Tuesday, April 15, 2014

Challenging the Gall-Haqqani-Paul Narrative of Pakistan

The intent of this post is to carefully assess, analyse and challenge the narrative about Pakistan being offered in a number of recent books by authors like Indian-American Professor TV Paul (Pakistan: The Warrior State), New York Times' Carlotta Gall (The Wrong Enemy) and Mr. Husain Haqqani (Magnificent Delusions), former Pakistani ambassador in Washington. Here's the essence of their narrative:

President John F. Kennedy Receiving President Ayub at Andrews AFB 
 L to R: Ayub Khan, Nasim Aurangzeb, Jackie Kennedy, John F. Kennedy

1. Partition of India was a mistake. In 1947, many in the US, the UK and India believed Pakistan would not survive and the partition would soon be reversed.

2. Pakistan has been lying to the United States to get aid since its inception in 1947.

3. The US has provided massive aid but Pakistan has not delivered anything substantial in return.

4. The duplicitous Pakistan game continues to this day.

5. Pakistani military is the main villain. It uses the pre-text of threat from India as an excuse for Pakistan being a national security state.

If one really analyses this narrative, one has to conclude that Pakistanis are extraordinarily clever in deceiving the United States and its highly sophisticated policymakers who have been taken for a ride by Pakistanis for over 6 decades. It raises the following questions:

Question 1: Given the belief that Pakistan would not survive, how did the country defy such expectations? What role did its "villainous" military play in its political and economic survival? What does the history say about rapid economic development of Pakistan under military regimes?

Question 2: Wouldn't any country that suffered a military invasion by its much larger neighbor and its break-up be justified in feeling threatened? Wouldn't such a country build deterrence against further adventures by its bigger neighbor?

Question 3:  If the standard western narrative is correct, why have successive US administrations been so naive and gullible as to be duped by Pakistan's politicians and generals for such a long period of time? Is it not an indictment of all US administrations from Harry S. Truman's to Barack H. Obama's?

Question 4:  What role did Pakistan play in the defeat of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan and the subsequent break-up of the Soviet Union?

 Question 5:  What price has Pakistan paid for facilitating US military operations in Afghanistan? How many Pakistani soldiers and civilians have lost their lives since 911?

Please read the following posts on my blog:

1.  Straight Talk by Gates on Pakistan

When asked by US Senator Patrick Leahy during a US Senate hearing on Pakistan as to how long the U.S. will be willing to "support governments that lie to us?"

"Well, first of all, I would say, based on 27 years in CIA and four and a half years in this job, most governments lie to each other. That's the way business gets done." Former US Defense Secretary Robert Gates June 2011

 http://www.riazhaq.com/2011/06/straight-talk-by-gates-on-pakistan.html

2.  US and Europe Must Accept Pakistan as a Legitimate Nuclear State:

When asked about US policy options in Pakistan after President Obama assumed office in 2009, here's what US Ambassador to Pakistan Anne Patterson wrote in a cable leaked  by Wikileaks:

"The Pakistani establishment, as we saw in 1998 with the nuclear test, does not view assistance -- even sizable assistance to their own entities -- as a trade-off for national security vis-a-vis India". US Ambassador Anne Patterson, September 23, 2009 

http://www.riazhaq.com/2014/03/us-and-europe-must-accept-pakistan-as.html

3. Pakistan's Economic History:

Pakistani economy grew at a fairly impressive rate of 6 percent per year through the first four decades of the nation's existence. In spite of rapid population growth during this period, per capita incomes doubled, inflation remained low and poverty declined from 46% down to 18% by late 1980s, according to eminent Pakistani economist Dr. Ishrat Husain. This healthy economic performance was maintained through several wars and successive civilian and military governments in 1950s, 60s, 70s and 80s until the decade of 1990s, now appropriately remembered as the lost decade.

http://www.riazhaq.com/2010/09/brief-history-of-pakistani-economy-1947.html

Summary:

Although Pakistan is in the midst of multiple crises of economy, energy and internal security, it has survived, even thrived, for many decades after its independence. Its economic growth rate has exceeded its neighbor India's for most of its history since 1947. Initially, the US aid of as much as 10% of its GDP was very helpful to Pakistan's development. The US aid has been decreasing over the years. It now accounts for less than 1% of Pakistan's GDP.  As to US-Pakistan ties, Pakistan has been supportive of US interests when such interests do not directly conflict with Pakistan's. An alliance should not mean compliance, and it's true of all US alliances. The interests of US and its closest allies in Europe and elsewhere do not always converge on all issues. Pakistan is no exception.

Related Links:

Haq's Musings

Straight Talk by Gates on Pakistan

Terror Deaths in Pakistan

US and Europe Must Accept Pakistan as a Legitimate Nuclear State

Looking Back at 1940 Lahore Resolution

Pakistan's Economic History

Pakistan: A Warrior State? A Conspicuous Failure?

Obama and US-Pakistan Ties

Can Pakistan Say No to US Aid?

Soviet Defeat in Afghanistan

31 comments:

Mayraj said...

Meanwhile British don't like hearing what heir own researcher found:

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/europe/united-kingdom/140410/british-army-afganistan-book-helmand

The British army doesn’t want you to read this book
The UK authorities are trying to block their own report on Afghanistan.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2600411/Ministry-Defence-tries-block-book-Helmand-commissioned-claims-contains-secrets-published-Wikileaks.html

Fury over MoD bid to ban soldier's book about Afghanistan: Officials embarrassed by study they asked for
Author 'forced to resign' from the Army after Ministry of Defence pulled support for controversial book

Dr Mike Martin was one of only a handful of soldiers who could speak Pushtu fluently
Afghan conflict has so far claimed 448 British lives

Retired British general said he 'wished' he had this book while commanding in Afghanistan

Steve G. said...

Dear Riaz,

Very insightful. Are you going to attend:

The Military and Politics in Pakistan

EVENT DETAILS
DATE
Thursday, April 17, 2014
TIME
3:30 to 5:00 p.m.
LOCATION
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
SPEAKER
Aqil Shah
MODERATOR
Frederic Grare
CONTACT
Molly Pallman
+1 202 939 2292 | mpallman@ceip.org


I shall be there.

Steve G. said...

During the elections last year our young Pakistanis were palpably excited about democracy in action. On the other hand, my two colonels said to me, “Let’s just watch and wait a see what happens”. It was almost as if the politicians were regarded by the military as being a group of school boys doing their O-levels. If they passed them they would then be allowed to sit their A-levels.

In the early 1970s, when I lived in Venezuela, Gabriel Garcia Marquez wrote a book where he talked about “los cuatro poderes” (the four powers) that ruled Venezuela. These independent powers were the politicians, the businessmen, the military, and the Roman Catholic Church. To be a success in life you had to have good friends in at least two of them.

Perhaps, there are parallels in Pakistan:

· We have the business community, but they will never achieve their potential until the energy situation has improved.

· The religious community is divided and forever bickering and fighting.

· The political community is like a group of little babies. They must learn to crawl and stand up before they can run.

· The military is a tried and tested stability. If people could see this as an asset and a positive force that can always be relied upon, then the other three powers could eventually blossom.

Riaz Haq said...

Steve: "The military is a tried and tested stability. If people could see this as an asset and a positive force that can always be relied upon, then the other three powers could eventually blossom."

I agree with your assessment.

The only successful and prosperous industrialized democracies in Asia are the Asian Tigers where benevolent dictators brought prosperity first and then democracy followed.

Countries like India which have tried democracy without industrialization have failed to achieve effective governance and prosperity for their people. After 67 years of democracy, India is still home to the world's largest population of poor, hungry and illiterates most of whom still defecate in the fields and on the railroad train tracks.

