Al-Qaeda elements in Pakistan to be attacked: Obama

[RabzonKhan]

Obama to increase non-military aid

By Anwar Iqbal

WASHINGTON, Nov 1: US presidential frontrunner Barack Obama wants to strengthen democracy in Pakistan by increasing non-military aid to the country but he also wants the Pakistanis to realise that their biggest enemy is not India but the militants within their borders.

The Democratic presidential candidate used an interview to CNN on Friday and an earlier rally in Sarasota, Florida, to highlight major points of his foreign policy agenda.

According to this agenda, Mr Obama’s first priority, if elected president on Nov 4, will be to capture or kill Osama bin Laden.

He will continue the fight against Al Qaeda militants hiding in Afghanistan and Pakistan’s tribal region until the militants are defeated.

“We will finally finish the fight and snuff out Al Qaeda and Bin Laden who killed 3,000 Americans on 9/11. I will never hesitate to do what it takes to defend this nation,” he declared.

Mr Obama also promised to close down US military prison camp in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and expressed conditional support to holding direct talks with elements within the Taliban movement who are willing to give up violence.

The Democratic candidate also pledged to do “everything in my power” to prevent Iran from making nuclear weapons.

To Pakistan’s democratic government, he offered a combination of socio-economic assistance.

“Now you have got a fledging democratic government. We have to support their efforts to democratise,” he said. “That means, by the way, not just providing military aid. It means, also, helping them to provide concrete solutions to the poverty and lack of education that exists in Pakistan. So, I want to increase non-military aid to Pakistan.”

The senator from Illinois is one of the co-sponsors of a US Senate bill that promises to provide $15 billion of US assistance to Pakistan over the next 10 years.

Mr Obama said he was concerned about Pakistan’s stability and agreed with the interviewer that Al Qaeda was targeting the country’s new leadership.

But he blamed the Bush administration for pursuing a policy that created instability in Pakistan.

“Well, I’m concerned about it. This was one of the problems with our previous strategy. There was a lot of resentment that built up as a consequence of our support of President Musharraf there, who had squelched democracy,” he said.

Mr Obama also pledged to convince Pakistani leaders to change their attitude towards India and refocus their attention on militants hiding within their borders.

“We also have to make the case that the biggest threat to Pakistan now is not India which has been the historical enemy,” he said. “It is actually militants within their borders.”

A refocusing of Pakistan’s attention, argued the Democratic senator, would also help the US-led war against terror.

“And if we can get them to refocus on that, that’s going to be critical for our success, not just in stabilising Pakistan but also in finishing the job in Afghanistan,” he said.

Asked if he would support holding of direct talks with the Taliban, Senator Obama recalled that Gen David Petraeus, the new US military commander for the region, had discussed the possibility of trying to peel away more moderate factions within the Taliban.

“And I think that after talking to our commanders on the ground and based on sound intelligence, if we can peel off some support from the hardcore militants that are aligned with Al Qaeda that will be beneficial,” he said.

Mr Obama said that even if he held talks with the Taliban, he would remain focused on his main objective: to snuff out Al Qaeda and to capture or kill Osama bin Laden. “And in order for us to do that, we are going to have to have cooperation from Afghans and Pakistanis.”

Such cooperation, he admitted, would not be a clean affair. “It may get murky in terms of who are potential allies, who are enemies in that situation. I want to work with our commanders to do whatever we practically can do in order to make sure that our overall goal of eliminating Al Qaeda as a threat is accomplished.”

 

[RabzonKhan]

Obama’s Kashmir thesis: Why renewed US activism is not good news for India

C Raja Mohan
Posted: Nov 03, 2008

SINGAPORE, November 2 : As Obamamania grips much of the world, including India, the man who might become the next President of the United States has ideas on Jammu and Kashmir that should cause some concern to New Delhi.
Given its vastly improved relations with the United States and Pakistan, India has no reason to press the panic button. Yet it should be quickly flagging its concerns with the foreign policy team of Senator Barack Obama, should he be declared the Forty-fourth President of the United States on Tuesday night.

