What's new

Yes, the Russian ambassador met Trump’s team. So? That’s what we diplomats do.

My-Analogous

SENIOR MEMBER
Joined
Feb 9, 2009
Messages
7,013
Reaction score
2
Country
Pakistan
Location
Saudi Arabia
As ambassador, I met with aides to both major-party candidates to establish a good relationship on behalf of my country.

By Husain Haqqani March 10 Follow @husainhaqqani
Husain Haqqani, Senior Fellow at Hudson Institute in Washington D.C., served as Pakistan’s ambassador to the United States from 2008-2011.
Here's what you need to know about Russia's ambassador to the U.S.
Play Video1:14
Sergey Kislyak's contacts with Trump advisers roiled the new administration and led to one resignation and calls for another. Among D.C. insiders, Russia’s long-serving ambassador to the United States is known for trying to develop relationships with top U.S. officials. (The Washington Post)
At the center of many allegations swirling around the Trump administration’s relationship with Moscow is one man: Sergey Kislyak, the Russian ambassador. As U.S. intelligence agencies contend that his country attempted, through hacking and other efforts, to influence November’s election, Kislyak’s discussions with Trump campaign associates — including former national security adviser Michael Flynn (who resigned for not disclosing them) and Attorney General Jeff Sessions (who did not) — have been the subject of intense reporting and speculation.

While it is one thing to question Russia’s efforts or the truthfulness of American officials, this debate is threatening the time-honored tradition of foreign ambassadors freely meeting political figures in their country of accreditation. There is nothing inherently wrong with meeting a foreign ambassador — even one from a rival nation; even one from a rival superpower on which the United States has imposed sanctions. As Pakistan’s ambassador to the United States, I saw firsthand, in the assassination of Osama bin Laden, just how essential such consultations were.

[Chill, America. Not every Trump outrage is outrageous.]

We don’t know what Kislyak’s particular motivations were or what he discussed in these meetings, but the question before the American public is whether Trump’s allies comported themselves honorably and legally, not whether Kislyak did. Diplomacy is the process by which foreign enemies are turned into friends and friends are converted into allies. Democratic countries such as the United States have always taken pride in the relative ease with which foreign diplomats can meet Americans of all political persuasions. (This is not the case in more-restrictive nations, such as Russia.) No matter what Moscow’s policy holds, the free interaction of Americans with foreign ambassadors works to America’s advantage.

* * * * * * * *

I became Pakistan’s ambassador in May 2008, soon after the country’s return to civilian rule after nine years of military dictatorship under Gen. Pervez Musharraf. The George W. Bush administration had forged an alliance with Musharraf in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, hoping that economic incentives and offers of military hardware would turn Pakistan away from its long-standing policy of supporting Islamist militants, including the Afghan Taliban, as instruments of regional influence.

By 2007, Bush had realized that Musharraf either “would not or could not” fulfill his promises in fighting terrorism, as he wrote later, and the president welcomed Pakistan’s return to democracy. The civilian leaders who appointed me as ambassador — President Asif Ali Zardari and Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani — looked forward to U.S. backing in reversing Musharraf’s policies at home and abroad. They said they wanted to end Pakistan’s support for the Taliban, improve relations with India and Afghanistan, and limit the role of Pakistan’s military intelligence service in defining the country’s foreign policy. In return, they sought generous U.S. aid to improve the ailing Pakistani economy.

[How Trump got his party to love Russia]

I had an advantage most ambassadors did not: I’d lived most of the Musharraf years in exile in Washington and had established close ties with members of Congress and others influential in policymaking. But I began my job in the middle of the 2008 election campaign, and I knew that the Bush administration’s policies might not continue under a new president. Within weeks of presenting my credentials to Bush that June, I was communicating with campaign officials in both parties, and soon had meetings with aides to both Sen. John McCain and Sen. Barack Obama.

The State Department facilitated the participation of Washington-based ambassadors in the Democratic and Republican national conventions that year. In Denver and in Minneapolis-St. Paul, we were briefed by officials from both campaigns. More active and better-connected ambassadors, including myself, were able to meet personally with people we expected to have major roles in the conduct of foreign policy after the election. There was nothing unusual, let alone treasonable, in this.

As a presidential candidate, Obama argued that U.S. success in Afghanistan was more important than the war in Iraq, which he had opposed. In a major speech that summer, he pledged to make “the fight against al-Qaeda and the Taliban the top priority.” He also had a particular message for my country: He said terrorists and insurgents in Pakistan’s tribal areas were waging war against the Afghan government. “We must make it clear that if Pakistan cannot or will not act, we will take out high-level terrorist targets like bin Laden if we have them in our sights.”

From Obama’s public positions and from my meetings with his aides, it was clear that a democratic, civilian government in Pakistan could join with him to help attain his objectives in Afghanistan in exchange for support of consolidation of democracy with greater U.S. economic assistance. I sent this message to my bosses in Islamabad and told Obama’s campaign team that we would be willing to play ball. Once Obama took office, this is exactly what happened: Civilian aid to Pakistan was enhanced to record levels in an effort to secure greater cooperation in defeating the Taliban.

[Trump is getting payments from foreign governments. We have no idea what they are.]

What’s more, the relationships I forged with members of Obama’s campaign team also led to closer cooperation between Pakistan and the United States in fighting terrorism over the 31/2 years I served as ambassador. These connections eventually enabled the United States to discover and eliminate bin Laden without depending on Pakistan’s intelligence service or military, which were suspected of sympathy toward Islamist militants. Friends I made from the Obama campaign were able to ask, three years later, as National Security Council officials, for help in stationing U.S. Special Operations and intelligence personnel on the ground in Pakistan. I brought the request directly to Pakistan’s civilian leaders, who approved. Although the United States kept us officially out of the loop about the operation, these locally stationed Americans proved invaluable when Obama decided to send in Navy SEAL Team 6 without notifying Pakistan.

Unfortunately, the United States did not attain victory in Afghanistan, and the Pakistani government’s behavior toward militant Islamists did not change on a permanent basis. But for the period I was in office, the two nations worked jointly toward their common goals — the essence of diplomacy.

* * * * * * * *

After I began reading about the affairs of Kislyak, I rummaged through my files and diaries to retrace my steps as ambassador in the fall of 2008. I maintained relations with three teams of American officials, politicians and professional staffers: the Bush administration and the two major-party candidates. I met senior members of the Republican and Democratic national committees, more than a dozen senators and congressmen from each party, and several individuals from both sides who were tipped to emerge in senior government positions after the election. This is totally normal for ambassadors.

Kislyak, who presented his credentials just a couple of months after I did, has probably advanced shared Russian-American interests through similar contacts in the three U.S. presidential election cycles that he has covered as ambassador. I do not know if he reached out to Hillary Clinton’s camp as vigorously as he did to Trump’s (he probably already knew Clinton’s top foreign policy players from his work with the Obama administration, in which many of them had served), but it does not matter: Ambassadors do not make policy. They only facilitate understanding between countries that leads to policymaking in their respective capitals. Any Russian decision to covertly interfere in the U.S. election would have been made in Moscow, not necessarily with Kislyak’s knowledge, just as Pakistan’s breach of promises with the Obama administration occurred in Islamabad, not in my embassy.

[How Russian ‘kompromat’ destroys political opponents, no facts required]

In November 2011, I was forced to resign as ambassador after Pakistan’s military-intelligence apparatus gained the upper hand in the country’s perennial power struggle. Among the security establishment’s grievances against me was the charge that I had facilitated the presence of large numbers of CIA operatives who helped track down bin Laden without the knowledge of Pakistan’s army — even though I had acted under the authorization of Pakistan’s elected civilian leaders.

Russia is, of course, unlike Pakistan, but U.S.-Russia relations have seesawed, too, and Kislyak’s means were no different from what probably every ambassador of every country hopes to use, even if his ends were unique.

Americans have a legitimate interest in figuring out whether Russia tried to covertly influence U.S. politics. Investigating officials who may have perjured themselves about their diplomatic contacts also seems reasonable. It should not, however, create the impression that engagement between a foreign ambassador — even one from a country with which relations are strained — and people who might hold senior positions in a future administration is inherently sinister. Such engagement is essential if new presidents want to translate their foreign policy plans into reality.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/post...-what-we-diplomats-do/?utm_term=.823a0c2ba482
 
Where did he get his political wisdom from, a mochi?
No one in the US has a problem with Team Trump meeting with Ambassador, Problem was their lying about it
 
In democratic society we counter argument. Don't hang them if not agreed.

In our culture we don't make traitor a hero and directly go for head shot. I don't know about US but this is also common practice in West also
 
Haqqani once again trying to suck up to US conservatives and the Trump administration

Its clear that he is very desperate for attention
 
In our culture we don't make traitor a hero and directly go for head shot. I don't know about US but this is also common practice in West also
Listen his interview, what he said today at Kashif Abbasi " off the record".
 
I'm actually surprised he hasn't had an 'accident' courtesy of ISI.

Really? I don't think so or you would like to explain a bit further. That reminds me of ISI is everywhere... however, there are agencies famous for dirty work. After all, he is one of the gifts from Asif Zardari for Pakistan.
 
Really? I don't think so or you would like to explain a bit further. That reminds me of ISI is everywhere... however, there are agencies famous for dirty work. After all, he is one of the gifts from Asif Zardari for Pakistan.

Well, ya, I mean shouldn't the ISI take this guy out? Or is he not really worth it?

On another note, I have a post in the Saudi-Pak troops thread. Can you approve it or is there some issue with it?
 
Come on guys . this is just another job application by this idiot to new trump administration.

see the language and benefits he provided or not but claiming in his article is like his CV LOL
 
Well, ya, I mean shouldn't the ISI take this guy out? Or is he not really worth it?

ISI is not some killing machine and he should be brought for due process of Law.



On another note, I have a post in the Saudi-Pak troops thread. Can you approve it or is there some issue with it?

Rest about your query for post in another thread, any post that contains sectarian flaming, off-topic etc discussion or material for publicity of a person/company/organization, will not be approved nor permitted for posting on PDF. For better understanding, I would like you to read
FORUM RULES AND REGULATIONS and participate accordingly.

Regards,
 
ISI is not some killing machine and he should be brought for due process of Law.





Rest about your query for post in another thread, any post that contains sectarian flaming, off-topic etc discussion or material for publicity of a person/company/organization, will not be approved nor permitted for posting on PDF. For better understanding, I would like you to read
FORUM RULES AND REGULATIONS and participate accordingly.

Regards,

True ISI is not a killing machine, however other intelligence agencies such as Mossad, do act in this manner.

Thank you for that. I guess my post was a bit long winded, but I don't think it was sectarian in any way.
 
True ISI is not a killing machine, however other intelligence agencies such as Mossad, do act in this manner.

Indeed, I don't think so that ISI does as such yet people like HH or Hamid Mir use to blabber about.

Thank you for that. I guess my post was a bit long winded, but I don't think it was sectarian in any way.

Welcome.
There was a reason that wasn't approved so hopefully, you will read forum rules and understand the same.
 
Indeed, I don't think so that ISI does as such yet people like HH or Hamid Mir use to blabber about.

Yes, and it would be a big step for ISI to do such an operation in another country, even if it is targeting one of its own citizens. Mossad, on the other hand, kills everyone, everywhere, with impunity.
 
Back
Top Bottom