We all know how this Bush govt. has been after our country and blames us for anything that happens anywhere in the world. But since Mr. Bush is going to retire soon, the big question is: Will the next president be any better?
The US foreign policy is largely driven by the Secretary of State(Rice at present). The next one is going to be Hillary Clinton. Given the historic ties between Clintons and Israel(Remember Bomb, Bomb, Bomb) and the Indians, I am not quiet confident that this is going to be any better.
Recently, Clintons gave the details of the biggest contributors to their foundation and Saudis(pyare pyare) and Indians top the list. Among the Indian donors is Amar Singh, an Indian politicain who gave between $1-5 millions.
Washington Post notes that: “The list also underscores ties between the Clintons and India, a connection that could complicate diplomatic perceptions of whether Hillary Clinton can be a neutral broker between India and neighbor Pakistan in a region where President-elect Barack Obama will face an early test of his foreign policy leadership.”
The story itself is too big to post here, so I am providing the link:
Secondly, the argument on why things are difficult for us is flawed. We are not being criticized because people are taking bribes from Indians or some other conspiracy. We are being blamed because of facts on the ground i.e. terrorist connections from across the world daily being linked to some area of Pakistan, especially FATA and Kashmiri jihadi groups. To add to this we have our less than stellar nuclear situation, history of army rule and you get an unflattering picture.
We need to get away from the idea of lobbying, influencing people through other means etc. China does not spend any money on this yet it has a powerful lobby across the world - all because many powerful people want to preserve lucrative trade with China and share the prosperity. In contrast we come across as either people who can be easily pressured or blackmailers.
Forget Obama, even if Osama takes over US, we will be in trouble if we continue in our current path.
It will be different. Past history shows that Republicans have always been supportive of military dictators in Pakistan with heavy financial aid to military and other projects; where as Democrats have been anti-military establishment hence always opposed aid to Pakistan. However they were more inclined to support India economically and militarily.
Since Pakistan has changed its qibla towards Uncle Sam since last three decades, and present civilian government is as supportive of Uncle Sam as military dictator could be, therefore Pakistan can expect a good economic aid and considerable drop in military aid. Perhaps they may be harsher on organization like ISI or military establishment for retraining them to launch new adventures.
We all know how this Bush govt. has been after our country and blames us for anything that happens anywhere in the world. But since Mr. Bush is going to retire soon, the big question is: Will the next president be any better?
The US foreign policy is largely driven by the Secretary of State(Rice at present). The next one is going to be Hillary Clinton. Given the historic ties between Clintons and Israel(Remember Bomb, Bomb, Bomb) and the Indians, I am not quiet confident that this is going to be any better.
Recently, Clintons gave the details of the biggest contributors to their foundation and Saudis(pyare pyare) and Indians top the list. Among the Indian donors is Amar Singh, an Indian politicain who gave between $1-5 millions.
We should not forget that most American leadership takes US interest as "first" then if there is any nation to 'benefit' it would be little brother (y'all know him). Any remaining countries become part of the big line waiting for either 'mercy' or some dole-outs (one way or the other).
Obama will do (supposedly) what he thinks is best for US, if it means re-drawing borders of Middle-eastern countries so be it.
So far what I heard/learnt is that he will try a different approach to the game Bushy started and (hopefully) finish it up instead of prolonging it. Pakistan needs to act accordingly, if we believe in (and support) Taliban to be better for Pakistan then we should say that clearly as US has already indicated that she is willing to accept Taliban back into power minus Mullah Omar (whatever that means to them) so we can help Obama in wrapping up Afghan war.
Also you probably forgot that Hillary had "rejected" (or returned) some donations from "Ayrabs" while Bill Clinton was busy receiving it from the other window for his "foundation".
^ I disagree, it's Israel first then America. It has been like that since Israelis ran America and I see nothing changing with Obama stepping in, in fact, it will get worse.
as for Pakistan, they have to send a strong message to the international community that they will not welcome any attacks on their country from outside forces including USA. If they keep letting US drones drop bombs, this only shows the enemy how weak we are and it will just escalate in what the neocons want, a breakup of Pakistan.
Yeh "strong message" kis kisam kaa jaanwar hai bhai? Aapkay khyal mein agar aik aur missile Amrikon ke jaanib sey aa gira tu kya hum un par eik nuclear bum phaink dein?
^ I disagree, it's Israel first then America. It has been like that since Israelis ran America and I see nothing changing with Obama stepping in, in fact, it will get worse.
We can agree to disagree.
as for Pakistan, they have to send a strong message to the international community that they will not welcome any attacks on their country from outside forces including USA. If they keep letting US drones drop bombs, this only shows the enemy how weak we are and it will just escalate in what the neocons want, a breakup of Pakistan.
We can't do that without strong leadership. What we currently have is a very weak government (can we call it leadership?). For us Pakistanis wanting to send any message we'll have to get a leadership which'd have the capability. The fact that Zardari can be thrusted ("elected" for some) as President shows our "acceptance" for anything and everything.
Leadership cannot be strong if country is weak. Even "tough" Generals like Musharraf caved in with one phone call.
Why is that?
Country's toughness and strength comes from economic, political and only then military strength. When we depend on foreign money for our survival, where will strength come from?
Do all the people wanting us to show finger to USA agree to live without fuel or electricity or much lower standard of living? Do people ranting about "ghairat" and "izzat" agree to live without modern comforts or imports?
Today, a country like Malaysia or Turkey has greater world influence than us. We have "influence" only in the sense that we scare the world about nukes falling into "dangerous hands."
Leadership cannot be strong if country is weak. Even "tough" Generals like Musharraf caved in with one phone call.
We "accepted" General Musharraf as sole-proprietor for so long shows our weakness of principles, we now accepted Zardari shows our lacking in other areas.
During Musharraf's time economy was supposedly strong but were we in position of negotiation? No.
Why is that?
You tell me. I'll tell you that even Musharraf wasn't 'tough', he was kinda tough in some aspects :D but not all.
Country's toughness and strength comes from economic, political and only then military strength. When we depend on foreign money for our survival, where will strength come from?
Do all the people wanting us to show finger to USA agree to live without fuel or electricity or much lower standard of living? Do people ranting about "ghairat" and "izzat" agree to live without modern comforts or imports?
Today, a country like Malaysia or Turkey has greater world influence than us. We have "influence" only in the sense that we scare the world about nukes falling into "dangerous hands."
Did we not risk sanctions when we tested Nukes? We got'em anyway, right? We survived. I am not suggesting that we isolate ourselves from rest of the world and act tough. What we need is change of strategy (of course 'leadership' change is first) and how we negotiate with "allies" for anything.
Today, the only strategy Pakistan has is to use jihadis or threaten nuclear leakage or say if you push us too much we will collapse.
That kind of tactic will only work for so long. What else do we have to "negotiate"?
Should we threaten to send Sheikh Rashid "Tulli" and Wasi "Hand in crotch" Zafar to their countries? Should we tell them that WAPDA will come there and cut off electricity? Should we threaten to send Zardari to "romance" their women?
We have allowed bad people to take control of our lands. These guys then attack Americans and others. The only solution is we either kill the bad guys or stand aside when others come and do it for us. That is what is happening today and will happen whether Musharraf, Zardari, Nawaz or Hameed Gul is in power.