Tuesday, August 18, 2015

Is Trump Getting Foreign Policy Advice From Ex Pakistan Ambassador Husain Haqqani?

"Number one, the people negotiating don’t have a clue. Our president doesn’t have a clue. He’s a bad negotiator...We get Bergdahl. We get a traitor. We get a no-good traitor, and they get the five people that they wanted for years, and those people are now back on the battlefield trying to kill us. That’s the negotiator we have...I know the smartest negotiators in the world. I know the good ones. I know the bad ones. I know the overrated ones...But I know the negotiators in the world, and I put them one for each country. Believe me, folks. We will do very, very well, very, very well." Donald Trump, Wall Street Journal, June 16, 2015

Donald Trump

US real estate billionaire and Republication candidate Donald Trump's rhetoric on US negotiators' skills reminds me of similar writings and analyses of the US-Pakistan ties offered by Mr. Husain Haqqani, Ex Pakistani Ambassador in Washington.

“Since 1947,” Haqqani argues in his book "Magnificent Delusion", “dependence, deception, and defiance have characterized US-Pakistan relations. We sought US aid in return for promises we did not keep.....Pakistan and the United States have few shared interests and very different political needs… If $40 billion in US aid has not won Pakistani hearts and minds, billions more will not do the trick… The US-Pakistan alliance is only a mirage.”

Husain Haqqani




If one really analyses Haqqani's 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.

Similar narrative can be found in recent books by other authors. Notable among them are Carlotta Gall (The Wrong Enemy) and TV Paul ( Pakistan: The Warrior State).  Are they giving advice to Donald Trump? They all seem to think that they could do better than the highly sophisticated US policymakers and seasoned diplomats, like Ex US CIA Director and Ex Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who have real experience in such matters.  Here's a quote from Secretary Gates's testimony to a US Senate Committee: "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."

Here is the text of the exchange between Gates and Leahy during the US Senate hearing on Pakistan that began with Leahy asking Gates how long the U.S. will be willing to "support governments that lie to us?"

GATES: 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.

LEAHY: Do they also arrest the people that help us when they say they're allies?

GATES: Sometimes.

LEAHY: Not often.

GATES: And -- and sometimes they send people to spy on us, and they're our close allies. So...

LEAHY: And we give aid to them.

GATES: ... that's the real world that we deal with.

Will Donald Trump win the Republican Primary and then be elected the next President of the United States? Will Trump prove Gall, Haqqani, Paul and others right by being tough on Pakistan, Iran, Mexico, China and other nations? The chances that Gall-Haqqani-Paul narrative will be put to test by Trump appear remote. It may be the best thing to happen to preserve world peace and allow the US and the rest of the world to prosper.


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

55 comments:

Sahil said...

So suddenly the same US administration that apparently does so much wrong to Pakistan is "sophisticated" when it comes to the issue of giving money that has always been mis-utilized? When American spokespersons say that Pakistan is complicit in terror activities, then that means they don't know a thing. But when it comes to the subject of giving billions of dollars to a country and having little to show for it, then they are suddenly right? And who, by the way, will know more about how Pakistan works than Hussain Haqqani does?

Riaz Haq said...

Sahil: "So suddenly the same US administration that apparently does so much wrong to Pakistan is "sophisticated" when it comes to the issue of giving money that has always been mis-utilized? When American spokespersons say that Pakistan is complicit in terror activities, then that means they don't know a thing. But when it comes to the subject of giving billions of dollars to a country and having little to show for it, then they are suddenly right? And who, by the way, will know more about how Pakistan works than Hussain Haqqani does?"

So you think the likes of Husain Haqqani and Donald Trump are more sophisticated in the art of diplomacy and policymaking than all of the US policy establishment from Truman to Obama administrations?

If you think that, then you must also think other nations have taken advantage and continue to take advantage of the naïveté of Uncle Sam, the lone superpower today.

http://www.riazhaq.com/2009/05/godfathers-vito-corleone-metaphor-for.html

Singh said...

why shakil afridi is in jail ? when he was helping an ally of pakistan to reach up to alqayada boss ?

this is called deception , hunting with hound and running with rabit .

but very cheap tactics , always pakistan is caught red handed .

jaisa boya waisa katoge .

you can not have your cake and eat it too.

Riaz Haq said...

Singh: "why shakil afridi is in jail ? when he was helping an ally of pakistan to reach up to alqayada boss ? "

The US CIA and Shakil Afridi are guilty of major crimes against humanity by putting the lives of millions of children at risk.

Here's how a piece by Maryn McKenna published in Wired magazine describes the outrage:

"I felt, and still feel, that the maneuver — which was belatedly acknowledged by the CIA — was a cynical attempt to hijack the credibility that public health workers have built up over decades with local populations. I especially felt it endangered the status of the fraught polio-eradication campaign, which over the past decade has been challenged in majority-Muslim areas in Africa and South Asia over beliefs that polio vaccination is actually a covert campaign to harm Muslim children — an accusation that seems fantastic, but begins to make sense when you realize some of those areas have perfectly good reasons to distrust vaccination campaigns."

http://www.riazhaq.com/2012/05/american-hypocrisy-on-dr-afridis.html

Ravi Krishna said...

are you telling shakil afridi was sentenced 33 yrs for the fake polio vaccination?
if not, how is it relevant?

he was sentenced for treason. can you tell us what was treason in this case.

Sahil said...

By the way, since you are so much in awe of the situational awareness and sophistication of the American government, kindly go through these 3 instances of Wikileaks exposing ISI/Pak Army's involvement in terror activities. The first link references files showing how ISI armed and aided Afghan insurgents in attacking American troops. The second link references Stratfor research for the Americans showing how ISI knew about and arranged for Osama bin Laden's Stay in Pakistan. The third link references Guantanamo Bay authorities who reached the conclusion that ISI is a terrorist organization, based on all the intel they gathered through their interrogations. These are all American reports. As "sophisticated" as they come...

Riaz Haq said...

Sahil: "By the way, since you are so much in awe of the situational awareness and sophistication of the American government, kindly go through these 3 instances of Wikileaks exposing ISI/Pak Army's involvement in terror activities. The first link references files showing how ISI armed and aided Afghan insurgents in attacking American troops. The second link references Stratfor research for the Americans showing how ISI knew about and arranged for Osama bin Laden's Stay in Pakistan. The third link references Guantanamo Bay authorities who reached the conclusion that ISI is a terrorist organization, based on all the intel they gathered through their interrogations. These are all American reports. As "sophisticated" as they come..."

Every major nation's intelligence agency uses covert proxy actions to advance what it sees as its national interests.... CIA does it; Mossad does it; RAW does it; MI6 does it; But it's only described as terrorism when such covert action is used against the West and its allies.

A senior CIA operative and Bin Laden hunter Michael Scheuer has described ISI as any "other intelligence services--like the Australian service or the American service". He should know given his position and interaction with many intelligence agencies.

Sahil said...

Actually, I have read Magnificent Delusions. I quite admire Husain Haqqani, actually. In fact, he had been stating similar things for quite some time. I had been following his speeches at various fora even before the book was published. I do not understand why Pakistanis in general seemed so shocked by what he had to say. Were you not paying heed earlier?

As for your post, it seems you hold this issue quite close to your heart; I don't. So I will not do you the discourtesy of summarily dismissing all your criticism of Haqqani et al. In fact, I have not read the other two books. Having said that, I do have a few preliminary observations on the issue. Please do not treat it in an antagonistic way. It just happens that we disagree on the issue.

As for your preliminary points:

1. Yes, I think Partition was a mistake. The two nation theory died with East Pakistan in 1971. Korea was bifurcated in 1948. North Korea is still around. I don't know of anyone claiming it to be a success.
2. I cannot say whether all of Pakistan has been lying since 1947, but the clear aim of alignment with US was not any common interest apart from Pakistan wishing to counter India and the US wishing to counter the Soviet Union. That is not really a very healthy relationship.
3. I really don't see what Pakistan has delivered in return for American aid. Unless the Americans actually wanted to create one of the most unstable, terrorism proliferating nuclear states, it would be safe to say that any intended goals were not met.
4. I don't think this game is continuing anymore. Of course, ISI/Pak Army is selling the same lies, but I don't think anyone is buying anymore. The evidence is simply too great.
5. While the average Pakistani and the average Indian do not have a particularly high image of each other, I do believe that had it not been for ISI/Pak Army, peace would have been achieved long time ago. Indians really don't care that much about us anymore, and nor would we about them, if our Army would just let us think for ourselves for one day. But without enmity with India, how can the Army maintain its vice-like grip on this country, and demand disproportionate resources while ordinary Pakistanis suffer?

Riaz Haq said...

Sahil: "Actually, I have read Magnificent Delusions. I quite admire Husain Haqqani, actually. In fact, he had been stating similar things for quite some time. I had been following his speeches at various fora even before the book was published. I do not understand why Pakistanis in general seemed so shocked by what he had to say. Were you not paying heed earlier?

As for your post, it seems you hold this issue quite close to your heart; I don't. So I will not do you the discourtesy of summarily dismissing all your criticism of Haqqani et al. In fact, I have not read the other two books. Having said that, I do have a few preliminary observations on the issue. Please do not treat it in an antagonistic way. It just happens that we disagree on the issue"

There's nothing more naive and misguided than buying Haqqani's arguments on face value.

The fact is that the creation of Pakistan has helped people like Haqqani with free higher education (his highest and only advanced degree is MA from Karachi University) and lifted him from poverty to senior diplomatic positions with the privilege of representing his country in Washington. But he remains an ingrate. It;s ironic that he talks about Pakistan's lack of gratitude to US while ignoring his own ingratitude toward Pakistan. HIs fellow Muslims in India are treated much worse than untouchables.

Turning to the "death" of Two-Nation Theory argument, the key question that needs to be answered regarding the events of 1971 is as follows: Did the Awami League in East Pakistan fight to create their own country later named Bangladesh? Or did they shed their blood to re-unify the eastern wing of Pakistan with India?

These questions are answered by French historian Christophe Jaffrelot in his book "A History of Pakistan and its origins".

Jaffrelot cites British-Pakistani history Prof Samuel Martin Burke rejecting the notion that the Two-Nation Theory died in 1971 with Pakistan's split into Pakistan and Bangladesh. Burke says that the two-nation theory was even more strongly asserted in that the Awami League rebels had struggled for their own country, Bangladesh, and not to join India. In so doing, they had put into practice the theory behind the original resolution to form Pakistan, which envisaged two Muslim states at the two extremities of the subcontinent.

Riaz Haq said...

RK: "he was sentenced for treason. can you tell us what was treason in this case"

Do you know what Americans do to people spying for foreign nation, including their close allies like Israel?
Have you heard the case of an American Jonathan Pollard working for Israel?

laser said...

