Clinton warns on Pakistan threat

[demoleft]

Source: bbc

The US secretary of state has said that a militant attack on Pakistan's army HQ is evidence of an increasing threat against the authority of the state.

Speaking in London, Mrs Clinton said that despite the attack, US had confidence in Pakistan's control over its nuclear weapons.

The attack, which began on Saturday and turned into a siege, ended hours ago after hostages were released.

Correspondents say the attack is highly embarrassing for Pakistan's leaders.


Read more: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8301249.stm

---

the title of the breaking news misled me. i thought mrs clinton meant pakistan is a threat to US - but she means there's a threat against authority in pakistan.

i had a shiver, remembered others' words about iraq.
pheeeeew...

[joeycola]

1. umm army headquarters! I suspect it is similar to our Pentagon. whow.

[SandWalker1984]

2. When will our government learn to stop interferring in other countries' sovereignty?

I came across this story on AlJazeera.net :

Pakistan debates US aid bill


The US aid is conditional on Islamabad taking a firm stance against the Taliban and al-Qaeda

Pakistan's parliament has begun a debate on a US aid bill after widespread criticism in the country that some conditions attached to it are a humiliating violation of sovereignty.

The US congress approved the bill tripling aid for Pakistan to $1.5bn a year for the next five years and sent it to Barack Obama, the president, for signing into law last week.

The legislation is part of an attempt to build a new relationship with Pakistan that focuses not solely on military ties, but also on Pakistan's social and economic development.

But in an effort to address Washington's concerns that Pakistan's military may support armed groups, the bill stipulates that US military aid will cease if Pakistan does not help fight "terrorists", including Taliban and al-Qaeda members taking sanctuary on the Afghan border.

'Strings attached'

Kamal Hyder, Al Jazeera's correspondent in Islamabad, said: "There are conditionalities; there are strings attached. Those strings and conditionalities seem to be very heavy handed as far as Pakistan is concerned.

"Pakistan has still been waiting for almost $1.6bn due from the Coalition Support Fund for operations in the so called war on terror"

Kamal Hyder, Al Jazeera's correspondent in Islamabad

"There is talk about the fact that Pakistan has to dismantle Muridke . That sort of language is seen to be influenced from the Indian lobby and Washington and, therefore, there are grave reservations.

"Also, Pakistan has still been waiting for almost $1.6bn due from the Coalition Support Fund for operations in the so called war on terror."

The bill seeks Pakistani co-operation to dismantle nuclear-supplier networks by offering "relevant information from or direct access to Pakistani nationals associated with such networks", a reference to nuclear scientist AQ Khan who allegedly ran a black market in atomic technology.

Pakistan has declined to let foreign investigators question Khan, saying it has passed on all information gleaned from him.

The bill, co-authored by John Kerry and Richard Lugar, both senators, also provides for an assessment of how effective civilian government's control over the powerful military has been.

'Zardari incompetence'

Opposition politicians have criticised the government of Asif Ali Zardari, the president, for allowing the humiliation of the country.

"The incompetence of the Zardari regime has brought humiliation for Pakistan," Ahsan Iqbal, a spokesman for the main opposition party PML-N, said.

"Our party appreciates the spirit behind the initiative. However, it feels that any conditionality with such assistance must respect Pakistan's sovereignty and self-respect."

Plans by the US to expand its embassy in Pakistan have also raised suspicion, as has speculation about the embassy's use of private security contractors.

But Shah Mehmood Qureshi, the Pakistani foreign minister, said in Washington that "there is no question of Pakistan's sovereignty being compromised" by the measure.

Parliament is not expected to reject the bill, but was likely to pass a resolution highlighting its concerns.

*******************

"Pakistan's parliament has begun a debate on a US aid bill after widespread criticism in the country that some conditions attached to it are a humiliating violation of sovereignty."

Widespread criticism of the US government's trying to put conditions on the aid that the people feel violate their sovereignty. If our government isn't more careful, they will find themselves dealing with 3 wars in the area. That's what happens when people, such as PNAC members, thought they could disrupt the delicate balance in that area of the world so they could control the oil supplies.

