Pak US; Tranactional Relationship

[S-2]

Jana,

"The Supplies and logistical support to NATO are being sent through other routes already so if currently they can do it without Gwadar they can do in future too."

Indeed. Karachi, I believe, is the port of destination now. Is there something special about Gwadar that precludes it's use for the same purpose that Karachi serves?

If a PLAN and Pakistani Navy restricted military facility, I'd understand Gwadar being closed to commercial shipping (including the commercial shipping of military goods to NATO in Afghanistan). That's not the case, is it?

Does Pakistan intend to convey the sovereignty of it's "crown jewel" to the PRC/PLAN?

"And who knows if US will be there in Afghanistan for the coming too many years."

Jana, we'll be in Afghanistan for some time. It's essential to understand that, unlike our European partners in NATO, we maintain a separate mission as well (OEF). This ensures our continuance in Afghanistan even should NATO depart. That's because Afghanistan is considerably more personal to Americans.

The sooner they get out the sooner it would be good for them as well as their intrests."

Our interests will be best served by a stable and secure Afghanistan. So would yours. You should encourage the legitimacy and strength of the Afghani gov't. Somebody has to govern. Why not Karzai? It starts somewhere. A democratic process means that all have equal access to the political process. While not perfect in Afghanistan, political conditions are markedly different and contentious. "Contentious", BTW, is good. Very good.

There's far too much wrong to leave, I think. No strong justice system. Poor policing. Corruption fueled by drug-money which binds an insidious network between the government officials, warlords, taliban, and traffickers. You should WANT NATO there, I'd think.

These are serious issues that deserve the attentions of other nations. It's been this way in Afghanistan for too long, regardless of whatever political facade adorns the surface.

Time for Afghanistan to grow up and join the rest of mankind. America will leave when matters are better, most likely. Not before. How long might that take, Jana? We're STILL in S. Korea.

 

[S-2]

"I think the Americans think they can buy off Pakistan by using military/economic aid as a tool for pressuring."

Buy Pakistan off from "what"? "Buying off" connotes pakistani blackmail upon the U.S., i.e., "if you don't pay me, I'll ...". What is Pakistan threatening to do were the U.S. not to provide military/economic aid? Go elsewhere? Please do. Stop fighting the WoT? Your choice-your nation. The war's come to you.

"Pakistan obviously doesn't like the relationship which is why it turns to China for everything now."

EVERYTHING? Fascinating.

"If China wanted to in the future, it could pressure Pakistan whether they have a stake in Gwadar or not."

Why would China attempt to "pressure" Pakistan? Isn't "pressuring" India sufficient for the near-term?

"Pakistan would be silly to side with the US over China."

Are you SUPPOSED to side with America over China? Are you SUPPOSED to side with China over America? Does that leave any time and energy to side with Pakistan over Pakistan?

"Who knows China's real interest in the project, but I don't see why it couldn't be used against the US. Obviously China would like its own trade route to the Arabian Sea, so that's probably its main interest."

I don't either-with Pakistan's permission. If a military facility for the sole use of the PLAN and Pakistan navy, the waters off Gwadar will be HEAVILY TRANSITED by the world's navies- notably the U.S. Navy and the Indian Navy. If a private commercial facility, it's impact is limited by the amount of goods and services passing through that port. Meanwhile, markets adjust easily around these modest obstructions.

"Whether the Chinese had in mind to block the US out of Central Asia, you'd need to ask Hu Jintao."

Who cares? Intended by the Chinese or not, America's there and will be for a while.

 

[roadrunner]

"I think the Americans think they can buy off Pakistan by using military/economic aid as a tool for pressuring."

Buy Pakistan off from "what"? "Buying off" connotes pakistani blackmail upon the U.S., i.e., "if you don't pay me, I'll ...". What is Pakistan threatening to do were the U.S. not to provide military/economic aid? Go elsewhere? Please do. Stop fighting the WoT? Your choice-your nation. The war's come to you.

Come now..That's not what I said. No need to put words in other people's mouths. America does believe it can throw money at Pakistan, and Pakistan will comply to a situation. Some senators believe it clearly. Money has very little to do with Musharraf's psyche. He is acting in Pakistan's interests. Whether the US supports him or not in his quest to rid Pakistan of Al Q is irrelevant. Musharraf, I believe would have done it regardless. A clean-up is required, and it's good that America is helping Musharraf with this. However, the mention of blackmail is nowhere within here..

"Pakistan obviously doesn't like the relationship which is why it turns to China for everything now."

EVERYTHING? Fascinating.

Everything of any technologically advanced nature comes from either China, or the French. America used to provide some reasonably advanced technology, but those days are long gone. Pakistan now has other sources.

