The Pak-US Relationship

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Gilani hits back, cites US failure in Afghanistan​

By Our Correspondent


WASHINGTON, July 30: Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani has rebuffed demands for unilateral US action against suspected terrorist targets inside Fata, saying that such strikes further complicate an already difficult situation.

“We can do it ourselves,” Mr Gilani told a joint meeting of two Washington think-tanks, the Council on Foreign Relations and the Middle East Institute, on Tuesday night. He, however, added that Pakistan wanted better cooperation with the United States to share intelligence about foreign militants who moved freely across the rugged Pakistan-Afghan border.

The prime minister rejected the suggestion that Pakistan had failed to curb terrorism in Fata. He noted that despite having “all sophisticated weapons they need,” the US forces in Afghanistan also had failed to eradicate militancy from the areas under their control.

“If we are not able to control them, you are not able to control them (either),” he said.

Mr Gilani insisted that Pakistan was “no one’s surrogate” in the fight against extremists. “We are fighting to save the soul of our homeland.”

When asked about the federal government’s lack of control over the tribal areas, the prime minister responded that all elected senators from that region supported him.

Mr Gilani also rejected the suggestion that the ISI was not under his control. He insisted that he had direct control over the agency which would now follow his instructions. “And now I am responsible for whatever they do.”

He recalled that during the Afghan war the US supported the spy agency and it preferred to deal with military rulers.

America’s sudden withdrawal from Afghanistan, he said, “created vacuum in the region” which allowed militants to establish themselves.

Talking about his meetings with President Bush and with Republican and Democratic candidates for the 2008 US presidential election, Mr Gilani said all these leaders had assured him that they supported the new democratic dispensation in Islamabad and wanted to help establish democracy in the country.

The prime minister told the audience that Pakistan expected a similar nuclear deal from the United States that it had offered to India.

“There should be no preferential (treatment), there should be no discrimination. And if they want to give civilian nuclear status to India, we would expect the same for Pakistan too,” he said.

Mr Gilani said that the Khan network was no more active, when a questioner suggested that because of the activities of this network Pakistan cannot be offered a nuclear deal.

“Certainly it cannot happen again and that chapter is over. The network is broken,” said Mr Gilani. He said that the civilian government in Islamabad wanted to have good relations with India, was working for enhancing bilateral trade and would like to resolve all issues, including the “core issue” of Kashmir.

On Kashmir, Mr Gilani said: “They (the United States) should encourage and support this issue. That means only they can understand,” but refrained from asking Washington to play the role of a mediator.

However, when pressed by president of the Council on Foreign Relations Richard Haas on whether Washington should appoint a special envoy or play a high-visibility or mediatory role, Mr Gilani quipped: “Actually what the United States really want, they can do it.”

Gilani hits back, cites US failure in Afghanistan -DAWN - Top Stories; July 31, 2008

It seems Gillani held his own, and the two sides refused to publicly at least back down from their respective positions:

Gillani refused to accept unilateral action within FATA and the US agreed to respect Pakistani sovereignty - so did the Pentagon, but with a caveat that the air strikes would continue (which have the tacit approval of the GoP anyway).

The Pentagon's qualified statement isn't anything new, the concern is more over potential US boots on the ground on FATA, and it seems that is unlikely to happen at this point.

An 'ISI culpability' ambush was handled relatively well, with the PM, FO and ISPR point blank rejecting the allegations. The Western media ran with the story of course, but then they really are not the paragon's of objectivity when it comes to interests that clash with State objectives.

Nothing opened my eyes to that more than seeing refugees abroad, from Sadaam's regime, being interviewed on mainstream US networks in the run up to the Iraq war, being cutoff when trying to voice objections to plans for an invasion, despite all that they had suffered at his hands.

In the end it is whatever the incumbent US adminsitration decides best serves its interest, and not what the media is made to project, though the media does serve as a tool to pressure Pakistan, and create perceptions that might later on justify certain actions against Pakistan for a domestic and global audience.

So what happens behind the scenes?

I would wager 'nothing much', until the new President takes charge and his policies for the region are formulated and articulated.

 

[Interceptor]

Bush warns Pakistan of ‘serious action’

Monday, August 04, 2008
LONDON: The United States has accused Pakistan’s main spy agency of deliberately undermining Nato efforts in Afghanistan by helping the Taliban and al-Qaeda militants they are supposed to be fighting, the Sunday Times reported.

President George W Bush confronted Yusuf Raza Gilani in Washington last week with evidence of involvement by the ISI in a deadly attack on the Afghan capital and warned of retaliation if it continues.

The move comes amid growing fears that Pakistanís tribal areas are turning into a global launch pad for terrorists. Gilani, on his first official US visit since being elected in February, was left in no doubt that the Bush administration had lost patience with the ISIís alleged double game. Bush warned that if one more attack in Afghanistan or elsewhere were traced back to Pakistan, he would have to take ìserious actionî.

Gilani also met Michael Hayden, director of the CIA, who confronted him with a dossier on ISI support for the Taliban. The key evidence concerned last monthís bombing of the Indian embassy in Kabul, which killed 54 people, including the military attache.

An intercepted telephone conversation apparently revealed that ISI agents masterminded the operation. The United States also claimed to have arrested an ISI officer inside Afghanistan. Pakistani ministers said they had left Washington reeling from what they described as a ìgrillingî and shocked at ìthe trust deficitî between Pakistan and its most important backer.

ìThey were very hot on the ISI,î said a member of the Pakistan delegation. ìVery hot. When we asked them for more information, Bush laughed and said, ëWhen we share information with your guys, the bad guys always run awayí.î

ìThe question is why itís taken the Americans so long to see what the ISI is doing,î said Afrasiab Khattak, provincial president for the Awami National party. ìWeíve been telling them for years but they wouldnít buy it.î

The American accusations were categorically denied by Rehman Malik, Pakistanís de facto interior minister. ìThere is no involvement by the ISI of any form in Afghanistan,î he told The Sunday Times. ìWe requested evidence which has not yet been given.î

Malik admitted that in meetings in London, senior British government and intelligence officials had also told him they were convinced of ISI involvement in the embassy bombing. It is the first time the White House has openly confronted Pakistan since just after the 9/11 terrorist attacks on Washington and New York when General Pervez Musharrafís regime was told to drop its support for the Taliban or be bombed back to the Stone Age.

Musharraf agreed and went on to change the director of the ISI and build a close relationship with Bush who described him as his ìbest friendî. But many middle-ranking officers continued to hold close links with militants built up over 20 years since the Mujahideen were fighting the Russians in Afghanistan.

There were persistent reports of Pakistani territory being used for terrorist training camps and recruitment. Foreign journalists were banned from Quetta ìfor our own securityî ñ those of us who have ventured there to investigate have generally ended up arrested.

President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan has repeatedly accused Pakistan of harbouring Taliban leaders, providing lists of addresses and at one time claiming that its leader, Mullah Omar, was living in a military cantonment.

For the West, confronting Islamabad is a risky strategy as Pakistanís support is critical to the war on terrorism. Afghanistan is landlocked and much of the logistical support and food for the 53,000 Nato troops, including water for the British forces in Helmand, has to be shipped into Karachi and driven through Pakistan.

ìItís a calculated risk,î said a western diplomat in Islamabad, pointing out that Pakistan could not afford to do without US aid, which averages £1 billion a year. The military has also benefited: only last week four more F-16 fighter jets were handed over to the air force.

An open challenge to the ISI was welcomed by Nato troops operating in Afghanistan, particularly the American forces fighting in the east. For years their commanders have expressed frustration at militants coming across the border to take pot shots at them, before moving back to the sanctuary of the tribal areas. These areas are seen as the new battleground in the war on terror. Originally created by the British as a buffer between the Indian empire and Afghanistan, they stretch along Pakistanís 1,500-mile border with Afghanistan.

