But when that talk is coming from a newspaper of a country where the army has been known to scam the whole country into dictatorship for 50% of its existence, it becomes a little hypocritical.
Maybe a little less hypocritical than the Indian press which relegates news of its own domestic Naxalite insurgency, raging over 7-10 times the land area and involving a far greater number of people than anything the Taliban have been able to pull off, to the inside pages, while providing prime banner space to the Pak-Afghan border
Or perhaps significantly less hypocritical than an India that talks about the presence of anti-india "terrorists" in Pakistan, while over more than two decades it played host to and was the principal source of funding for Tamil terrorists and the LTTE.
From your response, I can see you got worked up in a tizzy, but let's not get into name calling please. That can cut both ways and it serves very little purpose in advancing the discussion.
Also, it may be your view that the Army has "scammed the whole country into dictatorship", but that would just mean you know nothing about Pakistan, unfortunately. While their measures were extra constitutional, Army takeovers in Pakistan have never been undemocratic. They have always enjoyed the overwhelming support of the masses, to the point where these takeovers have always been completely smooth and bloodless. This is not your typical coup, and characterizing it as such exposes either incompetence or byzantine intent.
About Obama's true views on Pakistan, well, I dont know those since unlike the author I am not privvy to them
His best friend and roommate from college, a Pakistani, does claim to know them. Obama has reflected on his association with Pakistan/Pakistanis himself. Net-net, he is not inimical towards us and will not do anything tangible to advance India's agenda against Pakistan either.
I dont know about you, but if some one talks about my country as a possible unstable and failed state, I would consider that undermining
Perhaps you are hearing what you want to hear, because I can't find a reference to Obama calling Pakistan a failed state anywhere in the transcript(s). Why exaggerate to make a non-existent point? It just looks desperate.
I am really not too interested in the list of crimes in which USA has been Pakistan's partner in the past.
Good. But, the USA is certainly interested in these crimes. Enough to make a major motion picture out of the story
Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and the entire top US military leadership have accepted and acknowledged the US role in all of these "crimes", and they also understand that shirking their responsibility for the second time is not in their own national interest. That was the whole justification for the long term nature of KL and other programmes the US initiated with Pakistan.
However, its pretty sad that your country has been called a safe haven of terrorism so often by the world, that the phrase has stopped having any impact. Getting aid to remove terrorists from
India was a terrorist safe haven for Tamil separatists who killed thousands of people in Sri Lanka. Many on the world stage railed on about that. India ended up sending troops to Sri Lanka, an exercise whose conclusion was disaster. Net-net, large countries with regional and extra regional interests pursue their interests despite name calling. Ditto for Pakistan. What is important is not the names we are called, but whether what happens is in our interest or not. The US were called all sorts of names when they decided to march into Iraq. They felt it was in their national interests so they did it despite everything. Let's not get so caught up in rhetoric that we fail to distinguish meaningful developments from the two bit crap spun together by some hack to placate the average idiot on the street.
So far, on this issue of "safe havens" the US' interests are *not* aligned with India. The US is only concerned with NWA. The end game there is nigh and the recent infusion of $2B of military aid suggests that things are going well, despite what is said or written.
India's interests concern Kashmir and associated groups. What was characterized by an Indian scribe as the new "Intifadah" in Kashmir should give you a clue as to whether US, Indian or Martian pressure has changed the ground reality in Kashmir... and please, no segues on Kashmir here. The point is that the US is not going to pressure Pakistan tangibly to do anything which would be beneficial for India. That is the implication people in India are drawing from Obama's comments and I think it is horse manure.
within your borders must look like a deal sweetner to you, but from where I stand the resulting situation despite billions of dollars of aid in last decade is not good at all.
I see your point. And certainly if you listen to the superficial conversation, it is all about Zardari-this and Nawaz-Sharif-that. In other words, stories concerning politicians and their idiocies occupy the airwaves. I might add, that while Pakistanis are certainly pretty "hard on themselves", to borrow a quote from the outgoing US Ambassador to Pakistan, ala Rod Blagojevich, politicians will be politicians in the most developed of countries. What interests me more, and I think what counts more, is the strategic direction Pakistan is presently headed in.
