Hudson Institute : Pakistan - the pivot of the world once again...

[somebozo]

 

[That Guy]

Interesting talk, but the problem I see with this is that there was no Pakistani perspective. I know that they said they were trying to bring in Husain Haqqani, but the fact that they replaced him with an Indian, that tells me that they were never seriously considering a Pakistani perspective.

 

[krash]

So they've extensively worked on the ground in Sindh and Balochistan and still do not know what they are actually called? Right.........

Also, you decide to bring in an Indian, a Taiwanese, 2 westerners and the most notorious Pakistani snake to have an academically objective discussion on CPEC? Right......

 

[somebozo]

Interesting talk, but the problem I see with this is that there was no Pakistani perspective. I know that they said they were trying to bring in Husain Haqqani, but the fact that they replaced him with an Indian, that tells me that they were never seriously considering a Pakistani perspective.

The idea is to listen to the other side..or shall we say..the jealous side..

So they've extensively worked on the ground in Sindh and Balochistan and still do not know what they are actually called? Right.........

Also, you decide to bring in an Indian, a Taiwanese, 2 westerners and the most notorious Pakistani snake ato have an academically objective discussion on CPEC? Right......

Sometimes its good to listen to your enemies...

 

[jinn_baba]

most notorious Pakistani snake

Indeed very true. This scumbag should be tried for high treason if he ever comes back to Pak.

 

[That Guy]

So they've extensively worked on the ground in Sindh and Balochistan and still do not know what they are actually called? Right.........

Also, you decide to bring in an Indian, a Taiwanese, 2 westerners and the most notorious Pakistani snake ato have an academically objective discussion on CPEC? Right......

To be fair, they never said it would be objective, and indeed such talks rarely are. The entire point of such talks is to present each side's bias, but unfortunately here, they only presented one side.

 

[-blitzkrieg-]

the Taiwanese guy had a few facts wrong in his conversation.
- KKH is not closed for half a year.Its an all weather road the khunjerab pass area receives massive snow which is cleared by machinery in a day or two same thing for the occasional landslides.The Atabad landslide was a very rare incident.
-US might not reap on blockade of Hormuz just like they could do for Malaca because 1)once Chinese Navy maintains a presence in the Arabian waters around Gwadar US Navy will lose strategical edge 2)The blockade would affect the whole world not just China and 3) ofcourse China is working on the African option.

 

[Syed_Adeel]

The panel itself is showing their seriousness about CPEC where a significant percentage of world trade is about to pass.
here are the following points after listening their so called neutral and intellectual views.

1) KKH was closed for 5 years ?? its non operational for half a year every year. Seriously ???

2) Indian lady was only concerned about the defence and nuclear help which according to her Pakistan has already beein getting since decades so whats the point of CPEC in thi ?

3)Chinese are dumb enough that they are going to make rail network, gas pipeline and extending the highway while knowing the worst weather of the border region.

4) Talking about balochistan and Sindh, now its very clear that the way they are mentioning the separatists groups and insurgencies, they completely ignore that major insurgency leaders have surrendered and situation is much better than previous dont forget the Kalboshan yadev issue.

5) talking about the political situation and leg pulling, there was no discussion of the establishment who is actually runing the show and because of it all the parties are supporting the CPEC and at the end establishment will complete it because NS government will eventually go and som other government will come. National level projects are not prone to political disagreements. nuclear program is open example.

Conclusion: Hudson has seriously damaged its own image by engaging a completely biased panel who are actually trying to spit venom which they were fed in by their relative governments. No Pakistani presence(Hussain haqqani is no more Pakistani and he is totally anti Pakistan now) was there. No Chinese presenter was there and these so called analysts tried to nullify the one of the greatest project in last 5 decades. USA certainly missed a chance to make any such project because of its geographical location.

 

[Genghis khan1]

Planned and paid for, anti CPEC discussion. Lianchao han is a chinese runaway dissident just like Pakistan runaway dissident Hussain Haqqani, who couldn't make it. Third guest was an Indian, now we can see why everybody was talking negative.