As the poorest and most backward part of Pakistan with a literacy rate of just 3%, but fiercely martial, they are the breeding ground for militant groups. Political parties are not allowed. As militant groups have grown in influence, local people have nowhere else to turn.

Most of the attacks on US soldiers in eastern Afghanistan are ordered by Maulvi Jalalud-din Haqqani, who operates from Miramshah in North Waziristan, and whom the United States believes to have close ties with al-Qaeda.

Neighbouring South Waziristan is dominated by Baitullah Mehsud, a former gym teacher, whose Pakistan Taliban is believed by the CIA to be responsible for the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, the former prime minister, last December.

ìThe security of Pakistan, Afghanistan, the entire region and maybe that of the whole world will be determined by developments in the tribal areas over the next few months,î said Khattak.

The United States has carried out a number of bombings and missile strikes inside the areas, although each time the key targets seem to have escaped. So concerned is the Bush administration that the ISI is tipping militants off that in January it sent two senior intelligence officials to Pakistan. Mike Mc-Connell, the director of national intelligence, and Hayden asked Musharraf to allow the CIA greater freedom to operate in the tribal areas.

Of particular US concern was the ISIís alleged involvement with Haqqani, one of its former allies, and its links to Lashkar-i-Taiba, a Punjab-based militant group, which is thought to have been behind the attack on an American outpost in Kunar last month in which nine US soldiers were killed.

Many US intelligence officials have long suspected that ISI officers accept their money and then help their foes, but it has been difficult to find proof. In June the Afghan government publicly accused the ISI of being behind an assassination attempt on Karzai in April and threatened to send their own troops into the border. But they were unable to produce any concrete evidence.

ìThe Indian embassy bombing seems to have finally provided it. This is the smoking gun weíve all been looking for,î a British official said last week. On the eve of the Washington visit, the Pakistan government tried to tame the ISI by announcing that it would henceforth come under interior ministry control. It was forced to revoke the decision within three hours after angry phone calls from the Army chief.

Malik, on behalf of the government, claimed the decision had been misinterpreted. ìWhat we were trying to do was bring national security and the war on terror under the interior ministry but it was wrongly announced,î he said.

US officials say the number of attacks on their soldiers in Afghanistan have increased by 60% since the civilian government took power this year. In a reflection of who really calls the shots, while the government party was in Washington Lieutenant-General Martin Dempsey, acting commander of Centcom, the US military command, was in Islamabad handing over F-16 fighter planes and holding meetings with the top brass. A British officer who was present at the meeting said Pakistani generals had spoken of their frustration with the civilian government: ìThey said they were still waiting for a signal to act in the tribal areas. To be honest, none of us could think of a thing they had done in six months.î

The sensitivity of the intelligence issue became clear on Friday night when Sherry Rehman, the information minister, acknowledged to journalists that the ISI might still contain pro-Taliban operatives. ìWe need to identify these people and weed them out,î she said, only to change her statement later to maintain that the problems were in the past and there would be no purge.

Pakistan ministers were particularly incensed when the United States launched a missile strike inside one of the countryís tribal areas on Monday, while the government party was still en route to Washington. ìIt was the first thing I read on my BlackBerry when I got off the plane,î said a member of the delegation. ìWhat a nice gift.î

Bush warns Pakistan of ‘serious action’

 

[RabzonKhan]

Isn’t it interesting that in the 1980’s the US was fighting
a covert war against the Afghan and Russian communists.
At that time India was supporting Soviet Unions brutal occupation
of Afghanistan …. And now the Russians, Afghan communists and
Indians are US allies.


U.S. vilifies faithful old ally

Bush administration vents against Pakistan's military intelligence for doing its duty -- defending Pakistan

By ERIC MARGOLIS

It's blame Pakistan week. As resistance to western occupation of Afghanistan intensifies, the increasingly frustrated Bush administration is venting its anger against Inter-Service Intelligence (ISI), Pakistan's military intelligence agency.

The White House leaked claims ISI was in cahoots with pro-Taliban groups in Pakistan's tribal area along the Afghan border.

Pakistan's Defence Minister Ahmed Mukhtar said the White House accuses ISI of warning Pashtun tribes of impending U.S. air attacks. President George W. Bush angrily asked Pakistan's visiting Prime Minister Yousuf Gilani, "Who's in charge of ISI?"

In Ottawa, the Harper government dutifully echoed Bush's accusation against Pakistan, including the so far unsubstantiated claim that ISI agents had bombed India's embassy in Kabul.

I was one of the first western journalists invited into ISI headquarters in 1986. ISI's then director, the fierce Lt.- Gen. Akhtar Rahman, personally briefed me on Pakistan's secret role in fighting Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.

ISI's "boys" provided communications, logistics, heavy weapons, and direction in the Afghan War. ISI played the key role in the victory over the Soviets.
On my subsequent trips to Pakistan I was routinely briefed by succeeding ISI chiefs and joined ISI officers in the field, sometimes under fire.

ISI is accused of meddling in Pakistani politics. The late Benazir Bhutto, who often was thwarted by Pakistan's spooks, always scolded me, "you and your beloved generals at ISI." But before Musharraf, ISI was the Third World's most efficient, professional intelligence agency. It defends Pakistan against internal and external subversion by India's powerful spy agency, RAW, and by Iran.

ISI works closely with CIA and the Pentagon, but also must serve Pakistan's interests, which often are not identical to Washington's.

The last ISI director general I knew was the tough, highly capable Lt.-Gen. Mahmood Ahmed. He was purged by the new dictator, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, because Washington felt Mahmood was insufficiently responsive to U.S. interests. Ensuing ISI directors were all pre-approved by Washington. All senior ISI veterans deemed "Islamist" or too nationalistic by Washington were purged, leaving ISI's upper ranks top heavy with yes men and paper passers.

Even so, there is strong opposition inside ISI to Washington's bribing and arm-twisting the Musharraf dictatorship into waging war against fellow Pakistanis and gravely damaging Pakistan's national interests.

ISI's primary duty is defending Pakistan. Pashtun tribesmen on the border sympathizing with their fellow Taliban Pashtun in Afghanistan are Pakistanis. Many, like the legendary Jalaluddin Haqqani, are old U.S. allies and freedom fighters from the 1980s.

TRIBAL UPRISINGS

Violence and uprisings in these tribal areas are not caused by "terrorism," but directly result from the U.S.-led occupation of Afghanistan and Washington's forcing the hated Musharraf regime to attack its own people.

ISI is trying to restrain pro-Taliban Pashtun tribesmen while dealing with growing U.S. attacks into Pakistan that threaten a wider war.
India, Pakistan's bitter foe, has an army of agents in Afghanistan and is arming, backing and financing the Karzai puppet regime in Kabul. Pakistan's historic strategic interests in Afghanistan have been undermined by the U.S. occupation. The U.S., Canada and India are trying to eliminate Pakistani influence in Afghanistan.

ISI, many of whose officers are Pashtun, has every right to warn Pakistani citizens of impending U.S. air attacks that kill large numbers of civilians.
But ISI also has another vital mission. Preventing Pakistan's Pashtun (15% to 20% of the population of 165 million) from rekindling the old "Greater Pashtunistan" movement calling for union of the Pashtun tribes of Pakistan and Afghanistan -- divided by British imperialism -- into a new Pashtun nation. That would tear apart Pakistan and invite Indian military intervention.

Washington's bull-in-a-china-shop behaviour pays no heeds to such realities.
Instead, Washington demonizes faithful old allies, ISI and Pakistan, while supporting Afghanistan's communists and drug dealers, and allowing India to stir the Afghan pot -- all for the sake of new energy pipelines.

As Henry Kissinger cynically noted, being America's ally is more dangerous than being its enemy.

