What's new

The U.S. and Pakistan: Can This Marriage Be Saved?

ISLAMABAD - The devil is in the timing of the April 2 United States announcement of a US$10 million bounty on the head of Hafiz Mohammad Saeed, accused by the Indian government as the mastermind behind the Mumbai mayhem of November 2008 that resulted in the death of 166 people, including seven Americans, when militants stormed the city.

Saeed’s religious outfit, the Jamaat-ul-Dawa (Party for Propagation), has been on Washington's list of terrorist organizations for some time; it also figures on a United Nations list of a similar classification. The Dawa is a successor to the Lashkar-e Taiba, which Saeed founded as armed militant group to fight against Indian control in Kashmir and which was banned in 2002 after being linked to an attack on India's parliament.

The news of Washington's decision to place such a hefty reward on information leading to the arrest and conviction of Saeed - which makes him one of the priciest terrorists on Washington's "wanted list", second only to al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri ($25 million) - was broken to the world by Wendy Sherman, US under secretary of state, in New Delhi during an official visit to the Indian capital.

It may just be coincidence - or a case of clinical synchronization - that Saeed's bounty announcement hit the headlines at precisely the time that the Indians were disclosing to the outside world that Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari would undertake a day-long "private" visit to India, on April 8, for a pilgrimage to the city of Ajmer to seek atonement for his sins at the shrine of the Sufi-saint, Khwaja Gharib Nawaz.

That's where an element of intrigue creeps into the affair and sets diplomatic pundits and their kind wondering if there's a linkage of sorts in Washington's out of the blue initiative to seek the head of a man who isn't as much in their cross-hairs as in India's because of his alleged pivotal role in the Mumbai massacre.

And he is not much in Pakistan's crosshairs either. In 2009, the Pakistani Supreme Court ordered Saeed freed after he won an appeal against being held under house arrest over possible involvement in the Mumbai attacks.

Just hours after the US State Department announced the bounty, Saeed appeared on Pakistan's Geo TV. He said he was a free man - living in Pakistan - and was ready to speak with US officials at any time.

"They called me a terrorist. But I went to the court and asked them to decide my case. India sent four dossiers against me. The case proceedings continued for six months. And the full bench of the high court decided that neither me nor my group has any connection with the Mumbai attacks or [any other] terrorist activities," Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty reported Saeed as saying.
Zardari is unpopular among many Pakistanis as he is viewed as a votary of Washington - much more than his predecessor, General Pervez Musharraf, ever was. He's despised and pilloried for carrying a brief for the US and for kowtowing to his American masters like a loyal and unquestioning surrogate at the expense of Pakistan's national interest.

The Memo-gate scandal, still going through the motions of a high-level judicial probe, has added greater mass to the lay Pakistani's suspicion that their president is a Washington tribune.

This controversy revolves around a memorandum addressed to Admiral Mike Mullen, US chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, ostensibly seeking the help of the Barack Obama administration in the wake of the killing of al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden by US forces in Pakistan last May to avert a military takeover of the civilian government in Pakistan, as well as assisting in a Washington insider takeover of the government and military apparatus. The memo is alleged to have been drafted at the behest of Zardari.

Memogate's principal character, Mansoor Ejaz, has added fuel to the fire by contending that Zardari had been tipped off by his American handlers of their stealth operation against Bin Laden. That, understandably, leaves pundits wondering if the yoking of bounty on Saeed with Zardari's "pilgrimage" to India is meant to facilitate the visit, or cast a shadow over it?

Zardari's planned call on the saint's shrine is seen by many as a nothing more than a fig-leaf; his meeting in Delhi, before he moves on to Ajmer, with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh will have a lot riding on it.

Zardari will be trying to pick up the pieces where Musharraf had left them, seven years ago in the tourist Mecca of Agra, in the salubrious shadows of the famous Taj Mahal. Many a pundit is looking at Zardari's "pilgrimage" diplomacy as a delayed extension of Musharraf's "Taj" diplomacy to mend ties between the fractious neighbors.

The arch-rivals were close to pulling off a major breakthrough in that 2005 meeting between Musharraf and then-premier Atal Bihari Vajpayee, which broke down at the last minute when all that remained for the two leaders to do was to cross the t's and dot the i's.

The countries have seemed serious on picking up the thread of peace with renewed vigor and purpose since last year.

Pakistan has taken a major stride on the road to reconciliation and normalcy with India with its bold decision - despite a huge backlash from right-wing religious parties - to grant "most favored nation" status to India in the interests of imparting a hefty boost to trade and economic linkages with its estranged neighbor.

