US not to back dictators in future, says Clinton

[ejaz007]

US not to back dictators in future, says Clinton
Saturday, October 31, 2009

Admits past mistakes; faces Pakistanis’ anger on drone attacks; says end to al-Qaeda a must for winning terror war; announces $243.5m fresh assistance; MPs ask for steps to remove trust deficit

By Asim Yasin

ISLAMABAD: US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Friday admitted that the United States had made a mistake in past to support the dictators but in the same breath she assured that this mistake would not be repeated in future.

“The US secretary of state in her meeting with parliamentarians acknowledged that the United States had made a mistake in the past to lend its support to successive dictators and assured that in future no relation would be established with individuals but with the state and people of Pakistan,” said Speaker National Assembly Dr Fehmida Mirza while talking to a group of journalists at her Chamber at the Parliament House.

Earlier, Hillary Clinton held an interactive meeting with Farooq H Naek, Chairman Senate, Dr Fehmida Mirza and parliamentarians of all shades of opinion at the Parliament House. Opposition Leader in the National Assembly Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan, Opposition Leader in the Senate Wasim Sajjad, parliamentary leaders of all the political parties, including Faisal Saleh Hayat of the PML-Q, Jehangir Tarin of the PML-F, Farooq Sattar of the MQM, Senator Haji Adeel of the ANP, Aftab Sherpao (PPP-S), Senator Abdul Rahim Mandokhel of the PKMAP, Senator Ishaq Dar and women parliamentarians, including Kashmala Tariq of the PML(LM), Fauzia Wahab and Sherry Rehman also attended the meeting.

In three hours interaction with Hillary Clinton, all the parliamentarians voiced their concern over continued drone attacks in the tribal areas and the presence of Blackwater in Pakistan.

However, one dissenting voice in support by a senator from Balochistan was also echoed in the meeting. “Yes, few parliamentarians supported the drone attacks,” said the speaker.

The sources said while replying to Sherry Rehman’s question on the presence of private security guards, Clinton promised that they should abide the law of land and assured that she would take up this issue.

The speaker said the meeting was held with open mind in which the members expressed their concern over the trade deficit between the US and Pakistan and asked the US secretary of State to move ahead to remove the existing trust deficit.

“The parliamentarians were of the view that the United State should have to take the steps to remove the trust deficit,” she added.She said the parliamentarians also raised their concern over the US past practice of not fulfilling its pledges and promises and told her that if the Washington wanted to bridge the gap of trust deficit then it should realise the pledges and fulfill its promises with the people of Pakistan.

Clinton told them, Fehmida said, the Obama administration had reviewed the past policies of the US and now decided to interact with the people of Pakistan and parliamentarians for which a mechanism was being devised.

The speaker said about continued drone attacks, Clinton told the parliamentarians that the opinion in Pakistan was divided over this issue as there were people who described the drone attacks as a positive step.

About the Kerry Lugar Law, the speaker said the US secretary of State was of the view that the United States wanted to help the democracy in Pakistan and the aid was also being provided under the KLL for this purpose. However, the speaker said Hillary Clinton assured the parliamentarians that on her return to Washington, she would convey their reservations regarding the conditionalities in the KLL to the US administration.

The speaker said Hillary Clinton appreciated the sacrifices of the Pakistan armed forces in the war against terror. She said the United States would provide the assistance for the training of parliamentarians and staff of the Parliament House.

Answering another question, she said the parliamentarians called for writing off Pakistan’s loan as an old ally and Hillary Clinton assured that she would take up this issue with the US treasury. However, the US secretary of State said that there would be conditionalities if the loans were written off, the speaker said.

Answering another question regarding the Kashmir issue, the speaker said the US secretary of state advocated for the resolution of all issues through composite dialogue. However, sources said Hillary Clinton told the parliamentarians that the US could not pressurise India for dialogue on Kashmir

Agencies add: Meanwhile, in a series of public appearances on the final day of her three-day visit, Clinton refused to discuss the issue of drone attacks. She said only that “there is a war going on,” and the Obama administration is committed to helping Pakistan defeat the insurgents and terrorists who threaten the stability of a nuclear-armed nation.

Clinton said she could not comment on ìany particular tactic or technologyî used in the war against extremist groups in the area.During an interview broadcast live in Pakistan with several prominent female TV anchors, before a predominantly female audience of several hundred, one member of the audience said the Predator attacks amount to “executions without trial” for those killed.

Another asked Clinton how she would define terrorism.“Is it the killing of people in drone attacks?” she asked. That woman then asked if Clinton considers drone attacks and bombings like the one that killed more than 100 civilians in the city of Peshawar earlier this week to both be acts of terrorism. “No, I do not,” Clinton replied.

