The Pak-US Relationship

[somebozo]

Americanism failed in Pakistan because it made the rich even richer and appeased the landlord / mafia ruling class. An outlook US has expressed everywhere for its love of corrupt and dictatorial regimes. Imagine after 64 years of independence we are unable to abolish fedual system and out education system is in dire shambles. Also the current american political lot has failed to address any of our strategic issues therefore the anti-american sentiments are bound to rise. The Russians and Chinese have served us better but those days we were sold to american dollar. We saw over love for $$$ over take regional integrity and stability issues which ultimately landed india closer to regional power and so is the story of its rise today!

We despite occupying a very strategic piece of asian cross-roads and being situated ideally between two regional powers China, Russia and an economically rising country India are still totally inept to exploit our true potential and its a shame we look for security by overseas alliance thousands of miles away!

 

[muse]

Americanism failed in Pakistan because it made the rich even richer and appeased the landlord / mafia ruling class. An outlook US has expressed everywhere for its love of corrupt and dictatorial regimes.

I respect you brotha man but you is just plain wrong on that count. Just look at an alternative view from Salm Tarik and what the Ayub years brought and WHY:

The “golden years” of President Ayub saw the Harvard Group of economists, led by Dr Gustav Papanek, guiding our Planning Commission and helping generate the economic breakthroughs for which those years are rightly remembered. The period of the Harvard Group crosses the administrations of Eisenhower (Republican), Kennedy and Johnson (both Democrats)

Also note what brought about the leftist ideas -- that feudals are still feudals is not the fault of the US, but rather a reflection of the size and nature of the economy -- one that is still primarily agricultural, it was with US help that Pakistan took it's first steps toward industrialization and Urbanization.

We despite occupying a very strategic piece of asian cross-roads and being situated ideally between two regional powers China, Russia and an economically rising country India are still totally inept to exploit our true potential

Why??

I don't think you will be able to escape the conclusion that Pakistan did not reach it's potential, primarily because of internal political instability - the politicians just can't agree to the rules of the game - even in the oldest constitutional democracy, the US, the military is a force that is accommodated, it's recommendations are considered seriously, have Pakistani politicians ever done that? ever? Instead they have chosen confrontation.

Look, US is to blame for a lot but not the mess that is Pakistan. We have to accept responsibility for our own mess, just as we ask others (read US) to accept theirs.

 

[RabzonKhan]

EDITORIAL: Pak-US: bridging the trust divide

Daily Times
January 17, 2011

President Asif Ali Zardari was in Washington to
attend the memorial service of US Special Envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan Richard Holbrooke. At the service, US President Obama said, “Richard is gone now, but we carry with us his thirst to know, to grasp and heal the world around us.” Mr Holbrooke was a great advocate of Pak-US friendship and was of the view that for a viable solution in Afghanistan, the US would have to bring Pakistan on board. As Britain’s former foreign secretary, David Miliband, wrote: “The key [to success in Afghanistan] is, and always has been, a political settlement that can make withdrawal possible on terms that protect regional and global interests. Holbrooke is gone, but we must learn his lessons.”

Apart from attending Mr Holbrooke’s memorial service, President Zardari held a meeting with President Obama and US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. According to Pakistan’s Ambassador to the US, Husain Haqqani, Mr Obama and Ms Clinton assured Mr Zardari that “the US will over the next few days find ways to strengthen Pakistan’s economic reform process, while taking into consideration social and political factors”. If the US wants to help Pakistan economically, it will have to use its clout to persuade the IMF not to cut off Pakistan because of the RGST imbroglio. The reason this government has not yet been able to implement RGST is political. Despite the fact that the RGST would in effect be good for Pakistan’s economy, most of our political parties are not ready to support the PPP-led government because of an anti-RGST sentiment amongst the masses. Without a political consensus, the government cannot move an inch on economic reforms.