"If China wanted to in the future, it could pressure Pakistan whether they have a stake in Gwadar or not."

Why would China attempt to "pressure" Pakistan? Isn't "pressuring" India sufficient for the near-term?

India is not a threat to Pakistan anymore. India cannot start a war with Pakistan, and Pakistan cannot with India. The bigger threat to Pakistan comes from Jihadis from the Muslim world and from America who would level the place using "tactical precision" if Pakistan does not comply.

"Pakistan would be silly to side with the US over China."

Are you SUPPOSED to side with America over China? Are you SUPPOSED to side with China over America? Does that leave any time and energy to side with Pakistan over Pakistan?

Lol, what?!?! All I meant there was that Pakistan is shifting away from being in the US's sphere of influence and into China's. It is necessary. The US for its own reasons is an ally of convenience towards Pakistan. It will help Pakistan if it will help America, but dump it and let it rot when it does not need it. China is much more all weather with the bonus it will be a superpower sometime soon. Why would Pakistan in its right mind want to deal with the Americans over the Chinese given these conditions?

"Who knows China's real interest in the project, but I don't see why it couldn't be used against the US. Obviously China would like its own trade route to the Arabian Sea, so that's probably its main interest."

I don't either-with Pakistan's permission. If a military facility for the sole use of the PLAN and Pakistan navy, the waters off Gwadar will be HEAVILY TRANSITED by the world's navies- notably the U.S. Navy and the Indian Navy. If a private commercial facility, it's impact is limited by the amount of goods and services passing through that port. Meanwhile, markets adjust easily around these modest obstructions.

It might be both military and private commerce. It's true that the international waters in the Indian Ocean have a lot of US presence, and that's exactly why the Chinese presence at Gwadar isn't going to go down well, since the Chinese Navy is expanding quite rapidly. It's a strategically important port. Why do you think the Soviets wanted Afghanistan? It wasn't for the love of Afghans.

"Whether the Chinese had in mind to block the US out of Central Asia, you'd need to ask Hu Jintao."

Who cares? Intended by the Chinese or not, America's there and will be for a while.

Perhaps. It depends how expensive each war is.

 

[roadrunner]

Our interests will be best served by a stable and secure Afghanistan. So would yours. You should encourage the legitimacy and strength of the Afghani gov't. Somebody has to govern. Why not Karzai?

Karzai is a puppet. Most people know it, even Musharraf has said it more or less that he is being told lies by his advisors. Karzai is a Pashtun puppet in a government dominated by Tajiks. Since Tajiks do not like Pakistan (they blame it for the Taliban, ironic considering the Taliban fought off the Soviet Union for them), the current Tajik dominated government is not a good choice for Pakistan. Put in a government that represents the country (mostly Pashtun in other words), then there'd probably be universal support from Pakistan.

 

[S-2]

"...Whether the US supports him or not in his quest to rid Pakistan of Al Q is irrelevant. Musharraf, I believe would have done it regardless. A clean-up is required, and it's good that America is helping Musharraf with this."

Yes. Very good. With America's help Musharraf can defeat muslim irhabists.

America's self-interests throughout south asia and the middle-east are best served by two central tenets- 1.) the continuing advancement and development of sound institutions of governance throughout the region and, 2.) the full integration of south and central asia into the global trading market, unfettered by restrictive or corrosive trade practices.

Achieving these objectives advance America's interests more than anything else we can likely do to improve our own personal well-being. I say so because successful and unfettered trading practices follow educated and productive citizens who are the products of good governance- both local and national in character. All the above insidiously supercede correlations of force between nations and ultimately render these conventional power- calculations null.

It is as it should be. Given time and mutual encouragement, all nations should foster a common respect for one another that could be proven by asking two questions-

"Would I trade with companies in X nation?"

"Would I feel personally safe traveling to X nation"

For most, a positive answer to both question says all you need to know about a country. By my American perspective, this envisioned outcome eventually obviates the need for U.S. forces in the region. What's difficult is gaining common concurrence by nations throughout the region who resist this perspective. I'm uncertain why except that it threatens the power and profit centers of the currently-vested elites by the whims of an educated voting populace. Over time, though, new and more transparently achieved power centers would arise. They always do. Transparent, though, means that they answer to the body politic for their decisions.

That would be a good thing.

 

[mujahideen]

"...Whether the US supports him or not in his quest to rid Pakistan of Al Q is irrelevant. Musharraf, I believe would have done it regardless. A clean-up is required, and it's good that America is helping Musharraf with this."

Yes. Very good. With America's help Musharraf can defeat muslim irhabists.

America's self-interests throughout south asia and the middle-east are best served by two central tenets- 1.) the continuing advancement and development of sound institutions of governance throughout the region and, 2.) the full integration of south and central asia into the global trading market, unfettered by restrictive or corrosive trade practices.

