WASHINGTON: US President Barack Obama’s new strategy is causing serious differences between the United States and Pakistan over how to fight the militants hiding in the Pak-Afghan region.
US think-tanks and the media believe that the differences revolve around two major issues: India’s role in Afghanistan and the drone attacks at suspected terrorist targets inside Pakistan.
They acknowledge that India is using its overwhelming presence in Afghanistan to create problems for Pakistan in Balochistan and other places.
Some experts say that in recent meetings Pakistanis officials asked the United States to use its influence on India to stop its interference in Balochistan but the Americans are not willing to do so.
This, according to them, explains why Tuesday’s talks in Islamabad between Americans and Pakistani officials ended on a sour note, indicating clearly that the two sides have serious differences.
In a report distributed on Wednesday, the US Council on Foreign Relations noted that in their meetings with America’s special envoy Richard Holbrooke and Chairman of US Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen, Pakistani officials contended that Washington showed disproportionate support for India in its bilateral relations with Pakistan.
Also on Wednesday, the Foreign Policy magazine quoted James Traub as saying that ‘Pakistan feels as if it’s falling apart … (and) American policy has arguably made the situation even worse’.
Mr Traub, a US scholar who writes for the New Yorker magazine and The New York Times, noted that the Predator-drone attacks along the border, ‘though effective, drive the Taliban eastward, deeper into Pakistan. And the strategy has been only reinforcing hostility to the United States among ordinary Pakistanis’.
The council, which has produced several foreign policy leaders, noted that Pakistani officials were also criticising the parameters of Ambassador Holbrooke’s ‘Af-Pak’ mission, saying a more productive assignment would include mediation of the India-Pakistan conflict in Kashmir.
Many experts believed that the Kashmir dispute was ‘inextricably linked with problems of militancy in other parts of Pakistan and Afghanistan’, the council observed.
But the council pointed out that while talking to journalists in India, Mr Holbrooke denied that he was pushing for new peace dialogue between India and Pakistan.
The US think-tank reported that on Tuesday rifts emerged between Mr Holbrooke and his negotiating counterparts in Pakistan, as Islamabad flatly rejected a proposal for joint military operations in Pakistan’s tribal areas.
According to the report, Mr Holbrooke and Admiral Mullen also alleged that the Taliban’s senior leadership was currently hiding in Balochistan.
The Foreign Policy magazine noted that the US administration justified the drone attacks by claiming it would deny the militants a ‘safe haven’ in Pakistan.
‘This line of argument sounds persuasive, but it falls apart on closer examination. For starters, it is not clear that al Qaeda requires a safe haven to do damage, especially since the original organisation has metastasised into smaller groups of sympathisers.’
The magazine pointed out that only a large-scale invasion could eliminate al Qaeda from the region but such an invasion was impossible and therefore there was little reason to continue the drone attacks.
‘US military strikes in Pakistan —even limited ones —tend to undermine the Pakistani government and increase the risk that Pakistan will become a failed state,’ the report noted.
On differences between Pakistan and the US over India, the Wall Street Journal pointed out that Washington was finding it difficult to ‘pursue a cohesive strategy that eradicates militancy in Pakistan and Afghanistan but doesn’t heighten tensions among three countries whose shared history is rife with violence and mutual suspicion’.
The newspaper reported that US policy-makers initially considered including Kashmir as part of the US strategy but India balked.
‘US officials subsequently have taken discussion about Kashmir off the table, even though it remains a central flashpoint in tensions between India and Pakistan,’ the newspaper noted. ‘Pakistani officials have complained that the US needs to consider all conflicts in the region as it seeks to solve them.’
http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect...bamas-new-strategy-sours-us-pakistan-ties--bi
US think-tanks and the media believe that the differences revolve around two major issues: India’s role in Afghanistan and the drone attacks at suspected terrorist targets inside Pakistan.
They acknowledge that India is using its overwhelming presence in Afghanistan to create problems for Pakistan in Balochistan and other places.
Some experts say that in recent meetings Pakistanis officials asked the United States to use its influence on India to stop its interference in Balochistan but the Americans are not willing to do so.
This, according to them, explains why Tuesday’s talks in Islamabad between Americans and Pakistani officials ended on a sour note, indicating clearly that the two sides have serious differences.
In a report distributed on Wednesday, the US Council on Foreign Relations noted that in their meetings with America’s special envoy Richard Holbrooke and Chairman of US Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen, Pakistani officials contended that Washington showed disproportionate support for India in its bilateral relations with Pakistan.
Also on Wednesday, the Foreign Policy magazine quoted James Traub as saying that ‘Pakistan feels as if it’s falling apart … (and) American policy has arguably made the situation even worse’.
Mr Traub, a US scholar who writes for the New Yorker magazine and The New York Times, noted that the Predator-drone attacks along the border, ‘though effective, drive the Taliban eastward, deeper into Pakistan. And the strategy has been only reinforcing hostility to the United States among ordinary Pakistanis’.
The council, which has produced several foreign policy leaders, noted that Pakistani officials were also criticising the parameters of Ambassador Holbrooke’s ‘Af-Pak’ mission, saying a more productive assignment would include mediation of the India-Pakistan conflict in Kashmir.
Many experts believed that the Kashmir dispute was ‘inextricably linked with problems of militancy in other parts of Pakistan and Afghanistan’, the council observed.
But the council pointed out that while talking to journalists in India, Mr Holbrooke denied that he was pushing for new peace dialogue between India and Pakistan.
The US think-tank reported that on Tuesday rifts emerged between Mr Holbrooke and his negotiating counterparts in Pakistan, as Islamabad flatly rejected a proposal for joint military operations in Pakistan’s tribal areas.
According to the report, Mr Holbrooke and Admiral Mullen also alleged that the Taliban’s senior leadership was currently hiding in Balochistan.
The Foreign Policy magazine noted that the US administration justified the drone attacks by claiming it would deny the militants a ‘safe haven’ in Pakistan.
‘This line of argument sounds persuasive, but it falls apart on closer examination. For starters, it is not clear that al Qaeda requires a safe haven to do damage, especially since the original organisation has metastasised into smaller groups of sympathisers.’
The magazine pointed out that only a large-scale invasion could eliminate al Qaeda from the region but such an invasion was impossible and therefore there was little reason to continue the drone attacks.
‘US military strikes in Pakistan —even limited ones —tend to undermine the Pakistani government and increase the risk that Pakistan will become a failed state,’ the report noted.
On differences between Pakistan and the US over India, the Wall Street Journal pointed out that Washington was finding it difficult to ‘pursue a cohesive strategy that eradicates militancy in Pakistan and Afghanistan but doesn’t heighten tensions among three countries whose shared history is rife with violence and mutual suspicion’.
The newspaper reported that US policy-makers initially considered including Kashmir as part of the US strategy but India balked.
‘US officials subsequently have taken discussion about Kashmir off the table, even though it remains a central flashpoint in tensions between India and Pakistan,’ the newspaper noted. ‘Pakistani officials have complained that the US needs to consider all conflicts in the region as it seeks to solve them.’
http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect...bamas-new-strategy-sours-us-pakistan-ties--bi
Last edited by a moderator:
