India-Pakistan Relations

ajtr

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
12,038
Likes
723
We need a more robust dialogue

It is true that the timing of the Home Secretary's revelation that David Headley had told Indian officials that the ISI was behind 26/11 was curious. He said this in this newspaper's Idea Exchange forum and it became the first official admission by the Indian government that it believed that the attack on Mumbai was planned and executed by the Pakistani government. This dramatically changes what happened from an act of terrorism into an act of war and the Indian public has a right to this information but for it to be revealed on the eve of the Islamabad talks has puzzled political pundits in Delhi all week. ...Does it not immediately debase the whole effort at dialogue that India has initiated despite what we now know about 26/11?
Pakistan's Foreign Minister made it clear at their joint press conference that in his view, terrorism was something that affected both countries equally. This is complete rubbish. If Pakistan is under attack from the evil jihadi groups it created, this cannot be blamed on India. When it comes to jihadi terrorism on Indian soil it can with complete certainty be blamed on Pakistan, especially when it comes to 26/11. So what on earth are we talking about?
 

ajtr

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
12,038
Likes
723
Clinton to be given audio CD of Krishna's calls from Delhi

.... Hillary Clinton to be given the CD carrying Krishna's tele-talks with Delhi during the Islamabad talks. ..

The Daily Mail has learnt that a premier intelligence agency of the country had intercepted the mobile communication of Indian External Affairs Minister, S.M. Krishna and his visiting delegation with people back in India...
The CD along with the transcripts will be handed over to the US Government, so that they can review progress of Pakistan-India dialogue...
. Well placed sources have revealed to The Daily Mail that the recording of the S.M. Krishna's conversation with RAW Chief and Indian Army Chief, who were constantly giving dictations during talks....

:emot15:
 

ajtr

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
12,038
Likes
723
Pak talks too much


Islamabad Seeking to blame India for the "last-minute hitch" in talks, Pakistan today said New Delhi appeared to be unwilling to commit to a roadmap for future engagement and made it clear that the dialogue cannot move forward if Kashmir is not discussed.
"If we focus more only on those issues which India gives importance to and ignore those considered important by Pakistan, then I don't think the talks can move forward," Pakistan Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi told reporters, a day after his meeting with Indian counterpart S M Krishna.

"Kashmir has been part of our negotiations. It is a disputed territory. It is not possible to delink Kashmir from the negotiations," he said.

He said it would not make sense to discuss aspects like cultural and trade relations while ignoring "core" issues like Jammu and Kashmir, peace and security and Siachen. "We understand their concerns and want to address those. But there are concerns of Pakistan which they (India) should address," he said.

Taking a dig at Krishna, Qureshi said he did not step out of the talks to "attend any phone calls", but the "Indian Foreign Minister received foreign policy directions from New Delhi repeatedly during our meeting".

"I led Pakistan's team and I didn't need to make even a single phone call (to Pakistan leaders) during the day-long talks. Krishna is the principal for giving direction to foreign policy (but) why were directions being sent repeatedly from Delhi?"

He said the Indian side had been "selective" in yesterday's talks but such an approach did not

Continued on page 2

India was selective, not prepared, says Qureshi

conform to the spirit of the meeting of the Indian and Pakistan premiers in Bhutan in April as they had decided to discuss all issues.

He said there was "no deadlock" but acknowledged that there were "difficulties and problems" that both sides would have to overcome. "It is the nature of India-Pakistan talks that whenever there is progress, there is always a last minute hitch. There was no hitch from Pakistan's side."

Noting that Krishna had said he was prepared to discuss all issues, Qureshi said: "We wanted that we should have a roadmap for the future at the end of this discussion and they felt they did not have the mandate to commit to a roadmap."

Qureshi contended that India was "narrowing the dialogue" and Pakistan had made it clear that "you cannot be selective in discussions".

"We are ready to engage, we are ready to negotiate any time, anywhere and we are not in a hurry. We will wait till they are ready," he said.

Pakistan, he said, had shared a "non paper" with India on steps that could be taken to restore confidence and bridge the trust deficit. He said both sides had "reached agreement on many issues" about the areas in which progress could be made.

He said his discussions with Krishna at an informal dinner on Wednesday night were "very successful" but that things changed a day later at the formal talks. "I felt India, on a basic level, was not fully prepared," he said.

He said Pakistan was not willing to back down on its historical position on the Kashmir issue. "It was already decided that Kashmir is part of our talks and that it is a disputed territory. If it is said that Pakistan's people and Kashmiris should become delinked from the situation inside (Jammu and Kashmir), that is not possible," he said.

"There may be mechanisms in India to watch human rights violations but if the Army is being deployed to maintain law and order, there is curfew in many cities, strikes across Jammu and Kashmir and innocent people are being affected, how can Pakistan become delinked?" he said.

Qureshi also contested Krishna's assertion that Pakistan has not provided even a "shred of evidence" of India's alleged role in fomenting unrest in Balochistan, saying he had not spoken out at yesterday's joint press conference as he was the host and Krishna was his guest.

"According to my information, our Interior Minister discussed this with their Home Minister and (Krishna) should be aware of this," he said.
 

ajtr

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
12,038
Likes
723
After barbs, set to bump

...
Sources in New Delhi said diplomats on the two sides of the border had agreed to manoeuvre a Krishna-Qureshi "pull-aside" in the Afghan capital. The sources also hinted that the initiative for such a meeting had come from Islamabad with Qureshi telephoning Krishna on Saturday evening.

The initiative to smooth ruffled feathers are being attributed to several factors.

Some sources suggested that US secretary of state Hillary Clinton had something to do with Qureshi's efforts to tone down the rancour he had exhibited since the snarled joint media conference on Thursday.

Hillary, who landed in Islamabad today on a two-day visit, does not want to walk into a new South Asian problem: she has enough on her plate without having to deal with a continuing India-Pakistan spat.

Besides, the Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR), a Pakistan Army headquarters outfit, has realised that Qureshi, having been told to toe the military's line, outdid his brief and created a public relations disaster for Pakistan.

Pakistan Army chief Ashfaq Parvez Kayani's extension is also coming up. He does not want to be viewed in Washington as a stumbling block to peace with India.
:roll:

Analysts believe that under the circumstances, the Pakistani establishment had come around to the view that the best bet now is to hope for a "smooth waiting period" and see how Kashmir develops.

Officials in Delhi confirmed that Krishna would have a bilateral meeting with Hillary in Kabul on Tuesday. They also did not rule out

...
...
The Pakistani side "understands that in diplomacy you have to weigh your words very carefully because the impact of words can go far beyond just words themselves. And I am sure they realise that", she added.

Rao said India did not want to get drawn into slanging matches.

...
...
 

ajtr

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
12,038
Likes
723
Krishna's schedule in Pak was changed for Kayani


A last-minute switch in the schedule of External Affairs Minister S M Krishna on Thursday afternoon gives a clue to how the script went wrong in Islamabad.
Krishna and his Pakistani counterpart, Shah Mahmood Qureshi, were said to have made good progress during their first session of talks which started at 11 am and lasted for nearly five hours, well beyond the schedule.

According to his schedule, Krishna was to meet Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani at 3:30 pm. This was to be followed by a call on President Asif Ali Zardari at 5:30 pm.

But just 15 minutes prior to his departure, Krishna was informed that the order has been reversed and the call on Zardari would precede his meeting with Gilani. In the time slot that Krishna was to meet Gilani, Pakistan's Army Chief Ashfaq Pervez Kayani met the PM. Kayani had also met Zardari. When the talks resumed after Krishna's meetings with Zardari and Gilani, the atmosphere totally changed and Pakistan took an unexpectedly stringent posture.
 

Phenom

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2010
Messages
878
Likes
406
As expected, GK.Pillai seems to have been pulled up for stating the truth, I guess its now considered inappropriate to even mention about 26/11.

Don't know where this 'Peace at all cost approach' by GoI would lead India.
 

ajtr

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
12,038
Likes
723
As expected, GK.Pillai seems to have been pulled up for stating the truth, I guess its now considered inappropriate to even mention about 26/11.

Don't know where this 'Peace at all cost approach' by GoI would lead India.
Actually our PM got pulled up by his boss hillary clinton and to vent off his anger he pulled up his lower grade officer GK pillai.As always happens in indian govt offices.:happy_2:
 

ajtr

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
12,038
Likes
723
TOI's Aman ki Asha has gone under water.Even TOI accepts this now.

Agra again: Qureshi kills peace talks

Put On Backfoot On 26/11, Pak Goes Ballistic
Rajeev Deshpande | TNN

New Delhi: A day after an extraordinary slanging match in Islamabad, the India-Pakistan peace process was in shreds, having suffered a huge setback with Islamabad virtually reneging on a painstakingly drawn-up engagement sequence aimed at normalising ties.
The finger-pointing between the two sides continued on Friday, keeping ties on the boil as Pakistani foreign minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi carried on with the belligerence he displayed at Thursday's press conference which he addressed with his Indian counterpart S M Krishna in Islamabad.
Picking up from where he left off, Qureshi lashed out at India for being "selective'' and "not fully prepared'' and reversing gears at the last minute. He even got personal with Krishna, alleging that the minister lacked the mandate and was being tutored on phone all through the negotiations.
Shockingly, the assault at a briefing Qureshi held for the Pakistani media in Islamabad came even before Krishna had left for New Delhi. The serious violation of etiquette drew a strong riposte from Krishna just after he reached Delhi. He quickly refuted the charge that he was unprepared for talks, asserting that the mandate given to him was clear and specific.
More than the bad diplomatic behaviour, what preceded it was a serious blow to the peace process. Qureshi turned bellicose after Pakistan's failed attempt to force India to discuss Kashmir even when it doggedly refused to meet the precondition: Strong and clear action against all perpetrators of 26/11.
Sources said the peace process is not going to be jettisoned because India does not have the "luxury of not talking to its neighbour''. Foreign secretary Nirupama Rao said on TV that India wanted to continue the dialogue.
The stated intent apart, the fate of the talks was in doubt in face of Pakistan's attempt to re-order their sequence. The Congress leadership chose the "action-on-26/11 first'' approach because it is loathe to be seen as having forgotten the Mumbai attacks.
Times View
The Times of India has actively championed the cause of peace between neighbours India and Pakistan, and continues to do so because it believes peace is in the interest of the two peoples. However, the path to peace cannot be strewn with bad faith and blatant misconduct—both of which Pakistan foreign minister Qureshi has displayed in ample measure. Minister Qureshi spurned India's hand of friendship at the joint media briefing on Thursday when he equated terror merchant Hafeez Saeed with India's home secretary G K Pillai. He did even worse on Friday when he called a press conference, at a time when his guest S M Krishna was still in Pakistan, only to ridicule the Indian minister by claiming that Krishna was not empowered to take decisions, and was constantly on the phone with Delhi. This is simply not a peace-makers's conduct. It is that of a schoolboy bully. Let alone furthering the cause of peace, Qureshi has only raised India's hackles. And since neither President Zardari nor PM Gilani has rebuked Qureshi so far for his misbehaviour, it appears the foreign minister has not been out of line with the establishment's thinking. In that case, India can wait until Islamabad gets more sincere about peace. Meanwhile, let the message sink in—there can't be progress in the peace process unless Pakistan shows greater sensitivity towards India's hurt and anger at the fact that 26/11 masterminds are not just roaming free in Pakistan, but are preaching murderous hate against India. There can't be any closure on 26/11 until there is justice. DIALOGUE TURNS INTO DUEL
 

ajtr

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
12,038
Likes
723
How not to have a round of talks


One is stunned by the amateurish manner in which the crucial Pakistan-India Foreign Ministers' moot has been handled — starting with the unwarranted remarks that were made first by Indian Home Secretary G.K. Pillai and ending with Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi's outburst against his polite interlocutor, Indian External Affairs Minister S.M. Krishna. What could have been a good beginning has turned into an occasion for public acrimony. The two establishments have scuttled the sensible course that was taken by their respective Foreign Ministries to break the impasse. This was an instance of how not to have a round of India-Pakistan talks. Why have such a round of talks at all?

The Foreign Ministers' talks did not help overcome the gap, despite a preparatory meeting between the two Foreign Secretaries, Salman Bashir and Nirupama Rao, held on June 24 in Islamabad to prepare for the Foreign Ministers' meeting. The Foreign Secretaries had agreed on an agenda and (hopefully) the contours of a possible outcome. If there were still unbridgeable gaps with respect to security concerns, the two sides should have taken more time to sort them out behind-the-doors instead of feeding into the mutually demonising circus that has been so zealously pursued in the subcontinent for so long. If, during his visit to Islamabad on June 26, Home Minister P. Chidambaram had thoroughly discussed the new dossier(s) of information that revealed the confessions by David Coleman Headley, allegedly involving the ISI, certain army officers and other perpetrators belonging to the Lashkar-e-Taiba, then why did Mr. Pillai try to preface the Foreign Ministers' talks a day before the event? It seems that the Indian Home Ministry vetoed any movement on any count other than satisfactory action by Pakistan's Ministry of Interior against all those allegedly involved in the 26/11 Mumbai act of terror.

Mr. Krishna himself said at his joint press conference with Mr. Qureshi that "he was here to see what action Pakistan has taken so far" on the confessions made by Headley. If that were the case — and this is what seems to have disturbed most Mr. Krishna's quite articulate Pakistani counterpart and brought their meeting to an acrimonious end — then the security officials concerned from the two countries should have met to clear the Mumbai-related mess first instead of putting their Foreign Ministers in an unenviable position. While the Indian delegation, as expected, stuck to its Home Ministry's core concern about lack of action against the perpetrators of the Mumbai carnage before agreeing to move on any other count, Mr. Qureshi's sweet Seraiki talk and sensible urge to push for the resumption of composite dialogue could not substitute for a lack of sufficient action by Pakistan's Ministry of Interior on Headley's revelations. The biggest confidence-building measure that Mr. Krishna was looking at was solid action against those identified by Headley before embracing Mr. Qureshi's priorities — on which both were on the same page.

Finding the futility of not having talks over a most troubled region, and prodded by the United States, the two Prime Ministers had agreed in their one-on-one interaction at Thimpu to give the talks yet another try to bring the peace process back on the rails after it was derailed by the 2008 terrorist attack on Mumbai. The earlier effort by Dr. Manmohan Singh and Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani at Sharm-al Shiekh had backfired on the Indian Prime Minister, who was accused of being 'soft' on Pakistan. The failure of both the attempts shows that the harder positions taken by the respective security apparatuses and their unwillingness to entertain each other's 'core concerns' are not letting diplomacy find its way out of the conflicting demands of the adversaries.

India and Pakistan are back to the same point where the 2001 Agra Summit had failed. Only after the assurances that the Indian leadership had sought against alleged terrorism emanating from the territories under Pakistan's control were granted by General Pervez Musharraf, had India agreed to sign the January 6, 2004 statement in Islamabad. Some measures to check cross-border infiltration, initiated subsequently, paved the way for an unprecedented degree of forward movement with regard to almost all components of the composite dialogue process. The solid basis of the success of the four-year process of dialogue was that all components of the Pakistani establishment were on board, and there was a bi-partisan consensus in India on the basis of which the initiative launched by the Bharatiya Janata Party was carried forward by the Congress. Both the factors are now missing. A bi-partisan consensus does not exist in India now; and a unity of command, that was once the hallmark of General Musharraf's regime, does not exist in Pakistan.

General Musharraf did push the process to the point of a major breakthrough even on Kashmir, but Indians delayed it till the time the former military dictator lost his ground. In Pakistan's case, the Zardari government did show the courage to make some fresh moves, but it was hamstrung by the Mumbai backlash. Finding no response from New Delhi, and coming under pressure from the media and the judiciary, the democratic government found it convenient to let the security establishment maintain its intransigence towards India. On the other hand, the Pakistani establishment did not give a bailout to Dr. Singh, a genuine peacemaker, as he reeled under the popular backlash of the Mumbai attack. In fact, the Pakistani establishment continues to travel on the beaten tracks of strategic depth/intrusion through unreliable proxies, most of whom have turned their guns on Rawalpindi.

Regardless of Mr. Qureshi's equaliser meant to cast his counterpart in a pathetic position — probably in retaliation to what Indians have been saying about whom to talk in Pakistan — both the Foreign Ministries are the least autonomous in making decisions. But by embarrassing his counterpart, Mr. Qureshi has created a bad precedent for his upcoming visit to India, if at all it takes place. His minders, one suspects, have pushed him to a point where a courteous Shah Mehmood Qureshi would never have liked to be. The Indo-Pakistan dialogue was initiated with some effort by the Americans, who do not want to see Pakistan divided on two fronts. With the fate of the American surge in southern Afghanistan at stake and given the American strategic dependence on Pakistan, Islamabad is no more in a hurry to comply with any Indian preconditions. The Pakistani security establishment may get an upper hand in Afghan affairs as the U.S. coalesces in, but not against India. Conscious of the need to ensure security during the October 2010 Commonwealth Games in New Delhi, the Manmohan Singh government tactically agreed to negotiations while exerting pressure on Pakistan on Mumbai and in seeking to restrain jehadis from crossing the Line of Control.

This strategic uncertain equilibrium is unlikely to stay. One more terror strike in India can lead to unseen and unaffordable consequences. There could even be a limited war that could get out of hand, and that could alter the entire strategic environment and upset the whole design of the war on terror. This is the likely scenario that must make everybody in the region and the world at large wake up.

Let not either side become a hostage to self-delusionary strategic devices. The war on terror in Pakistan and Afghanistan has entered a critical stage which no power in the region and the world can afford to lose. Both sides must provide a way out and offer face-saving measures to those who can deliver. Let us get over the Mumbai fallout, put the culprits on trial, go back to spirit of the January 6, 2004 statement and pick the thread of negotiations where it was left in 2007 — instead of seeking to reinvent the wheel.

(Imtiaz Alam is a veteran Pakistani journalist and Secretary-General of the South Asian Free Media Association (SAFMA))

India and Pakistan are now back to the point where the 2001 Agra Summit failed. They should pick the thread of negotiations where it was left in 2007 — instead of seeking to reinvent the wheel.
 

ajtr

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
12,038
Likes
723
It would be an error to talk to Pakistan again

July 19, 2010 12:31 IST

The major lesson we should draw from the foreign minister-level talks is that Pakistan is not serious about addressing our concerns on terrorism.
This should have been clear to us long ago because we have been talking to Pakistan on terrorism ever since 1997, says Satish Chandra, the former deputy national security advisor and distinguished fellow, Vivekananda International Foundation.

The recently held India-Pakistan foreign minister level talks designed to bridge the trust deficit between the two countries have only served to accentuate it.

They also provided the unedifying spectacle of the unseemly public exchanges between a boorish S M Qureshi and a wimpish S M Krishna [ Images ], in which neither side came up smelling of roses, and which fortified the perception that while Pakistan has no intention of acting against terror, India [ Images ] is a pushover.

A careful analysis of these talks provides many takeaways.

It is evident that the talks had been well prepared through the foreign secretary-level talks and a framework for the graduated resumption of the dialogue process had been agreed upon, with terrorism being front-loaded and Kashmir being placed lower in the pecking order.

Indeed, as is the norm for such meetings, it is not unreasonable to assume that even a draft joint statement had been prepared detailing the manner in which the dialogue process would be resumed and what issues would be taken up.

This had, ab initio, been accepted by the Pakistan side as otherwise they would not have entertained our foreign minister's visit. By the time, however, the joint press conference was held on July 15, the Pakistan side had had second thoughts on the matter and was unwilling to accept such front-loading. They wanted to ensure that terrorism was addressed only as one of the several issues and was not the primary focus.

The hardening of the Pakistani position resulting in tensions between the two sides is evident from the absence of any joint statement, postponement by several hours of the joint press conference, absence of any major agreed outcome other than the decision that the foreign ministers would meet again in New Delhi [ Images ], and, of course, the absence of any chemistry between the two ministers, whose public interaction was coloured by Qureshi's hectoring approach.

What brought about this sudden hardening in Pakistan's position?

Several factors were probably at play. It has been argued, regrettably even by some in India, that the Indian home secretary's statement regarding the Inter Services Intelligence's involvement in the Mumbai [ Images ] attacks triggered the unravelling of the talks. This is incorrect, as in the immediate aftermath of the statement, the bilateral discussions passed off smoothly and the point made by the secretary had been made earlier, most notably by the home minister.

In any case, it would be preposterous for anyone to argue that India should refrain from pointing out harsh realities on issues of core concern to it merely to provide comfort to Pakistan.

The more likely reason for Pakistan's volte face stems from the fact that its army does not want the establishment of trust between the two countries, as its dominance over governance in that country is dependent upon an inimical relationship with India. More specifically, being unwilling to eschew the use of terrorism as an instrument of foreign policy against India, it realised that front-loading terrorism in the dialogue process went against its basic interests.

It, therefore, made Qureshi insist that equal importance be accorded to issues like Kashmir, Siachen, water-sharing etc, as to terrorism, which ran counter to the earlier understanding between the two sides.

Indeed, Qureshi, at the joint press conference, argued that all issues 'have to be dealt in tandem' precisely in order to underline that progress on terrorism could only be expected if there was progress on Kashmir.

The hardening of the Pakistani position may be attributed partially to its being much more confident today in weathering US pressure for dialoguing with us and giving us some satisfaction on terrorism, given the current US need for its support in Afghanistan, and partially to the heightened tensions in Jammu and Kashmir [ Images ] which it feels have enhanced our vulnerability.

It is, therefore, making a pitch for resumption of the composite dialogue process. Should this occur. it will reduce the focus on terrorism and enable Pakistan to further agitate issues like J&K and water to our detriment. Should we resist Pakistan's demands, it will argue that India is unwilling to talk.

On its part nothing less than the composite dialogue will be acceptable to it for, as Qureshi said in a separate press conference on June 16, Pakistan is in no hurry for a resumption of talks.

The major substantive lesson that we should draw from these foreign minister-level talks is that Pakistan is not serious about addressing our concerns on terrorism. The format of the dialogue they seek is designed to reduce the focus on terrorism and to facilitate delay in taking any meaningful action in this regard.

This should have been clear to us long ago, because we have been talking to Pakistan on terrorism ever since 1997 in the composite dialogue process to no avail. In these circumstances, it was an error on our part to resume talking to Pakistan after 26/11, and it would be an error for us to do so again.

The tactical lesson that we need to learn from these talks is that obnoxious and intemperate statements verging upon the impolite are a stock in trade of Pakistani officials and leaders, particularly when they feel that their Indian counterparts are likely to crumble.

Such statements have been made even by as polished a man as Sahibzada Yaqub Khan, they were made by Pervez Musharraf [ Images ] at Agra [ Images ], they were made by the current foreign secretary during his visit to India in February and they have now been made by Qureshi. Such statements need to be promptly, firmly and politely rebutted.

Regrettably, our foreign minister's performance at the joint press conference was sub-standard. He allowed his Pakistani counterpart to monopolise the proceedings, failed to rebut the latter's equating our home secretary's statement with that of Mohammad Saeed, failed to point out that Pakistan had no locus standi in raking up the human rights situation in J&K, and only set the record right on Baluchistan after being prompted by officials in our delegation.

Such pusillanimity only encourages the Pakistani belief that India is a pushover, much as our refusal over the decades to penalise Pakistan for its involvement in terrorism against us has emboldened it to continue this practice.

Our weak-kneed approach vis a vis Pakistan over the last few years has been exemplified by the prime minister's statement in September 2006 equating it with India as a 'victim' of terror, our agreeing to set up a joint anti-terror mechanism with it, our agreeing to talk to it after having initially stated that we would not do so unless the perpetrators of 26/11 were brought to book, and our agreeing at Sharm el Sheikh to insulate the dialogue process from terrorism.

Such a posture both encourages Pakistan to continue in its use of terror against us and impinges adversely on our efforts to mobilise international pressure against it on our behalf to shut down the infrastructure of terror.
 

dineshchaturvedi

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2009
Messages
537
Likes
112
Country flag
Actually our PM got pulled up by his boss hillary clinton and to vent off his anger he pulled up his lower grade officer GK pillai.As always happens in indian govt offices.:happy_2:
You might be frustrated dude but I do not think that is the case, MMS is not a puppet as many thinks.
 

ajtr

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
12,038
Likes
723
No surprise at all Every general in GHQ pindi thinks he can show his machismo and bravado to india.but in the end due to india either they get thrown out or come crawling to negotiating table.Thats another matter they never get tired from blabbereing.It happened with Ayub,yahya,zia, mushy.

Pakistan's generals don't want the India talks to succeed

July 16, 2010 18:09 IST

The Pakistani calculation is that time is working in its favour and simply by sitting out for another year or so, Islamabad [ Images ] can negotiate from a position of advantage, says former diplomat M K Bhadrakumar.
There was an inevitability about the impasse in which the India-Pakistan dialogue process currently finds itself. Three reasons can be attributed.

First, ironically, the man who was instrumental in the planning of the 26/11 attacks has struck again from his cell in distant Chicago.

David Headley [ Images ] has spoken to the American and Indian interrogators about the direct involvement of the Pakistani army officers and of the Inter-Services Intelligence in the Mumbai [ Images ] attacks.

The trail is leading dangerously close to the Pakistani military leadership, since the Mumbai attacks could well have been at the planning stage when the present army chief, General Pervez Kayani, was heading the ISI.

If the investigation into the Pakistani role in the 26/11 attacks is taken to its logical conclusion thoroughly and meticulously, it is bound to rock the Pakistani military establishment to its foundation.

The point is, 26/11 was an abominable war crime, no less. And someone in Rawalpindi is to be accountable for it.

Quite obviously, the Pakistani military can't take it anymore. It simply wants to shake off the Indians who are locked into a 'dialogue' with the civilian government in Islamabad that is inch by inch, mile by mile, incontrovertibly implicating the ISI directly in the Mumbai attacks.

You could make out from a mile that Foreign Minister Qureshisaheb spoke to the media in such haste and in an uncharacteristically rude fashion while his Indian counterpart was still to take off from Chaklala air base -- a diplomatic discourtesy of the highest order -- only because his tail was on fire.

In all probability, the civilian leaders were given a dressing down by the generals in Rawalpindi and told to get their act together to pull out of the dialogue.

Secondly, Pakistan is sensing that there could be big trouble brewing in Jammu & Kashmir [ Images ] and is gearing up to take advantage of any political turmoil in the valley.

Fortunately for Pakistan, the inept performance of the state leadership in Srinagar [ Images ] in the past year or two -- and New Delhi's [ Images ] grave failure to anticipate that the ground was shifting so dangerously in the valley -- is opening a window of opportunity for it to stoke the fires of Kashmiri alienation and to pitchfork the Kashmir issue onto the international agenda.

No amount of hysteria that the ISI is fomenting the trouble for Omar Abdullah [ Images ] will wash. The Pakistani military is expecting that the time is approaching to persuade the United States to directly get involved in the Kashmir problem as quid pro quo for the sort of help that Washington expects Islamabad to render to bring the Afghan war to an end.

The hardcore Pakistani assessment is that US President Barack Obama [ Images ] no more has the stomach to pursue the Afghan war. The Islamabad commentators are keenly watching that Obama's popularity rating has dipped below 40 percent, that his stimulus plan fails to work and that in the November elections the Republicans will most probably capture at least one of the two Houses of the US Congress, if not both.

That is to say, by next year this time, they expect that the Obama presidency will come under enormous pressure to wind down the war and to finesse an exit strategy. The Pakistani military's hope is that the Americans will be crawling on their fours in a year's time and beseeching Rawalpindi to bail them out in Afghanistan by getting the Taliban [ Images ] to talk.

Thirdly, Pakistan is estimating that its longstanding agenda to gain 'strategic depth' in Afghanistan is coming close to realisation. Islamabad wants as part of an Afghan settlement the US to recognise its preponderant influence over any future power structure in Kabul. The Pakistani military has begun publicly posturing about its capacity to bring the recalcitrant elements within the Taliban to the negotiating table.

he indications are that the ISI will manipulate the Taliban and ensure that only those elements who are 'dependable' in their hostility toward India [ Images ] are brought into the power structure in any settlement -- such as the Haqqani network.

How do these hostile intentions pan out?

The ISI plan will be to try to put India in the dock on the Kashmir issue by vitiating the ground situation in the valley in any way that it can, which will divert attention from the 26/11 dossier.

The old ISI strategy of waging an asymmetrical war is still in place. The Pakistani military's intentions are quite clear: Afghan territory will be used for carrying out subversive activities against India, as used to be the case in the late 1990s.

In sum, there is really no desire on the part of Pakistan to meaningfully engage India at the political and diplomatic level at this juncture. The Pakistani calculation is that time is working in its favour and simply by sitting out for another year or so, Islamabad can negotiate from a position of advantage.

To be sure, a very tough period lies ahead for New Delhi. Unlike the case with India where the competitive environment of party politics is precluding a national consensus on the diplomatic and political approach to be taken toward Pakistan, there is a high level of political consolidation apparent within the power structure in Islamabad.

The Pakistani civilian politicians are bending over backward to conform to the military's brief on relations with India.

Two, the strong likelihood is that the ISI is exaggerating its capacity to foment trouble in the valley and trigger an 'intifada'. But the Indian State is not about to rollover. The stage is getting ready for violence and bloodshed.

Three, Pakistan is overestimating its capacity to pitchfork a Taliban regime into power in Kabul. The fact of the matter is that the Taliban enjoys very little popular support among Afghans, and as for Pakistan, the overwhelming majority of Afghans, including among Pashtuns, resent Pakistan's blatant interference in the affairs of their country.

The frustration will mount in Rawalpindi when the Pakistani military's plans to impose a pliant regime in Kabul go awry. And there is a very real danger that the ISI may precipitate some major terrorist act in India in the months ahead so as to force a direct US intervention in the India-Pakistan relationship.

The danger of such an eventuality has always been there in recent years but in the coming period there is a qualitative difference insofar as the US has a high level of dependency on the Pakistani military to 'deliver' in Afghanistan.

India's options are few. Can it drop its insistence on taking the 26/11 file to its bitter end? No elected government in New Delhi can adopt a policy of 'kiss-and-make-up' on the 26/11 file, given the public mood in the country regarding the horrendous nature of the crime that the ISI perpetrated.

But on the contrary, if Delhi presses ahead with its case, incorporating David Headley's testimony et al, Pakistani military will come under compulsion at some stage to retaliate.

There is no likelihood of the Pakistani military ever bending to acknowledge the ISI's involvement in the Mumbai attacks. The question of the Pakistani military accepting the rationale of any atonement simple doesn't arise, either.

Conceivably, the only party that can force the Pakistani military's hands will be the US. In a manner of speaking, therefore, the Pakistani military is also queering the pitch of the US-India strategic partnership. The American version is this week's visit by US National Security Advisor General Jim Jones [ Images ] to New Delhi aimed at 'fortifying' the US-India strategic partnership.

However, will the US venture onto a dangerous course of confronting the Pakistani military when its own chestnuts are in the fire in Afghanistan? Next week's US-Pakistan strategic dialogue in Islamabad, the second such high-level interaction in the past four months alone, should provide some answers as to how far Washington will be prepared to go to deal with the Pakistani military's practice of a la carte terrorism.

The best hope is that between now and Obama's expected visit to India in November, US diplomacy succeeds in putting the India-Pakistan dialogue process back on track.

The big question, however, remains: Will the Indian establishment be prepared to forget the past and forgive the ISI for perpetrating the Mumbai attacks?
 

ajtr

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
12,038
Likes
723
Can we move on from Pakistan, Mr Prime Minister?

Last updated on: July 16, 2010 18:23 IST

'I wish somebody would tell the prime minister that peace with Pakistan is a good thought. India [ Images ]ns and Pakistanis can be friends, but India and Pakistan can never be friends in our lifetime,' says Saisuresh Sivaswamy.
Every ruler of men and minds since time immemorial has longed to leave his legacy behind -- some through grandiose physical ones like the Taj Mahal [ Images ] or the pyramids; some leave behind a revolutionary thought, a philosophy, like Krishna, Gautama, Jesus Christ [ Images ] and Mohammed; but most die trying.

The exceptions are rare, almost non-existent. I was reading Michel Danino's riveting book The Lost River, on the Saraswati which was the cradle of the civilisation posterity has exclusively credited to the Sindhu/Indus, and was amazed to find that the remains have no pointer to the ruler/s. No grand places. No temples. No monuments. Nothing. Just urban conglomerations.

In fact, early English excavators with their Egyptian and Roman background even dismissed the archaeological findings as unspectacular. Who ran the vast swathe of settlements on the banks of the Saraswati whose impeccable urban order we are unable to replicate 5,000 years later in our cities? We don't know because the rulers didn't think that was important.

If only our modern rulers thought along those lines, better would be our lot. Instead they choose to run after a legacy, making a grand statement, little realising that legacy is what happens when you do your job well. So we've had prime minister after prime minister tilting at the scales, chasing a dream.

Nehru may have wanted to be known as the champion of global peace and India-China brotherhood but we best remember him as the architect of the modern nation-State; Indira Gandhi [ Images ] may have wanted to better her father, but we remember her for creating Bangladesh, imposing the Emergency and okaying Operation Bluestar; with her son it was a case of what could have been rather than what he did or did not do.

P V Narasimha Rao, for instance, did not set out to leave a legacy when he liberalised the economy, he just didn't have a choice given what profligate governments before him had done. In fact, despite his vast intellectual superiority, I don't think even he could have foreseen how his decision would unleash a dormant nation. Today, his party may demonise him for the Babri Masjid [ Images ] demolition but no one can take away what he did to the Indian spirit in 1991.

Similarly, Atal Bihari Vajpayee [ Images ] did not set out to leave a legacy when he detonated the bomb in 1998. But by staring down the international pressure that followed, he gave his people tremendous self-belief. And when he stepped down in 2004, we knew for the first time that non-Congress governments can run the nation better. That was his legacy.

Neither Rao nor Vajpayee strove to be remembered -- they did what they had to do, and when it is consonance with the national spirit, as it was for them, legacy was created.

Manmohan Singh [ Images ], Rao's finance minister in 1991, obviously doesn't think the economic liberalisation was his legacy, so when he got the unexpected chance in 2004 to be remembered by posterity he grabbed it with both hands. The Indo-US nuclear deal may have been the culmination of what Vajpayee's government had done in the previous term, but Dr Singh left his mark by staking his government's future for America's embrace.

The War on Terror may have gone wrong and America in general may be reviled in the Arab world and elsewhere but India has been unique in that the superpower enjoys enormous popularity here, especially among the large, clamorous and influential middle class which equates socialism with deprivation and American capitalism with prosperity.

So when Dr Singh docked the Indian ship of state next to Washington DC's berth five years ago this Sunday, he brought foreign policy in line with the people's wishes -- and that will always be his legacy.

In his second term, when he is running after another legacy -- something that's never been done before -- he is being not just greedy but even stands to lose it all. Perhaps he needs to be told that peace with Pakistan has been given a shot by every single prime minister before him -- and I don't think anyone walked extra miles for this than Vajpayee; the attempts failed not because they lacked conviction but because the issue is far too complex.

Plus, if you remove the Wagah border brigade and the peaceniks who come alive every now and then, there is no groundswell within India in favour of peace. Ask anyone and they will tell you yes, peace is desirable with Pakistan but at what cost, do they really want peace?

Dr Singh's own Congress party, with its elephantine memory, knows it and hence its lukewarm response to the prime minister's ambition.

His own ministers know it.

When it comes to peace with Pakistan, it won't be wrong to say that Dr Singh stands completely alone in his government, in his party and in his nation.

I wish somebody would tell the prime minister that peace with Pakistan is a good thought. Indians and Pakistanis can be friends but India and Pakistan can never be friends in our lifetime. Maybe after another 30, 40 years, when a generation that is untouched by the past comes to power in both nations, it could be come a reality -- assuming that the two nations don't bomb each other out in the meantime.

For the present, the people are not enthused by peace with Pakistan because it doesn't matter to them anymore. The common belief is that India has left Pakistan far behind in the global sweepstakes and while yes, if its hidden war on us were to stop we can progress even faster, we have done well without them so why bother?

Peace with the neighbour obviously means greater dividends for Pakistan than it does for India.

Things could be different if those extending the hand of friendship in Pakistan are able to make some minimum guarantees, they will be surprised by what India can and will offer in return, but it is an open secret that the nation that broke away from India over the two-nation theory is itself a living example of two nations in one today.

One is the civilian one we see, where elections are held, the president, prime minister and others are selected and who run the nation for all practical purposes.

The second nation is the real one, it is the one that calls the shots on critical issues -- and India is a hyper-critical issue for them. It is possible that Messrs Zardari, Gilani, Qureshi et al have a burning desire for peace with India matching Dr Singh's -- but unfortunately for them, the decision is not theirs to take.

Dr Singh can deal with them till the cows, bulls and every animal on Noah's Ark come home but each time he will realise that it's always back to square one. Hopefully someday soon he will outgrow his magnificent obsession.

There's a nation full of problems waiting for that day.
 

ajtr

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
12,038
Likes
723
I didn't go to Pak for sight-seeing either: SM Krishna



New Delhi: Responding to a Pakistan Foreign Minister SM Qureshi's broadside after talks with him on Friday, Indian External Affairs Minister SM Krishna said he had not visited Islamabad for sight seeing.

Krishna's response was in reply to a question by a TV channel about what he had to say about Qureshi's statement that he will not come to India for leisure trip. Krishna has invited the Pak FM for further talks here.

Krishna responded by saying even he did not go for sight seeing to Pak and was serious about the talks.

"India has always approaches bilateral talks with utmost seriousness," he said in his first reaction to Qureshi's rant that almost sunk the peace process.

On the latter's charge that India was not prepared for talks, Krishna said one can't exhaust all issues in only one meeting.

"Talks have to gradually move from one issue to the other," he said.

Meanwhile, sources at the Centre revealed that the reason that India has not responded again to Qureshi's jibes is that "we do not want to have a slanging match with them."



On the other hand, Krishna and US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton may have a bilateral meeting in Kabul on Tuesday.
 

ajtr

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
12,038
Likes
723
Meanwhile No talks between Krishna, Qureshi in Kabul: Rao


New Delhi: Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao Saturday ruled out a bilateral meeting between External Affairs Minister S M Krishna and his Pakistani counterpart Shah Mahmood Qureshi on the sidelines of an international conference in Kabul Tuesday.

"Both Foreign Minister Krishna and Foreign Minister Qureshi will be attending this conference. I don't believe there will be any bilateral meeting during the conference because the way it is structured and the business that has to be transacted at that conference is not going to leave much time for bilateral meetings to begin with and secondly, they have just met in Islamabad," Rao told Times Now in an interview.
 

ajtr

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
12,038
Likes
723
A case of exploding mangoes


5
Share
215

India-Pakistan talks have much in common with a case of ripe mangoes: must be handled with care, are easily bruised, and decay if left too many hours out on the negotiating table. And by mid-July, they just rot. That last point is simply a facetious way of pointing out that the Agra summit in 2001, the Sharm-el-Sheikh meeting last year and the Islamabad bilateral were all conducted between July 14-July 16.

But it would be shallow to lump Islamabad with those other two failed negotiations, for a number of reasons. To begin with, all the preparation that went into it. Ever since the dates for the bilateral were set in May, diplomats have conducted a sustained search for common ground. By last week, two things were extremely clear to both sides: that terror, and especially action in the 26/11 investigation was going to be the starting point of the talks, but the two would walk away with a renewed dialogue- and a structure of meetings on all outstanding issues including Kashmir, water, Sir Creek, and various confidence building measures in place. As a result it is an even bigger shame that the talks went the way Agra and Sharm-el-Sheikh did, both of which lacked the painstaking agenda detailing that went into the Islamabad meeting- along with meetings of the Foreign secretaries and the Home Ministers before it.

So what went wrong? Many ominous signs should have sent out early warning bells. To begin with, the rare appearance of the Prime Minister of Pakistani occupied Kashmir alongside Hizbul Mujahideen commander Syed Salahuddin at a rally where they both railed against the Foreign Ministers talks. The fact that the Pakistani government had been remarkably quiet about the protests in the valley clearly hadn't gone down with the sections of the establishment that countenanced that rally.

Next came revelations from Home Secretary GK Pillai- that during his interrogation LeT operative David Coleman Headley had alleged the ISI had planned and directed the 26/11 Mumbai terror attacks "through and through". In his defence, Mr Pillai merely repeated what Headley had said, and the information he referred to had apparently already been shared with Pakistani officials during Mr. Chidambaram's visit- but the timing of his remarks at The Indian Express's Idea Exchange meant that by the time SM Krishna landed in Islamabad, no one was willing to believe that Mr Pillai was acting alone. "Are you telling me," sneered a Pakistani journalist friend, "that a secretary to the government of India can accuse the Pakistani government of masterminding the Mumbai attacks a day before talks between the two governments without clearance, and not be pulled up for it?". After all, others pointed out, if Mr Chidambaram could display the discretion he did on his trip to Pakistan- handing over the names of serving intelligence officers identified by Headley, but never referring publicly to the agency, then surely India was aware of the sensitivity of accusing the all-powerful ISI while attempting to extract promises from their government. Ministry of External Affairs officials too admitted that they had little defence, except to deny there had been any design in them.

If Mr Pillai's remarks began the process of derailing the talks before they started, and the deadlock between the delegations ensured that the tracks developed cracks, one can safely say Mr Qureshi simply dynamited what was left of them. His anger at the joint press conference, followed up by his mocking the considerably older Mr. Krishna's 'limited mandate' even while Krishna was his guest on Pakistani soil has shocked many within his own country as it outraged everyone in ours.