The US is one of the biggest aid donors to Pakistan. However, there is a rise in the anti-American sentiment in our society. One of the reasons is because of the way the US abandoned Pakistan after the Afghan jihad in the 80s. The US has always been dubbed as a ‘fair-weather friend’ but it is imperative that now that the Americans do not have any plans to leave us in the lurch, cooperation in all fields is forthcoming. Through USAID and other such initiatives, the Americans have been giving developmental aid to Pakistan. In November 2010, USAID officials lodged a complaint with the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) after receiving a significant number of complaints about the misuse and misappropriation of funds by the NGOs under the Kerry Lugar aid package. International donors have been reluctant to give money to the government directly because of corruption charges and instead rely on local NGOs to disburse aid money. But this idealisation of NGOs and demonisation of the government is not without fault. This is not to say that all NGOs are dishonest, but donors need to implement a proper mechanism system to monitor aid money. It is also important that our government and media project the efforts by the US government in an honest manner so that all the positive steps taken by them are properly highlighted.

President Obama vowed to “continue to work toward building a moderate, democratic Pakistan, which is the strongest guarantee against the success of terrorists”. In the past, the US has supported military dictators like General Ziaul Haq and General Musharraf instead of democratic dispensations. Now that democracy has finally returned, the US and other countries must stress the importance of a democratic set up in Pakistan and in case of any undemocratic move, they must rally against it. Democracy in Pakistan is not just important for the local populace but for the international community as well.

 

[RabzonKhan]

EDITORIAL: Pak-US relations in a fix


Daily Times
February 14, 2011

Pakistan is in a fix. And all because of a man whose diplomatic status is a mystery that has not been solved yet. The Raymond Davis case has landed both Pakistan and the US in the soup. Not only have the Americans postponed an important trilateral meeting that was supposed to take place in Washington between officials from Afghanistan, Pakistan and the US this month, they have also adopted a threatening posture vis-à-vis Pakistan. Foreign Office (FO) spokesman Abdul Basit said that the “trilateral talks will be rescheduled in due course of time. It is important the trilateral process continues. We hope whenever held, (the talks) will yield maximum results for peace and stability.” US State Department spokesman PJ Crowley also said the meeting will be rescheduled soon. This is obviously a pressure tactic by the US government, which is trying its best to get Davis free at any cost. On the other hand, Federal Minister for Information and Broadcasting Dr Firdaus Ashiq Awan said that the government will let the independent judiciary decide the Raymond Davis case as it believed in the rule of law. Former foreign minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi has apparently made his party members angry by alleging that US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had pressurised him to sign a summary that gave diplomatic immunity to Raymond Davis. Dr Ashiq Awan questioned his stance and asked why he had not said anything about this when he was foreign minister. Former minister for water and power, Raja Pervez Ashraf, likened Mr Qureshi to (late) Farooq Leghari and said that he was working on the agenda of anti-PPP forces. Whatever the internal dynamics of the PPP may be, Mr Qureshi’s ‘disclosure’ can become a bone of contention between the PPP government and its adversaries.

It is strange that neither the Foreign Office (FO) nor the government is willing to tell the truth about Raymond Davis’s diplomatic status. The reason why the government is hesitant in committing itself to anything could be that it does not want to give the religious right any more fodder to further destabilise the political situation. The right-wing forces have only just given up on the blasphemy campaign after Prime Minister Gilani’s assurances on several occasions that the blasphemy laws will not be changed. The Taliban have already threatened to kill any government official who facilitates the release of Mr Davis. One of the reasons the government now wants to hold an all-parties roundtable conference is to get out of the mess it has landed itself in after Raymond Davis was arrested. The present dispensation is actually reaping the ‘fruits’ of General (retd) Pervez Musharraf’s policies, who gave permission to the Americans to do as they please on our soil. The surreptitious and illegal presence of many CIA spooks and private security contractors is nothing new. It all began during Musharraf’s regime. It is not the first time that such incidents have taken place in Pakistan even though Raymond Davis’s one was a more serious one.

The US should understand that Pakistan is its frontline ally in the war on terror and not its enemy. Instead of going public with its rigid stance, the US should present the facts to the FO and if Mr Davis enjoys a diplomat’s status, he would obviously be set free. Being arrogant will not help the US, instead it will only increase the anti-American sentiment in Pakistan. As for the postponement of the trilateral meeting, the US is giving the Taliban a fresh lease of life, which could prove to be dangerous for the whole world. It is time to think and act rationally, both by the US and Pakistan.

 

[Respect4Respect01]

usa is sometime friend and sometimes worst them enemy,

 

[Pak_Sher]

Immunity from murder cannot be granted and no one should be above the law.

