| Submit your comments on this article |
| India-Pakistan |
| Pak bites the hand that feeds it |
| 2009-04-09 |
| WASHINGTON: A begging bowl in one hand hasn't stopped Pakistan from staging finger-wagging histrionics against the United States after Washington conveyed tough metrics for massive new financial aid it has earmarked for Islamabad. US officials in Washington acknowledged tensions at a meeting in Islamabad between principals from the two sides to discuss security and intelligence issues, but said the Obama administration would continue to work with Pakistan. ''We have been working with Pakistan as best we can to support them in their efforts to fight extremists. We’re going to continue to do so. Will there be differences of opinion from time to time on how we move forward? Yes. But this is normal in this type of relationship, particularly when you’re dealing with very difficult, thorny issues,” state department spokesman Robert Wood said on Wednesday, following reports of a tension-filled meetings. Advice by US interlocutors to Pakistan that it has to forgo terrorism as a policy option, cut its intelligence agency ISI's ties with the Taliban, stop pandering to an extremist agenda, and submit to an strict audit of foreign aid, was met with shrill denunciation by Pakistani leaders, including a public display of pique by its foreign minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi at a press conference in Islamabad. Asked about President Barack Obama's observation during the unveiling of the new Af-Pak policy that there would be no ''blank checks'' for Pakistan, Qureshi retorted that Pakistan would neither accept blank checks nor give them. The snarky response was a rejection of US request for joint ground operations in Pakistan to hunt down al-Qaida and Taliban leadership, according to reports in the Pakistani media. Qureshi also publicly denounced US drone attacks at a joint press conference with US interlocutors Richard Holdrooke and Mike Mullen by his side, bluntly saying the two sides disagreed on the matter and there were certain red lines he had flagged. (The Taliban meanwhile insists that the Drone strikes are taking place with the connivance of the Pakistani government and the military and its attacks in the Pakistani heartland is in retaliation for Islamabad’s partnership with US) However, the Pakistani histrionics over the drone strikes have evidently not made the slightest impression on US. Shortly after Holbrooke and Mullen left Islamabad for New Delhi on the third and final leg of their regional visit, US drones struck again in South Waziristan on Wednesday night, hitting a vehicle allegedly carrying terrorists and killing four. From all accounts, especially in the Pakistani media, the Holbrooke-Mullen mission to Islamabad was a disaster that has further exacerbated already fraught ties between the two sides. ''Drone attacks and other sensitive issues cast shadows over high-level talks between senior Pakistan and US officials,'' the Pakistani daily The News reported on the exchanges, adding that ''the body language of the foreign minister at the press conference said it all, and unlike other times with foreign dignitaries, Qureshi appeared ill and uncomfortable.'' There was no such discomfort from the US side as it conveyed several tough messages. US Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen bluntly told his hosts that the top leadership of Taliban is hiding in Pakistan and controlling the covert war against US-led forces in Afghanistan. In an obvious reference to Pakistan's denials, Mullen said the US knew from various sources that the Taliban shura was hiding in Balochistan and that had serious implications for the new US strategy for the region. He said the issue had been discussed with the Pakistani leadership. Washington has warned that it is considering expanding drone attacks to Baluchistan. Mullen's civilian counterpart, Af-Pak Special Representative Richard Holbrooke, on his part, rejected Pakistani demand for US intervention in Pakistan's dispute with India over Kashmir, sticking to the familiar line that it was up to the two countries to resolve the matter bilaterally. But the issue that has caused the most bitterness between the two sides is the US charge, amplified publicly several times in the last few weeks, that Pakistan's spy agency ISI is in cahoots with the Taliban and other terrorist networks. Pakistani leaders have raged against the allegation, but Washington has not backed down, insisting that Islamabad purge the organization of rogue elements. The flap over the ISI issue became so serious that the Pakistani sources leaked a story to the local news media that the country’s chief spook, Ahmed Shuja Pasha, had