Obama's New Policy Souring US-Pak relationship?

[IceCold]

This kind of stance should had been adopted along ago in order to make US realize what's at stake and GOP and PA should not be taken for granted. As far as India's role is concerned in the tribal areas of Pakistan, it should be highlighted to not just the US but to all parties which are included in Afghanistan and China and Russia. Let the Americans face the heat too for turning a blind eye to India's terrorism activities inside Pakistan.

 

[muse]

Avoiding meltdown



Thursday, April 09, 2009
Ikram Sehgal

A comprehensive review of overall US policy by the Obama administration notwithstanding, many independent entities have undertaken such analyses. One such exercise is "The Strategy for Stability of Afghanistan-Pakistan" by the Asia Society, appropriately labelled "Back from the Brink?" A commendable effort even at a cursory glance, it needs more thorough study before commenting. Thanks to an extraordinary American called Dr Jeffrey Starr, I could engage in interactive discussions in both Washington DC and in New York, it was refreshing to see both openness and candour unfortunately missing during the Bush years. Contrary views then could quickly make you an outcast, neither seen nor heard, nor heard from, this despite the enduring American penchant for "fair play."

Corrective measures are considered necessary, unfortunately some cannot wait. The Pakistan Army must get over its hang-up of not accepting the US offer for counter-insurgency (CI) training. That FC can fulfil this role is a non-starter, it can at best support the Army in its operations. Not having many US trainers on the ground in Pakistan in the prevailing anti-American environment is understandable. Nevertheless, the US offer to train Pakistani trainers must be accepted without delay. Officers must be sent to designated US counter-insurgency training establishments, simultaneously a CI facility must be readied at a convenient location within Pakistan. The funds earmarked must be purposefully spent on equipment meant for CI, including helicopters, night-vision devices, electronic tracking devices, communications equipment, sophisticated jamming devices. CI requires military success to go hand in hand with political and socio-economic initiatives. The best example is CIA's Hank Crumpton (later ambassador) and his merry band of 300-plus with suitcases full of US dollars and wish lists air-dropped on demand, they did more to mobilise the tribals against the Taliban and Al-Qaeda at the beginning of the Afghan War in 2001 successfully, in contrast to the tens of thousands of soldiers who followed. Take the Army/FC operations in Bajaur. You cannot quell such uprisings simply by flattening villages. they create considerable collateral damage as well as another wave of internal refugees.

An independent force must counter terrorism wherever it may be, in the mountains or in the urban areas. Neither the Pakistan Army nor the civilian law enforcement agencies (LEAs) are presently capable of fighting terrorism in its full dimension. It is simply not their role and function to take on the terrorist's logistics and infrastructure. The mission orientation of this Counter-Terrorism Force (CTF) must give it a specialised Tables of Organisation and Equipment (TO&E). Because of the nature and extent of the threat, a permanent establishment must draw its rank and file from the Armed Forces, LEAs and paramilitary forces, with its own integral logistics, air dynamics, inherent intelligence capability, and tasked with no other mission except fighting terrorism. This includes not doing escort and guard duties for VIPs (and those who consider themselves VIPs). Such manpower must have an option to return to the parent service during their first year in the CTF. The present threat perception requires a minimum force of brigade-sized combat teams, each for FATA, Dir/Bajaur, Swat and Balochistan, with battalion-sized teams each for Islamabad Capital Territory, Central/Southern Punjab and Sindh. Aviation support teams should be positioned in the nearest airbases in proximity to the area of operations.

The most generous nation on Earth, the US, has fallen grievously in the esteem of the world. While this includes Pakistanis, the moot question conversely is, can we as Pakistanis survive the anti-Pakistan animosity that is sweeping the US mass perception that most would terrorism has its origins in Pakistan? Visiting the US over the past fortnight has been both a rewarding and mortifying experience. The video images of the girl being flogged by the Taliban in Swat added fuel to the fire. For those of us who believe we can get out a more moderate message to an increasingly skeptical world, this despicable and unexplainable atrocity left us at an utter loss for words. The reaction in most of the civilised world was to be expected, assuaged somewhat by the spate of protests organised by outraged civil society within Pakistan. Most countries can survive political and economic sanctions, social ostracisation will lead to virtual isolation, will further exacerbate the inherent identity problems within the country. Has a point been reached where we may well be beyond redemption?
Australian David Kilcullen, advisor on counter-terrorism to Gen David Petraeus, gives only six months for the Pakistani State to collapse, at least according to a recent quote in The New York Times. One has great respect for David Kilcullen's sagacity as well as his undeniable relative success in Iraq, but to paraphrase Mark Twain, his prophecy of Pakistan's imminent demise is greatly exaggerated. The perception of impending doom may be pervasive among the average American, this less than pessimistic view is not shared by most of those presently contributing to shaping US policy. Nevertheless they are apprehensive that the situation may spiral from bad to worse if immediate corrective measures are not taken. On the other hand, their compromising of ideals which Americans cherish but fail to apply to Pakistan leads to singular confusion in choosing the right partners on the ground in Pakistan. This has a disconnect with both the Pakistani intelligentsia and masses.

