RescueRanger
PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2008
- Messages
- 16,370
- Reaction score
- 244
- Country
- Location
I am going to take all this with a pinch of Salt...!
The Pak-US Relationship
- Thread starter Interceptor
- Start date
Gilani urges respect of Pakistans sovereignty; says govt will follow parliaments diktat on anti-terror war
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
By Asim Yasin
ISLAMABAD: Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani on Tuesday said that Pakistan was eagerly looking forward to working with the Obama administration and the new US Congress for further solidifying multi-dimensional relationship between the two countries.
He said parliament had given a loud and clear message that the Pakistani territory should not be used for terrorist activities and Pakistans sovereignty and territorial integrity must be respected by all.
The prime minister was talking to a US congressional delegation led by Senator Olympia Snowe at the Prime Minister House. He emphasised the need for restoring trust between Pakistan and the US, urging respect for Pakistans territorial integrity, enhanced cooperation between the armed forces of the two countries, exchange of credible and actionable intelligence by the US with Pakistans intelligence apparatus, building the capacity of armed forces and equipping them adequately in their anti-terrorism campaign.
The prime minister also regretted the tragic humanitarian dimensions of Dr Aafia Siddiquis plight compounded with the fact that two of her children were still missing. He sought the US governments immediate intercession to get her released. He also sought the assistance of the US senators in tracing her two children and making their safe return to Pakistan along with their mother.
The prime minister said the democratic government of Pakistan had clearly demonstrated its determination in countering terrorism and in taking strong military action in Swat and Bajaur. The local tribes are also supporting our anti-terror drive with their own Lashkars against the militants in Fata, the prime minister said. He said that the government was engaged in efforts to secure ownership of its people to its counter-terrorism policy. In-camera session of parliament was a step in that direction, he added.
The prime minister said parliament had adopted a unanimous resolution for a comprehensive security and counter-terrorism strategy. He emphasised that sustained economic development and creation of employment opportunities in the tribal areas were of vital importance in countering terrorism campaign.
He urged enhanced joint economic cooperation initiatives in the tribal areas. The prime minister said the Reconstruction Opportunity Zones (ROZs) initiative also needed to be expedited. He said Pakistan was looking forward to continued bipartisan support in the US Congress for adoption of the Biden-Lugar Bill.
This would go a long way in instituting a long-term economic partnership with Pakistan, he added. Pakistan is eagerly looking forward to working with the Obama administration and the new US Congress for further solidifying multi-dimensional relationship between the two countries, he said.
Senator Olympia Snowe and Senator Sheldon Whitehouse agreed with the prime minister that joint efforts were required for defeating a common enemy and assured him of their full support in the US Senate for enhanced cooperation between the two countries in this regard.
They commended the role of the democratic government in Pakistan in bridging the trust gap for its determination in the war on terror and for improving its relations with Afghanistan and India.
They termed Pakistan a key ally of the United States and promised to present Pakistans case for building the capacity of its armed forces, intelligence exchanges, military equipment and economic assistance to their colleagues in the US congress on their return.
They informed the prime minister that US Gen Petreaus was also likely to do the same in case of the US administration once he returned to Washington. US ambassador to Pakistan Anne W Patterson, Minister for Defence Chaudhry Ahmed Mukhtar, Adviser to Prime Minister on Interior Rehman Malik, Adviser to PM on National Security Mehmud Ali Durrani, Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Nawabzada Malik Amad Khan and the secretary foreign affairs also attended the meeting.
pkpatriotic
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2008
- Messages
- 2,317
- Reaction score
- 0
Obama and the future of US-Pakistan ties
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Iqbal Ahmad Khan - a former ambassador
The US presidential election was truly historic. The people of the United States-- white, black and Hispanic--have sent to the White House a 47-year-old coloured senator from Illinois. He carries an exotic name, Barack H Obama. The middle initial stands for Hussein. His father, in the words of the senator himself, was as "black as pitch" and his mother as "white as milk." The ascent of a coloured American to the White House is a great tribute to the American nation. By all accounts America has slammed the door on its racial past. The opening words of the president-elect in his address to supporters bear clear testimony to the assertion.
"If there is anyone out there who still doubts that America is a place where all things are possible, who still wonders if the dream of our founders is alive in our time, who still questions the power of our democracy, tonight is your answer. It's the answer spoken by young and old, rich and poor, Democrat and Republican, black, white, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, gay, straight, disabled and not disabled. Americans have sent a message to the world that we have never been just a collection of individuals or a collection of red states and blue states. We are, and always will be, the United States of America."
It was essentially the combination of President Bush's baggage which Sen McCain was unable to shake off and Sen Obama's charisma, energy and innovative strategies that ultimately carried the day for the president-elect. In debates, speeches and writings Obama displayed a remarkable understanding of a whole gamut of complex issues ranging from the economy to foreign affairs and including health, education, immigration, environment and crime. He eloquently and convincingly articulated his party's vision and policies for overcoming the deep political and economic crises in which the country was mired. There was no sign of the Bush-era dogmatism, arrogance and arbitrariness, features which had estranged the majority of Americans and proved an anathema to the outside world.
Pakistanis are anxious to know what they can expect from an Obama presidency, given the historical fact that it has been under the Republicans that US-Pakistan relations have prospered. It is true that Republican presidents have provided a strategic focus to Pakistan, which has involved enhanced economic and security assistance to the country. It is also true that in Pakistan during these periods military dictators have been in charge from Field Marshal Ayub Khan at the time of the Cold War to Gen Pervez Musharraf during the war on terror. The armed forces wielded real power and security issues dominated the relationship.
One negative and grave implication of the close embrace by Republican administrations of military dictators has been the perpetuation of the military's dominance in Pakistan. It has led to the creation of a national security state where the major portion of the country's resources has over decades been channelled to the national security establishment, in particular the armed forces. To a very great extent, the dominance of the military and the disproportionate allocation of our limited resources to the armed forces has stunted political and economic growth and caused widespread poverty in the country.
I am inclined to believe that both Obama and vice president elect Senator Joe Biden are intelligent and knowledgeable and understand the dynamics of Pakistan's politics, economy and security concerns. The president-elect has stated unequivocally on a number of occasions that the real threat to the United States' security emanates from Al Qaeda in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border region. He proposes to augment US forces in Afghanistan to deal effectively with this threat. He is also prepared to hit high-value targets in Pakistan in case Pakistan is unable to do so itself. He is spot-on in identifying Kashmir as the main hurdle in reconciliation between India and Pakistan. He has promised to facilitate a solution to the problem and spoken about a high-profile appointment to address the dispute.
More than campaign pronouncements, it is the bill which Vice-President-elect Biden has authored with Republican senator Richard Lugar, and to which Obama is a signatory, that is indicative of the likely approach of his administration towards Pakistan. The legislation proposes a 10-year, $15 billion non-military aid package for Pakistan. It calls for a sustained Pakistani focus on the war on terror and the military's non-involvement in politics. It is a bipartisan legislation and the United States prescription for a stable, long term US-Pakistan relationship.
Our response to the US initiative should be a clear and coherent enunciation of our vision for Pakistan. I believe it should be spelled out as follows:
a. Pakistan's political activities will be conducted within the democratic framework established by the Constitution of Pakistan. There will be consequences for anyone who undermines or disrupts this process.
b. In the economic sphere our goal will be to work towards the establishment of a welfare state, as opposed to a national security state that frequent military interventions have spawned.
c. Pakistan is committed to working seriously and sincerely for regionalism and the establishment of tension-free and cooperative relations with Afghanistan and India. The war on terror is as much our war as it is America's and Pakistan will coordinate its strategy with the United States and Afghanistan to overcome the terrorists.
The spirit of the Lugar-Biden Bill and our vision of a democratic welfare state wedded to the Quaid-e-Azam's principle of peace within and peace without should form the paradigm of future US-Pakistan relations.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Iqbal Ahmad Khan - a former ambassador
The US presidential election was truly historic. The people of the United States-- white, black and Hispanic--have sent to the White House a 47-year-old coloured senator from Illinois. He carries an exotic name, Barack H Obama. The middle initial stands for Hussein. His father, in the words of the senator himself, was as "black as pitch" and his mother as "white as milk." The ascent of a coloured American to the White House is a great tribute to the American nation. By all accounts America has slammed the door on its racial past. The opening words of the president-elect in his address to supporters bear clear testimony to the assertion.
"If there is anyone out there who still doubts that America is a place where all things are possible, who still wonders if the dream of our founders is alive in our time, who still questions the power of our democracy, tonight is your answer. It's the answer spoken by young and old, rich and poor, Democrat and Republican, black, white, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, gay, straight, disabled and not disabled. Americans have sent a message to the world that we have never been just a collection of individuals or a collection of red states and blue states. We are, and always will be, the United States of America."
It was essentially the combination of President Bush's baggage which Sen McCain was unable to shake off and Sen Obama's charisma, energy and innovative strategies that ultimately carried the day for the president-elect. In debates, speeches and writings Obama displayed a remarkable understanding of a whole gamut of complex issues ranging from the economy to foreign affairs and including health, education, immigration, environment and crime. He eloquently and convincingly articulated his party's vision and policies for overcoming the deep political and economic crises in which the country was mired. There was no sign of the Bush-era dogmatism, arrogance and arbitrariness, features which had estranged the majority of Americans and proved an anathema to the outside world.
Pakistanis are anxious to know what they can expect from an Obama presidency, given the historical fact that it has been under the Republicans that US-Pakistan relations have prospered. It is true that Republican presidents have provided a strategic focus to Pakistan, which has involved enhanced economic and security assistance to the country. It is also true that in Pakistan during these periods military dictators have been in charge from Field Marshal Ayub Khan at the time of the Cold War to Gen Pervez Musharraf during the war on terror. The armed forces wielded real power and security issues dominated the relationship.
One negative and grave implication of the close embrace by Republican administrations of military dictators has been the perpetuation of the military's dominance in Pakistan. It has led to the creation of a national security state where the major portion of the country's resources has over decades been channelled to the national security establishment, in particular the armed forces. To a very great extent, the dominance of the military and the disproportionate allocation of our limited resources to the armed forces has stunted political and economic growth and caused widespread poverty in the country.
I am inclined to believe that both Obama and vice president elect Senator Joe Biden are intelligent and knowledgeable and understand the dynamics of Pakistan's politics, economy and security concerns. The president-elect has stated unequivocally on a number of occasions that the real threat to the United States' security emanates from Al Qaeda in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border region. He proposes to augment US forces in Afghanistan to deal effectively with this threat. He is also prepared to hit high-value targets in Pakistan in case Pakistan is unable to do so itself. He is spot-on in identifying Kashmir as the main hurdle in reconciliation between India and Pakistan. He has promised to facilitate a solution to the problem and spoken about a high-profile appointment to address the dispute.
More than campaign pronouncements, it is the bill which Vice-President-elect Biden has authored with Republican senator Richard Lugar, and to which Obama is a signatory, that is indicative of the likely approach of his administration towards Pakistan. The legislation proposes a 10-year, $15 billion non-military aid package for Pakistan. It calls for a sustained Pakistani focus on the war on terror and the military's non-involvement in politics. It is a bipartisan legislation and the United States prescription for a stable, long term US-Pakistan relationship.
Our response to the US initiative should be a clear and coherent enunciation of our vision for Pakistan. I believe it should be spelled out as follows:
a. Pakistan's political activities will be conducted within the democratic framework established by the Constitution of Pakistan. There will be consequences for anyone who undermines or disrupts this process.
b. In the economic sphere our goal will be to work towards the establishment of a welfare state, as opposed to a national security state that frequent military interventions have spawned.
c. Pakistan is committed to working seriously and sincerely for regionalism and the establishment of tension-free and cooperative relations with Afghanistan and India. The war on terror is as much our war as it is America's and Pakistan will coordinate its strategy with the United States and Afghanistan to overcome the terrorists.
The spirit of the Lugar-Biden Bill and our vision of a democratic welfare state wedded to the Quaid-e-Azam's principle of peace within and peace without should form the paradigm of future US-Pakistan relations.
RabzonKhan
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2008
- Messages
- 4,282
- Reaction score
- 3
- Country
- Location
Excellent recommendations and assessment of the situation.
According to Jim Lobe, the Center for American Progress (CAP) is closely tied to United States president-elect Barack Obama. The report, the product of a year-long study that included consultations with a US-Pakistan Working Group consisting of 33 of Washington's top Pakistan specialists, is likely to be regarded as a bellwether for where the Obama administration will take US policy.
John Podesta, White House chief of staff for former president Bill Clinton and CAP's president and chief executive officer since its founding in 2001, has headed Obama's presidential transition team since long before the election, and at least two of the report's four co-authors - CAP's Brian Katulis, a Middle East and South Asia specialist, and Lawrence Korb, a senior Pentagon official under president Ronald Reagan - are likely to get senior posts in the new administration.
And while the report itself represented only the views of its co-authors, a large number of working group members, such as vice president-elect Joseph Biden's top South Asia staffer on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Jonah Blank, and former Bill Clinton National Security Council aide Bruce Riedel, have been among the Obama campaign's key advisers on the region.
Partnership for Progress
Advancing a New Strategy for Prosperity and Stability in Pakistan and the Region
Center for American Progress
By Caroline Wadhams, Brian Katulis, Lawrence J. Korb, Colin Cookman | November 17, 2008
Pakistan lies at the nexus of one the world's most complicated geopolitical regions one plagued by poverty, nuclear proliferation, and global terrorism. With a growing population of more than 165 million people, Pakistan is a vital link between South and Central Asia and the broader Middle East. Pakistan's multiple internal challenges extend beyond its borders and have a wide-ranging impact on regional and global stability. Just as conditions in Afghanistan, India, Iran, and Central Asian countries affect Pakistan, events in Pakistan shape its neighbors.
There are positive signs and opportunities for Pakistan's democracy and, ultimately, stability. In February 2008, a democratic transition occurred in Pakistan, ushering in a civilian government and leading to the resignation of military strongman Pervez Musharraf from the presidency. Despite a history of interference in the political process, the Pakistani military has intentionally provided space to Pakistani's civilian leaders to find their footing since the election.
Pakistan will pose one of the greatest foreign policy challenges for the incoming Obama administration. How Pakistan addresses its militancy, weak governance, and economic dif- ficulties will directly influence the security of the United States and its people. The Obama administration must seize these opportunities and work with Pakistan, its friends, and neighbors to create a new strategy for enhancing security in Pakistan. But first U.S. policymakers must understand the key challenges facing Pakistan and the region, as well as the critical opportunities the Obama administration can leverage over the next four years.
Challenges
The Obama administration, together with international partners, will need to assist Pakistan in tackling its growing insurgency, its weak governance, and its collapsing economy as part of a broader regional strategy for progress and stability. Pakistan today faces three fundamental challenges:
Growing internal violence and regional instability. A strengthening, multi-headed adaptive network of extremists comprised of the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and affiliated indigenous militant groups is escalating deadly attacks within Pakistan and Afghanistan. U.S. intelligence agencies have repeatedly issued warnings that some of these groups are using safe havens in Pakistan to facilitate and plan attacks around the world. Tensions in the neighborhood feed this insurgency. Pakistani fears of encirclement by India translate into continued support to some of these militant groups by elements of the Pakistani security establishment, who use these groups as a force multiplier to counterbalance India.
Failing governance. Pakistan's civilian government remains weak following years of military rule, underinvestment in Pakistan's governmental institutions, and dysfunctional political leadership. The Foreign Policy/Fund for Peace Failed States Index 2008 ranks Pakistan as one of the weakest countries worldwidethe ninth state most at risk of failure out of 177 countries. A dangerous disconnect exists between the needs of the Pakistani people and the ability or inclination of their leaders to provide for them.
Deteriorating economy. Pakistan's economy is in a downward spiral. Inflation is at 25 percent, foreign reserves are plummeting, and the government is in danger of defaulting on its foreign debt. A spike in global food prices has hit Pakistanis especially hard, and the global financial crisis only threatens to exacerbate Pakistan's economic woes. Pakistan is watching foreign investors flee, which only makes it more difficult to attract the foreign financial assistance the new government needs to stabilize and then grow the economy.
These challenges of militancy, weak governance, and economic insecurity feed upon each other in a dangerous cycle. The United States needs to make a shift from a reactive, transactional, short-term approach that is narrowly focused on bilateral efforts. Instead, a more proactive, long- term strategy should seek to advance stability and prosperity inside Pakistan through a multilateral, regional approach.
For decades, U.S. policy has pursued short-term stability in Pakistan at all costs, utilizing a self-defeating strategy of almost exclusive support to Pakistan's military establishment and individual leaders. It has offered insufficient and inconsistent support to civilian institutions and programs that directly impact the lives of average Pakistanis. The reactive nature of U.S. engagement in Pakistan has reduced U.S. leverage and undermined the bilateral relationship between the two countries. The United States has suspended aid, imposed sanctions, and intermittently renewed contacts for decades, depending on the paramount strategic concerns at the time.
What's worse, the United States has approached Pakistan in a vacuum, neglecting to recognize the regional nature of Pakistan's challenges and the competing and sometimes contradictory roles played by numerous countries in Pakistan. In the seven years since the September 11th attacks, the Bush administration only deepened this policy approach. Tying its policy to President Musharraf, it overemphasized a conventional military approach, poured unaccountable and non-transparent funds into Pakistan's military establishment, and did not work closely enough with other nations and organizations whose interests in Pakistan are as much at stake as ours. This approach has not served U.S. or Pakistani interests, nor is it aligned with U.S. values.
Opportunities
Legitimate partners in the government of Pakistan. For the first time in almost a decade, the United States and the world have partners in a democratically elected government of Pakistan. This government, while internally divided and weak, has greater legitimacy than previous governments because of the February 2008 elections, which most observ- ers deemed as a legitimate expression of the will of the Pakistani people. As a result, the current governmentled by President Ali Asif Zardari and Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gillanihas a greater potential for representing and mobilizing Pakistan's population toward fighting militancy and strengthening its governmental institutions than the military dictatorship that preceded it. President Musharraf's popularity was so low at the end of his presidency that all policies associated with him were discredited.
Increased international involvement and support. Pakistan has numerous allies in the region and the world beyond the United States that are assisting Pakistan in addressing the challenges outlined above. Key countries around the world understand that the stakes are high in Pakistan. The Friends of Pakistan Group, comprised of Britain, France, Germany, the United States, China, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Canada, Turkey, Australia, and Italy plus the United Nations and the European Union, is just one example of these efforts to support Pakistan's democracy, economy, and security situation. Numerous other countries and international organizations such as Japan, the World Bank, and International Monetary Fund are attempting to provide financial assistance for Pakistan's economy and military, implement programs, offer training, and provide additional support. There is a greater chance for progress and increased stability in Pakistan if these international efforts are coordinated and integrated with initiatives the Obama administration undertakes in Pakistan.
