The Pak-US Relationship

[H2O3C4Nitrogen]

US, Pakistan cannot afford a divorce

By Daud Malik

ISLAMABAD, March 9: Pakistan and the United States have to work closely to bring “reasonable stability” to war-ravaged Afghanistan as an outright Taliban victory there entails “serious consequences” for both, a visiting American scholar warned on Wednesday.

“We cannot afford a divorce in our relations,” Dr Marvin G. Weinbaum said giving a talk on `Challenges in US-Pakistan Relations` at the Institute of Strategic Studies (ISS). Because “the stakes are too high”, he said, the US presence in the region would be long-term.

Despite all the ups and downs in their relations, the two countries have to move forward, he said, calling the US disengagement from the region after the Soviet withdrawal in 1989 a “most unfortunate move”.

“We walked away from the region without a political arrangement in Afghanistan,” he said and suggested more people-to-people contacts rather than elite-to-elite only.

Maintaining that a stable Afghanistan is in the interest of everybody, he painted a grim picture if the US and the coalition forces are defeated, with Pakistan facing most of the consequences.

He said the destabilisation will not be confined to Afghanistan as the new leadership of Taliban has a `trans-national agenda`. He said if the Taliban survive the war in their country, “there will be every motive for them to go beyond Durand Line.” For him, a Taliban victory will lead to civil war, with the prospect of Pakistan again being burdened with millions of refugees. He said a proxy war in Afghanistan would be a nightmare for Pakistan, with India having much larger role.

Telling Islamabad to stop seeing Kabul through the prism of Indian influence there, he termed a political solution of Afghan problem a positive outcome for the US and Pakistan and their relations. “Everybody wants a political solution for Afghanistan, but the trouble is that nobody sees that happening anytime soon and therefore everybody, including Pakistan, is working on a reserve strategy.” And often the `reserve strategy`, he said, is in conflict with the goal of stability and peace in Afghanistan. He did not see Taliban `integrating` into any political setup in Kabul.

Reviewing the history of the Washington-Islamabad ties, Mr Weinbaum tried to show that the US always wanted democracy in Pakistan, contrary to what is believed that it backed the military regimes. He said the US was not `happy` when the elected governments of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif were taken over in military coups in 1977 and 1999. The close ties with the military rulers – Ziaul Haq and Pervez Musharraf – should be seen in the context of the Soviet attack on Afghanistan and 9/11, he said.

Introducing the scholar as an old friend of Pakistan, Jehangir Ashraf Qazi, former envoy, termed Pakistan ties with the US a “strange animal”. He said the two countries have closely cooperated with each other over the decades but mistrust had marked their relations.

During the question-answer session, Mr Weinbaum rejected the talk of identifying and hitting targets inside Pakistan, saying it would `energise` Pakistani Taliban. He also saw no change on the pattern of Middle East in Pakistan, as the country has been witnessing changes in governments and has been spared of `demagogues`. He agreed with a comment that the US should not support `corrupt` governments in countries like Afghanistan and Pakistan.

US, Pakistan cannot afford a divorce | Newspaper | DAWN.COM

 

[Patriot]

A lot of BS in the above article.The relationship can be explained in two words - Master Slave.Pakistan is run like a company.Majority of the shares are owned by US rest by Arab countries and so on.

 

[Muhammad-Bin-Qasim]

US, Pakistan cannot afford a divorce

By Daud Malik

ISLAMABAD, March 9: Pakistan and the United States have to work closely to bring “reasonable stability” to war-ravaged Afghanistan as an outright Taliban victory there entails “serious consequences” for both, a visiting American scholar warned on Wednesday.

“We cannot afford a divorce in our relations,” Dr Marvin G. Weinbaum said giving a talk on `Challenges in US-Pakistan Relations` at the Institute of Strategic Studies (ISS). Because “the stakes are too high”, he said, the US presence in the region would be long-term.

Despite all the ups and downs in their relations, the two countries have to move forward, he said, calling the US disengagement from the region after the Soviet withdrawal in 1989 a “most unfortunate move”.

