Re: Future economic growth threatened
^ Ah yes, now we need India's advice on how to go about with the palestine issue. Nice.
Re: Future economic growth threatened
im not indian spock, dont really get what you mean
Re: Future economic growth threatened
oh sorry man, mistook you for vinek... my bad
Re: Future economic growth threatened
Who told you Pakistan is involved in this issue? Musharraf is the messenger or Marasee delivering American messages to various muslim capitals. There is no Pakistani sponsered agenda for the solution of Palestine issue. As for as moral support goes Pakistan always will and should support the Palestinians.
Re: Future economic growth threatened
Which ever side is right, you will find out soon enough... The democrats will come to power by 2009, and by that time, Im 90 percent certain that American aid is going to dry up... Pakistan will have to fend for itself, and we will have to see what happens...
Word of caution, if history is any guide, Pakistan has a tough road ahead.
Re: Future economic growth threatened
aid will dry up sooner or later no matter what. The question is are the right economic policies in place to continue the country down the right path. Would it put Pakistan on a path to be able to fend for itself without relying on handouts, or without relying so much on handouts.
Re: Future economic growth threatened
i think the first step pakistani govt can take is to own up to the fact that there is a network of the taliban in our country and they take refuge there. the pakistani ambassador refuses to even accept this fact.
Re: Future economic growth threatened
Musharaf already admited that…
Re: Future economic growth threatened
you may want to read up on current events a little 
Re: Future economic growth threatened
Im saying this based on the interview of the pakistani ambassador on the situation room just this sunday morning. did he admit on monday or something?
Re: Future economic growth threatened
^ read below
You said that the first step pakistani govt can take is to own up…
Musharraf is the president of Pakistan , the head of the govt and he has already admitted it and noted it as a problem and all, months ago.
If the Pakistani ambassador refuses to accept this when the president has accepted it, he would have been confronted with that during the interview and ripped to shreds.
There may have been a context issue there. or they may have been showing some old clip noting that at one time Pakistan did not think thre was a problem.
situation room does not air on sunday, so you may be thinking of some other show, situation room that aired on Monday had no such thing, the only quote from Pak ambassador was that Pakistan is doing all it can.
Re: Future economic growth threatened
in so far as i know, Pakistani leadership has accepted that there has been taliban activity going on in pakistan a number of times. some areas of contention are;
1- how do you define taliban and taliban network
2- how far these 'networks' are responsible for the taliban activity going on well inside afghanistan, and exactly what roles are played by afghani nationals/refugees, and their pakistani sympathizers
3- what is the best way to counter these activities
4- and what more afghan govt. and nato can and should do to stop unwanted cross-border movement.
while pak leadership looks more interested in trying to contain and quarantine this activity, thus ensuring stability in the region, and then following up with long-term political strategies to counter the virus, americans are more inclined towards quick military solutions which will give them a decisive 'victory' on the battlefield.
americans might be successful in pushing military leader to 'do more', but in the long-term overly offensive strategies may backfire. it might lead to a rise of militancy and a reinvigorated political class of hard-line mullahs in pakistan, which is going to be neither good for pakistan nor for american interests in the region. secondly using military in your own country, no matter how carefully the operations are carried out, almost always creates resentment against the institution and the state.
Re: Future economic growth threatened
You said that the first step pakistani govt can take is to own up... Musharraf is the president of Pakistan , the head of the govt and he has already admitted it and noted it as a problem and all, months ago.
If the Pakistani ambassador refuses to accept this when the president has accepted it, he would have been confronted with that during the interview and ripped to shreds.
There may have been a context issue there. or they may have been showing some old clip noting that at one time Pakistan did not think thre was a problem.
situation room does not air on sunday, so you may be thinking of some other show, situation room that aired on Monday had no such thing, the only quote from Pak ambassador was that Pakistan is doing all it can.
my bad.situation room did air on sunday but it was a repeat clip from sometime back...i think feb 19th.