Mr. Haq, you being a prominent expat, what are you guys doing to nullify the poison this traitor haqqani is spewing?.... By being a man of position among expat community is'nt it your duty to do something?...

Riaz Haq said...

laser: "what are you guys doing to nullify the poison this traitor haqqani is spewing?."

My blog is my platform to challenge Haqqani's assertions. Here are some of the posts I have done in this regard:

http://www.riazhaq.com/2014/04/challenging-gall-haqqani-paul-narrative.html

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

http://www.riazhaq.com/2015/04/pakistan-china-experts-husain-haqqani.html

http://www.riazhaq.com/2015/08/is-trump-getting-foreign-policy-advice.html

http://www.riazhaq.com/2011/11/blackberry-transcripts-sealed-haqqanis.html


Sahil said...

There is a difference between covert action and being a proxy. We have rented ourselves out to the US twice, once to fight the Soviets, and the second time to fight the Taliban created to fight the Soviet. In other words, Sir, we are not serious players on the world stage. If not for our harm potential as a failed nuclear state, we would be a bad joke.

Also, we are not engaged in covert actions on a limited scale like responsible countries. Supporting terrorism in Kashmir, supporting the Khalistan movement, siding with the Taliban openly for so long, harbouring bin Laden, providing shelter to Dawood Ibrahim, engineering Mumbai attack, engineering the prior Indian Parliament attack, attacking installations in Kabul such as American and Indian embassies and other local institutions on a regular basis, running fake currency rackets through Nepal, poisoning our own population by trading in heroine, trading in WMDs with North Korea........

Sir, the list of our misdeeds has grown too long. I cannot possibly list even 1% of what the military-intelligence complex of Pakistan has done to this country and the world.

Riaz Haq said...

Sahil: "There is a difference between covert action and being a proxy. We have rented ourselves out to the US twice, once to fight the Soviets, and the second time to fight the Taliban created to fight the Soviet. In other words, Sir, we are not serious players on the world stage. If not for our harm potential as a failed nuclear state, we would be a bad joke"

Rented ourselves?

Did US NATO allies rent themselves when they went to war against Communists in all parts of the world? Vietnam? Korea? etc.

Is Indian support for Baloch insurgents not terrorism but Pakistan support of Kashmir insurgents is terrorism?

And the countries like UK, Switzerland and Afghanistan that host Baloch insurgents are not harboring terrorists who kill and main innocent citizens in Pakistan?

And Mr. Haqqani deserved the opportunity to take advantage of free education in Pakistan, including higher education but owes no gratitude to the people who paid for it?

You and your hero remind me of Iqbal's lines:

Jaafar az Bengal Sadiq az Dakkan/ Nang e Millat nange e deen nanage watan.

Ramesh said...

"Is Indian support for Baloch insurgents not terrorism but Pakistan support of Kashmir insurgents is terrorism? "

I will wait for the day when CNN/BBC start showing programs about Indian interference in Balochistan.

Riaz Haq said...

Ramesh: " I will wait for the day when CNN/BBC start showing programs about Indian interference in Balochistan. "

So anything not reported by CNN and BBC is not news?

What about US EX Defense Sec Chuck Hagel who said "India has always used Afghanistan as second front against Pakistan... India has over the years been financing problems in Pakistan?


http://www.riazhaq.com/2014/12/has-modi-stepped-up-indias-covert-war.html

Ramesh said...

US also said "Iraq has WMD". I am sure you believed that 100%.

Riaz Haq said...

Ramesh: "US also said "Iraq has WMD". I am sure you believed that 100%. "

It was also reported on your favorite and highly credible CNN/BBC and you still don't believe it??? Why????

Unknown said...

Mr Haq has absolutely valid points..Baluchistan is termed an insurgency but the inusrgents are provided safe habor elsewhere openly? India has always been financing terror in Pak but their outcry over Pak this Pak that and blame game is just a diversion to cloak their activities

U Mughal said...

Mr Haq has absolutely valid points..Baluchistan is termed an insurgency but the inusrgents are provided safe habor elsewhere openly? India has always been financing terror in Pak but their outcry over Pak this Pak that and blame game is just a diversion to cloak their activities

Riaz Haq said...

Involve #India if #Pakistan becomes 'unstable': Donald #Trump http://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/involve-india-if-pakistan-becomes-unstable-republican-presidential-candidate-donald-trump/article1-1392419.aspx … via @htTweets

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has said India will have to be roped in by the US to deal with the fallout of Pakistan becoming “unstable” in the future.

“You have to get India involved. India’s the check to Pakistan,” Trump said during his appearance on the radio talk show hosted by Hugh Hewitt on Monday.

Hewitt had asked the businessman what he would do if Pakistan, which the radio show host described as “the most dangerous country in the world other than Iran”, became “unstable”, The Hill blog reported.

Asked by Hewitt if he would send US troops to neutralise Pakistan’s nuclear capability should the country go rogue, Trump said he wouldn’t reveal his military plans to a potential rival.

“People can’t know exactly what your intentions are,” Trump said. “You want to have...a little bit of guess work for the enemy.

“This has nothing to do with lack of knowledge, because I think I know as much about Pakistan as most other people...But I will tell you, I don’t want to broadcast my intentions.

“I want to be unpredictable with this,” Trump said. “I don’t want to be like (President Barack) Obama, where he’s always saying you know, we’re going to do this in two weeks and then we’re going to do that.”

Trump, however, said North Korea was a more immediate threat than Pakistan because it was already “a rogue group with nukes”.

“I said (during the second Republican debate) we’re talking so much about Iran, and they don’t have nukes at this moment,” Trump said. “You have a madman over in North Korea who actually has nukes and he says he’s going to use them.”

Riaz Haq said...

Ben Carson, the Islamophobe, an unworthy beneficiary of the affirmative action and race-based quotas. #Islamophobia http://michronicleonline.com/2015/09/22/the-folly-of-ben-carson/ …

...And let’s not forget the affirmative action policy at the university that took in to consideration his race, socio-economic status and other factors in determining his admittance....


Two decades later, the Ben Carson running for President of the United States is hardly recognizable from the one who so sat next to me on the panel at WSU and so eloquently spoke of the need to support and nurture the potential of poor and minority youths. Nor do we hear the words of the man who so eloquently praised the work and sacrifice of civil rights icons such as Rosa Parks, Thurgood Marshall, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and even lesser well known black pioneers in science and invention.
On a national stage today, when the country badly needs to hear the inspiring and affirmative words of a man who managed to successfully navigate the traps of a harsh and often unforgiving ghetto, reinforced by institutional and structural racism personified in bad schools, red lining, an absence of work and neighborhood and police violence, all we hear from Carson is the self-righteous carping of a politician who claims he has the gravitas to lead the world, but comes across as someone with an embarrassingly superficial understanding of public policy and who is submerged in the politics of complaint and the art of victim blaming.
Indeed, it was only three weeks ago when he had the audacity to go to Ferguson, Missouri and tell an audience of beleaguered black residents looking for words of hope and inspiration, that racism was not a problem in their region and that Michael Brown; the 17-year-old unarmed black youth killed by a white police officer after a confrontation over him walking in the street, was a “bad actor.” And for good measure he called the grassroots police reform effort “Black Lives Matters,” “bullies” and “sickening.”
He has attacked President Obama’s Affordable Care Act, which has provided healthcare to more than 16 million previously uninsured Americans; most of them poor, many minorities, as “the worst thing that has happened in this nation since slavery.”

Riaz Haq said...

From Express Tribune:

Whatever Mr Haqqani’s critics say, he’s not trying for the Padma Bhushan. Turning chameleon again, the gentleman switched from Krishna Menon to John Bolton last April: “[…] American weapons will end up being used to fight or menace India and perceived domestic enemies,” Mr Haqqani wrote for the WSJ, “instead of being deployed against jihadists.” The op-ed was titled, “Why Are We Sending This Attack Helicopter to Pakistan?”

To which Pakistan may have asked, who’s ‘we’? Of late, Pakistan’s former ambassador to the US has become the US’s ambassador to Pakistan — if that ambassador were a nagging neocon with an axe to grind.

But to understand Brand HH and why he’s giving the republic a kicking, we need to go back. From day one, Mr Haqqani has been Team Charhta Suraj: a hired hand for the biggest boys on the playground. At KU, those were quite literally the Jamiat.

Outside campus “I also developed a personal bond with [General Zia],” wrote Mr Haqqani. “General Zia was staunchly pro-Western, but had an Islamic vision of sorts that could be captivating. He saw himself as God’s instrument in getting rid of the communists in Afghanistan, which (he correctly foresaw) would mark the disintegration of the Soviet Union.” This paper’s Aakar Patel even suspected HH ghostwrote Mr Sharif’s tribute to General Zia in Shaheed-ul-Islam. Having lent himself to both general and Jamiat, it only followed that Mr Haqqani would fall in love with Nawaz Sharif and the IJI.

But that’s when the mud starts piling up. As the late, great Cowasjee sahib put it, “During Nawaz-I and Benazir-II the most prominent weaver [of lies] and damage-doer was Husain Haqqani.”

----
As to why belief in democracy was contrary to mocking Asif Ali Zardari, the chairman didn’t say. Nor did his predecessor: Shaheed Mohtarma took Mr Haqqani back in, a liberal reborn.

Enter Squealer 4.0: like a football forward constantly trading up teams, Mr Haqqani hit the jackpot —Ambassadorship in 2008, courtesy President Zardari’s sense of humour. Embraced by America’s red-meat right, The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg saluted the ambassador with a straight face: “A one-time Islamist turned pro-democracy Americaphile.”

---
Yet it was too good to last. Like a fortune teller, Cowasjee had diagnosed the delusion in ’99: “[Haqqani] considers himself capable, with the necessary help, of climbing up the greasy pole and leading the 140 millions to glory.”

After the Osama raid, the ambassador overshot; he may have thought the ‘necessary help’ would be American intervention, that it would fix the civ-mil imbalance (if with a new imbalance in favour of American civilians). Reads the memo to Mike Mullen, “Should you be willing to do so, Washington’s political/military backing would result in a revamp of the civilian government that … replaces … national security officials with trusted advisers … favourably viewed by Washington.”

His Excellency denies involvement.

Mr Haqqani now occupies that rarest of spaces in American public life: an exile with an agenda. Other worthies include Iraq’s Chalabi and Iran’s Pahlavi Junior — gents the Department of Defence blows hot and cold on, given the season.

But like all spin gurus, the man’s solutions aren’t solid: they range from the West putting Islamabad in its place, to Pakistan preferably castrating itself first. A recent book, Magnificent Delusions, is a study in our ingratitude (even the front cover is a Stars-and-Stripes bonfire).

