Charles Timothy “Chuck” Hagel (born October 4, 1946) is an American politician who is the 24th and current United States Secretary of Defense, serving since 2013. He served as a United States Senator from Nebraska from 1997 to 2009.

A recipient of two Purple Hearts while an infantry squad leader in the Vietnam War, Hagel returned home to start careers in business and politics. He co-founded Vanguard Cellular, the primary source of his personal wealth, and served as president of the McCarthy Group, an investment banking firm, and CEO of American Information Systems Inc., a computerized voting machine manufacturer. A member of the Republican Party, Hagel was first elected to the United States Senate in 1996. He was reelected in 2002, and retired in 2008. Hagel is currently a professor at the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University, chairman of the Atlantic Council, and co-chairman of the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board. He also serves on a number of boards of directors, including that of Chevron Corporation.

On January 7, 2013, President Barack Obama nominated Hagel to serve as Secretary of Defense. On February 12, 2013, the Senate Armed Services Committee approved Hagel’s nomination by a vote of 14-11. On February 14, 2013, Senate Republicans denied Democrats the 60 votes needed to end the debate on Hagel’s nomination and proceed to a final vote, citing the need for further review. It was the first time in American history that a nominee for Secretary of Defense was filibustered, although candidates for other cabinet offices have been filibustered before On February 26, 2013 the Senate voted for cloture on Hagel’s nomination and confirmed his nomination by a vote of 58-41. He took office on February 27, 2013 as his predecessor Leon Panetta went into retirement.

Personal life

Hagel has two younger brothers: Thomas is a professor at the University of Dayton School of Law and Michael, an artist resident in Omaha, Nebraska

Hagel’s third brother, James, died in an automobile accident at the age of 16.In 1979 Hagel married Patricia Lloyd. The couple separated in 1981 and divorced a year later. He married his second wife, LilibetZiller, in April 1985. The couple live with their daughter, Allyn, and son, Ziller, in McLean, Virginia.

Early life, education, military, and early political career

Hagel was born in North Platte, Nebraska, the son of Betty (née Dunn) and Charles Dean Hagel(7/22/1923-December 25, 1962). His father was of German heritage, while his mother was of Polish and Irish descent

He served in the United States Army infantry in Vietnam from 1967 to 1968. Holding the rank of Sergeant (E-5), he served as an infantry squad leader in the 9th Infantry Division

Business career

After leaving government employment, Hagel co-founded Vanguard Cellular, a mobile phone service carrier that made him a multi-millionaire.

In 1992 Hagel moved back to Nebraska to become president of the McCarthy Group, LLC, an investment banking firm.

U.S. Senate (1997–2009)

Elections

In 1996, Hagel ran for the open US Senate seat created by the retirement of Democrat J. James Exon.. Hagel won and became the first Republican in twenty-four years to win a Senate seat in Nebraska. Six years later in 2002, Hagel overwhelmingly won re-election with over 83% of the vote, the largest margin of victory in any statewide race in Nebraska history

Senate voting record

According to Boaz, among his most notable votes, Hagel:

•           Voted for the Patriot Act;[33]

•           Voted for the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts;[34][35]

•           Voted against No Child Left Behind;[36]

•           Voted against Bush’s Medicare prescription drug bill;[37]

•           Voted against McCain-Feingold.[38]

Foreign policy

On October 11, 2002, Hagel, along with 76 other Senators, voted in favor of the Iraq Resolution. Hagel, a later critic of the war, commented on his vote authorizing the use of force against Iraq

Hagel in a 2002 visit with Afghan President Hamid Karzai, and Afghan Minister of Women’s Affairs Sima Samar

In July 2007, Hagel was one of three Republican Senators who supported Democratic-proposed legislation requiring a troop withdrawal from Iraq to begin within 120 days

After the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Hagel voted in favor of Senate Joint Resolution , authorizing “necessary and appropriate U.S. Military force” in Afghanistan against those who planned or aided the September 11 attacks. During his tenure in the Senate, Hagel continued his support for NATO involvement, and funding in the War in Afghanistan. In 2011, after he left office, Hagel stated that President Obama needs to start “looking for the exit in Afghanistan”, and that “We need to start winding this down.”

Committee assignments

• Committee on Foreign Relations
  • Subcommittee on Near Eastern and South and Central Asian Affairs
  • Subcommittee on African Affairs
  • Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs
  • Subcommittee on International Development and Foreign Assistance, Economic Affairs, and International Environmental Protection (Ranking Member)
• Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs
  • Subcommittee on Securities, Insurance and Investment
  • Subcommittee on Financial Institutions (Ranking Member)
  • Subcommittee on Housing, Transportation, and Community Development
• Select Committee on Intelligence
• Committee on Rules and Administration

Hagel and Senator John McCain were close friends until 2007 when they diverged regarding Iraq policy; Hagel did not endorse McCain for President in the 2008 republican primaries or in the general election.

Post–U.S. Senate career (2009–present)

Secretary of Defense

Former Senator Hagel meeting with Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of StaffMartin Dempsey, and former VirginiaSenatorJohn Warner

President Obama nominated Hagel to succeed Leon Panetta and serve as his second term Secretary of Defense on January 7, 2013. Hagel, who would be the first former enlisted combat soldier if approved as Secretary of Defense, was interviewed by the Senate Armed Services Committee during a seven and a half hour hearing on January 31, 2013.

Criticism of the nomination

According to Jon Swaine writing in the Telegraph, Hagel has been accused of having “views [that] verged on anti-Semitic” due to his stating in a 2006 interview with Aaron David Miller that “[t]he Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people [on Capitol Hill]“, and “I’m not an Israeli senator. I’m a United States senator.” Hagel also has been criticized by the American Jewish Committee for an incident in 1999 where he was the only senator not to sign an open letter to Russian President Boris Yeltsin threatening to cut aid to Russia if it did not take action against rising anti-Semitism in the country. However, Hagel’s refusal to sign the letter was consistent with his policy of never signing letters to foreign heads of state. Hagel, instead, wrote to Bill Clinton on this issue, saying “Anti-Semitism or any form of religious persecution should never be tolerated.”

Hagel was criticized by The Christian Science Monitor and many Republicans, including senators like John McCain, for opposition to some sanctions against Iran, and for calling for direct negotiations with both Iran and with the Palestinian militant group Hamas, which both the U.S. and Israel refuse to engage directly

Some of Hagel’s policy positions became the subject of heated debate in the Senate, including support of defense cuts, opposition to preemptive action against Iran, and support of talks with Hamas and Hezbollah. However, U.S. News and World Report cited public opinion polls and foreign policy experts to suggest that Hagel’s views were within the mainstream of American foreign policy thought. Opponents also complained of Hagel’s 2011 call to have the Pentagon “pared down”, saying that “[t]he Defense Department, I think in many ways, has been bloated.”

The Human Rights Campaign criticized Hagel for having a “consistent anti-LGBT” voting record in the Senate and for opposing President Bill Clinton’s nomination of James Hormel as the U.S. Ambassador to Luxembourg, stating that Hormel was “openly, aggressively gay.” The group demanded that Hagel apologize for this 1998 remark The Log Cabin Republicans ran full-page newspaper ads opposing Hagel’s nomination Hagel apologized to Hormel in December 2012. On January 24, 2013, Senator Jeanne Shaheen stated that Hagel will oppose restrictions on LGBT military family benefits.

The New York Times reported that the media campaign opposing Hagel’s appointment is financed by new groups including a conservative group Americans for a Strong Defense and a gay rights group Use Your Mandate. The donors of these groups are mostly anonymous and running advertisements on issues raised by critics.

His Comments that India has sponsored terror attacks against Pakistan: Hagel

Feb 26,2013

United States Secretary of Defence nominee Chuck Hagel had suggested in a previously unreleased speech that India [Images ] has ‘for many years been using Afghanistan to fight a proxy war against Pakistan by sponsoring terror attacks inside it’.

According to a video obtained by Adam Kredo of the Washington Free Bacon, “India has over the years financed problems for Pakistan in Afghanistan,” Hagel had said during an address on Afghanistan at Oklahoma’s Cameron University in 2011.

“India for some time has always used Afghanistan as a second front, and India has over the years financed problems for Pakistan on that side of the border,” Hagel said in the speech. “And you can carry that into many dimensions, the point being the tense, fragmented relationship between Pakistan and Afghanistanhas been there for many, many years,” he added.

Read Complete:   http://www.mediapoint.pk/india-has-sponsored-terror-attacks-against-pak-hagel/

Comments :::

What the Hagel Victory Means, 

(The new Foreign Policy team of President Obama – John Kerry as Secretary of State and Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defence – does not change American interests but there may be a paradigm shift in the objectives of the USA. Iran may not be invaded. Greater Israel, Greater Baluchistan, and the Kurdistan State, all of which are indo-Zionist projects, may be quietly dropped thus abandoning the ‘mission’ of break up of the Muslim world into mutually hostile warring blocs and states. But this would not happen unless countries like Pakistan, Turkey and Saudi Arabia put pressure on the USA to give up support to Israel and insurgency in Kurdish and Baloch tribal areas. USA is bankrupt but is eager to put its house in order. The Muslim World can help if the USA abandons the old policy of ‘bribing and bullying’ and make genuine friends as until 1967 Arab Israeli War. ( Usman Khalid, Director RIFA)

 

 by Stephen M Walt

I suspect a lot of people would like to believe Chuck Hagel’s confirmation as secretary of defense shows that Obama has broken the back of the Israel lobby and will now move U.S. Middle East policy in a direction that would be better for us, better for Israel, better for the Palestinians, and maybe even better for the entire region. 


Don’t count on it. 


It is of course a very good thing that the Senate confirmed Hagel. He had excellent credentials for the job, had done nothing to disqualify himself, and to have been denied the post on the basis of the lobby’s slander would have been truly disheartening. And there’s no question that the antics of the Emergency Committee for Israel (note: for Israel, not the U.S.), the Washington Free Beacon, Elliot Abrams, Ted Cruz, Jennifer Rubin, et al. ultimately did more harm to themselves than to Hagel. 


They revealed both their preference for innuendo over facts and their belief that support for Israel matters more than any other aspect of U.S. defense policy. As I’ve noted before, their behavior merely confirmed what some of us have been saying for a very long time, and they did so center-stage with the spotlight on. Very gratifying indeed. 


But it would be a huge mistake to conclude that the lobby’s clout has been broken and that Obama will now be free to chart a new course. 


For starters, the behavior of several senators on the Senate Armed Services Committee shows that they are still mightily beholden to groups like AIPAC and extremist Christian Zionists, not to mention some unrepentant neoconservatives. Chuck Hagel was about as bulletproof a candidate as one could ask for (decorated war hero, defense and intelligence expert, successful businessman, respected ex-senator, etc.) and that didn’t stop these zealots from unloading the SIOP against him. The fact that they ultimately failed is important, but so is the fact that they could even make an issue of it. 


The lobby failed to stop Ronald Reagan from selling AWACs to Saudi Arabia in 1981, but they made him work really, really hard to get the deal through and he never took them on again. 


One should also remember that Obama has basically been caving in to the lobby ever since 2009, which tells you something about its clout. It’s true that he doesn’t have to run for re-election again. But most of those Congressmen do, and they aren’t going to back him up if he tries to play hardball with Netanyahu. The annual aid package to Israel will be approved like clockwork, which means Obama won’t have many levers to use if he needs to push both sides toward a peace deal. 


And that’s why I previously argued that you aren’t going to see a big Middle East peace push during the second term. Sure, Obama might let John Kerry see what he can accomplish. But Netanyahu will just stiff him, and Obama won’t do anything about it. The Palestinians are still divided and too weak to negotiate a fair deal, and conditions throughout the region are hardly propitious for compromise. If Obama is looking for a legacy, in short, the Middle East is not the place to find it. And I suspect he knows that. 


Which is not to say that there isn’t good news here. The pro-peace, pro-two state lobby J Street’s support for Hagel was vindicated, and that’s likely to win them greater access going forward. (I mean, who really wants to be in the company of the smear artists who went after Hagel?) Hagel’s confirmation and the lobby’s defeat diminishes the push for war with Iran — which is a good thing — and might encourage the administration to formulate a negotiating strategy toward Tehran that has some prospect of success (as opposed to the dead-on-arrival offers we’ve been making so far). And it certainly doesn’t hurt for politicians in Washington to be reminded that the lobby doesn’t win every time. 


But the bottom line is that no powerful interest group disappears after a single defeat. Even when a lobby doesn’t get its way, it can gain a partial victory by making the winning side pay a price, and by reminding everyone that it can still make trouble. And that was the lobby’s real strategy here. They probably knew that Hagel was likely to be confirmed, for the simple reason that he was a well-qualified candidate whose patriotism was beyond question. Their aim instead was to deter future administration from nominating people who weren’t lobby-certified, and to discourage ambitious young foreign policy professionals from doing or saying anything that might put the lobby’s crosshairs on them. 


In short, so long as opportunistic rabble-rousers like Ted Cruz believe that pandering to the lobby is the smart political play, Capitol Hill will remain supine, the executive branch will be constrained, and U.S. Middle East policy will be about as successful as its been for the last couple of decades. 


Stephen M. Walt is the Robert and Renée Belfer professor of international relations at Harvard University.

Print this Report

“Pakistan and the United States: the road to 2014 and beyond”

Print this Report

By Pejman Yousefzadeh

Print this Report

Pakistani Disapproval of U.S.

Leadership Soars in 2012

Pakistanis’ approval of the leadership of their ostensible ally, the United States, has historically been quite low. However, perceptions began to change, albeit modestly, through much of Obama’s first term. As recently as May 2011, 27% of Pakistanis approved of U.S. leadership, the apex of support. Noticeably, approval declined after the May 2011 killing of Osama bin Laden, carried out by the U.S. military without the assistance of the Pakistani military — an event that many Pakistanis viewed as a blatant disregard for Pakistani sovereignty.

These findings are based on a survey conducted from Sept. 30-Oct. 16, 2012, in Pakistan. The survey directly followed massive demonstrations against the release of an anti-Muslim film made in the U.S.
Concurrently, Pakistanis now more than at any other time in the past three years feel threatened by interaction with the West, according to a May 12-June 6, 2012, survey. A majority (55%) say interaction between Muslim and Western societies is “more of a threat,” up significantly from 39% in 2011. This sharp increase is observed at a time of heightened Pakistani concerns regarding U.S. encroachment on Pakistani sovereignty, including an intensified number of U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan, as well as the aforementioned May 2011 killing of bin Laden by the United States military. Thirty-one percent instead see interaction between Muslim and Western societies as “more of a benefit,” and the other 13% are unsure.