 

[martialLAW]

Isn’t it interesting that in the 1980’s the US was fighting
a covert war against the Afghan and Russian communists.
At that time India was supporting Soviet Unions brutal occupation
of Afghanistan …. And now the Russians, Afghan communists and
Indians are US allies.


U.S. vilifies faithful old ally

Bush administration vents against Pakistan's military intelligence for doing its duty -- defending Pakistan

By ERIC MARGOLIS

It's blame Pakistan week. As resistance to western occupation of Afghanistan intensifies, the increasingly frustrated Bush administration is venting its anger against Inter-Service Intelligence (ISI), Pakistan's military intelligence agency.

The White House leaked claims ISI was in cahoots with pro-Taliban groups in Pakistan's tribal area along the Afghan border.

Pakistan's Defence Minister Ahmed Mukhtar said the White House accuses ISI of warning Pashtun tribes of impending U.S. air attacks. President George W. Bush angrily asked Pakistan's visiting Prime Minister Yousuf Gilani, "Who's in charge of ISI?"

In Ottawa, the Harper government dutifully echoed Bush's accusation against Pakistan, including the so far unsubstantiated claim that ISI agents had bombed India's embassy in Kabul.

I was one of the first western journalists invited into ISI headquarters in 1986. ISI's then director, the fierce Lt.- Gen. Akhtar Rahman, personally briefed me on Pakistan's secret role in fighting Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.

ISI's "boys" provided communications, logistics, heavy weapons, and direction in the Afghan War. ISI played the key role in the victory over the Soviets.
On my subsequent trips to Pakistan I was routinely briefed by succeeding ISI chiefs and joined ISI officers in the field, sometimes under fire.

ISI is accused of meddling in Pakistani politics. The late Benazir Bhutto, who often was thwarted by Pakistan's spooks, always scolded me, "you and your beloved generals at ISI." But before Musharraf, ISI was the Third World's most efficient, professional intelligence agency. It defends Pakistan against internal and external subversion by India's powerful spy agency, RAW, and by Iran.

ISI works closely with CIA and the Pentagon, but also must serve Pakistan's interests, which often are not identical to Washington's.

The last ISI director general I knew was the tough, highly capable Lt.-Gen. Mahmood Ahmed. He was purged by the new dictator, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, because Washington felt Mahmood was insufficiently responsive to U.S. interests. Ensuing ISI directors were all pre-approved by Washington. All senior ISI veterans deemed "Islamist" or too nationalistic by Washington were purged, leaving ISI's upper ranks top heavy with yes men and paper passers.

Even so, there is strong opposition inside ISI to Washington's bribing and arm-twisting the Musharraf dictatorship into waging war against fellow Pakistanis and gravely damaging Pakistan's national interests.

ISI's primary duty is defending Pakistan. Pashtun tribesmen on the border sympathizing with their fellow Taliban Pashtun in Afghanistan are Pakistanis. Many, like the legendary Jalaluddin Haqqani, are old U.S. allies and freedom fighters from the 1980s.

TRIBAL UPRISINGS

Violence and uprisings in these tribal areas are not caused by "terrorism," but directly result from the U.S.-led occupation of Afghanistan and Washington's forcing the hated Musharraf regime to attack its own people.

ISI is trying to restrain pro-Taliban Pashtun tribesmen while dealing with growing U.S. attacks into Pakistan that threaten a wider war.
India, Pakistan's bitter foe, has an army of agents in Afghanistan and is arming, backing and financing the Karzai puppet regime in Kabul. Pakistan's historic strategic interests in Afghanistan have been undermined by the U.S. occupation. The U.S., Canada and India are trying to eliminate Pakistani influence in Afghanistan.

ISI, many of whose officers are Pashtun, has every right to warn Pakistani citizens of impending U.S. air attacks that kill large numbers of civilians.
But ISI also has another vital mission. Preventing Pakistan's Pashtun (15% to 20% of the population of 165 million) from rekindling the old "Greater Pashtunistan" movement calling for union of the Pashtun tribes of Pakistan and Afghanistan -- divided by British imperialism -- into a new Pashtun nation. That would tear apart Pakistan and invite Indian military intervention.

Washington's bull-in-a-china-shop behaviour pays no heeds to such realities.
Instead, Washington demonizes faithful old allies, ISI and Pakistan, while supporting Afghanistan's communists and drug dealers, and allowing India to stir the Afghan pot -- all for the sake of new energy pipelines.

As Henry Kissinger cynically noted, being America's ally is more dangerous than being its enemy.

There are no permanent friends . . . only permanent interests. Lord Palmerston was right about the interests of imperial Britain, but, his remarks apply to the American Raj, also.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Stop thinking of Pakistan as a client state​

* Editorial
* The Observer,
* Sunday August 24 2008

The good news from Pakistan is that last week Pervez Musharraf, the general who seized power in a military coup in 1999, resigned. Better still, it was civilian political pressure and not an assassin's bullet that terminated his presidency. That, for a country sometimes described as the most dangerous on Earth, looks encouragingly democratic.

The bad news is that Mr Musharraf's departure does not make Pakistan much less dangerous. Hostility to the unpopular President was perhaps the only unifying force in a fractious coalition government. With Mr Musharraf gone, the stage is clear for a ruthless power struggle between the Pakistan People's party, vehicle for the family ambitions of the late Benazir Bhutto, and the Pakistan Muslim League of former premier Nawaz Sharif.

Since Pakistan is a nuclear power and host, along its lawless border with Afghanistan, to Taliban and al-Qaeda bases, the country's political turmoil is an obvious source of anxiety in the West. Mr Musharraf's rule was undemocratic, but, viewed from Washington, it offered strategic clarity. The general was an ally in the 'War on Terror'. The promise to purge his country of jihadi militants earned Mr Musharraf billions of dollars in aid.

But Mr Musharraf failed, not least because he looked like a White House client. Pakistan is not in any sense a 'Western' country. It is a militarily powerful but economically under-developed state, born of anti-colonial struggle and home to the world's second largest Muslim population. Mr Musharraf's apparent subordination of the national interest to serve American policy was always going to provoke a backlash that was part nationalist, part Islamic in character. That backlash made Mr Musharraf's regime more reliant on Washington and more repressive. Not surprisingly, many Pakistanis do not now associate domestic political freedom with US foreign policy.

That does not mean that Pakistan is a hot- bed of Taliban-style radicalism. Extremist parties struggle to get even 10 per cent of the national vote. Even without Mr Musharraf, Islamabad hardly needs persuading that jihadi terrorism is a threat. More Pakistanis were murdered by Islamic militants last year than were killed in the 9/11 attacks on the US.

But Pakistan struggles to reconcile civilian political determination to keep extremists at bay with military strategic preoccupations that predate the US 'War on Terror'. In particular, the country's military and intelligence establishment has historically seen collaboration with the Taliban as a weapon against India. Those forces are increasingly alarmed by a nascent alliance between Delhi and Nato-sustained Afghanistan. Pakistan felt safer from its oldest enemy when Afghanistan was a primitive buffer zone, controlled by Muslim fanatics. India blames Pakistan's ISI intelligence agency for a recent bomb attack on its Kabul embassy.

Meanwhile, the ability of Taliban fighters to seek refuge in Pakistan is a source of constant frustration for Nato commanders in Afghanistan. But even if Pakistan were capable of expelling the Taliban and al-Qaeda from its ungovernable tribal regions (which it currently is not), it would need some incentive greater than kudos and cash from Western capitals before it tried.

When Mr Musharraf was in power, Western leaders avoided engaging with the nuances of Pakistan's strategic perspective. His departure makes that task essential. The West, which essentially means Washington, must spend much more diplomatic energy smoothing relations between Islamabad and Delhi. The case must be made to both of South Asia's nuclear-armed Cold Warriors that detente would deliver substantial security and economic benefits across the region.