The trouble is, Husain Haqqani isn’t representative of Pakistan; he’s not even representative of Husain Haqqani five years ago. Pakistan too has moved on: the war has been taken to the militants, at tremendous risk. Confidence is up and terror is low, but it’s a long road ahead. It’s time HH move on as well, if in the direction of the next rising sun (the Chinese Communist Party, perhaps?).



http://tribune.com.pk/story/963896/the-magnificent-delusions-of-husain-haqqani/

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...

#Obama welcoming #NawazSharif angers Husain Haqqani. "U.S. policies aggravate #Pakistan's dysfunction"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/husain-haqqani/us-policies-aggravate-pak_b_8350112.html … @theworldpost

By inviting Pakistan's Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif to the White House, President Obama may only have wanted to signal America's continued interest in the nuclear-armed country. But in Pakistan it reignited the belief that Uncle Sam simply cannot manage the world without Pakistan's help.

For years, Pakistan's policies have coincided with those of the U.S. only nominally. Pakistan's support for the Taliban in Afghanistan is the main reason Mr. Obama had to reverse his decision of pulling out troops from that country. Pakistan's development of battlefield nuclear weapons also runs contrary to U.S. plans for reducing nuclear proliferation. Diplomatic statements notwithstanding, the two sides have very different priorities.

Even after feting Pakistan's democratically-elected leader, it is unlikely that Mr. Obama's problems in Afghanistan or with Pakistan will end anytime soon. Although he continues to retain popularity at home, according to recent polls, Mr. Sharif has little control over foreign policy. Pakistan's powerful military, currently headed by General Raheel Sharif (no relation to the Prime Minister) persists with its obsessive competition with neighboring India, which in turn shapes Pakistan's worldview.

-----


The military and intelligence services that dominate Pakistani national security decision-making have sacrificed their country's progress and prosperity in their relentless pursuit of military parity with India. Forcing New Delhi's hand on Kashmir has become more important than educating Pakistan's children.

American readiness to offer aid has bred dependence and hubris. The US has ended up as an enabler of Pakistan's dysfunction by reinforcing the belief of its elite that it is too important to fail or be neglected.

The intermittent cycles of optimism and pessimism about Pakistan have led to confusion in Mr. Obama's Afghan policy. It is time to finally accept Pakistan's lack of cooperation in Afghanistan as a given while making plans for that country. The US would help Afghanistan, and even Pakistan's people, more by insisting consistently that Islamabad correct its course. Instead of telling Pakistan's elite how important they are, it might be more useful to stop footing the bill for Pakistan's failings.

Riaz Haq said...

#Indian-American #Hindu group backs #donaldtrumpforpresident #Trump2016 #India #Islamophobia

http://www.thestatesman.com/mobi/news/world/indian-american-group-backs-donald-trump/119538.html …

Calling Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump as the "best hope for America", some Indian-Americans in the New York Tristate area have formed a Political Action Committee (PAC) to support and raise funds for him.

Headed by Dr. A.D. Amar, a business professor with Seton Hall University in New Jersey, the 'Indian-Americans for Trump 2016' was registered as a PAC with the Federal Election Commission last week.

Its sole goal is "to garner actively the support of all Americans, but particularly Indian-Americans, to have Donald J. Trump become the next President of the USA," the PAC said in a press release.

"On realizing that the agenda of Donald J Trump for President 2016 is focused on reviving the American economy, rightly bringing America on the world stage, defeating terrorism and establishing peace through strength; many Indian-Americans believe that he is the best hope for America and the right candidate to be the next president of the United States," the PAC said in a statement.

The real estate billionaire has vowed not to take money from individuals or special interest groups, or seek support from PACs. There was no comment from the Trump campaign.

Anand Ahuja, an attorney based in New York, and Devendra "Dave" Makkar, a businessman in New Jersey, have been "elected" vice president and treasurer respectively.

Dr. Sudhir Parikh, publisher of some community news publications in New Jersey, has been named chair of fundraising and advisory committee of Indian-Americans for Trump 2016.

"This is only the first step. We are on the side of Trump for this election," Amar said, citing Trump's policies on illegal immigration and economy in particular as the main reasons for his group to support the Republican contendcer.

Meanwhile, South Carolina's Indian-American Governor Nikki Haley asked protestors and supporters of Trump to stay "civil and respectful" as she made a pitch Wednesday for expanding the party's base.

"I think what Mr. Trump is doing is continuing to push through this candidacy. I think he's continuing to move forward. All we ask is that everybody stay civil and respectful in the way they do that," she was quoted as saying at a press conference by State newspaper.

Asked would having Trump or Texas Senator Ted Cruz as the Repulican presidential nominee hurt efforts to woo young, women and minority voters, Haley called for expanding the party's base.

"My goal was coming off after the last election with Mitt Romney (in 2012) was to make sure that I did everything I could to open that umbrella - to make sure we opened it up to Indian-Americans, Jewish-Americans, to make sure Hispanics and women felt a part of the Republican party," the governor said.

"What I did with the address was very much start that conversation, which is we need to grow our umbrella. We don't have room to close it," said Haley, who gave the Republian response to President Barack Obama's State of the Union address earlier this month.

"But what I want Republican specifically to do is to remember that we want to grow that tent out. There's a group of Republicans like me, who have seen that we have a great slate of minorities that are in elected office."

Haley, who has not endorsed a 2016 candidate, would not say if she expects Trump to become more civil if he becomes the party's nominee.

"We'll find out," she said.


Riaz Haq said...

Donald #Trump for President, in #America or in #India. #Trump2016 via @htTweets http://www.hindustantimes.com/columns/donald-trump-for-president-in-ameria-or-in-india/story-1BaQto9H1DGVHYy0w0NfaM.html …

‘If the US doesn’t elect Trump, he should come to India and become our president,’ said a local bigot. He predicted, ‘With his fantastic ability to flaunt his prejudices, his narrow-mindedness, his contempt for minorities, his jingoism, his wealth and his hair, he’ll be a great inspiration for many of our political leaders.’

Riaz Haq said...

Excerpts: Stop Writing Pakistan Blank Checks by Daniel Markey:


Mending U.S. assistance to Pakistan requires a more sophisticated and comprehensive approach for precisely the reasons that Corker notes: The countries continue to share both overlapping and diverging interests with this nuclear-armed nation of nearly 200 million people. Washington should keep the following points in mind as it reconsiders assistance to Pakistan.

First, Washington should be careful not to overestimate the leverage generated by U.S. assistance. It has learned this lesson through its long experience in Pakistan. Despite tens of billions of dollars in aid since 9/11, Islamabad still does not see the world through the United States’ preferred strategic prism — whether in Afghanistan, India, or on the issue of nuclear proliferation. Then again, history also shows that U.S. sanctions on Pakistan throughout the 1990s failed to curtail Pakistan’s nuclear ambitions, the political dominance of its military, or the state’s support to terrorist groups like the Taliban and Lashkar-e-Taiba that have engulfed the region in violence. Aid is no panacea. Neither are sanctions.

Second, U.S. assistance is never delivered in a vacuum; its political effects must be assessed in a broader context. For instance, U.S. lawmakers should not be surprised that billions of dollars in development assistance over the past decade failed to win Pakistani “hearts and minds,” when the arrival of that money coincided with a massive surge in violence at least partly caused by the U.S. war in neighboring Afghanistan.

Similarly, Sen. Corker’s threat to hold up FMF until Pakistan turns against the Haqqani network is only the latest wrinkle in the long, complicated saga of the U.S. war in Afghanistan and its associated dealings with Pakistan. Unfortunately, that saga is full of mixed messages being sent from Washington to Islamabad. Right now, U.S. officials are not simply using assistance as coercive leverage to force Pakistan to fight the Haqqanis; they are also asking for Pakistan’s help to facilitate a “reconciliation dialogue” with all factions of the Afghan insurgency (including the Haqqanis). These mixed messages come at a time of deep Pakistani doubts about the future of America’s commitment to Afghanistan’s struggling government and security forces. Under such circumstances, Pakistan’s decisions about how to manage relations with the Haqqanis will surely be influenced by many factors beyond U.S. aid.

Third, Pakistan is a high-stakes game for the United States. Washington should steer clear of risky policy moves — including threats to curtail assistance and reimbursements — unless they hold the realistic promise of significant gains. Washington must appreciate that fixing today’s patently broken aid strategy is a tricky business, and that some “solutions” could make the problem even worse. This is not an unqualified argument against cutting Pakistan’s aid, but only for thinking carefully and acting with purpose.

Many academics and pundits have correctly pointed out failings in U.S. assistance to Pakistan. Most damningly, they argue that U.S. aid is often worse than ineffective; it is positively counterproductive. These critics have a ...


http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/02/18/pakistan-corker-military-aid-blank-checks-corruption-terrorism/

Riaz Haq said...

Excerpts: Stop Writing Pakistan Blank Checks by Daniel Markey:


Mending U.S. assistance to Pakistan requires a more sophisticated and comprehensive approach for precisely the reasons that Corker notes: The countries continue to share both overlapping and diverging interests with this nuclear-armed nation of nearly 200 million people. Washington should keep the following points in mind as it reconsiders assistance to Pakistan.

First, Washington should be careful not to overestimate the leverage generated by U.S. assistance. It has learned this lesson through its long experience in Pakistan. Despite tens of billions of dollars in aid since 9/11, Islamabad still does not see the world through the United States’ preferred strategic prism — whether in Afghanistan, India, or on the issue of nuclear proliferation. Then again, history also shows that U.S. sanctions on Pakistan throughout the 1990s failed to curtail Pakistan’s nuclear ambitions, the political dominance of its military, or the state’s support to terrorist groups like the Taliban and Lashkar-e-Taiba that have engulfed the region in violence. Aid is no panacea. Neither are sanctions.

Second, U.S. assistance is never delivered in a vacuum; its political effects must be assessed in a broader context. For instance, U.S. lawmakers should not be surprised that billions of dollars in development assistance over the past decade failed to win Pakistani “hearts and minds,” when the arrival of that money coincided with a massive surge in violence at least partly caused by the U.S. war in neighboring Afghanistan.

Similarly, Sen. Corker’s threat to hold up FMF until Pakistan turns against the Haqqani network is only the latest wrinkle in the long, complicated saga of the U.S. war in Afghanistan and its associated dealings with Pakistan. Unfortunately, that saga is full of mixed messages being sent from Washington to Islamabad. Right now, U.S. officials are not simply using assistance as coercive leverage to force Pakistan to fight the Haqqanis; they are also asking for Pakistan’s help to facilitate a “reconciliation dialogue” with all factions of the Afghan insurgency (including the Haqqanis). These mixed messages come at a time of deep Pakistani doubts about the future of America’s commitment to Afghanistan’s struggling government and security forces. Under such circumstances, Pakistan’s decisions about how to manage relations with the Haqqanis will surely be influenced by many factors beyond U.S. aid.