In an interview broadcast on MSNBC, Obama suggested that his administration would encourage India to solve the Kashmir dispute with Pakistan, so that Islamabad can better cooperate with the United States on Afghanistan. Obama’s definitive thesis comes in three parts.

“The most important thing we’re going to have to do with respect to Afghanistan is actually deal with Pakistan. And we’ve got to work with the newly elected Government there (Pakistan) in a coherent way that says, terrorism is now a threat to you. Extremism is a threat to you. We should — try to resolve the Kashmir crisis so that they (Pakistan) can stay focused not on India, but on the situation with those militants”. India entirely agrees with the first two elements but should strongly object to the third.

Put simply, the Obama thesis says: the sources of Afghan instability are in Pakistan; those in turn are linked to Islamabad’s conflict with New Delhi, at the heart of which is Jammu and Kashmir.
For months now, New Delhi has been assessing Obama’s seeming hard-line towards Pakistan, including a threat to bomb terrorist bases there if Islamabad failed to act against the al-Qaida and the Taliban. India, however, has paid less attention to the carrot

Obama was offering Pakistan—American activism on Kashmir in return for credible cooperation in Afghanistan.

Obama’s remarks on Kashmir are by no means off the cuff. They have been remarkably consistent since he launched his presidential campaign. In the first comprehensive articulation of his world view in the journal Foreign Affairs during the summer of 2007, Obama argued, “If Pakistan can look towards the east (India) with confidence, it will be less likely to believe its interests are best advanced through cooperation with the Taliban.”

If Obama’s Kashmir thesis becomes the policy, many negative consequences might ensue. For one, an American diplomatic intervention in Kashmir will make it impossible for India to pursue the current serious back channel negotiations with Pakistan on Kashmir, the first since 1962-63.
India and Pakistan have made progress in recent years, because their negotiations have taken place in a bilateral context. Third party involvement will rapidly shrink the domestic political space for India on Kashmir negotiations. For another, the prospect that the U S might offer incentives on Kashmir is bound to encourage the Pakistan Army to harden its stance against the current peace process with India.

Finally, the sense that an Obama Administration will put Jammu & Kashmir on the front burner would give a fresh boost to militancy in Kashmir and complicate the current sensitive electoral process there. Kashmiri separatist lobbies in Washington have already embraced Obama’s remarks.More.

 

[RabzonKhan]

I think that an Obama-Biden presidency will be better for Pakistan. On the other hand, McCain-Palin (she is a religious nutcase ) offer nothing new they will follow Bush’s failed foreign policy, which has been disastrous for Pakistan and for our region as a whole.

Obama's claim gets an upbeat response across the globe

LONDON: Within hours of Barack Obama claiming the Democratic presidential nomination, the world's attention switched from a primary campaign that had riveted outsiders to a presidential contest that raises deep concerns about where and how the United States will lead the world.

That generally favorable impression was echoed in Pakistan, where Obama's speech in St. Paul, Minnesota, was televised at 9 a.m. Wednesday.

"It should bring a good change in relations with Pakistan" should Obama win the presidency, said Munaway Akhtar, a prominent lawyer specializing in international arbitration in the capital, Islamabad. "Pakistan has always been friendly to the United States, but the people have never benefited; the rulers have always benefited. Hopefully, that would change with Obama."

Wamiq Zuberi, editor of The Business Recorder, the country's leading business-oriented newspaper, said he believed Pakistanis were pleased. "Everyone is in fact impressed with the historical moment, that it is the first time an African-American has won the nomination of a party."There was a prevailing sentiment, Zuberi said, that Obama would better serve Pakistan's interests. "If Obama would become president, there would be a push for democracy in Pakistan."

A former senior diplomat who was briefly ambassador to the United States, Tariq Fatemi, said that Obama's "idealism" struck a chord with Pakistanis.More.


An exciting prospect
By Tariq Fatemi

Tariq Fatemi is a career foreign service officer , now retired, and has had the privilege of serving successive Pakistani governments in varying capacities for over 35 years. He has served as Pakistan’s ambassador to the United States, European Union and Jordan.

OVER the past three weeks that I have been in the US, I have watched with interest and expectations the current presidential election campaign. This has been a fascinating experience, even for someone who has monitored US elections for the past 35 years.

