from Pakistan: Now or Never?:
Between the lines: Obama’s comments on Kashmir
President Barack Obama's words on relations with Pakistan were always going to be carefully scripted during his visit to India, where even to say the word "Kashmir" aloud in public can raise jitters about U.S. interference in what New Delhi sees as a bilateral dispute.
So first up, here's what he had to say during a news conference in New Delhi with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in response to a question about what role the United States could play in resolving the Kashmir dispute (NDTV has the video).
"With respect to Kashmir, obviously this is a long-standing dispute between India and Pakistan; as I said yesterday, I believe that both Pakistan and India have an interest in reducing tensions between the two countries. The United States cannot impose a solution to these problems but I have indicated to Prime Minister Singh that we are happy to play any role that the parties think is appropriate in reducing these tensions. That's in the interests of the region; it is in the interests of the two countries involved and it is in the interests of the United States of America.
"So my hope is that conversations will be taking place between the two countries; they may not start on that particular flashpoint; there may be confidence building measures that need to take place, but I am absolutely convinced that it is both in India's and Pakistan's interest to reduce tensions and that will enable them I think to focus on the range of both challenges and opportunities that each country faces."
"I do want to make this point though, that I think Prime Minister Singh throughout his career and throughout his prime ministership has consistently spoken out both publicly and privately on his desire, his personal commitment to reduce tensions between India and Pakistan and for that I very much commend him. I think Prime Minister Singh is sincere and relentless in his desire for peace. And so my hope is that both sides can, over the next several months, several years, find mechanisms that are appropriate for them to work out what are these very difficult issues."
A quick reading between the lines suggests that he is unfraid of referring to Kashmir in public and keeping it on the agenda, while also acknowledging that resolving the dispute may take years rather than months, and that the two countries might need to build confidence by agreeing on other issues first. He also steered a middle course between Pakistan's insistence that Kashmir is the core issue, and India's demand that "cross-border terrorism" must end before it will agree to talk.
Obama has moved quite some distance since his 2008 election campaign, when he raised hackles in India by suggesting a resolution of the Kashmir dispute could help in the war in Afghanistan by convincing Pakistan to focus on tackling militants holed up on its border rather than its traditional enemy.
from Russell Boyce:
Asia – A Week in Pictures September 12, 2010
As the anniversary of the 9/11 attack coincided with Eid celebrations, Florida based Pastor Terry Jones announced that he would burn the Koran as a protest to plans to site a Muslim cultural centre near Ground Zero , stoking tensions in Asia. Add into the mix millions in Pakistan suffering from lack of water, food and shelter after floods, a parliament election in Afghanistan and a U. S. -led military campaign against the Taliban around Kandahar - photographers in the region had lots of raw material to work with.
Raheb's picture of relief and joy caught in the harsh light of a direct flash seems to explode in a release of tension as news spreads that Pastor Jones had cancelled his plans to burn the Koran. It has to be said that ironically earlier in the day in Pakistan US flags were burned in protest against the planned protest.
Afghan protestors shout anti U.S slogans as they celebrate after learning that U.S. pastor Terry Jones dropped his plans to burn copies of the Koran, in Herat, western Afghanistan September 12, 2010. REUTERS/Raheb Homavandi
Also in Afghanistan Raheb's haunting image of the defaced election poster of an Afghan woman parliamentary candidate and the ghostly image of a US soldier shrouded in a haze of dust by Erik, who is on an embed with US forces, both caught my eye.
A damaged campaign poster for an Afghan woman parliament candidate is seen on a wall in Herat, western Afghanistan September 8, 2010. Taliban threats, shuttered polling centres and warnings of widespread fraud are clouding hopes for Afghanistan's Sept. 18 parliamentary election, a key test of an already fragile democracy, observers have warned. REUTERS/Raheb Homavandi
from Afghan Journal:
The view from Pakistan: India is a bigger threat than the Taliban, al Qaeda
India may have a bigger problem in Pakistan than previously thought. More than half of Pakistanis surveyed in a Pew poll say India is a bigger threat than al Qaeda or the Taliban.
It's not just the Pakistani military that believes a bigger, richer India is an existential threat. A majority of ordinary people share that perception as well. That ought to worry Indian policy planners. Of the Pakistanis polled, 23 percent think the Taliban is the greatest threat to their country, and 3 percent think al Qaeda is, despite the rising tide of militant violence in Pakistan's turbulent northwest region on the Afghan border, and also in the heartland cities.
