How many arguments will you lose Kaleem? 
Some people have no…
guys, lets get back to the topic.... calm down every one.....we were trying to analyze what would be kerry's effect on pakistan's foreign policy in particular and sub-continent in general..............no need of indo-pak bashing......thanks
If you want to know how the Democrats view Pakistan, you should have been in the US Senate today. they had a hearing titled - “Pakistan: Balancing Reform and Counterterrorism”
The ranking Democrat in the Senate Foreign Relations committee is Senator Joseph Biden of Delaware. His opening statement is below.
Note that Senator Biden is tipped to be the Secretary of State should John Kerry win the Presidential Election. He is a close personal friend of Kerry’s.
http://foreign.senate.gov/testimony/2004/BidenStatement040714.pdf
Mr. Chairman, I commend you for calling today’s hearing. There are few places in the world more vitally important to the national security of the United States than Pakistan—and few places where our policy is in more desperate need of a serious, long-term strategy.
Do we have such a strategy in place? If we do, I’m hard-pressed to figure out what it is. Some of the Administration’s policies towards Pakistan make sense, but it’s difficult to see how the various pieces add up to any coherent long-range plan.
And we can’t go on much longer without a plan. The stakes are far too high—for Pakistan, for the rest of South Asia, and for the United States itself.
Let’s take a minute to review a few of the formidable challenges that our policy must address:
First (certainly from our perspective) is counter-terrorism. Pakistan has been an important partner in this effort—but far more remains to be done. Nearly three years after September 11, 2001, the architects of the worst terrorist assault in history are still believed to be hiding on Pakistani soil.
Osama bin Laden, his terrorist aides, and his Taliban confederates, are holed up in the tribal areas near the Afghan border. In recent months the Pakistani military has finally launched a campaign against Al Qaeda hideouts, but the operations have not yet rooted the terrorists from their sanctuary.
What is the Administration’s plan for crushing Al Qaeda? Are we any closer to achieving this goal now than we were three years ago? Secretary Ridge tells us that Al Qaeda is planning a massive terrorist strike in the US—so **why did the White House wait until just this year before pressing Pakistan to launch a campaign in the tribal areas? **
Maybe there truly is a coherent plan for counter-terrorism cooperation with Pakistan, but I don’t see it.
The second challenge is nuclear proliferation. Earlier this year, we learned that the head of Pakistan’s nuclear program had sold both technology and know-how about the most dangerous weapons in the world to countries like Iran and Libya.
**It’s difficult to see how this trade could have gone on— for years, at facilities under military control—without the tacit consent or active participation of top officers in the Pakistani army. **
Dr. Khan, one of the worst nuclear proliferators in the world, received a pardon for his activities from President Musharraf; he has not spent so much as a day in jail, and there is no likelihood that he ever will. To the best of my knowledge, he has not even been questioned by American officials, in order to shut down the nuclear black market he established.
Over the past few years, we’ve repeatedly been promised that Pakistan’s nuclear secrets were not for sale. Even after 9/11—when everything was supposed to have changed, when we all were supposed to have awoken to the dangers of weapons of mass destruction potentially being sold on the open market—there were signs that the promise wasn’t being kept.
When rumors surfaced two years ago of nuclear trade between Pakistan and North Korea, both Musharraf and the Bush Administration promised that if any leakage had occurred, it was absolutely 100% contained. Well, we now know that wasn’t true. So what’s the response today: a new promise that this time things will be different.
**And maybe they will be. Maybe AQ Khan, and his cronies in the Pakistani military and intelligence agencies, truly have seen the light. But I wouldn’t bet my life—or the lives of my grandchildren—on it.
What’s the plan? What’s our strategy to make sure that Pakistan’s nuclear know-how isn’t spread further afield? **
The third challenge is Pakistan’s relations with its neighbors. To the east is India—a relationship that has seen four wars so far (the most recent, in 1999, was sparked by reckless adventurism at Kargil, and ended only with the intervention of President Bill Clinton). In addition, Pakistan has supported a range of militant groups operating in Jammu & Kashmir, including some of the most brutal terrorist organizations currently in existence.
Thankfully, the leaders of Pakistan and India have tried to forge a peace between their countries. But all too often the current Administration’s policy towards Indo-Pakistani peace appears to be little more than crisis management. And the failure to crack down on several hard-core terrorist groups based on Pakistani soil threatens the long-term prospects of any treaty.