That, of course, is a long-term goal; the West has little control over events in Pakistan in the short term. Recognising that limitation would also be a smart move. Mr Musharraf's image as 'pro-Western' helped turn Pakistanis anti-Musharraf. A sensible new diplomatic strategy would focus not on fashioning Pakistan into a Western client, but on promoting a stable and democratic Pakistan which would ultimately be more likely to see its own interests and those of the West coinciding.

Editorial: Stop thinking of Pakistan as a client state | Comment is free | The Observer

-----------------------------------

Views Some of us have argued time and time again, that the US needs to step into the void and help assuage Pakistan's strategic concerns, and that it needs to back off from forcing the issue of 'do more' publicly, especially through half baked stunts such as that in the NYT accusing the ISI, since all that will do is paint the GoP as being a 'US lackey', and exponentially increase the hurdles to cooperation

 

[martialLAW]

There is a very efficient and historically-tried and trusted way of ceasing to be a client state . . . stop acting and behaving like one !?

Islamabad should try it!!

The Pakistani people lack the servile and blinkered mindset that has been a handicap for Pakistani governments for many decades. It is not enough to appeal to the better side of the US imperial nature and plead that succeeding administrations in Washington do not "use and abuse" the Pakistani state . . . it is up to Islamabad to demonstrate its independence of thought/vision/resolve/action in order assert its will on the international arena . . in the way Washington does - or Beijing and Moscow do, for example.

Any prospective government in Pakistan cannot serve their own people if they cannot liberate themselves from bonded slavery to the American Empire. It demonstrates a poverty of vision, thought and self-belief. This issue is at the heart of the scelerosis affecting Pakistani governance . . . the departure of Musharraf has not changed the matter.

 

[batmannow]

Pakistan poses US policy headache

By Kevin Connolly
BBC News, Washington

Page last updated at 18:14 GMT, Monday, 18 August 2008 19:14 UK

The foreign-policy challenges are coming thick and fast for America's presidential hopefuls these days - providing a sharp reminder to us all that the new man in the White House will find himself handling pressing issues in some of the world's most dangerous and unpredictable trouble spots.
First came the crisis over South Ossetia which challenged both John McCain and Barack Obama to explain how they would balance the Westernising ambitions of former communist states like Georgia against the hard reality that a resurgent Russia remains at least a regional super-power.

Now there is the resignation of Pervez Musharraf - the Pakistani military strongman who ignored the differences of opinion within his turbulent Muslim country and declared it to be an ally of the United States in the "war on terror".

The threat of a new Cold War with the Russians has been making headlines around the world, but the upheaval in Islamabad is potentially even more destabilising.
Washington's approval

Something in the Musharraf approach clearly struck a chord with George W Bush - at a practical level it would have been almost impossible for the US to conduct effective operations in Afghanistan without the co-operation of neighbouring Pakistan.

But the Pakistani leader's personal style dovetailed neatly with the Bush approach to politics too - both men liked the idea of following simple strategies based on big ideas, rather than troubling themselves with the detailed issues of day-to-day politics.

On the face of it, that made Pervez Musharraf a familiar figure on the American political stage - the military strongman who while not himself a democrat, was nonetheless a keen supporter of the world's most powerful democracy and whose support was rewarded with American aid - around $10bn in this case.
He is not the first such figure to alienate huge sections of his own population in pursuit of Washington's approval and friendship.

Difficult issue

The reason why Pakistan is so different - and so difficult - for the United States is because within its own institutions of power there are competing impulses about where the country's true interests lie.

One American foreign policy analyst put it like this: "Pakistan is probably the most difficult issue the next president will face. It is both a victim of Jihadist terrorism - as with the assassination of Mrs Bhutto - and a sponsor and safe haven of Jihadist terrorism and it is unclear who's on which side at any given time."

There are clear indications that elements within the Pakistani Intelligence Services (the ISI) support the resurgent Taleban - only last month the CIA presented Pakistan's government with evidence that its intelligence agents assisted a suicide bomb attack on the Indian Embassy in Kabul.

That has to be balanced against the fact that Pakistani agents have arrested hundreds of al-Qaeda suspects in recent years, including a number of key players who were handed on into US custody.

Anti-Americanism

It is a sobering thought for Americans that even under a pro-Western military strongman, Pakistan to some extent faced both ways in the "war on terror". Under a democratically-elected coalition government, the country might become an even more complex and ambiguous partner.
President Bush was quick to stress the importance to America of working with the new Pakistani leadership, but the challenge for the next president is to persuade the new regime in Islamabad to remain focussed on the "war on terror".

The American hope is that a democratically-elected government will be a more natural partner than a military dictatorship, but it is far from certain that things will work out that way.

In the fractious and sometimes dangerous world of Pakistani politics, the coalition may well find itself pre-occupied with its own survival. And it will have to be mindful of a strong streak of anti-Americanism in Pakistan which is not entirely confined to Islamic fundamentalists.

Pakistani-Afghan border

So President Bush, and whoever follows him into the White House, will need to be subtle and determined if they are to keep the new Pakistan somehow involved in the America-led alliance which fights the "war on terror".

Washington has poured aid into Pakistan in recent years - and picks up the bills for keeping the Pakistani Army deployed in the tribal areas around the country's border with Afghanistan - but there have been signs lately that the Americans do not believe they are getting good value out of this proxy war.

Many Pakistanis in turn resent the idea that their army is being paid to operate on behalf of the United States.

That is just one complicating factor in an area which will become more important if a future President Obama or President McCain makes good their stated intentions to step up American deployment in Afghanistan and raise the profile of the US campaign there.

It will be difficult for America to step up operations in Afghanistan without being sure that the Pakistani-Afghan border is secure - and that will only happen if US relations with both the Pakistani military and the new civilian government are good.
The presidential hopefuls will find themselves tested with questions about all sorts of trouble spots around the world in the next few months - none is more important than this.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

The Democrats agenda for Pakistan - I would assume that McCain would essentially continue along the path the US already is:

Democrats to work for good ties with Pakistan​

By Anwar Iqbal


WASHINGTON, Aug 26: US policies towards Pakistan will undergo major changes if Barack Obama is elected in November, shows a document adopted on Tuesday as the Democratic Party platform, 2008.

The platform, which is called a manifesto in the subcontinent, outlines the plan the party intends to implement during the next four years if it wins the presidential election scheduled for Nov 4.

The document focuses on two major issues --– militancy in Fata and nuclear proliferation --– while seeking to redefine America’s ties with Pakistan.

A Democratic White House, however, will not disengage itself from Pakistan. Instead, it calls for stronger ties with the people of Pakistan and promises to “significantly increase” non-military aid.

But the military aid will be conditioned to Pakistan’s performance in the “war on terror”.

“We must move beyond an alliance built on individual leaders, or we will face mounting opposition in a nuclear-armed nation at the nexus of terror, extremism and the instability wrought by autocracy,” the document warns.

“We will ask more of the Pakistani government, rather than offer a blank cheque to an undemocratic president,” it adds. “We will significantly increase non-military aid to the Pakistani people and sustain it for a decade, while ensuring that the military assistance we provide is actually used to fight extremists.”

While talking about the threat of nuclear proliferation, the document pledges “make absolutely sure that a disaster like the A.Q. Khan black market network, which grew out of Pakistan’s nuclear programme, can never happen again.”

The Democratic Party also pledges to take steps to reduce tension between India and Pakistan and guard against the possibility of their nuclear weapons falling into the wrong hands.

“We must also work with our friends, India and Pakistan, in their efforts to resolve longstanding differences,” the document adds.

