fatman17
PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 32,563
- Reaction score
- 98
- Country
- Location
Mice into lions
Monday, August 02, 2010
Ahmed Quraishi
The anti-Pakistan statements of the British prime minister and the series of statements by other friends of Pakistan, like Adm Mullen, show there is something wrong in the way we in Pakistan are managing our friendships. Obviously the Pakistani style or weakness is turning mice into lions.
Our political and military officials have been patting themselves on the back recently counting their foreign policy successes. Here is a tally: Pakistan has been courting Mr Karzai. He wants the world to invade Pakistan. Adm Mullen, who has met our army chief more than two dozen times over 18 months, wants the ISI neutered and thinks it is kosher to ask us to shift our strategic focus. (Why doesnt he send trainers to our parliament and GHQ and teach us the best ways to become a full-fledged client state?). The new British prime minister believes he can get his hands on Indian money by indulging in Pakistan-bashing on Indian soil and still see the Pakistani president in London next week as if nothing happened.
One thing common to all of these Pakistan-bashers is that they know that Pakistani officials will be back clarifying and justifying and promising to be good boys again.
After the WikiLeaks when it was clear that the mainstream US media maliciously shifted focus from US failures to bashing Pakistan, our envoy in Washington refused to condemn this and instead harped on how irresponsible this leak is [as if someone leaked Pakistani secrets] and that ground realities are different now, implying that Pakistan has been bad before but things are different now thanks to his government.
In March, and thanks mainly to our military establishment taking a stand on a number of issues, we had a God-given chance to review the terms of our lopsided relationship with the United States in Afghanistan. What did we do? Instead of telling our American friends to start respecting Pakistani interests and compensate for our inordinate strategic concessions and economic losses, we entered into a strategic dialogue asking the Americans to take charge of our energy, economy and development problems. When Mrs Clinton came here recently throwing crumbs and refusing to help on any major issue, we hailed that as success.
Had Islamabad taken a stand on Mrs Clintons provocative statement in June warning of retaliation against Pakistan after the Times Square bombing attempt, by refusing to receive her in the Pakistani capital or delaying one of those sectoral chitchats that pass for a strategic dialogue between junior Pakistani and American officials, then maybe the British prime minister would have thought twice before his anti-Pakistan diatribes.
On the Brits, lets also learn a lesson from the Egyptians if not the Saudis. Britain has been the biggest exporter of religious extremism over the past three decades. Hosni Mubaraks Egypt and Riyadh had the guts to say this publicly. London made it a policy to grant asylum to every religious lunatic from across the globe. For three decades, the most extremist religious theories were not born in Saudi Arabia, Egypt or Pakistan but festered like a disease on British soil.
British spy agencies have been using these extremists as a tool to continue their quiet meddling in Mideast politics. This is no secret. So when the British prime minister accuses Pakistan of exporting terror, we can respond. We can tell him his statement is a cover for attacking Pakistans right to be concerned about the situation in Afghanistan and Indian-occupied Kashmir. We can tell him his country should end the sanctuaries of extremism on British soil that have official British sanction and cover. And that England must stop exporting extremism and extremist theories to our region.
And what is the Pakistani bottom line? Washington and even its puppets in Kabul have a bottom line. Lets articulate clearly our national security doctrine and lets be bold. Afghan soil has been used by India and other powers to export terror into Pakistan decades ago and we will ensure it doesnt happen again. India invaded Pakistan without provocation in 1971 and we are within our rights to suspect Indian intentions until proven otherwise.
We are apologetic when it comes to defending our interest. We also tie up our hands by electing people into power whose careers, lives and bank accounts are in London, New York and Boston. Expecting them to answer the British premier or Mr Mullen in the same coin is asking too much.
The writer works for Geo TV. Email: aq@ ahmedquraishi.com
Monday, August 02, 2010
Ahmed Quraishi
The anti-Pakistan statements of the British prime minister and the series of statements by other friends of Pakistan, like Adm Mullen, show there is something wrong in the way we in Pakistan are managing our friendships. Obviously the Pakistani style or weakness is turning mice into lions.
Our political and military officials have been patting themselves on the back recently counting their foreign policy successes. Here is a tally: Pakistan has been courting Mr Karzai. He wants the world to invade Pakistan. Adm Mullen, who has met our army chief more than two dozen times over 18 months, wants the ISI neutered and thinks it is kosher to ask us to shift our strategic focus. (Why doesnt he send trainers to our parliament and GHQ and teach us the best ways to become a full-fledged client state?). The new British prime minister believes he can get his hands on Indian money by indulging in Pakistan-bashing on Indian soil and still see the Pakistani president in London next week as if nothing happened.
One thing common to all of these Pakistan-bashers is that they know that Pakistani officials will be back clarifying and justifying and promising to be good boys again.
After the WikiLeaks when it was clear that the mainstream US media maliciously shifted focus from US failures to bashing Pakistan, our envoy in Washington refused to condemn this and instead harped on how irresponsible this leak is [as if someone leaked Pakistani secrets] and that ground realities are different now, implying that Pakistan has been bad before but things are different now thanks to his government.
In March, and thanks mainly to our military establishment taking a stand on a number of issues, we had a God-given chance to review the terms of our lopsided relationship with the United States in Afghanistan. What did we do? Instead of telling our American friends to start respecting Pakistani interests and compensate for our inordinate strategic concessions and economic losses, we entered into a strategic dialogue asking the Americans to take charge of our energy, economy and development problems. When Mrs Clinton came here recently throwing crumbs and refusing to help on any major issue, we hailed that as success.
Had Islamabad taken a stand on Mrs Clintons provocative statement in June warning of retaliation against Pakistan after the Times Square bombing attempt, by refusing to receive her in the Pakistani capital or delaying one of those sectoral chitchats that pass for a strategic dialogue between junior Pakistani and American officials, then maybe the British prime minister would have thought twice before his anti-Pakistan diatribes.
On the Brits, lets also learn a lesson from the Egyptians if not the Saudis. Britain has been the biggest exporter of religious extremism over the past three decades. Hosni Mubaraks Egypt and Riyadh had the guts to say this publicly. London made it a policy to grant asylum to every religious lunatic from across the globe. For three decades, the most extremist religious theories were not born in Saudi Arabia, Egypt or Pakistan but festered like a disease on British soil.
British spy agencies have been using these extremists as a tool to continue their quiet meddling in Mideast politics. This is no secret. So when the British prime minister accuses Pakistan of exporting terror, we can respond. We can tell him his statement is a cover for attacking Pakistans right to be concerned about the situation in Afghanistan and Indian-occupied Kashmir. We can tell him his country should end the sanctuaries of extremism on British soil that have official British sanction and cover. And that England must stop exporting extremism and extremist theories to our region.
And what is the Pakistani bottom line? Washington and even its puppets in Kabul have a bottom line. Lets articulate clearly our national security doctrine and lets be bold. Afghan soil has been used by India and other powers to export terror into Pakistan decades ago and we will ensure it doesnt happen again. India invaded Pakistan without provocation in 1971 and we are within our rights to suspect Indian intentions until proven otherwise.
We are apologetic when it comes to defending our interest. We also tie up our hands by electing people into power whose careers, lives and bank accounts are in London, New York and Boston. Expecting them to answer the British premier or Mr Mullen in the same coin is asking too much.
The writer works for Geo TV. Email: aq@ ahmedquraishi.com
