H2O3C4Nitrogen
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2007
- Messages
- 4,386
- Reaction score
- 0
I'm sorry but I don't have an answer: Grossman
Our correspondent
ISLAMABAD: US Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, Ambassador Marc Grossman described the immediate release of Raymond Davis as the numero uno priority of the US government but stopped short of either dubbing it a prerequisite for normalization of the presently strained relations between US and Pakistan, or as a permanent impediment.
In a meeting with a group of newspaper editors here Monday, Ambassador Grossman was asked whether the thorny issue posed any long-term adverse consequences for the two countries and he replied, "both United States and Pakistan are better served when standing together". At this juncture he was asked whether Raymond's release was a "prerequisite" for the full normalization of relations but surprisingly, instead of flatly rejecting this notion out of hand as expected, he did not rule it out categorically and instead responded in a very calibrated manner and said, "...all I'm saying is that Davis needs to be released". He did stress however that, "It is very important that Davis is released as soon as possible". He emphasized that US was committed to building a strategic relationship with Pakistan.
In another interesting observation, he refused to dilate upon any possible US plans of reviewing its policy of using 'contractors' like Raymond Davis in future conflict operations. Ambassador Grossman had been asked whether, in the wake of the Raymond killings, the US government had been forced into reviewing its prevalent policy of employing the services of illegal contractor combatants like Davis for carrying out conflict operations. His attention was also drawn to the infamous incident in Iraq where a similar band of 'contractors' had been responsible for a massacre of 18 civilians including little children. While insisting that Raymond Davis was a legitimate diplomat, Ambassador Grossman however held his silence for a fair while and ultimately said, "we'll just have to wait and see. Guidelines like these can be discussed later...but...I don't have an answer to your question". At this point the US Ambassador to Pakistan, Cameron Munter jumped in to the rescue of the rather painfully honest Ambassador Grossman and presented a long argument in favour of Raymond Davis being a diplomat. Closing the debate on this particular query, Ambassador Grossman again chimed in by stating, "Neither Munter or I are making these decisions".
Ambassador Grossman emphasized that, "US was not walking away from the region". He said that US would stand by Pakistan and will also work with the armed forces to defeat the terrorist forces. Besides making the usual statements about US desiring a peaceful, stable and prosperous Pakistan, the visiting ambassador made an interesting observation when he remarked, "US-Pakistan relationship must be based on mutual interest, challenge is to find that mutual interest". The paucity of time did not allow for asking the ambassador that clearly someone must have moved the goal posts in the recent weeks otherwise everyone had been led to believe that the two governments had agreed on mutual-interests a long time back. Ten years down the road, fighting a full-scale war against a commonly identified enemy, billions being poured in by US and still we face the challenge of discovering our mutual interests? Interesting reality check, indeed.
Talking about the US policy in Afghanistan he said that during his latest round of meetings with the country's top political leadership and others he had been focusing on finding out what was needed to bring peace in Afghanistan. Without elaborating any more he observed, "Afghan Taliban cannot continue leading insurgency from within Pakistan". Rest of his talk on Afghan policy was more of the erstwhile Holbrooke elucidated doctrine about peace prerequisites including interested Taliban first laying down their arms; renouncing violence and any contacts with al-Qaeda; and to respect the controversial new Constitution of Afghanistan. What's new, a senior editor asked, aren't we back to square one with you repeating the same conditions and the Taliban sticking to their demand of foreign troops leaving Afghanistan first? Ambassador Grossman offered a few arguments but in the end what he basically ended up saying was that lets see how the events roll out. He did smilingly promise however a "diplomatic surge after the military and civilian surge", but did not explain what this diplomatic surge actually meant in real terms.
They may been tasked with the same set of confounding responsibilities but there could not be a greater style of difference between the spanking new US Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, Ambassador Marc Grossman and his predecessor, late Ambassador Richard Holbrooke. Where Holbrook could easily be stuffy, caring, and cocky at the same time, Grossman is a real charmer. His warm smiles and ease with evading arguments will serve him well in this region, provided he displays a better grasp of specifics than the man he is supposed to follow. He shared that Pakistan was his first foreign posting as a junior officer (1977-79) in what was arguably one of the most intriguing periods in Pakistan's chequered political history. In a lighter vein he quipped, "In diplomatic world they say that your first foreign posting stays in your heart forever", adding rather endearingly, "Islamabad has changed a lot in the last 32 years but what hasn't changed in Pakistan is the hospitality". Well said Ambassador, but you would be well served to remember that nowadays the welcoming mats tend to get worn out rather quicker than in the good old days. It's a new Pakistan with new realities and a world different from 32 yeas back.
