What in your opinion democrats would mean for Pakistan?

[Awesome]

The chairman of the Indian Caucus on Capitol Hill, Democrat Gary Ackerman has won unopposed from NE Queens.

He ranted away as much as he could when the republican were in power. He opposed the F-16 deals, the military packages we got, the missiles, the Orions, and so on.

And now the dems hold the senate and the house.

Anybody got a flip side to all of this?

 

[Neo]

He'll continue to provide anti lobbying for Pakistan honestly I don't expect much trouble from this guy.
The MDE deal is through and we're not expecting US to change its stance on civil nuclear deal to Pakistan anytime soon.

US will pull out from Iraq soon but Afghanistan is still there and they need us as hard as we need them.

Don't expect major policy shift towards Pakistan.

 

[Neo]

Friday, November 10, 2006

‘Democrat win will not affect Pak-US relations’

LAHORE: United States (US) Ambassador to Pakistan Ryan C Crocker has said that the democrat party’s success in the US midterm elections would not affect the relations between Pakistan and US, and that the US policy on the war on terror would remain unchanged.

He was talking to reporters after the convocation of the Access English Microscholarship Programme (AEMP) organised by the Care Foundation in collaboration with the US Consulate in Lahore. The ambassador said that the US-led war on terror was at a critical stage, and Pakistan was an important ally, so the relationship between the two countries would improve.

“A vicious enemy is waiting for us out there and yesterday’s incident in Dargai was a sad example of that,” Crocker said, and that the US strongly condemned the incident, while the American people stood by their allies in critical situations such as this one. He also condoled with the families of those killed in the terrorist attack.

He said that the US government was providing financial support to Pakistan in order to improve education. The ambassador told students from various government schools present in the audience that the US government had a strong partnership with Pakistan in economics, finance, defence and other areas, but it was mainly supporting the country in education by providing two-thirds of Pakistan’s annual federal education budget.

Crocker said that the US government was also assisting Pakistanis in higher education, and the postgraduate and PhD students from Pakistan were given the highest ratio of the Fulbright Scholarship. He also distributed certificates among the 200 students at the end of the event.

Care Foundation head Seema Aziz told the audience that the organisation had started the AEMP in 2004 and it was also providing around 182 public schools in Lahore with all basic facilities, including computer and science laboratories and libraries.

She said that the organisation was progressing fast and it was determined to provide its students with quality education, so that they could serve the country with the maximum possible potential.

Seema said further that Care Foundation had equipped public school students from remote areas with the latest communication skills with the AEMP, since they could now take on any private school’s students in language skills.

AEMP Director Ainee Nasir Jamy said that around 200 students were trained at five learning centres in Fatehgarh, Rehmanpura, Qila Lakshman Singh, Kot Khawaja Saeed and Walton, and they were being given the certificates after completing their two-year training programme.

She said that the organisation had started the programme because of intense demand by students and with generous help from the US Consulate in Lahore, which had pledged to double its support. She also said that the organisation was developing five more centres for the same programme in schools in the Factory Area, Harbanspura, Mominpura, Sheranwala Gate and Singhpura.

Students from various schools also performed a tableau titled ‘The Witches’, which showed a meeting of witches in an English town to propose plans to sabotage the lives of children with magic spells.

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006\11\10\story_10-11-2006_pg13_1

 

[Neo]

Business, industry offer mixed views: US mid-term elections

KARACHI, Nov 10: Businessmen and industrialists offer a mixed view over Democrats’ win in US mid-term elections. Some expect positive changes in US economic and political policies towards Pakistan while others see no economic benefits under the new political set-up.

Many industrialists think that in case the Democrats consider to augment economic relations and open the markets to Pakistan then it will definitely make it conditional to Afghanistan revolving the Taliban issue.

“I see signing of Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT) in hot waters as Pakistan cannot meet the stiff terms and conditions of the US,” said Karachi Chamber of Commerce and Industry (KCCI) President Majyd Aziz. He also forecast more pressure on Pakistan under the Democrats’ rule especially on the human rights issue and other policy matters.

“Our history is witness to the fact that Pakistan gets short end of the stick whenever the Democrats assume the power,” he recalled by saying that the Republican had been in favour of Pakistan while the Democrats had always kept Pakistan in pain.

“Pakistan will hardly get any thing especially the market access for its textile exports,” the KCCI chief added.

Site Association of Industry (SAI) Chairman Ameen Bandukda sees change in Democrats’ attitude towards Pakistan especially on political front. However, he says as far as trade with is concerned he does not forecast any big difference in the short-term.

