Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 107

Thread: Pakistan US relations

Share             
  1. #21
    Senior Member Wattan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    6,198
    Thanks
    2713
    Pakistan Pakistan

    Re: Pakistan US relations

    Our leaders should put Pakistan first period in international relations its all about interests
    The Following User Says Thank You to Wattan For This Useful Post: Ahsan Bin Tufail


  2. #22
    Professionals US CENTCOM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    494
    Thanks
    543
    United States United States

    U.S. - PAK Strength Through Bilateral Efforts

    It wouldn’t be inaccurate to say that poverty is one of the factors in the advent of people joining extremist groups or even violent groups. How many, if any, employed and somewhat financially stable people would leave their structured lives to join groups of people that senselessly kill others? Part of establishing prolonged stability and security in Pakistan requires maximum effort to raise the standard of living – more specifically, improving the level of education, employment opportunities, and business and entrepreneurship opportunities.

    Many times, the Pakistani perception has been that the U.S. is “using” Pakistan and has no genuine concern for the welfare of economic growth of the country. This assumption is not true; what people fail to realize is that an economically strong and stable nation is closely tied to a safe and peaceful nation in terms of security. We live in a globalized world and therefore security and stability in Pakistan is part of a bigger equation of global security and stability.

    Unfortunately most of the joint efforts that we have made, and are still conducting, in the field of economic, academic and social prosperity receives very little coverage and recognition. Also, an unfortunate characteristic of us human beings is that we tend to forget the hundreds of “positive actions” and remember the one, or a couple, unintended “negative” ones.

    Below is a link highlighting some of the recent joint efforts made by U.S. and Pakistani leadership to build a stronger bi-lateral relationship through increasing bilateral trade (Mangoes have already made its way to U.S. markets!) , and U.S. investment in Pakistan; which would in turn increase employment, entrepreneurship opportunities, and alleviate some of the hardships Pakistan is facing.
    These kinds of bilateral efforts create stronger interdependency and partnership in the long run.

    http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2014/10/232796.htm

    Haroon Ahmad
    DET – U.S. Central Command
    www.facebook.com/centcomurdu
    The Following User Says Thank You to US CENTCOM For This Useful Post: Pak92


  3. #23
    Senior Member Pak92's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    3,841
    Thanks
    1636
    Pakistan Pakistan

    Re: U.S. - PAK Strength Through Bilateral Efforts

    Instead of overseeing investment into the infrastructure, USA has been keen to butter the wallets of key personnel. Pakistan leaders and their Swiss accounts have been content.

    Haroon USA have not been straight with Pakistan. What makes it worse is Pakistan has also been no angel

  4. #24
    Senior Member KingKong's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    London
    Posts
    8,846
    Thanks
    5485
    Pakistan UK

    Pak-US ties improving, says Sartaj Aziz

    ISLAMABAD: Advisor to Prime Minister on Foreign Affairs and National Security Sartaj Aziz said on Monday that relations between Pakistan and the United States have improved.

    In an interview with the Voice of America (VOA), Aziz said Pak-US strategic and economic relations are advancing towards betterment. He also said that United States Secretary of State John Kerry would visit Pakistan in the beginning of 2015.

    To a question, Sartaj Aziz replied that Pakistan wanted good political, economic and security relations with Afghanistan. Since the new government has been formed in Afghanistan, the process of good relations has been acted upon, he added.

    Afghan President Ashraf Ghani, he said, wanted to restore trust and develop multidimensional relations with Pakistan. His visit to Pakistan, he added, was very successful and useful beyond expectations.

    Sartaj Aziz said that both countries had agreed on a mechanism to address the issue of security on the border. This decision, he added, would have good aftermaths for Pak-Afghan relations in the future. He further said that a new phase of relations between Afghanistan and Pakistan has begun.

    Responding to a question, Aziz said that tension on the eastern border affected the operation Zarb-e-Azb. The success of operation, he added, was in the interest of international community.

    http://www.dawn.com/news/1146575/pak...ys-sartaj-aziz

  5. #25
    Banned mynameiskhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    1,722
    Thanks
    363
    Pakistan Pakistan

    Re: Pakistan US relations

    Washington not a reliable friend: Asif



    ISLAMABAD: The uneasy truth of Pakistan’s less-than-trusting relationship with the US was acknowledged by a key member of the federal cabinet on Tuesday when Defence Minister Khawaja Asif drew a large question mark on the reliability of Washington as a friend of Pakistan.

