What to Do About Pakistan

BY C. CHRISTINE FAIR

With an “ally” in a state of perpetual dysfunction, it’s time for Washington to reconsider its options: containment or benign neglect.

Excerpt: …. “At long last, it seems, various agencies of the United States government have come to the conclusion that Pakistan cannot be changed. Islamabad’s behavior in the region will remain staunchly pegged to its antipathy toward New Delhi. It will pursue policies that threaten the integrity of the Pakistani state for no other reason but the chimerical objective of resisting the obvious rise of India, while clinging to the delusion that it is India’s peer competitor — despite obvious and ever-growing disparities. Finally, Americans are asking what Pakistanis have long concluded: How can the United States and Pakistan have any kind of positive relationship when our strategic interests not only diverge but violently clash?…….While some may view these offerings as unreasonable, reckless, dangerous, and irresponsible, it is equally fair to ask whether Washington’s decades of policies toward Pakistan have been unreasonable, dangerous, and irresponsible? Moreover, what good have they accomplished? While many policymakers and analysts are willing to bank everything on the gamble that Pakistan is too dangerous to fail, we should be willing to consider what failure would mean and the inherent costs and benefits of this happening. After all, when the Soviet Union fell, none of the worst fears materialized. And Pakistan is hardly the Soviet Union” ….

Read more »Foreign Policy (FP)

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/06/21/what_to_do_about_pakistan?page=0,1

Ally or not Ally: ISAF airstrike across the border

Ally or not Ally – By Abbas Daiyar

Excerpt;

…. The ‘peace plan’ suggested by Pakistani military for the endgame in Afghanistan is simply not acceptable for Afghans and the international community. They want a big share in power for Haqqanis and Quetta Shura saying militants represent Pashtuns. Pakistan’s main objective is full withdrawal of US troops. They are against the US-Afghanistan Strategic Partnership agreement that allows presence of US troops long beyond 2014. Pakistani military has its reasons. They fear US military intervention from Afghanistan against their nuclear capabilities.

It’s time for both countries to stop lies and deceit and decide they are allies or not. The US should ensure Pakistani military that their presence in Afghanistan is not a threat. Washington should offer Rawalpindi a vital role in the peace process with Taliban exclusive among the US, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Pakistan should persuade the Taliban to come to table talks and give up violence and help the US and Afghanistan to eliminate those who continue terror. Similarly, the US and Afghanistan should assure Pakistan about their legitimate security and strategic concerns on the endgame in Afghanistan. But for this, General Kayani would have to compromise his current ‘peace plan’.

Read more » Kabul Perspective » Daily Outlook Afghanistan

The United States Should Change Its View on Pakistan

-With a Friend Like This

By ANATOL LIEVEN

If Washington wishes to improve relations with Pakistan, it needs to stop regarding Pakistan as an ally, and to start regarding it as an enemy — at least as far as the Afghan War is concerned.

Seeing Pakistan as an ally has not only obscured the reality of the situation, but has bred exaggerated bitterness at Pakistani “treachery.” And since Pakistanis also believe that America has “betrayed” them, the result is a thin veneer of friendship over a morass of mutual distrust and even hatred.

It would be far better from every point of view to admit that the two countries’ policies over Afghanistan are opposed to the point of limited conflict — and then seek ways to negotiate an end to that conflict.

Very little affection has ever been involved in the U.S.-Pakistani relationship, and both sides have sought their own advantage at the other’s expense. The Pakistani masses have long harbored deep hostility to the United States, which is now being reciprocated by many Americans. Given the appalling consequences for both countries of an armed clash, there is every reason why both sides should seek to keep their mutual hostility from getting out of hand.

The need for a change in U.S. attitudes toward Pakistan forms part of what should be a wider shift in U.S. attitudes to the outside world. Not just in the “Global War on Terror,” but in the Cold War, Americans have been strongly influenced by the belief that “you’re either with us, or against us.” …..

Read more » The New York Times

China Pullout Deals Blow to Pakistan

– Mining Company Abandons $19 Billion Pact; Move Is Setback to Islamabad’s Effort to Establish Beijing as Foil to U.S.

By TOM WRIGHT in New Delhi and JEREMY PAGE in Beijing

A Chinese mining company pulled out of what was to be Pakistan’s largest foreign-investment deal because of security concerns, complicating Islamabad’s effort to position its giant neighbor as an alternative to the U.S. as its main ally.