The unanimously adopted document, however, is very critical of Pakistan’s alleged failure to control militancy in Fata. “The greatest threat to the security of the Afghan people -– and the American people -– lies in the tribal regions of Pakistan, where terrorists train, plot attacks, and strike into Afghanistan and move back across the border,” the party warns. “We cannot tolerate a sanctuary for Al Qaeda.”

But this harsh indictment of Pakistan’s performance in Fata does not prevent the party from seeking stronger ties with the country. “We need a stronger and sustained partnership between Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Nato … to better secure the border, to take out terrorist camps, and to crack down on cross-border insurgents,” the document notes.

It also advocates providing better equipment -– like satellites and predator drones --- to the US forces and its allies in the region to fight terrorists.

“We must help Pakistan develop its own counter-terrorism and counter-insurgency capacity. We will invest in the long-term development of the Pashtun border region, so that the extremists’ programme of hate is met with an agenda of hope,” the document concludes.

Democrats to work for good ties with Pakistan -DAWN - Top Stories; August 27, 2008

Pakistan has been demanding high tech equipment to fight the insurgency for a while now, denied by the US. While this by no means guarantees the US will change its policy on that count, it is heartening to note that the Deocrats are for now open to the idea.

 

[Neo]

Interpreting Zardari’s US visit​

The reporting and opinion in Pakistan on President Asif Ali Zardari’s visit to the US present a fascinating kaleidoscope. A front page heading says: “US offers Pakistan help to protect its sovereignty” in one daily, but in another it says, “Bush skirts issue of sovereignty”. A front page comment by a correspondent in Washington says: “Bush’s words mean nothing”. And the decisive front page heading in one newspaper said: “US acknowledges Pak sovereignty”. Does this mean that we are not sure about the purpose of the visit or whether it has some objectives that have been achieved and others missed?

The TV channels are sceptical. Some are still opining the old strain that President Zardari should have “stuck” to his word and visited China before planning a trip to the UN and USA. Others want him to chide the American lion in its lair and tell the superpower that Pakistan is getting tired of its dubious ride on top of it. As a result, many citizens are ringing to express flustered views, regurgitating a negative view of the wisdom, on the part of Messrs Zardari, Gilani and Kayani, to leave Islamabad after the Marriott blast.

As expected, the statement made by the information minister, Ms Sherry Rehman, has interpreted the “sovereignty” theme in a positive light: “President Bush has reaffirmed in his meeting with President Zardari that the US is alive to Pakistan’s sovereignty concerns and that Pakistan has reiterated its position about boots on the ground or ground operations on its territory”. Mr Zardari’s own remarks at the meeting with Mr Bush in front of the press were focused on the theme of democracy which was relied upon to touch base with Pakistan’s friends in the world in general and the US in particular. Clearly, on such occasions one doesn’t engage in political jousting even if it is emotionally quite satisfying.

The remarks made by the US Secretary of Defence, Robert Gates, get prominence here because he is supposed to have said something offensive: “The greatest threat of terrorism against the United States comes from the Tribal Areas of Pakistan”. This is also supposed to be a snub to President Zardari. But the truth is that the threat to Pakistan too is coming from the Tribal Areas. Indeed, as days pass, more and more evidence will definitely come to surface about how Al Qaeda and its local foot soldiers in Punjab and FATA planned and executed the destruction of Marriott Hotel. Why is it important for Pakistan to avoid international isolation while tackling the problem of terrorism from which it is suffering?

The first reason is its dire economic situation and its inability to generate funds for the effort needed to confront the Al Qaeda onslaught. The second is the regional odds against it because of the presence of NATO-ISAF forces in Afghanistan and the location of Al Qaeda and its affiliates in Pakistan. Therefore Pakistan’s government must make efforts to align the international opinion with it on what it thinks should be done to counter terrorism that is taking place inside Pakistan and radiating outwards into the neighbouring states. Mr Asif Zardari cannot harangue the world like the Iranian President Mr Ahmadinejad without the economic clout and revolutionary hold over its own population that Iran possesses because of its oil and gas resources and political system.

President Zardari has gone to the US primarily to attend the UN General Assembly session in New York and to take advantage of the presence of world leaders there to interact with them and present Pakistan’s point of view on terrorism and economic need. Therefore he will do what the other world leaders do: make courtesy calls on the heads of government and state present on the occasion. In most cases, of course, the discussions will not be substantive. But they will certainly help create good bilateral atmospherics for future dialogues. In much the same way, Mr Zardari’s meeting with Mr Bush was an important occasion of mutual assurance without being substantive. For us it remains important to touch base with the outgoing American administration in Washington simply because the next administration is likely to continue the same policy in Afghanistan.

Unfortunately, some Pakistani academics and journalists are inclined to use political terms quite loosely. For instance, on Tuesday, one academic used the term “unilateralism” while talking of the US policy under the umbrella of the NATO-ISAF forces. But the truth is that “unilateralism” has been applied so far in cases only where the US has invaded a country without the approval of the UN Security Council. In the same way, “going back” to the IMF by Pakistan was decried as returning to the process of accumulating a large debt. But the fact is that the IMF loans don’t increase our debt as much as debts contracted from non-IMF sources. What is fearful about the IMF is its ledger of conditionalities which strangulates the economy and increases the suffering of the common man.

This is a time for pragmatic introspection, not outraged aggression. Let us give our fledgling “democracy” a chance to grow and our dysfunctional state an ability to survive. *

 

[Interceptor]

Friends can’t be intruders: Zardari

Friday, September 26, 2008

Says Pakistan will never succumb to terrorism; deplores UN lethargy over Benazir murder probe; equates Benazir doctrine with Marshall plan

By our correspondent

UNITED NATIONS: Pakistan has made it clear that it cannot allow its friends to violate its territory and its sovereignty as "attacks within Pakistan that violate our sovereignty actually serve to empower the forces which we fight together."

"We may be the target of international terrorism, but we will never succumb to it", said President Asif Ali Zardari in a confident tone while addressing the United Nations General Assembly's 63rd session here at the headquarters of the world body. He reminded the world: "We are not the cause of the problem of terrorism, we are its victims."

President Zardari in his maiden appearance at the world body pointed out that the government till today has no knowledge of the forces and institutions that plotted, planned, coordinated, trained and paid for the assassination of Ms Benazir Bhutto. "A UN investigation into the murder of their leader would reassure the people of Pakistan that the international community cares about them, that the UN's charter of justice is more than rhetoric. We owe it to her. We owe it to history", he said.

The president who spent more than 3/4th of his address remembering, paying tribute and discussing circumstances in which his wife Ms Benazir Bhutto was assassinated, was visibly emotional during his address. "I come before you today in the name of my late wife, Ms Benazir Bhutto, as a victim of terrorism representing a nation that is a victim of terrorism. I am a grieving husband, who has seen the mother of my children give her life fighting the menaces of terrorism and fanaticism that haunt the entire civilised world."

The president said that that vote for Ms Benazir Bhutto was an act of love and a demand for a democratic, moderate, modern, and tolerant and economically just Pakistan, the essence of the Bhutto doctrine. It has been eleven months since the first attack on my wife on October 18, 2007 was followed by a United Nations resolution calling for an inquiry in that crime against humanity. That UN resolution has so far been ineffective. After her assassination on December 27, the international community demanded an independent inquiry - a demand supported by resolutions in Pakistan's parliament and four provincial legislatures," he reminded.

"If the president of a country and his children cannot get justice through the United Nations, how would the poor and the dispossessed around the world find reassurance that the UN is capable of protecting the weak and the suffering?" he asked.

"In the name of humanity and in the name of justice, move forward quickly on the investigation into the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, so the people of Pakistan and the world will know for once and for all, whose bloody hands took away one of the greatest women of history."