Similar majorities of younger and older Pakistanis — 57% of Pakistanis aged 15 to 29 and 53% of those 30 or older — deem interaction with the West as a threat. However, younger Pakistanis are slightly more likely to have an opinion on this matter: Fewer than one in 10 (9%) answered “don’t know,” whereas almost a fifth (17%) of older Pakistanis were unsure. Nearly half of the Pakistani population (49%) is between the ages of 15 and 29. The largely anti-Western sentiment among these young Pakistanis suggests that, even as this sizable group ages and begins to have a larger role in Pakistani governance, relations between the U.S. and Pakistan may continue to be fraught with challenges.

Ahead of Elections, Faith in Civilian Government Collapses
Relatedly, the public’s confidence in the Pakistani national government — sometimes seen by Pakistanis as too cozy to the U.S. government — has nosedived, reaching a low of 23% in March and October 2012. This is down from 54% in December 2008, shortly after the beginning of democratically elected President Asif Ali Zardari’s administration.
Conversely, confidence in the interventionist military — the organization that has ruled the nation for over half of its post-independence history — climbed to 88% in October 2012. While support for the military in Pakistan has traditionally been very high, it has regularly met or eclipsed 80% since 2010.

The upcoming May elections in Pakistan will be of seismic importance for the future direction of the country and for U.S.-Pakistani relations. The elections will mark the first time in the country’s history that a civilian government peacefully transfers power to a new civilian government. Insomuch as the role of the U.S. in Pakistan weighs on the campaign dialogue, the perceived failures of the current regime might translate into the election of political actors that are more hostile or confrontational toward U.S. interests.
Implications
Due to such events as the elimination of bin Laden by the U.S. military and the reported authorization of 350 U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan, relations between the Obama administration and Pakistan have been steadily deteriorating. By virtue of John Brennan’s nomination to head the CIA and a recently leaked Justice Department memo outlining the legal justification for using drones to target suspected terrorists who are also U.S. citizens in foreign countries such as Pakistan, the wisdom and/or effectiveness of this policy is receiving new attention in the U.S. Undoubtedly this question must be viewed through a number of different lenses, including, but not limited to, the overall strategic success of the drone campaign and its impact on necessary actors, such as the Pakistani government, in the United States’ continued efforts to identify and eliminate terrorists.
On both accounts, these data may give U.S. policymakers pause. The growing, indeed essentially universal, distaste for U.S. leadership in Pakistan, a nation of such crucial importance — while perhaps not directly attributable to the increasing number of drones deployed there — will undoubtedly strain future relations between the two countries.

As this happens, Pakistan itself is at a pivotal moment in its history. The upcoming May elections have the potential to begin a tradition of civilian government and peaceful transitions between democratically elected administrations. Yet this opportunity comes, somewhat ironically, at a time when the public has lost confidence in its civilian government. The degree to which the U.S.-conducted operations within Pakistan have weakened the political position of the existing Pakistani government is an open question, but the concomitant erosion of approval of U.S. and Pakistani leadership on the Pakistani public’s part is impossible not to notice. Pakistanis instead put their trust in the military, an important institution with a meddlesome history in national governing affairs. What these trends mean for the coming election is unclear, but they suggest that the next few months could be of vital importance for the stability of the Pakistani government and the U.S.-Pakistani relationship.
For complete data sets or custom research from the more than 150 countries Gallup continually surveys, please contact us.

Survey Methods
Results are based on face-to-face interviews with about 1,000 adults, aged 15 and older. Surveys were conducted in October 2012, June 2012, March 2012, May 2011, May 2010, December 2009, June 2009, May 2009, December 2008, October 2008, June 2008, June 2007, and September 2005 in Pakistan.
For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of error ranges from ±3.1 to ±4.2 percentage points. Results presented by subgroup would have a higher margin of error. The margin of error reflects the influence of data weighting. In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.
For  complete  survey , please Click:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/160439/2012-pakistani-disapproval-leadership-soars.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=syndication&utm_content=morelink&utm_term=World

Print this Report

Analysis-NWA Op

Previous demand of military operation by Pak from USA had been put on hold due to over stretching of Pak army. Recently the demand has been refreshed after Gen Allen’s visit & his meeting with Pak mil hi comd, DG ISI’s visit to USA and Gen Kayani’s speech in PMA. The local media and politicians have started commenting on the issue. Mostly views are not sp NWA ops. Significant statements by politicians, analysts, officials are as under  . An important Press Release issued by ISPR after meeting of  General James N. Mattis, Commander US CENTCOM, and Chief of Army Staff (COAS) General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani on 17 Aug  is also placed below this table.

PRESS RELEASE

Rawalpindi, 17 Aug 12.    General James N. Mattis, Commander US CENTCOM, called on Chief of Army Staff (COAS) General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, last night. Both sides discussed matters of mutual interest, at length.

COAS categorically dispelled the speculative reporting in US media, regarding understanding given to General John Allen, Commander ISAF about Pakistan Army’s readiness to launch joint operations in North Waziristan Agency (NWA).

COAS clarified Pakistan’s position by referring to Secretary Clinton’s statement of 3 July 2012, in which she talked of “coordinated actions against terrorists who threaten Pakistan and the region.” It is important to distinguish between ‘coordinated action’ and ‘joint operation’. ‘Coordinated action’ implies that Pakistan Army and ISAF conduct operation on respective sides of Pak – Afghan Border. For such actions, intelligence sharing is the mainstay of mutual cooperation. Contrarily, a ‘joint operation’ implies that the two forces are physically employed jointly on either side of the border. A’ joint operation’ in this sense is unacceptable to the people and Armed Forces of Pakistan, hence, has always been our clearly stated red line.

COAS clearly reiterated Pakistan’s oft repeated perspective: we might, if necessary, undertake operations in NWA, in the timeframe of our choosing and determined only by our political and military requirements. It will never be a result of any outside pressure. Pakistan’s national interest continues to be the prime consideration for any decision in this regard.

Both sides expressed satisfaction over the level of cooperation between the two militaries and resolved to continue it to further improve relations between the two countries

Print this Report

   Joshua Foust

Joshua Foust is a fellow for Asymmetric Operations at the American Security Project and the author of Afghanistan Journal. He wrote on 19 July 2012 an article originally appeared in PBS Need to Know  and is based on his  report  U.S. Strategy in Afghanistan: Five Lessons We Should Have Learned. The selection from write up goes like this. This week, my think tank, the American Security Project, is publishing a paper that discusses five of the most important lessons we need to learn from Afghanistan – but haven’t.

The lessons below don’t account for everything that we can learn fromAfghanistan. They are, however, important lessons that simply aren’t being made public:

1. The danger of magical thinking.

Magical thinking is causal reasoning that assumes a correlation between acts or utterances and certain outcomes: think of a rain dance, or an athlete wearing her socks backwards for good luck. For the last ten years, military and civilian leaders have promised that if something was built, or a certain area of the country was “cleared” of militants, or if some other singular event like a presidential election took place, the war would be won. It was the political equivalent of a rain dance – rather than understanding the complex reasons why bad things happened inAfghanistan, policymakers chose to assume that simple fixes could produce victory.