Re: Future economic growth threatened
it was the 16th and durrani did not deny that there were taleban or even al qaeda forces operating in Pakistan and that Pak is trying to clean up as they can.. he cntested that no one knew where the leadership was, and whether the leaders of Taleban were in teh tribal area or in Afghanistan.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0702/19/sitroom.03.html
Re: Future economic growth threatened
true, but many here are just youngsters, too blinded by ‘patriotism’ to realise this. For them, Pakistan is a ‘tiger’ that is invincible…we wish!
Show’s how much we depend on US when Cheney has to deny ‘beating up on Musharraf’.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/02/28/news/cheney.php
Cheney denies he “went in to beat up on” Musharraf
WASHINGTON: Vice President Dick Cheney, thinly veiled as a “senior administration official,” told reporters on his plane on Tuesday that it was not correct that he “went in to beat up on” the Pakistani president, General Pervez Musharraf, for failing to confront Al Qaeda and the Taliban.
“That’s not the way I work,” said Cheney, violating the first rule of conducting a background interview: Never refer to yourself in the first person, when it makes it obvious who is talking. “The idea that I’d go in and threaten someone is an invalid misreading of the way I do business.”
As Cheney traveled to Pakistan, senior administration officials said his talking points for a meeting with Musharraf included a strong warning that the Democrats in Congress were threatening to reduce Pakistan’s foreign aid if it failed to combat terrorism. Pakistani officials later confirmed that was a key element of his message, and Musharraf’s office warned Congress about passing what it called “discriminatory” legislation.
Cheney, speaking on his military transport on the way back to Muscat, Oman, said President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan had been “more positive and optimistic than I’ve seen in my recent visits” about the chances of fighting off Taliban and Qaeda forces.
He described Karzai as eager for expressions of long-term U.S. support, saying, “If they see weakness on the part of the United States, or an unwillingness to carry through on our commitments, they automatically raise questions about how good our commitment to them is.”
Re: Future economic growth threatened
The ‘beat down’ delivered by nen-con Cheney and the effect it will have on the future of Pakistan continues to be hotly discussed
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007\03\01\story_1-3-2007_pg3_4
It will do General Musharraf no good at all to continue to recklessly put his lot in with spurious politicians who depend on the army and the ‘agencies’ to rig them into power. The country is bound to suffer if it continues to be rent asunder by divisive actions that come from bad and self-agg*****sing advice by sycophants and hangers-on who would lose their own parliamentary seats in a genuinely fair election
You know, gentle reader, while there are nineteen things about the present junta that anger one no end — its ineptness; its wastefulness; its mendacity; its double-facedness, and so on and on — what makes one absolutely livid is that it takes us lay citizens for complete bloody fools.
The dark prince of The Undisclosed Secure Location, the brilliant Dubya’s leading hatchet man and Vice President of the United States, Dick Cheney-of-the-Permanent-Sneer, was suddenly in Islamabad the Beautiful just the other day.
Every one and Charlie’s aunt knew that he was in the Citadel of Islam for one purpose and one purpose only, and that was to kick ass in no uncertain terms. Yet we are asked to believe he did no such thing: our FO, which snoozes in the suites of the Hotel Scheherezade, came out with a rather severe “we take dictation from no one”, and our ambassador to the United States said to the Washington Post that Cheney and Musharraf had a “pleasant meeting” (thank you, Mr Khalid Hasan).
While the mere fact that the FO insisted Pakistan does not take dictation and General Durrani insisted the meeting was a pleasant one shows that it was indeed dictated to and that the meeting was not pleasant, how General Durrani knew, within six hours of the meeting, please note, that it was ‘pleasant’ baffles the imagination. For the very simple reason that our FO is notoriously and widely known for keeping its outposts most ill informed and ignorant of anything and everything until much after the event, or when the sky falls on its head. Did it, this time?
The pictures that adorned the front pages of our newspapers told a very different story, however, from the brave statements of the FO and its representative in Washington DC. There was The Sneer sneering away, trying to cover it up with an uneasy and contrived smile; and there was the Commando at what seemed like a very stiff attention indeed, chest out, stomach in, shoulders thrust back, head straight. I mean c’mon ‘core-professionals’ — if it walks like a duck, it quacks like a duck, it is a damned duck!
