http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/08/world/asia/08pstan.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
the Pakistanis military think the US aid program is not good enough for them. I would find this amusing if it were not so tragic.
sometimes the Yanks behave like an abused wife when it comes to dealing with Pakistan. they hate the pakis but they can just never let go. always giving more - giving anything to be loved!
compare that to our PM - forever professing Indian 'love' for the US president - irrespective of who is in the chair!
5 comments:
"Yanks behave like an abused wife when it comes to dealing with Pakistan"
Battered Westerner Syndrome inflicted by myopic Muslim defenders
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0802/steyn.html
This article very neatly elaborates how this Battered Western Syndrome is inflicted by Far-Left-Loonies who are almost acting like cheerleaders for fanatical muslims.
Extract from Did Haqqani father ‘iron-clad’ Kerry Lugar conditions ?
The lobbyists, including Mark Siegel and Cassidy and Associates, were supposed to work for Pakistan and were paid million of dollars, but they were actually lobbying against Pakistan and were trying to get anti-Pakistan conditions inserted in the Kerry-Lugar Bill, The News reports.
However, experts believe that the main culprit is Pakistan’s Ambassador to the US, Hussain Haqqani.
One could find the details of all the Army-specific conditions, mentioned in the Kerry Lugar bill, in Haqqani’s book, which was published in 2006.
“The United States must use its aid as a lever to influence Pakistan’s domestic policies.” Washington should no longer condone the Pakistani military’s support of Islamic militants, its use of its intelligence apparatus for controlling domestic politics, and its refusal to cede power to a constitutional democratic government,” the book states in one of its chapters.
“Unlike governments in other Muslim countries like Egypt and Turkey, Pakistan’s government – particularly its military – has encouraged political and radical Islam, which otherwise has a relatively narrow base of support,” it says.
The book also stresses on the fact that the United States can contain the Islamic influence by asking Pakistan for certain reforms with regard to the Army and other security forces.
“The United States can help contain the Islamists’ influence by demanding reform of those aspects of Pakistan’s governance that involve the military and security services. Until now, the United States has harshly berated corrupt or ineffective Pakistani politicians but has only mildly criticised the military’s meddling,” it states.
HUGH FITZGERALD at Jihadwatch.org says:
Now Pakistan has managed once again to fool the Americans. Or rather, Hasan Haqqani has managed to do so. He is a smooth man, with his elegant and reassuring wife (those blue jeans, that easy Wellesley-girl manner that the jeunesse doree of the zamindar class put to such good use when they are abroad. But it was Radcliffe-and-Oxford-educated Pinky Bhutto who pushed the nuclear program and who can be seen shrieking about Jihad in Kashmir on Youtube. So Pakistanis fool the Americans, time and time and time again.
As to the latest aid, why should it be given at all? The argument that Pakistan must have it, or collapse -- well, what's wrong with Pakistan collapsing, or at the very least, being forced to spend all of its efforts simply staying afloat and not disintegrating into internecine warfare? Ordinarily, one wishes one's enemies, the members of the enemy camp, to have as much internal strife as possible, in order to divert the aggressive impulse, and the size of the threat. Why should American money go to Pakistan, especially since again and again it has been shown that the attempt to distinguish "non-military aid" from military aid is a false one, for the government of Pakistan, that is, the real government of Pakistan, the Pakistani military, will always find ways to divert funds freed up by aid to buy more weapons or support more weapons projects.
And even if one thought a little aid might do a little good, why is it to come from the Americans, or other Infidels? Why isn't it coming from the government of Saudi Arabia, drowning in hundreds of billions of dollars, or the governments of those statelets with vast unearned wealth and so few people to share it: the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, and all the others? Why aren't they asked -- pointedly and repeatedly -- to share just a little of that vast wealth, some twelve trillion dollars having been received by the Muslim members of OPEC since 1973 alone, with fellow members of the Umma? They could start with those in Pakistan whose economic backwardness may be directly attributed to two things: the inshallah-fatalism of Islam (that fit in perfectly with the mores of the early Arabs, who lived on raiding, on seizing the property of others, including those who, like the Jewish farmers of the Khaybar Oasis, did till the soil, did work), and the hatred of bid'a, or innovation.
Extract from Pakistani Christians reject US aid, demand justice
Gojra Christians in Pakistan, the victims of the recent attacks by Islamic militants have rejected U.S. aid, and instead demanded that case registered against 129 of them be withdrawn first and justice restored.
The U.S. Aid officials, accompanied by selected Member of Parliament among Pakistani Christians came to Gojra on 5 October, to monitor the distribution of goods and cash among the victims of Gojra violence. But they were greeted with a word of protest from Gojra Christians, according to Pakistan Christian Post (PCP).
A huge gathering of Christians at St. Albert Church in Gojra on 5 October at around 4 p.m. greeted the officials by raising slogans against them saying, “We do not need aid but we need justice, protection and equal rights.” They even tossed aid boxes, the report said.
On August 1, a Muslims mob attack Christians in Gojra, after rumours spread that pages of the Koran had been ripped up at a Christian wedding. Seven Christians were killed during the attack, and four more were gunned down following the violence; over 60 Christian homes were burnt. The incident draws condemnation from the international community and Christians around the world.
However, the police of Gojra registered cases against 129 Christians to conspire violence on August 1, 2009. The cases were also registered against Muslims but all were released on bail by Lahore High Court, PCP stated.
Nazir S Bhatti, President of Pakistan Christian Congress (PCC) condemned government of Pakistan to register false cases to conspire violence against 129 Christians and demanded immediate withdrawal.
Extracts from Hype and hysteria over nothing By Irfan Husain
Saturday, 10 Oct, 2009
Briefly, arms transfers and military assistance have been tied to an annual certification by the American secretary of state that Pakistan is not supporting terrorist groups attacking targets in neighbouring countries; that we are fighting the Taliban and Al Qaeda, and will act against their leaders when intelligence is provided; that Pakistan will disrupt nuclear proliferation networks; and that our armed forces are not undermining democratic and judicial institutions.
What is fuelling the debate is the perception that these conditions imply that in the past, Pakistan was responsible for nuclear proliferation; did support jihadi outfits that carried out attacks in Afghanistan and India; failed to fight the Taliban effectively; and our army did indeed subvert the democratic process.
Surely the Pakistani opponents of the Kerry-Lugar bill are not pretending that we are innocent on all counts? Or has the state of denial penetrated so deeply into their collective psyche that they have erased all memory of the recent past? The same media that not long ago accused the Americans of bolstering Musharraf by writing him a blank cheque are now going ballistic over the army being held accountable.
I can understand our generals having reservations about these conditions, but why should political parties object to the proviso that military aid could be suspended in case the army meddles in civilian affairs? And for Chaudhry Shujaat, of all people, to complain that the government is selling the country’s honour is pretty rich. Under him, the PML-Q supported Musharraf in all his actions, including his famous U-turn on Afghanistan under American pressure.
No doubt what many in Pakistan would like is a cheque for $1.5bn every year without any questions asked, much as it happened under Musharraf. But the result of this lack of accountability was that there is little to show for the billions that flowed into Pakistan’s coffers after 9/11. Now, American legislators want to monitor where their money goes.
(...)
What is missing in this entire confused babble is a realisation of where we really stand. By every indicator of economic and social development, Pakistan figures near the bottom of the pile. Violence and population increase are the only two areas we seem to excel at. And yet to hear many in our parliament and media, one would think we are sitting on vast treasures that allow us to say ‘thanks, but no thanks’ to Washington.
Another hard reality we do not appear to have grasped yet is that everything required under the military conditions is something we would have to do whether the Kerry Lugar bill becomes operative or not. Should we not be cracking down on the Taliban and sundry jihadi groups? Do we really want to re-open A.Q. Khan’s nuclear bazaar? Do we want terrorist camps to operate in Quetta and Muridke? Do we wish our soil to be used as a launching pad for attacks on our neighbours? Is this really what our ‘ghairat’ is all about?
Barely a year ago, we were scrambling for a cash infusion to pay for essential imports and shore up a collapsing economy. Both Saudi Arabia and China were unwilling to provide the kind of bailout we were so desperate for. Finally, the IMF threw us a lifeline, attached to its usual tough conditionalities. Now that the Americans have come up with a long-term assistance package to an elected government, critics — silent under Musharraf — are raising all kinds of objections. Seldom has a gift horse’s mouth been examined so closely.
Post a Comment