For one, the forthcoming elections have neither a sitting president nor a vice president in it. Instead, they have a female and a black as serious front-runners for the Democratic Party’s nomination — a new and positive development.

Moreover, they are taking place at a time when the White House incumbent is extremely unpopular. It is not only his foreign policy that has deeply polarised the country, even his domestic programmes have resulted in a serious economic malaise. Recent polls confirm that 82 per cent of Americans fear that the country is on the wrong track and are yearning for a genuine change. Such is the disillusionment with President Bush.

The Republicans have had a dull and uneventful primary campaign that led to the bland but experienced Senator John McCain emerging as his party’s standard bearer. Though not one to set your imagination on fire, he is a Vietnam War veteran, who is viewed as a centrist-liberal on domestic issues, though a hawk on foreign policy matters. While he may not be able to arouse the passionate support of the religious right, he could appeal to moderate voters who may prefer to see a dull but strong leader in the White House.

The Democrats are, however, still locked in a highly contentious race which has remained agonisingly close for far too long. But it is clear that Obama is in an unassailable position and Clinton will eventually have to accept the inevitable.

The differences between Senators McCain and Obama, on both domestic and foreign policies, are deep and profound. Though viewed as a liberal by the Christian fundamentalists, McCain is nevertheless very much part of the Washington establishment. He spent five years in a Vietcong prison, but remains the only one among fellow combat veterans in the Senate who continues to champion the war in Iraq, which has caused such deep divisions that another Vietnam veteran, Senator Chuck Hagel, predicted that it would turn out to be “the most dangerous and costly foreign policy debacle in our nation’s history”.

An extremely intelligent person, Obama is also regarded as a genuine thinking man, unconventional in both his upbringing and political views. His candidature has generated unprecedented interest and excitement across the country, though conservative groups and influential lobbies view his stand on some issues as near blasphemous and deeply worrying. Some have even questioned whether he is imbued with ‘Judeo-Christian values’, which has led to his repeated assertion that he is a strongly believing and practising Christian.

There has also been an effort to portray Obama as not being sufficiently committed to Israel, an important litmus test for those running for national office. But for Obama it is even more critical, since he has advocated ‘sending a signal that we need to talk to Iran’, a position viewed as reckless by many. Bush sought to capitalise on this during his recent visit to Israel when he compared the Iranian leadership with the Nazis and those advocating negotiations with recalcitrant regimes as the ‘false comfort of appeasement’.

Though the Gallup poll released last week showed Jewish voters favouring Obama over McCain by 61 per cent to 32 per cent, the Republicans are endeavouring to foster doubts about Obama’s commitment to Israel, alleging that while McCain as president would be Hamas’s worst nightmare, Obama would be much softer on both Hamas and Hezbollah.

Consequently, Obama has responded by offering this assurance: “I pledge to you that I will do whatever I can, in whatever capacity, to not only ensure Israel’s security but also to ensure the people of Israel are able to thrive.” Obama backers also point out that their candidate’s position on social issues is more in tune with Jewish voters who could make a difference in states with large Jewish populations, such as Florida and Pennsylvania.

Though the Americans are deeply worried about their country and the Democrats hold their biggest advantage since 1993, as the party seen as better capable of dealing with the nation’s problems, nothing can be taken for granted in an American presidential election. It is a cruel, no-holds-barred contest that has left even battle-hardened politicians in tears, while influencing others to opt out of the process to save themselves and their families this devastatingly painful ordeal. It is, however, the ‘glorious uncertainty’ of these elections that makes them so fascinating.

What would an Obama presidency mean for the rest of the world? For a start, neo-con control of the White House and the resultant contempt for global organisations and disdain for international commitments would come to an end. In recognition of the disastrous impact the Bush administration’s ‘lone ranger’ mode of operations has had on the country’s image and standing, even in traditionally pro-US European countries, a much greater effort would be mounted to reposition the US in the international mainstream. Obama is also likely to opt more often for ‘soft power’ as an instrument of US foreign policy — certainly a positive development.

