Rupee News

Pakistan slams US 'politics of expediency' on UNSC

Share

Peeved over the backing of the U.S. for India’s quest for a permanent UNSC berth, the Pakistan government on slammed Washington over the move, claiming it would have “implications” for peace and stability in South Asia.

The government on Wednesday afternoon expressed its opposition to U.S. President Barack Obama’s endorsement for India’s efforts to gain a seat at the high table during a meeting of the cabinet chaired by Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani.

The cabinet said “politics of expediency” should not be allowed to decide the future of the international order.

“The cabinet expressed its serious concern and strong disappointment on the decision of the United States to support a permanent seat for India on the U.N. Security Council,” said a statement issued by the Foreign Office following the meeting.

“This decision has grave ramifications for the direction and prospects of the system of multilateral cooperation as envisaged by the founding fathers of the U.N. Charter.

“It also has implications for peace and security and stability in Asia, particularly South Asia,” the statement said.

The cabinet claimed it was “incomprehensible that the U.S. has sought to support India, whose credentials with respect to observing the U.N. Charter principles and international law are at best chequered”.

As an instance, the cabinet cited what it described as India’s “disregard of Security Council Resolutions on Jammu and Kashmir and gross and systematic violations of the fundamental human rights of the Kashmiri people”.

The Pakistan government claimed the future of the U.N. and of “succeeding generations cannot and must not be premised on considerations of power politics, politics of expediency, bereft of morals and ideals, which must be the guiding spirit for an enlightened international order”.

The cabinet contended that Pakistan, “along with a large number of members of the international community,” wanted “principled” reforms of the Security Council.

“This process should be based on respect for the cardinal principles of the U.N. Charter, including the principle of sovereign equality of states,” the statement said.

The Pakistan government, especially the Foreign Office, has been rattled by Mr. Obama’s remarks backing India’s bid for permanent membership of the U.N.’s most important decision-making body.

Shortly after Mr. Obama announced his support during a speech to the Indian parliament on Monday, U.S. envoy Cameron Munter was called to the Foreign Office, where Foreign Secretary Salman Bashir conveyed Islamabad’s disappointment at the development.

Mr. Bashir told the U.S. envoy that the move would have “serious repercussions” for South Asia and reforms of the U.N., Pakistani sources told PTI.

Mr. Bashir also reiterated Pakistan’s publicly stated position that the U.S. appeared to have acted “out of expediency of power politics” while setting aside India’s position on the Kashmir dispute and “violations” of Security Council resolutions on this issue, the sources said.

Pakistan’s military leadership, the driving force behind the country’s foreign policy, is expected to take up the same concerns with Gen. David Patraeus, the commander of the U.S. and allied forces in Afghanistan, when he visits Islamabad on November 12, the sources said. Hindu.

Keywords: India’s UNSC bid, Barack Obama, U.S. backing, U.N reform

Related articles

• Justice and Fair Play: UNSC seat for Pakistan (pakistanledger.com)
• Pakistan must get UNSC seat in Non-Muslim Club (rupeenews.com)
• India in UNSC is ‘incomprehensible’: Delhi shouldn’t hold its breath (rupeenews.com)
• Can India digest bitter pill on Kashmir to get UNSC seat (pakistanledger.com)
• ‘US support for India’s UNSC seat is AntiPakistan move’: PML-N (rupeenews.com)

Pakistan slams US 'politics of expediency' on UNSC

Share

Holbrooke vs. Clinton: Ambassador Munter wins

Share

On the face of it, Ambassador Cameron Phelps Munter has landed on unfamiliar territory and unchartered waters. Imagine: Ambassador Munter is a former Director for Central, Eastern and Northern Europe, a former Director of the Northern European Initiative, Staff Assistant in the Bureau of European Affairs, a doctoral degree holder in modern European history and a former professor of European history at UCLA.

Would an expert on European history be able to digest chaat, pakora and chana masala? Faces could be deceiving; Ambassador Munter relates very well to wars, hostilities, conflicts and revolutions. After all, he was the US Ambassador to the Republic of Serbia after protecting America’s interests in the Czech Republic. Remember, the Bosnian War, the dissolution of Czechoslovakia and the Velvet Revolution?

Would the ambassador be required to punch above his weight in Islamabad? Well, he is the one who led the first Provisional Reconstruction Team in Mosul. And that’s the city where Uday and Qusay Hussein were killed by the Americans. Remember, the Battle of Mosul? Plus, Mosul was HQ for the 101st Airborne Division, 172nd Stryker Brigade, 25th Infantry Division and the 812th Military Policy Company. In effect, the ambassador has been as close to the real thing – wars, revolutions, murders, dissolutions and reconstructions – as one can get.