Understandably, Zardari must have been sent some positive and encouraging signals from Delhi to embark on his maiden visit to India as president of Pakistan; he couldn't be taking a leap, entirely, in the dark, especially with so much suspicion surrounding his enigmatic role at the pinnacle of Pakistan's Byzantine political culture.

Pundits agree that a new visa agreement will be signed by Zardari and Manmohan in their meeting, greatly liberalizing travel for their respective nationals to each other's country. That should give a quantum boost to people-to-people contacts, always said as a key to helping normalize relations.

But soothsayers are also saying that India could be persuaded to relent on two other prickly issues - the Siachen and Sir Creek territorial disputes - on which even the fine print of an agreement has been ready for years - going back to the era when the late Rajiv Gandhi and Benazir Bhutto were in power in the late 1980s.

The generals on both sides of the "great divide" who threw spanners in the works are now believed to be inclined to look beyond their noses; the Pakistani initiative on trade liberalization couldn't have come without the military general headquarters lifting its reservations and falling in line with the politicos.

The Cassandras, however, are worried that Washington's bounty on Saeed could well influence the agenda of Zardari's visit to Delhi adversely and recalibrate the Indian priority to focus mainly, if not solely, on their grouse against Pakistan for not doing enough to bring Saeed and others of his ilk to book for their crimes in Mumbai.

Grist to this apprehension has been provided by the gushing enthusiasm of Indian officialdom's vociferous welcome to the bounty move against Saeed.

Not surprisingly, the bounty has stirred a tepid, if not cool, response from Pakistan, where the general feeling is that Washington has resorted to blatant arm-twisting to force Pakistan into relenting on the tangled issue of the land transit of North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) supplies across its territory; that corridor has been frozen since last November when an American night raid against a military check-post in the tribal belt close to Afghanistan killed 24 Pakistani soldiers.

The Pakistani parliament is still deliberating on whether the NATO facility should be restored or not. However, there's complete consensus that it should not be reopened unless an unconditional apology is forthcoming from Washington for the deaths of the Pakistani soldiers.

Opting to give priority to wielding a stout stick, instead of offering carrots, Washington can only stay the hands of those in the Pakistani establishment who may want to extricate the two "allies" out of this tight corner. At the same time, such a dramatic and sensational move by the Americans would only raise the anti-American flag of the Pakistani masses even further.

Right-wing religious parties have already whipped up a mass frenzy on the issue; Saeed is in the thick of the populist anti-American movement and putting a bounty on his head is as good as showing the red rag to an enraged bull.

Zardari, a friend of the Americans, cannot insulate himself from the heat of the fire lit by his ill-advised friends; he doesn't need enemies with friends like these.


Asia Times Online :: US playing cat and mouse with Pakistan
 
Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari would undertake a day-long "private" visit to India, on April 8, for a pilgrimage to the city of Ajmer to seek atonement for his sins at the shrine of the Sufi-saint, Khwaja Gharib Nawaz.
[/COLOR][/B]
[/url]

It will require more than a visit to atone for Zardari's sins
 
Matters are coming to a head in Pakistan. The deadlock in US-Pak relations over resumption of the NATO pipeline and condoning drone attacks is veering towards a confrontation. And the confrontation between a parliament-government led by the PPP and a Supreme Court-opposition led by Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry is edging towards a clash. The net losers, as a consequence, are fated to be Pakistan's fledgling democracy and stumbling economy. Consider.

Pakistan's Parliamentary Committee for National Security has failed in three months to forge a consensus on terms and conditions for resuming a strategic relationship with the US. The Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz)-Jamiat-ul-Ulema-e-Islam opposition, no less than the Muttahida Qaumi Mahaz-Pakistan Muslim League (Q) allies, is in no mood to allow the Zardari government any significant space for negotiation. COAS Gen Ashfaq Kayani is also reluctant to weigh in unambiguously with his stance. As such, no one wants to take responsibility for any new "deal" with Washington in an election year charged with rampant anti-Americanism.

The danger is that in any lengthy default mode, the US might get desperate and take unilateral action to further its goals as time runs out for it in the Afghan endgame. That would compel Pakistan to resist, plunging the two into a certain diplomatic and possible military conflict. This would hurt Pakistan more than the US because Islamabad is friendless in the region, dependent on the West for trade and aid, and already bleeding internally from multiple cuts inflicted by terrorism, sectarianism, separatism, inflation, devaluation, unemployment, etc. Indeed, the worstcase scenario for the US is a disorderly and swift retreat from Afghanistan while the worstcase scenario for Pakistan is an agonising implosion as a sanctioned and failing state.