I see similarities between Musharraf's rule and those of the Asian Tiger dictators in terms of economic and social development in Pakistan in the last decade.

Please read my post on this subject:

http://www.riazhaq.com/2013/12/asian-tiger-dictators-brought.html

Imran Q said...

The problem is that the American don't care, its just like a company (US) with a non performing BU(Pakistan), the CEO and the management have already written it off, but for some strategic reasons keeping it on the books. The BU has a steady loss and once in a while creates some waves and the management in its routine handling of things, spats it down this routine goes on... That's exactly what the relationship between Pakistan and the US. Pakistanis in their insane imagination create all these images of 'how clever they are in handling the US' ... well they are not, US handles things as they show up as there is no strategic plans by Pakistan, it really become easier for the US to handle the the day to day challenges..

Riaz Haq said...

Imran:"The problem is that the American don't care, its just like a company (US) with a non performing BU(Pakistan), the CEO and the management have already written it off, but for some strategic reasons keeping it on the books."

I disagree with you. Both US and Pakistan pursue a rational policy of engagement because both see value in the relationship which has made it last. It will continue to exist as long as both still see value in it.

http://www.riazhaq.com/2012/11/impact-of-obamas-re-election-on-pak-us.html

Anonymous said...

Countries like India which have tried democracy without industrialization have failed to achieve effective governance and prosperity for their people.

1.India held together even though it is many orders on magnitude more diverse than Pakistan.This is because of checks and balances Tamil Nadu almost seperated in the 1960s due to imposition of Hindi as national language similar to Pakistan making Urdu a national language after riots in Tamil Nadu the circulars were withdrawn.India now has 18 national languages with English remaining a coofficial language with Hindi.This is but one of many moderating effects of democracy.

2.India is MUCH more industrialized than Pakistan on any indice you care to measure specially on the sophistication and complexity of industrial output(Engineering goods is India's #3 export category).India has scores of very competent industrial conglomerates Tata, L&T,Mahindra,Bharat Forge etc etc

Riaz Haq said...

Anon: "India held together even though it is many orders on magnitude more diverse than Pakistan.This is because of checks and balances Tamil Nadu almost seperated in the 1960s due to imposition of Hindi as national language similar to Pakistan making Urdu a national language after riots in Tamil Nadu"

India held together because, unlike East Pakistan in 1971, no one invaded India to divide it in multiple piece.

Anon:"India is MUCH more industrialized than Pakistan on any indice you care to measure specially on the sophistication and complexity of industrial output(Engineering goods is India's #3 export category).India has scores of very competent industrial conglomerates Tata, L&T,Mahindra,Bharat Forge etc etc"

A few industrial companies do not make a country industrialized.

Key measures of industrialization are energy consumption per capita and percentage of GDP contribution from industries. On these measures, both India and Pakistan are at about the same level and far below the world averages.

In fact, a recent World Bank report identified India as the most deprived country in terms of access to energy: as many as 306.2 million of its people are still without this basic utility. The remaining 19 nations lacking access to energy, with the number of deprived people is as follows: Nigeria (82.4 million), Bangladesh (66.4 million), Ethiopia (63.9 million), Congo (55.9 million), Tanzania (38.2 million), Kenya (31.2 million), Sudan (30.9 million), Uganda (28.5 million), Myanmar (24.6 million), Mozambique (19.9 million), Afghanistan (18.5 million), North Korea (18 million), Madagascar (17.8 million), the Philippines (15.6 million), Pakistan (15 million), Burkina Faso (14.3 million), Niger (14.1 million), Indonesia (14 million) and Malawi 13.6 million).

http://www.riazhaq.com/2013/06/massive-growth-in-electrical.html

Hopewins said...

^^RH: "The only successful and prosperous industrialized democracies in Asia are the Asian Tigers where benevolent dictators brought prosperity first and then democracy followed."
-------

That may well be true for those Asian Tigers that are more homogenous societies compared to our diverse Pakistan.

With regard to our complex Pakistan, just WHO do you think could assume this 'benevolent dictator' role for a generation?

Would he be Punjabi? Muhajir? Pashtun? Sindhi? Baloch? Shia? Barelvi? Deobandi?

Yes? What are your views?

Riaz Haq said...

HWJ: "That may well be true for those Asian Tigers that are more homogenous societies compared to our diverse Pakistan."

Asian Tigers like Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand are all quite diverse in terms of ethnicity and religions.

Besides, issues of differences do not go away in a democracy....Look at Indonesia and Thailand today, especially in Thailand where a minority continuously riots against governments elected by majority

Anonymous said...

The main aim of Pakistan’s foreign policy is to boost economic trade and the country has no intention of interfering with the internal affairs of any other state, said the special assistant to the prime minister, Syed Tariq Fatemi.
“The present government believes diplomatic ties encourage economic trade, but in the past they were being used to improve political ties,” said Fatemi, while addressing the interactive session on ‘Pakistan’s Foreign Policy Objectives’ organised by the Karachi Council of Foreign Relations at the Marriott hotel on Monday.

Diplomats and businessmen attended the session and inquired into any possible shift of the country’s foreign policy and its impact on trade.
The minister briefly explained the stance of the current government and its ties with all major countries, including the United States, China, Saudi Arabia, India, Iran and Afghanistan. He also discussed what Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s government considers the best way to enhance relations with neighbouring countries.
Fatemi said that projects with China will open new opportunities for citizens as various mega projects are being launched in the country. “We have asked China to invest in Pakistan and to come assist us,” he said.
“There are 16 power projects that are being supported by China and we will be able to produce more electricity than ever before. Hopefully, it will help our economy.”
He then discussed the infrastructural projects that China is providing help with, including the Karachi-Lahore motorway, the Karachi-Gwadar motorway and the Karachi to Peshawar railway line. “The transport system in Karachi is a mess and we have asked Japan to help us with the Karachi circular railway,” Fatemi said, before turning his attention to Pakistan’s other large neighbour.
“PM Nawaz Sharif is convinced that ties with India are very important,” said the minister. “Pakistan will try to establish good relations with India regardless of the result of their elections.”
He then went on to talk about Pakistan’s relations with the United States. “Today, our relationship with the United States is more formal than ever before,” said Fatemi, before providing a brief history of the relationship the two countries have enjoyed over the years.
Fatemi also said that a good relationship with Russia is also important for the present government and added that it is trying to address the problems faced in the past.
“The foreign office is not biased or sentimental towards anyone,” the minister said on the ties with Saudi Arabia, before also stressing upon the importance of Iran. “We give great importance to Iran. We have had a historical, cultural, and religious relationship with the country for centuries, and we also share a border with them,” he said, adding that Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif will be travelling to Iran in a few weeks.
He then talked about the Pakistanis living abroad and dubbed them an asset to the country, before adding that the labour class abroad sends more money back to Pakistan than educated people working white-collar jobs.
Fatemi then went on to discuss the Gwadar port after being questioned by a participant. “It will be functional within the next five years,” the minister claimed. “A complete city will be built, which will include a hospital, a university and a technical institute.”

http://tribune.com.pk/story/699068/macroeconomics-the-focus-of-pakistans-foreign-policy-is-to-improve-the-economy/

Riaz Haq said...

Here's an Indian analyst M.V. Kamath's review of Daniel Markey's recent book "No Exit From Pakistan":

For a brief period the US was friendly towards India as during the Clinton regime. It didn’t take the US anywhere. Markey makes a deep study of China’s relationship with Pakistan and the latter’s own naiveté. According to Markey “Pakistan and China may claim deep, abiding friendship but in their rhetorical excesses both tend to mistake China’s hard-headed realism for generous altruism.” As he put it: “In Pakistan’s major war with India, as well as in more recent Indo-Pakistani crises, Beijing’s assistance has been marginal. China has been more likely to counsel Pakistani restraint than to back its leaders to the hilt.”