“Historically Republicans were pro-Pakistan. I hope the Democrats may follow the suit,” he said while recalling that Bill Clinton had imposed the sanctions on Pakistan while George Bush had removed it.

On BIT and more market access, he said, the US looks highly concerned over the improper implementation of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) which had been the main impediment in signing of the BIT. However, he hoped that the BIT would be signed sooner or later.

“Majority of countries now feel that the US is losing its good image due to various political reasons especially its handling of Iraq and Afghanistan issues. The Democrats will definitely try their level best to remove these negative sentiments,” he observed.

However, Federation of Pakistan Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FPCCI) President Ch Mohamamd Saeed was of the view that Democrats had also been pro-Pakistan.“I think that the Democrats will not have any confrontation in their policies towards Pakistan especially towards the signing of BIT in future and economic and political relations will remain normal with Pakistan,” he said.

He said Pakistani government should now focus on getting more market access under the new political set up in the USA as China and India are emerging as new threats in view of rising competition all over the world.

Chairman F.B. Area Association of Trade and Industry Masroor Ahmed Alvi said that Democrats were likely to give market access but they would ask Pakistan to stop Taliban’s infiltration into Afghanistan.

It means that Democrats will adopt same policy of give and take with Pakistan.

“Afghanistan may become a big subject. Definitely Democrats will want some return from Pakistan in shape of resolving Taliban problems before ponder over giving more market access to Pakistan,” he said, adding that Democrats had won the hearts of US nation because of Republican’s poor handling of Iraq and Afghanistan issue.

He said that Pakistan had not gotten sizable US market access despite becoming frontline state in curbing terrorism.

Korangi Association of Trade and Industry (KATI) Chairman Masood Naqi looks highly optimistic by saying that a “positive response will be seen from the Democrats towards Pakistan because there are some people in the Democrats who have been lobbying for better business and political relations with Pakistan.”

He said that it appeared that travel advisory to the US citizens for visiting Pakistan, which had remained critical, would turn soft under Democrats rule while Pakistan was likely to get more US market access.

“I think trade between the two countries will foster in future,” he added.

Chairman North Karachi Association of Trade and Industry (NKATI) Faraz Mirza forecasts better business prospects for Pakistan in short term with the US. He said Democrats, after assuming full fledged power in future, would shift its focus towards Pakistan in improving business relations.

http://www.dawn.com/2006/11/11/ebr4.htm

 

[Awesome]

The unresolved issues of America's with Pakistan would definitely play themselves out with democrats on the seat at some later point at least. I am skeptical that "nothing" would change. These are just initial days and the democrat words that "they won't rock the boat so much" don't really mean they won't ever do it once firmly in place.

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006\11\11\story_11-11-2006_pg3_1

US elections: shape of things to come

Many American commentators thought the Republicans would lose the House of Representatives but hold on to the Senate in the recently concluded Congressional elections but the American voter has handed down a verdict to surprise the pundits. The Republicans have lost both the houses to the Democrats and President George W Bush now has to mould himself and his neo-con worldview to the new facts on the ground. What was behind the popular impulse that finally stopped him in his tracks even though he will still be in office till 2009? Clearly, it is the war in Iraq which has gone badly for America and its allies.

The American electorate was not supposed to be very enthusiastic about the Democrats. Nor were Americans too unhappy with President Bush’s handling of the economy, with the stock market touching new heights and jobs being created slowly for everyone, despite the Democrats’ pledge that they would tax the rich to raise social security for the middle classes and the poor. The image of the Democrats opposition was not good even though the ‘moral’ backsliding of some Republicans had shocked the extreme-right evangelicals that give them a sizeable block of votes. At the end of the day, the American voter saw the war in Iraq as a disaster. Apart from the collective anguish of the body bags, the fear was that it would have adverse economic consequences for everyone unless President Bush was restrained. The cost of the war has variously been calculated at US$500 billion to US$3 trillion.

So what will happen now? For the world, generally speaking, the likelihood of change in America’s failed foreign policy is of great importance. But if the world in general and Muslims in particular think that there is going to be an immediate roll-back of President Bush’s Middle East policy, they are going to be disappointed. For instance, the Hamas leader, who advised the Americans to vote for the Democrats, is wrong if he thinks that anything will change in the Israel-Palestine deadlock. Similarly, it would be wrong to think the Democrats are going to impose a ‘cut and run’ policy on President Bush.