An engaged U.S. Congress. In the past year, Congress has taken important strides in moving U.S. policy in Pakistan in a new direction, and the new Congress that takes office in January will likely build on these actions. In the House of Representatives, the Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee on National Security and the House Committee on Foreign Affairs have conducted regular hearings into U.S. aid programs and policy toward Pakistan. In the Senate, former Chairman Joseph Biden (D-DE) (now vice- president elect) and Ranking Member Richard Lugar (R-IN) of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee introduced the Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act of 2008, legislation that aims to broaden the U.S.- Pakistan relationship beyond military relations and to authorize $7.5 billion to Pakistan over five years for projects "intended to benefit the people of Pakistan," including "just and democratic governance, economic freedom, and investments in people, particularly women and children." This legislation lays the groundwork for a new strategy in which the United States seeks a partnership with the people of the Pakistan and not just a military expected to cooperate on American security aims.
The new Obama administration. The current distrust that the government of Pakistan and its people hold toward the Bush administration has undermined a cooperative Pakistan- U.S. relationship. Furthermore, the strains between the Bush administration and numerous other countries including our European allies have hurt our nation's efforts to cooperate and coordinate on Pakistan. The Obama administration has the potential to mend the strained U.S.-Pakistan relationship and offers a fresh opportunity to reach out anew to other strategic players in the region and the world to coordinate international efforts on Pakistan.
A strengthened Pakistani civil society and media. Pakistan's civil society, including a law- yer's movement that led prominent efforts in favor of democracy over the past year and a thriving media, are increasingly calling Pakistan's leaders to account and demanding action on behalf of the Pakistani people. These forces have the potential over time to influence their leadership to address their leading concerns, including unemployment and inad- equate education, as well as to demand a strengthening of civilian government institutions.
Recommendations
The United States needs to make a shift in its approach to Pakistan, recognizing both the importance of Pakistan to regional and international security, as well as the limitations of U.S. power. U.S. policy must recognize that the military component alone is insufficient to build stability and security in Pakistan. Military operations alone will not defeat Pakistan's militant groups; addressing some of these groups will require a diverse approach, including strengthening governance and rule of law, creating economic opportunities, and exploring political negotiations.
Furthermore, Pakistan's instability extends beyond the immediate threat of militancy in the country. Even if Al Qaeda were to be destroyed in Pakistan tomorrow, Pakistan would face other challenges to its stability including domestic militancy, fragile governance, regional tensions, and economic turmoil. The United States must integrate all the elements of American power to engage more deeply on these sources of instability. Since the Pakistani parliamentary elections in February 2008, the U.S. government has begun to make some changes in its policy toward Pakistan. It has shown support for the new civilian government and increased assistance to the Pakistani people through programs in education, economy, energy, health care, and more. However, these changes are not sufficient to meet the considerable challenges.
Addressing Pakistan's instability will not be easy. Pakistan presents an exceptionally difficult strategic challenge. A deep tension exists between the short-term challenge of confronting terrorism emanating from the borderlands and the long-term challenge of strengthening Pakistan's governance structures and economy (or between tactical counterterrorism strikes and an enduring counterinsurgency approach). Short-term measures such as military strikes to increase pressure on Al Qaeda and the Taliban may undermine the credibility and effectiveness of Pakistan's civilian leadership. The United States will need to find the proper balance of responding to the urgent security threat without undermining broader goals.
The United States must recognize the limitations of direct U.S. influence in Pakistan and continue moving toward a multilateral approach, with Pakistan as a full partner. At this point in time, Pakistani perceptions of the United States are so dismal that efforts to pursue change in Pakistan with the United States in the lead may automatically discredit the effort. The United States needs to work with Pakistan's neighbors, other global powers, and international organizations such as the World Bank, IMF, and the United Nations in order to assist Pakistan over the long term.
End Goals
The new U.S. administration, with Congress and the international community, should strive to help Pakistan accomplish the following goals in the next decade.
Weaken Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and affiliated militant groups so that they no longer threaten stability in Pakistan, Afghanistan, India, the broader region, the United States or the world.
Secure borders between Pakistan and its neighbors, with all border disputes including Kashmir and the Durand Line (the disputed boundary between Afghanistan and Pakistan), either resolved or in a credible process for resolution.
Foster a stable internal political system that is based on the inclusive participation of all Pakistani citizens, civilian oversight of key security and intelligence agencies, and governing authorities that respect basic human rights.
Create an economy that is growing, integrating with the global economy, and providing for the needs of its citizens.
With these goals in mind, the recommendations detailed in the body of this report include the following key steps:
Implement policies that recognize the regional dimension of Pakistan's security challenge. Afghanistan, India, and Pakistan are inextricably linked, and U.S. policy must be formulated accordingly. The situation in Afghanistan is directly affected by instability along Pakistan's western borders, and longstanding Pakistan-India tensions have affected the Pakistani military's strategic calculus in curtailing militancy within Pakistan. For too long, the United States has pursued disconnected Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India policies, rather than create a coordinated regional strategy. Any regional approach must address Pakistan's security concerns with India, specifically related to Kashmir and Afghanistan. These regional challenges will require a fundamentally different U.S. approach that eliminates the bureaucratic separation in Washington between diplomacy, development, intelligence, and military activities in Islamabad, Kabul, and New Delhi.
Organize integrated international support to assist Pakistan. A coordinated inter- national effort should occur with major donors, countries, and organizations, and the United States in an actively supportive role. The multiple policy challenges that Pakistan facessecurity threats from militant groups, governance failures, and major economic difficultiesrequire a concerted and organized international supporting effort. Pakistanis' suspicions of the United States mean that multilateral approaches will work more effectively than bilateral ones. This process began with the meeting of a Friends of Pakistan group in September 2008 at the 64th session of the U.N. General Assembly, whose partners include China, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and the World Bankall of which have strong economic and security links with Pakistan, and growing leverage. Their expertise, manpower, and financial resources can complement the efforts of Pakistan's leaders and the United States. The United States in particular should consult more closely with China on its Pakistan policy, since both countries share a common interest in a stable, secure, and economically viable Pakistan. China has its own concerns regarding regional Islamist militant groups and could play a more constructive role in addressing these issues in Pakistan, as it has in negotiations on the Korean peninsula.
Broaden and deepen the strategic relationship between the United States and Pakistan. A fundamental strategic shift in U.S. policy on Pakistan should occur away from a narrow focus on military and intelligence cooperation. Pakistan's problems will not be solved by military means alone. Long-term stability in Pakistan depends not only on curtailing extremism and militancy in Pakistan, but on strengthening Pakistan's economy and democracy and on reducing tensions between Pakistan and its neighbors. U.S. military approaches must be integrated into a wider political strategy for the region. The U.S. government should engage with leaders of Pakistan's civilian institutions and civil society in addition to its military establishment. Integrating the full range of U.S. and other countries' powersdiplomatic, economic, and politicalthe United States should quietly and carefully expand U.S.-Pakistan partnerships on a broad set of issues, including intelligence cooperation, economic development, energy, education assistance, and more. The Obama administration should embark on a strategic dialogue with Pakistan that sets common goals for the two countries, building on the major non-NATO ally status it has already achieved. These goals should include both tactical counterterrorism and longer- term counterinsurgency objectives and should specifically engage Pakistan's security concerns that are often at variance with ours.
Approach Pakistan's military establishment in ways that support good governance and economic development. The United States should continue to strengthen relations with Pakistan's military and intelligence agencies, but do so in a way that does not undermine civilian control and political reform in Pakistan. The United States should support and interact with the Pakistani military establishment with policies that encourage Pakistani civilian oversight. This means engaging with its military as a component of the government as a whole rather than as an autonomous institution, allocating more funding through the government of Pakistan and not the Pakistani military, and meeting Pakistani military officials while keeping Pakistani civilian leadership informed or present. U.S. funding to Pakistan's military should be targeted toward specific shared objectives, and tied to performance, such as good faith efforts by the Pakistani military to crack down on militant groups in Pakistan, and to stop cross-border attacks into Afghanistan.
Support democratic transition in Pakistan without picking favored candidates or political parties. The United States should support broader political reform in Pakistan, along with economic development programs and efforts to enhance security. The 2008 parliamentary elections represented an opportunity for Pakistan to give voice to the Pakistani people in how their society is governed. Yet the return of electoral democracy adds a new element of uncertainty to the continuity of leadership in Pakistan. At times Pakistani leaders may voice opposition to American policies, but the United States should resist the urge to circumvent them now and in the future. The upcoming local elections in 2009 represent another opportunity to support Pakistan's democratic transition, and the United States should expand efforts to support civil society organizations, assist all political parties, and encourage electoral reform to ensure that these elections meet their potential for providing an open and fair debate on key policy questions and allowing for the legitimate expression of the will of the people.
Enhance transparency and accountability of U.S. funds. The United States must demand more transparency over its funding and tie its assistance to specific, agreed- upon objectives, such as good faith efforts by the Pakistani military to crack down on militant groups in Pakistan, and to stop cross-border attacks into Afghanistan. For too long, U.S. aid to Pakistan's military has been characterized by its lack of accountability, transparency, and shortsightedness. Despite distributing more than $11 billion since 2001 to Pakistan, the United States has not demanded transparency or an accounting of its funding.7 (See Appendix for a breakdown of overt U.S. funding.) The U.S. Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress, found in June 2008 that there had been insufficient oversight over U.S. Coalition Support Funds to Pakistan, a fund to reimburse Pakistan for its counterterrorism activities (and also the fund through which the majority of U.S. monies were allocated). Furthermore, U.S. assistance continued to flow directly to the Pakistani military despite evidence that it was not aggressively attacking insurgent elements in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas and that linkages continued to exist between the military establishment, especially its intelligence agencythe ISIand militant groups.
Reform U.S. national security institutions. The United States must strengthen the other tools in its foreign policy toolbox outside of the military, including the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development. U.S. civilian institutions currently do not have the resources, expertise, or implementing capacity necessary for conflict resolution and state-building. As Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has pointed out, "There is a need for a dramatic increase in spending on the civilian instruments of national securitydiplomacy, strategic communications, foreign assistance, civic action, and economic reconstruction and development." Foreign aid must be reformed, and the U.S. foreign policy apparatus needs to organize itself more regionally, so that its country policies are not stove-piped. The United States will also need to coordinate its own National Security Council process more effectively, so that DoD, State, USAID, Treasury, and other agencies are complementing each other's efforts.
Be long term and proactive. U.S. engagement in Pakistan has been inconsistent, transactional, and reactive for decades. The United States has suspended aid, imposed sanctions, and then intermittently renewed contacts, depending on paramount strategic concerns at the time. The United States must create a long term plan to partner with Pakistan, understanding its challenges will not be resolved in the short-term. Even if Osama bin Laden were captured tomorrow in Pakistan, challenges to its stability and the region's would remain. Making this strategic shift may finally assist Pakistan in confronting its biggest challenges of insecurity, failed governance, and economic difficulties. Inaction is not an option. Pakistan's current instability threatens its people, its neighbors, the United States, and the world. The Obama administration must seize the opportunities outlined in this paper and implement a dramatic strategic shift in U.S. policy. In the pages that follow, we will detail each of these sources of instability and then provide recommendations for the Obama administration to consider. We believe the comprehensive, proactive strategy outlined in this paper will strengthen the fundamental building blocks of stability and progress in Pakistan, which in turn will help make the United States more secure.
Download the full report (pdf)
According to Jim Lobe, the Center for American Progress (CAP) is closely tied to United States president-elect Barack Obama. The report, the product of a year-long study that included consultations with a US-Pakistan Working Group consisting of 33 of Washington's top Pakistan specialists, is likely to be regarded as a bellwether for where the Obama administration will take US policy.
John Podesta, White House chief of staff for former president Bill Clinton and CAP's president and chief executive officer since its founding in 2001, has headed Obama's presidential transition team since long before the election, and at least two of the report's four co-authors - CAP's Brian Katulis, a Middle East and South Asia specialist, and Lawrence Korb, a senior Pentagon official under president Ronald Reagan - are likely to get senior posts in the new administration.
And while the report itself represented only the views of its co-authors, a large number of working group members, such as vice president-elect Joseph Biden's top South Asia staffer on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Jonah Blank, and former Bill Clinton National Security Council aide Bruce Riedel, have been among the Obama campaign's key advisers on the region.
Partnership for Progress
Advancing a New Strategy for Prosperity and Stability in Pakistan and the Region
Center for American Progress
By Caroline Wadhams, Brian Katulis, Lawrence J. Korb, Colin Cookman | November 17, 2008
Pakistan lies at the nexus of one the world's most complicated geopolitical regions one plagued by poverty, nuclear proliferation, and global terrorism. With a growing population of more than 165 million people, Pakistan is a vital link between South and Central Asia and the broader Middle East. Pakistan's multiple internal challenges extend beyond its borders and have a wide-ranging impact on regional and global stability. Just as conditions in Afghanistan, India, Iran, and Central Asian countries affect Pakistan, events in Pakistan shape its neighbors.
There are positive signs and opportunities for Pakistan's democracy and, ultimately, stability. In February 2008, a democratic transition occurred in Pakistan, ushering in a civilian government and leading to the resignation of military strongman Pervez Musharraf from the presidency. Despite a history of interference in the political process, the Pakistani military has intentionally provided space to Pakistani's civilian leaders to find their footing since the election.
Pakistan will pose one of the greatest foreign policy challenges for the incoming Obama administration. How Pakistan addresses its militancy, weak governance, and economic dif- ficulties will directly influence the security of the United States and its people. The Obama administration must seize these opportunities and work with Pakistan, its friends, and neighbors to create a new strategy for enhancing security in Pakistan. But first U.S. policymakers must understand the key challenges facing Pakistan and the region, as well as the critical opportunities the Obama administration can leverage over the next four years.
Challenges
The Obama administration, together with international partners, will need to assist Pakistan in tackling its growing insurgency, its weak governance, and its collapsing economy as part of a broader regional strategy for progress and stability. Pakistan today faces three fundamental challenges:
Growing internal violence and regional instability. A strengthening, multi-headed adaptive network of extremists comprised of the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and affiliated indigenous militant groups is escalating deadly attacks within Pakistan and Afghanistan. U.S. intelligence agencies have repeatedly issued warnings that some of these groups are using safe havens in Pakistan to facilitate and plan attacks around the world. Tensions in the neighborhood feed this insurgency. Pakistani fears of encirclement by India translate into continued support to some of these militant groups by elements of the Pakistani security establishment, who use these groups as a force multiplier to counterbalance India.
Failing governance. Pakistan's civilian government remains weak following years of military rule, underinvestment in Pakistan's governmental institutions, and dysfunctional political leadership. The Foreign Policy/Fund for Peace Failed States Index 2008 ranks Pakistan as one of the weakest countries worldwidethe ninth state most at risk of failure out of 177 countries. A dangerous disconnect exists between the needs of the Pakistani people and the ability or inclination of their leaders to provide for them.
Deteriorating economy. Pakistan's economy is in a downward spiral. Inflation is at 25 percent, foreign reserves are plummeting, and the government is in danger of defaulting on its foreign debt. A spike in global food prices has hit Pakistanis especially hard, and the global financial crisis only threatens to exacerbate Pakistan's economic woes. Pakistan is watching foreign investors flee, which only makes it more difficult to attract the foreign financial assistance the new government needs to stabilize and then grow the economy.
These challenges of militancy, weak governance, and economic insecurity feed upon each other in a dangerous cycle. The United States needs to make a shift from a reactive, transactional, short-term approach that is narrowly focused on bilateral efforts. Instead, a more proactive, long- term strategy should seek to advance stability and prosperity inside Pakistan through a multilateral, regional approach.
For decades, U.S. policy has pursued short-term stability in Pakistan at all costs, utilizing a self-defeating strategy of almost exclusive support to Pakistan's military establishment and individual leaders. It has offered insufficient and inconsistent support to civilian institutions and programs that directly impact the lives of average Pakistanis. The reactive nature of U.S. engagement in Pakistan has reduced U.S. leverage and undermined the bilateral relationship between the two countries. The United States has suspended aid, imposed sanctions, and intermittently renewed contacts for decades, depending on the paramount strategic concerns at the time.
What's worse, the United States has approached Pakistan in a vacuum, neglecting to recognize the regional nature of Pakistan's challenges and the competing and sometimes contradictory roles played by numerous countries in Pakistan. In the seven years since the September 11th attacks, the Bush administration only deepened this policy approach. Tying its policy to President Musharraf, it overemphasized a conventional military approach, poured unaccountable and non-transparent funds into Pakistan's military establishment, and did not work closely enough with other nations and organizations whose interests in Pakistan are as much at stake as ours. This approach has not served U.S. or Pakistani interests, nor is it aligned with U.S. values.
Opportunities
Legitimate partners in the government of Pakistan. For the first time in almost a decade, the United States and the world have partners in a democratically elected government of Pakistan. This government, while internally divided and weak, has greater legitimacy than previous governments because of the February 2008 elections, which most observ- ers deemed as a legitimate expression of the will of the Pakistani people. As a result, the current governmentled by President Ali Asif Zardari and Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gillanihas a greater potential for representing and mobilizing Pakistan's population toward fighting militancy and strengthening its governmental institutions than the military dictatorship that preceded it. President Musharraf's popularity was so low at the end of his presidency that all policies associated with him were discredited.
Increased international involvement and support. Pakistan has numerous allies in the region and the world beyond the United States that are assisting Pakistan in addressing the challenges outlined above. Key countries around the world understand that the stakes are high in Pakistan. The Friends of Pakistan Group, comprised of Britain, France, Germany, the United States, China, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Canada, Turkey, Australia, and Italy plus the United Nations and the European Union, is just one example of these efforts to support Pakistan's democracy, economy, and security situation. Numerous other countries and international organizations such as Japan, the World Bank, and International Monetary Fund are attempting to provide financial assistance for Pakistan's economy and military, implement programs, offer training, and provide additional support. There is a greater chance for progress and increased stability in Pakistan if these international efforts are coordinated and integrated with initiatives the Obama administration undertakes in Pakistan.
An engaged U.S. Congress. In the past year, Congress has taken important strides in moving U.S. policy in Pakistan in a new direction, and the new Congress that takes office in January will likely build on these actions. In the House of Representatives, the Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee on National Security and the House Committee on Foreign Affairs have conducted regular hearings into U.S. aid programs and policy toward Pakistan. In the Senate, former Chairman Joseph Biden (D-DE) (now vice- president elect) and Ranking Member Richard Lugar (R-IN) of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee introduced the Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act of 2008, legislation that aims to broaden the U.S.- Pakistan relationship beyond military relations and to authorize $7.5 billion to Pakistan over five years for projects "intended to benefit the people of Pakistan," including "just and democratic governance, economic freedom, and investments in people, particularly women and children." This legislation lays the groundwork for a new strategy in which the United States seeks a partnership with the people of the Pakistan and not just a military expected to cooperate on American security aims.