The Pakistani people are looking for a better quality of life, the delivery of justice exceeds all other aspirations. Accountability of governance is part of the justice system. We may have inadvertently turned this corner on March 15 when mob justice rather than the rule of law restored the chief justice back to his rightful place in the Supreme Court. Knowing he is riding a tiger, the CJ's actions since have been mature and deliberate, he is fighting against time before the same mob justice brings down civilised society. Justice delayed is justice denied to the frustrated people of Pakistan. The NRO stands as a symbol of the rank injustice pervading the psyche of Pakistani society today.

Whether delivered by regular diplomats or successful practitioners of the art does not matter, of critical importance to Pakistan is that our moderate message must have positive effect. The major focus is in the US capital, Washington DC. Ambassador Haqqani is an effective lobbyist, the question is, can he put the interests of his mentor over that of the country? These have coincided till very recently, what happens when they diverge? Maybe Haqqani, who has changed ideological sides often, may be too smart for his own good in a city that quickly spots phonies. One would rather have in place a diplomat of credibility and stature, Haqqani could successfully service a contract for being the country's lobbyist in Washington DC. On the other hand patriotically motivated Husain Haroon has been a revelation in the UN, performing brilliantly in promoting Pakistan's cause over everything else.

When competent and credible democratic governance is allowed to function and given the necessary tools, Pakistan will be able to shoulder the responsibility of being the frontline State representing civilised society's endgame combating the evils of terrorism at ground zero.



The writer is a defence and political analyst. Email: isehgal@pathfinder9.com

 

[Munir]

The Pakistani are done with the US...


US aid bill seeks protection for India
By Anwar Iqbal
Friday, 10 Apr, 2009 | 12:29 AM PST |


Pakistan will have to undertake not to support any anti-India activities if it wants to qualify for US economic assistance.—Reuters
WASHINGTON: Pakistan will have to undertake not to support any person or group involved in activities meant to hurt India and to allow US investigators access to individuals suspected of engaging in nuclear proliferation if it wants to qualify for a threefold increase in US economic assistance.

The clause requiring such a pledge is incorporated in a bill moved in the US House of Representatives on April 2, seeking to provide $1.5 billion of annual assistance to Pakistan for a period of five years.

Clause (J) of the bill, called the Pakistan Enduring Assistance and Cooperation Enhancement or the PEACE Act of 2009, requires Pakistan ‘not to support any person or group that conducts violence, sabotage, or other activities meant to instil fear or terror in India.’

This means that Pakistan will have to ban all Kashmir groups involved in armed struggle in the valley against India.

Clause (K) of the bill binds Pakistan to ensure access of US investigators to ‘individuals suspected of engaging in worldwide proliferation of nuclear materials, and restrict such individuals from travel or any other activity that could result in further proliferation.’

If adopted, the act would enable US investigators to seek direct access to Dr A. Q. Khan and other members of his group accused of providing nuclear technology to Iran, Libya and North Korea.

The Indian lobby on Capitol Hill played a key role in including the two clauses into the bill and had formed a special task force for this purpose.

The Pakistani caucus, which once started as an effective lobbying group, has been rendered useless by the Pakistani Embassy in Washington. To ensure that it cannot function as an independent body, the embassy purged all senior people from a support group created to provide technical support to the caucus.

Consequently, the Pakistan caucus, which on papers has the support of almost 100 lawmakers, has become a non-functioning body with no clout on the Hill.

Although two separate bills are now being moved in the House and the Senate for tripling US economic assistance to Pakistan, the motivation for doing so did not come from the Pakistan Embassy or the lobbies.

The motivating force behind the move is America’s fear that if not helped, Pakistan, a nuclear nation of 170 million people, could turn into a safe haven for terrorists armed with atomic weapons.