One must approach all surveys with caution, especially so in countries such as India and Pakistan with very large populations. Pew conducted face-to-face interviews with 2,000 adults in Pakistan between April 13 and 28 of 2010. It says the sample was disproportionately urban, and parts of the troubled areas of the northwest and Baluchistan were not covered. For a country with a population of over 170 million, drawing hard conclusions based on a sample size that small must come with a mandatory health warning.
Still, there were some positive take-aways. Despite the deep-seated tensions between these two countries, most Pakistanis want better relations with India. Roughly 72% say it is important for relations with India to improve and about three-quarters support increased trade with India and further talks between the two rivals.
But India won't talk unless Pakistan acts against the militant groups and their patrons. For a large number of Indians, memories of the 11/26 attacks in Mumbai are still too fresh. India has made almost all dialogue with Pakistan conditional, based on the steps it takes to roll up groups like the Lashkar-e-Taiba, the Pakistan-based organization that New Delhi has blamed for a series of attacks in India including the Mumbai assault of 2008. But Pakistan won't act because it doesn't consider them to be a threat. So how do you square such a circle?
The Indians can take some comfort in the fact that Pakistanis also gave the United States an equally poor approval rating. Roughly 59 percent of Pakistanis describe the U.S. as an enemy. And President Barack Obama is very unpopular -- only 8% of Pakistanis express confidence that he will do the right thing in world affairs, his lowest rating among 22 nations that were polled about their confidence in the U.S. president.
For all the money that has been lavished on Pakistan, the United States seems to be getting nowhere in winning public support. Indeed, support for the U.S. involvement in the fight against extremists fell last year. "The lesson unlearned in fifty years is that feeding Pakistan cash will not alter a national psychosis of war and hatred for the U.S.," Dr. Aseem Shukla wrote in the Washington Post.
Self-righteousness! more self-righteousness!! Hasn’t self-righteousness plagued India and Indians since time immemorial. Nuclear India! Richer India! Powerful India! Modern India! Industrialized India! Secular India! Democratic India! That’s all the self-righteousness in the world. But STOP there. Add to this 42% poorest of the world, a constitutionally enforced inequality to schedule castes, close to 200 parliamentary seats held by fascist Hindu extremist parties, gruesome killings of over 100,000 men, women and children in Kashmir and it doesn’t really present a pretty picture. Be honest about it. Blaming everything on Pakistan would get you nowhere.
from Afghan Journal:
WikiLeaks: shaking the foundations of U.S. policy toward Pakistan
A Pakistani security official stands near a burning vehicle after it was attacked in Chaman in Pakistan's Balochistan province, along the Afghan border on May 19, 2010.
On the face of it, you could ask what's new about the latest disclosures of Pakistani involvement in the Taliban insurgency while accepting massive U.S. aid to fight Islamic militancy of all hues. Hasn't this been known all along -- something that a succession of top U.S. officials and military leaders have often said, sometimes couched in diplomatic speech and sometimes rather clearly?
It was only last week that U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said there must be somebody in the Pakistani government who knew Osama bin Laden's whereabouts. Coming from America's top diplomat, it couldn't be more blunt.
Then why is a trove of over 90,000 classified military documents released by WikiLeaks on the war in Afghanistan causing so much consternation? Leslie H. Gelb, president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, says it is now much more difficult to deny or dodge the truths that everyone has been aware of:
Government officials can always deflect news stories simply by crossing their fingers and waiting for the story to sink in a haze of oil spills and Lindsay Lohan extravaganzas. Now, however, “proof” is there in the black-and-white of secret U.S. documents, compliments of anti-war WikiLeaks. Even if one does not believe that the information contained in every one of these reports is accurate (some do sound rather bizarre), and even if little in the reports can be corroborated independently, the very volume of the “secret” material is overwhelming and plausible—and yes, seductively “secret.”
The White House condemned the leak, saying it could threaten national security and endanger the lives of Americans. Islamabad said leaking unprocessed reports from the battlefield was irresponsible and added that Pakistan had paid in blood fighting militants.
The biggest threat to the USA security is from the current administration made up of old clintonians and headed by the , yes we can commander in chief. They need to learn that in the holy land of afghan warriors, the foreigners have always lost, the consolation prize being the opportunity to fight the invincibles and survive, The current opponentsof the Pashtoon afghns are not a good match.
from Pakistan: Now or Never?:
Pakistan’s General Kayani given three-year extension
Pakistan army chief, General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, is to be given a a three-year extension to his term of office to maintain continuity in the country's battle against Islamist militants.
