U.S. should look at nuclear deal for Pakistan if militancy tackled-RAND report

June 21, 2010

damadola2The United States should consider offering Pakistan a civilian nuclear deal in return for a real and verifiable commitment to eradicate all militant groups operating from its territory, a new report by the RAND Corporation says.

The report, by Seth Jones and Christine Fair, echoes a criticism often levelled at Pakistan that it is only willing to tackle those militant organisations which threaten it directly, while retaining links with groups like the Afghan Taliban and the Lashkar-e-Taiba which can be used to expand its influence in Afghanistan or against India.  It argues that Washington needs to find a new mix of incentives and sanctions to convince Pakistan to abandon the use of militant groups as a foreign policy tool. 

Its suggestion that Washington – which has already agreed a civilian nuclear deal with India – consider using the offer of a nuclear agreement with Pakistan as an incentive comes as China pursues its own plans to help Islamabad’s civilian nuclear sector

“A key objective of U.S. policy must be to alter Pakistan’s strategic calculus and end its support to militant groups. Pakistan is unlikely to abandon militancy as a tool of foreign policy without a serious effort to alter its cost-benefit calculus. This requires the United States to clarify what its goals are, develop an international consensus on most (if not all) of these goals, and issue a clear demand to Pakistan regarding these objectives,” it says.

The report says that while Pakistan faces many difficulties in tackling militant groups on its border with Afghanistan or it its heartland Punjab province, ”Pakistan’s challenges are due as much to political will as to deficiencies in capability”.

Pakistan says it cannot tackle all militant groups at once and has complained about U.S. pressure to “do more” when its army is already taking heavy casualties fighting the Tehrik-e-Taliban-e-Pakistan (TTP) or Pakistani Taliban in the tribal areas bordering Afghanistan.

The report, however, is unsparing in its assessment of what it sees as Pakistan’s different attitude to different militant groups.

“At least three types of militant groups receive state support. First are those groups that Pakistan cultivated as state assets and that remain state proxies, such as Lashkar-e-Taiba and Mullah Mohammad Omar’s Taliban. In some cases, such as the 2010 capture of the Taliban’s second in command, Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, Pakistan has been willing to target selected members,” it says.

“A second group comprises militant groups, such as Jaish-e-Mohammad and Harkat-ul-Jihad-e-Islami, that have a history of state patronage and have long served the state in Afghanistan and India. However, unlike Lashkar-e-Taiba or the Afghan Taliban, these groups developed important fissures that emerged after 2001 in response to Pakistan’s participation in the U.S.-led war on terrorism. Elements of Jaish-e-Mohammad, Harkat-ul-Jihad-e-Islami, and other Deobandi militant groups were involved in attacks against President Musharraf, the army, ISI, and Pakistan’s civilian leadership. Some individuals from these Deobandi militant groups have also allied with the TTP. Even though elements of these groups have targeted the state, Pakistan has not opted to eliminate them. Rather, the strategy appears to be targeting only the individuals who threaten the state and deterring other group members from conducting attacks in Pakistan. These groups generally remain secure, perhaps because the state presumes that they may be useful at some point for pursuing Pakistan’s interests.”

“A third set of militants includes the TTP and elements of TNSM (Tehreek-e-Nafaz-e-Shariat-e-Mohammadi). In some cases, Pakistani government officials have provided support to militants in these organizations and negotiated peace deals … In other cases, such as in 2009 in South Waziristan and Swat, it has targeted them when they pose a threat to the Pakistan state.”

It argues that the United States must work with other countries, including China, to convince Pakistan to abandon support for all militant groups.  Among the sanctions Washington could consider if this did not happen would be to include Pakistan on its list of state sponsors of terrorism, or applying economic sanctions and visa bans on specific individuals or organisations, rather than on the country as a whole.

At the same time, it must also come up with imaginative incentives.  “Pakistan has come to view U.S. assistance as an entitlement. Therefore, offering more aid (as in the Kerry-Lugar-Berman legislation) is unlikely to persuade Pakistan to stop using militants as a tool of foreign policy.”