But it may help to probe that outburst further- after all, in his haste at point-scoring, Mr Qureshi attempted to destroy the very house of cards he had himself taken such pains to build. Shah Mehmood Qureshi is no newcomer to the India-Pakistan peace process. He has been a proponent of better ties, and an integral part of the original 'track-2' 'Balusa' group more than a decade ago. In the 1990s his groups' work on Indo-Pakistani issues was considered path-breaking. Both in and out of power, Qureshi made talks with India his forte, and has often been criticized in Pakistan for being too 'doveish'. An example of his efforts came after Thimphu, when his statements on Pakistan's wastage of water being a bigger issue than blaming India for the shortage went a long way in calming the rhetoric down. A meeting of the Indus water commissioners that followed was, as a result, able to make progress.

At the press conference, while we in India saw his sternness and heard his belligerent tone on Pillai, the Pakistani press saw exactly the opposite. The Nation's front page account the next morning said "Mr. Qureshi did not dare interrupt Mr. Krishna", accusing Qureshi of remaining silent on Kashmir and Balochistan." "India has come away the winner of this dialogue," moaned another editorial "By getting Mr. Qureshi to accept terror and action on the 26/11 attacks as the most significant issue, while ignoring other 'core' issues." The most stinging criticism was reserved for Qureshi's acceptance of Omar Abdullah as the "head of a democratically elected government in Jammu and Kashmir". The Pakistani Foreign Minister certainly breached diplomatic etiquette with his attack on SM Krishna that afternoon, but his remarks may be seen as the reaction of a Pakistani politician under pressure fighting for survival.

But unlike Agra and Sharm-el-Sheikh, there is still something to be salvaged from the Islamabad detente. The two sides have already gone into damage control, making it clear they will press ahead with the dialogue process. India and Pakistan's statements in Islamabad recognized terror as their common enemy, and Pakistan on paper committed to speeding up the Mumbai trial process, and hunting down the masterminds. The dignified reaction of Mr Krishna, choosing to rise above the acrimony, has also been one of the truly positive features of the engagement. Unlike post- Sharm-el-Sheikh, the government is standing firm, the Congress party is backing the peace process, and they may yet have the opportunity to put some of the bitterness behind them at the Afghan conference in Kabul on Monday that both Foreign ministers will attend.

Diplomats now warily eyeing the possibility of another round of talks have the benefit of some lessons from Islamabad, that hold true for the case of mangoes too. Like how the talks can perish, even explode when put under the harsh lights of live television, and domestic pressure.
 

ajtr

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
12,038
Likes
723
On the abyss of chaos


Sandhya Jain

If there is a reason behind the madness with which Pakistan's Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi blew the dialogue with his Indian counterpart SM Krishna, we should look for it on the frontiers of that imploding nation. Not along Jammu & Kashmir, but the western sector —Afghanistan, Iran, even Central Asia, where growing American interventionism can only exacerbate tensions and faultlines.

Pakistan is now coming face-to-face with the fatal flaw in its birth chart. Conceived and created as a Western colonial outpost in a supposedly post-colonial world, its primary purpose was to help the West contain the rising power and ambitions of India and China. Its second purpose was to serve as a watch tower to oversee Russian moves in Central Asia, and the Muslim states of Iran, Iraq and on to the Gulf.

It was thus a strategic land bank of the colonial West.As Islam failed to give Pakistan's constituent provinces the civilisational unity once bestowed by Hindu Sanskritic tradition (which flourished up to the borders of eastern Persia), it failed to evolve into a coherent nation-state . Army rule or power alone could hold it together.

Nowhere did the original blueprint envisage using Pakistan for action on its western frontier, a situation first created by Soviet intervention in Afghanistan in 1979, and now the current American-Nato war. Pressure to help America in the un-winnable Afghan war, and perhaps support a strike on Teheran, has placed Pakistan in a bind.

Far from being able to make territorial or other gains in the region via its American ally (Jammu & Kashmir in India, strategic depth in Afghanistan), the regional instability may cause it to collapse. Mr Qureshi's intemperate outburst against Mr Krishna may have been a political ruse to maintain status quo on the eastern front; Pakistan knows it faces no threat from quietist India, but wants to stir the Kashmir pot as a pretext to evade deeper involvement on its western front.

America-watchers argue that the internal rift between Islamabad and Washington, DC is wider than acknowledged, and poses a threat to US troops in Afghanistan. America needs a graceful retreat from the 'graveyard of empires' to boost President Barack Obama's re-election bid; it is desperate to exploit the huge strategic metals reservoir uncovered there, for which it hopes to rope in Russia, China, India, Iran and even Pakistan. Besides, it needs a foothold in this strategic region between Russia, China and Iran.

But the US's key ally, Pakistan, is the world epicentre of Islamist terror. The US-Pakistan strategic dialogue in Islamabad, the second high-level meet in four months, will reveal how America plans to deal with Pakistan's sponsorship of terrorism, and the Taliban in Afghanistan. This will also decide the fate of Mr Obama's proposed visit to New Delhi in November.

For those of us who view India-Pakistan dialogue as an exercise in futility, the failure of the July 16 talks was welcome. But we should not believe that Home Secretary GK Pillai's reference to David Coleman Headley's revelation about the direct involvement of Pakistani Army officers and the Inter-Services Intelligence in the Mumbai attacks provoked the collapse. The ISI has been the principal suspect from Day One, even before the Americans decided to out Headley.

Islamabad may have felt pressured by insistent reports from Washington that the Obama Administration is seriously contemplating a strike against Teheran, an action bound to trigger turmoil in the region. On July 15, Time magazine carried a story by Joe Klein, 'An Attack on Iran: Back on the Table', which claimed that the Pentagon for the first time regarded military action against Iran's nuclear programme as feasible and possibly necessary.

Klein quoted an Israeli military source saying Tel Aviv has been consulted on the war-planning as the White House does not want Israel to attack Teheran by itself. It is said Iran's Sunni neighbours (read Saudi Arabia) want this. This is consistent with reports that the Anglo-American axis no longer views the Israeli-Arab conflict as the key to controlling the Muslim world, and is banking on promotion of Shia-Sunni and Arab versus non-Arab divides.

Also on July 15, Spiegel Online carried a similar story titled, 'A Quiet Axis Forms Against Iran in the Middle East', by Alexander Smoltczyk and Bernhard Zand, who claimed that Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates were urging the US to attack Iran, regardless of the consequences. Critics believe the temptation for Mr Obama to attack Iran will increase as the war in Afghanistan falters. Iraq is already brimming with sectarian violence. A new front in Iran offers the promise (or mirage) of a victorious war against a defiant Muslim country and gives Mr Obama a chance to retain both Houses of Congress (or so it is hoped).