Earlier, in give-and-take with about a dozen residents of the tribal region, one man alluded obliquely to the drone attacks, saying he had heard that in the United States, aircraft are not allowed to take off after 11 pm, to avoid irritating the population.

“That is the sort of peace we want for our people,” he said through an interpreter.The same man told Clinton that the Obama administration should rely more on wisdom and less on firepower to achieve its aims in Pakistan.

“Your presence in the region is not good for peace,” he said, referring to the US military, “because it gives rise to frustration and irritation among the people of this region.” At another point, he told Clinton, “Please forgive me, but I would like to say we’ve been fighting your war.”

A similar point was made by Sana of Geo TV during the live broadcast interview.“It is not our war,” she told Clinton. “It is your war.” She drew a burst of applause when she added, “You had one 9/11. We are having daily 9/11s in Pakistan.”

Clinton’s main message on Friday was that the US wants to be a partner with Pakistan, not just on the military front but also on trade, education, energy and other sectors. She stressed, however, that Pakistan needs to do its part in demonstrating a real commitment to democracy.

Talking to radio journalists, she held out an assurance that the United States would not only provide the military assistance for the success of operation against terrorists but would also cooperate in the reconstruction phase in Swat, Malakand and South Waziristan.

Clinton also was asked about her remark on Thursday that she found it hard to believe that Pakistani officials don’t know where leaders of terrorist groups are hiding in Pakistan.On Friday she took a bit of the edge off that comment, saying, “I don’t know if anyone knows, but we in the United States would very much like to see the end of the al-Qaeda leadership, and our best information is that they are somewhere in Pakistan.”

Responding to a question, she said Pakistan had its own priorities in tackling terrorism and it was engaged in operation against the Pakistani Taliban. She, however, said: “We will have to defeat al-Qaeda to win the war against terrorism.”

“And we’d like to know because we view them as really at the core of the terrorist threat that threatens Pakistan, threatens Afghanistan, threatens us, threatens people all over the world,” Clinton told radio journalists.

“I think it is absolutely clear and I am convinced that you will never rid Pakistan of the threat of terrorism unless you rid it of al-Qaeda.”She defended her comments in a series of morning television interviews aired in the United States on Friday.

“I wanted to get that out on the table, because the Pakistanis have talked about a trust deficit and it’s a two-way street,” Clinton said in an interview shown on NBC’s “TodayShow.” “We have questions, they have questions.”In an interview aired on ABC’s “Good Morning America,” Clinton said the two countries needed to be more open with each other.î

“I want to have the kind of relationship where we really are talking honestly about everything between us - because there’s just too much at stake,” she said.Clinton hoped that the new trade agreement between Pakistan and Afghanistan would be finalised by the end of the year.

During her visit, Hillary Clinton committed a total of $243.5 million as new assistance for Pakistan. Secretary Clinton pledged $55 million in a meeting with Prime Minister Gilani to assist Pakistan on providing humanitarian relief to the displaced families.

The break-up of the assistance is $10 million through the UNHCR for the internally dislocated persons of Waziristan, $20 million food aid through the World Food Programme, $25 million to help Pakistan’s efforts in reconstruction of terror-hit areas of Swat and $103.5 million as the US support for Pakistan’s priority law-enforcement and border security programmes.

US not to back dictators in future, says Clinton

 

[araz]

Tha will be the day. I want to present my theory in fornt of this board that everytime there is something that goes on in this region, involving the US, we seem to have a dictator at the helm of affairs. US invariably feels more comfortable dealing with a dictator(or a single entity) rather than the parlianment. Why is this so? Palkistan has always played the role of USvassal state and yet what has it all achieved for us?
Araz

 

[qsaark]

Only one correction, it always was and still is the ruling elite class of Pakistan that has always played the role of US/foreign vassal not the Pakistan or her inhabitants per se. And while Pakistan and its people have lost everything from honor to self-respect, economical growth to social justice, the ruling elite has indeed got everything for what it sold itself out to the enemies and the ill-wishers of Pakistan.

 

[Kasrkin]

Only one correction, it always was and still is the ruling elite class of Pakistan that has always played the role of US/foreign vassal not the Pakistan or her inhabitants per se.

No more than the rulers of any other country that has allied itself to the US. Ordinary people in Pakistani or of Pakistani origin, as much as they like to rant themselves hoarse at America's foreign policy, still like nothing more than to get US citizenship. Point being, everyone interacts with the 'Great Devil' in whatever capacity they can, some do it for their country while others for personal gain.