Among these incentives could be a criteria-based civilian nuclear deal for Pakistan, roughly modelled on the agreement with India. Under this deal, India  agreed to separate its civil and military nuclear facilities and place its civil nuclear facilities under International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards in return for nuclear cooperation with the United States. Neither India nor Pakistan, which announced they had tested nuclear weapons in 1998, have signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

“The explicit criteria could be tied to access to (disgraced Pakistani nuclear scientist) A. Q. Khan, greater visibility into Pakistan’s program, submission to safeguards, a strategic decision to abandon militancy as a tool of foreign and domestic policy, and empirically verifiable metrics in eliminating militant groups operating in and from Pakistan,” the report says.  “Such a civilian nuclear deal could achieve the goals that Kerry-Lugar-Berman could not because it would offer Pakistan benefits that it actually values and that only the United States can meaningfully confer.”

It acknowledges that a nuclear deal would not be an easy sell in either Washington or in Islamabad, much less in Delhi. 

But given President Barack Obama’s publicly stated desire to enlist China’s help in stabilising Pakistan, it will be interesting to see whether the two can find some convergence of interest – both on Pakistan’s civilian nuclear programme and on tackling militancy.



you said:

” Maybe they didn’t inform u about this at your madrasaah but India is close to developing a nuclear defense sheild which will detect if your chinese nukes ever move. What follows will turn Pakistan into Kabristan within no time. So, the next time u guys bark about using your chinese nukes made from stolen technology, keep that in mind. If you have the guts, just try it once & see the result. but untill then, like sissys, don’t thump your chests on internet blogs.”

–>If the Indian reaction to Mumbai was a good litmus test for Indian reaction, then it is safe to say, that the majority of the Indians, there is the political stomach to muster a retaliatory punishing response if there was ever any nuclear misadventure upon India.

Pakistani’s, at least the right wing punjabi mouthpieces, need to realize that India is not a aggressive neighbour, nor is India waving its nuclear pistol constantly blackmailing and threatening any country.

The source of blackmail, duplicity, and terrorism is the artificially deluded state of self-emboldenment that the Pakistani psyche has obtained from having nuclear weapons.

The nuclear weapons that Pakistan has, has served it no purpose, but to blackmail other countries and inflict terrorism. Usually countries with nuclear ambitions have a well developed trade, industry, educated people who are rising and producing and have some national sense of direct about what kind of people they want to be.

The best way to rid the world of Pakistani terrorism and fix kashmir is probably nuclear defanging of Pakistan. The nukes are a detriment to Pakistan and continue to allow the punjabi’s to waste the potential of Pakistani’s, proliferate worldwide terrorism and keep Indians hostage over issues like Kashmir and everything else.

Nuclear technology has wasted the Pakistani’s potential and driven Pakistan’s people to the brink, with the exception of the privileged few who are related to the Army officers.

India has a no first use policy, therefore Pakistan will always be the first one to use them and if it does, it cannot expect to remain as a functioning or even recoverable country, as any first fire misadventures against India would be met with a fierce, punishing and massive, nonreciprocal retaliation of the shock and awe kind. There would not be much left. India can and will recover. India’s “hard drives” are backed up in every western country, through the educated diaspora with expertise in every field, the inertial power of India is unstoppable.

I find it completely absurd and stupid when cretinous Pakistani bloggers start waving their nuclear revolver through their keyboards, expecting respect of some kind, I just roll my eyes…here we go again…another pak blogger hurling nuclear blackmail….

Posted by G-W | Report as abusive

@”I find it completely absurd and stupid when cretinous Pakistani bloggers start waving their nuclear revolver through their keyboards, expecting respect of some kind” Posted by G-W

It’s typical thug/criminal mentality. There are 2 kinds of people who acquire guns. The first kind get it for self defense & protection against criminals & the second kind are the criminals themselves, who get it to rob & kill others. The first kind never boast about their weapon or ever talk about it, while the thugs boast about it & threaten others with it all the time. It’s quite obvious as to which catagory, Pakistanis fall into. You never see an American, Chinese, Indian, Russian or a French etc thumping his chest on his country’s nukes but you see every other Pakistani doing it quite shamefully.