The need for Pakistan’s help in fighting the Taliban and al Qaeda militants in Afghanistan and Fata also played a key role in motivating US lawmakers for seeking to increase the aid to Pakistan.

But this did not prevent the House members from seeking strict restrictions against Pakistan in return for the aid.

Clause (H) of the bill requires Pakistan not to provide any support, direction, guidance to, or acquiescence in the activities of, any person or group that engages in any degree in acts of violence or intimidation against civilians, civilian groups, or governmental entities.

Clause (I) needs Pakistan to redouble its efforts to prevent the presence of the Taliban and Taliban-affiliated groups in Pakistan that support insurgents in Afghanistan.

To ensure transparency and provide effective accountability of all US assistance and reimbursements provided to Pakistan, the bill wants Islamabad to improve counterterrorism financing and anti-money laundering laws to comply with international standards, to include applying for ‘Financial Action Task Force’ observer status and adhering to the United Nations International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism.

The task force is an inter-governmental body whose purpose is the development and promotion of national and international policies to combat money laundering and terrorist financing.

The bill also requires Pakistan to take all appropriate measures to adapt its armed forces to be able to conduct effective and sustained counterinsurgency and counterterrorism operations.

The bill, however, also recognises Pakistan as an invaluable friend and ally to the United States, ‘both in times of strife and in times of peace.’

It notes that the two countries share many common goals, including combating terrorism and violent radicalism, solidifying democracy and rule of law in Pakistan, and promoting the social and material well-being of the people of Pakistan.

The bill assures the Pakistani people that the United States seeks a ‘sustained, long-term, multifaceted relationship’ with Pakistan based on friendship between the peoples of the two countries, the commitment to democracy and the rule of law, and the mutual interests of stability, security, and prosperity.

‘It is critical for the United States to support Pakistan's democratic government and strengthen its democratic institutions, including its parliament and the judicial system,’ the bill notes.

The bill also makes it clear that the United States supports Pakistan's struggle against extremist elements and ‘recognises the profound sacrifice made by Pakistan in the fight against terrorism, including the loss of more than 1,600 soldiers since 2001 in combat with al Qaeda, the Taliban, and other extremist and terrorist groups.’

 

[TruthSeeker]

Avoiding meltdown

The most generous nation on Earth, the US, has fallen grievously in the esteem of the world. While this includes Pakistanis, the moot question conversely is, can we as Pakistanis survive the anti-Pakistan animosity that is sweeping the US mass perception that most would terrorism has its origins in Pakistan?

One of the main reasons that I joined this forum is because of the above perception. I have been interested in the problems of US Middle Eastern policies for the past 30 years, beginning with the seizure of US diplomats in Tehran, then through all the kidnappings in Beriut, on and on terrorist incidents, culminating in 9/11. I became convinced that Pakistan held the key to solving the problem of how to find a way of peacefully "co-existing" with Muslim nations. If we can be true friends and collaborators with Pakistan, then we can be with most other Muslim nations. Hardly any of my American friends and neighbors know anything about the issues discussed every day here. None has read the 30 or 40 books about it that I have. But, I would say, most, shake their heads when Pakistan is mentioned and say something like: "They are really screwed up!" For many years since 1979, Iranian Americans have preferred to call themselves "Persians" rather than as having come from Iran. I think the reticence to self-identify oneself as "Pakistani" is beginning here. I hear "South Asian" now sometimes.

 

[ajpirzada]

The Pakistani are done with the US...


US aid bill seeks protection for India
By Anwar Iqbal
Friday, 10 Apr, 2009 | 12:29 AM PST |


Pakistan will have to undertake not to support any anti-India activities if it wants to qualify for US economic assistance.—Reuters
WASHINGTON: Pakistan will have to undertake not to support any person or group involved in activities meant to hurt India and to allow US investigators access to individuals suspected of engaging in nuclear proliferation if it wants to qualify for a threefold increase in US economic assistance.

The clause requiring such a pledge is incorporated in a bill moved in the US House of Representatives on April 2, seeking to provide $1.5 billion of annual assistance to Pakistan for a period of five years.

Clause (J) of the bill, called the Pakistan Enduring Assistance and Cooperation Enhancement or the PEACE Act of 2009, requires Pakistan ‘not to support any person or group that conducts violence, sabotage, or other activities meant to instil fear or terror in India.’