A pointer to the direction in which US-Pak relations are headed is provided by the recent US decision to put $10 million "terrorist" head money on Hafiz Saeed, the leader of the UNbanned Lashkar-e-Tayyeba and Jamaat-ud-Dawa. There are two major motives behind this step.

First, it reaffirms the US belief that the Defence Council of Pakistan in general and the LeT in particular are increasingly gearing themselves up to play a significant anti-US role in Afghanistan and are therefore fair game for US policy makers. The US is signaling that if restored NATO pipelines are attacked or violently blocked by the DCP or its adjuncts as threatened by them recently, the US will consider it an act of terrorism-war by these groups and react accordingly. Certainly, if Saeed should step into lawless FATA he will henceforth be fair game for the drones.

Second, it endears the US to India which has long demanded some such step and confirms a budding strategic relationship between them based on strong defence and economic ties.

A formal clash between the government and the judiciary is also on the cards. If there was any doubt about it, the aggressive speeches of President Asif Zardari and Bilawal Bhutto on April 4 at Nau Dero signal the readiness of the government to go down fighting rather than throw in the towel at the altar of the SC. President Zardari's decision to camp in Lahore for a few days is aimed at marshalling his forces to meet the "Punjabi" challenge ahead. A conviction of the prime minister, Yousaf Raza Gilani, for contempt will trigger a series of political actions and reactions all round and provoke a military intervention that leaves political devastation and economic ruination in its wake.

A house bitterly feuding and divided is hardly equipped to put up a united front against a desperate and overbearing superpower like the US in a volatile and friendless region.

There is a perverse irony in the developing situation. The generals of the Pakistan Army are solely responsible for formulating and implementing policy towards America, India and Afghanistan. Now those policies have come to grief in one way or another and also engendered anti-India and anti-US sentiment in the bargain. So they are asking the politicians to take "ownership" of, and responsibility for, them in an environment that is not conducive to rational and pragmatic review and reform.

The twist in the scenario is that the Pakistan military, more than any other institution or social group, is most likely to be most adversely affected by any precipitous change in the external or internal status quo.

If external relations with America deteriorate, the pipeline for weapons and coalition support funds will dry up and Pakistani soldiers and weapons could even be pitted against NATO forces in Afghanistan. Any diminishing of the role of Pakistan as an American ally in the Afghan war would also enable India to carve out a bigger role for itself in the Afghan end-game, which is nothing short of a nightmare for the Pakistan army. Equally, if the Pakistani Army were to be sucked into the internal political quagmire as a result of the clash between the judiciary and the executive-parliament, it would find itself battling on two impossible fronts whose "ownership burden" would rest exclusively on its shoulders.

This is a moment of truth and reconciliation between the military and civilians, between democracy and autocracy, between civil society and militant extremism, between notions of national interest and national honour, between executive and judiciary, between government and opposition, between Pakistan and America, between Pakistan and India. This is Pakistan's moment of reckoning for paradigm change.

Moment of reckoning for Pakistan : Najam Sethi News - India Today
 
no one dig out pakistan out of this mess.If this continues fate of pakistan will be just like afganistan,irae,libya etc
 
hahahahahahaha i have nothing to say so any more about it :rofl: anything else indians ?
 
Any diminishing of the role of Pakistan as an American ally in the Afghan war would also enable India to carve out a bigger role for itself in the Afghan end-game, which is nothing short of a nightmare for the Pakistan army.

India's fate in Afghanistan is same as the fate of the USSR , everyone knows who is calling the shots in Afghanistan & who WILL be calling the shots. Big wishes , loud claims , propaganda , nothing can avert the imminent humiliation of Bharti expansionist ideology that awaits in the mountains of Afghanistan. Just wait until our good yankee friends pull out - just wait .
 
Billi kay khab main chichray, india walo khud to dartay ho.......
 
India's fate in Afghanistan is same as the fate of the USSR , everyone knows who is calling the shots in Afghanistan & who WILL be calling the shots. Big wishes , loud claims , propaganda , nothing can avert the imminent humiliation of Bharti expansionist ideology that awaits in the mountains of Afghanistan. Just wait until our good yankee friends pull out - just wait .

What gives you the confidence that USA will pull out? It will depend on the situation in 2014 they will most likely stay put there for President Karzai to stay in power. Don't worry Bhartiya sarkar does not want to embrace the snakes of your nation by expanding or grabbing some one else's land.