Posted by Mortal1 | Report as abusive

Look what India did. This is why Pakistan fights back

•India swallowed Junagarh on the basis of majority hindu against the wishes of its nawab who had acceeded to Pakistan.
•India swallowed Hyderabad on the basis of majority hindu against the wishes of its nizam
•India swallowed Kashmir on the basis of the maharaja ‘wishes’ irrespective of the muslim majority’s wishes. The instrument of ascension was claimed to be “lost”.
•India swallowed the princely state of Bantva-Manavadar and it 26 muslim villages.
•India invaded and absorbed Goa 4,000 Portugese security with a force of 30,000 on the basis of a foreign presence on “republic of India’s” land.
•India annexed Sikkhim by formenting a coup against the Buddhist king manipulating the grievances of his subjects. The prime minister that supported India was labelled a traitor by his own people. 5000 Indian soldiers stormed a force of 243. 1 nineteen year old palace guard was killed. Sikkhim the tiny country was no more.
•India withheld Pakistan’s share of funds and resources from the very beginning of its birth. The newborn nation financed its treasury with donated silverware from citizens and funds from the Nizam of Hyderabad.
•India withheld 297 trainloads of supplies allocated to Pakistan. (3 trainloads were sent with scrap).
•India has always supported “Baluchistan liberation army” and related terror outfits.
•India rampaged through the sacred sikh golden temple, killed sikh leaders and humiliated its followers.
•India used artillery against its own Sikh people in the religious residential area of Amristar
•Indian police and para-military stood by idly as 3000+ Sikhs were murdered during the Sikh Riots.
•India government stood by idly as the destruction of Babri Masjid took place
•Indian state government of Gujrat headed by Modi committed a state-sponsored pogrom in gujrat killing 2000+ Muslims and displacing 100,000.
•India sent their military to sri lanka and massacred both the Sinhalese and the Tamils in Velvettiturai and Trincomalee
•India armed and supported Mukhti Bahini even before the situation in East Pakistan had become violent
•India invaded Siachen Glacier
•India started the nuclear arms race in 1974
•India swallowed Minicoy Islands (forgotten by the British) without any negotiation with the other dominion (pakistan)
•India current concerns for Afghanistan are so genuine that it supported the illegal, immoral and brutal Soviet invasion of Afghanistan
•India supported the Northern Alliance against the Pashtuns majority but blames Pakistan for interference
•India started the nuclear provocation by testing nuclear weapons on Pakistan’s border
•India has slaughtered 100,000 civilians in Kashmir
•India financed anti-Pakistan Northern Alliance
•India continues to stall resolutions with Bangladesh over river boundaries, hundres of enclaves.
•India border forces have killed hundreds of Bangladeshi border guards.
•India continues to fence the disputed borders with Bangladesh regardless of the Bangladeshi protests.
•India maintains contested boundary sections with Nepal including 400 sq. km over the Kalapani River.
•India continues to stall negotiations on disputed territory in Sir Creek with Pakistan
•India continues to support the Dalai Lama and instigate the Chinese
•Indians government warned: “If the Chinese will not vacate the areas occupied by her, India will have to repeat wat she did in Goa. She will certainly drive out the Chinese forces.” India initiated the Forward Policy setting up checkpoints north of the McMahon line.
•India has had a war with China due its inflexibility with border territories inherited from the British Raj.
•India maintains an army 0f 700,000 soldiers in Kashmir (50% of its total army and greater than the entire Army of neighboring Pakistan) against the civilian population of that small state which numbers less than 4 million people. ?even this horrifying imbalance of 1 soldier for every 6 Kashmiris (majority of whom are old men, women and children) has failed to suppress the freedom movement. Kashmir is under direct President’s rule since 1990, after the state legislature was dissolved (the federally appointed governor had admitted that the Kashmiri legislature had a history of rigged elections). The nature of State-sponsored terrorism is exemplified by such unbelievable laws as “The Armed Forces (J&K) Special Powers Bill (1990), which have been passed by the parliament of world’s largest “democracy”. This Bill grants authorization to members of Indian Security Forces to “fire upon or otherwise use force, even to the causing of death against any person” without fire orders. 