For years she told world leaders that dictatorship fuels extremism and poverty fuels fanaticism. She outlined the Bhutto doctrine of reconciliation so brilliantly presented in her last book, a dual mission to combat dictatorship and terrorism, while promoting social and economic reforms and justice for the people of Pakistan. Benazir Bhutto understood that democracy was not an end, but a beginning: that a starving child has no human rights; that a father who could not support his family was someone ripe for extremism," he added.

President Zardari said that the Bhutto doctrine of reconciliation is a roadmap not only to a new Pakistan, but to a new era of peace and cooperation between East and West, between the people of all faiths; a roadmap that if followed will avoid the clash of civilisations and clash of religions that is the terrorists' ultimate goal.

He said that the Bhutto doctrine is the new century's equivalent of the Marshall Plan that saved Europe after World War II. And just as the Marshall Plan was centred on the principle that an economically sound Europe could and would resist communism, the Bhutto doctrine's pillar is that an economically viable Pakistan will be the centrepiece of the victory of pluralism over terrorism. The Bhutto doctrine will ultimately prove to be as critical to the victory of freedom in this century as the Marshall Plan was critical to the triumph of liberty in the last century.

Ours is the doctrine of reconciliation, theirs the doctrine of death. Her killers thought her elimination would end her dream of a democratic Pakistan and the balkanization of our region would enable the forces of darkness to prevail.

President Zardari warned that if al-Qaeda and the Taliban believed that by silencing Benazir Bhutto, they were silencing her message, they were totally wrong. We have picked up the torch and will fight against terrorists who attack us, and fight against terrorists who use our territory to plan attacks against our neighbours or anywhere in the world.

Referring to last Saturday’s attack on an Islamabad hotel, the president said that only last week, "the forces of evil struck again with a bloody and cowardly attack against my people. A suicide truck bomb destroyed a great building in our capital barely a stone's throw from my office and the house of parliament. Once again, Pakistan is the great victim in the war on terror. And once again our people wonder whether we stand alone. Thousands of our soldiers and civilians have died fighting against the common enemies of humanity. We have lost more soldiers than all 37 countries that have forces in Afghanistan put together."

The president said that the roots of today's terrorism could be traced to a war involving the world's superpowers in Afghanistan during the 1980s. Afghanistan and Pakistan, and increasingly the world, are reaping the bitter harvest sowed towards the end of the cold war.

He regretted that the world turned its back on Afghanistan after the Soviet defeat. In Pakistan, we were left with three million refugees within our borders. Their camps soon became the breeding grounds for intolerance and violence. The West left South and Central Asia. We were left to live with the consequences. And one of its consequences was the birth of al-Qaeda and the Talibanisation of Afghanistan and parts of our tribal areas.

The president said we are victims but we will never be vanquished. On the contrary, the more of our children's blood they spill, the stronger is our determination to defeat them. "We in Pakistan stand united and in defiance. We are resolved that our future will not be dictated by these who defy the spirit and laws of Islam for their sordid political goals."

President Asif Zardari said: "the question I ask the world leaders in this august chamber is whether you will stand with us, just as we stand for the entire civilised world on the frontlines of this epic struggle of the new millennium?

"I stand before you as the president of a great nation that has suffered under a decade of brutal military dictatorship, human rights abuses, and the systematic destruction of the foundations of democracy and civil society. Sadly, all too often the world stood silent as dictators ruled our people with a bloody fist. Nations that were founded on democracy were silent for reasons of expediency. My wife would say that they "danced with dictators." Today, as we meet here in New York, the democratically elected leader of Myanmar, Aung San Suu Kyi, continues to be imprisoned in Yangon. She has suffered year after year under house arrest. The world should demand that this great woman finally be freed."

President Zardari said that the fight against extremism is a fight for the hearts and minds of people. "It cannot be won by guns and bombs alone. The fight must be multifaceted. The battleground must be economic and social as well as military. We will win when people are mobilised against the fanatics. To mobilise them we have to give them hope and opportunity for their future. They need jobs. Their children need education. They must be fed. They must have energy. We must give people a stake in their own government, and we must demonstrate to them that democracy does perform, that democratic governance can improve their everyday life."

The president said that an economically viable Pakistan would be a stable Pakistan. And a stable Pakistan will suck the oxygen from the terrorists' agenda. Economic justice and political democracy are the worst nightmares of the terrorists.

"We will work together with our neighbour Afghanistan, and the NATO forces stationed there, to ensure security of our common border. We will continue the composite dialogue with India so that our outstanding disputes are resolved. Whether it is the core issue of Jammu and Kashmir, or cooperation on water resources, India and Pakistan must accommodate each other's concerns and interests," he said.

"But let it be clear to those in this hall, and to the terrorists lurking in their caves plotting their next assault on humanity. If necessary we will confront evil with force - our police, our army and our air force. We will turn the power of the state against the stateless terrorists. We will turn the power of justice against the chaos of anarchists. We will turn the power of right against the darkness of evil."

"It has not been as easy road. I spent nine years in prison, in solitary confinement, as a hostage to my wife's struggle for democracy and to our party's future. I was unjustly imprisoned under a judicial system manipulated and controlled by the forces of dictatorship. I refused to break under pressure. My years in prison made me a stronger person and hardened my resolve to fight for democracy and justice. Those years prepared me for this moment," President Zardari vowed.

"Terror took my wife's life. But the terrorists cannot kill my wife's dream. Her vision, her passion, her force is now our common task. The Benazir Bhutto doctrine of reconciliation lives on; it guides us in our endeavours. Her reconciliation is the mantra of the new era, and I am dedicated to implementing what she has proposed. I wish I could do it at my wife's side. But now I will do it in my wife's place. Pakistan will prove wrong all the negative predictions about its future. We will show the way in overcoming suspicions towards and from our neighbours, and building a future for our people," he said.

http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=17503

 

[Neo]

It's time for the United States to get smart on Pakistan​

By Robert M. Hathaway
Commentary by
Friday, September 26, 2008

The recent inauguration of Asif Ali Zardari as Pakistan's president offered the possibility - but hardly the certainty - of a new beginning for Pakistan, and a new era in US-Pakistan relations.

Zardari's election gives Pakistanis an opportunity to move beyond the passions and antipathies of the Pervez Musharraf years, even if the bomb explosion this past weekend at the Marriott Hotel in Islamabad only showed the difficulties that lie ahead. It offers them a chance - one last chance - to get serious about dealing with the grave problems confronting their country. The United States can and should help with these efforts.

During the past year and a half, one political crisis after another has distracted Pakistanis from squarely facing the huge economic and security challenges that threaten their nation. Large swaths of Pakistan are no longer under the effective control of the state. Armed insurgents regularly employ terror tactics and remind Pakistanis just how incapable of providing basic security their government is. Spiraling food prices mean that growing numbers of Pakistanis go to bed hungry. Power blackouts are daily occurrences and have jolted the industrial base of the country. The educational system is dysfunctional, the judicial system corrupt. Young men cannot find jobs and are ready targets for extremist recruiters.

If Pakistan does not begin to address these problems in a systematic and sustained fashion, this nation of 165 million people - the world's sixth most populous country - could go off the rails. And vital US interests would be jeopardized. Is Zardari up to the task?

Doubts abound, both at home and abroad. If he is to erase those reservations, he could do no better than to live up to the fine promises he recently made in an article in The Washington Post. In that article, Zardari laid out his vision of a "democratic, moderate and progressive" Pakistan. An early test of his intentions will be whether he voluntarily surrenders the vast powers of the presidency that Musharraf had accumulated for himself and which have been used to bring down a succession of elected governments. Zardari requested this in his inauguration speech on the day of the Marriott attack.

The Bush administration belatedly recognized that a Pakistan policy built around Musharraf was a dead end. It has welcomed Zardari's election, all the more so since it has considerable worries about Nawaz Sharif, the leader of Pakistan's other principal political party.

