US may offer India-like nuke deal to Pak!!!

[ajtr]

Obama pledges to work with ‘peace-loving’ Pakistanis

Greeting people of Pakistan on the occasion of its National Day, US President Barack Obama on Tuesday pledged to remain a partner of all Pakistanis who “seek to build a future of peace and prosperity“.

Sending his best wishes to the people of Pakistan and all those of Pakistani descent in America and around the world observing Pakistan National Day, Mr. Obama said: “Seventy years ago, Muhammad Ali Jinnah and those of the independence generation declared their dreams of self-determination and democracy.

“Today, the people of Pakistan are carrying on the great work of Quaid-e Azam,” Mr. Obama said in his message issued on the occasion of Pakistan National Day, being marked on March 23.

“In these efforts, the American people are proud to join in the education, health and economic partnerships that can improve the daily lives of Pakistanis and their families,” he said.

“Here in the United States, our country is enriched by the many Pakistani Americans who excel as doctors, small business owners, students, members of our armed forces and in many other fields,” he added.

“On this National Day, we give thanks for the contributions of these fellow Americans, and the United States pledges to remain a partner of all Pakistanis who seek to build a future of peace and prosperity,” Mr. Obama said.

Earlier, the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, in her message said the Obama Administration is supporting Pakistan in its fight against extremism that poses threat to its existence and also the region and the other parts of the world.

“The United States is supporting Pakistan’s efforts to strengthen democratic institutions, foster economic development, expand opportunity, and defeat the extremist groups who threaten Pakistan, the region, and even our own country,” Ms. Clinton said.

“Our broad partnership is based on mutual respect and mutual interest, and this dialogue will be an opportunity to forge even closer ties between our nations,” Ms. Clinton said in a video message to the people of Pakistan issued on the eve of the Pakistan’s National Day.

“Pakistan is close to my heart, and I have been privileged to make five visits over the years.

And I have seen firsthand how special your country is -- rich with history and culture, blessed with natural beauty, and home to people of unforgettable warmth and strength,” she said.

Ms. Clinton along with her Pakistani counterpart Shah Muhammad Qureshi chairs the first US Pakistani Strategic Dialogue, being held in Washington tomorrow.

“Today, your country is suffering from terrorism and your security forces and civilians are making great sacrifices to fight extremists.

The people of the United States will stand by and support Pakistani efforts to build a peaceful and prosperous future,” Ms. Clinton said.

 

[DaRk WaVe]

U.S. willing to consider nuke co-operation with Pak: Hillary​

PTI
ISLAMABAD, March 23, 2010

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has said United States will consider nuclear co-operation with Pakistan.

Notwithstanding India’s reservations, the U.S. on Tuesday said it would “consider” Pakistan’s request for a civil nuclear deal as it wanted to help the country meet its immediate and long-term energy needs.

Ahead of the crucial bilateral strategic dialogue between the U.S. and Pakistan on Wednesday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made it clear that the issue of energy would be one of the subjects of discussion but refused to pre-judge the outcome of the talks.

“I am sure that’s going to be raised and we are going to be considering it but I can’t pre-judge or pre-empt what the outcome of our discussions will be,” Ms. Clinton said when asked whether Pakistan can have a civil nuclear deal with the US similar to the one Washington has with India.

“On the energy issues specifically there are more immediate steps that could be taken. We want to help Pakistan with an immediate and long term needs,” Ms. Clinton told Pakistan’s Express TV in an interview.

Ever since the U.S. signed the nuclear deal with India, Pakistan has been repeatedly seeking similar co-operation.

However, the previous Bush administration had refused to entertain the request arguing that the non-proliferation records of India and Pakistan were not comparable.

The first indications of U.S.’ willingness to discuss civil nuclear cooperation with Pakistan came two days back from U.S. Ambassador to Islamabad Anne Patterson who said that America’s non-proliferation concerns were beginning to pass and nuclear cooperation is a scenario that can be explored.

India has voiced unhappiness over such moves and has asked the U.S. to keep in mind Pakistan’s track record of clandestine nuclear proliferation.

New Delhi has underlined that the right balance has to be struck between meeting energy needs of a country and the track record of that State.

India points to the clandestine proliferation network run by the father of Pakistan’s nuclear programme A.Q. Khan, which is believed to have provided nuclear technology and material to countries like North Korea and Syria.

The Hindu : News / International : U.S. willing to consider nuke co-operation with Pak: Hillary

 

[ajtr]

China: Peaceful nuclear technology right of every sovereign country

BEIJING: Amid reports about possible civil nuclear deal between Pakistan and Unites States, China said that a peaceful use of atomic technology is the right of every sovereign country.

China’s foreign office spokesman said today (Tuesday) that Beijing believes that atomic proliferation laws should also be implemented.

The statement came at a time when Pakistani delegation is in Washington to hold strategic dialogue with the US.

There are reports that both countries may sign a pact like India-US civilian nuclear deal.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

Pakistan should get a nuclear deal and USA should pay for the whole thing.

 

[Prince]

very dificult this deal goes throu..........If deal happened Us will lose hold in asia

 

[ajtr]

very dificult this deal goes throu..........If deal happened Us will lose hold in asia

why usa will lose hold of asia?

 

[Prince]

why usa will lose hold of asia?

Russia and china has made SCO which also have many other countries...................this deal will push India more towards Russia.......................losing hold in Asia

 

[ajtr]

Russia and china has made SCO which also have many other countries...................this deal will push India more towards Russia.......................losing hold in Asia

How about if same china usa and pakistan coperate in afghanistan as they did durin 1980s.The chances of us-china-pak triangle is very clear than indo-russia-sino triangle.

 

[Dark_Prince]

you people still believe in that theory


nuclear free world ROFL
anyways don't forget

Firstly, I am not a Pakistani, so please don't have a notion that I have been brought-up on conspiracy theories against pakistan and what not, and that I have no power of objectivity, introspection and dwelling on complete delusion, which is surely not the case!!!!

Secondly, what I meant by my statement was that it would be hard for US of A to explain (the deal) to its awam, which staunchly takes pakistan as an unstable terrorist country with nuclear weapons, using American technology against rest of the world (including US)iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

 

[Prince]

How about if same china usa and pakistan coperate in afghanistan as they did durin 1980s.The chances of us-china-pak triangle is very clear than indo-russia-sino triangle.

China and Russia has a military organisation named SCO

 

[ajtr]

China and Russia has a military organisation named SCO

There is much more cooperation between usa and china than usa-russia.sco is just like watered down version of Warsaw pact.

 

[ajtr]

Pak seeks N-deal, drone tech, military hardware from US

Washington, DC: Ahead of its strategic dialogue with the US, Pakistan has submitted a 56-page document to the Obama Administration seeking a civil nuclear deal, drone technology and military hardware to bring itself on par with India, according to a media report.


You may also want to see
Pentagon eyes more 'humane' enforcement of gay ban
Hour of exercise may be too much for busy US women
First turbaned Sikh congratulated on completing US Army training
David Headley will cooperate with Indian authorities: Lawyer
Chidambaram says no U-turn by US on direct access to Headley
Related videos
Al-Qaeda, Taliban, LeT common enemies of India, US: Roemer
ATS arrests 2 for planning terror strikes in Mumbai
PCB takes a U-turn, denies ban on Younus, Yousuf
Complete Coverage
Mumbai under attack

In the document, which is believed to have been submitted to the US before the arrival of the high-power Pakistani delegation here on Saturday last, Islamabad also seeks American help in revival of the Indo-Pak dialogue stalled since the Mumbai attacks and resolving its chronic water and power shortages.


The Pakistani delegation for tomorrow's strategic dialogue include army chief Gen Ashfaq Pervez Kayani and ISI's Lt Gen Shuja Pasha. It is headed by foreign minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi, who would co-chair the strategic dialogue with secretary of state Hillary Clinton.


The 56-page Pakistani document outlines a range of aid Islamabad is seeking from the US, The Wall Street Journal reported citing American and Pakistani officials who have seen it or been briefed on its contents.


The daily said Pakistan's fears of being outflanked by India, which has forged close ties with the Afghan government, are reflected in the document's indirect language about regional security issues.


"The document raises concerns about India's effort to modernise its military, in part through buying US equipment and weapons," it said.


The high-level meeting between senior Pakistani and US officials here tomorrow "aims to stitch together their fraying alliance," the report said.


"Right now, we're looking at something that could deliver a big part of our success in Afghanistan," a senior US military official was quoted as saying.


"Many of Pakistan's requests build on longstanding demands for more US assistance. But officials on both sides say that by detailing them in a single comprehensive document, Islamabad is trying to signal its willingness to align its interests with those of Washington, its vision for a partnership—and its price," the newspaper said.


Among the requests is "greater cooperation between its spy agency and US intelligence outfits, more helicopter gunships and other military hardware needed to battle its own Taliban insurgency, and improved surveillance technology, such as pilot-less drone aircraft," The Wall Street Journal said.


"Pakistan also wants a civilian nuclear energy cooperation deal with the US, and a role in any future peace talks between the Western-backed Afghan government and the Taliban," it reported.


Post 9/11 attacks in the US, Pakistan has received more than $17.5 billion in American aid. Last year, the Congress passed a legislation to give $7.5 billion in civilian aid to Pakistan in five years.


Given the trust-deficit between the two countries, the Pakistani request is likely to raise eyebrows at least at the Capitol Hill, which is keen to ensure that its tax-payers money is not wasted.


Earlier this week, two top US senators -- John Kerry and Richard Lugar -- wrote to Secretary of State Clinton, raising serious questions about the distribution of aid to Pakistan and the issue of accountability.


Qureshi is scheduled to meet both Kerry and Lugar, who are chairman and Ranking Member respectively of the powerful Senate Foreign Relations Committee.


He had a preliminary meeting with Special US Representative for Pakistan and Afghanistan, Richard Holbrooke, yesterday, while Gen Kayani met defence secretary Robert Gates at Pentagon.


The Wall Street Journal said top US officials still believe that Pakistani intelligence agencies continue to have links with the Taliban and other terrorist elements.


"US officials have complained that Pakistan's intelligence services continued to offer clandestine support for the Taliban, which it has long viewed as a proxy it could use to secure its influence in Afghanistan and keep archival India out after an eventual US withdrawal," it said.


"Everything with the Pakistanis is two steps forward and one step back," said a senior US military official involved in talks with the Pakistanis, according to the daily.


"Anybody who expects straight linear progress out of a strategic dialogue between these two nations is really kind of naive. What it will be is a step forward and then we'll see where they go with it," the official was quoted as saying.

 

[ajtr]

Interview With Moeed Pirzada of Dunya TV

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
Washington, DC
March 22, 2010
QUESTION: Secretary, it’s so good to see you (inaudible).
SECRETARY CLINTON: It is wonderful to see you here in Washington, and I’m delighted that you could come. And also, this interview which will probably air by the time National Day has started. So again, I send my very best wishes and congratulations.
QUESTION: Thank you, but I know you’re so hard-pressed for time, so coming straight to the strategic dialogue --
SECRETARY CLINTON: Yes.
QUESTION: -- I just flew in from Islamabad, and a (inaudible) left on the terms of the strategic dialogue, in which – Pakistan strategic dialogue, which so – sounds so good, but it’s all taking place, taking shape in the context of Afghanistan. And once the U.S. meets the goals in Afghanistan, the strategic dialogue or whatever relationship U.S. and Pakistan have is going to start (inaudible).
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, that is certainly not our plan. Our plan is that we’ve been working this past year to qualitatively change the nature of our relationship between the United States and Pakistan. There are so many issues that are of importance to Pakistan, to the United States, to our people, that we wanted to have the framework of a strategic dialogue, which we have with a number of countries, but it is something that we care deeply about with respect to Pakistan.
As I said when I was visiting in October, we want to take our relationship to a deeper level. We want to have the kind of ongoing consultation and dialogue. It doesn’t happen overnight. It’s not going to be able to wave a magic wand when we say that our first really ministerial-level strategic dialogue that is starting this week takes place. It is a process, but it’s such an important process, and we very much believe in it.
QUESTION: Secretary Clinton, a number of issues have united to fight on the agenda, like water, like energy, like economic cooperation, security, education, communication and diplomacy. But people wonder that – where is the interdependence? No enduring strategic relationship can survive without an element of interdependence, and all the relationships that you have, either with UK or (inaudible) in Canada and the new relationship with India has element of interdependence.
Are we expecting any movement towards a free trade agreement with the United States and Pakistan or a potential access for Pakistani textile products into the United States market?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, the free trade agenda has been paramount to the Obama Administration. I have personally spoken out about it. I have testified before Congress. The President has spoken out about it. Unfortunately, we came to office in the middle of a global recession, but our commitment to increasing market access for Pakistani goods is at the top of our agenda.
And again, I know that there’s a level of impatience and a sense of anticipation, but we believe that we want to build a very strong foundation, because we don’t want this to be a year or two of strategic dialoguing. We want this to be, along with some of the countries you just mentioned, an enduring part of our relationship and our foreign policy priorities.
QUESTION: When I look at the list (inaudible), things like apart from security, we have economic development, we have agriculture, we have energy, which (inaudible) with me that all these things are very intimate and very closely linked with the issue of the water. And water, in the context of South Asia, between India and Pakistan is increasingly a transnational commodity, a transnational issue. Are we expecting the United States to play a more active and more robust diplomacy between India and Pakistan on the issue of water?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I think the issues that you mentioned are all interconnected, and you can’t pull one out and say, well, is this now going to become international as opposed to what we can do within the context of our relationship to assist Pakistan.
Agriculture, water – they’re all connected. We think we can bring to the table technology, innovation. I announced a project that we are funding to help farmers in Pakistan update two wells so that they can get better irrigation from the water that is already there. We’re well aware that there is a 50-year-old agreement between Pakistan and India concerning water.
What we want to do is to help Pakistan make better use of the water that you do have. That’s going to have to be the first priority in countries including our own. Let’s see what we do to protect our aquifers. Let’s see what we do to be more efficient in the use of our water. Let’s see what we do to capture more rainwater; how do we actually use less of it to produce more crops? We think we have some ideas with our experts that we want to sit down and talk with your experts about and see where that goes.
QUESTION: Just – if I want to spend 30 seconds more on that, in the sense that what you mentioned is an internal management of the water resources, and I want to remind you that you have recently launched the Global Hunger and Food Security Initiative in which you identified that (inaudible) hunger is a strategic part of the U.S. foreign policy. So I wonder that – will you still be persuaded by the Indian argument that Pakistan and India are a bilateral relationship and U.S. cannot play an active mediation between them? Maybe water will change that perspective, that perception?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, usually, where there is an agreement, as there is between India and Pakistan on water, with mediation techniques, arbitration built in, it would seem sensible to look to what already exists to try to resolve any of the bilateral problems between India and Pakistan. But in the course of the strategic dialogue, what we want to do is focus on the problem. If the problem is water or agriculture or energy, without looking externally, as we do in our other strategic dialogues, when we have a strategic dialogue with Russia, it’s between the United States and Russia.
Now, Russia may have trouble with China or with another neighbor in Eastern Europe, but our strategic dialogue is between the two of us. And our strategic dialogue with Pakistan, which we are taking to the ministerial level at the highest level of civilian democratic leadership, is what we want to build and really put on a strong footing for the future.
QUESTION: Secretary, are we expecting on the issue of the energy – you mentioned yourself Pakistan has (inaudible). Are we expecting any, as a result of the strategic dialogue, a civilian nuclear cooperation between the United States and Pakistan?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, we have a very broad agenda laid out for this. I don’t want to prejudge or preempt what we are going to talk about because we haven’t held it yet, as we – you and I are being – holding our conversation. We’re going to have many issues, including that one, which the Pakistani delegation wishes to raise. And we’re going to really go deep into all of these.
Now, this is the first meeting, and we have to set up the mechanism for going forward. I look forward to coming back to Pakistan in the future myself to continue this dialogue. I tried to start it in October when I was there. I feel very personally committed. I have many, many Pakistani American friends and now many friends in Pakistan who are really counting on us to have a very thorough examination of all these different issues.
We can’t prejudge it. We don’t know what the path will be. I have been in enough of these dialogues to know that you can have an idea, but it might take years to develop. So we have to sort it out and see, in a prioritized way, how we move forward.
QUESTION: One related question comes to mind, is that Pakistan is a de facto nuclear power since 1998. Are we expecting, at some stage, United States accepting Pakistan as a nuclear power?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, again, I don’t want to prejudge or preempt. I think part of what we have to do – and we are building the basis of what I hope will be an open, transparent, frank relationship between us. That’s what countries that develop that level of trust and confidence can do with each other. I well remember being in Pakistan in October and being told by many journalists and many others that there was a trust deficit, we did not trust each other. I think the fact that we have come to a point where we’re going to have a serious strategic dialogue at the highest level of government is quite a move.
But I am absolutely convinced we have a long way to go. We can’t just wave that magic wand and say we’ve eliminated the trust deficit, we fully understand each other. This takes time, and we have to build it step by step. But I’m very committed to this process.
QUESTION: Last question. We are expecting you for the second round of the strategic dialogue in Pakistan. The last time you came here, you left such an impact. Are we going to expect you to come and have a discussion to assess the progress we have made in Pakistan?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Absolutely. We have strategic dialogues with Russia, with China. We alternate. Our Russian counterparts or Chinese will come here, then approximately – I don’t know how many months, but usually somewhere – eight, 10 months, a year, we go there. We go back and forth because it’s important to hold each of our governments accountable. I mean, I can have an excellent discussion with Foreign Minister Qureshi, but unless our bureaucracy here in the United States and your bureaucracy back in Pakistan actually do the work, we make no progress. So of course, we have to keep the pressure on. So our first meeting will be this week in Washington and then we will have the next meeting in Islamabad.
QUESTION: Secretary Clinton, thank you.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Pleasure to see you again. Thank you very much.

 

[ajtr]

Interview With Munizae Jahangir of Express TV Group

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
Washington, DC
March 22, 2010
QUESTION: Madam Secretary of State, thank you so much for joining us.
SECRETARY CLINTON: It is a pleasure. Thank you.
QUESTION: Pakistan has a lot of expectations from the Strategic Dialogue, and one of the expectations is that they are hoping to get a civilian nuclear deal similar to the one with India. Now, obviously, one of the (inaudible) is going to be proliferation, but your Administration has already vouched that we are no longer doing that. So are we going to restart having a dialogue acknowledging Pakistan’s nuclear program?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, first let me wish everyone a happy National Day because I know that this will air on Pakistan’s National Day. And let me also say how pleased we are to have the first of our Strategic Dialogue meetings here in Washington. We have a really broad agenda – that issue, many others are on it. And what we try to do in these Strategic Dialogues is to begin the hard work of sorting through all the different issues that are raised. I’m sure that that’s going to be raised and we’re going to be considering it, but I can’t prejudge or preempt what the outcome of our discussions will be, except to say that this Strategic Dialogue is at the highest level we’ve ever had between our two countries. We are very committed to it. We know whatever we do will take time. It’s not the kind of commitment that you easily produce overnight or even within a year. But it is important to get started, to sort it out, and to develop the trust and the confidence between us, and between all the people who work in our government, because it’s not just between me and Foreign Minister Qureshi, it’s all the other people who do the work. And we will be moving forward. We’ll have our next session in the future in Islamabad.
QUESTION: The reason I ask the nuclear question is simply because we are having these power riots in Pakistan at the moment and we desperately need that kind of power and that help that was given to India at the same time, and (inaudible) that there’s a sense of unevenness after you signed the nuclear deal.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I can’t speak for anyone else’s impressions, but that was the result of many, many years of strategic dialogue. It did not happen easily or quickly. And I think on the energy issue specifically, there are more immediate steps that can be taken that have to help with the grid, have to help with other sources of energy, to upgrade power plants and the like. And we are certainly looking at those and we want to help Pakistan with its immediate and its long-term energy needs.
QUESTION: You had a very good (inaudible) the Kerry-Lugar bill that was passed (inaudible) now. How come the money has been so slow in coming, because we desperately are in need of that money?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, the money is in what we call the pipeline. It’s not easily conveyed because there are all these rules we have to follow, but it is being delivered. Money is coming forward. And we’re well aware of Pakistan’s financial challenges. We’re going to do everything we can to expedite the flow of the money that we want to go to work in agriculture, to work in energy, to work in security – the broad range of issues that we have discussed.
QUESTION: Now, earlier President Bush’s Administration had announced a reconstruction opportunity zone for Pakistan’s troubled Northwest. Is your Administration going to pursue that?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Yes, absolutely. We are committed to it. We came into office wanting to deepen and broaden our relationship with Pakistan. Unfortunately, we came into office in the middle of a global recession, so President Obama had to really turn his attention to getting the American economy moving again. But trade, and in particular the so-called ROZs, are a very high priority. The President himself has spoken out on behalf of those. And we are working to try to realize the benefits of greater market access for Pakistan.
QUESTION: So perhaps we will have a bilateral investment treaty?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, there are many different ways to pursue it, and some of them are more available immediately. But that’s why we’re going to be meeting in the Strategic Dialogue, to really go in-depth. We have Strategic Dialogues with Russia, with China, with other countries. There’s a lot of work that is entailed and it takes time. And we’re just beginning this process with Pakistan. We’re very excited about it, but we have to go through the process, we have to get everything lined up, and then see what steps we can take.
QUESTION: So what are you hoping to achieve at the end of (inaudible)? What is your (inaudible)?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I think that we would have a strong foundation for these Strategic Dialogues, that we would begin the process of developing an agenda, that we would start putting in place the mechanisms that we will be using. For example, Foreign Minister Qureshi and I can agree this is what we want to do, but he and I don’t do that work. Our bureaucracies do that work. So for --
QUESTION: (Inaudible) implementation part of it.
SECRETARY CLINTON: The implementation. We’ve been working for close to a year on our Russian Strategic Dialogue in this Administration, and we’re still getting working groups going. Some are advanced, some haven’t even met yet. It just takes time to get our bureaucracies all focused and going in the same direction.
QUESTION: Another concern is that there’s a proxy war going on between India and Pakistan in Afghanistan and it’s found another arena to take this conflict to. Now, this is obviously not good for international security; and in the beginning, President Obama’s Administration had promised a regional strategy. Now, how come so little has been done on that?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I think that there is a regional strategy, but of course, there’s an immediate need to try to deal with the violence in Afghanistan, to try to take back areas that had been overrun by the Taliban, which is what the military campaign is about. It’s also important to put the Afghan Government on a stronger foundation so that they can deliver services. But clearly, Pakistan is very much involved in assisting us, in counseling and advising us about what will or won’t work in Afghanistan.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) do want center stage if there are going to be negotiations with the Taliban. Now, if there are negotiations with the Taliban, where does Pakistan fit into the picture?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, that’s one of the things that we’ll be discussing in the Strategic Dialogue, because clearly, Pakistan has a very important role to play. And the actions that Pakistan has taken against the Taliban extremists inside Pakistan, I think have been extremely important and very well done to demonstrate that you cannot allow terrorists to operate inside your own country. And now, we want to get Pakistan’s advice about how best to move forward in Afghanistan.
QUESTION: Including the arrest of Mullah Baradar, one of the top Taliban leaders? Do you welcome that? And – because there is lot of controversy surrounding it. Of course, the UN’s special envoy to Afghanistan, former UN special envoy, has very clearly said and criticized Pakistan for arresting the Taliban leadership, saying that they’ve tried to destruct negotiations with --
SECRETARY CLINTON: That’s not how I see it. I don’t want --
QUESTION: How do you see it?
SECRETARY CLINTON: I don’t want to contradict anyone, but the way I see it is that it was an example of cooperation between Pakistan and the United States. Both sides have said that they shared intelligence. These people pose threats to both of our countries, and so I think that arresting those who are posing those threats or have conducted or condoned terrorist attacks in the past is in both the interests of the United States and Pakistan.
QUESTION: So the UN is obviously not on the same page as (inaudible).
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I don’t want to speak for anyone else because they may have a different perspective. But our opinion is that that was an important example of cooperation.
QUESTION: Are you going to start talking to the Taliban leadership anytime soon? I know you are talking to the low-level commanders, but are you going to start talking to the Taliban leadership?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, that is not really anything that the United States is doing. That is what Afghanistan is doing, President Karzai is doing. We have said we will support his efforts. But we’re still at the very early stages of any kind of political reconciliation process.
QUESTION: One of the things I remember you saying and writing is that in democracy, women’s voices must be heard. Now, in your attempt to reintegrate the Taliban, how far are you going to go and how much are you going to compromise (inaudible)?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Not at all, I hope. Because what we have said very clearly is that in order for someone to be reintegrated into Afghan society, they must renounce violence, they must lay down their arms, they must respect the Afghan constitution and the laws of Afghanistan which now protect women’s rights and roles. So my view is that we have to protect what now has become the legal and constitutional framework. Now, will there be problems? Of course, there will be. There are in any society where people don’t abide by what they have said they will do. But I don’t think the United States or Pakistan, with a history of women’s involvement in politics, in business, in academia – I don’t think we want to be party to turning the clock back on the women of Afghanistan. So those Taliban who wish to be accepted back into Afghan society must abide by the rules now that exist.
QUESTION: Are you going to let President Karzai’s government know this, because there are Taliban leadership that perhaps the women’s rights activists have been criticizing, and they don’t want that part of the Taliban leadership to be talking to the Karzai government?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I think that they have every reason to be concerned. But if whoever is in the leadership abides by the conditions that are set, then the job will be to hold them to those conditions. But it won’t necessarily be to tell them they can’t stop fighting, that is a threat to women and men, that if they are willing to stop fighting, here are the rules they must abide by. Now, we know that anytime you’re in a conflict situation and you’re trying to bring about a political solution, there are risks. We know that. But at the same time, we think pursuing this very carefully is worth doing. We’re just at the beginning. We haven’t tested it. We don’t know how far it will go. And that’s one of the reasons we’re consulting with our Pakistan partners.
QUESTION: Thank you very much for speaking to us.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you. It’s a pleasure.

 

[ajtr]

Substance, please

Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Shamshad Ahmad

Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi gave a crusty curtain-raiser on what he planned to convey to his interlocutors at today’s Pakistan-US “strategic dialogue” in Washington. “My message to Washington is we have been talking a lot and it is time to walk the talk,” Qureshi announced at a press briefing at the Foreign Office last week.

However, we should not expect any breakthroughs at this round of the “strategic dialogue.” At best, Islamabad could receive a patient hearing in Washington of whatever Foreign Minster Qureshi and his team will be able to put across coherently. This is not the first time the two sides are holding their “strategic dialogue.” Since the beginning of this process in 2006, we have had three rounds, all ending with anodyne joint statements, high in words, low in substance, and producing no result.

No progress was made on any of the agenda items, not even on the longstanding investment or free-trade arrangements. The promised market access and Reconstruction Opportunity Zones (ROZs) also remain unimplemented. Last year, during US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s visit to Pakistan, both sides, however, agreed to upgrade their “strategic dialogue” to ministerial level as an important vehicle of their desire to redefine their relationship.

The meeting today in Washington, the first at the upgraded level with high-level participation from both sides, assumes special importance in terms of its agenda, the scope and level of discussions, and the expected new trajectory of US-Pakistan relations. Indeed, there are new factors that make this round of US-Pakistan “strategic dialogue” substantively different from the previous ones.

Unlike in the Musharraf era, Pakistan now has an elected government which, despite its credibility or capability deficits, does have a popular mandate. After Pakistan’s effective military operations in its tribal areas wiping out militancy pockets, the US no longer has any reasons to complain of alleged “inadequacies” in Pakistan’s counter-terrorism commitment. Pakistan’s crucial importance in any future Afghan settlement is also now recognised more than ever before. If anything, Pakistan is now seen as an integral part of the Afghan solution.

No wonder the US State Department, while announcing the first ministerial-level strategic dialogue between the two countries publicly acknowledged that President Barack Obama and Ms Clinton had “repeatedly stressed the breadth and depth of the US-Pakistan relationship, a partnership that goes far beyond security.” The emphasis on the partnership going “beyond security” apparently was meant to dispel the impression that America’s main concern at these talks would be limited to discussing the security situation in the Pak-Afghan region alone.

However, with the expected participation from both sides of their defence chiefs, security advisers, spy masters and senior generals, a high-level review of the Afghan situation is inevitable in the context of Pakistan’s increasing concerns over India’s nuisance potential and its negative impact on the prospects of any future Afghan settlement. Pakistan has legitimate security interests and stakes in Afghan peace, which it would like to safeguard at any cost, and would certainly be seeking remedial measures from Washington on these concerns.

In a qualitative difference from its earlier complacent approach, Islamabad is now at least better placed to raise these issues with Washington, asking for concrete “deliverances” on its larger India-specific security concerns in the region. This time, it may not settle for “boilerplate” promises or short-term relief assurances. It was in this context that Pakistan’s army chief, Gen Parvez Kayani, personally chaired a preparatory meeting of key federal secretaries in Islamabad to streamline a joint strategy for the talks.

Those who are familiar with decision-making processes on issues of strategic importance know that inter-departmental or inter-agency consultations among the heads of the country’s ministries concerned, and military, security and intelligence agencies are a normal practice. Therefore, contrary to some motivated media speculations, there was nothing wrong or unusual with the GHQ meeting as part of the preparatory process before the Washington talks.

In the US itself, senior uniformed Pentagon officials are a permanent fixture of the State Department’s consultative and negotiating templates. I have myself been attending many meetings with my US counterparts in which their delegation, unlike ours, included uniformed officials, especially the Centcom commander.

Yes, indeed; for the first time, the American delegation at the Washington talks, led by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, will include Defence Secretary Robert Gates and National Security Adviser Gen James Jones. Pakistan’s ISI chief Gen Ahmed Shuja Pasha and CIA boss Leon Panetta will also be there at the meeting. Both sides seem to agree that the renewed process of their “strategic dialogue” will be one of the most intense diplomatic engagements the two countries have had in recent times.

Meanwhile, independent analysts in Islamabad and Washington also look at the elevated level of participation from both sides as indicative of their common desire to give a new dimension to their relationship which has had a chequered history with rotating phases of “engagement and estrangement” depending on their narrowly based and vaguely defined issue-specific priorities and an unending legacy of trust deficit rooted in unfulfilled expectations of each side from the other.

For Pakistan, a realistic expectation from this dialogue at this stage should be its immediate transformation into a “strategic partnership” at par with the one the US has with India, with clearly defined, time-bound sectoral goalposts and priorities to be pursued jointly on the basis of mutual benefit. Pakistan now wants the dialogue to be structured at three tiers moving in tandem on an expanded list of sectoral tracks covering agriculture, economy, energy, education, health, science and technology, defence, strategic stability and non-proliferation, counterterrorism, and public diplomacy.

On its part, Washington too is looking at Pakistan as a “key regional player” and a “major non-Nato ally” without whose support and help it cannot attain its objectives in Afghanistan. In the Americans’ eyes, a measure of concrete progress in that direction is necessary before the forthcoming mid-term election in November this year which will be crucial for Obama and his Democratic Party to retain their pre-eminent position of strength at Capitol Hill.

The US would thus be eying for deeper long-term engagement with Pakistan. No wonder, Islamabad’s “strategists, on their part, also feel that the time has come not only to rebuild the Pakistan-US relationship but also to tell Washington to move on from symbolism to tangibles, and to demonstrate its solidarity with Pakistan in terms of greater sensitivity to its core security concerns and its immediate economic needs.

In the context of South Asia, the US must be asked to show practical sensitivity to Pakistan’s legitimate India-specific concerns and security interests. Any policies that create strategic imbalances in the region and fuel an arms race between the two nuclear-capable neighbours with an escalatory effect on their military budgets and arsenals are no service to the peoples of this region. We would also want an end to foreign interference in Balochistan.

The real challenge now is “to mix deft diplomacy, security support and economic aid” in pursuit of durable peace in this volatile region. But peace in this region would remain incomplete without the Pakistan-India issues being addressed, which are not without direct impact on the overall situation in the Afghan theatre. The risk of a Pakistan-India proxy war in Afghanistan is fraught with perilous implications for regional and global peace, and must be averted at any cost.

Islamabad should also be seeking US help in normalisation of Pakistan-India relations on the basis of peaceful and equitable settlement of the two countries’ disputes, especially the Kashmir and water issues, and accepting Pakistan’s right to equitable treatment at par with India in terms of civilian nuclear cooperation.

Foreign Minister Qureshi and his high-level team, instead of using the “walkie-talkie” phraseology, should be aiming at making the “strategic dialogue” more meaningful and converting the process into genuine “strategic partnership” that Pakistan deserves to have with the United States as its unrivalled non-Nato ally, playing a pivotal role by fighting a full-scale war on its own soil and against its own people, and paying a heavy cost in life and limb.

In the ultimate analysis, if both sides showed seriousness of purpose, the Washington meeting could augur well as an opportunity for them to re-fix the fundamentals of their “transactional” relationship into a more substantive “strategic partnership” based on multifaceted common interests and mutual benefit.

 

[Sridhar]

Hillary suggests no nuke deal with Pakistan
2010-03-24 11:44:00
Washington: Ahead of the first US-Pakistan strategic dialogue at the ministerial level in Washington, D.C. on Wednesday and Thursday, US secretary of state of Hillary Clinton clearly suggested that a civil nuclear deal with Pakistan on the lines of the one with India is not on the cards.

Speaking to Pakistan's Express TV, Clinton said the nuclear deal with India was something that happened after many years of dialogue, and not overnight.

When questioned if there are chances that Pakistan would get a civilian nuclear deal similar to the one with India, Clinton said, "That (the Indo-US nuclear deal) was the result of many, many years of strategic dialogue. It did not happen easily or quickly."

http://sify.com/news/n-deal-india-talks-on-pakistan-wish-list-us-non-committal-news-international-kdyiOcbbfec.html?tag=topnewsAccording to Clinton, these strategic dialogues with Pakistan would aim at improving trust and confidence between the two countries. "What we try to do in these strategic dialogues is to begin the hard work of sorting through all the different issues that are raised. I’m sure that that’s going to be raised and we’re going to be considering it, but I can’t prejudge or preempt what the outcome of our discussions will be, except to say that this strategic dialogue is at the highest level we’ve ever had between our two countries. We are very committed to it," she said.

"We know whatever we do will take time. It’s not the kind of commitment that you easily produce overnight or even within a year. But it is important to get started, to sort it out, and to develop the trust and the confidence between us," she added.

On the question of Pakistan "desperately" needing the kind of power and help that was given to India, which has allegedly created a sense of unevenness after the Indo-US deal was signed, the secretary of state said, "I think on the energy issue specifically, there are more immediate steps that can be taken that have to help with the grid, have to help with other sources of energy, to upgrade power plants and the like."

http://sify.com/news/pakistan-seeks-benefits-from-us-cooperation-news-international-kdyhkdgggec.html?tag=pakistan"We want to help Pakistan with its immediate and its long-term energy needs," she added.

On March 2, 2006 in New Delhi, the then US President George W Bush and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh signed a civil Nuclear Cooperation Agreement, following an initiation during the July 2005 summit in Washington between the two leaders over civilian nuclear cooperation.

http://sify.com/news/hillary-suggests-no-nuke-deal-with-pakistan-news-national-kdylHXjecfa.html

 

[1.44]

Partners, but no nuke deal
​

Pakistan Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi on Thursday said he was satisfied after his country’s strategic dialogue with the US that their ties had been transformed into a partnership. The US agreed to fast track financial and military aid to Pakistan, but declined to consider providing a civil nuclear agreement.
“Today, we have a partnership. And hopefully, this partnership will turn the tide in our favour — hopefully, in our mutual favour,” Qureshi told a press conference with US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. “Today, I am a happy man and a satisfied man.”
Clinton, when asked, termed the request for a civilian nuclear deal as “complicated issue” and ruled out any mediatory role for the US in resolving Indo-Pakistani issues.
Qureshi said, “I suggested to Madame Secretary that if you want this relationship to become a partnership, you’ve got to think differently. You got to act differently. And you’ve got to upgrade the level of our engagement. And she agreed.”
An emboldened Qureshi also he was confident that India would have to revisit its Pakistan policy soon. “I am confident that India will have to revisit its policy and very soon,” he said, seemingly an indication Islamabad expected India to resume the composite dialogue though Islamabad has yet to fulfil New Delhi’s demand for concrete action against terrorism.
He said Pakistan was unconcerned about the Indo-US relationship. “As far as India is concerned, you know, they are a sovereign country, and they have bilateral relations (with the US). We respect that. But all we are saying that those relations should not be at the cost of Pakistan, and we are very clear and I think you're (Clinton) very clear on that.”
But General Ashfaq Kayani, the powerful army chief of staff, was clearly the star of Pakistan's delegation, if not its official leader. At a Tuesday evening reception at the Pakistani Embassy, Kayani's entry brought a hush to the crowd.
Most of the agreements announced after the meeting had been decided earlier, including disbursement of a new $7.5-billion, five-year US aid package for Pakistan’s energy, water, agricultural and education sectors. Long-standing Pakistani complaints about nearly $1 billion in promised but unpaid US reimbursements for Pakistan’s counterinsurgency operations had been largely resolved, with the remaining money to be paid by the end of June.
Gilani to brief house
Pakistani officials are congratulating themselves over the concessions they claim to have won in the strategic dialogue with the US, but parliamentarians at home are upset at being kept out of the loop.
MPs said in parliament on Thursday that they were not kept abreast of what was being discussed in Washington between Qureshi and Clinton.
In response, Prime Minister Gilani promised senators that he would make a full briefing soon on the US visit.


http://www.hindustantimes.com/News-Feed/world/Partners-but-no-nuke-deal/Article1-523342.aspx

 

[1.44]

Army ready to forgo hardware: Kayani

WASHINGTON: Army chief Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani said on Thursday that the military was willing to forgo its requests for hardware to ensure that Pakistan’s energy and economic needs were met.
At a briefing at the Pakistan Embassy, Gen Kayani also said that there had been a marked change in the US attitude towards Pakistan because of the army’s success in South Waziristan and Swat.
“I told Senator John Kerry and Senator Richard Lugar that in order to make sure that Pakistan’s economy and energy needs are met, we are willing to forgo the military equipment that we have asked for,” he said.
“The most important concerns for Pakistan today are economy and energy and we have emphasised that with the American administration that these are the needs that need to be met,” he added.
Gen Kayani met the two senators earlier this week when he arrived in Washington for the two-day strategic dialogue, which concluded on Thursday.


http://beta.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/front-page/army-ready-to-forgo-hardware%2C-focus-on-energy-needs-kayani-630iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

Well i guess they don't need those arms after all

​

 

[gogbot]

The most important concerns for Pakistan today are economy and energy and we have emphasised that with the American administration that these are the needs that need to be met,

So they finally admitted.
Beggars cant be choosers.

 

[ajtr]

FO seeks to hide unease over nuclear snub

By Mariana Baabar

ISLAMABAD: Pakistan put on a brave face on Thursday, refusing to publicly express its disappointment at being ignored by the US, which refused to give any indication that Pakistan was being considered for a civil nuclear energy deal.

Maintaining a stiff upper lip, the spokesman at the Foreign Office, during a weekly media briefing, admitted that the issue was part of the “unprecedented” dialogue and when asked directly, replied: “I think it would be inappropriate to see this (strategic) dialogue process only in the context of a nuclear deal. This dialogue is, as I said earlier, all-encompassing and broad-based. It has many dimensions and energy is one of the areas that are under consideration.”

Hopes were raised unnecessarily by Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani that “good news” would soon emerge from the ongoing Pak-US strategic dialogue, in the backdrop of statements by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who did not rule out consideration for a civil nuclear energy deal and a timely statement by China (member of the Nuclear Suppliers Group) on the eve of the dialogue, saying it supported the Third World countries’ right to civil nuclear energy.

But the spokesman seemed “encouraged” that at least the US understood the gravity of the situation in an energy-deficient Pakistan. The spokesman said the dialogue was proceeding very well. “This dialogue is in a way unprecedented between our two countries. Not only is this being held for the first time at the ministerial level, its scope is also much broader than the previous rounds. Given this context, we are optimistic about its outcome. It should also be remembered that this is the fourth round of the strategic dialogue and a part of the process.

Responding to several queries regarding the US giving India a civil nuclear energy deal, the spokesman said Pakistan was quite comfortable with the US-India relations, but not at the cost of Pakistan. “We do have serious concerns (singling out India for a civil nuclear deal) and those concerns have been expressed on various occasions. This is a discriminatory deal and against stability in the region. However, just as India and the US are trying to strengthen their relations, so are Pakistan and the US.” He said the government condemned the Israeli decision to construct 1,600 Jewish houses in East Jerusalem.