Achieving these objectives advance America's interests more than anything else we can likely do to improve our own personal well-being. I say so because successful and unfettered trading practices follow educated and productive citizens who are the products of good governance- both local and national in character. All the above insidiously supercede correlations of force between nations and ultimately render these conventional power- calculations null.

It is as it should be. Given time and mutual encouragement, all nations should foster a common respect for one another that could be proven by asking two questions-

"Would I trade with companies in X nation?"

"Would I feel personally safe traveling to X nation"

For most, a positive answer to both question says all you need to know about a country. By my American perspective, this envisioned outcome eventually obviates the need for U.S. forces in the region. What's difficult is gaining common concurrence by nations throughout the region who resist this perspective. I'm uncertain why except that it threatens the power and profit centers of the currently-vested elites by the whims of an educated voting populace. Over time, though, new and more transparently achieved power centers would arise. They always do. Transparent, though, means that they answer to the body politic for their decisions.

That would be a good thing.

The first part about America and whether or not President Musharraf would of cracked down on militants we cant say for sure. I personally doubt he would of cracked down on them, because if they didn't do anything to us or anyone why would we go and pick a fight with them. We only went in because of 9/11 so that the world wouldn't call Pakistan a safe heaven for terrorists.
Now the second part about the U.S. promoting "democracy" is the world is crap. The U.S. only knows one thing and that is business and personal wars. The U.S. is only interested in making money and expanding American monopoly all over the world. Pakistan has done the most for the U.S. then any other country and is still doing more for the U.S. then any other country and in return we get threats that we will be bombed, sanctions will be put on us, our aid will be cut off and various other threats. If the U.S. is really interested in promoting democracy it would of instead favored India over Pakistan. If you look at the track record of the U.S. in Pakistan, they have only been "Allies" with us when their is a dictator in power.

 

[S-2]

"Now the second part about the U.S. promoting "democracy" is the world is crap. The U.S. only knows one thing and that is business and personal wars. The U.S. is only interested in making money and expanding American monopoly all over the world."

We know business is better with democracies. Did you know that?

Mujihideen, is a free and transparent electoral process important to you? Do you WISH for representation by your choice? Are secular schools, good governance, free press, and decent courts worth paying taxes to attain and keep? Do these institutions make a stronger or weaker nation?

We think stronger. Much stronger. My point isn't "crap" at all. It is the essential fact of the matter and will liberate Pakistan when fully realized. Free and unfettered trade best follows those nations with educated citizens and good governance. A very real damn simple premise for America to endorse as a guiding principle. Many, many other nations buy into this lucrative premise as well.

 

[mujahideen]

We know business is better with democracies. Did you know that?

Mujihideen, is a free and transparent electoral process important to you? Do you WISH for representation by your choice? Are secular schools, good governance, free press, and decent courts worth paying taxes to attain and keep? Do these institutions make a stronger or weaker nation?

We think stronger. Much stronger. My point isn't "crap" at all. It is the essential fact of the matter and will liberate Pakistan when fully realized. Free and unfettered trade best follows those nations with educated citizens and good governance. A very real damn simple premise for America to endorse as a guiding principle. Many, many other nations buy into this lucrative premise as well.

Of course for you business with democracy is better even if blood needs to be traded for oil.
You talk of democracy how democratic is your society. When you go and vote for the President it is up to those 349 electorates to pick the President, your vote and my vote doesn't count. If you read American history even when a majority of vote for one candidate the electorate votes for another. In Congress how aware are you that your Congressman or Senator is corrupting up your system by taking money from PAC's, special interest groups and my favorite is pork of course their are many other corrupt ways as well. The people could care less about democracy they want peace, they want money, they want food, they want shelter, they want cloth, the want education, they want health care, they want stability, they want the rule of law to parvail, this is what the people want and they get all these things even in an undemocratic society and we have examples in history that even without democracy the government was able to provide the above and the people were happy.

 

[S-2]

"The people could care less about democracy they want peace, they want money, they want food, they want shelter, they want cloth, the want education, they want health care, they want stability, they want the rule of law to parvail, this is what the people want"

Mutually exclusive, eh?

 

[roadrunner]

Yes. Very good. With America's help Musharraf can defeat muslim irhabists.

I personally think that Musharraf can defeat them without the help of the US. It's just an expensive job plus some of the hardware comes in handy. If you want to really demonstrate the usefulness of the US, then the help given in the 2005 earthquake was helpful. The help given to clear out the radicals is helpful. The constant bickering and maligning your politicians and media do about Pakistan is not helpful. The freezing of Pakistani assets when Pakistan is of no interest to you is not helpful. The threats to bomb and invade are not helpful. So it's a double-edged relationship. Sometimes good friends, sometimes worst of enemies!