As for the US leaders, Markey add s: “The rising Chinese dragon makes friendship with India more appealing and complicates relationship with Islamabad.” And to that he adds: “Why not let China tend its troubled Pakistan filly while America cultivates the far more fertile Indian soil?” But as Markey sees it, America cannot quit Pakistan.

It has several options likes: Turn to a strategy of defensive insulation and include India – bolster it as important component in the defensive scheme; option two: Strive for a comprehensive partnership across military and civilian sectors and address ‘the threat of Pakistan-based terrorism at multiple levels’.

Option three: Downsize US Embassy, Consulates and USAID presence – a tiny skeleton staff could manage US diplomacy. Option four: Introduce a credible threat of overwhelming retaliation in order to make Pakistan think twice about using or sharing its nuclear weapons. However, Markey feels that “a strategy of defensive insulation would be effective if Washington count on firms Indian support”. He didn’t say: “If only”.

But Markey is not in favour of that. He feels that it is wise to establish “a foundation for strengthened partnership… based on a shared commitment to improving the living conditions of the people through, strengthening democracy…”

Markey wants “quiet lobbying” for bringing together Pakistan and India, considering that encouraging Indo-Pakistan normalisation is the best way to grow the Pakistani economy and enhance the nation’s stability. In the end Markey concludes by saying that “over the long run, a strong US-Pakistan relationship offers the only way to save Pakistan from a dark and violent future, the only way to protect America from the changes that lurk in Pakistani soil”.

As Markey sees it, for the United States it is huis clos, French for “No Exit”. For better or for worse, the US must stay put in Pakistan”. In a way for the Americans “You are damned if you do and damned if you don’t” help Pakistan. Right now as Markey sees it, there is no immediate way out. Patience is its own award. His book explains how Washington can prepare for the worst, aim for the best and avoid past mistakes.

Summing up Markey says: “The United States should begin by recognising that Pakistan is not a lost cause. It is more like a race that must be run as a marathon rather than a sprint.” Wise words. India can only wait and see and itself take Markey’s advice seriously. Right now there seems to be no other ray to avoid a complicated problem.


http://freepressjournal.in/no-exit-from-pakistan/

Riaz Haq said...

Assange believes #Google is an extension US govt and instrument of US Policy. http://www.newsweek.com/assange-google-not-what-it-seems-279447 …

From Newsweek by Julian Assange of Wikileaks:

It was at this point that I realized Eric Schmidt might not have been an emissary of Google alone. Whether officially or not, he had been keeping some company that placed him very close to Washington, D.C., including a well-documented relationship with President Obama. Not only had Hillary Clinton’s people known that Eric Schmidt’s partner had visited me, but they had also elected to use her as a back channel.

While WikiLeaks had been deeply involved in publishing the inner archive of the U.S. State Department, the U.S. State Department had, in effect, snuck into the WikiLeaks command center and hit me up for a free lunch. Two years later, in the wake of his early 2013 visits to China, North Korea and Burma, it would come to be appreciated that the chairman of Google might be conducting, in one way or another, “back-channel diplomacy” for Washington. But at the time it was a novel thought.

I put it aside until February 2012, when WikiLeaks—along with over thirty of our international media partners—began publishing the Global Intelligence Files: the internal email spool from the Texas-based private intelligence firm Stratfor. One of our stronger investigative partners—the Beirut-based newspaper Al Akhbar— scoured the emails for intelligence on Jared Cohen.

The people at Stratfor, who liked to think of themselves as a sort of corporate CIA, were acutely conscious of other ventures that they perceived as making inroads into their sector. Google had turned up on their radar. In a series of colorful emails they discussed a pattern of activity conducted by Cohen under the Google Ideas aegis, suggesting what the “do” in “think/do tank” actually means.

Cohen’s directorate appeared to cross over from public relations and “corporate responsibility” work into active corporate intervention in foreign affairs at a level that is normally reserved for states. Jared Cohen could be wryly named Google’s “director of regime change.”

According to the emails, he was trying to plant his fingerprints on some of the major historical events in the contemporary Middle East. He could be placed in Egypt during the revolution, meeting with Wael Ghonim, the Google employee whose arrest and imprisonment hours later would make him a PR-friendly symbol of the uprising in the Western press. Meetings had been planned in Palestine and Turkey, both of which—claimed Stratfor emails—were killed by the senior Google leadership as too risky.
---------

Looking for something more concrete, I began to search in WikiLeaks’ archive for information on Cohen. State Department cables released as part of Cablegate reveal that Cohen had been in Afghanistan in 2009, trying to convince the four major Afghan mobile phone companies to move their antennas onto U.S. military bases. In Lebanon, he quietly worked to establish an intellectual and clerical rival to Hezbollah, the “Higher Shia League.” And in London he offered Bollywood movie executives funds to insert anti-extremist content into their films, and promised to connect them to related networks in Hollywood.

---------

If the future of the Internet is to be Google, that should be of serious concern to people all over the world—in Latin America, East and Southeast Asia, the Indian subcontinent, the Middle East, sub-Saharan Africa, the former Soviet Union and even in Europe—for whom the Internet embodies the promise of an alternative to U.S. cultural, economic, and strategic hegemony.

A “don’t be evil” empire is still an empire.

Extracted from When Google Met Wikileaks by Julian Assange published by OR Books. Newsweek readers can obtain a 20 percent discount on the cover price when ordering from the OR Books website and including the offer code word NEWSWEEK.

http://www.newsweek.com/assange-google-not-what-it-seems-279447

Riaz Haq said...

Economics was the basis of Pakistan’s creation

By Shahid Javed Burki
Published: January 12, 2015
A month or so ago, in the space of a few days, I got into an earnest debate with Hussain Haqqani, Pakistan’s former ambassador to the United States. The substance of that debate is important given Pakistan’s current political difficulties as well as the country’s relations with the outside world. I have known Haqqani for decades. In fact, he reviewed one of earlier works on Pakistan, A Nation in the Making, for the now-defunct Hong Kong-based Far Eastern Economic Review. At the first meeting — a lunch at a restaurant in a Washington suburb — we talked about his recently published and much-discussed book, Magnificent Delusions.

The book, in dealing with Pakistan’s relations with the United States, covers a lot of ground, from the country’s founding to its current precarious situation. In the conversation with me, he questioned the political logic which led to the creation of Pakistan. Muhammad Ali Jinnah, he suggested, should have known that if his demand for the creation of an independent state was accepted, it would leave a significant number of his co-religionists behind in the Hindu-dominated independent India. A smaller minority would find their lives even more difficult in a country in which the Hindus would be even more dominant. This assertion by the former ambassador led me to ask the obvious question: was Pakistan’s creation a mistake? He said it was. I thought and told him so that this was an extraordinary statement by a person who had represented as its ambassador a country he believed was mistakenly created.

His other argument was developed in much greater detail at the house of a rich Indian businessman where the audience was presented his book so that it could be signed by the author. His speech on the occasion concerned Pakistan’s inability to live with its four neighbours — Afghanistan, China, India and Iran as well as with the United States, the country’s long-time benefactor. Including China in the list was puzzling but he said that Beijing had sent some strong messages to Islamabad about the latter’s alleged support to the dissidents in the country’s autonomous region of Xinjiang.

Both arguments need to be considered carefully since they have started a conversation in the American capital about the feasibility of what is sometimes called the ‘idea of Pakistan’. By pursuing the Islamic ideology as the basis of nationhood, the former ambassador thought that Pakistan itself had posed an existential threat to itself.