    “The Americans have been our friends for a long time – since the 60s and the 70s – but their reliability is relative,” he told a packed audience at the Institute of Strategic Studies.

    He did not stop there. “American foreign policy has been disastrous for this region,” he said, referring to South Asia and the Middle East, adding that, “for all times to come, the geography of this region has been changed”.

    Also read: Militants not dangerous to Pakistan should not be targeted: Sartaj

    Mr Asif warned that Pakistan had to be very careful. “We are still paying the price for our intervention in Afghanistan. The disintegration of this region on sectarian and ethnic lines is in process.”

    He said that US ‘disappointment’ with Pakistan’s contribution to the ‘war on terror’ was unjustified. “We’ve had a historic relationship with the US since independence. It has had its highs and lows,” he said.

    “Recently, the COAS had an extensive visit to the US. It was a good visit and we need to pursue this relationship and build the trust that is not there 100 per cent, at least,” he said, admitting that Islamabad did not necessarily see eye-to-eye with Washington in the context of the continuing war on terrorism.

    He also called the recent US Defence Department statement about the objectives of the military operation in the tribal areas “very discomforting”.

    Defence minister blames US foreign policy for problems in Middle East and South Asia
    “This shows that despite our sacrifices, the Americans still do not trust us completely. That is sad, but it should be clear that Pakistan’s national objectives are paramount for us,” he said.

    “The Islamic State (IS) was propped up to fight against the regime in Syria and now the world looks on in horror. We may feel the repercussions [of the US foreign policy failure] in the region for many years,” Mr Asif said.

    He said that US Defence Secretary Chuck Hagel -- who stepped down just after two years in office – was the latest casualty of the failure of US foreign policy in the region.

    During his remarks, Mr Asif took pains to note that he was airing his own opinion and that what he was saying did not necessarily reflect government policy. But the way he framed his points, it seemed as if he was building a case for an alliance with another global power, one that was nothing like the untrusting US.

    Regional powers
    After the world became unipolar, he said, global instability had only increased. Advocating multi-polarity as ideal for a global balance of power, he said that Russia and China were the two largest powers in the region. “We should seek solutions to regional problems from our own shores, not from across the pond,” he said.

    He called Russia “an emerging superpower”, one that was economically well-established despite sanctions against it. “Being in the same region, Pakistan must have a sound relationship with Russia,” he said.

    He said that Pakistan had recently concluded a very important agreement with Russia; one which would allow it to purchase armaments from the Russian Federation. The arms that Pakistan was getting from Russia were going to be used primarily for anti-terrorism operations, Mr Asif said.

    “Pakistan must pursue its own national security goals; we don’t want to antagonise our neighbours, countries of the region and greater powers,” he said.

    The defence minister began his history lesson with Afghanistan, saying, “[Pakistan’s] intervention or interference in Afghanistan in the 80s was more of a proxy war and we were the proxy”. Pakistan as a nation, he said, still continued to pay the price for that.

    He said, “Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, right at the outset, pledged that there will be no interference in Afghan affairs from our side. In the last two to three weeks, we’ve seen COAS go to Afghanistan and the Afghan president visiting Pakistan. The PM told Ashraf Ghani that we must start anew, turn a new page. The Afghan president responded: ‘No, we have to start a new book’.”

    “Without peace in Afghanistan, there can be no peace; peace will be very elusive in Pakistan,” he said, adding that the situation in Afghanistan was also a matter of national security for Pakistan. “We cannot live in isolation or forget what is happening next door,” he said.

    India
    Talking about India, he said, “[Pakistan’s] peace overtures have been misconstrued as weakness by our eastern neighbour, but I believe that our problems can be solved through peace and negotiations.”

    “When PM Nawaz Sharif came to power, he pledged to work with India. It was alright in the beginning… but since the last few months, things have deteriorated on the border,” he said.

    Referring to the sharp Indian reaction to a recent meeting between Pakistani diplomats and Kashmiri leaders in New Delhi, Mr Asif said, “The reaction has been rather overstated and the way India reacted to this meeting was a setback to peace efforts.” Following the meetings, India cancelled secretary-level talks with Pakistan, which the minister said was “harmful for both countries”.

