'Pakistan-US ties reach point of no return'

[Ghundal]

http://www.presstv.com/detail/227894.html

'Pakistan-US ties reach point of no return'
Tue Feb 21, 2012 6:51PM
Interview with Navid Ahmad, Security & Diplomacy Analyst
There is no doubt Pakistani people are really getting to a point of no return about the US Pakistan relations and the real issue that Pakistani people are facing is indifference by the leadership."


Pakistani people spilled onto the streets of the capital, Islamabad, on Monday for another anti-US rally.


Thousands of demonstrators --who were opposed to what they call the US intervention in Pakistan-- chanted "death to America". The protesters described the US as "the biggest enemy" of Pakistan who will be defeated. They also denounced the US assassination attacks on Pakistani soil.

Anti-American sentiment has grown in Pakistan after 24 Pakistani soldiers were killed in a US air strike in November. The attack sparked large rallies across the country. Ties between Islamabad and Washington became tense following the attack.

What follows is the transcription of a Press TV interview with Navid Ahmad, a security and diplomacy analyst in Islamabad.

Press TV: It does seem that anti-US sentiment is growing increasingly in Pakistan as Washington refuses to stop its drone attacks. Can, however, action on the popular front force the Pakistani government to make a more demanding position against the drone strikes?

Ahmad: There is no doubt Pakistani people are really getting to a point of no return about the US Pakistan relations and the real issue that Pakistani people are facing is indifference by the leadership.

There was a rally of about a thousand people in Islamabad which had a cluster of leaders but hardly one or two of them could be elected from a constituency in a general election which is fair.

So the problem is that all these people who are taking credit or trying to cultivate on this anti-US sentiment do not have much credibility in the people. The ones who have actually, are not in the parliament.

That is the dilemma of Pakistan, and I am talking about the newly emerging opposition which is led by Imran Khan, that is not really the one which has some presence in the parliament but they have to mobilize people and he has done that as well earlier.

The problem in an overall sense in Pakistan is that there are multiple centers apart and everyone is looking after its own particular spheres interests. Pakistan’s overall ownership is not with any leadership or institution.

For example, there comes a point when military is being hurt by the American actions, then definitely there are going to be stronger actions. If politicians are really facing some music, they will become kind of an opposition and similarly the civil society or the media. But there is no general consensus as to how to deal with Pak-US relations in the next say decade or so.

Press TV: We know that the relations between the two sides did become tense after those soldiers were killed in the US drone strikes; however, after that phase, we have seen the drone attacks continue and some observers were telling us that this is coming where the tacit, support or acceptance of the Pakistan authorities.

So basically how bad are relations between Islamabad and Washington after the US air strike in November? When you say that there are different versions of policies in the Pakistani government, are you saying that there is no unified policy in terms of relations with the United States?

Ahmad: There is no doubt about that, there is no unified policy; there is no doubt about that that there is some kind of tacit understanding between the Pakistan’s existing political elite which is led by Mr. Nawaz Sharif and Asif Ali Zardari, and other parties are really not taken into confidence or they are still siding with the US.

With the hope that in case there is a situation of a coup or something, Washington’s nod goes with the political elite that are on the fringes.

Only one or two political parties which are really serious are taking it up as an issue.

Now coming to the question of how Pakistan-US relations should be seen given this kind of understanding, after the attack that killed 24 Pakistani military men, Pakistan’s relations have gone to the lowest ebb, and I keep defining lowest ebb since Osama was killed in Abbottabad. I said the same and others said the same and then we had other incidents which really proved that, no, we have yet to explore the rock bottom and probably this is the rock bottom.

Pakistani intelligentsia, Pakistani media and of course Pakistani parliamentarian committees are really working on how should Pakistan set the agenda for the relations ahead. And the same is happening back there in Washington.

There was a resolution that has been tabled in front of Congress about the situation in Balochistan which really has a larger canvas in which, on the one hand, Balochistan is bordering Iran on the other Afghanistan, and the situation that you see in Afghanistan and relations, all the animosity with Iran, really puts Balochistan in a very different context.

So the US also is pondering about Pakistan-US relations in its own way by imposing sanctions, by trying to create and fuel all these organizations which are working for a kind of an agenda which is not theirs.

But at best, I would say that the Pakistani government is to be blamed for ignoring Balochistan despite its strategic significance, despite the Middle East resources and despite being the region making 40 percent of Pakistan’s geographical landmass.

So on the overall conclusion, I would simply say that Pakistan-US relations are not going to improve just because of one decision or the other. NATO supplies are not going to be restored very soon in a real sense of the word.

MSK/JR

[Karachi]

this is all drama and you know it. How can the slave army and government become enemy of its master?

[Ghundal]

I think the people are fed up, and many factors are causing unrest.

I think one cant ignore peoples anger at the current corrupt system in Pakistan which serves outside interests, and not that of the people

[randolph85]

ironically its the military allied religious leaders who are organizing the anti american/paki protests. they will never lift a finger against the military or isi. its the sami ul haqs, fazal rahmans, and qazi hussain ahmads who will always have government pensions and no threats of harm against them while journalists like saleem shahzad are murdered by the isi.

[Ghundal]

ironically its the military allied religious leaders who are organizing the anti american/paki protests. they will never lift a finger against the military or isi. its the sami ul haqs, fazal rahmans, and qazi hussain ahmads who will always have government pensions and no threats of harm against them while journalists like saleem shahzad are murdered by the isi.

Not exactly accurate. The religious parties have been condemning Pakistan Army for their continuous support for the US war. Nothing about this opposition indicates that they are favorable of the army.

This notion of the Army/ISI being behind religious parties has been spread about by Pakistani liberal elite/Western media who support further war in the region.

The Army/ISI have no problem with this idea being spread since they want to have some legitimacy

When Pakistan Army had a war in Waziristan, many Mullahs refused to give the dead soldiers an Islamic burial. This was very common when Musharraf was in power




Fazal Rahman is a puppet of Zardari.

[randolph85]

Not exactly accurate. The religious parties have been condemning Pakistan Army for their continuous support for the US war. Nothing about this opposition indicates that they are favorable of the army.

This notion of the ISI/Army being behind religious parties has been spread about by Pakistani liberal elite who support further war in the region instead of peace.


Fazal Rahman is a puppet of Zardari.

lol the religious parties know their bounds. they don't step over their limits. these are the same people who support the afghan taliban but are against the paki taliban fighting the paki military.

there is no liberal elite in pakistan. the relationship between the leaders of the religious parties and the paki leadership is plain as day. why would the military kill bugti but not the religious leaders who are supposedly anti military/isi?

[Ghundal]

lol the religious parties know their bounds. they don't step over their limits. these are the same people who support the afghan taliban but are against the paki taliban fighting the paki military.

there is no liberal elite in pakistan. the relationship between the leaders of the religious parties and the paki leadership is plain as day. why would the military kill bugti but not the religious leaders who are supposedly anti military/isi?

There is most definitely a liberal elite that that has an awkward but common interest relationship with the military. While the Pak military/ ISI play a double game, publicly working with the US war, but undermining it at the same time, the civilian set up is entirely pro-Western in every way. Their whole purpose is to pocket money.

A picture does not prove anything. Imran Khan was imprisoned by Musharraf. Sami Ul Haq has repeatedly condemned and opposed Pak Army support for the US war and Pak Army operations in FATA. Thats not called support. Many prominent religious figures there are banned from holding public appearances.

To say that the Pak military is entirely in line with Kayani and his foreign policy is absurd too. Just recently, a case has opened up against a prominent and General (who was part of a major religious party in Pak) who was planning a coup.

Furthermore, AQ Khan even openly mocks and questions Kayanis' support for US drone attacks (done with Pakistan coordination nearly every time).

Musharraf also instructed the Pakistan Army to attack the Red Mosque- a bunch of unarmed people- and religious people- clerics and students. This was a very infamous day in case you were unaware of that. It was nationally condemned all over Pakistan.

Again, this is the perception spread by the Pakistani liberal media/ Western media. To say that the religious leaders are hand in glove with the army is not entirely true. Some like Fazal Rahman are, but most religious leaders are not.

