The Pak-US Relationship

[S-2]

I have.

I'm not interested in my thoughts. I'm interested in your thoughts on Mr. Tarpley being famous.

Again, if you don't mind, why do you consider him famous?

Thanks.

 

[muse]

Editorial: Foreign policy and ‘wishes of the people’

The 17-member Parliamentary Committee on National Security has asked the Zardari government in its report to the National Assembly on Monday to make its policies independently “in accordance with the wishes of the people, keeping the national interest supreme”. After 16 meetings, the Committee has produced the following wisdom on how the world should be made to understand Pakistan’s attitude towards terrorism: “the threat of terrorism can be effectively addressed by resolving the issues confronting the Muslim world”.

The Committee is caught in some kind of time warp when it belatedly tells the government “to take steps to ensure that the Pakistani soil is not used for any kind of attacks on other countries; and all foreign fighters, if found, should be expelled from Pakistan”. The “if found” phrase perhaps indicates the view of those parliamentarians who insist that there are no foreigners in the tribal areas. If you ask the federal minister for science, Mr Azam Khan Swati, he will probably tell you that Jews and Indians are swarming the “Pakistani soil”, that is, if he has time free from constantly ridiculing the policies of his government.

The Committee was certainly thinking of the Americans when it put this formulation in its report: “the government needs to adopt an uncompromising attitude to safeguard the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Pakistan”. Elsewhere, it recommends using forceful diplomacy in dissuading the US from carrying out its drone attacks. In this rather vague phrasing, it seems to be hinting at taking physical counter-measures to stop the drones from flying over Pakistan, including asking the air force to go up and intercept. It will not, of course, recommend what action to take if this escalation leads to any of our aircraft being shot down.

The only useful recommendation was allowed by the Committee towards the end, but not without violating an earlier recommendation about doing in foreign policy what the people want: “Pakistan’s strategic interests should be protected by developing stakes in regional peace and trade by developing trade ties with neighbouring and regional countries”. No word is allowed about how this “normalisation” with the neighbours is possible if the people-propelled, referendum-type, isolationist but “independent” foreign policy is followed by Islamabad.

Democratic governance has evolved on some familiar lines over the centuries. While Gallup polls will always be a device of pressure on the representative government, democracy has become more and more “indirect” since the days of the Athenian city state. In fact there is a lot of literature available today critical of the idea of direct democracy in which the people decide every policy. The praise for indirect and representative democracy stems mostly from the fact that the interest of the state is determined in an expert fashion by those who have been elected by the people instead of directly by the people. Referendums are not favoured in truly democratic constitutions. America doesn’t allow referendums; the European Union has only bitter experience flowing from the recent referendums on its further unification.

When the state is strong it has a wide margin for deciding its own foreign policy. But when the state is weak, this margin for “independence” becomes narrow. The pursuit of national interest therefore takes place within the limits and constraints of its power to influence the world. Foreign policy “independence” is therefore achieved in three categories: the superpower category with the capacity to make other states obey; the middle power capacity to withstand the persuasion of big powers while not being in a position to persuade the lesser powers; and those powers that are amenable to external pressure without being able to persuade the lesser states.

Events have shown that not even a superpower can have an “independent” foreign policy. The “Gallup poll-driven” Iraq policy of President Bush was finally found not to be in America’s interest. In the same manner, the advice to Islamabad to have an “independent” foreign policy is in fact a recipe — backed no doubt by the people — for isolationism. What the people want is a “heroic and defiant” foreign policy which an economically troubled Pakistan simply cannot afford. An insistence on an “independent” as opposed to “flexible” foreign policy presumes going to war with states that thwart it. That is not an option Pakistan has.

The Parliamentary Committee on National Security has projected itself as “internally blind” because it has ignored the fact that a lot of the “soil” it is trying to protect through an independent foreign policy is not in Pakistan’s control. It forgets that foreign policy is based on a consideration of internal developments.