2. The need to understand the environment. 

Counterinsurgency advocates have insisted for years that knowing the enemy as well as the general population where conflict takes place is critical The war inAfghanistanhas been fought largely outside a basic understanding of the country and its culture. As a result, many missteps have been made and billions of dollars wasted on schemes that had little chance of success:Afghan Sesame Street, week-long courses in beekeeping for infantry soldiers, and so on.

3. The war is a political conflict. 

If one thing has been missing from US policy inAfghanistan, it is Afghan politics. The old cliché still holds: war is politics. Understanding whyAfghanistan’s political leaders behave the way they do is critical to creating the policies and plans that will be most effective. But few Americans even know who the major Afghan political leaders are, much less what they do or how they think. As a result, political solutions to the conflict, such as initiating negotiations with the Taliban, are mired in internal dissent and domestic infighting.

4. The consequences of the failure to plan. 

TheUSwar inAfghanistansuffered from a failure to enact plans that make sense to regular Afghans. This failing took many forms: building schools, roads, and hospitals without providing a sustainable way to maintain them; creating a cash economy but not devising a system of accountability to limit corruption; sending outsiders to administer communities they did not understand. Planning for the future is not an impossible challenge but the many agencies of theU.S.government, simply chose not to do it.

5. Real success only matters over the long term. 

If theUSgovernment had planned, in 2001, on staying inAfghanistanthrough 2014, it would have made very different plans. . The old cliché aboutVietnam– it was not a ten-year war but a one-year war fought ten times – applies toAfghanistanas well. Planning cycles rarely accounted for events more than 12 months into the future, which means the long-term consequences of any given policy were largely ignored.

These lessons all overlap. Magical Thinking, the first and arguably most important lesson, underpins the subsequent four lessons. The botched reconstruction projects, the poorly planned militias, the inexplicable assumptions behind creating a children’s television show in a country where most people don’t have electricity – all of it is magical thinking.

There is hope, however. President Obama’s current plan, enshrined in the Strategic Partnership Agreement, actually describes a long term plan forAfghanistan. Only by starting to think aboutAfghanistanin this way – with decades as the measurement of time instead of years or months – can we even hope to make any realistic plans for the future.

Print this Report

By Hamid Waheed

          The American democratic  culture has always been a symbol of justice and protector of human rights. The society moved  from slavery  to freedom and statue of liberty stood as source of strength of upcoming proud American Generation. The democratic system  traditionally rely on the separation of powers and judicial review to protect liberty and impose legal restrictions on government officials including intelligence agencies. But in the post-9/11 period, restraint of government was some how relegated to few who want to take away the  rights and liberty of the society.  The ones who have made American culture a hostage to fear of Terrorism. The effects of this are unfortunately being felt by the entire world in general and south Asia, the zone of War On Terror in particular.  After 9/11,  the human rights were often compromised in their commitments to principles of liberty, equality, dignity, fair process, and the rule of law. The group of few tarnished the American image of value system. With each step of victory in this direction the super power and its partners keep loosing the battle of hearts and minds . A decade later, the most daunting legacy of September 11th is that Americans have  gradually abandoned the notion that morally-based values such as human rights should define their identity and guide their behavior. As the time passes old issues like Abu Ghauraib  are complimented by new which signals an ascending graph of planned  deteriorating human rights situation in society.

 On 25 Jun Jimmy Carter American Ex- president wrote that , “THE United States is abandoning its role as the global champion of human rights. Revelations that top officials are targeting people to be assassinated abroad, including American citizens, are only the most recent, disturbing proof of how far our nation’s violation of human rights has extended. This development began after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and has been sanctioned and escalated by bipartisan executive and legislative actions, without dissent from the general public. As a result, our country can no longer speak with moral authority on these critical issues. He suggests that at a time when popular revolutions are sweeping the globe, the United States should be strengthening, not weakening, basic rules of law and principles of justice enumerated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. But instead of making the world safer, America’s violation of international human rights abets our enemies and alienates our friends. This is what Pakistani parliament and its Army Chief Kayani has been saying all along. The CIA and American army’s confused and at times conflicting strategies have mixed good with bad and friends with foes.   ”Today it is estimated as many as 27 million people around the world are victims of modern slavery, what we sometimes call trafficking in persons,” Clinton said at the unveiling of the report at the State Department as the US unveiled its annual report into human trafficking in mid of Jun.”Those victims of modern slavery are women and men, girls and boys, and their stories remind us of the kind of inhumane treatment we are capable of as human beings,” said Clinton. On India, the report states that the country is a source, destination, and transit country for men, women, and children subjected to forced labour and sex trafficking.

A decade after 9/11 leaves unbelievable stories of American heros like Dr Shakil Afridi, who worked with the C.I.A. to collect DNA samples of Osama under the guise of a bogus vaccination. He gave fake vaccination against Polio, by actually taking DNA samples in the hope of locating Bin Laden.  To get to this old dysfunctional Osama the CIA never realized the cost of life of about 200,000 children in FATA area of Pakistan who are now at risk of Polio to live throughout their life as handicapped individuals. Such silent killers remind of sufferings of generations born in Japan in 1940 and 50s. The  drone strikes have been a sore point with the public and Pakistani politicians, who describe them as violations of sovereignty that produce unacceptable civilian casualties but the Americans term this the most effective tool to get Al-Quida leadership hiding in remote areas of Pak- Afghan border. The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Dr Navi Pillay said in a press conference in Islamabad that ”Drone attacks do raise serious questions about compliance with international law,” Dr Pillay told. ”Ensuring accountability for any failure to comply with international law is also difficult when drone attacks are conducted outside the military chain of command and beyond” .

It surprises the community when a credible international news paper in month of Jun reports that A former Indian army officer  Avtar Singh lived in the U.S.A illegally for at least five years before he killed his wife, two children this month. Mr Singh had been arrested by U.S. investigators for unlawful presence in July 2007 but they decided not to deport him but to use him. Police also discovered that he was being sought in India on a murder charge In Kashmir, where more than 68,000 people, mostly civilian, have been killed  under a controversial state Law. The American did jail Ghulam Nabi Fai who was just a lobbiest for freedom struggle in Kashmir  but  kept nurturing Avtar Singh a killer a human right abuser. The space for invoking human rights on moral grounds alone has virtually disappeared. The War Against Terror continues. It waxes and wanes. Innocents die. Livelihood   is lost. Bin Laden is found and killed  but the Americans themselves and world community keeps  loosing freedom and human values. Who will stop this degrading trend  still remains unanswered. The World views Americans as unjust and coercive nation as it remains hijacked by few who certainly do not represent the nation which draws inspiration from STATUE OF LIBERTY..

Print this Report

Qais Usyan/AFP/Getty Images

A truck drives down a highway on Salang Pass in Afghanistan’s Parwan province in December. The Salang Tunnel, which crosses under the pass, provides a vital link between Central Asia and northern Afghanistan to Kabul.