Its not factual at all

[Ghundal]

case in point is here. It is well known that the Pak Army is open to restore NATO supplies as well as the civilian set up

But, other political groups are not. In fact, to label such and such a group as "religious" is not accurate since they reflect and interest and work towards their interests- they are simply an interest group. Labels like "religious" "extremist" are simply meant to diminish their impact on civil society. For example, the Pakistani liberal media is saying that the ISI is behind the DPC rallies. That is absurd. If Army/ISI does not want to restore NATO supplies, it will not be restored, simple as that. No discussion would be raised at all.

http://paktribune.com/news/DPC-warns-of-using-force-if-Nato-supplies-restored-247691.html

[randolph85]

case in point is here. It is well known that the Pak Army is open to restore NATO supplies as well as the civilian set up

But, other political groups are not. In fact, to label such and such a group as "religious" is not accurate since they reflect and interest and work towards their interests- they are simply an interest group. Labels like "religious" "extremist" are simply meant to diminish their impact on civil society. For example, the Pakistani liberal media is saying that the ISI is behind the DPC rallies. That is absurd. If Army/ISI does not want to restore NATO supplies, it will not be restored, simple as that. No discussion would be raised at all.

http://paktribune.com/news/DPC-warns...ed-247691.html

this is like karzai trying to sound strong against the americans. nato supplies have been going through pakistan for 10 years. even while nato land routes have been cut off in the last few months, the air bases have been open for the US. where have these groups been then?

there are a lot of threats but no action.

[Ghundal]

this is like karzai trying to sound strong against the americans. nato supplies have been going through pakistan for 10 years. even while nato land routes have been cut off in the last few months, the air bases have been open for the US. where have these groups been then?

there are a lot of threats but no action.

this is a red herring on your part. We were discussing whether the religious parties are pro Pak Army or not, and I showed that they are mostly not Pro-Pak Army.

Now, you are discussing something else.

btw, getting off topic, they were always opposing it.

[randolph85]

There is most definitely a liberal elite that that has an awkward but common interest relationship with the military. While the Pak military/ ISI play a double game, publicly working with the US war, but undermining it at the same time, the civilian set up is entirely pro-Western in every way. Their whole purpose is to pocket money.

A picture does not prove anything. Imran Khan was imprisoned by Musharraf. Sami Ul Haq has repeatedly condemned and opposed Pak Army support for the US war and Pak Army operations in FATA. Thats not called support. Many prominent religious figures there are banned from holding public appearances.

To say that the Pak military is entirely in line with Kayani and his foreign policy is absurd too. Just recently, a case has opened up against a prominent and General (who was part of a major religious party in Pak) who was planning a coup.

Furthermore, AQ Khan even openly mocks and questions Kayanis' support for US drone attacks (done with Pakistan coordination nearly every time).

Musharraf also instructed the Pakistan Army to attack the Red Mosque- a bunch of unarmed people- and religious people- clerics and students. This was a very infamous day in case you were unaware of that. It was nationally condemned all over Pakistan.

Again, this is the perception spread by the Pakistani liberal media/ Western media. To say that the religious leaders are hand in glove with the army is not entirely true. Some like Fazal Rahman are, but most religious leaders are not.

Its not factual at all

imran khan was captured by the jamaat islami and handed over to the security forces. sami ul haq has chaired joint meetings with the isi and army in the last year, thats not what i call resistance. the isi and army are one and the same in pakistan. they both operate above the paki government and are not held accountable to anyone. the reason u might coup accusations are for public consumption or simply because the general in question is not with the paki program. hence, religious parties being pro afghan taliban but anti pak taliban.

i don't know what AQ khan has anything to do with anything, he is the paki version of the israeli mordechai vanunu. all u can do with someone like that is put them on house arrest and tell them to shut up.

i don't think u understand pakistans dynamics here. even after the red mosque, show me the mma leadership of pakistan telling its followers to attack the army. they kept their mouths shut. protests mean nothing, its actions that count.

show me any instance in which the likes of sami ul haq or qazi hussein have told their followers to attack the paki army or isi, after all the harm that the military institutions have done. again, tell me why someone like bugti was killed and the so called religious leaders are allowed to do as they please in public if they are against the military institution.

[randolph85]

“All Islamist organisations stand with the Pakistan army. We will stand together and defeat any conspiracies against Pakistan and the Pakistan army,” said cleric Tahir Ashrafi, in an apparent reference to what has become known as “memogate”.
“Long live the Pakistan army,” chanted the Islamists in the central city of Lahore.

http://www.arabtimesonline.com/NewsDetails/tabid/96/smid/414/ArticleID/177421/reftab/69/Default.aspx

[Ghundal]

[QUOTE]

imran khan was captured by the jamaat islami and handed over to the security forces.

Imran Khan was imprisoned because there was an arrest warrant ISSUED by Musharraf. You can read about that all here. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007...an.declanwalsh

sami ul haq has chaired joint meetings with the isi and army in the last year, thats not what i call resistance.

Please show me this. Secondly, he has repeatedly told Pak Army to stop supporting the US war. Thats not tantamount to supporting the Pak Army. If he is meeting with them, thats what he is saying. Show me the sources for that. I cant find them. Hamid Gul is retired btw.

the isi and army are one and the same in pakistan.
they both operate above the paki government and are not held accountable to anyone.

Not news and it is irrelevant to the discussion.

the reason u might coup accusations are for public consumption or simply because the general in question is not with the paki program.

This is an absurd idea that the Army/ISI will create a story of a runaway general for "public consumption." Completely absurd, why would any army want to create the impression of a rift if it does not exist? That would show an Army in a state of confusion and with splits in the ranks.The fact remains, a General along with 3 others is currently facing trial.

hence, religious parties being pro afghan taliban but anti pak taliban.

Not true, many religious parties are opposed to the Pak Army operations in FATA. Furthermore, figure heads such as Hamid Gul are opposed to Pak Army operations in FATA, and Pak support for the US war/ Karzai nexus. Hamid Gul in fact repeatedly talks about the 5000 Pak soldiers who died in the Waziristan operation, claiming that the Pak Army took a "battering." These statements are along with his opposition to Pak Army operation in Waziristan.

i don't know what AQ khan has anything to do with anything, he is the paki version of the israeli mordechai vanunu. all u can do with someone like that is put them on house arrest and tell them to shut up.

Again, an absurd statement. AQ Khan openly ridicules Kayani and the Army. He then calls them US slaves. Thats not something to be taken lightly. People hear him. He is not Hamid Karzai or Rangin Spanta if that is what you are suggesting.

i don't think u understand pakistans dynamics here. even after the red mosque, show me the mma leadership of pakistan telling its followers to attack the army. they kept their mouths shut. protests mean nothing, its actions that count.

A red herring. We were discussing whether or not the religious armies are pro-army or not. We are not discussing what is effective or not effective, and that is irrelevant to the statement you made where you claim the religious establishment is hand in glove with the Pak Army/ISI. This simply is not the case. The Red Mosque outcry is an example.

show me any instance in which the likes of sami ul haq or qazi hussein have told their followers to attack the paki army or isi, after all the harm that the military institutions have done. again, tell me why someone like bugti was killed and the so called religious leaders are allowed to do as they please in public if they are against the military institution.

A red herring. We arent discussing why they arent taking action against the Pak Army/ISI. We were discussing whether or not they are pro-Pak Army/ISI.

They are not. The other question is open ended

[Ghundal]

http://www.arabtimesonline.com/NewsD...9/Default.aspx

now this is called politics. This is comparable to Obama or John Kerry feigning concern for the US casualties in the US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Kerry calls the members of the US army dumb (who did not do their homework), and there was a report showing how when Obama was campaigning, he didnt like taking pictures with the Army, or generally hanging out with them.

They want the Pak Army to disengage from the US war.

Obviously, they protested the US attack on Salalah, and went over and beyond. These same people dont protest the Taliban attacks on Pak Army which in fact are widely known when they happen.

In fact, not a noise is made, or support given to Pak Army in their operations in FATA.

Excluding the few like Fazlur Rehman who is already seen as Zardari and the Armies fav puppet.

[Ghundal]

[QUOTE]

imran khan was captured by the jamaat islami and handed over to the security forces.

Just a correction. Jamaat Islami actually "captured" him and tried to keep him away from the security forces. They did not willingly hand him over.

The JI students had warned Khan against bringing his campaign to the university, which has been a stronghold of the often violent Islamist activists since the 1980s. "This is just for his protection. We are gathering students so that the [intelligence] agencies cannot enter the campus," said one bearded student." http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007...an.declanwalsh