“We walked away from the region without a political arrangement in Afghanistan,” he said and suggested more people-to-people contacts rather than elite-to-elite only.

Maintaining that a stable Afghanistan is in the interest of everybody, he painted a grim picture if the US and the coalition forces are defeated, with Pakistan facing most of the consequences.

He said the destabilisation will not be confined to Afghanistan as the new leadership of Taliban has a `trans-national agenda`. He said if the Taliban survive the war in their country, “there will be every motive for them to go beyond Durand Line.” For him, a Taliban victory will lead to civil war, with the prospect of Pakistan again being burdened with millions of refugees. He said a proxy war in Afghanistan would be a nightmare for Pakistan, with India having much larger role.

Telling Islamabad to stop seeing Kabul through the prism of Indian influence there, he termed a political solution of Afghan problem a positive outcome for the US and Pakistan and their relations. “Everybody wants a political solution for Afghanistan, but the trouble is that nobody sees that happening anytime soon and therefore everybody, including Pakistan, is working on a reserve strategy.” And often the `reserve strategy`, he said, is in conflict with the goal of stability and peace in Afghanistan. He did not see Taliban `integrating` into any political setup in Kabul.

Reviewing the history of the Washington-Islamabad ties, Mr Weinbaum tried to show that the US always wanted democracy in Pakistan, contrary to what is believed that it backed the military regimes. He said the US was not `happy` when the elected governments of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif were taken over in military coups in 1977 and 1999. The close ties with the military rulers – Ziaul Haq and Pervez Musharraf – should be seen in the context of the Soviet attack on Afghanistan and 9/11, he said.

Introducing the scholar as an old friend of Pakistan, Jehangir Ashraf Qazi, former envoy, termed Pakistan ties with the US a “strange animal”. He said the two countries have closely cooperated with each other over the decades but mistrust had marked their relations.

During the question-answer session, Mr Weinbaum rejected the talk of identifying and hitting targets inside Pakistan, saying it would `energise` Pakistani Taliban. He also saw no change on the pattern of Middle East in Pakistan, as the country has been witnessing changes in governments and has been spared of `demagogues`. He agreed with a comment that the US should not support `corrupt` governments in countries like Afghanistan and Pakistan.

US, Pakistan cannot afford a divorce | Newspaper | DAWN.COM

The visiting American "scholar" is probably an intelligence agent trying to fool so called "educated" of Pakistan...

The sooner we part ways with America, the better off we shall be...

 

[Muhammad-Bin-Qasim]

a better description of what has been happening (specially during Busharaf's time) in Pakistan is this man's analysis of the situation...

 

[RabzonKhan]

Walking away from Pakistan to have dire results: Clinton

Dawn
By Our Correspondent
March 11 2011

WASHINGTON: US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned on Thursday that the consequences of walking away from Pakistan were always disastrous.

Emphasising the importance of continued US assistance to Pakistan, Secretary Clinton told a congressional panel that the Obama administration was trying to “deepen our relationship” with Pakistan.

“There are many challenges confronting us, but we know what happens when we walk away from Pakistan. We did it before, and the results, unfortunately, were quite dire for us,” she warned.

The United States suspended its economic and military assistance to Pakistan in 1990 over its nuclear programme. Senior US officials and regional experts now admit that the sanctions created a situation that allowed groups like the Taliban and Al Qaeda to flourish. A resolution moved in the US House of Representatives earlier this week urges Pakistan to release CIA contractor Raymond Davis or brace itself for a freeze on all monetary assistance. Secretary Clinton, however, opposes such sanctions, warning that doing so would hurt US interests.

Referring to a 16 per cent cut slapped last month by the House of Representatives on US foreign assistance, she told an appropriations subcommittee: “It will be very difficult for us… to absorb” the impact of this cut, particularly in places like Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq.

The US State Department is seeking $8.7 billion next fiscal year to fund its civilian missions in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq.

“We do have Al Qaeda under pressure as never before,” she told the panel. “Our military commanders literally tell me every week that we cannot succeed without a strong civilian partner for our military efforts.”