The new Obama administration. The current distrust that the government of Pakistan and its people hold toward the Bush administration has undermined a cooperative Pakistan- U.S. relationship. Furthermore, the strains between the Bush administration and numerous other countries including our European allies have hurt our nation's efforts to cooperate and coordinate on Pakistan. The Obama administration has the potential to mend the strained U.S.-Pakistan relationship and offers a fresh opportunity to reach out anew to other strategic players in the region and the world to coordinate international efforts on Pakistan.
A strengthened Pakistani civil society and media. Pakistan's civil society, including a law- yer's movement that led prominent efforts in favor of democracy over the past year and a thriving media, are increasingly calling Pakistan's leaders to account and demanding action on behalf of the Pakistani people. These forces have the potential over time to influence their leadership to address their leading concerns, including unemployment and inad- equate education, as well as to demand a strengthening of civilian government institutions.
Recommendations
The United States needs to make a shift in its approach to Pakistan, recognizing both the importance of Pakistan to regional and international security, as well as the limitations of U.S. power. U.S. policy must recognize that the military component alone is insufficient to build stability and security in Pakistan. Military operations alone will not defeat Pakistan's militant groups; addressing some of these groups will require a diverse approach, including strengthening governance and rule of law, creating economic opportunities, and exploring political negotiations.
Furthermore, Pakistan's instability extends beyond the immediate threat of militancy in the country. Even if Al Qaeda were to be destroyed in Pakistan tomorrow, Pakistan would face other challenges to its stability including domestic militancy, fragile governance, regional tensions, and economic turmoil. The United States must integrate all the elements of American power to engage more deeply on these sources of instability. Since the Pakistani parliamentary elections in February 2008, the U.S. government has begun to make some changes in its policy toward Pakistan. It has shown support for the new civilian government and increased assistance to the Pakistani people through programs in education, economy, energy, health care, and more. However, these changes are not sufficient to meet the considerable challenges.
Addressing Pakistan's instability will not be easy. Pakistan presents an exceptionally difficult strategic challenge. A deep tension exists between the short-term challenge of confronting terrorism emanating from the borderlands and the long-term challenge of strengthening Pakistan's governance structures and economy (or between tactical counterterrorism strikes and an enduring counterinsurgency approach). Short-term measures such as military strikes to increase pressure on Al Qaeda and the Taliban may undermine the credibility and effectiveness of Pakistan's civilian leadership. The United States will need to find the proper balance of responding to the urgent security threat without undermining broader goals.
The United States must recognize the limitations of direct U.S. influence in Pakistan and continue moving toward a multilateral approach, with Pakistan as a full partner. At this point in time, Pakistani perceptions of the United States are so dismal that efforts to pursue change in Pakistan with the United States in the lead may automatically discredit the effort. The United States needs to work with Pakistan's neighbors, other global powers, and international organizations such as the World Bank, IMF, and the United Nations in order to assist Pakistan over the long term.
End Goals
The new U.S. administration, with Congress and the international community, should strive to help Pakistan accomplish the following goals in the next decade.
Weaken Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and affiliated militant groups so that they no longer threaten stability in Pakistan, Afghanistan, India, the broader region, the United States or the world.
Secure borders between Pakistan and its neighbors, with all border disputes including Kashmir and the Durand Line (the disputed boundary between Afghanistan and Pakistan), either resolved or in a credible process for resolution.
Foster a stable internal political system that is based on the inclusive participation of all Pakistani citizens, civilian oversight of key security and intelligence agencies, and governing authorities that respect basic human rights.
Create an economy that is growing, integrating with the global economy, and providing for the needs of its citizens.
With these goals in mind, the recommendations detailed in the body of this report include the following key steps:
Implement policies that recognize the regional dimension of Pakistan's security challenge. Afghanistan, India, and Pakistan are inextricably linked, and U.S. policy must be formulated accordingly. The situation in Afghanistan is directly affected by instability along Pakistan's western borders, and longstanding Pakistan-India tensions have affected the Pakistani military's strategic calculus in curtailing militancy within Pakistan. For too long, the United States has pursued disconnected Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India policies, rather than create a coordinated regional strategy. Any regional approach must address Pakistan's security concerns with India, specifically related to Kashmir and Afghanistan. These regional challenges will require a fundamentally different U.S. approach that eliminates the bureaucratic separation in Washington between diplomacy, development, intelligence, and military activities in Islamabad, Kabul, and New Delhi.
Organize integrated international support to assist Pakistan. A coordinated inter- national effort should occur with major donors, countries, and organizations, and the United States in an actively supportive role. The multiple policy challenges that Pakistan facessecurity threats from militant groups, governance failures, and major economic difficultiesrequire a concerted and organized international supporting effort. Pakistanis' suspicions of the United States mean that multilateral approaches will work more effectively than bilateral ones. This process began with the meeting of a Friends of Pakistan group in September 2008 at the 64th session of the U.N. General Assembly, whose partners include China, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and the World Bankall of which have strong economic and security links with Pakistan, and growing leverage. Their expertise, manpower, and financial resources can complement the efforts of Pakistan's leaders and the United States. The United States in particular should consult more closely with China on its Pakistan policy, since both countries share a common interest in a stable, secure, and economically viable Pakistan. China has its own concerns regarding regional Islamist militant groups and could play a more constructive role in addressing these issues in Pakistan, as it has in negotiations on the Korean peninsula.
Broaden and deepen the strategic relationship between the United States and Pakistan. A fundamental strategic shift in U.S. policy on Pakistan should occur away from a narrow focus on military and intelligence cooperation. Pakistan's problems will not be solved by military means alone. Long-term stability in Pakistan depends not only on curtailing extremism and militancy in Pakistan, but on strengthening Pakistan's economy and democracy and on reducing tensions between Pakistan and its neighbors. U.S. military approaches must be integrated into a wider political strategy for the region. The U.S. government should engage with leaders of Pakistan's civilian institutions and civil society in addition to its military establishment. Integrating the full range of U.S. and other countries' powersdiplomatic, economic, and politicalthe United States should quietly and carefully expand U.S.-Pakistan partnerships on a broad set of issues, including intelligence cooperation, economic development, energy, education assistance, and more. The Obama administration should embark on a strategic dialogue with Pakistan that sets common goals for the two countries, building on the major non-NATO ally status it has already achieved. These goals should include both tactical counterterrorism and longer- term counterinsurgency objectives and should specifically engage Pakistan's security concerns that are often at variance with ours.
Approach Pakistan's military establishment in ways that support good governance and economic development. The United States should continue to strengthen relations with Pakistan's military and intelligence agencies, but do so in a way that does not undermine civilian control and political reform in Pakistan. The United States should support and interact with the Pakistani military establishment with policies that encourage Pakistani civilian oversight. This means engaging with its military as a component of the government as a whole rather than as an autonomous institution, allocating more funding through the government of Pakistan and not the Pakistani military, and meeting Pakistani military officials while keeping Pakistani civilian leadership informed or present. U.S. funding to Pakistan's military should be targeted toward specific shared objectives, and tied to performance, such as good faith efforts by the Pakistani military to crack down on militant groups in Pakistan, and to stop cross-border attacks into Afghanistan.
Support democratic transition in Pakistan without picking favored candidates or political parties. The United States should support broader political reform in Pakistan, along with economic development programs and efforts to enhance security. The 2008 parliamentary elections represented an opportunity for Pakistan to give voice to the Pakistani people in how their society is governed. Yet the return of electoral democracy adds a new element of uncertainty to the continuity of leadership in Pakistan. At times Pakistani leaders may voice opposition to American policies, but the United States should resist the urge to circumvent them now and in the future. The upcoming local elections in 2009 represent another opportunity to support Pakistan's democratic transition, and the United States should expand efforts to support civil society organizations, assist all political parties, and encourage electoral reform to ensure that these elections meet their potential for providing an open and fair debate on key policy questions and allowing for the legitimate expression of the will of the people.
Enhance transparency and accountability of U.S. funds. The United States must demand more transparency over its funding and tie its assistance to specific, agreed- upon objectives, such as good faith efforts by the Pakistani military to crack down on militant groups in Pakistan, and to stop cross-border attacks into Afghanistan. For too long, U.S. aid to Pakistan's military has been characterized by its lack of accountability, transparency, and shortsightedness. Despite distributing more than $11 billion since 2001 to Pakistan, the United States has not demanded transparency or an accounting of its funding.7 (See Appendix for a breakdown of overt U.S. funding.) The U.S. Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress, found in June 2008 that there had been insufficient oversight over U.S. Coalition Support Funds to Pakistan, a fund to reimburse Pakistan for its counterterrorism activities (and also the fund through which the majority of U.S. monies were allocated). Furthermore, U.S. assistance continued to flow directly to the Pakistani military despite evidence that it was not aggressively attacking insurgent elements in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas and that linkages continued to exist between the military establishment, especially its intelligence agencythe ISIand militant groups.
Reform U.S. national security institutions. The United States must strengthen the other tools in its foreign policy toolbox outside of the military, including the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development. U.S. civilian institutions currently do not have the resources, expertise, or implementing capacity necessary for conflict resolution and state-building. As Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has pointed out, "There is a need for a dramatic increase in spending on the civilian instruments of national securitydiplomacy, strategic communications, foreign assistance, civic action, and economic reconstruction and development." Foreign aid must be reformed, and the U.S. foreign policy apparatus needs to organize itself more regionally, so that its country policies are not stove-piped. The United States will also need to coordinate its own National Security Council process more effectively, so that DoD, State, USAID, Treasury, and other agencies are complementing each other's efforts.
Be long term and proactive. U.S. engagement in Pakistan has been inconsistent, transactional, and reactive for decades. The United States has suspended aid, imposed sanctions, and then intermittently renewed contacts, depending on paramount strategic concerns at the time. The United States must create a long term plan to partner with Pakistan, understanding its challenges will not be resolved in the short-term. Even if Osama bin Laden were captured tomorrow in Pakistan, challenges to its stability and the region's would remain. Making this strategic shift may finally assist Pakistan in confronting its biggest challenges of insecurity, failed governance, and economic difficulties. Inaction is not an option. Pakistan's current instability threatens its people, its neighbors, the United States, and the world. The Obama administration must seize the opportunities outlined in this paper and implement a dramatic strategic shift in U.S. policy. In the pages that follow, we will detail each of these sources of instability and then provide recommendations for the Obama administration to consider. We believe the comprehensive, proactive strategy outlined in this paper will strengthen the fundamental building blocks of stability and progress in Pakistan, which in turn will help make the United States more secure.
Download the full report (pdf)
ISLAMABAD, Nov 17: The government told the National Assembly on Monday it hoped for a policy review by the new US administration of President-elect Barack Obama taking office next month, while repeating its rejection of a US newspaper report that alleged a tacit deal between the two sides allowing drone attacks on Pakistani tribal areas.
Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi cited unexplained indications of a policy review by the new US administration and said: We hope we will be able to bring about this change.
Both he and Information and Broadcasting Minister Sherry Rehman denied the Washington Post report of Sunday that quoted unidentified officials as saying the US and Pakistani governments had reached a tacit agreement in September that allowed often deadly rocket attacks by unmanned US spy panes into the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (Fata) and enabled Pakistan to publicly protest against the raids without fear of contradiction.
There is no understanding or tacit understanding, Mr Qureshi said after PML-Ns Ahsan Iqbal and two other opposition members sought the governments response to the report, particularly in light of a joint resolution of the two houses of parliament passed in an in-camera session last month that asked the government to safeguard Pakistans sovereignty.
But the minister did not respond to Mr Iqbals query afterwards whether the government intended to sue the Washington Post in a court of law for publishing a report that he said had destroyed Pakistans image. Mr Qureshi assured the house the government respected the parliamentary resolution that he said reflects the national thinking.
But he pointed out that Pakistan and the United were allies, not foes, in the so-called war against terrorism and said: We are tackling (the issue of drone attacks) through diplomatic channels and there has been a considerable progress (in this respect).
The question does not arise that the government will make such an understanding for attacks on our own people, Ms Rehman she said earlier and added: We ourselves will do whatever is to be done.
The information minister said neither the federal government nor the Sindh government had any hand in blocking broadcasts of two private television channels in Karachi, Hyderabad and some other towns in Sindh earlier on Monday after PML-Ns Ahsan Iqbal called for exposing what he called hidden hands or a state within a state responsible for the disruption.
Ms Rehman promised an investigation by both the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (Pemra) and the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) but said the government could not take action against anybody without a formal complaint by an aggrieved party.
Mr Iqbal questioned the ministers argument that action could not be taken against such a big disruption of Geo News and ARYONE World broadcasts by cable operators in the absence of a formal complaint and asked: Will the government stand idly by if tomorrow somebody hijacks a plane or a city is taken over and we will be helpless? Who are the hidden hands more powerful than the federal government and the Sindh government and continuing the (anti-media) policy of former president Pervez Musharraf?
Ms Rehman said she had been in contact with the managements of the two television channels and both acknowledged the government was not responsible the suspension of their broadcasts.
Meanwhile only one opposition member spoke on Monday on President Asif Ali Zardaris address to a joint sitting of parliament in September as the PPP-led ruling coalition seemed to be shying away from the debate because of likely attacks on the presidency.
PML-Q member Humayun Saifullah concentrated mainly on oft-repeated complaints of provinces not getting their due share of their resources, though he called for the formation of an all-parties parliamentary committee to revisit the controversial 17th Amendment.
But most members present in the sparsely attended house, including Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani, seemed disinterested in only the third speech in the debate in as many sittings and preferred chatting with one another.
Is somebody listening to me or taking notes, Mr Saifullah once asked the chair while the prime minister was seen either receiving and signing what looked like applications from members from both the opposition and coalition benches or chatting with the foreign minister sitting next to him.
Yes Parliamentary Affairs Minister (Babar Awan) is taking notes, replied Deputy Speaker Fazal Karim Kundi, whose call for order in the house went unheeded as member made a beeline to the prime ministers desk.
fatman17
PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 32,563
- Reaction score
- 98
- Country
- Location
US influence on foreign policy of Pakistan
Muslim Mirani
The US sells death, destruction, and terror as a fundamental instrument of its foreign policy. It seems arms sales as a way of making and keeping strategic friend and tying countries more directly to US. A recent congressional Research Service report on International arms sales records that last year the United States delivered nearly $8 billion worth of weapons to Third World Countries. This was about 40% of all such arms transfer the US signed agreements to sell over $ 10 billion worth of weapons one third arms deals with Third World Countries. The use of arms sales to show the commitment to Pakistan has gone on far over 50 years. The US used military aid to recruit and arms Pakistan as an ally in the Cold war. The US has failed to learn that paying Pakistan’s military bills demonstrates commitment and friendship only Pakistan army, it does nothing for Pakistani people.
The Foreign Policy of a Country is the Product of the interaction of historical, Cultural, ideological, economic and geo-Political factors. All Courtiers pursue then foreign Policy with respect of their national interests because mutual interests because in the international relations there can be neither eternal friends nor external enemies. The only thing eternal is the national interests which can not be scarified. Foreign policy is the overall result of the process buy which a state translate its broadly conceived goods and interests into specific curses of action in order to achieve the objectives and preserve its interests. There are five factors or variables which influence the foreign policy. These verifiable are grouped into idiosyncratic role, bureaucratic, national and systematic. Historically Pakistan’s foreign Policy was determined by two factors i.e. security and development. The security has remained to be the corner stone of Pakistan’s foreign policy because of its geopolitical situation and historical background. Unlike Pak-China relations Pak-US relations have been fluctuating accor4ding to the political whether injecting a Permanent feeling of Uncertainty in then friendship these are five important phases of Pakistan foreign Policy. Era of Neutrality (1947-53) During thing Period Pakistan Claimed itself to be a national state but it was leaning towards the Anglo-American block. Pakistan championed the Cause of the Muslims. Era of Alliances:- 1954-62 During and this period Pakistan with entitled into defence pacts. USA the SEATO and CENTO to military and economic help against the expected threat of aggression by India. Mean while, India Proclaimed her neutrally, Played host to heeds of many Muslims Sate, which resulted to isolate Pakistan form some Muslim Countries. The result was that Pakistan could not supports the national Of dil by Iran and nationalization of Suez-canal by Egypt.
Era of Bilateralism 1962 – 69. During this era Pakistan began to put greater emphasis on cultivating relations with individual. Muslim states particularly and with other states generally at bilateral level. In March 1963 Pakistan interval into a border agreement with china. It development ties with Iran. Turkey on bilateral basis. Era of No Aligned Movement1969-81 Shifted its foreign policy from alignment with the west to an independent and non-aligned disposition. It brought many many radical changes such as with draw from common wealth, SEATO, UN CURK, Recognition of socialist countries, East Germany Democratic Republic Korea and Vietnam vice versa during era the objective of foreign policy were concentrated on Restoration of confidence of friendly countries of the Muslims bloc Established friendly relations with all big powers including VSSR. Settlement of all outstanding issues with honorable basis. Following the policy of non-alignment by plying more important role in NAM. Plying an important role in OIC by holding second summit conference at Lahore 1974.Cultivation economic relations with the oil rich Arab states particularly with & other generally. Pakistan established joint ministerial commissions with a number of Muslims countries including Algeria, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Jordan, Kuwait, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and UAE, to establish economic cooperation in the field of trade, industrial agriculture and science and technology. Era of revival of policy 1981 – 90. During this period Pakistan revived its foreign policy and established closer relations with USA and the west due to Afghanistan crisis. Pakistan and USA came closer to disband the communism or to push back to Soviet troops from Afghanistan, they entered into economic and military cooperation and agreed to a new five years program of 300 millions for economic and military support. Both Pak- US worked close cooperation till the withdrawal of foreign troops from Afghanistan. Era of Regionalism & Survival for FittestForeign policy of Pakistan in this era covers shifting trend in foreign policy in the wake of changing realities in and around Pakistan. A distinct feature of this era seems to be recognition of Pakistan joined SAARC and played an active role in strengthening the regional organizations. Pakistan also played her due role in strengthening OIC. Pakistan since its inception has been haunted by the fear that India is the peril which threaten it very existence. This fear has its roots in Pre-partition era when server antagonism between All India Congress and all India Muslim League caused great problems.The Indian leadership did not reconcile themselves to the creation of Pakistan. Secondly, unsolved issue of Kashmir has always been a bone of contention between the two countries. Thirdly Indian design to establish its hegemony in South Asia and Indian ocean. This fact is further enhanced by Pakistan’s desire to play her part in the region greater than its size and population. In the absence of any mutual boundaries, the problems of defending Pakistan against the Indian aggression has always been a matter of great concern. Pakistan would also emphasize achieving normal relations with India but chances of alignment of this goal appear to be very slight until Kashmir issue is solved. The dictator is the one who needs to be caged. He betrays his profession and his constitution. He betrays the people and destroys human values and culture. Not a single of them has made a moment’s contribution to history of country. Zulifiqar Ali Bhutto enigmatic, charismatic who himself was killed by American backed dictator General Zia. For decades, the US has backed the military dictators who ruled Pakistan whether in the name of containing communism or fighting terrorism.
