Critiquing Evans and Krasner on Pakistan
May 20, 2012
By Ahmad Imran
Exclusive Article

The relations between Pakistan and the United States (US) are a topic of much speculation and conjecture. This is an effort to analyze the “dialectics within the ivory towers of the global status quo.” The two authors in question and their respective articles appeared in the one of the most esteemed foreign policy publications by the name of “Foreign Affairs”(1) run by one of the most deeply entrenched think tanks named Council of Foreign Relations (2) in the US. Stephen Krasner authored the “Talking Tough to Pakistan”, (3) while Alexander Evans wrote a critique of Krasner’s aptly “Tough Talk is Cheap”, (4) to which Krasner had the last word in a response to Evans.
Evans correctly summarizes Krasner’s main point in “Talking Tough To Pakistan that “ the only way the United States can actually get what it wants out of Pakistan is to make credible threats to retaliate if Pakistan does not comply with US demands” even so far as to use “malign threat” and “active isolation.” Evans central argument that upping the ante with Pakistan has not worked in the past when the US was forced to put sanctions on Pakistan multiple times leaving them no leverage in Islamabad or in the region citing concerns about angering its “nationalist elite.”
The narrative of Evans begins to lose luster when he starts talking about the shared interests of the two nations namely security of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal, regional stability and extremism emanating out of Pakistan. Pakistani stability is in shambles because of the terror that has its origins in US occupied Afghanistan. The TTP (5) and BLA (6) type organizations have safe harbors of operations to collect money, and weapons and retreat in Afghanistan every time Pakistani military actions have them on the run in the tribal belt. Thus US occupation is directly a factor in Pakistani deteriorating law and order situation. Afghanistan is more easily understood in that the US occupation fuels the insurgency and there is nothing Pakistan can do about it. Also, just how safe are US nukes anyways? (7)
Krasner is simply out to have the US place sanctions against Pakistan since he fails to comprehend the historical evidence that every time a US push comes to a shove, the US just simply loses a fairly pliant nation to sanctions and loses any leverage in the region. Krasner clarifies that the US does not need Pakistan for supply routes since as much as 60% of supplies already are routed through Central Asia.
Krasner does not believe that Pakistan could rely on its Middle Eastern friends like Saudi Arabia and old trust worthy China since given China’s stance of North Korea, Syria etc would make it less likely to be seen amicable to another pariah state. Krasner fails to understand that it is China and Saudi Arabia keeping the US dollar afloat. There has been a large movement in Saudi Arabia against US bases there. A return of US boots on the ground in Saudi Arabia could put the US long time strategic partner the Saud-Wahabi collusion in peril domestically. Asking the Saudi Khawarij (8) to choose between Pakistan and US may not be as clear cut option for the US. Besides just how many nations is the US going to sanction without there becoming a distinct emergence of an Anti-American coalition in the region? A diplomatic and economic hazing of Pakistan has the potential of what Samuel Huntington feared the most: a Sino-Pak led precipitation of a clear Muslim world alliance with China, and if that occurs there will be the dawn of a new Cold War.
Krasner continues with his open mouth insert foot mentality that “Pakistan’s interests are not aligned when it comes to Islamic extremism and transnational terrorism” in regards to India and Kashmir. The terrorism Krasner talks about has its roots in India, (9) but Krasner would not know that. Also, the Kashmir issue was never framed along terrorist lines before the Sept 11th event and has been bubbling ever since the creation of the two states. And it is not in the interest of the American people for the US ruling elites to advocate Indian positions in their dealings with Pakistan. Pakistan would not be averse to a relationship between India and US as long as the US keeps out of the fray about Kashmir if it cannot or does not desire to force India to do justice according the UN resolutions. The US and its ruling elites can sanction airpower over Libya in no time, and create and carve two Christian entities out of Muslim majority nations but cannot help Muslims under duress in Palestine and Kashmir? Pakistan cannot do anything about libertine Muslims wanting to resist oppressors as they see fit whether it’s the US confronting Afghan resistance or India struggling with its restive Kashmir.
Krasner openly challenges whether it would have been wise to inform the Pakistani authorities of the impending raid on the Bin Laden compound. Here Krasner engages in “Diplomacy by Insinuation” by alluding that Pakistani authorities were in on Al-Qaeda leadership’s hiding in Abbottabad. In fact, his article “Talking Tough on Pakistan” in its opening paragraph openly states that “The United States gives Pakistan billions of dollars in aid each year. Pakistan returns the favor by harboring terrorists, spreading Anti-Americanism, and selling nuclear technology abroad.” Its is obvious that Krasner gave no heed to the US authorities not assigning any guilt of collusion with Bin Laden; not the intelligence agencies, not the military nor the ruling political elites. Recently released documents by the US government on Bin Laden captured from his compound do not implicate Pakistan governmental structures at all either.
It is clear the chief ideologues, even though they engage in healthy debates about issues, are mired in stagnant self perpetuating paradigms, isolated from reality group think of sorts, or outright propaganda. The establishment fails to realize that the causation of Anti-Americanism is a long established practice of US patronage to the same Islamists who collude with the generals, the drone attacks that have left disproportionate amount of innocents dead and injured (10), while Al-Qaeda mushrooms up in Mali, Somalia, Yemen, Libya etc. Elements within this foreign policy establishment openly engage in unsubstantiated insinuations as a matter of policy and propaganda while money is spent to buy (11) favorable press in Pakistan. It is high time that the ruling elites of the US to take stock of their working assumptions and go back (12) to the drawing board, since obviously nothing they do is working. Either the US stop drone attacks and the “diplomacy of insinuation” or declare open war against Pakistan, but to purchase good press, bribe its military and political leaders while claiming Pakistan is an ally is counter productive and is the central causation of the rise of Anti-Americanism in Pakistan.

The article is contributed to pkarticleshub.com

May 21, 2012
Abid Latif Sindhu
Exclusive Article

Recently the American society of psychology came to two conclusions, one that in most of the cases the problems are of social nature which are diagnosed as psychiatric pre conditions, secondly the children require attention for their tantrum. After coming so far still the knowledge is lacking in tackling the basic questions.

This also leads to the fact that technology and advancement has its limit and it frequently returns to basics when ever faced with difficult situations. Uncle Sam needs to have a lesson that whatever strategy or philosophy is applied, the basics is the essentials. Afghanistan has now become a test case for USA.

The End Game is actually the beginning, the players are poised a fresh for a new round of fierce struggle or a political tent pegging, the horse, rider and the game all three are lined up for the final round up. Players are well defined but goals as elusive as the morning mist.

Three assertions have changed the complete paradox to new paradoxical heights, one, Hillary Clinton said that Ayman-el-Zawahiri is likely hiding in Pakistan, second American Senators are coming up for fresh demands to harness Pakistan’s security set up specially in supporting Haqqani net work, thirdly another Haqqani, the professor from Boston is asking terse question from Pakistani state about its strategic policy options, just moments back he himself was part of everything albeit quixotically.

Afghanistan end game is approaching, rather is around the corner. The relations between USA and Pakistan is at the lowest ebb .These have not come to this pass ever. Probably for the first time both are at different pages but the book is same so with little prudent measures the damage control can be done before both start reading the different chronicles(with page theory gone).

The end game has also gone little complex, Obama inked a new agreement with Afghanistan ,ensuring the presence of American experts even when the troops leave after 2014, the Bigram, Kandahar and Kabul bases will remain operational much beyond the projected time line. The end game is actually the finale crescendo of the new great game song.

The geography has gain further importance when now the cartographic phase of the great game is approaching. Tribal areas of Pakistan, the adjoining areas of Afghanistan, the territory south of Bahawalpur Slope till Gwader and the Indian Ocean are all linked to the end game of Afghanistan.

Robert Kaplan in his latest book “Monsoon” defined the theater of new great game by highlighting the importance of Indian Ocean after the diminishing one of the Atlantic or Pacific etc.

The littoral powers are in for the dawn of a new competitive era. The most important question or the political anchorage is the opening of NATO supply or the GLOC. The mathematics on both sides need bold corrections, Pakistani intelligentsia made the people believe that the western troops in Afghanistan will not be able to sustain this blockade for more than a month and will come running and begging for clemency in technical terms, specially on Salala and Drones etc.

But this did not happen, the NDN (northern distribution network) and ALOC (air line of communication) sustained the same for over five months. There are still no dents visible although Russia has reservations but is not in position to make sounds beyond egoistic whimpers.

The American side also miscalculated the response of Pakistan by taking it for granted on illegal incursions and sans sovereignty acts of an imperial power by virtue of regal hubris. Now both, the Pakistan and USA have corrected the wrong by taking a prudent stance on NATO supply route. Pakistan could not ignore Chicago summit being an important platform and also Afghanistan specific.

Pakistan has just shown necessary roughness while dealing with USA in past few months. It is precisely required in any relationship, may it be husband and wife or Hillary’s favorite mother in law analogy. So it should only be taken in the right context, Pakistan just showed a tinge of essential roughness in retaliation to its bashing; it was never an act of insolence towards international community.

Pakistan is not a rentier state, the state policy could be loop sided but it does exist. It is both a victim and the player of the new great game with a status of the regional middle kingdom. Afghanistan end game is being played by increasing the numbers of players at its final hour; this has made the complete phenomenon global in nature and multi dimensional in its texture.

The ground realities in Afghanistan cannot be ignored, the ANA (afghan national army) is now over one lakh strong and is going to be a force of projected strength of three lakhs. Being the guarantor of peace whence the foreign troops leave, they are supposed to be well trained and well oriented towards the main objective of maintaining peace.

Less about 30 percent the afghan army is rather hastily trained and prematurely poised to undertake difficult operations. Pakistan is pursuing the policy of constructive engagement, all players and stake holders have come a pass from where mere politics and petite responses are no more an option.

A concrete set of measures are required to solve the Afghan problem, the comprehensive approach covering complete ambit of Pashtun society is the answer. Blame game by Karazai against Pakistan or the controlled tantrums of USA towards Pakistan can lead no one anywhere.

Americans are there to stay and so does the two geographical neighbors. From Boon to Chicago the journey is made and history written but the question is, that can Pakistan be ignored with its unique connectivity matrix. Pakistan is fighting an extended insurgency in the complete tribal areas.

Globalism has come face to face with tribalism, one using the technology as the main driver and later using the simplicity as the sin-qua-non for its existence and survival. International conferences, moots and summits without reality checks will result into a futile exercise and the perpetuation of afghan ordeals.

Protagonists, i.e. Pakistan, Afghanistan and USA have to reach an operational consensus respecting each other’s sensitivities. Time is ripe for the harvest of century and the wind fall of hope, promise and prosperity.

The article is contributed to pkarticleshub.com

May 24, 2012
Dr Mohammad Taqi

The Pakistani blockade of NATO supplies reminds one of children playing cricket on the streets. Remember, there was always this one chap who owned the ball or the bat and whenever some outcome of the game was not to his liking he would walk away, with his bat or ball in hand, with the challenge, ‘Let me see how you can carry on with your play.’ Well, even on the street sometimes, it worked and on other occasions, it did not when rest of the players would either improvise or find an alternative source for the equipment.

By many accounts, about two-thirds of the supplies to NATO in Afghanistan had been going through the Pakistani route, out of which roughly two-thirds went through the Torkhum route and the rest via Chaman. Contrary to the popular belief, the Pakistani distribution route was not necessarily the cheapest. As a top NATO supplier had put it to me, “Doc, this bottle of spring water that you are sipping costs some 50 cents in Florida but by the time it reaches Bagram, it costs somewhere around eight dollars, with all the legal/ illegal tolls and markups added.” The attraction of the southern or Pakistani distribution network has been its quick and direct approach. Nonetheless, by no means was the Pakistani route the proverbial bat/ball of the street child without which the game could not go on.

The NATO summit in Chicago has exposed — quite brutally and rather humiliatingly — the extent of leverage that Pakistan thought it had over the US. It was unrealistic of the Pakistani policy planners (read military brass), and their cohorts in the media or Difa-e-Pakistan, to assume that the NATO blockade would be a showstopper, especially when NATO/ISAF had been gradually diverting critical supplies to the Northern Distribution Network (NDN). The NDN includes a rail link from Latvia through Russia, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, a road route via Bishkek (Kyrgyzstan) and Tajikistan for materials initially delivered to Bishkek, as well as routes via the Turkish and Georgian Black Sea ports. The NDN routes may be long, tortuous and expensive perhaps, but remain viable and safe alternatives nonetheless. But most of all, the viability of the alternative routes exposed the perils of a zero-sum foreign policy that Pakistan had been hell bent to pursue, without having more than one card up its sleeve.

The delusional thinking in Pakistani circles leading up to Chicago was astounding. Days before the summit, one Pakistani analyst-anchor wrote in a US publication, “First, Pakistan needs an immediate apology, which the US president himself must issue at his Chicago meeting with his Pakistani counterpart. Second, the United States must draw up measures to ensure Pakistan’s prior knowledge of planned drone strikes, as well as its clearance of intended targets, areas of operation, and the number of attacks. Third, both nations need to agree on fair payments for the use of Pakistani ground supply routes to Afghanistan. And fourth, NATO must make comprehensive guarantees that a repeat of Salala never happens.” Is it just me or does this sound like a headmistress chastising her students?

Bilawal Bhutto-Zardari repeated the same mantra in his New York speech earlier this week. One seriously wonders if he had the same or a similar speechwriter who ghost-authored President Asif Zardari’s op-ed, “Talk to, not at, Pakistan” (The Washington Post, September 30, 2011). Did the advisors to the president misread the invitation extended to him for the Chicago summit? It certainly appears so. While the US administration thought that engaging Pakistan might provide a way out of the six-month impasse, the Pakistanis may have construed it as weakness on the part of the US and NATO.

Frankly, neither most Pakistani analysts nor the country’s diplomatic corps in the US has been able to read the US mood accurately or they would not have been dictating this laundry list of demands. Let’s face it, the US is not about to write ‘Sorry, I won’t do it again’ and hand it to Bilawal or that analyst. The answers are simple: 1) Life, no matter how expensive, will go on without the Pakistani distribution route, and 2) Pakistan has already indicated that it will play ball if the price is right. The post-Salala ghairat (national honour) hullabaloo has turned quite shamelessly into a fish market, haggling over price. So why tender an apology when the ostensibly aggrieved party is willing to do without it just for a few dollars more?

To be fair, the Pakistani junta, President Zardari and his current coterie of advisors and the analysts calling for blood, blood-money and money, in one breath no less, are not the first ones to eye the deep US pockets. None other than the father of the Pakistani nation, Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah was the first one to have articulated the idea of milking the US. Mr Jinnah’s widely quoted 1947 interview with Life magazine journalist/photographer, Margaret Bourke-White is worth remembering today. Bourke-White chronicled, “(Mr. Jinnah said) America needs Pakistan more than Pakistan needs America. Pakistan is the pivot of the world, as we are placed — he revolved his long forefinger in bony circles — on the frontier on which the future position of the world revolves.” He leaned toward me, dropping his voice to a confidential note. “Russia,” confided Mr Jinnah, “is not very far away”…”America is now awakened,” he said with a satisfied smile. “Since the US was now bolstering up Greece and Turkey, she should be more interested in pouring money and arms into Pakistan” (Halfway to freedom: A report on the New India — pp 92-93).

The ground realities are that Pakistan only has the Haqqani network/Taliban horse in the Afghan endgame without any political players, especially non-Pashtun Afghans, siding with it. The US has tolerated the Haqqani sanctuary in Pakistan but it would not take long to tie it to sanctions related to sponsorship of terrorism. When push comes to shove the NDN can be used for a NATO pullout as well — after all the USSR had used the same route. Pakistan’s vulnerability vis-à-vis the US and NATO has been exposed to the extreme in Chicago. Afghanistan, with its bilateral agreements with the US and India, is not about to fall into Pakistan’s lap. In sum, the odds are stacked against the GHQ-conceived Pakistani adventurist zero-sum foreign policy. Not much has changed in 65 years in Pakistani thinking but what has changed is that Pakistan is no longer a geopolitical pivot.

The writer can be reached at mazdaki@me.com. He tweets at http://twitter.com/mazdaki
-Daily Times

May 25, 2012
By Lt-Gen (retd) Asad Durrani

How things have changed between the US and Pakistan? Only a year ago, if someone like David Ignatius, a reputed opinion-maker on the American strategic circuit, had admonished us, we would all have scrambled to the nearest bomb shelter. When he did so on the 17th of May, through the good offices of The Washington Post, no one here seems to have noticed. He argues, rather ingeniously, that Pakistan failed to exploit Nato’s presence in the region to clobber its tribal areas into the mainstream; and thus missed the chance of a lifetime. Since the thesis has failed to cause any rumpus in our country, prudence demands that it should be ignored. Some of us have the impudence not to let go.

Let’s assume that we could have tamed these wild tribesmen with help from our allies (we are still on the ‘Major Non-Nato’ list). With Pakistan’s writ in the frontier regions then becoming as good as it is in Karachi and Balochistan, an opportunity indeed seems to have been lost. But there still is room for a consolation prize, perhaps even more gratifying because of its sheer enormity. The presence of the world’s mightiest alliance in Afghanistan gave us another chance as well: to gang-up with the tribesmen, once again, and defeat yet another superpower. That is the chance we did not miss. It may not be all for the good, but it feels good to think about it.

But before being carried away by some amorphous notions of victory, let’s take another look at Mr Ignatius’s thesis. He has obviously read all about the British failures to pacify these ‘badlands’ and, therefore, seems to understand that a soft approach is not going to work. With their kith and kin fighting an occupation across the borders, our tribesmen were not likely to respond kindly to our pleas not to join the battle, or abandon their obligations just because at that very time we thought of taking up the unfinished agenda of their special status.

Mr Ignatius, therefore, suggests a more kinetic, or ballistic, approach to bring them around.

He believes “modern communications and transportation” would have accomplished what the British could not. He knows, of course, that all this fancy stuff did not help “the most potent army in history” to alter the ways of the Afghans, but still believes that Pakistan could do it better; because it is such a “wonderful nation”. Right now I am only wondering, why he and the West are so obsessed with the status of our tribal areas!

If it is to establish the writ of the government, then let me remind them that even if it existed anywhere else in the country, like in Karachi, Rawalpindi or Abbottabad, it has only helped those seeking safe havens. The ‘lawlessness’ of these areas, considering that their laws are implemented more strictly and equitably than ours, I suspect, is more like giving the dog a bad name before it is hanged.

Failure in Afghanistan may be due to flawed American strategies, or because the Afghans resist till the bitter end, or possibly a consequence of Pakistani support for the Taliban; the desire to embroil Pakistan in a war with its tribesmen, and in due course also with the Afghans, is understandable. This deadly nexus that has made a habit of taking on superpowers, at times even getting away with pretensions of victory, must be busted.

Let me cast the first prick, though only to deflate the pretension part. Resistance by the Mujahideen may have precipitated the Soviet downfall; the implosion of the empire had long been underway. The Taliban might have received help from the Pakistani side of the Durand Line, but that was not decisive. America was defeated in Afghanistan by the American Army. More about that some other time.

The Express Tribune

May 26, 2012
By Imtiaz Gul

Cynics in and outside the country have derided any attempt by the government to try and resume the passage of US-Nato supplies as yet another capitulation to America. Others still have called it a compromise of national honour. And some have said that it is being done to gain dollars, without realising that America never throws dollars in charity.

The facts suggest that both Pakistan and America have tested each other’s patience and stretched themselves to the maximum. Clearly, realpolitik has been at play on both sides. Pakistan has said that the matter now lies with its parliament and is demanding an apology, cessation of drone strikes and increased compensation for each container that passes through its territory.

The US, on the other hand, desperate for resumption of the ground lines of communication and cognisant of Pakistan’s indispensable role in the Afghan peace process, has nonetheless dragged its feet. But Washington has found it hard, if not impossible, to give up on Pakistan, and thus came the understanding, after weeks of brinkmanship, paving for President Zardari’s participation in the Chicago summit.

The roadmap for Afghanistan requires both sides to stay relevant, Pakistan more so since it is right next to the country and has ethnic as well as commercial links to it. That is also, perhaps, why several US officials have camped in Islamabad since late April to work out a deal. On the face of it, Pakistan ended up taking the right decision whereby it demonstrated flexibility. But as it turned out, this seemed to lack political consensus at home and also the issue of what the transit fee would be was left unresolved. As a result, the vibes from Chicago have not been very encouraging.

Now, regardless of the invectives being used for Pakistan’s “dodgy, inflexible and vision-less” approach until the final deal, the real question staring us in the face is what happens if a deal is indeed reached. What next?

Will Pakistan set aside its India-centric mindset in favour of an economically prosperous future? Will it attempt to rationalise its relations with groups such as the Haqqani network? Or will it perpetually remain locked in a war of attrition with the US? This represents a huge challenge for Pakistan because all other countries use the American prism to judge Islamabad. Equally important is a resetting of ties with India. Since America — for its geopolitical and commercial considerations — views Pakistan through the Indian prism, one would hope that a real change of mind has taken place in Islamabad. Officials — both military and civilian — insist that it has. Also, the country is looking more towards regional friends and neighbours for fostering economic links, they say.

But, one major question that springs from this change of mind is whether Pakistan really believes in regional integration through trade and economic cooperation and whether it is actually pursuing a paradigm shift — guided by China — from militarism to commercial collaboration?

If it is doing so, it probably stands to win goodwill from all quarters and can probably rely on tangible support for infrastructure development and capacity building from friendly countries. During a recent visit to Islamabad, an EU delegation, for instance, also expressed more or less similar sentiment and underscored its long-term commitment to both Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Ambassador Vygaudas Ušackas, the EU’s special representative to Afghanistan, and other officials told Pakistani officials and members of civil society that as a strong and passionate supporter of integration, the EU encourages integration and regional cooperation. He said that while the EU stands committed to the universal values of peaceful coexistence, human rights and good governance, it is also ready to support in the common cause of fighting terrorism through a strategy of counterterrorism and security.

