What's new

NATO Summit: Pakistan Offers No Quarter

What confusion?

I'll say again:

1. Apology for the murder of 24 Pakistani troops by the US
2. Jointly operated drone strikes on Pakistani soil
3. A higher transit rate on NATO supplies through Pakistan

The three points above have been largely the same since the US murder of Pakistani troops, and since the PCNS recommendations came out, so what is so incoherent about the Pakistani position?

The argument that the 'Pakistani position is 'incoherent' is just the latest 'talking point' to malign Pakistan out of the US Deep State's propaganda arm.

And I will respond again too:

Please do not misread what I said. You are correct that Pakistan position on two of the three points you mention has been consistent, except #2, which was originally calling for a halt to all drone strikes.

What I actually said was there is no coherent plan that can be codified.

I have already agreed with you that perhaps waiting for an apology until after the Presidential election might be a better idea. Pakistan still has to present an effective alternative to stopping drone strikes, unless of course the call for "joint operations" is an official Pakistani position, which may not be the case, but only your suggestion. And the higher transit fees are under active negotiations.

All of these should hopefully result in a plan with a complete implementation code.

Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/strate...tiff-pakistani-nato-fees-5.html#ixzz1vbtwVUT0
 
I think over all PPP handled themselves very well. I would have never expected Zardari and Co. to take such a strong stance against American demands.

.

Mate lets not get too excited about Zardari. PPP would have been committing suicide if he had rolled over. He is protecting his future generations income source in Pakistan.

But having said that I agree it is refreshing that America has been shown not to be omnipotent in Pakistan
 
'Pakistan has withstood all pressure'

Pakistan received a severe snub from US President Obama at the NATO summit that recently concluded in Chicago. Pakistani political analyst Naveed Ahmed talks about the reactions in Pakistan and the implications.
Naveed Ahmed is a political analyst and investigative journalist in Pakistan.


DW: How has Pakistan reacted to the summit in Chicago?

Well, there is a clear-cut position that Pakistan is not going to continue any business with the United States or NATO, for that matter, until they offer an apology. And that was clear in the statement given by President Zardari in Chicago. On the face of it, this is the situation and people are buying it. If Zardari has given any commitment, he is not in a position to fulfil it. The reaction is otherwise very calm, no US flags are being burnt. There was a fear that Pakistan may succumb to US pressure, but this NATO summit has proven that Pakistan can withstand the pressure. The foreign minister also said that Pakistan would seek an apology and then look further.

President Obama did not conduct bilateral talks with President Zardari. Does Pakistan see that as a snub? How has the media reacted?

Again, Asif Ali Zardari's departure to Chicago was criticized in Pakistan because it was a last-minute invitation and he should not have gone. In fact, they should have sent the foreign minister there. And if President Obama did not meet Zardari, it is a kind of embarassment for the Pakistan People's Party in the political point-scoring game in parliament. But on the streets, it does not matter because there is a consensus that there will be no business with the US until our concerns or demands are addressed by the American administration.
What demands does Pakistan have?

For NATO relations to normalize, Pakistan is seeking an apology from NATO and the US for the killing of 26 Pakistani soldiers , who died when US troops leading a NATO convoy attacked Pakistani troops last November. Second, the US and NATO should end their drone attacks inside Pakistani territory. Third, there should be a clear-cut agreement as to how and under what conditions Pakistan should allow NATO supplies through its territory. Since Musharraf gave access to NATO troops in 2002 this has taken place through verbal agreements but there is nothing in writing. Pakistan does not earn any transit fees. Pakistan charges about $5000 per container and there is talk that NATO is ready to pay $1500.

What will Pakistan's role be after the NATO troop withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2014?

Pakistan is a key player in Afghanistan. If Pakistan is comfortable with the withdrawal and the conditions afterwards that are being mapped out, Pakistan can play a very constructive role. If there are concerns and insecurities, because of greater Indian influence, or foreign troops or the proliferation of weapons inside Pakistani territory, then it will be different. That is why Pakistan is in a situation where it has to assert its position, its presence, so that when the troops exit, the post-exit scenario is not detrimental to Pakistan's interests.

What kind of a post-exit scenario would be detrimental to Pakistan?

The key issue, as the Turkish president mentioned in Chicago, is that the NATO troops have failed to win over the hearts of the Afghan troops and the people. There is also a huge concern that when they leave in 2013 or 2014, there will be more insecurity and stability at stake. That will leave Afghanistan in almost the same situation, if not worse, than it was in 1989 or in 1999-2000 before 9/11. Pakistan's prime concern is that the country should deal with its own problems. There are 2.5 million Afghan refugees in Pakistan without any international help and they should be going back. Also, Afghanistan should not have a government which could create problems in Pakistan's Pashtun areas as was the case during the communist regime in the Soviet days.