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

Its time to let go of the drug and stand up follow other nations in region like iran or turkey etc in self reliance

No point in holding hands with US , they don't care about Pakistani lives nor our values and to be honest ... we don't get along

Their priority is to get their spy out , who probbly was planning bombs in market where he was caught

Infra red light hmm someone must be writing with ink that is only readable with infrared light

 

[RabzonKhan]

EDITORIAL: Meeting each other halfway

Daily Times
February 21, 2011

In a dramatic change in stance, the US is apparently toning down its aggressive rhetoric concerning the Raymond Davis issue. Following in the footsteps of Senator John Kerry’s recent flying damage control visit, a US junior congressional delegation arrived in Islamabad on Saturday to meet Prime Minister Gilani and other government officials in an effort to ease the impasse between the two countries following the mishandling of the Raymond Davis debacle. This flurry of diplomatic traffic in the present scenario is indeed extraordinary. Stressing the need to move forward and come up with “out-of-the-box” solutions for the resolution of this issue, the delegation agreed that the US-Pakistan relationship was about much more than a single issue and said that the US was going to deliver on its economic and social aid pledges. This is comforting news because the diplomatic stalemate was becoming a thorn in both sides.

The two most prominent casualties of the aftermath of this affair are the ex-Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi and PPP Information Secretary Fauzia Wahab who has now resigned (or been dismissed). Qureshi has shown his displeasure by issuing provocative statements concerning this extremely delicate manner. By claiming that he was under pressure to declare Davis had immunity but the American does not possess complete diplomatic cover, the ex-minister has exposed deep fissures in the PPP ranks. Maybe he possesses the ambition to take a solo flight into the political arena. It is not recommended he try this on the basis of an issue that has so polarised society and could come at the cost of national security. Ms Wahab also issued reckless statements out of turn by speaking up about the case and categorically declaring Davis enjoyed immunity.

It seems as if the abating of the initial furore has provided the space for reaching some sort of compromise. This could take the shape of the Pakistani authorities conceding the argument, releasing Raymond Davis and handing him over, after which complete criminal investigations will commence on US soil, and compensation being offered to the aggrieved family of Davis’s victims. If compensation is accepted, the family may need protection as, reportedly, they have been told to refrain from any such compromise. It is astounding that the right-wingers, so concerned with ‘justice’, would threaten the family with a backlash if compensation were accepted.

It must be stated that Pakistan-US relations have never been free of mistrust and the Raymond Davis incident has caused the relationship considerable long-term damage. Past and present political mistakes — there are many legacies of the Musharraf era that are still haunting the present regime — that have given the US carte blanche on our soil will need to be addressed in the aftermath of a solution to the Raymond Davis affair. It is then that Pakistan and the US must look towards each other on a more equal footing. Arrangements will need to be revisited where checks and balances and proper diplomatic processes are ensured for the appropriate handling of American personnel posted to Pakistan. Pakistan will need to reassert its dignity and self-respect to ensure visas are not issued en masse and without stringent checks. Pakistan needs to reclaim as much sovereignty as it can, given its dependence on the US. After Davis, when we go forward we will need to do so as more equal partners of the US than in the past.

 

[RabzonKhan]

The lopsided balance sheet

Dawn
Ardeshir Cowasjee
Feb 20 2011

IN November 1946, Mohammad Ali Jinnah sent his friend and confidante Mirza Abol Hasan Ispahani along with Begum Shah Nawaz, a Muslim League leader from Punjab, to the US to put forth the Muslim League argument and to counter Indian National Congress propaganda.

In September 1947, Mr Ispahani returned to Washington as Pakistan’s first ambassador to the United States.

In his first official letter to Mr Jinnah, the ambassador quoted from the statement he made before President Harry S. Truman while presenting his credentials seeking “to develop and maintain friendship and collaboration” with the US. Mr Jinnah’s reply was “So far so good, but the real thing is how America will, in fact, react for the benefit and the mutual advantage of both.” Since then the two countries’ relations have come a long way and had many ups and downs but one thing has been constant.

The job of the Pakistani ambassador to the US has never been an easy one. Like Ispahani, he/she must seek “friendship and collaboration” from the Americans while fending off charges from the ever-expanding ghairat-wallahs of compromising the nation’s (lost) honour.