As regards Pakistan, the changes would be considerable and visible. Fortunately, Obama is not enamoured of Musharraf nor is he a fan of authoritarian regimes. In his view, the regime has neither brought benefits to Pakistan nor pursued the war on terror with sincerity or seriousness. His advisors also fault Bush for continuing to view Musharraf as ‘indispensable’, even after elections that amounted to a stunning repudiation of the military ruler and his policies. He remains deeply worried about Pakistan, which he believes is inextricably linked to Afghanistan and not only on the issue of terrorism.

Undoubtedly, Obama will vigorously pursue the war on terror, but will aim at bringing Islamabad more into the equation than has been evidenced so far. Thus it will be a more multi-faceted approach, with a noticeable reduction in money for defence purchases and a meaningful increase in economic assistance. In brief, a more nuanced and balanced policy on Pakistan is likely to emerge under Obama. This should be a welcome development.



Editorial: Coming change of policy in the US

The first TV debate in the US between the two presidential candidates on Saturday contained strong references to Al Qaeda, Afghanistan and Pakistan, pointing to a change of policy if the Democrats win the closely contested election for the next president of the United States. The Republican candidate, Mr John McCain, will surely be interpreted in Pakistan as being mindful of Pakistan’s sensitivities to “ground invasion” of Pakistani territory by the allied forces located inside Afghanistan, while the Democrat Mr Barack Obama will be seen as being more inclined to carry out the attacks.

Yet there are those who think that the American policy on terrorism in our region will largely remain bipartisan, and that Pakistan could get into more trouble if it doesn’t demonstrate dynamism and suppleness of response in areas where its policy-makers have favoured stagnation so far. Looking closely at Mr McCain’s position — in so far as it is going to be an extension of President Bush’s policy — one can’t miss the fact that Mr Bush did give the go-ahead to the CIA to strike inside Pakistan, occasionally with ground troops.

Looking closely at what Mr Obama says one discovers an element of moderation in the formulation of his position. Mr Obama said: “If the United States has Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, and his top-level lieutenants in its sights, and Pakistan is unwilling or unable to act, then we should take them out”. If one takes this together with the Democrat position that the US should pay more attention to Afghanistan after switching off some of the expensive aspects of American policy in Iraq, President Obama may be able to improve American handling of Afghanistan’s basis requirements, such as national reconstruction and development of a native military capability. As Pakistan has claimed, much of the trouble in its Tribal Areas finds its roots in the unwillingness of the US to commit itself completely to nation-building in Afghanistan.

One cannot forget that Mr Obama’s candidate for the job of vice-president is Senator Joe Biden who has already set on foot a move in the US Congress to approve a “bipartisan” aid package of $15 billion for Pakistan over the next ten years for economic development. Since Mr Obama lacks experience in the conduct of foreign policy, Mr Biden will likely be the spearhead in the coming Administration’s handling of Pakistan. And his position on Pakistan is the most nuanced of all on this subject inside the US Congress. Once the election dust is settled, America will be busy bailing itself out of the economic crisis it faces. Whether we like it or not, Pakistan will be docketed among subjects that the two parties are not going to fight over too much. And the signs of this “agreed” approach are all there for us to see.More.


Opinion: Bravo, Senator Obama
Feisal Naqvi The writer is an advocate and can be reached at laalshah@gmail.com

“The United States always does the right thing,” said Winston Churchill, but only “after exhausting every other possibility.”

If the history of the US-Pakistani relationship is anything to go by, the United States certainly seems to have explored every bad option, ranging from supporting dictators to threatening popularly elected leaders to benign neglect. My point though is not to mark all the missed opportunities and all the failed policies, but to note that if Senator Obama is elected, we may finally see a sensible US policy towards Pakistan.

For those of you who don’t know what I am talking about, Obama gave a major foreign policy speech a few days ago in which he made the following points.

* If the United States is serious in countering terrorism, it needs to focus not on Iraq but on Afghanistan;

* The US cannot succeed in Afghanistan without succeeding in Pakistan;

* US policies cannot succeed in Pakistan unless they benefit the people of Pakistan, as opposed to the Pakistan Army;

* That therefore, he supported and was co-sponsoring a bill to triple developmental aid to Pakistan and provide US$15 billion over ten years.