 

[qsaark]

No more than the rulers of any other country that has allied itself to the US. Ordinary people in Pakistani or of Pakistani origin, as much as they like to rant themselves hoarse at America's foreign policy, still like nothing more than to get US citizenship. Point being, everyone interacts with the 'Great Devil' in whatever capacity they can, some do it for their country while others for personal gain.

Interesting reply, very interesting actually. I never knew that the ruling elites of Canada, Germany, France, England, Netherland, Australia, India and countless other US allies have sold themselves out like ours have done. Until today I thought that there existed no ruling elite class in these countries but a democratic process that brings the people's representatives into the assemblies who work for the betterment of their country and for the benefit of the people they represent. How wrong I was.

We are really interesting people, aren’t we? There are people in America who openly admit that the way their government(s) deal internationally is wrong, but we on the other hand want to put all our weight into the US pan, while at the same time criticizing those who correctly object American policies."Shah sey ziada Shah key wafadar!"or in English "More Loyal Than The King!". Our personal differences always dominate our national interest. Instead of discussing issues, we discuss people. We do not counter the argument(s) made by a person; instead, we counter the person because we dislike him for this or that reason. Working abroad…is it crime? And if it is a crime, it is much less a crime than selling one’s country’s interests. Even though we do not know in which capacity the overseas Pakistanis may be helping their fellow countrymen or their country, we choose to sling mud over them purely for personal reasons.

Your argument was very clearly countered, if you'd stop moaning and observe here: my point of leaders (military and civilian, democratic or undemocratic) affiliating with or showing loyalty to the US not being a phenomena limited to the ruling class, as normal people do so as well in their capacity... has not been addressed by you. Next time, focus on my point instead of making crocodile tears: Kasrkin

Editing post! only because somone has 'power'. Dictatorship and abuse of power at its best.

Wai nakaami mata e karwaN jata raha
KarwaN key dil sey ahsas-e-ziaN jaata raha

 

[dbc]

No more than the rulers of any other country that has allied itself to the US. Ordinary people in Pakistani or of Pakistani origin, as much as they like to rant themselves hoarse at America's foreign policy, still like nothing more than to get US citizenship. Point being, everyone interacts with the 'Great Devil' in whatever capacity they can, some do it for their country while others for personal gain.

Bien sûr, why should the 'Great Devil' or any other nation forgo the path of least resistance in achieving short term objectives after all the end justify the means. The 'Great Devil' is not the only nation to exploit your leaders, look into how your "brotherly" neighbor continues to exploit your natural resources at the behest of your leaders. Your politicians and military brass remain imminently exploitable; some do it for quid pro quo others for monetary gain. Why should we not push the right buttons for our own selfish end, why should we be held to a higher moral standard when your own leaders shamelessly exploit their own people for personal gain?

You want this to stop then the only recourse is grass root democracy with complete transparency.

Remember Pakistan is not unique in this regard; we have the same monkey on our back in the form of lobbies and special interest groups.

 

[Kasrkin]

I never knew that the ruling elites of Canada, Germany, France, England, Netherland, Australia, India and countless other US allies have sold themselves out like ours have done. Until today I thought that there existed no ruling elite class in these countries but a democratic process that brings the people's representatives into the assemblies who work for the betterment of their country and for the benefit of the people they represent. How wrong I was.

Just because the leaders in countries that you mentioned are democratically elected, doesn't mean they cannot be termed ruling elites. Democracy is flawed in Pakistan indeed, but democracy is not perfect anywhere else either. Stick to the issue and address my argument instead of ranting. HOW is the 'role' that our leaders have played so different to what the leaderships of other countries allied to America have done? Sure for the sake of argument I'd agree that Musharraf's rule was not democratic, but then again have the so called democratic leaders shunned any opportunities to befriend America? This rhetoric is what I've heard before, but its actually hollow.

Instead of discussing issues, we discuss people. We do not counter the argument(s) made by a person; instead, we counter the person because we dislike him for this or that reason. Working abroad…is it crime? And if it is a crime, it is much less a crime than selling one’s country’s interests. Even though we do not know in which capacity the overseas Pakistanis may be helping their fellow countrymen or their country, we choose to sling mud over them purely for personal reasons.

Not this again. Please don't rant. Address the point I made instead of intentionally dramatizing and misinterpreting my point, or leave it. There is nothing 'immoral' in affiliating with the US. So, you'll need to provide a factual argument to back up your claims of a mere alliance amounting to 'selling souls'. Otherwise its just rude and crude rhetoric that cannot be substantiated. You might not agree with the US policy and still be affiliated with the US while claiming to be righteous, same can apply to many of Pakistan's leaders who in their capacity affiliated with a superpower. Or would that standard apply to you only as you so venomously claimed. There is nothing evil or wrong with an alliance with the US per se, contrary to what you casually imply everywhere.