This means that Pakistan will have to ban all Kashmir groups involved in armed struggle in the valley against India.

Clause (K) of the bill binds Pakistan to ensure access of US investigators to ‘individuals suspected of engaging in worldwide proliferation of nuclear materials, and restrict such individuals from travel or any other activity that could result in further proliferation.’

If adopted, the act would enable US investigators to seek direct access to Dr A. Q. Khan and other members of his group accused of providing nuclear technology to Iran, Libya and North Korea.

The Indian lobby on Capitol Hill played a key role in including the two clauses into the bill and had formed a special task force for this purpose.

The Pakistani caucus, which once started as an effective lobbying group, has been rendered useless by the Pakistani Embassy in Washington. To ensure that it cannot function as an independent body, the embassy purged all senior people from a support group created to provide technical support to the caucus.

Consequently, the Pakistan caucus, which on papers has the support of almost 100 lawmakers, has become a non-functioning body with no clout on the Hill.

Although two separate bills are now being moved in the House and the Senate for tripling US economic assistance to Pakistan, the motivation for doing so did not come from the Pakistan Embassy or the lobbies.

The motivating force behind the move is America’s fear that if not helped, Pakistan, a nuclear nation of 170 million people, could turn into a safe haven for terrorists armed with atomic weapons.

The need for Pakistan’s help in fighting the Taliban and al Qaeda militants in Afghanistan and Fata also played a key role in motivating US lawmakers for seeking to increase the aid to Pakistan.

But this did not prevent the House members from seeking strict restrictions against Pakistan in return for the aid.

Clause (H) of the bill requires Pakistan not to provide any support, direction, guidance to, or acquiescence in the activities of, any person or group that engages in any degree in acts of violence or intimidation against civilians, civilian groups, or governmental entities.

Clause (I) needs Pakistan to redouble its efforts to prevent the presence of the Taliban and Taliban-affiliated groups in Pakistan that support insurgents in Afghanistan.

To ensure transparency and provide effective accountability of all US assistance and reimbursements provided to Pakistan, the bill wants Islamabad to improve counterterrorism financing and anti-money laundering laws to comply with international standards, to include applying for ‘Financial Action Task Force’ observer status and adhering to the United Nations International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism.

The task force is an inter-governmental body whose purpose is the development and promotion of national and international policies to combat money laundering and terrorist financing.

The bill also requires Pakistan to take all appropriate measures to adapt its armed forces to be able to conduct effective and sustained counterinsurgency and counterterrorism operations.

The bill, however, also recognises Pakistan as an invaluable friend and ally to the United States, ‘both in times of strife and in times of peace.’

It notes that the two countries share many common goals, including combating terrorism and violent radicalism, solidifying democracy and rule of law in Pakistan, and promoting the social and material well-being of the people of Pakistan.

The bill assures the Pakistani people that the United States seeks a ‘sustained, long-term, multifaceted relationship’ with Pakistan based on friendship between the peoples of the two countries, the commitment to democracy and the rule of law, and the mutual interests of stability, security, and prosperity.

‘It is critical for the United States to support Pakistan's democratic government and strengthen its democratic institutions, including its parliament and the judicial system,’ the bill notes.

The bill also makes it clear that the United States supports Pakistan's struggle against extremist elements and ‘recognises the profound sacrifice made by Pakistan in the fight against terrorism, including the loss of more than 1,600 soldiers since 2001 in combat with al Qaeda, the Taliban, and other extremist and terrorist groups.’

well US is tellin us in the nicest possible way to not accept their money. if gov does accept the aid under such terms, which i hope it wont, then all our efforts will go in vein... it will be a major blunder commited by any civilian gov. we should stop cooperating with them and then deal with these different groups in our own way. the more we cooperate the more it will become our war which is wat US wants. they have already succeeded in shiftin the battlefield from afghanistan to fata.
long live

 

[fatman17]

insight: Rethinking the alliance —Ejaz Haider

The US cannot be trusted as an honest broker between India and Pakistan. Its tilt towards India is very clear and its policies and approach towards Pakistan are a clear proof of that

Check out the text of the Pakistan Enduring Assistance and Cooperation Enhancement (PEACE) Act of 2009, officially titled HR 1886, introduced by Rep. Howard Berman (D-CA) on April 2 and currently referred to the committee. (see H.R. 1886: To authorize democratic, economic, and social development assistance for Pakistan, to authorize... (GovTrack.us))

If this bill did not relate to a serious issue in the backdrop of a very grim situation facing Pakistan and this region, one might have dismissed it as a bad joke. While it would be an essential exercise to deconstruct it clause by clause to lay bare its intent, and one hopes the Foreign Office will do exactly that, it is important here to at least point to what is obvious.