 

[H2O3C4Nitrogen]

Pak-US relations

Mohammad Jamil

Relations between Pakistan and the US - allies since 1950s - were by and large based on equality, mutual trust and respect for sovereignty; however there have been brief periods marred with misunderstanding and lack of warmth due to difference in perceptions over regional issues. Pakistan on its part always honoured its commitments and stood by the allies whether it was Korean War, Suez crisis or Vietnam War despite the fact that people of Pakistan were opposed to those wars. Of course, Pakistan had expressed dissatisfaction over the West’s reticence during two wars between India and Pakistan when the US stopped military and economic aid for some time. But there are positive aspects of Pak-America friendship. America has always been generous in granting aid and grants whenever Pakistan faced a natural calamity. And even in case of last year’s flash floods that dislocated 20 million people and destroyed infrastructure, the US topped the donors’ list. But it should be borne in mind that respecting Pakistan’s sovereignty is very vital to win over hearts and minds of People of Pakistan.

The US certainly can improve its image by respecting sovereignty of Pakistan, and the nation will be all out to cooperate with the US in every field including War on Terror. Of course, relations between Pakistan and the US are a bit tense over Raymond Davis case, but given political foresight, diplomatic vision and correct interpretation of Vienna Convention, relations can be normalized. Though officially, America did not say in so many words, but there were veiled threats of severing diplomatic relations and cutting US aid to Pakistan if Raymond Davis, who was arrested on 27th January after shooting dead two Pakistan motorcyclists, was not released immediately. Trilateral talks between the United States, Afghanistan and Pakistan due last month were postponed as per US State Department, which was part of bullying and blackmailing tactics. Lately, the US special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan Marc Grossman said that Washington wanted the immediate release of Davis and that there would be no business between US and Pakistan until and unless the matter is resolved. Such remarks could roil the relations.

The government and people of Pakistan highly appreciate America’s help and hope that it would also address Pakistan’s concerns regarding Indian role in Afghanistan. America has indeed a great past, and has earned goodwill by helping other countries. During Second World War, European countries suffered death and destruction unparalleled in the history. The entire infrastructure and their industries were destroyed; and European countries had nothing to rebuild their infrastructure and economies. From 1948 to 1951, US-sponsored program under the nomenclature of Marshall Plan was drawn to provide economic aid to European countries after World War II.

America has indeed traditions of freedom, democracy, human rights and human values dating back to American founding fathers. It is, however, unfortunate that barring a few honourable exceptions, their successors through their actions negated the principles upheld by them. However, on becoming President in 1933, Franklin D Roosevelt abandoned the policy pursued by his predecessor President Woodrow Wilson. He treated his neighbours with respect and acknowledged past American blunders.

For some time America is drawing flak mainly due to the policies of former president George W Bush, who caused colossal damage to America’s prestige and image. It is hoped that President Barack Obama would abandon the policies pursued by his predecessor and would emulate Roosevelt and allow the developing countries to choose their own form of government. He should also rein in the CIA that has had the passion for regime changes in the countries that do not fall in line with America’s policies. America is a country of diverse people bound with ideals of freedoms and love for human rights. America’s national income (GDP) is more than combined GDP of the European Union. It spends on defence more than combined allocations of almost all countries of the world, which is why America militarily is the strongest country in the world. But the world can not be run with military might. Therefore, American leadership should focus more on helping the developing countries to generate employment opportunities and making them stable economies and polity. This would enable them to eliminate extremism and terrorism from their societies.

