What's new

The Pak-US strategic dialogue

Despite all the rhetoric in India over 'spike in insurgency' hundreds (if not thousands) of militants just waiting on 'launch pads' (wearing pointy hats to look like Scuds I wonder :D) the fact is that if the dynamics of the insurgency in J&K had appeared to have been shifting significantly towards the nineties, and away from everything that had been achieved during Musharraf's rule, India would not have even considered withdrawing any number of troops. Yet we have seen the possibility of 30,000+ Indian security forces being withdrawn.

The Pakistani military, to me at least, has not looked interested in reverting to the nineties since Musharraf's decision to move beyond that and engage with India. Speaker is right on the ball when he argues that Kashmir has in a way 'grown larger than the country' in that there would be a huge militant backlash (the political one would be manageable) from the more 'Islamist' groups involved in Kashmir were there to be a comprehensive crackdown on them without any progress on the dispute to sell to the people.

Such a militant backlash would essentially amount to opening another front in the WoT, in the heartland, and stretch Pakistani resources extremely thin. That is why such a crackdown is unlikely until;

1. Pakistan gains control over FATA and some sort of roadmap for stability in Afghanistan emerges.

OR

2. There is tangible movement on a path to dispute resolution with India.

Till then I agree that Afghanistan 'weighs more heavily' in Pakistani strategic decision making.

So yes, there is a significant reduction in the Pakistan support to insurgency in Kashmir.. In my view, the reasons are as follows

1. Pre occupation of Pakistan with the internal issues of TTP and WOT
2. Realization that support to insurgency can boomerang again as in the case of Taliban (A and TT both)
3. Capture of Kasab in the 26/11 and the international opinion
4. Diminishing returns from the Kasmir policy as it has not yielded anything but death of a few hunder people every year.. Sad but not enough to change india's stand on Kashmir
5. Finally, the Indian pressure from Afghanistan
 
1. Pre occupation of Pakistan with the internal issues of TTP and WOT
2. Realization that support to insurgency can boomerang again as in the case of Taliban (A and TT both)
3. Capture of Kasab in the 26/11 and the international opinion

5. Finally, the Indian pressure from Afghanistan
The insurgency had already gone down significantly before any of the above happened ...
 
India afraid of covert Pak-US understanding

* Former diplomats say US supplied Pakistan N-capable F-16s to fight India

By Iftikhar Gilani

NEW DELHI: Indian strategic community believes Pakistan and the US may have come up with a hush-hush understanding on Afghanistan in the ongoing strategic dialogue, aimed at marginalising Indian role in Afghanistan.

Former Indian foreign secretary Lalit Mansingh asked the Indian government not to be complacent over the US refusal to sign a nuclear deal with Pakistan. He called for focusing on the future of Afghanistan and India’s relationship with the central Asia.

Fighting: Mansingh said the nuclear-capable F-16s and maritime aircraft supplied by the US to Pakistan were not to fight terrorism, but to fight India.

Experts believe that the situation emerging in Afghanistan was a matter of concern for India and any deal with the Taliban would affect its interests. Former deputy national security adviser Satish Chandra said Pakistan had been given a veto over the future of Afghanistan, which was a big setback for India. “Pakistan wants to become the sole spokesperson of the Taliban. Pakistan has eliminated all potential mediators between the Taliban and the US so as to be the sole mediator with the Taliban,” said Alok Bansal, deputy director at the National Maritime Foundation (NMF).

Meanwhile, India’s main opposition Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) took exception to US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton saying, “Pakistan’s struggles are my struggles”, asking if America was a party to anti-India terror activities emanating from Islamabad. “Clinton’s statement at a meeting with Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi amazingly belies an utter disregard for facts and history,” BJP spokesman Tarun Vijay said. He criticised the US for denying India access to David Headley, the American who confessed in a US court of plotting the Mumbai terror attack. “Instead of strengthening a dictatorial power centre supported and bolstered by the Pakistan Army, the US would have done better by asking Pakistan’s leaders to be actively helping India in its war on terror,” he said.

Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan
 
U.S. to Explore Pak Nuke Deal After All
Date Submitted: Thu Mar 25, 2010
WASHINGTON, DC - In the clearest sign yet from Washington, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Mar.23 told the Pakistan media the US would “consider” Pakistan’s request for a civilian nuclear deal as Islamabad sought atomic cooperation and military hardware to bring itself on a par with India.

