NATO chief praises Pakistan's regional role

[S_O_C_O_M]

NATO chief praises Pakistan's regional role​

NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen (L) speaks to Pakistan's Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi after their joint news conference in Islamabad July 21, 2010.
NATO chief praises Pakistan's regional role | Reuters.com

Wed Jul 21, 2010 9:12pm IST

By Augustine Anthony

ISLAMABAD (Reuters) - NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen praised Pakistan's regional role on Wednesday and said the country's action against militants along the border with Afghanistan would improve the "overall security situation".

Rasmussen was speaking at a joint news conference with Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi. The NATO chief was in Pakistan to discuss regional security a day after an international conference in Afghanistan.

"We appreciate very much what Pakistan has done to promote regional stability and security," Rasmussen said. "I would like to commend the Pakistani government and the Pakistan military for your operations in the tribal belt with the aim to improve the overall security situation."

Rasmussen, on his first visit to Pakistan, also expressed support to the government of President Hamid Karzai and said NATO would not leave Afghanistan "prematurely".

An international conference in Kabul on Tuesday set an ambitious deadline for the Afghan forces to lead security across the country by 2014, and said the Afghan government would be given more responsibility for its own affairs.

Rasmussen described the conference as a success that would lead to an Afghan-led process and said the goal was to hand over responsibility to Afghans themselves, when conditions permit.

"We are there to assist the Afghan government ... to secure their own country, but we are also there to ensure overall stability in the region," he told reporters after his meeting with Qureshi.

"So a gradual transition ... will not be driven by the calendar, it will be driven by conditions," said Rasmussen, who attended the Kabul conference.

Violence is at its worst in Afghanistan since U.S.-backed Afghan forces overthrew the Taliban in late 2001 for refusing to give up al Qaeda members following the Sept. 11 attacks in the United States.

The United States, which leads the NATO forces in Afghanistan, plans to start withdrawing troop in July 2011, and the British Prime Minister David Cameron said on Wednesday his country's troops could start withdrawing as early as next year.

Rasmussen said Afghan soldiers would be trained and educated to take responsibility themselves, but cautioned that leaving Afghanistan prematurely would allow Taliban insurgents to return.

"If we were to leave Afghanistan before we have finished our job then the Taliban will just return to Afghanistan and create again a safe haven for international terrorism. Afghanistan could once again serve as a launch pad for terrorism attacks."

More than 1,900 foreign troops have died in Afghanistan since the war started. Some 520 were killed in 2009, the deadliest year so far in the war, and over 100 this June, the worst month.

There are around 150,000 foreign troops from 42 countries working under the NATO-led command, established in late 2001. The United States has by far the most troops, supplying two-thirds of the total.

(Editing by Chris Allbritton and Andrew Marshall)

NATO chief praises Pakistan's regional role | Reuters

 

[mr42O]

that peice of **** is biggest racist.

 

[Ahmad]

that peice of **** is biggest racist.

how do you know he is a racist?

 

[somebozo]

This guy understands war and its effects..some hippie named hillary does not!

 

[somya]

Yes, He is correct. Pakistan is playing a crucial role in fighting Terrorism. There is remarkable upswing in people's opinion against taliban. The Army and FATA people are really fighting a brave war. Offcourse Taliban are under pressure and they are playing their dirty game to gain people sympathy by doing suicide blast. But in it, again it is failing. There is still fear of taliban in the mind of Pakistani people which will take time.
This problem will take its time to solve but dnt leave it unfinished as Americans do.

 

[muse]

Of course, it's emotionally satisfying to imagine that one's efforts. in this case Pakistans' are met with approval - but we must be very careful - why does Pakistan need the approval of NATO? And while the NATO chief makes noises in Pakistan which might appeal to some in Pakistan, we really need to ask why the NATO of approval is required and what that might mean for Pakistan -- in the corporate world there is a phenomenon generally observed among secretaries, known as "praise whore" -- Pakistan must never be a part of that trap.

The Nato chief says "If we were to leave Afghanistan before we have finished our job then the Taliban will just return to Afghanistan..." It's important to ask whether they had ever left in the first place -- it might offer reassurance to some in Pakistan that NATO wants to stay an "finish the job" - but lets be very clear aboiut what that job might be.

Ultimately Pakistan stands alone, it always will.