Pakistan should remain firm on its stand vis-à-vis Raymond case and make it clear that until and unless US winds up its intelligence networks in Pakistan, hands over the remaining culprits of Davis case, account for all the contractors’ visas, stops anti-Pakistan activities in Pakistan, the relations between US and Pakistan can not come to a normal. In fact, America had started showing distrust when the Taliban rose to power after defeating various groups and warlords. It is true that Pakistan felt secured on its western borders during the Taliban rule. But at the same time it is also an established fact that Pakistan did not agree with the Taliban’s internal and external policies. Yet the US and the West viewed that Pakistan was supporting the Taliban and other militants. After 9/11, America and its allies got mandate from the United Nations to punish Afghanistan for 9/11 events and for not handing over Osama bin Laden to America. And Pakistan was coerced into joining war on terror because of dependency syndrome. It has to be mentioned that Pakistan was not familiar with the suicide attacks in Pakistan. Meanwhile, Pakistan has lost thousands of army personnel and people as a result of this war, which now has become our own war. On the other hand, Obama administration has been prevaricating on the issue, as it faces pressure from American public, which is wary of the war. It was in this backdrop that he vowed to start withdrawing US and NATO forces from July 2011, and complete the withdrawal by 2014. It is in America’s interest to withdraw from Afghanistan and let the Afghan groups or factions resolve the issues themselves. American leadership must be aware of the winds of change in the Middle East and Northern Africa. Except Libya, the turmoil in Tunisia, Egypt, Algeria, Bahrain, Yemen and elsewhere do not bode well for America, as it is losing friends. And one cannot predict as to what turn events would take. It is unlikely that America would be able to convert, what it calls the process, to its advantage.

Pakistan has many a time expressed concerns that Indian consulates in Afghanistan are involved in organizing terrorist activities in Pakistani provinces adjoining Afghanistan. Secondly, since India has no border with Afghanistan it could not help Afghans the way Pakistan did; yet India was praised and involved in reconstruction efforts in a big way. Ironically, all the honours and rewards are being picked up by India in Afghanistan with their munificence helping hand. Pakistan is often accused of playing a double game and harming US interests as alleged but it is the US in league with its partners which is playing this dirty game against Pakistan. This fact has been amply proved after the arrest of Raymond Davis. Anyhow, Americans must know that this country is not their colony and we are not their subject. When in Pakistan, they have to respect the law of the land. Their involvement in crime will carry consequences, if not from its hierarchs then certainly from its people.

—The writer is Lahore-based senior journalist.

Pak-US relations

 

[H2O3C4Nitrogen]

Beyond Raymond Davis

Syed Babar Ali and Wendy Chamberlin
Saturday, March 12, 2011

The Raymond Davis case is the latest in a long series of incidents that have undermined trust and communication between the governments of the US and Pakistan. The loss of life has been tragic. The disputes over facts and motives show that a more honest conversation about our national security interests and operations is long overdue. And the widespread anger in both societies makes it clear that we are in urgent need of serious, long-term efforts to bring our people together.

In the eye of the current storm, a diverse group of forty Americans and Pakistanis, outside our governments but influential with them, has started to rebuild partnerships based on complementary interests and common values. We are focusing on areas that matter to ordinary Pakistanis and Americans: education, jobs, entrepreneurship, and government accountability.

We met first in Lahore. We came from universities, businesses, non-profits, media, and think tanks. Many of us worried about the potential for constructive conversation, let alone meaningful new commitments, to come from a “US-Pakistan Leaders Forum” in such a highly charged moment.

We debated Mr Davis and challenged each other’s understanding of who betrayed whom over the past thirty years. Then we stepped back, and found that we agreed on a set of clear, urgent priorities: bring more honesty to the security dialogue between our governments; broaden and deepen the ties among our people; and build new partnerships in sectors where we have complementary strengths and needs. We focused first on education, agriculture, and governance.

Pakistan’s public education system needs reform, but it has exceptionally innovative leadership and success in charter and independent schools. Independent and quasi-charter schools across the country are serving more than six million students. Our Pakistani and US educators plan to work together in both countries to improve and expand public-private partnerships, while maintaining teaching quality.

Historically, many of Pakistan’s top students came to the US for their graduate studies. They returned to Pakistan with positive views of the US and strong ties to its universities. In the last decade, more Pakistanis have chosen to study in Europe, and US visa restrictions have made student and faculty exchanges more difficult.

The US and Pakistani university leaders in our forum are committed to creating a new generation of higher education partnerships. Together, they will spur collaborative research, faculty and student exchanges, on-line dialogue, and social networks connecting faculty and students.

Beyond the formal education system, youth leadership was a strong thread in our discussions. One of our participants has already designed a new youth-service leaders exchange, and many others want to get involved.