I responded to these views by saying that Pakistan was created not because its founding fathers thought that ‘Islam was in danger’ but for entirely economic reasons. The present rise of extremism is also owing to economic and political reasons. Those who follow it are not fighting a war of faith with the Pakistani state or the West. These people resent their exclusion from political and economic systems — both dominated by narrow elites — and some of them have opted for extreme violence as the preferred form of expression.

In order to understand the direction in which we should go, we must carefully understand why the country in which we live and of which we are citizens was created. The Pakistan Movement was largely the result of economic factors; religion intervened since the Muslims feared that they will be discriminated against on account of their faith. In the 1940s, when Muhammad Ali Jinnah and his political associates raised the demand for Pakistan, British India had a population of 400 million of which 100 million followed Islam. Two parts of this community, one in the northwest of the British Indian colony and the other in the northeast, accounted for 70 per cent of this community; the remaining 30 per cent was dispersed all over in what were called the Muslim minority provinces....


http://tribune.com.pk/story/820262/economics-was-the-basis-of-pakistans-creation/

Riaz Haq said...

Here's an adoring review of Haqqani's book in Times of India:

What is the secret of Pakistan’s hold on the United States that Washington slumbers over its reckless nuclear proliferation and its unceasing sponsorship of terrorism?
The story goes that when Pakistan’s founder Mohammed Ali Jinnah, who had never been to the US (neither had Gandhi or Nehru at that time), wanted to choose an ambassador to the US, he picked Mirza Abol Hassan Ispahani, one of the initiators of the Pakistan movement who had toured the United States in the mid-1940 s to drum up support for an independent Muslim state. In a November 1946 letter to Jinnah, Ispahani explained what he knew of the American psyche. “I have learnt that sweet words and first impressions count a lot with Americans,” he wrote. “They are inclined to quickly like or dislike an individual or organisation.”
Ispahani and his successor Mohammed Ali Bogra, who would go back to become Pakistan’s prime minister, worked relentlessly to bring Washington and Karachi (which was then Pakistan’s capital) closer, according to a recent account by Husain Haqqani, till recently Islamabad’s envoy to Washington (and Ispahani’s son-in-law ). Jinnah gave several interviews to US journalists, the best known of them was Life magazine’s Margaret Bourke-White, who also chronicled Gandhi’s life. “America needs Pakistan more than Pakistan needs America,” Jinnah bragged to her. “Pakistan is the pivot of the world, the frontier on which the future position of the world revolves.”
Like many Pakistani leaders after him, Jinnah’s bluster was aimed at persuading the US to pour money and arms into Pakistan. And Bourke-White, like many Americans after her, was skeptical, writes Haqqani. She sensed that behind the bluster was insecurity and a “bankruptcy of ideas… a nation drawing its spurious warmth from the embers of an antique religious fanaticism, fanned into a new blaze.” Bourke-White was prescient in her analysis, but that did not prevent Washington from falling headlong for Pakistan, helped to a great extent by Delhi’s sense of self-importance.
At that time, India was clearly favoured rising star on the US firmament even though its ally Britain entertained misgivings. In some of the lesser-known chapters of US-India history, the founding director of the CIA, Allen Dulles, had lived in Allahabad in the late 1920s as a young man learning Sanskrit and teaching English, and had befriended Nehru and his sister Vijayalakshmi Pandit. Much later, a young American diplomat named Tom Reiner, who had gone to Birla House for a Gandhi Darshan in his first week of a Delhi posting, had physically apprehended Nathuram Godse after he shot the Mahatma. From Gandhi’s own correspondence with Ford to Martin Luther King’s idolising of the Mahatma, the personal connections and dynamics between India and US were all incredibly positive.
Nehru himself visited the US in 1949 with his young daughter Indira to meet President Truman, seeking aid for a famineprone country during meetings that were described as warm and cordial. There were expectations of greater US-India engagement despite Nehru’s well-known socialist proclivities. But Nehru didn’t conform to Washington’s expectations, charting an independent course for India, and in US eyes, gravitating to the Soviet orbit, infuriating Truman and Allen Dulles’ brother, the Cold War architect, John Foster Dulles.
By contrast, Pakistan played ball, and in fact, went on to become, in Husain Haqqani’s view, “a rentier state”. In fact, Haqqani used even more colourful language to describe his country’s way of handling America. He liked it to “a nation of rug merchants,” who would start by asking for the moon, but would settle for a dismal price, never letting a customer walk out of the shop without a sale....

http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/ruminations/republic-of-proxystan-bill-and-coo-kill-and-woo/

Riaz Haq said...

Sellout Husain Haqqani dislikes his home country #Pakistan just as Gordon Chang and Mixin Pei abhor #China http://on.wsj.com/1d0b2A8 via @WSJ

Hussain Haqqani, in the same category as sellouts like Gordon Chang, Minxin Pei, Karim Sadjadpour, Fawad Ajami, etc, has a problem with China-Pakistan alliance. Here's his Op Ed in Wall Street Journal:

China’s President Xi Jinping arrived in Islamabad this week with promises of $46 billion in investment for Pakistani infrastructure. If all envisaged projects materialize, Pakistan would get a network of roads, railways and energy pipelines linking Pakistan’s port of Gwadar to China’s westernmost Xinjiang region. China would also build Pakistan’s half of a long-delayed natural-gas pipeline from Iran. This would be a shot in the arm for Pakistan’s faltering economy and consolidate a decades-old strategic partnership.

---
The Obama administration would also like China to induce Pakistan to abandon its role as a terrorist safe haven. China has been concerned by Pakistan-based jihadists operating in Xinjiang and U.S. officials hope Beijing can be successful in persuading Pakistan to clamp down on the various Islamist groups operating from its soil. But China’s economic reassurances could also reinforce Islamabad’s miscalculations about its regional clout and dangerous ambitions of keeping India strategically off-balance through subconventional means, including terrorism.

Just as Pakistan turned to the U.S. soon after independence in 1947 to seek weapons and economic assistance against India, Pakistan’s leaders today see China as a supporter in their bid to be India’s regional rival. The U.S. disappointed Islamabad by refusing to back its military confrontations with India even while selling Pakistan U.S. weapons (intended for other purposes). Now it might be China’s turn to be the object of unrealistic Pakistani expectations.

Unlike the U.S., China has refrained from lecturing Pakistan’s civilian and military leaders, creating an impression of consistency lacking in U.S.-Pakistan ties. China has been a major supplier of military equipment to Pakistan and was particularly helpful in Pakistan’s development of nuclear weapons.

By supporting Pakistan militarily, China has ensured that a large part of India’s military remains tied down in South Asia and is unable to challenge China in the rest of Asia. But India remains the larger market and China’s willingness to use Pakistan as a secondary deterrent against India hasn’t meant abandoning ties with New Delhi. Chinese trade with India in 2013 was $65 billion, six times its trade with Pakistan. In Pakistan’s 1965 and 1971 wars with India, China disappointed Pakistan by not opening a second front against India.

---

China’s investment in Pakistan, and indeed investment from other sources, would materialize more easily if Pakistan put its house in order. Instead of exhausting itself in competing with an Indian neighbor six times its size, Pakistan needs to confront religious extremism, eliminate terrorism and pursue economic reforms that they talk about but do not implement. Pakistan’s elite needs to start paying taxes to overcome one of the worst tax-to-GDP ratios in the world. Defense spending needs to be rationalized and critical investments made in education to overcome a paucity of skilled manpower.

More likely, the promise of Chinese money will lead Pakistan’s leaders to think China will become their economic and military patron. Mr. Xi would do well not to let that happen, and instead to emphasize reform. He shouldn’t forget that money does not always buy Pakistan’s favor or encourage change in Pakistan’s policies. China may actually lose popularity in Pakistan once its companies arrive and demand primacy of economic considerations. Then China might find itself where Pakistan’s previous benefactor, the U.S., is today. After having provided $40 billion in aid to Pakistan since 1950, the U.S. is now viewed favorably by only 14% of Pakistanis.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/lowering-expectations-for-chinas-pakistan-push-1429718222

Riaz Haq said...