130,000 people have been brutally murdered by the Indian Security Forces in the past 20 years and thousands more have been intimidated and terrorized. Pakistanis believe this is state-sponsored terrorism. The Indian security forces have flouted all norms of civilized conduct. Kashmiri youths have been murdered in cold blood in fake encounters and Kashmiri women of all ages were and are gang-raped in the prescence of their families. International human rights organizations and the international press has been refused entry into the State by the Indian government. They can only visit the ?These human rights organization like Amnesty International and Asia Watch constantly report of indescribably inhumane treatment meted out to Kashmiris in government run torture cells and elsewhere. ?While the world has responded to the Bosnia and Kuwait, it has so far failed to act to stop an even greater problem of abuse of human rights and mass genocide of Kashmiris by an invading army. It seems that commercial interests have taken precedence over the dignity of human life.
•India arrested the PRIME MINISTER of Kashmir in 1953
•India rejected UN proposals to keep 16000 troops until plebiscite is held.
•Indian forces have raped 9900 women in Kashmir
•India imposed an economic blockade on land-locked Nepal in 1989
•India overtly and covertly supported the insurgency against the state by LTTE, a nationalist Tamil group in the northern Jaffna region of this small island country of Sri Lanka, which kept it politically and economically destabilised for decades
•India interferes with Nepals internal affairs much to the latter’s discontent
•India massacred peaceful Kashmiri protests in Gowkadal, Maisuma and Bijbehara
•Indian Armed Forces are allowed to arrest non-violent protesters and are slapping them 2 years imprisonment under PSA laws
•India supported Shanti Bahini insurgency in the Chittagong Hill Tracts according to Bangladesh
•Indian encroached on Nepali lands and committed atrocities along the border villages of western district of Dang. These actions resulted in the displacement of more than 6000 people from their homes. Cases of rape and disappearance have been reported. This is not the first time the IBSF has encroached on Nepali territory and committed atrocities: from Jhapa in the east all the way to Darchula in the west (where the Indian military has even set up a permanent base), the pattern of border encroachment is repeated, with forceful displacement, shifting of border markers and appropriation of territory. India has already appropriated some 59,970 hectares of Nepali territory at 54 points in 21 districts. All these cases are well documented, but India has not shown any sign of taking responsibility of its excesses in a foreign land. This is not the only example of India%u2019s interference in Nepal’s sovereignty. Recently the Indian Ambassador to Nepal, Mr. Sood, interfered in the choice of Nepal’s Commander-in-Chief. By doing so, he has made it clear that Nepalese right to choose their government remains a right as long as their choice does not contradict with Indias’ vested interest in Nepal.
•In 1971, Elements of the Indian Army looted Bangladesh while the high command let it happen and may have benefited from the loot.
•India has banned Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International from Kashmir over 20 years. Recently to AI personnel were allowed into Kashmir. They are Indians! Their first course of action was to call Kashmir an integral part of India (a fact disputed by almost all countries in the world… except India).
•Indian governments have refused to sign nuclear testing and nonproliferation agreements — accelerating a nuclear arms race in South Asia. (India’s second nuclear tests in 1998 led to Pakistan’s decision to detonate its own nuclear weapons.)
•In 2008, India single-handedly foiled the last Doha round of global trade talks, an effort to nail together a global deal that almost nobody loved, but one that would have benefited developing countries most.”I reject everything,” declared Kamal Nath, then the Indian commerce and industry minister, after grueling days and sleepless nights of negotiations in Geneva in the summer of 2008.
•India also regularly refuses visas for international rights advocates. In 2003, India denied a visa to the head of Amnesty International, Irene Khan. Although no official reason was given, it was likely a punishment for Amnesty’s critical stance on the government’s handling of Hindu attacks that killed as many as 2,000 Muslims in Gujarat the previous year. Most recently, a delegation from the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, a congressionally mandated body, was denied Indian visas. In the past, the commission had called attention to attacks on both Muslims and Christians in India.

Posted by mirzausman | Report as abusive

More examples of Indian Hegemony

Bangladesh often finds itself on the receiving end of Indian development projects utilizing the numerous rivers that flow through the country apart from the constructing of Indian fences along the Bangladeshi border to placate Indian xenophobia resulting in ruined commerce interactions and livelihood for villagers on either side of the border. Sri Lankans, both Sinhalese and Tamils, have for long spoken of Indian imperialism, alternatively supporting both the Tamil Tigers and the Sri Lankan military, including the brutal Indian Peace Keeping Force sent to the tiny island nation in the 1980s. Indian monopoly capital has made huge inroads into all neighbouring countries in South Asia, resulting in immense resource usurpation. Tinier nations like Nepal, Maldives and Bhutan are essentially forced to act as Indian client states with the Indian military expanding and conducting operations in them as they please

“Northeast India” itself is very much a post-colonial construct, coming into existence only after Indian Independence in 1947, and the region has suffered for a long time under extremely oppressive Indian state hegemony as well as spatial discrimination in comparison to the rest of India

The hegemonic treatment meted out to the region has resulted in numerous armed nationalist and sub-nationalist insurgent movements, causing multiple conflicts with the Indian state as well as internecine battles with each other. This has resulted in harsh material conditions for the people, including human rights abuses, insecure livelihood, difficult working conditions as well as exploitation of the conflict by capital

The discrimination meted out by the Indian state also spawned massive cultural hegemony, and soon many movements, mostly of a cultural-nationalist nature, sprung up in order to counter Indian state-hegemony, as well as to ensure their own rights towards effective self-determination.

While initially non-violent in the 1940s and 50s, from the 1960s onwards many of these movements soon went on to becoming full-blown armed insurgencies, the most prominent ones being ULFA (United Liberation Front of Assam), Manipur Peoples Liberation Army (PLA), NSCN (National Socialist Council of Nagalim) and many others. The region counts around 30 major insurgent outfits along with numerous smaller ones. This has resulted in the longstanding, massive and extremely oppressive presence of the Indian military, in the name of curtailing numerous armed nationalist movements either fighting for independence or greater autonomy

As can be expected in most situations of occupation or state hegemony, the brunt is borne by the working poor. Stories of disappearances, custody killings, encounter killings all conducted by the security forces as well as people caught in the midst of the conflict are all too easy to find.

Huge chunks of the region come under draconian laws like the Armed Forces Special Protection Act or the Disturbed Areas Act, which have been in place in Manipur, Nagaland and many parts of Assam, thereby covering a significant geographical chunk of Northeast India for more than two decades. These Acts essentially give the security forces a free hand in doing what they please as long as it’s under the guise of “fighting terror”

laws was that of the custodial death of Thangjam Manorama in Manipur, where the AFSPA had been enforced for over 25 years. Witnesses say Manorama was picked up on July 11th 2004 by soldiers of the paramilitary Assam Rifles from her home on alleged charges of links with separatist rebels. The next day, her dead body was reportedly found four kilometres away from her home in the state capital Imphal, with multiple bullet wounds and signs of torture. The entire state came to a standstill under the backlash of huge protests following the brutal and tragic death.

Many insurgent outfits have had or continue to have training camps or bases in neighbouring countries like Bhutan, Burma, Bangladesh and Nepal.

India has continuously arm-twisted these nations into providing space and support for the Indian military to enter and conduct operations in flushing out insurgents without any concern for local people within those neighbouring countries. Numerous joint military operations have been conducted on India’s behest in each of the nations mentioned, including particularly brutal ones launched in Burmese and Bhutanese territory to kill ULFA militants that also resulted in massive displacement and human rights abuses upon locals in the two countries.

“India very recently bid to set such an example. India unjustifiably rebuked and scared Sri Lanka when she (Sri Lanka) expressed her desire to collect traditional, but effective, radars and other smaller equipments from Pakistan and China due to inability and failure of India-origin radars to detect air attacks of Tamil rebels.”

“Ignoring and reputing Sri Lanka’s sovereign and independent status, and violating all limits of shamelessness, M K Narayanan, India’s National Security Advisor, on May 13, 2007, thundered out like a so-called superpower declaring, “We are the big power in this region. Let us make it very clear. We strongly believe that whatever requirements the Sri Lankan government has, they should come to us. And we will give them what we think is necessary. We do not favour their going to China or Pakistan or any other country.

All this research was collected from a highly respected website called:


Posted by mirzausman | Report as abusive

I forgot one other item and I apologize for this.

India routine kills non-violent protesters in kashmir.

Once again, I apologize for that ommission.

Posted by mirzausman | Report as abusive

All this research was collected from a highly respected website called:

-Posted by mirzausman

Your personal blog filled with anti-Western and anti-India propaganda (and very little about actually reforming Pakistan by the way) hardly counts as “a highly respected website”.

Posted by kEiThZ | Report as abusive


I encourage you and others to report Mirza’s posts as abusive. Hopefully, Reuters will catch on sooner or later.

Posted by kEiThZ | Report as abusive

Your personal blog filled with anti-Western and anti-India propaganda (and very little about actually reforming Pakistan by the way) hardly counts as “a highly respected website”.