But what do you expect from zionist founded and run institution.

 

[Thəorətic Muslim]

To be honest the real question is what voice is there to represent Pakistan?

Most Pakistanis would have gotten pissed off and started yelling and calling the other analysts "stupid fools", or would have been used just as a set up to show Hudson was offering a complete perspective of CPEC.

To anyone who thinks Hudson is a neutral think tank doesn't know how think tanks work or the politics in general

 

[Genghis khan1]

This discussion make much more sense. People are talking real stuff on ground. not just having orgasms with negativity.

 

[salarsikander]

To be honest the real question is what voice is there to represent Pakistan?

Most Pakistanis would have gotten pissed off and started yelling and calling the other analysts "stupid fools", or would have been used just as a set up to show Hudson was offering a complete perspective of CPEC.

To anyone who thinks Hudson is a neutral think tank doesn't know how think tanks work or the politics in general

With utmost and deep respect to your opinion, could you also care to share your thoughts in detail of the last sentence you wrote. This totally opens a new domain for me

 

[Thəorətic Muslim]

With utmost and deep respect to your opinion, could you also care to share your thoughts in detail of the last sentence you wrote. This totally opens a new domain for me

Think Tanks are just Research Organizations filled with scholars on a variety of issues from economics to public policy to culture. You're talking individuals on top of their research in that specific field, or individuals with access to policy makers (many times former government employees or representatives).

These organizations are funded from, purely looking at the US:

Charities (BillGates Foundation/ Koch Brothers/ Mellon/ Walton/ Religious Organizations)
Defense companies (Airbus/ Boeing/ LHM/ GE/ even Militaries)
Economic/ Environmental/ Financial Institutes (Citi/ Deutsche/ Goldman Sachs/ Oil Companies/ Green Energy)
Health Care Industry (BlueCross BlueShield/ Pzifer/ Merck)
The Media (All the news channels)
Politics (Republic/ Democratic donors)
Social advocacy groups (LGBT/ Amnesty/ Bill Gates Foundation/ Climate Change/ NGOs)
Foreign Governments and individual donors (which do not need to be disclosed)

These are just a few of the thousands that fund Think Tanks.

And this is big money, being non-profits they aren't taxed.

Think Tanks sole purpose is to research. And when you're receiving $millions to tens of millions from a specific entity you're going to do everything possible to make sure that funding avenue is kept open and expanded. And many don't/ aren't obliged to disclose how much funding they receive or from whom.

Some think tanks are overtly sympathetic to specific causes, Cato Institute or Hudson. Others are more somewhat neutral Woodrow Wilson Center or Pew Research.

Revenues from access to research articles, conferences or consulting plays a very minimum stream of revenue.

This is a reputable institute that measures transparency in Think Tanks, the link goes directly to those they consider 5-Stars: http://www.transparify.org/5-star/

Here are some articles from News Sites(Ironic):
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/07/us/politics/foreign-powers-buy-influence-at-think-tanks.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/till-bruckner/usaid-think-tanks_b_8240792.html

Here is a website with links to the responses from Think Tanks to the New York Times article:
http://www.thinktankwatch.com/2014/09/think-tank-funding-transparency.html

Here's a paper on evaluating Think Tanks a Professor of mine worked on, i'd recommend reading this the most:
http://www.hewlett.org/uploads/files/BestPracticesforFundingandEvaluatingThinkTanks.pdf

 

[My-Analogous]

Interesting talk, but the problem I see with this is that there was no Pakistani perspective. I know that they said they were trying to bring in Husain Haqqani, but the fact that they replaced him with an Indian, that tells me that they were never seriously considering a Pakistani perspective.

So does China, they all talking from Indian US prospective. They highlighted problems only and think that we are idiots and we didn't address those problems. Well thank you very for your concerned.

 

[RedRock]

Hey
I cant see the video because my computer is hanging up on me, pissing me off! But could you just highlight the main points of what exactly they discussed. Seems it might be pretty interesting(manged to watch the first 15 min), or is it completely biased and not worth a watch?