Some of you guys waste so much time making argument over the line, If the same time and energy is put towards your nation rebuilding than you won't be stressed and paranoid at all.
 
the truth is that these ties will not recover unless usa stops drone attacks and stop sending Raymond Davis s to our country. One thing that bothers most to Pakistanis is that usa is backing up our corrupt politicians, and if you think carefully then Pakistanis are right to be against usa's policies.

sir, Pakistan is in tight grip of US. US won’t let Pakistan back to ‘independent’ foreign policy, and ‘free’ for doing national interests and whatever they want. US simply won’t let Pakistan walk away so easily :disagree:


And there are few key reasons behind it, as per whatever I may think from my side, on the back of the news I read during last around 20 years. I saw a very strong tie between US and Pakistan till 1990 to the worse it reached by 26/11 2011. And certain reasons I find behind this change, as below:-

1. India was rated as enemy number two of US/ NATO till 1990, after SU. Indian professionals used to go to US even during Cold War also but it was similar to how Chinese are in much bigger number in West than Indian origins. but till 1990, US was more concerned with India than China. I remember, US’s newspapers used to criticize China for transferring nuclear and missiles and used to keep a level of appreciation for India for not doing so. But India was a ‘declared’ opponent of US till Cold War, who used to circle NATO with help of NAM countries. There were few cases when RAW robbed CIA’s offices to get key information which were much appreciated by KGB, people in India used to tell those brave stories of RAW in late 80s, I remember. Also till 1990, Pakistan couldn’t get nuclear weapons so India didn’t have any real threat from Pakistan side and was free do mess with NATO on the international platform. And this had made Pakistan a closer friend of US. Pakistan already had history to be in the group of Britain even beofre 1947, even Mr Jinnah was always against freedom efforts of Mr Gandhi and his men, and served as governor general of Britain till his death. and at the same time Ms Indira Gandhi did nuclear test in early 70s, joined SU properly and did full mess with US/ NATO, with whatever group like NAM she could make. No wonder US sent an aircraft carrier to attack on India in 1972 war but they couldn’t due to Russian submarines. US and Pakistan had a common enemy, India, till 1990, which had put them very close. US used to arm Pakistan with the same arms as they used to give to Turkey, a NATO member, like F16s/ Orion etc.

2. Since early 90s, first India broke down NAM, and opened Indian market for US/ EU also, started making too many visits to US etc, which had cooled down US to a level and at the same time collapse of SU had given them a sense that US won’t treat India like a cold war enemy anymore. And with that, violence started in Indian Kashmir since 1989, had made US in the position to keep criticizing Pakistan on time to time. For example, even if Mr Musharraf was US’s man, US did have to ask for democratic voting there during Mr Musharraf’s rule also. And the main thing which ‘disturbed’ US was the news that China had transferred nuclear weapons to Pakistan by early 90s. US even blocked supply of a batch of F16s when they got this news, I remember. But slowly slowly, when Pakistan proved that their nuclear weapons are for India only, with British support for nuclear Pakistan against India, US had accepted Pakistan as a nuclear power country, non NPT signatory also like India, by late 90s. US also got a irsk with the information that Saudi Arabia funded Pakistan’s nuclear program of Pakistan in early 90s which then gave SA a nuclear strike through Pakistan also, means, they then don’t need US/ NATO’s nuclear strike, if they have Pakistan in their pocket. but by 9/11 2001, and with the news that Pakistan was one of those only 3 countries who had diplomatic ties with Taliban rule of Afghan till 9/11 2001, from where US was attacked on 9/11, US even reached a level in 2002 that they gave a clear warning to Pakistan that if they don’t give their support to US against Taliban, they will bomb Pakistan to ‘stone age’, if I remember.

3. And Mr Musharraf could finally keep US cool down and promised full support for US in their war against Taliban, with taking enough aid from US also to help Pakistan get high growth during 2004/ 05/ 06 if I remember. Pakistan got so much aid/ support from NATO that there were many who used to say that Terrorism is a business of Pakistan to earn aid from West. Till then also, US was 'almost' happy with Pakistan. But, I was in Perth that time when we read that US could attack on the Pakistan side to its tribal areas in 2007, it was little surprised to us that now US would attack on Pakistan also, along with Afghanistan? But it happened since late 2007 when US started bombing on north west states of Pakistan and since then US had got a feeling that Pakistan’s intelligent ISI might also behind their 9/11, as, if Al Qaeda of OBL was brother of Taliban and Pakistan had close relationship with Taliban rule in Afghan, it might be possible that Al Qaeda might have got ‘indirect’ help from Pakistan. Also, we read during 2006/07 somewhere that when Taliban chief Mullah Omar got injured one time, he got treatment in Karachi for few months. And why not, he even got his education from Pakistan’s Madrasas and then they fought with SU in Afghan, after getting training from CIA/ ISI?

