The Dawn

All American corporate executives go through sensitivity training about gender, sexual harassment, and racial tolerance. If employees do not conform to the secularist and neutrality of corporate America, they are are discarded expeditiously. Those who do not learn, are forced by lawsuits.

American politicians have somehow escaped the sensitivity training which is mandated by corporate America. Their hubris and arrogance is matched only by inability to grasp the nationalism and geography of the countries that they are visiting. Most American are usually extremely weak in world history and geography. The CIA fact book and the crash courses are also offered by the products of the system that thinks that the world revolves around the US and Europe. These Copernicus dinosaursteach history from the Western perspective where the wold map shows American in the center of the world, and the Canadian islands larger than most Southern countries. This US centric view perpetuated by bad cartography, and poorly created maps 9which show Northern countries larger than Southern ones) create a horrid view of the world. Therefore US politicians usually come across as the epitome of “The Ugly American’.

American and European media services interview Pakistani leaders very aggressively. Unanswered questions are asked again and again. The US, British or French point of view is put forward very intensely. Pakistani leaders are asked why they don’t conform to American policies–which are presumed to be correct and accurate. 

When American leaders come to Pakistan, the general news media is not given access to them. Aggressivejournalism is not allowed. Pakistanis are caught up in the hospitality issue, where frank discussions with the foreign leaders are prohibited and discouraged. The press is muted, and docile. The foreign leaders face softballs and accolades. Only US friendly newspapers are very given access to American visitors. Visiting US and European leaders are usually sequestered into the “Foreign Press Club” which discuss internal US and European policies. The Foreign press (BBC, VOA, ABC, NBC, Fox, CBS) monopolize the time of the foreign leaders while in Pakistan. It is the height of inane behavior that an American Secretary of State answers questions on Judge Sotomayer while on Pakistani soil.

This (keeping the visiting foreigners in a bubble–away from questions) needs to change dramatically.

Foreign leaders and their representatives when visiting Pakistan should face the free Pakistani press. After all, the press is the fourthpillar of state, and Pakistan has more than 80 TV channels with a vibrant media. Pakistanis are very aware of world events, and are tied into to the happenings in Chechniya, Ughuiristan, Falesteen, Iran, Kashmir, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Ms. Clinton and other foreign dignitaries should taste the fruits of democracy in Islamabad. The Pakistan media should be allowed to question the foreign leaders—indeed interrogate them (just like the American perss interrogates Pakistan leaders). Why the double standards?

Many foreign leaders are nurtured on the handpicked journalists who are simply sellouts. Ahmed Rashid, and Irfan Hussain type of columnists are given a prominent place on the front pages of the toadeating, obsequious and compliant English media. Ms. Clinton and other foreign dignitaries thus see a very different Pakistan than the one portrayed by the subserviant wheedling, toadying newspapers like Dawn.com. Facing the “No holds barred” Pakistani would help the Pakistani media to shatter the “drawing room” (living room) notions that exist in the thinktanks and the knowledge bases of the so called South Asia Experts. All foreign visitors should face the Pakistani press, specially the so called “Urdu media” which will challenge the notions that exist in the core of the Democratic Party. Ms. Clinton has referred to this as the “paranoia” about India. This notion has to be challenged and dispelled. Pakistanis know who their friends are. Lectures from Washington will not change the enemies. It just makes mattes worse, and creates Anti-Americanism. When the visiting leaders force Pakistani leaders to use American jargon, the local leaders loose their credibility and thier popularity ratings fall precipitiously.

Ms. Clinton, Mr. Hoolbrooke, Admiral Mullen, and the half a dozen special envoys should face the real questions from Pakistanis. The Pakistani press and media should seek answers to the questions about Bharati activities in Balauchistan. Mr. Holbrooke should be shown the pictures of Uncircumcised Indian agents in Swat. Ms. Clinton when she comes to Pakistan should face the question of the Su fighters placed on the advanced airforce bases. Admiral Mullen should be asked why hundreds of thousands of Bharati troops are concentrated on  the Pakistan border. Ms. Clinton should be given the statistics of the cu-secs of water that has been held back by Bharat’s Baghaliar Dam.

Mr. Obama gavehis interview to a US friendly Pakistan newspaper. Of all the issues on this planet, death and destruction, the obsequious,crouching,  and sniveling interviewer to chose to spend the few minutes to talk about “daal” and “keema“.

Ms. Clinton was recently interviewed by the mealymouthed columnist on dawn.com, and as usual Ms. Clinton was given soft balls, without any follow-up questions.