First, the bill and some of its clauses, especially those pertaining to India’s interest, are the work of Indian lobbying. That, one should, without any grudge, say is excellent work from India’s perspective. Equally, one might ask what effort, if any, was made by us to thwart India’s designs.

The question, however, is this: should the United States be dealing with Pakistan on the basis of its (US) interests or India’s? The question, at this stage, assumes quite arbitrarily that US interests vis-à-vis Pakistan may be different from India’s. Increasing evidence may even put paid to this assumption but for now we shall not touch upon that.

One may also assume that given the Obama administration’s own rhetoric, the US faces a grave threat in the region, which it cannot tackle without Pakistan’s help. Logically this means that the US should be trying to find points of convergence with Pakistan. Coming up with a bill that does not even purport to hide its India tilt is a strange way of doing that.

Let’s consider Sec 4, Declaration of Principles, Clause 6, sub-clauses (H), (I), (J) and (K), in reverse order.

Sub-clause (J) of the bill requires Pakistan “not to support any person or group that conducts violence, sabotage, or other activities meant to instil fear or terror in India”. This could have been drafted by India. But let’s deconstruct it.

Seems fine; no? The fine-print is a different story. Given terrorist attacks within Pakistan and the degree of difficulty in tackling the menace, how can Pakistan be expected to ensure India will not be attacked and how would it be determined, and by whom, that Pakistan is “allowing” some groups to attack India — New Delhi?

Once again, we are not even getting into the issue of what India might be doing and how might it be funding and supporting not just the Baloch nationalists but also those terrorist groups that are attacking security forces in FATA and elsewhere.

As I wrote in this space last Saturday (“Terrorism and its discontents”; Daily Times, April 4) in relation to our discussion at an India-Pakistan conference in Bangkok, “What is...troublesome...is determining whether blame for a particular terrorist act can be laid at the door of the state of Pakistan. How and who is to trace the spoor; who would determine the intent behind the exercise and what role is [India’s] domestic politics likely to play in such an exercise, as it did during and after Mumbai?”

This conditionality means Pakistan will always be the villain until it proves itself innocent. Do we want the money and this assistance, notwithstanding its apparent generosity, with this conditionality? I don’t know about official Pakistan but as far as I am concerned, no.

Consider sub-clause (K) of the bill. It binds Pakistan “to ensure access of United States investigators to individuals suspected of engaging in worldwide proliferation of nuclear materials, and restrict such individuals from travel or any other activity that could result in further proliferation”.

Well...Dr AQ Khan again! That episode, gentlemen, is over. Dr Khan has been sidelined and punished; Pakistan has taken measures to ensure that no one can do such a thing again; other states whose nationals were involved in the racket have still to come clean on what was going on; proliferation is an area where all nuclear weapon states have some blot on them, and that includes the US; credible reports from US experts have proven proliferation by India and so on, thank you.

And yes, like the US, we like to try our defaulters ourselves.

Sub-clauses (H) and (I) of the bill require Pakistan “not to provide any support, direction, guidance to, or acquiescence in the activities of any person or group that engages in any degree in acts of violence or intimidation against civilians, civilian groups, or governmental entities”; and “to redouble its efforts to prevent the presence of the Taliban and Taliban-affiliated groups in Pakistan that support insurgents in Afghanistan”.

Very well. Once again, who will determine that Pakistan is successfully and/or sincerely doing this? Given the complexity of what is happening in this region and the different and differing interests of various players, what benchmarks are to be used by the US to make such a determination?

As I mentioned above, there is much sting in this bill and the FO will have the occasion to go clause by clause to debate that and formulate an appropriate response. But one thing should be clear: the US cannot be trusted as an ally that can act as an honest broker between India and Pakistan. Its tilt towards India is very clear and its policies and approach towards Pakistan are a clear proof of that.

I shall have occasion to get to that in a subsequent piece. But this bill is a piece of legislation that Pakistan must reject categorically and unequivocally. More than that, however, we need to rethink our terms of alliance with the US and for that we need to develop a coherent national response.