Third, Pakistan is a high-stakes game for the United States. Washington should steer clear of risky policy moves — including threats to curtail assistance and reimbursements — unless they hold the realistic promise of significant gains. Washington must appreciate that fixing today’s patently broken aid strategy is a tricky business, and that some “solutions” could make the problem even worse. This is not an unqualified argument against cutting Pakistan’s aid, but only for thinking carefully and acting with purpose.

Many academics and pundits have correctly pointed out failings in U.S. assistance to Pakistan. Most damningly, they argue that U.S. aid is often worse than ineffective; it is positively counterproductive. These critics have a ...


http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/02/18/pakistan-corker-military-aid-blank-checks-corruption-terrorism/

Riaz Haq said...

#Trump's polices aren't anathema to #America's mainstream but uncomfortable reflection of it. #racism http://interc.pt/1QXHkye by @ggreenwald

In some instances, their claim is plausible: There is at least genuine embarrassment if not revulsion even among America’s political class over Trump’s proposed mass deportation of 11 million human beings, banning of all Muslims from entering the country, and new laws to enable him to more easily sue (and thus destroy) media outlets that “falsely” criticize him. And his signature personality brew of deep-seated insecurities, vindictive narcissism, channeling of the darkest impulses, and gaudy, petty boasting is indeed uniquely grotesque.

But in many cases, probably most, the flamboyant denunciations of Trump by establishment figures make no sense except as self-aggrandizing pretense, because those condemning him have long tolerated if not outright advocated very similar ideas, albeit with less rhetorical candor. Trump is self-evidently a toxic authoritarian demagogue advocating morally monstrous positions, but in most cases where elite outrage is being vented, he is merely a natural extension of the mainstream rhetorical and policy framework that has been laid, not some radical departure from it. He’s their id. What establishment mavens most resent is not what Trump is, does, or says, but what he reflects: the unmistakable, undeniable signs of late-stage imperial collapse, along with the resentments and hatreds they have long deliberately and self-servingly stoked but which are now raging out of their control.

Two of the most recent, widely discussed anti-Trump outrage rituals — one from Wednesday and the other from last night’s Fox News debate — demonstrate the sham at the heart of the establishment display of horror. This week, American political and media figures from across the spectrum stood and applauded a tawdry cast of neocons and other assorted warmongers who are responsible for grave war crimes, torture, kidnappings, due process-free indefinite imprisonment, and the worst political crime of this generation: the attack on and destruction of Iraq.

These five dozen or so extremists (calling themselves “members of the Republican national security community”) were the toast of the town because they published an “open letter” denouncing Trump on the ground that his “own statements lead us to conclude that as president, he would use the authority of his office to act in ways that make America less safe, and which would diminish our standing in the world.” This was one of their examples:

His embrace of the expansive use of torture is inexcusable.

Most decent human beings, by definition, would express this sentiment without including the qualifying word “expansive.” Even Ronald Reagan, whom virtually all the signatories claim to idolize, advocated for and signed a treaty in 1988 that stated that “no exceptional circumstances whatsoever … may be invoked as a justification of torture” and that “each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offenses under its criminal law.” The taboo is on “all acts of torture,” not its “expansive use” — whatever that means.

But the group signing this anti-Trump letter can’t pretend to find an embrace of torture itself to be “inexcusable” because most of them implemented torture policies while in government or vocally advocated for them. So instead, they invoke the Goldilocks Theory of Torture: We believe in torture up to exactly the right point, while Trump is disgraceful because he wants to go beyond that; he believes in “the expansive use of torture.” The same dynamic drove yesterday’s widely cheered speech by Mitt Romney, where the two-time failed GOP candidate denounced Trump for advocating torture while literally ignoring his own clear pro-torture viewpoints.

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...

Much has already been said about former Pakistani ambassador to the United States Husain Haqqani’s return to the public sphere after being accused of requesting an American intervention in Pakistani politics. The crux of Haqqani’s argument—to be developed in a forthcoming book on U.S.-Pakistan relations, Magnificent Delusions—is that the United States and Pakistan willfully mislead themselves about what their alliance means, leading to cycles of engagement and disenchantment. These cycles have had serious consequences, including feelings of distrust and betrayal, uncooperative behavior, and acts of violence. Haqqani called for a looser relationship—in his terms, a friendship, not a marriage—to break the cycle and enable the two states to cooperate more effectively in areas of common interest.

In some respects, this is not a revolutionary opinion. Pakistani distaste for America’s involvement is well-known, from the neatly-painted signs at Jamaat-e-Islami protests to the widespread nationalist grievance that followed the raid that killed Osama bin Laden. Polls suggest that about three quarters of Pakistanis see America as an enemy. American distaste for Pakistan is just as deep. For many Americans, for instance, the mention of Pakistan conjures of images of a flag-burning mob, while among the foreign policy elite it is not rare to hear that Pakistan’s nuclear weapons are a more serious danger to America than any that Iran might acquire. The cover of The Atlantic branded Islamabad “The Ally From Hell;” nobody in Haqqani’s audience at the Center for the National Interest last month moved when he asked for a show of hands from those who thought the U.S. should have told the ISI before going after bin Laden.

What is revolutionary is that the call for 'divorce' is now coming from a man who spent three and a half years trying to keep the marriage together, for in spite of all the criticism of Washington and Islamabad’s dysfunctional relationship, few are willing to live with the risks of separation. Many American security officials have grave concerns about the security of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons. A close relationship with Pakistan, they reason, allows the U.S. to press for stronger safeguards and, in the event of a radical coup or other crisis, gives Washington more ways to keep the bombs out of the most dangerous hands. The United States has reportedly provided guidance on securing nuclear facilities and creating stringent launch procedures, even though Pakistan has understandably kept Americans away from the physical facilities. American efforts to deepen this cooperation have been rebuffed, but officials have expressed satisfaction with the general safety of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons, and Islamabad is believed to keep its weapons systems partially disassembled, a lower state of readiness than America’s own. However, worries abound that in a nuclear crisis with India, Pakistan’s nuclear forces would disperse from their secured bases to ensure some would survive an Indian strike, and, according to some reports, Pakistan moves some warheads in unmarked vans even in peacetime. Enterprising extremists could seize some of these wandering weapons.

Haqqani argued that America’s worries about Pakistan’s bombs are not realistic and thus do not justify the alliance. After all, he noted, America did not provide assistance in securing the nuclear weapons of its rivals during the tensions of the Cold War, yet the weapons were not accidentally launched or seized by terrorists. Haqqani has a valid point. With or without American involvement, Pakistan’s government has a vital interest in the security of its nuclear weapons. Nuclear irresponsibility could have grave consequences for Pakistan’s international relations, and would increase the risk of accidental war. Pakistan’s leaders would be insane not to take steps to secure their bombs and clarify the chain of command.


http://thediplomat.com/2012/09/should-the-u-s-and-pakistan-get-divorced/

Riaz Haq said...

#Obama pursued transformation as #Republicans chose self-destruction. #racism #Islamophobia #birther #GOP #ObamaCare http://wpo.st/Pv-T1

In an interview during the 2008 campaign, Barack Obama said that Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of the United States in a way that Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton did not. Clearly, Obama aspired to be a transformational president, like Reagan. At this point, it’s fair to say that he has succeeded. Look at what’s happened during his tenure to the country, his party and, most tellingly, his opposition.

The first line in Obama’s biography will have to do with who he is, the first African American president. But what he has done is also significant. In the wake of the financial collapse in 2008, Obama worked with the outgoing George W. Bush administration, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and members of both parties in Congress to respond forcefully on all fronts — fiscal, monetary, regulatory. The result is that the United States came out of the Great Recession in better shape than any other major economy.

Obama’s signal accomplishment is health care, where he was able to enact a law that has resulted in 90 percent of Americans having health insurance. Although the law has its problems, it achieves a goal first articulated by Theodore Roosevelt 100 years ago.

Then, there is the transformation of U.S. energy policy. The administration has made investments and given incentives to place the United States at the forefront of the emerging energy revolution. Just one example: Over Obama’s terms , solar costs have plummeted by 70 percent and solar generation is up 3,000 percent.

Finally, Obama has pursued a new foreign policy, informed by the lessons of the past two decades, that limits U.S. involvement in establishing political order in the Middle East, focusing instead on counterterrorism. This has freed the administration to pursue new approaches with countries such as Iran and Cuba and to direct attention and resources to the Asia-Pacific region, which in just a few years will be home to four of the world’s five largest economies.

Just as Reagan solidified the ideological position of the Republican Party — around free markets, free trade, an expansive foreign policy and an optimistic outlook — Obama has helped push the Democratic Party to be more willing to use government to achieve public purposes. And his party has responded.

Riaz Haq said...

#Trump: 'I'd Try and Keep' #US #Aid flowing to #Pakistan - 'It's Not That Much' - Breitbart

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016/04/27/trump-id-try-and-keep-foreign-aid-to-pakistan-its-not-that-much/

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump said that he would “try and keep” the “not that much” amount of foreign aid the United States gives to Pakistan and with regards to humanitarian aid he “would try so hard to keep some of these countries going” but that the United States is “a debtor nation” on Wednesday’s “On the Record” on the Fox News Channel.

When asked about what he would do with foreign aid to a country like Pakistan said that, “[T]he problem with Pakistan — I mean, they have nuclear weapons, and — which is a real problem. Again, the single biggest problem, we have nuclear weapons. … But it’s semi-unstable and we don’t want to see total instability. And it’s not that much, relatively speaking. And we have a little bit of a good relationship. And I think I’d try and keep it, and that’s very much against my grain to say that, but, a country — and that’s always the country I think, if we give them money, we help them out, but if we don’t, I think that would go on the other side of the ledger, and that could really be a disaster. At the same time, if you look at India and some of the others, maybe they will be helping us out, because we’re going to look at it, but we have many, many countries that we give a lot of money to, and we get absolutely nothing in return. And that’s going to stop fast.”

When asked if he “would cut would you cut out giving some of this humanitarian aid to these countries that are hurting?” Trump answered, “I would try so hard to keep some of these countries going, but Greta, we are a debtor nation. We are sitting on a bubble like you wouldn’t believe. We owe $19 trillion.”

Riaz Haq said...

#Pakistan raps #Trump over vow to free doctor who helped track #BinLaden http://reut.rs/1TGa3FJ via @Reuters

Pakistan angrily criticized Donald Trump, frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination, for saying he would force the country to free a jailed Pakistani doctor believed to have helped the CIA hunt down al Qaada leader Osama bin Laden.

Trump, a 69-year-old billionaire real estate developer, told Fox News on Friday that, if elected, he would get Pakistan to free Shakil Afridi "in two minutes", saying that Islamabad receives a lot of development aid from the United States.

"Contrary to Mr. Trump's misconception, Pakistan is not a colony of the United States of America," Pakistani Interior Minister Cheudhry Nisar said in a statement on Monday.