Ahead of the crucial US-Pak strategic dialog, Pakistan submitted a 56-page document to the Obama administration seeking, among other things, a civilian nuclear deal and drone technology.

Notwithstanding India’s reservations, Clinton made it clear that the issue of energy would be one of the subjects of discussion but refused to pre-judge the outcome of the talks.

She said the US would “consider” Pakistan’s request for a civilian nuclear deal as it wanted The US is “very committed” to the dialogue, but it also knows that “whatever we do will take time, it’s not the kind of commitment that you easily produce overnight or even within a year, but it is important to get started, to sort it [out and] to develop the trust and the confidence between us...,” Clinton said.
Clinton also made it clear that the US sees a key role for Pakistan in the emerging scenario in Afghanistan, including efforts to negotiate with the Taliban and reintegrate the militants into Afghan society.

Asked about the perception that Pakistan and India are engaged in a “proxy war” within Afghanistan, Clinton said: “I think there is a regional strategy, but of course there is an immediate need to try to deal with violence in Afghanistan, to try to take back areas that had been overrun by the Taliban, which is what the military campaign is about.It is also important to put the Afghan government on a stronger foundation so that they can deliver services. But clearly Pakistan is very much involved in assisting us, in counseling and advising us about what will or won’t work in Afghanistan.”

Asked if the US would start talking directly to the Taliban leadership, Clinton said: “That is not really anything that the US is doing. That is what Afghanistan is doing, president [Hamid] Karzai is doing. We have said we will support his efforts, but we are still at the very early stages of any kind of political reconciliation process.”

India Journal - South Asian News for Southern California
 
Its very Good Move for Pakistans Taraki and threats from India which Pakistan have.
 
Bonanza for Pak, but no N-deal



Hillary Skirts Issue Saying: Committed To Helping Islamabad Meet Real Energy Needs

Chidanand Rajghatta | TNN



Washington: Lavish praise, modest economic assistance, and selective military supplies were laid out for Pakistan by the United States as it kicked off their high-profile “strategic dialogue” without immediately meeting Islamabad’s soaring expectations.

A $125 million energy sector aid and a slew of social sector projects that will bring Pakistan unspecified millions more was Washington’s cautious first response to Islamabad’s demand for a civilian nuclear deal and a bill for $35 billion it says it has incurred in the war on terror.

US secretary of state Hillary Clinton deftly skirted around questions about the nuclear deal, saying “we will listen to and engage with our Pakistani partners on whatever issues the delegation raises,” and adding, “We’re committed to helping Pakistan meet its real energy needs.”

Hillary followed that up by saying the two sides are moving forward with $125 million to Pakistan for energy sector projects, an assistance program she announced in Pakistan last October. In addition, she disclosed that USAID administrator Rajiv Shah, the topranking Indian-American in the Obama administration, will sign “implementation agreements for three thermal power station rehabilitation projects” with Pakistan.

Clinton also said that the two sides had agreed on a multiyear security assistance package, including foreign military financing, “based upon identified mutual strategic objectives

Qureshi added later that the two sides had agreed to fast-track Pakistan’s requests “that have pending for months and years on the transfer of military equipment.” They did not identify the equipment or its value.

Other initiatives unveiled included upgrading significant road infrastructure in Pakistan’s troubled northwest; concrete steps to help Pakistan boost exports of agricultural products and to improve agricultural infrastructure; greater market access for Pakistani products’ approval of flight access for Pakistan International Airlines to Chicago, via Barcelona; and priority for setting up Reconstruction Opportunity Zone.

At first glance, the assistance did not amount to much and no dollar figures were disclosed. But in the long run, market access, ROZs, and supply of military equipment, all of it premised on Pakistan’s continued stabilization, could add up to billions.

Qureshi said the two sides had also agreed to put in place a mechanism that would resolve the dispute over reimbursement of Coalition Support Fund for the money spent by Pakistan in the US war effort, which by Islamabad’s account (disputed by Washington) is close to $2 billion. “As friends and allies, sort of we’ve been prickling over dollars and cents,” Qureshi complained, while revealing that they had agreed that a “substantial sum will be paid to Pakistan by the end of April, and the remaining, hopefully, will be settled by the end of June.”