If we over review the foreign policy of Bhutto arena he was the person of wisdom. He had the vision to build a strategic partnership with China at a time when it was isolated. Zulifiqar Ali Bhutto believed in an independent foreign policy which had hitter to been the hand maiden of western powers. He believed foreign policy of bilateralism in which no state would be entitled to interfere in Pakistan, relations with other states. Bhutto was the founder of foreign policy, nuclear program under the guidance and leadership. Pakistan developed into the unique Muslim state with a nuclear capability for which he paid his life. In his book “ If I am Assassinated “ written from the Death Cell, Bhutto reveled how Kissinger had said “ we will make an example of you “ only Bhutto’s who feared capacity of uniting the Third World Countries and sought to punish him for developing Pakistan’s unclear capacity. Despite appeals of clemency from several world leaders, Bhutto was executed on 4th April 1979. The great leader of downtrodden masses and a visionary of unparallel charisma with for ever be remembered by his country as Quaid-i- Awam( leader of masses). The US supported General Ayub Khan Pakistan first military leader, for a decades at great const as well as supported General Zia one he agreed to help in the US war against the Soviet Union occupation in Afghanistan. Washington gave General Zia $ 3.2 billion aid package in 1982 and promised another $ 4 billion in 1988 . This generosity bought per cons little Pakistan’s government took the money and used it buy weapons from US, and promoted radical Islamists at home and in Afghanistan the consequences are all around to day. The American desire to forge a new partnership grounded in democratic values but ultimately oriented towards promoting geo-political equilibrium in Asia in the face of rising challenger such as China.
http://www.pakobserver,net
Muslim Mirani
The US sells death, destruction, and terror as a fundamental instrument of its foreign policy. It seems arms sales as a way of making and keeping strategic friend and tying countries more directly to US. A recent congressional Research Service report on International arms sales records that last year the United States delivered nearly $8 billion worth of weapons to Third World Countries. This was about 40% of all such arms transfer the US signed agreements to sell over $ 10 billion worth of weapons one third arms deals with Third World Countries. The use of arms sales to show the commitment to Pakistan has gone on far over 50 years. The US used military aid to recruit and arms Pakistan as an ally in the Cold war. The US has failed to learn that paying Pakistan’s military bills demonstrates commitment and friendship only Pakistan army, it does nothing for Pakistani people.
The Foreign Policy of a Country is the Product of the interaction of historical, Cultural, ideological, economic and geo-Political factors. All Courtiers pursue then foreign Policy with respect of their national interests because mutual interests because in the international relations there can be neither eternal friends nor external enemies. The only thing eternal is the national interests which can not be scarified. Foreign policy is the overall result of the process buy which a state translate its broadly conceived goods and interests into specific curses of action in order to achieve the objectives and preserve its interests. There are five factors or variables which influence the foreign policy. These verifiable are grouped into idiosyncratic role, bureaucratic, national and systematic. Historically Pakistan’s foreign Policy was determined by two factors i.e. security and development. The security has remained to be the corner stone of Pakistan’s foreign policy because of its geopolitical situation and historical background. Unlike Pak-China relations Pak-US relations have been fluctuating accor4ding to the political whether injecting a Permanent feeling of Uncertainty in then friendship these are five important phases of Pakistan foreign Policy. Era of Neutrality (1947-53) During thing Period Pakistan Claimed itself to be a national state but it was leaning towards the Anglo-American block. Pakistan championed the Cause of the Muslims. Era of Alliances:- 1954-62 During and this period Pakistan with entitled into defence pacts. USA the SEATO and CENTO to military and economic help against the expected threat of aggression by India. Mean while, India Proclaimed her neutrally, Played host to heeds of many Muslims Sate, which resulted to isolate Pakistan form some Muslim Countries. The result was that Pakistan could not supports the national Of dil by Iran and nationalization of Suez-canal by Egypt.
Era of Bilateralism 1962 – 69. During this era Pakistan began to put greater emphasis on cultivating relations with individual. Muslim states particularly and with other states generally at bilateral level. In March 1963 Pakistan interval into a border agreement with china. It development ties with Iran. Turkey on bilateral basis. Era of No Aligned Movement1969-81 Shifted its foreign policy from alignment with the west to an independent and non-aligned disposition. It brought many many radical changes such as with draw from common wealth, SEATO, UN CURK, Recognition of socialist countries, East Germany Democratic Republic Korea and Vietnam vice versa during era the objective of foreign policy were concentrated on Restoration of confidence of friendly countries of the Muslims bloc Established friendly relations with all big powers including VSSR. Settlement of all outstanding issues with honorable basis. Following the policy of non-alignment by plying more important role in NAM. Plying an important role in OIC by holding second summit conference at Lahore 1974.Cultivation economic relations with the oil rich Arab states particularly with & other generally. Pakistan established joint ministerial commissions with a number of Muslims countries including Algeria, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Jordan, Kuwait, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and UAE, to establish economic cooperation in the field of trade, industrial agriculture and science and technology. Era of revival of policy 1981 – 90. During this period Pakistan revived its foreign policy and established closer relations with USA and the west due to Afghanistan crisis. Pakistan and USA came closer to disband the communism or to push back to Soviet troops from Afghanistan, they entered into economic and military cooperation and agreed to a new five years program of 300 millions for economic and military support. Both Pak- US worked close cooperation till the withdrawal of foreign troops from Afghanistan. Era of Regionalism & Survival for FittestForeign policy of Pakistan in this era covers shifting trend in foreign policy in the wake of changing realities in and around Pakistan. A distinct feature of this era seems to be recognition of Pakistan joined SAARC and played an active role in strengthening the regional organizations. Pakistan also played her due role in strengthening OIC. Pakistan since its inception has been haunted by the fear that India is the peril which threaten it very existence. This fear has its roots in Pre-partition era when server antagonism between All India Congress and all India Muslim League caused great problems.The Indian leadership did not reconcile themselves to the creation of Pakistan. Secondly, unsolved issue of Kashmir has always been a bone of contention between the two countries. Thirdly Indian design to establish its hegemony in South Asia and Indian ocean. This fact is further enhanced by Pakistan’s desire to play her part in the region greater than its size and population. In the absence of any mutual boundaries, the problems of defending Pakistan against the Indian aggression has always been a matter of great concern. Pakistan would also emphasize achieving normal relations with India but chances of alignment of this goal appear to be very slight until Kashmir issue is solved. The dictator is the one who needs to be caged. He betrays his profession and his constitution. He betrays the people and destroys human values and culture. Not a single of them has made a moment’s contribution to history of country. Zulifiqar Ali Bhutto enigmatic, charismatic who himself was killed by American backed dictator General Zia. For decades, the US has backed the military dictators who ruled Pakistan whether in the name of containing communism or fighting terrorism.
If we over review the foreign policy of Bhutto arena he was the person of wisdom. He had the vision to build a strategic partnership with China at a time when it was isolated. Zulifiqar Ali Bhutto believed in an independent foreign policy which had hitter to been the hand maiden of western powers. He believed foreign policy of bilateralism in which no state would be entitled to interfere in Pakistan, relations with other states. Bhutto was the founder of foreign policy, nuclear program under the guidance and leadership. Pakistan developed into the unique Muslim state with a nuclear capability for which he paid his life. In his book “ If I am Assassinated “ written from the Death Cell, Bhutto reveled how Kissinger had said “ we will make an example of you “ only Bhutto’s who feared capacity of uniting the Third World Countries and sought to punish him for developing Pakistan’s unclear capacity. Despite appeals of clemency from several world leaders, Bhutto was executed on 4th April 1979. The great leader of downtrodden masses and a visionary of unparallel charisma with for ever be remembered by his country as Quaid-i- Awam( leader of masses). The US supported General Ayub Khan Pakistan first military leader, for a decades at great const as well as supported General Zia one he agreed to help in the US war against the Soviet Union occupation in Afghanistan. Washington gave General Zia $ 3.2 billion aid package in 1982 and promised another $ 4 billion in 1988 . This generosity bought per cons little Pakistan’s government took the money and used it buy weapons from US, and promoted radical Islamists at home and in Afghanistan the consequences are all around to day. The American desire to forge a new partnership grounded in democratic values but ultimately oriented towards promoting geo-political equilibrium in Asia in the face of rising challenger such as China.
http://www.pakobserver,net
AgNoStiC MuSliM
ADVISORS
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2007
- Messages
- 25,259
- Reaction score
- 87
- Country
- Location
After more balanced coverage, what next?
Tuesday, November 25, 2008Mosharraf Zaidi
As the world's attention turns increasingly to Pakistan and its role in tackling the threat of globalised terrorism, the country's perception abroad is evolving. More than seven years after 9/11, a more nuanced approach to understanding the country is beginning to emerge among western analysts and journalists who cover Pakistan.
The New York Times is perhaps the best in a long line of examples that indicate that 61 years of misapprehensions and ignorance about Pakistan in America may be eroding. On Sunday, Jane Perlez, who is being touted by many (most recently by Steve Coll, in a blog entry for The New Yorker magazine) as a Pulitzer candidate for her coverage of Afghanistan and Pakistan, wrote an article titled, "Ringed by foes, Pakistanis fear the US, too." In it she explores the very real apprehensions and fears Pakistanis feel about the world's intentions for their country. She mentions the laundry list of Pakistani conspiracy theories, from American plans to redraw Pakistan's map (based on the popular email that details an American neoconservative group's fantasy for what the region should look like), to the notion that Osama bin Laden is a fabrication, created to enable US forces' presence in the region. These are not new notions. Many journalists have reported such conspiracy theories from around the Muslim world since 2001. But what is different about Perlez's story, and increasingly several others, is that they are told without the mocking or rubbishing of the sentiments that drive Pakistani fear. Instead of sticking to the habits of older, lazier and less nuanced reporting form the country, many western journalists are increasingly able to identify the roots of why Pakistanis so often seem to loathe how their country is treated by the press and governments in the Western world.
Perlez is not alone at The New York Times. Nicholas Kristof, the op-ed columnist, has had a long and abiding interest in Pakistan, from specific cases, like advocating justice for Mukhtaran Mai, to the general fascination with Pakistan's relationship with democracy. Kristof's column on Sunday (the same day as Perlez's article appeared), titled "The Pakistan Test," is far from perfect (recommending as it does, a slowing down of aid to Pakistan, instead of a speeding up). But it does contain a scathing rebuke of the decision to appoint Messrs Zehri and Bijarani as ministers in the current cabinet. For years now many Pakistanis have been left dumbfounded by western journalists and the fascination they've had for feudal politicians whose values do not reflect even a tiny sliver of the principals that define western civilisation. One article will not repair decades of western journalists' being easily charmed by feudal swank and rustic bling, but it portends a deeper current of change.
Robert Novak's generation of commentators were tone deaf, and Internet-less, which would explain their irrational exuberance for feudals. Kristof represents a fundamentally different generation of columnists, a more plugged-in generation that can easily tap beyond the small network of Pakistanis that have always dominated access to such journalists. With thousands of blogs, a new entrepreneurial class emerging out of the opportunities afforded by technology and the slow but steady globalisation of Pakistani activism, there is no excuse for Americans not to know about the kinds of characters that inhabit Pakistan's cabinet. Kristof is wrong when he advocates a slowing down of aid to Pakistan, but he's spot on when he exposes a major cabinet misstep that has created a surge of discontent in Pakistani cities and across Pakistani cyberspace, to which the PPP government has been predictably deaf. With The New York Times now joining the chorus, it might start to listen. Perhaps one day, the PPP's slim cadre of enlightened moderates may even introspect as to why they allow their party to even be associated with men who hate little girls, to say nothing of elevating such men to the level of ministers representing the whole nation.
Right before the February election, in perhaps one of the seminal nods to Pakistan's growing middle class, The Wall Street Journal, published a fascinating and prescient account of the old Pakistani politics. This is a newspaper, we should remember, lost one of its best reporters, Danny Pearl, to the insane bloodlust of terrorists. Following in Pearl's brave footsteps, Yaroslav Trofimov wrote an article titled, "Dynasties, not democracies, may decide Pakistan's vote," No western journalist had yet painted such an accurate picture of the contempt that feudal politicians have for Pakistan's emergent urban middle class. (Although it was ironic that this contempt was crystallised in Syeda Abida Hussain's wrathful invective against Gen Musharraf--hardly a posterchild for the middle class!)
Even in the more rarefied air of the lengthier and serious think-tank pieces, Pakistan is being understood in a much more sophisticated way than in years past. Ahmed Rashid and Barnett Rubin's widely read piece, "From Great Game to Grand Bargain" in the most recent edition of the Council on Foreign Relations' bimonthly journal Foreign Affairs is a great example. In a journal that is much more prone to hit-pieces on Pakistan by Cold War analysts like Sumit Ganguly, Rashid and Rubin, despite some flaws, deliver a powerful and compelling set of diagnoses and prescriptions for the region's deep-rooted troubles.
Not surprisingly, the common thread across the range of what we might call the post-Musharraf era of Pakistan-analysis is a genuine recognition of Pakistan's territorial and existential concerns. These don't legitimise any global vigilantism, or cross-border adventurism, as Pakistani hawks would like them to. They do however represent a long-sought-after turning of the page on the false idea that Pakistan as a state, and Pakistanis as a people, have unsubstantiated existential fears.
Perlez points out the legitimacy of grievances over Kashmir, where even indigenous, non-violent protests, such as those that took place this summer, can't seem to get any real play in Washington DC, or coverage on Fox or MSNBC. Kristof gets the most important of his recommendations right, when he states clearly that "we should push much harder for a peace deal in Kashmir -- including far more pressure on India." Rashid and Rubin place a more mature India, right at the very heart of a more stable Pakistan.
All of this matters greatly for younger Pakistanis and their understanding of the country they've inherited from Messrs Ayub, Zia and Musharraf. It is not really going to be (or at least it should not be) journalists and analysts that determine the course of domestic or foreign policy in Pakistan. Nor will articles and essays persuade India to behave more like the civilisational superpower that it is, rather than the petty regional bully that it pretends to be. Yet the rules of the game are changing as we speak. For six decades, Pakistani foreign and domestic policy has been shaped by fear and insecurity. Unlike the misguided (and ridiculous) plans to "promote Pakistan's soft image" (sic), a genuinely more balanced coverage of the country by the western press may help Pakistanis finally begin to dump some of the country's backbreaking historical and emotional baggage.
After more balanced coverage, what next?
----------------------
I'm not the only one seeing a subtle change in tenor and focus in the Western media then!
fatman17
PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 32,563
- Reaction score
- 98
- Country
- Location
US urged not to treat Pakistan as ‘hired help’
By Khalid Hasan
WASHINGTON: Former Pakistani ambassador Dr Maleeha Lodhi urged the US at a panel discussion held at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government this week that the US must stop treating Pakistan as “hired help” rather than an ally.
She characterised the relationship between Pakistan and the US as precarious and facing “increasing hostility”, adding that “a trust deficit has emerged between the two nations”. She took issue with the phrase “war on terror”, stressing that “there needs to be a change in rhetoric,” because the “war on terror” was a “very unfortunate metaphor that must be dropped”. She said the phrase has led to the popular perception in the Middle East that the US is fighting a war on Islam. She called for a strategy that mutually reinforces the stability of Afghanistan and Pakistan.
“A strategy for the stabilisation of Afghanistan cannot lead to the destabilisation of Pakistan,” she said. Lodhi, who was Pakistan’s ambassador to the US twice, said that US president-elect Barack Obama’s administration would need to stabilise both Afghanistan and Pakistan at the same time if it is to root out terrorists. “There is an urgent need for the US to redefine goals and to do so with clarity,” she said, while pointing out that President Bush’s policies led to destabilisation of Pakistan. The United States has become a “fire brigade” that rushes from situation to situation putting out fires rather than taking a proactive stance to prevent them, she added.
Lodhi is returning home this week after four months at Harvard where she was a Fellow at the Kennedy School’s Institute of Politics, running a programme titled: Pakistan: challenges of a pivotal state.
http://www.thedailytimes.com.pk
IMO she is a very smart person and i hope the GoP will make use of her abilities!
By Khalid Hasan
WASHINGTON: Former Pakistani ambassador Dr Maleeha Lodhi urged the US at a panel discussion held at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government this week that the US must stop treating Pakistan as “hired help” rather than an ally.
She characterised the relationship between Pakistan and the US as precarious and facing “increasing hostility”, adding that “a trust deficit has emerged between the two nations”. She took issue with the phrase “war on terror”, stressing that “there needs to be a change in rhetoric,” because the “war on terror” was a “very unfortunate metaphor that must be dropped”. She said the phrase has led to the popular perception in the Middle East that the US is fighting a war on Islam. She called for a strategy that mutually reinforces the stability of Afghanistan and Pakistan.
“A strategy for the stabilisation of Afghanistan cannot lead to the destabilisation of Pakistan,” she said. Lodhi, who was Pakistan’s ambassador to the US twice, said that US president-elect Barack Obama’s administration would need to stabilise both Afghanistan and Pakistan at the same time if it is to root out terrorists. “There is an urgent need for the US to redefine goals and to do so with clarity,” she said, while pointing out that President Bush’s policies led to destabilisation of Pakistan. The United States has become a “fire brigade” that rushes from situation to situation putting out fires rather than taking a proactive stance to prevent them, she added.
Lodhi is returning home this week after four months at Harvard where she was a Fellow at the Kennedy School’s Institute of Politics, running a programme titled: Pakistan: challenges of a pivotal state.
http://www.thedailytimes.com.pk
IMO she is a very smart person and i hope the GoP will make use of her abilities!
pkpatriotic
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2008
- Messages
- 2,317
- Reaction score
- 0
U.S.-Pakistan Relations
Richard A. Boucher, Assistant Secretary for South and Central Asian Affairs
Remarks to the Press
Islamabad, Pakistan
January 5, 2009
ASSISTANT SECRETARY BOUCHER: First of all, its nice to see everybody. Im glad to be back in Pakistan. I want to wish everybody a happy new year. Its the first day of my first trip in the new year, so I think I attach special importance to Pakistan and what we are trying to do here -- to work with Pakistan as it faces the many problems that we all know exist here. But I think you know, lets hope for the best. Put it that way.
Ive come and had a full day of meetings. I met with the Prime Minister, the Foreign Minister, the National Security Advisor. I met Dr. Farouqi, who is the Secretary-General to the President, but more important, hes following up on some of our assistance groups -- the donors group -- that was the donors that are trying to help with the implementation of the IMF agreement -- and then the Friends of Pakistan [group] thats trying to work together in planning and supporting Pakistans development needs. And obviously, I spent some time with the President. I met him today, had a good talk. Ill be seeing some parliamentarians tonight in addition. So its kind of a very packed but full day.
I took a little bit of time to drop by the Marriott today. Glad to see that theyre reopened. I was very happy to go there and look around a little bit and have a glass of juice at the coffee shop. I think its a sign. I think its a sign that whatever these terrible people try to do to Pakistan, whatever attacks there are against the structure of Pakistan, that there is a great number of very determined people and far-sighted people in Pakistan who are going to press on, who are going to rebuild, who are going to reopen and keep going forward. And I think the reopening of the Marriott is a good sign and one that I wanted to understand and appreciate, and that was a good chance to stop by there.