4. And since 2007/08, US had come in the position not to ‘Divorce’ nuclear Pakistan. And from then, continuous drone attacks on Pakistan, too many bomb blasts in Pakistan itself during 2007 to 2011, which they believe that it might be because of CIA’s involvements, which had made many difference between US and Pakistan. It was found, whenever Pakistan used to make any noise because of drone attacks, CIA used to organize a bomb blast somewhere in Pakistan to take their attention out of drone attacks. Also, too many news we read in 2008/ 09 that most of the terror plots for West are being planned in Pakistan. Also Muslim religious background of Pakistan always keep US worried for nuclear Pakistan that, it may fall with its other Islamic brother countries for full religious war between Islam and Christianity. as, already too many Pakistanis were found in support of Militant groups. We used to read during that time that when a Western journalist goes to Pakistan, he may see pictures of OBL in every second shop of Pakistan’s cities.

10 Apr 2009
At least three in every four terror plots currently under investigation in the UK have their roots in Pakistan, according to the security services.
Pakistan: origin of three-quarters of all terror plots - Telegraph

Nine British-Asians of Pakistani and Bangladeshi-origin have been jailed in the UK over an al Qaeda-inspired plot to bomb the London Stock Exchange and to organise a terrorist training camp in Pakistan.
9 Pakistanis, Bangladeshis jailed for London terror plot - World - DNA

5. Few Pakistan’s journalists/ senior members of PDF would be agree with me that it is highly likely that Britain might be behind 26/11 2011 as Pakistan’s General Mr Kayani refused to go to Britian in september/ october 2011 with warning that "think 10 times while unilateral attack on nuclear Pakistan". And as it was Britain who helped Pakistan to convince US/ NATO to accept Pakistan as a nuclear power country similar to India, Britain might be very angry with Mr Kayani due to that statement. Also, the act of 26/11 2011, the ‘mentality’, was very much similar to those who are based in Britain and British origins in Australia. And if I keep a level of appreciation for people like Mr Kayani including with even Hafiz Saeed also then its because they are those who may raise Pakistan’s voice against US/ UK otherwise most of the Pakistan’s rules have adopted salvage of West. Rest, I lived in a time in 90s that there cant be any news from Pakistan saying good about India, therefore hate speech against India is not a fault of any Pakistani national and we do know that CIA/ US/ UK was behind 26/11 Mumbai attack? I even think that Kasab doesn’t deserve death penalty as he was just working for money, his parents took money in return of giving their son on the hands of militants, they claerly said it. If India can’t punish the main handlers of Mumbai Attack, CIA/ US/ UK, then how giving death penalty to Kasab is right, who wasn’t one of those who were even taking any type of revenge with India also? They just came to do the work they were allotted and his parents got money out of him also? If you can’t score at least 180 of US/ UK side then how hanging of Kasab type ‘hired’ people is justified whose parents were paid for that also? I do keep little appreciation for Mr Kayani and Hafiz Saeed also for going against US, for their courage, but how cowards like Mukherjee/ Krishna/ Antony are good? and specially, how traitors like Rahul Gandhi/ Sonia Gandhi/ Digvijay singh/ Manmohan Singh are good who might be behind so many killing in the bomb blasts by Indian Muzahidin in 2008 that continued till Mumbai attack 26/11 2008, and these four people might be planning for something very big right now also, with keeping our attention on Hafiz Saeed type people?)

6. And finally, OBL was found in Pakistan’s city, with claims that ISI was hiding him, which then made US completely against Pakistan. I guess, OBL wasn’t killed and might be giving every information to US’s government agencies right now, which might have angered US more. OBL who was behind killing of 5000 US’s citizens in 9/11 attack, so if he might have said that he enjoyed a very luxury life under Pakistan’s protection, then, you would understand that US won’t let go Pakistan so easily. A Muslim country Pakistan, with nuclear weapons also, which is now considered as one of the main enemy of US since OBL incidence? US won’t let Pakistan go so easily. Many in US might be believing, if they will face something like 9/11 again then it will be because of terrorists backed by ISI, who were keeping OBL. So, until US/ UK may ‘fix’ Pakistan, they won’t divorce Pakistan.