Pakistan would also have felt alarmed at Mr Robert Blackwill's suggestion of a 'low cost solution' to the Afghan imbroglio by de facto partitioning the country between Pashtun and non-Pashtun areas. The former US envoy to India, now senior fellow, RAND Corporation, has said the US should concentrate forces in non-Pashtun areas and use heavy air power, including drones, and special forces to strike at the Taliban in Pashtun areas of Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The US, according to this thesis, should target Al Qaeda bases in Afghanistan, Afghan Taliban leaders aiding them, Afghan Taliban encroachments across the proposed de facto partition lines, and terrorist sanctuaries along the Pakistan border. US should keep a long-term residual military force of 40,000 to 50,000 troops in Afghanistan for this purpose. Mr Blackwill fondly hopes that Tajiks, Uzbeks, Hazaras and anti-Taliban Pashtuns will join this plan, along with Nato allies, Russia, India, Iran, perhaps China, and Central Asian countries.

Islamabad rightly fears this mad adventure, even without a new misadventure in Iran. A Taliban-dominated Pashtun Afghanistan and Pakistani Pashtun areas under Pakistani Taliban influence will inevitably push towards unity in an independent Pashtunistan, triggering Baloch, Sindhi and Balti aspirations. Far from gaining strategic depth in Afghanistan, Pakistan could be virtually dismembered. This could exacerbate Islamist radicalisation of the country, and raises legitimate fears about the security of its nuclear arsenal.

The US may earn the dubious distinction of attacking Iran to abort its nuclear ambitions, and thereby triggering an adventure by a heavily nuclear-armed Pakistan.
 

ajtr

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
12,038
Likes
723
X-posting...

Hillary's iron fist in a velvet glove



ISLAMABAD: US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Monday went about with her usual charm offensive, but maintained a hawkish position over Pakistan's strategic concerns in a reflection of the deep mistrust that still exists between the two allies.

Secretary Clinton more importantly for the second day running, handed out a stern warning to Pakistan that any future terrorist attack traced back to its soil would have devastating consequences.

Ms Clinton, who was here to co-chair the second round of Pak-US Strategic Dialogue, had several public engagements – the joint media conference with Foreign Minister Qureshi, a town hall meeting and an interaction with TV anchors.

And where she had good words and cheerful news for Pakistan on new projects, a vivid message running through all here activities was that of a clear distrust and divergences over the issues that were close to Islamabad – the civilian nuclear cooperation with China, water disputes with India and Kashmir.

Although the hardline position of the Obama administration on Pakistan's efforts for brokering a deal between Afghanistan's most potent warring group – the Haqqani network – and Kabul appeared to have been softened down, there was a clear inclination towards reintegration involving the foot soldiers instead of reconciliation and first defeating the group militarily.

When Pakistan entered the upgraded Strategic Dialogue in March, Islamabad had made clear that it was expecting Washington to deliver tangibly on its strategic concerns, which among others included civilian nuclear energy, role in Afghanistan reconciliation, settlement of disputes with India.

Ahead of the second round, officials appeared to be under a delusion that the US had accommodated their concerns as they regularly referred to the tacit US support for Sino-Pak nuclear cooperation at a recent meeting of the Nuclear Suppliers Group in New Zealand.

But Ms Clinton not only candidly acknowledged that the legacy of suspicion cannot be wished away, she also surprised simpletons in the Pakistani camp by voicing concerns over the Sino-Pak nuclear cooperation, asking it to respond to the worries in the international community.

"NSG has posed series of questions that need to be answered "¦ there are clearly reservations. Pakistan knows that. I'm looking forward to the answers to the questions," she said at the joint media conference.

She mentioned some of those concerns at the town hall meeting – Pakistan's history of proliferation and its position on FMCT.

"The problem with A. Q. Khan raises red flags for people around the world, not just in the US, because we can trace the export of nuclear information and material from Pakistan through all kinds of channels to many different countries. That cannot be overlooked or put under the carpet. Pakistan, right now, is the only country standing in the way of the Conference on Disarmament pursuing something called the Fissile Material Cut Off Treaty."

AFGHANISTAN RECONCILIATION
The line taken by the secretary was softer than what senior Obama aides, and more importantly the new ISAF commander in Afghanistan Gen Petraeus, has been articulating recently.

She clearly said the US would not oppose any reconciliation effort as long as the group has proven sincerity.

Prior to Clinton's visit the indications from Washington were that there was no room for a political settlement with the Haqqani Network.

This position had in fact forced Pakistan to halt its efforts for working out a peace agreement, launched last month, between the Haqqanis and Kabul.

But, surprisingly, Clinton took a rather middle ground, saying: "We had never rejected that (reconciliation), but cautioned to enter realistically with respect to sincerity and lasting commitment that is made. We are not rejecting any offer."

There was a lot of emphasis on caution in her remarks as she said that Pakistan may proceed, but with its 'eyes wide open' given its past failed experience of making peace with militants in Swat.

She also spared no effort in her interaction with anchors to make Pakistani strategists realise that Haqqani network was a future threat for Pakistan even though it may have not struck inside the county as yet.

In a reference to the reintegration of low and middle ranking cadres, an approach preferred by the US over reconciliation, she suggested there were many young men who were forced into fighting, but could be salvaged.

Besides, there was a clear leaning towards militarily acting against warring factions.

Ms Clinton also deemed it appropriate to repeat on this occasion the usual American official's catchphrase that Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar were in hiding in Pakistan, but ulike her last visit she stayed short of accusing Pakistani officials of being aware of their presence.

Nevertheless, she expressed US helplessness at getting hold of them. "We don't have a clear idea how best to get to these people, whom we consider to be our primary enemy. We would like to work more closely together to go after them and capture or kill them."

WATER DISPUTE
The secretary of state, curtly rejecting Pakistan's request for help in solving its water disputes with India, asked it to first manage its own resources before seeking external mediation.

"Pakistan has to get control of the water you currently have, because if you go to a mediation body and say water is being diverted, the first response will be you are not efficiently using the water you have," she said.

In the Strategic Dialogue document prepared by Pakistan, Islamabad had placed the water crisis with India as the foremost issue of concern.

Pakistan has the world's most extensive system for irrigation and transportation of water, but it has "been neglected and fallen into disuse" and steps need to be taken to address the situation, she said during her interaction with television anchors.

KASHMIR
On the longstanding Kashmir dispute, which was one of the issues that caused an impasse in the India-Pakistan trust-building talks last week because of India's refusal to discuss it, the secretary of state indicated that Washington would continue with its hands off policy.

"We can only encourage, we can't solve (the Kashmir issue) because at the end of the day, this is an issue (to which) there is no dictated response. This is what Pakistan must do, this is what India must do."

However, she said US would like Pakistan and India to sustain their renewed engagement process.

STRATEGIC DIALOGUE
A joint statement issued after the second ministerial meeting said: "Secretary Clinton conveyed the United States' support for Pakistan's socio-economic advancement. In this context, she said the United States would, in particular, support programmes and projects in the priority areas of energy and food security and social sector development. Secretary Clinton announced US assistance for signature projects in energy, water and health."

"The United States will also continue to assist Pakistan in reconstruction and rehabilitation in areas that have been affected by terrorism, especially Swat, Malakand and South Waziristan Agency," the statement added.

Moreover, the Pakistan government expressed its continued commitment to eliminate extremism and militancy and to undertake legal and structural reforms in order to promote good governance and open the way to economic growth, development and prosperity.
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top