Here is the Hillary Clinton interview, published in the beggarly, sycophantic, and smarmy rag called dawn.com.

WASHINGTON: The meeting in Egypt between Prime Ministers Yousuf Raza Gilani and Manmohan Singhhas ignited the hope that India and Pakistan will pursue a dialogue again, says US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton who begins a five-day visit to India this week.

In an interview to Dawn newspaper and TV, Secretary Clinton assured the Pakistanis that they did not need to fear the outcome of her India visit.

The US media reported on Thursday that Pakistan was likely to figure high in Mrs Clinton’s talks in India.

In a meeting at the Egyptian town of Sharm El Sheikh on Thursday, the Indian and Pakistani leaders agreed to de-link bilateral talks from the issue of terrorism.

‘I’m going with the hope that has been ignited in the last weeks that India and Pakistan will pursue a dialogue again,’ said the top US diplomat when asked if she was going to New Delhi with an initiative for restarting India-Pakistan talks.

Mrs Clinton described an earlier meeting between the two prime ministers as ‘very promising,’ and showed that the two governments were keen to resolve their differences peacefully.

‘There is an interest and a seriousness on the part of both governments in trying to work towards resolution of some of the longstanding differences,’ she said.

‘I have always believed, and you may have heard me say in many meetings of my friends in the Pakistani and American community, that Pakistan’s future is unlimited. The potential for economic growth and for influence in the region is, in my view, as great as any country’s.’

But she suggested that Pakistan had to show commitment to focussingon its internal developments, which required dealing withand trying to resolve some of the outstanding concerns.

‘There are some in Pakistan who say that Indians are using Afghanistan to interfere in Balochistan. Will you discuss this with the India?’ she was asked.

‘Well, I’m going to raise everything that we believe is of significance with the Indian government. I believe that it is in India’s interest for Pakistan to be stable, democratic, free of terrorism,’ she said.

There is a cadre of “institutes” and “think tanks” that have an agenda that constantly support a particular point of view about Pakistan. Even Google News does not publish the Pakistani perspective–it will publish letters which malign Pakistan, it will publish blogsthat criticize Islamabad and will publish news items that spread gloom and doom. It seldom publishes positive news about Pakistanis. News dot google dot com will not publish Rupee News, even after repeated requests and even after meeting all criteria. 

Dawn Newspaper report that Mr. Zardari has again written to the Indian Prime Minster about not providing Pakistan with its due share of water.

ISLAMABAD: President Asif Ali Zardari has said he will write a letter to Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singhto remind him of his promise to resolve the issue of reduced water flow in the Chenab River at the Marala headworksin accordance with the provisions of the Indus Water Treaty (IWT), 1960. Zardari said this during a briefing at the President’s House on the reduced water flow following the construction of Baglihar Dam in Indian-held Kashmir, affecting Pakistan’s agriculture and economy.
Letters: The president said letters should also be written to Muslim countries, ‘Friends of Pakistan’ nations and the UK, drawing attention to the issue and the need to resolveit amicably in accordance with the treaty signed between the two countries. Zardarisaid Pakistan should pursue its case for compensation in the form of water from India. He said a proactiveapproach should be adopted to compel India to give Pakistan its rightful share of water.

Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto’s NO to Appeasement

KASHMIR ISSUE

In his inaugural speech, President Obama said that Kashmir was one issue that needed to be resolved but the Obama administration does not seem to talk about it any longer. Does this indicate that the US no longer sees Kashmir as an issue that needs to be resolved?’

‘I think that the disputes between India and Pakistan, which are historical and long-standing, should be looked at with fresh eyes, and there should be an effort to build some mutual trust. And from what I hear, it was a very good meeting between Prime Minister Singh and Prime Minister Gilani in Sharm El Sheikh,’ said Mrs Clinton.

Responding to the question on Kashmir, she reiterated the US stance that India and Pakistan needed to resolve all such issues bilaterally.

‘The United States stands ready to support the steps that India and Pakistan may take together, but we know that the only way these matters can be finally resolved is between the two countries, but it’s not just the government, but the people,’ she said.

‘And so we will encourage that, but we know that it has to be left to Pakistan and India for there to be any resolution.’ ‘So Kashmir is still seen as a dispute that needs to be resolved?’

‘Well, it certainly should be on the agenda of discussion between India and Pakistan,’ said Secretary Clinton.

US Assistant Secretary of State Robert Blake said earlier this week that during Mrs Clinton’s visit India might announce two agreements for buying nuclear plants and 126 fighter jets from the US, worth about $20 billion.