Actions often have unexpected consequences. Although in this case, the consequences should have been expected. You cannot go into these countries and throw "our" weight around, both militarily and politically, and expect them to say thank you and roll over.

If the US had not covertly help build up the Taliban to take down Russia in Afghanistan, the "terrorists" would not be so powerful now.

The people who make huge profits off of military actions have too much influence and control of our government politically and economically and are controlling too much of our foreign policy. The end results are often disasterous for us as taxpayers and for our nation.

Our founding fathers were against a standing army and thought our government should protect invasions on OUR soil but we should stay out of other nations' battles.

Our founding fathers were right.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

4. But...

Shouldn't we get something in return for the aid we provide? Besides, it certainly seems as if the Pakistani government is acting in its own self-interest in fighting the Taliban, at this point.

[karynnj]

6. It is and the Pakistani President is not making those charges - the military is

http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/pakistan/09-zardari-asks-party-leaders-to-defend-kerry-lugar--szh-12

(I posted more detail below your post in this thread.)

[karynnj]

5. We aren't doing anything to challenge their sovereignty - those charges are from the Pakistani

military which does not want their ability to act independently from their own government. You do realize this is saying no more AQ Khan like networks destabilizing the world.

Read the Newsweek article. This is a very important effort to try to use aid to push the Pakistanis to do things that will make them more stable.

President Obama is on the verge of signing legislation that would grant $7.5 billion in new aid to Pakistan over the next five years, most of it in the form of economic assistance designed to strengthen the alliance and induce Pakistan to move more aggressively against the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

Embedded in the legislation is a clear-cut goal: to reduce the overweening influence of the Pakistani Army on the nation's politics and to bolster the longer-term prospects of a moderate, democratic civilian regime. The principal sponsors of this legislation, Sens. John Kerry and Richard Lugar, believe that supporting the civilian government of Prime Minister Asif Ali Zardari—who replaced the latest of many Pakistani military regimes only 20 months ago—can help solidify the emergence of a stable democracy and a prosperous economy. In effect, this law seeks to break with a past that in the eyes of many Pakistanis proves that the U.S. has been a fickle friend, willing to back dictators in Islamabad when they served American interests.

<snip>
The Kerry-Lugar legislation is ambitious—to say the least—in its attempt to transform the U.S.-Pakistan relationship. This is especially the case given the fragility of the present civilian regime, the inefficacy of Pakistan's institutions of governance, and the cupidity of its military establishment. Not surprisingly, the military establishment can be counted on to marshal every possible argument against any diminution of its long-held prerogatives. It has already started to stoke nationalist fervor by insinuating that the U.S. is behaving like a neocolonial power. The Obama administration cannot allow the Pakistani military to derail this new course of action, its objections and hypernationalist posturing notwithstanding.

Without a steady abandonment of support for homegrown Islamist radicals, and a gradual strengthening of civilian institutions, the prospect of endemic political instability and violence in Pakistan and the region looms large. Such an outlook would bode ill for restoring even a semblance of political order in Afghanistan and would herald a return to the untold horrors of a Taliban-dominated country.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/217022

Here is what John Kerry wrote for a Pakistani news source:

Myth: The $7.5 billion authorised by the bill comes with strings attached for the people of Pakistan.

Fact: There are no conditions on Pakistan attached to these funds. There are, however, strict measures of financial accountability on these funds that Congress is imposing on the US executive branch — not the Pakistani government, to make sure the money is being spent properly and for the purposes intended.

Such accountability measures have been welcomed by Pakistani commentators to ensure that funds meant for schools, roads and clinics actually reach the Pakistani people and are not wasted.

http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/world/04-Myths-and-facts-Kerry-Lugar-bill-qs-02

The fact is the Pakistani government is defending the aid bill:

Briefing the media, President’s spokesperson Farhatullah Babar said that the president rejected criticism that the conditions in the Kerry-Lugar Bill undermined the country’s sovereignty.

The president said the bill was the first Pakistan aid legislation that did not require presidential certifications every year. ‘It only required certification by the Secretary of State that Pakistan was moving along the path of democracy, nuclear non- proliferation and drugs control.

‘Who in Pakistan under the present democratic dispensation would disagree with these goals?’ he asked.