The statement said Afridi's fate would be decided "by the Pakistani courts and the government of Pakistan and not by Mr. Donald Trump, even if he becomes the president of the United States".

The statement came on the fifth anniversary of the killing of bin Laden - architect of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on U.S. cities - during a secret raid in the Pakistani town of Abbottabad that damaged relations between the strategic allies.

Washington views Afridi as a hero but Pakistan sentenced him in 2012 to 33 years in jail on charges of belonging to militant group Lashkar-e-Islam, which he denies. That sentence was overturned and Afridi is now awaiting trial on another charge.

Trump has alarmed U.S. allies with his combative rhetoric and his calls for an "America First" agenda that many see as a threat to retreat from the world.

In his comments about Pakistan and Afridi for Fox News, Trump said: "I would tell them let (him) out and I'm sure they would let (him) out. Because we give a lot of aid to Pakistan."

Afridi has also been accused in Pakistan of running a fake vaccination campaign in which he purportedly collected DNA samples to help the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) track down bin Laden. He has not been charged over those allegations.

After his original conviction was overturned, he was charged in 2013 with murder relating to the death of a patient eight years earlier. He remains in jail.

In the Fox interview Trump also said he supported leaving the roughly 10,000 U.S. troops still based in Afghanistan instead of withdrawing them by the end of 2017.

"I would stay in Afghanistan," he said. "It's probably the one place we should have gone in the Middle East because it's adjacent and right next to Pakistan which has nuclear weapons."

The United States led the military invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 to oust the Taliban for sheltering bin Laden and other al Qaeda leaders following the Sept. 11 attacks.

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...

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...

On Hussain Haqqani by Haider Mehdi.
My considered view is that HH was turned by the Indians in the early 80's, when he was in Hong Kong as a rabid Islamist, writing for the now defunct, Far Eastern Economic Review.
And this is where his journey started, to embed himself as an Indian mole, in Pakistan's governance structures.
And because of his radical Islamist views, he also caught Gen. Zia's fancy, the then Pakistani military dictator, who himself was a dyed in the wool, radical fundamentalist.
I don't have any evidence to substantiate my hypothesis, except Haqqani's subsequent actions, behaviors and career moves.
Incredibly, he's changed more political ideologies than a kid's diapers, to suit his masters, both Indian and Pakistani, and the needs of the times.
From a rabid Islamist Taliban like activist, to a right wing democrat, to a supporter of military intervention, to left wing secularist, he's been to pretty much every base!
Working for the enemy is not uncommon. Personal and political biases, political philosophy, ego, greed, power, privilege, position, money, anger, bitterness, all contribute in creating a Kim Philby, the British MI6 mole embedded by the Russians, or a Gunter Guillaume, the East German spy, working as West German Chancellor Willy Brandt's assistant, or our very own Hussain Haqqani.
Here's why I think HH is or was an Indian mole.
1. He has known anti Pakistan views which he has held for a long time. Believes that partition was a very bad idea, and also holds very uncharitable views about the Quaid.
2. He managed to wrangle himself into both the PMLN and PPP governments. And willing to work in any role which gave him access and proximity, to power centers.
He was Ambassador to Sri Lanka under Nawaz. Secretary Information under BB. Then, Chairman, House Building Finance Corporation (imagine HBFC) again under her.
He desperately tried to join Gen. Musharraf's government. Offered his unconditional services to do "anything". Wanted to become Musharraf's media advisor. I know this from several horses.
And remember, this offer to Gen. Musharraf, from a man, who now presents himself to the world as the great upholder of democracy in Pakistan and virulently against military intervention.
Finally, he becomes the Pakistani Ambassador to the USA, under Asif Zardari, where he probably caused the most damage.
If his Memogate ploy had been successful, he was well on his way to National Security advisor with the ISI under him. God knows what the Army would have done to him. But that's another story. And then it was a short walk to either Interior or Defence Minister, and finally the ultimate prize. PM of Pakistan.
An Indian mole as a Pakistani PM!
He is unbelievably brilliant and masterfully cunning. Smooth as a snake and vicious as a viper. Can mesmerize anyone with his Lukhnawi charm, destroy you with his devastating intellect and make Lucifer look like Gabriel, especially in his writings.
Now that he stands exposed, at least to most Pakistanis, he now presents himself to the West, as their poster boy of democracy and anti militarism.
He has perhaps been one of the biggest factors in arming the anti Pakistan and pro Indian lobbies in the US, with information and evidence acquired through the very sensitive positions he occupied in the "service" of Pakistan.
He now works for the Hudson Institute, in Washington D.C. a known pro Israeli and pro Indian think tank, and makes himself relevant by espousing anti Pakistan narratives, cunningly presented as liberal and anti militarism views.
They liberally fund his research and his books and writings. In addition, he is actively supported and indirectly funded by staunchly anti-Pakistani and pro-Indian lobbies in the USA. And he gets himself invited or is invited to major anti Pakistan forums such as the one pictured below.

https://www.facebook.com/haider.mehdi/posts/10155205624904838?comment_id=10155213730099838&notif_t=comment_mention&notif_id=1474692146731976

Riaz Haq said...

As ambassador, Mr. Husain Haqqani behaved like "One Man Think Tank" who was "eager to share his own views, which often dovetailed American criticisms of Pakistan’s military".

American officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they did not want to be seen as meddling in Pakistan’s internal affairs, said they hoped Ms. Rehman’s range of contacts within Pakistan’s military and its government and among rights groups could potentially make her a more effective interlocutor than her predecessor, who was very much seen as Mr. Zardari’s man, although he did argue the military’s case when needed.

The American officials were also pleased by Ms. Rehman’s speedy appointment, which assuaged fears of prolonged standoff between the military and civilian authorities over the ambassadorship, arguably Pakistan’s most important diplomatic posting. “The military doesn’t need more excuses to disregard the president and prime minister,” said one American official. “That they all found a way to agree quickly is a positive. They need an ambassador in Washington; we need them to have an ambassador in Washington.”

But experts in Pakistan and the United States cautioned that American officials should not view Ms. Rehman’s social liberalism, which is common among Pakistan’s elite, as a sign that she will fall in line with Washington’s views on what is best for Pakistan.

“Folks in Washington will expect her national security agenda to be as liberal as her domestic agenda,” said Shamila N. Chaudhary, a South Asia analyst at the Eurasia Group who previously served as the director for Pakistan and Afghanistan at the National Security Council.

“She’s coming here to represent the government, and that includes the military,” Ms. Chaudhary said.

Mr. Haqqani, in contrast, at times behaved as “a one-man think tank,” said one American official. The ambassador would often privately voice criticism of the military that he had publicly laid out before taking on his role, the official said.

Mr. Haqqani’s eagerness to share his own views, which often dovetailed American criticisms of Pakistan’s military and its longstanding ties to militant groups, had over the past year led to a diminishing of his influence in Washington, especially in the White House, said a pair of American officials. “There were questions about his influence at home and whether he could be trusted to accurately convey what his principals were thinking,” said one of the American officials.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/24/world/asia/pakistan-names-new-envoy-to-us-as-probe-of-predecessor-begins.html?_r=0

Riaz Haq said...

Most people who are negative about Pakistan often follow the headlines, not the trend lines.
They do not seem to seek data and information from primary sources such as from UN agencies as compiled by Rosling; instead they seem to rely on 2nd, 3rd, 4th hand interpretations brought you courtesy of authors at Washington think tanks who are known to do their funders/backers bidding.

http://www.gapminder.org/world/#$majorMode=chart$is;shi=t;ly=2003;lb=f;il=t;fs=11;al=30;stl=t;st=t;nsl=t;se=t$wst;tts=C$ts;sp=5.59290322580644;ti=2013$zpv;v=0$inc_x;mmid=XCOORDS;iid=phAwcNAVuyj1jiMAkmq1iMg;by=ind$inc_y;mmid=YCOORDS;iid=phAwcNAVuyj2tPLxKvvnNPA;by=ind$inc_s;uniValue=8.21;iid=phAwcNAVuyj0XOoBL_n5tAQ;by=ind$inc_c;uniValue=255;gid=CATID0;by=grp$map_x;scale=log;dataMin=194;dataMax=96846$map_y;scale=lin;dataMin=23;dataMax=86$map_s;sma=49;smi=2.65$cd;bd=0$inds=;modified=60

I don't expect most books published in US or India to be a true reflection of reality, especially about Pakistan.

What you get from them are caricatures of countries based on Washington's worldview.

I do not rely on such books for honest discussion of any international issues. I take what they see with a huge grain of salt.

I prefer firstly to rely on primary sources of information and secondly on more nuanced views, not caricatures, of a complex country like Pakistan by authors such as Jaffrelot's and Lieven's.


Here's an excerpt of Christophe Jaffrelot's "Pakistan Paradox: Instability and Resilience":


"The three contradictions ("Pakistan=Islam+Urdu", "civil-military establishment", "role of Islam in public sphere")...provide a three-part structure to this book....This thematic framework is intended to enhance our understanding of the Pakistan Paradox. Indeed, so far, none of the consubstantial contradictions of Pakistan mentioned above have had the power to destroy the country. In spite of chronic instability that they have created, Pakistan continues to show remarkable resilience. This can only be understood if one makes the effort to grasp the complexity of a country that is often caricatured. This is the reason why all sides of the three tensions around which this book is organized must be considered together: the centrifugal forces at work in Pakistan and those resisting them on behalf of Pakistan nationalism and provincial autonomy; the culture of authoritarianism and the resources for democracy; the Islamist agenda, and those who are fighting it on behalf of secularism or "Muslimhood" a la JInnah. The final picture may result in a set, not of contradictions but of paradoxes in which virtually antagonistic elements cohabit. But whether that is sufficient to contain instability remains to be seen."

https://books.google.com/books?id=gQDzCQAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=jaffrelot+pakistan+paradox&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwib_Jr32YHQAhUrxFQKHT6IDIYQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=resilience&f=true

Here's Riaz Haq rebutting Husain Haqqani:

http://www.riazhaq.com/2016/10/husain-haqqani-vs-riaz-haq-on-india.html

Riaz Haq said...

How the #American #CIA Infiltrated the World's #Literature Using Famous Writers as Tools https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/how-the-cia-infiltrated-the-worlds-literature … via @VICE

"The CIA's influence in publishing was on the covert ops side, and it was done as propaganda. It was a control of how intellectuals thought about the US."

The new book, Finks, reveals how great writers such as Baldwin, Márquez, and Hemingway became soldiers in America's cultural Cold War.

When the CIA's connections to the Paris Review and two dozen other magazines were revealed in 1966, the backlash was swift but uneven. Some publications crumbled, taking their editors down with them, while other publishers and writers emerged relatively unscathed, chalking it up to youthful indiscretion or else defending the CIA as a "nonviolent and honorable" force for good. But in an illuminating new book Finks: How the CIA Tricked the World's Best Writers, writer Joel Whitney debunks the myth of a once-moral intelligence agency, revealing an extensive list of writers involved in transforming America's image in countries we destabilized with coups, assassinations, and other all-American interventions.