    “We still wish and strive for peace with India and will resume the process of building a lasting friendship between the two countries,” he said, adding that he hoped that the Saarc summit would yield “something less bitter”.

    http://www.dawn.com/news/1146987/was...le-friend-asif

  6. #26
    Forum Administrator bilalhaider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    6,605
    Thanks
    4000
    Pakistan Pakistan

    Re: Pakistan US relations

    Gen Sharif’s stance on terrorists pleases US



    WASHINGTON: Gen Raheel Sharif is an extremely articulate spokesperson for Pakistan’s interests, says Dan Feldman, US Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan.

    In an interview to Dawn, Ambassador Feldman also said that US forces staying in Afghanistan after 2014 would only fight the Taliban only if they directly threatened them, supported Al Qaeda or posed a strategic threat to the Afghan National Security Forces.

    He also dispelled the impression that the FBI action against Ambassador Robin Raphel was meant to send the message that it was no longer kosher for Americans to be friends with Pakistan.

    “Gen Sharif is an extremely articulate spokesperson for Pakistan’s interests,” said Ambassador Feldman while talking about the Pakistan army chief’s much-talked about visit to the United States last week.

    “In Washington, he received very broad support for Pakistan’s counter-terrorism campaign,” he said.

    During his visit, Gen Sharif met a wide range of US officials — in both military and civil establishments — as part of an effort to rebuild a long-term relationship between the two militaries.

    “We had very straightforward, constructive and honest discussions on the need to go after all terrorists, including the Haqqani network, and to make sure that all terrorist safe havens are shut down,” said Ambassador Feldman when asked if the visit achieved its goals.

    “Yes, we all recognise that significant progress has been made” in the fight against terrorists since the North Waziristan operation, he said.

    “We also recognise that more work needs to be done, but there’s true commitment from Gen Sharif to deliver on this,” said the US envoy.

    “People in Washington were very pleased with his commitment” to fighting all terrorists, including the Haqqani network, he said.

    Ambassador Feldman noted that the effort to rebuild a long-term relationship between the two militaries had began several years ago. “The visit continues that process and helps strengthen the relationship,” he said.

    “This was one of the very significant visits.”

    Commenting on recent media reports that President Barack Obama has now allowed US troops in Afghanistan to combat the Taliban, Ambassador Feldman noted that the president had stated in May that the United States would end its combat role in Afghanistan by Dec. 31, 2014. It will only maintain a counter-terrorism capability and a capability to train, advise, and assist the Afghan National Security Forces.

    He explained that since then, the president’s national security team had been defining the operational and legal details required to continue executing those missions in 2015 within the scope of the Bilateral Security Agreement the US and Afghan governments signed in September.

    These recommendations were recently passed to the president, who approved them.

    “To the extent that Taliban members directly threaten the United States and coalition forces in Afghanistan, provide direct support to Al Qaeda, or pose a strategic threat to the ANSF, we will take appropriate measures to keep Americans safe and assist the Afghans,” Mr Feldman said.

    The US media, however, has rejected this explanation.

    One media report pointed that last May President Obama promised that 2014 would be “the year we conclude our combat mission in Afghanistan.” And giving even limited combat role to troops after 2014 was reversal of this promise, the report added.

    But Ambassador Feldman said that the media was “exaggerating” this point, as there had been “no dramatic change” in the US combat policies in Afghanistan.

    Responding to another question, the US envoy said he believed the induction of a new government in Afghanistan had brought “real” positive changes in relations between the two neighbouring countries.

    “This improvement in Pakistan-Afghanistan relationship seems to me like a legitimate effort. We hope it is real. It appears to be real,” he said.

    Asked about an FBI investigation against former Assistant Secretary of State Robin Raphel, who was considered one of Pakistan’s most trusted friends in Washington, Mr Feldman said since it concerned the Department of Justice, he would not like to comment on this matter.

    But he disagreed with the suggestion that the FBI action was a message for Pakistan’s friends in Washington to stop supporting that country.

    “Pakistan has many friends in Washington. Many, many, many people are committed and dedicated to making sure that this relationship continues,” said Mr Feldman.

    He said that he also has been working for the last five years to improve US-Pakistan relations and was happy that the relations were improving now.
    http://www.dawn.com/news/1147392/gen...sts-pleases-us

  7. #27
    Think Tank Muse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    11,034
    Thanks
    5084
    UK UK

    Re: Pakistan US relations

    Quote Originally Posted by bilalhaider View Post
    Gen Sharif’s stance on terrorists pleases US



    http://www.dawn.com/news/1147392/gen...sts-pleases-us
    some clarity:

    We had very straightforward, constructive and honest discussions on the need to go after all terrorists, including the Haqqani network, and to make sure that all terrorist safe havens are shut down,” said Ambassador Feldman when asked if the visit achieved its goals.