I also spent part of my time today talking about the aftermath of the Mumbai attacks -- a horrible set of attacks that killed many, many Indians, killed Americans and other foreigners, and have really endangered people in Pakistan as well as in India and elsewhere. And I think theres a determination here to follow up, find those who are responsible, find the groups that were responsible, make sure that we know all we can about how they did it, and even better than that, making sure that they cant ever do it again. And so we talked about how to ensure that, particularly how to ensure the flow of information back and forth so that the pieces of the puzzle that are on the Indian side can be known to the rest of us that are interested, and the pieces of the puzzle that are on the Pakistani side can be known to the Indians who want to get to the bottom of this.
I was glad to see that the Indians provided information today to the Pakistani High Commissioner in Delhi and to others. And we have also tried to encourage sharing of information so that everybody who is determined to stop this kind of attack can conduct their investigations and pursue all possible leads, so we understand who did it, what happened, how they did it, and how to stop it.
A final closing remark just to say I think we all understand what a difficult situation Pakistan faces, whether its the economy or the security situation or even stabilizing democratic institutions and a democratic future. Pakistan has a myriad of challenges. But it also has determined people who are going to work to overcome those problems, and were going to be there with them.
On the economy, I think weve talked before about our various assistance programs. I think food is one important area the people of Pakistan we talked about this I talked gave the Prime Minister an update today because we had talked during his visit to Washington about food assistance. In recent weeks, I guess, weve announced food credits of 48 million -- GSM credits -- and a gift of, grant of 50,000 tons of wheat.
Those are just other examples of how were continuing to support Pakistani people in the food situation. We have an energy dialogue coming up in Washington next week to deal with the energy problems. Thats it takes a little more long-term investment. And we also talked today quite a bit about preparing projects with the Friends of Pakistan and other donors, meetings that might be coming up in the early part of this year.
On the security side, were deeply involved with the military as they undertake their operations to protect Pakistan, to end the terrorist menace thats killed so many Pakistanis and threatens all the people of this country. We also talked a lot today about how we can help support the police to provide security and order for the people.
And on the democratic side, I think really we want to see the democratic institutions be stabilized, solidified. And so were working with Pakistan on building the institutions that can ensure the long-term success of democracy ere, because thats fundamentally for us what its all about.
And thats what well continue to do throughout the year and on into the future. So let me stop with that and Id be glad to take questions.
Sir.
QUESTION: Do you think that the proof provided by India to Pakistan is sufficient for the probe?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY BOUCHER: I think both sides have a piece of this. The Indians have some people in custody and they have evidence from the scene of the crimes. They are investigating what they can find out through that. Pakistan has a number of people in custody who were involved with the planning and execution of this. They need to find out what they can from those sources, and the two sides need to exchange information. They need to follow up each others leads. They need to determine what the threat is of other attacks.
So I would see it as part of that process rather than some proof or accusations. I think its a part of a process of both sides looking at how they can develop the information that allows them to deal with the parts of the puzzle, parts of the horror that originated, that occurred on their soil.
QUESTION: Previously India has been talking about the non-state actors (inaudible) elements like Lashkar e-Tayyiba that have been (inaudible) saying that theyre either state actors or state-assisted actors. How can (inaudible)?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY BOUCHER: I think the answer is: lets find out what the evidence shows. Whoever was involved in this needs to be held responsible. But I also wouldnt jump to any particular conclusions. I think Pakistan has shown itself determined to deal with the groups and the individuals who might have been involved in the planning and execution of this. And I think we have to rely on Pakistan to do that. We need everybody to follow the evidence wherever it leads.
QUESTION: Well, have you seen any evidence so far that indicates any involvement, whether directly or indirectly, to support the militants who carried out Mumbai? Any involvement from anybody
ASSISTANT SECRETARY BOUCHER: Im not going to pass judgments on the investigation at this stage. I dont think were at that stage. I think were at the stage where people need to share information, follow up leads, and determine everything they can about what happened.
QUESTION: What sort of information or evidence does the U.S. have that they can show Pakistan or India? Because my understanding is that there are intercepts and things that the U.S .
ASSISTANT SECRETARY BOUCHER: Im not going to talk about information. Everybody knows one of the first principles is we dont talk about investigations while theyre underway, and thats what weve got here now. I think, you know, any information we can bring to the table, we will. Were talking to both sides. Were working with both sides, both the Indians and the Pakistanis. We have a very direct interest in this attack because six Americans were killed. And were going to work assiduously ourselves, but also work with both parties to make sure we find out everything possible about how this was done and how to prevent future attacks.
QUESTION: In the past, there has been some lack of cooperation between two countries, Pakistan and India, particularly on this (inaudible) share the informations. How can you assure these (inaudible) through the involvement of America that this knowledge, share information and find the real conspiracy of this Mumbai attack?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY BOUCHER: Well, I dont know that we can just assure people. I think people have to work with each other, the people that are serious about investigations, that share information, that follow up each others leads, that get back to each other on what they can learn about pieces, you know. If you find things in India that were used in the attack, well, maybe the Pakistanis can figure out where those were acquired and who acquired them and whos at fault. And its that kind of back and forth that leads to a successful investigation, so were trying to encourage that.
QUESTION: How well do you think theyre working together?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY BOUCHER: So far, theyre just getting started, but theyre each doing serious work. I mean, in terms of working together: no, theres not much so far. But in terms of working with us, I think we have a positive relationship with both. In terms of taking action against the groups in Pakistan that were involved in this, I think Pakistan has done quite a bit. I think Indias investigation is advancing. So I think more and more information is being known, so lets try to see what we can do in terms of sharing and
following up each others information.
QUESTION: Do you believe there are still the channels that Pakistanis can directly use (inaudible) everything is on hold? Or part of it
ASSISTANT SECRETARY BOUCHER: Well, I think you have an example today. India talked to the High Commissioner in Delhi and shared information that way.
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
ASSISTANT SECRETARY BOUCHER: So theyve got channels.
QUESTION: So if Pakistan was to prosecute identify and prosecute, lets say, a couple of planners, militant planners or something like that, would that satisfy the United States? And perhaps more importantly, do you think that would satisfy India?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY BOUCHER: I dont want to speculate. I think its important that anybody who was involved in this, in the planning and execution of this act, be brought to justice and held accountable. And I think leaders in Pakistan are determined to do that. Theyre determined to pursue the investigation. And well have to watch as it unfolds to see where it leads.
QUESTION: So when you said that as far as taking action against people in Pakistan who were involved in this, you said that Pakistan has done quite a bit. Is there anything you can elaborate on about what youve seen them do, what some of the specifics that theyve done?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY BOUCHER: I want to try to stay away from getting into the sort of details of investigation and the pieces and how they fit together because I think thats a matter for investigators to pursue at this point.
But let me point out that a couple of weeks ago, for example, Jamaat ud-Daawa was listed on the UN list as being another name for Lashkar e-Tayyiba. And since then, weve seen Pakistan bring into custody a significant number of Lashkar e-Tayyiba operatives. Weve seen them close down Jammat ud-Daawa front offices and take a series of steps against these organizations. I think that fits with Pakistans commitment to eliminate sources of terrorism on Pakistani soil, terrorism that threatens the people of Pakistan as much as anybody else. And thats the kind of action that weve been seeing from Pakistan. Thats the kind of action wed like to see continue.
QUESTION: So heres a big threat in regarding relations between India and Pakistan, with India talking about the terrorists and (inaudible) troops in Pakistan as well as in India (inaudible). What is the thinking over there in U.S., sir, to house all those terrorist groups? And will you have talks on your visits in India about those hard-line groups?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY BOUCHER: I think our thinking is very similar to the thinking that we hear from countries in this region, and that is: none of us are going to be safe as long as these terrorist groups are operating in this area. Unfortunately, sad reminders of the Marriott bombing, my own memories of Benazir Bhutto and her assassination a week ago -- a year and a week ago, sorry -- as well as the events in Mumbai.
It reminds us that these terrorists are out to get Pakistan as a nation. Theyre out to get Indians and Americans who are opening up and doing business, and that none of us are going to be safe until these groups are eliminated, and thats has to be the big goal, and we have to all make steady progress towards that goal. I think thats the commitment that we expect, the commitment that weve seen from the Pakistan Government to deal with the situations.
QUESTION: Am I to understand it that the perpetrators of the Mumbai attack have the links to Pakistan? Is that your understanding?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY BOUCHER: I would say its clear that they had links in Pakistan, that the attackers had links, that lead to Pakistani soil. And as far as exactly what those links were and who they were attached to and how they did this, I think thats a matter thats still under investigation.
QUESTION: And when youre talking about a situation in the Tribal Areas of Pakistan, (inaudible) the war on terror, intelligence sharing and the proper the drone attacks are going on in the areas. So Pakistan has some sort of conditions on especially on the drone attacks? So what will be the final mechanism to fight terrorism? Is this the right strategy?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY BOUCHER: I think we all understand that in the end, that the way to fight terrorism in these areas is to replace it with organized system of governance. I mean, the Tribal Areas have, since colonial days, been ruled by indirect mechanisms. And that system was adopted by the new Pakistan, has continued to this day, and in fact, that system deteriorated through a lot of the events of the past several decades.
So were in a position now where groups operate in these areas outside of government control and outside of government authority. And I think what were looking for is to try to help build Pakistani capability, not only to deal with these militant groups, but try to build Pakistani capability to provide for the needs of the population. So we support the sustainable development plan up there, we build roads, schools, clinics, hospitals, things like that. And were also trying to support the Pakistani Government in developing the governmental systems that can help provide a sense of order and governance up there. But its longer-term. But all these things have to be done, and I think we understand you have to basically, as you modernize the nation of Pakistan, you have to integrate the Tribal Areas into the nation. And thats what were trying to support.
QUESTION: Sir, weve heard a lot about troop movement in the last few weeks. How would you characterize the situation on the border between India and Pakistan, specifically as it relates to that?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY BOUCHER: I would say the situation on the border is basically calm, although I think we both want to we all want to make sure that neither side takes steps that could be misinterpreted by the other side. I think youve heard from both sides. They dont want to push this into military confrontation. And as I said, I think the chief the chief task in front of us is to deal with those who carried out the action. The best way to do that is through cooperation.
QUESTION: And in this regard, do we have (inaudible) in the leadership of Pakistan? Have you had any contact with Indian officials? Do you hope that after this exchange of evidence put in, there could be a stop in this blame game with the two countries and they will cooperate? (Inaudible) your part, you have to tell not many about it.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY BOUCHER: I think our hope is the one I expressed at the beginning, that this is the beginning of some cooperation in terms of identifying the people who did this, how they did it, and how to stop them from ever doing it again, and that that kind of investigation where theres sharing of information, theres following up, and theres cooperative efforts is really going to be the best way for both sides to be assured in the future they wont have to suffer this kind of attack.
QUESTION: What sort of advice would you give the incoming administration? Whats the most brutal, honest piece of advice youll give them about how to deal with the situation here?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY BOUCHER: I will give a lot of brutal, honest advice, but Ill give it privately to the people who ask for it when they come in.
QUESTION: Whats one thing youre willing to share? (Laughter.)
ASSISTANT SECRETARY BOUCHER: One thing I really want to say?
QUESTION: Youre willing to share, about something youll tell us?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY BOUCHER: Look, weve worked a lot on Pakistan over the last several years -- Pakistan, Afghanistan, India. Its always been with bipartisan support. Weve always consulted closely with, you know, Senator Biden, Senator Kerry, Senator Clinton on the Hill, worked with appropriators in the House and the Senate side. So I think, you know, if you look at the history of legislation, you know, weve worked with Congressman Van Hollen on the Reconstruction Opportunity Zone legislation. Weve worked with what was called the Biden-Lugar bill in the Senate and is now called the Kerry-Lugar bill. Youve seen the visitors come through here.
I think there are a lot of people in the United States who really understand how important Pakistan is and how important that the not just stability, but the modernization of Pakistan is to all of us, that helping Pakistan modernize its institutions, modernize its economy, modernize its military, modernize its police force is an essential part of stability in a key region for all of us. And weve been engaged in that and weve got to stay engaged in that. And from what I hear from, you know, the people Ive been working with in both parties on the Hill, Americans want to stay engaged with Pakistan and they want to do it with a strong democratic partner here, and I think weve got one.
QUESTION: Can you talk a little bit about the situation in the northwest part of the country? Theres a really the security situation is really deteriorating. And obviously, you guys have had all these attacks. I mean, their supply lines, our supply lines.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY BOUCHER: A few attacks on the supply lines. (Laughter.) All I mean, all is a big number, a few is smaller. Look, there are a lot of parts to this picture, if you look at the Northwest, that are very difficult right now. Weve seen a determination on the part of the government and some of the Tribal Agencies, by Bajaur and Mohmand. Weve seen pressure from militant groups in on Peshawar and surrounding areas, including Khyber and some of the transit lanes, truck lanes through there. Weve tried to work together with the Pakistani military and security people so that the effort that we make on the Afghan side and the effort they make on the Pakistan side is pushing in on the militants.
Weve also tried to support the efforts of the Pakistani Government to modernize and transform its military capabilities in dealing with those things. And weve also tried to support the efforts that Pakistan and Afghanistan are making to develop those areas economically with a sustainable development plan, a proposal for Reconstruction Opportunity Zones, some of the work going on between Pakistan and Afghanistan on transit trade. Weve tried to support all that.
So its I guess Id say theyre passing through a difficult period. I have a great deal of confidence in the long-term policies. But dealing with the short term is tough for them, and were going to try to help them deal with the short term there.
QUESTION: So, are you going to India on this trip?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY BOUCHER: Yeah, I expect to go to India.
STAFF: Time for one or two more.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY BOUCHER: Okay.
QUESTION: There are (inaudible) proximity to? So there are reports that Secretary Rice will (inaudible)?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY BOUCHER: I wouldnt comment on anybody elses travel.
QUESTION: (Laughter.) Oh, okay.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY BOUCHER: Yeah.
QUESTION: So last well, maybe yesterdays report that America is going to enter the enter an agreement, an agreement with India regarding the funds, $2.1 billion or whatever it might be. So is there any sort of future? Because of the Pakistani forces are fighting against the militants and the terrorist groups. As you have said, that we are going to modernize Pakistani forces. So is this any sort of agreement between Pakistans defense forces and the U.S. and defense regarding the modernization and equipment, especially for the Pakistanis?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY BOUCHER: Lets keep them separate.
QUESTION: Okay.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY BOUCHER: Okay. I mean, we have worked very hard now to have a good relationship with India, and a good relationship with Pakistan, to help India deal with its opportunities and needs and to help Pakistan deal with its opportunity and needs. And yes, we do have a defense relationship with India thats growing. Weve got new deals. They purchased some of our equipment and were happy to sell it to them. We welcome Indias emergence as a full partner and a power in the world.
But that doesnt in any way detract from our ability to work with Pakistan or a desire to work with Pakistan. I think when you look at what were doing in Pakistan across the board -- whether its food, whether its energy, whether its military modernization, support for democratic institutions -- we are trying to make sure we make a significant contribution in every area. We provide military assistance to Pakistan. A lot of that is devoted to helping Pakistan fight the menace that it faces from terrorist groups. Were going to be I think maintain our involvement, perhaps even expand our involvement in those areas, but I think thats trying to do whats right for Paksitan.
QUESTION: And last question (inaudible). Do you think that in future, there is an effort to solve the Kashmiri movement in Pakistani because
ASSISTANT SECRETARY BOUCHER: Theres always hope. Theres always hope. But its been something that they themselves have pursued. The question of India-Pakistan relations is one that they have actually made great strides forward in the last couple years. And obviously, the tensions created by the Mumbai incident made that more difficult right now. But I think theres an opportunity here to work together against the groups that are trying to disrupt India-Pakistan relations, against the groups that are actually harming the cause of Kashmir by carrying out these horrible terrorist actions. And hopefully, coming out of that, the two sides will find themselves in a better position to cooperate.
All right. Were going to do one last one, because
QUESTION: So do you have some information or any confirmation about this U.S. airline you know, there was a plot to bomb Transatlantic Airlines from UK and the suspect Rashid Rauf was (inaudible) in U.S. (inaudible) acts in Pakistan. Can you confirm?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY BOUCHER: I dont know. I dont anything about that. Sorry.
QUESTION: Rashid Rauf.
QUESTION: India has been (inaudible) today. Someone (inaudible) link to this Mumbai attack, but we have got indications that Washington, since there is no extradition treaty, Pakistan can prosecute them, but there is an effort by India to re-launch that case.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY BOUCHER: Now, look, I dont the matter of the India-Pakistan relationship on judicial matters is something for them to address. Our interest is in seeing these people brought to justice, knowing that everybody who was involved in these attacks -- whether they were in Mumbai shooting at people or they were somewhere in Pakistan planning it -- that everybody that was involved in these attacks is brought to justice. And well work with all the parties to try to make sure that happens. Okay.
QUESTION: Just to clarify his question, he was asking about Rashid Rauf, whether you knew know if whether you can confirm he was killed in a drone attack. You dont?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY BOUCHER: I dont know.
QUESTION: Okay.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY BOUCHER: Thank you.
Richard A. Boucher, Assistant Secretary for South and Central Asian Affairs
Remarks to the Press
Islamabad, Pakistan
January 5, 2009
ASSISTANT SECRETARY BOUCHER: First of all, its nice to see everybody. Im glad to be back in Pakistan. I want to wish everybody a happy new year. Its the first day of my first trip in the new year, so I think I attach special importance to Pakistan and what we are trying to do here -- to work with Pakistan as it faces the many problems that we all know exist here. But I think you know, lets hope for the best. Put it that way.
Ive come and had a full day of meetings. I met with the Prime Minister, the Foreign Minister, the National Security Advisor. I met Dr. Farouqi, who is the Secretary-General to the President, but more important, hes following up on some of our assistance groups -- the donors group -- that was the donors that are trying to help with the implementation of the IMF agreement -- and then the Friends of Pakistan [group] thats trying to work together in planning and supporting Pakistans development needs. And obviously, I spent some time with the President. I met him today, had a good talk. Ill be seeing some parliamentarians tonight in addition. So its kind of a very packed but full day.
I took a little bit of time to drop by the Marriott today. Glad to see that theyre reopened. I was very happy to go there and look around a little bit and have a glass of juice at the coffee shop. I think its a sign. I think its a sign that whatever these terrible people try to do to Pakistan, whatever attacks there are against the structure of Pakistan, that there is a great number of very determined people and far-sighted people in Pakistan who are going to press on, who are going to rebuild, who are going to reopen and keep going forward. And I think the reopening of the Marriott is a good sign and one that I wanted to understand and appreciate, and that was a good chance to stop by there.