Im sorry but I dont have an answer: Grossman
Our correspondent
ISLAMABAD: US Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, Ambassador Marc Grossman described the immediate release of Raymond Davis as the numero uno priority of the US government but stopped short of either dubbing it a prerequisite for normalization of the presently strained relations between US and Pakistan, or as a permanent impediment.
In a meeting with a group of newspaper editors here Monday, Ambassador Grossman was asked whether the thorny issue posed any long-term adverse consequences for the two countries and he replied, "both United States and Pakistan are better served when standing together". At this juncture he was asked whether Raymond's release was a "prerequisite" for the full normalization of relations but surprisingly, instead of flatly rejecting this notion out of hand as expected, he did not rule it out categorically and instead responded in a very calibrated manner and said, "...all I'm saying is that Davis needs to be released". He did stress however that, "It is very important that Davis is released as soon as possible". He emphasized that US was committed to building a strategic relationship with Pakistan.
In another interesting observation, he refused to dilate upon any possible US plans of reviewing its policy of using 'contractors' like Raymond Davis in future conflict operations. Ambassador Grossman had been asked whether, in the wake of the Raymond killings, the US government had been forced into reviewing its prevalent policy of employing the services of illegal contractor combatants like Davis for carrying out conflict operations. His attention was also drawn to the infamous incident in Iraq where a similar band of 'contractors' had been responsible for a massacre of 18 civilians including little children. While insisting that Raymond Davis was a legitimate diplomat, Ambassador Grossman however held his silence for a fair while and ultimately said, "we'll just have to wait and see. Guidelines like these can be discussed later...but...I don't have an answer to your question". At this point the US Ambassador to Pakistan, Cameron Munter jumped in to the rescue of the rather painfully honest Ambassador Grossman and presented a long argument in favour of Raymond Davis being a diplomat. Closing the debate on this particular query, Ambassador Grossman again chimed in by stating, "Neither Munter or I are making these decisions".
Ambassador Grossman emphasized that, "US was not walking away from the region". He said that US would stand by Pakistan and will also work with the armed forces to defeat the terrorist forces. Besides making the usual statements about US desiring a peaceful, stable and prosperous Pakistan, the visiting ambassador made an interesting observation when he remarked, "US-Pakistan relationship must be based on mutual interest, challenge is to find that mutual interest". The paucity of time did not allow for asking the ambassador that clearly someone must have moved the goal posts in the recent weeks otherwise everyone had been led to believe that the two governments had agreed on mutual-interests a long time back. Ten years down the road, fighting a full-scale war against a commonly identified enemy, billions being poured in by US and still we face the challenge of discovering our mutual interests? Interesting reality check, indeed.
Talking about the US policy in Afghanistan he said that during his latest round of meetings with the country's top political leadership and others he had been focusing on finding out what was needed to bring peace in Afghanistan. Without elaborating any more he observed, "Afghan Taliban cannot continue leading insurgency from within Pakistan". Rest of his talk on Afghan policy was more of the erstwhile Holbrooke elucidated doctrine about peace prerequisites including interested Taliban first laying down their arms; renouncing violence and any contacts with al-Qaeda; and to respect the controversial new Constitution of Afghanistan. What's new, a senior editor asked, aren't we back to square one with you repeating the same conditions and the Taliban sticking to their demand of foreign troops leaving Afghanistan first? Ambassador Grossman offered a few arguments but in the end what he basically ended up saying was that lets see how the events roll out. He did smilingly promise however a "diplomatic surge after the military and civilian surge", but did not explain what this diplomatic surge actually meant in real terms.
They may been tasked with the same set of confounding responsibilities but there could not be a greater style of difference between the spanking new US Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, Ambassador Marc Grossman and his predecessor, late Ambassador Richard Holbrooke. Where Holbrook could easily be stuffy, caring, and cocky at the same time, Grossman is a real charmer. His warm smiles and ease with evading arguments will serve him well in this region, provided he displays a better grasp of specifics than the man he is supposed to follow. He shared that Pakistan was his first foreign posting as a junior officer (1977-79) in what was arguably one of the most intriguing periods in Pakistan's chequered political history. In a lighter vein he quipped, "In diplomatic world they say that your first foreign posting stays in your heart forever", adding rather endearingly, "Islamabad has changed a lot in the last 32 years but what hasn't changed in Pakistan is the hospitality". Well said Ambassador, but you would be well served to remember that nowadays the welcoming mats tend to get worn out rather quicker than in the good old days. It's a new Pakistan with new realities and a world different from 32 yeas back.
Im sorry but I dont have an answer: Grossman
