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

An eye opener comparison of Pakistan’s GDP over past many decades received by the website Administrator through email is placed under for readers to evaluate themselves and draw conclusions.

Print this Report

A cross post from a blogger site giving a new perspective to Balochistan problem in Pakistan

Link of Blogger site: http://waheedresearch.blogspot.com/

You will find summary of my reads which have been thought provoking for me and may interest the readers. Says Writer

Heading :   “Understanding the Baloch Insurgency”

Study- Balochistan Jun 2012 

Print this Report

          The Perceptors Group got together to discuss reopening of route the main points have been provided to this website for publish. This is by no means a study but discussion points and collection of data as annex which would provide base for study. The reopening of the route has triggered a debate in international as well as the local media.  The media as a whole and experts appreciate the act of reopening as  it carries a win – win situation for Pakistan, Afghanistan, the NATO countries and  Americans. However, the analysts , intellectuals and foreign policy experts who have an experience of negotiating such deals have  shown their reservations on the procedure adopted to come to this decision which may hamper its implementation in coming days. The public perception is more important to stand with correct state decisions as we enter the implementation stage of the decision. The study aims at pointing out shortfalls as assumed by different people and help identify the gaps to provide an opportunity to bridge them. 

           The focus of criticism is word SORRY,  before time announcement by USA when the DCC meeting was still on, No economic benefit despite damage to infrastructure and  Non implementation of recommendations of the Parliamentary Committee including understanding on drones and all Agreements/MoU’s to be in writing and circulated to the Parliamentary Committee. An extract from media is annexed as ‘A’, Statement by Secretary Clinton on her Call With Pakistani Foreign Minister ‘B’ ,Recommendations of Parliamentary Committee at ‘C’ and press briefing by MOFA on issue as ‘D’ under the report. The main issues are discussed under , however the annex will provide a platform to further study and find answers in best National interest:-

1. Before time announcement by USA when the DCC meeting was still on and announcement of details like Pak has decided not to charge anything has marginalized  DCC decision.
2. Diplomatically regret, sympathy, apology, and sorry are four words that involve different connotations. Replacement of apology as listed in Parliamentary Committee recommendations by sorry has not been explained.
3. Payments/reimbursements with regard to CSF seem to have got some attention in the statements issued in line with committee recommendations other points are not visible.
4. Pakistan’s FM stance that reopening will set good ground for held up negotiations. US, Pakistan and Afghanistan should make strategic and operational decisions by avoiding blame game to avoid incidents like 100 terrorists from Afgn martyred 17 Army personnel. Articles indicating Abu Jandal arrest  in India due to USA’s pressure on KSA being perceived as pressures on Pakistan to take this longer pace which has left space to be filled. This has been commented by a critics  as rout instead of retreat.  Will cross border incursion not be used for action against  Haqani Network? 
5. It is being debated that USA has many leverages  but Pakistan’s main lever on negotiating table was supply route and should not have been used to start negotiations. NDN route is not only expensive but has technical and political impediments.  

The above may have following implications, if not handled as we move towards implementation.:-

-       National Morale

-       Economically

-       Negotiations in coming days for post exit Afghanistan

To conclude this critical issue demands further and continuous improvement to fill in the gaps.  ADOPT    from the new realities, ADAPT   to  the new environment and IMPROVE in the best national interests.

Annex ‘A’

Media Extracts

Pakistan is spinning the deal with the U.S. to reopen NATO supply routes to Afghanistan as a triumph of its diplomacy. But it was Islamabad that climbed down from its extortionate demands and accepted the status quo ante. That’s a big change from previous situations when it was able to extort more aid out of Washington.WSJ

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304141204577506381260142136.html?KEYWORDS=pakistan

In conveying the apology, Clinton and her top aides worked closely with senior White House and Pentagon officials and carefully calibrated what she would say in her phone call to Khar to avoid an explicit mention of what one top State Department official called “the A-word” ” “apology.” First Post

http://www.firstpost.com/world/hillary-took-khars-help-in-drafting-apology-statement-366471.html

According to officials, Pakistani army’s chief of staff General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani pressed his government to resolve the issue, which had put Pakistan at odds with the more than 40 countries with troops in Afghanistan whose supplies were affected. First Post

US, Pakistan and Afghanistan should make strategic and operational conversation to avoid blame game, like 100 mtts from Afgn martyred our 17 Army personnel, so joint cooperation is req to avoid such things(Hinna Rabbani Khar interview to Nasim Zahra)

Annex ‘B’

Statement by Secretary Clinton on her Call With Pakistani Foreign Minister Khar

Press Statement

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State

Washington, DC

July 3, 2012

This morning, I spoke by telephone with Pakistani Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar.

I once again reiterated our deepest regrets for the tragic incident in Salala last November. I offered our sincere condolences to the families of the Pakistani soldiers who lost their lives. Foreign Minister Khar and I acknowledged the mistakes that resulted in the loss of Pakistani military lives. We are sorry for the losses suffered by the Pakistani military. We are committed to working closely with Pakistan and Afghanistan to prevent this from ever happening again.

As I told the former Prime Minister of Pakistan days after the Salala incident, America respects Pakistan’s sovereignty and is committed to working together in pursuit of shared objectives on the basis of mutual interests and mutual respect.

In today’s phone call, Foreign Minister Khar and I talked about the importance of taking coordinated action against terrorists who threaten Pakistan, the United States, and the region; of supporting Afghanistan’s security, stability, and efforts towards reconciliation; and of continuing to work together to advance the many other shared interests we have, from increasing trade and investment to strengthening our people-to-people ties. Our countries should have a relationship that is enduring, strategic, and carefully defined, and that enhances the security and prosperity of both our nations and the region.

