Panetta and Pakistan
THE US-Pakistan relationship is going through one of its roughest patches. But that does not justify the US defence secretary’s provocative public remarks in foreign capitals on each side of Pakistan in recent days. In Kabul yesterday Mr Panetta said America was reaching the “limits of [its] patience” regarding terrorist safe havens in the tribal areas. And New Delhi was an entirely inappropriate location for him to publicly discuss US-Pakistan tensions, compare them to India-Pakistan tensions, or share a joke about hiding the Osama bin Laden raid from Pakistan — all while describing India as an integral partner for America’s new military strategy in Asia. The language the secretary has used, in the locations he has chosen to use it, only runs the risk of making Pakistan’s security establishment more intransigent and paranoid and will become fodder for right-wing forces propagating anti-India and anti-America opinions. All of which will only make it tougher for the Pakistani government to cooperate with the US. It is unclear to what extent the State Department agrees with Mr Panetta’s approach, or whether, along with the stepped-up drone strikes, his words are part of a new and more aggressive American tactic to address the current impasse over Nato supply routes. But sending such messages publicly in foreign capitals with which Pakistan has complicated relationships — rather than limiting them to private discussions in Islamabad or Washington — will likely be counterproductive.
For Pakistan, this should be a moment to stop and think about where our strategies and policies have gotten us. Mr Panetta’s remarks highlighted the isolation into which the country has dragged itself. They also threw into stark contrast the much greater international sympathy that other regional players have managed to earn from the world. The perception of Pakistan as the global problem child now exists from the highest levels of foreign governments to the average foreign citizen; a recent worldwide BBC survey on the perceived positive or negative influence of various countries ranked Pakistan second from the bottom.
So in one corner we see an obstinate Pakistan stalling on Nato supply routes, demanding an apology over Salala and failing to communicate successfully to the world why it is not going after certain safe havens. In the other corner there is an America that has ramped up drone attacks in the face of categorical Pakistani objections and is making aggressive public statements in India and Afghanistan. After 9/11, the two countries had a chance to forge a mutually advantageous relationship that could also have benefited the region and the world. They are both wasting the opportunity.
This is what happes when foreign plociy of Islmabad is directed by military and religious leaders of Pakistan. A unnecessary escalation of tensions which could be avoided by accepting the ground realities and shrewd dipolomacy.
USA is a bully, not many countries stand up to them. Pakistan should charge what it likes for transport, if you don't like it use the other route. But that is hurting their pocket. The USA can not afford boots on the ground in Pakistan. What have they done in Afghanistan, they are making peace with people they came to fight. The USA will leave in 2014, there will be a civil war for about ten to twenty years. The USA will start another war some were else, because they need it.
Fifty years or so the USA will not be a supper power any more. Look at history it has happened to all the old supper powers. The end is all the same, we will get another bully power.
Pakistan by being part of the whole game and being bleeding so hard for the last decade or so is still isolated, let it be. Becuase the more Pakistanis sees bad days the more people in Pakistan will wake up and will start thinking how to put its house in order, A house of independence. In the last 65 yrs, Pakistan has been dependent on others. Time for some good decisions now including tough days but eventually stronger independent Pakistan will came into being.
The bitterness about most comments being anti-Pakistan refers to this: with whom or with what has Pakistan been genuinely pro?
Your editorial should have started and ended with Para 2. Rest is unnecessary.
Pakistan depend on USA since 1950. You are at their Mercy. To survive in Pakistan as President, Prime Minister or Army Chief you need blessing of America. Your survival depends on America. Beggar does not have choice.
With allies like Pakistan, the United States doesn't need enemies.
We Pakistani are at this LOW point of our own doing.
We are UNEDUCATED, UNPRODUCTIVE, Do not want to SACRIFICE and do not want change and find a better life path.
We love EASY MONEY and easy life style.
I don't doubt that one of the problems the U.S. has with Pakistan is the difficulty of communicating. Some things U.S. officials try to get across simply won't be reported by the Pakistani media. It's just another one of the disappointments U.S. officials have experienced over many years, but it's also a disservice to Pakistanis who are thus kept in the dark about the reasons why foreigners believe Pakistan has failed in its obligations.
Most of Pakistani think that US is leaving in 2014 but it is not true. They already declared that US forces foot print will stay until 2024 & beyond. Major forces will go back but US will never leave Afghanistan entirely. Look at history after WW2. They are still in Japan,Germany & more than 100 nation. Once US forces in they hardly leave forever. Learn to live with facts not fiction.
You forgot South Korea, Iraq, Bosnia, etc.
One needs to question whether the "cooperation" is the way forward. "Isolation" hasn't happened and will not happen, because the US and other certain entities are not the world. It is a faulty assumption Dawn has made, and an assumption people are beginning to realize. Supporting, aiding, and abetting hostile and violent acts by the US in the region has gotten Pakistan nowhere.