I obviously think this is brilliant but many people, both on the right and on the left, have screamed. The most violent reaction came from a local columnist who alleged that US aid was intended to “enslave” Pakistan. He then continued:More.



POSTCARD USA: The last of the Palin woman —Khalid Hasan
One last question: Who are the Pakistani-Americans going to vote for this time? In order to expiate their past sins — because they overwhelmingly voted for Bush — they will have to go with Obama. However, Agha Saeed’s American Muslim Alliance has yet to take a position on this. One only hopes it won’t go Republican as it did last time.More.

 

[RabzonKhan]

Pakistanis hope US will be less bossy under Obama

November 06, 2008

ISLAMABAD: Barack Obama’s victory in United States presidential election has fostered hopes in Pakistan that the US would become less overbearing towards its ally in the war on terror, and nurture the country’s recent return to democracy.

“I think he [Obama] will understand that the use of brute force alone creates more enemies and widens the zone of conflict,” said Talat Masood, a retired Pakistani general turned analyst.

Civilian focus: “I think he will put greater emphasis on developing civilian capacities,” he added, pointing to a bill proposed by Obama’s Vice President-elect Joe Biden to provide Pakistan with a multi-billion dollar ‘democracy dividend’ package.

Under Pakistan’s previous leader Gen (r) Pervez Musharraf, most US aid went to Pakistan’s military. Musharraf quit in August, and his successor, President Asif Ali Zardari, has inherited an economy in danger of meltdown.

Relations between the US and Pakistan have been strained by a series of cross-border US strikes, most by pilotless drone aircraft, on alleged Taliban targets in Pakistan.

The strikes have hardened anti-American sentiment in Pakistan at a time when the coalition government is trying to build popular support for its own campaign against insurgency. Samina Ahmed, the South Asia project director for International Crisis Group, believed Obama’s victory would lead to a makeover for the US image.

Faith: “Obama’s victory will restore not just the faith of Americans in their democracy, but the world’s faith in American democracy,” she said.

“Obama and his party will employ a policy of international engagement that is based on consultation and not intimidation,” she said.

Former Pakistani foreign secretary Shamshad Ahmed Khan said Pakistan would remain in the ‘eye of the storm’, but he expected a more subtle US approach to its ally.

“Democrats have always behaved with restraint and engagement,” Shamshad said.

During his campaign, Obama said he would authorise strikes against Taliban and Al Qaeda targets in Pakistan, if the Pakistani government failed or was unable to act itself.

His rival, John McCain, didn’t rule that out but said a US leader should not say things out loud.

Mahmood Shah, a former security chief in Pakistan’s violence-plagued Tribal Areas, foresaw Obama showing ‘more moderation’ once he was in office. But ordinary Pakistanis were sceptical.

“It doesn’t make any difference if Obama or anybody else has won because they have same anti-Muslim, anti-Islam policies. We shouldn’t be happy just because there’s a change of face,” said Hafiz Muhammad Ashraf, an electrician in Multan. “I’ll be happy if he ends Bush’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and stops killing Muslims,” Ashraf said. reuters

 

[RabzonKhan]

Pakistan wants better ties with US, Zardari tells Obama

November 09, 2008

ISLAMABAD: Pakistan wants improved ties with the United States, President Asif Ali Zardari told US president-elect Barack Obama in a telephone conversation on Saturday.

Obama, who had called Zardari to thank him for his message of congratulation, said he also looked forward to improved relations, adding he knew Pakistan very well and had deep admiration for Pakistanis.

The 47-year-old future commander-in-chief of the US talked to Zardari in the midst of strained relations between the two war-on-terror allies over a series of US missile strikes on Taliban targets in Pakistan’s Tribal Areas.

“This afternoon President-elect Obama returned calls to several leaders who earlier in the week had expressed congratulations on his election,” a member of Obama’s transition team said in a statement.

Other leaders included President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, President Lech Kaczynski and Prime Minister Donald Tusk of Poland, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia and Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero of Spain. staff report/agencies