Still none of this just yet meets the high expectations the team from Islamabad and Rawalpindi set out with, including persuading US to recognize Pakistan’s parity with India (by granting it a civilian nuclear deal), seeking United States’ mediation on its issues with India, and demanding India’s sidelining, if not ouster, from Afghanistan. On these three issues, Washington remained largely unresponsive.

Asked about Washington’s reluctance to play a role in Pakistan’s various issues with India, Clinton reverted to the position that it is up to the two countries to engage and the US could at best encourage dialogue between them. Pakistan’s complaints against India’s role in Afghanistan did not appear to have struck a chord with the US either.

“I think it’s important to recognize that the US has positive relationships with both Pakistan and India… we can’t dictate Pakistani foreign policy or Indian foreign policy,” she said. “But we can encourage, as we do, the in-depth discussion between both countries that we think would benefit each of them with respect to security and development.”

Qureshi on his part conceded that as a sovereign country, India has bilateral relations (with Afghanistan) and Pakistan respects that.

Envoy drove hours to stop Qureshi scan

The extent to which the Obama administration will go to humour Pakistan is highlighted by the fact that its envoy to UK drove four hours to Manchester to ensure that a zealous American airline security does not body-scan foreign minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi ahead of his arrival. When Qureshi’s flight to the US stopped in Manchester this week, American ambassador in London, Louis Susman, drove four hours to be there for the hour-long layover. Susman’s mission was to “avoid any unpleasantness — including the possibility that Britishbased US airline security might insist on body-scanning Qureshi — that might start the US-Pakistan strategic dialogue in Washington off on the wrong foot,” the Washington Post reported. As Pakistan and the US struggle to overcome what both characterise as a mutual “trust deficit,” the Obama administration hopes that the upgraded talks will consolidate the new partnership the president promised in exchange for Pakistan’s cooperation in shutting down militant havens. PTI
 
India afraid of covert Pak-US understanding

* Former diplomats say US supplied Pakistan N-capable F-16s to fight India

By Iftikhar Gilani

NEW DELHI: Indian strategic community believes Pakistan and the US may have come up with a hush-hush understanding on Afghanistan in the ongoing strategic dialogue, aimed at marginalising Indian role in Afghanistan.

Former Indian foreign secretary Lalit Mansingh asked the Indian government not to be complacent over the US refusal to sign a nuclear deal with Pakistan. He called for focusing on the future of Afghanistan and India’s relationship with the central Asia.

Fighting: Mansingh said the nuclear-capable F-16s and maritime aircraft supplied by the US to Pakistan were not to fight terrorism, but to fight India.

Experts believe that the situation emerging in Afghanistan was a matter of concern for India and any deal with the Taliban would affect its interests. Former deputy national security adviser Satish Chandra said Pakistan had been given a veto over the future of Afghanistan, which was a big setback for India. “Pakistan wants to become the sole spokesperson of the Taliban. Pakistan has eliminated all potential mediators between the Taliban and the US so as to be the sole mediator with the Taliban,” said Alok Bansal, deputy director at the National Maritime Foundation (NMF).

Meanwhile, India’s main opposition Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) took exception to US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton saying, “Pakistan’s struggles are my struggles”, asking if America was a party to anti-India terror activities emanating from Islamabad. “Clinton’s statement at a meeting with Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi amazingly belies an utter disregard for facts and history,” BJP spokesman Tarun Vijay said. He criticised the US for denying India access to David Headley, the American who confessed in a US court of plotting the Mumbai terror attack. “Instead of strengthening a dictatorial power centre supported and bolstered by the Pakistan Army, the US would have done better by asking Pakistan’s leaders to be actively helping India in its war on terror,” he said.

Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan
 
Envoy drove hours to stop Qureshi scan

The extent to which the Obama administration will go to humour Pakistan is highlighted by the fact that its envoy to UK drove four hours to Manchester to ensure that a zealous American airline security does not body-scan foreign minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi ahead of his arrival. When Qureshi’s flight to the US stopped in Manchester this week, American ambassador in London, Louis Susman, drove four hours to be there for the hour-long layover. Susman’s mission was to “avoid any unpleasantness — including the possibility that Britishbased US airline security might insist on body-scanning Qureshi — that might start the US-Pakistan strategic dialogue in Washington off on the wrong foot,” the Washington Post reported. As Pakistan and the US struggle to overcome what both characterise as a mutual “trust deficit,” the Obama administration hopes that the upgraded talks will consolidate the new partnership the president promised in exchange for Pakistan’s cooperation in shutting down militant havens. PTI

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :tup: :woot:
 
Talk of new partnership with US pleases Pakistan

185bfd7f6e57413d7ecbc2f508717eb2.jpg


WASHINGTON: The Pakistan government said it was satisfied with US pledges, made during a day-long strategic conference in Washington, to increase and streamline the delivery of military and economic aid and to ''move from a relationship to a partnership''.