I also spent part of my time today talking about the aftermath of the Mumbai attacks -- a horrible set of attacks that killed many, many Indians, killed Americans and other foreigners, and have really endangered people in Pakistan as well as in India and elsewhere. And I think theres a determination here to follow up, find those who are responsible, find the groups that were responsible, make sure that we know all we can about how they did it, and even better than that, making sure that they cant ever do it again. And so we talked about how to ensure that, particularly how to ensure the flow of information back and forth so that the pieces of the puzzle that are on the Indian side can be known to the rest of us that are interested, and the pieces of the puzzle that are on the Pakistani side can be known to the Indians who want to get to the bottom of this.
I was glad to see that the Indians provided information today to the Pakistani High Commissioner in Delhi and to others. And we have also tried to encourage sharing of information so that everybody who is determined to stop this kind of attack can conduct their investigations and pursue all possible leads, so we understand who did it, what happened, how they did it, and how to stop it.
A final closing remark just to say I think we all understand what a difficult situation Pakistan faces, whether its the economy or the security situation or even stabilizing democratic institutions and a democratic future. Pakistan has a myriad of challenges. But it also has determined people who are going to work to overcome those problems, and were going to be there with them.
On the economy, I think weve talked before about our various assistance programs. I think food is one important area the people of Pakistan we talked about this I talked gave the Prime Minister an update today because we had talked during his visit to Washington about food assistance. In recent weeks, I guess, weve announced food credits of 48 million -- GSM credits -- and a gift of, grant of 50,000 tons of wheat.
Those are just other examples of how were continuing to support Pakistani people in the food situation. We have an energy dialogue coming up in Washington next week to deal with the energy problems. Thats it takes a little more long-term investment. And we also talked today quite a bit about preparing projects with the Friends of Pakistan and other donors, meetings that might be coming up in the early part of this year.
On the security side, were deeply involved with the military as they undertake their operations to protect Pakistan, to end the terrorist menace thats killed so many Pakistanis and threatens all the people of this country. We also talked a lot today about how we can help support the police to provide security and order for the people.
And on the democratic side, I think really we want to see the democratic institutions be stabilized, solidified. And so were working with Pakistan on building the institutions that can ensure the long-term success of democracy ere, because thats fundamentally for us what its all about.
And thats what well continue to do throughout the year and on into the future. So let me stop with that and Id be glad to take questions.
Sir.
QUESTION: Do you think that the proof provided by India to Pakistan is sufficient for the probe?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY BOUCHER: I think both sides have a piece of this. The Indians have some people in custody and they have evidence from the scene of the crimes. They are investigating what they can find out through that. Pakistan has a number of people in custody who were involved with the planning and execution of this. They need to find out what they can from those sources, and the two sides need to exchange information. They need to follow up each others leads. They need to determine what the threat is of other attacks.
So I would see it as part of that process rather than some proof or accusations. I think its a part of a process of both sides looking at how they can develop the information that allows them to deal with the parts of the puzzle, parts of the horror that originated, that occurred on their soil.
QUESTION: Previously India has been talking about the non-state actors (inaudible) elements like Lashkar e-Tayyiba that have been (inaudible) saying that theyre either state actors or state-assisted actors. How can (inaudible)?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY BOUCHER: I think the answer is: lets find out what the evidence shows. Whoever was involved in this needs to be held responsible. But I also wouldnt jump to any particular conclusions. I think Pakistan has shown itself determined to deal with the groups and the individuals who might have been involved in the planning and execution of this. And I think we have to rely on Pakistan to do that. We need everybody to follow the evidence wherever it leads.
QUESTION: Well, have you seen any evidence so far that indicates any involvement, whether directly or indirectly, to support the militants who carried out Mumbai? Any involvement from anybody
ASSISTANT SECRETARY BOUCHER: Im not going to pass judgments on the investigation at this stage. I dont think were at that stage. I think were at the stage where people need to share information, follow up leads, and determine everything they can about what happened.
QUESTION: What sort of information or evidence does the U.S. have that they can show Pakistan or India? Because my understanding is that there are intercepts and things that the U.S .
ASSISTANT SECRETARY BOUCHER: Im not going to talk about information. Everybody knows one of the first principles is we dont talk about investigations while theyre underway, and thats what weve got here now. I think, you know, any information we can bring to the table, we will. Were talking to both sides. Were working with both sides, both the Indians and the Pakistanis. We have a very direct interest in this attack because six Americans were killed. And were going to work assiduously ourselves, but also work with both parties to make sure we find out everything possible about how this was done and how to prevent future attacks.
QUESTION: In the past, there has been some lack of cooperation between two countries, Pakistan and India, particularly on this (inaudible) share the informations. How can you assure these (inaudible) through the involvement of America that this knowledge, share information and find the real conspiracy of this Mumbai attack?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY BOUCHER: Well, I dont know that we can just assure people. I think people have to work with each other, the people that are serious about investigations, that share information, that follow up each others leads, that get back to each other on what they can learn about pieces, you know. If you find things in India that were used in the attack, well, maybe the Pakistanis can figure out where those were acquired and who acquired them and whos at fault. And its that kind of back and forth that leads to a successful investigation, so were trying to encourage that.
QUESTION: How well do you think theyre working together?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY BOUCHER: So far, theyre just getting started, but theyre each doing serious work. I mean, in terms of working together: no, theres not much so far. But in terms of working with us, I think we have a positive relationship with both. In terms of taking action against the groups in Pakistan that were involved in this, I think Pakistan has done quite a bit. I think Indias investigation is advancing. So I think more and more information is being known, so lets try to see what we can do in terms of sharing and
following up each others information.
QUESTION: Do you believe there are still the channels that Pakistanis can directly use (inaudible) everything is on hold? Or part of it
ASSISTANT SECRETARY BOUCHER: Well, I think you have an example today. India talked to the High Commissioner in Delhi and shared information that way.
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
ASSISTANT SECRETARY BOUCHER: So theyve got channels.
QUESTION: So if Pakistan was to prosecute identify and prosecute, lets say, a couple of planners, militant planners or something like that, would that satisfy the United States? And perhaps more importantly, do you think that would satisfy India?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY BOUCHER: I dont want to speculate. I think its important that anybody who was involved in this, in the planning and execution of this act, be brought to justice and held accountable. And I think leaders in Pakistan are determined to do that. Theyre determined to pursue the investigation. And well have to watch as it unfolds to see where it leads.
QUESTION: So when you said that as far as taking action against people in Pakistan who were involved in this, you said that Pakistan has done quite a bit. Is there anything you can elaborate on about what youve seen them do, what some of the specifics that theyve done?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY BOUCHER: I want to try to stay away from getting into the sort of details of investigation and the pieces and how they fit together because I think thats a matter for investigators to pursue at this point.
But let me point out that a couple of weeks ago, for example, Jamaat ud-Daawa was listed on the UN list as being another name for Lashkar e-Tayyiba. And since then, weve seen Pakistan bring into custody a significant number of Lashkar e-Tayyiba operatives. Weve seen them close down Jammat ud-Daawa front offices and take a series of steps against these organizations. I think that fits with Pakistans commitment to eliminate sources of terrorism on Pakistani soil, terrorism that threatens the people of Pakistan as much as anybody else. And thats the kind of action that weve been seeing from Pakistan. Thats the kind of action wed like to see continue.
QUESTION: So heres a big threat in regarding relations between India and Pakistan, with India talking about the terrorists and (inaudible) troops in Pakistan as well as in India (inaudible). What is the thinking over there in U.S., sir, to house all those terrorist groups? And will you have talks on your visits in India about those hard-line groups?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY BOUCHER: I think our thinking is very similar to the thinking that we hear from countries in this region, and that is: none of us are going to be safe as long as these terrorist groups are operating in this area. Unfortunately, sad reminders of the Marriott bombing, my own memories of Benazir Bhutto and her assassination a week ago -- a year and a week ago, sorry -- as well as the events in Mumbai.
It reminds us that these terrorists are out to get Pakistan as a nation. Theyre out to get Indians and Americans who are opening up and doing business, and that none of us are going to be safe until these groups are eliminated, and thats has to be the big goal, and we have to all make steady progress towards that goal. I think thats the commitment that we expect, the commitment that weve seen from the Pakistan Government to deal with the situations.
QUESTION: Am I to understand it that the perpetrators of the Mumbai attack have the links to Pakistan? Is that your understanding?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY BOUCHER: I would say its clear that they had links in Pakistan, that the attackers had links, that lead to Pakistani soil. And as far as exactly what those links were and who they were attached to and how they did this, I think thats a matter thats still under investigation.
QUESTION: And when youre talking about a situation in the Tribal Areas of Pakistan, (inaudible) the war on terror, intelligence sharing and the proper the drone attacks are going on in the areas. So Pakistan has some sort of conditions on especially on the drone attacks? So what will be the final mechanism to fight terrorism? Is this the right strategy?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY BOUCHER: I think we all understand that in the end, that the way to fight terrorism in these areas is to replace it with organized system of governance. I mean, the Tribal Areas have, since colonial days, been ruled by indirect mechanisms. And that system was adopted by the new Pakistan, has continued to this day, and in fact, that system deteriorated through a lot of the events of the past several decades.
So were in a position now where groups operate in these areas outside of government control and outside of government authority. And I think what were looking for is to try to help build Pakistani capability, not only to deal with these militant groups, but try to build Pakistani capability to provide for the needs of the population. So we support the sustainable development plan up there, we build roads, schools, clinics, hospitals, things like that. And were also trying to support the Pakistani Government in developing the governmental systems that can help provide a sense of order and governance up there. But its longer-term. But all these things have to be done, and I think we understand you have to basically, as you modernize the nation of Pakistan, you have to integrate the Tribal Areas into the nation. And thats what were trying to support.
QUESTION: Sir, weve heard a lot about troop movement in the last few weeks. How would you characterize the situation on the border between India and Pakistan, specifically as it relates to that?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY BOUCHER: I would say the situation on the border is basically calm, although I think we both want to we all want to make sure that neither side takes steps that could be misinterpreted by the other side. I think youve heard from both sides. They dont want to push this into military confrontation. And as I said, I think the chief the chief task in front of us is to deal with those who carried out the action. The best way to do that is through cooperation.
QUESTION: And in this regard, do we have (inaudible) in the leadership of Pakistan? Have you had any contact with Indian officials? Do you hope that after this exchange of evidence put in, there could be a stop in this blame game with the two countries and they will cooperate? (Inaudible) your part, you have to tell not many about it.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY BOUCHER: I think our hope is the one I expressed at the beginning, that this is the beginning of some cooperation in terms of identifying the people who did this, how they did it, and how to stop them from ever doing it again, and that that kind of investigation where theres sharing of information, theres following up, and theres cooperative efforts is really going to be the best way for both sides to be assured in the future they wont have to suffer this kind of attack.
QUESTION: What sort of advice would you give the incoming administration? Whats the most brutal, honest piece of advice youll give them about how to deal with the situation here?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY BOUCHER: I will give a lot of brutal, honest advice, but Ill give it privately to the people who ask for it when they come in.
QUESTION: Whats one thing youre willing to share? (Laughter.)
ASSISTANT SECRETARY BOUCHER: One thing I really want to say?
QUESTION: Youre willing to share, about something youll tell us?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY BOUCHER: Look, weve worked a lot on Pakistan over the last several years -- Pakistan, Afghanistan, India. Its always been with bipartisan support. Weve always consulted closely with, you know, Senator Biden, Senator Kerry, Senator Clinton on the Hill, worked with appropriators in the House and the Senate side. So I think, you know, if you look at the history of legislation, you know, weve worked with Congressman Van Hollen on the Reconstruction Opportunity Zone legislation. Weve worked with what was called the Biden-Lugar bill in the Senate and is now called the Kerry-Lugar bill. Youve seen the visitors come through here.
I think there are a lot of people in the United States who really understand how important Pakistan is and how important that the not just stability, but the modernization of Pakistan is to all of us, that helping Pakistan modernize its institutions, modernize its economy, modernize its military, modernize its police force is an essential part of stability in a key region for all of us. And weve been engaged in that and weve got to stay engaged in that. And from what I hear from, you know, the people Ive been working with in both parties on the Hill, Americans want to stay engaged with Pakistan and they want to do it with a strong democratic partner here, and I think weve got one.
QUESTION: Can you talk a little bit about the situation in the northwest part of the country? Theres a really the security situation is really deteriorating. And obviously, you guys have had all these attacks. I mean, their supply lines, our supply lines.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY BOUCHER: A few attacks on the supply lines. (Laughter.) All I mean, all is a big number, a few is smaller. Look, there are a lot of parts to this picture, if you look at the Northwest, that are very difficult right now. Weve seen a determination on the part of the government and some of the Tribal Agencies, by Bajaur and Mohmand. Weve seen pressure from militant groups in on Peshawar and surrounding areas, including Khyber and some of the transit lanes, truck lanes through there. Weve tried to work together with the Pakistani military and security people so that the effort that we make on the Afghan side and the effort they make on the Pakistan side is pushing in on the militants.
Weve also tried to support the efforts of the Pakistani Government to modernize and transform its military capabilities in dealing with those things. And weve also tried to support the efforts that Pakistan and Afghanistan are making to develop those areas economically with a sustainable development plan, a proposal for Reconstruction Opportunity Zones, some of the work going on between Pakistan and Afghanistan on transit trade. Weve tried to support all that.
So its I guess Id say theyre passing through a difficult period. I have a great deal of confidence in the long-term policies. But dealing with the short term is tough for them, and were going to try to help them deal with the short term there.
QUESTION: So, are you going to India on this trip?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY BOUCHER: Yeah, I expect to go to India.
STAFF: Time for one or two more.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY BOUCHER: Okay.
QUESTION: There are (inaudible) proximity to? So there are reports that Secretary Rice will (inaudible)?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY BOUCHER: I wouldnt comment on anybody elses travel.
QUESTION: (Laughter.) Oh, okay.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY BOUCHER: Yeah.
QUESTION: So last well, maybe yesterdays report that America is going to enter the enter an agreement, an agreement with India regarding the funds, $2.1 billion or whatever it might be. So is there any sort of future? Because of the Pakistani forces are fighting against the militants and the terrorist groups. As you have said, that we are going to modernize Pakistani forces. So is this any sort of agreement between Pakistans defense forces and the U.S. and defense regarding the modernization and equipment, especially for the Pakistanis?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY BOUCHER: Lets keep them separate.
QUESTION: Okay.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY BOUCHER: Okay. I mean, we have worked very hard now to have a good relationship with India, and a good relationship with Pakistan, to help India deal with its opportunities and needs and to help Pakistan deal with its opportunity and needs. And yes, we do have a defense relationship with India thats growing. Weve got new deals. They purchased some of our equipment and were happy to sell it to them. We welcome Indias emergence as a full partner and a power in the world.
But that doesnt in any way detract from our ability to work with Pakistan or a desire to work with Pakistan. I think when you look at what were doing in Pakistan across the board -- whether its food, whether its energy, whether its military modernization, support for democratic institutions -- we are trying to make sure we make a significant contribution in every area. We provide military assistance to Pakistan. A lot of that is devoted to helping Pakistan fight the menace that it faces from terrorist groups. Were going to be I think maintain our involvement, perhaps even expand our involvement in those areas, but I think thats trying to do whats right for Paksitan.
QUESTION: And last question (inaudible). Do you think that in future, there is an effort to solve the Kashmiri movement in Pakistani because
ASSISTANT SECRETARY BOUCHER: Theres always hope. Theres always hope. But its been something that they themselves have pursued. The question of India-Pakistan relations is one that they have actually made great strides forward in the last couple years. And obviously, the tensions created by the Mumbai incident made that more difficult right now. But I think theres an opportunity here to work together against the groups that are trying to disrupt India-Pakistan relations, against the groups that are actually harming the cause of Kashmir by carrying out these horrible terrorist actions. And hopefully, coming out of that, the two sides will find themselves in a better position to cooperate.
All right. Were going to do one last one, because
QUESTION: So do you have some information or any confirmation about this U.S. airline you know, there was a plot to bomb Transatlantic Airlines from UK and the suspect Rashid Rauf was (inaudible) in U.S. (inaudible) acts in Pakistan. Can you confirm?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY BOUCHER: I dont know. I dont anything about that. Sorry.
QUESTION: Rashid Rauf.
QUESTION: India has been (inaudible) today. Someone (inaudible) link to this Mumbai attack, but we have got indications that Washington, since there is no extradition treaty, Pakistan can prosecute them, but there is an effort by India to re-launch that case.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY BOUCHER: Now, look, I dont the matter of the India-Pakistan relationship on judicial matters is something for them to address. Our interest is in seeing these people brought to justice, knowing that everybody who was involved in these attacks -- whether they were in Mumbai shooting at people or they were somewhere in Pakistan planning it -- that everybody that was involved in these attacks is brought to justice. And well work with all the parties to try to make sure that happens. Okay.
QUESTION: Just to clarify his question, he was asking about Rashid Rauf, whether you knew know if whether you can confirm he was killed in a drone attack. You dont?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY BOUCHER: I dont know.
QUESTION: Okay.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY BOUCHER: Thank you.
H2O3C4Nitrogen
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2007
- Messages
- 4,386
- Reaction score
- 0
i m concerened will things get better in Pakistan from the US help.
and if things get better in this reagion then wat will happen next?
Is theres a chance that we can get advanced US milletary hardware for our forces along with the food and economic aid ?
Secondly how US views Pak-Iran gas pipeline deal?
And wats the guarantee that by obtaining latest US milletary HardWare India would not become a threat for our National Security?
And how would Pakistan behave when the delicate balance of power will move in our , old enemy india's favour?
and if things get better in this reagion then wat will happen next?
Is theres a chance that we can get advanced US milletary hardware for our forces along with the food and economic aid ?
Secondly how US views Pak-Iran gas pipeline deal?
And wats the guarantee that by obtaining latest US milletary HardWare India would not become a threat for our National Security?
And how would Pakistan behave when the delicate balance of power will move in our , old enemy india's favour?
pkpatriotic
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2008
- Messages
- 2,317
- Reaction score
- 0
The Bush Doctrine after Bush.
Whatever Happened to Preemption?
US require an invasion of FATA Pakistan, and airstrikes on it's nuclear installations
By Max Boot
Jan 2009 Publication
After 9/11, many wondered why the United States had not taken military action in Afghanistan earlier to avert the deaths of more than 3,000 innocents. It was the same question many asked after 9/1 -- that would be Sept. 1, 1939, the date when Germany invaded Poland. The evil intentions of the Nazis, like those of al Qaeda, had been clear far in advance. Why had the civilized world not intervened before tragedy struck? Why had those in a position to act not listened to the anguished, urgent warnings coming from the likes of Winston Churchill and Anthony Eden in the case of the Nazis, or from Richard Clarke, Reuel Gerecht, and others in the case of the Islamists?
