What's new

Featured Pakistan will proceed on Kashmir issue with or without Saudi Arabia : SM Qureshi

one billion came from chinese debt trap , pakiststan could not afford it from its own pocket , now it is certain if pakistan does not desisst from forming another front . pakistan will be in dire straits .
chinese approch is not as childish as saudies are behaving like total authortarian even they have problem why ptv played ertughral ghazi .... and that is how they deliverd message to pakistan " chal saday paisay kaadh" :azn:
 
Not to contradict you but add that our failure of foreign policy on Kashmir was started with proposal of Gen.(ret) Mushrauf regarding the freezing of Kashmir issue and allowing India to build fencing on LOC which affectively converted it into International border.

The successive two civilian government took further step to delink an internationalized issue from international community and effectively converted it into local dispute and unrest of Indian state

Agreed with your history. However, after halting the incursions Mushi had a plan in place that is why Agra happened and track 2 & 3 diplomacy to resolve the issue went ahead. The later on govt's. (Read Circuses) did not have anything in place. They just carried on the deescalated status without following-up on other ways and means.

On a side note, someone I knew who was in US State Department back in 2002-2003 said that he spoke to a very senior US diplomat who had served three very long stints in India and was transferred as a consultant to US Mission in Pakistan during the early days of Afghan engagement of US and he was of the opinion that Pakistan should think out of the box now to resolve the Kashmir issue because in a decade or so Pakistan would be defending their part of the Kashmir from India!! My 2C worth
 
world does not see through pakistanis lense . Indian Muslims are happy with hindus , they decided to live with their hindu brothers.


Yaar Delhi was burning


Your SC justified a hindutva temple of hate

People are being lynched for meat

India is a utter communal shithole
 
What happens if they now align themselves more with India at the expense of Pakistan it's security and the Kashmir issue?.... Should we be forever slaves and indebted chamchays?
What more loss would occur to the cause of Kashmir by our this diplomatic stance which already have not occurred ..... ???

Secondly how siding with India more will ensure their "Territorial Integrity" US is no more interested in mess related to Yemen, Libya, Syria, Iraq and Lebanon ...... ???

Would India send its troops to defend KSA territorial boundaries ..... ???

So much investment on defence by Egypt but could they defend whole of Egypt and KSA at the same time .... ???

India is just a consumer of oil with NO STRATEGIC reach and power in middle east politics, therefore if situation go worst from bad in middle east then they will change their energy supplier even if they have to buy their energy from Russia and US
 
Agreed with your history. However, after halting the incursions Mushi had a plan in place that is why Agra happened and track 2 & 3 diplomacy to resolve the issue went ahead. The later on govt's. (Read Circuses) did not have anything in place. They just carried on the deescalated status without following-up on other ways and means.

On a side note, someone I knew who was in US State Department back in 2002-2003 said that he spoke to a very senior US diplomat who had served three very long stints in India and was transferred as a consultant to US Mission in Pakistan during the early days of Afghan engagement of US and he was of the opinion that Pakistan should think out of the box now to resolve the Kashmir issue because in a decade or so Pakistan would be defending their part of the Kashmir from India!! My 2C worth

Yes, an 'out of the box' solution has to be found before there is a mutually assured destruction in the Subcontinent. India is to be blamed for reversing much of the progress made before Modi's rise to power. The current Pakistani Prime Minister is perhaps the most peace-loving in Pakistan's history and he is still willing to talk with India.
 
it is because of indoctrination of tens of millions of seminary students educated in Saudi funded seminaries over the decades. They are brainwashed fanatics who will not listen to reason and will rush to Saudi aid whenever called upon. And yes, Saudi Arabia has 'helped' Pakistan, but that help has largely been meaningless, especially in the past 20 years. Saudi Arabia could have helped Pakistan climb out of the debt trap and move into a development state but Saudi help always ensures we are NOT able to climb out of the pit and is sufficient merely to allow us to plant our feet firmly on some ledge in the debt trap.