An official at China Kingho Group, one of China’s largest private coal miners, said on Thursday it had backed out in August from a $19 billion deal in southern Sindh province because of concerns for its personnel after recent bombings in Pakistan’s major cities. …

Read more » The Wall Street Journal

US Suspends $800 Million in Military Aid to Pakistan‎

– U.S. Suspends $800 Million in Pakistan Aid

WASHINGTON— (Associated Press) – President Barack Obama’s chief of staff confirmed that the U.S. is suspending $800 million in military aid to Pakistan.

William Daley said the U.S. relationship with Pakistan is “difficult” and must be made “to work over time.” But he told ABC television’s “This Week” that until “we get through that difficulty, we’ll hold back some of the money that the American taxpayers are committed to give” the U.S. ally.

Mr. Daley says the countries are trying to work through issues that have strained ties.

The New York Times reported that the U.S. is upset with Pakistan for expelling American military trainers and wants tougher action against the Taliban and others fighting American soldiers in Afghanistan.

Tensions between the countries have surged since U.S. forces killed Osama bin Laden in Pakistan in May.

Courtesy: → THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

Congressional Sindh Caucus Founded in Washington DC

WASHINGTON, DC (May 31, 2011) – The Sindhi American Political Action Committee (SAPAC) is glad to share with the people of Sindh, Sindhis around the world, and especially American Sindhis that the Congressional Sindh Caucus was founded late last week at the U.S. House of Representatives.

The Chairman of the Committee on House Administration, Rep. Dan Lungren, approved the registration of the Congressional Sindh Caucus. “The Committee is pleased to accept the registration for the 112th Congress,” said the confirmation letter.

The Congressional Sindh Caucus is co-chaired by Congressman Brad Sherman, a Democrat from California and Congressman Dan Burton, a Republican from Indiana. Congressman Adam Schiff, a Democrat from Southern California, was the first to join the co-chairs Member in becoming a Member of the caucus.

The formation of Congressional Sindh Caucus is a positive step in these critical times. “Sindhi Americans must come forward, support, and participate in these efforts” said Dr. Maqbool Haleepota, SAPAC’s President.

“I commend Congressman Brad Sherman and Congressman Dan Burton’s strong support for the Sindhi-American community and welcome the addition on Congressman Adam Schiff to the Caucus. The Congressional Sindh Caucus will be helpful for US and Sindhi-American interests. Sindhis are a natural ally of the American people. Sindhi language and culture and the education of Sindhi women should be the major priorities of the Caucus,” said Munawar Laghari, SAPAC’s Executive Director.

The Double Game

– The unintended consequences of American funding in Pakistan.

by Lawrence Wright

It’s the end of the Second World War, and the United States is deciding what to do about two immense, poor, densely populated countries in Asia. America chooses one of the countries, becoming its benefactor. Over the decades, it pours billions of dollars into that country’s economy, training and equipping its military and its intelligence services. The stated goal is to create a reliable ally with strong institutions and a modern, vigorous democracy. The other country, meanwhile, is spurned because it forges alliances with America’s enemies.

The country not chosen was India, which “tilted” toward the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Pakistan became America’s protégé, firmly supporting its fight to contain Communism. The benefits that Pakistan accrued from this relationship were quickly apparent: in the nineteen-sixties, its economy was an exemplar. India, by contrast, was a byword for basket case. Fifty years then went by. What was the result of this social experiment?

India has become the state that we tried to create in Pakistan. It is a rising economic star, militarily powerful and democratic, and it shares American interests. Pakistan, however, is one of the most anti-American countries in the world, and a covert sponsor of terrorism. Politically and economically, it verges on being a failed state. And, despite Pakistani avowals to the contrary, America’s worst enemy, Osama bin Laden, had been hiding there for years—in strikingly comfortable circumstances—before U.S. commandos finally tracked him down and killed him, on May 2nd.

American aid is hardly the only factor that led these two countries to such disparate outcomes. But, at this pivotal moment, it would be a mistake not to examine the degree to which U.S. dollars have undermined our strategic relationship with Pakistan—and created monstrous contradictions within Pakistan itself.

American money began flowing into Pakistan in 1954, when a mutual defense agreement was signed. During the next decade, nearly two and a half billion dollars in economic assistance, and seven hundred million in military aid, went to Pakistan ….