 

[S-2]

Well, Princeton is a fine school and so too the Univ of Turin. Anyway, I see your enamoured with his published works. I suppose that answers my question. Thanks.

"Why were there not any investigation done on 9/11 attacks?"

9-11 Commission Report

Do you actually mean, "Why were there not any investigation done on 9/11 attacks that agree with my pre-conceived inclinations?"

As we can see, the U.S. gov't did indeed take a gander at the causes and nature of the attacks on 9/11. I'm certain, though, that you are convinced of a Zionist-NeoCon conspiracy.

I hope not, though.

"The world cant blindly trust everything the US government says, even Americans themselves are realizing this."

And so it is into the hands of those such as Webster Tarpley that you seek "the truth"?

To each his own.

 

[S-2]

Thanks for alerting me-

If you haven't googled it on your own you can read it here. Sorry-

9-11 Commission Report

Thanks.

 

[Omar1984]

Thanks for alerting me-

If you haven't googled it on your own you can read it here. Sorry-

9-11 Commission Report

Thanks.

So no mention of the 3rd building that fell on that day. Building WTC 7. No one seems to ever mention the 3rd building that fell on that day.

 

[S-2]

I suggest you watch some of Webster Tarpley's videos on youtube.

Uh huh. I suggest you google before spouting off about what my nation investigates and doesn't. This investigation has been public knowledge since July 22, 2004. Where've you been?

Afterwards, do yourself a favor and actually read 570 pages of background, content, and footnotes.

That's right 570 pages of well-researched and footnoted content. Compare that to Tarpley.

Lyndon LaRouche is a joke. This guy is one of his minion mouth-pieces and Tarpley pales compared to the work of sober, serious men reporting to my nation.

Like comparing a world-class surgeon to a quack voodoo witch doctor.

Thanks.

 

[S-2]

"So no mention of the 3rd building that fell on that day. Building WTC 7"

Yeah. Sorry. You've got us there. NO investigation, eh?-

NIST & The WTC-Nat'l Institute of Safety & Standards

An entire webpage kept by our government to this exact topic. Do you see the stacks of books and DVDs to the right in the photo? This hole you dig just keeps getting deeper...

Omar, I'm now THOROUGHLY tired of your eagerness to find fault with my nation. TWICE, you could have easily googled the facts that, yes, we have investigated both 9-11 and WTC Bldg. #7. Regardless of your thoughts on our findings, you'd have at least known the easily obtained truth that we'd investigated both.

You willfully chose otherwise-TWICE, to include after being warned by me not to do so. I can't ban you but I can choose to ignore you. No. You won't be on my ignore list. I like reading your posts. They're funny but you're not worthy of a dignified answer from me any further after such determined sloppiness.

Willfully delusional in your eagerness to hate my nation.

We're done. You research really poorly the most easily found and fundamental elements to your contentions.

Later, buckwheat. You don't make much effort to be accurate so I want nothing more from you.

May Webster Tarpley and you depart my world forever.

 

[Omar1984]

^ Who told you I hate America? I love America and love Americans its just some arrogant people like you I cant stand who give a bad name to all Americans.

According to the report you provided building 7 collapsed because it was caught on fire. Total BS!
It was a controlled demolition.

 

[Energon]

While ostensibly the target of such legislation may be groups such as the LeT and acts such as the Mumbai attacks,...

I'm fairly certain that as far as the US state dept. is concerned, this is NOT a group or a "cause" specific order but rather a basic/generalized/comprehensive requirement. I still however mantain that this mandate helps Pakistan first and foremost.