I couldn't argue against all that. Saudi Arabia could have done a lot more for Pakistan but it has done some without getting enough in return from Pakistan. That Pakistan couldn't deliver what the Saudis would ultimately want is a very relevant factor here; I touched upon the Pakistani limitations above. We all need to detach from the emotional feelings and look at facts. As I said above, from the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s through the Yemen War, Pakistan has not extended the full throttled support to KSA as was expected. Because the two are, in fact, separate countries and are NOT 'natural allies'.

Speaking of natural allies--with the push-back against globalization a possibility--the concept of natural allies is going to be weighted more and more by geography, that is if the discourse against globalization takes a stronghold--but that's for another topic.

As to the Saudis 'funding' seminaries in Pakistan--no point blaming the Saudis. They couldn't have possibly arm-twisted Pakistan. It was Pakistan's own fault! A very good example is General Zia ul Haq--whom I call the Proto-Taliban of Pakistan--who decided to let the Afghan refugees in the 1980s spread out into the Pakistani cities, instead of restricting them like Iran had done then. It was a huge mistake! Pakistan has never been the same. The cost to the K-P province and Karachi were especially high.
 
Yes, an 'out of the box' solution has to be found before there is a mutually assured destruction in the Subcontinent. India is to be blamed for reversing much of the progress made before Modi's rise to power. The current Pakistani Prime Minister is perhaps the most peace-loving in Pakistan's history and he is still willing to talk with India.

Their is no outside the box thinking left for Pakistan be it IK or any other future government formed. Only option left is war, we have to see how Musharraf dismantled the Kashmiri cause and allowed India to fence up we can’t even arm them properly.
 
Their is no outside the box thinking left for Pakistan be it IK or any other future government formed. Only option left is war, we have to see how Musharraf dismantled the Kashmiri cause and allowed India to fence up we can’t even arm them properly.

Arabs fought for Pakistan's strategic depth in Afghanistan.

Pakistan paid them back by painting them as root cause of their problems.

How about grabbing a mirror?
 
Arabs fought for Pakistan's strategic depth in Afghanistan.

Pakistan paid them back by painting them as root cause of their problems.

How about grabbing a mirror?

Their were Pakistanis who are Shaheed in that conflict as well not just Arabs. My father had 8 friends who went whereas only 3 came back. We need to get rid of this misconception it was only Arabs and other foreigners.
 
Their were Pakistanis who are Shaheed in that conflict as well not just Arabs. My father had 8 friends who went whereas only 3 came back. We need to get rid of this misconception it was only Arabs and other foreigners.

Fact of the matter is Pakistan's greatest strategic depth coup was supported by Arab States and Kingdoms.

All that changed with one phone call to a guy named Pirouz, the Delhi Persian.
 
I couldn't argue against all that. Saudi Arabia could have done a lot more for Pakistan but it has done some without getting enough in return from Pakistan. That Pakistan couldn't deliver what the Saudis would ultimately want is a very relevant factor here; I touched upon the Pakistani limitations above. We all need to detach from the emotional feelings and look at facts. As I said above, from the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s through the Yemen War, Pakistan has not extended the full throttled support to KSA as was expected. Because the two are, in fact, separate countries and are NOT 'natural allies'.

Speaking of natural allies--with the push-back against globalization a possibility--the concept of natural allies is going to be weighted more and more by geography, that is if the discourse against globalization takes a stronghold--but that's for another topic.

As to the Saudis 'funding' seminaries in Pakistan--no point blaming the Saudis. They couldn't have possibly arm-twisted Pakistan. It was Pakistan's own fault! A very good example is General Zia ul Haq--whom I call the Proto-Taliban of Pakistan--who decided to let the Afghan refugees in the 1980s spread out into the Pakistani cities, instead of restricting them like Iran had done then. It was a huge mistake! Pakistan has never been the same. The cost to the K-P province and Karachi were especially high.
sir i wanna add further few things which many pakistanies ignore usualy .. when we talk about saudi finencial support we should keep in in mind the price we had paid??
Saudi Arabia has strategic interests in Pakistan given its proximity to iran, Riyadh's archrival in the region. The Saudis are using aid packages and investment promises to buy the economically embattled Pakistani government's loyalty and convince it to turn a blind eye to their destructive actions within Pakistan's borders.

Saudi financial promises are not a new feature of Pakistani-Saudi relations. For decades, Islamabad has kept close to Riyadh, encouraged by both Saudi money and the US regional policy.

