What's new

Kiyani Demands US Limit Drone Attacks and Operations

War in Afghanistan is destabilising Pakistan, says president

The war in Afghanistan is destabilising Pakistan and seriously undermining efforts to restore its democratic institutions and economic prosperity after a decade of military dictatorship, Pakistan's president, Asif Ali Zardari, has told the Guardian.

Speaking during an exclusive interview in the imposing presidential residence in Islamabad, Zardari also pointed to widespread concern in Pakistan at the slow pace of efforts to end the Afghan conflict, and said some US politicians showed limited understanding of the impact of American policies.

"Just as the Mexican drug war on US borders makes a difference to Texas and American society, we are talking about a war on our border which is obviously having a huge effect. Only today a suicide bomber has attacked a police compound in Baluchistan. I think it [the Afghan war] has an effect on the entire region, and specially our country," Zardari said.

Asked about harsh criticism of Pakistan's co-operation in the "war on terror" published in a White House report last week, Zardari said Pakistan always listened to Washington's views. But he suggested some members of Congress and the US media did not know what they were talking about when it came to Pakistan.

"The United States has been an ally of Pakistan for the last 60 years. We respect and appreciate their political system. So every time a new parliament comes in, new boys come in, new representatives come in, it takes them time to understand the international situation. Not Obama, but the Congress, interest groups and the media get affected by 'deadline-itis' [over ending the Afghan war]," Zardari said.

"I think it is maybe 12 years since America has become engaged in Afghanistan and obviously everybody's patience is on edge, especially the American public, which is looking for answers. There are no short-term answers and it is very difficult to make the American taxpayer understand."

With less than three months left before Barack Obama has promised to begin withdrawing US troops from Afghanistan, the White House recriminations reflected the growing pressures on all three governments to agree a workable, long-term strategy. The report complained bitterly that after years of US funding of the Pakistani military, "there remains no clear path towards defeating the insurgency" inside Pakistan.

It criticised as ineffectual Pakistani army operations in some areas of the western tribal belt bordering Afghanistan, which are believed to be used as safe havens by Afghan Taliban and al-Qaida elements.

A congressional panel also weighed in this week, urging the Obama administration to abandon Pakistan in favour of India. "Pakistan is about to go broke or collapse," said Gary Ackerman, a New York Democrat.

Zardari suggested that if that assertion were true, the interventionist policies of the US and other foreign governments in south Asia would be a significant contributory factor. Pakistan had been in a state of "security alert" for several decades, he said.

"Our emphasis has been on security rather than our commerce and we need commerce for our survival.

"We have all the gas in the world waiting to go through to markets in India and the Red Sea but it cannot be brought in until Afghanistan is settled. So Afghanistan is a growth issue for us. I think most of the time, the quantification of the effect of the war is not calculated [by the US].

"Prices are going up, obviously we are a high fuel-importing country, and fuel prices are going up. Because of the war situation, the industry in one of our provinces has practically closed down ... When one whole sector is not working, there is an effect on the other sectors."

According to senior intelligence officials, the "war on terror" has cost the Pakistani economy approximately $68bn (£42bn) since 2001.

More than 33,300 Pakistani civilians and military personnel have been killed or seriously injured. Last year's record-breaking floods added to the strain on the economy.

Zardari said the security situation was also undercutting efforts to strengthen democratic institutions bypassed or overturned during the military rule of his predecessor, General Pervez Musharraf. "Democracy is evolving. It's a new democracy. It takes time to bring institutions back. Destroying institutions during a decade of dictatorial regime is easy ... So there is a political impact as well as an economic impact."

Pakistani officials say relations with the US reached a "low ebb" following the recent row over Raymond Davis, a CIA contractor who shot dead two Pakistanis; a CIA drone attack in Pakistan's tribal areas last month that accidentally killed dozens of civilian elders meeting in a jirga (council), and Pakistan's suspicions that it is being excluded from discussions about an Afghan peace deal.

Zardari, who is expected to visit Washington next month, said he would ask Obama to share drone technology with Pakistan so future attacks could be planned and directed under a "Pakistani flag". Although this request had been turned down in the past, he said he was hopeful the Americans would be more receptive this time, given the huge anger and rising anti-American feeling that the drone attacks were causing.

Zardari and other senior government officials said all parties felt a sense of growing urgency about forging an inclusive peace settlement in Afghanistan, but the process must be "Afghan-led". Pakistan was ready to play its part, consistent with its national interest, they said.