Read more : The New Yorker

U.S. Shifts to Seek Removal of Yemen’s Leader, an Ally

By LAURA KASINOF and DAVID E. SANGER

SANA, Yemen — The United States, which long supported Yemen’s president, even in the face of recent widespread protests, has now quietly shifted positions and has concluded that he is unlikely to bring about the required reforms and must be eased out of office, according to American and Yemeni officials. …

Read more : The New York Times

How Democracy Can Work in the Middle East

By Fareed Zakaria

When Frank Wisner, the seasoned U.S. diplomat and envoy of President Obama, met with Hosni Mubarak on Tuesday, Feb. 1, the scene must have been familiar to both men. For 30 years, American diplomats would enter one of the lavish palaces in Heliopolis, the neighborhood in Cairo from which Mubarak ruled Egypt. The Egyptian President would receive the American warmly, and the two would begin to talk about American-Egyptian relations and the fate of Middle East peace. Then the American might gently raise the issue of political reform. The President would tense up and snap back, “If I do what you want, the Islamic fundamentalists will seize power.” The conversation would return to the latest twist in the peace process.

It is quite likely that a version of this exchange took place on that Tuesday. Mubarak would surely have warned Wisner that without him, Egypt would fall prey to the radicalism of the Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt’s Islamist political movement. He has often reminded visitors of the U.S.’s folly in Iran in 1979, when it withdrew support for a staunch ally, the Shah, only to see the regime replaced by a nasty anti-American theocracy. But this time, the U.S. diplomat had a different response to the Egyptian President’s arguments. It was time for the transition to begin. (Watch a TIME video on the revolt in Egypt.)

And that was the message Obama delivered to Mubarak when the two spoke on the phone on Feb. 1. “It was a tough conversation,” said an Administration official. Senior national-security aides gathered around a speakerphone in the Oval Office to listen to the call. Mubarak made it clear how difficult the uprising had been for him personally; Obama pressed the Egyptian leader to refrain from any violent response to the hundreds of thousands in the streets. But a day later, those streets — which had been remarkably peaceful since the demonstrations began — turned violent. In Cairo, Mubarak supporters, some of them wading into crowds on horseback, began battering protesters.

It was a reminder that the precise course that Egypt’s revolution will take over the next few days and weeks cannot be known. The clashes between the groups supporting and opposing the government mark a new phase in the conflict. The regime has many who live off its patronage, and they could fight to keep their power. But the opposition is now energized and empowered. And the world — and the U.S. — has put Mubarak on notice.
Read more: Time

What Will Happen in the Raymond Davis Case?

by Raymond Turney

It’s actually pretty hard to figure out what will happen as a result of the Raymond Davis incident, because Raymond Davis is not just a security guy/probable US intelligence operative (maybe he works for the CIA, but he might also work for the DIA, which is a part of the military) who killed two people. He is also a symbol of US dominance over Pakistan.

So for Pakistanis who tilt toward the Chinese (a much more reliable ally for the Pakistan Army than the US), or are Islamists his killings tap into a much deeper issue than whether one spy should be allowed to kill two other people, who were probably also spies. The issue is, what should the Americans be allowed to do?

From an American perspective, Raymond Davis may be doing work against AQ/Taliban types that the ISI should be doing. The ISI is refusing to do what to an American seems to be obviously the job of a national intelligence agency. So the Americans decided to do it themselves. When something went wrong, the Pakistanis promptly made things much worse, rather then quickly releasing the guy using his cover story. So from the American viewpoint, the case raises the issue of whether Pakistan is really willing to fight the Islamists.

I strongly suspect that the cover story leaves a fair amount to be desired. To the Pakistanis, the failure to have a decent cover story may seem like an insult. To the Americans, it’s a war and the cover story really isn’t important anyway.

There is also another issue, which is that demanding diplomatic immunity for someone who kills two people may remind Pakistanis of the British colonial occupation. While it probably isn’t widely sensed as an explicit parallel many middle and upper class Pakistanis remember the Brits, and not with fondness. One of the few things Indians and Pakistanis agree on is to blame the Brits … and US attitudes are a lot more like the old attitudes of the Brits than we in the US like to think.

So un one level it is a murder case, but on another level it raises bigger issues.

Courtesy: http://rememberjenkinsear.blogspot.com/2011/02/what-will-happen-in-raymond-davis-case.html

A new report of Matt Waldman accusing Pakistan’s Spy agency of funding and training Taliban

Matt Waldman, a fellow at Harvard University, is the author of a new report accusing Pakistan’s Spy agency of funding and training Taliban. In an interview with Al Jazeera, Waldman discusses his methodology and the reasons why Pakistan might view the Taliban as an ally.

Courtesy: Al Jazeera – YouTube Link