Pak-suadi special relation emerged shortly after General Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq overthrew the left-leaning Prime Mjiinister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto in 1977 and sought closer ties with the US. Two major events dramatically increased the importance of Pakistan to the US foreign policy in the region: the Iranian Revolution of February 1979 and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan of December the same year.

As the US sought to establish a united front of countries in West Asia willing to fight Iranian and Soviet influence, Islamabad became a key US and - by extension - Saudi ally. By then Riyadh was enjoying massive oil revenue (in part due to the spike in prices following the 1973 oil embargo) and was actively practising chequebook diplomacy in the Arab and Muslim worlds.

Saudi financial flows to Pakistan started with the US-approved scheme to arm and train fighters of anti-Soviet armed groups in Afghanistan. Riyadh and Islamabad also cooperated closely to curb expanding Iranian influence in the region which, they saw, sought to incite the Shia minorities in both the countries to rebel.

Saudi financial help to Pakistan assumed many forms, including military and civilian, but also religious. Zia-ul-Haq's government allowed Saudi charities to fund seminaries and mosques, which inevitably came with more conservative interpretations of Islam and anti-Shia ideology. Riyadh has also been accused of supporting certain "extremist" Sunni groups.

Some of these seminaries and groups are alleged to be responsible for radicalising the local youth and turning many of them against Shia Muslims. Some of them have also carried out cross-border attacks in Iran.

Such groups also target Pakistani Shia Muslims.

Pakistan's reliance on Saudi money to keep its failing economy afloat has kept Pakistani politician silent on the issues of problematic financing. Prime Minister Khan has previously admitted that the country cannot afford to turn down Saudi Arabia's investment and aid offers because it is "desperate" for money". But what cost are we willing to pay for Saudi money?

While any economic investment is most welcome, Khan must tell Prince Mohammed that it cannot come at the price of its internal stability. It is time that Islamabad reconsiders its decades-old transactional relationship with Riyadh.

Pakistan cannot afford to be a battleground where Saudi Arabia and Iran settle their scores.

What Pakistan needs even more than money is religious harmony and stability. If the Pakistani government does not put an end to Saudi Arabia's and iran's harmful actions within its borders, peace in the country and in the region will be at great risk. And no aid package is worth that.
 
I couldn't argue against all that. Saudi Arabia could have done a lot more for Pakistan but it has done some without getting enough in return from Pakistan. That Pakistan couldn't deliver what the Saudis would ultimately want is a very relevant factor here; I touched upon the Pakistani limitations above. We all need to detach from the emotional feelings and look at facts. As I said above, from the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s through the Yemen War, Pakistan has not extended the full throttled support to KSA as was expected. Because the two are, in fact, separate countries and are NOT 'natural allies'.

Speaking of natural allies--with the push-back against globalization a possibility--the concept of natural allies is going to be weighted more and more by geography, that is if the discourse against globalization takes a stronghold--but that's for another topic.

As to the Saudis 'funding' seminaries in Pakistan--no point blaming the Saudis. They couldn't have possibly arm-twisted Pakistan. It was Pakistan's own fault! A very good example is General Zia ul Haq--whom I call the Proto-Taliban of Pakistan--who decided to let the Afghan refugees in the 1980s spread out into the Pakistani cities, instead of restricting them like Iran had done then. It was a huge mistake! Pakistan has never been the same. The cost to the K-P province and Karachi were especially high.

Coming back to the short-coming of Pakistan on Saudi demand for military support in their war in Yemen, although that we refused to send in troops, I wonder what the problem really is. I mean, understood that we did not send a part of the standing Army, we could just as easily have recruited, trained and armed tens of thousands of new recruits specifically for Saudia. It would have taken a few months but would have been a win-win situation for all.

Even now, I wonder why either this offer is not on the table for Saudi Arabia or why Saudi Arabia does not go for it. We can quite easily raise a standing Army of half a million or so for posting in Saudi Arabia under Saudi Military Command led by a serving Pakistani General. All that the Saudis have to do is fund the entire process, other than $$$ they don't even have to lift a finger.......plus, no intervention of the Government would be required simply because the job advertisement would clearly state employment with the Saudi Military.