Pakistan, or any other nation for that matter should not be the staging ground of terrorism (attacks or proliferation) against any other nation, period. Who the groups are, who their handlers are, what their supposed "cause" and/or ideology is, who their primary target happens to be, what exactly their GoP connections are etc. are all secondary factors. As long as Pakistan retains a terrorism infrastructure aimed at other nations (either overt or covert, formal or renegade) it will always find itself under serious existential threats from the recipients/victims of said terrorism who (all jingoism aside) are ostensibly larger and in possession of greater financial resources and military capabilities than those of Pakistan.
Being a hub of terrorism, where "non state actors" are capable of exacting unilateral acts of war upon other nations essentially renders the credibility of Pakistan's state apparatus inert. As it is, Pakistan has always faced difficulties on this front on account of a deeply divided and often conflicting official leadership structure propagating dissimilitude in its interaction with other more influential nations and subsequently resulting in populist feelings of anger, humiliation and despair. Establishing another uncontrolled dimension to the pre-existing mess only makes matters worse for Pakistan as a nation.
Needless to say the only way to revert this damage is by making Pakistan's representation more unitary; and comprehensively eradicating the ability of militant groups to kill foreign civilians and servicemen is the first critical step towards making progress.

...it will quickly become an issue in terms of support for groups legitimately fighting for Freedom against Indian SF's in Kashmir (In Pakistan's opinion), which are not terrorism.
India will certainly seek to paint all groups in Kashmir, whether they attack non-combatants or not, with the same brush and seek to pressure Pakistan into dismantling them through the US.

Pakistan would prefer to dismantle these groups only as part of a negotiated settlement of Kashmir, given its distrust of Indian intentions to engage in dialog on Kashmir unless pressured to do so.

It is rather glaringly evident that terrorism is a zero sum game. There are no "good Indian killing militants" (not to be confused with non-committed combatants in the ranks of sectarian groups). There is no future for Pakistan as long as selective terrorism against India is considered a viable possibility.

Militancy and cross border terrorism as a tactic to elicit favorable foreign policy from another nation simply will not work, it hasn't in the past and it is highly unlikely that it will in the future. On the other hand, the negative effects like the blowback from endorsing a culture of radicalism, terrorism and militancy; international censure; isolation; probable cancellation of resuscitative foreign aid keeping Pakistan afloat in the event of continued terrorism etc. are far more likely to result in the dissolution of Pakistan itself before India can be "worn out."

The position of "we will dismantle militant/terrorist groups if you..." is a non starter at any credible conflict resolution attempt between two respectable countries. Using terrorism and covert militancy as a 'bargaining chip' is just not an option for any country that wants to be taken seriously; the sponsoring party by default relinquishes its status as an equal when such attempts are made, and this is exactly what has happened with Pakistan. At this juncture, the primary impediment in Pakistan's interests and even survival, is her own uncontrolled militancy. Subsequently, there is no way out of this situation until the Pakistani society categorically rids itself of militancy/terrorism for its own sake, without turning it into a conditional clause for negotiations with other nations; because that to paraphrase Ahamad Rashid, would be equivalent to holding someone else hostage by pointing the gun to one's own head.

 

[Rabbit.Rabbit]

Great post Energon.

 

[qsaark]

I'm fairly certain that .............. one's own head.

What a verbose.

IPakistan, or any other nation for that matter should not be the staging ground of terrorism (attacks or proliferation) against any other nation, period.

Well your PERIOD is fine, but do you also include the US and other 'known' aggressors in 'any other nation'?

Being a hub of terrorism, where "non state actors" are capable of exacting unilateral acts of war upon other nations essentially renders the credibility of Pakistan's state apparatus inert.

And what about the country you are speaking on behalf of? "state actors" are capable of exacting unilateral acts of war upon other nations essentially renders the credibility of US's state apparatus inert. See what you get by removing "non" and changing Pakistan with US.

 

[Energon]

US restrictions in this sense then take on the role of coercive diplomacy in the Indo-Pakistan dispute, and therefore are a form of mediation on the part of the Indians.

These restrictions aren't designed to function as diplomatic leverage in third party negotiations and they're not really "India specific" per se. They are in place first and foremost to serve the interests of the USA, the donor.

The US aid is contingent upon Pakistan dismantling the infrastructure catering to all forms of international terrorism, of which there are 3 categories:
1. Militancy and terrorism aimed at Afghanistan
2. Jihad and other forms of terrorism aimed at India,
3. General jihad (primarily focusing upon targets in the West).