The answer is almost impossible to fathom in retrospect once we are aware of the consequences of inaction. Indeed, so convinced was U.S. President George W. Bush of the need to avoid making the same mistake in the future that he promulgated a doctrine of preemption that roiled traditional foreign-policy circles. Citing threats such as a terrorist attack with weapons of mass destruction, the president's 2002 National Security Strategy vowed, "To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by [its] adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively" in exercising its inherent right of self-defense. As recently as Dec. 9, speaking at West Point, Bush reiterated that after 9/11, "We resolved that we would not wait to be attacked again. ... We understood, as I said here at West Point in 2002, 'if we wait for threats to fully materialize, we will have waited too long' -- so we made clear that hostile regimes sponsoring terror or pursuing weapons of mass destruction would be held to account."
The Iraq war was the first step toward making good on what became known as the Bush doctrine. Yet the very messiness of that intervention served as a warning of the costs of preemption. That perhaps explains why Bush, even as he continues to reaffirm that preemption is essential to U.S. national security, has failed to do more to deal with the gathering storms in Pakistan and Iran, which to future historians might stand, more than Iraq or the financial meltdown, as the greatest stains on his presidency.
In the years since Sept. 11, 2001, Pakistan has replaced Afghanistan as the leading refuge for al Qaeda and related scoundrels. Its territory has been connected to atrocities as far afield as the Mumbai attacks, which killed 170 people in November, and the London bombings, which killed 56 people in 2005. Other Pakistan-related plots have been stopped barely in the nick of time. These include Richard Reid's attempt to bring down an airliner with a shoe bomb in 2001 and plans to carry out a series of bombings in Europe by 14 would-be terrorists, who were arrested in Spain in early 2008. A few of the masterminds behind these machinations have been caught or killed. Many others, including Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, remain alive and probably hiding in Pakistan. A handful of high-profile arrests notwithstanding, the Pakistani security services have made scant effort to root out jihadist networks that have long-standing links with Pakistan's own Inter-Services Intelligence agency.
In its recent report, the congressionally chartered Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism, chaired by former U.S. Senators Bob Graham and Jim Talent, "singled out Pakistan for special attention" because "many government officials and outside experts believe that the next terrorist attack against the United States is likely to originate from within the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) in Pakistan."
What is truly alarming is the possibility that such an attack could be carried out with weapons of mass destruction. If al Qaeda were ever to get its hands on a nuclear bomb, Pakistan would have to be considered a prime culprit. It is, after all, a state rife with Islamist extremists, and has a government unable to preserve even a modicum of order. Its capacity to safeguard its nuclear arsenal, even with the best of intentions, is in doubt. Already, the A.Q. Khan ring has been responsible for a frightening amount of nuclear proliferation. It takes a lot of credulity to imagine that Pakistan's top nuclear weapons scientist could carry out these activities without the knowledge of anyone in the Pakistani government.
There are even greater potential pitfalls associated with a serious attempt to stamp out terrorism emanating from Pakistan. "Preemption lite" -- the current approach of picking off terrorist leaders with armed Predator drones -- can help to weaken and slow the jihadists, but it can hardly defeat them. That would, in all likelihood, require an invasion of western Pakistan, perhaps accompanied by preemptive airstrikes on Pakistan's nuclear installations. That is an undertaking so daunting as to make even the most hawkish of analysts turn dovish.
Pakistan is, after all, a country of 160 million people with nuclear weapons and more than 600,000 active-duty military personnel. Even if most of its armed forces could be convinced not to resist a large-scale, U.S.-led incursion (and that is by no means a certainty), the invading troops would have to deal with the nightmarish prospect of pacifying the Federally Administered Tribal Areas. This region is home to more than 6 million Pashtuns living amid treacherous, mountainous terrain that has never been fully brought under control by any outside power. Next door is the North-West Frontier Province, which has a population of 20 million and has also become a playground for jihadists. Sending U.S. troops to take on such a difficult task would be virtually unthinkable, barring another tragedy on the scale of 9/11.
And that's precisely the point. We Americans shy away from preemptive action because we can imagine all too clearly the costs of action. But we lack the imagination to see the costs of inaction. Or, rather, we can imagine the costs, but we tell ourselves, fingers crossed, that we may never have to pay them. Perhaps we will not live to see a major attack, emanating from Pakistan or Iran, on our soil or the soil of an allied country. Perhaps we will indeed dodge the bullet -- or, more aptly, the bomb. Or perhaps not.
Another likely source for a terrorist bomb would have to be Iran.
Iran's own government admits to having more than 5,000 centrifuges in operation and plans to install many more. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) estimates that those centrifuges have already produced 630 kilograms, or 1,390 pounds, of low-enriched uranium. Once that material is purified into highly enriched uranium, it would be sufficient, or nearly sufficient, to make an atomic bomb. Intelligence estimates warn that could happen sometime in 2009. Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the IAEA, is hardly a hard-liner, but even he says efforts to stop Iran's nuclear program have been a "failure." "We haven't really moved one inch toward addressing the issues," he recently told the Los Angeles Times.
Considering that Iran is listed by the U.S. State Department as the world's No. 1 state sponsor of terrorism (and Americans are one of its main victims), that is disquieting news. The dangers were well summed up by another bipartisan report, this one issued by former Senators Chuck Robb and Dan Coats: "Iran's nuclear development may pose the most significant strategic threat to the United States during the next Administration. A nuclear-ready or nuclear-armed Islamic Republic ruled by the clerical regime could threaten the Persian Gulf region and its vast energy resources, spark nuclear proliferation throughout the Middle East, inject additional volatility into global energy markets, embolden extremists in the region and destabilize states such as Saudi Arabia and others in the region, provide nuclear technology to other radical regimes and terrorists (although Iran might hesitate to share traceable nuclear technology), and seek to make good on its threats to eradicate Israel."
No wonder there is general agreement across the U.S. political spectrum that, as President-elect Barack Obama said in the second presidential debate in October, "We cannot allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon." Yet what is he actually prepared to do to stop the mullahs?
Bush relied on tough talk and toothless diplomacy conducted by France, Britain, and Germany. Those negotiations went nowhere, but that doesn't discourage Obama from vowing to place even more emphasis on diplomacy once he takes office. He has vowed to use "sticks" as well as "carrots" but, given the opposition of China and Russia in particular, there is scant cause to think that he will be any more successful than Bush in putting real multilateral pressure on Iran. Indeed, an Iranian spokesman has already rejected Obama's approach, saying, "Tehran's stand is the same as before; that is, if they [the U.S. administration] want suspension, we have repeatedly announced that we will not suspend [enrichment activities]."
The likelihood is that the Iranians will continue to string Obama along, as they've strung along the Europeans, drawing out the negotiations to give themselves time to produce a bomb. Once they actually go nuclear, they realize from observing North Korea's experience that their leverage to demand concessions from the West will soar and the West's capacity for an effective response will plummet. (North Korea is another country where Bush has done little to head off a serious threat.)
For all the empty talk of "tough diplomacy," the uncomfortable reality is that there is only one option that in the short term is likely to forestall Iran from going nuclear: airstrikes on its atomic installations. That is hardly an ideal solution, and, given how dispersed and protected Iran's nuclear facilities are, not even a series of sorties is likely to eradicate the threat. But bombing could at least set back the Iranian program for a number of years, which is more than diplomacy is likely to accomplish.
Bush has implicitly threatened such a strike when he has said time after time that "all options are on the table," but he has never made any moves to prepare either the U.S. military or the U.S. public for such action. Some reports suggest he went so far as to discourage Israel from mounting its own raid.
No doubt President-elect Obama is listening to the numerous voices inside and outside his incoming administration that cite the many drawbacks of an attack on Iran. And, no question, the drawbacks are real. These range from the possibility of the Iranian people rallying around the mullahs to the possibility of the mullahs closing the Strait of Hormuz or carrying out terrorist strikes on U.S. forces in Iraq, Afghanistan, or as far afield as Europe or the Americas.
In a prosperous democracy it is all too easy for our leaders to succumb to the same soothing narcosis as the general populace, content to imagine that problems do not really exist because they have not yet fully materialized. That is the illusion that Churchill fought against in the 1930s and Clarke in the 1990s. They both failed. Now, as the United States and our allies fail to act decisively against present-day dangers, we know why.
Max Boot is the Jeane J. Kirkpatrick, a senior fellow in national security studies at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, he lectures regularly at numerous military schools and advises the Department of Defense on transformation issues. A graduate of the University of California, Berkeley, and Yale University. He is author most recently of War Made New: Technology, Warfare, and the Course of History, 1500 to Today (New York: Gotham, 2006). He has been hailed as a “magisterial survey of technology and war” by the New York Times, “brilliantly crafted history” by The Wall Street Journal, and “a book for both the general reader and reading generals” by the New York Post.
Whatever Happened to Preemption?
US require an invasion of FATA Pakistan, and airstrikes on it's nuclear installations
By Max Boot
Jan 2009 Publication
After 9/11, many wondered why the United States had not taken military action in Afghanistan earlier to avert the deaths of more than 3,000 innocents. It was the same question many asked after 9/1 -- that would be Sept. 1, 1939, the date when Germany invaded Poland. The evil intentions of the Nazis, like those of al Qaeda, had been clear far in advance. Why had the civilized world not intervened before tragedy struck? Why had those in a position to act not listened to the anguished, urgent warnings coming from the likes of Winston Churchill and Anthony Eden in the case of the Nazis, or from Richard Clarke, Reuel Gerecht, and others in the case of the Islamists?
The answer is almost impossible to fathom in retrospect once we are aware of the consequences of inaction. Indeed, so convinced was U.S. President George W. Bush of the need to avoid making the same mistake in the future that he promulgated a doctrine of preemption that roiled traditional foreign-policy circles. Citing threats such as a terrorist attack with weapons of mass destruction, the president's 2002 National Security Strategy vowed, "To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by [its] adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively" in exercising its inherent right of self-defense. As recently as Dec. 9, speaking at West Point, Bush reiterated that after 9/11, "We resolved that we would not wait to be attacked again. ... We understood, as I said here at West Point in 2002, 'if we wait for threats to fully materialize, we will have waited too long' -- so we made clear that hostile regimes sponsoring terror or pursuing weapons of mass destruction would be held to account."
The Iraq war was the first step toward making good on what became known as the Bush doctrine. Yet the very messiness of that intervention served as a warning of the costs of preemption. That perhaps explains why Bush, even as he continues to reaffirm that preemption is essential to U.S. national security, has failed to do more to deal with the gathering storms in Pakistan and Iran, which to future historians might stand, more than Iraq or the financial meltdown, as the greatest stains on his presidency.
In the years since Sept. 11, 2001, Pakistan has replaced Afghanistan as the leading refuge for al Qaeda and related scoundrels. Its territory has been connected to atrocities as far afield as the Mumbai attacks, which killed 170 people in November, and the London bombings, which killed 56 people in 2005. Other Pakistan-related plots have been stopped barely in the nick of time. These include Richard Reid's attempt to bring down an airliner with a shoe bomb in 2001 and plans to carry out a series of bombings in Europe by 14 would-be terrorists, who were arrested in Spain in early 2008. A few of the masterminds behind these machinations have been caught or killed. Many others, including Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, remain alive and probably hiding in Pakistan. A handful of high-profile arrests notwithstanding, the Pakistani security services have made scant effort to root out jihadist networks that have long-standing links with Pakistan's own Inter-Services Intelligence agency.
In its recent report, the congressionally chartered Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism, chaired by former U.S. Senators Bob Graham and Jim Talent, "singled out Pakistan for special attention" because "many government officials and outside experts believe that the next terrorist attack against the United States is likely to originate from within the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) in Pakistan."
What is truly alarming is the possibility that such an attack could be carried out with weapons of mass destruction. If al Qaeda were ever to get its hands on a nuclear bomb, Pakistan would have to be considered a prime culprit. It is, after all, a state rife with Islamist extremists, and has a government unable to preserve even a modicum of order. Its capacity to safeguard its nuclear arsenal, even with the best of intentions, is in doubt. Already, the A.Q. Khan ring has been responsible for a frightening amount of nuclear proliferation. It takes a lot of credulity to imagine that Pakistan's top nuclear weapons scientist could carry out these activities without the knowledge of anyone in the Pakistani government.
There are even greater potential pitfalls associated with a serious attempt to stamp out terrorism emanating from Pakistan. "Preemption lite" -- the current approach of picking off terrorist leaders with armed Predator drones -- can help to weaken and slow the jihadists, but it can hardly defeat them. That would, in all likelihood, require an invasion of western Pakistan, perhaps accompanied by preemptive airstrikes on Pakistan's nuclear installations. That is an undertaking so daunting as to make even the most hawkish of analysts turn dovish.
Pakistan is, after all, a country of 160 million people with nuclear weapons and more than 600,000 active-duty military personnel. Even if most of its armed forces could be convinced not to resist a large-scale, U.S.-led incursion (and that is by no means a certainty), the invading troops would have to deal with the nightmarish prospect of pacifying the Federally Administered Tribal Areas. This region is home to more than 6 million Pashtuns living amid treacherous, mountainous terrain that has never been fully brought under control by any outside power. Next door is the North-West Frontier Province, which has a population of 20 million and has also become a playground for jihadists. Sending U.S. troops to take on such a difficult task would be virtually unthinkable, barring another tragedy on the scale of 9/11.
And that's precisely the point. We Americans shy away from preemptive action because we can imagine all too clearly the costs of action. But we lack the imagination to see the costs of inaction. Or, rather, we can imagine the costs, but we tell ourselves, fingers crossed, that we may never have to pay them. Perhaps we will not live to see a major attack, emanating from Pakistan or Iran, on our soil or the soil of an allied country. Perhaps we will indeed dodge the bullet -- or, more aptly, the bomb. Or perhaps not.
Another likely source for a terrorist bomb would have to be Iran.
Iran's own government admits to having more than 5,000 centrifuges in operation and plans to install many more. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) estimates that those centrifuges have already produced 630 kilograms, or 1,390 pounds, of low-enriched uranium. Once that material is purified into highly enriched uranium, it would be sufficient, or nearly sufficient, to make an atomic bomb. Intelligence estimates warn that could happen sometime in 2009. Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the IAEA, is hardly a hard-liner, but even he says efforts to stop Iran's nuclear program have been a "failure." "We haven't really moved one inch toward addressing the issues," he recently told the Los Angeles Times.
Considering that Iran is listed by the U.S. State Department as the world's No. 1 state sponsor of terrorism (and Americans are one of its main victims), that is disquieting news. The dangers were well summed up by another bipartisan report, this one issued by former Senators Chuck Robb and Dan Coats: "Iran's nuclear development may pose the most significant strategic threat to the United States during the next Administration. A nuclear-ready or nuclear-armed Islamic Republic ruled by the clerical regime could threaten the Persian Gulf region and its vast energy resources, spark nuclear proliferation throughout the Middle East, inject additional volatility into global energy markets, embolden extremists in the region and destabilize states such as Saudi Arabia and others in the region, provide nuclear technology to other radical regimes and terrorists (although Iran might hesitate to share traceable nuclear technology), and seek to make good on its threats to eradicate Israel."
No wonder there is general agreement across the U.S. political spectrum that, as President-elect Barack Obama said in the second presidential debate in October, "We cannot allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon." Yet what is he actually prepared to do to stop the mullahs?
Bush relied on tough talk and toothless diplomacy conducted by France, Britain, and Germany. Those negotiations went nowhere, but that doesn't discourage Obama from vowing to place even more emphasis on diplomacy once he takes office. He has vowed to use "sticks" as well as "carrots" but, given the opposition of China and Russia in particular, there is scant cause to think that he will be any more successful than Bush in putting real multilateral pressure on Iran. Indeed, an Iranian spokesman has already rejected Obama's approach, saying, "Tehran's stand is the same as before; that is, if they [the U.S. administration] want suspension, we have repeatedly announced that we will not suspend [enrichment activities]."
The likelihood is that the Iranians will continue to string Obama along, as they've strung along the Europeans, drawing out the negotiations to give themselves time to produce a bomb. Once they actually go nuclear, they realize from observing North Korea's experience that their leverage to demand concessions from the West will soar and the West's capacity for an effective response will plummet. (North Korea is another country where Bush has done little to head off a serious threat.)
For all the empty talk of "tough diplomacy," the uncomfortable reality is that there is only one option that in the short term is likely to forestall Iran from going nuclear: airstrikes on its atomic installations. That is hardly an ideal solution, and, given how dispersed and protected Iran's nuclear facilities are, not even a series of sorties is likely to eradicate the threat. But bombing could at least set back the Iranian program for a number of years, which is more than diplomacy is likely to accomplish.
Bush has implicitly threatened such a strike when he has said time after time that "all options are on the table," but he has never made any moves to prepare either the U.S. military or the U.S. public for such action. Some reports suggest he went so far as to discourage Israel from mounting its own raid.
No doubt President-elect Obama is listening to the numerous voices inside and outside his incoming administration that cite the many drawbacks of an attack on Iran. And, no question, the drawbacks are real. These range from the possibility of the Iranian people rallying around the mullahs to the possibility of the mullahs closing the Strait of Hormuz or carrying out terrorist strikes on U.S. forces in Iraq, Afghanistan, or as far afield as Europe or the Americas.
In a prosperous democracy it is all too easy for our leaders to succumb to the same soothing narcosis as the general populace, content to imagine that problems do not really exist because they have not yet fully materialized. That is the illusion that Churchill fought against in the 1930s and Clarke in the 1990s. They both failed. Now, as the United States and our allies fail to act decisively against present-day dangers, we know why.
Max Boot is the Jeane J. Kirkpatrick, a senior fellow in national security studies at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, he lectures regularly at numerous military schools and advises the Department of Defense on transformation issues. A graduate of the University of California, Berkeley, and Yale University. He is author most recently of War Made New: Technology, Warfare, and the Course of History, 1500 to Today (New York: Gotham, 2006). He has been hailed as a “magisterial survey of technology and war” by the New York Times, “brilliantly crafted history” by The Wall Street Journal, and “a book for both the general reader and reading generals” by the New York Post.
Last edited:
pkpatriotic
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2008
- Messages
- 2,317
- Reaction score
- 0
Remarks to the Press
U.S.-Afghanistan Relations
Richard A. Boucher, Assistant Secretary for South and Central Asian Affairs
Kabul, Afghanistan
January 7, 2009
ASSISTANT SECRETARY BOUCHER: Good afternoon, everybody. Its good to be back in Afghanistan. Im sorry to bring you out on a holiday, which most of you probably were working today anyway, but Im very glad to be back here. This is my first trip of the year so I think its entirely fitting that I come to Afghanistan and talk about a lot of important issues and see a lot of friends that Ive been working with for the last several years.
I had a chance to talk to President Karzai, to meet with Foreign Minister Spanta. I went to visit Dr. Popal at the Independent Directorate for Local Governance. I went out to the Independent Election Commission to talk to them about their work on voter registration. I had a chance to talk to the Minister of Interior about police reform and police training. I talked to other people in the security area. I think its been a very important opportunity to visit here.