Pakistan must seize the moment and aim to gain the goodwill it can win following successful negotiations with the US over resumption of Nato routes and future cooperation on Afghanistan. It must learn from China that confrontation, particularly with the world’s sole superpower, only entails conflict, financial damage and ostracisation.

The Express Tribune

May 26, 2012
By Saeed Qureshi
Exclusive Article

In a nutshell the bilateral relations between Pakistan and America have, predominantly, remained overcast by mistrust and bickering. America is a super power and Pakistan chose to be cast in a mould of her client or a surrogate state. Pakistan has been looking up to the United States for aid all these years and that is what a client state does. Pakistan joined SEATO and CENTO treaties that primarily served the American global interests with fixation on particular regions and containment of Communism.

In a nascent state of Pakistan, visionary leadership was deficient in the aftermath of the demise of the freedom winning stalwarts, in a few years after the independence of Pakistan in 1947. Because of her entanglement in those two pacts, there was no escape route for Pakistan to redeem its non- aligned status that India maintained from the beginning. Although, consequently both these pacts were dissolved, yet Pakistan continued to be tied to the apron string of the United States.

The divergence of interests between the two unequal allies has been manifest all along their mutual journey of friendship. Pakistan wanted American iron-clad guarantees against its traditional foe India while America’s underlying objective to rope Pakistan was to keep it in her fold for the anti-communist global drive.

Pakistan being close in the neighborhood of both former Soviet Union and China was geographically an ideal place to sow intrigues against these antagonists of capitalism. Pakistan did play her assigned role in an extremely befitting manner by ousting Soviet Union, with American funds, from Afghanistan lock stock and barrel. Pakistan used Islamic militants and its soil to force the red army to retreat in utter humiliation.

Ironically, thereafter Pakistan was subjected to embargoes and sanctions for the spurious causes one of which was Pakistan’s endeavor to attain nuclear know-how as a counterpoise to that of India. But that phase was short-lived and mercifully Pakistan again became a favorite ally and apple of the United States’ eyes. Pakistan was again with U.S., in chasing the dreaded Al-Qaida and Taliban out of Afghanistan.

Pakistan deployed its armed forces in the uncharted tribal regions between Afghanistan and Pakistan to flush out anti-American combatants drawn from Taliban, religious outfits, local warlords and Al-Qaida. Pakistan army is suffering heavy casualties with thousands of troops dead and disabled in the still continuing ten years’ war on terror.

Pakistan has always posed itself as an obliging ally of the United States and has been bending over heavily backward to do a hireling’s role and in return get the bounty money. Pakistan opened its overland routes and allowed the use of its soil for transporting food, medicine and other essential supplies including weapons to NATO troops in Afghanistan.

From its Shamsi air base, pilotless Drones were directed to attack the insurgents and other coveted targets. Pakistan deployed its forces into the rugged and inaccessible mountains, stretching from Balochistan to the peripheries of Hindukush ranges, almost over a two thousand long miles stretch to annihilate the militants and destroy their hideouts.

America always expects of Paksitan to oblige at the drop of the hate even if in the process Pakistan would suffer horrendously in various ways. Pakistan is taking casualties on daily basis in tribal belt particularly in Waziristan. Pakistan ‘society and social peace is in tatters because of the swelling antagonism of ferocious Taliban and frenzied Al-Qaida outfits. Every now and then they mount devastating suicide bombing and launch deadly assaults on vital civil and military installations.

Pakistan’s internal shattered peace and abysmal law and order situation and dreadful militancy mounted by Islamic militants are the outcomes of Pakistan’s overtures to oblige and keep American in good humor. Otherwise there was neither any overpowering reason nor indispensable necessity for Pakistan territory to become a war zone for outlaws and especially religious extremists who look upon Pakistan as an enemy of Islam and lackey of imperialism.

The drone attacks on the soil of Pakistan, the barbarous bombing on Pakistan’s military posts and the growing loss of its troops and the whole country engulfed into a state of war, do not matter to a more equal ally. What matters is that NATO or American aircrafts can barge into Pakistan’s territory any time without permission and go back without realizing it was a grave violation of the territorial integrity of a committed and obliging ally.

What matters is that Dr. Afridi should be released and not Dr. Afia although the nature of their charges are poles apart. It is all a one-sided business in which Pakistan is not assigned any say or to uphold or to look after its interests. Pakistan is bereft of making independent decisions in foreign policy domain and is coerced to readily submit with folded hands what it is ordained to do by the United States.

The argument is tenable that the war on terror has cost Pakistan’s economy $70 billion dollars. According to Wikipedia “a significant proportion of US economic aid for Pakistan has ended up back in the US as funds are channeled through large US contractors”. Large sums of the pledged US economic aid do not leave the US because it is spent on consulting fees and overhead cost within U. S. before it is disbursed to Pakistan. The paltry aid and Pakistan’s association as the second fiddle of the United States carries the degrading tag of being a vassal state of that super power.

Pakistan acted as a conduit for opening up contacts between the United States and China in 1972 with the landmark visit of then secretary of state Henry Kissinger. That visit was followed by President Nixon’s state visit to China in February 1972. While China acknowledges Pakistan historic role in opening the first chapter of Sino-American relations, the United States has gingerly expressed the gratitude for which Pakistan is genuinely entitled to.

America should understand that if it was an unachievable tall order for NATO to defeat Taliban and other militants and achieve a clear-cut victory, how Pakistan with limited resources can make than happen. Moreover, there is no earthly or convincing reason for Pakistan to remain engaged with Taliban in a perpetual military conflict.

Nevertheless, Pakistan played its part of clearing the FATA and agencies from the elements that posed looming danger to the NATO presence in Afghanistan and a religious takeover in Pakistan. To vacate Swat valley from the dogged Taliban and religious fanatics convincingly demonstrates that Pakistan has been a committed and serious partner against the dogmatic forces, the reactionaries and religious militants who could have imposed their obscurantist fiat all over Pakistan. That should launder any doubt about the sincerity and earnestness of Pakistan in being a strong bulwark against the forces inimical to a stable, modern, democratic and Pakistan.

Despite being close allies, the relations between the United States and Pakistan have been eclipsed by deficit of trust. Neither side places complete and untainted trust in each other’s friendship. The obvious reason is the mutually bloated expectations: America wanting Pakistan to go an al out war on the anti-American elements and factions and defeat them.

Pakistan on the other hand, expects of the United States to be treated with a modicum of reasonableness and understanding of its limits in delivering the needful. Pakistan feels that while she has been fighting a proxy war for the United States now for two decades, it is not the beneficiary of the grand perks and privileges that have been bestowed upon its regional rival India.

In his policy speech on December 1, 2009 president Obama lauded Pakistan in these words “In the past, we too often defined our relationship with Pakistan narrowly. Those days are over…. The Pakistani people must know America will remain a strong supporter of Pakistan’s security and prosperity long after the guns have fallen silent, so that the great potential of its people can be unleashed.”
The shaky nature of relations between Pakistan and the United States continues to spur blame game. However, the United States must be convinced that after NATO and American troops’ withdrawal, no other regional power, except Pakistan, can safeguard the interests of United States in the war torn and badly ravaged Afghanistan. Pakistan enjoys an uncontested position to maintain peace in Afghanistan and also collaborate with America in reconstruction programs.

Pakistan possesses the good will as well as the military muscle to subdue the dissidents, the war lords and insurgents like Taliban. With the guns going silent, a phase of rehabilitation can be initiated also in the tribal belt that has been mauled by drone attacks and Pakistan army’s onslaughts against the miscreants.

Pakistan army’s role thereafter would be to rebuild the infrastructure, roads, schools and hospitals in FATA and Afghanistan. A host of other similar projects can bring prosperity, peace, awareness and good governance in those primitive regions lorded over by the local lords. The people of Afghanistan or FATA will not accept any other regional solicitor as willingly as Pakistan.

As such Pakistan can be a reliable, competent and acceptable successor of the United States in Afghanistan. Pakistan could renew good will for USA and recreate a new modern, stable democratic and peaceful Afghanistan which is what the rest of the world and particularly America would cherish after it leaves that country.

The writer is a senior journalist and a former diplomat. He is also a regular contributor to pkarticleshub.com

May 28, 2012
By Tanvir Ahmad Khan

Divergent perspectives on the regional situation and honest differences of opinion on the end-game in Afghanistan have frequently caused strains in Pakistan-U.S relations in recent years. A series of unforeseen events—- CIA agent Raymond Davis’ killing of two Pakistani citizens in Lahore, unilateral American military action on May 2, 2011 to assassinate Osama bin Laden, NATO’s air attack on Pakistani frontier check post of Salala in which 24 Pakistani soldiers perished— put the relationship on a roller coaster. Given the importance of continued cooperation between Islamabad and Washington during the highly delicate phase of winding down the decade-old conflict in Afghanistan, it was a legitimate expectation that the two capitals would rise to the requisite level of statesmanship. Regrettably, both sides have conspicuously failed to do so.

