16, 2008, twenty people were killed when some missiles hit a house, though the attacker remains unidentified so far. Just three days before this event, four persons were killed by the US fire from across the border in North Waziristan. About the violation, ISPR, spokesman, Maj-General Athar Abbas pointed out on March 13 that they “fired five rounds which landed in our territory” and “we have lodged very strong protest with the coalition forces”.



    It is notable that India and Karzai-led regime of Afghanistan are also American partners in converting Pakistan into a failed state like Ethiopia or Sudan so as to achieve their global and regional interest. Nevertheless, the real aim of the US diplomacy of pressure in relation to Pakistan is to create a rift between the security forces on the one side and the general masses led by the politicians on the other.

    In this context, American duress has been increasing gradually and Islamabad has been compelled to disallow violation of its right as a sovereign state. On March 8, 2008, the foreign office, while commenting on a news story, strongly denounced the US eleven proposals regarding special privileges and immunities for the military and auxiliary personnel before they are sent to Pakistan. The statement issued by the office explained, “Only those proposals are considered that are in line with our domestic and international laws”. Rejection of America’s new demands as encroachment on the sovereignty of our country clearly shows that all these new conditions were part of American coercive diplomacy.


    Without any evidence, American political leaders and high officials of the US State Department are giving strong indications intermittently that Pakistani Maderassas are supporting insurgency of the Taliban in Afghanistan—and Islamabad has failed in coping with the local ‘Talibanisation’ inside her own country.


    While ignoring internal instability in Pakistan, US may demand to send NATO troops in the Frontier Province or otherwise could intensify its air strikes and ground shelling in the tribal region of the country. In this case, newly elected democratic regime will be forced to leave the US war against terror. If Washington isolates Pakistan by imposing sanctions, such an act will also cause drastic impact on the US war on terror, damaging her interests in the region—which is part of her global strategy.


    Besides, any negative policy in relation to Pakistan will certainly result in more unity between the new elected government, security forces and the general masses, consequently massive hostility towards Washington. In that scenario American policy of liberalism led by moderate parties could badly fail, giving a greater incentive to the fundamentalist and extremist elements in the country. And even moderate elements could join the radical ones.


    America must also realize that in case of any prospective military action in the Frontier Province, both Iran and Pakistan might stand together to frustrate the US strategic designs. Further an alliance of both the countries with Syria would make the matter worse for Washington. In this worse scenario, a vast region from Pakistan to Somalia and Nigeria to Iraq will further be radicalized, bringing about more terrorism, directed against the Americans. However, in such adverse circumstances, American worldwide interests are likely to be jeopardized, while the US has already failed in coping with the Al Qaeda-related militants. Moreover, American ‘hot pursuit policy’ could lead to clash of civilizations, popularly known as Word War 111 between the Muslims and the Christians on international level.


    Taking cognizance of the above implications of its coercive diplomacy, US must abandon its policy of duress in connection with Pakistan. The fact of the matter is that being a small country, if Pakistan is dependent upon Washington, the latter is also dependent upon Islamabad for her geo-political interest in face of the war against terrorism. Hence, both the countries require a convergence of interests on equal level rather than a divergence, based upon disparity.


    However, in face of the already deteriorated law and order situation in Pakistan, we will have to protect our interests by a well-defined strategy. In this respect,being a professional soldier, Chief of Army Staff, General Ashfaq Pervaiz Kiyani has already determined the new role of the army by de-linking it from the civil affairs. In addition, on March 6, 2008, he clearly explained in a meeting of the corps commanders that “the army would stay out of the political process”, and reaffirmed the army’s “commitment to the solidarity and integrity of Pakistan” which could be “possible with the full support of People”. His decision has been greatly appreciated by both the intellectuals and the general masses.


    Despite all of these deliberations, if the US continues pressurizing Pakistan without bothering for unrest in the country, our politicians, security forces and general masses need a strong unity and sense of nationalism which is essential to castigate the fallout of the American coercive diplomacy and any conspiracy against the integrity of our country.

    GOD BLESS :pakistan: AMEEN.

    LINK: Implications of US Coercive Diplomacy on Pakistan - Realism:Failure of 'Power' - IGLOO
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 24, 2008
  10. Interceptor
    Offline

    Interceptor SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    2,038
    Ratings:
    +0 / 119 / -0
    Muse, those are ifs and buts nothing strategical simple assumptions, with a twisted tone. What are you trying to beat out of that rock.
    Last edited: Jul 29, 2008
  11. Interceptor
    Offline

    Interceptor SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    2,038
    Ratings:
    +0 / 119 / -0
    The points from the article, show the deep gap between US-Pak relation, we should fill that gap with Pakistani interest, and introduce a better consensus of Pakistani foreign policy, we are not to judge if US is right or wrong it is the mere ground reality that the US is, and around us we must except that, and not go over the moon thinking we will defeat or have big say, first establish your policies your rules and then invite the US to play your game other wise you will be cheated.
  12. Interceptor
    Offline

    Interceptor SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    2,038
    Ratings:
    +0 / 119 / -0
    Nato will not hunt Taliban in Pakistan: Scheffer

    Friday, July 25, 2008
    Says terror sanctuaries unacceptable
    KABUL: Nato will not enter Pakistan to hunt Taliban insurgents, but reserves the right to hit the militants there should they attack alliance troops across the border in Afghanistan, the alliance’s chief said on Thursday.

    Standing alongside Karzai at a Kabul news conference, Nato chief Jaap de Hoop Scheffer was askeda if the alliance was considering a wider mandate from the United Nations to go after militant sanctuaries inside Pakistan.

    “My answer is an unqualified no. We have a United Nations security mandate for Afghanistan and that’s it. If Nato forces are shot at from the other side of the border, there is always the right to self-defence but you will not see Nato forces crossing into Pakistan territory,” Scheffer replied.

    He said it was critical for security that the two neighbours had good relations. “I don’t deny the seriousness of the problem but we are not seeking a new mandate. ... If we want to find a political solution and if we want to see a regional approach, the level of political attention for this problem has to be brought up.

    “And point number two. It is of course necessary to involve Pakistan in this process. Only to say Pakistan is the problem or part of the problem might clear your conscience but it will not help solve the problem,” he said.

    Scheffer said that simply blaming Pakistan for increased cross-border attacks is not the best method. He called for a regional approach to resolving the issue that would include Pakistan, which has defended its efforts to end militancy on its side.

    “Only saying Pakistan is part of the problem or Pakistan is the problem might clear your conscience but will not help in solving the problem,” de Hoop Scheffer said. “I cannot think of anyone who would consider it acceptable that many terrorists from all over the world gather in a certain area and create mischief and havoc there,” Scheffer told reporters, in a reference to militant bases in Pakistan.

    “The bottom line is that the present situation cannot be acceptable for anyone,” Scheffer said. Karzai said cross-border attacks were mostly hurting Afghans and the answer was to hit the militants in Pakistan.

    “The fight against terrorism is not in Afghanistan, and we will not be safe and secure in Afghanistan unless Afghanistan and the international community address the question of sanctuaries in Pakistan,” he told the news conference.

    Nato will not hunt Taliban in Pakistan: Scheffer


    Just read this postive note.
  13. araz
    Offline

    araz PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2006
    Messages:
    3,445
    Ratings:
    +3 / 3,096 / -0
    Is this another demo of carrot and stick spproach. Whatever , the answer, PAkistan must settle the border areas of Afghanistan and must seal the border. we cannot afford to have threats on two of our borders and an unstable third one as well(Iran).
    Araz
  14. Interceptor
    Offline

    Interceptor SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    2,038
    Ratings:
    +0 / 119 / -0
    Closing the border wont solve the issue, they are on both sides of the border, the answer is separating them from indigenous and than targeting them, when this happens they wont crawl in Pakistan anymore, target the enemy and you target them, close border you will just misuse your forces instead of making them more usefully.

    We need to identify the enemy and target it by all means, this enemy must be separated, groups that are fighting due to the previous government, if those groups lay their arms down negotiate and pardon a truce and those who refuse target them.
  15. Tiki Tam Tam
    Offline

    Tiki Tam Tam <b>MILITARY PROFESSIONALS</b>

    Joined:
    May 15, 2006
    Messages:
    9,580
    Ratings:
    +0 / 2,566 / -0
    And this is shocking:

    PM walks, lavish spending but no seats for media

    Very unfortunate and should not have been done!

    One does not understand what the US could have gained by this.

    Mods: You may shift this to another thread. Did not know where to put it.
    • Thanks Thanks x 1