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


ISLAMABAD - The devil is in the timing of the April 2 United States announcement of a US$10 million bounty on the head of Hafiz Mohammad Saeed, accused by the Indian government as the mastermind behind the Mumbai mayhem of November 2008 that resulted in the death of 166 people, including seven Americans, when militants stormed the city.

Saeed’s religious outfit, the Jamaat-ul-Dawa (Party for Propagation), has been on Washington's list of terrorist organizations for some time; it also figures on a United Nations list of a similar classification. The Dawa is a successor to the Lashkar-e Taiba, which Saeed founded as armed militant group to fight against Indian control in Kashmir and which was banned in 2002 after being linked to an attack on India's parliament.

The news of Washington's decision to place such a hefty reward on information leading to the arrest and conviction of Saeed - which makes him one of the priciest terrorists on Washington's "wanted list", second only to al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri ($25 million) - was broken to the world by Wendy Sherman, US under secretary of state, in New Delhi during an official visit to the Indian capital.

It may just be coincidence - or a case of clinical synchronization - that Saeed's bounty announcement hit the headlines at precisely the time that the Indians were disclosing to the outside world that Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari would undertake a day-long "private" visit to India, on April 8, for a pilgrimage to the city of Ajmer to seek atonement for his sins at the shrine of the Sufi-saint, Khwaja Gharib Nawaz.

That's where an element of intrigue creeps into the affair and sets diplomatic pundits and their kind wondering if there's a linkage of sorts in Washington's out of the blue initiative to seek the head of a man who isn't as much in their cross-hairs as in India's because of his alleged pivotal role in the Mumbai massacre.

And he is not much in Pakistan's crosshairs either. In 2009, the Pakistani Supreme Court ordered Saeed freed after he won an appeal against being held under house arrest over possible involvement in the Mumbai attacks.

Just hours after the US State Department announced the bounty, Saeed appeared on Pakistan's Geo TV. He said he was a free man - living in Pakistan - and was ready to speak with US officials at any time.

"They called me a terrorist. But I went to the court and asked them to decide my case. India sent four dossiers against me. The case proceedings continued for six months. And the full bench of the high court decided that neither me nor my group has any connection with the Mumbai attacks or [any other] terrorist activities," Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty reported Saeed as saying.
Zardari is unpopular among many Pakistanis as he is viewed as a votary of Washington - much more than his predecessor, General Pervez Musharraf, ever was. He's despised and pilloried for carrying a brief for the US and for kowtowing to his American masters like a loyal and unquestioning surrogate at the expense of Pakistan's national interest.

The Memo-gate scandal, still going through the motions of a high-level judicial probe, has added greater mass to the lay Pakistani's suspicion that their president is a Washington tribune.

This controversy revolves around a memorandum addressed to Admiral Mike Mullen, US chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, ostensibly seeking the help of the Barack Obama administration in the wake of the killing of al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden by US forces in Pakistan last May to avert a military takeover of the civilian government in Pakistan, as well as assisting in a Washington insider takeover of the government and military apparatus. The memo is alleged to have been drafted at the behest of Zardari.

Memogate's principal character, Mansoor Ejaz, has added fuel to the fire by contending that Zardari had been tipped off by his American handlers of their stealth operation against Bin Laden. That, understandably, leaves pundits wondering if the yoking of bounty on Saeed with Zardari's "pilgrimage" to India is meant to facilitate the visit, or cast a shadow over it?

Zardari's planned call on the saint's shrine is seen by many as a nothing more than a fig-leaf; his meeting in Delhi, before he moves on to Ajmer, with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh will have a lot riding on it.

Zardari will be trying to pick up the pieces where Musharraf had left them, seven years ago in the tourist Mecca of Agra, in the salubrious shadows of the famous Taj Mahal. Many a pundit is looking at Zardari's "pilgrimage" diplomacy as a delayed extension of Musharraf's "Taj" diplomacy to mend ties between the fractious neighbors.

The arch-rivals were close to pulling off a major breakthrough in that 2005 meeting between Musharraf and then-premier Atal Bihari Vajpayee, which broke down at the last minute when all that remained for the two leaders to do was to cross the t's and dot the i's.

The countries have seemed serious on picking up the thread of peace with renewed vigor and purpose since last year.

Pakistan has taken a major stride on the road to reconciliation and normalcy with India with its bold decision - despite a huge backlash from right-wing religious parties - to grant "most favored nation" status to India in the interests of imparting a hefty boost to trade and economic linkages with its estranged neighbor.

Understandably, Zardari must have been sent some positive and encouraging signals from Delhi to embark on his maiden visit to India as president of Pakistan; he couldn't be taking a leap, entirely, in the dark, especially with so much suspicion surrounding his enigmatic role at the pinnacle of Pakistan's Byzantine political culture.