Salman Bashir, Pakistan's foreign secretary, said: "Everybody is gradually coming round to our point of view that this requires greater diplomatic pressure. There is no military solution in Afghanistan."

War in Afghanistan is destabilising Pakistan, says president | World news | The Guardian
 
Do you believe every Indian article from any Indian media source is 100% correct all the time? I do not use articles from Pakistani sources to prove or dismiss claims, I always try to use outside sources. Hence, I do not quote articles from news.pk or Daily Times when they claim that the ISI says that RAW is involved in Pakistan, in aiding the TTP, BLA or BLF. Just like India's involvement in Pakistan is yet to be proven here, the same applies to Pakistan's alleged involvement with the Taliban or in Afghanistan.

It is not about every article but in your case, every article from around the world from several sources and from several countries find no value in your system of grading credibility. You can however use the same sources for proving your point but dismiss them as a fringe case or biased reporting, etc. A case in point is the sources provided to prove Benazir's support to Taliban. Can you review what you wrote please.

About RAW, Pakistan till date, I repeat till date has not provided a single shred of evidence about RAW's involvement let alone news sources. India has not just to Pakistan but has recieved evidence from countries like US, UK that have a stamp of ISI.
 
The environment in Pakistan is not conducive for real democracy. Even if external force/influence is applied on the army to run a real democracy will fail. Army can easily get the population worked up by creating imaginary enemies which they can show are not dealt because of the limitation of the system.

Time and again people believe the army is right. It is not common for people to welcome military rule in Pakistan after a abysmal performance by a democratically elected government but this does not happen in other countries even if the ruling government is incompetent / corrupt. Army letting democracy live by the side in itself is derogatory to such a system.

I'm sorry, but how is the Army influencing the democracy & the current leadership/government of Pakistan in any way?
 
Yes, Benazir Bhutto's mistake was to work within the system: no sooner did she return than the assassination attempts started - usually without serious police investigations afterward, and the sites were cleaned of evidence. Without hope of justice, then, wouldn't it be better to challenge the system from without, building up a new, parallel democracy?

Mind you, his father too worked in the same system, How America played a role to remove ZAB is for every one to see, How the US backed Mush for almost 9 years when he made the coup ,So the system prety much works at the will of the US , its widely accepted truth that how much US has a sphere of influene in Islamabad.Just look how they got away with a hired CIA contractor killing innocent civillians. Even though he didnt had the diplomatic immunity. The resignation of FM qureshi speaks volumes of the US influence over Islamabad.
 
It is not about every article but in your case, every article from around the world from several sources and from several countries find no value in your system of grading credibility. You can however use the same sources for proving your point but dismiss them as a fringe case or biased reporting, etc.

There are differences between actual events that happened in history, such as India's support for the LTTE terrorists when the Indian Air Force dropped aid parcels into Jaffna, Sri Lanka weighing 25 tons for the rebels, or when they operated Mukti Bahini, LTTE camps in Tamil Nadu; & speculation of Western journalists that want to malign Pakistan to achieve their objectives in the region. These are events in history that actually took place, so no point in contesting these things. Pakistan Forces have never stepped into Afghanistan like the Indian Air Force did in Sri Lanka, or like India did in East Pakistan (not talking about Kashmir here, that's disputed territory). India has aided rebels with their Forces physically going into other sovereign countries, while Pakistan has never done the same.

A case in point is the sources provided to prove Benazir's support to Taliban. Can you review what you wrote please.

But did Benazir Bhutto really say any of that? Is it admissible evidence in a court? Do you have an audio or video recording where Bhutto said that the Pakistani Establishment created, or ever supported the Taliban? Again, you are depending on the speculation & hearsay of journalists who have zero credibility.
 
It is not about every article but in your case, every article from around the world from several sources and from several countries find no value in your system of grading credibility. You can however use the same sources for proving your point but dismiss them as a fringe case or biased reporting, etc. A case in point is the sources provided to prove Benazir's support to Taliban. Can you review what you wrote please.

From around the world? How about say it how it is - from Bharat and from parts of the west. Remember that bharat and parts of the west does not amount to the whole world. Some people in the west and the media in the west wants to believe such conspiracy theories. As such, just because they say something, it doesn't automatically become true. It actually speaks volumes about bharati mentality. West says this, west says that, it must be true. Provide evidence of some sort at the UN, or to Pakistan first. Otherwise it's plain conspiracy theory.

