What's new

Islamabad Changes Tone with US - 'No blank Cheque for US'

I disagree - all the reports from Western and Pakistani sources have indicated that the meetings before the Press Conference followed the same tone as the press conference, and Jane Perlez quoted both Pakistani and US officials as verifying that the DG ISI refused a separate meeting with the Americans.

The tone and demeanor of the officials at the press conference, especially FM Qureshi's rather aggressive tone, support the view that the GoP took a hard line position this time.

agnostic while what you say may be true and allowing for the same ...... the next step in US diplomacy may be the economic choke ..... there are no two opinions that the economy of Pakistan is not exactly doing even the average performance one would expect in difficult times ... add to that the drying of credit sources may just have left it more dependent on US goodwill in forums like IMF ..... and that in itself is the biggest handicap ..... he may be "agressive" now .... but he will surely "whimper" when he has financial collapse .... and in the event BJP is voted to power in India, you will find Indian defence budget steeply hiked which may only add woes to Pakistani financial worries ...... it leaves you all the more susceptible to US whims .....

IMO Pakistan needs to radically improve its economic situation to truly follow an independent (read non US dictated) foreign policy
 
.
allowing for your view point, how do you deal with the fallout of US using the economic aspect as a bargaining chip? and now please do not say that US cant do it, the GoP desperately needs more loans for financial sustenance as also has to restructure its fiscal policy in accordance to the IMF rider for the last US $ 7.5 Billion aid AFTER China refused to help ........

Agnostic the same is directed towards you

thanks

This is another point that you have raised, i was merely replying to what you said in your previous post about public consumption! It wasn't.
As for the economy, well there is no doubt its in shackles however lets not forget that Pakistan has learned to live in trouble times and some how always emerges on top. I would request you to view 90's era, it wasn't different either, sanctions and what not still we managed to get out of it. What US is asking cannot be accepted even if Pakistan gets bankrupt because other wise there wont be any Pakistan left at all. GOP knows that and therefore has adopted a tougher stance. US now knows it cannot blackmail Pakistan like it use to do back in the days although i agree that they have a few more tricks to play yet, one of them you have just mentioned above, lets see which way the wind blows.
 
.
:
agnostic while what you say may be true and allowing for the same ...... the next step in US diplomacy may be the economic choke ..... there are no two opinions that the economy of Pakistan is not exactly doing even the average performance one would expect in difficult times ... add to that the drying of credit sources may just have left it more dependent on US goodwill in forums like IMF ..... and that in itself is the biggest handicap ..... he may be "agressive" now .... but he will surely "whimper" when he has financial collapse .... and in the event BJP is voted to power in India, you will find Indian defence budget steeply hiked which may only add woes to Pakistani financial worries ...... it leaves you all the more susceptible to US whims .....

IMO Pakistan needs to radically improve its economic situation to truly follow an independent (read non US dictated) foreign policy

:hitwall:unfortunately our indian neighbours and the distant so called western friends don't understand that our situation is very serious and we are reaching a point where we will stop bothering about others. But others will be bothered by our condition. " hum to doubai hain sanam tum ko bhe lai dobain gai" situation is not far.
we dont need any aid just let us die in peace and with whatever dignity left.
Because of the fears of the effects of taliban control you will help , you will soon insist for helping us.
Immediate future is gloomy:frown:
 
.
well most of the weapon platforms/etc upgrades ordered or being acquired by Pakistan are employed against India rather than for terror ops
They wouldn't need to be employed against India if India would stop pushing Pakistan around.
and can you give a source/referrence where there is even an indication of deployment of Predators by PA (operated by them) or technology transfer being agreed to?
Nope. How does assistance from the Chinese sound?
at the same time if you are trying to compare Jasoos/Uqaab/Mukhbar UAVs to Predator then you will find a comparative tech gap in between the said UAVs and predators
I wasn't comparing those, I was referring to the "Naar" UCAV. Sorry, no sources, I don't care if you want them or not.

I don't buy your post on Pakistan's relationship with China either. I don't see it going down that path. If it does, Pak will deal with it in the same way they dealt with desertion by the USA in the past. Self-reliance and new allies.
I also don't think Pak's economy is in as bad a state as you say it is. The IMF loan was simply to ensure international loan repayments could be made on time. If Pak was in such deep trouble, I doubt China would give loans (however soft) for 42 new fighter jets and airborne surveillance aircraft.
 