Pakistan’s troubled participation, through a last minute invitation to President Asif Zardari, in the 25th NATO summit in Chicago (20-21 May) that was to take far-ranging decisions on NATO’s military campaign in Afghanistan has left many questions unanswered. In fact, the summit ended with much uncertainty in Pakistan whether there was still a difference of positions on the terms and conditions on which the long suspension, after the Salala incident, of ground lines of communication (GLOCS) —the overland transit routes for supplies to NATO-ISAF forces in Afghanistan— would finally end.

The massacre at Salala created a huge problem for the pro-West government in Islamabad that tried to deflect the popular backlash by seeking guidelines on resetting relations with the United States from Parliament. Two reports by parliament in quick succession sought to pave the way for re-opening the blocked routes only by attaching conditions such as a public apology by the United States and a fairer financial compensation for the wear and tear of the Pakistani infra-structure estimated at billions of dollars over the last decade. Implicit in parliamentary debates was the resentment at the United States using reimbursement of expenditure incurred by Pakistan, known as Coalition Support Funds, as a lever of manipulating Islamabad’s policy. Parliament had deliberated better ties with the United States under a dark cloud of public anger at greatly increased drone attacks on targets inside Pakistan during the Obama presidency. So it also asked for their termination. Periodic leaks from Washington that these attacks had often been mounted with complicity of Islamabad made things worse for the Pakistani government.

In retrospect, Pakistan government’s decision to follow parliament’s recommendations appears to have been bold but difficult to sustain. If Islamabad expected face-saving gestures from Washington, it met disappointment as the United States ruled out an apology for Salala deaths, refused to pay the much higher transit fee demanded by Islamabad and, above all, initially linked an invitation to Asif Zardari to the summit to a prior re-opening of the blocked routes. Islamabad had doubtless raised hopes of an imminent re-opening of GLOCS but then deferred it for reasons not yet explained. President Obama received President Karzai but not President Zardari; the American media projected it as a deliberate “snub”.

Pakistan had stayed away from the Bonn Conference on Afghanistan held on 5 December 2011 because of the Salala tragedy. Unfortunately, it was prevented from playing any significant role at the Chicago summit. It does not augur well for peace in Afghanistan because NATO put its seal of approval on various elements of the plan to wind down the conflict with only a highly dysfunctional peace process in hand: namely, combat operations end by mid-2013; the NATO-led combat mission closes by the end of 2014; a new post-2014 non-combat mission to train, advise and assist the ANSF takes over end-2014. France will, however, pull out by the end of this year increasing pressure on other Europeans to rush for the exits.

Transferring security and counter-insurgency operations to the Afghan army so soon may be an illusion as battle-hardened Taliban and assorted war lords still dominate large territories. A likely scenario is that of a chequered landscape dotted with a few well -defended cities and impregnable NATO fortresses surrounded by a turbulent countryside. If this situation degenerates into one or more sub-regional civil wars, Pakistan would face a grave security threat.

President Zardari has had no reservations about assisting the United States in developing a credible peace process; the real obstacle is the divided counsel in Washington. From the very beginning, Zardari has endeavoured to establish a relationship of trust with President Karzai promising strong economic cooperation with post-conflict Afghanistan. Quintessentially, President Zardari’s current dilemma springs from his failure to persuade Washington that Pakistan should be an autonomous partner and that Washington should respect its reading of the regional situation and its national interest while disposing the fate of its war-ravaged neighbour. Pakistan has a 2500-kilometre long border with Afghanistan straddled by the same tribes and ethnic and linguistic groups. Islamabad should be able to re-open the supply routes soon and also settle the transit fees but its ability to help shape events in Afghanistan favourably for the concerned parties seems to have received a body blow.

Tanvir Ahmad Khan is a former foreign secretary of Pakistan.
Source: Gulf News

Dear senior you have done a great work. But i have one question that which articles you in your posts are really good material but every topic has a different perspective than how can we prepared a complete question.
Please answer me.

__________________
When everything seems to be going against you, remember that the airplane takes off against the wind, not with it.

Thanx Dear!

Dear these articles contain every aspect of the issues that are gng on and contian all the related develpments related to the topic, so if u keep reading these articles continously u'll urself be able to manage and mould ur answer according to the questions asked in paper...hope this will help u...Regards

Ok I got your point. Continue this great work.
Regards

__________________
When everything seems to be going against you, remember that the airplane takes off against the wind, not with it.