declined a one-on-one meeting with the US visitors as a mark of protest against (or a snub to) the American allegations. A Pakistani military spokesman later denied the reports and said Pasha had been present at a joint meeting the Pakistani delegation had with Holbrooke and Mullen But US observers were unimpressed, and the feeling continues to be strong in Washington that Pakistan is pushing the envelope with Washington to extract more US aid. ''Islamabad carefully stage-managed this unprecedented snub by the ISI chief as a means of telegraphing its resentment over a number of issues brewing between Washington and Islamabad,'' said Stratfor, a US think-tank, in its assessment of the exchanges with Pakistan. ''The snub is also part of an emerging consensus between Pakistan's military and civilian government that Islamabad needs to increase its bargaining power with the US as an ally in the war against militant Islamists,'' Stratfor said. Pakistani leaders also repeatedly called for a ''no strings attached'' aid from the world, saying it should be left to decide how it will spend the billions Washington is lining, ostensibly to save the country from collapse. |
| Posted by:john frum |
| #7 It ain't personal - they bite every hand around. |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2009-04-09 18:06 |
| #6 Halfway to Freedom: A Report on the New India,Simon and Schuster, New York, 1949 - By Margaret Bourke-White "America needs Pakistan more than Pakistan needs America," was Jinnah's reply. "Pakistan is the pivot of the world, as we are placed" -- he revolved his long forefinger in bony circles -- "the frontier on which the future position of the world revolves." He leaned toward me, dropping his voice to a confidential note. "Russia," confided Mr. Jinnah, "is not so very far away." This had a familiar ring. In Jinnah's mind this brave new nation had no other claim on American friendship than this - that across a wild tumble of roadless mountain ranges lay the land of the BoIsheviks. I wondered whether the Quaid-i-Azam considered his new state only as an armored buffer between opposing major powers. He was stressing America's military interest in other parts of the world. "America is now awakened," he said with a satisfied smile. Since the United States was now bolstering up Greece and Turkey, she should be much more interested in pouring money and arms into Pakistan. "If Russia walks in here," he concluded, "the whole world is menaced." In the weeks to come I was to hear the Quaid-i-Azam's thesis echoed by government officials throughout Pakistan. "Surely America will build up our army," they would say to me. "Surely America will give us loans to keep Russia from walking in." But when I asked whether there were any signs of Russian infiltration, they would reply almost sadly, as though sorry not to be able to make more of the argument. "No, Russia has shown no signs of being interested in Pakistan." This hope of tapping the U. S. Treasury was voiced so persistently that one wondered whether the purpose was to bolster the world against Bolshevism or to bolster Pakistan's own uncertain position as a new political entity. Actually, I think, it was more nearly related to the even more significant bankruptcy of ideas in the new Muslim state -- a nation drawing its spurious warmth from the embers of an antique religious fanaticism, fanned into a new blaze. Jinnah's most frequently used technique in the struggle for his new nation had been the playing of opponent against opponent. Evidently this technique was now to be extended into foreign policy |
| Posted by: john frum 2009-04-09 11:34 |
| #5 There only profitable export is terrorism!!! |
| Posted by: Paul2 2009-04-09 11:19 |
| #4 Just a thourght-Why should pakistan give up Taleban,Al Qaeda etc when we fund them billions to fight them??????? If Taleban/Al Q were destroyed/disbanded how would Pakistan get money from the west???? Bottom line-They prosper on terrorism to keep the country afloat!!!!. |
| Posted by: Paul2 2009-04-09 11:17 |
| #3 Also, not only do they have the most corrupt leader in their history who was convicted and sentences to 11 years, he's now looting the highway toll which go directly into his personal swiss account based on what I've been hearing. I don't trust them with no strings attached with our billions and they don't seem to be able to give a straight answer for sh*t. |
| Posted by: Galactic Coordinator Omavising9607 2009-04-09 10:33 |
| #2 How about for every insult, we cut $1billion in aid, then we'll save a bunch. |
| Posted by: Galactic Coordinator Omavising9607 2009-04-09 10:26 |
| #1 Fuck them. Let it collapse, bulldoze it over, and start again. |
| Posted by: PartJew 2009-04-09 09:05 |