Here's US based Beijing basher Minxin Pei on China's $46 billion investment in Pakistan:

China has put together massive bilateral aid packages for strategic allies and resource-rich developing countries designed to strengthen its economic ties to these nations. The latest manifestation on this front is the $46 billion energy and infrastructure deal China announced for Pakistan. And when President Xi Jinping visited Latin America in July 2014, he signed contracts worth roughly $70 billion.

On the surface, China’s strategy of competing with the U.S. in global finance and investment seems both prudent and shrewd. With a large chunk of its foreign exchange reserves invested in low-yielding American Treasuries and other securities, allocating hundreds of billions of dollars of its forex-reserves into alternative assets (overseas infrastructure and natural resources) may diversify risk and generate better returns. In addition, money diplomacy is more potent than gunboat diplomacy in peeling off American allies; just witness the recent rush of nearly all America’s longtime allies into Beijing’s arms as the AIIB is about to close its doors to new members.

However, China’s strategy is as flawed as it is unsustainable. Taking on large global financial commitments, as China has recently done, entails significant risk. Running a startup multilateral development institution presents complex technical and political challenges for which China has little experience or demonstrated competence. Investments in infrastructure and natural resource projects in developing countries can be endangered due to ethnic conflict, terrorism, and political instability. China’s most recent setback in Sri Lanka, where a change of government threatens billions of dollars in Chinese investments in infrastructure, is just one example of the fallout that can come from such activities. In Pakistan’s failing state, huge Chinese investments might fare even worse.

Beijing has also overestimated China’s financial capacity. Despite China’s rapid growth, the U.S. economy, with a GDP of $17.4 trillion in 2014, is still two-thirds larger than the Chinese economy ($10.4 trillion). More importantly, as history shows, constructing an alternative global financial order requires uncontested economic hegemony and resources. When the U.S. designed the post-World War II global financial system (the so-called Bretton Woods system) in 1944, the American economy made up half of the world’s GDP. Since China accounts for 13.4% of the world’s GDP, it is questionable whether it has sufficient resources to underwrite an alternative system.


http://fortune.com/2015/04/17/china-economy/

Riaz Haq said...

Here's China basher Gordon Chang on Pak-China corridor:

Beijing is not only creating militants and then taking them on. To make matters even worse, the Corridor enters China through an area India claims as its own. Beijing says it does not take sides in the territorial dispute over Kashmir, but at the beginning of this month, it abandoned its asserted neutrality. In a December 2 release, Xinhua News Agency stated that the Khunjerab Pass was “on the China-Pakistan border.” “The pass,” China’s official media outlet stated, “is a strategic point on the Karakoram Highway, which links China’s Xinjiang with Pakistan’s Gilgit-Baltistan region.” New Delhi, however, maintains Gilgit-Baltistan is part of India.
----------

Beijing, despite everything, looks like it is absolutely determined to do whatever it takes to first build and then secure its corridor running through the heart of Pakistan. Its plan, however, is almost certainly misconceived, bound to cause more turmoil in already troubled areas.


http://nationalinterest.org/feature/chinas-big-plans-pakistan-11827?page=2

Riaz Haq said...

Here are a few excepts of Nisid Hajari's NPR Fresh Air interview promoting his book "Midnight's Furies":


"This rivalry between India and Pakistan has been going on now for nearly 70 years and it seems like a feature of the landscape ... as if it has always existed, and once you created two countries out of one that it was inevitable," Hajari says. "I don't think it was inevitable and a closer look at what happened in 1947 teaches you how the seeds of this rivalry were planted. It was obviously worsened over the years by various actors, but this is where it all started."

They (Hindus) controlled the schools, they controlled the educational curriculum, they oversaw the police and they gave out jobs and patronage to their own followers. And Muslims could see, particularly professional Muslims, Muslims who would otherwise have perhaps won these jobs, could see that they would have very little power in a democratic system, a parliamentary system after independence.

On that (Direct Action) day (1946), the speeches that were given were fairly inflammatory, and some of the Muslim listeners of these speeches went out and started burning and looting in Hindu areas. At the same time, Hindus in different parts of the city were also throwing bricks and stones at Muslim marchers. It's very hard to say exactly how it started or who started it [but] both sides behaved violently.

The Sikhs really were the accelerant to the riots in August 1947, which is, when people talk about partition, this is what they're talking about. These are the massive riots that broke out around the time that the British withdrew from India, and anywhere from 200,000 to 1 million people were killed.

As independence was approaching, all sides were forming militias, which they claimed were for self-defense. The Sikhs, because so many of them had served in the army, were the best trained and the best armed and the best organized of these militias, and therefore the rampages that they engaged in were more effective and bloodier and more damaging.

The Pakistani support for the Taliban had to do with their desire to have an influence in Kabul and to block Indian influence in Afghanistan. Pakistani strategists have this idea of strategic depth that if they were engaged in a major conflict with India that they would be able to use Afghanistan as a sort of rear-guard area to fall back to. They have a fear of being encircled by Indians and there have always been rumors that the Indians were trying to gain influence with various Afghan governments and that they had spies in Afghanistan and so on. Afghanistan has never fully agreed to the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan, so that creates more tensions.

But this fear of Indian encirclement, that's what goes back to partition in 1947. The seeds of that rivalry were planted in these weeks and months of violence and bloodshed back when both countries were still being born and they were exacerbated over the years by further conflicts and by various military dictators and politicians and so forth, but the basic pattern was set very quickly. As a smaller, weaker country, this asymmetric strategy of using surrogates to do your fighting for you seems appealing, but it has very destructive repercussions.

http://www.npr.org/2015/06/09/413121135/indias-1947-partition-and-the-deadly-legacy-that-persists-to-this-day

Riaz Haq said...

Excerpt of Aqil Shah on TV Paul's book "Warrior State" and Christine Fair's "Fighting to the End":

" ...claims in The Warrior State are contestable on several grounds.
One, both South Korea and Taiwan enjoyed varying degrees of external
security guarantees from the United States, so they had a better chance of
prioritizing economics over warfare. Two, and unlike ethnically divided
Pakistan, both South Korea and Taiwan were also homogenous societies,
which ultimately facilitated their transitions to democracy by insulating
them from the potential challenge of peacefully accommodating ethnic
diversity. Finally, neither Turkey nor Indonesia was even half as insecure
as Pakistan, and their main security threats were internal. Hence, as Paul
himself concedes, neither had the need to overspend on defense or develop
the tools, such as the use of nonstate actors, needed to fight a much stronger
external enemy (p. 165).
Second, he attributes Pakistan’s thwarted development to its geographic
location, which has put a “geostrategic curse” on the country (pp. 3, 15,
21–22, 33). According to the book, this strategic curse works much like the well-known curse of natural resources. In return for serving (and at
times undermining) U.S. security interests, Pakistan’s elites have enjoyed
access to strategic rents, which has discouraged them from expanding the
state’s extractive capacity to achieve the economic strength required for
maintaining the security competition with India (pp. 18–23).
This “rentier” thesis has much going for it but leaves one question
unanswered: why did Pakistan not reform itself when the strategic rents
dried up—for example, in 1965–80 and 1990–2001? Paul alludes to the
path-dependent nature of ideas (p. 23), so it is reasonable to infer that even
in the absence of U.S. military aid, Pakistani elites continued to harbor their
hyper-realpolitik strategic assumptions. However, it is not clear where these
assumptions come from, or how they stick. On closer analysis, it appears
more plausible that once Pakistan’s founding fathers adopted a warrior state
strategy in response to structural insecurity at the outset of independence,
these Hobbesian beliefs developed a life of their own, especially because the
powerful military institution internalized them. "