The CIA developed several guises to throw money at young, burgeoning writers, creating a cultural propaganda strategy with literary outposts around the world, from Lebanon to Uganda, India to Latin America. The same agency that occasionally undermined democracies for the sake of fighting Communism also launched the Congress for Cultural Freedoms (CCF). The CCF built editorial strategies for each of these literary outposts, allowing them to control the conversation in countries where readers might otherwise resist the American perspective. The Paris Review, whose co-founder Peter Matthiessen was a CIA agent, would sell its commissioned interviews to the magazine's counterparts in Germany, Japan, and elsewhere. Mundo Nuevo was created to offer a moderate-left perspective to earn trust among Latin American readers, effectively muting more radical perspectives during the Cuban Revolution. Sometimes the agency would provide editors with funding and content; other times it would work directly with writers to shape the discourse. Through these acts, the CCF weaponized the era's most progressive intellectuals as the American answer to the Soviet spin machine.

While the CIA's involvement in anti-Communist propaganda has been long known, the extent of its influence—particularly in the early careers of the left's most beloved writers—is shocking. Whitney, the co-founder and editor at large of the literary magazine Guernica, spent four years digging through archives, yielding an exhaustive list—James Baldwin, Gabriel García Márquez, Richard Wright, and Ernest Hemingway all served varying levels of utility to Uncle Sam. (Not that the CIA's interest were only in letters: Expressionists Jackson Pollock and Mark Rothko were also championed by arms of the agency.)

But don't let that ruin Love in the Time of Cholera. Whitney explains with methodical clarity how each writer became a tool for the CIA. This nuance not only salvages many of the classics from being junked as solely propaganda, but it serves as a cautionary tale for those trying to navigate today's "post-truth" media landscape. In an era where Facebook algorithms dictate the national discourse, even the most well-meaning journalist is prone to stories that distract on behalf of the US government.

"It was often a way to change the subject from the civil rights fight at home," Whitney said of the CIA's content strategy during the Cold War. We can easily draw parallels to today, where the nation's most dire issues are rarely our viral subjects. With Donald Trump's presidency just weeks away, Finks arrives at a crucial time, exposing the political machinery that can affect which stories are shared and which are silenced.

Riaz Haq said...

Husain Haqqani's employer Hudson Institute is working on political mobilization of Indian Americans.

https://hudson.org/events/1343-political-mobilization-of-indian-americans62016

Are the 3.4 million Indian Americans, who have the highest median income among Asian Americans, ready to mobilize politically? How will this impact the 2016 election cycle?

On June 9th, Hudson Institute’s India Initiative hosted a panel discussion with four distinguished Indian American leaders who are political candidates, fundraisers, and community mobilizers. Congressman Ami Bera of California; Delegate Aruna Miller of Montgomery County, Maryland; and Delegate Dr. Jay Jalisi of Baltimore County, Maryland are all elected officials. Shekar Narsimhan is chairman and founder of the first ever Asian American super PAC, the AAPI Victory Fund, which aims to increase Asian American voter-registration and turnout in battleground states. The discussion was moderated by Hudson Institute Adjunct Fellow Dr. Maina Chawla Singh.

-------------

Hudson Institute

This article is part of the Atrazine Exposed portal on SourceWatch. Help expose the truth about atrazine.

The Hudson Institute is a non-profit think tank headquartered in Washington D.C. Its 2008 IRS form 990 listed $11.8 million in advocacy expenditures. [1]

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Hudson_Institute


While describing itself as "non-partisan" and preferring to portray itself as independently "contrarian" rather than as a conservative think tank, the Hudson Institute gains financial support from many of the foundations and corporations that have bankrolled the conservative movement. The Capital Research Center, a conservative group that seeks to rank non-profits and documents their funding, allocates Hudson as a 7 on its ideological spectrum with 8 being "Free Market Right" and 1 "Radical Left." [1]

Hudson has traditionally had a strong focus on U.S. domestic policies such as national defense, education, crime, immigration, welfare, pesticides and biotechnology. However, in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks it has substantially boosted its focus on international issues such as the Middle East, Latin America and Islam.


The Koch brothers -- David and Charles -- are the right-wing billionaire co-owners of Koch Industries. As two of the richest people in the world, they are key funders of the right-wing infrastructure, including the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and the State Policy Network (SPN). In SourceWatch, key articles on the Kochs include: Koch Brothers, Koch Industries, Americans for Prosperity, American Encore, and Freedom Partners.

Between 1987 and 2006, the Institute received 273 grants totaling $17,722,643 (unadjusted for inflation) from a range of foundations including:[4]

Castle Rock Foundation
Earhart Foundation
F.M. Kirby Foundation
John M. Olin Foundation, Inc.
JM Foundation
Koch Family Foundations (David H. Koch Foundation)
Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation
Samuel Roberts Noble Foundation
Scaife Foundations (Scaife Family, Sarah Mellon Scaife, Carthage)
Shelby Cullom Davis Foundation
Smith Richardson Foundation
Walton Family Foundation
William H. Donner Foundation
While many conservative think tanks eschew government funding, Hudson happily takes government contracts. The Capital Research Center (CRC) database lists Hudson as having received six grants between 1996 and 2002 totalling $731,914 (unadjusted for inflation). Five of the six grants were from the Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs. (Neither the CRC database or Hudson's annual report for those years provide details on what the grants were specifically for). [5]

Riaz Haq said...

The Nation on Hudson Institute, Husain Haqqani's employer:

The Sugar Mama of Anti-Muslim Hate

https://www.thenation.com/article/sugar-mama-anti-muslim-hate/

Philanthropist Nina Rosenwald has used her millions to cement the alliance between the pro-Israel lobby and the Islamophobic fringe.


Through her affiliation with the Washington-based Hudson Institute, where Norman Podhoretz is an adjunct fellow, Rosenwald established a branch of the think tank in New York City. Operating under the Hudson banner, Rosenwald brought Wilders to town in 2008 to warn against the Muslim plot to “rule the world by the sword.” Wilders’s tirade during that visit against the prophet Muhammad, whom he described as “a warlord, a mass murderer, a pedophile,” was strident even by the standards of the hawkish Hudson Institute. By 2011, well before Wilders’s return visit this year, Rosenwald separated Hudson New York City from Hudson’s national branch, changing her organization’s name to the Gatestone Institute. Today, Rosenwald maintains a seat on Hudson’s board of directors.

------

Following their father, Nina Rosenwald and her siblings became active in the pro-Israel community. While her sister Elizabeth has assumed a lower profile, there is hardly a single major pro-Israel organization that does not provide Rosenwald with a seat on its board of directors. Thanks to her financial generosity, Rosenwald sits on the board of influential neoconservative groups from WINEP and AIPAC as well as Hudson. She is the vice president of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, which has provided training to thousands of American law enforcement and military officials from Israeli intelligence and police officers.

Riaz Haq said...

Here's Tariq Ali, a Pakistani left-wing intellectual who graduated from Oxford, where he studied philosophy, politics, and economics, and was President of the Oxford Union. on Husain Haqqani:


One of Zardari and his late wife’s trusted bagmen in Washington, Husain Haqqani, whose links to the US intelligence agencies since the 1970s made him a useful intermediary and whom Zardari appointed as Pakistan’s ambassador to Washington, has been forced to resign. Haqqani, often referred to as the US ambassador to Pakistan, appears to have been caught red-handed: he allegedly asked Mansoor Ijaz, a multi-millionaire close to the US defense establishment, to carry a message to Admiral Mike Mullen pleading for help against the Pakistani military and offering in return to disband the Haqqani network and the ISI and carry out all US instructions.

Mullen denied that he had received any message. A military underling contradicted him. Mullen changed his story and said a message had been received and ignored. When the ISI discovered this ‘act of treachery’, Haqqani, instead of saying that he was acting under orders from Zardari, denied the entire story. Unfortunately for him, the ISI boss, General Pasha, had met up with Ijaz and been given the Blackberry with the messages and instructions. Haqqani had no option but to resign. Demands for his trial and hanging (the two often go together when the military is involved) are proliferating. Zardari is standing by his man. The military wants his head. And now Nato has entered the fray. This story is not yet over.

http://nation.time.com/2011/11/29/what-is-next-for-pakistan/

Riaz Haq said...

Ex #Pakistan Envoy Husain Haqqani: "I had facilitated the presence of large numbers of #CIA operatives" in #Pakistan

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/03/10/yes-the-russian-ambassador-met-trumps-team-so-thats-what-we-diplomats-do/?utm_term=.7bd76c8a5014

"Among the security establishment’s grievances against me was the charge that I had facilitated the presence of large numbers of CIA operatives who helped track down bin Laden without the knowledge of Pakistan’s army — even though I had acted under the authorization of Pakistan’s elected civilian leaders."

Riaz Haq said...

Here's how conservative Heritage Foundation, funded by Koch Brothers, supports Republican climate change denial agenda:


http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060051271

When Nick Loris started sketching out budget proposals for the Department of Energy in 2012, he didn't realize his theories would actually go into practice.

Now the 33-year-old Heritage Foundation policy analyst's work might be the key to the Trump administration's energy strategy.

"It's fun," said Loris, an energy and environmental policy fellow at the conservative Washington-based think tank. "We certainly are writing what we're doing for a purpose, and that's to, in terms of energy, create a more market-oriented energy economy that works more efficiently and protects taxpayer dollars and rewards innovation."

The Heritage Foundation is poised to have a major role in President Trump's federal budget, and its small-government focus means big cuts are in store across federal agencies (Energywire, March 7).

More than 30 Heritage staffers were part of the Trump transition team, and several now work at the White House, including Loris' boss at Heritage, Paul Winfree. Former Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), the president of the Heritage Foundation, met with Trump at the White House this week.

Observers, analysts and career staffers at federal agencies are desperately trying to figure out where the Trump administration is setting its funding priorities. For climate researchers, clean energy startups and power plants whose work is funded by DOE, Loris' work on a conservative take on the agency could foretell their future.

Quotable and telegenic, Loris is a frequent sight in climate and energy discussions in Washington, D.C., bringing an articulate conservative voice to discussions on what the government should or should not do in the energy sector.

He completed his undergraduate degree in economics in 2006 at Albright College near his hometown of Quakertown, Pa. He then completed a master's degree in economics at George Mason University in 2008 and received a Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation fellowship, which then placed him at Heritage. He's now worked there for more than nine years.

Loris has been on shows like BBC's "Newsnight" to discuss the Paris climate change accord and on CNN's "Crossfire" to debate Bill Nye the Science Guy on climate change. He also had a cameo in Leonardo DiCaprio's climate change documentary.