‘Do Pakistanis have reasons to fear the outcome of your visit?’ the secretary was asked.

‘Not at all. And we don’t yet have any agreements resolved between us, but my goal in going to India is to work with the Indian government on a range of issues —agriculture, health, education, strategic cooperation, climate change, clean energy, just a very vast array of concern,’ she responded.

‘And I think that all of these issues are ones that are important not only to Indians, but, I would argue, also to Pakistanis.’

Trade between India and Pakistan, she noted, would benefit both countries, as would cooperation across borders on agriculture, education and on other issues, she added.

‘So the point of our trip is to certainly broaden and deepen our relationship with India,’ she said. ‘And I will be coming to Pakistan in the fall and be looking to do the exact same thing with Pakistan,’ she said.

‘But whenever somebody says that they would want India to play a leading role in the region, and you said that this week, the Pakistanis fear that perhaps it would translate to a subservient role for Pakistan and will lead to bullying by Afghanistan. How would you allay these fears?’

‘Well, that is certainly not at all what is intended. I think that what we see now in the region is a very courageous, sustained effort by Pakistan against the internal miscreants, those who would destabilise the Pakistani government and democracy, who kill innocent people, who are – they are not at all part of Pakistan’s future,’ she said.

‘And so what Pakistan is doing is, in my view, very important, as Pakistan tries to stabilise your democracy so that you can build on development. Actual economic development was going well. There were a lot of positive steps.’

Mrs Clinton noted that some of the Pakistani government’s policies were working out well as there seemed to be a growing acceptance of how Pakistan was doing with the global economic recession. But the constant threat from the internal terrorists was one that had to be dealt with in order for Pakistan to grow and flourish, she warned.

‘So I see what is happening in Pakistan as a necessary set of steps to get Pakistan to the point where the future is unlimited.’

Talking about US relations with India, Secretary Clinton noted that India had had a steady growth and was pursuing a very clear set of goals, which helped it to become a largely stable and internally secure country.

‘That’s what I want to see for Pakistan. And then I think you can be in a friendly competition for jobs and for prosperity and for growth and for education statistics,’ she added.

Secretary Clinton noted that Pakistani-Americans were among the most successful people in the US, adding that she would hope to see a day when Pakistanis would have the same opportunities in their own country.

Recently, the Secretary helped establish an organisation called the Pakistan Foundation to encourage the Pakistani-American country to help the place they came from.

‘What are your expectations from the Pakistan Foundation?’

‘It’s interesting because – as you know, because we have some mutual friends, there are so many Pakistani-Americans who are very successful financially,’ she said. ‘They have a very deep connection to their homeland. And I thought it would be important to try to convince Pakistani-Americans to be putting forward financial resources to work back in Pakistan.’

Mrs Clinton said that the US administration had also reached out to Pakistani-American doctors, asking them to serve the internally displaced people and now these doctors were going to Swat, Buneror other places to provide medical care.

Talking about widespread anti-Americanism in Pakistan, Secretary Clinton hoped that more and more people in Pakistan would understand that President Obama and she had no other interest than providing assistance to the Pakistani people and that other Americans too wanted to help.

‘We are not in any way making decisions, interfering or dictating. That is not our intent at all. But we want to be helpful because we see this courageous fight that you are waging. We know how hard it is because we are fighting the same enemy,’ she said.

The secretary noted that the vast majority of Pakistanis just wanted a better life for themselves and their children. ‘So if we can be helpful in helping to provide schools or textbooks or health programmes and physicians, nurses, things that will actually help improve the daily lives of the people of Pakistan, that’s what we are interested in doing,’ she said.

It is correct to reminisce about past mistakes. What about the mistakes that Mr. Clinton is committing right now. The height of imperial hubris is when a politician from a state tells the people of another state, who the enemies are. Reading from the Democrat “company line“, Barack Obama tries to tell the people of Pakistan what is good for them. This is the true depiction of the “Ugly American“. Surely it will not go will in Pakistan.

That support, let us recall, has been expressed most recently through repeated missile attacks in Pakistan’s tribal areas, and one ground assault leaving scores dead, including women and children, as well as other civilians. It has been manifested also in Washington’s refusal to consider Pakistan’s need for nuclear energy on the same pattern as India’s, in the call for a “reform” of the ISIto make it more amenable to US objectives in the region and in the demand, renewed at the bilateral strategic dialogue in Washington last month, for interrogating Dr A Q Khan.Dr. Usman Khalid: Director London Institute of South Asia

There is a huge gulf in threat perceptions. Washington and Islamabad do not see eye to eye on the threats facing the Indus. Like drunken sailors, the US generals are loose with their lips, wild in their accusations, and undiplomatic in their advice. They display their ignorance and lack of understanding by stepping on Pakistani toes.  Pakistanis tune out and all they see is “The Ugly American“.