Pundits agree that a new visa agreement will be signed by Zardari and Manmohan in their meeting, greatly liberalizing travel for their respective nationals to each other's country. That should give a quantum boost to people-to-people contacts, always said as a key to helping normalize relations.

But soothsayers are also saying that India could be persuaded to relent on two other prickly issues - the Siachen and Sir Creek territorial disputes - on which even the fine print of an agreement has been ready for years - going back to the era when the late Rajiv Gandhi and Benazir Bhutto were in power in the late 1980s.

The generals on both sides of the "great divide" who threw spanners in the works are now believed to be inclined to look beyond their noses; the Pakistani initiative on trade liberalization couldn't have come without the military general headquarters lifting its reservations and falling in line with the politicos.

The Cassandras, however, are worried that Washington's bounty on Saeed could well influence the agenda of Zardari's visit to Delhi adversely and recalibrate the Indian priority to focus mainly, if not solely, on their grouse against Pakistan for not doing enough to bring Saeed and others of his ilk to book for their crimes in Mumbai.

Grist to this apprehension has been provided by the gushing enthusiasm of Indian officialdom's vociferous welcome to the bounty move against Saeed.

Not surprisingly, the bounty has stirred a tepid, if not cool, response from Pakistan, where the general feeling is that Washington has resorted to blatant arm-twisting to force Pakistan into relenting on the tangled issue of the land transit of North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) supplies across its territory; that corridor has been frozen since last November when an American night raid against a military check-post in the tribal belt close to Afghanistan killed 24 Pakistani soldiers.

The Pakistani parliament is still deliberating on whether the NATO facility should be restored or not. However, there's complete consensus that it should not be reopened unless an unconditional apology is forthcoming from Washington for the deaths of the Pakistani soldiers.

Opting to give priority to wielding a stout stick, instead of offering carrots, Washington can only stay the hands of those in the Pakistani establishment who may want to extricate the two "allies" out of this tight corner. At the same time, such a dramatic and sensational move by the Americans would only raise the anti-American flag of the Pakistani masses even further.

Right-wing religious parties have already whipped up a mass frenzy on the issue; Saeed is in the thick of the populist anti-American movement and putting a bounty on his head is as good as showing the red rag to an enraged bull.

Zardari, a friend of the Americans, cannot insulate himself from the heat of the fire lit by his ill-advised friends; he doesn't need enemies with friends like these.


Asia Times Online :: US playing cat and mouse with Pakistan

sir, when we talk about Hafid Saeed type people, we find Pakistan full of militants who first hate India, call for a Jihad against India, but they mainly kill Pakistanis itself. Have a look on Pakistan, over 30,000 + 5,000 people walking on the streets were killed by their these ‘defenders’ like Hafiz Saeed, during just last 10 years. I find Pakistan has more threats from their own terrorists/ militants than India. And if few of Pakistan’s ‘hired’ terrorists scored around 200 in India also, like during Mumbai attack, then its simply because they were paid for that as it wasn't under their capabilities to organize this big drama? otherwise they have killed over 35000 in just last 10 years in Pakistan itself. India simply has to defend itself from these Pakistan’s defenders who are bigger threat for Pakistan itself, thats it :meeting:. And then India would look for those handlers, like CIA, who hire them to do that work. But at least one of the leader of these militant groups of Pakistan, Hafiz Saeed, call for open war against US/ UK, otherwise Pakistan’s politics is always filled with hate speech for India, what’s new? Someone from Pakistan hate India, surprise? Otherwise, not only Pakistan’s rulers but a big number of Indian politicians have also adopted Western salvage. Rest, if there are people in India who hate people like Hafiz Saeed as they were responsible for over 3,000 killing in India during last 10 years if we include Kashmir also, then they may be little relax while thinking, “how long Pakistan will keep these people to score 3,000 in India and 35,000 in Pakistan itself, by every 10 years?” While on my side, Im very happy with freedom of Hafiz Saeed type people because they scored at least 3,000+ on NATO side also during last 10 years in Afghan. I think, the way CIA support those terrorists who work for them against India, like Dawood Ibrahim, India would also support the people like Hafiz Saeed who may keep scoring the same number on US side also. Indians may have a feel good that if India lost over 20,000 people during last 20 years if we include Kashmir also, which were backed by US directly or indirectly, then here, US/ NATO also lost at least 20,000+ during the same period of last 20 years if we include their casualties in Afghan, Iraq, 9/11 of US and other terrorist attack on West during last 20 years.

