The problem with USA and its official is that they speak half truth and half lies like Yudisthara of mahabharat in "Ashwathama mara gaya par nar nahi kunjar (Ashwathama is dead not man but elephant)" incident.Look at the following........
January 28, 2011 6:23:06 PM
Claude Arpi
In January 2000 Congressman Frank Pallone introduced a House Resolution seeking to designate Pakistan as state sponsor of terrorism. The Resolution listed specific charges against Pakistan and its promotion of cross-border terrorism. The draft was sent to a sub-committee where it died. The State Department marked its copy 'What a bunch of crap!'
On January 27, 2000, Congressman Frank Pallone introduced Resolution 406 "expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that Pakistan should be designated as a state sponsor of terrorism" in the US Congress. A few years later when the Department of State released the document, there was a box blackening out the top right of the page.
Perhaps out of curiosity, Ms Barbara Elias, the Director for the Afghanistan, Pakistan, Taliban Documentation Project at the National Security Archive of the George Washington University, filed an appeal with the Department of State's Appeals Review Panel. She asked what American diplomacy had to hide. Two years later, Ms Elias finally won her appeal. To her surprise, she found the words: "What a bunch of crap!"
Ms Elias commented in her blog at the National Security Archives: "I had a hearty chuckle, finding it quite funny that a person employed by the Department of State (I don't know who) would write 'bunch of crap!!' on a copy of a House resolution, and that the Department of State had tried so hard to prevent the public from knowing it had ever happened."
Well, the episode is telling of the US State Department's attitude towards Pakistan and terrorism.
Nineteen months before 9/11, the Resolution tabled by Democrat Pallone and one of his Republican colleagues was quite visionary. It is worth quoting some of their points:
Whereas reliable reports from Western media sources have cited Pakistan as a base and training ground for terrorist groups, and the Pakistani Government's demonstrated reluctance to halt the use of its soil for terrorist organisations;
Whereas media reports have implicated Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence directly in terrorist activities, as well as the international drug trade;
Whereas a large number of terrorist organisations, such as the Harkat-ul-Ansar (later re-named Harkat-ul-Mujahideen), Lashkar-e-Tayyeba, Hizbul Mujahideen, Hizbe Wahdat, Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan, Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, Sipah-e-Mohammad Pakistan, and Al Badr are based and receive support from Pakistan;
Whereas Pakistan has hindered US and international efforts to apprehend Osama bin Laden;
Whereas in November 1979, according to the US Department of State, the Government of Pakistan allowed for the US Embassy and the American Cultural Center in Pakistan to be destroyed by fire, which led to the death of two Americans;
Whereas Pakistan has acknowledged its 'political and moral' support of the separatist movement in Kashmir...
This is what someone in the US State Department called "crap"!
The conclusion of the Pallone Resolution, which was eventually referred to a sub-committee of the House where it was 'politically killed', was that "given the shared threat that the US and other countries face from international terrorist organisations, the State Department is urged to explore ways to keep up US cooperation with those countries in the struggle against terrorism."
For Congressman Pallone, the US should have collaborated with India to fight terror. But of course, terror did not exist before the Twin Towers tragedy!
The blog of the National Security Archives says: "Why was so much time, effort, and money spent to redact this harmless bit of chicken scratch? Merely to prevent Government embarrassment?"¦Which other Government secrets remain incorrectly hidden under black ink? Are we really safer in the dark?" Certainly not and it is why, though limited in scope, the WikiLeaks disclosures are healthy.
The "bunch of crap" episode raises another serious issue. Why is US diplomacy always siding with Pakistan?
The same National Security Archives recently published a series of US documents on how Pakistan acquired the bomb in the 1970s (most of the documents date back to 1978-1979). They show that though the Carter Administration was deeply upset with Gen Zia-ul-Haq's regime tirelessly working to acquire a bomb, the arrival of the Soviets in Afghanistan at the end of the 1970s made the US officials 'forget' that Pakistan had one. Later, it was too late to stop the nuclear train.
The National Security Archives documents confirm that from the start, Gen Zia's main objective was the consolidation of the nuclear programme initiated by Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto who had bragged "we are ready to eat grass" to possess the coveted weapon.
Thanks to AQ Khan who managed to steal the blueprints for a gas centrifuge uranium enrichment facility in The Netherlands, the Pakistani dream became a reality right under the eyes of the Americans who "wanted to maintain good relations with that country, a moderate state in an unstable region".
The Carter Administration would have been even more worried, had they known that Khan and his team were spreading nuclear weapons technology to Libya, Iran and North Korea with the help of China. But would the State Department have acted differently? We can't be sure.
In the wake of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, improving relations with Islamabad became top priority for Washington, DC. According to CIA documents, Pakistani officials knew that Washington was "reconciled to a Pakistani nuclear weapons capability".
Another briefing of National Security Archives points out: "China's role as a leading provider of sensitive technology to Pakistan has repeatedly strained US-China relations, and has complicated efforts to expand US-China trade." Business may have been more 'complicated' for the Americans, but the fact remains that China has been Pakistan's main support to acquire the bomb.
Another declassified document admits that during the 1980s, "the US was criticised for providing massive levels of aid to Pakistan, its military ally, despite laws barring assistance to any country that imported certain technology related to nuclear weapons. President Ronald Reagan waived the legislation, arguing that cutting off aid would harm US national interests".
On January 8, 2011, The Washington Post reported: "US to offer more support to Pakistan"; the Obama Administration will increase its military and economic aid to Pakistan.
According to a newly updated tabulation from the Congressional Research Service, nearly $20 billion in civilian and military support has been provided to Pakistan between Fiscal Years 2002 and 2010 (please note, this sum does not include covert aid). And it continues. Since June 2010, 17 new F-16 combat aircraft have been delivered to Pakistan along with several armored personnel carriers. These planes are obviously not needed in the fight against terrorism; but they can be used to deter India, believes Islamabad. According to another CRS Fact Sheet, "major US arms sales and grants to Pakistan since 2001, have included items useful for counter-terrorism and counterinsurgency operations, along with a number of 'big ticket' platforms more suited to conventional warfare.
How US glosses over the truth
January 28, 2011 6:23:06 PM
Claude Arpi
In January 2000 Congressman Frank Pallone introduced a House Resolution seeking to designate Pakistan as state sponsor of terrorism. The Resolution listed specific charges against Pakistan and its promotion of cross-border terrorism. The draft was sent to a sub-committee where it died. The State Department marked its copy 'What a bunch of crap!'
On January 27, 2000, Congressman Frank Pallone introduced Resolution 406 "expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that Pakistan should be designated as a state sponsor of terrorism" in the US Congress. A few years later when the Department of State released the document, there was a box blackening out the top right of the page.
Perhaps out of curiosity, Ms Barbara Elias, the Director for the Afghanistan, Pakistan, Taliban Documentation Project at the National Security Archive of the George Washington University, filed an appeal with the Department of State's Appeals Review Panel. She asked what American diplomacy had to hide. Two years later, Ms Elias finally won her appeal. To her surprise, she found the words: "What a bunch of crap!"
Ms Elias commented in her blog at the National Security Archives: "I had a hearty chuckle, finding it quite funny that a person employed by the Department of State (I don't know who) would write 'bunch of crap!!' on a copy of a House resolution, and that the Department of State had tried so hard to prevent the public from knowing it had ever happened."
Well, the episode is telling of the US State Department's attitude towards Pakistan and terrorism.
Nineteen months before 9/11, the Resolution tabled by Democrat Pallone and one of his Republican colleagues was quite visionary. It is worth quoting some of their points:
Whereas reliable reports from Western media sources have cited Pakistan as a base and training ground for terrorist groups, and the Pakistani Government's demonstrated reluctance to halt the use of its soil for terrorist organisations;
Whereas media reports have implicated Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence directly in terrorist activities, as well as the international drug trade;
Whereas a large number of terrorist organisations, such as the Harkat-ul-Ansar (later re-named Harkat-ul-Mujahideen), Lashkar-e-Tayyeba, Hizbul Mujahideen, Hizbe Wahdat, Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan, Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, Sipah-e-Mohammad Pakistan, and Al Badr are based and receive support from Pakistan;
Whereas Pakistan has hindered US and international efforts to apprehend Osama bin Laden;
Whereas in November 1979, according to the US Department of State, the Government of Pakistan allowed for the US Embassy and the American Cultural Center in Pakistan to be destroyed by fire, which led to the death of two Americans;
Whereas Pakistan has acknowledged its 'political and moral' support of the separatist movement in Kashmir...
This is what someone in the US State Department called "crap"!
The conclusion of the Pallone Resolution, which was eventually referred to a sub-committee of the House where it was 'politically killed', was that "given the shared threat that the US and other countries face from international terrorist organisations, the State Department is urged to explore ways to keep up US cooperation with those countries in the struggle against terrorism."
For Congressman Pallone, the US should have collaborated with India to fight terror. But of course, terror did not exist before the Twin Towers tragedy!
The blog of the National Security Archives says: "Why was so much time, effort, and money spent to redact this harmless bit of chicken scratch? Merely to prevent Government embarrassment?"¦Which other Government secrets remain incorrectly hidden under black ink? Are we really safer in the dark?" Certainly not and it is why, though limited in scope, the WikiLeaks disclosures are healthy.
The "bunch of crap" episode raises another serious issue. Why is US diplomacy always siding with Pakistan?
The same National Security Archives recently published a series of US documents on how Pakistan acquired the bomb in the 1970s (most of the documents date back to 1978-1979). They show that though the Carter Administration was deeply upset with Gen Zia-ul-Haq's regime tirelessly working to acquire a bomb, the arrival of the Soviets in Afghanistan at the end of the 1970s made the US officials 'forget' that Pakistan had one. Later, it was too late to stop the nuclear train.
The National Security Archives documents confirm that from the start, Gen Zia's main objective was the consolidation of the nuclear programme initiated by Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto who had bragged "we are ready to eat grass" to possess the coveted weapon.
Thanks to AQ Khan who managed to steal the blueprints for a gas centrifuge uranium enrichment facility in The Netherlands, the Pakistani dream became a reality right under the eyes of the Americans who "wanted to maintain good relations with that country, a moderate state in an unstable region".
The Carter Administration would have been even more worried, had they known that Khan and his team were spreading nuclear weapons technology to Libya, Iran and North Korea with the help of China. But would the State Department have acted differently? We can't be sure.
In the wake of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, improving relations with Islamabad became top priority for Washington, DC. According to CIA documents, Pakistani officials knew that Washington was "reconciled to a Pakistani nuclear weapons capability".
Another briefing of National Security Archives points out: "China's role as a leading provider of sensitive technology to Pakistan has repeatedly strained US-China relations, and has complicated efforts to expand US-China trade." Business may have been more 'complicated' for the Americans, but the fact remains that China has been Pakistan's main support to acquire the bomb.
Another declassified document admits that during the 1980s, "the US was criticised for providing massive levels of aid to Pakistan, its military ally, despite laws barring assistance to any country that imported certain technology related to nuclear weapons. President Ronald Reagan waived the legislation, arguing that cutting off aid would harm US national interests".
On January 8, 2011, The Washington Post reported: "US to offer more support to Pakistan"; the Obama Administration will increase its military and economic aid to Pakistan.
According to a newly updated tabulation from the Congressional Research Service, nearly $20 billion in civilian and military support has been provided to Pakistan between Fiscal Years 2002 and 2010 (please note, this sum does not include covert aid). And it continues. Since June 2010, 17 new F-16 combat aircraft have been delivered to Pakistan along with several armored personnel carriers. These planes are obviously not needed in the fight against terrorism; but they can be used to deter India, believes Islamabad. According to another CRS Fact Sheet, "major US arms sales and grants to Pakistan since 2001, have included items useful for counter-terrorism and counterinsurgency operations, along with a number of 'big ticket' platforms more suited to conventional warfare.