There are guidelines, stipulations and requirement to all of these, not just for India.

Furthermore, there are severe diplomatic consequences for a donor to provide aid to a troubled nation which may find its way to a covert war effort or terrorism against another adversarial state; there have to be contractual obligations in place particularly on account of the recent terrorist attack. What we often forget to take into account is how the financing for such deals is arranged. This cash isn't just trucked out of the US treasury and flown over, rather it is sought from various sources who have an army of actuaries and risk analysts writing up lengthy insurance riders and a barrage of contractual requirements. Without certain stipulations in the end product agreement, it would be very, very difficult to acquire this money.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

The position of "we will dismantle militant/terrorist groups if you..." is a non starter at any credible conflict resolution attempt between two respectable countries.

I don't believe it is a non-starter, as evidenced by the back-channel diplomacy through 2007 and MMS's own comments recently that a solution was possibly close at hand in 2007.

And while we could hypothesize that India and Pakistan might have engaged in a dialogue process regardless of whether the Kashmiri Freedom Movement rose up or not, the fact remains that the GoI's history indicates that it has had no interest in 'dialogue' over resolving the dispute of Kashmir unless pressured to do so.

So while the principle you articulate might be theoretically applicable in an ideal world, in the context of the Indo-Pak dispute over Kashmir it has so far been demonstrably inapplicable.

Now I do agree with you that there is a significant cost imposed upon the hosting nation (in this case Pakistan hosting parts of the Kashmiri Freedom Movement), and we may perhaps be seeing that cost with the involvement of the LeT in some of the recent attacks in Lahore, but at this point in time my opinion is that an attempt to dismantle that apparatus, without a roadmap on Kashmir, will likely entail a bigger cost and backlash than continuing to exist with these groups with greater restrictions on their activities.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

These restrictions aren't designed to function as diplomatic leverage in third party negotiations and they're not really "India specific" per se.

Actually parts of the legislation are quite India specific - the right to resist an occupation is globally recognized. No one would question the right of the American or the French populace fighting against occupation by some other nation, or the right of other nations to support the Americans or French in fighting off that occupation.

So what we have in this bill is essentially a unilateral determination by the US, in contravention of UN resolutions declaring Kashmir disputed and resolvable through an exercise of plebiscite by the Kashmiris, that Kashmir is a part of India. Otherwise the proposed legislation denies that universally accepted principle of resisting occupation, which the legislature would never think of doing, were a scenario to exist where the United States was under occupation.

It is therefore an extremely biased attempt to utilize coercive diplomacy in favor of India's position in the Kashmir dispute, especially when taken in conjunction with my point in the last post, that India has historically shown no interest in engaging in dialog on resolving the Kashmir dispute unless under pressure.

Now your point about funds being utilized improperly is valid, but that is where the accountability provisions come in, something I personally have supported, given the history of our political leadership.

Ensuring that the disbursed aid is utilized in the sectors (health, education infrastructure) it was intended for is the guarantee that it is not used elsewhere, so the inclusion of India specific conditions cannot be justified under that pretext.

 

[S-2]

"So what we have in this bill is essentially a unilateral determination by the US, in contravention of UN resolutions declaring Kashmir disputed and resolvable through an exercise of plebiscite by the Kashmiris, that Kashmir is a part of India. Otherwise the proposed legislation denies that universally accepted principle of resisting occupation, which the legislature would never think of doing, were a scenario to exist where the United States was under occupation."

Thank goodness for the embedded caveats. I hope you press matters just as indicated above.

If ever an aid package of this obvious importance needed to die the good death of good intentions poorly directed, this is it. There's nothing of redeeming value in this attitude upon which to build something better for ourselves.

May the PEACE ACT die on the vine. Each passing day that it isn't through Congress increases that chance. It's money wasted.

Now when can we speak with A.Q. Khan again, please?

Thanks.