"Fair seems to discount the role of political learning on elite
attitudes and behavior. As the case of Brazil and other Latin American
countries demonstrates, the experience of authoritarian government can
unite political elite against military praetorianism and electoral competition
can create incentives for them to erode the military’s undue political and
strategic influence. Pakistan’s most recent transition from authoritarian rule
in 2007–8 has revealed that major political parties like the Pakistan Peoples
Party (PPP) and the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) have learned
their lessons from exile, incarceration, and repression under authoritarian
rule and appear strongly committed to the democratic process. In May 2013,
Pakistan broke its seemingly permanent curse of zero democratic turnover
of power from one full-term elected government to another when the PPP
government completed its five-year tenure and Nawaz Sharif’s opposition
PML-N won the parliamentary elections to form a new government. As Fair
herself admits, this successful transition was made possible in good part by
Sharif’s ability to resist the temptation of knocking on the garrison’s door
to unseat the PPP government (p. 265). "

http://www.nbr.org/publications/asia_policy/free/ap19/AsiaPolicy19_PakistanBRRT_January2015.pdf

Riaz Haq said...

Is U.S. Trying To Make Up To Pakistan?

A little too late?
Although US has agreed to provide Pakistan precision strike capabilities in the near future, one has to question if it’s a really desperate move from Washington to patch things up with a country that is slowly slipping away from its influence?

American policymakers do realize that they have to change their mindset toward Pakistan but on the same hand, they need to realize that the Pakistani authorities would definitely have a trick up their sleeves and will use USA’s efforts as a great chance to fill the gaps it has in its defensive and offensive capabilities while also making sure that a major chunk of assistance is taken from Moscow and Beijing.

U.S trying to retain an ally?
Since its early days, Pakistan has been always an important ally for Pentagon, thanks to its geographical location. And in the coming years, Pakistan’s importance to US cannot be ignored. However, broken promises and duality has really started costing US and it is high time for Washington to wake up before the damage it has done is irrevocable.

Currently US shuffling across the board and doing all it can in a bid to stop the Chinese armada that has already become so influential in Pakistani policy and they are unsuccessful in doing it. With the growing economic corporation with Beijing and rapidly growing bilateral ties with Moscow, has forced Washington to offer Pakistan gifts that China and Russia cannot. And although this is going to help Pakistan from a defensive point of view, it is basically US making attempts to keep a bird in its cage like it has for years.

The growing power of eastern block is alarming for Washington, as not only economically but also militarily, they are getting strong and forming alliances that will help challenge America’s global presence and influence. This alliance can shift the economic hub and can tilt the balance of power towards the east. Though it is not simple as it sounds but the reality is that it is happening, albeit at a slow pace.

Now, it is up to US policymakers how they want to change all that. Changing the tone towards Pakistan might be a good start indeed!


http://www.valuewalk.com/2015/10/u-s-trying-make-pakistan/

Riaz Haq said...

Comparing #Pakistan econ growth rate (5% 1970-2008, about same as India's) with other nations. Via Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/10/13/why-trying-to-help-poor-countries-might-actually-hurt-them/

It might seem odd that having more money would not help a poor country. Yet economists have long observed that countries that have an abundance of wealth from natural resources, like oil or diamonds, tend to be more unequal, less developed and more impoverished, as the chart below shows. Countries at the left-hand side of the chart have fewer fuels, ores and metals and higher growth, while those at the right-hand side have more natural resource wealth, yet slower growth. Economists postulate that this "natural resource curse" happens for a variety of reasons, but one is that such wealth can strengthen and corrupt a government.

Like revenue from oil or diamonds, wealth from foreign aid can be a corrupting influence on weak governments, “turning what should be beneficial political institutions into toxic ones,” Deaton writes in his book “The Great Escape: Health, Wealth, and the Origins of Inequality.” This wealth can make governments more despotic, and it can also increase the risk of civil war, since there is less power sharing, as well as a lucrative prize worth fighting for.

Deaton and his supporters offer dozens of examples of humanitarian aid being used to support despotic regimes and compounding misery, including in Zaire, Rwanda, Ethiopia, Somalia, Biafra, and the Khmer Rouge on the border of Cambodia and Thailand. Citing Africa researcher Alex de Waal, Deaton writes that “aid can only reach the victims of war by paying off the warlords, and sometimes extending the war.”

Riaz Haq said...

Mosque and military have shaped the idea of Pakistan: Husain Haqqani

New Delhi: Pakistan's former ambassador to the US Husain Haqqani said the country should not live by the slogan 'Pakistan in Danger' and it should focus on friendly relationship with India.
Haqqani's speech on Thursday was played as a recorded video message at the ongoing Penguin Spring Fever Literary festival as he could not make it to the event.

Clarifying his absence, Haqqani said that he could not avail the visa as he applied late and it takes very long for a Pakistani to get an Indian visa.
"In 1948, Bengali leader Huseyn Shaheed Suhrawardy said that Pakistan will not prosper if the leaders try to run it on the basis of fear, just as the country was formed on the creation of the fear that Islam is in danger," Haqqani, who has written the book 'Pakistan - Between Mosque and Military', said.
He also said that Pakistan has to overcome the baggage of partition, that is manifested in the forms of militancy and militarism .
"The debate on partition has been going on for long and it was debilitating for the country. It divided the country and led to the formation of Bangladesh. Pakistan can become plural and modern society if we shed the baggage of partition," said Haqqani.
The author also argued that Pakistan's militarism is a result of the difficult relationship between India and Pakistan.
"In my book, I have argued that how mosque and military have shaped the idea of Pakistan," he said.
Stressing on the need for friendly ties with India, he said that the country has to accept criticism in the right earnest.
"People of Pakistan need to understand that the criticism of the policy are not questioning the right of the people of Pakistan to live in peace. It is important to come to terms for Pakistan that progress is important and that modus operandi with India is important," he noted.

"The country is young, 100 million are below the age of 22 and are talented people whose potential is yet to unleash. It is up to the world to see Pakistan as that of poets, of artists, of small and battled liberals, of landed aristocracy or that of an establishment," he said.

http://www.firstpost.com/world/mosque-and-military-have-shaped-the-idea-of-pakistan-husain-haqqani-2682302.html

Riaz Haq said...

Let’s have quick look of Mr Hussain Haqqani’s [Nowadays an American Scholar who lecture on Democracy] dirty and filthy past while he was part and parcel of Army-Jamat-e-Islami Axis which is riddled witch scandals and corruption. A detailed CV of Husaain Haqqani is at the end to corroborate the comment.

With brainwashing on the one hand and erosion of academic freedom on the other, the campuses (once temples of learning and enlightenment) have been turned into centres of rowdyism and repositories of deadly weapon. Students belonging to various schools of religious thought, regional and ethnic groups, particularly the Islami Jamiat-e-Tulba (the student wing of Jamat-e-Islami) , have played havoc with educational institutions. Professors were another target of the victimization carried out in this period. Members of the IJT launched a concerted campaign against professors known for their liberal views. In Punjab University, particularly, many professors were forced to resign, others were sacked.

The situation was no different in the Quaid-e-Azam University, Islamabad, which had in the 70s attracted many brilliant Pakistanis who were teaching abroad. As the harassment became unbearable, most of these professors went back. To what extent fundamentalists blocked scientific knowledge can be assessed by one incident at the Karachi University, where a zoology lecturer was stopped from teaching Darwin’s Theory of Evolution. Similar incidents occurred frequently in the philosophy and the economics department. The situation has worsened wit the passage of time. During that period, a policy of appeasement towards the IJT made matter worse. Guns boomed at the Karachi University Campus for the first time in 1979 when, according to Imran Shirvanee, Raja Javed, a supporter of IJT, used a sten gun ‘to tackle the opposition.’ When the pen and free expression are throttled, the only means open to tackle opposition is a firearm. At that time, the IJT was the ruling party in Karachi University politics with Hussain Haqqani, Raja Javed was his close aide.