Would the ambassador be repeating history in Islamabad? One cannot say for sure but every time history repeats itself the price goes up. The contract price of the new US Embassy in Islamabad, for instance, stands at a colossal $699 million in overt funds plus undisclosed millions in covert funding. Ambassador Munter will be on top of erecting the largest diplomatic fortress – a mini-pentagon of sorts – on the face of the planet.

America’s foreign policy in Pakistan is now becoming a multi-headed monster. And, there are wars within-within the Department of State, between State and the Department of Defense (DoD) and DoD versus the intelligence apparatus. The principal executioners of Uncle Sam’s policy in this country are Secretary Clinton, Secretary Gates, Ambassador Holbrooke, Ambassador Munter, Ambassador Raphel and USAID Director Andy Sisson.

Holbrooke, the ‘Balkans Bulldozer’, along with the tough-talking Munter as his hangman, are bent upon bulldozing America’s policy over Pakistan. Raphel is known as Clinton’s ‘eyes and ears’ in Islamabad and Sisson, the new addition, was once associated with the National War College. There once was this ‘Hillary effect on ambassadorial nominations’. No more. Ambassador Munter’s nomination indicates that Holbrooke & Co is winning and Clinton is losing colour (Munter is Holbrooke’s protégé having served him in Europe when Holbrooke headed the Europe desk).

To be certain, America is re-evaluating its post-flood Af-Pak policy. Holbrooke-Munter & Co does not necessarily want to redefine America’s policy in this country but have always been more prone to rely on the military half of the government rather than the civilian half.

Obama has handed over Af-Pak – or is it Pak-Af now – to Bulldozer and his Hangman. Washingtonians say, “If you have a bulldozer, you don’t need a snow shovel.” And they know that a “hangman is a good trade, he doth his work by daylight.” Capital suggestion by Dr Farrukh Saleem. The writer is a columnist based in Islamabad. Email: farrukh15@hotmail.com

Holbrooke vs. Clinton: Ambassador Munter wins

Share

Rocky Road: Defense of Drones creates bad start for Ambassador Munter

Share

Image via Wikipedia

The first words out of Ambassador Cameron Phelps Munter mouth defended the massively unpopular Drone Bombings in Pakistan. His unabated defense of the violation of the sovereignty of Pakistani territories will not go well with the Pakistani people. A diplomatic answer on this subject could have smoothed over a major irritant in US-Pakistan relations.

Ambassador Munter perhaps does not comprehend the visceral response to the drone bombings. His perusal of CIA reports perhaps does not shed light on the human suffering caused by the drones. He may not be aware of the lack of efficacy and the total failure of the drone bombings in eliminating the “Terrorists”. Ambassador Munter may not know about the direct correlation between drone attacks and suicide bombings on Pakistani civilians. The bombings in Pakistan when they are not carried out by the 3000 strong “CIA Army” in Pakistan, are portrayed as radicalization and fractionalization of the Pakistani society. An overwhelming body of data that describes a correlation between drones attacks and reprisals on Pakistanis and Americans gets lost in the usual Pakistanphobic rhetoric of the US media.

While some in Washington are smug that they have tacit approval of the the Pakistan government which legitimizes the strikes–this sort of State Department hubris creates deep schisms between America and Pakistan and is directly attributable to the rising Anti-Americanism in Pakistan.

One measure of the success or failure of the US Ambassador in Pakistan is the strength of US-Pakistani relations. Another valid metric is the reduction of Anti-Ameicanism. Another major factor would be the reduction or elimination of the trust deficit between the Islamabad and Washington.

Wink Wink Nod Nod policies work for short periods of time.  The US has to come clean on drone bombings–and tactic approval or not, they have to pay attention to the resolutions passed by the National Assembly and the Senate of Pakistan. Else, the US is encouraging elitism and thumbing its nose at democracy and the democratically elected leaders of the Pakistani parliament. Continuation of this inane policy jeopardizes American credibility in Pakistan and affects American interests in South Asia.

KARACHI: The newly appointed US Ambassador to Pakistan, Cameron Phelps Munter, termed the drone attacks as part of the war on terror.

Speaking to media representatives after visiting Quaid-i-Azam’s mausoleum in Karachi on Friday, Munter said: “I want to strengthen the bilateral ties between the US and Pakistan.”

The envoy said he would work on the partnership between the two countries to make sure that the relationship between the Pakistani and the American people is built on principles of mutual respect.

The envoy said instability in Afghanistan would harm Pakistan and assured the country of complete support in the ongoing war on terror.

Thanking the Pakistani people for extending a warm welcome to him on his arrival, Munter said the US also wanted to boost trade ties with Pakistan.

Munter was accompanied by the Consul General of the United States in Karachi, William Martin.