The Foreign Minister and I were reminded that our troops – Pakistani and American – are in a fight against a common enemy. We are both sorry for losses suffered by both our countries in this fight against terrorists. We have enhanced our counter-terrorism cooperation against terrorists that threaten Pakistan and the United States, with the goal of defeating Al-Qaida in the region.

In addition, I am pleased that Foreign Minister Khar has informed me that the ground supply lines (GLOC) into Afghanistan are opening. Pakistan will continue not to charge any transit fee in the larger interest of peace and security in Afghanistan and the region. This is a tangible demonstration of Pakistan’s support for a secure, peaceful, and prosperous Afghanistan and our shared objectives in the region. This will also help the United States and ISAF conduct the planned drawdown at a much lower cost. This is critically important to the men and women who are fighting terrorism and extremism in Afghanistan. Foreign Minister Khar has informed me that, consistent with current practice, no lethal equipment will transit the GLOC into Afghanistan except for equipping the ANSF. In concluding the call, I reiterated our deep appreciation to the Government and the people of Pakistan for their many sacrifices and their critical contribution to the ongoing fight against terrorism and extremism.
PRN: 2012/1084

http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2012/07/194502.htm

Annex ‘C’

Recommendations that the Committee has made.

1. Pakistan’s sovereignty shall not be compromised. The gap between assertion and facts on the ground needs to be qualitatively bridged through effective steps. The relationship with USA should be based on mutual respect for the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of each other.
2. The Government needs to ensure that the principles of an independent foreign policy must be grounded in strict adherence to the Principles of Policy as stated in Article 40 of the Constitution of Pakistan, the UN charter and observance of international law. The US must review its footsteps in Pakistan.

This means (i) the cessation of drone attacks inside the territorial borders of Pakistan, (ii) No hot pursuit or boots on Pakistani territory and (iii) the activity of foreign private security contractors must be transparent and subject to Pakistani law. It needs to be realized that drone attacks are counter productive, cause loss of valuable lives and property, radicalize the local population, create support for terrorists and fuel anti American sentiments.

1. Pakistan’s nuclear programme and assets including its safety and security cannot be compromised. The US-Indo civil nuclear agreement has significantly altered the strategic balance in the region. Therefore Pakistan should seek from the US and others a similar treatment/facility. The strategic position of Pakistan vis-à-vis India on the subject of FMCT must not be compromised and this principle be kept in view in negotiations on this matter.
2. Pakistan reaffirms its commitment to the elimination of terrorism and combating extremism in pursuance of its national interest.
3. The condemnable and unprovoked NATO/ISAF attack resulting in the martyrdom (Shahadat) of 24 Pakistani soldiers, represents a breach of international law and constitutes a blatant violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. The Government of Pakistan should seek an unconditional apology from the US for the unprovoked incident dated 25th – 26th November, 2011, in Mohmand Agency. And in addition the following measures be taken:

i)             Those held responsible for the Mohmand Agency attack should be brought to justice.

ii)            Pakistan should be given assurances that such attacks or any other acts impinging on Pakistan’s sovereignty, will not recur and that NATO/ISAF/US will take effective measures to avoid any such violations.

iii)           Any use of Pakistani bases or airspace by foreign forces would require Parliamentary approval.

iv)           Ministry of Defence/PAF and ISAF/US/NATO should draft new flying rules for areas contiguous to the border.

1. Any consideration regarding the reopening of NATO/ISAF/US supply routes must be contingent upon a thorough revision of the terms and conditions of the arrangement, including regulation and control of movement of goods and personnel which shall be subject to strict monitoring within Pakistan, on entry, transit and exit points.

(a)  No verbal Agreement regarding national security shall be entered into by the government, its Ministries, Divisions, Departments, attached Departments, Autonomous Bodies or other Organizations with any foreign Government or

authority. And if any such Agreement exists, it should be reduced to writing immediately, failing which it shall cease to have effect within three months of the approval of these recommendations.

(b)  Pakistan’s territory has been used by US/NATO/ISAF for logistic recommendations are made:

purposes. In this context, the following

i)             The Government of Pakistan should revisit the MOU, dated 19th June, 2011 between the Ministry of Defence of Pakistan, and the Ministry of Defence, of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland acting as lead Nation for the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF).

ii)            Acquisition and Cross-servicing Agreement (US-PK-01) between the Department of Defence of the United States of America and the Ministry of Defence of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, dated 9th February, 2002, lapsing in February, 2012.

This agreement and any implementing Agreements there under may only be renewed if required on new terms and conditions for the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Pakistan and ensures the national interests that should include respect. Provided in case of renegotiation of the said Agreement/MoU it should, inter alia, provide a clause on immediate suspension of transit facility through the territory of Pakistan if US/NATO/ISAF Forces violate in any manner the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Pakistan.

1. No covert or overt operations inside Pakistan shall be tolerated.
2. That for negotiating or re-negotiating Agreements/MoU’s pertaining to or dealing procedure shall be adopted:

i)              with matters of national security, the following logistics, will be circulated to the Foreign Ministry concerned Ministries, attached or affiliated Departments for the views; All Agreements/MoU’s, including military cooperation and Organizations and

ii)            Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs. All Agreements/MoU’s will be vetted by the Ministry

iii)           All Agreements/MoU’s will be circulated to the Parliamentary Committee on National Security. The shall vet and make recommendations in consultation with the stakeholders and forward the same to the Federal Cabinet for approval under the Committee

Rules of Business of the Federal Government.

iv)           Agreements/MoU’s in both Houses of The Minister concerned will make a policy statement on the Parliament.

1. There should be prior permission and transparency on the number and presence of foreign intelligence operatives in Pakistan.