The fact is that under the US Constitution the incumbent president remains in charge of foreign policy and there is little that Congress can do apart from blocking money bills that go into feeding the US war machine in Iraq. But if Congress under the Democrats should become too radical about Iraq, all it will get is a gridlock which the American people will not appreciate and which will go in favour of President Bush. The Democrats know that the one message coming loud and clear from the American people is that Congress is lethargic to the point of being useless. Thus no one is likely to act to create deadlocks: already the message from the new leadership in Congress is that there will be a ‘government of unity’ and that the two parties will cooperate rather than attack each other.

The Democrats have won both the houses by shifting from the far left to the centre in their political posturing. Already the Democratic Party says it is not going to rock the boat too much on Iraq. So they will cooperate with President Bush to arrive at a time table for withdrawal from Iraq. Interestingly, President Bush has already anticipated this by forming a bipartisan committee called the Baker-Hamilton committee to suggest policy change on Iraq. And Mr James Baker, the former secretary of state under President George H W Bush, has pointed the way even before starting his inquiry into the matter: start thinking of getting out of Iraq after handing over the country to the Iraqi government. President Bush has also swiftly rid himself of his controversial defense secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, as the first sop to the new Congress; the second sop might be the resubmission of the appointment of his US representative at the United Nations, John Bolton, to the Senate, which is sure to blackball him. But if the Democrats think they can roll back the domestic policy on terrorism and change the Patriot Act, they are mistaken. That’s not what the American people want.

The Democrats have not agreed in the past with President Bush’s policy of remaining incommunicado with states that have rebelled against Pax Americana. Thus they have inclined to support direct negotiations with Iran and North Korea. Will there be a change at least in US policy on these states? The Baker committee seems to favour some Iranian and Syrian participation in the resolution of the Iraqi crisis, but President Bush will move in the matter only if the two states show some sign of softening their attitude too. Syria is more likely to make the required trimmings in its pronouncements, but Iran might not be ready for the change, given President Ahmadinejad’s tough position and what it implies for the Democrat-Republican consensus on the status quo in the Middle East. Withdrawal from Iraq will not mean a retreat in the face of a developing Pax Iranica in the region.

What about Pakistan? Traditionally, the Democrats have tilted in favour of India and against military rule in Pakistan. So those Pakistani commentators who want to see the back of President Musharraf and an end to his ‘pro-American’ foreign and domestic policies are hopeful that the big change in Washington will support their hopes. But the fact is that America has a bipartisan consensus on President Bush’s policy on Afghanistan and Pakistan. This consensus was clearly expressed in the 9/11 bipartisan commission report in the US Congress. It is also likely to be reflected in the reasoning of the bipartisan Baker committee. Thus, if anything, the opposite of what the anti-Musharraf lobby wants is likely to happen: US policy in Afghanistan and Pakistan will probably become more robust after the downturn in Iraq, and, because of a virtual absence of an acceptable opposition policy alternative to President Musharraf, it will continue to support him as long as he continues to wield the big stick against radical Islamism and anti-Americanism in Pakistan. The real problem for President Musharraf will arise if he is unable to deliver a harder line American agenda in Afghanistan and Pakistan because of mounting domestic opposition to it. That situation would be a real nutcracker.

The lobbies here would be crucial. One of the biggest sanctions on us came in the form of the Pressler Amendments. These days Mr. Pressler's reaping benefits of some Indian IT company's shares. I think our foreign office did a good job with the Republicans. But that was a time when they had a lot more freedom and aggressively sought out the Americans. With the kind of mess the anti-Musharraf lobbies are creating in Pakistan this would be tougher.

 

[Spring Onion]

Well as all know democrats being pro-Indian surely are a cause of concern for us although there had been comments that their win wont affect US polices towards Pakistan. But then its a question what they mean by polices the Positives one's (sale of weapons and etc) or the pressuer polices pushing Pakistan for doing more on WoT and get hurt in reply.
We need to reasses our policies regarding WoT.

We need to paly soft on both fronts.

 

[Awesome]

The newcomer, Saqib Ali, I hope he's able to change democrat views in time. I want to know how does he stand on Pakistanis issues. Ethnicity doesn't mean he'd support Pakistan.

 

[Spring Onion]

Than i think he will speak in low tone (diplomatic) one as our Arab 'friends' do on all such issues pretaining to Pakistan which i think wont have that much affect on view point in US, however we can assess what he would be up after he comments on such issues in near future.

 

[EagleEyes]

Democrats will sure favor India, they have already started pitching "OKs" for Indian nuclear deal. Over all, it will not effect Pakistan a lot, but for sure India will recieve a lot of favoring since its being a largest democracy in the world.

Thats where Pakistan will face troubles.

 

[Neo]

India will be favored over Pakistan by Democrates but Washington will continue to provide economic and military support as long we support WoT.
Nothing to worry about foor another 10 years..