In that respect, I see certain defining variables:
1) In its own right, Pakistan is the world's 6th most populous country, and one of the few nations at the cusp of benefiting from a tremendous demographic dividend. Moreover, with less than half the population density of India, Pakistan can deliver far greater resources per-capita than its neighbor. Over the long term, I don't care whether Pakistan develops 5 years faster than India, at the same time or 5 years later. The fact is that with at least twice the per-capita resource availability, the intrinsic potential in Pakistan is far greater in terms of delivering a higher quality of life to its citizenry. These are facts which stem from geographic and demographic realities, not transient factoids that change from week to week on the back page of The Economist. Net-net, Pakistan cannot be ignored. Despite the currently in vogue bad-boy image, everyone is doing business with Pakistan and will continue to do so. Moreover, this business will be done on mutually acceptable terms. Exhibit A, NATO supplies. Exhibit B, the development of weapons despite the wishes of an unnamed "lobby" and hundreds of "Oooo Islamic bomb" articles and books being published in the west. The list is long, but you get the point.
2) China is the ascendant power and this is the Chinese century. Yes, India is also growing, and so are Brazil, Indonesia and Russia. But it is not possible for any of these states to match China, nor do they appear to be interested in taking on China, with the exception of India.
3) The US is slowly weakening. They will need significant - and I mean *significant* - financial support, help with job creation and trade imbalance assistance. As it stands, the US is going to be running trillion+ $ deficits as far as the eye can see. Short of the Arab countries who have trillions parked in their coffers, China is the only country that holds a serious solution to these problems. The value of the yuan is an incredibly important lever and control of it rests 100% with the Chinese. With over $2T in dollar reserves, and as the largest buyer of T-bills, they have the greatest ability to finance the US economy. As the country with which the US runs its greatest trade deficit, China can help mitigate imbalances more so than any other country. And so on... so China is going to be far more critical to the US than any other single nation. I doubt the US will take China on in deference to the interests of a third country.
4) In its growing "assertiveness" (not my word), China is making very significant strategic moves, many of which hinge on Pakistan. For example, when it was met with hemming and hawing on the issue of supplying Pakistan with 300/350MW nuclear reactors, it announced that it would up the ante and provide a 1GW reactor. And then it raised the stakes further by announcing a fifth nuclear plant that would be exported to Pakistan. The Gwadar port is going to be handed over to the Chinese pending the Supreme Court's decision on the incorrect award to a Singaporean company. These days the Karakoram highway is being widened to a super-highway and extended all the way down into Gwadar... these are things that are happening this very second. And finally you have the "Pakistan is our Israel" comment which has been discussed in quite some detail here. So, Pakistan's interests are well looked after for the next 100+ years.
There were similar doubts and ridiculing comments that were made prior to the Nuclear deal. We all know how that ended up. I agree that UNSC is not solely an American stake, but then from India's point of view, now its 4 down, 1 to go. Better than 3 down 2 to go.. Dont you think??
Actually, no. Because it isn't "4 down" at all. You are repeatedly missing the point. There is no independent resolution or standalone modification designed to integrate India alone into the SC. If that were the case, then yes, you would be right about "4 down 1 to go". As it stands, the US, China... heck everyone... is hinging India's integration into the SC on overall structural reforms. These reforms will be multidimensional, complex and will involve additional players obtaining SC seats, not just India. So therefore, since even a straw-man for these structural reforms has not yet been articulated - much less agreed to - there is no "4 down". Hypothetically, if China or Russia argue for an Arab League seat, or an OIC seat, and make that part of the reform, and say the US or UK are uncomfortable with this, then what? Do you have 4 votes or 3 votes or no votes? If France has a problem with Germany getting a seat, then what? If Russia or China veto Japan (with whom they both have territorial and otherwise fairly nasty disputes), then what?
The question on which Perm Members will deliberate and vote has not even been *framed* yet. So to count their votes is ridiculous.
I dont know how it works in Pakistan, but for India, I am pretty thrilled that the president of the strongest country in the world travels to India to sell its wares. Speaks a bit about the growing economic might of India.
Anyway, any country i know of will prefer the president of America coming in to sell American products instead of sending in his generals to ask it to do more about removing terrorist havens from its borders.[/QUOTE]
