Pakistanis feel their country made scapegoat: Aziz

[Neo]

Pakistanis feel their country made scapegoat: Aziz​

WASHINGTON, July 31: Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz has said that many in Pakistan feel their country is being used as a scapegoat to cover America’s shortcomings in the war on terrorism.

In an interview to Washington Post, published on Tuesday, Mr Aziz also said that Islamabad was “disappointed” by the US legislation which tied aid for Pakistan to its performance in fighting terrorism.

Asked if he thought Washington was using Pakistan as a scapegoat for its failures in the war on terror, Mr Aziz said: “I don’t know about that, but I know many people around the world, and in this country, feel that.”

Mr Aziz refused to comment on the possibility that an expected deal between the government and the PPP could see Benazir Bhutto replacing him as prime minister in the near future.

“The office of the president and the prime minister are a result of elections. It is for the people of Pakistan to decide who their leadership ought to be,” he said.

“Would you like to serve another term as prime minister?” he was asked. “It’s up to my party. We’ll have to see,” he replied.

The prime minister disagreed with the suggestion that Pakistan had joined the war against terror on US pressure. Pakistan would do what it took to eliminate extremists operating in the country for its own sake, not because of rising pressure from the United States, he said.

“This is a country where both the president and prime minister have been victims of terrorist attacks,” Mr Aziz said. “We don’t need to be told every day that we should do this. We are committed ourselves.”

The prime minister said that Pakistan’s relations with the US went back to its independence and Pakistanis valued this relationship but “Pakistan also is a proud nation” and did not like being pushed.

He said that the US had shared with Pakistan whatever tips it received about Al Qaeda’s presence in the tribal areas but such tips had not always been accurate and actionable.

“It has to be actionable. If I say that Mr X is in district Y -- I mean, okay, but where?”

Mr Aziz said that Pakistan had no qualms going after extremists but the information had to be accurate, verifiable and actionable.

The prime minister said that Pakistan wanted a “strong, stable, prosperous and safe” Afghanistan because “when your neighbour is destabilised, countries which are next-door pay a huge price.”

Mr Aziz said that insurgency in Afghanistan was not “totally connected” to internal violence in Pakistan.

The violence in Pakistan, he said, was the result of the July 10 raid on the Red Mosque. “We predicted it; we expected it; we are dealing with it; and gradually we will get to the bottom of it,” he added.

The situation in North Waziristan, he said, was still ‘evolving’ and the violence there was also affecting the adjacent areas. The government, he said, was recruiting more police and paramilitary forces to deal with the situation.

The prime minister said that the US and Pakistan must work closer together and must be sensitive to each other’s views and national interests to succeed in the war against terror.

Responding to questions about domestic politics, Mr Aziz described the Musharraf-Bhutto meeting as ‘engagement’ with political forces and not negotiations.

“I think people are mixing negotiations with engagement. In a parliamentary democracy, you always engage all parties. There’s always direct or indirect contact,” he said.

Asked if parliamentary elections could be held before the presidential election, Mr Aziz said: “In a parliamentary democracy, anything is possible.”

http://www.dawn.com/2007/08/01/top5.htm

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Good responses to the typical U.S finger pointing. If only all of our spokespeople were this articulate when representing and defending Pakistan and its policies. The presence of anti-Pakistan provisions in the anti-terror legislation is obviously related to the "mistrust" that exists between the two countries, and given the differences between the two countries should be expected, but I would also suggest that the divisions and mistrust have been exacerbated by an ineffective media campaign to clarify and project the difficulties faced by Pakistan in achieving the sorts of results the U.S media, if not their military, demands.

Over the last couple of years, even some of the more critical articles, of Pakistani performance in the Tribal areas, have mentioned in passing that Pakistan is limited in what it can do because the U.S is not sharing all of its intelligence with its Pakistani counterparts. Hitches in cooperation, the inability to prevent the same sort of human and material flow over the Iran/Syria border by the U.S, despite having massive numerical and technological superiority compared to the Pakistani operation, should be issues continuously thrown in the face of the U.S media. It always works, for me, to silence any Americans who criticize our dedication to the WOT.

The media feeds and develops public opinion. The Israelis make sure that some spokesman or the other is available to present the Israeli POV whenever any issue that could be critical of their policies/actions is discussed. The inability to positively project our policies in the West, as well as the media mismanagement of the Lal Masjid issue, IMO, requires some serious introspection by the government in terms of developing its info. ministry.