A History of US- Pakistan Relations

Re Author`s response to anew

``The issue of the occupation of Palestine and the advent of several million Jews in Palestinian lands is a phenomenon orchestrated by winners of the First / Second World Wars i.e US / UK / France. Once these people have encroached these lands, and are supported by the US, there is not much that the Middle Eastern countries can do about it.``

I am a little disappointed in this simplistic, if not inaccurate, analysis that seems to have gotten to you too. The fallacy that the US is the bedrock of Israeli strength has a soothing ring to it for Muslim states who cannot bring themselves to admit the obvious: they got beaten time and time and time again by a tiny country with a fraction of their manpower, economic power, and yes, firepower. While the Arabs and Muslims convene annually to find some Anglo-American-Jewish conspiracy in this, the reality is that Israel`s strength lies largely within: a robust democracy, a solid industrial base that is the 3rd biggest exporter of weaponry, a citizenry that is literate, and a service/IT sector that`s growing by leaps and bounds. No amount of sloganeering, Soviet/French weaponry in camel-jockey hands, or palaces with a thousand concubines can defeat such an adversary.

``America is nation that has much to offer. However, it is upto our leadership to decide what they can acheive by advancing American interests``

Ashiq wuhee Ashiq hai jo MUJBOOR naheeN hai.....

#26 by arjun_m on December 14, 2003 11:19am PT
//...The attempted assissination of EL-Presidente(presumably by the someone in the 3% of pakis who didn`t vote for him) ...//

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/14/international/middleeast/14CND-STAN.html

NYTimes hints that it is an insider job - it happened right in the middle of the ``most secured`` area in whole of Pakiland. Mushy was visibly shaken. The great warrior must be pi$$ing in his pants - this was third attempt on his life.

Mushy missed martyrdom by 30 seconds, it seems. Too bad.

Dear Readers!
Thanks for continuing the debate.
The subject of the article is not Paki-bashing or India-bashing.
The topic is to summarize the historical context of Pakistan`s relationship with the US and to discuss where it is heading. Some day, the ``war on terror`` will be an old paradigm like the ``cold war``. The question is, when the US / World Bank support withers, what would be the next option for the leadership in Pakistan. I am personally happy with Musharraf`s performance, but some day, he will be history. The real value of Musharraf`s regime and his association with the US is the after effects of his cooperation on the Pakistani society - its democratic instituitions, the state of the economy and development prospects for the country.

#17 ferozk:
Dear Ferozk -- Considering the subjective perspective of the people of Pakistan, the US interests in Pakistan are very much relevent. Amercian influence has affected our economy, our politics and our society, both directly and indirectly. America is nation that has much to offer. However, it is upto our leadership to decide what they can acheive by advancing American interests.

#18 anew:
Dear anew - I agree with most of your comments.
However, part of the problem is that solutions for the problems of some Muslim societies are outside their influence.
The issue of the occupation of Palestine and the advent of several million Jews in Palestinian lands is a phenomenon orchestrated by winners of the First / Second World Wars i.e US / UK / France. Once these people have encroached these lands, and are supported by the US, there is not much that the Middle Eastern countries can do about it.
Muslim societies in the Middle east that were carved out of the fallen Turkish Ottomon Empire had no democratic traditions. So, several generations would pass before they successfully integrate with the western world and acquire democratic tradiditions, scientific knowledge and competitive economies. However, the role of the US or other foreign powers has been to support local dictators that are brutal and act as pawns of the western powers. In this context, the struggle of building our societies is tough to say the least.

# 20:
Dear arjun_m: - The meddling of ISI in afghan politics is another mistake. The people of Afghanistan have sufferred terribly in the last three decades. I think foreign powers should limit their role to recontruction in the unfortunate country and this is true for not only Pakistan but India too.

#21 pmishra2:
Dear pmishra2 - I am not sure if you really read the article or just commented on the title. For me, as a Pakistani, American influence and to understand the nature of this interaction is important for me because it directly effects the lives of the people that live in Pakistan.

# 23 / 24 /25 jay:
Dear jay - I disagree with you!! - The societies on both sides of the border are very much similar - because they share the history and the land.
Kashmir, in the case of Pakistan, is the central problem since it effects our defense spending and our economy, not to mention the political corridors of Islamabad. India has may other headaches besides Kashmir.
I personally feel that both countries must resolve this dispute because the nuclearization of the region has brought us close to MAD - ``mutually assured destruction`` just last year. It is just plain stupid for leadership of both countires to continue squabbling over this dispute and forefore all that can be acheived in peace.
It is a long debate on what the Kashmir conflict is and who did what. However, the fact of the matter is that people in Kashmir are suffering at the hands of both Indian and Pakistani politicians. The issue of Kashmir has got to be resolved sooner than later, otherwise, a nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan is just a matter of time.