America's self-interests throughout south asia and the middle-east are best served by two central tenets- 1.) the continuing advancement and development of sound institutions of governance throughout the region and,

Hmm, not so sure about this. Iraqis fighting each other, divide and conquer plus many other things could be useful.

2.) the full integration of south and central asia into the global trading market, unfettered by restrictive or corrosive trade practices.

Oh yeah, unfettered oil exports!

Achieving these objectives advance America's interests more than anything else we can likely do to improve our own personal well-being. I say so because successful and unfettered trading practices follow educated and productive citizens who are the products of good governance- both local and national in character. All the above insidiously supercede correlations of force between nations and ultimately render these conventional power- calculations null.

All it needs is a compliant elite (they can be educated or just docile). So long as the elite that rule the country bend the rules in favour of the US, the US will get its "unfettered trading practices". I don't believe they US wants to see independent minded countries that are not reliant on the US. On the contrary, the US would like Pakistan to be completely dependent on it so that it could tell it what to do more.

It is as it should be. Given time and mutual encouragement, all nations should foster a common respect for one another that could be proven by asking two questions-

"Would I trade with companies in X nation?"

"Would I feel personally safe traveling to X nation"

For most, a positive answer to both question says all you need to know about a country. By my American perspective, this envisioned outcome eventually obviates the need for U.S. forces in the region.

Nonsense. As soon as the US forces leave Central Asia, there will be peace once the Taliban have got their revenge on the Tajiks in government. The US is a destabilizing force that are seen as invaders in Afghanistan. There is too much fighting there for the population to be happy for them to be there.

What's difficult is gaining common concurrence by nations throughout the region who resist this perspective. I'm uncertain why except that it threatens the power and profit centers of the currently-vested elites by the whims of an educated voting populace. Over time, though, new and more transparently achieved power centers would arise. They always do. Transparent, though, means that they answer to the body politic for their decisions.

That would be a good thing.

Dude, the US army is seen as an invading, conquering force in the region. It's got nothing to do with how good you are! You could be angels and genuinely be interested in the welfare of Afghans, but as soon as you start going to Afghanistan as foreign rulers, they aren't going to stop until you've left! It's their mentality, I'm sure General Gramov would agree!

 

[gpit]

... America is in the gulf because securing free and fair access to oil by ALL benefits everybody's economy-and indirectly ours. In a nutshell, hegemonic control of oil that favors one side at the expense of all others and not treated as a market-driven commodity favors nobody. ...

Perhaps you can persuade us that US government politically blocked Chinese purchase of Unocal is also your definition of "fairness" to all?

 

[MrConcerned]

Would the Chinese government allow an American company to own part of China Oil?

The hypocrisy cuts both ways.

 

[gpit]

"Now the second part about the U.S. promoting "democracy" is the world is crap. The U.S. only knows one thing and that is business and personal wars. The U.S. is only interested in making money and expanding American monopoly all over the world."

We know business is better with democracies. Did you know that?

Mujihideen, is a free and transparent electoral process important to you? Do you WISH for representation by your choice? Are secular schools, good governance, free press, and decent courts worth paying taxes to attain and keep? Do these institutions make a stronger or weaker nation?

We think stronger. Much stronger. My point isn't "crap" at all. It is the essential fact of the matter and will liberate Pakistan when fully realized. Free and unfettered trade best follows those nations with educated citizens and good governance. A very real damn simple premise for America to endorse as a guiding principle. Many, many other nations buy into this lucrative premise as well.

Don't forget that it is US government that supported a host of dictators. Here are easily some:

Syngman Rhee,
Park Chung-hee,
Ngo Dinh Diem,
Saddam Hussein,
Lon Nol,
Suharto,
Ferdinand Marcos,
Francisco Franco,
Augusto Pinochet.

Under the name of US national interest, democracy doesn't worth even a crap.

US Government owes a big sorry to the whole world before it trumpets shamelessly the "democracy" in high moral, or just shuts up and harvests profit quietly.

 

[gpit]

Would the Chinese government allow an American company to own part of China Oil?

The hypocrisy cuts both ways.

If I don't remember wrong Unicol was open for public bid.

If Chinese company is for public bid, any one can buy.

 

[MrConcerned]

The point is that oil companies are often considered strategic assets. Every country will protect them. China Oil is filled with government types and oversight from the top down. If China is not even able to allow some foreign ownership into some of its assets like China Oil, including its lucrative interior distribution channels, why criticise another country for not allowing such a government-overseen foreign company in return to control its oil facilities?

A company like BP would have a much bigger chance of owning Unocal than impenetrable Chinese oil companies for sure, that is the second layer of thinking.