‘This was in contrast with the past aid bills that required presidential certification that Pakistan was moving towards restoration of democracy, human rights protection, nuclear non-proliferation and drugs control,’ President Zardari added.

http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/pakistan/09-zardari-asks-party-leaders-to-defend-kerry-lugar--szh-12

So, you can believe John Kerry and the elected President of Pakistan or the military that has been dysfunctional and has had coups against previous leaders and which supported efforts of AQ Khan, aided the Taliban and likely backed attacks on India.

This is landmark legislation, which is trying to move Pakistan, the most dangerous country in the world, to stability using carrots not sticks.

[karynnj]

7. PS The US did not create the Taliban

The US strengthened the Mujaheddin. The Taliban was created in Afghanistan and Pakistan as a response to the lawlessness after the Soviets left. There is thought that the ISI, Pakistan's intelligence agency helped the Taliban rise to power in Afghanistan.

[joeycola]

3. Clinton downplays threat to Pakistan nuke arsenal--new headline**

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091011/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/eu_us_clinton_europe;_ylt=ArsxzD4LfIovmRg8eaGL6Fb9xg8F;_ylu=X3oDMTJuanEyZDc3BGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMDkxMDExL2V1X3VzX2NsaW50b25fZXVyb3BlBGNwb3MDNgRwb3MDNgRzZWMDeW5fdG9wX3N0b3JpZXMEc2xrA2NsaW50b25kb3ducA--
Clinton downplays threat to Pakistan nuke arsenal


AP – British Prime Minister Gordon Brown greets United States Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton at …


AP By MATTHEW LEE, Associated Press Writer Matthew Lee, Associated Press Writer – 10 mins ago


DUBLIN – U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Sunday the Taliban siege of Pakistan's army headquarters showed extremists are a growing threat in the nuclear-armed American ally, but she contended they don't pose a risk to the country's atomic arsenal.

Clinton, in London on the second leg of a five-day tour of Europe and Russia, also joined British Foreign Secretary David Miliband in warning Iran that they would not wait long for the Islamic republic to convince the world that its nuclear intentions are peaceful.

Before stops in Ireland and Northern Ireland, Clinton pledged continued U.S. support for the Northern Irish peace process and said those who continued to exacerbate tension and violence "are out of step and out of time."

With her British counterpart, Clinton said there was nothing to suggest that Pakistan's nuclear weapons could fall into terrorist hands despite Saturday's audacious Taliban attack on the army headquarters in Rawalpindi that highlighted security weaknesses.

Clinton said extremists were "increasingly threatening the authority of the state, but we see no evidence that they are going to take over the state. We have confidence in the Pakistani government and military's control over nuclear weapons."
................................

[cosmicone]

8. I hope the ISI trained terrorists destroy Pakistan in the end

and result in a balkanization, shredding muslim aspirations of taking over the subcontinent forever!!

We should also stop all aid to Pakistan to make sure this illegitimate country, created by the nefarious brits ceases to exist!

[IndianaGreen]

9. Why are you wetting your pants in anticipation of bloodshed? You are also ignorant as hell!

The partition of India was largely the result of endless conflict between Muslims and Hindus. The British washed their hands, just as they would wash their hands of the Palestinian problem. Sadly, the same rationale for partitioning India would be applied to the Palestine mandate.

[demoleft]

10. agreed. curious manifestation of bloodthirst there. what's worse, on DU. n/t

[closeupready]

17. Not if you're familiar with his pathological hatred for Pakistan and Pakistanis.

n/t

[cosmicone]

14. Au contraire ... and shows your ignorance of history...

there were no "endless Hindu-Muslim conflicts" prior to partition. It was a fear created by British to partition India. In fact, except for Jinnah, no muslim leader in India was supporting a partition. The post-partition history says it all. India has had two muslim presidents and is a thriving secular democracy. What has Pakistan wrought?

Pakistan exists SOLELY because the US supports it financially and militarily, which has to stop.

What is good for the Pakistani people is to balkanize them into smaller republics which will take care of the people rather than the Punjabi Pakistanis' grandiose agenda of taking over India.