On Capitol Hill, he's the Republicans' go-to guy on DOE's budget, having testified before Congress seven times. He will do so again before the end of the month at a hearing on wasteful DOE programs.

Riaz Haq said...

Hudson Institute Right-Wing Agenda


As many of you know, there have been a series of attacks on MSF and WHO around the provision of generic antiretrovirals over the past few months. While these claims are factually wrong and baseless and can be challenged on the weaknesses of their arguments alone, it is interesting to look into the motivation of the Hudson Institute [website] and other institutions leading these attacks. Here is a list of the Hudson Institute's key funders, which includes some of the most extreme right-wing foundations in the United States and host of enormous multinational corporations including the mega-pharmaceutical companies Novartis and Lilly. It is clear that none of the Hudson Institute's funders have any significant history in philantrophy around public health issues. What these foundations and companies do support is the advancement of American business' agenda on a number of fronts, from tax and trade policy, and the American right wing's agenda to dismantle public health and social welfare programs such as Medicaid and Medicare in the US.

So, next time you read an op-ed from someone associated with the Hudson Institute, remember who pays their bills. It's a bit like reading an op-ed talking about the health benefits of cigarettes from an "institute" that's funded by the tobacco companies, or an op-ed on the benefits of industrial pesticides by a "think tank" that's funded by oh, say, Monsanto or American Cyanamid. So, yes, we have issues to deal with in rolling out therapy and in fighting AIDS, but no one should be fooled into thinking that the Hudson Institute or any similar organization cares one iota about people with AIDS or our communities.

The Hudson Institute and its ilk are more dangerous than HIV itself.

-- Gregg Gonsalves


Funding for the Hudson Institute

Between 1987 and 2001, the Institute received $12,041,203 in 183 separate grants from only -- foundations: [source]

* Castle Rock Foundation
* Earhart Foundation
* JM Foundation
* Koch Family Foundations (David H. Koch Foundation)
* John M. Olin Foundation, Inc.
* Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation
* Scaife Foundations (Scaife Family, Sarah Mellon Scaife, Carthage)
* Smith Richardson Foundation

The Hudson Institute's IRS Form 990 for the financial year ending on September 30, 2001 showed total income of $7,818,439, most of which came in large grants. Other known funders include:

* Ag Processing Inc
* American Cyanamid
* Archer Daniels Midland
* Cargill
* Ciba-Geigy
* ConAgra Foods
* DowElanco
* DuPont
* Exxon Mobil
* HJ Heinz
* Lilly Endowment
* McDonalds
* Monsanto
* National Agricultural Chemical Association
* Novartis
* Proctor & Gamble
* Sunkist Growers
* United Agri Products

http://www.actupny.org/reports/hudson.html

Riaz Haq said...

Is Notorious Islamophobic Think Tank Inspiring More Far-Right Terrorism?
More worrying is the prestige that the Gatestone Institute seems to be able to flaunt along with its considerable resources.

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/notorious-islamophobic-think-tank-inspiring-more-far-right-terrorism

Blumenthal notes that Gatestone emerged in 2011 as an offshoot of the right wing Hudson Institute. Since then it has become a hub for anti-Muslim ideologues of all hues; neoconservative, ultra-Zionist and so-called ‘counterjihad’. It has acted as a clearing-house, for example, for claims about Muslim ‘no-go zones’ (the likes of which ‘terrorism expert’ Steven Emerson was widely ridiculed for, including by UK Prime Minister David Cameron). Its articles carry fear-mongering titles such as: ‘‘Spain: Soon the Muslims will be kings of the world’, ‘Britain’s Islamic future’, ’The Islamization of France’, ‘The Islamization of Germany’ and ‘The Islamization of Belgium and the Netherlands’.

The theme of so-called ‘Islamisation’ is fundamental to the paranoid political imaginary of the counterjihad movement, combining anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant sentiment. It is the notion that animates a network of groups under the banner ‘Stop the Islamisation of Nations’ (SION), and underpins street movements like Germany’s PEGIDA (an acronym of the German for ‘Patriot Europeans Against the Islamisation of the West’) and the English Defence League (EDL) – and their respective copycat movements.

It is a favourite topic of many right-wing populist politicians like the infamous Geert Wilders, anti-Islam leader of the Dutch ‘Party for Freedom’, who, according to Blumenthal, calls Gatestone founder Nina Rosenwald a ‘good friend’ (perhaps why Gatestone recently published an article defending his call for ‘fewer Moroccans’ in the Netherlands, comments for which he is facing hate speech charges). ‘Islamisation’ was also, of course, the major preoccupation of Norwegian mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik. In July 2011 he killed 77 people in an attack he called ‘gruesome but necessary’ and saw as a precursor to the civil war he believed was inevitable - that he hoped would drive Islam and Muslims out of Europe.

Eurabia conspiracy theorists and the Abstraction Fund

Breivik detailed his views – typical of the anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant counterjihad movement - on the ‘threat’ posed to Europe by Islam in a 1,518 page ‘manifesto’. Given that virtually every article that Gatestone publishes is suffused with the same assumptions (for instance ‘How Islam Conquers Europe’, ‘UK Islamic takeover plot’) it is no surprise to learn that the institute’s authors include many of the writers cited by Breivik in his notorious tract. Gatestone author Robert Spencer and his Jihad Watch website were mentioned 116 times, while Daniel Pipes and his Middle East Forum (MEF) got 18 citations. Other Gatestone authors mentioned in Breivik's lengthy screed include David Horowitz and the aforementioned Steven Emerson.

More importantly, Nina Rosenwald’s mega-foundation, the Abstraction Fund, provides funding to many of these organisations: the David Horowitz Freedom Center, Emerson’s Investigative Project on Terrorism, Frank Gaffney’s Center for Security Policy (CSP), Pipes MEF, and many other Islamophobia industry groups besides. (Abstraction also gives to a host of pro-Israel organisations like CAMERA, MEMRI and the Zionist Organization of America, illustrating the increasingly common funding overlap between many anti-Muslim and some pro-Israel groups, observed in the International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network’s recent report ‘The Business of Backlash’.) Interestingly, as well as presiding over the Gatestone Institute, Rosenwald is also financing it with money from the Abstraction Fund, albeit indirectly: as with other groups, the money is being channelled via a third party (MEF).

Riaz Haq said...

Can US President take Hudson Institute report on Pakistan seriously?

by Jamal Hussain

https://www.globalvillagespace.com/how-seriously-should-us-president-take-hudson-institute-report-on-pakistan/

Dismissed for suspected anti-state activities, which he vehemently denies, accusing the Pakistan Army of orchestrating a plot to implicate him in a false case. HH settled in the USA and currently is the Director for South Asia and Central Asia at Hudson Institute. He has authored three books on Pakistan where his animosity towards the Pakistan Army is apparent.

He is known to carry a grudge against the Pakistan Army that a clear majority of Pakistanis consider the only state institution which secures the country from foreign domination. With such a credential of HH, should one expect objectivity if he heads a policy paper advising the US administration on how to deal with Pakistan?

Lisa Curtis, the co-author is a retired CIA employee who has also served as a diplomat in Pakistan and India. With her CIA background where the confrontation of the CIA with the Pakistani intelligence agency the ISI is an open secret, can one expect an impartial approach when dealing with Pakistan where the ISI is known to provide key inputs on the conduct of the nation’s foreign policy?

Among the signatories, Christine Fair, Polly Nayak and Aparna Pande ring alarm bells. Christine Fair, who once was considered the darling of the Pakistan Army, is now known for her anti-Pakistan sentiments. Her earlier work on drones and her pro-drone stance and viewpoints has been denounced as “surprisingly weak” by Brooking Institution and journalist Glenn Greenwald dismissed it as “rank propaganda.”

n 2011 and 2012 she received funding from the US embassy in Islamabad to conduct a survey on public opinion concerning militancy. Her journalistic sources have been questioned for their credibility and she has been accused of having a conflict of interest due to her past work with the US government think tanks, as well as the CIA.

In the Pakistani media, she has been accused of double standards, partisanship towards India and has been criticized for her contacts with dissident leaders from Baluchistan, a link which raises serious questions “if her interest in Pakistan is merely academic.”

Polly Nayak, a South Asian expert and currently an independent consultant retired from CIA in late 2002 as a senior executive. Her views on Pakistan, like those of Lisa Curtis, would not be free from the bias that colors CIA’s opinion about Pakistan and Pakistan’s premier intelligence agency the ISI, which is viewed as an ally only when its help is desperately sought— otherwise a nemesis.

Aparna Pande is a born Indian working for the Hudson Institute and her writings mirror the rabidly anti-Pakistan stance of the Indian government under Narendra Modi.

-------

Avoid viewing and portraying Pakistan as an ally, is the first policy recommendation of the briefing paper. The USA has never considered Pakistan as a true ally and has used this term only when it suited them. It considers Pakistan as a rentier state and hires it for a price to pursue policies to promote their regional and global agenda.

Yes, Pakistan has often willingly accepted the US offer, at a considerable price to its security and well-being. Even though the military aid package of 1954 and the collaboration in the 1980s to oust the Soviets from Afghanistan was on a reciprocal basis where both sides viewed it as a win-win situation, the USA benefitted far more from them while Pakistan, in the long run, paid a very heavy price for the liaisons.

The Mutual Defence Assistance Agreement of 1954 turned Pakistan as the bulwark against any spread of communism that was primarily aimed at containment of the USSR. The defense pact ruled the USSR, the rival superpower, and a neighbor of Pakistan to an extent where they established a strategic partnership with India, the country’s principal security threat and enemy, which had unlawfully and illegally occupied two-thirds of Kashmir.

Riaz Haq said...

#Trump Administration Proposes to Cut #CSF for #Pakistan by $100 Million to $800 Million for FY18. http://www.ndtv.com/world-news/donald-trump-administration-proposes-800-million-fund-for-pakistan-1703682 … via @ndtv


WASHINGTON: The Trump administration has proposed to give Pakistan US $800 million as reimbursement for its military and logistical support in counter-terrorism operations in the next fiscal, a defence department official has said.

The administration has proposed the amount - a cut of US $100 million compared to the previous time - in its annual budget proposals under the Coalition Support Fund (CSF), a Pentagon programme to reimburse US allies that have incurred costs in supporting counter-terrorist and counter-insurgency operations.

Pakistan is one of the largest recipient under the fund and has received US $14 billion since 2002. But for the past two years, the US Congress has imposed conditions on disbursal of money under the fund.

"The FY 2018 budget proposal seeks US $800 million in CSF for Pakistan. The CSF authority is not security assistance, but reimbursements to key cooperating nations for logistical, military, and other support provided to US combat operations," Adam Stump, Defence Department spokesman for Afghanistan, Pakistan and Central Asia told news agency PTI yesterday.

For 2016 fiscal year, Pakistan was authorised to receive up to US $900 million under CSF.