About RAW, Pakistan till date, I repeat till date has not provided a single shred of evidence about RAW's involvement let alone news sources. India has not just to Pakistan but has recieved evidence from countries like US, UK that have a stamp of ISI.

Of course it has. It has done press conference where it showed weapons taken from militants that were provided by bharat to them. We also have a video of a terrorist confessing that bharat provides support to terrorists.

What kind of evidence have you got from US, UK btw?

If you say that what constitutes reliable evidence is subjective then the same can be said about you and how you fail to accept evidence against bharat. Remember, however, that just because people in the west do not believe something, that thing doesn't become false and if they believe something, it doesn't become true. That's just a classic argumentum ad populum fallacy. They may not want to believe something because it suits their world view, or they may want to believe something else that suits their world view.
 
Btw if you think western media reports constitute evidence then one could say Iraq must have had WMDs. To suggest that western media saying something makes that thing true is as naive as one can get.

I think it's been proven without any shadow of a doubt that Bharat aids terrorists from other countries, but it hasn't been proven for Pakistan; as pointed out by my Post # 140 in great detail.
 
I'm sorry, but how is the Army influencing the democracy & the current leadership/government of Pakistan in any way?

Not a single foreign policy can be initiated by the government without the nod of the Army. Everything India specific should get a nod from the Army. Live in a country where the civilian leadership is in control of the army and you will know the difference.

---------- Post added at 12:14 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:13 AM ----------

Btw if you think western media reports constitute evidence then one could say Iraq must have had WMDs. To suggest that western media saying something makes that thing true is as naive as one can get.

The one silver bullet. Bravo. Call the whole western media a joke.
 
I'm sorry, but how is the Army influencing the democracy & the current leadership/government of Pakistan in any way?

Which democracy of the world you compared democracy of criminal bunch?

If it was not upto army the current leadership of govt. may have sold Pakistan by now.
 
I think it's been proven without any shadow of a doubt that Bharat aids terrorists from other countries, but it hasn't been proven for Pakistan; as pointed out by my Post # 140 in great detail.

I read your post and I have my sympathies for the thought process that has led you to such conclusions. We can have a debate on that in another thread but I am not hopeful that you will change your mind. If I respond to them then it is clearly digressing from the topic of this thread.
 
It is not about every article but in your case, every article from around the world from several sources and from several countries find no value in your system of grading credibility. You can however use the same sources for proving your point but dismiss them as a fringe case or biased reporting, etc. A case in point is the sources provided to prove Benazir's support to Taliban. Can you review what you wrote please.

About RAW, Pakistan till date, I repeat till date has not provided a single shred of evidence about RAW's involvement let alone news sources. India has not just to Pakistan but has recieved evidence from countries like US, UK that have a stamp of ISI.

The only reliable evidence is the one admissible in the International Court of Justice free from all biases. As well as actual events that took place, such as India aiding rebels with their Forces (Air Force, Army) physically going into other sovereign countries, both in sovereign nations such as Sri Lanka & Pakistan. We all know Western countries have their own ulterior objectives in the region, & they achieve that by maligning & falsely accusing Pakistan, so their accounts cannot be called credible pieces of evidence.
 
The one silver bullet. Bravo. Call the whole western media a joke.

Western media is called a joke even by people in the west. But without going into that, it doesn't have to be western media. Can be media from any country. You have to first prove your claims. i.e. have to provide evidence, in the form of physical evidence. You can't say that media OF ANY COUNTRY or ANY PART OF THE WORLD says X, hence X must be true. Try doing that at UN. Your case will only make it as far as the door.
 
Which democracy of the world you compared democracy of criminal bunch?

If it was not upto army the current leadership of govt. may have sold Pakistan by now.

That is precisely the army's great PR speaking. Yes, I admire the PR exercise of the army in Pakistan. Irrespective of how corrupt a civilian government is, Army's job is defence and not to run the country.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Not a single foreign policy can be initiated by the government without the nod of the Army. Everything India specific should get a nod from the Army. Live in a country where the civilian leadership is in control of the army and you will know the difference.

Who told you this?

warning:::: Trolls and off topic discussion, attempt to ruin this thread like any every other thread.
 
Back
Top Bottom