Money or aid gives them leverage, but it doesn’t buy them slaves. When the US administration mentions “existential threats” from the West, that by itself is enough to irk, irritate, aggravate and anger the Pakistanis. When the special envoys lecture Pakistanis about the threat from the West (and ignores the threats from the East), that by itself is a threatwhich annoys, infuriates and offends the Pakistani intelligentsia, the Pakistani media and the Pakistan Army. Pakistanis bristle and chafe at rhetoric that tells them who the enemy is.

PAST MISTAKES

‘You once said that America too made mistakes in Pakistan. What were those mistakes and how would you avoid them?’

‘Well, I think that if you go back and look at the history between the United States and Pakistan, we were not always as sensitive or understanding of the needs of the Pakistani people. We were not always constant in our support and our friendship for Pakistan. We encouraged Pakistan to create the forces that fought against the Soviet Union occupation in Afghanistan and then left you to deal with the aftermath. So it’s been, I would argue, a relationship that hasn’t been as constant and as effective as we would want it to be.’

Mrs Clinton stressed that while this administration was committed to a long-term relationship with Pakistan, it might make mistakes too.

‘I mean, we are just human beings; we know that. But we want to be as honest in admitting them as possible, learning from them, and then trying to move forward. We weren’t as supportive of Pakistan’s democracy as we could have and should have been in the past.’

The current administration, she noted, had a different approach. ‘Our goal is to be there as a constant friend and a country that Pakistan, not just the government, but the people can rely on to build up more trust and understanding between us, and to be of assistance when asked by Pakistan.’

Asked if the US too had complaints against Pakistan, Mrs Clinton observed that developing trust required time but the present US administration had started a much deeper engagement with Pakistan on all levels.

‘We’ve even established a trilateral relationship between the United States, Pakistan, and Afghanistan to try to work through some of the common problems we face. I hope that there is a growing awareness that President Obama and I care deeply about the future of Pakistan, and particularly want to reverse some of the misconceptions and perceptions that existed in the past.

‘So I hope that we’re going to be given a fair hearing. I hope that people will look at us and say there is something different here, it’s not the same old, same old attitude.’

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during her campaign for the presidency of the United States mentioned “Pakistan’s paranoia” about India’s intentions about Pakistan. Pardon us Ms. Clinton but Bharat has threatened Pakistan will all out war, not once but twice in the past few years. Additionally, it was the Pakhtuns that liberated Azad Kashmir. Pardon the Pakistanis for trusting the Pakhtunsabit more than Delhi. It is an inconvenient truth but Delhi does occupy Srinagar-Kashmir, Junagarh, Manvadar, Sir Creek and Siachin–not the Pakhtuns (aka Taliban).

Pakistani “paranoia” is based on actual threats from Bharat this year after the Mumbai militancy. It has done so before. Bharat trains, arms and supplies militants in Baluchsitan and Swat.

Pakistani “paranoia” is based on the daily threats emanating from the Times of India, the Daily Deccan and the bigotry of the BJP, VHP and the likes of Adhvani, Modi and Varun Gandhi.

The $80 Billion US think tank industry can ignore the threats against Pakistan but it would be disingenuous of the US establishment to call Pakistani defense needs as paranoia.

Why is Pakistani threat perception ridiculed when it clashes with US interests and why is is extolled when there is synergy. Alliance Partnersand allies haveto understand each others threat perception with mutual respect

India knows that it can never win a conventional warfare because of the Nuclear Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). However it still harbors notions of winning a sort of a mini war. India may think it has a Cold Start Strategy, but it may end as a hot nuclear war. Indian Defense planners cannot guarantee that a limited strike will not escalate into a full fledged war. A full fledged war with nuclear armed missiles may destroy both countries.

Referring to President Obama’s recent interview to Dawn, the secretary recalled that he talked about how much he loved Pakistani food.

‘And do you?’

‘I echo that. I am also a fan,’ she said. But her interest in Pakistan was much deeper, she added.

‘It’s a sense that the people of Pakistan are working hard for a better future. And we want to be of help. And we have no claims, we have no interest other than assisting you in achieving the kind of sovereignty and self-determination and very solid democracy, and then results for people,’ she said.

Democracy, she noted, in itself was only the means to an end of a better life, so that every child had a chance to live up to his or her God-given potential to get an education, to get the healthcare he or she needs, to have their parents havejobs with rising wages and dignity.

‘I mean, that’s what all people are looking for, and the people of Pakistan deserve that.’

‘Drone attacks. I think it was Senator John Kerry, who stated they are making more enemies than they are killing. Do you agree with this comment?’

‘I don’t comment on any matter that is of that nature,’ she said. ‘But I think that what we see is what’s happening on the ground with the Pakistani army and the sacrifices that they’re making. And I think that it’s important that we pursue joint efforts against those who would murder innocent Pakistanis, innocent Americans, innocent Indians, people who were just going about their daily lives and have no reason to be targeted the way that they are.’

The US goal, she said, was to help Pakistan, in whatever way was appropriate, to defeat the enemy ‘who wants to totally, radically change Pakistan.’

The different types of “Taliban”: The good Bad and the Ugly

There are several types of “Taliban“. It depends on who you are talking to to find out who the good ones are and who the bad ones are. Mulla Omar vs. Bait Mehsud: A series of unfortunate events in Afghanistan

Many analysts are confused about the dynamics in South Asia. American arm chair thinkers obfuscate the truth to cloak the nefarious acts of sabotage being carried out by the intelligence agencies. Delhi keeps harping about the inevitable collapse of Pakistan and its media in concert with the right wing parties continue to paint the gloom and doom pictures about Islamabad. All this to hide the Delhi’s total failure in international relations and domestic tranquility.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6M_Bj6zV1Q&feature=player_embedded

GOOD TALIBAN

‘On Wednesday, you said in your speech that there were some good Taliban in Afghanistan. Are there good Taliban in Pakistan and can they be engaged too?’

‘I think that would be up to the Pakistani government to determine, but it does seem to us that people get caught up in these organisations, sometimes because they’re paid, sometimes because they’re intimidated, sometimes because they think that they mean something other than what they do,’ she said.

‘And for those who are willing to put down arms against the Pakistani government, who are willing to renounce violence and try to work to achieve a better life for themselves in connection with the democracy that Pakistan is, I certainly think that it would be appropriate for Pakistan to consider that.’

But she recalled that Pakistan had tried this approach before, reaching an agreement with the Taliban and their related organisation.

‘And I’m told they didn’t keep it. I mean, they didn’t abide by it. They resumed their aggressive behaviour, their violence, their terrorism. So I think that it’s up to the Pakistani government, of course, to decide what’s appropriate for Pakistan.’Clinton says Pakistan has nothing to fear from her India visit By Anwar Iqbal. Saturday, 18 Jul, 2009 | 08:07 AM PST |

Ms. Clinton is very confused about Pakistan. She does not comprehend Pakistani nationalism. She has no clue about the reasons for the creation of Pakistan. Her obsession with Bhrat makes are unfit as an honest broker. Ms. Clinton needs to be educated about the Pakistan point of view. Her outbursts about “paranoia” display a heightened sense of insecurity (perhaps stemming from her troubled married life) have to be curtailedwith adequate medication.

Ms. Clinton needs to be informed that neither she nor her special envoy to Pakistan are Viceroys of Pakistan. Her proclivity for lecturing needs to be curtailed and indeed halted altogether.

Sorry Ms. Clinton: Pakistan does not accept anyones “leading role” in South Asia. If Ms. Clinton thinks that she can force this notion of a “leader” in South Asia, she is wrong, totally wrong. Pakistanis and the Pakistan Army will not kowtow to any power, specially a bully in South Asia.

Temporary setbacks, or short term difficulties will not change the direction of the country. Kashmir is the core problem  and neither 800,000 Bharati troops, nor an obsolete tub imported from Russia can dampen the yearning of the Pakistan to stay independent and free of Bharati contorl. A million Pakistan soldiers, and half a million reservists, plus nuclear weapons keep the 7th largest state independent. The sons and daughters of the Crescent and Star will not submit to any diktat from anyone. Lessons of obeisance fall on deaf ears. Pakistanis are stubborn and resilient. The strength of the nation goes beyond ethnicity and religion, it is in the common water that the 170 million sons and daughters of the Indus drink. The water of the Indus has been in the blood of Pakistanis for 7000 years (5000 under the Indus Valley and before that the Mehergarh Valley). Neither the British, nor the current superpower can separate the Indus from the people, nor the people from the Indus.