Haqqani is a man of many roles. The former Far Eastern Economic Review correspondent was the media advisor to Punjab Chief Minister Nawaz Sharif when Benazir Bhutto was at the centre {1988-1990}. He switched to serve caretaker Prime Minister Ghulam Mustafa Jatoi in 1990, and then switched back again to serve Sharif when he was elected Prime Minister. In 1992, he was sent to Sri Lanka as Pakistan’s High Commissioner. On the eve of Nawaz Sharif’s dismissal on 18 April 1993, he jumped the sinking ship and joined President Ghulam Ishaq Khan bandwagon. Immediately, he was rewarded by being made a special assistant to the caretaker Prime Minister Mir Balakh Sher Mazari with the rank of Minister of State. Asked by BBC if he now deserved a mention in the Guinness Book of Records for switching loyalties so often, his reply was classic: I was always with the President.’”


Mr Haqqani. Right from this student politics with the Jamaat’s student wing, the dreaded Islami Jamiat-e-Tulaba, at Karachi University there is much that Mr Haqqani is answerable for. The violence at the university and the brutal suppression of free speech that the IJT imposed on the campus in those days was done with Mr Haqqani very much an active player. Many still say that he was the architect of the IJT’s policy of using brute force to suppress opposition opinion. We next saw him on PTV – which was a kind of a launching pad for him -during the 1985 partyless elections. It was an election which destroyed Pakistan’s politics in more ways than one and much that we see wrong with Pakistan’s politics today dates back to that election. It was because of the destructive potential of the election that every liberal and progressive party in the country boycotted those elections. Yet there was Mr Haqqani at his most articulate, lauding the farcical exercise as if it was the best thing that had happened to the country since its birth.


http://teeth.com.pk/blog/2008/04/23/husain-haqqani/

Riaz Haq said...

Husain Haqqani is a "scholar" whose research for his book "Magnificent Delusion" is based almost entirely on the work of press reporters like Time-Life's photographer Margaret Bourke-White and her fellow American journalists whom he quotes extensively to support his positions. Haqqani finds them more credible and insightful than Jinnah, Liaquat, Truman, Eisenhower, Dulles and other top leaders and policy-makers in Pakistan and United State.

http://www.riazhaq.com/2015/02/debunking-haqqanis-op-ed-pakistans.html

Riaz Haq said...

Former envoy (Husain Haqqani) lobbying against #Pakistan in #Washington: Aziz

http://tribune.com.pk/story/1127824/former-envoy-lobbying-pakistan-aziz/

A former Pakistani ambassador in Washington has been lobbying against his own country and creating problems for the government in Islamabad, says foreign policy wizard. Though Sartaj Aziz didn’t name anyone, it was obvious that he was referring to Hussain Haqqani.

“He is trying to circumvent all our diplomatic efforts aimed at boosting bilateral ties between Pakistan and the United States,” Aziz said. “The Foreign Office has serious reservations about his activities in the US.”

Indian PM’s visit to US: International lobby ‘active against Pakistan’

Aziz made the statement in the lower house of parliament after opposition MPs criticized the government over recent foreign policy fiascos. Aziz downplayed the opposition’s criticism, saying Pakistan had the lowest budget for the Foreign Office — Rs15 billion — while Turkey had a Rs82 billion budget and Iran Rs40 billion. “The Foreign Office budget has been increased by 14% over the last three years,” he said.

Foreign policy

According to Aziz, Pakistan was pursuing a ‘balanced policy’ based on non-interference and protection of national interests and nuclear assets and its sovereignty.

“Indian Prime Minister Narandra Modi’s recent trip to Muslim countries should not be construed as a failure of Pakistan’s foreign policy,” he said. Pakistan enjoys historical relations with the Muslim world based on common religion, Aziz said. “Modi’s visit will not affect our ties.”

Aziz also said that Pakistan was ‘making successful efforts’ against India’s attempt to seek a membership of the Nuclear Suppliers Group. About the new border management plan with Afghanistan, the de facto foreign minister said: “The war against terror cannot be won without effective border management.”

All is not bad

Aziz said criticism for criticism’s sake would not go down well as the CPEC, Central Asia-South Asia-1000 and besides Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline were the projects for regional connectivity. “Pakistan’s political role will enhance after becoming a member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation.”

About Afghanistan, the foreign policy wizard said Pakistan was pursuing a ‘no-favourite policy’ and making efforts to restore peace in the war-ravaged country through the Quadrilateral Coordination Group.

Meanwhile, NA approved 19 demands for grants of four ministries, including the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Interior, Food Security and Water and Power. The opposition had moved over 700 cut motions but they were rejected in a voice vote.

Riaz Haq said...

Excerpt of an Indian review of Husain Haqqani's "India vs Pakistan: Why Can't We Just Be Friends":

These trends were certainly evident in the years that followed the partition: an early refusal to forward Pakistan’s share of the division of assets, ungracious sniping over the accession of two major princely states – Hyderabad and Kashmir – along with several minor ones, and a vindictive attempt to cut off water supplies from the Gurdaspur headworks. Additionally, chaotically executed and badly organised partition plans set the scene for bitter animosity between the two governments.

Haqqani argues that such conditions also ensured that a mutually obsessive and compulsive set of hostilities persisted long past the partition decade. Irrational decision-making based on a blind tendency to seek retaliation against India at all costs led Pakistan’s army and security agencies to plan two ill-conceived wars, in 1965 and 1999. Both those wars, Haqqani argues, should have been avoided and, in any event, were fruitless.


http://thewire.in/44509/review-the-many-reasons-why-india-and-pakistan-just-cant-be-friends/

Riaz Haq said...

PPP and Zardari now recognize Husain Haqqani is toxic. Unfortunately it's too late. A lot of damage has already been done and continues to done to Pakistan by this Benedict Arnold. I think Iqbal's lines about Mir Jaafar and Mir Sadiq apply to this guy more than anyone else "Jaafar uz Bangal Sadiq uz Dakan/ Nang e Millat Nang e Deen Nange Watan"

http://www.dawn.com/news/1266983/ppp-disowns-hussain-haqqani

Riaz Haq said...

No Surprise in Pakistan Not Being Declared a ‘Terrorism-Sponsoring Nation’
BY VAPPALA BALACHANDRAN ON 23/10/2016

http://thewire.in/75264/pakistan-terrorism-us-brics/

Strategists who assumed that India could bring about such a declaration are poor students of history and do not understand how Washington works.

Our “strategists”, who had made the present leadership believe that they would be successful in declaring Pakistan as a terrorist-sponsor nation, are poor students of history. They may be good at event management by organising the prime minister’s diaspora meetings, but they don’t seem to know how Washington works. The closest India came to designating Pakistan as “terrorist nation” was in April 1993, when Narasimha Rao was prime minister. At that time, the Indian embassy and intelligence had jointly made nearly successful efforts to convince the US government of Pakistan’s role in fomenting terrorism against India and also in conniving with the drug mafia. Personal lobbying by ambassadors Abid Hussain and Siddharth Shankar Ray had almost convinced the US State Department to take a stand.

