The Pak-US Relationship

[muse]

---

---

I think he is receptive to the need to genuinely help Pakistan rather than passing a poison pill Bill that gets us nowhere. Maybe there are more like him

I like Jim Webb - but there is a problem here that the US cannot help with, it's political will in Pakistan.

Pakistani politicians have zero concept of "national" interests, especially the "democractic, poor friendly" types - and no amount of good will among US Representatives and Senators will over come that reality.

As you can tell from the pages of this forum, most Pakistanis are very comfortable being anti US and anti-India and anti-Europe and and Anti-Israel, as soon as they start becoming pro-Pakistan, that is to say as soon as they begin to internalize the need to clean up Pakistan from the inside and be a reasonable power, they will find a more friendly world awaiting them.

I know this won't go down well with some Pakistani members but well, that's just the way it goes.

[Durrani]

Foreign policy disputes with the US intensify

ISLAMABAD: Differences over India’s enhanced role in Afghanistan led to the drift in strategic relations between Pakistan and the United States that caught public eye after prickly Foreign Minister Qureshi pointed towards a trust deficit between the two allies and asked the senior partner for a fair treatment based on mutual trust and respect.

Background interviews revealed that strains in the relations were much more serious than met the eye and as the insiders put it the testing moment for the strategic cooperation has arrived and critical decisions by both the allies are due now.

‘The ties are in a very delicate stage and there are very few options left for both the allies – either to concede some ground to the other or to enter an all out confrontation,’ a diplomatic source opined adding things may worsen in days ahead because the Americans are known to be bad listeners and have an inclination for ‘bulldozing’ the matters.

The differences started after President Obama unveiled his strategy for the region, which among other things envisioned the setting up of a Contact Group on Pakistan and Afghanistan which involved India. Subsequently, it became clearer with the passage of time that the Obama administration was looking towards a greater role for India in Afghanistan.

Ambassador Holbrooke articulated the US thinking by calling India the ‘absolutely critical leader of the region.’ The new US policy was a major shocker for Islamabad that had yet to recover from the surprise U-turn by President Obama, who had during his election campaign promised a resolution of the Kashmir issue, but later went back on his promise.

Suspicions in Pakistan compounded with the introduction of the Peace Act of 2009 in the US House of Representatives, that attached stringent conditionalities to the proposed $1.5 billion annual assistance, which required Islamabad not to support any person or group involved in activities meant to hurt India and to allow US investigators access to people suspected of involvement in nuclear proliferation.

Pakistan believes that the conditionalities were out of sync with mutual desire for long term strategic relationship.

Foreign Office Spokesman Abdul Basit termed the proposed conditionalities as unhelpful.

Alongside all this there was a stepped up vilification campaign against Pakistan’s premier intelligence outfit – Inter Services Intelligence accusing it of supporting Taliban. There was a perception in Islamabad that the US was subscribing to India’s position on the security situation in South Asia.

Fears that US was planning to expand drone attacks, already a sensitive issue in Pakistan, into Balochistan did not help the cause. Some sources say the US and Pakistan had reached a broad understanding in principle on ending the drone attacks in Pakistan’s territory, but Islamabad was taken aback after finding no mention of it in the revised policy.

The change in terminology being used for Pakistan and particularly the choice of the ****** phrase, clubbing Pakistan and Afghanistan together, manifested the US thinking, which considered Pakistan as part of the problem.

Basit says there is no comparison between Afghanistan and Pakistan and the two needed to be looked at separately for a tenable solution.

These developments were completely unacceptable to the military establishment in Pakistan, which then convinced the government to stand up to it although President Zardari and Prime Minister Gilani were the first ones to have welcomed the new Obama strategy.

Islamabad was of the view that the shift in the US foreign policy towards Pakistan was demoralizing and promoted distrust.

‘The American tilt towards India despite knowing Pakistan’s concerns about it and having evidence of Indian role in promoting instability in different parts of Pakistan was not in good taste,’ a source said.

The matter was taken up in the meetings with US Special Envoy Ambassador Richard Holbrooke and Chairman US Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen during their visit to Islamabad last week, where they were categorically asked about what they had done for curbing the Indian destabilizing role in Pakistan.

Admiral Mullen and Ambassador Holbrooke were further told that the shift of strategic focus from the Eastern borders to the Western borders was not possible until tensions with India were resolved and the core issue of Kashmir was addressed.

Analysts say the surprise reaction in Islamabad is being processed in Washington by their strategic planners for whom it was a revelation that things had gone awry. Pakistan has expressed the intentions to take up the issues again at the trilateral Pakistan-Afghanistan-US meeting in Washington on May 6-7.

However, it is expected that there could be a high level diplomatic or military contact between the two countries even ahead of the Washington meeting, to resolve the differences.

The seven US congressional delegations visiting Pakistan over the next three weeks for discussions on aid legislation could also talk about the thorny issues straining Pak-US ties.

Analysts believe that Pakistan would first have to put its own house in order before entering serious negotiations with the US. ‘They need to furnish acceptable proofs of Indian involvement in Pakistan; develop a credible counter-insurgency strategy; and more importantly get all of their state institutions on the same page.’

www.dawn.net

[S-2]

I'm always amazed to read these accounts of U.S.-Pakistani meetings. We always read of what Pakistan says but I can't recall reading what AMERICA says.

I'd like to know. I'd sure be interested, for instance, on what Mullen and Holbrooke said in the midst of a fight which broke out between a Zadari and Sharif supporter.

Here again we read-

"The matter was taken up in the meetings with US Special Envoy Ambassador Richard Holbrooke and Chairman US Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen during their visit to Islamabad last week, where they were categorically asked about what they had done for curbing the Indian destabilizing role in Pakistan.

Admiral Mullen and Ambassador Holbrooke were further told that the shift of strategic focus from the Eastern borders to the Western borders was not possible until tensions with India were resolved and the core issue of Kashmir was addressed."

I'm sure that we just sat there with our thumbs up our you-know-what.

Anyway, yeah, the Mazzetti article in the NYTimes a couple of weeks back convinced me that there's not much left to say. We won't mediate Kashmir and I'd be damned mad with my government if it attempted to do so. If you're bent on refusing to head west without that settled then there's little point in rendering military aid as it's unnecessary under the circumstance. You don't need further improvements to your conventional force posture and it's unlikely that your army will become seriously engaged in this counter-insurgency until it's something more than an insurgency.

[muse]

Yes it's curious that we have not read much about what the US policy makers thought of the Pakistani response to PEACE, however; below is an editorial which echos my previous post in response to truth seeker:

Editorial: Rejecting American aid?

Talking to the media at the State Bank of Pakistan Multan auditorium on Saturday, Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani said that Pakistan would not accept any US aid that came with conditions that go against Pakistan’s interests. He said: “Pakistan is a sovereign country and will not accept conditions that are against its interests and stature”. Since the media knows that the Mullen-Holbrooke visit to Islamabad did not go well, the press has given the statement its top headline.

This is the first message to Washington after the US official duo had a rather icy reception in Islamabad, with Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi throwing in his riposte to President Obama’s reference to a “blank cheque”, and what Mr Holbrooke had to say later in New Delhi about India in the context of Afghanistan. If there is a foreign policy red rag for Pakistan, it is India’s presence in Afghanistan and what India is doing in Balochistan and the tribal areas and for which there is now mounting evidence.

The India factor again emerged when Capital City Police Officer (CCPO) Lahore, Pervaiz Rathor, said Saturday that India was involved in attacks on the Sri Lankan team and the Manawan Police Training Centre. If he is right then Baitullah Mehsud is in cahoots with India because the Manawan incident was owned by the Taliban warlord. Also, the terrorists who attacked the Sri Lankan team have been traced to a ****** militia located in southern Punjab. However, there is some information that India may be indirectly funding these activities which could provide the piece in the puzzle.

The TV channels tended to see the visit of our army chief General Ashfaq Kayani in the same context. Are we about to spurn the crucial economic assistance coming to us from the IMF and the Friends of Pakistan group of countries, all of them being subject to an American veto? The Foreign Office has been upset over the bill being moved in the US Congress to facilitate assistance to Pakistan. Some of the displeasure characterising Foreign Minister Qureshi’s exchange with the Mullen-Holbrooke duo could indeed stem from a reading of the bill.

The Pakistan Enduring Assistance and Cooperation Enhancement (PEACE) Act of 2009, introduced by Representative Howard Berman on April 2 says in sub-clause “J” that Pakistan is “not to support any person or group that conducts violence, sabotage, or other activities meant to instil fear or terror in India”. Sub-clause “K” binds Pakistan “to ensure access of United States investigators to individuals suspected of engaging in worldwide proliferation of nuclear materials, and restrict such individuals from travel or any other activity that could result in further proliferation”.

The direct reference to India, despite the fact that Pakistan has bilaterally assured India that it will not allow any terrorism in India from its soil, may have offended Islamabad, but the next indirect reference to Dr AQ Khan is certainly going to create hurdles in the US-Pak cooperation in the coming days. Of course, the sub-clause will bite only after Washington has made a move on Dr Khan and Pakistan has thwarted it. Sub-clauses “H” and “I” ask Pakistan to get rid of the “Taliban and Taliban-affiliated groups in Pakistan that support insurgents in Afghanistan”.

If Pakistan sees these conditions as being hostile to its interests, it can turn the US assistance down, but others in the Friends of Pakistan group of countries may not favour this decision. Pakistan’s spurning of the money currently pivotal to its economic survival will also depend very much on some “friends” coming to its help and matching the dollars that Pakistan will stand to lose. That the money is a large sum compared to assistance in the past is quite clear; and it is being made available in times of global financial duress. We would assume therefore that Pakistan is in the process of formulating a nuanced response that helps it influence US thinking by informing Washington of the complexities involved in tackling terrorism and the danger of letting India dictate the terms of US-Pakistan alliance. *



So what's it mean? Continued attacks on US supplies, you will have mntoed that these have now taken on a "routine" quality - never to large to make the US nervous but enough to allow it be conscious of this "leverage" -- continued takeovers of more districts in Pakistan by the real Muslims, accompanied by chest thumping about the army's snails pace and limited success along with calls for US arms (at US tax payer expense, of course)

In the end it will be useless - the so called "Friends of Pakistan" group is a figment of imagination - it is an entirely US initiative.

So that leaves the all weather friend - are they really willing to play spoiler to Obama and divert hjis attentionaway from the economy? And what do they really want from Obama when it come sto the economy?

Answer to these question involbe Pakistan peripherally, whatever the answer, the all weather friend despises the islamist terrorists and the ideology of islamism - no succor there either.

So what's this about? Politics, Pakistani public opinion, which thrives on emotional dwarfism, an ensuring done me wrong cause I'm Muslim and Pakistani -- lets see if beggars really can choose - at least not to be beggars.

[S-2]

I'm sorry but your only 24/7 all-weather friend is the P.A. artillery.

As I recall, your presumed all-weather friend sent Zardari packing last October with expressions of eternal friendship and little else.

How awful for that "all weather friend" to hold all that worthless paper of ours and know they'll only realize it's value when our economy recovers. BTW, so then shall theirs. Small matter of poor domestic consumption driven by stupidly high capital concentration in the top 1% or so.

They ain't movin' much product domestically or overseas and cash is tight for everybody. Please don't hold your breath.

Try this latest S-2 gambit, btw, India-China raproachment.

Not a thing anybody can do about it and makes a LOT of sense in soooo many different ways. 3,000,000,000 combined market with shared borders comes to mind just off-hand.

I dunno...jes' some idle speculation on the last bit but it's been gnawing at the back of my head for awhile.

Pakistan and America will likely quietly atrophy and die with a whimper...should you survive your bout with cancer.

[muse]

Indeed, the all weather friend is a friend, not a stupid friend wh owant to get involved in immature adventures -- and the all weather friend hates the Islamist ideology - why would it want to see such a vile ideology not whither and die?

Look it another way, the all weather friend is doing maybe US$$ 5 or 6 billion a year with it's ally and yet it does close to US$$60 Billion with the adverserial neighbor -- they are friends not stupid friends.

The more "nuanced approach" is more imagination than any possible reality, unless of course shooting oneself in the foot, is the substance of the nuanced approach

[dk33]

I'm always amazed to read these accounts of U.S.-Pakistani meetings. We always read of what Pakistan says but I can't recall reading what AMERICA says.

I'd like to know. I'd sure be interested, for instance, on what Mullen and Holbrooke said in the midst of a fight which broke out between a Zadari and Sharif supporter.

The US papers tend to marginalize the Pakistani viewpoint, focusing primarily on 'anonymous US sources'. The Pakistani media tends to focus on the Pakistani view point given their access to 'anonymous Pakistani sources'. In addition, US officials with a very specific brief and mission - to officially articulate Obama's new 'strategy', which had already been outlined by Obama and analyzed in the US and Pakistani papers, so there was no point in regurgitating US views, when the real story was the dissenting GoP/Pak Mil. viewpoint.

I had posed a rhetorical question to you after Obama's speech on the 'new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan' - 'What long term commitment and relationship?

Obviously I wasn't the only one who saw through the charade. But more to the point, there was criticism of Zardari's welcoming statement in reference to the Obama plan, and there were rumblings that a more nuanced and critical assessment by the Pakistani Foreign Office was being ignored. These rumblings continued in the run-up to the Mullen/Hollbrooke visit, with most Pakistani analysts expecting a continuation of the 'rollover' that Zardari's comments signified.

It turned out quite differently. I suspect that the US side may have been blindsided by the 'behind the scenes' Pakistani views and discussions (as were Pakistani analysts), and therefore beyond articulating the known 'New US Strategy', there was little Hollbrooke and Mullen could offer.

I'm sure that we just sat there with our thumbs up our you-know-what.

I suspect that is exactly what your guys did, given my reasoning above.

The US response (official and media) has been interesting. The almost daily accusations against the ISI and Pakistan, from US officials, have abruptly shut off (for now) and even the media (going by the NYT and WaPo) are suddenly largely silent (for now)where they were running cover stories on Pakistan, something ISI etc. etc almost every other day.

Jane Perlez's article on the Hollbrooke/Mullen visit was buried in the middle of the World section in the NYT, when her earlier one about 'Pakistan a reluctant ally' was front page.

I suspect we shall see more of the US position/response once internal discussions over the new Pakistani approach are concluded.

Anyway, yeah, the Mazzetti article in the NYTimes a couple of weeks back convinced me that there's not much left to say. We won't mediate Kashmir and I'd be damned mad with my government if it attempted to do so. If you're bent on refusing to head west without that settled then there's little point in rendering military aid as it's unnecessary under the circumstance. You don't need further improvements to your conventional force posture and it's unlikely that your army will become seriously engaged in this counter-insurgency until it's something more than an insurgency.

Why would you be so 'damned mad'? I posed the question to you elsewhere as well, to which you once more launched into a tirade - you have an irrational hostility to the idea of the US mediating between India and Pakistan to allay Pakistani security concerns, when that would be the most effective means of having Pakistan commit more military resources to the West.

In any case, we shall have to wait and see what 'conditions' do get pushed through in the final bill, and what Pakistan accepts. As of today, the GoP has made it clear that it will not accept any conditions against its national interests, and if the POTUS is going to be the one making that determination of 'compliance with conditions' (if the bill goes through with them attached), he may well have to look the other way (until the Ayatollah as$ kissing bears results) because the Indian and Nuclear conditions have no chance in hell of being complied with at this point.

By the way, there is an inherent contradiction between your steadfast refusal to have the US mediate between India and Pakistan, and the India specific conditions in the PEACE bill - those conditions are essentially interference/mediation in the 'India-Pakistan' conflict.

The conditions related to accountability and Nuclear issues are more understandable from the US perspective.

[Energon]

I think if you study the sponsors of this language you would find that it is Israel doing a favor for India. That is, it is the Congressmen who are strong supporters of Israel who are pushing such conditions into the Pakistani aid bill, not the Obama administration. Unfortunately, the Israeli lobby has found that it can strengthen its relationship with India by loaning some of its "clout" to Indian lobbying objectives. So, the credit for this "success" belongs to the the powerful Israeli lobby in Washington, not to New Delhi.

What a load of crap. You're merely feeding into the 'Indo-Israeli nexus' populist garbage to explain Pakistan's isolation. There is no evidence indicating Israel's involvement in any of this.

[Energon]

By the way, there is an inherent contradiction between your steadfast refusal to have the US mediate between India and Pakistan, and the India specific conditions in the PEACE bill - those conditions are essentially interference/mediation in the 'India-Pakistan' conflict.

The Kashmir settlement is the only factor (albeit a very, very sizeable one) within the realm of the Indo-Pak dialogue that the US will not involve itself in publicly (for good reasons). S2 it seems (based on that post) is also referring specifically to Kashmir and nothing else.

The primary India-specific condition refers to Pakistan not being used as a staging ground for terrorist attacks upon India. This requirement helps Pakistan as much as it does India and is far too rudimentary a matter to be left out of any potential aid package to Pakistan.

[dk33]

The Kashmir settlement is the only factor (albeit a very, very sizeable one) within the realm of the Indo-Pak dialogue that the US will not involve itself in publicly (for good reasons). S2 it seems (based on that post) is also referring specifically to Kashmir and nothing else.

S-2 has in the past opposed any mediation (such as assurances or engagement with India and Pakistan) to alleviate Pakistani concerns WRT Indian aggression against Pakistan in case of a reorientation of the PA to the West. So while the context in this particular case may have been Kashmir, the opposition to mediation goes beyond that. Nor do I think the GoP is looking at a resolution of kashmir as a starting point for reorientation to the West, given that it is likely to be a protracted process even with US mediation.

The primary India-specific condition refers to Pakistan not being used as a staging ground for terrorist attacks upon India. This requirement helps Pakistan as much as it does India and is far too rudimentary a matter to be left out of any potential aid package to Pakistan.

While ostensibly the target of such legislation may be groups such as the LeT and acts such as the Mumbai attacks, it will quickly become an issue in terms of support for groups legitimately fighting for Freedom against Indian SF's in Kashmir (In Pakistan's opinion), which are not terrorism.

India will certainly seek to paint all groups in Kashmir, whether they attack non-combatants or not, with the same brush and seek to pressure Pakistan into dismantling them through the US.

Pakistan would prefer to dismantle these groups only as part of a negotiated settlement of Kashmir, given its distrust of Indian intentions to engage in dialog on Kashmir unless pressured to do so. US restrictions in this sense then take on the role of coercive diplomacy in the Indo-Pakistan dispute, and therefore are a form of mediation on the part of the Indians.

[S-2]

Too much speculation on too many disparate areas. I can't believe that I actually went over to SWJ and reviewed their daily roundup to see how the stories laid out over the last couple of weeks.

We need to see the bill that arrives before the President's desk. It is the only thing that matters from our end. Then we need to see the reaction of Pakistan's civilian and military leaders.

I'd view the final aid bill as a monetary summary of a seven and one-half year post 9/11 relationship between both nations. If ignoble or onerous I'd encourage you to reject it en toto should you exceed David Kilcullen's off-hand prognosis and survive sufficiently long to do so.

I think you'll last six months myself.

In any case, I've little faith that our aid package will be sufficient-even with the considerable assistance of others-to arrest much less reverse the prevailing trend.

It's not about the aid and never really should have been. If it's "your war" then fight it with whatever YOU have at your disposal-sticks, stones, hatchets, knives.

You would were they Indians.

If not your war then we've no business providing aid to you while at war ourselves and facing a tighter economy.

[Omar1984]

US plans go beyond Pak existence


Sunday, April 12, 2009

News Desk

RAWALPINDI: Two former top American officials have said that if the US failed over any important issue in Pakistan and subsequently Pakistan dismembered, then Washington will have to either hand over Pakistan and Afghanistan to terrorists and extremists or fight against them with or without world help.

Former US National Security Adviser Zbigniew Bryzenski and former American Secretary of State Henry Kissinger expressed these views during Dr Shahid Masood’s programme Mairay Mutabiq of Geo News, Saturday.

Bryzenski said, “We fear that the US may face defeat in Pakistan and Afghanistan. There is a strong possibility of defeat which is a real threat.”

He said that if the US failed in Pakistan, then “we will have to choose unsuitable things,” which, he added, would be very painful.

On this occasion Kissinger said, “I think military strategy has been given more focus.” He maintained, “First we have to deny our objectives in Afghanistan and then occupy its every part.” Such situations should be created that the neighbours of Afghanistan could become part of the war, which had joint interests in the region, he said.

Interestingly, Kissinger said, “ours and Iran interests are similar, not to let Afghanistan become the land of guerrilla fighters.” Similarly, he added, Russia had also interests like the US. “It’s a combination of military and political strategy”.

Bryzenski said he thought that military and political strategy in Afghanistan was moving in right direction.

“We want that Pakistan should help us. We have concern about some Pakistani institutions, especially intelligence services, which, we doubt, are assisting Taliban”, he remarked.

“We are unable to find answer to the question that how we could get Pakistan’s help, while Pakistan is sure that it faces threat from India.”

About political situation in Pakistan, he said, “it puts us in complicated situation that how long we will back such a Pakistani democratic government, which is passing through internal chaos and fighting against extremists.” He opined that these were such issues which were neither given proper attention nor got any answer.

“I think it is almost impossible for us to improve such a grave situation there.” He said like India, Pakistan also wanted to protect its interests in Afghanistan.

He said the world crisis could determine good or bad for the US and world. “The condition of any one could not improve without us,” he said. He said, “We could improve the situation without important players of the region.”

Henry Kissinger said on the issue of Pakistan that its was both a long and short-term problem. The short-term issue relates to Afghanistan while we should help India and Pakistan resolve their issues. “In my view we should set priorities that are achieved within a certain time-frame,” he said.

He said beyond US mediation we should talk to both India and Pakistan under the possible goodwill. If Pakistan is disintegrated and it is turned into a failed state even then we would have to seek a way out by countries that may be affected including China, India and Russia. “I don’t know right now what that way out will be. Everyday we look towards Islamabad and I hope that certain negotiations are held silently as it is not an issue that could be brought on the agenda. We hope this issue is never made part of the agenda,” he remarked. He said he did not know as to what kind of proposal should be floated on the issue. But a country that has numerous nuclear weapons but no government and where extremists are already present, it is certainly a cause of concern for the international community.

To a question whether the induction of new Secretary for foreign affairs and retaining the previous defence secretary by the Obama Administration perturbed him particularly with regard to the role of Israel, he said, “You know, some times Israelis too take up this question. They ask if I am under pressure and I always tell them as to what you want to do the next day and how would you tackle the coming events. And if you fail to respond to the second question, never pursue the first one. And I believe they won’t do so,” he said.

On this occasion Burzynski said, “I hope they won’t do so as it would prove detrimental to us and would not only be not beneficial to them but also dangerous for the region.

As it would boost the extremist forces to attack us in Afghanistan, Iraq and the Far East. We will be the target of attack and I fear who would be the beneficiary? It would really target us and therefore I hope they would not do so. I hope we will tell them plainly that we don’t want them to do so.” He said, “I think I understand their worries. I do not believe that we would not create a wrong impression that it is not a cause of worry and destruction for us.”

US plans go beyond Pak existence

[Omar1984]

^ Webster Tarpley, a famous US historian, talks about Bryzenski's plan for Pakistan.

[S-2]

"Webster Tarpley, a famous US historian"

Why do you consider him famous?

[duhastmish]

---

---

Because he - is big follower of rough network theory by military. Which most extrimist like to read in, that it was America who hit the towers and no Taliban.
So he might not be famous in an aware section of western world but he is very much famous in ignorant extremist world.
lol all these conspiracy theory. pffft this guy means no business. all talks no proof to back him self up