Since 1947, Pakistan has received $27.8bn in civilian and military aid. In addition, mainly due to American support, Pakistan also obtains other multilateral aid. Pakistan is one of the top five recipients of aid from multilateral agencies like the World Bank, International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the Asian Development Bank (ADB). We have consumed $18.5bn from the World Bank, around $16bn from the IMF and $15bn from ADB.

Despite all this aid and assistance from the Americans, as a nation we Pakistanis love to hate the US.

Some have even convinced themselves that Pakistan is so important to the US that the ‘low’ quantum of aid is somehow an insult to the great Pakistanis. The US is a significant importer of Pakistani goods and remittances from Pakistani-Americans bring in an average of $4bn every year into the economy.

The tendency to hate America while loving its aid has led us to look askance at every ambassador of ours who has tried to build ties with the Americans. Since 1947 Pakistan has sent 20 ambassadors to the US, an overwhelming majority of them retired generals or political appointees.

The longest serving ambassador was Lt Gen Ejaz Azim (July 1981-September 1986) closely followed by Lt Gen Sahabzada Yaqub Khan (December 1973-January 1979), and the shortest Maj Gen N.A.M. Raza (October 1971-April 1972).

Muhammad Ali Bogra, Pakistan’s second ambassador to the US put in two stints as our envoy because of his popularity in Washington (1952-1953; 1955-1959). It was during his ambassadorship that Pakistan and the US signed a Mutual Assistance Treaty in 1954.

The Eisenhower administration even attempted to mediate with India to resolve the Kashmir dispute. But Bogra was always labelled as a ‘pro-American ambassador’ by the anti-Americans of left and right. An ambassador to a foreign country needs to be someone who has positive feelings for that country because only then will he or she be effective.

But we like to shoot the messenger when we do not like the message. US aid does not come without conditions, the most basic of these being that the recipient of aid respect (if not appreciate) the donor. We want the billions in aid and are simultaneously proud of being the only nation to have attacked and burned a US embassy and that too in 1979, when there were no US forces in Afghanistan or drones about which to complain.

Someone started a rumour that the Kaaba had been seized by the Americans and mobs marched to attack US consulates and embassy buildings around Pakistan. Later it turned out that the seizure of the Kaaba was the work of a self-styled mahdi.

It has become fashionable and trendy to have a go at the current ambassador to the US, Hussain Haqqani. In a front-page profile, the New York Times described Haqqani as an “adroit envoy” who is a “relentless, unyielding defender of Pakistan’s image and reputation”. But in our own media he is accused of all sorts of things, most recently of issuing visas to too many Americans.

Around one million Pakistanis live in the US and approximately 150,000 Pakistanis travel to the US every year. Hundreds of these Pakistanis end up in US prisons on various charges, ranging from murder and terrorism to credit card fraud. No one in the US media, however, questions their ambassador for granting visas to Pakistani criminals and thereby compromising US sovereignty.

We, on the other hand, are extremely concerned about the threat posed by 3,000 or so American diplomats, officials and security personnel who were given visas last year. Pakistan is hardly a favoured tourist destination these days; few others than those coming on official duty wish to ‘rush’ to Pakistan.

Under the watch of our man now in Washington (his flaws and faults notwithstanding) Pakistan has secured from the US, for the first time, a multi-year commitment for massive civilian assistance — a total of $7.5bn over five years. For those who think US aid is paltry, they must remember what happened when Nawaz Sharif, inspired by the ghairat champions, declared that Pakistan could live without aid by raising funds from Pakistanis.

The ‘Qarz Utaro, Mulk Sunwaro’ campaign resulted in raising a mere $167m against an outstanding debt at the time of $58bn.

 

[F86 Saber]

The lopsided balance sheet

Dawn
Ardeshir Cowasjee
Feb 20 2011

IN November 1946, Mohammad Ali Jinnah sent his friend and confidante Mirza Abol Hasan Ispahani along with Begum Shah Nawaz, a Muslim League leader from Punjab, to the US to put forth the Muslim League argument and to counter Indian National Congress propaganda.

In September 1947, Mr Ispahani returned to Washington as Pakistan’s first ambassador to the United States.