10. Fifty percent of US/ISAF/NATO containers may be handled through Pakistan Railways.

11. Taxes and other charges must be levied on all goods imported in or transiting through Pakistan, for use of infrastructure and to compensate for its deterioration. Such charges shall be inter alia used mainly to Karachi-Torkham and Karachi-Chaman roads

12. The international community should recognize Pakistan’s colossal human and economic losses and continued suffering due to the war on terror. In the  inimum, greater market access of

Pakistan’s exports to markets should be actively pursued.

the US, NATO countries and global

13. In the battle for the hearts and minds an inclusive process based on primacy of dialogue and reconciliation should be adopted. Such process must respect local customs, traditions, values and religious beliefs.

(a)  There is no military solution to the Afghan conflict and efforts must be undertaken to promote a genuine national reconciliation in an Afghan-led and Afghan-owned process.

(b)  To strengthen security along the Pakistan-Afghan border, including the cross border flow of criminal elements, narcotics and weapons, the feasibility of additional measures including electronic surveillance may be evaluated and the process of local joint Jirgas should be encouraged according to local customs and traditions.

14. That Pakistani territory shall not be used for any kind of attacks on other countries and all foreign fighters, if found, shall be expelled from our soil. Likewise, Pakistan does not expect the soil of other countries to be used against it.

15. A payments/reimbursements with regard to CSF and other leviable charges should be adopted.

16. The Government needs to review the present focus of foreign policy keeping in view the aspirations of the people of Pakistan. It needs to establish a balance by emphasizing links with our traditional allies and building new relationships for diversifying the sources of economic military and political new fast track process of billings support. In this regard it may take the following amongst other steps:

(i)            Pakistan’s foreign policy must continue to focus on creating a peaceful environment in the region to pursue the goals of economic development and social progress.

(ii)          The dialogue process with India should be continued in a purposeful and result oriented manner on the basis of mutual respect and mutual interest, including efforts for the solution of the Jammu and Kashmir dispute in accordance with UN Resolutions.

(iii)         Special attention must continue to be paid to developing neighbours.

(iv)         The strategic partnership with China must be deepened in all its dimensions.

(v)          Relationship with the Russian Federation should be further strengthened.

(vi)         Pakistan’s support for promotion of peace and stability in Afghanistan remains the cornerstone of its foreign policy.

(vii)        Pakistan’s special relationship with the Islamic World should be reinforced Close cooperative relations.

(viii)      ‫‪Pakistan’s full membership of SCO should be actively ‪pursued

(ix)         Pakistan’s bilateral relationships in the region and its

(x)          ‫‪institutional partnership with ASEAN must be upgraded.‪and strengthened ‫‪Pakistan should actively pursue the gas pipeline ‫.‪project with Iran

Annex ‘D’

Press briefing held on 05 July 2012

Opening Remarks

Bismillah -e- Rehman Rahim

Aslam o Alaikum,

 Ladies and Gentlemen,

I have a small announcement to make, the Foreign Minister will be visiting Japan to attend the Tokyo Conference on Afghanistan on the 08^th of July. The conference will focus on sustainable development strategy of Afghanistan and discuss coordination of international economic assistance, governance and regional economic cooperation. The participants would have a look at a National Priority Programme presented by the Afghan Government. If you have any question, you can ask please.

Question

Sir, can you show us copy of the transcript about the conversation which took place between Foreign Minister and Secretary Clinton and which provided the alleged reopening of the NATO supply routes?

 Answer

We have not issued the transcript but I understand that the State Department and the American Embassy in Islamabad have issued the transcript of the discussions that took place between the two. And it is the true reflection of the conversation that took place and we have nothing to add to it.

Question

Diplomatically we believe that regret, sympathy, apology, and sorry are four words that involve different connotations and we actually want to know that what state of word and its connotation are which Madam Clinton said or expressed?

Answer

As I have said whatever is in that statement, which has been issued by the State Department, is a true reflection of what actually was said and discussed during that call. So I don’t really have anything to add.

 Question

It took around seven months to reopen NATO supplies and around six weeks on technical talks here in Islamabad would you kindly enlighten us what have been precisely salient features of the agreement between the United States and Pakistan during the technical talks resulting in these activities of normalizing the relations and reopening of NATO supplies?

 Answer

We are not really talking about one particular agreement here as there were several issues involved and discussions took place on all those issues. As you remember, there were technical level talks on various issues and of course various proposals were exchanged and discussed. We discussed the opening of GLOCs (Ground Lines of Communication), we also discussed border coordination. We also discussed drone attacks, so there were various issues discussed at various levels. The statement issued by the State Department and the press release issued by the DCC give you a very clear idea as to what was discussed and the understanding reached between the two sides.

 Question

Sir, coming to a more specific aspect of this discussion. We were told by the US officials that about 1.2 billion dollars CSF funds are going to be released. These are arrears that Pakistan has a bill for the past. What kind of arrangement has been worked out for any future costs Pakistan is going to incur in the war against militancy and can you give us any figure on the schedule of these payments?

Answer

I can’t give you the figures at the moment but I can tell you that it would be a substantial amount, which will hopefully be released soon. If you look at the American system, it involves congressional approval and a lot of administrative processes. So, we are hoping that a substantial amount will be released soon and beyond that, I am not in a position to say anything in particular.

 Question

Sir, I am grateful that you accepted the transcript issued by the US State Department so I will base my question on that. The second para of the transcript states that Hina Rabbani Khar alongwith Secretary Clinton accepted the mistakes which led to the deaths of 24 soldiers. Was there any fresh evidence that negated our earlier assessment of attacks being deliberate and secondly Hina Rabbi Khar also expressed sorry over the losses US has incurred in war against terror. We have also been accused of patronizing Taliban who have been attacking the US forces so why we are expressing sorry for that?