>> kiethz, your problem is you wish you were HALF the journalist that I am. Maybe myra and other real journalists can teach you about objective writing.

Posted by mirzausman | Report as abusive


I don’t think that link works.

We can do it democratic way. How about everybody posting a one-line signature with every post refusing to respond to his trash or meaningful comments, that way everybody is saved of the “burden” to respond to his trashy propaganda? Moderators may go back to previous entries and figure out the troll.

Posted by Seth09 | Report as abusive

@Myra and Reuters,

The quality of the comments section is going down fast and does reflect on your organization.

Either ban the trolls or close down the comments sections. Do it for your own sake.

Posted by kEiThZ | Report as abusive


You ever read some of the Urdu press in Pakistan? He’s not too far from being a journalist there. Heck, they gave Zaid Hamid a TV show. It’s like they made a South Asian country out of Fox News viewers.

Posted by kEiThZ | Report as abusive

Furthermore, a working “report as abusive” link is even against the genuine posters. You or me may not create several accounts to have our say, but you can expect anything from mentally deranged people. However, if back-end software relies on IP address instead of user credentials, then only it may work. But who knows…

Posted by Seth09 | Report as abusive


Far simpler solution. Don’t feed the troll.

It’s like pigeons and rats. They move on when they stop being fed.

Really, who reads his long posts any more? Just ignore him and enjoy the rest that Reuters has to offer. There’s still guys like Umair who still offer the Pakistani point of view but put it forward in an intelligent and respectful manner.

Posted by kEiThZ | Report as abusive


I also felt the same after using strong language recently. But then, I’d say, trust your instincts. You probably know that the guy is not even worth thrashing. You won’t kick or slap a sh*t-covered misbehaving disheveled drunkard on road, would you?

Posted by Seth09 | Report as abusive

you have taken my statements out of their proper context. most of them were in response to rajeev singh telling the world about his personal kama sutra tricks involving leatard pants, a rubber turban and other male-dancers — now tell me I am still in the wrong here.

Reuters will not ban me for the following reason:

1. There are a 1000 indians here (even on pakistani posts)
2. There are like 3 pakistanis
3. My comments are insightful, interesting, colorful, and probably brings tens of new readers to reuters every day.
4. To silence pakistanis on pakistan-related articles will not go well with a news-media conglomerate of reuters repute.
5. Indians have harassed reuters honorable writers if they so much as mention “pakistan babies don’t have horns”
6. Reuters is probably thinking about giving me an assignment in pakistan.

Posted by mirzausman | Report as abusive

“Just ignore him and enjoy the rest that Reuters has to offer. There’s still guys like Umair who still offer the Pakistani point of view but put it forward in an intelligent and respectful manner.”

I totally agree Keithz. One can learn to live with e-pollution as well.

Posted by Seth09 | Report as abusive

I totally agree with you Keithz. One can learn to live with e-pollution as well.

Posted by Seth09 | Report as abusive

@Reuters is probably thinking about giving me an assignment in pakistan.
Posted by mirzausman

Yea yea Reuters and other dozen US news agencies are hiring self declared unemployed idiots from Pakistan as there Reporter.

Is this the new AID package from USA to Pakistan ??

Posted by punjabiyaar | Report as abusive

@ Blacksabbath1

I agree with Keith & Seth. Don’t stoop down to this troll’s abysmal levels. Just ignore him like the rest of us do & he’ll disappear.

Posted by Mortal1 | Report as abusive

Alright Indian friends you promised to boycott me. Please keep your promise. With millions of pak-obsessed Indians not interrupting my geo-political genius with unbecoming behavior, I can finally proceed with the Pak point of view regarding this article.

U.S. should absolutely provide pak with a nuclear deal but without ANY pre-conditions whatsoever. The battle wounds pakistan has suffered as brothers in arms with americans against the soviets, al-qaeda & soviet “non-aligned” proxies deserves nothing less.

Pakistan joined the US led military alliances to counter communism i.e. Baghdad Pact, SEATO and CENTO. In 1954 the United States signed a Mutual Defense Assistance Agreement with Pakistan. When the Americans led the boycott against the Moscow Olympics, Pakistan was one of the countries that joined the boycott based on a united moral stand against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

Pakistan provided US flight facilities for U2 surveillance flight and an intelligence base against the Soviets (1959-1968). In 1960, Kruschev called in the Pakistani ambassador in Czechoslovakia and threatened that he would have no choice but to aim ICBM towards Pakistan. Pakistan continued to provide assistance to the US until 1968.

Pakistan assisted US with backdoor diplomacy with Pakistani allies, and one of the greatest and the noble superpower of China (1970-72) as yet another counterweight against the USSR. Henry Kissinger was secretly flown from Pakistan to Beijing to meet Chairman Mao.

Nixon’s visit to China helped USA contain USSR in the cold war era and also effectively neutralised the then growing Chinese nuclear threat. Had the USA-China breakthrough not happened when it did and, instead, had USSR and China become allies in the seventies most of the world today would have been commmunist and USA would not have been the sole super power of the world.

When the soviets invaded Afghanistan, The ISI played the lead role while the CIA provided backup support in terms of funds, weapons and satellite intelligence. The Soviets began to realize that they were fighting a losing battle. Pakistan intercepted over 2000 soviet incursions and blasted several soviet jets out of the sky. Had Pakistan not engaged the Sovkiet forces within Afghanistan they would have consolidated the Afghan occupation in a few weeks and made a dash to the Arabian Sea and control the critical persian gulf.

Persian Gulf waters today would have been home to the Soviet Navy. Above all, the Soviet Union would have still been there, thriving and vibrant with total control of the world’s largest reserves of oil in the Middle East.

Pakistan completed covert operations against the Red Army in Afghanistan (1980-88)
Pakistanis fought alongside U.S. sponsored Mujahideen against the brutal red army.

Recently the war against terrorism (2001 – ??). Pakistan has helped the US capture several hundred operatives of the Al-Qaeda organization and has allowed the US to execute military operations from its land, air and sea bases. Pakistan has lost over 2000 soldiers in the war against terror on the Afghanistan border. The war next door has completely destabilized Pakistan and wrecked it’s already weak economy. The impact to the economy has been well over 20 billion dollars. Furthermore, the destabilization has non-state actors have spilled into India and the Indians are using this opportunity to blame Pakistan for terrorism.

Having failed to convince the Taliban to hand over bin Laden and other members of Al Qaeda, Pakistan provided the U.S. a number of military airports and bases for its attack on al qaeda, along with significant logistical support (70% of supplies of Nato troops are shipped through Pakistan). Since 2001, Pakistan has arrested over five hundred Al-Qaeda members and handed them over to the United States; senior U.S. officers have been lavish in their praise of Pakistani efforts in public while expressing their concern that not enough was being done in private. However, General Musharraf was strongly supported by the Bush administration – a common theme throughout Pakistan’s relations with the US has been US support of military dictators to the detriment of democracy in Pakistan.

Pakistan has lost thousands of lives since joining the U.S. war on terror in the form of both soldiers and civilians, and is currently going through a critical period. Suicide bombs are now commonplace in Pakistan, whereas they were unheard of prior to 2002. The Taliban have been resurgent in recent years in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. Hundreds of thousands of refugees have been created internally in Pakistan, as they have been forced to flee their homes as a result of fighting between Pakistani forces and the Taliban in the regions bordering Afghanistan and further in Swat. In addition, the economy is in an extremely fragile position.

Americans should understand and appreciate this assistance. For Pakistan’s sacrifices, The United States should do its utmost to stabilize Pakistan and help aid its educational institutions along with infrastructure/energy/security and help bring justice to our kinfolk in the the worlds biggest concentration camp: Indian occupied kashmir.

Posted by mirzausman | Report as abusive

Not if he bothers me a couple of times Seth but if he gets in my face everytime I walk out & barks obscenities at me & my family, while the cops are asleep despite my complaints

>> I found this run-on rant rather humorous. Looks like my poetry has made our friend darksahib all discombobulated.

Posted by mirzausman | Report as abusive

The trouble with Pakistan-U.S relationship will and always will be the sheer size of India. The U.S will have to tilt in favour of India purely because of trade and economy related reasons. Pakistan can not offer the same in the presently foreseeable future.

Pakistan is, and always has been, a rental state at all times. No arguing, America has taken “help” from Pakistanis time to time to achieve its strategic objectives. Crying about loss of civilian-soldier lives and asking more in nuclear and economic deals in the same breath proves nothing but this attitude.

Poor Pakistani soldiers and civilians (not Army) have been used as rats to fill the pockets of few in Punjabi Military Mafia. As for the real needs of common people, boogeyman India has been more than enough.

Posted by Seth09 | Report as abusive

Pakistan should seek, acquire energy from all sources. The Iranian/Pak pipeline should be undertaken immediately and converted into an IPC line. In fact, Pakistan should provide iranian natural gas to China at zero transfer cost. What good is profit when you don’t take care of friends. Pak/Saudi brotherhood is fully intact in EVERY single sphere of bilateral commerce. Finally, the turkmenistan line should also be pursued and converted into TAPC as well. China the future hyperpower will need fuel for its soon-to-be #1 economy and Pakistan will be more than happy to furnish a neighbor in need. AfPak region’s trillion dollar lithium reserves will also find an export conduit in the form of Gwadar, Karachi Bin Qasim port. Americans are more than welcome to jump into this delicious geo-strategic buffet with a nuclear deal (if it wants).

The best thing pakistan can do is bring about a reproachment between iran and saudis and facilitate china’s energy needs using its traditional relations with these countries. A mutually advantageous Sino-Pak-Saudi-Persian alliance would rock the global order from its very foundations.

Posted by mirzausman | Report as abusive

@Their “all-weather” friendship has limits. If their citizens get killed by Pak jihadists Pakistan will find them.
Posted by kEiThZ”

—Good point Keith! Red Mosque is an evidence in support of your hypothesis.

Chinese made Mushy attack the Mosque after Chinese girls working in a parlor in Pakistan were were kidnapped by Islamic fundamentalists. he was quiet until then.

Posted by RajeevK | Report as abusive

Nukes in Pakistan;s hands are much like blogs in certain “educated and “serious” journalists, such as one we see here.
It is time to remove nukes not talk about nuke technology. Nukes/nuke technology is for responsible and peaceful nations like India. Of the discussion is about giving it to Pakistan, why not give to Iran who claim that their is peaceful program. Better chance this working there.

Posted by RajeevK | Report as abusive

@kiethz, your problem is you wish you were HALF the journalist that I am. Maybe myra and other real journalists can teach you about objective writing.
Posted by mirzausman

—Jalee jalee Jalee I see the smoke……lol

Mirza: Normally a responsible person apologizes when he spells someone’s name wrong.

Posted by RajeevK | Report as abusive

@The best thing pakistan can do is bring about a reproachment between iran and saudis and facilitate china’s energy needs using its traditional relations with these countries. A mutually advantageous Sino-Pak-Saudi-Persian alliance would rock the global order from its very foundations.
Posted by mirzausman

—So here we have a responsible internet blog journalist from Pakistan Mirza who at one hand is asking for unconditional USA help by saying “U.S. should absolutely provide pak with a nuclear deal but without ANY pre-conditions whatsoever.”

At the same time he is looking to “shake the the global order from its very foundations.”


Posted by RajeevK | Report as abusive


Mirza has the kind of Pakistani mentality that on one hand, he wants the doctor to help him heal, on the other hand, when the doctor is busy and turns his head away, he will steal his wallet, his belongings and plot to hurt or steal from the every hand that just healed and fed him. This is current Pakistani mentality with the U.S. the patient keeps stealing and plotting to kill the doctor, while it claims to keep being a victim. This is the mentality of a common thief or looter.

OH….BTW…Pakistan’s great friend China just busted an major Islamic terror cell…

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/break ing-news/china-busts-xinjiang-terror-cel l-on-eve-of-uighur-riot-anniversary/stor y-e6frea7u-1225883914447

I know I won’t see any Pakistani’s condemning China for busting Islamic terror cells, but if India does something like, this, Pakistani’s will call it Islamic oppression.

It seems that China has little tolerance for militantism. India is just too darn nice for its own good, perhaps Indians can learn to be more ruthless, vile and cunning like the Chinese, if Indians do become like the Chinese, Pakistan will have to watch how it steps.

Posted by G-W | Report as abusive


Take your verbal diarrhea elsewhere. You are not welcome anymore here.

Posted by G-W | Report as abusive

Canada just granted a nuclear deal to India by way. And that’s an important one given our CANDU technology and large uranium reserves.

Posted by kEiThZ | Report as abusive

Post Your Comment

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/