EXTRACTS FROM PREVIOUS STUDY

(http://www.mediapoint.pk/study-nato-supply-routes-in-aftermath-of-chicago-summit/)

U.S. embassy officials in Tashkent, the Uzbek capital, were warned by a confidential source that the tracks were brittle and at risk of fracturing if trains carried more than half their usual loads. On top of that, the Soviet-era locomotives carrying U.S. cargo were not designed to cross steep mountains; engineers had to apply the brakes almost constantly as they moved downhill. “By the time the trains have descended from the mountains, the wheels are glowing red hot,” the embassy reported in a diplomatic cable. The source, an engineer, said he was “appalled by how long it takes to transport anything by rail in Uzbekistan” and that he refused to take the train for fear of a crash. The cable, titled “Uzbek Rail: Red Hot Wheels to Afghanistan” and obtained by the anti-secrecy Web site WikiLeaks, concluded that “a train wreck is possible in the literal sense.”

 

Description of NATO Supply Routes through Central Asia

• The routes known as Northern Distribution Network  (NDN)contains several different routes. The most commonly used route, though also one of the longest, starts at the port of Riga, Latvia on the Baltic Sea, and continues for 3,212 miles (5,169 km) by train southwards through Russia, using railroads built by Russia in the 1980s for the Soviet war in Afghanistan. The supplies then pass through Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan before reaching Afghanistan’s northern border at Termez. To get to the south of the country, the supplies must be loaded onto trucks and transported through the mountainous Hindu Kush by means of the Salang Tunnel. The Salang Tunnel, which is the main connection between northern and southern Afghanistan, is 1.5 miles long and situated at an altitude of 11,100 feet. It is prone to avalanches and quite dangerous.

 

What NPR Says 

The U.S. military says it’s spending an extra $100 million a month on the war in Afghanistan since Pakistan closed its border to NATO supply convoys. Now, NATO is using a route thousands of miles longer through Russia and Central Asia.

That route passes through Afghanistan’s perilous Salang Tunnel, 11,000 feet up in the Hindu Kush mountains. The Soviet-built tunnel was heralded as a marvel of engineering when completed in 1964.

 

Credit: Kevin Uhrmacher/NPR

 

 

But years of war, neglect and geology have turned it into a dangerous bottleneck.

Driving through the Salang Tunnel is a pretty harrowing experience. Water pours in through holes in the wall. Whatever pavement might once have existed has long since deteriorated into an extremely rough, bumpy, dirt, and in some places, mud road.

The tunnel is barely wide enough for two lanes of traffic, and the uneven road surface means trucks often tilt over at precarious angles.

Major Choke Point

Even though the tunnel is only 1.6 miles long, a recent drive through it took more than 20 minutes because it’s jammed with massive trucks inching along the cratered road.

The diesel fumes were dizzying. At one point, the dust was so thick you could barely see five feet in front of you. It’s no wonder the tunnel has become known as a choke point.

“It takes us 10 to 12 days to get from the [Afghan] border through the Salang Tunnel,” says Najibullah — Afghans typically go by a single name — a truck driver sitting on the southbound side of the road. The distance covered in this journey? About 200 miles.

EnlargeSean Carberry/NPRA truck carrying food for NATO troops drives into the northern entrance of the Salang Tunnel. This truck waited several days to be able to enter the tunnel.

 

 

Sean Carberry/NPRA truck carrying food for NATO troops drives into the northern entrance of the Salang Tunnel. This truck waited several days to be able to enter the tunnel.

 

Lines of trucks waiting to pass through the tunnel often stretch up to 10 miles on either side. That’s because truck traffic is restricted to one direction at a time. Every 12 hours, the traffic alternates directions.

Najibullah is hauling food for NATO troops that he picked up at Afghanistan’s border crossing with Uzbekistan.

“A year ago, it used to take us one to two nights” to make the approximately 265-mile journey from Uzbekistan to Kabul, he says.

A year ago, 1,000 to 2,000 vehicles passed through the tunnel each day. But since the Pakistanis stopped allowing NATO to use their roads last November, traffic through the Salang has soared. An estimated 10,000 to 20,000 vehicles are now passing through daily, and it’s getting more complicated with the drawdown of U.S. forces.

U.S. Pullout Creating Extra Strain

Stephen Biddle, an Afghanistan expert at the Council on Foreign Relations, sums it up this way: “The issue is the mathematics of the stuff you need to move, the size of the pipe through which you’re moving it, and how much time you’re willing to take.”

He says that the troops will fly out on schedule, but their equipment might take a bit longer. And, hauling armored trucks and generators out via Salang could cost five times more than going through Pakistan. It’s putting even more strain on a situation that’s already dangerous.

EnlargeSean Carberry/NPRVehicles drive one of the many switchbacks as the Salang Highway climbs from just over 5,000 feet at the valley floor to the Salang Tunnel, 11,000 feet up in the Hindu Kush range.

 

 

Sean Carberry/NPRVehicles drive one of the many switchbacks as the Salang Highway climbs from just over 5,000 feet at the valley floor to the Salang Tunnel, 11,000 feet up in the Hindu Kush range.

 

Setting aside questions of avalanches, washed-out roads and asphalt collapsing under the weight of heavy trucks, Biddle says, “simply getting through the Salang Tunnel itself is a dangerous undertaking that could very easily yield a catastrophe with a significant loss of life.”

Mahmoud is another trucker waiting to pass through the tunnel. He’s been driving this route for 30 years, and he says the problems are growing day by day.

“They are not giving us extra money. Because of the bumpy roads, we are getting flat tires. When we spend 10 to 15 days here, we are spending our own money to refuel the truck and also to refuel the freezer,” he says.

In negotiations with the U.S., Pakistan has demanded significantly more money to reopen its land routes to NATO convoys. Pakistan also wants a formal apology for errant NATO airstrikes last November that killed 24 Pakistani soldiers.

Biddle says the U.S. would rather take its chances with the Salang Tunnel.

“It increases our cost,” he says, “but we’re already spending an enormous amount of money.”

Fears Of Disaster

On a recent day, a convoy of SUVs pulls up at the Salang Tunnel’s northern entrance, and Afghan Gen. Mohammed Rajab stepped out. He’s been the chief of maintenance for the Salang highway for 10 years. He looked at the crumbling concrete on the opening jutting out from a snowcapped mountain peak. He’s worried about a disaster — like the 1982 fuel truck fire that killed hundreds of Soviet troops and Afghans.

Related NPR Stories

The Two-Way

High Up In Afghanistan, A ‘Ghostly’ Ride Through The Salang Tunnel

 

“Our big concern is from the ventilation,” he says. “When there is an accident inside the tunnel, possibly the pollution will kill all the people who are stuck inside.”

Rajab has been pushing for NATO to fund renovations. He says it would take at least four months with the tunnel completely closed to make needed repairs. That’s not an option given NATO’s demand for supplies.

Last summer, USAID spent $5 million repaving the tunnel, sealing leaks and repairing the lights. But that pavement is already gone, water is pouring in, and the lights barely illuminate part of the tunnel.

A trip back through the tunnel, on the return to Kabul, is another anxiety-inducing experience. To top it off, traffic coming the other direction is blocked because a truck has wedged itself against the inside wall.

Print this Report

Another study from students of  Beacon House National University, Mass Communications Department Lahore (BNU)  for the ‘mediapoint.pk’   on ‘”PAK-US RELATIONS, NATO AND DRONE ATTACKS ″ . We appreciate the hard work of the students and course instructor and feel pleasure in publishing this study for our readers. These studies may not have the experience of an analyst behind it but they certainly show the line of young and upcoming professionals in this field.

Course Instructor’s Remarks

MA Part II, of Beacon House National University, Mass Communications Department ,did a research study on ‘”Western & Local Media Coverage on Closure of NATO supply lines :Nov 2011-May 2012″ as their Final Exam Project for the subject of Media Laws under the supervision of Course Instructor Yasmeen Aftab Ali. The research study is being offered to be used,or part thereof, to Media Point.

Yasmeen Ali

The students doing the 4 segments is as follows:

M.A 11

• Ayesha Yaqub: Group Leader
• Aleena Naghman
• Ali Hur
• Amara Tanveer
• Anam Saeed 

Summary of the Study

The study is mainly covered under three headings as under and conclusion:

• PAK- US RELATIONS  , NATO AND DRONE ATTACKS
•  FOREIGN MEDIA COVERAGE ON NATO SUPPLY BLOCADE– APRIL 2011- MAY 2012
• LOCAL MEDIA COVERAGE ON NATO SUPPLY BLOCADE – APRIL 2011- MAY 2012

Pak-US relationship has been on a nose-dive since blockade of US made NATO Supply routes from Pakistan to Afghanistan in April 2011 as already discussed in chapter 1. US has more likely decided that Pakistan has a much deafening role in this issue as also viewed by Hilary Clinton’s Pak-disoriented speech in the latest Indian conference even though having full account of the already tormented relations between India and Pakistan.

NATO ATTACK 2011

Strained relations between both countries i.e. Pakistan and United States have fuelled speculation on the criteria of future alliance where the weaker stand is that of the Pakistani government being a developing country with less economic resources than the US. As this Western presence ebbs, Pakistan, whose tribal areas are considered home to Taliban and other militants, will be key in shaping Afghanistan’s future where the supply routes have been a major sticking point.

VARIABLES OF MAINTAINING ALLIANCE WITH FOREIGN DEVELOPERS

Strategies of a country’s alliance with foreign countries depend upon the variables of:

1.      ECONOMIC FACTORS

No matter how much Pakistan be right in its decision to stop NATO supplies, it has to face the consequences of American policy making, America being on top of the aid providers to Pak economy. One twist would be that of budget for the year 2013-2018 i.e. Pakistan has to pass the new budget for which it requires American aid and not opening NATO routes would consequently mean no future aid as already highlighted by the US Bill.

However, the Pakistani approach has been well-planned out as it has played safe in the eyes of the Pakistani nationals and the wide ranging Islamists etc by banning the supply route in consent to preserving the “integrity, security and defense of Pakistan” according to exception of article 19 of the constitution of Pakistan. The American Bill says that Pakistan’s aid has been made subject to their co-operation. The stakes are really high as this sensitive issue challenges the economy of both countries. However, the question lies that would Pakistani government put its state’s integrity at stake with the US policies, while also keeping in mind the previous lop-sided record of US’ assistance in the recent issues of Raymond Davis, Osama Bin Laden, Aafia Sidiqi and Shakil Afridi etc.

2.      SOUND FOREIGN POLICIES

Every country needs a foreign policy. Policies are often determined by vested interests or developed over a long period of gaining multi-party consensus and it doesn’t seem to be enough to point out shortcomings in policies. The foreign policy does not change for every other incident that takes place, be it NATO’s Salalah attacks or Afghan war etc.

The policies are for the future 5 or 10 years. Foreign policy should include Pakistan’s relations with Iran, Nepal, China, Sri Lanka and Turkey prior to relations with the US and Western countries in order to strengthen its support at home in the Asian region that will benefit Pakistan in the long run.

3.      MILITARY STRENGTH AND REGIONAL ALLIES

Countries have to have regional allies but along with that, there is a need to have sane policies to tackle with the problems resulting from the alliance e.g. Pakistan’s demand on supplementing the roads affected by the NATO trucks in carrying tons of supply every day cannot be given secondary importance.

However, the lack of policies does not render it the vigilance that needs to be put into this issue. The resistance against NATO is not from the government but the army due to the involvement of RAW agents. India thought that Pakistan will have a diminished role in the final equation of the Afghan War.

4.      GEO-POLITICAL PLACEMENT

Dismembering the NATO supply to Afghanistan eventually leads to the elimination of US combat troops posing security against war on terrorism. Consequently, making the US stop their aid to Pakistan’s growing needs for development of national interest. Pakistan’s placement on the globe is very strategically planned. America formed bases of Drone attacks in Pakistan. Therefore, Pakistan is in a strong geo-political position to threaten the US.

5.      QUALITY OF LEADERSHIP

The quality of leadership is very important in the governance paradigm of not only relations with foreign states but also with that of the natives living within the territorial boundary of a particular state. It is important for us to analyze the standard of credibility entrusted upon the officials by the locals of the area keeping in mind the flabbergasting incidents that appear on the headlines, most definitely that of Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gillani’s Contempt of Court on not writing a letter to the Swiss authorities on reopening of President Zardari’s cases which gives a shady impression at the motives of the officials themselves as discussed by the outburst of local and foreign media at the time. Therefore, PPP alleged government of Pakistan should keep a control and order situation on the media outburst since the PEMRA amendment 2007 has failed to do so.

6.      RESOURCES

Pakistan is undoubtedly rich in its natural resources of coal, gas, oil, minerals, mining, uranium and water etc which caters to fewer audiences as the means of extraction and usage are very rare and few. The foreign invader is usually attracted to such a treasure of natural resource and a structure open to industry and economic boost lacking just the adequate infrastructure needed. This is another passage of manipulation thus employed by the invader in setting foot on the area to make the Pakistani’s feel that they are being helped by superior powers of science and technology but rather fed blindness in the game of vested interests.

CHICAGO SUMMIT 2012

If presented as an “implementation summit” at which the alliance’s leaders could assess the progress of the program agreed during the Lisbon Summit in 2010 and designed to speed up NATO’s adaptation to the new security challenge, the Chicago Summit may in fact be an historical moment for the future of the alliance and for the transatlantic relationship as viewed by [1]Rabah Ghezali in his article posted on 17^th May 2012 in huffingtonpost.com entitled as “A Chicago Road To Perdition”.

The indication of the US to change its perspective on global security is more evident than ever. President Obama’s strategies of defense given the defense strategy report in early January, Washington made it crystal clear that U.S. defense policy is “shifting from the North Atlantic towards Asia”. Europe remained at the core of Washington’s security concerns since the Second World War. However, the challenges coming from the Chinese Republic have been on US’ major agenda lately.

SUSTAINING GLOBAL RELATIONSHIPS: PRIORITIES FOR 21^ST CENTURY DEFENSE 2012

This document will be used to analyze the parallelism of the above discussed foreign and local media coverage on the NATO issue with the factual groundwork of policies and agenda’s as shown in the President’s assertion and how far the reporting of this has been kept in consideration by foreign and local journalism.

In the strategic plan of reviewing and improvising global relationships of US with other nations, the new diplomatic defense policies highlighted in the PDF of “Sustaining US Global Leadership- Priorities for 21^st Century Defense, January 2012”[2], the US presidential and executive consent to the strategy has been shown that vests interests within the circumference of the American global policy circle as says President Obama:

“I am determined that …we emerge even stronger in a manner that preserves American global leadership, maintains our military superiority and keeps  faith with our troops, military families and veterans.”

The chapter entitled “The White House- Washington 2012, 3^rd January 2012” gives account of President Barack Obama’s stance on the defense strategy as:

“Our nation is at a moment of transition. Thanks to the sacrifices of our men and women in uniform, we have responsibly ended the war in Iraq, put Al’Qaeda on the path to defeat- including delivering justice to Osama bin Laden- and made significant progress in Afghanistan responsibility…”

The sacrifices of American men and women in uniform thus remain honest with the American side rather than preserving world peace as will be discussed later in the coming chapters. The language of the report is so obliviously explaining the American agenda and its faith in America’s input on war against terrorism that is exemplified with “delivering justice to Osama Bin Laden” and the Afghanistan “responsibility”.

President Obama has thus unveiled the recommendations of a Defense Department study group that he said would produce a military that is “agile, flexible and ready for the full range of contingencies and threats”. That would be accomplished by smaller increases in defense spending, a policy telegraphed by Obama’s 10-year budget projections for fiscal 2012, which were $105 billion less than his 2011 blueprint[3]. The “contingencies” and “threats” posed emerge from the rapid global development and China’s threatening capability to emerge as the next hegemonic force against Uncle Sam’s ruling Court in the name of preserving World Peace as says the report:

“This review has been shaped by America’s enduring national security interests. We seek the security of our Nation, allies and partners. We seek the prosperity that flows from an open and free international economic system. And we seek a just and sustainable international order where the rights and responsibilities of nations and people are upheld, especially the fundamental right of every human being.”

Ironically, the preservation of fundamental rights of free speech as mentioned in the 1^st Amendment to the US constitution pertains only to US media which can easily pronounce Pakistan’s anti-American agenda’s and sustained war with Al’ Qaeda as ally.

IMPORTANCE AND SIGNIFICANCE OF THE REPORT

The importance and significance of the report given by US Secretary of State Defense and the strategies of Obama Administration of preserving “world peace” are important in analyzing the Pak-US relationship as it provides ample evidence of the US government’s lop-sidedness on defense against terrorism that has confined itself within the walls of the US territory rather than to the larger context of the global world. The structural form of this defense strategy exerts full pressure upon US allies and non-allies that the US can wage war against any state which asserts signs of danger against the US or targets world peace.

TIMELINE OF NON-COPERATION OF THE US

The defense report given by the US structurally denies co-operation with any factor posing threat to the US integrity and defense. No signs of cooperation were shown from the US side in the incidents of NATO attack on Salalah airbase primarily and also the recent incident following the attacks was the Shakil Afridi case where the alleged US officials accused Pakistan for its non-co-operation.

VESTED INTERESTS

Before these incidents, in 2011, the incidents of Raymond Davis and Osama Bin Laden’s assassination were major examples of US’ non-cooperation with the Pakistani officials, much to the accord of our ruling government as well which posed signs of ignorance and non-vigilance in making the US comply with swapping of Aafia Sidiqui with Raymond Davis. No action was taken by the Pakistani government in arresting this undercover US agent for carrying an unlicensed weapon and taking lives of innocent Pakistani citizens.

If the Pakistani government denies the responsibility of peace-keeping in its own region, then the foreigner is not to be held responsible for its ravenous attacks. The maintenance of peace at home is important to devise credibility and trust between the government and the locals. If the government does not help its people in times of war and crisis then who are they to look up to for their welfare. However, very unfortunate is the fact, that however much one denies it, there are interests within interests between the two governments upon which the integrity of state has been compensated where no measure was taken or policy devised to stop the attack on Salalah airbase that killed 24 Pakistani soldiers.

 UPCOMING ELECTIONS

Now interestingly, elections for the next government are very near in both countries, Pakistan and the US. The defense report for the Obama administration can be one psychological tactic to make the American public feel safe in the hands of a politically powerful government. On the other hand, not supplementing NATO’s application of opening supply routes to Afghanistan is a decision made by the Pakistani government to gain more credibility in the otherwise lost trust of Pakistani citizens.

LAST WORD

Again, no hard and fast conclusion can be given upon the future of this alliance as vested interests change overnight and govern the governance of the state government which eventually makes up policies for its public.

TABLE OF CONTENTS of Study

CHAPTER                                                                                       PAGE NO.

1)      INTRODUCTION: PAK-US RELATIONS, NATO AND DRONE ATTACKS

1. Geostrategic and geopolitical significance of Pakistan for America…….2
2. Drones: Evolution and Rise in Demand…………………………………10
3. NATO Background………………………………………………………13
4. Drone Attacks: History…………………………………………………..16
5. e.       Statistics…………………………………………………………………19

2)      FOREIGN MEDIA COVERAGE ON NATO SUPPLY BLOCADE– APRIL 2011- MAY 2012

1. Introduction to Foreign Media…………………………………………..26
2. Timeline: television, blogs, magazines, newspapers……………………27
3. Foreign Channels………………………………………………………..32
4. Foreign Blogs……………………………………………………………42
5. Foreign Magazines………………………………………………………61
6. Foreign Newspapers…………………………………………………….80

3)      LOCAL MEDIA COVERAGE ON NATO SUPPLY BLOCADE – APRIL 2011- MAY 2012

1. Introduction to Local Media…………………………………………..100
2. Timeline: television, blogs, magazines, newspapers………………….101
3. Local Newspapers……………………………………………………..104
4. Local Blogs……………………………………………………………113
5. Local Channels………..………………………………………………129
6. Local Magazines………………………………………………………140

4)      CONCLUSION

1. Chapter 1: Introduction: Pak-US relations, NATO and Drone Attacks……………………………………………………………………145

• Chicago Summit and US Defense Strategy Report………………148

1. Prelude to Conclusion of Chapter 2 and 3: Trends of Journalism………..152
2. Chapter 2: Foreign Media Coverage of Nato Supply Blocade – April 2011- May 2012…………………………………………………………………154
3. Chapter 3: Local Media Coverage of Nato Supply Blocade – April 2011- May

2012………………………………………………………………………165

1. Chapter 4: Final Conclusion “United States: Friend or Foe?”……………174

Print this Report

Mark C. Toner

Deputy Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing    June 4, 2012
TRANSCRIPT:

XXXX

QUESTION: Couple on Pakistan, if I may?

MR. TONER: Yeah. Sure.

QUESTION: Firstly, there are reports out of Pakistan just relatively recently that three or four U.S. diplomats that were detained – possibly detained in Peshawar and the motor convoy that also had a large number of weapons in it. I’m just wondering if you have any information on that?

MR. TONER: I’ll take the question. I don’t have any update or information.

QUESTION: And the second is, the Pakistan foreign ministry this morning had a pretty – our time – had a pretty strong statement about the drone strikes again, calling them a violation of sovereignty. I’m wondering if you have any reaction to that restatement of their position, and B, if you can update us on the talks on the GLOCs and whether or not that’s hit a wall, given that this –

MR. TONER: Right. Well, Andy, I can’t talk specifically about classified operations. Speaking more broadly to your point, as we’ve said many times, we share a common interest with Pakistan when it comes to going after al-Qaida, and then seeing a stable Pakistan emerge in the region. As we’ve said many times, Pakistan faces a strong core threat from these extremist groups, and we’re committed to cooperating with them in counterterrorism.

Speaking on the GLOCs, I don’t have much to update on that. We do, obviously, continue to talk to the Pakistani Government. I would just note that, in cooperation with the Department of Defense, Secretary – Deputy Secretary Thomas Nides did engage – did speak with Pakistan’s finance minister over the weekend on this issue.

QUESTION: Anything more on what exactly – I mean, was he outlining for them the potential benefits of reopening these lines?

MR. TONER: I just would say that he once again made our case on why we believe it’s in everyone’s interest to reopen these lines of communication, and we’re going to continue to make that at various levels, that case.

Yeah. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Why would the Deputy Secretary speak to the Pakistani finance minister about this?

MR. TONER: They actually have regular conversations, and I think that – this was another in –

QUESTION: Yeah, but why on this? This has nothing to do with Pakistani finance ministry.

MR. TONER: It has nothing to do with – well, I mean, it has everything to do, frankly, with our relationship with Pakistan. It’s –

QUESTION: So basically, they’re demanding cash.

MR. TONER: Not at all, Matt. What we’re –

QUESTION: Well, why would the finance ministry be involved? This is a military thing.

MR. TONER: This is a government-to-government conversation, and it’s an issue at which we’re engaging the Pakistanis on, as I just said, at a variety of levels.

QUESTION: Right. But Deputy Secretary Nides is the deputy secretary for management and the budget.

MR. TONER: Which is why I said in cooperation with the Department.

QUESTION: And the Pakistani finance minister – or finance ministry deals with Pakistani finances.

MR. TONER: Right.

QUESTION: So I just don’t understand why they’re – why these two would be talking about this.

MR. TONER: Well, you’ll note that I said that – obviously, in cooperation with the Department of Defense -

QUESTION: Unless it’s is a shakedown, I don’t get it.

MR. TONER: – this is a point that we’re making, an argument that we’re making at every level – the importance of reopening these lines of communication.

QUESTION: All right. The other thing is that last week when there was still nothing going on on this, you claimed that there was progress being made. Today, you’re not even claiming that.

MR. TONER: Sorry. I can reiterate diligent progress.

QUESTION: I asked you at the time – yeah?

MR. TONER: Yes.

QUESTION: Diligent progress? Okay. And then the last one really, really quickly: You opened that whole thing on – without talking about the drone strikes by saying we share a common interest in going after al-Qaida – you share it with Pakistan. Are you absolutely, 100 percent sure you share that interest with Pakistanis?

MR. TONER: Matt. We’ve been over this issue many times.

QUESTION: Yes or no? It’s just an easy –

MR. TONER: Yes. We believe that we have a shared struggle with Pakistan in going after these extremists.

QUESTION: Pakistan?

MR. TONER: Yeah. Go ahead, Said. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Still on Pakistan.

MR. TONER: Said, is yours on Pakistan or no?

QUESTION: On Syria.

MR. TONER: No, let’s stay on Pakistan and then we’ll make our way around.

Sorry, Cami.

QUESTION: Is there – have you gotten any clarification yet on the Afridi case?

MR. TONER: We have not. We’ve not received any updates. And our position’s very clear.

Yeah. In the back.

QUESTION: Yeah. In another court case in Pakistan on Saturday a court acquitted four alleged accomplices of Faisal Shahzad, The New York Times bombing accused. Have you heard of that and do you have a reaction?

MR. TONER: I did see that, that that court decision from the – you said from the weekend. I don’t have a lot to say. I mean, we’ve – obviously, we want to see the Pakistani Government pursue prosecution in these kinds of cases. But obviously, it was a legal process that took place and a legal decision or a court decision was made.

QUESTION: So –

QUESTION: Syria? Can I ask one?

MR. TONER: Do you have a follow up?

QUESTION: Yeah. So if that was a court process, and you don’t have any reaction to that, what is the significance of such strong reaction in Dr. Afridi case? Do you see a resemblance? Do you think that –

MR. TONER: No. Not at all. I mean, the Dr. Afridi –

QUESTION: Do you think that –

MR. TONER: The Dr. Afridi – which I said our position’s been very clear that we don’t think there were ever any grounds to hold him, much less convict him of any wrongdoing. In this case, this is a case where the Government of Pakistan brought these individuals to trial for their complicity in this case. There was a trial that took place. Unfortunately, they didn’t win that trial, but we think it’s important that they did pursue justice.

QUESTION: But with these two back to back verdicts – when you are already talking about these GLOCs and other issues, do you think there is some kind of signaling going on from Pakistan?

MR. TONER: It’s our understanding that the case proceeded according to Pakistani law.

QUESTION: You say that there’s no grounds for the conviction of Afridi, but are you really clear what the grounds were? I mean –

MR. TONER: Well, you’re absolutely right, Cami. We’ve yet to receive – there was this weird reversal, if you will, last week on which they said, in fact, he was tried – and again, I’m going just off of news reports – because of his ties to the Pakistani Taliban. And we’ve yet to receive from the government, to my understanding or to my knowledge, a clear explanation of that shift.

Yeah. Go ahead. You were on Pakistan, too.

QUESTION: Yes. I am Jo Biddle from AFP (inaudible) subject.

MR. TONER: Hi. Nice to see you. Yeah.

QUESTION: I wanted to ask going back to the drone strikes this morning, we understand that among those who were killed, there was a sort of senior propaganda official from al-Qaida, Abu Yahya al-Libi. We haven’t managed to confirm. I just wondered if you could talk to that.

MR. TONER: No. I really can’t. I can’t confirm that.

Go ahead.

XXXXXXXXX

Mark C. Toner

Deputy Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing

Washington, DC

June 1, 2012
TRANSCRIPT:

XXXXX

QUESTION: Change of subject? On Pakistan. Have they responded to your – the clarification that you had sought on Dr. Afridi?

MR. TONER: Have they responded to – oh, about the –

QUESTION: The reasons for why he was –

MR. TONER: The reasons why he was – we’ve not. Actually, I sought an update on Dr. Afridi’s case. We’re still seeking clarity on what those new charges – where they came from and what, in fact, they mean. It hasn’t changed our basic position, which is that we think he’s being unfairly, unjustly held. And what he did was in Pakistan’s interest, as well as our own, which is to take down one of the biggest mass murderers of the 21^st century.

QUESTION: And do you have any information on the charges that he had some links with terrorist organization? Because Lashkar-e Islam have denied that he –

MR. TONER: I saw those news reports. Again, we’ve sought clarity on these new charges from the Pakistani Government. As far as I know, we’ve not received any response, but it doesn’t change our position, which is we feel that he should be set free.

QUESTION: And do you have any update on the negotiations that you’re having with Pakistan on reopening of routes?

MR. TONER: Ongoing.

QUESTION: Ongoing.

QUESTION: How long will you continue to seek clarity while this doctor is under constant threat of being stabbed in prison?

MR. TONER: Well, we’re obviously very concerned about his welfare. It’s something that we’ve conveyed, obviously, from the highest levels of the State Department. The Secretary spoke about this. We also are raising it bilaterally through our ambassador, Ambassador Cameron Munter, who I believe met with the foreign minister just a day or so ago and raised this issue again. We’re being very clear that we’re concerned about his welfare.

XXXXXXX

Print this Report