Ambassador Anne W. Paterson was not an affective Ambassador of America to Pakistan. In fact she was a colossal failure. Pakistanis heaved a sigh of relief when she left. “Good riddance” was the comment heard around Rawalpindi and on Constitution Avenue. She was unable to comprehend the Pakistan point of view, so she could not relay it back to Washington. She involved herself too deeply in Pakistani affairs, got lost in the trees and could not see the big picture of the forest. Her short term gains have created a long term trust-deficit between Pakistan and the US, which is increasing. Ambassador Munter can continue to emulate Ambassador Paterson, or he can blaze his own trail. In either case, his presence or illiteracy about Pakistan will impact US relations with Pakistan and the region.

Ambassador Munter has come to Pakistan at a critical juncture. These years are make or break years for America. He has to turn things around, or Pakistan as an ally will be lost forever. If the US continues its current policies, Pakistan will totally realign itself with China and Russia, and this will be detrimental to the long term interests of America.

While some in Washington may be crowing about the coronation of the compliant Mr. Zardari as the Pakistani president–that installation has created a colossal tide of deep rooted suspicion about America in Pakistan.

If Ambassador Munter is genuine in his desire to build better US-Pakistani relations he should take a page from previous US Ambassadors who were hugely popular in Pakistan. Ambassador Wendy Chamberlain and Ryan Crocker had good stints in Islamabad and remembered fondly.

The first Jewish US Ambassador to Pakistan, during the reign of President Zia Ul Haq was immensely popular in Pakistan. U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan Arnold L. Raphel built up a broken down relationship and was able to garnish the resources to defeat the USSR–without one word of “do more”. When Ambassador Rapel was in office in Islamabad, the US was one of the most popular country in Pakistan, and there was no Anti-Americanism.

That popularity saw a steady decline after the death of Ambassador Raphel. Perahps Ambassador Muntur can study the reasons for the positive and construction manner in which Ambassador Raphel turned things around for America in Islamabad. When Ambassador Raphel came to Pakistan, there were multiple layers of dilapidating sanctions on Pakistan some of them from 1971. Slowly but steadily Ambassador worked with the US Congress and the Reagan Administration to turn things around. At the end of his tenure Ambassador Raphel left America immensely popular in Pakistan.

Drone Bombings, the presence of Blackwater, “CIA Army” and other mercenaries in Pakistan, the the paucity of funds in the much heralded Kerry Lugar Bill,  the blatant duplicity of Richard Holbrooke in double counting the money given in flood relief aid, the lack of parity between US-Indian and US-Pakistan relationship under the guise of dehyphenation, the ignominious neglect of Pakistan energy needs, the refusal to work on Kashmir in an open and honest manner, the stubbornness of the US in not allowing Civilian Nuclear Technology to Pakistan,  the incongruity in living up to commitments on the FTA, and the ROZs, and the general unfairness and disparity in amount of  aid to Pakistan and Afghanistan are some of the major issues that need to be tackled by Ambassador Munter. Its up to him, if he can bridge the gap or let issues fester.

If he is able to address these issues, instead of reinventing the government in Pakistan, he will see a reciprocal increase in Pakistani help to American in various disciplines.

Rocky Road: Defense of Drones creates bad start for Ambassador Munter

Share

Who cares about Multiyear Security Pact. Pakistan needs Trade, Drones, Nuclear Technology

Share

Image via Wikipedia

The news from Washington is that the Obama Administration is trying to sweeten the pot by offering a so called “Multiyear Security Pact” to the Pakistanis. Pakistan needs Trade (FTA, ROZ), Drones Technology for its Air Force, a Civlian Nuclear Deal. “Who cares about Multiyear Security Pact. Pakistan needs Trade, Drones, Nuclear Technology.

Pakistan is already a Major Non-Nato Ally (MNA) which has been at the receiving end of NATO bullets and barbs.  Another Security pact means a few more scholarships for the US military. It does not solve any of Pakistan’s issues with the US. A story in the New York Times sets a conciliatory tone, but Ms. Clinton will fix that at some point, by being her rude self.

Neither SEATO, nor CENTO was able to help Pakistan. Both organizations used Islamabad to defeat the USSR and then dumped Pakistan.

WASHINGTON — As Pakistani civilian and military leaders arrive here this week for high-level meetings, the Obama administration will begin trying to mend a relationship badly damaged by the American military’s tough new stance in the region.

Among the sweeteners on the table will be a multiyear security pact with Pakistan, complete with more reliable military aid — something the Pakistani military has long sought to complement the five-year, $7.5 billion package of nonmilitary aid approved by Congress last year. The administration will also discuss how to channel money to help Pakistan rebuild after its ruinous flood.

But the American gestures come at a time of fraying patience on the part of the Obama administration, and they will carry a familiar warning, a senior American official said: if Pakistan does not intensify its efforts to crack down on militants hiding out in the tribal areas of North Waziristan, or if another terrorist plot against the United States were to emanate from Pakistani soil, the administration would find it hard to persuade Congress or the American public to keep supporting the country.

“Pakistan has taken aggressive action within its borders. But clearly, this is an ongoing threat and more needs to be done,” the State Department spokesman, Philip J. Crowley, said Monday. “That will be among the issues talked about.”

The Pakistanis will come with a similarly mixed message. While Pakistan is grateful for the strong American support after the flood, Pakistani officials said, it remains frustrated by what it perceives as the slow pace of economic aid, the lack of access to American markets for Pakistani goods and the administration’s continued lack of sympathy for the country’s confrontation with India.

Other potentially divisive topics are likely to come up, too, including NATO’s role in reconciliation talks between President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan and the Taliban. Pakistani officials say they are nervous about being left out of any political settlement involving the Taliban.

Still, in a relationship suffused by tension and flare-ups — most recently over a NATO helicopter gunship that accidentally killed three Pakistani soldiers and Pakistan’s subsequent decision to close a supply route into Afghanistan — this regular meeting, known here as the strategic dialogue, serves as a lubricant to keep both countries talking.

At this meeting, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton will formally introduce the new American ambassador to Pakistan, Cameron Munter. Mr. Munter, who recently served in Iraq, replaces Anne W. Patterson, who just wrapped up her tour of duty in Islamabad.

“No country has gotten more attention from Secretary Clinton than Pakistan,” said Richard C. Holbrooke, the administration’s special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan. Pakistan’s delegation will be led by its foreign minister, Shah Mahmood Qureshi, but much of the attention will be on another official, the military chief, Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, who is viewed by many as the most powerful man in Pakistan.

White House and Pentagon officials said one immediate goal of this meeting was to ease the tensions that led Pakistan to close the border crossing at Torkham, halting NATO supplies into Afghanistan. Officials on both sides said that acrimony from the border flare-up had already receded, soothed by the multiple apologies that American officials made to Pakistan last week.

Last week, Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that General Kayani had assured him that Pakistan’s army would tackle the North Waziristan haven, but on Pakistan’s timetable. In an interview, Pakistan’s ambassador to the United States, Husain Haqqani, said, “Our American partners understand that we have 34,000 troops in North Waziristan. Our soldiers have been engaged in flood relief after history’s worst floods. It is not a question of lack of will.”

The new security pact would have three parts: the sale of American military equipment to Pakistan, a program to allow Pakistani military officers to study at American war colleges and counterinsurgency assistance to Pakistani troops.

Currently, the United States spends about $1.5 billion a year to provide this same assistance, but it is doled out year by year. The new agreement, if endorsed by Congress, would approve a multiyear plan assuring stability and continuity in the programs, although Congress would continue to appropriate the financing on a yearly basis. “This is designed to make our military and security assistance to Pakistan predictable and to signal to them that they can count on us,” said a senior official.

At the last dialogue in Islamabad in July, Mrs. Clinton presented more than $500 million in economic aid, including plans to renovate hospitals, upgrade hydroelectric dams, improve water distribution and help farmers export mangoes. But the floods upended those plans, and officials said they now planned to redirect funds to more urgent needs.

Analysts said they were less worried about the atmospherics than the underlying differences in perspective. The administration’s public contrition for the cross-border attack has largely resolved that issue, said Daniel S. Markey, senior fellow for India, Pakistan and South Asia at the Council on Foreign Relations.

But Mr. Markey said he saw potential friction stemming from the American openness to reconciliation with the Taliban. With the United States facilitating rather than guiding the talks, he said, there could be poor coordination between the Afghans, NATO and others — all of which would rattle the Pakistanis.

“Washington is opening the door to a range of negotiations with groups that it has discouraged Pakistan against working with in the past,” he said. “This sends a mixed signal, and cannot help but encourage hedging on Islamabad’s part.”

Another potential bone of contention is one of President Obama’s nuclear objectives: a global accord to end the production of new nuclear fuel. Pakistan has led the opposition to the accord. And without its agreement, the treaty would be basically useless.

Mr. Qureshi blamed the United States for the situation, saying Washington signed a civilian nuclear accord with India that discriminated against Pakistan. “You have disturbed the nuclear balance,” he said in a recent interview in New York, “and we have been forced to develop a new strategy.” Meeting Pakistanis, U.S. Will Try to Fix Relations By MARK LANDLER and ERIC SCHMITT
David E. Sanger contributed reporting.

Who cares about Multiyear Security Pact. Pakistan needs Trade, Drones, Nuclear Technology

Share