    Yes, we all recognise that significant progress has been made” in the fight against terrorists since the North Waziristan operation, he said. We also recognise that more work needs to be done, but there’s true commitment from Gen Sharif to deliver on this



    If I had to characterize these statements, I would use the term "cautious optimism" - The US remains unconvinced that "ALL" terrorists will be targeted, indeed, we all should be skeptical of this Pakistani claim, till such time as we see action against the Haqqani and others.

    Does it seem that the US wants better relations? Allow me to suggest that it is a more complicated answer than "yes or no" - The US does not want to see a Pakistan out of the US orbit and it has considerable influence and a variety of tools to pursue this objective, Pakistan for it;s part must be very clear as to why it seeks to be out of the US orbit and whether that is a net plus for the interests of Pakistanis or the opposite.

  8. #28
    Forum Administrator bilalhaider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    6,605
    Thanks
    4000
    Pakistan Pakistan

    Re: Pakistan US relations

    Quote Originally Posted by Muse View Post
    some clarity:

    We had very straightforward, constructive and honest discussions on the need to go after all terrorists, including the Haqqani network, and to make sure that all terrorist safe havens are shut down,” said Ambassador Feldman when asked if the visit achieved its goals.

    Yes, we all recognise that significant progress has been made” in the fight against terrorists since the North Waziristan operation, he said. We also recognise that more work needs to be done, but there’s true commitment from Gen Sharif to deliver on this



    If I had to characterize these statements, I would use the term "cautious optimism" - The US remains unconvinced that "ALL" terrorists will be targeted, indeed, we all should be skeptical of this Pakistani claim, till such time as we see action against the Haqqani and others.

    Does it seem that the US wants better relations? Allow me to suggest that it is a more complicated answer than "yes or no" - The US does not want to see a Pakistan out of the US orbit and it has considerable influence and a variety of tools to pursue this objective, Pakistan for it;s part must be very clear as to why it seeks to be out of the US orbit and whether that is a net plus for the interests of Pakistanis or the opposite.
    If you ask me, I honestly do not think the Pakistani establishment consider the Haqqani Network to be an "asset". Firstly, because there is no utility for the Afghan Taliban or Haqqani Network anymore; they are not under the control of the Pakistani establishment anymore, they are independent players.

    Why? Many reasons for that.

    None of the insurgent groups, such as the Haqqani Network, Afghan Taliban or anyone else is capable of overthrowing this Afghan government. They are capable of random attacks occurring often, but cannot mount a sustained campaign to overthrow this regime.

    The biggest problem Pakistan has in Afghanistan is Indian involvement there. If you take India out of the equation, or make a limited player in Afghanistan; Pakistan will try to foster good relations with the Afghan government. If Pakistan screws up relations with Afghanistan, it will give India a chance to re-enter Afghanistan, and exert its influence there like it did in the Karzai regime when the US troops were there; so Pakistan will not want that to happen.

    Pakistan has offered to give the Afghan troops military training from its forces. That is a very big, unprecedented step. It shows a change in mindset.

    Pakistan will also try to get rid off militant groups from its tribal agencies, as they have caused unrest, instability and violence in the country; and the generally security situation in Pakistan has improved since the launch of the North Waziristan operation.

  9. #29
    Member Mastankhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    California
    Posts
    111
    Thanks
    164
    Pakistan United States

    Re: Pakistan-US Fractured Relations

    Quote Originally Posted by Mustafa Shaban View Post
    By Brig Asif Haroon Raja

    Historically Pak-US relationship has always been marked by convergence and divergence of national interests that kept on switching from friendship to friction. The US gained more during the times of convergence of interests but periods of divergence outweighed the former. Although Pakistan earned the title of ‘most allied ally of USA’, it is also the most sanctioned country in the world. By putting all its eggs in the basket of USA, Pakistan gained less as it was not given the required support by the US when needed most. The US left Pakistan high and dry during the 1965 War and in the 1971 War which led to the disintegration of the country. In fact, the US later imposed severe penalties, embargoes and sanctions on Pakistan. This unholy practice of sanctions was repeated in 1979 owing to nuclear related suspicions and in 1990 after the successful culmination of Afghan War in which Pakistan had played a key role in defeating erstwhile USSR. Worst was that USA embraced India which had all along remained in Soviet camp. It imposed additional sanctions after our nuclear tests and after Gen Musharraf’s military coup. The US stood on the side of India during Kargil conflict and forced Pakistan to unilaterally vacate the occupied heights. Pakistan remained on the wrong side of USA from 1990 till September 2001.
    Pakistan-US Fractured Relations | Opinion Maker

    Hi,

    This again is one of those articles written by a general---a Pakistani general who has no clue what happened---why the things went the way they did.

    Simple and easy---once you signed with the u s---you should have gone in and taken out OBL in kandhar and then hunted rest of his cronies---. If you were just letting the u s in---then when you made the deal with the u s----and they told you that they would pay you---you should have asked for a few billion in goodwill money right upfront +a minimum of a billion dollars of expenses every year in ADVANCE---read again IN ADVANCE---+ 2 sqdrn's of F 16 's delivered out of existing stock within 6 months and option to purchase more.

    Now once you signed up with the u s---then you should have marketed it to the Pakistanis as well---Pakistanis pulse was attached to the F 16's---that should have been the primary gift required from the Americas---within the shortest period of time.

    Pakistanis the civilians failed because they could not classify their identity as to who they are---if they were pakistanis first or were they muslims first---was the nation Pakistan for the Pakistanis or the lives of foreign terrorists more important than pakistan---.

    You the military failed becasue you did not make the right deal and did not market the idea of who the Pakistan's enemies were----. You also were not able to comprehend the threat level---you could not differentiate between friend and foe---you could not even convince your public what the terrorists were doing to destroy Pakistan.

    Blaming your blunders on the U S is the easiest thing to do for the Pakistanis and Pakistani generals.

  10. #30
    Banned mynameiskhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    1,722
    Thanks
    363
    Pakistan Pakistan

    Re: Pakistan-US Fractured Relations

    Quote Originally Posted by Mastankhan View Post
    Hi,

    This again is one of those articles written by a general---a Pakistani general who has no clue what happened---why the things went the way they did.

    Simple and easy---once you signed with the u s---you should have gone in and taken out OBL in kandhar and then hunted rest of his cronies---. If you were just letting the u s in---then when you made the deal with the u s----and they told you that they would pay you---you should have asked for a few billion in goodwill money right upfront +a minimum of a billion dollars of expenses every year in ADVANCE---read again IN ADVANCE---+ 2 sqdrn's of F 16 's delivered out of existing stock within 6 months and option to purchase more.

    Now once you signed up with the u s---then you should have marketed it to the Pakistanis as well---Pakistanis pulse was attached to the F 16's---that should have been the primary gift required from the Americas---within the shortest period of time.

    Pakistanis the civilians failed because they could not classify their identity as to who they are---if they were pakistanis first or were they muslims first---was the nation Pakistan for the Pakistanis or the lives of foreign terrorists more important than pakistan---.

    You the military failed becasue you did not make the right deal and did not market the idea of who the Pakistan's enemies were----. You also were not able to comprehend the threat level---you could not differentiate between friend and foe---you could not even convince your public what the terrorists were doing to destroy Pakistan.

    Blaming your blunders on the U S is the easiest thing to do for the Pakistanis and Pakistani generals.
    Would you say a divorce is better for Pakistan and the US?

    If not, how would you expect a mutually beneficial situation between both countries?

  11. #31
    Member Mastankhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    California
    Posts
    111
    Thanks
    164
    Pakistan United States

    Re: Pakistan-US Fractured Relations

    Quote Originally Posted by mynameiskhan View Post
    Would you say a divorce is better for Pakistan and the US?

    If not, how would you expect a mutually beneficial situation between both countries?
    Hi,

    A divorce is not possible----. You need to fight back with the U S on the American media---you need to have someone who knows what the americans have done and what they have not done---you need to draw a clear picture on the media for the public to see.

    You cannot be hateful to the americans---you need to learn how to address the America public and present your case---and then you need to present the failures of the American military---what they had not done and what that resulted in---. Lastly---you need to execute and hang those who do honor killings---summary executions---for thrill killers---executions for terrorists.

  12. #32
    Banned mynameiskhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    1,722
    Thanks
    363
    Pakistan Pakistan

    Re: Pakistan-US Fractured Relations

    Quote Originally Posted by Mastankhan View Post
    Hi,

    A divorce is not possible----. You need to fight back with the U S on the American media---you need to have someone who knows what the americans have done and what they have not done---you need to draw a clear picture on the media for the public to see.

    You cannot be hateful to the americans---you need to learn how to address the America public and present your case---and then you need to present the failures of the American military---what they had not done and what that resulted in---. Lastly---you need to execute and hang those who do honor killings---summary executions---for thrill killers---executions for terrorists.
    It might or might not be possible, who knows? Iran had a divorce with the US for a long time, and managed just fine. If Pakistan had not gotten into the "war of terror" at the behest of the US, it would not find itself in the position it finds today.

    The US has always used us for their advantage, it has never wanted to have a real, meaningful relationship with Pakistan.
    The Following User Says Thank You to mynameiskhan For This Useful Post: Fassi


  13. #33
    Member Mastankhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    California
    Posts
    111
    Thanks
    164
    Pakistan United States

    Re: Pakistan-US Fractured Relations

    Quote Originally Posted by mynameiskhan View Post
    It might or might not be possible, who knows? Iran had a divorce with the US for a long time, and managed just fine. If Pakistan had not gotten into the "war of terror" at the behest of the US, it would not find itself in the position it finds today.

    The US has always used us for their advantage, it has never wanted to have a real, meaningful relationship with Pakistan.
    Hi,

    Iran has oil for one---and then it has the ability to sink a tanker at a critical point in the trait that can block all the oil tankers---.

    With the weaker state of Pakistan military----Pakistan had no choice but to join---the problem was not of jpining---but the problem was that of Pakistanis not accepting they were Pakistanis first and some of their brethren were giving refuge to the terrorists---and secondly---all those suicide bombings were being done by muslims and not anyone else---.

    For a nation to take 10 years to comprehend that muslims can do suicide bombings against other muslims---that nation is beyond stupid-----.
    The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Mastankhan For This Useful Post: Fassi,Sinbad


  14. #34
    Senior Member Fassi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    3,774
    Thanks
    1828
    Pakistan France

    Re: Pakistan US relations

    Lets face it Pakistan American relationship is dysfunctional at best. American relationship has been one that is transactional rather than strategic.

  15. #35
    Think Tank Muse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    11,034
    Thanks
    5084
    UK UK

    Re: Pakistan US relations

    Quote Originally Posted by bilalhaider View Post
    If you ask me, I honestly do not think the Pakistani establishment consider the Haqqani Network to be an "asset". Firstly, because there is no utility for the Afghan Taliban or Haqqani Network anymore; they are not under the control of the Pakistani establishment anymore, they are independent players.

    Why? Many reasons for that.


    None of the insurgent groups, such as the Haqqani Network, Afghan Taliban or anyone else is capable of overthrowing this Afghan government. They are capable of random attacks occurring often, but cannot mount a sustained campaign to overthrow this regime.

    The biggest problem Pakistan has in Afghanistan is Indian involvement there. If you take India out of the equation, or make a limited player in Afghanistan; Pakistan will try to foster good relations with the Afghan government. If Pakistan screws up relations with Afghanistan, it will give India a chance to re-enter Afghanistan, and exert its influence there like it did in the Karzai regime when the US troops were there; so Pakistan will not want that to happen.

    Pakistan has offered to give the Afghan troops military training from its forces. That is a very big, unprecedented step. It shows a change in mindset.

    Pakistan will also try to get rid off militant groups from its tribal agencies, as they have caused unrest, instability and violence in the country; and the generally security situation in Pakistan has improved since the launch of the North Waziristan operation.
    Ok First, you say there are many reasons that you think Pakistan no longer control militant groups particularly the Haqqani, you say there are many reasons for this -- And then don't offer any reasons, what the heck kind of writing is that??

    You go on to say that Pakistan's biggest problem is India in Afghanistan -- Is that a reasonable thing to say?, Pakistan has no responsibility for it's problems?? It's all India's fault that Pakistan continues to identify with Islamist militants and not a wide range of political players, ethnic and religious groups, commercial associations, cultural associations???
    At least be fair to yourself . You go on to suggest that Pakistani military training is something to be prized, after all, if it is to be prized, why so? What record of success, for instance against India can it show?? Indeed, shouldn't Afghans choose Indian military training? at least there is a record of success, I mean they did not just cut Pakistan down to size, they ensured that the the very reason for a Pakistan was destroyed - that's pretty successful isn't it? Anyway, Pakistanis helped them do it but thats for another day.