In agriculture, Pakistan is one of the world’s largest milk producers, but its cattle and water buffalo are scattered in very small herds. Our forum’s agriculture experts and business people see huge potential to get more milk per head, improve nutrition, and create commercial joint ventures. They also agreed to explore the potential for developing a commodity futures exchange for Pakistan. With a credible futures market, Pakistani farmers and traders and US investors could all gain.

Good governance is at the core of Pakistan’s long term challenges, and lack of accountability is a serious problem for the US aid program in Pakistan. IT firms from the US are already setting up systems to track funds for flood relief, and there is high potential to apply them to other aid and development programs. Sister state and sister city programs can also promote accountability and public participation, by connecting elected officials, administrators and citizen groups for experience sharing and advice.

These partnership possibilities are only a fraction of what we discussed, and we have just begun to explore. The energy sector, venture capital, health insurance, the media, arts and culture are on our agenda for the future.

Most Americans and Pakistanis can grasp the potential for joint gains in the areas that matter most to families, businesses and professionals. Our group believes that broadening and deepening the relationships among leaders and people outside of government, while dealing more honestly with the differences between our governments, is the best way forward.

We know that there will be future problems in our relations, but they do not have to define our relationship. We can make sure that there are farmers, teachers, students, entrepreneurs, doctors and nurses, local officials and citizen groups in both societies who have a different set of stories to tell. Together, we can provide a counterweight when tensions arise. In the long run, we can change both of our societies for the better.



Syed Babar Ali is Pro-Chancellor, Lahore University of Management Sciences. Wendy Chamberlin is President of the Middle East Institute and former Ambassador of the United States to Pakistan

Beyond Raymond Davis

 

[A1Kaid]

Pakistan should distance itself from the US until reasonable leadership takes hold in this country. Don't accept aid, end drone strikes, root out spies, etc...

 

[A1Kaid]

The US and Pakistani university leaders in our forum are committed to creating a new generation of higher education partnerships. Together, they will spur collaborative research, faculty and student exchanges, on-line dialogue, and social networks connecting faculty and students.

F...ing rubbish. No thanks no need for any faculty or other artificial bs with America right now...Have some decency.

The problem between US and Pak isn't our damn students don't have faculty to meet each other....lol what a bs article....delusion.


Damn drone strikes have been going on and this bast wants to talk about faculty for "higher education" for Pakistani and American students....oh man

 

[A1Kaid]

The US and Pakistani university leaders in our forum are committed to creating a new generation of higher education partnerships. Together, they will spur collaborative research, faculty and student exchanges, on-line dialogue, and social networks connecting faculty and students.

"On-line dialogue"


Well then what is this? We already have "on-line" dialogue between the two people and we all know how it goes...

 

[Patriot]

I don't particularly think there is any problem with drone strikes because let's face it even we don't have access to North Waziristan.The pigs from there regularly kills our Soldiers.I'll condem drone stirkes when a average Pakistani will be able to visit NW easily and come back alive.

 

[Spring Onion]

And this is shocking:

PM walks, lavish spending but no seats for media

Very unfortunate and should not have been done!

One does not understand what the US could have gained by this.

Mods: You may shift this to another thread. Did not know where to put it.

and what is it ?? the link is not opening

 

[RazorMC]

I think the US has become a bit more sensible when it realized that leaving Pakistan alone like before is going to be a disaster for itself. However, I think these $1.5 billion are nothing compared to what we have lost.

- The Congress is currently debating the aid to Pakistan, but what about the funds that America owes us for damages arising as a direct result of War on Terror?

- What about the costs of rehabilitating and compensating the people whose family members have lost their lives in drone attacks?

- What about the damage to our roads from NATO's heavy vehicles? Our raods were not designed to bear so much weight.

- How will the US compensate for the growing anarchy in Pakistan resulting from anti-American sentiments?

 

[muse]

Beyond Raymond Davis

No, thanks. Pakistan and the US have relations for more than 60 years --- and both are terribly disappointed in each other. Pakistan and the US find themselves driven by mutually exclusive policies -- The US is no friend of Pakistan, in fact it is an enemy, Pakistan is no friend of the US, in fact it is it's enemy. Whereas US pursues policies that seek to lead to a diminished Pakistan, Pakistan pursue policies to calibrate the degree to which US policies in the region will met with success or failure (read latter).