Last edited:
.
This is another point that you have raised, i was merely replying to what you said in your previous post about public consumption! It wasn't.
As for the economy, well there is no doubt its in shackles however lets not forget that Pakistan has learned to live in trouble times and some how always emerges on top. I would request you to view 90's era, it wasn't different either, sanctions and what not still we managed to get out of it. What US is asking cannot be accepted even if Pakistan gets bankrupt because other wise there wont be any Pakistan left at all. GOP knows that and therefore has adopted a tougher stance. US now knows it cannot blackmail Pakistan like it use to do back in the days although i agree that they have a few more tricks to play yet, one of them you have just mentioned above, lets see which way the wind blows.

yes you are right about Pakistan surviving through the 90s but that time the US was till not inclined towards Pakistan as a problem - only as an ally who was trying to free itself of their control which they didnt like.

but the situation today is radically different with events like Pakistan being tagged with terror in one way or the other be it through nationals/training space/logistical support - whatever way with terror ..... the recent arrest of 11 Pakistani nationals in UK in connection with terror plot, the increasing evidence CIA now presenting to US administration as also senate etc forcing a paradigm shift in how the rest of the world views Pakistan today ...... incidents like the present threat to Islamabad with direct threat to take over the national capital being issued by Taliban ... all these are very worrying signs for the world.

The recent G-20 summit has also seen the western nations willing to give greater say to India-Brazil-China in IMF etc with these countries now contributing towards the fund instead of borrowing ..... all these do tend to make things difficult for Pakistan as an increasingly difficult lobby for Pakistan may end up taking hold of even the financial institutions which could bail out Pakistan in fianacial terms .... political statements apart, Pakistan is in a difficult position and harp put to bargain anymore ......

IMO GoP recognises the danger posed to Pakistan as a state today as does PA. And this very fact will make them agree to what others are saying - albeit off the record .....
 
.
:

:hitwall:unfortunately our indian neighbours and the distant so called western friends don't understand that our situation is very serious and we are reaching a point where we will stop bothering about others. But others will be bothered by our condition. " hum to doubai hain sanam tum ko bhe lai dobain gai" situation is not far.
we dont need any aid just let us die in peace and with whatever dignity left.
Because of the fears of the effects of taliban control you will help , you will soon insist for helping us.
Immediate future is gloomy:frown:

nwmalik

actually you are very far off the truth - all the concerned nations, especially India, do understand the grave threat to Pakistan today - only apparently there is a very big tendency to ignore it on behalf of GoP and PA .... and our fellow members from Pakistan.

i have oft said in my posts and yuo can find many like minded posts that for India, today PA and GoP are the most crucial allies in the defence against terror .. and India needs to keep enough pressure so that GoP and PA dont waver but yet they are not forced into a corner.

This grave threat to Pakistan as a state is well appreciated and hate as my fellow country men might to admit it, our future security is linked to your well being and Pakistan as a state being strong ....
 
.
They wouldn't need to be employed against India if India would stop pushing Pakistan around.
Nope. How does assistance from the Chinese sound?
I wasn't comparing those, I was referring to the "Naar" UCAV. Sorry, no sources, I don't care if you want them or not.

I don't buy your post on Pakistan's relationship with China either. I don't see it going down that path. If it does, Pak will deal with it in the same way they dealt with desertion by the USA in the past. Self-reliance and new allies.
I also don't think Pak's economy is in as bad a state as you say it is. The IMF loan was simply to ensure international loan repayments could be made on time. If Pak was in such deep trouble, I doubt China would give loans (however soft) for 42 new fighter jets and airborne surveillance aircraft.

oh my posts were with specificity to Predators as few posts were made to imply that they were being operated by PA ....... and it was also implied that since area was given for the runway for the same the control was with PA ...... as also tech has been transferred for Predators ..... all implied with out corroboration ..... am not talking about Pakistani UAVs.


as for economy, am sure if you will read up about why GoP had to go to IMF to secure loan of US $7.5 Billion after PM Gilanis visit to China .... and why Pakistan had to seek a loan in the first place and analyse it in the background of Pakistani economy, you will understand what I meant by it. In addition I have quoted the Chinese angle as any further assistance without strings from that side will only make Pakistan land in same position as with US - being dictated to and lacking an independant foreign policy.

And you have quoted military supplies as reason for economy being good - whereas I have already pointed out that in that sphere Pakistan is being propped ...... I would be grateful if you could somehow show me a loan/project of development (and leave Gwadar out of that) being taken up recently as a proof of Chinese largesse.

also I have not come across NAAR in any search for the same ... can you kindly shed some light on its capabilities and any other specs or if you have some link I may use to read about it?

thanks
 
Last edited:
.
A right descision taken at right moment.