Don’t hold your breath: during a recent DPC rally in Karachi, speaker after speaker made it clear that their real enemies are India and America. This assembled galaxy clearly failed to notice the uncomfortable fact that over the last decade, well over 30,000 innocent civilians and 5,000 security personnel have been killed in terrorist attacks launched by jihadi militants.

Save us from our defenders | DAWN.COM

With that, I would also propose that RAW would make sure that until CIA backed terrorist like Dawood Idrahim are alive, who might be planning something very big against India by help of CIA from somewhere, RAW would also try to provide a level of protection to people like Al Zawahari, Mollah Omar including to Hafiz Saeed also who may plan for 9/11 type attack on US in future. Until terrorists like Dawood Ibrahim are free to plan for 26/11 2008 type attacks on India by support of CIA, RAW would also try to give a type of ‘security guarantee’ to Al Zawahari, Mullah Omar, Hafiz Saeed type people who may plan 9/11 type attacks on US, like how Dawood Ibrahim type anti India terrorists are given ‘security guarantee’ from CIA. :tup:

Those who organized Mumbai attack will do something bigger in future and if you can’t identify the 'handlers', you will face the worse in future, as they are still alive and might be thinking for the next with learning from their past experience. We won’t have luxury to get someone like Kasab alive next time also :no:. in place of killing terrorists like Kasab and running after 'controlled' people like Hafiz Saeed/ Dawood Ibrahim, you have to think about those who 'handle' them. Or, may be a war from North by June, as per the news but even in this case also, China would be backed by US/ West. But I also believe, China won’t go for it if US/ West wants them to but when they themselves want to. China is rising very fast and has bright future so they won’t go for any damage in world’s environment which may discourage their growth, their bright future. But India does have to prepare for any worse, including anything that may come from North by this June 2012, I sincerely believe.)

(I got a very close experience that, British rulers don’t believe in educating their population for BE/ME/ MBA/ PHD type degrees but they prefer to make those ‘slaves’ who would work for British companies. also their cultural background isn't strong enough to have highly qualified people from their own society. No matter how much qualified you are, they first want you to become a ‘slave’, then the rest. A very clear Idea I got in my life with them that, they strongly believe that if they can’t make rest of the world ‘salves’, their English people, British and British origins of Australia & US will finally become slaves to the highly qualified people like Indian/ Pakistanis/ Chinese, like how so many qualified people of developing countries do white collar jobs but their local white people are under high school pass labors. British have a certain ‘slave mentality’, with a strong belief that either they will be able to make slaves, or, they will become slaves of those countries like India/ Pakistan/ China whose people are studying hard to go high and may make better technologies than West in future.)

(those Indian population, a big ratio, who demand for hanging of Kasab and for capture of Hafiz Saeed are big losers. Even if Indian commandos killed many terrorist in Mumbai attack, we have only Kasab alive to defend ourselves, to tell the real story to world, and over 7 to 8 commandos got Saheed to get him alive otherwise people like Digvijay Singh might have organized Hindu-Muslim riots in India for killing of over 100,000 number. Hindu might be saying they were “Indian” Muzahidin who killed majority of Hindus, like how good number of 'locals' was scored on Shivaji railway station just to score a big number. And on the other hand, Muslims might be saying that they might be Hindus having red stings on hands and killed Mr H Karkare also, more to prove that they might be Hindu terrorists. While in reality, they were not taking any revenge or did that attack in any Hate also, but they were hired to do that work they were allotted. I had guessed a Hindu-Muslim riot in Mumbai similar to early 90s but just because of getting Kasab alive, it could be avoided as it then proved that ‘foreigners’ were having name of ‘Indian’ Mujahidin.
Suicide bombers are available for a price in Pakistan to settle personal scores, a police investigation into the killing of a parliamentarian has revealed.On Tuesday, the Crimes Investigation Department of the Lahore police said it had arrested five people involved in the Aug 6 suicide attack at the residence of Rashid Akbar Niwani, a Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) member of the National Assembly, which resulted in the death of 26 people and injuries to several more.

Suicide bombers for sale in Pakistan
 
sir, Pakistan is in tight grip of US. US won’t let Pakistan back to ‘independent’ foreign policy, and ‘free’ for doing national interests and whatever they want. US simply won’t let Pakistan walk away so easily :disagree:

well imo they wont succeed by using a stick. remember they didn't want to let Iran to get out either. If they continue with the stick when Pakistan does break it will be an enemy of America just as much as Iranians
 

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom