Pakistan’s ties with the United States have gone into crisis since police arrested Raymond Davis, who confessed to killing two men in self-defence on a busy street in the eastern city of Lahore on January 27.

Washington supports his claim and says he is a diplomat who should be released immediately in keeping with international law.

“We have always abided by international laws and conventions,” Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) spokeswoman Fauzia Wahab told reporters in Karachi. “Davis has an official business visa, so why argue and why we are risking our overall good reputation before the rest of the world?”

“America is the largest market for Pakistan, with whom we earn four billion dollars. Most Pakistanis who live in the United States send bulk of remittances to us to support our economy,” said Wahab.

“The US drone fired three missiles and hit a house used by militants. Five militants have been killed,” A senior security official in Peshawar said. An intelligence official in Miranshah also confirmed the attack and the toll. The Monday attack is the second in three days, following a similar strike in North Waziristan on Saturday which killed four militants, the official said.

The nationalities of the militants killed in the Monday attack were not immediately clear, but intelligence officials in the area said most of those killed were Afghans. Residents in Miranshah said militants linked to the Haqqani network were using the house as a training camp. The missile attack also badly damaged a nearby house, injuring 13 people including civilian women and children, an intelligence official in Miranshah said.

Sarah Palin wrote in a tweet, “Peace-seeking Muslims, pls understand, Ground Zero mosque is UNNECESSARY provocation; it stabs hearts, Pls reject it in interest of healing.”

She also tweeted a plea asking “peaceful New Yorkers” to “pls refute the Ground Zero mosque plan if you believe catastrophic pain caused @ Twin Towers site is too raw, too real.”

The developer, Sharif El-Gamal, describes the project as an “Islamic community center” that will include a 500-seat performing arts center, a lecture hall, an exhibition space, a swimming pool, a gym, a culinary school, a restaurant and a prayer space for Muslims.

Sarah Palin has clearly failed to distinguish the criminals involved in the 9/11 attacks and rest of the whole Muslim community in United States. She is calling a pure business venture “unnecessary provocation” and stab in the hearts clearly indicating that any body with the Islamic faith or called Muslim is involved in the 9/11 attack.

It has been nine years, thousands of Muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq have lost their lives because of the US war on Terrorism started blindly right after the 9/11. Sarah Palin is asking peace loving Muslims to reject the building of community center in the interest of ‘healing’ but what about starting something for the interest of healing of Muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq which are affected adversely by the actions of her country United States? What about the healing of the whole community of American Muslims who are being wrongly targeted as if they were also involved in the 9/11?

The spokesman spokesman Abdul Basit said the article quoted unverifiable sources and it was aimed at tarnishing the image of Pakistan. The Spokesman emphasised that Pakistan’s strategic assets were completely safe and secure. He further reiterated that Islamabad does not require and will not allow any foreign assistance in making the nuclear assets secure.

US Ambassador to Pakistan Anne Patterson has also termed the allegations about the security of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal as completely false. She said the United States has not been negotiating any understandings with the Pakistani military over the nuclear issue. Washington has no intention to seize Pakistani nuclear weapons or material.

The writer Seymour M. Hersh of New Yorker Magazine has sighted the recent attacks by terrorists in Pakistan on Pakistan Army Headquarter and Police centers. He also writes:

…..an Army general was shot dead by gunmen on motorcycles on the streets of Islamabad, the capital. The assassins clearly had advance knowledge of the general’s route, indicating that they had contacts and allies inside the security forces.

He is referring to the assassination of Brigadier Moinuddin Ahmed in Islamabad, Pakistan. His jeep was ambushed about one kilometer away from his residence. Mr. Hersh’s conclusion that it became possible because assassins had contacts and allies inside the security forces is clear indication that his article is based on his own speculations and motives. There is no much to change the route within one kilometer and Brigadier Moinuddin Ahmed had been taking the same route in the area where he was killed. It didn’t need inside contacts. However, the most important fact is that he was leaving back to Sudan to join UN peace force in Sudan after vacations. Who would benefit the most in Sudan with his killing?

The image also show that terrorists entering the nuclear facility with weapons and Pakistan army is not doing anything to stop them. Does it need anything else to clarify the writer’s motive?

Mr. Hersh further writes:

The secrecy surrounding the understandings was important because there is growing antipathy toward America in Pakistan, as well as a history of distrust. Many Pakistanis believe that America’s true goal is not to keep their weapons safe but to diminish or destroy the Pakistani nuclear complex.

He concludes his article writing:

The ongoing consultation on nuclear security between Washington and Islamabad intensified after the announcement in March of President Obama’s so-called Af-Pak policy, which called upon the Pakistan Army to take more aggressive action against Taliban enclaves inside Pakistan. I was told that the understandings on nuclear cooperation benefited from the increasingly close relationship between Admiral Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and General Kayani, his counterpart, although the C.I.A. and the Departments of Defense, State, and Energy have also been involved. (All three departments declined to comment for this article. The national-security council and the C.I.A. denied that there were any agreements in place.)

One can ask the question that if the secrecy surrounding the understanding was important then why and who leaked it intentionally to Mr. Seymour Hersh ensuring that it will be no longer a secret.

The words she has elected to use have been sensible. ‘Let us discuss and air the differences as friends and partners and let us not magnify them to the extent of exclusion of many areas of agreement and cooperation.’

Topping the list of those ‘areas of agreement and cooperation’ are two things — which many here are loath to admit: one, dollars flowing directly from the US treasury and indirectly from the IFIs that have helped stave off disaster for the economy; and two, cooperation in the fight against Al-Qaeda which menaces the state here and poses a threat to regional stability. Neither has gained much traction with the public or created goodwill for the Americans because the focus has been on the other ‘sins’ of a profligate, not-very-competent Pakistani government and the American ‘hidden agenda’ to undermine Pakistan’s security and territorial integrity. Be that as it may, and in fact reversing public opinion in Pakistan in the near term may be a lost cause, it is good to at least see a softer side of American diplomacy, one that emphasises opportunities and not threats.

The News editor wrote:

Hillary Clinton’s three-day visit to Pakistan, her first as US secretary of state, marks a fairly distinct break with the past. Unlike her tough-talking and deliberately abrasive predecessor, Condoleezza Rice, Ms Clinton went out of her way to be charming, open and to talk to a wide range of people. Her experiences in the US Senate also meant she brought in a mature handling of queries and a better understanding of how complex the regional situation is. The interaction with students at the Government College University in Lahore should have been especially instructive for the person who will be playing a key role in devising foreign policy in Washington. The students who lined up to question her were not hostile. But they made it clear they shared with the majority of citizens a lack of trust for the US and scepticism about intentions. To her credit Ms Clinton accepted there were good grounds for this lack of faith. Her assurance that the Obama administration represented real change is one that will need though to be proven through deeds and not just words. The sometimes startled response from the secretary of state to the far tougher questions thrown at her by a TV panel made up of top anchor people suggests the government functionaries she met in Islamabad may have offered up a typically sanitized picture of prevailing sentiments. It is, therefore, encouraging that despite the immense security concerns Hillary Clinton made it a point to see the ‘real’ Pakistan, also holding a meeting with Mian Nawaz Sharif in his home city.

But for all her pleasant smiles, Ms Clinton did not shy away from making some things quite clear. She stated that she believed the Al Qaeda leadership was indeed in Pakistan, she stressed an all-out effort on every front was needed against terrorism and she focused on how much Pakistan had to gain, especially in economic terms, by normalizing ties with India. If we are honest, we cannot deny that much of what she said was true. For reasons buried in ideology, many of us, whether we draw influence from the right or the left of the political spectrum, have difficulty in suggesting that an alliance with the US could benefit Pakistan. It would also be naïve to assume that Washington wishes to ‘help’ Pakistan as an ally. International relations are after all geared around self-interest and self-preservation. There is nothing noble about Washington’s focus on Islamabad. But it is possible that at this particular moment in history the interests of both nations coincide. This is something we should use to our advantage.

Overcoming the militant threat and entering in to a less acrimonious relationship with India would benefit most citizens. There are segments that would stand to lose, but ways must be found to prevent them from subverting the interests of the majority. They have done so repeatedly through the decades since 1947. The current US setup seems to have recognized some of this. Ms Clinton also emphasized in this respect a dramatic change in policy from those of the George W Bush-led team. The Bush administration’s virtually blind backing for former president Musharraf created a number of the problems we face today. Our political leaders must assess the way we can most effectively counter these. In realistic terms, going beyond rhetoric or wishful thinking, it is inevitable that we will need to work with the US at least for some years to come. We cannot on our own hope to conquer that monster of terrorism that Washington’s policies helped create. Nor do we have the economic or moral wherewithal to do this. Hillary Clinton has demonstrated a willingness to better understand concerns in Pakistan and to open wider the doors of communication. There are still plenty of reasons to be wary of US intentions. But for now, the opportunities for a more open relation laid out by the secretary of state need to be seized and utilized to pull our country out of the pit into which it has stumbled as a result of errors made in the past.

Whereas The Nation’s editor chose these words for her visit to Pakistan:

IF Secretary Hillary Clinton suspected Pakistan of hiding the truth about Al-Qaeda, she would have known by the time she left for home that those with whom she had interacted here had not been so enamoured of her rationalisation of questionable deals between the two governments. They had been, in fact, put off by her evasiveness when confronted with questions of concern to them and doubted her explanations in equal measure. Imagine as high a US official as Secretary of State visiting a frontline state in the war on terror, who is unfailingly kept abreast of important developments by the vast official propaganda machinery! And then imagine Ms Clinton being unaware of the incident of US diplomats caught roaming around with unlicensed arms on the streets of Islamabad at 3 O’clock in the morning. Remember that since they hold diplomatic passports, it becomes a direct concern of the State Department whose portfolio she holds. She must have felt embarrassed while pleading ignorance, no doubt, though schooled in diplomatic norms first as the First Lady and now as the top US diplomat she managed to hide her embarrassment well. But she must have felt that her remarks cut no ice with the audience. The same story would hold good for her assurances that the Kerry-Lugar Act did not impinge on Pakistan’s sovereignty.

When Secretary Clinton met PML-N leadership, including Mian Nawaz Sharif, Chief Minister Mian Shahbaz Sharif and Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan, during her visit to Lahore on Thursday, she found the discussion centring round Washington’s disregard of Pakistani nation’s sensitivities. Be it the drone attacks that callously destroy innocent lives, occasionally taking out an Al-Qaeda operative, or the humiliating conditionalities of the Kerry-Lugar Act, or be it the loose canon Xe Worldwide (Blackwater) and its subsidiaries – all reflect painful onslaught on Pakistan’s sovereignty. In the face of stark facts, her denials just did not work. Apart from expressing reservations on these issues, which Mian Nawaz asked Ms Clinton to remove, he also drew her attention towards President Obama’s thesis (now lying buried under the Indian pressure) that peace in South Asia hinges on a just solution of the Kashmir dispute.

Generally her visit was not all threatening as it has been during the Bush administration, however, United States has to do a lot more if it wants Pakistan’s cooperation in the war on terror in the region. Pakistan has lost and losing the lives of men women and children many folds than any other partner in the war on terror.

Hillary Clinton earlier visited a mosque in Lahore on the second day of a visit focused on public diplomacy and strengthening moves towards democracy.

Clinton’s visit to the second largest city in Pakistan, which has been hit by a series of gun, suicide and grenade attacks this year, has been accompanied by draconian security measures a day after a car bomb killed 104 in Peshawar.

Clinton said:

Horrific bombing’ in the northwestern city left no doubt that ‘Pakistan is in the midst of a battle against extremists. This is not your fight alone… You’re standing on the frontlines of this battle but we are standing with you.

As a way of repudiating past U.S. policies toward Pakistan, Clinton told the students at the Government College of Lahore “there is a huge difference” between the Obama administration’s approach and that of former President George W. Bush. “I spent my entire eight years in the Senate opposing him,” she said to a burst of applause from the audience of several hundred students. “So, to me, it’s like daylight and dark.”

Following previous announcements of cash for poverty, border security and energy development, she pledged a 45-million-dollar investment for higher education in Pakistan and was to meet business leaders later Thursday.

While talking to the hand-picked audience from around the country, Clinton said:

If there were peace between Pakistan and India, and the outstanding issues were resolved, Pakistan would take off like a rocket in terms of economic development.

Pakistan has such an opportunity to be a power house. You are so strategically located.

She further said referring to the possibility of trade opening up to the north, east and west and with the Arabian Sea.

There is no doubt that Pakistan is located at a very strategical position on the map of the world. It has all the ingredients of becoming a major hub of economical and trade activities in the region acting as a bridge between other parts of the world with the Arabian Sea as well as by air. Could it be the major motive for the enemies of Pakistan to support and fund the terrorists activities in the country so that it can never benefit from its position?

Holbrooke said:

It is reasonable to hope that there will be less irregularities this time for several reasons. Three, the international community, including the forces under Gen. (Stanley) McChrystal’s command, are going to go all-out to help make this a success.

In his remarks at the State Department, Richard Holbrooke also sought to dispel suggestions that his relations with Afghan President Hamid Karzai are so bad that he is unable to work with the Afghan leader.

In terms of my relationships with President Karzai, they’re fine. They’re correct. They’re appropriate. I speak to him on behalf of my government, and he speaks as president of the country. I respect him. And if he is re-elected as president on November 7, we all look forward to working closely with him in pursuit of mutual goals.

I am seeing Karzai in a few days and I have absolutely no problems with him. And it’s as simple as that.

The Obama administration is counting on the November 7, 2009 vote being held in a way that Afghans and the international community see as legitimate. An outcome short of that is likely to raise further doubts about the wisdom of investing more U.S. troops and other resources in a counterinsurgency campaign in Afghanistan. A key pillar of that campaign is an Afghan government that is a credible partner of the U.S. and NATO.

Vice President Joe Biden, meanwhile, rejected criticism by former Vice President Dick Cheney that President Barack Obama’s decision on whether to expand the U.S. war footing in Afghanistan is taking too long.

Biden told reporters traveling with him as he flew back to Washington from central Europe:

I think that is absolutely wrong. I think what the administration is doing is exactly what we said it would do.

Holbrooke also announced that Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is going to visit Pakistan to meet with government officials, leaders of the political opposition, civic leaders and business interests. He declined to provide specifics, saying details are being kept under wraps to protect Clinton’s security in a country that has been rocked by terrorist attacks in recent weeks. He lamented what he called speculation in Pakistan about the precise timing of her visit and the locations she intends to visit.

It will be Clinton’s first trip to Pakistan as secretary of state. She has not visited Afghanistan since taking office.

While addressing to reporters, NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said:

It does not solve the problems in Afghanistan just to hunt down and kill individual terrorists. What we need is a much broader strategy, which stabilizes the whole Afghan society. I have noted a broad support from all ministers on this counter-insurgency approach, but let me stress, without discussing the resource implications of these recommendations.

McChrystal’s strategy puts protection of the Afghan civilians at the epicentre of the military action, forcing the fighters to come to the military alliance and its partners.

US Defense Secretary Roberts Gates indicated that a number of his European allies appeared ready to provide more resources to carry out the plan, drawn up by the top commander in Afghanistan, US General Stanley McChrystal. Gates said:

There were a number of allies, who have indicated they were thinking about or moving towards increasing their military or their civilian contributions or both, and I found that very heartening.

NATO’s aim in Afghanistan has been to foster security, democracy reconstruction in a country wracked by more than 30 years of war by leading a force of some 70,000 troops drawn from 43 nations. The US forces separately conduct operations to root out al-Qaeda. The reports suggest that currently the Taliban and other networks hold the initiative, 8 years after the Taliban were ousted from power in Afghanistan.

The success of US and NATO forces in Afghanistan depends on how swiftly they can help the Afghans to build the infrastructure and assist in providing basic amenities.   Once the Afghan people observe that foreign forces are there to help and not to conquer or invade their cultural norms, they will start to cooperate with the operating NATO forces. Eventually it will not only speed up the rehabilitation process but also weed out the extremist elements responsible for all the destruction,  and deaths of Afghan people.

The increased level of US troops will help to ease the strain of deployment, as many troops have faced repeated lengthy rotations in Afghanistan or Iraq.

Gates said that tThe increase will not create new combat forces but will help both commanders in the field and families back home by reducing the pressures of multiple rotations.

Do you see any change in policy from Bush administration to the new Obama administration which promissed a ‘change’.  The only change which I see is the increased level of troops to intensify the war on terrorism in Afghanistan.  There is no significant change neither any indication of change in plan for the Afghanistan and Gulf region untill the complete control of the region’s resources.

It is a coincidence that this very day Iraq has auctioned off some of the country’s largest oil fields to companies such as ExxonMobil, Chevron and British Petroleum. Is it not a reminder of the real motives for the 2003 invasion? The invasion resulted in deaths of over one million Iraqis and 4,634 American and other Western troops. The Iraq war was, and continues to be, an imperialist war waged by the American ruling elite for control of oil and geo-strategic advantage.

As written by James Cogan

In an apt analogy, Larry Goldstein of the US-based Energy Policy Research Foundation told the New York Times last week: “Asking why oil companies are interested in Iraq is like asking why robbers rob banks—because that’s where the money is.” Iraq’s total oil reserves are estimated to be at least 115 billion barrels. Its reserves of natural gas are at least 3.36 billion cubic metres.

 

Millions of people around the world understood in 2003 that the claims of the Bush administration and its international allies about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and links to terrorism were threadbare lies promulgated to justify the plunder of the country’s oil wealth. The claim by the Obama White House that it is continuing the occupation to consolidate “Iraqi democracy” is also a lie.

One can hope that this day will mark a new beginning of Iraq’s history and will bring long awaited political, financial and social stability.