 

[fatman17]

Yes, He is correct. Pakistan is playing a crucial role in fighting Terrorism. There is remarkable upswing in people's opinion against taliban. The Army and FATA people are really fighting a brave war. Offcourse Taliban are under pressure and they are playing their dirty game to gain people sympathy by doing suicide blast. But in it, again it is failing. There is still fear of taliban in the mind of Pakistani people which will take time.
This problem will take its time to solve but dnt leave it unfinished as Americans do.

past deeds cast a long shadow!

 

[ice_man]

NATO chief praises Pakistan's regional role​

NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen (L) speaks to Pakistan's Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi after their joint news conference in Islamabad July 21, 2010.
NATO chief praises Pakistan's regional role | Reuters.com

Wed Jul 21, 2010 9:12pm IST

By Augustine Anthony

ISLAMABAD (Reuters) - NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen praised Pakistan's regional role on Wednesday and said the country's action against militants along the border with Afghanistan would improve the "overall security situation".

Rasmussen was speaking at a joint news conference with Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi. The NATO chief was in Pakistan to discuss regional security a day after an international conference in Afghanistan.

"We appreciate very much what Pakistan has done to promote regional stability and security," Rasmussen said. "I would like to commend the Pakistani government and the Pakistan military for your operations in the tribal belt with the aim to improve the overall security situation."

Rasmussen, on his first visit to Pakistan, also expressed support to the government of President Hamid Karzai and said NATO would not leave Afghanistan "prematurely".

An international conference in Kabul on Tuesday set an ambitious deadline for the Afghan forces to lead security across the country by 2014, and said the Afghan government would be given more responsibility for its own affairs.

Rasmussen described the conference as a success that would lead to an Afghan-led process and said the goal was to hand over responsibility to Afghans themselves, when conditions permit.

"We are there to assist the Afghan government ... to secure their own country, but we are also there to ensure overall stability in the region," he told reporters after his meeting with Qureshi.

"So a gradual transition ... will not be driven by the calendar, it will be driven by conditions," said Rasmussen, who attended the Kabul conference.

Violence is at its worst in Afghanistan since U.S.-backed Afghan forces overthrew the Taliban in late 2001 for refusing to give up al Qaeda members following the Sept. 11 attacks in the United States.

The United States, which leads the NATO forces in Afghanistan, plans to start withdrawing troop in July 2011, and the British Prime Minister David Cameron said on Wednesday his country's troops could start withdrawing as early as next year.

Rasmussen said Afghan soldiers would be trained and educated to take responsibility themselves, but cautioned that leaving Afghanistan prematurely would allow Taliban insurgents to return.

"If we were to leave Afghanistan before we have finished our job then the Taliban will just return to Afghanistan and create again a safe haven for international terrorism. Afghanistan could once again serve as a launch pad for terrorism attacks."

More than 1,900 foreign troops have died in Afghanistan since the war started. Some 520 were killed in 2009, the deadliest year so far in the war, and over 100 this June, the worst month.

There are around 150,000 foreign troops from 42 countries working under the NATO-led command, established in late 2001. The United States has by far the most troops, supplying two-thirds of the total.

(Editing by Chris Allbritton and Andrew Marshall)

NATO chief praises Pakistan's regional role | Reuters

HE says this HILLARY SAYS OSAMA IS IN PAKISTAN & WE SHOULD GET ACCESS TO HIM!!

bloody americans are confused as to what to say! and what hillary RANTED makes me feel that mistrust from both sides is still there embedded & will remain so!

 

[muse]

So while some Pakistanis and Indians seem to want to bank on
'praise", they may miss the forest for the trees


Ill-wind blows for a 'neutral' Afghanistan
By M K Bhadrakumar

Maybe there is an air about the brooding Hindu Kush mountains that lends inscrutability to politics and history. It touched Tuesday's Kabul international conference on Afghanistan, where the subtext was of far greater interest than the open agenda. In fact, when it comes to the Afghan problem, it is almost inevitably the case that the surreal takes precedence over the real.

Thus it was surreal that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is still not quite done, after failing to win in Afghanistan, with its first "real" war in its six decades of history as a military alliance, and it is certainly not contemplating a return to its natural habitat. NATO seems to have fallen for the adrenalin rush of the primeval tumult that people of the Hindu Kush live with and seems to loathe the dull prospect of returning to the predictability of a settled life in Europe.