 Answer

First of all, I think the para does not say that they “accepted”. It says they “acknowledged”. And as far as my understanding of this para is concerned, Foreign Minister Khar did not say that she accepted or acknowledge that mistakes were made on our part. I think, we should read it the way it is and it says very clearly that the two sides acknowledged the mistakes that resulted in the loss of Pakistani military lives. Regarding your second question, I think loss of lives is always regrettable and of course you feel sorry for that. I think what we need to do is to see it in a larger context as to what we are trying to do. I also think that the sentiments expressed by the US side give a very fair assessment of what US feelings are about the incident, and it says very clearly that they are sorry for the losses suffered by the Pakistani military.

 Question

My question is that would Pakistan sign an agreement with the United States once the supply lines are formally reopened and would a separate agreement will be signed with NATO and ISAF countries or there is only going to be one agreement with US and NATO countries.

 Answer

I am not really in a position to give you a very specific answer on that.

 Question

My first question is that during the suspension of NATO supplies, the US supply continued through the Pakistani air space. Do the US supplies are continuing through the Pakistani air space, and secondly, there is an impression that the top parliamentary recommendation was to seek US apology in very categorical terms from the US on Salala incident. But in the transcript of conversation between Secretary Clinton and Foreign Minister Khar the word sorry has been used from the US side. Does it substantiate apology or not. Because previously the top US officials including President Obama, Secretary Clinton and Defence Secretary Panetta have expressed their deepest regrets on Salala incident to the Government of Pakistan and the military of Pakistan, so what is the difference, why did not we accept these words before?

 Answer

Regarding your first question, my understanding is that yes, several flights were allowed to overfly Pakistan but they cannot be regarded as military flights as they were not carrying any lethal equipment or military equipment. As to your second question, let me again say that instead of getting into semantics, we should try to see this development in the context of larger objective of peace and stability in Afghanistan and the region and the cooperative relationship that we have with the 50 member states of NATO and ISAF. Let me also assure you that the decision has been made in the larger national interest, and in the light of parliamentary recommendations.

Question

Is it a true assumption based on what we have said that uptil now there is no agreement between the two sides. On the basis of the parliamentary recommendations but there will be an agreement which will be signed?

Answer

I am not in a position to say something with certainty. I will check and get back to you on this issue.

 Question

Pakistan has fulfilled American demands regarding resumption of NATO supplies, what about the Pakistani demands? And secondly, what is Pakistan’s reaction on the recent statement by Indian Foreign Minister who has urged Pakistan to do more?

 Answer

Regarding your first question, the decision to block NATO supplies was made to ensure that our sovereignty is not violated again and our red lines are respected, and of course, we would not take the losses of our forces lightly. The statement by Secretary Clinton clearly indicates that they understand our sensitivities and respect our sovereignty. On drones, our policy is very clear and has been very clearly expressed by DCC. Drones are counterproductive, they violate our sovereignty and territorial integrity and are against international laws. Both sides will continue discussing this issue with a view to reach an agreement which is mutually acceptable. Regarding your second question, in a Joint Press Conference in Delhi today, Foreign Secretary Jilani has explicitly said that Pakistan attaches great importance to the ongoing cooperation in the field of counter terrorism. It is in the mutual interest of both the countries, and we have been saying to the Indian side that if they have any evidence about any person or incident, they are most welcome to share it with us. We will of course investigate it thoroughly and we are always ready to cooperate.

 Question

Would Pakistan allow continuing NATO supplies after 2014?

 Answer

Our position is self-explanatory and very clear.

Question

Are we ready to investigate any state element as mentioned by Indian side in Abu Jindal’s case?

 Answer

We totally reject any allegation of involvement of any of our state elements. Terrorism is a common enemy and both countries have an ongoing cooperation in this field and we are willing to cooperate and help in any possible manner in this regard. If they have any information or evidence to share with us, they are welcome to do so.

 Question

Can you give us any figure, how many agreements so far Foreign Office has tabled or presented before the National Security Committee because it was mentioned in the recommendations that all strategic agreements would be routed through Parliamentary Committee on National Security. My second is on the agreement between Pakistan and the United States, have you taken Parliamentary National Security Committee into confidence or the committee has been bypassed?

 Answer

I don’t have any figure, but I can check it for you. Regarding your second question, let me tell you that the whole process would be undertaken in a very transparent manner.

 Question

My question is regarding ongoing Pak-India dialogues in New Delhi, has Pakistan raised the issue of spying of Surjeet Singh? And have the two sides checked that how many Pakistani prisoners have completed their sentences in the Indian jails and vice versa?

 Answer

I have not seen the minutes of the meeting yet. Therefore, I am not in a position to comment on the details of the meeting. Regarding information about Pakistani prisoners, I am afraid I’ll have to check on that and then get back to you.

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

Study:Western & Local Media Coverage on Closure of NATO supply lines :Nov 2011-May 2012

It is a matter  of satisfaction and pride for the ‘mediapoint.pk’ to have received a study from Beacon House National University, Mass Communications Department Lahore on ‘”Western & Local Media Coverage on Closure of NATO supply lines :Nov 2011-May 2012″ . We are pleased not only to accept the study for publish but also congratulate the institution and the course instructor for guiding the young generation towards research work which is almost fading away in this part of the world. We also thank the Course Instructor for appreciating the research base which we are trying to provide to our readers. The remarks of course instructor and the important portion of the study are as below and the complete study has been placed on the link.

Course Instructor‘s Remarks

Dear …….(mediapoint.pk),

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 1

Group Leader: Syed Ali Raza Hassan(Part 2 & 4)

Group Members

Yasir Sharif (Part 1)

Muneeb Sheikh(Part 3)

Rhansha Hassan(Part 3)

Conclusions of the Study

Data Analysis and Conclusion

PAK-US Relations:

The relations between both the countries were remained critical since the start. The reason behind it was that both of the nation always remained firm in their attitudes and benefits. The relations were totally selfish for own benefits. According to former Ambassador Bilminar, “I think Pak-US relations are somewhat rocky but both nations have always processed the benefits instead of friendship.”

