USA Pakistan Geopolitical Relationship

Discussion in 'International Politics' started by Yusuf, May 20, 2009.

  1. sehwag1830

    sehwag1830 Tihar Jail Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2011
    Messages:
    495
    Likes Received:
    275
    Yes, talking to terrorist is out of the box solution. And people crib that India is weak.
     
  2. KS

    KS Bye bye DFI Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2010
    Messages:
    8,008
    Likes Received:
    5,751
    Location:
    irrelevant
    Its not scared...its honestly confused.
     
  3. The Messiah

    The Messiah Bow Before Me! Elite Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2010
    Messages:
    10,810
    Likes Received:
    4,604
    Read what ejaz has written.
     
  4. thakur_ritesh

    thakur_ritesh Administrator Administrator

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,434
    Likes Received:
    1,724
    Location:
    Land of the GODS - "Dev Bhomi".
    americans aren't scared, and scared of what really?

    follow indian opinion of indian diplomats on their interactions with the american counterparts and invariably you will hear them suggest, for the US, the concern is china, and not pakistan. at most, pakistan is a small irritant for the time being, an issue they believe that will be sorted out with passage of time.

    each time the relations between the two have soured in the past one year, immediately the two have been back on the negotiation tables, at best this is a love hate relationship.

    the utility of pakistan is many folds and will never be lost, certainly till the time there is a united pakistan, the way we see it today. pakistan gives them access to a'stan, and now more importantly iran, energy rich CAR which is very well encircled by the US, russia, and the bigger powers of tomorrow china and india. why would any sane thinking american ever give up all that for some small time losses in a'stan?

    a'stan isnt the end of it at all, its a transition phase, and dont be surprised if post 2014 one gets to see very cordial pak-US relations.
     
    ejazr and The Messiah like this.
  5. Blackwater

    Blackwater Veteran Member Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2012
    Messages:
    21,156
    Likes Received:
    12,141
    Location:
    Akhand Bharat
    True in this case not only businessman but a shrude politician. Usa does not want taliban goes with pak. they want to keep in their pocket so that they can nail pak.

    Remember ISI has connection with Haqqani and others

    On the lighter note not only USA but whole world is scared of pak.:scared1::scared1::scared1:
     
    LETHALFORCE likes this.
  6. kumar khokhar

    kumar khokhar New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2011
    Messages:
    13
    Likes Received:
    6
    i takes out of box thinking to understand what you have written ,please eleborate..........what you want to say.
     
  7. W.G.Ewald

    W.G.Ewald Defence Professionals/ DFI member of 2 Defence Professionals

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2011
    Messages:
    14,140
    Likes Received:
    8,561
    Location:
    North Carolina, USA
    Pakistan vows to rebuild strained US relationship

    Pakistan vows to rebuild strained US relationship
     
  8. Yusuf

    Yusuf GUARDIAN Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Messages:
    24,291
    Likes Received:
    11,488
    Location:
    BANGalore
    Whenever such statements come out, it's usually when they are running low on cash.
     
    Villager and AirforcePilot like this.
  9. aerokan

    aerokan Regular Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2011
    Messages:
    885
    Likes Received:
    536
    Translation: "Get me money.. I have to pay to my chinese pimp" :namaste:
     
  10. nitesh

    nitesh Mob Control Manager Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2009
    Messages:
    7,550
    Likes Received:
    1,279
    Location:
    Bangalore
    The point is US will happily (Or will be made to) pay, and that money will be used to terrorize Indians.
     
  11. Singh

    Singh Phat Cat Administrator

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2009
    Messages:
    20,315
    Likes Received:
    8,333
    Location:
    011
    Pai examines the US-Pakistan standoff

    Pakistanis aren't as smart and Americans not as dumb ;)

    ==
    The Pakistani establishment is grappling with the consequences of underestimating the United States

    There is a lot of commentary on how US-Pakistan relations are in crisis and “hitting new lows” each day. Much of this is indeed true—not because of what the Obama administration says or does not say, but because of how the US Congress perceives the situation. If US politicians, across party lines, have turned hostile towards Pakistan, it is because they are sensitive to public opinion. Until the public mood changes, it will be much more difficult for any US president to paper over Pakistan’s shenanigans for reasons of foreign policy expediency. Washington’s ‘South Asian’ commentariat is slowly coming to realise that both the Obama administration and public opinion has left their old Pakistan narrative behind.

    The current standoff has come about due to two reasons: first, General Kayani overplaying his cards; and second, the Zardari government giving up manoeuvring room by passing the buck to the parliament.

    The Pakistani army thought it had a trump card in choking the supply lines and played it. It didn’t work, not least because similar acts and threats in the past had caused US military planners to work out alternatives. Shutting down the supply routes backfired on Pakistan: it has been frozen out of the diplomatic scene, US Congress has cut financial assistance and it has ended up back in the doghouse of international public opinion. The Pakistani military establishment still doesn’t get it. Judging from views expressed by pro-establishment opinion makers, they still seem to believe that US and NATO desperately need the supply routes to get out of Afghanistan. They do not consider the possibility of an exit strategy involving a combination of airlifts, passage through the Northern Distribution Network, asset transfers to the Afghan security forces and destruction of the rest. Speed matters when troops are getting in. It matters less when they are going back home. However, the Pakistani military establishment’s blinkered smugness is bolstering intransigence. (Munir Akram, a former Pakistani diplomat, even advocated showing nuclear teeth to the US.)

    Under attack from a stridently anti-American media, a populist Imran Khan and the galvanisation of militant politics, the Zardari government handed over the hot potato of US-Pakistan relations to Parliament. This was clever, because it passed the buck to parliament and diffused responsibility. However, it has tied down the government’s hands now, because it requires a lot more political capital for Mr Zardari to “give and take” on anything unless the US delivers on Pakistan’s maximalist claims—an official apology for the Shalala encounter and a complete cessation of drone attacks on Pakistani soil.

    The United States is in no mood to yield on either of this. An official apology would not only weaken President Obama during his re-election campaign but will be very unpopular among the US military rank-and-file. For all the diplomatic contortions Washington has engaged in over the last ten years, it is the US military that has suffered the ground reality of Pakistan’s duplicity. So an apology is unlikely until after the US election season is over. Ending drone strikes is even less likely, as they remain the most important instrument the US has to combat the international threat to its national security.

    This standoff will be hard to resolve. Even so, both parties have subtly changed the framing of the issue to enable a resolution. Note Washington’s public statements tend to be about supply routes—suggesting that if Pakistan offers a reasonable compromise on this issue, the process of rebuilding the relationship can start. Similarly, while Pakistan’s sentencing of the doctor who assisted the CIA in identifying bin Laden is surely a tit-for-tat response to President Obama’s snub at Chicago, it has done so in a manner that allows compromise. Trying him under the Frontier Crimes Regulations (FCR) allows the Pakistani government to arbitrarily change the sentence or acquit him without involving the judiciary. It is willing to trade.

    Despite this negotiating room, the Zardari government is unlikely to be capable of grabbing the negotiating lifeline and arriving at a deal on the supply routes. Getting Sherry Rehman, its US ambassador and Bilawal Zardari-Bhutto, the party co-chairman to reinforce the demand for a US apology was a mistake if they didn’t already know that the US was likely to yield. It has now only made it harder for Mr Zardari to compromise. Similarly, while the US is concerned about the fate of Dr Shakeel Afridi, it is unlikely to yield to a prisoner-swap deal.

    Neither side is likely to blink. But one side is bleeding.

    Examining the US-Pakistan standoff | The Acorn
     
  12. ajtr

    ajtr Veteran Member Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2009
    Messages:
    12,038
    Likes Received:
    720
    How to Repair the U.S. Pakistan Relationship

    How to Repair the U.S. Pakistan Relationship

    Afghanistan could be the way to patch things up, with the U.S. using India as leverage to get Pakistan intelligence to push the Taliban toward a political process—a move that would benefit Islamabad.

    Pakistani-American relations are broken. President Obama refused to meet with President Asif Ali Zardari at the Chicago NATO summit last month. The new head of Pakistani intelligence—the ISI—canceled his trip to Langley to see the CIA. Pakistan wants an apology for the NATO attack last November that killed two dozen of its soldiers. It wants an end to the drone war. Washington wants Pakistan to finally take action against terrorists like Hafez Saeed, the leader of Lashkar e Taiba that murdered six Americans in Mumbai four years ago. It also wants answers to how Osama bin Laden was able to hide out in Pakistan for a decade when Washington gave Islamabad almost $25 billion to fight al Qaeda.
    Polls show Pakistanis see America, not India or al Qaeda, as their mortal enemy. The Pakistanis are looking for who helped the CIA find bin Laden, not who helped hide him for 10 years. Congress increasingly sees Pakistan as a bad investment gone sour. The White House rightly won't give up the drones when Pakistan coddles terrorists like Saeed.

    The most divisive issue today is Afghanistan. Obama has signed a long-term strategic pact with Kabul to give the U.S. access to Afghan bases until at least 2024 to fight terror. We know we can't count on Pakistan to do that job. NATO and the U.N. back the Kabul government as the legitimate and elected authority in Afghanistan. Pakistan harbors and helps the Taliban. Interrogations of 4,000 captured insurgents in Afghanistan show that the ISI guides its strategy, finds it funds, and keeps in tight contact with its leaders, including Mullah Omar. Without Pakistani safe havens and ISI assistance, the Taliban would be a much less formidable enemy.
    Ironically, Afghanistan also could be the way out of the deadly embrace. If the ISI would use its leverage to push the Taliban to resume a political process with the U.S. and, more important, start one with Kabul, then a way forward would open. The process is likely to be slow and difficult but it could make possible a ceasefire and a decentralized Afghanistan finally at peace with itself. The regional players could disengage from the great game in Central Asia. Pakistan would be a big beneficiary of peace and trade into the Central Asian “stans.”

    American diplomacy can make this case to Islamabad, but only the Pakistanis can decide to take charge and act. If they don't, then the U.S. should encourage India to play a larger role in Afghanistan. India already has a major aid program and is considering building a railroad to link Afghanistan to the Arabian Sea via Iran. India could help build and pay for the Afghan army. If the Pakistani generals see that encouraging Taliban intransigence is creating their worst nightmare—an Afghan-Indian-American alliance—then they may finally wake up to the foolishness of their policies.
     
  13. W.G.Ewald

    W.G.Ewald Defence Professionals/ DFI member of 2 Defence Professionals

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2011
    Messages:
    14,140
    Likes Received:
    8,561
    Location:
    North Carolina, USA
    Re: How to Repair the U.S. Pakistan Relationship

    Pretty much wishful thinking from Bruce Riedel, who has a thin resume, starting with his education, a master's degree in diplomatic history. His CV shows him to be a "yes man" throughout his career. The article lacks depth; the source is unprofessional.
     
    jackhammer2 likes this.
  14. thakur_ritesh

    thakur_ritesh Administrator Administrator

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,434
    Likes Received:
    1,724
    Location:
    Land of the GODS - "Dev Bhomi".
    Re: How to Repair the U.S. Pakistan Relationship

    How to repair these relations?

    The answer is very simple, Pakistan be honest in the WoT, the riddle will be solved!

    But then Pakistan doing the big man's dirty job has developed an impression that it is bigger than the biggest man for which it works .
     
  15. Ray

    Ray The Chairman Defence Professionals Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2009
    Messages:
    43,132
    Likes Received:
    23,684
    Location:
    Somewhere
    Re: How to Repair the U.S. Pakistan Relationship

    The US Pakistan relationship if it is to be repaired, it will face the same situation as what was in the lyrics of Harry Belafontaine's famous song - There is a hole in the bucket, dear Liza, dear Liza.

     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 10, 2015
  16. lcatejas

    lcatejas Regular Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2010
    Messages:
    710
    Likes Received:
    256
    Location:
    Bharat
    Re: How to Repair the U.S. Pakistan Relationship

    Bomb PAK issue will get resolve for whole world...(Na rahega baans na bajegi basuri) :laugh:
     
  17. Zebra

    Zebra Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2011
    Messages:
    6,060
    Likes Received:
    2,289
    Re: Will the Pakistan-US relationship survive?

    Panetta: US losing patience with Pakistan on militancy

    7 June 2012 Last updated at 10:52 GMT

    Washington is running out of patience with Pakistan over alleged safe havens for Taliban militants, US Defence Secretary Leon Panetta has warned.

    On an unannounced trip to Kabul, he said Islamabad must act against the Haqqani militant network, which attacks Nato troops based in Afghanistan.

    [​IMG]
    (The defence secretary was outspoken in his criticism of Pakistan)

    Mr Panetta's visit comes amid a recent rise in insurgent attacks in the war against the Taliban, including one on Wednesday in which 22 people died.

    Pakistan denies providing safe havens.

    Pakistani officials have previously pointed to army operations against militant organisations in tribal areas, adding that many hundreds of Pakistani civilians and troops have died at the hands of such groups.

    Washington has for many years urged Islamabad to deal with the militants based in its tribal regions.

    Increasingly strained

    "We are reaching the limits of our patience here," Mr Panetta said after talks with Afghanistan's defence minister.

    He singled out the Haqqani militant network, which is widely believed to be based in Pakistan's volatile north-western tribal areas, and has been blamed for some of the most audacious attacks on Afghan soil in recent years.

    On Wednesday, suicide attackers killed at least 22 people, almost all of them civilians, in an attack near a Nato base in Kandahar. Afghan officials say that 18 civilians were killed by a Nato air strike in Logar province.

    "It is difficult to achieve peace in Afghanistan as long as there is safe haven for terrorists in Pakistan," Mr Panetta said.

    "It is very important for Pakistan to take steps. It is an increasing concern, the issue of safe haven," he said.

    Relations between Washington and Islamabad have become increasingly strained following the unilateral US raid into Pakistan to kill Osama bin Laden in May 2011.

    Tensions are also high over continuing US drone strikes in Pakistan and Islamabad's refusal to re-open a Nato supply route to Afghanistan which it closed down in November after 24 of its soldiers were killed on the border in a Nato air strike.

    Analysts say that Pakistan's co-operation is crucial as Nato tries to stabilise Afghanistan before most foreign combat troops leave the country at the end of 2014.

    Porous border

    But last September outgoing Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm Mike Mullen said that the Haqqani network "acts as a veritable arm of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency".

    The following month, Pakistan's army chief Ashfaq Kayani warned the US that it should focus on stabilising Afghanistan instead of pushing Pakistan to attack militant groups in the crucial border region.

    Officials say efforts to combat militancy also have been hindered by the fact that neither Pakistan nor Afghanistan has control over parts of the porous border area.

    But analysts believe that Pakistan is reluctant to open a new front in its fight against militancy by attacking the Haqqani network, believed to be in the tribal region of North Waziristan.

    As he arrived in Kabul, Mr Panetta told reporters that he wanted to hear an assessment from commanders about a recent rise in insurgent attacks and plans for troop withdrawals.

    He said that while insurgent attacks appeared better organised, the overall level of violence had reduced compared with previous years.

    Speaking to troops gathered at the airport in Kabul, Mr Panetta said that "we have every responsibility to defend ourselves and... we've got to put pressure on Pakistan to take them on as well".

    His visit comes at the end of his week-long trip to Asia to explain a new US military strategy, announced in January, that calls for a shift in strategic focus to the Asia-Pacific region.

    BBC News - Panetta: US losing patience with Pakistan on militancy
     
  18. ajtr

    ajtr Veteran Member Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2009
    Messages:
    12,038
    Likes Received:
    720
    Pakistan, US working on draft of apology

    Pakistan, US working on draft of apology

    WASHINGTON: The United States and Pakistan are working on the language of a possible US apology to end their stalemate and reopen Nato’s supply routes to Afghanistan, diplomatic sources told Dawn.

    Pakistan wants the United States to apologise over a Nov 26 air raid that killed 24 Pakistani soldiers at the Salala military post. The United States had initially agreed to apologise but changed its mind after aides warned President Barack Obama the move could harm his re-election campaign.

    Pakistan closed Nato’s supply routes to Afghanistan after the raid and is refusing to reopen them unless the Americans apologise.

    The sources who spoke to Dawn said they “now see a stronger desire on both sides” to resolve this dispute.

    They said the two sides had already exchanged several drafts of the expected apology and might soon agree “on a draft that meets everybody’s requirements”.

    The sources rejected recent reports in the US media that Pakistan was refusing to reopen the routes because it wanted higher tariffs from the United States for using its highways.

    A team of US experts has been based in Islamabad for the past six weeks, trying to end the dispute and reopen the supply routes. On Friday, another senior US official, Assistant Secretary of Defence Peter Levoy, also joined the team.

    Meanwhile, Pakistan’s ambassador in Washington, Sherry Rehman, urged US officials to avoid making remarks that could further deteriorate an already tense relationship between the two countries. Commenting on Secretary Panetta’s recent statement that the United States was losing patience with Pakistan, Ambassador Rehman said: “This kind of public messaging from a senior member of the US administration is taken very seriously in Pakistan, and reduces the space for narrowing our bilateral differences at a critical time in the negotiations.”

    Such statements, she noted, “adds an unhelpful twist to the process and leaves little oxygen for those of us seeking to break a stalemate”.
     
  19. Yusuf

    Yusuf GUARDIAN Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Messages:
    24,291
    Likes Received:
    11,488
    Location:
    BANGalore
    Apology means "US regrets/ is sorry for the killing of Pakistani soldiers". What other wordings can there be for an apology. Obama can say bye bye to White House.
     
  20. ajtr

    ajtr Veteran Member Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2009
    Messages:
    12,038
    Likes Received:
    720
    How affluent are the Pakistani-Americans?

    How affluent are the Pakistani-Americans?

    Last week, I read Dr Murtaza Haider’s post on the poverty of Pakistani-Canadians with great interest.

    As I was barraged by one startling statistic after the other – 44 per cent below the poverty line, nearly 50 per cent who don’t own homes, almost a quarter never having been in the workforce – I couldn’t help but think how drastically different this story was from that of Pakistani-Americans, who are generally regarded as a well-off diaspora.

    Indeed, I know of no low-income area or slum in the United States populated predominantly by people of Pakistani origin, and I have never heard of a Pakistani-American homeless person. When one thinks of this community, the words most often coming to mind are prosperous and philanthropic.

    Evidence gives credence to these perceptions. According to a 2011 report by the Asian American Center for Advancing Justice (AACAJ), which draws on data from the 2010 US Census and other US government sources, the median household income of Pakistani-American families is nearly $63,000. This is considerably higher than the figure for families in America on the whole ($51,369). Additionally, as I have pointed out previously, the most common jobs of Pakistani-Americans include doctors, accountants, and financial analysts, and 55 per cent hold at least a bachelor’s degree (this latter figure is only 28 per cent across the US population on the whole).

    Broadly speaking, Pakistani-Americans appear to be economically secure and their positive experiences likely compel them to invite friends and family back in Pakistan to join them in America. Consider that Pakistani-Americans are the second-fastest-growing Asian-American ethnic group – their numbers more than doubled from 2000 to 2010, soaring from 204,309 to 409,163.

    Yet, this isn’t the full story.

    Dig a bit deeper into the AACAJ report, and you will come across some troubling data. Fifteen per cent of Pakistani-Americans fall below the poverty line – which happens to be the rate for the American population on the whole. Similarly, unemployment rates for the diaspora – 8 per cent (for those aged 16 and older) – reflect the rate for the total US population. On several measures, Pakistani-Americans are considerably worse off than the general population. Only 55 per cent own homes, compared to the nationwide figure of 66 per cent. Their per capita income is about $24,700, compared to $27,100 for the total population. And 23 per cent of Pakistani-Americans have no health insurance – which ties them with Bangladeshi-Americans for the highest percentage of any Asian-American ethnic group. This is significantly higher than the 15 per cent national figure (though Gallup polls suggest this figure has risen to 17 per cent in the last few months).

    What should we make of this? On the one hand, many members of any immigrant group will face challenges as they adjust to their new home country. While quite a few Pakistani-Americans were born in the United States, the majority – about 65 per cent – were not. Therefore, for most of the community, the adjustment period is very much in the present.

    Additionally, one can’t forget about all those blue-collar Pakistani-American workers, and particularly the taxicab drivers. According to US Census figures, “drivers and other transportation workers” constitute the third most common profession of Pakistani-Americans. In the words of the New York Taxi Workers Alliance, a union that represents cab drivers in New York City (where Pakistanis are heavily represented), employees have not received raises since 2004, “and they now earn below both the NY state minimum wage for a 12-hour shift and a NYC Living Wage (by 40 per cent).”

    Ultimately, the most accurate depiction of Pakistani-Americans is one that dispenses with all the data and simply accepts it for what it is: a diverse diaspora that is anything but a monolith. It ranges from hourly wage workers to physicians, academics, and a growing number of state legislators and mayors; from Washington insider Huma Abedin (a close adviser to Hillary Clinton) to race-car driver Nur Ali (the first Pakistani to serve in this profession); from the eloquent writer Daniyal Mueenuddin to the notorious businessman Mansoor Ijaz; and from those who promote interfaith dialogue (American University professor Akbar Ahmed) to the occasional militant (Faisal Shahzad, the man accused of having unsuccessfully attempted to blow up Times Square).

    I’m willing to bet that behind the troubling figures and snapshots that Dr Haider presents of Pakistani-Canadians, there lies a similarly nuanced and complex portrait of the diaspora in Canada – one that features its share of good news and success stories. Just as affluence is only one of various parts of the Pakistani-American story, poverty is likely only one of various aspects of the Pakistani-Canadian experience.

    Michael Kugelman is the program associate for South Asia at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, DC. You can reach him at [email protected] and follow him on Twitter: @michaelkugelman
     
    LETHALFORCE likes this.

Share This Page