'Pakistan has withstood all pressure' | Asia | DW.DE | 22.05.2012
 
Mate lets not get too excited about Zardari. PPP would have been committing suicide if he had rolled over. He is protecting his future generations income source in Pakistan

No, it is just that the real power to shape foreign policy still lies with the GHQ. The Generals are playing high stakes poker and just went double down, just like in Kargil.
 
Well, the final figure will reveal how successful each sides' diplomacy has been. I will say that the US policy, imperfect as it is, does seem to be working far better than the confused frenzy emanating from Pakistan.

You think American policy is working?? How so have they got routes-no
 
And I will respond again too:

Please do not misread what I said. You are correct that Pakistan position on two of the three points you mention has been consistent, except #2, which was originally calling for a halt to all drone strikes.

What I actually said was there is no coherent plan that can be codified.

I have already agreed with you that perhaps waiting for an apology until after the Presidential election might be a better idea. Pakistan still has to present an effective alternative to stopping drone strikes, unless of course the call for "joint operations" is an official Pakistani position, which may not be the case, but only your suggestion. And the higher transit fees are under active negotiations.

All of these should hopefully result in a plan with a complete implementation code.

Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/strate...tiff-pakistani-nato-fees-5.html#ixzz1vbtwVUT0
When Pakistan argues for an end to drone strikes, the 'end' is to unilateral US drone strikes - as pointed out to you several times, on drone strikes Pakistan has proposed three alternatives:

1. Pakistan operated drone strikes
2. Joint US-Pak operated drone strikes
3. PAF strikes

The US has rejected all of them, indicating that the best it can offer is 'occasional notification prior to a strike', which is essentially no different than the current situation.

So there is no 'incoherence' in the Pakistani position.
 
And I will respond again too:

Please do not misread what I said. You are correct that Pakistan position on two of the three points you mention has been consistent, except #2, which was originally calling for a halt to all drone strikes.

What I actually said was there is no coherent plan that can be codified.

I have already agreed with you that perhaps waiting for an apology until after the Presidential election might be a better idea. Pakistan still has to present an effective alternative to stopping drone strikes, unless of course the call for "joint operations" is an official Pakistani position, which may not be the case, but only your suggestion. And the higher transit fees are under active negotiations.

All of these should hopefully result in a plan with a complete implementation code.

Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/strate...tiff-pakistani-nato-fees-5.html#ixzz1vbtwVUT0

stop going off tangent every two minutes. You were comparing American policy to Pakistan and as usual saying American was better- please explain how so when routes are still closed- one minute they want them, next minute they do not etc.

No, it is just that the real power to shape foreign policy still lies with the GHQ. The Generals are playing high stakes poker and just went double down, just like in Kargil.

another feeble attempt to go off topic.

Back to topic it's great Pakistan standing up for it's interests
 
No, it is just that the real power to shape foreign policy still lies with the GHQ. The Generals are playing high stakes poker and just went double down, just like in Kargil.
Nope, democracy is finally strengthing in Pakistan. Wait till the next gov't comes in. But haters gonna hate.

hatereagle.jpg
 
.........................
What demands does Pakistan have?

For NATO relations to normalize, Pakistan is seeking an apology from NATO and the US for the killing of 26 Pakistani soldiers , who died when US troops leading a NATO convoy attacked Pakistani troops last November. Second, the US and NATO should end their drone attacks inside Pakistani territory. Third, there should be a clear-cut agreement as to how and under what conditions Pakistan should allow NATO supplies through its territory. Since Musharraf gave access to NATO troops in 2002 this has taken place through verbal agreements but there is nothing in writing. Pakistan does not earn any transit fees. Pakistan charges about $5000 per container and there is talk that NATO is ready to pay $1500....................

Just as I thought, the demand is to stop the drone attacks, NOT "joint attacks" as you have said elsewhere.

A rate of $1500 per truck would be a huge jump and speaks well of Pakistan's negotiating power; that is good for Pakistan's economic situation, if not matched by cuts elsewhere.
 
Not a single soldier I've met mentions hunger or lack of ammo, so, yes, we have routes.

absoutely. Keep paying $17,000 per container for those routes. And still gotta ship heavy machinery back.
 
Not a single soldier I've met mentions hunger or lack of ammo, so, yes, we have routes.

Why are you a cook Juice?

Back to topic American regime does not know what to do. Loss of face is imminent if routes are to open lol

Just as I thought, the demand is to stop the drone attacks, NOT "joint attacks" as you have said elsewhere.

A rate of $1500 per truck would be a huge jump and speaks well of Pakistan's negotiating power; that is good for Pakistan's economic situation, if not matched by cuts elsewhere.

Well I know that US economy is in bad shape therefore it should take whatever discounts it can get and say thank you. I have seen figures of $10k mentioned elsewhere so I think $5k discount is doing American regime a favour
 
When Pakistan argues for an end to drone strikes, the 'end' is to unilateral US drone strikes .............

I think that is incorrect: the Pakistani position seems to demand a stop ALL drone strikes. There has been no official mention, to my knowledge, of any bilateral co-operation that would permit drone strikes either, unless you wish to present a source.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom