Bharat Rakshak

Clinton will have to face the repercussions of her comments about Islamabad head-on, traveling to Pakistan after she wraps up her visit to Afghanistan. Washington is making a serious diplomatic push, sending a group of top national-security officials to Islamabad. The list includes CIA Director David Petraeus, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey and special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan Marc Grossman. The delegation is supposed to demonstrate unity among the various U.S. agencies operating in the region and will push Islamabad to crack down on Pakistan-based militants launching attacks in Afghanistan.

The secretary of state was in Afghanistan meeting with Karzai and other Afghan government officials. Her sitdowns also covered the topic of reconciliation. Meanwhile, the top commander in Afghanistan, General John Allen, said that a “high-intensity, sensitive” operation is under way against one of those difficult insurgent groups, the Haqqani militant network. And Allen indicated that coalition troops would turn over security to control to Afghans faster than expected.

Washington is getting ready for another round of disarmament talks with North Korea. Glyn Davies, the U.S. IAEA representative, will replace Stephen Bosworth as the special envoy on the case, devoting full-time attention to the subject. Both Davies and Bosworth will meet with North Korea’s delegation next week (October 24 and 25) at what State Department spokesman Marc Toner called further “exploratory meetings to determine if North Korea is prepared to fulfill its commitments under the 2005 joint statement of the Six-Party Talks . . . as well as take concrete steps toward denuclearization.”

America has to give clear timeline to win the confidence of regional powers. Hillary has said that America has no plans to stay in Afghanistan. It is a bluff. America will maintain its military bases in Afghanistan and it is using SWAT to re-write a new deal with Pakistan. PPP government, weakened by corruption, failed economy and energy crisis is supporting Washington’s game plan. Delhi has shown that it does not support US attack on Pakistan. In a statement it was said that Pakistan and America should return to dialogue.

India cannot afford to allow permanent US presence in Afghanistan against the wishes of Pakistan and in the process Delhi would not like to anger regional powers demanding US withdrawal from the region as a precondition for restoring peace. China, Russia and most CARS states have demanded end of foreign occupation of Afghanistan. Delhi cannot stand against the regional consensus and expect to gain trade and commerce corridors.

Delhi may have tickled America to play its final card of ‘gunboat’ diplomacy of threatening a sovereign state but it cannot support and stand with Washington because it could cost it its stakes in ASEAN and SCO. Use of force is not an alternate to diplomacy and America’s use of its military card is reaching its end. Washington’s use of drones in Libya and other parts of the world including Pakistan is going to meet its logical end in The Hague. Hillary by defending US drone attack policy has made it easy for the International Courts to prosecute her also. India should therefore distance itself from American polices in the region if it really wants to restore peace in the region and gain from the Pak-China Asia Silk Route.

US and Afghanistan have lost the great game. Gwadar-South China trade corridor is the only Asia Silk Route and India can only benefit if it is willing to settle the Kashmir issue so that trade corridor is further widened and both countries can benefit from it. Afghanistan can also join Pakistan as its allies not as supporter of anti-Pakistan and ant-region American policies.

Differences, interests, and aspirations of countries like Iran, China, India, Saudi Arabia, and Russia, make this the most complicated regional dynamics known to modern history, and Pakistan is right in the middle of it. Pakistan’s geographical position, and its great asset has become its greatest liability. There are countries fighting and funding proxy wars on our streets, while others are trying to get access to our routes to warm waters. A violent tussle to take control of its assets by various countries has divided the people of Pakistan to the point of a civil war. Drained its resources, almost triggering financial collapse. Weakened a nation with great potential to the extent that it is being openly called a “failed State” ready to split into political or tribal fiefdoms.

But what does all this have to do with India and Pakistan becoming friends? Quite a lot. The Indian leaders have on many occasions predicted and wished for Pakistan’s collapse. We keep hearing across the border voices demanding the re-inclusion of Pakistan into India. It is no secret that India has not only engineered trouble in Pakistan, but also instigated USA to hurt us whenever possible. Right after the Osama incident, the Indian leaders also aired their desire to take unilateral actions into Pakistan. India’s intentions are not a secret. '

The rhetoric, which originates from various Indian politicians and leaders, are indicative of a hidden common sentiment of most Indians; Pakistan as an independent State is not acceptable to them, and they want it to be re-assimilated into India.

Conspiracy theorists believe that India is interested in an unstable Pakistan. However, I believe that is far from true. An unstable and untamed Pakistan doesn’t suit anyone’s interest, especially not India’s! What India really wants is a subservient Pakistan, which can only be achieved through its division or complete economic collapse.
India knows very well that it is almost impossible to conquer Pakistan as long as it stands united, under one purpose, and under one flag. But a divided and shattered Pakistan would pose no opposition to occupation on ground, through mind, and in pocket.

Pakistan says Indian helicopter forced to land for violating airspace, crew taken into custody.

Indian chopper enters Pakistan territory due to bad weather, pilot taken into custody

A spokesman for Pakistan's army says authorities have forced an Indian military helicopter to land and have taken its four-member crew into custody for violating Pakistani airspace.

Maj. Gen. Athar Abbas says the incident occurred Sunday near Skardu, a city in northeastern Pakistan fairly close to the border with India-held Kashmir.

Abbas says the three pilots and crew chief taken into custody are safe. He did not say what Pakistan planned to do with them.

Pakistan and India are archenemies and have fought three major wars since they gained independence from Britain in 1947.

menon s wrote:Any way ANI reports that the Helicopter is released and will be back in India, in next 45 mts.

Acharya wrote:There’s Grand Bargain being proposed by the Schaffers, former diplomats: http://bit.ly/phRJ6v

LAHORE: FBR Chairman Salman Siddique said Pakistan was running on loans, while the country was currently facing a severe financial crisis, Geo News reported. Siddique added that the budget deficit had swelled up to Rs600 billion.

Addressing the Lahore Chamber of Commerce, Salman Siddique said seeking assistance from the IMF was due to our utter inability and if required we could approach them again.

“Everyone in Pakistan criticizes, but none are prepared to pay tax. The entire amount of tax collected is spent on defence and payment of loans.” Siddique said.

Acharya wrote:

While it’s an imaginative proposal, it’s doubtful how successful it will be on the ground. It needs sincerity on the part of everyone concerned to succeed. Given the trust deficit on all sides, that’s a tall order.
Let me make a provocative comment from an Indian POV.

...

I believe India should not blink now. Its leaders should recognise the strength of its position (strengthening further with time), and hold out for the grand prize.
It’s only under the peace and stability of a Pax Indica that the people of South Asia will benefit and their living standards will begin to improve. How does that sound as a solution?

[quote="Acharya]“Somehow the U.S. is like a mother-in-law,” the woman said, prompting laughter and applause.“We are trying to please you,” she explained, “and every time you come and visit us, and you tell us, ‘You’re not doing enough and need to work harder.’ ”

ISLAMABAD: The Pakistani Taliban have threatened to attack installations of Shell Pakistan and the state-run Pakistan State Oil if the two firms do not pay a total of Rs 400 million within 20 days as extortion money, a media report said on Sunday.

The commander further claimed the Taliban had never warned the companies to halt supplying fuel to NATO forces in Afghanistan.

He said officials of the companies "wrongly linked" the Taliban's threat to ending oil supplies to the foreign forces.

The commander claimed the PSO had issued a statement to the media that said the the Taliban wanted the company to halt oil supplies to foreign forces in Afghanistan.

"It isn't true. We never asked them to stop fuel supply to the US or NATO forces in Afghanistan. We had nothing to do with whatever they are doing. I just asked them to pay us Rs 200 million within 20 days, otherwise we would target their installations," the commander was quoted as saying.

'Two-front war against India possible'
Last Updated: Sunday, October 23, 2011, 15:22 1435 0
http://zeenews.india.com/news/world/two ... 38056.html


In 1950, Pakistan became one of the first countries to recognise the People's Republic of China. The ties between China and Pakistan continued to grow after that, for which the credit goes to India. Military, technical, or economic, China has provided Pakistan with all the assistance. The growing proximity between India and the United States is pushing Pakistan closer to China.

In 2006, Pakistani Ambassador to the United States Husain Haqqani told a think-tank, “For China, Pakistan is a low-cost secondary deterrent to India… For Pakistan, China is a high-value guarantor of security against India."

In an exclusive interview with Kamna Arora of Zeenews.com, Dr Harsh V Pant discusses the limitations as well as repercussions of the ties between China and Pakistan.

Harsh V Pant teaches at King's College London in the Department of Defence Studies and is an Associate with the King's Centre of Science and Security Studies. Recently, he has been a Visiting Professor at the Indian Institute of Management, Bangalore.

Kamna: Recently, Pakistan and China launched joint war games along the Rajasthan border. How should India read the presence of Chinese troops along its western border?

Dr Pant: China and Pakistan have been very close allies for far too long, so the latest war games are just a continuation of an old trend. India should view growing Chinese presence in Pakistan with concern, not just these war games. In its own war gaming, Indian armed forces have been and should indeed take into account the possibility of a two-front war against India, and prepare accordingly.



Kamna: How is China taking advantage of the tensions between Pakistan and the United States?

Dr Pant: As Pakistan comes under pressure from the US, it is signalling that it has other options and China is doing its best to project itself as a benign friend of Pakistan. With India’s recent rise as an economic and political power of global significance, Sino-Indian ties are now at a critical juncture as India tries to find the right policy mix to deal with its most important neighbour. Meanwhile, Chinese strategists remain concerned about the US’ attempts to encircle China and the profound effect on Chinese security of an eventual integration of India into an American alliance.

As India struggles to emerge as a global power with an ambitious foreign policy agenda, China can effectively scuttle Indian ambitions by continuing with its diplomatic and military support to Pakistan. Much to India’s chagrin, China has given enough indications in the recent past that it wants to follow that path.

Kamna: Do you think Pakistan overestimates the support it is likely to get from China?

Dr Pant:There are indeed limits to China-Pakistan ties. The relationship remains fundamentally asymmetrical: Pakistan wants more out of its ties with China than China is willing to offer. Today, when Pakistan’s domestic problems are gargantuan, China would be very cautious in involving itself any more. Moreover, the closer China gets to Pakistan, the faster India would move in to the American orbit. Amid worries about the potential destabilising influence of Pakistani militants on its Muslim minority in Xinjiang, China has taken a harder line against Pakistan.

Chinese involvement in Pakistan is unlikely to match the US profile in the country in the short to medium term and it is not readily evident if China wants to match the US in this regard. Not surprisingly, while Islamabad is seeking greater engagement with Beijing, the latter remains wary of being drawn into a tighter relationship. But flirtation with Pakistan gives China crucial space for diplomatic manoeuvring vis-à-vis India and the US.

Kamna: Where does India stand with respect to its military modernisation when compared to China and Pakistan?

Dr Pant:The rise of the Chinese military has been much faster than many were predicting just a year back. After years of top-secret development, the J-20 — China’s first radar-evading jet fighter — was put through preliminary, but also very public, tests earlier this year in January just when US Secretary of Defence Robert Gates was in Beijing to revise the US-China military ties. China’s nuclear deterrent, estimated at no more than 160 warheads, has been redeployed since 2008 onto mobile launchers and advanced submarines that no longer are sitting ducks for attackers. Multiple-warhead missiles are most likely to be the next phase in the evolution of Chinese nuclear policy.

At the same time, China has made significant gains towards fielding a missile system designed to sink a moving aircraft carrier from nearly 2,000 miles away. The “carrier-killer” missile and a new showpiece stealth fighter jet may not be a match for US systems, but they represent rapid advances for China’s home-grown technology and defence manufacturing. China also plans to launch up to five aircraft carriers in coming years.

Compared to this, India's military modernisation has barely begun. This year the Indian government has allocated only 1.8 percent of the GDP to defence, though ostensibly the military expenditure has gone up by 11.58 percent. This is only the second time in over three decades that the defence to GDP ratio has fallen below 2 percent of the GDP. This is happening at a time when India is expected to spend USD 112 billion on capital defence acquisitions over the next five years in what is being described as “one of the largest procurement cycles in the world”. But the defence acquisition process remains mired in corruption and bureaucratese. A series of defence procurement scandals since late 1980s have also made the bureaucracy risk averse, thereby delaying the acquisition process.

The capability differential between China and India is rising at an alarming rate. This will continue to constrain India’s rise as a major regional and global player of any significance.

Nusrat Bhutto, former first lady of Pakistan, dies
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-15424927
Nusrat Bhutto (centre) led the Pakistan People's Party until her daughter Benazir (left) took over.
Continue reading the main story
Pakistan's former first lady Begum Nusrat Bhutto has died in Dubai after a long illness. She was 82.

She was the widow of the former Pakistani Prime Minister and President Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, and the mother of Benazir Bhutto, who was assassinated four years ago.

Nusrat Bhutto was herself elected twice to the Pakistani parliament.

She led the Pakistan People's Party (PPP) until her daughter took over in the mid-1980s.

Her husband, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, was the founder of the PPP, which controls the government in Pakistan today.

He was prime minister and president in the 1970s.

Nusrat Bhutto led the PPP for several years after her husband was hanged in 1979, during the military rule of Gen Zia-ul-Haq.

Her daughter, Benazir, later took over as head of the PPP and served twice as prime minister.

Benazir Bhutto was assassinated in 2007, shortly after returning to the country to participate in elections following years of exile. Her husband, Asif Ali Zardari, is now Pakistan's president.

Nusrat Bhutto will be buried in the family's mausoleum in southern Sindh province, a PPP spokesman said.

Former Pakistani president Musharraf: US-Pakistan relationship at low due to ‘total mistrust’
By Associated Press, Published: October 20

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/ ... story.html

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. — Former Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf said Thursday that Pakistan and the United States were mutually to blame for a relationship that’s reached its lowest point and remains plagued by “total mistrust.”

The Pakistani military was guilty of “terrible negligence” in allowing Osama bin Laden to go undetected before he was killed in a U.S. raid, Musharraf told an audience in Arkansas. Musharraf also said Pakistan hadn’t done enough to target Taliban-affiliated militants known as the Haqqani network and that slain Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi had failed as a dictator.

On the same day that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned military leaders in Islamabad about militants, Musharraf — a short distance from her husband’s presidential library in Little Rock, Ark. — said that neither Pakistan nor the U.S. could defeat militants on their own.

If U.S. military forces went into Pakistan’s tribal areas to attack militants, they “will be totally bogged down,” Musharraf said later Thursday in an interview with The Associated Press.

“Perhaps a hit-and-run action with helicopters like they did with Osama bin Laden, but then how many such actions can they do?” Musharraf said. “And they’ll suffer a lot of casualties.”

Musharraf, a retired general who took power in a 1999 coup and stepped down in 2008, said the Pakistani military and intelligence services needed to “clarify” to the U.S. their strategy for defeating the Haqqani network.

But Musharraf blamed American mistakes in Afghanistan for the Taliban’s re-emergence, calling Pakistan a “victim and not a perpetrator of terrorism.” And he criticized comments last month from now-retired Adm. Mike Mullen, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who said Pakistan’s spy agency supported and encouraged attacks by Haqqani militants.

That U.S. attitude has been changing slowly over the past few years, underpinned by the Arab spring, and in the case of Pakistan, Washington's increasingly difficult relationship with the Pakistan Army over its alleged support for, or tolerance of, Islamist militants based in Pakistan.

Democracy has become the new mantra, expressed most recently by former White House adviser Bruce Riedel in an op-ed in the New York Times.

"America needs a new policy for dealing with Pakistan. First, we must recognize that the two countries’ strategic interests are in conflict, not harmony, and will remain that way as long as Pakistan’s army controls Pakistan’s strategic policies. We must contain the Pakistani Army’s ambitions until real civilian rule returns and Pakistanis set a new direction for their foreign policy," he said.

Somewhat more diplomatically, President Barack Obama made a point of saying that the United States' argument was not with the people of Pakistan but with the army's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), agency.

Asked if he would be willing to cut off aid to Pakistan, hit this summer by a second year of flooding, Obama hesitated, the New York Times reported. The United States has a “great desire to help the Pakistani people strengthen their own society and their own government,” it quoted him as saying. “And so, you know, I’d be hesitant to punish flood victims in Pakistan because of poor decisions by their intelligence services.”


Yet to consider how this might look on the other side of the table, read this column by retired army officer Ikram Sehgal who wrote in response to Riedel's op-ed that the real aim of the United States was the "Balkanisation of Pakistan". By supporting civilian rule, he argued, the United States aimed merely to serve its own agenda given what he called "atrocious (civilian) leadership that excels in nepotism and corruption of the worst kind".

"The majority in Pakistan sees the army and the ISI as Pakistan’s front line of defence and do not approve of the US thus tarring and feathering them," he wrote. "Propping up corrupt leaders in Pakistan allows the U.S. to pursue its core national interest even if it is detrimental to ours, eg impose Indian hegemony on us and ... the US sees the Pakistan Army and the ISI as roadblocks in pursuing their own core national interests."

In other words, an army which sees itself as the guarantor of Pakistan's territorial integrity is unlikely to hand over power over foreign and security policy any time soon to the country's civilian politicians. As it is, the army barely disguises its impatience with the civilian government over what it sees as its failure to provide the governance necessary to underpin its own military campaigns against Islamist militants inside Pakistan.

Containment or Balkanisation — I
http://www.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDe ... 3299&Cat=2

Ikram Sehgal
Wednesday, October 19, 2011

KARACHI: Presently a Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution, Bruce Riedel, the former CIA officer who led the policy review for President Obama on Pakistan and Afghanistan in 2009, wrote in the “New York Times” last Friday, “America needs a new policy dealing with Pakistan. First, we must recognize that the two countries strategic interest are in conflict, not harmony, and will remain that way as long as Pakistan’s Army controls Pakistan’s strategic policies. We must contain the Pakistan Army’s ambitions until real civilian rule returns and Pakistanis set a new direction in their foreign policy.”

The article’s leadline gave out the “Final Solution” about a new Pakistan Policy, “Containment”. Come on, Bruce, having systematically reduced the country over the last decade into the horrible state we are in today, come “clean” and spell out the real aim, the “Balkanization of Pakistan”!

Engagement, according to the Obama Doctrine circa 2009, meant aid and dialogue, and expanding of drone operations to kill terrorists on Pakistan territory. Bruce Riedel says that at that time it was right but now that approach needs re-shaping. He alleges that Pakistan’s generals have, because of their obsession with India built the world’s fastest growing nuclear arsenal, sidelining and intimidating the civilian leaders elected in 2008.

Reidel accuses them of tolerating terrorists and seeking a Taliban victory in Afghanistan. His “policy of containment” would mean more focussed hostility aimed not at punishing the Pakistani people but rather holding the army and intelligence services accountable and replacing aid with trade while cutting military assistance deeply and continuing regular contacts without the delusion of being allies.

Riedel says Osama bin Laden’s (OBL) death only confirms that the US cannot rely on Pakistan to take out prominent terrorists and that the US will need bases in Afghanistan in the future to act against any threat emanating from Pakistan. What information did the computer drives and hard discs taken away from OBL’s compound by US Navy seals reveal about OBL’s connections with the ISI, that is if there were any?

The Taliban in Afghanistan may be fighting and dying, their endgame is to outlast the coalition and live to rule Afghanistan, while the Taliban in Pakistan also want to overthrow the system but their mindset is attuned to destroy and die in the process. While the US has virtually eliminated al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, we have not been able to root them out from the Pakistani heartland despite carrying out counter-insurgency operations in Swat and Fata very successfully. In trying to equate insurgents to terrorists, some of our knowledgeable analysts toe the US line of blurring the difference.

An insurgent can be rehabilitated but someone with a terrorist mindset can almost never be reformed, it would be counter-productive to apply the same remedial measures to both.

The US and Pakistan have major differences in policy objectives that make it impossible to ever have a strategic alliance (1) The US is a superpower and even though economically wounded it is still the economic engine of growth in the world, militarily it remains the most predominant power. Pakistan is a developing country beset with political and economic problems compounded by atrocious leadership that excels in nepotism and corruption of the worst kind (2) Pakistan sees China as an invaluable all-weather friend, the US National Security Strategy is to contain China and build India as a regional power (3) India’s hegemonistic ambitions force us to maintain a large army even though our potential to defend the country has been diminished because of a decade of involvement in the war on terror with our army “on hire”. (4) The overwhelming public perception is that the US aim is to nuclear-ily defang Pakistan or at least have a say over the “command control” set-up (5) facing failure to achieve its objectives in Afghanistan, the US is publicly attacking the ISI for its contacts with Jihadi forces, and are accusing them of complicity in attacks on the US troops. The majority in Pakistan sees the army and the ISI as Pakistan’s front line of defence and do not approve of the US thus tarring and feathering them. (6) Propping up corrupt leaders in Pakistan allows the US to pursue its core national interest even if it is detrimental to ours, eg impose Indian hegemony on us and (7) the US sees the Pakistan Army and the ISI as roadblocks in pursuing their own core national interests.

Bob Woodward’s book quoted US Vice President Biden articulating US policy in the region as aiming to (1) eliminate al-Qaeda and (2) securing Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal. Never contradicted by Biden, or for that matter any senior US official, US policy objectives remain the same while moving from engagement to containment.

(He brings in India into this Pak article)

An unstable Pakistan, combined with the forces of socialist revolt in India as the Naxalites represent, will be a total disaster for South Asia, and even the world beyond. Every country’s core national interests differ from each other, strategic alliances can only happen when they are common or coincide. The core national interests of the US and Pakistan are different, what we actually have today is tactical alliance of convenience in as far as fighting and eliminating terrorists is concerned.

There can never be a strategic alliance between unequal partners with differing national security imperatives, nevertheless it is vitally important for the US-Pakistan relationship to continue.

US should leave Afghanistan to avoid becoming laughing stock: Dr AQ Khan
Submitted 1 day 16 hrs ago

Scientist and father of Pakistan’s nuclear program Dr AQ Khan terming visit of US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton to Pakistan as part of US agenda has suggested that US should leave Afghanistan to avoid becoming a laughing stock.
While talking to a private TV channel by telephone, Dr Abdul Qadeer Khan suggested that the US should leave from Afghanistan like Vietnam to avoid from becoming a laughing-stock.
He said that Hillary’s visit to Pakistan is under the US agenda; it is nothing to do with the benefit and betterment of Pakistan.
He said that the politics of Imran Khan is ‘one man show’ and the people are restless for change in every aspects of life and asked Imran Khan to suggest solution of problems instead of criticizing politicians.
He said that Pakistan’s atomic programme is sound and secure; that is why, the world has become silent after propagating false stories and piling pressure.

Pakistan shared its present assessment of the prospects of initiating negotiations with the Taliban while cautioning the Americans that it was in no position to guarantee their outcome. In welcome remarks made in her public appearances, Clinton virtually disowned some of the grave allegations against Pakistan made by Admiral Mullen in his last testimony to a Senate sub-committee, allegations that had deepened the crisis in relations.

There is a danger that the current difference in perspectives may, somewhat irrationally, tar the bilateral Pakistan-US relations permanently. On the eve of Clinton's visit, Bruce Riedel, who gave the newly elected President Barack Obama his first Pakistan briefing — heavily loaded against Pakistan according to published sources — wrote another polemic in The New York Times under the title "A new Pakistan policy: Containment". The op-ed piece revealed that Obama was being asked by his experts to cut Pakistan's military and intelligence services to size — objectives going beyond problems in Afghanistan.

Foreign policy
"It is time," Riedel observed, "to move to a policy of containment [of Pakistan], which would mean a more hostile relationship". Amongst the reasons cited for this shift to focused ‘hostility', Riedel enumerated lack of harmony in strategic interest; Pakistan army's control of strategic policies; and the need to curtail the Pakistan army's ambitions until "real civilian rule returns and Pakistanis set a new direction for their foreign policy". If this is a true portrayal of the real intentions of the American establishment, Clinton's visit may not really ‘reset' the relationship.

In her public interaction with assorted groups from the media and the civil society, Clinton was rather non-committal on Pakistan's long standing requests for greater market access and on attaching Afghanistan-related military preconditions to the actual disbursement of the promised economic assistance. These conditions reinforce the popular perception that Washington is basically exploitative in using Pakistan to achieve its goals in the region and remains insensitive to Pakistan's huge human and material losses in the ‘war against terror'.

At present, Pakistan's military is an important factor in shaping Pakistan's foreign and security policy. Apparently, American strategic thinking continues to postulate an underlying distinction between a compliant political government and a reluctant military sticking to its own perception of the regional situation. Notably, Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani received the formidable American delegation with the Pakistan army chief, General Ashfaq Pervez Kiyani and the Intelligence Chief, Ahmad Shuja Pasha, at his side. Pakistan has to find its own balance in civil-military relations depending on its perception of national needs and not the requirements of any outside power.
Tanvir Ahmad Khan is a former ambassador and foreign secretary of Pakistan

This being the case, Pakistan is pressed by the reality of its surroundings, which often forces it to maintain links that are considered unacceptable by outside powers. In the current context too, US-Pakistan relations began sliding recently after Admiral Mullen's comments though it is now clear that the US may have also had discussions with the Haqqani network while Washington condemned the group in public.
For Pakistan, contacts with such groups are critical to its well-being. If Pakistan was to snap all contacts with militants, the country's ability to understand such groups with a view to blocking future threats to itself, may then be severely compromised.

Punjab governor vows to surpass Indian trade volume with Turkey
http://www.todayszaman.com/news-260759- ... urkey.html

23 October 2011, Sunday / ABDULLAH BOZKURT, LAHORE
A view from a customs gate between Pakistan and India. The governor of Pakistan’s Punjab, Latif Khosa (R) says they have set an ultimate objective of exceeding the trade volume Turkey maintains with India.
The governor of Punjab, the most populous province in Pakistan with a population of over 80 million, vowed to surpass the trade of volume of $3 billion between Turkey and India.

Speaking to a group of Turkish reporters at the governor’s house, Latif Khosa said his province would like to increase trade with Turkey in a number of areas with the ultimate objective of exceeding the trade volume Turkey maintains with India. The trade volume between Turkey and Pakistan is almost one-third of the volume between Turkey and India.

“We say we are brotherly countries but we must work hard to boost trade by eliminating trade barriers and reducing tariffs,” he said, urging the Turkish government to ease or lift visa requirements. Khosa underlined that there are a number of investment opportunities for Turkish companies in Punjab, adding that special incentives are in place to facilitate their investment in the region.

The Punjab governor called for the speedy completion of 6,500-kilometer Islamabad-İstanbul-Tehran high-speed freight train to increase trade activity among neighbors. “With Turkey, Iran and Pakistan all linked with the railway project, our economies will benefit from the cheapest transportation costs. This will also offer more interaction between our peoples,” he said.

NSA hints at blurring of state, non-state actor lines in Pak
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 459724.cms

TNN | Oct 23, 2011, 06.12AM IST
NEW DELHI: In a veiled but significant reference to Pakistan's policy of using terror as an instrument of state policy, NSA Shivshankar Menon said on Saturday that non-state actors are performing state functions. The remark assumes significance also in the light of US recently accusing Pakistan's ISI of using the Haqqani network as its "veritable arm''.

"I say this from the experience of my job, 60% of what I look at and deal with is not states dealing with states. We see it immediately in our own neighbourhood," he said while addressing a seminar on international relations.


Menon said India needs to anchor this shift in balance of power towards itself. The NSA also stressed on the need to develop an Indian way of looking at international relations.

THE Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) is currently in a better position than ever to settle scores with Pakistan and prevent Afghanistan and Pakistan from working out their trust deficit

In a recent telephonic conversation with journalists, in response to the APC proposal to involve the Taliban in dialogue, TTP deputy chief Faqir Mohammad ruled out the possibility, saying: “Pakistan is not a trustworthy country.”

Since their relocation, the Taliban have worked hard to organise their network in both provinces. Realising that the timber mafia and the local anti-Taliban elites would not let them establish themselves in Kunar, they eliminated the powerful former governor Malik Zareen Khan along with at least 10 others in April. Resultantly, about 850km of the border from Shahi in Lower Dir to Arundu in Chitral was exposed before the militants.

In fact, the TTP got what military strategists in Pakistan had dreamed of in the form of strategic depth.

The threat emerging from the TTP`s relocation grows out of proportion if the militants` capacity is analysed in the backdrop of their one-point-agenda — to hit Pakistan exclusively.
In their recent media release, TTP commanders don`t mince their words: “Before attacking the allied force in Afghanistan, we will first settle scores with the security forces inside Pakistan ,” said Sirajuddin, former spokesman of the TTP`s Swat chapter.

Acharya wrote:

NSA hints at blurring of state, non-state actor lines in Pak
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 459724.cms

TNN | Oct 23, 2011, 06.12AM IST
NEW DELHI: In a veiled but significant reference to Pakistan's policy of using terror as an instrument of state policy, NSA Shivshankar Menon said on Saturday that non-state actors are performing state functions. The remark assumes significance also in the light of US recently accusing Pakistan's ISI of using the Haqqani network as its "veritable arm''.

"I say this from the experience of my job, 60% of what I look at and deal with is not states dealing with states. We see it immediately in our own neighbourhood," he said while addressing a seminar on international relations.


Menon said India needs to anchor this shift in balance of power towards itself. The NSA also stressed on the need to develop an Indian way of looking at international relations.

The Pakistan Army resisted that temptation, treated the incident in the low-key in which it deserved to be treated, consciously avoided dramatising it and let the chopper and its occupants fly back to India within a few hours

This speaks highly of Gen Kayani as a military professional.

His positive and cool reflexes as reflected during the incident need to be noted, acknowledged and hailed by India.

The way the Pakistani military and political leadership resisted the temptation to exploit the incident for ulterior purposes needs to be highlighted and praised.

We do not hesitate to criticise what we see as the negative traits and reflexes of the Pakistan Army in matters relating to India.

In equal measure, we should not hesitate to highlight and hail the positive traits and reflexes of the Pakistani military leadership. The manner in which the Pakistani military leadership handled the incident is worthy of high praise.

Should the good vibrations generated by the Pakistani gesture remain an isolated act without follow-up? I don't think so.

This should be used as a starting point for setting up a more substantial military-military relationship between the armies of the two countries as a distrust-reducing measure. This is the time for us to consider inviting Gen Kayani to visit India.

sum wrote:Why is it that our "thinkers" are always waiting for the smallest things to start praising the TSPA generals and ask to reward them?

So, one helo returned means all the direct evidence of Kayani in 26/11, Kabul embassy bombing etc is forgotten and we should sing praises of him?