NATO's longing for adventure seems to have been a key subtext of the Kabul gathering on Tuesday, which was attended by 60 countries. The big players at the conference danced around it, poking a finger or two at it to test how real it is or could be in the coming days and weeks in a setting like Afghanistan where nothing is quite certain until it physically arrives.

The statements made by the foreign ministers of the US, Russia and China at the Kabul conference assume significance in this regard.

Rasmussen's shot in the air

The stage for the shadow play was duly set by none other than the NATO secretary general, Anders Fogh Rasmussen. In an extraordinary "curtain-raiser" on the eve of the conference, exuding a high degree of optimism about the war, Rasmussen wrote that NATO was "finally taking the fight to the Taliban" aimed at the "marginalization of the Taliban as a political and military force ... [which] will encourage many who joined the Taliban to quit their ranks and engage in the reconciliation effort."

But tucked away more than halfway down in his highly-publicized article was a curious sub-text: BLOCKQUOTE> Starting the transition does not mean that the struggle for Afghanistan's future as a stable country in a volatile region will be over. Afghanistan will need the continued support of the international community, including NATO. The Afghan population needs to know that we will continue to stand by them as they chart their own course into the future. To underline this commitment, I believe that NATO should develop a long-term cooperation agreement with the Afghan government.
Very little ingenuity is needed to estimate that Rasmussen would never venture into the public airing of such a profound thought regarding NATO's future in the post-Afghan war Central Asian region - the hidden agenda of this Clausewitzean war all along - without checking out in advance with Washington, nay, except at the bidding of the Barack Obama administration.

By a coincidence, Rasmussen's idea has appeared on the eve of the expected award of a contract by the US Defense Department to build a sprawling US Special Forces base in northern Afghanistan near Mazar-i-Sharif. The US is undertaking the project on a priority footing at a cost of as much as US$100 million. The base, in the Amu Darya region straddling Central Asia, will become operational by the end of 2011, or at the latest by early 2012.

According to available details, the 17-acre (6.8 hectare) site of the new American military base is hardly 35 kilometers from the border of Uzbekistan and it seems set to become the pendant of a "string of pearls" that the US is kneading through Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan along the "soft underbelly" of Russia and China's Xinjiang.

How would the countries in the region size up the startling prospect that the US and NATO are possibly quitting the Afghan war by 2014 and yet preparing to settle down for a long stay in the Hindu Kush?

Moscow reacts
The only forthright reaction so far has come from Moscow. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov pointedly underlined in his statement at the Kabul conference the importance of recognizing Afghanistan's future "neutral status", which would preclude any sort of permanent foreign military presence. To quote Lavrov:
The restoration of the neutral status of Afghanistan is designed to become one of the key factors of creating an atmosphere of good-neighborly relations and cooperation in the region. We expect that this idea will be supported by the Afghan people. The presidents of Russia and the US have already come out in favor of it.
Indeed, what is surprising is that Obama not merely seemed to favor the idea of a "neutral" Afghanistan but explicitly referred to it as a "commitment" as recently as last month when he received Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in Washington. The US-Russia Joint Statement of June 24 on Afghanistan, in fact, began with the following opening statement:

The United States of America and the Russian Federation confirm our commitment to Afghanistan becoming a peaceful, stable, democratic, neutral and economically self-sufficient state, free of terrorism and narcotics, recognizing that further significant international support will be needed to achieve this goal.

Has Obama backtracked? The point is, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton uttered not a word about a "neutral" Afghanistan in all of her intervention in the Kabul conference on Tuesday, whereas she seemed to deliberately circle around Rasmussen's thought process, preferring to dilate on issues such as the importance of upholding women's rights in a future Afghanistan.

Interestingly, Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi chose to visit the idea of a "neutral" Afghanistan, but somewhat tangentially. He said on Tuesday:

The international community must give continued attention to Afghanistan and follow through on the commitments made in London [conference in January] and the previous international conferences on Afghanistan. We should respect Afghanistan's sovereignty and work together towards the early realization of 'Afghanistan run by the Afghans'. We want to see a peaceful, stable and independent Afghanistan ... [Emphasis added.]
US holding breath
At the end of the day what really matters is Clinton's silence. It needs to be carefully weighed.

