What's new

US involved in Pak politics to the hilt

wanderer

FULL MEMBER

New Recruit

Joined
Nov 8, 2006
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
Salaam!

News Update::coffee:

US involved in Pak politics to the hilt

Ref: US involved in Pak politics to the hilt

By Ansar Abbasi

ISLAMABAD: The American interference in Pakistani politics is at an all time high, with Washington contacting different authorities in Islamabad, ignoring recognised diplomatic channels and bypassing the prime minister and his government to ensure smooth sailing for Benazir Bhutto.

A reliable source in the Presidency told this correspondent that during some recent discussions amongst senior authorities, it was revealed that influential American government leaders were directly contacting different Pakistani leaders and officials, ignoring the Foreign Office and even the prime minister, who is the chief executive of the country.

Although, this mounting American interference was not the issue being discussed in such high-level interactions, the source privy to such deliberations found it extremely upsetting. He revealed that the extent of American interference could be judged from the worrying fact that Washington had lately written a letter directly to a Pakistani spymaster to discuss the progress on Benazir-Musharraf dialogue issue.

How could the Americans do that? There is no explanation to this. Is it proper for intelligence agencies’ chiefs to be welcoming such direct correspondence from Washington? The source also disclosed that one of the two top aides of the president – Lt General (Retd) Hamid Javaid and Tariq Aziz – these days maintains a direct one-to-one contact with the American authorities. Mostly, it is said, the presidential aide talks to Richard Boucher, who is monitoring the events unfolding in Pakistan vis-à-vis Benazir Bhutto’s return and her participation in active politics at home.

The aide was even quoted as telling recently that the contact was now so frequent that he and Boucher now exchanged views with each other and passed on information through mobile messages (short messaging service- SMS).

During his last visit to Pakistan, Boucher had also visited a presidential aide but nothing was officially said about this meeting. When The News contacted concerned government quarters to have their reaction about the American interference they said there was no truth in the substance of such reports. However, they added, for follow-up action, concerned departments of each government interact as required.

A report published in a local English daily revealed that Benazir during her recent visit to Washington spoke with Musharraf from the office of Congressman Tom Lantos, the powerful chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.

The report also disclosed that the US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice telephoned both Musharraf and Benazir on Thursday last to ensure that they had reached the agreement. The next day, Musharraf promulgated the controversial National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO).

“The two telephone calls show the extent of Washington’s involvement in Pakistani politics and contradict the State Department’s repeated assurance that while the US backs the formation of a moderate political centre in Pakistan, it does not favour any particular candidate or party,” the report said.

Interestingly, the government – the prime minister and his cabinet – is generally ignored and bypassed in all such interactions between Washington and the Presidency or the spymasters. Most leaders of the ruling coalition parties are also allergic to the kind of concessions being offered to Benazir by the president but they could not dare cross their limits.

Till a few months back, the Presidency was not really pushed to go for such a deal with Benazir but it was the US pressure that compelled it to swallow the bitter pill and hug the alleged plunderer of the national wealth.

While the NRO would successfully take care of the corruption cases that Benazir is facing within Pakistan, Washington has indicated, as already reported, that it would take care of her cases in Madrid, London and Geneva. Will it be possible or not? There is no clear answer to this but the Pakistani authorities could not do much beyond disassociating themselves from these cases or withdrawing the documents submitted to the courts of these three European capitals.

In the Madrid case, the NAB has already clarified that the case regarding culpability of Benazir and her conduits (Rehman Malik and Hassan Ali Jafferi) in the Oil for Food Programme is pending before a Spanish Examining Magistrate in the province of Valencia in Spain on charges of money laundering.

According to the NAB, this case was started in 2004 by the Spanish authorities on basic information and evidence gathered by their Financial Intelligence Unit called SEPBLAC. The Government of Pakistan was also informed about this persecution and was asked for any help in the Spanish prosecution. Later in 2006, the NAB was informed by the United Nation’s Independent Inquiry Committee (UN IIC) about the involvement of Benazir Bhutto’s company Petroline FZC in the infamous Iraqi Oil for Food Programme.

The UN IIC also provided the NAB with certain documentary evidence. To help the Spanish prosecution in Valencia and also adhering to their earlier request of 2004, the NAB became civil party to the proceedings and provided the examining magistrate with the UN IIC evidence and also the details of other cases of the accused in various jurisdictions including Pakistan.