…When the war between Pakistan and India were started, it was shocking for Pakistanis that Americans did not help us in this situation. Yet again, in 1971 and 1999, the U.S did not help us in the war against India. But Zia got a chance when Soviet Union attacked the Afghanistan and to defeat the super power the Americans needed someone in that region to help her to defeat that time’s super power in the Afghan war. After a long fight, the Soviet Union was defeated and this was the time when Taliban came into existence.

These are the few examples which depict that Pak-US relations were always used for their own benefits.

NATO Attack on Pakistani Check post:

On 26 November 2011, the NATO planes bombarded the Salala Check Post near the Mahmund Agency in which 26 soldiers were martyred. It was not the first time that such incident took place but the martyrs were greater in number this time that the Pakistani Government had to take action due the Pak army’s involvement and pressure. Pakistani official condemned this US drone attack and they demanded immediate action called inquiry of this incident. After sometime; the United States claimed that the incident has come into their notice; they offered their condolence to Government of Pakistan and they assured for timely inquiries.

Pakistan closed these supplies after the attack of NATO on Pakistani check post as a protest against this accident. Its Pakistan’s right!Pakistan reaction; stopping NATO supply Pakistani Government demanded U.S troops to vacate the Shamsi Air Base within 15 days. According to the inquiry report given by U.S that was released; it was mentioned that NATO had made a drone attack as a self defense from Pakistani troop’ firing. This increased the relationship barrier between the two countries. It is proving that Pakistan is guilty of everything because they fired first and NATO did was in defense. The most important point discussed in this article confuses the reader by saying that American officials did not trust their Pakistani counterparts enough to give them detailed information about American troop locations in Afghanistan. The reality is that there is no border clearly defined on the incident place where NATO killed 24 soldiers.

Collateral Interest:

1. 1.    United States:

The interest for U.S is as follows:

• Pakistan was charging negligible fee of transit which was just US$250 per truck.
• The price for the same trucks would have cost double; if the transportation route would have been Russia and Central Asia. In addition, if America would adopt Russia’s route, she would have to change her policies. In that case, Russia might put forth several conditions before U.S.

·         Other route is costly than the Pakistani government has demanded US$5000 transit fee for each NATO container and also said that we know that US is using far longer transport routes through Central Asia, is paying at least double the amount they have requested from them.

1. 2.    Pakistan:

The interest for Pakistan is as follows:

• Pakistan gets aid of billions of dollars.
• Pakistan is given ammunition from America as exchange deals.
• It remains convenient for Pakistan to continue its nuclear programs since no sanctions are imposed by U.S.

Mutual Interest:

It tells us how the NATO supplies benefits the people in different ways. An ordinary person tells that get quality things with reasonable prices by smuggling, the government of Pakistan gets an aid from US, for US this route is cheaper than western Asia and Russia and also Taliban gets weapons and ammunition when they attack the containers.

The option is giving to Pakistan that its presence is important because they will help striking a peace deal with the Taliban for US. Also HinaRabbani interview is actually clear diagnosis of what will happen? Chicago meeting is about forthcoming of Afghanistan once the withdrawal of Americans and also NATO in 2014.Apart from these issues like drones and also the apology, the two countries targeted four targeted things of energy cooperation: counterterrorism, the NATO provide lines, military help payments and also the Taliban serenity process are yet to be solved.

 Threat to Pakistan:

In any case the sufferer is Pakistan; if it keeps the NATO supply block U.S would block Pakistan’s aid and on the contrary if Pakistan opens the NATO supply, it might suffer future repercussions from the Taliban’s side since U.S is expected to call back its troops in 2014. Now it is up to Pakistan to make the decision whether it need short term or long term advantage.

Media Coverage Analysis:

This scenario reached its critical situation when as a time of Chicago Summit; U.S imposed a condition on Pakistan that she would be allowed to attend the Summit when the NATO supply would be restored. So it’s obvious that Pakistan was invited in Chicago after giving a clue to re-open the NATO supplies.The deal was expected between both sides after getting invitation of Chicago Summit. But the results of the summit were not so fruitful since Pakistan had charged a new price of rupees US$5000 per truck and the US expectations were not met. US still wants the NATO supply to be restored because this route is actually the key for them as it costs much less. The reason given by Pakistan for charging high prices were that NATO trucks are quite heavy and they cause a significance damage to the roads thus for maintaining the infrastructure Pakistan added the cost for the infrastructure maintenance. In addition to that Pakistan included the cost for scanning and road taxes. Pakistan held the stance that it needs to boost up its economy; this included the expenditures in upcoming elections and the budget. Regardless to interest to any specific country U.S has either ways to pay for the NATO trucks.

 The US believes that the supply issue will be solved because this route is critical for them because it costs less and it is much important for both sides.

It is clear that western media is hoping that Pakistan is interested in opening NATO supplies that’s why Pakistani president is going to attend summit in Chicago because he has plans to end its six-month blockade of the NATO supplies. It is pointing on the military establishment that they are forcing the government to open supplies because the US has frozen the flow of aid which is rated over $1 billionby U.S.

The western media has shown biased attitude by putting the examples that Pakistani Islamic parties are the biggest hurdle in the opening of supplies since Pakistan is under the influence of Taliban.

The second point tells us that this summit is important for Pakistan because it will decide the future of Pakistan when the Americans will withdraw in 2014. It is obvious that when the US and its allies will leave Afghanistan then in my point of view, the Taliban will come back because Karzai will also flow back but future will answer this question better.

It’s evident that the restoration of the NATO supplies hold the mutual interest for both the countries.

But it tells us that the refusal of apology by U.S would bring a domestic outcry in Pakistan which indicates that it will affect the US repute in the eyes of the people. Pakistan is divided into different thoughts and cultures which is ruling by an opinion leaders which will bring different thoughts for US in front of their followers so dual minded set will form after that refusal.