''Today, I am a happy man and a satisfied man,'' Pakistan's Foreign Minister, Shah Mehmood Qureshi, said at a news conference with the US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton. ''I'm satisfied because you finally agreed to many of the things that we've been sharing in our discussions over the last … two years.''

The Obama administration's goals were to create a new level of bonding between the countries and to win increased Pakistani co-operation in the fight against the Taliban and al-Qaeda.

US officials, aware of Pakistan's often-prickly response to perceived slights, were deferential to the Pakistanis and offered fulsome praise. ''We have listened, and we will continue to listen,'' Mrs Clinton said.

''It really has been extraordinary … seeing what Pakistan has done over the last, really, more than a year,'' the US Defence Secretary, Robert Gates, said of Pakistan's counterinsurgency effort.

Mrs Clinton and Mr Qureshi deflected questions about Pakistan's ties with the Taliban and Islamabad's desire to play a role in reconciliation talks with insurgents proposed by Afghanistan's President, Hamid Karzai.


Talk of new partnership with US pleases Pakistan
 
India afraid of covert Pak-US understanding

* Former diplomats say US supplied Pakistan N-capable F-16s to fight India

By Iftikhar Gilani

NEW DELHI: Indian strategic community believes Pakistan and the US may have come up with a hush-hush understanding on Afghanistan in the ongoing strategic dialogue, aimed at marginalising Indian role in Afghanistan.

Former Indian foreign secretary Lalit Mansingh asked the Indian government not to be complacent over the US refusal to sign a nuclear deal with Pakistan. He called for focusing on the future of Afghanistan and India’s relationship with the central Asia.

Fighting: Mansingh said the nuclear-capable F-16s and maritime aircraft supplied by the US to Pakistan were not to fight terrorism, but to fight India.

Experts believe that the situation emerging in Afghanistan was a matter of concern for India and any deal with the Taliban would affect its interests. Former deputy national security adviser Satish Chandra said Pakistan had been given a veto over the future of Afghanistan, which was a big setback for India. “Pakistan wants to become the sole spokesperson of the Taliban. Pakistan has eliminated all potential mediators between the Taliban and the US so as to be the sole mediator with the Taliban,” said Alok Bansal, deputy director at the National Maritime Foundation (NMF).

Meanwhile, India’s main opposition Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) took exception to US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton saying, “Pakistan’s struggles are my struggles”, asking if America was a party to anti-India terror activities emanating from Islamabad. “Clinton’s statement at a meeting with Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi amazingly belies an utter disregard for facts and history,” BJP spokesman Tarun Vijay said. He criticised the US for denying India access to David Headley, the American who confessed in a US court of plotting the Mumbai terror attack. “Instead of strengthening a dictatorial power centre supported and bolstered by the Pakistan Army, the US would have done better by asking Pakistan’s leaders to be actively helping India in its war on terror,” he said.

Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan

Actually its good for India that US will be having more of say in Pakistan's activities because of the dependencies like we see today, which will reduce the possibility of any misadventures.

Building thermal reactors will bring more US personal inside Pakistan and given the track record of US, they will monitor the nuclear scenario too.

not so long ago all the media inside Pakistan was busy writing how much they hate US and all the polling saying how much people of pakistan hates US. Now all i can see are "will they give us that"?/ our co operation worries India " will US pay us more " etc etc...
 
Nobody is going to hate USA if USA is helping Pakistan. Not so hard to understand.
 
Former deputy national security adviser Satish Chandra said Pakistan had been given a veto over the future of Afghanistan, which was a big setback for India.

I like this news, but dont trust on USA. So let's see.:blink:
 
In Pakistan, money alone can't buy U.S. love

(Reuters) - Pakistan's foreign minister declared himself a "happy" man after high-level talks in Washington this week aimed at reversing tempestuous ties between the two allies.