Nawaz Sharif was the prime minister of Pakistan at the time. Buffeted by the then president, Ghulam Ishaq Khan, Sharif sent his confidante, Nisar Ali Khan, to Washington DC to plead his case for “retention”. Khan met then secretary of state Warren Christopher on April 7, 1993. According to the Federal Register, he presented a 5’X 7’ silk rug as a gift to the secretary valued at $500. Although Khan described the talks as “useful”, the state department delivered an unprecedented snub that very evening, warning Pakistan that it would be designated as a “terrorist sponsoring” nation if there was no improvement. Sharif was dismissed by Ghulam Ishaq Khan in July 1993. He moved the Supreme Court General Abdul Waheed Kakar, who was army chief, intervened and made both of them resign.

My personal enquiries at that time with the state department had revealed that it was Benazir Bhutto, on a private visit to Washington DC at the time, who had personally pleaded with the Clinton administration at different levels not to put Pakistan in the company of Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea and Cuba. Benazir had met even assistant secretary level officers in the state department, setting aside protocol as a former prime minister.

The US 9/11 National Commission has reported another move in 1998 by the state department’s counter-terrorism coordinator to designate Pakistan as a terrorist sponsor due to the ISI’s “activities in support of international terrorism” by supporting attacks “on civilian targets in Kashmir”. This was overruled by then secretary of state Madeleine Albright, who said that “putting the Pakistanis on the terrorist list would eliminate any influence the United States had over them”. Deputy secretary of state Strobe Talbott had also felt that “additional sanctions would have bankrupted the Pakistanis, a dangerous move that could have brought ‘total chaos’ to a nuclear-armed country with a significant number of Islamic radicals”. This is the US’s stand even now. They need Pakistan to control Afghanistan. That India can substitute Pakistan in Afghanistan is a pipe dream.

Riaz Haq said...

Heated exchange between Haqqani, Ishrat over Pak-US ties

https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/165794-Heated-exchange-between-Haqqani-Ishrat-over-Pak-US-ties



“CSF was not assistance. It was our money that we spent to support the US logistic operations in Afghanistan during the war on terror and it was reimbursed later. I sat in cabinet meetings where we approved allocation from our own budget to support the US operation. That money was later reimbursed by the US government through the CSF,” Dr Ishrat said while responding to Haqqani’s point that Pakistan did not deliver enough after receiving the US assistance after 9/11.

While praising the Indian progress after independence, Haqqani strongly criticised Pakistan for failing to utilise $43 billion aid it received from the US since 1949 for its development.

Haqqani argued that the US should not provide large-scale assistance to Pakistan. However, the former ambassador of Pakistan was reminded by no one else but an American former official that the US assistance was given to Pakistan to protect US national interests.

“May be you are not serving your national interests by giving money to Pakistan,” Haqqani told the former US official. Haqqani said during his tenure as Pakistan ambassador he received the CSF bills that were objected to by the US authorities. “Once I received a request for $120 million for beef that was used by Pakistani soldiers serving in Swat and $100 million for barbed wire in tribal areas. I was asked by US officials what kind of barbed wire costs that much.”

The moderator of the discussion had to intervene to stop the heated exchange between Ishrat and Haqqani as the former ambassador started interrupting Ishrat. Dr Ishrat said whatever assistance Pakistan received was delivered when the US needed Pakistani support. “Whether it was during the 1960s Cold War or 1980’s Afghan war and the recent war on terror, the assistance was given to promote the US national interests in the region.”

He said Pakistan did not need an aid model that never worked as it could not promote development. He said the US and Pakistan should cooperate in educational exchanges and human resource development as South Asian country’s had huge potential.

“US Fulbright programme is helping Pakistani students but these students need to be sent to the top US universities to learn science, mathematics and related subjects,” Ishrat said adding that currently majority of Pakistani students were placed in less famous universities as it cost less.

To this, Husain Haqqani argued that Pakistani students were not enough talented to get admission to the top Ivy League universities prompting a response from Ishrat. “This is not true I know many Pakistani students in my institute who are brilliant and could get admission anywhere,” Ishrat, who served as dean and director of the prestigious Institute of Business Administration (IBA) in Karachi, said.

Speaking on the occasion Robin Raphel said the US assistance to Pakistan did achieve objectives. “We always know money can’t buy you love but when you build road, you build hospital or school, people do like that,” she said. She listed major development projects that were completed in Pakistan with US assistance provided under the Kerry-Lugar bill.

These projects included the 2,400 megawatt electricity project, 1,100-kilometre road in tribal areas, clean energy project, the largest Fulbright programme and university partnership apart from $1 billion humanitarian assistance.

Praising Vision 2025 programme of PML-N government, she said Pakistan under the current government had better sense of development priorities. She said the current Pakistani administration was not talking much about aid but the focus had now shifted to trade and business opportunities.

Riaz Haq said...

CNN's Peter Bergen's opinion on whether Pakistani official knew of Bin Laden's presence in Abottabad:


The bin Laden story in the New York Times magazine is an extract from (Caroltta) Gall's forthcoming book, "The Wrong Enemy: America in Afghanistan, 2001-2014."
Gall makes two astonishing claims in her Times magazine piece.
The first claim: An unnamed Pakistani official told her, based on what he had in turn heard from an unnamed senior U.S. official that "the United States had direct evidence that the ISI chief, Lt. Gen. Ahmed Shuja Pasha, knew of bin Laden's presence in Abbottabad." ISI is Pakistan's powerful military intelligence agency.
The second claim: "The ISI actually ran a special desk assigned to handle bin Laden. It was operated independently, led by an officer who made his own decisions and did not report to a superior. He handled only one person: bin Laden...the top military bosses knew about it, I was told."
It is, of course, hard to prove negatives, but having spent around a year reporting intensively on the hunt for al Qaeda's leader for my 2012 book "Manhunt: The Ten-Year Search for bin Laden From 9/11 to Abbottabad," I am convinced that there is no evidence that anyone in the Pakistani government, military or intelligence agencies knowingly sheltered bin Laden.
How did I arrive at this conclusion?


On three reporting trips to Pakistan I spoke to senior officials in Pakistan's military and intelligence service. They all denied that they had secretly harbored bin Laden. OK, you are thinking: "But they would say that, wouldn't they?"
Well, what about the dozens of officials I spoke to in the U.S. intelligence community, Pentagon, State Department and the White House who also told me versions of "the Pakistanis had no idea that bin Laden was hiding in Abbottabad"?
During the course of reporting for my book I spoke on the record to, among others, John Brennan, now the CIA director and then President Obama's top counterterrorism adviser; then CIA Director Leon Panetta and his chief of staff, Jeremy Bash; then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton; then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Adm. Mike Mullen; then Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Gen. James Cartwright; then director of the National Counterterrorism Center, Michael Leiter; then senior director for counterterrorism at the National Security Council, Nick Rasmussen; then head of policy at the Pentagon, Michele Flournoy; Michael Vickers, who was then the civilian overseer of Special Operations at the Pentagon; Tony Blinken, who is now the deputy national security adviser; and Denis McDonough, who held that position before Blinken.
These officials have collectively spent many decades working to destroy al Qaeda, and many are deeply suspicious of Pakistan for its continuing support for elements of the Taliban. But all of them told me in one form or another that Pakistani officials had no clue that bin Laden was living in Abbottabad.
Indeed, an early debate between senior national security officials at the White House, once CIA intelligence established that bin Laden could be hiding in Abbottabad, was whether to mount a joint U.S.-Pakistani raid on bin Laden's suspected hideout.
This plan was rejected because the officials were concerned that such a joint operation carried the risk that word would leak out about the bin Laden intelligence. This debate would have been moot if the Pakistanis already knew bin Laden was living in Abbottabad.
And, by the way, if the U.S. government had any evidence that the Pakistanis were knowingly sheltering bin Laden, as Gall claims, why cover this up?

http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/21/opinion/bergen-bin-laden-new-york-times/