The hate for America has wrose to alarming level of bringing the Gop down. It had no choice except to say no to US inorder to maintain its public support.
However the conditions are still tough and hostile considering the Indian involvement in the whole scenario.
 
. .
nice to hear this about time pakistani government grew some balls next step would be to show some force and actually shoot down some drones.
 
.
A Strategy for Afghanistan

By Henry A. Kissinger


The Obama administration faces dilemmas familiar to several of its predecessors. America cannot withdraw from Afghanistan now, but neither can it sustain the strategy that brought us to this point.

The stakes are high. Victory for the Taliban in Afghanistan would give a tremendous shot in the arm to jihadism globally -- threatening Pakistan with jihadist takeover and possibly intensifying terrorism in India, which has the world's third-largest Muslim population. Russia, China and Indonesia, which have all been targets of jihadist Islam, could also be at risk.

Heretofore, America has pursued traditional anti-insurgency tactics: to create a central government, help it extend its authority over the entire country and, in the process, bring about a modern bureaucratic and democratic society.

That strategy cannot succeed in Afghanistan -- especially not as an essentially solitary effort. The country is too large, the territory too forbidding, the ethnic composition too varied, the population too heavily armed. No foreign conqueror has ever succeeded in occupying Afghanistan. Even attempts to establish centralized Afghan control have rarely succeeded and then not for long. Afghans seem to define their country in terms of a common dedication to independence but not to unitary or centralized self-government.
ad_icon

The truism that the war is, in effect, a battle for the hearts and minds of the Afghan population is valid enough in concept. The low standard of living of much of the population has been exacerbated by 30 years of civil war. The economy is on the verge of sustaining itself through the sale of narcotics. There is no significant democratic tradition. Reform is a moral necessity. But the time scale for reform is out of sync with the requirements of anti-guerrilla warfare. Reform will require decades; it should occur as a result of, and even side by side with, the attainment of security -- but it cannot be the precondition for it.

The military effort will inevitably unfold at a pace different from the country's political evolution. Immediately, however, we are able to make sure that our aid efforts, now diffuse and inefficient, are coherent and relevant to popular needs. And much greater emphasis should be given to local and regional entities.

Military strategy should concentrate on preventing the emergence of a coherent, contiguous state within the state controlled by jihadists. In practice, this would mean control of Kabul and the Pashtun area. A jihadist base area on both sides of the mountainous Afghan-Pakistani border would become a permanent threat to hopes for a moderate evolution and to all of Afghanistan's neighbors. Gen. David Petraeus has argued that, reinforced by the number of American forces he has recommended, he should be able to control the 10 percent of Afghan territory where, in his words, 80 percent of the military threat originates. This is the region where the "clear, hold and build" strategy that had success in Iraq is particularly applicable.

In the rest of the country, our military strategy should be more fluid, aimed at forestalling the emergence of terrorist strong points. It should be based on close cooperation with local chiefs and coordination with their militias to be trained by U.S. forces -- the kind of strategy that proved so successful in Anbar province, the Sunni stronghold in Iraq. This is a plausible approach, though it seems improbable that the 17,000 reinforcements President Obama recently committed are enough. In the end, the fundamental issue is not so much how the war will be conducted but how it will be ended. Afghanistan is almost the archetypal international problem requiring a multilateral solution for a political framework to emerge. In the 19th century, formal neutrality was sometimes negotiated to impose a standstill on interventions in and from strategically located countries. This provided a framework for defusing day-to-day international relations. (Belgian neutrality, for example, was not challenged for nearly 100 years.) Is it possible to devise a modern equivalent?

In Afghanistan, such an outcome is achievable only if its principal neighbors agree on a policy of restraint and opposition to terrorism. Their recent conduct argues against such prospects. Yet history should teach them that unilateral efforts at dominance are likely to fail in the face of countervailing intervention by other outside actors. To explore such a vision, the United States should propose a working group of Afghanistan's neighbors, India and the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council. Such a group should be charged with assisting in the reconstruction and reform of Afghanistan and establishing principles for the country's international status and obligations to oppose terrorist activities. Over time, America's unilateral military efforts can merge with the diplomatic efforts of this group. As the strategy envisaged by Petraeus succeeds, the prospects for a political solution along these lines would grow correspondingly.