On the last date of hearing in May 2007, the NAB informed the Valencia court that the bureau had done its job by providing the UN IIC evidence and by rendering all other relevant evidence. “Since the case is primarily a Spanish prosecution, therefore, the NAB could be allowed to quit as civil party as the Government of Pakistan exchequer is not going to benefit from the outcome of the case, and further the NAB shall be available for any help for the Spanish prosecution in future, which could be attained on a simple request of International Mutual Legal Assistance,” the NAB said in one of its recent press releases. It added that the prosecution in Valencia was to continue.:crazy::pdf:


The US again meddling in other nations affairs.....clearly they would like INCOMPETENT leadership to run Pakistan?.......can the people of Pakistan with a population of 160,000 million+ not choose some sane worthy person?...do they not learn from history?:angry::pdf:
 
Nothing New.

Regards
Wilco
 
wanderer - pray tell us who this sane worthy person is? i dont know of any within the civilian politicians. they are all corrupt to the hilt.
 
Well we do learn from history problem is there is no one. But one can see that all the reconsilication thing is being started up because none of the political parties PP, PML(N) and PML(Q) have a two third majority to form an independent govenment so they are actually shaking hands and a mutual government will be formed in a way kuch do or kuch lo means seating adjusment will be done.
US just wants BB in the goverment so that she continues the military operation in the tribal areas, musharraf too wants her, as some one for his vision of pakistan the enlighten pakistan.
 
icecold - you r partly right.
the main reason in my humble opinion is the nukes. the US does not trust anyone except Mushy when it comes to the control of the nukes. the head of PA strategic command will continue to report to Mushy even after he retires from the army. action against the tribals is already taking place with increasing intensity.
bhutto is needed to give face of democracy to pak and the rest of the world. this would also help in certifying each year that pak is a democracy and it is fighting terrorism so that the yearly US economic and security package is passed by congress.
 
Ok. I feel compelled to turn in the US perspective (albeit I'm not totally endorsing it myself).

The USA has pretty much considered Pakistan as it's rental state since the early-mid 50s after it's induction into CENTO and SEATO. For us, the developing countries on that list were long term investments against the communist threat. Of course now everybody makes it seem like the evil US wants to meddle, threaten and force other countries.. but the fact that the American tax payer has put in billions of dollars into each country over the years is conveniently left out. Tempers fly high when the US is involved, but all of that anger vanishes when the checkbook comes out.

Given that these countries are long term investments, and that copious sums of hard earned dollars have been put into them, it only behooves the US government to make sure that the recipients of this monetary aid tow our line.

There has always been a lot of anger from Pakistan (as mentioned in Musharraf's memoirs) that we never came to Pakistan's aid during the 1965 and 1971 wars with India. This isn't exactly true. We did provide the PAF and PA with our best made for export weapons which were in fact superior to what the Indian army and IAF was getting from the UK and France up until 1970. We also initially supported Pakistan's position regarding Kashmir in the 50s, overlooked the Bangladesh pogrom, sent in the USS Enterprise into the Bay of Bengal and helped get all the western territory back after the 1971 debacle. This along with the monetary aid over the past 6 decades pretty much disproves the myth that "the USA only takes what it wants and never gives anything in return."

Also, as horrible as this sounds, the American perspective of Pakistan is that of a perpetual rental state. Since its conception in 1947, Pakistan has always had a full time benefactor in the US, Saudi Arabia and now China. And hence we are now of the belief that if we are paying the highest rent, then we should be given the leeway of running Pakistan as we see fit. (again, I am not endorsing this belief myself).

I'm not going to deny for a second that we have grossly mismanaged Pakistan. But on the other hand, I don't buy into all this anti-US rhetoric either because we have also paid our dues.
 
OK. I was going to ignore this thread just because of the self-loathing title. Unfortunately many of the posts (no name named :) ) have crossed every limit of self-hatred and self-deprecation if the posters are of Pakistani origin. Otherwise this very thread is utterly disrespectful of a nation 160 million people strong, a nation that has every right to be a regional power.

Coming back to the topic, US-Pak relationship has always been mutual. If US is involved in Pak-Politics "to the hilt", then so are the Pak-politicians involved in US policies "to the hilt". We are the ones who guide, prod, and lead the US when it comes to our region.

We decide how the US resource are spent to further our mutual aims. Sure US is a much bigger economic and military force. However that doesn't mean that somehow US "rents" Pakistan. At every occasion US "co-operates" with many countries for the "mutual" benefits and interests.

Look at this folks, US "co-operates" with China to fill the walmart stores while China gets to buy the latest US nuclear plants (each worth $2billions).

US "co-operates" with India to get its accounts in order and in turn India gets $billions.

and similarly Pakistan "co-operates" with US to keep its military power as one of the dominant forces in the regions, and in turn US gets to extend and protect her strategic interests.

Pakistani politicians have a long history with UK and US. It is pretty logical that they interact with the US officials, but so do Pak government officials.

Moving away from Pakistan a bit!

Americans just honored Dalai Lama while China fumed. Moreover Americans regularly conduct "show of force" on Taiwan issue. Shall we say that Americans are involved in Chinese "foreign affairs" to the "hilt"?

Now lets see how India gets rough shod treatment by Americans when it comes to protecting American interests. Remember the days when Indians amassed forces on our borders? One call by Gen. Powell and Indians ran back to the barracks.

Not only that, Americans regularly wine and dine with Indian politicians. Shall we not say that Americans are "involved to the hilt" when it comes to India?

Off course not. Indians and Chinese are patriotic, and nationalists. They will turn every encounter with Americans as their personal i.e. Indian or Chinese achievement.

Only Pakistanis are so unpatriotic self-hating lot that they so freely spit venom at their own country. Poor things don't even realize that they are spitting on their ownsleves.

Sad! Utterly sad!
 
OK. I was going to ignore this thread just because of the self-loathing title. Unfortunately many of the posts (no name named :) ) have crossed every limit of self-hatred and self-deprecation if the posters are of Pakistani origin. Otherwise this very thread is utterly disrespectful of a nation 160 million people strong, a nation that has every right to be a regional power.
I don't want to mislead you mate. I am an American and not Pakistani. I am merely putting forth the US view/argument on this matter. And as I have said before, I do not personally endorse a large chunk of it. However, I also refuse to buy into this mass hysterical anti-US propaganda.
 
antiobl said:
Coming back to the topic, US-Pak relationship has always been mutual. If US is involved in Pak-Politics "to the hilt", then so are the Pak-politicians involved in US policies "to the hilt". We are the ones who guide, prod, and lead the US when it comes to our region.

We decide how the US resource are spent to further our mutual aims. Sure US is a much bigger economic and military force. However that doesn't mean that somehow US "rents" Pakistan. At every occasion US "co-operates" with many countries for the "mutual" benefits and interests.
If by "mutual" you mean equitable, then no. History does not support your assertion of the US-Pak relationship being equitable by any means. But they are of course mutual or else neither would have entered into any kind of arrangement. We have taken Pakistan's lead on certain things and most of all General Zia Ul Haq's guidelines on Pakistan's involvement in the Soviet-Afghan war. But on many occasions we have abruptly pulled out and changed our minds (unfairly I admit on some occasions) but this clearly indicates the unequal nature of the relationship and the fact that the USA is always in the drivers seat.
 
If by "mutual" you mean equitable, then no. ....

Energon sahib,

Not sure how you want to define "Equitable" in the same sentence as "Mutual". Nations make agreements for mutual benefits and set up terms for a given period.

If by "equitable", you mean fair, then heck yes! US had to give a fair deal. Just remember how Pakistan rejected Prez. Carter's offer as peanuts. Once Prez. Reagan got in the White House, the offer was made "mutually acceptable" and after that as they say "rest is history".

You can also go back in time and see how Prez. Ayub and Prez. Eisenhower made mutual agreements.

Bottom line is that only lefties and Islamists in Pakistan make this big bruhaha that somehow US gives unfair deals only to Pakistan.

Just read history, and study US-Turkey, US-China, US-India deals. In all these cases, US has to present a reasonable offer, and other countries must make a reasonable counter offer. If the two offers are close, the deal is done, otherwise ta ta.

Case in point, US-Turkey deal fell through because Turkey's counter offer was too high (read too unreasonable from US point of view).



..... We have taken Pakistan's lead on certain things and most of all General Zia Ul Haq's guidelines on Pakistan's involvement in the Soviet-Afghan war. ...
And so is the lead of Musharraf in the current crisis. Just read the details of the Kabul Jirga. 90% of it was written by Prez. Musharraf (or his advisers).

Similarly Prez. Ayub's government set the conditions and US obliged.


..... ....But on many occasions we have abruptly pulled out and changed our ......

If Walmart sales go down, it will be foolish by the USA to continue buying the same shirts and shoes from China.

If Sprint telephone company suffers heavy losses in the number of customers, it has to pull out of Philippines (or India) or wherever its call centers may be located.

There is nothing abrupt about this. In every major campaign US-Pak worked together for at least 10 years or more. Dunno what you really mean by "abrupt" considering the time periods spanning decades.




........ the fact that the USA is always in the drivers seat.