Kayani, arguably Pakistan's most powerful man, had been due to retire in November. His future had been the subject of intense speculation for months, with opinion divided between the those who argued he should be given an extension for the sake of continuity, and those who said that Pakistan needed to build its institutions rather than rely on individuals - as it had done with powerful army rulers in the past.
Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani, who announced the extension, said the decision to extend Kayani's term reflected "his effective role in the war against terrorism and in the enforcement of rule of law in the country."
Kayani is considered to have built a good working relationship with the United States - which needs the Pakistan Army's help in fighting the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan - prompting speculation, denied by the U.S. embassy in Islamabad, that Washington had pressed for his term of office to be extended.
He has also been the subject of intense speculation in India, where the views of the army - which controls foreign and security policy even under a civilian government - are seen as crucial to determining the fate of the faltering India-Pakistan peace process.
A former head of the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency, Kayani has been credited with keeping the army out of politics on the whole. Military analysts also say he has redefined "strategic depth" - an old policy under which Pakistan aimed to use Afghanistan as a rear base in the event of war with India - to suggest instead that the country's strength should come from a strong economy at home. Yet under his tenure - both as the head of the ISI until 2007 and then as army chief - Pakistan has also been criticised for failing to take strong enough action against Islamist and Taliban militants.
Otherwise, relatively little is known about the thinking of the inscrutable general, who never gives public interviews. Pakistan, its neighbours and the United States and its allies fighting in Afghanistan, will now have another three years to find out.
He’s the best of the bunch. Have a look at his potential replacements to see why he should stay.
He’s also been remarkably committed to strenghthening Pakistan’s democracy….that’s a rare trait for a Pakistan Army general.
from Afghan Journal:
Potential allies: Karzai, Pakistan and the Taliban?
(Afghan President Hamid Karzai and Pakistani Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani)
If you still thought things hadn't dramatically changed on the Afghan chessboard ever since U.S. President Barack Obama announced plans to begin pulling out from mid-2011, you only need to look at President Hamid Karzai's recent utterances, or more accurately the lack of it, on the Taliban and Pakistan, the other heavyweights on the stage.
For months Karzai has gone noticeably quiet on Pakistan, refusing to excoriate the neighbour for aiding the Taliban as he routinely did in the past, The Guardian quoted a source close to the country's former intelligence chief Amrullah Saleh as saying.
Karzai, in fact, has lost faith in the U.S. strategy in Afghanistan and is increasingly turning to long-time Taliban supporter, Pakistan, to end the deadly insurgency, it said. Saleh and interior minister Hanif Atmar resigned this week, which Karzai's office said was because of lapses that led to a Taliban attack on a peace jirga last week in Kabul.
But Saleh himself told Reuters in an interview that he had quit because he opposed Karzai's orders for a review of Taliban insurgents in detention, part of moves the president has launched to reach out to the hardline Islamists in a bid to end the nine-year war. The jirga, packed with tribal elders and notables considered loyal to Karzai, endorsed his plan to seek negotiations with the insurgents who have virtually fought U.S.-led NATO forces to a bloody stalemate nine years after they were ousted
So is this what a final settlement would look like in Afghanistan as the United States pulls back ? An unlikely partnership between Karzai, Pakistan and the Taliban? Quite a change from the time when Karzai and former Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf levelled harsh accusations against each other.
@ReX Minor
More than half of the Taliban are anti-Pashtun. And if former kings and their families failed in modernising the country, that does not mean that modernisation is failed. Successful people and nations don’t give up when they fail in achieving good values and goals. We should continue.
from Afghan Journal:
Saving Afghanistan from its neighbours
(A view of the tent in Kabul where the jirga will be held. Reuters/Ahmad Masood
Walking into a giant tent at the foothills of Kabul, you are conscious of the importance of jirgas throughout Afghanistan's troubled history. These assemblies of tribal elders have been called at key moments in the country's history from whether it should participate in the two World Wars to a call for a national uprising against an Iranian invasion in the 18th century.
Next week's jirga is aimed at building a national consensus behind Afghan President Hamid Karzai's effort to seek a negotiated settlement of the nine year conflict now that the Taliban have fought U.S. and NATO forces to a virtual stalemate and the clock on a U.S. military withdrawal has begun.