The precondition for such a policy is cooperation with Russia and Pakistan. With respect to Russia, it requires a clear definition of priorities, especially a choice between partnership or adversarial conduct insofar as it depends on us.

The conduct of Pakistan will be crucial. Pakistan's leaders must face the fact that continued toleration of the sanctuaries -- or continued impotence with respect to them -- will draw their country ever deeper into an international maelstrom. If the jihadists were to prevail in Afghanistan, Pakistan would surely be the next target -- as is observable by activity already taking place along the existing borders and in the Swat Valley close to Islamabad. If that were to happen, the affected countries would need to consult each other about the implications of the nuclear arsenal of a Pakistan being engulfed or even threatened by jihadists. Like every country engaged in Afghanistan, Pakistan has to make decisions that will affect its international position for decades.

Other countries, especially our NATO allies, face comparable choices. Symbolically, the participation of NATO partners is significant. But save for some notable exceptions, public support for military operations is negligible in almost all NATO countries. It is possible, of course, that Obama's popularity in Europe can modify these attitudes -- but probably to only a limited extent. The president would have to decide how far he will carry the inevitable differences and face the reality that disagreements concern fundamental questions of NATO's future and reach. Improved consultation would ease this process. It is likely to turn out, however, that the differences are not procedural. We may then conclude that an enhanced NATO contribution to Afghanistan's reconstruction is more useful than a marginal military effort constrained by caveats. But if NATO turns into an alliance a la carte in this manner, a precedent that can cut both ways would be set. Those who tempt a U.S. withdrawal by their indifference or irresolution evade the prospect that it would be the prelude to a long series of accelerating and escalating crises.

President Obama said Tuesday night that he "will not allow terrorists to plot against the American people from safe havens halfway around the world." Whatever strategy his team selects needs to be pursued with determination. It is not possible to hedge against failure by half-hearted execution.
 
.
america needs us....because without Pakistan help they will fail even worse in Afghanistan.

me personally -- i hate the taleban.....and i have my own reasons for that, as do many others. But we need to reach a settlement such that taleban maulvis can work together with Pakistan to root out the taleban who only care to bear arms, push drugs and blow up schools.

Its much easier said than done. It will take time. But if you look at it geo-politically, we cannot allow india to gain influence in Afghanistan and have a anti-Pakistan establishment in Afghanistan.

The ideal outcome is to have Afghanistan run by Pukhtoons....but for the border enforcement to be proper and for police to be trained to deal with the law and order. Army job is to protect national sovereignty, not to be doing police work. It will take time and investment. Global financial crisis could not have come at a worse time.


We should re-patriate the refugees in Pakistan back to their country. Seal the border shut, and put most priority into training Army in guerilla warfare --training police forces --and promoting synergy between intelligence agencies and local law enforcement agencies.



like i said, it'll take time.....but america's tone is not appreciated in Pakistan. The same way, the uselessness of our "government" is not appreciated either.
 
.
nice to hear this about time pakistani government grew some balls next step would be to show some force and actually shoot down some drones.

ISI PUT ON MEDIA TRIAL:
When the friends put friends on Media Trial rather to talk in close rooms it means time has come to take some bold decision becuase there is a slight difference in friendship and enmity.When the bold steps are taken the nation should stand firm to support the stand taken by GOP.Only lip service would not help them to counter US strategies. People are asking to get drones down. Will it not be good if peace is brought to the areas and there shall be no need of any drone attack.IT is duty of every citizen at this point of time to stand and preach for peace. IF there is a peace in Pakistan and terrorism is brought to an end no body dare to come across our borders by way of drones or boots.
SMIQBAL:pakistan:
 
.
I would support no cheque for Pakistan, let the elite political class die of hunger. Poors are already dying anyway. This aid is causing us economicl aids. Our politicians are so much used too of begging. Plz west mercy us.....no more aid for Pakistan. Help us to built the industry and trade. Don't give monetary aid.
 
.
"IF there is a peace in Pakistan and terrorism is brought to an end no body dare to come across our borders by way of drones or boots."

This is untrue. PREDATOR flies today not because of unrest in Pakistan but because this unrest is a function of armies residing on your soil with their leaders and making war on Afghanistan. That influence has spread to your tribesmen.

Were this war confined to Pakistan, U.S. drones would not be in your skies. That's not the case and peace in Pakistan, alone, will not be sufficient to keep us from attacking the men whom stand in the way of our mission and safety.
 
.

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom