The Pak-US Relationship

[muse]

---

---

Caution Pakistan -- For those Pakistanis who have monitored Radio Liberty in Afghanistan and the anti-Pakistan poison it has been feeding the Afghan people, the piece below should be seen with great concern :

Pak-US ties indispensable, says Holbrooke

WASHINGTON: Richard Holbrooke, the US special envoy for Pakistan and Afghanistan, on Friday said the partnership between Washington and Pakistan was ‘indispensable’, and reaffirmed the Obama administration’s commitment to help Pakistan counter extremism along its northwestern border with Afghanistan.

Speaking at the launch of a Pushto broadcast service along the Pak-Afghan border regions by Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), Holbrooke said broadcasting in the local language would help advance public debate and counter extremist propaganda in the NWFP. “We will support [Pakistanis in] every way we can, in the [field of] media and everywhere else. We are not going to set up American broadcasting stations… We look forward to [the service] contributing to public debate in this democratic country,” he said at Washington’s Newseum, an interactive museum of news and journalism. app

[Hunter911]

It's hard to say that the U.S. is good or bad, but it is still to use bombs and carrots tempts so many countries. Recently, the U.S. announced and included Russia, China, Iran, North Korea got into the list of hypothetical enemies is a good proof, while Russia supports the U.S. sanctions against Iran such a behavior is indeed confusing. The relationship between Pakistan and the United States? The best answer can be found in the 60's.

[muse]

No prizes for guessing what Pakistan will do
Ejaz Haider



The United States and Pakistan are like Martha and George in Albee’s Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf. They can’t even make love without insulting and abusing each other. The latest in their long and continuing walpurgisnacht is S.1707, the Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act 2009. (This article is based on S.1707 CPS, the version considered and passed by the US Senate.) Consider.

As the conditionalities stand, far from the expressed sentiments of partnership and its enhancement, the legislation is likely to become a document that will continue to sour relations between the two in times to come. This was predictable because rarely are two states so diverse in interests put together in one bed by the compulsions of realpolitik.

The US wants to help Pakistan, which is the stated purpose of the legislation, and yet cannot bring itself round to trust Pakistan even on the central premise of this partnership — i.e., fighting terrorism. Pakistan wants the money, is forced to play ball but precisely because its strategic interests in the region diverge, more than they converge, with the US, it keeps chaffing even as it tags along.

At the surface the issue is simple. If a state parts with money, it also has the right to put conditionalities on how that money is to be spent; more importantly, whether it thinks, through periodic assessment and monitoring, that the taker is not itching to fall out of line and release or withhold funds on that basis.

The taker has the option to either accept the conditionalities and take the money or tell the giver to lump it. So, why can’t Pakistan do either this or that? Ditto for the US. Remember, we are not dealing with individuals here. States operate differently. The US is not shelling out money to Pakistan, notwithstanding all the references to democracy and the people of Pakistan and people-to-people contact and due process and civil society, capacity building and much else, because Washington wants to play Good Samaritan. In these hard times money is not easy to come by even in a multi-trillion dollar economy. The US is doing so, very reluctantly and very distrustfully, because it perceives its core interests to be involved in this region. And, it needs Pakistan.

This is why, even as the US talks of partnership and says all the nice things about “a long history of friendship and comity” between the two states, it has inserted conditionalities and limitations on certain assistance (see Secs. 102 (b); 203 a, b, c and sub-clauses of c). True, all conditionalities are also governed by waivers by the secretary of state under the direction of the US president. But that is where law and realpolitik intersect and that is an interesting area.

Take, for instance, non-proliferation and the issue of access to person X or Y allegedly involved in such activities. If that issue is raised at some point, the US domestic law will come into play. But is that the only problem here? Consider it from another angle. Pakistan is not a signatory to the NPT and has not signed any legal document regarding non-proliferation. But — and this is important — it has assured other states and the UN, a fact documented, that it is opposed to proliferation as state practice. Further, the recently passed Resolution 1887 in clause 1 reads: “...a situation of non-compliance with non-proliferation obligations shall be brought to the attention of the Security Council, which will determine if that situation constitutes a threat to international peace and security, and emphasises the Security Council’s primary responsibility in addressing such threats”.

Similarly, clause 28 says: “[The SC] Declares its resolve to monitor closely any situations involving the proliferation of nuclear weapons, their means of delivery or related material, including to or by non-State actors as they are defined in resolution 1540 (2004), and, as appropriate, to take such measures as may be necessary to ensure the maintenance of international peace and security.”

This, then, becomes a multilateral affair under Chapter 7 and the US could invoke the SC on the basis of the operation of its own domestic law.

Realpolitik would likely dictate that the US would not do so or withhold the monies until circumstances keep the two actors in bed. This is where issues are determined by a rather simple formula. If the US needs Pakistan more than Pakistan needs the US, Pakistan could get away with much; conversely, the US would have the leverage to twist Pakistan’s arm. In reality, both actors continue to kiss and kick simultaneously.

How long the two states can remain in this tense relationship is anybody’s guess; no one can give a timeframe on that. The “until” is important because it manifests, as nothing does, the distrust between the two and the nature of relations, fraught as they are with distrust.

It is because of this that the legalese in the legislation becomes important. The argument that what the legislation says about nuclear-related activities, terrorist groups and, to some extent, civil-military relations is also the declared policy of the government of Pakistan and therefore there is no need to fret over it misses the legal point. It would have been different if the GoP had made an overt objection to these references while the legislation was being processed and considered. But it did not. Accepting money under the legislation without expressing any reservation over references contained in section 203 a, b, c and sub-clauses of c, means Pakistan accepts them as valid and is endorsing them at the level of the state. That is exactly where the shoe is going to pinch very badly when the two get off the bed and decide to have separate rooms. Why?

Because letting these references pass without any riders would open the state to legal problems in all these areas and that would come just at the juncture at which the configuration of geopolitics will undergo a change. Neither does it suffice to say that when that moment arises the US will close the tap like it previously did in the 1990s. This is not the 1990s and legal and semi-legal, even cooked up legalities can be used to underwrite action.

[Notice here that while the legislation makes references to rights, due process and independent judiciary, areas that need strengthening, it eschews the fact that going by the law would make it even more difficult for Pakistan to hand over people as was done during Musharraf’s tenure. This of course is an area that needs separate treatment.]

Similarly, to say that the bill has been watered down because the overt reference to India has been changed to “neighbouring countries” is even more simplistic. Now, in theory, even Afghanistan can have a say in determining whether or not Pakistan is complying with the conditionalities. Once again, the until factor comes in.

Moreover, because US troops are present in Afghanistan, the problem of the intersection of law and realpolitik acquires a different dimension — especially, because Afghanistan and related issues are already governed by an extensive and intensive legal regime which emanates from the UN and has multilateral status which the US could use in support of its domestic legislation. And this regime comes under Chapter 7.

The argument that this legislation is the best thing that has happened to Pakistan relies on two factors: it gets Pakistan badly needed money; and it helps Pakistan do, under pressure where necessary, what is good and important for Pakistan.

Both arguments eschew the complex dynamic of realpolitik that is being played out in this region by the states on the basis of their interests. Both start out with the premise that in all that is happening in the region and across the world Pakistan is the villain and is the only state that requires course correction. This is patently wrong.

All states in the region and outside need course correction, just as much as Pakistan does. Most have contributed to the original sin, a fact also acknowledged by the US secretary of state. Pakistan is already grappling with an internal threat which is being exacerbated by the less than satisfactory performance of the US and its allies in Afghanistan. Predictably, stories have started appearing in the US press (the Washington Post being in the lead) about the so-called Quetta Shura and the denial to some US visitors of Pakistani visas.

The fact is that the US is in a dilemma over how to solve a very wicked problem, as is obvious from the unclassified 66 pages of General Stanley McChrystal’s report (COMISAF Initial Assessment). It is easy to transfer responsibility and talk about what all Pakistan must do to save the US from its folly. This is surely a point where Pakistan would do well to present copies of David Halberstam’s to the Obama administration. Sometimes, going back in time can be useful.

Where course correction is needed, the US needs it the most, having created chaos in this region and also contemplating strong action against Iran without increasing the overall level of security for anyone or looking into its own policies that might conceivably be at the heart of theressentiment that has caused some groups to acquire such appeal.

As for what Pakistan should do now that it has lost the opportunity to debate the first draft of this legislation back in June, some say there are only two courses open to it. Tell the US that the wordings of the legislation, as it stands, are not acceptable to it and forego the monies; or, accept the monies it offers while swallowing the conditionalities and their ramifications.

Between quitting and maximum response there are options that can be utilised. But will we? No prizes for guessing the course Pakistan will take.

Ejaz Haider is op-ed editor of Daily Times, consulting editor of The Friday Times and host of Samaa TV’s programme “Siyasiyat”. He can be reached at [email protected]

[zzaman]

pakistan should ask for more respect from us or give up on the relationship. pakistan now holds all the a cards. all it has to to do is threaten to bomb afghanistan and not taliban with as much force as possible, then give a bomb to iran wihci it doesnt have t o becuse iran might already have itto take care of israel, then ask saudis to stop oil supply, americas response would be to bomb every muslim country and ask for help from europe and russia but the west would suffer a catostropihic defat in this inter dependent world and they would be mainly with out food and oil maybe not so much about food but without oil and economy would collapse.

pakistan holds all the cards, use them wisely, just a thinker, ps can i have a job pls.

best brother

[zzaman]

extremists must be defaeted whereever they are, teh light of civilisation should be allowed to shine bright in every heart, teh extremeist views are not for us, fellow muslims see what is in your heart and be the best you can be.

love.

[zzaman]

all wars must end before it is too late. pls do your best an dput down teh weapons of hate, no good comes from killing only evil, all sides mustcome together and talk like adults and not fight like children, we must shine like angels in tyeh sight of god an dall l that is holy, inshalla this world will be free from hate sooner then later.

for oursleves and our children we must put down our weapons and speak to each other as brothers in the human race regardless of creed or rac or relegion, war is for the stupid, peace is for the intelligent and love is for all.

love

[a7mado]

all wars must end before it is too late. pls do your best an dput down teh weapons of hate, no good comes from killing only evil, all sides mustcome together and talk like adults and not fight like children, we must shine like angels in tyeh sight of god an dall l that is holy, inshalla this world will be free from hate sooner then later.

for oursleves and our children we must put down our weapons and speak to each other as brothers in the human race regardless of creed or rac or relegion, war is for the stupid, peace is for the intelligent and love is for all.

love

^^ LOL!!!, you're too naive my friend, do some research before posting on a defence forum, if you're a hippy then wake up!, the 70's are long gone!.

[Luftwaffe]

No sure where to post let me know if its posted in wrong thread..
So story goes like that one of the forum member posts somewhere in other forum showing concern and calling Pakistan a "disease" to all that is happening in Afghanistan.

s2
The war in Afghanistan is one where we are treating-very, very badly, the symptom.

You haven’t been able to treat infact haven’t started treatment yet get serious you could have done alot in past 8 years so far except for playing cards in your barracks nothing out of the box has been done. Learn something from the operations and offensives undertaken by Pakistan Army it’ll be helpful in the long run for you guys.

The disease is just to the east.
No mr. The disease is to the west your monsters you created deal with them you’ve let lose on us as well. We're doing our part you do your seriously.

What would it take to TREAT the disease? Can the Pakistani military, most of all it's nuclear weapons, be neutralized or destroyed without them launching a nuclear reprisal on India?
There is no Treatment for the hallucination disease of yours that you people see. 700,000 strong Army, 100 dispersed nukes and delivery platforms you must be mocking..thinking of destroying or neutralizing it is way too farfetched impossible when it comes to Pakistan. Concerned about Pakistan you should be concerned about Naxalite and other movements and organizations labelled terrorists who demand freedom from India around 70+ groups active be concerned if they take over the Indian nukes after all they are more literate than an average Taliban, more civilized and organized more than Taliban.

Would we have to use our own strategic assets to do so or can it be done conventionally?
Stop dreaming but on the contrary imagining could be healthy for you for staying on this forum. Now As far as i know 18 years have passed Pakistan is still there with second nuclear plant in advance stages of development you couldn’t do it 18 years back what makes you think you’ll do it now and the consequences of it?..that’s just a childish assertive question you’ve asked I wasn’t expecting it from you..both ways America is in no position to use both assets against a democratic nation.

[umar.durrani]

It's hard to say that the U.S. is good or bad, but it is still to use bombs and carrots tempts so many countries. Recently, the U.S. announced and included Russia, China, Iran, North Korea got into the list of hypothetical enemies is a good proof, while Russia supports the U.S. sanctions against Iran such a behavior is indeed confusing. The relationship between Pakistan and the United States? The best answer can be found in the 60's.

You cannot call it US best in 60s for Pakistan.
United states did not change her status since the starting of Friendship.
They are neither good for Pakistan till now even They shouted in world media (CNN , BBC , FOX etc) that they given billion dollars to Pakistan many places and we doesn't found a single penny their So what they want to show the world???

Russians are the invader of Afghanistan they got treat .....SO what US doing now??? no US is right because they have media power and they creates a propaganda .US doing same what USSR wona do.

Actually USSR are strong competitor of europe since centuries and US is big brother of Europe so they all want to destroy it and they done that now Russia is slave of US.

China has now biggest market in world latest technology and potential superpower , Peaceful nation and ally with Muslim world that why they supposed to be enemy of NATO and US.

You forgot to put Palestine in this list.North korea is enemy because south is ally of US they believe divide and rule as british and palestine tell us story how Israel is ally and palestine is enemy.