Well that's your view and I respect that. However countries don't drive buses around. They work together and set up roles. Every role is important otherwise the deal won't work. A driver could be chauffeur and still be important. So let's not get caught in this "US is bad" syndrome.

Peace.
 
OK. I was going to ignore this thread just because of the self-loathing title. Unfortunately many of the posts (no name named :) ) have crossed every limit of self-hatred and self-deprecation if the posters are of Pakistani origin. Otherwise this very thread is utterly disrespectful of a nation 160 million people strong, a nation that has every right to be a regional power.

Coming back to the topic, US-Pak relationship has always been mutual. If US is involved in Pak-Politics "to the hilt", then so are the Pak-politicians involved in US policies "to the hilt". We are the ones who guide, prod, and lead the US when it comes to our region.

We decide how the US resource are spent to further our mutual aims. Sure US is a much bigger economic and military force. However that doesn't mean that somehow US "rents" Pakistan. At every occasion US "co-operates" with many countries for the "mutual" benefits and interests.

Look at this folks, US "co-operates" with China to fill the walmart stores while China gets to buy the latest US nuclear plants (each worth $2billions).

US "co-operates" with India to get its accounts in order and in turn India gets $billions.

and similarly Pakistan "co-operates" with US to keep its military power as one of the dominant forces in the regions, and in turn US gets to extend and protect her strategic interests.

Pakistani politicians have a long history with UK and US. It is pretty logical that they interact with the US officials, but so do Pak government officials.

Moving away from Pakistan a bit!

Americans just honored Dalai Lama while China fumed. Moreover Americans regularly conduct "show of force" on Taiwan issue. Shall we say that Americans are involved in Chinese "foreign affairs" to the "hilt"?

Now lets see how India gets rough shod treatment by Americans when it comes to protecting American interests. Remember the days when Indians amassed forces on our borders? One call by Gen. Powell and Indians ran back to the barracks.

Not only that, Americans regularly wine and dine with Indian politicians. Shall we not say that Americans are "involved to the hilt" when it comes to India?

Off course not. Indians and Chinese are patriotic, and nationalists. They will turn every encounter with Americans as their personal i.e. Indian or Chinese achievement.

Only Pakistanis are so unpatriotic self-hating lot that they so freely spit venom at their own country. Poor things don't even realize that they are spitting on their ownsleves.

Sad! Utterly sad!

Rather well said.

However, I would like to interject with a 'thought' for everyone's consideration to know the opinion.

I am sure all nations base deals on a mutual give and take and everything is near equitable, or it should be anyway.

However, where the misconception comes is the 'popular' belief that has repeatedly been spun by the local media (any country) that the US follows the dictum, "What Lola wants, Lola gets!" Hence, everything is viewed within this perspective and obviously since everything in the deal would not go the way of country with which the US is making the deal, the local media hammers that point larger than life. Such "inequality" makes good domestic press and also serves the Opposition's interest, which is looking at the voters and not the national interest.

With apologies to Goebbel' infamous saying - Tell a lie repeatedly and it becomes the Truth - such hammering on the 'inequality' of deals soon becomes the Truth and hence the feeling that the US is arm-twisting!

Even the India - US nuclear deal has been so tangled by the Indian media, one does not really know if it is for the good or for bad!

The US Ambassador to India's statements too have confused the whole game, wherein even the genuine US supporters in India are uncomfortable that the US is interfering in Indian politics to the hilt! :)

Just a thought.
 
I think it is not fair to equate the US-Pak relation to Indo-US or China-US. India and China or not forced to make any deals with US. Your president himself claimed that US threatened to bomb your country to stone age.
 
If the US has so much influence as you say,then why could they not stop pakistan from testing there nukes?
Why can the US not have access to AQK.
 
...... such hammering on the 'inequality' of deals soon becomes the Truth and hence the feeling that the US is arm-twisting!
......
Agreed!

I think it is not fair to equate the US-Pak relation to Indo-US or China-US. India and China or not forced to make any deals with US. Your president himself claimed that US threatened to bomb your country to stone age.

Ha! Shiv Ji it is high time we moved away from petty Indo-Pak (or Pak-India if you prefer) squabling. Quote in Musharraf's book is "he said she said" and the person involved named Armitage has denied this. There was no counter argument from anywhere. No one form US administration told Musharraf what you want to imply here.

This very stance is being perpetuated by Pakistani lefties, and Pakistani fundoos. If you want to propagate the same leftie-fundoo stuff, well then you have every right to say it.



If the US has so much influence as you say,then why could they not stop pakistan from testing there nukes?
Why can the US not have access to AQK.

Well said!
 

Back
Top Bottom