In his first official letter to Mr Jinnah, the ambassador quoted from the statement he made before President Harry S. Truman while presenting his credentials seeking “to develop and maintain friendship and collaboration” with the US. Mr Jinnah’s reply was “So far so good, but the real thing is how America will, in fact, react for the benefit and the mutual advantage of both.” Since then the two countries’ relations have come a long way and had many ups and downs but one thing has been constant.

The job of the Pakistani ambassador to the US has never been an easy one. Like Ispahani, he/she must seek “friendship and collaboration” from the Americans while fending off charges from the ever-expanding ghairat-wallahs of compromising the nation’s (lost) honour.

Since 1947, Pakistan has received $27.8bn in civilian and military aid. In addition, mainly due to American support, Pakistan also obtains other multilateral aid. Pakistan is one of the top five recipients of aid from multilateral agencies like the World Bank, International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the Asian Development Bank (ADB). We have consumed $18.5bn from the World Bank, around $16bn from the IMF and $15bn from ADB.

Despite all this aid and assistance from the Americans, as a nation we Pakistanis love to hate the US.

Some have even convinced themselves that Pakistan is so important to the US that the ‘low’ quantum of aid is somehow an insult to the great Pakistanis. The US is a significant importer of Pakistani goods and remittances from Pakistani-Americans bring in an average of $4bn every year into the economy.

The tendency to hate America while loving its aid has led us to look askance at every ambassador of ours who has tried to build ties with the Americans. Since 1947 Pakistan has sent 20 ambassadors to the US, an overwhelming majority of them retired generals or political appointees.

The longest serving ambassador was Lt Gen Ejaz Azim (July 1981-September 1986) closely followed by Lt Gen Sahabzada Yaqub Khan (December 1973-January 1979), and the shortest Maj Gen N.A.M. Raza (October 1971-April 1972).

Muhammad Ali Bogra, Pakistan’s second ambassador to the US put in two stints as our envoy because of his popularity in Washington (1952-1953; 1955-1959). It was during his ambassadorship that Pakistan and the US signed a Mutual Assistance Treaty in 1954.

The Eisenhower administration even attempted to mediate with India to resolve the Kashmir dispute. But Bogra was always labelled as a ‘pro-American ambassador’ by the anti-Americans of left and right. An ambassador to a foreign country needs to be someone who has positive feelings for that country because only then will he or she be effective.

But we like to shoot the messenger when we do not like the message. US aid does not come without conditions, the most basic of these being that the recipient of aid respect (if not appreciate) the donor. We want the billions in aid and are simultaneously proud of being the only nation to have attacked and burned a US embassy and that too in 1979, when there were no US forces in Afghanistan or drones about which to complain.

Someone started a rumour that the Kaaba had been seized by the Americans and mobs marched to attack US consulates and embassy buildings around Pakistan. Later it turned out that the seizure of the Kaaba was the work of a self-styled mahdi.

It has become fashionable and trendy to have a go at the current ambassador to the US, Hussain Haqqani. In a front-page profile, the New York Times described Haqqani as an “adroit envoy” who is a “relentless, unyielding defender of Pakistan’s image and reputation”. But in our own media he is accused of all sorts of things, most recently of issuing visas to too many Americans.

Around one million Pakistanis live in the US and approximately 150,000 Pakistanis travel to the US every year. Hundreds of these Pakistanis end up in US prisons on various charges, ranging from murder and terrorism to credit card fraud. No one in the US media, however, questions their ambassador for granting visas to Pakistani criminals and thereby compromising US sovereignty.

We, on the other hand, are extremely concerned about the threat posed by 3,000 or so American diplomats, officials and security personnel who were given visas last year. Pakistan is hardly a favoured tourist destination these days; few others than those coming on official duty wish to ‘rush’ to Pakistan.

Under the watch of our man now in Washington (his flaws and faults notwithstanding) Pakistan has secured from the US, for the first time, a multi-year commitment for massive civilian assistance — a total of $7.5bn over five years. For those who think US aid is paltry, they must remember what happened when Nawaz Sharif, inspired by the ghairat champions, declared that Pakistan could live without aid by raising funds from Pakistanis.

The ‘Qarz Utaro, Mulk Sunwaro’ campaign resulted in raising a mere $167m against an outstanding debt at the time of $58bn.