Well, little wonder that, may I repeat myself, everyone and Charlie’s aunt read the situation for what it was: a firm talking down to; a hard rap on the knuckles; a “you’d better, or else”. Little wonder because the past several months are witness to tens of news leaks and stories; think-tank reports; depositions before the US Congress, and plain public statements by various American government officials including the departing head of US intelligence services John Negroponte, all highlighting the American government’s growing impatience with what it perceives as the Pakistani junta’s ambivalence in fighting the Taliban and, now alarmingly, Al Qaeda too.
Let me hasten to add that it is a matter of no joy at all to see the man who sits atop the government of our luckless country (no matter how vehemently one may disagree with him) humbled, for it humbles the country itself. It is extremely painful to see our country bad-mouthed by everyone including Charlie and his aunt; more than anything else it is terribly distressing for any Pakistani to even countenance an attack upon his country by a foreign power.
But the news is bad my friends, very bad indeed. For no matter how many mealy-mouthed and silly statements the government puts out, the fact of the matter is that dark clouds of strife and war are gathering on our several horizons. Why, leave the impending American attack on Iran, that will destabilise us no end, aside for a moment, the US air force has just yesterday reserved the right to attack our tribal areas to “get” Al Qaeda if we don’t. Momentarily, The Mother of All Destabilisations, eh?
We must, therefore, urgently address the issue of what to do immediately to retrieve something of the alarmingly deteriorating situation. The more I think of it the more I am convinced that, as pleaded many times in this column, there is only one way out of the very sticky situation Pakistan has been thrust into by our self-serving establishment. And that is national reconciliation, across the board, across political lines, across provinces and languages, across cultures, across sects, across religions. General Pervez Musharraf must immediately realise that the arrogance with which he has thus far conducted himself will do no one, particularly himself (for it is he that sits in the hot seat) any good at all. That he must try and bring the country together like never before so that it may, as one, stand up to those who might do it harm.
I know I am repeating myself, but no matter how incredibly brave a Commando he considers himself, it will do him no good at all to continue to recklessly put his lot in with spurious politicians who depend on the army and the ‘agencies’ to rig them into power. More than himself, for he is just another mortal like you and I, the country is bound to suffer if it continues to be rent asunder by divisive actions that come from bad and self-agg*****sing advice by sycophants and hangers-on who would lose their own parliamentary seats in a genuinely fair election.
Talking specifically of the tribal areas, which while it is just one of the massive issues his junta faces is a most urgent one, Musharraf must understand that the problems there are mainly political, that the situation would not have become so dire if the army had not arrogated to itself the job of the political authorities, and that if any headway is to be made there it has to be made through a political process by political people.
In this particular regard, he must understand that a popular political party that has strong roots among the mass of the people of the country will have a higher standing in the eyes of the people generally, than one made up of time-servers and turn-coats. I mean the people of the tribal areas would have more respect for, and listen more closely to, someone like (let us not be afraid to name him) General Naseerullah Babar of the (let us not be afraid to name it) People’s Party than they would for someone like, say, Chaudhry Shujaat of the King’s Party.
Lets get on with it then, for Time waits for no one, not even great big Commandos.
**PS: **Because Daily Times is not distributed in Wah and environs (despite Greater Wah being Pakistan’s seventh-largest urban area) I have only now (Wednesday, 4 PM) seen Ejaz Haider’s ‘Woof bloody woof’ when I received Sunday’s issue from a kindly friend from Islamabad who sends me his old copies. What’s this I read about Ejaz giving up writing The Other Column? I protest, sir, most vehemently; his column is a joy to read. Throw your weight about, Mein Editor; get the man back no matter what it takes.
Re: Future economic growth threatened
A lot of analysts are worried… Shahid Javed Burki who was former Finance Minister is not very confident at all. He says that Pakistan hasnt built a strong enough base to cope on its own. Burki is usually an optamist, so im not sure what to think… Still my fingers are crossed.
Re: Future economic growth threatened
What I notice about all these great writers is that they question question question. Only focus on the negatives or what they see as negatives and think that a political party in control will be some magic bullet that will magically erase the challenge we arefaced with. US will have a change of mind, militants would just decide to catch one way flights to their countries, tribal areas will start listening to the govt.
They dont bother on addressing the possibility that whichever leader we have in place our external challenges will continue to be what they are, and we have limited ability to
I mean really, speaking of the whole US deal. If democracy is restored what will happen? the new super-prime-minister takes his/her magic carpet and flies over to tribala reas, and then starts playing the piper’s flute to have all the militants fllow him or her as he/she coats above the ocean in his/her carpet ride while the millitants die as the rats that they are. US will be happy and all will be hunky dory?
Militaants have taken afghanistan as their new ‘jihad’ .. they will keep at this until they have a govt of their choice. remember when it goes to taleban and other afghans these are the same people who fought among themselves for years relentlessly. What makes anyone think they will just stop. Next you have the foriegn fighters, the arabs and chechens and that lot hiding in tribal areas…would they just listen to the new super-PM and give up? what makes anyone think that.
So, its assumptions on top of assumptions to create some great picture of what things could be like, without really bothering to introduce the piece of writing to reality. Fact of teh matter is if today musharraf steps down, or is forced down.. nothing will change. Only if the next govt can deal with the militants that it produces results that satisfies the tribals, the Pak govt, The afghan govt, and the US govt can things in this whole situation can be different. There is not going to be a lasting diplomatic solution with the tribals, because it takes two to tango, and to them dancing is haram.
so if a diplomatic approach with tribals and militants is not going to work, either we are back to where we are today, or if the next govt has the balls to just give the tribals 24 hrs notice to surrender all militants, shut the hell up and stop mucking around the border..or they get some serious spanking from the military…then I am ready to vote for that party today. But..no one is going to say that..
and thats the reality my friends..
Re: Future economic growth threatened
WASHINGTON: The Bush administration, which is now picking holes in the North Waziristan deal signed by Pakistan with tribal leaders, initially backed the decision that was made in consultation with Washington.
Daniel Markey, a former State Department specialist on South Asia for the Policy Planning Council, said in an interview here this week with the Council on Foreign Relations that the US was in accord with Pakistan’s decision. Asked if the Americans sympathised with Musharraf’s approach last year, he said, “Precisely”.
Markey said that when at Washington’s urging the Pakistan Army moved heavily into the tribal areas, it was realised before long that this was not working. According to him, “While it immediately paid some dividends, the Pakistani military took serious casualties and the longer they stayed, they began to be seen more and more as an occupying force.”
Markey said that when the Musharraf government decided that the strategy was not working and the US tended to agree, Pakistan needed in some way to go back to an earlier policy, and then try to “bump it up a little bit”. Pakistan wanted to go back to this earlier strategy of working through traditional mechanisms between political agents and tribal elders, but then try to improve the local security forces, so they would actually stand a chance against the larger terrorist and militant threats. The Pakistanis would then inject a certain degree of development and other types of assistance so the local population would not be so alienated. “The problem with this latest strategy is that in the near term, you have fairly weak local authorities with relatively poor security mechanisms at their disposal. They’re not capable of standing up against outside terrorists and the Taliban, and it doesn’t serve the US interests, at least in the short term, to allow these militants to continue to operate there.”
Asked why the US was feeling frustrated with Pakistan now, Markey replied, “What we’re finding is that despite the fact that he (Musharraf) may be correct in his assessment of the complexity of the problem, this new solution has a significant downside in terms of timing. It may be a reasonable approach to a long-term solution, but in the short term, this is not working.”
Replying to a question about the threat that if Pakistan does not play according to American wishes, Congress will cut off the aid the country is receiving, the former official said, “I don’t think the most responsible members of Congress would really significantly seek to cut assistance to Pakistan. Everybody recognised after 9/11 that you need to build a long-term partnership with Pakistan.”
http://dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007\03\02\story_2-3-2007_pg1_9
Re: Future economic growth threatened
If that article is correct, it shows how trustful the Americans are, and how little we can rely on them in the future