The facilitation is needed from both sides to reach the solution but the major issue still present of rampant of aid by US after blockage of routes.

The US and Pakistan talks have been failed due to the demand of the apology from Pakistan side and in return the Americans are withholding the promised military aid.

Political Interests:

The both sides are firm in their demands because if anyone step back/ showed any bent then it would not be good for its future in upcoming election. Obama if apologies with Pakistan then its competitor will raise a question that Obama spend all his era apologizing with other nations. Similarly, if Pakistan ruling alliances will open NATO supplies without apology then same thing would happen during elections.

Our unity is looked upon as a question mark in the whole world. Moreover, this step was considered to be a source for the government to negotiate with the U.S. the important point discussed was that all political parties wanted to have good relations with the United States but that “it cannot be an imbalanced relationship.” In short, the peace road and relation is open between Pakistan and U.S but the step has to be taken from both sides.

Propaganda of West:

The west is continually doing a propaganda against Pakistan by giving their biased option and telecasting the biased articles.

Our local channels are just reproducing the west propaganda because they work for money and majority of them only spreads distress and worry in society.

Data Analysis:

The questionnaire was given to 100 sample spaces. After collection of data we got following results which are as follows:

Do NATO Supply be opened?

Educational Level Awareness:

Transit Fee:

Media Coverage:

Do you like American policies?

Do Drone kill terroists:-

Complete:   Final Project NATO Supply Route

Print this Report

Crux of Amir Mateen Articles series on Baluchistan Published  in The News (From 29 May to 24^th May 2012)

1.    An article, “Baluchistan will stay if people stop leaving” pub on 29 May 2012 highlights that to say Baluchistan was deteriorating towards becoming a dysfunctional governance mechanism would be an understatement. In the peoples perspective it has already become absolutely dysfunctional. The government existing only as a mere nomenclature.

2.    An article, “Stop blaming others, start changing yourself” pub on 28 May 2012 highlights that It goes without saying that Baluchistan needs all the help and attention from Islamabad, and the rest of the country for that matter, to deal with its peculiar predicaments. But do the others responsibilities sanction the provincial leadership’s habit of abdicating its own? Hardly.

3.    An article, “CM Raisani spends hours gazing at shoes as Baluchistan burns” pub on 27 May 2012 highlights that Baluchistan Chief Minister Nawab Aslam Raisani is a paradox. His admirers will tell you that he is a happy-go-lucky person “who will not say ‘no’ to you for anything that you might ask.”

4.    An article, “When knowledge can become a life threat” pub on 26 May 2012 highlights that there is genuine concern among the hapless families of the missing persons that their kith and kin will be killed just because they ‘know too much or have seen too much’.

5.    An article, “Kill and dump, never again” pub on 25 May 2012 highlights that as details of the ‘kill and dump’ policy pour in before the Supreme Court, the atrocities in Baluchistan seem much graver than realized earlier.

6.    An article, “Dead can wait, first find the ‘live’ missing” pub on 24 May 2012 highlights that with the political leadership having abdicated its responsibility, state’s security establishment failing to perform, everyone responsible turning their back on the crisis with impunity, is it at all surprising that all eyes are set on the Supreme Court to find a meaningful resolution to this provincial crisis with unimaginable national level ramifications?

Previous articles series on Baluchistan (From 21^st Nov to 6 Nov 2011)

1.    An article, “My cabinet is my assembly, says Raisani” pub on 21 Nov 2011 highlights that The old mantra of blaming Islamabad for everything that goes wrong in Balochistan may not be valid any more, not after the 18th Amendment in the Constitution and the last National Finance Commission Award that returned most of the powers to the provinces.

2.    An article, “A drive through troubled Balochistan” pub on 20 Nov 2011 highlights that As Balochistan continues to face multiple challenges of disturbed borders, the ever increasing crime, smuggling, religious extremism and a virtual insurgency, the buck stops at one remedy which should be more essential than others — governance.

3.    An article, “A drive through troubled Balochistan” pub on 16 Nov 2011 highlights that politics in Balochistan seems like a smokescreen that hides the hidden mafias involved in drugs, arms-running, oil, goods and vehicles smuggling, dubious mine licenses and construction contracts, you name it.

4.    An article, “A drive through troubled Balochistan” pub on 15 Nov 2011 highlights that the Frontier Corps (FC) is under increasing scrutiny for its changing role as the guardians of Balochistan frontiers to becoming top cops and ‘guardian angels’ of politics and business, provoking serious questions about its integrity and utility. The issue now is whether the FC is part of the Balochistan problem or its solution.

5.    An article, “This epicentre of trouble can turn into a peace model” pub on 12 Nov 2011 highlights that, “The current phase of violence in Balochistan was triggered from this small but key power centre when Nawab Akbar Bugti was killed. And it might just be in Dera Bugti that the seeds of peace can be sowed.

6.    An article, “A drive through troubled Balochistan-4” pub on 12 Nov 2011 highlights that who will benefit from the massive new gas reserves said to have been discovered here, bigger at least 10 times than the original Sui deposits, now that the new Nawab Aali Bugti has left his ancestral lands and the rest of the family is fighting over the legacy of Nawab Akbar Bugti.

7.    An article, “A drive through troubled Balochistan—3” pub on 11 Nov 2011 highlights that Nawab Akbari Bugti was perhaps the last of the old-style Baloch Sardars who maintained a near totalitarian control over Dera Bugti for over half a century.

8.    An aticle, “Ghost of Nawab Bugti still haunts Dera” pub on 7 Nov 2011 highlights that the late Nawab Akbar Bugti matters even more in death than alive.

9.    An article, “Safe, dangerous or on the insurgency trail?” pub on 6 Nov 2011 highlights that the political and security crisis in Balochistan swings between two opposite narratives.