The 'Great Devil' is not the only nation to exploit your leaders, look into how your "brotherly" neighbor continues to exploit your natural resources at the behest of your leaders. Your politicians and military brass remain imminently exploitable; some do it for quid pro quo others for monetary gain. Why should we not push the right buttons for our own selfish end, why should we be held to a higher moral standard when your own leaders shamelessly exploit their own people for personal gain?

Your argument sir, if it can be called that, is not coherent or anything I can put my finger on. Vague and unspecified, factually vacant rhetoric is something I find tough to address, so if we could discuss particularities then I'd be more able to oblige.

 

[Awesome]

Please define, does that include civilian dictators? It seems like the potential military dictator of Pakistan isn't singing the American tune and hence its a no brainer they wont support "him".

 

[dbc]

Your argument sir, if it can be called that, is not coherent or anything I can put my finger on. Vague and unspecified, factually vacant rhetoric is something I find tough to address, so if we could discuss particularities then I'd be more able to oblige.

Let me dumb it down for you, in a dog eat dog world why should we ‘the great devil’ not exploit your leaders for our benefit? After all others including your brotherly neighbor are doing it. You want facts try and dig up some information on Saindak starting with this piece published by the Dawn.

 

[EjazR]

I wonder if that means the US will stop backing the dictators in the middle east.

AFter all one of the main reasons why we don't have democracy in the middle east yet is because of US support to the kings and sheiks there.

I hope they do change their policy otherwise it will only backfire like it did with the Shah of Iran in '79. No one likes to be ruled by a dictator least of all a dictator seemingly backed by foreigners

 

[fatman17]

Military establishment is more pro US as compared to anyone else in Pakistan.

that is correct!

 

[Kasrkin]

Let me dumb it down for you, in a dog eat dog world why should we ‘the great devil’ not exploit your leaders for our benefit? After all others including your brotherly neighbor are doing it.

I'm afraid you misunderstood me sir. Your post was already dumb and incoherent, you just made it dumber. I've never argued that the 'great devil' is unjust in 'exploiting' us. None of that is relevant to the line of my contentions. If you have some relevant thoughts to my posts, then please do post, but not because of any 'other urges'. Thanks.

 

[third eye]

Tha will be the day. I want to present my theory in fornt of this board that everytime there is something that goes on in this region, involving the US, we seem to have a dictator at the helm of affairs. US invariably feels more comfortable dealing with a dictator(or a single entity) rather than the parlianment. Why is this so? Palkistan has always played the role of USvassal state and yet what has it all achieved for us?
Araz

Valid observation.

Any ' outsider' would like to deal with on one window. If the person behind the window happens to be a Dictator , that much the better.
Yet, all is not lost. Should Pk institutionalize its democracy, you will find foreign leaders meeting opposition leaders / parties during their visits & keeping in mind their points of view while formulating policies w.r.t. your nation.

Its like an investor who would like to hedge all risks before / while making investments.

Howsoever distasteful it may have been to most Indians ( & the US ) , the objections the Communists had to the 123 Deal between India & US helped strengthen the democratic process only coz it was clear that deals struck by leaders needs ratification by the national assembly.

Lastly , as rgds Pk playing a ' vassal' state to US.. it all boils down to to a dictator finding it expedient to get ' colonised' to achieve his / her short term interests - with no organised elected body to Q him. The colonisation could be thru US as you put it or by Mullahs which Zia did... Or a combination of both - which is worse coz then you have compromised not only the present but also the next few generations in exchange for your own myopic self.

 

[Spring Onion]

Tha will be the day. I want to present my theory in fornt of this board that everytime there is something that goes on in this region, involving the US, we seem to have a dictator at the helm of affairs. US invariably feels more comfortable dealing with a dictator(or a single entity) rather than the parlianment. Why is this so? Palkistan has always played the role of USvassal state and yet what has it all achieved for us?
Araz

US has never backed dictators.

Pakistan, egypt, and so on.

 

[KSRaj]

No more than the rulers of any other country that has allied itself to the US. Ordinary people in Pakistani or of Pakistani origin, as much as they like to rant themselves hoarse at America's foreign policy, still like nothing more than to get US citizenship. Point being, everyone interacts with the 'Great Devil' in whatever capacity they can, some do it for their country while others for personal gain.

The rulers of Pakistan would be 'slightly' different in my opinion. There arent that many rulers (and I'm including the elite from both political and military) around who would actually allow drone attacks by US while at the same time having to convince their people that they are against such attacks on the sovereignity of their nation.
What I'm trying to tell here is, the relationship of the Pakistani elite with the US will be different when compared to other countries due to the current environment in Pakistan.