Relations with Pakistan’s neighbor to the west, Afghanistan, are hardly more encouraging. **Elements of the Pakistani military and intelligence agencies still provide support to the resurgent Taliban, and to other militants seeking to destroy Afghanistan’s fledgling democracy. US officials complain about it, but nothing seems to get done. **
Does the Administration have a strategy for bringing a lasting peace to one of the most volatile regions in the world? Is there a plan to give Pakistan sufficient reassurance of its legitimate security needs that it doesn’t have to embark on dangerous adventurism to the east and to the west? If so, I’d sure like to know what it is.
There are a range of other pressing challenges— the increasing power of extremist groups in Pakistani politics, the failure of Pakistan’s secular education system, the urgent need for democratization. If I were to touch even briefly on each of these topics, I’d leave little time for our witnesses.
A bit of a pickle...innit. Vote for Bush and blame America for the ills of the rest of the muslim world. Vote for Kerry, blame america for the ills of Pakistan. What ot do..what to do? What does Nader say about all this, Ahmadjee?
Talwar let me ask you this, What will happen if US puts pakistan back on not so favore dnation like they did before? Nothing, it did not stop us from building a nuclear weapon. It will not stop us from being a soveriegn nation and handle our own internal issues internally....did you not say that no nation likes others to meddle in their internal issues. As far as cronies of Kerry are concerned may be they should start thinking about how they are going to face the world after the damaged credibility and lies they have fed to the rest of the world. Alos, it will help if they can come out with a strategy that is going to help US. Lets stop worrying about nations that are not a threat to US and worry about our own problems.....like stop the jobs going overseas for example....
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Matsui: *
A bit of a pickle...innit. Vote for Bush and blame America for the ills of the rest of the muslim world. Vote for Kerry, blame america for the ills of Pakistan. What ot do..what to do? What does Nader say about all this, Ahmadjee?
[/QUOTE]
Matty Kerry does not have a snowball chance in hell to win the upcoming election. Bush will be ok, arab street will be fine...as soon as the oil starts flowing through those pipelines in Iraq ...every one will be hunky dory.
See until now US has been very, very reluctant to press Pakistan. That is because Bush and his neocon gang have another agenda = Make the world safe for Israel. To them South Asia is a distraction. For a Dem, it will not be. Democrats are hawks on nukes.
Some facts:
Musharraf is in power solely because US supports him.
Virtually all the economic recovery of Pakistan since 9/11 has been due to US aid and loan guarantees and debt relief brokered by the US.
Public US criticism of Pak = Pakistan going back to the status 1999-2001 which is - international pariah
Now let's say another attack occurs in America, I'm not so sure that a Democrat President would not blame Pakistan for it since Osama has been said to be directing attacks from the tribal areas.
So, should the US decide to re-evaluate the relationship with Pakistan, it could mean serious trouble for Musharraf.
Trouble for Musharraf doesn't necessarily mean trouble for Pakistan.
^^ It would if Musharraf tries some stunts to stay in power. He is not going to quit as army chief come December. Right now, Musharraf is Pakistan.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Talwar: *
See until now US has been very, very reluctant to press Pakistan. That is because Bush and his neocon gang have another agenda = Make the world safe for Israel. To them South Asia is a distraction. For a Dem, it will not be. Democrats are hawks on nukes.
Some facts:
Musharraf is in power solely because US supports him.
Virtually all the economic recovery of Pakistan since 9/11 has been due to US aid and loan guarantees and debt relief brokered by the US.
Public US criticism of Pak = Pakistan going back to the status 1999-2001 which is - international pariah
Now let's say another attack occurs in America, I'm not so sure that a Democrat President would not blame Pakistan for it since Osama has been said to be directing attacks from the tribal areas.
So, should the US decide to re-evaluate the relationship with Pakistan, it could mean serious trouble for Musharraf.
[/QUOTE]
I agree with all of the points mentioned in your post.
And Thank you very much for posting Biden's speech. It was indeed very helpful in understanding a leading democratic leader's mind set up about Pakistan. In addition, you are right about possibility of Biden becoming next Sectary of State. Senator Biden also considered running for presidential elections but then dropped the idea in favor of john Kerry. He is a very influential senator from Delaware, historically, favoring Indian lobby at Washington DC. However, lately Pakistani community has also tried to establish close contacts with him and he was invited at dinner at couple of influential American Pakistanis homes. He did show up and reports are that those meetings were helpful in softening his views about Pakistan. May be that is why he said in his speech:
"Is there a plan to give Pakistan sufficient reassurance of its legitimate security needs that it doesn’t have to embark on dangerous adventurism to the east and to the west?"
But overall he confirmed my worst fears should Kerry wins the next elections. Dr Qadir’s issue is simply too big to be ignored for a long time. I was surpised that none of you has brought up Dr Qadir's issue in this discussion SO FAR. This issue will haunt us for a long time and we will pay price for mishandling of this whole issue. Some time I feel we cut down our own hands by asking Qadir to publicly accept all of his crimes. God knows what sort of pressure Musharaff was facing which compelled him to force Qadir to do so. Americans will use this issue agianst us at their own terms and we will simply have no choice that time. Amy Allah bless pakistan from this Monster....and that is all we pakis do....just ask allah to help us for all of our stupidities.....
anyway, it is interesting that we are discussing the exact same points which American senate decided to discuss in senate today.
In my opinion, foreign policy is based on three of the following. (i) Morals (ii) Strategic interests (iii) and a combo of morals and strategic interests. A country like Pakistan or the U.S. quite frankly cannot pursue a moralistic policy because quite frankly we all like to meddle in other countries affairs. IMO, if Kerry wins, because of the historic democratic tilt towards the Indians, its going to be a lot harder for Pakistanis to breathe. The Kerry admin. is not only going to force Pakistan to do more when it comes to Al-Qaeda, Taliban, but the Kerry admin. is also going to force Pakistan to abandon Kashmir struggle and I'm also afraid that its going to ask our Land of Pure to open our nuclear facilities for international inspections by IAEA, something not very acceptable to all of Pakistanis.
On the side note, its always amusing to read posts by pseudo pundits like Seminole, who do not miss any oppertunity to call Pakistan an unstable country, and country just about to be taken over by the Islamic radicals, which the history has proven that they are far from reality and living in their own fantasy world. It is true, that Pakistan army have their share of Islamists(after all it's a Islamic country), but no where in the history have any basic army procedures were broken, even when the Pakistan government took a U turn after 9-11 regarding our Afghan policy, not a single incident happened. We have been capturing terrorists and handing them over to the U.S. authorities since 9-11, and still we are falsely blamed as the supporters of the Al-Qaeda. As I said before, yes we have some Al-Qaeda sympathisers in the proud Pakistan army, but it would be not fair to lable every Pakistani soldier as a terrorist sympathisers, its like me saying that the whole CIA is filled with Russian agents because of Robert Hanson, which would not be true.
P.S. Grow up, and stop bashing your allies on war on terror and in global peace, other wise you might piss the coming generations(like myself) who do consider the Americans as friends, and would one day just give up the whole idea of being friends with the great U.S.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by ZulfiOKC: *
In my opinion, foreign policy is based on three of the following. (i) Morals (ii) Strategic interests (iii) and a combo of morals and strategic interests. A country like Pakistan or the U.S. quite frankly cannot pursue a moralistic policy because quite frankly we all like to meddle in other countries affairs. IMO, if Kerry wins, because of the historic democratic tilt towards the Indians, its going to be a lot harder for Pakistanis to breathe. The Kerry admin. is not only going to force Pakistan to do more when it comes to Al-Qaeda, Taliban, but the Kerry admin. is also going to force Pakistan to abandon Kashmir struggle and I'm also afraid that its going to ask our Land of Pure to open our nuclear facilities for international inspections by IAEA, something not very acceptable to all of Pakistanis.
On the side note, its always amusing to read posts by pseudo pundits like Seminole, who do not miss any oppertunity to call Pakistan an unstable country, and country just about to be taken over by the Islamic radicals, which the history has proven that they are far from reality and living in their own fantasy world. It is true, that Pakistan army have their share of Islamists(after all it's a Islamic country), but no where in the history have any basic army procedures were broken, even when the Pakistan government took a U turn after 9-11 regarding our Afghan policy, not a single incident happened. We have been capturing terrorists and handing them over to the U.S. authorities since 9-11, and still we are falsely blamed as the supporters of the Al-Qaeda. As I said before, yes we have some Al-Qaeda sympathisers in the proud Pakistan army, but it would be not fair to lable every Pakistani soldier as a terrorist sympathisers, its like me saying that the whole CIA is filled with Russian agents because of Robert Hanson, which would not be true.
P.S. Grow up, and stop bashing your allies on war on terror and in global peace, other wise you might piss the coming generations(like myself) who do consider the Americans as friends, and would one day just give up the whole idea of being friends with the great U.S.
[/QUOTE]
nice post....and i guess u made a valid point...pushing some one to the wall some time creates a lot of problems.............
How can we expect nice words from Americans when show such hate for them even here? It is not surprising that Bush and Pakistan's future is so intertwined. Shows the kind of company we keep.