It is hard to argue with what has been written in this article. I know it hurts but "Beggers cannot be choosers" is a term that accuratly defines Pakistan (Govt. and people). Many may argue that it is not the people who ask USA for the aid it is the Govt. and as much as anyone can deny, 99.9% people including myself would jump to grab any opportunity to get a US immigration or a Green Card. Under these cirumstances, it is very difficult for the Govt. to maintain the status quo ragarding the detention of Mr. Raymond Davis. When talking about protecting our dignity we should remember that more than 50% of our population cheats on taxes and utility bills. We are the ones who burn down our own buildings, destroy and damage our own property and generally do the best we can to harm our country. So before we can show the middle finger to USA and tell them that we don't need their aid, we need to correct ourselves. May be we need a rude awakening like a US raid to bring us back to our senses as a nation. Like in the words of Dr. Allama Muhammad Iqbal

Nahin hai na umeed Iqbal apnay Kasht-e-Veeran say
Zara nam ho to ye mitti bari zarkhaiz hai saaqi

 

[RabzonKhan]

Hating America: Who pays the price?

By Ayesha Ijaz Khan
February 27, 2011

The writer is a lawyer and political commentator based in London

So we’ve reached an impasse in the uneasy US-Pakistani alliance. Too many red lines have allegedly been crossed and thus the Raymond Davis affair has brought mistrust to an all-time high. There is gloating in certain quarters. Pakistan will not sit this one down, and, if it does, then it is the end of this government. The street will decide this one. Banners that say “Blood for blood” and “Hang Davis till death” are to be taken seriously as ‘public opinion’. To what extent that opinion is manufactured we are unconcerned with for now.

Let’s say we take America head on. Both countries call each other’s bluff. The US moves the International Court of Justice on the dubious matter of Davis’s immunity. Pakistan is obliged to present its case, hire expensive lawyers and fight for an uncertain outcome. America scraps Kerry-Lugar-Berman aid. Pakistan stops cooperating in Afghanistan. Then what?

How long will Pakistan ride on the high of protecting ‘national honour’? Will it fix our schools? Will it provide gas and electricity? Will it reduce inflation? Will it provide employment? Some degree of anti-Americanism exists in every society — resentment against US heavy-handedness, a disdain for American hubris — but the degree of anti-Americanism in Pakistan is reaching dangerous proportions. The public in urban centres is being rallied, orchestrated by design, to use America as a scapegoat for all our ills. America looks out for its own interests and these may, or may not, align with Pakistan’s interests but to think that suddenly, upon ‘standing up to America’, our problems will be solved, or even begin to be solved, is utterly misleading.

To the contrary, our problems will only compound. Multinationals will begin to pull out and downscale, resulting in even more unemployment. With oil prices rising, given the events in the Middle East, financial aid will become even more important for us. Expatriates, who are often touted as the key to spurring economic activity within Pakistan, will run further away from any such prospect. In fact, money will begin to flow out of Pakistan and into places like London. To give one example, just in the two-week period since the uprisings in the Middle East, property prices in London’s Mayfair have escalated by 15 per cent. On the other hand, Egypt has lost $1 billion in tourism revenue alone.

The loss may still be worth it for Egypt, Tunisia, Libya and others because for years they had been stuck with one-man rule, with no semblance of democracy or freedom of expression. The price they pay now to build their institutions, like Pakistanis did to restore a deposed judiciary, may reap benefits in the future. But what are we trying to achieve? Will confronting America build our institutions or harm them? Will it sustain democracy or end it?

Let’s face it. We are a weak state and weak states have no international clout. In spite of our military might, we are an economic mess. And thus, not only will we not be taken seriously at places like the International Court of Justice, but the banners calling for Davis’s blood will be used against us, Pakistan as an unstable terrorist haven where global investment is unsafe. In today’s world, ‘standing up to the US’ also means losing popularity with other countries and growing international isolation. What then? Who suffers?

Certainly not Nawaz Sharif’s son, who is spotted shopping regularly at John Lewis and Selfridges; not Shah Mahmood’s son, who was not pushed about national honour when he got himself an internship with John Kerry; not Gilani’s son, who is said to spend summers gallivanting around London town in a sports car; and not Imran Khan’s son, who has been photographed genuflecting as a ring bearer at royalty weddings. It is, in fact, the average Arif who will suffer the consequences and pay the price for our zealous anti-Americanism.

