Major foreign policy development - Pak wants broader long term relationship with USA

Society Pakistan & World Affairs
1

Pakistan wants US demonstrate commitment to long-term ties

Washington, July 12 (PPI):- Pakistan wants tangible signs that United States is committed to long-term partnership with the country and its democracy, Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi said. “We want to be positive, want to cooperate, want long-term relationship, partnership. So how serious are you in broadening that relationship - that is what we want to know,” he said in an interview with Washington Post. (Posted @ 18:30 PST)

This was printed in the Dawn today. Observers view this as Pakistan’s 1st step in pushing for a deal such as US and India are working on in the area of nuclear fuel

2

I guess our Phoren minister sahib doesn't understand the Pak-American history.

Americans have always wanted a long term relationship with Pakistan. Big issue is with Pakistani masses who do not want long term relationship with capitalist Americans. Our intellectuals would rather sit with socialists like Castro brathran, Chavez, and Islamic-anarchists like Ahmadenjat.

Some of us keep on harping on US-India nuclear deal. If we are subsurvient to USA just like India, if we are ready to say "as a nation" (and not just leadership) "Yes Sir" to America, or "I am here Sir" just like Indians. Then surely there is a long term deal between Pakistanis and Americans. Otherwise it will only be a leader to leader contact that can never turn into long term commitments.

Our problem is that our leaders mainly our military leaders know how to behave as pro-US in the global sense. Our socialist and Islamist masses however are a different story.

3

Why should Pakistan be subservient to the USA foreign policy? is Pakistan a slave state of the USA? The biggest problem in this world today is the American foreign policy - there is many things wrong with it and the biggest problem that Pakistanis find is that American policy is anti-Muslim. Until that changes - the masses wont like it if they get any closer.

It does nt mean we should start supporting Radical groups to counter America but the basis of any relationship is equality and justice. The American Gov does not believe in either.

Pakistanis are far more sensible - they know one thing - Pakistan is one of the next countries in the line of American fire. India is an "in" country - Pakistan is nt.

4

Yes. Your post is right on the money. This is the attitude prevalent among Pakistanis. And that's why our foreign minister is wrong to ask for lasting relationship with Americans.

IMHO American foreign policy is what it is. You can't change it. So either Pakistanis get with the program (like India or rest of the pro-US world) or quit lamenting "lack of long term relationships".

I think bro you are trying to redefine something that is way beyond your capability.

Equality and justice is NOT the basis of a relationship, "mutual benefit" is.

FYI. Even our brother Muslims folks do not treat an ordinary Pakistani based on "equality and justice". Have you been to an Arab country and interacted with "ordinary Arabs"? Don't tell me you know Arabs based on a Hujj or Umra visit. That will be like coming to NY for 3 days and claiming to "know" Americans.

Pakistanis may be more "sensible" in your thinking. And they may be correct. The bottom line is that such a "sensibility" is anti American. That's why our FM should not be asking for "long term" relationship.

Side Discussion (Should be a separate thread)

It saddens me greatly when bros like you so carelessly throw around "Pakistan in the line of American Fire" like sentences. No Indian will be ever so shameless to talk so senselessly about his homeland.

I will just add (very humbly) that only those Pakistanis who are ex-communists, or current Islamo-socialists who want Pakistan to be clobbered by Americans.

FYI India was never born as "in" country, if you mean "pro-USA" by "in".

Indian government were bunch of socialists . They were in the Commie club of Soviet Union.

Fast forward to 1990s.

With few exceptions like communist parties, Indian government have been working hard on becoming pro-USA. At Indian people level the situation is even more pro-American. Any ordinary white-American is more than welcome in India. Majority of Indians in America are peace-loving hard-working pro-Americans. They may disagree with US government policies, but their temples have not been turned into the dungeons where anti-US flames are always leaping 10 feet high.