"The deputy secretary of defence signed the authorisation to disburse US $550 million in fiscal year 2016 coalition support fund to Pakistan for logistical, military, and other support provided to the US operations in Afghanistan for the period of January-June 2015," Mr Stump said.

"The Department recognises the significant sacrifices the Pakistan military has made in the fight against terrorism, and appreciates Pakistan's continued support for transit of materiel to coalition forces in Afghanistan," he said in response to a question

"Disbursement of the remaining US $350 million requires the Secretary of Defence to certify that Pakistan has taken sufficient action against the Haqqani Network. The Secretary has not yet made a decision on certification," Mr Stump said.

For the first time in 2016, then Secretary of Defence Ashton Carter had declined to certify that Pakistan met the certification requirement, resulting in the loss of US $300 million fund for it. This amount was reprogrammed by the Pentagon for Department of Defence's Overseas Contingency Operations Funding, a second defence department official said.

In its latest budget, the Department of Defence has attached no conditions for disbursement of CSF to Pakistan. However, it was only the US Congress which imposes such strict conditions on giving CSF money to Pakistan.

Justifying the need to give such a huge amount of money to Pakistan, the Pentagon said Pakistan has served as a key ally in operation 'Enduring Freedom' since 2001 and will continue to play a key role in maintaining stability in the region.

"Pakistan's security forces regularly engage enemy forces, arrest and kill Taliban and al-Qaeda forces, and provide significant support to US forces operating in Afghanistan. Pakistan continues to meet the enemy insurgency and has made enormous sacrifices in support of these operations," it said.

"The expenses Pakistan incurs to conduct operations against al-Qaeda and Taliban forces include providing logistical support for its forces, manning observation posts along the Afghanistan border, and conducting maritime interdiction operations and combat air patrol," the Pentagon said.

Riaz Haq said...

#Pakistan is a key #American ally: #Pentagon #US #DoD #Trump

http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/trump-administration-proposes-800-million-coalition-support-for-pakistan/article18575890.ece

The Trump administration has proposed to give Pakistan USD 800 million as reimbursement for its military and logistical support in counter-terrorism operations in the next fiscal, a defence department official has said.

The administration has proposed the amount — a cut of USD 100 million compared to the previous time — in its annual budget proposals under the Coalition Support Fund (CSF), a Pentagon programme to reimburse US allies that have incurred costs in supporting counter-terrorist and counter-insurgency operations.

Pakistan is one of the largest recipient under the fund and has received USD 14 billion since 2002. But for the past two years, the Congress has imposed conditions on disbursal of money under the fund.

“The FY 2018 budget proposal seeks USD 800 million in CSF for Pakistan. The CSF authority is not security assistance, but reimbursements to key cooperating nations for logistical, military, and other support provided to US combat operations,” Adam Stump, Defence Department spokesman for Afghanistan, Pakistan and Central Asia told PTI yesterday.

For 2016 fiscal year, Pakistan was authorised to receive up to USD 900 million under CSF.

“The deputy secretary of defence signed the authorisation to disburse USD 550 million in fiscal year 2016 coalition support fund to Pakistan for logistical, military, and other support provided to the US operations in Afghanistan for the period of January-June 2015,” Stump said.

“The Department recognises the significant sacrifices the Pakistan military has made in the fight against terrorism, and appreciates Pakistan’s continued support for transit of materiel to coalition forces in Afghanistan,” he said in response to a question.

“Disbursement of the remaining USD 350 million requires the Secretary of Defence to certify that Pakistan has taken sufficient action against the Haqqani Network. The Secretary has not yet made a decision on certification,” Stump said.

For the first time in 2016, then Secretary of Defence Ashton Carter had declined to certify that Pakistan met the certification requirement, resulting in the loss of USD 300 million fund for it.

This amount was reprogrammed by the Pentagon for Department of Defence’s Overseas Contingency Operations Funding, a second defence department official said.

In its latest budget, the Department of Defence has attached no conditions for disbursement of CSF to Pakistan.

However, it was only the Congress which imposes such strict conditions on giving CSF money to Pakistan.

Justifying the need to give such a huge money to Pakistan, the Pentagon said Pakistan has served as a key ally in operation ‘Enduring Freedom’ since 2001 and will continue to play a key role in maintaining stability in the region.

“Pakistan’s security forces regularly engage enemy forces, arrest and kill Taliban and al-Qaeda forces, and provide significant support to US forces operating in Afghanistan. Pakistan continues to meet the enemy insurgency and has made enormous sacrifices in support of these operations,” it said.

“The expenses Pakistan incurs to conduct operations against al-Qaeda and Taliban forces include providing logistical support for its forces, manning observation posts along the Afghanistan border, and conducting maritime interdiction operations and combat air patrol,” the Pentagon said.

Riaz Haq said...

#Trump disbands #Afghanistan-#Pakistan unit in #StateDepartment.Eliminates #AfPak special rep position http://politi.co/2rZ8qid via @politico

The Trump administration on Friday moved to eliminate the State Department unit responsible for dealing with Afghanistan and Pakistan — transferring its duties to a regional bureau whose leadership ranks have been decimated, two sources told POLITICO.

The development came with less than a day’s notice. It deeply rattled U.S. officials who say the shift leaves unclear who is responsible for handling diplomacy toward Afghanistan and Pakistan at a time when the Trump administration is considering ramping up military efforts in that region.

The phase-out of the office of the Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan (SRAP) was put in motion under the Obama administration. But diplomats are concerned that the Trump administration has yet to name people to lead the South and Central Asia Bureau, leaving a leadership vacuum. That State Department bureau has seen unusually high levels of senior staff departures since Trump's inauguration in January.

“The Afghanistan and Pakistan function is being dissolved and transferred into a structure that has been dissolved itself,” a U.S. diplomat familiar with the issue told POLITICO. “We’ve long planned for SRAP to go away, but the intention was for the policy to be transferred responsibly. This happened on less than 24 hours notice.”

The State Department press office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Riaz Haq said...

Husain Haqqani Defends #India, Asks #Trump to Get Tough With #Pakistan to Win in #Afghanistan

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/06/opinion/to-win-afghanistan-get-tough-on-pakistan.html

Islamabad’s response was to argue that Pakistan does, indeed, support insurgents in Afghanistan, but it does so because of security concerns about India, which is seen by generals and many civilian leaders as an existential threat to Pakistan.

But that excuse is based on exaggerations and falsehoods. India has no offensive military presence in Afghanistan and there has never been any evidence that the Afghans are willing to be part of India’s alleged plan for a two-front war with Pakistan.

Afghanistan’s president, Ashraf Ghani, recently asked India to train Afghan military officers and repair military aircraft after frustration with Pakistan, which failed to fulfill promises of restraining the Taliban and forcing them to the negotiating table.

Pakistan’s leaders question Afghanistan’s acceptance of economic assistance from India even though Pakistan does not have the capacity to provide such aid itself.

It seems that Pakistan wants to keep alive imaginary fears, possibly to maintain military ascendancy in a country that has been ruled by generals for almost half of its existence. For years Pakistani officials falsely asserted that India had set up 24 consulates in Afghanistan, some close to the Pakistani border. In fact, India has only four consulates, the same number Pakistan has, in Afghanistan.

Lying about easily verifiable facts is usually the tactic of governments fabricating a threat rather than ones genuinely facing one. As ambassador, I attended trilateral meetings where my colleagues rejected serious suggestions from Afghans and Americans to mitigate apprehensions about Indian influence in Afghanistan.

While evidence of an Indian threat to Pakistan through Afghanistan remains scant, proof of the presence of Afghan Taliban leaders in Pakistan continues to mount. Mullah Omar, the Taliban’s leader, reportedly died in a Pakistani hospital in 2013 and his successor, Mullah Akhtar Mansour, was killed in an American drone strike in Baluchistan Province in Pakistan last year.

The United States should not let Pakistan link its longstanding support for hard-line Pashtun Islamists in Afghanistan to its disputes with India.

Both India and Pakistan have a lot of blood on their hands in Kashmir and seem in no hurry to resolve their disagreement, which is rooted in the psychosis resulting from the subcontinent’s bitter partition. The two countries have gone through 45 rounds of summit-level talks since 1947 and have failed to reach a permanent settlement.

Linking the outcome in Afghanistan to resolution of India-Pakistan issues would keep the United States embroiled there for a very long time. The recent rise in Islamophobia in India and a more aggressive stance against Pakistan by Prime Minister Narendra Modi should not detract from recognizing the paranoiac nature of Pakistan’s fears.

Riaz Haq said...

#Pakistan Defiant as US Ponders New Strategy. Demands Renegotiation of #America's Access Rights to #Afghanistan

https://www.voanews.com/a/pakistan-defiant-us-ponders-south-asia-strategy/3962805.html

Days after the Pentagon announced it is withholding $50 million intended for Pakistan as part of its Coalition Support Fund, the South Asian country's ambassador hinted at potential retaliation, possibly coaxing Washington to negotiate access to the country's air corridors, which Islamabad suggests have been taken for granted.

Pakistan is ready to cooperate with the United States, Ambassador Aizaz Ahmad Chaudhry said, though Washington may now end up having to negotiate with Islamabad on the corridors and other tangible assets, he added.

"All that Pakistan has done in the fight against terrorism has not been sufficiently factored" into the U.S. decision to reduce its support funds, Chaudhry lamented during a discussion this week at the Washington office of the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies.

Air rights up for negotiation?

Pakistan has facilitated air and ground logistical support for U.S. troops in Afghanistan "like no one else," Chaudhry said, adding that "since 2001, all air corridors from Pakistan have been available to the United States free of cost."

The reason Pakistan did so "was because we believed this was a common war," the ambassador said, but there have been occasions when U.S. actions have left his country's leaders thinking "that perhaps we are not partners."

Questions concerning Pakistan's commitment to bilateral partnership have also been raised by the U.S. A prime example was the discovery in 2011 that al-Qaida leader Osama Bin Laden had been living undisturbed near a key Pakistani military facility.

U.S. Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis said he withheld $50 million in Coalition Support Funds because he couldn't certify to Congress that Pakistan had taken sufficient action against the Haqqani network, a Taliban-associated organization which the U.S. has deemed a Foreign Terrorist Organization, since September 2012. The group has been blamed for attacks in Afghanistan, which have contributed to the country's destabilization, an issue of concern to the U.S.

For its part, Islamabad's message is don't drop "every security lapse in Afghanistan on Pakistan's doorsteps," as the country's ambassador to the U.S. put it.

The Pakistani envoy's remarks came at a time when U.S. President Donald Trump's administration has been reviewing its overall strategy toward South Asia, including India, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iran. And his defiant tone may reflect Pakistan's decreasing dependence on the United States amid an influx of Chinese capital investments and a strengthening political relationship between Islamabad and Beijing.