Bharat Rakshak Forum Announcement

Hello Everyone,

A warm welcome back to the Bharat Rakshak Forum.

Important Notice: Due to a corruption in the BR forum database we regret to announce that data records relating to some of our registered users have been lost. We estimate approx. 500 user details are deleted.

To ease the process of recreating the user IDs we request members that have previously posted on the BR forums to recognise and identify their posts, once the posts are identified please contact the BRF moderator team by emailing BRF Mod Team with your post details.

The mod team will be able to update your username, email etc. so that the user history can be maintained.

Unfortunately for members that have never posted or have had all their posts deleted i.e. users that have 0 posts, we will be unable to recreate your account hence we request that you re-register again.

We apologise for any inconvenience caused and thank you for your understanding.

Regards,
Seetal

Terroristan - 4th Jan 2018

The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5958
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Terroristan - 4th Jan 2018

Postby nachiket » 05 Jan 2018 03:09

Link to previous Terroristan - Land of Pure Terror - thread: Terroristan - Sep 29, 2017

The following links are background material on Pakistan.

UNDERSTANDING PAKISTAN:

Jinnah's Pakistan: An Interview with MA Jinnah, and how the Pakistan of Yesterday is the Pakistan of Today
http://iref.homestead.com/Messiah.html

http://hsgac.senate.gov/public/_files/012809Tellis.pdf
The above is the testimony of Ashley Tellis on Jan 28th 2009, to the US Senate Homeland Security Committee on LeT's global role. It is a good articulation of LeT's past and future trends.

Know Your Pakistan
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/archives/ ... /Shiv.html

The Monkey Trap: A synopsis of Indo-Pak relations
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/archives/ ... ayyam.html

PAKISTAN-FAILED STATE: an ebook that owes its origin and existence to BRF.
http://pakistanfailedstate.blogspot.in/

Whither Pakistan ? Growing Instability and Implications for India: an IDSA e-Book, July 2010
http://idsa.in/book/WhitherPakistan

A landmark article that demolishes myths built up about Pakistan
http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/papers8/paper710.html

Pak's Continuing War against Indian Civilisation - Tufail Ahmad, Director South Asia Project, MEMRI
https://www.memri.org/reports/article-m ... vilization

Pakistani Role in Terrorism Against the U.S.A
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/I ... yanan.html

Pakistani Education, or how Pakistan became what it is: The Subtle Subversion - Curricula and textbooks in Pakistan
http://unesco.org.pk/education/teachere ... s/rp22.pdf

Making Enemies, Creating Conflict: Pakistan's Crises of State and Society. A book written by Pakistanis on Pakistan.
http://members.tripod.com/~no_nukes_sa/Contents.html

Should Pakistan Be Broken Up? by Gul Agha
http://pakistan70.tripod.com/gul.html

A modest proposal from a Pakistani Brigadier:
https://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/i ... desman.htm

"We should fire at them and take out a few of their cities—Delhi, Bombay, Calcutta," he said. "They should fire back and take Karachi and Lahore. Kill off a hundred or two hundred million people......."


Alden Pyle in Pakistan, Part I
http://pundita.blogspot.in/2009/12/alde ... art-1.html

Prof. Walter Russell Mead, "Pakistan's Failed National Strategy"
https://www.the-american-interest.com/2 ... -strategy/

"Pakistan Is", by Barry Bearak in New York Times Magazine, December 7, 2003.
Brings out succinctly various facets of Pakistani perfidy, obsession, fundamentalism etc.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/07/magaz ... an-is.html

Religion as the Foundation of a Nation: The Making and Unmaking of Pakistan - P.K. Upadhyay, IDSA
It probes the religious and sectarian fault-lines in Pakistan in depth to determine their impact on the future of Pakistan.
http://idsa.in/system/files/monograph36.pdf

Ms. Christine Fair's exposition on Pakistan military, society et al. A Must see.
Fighting to the End: Pakistan Army's Way of War

False Equivalency in the "Indo-Pakistan" Dispute - Ms. C. Fair, War on the Rocks, June, 2015

Shia-killing in Pakistan: Background and Predictions - A blog by Omar Ali

PAKISTAN, BANGLADESH and GENOCIDE:

24 years of exploitation created Bangladesh by Babar Ayaz, Daily Times, January 17, 2018

Image Scan of article on 1971 East Pakistan Genocide by Antony Mascarenhas, Former Asst. Editor, Morning News, Karachi in Sunday Times, London, June 13, 1971

Text scan of the above article on 1971 Genocide

Bangladesh Genocide Archive

Ethnic cleansing in Pakistan - a statistical analysis by Sridhar N. Bharat Rakshak Monitor Vol 6(2) September-October 2003
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/I ... idhar.html
Also available at: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1592160/posts

A chronicle of genocide by the Pakistan army
http://www.gendercide.org/case_bangladesh.html

Documentary video evidence of Pakistani genocide in Bangladesh
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0x-94U1bVUQ
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=EBKlIUbpc ... re=related
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=sMg9Ly9nK0g
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=xwwPbkyZV ... re=related

List of military arms supplied by US to Pakistan since 9/11
http://i21.servimg.com/u/f21/15/54/62/79/pakist10.jpg

PAKISTAN & TERRORISM:

The Ideologies of South Asian Jihadi Groups (Lashkar-e-Taiba)
By Hussein Haqqani (journalist and Pak ambassador to US)
https://www.hudson.org/research/9867-th ... adi-groups

Lashkar-e-Taiba: Past Operations and Future Prospects, Stephen Tankel, April 2011
New America Foundation
http://carnegieendowment.org/2011/04/27 ... -pub-43802

Pakistani sponsoring of Terrorism
http://www.geocities.com/charcha_2000/
http://pak-terror.freeservers.com/Terro ... y_Tool.htm

Terror Map: The Pakistani Hand
http://sify.com/news/specials/terrormap/?vsv=TopHP1

Inside Jihad - How Pakistan sponsors terrorists in India
http://www.time.com/time/asia/magazine/ ... r_sb1.html

Pakistan's Role in the Kashmir Insurgency - Op-ed by Rand's Peter Chalk
http://www.rand.org/hot/op-eds/090101JIR.html

Alden Pyle in Pakistan, Part 2
http://pundita.blogspot.in/2009/12/alde ... -upon.html

BEYOND MADRASAS: ASSESSING THE LINKS BETWEEN EDUCATION AND MILITANCY IN PAKISTAN
https://www.brookings.edu/research/beyo ... -pakistan/

Pakistani Military Officers' Links with Jihadist Organizations
http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/5587.htm

Putting Our Children in Line of Fire - The Nation, January 27, 2013
The above is an admission by Pakistan Army's Top General that it was the Pakistani Army at Kargil, not the mujahideen, and Musharraf was the Culprit

Debate between a Taliban Scholar and a Paki Army Officer

PAKISTAN and NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION:

Pakistani nuclear scientist's accounts tell of Chinese proliferation - R. Jeffrey Smith and Joby Warrick, Washington Post, Nov 13, 2009

PAKISTAN TODAY:

On the Frontier of Apocalypse: Christopher Hitchens seminal article on Pakistan today
http://newsstuff.0catch.com/article5.htm

http://meaindia.nic.in/bestoftheweb/2002/10/14bow2.htm

A Slender Reed in Pakistan - Editorial in the Christian Science Monitor
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/1229/p08s03-comv.html

Seymour Hersh Interview
http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript_hersh.html

Pakistan's Nuclear Crimes (Wash. Post editorial)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dy ... 2-2004Feb4

http://www.indiadefence.com/LOA07Aug04.htm

The Battle for Pakistan: Militancy and Conflict in South Waziristan by Mansur Khan Mahsud, April 2010
http://www.operationspaix.net/DATA/DOCU ... ristan.pdf

BOOK REVIEW Fulcrum of Evil: ISI-CIA-Al Qaeda Nexus, a book by Maloy Krishna Dhar
http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/%5Cpap ... r1844.html

Article from Vinni Capelli - Foreign Policy Research Institute:
Containing Pakistan: Engaging the Raja-Mandala in South-Central Asia
http://www.fpri.org/orbis/5101/cappelli ... kistan.pdf

The videos are from this documentary: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/taliban/

A bomb at all cost By Ahmad Faruqui - a candid admission of the wars that Pakistan started against India.

Popular support for suicide bombings in pakistan.
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.as ... 008_pg12_1
Survey by university students in karachi say 50% of respondents support suicide bombings in kashmir.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=OWsmJIwe9Q4
"Descent into Chaos"
UC Berkeley Conversations with History, host Harry Kreisler talking with Pakistani Journalist Ahmed Rashid. 59 minutes 120 MB. It sums up Pakistan and lays bare all Pakistan's terrorist support and proliferation activities. **Note - he wants the US to solve Pakistan's Kashmir problem.

Pakistan on the brink: Video Link (must download)

MISCELLANEOUS

UNSC Resolutions on Kashmir

Gilgit Rebellion: The Major Who Mutinied Over Partition of India
A book on the events by Maj. William Brown, the mutineer himself.

Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto telling Bangladeshis to "Go to Hell": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Dsxfyxa ... re=related

IDSA's weekly summary of Pak Urdu Press:

http://www.idsa.in/pup

Christine Fair :Ten fictions that pakistani defense officials love to peddle

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Five installment series by Kapil Komireddi published in Frum Forum

Part I. Nov 16, 2009. “Pakistan In Crisis”.

Part II. Nov 18. 2009. “Pakistan: Origins of A Failed State”.

Part III. Nov 18, 2009. “Pakistan: It Could Not Succeed Unless India Failed”.

Part IV. Dec 06, 2009. “Pakistan: A Mecca for Radical Islam”.

Part V. Dec. 07, 2009. “Pakistan’s Army: Building a Nation for Jihad”

A perceptive blog on Pakistan: http://pak-watch.blogspot.com/

Declassified documents from US National Archives on Pakistan:

http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/pakistan/pakistan.htm
_______________________________________________

Admission of state sponsored terrorism by Pakistani authorities

see this Der Spigel Interview where Musharraf admits to that.

On 7th Nov in TimesNow Channel, Tasneem Noorani, a former Secretary of the Pakistani Interior Ministry, openly said that.

Kiyani called the Haqqanis as strategic assets.

In Dec. 2008, President Zardari himself admitted to ISI helping LeT. He said,"The links between the Inter-Services Intelligence Agency and the LeT were developed in the old days when dictators used to run the country. After the 9/11 terror attacks in the US, things have changed to a great extent"

In an address to bureaucrats in July 2009, President Zardari said: "Militants and extremists were deliberately created and nurtured as a policy to achieve some short-term tactical objectives. Let us be truthful to ourselves and make a candid admission of the realities. The terrorists of today were the heroes of yesteryears until 9/11 occurred and they began to haunt us as well"

In Nov. 2009, Prime Minister Gilani admitted to the support for terrorism by Musharraf as "running with the hares and hunting with the hounds".

When Bush warned the Pakistanis in August 2008 of their support to Al Qaeda, Afrasiab Khattak, President of Awami National Party (ANP) said this: "The question is why it has taken the Americans so long to see what the ISI is doing. We’ve been telling them for years but they wouldn’t buy it.". See here.

In an interview to the BBC as far back as on Feb. 13, 1994, Benazir Bhutto admitted how she handed over to Rajiv Gandhi the complete list of Sikh activists colluding with the ISI in terrorism in the Punjab. Later, Nawaz Sharif described this interview as a faux pas.

Apart from these, of course, numerous Pakistani commentators, analysts, and editors have openly admitted to terror as a state policy.

________________________________________________________________________

Why Did Pakistan's Spy Chief Make a Secret Trip to China?

Pasha's China trip has been interpreted by some as a tacit act of defiance—a reminder to his American counterparts that the Pakistanis can always look east to their “all-weather” friend across the Himalayas rather than bend the knee to the will of the U.S.

But it also may be a sign of China's growing disquiet with Pakistan. Another top-ranking Pakistani military officer, Lt. Gen Wahid Arshad, had already conducted a considerable tour of China just weeks ago in a bid to improve ties. A few analysts have suggested that Pasha's trip — couched in vague terms about building a “broad-based strategic dialogue” — may have been less a visit and more of a summons.


Chinese officials claimed the attacks in Kashgar were authored by the shadowy East Turkestan Islamic Movement, a jihadist organization of mostly ethnic Uighurs, a Turkic Muslim minority that comprises the majority in the far-western Chinese region of Xinjiang. China routinely invokes the specter of the terrorist threat when cracking down on dissent in the restive region. Yet disturbances there tend to be triggered more often by social discontent — many Uighurs chafe at state policies they deem discriminatory and marginalizing — than militant connivance. Pasha's presence in Beijing may mark Beijing's continued efforts to root out Uighur dissidents and sympathizers beyond China's borders, as it has already done in Kazakhstan.


Youtube video: Bilatakalluf with Tahif Gora: Tarek Fateh dissects with Pakjabi society and shows how its war-impotent Army loots the common Pakistani (Jan 13, 2012)

Terroristan - Land of Pure Terror - Right to Reply of India by Eenam Gambhir (First Secretary in the Permanent Mission of India to the United Nations in New York) at the 71st Session of the UN General Assembly:

Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4378
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Terroristan - 4th Jan 2018

Postby Peregrine » 05 Jan 2018 04:54

Pakistan has never learnt from history

Donald Trump, the only politician in the world, who doesn’t lie about being a liar, threatened Pakistan with aid withdrawal this new year’s day

This new year a short piece and a book by Ahsan Butt, a young academic at George Mason University, in Fairfax, Virginia, USA, has given a useful reminder of what led to the genocidal war in East Pakistan. The lessons from history are inescapable but if learned could change the shape of the future for this country.

Dr Butt rightly argues that the fundamental basis for military action against Bengali nationalist demands were the following assumptions by the Pakistani militarist state:

1) Bengalis are dark and not martial;

2) They are not real Muslims and have too many Hindu influences;

3) Being not martial they could be terrorised into submission;

4) Bengali demands for linguistic recognition and basic cultural and democratic rights are a mortal threat;

5) Bengali demands are not genuine;

6) Bengali leadership are Indian agents; and finally and most lethally

7) India is stage managing the entire crises.

He argues, that almost all of these assumptions had more to do with the colonial nature and racialised ethos of the Pakistani state than anything in reality. Based upon rigorous academic research Dr. Butt demonstrates that India did not quite substantively insert itself into the East Pakistan crises before May 1971, about two months after the start of the brutal military operation in East Pakistan. The Pakistani state, by its actions made its dystopian fantasies about East Pakistan into a reality.

One has heard echoes of the above assumptions in the case of Balochistan, Taliban, and Afghanistan. The fact is that the Pakistani state never learned the lessons of East Pakistan. It never issued an apology to Bangladesh for its actions. It never made public the Hamood-ur-Rehman Commission Report. And even recently spoke up for its Jamaat-e-Islamialies in Bangladesh, where it had no business.

Today as I engage with Pakistani foreign policy and military establishment in my role as an academic, and a researcher, I am absolutely surprised at how incredibly successful the religious right has been in shaping their world view. I am reminded of my research on Jamaat-e-Islami, where I found that the founder of the Jamaat Abu Al’a Maudoodi, never meant the Jamaat to be an electoral force. Instead he thought of it as an organisational weapon that will penetrate the upper and middle echelons of the society and perpetuate its world view from above. The Jamaat and its fellow travelers may never be electorally successful, they were never meant to be, and perhaps they don’t need to be. Their world view and thinking is already firmly in place in the Pakistani establishment.

Couple the right wing view with almost God like faith that the Pakistani state and segments of its society hold in neo-liberalism inspired capitalist development, and you have the full picture. After all there are not a lot of countries where murder of children at the hands of terrorists is declared an act of martyrdom by the children, or mass murder of lawyers in Balochistan, is pronounced a conspiracy against a road project.

The India centric security narrative of Pakistan is the real enemy of Pakistan. Does India meddle in Pakistan’s affairs — of course it does. But only after the Pakistani state creates the conditions for it to meddle. Pakistan supported the Sikh insurgency in the Indian Punjab in the 1980s. It didn’t create it, it opportunistically inserted itself in it, after Indira Gandhi tried to undermine Akali Dal with extremist Sikh nationalists. Pakistan inserted itself in the Kashmir insurgency, not because it created it, but because the Indian state’s rigging of the 1988 state elections, created it. India too probably fans the flames in Pakistan, but only after the Pakistani state thoroughly alienated the Baloch youth, supported the murderous Taliban against the Afghan people and state, and created conditions for Talibanisation of the Pakistani society. The solution, therefore has to be found in reversing the state’s actions that created the problem in the first place. The state could keep looking for a black cat in a dark room, or switch on the light and only find itself, and no cat.

Donald Trump, the only politician in the world, who doesn’t lie about being a liar, threatened Pakistan with aid withdrawal this new year’s day. If Pakistani state could reign in the demons of its mind, it could ignore that liar. It can be done. There is a whole crop of young academics like Dr Butt and others, who could help shine some light into the ossified mental dungeons of the Pakistani state’s training academies. For every Qudratullah Shahab or Naseem Hijazi, there is an Eqbal Ahmed and Ayesha Jalal. If that intellectual capital is leveraged, there is no reason, why 2018 can’t be a happier year than 2017.

Cheers Image

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60736
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: Terroristan - 4th Jan 2018

Postby Singha » 05 Jan 2018 07:54

$1.1 billion of baksheesh funds have been frozen by GOTUS.

the next move is on TSP. I guess they will look to bend er double down and "go all-in" (pun intended) on being a chinese condom.

cheen has no problems with them creating mayhem in afghanistan or india, infact will encourage it, in exchange for the chopped heads of any uighur extremists. but in other matters they will be harsher masters and extract a price that USA the more genial plantation owner does not from its vassals. marital rape and 'unnatural sex' will be routine and brutal.

every TSP elite dreams of placing their kids in usa and london, so far I have read of none salivating to settle them in shanghai or shenzhen. but the paki elites are superbly agile and adaptable to changing circumstances....

krishna_krishna
BRFite
Posts: 568
Joined: 23 Oct 2006 04:14

Re: Terroristan - 4th Jan 2018

Postby krishna_krishna » 05 Jan 2018 08:22

Peregrine wrote:
Donald Trump, the only politician in the world, who doesn’t lie about being a liar, threatened Pakistan with aid withdrawal this new year’s day

[



Pegegrine Garu, as most of the people know on this forum "Massa" cannot be trusted , especially wrt porkis. My belief is that all this rona dhona is related to flare up in "Eye ran". When massa says we want you to do more and porkis say we will honor our national interest,I read this as massa wants porkis to bite the bullet but porkis refuse that otherwise they know they are screwed forever with a neighbor who shares a land border. In the context please also consider how much Saudi's troubled porkis but they haven't budged and played both sides while sending bad sharif to ummah and same time not helping enough to upset their neighbors. Porkis are in a grind sure, but that has nothing to do with heart change wrt desh. Just My two cents.

arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9414
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Terroristan - 4th Jan 2018

Postby arun » 05 Jan 2018 08:26

Chicago Tribune Editorial titled “To solve the Pakistan problem: Less carrot, more stick”:

Editorial: To solve the Pakistan problem: Less carrot, more stick

By Editorial Board

January 3, 2018, 4:45 PM

President Donald Trump’s first tweet of 2018, directed at Pakistan, was predictably clumsy and combative. “The United States has foolishly given Pakistan more than 33 billion dollars in aid over the last 15 years, and they have given us nothing but lies & deceit,” Trump huffed. “They give safe haven to the terrorists we hunt in Afghanistan, with little help. No more!”

As is often the case, the tweet is fact-challenged — $14 billion of that money was actually post-9/11 reimbursements to Pakistan for its support of U.S. anti-terrorism initiatives and operations in Afghanistan. Nevertheless the spirit of Trump’s remarks is on the mark.

For years, Pakistan has played a double game with its anti-terrorism efforts. At times, it has been helpful in ferreting out al-Qaida operatives, and has launched military offensives against its homegrown threat, the Pakistani Taliban. But Washington for years has accused Pakistan of a policy of covertly backing militant groups that target U.S. and coalition forces in Afghanistan — namely, the Haqqani network and the Afghan Taliban.

That coziness with extremist groups continues to confound American military commanders. Haqqani and Afghan Taliban militants launch ambushes and bombings on U.S.-allied forces in Afghanistan, then slip back over the border into the badlands of northwest Pakistan, insulated from retaliation by American and Afghan forces. Pakistani leaders issue boilerplate denials that they provide militants safe haven, yet continue the tacit support.

Trump’s predecessor, Barack Obama, was just as vexed. In August 2016, Obama withheld $300 million in military assistance to Pakistan because of Islamabad’s support for the Afghan Taliban and its ally, the Haqqani network. Last summer, the Trump administration signaled its displeasure with Islamabad by putting on hold $255 million in military aid to Pakistan. Administration officials said on Monday that the aid will not be sent to Pakistan.

Obama was right to withhold the money, and so is Trump.

It may not be enough of a cudgel to get Pakistan to change its ways. It certainly hasn’t been in the past. But it’s hard to justify sending hundreds of millions of dollars in anti-terrorism aid to a country that continues to give shelter to terrorist groups. Assistance to Pakistan has always been framed as incentive for Pakistan to do more in the fight on terror. But the right way to frame the rationale is to flip it around. Aid to Pakistan should be contingent on the country’s earnest cooperation in battling terrorists, regardless of their affiliation.

The war in Afghanistan, America’s longest ever, is far from over. Afghan Taliban militants control a large chunk of the country, the most since the U.S.-led invasion in 2001. Last year, Trump beefed up the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan. They aren’t a combat force. Instead, they focus on counterterrorism missions and advising Afghan officers who battle Taliban militants.

Without their presence, Kabul’s dysfunctional government likely wouldn’t be able to reverse Taliban momentum. But just as critical to the mission in Afghanistan is Pakistan’s cooperation.

Pakistan’s long-standing under-the-table policy of drawing distinctions between terrorists to target and terrorists to coddle is bad policy for the simple reason that terrorism under any banner is wrong and lethal to innocents. In Afghanistan, terrorism equals instability on Pakistan’s doorstep. That’s not good for the U.S. and the rest of the West, but it’s also not good for Pakistan and its wrecked economy. Doling out more U.S. money to Pakistan year after year hasn’t made its leaders realize that. Freezing the aid sends a stronger message.


From the Chicago Tribune here:

Clicky

CRamS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6094
Joined: 07 Oct 2006 20:54
Contact:

Re: Terroristan - 4th Jan 2018

Postby CRamS » 05 Jan 2018 08:44

After the Aug hard hitting policy of Trump, TSP bent a bit, leading to Trump praising TSP, removing LeT and other India-specific pigLeTs that TSP has to eliminate to get the goodies. But looks like TSP wanted to play hard ball and wanted to get an even better bargain: no India in Afghanistan, not even a boy scout role. And so it hedged its bets on the Haqqanis. My prediction is that finally, TSP will do something about the Haqqanis, and things will be back to normal. There is no way TSP can do without USA for a host of reasons, and likewise, no way US can do without TSP, them baaad Hindoos eating up etch-one-bee visas are a "mighty threat" and need to be balanced.

arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9414
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Terroristan - 4th Jan 2018

Postby arun » 05 Jan 2018 09:25

X Posted from the Indian Foreign Policy thread.

Op Ed by Barkha Dutt in the Washington Post on the latest spat between Sugar Daddy the United States and two timing girl friend, the Mohammadden Terrorism Fomenting Islamic Republic of Pakistan, titled “Trump’s aid cuts won’t make Pakistan change”.:

Trump’s aid cuts won’t make Pakistan change

By Barkha Dutt

January 4 at 5:21 PM

How seriously should one take President Trump’s tweets? His first tweet of 2018, calling out of the “lies and deceit” of Pakistan, had pretty much all of India whooping in approval. Trump’s remarks on Pakistan’s failure to act against the terrorist groups it has cultivated, and his administration’s subsequent announcement that it would be freezing nearly all of its millions of dollars in security assistance to Pakistan, was a “gotcha” moment for New Delhi.

For years, Pakistan’s deep state (controlled by its all-powerful military and covert agencies) has used terrorism as an instrument of asymmetric warfare both in India and Afghanistan. For Indians, Trump’s tweet and the suspension of funds was a moment of vindication. But the unfortunate reality is that publicly shaming Pakistan, as Trump has done, and even the cuts in security aid have very little real impact on a country whose skin has grown comfortably thick from rhetorical battering. Pakistan survives in the smug belief that after the United States’ grandstanding is done and over, Washington will eventually turn to it for mopping up its half-finished mess in Afghanistan. Holding back the dollars every few years is just a nip and tuck, when what’s really needed is a surgical uprooting of terrorist support systems inside Pakistan. ………………………….

How seriously should one take President Trump’s tweets? His first tweet of 2018, calling out of the “lies and deceit” of Pakistan, had pretty much all of India whooping in approval. Trump’s remarks on Pakistan’s failure to act against the terrorist groups it has cultivated, and his administration’s subsequent announcement that it would be freezing nearly all of its millions of dollars in security assistance to Pakistan, was a “gotcha” moment for New Delhi.

For years, Pakistan’s deep state (controlled by its all-powerful military and covert agencies) has used terrorism as an instrument of asymmetric warfare both in India and Afghanistan. For Indians, Trump’s tweet and the suspension of funds was a moment of vindication. But the unfortunate reality is that publicly shaming Pakistan, as Trump has done, and even the cuts in security aid have very little real impact on a country whose skin has grown comfortably thick from rhetorical battering. Pakistan survives in the smug belief that after the United States’ grandstanding is done and over, Washington will eventually turn to it for mopping up its half-finished mess in Afghanistan. Holding back the dollars every few years is just a nip and tuck, when what’s really needed is a surgical uprooting of terrorist support systems inside Pakistan. …………………

From an Indian perspective, while Trump’s actions score well for Indian diplomacy, no one doubts that U.S. self-interest, not principled concerns about Pakistan’s patronage of terrorist groups in Kashmir, triggered this outburst. In November, American lawmakers dropped a provision that conditionally linked aid to Pakistan to a crackdown on the Lashkar-e-Taiba, the Pakistani terrorist group responsible for a spate of attacks inside India (including the November 2008 attacks in Mumbai). The bill voted into law retained the clause on linking U.S. aid only to Pakistan’s curbing of the Haqqani network in Afghanistan.

This free pass to Pakistan on some terrorist groups, while expecting it to act against others, is part of the schizophrenia that has defined U.S. policy. Trump’s tweet exposes Pakistan’s double standards on terrorism. But the United States needs to examine its own.


From the Washington Post:

Trump’s aid cuts won’t make Pakistan change

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20501
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: Terroristan - 4th Jan 2018

Postby Prem » 05 Jan 2018 09:34


arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9414
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Terroristan - 4th Jan 2018

Postby arun » 05 Jan 2018 09:47

Barkha Dutts Op Ed in the Washington Post titled “Trump’s aid cuts won’t make Pakistan change” also had this to say on the importance of alternate Lines of Communication to support the US military action in Afghanistan in order to bring the Mohammadden Terrorism Fomenting Islamic Republic of Pakistan:

Trump’s aid cuts won’t make Pakistan change

By Barkha Dutt

January 4 at 5:21 PM ……………………………

How Pakistan responds to Trump’s threats will come down to whether the United States is willing to stay the course in Afghanistan and fundamentally change its policy. The United States would have to end its dependence on Pakistan as the main supply route for NATO troops to landlocked Afghanistan. It would have to commit to using the more expensive and complicated northern route via Central Asia or spending much more flying in supplies. ……………………..

Clicky


The US in one fell swoop of designating All of Afghanistan’s neighbours {Iran, PRC, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan.} as “Countries of Particular Concern” regards religious freedom is hardly conducive to building alternative lines of communication through Afghanistan’s Non-Pakistani neighbours to support US military operations in Afghanistan.

A case of unthinking US stupidity, grossly misplaced US hubris that they can intimidate other countries into doing their bidding, or a case of the Mohammadden Terrorism Fomenting Islamic Republic of Pakistan’s “allies” in the US Deep State proactively setting up current US policy of bringing to Islamic Republic to heel on Mohammadden Terrorism, to fail, as the Islamic Republic provides benefits that greatly offset the loss of dead US military personnel in Afghanistan, not to mention the loss of global prestige in demonstrating their inability and/or unwillingness to act in support of preserving the lives of their own troops?

JANUARY 4, 2018 / 8:27 PM / UPDATED 8 HOURS AGO

U.S. places Pakistan on watch list for religious freedom violations
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. State Department has placed Pakistan on a special watch list for “severe violations of religious freedom,” it said on Thursday, ……………….

The State Department also said it had re-designated 10 other nations as “countries of particular concern” under the International Religious Freedom Act for having engaged in or tolerated egregious violations of religious freedom.

The re-designated countries were China, Eritrea, Iran, Myanmar, North Korea, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. They were re-designated on Dec. 22. ………………………


From Reuters:

U.S. places Pakistan on watch list for religious freedom violations

arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9414
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Terroristan - 4th Jan 2018

Postby arun » 05 Jan 2018 10:15

Afghan origin Zalmay Khalilzad, former U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan, Iraq and the United Nations, on the duplicitious “Double Game” of the Mohammadden Terrorism Fomenting Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

Calls among others for sanction on the ISI and individual Pakistanis who are involved in supporting terrorists, undertake unilateral U.S. military strikes on Terrosits in territory of the Islamic Republic, prepare to designate the Islamic Republic as a state sponsor of terrorism, suspend economic assistance. Completely misses the most effective of all measures in the US basket namely the embargoing of all sales of US military equipment and US spare parts including those sourced via users of US Military equipment like Turkey, Jordan, UAE and Saudi Arabia, and ditto from the NATO partners of the US like UK, France, Germany etc..

It's Time to End Pakistan's Double Game

Zalmay Khalilzad
January 3, 2018

President Trump, in his tweet about Pakistan, called a spade a spade. Since 9/11, Pakistan has consistently played a double game, providing just enough sporadic assistance in capturing members of Al Qaeda and logistical support for our forces to give an impression of helpfulness, while at the same time harboring, training, and assisting violent extremist groups such as the Taliban and the Haqqani network that have killed thousands of American, Coalition, and Afghan soldiers and an even greater number of innocent Afghan civilians.

Islamabad's duplicitous policy has been the single most important factor preventing success in Afghanistan. Ending Pakistani support for terrorists and insurgents is essential if we hope to reduce the terrorist threat in and from the region, contain the pernicious violence and achieve the negotiated settlement of the conflict in Afghanistan that will finally bring relief to the people of that country and allow our troops to come home.

After the Coalition toppled the Taliban in late 2001, there was a key moment—a golden hour when the United States could have achieved the conditions to win the War on Terror in the Afghanistan-Pakistan theater. President Bush declared that countries needed to choose whether they were “with us or against us,” which in the case of Pakistan meant that we required them to support Operation Enduring Freedom, which targeted Islamabad’s Taliban protégés, and cooperate in the hunt for Al Qaeda leaders.

But soon Pakistan concocted a complex strategy of cooperating on logistics and occasional help with hunting Al Qaeda leaders in exchange for massive U.S. aid, while simultaneously building out a clandestine program to reconstitute the Taliban. Yet, when evidence began to emerge that Pakistan was providing sanctuary and active support to the Taliban, the Bush administration did not follow through on its earlier "with us or against us" dictate but instead gave Islamabad what amounted to a pass.

The situation grew worse under President Obama. The administration enhanced U.S. diplomatic engagement and significantly increased the already generous economic and military assistance to Pakistan. The Pakistanis had indicated that, with enhanced military capability and economic inducements, they would move against the Afghan insurgents based on their territory. Then—continuing their earlier pattern—they took the aid but continued with sanctuary and support for the insurgents.

U.S. commanders developed a northern logistical route to reduce dependence on Pakistan for logistical access to landlocked Afghanistan, but the Obama administration did not confront Pakistan about its conduct. At the end of the day, Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff Michael Mullen openly stated that the Haqqani Group acted as “a veritable arm of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence agency,” the ISI, which is the intelligence service that operates support programs to the Afghan insurgent groups. The network not only carries out deadly attacks but also holds Americans and others as hostages in Pakistan.

With welcome clarity, in his speech announcing a new strategy for Central and South Asia, President Trump said that:

Pakistan has also sheltered the same organizations that try every single day to kill our people. We have been paying Pakistan billions and billions of dollars at the same time they are housing the very terrorists that we are fighting. But that will have to change, and that will change immediately. No partnership can survive a country’s harboring of militants and terrorists who target U.S. service members and officials. It is time for Pakistan to demonstrate its commitment to civilization, order, and to peace.

And the administration provided a list of actions that Pakistan should take.

Islamabad has been unresponsive. The Pakistani military leaders probably believe that the United States once again will get distracted by other crises and that U.S. officials will ultimately be sufficiently fooled by the occasional helpful action to let Pakistan continue to get away with its double game. However, his tweet indicates that President Trump seems prepared to break with this pattern. Now, the issue is how to implement that resolve. There will be a role for intensified diplomatic engagement, but to fully get Pakistan's attention the United States should also lead a multilateral effort to dramatically increase the costs to Pakistan, and especially to those parts of its security establishment that run Afghan policy. This should involve several steps:

First, sanction the ISI and individual Pakistanis who are involved in supporting insurgents and terrorists, including bans for them and their family members on travel to the United States and freezing of financial assets. U.S. intelligence agencies have the ability to identify everyone playing a role in Pakistan’s pro-terrorist programs, including senior officials. The United States should also designate key figures as supporters of terrorism. Washington should end Pakistan’s status as a major non-NATO ally, a designation that provides benefits such as preferential access for military technology and sales. We should also suspend all military assistance including military support funds.

Second, undertake unilateral U.S. military strikes on insurgent targets in Pakistani territory. While the United States has targeted Al Qaeda and the Pakistani Taliban with drone and other strikes, it has only on rare occasions attacked insurgents operating against the Coalition and Afghanistan. This has given such groups a free hand.

Third, prepare to designate Pakistan as a state sponsor of terrorism unless it changes course and abandons support for terrorists Such a designation will impose ongoing restrictions to assistance, bans on defense exports and sales, limitations on exports of dual use items, and other financial restrictions.

Fourth, suspend our economic assistance to Pakistan. This should include not just bilateral assistance but also multilateral assistance through institutions such as the IMF and World Bank, where the United States has major decision-making power. Also, the Treasury should prepare a campaign of escalating financial sanctions, like those imposed on Iran before the nuclear deal, that will curtail Pakistani access to the international financial system. The United States should encourage allies and partners around the world including Saudi Arabia—which has strong ties with Pakistan—to do the same. China has been supporting Pakistan to gain leverage against India and access to the Arabian Sea. We should press Beijing to make its support conditional on Islamabad ending its support for terrorists and extremists.

Fifth, together with the major regional victims of Pakistan’s actions, including Afghanistan and India, we should hold Islamabad accountable before regional and international organizations.

Lastly, it will be important to reach out to the people of Pakistan and document Pakistan’s support for terrorists and extremists that has brought about the change in our approach to their country. We should make it clear that we look forward to cooperation and partnership with Pakistan once its government abandons its policy of support for terror and extremism. As indicated by the January 3, 2018, response of former prime minister Nawaz Sharif to President Trump’s tweet, Pakistani civilian leaders are not united in their support of terrorists and question the wisdom of the military establishment’s policy. Sharif has called for abandoning “self-deception” by the Pakistani military and an end to policies that are leading to Pakistan’s international isolation. Sharif’s statement is important because his family dominates the country’s largest and most important province, Punjab, and his brother is the likely next prime minister of Pakistan. Punjabis dominate Pakistan. Opposition to the military’s policies of support for terrorists have been widespread among non-Punjabis especially the Pashtun and Baluch nationalists. The leaders of the previous civilian government, led by the Pakistan People’s Party, similarly opposed the military’s policy. The Trump administration should consider how to help mobilize civilian opponents of support for terror against the military supporters.

Some will argue that forceful actions like those listed above would be counterproductive, causing Pakistan to cut the supply lines that run across its territory. To this, one could answer that the need to supply Afghanistan is only necessary because Pakistan has kept the conflict at a constant boil. In essence, this has been a racket. While the best and cheapest routes do indeed go through Pakistan, there are acceptable alternatives. Fuel can be sourced in Central Asia. Personnel and munitions are brought in by air. The east-west route going through Georgia, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan or Kazakhstan, and Uzbekistan or the northern route through Russia and Central Asia can bring in other heavy equipment and materiel. It is notable that President Putin recently acknowledged that the situation in Afghanistan would be worse if the United States withdrew. This might be a matter on which the United States and Russia could cooperate.

If Pakistani support for the insurgents is curtailed, a definitive reduction of Afghanistan's conflict is achievable. With reduced levels of violence, Afghan forces should be able to handle the residual violence, greatly reducing the burden on U.S. and Coalition forces. Such a development in turn can lead the Taliban to realize that time is not on their side and that they should cooperate in a negotiated settlement, the outcome that the United States prefers. To achieve this turnaround, we need to remain firm and consistent in the imposition of coercive measures. And, in the event that Pakistan changes its policy, we should be ready to return to a positive relationship and encourage improved regional relations, including with Afghanistan, that respect legitimate Pakistani concerns.

Patience, positive incentives, and occasional feeble pressure have not induced Pakistan to end its double game. Yet, success against terrorism and extremism in Afghanistan and the region requires a change in Pakistan’s policy of support for such groups. To bring about such a change, the time has come to embrace a strategy that dramatically increases the cost to Pakistan of its current approach.


From National Interest here:

It's Time to End Pakistan's Double Game

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 22112
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Terroristan - 4th Jan 2018

Postby SSridhar » 05 Jan 2018 10:33

OK, the White House promised action before the end of the week.

US suspends over $1.1 bn security assistance to Pakistan - PTI

Now, let's watch how Pakistan responds.

I'm sure it is not going to take it lying down as China eggs it on from behind.

Reading below, the Americans sound very concilliatory indeed.

The United States has suspended more than $1.15 billion security assistance to Pakistan, accusing Islamabad of harbouring terror groups like the Afghan Taliban and the Haqqani Network within its border and showing unwillingness to take “decisive actions” against them.

The freezing of all security assistance to Pakistan comes days after President Donald Trump, in a new year tweet, accused Pakistan of giving nothing to the U.S. but “lies and deceit” and providing “safe haven” to terrorists in return for $33 billion aid over the last 15 years.

Prominent among the suspended amount include $255 million in Foreign Military Funding (FMF) for the fiscal year 2016 as mandated by the Congress.
Also Read


In addition, the Department of Defense has suspended the entire $900 million of the Coalition Support Fund (CSF) money to Pakistan for the fiscal year 2017.

“Today we can confirm that we are suspending national security assistance only, to Pakistan at this time until the Pakistani government takes decisive action against groups, including the Afghan Taliban and the Haqqani Network. We consider them to be destabilising the region and also targeting U.S. personnel. The U.S. will suspend that kind of security assistance to Pakistan,” State Department spokesperson Heather Nauert told reporters.

The U.S., she said, will not be delivering military equipment or transfer security-related funds to Pakistan unless it is required by law.

Referring to the new South Asia Policy announced by Trump in August, Nauert said despite a sustained high-level engagement by this administration with the government of Pakistan, the Taliban and the Haqqani Network continue to find sanctuary inside Pakistan as they plot to destabilise Afghanistan and also attack the US and allied personnel.

Funds suspended

Department of Defense Spokesperson Lt Col Mike Andrews told PTI that National Defense Authorisation Act 2017 provides up to $900 million for Pakistan in CSF.

Of these funds, $400 million can only be released if the Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis certifies that the Pakistan government has taken specific actions against the Haqqani Network.

“At this stage all Fiscal Year 17 CSF have been suspended, so that’s the entire amount of $900 million,”
Andrews said.

During an interaction with Pentagon reporters, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis did not respond to question if he was in favour of cutting off the aid to Pakistan.

“I prefer not to address that right now because it’s obviously still being formulated as policy. But I’ll give my advice on it to the President. I also agree on some confidentiality there,” he said.

According to a senior State Department official, no decision has been taken on the fate of $255 million security assistance to Pakistan for the fiscal year 2017.

The deadline for that is September 30 this year.

Mattis along with the Secretary of State Rex Tillerson have travelled to Pakistan in recent months to deliver tough message to their leadership. So, this action should not come as a surprise to them, Nauert said.

“They may say it’s a surprise, but what is no surprise is that the President has expressed his concerns, Secretary Tillerson has expressed his concerns, as has Secretary Mattis, and I imagine many other government officials having those conversations with Pakistan,” Nauert said.

Now, the money that has been suspended at this time does not mean that it will be suspended forever, she said.

“Pakistan has the ability to get this money back, in the future, but they have to take decisive action. They have to take decisive steps,” she added. “People have long asked, why don’t you do more about Pakistan, and I think this sort of answers that question. Obviously, Pakistan is important, an important relationship to the U.S., because together we can work hard to combat terrorism. Perhaps no other country has suffered more from terrorism than Pakistan and many other countries in that part of the region,” she said.

“They understand that, but still they aren’t taking the steps that they need to take in order to fight terrorism,” she said.

In an interaction with reporters, two senior state department officials asserted that such a move is not a punishment, but to provide an incentive to Pakistan to take more action against terrorist groups.

“We have not done anything that’s irreversible here. All this funding is available to Pakistan, if they undertake to take the measures that we’ve asked of them,” a senior administration official said in response to a question.

Noting that a country is going to react very differently to an irreversible step, the official hoped Pakistan would react differently that they would react to something which is reversible.

“Pakistanis have repeatedly said we don’t care about this money. What matters I think to the Pakistani’s is that it is the symbolism of doing this that it represents a deterioration of our relationship that they care about a great deal,” the official said.

“So we were hoping that this is an incentive that they don’t want to see this relationship deteriorate any further and that they’re going to commit to working with us to try to find a way to put it on a more solid footing,” the official added.

According to another senior administration official, as part of the latest decision, the U.S. will now not deliver military equipment or transfer security related funds to Pakistan unless required by law.

Exceptions may be made on a case by case basis if they’re determined to be critical for national security interests,” the official said, adding that this suspension is not a permanent cut off at this time.

“Security assistance funding and pending deliveries will be frozen but not cancelled as we continue to hope Pakistan will take the decisive action against terrorists the militant groups that we seek,” the official said, adding that the U.S. does not intend to reprogram any funds at this time.


This suspension includes FMF 2016 ($255 million) as well as prior year FMF that has not yet been spent or delivered.

Final figures are still being calculated, said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Suspension also includes coalition support funds for Pakistan.

Not at an impasse, says administration

However, the suspension does not include US civilian assistance programs in Pakistan.

“Pakistan remains an important country in the region and in the world and has historically been a vital partner for the US,” the official said.

The State Department official defended the decision not to suspend civilian assistance.

“We all have no reason to believe that civilian assistance represents any form of leverage. The elements of the Pakistani government that needs to take the steps that we’re talking about are not touched by civilian assistance. So, it wouldn’t make any sense to tie civilian assistance to those steps that we’re asking for,” the official said.


U.S. has been holding regular talks with Pakistan, the official said, adding that they do not believe that talks are an impasse as reported in some section of the media.

“We are having conversations on a weekly basis at senior levels with the Pakistanis. Our hope is not that they will see this as the end of the road,” the official said.

“Our hope is that they will see this as a further indication of this administration’s immense frustration with the trajectory of our relationship and that they need to be serious about taking the steps we asked in order to put it on a more solid footing,” the State Department Official said.

rrao
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 93
Joined: 13 Feb 2007 22:17

Re: Terroristan - 4th Jan 2018

Postby rrao » 05 Jan 2018 10:45

^^^ ISI stooges Taliban and ISIS will create a mayhem in Afghanistan to show the world that USA and NATO have failed to curb Terrorism!!!!

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 22112
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Terroristan - 4th Jan 2018

Postby SSridhar » 05 Jan 2018 10:53

rrao wrote:^^^ ISI stooges Taliban and ISIS will create a mayhem in Afghanistan to show the world that USA and NATO have failed to curb Terrorism!!!!

Their anger will also turn towards India. They will say that the US is doing this at India's behest. Let's wait & watch.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 22112
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Terroristan - 4th Jan 2018

Postby SSridhar » 05 Jan 2018 10:56

US decision to suspend security aid to Pakistan not related to release of Mumbai attack perpetrators - PTI
The Trump administration’s decision to suspend over $1.1 billion security assistance to Pakistan has nothing to do with Islamabad not taking action against Mumbai terror attack mastermind Hafiz Saeed, a U.S. official has said.

“We have certainly expressed our concern about the mastermind of the 2008 Mumbai attacks being let out of house arrest in Pakistan. To my knowledge, that has nothing to do with that,” State Department Spokesperson Heather Nauert told reporters at her daily news conference.


Nauert was responding to a question if the suspension of security assistance was related to Hafiz Saeed, the Mumbai attack mastermind who was released by Pakistan on November last year.

“There is a $10 million reward out for information leading to his re-arrest, the person who is the mastermind of the Mumbai attacks who was let go in Pakistan. So we’ve been very clear about our displeasure with that individual being let go, and that’s why we like to remind people that there is a $10 million Rewards for Justice program out for him,” Nauert said.

A senior State Department official told reporters that the U.S. continues to have conversation with Pakistan not only on Haqqani network, and Taliban, but also on India-centric terrorist groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed.

“We can’t continue to have a relationship that has a business as usual with Pakistan. This conversation is not new to this administration. There have been concerns about Pakistan’s issue of sanctuaries for the Haqqani network and the Taliban. But we have concerns about their nuclear programme. We have concerns about the ability of anti-Indian groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish e Mohammed to fundraise and operate,” the official who spoke on anonymity said.


Hafiz Saeed who was recently released from house arrest is among the issues that have been a feature of America’s conversation with Pakistan for many years.

“This administration felt that we needed to take additional steps to underscore that we’re not going to be able to continue the relationship on autopilot. We can’t continue a status quo relationship. We need to be able to move beyond these challenges and put our relationship on a more solid footing,” the official said.

Responding to a question, the official disputed the general impression coming out of Pakistan that it will not re-arrest Hafiz Saeed as being demanded by the U.S.

“I have not seen them say they’re not going to take any of these steps. What the Pakistani government has objected to is our characterisation of the situation on the ground. But I have never heard the Pakistani government say they’re not going to re-arrest Hafiz Saeed or they’re not going to prosecute him,” the official said.


Pakistan have clearly indicated that they are unhappy with the public rhetoric of the Trump administration.

“What I would say to that is we had a number of months where we have had very serious conversations and private discussions with them and have not seen the responsiveness that we need. And at some juncture they knew that we were going to take additional steps if they did not respond to the requests that we made to them,” the State Department official said.

Appreciating the help of Pakistan in the release of Coleman family, the official said at the same time if there is “an ongoing relationship between elements of the security forces in Pakistan and the group that took the Colin Boyle family hostage that is a concern.”

arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9414
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Terroristan - 4th Jan 2018

Postby arun » 05 Jan 2018 10:57

Full transcript of Background Briefing with Senior US State Department Officials on Security Assistance to Mohammadden Terrorism Fomenting Islamic Republic of Pakistan or more correctly its scaling back:

Background Briefing with Senior State Department Officials on Security Assistance to Pakistan

Special Briefing
Senior State Department Officials
Press Correspondents' Room
January 4, 2018

MODERATOR: All right, everybody. I’m glad we have a chance to go a little bit further on a background briefing now with [Senior State Department Official One] and [Senior State Department Official Two]. They are here to talk to us a little bit more about the announcement today regarding security assistance to Pakistan. This is on background, attributable to a senior State Department official.

And we will begin, I think, here with [Senior State Department Official One], who will be Senior State Department Official Number One.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Thanks, [Moderator]. So first of all, I want to say that so far, the reporting that I’ve seen – and I’ve seen about three or four articles – has been very good. So I want to make it clear that we’re not here because we saw any mistakes, but we wanted to make sure – because there is a lot of technicalities involving security assistance – that there aren’t any misunderstandings about what was briefed today.

I also am aware that a number of you have received from congressional contacts some briefing materials that we had provided in advance of briefing the press, and I thought it might be useful for me to reiterate those points at the – on the top of the briefing. And then, obviously, we’ll open up for questions.

So as the spokesperson said, the announcement today involved the suspension of security assistance to Pakistan. The United States will not deliver military equipment or transfer security-related funds to Pakistan unless required by law. Exceptions may be made on a case-by-case basis if they are determined to be critical to national security interests.

The suspension is not a permanent cutoff at this time. Security assistance funding impending deliveries will be frozen, but not canceled, as we continue to hope Pakistan will take the decisive action against terrorist and militant groups that we seek. We do not intend to reprogram any funds at this time. The suspension includes FY16 Foreign Military Financing, as well as prior year FMF that has not yet been spent or delivered. It also includes coalition support funds for Pakistan. U.S. civilian assistance programs in Pakistan are not included in the suspension.

QUESTION: What was that again?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: U.S. civilian assistance programs in Pakistan are not included in the suspension. Pakistan remains an important country in the region and in the world, and has historically been a vital partner for the U.S. The United States remains committed to the development of Pakistan as a stable and prosperous democracy, at peace with itself and its neighbors.

The United States acknowledges and appreciates Pakistan’s successful efforts to combat militants that threaten the Pakistani state, such as the Pakistani Taliban, al-Qaida, and ISIS. And Pakistan has sacrificed a significant amount, including tens of thousands of military and security officials, as well as civilians killed in the fight against terrorism over the last couple of years.

Pakistan military operations against these groups were done in Pakistan’s own interests, and the United States has strongly supported these efforts with billions in security aid to the Pakistani military. The United States has conveyed to Pakistan specific and concrete steps that it could take toward these ends, and we stand ready to work together with Pakistan to combat terrorist groups without distinction. We will continue these conversations with the Pakistani Government in private.

So with that, I think we’ll just open it up for questions.

QUESTION: How much money?

QUESTION: Can we go through – just to make sure that we understand precisely what you can tell us about what exactly has been suspended. So you said it includes the FY16 FMF. According to the latest CRS report, that’s $255 million.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: That is correct.

QUESTION: Is that the amount that was suspended in August?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: In September. That’s correct.

QUESTION: In September? Okay.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: That’s correct. Yeah, the Secretary – in the last couple years of appropriations, there’s a requirement for him to certify --

QUESTION: Quite.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: -- for appropriate cooperation on CT and whatnot, or to waive it in national security interests. And what he did this time was to – those were two-year funds, FY16. So they were appropriated in ’16; that’s why they did – they were not going to expire until September 30 of this past year.

QUESTION: Okay.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: So they were on the verge of expiration, again, but he made the decision to go ahead and obligate those based on a waiver --

QUESTION: Right.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: -- a national security waiver, but gave direction to the Department of Defense, who was our implementer on these, to withhold placing any of those funds on actual contact – contracts.

QUESTION: Okay. So that amount, that 255, was already known in September.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: That is correct.

QUESTION: So is any FMF from – you then said – well, when you say any FMF from FY17 being suspended --

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: FY17, again, isn’t a – no, FY17, again, it’s almost a carbon copy of ’16. The Congress appropriated in two-year funding.

QUESTION: Yeah.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: So it was appropriated in – this past fiscal year. We have two years, in fact, to do that. So that – those funds do not expire until September 30th of the current year, 2018. So – and there’s a very similar – in fact, I think it’s almost the exact same requirement for a certification or waiver – no decision has been made on those funds --

QUESTION: Only --

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: -- nor – nor -- FY17 --

QUESTION: Only FY17. And --

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: -- nor does any decision have to be taken until prior to 30 September, 2018.

QUESTION: And do you --

QUESTION: But those types of --

QUESTION: And do you have any estimate – just – sorry, last --

QUESTION: Those funds have been set aside but they hadn’t been spent?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: No, not set aside. I mean, it’s like any other two-year funding. I mean, you have a period of time – most of FMF is one-year funding, and it is obligated upon – it’s – actually, it’s one of the easiest ones. It’s obligated upon apportionment to the Defense Security Cooperation Agency, who is our principal – who is our implementer for FMF, DSCA, on that.

So you have ESF – all sorts of other [inaudible] are two-year funding, so there is no requirement – it’s not set aside, it’s just no action has been taken on it right --

QUESTION: Can you just say – I’m Nick Wadhams from Bloomberg – setting aside the 255 million that we already know about, how much money is affected by this announcement today?

QUESTION: How much more than the 255?

QUESTION: Right.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Well, you’ve got all the prior year and whatnot and all that, but that’s – we’re still working through the details of exactly what that’s going to – what’s going to be captured by --

QUESTION: So can I just jump on that? So the fact that you guys are rolling out this announcement today but are unable to tell us what the numbers are suggests that this was basically thrown together haphazardly to justify the President’s tweet as opposed to a thought-out policy process.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: This has been part of an ongoing conversation, and [Senior State Department Official One] can provide additional thing on the – why we’re doing this. But this is – this has been an ongoing conversation not only within the U.S. interagency but with Pakistan. Well, actually, over many, many years, and then specifically over the last couple of months. So we’re not prepared in this forum to provide any of the details on implementation numbers, anything like that, but I would take issue with the fact that --

QUESTION: So when you say “in this forum,” do you mean that you know the number, but you’re just not telling us what it is? Or do you not know what the number is?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: I’m not prepared to address those – the details of implementation right now.

QUESTION: But when --

QUESTION: Could you tell us how much CSF was frozen in the previous year?

QUESTION: When you said it’s a “mirror image,” it’s – do you mean it’s another 255 for this year?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Yes, yeah. That’s right. That’s right.

QUESTION: FY17.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: FY17 – exactly, it was $255 million. It wasn’t --

QUESTION: And it’ll expire in September --

QUESTION: But you’re not making – but you’re not making any --

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: It was appropriated.

QUESTION: Yeah.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: And has not been obligated.

QUESTION: It’s just not been authorized.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: That’s – no, obligated.

QUESTION: Obligated. Okay.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: It’s been appropriated. So the fund – the Congress said, “Here you go, Executive Branch, Secretary of State. There’s 255 million in FY17; you do not have to obligate it.”

QUESTION: But you haven’t taken action on that.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: No action’s been taken.

QUESTION: So that isn’t suspended? That’s just --

QUESTION: So you are not taking actions --

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: No, that’s not saying – that – no action has been taken.

QUESTION: Got it.

QUESTION: So except for the – and I asked a question about reimbursement of coalition forces’ money --

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: That’s DOD money.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: I would refer those questions to the Department of Defense.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

QUESTION: But she said that that’s included.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: It is included.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: That is included. It is included. But details --

QUESTION: But other than that, is there anything else beyond the 255 that’s actually being frozen – suspended?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: As per the announcement, prior year FMF, that currently has not been expended, and deliveries, are part of that.

QUESTION: How much you think?

QUESTION: Do you know how much of that --

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: I’m not – I’m not prepared to --

QUESTION: Are we talking hundreds of millions, ten million? I mean, it’s very hard for us to write a cogent, accurate story and reflect what this policy means without knowing what kind of ballpark we’re --

QUESTION: Yeah, because we were just told that this is more – that the additional amount is more than 255 million. So it would be the old 255 that we knew about, plus at least 255 million more. I mean, we were just told that by someone here.

QUESTION: Or at least something. He didn’t say how much.

QUESTION: Is that not accurate?

QUESTION: No.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: I’m not tracking your 255 more.

QUESTION: No, that wasn’t it. That wasn’t part of --

QUESTION: That’s what I was told.

QUESTION: Well, we were told in the briefing that it was the 255 plus some X number, and they couldn’t tell us what. So this --

QUESTION: What is – had said the figure was northward of --

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: We’re – yeah, we’re just not going to be able to provide additional numbers right now.

QUESTION: Can you give us a ballpark? You’re on background here.

QUESTION: Could you tell us how much CSF was spent last year?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Yes. Last year it was --

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: How much what?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Yeah, how much the CSF was --

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Oh, CSF. I don’t know. For Department of Defense, I don’t know. I don’t know.

QUESTION: So according to this CRS report, CSF for FY16 was at – estimated at 550 million. Is that right?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: You’d have to ask DOD. It sounds right to me, but I would not – I would ask DOD.

QUESTION: Is IMET money?

QUESTION: Okay. So here’s a simple question. Is any FY --

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: IMET is very small amounts of money.

QUESTION: Is any FY17 money implicated by this decision?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: FY17 CSF money is implicated in this decision.

QUESTION: Is? Okay. And then one other thing – yeah.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: And – but as [Senior State Department Official Two] said – and I – I mean, this is something that I really want to reiterate: Everything that we’re talking about is reversible.

QUESTION: Right.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: These are suspensions in assistance. [Senior State Department Official Two] keeps emphasizing there are things that we do not have to make a decision on right now, and we will not make decisions --

QUESTION: Right.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: -- until we have to. So CSF is a perfect example. That money is – they don’t have to make a decision right now, so they will make a decision when they have to make a decision.

QUESTION: How much money has been appropriated, and how much money has been given?

QUESTION: Obligated.

QUESTION: Obligated?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Over what, over --

QUESTION: Over the last two-year window that you’re discussing. How much --

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: We’d have to get back to you on the – the two – why two-year --

QUESTION: Well, when I asked you --

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: -- because we’re not talking about a two-year window. There is money – there is pipeline money that goes past – earlier than the last two years.

QUESTION: Okay.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Yeah. We don’t need to get into all the technical terms, but it’s obligated once it’s transferred to Department of Defense.

QUESTION: Right.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Okay. So FY16, the 255 is over there.

QUESTION: Okay.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: It’s obligated. It’s sitting in an account. But again, the Secretary of State made a decision not to apply any of those funds to contracts. So it’s just – it’s just sitting. But it’s obligated. That money is good for – well, FMF is good for seven years on that.

FY17, which is two-year money – again, just to reiterate, no decisions have – that’s – no decisions have been made on that, nor does a decision have to be taken by the Secretary until 30 September of --

QUESTION: And when you say the Secretary, you mean --

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Secretary of State. Secretary --

QUESTION: -- this Secretary, not Mattis?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Yeah. No, these are – CSF is a Department of Defense authority. Foreign Military Financing is – that’s the Secretary of State, under Title 22 of the U.S. Code and whatnot. So there’s – that’s an important point, because whenever you hear arms transfers and whatnot, we deal with it all the time with – within the interagency, about – “well, that’s secretary of defense.” Those authorities rest with the Secretary of State.

QUESTION: Which is why you all should know the numbers.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: We’re not prepared to talk to it at this point.

QUESTION: So just to be – just to understand – so is counter-narcotics, CN funding, implicated by today’s decisions?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Again, as we – what was noted here is Foreign Military Financing --

QUESTION: Yeah. And CSF.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: -- and CSF.

QUESTION: Nothing else?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Those are the two that have been identified.

QUESTION: Not IMET, not – okay, great.

QUESTION: Is IMET – I mean, it’s a small number, but is it suspended or not suspended?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: As of right now, it’s not suspended.

QUESTION: So the exception that you guys have allowed yourself in the future for if there’s a national security need to (inaudible) --

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Right.

QUESTION: -- all of our security assistance to Pakistan is predicated on advancing our national security. So I don’t understand how all of this would --

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Right. So I mean, I think the exact language – but I mean, you’re right. I mean, we don’t spend assistance that we do not believe advances our national security. The issue is whether it advances critical national security needs, and that’s going to be a much more limited subset than the overarching amount. There are – there are certain types of things that we may want to continue to do because they substantially advance U.S. interests, regardless of Pakistan, that we may continue to do.

QUESTION: But what precipitated this decision, then?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Well, so I was going to go --

QUESTION: What incidents --

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: I was going to come to that because the gentleman in the back had alluded to that question as well. The President made the speech announcing the policy in August, August 21st of last year. It had always been our intention to evaluate on an ongoing basis Pakistan’s responsiveness to our requests for support on the South Asia strategy; and as we evaluated, if we felt that Pakistan was not addressing the requests that we had made, that we would take further actions to put pressure on Pakistan or to underscore our dissatisfaction with their lack of responsiveness.

QUESTION: What are – what are your metrics?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Well, I’m not going to get into the details of the metrics or the details of the asks. But what I can say for sure is that we have been detailed and have had numerous conversations with the Pakistanis. I mean, I’m sure those of you who have been following Pakistan know that both Secretary Mattis and Secretary Tillerson visited Pakistan over the last two months, as did General Votel. The Pakistani foreign minister was here, I think in September. We have had – we had an interagency team go out also in the fall. And in each of these conversations, we had detailed conversations with the Pakistanis about what they could do to support the South Asia strategy, and specifically on the issues that we’ve been focusing on, which are the allowance of safe havens for the Taliban and the Haqqani Network.

So they know exactly what it is that we’ve asked of them, and the evaluation to date has been that they have done – they have not taken decisive action on our requests. And so the decision was made to take this step as one step to indicate that we cannot continue business as usual with the Pakistani Government if they are not going to be a partner with us.

QUESTION: Can I just say something for the record?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Sure. For your record, not for mine.

QUESTION: For my record. (Laughter.) For my record, and I believe for some of my colleagues. In the past, we would have been much better informed about all of this because we used to travel with the Secretary of State, and we would have been on the plane to and from Pakistan, and we would have been on the ground with him for that brief visit.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Noted.

QUESTION: Can you – can you tell us when you notified Pakistan and how you notified them of this?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: I’m not going to get into private diplomatic discussions, but I will say that Pakistan was briefed in general terms that this decision was going to be announced. And in the coming days, we will be having further private conversations about the details and reiterating the steps that we would like them to take in order to be able to put our relationship on more solid footing.

QUESTION: So over these numerous conversations over months if not more than a year, why are they not living up to this? What is the sticking point in what you want?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: I mean, you’d have to ask the Pakistanis why they’re not living up to it.

QUESTION: But I want to hear it from your perspective.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Yeah. What I would say is that the Pakistanis have repeatedly underscored that they support the South Asia strategy and they support our objectives in the strategy, but they have publicly disagreed with us on what we believe is happening on the ground. I mean, it is no surprise to any of you because I’m sure you’ve heard the Pakistanis say it over and – repeatedly, that they deny that there are safe havens. They deny that they provide any kind of sanctuary to the Haqqani Network or to the Taliban. And they state that their leverage over the Haqqani Network and the Taliban is very limited.

We disagree. We believe that there is significant evidence that leadership of the Haqqani Network resides inside Pakistan and is able to plan and execute from Pakistan attacks inside Afghanistan. So the disagreement is much more about those facts than it is on our overarching goals in the strategy. And we need them to address these sanctuaries in order for us to be able to be enabled to succeed in Afghanistan.

We need Pakistan to succeed in South Asia. I mean, Pakistan is a critical country. It’s about to become the fifth largest country in the world, a nuclear-armed country. Success in Afghanistan relies on better – the Afghanistan-Pakistan relations, and it relies on Pakistan being an active, constructive player in the South Asia strategy. And although they have repeatedly stated that they want to be, the actions that we need of them so far have not taken place.

QUESTION: So the –

QUESTION: Can I just ask you –

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Yes.

QUESTION: Pakistan’s argument is that CSF money is a reimbursement for money they’ve already spent to assist U.S. – provide logistical support for the U.S. forces and things like that. So what’s the advantage in denying Pakistan money that is a reimbursement for money – how do you ensure further cooperation if you say, hey, we’re not going to pay you money that you have already spent?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Well, on the CSF question, I’m going to refer you to DOD because it’s their – it’s their account and they’re the ones who administer it. The broader question, which is why deny assistance, I mean, you could – one could make the same argument that you just made about FMF as well. I mean, we provide FMF to Pakistan to enable their counterterrorism and their counterinsurgency capabilities, which are things that we need them to do.

The bottom line is that we can’t continue to have a relationship that has business as usual with Pakistan. This conversation is not new to this administration. There have been concerns about Pakistan’s – and I focused on the issue of sanctuaries for the Haqqani Network and the Taliban, but we have concerns about their nuclear program; we have concerns about the ability of anti-India groups like Lashkar-e Tayyiba and Jaish-e Mohammed to fundraise and operate; and Hafiz Saeed, the head of Lashkar-e Tayyiba, who was recently released from house arrest. All of these issues have been a feature of our relationship or a feature of our conversation with Pakistan for many years, and this administration felt that we needed to take additional steps to underscore that we’re not going to be able to continue the relationship on autopilot; we can’t continue a status quo relationship; we need to be able to move beyond these challenges and put our relationship on more solid footing.

QUESTION: So last year --

QUESTION: In the last few days we have seen the statements coming out from Pakistani leaders and – particularly that they are not going to take actions that you are asking, for instance for LET, Hafiz Saeed. So what are you going to do then?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Well, I – I mean, I have not seen them say they’re not going to take any of these steps. As I said, I think what the Pakistani Government has objected to is our characterization of the situation on the ground. But I have never heard the Pakistani Government say they’re not going to re-arrest Hafiz Saeed or they’re not going to prosecute him, so I don’t think that what you’re saying – I have not seen those statements.

The Pakistanis have clearly indicated that they are unhappy with our public rhetoric. What I would say to that is we had a number of months where we have had very senior conversations and private discussions with them and have not seen the responsiveness that we need. And at some juncture, they knew that we were going to take additional steps if they did not respond to the requests that we made of them.

QUESTION: So --

QUESTION: In addition to this 255 million, what are the other steps that you are taking now?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: I’m not going to discuss further steps today.

QUESTION: And so you --

QUESTION: But are there any other steps beside this?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: We are always evaluating our relationship, as we would with any country, and looking what we might do to strengthen that relationship. But I’m not going to go into details.

QUESTION: The administration seemed pretty pleased last year when the Pakistanis helped get this American couple, American-Canadian couple, out.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Yes.

QUESTION: What changed? I mean, was there any incident or things that --

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: No. One very positive step is – it’s a data point. It’s not the totality of the relationship. Absolutely, Pakistan’s support for securing the release of the Coleman-Boyle family was a very positive step, and we appreciated it. We said publicly we appreciated it.

But at the same time, if there is an ongoing relationship between elements of the security forces and Pakistan and the group that took the Coleman-Boyle family hostage, that is a concern. I mean, that’s always going to be a concern. And it’s always going to be an obstacle in our relationship.

QUESTION: So you obviously have reason to believe that this action will spur them to do more, and that would be greater than the risk of them being so furious about this that it further hurts cooperation.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Our hope, and I won’t say our expectation, but our hope, is that Pakistan will understand our seriousness, that they appreciate the value of this relationship – which they clearly have indicated that they do, and I believe that they genuinely do – and that they will see what – they will look at what additional they can do to try to address our needs, or our – not our needs, our requests.

QUESTION: But you don’t see this as being risky that this will just erode the cooperation that you want to have?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: I think both countries are committed to this relationship. And we are doing our best – both countries are doing our best – to try to move the relationship forward on – and put it onto more positive footing. That being said, we need to see Pakistan take additional steps.

QUESTION: What’s the rationale for not cutting civilian programs?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: The civilian programs benefit the Pakistani people in a way that – first of all, we have no reason to believe that civilian assistance represents any form of leverage. The elements of the Pakistani Government that need to take the steps that we’re talking about are not touched by civilian assistance, and so it wouldn’t make any sense to tie civilian assistance to those steps that we’re asking for. I mean, that’s the main reason.

QUESTION: What’s the mechanism for the exemptions you discussed? Occasionally there will be exemptions to this in the --

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: We’re going to look at all of the cases and we’re going to decide what cases we believe need to be forward is --

QUESTION: Well, what level is that – does – is that the Secretary decides that?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: We’re not going to talk about the internal deliberations.

QUESTION: How many exemptions are there going to be? Is it going to be – is all this money going to go to them?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: We haven’t – we haven’t worked through that so I’m not going to – but – I’m not going to – I’m just not going to answer that.

QUESTION: Is the legal criterion for an exemption critical, critical national security?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: I would not call critical national security a legal term.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: It’s not a legal term.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: It’s a – it’s a policy term.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: It’s a policy decision. It’s not --

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: The goal was to ensure that we – everybody understood that it was – as the gentleman in the back said, all FMF, we believe, advances our national security interests. It needed to be a level of criteria that was higher than that.

QUESTION: Okay.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: But it’s going to be a policy decision. It’s not going to be a legal decision.

QUESTION: So did you feel like talks were at an impasse and --

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: No, we don’t feel that talks are at an impasse. Absolutely not. We are having conversations on a weekly basis at senior levels with the Pakistanis. So our hope is not that they will see this as the end of the road. Our hope is that they will see this as a further indication of this administration’s immense frustration with the trajectory of our relationship, and that they need to be serious about taking the steps we’ve asked in order to put it on more solid footing.

QUESTION: So it’s only CSF and FMF funding; is that correct? It’s not IMET? It’s not NADR. It’s not – I mean, this that we’ve got shows --

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Not NADR, not – yes. Those are not security ‑‑

QUESTION: CSF and FMF. We can – we can just – and then we can extrapolate. Okay, CSF was 550 million for 2016 --

QUESTION: Can you give any sort of broad historical context at least, maybe – or maybe just looking at the last 10 years of what – what change you see in the funding that you’re providing this year or the suspension of funding that you’re doing compared to past attempts by administrations? Is this a bigger step than has been taken ever before in – as far as what you are doing in suspending funds? I mean, obviously this has been attempted in the past.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Well, I don’t think you can make that kind of comparison because, I mean, for example – and [Senior State Department Official Two] probably have – you have better detail on this. But when we suspended, for example, the delivery of F-16s in like ’89, ’90, that was a very different circumstance. I mean, there was no off-ramp there. Once the Pressler Amendment was invoked, that assistance was cut off. There was no mechanism by which – so it’s comparing apples and oranges. We have not done anything that’s irreversible here. All of this funding is available to Pakistan if they undertake to take the measures that we’ve asked of them.

So I would just avoid historical comparisons because I think many of the historical comparisons will be irreversible steps. And obviously, a country is going to react very differently to an irreversible step – whatever the volume that we’re talking about – differently than they would react to something which is reversible.

QUESTION: Building on what --

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: We’re hoping this is an incentive, not a – we’re hoping that Pakistan will see this as an incentive, not a punishment. The Pressler Amendment was a punishment or – I mean, you can call it a punishment – for having a launched nuclear program.

MODERATOR: We have time for two more questions. Rich.

QUESTION: Building on what Abbie asked, since 9/11 has there been a situation where Pakistan has responded positively to a suspension or a withholding of funding? Is this something that gives – is this maneuver – has it been tried before and have you gotten positive results from it before? Or what surrounds your thinking as to why this is going to work this time?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: I’m not – I don’t feel comfortable making a historical comparison. What I said before was Pakistan clearly values this relationship. I would see – from a Pakistani perspective, what I think would matter most is not the actual assistance but – because Pakistan has a huge economy – but – and the Pakistanis have repeatedly said – I mean, if you’ve been following their statements, they’ve repeatedly said, “We don’t care about this money.” What matters, I think, to the Pakistanis is the – is the symbolism of doing this, that it represents a deterioration of our relationship, something that they care about a great deal.

And so as I said, I’m hoping that – we’re hoping that this is an incentive that they don’t want to see this relationship deteriorate any further and that they’re going to commit to working with us to try to find a way to put it on more solid footing. But I mean, I just – I personally don’t have a strong enough historical perspective on this to be able to answer your question. I’m sure others who – like in the academic world who have been following this for 20 years could give you a better answer.

MODERATOR: Okay. How about Conor, last question.

QUESTION: Given China’s growing involvement in Pakistan and the growing investment in Pakistan, how are you so confident then that they’re – they still appreciate the relationship and they still believe in that symbolism?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Well, number one, we have no problem with Pakistan and China’s relationship. I mean, China has invested a significant amount and plans to invest a significant amount more, and then Pakistan is in need of economic development and economic growth. Insofar as China is able to contribute to that, that will contribute to Pakistan’s stability and security and economic well-being, and that’s perfectly – I mean, that’s not only fine, but that’s a good thing.

Pakistan and China have had a longstanding and very strong relationship. That relationship has never come at the expense of U.S.-Pakistan relations. I think Pakistan clearly understands that our relationship and what we bring to the table internationally is different than China, and they shouldn’t want to choose between China and the Pakistan – and the United States. They should want to be able to build – and I believe they do want to build strong relations with both countries. But they’re – what they get from China is not necessarily going to be the same thing they get from the U.S. and vice versa. I mean, we’re not directing – we don’t have the capacity to direct state banks and state companies to invest $55 billion in China – in Pakistan, but at the same time, China does not have the capacity to provide the highest-quality military equipment in the world.

MODERATOR: Thank you, all, everybody. Thank you, [Senior State Department Official One], thank you, [Senior State Department Official Two], and we’ll wrap. There will be a transcript available and --

QUESTION: Thanks for doing this.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Good, my pleasure.

QUESTION: Thank you very much.

QUESTION: Yeah, thanks a lot.

QUESTION: Can I give you a really quick summary to make sure I got it correct? It affects only FMF and CSF?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: And PCCF if you want to be very technical on this.

QUESTION: Really – yeah. Secondly, on FMF, it affects FY 2016, the 255 billion, plus --

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Million.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Million.

QUESTION: Million, excuse me.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Yeah.

QUESTION: Plus unspent prior years.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: That is correct.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Exactly.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Yes.

QUESTION: It does not, however, affect FY17 because you don’t have to make any decisions on that yet.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: No decision has been made.

QUESTION: Got it.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: No – I wouldn’t say affect or not affect, said no decision has been made for FY17.

QUESTION: Got it. And then thirdly, on CSF, if I remember correctly, you said that it affects both FY16 and potentially ’17?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: FY16 – you need to go back to DOD on these questions because FY16, I believe – but I do not want you to take it out of my mouth – I believe that ‘16 has already been --

QUESTION: Set.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: -- the amount that was provided to Pakistan has already been provided to Pakistan. The amount that isn’t going to be provided hasn’t been provided.

QUESTION: Sure.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: And I believe nothing has been decided on FY17.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: And they have all sorts of constraints and limits and things on that too. So again, really --

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Yes, there’s sub-categories.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: To be precise, you need to go to Department of Defense.

QUESTION: But can you just tell us generally on CSF, the way that generally works is they ask for a reimbursement at the end of the year, right, as opposed to not, like, in January? Is that --

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: No, it’s – it was – I think it’s been done quarterly or semi-annually or whatnot. But again, process-wise and mechanics and what the constraints are, how much is there, how much not – I mean, it’s a whole different appropriation.

QUESTION: These are funds that they applied for, that Pakistan applied for?

QUESTION: So you can’t even say what fiscal years it applies to? You can’t even say well, yeah, it would apply to FY16?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: I can tell you what I believe to be the case, but you can’t use it.

QUESTION: Yes.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: You have to ask DOD. I believe it’ll only apply right now to FY17 because I don’t believe that there are any unspent prior year monies out of CSF.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: What’s that – what’s that figure, FY17?

MODERATOR: Okay. We got to wrap it up here, guys. Sorry. Okay.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Yes.

MODERATOR: Thank you, all.


From the US State Department Website:

Background Briefing with Senior State Department Officials on Security Assistance to Pakistan

arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9414
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Terroristan - 4th Jan 2018

Postby arun » 05 Jan 2018 11:16

^^^ Note the US has left a two barn doors open for resuming the payment of Jaziya to Major Non NATO Ally the Mohammadden Terrorism Fomenting Islamic Republic of Pakistan. The first is where "required by law" and the second where "critical to national security interests".

The weasel words:

"The United States will not deliver military equipment or transfer security-related funds to Pakistan unless required by law. Exceptions may be made on a case-by-case basis if they are determined to be critical to national security interests."

Mort Walker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6608
Joined: 31 May 2004 11:31
Location: The rings around Uranus.

Re: Terroristan - 4th Jan 2018

Postby Mort Walker » 05 Jan 2018 11:57

^^^The Trump administration at the top level is wanting to end the aid and just below that at the upper political level there is the need to continue business as usual. Therefore the path for resuming payments is open. If the Pakis block air and surface transport to Afghanistan, then this will be serious, but listening to some paki commentators that is not happening and only their media and lackeys are protesting.

If Pak blocks access, then the US can freeze RAPE assets outside Pakiland. Truthfully, many of us won't be satisfied until Trump orders the blockade of Karachi and carpet bombs the TSP RATS with B-52s, B-1Bs and B-2s. What has happened so far is indeed encouraging.

arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9414
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Terroristan - 4th Jan 2018

Postby arun » 05 Jan 2018 11:58

Excerpt from US State Department Daily Press Briefing regards US plan to suspend military aid to the Mohammadden Terrorism Fomenting Islamic republic of Pakistan:

Department Press Briefing - January 4, 2018

Heather Nauert
Spokesperson
Department Press Briefing
Washington, DC
January 4, 2018

QUESTION: Sure. Let’s start with Pakistan. So everyone is very confused about what exactly you guys are doing on aid to Pakistan. Are we cutting all of it off? Is it just security assistance? Is it just the $255 million in Foreign Military Sales that was already announced, or are you doing something new?

MS NAUERT: Okay. As you recall, a few months ago we announced the suspension of $255 million in the Foreign Military Assistance. That’s basically the money that we would provide to Pakistan; Pakistan then, in return, uses that money to buy equipment, military equipment, from the United States. That was all suspended. That was announced back in August.

Today we can confirm that we are suspending national security – or, excuse me, we are suspending security assistance, security assistance only, to Pakistan at this time until the Pakistani Government takes decisive action against groups, including the Afghan Taliban and the Haqqani Network. We consider them to be destabilizing the region and also targeting U.S. personnel. The United States will suspend that kind of security assistance to Pakistan.

QUESTION: What’s the dollar figure on the amount of security assistance?

MS NAUERT: So we are still working through some of those dollar numbers right now. As soon as I have a number for you, I can certainly get that to you. I have some more information that I can provide you.

QUESTION: Sure. And given that you’re suspending that aid but you’re not – you’re not reprogramming it to something else, Pakistan could still end up getting all of this money, assuming they meet your criteria. Is that right?

MS NAUERT: So – okay. Let me provide you with some more information and I’ll take – I’ll take some of your additional questions on this because I know you have a lot of interest in this.

The President announced his South Asia policy in August of 2017. You all remember that. He made it clear that no partnership can survive a country’s harboring of militants and terrorists who target U.S. service members and officials. It has been more than four months since the President’s speech, and despite a sustained high-level engagement by this administration with the Government of Pakistan, the Taliban and the Haqqani Network continue to find sanctuary inside Pakistan as they plot to destabilize Afghanistan and also attack U.S. and allied personnel.

Pakistan has greatly suffered from terrorism, and the security services have been effective in combatting the groups that target Pakistani interests such as al-Qaida, ISIS, and the Pakistani Taliban.

We have now worked closely with Pakistan against these groups. Now, just as we have made Pakistan’s enemies our own, we need Pakistan to deny safe haven to or lawfully detain those terrorists and militants who threaten U.S. interests. The United States stands ready to work with Pakistan in combatting all terrorists without distinction, and we hope to be able to renew and deepen our bilateral security relationship when Pakistan demonstrates its willingness to aggressively confront the Afghan Taliban, the Haqqani Network, and other terrorist and militant groups that operate from within its country.

So we will not be delivering military equipment or transfer security-related funds to Pakistan unless it is required by law. I think that part answers your questions. There may be some exemptions that are made on a case-by-base basis if they’re determined to be critical to national security interests.

QUESTION: Can you give any more details on what kind of military equipment you are not going to be providing?

MS NAUERT: So when we talk about military equipment, that would be something that’s solely under DOD when you talk about that portion of the things. There’s the foreign – the one that I mentioned earlier, the $255 million that we announced back in August. That was a suspension. Whatever it is that that country had bought from us in the past or would buy from in the future, I don’t have the details in front of me. But that’s something that’s kind of considered old news because it came out in August.

QUESTION: No, no, I know. I’m interested in what’s new here, and therefore you just said that you are going to suspend deliveries of military equipment and that you’re going – or transfers of security-related funding. And what I’m interested in is just a simple description of – are we talking about spare aircraft parts? Are you talking about ammunition? Are you talking about guns? Just broadly, what are you talking about?

MS NAUERT: Yeah. Again, I’m not going to be able to get into the specifics of that. A lot of that is under DOD so I just won’t have the details about that, but I can refer you to them.

QUESTION: Can I follow up?

MS NAUERT: Hi, Andrea.

QUESTION: Hi. Are we talking about more than the 255?

MS NAUERT: Yes.

QUESTION: You’re talking about additional --

MS NAUERT: Yes.

QUESTION: -- millions or hundreds of millions.

MS NAUERT: Yes. So the 250 --

QUESTION: Do you have a dollar figure?

MS NAUERT: No, that’s what I said. We’re still working out those numbers. These are obviously big numbers. We want to get you the right numbers.

Originally, back in August, we had talked about $255 million in the Foreign Military Assistance. That is the money that goes --

QUESTION: FMF. Right?

MS NAUERT: FMF. That is the money that goes to --

QUESTION: Is that a one-year number?

MS NAUERT: That was a one-year number. This, however, will be limited to – or will include 2016 FMF as well as prior year FMS – FMF that has not been spent or delivered. That would be somewhere north, I believe, of $255 million. That’s one thing. That’s the old piece of news.

The new piece of news is that we are suspending the security assistance, and that is something that falls under Department of Defense.

QUESTION: And have any of the recent attacks in Afghanistan, some of which have resulted in the deaths of Americans, been attributed to groups that – to Haqqani and other groups that are harbored by Pakistan?

MS NAUERT: Yeah. I mean, that is certainly a fair question. And some of that would be under intelligence, which I wouldn’t be able to get into, and some of what would be probably still under investigation by the Department of Defense.

QUESTION: Okay. I guess I’m trying to – I’m trying to figure out how this evaluation was reached. What is the failure of Pakistan that has caused this decision today?

MS NAUERT: Well, this is something that should not come as a surprise to Pakistan because the President, Secretary Tillerson, and Secretary Mattis have all had conversations with Pakistani officials alerting them to our concerns that Pakistan has not done enough to detain, to take care of – and when I say “take care of,” I mean round up – terrorist and militant groups operating from within Pakistan. We’ve had a series of discussions with Pakistan about that, telling Pakistan that they need to take more decisive action.

Now, the money that has been suspended at this time does not mean that it will be suspended forever. Pakistan has the ability to get this money back, if you will, in the future, but they have to take decisive action. They have to take decisive steps. People have long asked, why don’t you do more about Pakistan, and I think this sort of answers that question. Obviously, Pakistan is important, an important relationship to the United States, because together we can work hard to combat terrorism. Perhaps no other country has suffered more from terrorism than Pakistan and many other countries in that part of the region. They understand that, but still they aren’t taking the steps that they need to take in order to fight terrorism.

Hi, Michelle.

QUESTION: And just – and thank you. And the mechanics of this, is this a situation where the U.S. listed certain things that it wanted Pakistan to do and it failed to do them? Or in taking away this funding, is the U.S. now saying here, are the exact things we want you to do to actually get this back?

MS NAUERT: A lot of this would fall under some of the private diplomatic conversations that the U.S. Government is having with Pakistan, so a lot of that stuff I’m not going to be able to share because that would give away information to people we don’t want to have that information. A lot of these are very sensitive matters, but we have been clear with Pakistan what they need to do.

QUESTION: But what – can you say that Pakistan was warned that this was – this specifically was going to happen if they didn’t do something?

MS NAUERT: I think this was not a surprise to Pakistan. They may say it’s a surprise, but what is no surprise is that the President has expressed his concerns, Secretary Tillerson has expressed his concerns, as has Secretary Mattis, and I imagine many other government officials having those conversations with Pakistan.

(Sneeze.)

QUESTION: Bless you. Did Secretary Tillerson’s call on --

MS NAUERT: Bless you. Yeah.

QUESTION: Heather, did the Secretary deliver this news directly to the Pakistani Government, and is – did the response he get – and is the Pakistani Government’s response to the United States something as if they’ve agreed to work with the U.S. on this, or is this a standoff?

MS NAUERT: We’ve long had conversations with Pakistan about what they need to do and how they need to do more to help in the fight against terrorism, so I think this was no surprise. But in terms of any diplomatic conversations or calls to read out, I don’t have anything for you on that.

QUESTION: So I mean --

QUESTION: It might --

QUESTION: So Pakistan knows exactly what it needs to do in order to maybe one day get this money back. Is that right?

MS NAUERT: I would – I would think that they would know that. I mean, there have been a series of conversations. This President rolled out this strategy, the South Asia strategy, back in August, making it clear in some pretty tough words – remember a lot – some folks had criticized us for being blunt with Pakistan. Some people had criticized us for not being blunt enough with Pakistan in the past. So I think this administration has spoken very clearly in terms of what it is asking Pakistan to do.

QUESTION: But has Pakistan told you that it’s not going to do it or has it just failed to do it so far?

MS NAUERT: I don’t have any information coming back from Pakistan at this point.

QUESTION: But after that speech, Heather, the President had tweeted his thanks to Pakistan for their cooperation on many fronts. Secretary Tillerson and Mattis both have had visits there that seemed successful. What changed in the last week that you are making this announcement now? Was it the President’s tweet?

MS NAUERT: I don’t know that anything necessarily changed. With a lot of countries around the world, we have complex relationships. We talk about it in the sense of a marriage. Some days you have better days than others. I’ve made that reference – I’ve made that reference before. They have certainly --

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MS NAUERT: (Laughter.) Andrea. They have certainly been helpful in some instances. You all know that. The Coleman family – assisted with bringing home the American family. He was Canadian, she’s American, but the family from Pakistan. And we appreciated their help on that. But again, there are concrete steps that Pakistan needs to take.

QUESTION: Can I ask one more follow-up on that?

MS NAUERT: Yeah.

QUESTION: When the President tweeted on Monday, was he previewing this announcement or was this announcement in response to that?

MS NAUERT: I don’t have the tweet right in front of me, so I’m sorry.

QUESTION: Could you clarify one point?

MS NAUERT: Sure.

QUESTION: That the – in most of the statements and the answers, Afghanistan gets mentioned. Is this also – are you also looking at the cross-border terrorism towards India and also 2008 Mumbai attacks in which six U.S. citizens were killed, and nothing – Pakistan hasn’t done anything to bring them to book?

MS NAUERT: Well, we have certainly expressed our concern about the mastermind of the 2008 Mumbai attacks being let out of house arrest in Pakistan. To my knowledge, that has nothing to do with that. There is a $10 million reward out for, I think, information leading to his rearrest, the person who is the mastermind of the Mumbai attacks who was let go in Pakistan.

So we’ve been very clear about our displeasure with that individual being let go, and that’s why we like to remind people that there is a $10 million Rewards for Justice program out for him.

QUESTION: Can we move on?

MS NAUERT: Okay.

QUESTION: (Off-mike) just two more things.

MS NAUERT: Okay, go right ahead.

QUESTION: It’s not a surprise that you’re doing this. As you point out, the President had telegraphed this possibility. You informed people on the Hill yesterday. Why, as a practical matter, are you not able to provide even a rough estimate of the amounts? I mean --

MS NAUERT: Because it’s – they’re numbers that we are still working through right now.

QUESTION: Yeah, but why --

MS NAUERT: These are --

QUESTION: Why is that so hard?

MS NAUERT: These are different pots of money.

QUESTION: Yeah.

MS NAUERT: Some of this comes through the State Department and some of it is money that’s tied into the Department of Defense. I can’t speak to the Department of Defense and its pot of money right now, so I can just refer you to the Department of Defense and perhaps they can answer that.

QUESTION: And then secondly, you said that you would provide exceptions based on certain criteria. What are those criteria? I mean, I think you said national security necessity, but how does one know? If you can’t give us a number and if you’re willing to make exceptions, how does one know that you’re actually going to do or withhold a significant amount of money here?

MS NAUERT: Well, I think when we talk about how some of this is dependent on the national security situation, some of that is just going to be evolving over time, and determining – because you have to be fluid in any kind of environment where you’re going after terrorists, in a counterterrorism environment. So some of that is just going to have to be fluid.

QUESTION: So – but in other words, you can’t actually commit that you will actually suspend any of it because you can issue waivers?

MS NAUERT: Well, look, I think it would be an unfair jump too far to say that that money would not be suspended. We are announcing today that that money will be suspended, but naturally, any administration in this kind of environment would need to have some flexibility, and I think it’s just that kind of flexibility that is built in. I’ll get you more information as we get to – as I can provide it to you. Okay?

QUESTION: Can we move on?

MS NAUERT: Can we move on? Sure.

QUESTION: Yes. ……………………………………

QUESTION: -- follow up on Pakistan. What about reimbursing, continuing to reimburse Pakistan for the money that they spend on counterterror operations, which we have been doing? Are you suspending that as well?

MS NAUERT: I believe that that falls under – and let me double-check this. Robert, if we could double-check that. I believe the money that Andrea was referring to, the reimbursable money, I believe that that is under DOD, in that pot under DOD.

MR GREENAN: Yeah, the Coalition Support Fund.

MS NAUERT: Coalition Support Fund.

QUESTION: And is that – does – is that included in the suspension or not?

MS NAUERT: Yes.

QUESTION: It is?

MS NAUERT: Yes.

QUESTION: So we will not be reimbursing them for counterterror operations in these northwest territories and Wardak and along the border?

MS NAUERT: Now, again, there may be some exceptions, and double-check --

QUESTION: Okay.

MS NAUERT: -- double-check me on this, because we’re getting a lot of this information just in, shortly before we started the briefing.

QUESTION: I understand.

MS NAUERT: Okay? So give us a little --

QUESTION: But maybe if you could get back to us today with some kind of a breakdown of what is covered and what isn’t, that would be helpful.

MS NAUERT: Yes. We’re not going to be able to get into specific dollar numbers, because all of that is still being figured out. Some of that is handled under a DOD fund, not the State Department fund. But we can get you the most from here. Okay?

QUESTION: Okay. Thank you.


From the US State Department Website:

Department Press Briefing - January 4, 2018

arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9414
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Terroristan - 4th Jan 2018

Postby arun » 05 Jan 2018 12:05

Mort Walker wrote:^^^The Trump administration at the top level is wanting to end the aid and just below that at the upper political level there is the need to continue business as usual. Therefore the path for resuming payments is open. If the Pakis block air and surface transport to Afghanistan, then this will be serious, but listening to some paki commentators that is not happening and only their media and lackeys are protesting.

If Pak blocks access, then the US can freeze RAPE assets outside Pakiland. Truthfully, many of us won't be satisfied until Trump orders the blockade of Karachi and carpet bombs the TSP RATS with B-52s, B-1Bs and B-2s. What has happened so far is indeed encouraging.



The again as I said earlier on this very page, another door, the “Country of Particular Concern” door has been left ajar :wink: :


See Here

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 22112
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Terroristan - 4th Jan 2018

Postby SSridhar » 05 Jan 2018 12:09

arun, yes, you are correct. The doors are indeed open.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 22112
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Terroristan - 4th Jan 2018

Postby SSridhar » 05 Jan 2018 13:23

SSridhar wrote:
rrao wrote:^^^ ISI stooges Taliban and ISIS will create a mayhem in Afghanistan to show the world that USA and NATO have failed to curb Terrorism!!!!

Their anger will also turn towards India. They will say that the US is doing this at India's behest. Let's wait & watch.


Now, Pakistan accuses India of 'lies and deceit'
Pakistan has dragged India into its war of words with the US, now accusing New Delhi of "lies and deceit", much in the manner Donald Trump accused Islamabad of the same, reported The Express Tribune.

Pakistan's foreign minister Khawaja Asif said the US is "trumpeting India's lies and deceit", that the two countries have a "nexus" and that the US "is speaking the language of Indians".

"The United States and India have a nexus, they understand their interests are same in the region," said Asif, in an interview with Geo TV yesterday.


These comments by Asif followed similar sentiments he expressed earlier in the day, at a meeting with the country's national security committee. At the meeting, Pakistani officials discussed responses to US President Donald Trump's New Year's Day tweet in which he accused Pakistan of "lies and deceit" and of playing America for "a fool".

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 22112
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Terroristan - 4th Jan 2018

Postby SSridhar » 05 Jan 2018 13:30

Pakistan's relationship with China and America not the same: US official - PTI
The US has appeared unperturbed that its suspension of security aid to Pakistan would bring Islamabad closer to China and insisted that the two relationships are different.

"I believe they (Pakistan) do want to build strong relations with both countries. But what they get from China is not necessarily going to be the same thing to get from the US and vice versa," a State Department official told reporters.

"We (US) don't have the capacity to direct state banks and state companies to invest USD 55 billion dollars in Pakistan. But at the same time China does not have the capacity to provide the highest quality military equipment in the world," the official said.


The official was responding to question that the latest American move would push Pakistan towards China.

"We have no problem with Pakistan and China's relationship. China has invested a significant amount and plans to invest significant amount more," the official said.

"Pakistan is in need of economic development and economic growth. In so far as China's able to contribute to that that will contribute to Pakistan's stability and security and economic well-being. And that's perfectly. That's totally fine. That's a good thing," the official said.

Noting that Pakistan and China have had a longstanding and very strong relationship, the official asserted that that relationship has never come at the expense of US-Pak ties.

"I think Pakistan clearly understands that our relationship and what we bring to the table internationally is different than China. And they shouldn't want to choose between China and the United States and they do want to build strong relations with both countries," the State Department official said.

Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 1058
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Terroristan - 4th Jan 2018

Postby Manish_P » 05 Jan 2018 14:26

arun wrote:The State Department also said it had re-designated 10 other nations as “countries of particular concern” under the International Religious Freedom Act for having engaged in or tolerated egregious violations of religious freedom.

The re-designated countries were China, Eritrea, Iran, Myanmar, North Korea, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. They were re-designated on Dec. 22. ………………………



Saudi Arabia ?

Guess it's all part of the MBS-as-visionary-saviour projection show

Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4378
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Terroristan - 4th Jan 2018

Postby Peregrine » 05 Jan 2018 18:02

Pakistan says US military aid suspension 'counterproductive'

ISLAMABAD: Pakistan denounced Washington´s decision to suspend hundreds of millions of dollars in security assistance as "counterproductive" Friday, in a carefully-worded response to the frustrated Trump administration´s public rebuke over alleged militant safe havens.

The United States has been threatening for months to cut aid to Islamabad over its failure to crack down on groups such as the Afghan Taliban and the Haqqani network, which it alleges operates from bases in Pakistan´s northwest.

The rhetoric has raised hackles in Islamabad and fears the row could undermine Pakistan´s support for US operations in Afghanistan.

On Thursday, the State Department announced a dramatic freeze in deliveries of military equipment and security funding until Pakistan cracks down on the militants.

The announcement ignited some small protests in Pakistan on Friday, including in Chaman, one of the two main crossings on the border with Afghanistan, where several hundred people gathered to chant anti-US slogans.

But Pakistan´s foreign office issued a cautious statement in which it said it was "engaged" with US officials and awaiting further details.

Without referring to the decision directly, it warned that "arbitrary deadlines, unilateral pronouncements and shifting goalposts are counterproductive in addressing common threats".

Emerging threats such as the growing presence of Daesh in the region make cooperation more important than ever, it added.

Pakistan has fought fierce campaigns against homegrown militant groups, and says it has lost thousands of lives and spent billions of dollars in its long war on extremism.

But US officials accuse Islamabad of ignoring or even collaborating with groups that attack Afghanistan from safe havens along the countries´ border.

In September last year the US had already suspended $255 million in funding to help Pakistan buy high-tech weaponry from American manufacturers.

Now, the Defense Department has been instructed to stop making payments from "coalition support funds" set aside to refund Pakistani spending on counter-terrorist operations.

There will be exemptions, and officials refused to put a figure on how much Pakistan will lose out on if it fails to cooperate.

But the National Defense Authorization Act permits the US military to spend up to $900 million in the 2017 financial year and $700 million in financial 2018.

State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert said the security spending would be suspended until Pakistan takes "decisive action" against the Afghan Taliban and Haqqani network.

Privately US diplomats insist the relationship is not in crisis.

They say Pakistan is not refusing to fight the Haqqani network, but that the two capitals disagree about the facts on the ground.

Pakistan insists safe havens have been eradicated, but US intelligence says it is still seeing militants operating freely.

Nauert was at pains to point out that the frozen funds had not been cancelled, and would be ready to be disbursed if Pakistan takes action to prove its commitment to the fight.

"The United States stands ready to work with Pakistan in combating all terrorists, without distinction," Nauert said.

Related item : US suspends at least $900 million in security aid to Pakistan

Cheers Image

anupmisra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6482
Joined: 12 Nov 2006 04:16
Location: New York

Re: Terroristan - 4th Jan 2018

Postby anupmisra » 05 Jan 2018 18:46

The more the pakis talk, the more their lies get exposed.

Pakistan fought war against terrorism largely from its own resources: FO on US aid cut

"However, it needs to be appreciated that Pakistan has fought the war against terrorism largely from its own resources, which has cost over $120 billion in 15 years," read the statement.
"We are determined to continue to do all it takes to secure the lives of our citizens and broader stability in the region."
"Through a series of major counter-terrorism operations, Pakistan cleared all these [conflicted] areas, resulting in the elimination of an organised terrorist presence leading to significant improvement in security in Pakistan."


a) Pakis had $120 Bn over 15 years (@ $8 Bn. per year!!) to spare? That's a laugh and an outright lie.
b) If the pakis supposedly fought the "war on terrorism" on their own accord, for their own survival and with their own resources, why in the world is there need for the reimbursement?

https://www.dawn.com/news/1380964/pakis ... us-aid-cut

anupmisra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6482
Joined: 12 Nov 2006 04:16
Location: New York

Re: Terroristan - 4th Jan 2018

Postby anupmisra » 05 Jan 2018 18:49

Air Marshal Asghar Khan passes away in Islamabad

Khan, a former politician and a World War II veteran fighter pilot, was born in Jammu and Kashmir in 1921. He originally served as an officer in the British Indian Army.


A respected airman from both sides of the border. He exposed the paki duplicity and misplaced priorities.





https://www.dawn.com/news/1380944/air-m ... -islamabad

nam
BRFite
Posts: 643
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Terroristan - 4th Jan 2018

Postby nam » 05 Jan 2018 18:53

The aid is "frozen", not completely cancelled. It means US has kept it reserved and will not use it for anything else. Once the drama is done, it can release the cash.

As I said, i will believe it when the F16s are sanctioned. Till then it is all nauntanki.

nam
BRFite
Posts: 643
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Terroristan - 4th Jan 2018

Postby nam » 05 Jan 2018 18:54

anupmisra wrote:The more the pakis talk, the more their lies get exposed.

Pakistan fought war against terrorism largely from its own resources: FO on US aid cut



This is true. After all all terrorist it created were it's own resources.

anupmisra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6482
Joined: 12 Nov 2006 04:16
Location: New York

Re: Terroristan - 4th Jan 2018

Postby anupmisra » 05 Jan 2018 19:31

Pakistani scientist discovers disease caused by interfamily marriage
Naturally, a saazish against the believers.

A scientist at Institute of Biomedical and Genetic Engineering (IBGE), in collaboration with researchers of Europe and Singapore, has discovered a new disease in Pakistan that leads to the lifetime paralysis of the patient. The cause of the disease is interfamily marriage
The disease coined as ‘siddiqi syndrome’ causes deafness in the patient at the age of six months and leads to a complete paralysis of the body by the age of eleven. This ‘deafness-dsytonia’ includes repetitive muscle contractions their twisting and other abnormal movements.
Initially, the disorder was ignorantly reported as caused by ‘supernatural powers’ or ‘black magic’, but research unveiled that the disease was borne due to interfamily marriage”
Interfamily marriages have given a unique texture to genetic landscape of Pakistan due to which diseases considered rare around the globe are found in Pakistan.
the ratio of this disease in Pakistan would be high because of the social structure of the society


https://nation.com.pk/24-Nov-2017/pakis ... y-marriage

Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4378
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Terroristan - 4th Jan 2018

Postby Peregrine » 05 Jan 2018 19:42

A gulf that must be bridged

CIVIL-MILITARY tensions are not a new development in Pakistan. We have lived with this phenomenon for decades and have seen four spells of military rule. Civil-military tensions, which until recently had been largely underground, have now started to come out in the open.

An example is the DG ISPR’s tweet sometime ago in which an official communication written by the Prime Minister’s Office regarding ‘Dawn leaks’ was rejected. This was unprecedented, and humiliating for both the government and the state as it publicly undermined the concept of supremacy of an elected civilian government. Fortunately, the military realised the mistake and ‘withdrew’ the tweet but it had taken the level of tension to a new level.

Following the disqualification of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif by the Supreme Court last July, civil-military tensions seem to be following the same, very public, trajectory. First, the federal interior minister took strong exception to remarks of the DG ISPR on the national economy and then the DG ISPR returned the compliment by expressing his ‘disappointment’ in October 2017.

Lately, the remarks of the federal railways minister, Saad Rafique, generated a great deal of heat and controversy during the final days of 2017. His words seemed to imply that subordinate institutions under the army chief create occasional mischief although the stated policy of the army chief was pro-democracy and in harmony with the civilian government’s policies. ISPR did not waste much time in declaring the federal minister’s statement ‘irresponsible’ at a news conference.

The most recent and highly significant pronouncements on civil-military relations have come from the country’s defence minister, Khurram Dastgir Khan during a TV interview aired a few days ago. It is difficult to recall a more candid interview by a Pakistani defence minister on the subject. He frankly admitted the existence of civil-military tensions. He alluded to some differences between the civilian government and the military on Pakistan’s Afghan policy and when pressed to be specific, referred to the government’s seeking assurances from the security establishment regarding non-interference in Afghanistan. The defence minister said that his party leader Nawaz Sharif felt that merely winning the next election would be meaningless unless “awam ka haq-i-hakmiat” or the people’s right to rule was not established and accepted. He also admitted that he was not the defence organisation boss but a mere facilitator who is often sidelined. All this is serious and sensitive stuff, seldom discussed in the open by a sitting defence minister in the past.

A number of senior PML-N leaders, including the former prime minister Nawaz Sharif, have openly said they would no longer keep things under wraps and would take the people into confidence. Refere­nces to the Kargil war and many other instances are being thrown up which, if openly admitted by any current or former senior public official, may prove highly embarrassing for state institutions and extremely damaging for the state as a whole.

Analyses of some of the recent statements of sitting and former public officials, lead to almost definitive but the discomforting conclusion that civil-military relations may be moving towards an era of ‘open warfare’. No country can allow such tensions between state institutions or between popular political parties and the security establishment, especially given the prevailing tense relations with a superpower and some neighbouring countries.

The real question is how to address the worsening civil-military relations. Fortunately, Prime Minister Shahid Khaqan Abbasi has already taken the much-needed step of activating the National Security Committee (NSC), which should be transformed into an effective institution with its meetings being held regularly — monthly if not weekly.

The NSC meetings should not only be convened to address a specific crisis; a series of regular meetings over a period of time — may be a year, perhaps more — are needed to discuss fundamental strategic differences and the sources of tension between the civilian government and the military. Additionally, long-term issues such ensuring state security in the face of threats that are bigger than what can be dealt with by employing conventional means should be addressed. The question of relations with neighbours should also be discussed in the long-term perspective to evolve a unified position.

The NSC needs an intellectual infrastructure to support informed decision-making. Originally, the blueprint of the NSC provided for a planning committee and an advisory council. A think tank manned by experts and researchers was also envisaged. This support structure should be urgently activated.

Key to civil-military tensions is also a perception which each side has formed about the other. Politicians are generally perceived to be lacking in integrity, competence, in-depth knowledge and discipline. For their part, politicians are always worried about a conspiracy being hatched against them. These perceptions need to be candidly discussed at NSC meetings that are dedicated for strategic sessions.

Finally, it should be remembered that a civil-military consensus, though highly desirable, may not always be possible. The security establishment should appreciate the fact that it is the elected political leadership that should have the final word as is the norm in all democracies. But the political leadership should also keep in mind that it has not been elected to act as emperors, and that it needs to run governments through a broad-based consultative process centred on parliament. Cabinets are an integral part of the decision-making process and should not be sidelined.

These are all basic principles on how to run a democratic government but we seem to have forgotten them thus landing us in the current mess. It is about time both the civilians and the military seriously and patiently worked to bridge the widening gulf in their relations using the NSC as the principal institution. The defence minister, in his recent interview, said that his government and party had been trying to address civil-military tensions through personal ties but it had not worked. Institutional arrangements are the only way to address all state issues including civil-military tensions.

Cheers Image

Vips
BRFite
Posts: 365
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

Re: Terroristan - 4th Jan 2018

Postby Vips » 05 Jan 2018 21:44

^^ Losing a Billion plus $ is no small matter. Porkis will now put up a dog and pony show to show its sincerity (i know that is a Oxymoron) and hand over a couple of Haqqani piglets to get the aid.

anupmisra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6482
Joined: 12 Nov 2006 04:16
Location: New York

Re: Terroristan - 4th Jan 2018

Postby anupmisra » 05 Jan 2018 22:53

Chinisthan is unfair to bakistan after all the love the bakistanis have shown their mai-baap benefactors.

China eases visa policy in bid to attract skilled foreign professionals

Under the new rules, applicants will include those who qualify as 'high-end talents' in the Categories of Foreigners Working in China, such as scientists, entrepreneurs, and leaders in tech-intensive industries
However, while the regional power may be welcoming of talent that fits the bill, a report last year said that China has tightened up its visa rules for Pakistani businessmen, with a rising number of people in the business community complaining that Chinese visas are becoming increasingly difficult to obtain.


Suarly, bakis are highly talented at something, right?

https://www.dawn.com/news/1380965/china ... fessionals

Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4378
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Terroristan - 4th Jan 2018

Postby Peregrine » 06 Jan 2018 00:22

Funds meant for tackling poverty mainly spent on salaries, other areas
ISLAMABAD: More than three-fourths of Rs462.7 billion, which is said to be spent by federal and provincial governments on poverty reduction programmes, have actually gone to meeting non-development expenditures including salary payments.
Cheers Image

sunnyP
BRFite
Posts: 1259
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 16:52

Re: Terroristan - 4th Jan 2018

Postby sunnyP » 06 Jan 2018 00:33

Two Ex-RAW Chiefs Did Not Want Kulbhushan Jadhav Recruited As Spy


https://www.thequint.com/news/politics/ ... ted-as-spy

nam
BRFite
Posts: 643
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Terroristan - 4th Jan 2018

Postby nam » 06 Jan 2018 00:53

Fake news.

If not then the two ex-chiefs are going in under OSA, for outing a operative specially when his life in danger.

CRamS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6094
Joined: 07 Oct 2006 20:54
Contact:

Re: Terroristan - 4th Jan 2018

Postby CRamS » 06 Jan 2018 01:42

It will be great if in one of those choreographed playacting call state dept or white house press briefings, an Indian or some other reporter who understand the India TSP USA triangular dynamic and is objective, asks what if TSP were to keep India specific pigLeTs but takes action against Haqqanis. Will that be enough to resume TSP USA bonhomie? I know this question is rhetorical, but would be interesting to see how the well coached spokesmen/women respond.

venug
BRFite
Posts: 123
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 21:39

Re: Terroristan - 4th Jan 2018

Postby venug » 06 Jan 2018 01:44


Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4378
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Terroristan - 4th Jan 2018

Postby Peregrine » 06 Jan 2018 03:09

Does Pakistan want to be another North Korea? US NSA McMaster

The United States National Security Advisor H R McMaster stated that Pakistan is a country with tremendous human – economic potential and does not wish to see it turn into a pariah state like North Korea that uses its nuclear weapons as a leverage.

In an interview with Voice of America, McMaster remarked that the US President is frustrated with Pakistan’s double standards while targeting terrorists.

Pakistan continues to provide support for terrorist groups as an arm of their foreign policy and targets them selectively,” he said.

McMaster even shed light on how Donald Trump has great sympathy towards the Pakistani people because they have suffered the most in the fight against terror. He appealed to the Pakistani government to target terrorist outfits less selectively as he recalled the horrendous attack on the Army Public School in Peshawar two years ago.

“This is not a blame game, as some would say. This is really our effort to communicate clearly to Pakistan that our relationship can no longer bear the weight of contradictions, and that we have to really begin now to work together to stabilise Afghanistan,” he further added.

The NSA relayed his annoyance over how the Pakistani government continues to provide safe havens to the Afghan Taliban and Haqqani network.

In response to a question about using its nuclear weapons to ‘blackmail’ the US, the NSA said that he couldn’t imagine a Pakistani leader using nuclear weapons to extort or for blackmail.

Earlier this week, the Pakistan Foreign Office summoned US Ambassador David Hale on Monday night and lodged its protest against US President Donald Trump’s tweet wherein he accused Pakistan of “lies and deceit.”

Foreign Secretary Tehmina Janjua sought an explanation from the ambassador over the American president’s tweet.

Cheers Image

Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4378
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Terroristan - 4th Jan 2018

Postby Peregrine » 06 Jan 2018 03:55

Beware unintended consequences - Najam Sethi

True to form, US President Donald Trump has welcomed the new year with a barrage of threatening tweets against his favourite targets in North Korea, Iran, Palestine and the US Media. Pakistan now has the dubious distinction of being added to this Quixotic list of “enemies”. It stands accused of “lies and deceit”, of playing “double games”, of gobbling up $33 billion in the last fifteen years, of “harbouring terrorists”, etc. “No more”, warns President Trump, unless Pakistan is ready to “do more” to help America.

Understandably, the public reaction in Pakistan has been shrill. The country has been awash with anti-Americanism for many years. Thankfully, the government’s tone is measured. It is “disappointed” by President Trump’s damning allegations. Indeed, Islamabad claims it has paid a very high price in men and material fighting the war against terrorism but it will not compromise on its long-term national security interests when they conflict with short-term American goals.

Are US-Pakistan relations about to rupture with severe consequences for both, but especially for Pakistan?

In his autobiographical books “The Art of the Deal” and “Time to Get Tough”, published years ago, President Trump boasts about how he used bullying tactics to clinch his most successful business deals. Clearly, he thinks the same strategy will work in the White House. But the Iranians, North Koreans and Palestinians have not yet been cowed down and the US media is still baying for his blood. How will Pakistan fare?

Much depends on how President Trump intends “to sort out” Pakistan. Clearly, the carrot of $33b hasn’t worked. So the stick may be brandished. He has cut $255m from the military component of the Kerry-Lugar-Berman aid package. Earlier, the US withheld an amount of $350 million from the Coalition Support Program reimbursements to Pakistan. But this is no big deal, says Miftah Ismail, the new finance minister, “it’s just a day’s expenditure for the Pakistan government”.

The US may conceivably take other steps to “punish” Pakistan. It could lean on international finance institutions to tighten the screws on Pakistan at a time when it is faced with a developing balance of payments crisis. It could sanction Pakistani exports to the US. It could deal a blow to Pakistani business transactions by restricting access to SWIFT, the global provider of critical and secure financial messaging services. It could put Pakistani military officials and institutions with alleged links to banned or terrorist organisations on its sanctions list and restrict their international movements and freeze their assets. It could expand the theatre of drone operations inside Pakistan. It might even be tempted to attack the “safe havens” of the Haqqani network on the Pak-Afghan border. But each action would be precipitous, with unintended adverse consequences for both Pakistan and America.

“Pakistan”, thunders army chief Qamar Javed Bajwa, “is impregnable”. The air force chief says he will shoot down any drones venturing into Pakistan territory. The bluster is political necessity in the face of a bully. But the reality is harsh, whatever the worth of US allegations.

Pakistan has never been more divided and weak internally than it is now. The mainstream politicians are at each other’s throats, inviting constitutional deviation. The military is manipulating favourites. The judiciary is reeling from the backlash of its own judgments. The economy is tanking. Balochistan and FATA on the periphery are in turmoil. The “foreign hand” of India and Afghanistan continues to foment trouble. No one can say with any confidence that the general elections will be held on time and a smooth transfer of power will take place. Let us admit it: a nation at war with itself can hardly put up a decent defense against a certified global bully.

Ex-Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif is out of power not because he is inordinately more corrupt than everyone else in office but because he has chosen to call a spade a spade. He has challenged the political hegemony of the Miltablishment whose national security doctrines – including jumping in and out of bed with America – have brought Pakistan to a sorry pass where it is regionally alienated and internationally isolated. Clutching at Pakistan’s all-weather friend China will not erase or replace this reality. Mr Sharif has recently alluded to the price he is paying for attempting to question this “national security” paradigm. “It is time,” he says, “to put our house in order… there is a need to examine our character and actions with sincerity…we need to understand why our narrative is dismissed…if it is ignored and termed against the national interest, this is nothing but self-deception that has already led to the fragmentation of Pakistan once before”.

Foreign intervention in disunited and failing states can trigger mass upheavals, chaos and disintegration. The Arab “spring” has become a withering winter and Middle-Eastern nation states have been reduced to rubble amidst the specter of “militant Islam”. This unintended consequence of foreign intervention is now raising its ugly head over the Pakistani horizon. Ruling establishments in America and Pakistan should beware their proposed actions and reactions.

Cheers Image

ArjunPandit
BRFite
Posts: 796
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: Terroristan - 4th Jan 2018

Postby ArjunPandit » 06 Jan 2018 05:04

wait one second who's the PM of pakistan? when didthe change happen???


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: yensoy and 31 guests