Thanks for the debate everyone!!
JNZ

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

cause and effect,

There are many on chowk who believe that indo pak problems are due to kashmir. No, kashmir is only a symtom of the fundamental differences in the values of the two societies. A complete nation cannot be jihadified by the americans to fight afghanistan. The seeds were always there.

Today after all the peace, indo pak relations are not as close as what was at the time of lahore declaration. The entire pak society revolted at the sight of peace breaking out, and kargill invasion and the subsequent military take over is the xpresion of the jihadic spirit of pakistan.

The fools in delhi are rushing into the peace trap, one precondition should be a public enquirey into the kargill invasion, the forces behind it before any peace talks. Mushy has already declared that there will be more kargill type invasions.

tahmed,

It has become a practice for tahmeds and ylhs to cite example of pakistanis and indians from daily lives to show how good they are and how well they get along. Every real person is an exception from the typical average pakistani. The average pakistani is really an everage, created by the values of the social instituions in pakistans, beacuse at soime level one has to accept that the instituions will not survive if they are opposed to the generally accepted values. One can even talk of the broad trends, which are undoubtedly the producys of the trends the values are taking.

In the last 50 years, having inherited more or less the same social instituions, pakistan has enacted the hoodood, the blasohemy laws, infected with jihadists, honour killings etc etc. This clearly represents a trend in pak social values. Pl note that I am not talking about individual acts of criminality, these are social instituional changes.

Now take india, caste discxrimination has been criminalised, there are caste based employment and educational reservations for the lower catses, downry deaths have been seperately criminalised.. these represent the trendes in indian social values.

It will absurd to argue that blasphemy laws and honour killings do not have broad support in pakistan. tahmed and ylh have to learn to accept the reality

Benazir admits Pakistan-backed low-intensity conflict in Kashmir

By Amit Baruah



NEW DELHI DEC. 13. The former Pakistani Prime Minister, Benazir Bhutto, today admitted that Islamabad had backed a low-intensity conflict in Jammu and Kashmir during her first tenure as Head of Government in the early 1980s.

In what is, perhaps, the first such admission by a Pakistani leader, she said this had been done to ``hype`` the Kashmir issue and was a joint decision taken by the military and political leadership.

Ms. Bhutto, who sidestepped a question on her `role` in the creation of the Taliban, however, claimed that in the early phase of the Kashmir conflict there were few attacks on civilians and none outside the State
///from hindu of today

#14 by jamshednazar on December 13, 2003 10:09am PT

#12 by anew:
Islam is a threat in the sense that it can provide the kind of ideology that can sustain and fuel anti-Americanism. People in South America are as unhappy with American policies as the people in the middle east. However, a common idealogy in the middle east allows them to justify their struggles. The cause of the conflict is exploitation. Islamic extremism is one of the languages of response.

In my opinion, Islamic extremism is the counter product of zionist-christian-hindu-communist extremism/colonialism. It is similar to cat`s attack to save the life. The Muslims are being cornered and America is supporting the corrupt monarchs and dictators who are exploiting them. The masses don`t believe and trust their rulers and some of them end up in isolated terrorist acts. But two wrongs are not equal to one right. Muslims should stop all acts of terrorism. They need a jihad inside their selves and socities more than a jihad with with `kuffar`. As I see they are touching all those levels which does not make them any different than a jew or a non-believer.

Iqbal the great poet said about the Muslims about 70 years ago which is more appropriate on them now then at that time;

zahir mein hein nasarah tu tamadun mein hanud
yeh musalman hein jin ko dekh ke sharmain yahud

(Their appearance is like christians(western) and their culture is like Hindus ( look at their marriage ceremonies). These are the Muslims that even Jews will be shy of them. (cheating/corruption/ Interest eaters/ gamblers/name any evil which they don`t have)

So why fight (do jihad) with `brothers`?

#16 by nasah on December 13, 2003 8:09pm PT
and your are right -- Can you beat an Idea whose time has come -- and passed....

can you?

its certainly the Time to Tell....

....Time and `Muslims` to tell. The `Muslims` need to change themselves and show the world merits of Islam by enforcing it `one of the sizable Muslim state`.

Otherwise, nasah! you will be absolute right `that it was an Idea whose Time came and passed - I may narrate 1001 merits of Islam but no body will believe unless they see with their eyes. I repeat again that I have said many times some where else that Muslims of today are the biggest barrier in spreading the Divine Message of Islam - the religion of all Prophets from Adam to Muhammad.