Well US contain both despite politically and religious hand by hand.As you see the Russian , Chinese and north koreans are the politically issues but talking about Iran they are religious enemy US don't want another country with mass weapons and powerful military as Pakistan.
you can see turkey the strong military but with NATO.
Iraq as you know Iraq should be most powerful if US did not attack on them but US took advantage of hate of Muslims against Iraq like golf countries and Arab doesn't like Iraq so much they took action against they ! no one help IRAQ just because of hate.
Iran is also the victim among muslim world as they are Shia state US think if they attack Iran no one help them but Iran is to cunning they start speeches with the favor of Palestine and all muslim nation to get love from Muslim of world.

[hearthackerpk]

Nice sharing

[SparklingCrescent]

WASHINGTON: The Pentagon has publicly acknowledged that relationship between the United States and Pakistan is complex and that there are tensions and issues “festering from the past”.

“Certainly, our relationship with Pakistan is complex,” the US Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defence for Pak-istan and Afghanistan, David Sedney, told reporters after a meeting in Washington last week between the defence delegations of the two countries.

“There have been a lot of ups and downs over the years, and there are a lot of areas where we still have a lot of open questions and where there are, for lack of a better word, issues that continue to fester from the past. While it’s unfortunate, that’s also understandable.”

The 18th Defence Consul-tative Group Session — the first since 2006 — was led by US Under-secretary of Defence for Policy Michele Flournoy and Pakistan’s Defence Secretary Lt-Gen (retd) Syed Athar Ali.


The first such meeting was held in 2002. The next meeting to assess progress will be held early next year in Islamabad.

Conceding that there were tensions on both sides, Mr Sedney said: “There’re things that Pakistan wants that we’re not able to do, things that we want that Pakistan is not able to do.”

The Pentagon official admitted that “sometimes our discussions with our Pakistani colleagues are very, very difficult. Other times they’re very, very positive.”

Mr Sedney said that he had headed the department that dealt with Pakistan for almost a year now and was now seeing “an increasingly positive trend, both in the discussions and the results we’re able to get.”

The talks between the two sides, he said, focussed on these issues and the head of the Pakistani delegation, because he is a retired military officer, “did take on some of these questions directly.


He talked about some — and there are lingering tensions. But we also believe that the kind of cooperation we’ve had recently is helping to address that”.

While reporting on the talks, the US Armed Forces Press Service said that senior US leaders assured their Pakistani counterparts that the United States was committed to a long-term strategic partnership with Pakistan, which was critical to the success of President Barack Obama’s new Afghanistan strategy.

The report quoted Ms Flournoy and others as telling the Pakistani delegation that the US would remain a stabilising force in the region long after the end of the Afghan conflict.


Ms Flournoy recognised actions Pakistan had taken to deal with extremists within its border, and promised continued US support.

“This is a comprehensive effort,” Mr Sedney said. “This is not just a military-focussed effort; to focus on one military task, and then the relationship stops…. It is a whole-of-government approach that is aimed at addressing the immediate [threats], but also looking forward to a longer, more strategic [partnership].”

At his briefing, Mr Sedney also spoke on two particular issues — Afghan Taliban and North Waziristan — that, according to the US and Pakistani media, have created tensions between the two countries.

The US official, however, played down the differences and insisted that the two sides understood each other’s positions on these issues as well.

Asked if Pakistan would now be more willing to take on the Afghan Taliban, the Pentagon official said the two countries had a “common commitment” to go after the extremists who threatened both. But that ability to go after the extremists, he said, depended on both capabilities and information, “and all of that doesn’t always exist at the same time”.

Asked if the talks also focussed on a new Pakistani offensive in North Waziristan, and against the Haqqani network and the Quetta shura, Mr Sedney said that such offensives were “not a simple, one-step, go-in, attack-and-then-leave” type operations.

“When we have exact information, exact targeting information, we will be providing it to Pakistan, and Secretary (of Defence Robert) Gates is expecting their cooperation.”



DAWN.COM | Front Page | Pentagon admits to festering differences with Pakistan

[Aeronaut]

US and Pak need strategic partnership / Trust and they Need to Provide Pakistan with every assistance possible and stop supporting India / Work on kashmir dispute .....

we will give them hand in getting out of Afg easily

[kidwaibhai]

I dont think that they will stop supporting india. but the good thing that i hear that they are not going to walk away this time and this should put our policy makers at some ease

[rajeev]

I dont think that they will stop supporting india. but the good thing that i hear that they are not going to walk away this time and this should put our policy makers at some ease

Can't they wont walk away this time too? Already Obama is saying that he will pull out troops in 18 months. My feel is that he will start pulling out by 2011 and by 2012 (US Presidential election year) all Americans would have left Afghanistan.

[SMC]

---

---

It's really an ambitious plan to pull out troops in that timeframe. I give 0% probability of success.