About Zia and our failure to restrict Afghan refugees to refugee camps, in hind-sight, I totally agree. The weapons influx, the drugs, prostitution and later even organized crime is all thanks to that. But, in the middle of it all, we have to find a way to dig our way out.
 
Fact of the matter is Pakistan's greatest strategic depth coup was supported by Arab States and Kingdoms.

All that changed with one phone call to a guy named Pirouz, the Delhi Persian.
Oh, you so conveniently forget that the only two Arab countries who had 'recognized' the Taliban govt of 1996-2001 were the first to broke off the relations with the so-called 'Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan' after 9/11!!! The only other country which had recognized the Taliban govt was Pakistan and which tried hard and hard to reason with the Talibans to give up OBL--or else destruction would be upon Afghanistan AND Pakistan.

Why not show the 'mirror' to Pakistan itself?? The world's most hated and hunted terrorist was hiding a few hundred miles from Islamabad in Afghanistan and yet the ISI couldn't take him out despite the USS Cole event. What happened is a logical conclusion of the 'Chalney Do' (let it be) attitude so common in 3rd world countries, and Pakistan is not an exception to that.

Musharraf had NO CHOICE in the Fall of 2001 but to acquiesce to the American demands, unless his false bravado would lead to another Yemen or Iraq or Libya or Syria!!! Go back to the Fall of 2001 if you are old enough to that era's memories.
 
Oh, you so conveniently forget that the only two Arab countries who had 'recognized' the Taliban govt of 1996-2001 were the first to broke off the relations with the so-called 'Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan' after 9/11!!! The only other country which had recognized the Taliban govt was Pakistan and which tried hard and hard to reason with the Talibans to give up OBL--or else destruction would be upon Afghanistan AND Pakistan.

Why not show the 'mirror' to Pakistan itself?? The world's most hated and hunted terrorist was hiding a few hundred miles from Islamabad in Afghanistan and yet the ISI couldn't take him out despite the USS Cole event. What happened is a logical conclusion of the 'Chalney Do' (let it be) attitude so common in 3rd world countries, and Pakistan is not an exception to that.

Musharraf had NO CHOICE in the Fall of 2001 but to acquiesce to the American demands, unless his false bravado would lead to another Yemen or Iraq or Libya or Syria!!! Go back to the Fall of 2001 if you are old enough to that era's memories.

A nuclear armed country cannot or allowed to be turned into Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan or Yemen by International conventions.

Intervention in Afghanistan meant losing Afghanistan to Iran which is now playing out with cosmetic serenading Iran.

These two bits political parties cannot off balance Pakistan's relations with Saudi Arabia and China.

There has been a scuffle between Foreign ministry and foreign office last year as well.
 
Coming back to the short-coming of Pakistan on Saudi demand for military support in their war in Yemen, although that we refused to send in troops, I wonder what the problem really is. I mean, understood that we did not send a part of the standing Army, we could just as easily have recruited, trained and armed tens of thousands of new recruits specifically for Saudia. It would have taken a few months but would have been a win-win situation for all.

Even now, I wonder why either this offer is not on the table for Saudi Arabia or why Saudi Arabia does not go for it. We can quite easily raise a standing Army of half a million or so for posting in Saudi Arabia under Saudi Military Command led by a serving Pakistani General.


You have used the word 'easily' at least twice in your post. I stay away from hard-code defense subjects about forces and hardware so not sure. You would almost never find me in some defense hardware related topics in this forum.

My guess is that raising a truly professional military like Pakistan has is a no joke. I saw a Gen. Hameed Gul interview mentioned that fact. Countries like Pakistan or Israel or Turkey have truly disciplined forces in the region and to 'train' the Saudi citizens to be up to the task--citizens who, by extension because of the oil wealth for generations--are not going to be as motivated to be 'trained'. And there is no blaming them: Why shed your own blood when you can hire some poor Egyptians to shed the blood?? What the Romans did millennia ago would be done by the modern rich countries.

In short--it's a pipe dream to have the Saudis trained to be like the Pakistani military. The Pakistani military has been fending off a very powerful India even after the Americans started alienating Pakistan after the Soviet withdrawals from Afghanistan AND with China, until just now, playing a neutral player, at least publicly.
 

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom