What's new

Zardari "would have no choice but to respond militarily to an Indian attack"

sparklingway

SENIOR MEMBER
Joined
May 12, 2009
Messages
3,878
Reaction score
0
This is just over a month after 26/11.

Monday, 05 January 2009, 13:11
S E C R E T ISLAMABAD 000024
EO 12958 DECL: 01/05/2034
TAGS PREL, PTER, PGOV, PK
SUBJECT: ZARDARI COMMENTS ON INDIA/NAWAZ SHARIF
Classified By: Anne W. Patterson, reasons 1.4 (b) and (d).

1. (S) Summary: President Zardari told the Ambassador January 2 he would have no choice but to respond militarily to an Indian attack. There was no more politically sensitive issue in Pakistan than Kashmir, he said. Zardari had been briefed by ISI Director General, LTG Pasha, on his meeting with the DCIA in Washington, and he had concurred in the release of the "tearline" information to be passed to the Indians. Zardari also discussed his increasing frustration with Nawaz Sharif's government in the Punjab, whom he believed had tipped off Jamaat ul-Dawa (JUD) about the assets freeze ordered by the federal government. Zardari discussed his concern about relations with India and his conviction that he (and Chief of Army Staff General Kayani) represented the best hope for better relations with India. Zardari needs additional resources for the police, particularly in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) and Northwest Frontier Province (NWFP), and he was looking forward to his upcoming trip to Afghanistan. End summary.

2. (S) Ambassador called on President Zardari January 2 to discuss follow-up to the Mumbai investigation. Zardari said he had been briefed by Lt. General Pasha on his meeting with DCIA, and he had approved the release of "tearline" information to the Indians. He wanted to emphasize he (and General Kayani) were fully committed to better relations with India. He reminded the Ambassador that it had only taken a "phone call" from the U.S. to ensure that Pakistan did not oppose the U.S./India civil nuclear deal at the Nuclear Suppliers Group. Zardari emphasized he had no problem making decisions, recalling that we had asked him to refuse the release of detainees in the context of "peace deals" when the Army and ISI were pressing to do so. But he said there was no way that he could let India attack Pakistan: many in the West did not understand the importance of Kashmir in Pakistani public opinion.

3. (C) Zardari indicated clearly that he was disinclined to repeal with 17th amendment (which gives the President the power to appoint the service chiefs, judges, and the Election Commissioner.) He justified this on the grounds that the initiative had to come from parliament. (Nawaz Sharif lately has been pressing Zardari to fulfill his electoral commitment to repeal this amendment, which codified Musharraf's Legal Framework Order.)

4. (S) Zardari said that he was increasingly losing patience with Nawaz Sharif's government in the Punjab, and he believed that a confrontation was looming. He said that Pakistani Muslim League-Nawaz Chief Minister Shabbaz Sharif had tipped off the JUD about the UNSCR 1267 mandated asset freeze, resulting in almost empty bank accounts. (Information from MOI does indicate that bank accounts contained surprisingly small amounts.) Zardari suggested Lahore Principal Officer might mediate between the Pakistan People's Party (PPP) Governor and Shabbaz Sharif who increasingly are publicly at odds. Ambassador noted that his government had been "holding over Nawaz's head" the Supreme Court's decision on Nawaz's eligibility to run for office. Zardari replied, "yes, but it doesn't seem to be doing much good anymore." Zardari dismissed Nawaz's ability to bring crowds into the street in the Punjab if his party was removed from the Punjab government.

5. (S) Ambassador and Zardari discussed U.S. assistance issues, particularly in regard to upcoming visits of A/S Boucher and CODEL Reed. As usual, Zardari asked for additional support, particularly to fund additional police in FATA and NWFP, which could hold territory after the army and the Frontier Corps moved out. He said that he needed 100,000 police in each province. (There are now 48,000 police in NWFP.) And he needed equipment quickly. He said that he was going to ask us to reprogram some of our funding, since "without security, none of the other programs matter."

6. (S) Zardari confirmed again at the end of the conversation that Pakistan would not allow non-state actors to dictate state policy, but that the GOP would respond if the Indians attacked. He recommended a report done in India which indicated that Indian Muslims are treated poorly and are among the least prosperous members of society. He said that the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) was trying to whip up anti-Muslim sentiment. Morever, there were plenty of extremist groups in India that could have assisted Lashkar-e-Taiba.

7. (C) Ambassador asked about Swat. He said flatly they did not have the troops to hold it. Ambassador asked the status of Asfandyar Wali Khan, the head of Awami National Party, who was ostensibly in charge of the NWFP government. Zardari just rolled his eyes.

8. (S) Zardari said his trip to Afghanistan had been rescheduled for January 7. He laughed about the rumors that civilian military struggles in Pakistan had prompted the delay. In truth, he said, he did not like to fly in bad weather, and he was worried about security. Ambassador had asked Interior Minister Rehman Malik several times about the status of Brahamdagh Bugti who is in exile in Afghanistan. (Readers will recall that the status of Mr. Bugti was a major bilateral irritant between Afghanistan and the Musharraf government, since Musharraf wanted Bugti "deported" to Pakistan by Karzai to "face justice" for participation in separatist activities.) Zardari said he was going to ask Karzai to keep him in Afghanistan: Bugti was now involved in conflicts for supremacy in his tribe. Zardari said that government was drafting legislation to give the Balochis more autonomy and political control.

PATTERSON

Somewhat related:-

State Department cables: AMBASSADOR MEETS WITH KAYANI AND PASHA ABOUT


guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 30 November 2010 22.01 GMT
Article history
Wednesday, 07 October 2009, 13:31
S E C R E T SECTION 01 OF 03 ISLAMABAD 002427
SIPDIS
EO 12958 DECL: 10/06/2019
TAGS PREL, PGOV, PTER, PK
SUBJECT: AMBASSADOR MEETS WITH KAYANI AND PASHA ABOUT
KERRY-LUGAR
Classified By: Anne W. Patterson, reasons 1.4 (b) and (d)

1. (S) Summary: Ambassador heard a number of complaints about the Kerry-Lugar bill from COAS General Kayani and DGISI Pasha in a two-hour meeting October 6. These focused on the history of Pressler sanctions, particularly a fear that the waiver in Kerry-Lugar would not be used and aid would be suspended. There were several clauses in the bill, such as an American assessment of civilian control over military promotions and the chain of command, that rankled COAS Kayani. DGISI Pasha said Kayani was receiving criticism on the bill from the Corps Commanders. Ambassador emphasized the bill's long-term commitment to Pakistan and made three points: provisions of the bill could be waived; the bill only requires certifications and "assessments;" and the bill does not apply to the large amounts in the Pakistan Counter-insurgency Fund or Coalition Support Fund but only, so far, to non-appropriated Foreign Military Financing. Pasha and Kayani repeated that the Army had taken huge steps this year in its bilateral cooperation with the US and in its campaign in Swat and Bajaur and was getting little public (or private) credit from the US for these historic steps. Kayani said he was considering a statement on the bill, but he was struggling with what to say. He realized that Senator Kerry and Vice President Biden, the original sponsor of the bill, were among Pakistan,s best friends. He predicted the parliamentary debate would be tough, but in the final analysis the government controlled the agenda. Kayani said the language in the bill could undermine political support for the Army's anti-terrorist effort.

2. (S) Kayani said the Pakmil was going into Waziristan in force in two-four weeks. (It is not entirely clear what this meant.) He said Zardari had advised against it for political reasons and wanted to wait until spring. (Ambassador will follow up with Zardari.) Kayani said he had met with PMLN Punjab Chief Minister Shabaz Sharif and PMLN opposition leader Chaudrey Nisar in a much publicized "clandestine8 meeting solely to bring them on board for the Waziristan operation, not to discuss politics.

3. (S) Kayani said we should talk to President Zardari about moving forward the back-channel with India, starting with the provisions agreed to in 2006. Kayani did not have a problem but thought Zardari was unwilling to take it on at this time.

4. (S) Kayani said the most important element for the US in Afghanistan, and for Pakistan, was a &perception of winning.8 There was no incentive for either reintegration or reconciliation without it.

5. (S) DGISI Pasha said that he wanted to convey to Washington agencies that he had been to Oman and Iran to follow up on reports which he received in Washington about a terrorist attack on India. He also had been in touch with the Israelis about information about attacks against Israeli targets in India. His intelligence counterparts in Oman and Iran did not know anything so far but were on alert. Pasha indicated he was willing to meet with his Indian counterpart at any time. End Summary.

6. (S) Ambassador called on General Kayani late evening October 6 to discuss the Kerry-Lugar bill. (Kayani had spoken to Chairman Mullen and General McChrystal earlier in the day.) DGISI Pasha joined most of the two-hour meeting. General Kayani said there were elements in the bill that would set back the bilateral relationship, and critical provisions were almost entirely directed against the Army. Both he and Pasha claimed the bill refused to recognize the enormous progress which had been made bilaterally with the US military and against terrorism within Pakistan: he was particularly irritated at the assessment required on civilian control of the military since he had no intention of taking over the government. "If I had wanted to do this, I would have done it during the long march.8

7. (S) Pasha, who is usually more emotional than Kayani, said the bill had caused a negative reaction among the Corps Commanders and younger officers. Pasha said they could not figure out why these "conditions" on assistance had been raised now when the anti-terrorist efforts had improved so

ISLAMABAD 00002427 002 OF 003

much. The &conditions8 were much tougher now than in previous legislation, despite the different situation on the ground.

8. (S) Ambassador said there were no conditions on the assistance, only a requirement for certifications and assessments. We saw the bill as a major victory since it represented a long-term commitment to Pakistan's development. The bill had a provision for waivers, which in her judgment would be exercised if necessary. Kayani replied that the Pressler amendment had a waiver, too, but President Bush had refused to sign it.

9. (S) But most importantly, the Ambassador said, the provisions in the bill did not affect &real8 money going to the security forces: it did not apply to the FY 09 Pakistan Counter-insurgency Fund, nor to the FY 10 Pakistan Counter-insurgency Fund. (There is a waivable condition in the Pakistan Counter-insurgency Fund FY 10 that the funds cannot be used for F16s). The provisions do not apply to Coalition Support Funds; and Kerry-Lugar would only apply to Foreign Military Financing funds not yet appropriated. Kayani said he understood that, just as he understood that the amount of funding available to the Pakistani military had increased very substantially under the new Pakistan Counter-insurgency Fund.

10. (S) Kayani said the Corps Commanders would press him to make a statement about the bill during their October 7 meeting: he had been struggling with how to handle this. He said he recognized and appreciated that Vice President Biden, the original sponsor of the bill, and Senator Kerry were great friends of Pakistan. Ambassador said any negative statements would affect Pakistan,s improving relations with our Congress. Ambassador noted that the Prime Minister had told her that the parliamentary debate on Kerry-Lugar would run for a few days, but it would not result in a vote. The government had defended the Kerry-Lugar bill very aggressively in recent days. Kayani thought the government would have a harder time in the assembly than the Prime Minister had predicted, but he agreed that the government could prevent a vote. Kayani had recommended the government bring the issue before the national assembly, it would enable the government to say it had been "informed" by the debate.

11. (S) DGISI Pasha asked Ambassador to convey to Washington that he had followed up on threat information that an attack would be launched against India between September-November. He had been in direct touch with the Israelis on possible threats against Israeli targets in India. He had also gone to Muscat and Tehran to engage those intelligence services on threats, and they were alerted and working with Pakistan. He reminded Ambassador that information about an attack on India had come his way and he had asked CIA to convey it to the Indians through CIA channels. (Further details about these cases available in other channels.) He said he would meet his Indian counterpart any time, noting that it was critically important that any threat information be shared with him. He emphasized that ISI was doing everything possible to reduce the possibility of an attack on India.

12. (S) Ambassador asked about the likelihood for restarting the back-channel with India, noting that we had received a good readout from former Foreign Minister Kasuri, who was enthusiastic about the appointment of former Foreign Secretary Riaz Khan as the back-channel negotiator. Kayani said that Ambassador should talk to Zardari about restarting the back-channel where it "left off:" he was not sure that Zardari was quite willing to wade into these political waters yet. Kayani and Pasha both said that they wanted this channel to succeed, and Kayani expressed his confidence in Riaz Khan's integrity and intelligence.

13. (S) Kayani said the military was going to move into Waziristan in two-four weeks, although President Zardari had wanted him to delay. (We will discuss this with Zardari.) He had met with PMLN Chief Minister of the Punjab Shabaz Sharif and with PMLN opposition leader Chaudrey Nisar to obtain their support for the Waziristan operation, not for political reasons. (Note: This outreach appears to have been successful. In a recent meeting with PolCouns, Shahbaz

ISLAMABAD 00002427 003 OF 003

stated that the Waziristan operation was critical and needed to move forward immediately. End Note.)

14. (S) Kayani went over some of the discussion he had had with General McChrystal about counter-insurgency but said that the most important issue in Afghanistan was the "perception that the US was winning." There was no chance for reintegration or reconciliation unless this took place. PATTERSON
 
How stupid... other leaks says their is no civilian control over Kyian.

I think this Ann Peterson was making up her stories and sending to state office.

No where, she didn't mentioned her personal Vedanta with Shireen Mazari?
 
Any President would have responded to an Indian attack in those circumstances.
 
wow..what a leak..just like my water tank upstairs..seriously..how can something already known be "leaked"?? and why no mention or discussion about 9/11?? after all the whole war is based on that incident then not a single mention about 9/11 fugitive and their relations around Pakistan and Afghanistan..Another cover blown?
 
1. Brahamdegh Bugti was indeed given sanctuary in Afghanistan, and likely were other Baluchistan insurgents/terrorists, which validates Pakistani concerns over Afghan interference in Pakistan.

2. Kiyani and Pasha both were supportive of the back channel process with India initiated by Musharraf, which debunks the Indian propaganda that the Pak Army has sought to undermine the peace process under Kiyani, and encouraged more violence.

3. The cables show Kiyani as taking the lead on the SW operation, convincing the Sharifs, while Zardari is shown to be reluctant.
 
4. The ISI under Pasha is shown to be extremely proactive and cooperative in intelligence sharing aimed at preventing terrorist attacks on india.
 
Frankly, Zardari doesn't come off looking bad in this either. All the things he asks for in the first memo are in Pakistan's interest.
 
if india ever attacks Pakistan then no matter who is the president or pm , it will never be a question of 'if' we will hit back but it will only a question of 'when' we hit back.
 
2. Kiyani and Pasha both were supportive of the back channel process with India initiated by Musharraf, which debunks the Indian propaganda that the Pak Army has sought to undermine the peace process under Kiyani, and encouraged more violence.

Not sure if blindly accepting the cables as hard core facts is a good idea. Here is somewhat interesting news but with altogether different message...

The Hindu : News / International : Pak supporting anti-India militants: WikiLeaks

Highlight :

Pakistan's army is covertly sponsoring four major militant groups, including the Afghan Taliban and Mumbai attackers Lashkar-e-Taiba, and "no amount of money" will change the policy, the U.S. ambassador warned in a frank critique revealed by the state department cables.
 
if india ever attacks Pakistan then no matter who is the president or pm , it will never be a question of 'if' we will hit back but it will only a question of 'when' we hit back.

I don't think anybody should have any doubt about it...The only thing for debate is how big/strong the response would be...
 
2. Kiyani and Pasha both were supportive of the back channel process with India initiated by Musharraf, which debunks the Indian propaganda that the Pak Army has sought to undermine the peace process under Kiyani, and encouraged more violence.

In any event of war, India would loose more than Pakistan would, so naturally India would be more interested in peace than Pakistan ever would. Everybody knows that LeT and JuD are the perpetrators of Mumbai. In spite of that they are free (Please don’t give the excuse of insufficient evidence). India wants peace, but not at the cost of our honor.

If Pakistan would have wanted peace and return of dialogue, it would have certainly taken action against LeT and JuD. For instance, if LeT would have committed similar crime against US, everyone knows what would have been the Pakistan’s action. As regarding Pak Army, it is beyond me why it would want peace
 
(Please don’t give the excuse of insufficient evidence). India wants peace, but not at the cost of our honor.

We want peace as well but without Indian dominance and big brother role which seems to be the only choice for New-Delhi.
 
There was no more politically sensitive issue in Pakistan than Kashmir

This policy not changed in last 63 years and it will not change ever. :no: It is not causing anything big for India but for Pakistan its taking high tolls in terms of everything economy, security, terrorism.
 
We want peace as well but without Indian dominance and big brother role which seems to be the only choice for New-Delhi.

if you think like that than there will be no peace because it is natural that india is dominating the region and in future it will expand it further. Our economy is much bigger than the countries of south asia and it is growing rapidly and faster than others. our military, diplomatic and cultural influence is enormous. we have good relation with all countries of saarc and beyond except pakistan. think about it.
 
Back
Top Bottom