Print this Report

The Perceptors group  had an in house discussion in after math of the Chicago Summit where NATO countries got together to discuss future strategy on Afghanistan.  Mainly two issues were on top in agenda ‘the exit of NATO force and establishment of Afghan National Army support mechanism’  and  ‘Reopening of NATO supply through Pakistan’. The group was more focused on Pakistan and observed media trend of high lighting and twisting facts to focus on points which show that Pakistan lack the capacity to take decision on opening of NATO supply route despite requests from the entire world community.   The media strongly reacted to a perceived Pakistan’s demand of increasing  per Truck tariff demand from 250 dollars to 5000 dollars. The bleak picture  of Pakistan’s economy  and role of its Army in delay of decision on NATO supply also   formed part of media campaign.  However, questions like American agency’s  role in re- inviting  mistrust between America and Pakistan which were managed in first half of the decade through all out cooperation in War On Terror  and the loss to American and west’s value system, economy and liberty due to their agency seems to be intentionally relegated. Replacement of its ambassadors in both Pakistan and Afghanistan is an indicator of  failure of diplomacy and taking over by American agency and army . More than economics it is the political issue between the two routes which is seldom discussed in media.

Most of the members in perceptors are of the view that for Pakistan though economics is important but more vital  is future stability of the region.  Fortunately, the geography and timings have provided this leverage to Pakistan where it can impress its interests on the other side.  Historically, Pakistan and US have been allies when India was in Russian bloc. Despite ups and downs the relationship did progress. It can still progress if future road map is clear and is a win win ending for both. It is not only in Pakistan’s  interest to remove mistrust  but more so in superpower’s own present  interest and  future design  to facilitate opening of NATO supply route through Pakistan  .

This study intends bringing out the facts to enhance understanding of problem and  the other side of the picture and point out  difficulties in case the NATO supply route is not opened through Pakistan, the group is of the opinion this will result in a serious blow to superpower and its allies economic and political future.

Some points of concern to Pakistan which came under discussion with the group as under:

1. Will opening of the route through Pakistan kill all the problems like CSF fund, money promised in KLL and the aids which was frozen  not because of blockade of supply resulting in mistrust?
2. Will Pak get its due share in Afghanistan settlement for which it sacrificed and suffered through out the  last decade?
3. What will be the procedure to ensure lethal arms are not transported if route opens?

 Incident Leading to Blockade of NATO Route through Pakistan

On 26 November 2011, two NATO Apache helicopters along with AC-130 gunship and two F-15E Eagle fighter jets entered up to 2.5 kilometres inside Pakistani border area of Salala in the Baizai subdivision of Mohmand Agency, FATA at 2 a.m. local time, and opened fire at two border patrol check-posts, killing up to 26 Pakistani soldiers. The two Pakistan Army check-posts were codenamed “Boulder” and “Volcano” respectively. The attack resulted in a deterioration of relations between Pakistan and the United States. The Pakistani public reacted with protests all over the country and the government took measures adversely affecting the US exit strategic from Afghanistan including the evacuation of Shamsi Airfield and closure of the NATO supply line.

Map showing NATO supply routes through Pakistan.

Description of NATO Supply Route through Pakistan

PAKGLOC, or Pakistan Ground Lines of Communication are two routes from Pakistan to Afghanistan (both were closed in November 2011). Both routes start in Karachi, Pakistan’s principal port, on the Arabian Sea. From there, one route crosses the Khyber Pass, enters Afghanistan at Torkham, and terminates at Kabul, supplying northern Afghanistan. This route is approximately 1,000 miles long. The other passes through Balochistan Province, crosses the border at Chaman, and ends at Kandahar, in the south of Afghanistan.

As recently as 2009, the U.S. military moved 90 percent of its surface cargo through Pakistan, arriving by ship at the port in Karachi and then snaking through mountain passes, deserts and remote tribal areas before crossing the border into Afghanistan. The Pakistan supply lines are served entirely by contractors instead of U.S. military convoys.

NATO used these routes to transport fuel and other supplies, but not for weapons. The Pakistan routes, until their closure, provided most of the fuel for NATO efforts in Afghanistan. In 2007, the military was burning 575,000 gallons of fuel per day, and 80% of this fuel came from Pakistani refineries. The fuel storage capacity for forces at Bagram and Kabul air bases was less than 3 million gallons, making NATO efforts highly dependent on the Pakistani supply lines.

Sources: Fox News, WashingtonPost, The European Institute, Guardian, The Green Political Foundation

Financial Expenditures on PAKGLOC

In an article published by the Associated Press on January 19, 2012, the Pentagon revealed new figures showing that it is now costing approximately $104 million dollars per month to send supplies through the alternate northern route. Considering it cost us approximately $17 million prior to the closures, that is an increase cost of $87 million dollars per month.

Pakistan’s government is seeking a reimbursement of $2.6 billion from the U.S., but has not received any Coalition Support Funds for the past 18 months.

In the backdrop of extensive spending in Afghanistan, the United States is not prepared to reimburse Pakistan for even what we have suffered, both as damage to the transit route infrastructure and the colossal collateral damage to life and property as fallout of the Afghan imbroglio, as agreed by the Coalition Support Fund.

Reopening the route could be key to plans by NATO forces to end their combat mission in Afghanistan by the end of 2014, a goal that would require the  US and other countries to move equipment out of Afghanistan to Pakistani ports.

The communication ministry has proposed charging Nato forces $1,000 per container to offset the Rs100 billion in damages caused to the road infrastructure in the past 10 years, said a top government functionary.

“According to our conservative assessment, the Nato containers caused Rs100 billion in damages to the road infrastructure and have not paid a penny in return,” said Communications Secretary Anwar Ahmad Khan while briefing the Public Accounts Committee on Tuesday.