Despite his optimism, tensions persist from security cooperation to how aid is spent, but winning over a strongly skeptical Pakistani public may be the toughest task.

Opinion polls show less than one in five Pakistanis view the United States favorably despite a tripling of civilian aid over the next five years, and U.S. officials complain the country's media is mostly hostile over U.S. intentions.

"This is one of our highest concerns. Public understanding in Pakistan of what the United States is doing is just not where it should be," said U.S. special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, Richard Holbrooke.

"Pakistanis came to believe that we cared only about one or two issues. Above all, the war in Afghanistan and the nuclear issue," he said. "This is really upsetting to me."

The hope is that by improving government-to-government relations, this will filter down to the general public, whose suspicions are so deep-set that when a $7.5 billion U.S. aid package was announced in October, it was met with an uproar rather than the appreciation Washington had hoped for.

Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi said while there was more money on the table for energy, water and other projects, this did not translate into support for the United States and Washington needed a new approach.

"You can't buy public opinion. You have to win hearts and minds," he told Reuters in an interview.

JULY 2011 ANGST

The key, he said, was to create a relationship that was viewed as more permanent and wide-ranging, rather than one where Washington's interest was seen as self-serving and temporary.

Pakistanis are looking anxiously at the July 2011 deadline set by President Barack Obama for U.S. forces to start pulling out of neighboring Afghanistan, fearing this will also result in less interest in Pakistan.

"Pakistanis must feel that you are reliable partners," Qureshi said of the United States. "In the past there has been a history where our interests have been transactional."

At this week's meetings the emphasis was not only on security assistance -- although that is key because of Islamabad's role in Afghanistan -- but on showing that Washington wants to help with daily challenges such as Pakistan's daily power cuts and in fixing dams and roads.

Pakistan expert Lisa Curtis said one danger of this week's meetings was that expectations were high for quick results.

"There may be some expectations that are not met and that will become a perception issue in Pakistan," said Curtis, who is with the Heritage Foundation.

At a signing ceremony for an agreement to build roads, Finance Secretary Salman Siddique said it was projects like these that could have an impact on public opinion as they directly affected the Pakistani people.

AID SHIFT

The United States has shifted how it handles aid in Pakistan, moving away from big U.S. contractors popular under the Bush administration to funneling funds directly through local government or non-governmental organizations.

The downside of this, though, is that aid is taking longer to get through as the State Department must follow strict congressional rules for U.S. taxpayer funds and auditors verify the right controls are in place before money is handed out.

The public image of this week's "strategic dialogue" meetings was one of both sides chanting off the same song sheet, reflected by a seating plan where Pakistani and U.S. officials were symbolically intermingled rather than seated opposite one another, as is often the case in bilateral meetings.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spoke of a "new day" in relations with Pakistan, praising security cooperation that has included the arrest of key Afghan Taliban leader.

U.S. officials avoided asking Pakistan in public to "do more" -- a phrase that irritates Islamabad which argues the country has suffered terrible losses in its fight against extremism, both in human life and financially.

But the recent arrests have, ironically, underscored how much more Pakistan can do, said Bruce Riedel, a former CIA analyst.

"I think there is going to be a lot of talk about what more Pakistan can do about the militants," said Riedel, now with the Brookings Institution.

Washington also wants Pakistan to make efforts to rein in Lashkar-e-Taiba, the Pakistan-based group responsible for the November 2008 Mumbai attacks.

(Editing by Mohammad Zargham)


In Pakistan, money alone can't buy U.S. love | Reuters
 
Actually its good for India that US will be having more of say in Pakistan's activities because of the dependencies like we see today, which will reduce the possibility of any misadventures.

Building thermal reactors will bring more US personal inside Pakistan and given the track record of US, they will monitor the nuclear scenario too.

not so long ago all the media inside Pakistan was busy writing how much they hate US and all the polling saying how much people of pakistan hates US. Now all i can see are "will they give us that"?/ our co operation worries India " will US pay us more " etc etc...

well they stop the propaganda and we wont hate them. they stop targeting our nuclear programme and we wont hate them. they stop talking about invading us and we wont hate them. and recently they are not doing any of that so are not hating them. simple as that.
 
Back
Top Bottom