But Washington must avoid both words and actions that would allow Zardari's political opponents to label him "America's man." Unfortunately, that epitaph is the kiss of death in Pakistan. Instead of linking itself to one individual or party, the United States must work to sustain democratic governance and the rule of law in Pakistan.

In the days and weeks ahead, the administration must make clear its expectations of Pakistan. The good news is that - contrary to what Pakistanis widely believe - the United States wants for Pakistan the very same things most Pakistanis desire: a stable government responsive to their wishes, a prosperous economy that meets the needs of the meekest as well as the mightiest, a judicial system that dispenses impartial justice, an end to extremist-sponsored violence and peace with its neighbors.

If the country's new political leadership is prepared to move Pakistan in this direction, Pakistanis have every right to look to the US for substantial assistance in strengthening their economy, providing for the education of their young people, making quality healthcare available to all Pakistanis, and working with Pakistan in a multitude of other ways to build a modern, prosperous country.

In the US, there is widespread support for generous and long-term assistance to Pakistan. Bipartisan legislation, the Biden-Lugar bill now under consideration on Capitol Hill, envisions a tripling of US assistance during the next decade. Prospects for its adoption are promising.

In one respect, however, the Biden-Lugar bill does not go far enough. The single most useful thing the US can do to help Pakistan succeed is to put Pakistanis to work. And the single most effective step toward this end Washington could take would be to eliminate its current punitive tariff policies on Pakistani exports.

As it currently stands, US trade policy actually discriminates against Pakistan. US tariffs on Pakistani textiles - easily Pakistan's most important export - are far steeper than on similar goods from other countries. As Edward Gresser of the Progressive Policy Institute has pointed out, each container of exported towels puts 500 Pakistani men and women to work. Yet, textile exports from literally dozens of developing countries around the world face lower US tariffs than do Pakistani textiles. The least we could do is to level the playing field for Pakistani goods.

Similarly, many rich countries enjoy US trade benefits not available to Pakistan. Last year, Pakistani exports to the United States totaled not much more than a quarter of the value of Sweden's exports. Yet the $365 million in tariff duties we imposed on Pakistan was almost three times the figure we extracted from Swedish goods. No wonder many Pakistanis disbelieve our protestations of good intentions toward their country.

It makes good political, economic, and strategic sense for the US to move - and move quickly - to give Pakistani textile exports preferred tariff status - or at least parity with their competitors. Doing so will not be easy. Entrenched US interests will denounce the idea as too costly for American industry and too destructive of American jobs. But surely a way can be found to meet the legitimate concerns of US companies and workers. As the United States seeks to help Pakistan, trade parity should be at the top of the next administration's agenda.

 

[Neo]

Zardari hits out at US action​

27 Sep, 2008

As US President George W Bush thanked Prime Minister Manmohan Singh for his briefing on India’s neighbourhood, Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari was making an impassioned speech at the United Nations General Assembly about fighting terror in an attempt to convince world leaders about Islamabad’s credentials, reports Our Political Bureau in New Delhi.

Mr Zardari, who held talks with Mr Bush and Mr Singh on the sidelines of the UNGA, used the global stage to present his government’s agenda on terror and announce his intention of improving ties with India and Afghanistan. At the same time, Mr Zardari said that Pakistan was the “target of international terrorism’’ and traced the origins of terror to the three million refugees who migrated to Pakistan during the Soviet Afghan war.

His speech coincided with the meeting between Mr Singh and Mr Bush at the Oval Office in the White House where the issue of spiraling extremism in Afghanistan and Pakistan figured in talks. Mr Bush went as far as to thank Mr Singh for inputs on India’s neighbourhood where terror is the key problem.

“I thank you for your advice on a range of matters. I appreciated very much your briefing on the neighbourhood in which you live,” Mr Bush told Mr Singh. “It’s very informative and it helps me make decisions and formulate policy,” he added.

There is clearly a shared interest for both the US and India in dealing with the problem of terrorism in South Asia especially in the backdrop of US-India ties entering a new phase through the nuclear deal.

Like India, the US has also been struggling to formulate policy towards Pakistan. Out of sheer frustration with Islamabad’s inability and even disinclination to take tough measures to stamp out terror in the FATA region, the US gone ahead with unilateral military operations on Pakistani soil. This has been met with chagrin by the Pakistani establishment.

Mr Zardari made a cautious mention of it in his speech. ``Unilateral actions of great powers should not inflame the passions of allies. Violating our nation’s sovereignty is not helpful in eliminating the terrorist menace. Indeed, this could have the opposite effect,’’ he said, adding, ``Terrorism cannot be fought by military means alone. Fighting it requires political will, popular mobilisation, and a socio-economic strategy that wins the hearts and minds of nations afflicted by it.”

At the same time, Mr Zardari in his speech also reached out to India saying that Pakistan would work towards improving ties. ``Better relations between Pakistan, Afghanistan and India would help create the regional environment that is more conducive to reducing militancy in our region,’’ he said.

He further said that Pakistan was ready to work with its neighbours towards this aim. ``Whether it is the core issue of Jammu and Kashmir, or cooperation on water resources, India and Pakistan must accommodate each other’s concerns and interests; we must respect and work with each other to peacefully resolve our problems and build South Asia into a common market of trade and technology,’’ he said.

The tenor of Mr Zardari’s speech would definitely please New Delhi which wants to push economic, trade and people-to-people ties with Pakistan even as discussions on core issues like Kashmir and terror are taken up under the composite dialogue process.

Mr Zardari also spoke at length about the sacrifice made by his wife Benazir Bhutto. ``If al-Qaeda and the Taliban believed that by silencing Shaheed Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto, they were silencing her message, they were very wrong,’’ he said. He further said that a democratic Pakistan ``is in the process of reaching the national consensus necessary to confront and defeat the terrorists.’’

 

[Neo]

Pakistan looms large for next US administration​

By MATTHEW LEE, Associated Press Writer

NEW YORK - At the White House, President Bush welcomed the leaders of Pakistan and Afghanistan this week. Along their borders, safe havens for anti-U.S. militants, their troops exchanged fire, deepening a foreign policy challenge for the next American president.

These troubles are among the overseas entanglements that Bush's successor — John McCain or Barack Obama — will inherit. It's a crowded list: wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; inconclusive diplomatic efforts over Iran; North Korea's nuclear programs; a faltering Middle East peace process.

Nuclear-armed Pakistan is struggling through internal political chaos. Questions have arisen about Islamist infiltration of its security services. A resurgent Taliban and al-Qaida have settled in along the border with Afghanistan. Combine all that with the long-standing tensions with archrival and neighbor India, and it is a combustible cocktail.

Just in the past week, Pakistan has seen one of the deadliest extremist attacks in its history — the truck bombing of the Marriott Hotel in Islamabad — and its military has exchanged ground fire with U.S. and Afghan troops near the border after shooting near American choppers.

Pakistan has come under intense U.S. pressure to do more against al-Qaida and Taliban insurgents in the country's largely ungoverned tribal areas near the border with Afghanistan.

In response to allegations of Pakistani intelligence complicity in the bombing of the Indian Embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan this year, Bush expanded the authority of U.S. troops in Afghanistan to cross the border in pursuit of extremists — without Pakistani consent.

Pakistan loudly protested such incursions as violations of its sovereignty.

On Tuesday, Bush acknowledged tensions when he met Pakistan's new president, Asif Ali Zardari, in New York. "Your words have been very strong about Pakistan's sovereign right and sovereign duty to protect your country, and the United States wants to help," he said.

Yet only two days later, Pakistani troops fired either warning shots or flares at two U.S. helicopters near the border, prompting a five-minute exchange of bullets below between ground forces and U.S. demands for explanations. There were no injuries or damage.