Ejaz Haider is Consulting Editor of The Friday Times and Op-Ed Editor of Daily Times. He can be reached at sapper@dailytimes.com.pk

 

[muse]

Silver lining in Pakistan
Gulfnews: Silver lining in Pakistan

04/11/2009 10:54 PM | By Farhan Bokhari, Special to Gulf News



Pakistan's worsening security situation means that terrorist attacks continue to exact a human cost, though there are early signs of a silver lining emerging.

In the past week, an emerging consensus on the need to forge a comprehensive national security strategy marks a qualitative improvement in the way the country plans to deal with the menace of terrorism.

For many Pakistanis, the hope is to see a broad national agreement on the best ways of dealing with what clearly appears to be the single greatest threat to the country's integrity since it was created 62 years ago.

In the past year alone, the qualitative deterioration in security conditions has been more than palpable. Attacks by militants during this time have spread from the North-West Frontier Province (NWFP) to Punjab province - a transition that takes militancy from Pakistan's relatively peripheral areas to the core of its heartland.

The NWFP borders Afghanistan, and has been the scene of continuing violence for almost 30 years since troops from the former Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan. However, Punjab, which is home to more than 60 per cent of Pakistan's population, has been relatively calm.

But just in the past week, the pressure on Punjab has been evident from two inter-related events. On the one hand, widespread security fears were evoked when the Pakistani authorities warned against possible attacks in the city of Faisalabad - the nerve centre of Pakistan's industrial sector, where some of the country's largest factories are located.

And on Friday, authorities managing schools for the children of the prosperous elite in Islamabad, the Pakistani capital, ordered a partial closure of campuses following threats of attacks by militants. Though Islamabad is theoretically outside the limits of Punjab, it is nevertheless surrounded mostly by that province. Are elite schools in Punjab now going to be a target for militants? To that compelling question, there are as yet no easy answers, though the concerns are growing rapidly on this front too.

Though Pakistan's top decision-makers may appear to be waking up to the challenge their country faces, there are a number of underlying trends, both historical and present day, which need to be examined.

Pakistan traditionally reacts slowly, typically only when a threat has knocked at the doors of Punjab - the most populous and prosperous province. This has to change for the best interests of the country.

Instead of being compelled to react only when the interests of Punjab are under threat, Pakistan needs to react immediately and with full force to a threat anywhere across its three smaller provinces. Indeed, militancy affected the NWFP and the southwestern province of Balochistan, long before it touched Punjab. The decision to forge a national security strategy, however, came only after Punjab became the target of militant attacks.

There are indeed issues of economic interest which are relevant to the way Pakistan has developed. Punjab has historically experienced a much faster pace of development than Balochistan or the NWFP. The pace of development in the southern province of Sindh has been significantly behind that of Punjab, except for the port city of Karachi, where the developmental process has accelerated largely due to its status as Pakistan's largest urban centre.

This uneven development has provoked criticism from nationalists outside Punjab, who contend the government has neglected the political periphery.

In the final analysis, any solution to the problems facing Pakistan has to tackle not only the present-day challenges, but also the country's history and internal politics. Unless that reconciliation takes place on a broad front, and deals with delicate political and compelling economic factors, Pakistan's future will be in doubt.

The scourge of terrorism that confronts Pakistan has claimed too many lives. But if in the wake of this turmoil, a new process of nation-building begins in earnest, there is every chance for Pakistan to head towards becoming a prospering nation with the ability to overcome its increasingly bloody present.

Farhan Bokhari is a Pakistan-based commentator who writes on political and economic matters.

 

[sohailbutt]

I was here to listen: Kerry​

ISLAMABAD: Congressman John Kerry repeatedly stressed that he was in Pakistan to listen to what its leaders and people had to say and that he wanted to move forward a positive agenda.

Kerry held a joint press conference with Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi Monday. When asked about the drone attacks and anti-American sentiment, he said that he had heard the complaint "loud and clear" and he would convey it back to Washington where it would be reviewed.

When asked about the recent ISI comments, he replied that he had just had a fruitful meeting with Maj. Gen. Shuja Pasha.

Earlier in the day, Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani told Senator John Kerry that relations between Pakistan and the US should be based on trust.

Kashmir was the main reason why Pakistan and India could not pursue more favourable relations. It was a problem that had not been fixed in six decades.

Congressman Kerry said that the Kerry-Lugar bill's purpose was to improve Pakistan's socio-economic conditions with a special focus on health and education. The bill is being debated by Congress.