Pakistan on the other hand was born as "in" country. Our government was pro-USA free Market oriented right from 1947. Too bad our people and later some potions of the governments got occupied by Islamo-socialists. And what they say is "rest is history". Pakistani people have allowed fascists to grow among themselves to the point where Americans even the embassy staff cannot keep their families with them. What kind of animalistic behavior have we adopted that even diplomats are not safe in our country.

Our Islamo-socialists are doing every thing in their power to invite American wrath. Only our pro-US army is standing in the way. The day "Allah Muaf Karay" the army falls, the very Islamists will be out of control just like they did in Islamic Jannatain of Afghanistan and Somalia. They will burn, loot, plunder their own country, destroy every girls school, kick out lady doctors from the hospitals, and commit terror against the world. Obviously American and NATO will come in to kick them out. Then the same Islamists will turn around and say "we were right". Self-fulfilling prophecy! Isn't it?

5

thejoke bhaijan. If true, why do you believe that is the case?

6

Probably because US never had to use India for its military adventures in neighboring countries. Besides, Indian temples are now raising fire against non-Hindus, which of course is not noticeable.

7

Big mistake, the Pakistanis who say that say it based on their observation and extrapolation and you are using your imagination to say that they WANT US to do that.

8

FYI. Indians are supporting (civilian and militarily) in the US adventure in Afghanistan.

The issue is not the past acts of US, instead we are talking about the attitude of Talibans + their Pakistanis supporters.

I agree that America "used" meaning "paid in $$ handsomely" a group of people to kick out Commies from Afghanistan.

Mujahidin and USA made a pact. Both parties agreed to certain terms and objectives. Monies were paid by US, and services were provided by the Mujahidin.

This was not unlike Tata making a pact with USA to provide computer support. They both sign a contract for a fixed amount of time with a general understanding about money to be used. Tata supports USA for 5 years. The project is over, they both shake hands and go away.

You think Tata has a birth right to continue receiving money long after the contract is over?

Or worse yet! Tata starts punishing USA for ending the contract by infecting US computers?

In business world this is a big no no! Even morally and ethically it is wrong to bite the hand that has fed you for 5+ years.

Then how come Taliban and their supporters think that USA somehow owes them long after the contract is over?

There are millions of Indian organizations raising funds. As long as they are not anti-India or anti-USA (or anti US-allies), then why would they figure in US-India relationship?

The same thing is true in Pak-US relationship. If an organization is raising funds that won't hurt either US or Pakistan they they would not be in the radar.

9

Re: Major foreign policy development - Pak wants broader long term relationship with

Pakistan's mistakes at government and other levels in dealing with or expoiting US relationship is well known. However the current problems are two-fold.

First, USA is firmly of the belief that Pakistan has not and is not fulfilling their end of the deal in arresting and killing the extremists and terrrorists. To the point that they have now concluded that the Pakistani army and intelligence are working for the extremists and terrorists.

Secondly, the US India nuclear deal - nobody, least of all in Pakistan, can understand what exactly this deal accomplishes and implications. If it is merely for India to acquire much needed fuel or is it a lot more. What ever these implications may be, the ground reality is that while the daily headlines are about such deals with India, on th either side it is about US commanders "visiting" Pakistan unannounced to "urge" and "press" Pakistan to act against extremists and terrorists.

I was also a bit amazed to read that while the US India deal almost fell apart due to opposition by communist party in power in India, this has been used successfully by the other parties to show to people that the communist parties are 'pro chinese' and thus throw them out of power!

Time Pass - March 2012
10

Re: Major foreign policy development - Pak wants broader long term relationship with

why should US want a broader long term relationship with Pakistan? what has Pakistan to offer once the WOT thingie ends.

11

India is not as much involved in current US invasion of Afghanistan compared to how much Pakistan was involved in anti-Russia drive in 80s.

Comparing war with business contracts? :hehe:

US funded militancy in 80s, left Afghanistan just like Russia (without solving anything) turned their guns on the same warlords/terrorists who were branded heroes in the 80s efforts. Thats the “mistrust” root, IMO.

12

Interesting point but what obligates US to develop them any further. They helpled push USSR out of Afghanistan because it was in their best interests and definitely Afghanistans as well.

Wars are fought for economic benefit (or defense) and so are business contracts done for economic benefit.

Request For Prayers !!
13

I am not defending anyone who demands money from US for development, I am only saying US funded militancy for their own interests but backed out as soon as Russia stepped out. If US didn't turn their guns on the same warlords now perhaps there wouldn't be as much mistrust.

BTW, why do you say driving Russia out of Afghanistan was in best interest of Afghanis? Just curious.

True but the conditions are not same for comparison, wars were fought between army versus illiterate warlords compared to a business contract which is usually between educated people backed by judicial system.

14

Re: Major foreign policy development - Pak wants broader long term relationship with

Ground reality is this and can anybody deny following:

1) Polling people of Pakistan, they hate USA

2) Polling people of USA, they completely distrust Pakistan and believe it to be the hotbed of terrorism based on islamic exteremism

3) Pakistan leaders fully believe the country cannot survive without $ from USA

4) USA therefore has put Pakistan in a reluctant employee situation rather than a sovereign country.

With this state of affairs, any talk of 'relationship' has only one meaning which is "how much will it cost USa for making Pakistan do what"

15

Thanks USR. War is just like another business with one difference! War business is so huge that almost every other business category pales in comparison.

Ehtesab! you have a point that war business is not conducted out in the open compared to say selling bananas or mangoes. Still it is business. Contracts are drawn up, funds are allocated for every war just like any other business.

Thus "people in the know" may be fewer, but the nature or the process of drawing up contracts remains the same.

Blame game for training Afghan Muj-Why Pakistanis go wrong in their analysis

Afghan Muj were operating like small companies who at their own will collected monies and weapons from USA+allies.

"Tali do haath say bajti hai". Afghan Muj are the second hand of that "tali" that played out loud and clear during Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

Now any Pakistani or Muj-supporter say that somehow USA was the only party doing the dance in Afghanistan, then they are mistaken.

16

Demands must occur with the right for it. Afghanistan has no right to demand anything of the US and neither is the US obligated to it either unless it was a mutual agreement, which is unknown. What is known is that the Afghan militancy was funded by US to prevent USSR from expanding whereas for the Afghanis, it quite simple, they had an invader in their country. Where dual interests meets, pacts are formed and cooperation exists. US never be-friended Afghans, they used them for their interest and the Afghans saw it fit for theirs as well. There is no such thing as moral obligation or friendship in international relations. All relationships are formed on mutual benefit and last as long as it exists, after that relations return to being just cordial. There is ruling that companions of yesterday cannot be enemies of tomorrow or vice versa.

As Burqaposh pointed out, contracts are contracts and the eventual outcome is economic benefit. The people involved and tactics used may be business like or war-like. The public information may be transparent or tainted or skewed or just unknown. However the mentality behind each is the same, the difference lies in the impact of each.

We are equally responsible for missing persons: Shujaat
17

Re: Major foreign policy development - Pak wants broader long term relationship with

USResident, burqaposhx: See current scenario in Iraq and Afghanistan, why did US establish a govt there now? Why didn't US leave Iraq after bombing it into oblivion and removing Saddam/Taliban? Why is it so "sincere" with them now? In the media all over the globe US invaded Iraq because of non-existing WMD and the other bomb called Saddam Hussein (and Taliban in case of Afghanistan), why is it staying there? Yes there were hidden and open-secret agendas and thats what raises the mistrust, people hate that behavior and pickup arms, thats what Osama Bin Laden/AlQaida is doing (atleast thats whats in the media).

I completely agree wars have their own business and agendas.

18

US is now staging Indian to take care of China.... Its just a matter of time.... BTW.. to all Guppies on this thread.... US has no phoren policy or friends it only has INTETRESTS.

P.S: Temple flames will only be noticable if US gets burnt, others don't count.