 

[muse]

A disappointing piece by Ayesha -- Why is there anti-Americanism in Pakistan??

Some degree of anti-Americanism exists in every society — resentment against US heavy-handedness, a disdain for American hubris — but the degree of anti-Americanism in Pakistan is reaching dangerous proportions. The public in urban centres is being rallied, orchestrated by design, to use America as a scapegoat for all our ills.

Indeed, so anti-Americanism is a given? If it is, why then the beef?

But wait, "orchestrated by design", why is this so bad, after all, doesn't it work the same way in theUS? Isn't anti-Muslim sentiment "rallied and orchestrated by design in the US"??

Lets not worry about the anything US, they were and are and will be, peripheral so long as they insist on being the senior partner in any partnership with Pakistan

 

[Dalai Lama]

A disappointing piece by Ayesha -- Why is there anti-Americanism in Pakistan??



Indeed, so anti-Americanism is a given? If it is, why then the beef?

But wait, "orchestrated by design", why is this so bad, after all, doesn't it work the same way in theUS? Isn't anti-Muslim sentiment "rallied and orchestrated by design in the US"??

Lets not worry about the anything US, they were and are and will be, peripheral so long as they insist on being the senior partner in any partnership with Pakistan

Sir, how can you equate anti-muslim sentiment (Which is relatively rare in the US BTW) to anti-Pakistan sentiment?

 

[muse]

First allow me to disagree with you about your characterization of Anti-Muslim sentiment in the US - it is by no means "rare" - it is as a matter if fact, both common and widespread

and secondly, I was not equating the two, what I was pointing to was the idea that both of these "sentiments" are "rallied and orchestrate3d by design" - I very much agree and I think it's not dawn but twilight for the US influence in Pakistan.

 

[VCheng]

Originally posted in another thread, this recent post by Asim had me thinking that it was worthy to be repeated here, so that the last paragraph (bolded text by me) can be discussed in detail in this thread. I look forward to particpating in this important debate.

Thats why it is so important to reclaim the American people on our side. If there is anti-Americanism in Pakistan there is an equal and opposite force in anti-Pakistanism in America. Logic dictates it can not be a one way street. At most most Americans would be unaware about Pakistan, but out of the people who are, I'm willing to bet the percentage that is anti-American would match the percentage that is anti-Pakistan in respective countries.

We have our own various versions of this "bad guy" labels slapped across Americans. Having to meet Americans on a daily basis, any fair minded Pakistani can assess that the people are not the blood thirsty killers that is often portrayed by vested elements in the Pakistani society. So I find it hard that honest Americans would find it in themselves to allow "killing 60,000" people... Back in the day, I wasn't born yet, but we've all read about the Vietnam protests, so ultimately Americans did speak up against their own governments actions. So if they did something when 60,000 were killed, why not when 600,000 have been killed?

Stephen Cohen, pointed out that these agents of the CIA won't be needed if Pakistan did its job at reigning in on the terrorists. This is a convenient fashionable statement that sells like hot cakes. It discounts the fact that these agents cannot be trusted by another country to keep their national interests supreme. For example, what's to say CIA pays TTP operatives to get information on the AT leaders. They get that information, but they are now several bucks richer to carry out their operations against Pakistan. CIA wins, TTP wins, Pakistan loses. This was just an example of a likely scenario upon which we'd have no control over with CIA agents running amok it also points out that since we'd be so focused upon these agents, we can't do our job of reigning in on terrorists that Cohen accused us of.

The American people need to think about Pakistan and the world with as much detailed thought as much as we think about America. Like America is not just Pentagon, White House, Langley, Nevada, Pakistan too cannot be just boxed in with Taliban, LeT, FATA.

Why do you think this Raymond Davis issue has exploded so big? It shouts out "America does not even respect you enough to be held accountable for killing your people".

Essentially we're shouting "Respect us!"
And they are shouting "Respect U.S.!"

Our relationship has screwed up, we need to now go back to the fundamentals. What does American want from the relationship? What does Pakistan want from this relationship? What do Americans want in general from the world? What does Pakistan want in general from the world? If we all can agree to a justifiable and fair definition of who we both are as a people then we won't need assassins.