AGENCIES ADD: Pakistan accused the United States and the West on Monday of generating "ill will" and warned US Senator John Kerry against attaching conditions to a massive aid package.

The chairman of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee has backed a bill that would triple economic assistance for Pakistan, a key US ally in the fight against Islamist militants, to 7.5 billion dollars over five years.

But Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani criticised conditions attached to the package.

Although the bill meets some long-standing requests for military equipment, it requires the White House to certify that Pakistan is fighting terror and that its military and intelligence services do not support extremists.

Pakistan must also close all terror camps in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas and work to prevent cross-border attacks into Afghanistan.

But a statement from Gilani's office quoted the prime minister as saying: "The US should not attach conditionalities to the assistance package being presented to the US Congress, as aid with strings attached would fail to generate the desired goodwill and results in Pakistan."

Relations between Pakistan and the United States should be based on "mutual respect and mutual trust and both sides should work together to reduce the trust deficit," Gilani said.

"The prime minister also pointed out that the negative messaging emanating from the US and the West was generating ill will," the statement added.

US officials have publicly criticised Pakistan's powerful intelligence services -- which have a history of supporting Islamist militants to fight in Indian-controlled Kashmir and in Afghanistan -- for supporting extremists.

Pakistan is also deeply opposed to drone attacks -- about 37 of which have killed more than 360 people since August 2008 -- saying they violate its territorial sovereignty and deepen resentment in the nuclear-armed nation.

US drone attacks and "collateral damage" were impeding Pakistan's efforts to eradicate Islamist militancy and terror, Gilani said.

Meanwhile, President Asif Ali Zardari's office said Kerry and Zardari met to discuss various issues, including economic challenges and the "war on terror."

Zardari called financial aid "essential" and requested the swift passage of the aid bill and legislation to create reconstruction opportunity zones in violence-torn tribal areas bordering Afghanistan.

"Generous support from the international community will help (in) strengthening democracy in the country," Zardari said.

The US embassy in Islamabad confirmed only that Kerry was in the country for meetings with Pakistani leaders and representatives of civil society.

US President Barack Obama has put Pakistan at the centre of the fight against Al-Qaeda under a new strategy to turn around the flagging Afghan war.

.:: SAMAA - I was here to listen: Kerry

 

[Bill Longley]

Pakistans biggest problem is US of A

where ever this <edit> goes there is blood and suffering

from Japan to Vietnam....from Iraq to Afghanistan ....from latin america to white occupied America..... there is blood of Innocents

God bless the world and free us from American blood thirst

 

[white_pawn]

See Bill Longley, thing are oath to happen and sooner the dominence of USA is going to vanish and someone else would be in or could be multi polar system will be in. Not sure

 

[Bill Longley]

friend
multipoler world is better than this uni polor
i some time regret that we Pakistanies helped US of A to distroy Soviats

 

[white_pawn]

Ya definately it could be but there are these 2 options multipolar or uni polar. Who knows what would be the out come.

Multipolar would be good option as the desigens will be made with willingness of all countries not a single country.

 

[IceCold]

friend
multipoler world is better than this uni polor
i some time regret that we Pakistanies helped US of A to distroy Soviats

The blunder started when Liquat Ali Khan sb decided to visit US instead of Russia even though Russia was more closer interms of its geo strategic location and Liquat sb were being invited to Russia, he rejected and went to the US from there it starts and well the situation from that day continued to deteriorate, Russians helped India splitting Pakistan up, we helped the Americans splitting Russia up and now look where we are in a uni polor world with the US being the sole super power dictating its terms as it deems fit. A huge mistake and i don't understand what more price will we have to pay before we can rectify this mistake of ours.

 

[notorious_eagle]

The relationship will obviousally going to sour, the Americans want us to do more to fight the militants but dont want to provide us with the resources to fight these terrorists. I dont know why our politicans are not screaming at the Americans to give us more resources and by resources i mean more money and better equipment. The Americans just want others to do more but dont want to put their a** on the line. As long as they still keep acting arrogant like this, i reckon just like the Soviets they will pack up and leave.

 

[S-2]

"The Americans just want others to do more but dont want to put their azz on the line."

We've lost over 4,000 soldiers in Iraq and over 700 in Afghanistan. Those men and women died 6,000 miles from home. We've over 200,000 troops in the gulf, Iraq, and Afghanistan. We do our part and then some.

How far are you? Every one of your dead soldiers has died on Pakistani soil. Let's not forget that.

I know I haven't.