But the question is how much of an influence Afghanistan's half a dozen direct neighbours including Pakistan and Iran and near ones such as India, Saudi Arabia and Russia will exert on any possible settlement of the conflict. At one level Afghanistan has become a battleground for India and Pakistan on the one hand, and the United States and Iran on the other. At another level there is also China's deepening economic engagement and Russis's concerns of the arc of instability radiating from Afghanistan into the Central Asia republics.
Here's how some of the big regional players are approaching a U.S. military withdrawal stated to begin from mid-2011 and Karzai'sbid to seek reconciliation with the Taliban who have fought U.S. and NATO forces to a virtual stalemate.
PAKISTAN Of all of Afghanistan's six direct neighbours, Pakistan arguably has the highest stake in the country. The insurgency is largely driven by the Pasthun Taliban and there are Pasthuns on both sides of the Durand Line, the border between the two countries. Many of the early Taliban, who swept through southern Afghanistan in the 1990s after years of civil war, grew up in refugee camps in Pakistan which hosts the largest number.
@Rex Minor,
Well, you are true that Army has deployed in tribal area which was once free land under Pakistan’s federation with the FCR and local affairs run through tribal traditions. But now it has happened because of militancy, which resulted in loss of livese of soldiers and civilians as well. I hope when things around settled, whole setup will be resumed revived loyalty with the state. It will be blessing for us that our brothers on the other side of border remain prosper and richer in every aspect.
Have a nice day, Sir!
from Pakistan: Now or Never?:
Pakistan-despite failed NY attack, change will be slow in coming
After the media frenzy following last weekend's failed car bomb attack on Times Square, you would be forgiven for thinking that something dramatic is about to change in Pakistan. The reality, however, is probably going to be much greyer.
Much attention has naturally focused on North Waziristan, a bastion for al Qaeda, the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), Afghan fighters including those in the Haqqani network, and the so-called "Punjabi Taliban" - militants from Punjab-based groups who have joined the battle either in Afghanistan or against the Pakistani state. The Pakistan Army is expected to come under fresh pressure to launch an offensive in North Waziristan after Faisal Shahzad, who according to U.S. authorities admitted to the failed car-bombing in Times Square, said he had received training in Waziristan. Unlike other parts of the tribal areas on the Pakistan-Afghan border, North Waziristan has so far been left largely alone.
But it is by no means clear that the Pakistan Army will be rushed into launching a big offensive in North Waziristan. It is already stretched fighting in other parts of the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), including in South Waziristan, where it embarked on a major operation last year. Before starting any new offensive, it needs to be sure it is not going to be attacked from the rear, or become so thinly stretched that it loses hard-fought gains elsewhere. As one senior military official told me, you have to be very sure-footed, consolidate your gains, and make sure your bases are secure.
That said, even before the failed Times Square attack, the New York Times suggested Pakistan was beginning to weigh the possibility of tackling militants in North Waziristan. But its decision on timing is unlikely to be dictated by one incident, however dramatic. The Pakistan Army has put considerable energy into improving its image after the tarnishing of the Musharraf years, and is determined to show that when it does launch military offensives, it does so to win. And if there is one thing worse than not going into North Waziristan, it is going in there and losing.
Increased drone missile attacks on targets in North Waziristan are another option. But for drone missile strikes to be successful - taking out militant targets while limiting the civilian deaths which make them so unpopular in Pakistan - you need good intelligence on the ground. The killing in North Waziristan last month of former Pakistan intelligence officer Khalid Khawaja, who reportedly had strong contacts with al Qaeda and the Taliban, leaves a question mark over whether anyone now has really good intelligence on what is happening there.
Meanwhile, uncertainty over the U.S. strategy in Afghanistan is not helping - you can already hear Pakistan Army officers wondering aloud why Pakistan is driving militants out of its tribal areas only for them to escape across the border to live to fight another day.
Nor are tentative peace talks with India likely to lead to a sudden change in Pakistan's military posture, under which it keeps the bulk of its army on the Indian border. The Pakistan Army already moved a significant number of troops from its Indian border to fight Taliban militants on its Afghan border last year and is unlikely to redeploy more despite an easing of tensions with India - its army chief is reported to say that the military deals with capabilities rather than intentions.
@G-W
You have lost the bet sir. Obama is unlikely to deliver Afghanistan to neocon republicans. Perhaps you should give him a tip how to exit without suffering the fate of Vietnam. Pakistan is in no position to help Obama either in this endeavour. Wars are fought on battle grounds and not in the congress, they also have their own momentum. The US is in no position to take on a fight with the nuclear armed country otherwise they would have incvaded Korea and Iran long time ago. Who says that Iran does not have a nuclear arsenal of their own. Let us leave Pakistan alone, its army has more lethal force than the vietnamese army. Remember the old Indian saying, the barking dogs seldom bite. I would not take threats from the lady seriously. The threats from the defence secretary or the President are usually serious and can sometimes cause the reaction from the thratened party prematuredly. The US is a bankrupt country and in no position to start a third front in the subcontinent next to China. The US would have delegated this task to India who I doubt has the stomach for a nuclear response.
Rex Minor
from Afghan Journal:
Afghanistan’s cricketers rise to the world stage
(Afghanistan's cricketers after they qualified for the World Cup. Reuters/Nikhil Monteiro)
Afghanistan’s cricketers are playing heavyweights India in their opening match in the 20-over World Cup on Saturday, capping an extraordinary journey from refugee camps to the game's top table.
It couldn't be a more unlikely pair walking out to the green in the Caribbean island of St. Lucia than captains Mahendra Singh Dhoni of India and Nowroze Mangal of Afghanistan to toss the coin at the start of the match.
Dhoni is just coming off the Indian Premier League, having made millions of dollars playing cricket's richest tournament and the endorsements that come with it, even though some of the sheen is off because of allegations of corruption clouding the tournament.
Mangal, by contrast, learnt to play cricket in a refugee camp in Pakistan with a ball made out of cloth and shoes for stumps. When his team won an Asian Twenty20 competition in 2008 -- the tournament that marked the start of their journey to the top -- Mangal was given a parcel of land worth $60,000. His team each get a day rate of about $75 when they are on tour, according to the Times.
Unlike India or Pakistan, Afghanistan doesn't have a cricketing history. Ten years ago cricket did not officially exist in the country. It was suppressed, like most things, by the Taliban, although the religious rulers later relented on the grounds that the sport had frequent breaks in it for prayers. In 2008, Afghanistan entered the lowest rung of cricket’s international ladder, playing the likes of Japan and Vanuatu. Now they are one of the top 12 nations competing in the T-20 World Cup.
from Afghan Journal:
Can India, Pakistan possibly back off in Afghanistan?
Now that India and Pakistan have agreed to hold further talks following a meeting between the prime ministers of the two countries, are they going to step back from a bruising confrontation in Afghanistan?
It's a war fought in the shadows with spies and proxies, and lots of money. Once in a while it gets really nasty as in deadly attacks on Indian interests for which New Delhi has pointed the finger at Pakistan.
It's not clear what subjects Prime Ministers Manmohan Singh and Yusuf Raza Gilani touched on during their meeting on the sidelines of a regional summit in Bhutan, but Afghanistan clearly is an important subtext, arguably the most pressing one at this time.
Both countries are positioning themselves for an eventual U.S. withdrawal from the country, with Pakistan clearly holding the better cards at the moment, both as a result of its geography and long-standing links with a resurgent Taliban.
Like much else in their tormented relationship each fears the other's involvement in Afghanistan. Pakistan worries that Kabul will end up with close links to New Delhi, allowing India to essentially "surround" Pakistan; India fears that if the Taliban return to power, it will face more attacks at home.
Can Singh and Gilani bridge the trust deficit that Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi spoke of? Influential Indian foreign policy analyst C. Raja Mohan suggested a couple of months back that New Delhi should take the initiative and call for a trilateral summit involving India, Pakistan and Afghanistan to look for ways for lasting peace in the region.
@Foch
Honourable force for whom? Your premise that force can be honourable is an illusion. The force which massacred sikh nastionals and withdrew against the chinese army can never be classified as honourable feats. O’h, yes they are doing some good work as mercenaries for the UN peace keeping mission and recently they were put on circus show to celebrate with the French army. India remains largely a backward and very poor country. In my view the country has the potential to become a great nation but with the current fakir mentality political leadership I doubt if there is chance in this century at least. Pakistan is no better, keeping kashmiris by force and so called tibetans monks as refugees is not a Nationhood. You guys have to learn a lot from the chinese, namely do not interfere in the domestic domain of others. Yes, I am concerned about the oppressed people and more so about their oppressors.
Rex
I do not expect anything concrete from you. So don’t sweat.
Have fun!