    Look, Pakistan cannot afford and will not allow a hostile Afghanistan - that's the bottom line, right? OK, between that bottom line and where ever we are now, there is a great deal of day light, a universe of possibilities, Pakistanis would be better served by focusing on structuring their relations with Afghanistan in to ever wider webs of associations and mutual interest, prime among these is obviously the role of the Afghan economy in the Pakistani economy, whether you like it or are pathetic towards it, one cannot escape the fact that Afghanistan's markets including it's labor markets are informally integrated into the Pakistani economy, WHY NOT make it formal??? Think it over --- Want a friendly Afghanistan, try being friendly -- and focus on what Pakistan can do not what India can do.

  16. #36
    Senior Member Sinbad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    4,731
    Thanks
    2490
    Pakistan England

    Re: Pakistan-US Fractured Relations

    Quote Originally Posted by Mastankhan View Post
    Hi,

    Iran has oil for one---and then it has the ability to sink a tanker at a critical point in the trait that can block all the oil tankers---.

    With the weaker state of Pakistan military----Pakistan had no choice but to join---the problem was not of jpining---but the problem was that of Pakistanis not accepting they were Pakistanis first and some of their brethren were giving refuge to the terrorists---and secondly---all those suicide bombings were being done by muslims and not anyone else---.

    For a nation to take 10 years to comprehend that muslims can do suicide bombings against other muslims---that nation is beyond stupid-----.
    Bitter pill to swallow but sometimes the truth hurts.
    The Following User Says Thank You to Sinbad For This Useful Post: Mastankhan


  17. #37
    Forum Administrator bilalhaider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    6,605
    Thanks
    4000
    Pakistan Pakistan

    Re: Pakistan US relations

    Quote Originally Posted by Muse View Post
    Ok First, you say there are many reasons that you think Pakistan no longer control militant groups particularly the Haqqani, you say there are many reasons for this -- And then don't offer any reasons, what the heck kind of writing is that??
    I gave the reasons below. While they might have gotten sanctuary in Pakistan's tribal regions, the Pakistani state followed the lead of the US in Afghanistan. Meaning, the Pakistani state and the Afghan insurgent groups like the Taliban and Haqqani Network were never on the same page.

    The high level leaders of the Taliban and Haqqani Network made it to the list of the international designated terrorist list, of course Pakistan couldn't provide support to them.

    I have even read reports that Pakistan held some of the family members of the Afghan Taliban, or something along those lines. These are all reasons for tense relations with the Taliban, the Taliban and Haqqani Network were definitely independent players; not really under the control of the Pakistani state. But of course Pakistan retained some influence over these groups, as they got sanctuary in the tribal areas/Western Balochistan, and also due to their family members being held by Pakistan.

    You go on to say that Pakistan's biggest problem is India in Afghanistan -- Is that a reasonable thing to say?, Pakistan has no responsibility for it's problems?? It's all India's fault that Pakistan continues to identify with Islamist militants and not a wide range of political players, ethnic and religious groups, commercial associations, cultural associations???
    I am telling you the biggest concern of the Pakistani state in Afghanistan. If it is correct or not, that is debatable.

    At least be fair to yourself . You go on to suggest that Pakistani military training is something to be prized, after all, if it is to be prized, why so?
    You are making up meanings of things yourself. You are the one that used the word 'prized'. I said it was a big, unprecedented step. Not because it is prized, but because it shows the two regimes coming together, and having this cooperation, which it didn't have before under the Karzai regime, when Karzai just blamed Pakistan for all their problems. As you might have noticed, neither the Ghani regime, nor the Sharif regime have exchanged blame/pointed fingers at one another. Meaning the relationship is turning to the better.


    Look, Pakistan cannot afford and will not allow a hostile Afghanistan - that's the bottom line, right? OK, between that bottom line and where ever we are now, there is a great deal of day light, a universe of possibilities, Pakistanis would be better served by focusing on structuring their relations with Afghanistan in to ever wider webs of associations and mutual interest, prime among these is obviously the role of the Afghan economy in the Pakistani economy, whether you like it or are pathetic towards it, one cannot escape the fact that Afghanistan's markets including it's labor markets are informally integrated into the Pakistani economy, WHY NOT make it formal??? Think it over --- Want a friendly Afghanistan, try being friendly -- and focus on what Pakistan can do not what India can do.
    I don't see anything in my original post that you are trying to find contradictions in.

  18. #38
    Think Tank Muse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    11,034
    Thanks
    5084
    UK UK

    Re: Pakistan US relations

    Quote Originally Posted by bilalhaider View Post
    the Pakistani state and the Afghan insurgent groups like the Taliban and Haqqani Network were never on the same page.

    The high level leaders of the Taliban and Haqqani Network made it to the list of the international designated terrorist list, of course Pakistan couldn't provide support to them.

    But of course Pakistan retained some influence over these groups, as they got sanctuary in the tribal areas/Western Balochistan, and also due to their family members being held by Pakistan.

    . I said it was a big, unprecedented step. Not because it is prized, but because it shows the two regimes coming together, and having this cooperation, which it didn't have before under the Karzai regime, when Karzai just blamed Pakistan for all their problems. As you might have noticed, neither the Ghani regime, nor the Sharif regime have exchanged blame/pointed fingers at one another. Meaning the relationship is turning to the better.

    .
    The stuff in red is stuff you wrote - I did not make it up.
    Now when it comes to Military training, Musharraf offered it before, the Afghans thought better of it -- may be they will decide that Pakistani military training could be worthwhile, that is if they like the idea of Afghanistan being turned in to a venue of proxy conflict.

  19. #39
    Member cb4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    1,948
    Thanks
    677
    Pakistan Pakistan

    US is proud for being Pak’s largest trading partner: Olson

    US Ambassador to Pakistan Richard G Olson accompanied by Brian Heath, US Consul General in Karachi, and other senior members of the US embassy visited the OICCI for an interactive session with the OICCI managing committee and members.

    OICCI Vice President Atif A Bajwa shared the significant contribution of the OICCI members to the Pakistan economy not only in the form of FDI, but also in the transfer of technology and best practices.

    Being the collective voice of leading 200 foreign investors, the OICCI has played a key role in facilitating FDI in the country by sharing the investment climate and incentives and opportunities for potential investors in Pakistan.

    Atif Bajwa expressed his concern on the declining positioning of Pakistan in the WB’s ease of doing business which needs serious remedial action to allow Pakistan to achieve its right growth potential.

    Atif Bajwa appreciated the positive support of the US government for Pakistan over the last six decades, the contribution of the US corporate sector to the economy of Pakistan and the potential for further enhancement of US-Pakistan trade and business relationship. He urged the need to fast track the US-Pakistan dialogue to promote investment in Pakistan including meaningful progress on TIFA.

    Speaking to the members of the OICCI, Ambassador Richard G. Olson expressed his great pleasure in coming to the OICCI to meet its members and to learn first-hand about the experience of foreign investors in Pakistan. He commented that he was impressed by the achievement of the OICCI members, who account for more than 14 per cent of GDP and 33 per cent of Pakistan’s total tax receipts besides touching the lives of a large segment of the population.

    The ambassador highlighted how both countries were partnering to create a “pro-business, pro-investment, and pro-innovation climate.” He said, “We are proud that the United States is both Pakistan’s largest trading partner and one of its largest investors.” In 2013, a two-way trade totalled more than $5 billion and US companies have invested $1.3 billion in the Pakistani economy in the last seven years.

    Ambassador Olson also outlined how both the countries were moving from “an assistance-based relationship to one based more on trade and investment” and the United States’ commitment to supporting long-term self-sufficiency for Pakistan. He pointed out that the United Sates was partnering with Pakistan to achieve growth and build a foundation for commercial success by building business ties and industry capacity, supporting Pakistan’s young entrepreneurs, and addressing some of the challenges that have slowed the pace of economic growth in Pakistan.

    http://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2014...partner-olson/
    The Following User Says Thank You to cb4 For This Useful Post: T-123456


  20. #40
    Senior Member Hariz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    3,051
    Thanks
    1720
    Pakistan UK

    Obama signs massive defense budget; $1 billion to Pakistan

    Washington- US President Obama has signed a bill into law providing an extension in the Coalition Support Fund for Pakistan for another year, state media reported today.

    The Bill also assured continued US support to Afghanistan after the withdrawal of foreign forces. Earlier, addressing his year-end news conference in Washington, President Obama renewed his pledge to end the US combat mission in Afghanistan within two weeks.

    http://nation.com.pk/national/21-Dec...on-to-pakistan

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Pakistan Turkish relations
    By Superkaif in forum Foreign Affairs
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 3rd August 2013, 19:00
  2. Q&A: US-Pakistan relations
    By Mirza44 in forum U.S. Affairs
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 8th July 2013, 20:33

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Join us on twitter Follow us on twitter