So, thanks, but no thanks - now don't this wrong, the American people are very generous and nice and when they get over their insanity with regard to Islam and Pakistan, well, that will be a good day -- but till then, lets wish our American friends well and ensure that they find benefits to their great nation by not operating bases anywhere in Asia.

 

[RabzonKhan]

US-Pakistan relations after Raymond Davis

Editorial
Published in The Express Tribune, March 20th, 2011.

If you connect all the dots, Pakistan and America are going to clash in the near future. The bilateral equation is virtually at an end, and a ‘revolution’ is going to unfold in Pakistan with popular acclaim, most probably with al Qaeda heading the religious militants of our madrassa network. After the release of Raymond Davis, Washington should have been grateful for another anti-US pantomime with a good ending, but the party (read CIA) that unleashed the Raymond Davis crisis decided to unleash another with a drone attack killing 45 of a peaceful jirga in North Waziristan, including the local police (khasadars).

The Pakistan Army, increasingly bothered about what the people of Pakistan think — or what the TV channels care to project — has decided to challenge the US more directly on the drones. Army Chief General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani has earned the admiration of the mostly-religious protesters in the streets of Pakistan by putting the Pakistan Air Force on alert after cancelling the leave of its entire staff and denouncing the drone attack as a counterproductive action. The tribal chiefs in the affected area have given a call for jihad against the US, and they don’t have to go far to join the war unfolding in Pakistan under the leadership of Osama bin Laden and his loyalist Taliban. The war against terrorism, which Pakistan joined under General Musharraf, may be reaching its endgame by Pakistan changing sides.

So far it was the exercise of joining the dots. But behind these recent developments there is the bulwark of US-Pakistan relations that has endured many storms in the past and seems to have survived after every dip in the graph of bilateral warmth. Who is challenging whom to break out of it? Who is leaning on brinkmanship to get the other to show his hand and retreat? Behind the current anti-American wave in Pakistan stand a variety of analysts and doomsayers. There is one class which believes Pakistan should not break out of the pro-US stance but tighten the screw on Washington to make it behave. Then there is a group of ‘realist’ experts who say that the US-Pakistan relationship is ‘transactional’ but, in this equation, America clearly needs Pakistan more than Pakistan needs the US. The third group comprises the passionate TV anchor and the fulminating clergy on the roads who want a clean cut-off with America and expect Pakistan’s fortunes to change after that in the shape of some miracle they can’t describe just yet.

If you read the statements issuing from the US State Department — especially words spoken by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton — the GHQ in Pakistan may be right in thinking that America’s policy in the region cannot bear fruit without Pakistani help. But General Petraeus, the top US military commander in Afghanistan, seems oblivious of the latest drone outrage when he asks Pakistan to attack North Waziristan. It seems that, when it comes to the crunch, Pakistan will have to forget its honour-driven passions and take a good look at its collapsing economy. Any suspension of American aid will not hurt Pakistan greatly, but if the US uses its clout with the international financial institutions and multilateral development assistance agencies to roll back their aid too, then the pain will be unbearable and will unleash a ‘revolution’ in Pakistan by the end of 2011. The GHQ may be thinking that the nuisance of its India-driven ‘rebellion’ may still be outweighed by the part Pakistan plays in the war against terrorism. In October 2010, a checkpost attack by US troops allowed Pakistan to demonstrate who was boss in US-Pakistan relations by making Washington apologise abjectly. Will this be repeated in March 2011? Keep in mind that public opinion in the US about Pakistan is at its most negative and that Pakistan is completely isolated internationally on what it is getting ready to do.

Pakistan’s internal situation is perilous. The economy is gradually coming to a halt and the tsunami of the unemployed, formed by Pakistan’s energy crisis and general bankruptcy of state institutions, is looming on the horizon. This is not a revolution that will set things right. This looks like chaos presided over by al Qaeda, whose faith-driven blueprint focuses on war (and booty), not on economic survival.