nachiket wrote:
If India is so worried, wouldn't it be easier to not buy from the US at all? We managed just fine without them for all these years.
I am all for such a deal with Pakistanabhishek_sharma wrote:
Pakistan disconcerts the world due to its nuclear proliferation record and because it supports myriad Islamist militants menacing the international community. This deal should therefore be conditioned upon access to nuclear scientist A.Q. Khan and direct information about his nuclear black markets, as well as verifiable evidence that Pakistan is reversing its support for militant groups and taking active steps to dismantle the architecture for terrorism.
Am looking. I apologize for this link but it says:vishal wrote: Madrasah math notwithstanding, does anyone know how this fiure of $35 billion came about? This thing is being repeated incessantly and for all you know it will become the accepted figure worldwide. All clarifications later will be execises in futility once this gets embedded into the head of every reporter who wants to bang out a quick article on Pukistan.
So I look up the US-Pak business council, I think it is this:According to US-Pak business council report (2009), Pakistan is prime victim of Afghanistan’s instability and due to which Pakistan economy has so far suffered directly or indirectly huge loss of $35 Billion.
Shivji a couple of queries, USA has tried harming us since independence, so what is new in that? By handing over the keys to a significant portion of our conventional capabilities to US won't we be setting ourselves up for shafting of the century?shiv wrote:Please permit me another rude analogy. The pleasures of a new and untried whore cannot be experienced until one gives her a chance. That means putting money down. India has virtually no US hardware and virtually no influence on the US. We don;t help them. They don't help us. We can't harm them. They can harm us.
For Pakistan, a realistic expectation from this dialogue at this stage should be its immediate transformation into a “strategic partnership” at par with the one the US has with India, with clearly defined, time-bound sectoral goalposts and priorities to be pursued jointly on the basis of mutual benefit. Pakistan now wants the dialogue to be structured at three tiers moving in tandem on an expanded list of sectoral tracks covering agriculture, economy, energy, education, health, science and technology, defence, strategic stability and non-proliferation, counterterrorism, and public diplomacy.
...
In the context of South Asia, the US must be asked to show practical sensitivity to Pakistan’s legitimate India-specific concerns and security interests. Any policies that create strategic imbalances in the region and fuel an arms race between the two nuclear-capable neighbours with an escalatory effect on their military budgets and arsenals are no service to the peoples of this region. We would also want an end to foreign interference in Balochistan.
The real challenge now is “to mix deft diplomacy, security support and economic aid” in pursuit of durable peace in this volatile region. But peace in this region would remain incomplete without the Pakistan-India issues being addressed, which are not without direct impact on the overall situation in the Afghan theatre. The risk of a Pakistan-India proxy war in Afghanistan is fraught with perilous implications for regional and global peace, and must be averted at any cost.
Islamabad should also be seeking US help in normalisation of Pakistan-India relations on the basis of peaceful and equitable settlement of the two countries’ disputes, especially the Kashmir and water issues, and accepting Pakistan’s right to equitable treatment at par with India in terms of civilian nuclear cooperation.
...
The writer is a former foreign secretary. Email: shamshad1941@ yahoo.com
Those facts won't change if India buys some US hardware. In fact that would increase US influence on India rather than the other way round.shiv wrote: India has virtually no US hardware and virtually no influence on the US. We don;t help them. They don't help us. We can't harm them. They can harm us.
Perhaps the most deleterious and more contentious reason for Washington’s limited successes is that the main U.S. programs misdiagnose the various problems they seek to affect. The biggest hindrances to ‘‘saving Pakistan’’ are the intentions, interests, and strategic calculations of the Pakistani state itself, in addition to the extremely limited capacity to affect the kind of change the United States and the rest of the international community demand.
For example, the United States has forged various plans to develop Pakistan’s Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA). Unfortunately, all of these plans assume that the Pakistani state is prepared to embrace such a transformation.
For some six decades, the country has benefited from FATA being a ‘‘black hole’’ from which it could launch operations into Afghanistan and train militants operating in Afghanistan, Kashmir, and the rest of India. In fact, the government has willfully made successive decisions not to invest in the area or engage in a modicum of political liberalization apart from permitting adult franchise in 1996. Pakistan’s political parties are still not allowed to operate there legally, but religious parties with access to mosques and madrassah have not been hampered, giving them a considerable advantage over the other parties in parliamentary elections. FATA residents are still governed by a colonial-era dispensation (the Frontier Crimes Regulation) that permits collective punishment and denies citizens due process and other legal practices that Pakistan’s high courts have ruled to be illegal under the Pakistani constitution.
Even if Pakistan wanted to effect change in FATA, how can it provide good governance in FATA when it has failed in those parts of Pakistan where the penetration of the state is strongest?
Similarly, the United States has offered to invest in the Pakistan army’s ability to fight counterinsurgency better in recognition of the army’s inability to wage such operations effectively. Unfortunately, the army chief has repeatedly said that the army will not retool from being a conventional (read India-focused) army toward one that is counterinsurgency oriented.19 U.S. programs are unlikely to achieve anything but modest success without the support of Pakistan’s strategic elites and citizenry.
The observers recalled that the US administration first indicated a change in its attitude towards Pakistan’s nuclear programme when President Barack Obama told Dawn in June: “I have confidence that the Pakistani government has safeguarded its nuclear arsenal. It’s Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal.”
Since then, the US administration is steadily moving towards assuaging Pakistan’s fears that Washington wanted to undo its nuclear programme or take over its weapons.
Secretary Clinton, when reminded that Pakistan needed nuclear power plants to produce electricity, said there were other specific measures that the country could take to meet its energy needs.
“And I think on the energy issue specifically, there are more immediate steps that can be taken that have to help with the grid, have to help with other sources of energy, to upgrade power plants and the like,” she said. “And we are certainly looking at those and we want to help Pakistan with its immediate and its long-term energy needs.”
The top US diplomat assured the Pakistanis that her country was committed to further enhancing its relationship with Pakistan but doing so takes time.
“It’s not the kind of commitment that you easily produce overnight or even within a year. But it is important to get started, to sort it out, and to develop the trust and the confidence between us,” she said. “And we will be moving forward. We’ll have our next session in the future in Islamabad.”
This week’s talks in Washington, she noted, had a very broad agenda and “I think the fact that we have come to a point where we’re going to have a serious strategic dialogue at the highest level of government is quite a move”.
Meanwhile, Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi, Army Chief Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani and other members of the Pakistani delegation spent a busy day on Capitol Hill.They had two, hour-long meetings with Senator John Kerry, Congressman Howard Berman and members of their committees that deal with foreign affairs.
Later, Foreign Minister Qureshi told journalists that they urged US lawmakers to support some key Pakistan-related legislation that will come before Congress soon.
Pakistan, he said, was particularly keen on the ROZ bill which sought to set up duty free export zones in the tribal belt.
“Our talks were frank and candid,” said Mr Qureshi. “We conveyed Pakistan’s plans and priorities and expressed our hope that the strategic dialogue will lead to a qualitative difference in the relationship between Pakistan and the US.”
War on terror costs Pakistan $35 billion: reports
M RAFIQUE GORAYA
LAHORE (May 24 2009): Various government and non-governmental organisations, commercial and industrial chambers and experts have prepared reports about socio-economic costs of Pakistan's fight against terrorism during the past five years. According to the Pak-US Business Council report (2009), Pakistan is the prime victim of Afghanistan's instability, and its economy has so far suffered directly or indirectly a huge loss of 35 billion dollars.
"Moreover, due to widespread unrest and political uncertainty in Afghanistan, a large quantity of Pakistani food items/commodities is smuggled to Afghanistan, which ultimately leads to acute foodgrain scarcity within the country," said report.
According to the Finance Ministry, Pakistan suffered directly or indirectly the loss of Rs 2,080 billion {Rs 2080 billion/(60 Rs/$) = $34.6 billion)} in the war against terror from 2004-05 to 2008-09. It was around Rs 484 billion during the 2007-08 financial year, which badly affected the country's socio-economic development.
It is estimated that it would increase to Rs 678 billion during 2008-09 financial year. The cost includes both direct and indirect on account of loss of exports, foreign investment, privatisation, industrial output, soft image and tax collection. The report further indicates that the expected direct cost of war on terror will reach Rs 114.03 billion in 2008-09 from Rs l08.527 billion last year.
The indirect cost will increase to Rs 563.760 billion from Rs 375.840 billion. According to the report, the anti-terrorism campaign overstrained Pakistan's budget, as allocation for the law-enforcement agencies had to be increased significantly, curtailing the funding for development projects since 9/11.
In its poverty reduction strategy papers-II, the Finance Ministry revealed that Pakistan's participation in the anti-terrorism campaign had led to massive unemployment in the affected regions, which had ultimately increased rural poverty too. It had reached 37.5 percent from 23.9 percent in 2007-08, said the report.
My reply in the Indo-US threadmunna wrote:Shivji a couple of queries, USA has tried harming us since independence, so what is new in that? By handing over the keys to a significant portion of our conventional capabilities to US won't we be setting ourselves up for shafting of the century?shiv wrote:Please permit me another rude analogy. The pleasures of a new and untried whore cannot be experienced until one gives her a chance. That means putting money down. India has virtually no US hardware and virtually no influence on the US. We don;t help them. They don't help us. We can't harm them. They can harm us.
The State Department is being extremely cagey about how it views the prospect of a civilian nuclear deal with Pakistan, which multiple reports say the Pakistani delegation is likely to propose this week in Washington. But the leaders of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee? Not so much.
When you think about it, the State Department's position makes perfect sense. Why throw cold water on the idea only one day before the brand-new U.S.-Pakistan strategic dialogue? Even though the practicalities of giving explicit nuclear assistance to Pakistan are extremely complicated, to say nothing of the politics -- giving that country's proliferation risks, ties to extremists, and failure to punish one-man nuclear arms merchant A.Q. Khan -- it doesn't hurt to let them dream, right?
"I'm sure that that's going to be raised and we're going to be considering it, but I can't prejudge or preempt what the outcome of our discussions will be," Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told Pakistan's Express TV Group in a Monday interview. She was quick to point out that a similar deal with India "was the result of many, many years of strategic dialogue."
At Tuesday's State Department press conference, spokesman P.J. Crowley was equal parts polite and vague when questioned about a nuclear deal.
"As far as I know, we have not been talking to Pakistan about a civilian nuclear deal," he said. "If Pakistan brings it up during the course of the meetings in the next two days, we'll be happy to listen."
OK, so the administration is open to listening to Pakistan's desire for a deal within the context of the strategic dialogue. And the Pakistanis made it clear in their 56-page prep document that they want such a deal.
Any objections?
Actually, yes.
On Capitol Hill, where lawmakers are still smarting from the last deal they made with Pakistan (when Pakistan complained about the billions of dollars U.S. taxpayers are giving them) and still fighting over who gets to spend those billions, the prospect of a sweeping new nuclear deal with Pakistan seems too far-fetched to even discuss right now.
"I don't think it's on the table right now considering all over the other issues we have to confront," Senate Foreign Relations chairman John Kerry, D-MA, told The Cable. "There are countless things that they would have to do in order to achieve it. If they're willing to do all those things, we'll see."
Kerry emphasized that he believed a nuclear deal was not "directly" part of the strategic dialogue this week.
"There are a lot of things that come first before that. It's really premature," he went on. "It's appropriate as something for them to aspire to and have as a goal out there, but I don't think it's realistic in the near term."
His words were echoed by his Republican counterpart Richard Lugar, D-IN, who told The Cable he believes the idea of a nuclear deal should be delinked from the strategic dialogue.
...
Indeed, it's an even older concept: Great Britain through WW2 had one key goal: that no one on the continent became too powerful. In that endeavor, they supported the weaker continental power: with Prussia and Russia against Napoleonic France, and with France and Poland against Bismarck and Hitler's Germany, etc. Henry Kissinger's book "Diplomacy" spells this out neatly. A great example of interests triumphing weaker emotions.shiv wrote:This is exactly in keeping with the US concept of "holding the ring"Guddu wrote:I found this snippet from Strat interesting....which may explain some of our angst at Unkil, and why the ameer khans behave as they do.
"The eastern balance of power between Pakistan and India is also in danger of toppling. The Afghan war has caused profound stresses in Pakistan, and there are scenarios in which we can imagine Pakistan’s power dramatically weakening or even cracking. It is unclear how this will evolve, but what is clear is that it is not in the interest of the United States because it would destroy the native balance of power with India. The United States does not want to see India as the unchallenged power in the subcontinent any more than it wants to see Pakistan in that position. The United States needs a strong Pakistan to balance India, and its problem now is how to manage the Afghan war — a side issue strategically — without undermining the strategic interest of the United States, an Indo-Pakistani balance of power."
Code: Select all
Cost of War on Terror to Pakistan (Rs billion)
Direct Indirect Total
FY 2004/05 67,103 192,000 259,103
FY 2005/06 78,060 222,720 300,780
FY 2006/07 82,499 278,400 360,899
FY 2007/08 108,527 375,840 484,367
FY 2008/09 114,033 563,760 677,793Me too - especially when (quote from same article)shiv wrote:I am all for such a deal with Pakistanabhishek_sharma wrote:
Pakistan disconcerts the world due to its nuclear proliferation record and because it supports myriad Islamist militants menacing the international community. This deal should therefore be conditioned upon access to nuclear scientist A.Q. Khan and direct information about his nuclear black markets, as well as verifiable evidence that Pakistan is reversing its support for militant groups and taking active steps to dismantle the architecture for terrorism.
abhishek_sharma wrote:Senators pour cold water on Pakistani nuclear hopes
Consider this situation, purely fictional on my part:CRamS wrote:My prediction for 3/26:
...
3) No nuke deal, but some cooperation, but lots equal equal language which should assuage TSP's H&D in the short term.
...
deWalker wrote: I would hate to see my tax money used this way, but it's not THAT outlandish a scenario.
Diwakar
The United States has doused a major Pakistani complaint against India on water sharing, telling Islamabad it would be "sensible" to look to the existing bilateral mechanism to resolve the issue with New Delhi.
Ahead of a two-day "strategic dialogue" between US and Pakistan, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton rejected Islamabad's efforts to have Washington mediate in its grievance against India on water issues, while offering US help on better using its existing resources.
...
The high-level Pakistani delegation that will begin talks with US interlocutors on Wednesday had penciled its water "dispute" with India as one of the items that needed US intervention. Some Indian experts believe Pakistan is essentially extrapolating the water issue to seek US mediation on Kashmir (since river heads are mostly in Kashmir), a subject Washington is leery of touching.
...
The leader of the US delegation for Wednesday's talks offered a sobering assessment -- and perhaps a dampening one for Pakistan -- of the long road that lay before Islamabad before it could aspire to have the kind of ties New Delhi has developed with Washington.
Pressed repeatedly in two interviews she gave Pakistani TV networks ahead of the talks as to why Pakistan could not have a civilian nuclear agreement of the kind India signed with the US, Clinton said that deal was a "result of many, many years of strategic dialogue. It did not happen easily or quickly."
She was sure Pakistan was going to raise the issue of a civilian nuclear deal and "we're going to be considering it," she disclosed, but added "I can't prejudge or preempt what the outcome of our discussions will be."
The two interviews were full of querulous complaints and grievances expressed by the Pakistani questioners, reflecting the resentment of the country's establishment that has become the basis for talks. "How come the money (from the Kerry-Lugar aid bill) has been so slow in coming, because we desperately are in need of that money?
...
i.e., don't be affected by the news-cycle. And nations' interests don't switch in an instant. In fact, the big pain of democracies is that no decision can be taken in the time it takes the media pendulum to swing from one side to the other....we on BRF have wild mood swings one way or the other depending on what time of day we read a report
QUESTION: Pakistan has a lot of expectations from the Strategic Dialogue, and one of the expectations is that they are hoping to get a civilian nuclear deal similar to the one with India. Now, obviously, one of the (inaudible) is going to be proliferation, but your Administration has already vouched that we are no longer doing that. So are we going to restart having a dialogue acknowledging Pakistan’s nuclear program?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, first let me wish everyone a happy National Day because I know that this will air on Pakistan’s National Day. And let me also say how pleased we are to have the first of our Strategic Dialogue meetings here in Washington. We have a really broad agenda – that issue, many others are on it. And what we try to do in these Strategic Dialogues is to begin the hard work of sorting through all the different issues that are raised. I’m sure that that’s going to be raised and we’re going to be considering it, but I can’t prejudge or preempt what the outcome of our discussions will be, except to say that this Strategic Dialogue is at the highest level we’ve ever had between our two countries. We are very committed to it. We know whatever we do will take time. It’s not the kind of commitment that you easily produce overnight or even within a year. But it is important to get started, to sort it out, and to develop the trust and the confidence between us, and between all the people who work in our government, because it’s not just between me and Foreign Minister Qureshi, it’s all the other people who do the work. And we will be moving forward. We’ll have our next session in the future in Islamabad.
QUESTION: The reason I ask the nuclear question is simply because we are having these power riots in Pakistan at the moment and we desperately need that kind of power and that help that was given to India at the same time, and (inaudible) that there’s a sense of unevenness after you signed the nuclear deal.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I can’t speak for anyone else’s impressions, but that was the result of many, many years of strategic dialogue. It did not happen easily or quickly. And I think on the energy issue specifically, there are more immediate steps that can be taken that have to help with the grid, have to help with other sources of energy, to upgrade power plants and the like. And we are certainly looking at those and we want to help Pakistan with its immediate and its long-term energy needs.
QUESTION: You had a very good (inaudible) the Kerry-Lugar bill that was passed (inaudible) now. How come the money has been so slow in coming, because we desperately are in need of that money?
...
QUESTION: Now, earlier President Bush’s Administration had announced a reconstruction opportunity zone for Pakistan’s troubled Northwest. Is your Administration going to pursue that?
...
QUESTION: So perhaps we will have a bilateral investment treaty?
...
QUESTION: Another concern is that there’s a proxy war going on between India and Pakistan in Afghanistan and it’s found another arena to take this conflict to. Now, this is obviously not good for international security; and in the beginning, President Obama’s Administration had promised a regional strategy. Now, how come so little has been done on that?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I think that there is a regional strategy, but of course, there’s an immediate need to try to deal with the violence in Afghanistan, to try to take back areas that had been overrun by the Taliban, which is what the military campaign is about. It’s also important to put the Afghan Government on a stronger foundation so that they can deliver services. But clearly, Pakistan is very much involved in assisting us, in counseling and advising us about what will or won’t work in Afghanistan.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) do want center stage if there are going to be negotiations with the Taliban. Now, if there are negotiations with the Taliban, where does Pakistan fit into the picture?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, that’s one of the things that we’ll be discussing in the Strategic Dialogue, because clearly, Pakistan has a very important role to play. And the actions that Pakistan has taken against the Taliban extremists inside Pakistan, I think have been extremely important and very well done to demonstrate that you cannot allow terrorists to operate inside your own country. And now, we want to get Pakistan’s advice about how best to move forward in Afghanistan.
...
QUESTION: Secretary Clinton, a number of issues have united to fight on the agenda, like water, like energy, like economic cooperation, security, education, communication and diplomacy. But people wonder that – where is the interdependence? No enduring strategic relationship can survive without an element of interdependence, and all the relationships that you have, either with UK or (inaudible) in Canada and the new relationship with India has element of interdependence.
Are we expecting any movement towards a free trade agreement with the United States and Pakistan or a potential access for Pakistani textile products into the United States market?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, the free trade agenda has been paramount to the Obama Administration. I have personally spoken out about it. I have testified before Congress. The President has spoken out about it. Unfortunately, we came to office in the middle of a global recession, but our commitment to increasing market access for Pakistani goods is at the top of our agenda.
And again, I know that there’s a level of impatience and a sense of anticipation, but we believe that we want to build a very strong foundation, because we don’t want this to be a year or two of strategic dialoguing. We want this to be, along with some of the countries you just mentioned, an enduring part of our relationship and our foreign policy priorities.
QUESTION: When I look at the list (inaudible), things like apart from security, we have economic development, we have agriculture, we have energy, which (inaudible) with me that all these things are very intimate and very closely linked with the issue of the water. And water, in the context of South Asia, between India and Pakistan is increasingly a transnational commodity, a transnational issue. Are we expecting the United States to play a more active and more robust diplomacy between India and Pakistan on the issue of water?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I think the issues that you mentioned are all interconnected, and you can’t pull one out and say, well, is this now going to become international as opposed to what we can do within the context of our relationship to assist Pakistan.
Agriculture, water – they’re all connected. We think we can bring to the table technology, innovation. I announced a project that we are funding to help farmers in Pakistan update two wells so that they can get better irrigation from the water that is already there. We’re well aware that there is a 50-year-old agreement between Pakistan and India concerning water.
What we want to do is to help Pakistan make better use of the water that you do have. That’s going to have to be the first priority in countries including our own. Let’s see what we do to protect our aquifers. Let’s see what we do to be more efficient in the use of our water. Let’s see what we do to capture more rainwater; how do we actually use less of it to produce more crops? We think we have some ideas with our experts that we want to sit down and talk with your experts about and see where that goes.
QUESTION: Just – if I want to spend 30 seconds more on that, in the sense that what you mentioned is an internal management of the water resources, and I want to remind you that you have recently launched the Global Hunger and Food Security Initiative in which you identified that (inaudible) hunger is a strategic part of the U.S. foreign policy. So I wonder that – will you still be persuaded by the Indian argument that Pakistan and India are a bilateral relationship and U.S. cannot play an active mediation between them? Maybe water will change that perspective, that perception?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, usually, where there is an agreement, as there is between India and Pakistan on water, with mediation techniques, arbitration built in, it would seem sensible to look to what already exists to try to resolve any of the bilateral problems between India and Pakistan. But in the course of the strategic dialogue, what we want to do is focus on the problem. If the problem is water or agriculture or energy, without looking externally, as we do in our other strategic dialogues, when we have a strategic dialogue with Russia, it’s between the United States and Russia.
Now, Russia may have trouble with China or with another neighbor in Eastern Europe, but our strategic dialogue is between the two of us. And our strategic dialogue with Pakistan, which we are taking to the ministerial level at the highest level of civilian democratic leadership, is what we want to build and really put on a strong footing for the future.
QUESTION: Secretary, are we expecting on the issue of the energy – you mentioned yourself Pakistan has (inaudible). Are we expecting any, as a result of the strategic dialogue, a civilian nuclear cooperation between the United States and Pakistan?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, we have a very broad agenda laid out for this. I don’t want to prejudge or preempt what we are going to talk about because we haven’t held it yet, as we – you and I are being – holding our conversation. We’re going to have many issues, including that one, which the Pakistani delegation wishes to raise. And we’re going to really go deep into all of these.
Now, this is the first meeting, and we have to set up the mechanism for going forward. I look forward to coming back to Pakistan in the future myself to continue this dialogue. I tried to start it in October when I was there. I feel very personally committed. I have many, many Pakistani American friends and now many friends in Pakistan who are really counting on us to have a very thorough examination of all these different issues.
We can’t prejudge it. We don’t know what the path will be. I have been in enough of these dialogues to know that you can have an idea, but it might take years to develop. So we have to sort it out and see, in a prioritized way, how we move forward.
QUESTION: One related question comes to mind, is that Pakistan is a de facto nuclear power since 1998. Are we expecting, at some stage, United States accepting Pakistan as a nuclear power?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, again, I don’t want to prejudge or preempt. I think part of what we have to do – and we are building the basis of what I hope will be an open, transparent, frank relationship between us. That’s what countries that develop that level of trust and confidence can do with each other. I well remember being in Pakistan in October and being told by many journalists and many others that there was a trust deficit, we did not trust each other. I think the fact that we have come to a point where we’re going to have a serious strategic dialogue at the highest level of government is quite a move.
But I am absolutely convinced we have a long way to go. We can’t just wave that magic wand and say we’ve eliminated the trust deficit, we fully understand each other. This takes time, and we have to build it step by step. But I’m very committed to this process.
...
This is to extract more money from the US, the article and data being released at the most convenient time. The news report about 20-hour power cut in most parts of Pakistan is also aimed similarly.A_Gupta wrote:Here it is - the ultimate source is the Finance Ministry of Pakistan
http://www.brecorder.com/index.php?id=571War on terror costs Pakistan $35 billion: reports
M RAFIQUE GORAYA
LAHORE (May 24 2009): Various government and non-governmental organisations, commercial and industrial chambers and experts have prepared reports about socio-economic costs of Pakistan's fight against terrorism during the past five years. According to the Pak-US Business Council report (2009), Pakistan is the prime victim of Afghanistan's instability, and its economy has so far suffered directly or indirectly a huge loss of 35 billion dollars.
Technique learned from see-eye-yeah.SSridhar wrote:This is to extract more money from the US, the article and data being released at the most convenient time. The news report about 20-hour power cut in most parts of Pakistan is also aimed similarly.
However, the report filed by DAWN does not quote her exact statement on why she termed the Indian COAS' statement as 'silly'. They have quoted all her other statements though. Is there a video clipping ?
It is a very old article. I don't know why it is still on their front page.SSridhar wrote:However, the report filed by DAWN does not quote her exact statement on why she termed the Indian COAS' statement as 'silly'. They have quoted all her other statements though. Is there a video clipping ?
abhishek_sharma wrote:It is a very old article. I don't know why it is still on their front page.
She was talking about Gen Kapoor's remarks on two-front war with China and Pakistan.
I know. I think they have tinkered with the algorithm to keep this article at top. I could be wrong.Sri wrote:
Yeah! it's an old article... but some how it's the most read article on Dawn (surprise surprise)... thats why it is showing on the front page...
from the comments section,abhishek_sharma wrote:Should Pakistan Get a Nuke Deal?
BY C. CHRISTINE FAIR
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2 ... ?page=full
ROGERMOORE
2:46 AM ET
March 24, 2010
History repeats itself...........
The History of US - Pakistan relations show that whenever the Americans gave aid to pakistan to further their own interests, the pakistanis mistook it as broad American support to Pakistan for their actions against India.Every American military aid that pakistan received was used against India although officially the americans said it was against communists (as they said in the 80s) and Islamists (like they are saying it now).But the Americans also knew that these weapons will be used against India.But in their bigger objective of defeating communism then or Islamism now, India is a small fry. Giving pakistan a nuclear deal to stop terrorism is like rewarding a snake by giving milk and expecting it wont bite afterwards. India got the deal because of its good behaviour.Now the suggestion is pakistan should get the deal because of its bad behaviour. For many years the Americans got miffed whenever the Indians talk about non-alignment between US and the Soveits.Now it is time for the Indians to tell the Americans that their owm Non-alignment between the Indians and pakistanis should stop.They have to choose on.They cannot hunt with the hound and run with the hare.The Americans needs to realise that this is a zero sum game and they have to choose one.
On its part, India should understand that if they want to tackle pakistan, they need to tackle America first.Without American support, pakistan is nothing (even after including the chinese and Saudi support). At this point of time India does not have any leverage against the Americans and they should develop one asap.
If you want to stop America coming to pakistan's rescue everytime, then
FIRST develop a ICBM that can hit America and then talk to the Americans.
SECOND, develop strong relations with Iran.An increased Indian-Iranian interactions will be helpful in Indian-American interactions.
THIRD Punish the American business who wants to do business with both India and pakistan.Lockheed martin and Boeing cannot sell weapons to pakistan and expect to be in the IAF tenders.
FOURTH, dont be shy to poke a finger in Uncle sam's eye, if the American's are not listening to you.Create a nuisance for the americans in the first place and then negotiate to reduce that nuisance without reducing it completely .The pakistanis have perfected this art like anything and this last tip is one of the few things which the Indians can learn from pakistanis.
Rony wrote:abhishek_sharma wrote:Should Pakistan Get a Nuke Deal?
BY C. CHRISTINE FAIR
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2 ... ?page=full
That is coming from China, a Han Class SSN.Hari Seldon wrote:I'm surprised TSP hasn't demanded a SSBN or at least an SSN after Arihant hit the waters.
KPS Gill was a failure till Beant Singh took over, and even then, his role is massively over hyped. There is simply no replacement for strong willed Politicians (you can count the number we have had on our fingertips), in our form of government.SBajwa wrote:When will we understand!! I wish KPS Gill was prime minister of India instead of MMS.
The tribesmen and militants in North Waziristan were surprised Tuesday when they saw a new type of the US spy planes in the air which were smaller in size but had a more thundering sound.
“It appears the US is manufacturing new planes and testing the product on us first,” remarked a scared tribesman, Abdul Hakim Khan, in Miramshah, the principal town of North Waziristan tribal region.
Abdul Hakim Khan said the new US spy planes in North Waziristan had terrified the tribesmen, particularly the militants operating in the militancy-hit tribal region. He said the new white colour drones were smaller in size. He said the new drones attracted attention of the tribesmen due to a more deafening sound compared to other drones.
Abdul Hakim said that the new plane has no tail unlike the old ones. “The old drones played havoc by carrying out dozens of missile strikes in the tribal region during the past few years. The new ones could cause greater damage,” felt.
A security official also confirmed that new US drones were flying over North Waziristan. Pleading anonymity, he said four new drones intruded into North Waziristan Tuesday and were said to be flying at a low altitude over the area till filing of this report.
The problem is the ToI. It printed BS and people latched on. There was NEVER any chance of TSP getting a nuclear deal. But, as the editors at ToI are probably saying "HA...got you to click..."shiv wrote:abhishek_sharma wrote:Senators pour cold water on Pakistani nuclear hopes
One of the "new problems" posed by the internet is becoming visible to me here.