I came here from Pakistan where Ive just seen President Zardari, and it turned out to be on the same day that he was coming to visit. I just want to say the United States very much welcomes the cooperation between Pakistan and Afghanistan. Turning, Id say, very strong personal relationships between Presidents and Ministers and others into really concrete efforts by the governments to build ties and open up opportunities for people in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
The second reason why we think this cooperation between Pakistan and Afghanistan is important is because both Presidents, both governments, have a very strong determination to fight terrorism and to make their citizens safe -- a strong determination thats supported by the United States in Pakistan and Afghanistan. We think that really the only way were going to beat the menace, beat back the Taliban and terrorists that are threatening Pakistanis and Afghans, is by having that kind of Afghan-Pakistan cooperation and both having strong United States and international support for doing that.
2009 will be an important year for all of us. As you know in the United States were going through a transition. Well have a new team coming on, working on a new team thats pledged to give a lot of priority to Afghanistan and Pakistan. So I think well continue to work very hard in this region.
2009 is an election year in Afghanistan and the Afghan people will get to enjoy the same right and the same opportunity that we had in the United States.
But I think also there are a lot of elements coming together this year that weve been working on over the last year -- things like strengthened local governance coming into place, or enhanced police training, enhanced police reform, a higher pace of Army training, electricity coming on-line that weve been working on, particularly electricity for Kabul. And of course, as youve seen, our military already announced there will be new troops, U.S. forces coming in this year starting this month with some troops in the Logar and Wardak areas and followed by other groups of troops going to the south, so that we can work more with the Afghan people, but with the Afghan army and the police as they provide security for the people of Afghanistan.
So as we start a new year let me make clear once again the absolute commitment of the United States to a sovereign, independent, democratic Afghanistan with a government that can provide safety and justice and opportunity to its citizens. I think as we move into the new year youll see that commitment expressed in concrete ways, in terms of what we do but also in terms of our desire to support Afghan-led security operations, the Afghan lead in governance, the Afghan lead in the economy, so that Afghans more and more control their own destiny.
With that, Ill be glad to take your questions.
QUESTION: You said the new troops are going to come to Logar and Wardak and the following reinforcements will go south. Is it just south? Where exactly? And (inaudible)?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY BOUCHER: I think youre going to have to go down the street to ask those questions. I frankly dont know the exact answers on the deployments. I think thats where the military comes in. Theyll have to do the planning on that, where they end up going in the end. I know some will go south. I dont know about the east, but theyll figure that out as we go along.
But I think its important to recognize the United States is going to be there in the fight. Were going to be there wherever its needed, and were going to be working with Afghan forces. I think one of the things were doing more and more is sending troops who can work with Afghan counterparts. Were sending troops who can support Afghan police and provide protection for them. Its very much a joint effort at this stage. Well be out there fighting, but well be fighting alongside our Afghan compatriots.
QUESTION: You mentioned a deployment of new troops to Wardak and Logar provinces, however the Afghan government and the Afghan political analysts and military analysts have been emphasizing time by time that the troops should be deployed to the border areas, not to the centers of the provinces. They have described an effective method that the troops should be deployed to the border areas.
In the meantime, when President-elect Obama was in Afghanistan he emphasized that the Afghan government has had a defensive position in the past few years; theyve not had an offensive position in the war on terror. Has that perception changed to any extent so far?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY BOUCHER: First of all, again, Im not here to do military deployments. Im not a military planner. Im not a military expert. Im going to let the military experts decide where the troops go and where they can be most effective. That means Afghan and U.S. and international military experts to do that together. Im just telling you the facts as I know them. Im not trying to do the planning at this table.
The element of, sort of, offensive operations, I think is important to keep in mind that we are, were here to help extend the reach of the Afghan government so that the Afghan government, the democratic government in Afghanistan, can provide safety and services and opportunity to its people. That does mean going into new places and helping the government establish itself. That means using military force. That means helping the Afghan government deploy police. It means helping the Afghan government put in district sub-governors, go in with aid projects and assistance. So its very much an effort to push out and I think thats been underway. I think thats what youll see continue.
QUESTION: (Inaudible), given there are a lot of people saying this is a parallel Taliban government in part because Afghanistan is clearly (inaudible). How do you think you can practically [inaudible]? Theyre preventing voter registration (inaudible)...
ASSISTANT SECRETARY BOUCHER: But its not. Lets try to get the facts straight on this one.
QUESTION: Can I finish my question, sir?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY BOUCHER: Yes.
QUESTION: (Inaudible). Its having an affect on peoples access to registration (inaudible) and that is, in turn, possibly going to affect the presidential (inaudible). So from a practical point of view how can you penetrate that?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY BOUCHER: From a practical point of view
QUESTION: From your point of view.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY BOUCHER: From a practical point of view. My point of view is very practical. [Laughter].
Weve registered so far 3.5 million new voters -- not we, but the Independent Election Commission has registered so far 3.5 million new voters in Afghanistan in the voter registration drive that is still underway. Theyve been able to carry that drive out successfully in over 200 districts. You can get the exact number from them. I dont think there are any districts where theyve been unable to do it. Some districts theyre doing a lot of careful planning, maybe a dozen or so, where they dont have a strong presence yet. But this is so far, knock on wood, a quite successful voter registration drive.
Second of all, I know there are these reports of Taliban governance. We see bits and pieces of it in different places, places where theyve been, where the government hasnt penetrated yet. In most districts where the government doesnt have a strong presence, the Taliban dont have a strong presence either. Its local tribes, local apparatus, local justice systems that prevail. Thats fine in many cases. It serves some of the needs of the people. But I think the effort has to be to provide people with good, decent government.
Nobody in Afghanistan likes the Taliban very much. Theyve suffered under the Taliban. Theyve experienced the Taliban. Where theyve accepted Taliban presence its frequently been under the force of the gun. I think if the government can provide good governance and good services thats what people will want. So I think our job is to help the government get out there and provide what the people need.
QUESTION: Theres a pretty high probability, it seems, that Karzais term will expire before hes able to hold elections, before elections can be held. Im just wondering if that happens and hes legally illegitimate, at least on paper, how, or before it comes to that, how you intend to help the government finesse the problem of having the elections in an orderly way if time has run out.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY BOUCHER: I think from a practical point of view one has to look at: how do you give the maximum number of Afghan people the maximum opportunity to choose their government, to vote in an election. There is a discussion in Afghanistan about the constitution the constitutional rules, some of the different clauses. I think we understand that, we accept that. But also if theres some sort of political consensus or understanding in Afghanistan about when the election should be held, thats fine with us, frankly. Were not coming at this from a legalistic point of view. Were coming at this from whats the best way to get the maximum number of Afghans a chance to vote. And when you look at it from security or just the matter of just organizing the elections and the ballots and the voting, there are a lot of people that say its just got to be later in the year rather than early in the year.
So that discussion is going on in Afghanistan. I wouldnt say theyve formed a consensus yet, but obviously well accept and support whatever the Afghans decide to do.
QUESTION: It just sounds as if youve accepted that the elections going to be later in the year and not sooner in the year.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY BOUCHER: It sounds as if were accepting whatever the Afghans decide, because thats what I said.
QUESTION: Just to follow up to the elections question, recently the Afghan Independent Elections Commission announced they are facing a lack of budget for the upcoming elections. In case that problem exists they will not be able to hold the elections on the time mentioned in the Afghan constitution. How committed is the U.S. government in funding the elections process in Afghanistan?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY BOUCHER: Were very committed to funding the elections. I know that other international participants, players, are also committed. Ive talked to Europeans, Ive talked to [the] Japanese, Ive talked to a variety of donors. The money will be there for the election. I am going to be talking to other countries to make sure that the money actually shows up, but I dont have any doubt that it will.
QUESTION: Are you ready to accept any other forms of legitimizing the leadership other than elections?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY BOUCHER: Theres no other form of legitimizing leadership in a democracy than elections. Theres no other form in France; theres no other form in Holland; theres no other form in Canada or the United States; theres no other form in Afghanistan. So this government, this people, this society is committed to elections and were committed to supporting them and doing that.
QUESTION: How do you look to President Zardaris trip to Afghanistan, because Pakistan faces (inaudible) conflict with India? They said they would withdraw their forces from the tribal area on the border of Afghanistan to the border with India. So how will it have an effect on Afghanistan security?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY BOUCHER: First of all, I think we see President Zardaris trip here and the work that hes done as a very strong commitment to opening up opportunities with Afghanistan. But also to ending the terrorist menace that afflicts Pakistani people and Afghan people both.
Pakistan remains heavily engaged in the tribal areas, heavily engaged in trying to end the terrorist menace up there. Weve really seen very little change in that situation. But thats part and parcel of this overall pledge that Pakistan has made to end terrorism inside Pakistan. Whether its the groups that have been attacking Pakistanis and blowing up the Marriott Hotel, for example, or the groups that have been supporting terrorism in Afghanistan, or the groups that organized and carried out the attack on Mumbai, these people are all a threat to Pakistan. As far as we see it the Pakistan government has said that they will try to eliminate those threats from their soil.
Thank you very much. I appreciate the chance to see you again.
U.S.-Afghanistan Relations
Richard A. Boucher, Assistant Secretary for South and Central Asian Affairs
Kabul, Afghanistan
January 7, 2009
ASSISTANT SECRETARY BOUCHER: Good afternoon, everybody. Its good to be back in Afghanistan. Im sorry to bring you out on a holiday, which most of you probably were working today anyway, but Im very glad to be back here. This is my first trip of the year so I think its entirely fitting that I come to Afghanistan and talk about a lot of important issues and see a lot of friends that Ive been working with for the last several years.
I had a chance to talk to President Karzai, to meet with Foreign Minister Spanta. I went to visit Dr. Popal at the Independent Directorate for Local Governance. I went out to the Independent Election Commission to talk to them about their work on voter registration. I had a chance to talk to the Minister of Interior about police reform and police training. I talked to other people in the security area. I think its been a very important opportunity to visit here.
I came here from Pakistan where Ive just seen President Zardari, and it turned out to be on the same day that he was coming to visit. I just want to say the United States very much welcomes the cooperation between Pakistan and Afghanistan. Turning, Id say, very strong personal relationships between Presidents and Ministers and others into really concrete efforts by the governments to build ties and open up opportunities for people in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
The second reason why we think this cooperation between Pakistan and Afghanistan is important is because both Presidents, both governments, have a very strong determination to fight terrorism and to make their citizens safe -- a strong determination thats supported by the United States in Pakistan and Afghanistan. We think that really the only way were going to beat the menace, beat back the Taliban and terrorists that are threatening Pakistanis and Afghans, is by having that kind of Afghan-Pakistan cooperation and both having strong United States and international support for doing that.
2009 will be an important year for all of us. As you know in the United States were going through a transition. Well have a new team coming on, working on a new team thats pledged to give a lot of priority to Afghanistan and Pakistan. So I think well continue to work very hard in this region.
2009 is an election year in Afghanistan and the Afghan people will get to enjoy the same right and the same opportunity that we had in the United States.
But I think also there are a lot of elements coming together this year that weve been working on over the last year -- things like strengthened local governance coming into place, or enhanced police training, enhanced police reform, a higher pace of Army training, electricity coming on-line that weve been working on, particularly electricity for Kabul. And of course, as youve seen, our military already announced there will be new troops, U.S. forces coming in this year starting this month with some troops in the Logar and Wardak areas and followed by other groups of troops going to the south, so that we can work more with the Afghan people, but with the Afghan army and the police as they provide security for the people of Afghanistan.
So as we start a new year let me make clear once again the absolute commitment of the United States to a sovereign, independent, democratic Afghanistan with a government that can provide safety and justice and opportunity to its citizens. I think as we move into the new year youll see that commitment expressed in concrete ways, in terms of what we do but also in terms of our desire to support Afghan-led security operations, the Afghan lead in governance, the Afghan lead in the economy, so that Afghans more and more control their own destiny.
With that, Ill be glad to take your questions.
QUESTION: You said the new troops are going to come to Logar and Wardak and the following reinforcements will go south. Is it just south? Where exactly? And (inaudible)?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY BOUCHER: I think youre going to have to go down the street to ask those questions. I frankly dont know the exact answers on the deployments. I think thats where the military comes in. Theyll have to do the planning on that, where they end up going in the end. I know some will go south. I dont know about the east, but theyll figure that out as we go along.
But I think its important to recognize the United States is going to be there in the fight. Were going to be there wherever its needed, and were going to be working with Afghan forces. I think one of the things were doing more and more is sending troops who can work with Afghan counterparts. Were sending troops who can support Afghan police and provide protection for them. Its very much a joint effort at this stage. Well be out there fighting, but well be fighting alongside our Afghan compatriots.
QUESTION: You mentioned a deployment of new troops to Wardak and Logar provinces, however the Afghan government and the Afghan political analysts and military analysts have been emphasizing time by time that the troops should be deployed to the border areas, not to the centers of the provinces. They have described an effective method that the troops should be deployed to the border areas.
In the meantime, when President-elect Obama was in Afghanistan he emphasized that the Afghan government has had a defensive position in the past few years; theyve not had an offensive position in the war on terror. Has that perception changed to any extent so far?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY BOUCHER: First of all, again, Im not here to do military deployments. Im not a military planner. Im not a military expert. Im going to let the military experts decide where the troops go and where they can be most effective. That means Afghan and U.S. and international military experts to do that together. Im just telling you the facts as I know them. Im not trying to do the planning at this table.
The element of, sort of, offensive operations, I think is important to keep in mind that we are, were here to help extend the reach of the Afghan government so that the Afghan government, the democratic government in Afghanistan, can provide safety and services and opportunity to its people. That does mean going into new places and helping the government establish itself. That means using military force. That means helping the Afghan government deploy police. It means helping the Afghan government put in district sub-governors, go in with aid projects and assistance. So its very much an effort to push out and I think thats been underway. I think thats what youll see continue.
QUESTION: (Inaudible), given there are a lot of people saying this is a parallel Taliban government in part because Afghanistan is clearly (inaudible). How do you think you can practically [inaudible]? Theyre preventing voter registration (inaudible)...
ASSISTANT SECRETARY BOUCHER: But its not. Lets try to get the facts straight on this one.
QUESTION: Can I finish my question, sir?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY BOUCHER: Yes.
QUESTION: (Inaudible). Its having an affect on peoples access to registration (inaudible) and that is, in turn, possibly going to affect the presidential (inaudible). So from a practical point of view how can you penetrate that?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY BOUCHER: From a practical point of view
QUESTION: From your point of view.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY BOUCHER: From a practical point of view. My point of view is very practical. [Laughter].
Weve registered so far 3.5 million new voters -- not we, but the Independent Election Commission has registered so far 3.5 million new voters in Afghanistan in the voter registration drive that is still underway. Theyve been able to carry that drive out successfully in over 200 districts. You can get the exact number from them. I dont think there are any districts where theyve been unable to do it. Some districts theyre doing a lot of careful planning, maybe a dozen or so, where they dont have a strong presence yet. But this is so far, knock on wood, a quite successful voter registration drive.
Second of all, I know there are these reports of Taliban governance. We see bits and pieces of it in different places, places where theyve been, where the government hasnt penetrated yet. In most districts where the government doesnt have a strong presence, the Taliban dont have a strong presence either. Its local tribes, local apparatus, local justice systems that prevail. Thats fine in many cases. It serves some of the needs of the people. But I think the effort has to be to provide people with good, decent government.
Nobody in Afghanistan likes the Taliban very much. Theyve suffered under the Taliban. Theyve experienced the Taliban. Where theyve accepted Taliban presence its frequently been under the force of the gun. I think if the government can provide good governance and good services thats what people will want. So I think our job is to help the government get out there and provide what the people need.
QUESTION: Theres a pretty high probability, it seems, that Karzais term will expire before hes able to hold elections, before elections can be held. Im just wondering if that happens and hes legally illegitimate, at least on paper, how, or before it comes to that, how you intend to help the government finesse the problem of having the elections in an orderly way if time has run out.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY BOUCHER: I think from a practical point of view one has to look at: how do you give the maximum number of Afghan people the maximum opportunity to choose their government, to vote in an election. There is a discussion in Afghanistan about the constitution the constitutional rules, some of the different clauses. I think we understand that, we accept that. But also if theres some sort of political consensus or understanding in Afghanistan about when the election should be held, thats fine with us, frankly. Were not coming at this from a legalistic point of view. Were coming at this from whats the best way to get the maximum number of Afghans a chance to vote. And when you look at it from security or just the matter of just organizing the elections and the ballots and the voting, there are a lot of people that say its just got to be later in the year rather than early in the year.
So that discussion is going on in Afghanistan. I wouldnt say theyve formed a consensus yet, but obviously well accept and support whatever the Afghans decide to do.
QUESTION: It just sounds as if youve accepted that the elections going to be later in the year and not sooner in the year.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY BOUCHER: It sounds as if were accepting whatever the Afghans decide, because thats what I said.
QUESTION: Just to follow up to the elections question, recently the Afghan Independent Elections Commission announced they are facing a lack of budget for the upcoming elections. In case that problem exists they will not be able to hold the elections on the time mentioned in the Afghan constitution. How committed is the U.S. government in funding the elections process in Afghanistan?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY BOUCHER: Were very committed to funding the elections. I know that other international participants, players, are also committed. Ive talked to Europeans, Ive talked to [the] Japanese, Ive talked to a variety of donors. The money will be there for the election. I am going to be talking to other countries to make sure that the money actually shows up, but I dont have any doubt that it will.
QUESTION: Are you ready to accept any other forms of legitimizing the leadership other than elections?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY BOUCHER: Theres no other form of legitimizing leadership in a democracy than elections. Theres no other form in France; theres no other form in Holland; theres no other form in Canada or the United States; theres no other form in Afghanistan. So this government, this people, this society is committed to elections and were committed to supporting them and doing that.
QUESTION: How do you look to President Zardaris trip to Afghanistan, because Pakistan faces (inaudible) conflict with India? They said they would withdraw their forces from the tribal area on the border of Afghanistan to the border with India. So how will it have an effect on Afghanistan security?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY BOUCHER: First of all, I think we see President Zardaris trip here and the work that hes done as a very strong commitment to opening up opportunities with Afghanistan. But also to ending the terrorist menace that afflicts Pakistani people and Afghan people both.
Pakistan remains heavily engaged in the tribal areas, heavily engaged in trying to end the terrorist menace up there. Weve really seen very little change in that situation. But thats part and parcel of this overall pledge that Pakistan has made to end terrorism inside Pakistan. Whether its the groups that have been attacking Pakistanis and blowing up the Marriott Hotel, for example, or the groups that have been supporting terrorism in Afghanistan, or the groups that organized and carried out the attack on Mumbai, these people are all a threat to Pakistan. As far as we see it the Pakistan government has said that they will try to eliminate those threats from their soil.
Thank you very much. I appreciate the chance to see you again.
Last edited:
Similar threads