On Friday, as Bush met with Afghan President Hamid Karzai, America's top military officer, Adm. Mike Mullen, acknowledged there was "hair-trigger tension we are all feeling." He appealed for calm and teamwork.

Pakistan's prime minister insisted on Saturday that his country is supportive of military action against extremists. Authorities said an offensive in Pakistan's northwestern tribal area killed 16 suspected militants and that 35 had been captured near the region's main city.

Yet Pakistan's commitment to the fight and ability to do the job are being questioned, not least by one of the two men hoping to succeed Bush.

In the first presidential debate Friday, Democrat Barack Obama complained that Pakistan has failed to take strong enough action against terrorists despite the billions of dollars from the U.S. after Sept. 11, 2001.

"They have not done what needs to be done to get rid of those safe havens," Obama said. "If the United States has al-Qaida, bin Laden, top-level lieutenants in our sights, and Pakistan is unable or unwilling to act, then we should take them out."

Republican John McCain opted for a less aggressive public stance, questioning Obama's threat to take matters into U.S. hands.

"You don't do that," he said. "You don't say that out loud. If you have to do things, you have to do things, and you work with the Pakistani government."

"We've got to get the support of the people of Pakistan," McCain said, referring mainly to those who live in the tribal areas. "And it's going to be tough. But we have to get the cooperation of the people in those areas."

 

[Neo]

Obama breathes fire, McCain shows restraint over Pakistan​

WASHINGTON, Sept 27: Pakistan will remain the main theatre of the US-led war on terror whether it is a Democratic or a Republican who occupies the White House next year.

But if the Democrats win, President Barack Obama will send troops into Pakistan to catch senior Al Qaeda leaders, but if the Republicans win, President John McCain will not. He will rely on political and economic engagement with Pakistan to defeat terrorists.

The two candidates expressed these views at their first debate on Friday night.

“If the United States has Al Qaeda, (Osama) bin Laden, top-level lieutenants in our sights, and Pakistan is unwilling or unable to act, then we should take them out,” said Senator Obama.

Mr McCain disagreed. “We’re going to have to help the Pakistanis go into these areas and obtain the allegiance of the people. It’s going to be tough,” said the Arizona senator.

“We’ve got to deal with Pakistan, because Al Qaeda and the Taliban have safe havens in Pakistan, across the border in the northwest regions,” Mr Obama insisted. “Although, you know, under George Bush, with the support of Senator McCain, we’ve been giving them $10 billion over the last seven years, they have not done what needs to be done to get rid of those safe havens.”

This did not convince Senator McCain. “On this issue of aiding Pakistan, if you’re going to aim a gun at somebody, George Shultz, our great secretary of state, told me once, you’d better be prepared to pull the trigger,” said the Republican candidate. “I’m not prepared at this time to cut off aid to Pakistan. So I’m not prepared to threaten it, as Senator Obama apparently wants to do, as he has said that he would announce military strikes into Pakistan.”

Instead, Mr McCain advocated winning over the people of Pakistan.

“We’ve got to get the support of the people of Pakistan. He said that he would launch military strikes into Pakistan. Now, you don’t do that. You don’t say that out loud. If you have to do things, you have to do things, and you work with the Pakistani government.”

Mr McCain noted that the new Pakistani president, ‘Kardari’ (Zardari), has got his hands full and the Afghan border region has not been governed since the days of Alexander.

Both candidates want to send more troops to Afghanistan and Mr Obama wants to do that “as quickly as possible because it’s been acknowledged by the commanders on the ground the situation is getting worse, not better.”

He noted that the highest fatalities among US troops in Afghanistan were last year than at any time since 2002 and the Al Qaeda and Taliban militants were crossing the border and attacking US troops in ‘a brazen fashion.’

Mr Obama said he would send two to three additional brigades to Afghanistan because “the place where we have to deal with these folks is going to be in Afghanistan and in Pakistan.”

Mr Obama also favoured a strong US strategy for dealing with a growing poppy trade in Afghanistan that has exploded over the last several years.

Mr McCain also favoured greater engagement with Pakistan and Afghanistan. “I won’t repeat the mistake that I regret enormously, and that is, after we were able to help the Afghan freedom fighters and drive the Russians out of Afghanistan, we basically washed our hands of the region,” he said.

“And the result over time was the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and a lot of the difficulties we are facing today. So we can’t ignore those lessons of history.”

 

[Neo]

First debate: McCain backs Pakistan, Obama says aid wasted​

* Obama vows to attack Taliban and Al Qaeda if Pakistan is unwilling to do so
* McCain stresses working with Islamabad, says support from Pakistani people necessary, not prepared to cut off aid​

​

By Khalid Hasan

NEW YORK: Barack Obama may have lost not only his first debate with Sen John McCain but also the Pakistani-American vote, which so far he was widely expected to get, given what came across as unsympathetic remarks about Pakistan and possible unilateral military strikes in certain situations.

While McCain came out as supportive of Pakistan and sensitive to its position and the difficult insurgency it is dealing with, Obama appeared to be otherwise. McCain also took advantage of the fact that he has visited Pakistan’s Tribal Areas and, given his military background, came out as more appreciative of the difficult terrain and the entrenched insurgency there. McCain also admitted that after Afghan freedom fighters drove the Russians out of Afghanistan, “we basically washed our hands off the region. And the result over time was the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and a lot of the difficulties being faced today.” Those, he added, are lessons of history that cannot be ignored.

McCain said, “I’m not prepared at this time to cut off aid to Pakistan. So I’m not prepared to threaten it, as Senator Obama apparently wants to do, as he has said that he would announce military strikes into Pakistan. We’ve got to get the support of the people of – of Pakistan. He said that he would launch military strikes into Pakistan. Now, you don’t do that. You don’t say that out loud. If you have to do things, you have to do things, and you work with the Pakistani government.” He pointed out that the new president of Pakistan has “got his hands full”.

McCain mocked Obama for his lack of familiarity with the region, saying, “I’ve been to Waziristan. I can see how tough that terrain is. It’s ruled by a handful of tribes.” He was dismissive of Obama on account of his having called for more troops, adding, “but what he doesn’t understand, it’s got to be a new strategy, the same strategy that he condemned in Iraq. It’s going to have to be employed in Afghanistan. And we’re going to have to help the Pakistanis go into these areas and obtain the allegiance of the people.” He warned that it is going to be ‘tough’. The local tribes have intermarried with Al Qaeda and the Taliban, but “we have to get the co-operation of the people in those areas.” He also stressed that the Pakistanis are going to have to understand that that Marriott hotel bombing was “a signal from the terrorists that they don’t want that government to co-operate with us in combating the Taliban and jihadist elements”. He said Pakistan is a very important element in the new regional strategy, adding, “I know how to work with him. And I guarantee you I would not publicly state that I’m going to attack them.”

Obama denied that he had talked about attacking Pakistan. Clarifying his earlier remarks, he said, “If the United States has Al Qaeda, bin Laden, top-level lieutenants in our sights, and Pakistan is unable or unwilling to act, then we should take them out.” He called the ‘right strategy’, the ‘right policy’. Referring to “cross-border attacks against US troops”, Obama said, “We have to start making some decisions.” Turning to the strategy pursued by Washington for 10 years, he summed it up as “we coddled Musharraf, we alienated the Pakistani population, because we were anti-democratic. We had a 20th-century mindset that basically said, ‘Well, you know, he may be a dictator, but he’s our dictator’.” As a consequence, the US lost legitimacy in Pakistan. “We spent $10 billion. And in the meantime, they weren’t going after Al Qaeda, and they are more powerful now than at any time since we began the war in Afghanistan. That’s going to change when I’m president of the United States.”

McCain replied, “I don’t think that Senator Obama understands that there was a failed state in Pakistan when Musharraf came to power. Everybody who was around then, and had been there, and knew about it knew that it was a failed state.”