| Submit your comments on this article |
| India-Pakistan |
| Is it Af-Pak? Is it Pak-Af? It's a Fak-Ap! |
| 2009-04-24 |
| WASHINGTON: The Obama administration called it the Af-Pak policy. Its emphasis on Pakistan over Afghanistan led some regional experts to rename it the Pak-Af strategy. Now, with Pakistan seemingly hurtling towards anarchy, and discordant voices emerging from Washington on how to handle the situation, critics are dubbing it a potential Fak-Ap, an infelicitous terminological invention to describe a mess in the making. Washington is in ferment over the turmoil in Pakistan. Administration officials, lawmakers, and regional experts are in a tizzy over the prospective -- and some say imminent -- collapse of Pakistan. The fall of Buner, a district 100 kms from the capital Islamabad, made page one in many newspapers and headlines on television in a country facing myriad other crises. Not even the fall of Kabul to the Taliban in 1996 agitated Washington pundits as much. The reason for anxiety is not far (from Islamabad) to see. Pakistan's main nuclear and military complexes are within miles of the capital, which is only 60 miles (and that's only "as the crow flies" assured Pakistan's envoy to US Hussain Haqqani) from Buner. If the extremists who are promising to be hospitable to Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida take control of Islamabad and get their radical hands on the nukes. It's a nightmare scenario that haunts Washington. "The United States has an enormous stake in the stability and security of Pakistan. We can't...permit the Pakistani state and its nuclear arsenal to be taken over by the Taliban or any other radical groups or otherwise be destabilized in a matter that could lead to renewed conflict with India," California lawmaker Howard Berman said at a Congressional hearing on Wednesday. Others have expressed similar sentiments, but there is no sign the Obama administration, like its predecessor Bush dispensation, has any contingency plans to disarm a Pakistan with radicals in control of its nukes. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton skirted the Pakistan loose nuclear question in her testimony, but blasted the Pakistani government, its army, its civil society, and even its diaspora for not standing up to the Talibanist extremists, for abdicating their responsibility. Meanwhile, the disharmony in Washington over how to tackle Pakistan spilled out in the open on Wednesday after former Presidential candidate Senator John Kerry obliquely criticized the Obama administration over its Af-Pak policy, saying it "is not a real strategy." In fact, Kerry even advised the administration to stop using the term "Af-Pak," because "I think it does a disservice to both countries and to the policy," and the two governments are "very sensitive to it" and "don't see the linkage." "Pakistan is in a moment of peril," Kerry told reporters and editors of USA Today in an internal meeting reported by the paper. "And I believe there is not in place yet an adequate policy or plan to deal with it." The paper said Kerry later called to clarify that he did not mean to criticize Obama. "What I'm saying is that the details have not been fleshed out. We're working hand in hand on it," he explained. Both Kerry and Berman have returned recently from the region in preparation to move separate legislation in the Senate and House respectively to facilitate massive US assistance to Pakistan. Kerry's own proposals are seen as appeasement of Pakistan by some analysts. A bill he is expected to move in the Senate has been criticized for lavishing billions to Pakistan without any certifiable benchmarks that House members are demanding. In his USA Today meeting, Kerry said he opposes language in a companion bill in the House requiring the president to certify that Pakistan does not support terrorists. Pakistanis consider that "insulting," he said. But in her replies that followed her testimony on Wednesday, Secretary of State Clinton appeared to tread a middle path, saying, "we do think that there need to be the right kind of conditions," so the administration was "trying to figure out sort of what is the area that will influence behaviour and produce results." "You know, it's a little bit like the Goldilocks story. I mean, if they're too weak, we don't get changes. If they're too strong, we get a backlash," Clinton explained, telling lawmakers that the administration will work with them to figure out the "sweet spot" that would get results. "We're not interested in putting money into doing what hasn't worked. And we've seen the situation deteriorate over the last eight years in Pakistan and even before. It's been a very difficult country for us to get our arms around and figure out what our ongoing relationship would be like," she added. |
| Posted by:john frum |
| #4 Bman (#2). First, Pakistan does not want to fight Taliban, Pakistan is the Taliban now. Second, why will China help destroy Taliban? For the Chinese objectives on the world stage, Taliban are the best terrorists China will keep because these terrorists are doing exactly what China wants, driving USA away from that region and destroying the emerging power of India |
| Posted by: Annon 2009-04-24 16:28 |
| #3 "Is it Af-Pak? Is it Pak-Af? It's a Fak-Ap!" AFLAC!!! |
| Posted by: Penguin 2009-04-24 12:42 |
| #2 Mr. Annon, do you think China will directly help Pakistan fight the Taliban? |
| Posted by: bman 2009-04-24 12:12 |
| #1 Any person in US administration and foreign policy with an ounce of brain must have recognized that Pakistan will be under the influence of China and not long before now will be acting like the enemies of US like Iran and N. Korea for a very simple reason. Pakistan wants to rule India and Afghanistan at any cost and now Pakistan is seeing the reality that US will not help that failed state of Pakistan to severely harm India or Afghanistan. On the other hand, China has been more than happy to help Pakistan in order to control India and to throw the US dominance not only in far east and south Asia but every where in the world. See, China protects Iran, N. Korea and other African nations that are anti-American. I can only imagine what the US state department people have been smoking for many years because American tax payers have been paying a whole lot of money for Pakistan to buy arms from China to fight India. |
| Posted by: Annon 2009-04-24 05:58 |