The statement comes at a time when Pakistan and United States are negotiating new conditions for reopening the ground lines of communication (GLOC), the official name for the Nato supply routes through Pakistan. US Defence Secretary Leon Panetta has declined to accept Pakistan’s demand of $5,000 per container, inclusive of all charges.

Source: MilPages, Washington Times, Business Recorder, Express Tribune

Political Implications for Pakistan on reopening of NATO Supply

Map showing NDN route

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.
• Another, more southern route starts at Ponti, Georgia on the Black Sea and continues to Baku, Azerbaijan where the goods are transferred to barges and ferried across the Caspian Sea. Supplies land in Turkmenistan and then move by rail through Uzbekistan before arriving at the Afghan border. In 2010, this route carried one third of the NDN’s traffic.
• A third route, created in order to avoid going through the often volatile country of Uzbekistan, goes from Khazakstan to Kyrgyzstan and then through Tajikistan before reaching Termez.

Sources: The European Institute, The Green Political Foundation, Defence update

Financial Expenditures on NDN

Officials have disclosed that the actual cost-per-container figure for NDN cargo has been calculated to be $17,500, compared with an approximately $7,200 for cargo passed through Pakistan ground routes. It takes 60 days to reach the desitnation .The difference in costs clearly manifests that without mending fences with Pakistan, US and NATO cannot sustain its forces in the war ravaged region of Afghanistan for long.

Source: Carbonated Tv

Political Implications of NDN

By shifting the burden to Central Asia, however, the U.S. military has become increasingly reliant on authoritarian countries, prompting criticism from human rights groups that the Obama administration is cozying up to dictators.

For instance, more than one-third of the northern-route cargo passes through tiny Azerbaijan, a country saddled by “pervasive corruption,” according to the State Department’s annual human rights report. U.S. defense officials also say the northern supply lines would not be possible without the cooperation of Russia. One new route runs through Siberia.

The biggest potential choke point, however, lies in Uzbekistan, a former Soviet republic that borders northern Afghanistan. It previously had kicked the U.S. military out of the country after Washington complained about the killing of hundreds of protesters in 2005.

But as the United States has deepened its involvement in Afghanistan, relations with Uzbekistan have warmed up again. Today, more than 80 percent of supplies shipped along the Northern Distribution Network pass through the country.

Source: NYT

Comparison of GLOC and NDN Routes, shorter route seems visible.

Importance of NATO Supply Route through Pakistan

 Extracts

• NATO makes this point in the summit declaration with another prod aimed at Pakistan. “The countries in the region, particularly Pakistan, have important roles in ensuring enduring peace, stability, and security in Afghanistan,” the document states, “and in facilitating the completion of the transition process.” (CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR of 22 May)
• Without access to Pakistan, equipment leaving Afghanistan when the U.S. withdraws would have to go by cargo plane and by the northern routes, which stretch thousands of miles through Russia and Central Asia to ports on the Baltic Sea or through Georgia to the Black Sea. Many of the countries refuse to permit the U.S. to ship ammunition and other lethal equipment through their territory, forcing those supplies to go by air. (LOS ANGELES TIMES of 22 May)
• “Pakistan has to be part of the solution in Afghanistan, and it is in our national interests that to see a Pakistan that is democratic, that is prosperous and that is stable,” Obama said….The NATO alliance needs Pakistan’s cooperation to ensure Afghanistan’s long-term stability and security, NATO’s top officer told reporters. That was a mild way of saying that Pakistan can play the spoiler at will and holds cards the fighting force does not. Pakistan shares history, culture and language with Afghanistan’s restive southern swath, and maintains support for Taliban-led insurgents who cross the border to kill U.S. and NATO forces (US, Pakistan relations in prolonged slump over supply routes, other issues – AP)
• Compared to the detailed, specific, and increasingly dense U.S.-Afghan security partnership, the U.S.-Afghan governance partnership is almost non-existent. The United States risks replicating the same error in Afghanistan that characterized U.S. policy towards Pakistan for the last six decades (Promises, promises: The U.S.-Afghan Strategic Partnership of 22 May)
• GEN. BRADSHAW: Yes. I can tell you that we’re currently in talks with our Pakistan colleagues on how we might get those routes open. Clearly we’re managing very well without them, but on the other hand, it would be extremely helpful for us if we had access to them. And clearly, the Pakistanis would derive some financial benefit from that as well. So between us, we hope to get through the problems that we’ve encountered which caused the closure, which were highly regrettable, and get back on an even keel. But I have to tell you that in our talks — our ongoing talks with our Pakistan military colleagues, there is, you know, the rebuilding of a very good relationship there. We’ve got a common interest in addressing the terrorist insurgent problem that crosses the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. And things are moving in the right direction there.( Defece Dept Brief 9 May)
• Obama knows that he can’t succeed in Afghanistan without coming to terms with Pakistan. So why is his diplomacy so lousy?(FOREIGN POLICY of 24 May)

Print this Report

News & Views

A study, to examine the wrong perceptions and accusations on Pakistan’s alleged complicity in allowing transportation of raw materials (Amonium Nitrate) used in Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) across Pak-Afghan border was released on 30the March 2012. The study supports Pakistan’s stance on the subject and statistically proves that Pakistan has suffered from these IEDs more than the coalition forces combined together. The report also highlights Pakistan’s continued efforts to stem the crossborder movements of raw materials used in these devices. Anyhow, there was malicious intent in making US aid conditional to stopping the supply of the raw materials for IEDs from Pakistan to Afghanistan. America, in fact, has been using aid as an instrument to coerce Pakistan into accepting its unreasonable demands. Last year, the US Congress passed the bill for stoppage of US aid amounting to $700 million, which could only be released after certification that Pakistan cooperates in War on Terror.

Print this Report