It indicates the US seems to be wary of a rebuff from the region and is gingerly going about with the unveiling of the idea of setting up permanent US/NATO bases in Afghanistan? Of course, it has been fairly well known for quite a while among regional observers that the Pentagon has been feverishly beefing up the US military bases in Afghanistan, including construction of some new ones, at the cost of hundreds of millions of dollars and equipping them with facilities that enable the American troops to maintain a familiar lifestyle far away from home, which is of course conducive to the presence of long-staying GIs into a distant future among people famous for their hostility toward foreign occupation.

This was exactly what the US has done in Iraq, too, despite the end of the "combat mission" as such by September.

The US diplomats have been gently persuading capitals in the region in recent months that, contrary to what Afghan history might suggest, the idea of a "neutral" Afghanistan isn't all that good for regional security and stability in a milieu where violent Islamist radicals are at large. Washington hopes to capitalize on the visceral fears in those capitals of a radical Islamist avalanche once the Taliban is co-opted in the power structure in Kabul.

New Delhi, for instance, has explicitly used the term "neutral" Afghanistan in its past policy pronouncements, but the Indian minister S M Krishna used a noticeably milder variant in his statement on Tuesday - and that too, rather as a barb aimed at Pakistan than as a well-thought out stance regarding Afghanistan's neutral status - by merely observing that "India is committed to the unity, integrity and independence of Afghanistan underpinned by democracy and cohesive pluralism and free from external interference."

The idea of concluding a Status of Forces Agreement with President Hamid Karzai's government, which the US officials have been considering with the active encouragement from London, now seems doable. Compared with the past year or two, the Afghan leader nowadays gets on fairly well with his Western patrons. And he may even find physical advantages in having the US and NATO provide him with a security umbrella to safeguard against any nasty surprises that the Pakistani intelligence may spring on him in the downstream of the "reconciliation" with the Taliban.

The fact of the matter is that despite exuding confidence regarding a future beyond 2014, by when he wanted the foreign troops to end the combat mission and withdraw, in his heart of hearts Karzai cannot be having the sort of requisite faith in the performance of the Afghan Army - indeed, whether the army would even hold together as an entity in the foreseeable future - if there is a determined, well-crafted putsch by the Taliban with the able backing from its Pakistani mentors once Western forces withdraw from the battle field in 2014.

Significantly, Lavrov appealed to the "Afghan people" - and not to Karzai's government, which hosted the Kabul conference - to voice the demand for the neutrality of their country and the rejection of long term foreign military presence.


Ambassador M K Bhadrakumar was a career diplomat in the Indian Foreign Service. His assignments included the Soviet Union, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Germany, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Kuwait and Turkey.

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

Can't have russian influence come back in Afghanistan - need to have Pakistan/NATO involved , and China keeping presence in Gwadar

 

[muse]

Friends will want to recall how ths Afghan mess started - so long as Zahir Shah and a monarchy existed, no one cared what happened in Afghanistan - everybody's goods went through Afghanistan and she had no capablity (read intention) against her neighbors -- then that disaster of idiot, Daoud, not only went for Soviets training his armed forces but inducted tanks and jets in an Afghan airforce, next thing you everybody took notice -- then the idiot got himself killed leaving a rapid communist political party bent on creating an "Afghan nation" - which meant everfybody had to take an interest -- fast forward to post Jihad Mujahideen times - why were they a problem for the neighbors of Afghanistan? The terrible fees they extorted of course -- fast forward some more to Talib attack on Ismail Khan, who financed that? Pakistani business interests did - why - the man began charging exorbitant fees, it became cheaper to oust him than do business with him --

A "neutral" Afghanistan is in everybodys interest - everybody gets to do "business" -- indian friends will learn to do business, consequences of being slow learners are not worthy of great nations such a India.

While fanatics in the Us government and influential think tanks have made the US a republic of fear, others have been building relations, in particular mutually beneficial business relationships, offering develoipment as foreign policy - contrast that with endless wars American friends offer - when the US decides to wake up from it's self induced hate filled stupor, it will find a Asia interconnected and American citizens have a right to ask, why a great nation such as the US is marginally represented in this integration -- though there are some who imagine Indians, Pakistanis and others should disregard their own interests in pursuit of the interests of fanatics in the beltway.