[closeupready]

16. Par for the course for Ignored.

n/t

[karynnj]

11. That is beyond stupid

If the "ISI trained terrorists" destroy the government in Pakistan, it doesn't end "Pakistan". It puts Pakistan, with its illegal nuclear bomb, under the control of "ISI trained terrorists". Even if it splinters, one or (worse) more parts will have those bombs - and by your definition - will hate each other.

No matter how Pakistan was created moving it to a saner place has to be the right thing to do.

[cosmicone]

13. The American fear of a terrorist controlled nuclear bomb is

a carefully orchaestrated media phenomenon which allows Pakistani nuclear blackmail.

[karynnj]

18. Uhm ... yeah, there is no real fear of nuclear bombs in an unstable country

Keep telling yourself that.

The fact is that it is because Pakistan has the bomb, that they are currently the most potentially dangerous nation in the world.

[Flaneur]

24. How are those Naxalites doing, by the way?

[Babyserendip]

12. It is time the US back the BREAKING UP OF PAKISTAN...litterally before its too late.

There is only one way to thread the needle here........and it is to help Afghanistan and Pashtunistan unite...as they have been wanting since 1947.

All other policies of any other sort.....any.......will result in blowback to the US, failure on the ground of any good intentions....and the ever grinding demise of Pakistan.

30% of the Pakistan army is Afghan...make them a deal to be the new Afghan army....can you say instant Afghan security.....our boys come home.

The US needs to back the ANP party to make a deal with the Taliban and Kabul.........and find the Sahabzada Yaqub Khan of this moment (the Pakistan Lt. General who let Bangladesh go free in direct opposition to the Punjabi generals who wanted him to butcher Bangladeshis).

Any other American policy is guaranteed failure as we are going against the national aspirations of the natives.

The tragedy of America as it relates to Afghanistan is we are an empire....refusing to act like one.....it is time to stop with the naivete.

In so doing the prescribed...we will turn a cauldron of public hatred into a wealth of public admiration. We will lose the Punjabi Army and the ISI.............not something I except most Americans will be crying over.

[cosmicone]

15. I agree completely!! n/t

[karynnj]

21. You two write like the same person - just saying

[cosmicone]

22. There are many people who know that breaking up

Pakistan into Balochistan, Sindhudesh and Khalistan will be the ultimate solution to Pakistani belligerence and bellicosity.

The "tribal areas" of Pakistan actually belong to Afghanistan ... google "Durand line" ... and they have wanted to reunite with Afghanistan for a long time. (Another artificial boundary created by the brits.)

Balochis and Sindhis don't want a fight with India nor do they care about Kashmir. It is only the Punjabi Pakistanis (who dominate the military and ISI) who have pipe dreams of a muslim rule of India à la Mughals and who keep making trouble in the region including demands for Kashmir (which has been a part of India for thousands of years.)

Once that pipe dream is buried by making the Pakistani army disappear, most of the problems in that area would be resolved and peace will reign.

To give you an example -- Bangladesh was formerly East Pakistan. When India successfully dismembered it away from Pakistan in 1971, that border has been peaceful. Bengalis don't care about ruling India nor do they care about Kashmir. It is THAT simple.

Breaking up Balochistan and Sindhudesh should be the official strategy of the US or no aid be given to Pakistani military.

[karynnj]

19. Just trying to understand - How is combining Afghanistan and Pakistan "breaking up Pakistan"

In addition, if the peoples of Afghanistan and Pakistan really wanted to be one country, they could and would have initiated it themselves. The idea that the US could or should restructure two independent countries is as "colonial mindset" as you can get.

If doing so would lead to a "wealth of public admiration", why were there no talks (at least that I know of - if there were I'm sure you will tell me - to do this themselves.

[MilesColtrane]

20. And we just split up the nuclear warheads among these new countries based on population density?

Or, do they magnanimously hand them over to the IAEA?

[cosmicone]

23. Just confiscate or destroy the two to five nuclear devices.

No need to divide them up! Pakistan claims to have far more than the reality.

[MilesColtrane]

26. OK, I see what I'm dealing with here.

[closeupready]

25. I'm not sure why Ignored continues posting here. This is hardly the place to find a receptive

audience for emoting sociopathic hatred for millions of civilians.