Abu Muqawama retains its autonomy and the views and beliefs expressed within the blog do not reflect those of CNAS. Abu Muqawama retains the right to delete comments that include words that incite violence; are predatory, hateful, or intended to intimidate or harass; or degrade people on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. In summary, don't be a jerk.
Ahmed Rashid (the author of Descent into Chaos and Taliban) sums up on the BBC website what the "strategic dialogue" between Pakistan and the US means for relations between the two countries.
This is how Rashid says the US-Pakistani relationship used to work: "After 11 September, former Presidents George Bush and Pervez Musharraf carried out a largely transactional relationship. "I will give you an al-Qaeda operative in exchange for two F16 fighter bombers" - was what that boiled down to.
And how is it different this time? "The Pakistanis also carried a brief which frankly addressed Pakistan's strategic interests and security needs with regard to India, Afghanistan and sensitive issues like nuclear weapons and terrorism... For the Americans this was a welcome change from the subterfuge, lack of clarity and covert support for militant groups that Pakistan has engaged in in the past."
But while Rashid seems generally optimistic, Maleeha Lodhi, a former Pakistani ambassador to London and Washington, in an op-ed in The News asks why Pakistan seems to be convinced it can't solve it's problems itself:
"Three points emerge from the ruling elite's help-us-with-everything stance. One that it appears to be overwhelmed by the challenges at hand and seems to regard these as insuperable. Two, it doesn't seem to have much confidence in its own ability to fix these problems. And three it has come to believe that only outside help can resolve these issues and even considers foreign actors to be catalytic agents for the country's stabilisation if not progress.
"As Pakistan's history attests such external help – however well-intentioned – sets up a perverse set of incentives by which urgent domestic reform is postponed or avoided as resort is made to band-aid or quick-fix solutions imported from abroad. Assistance should serve as a means to build self-sustaining national capacity so as not to need more external financing. But this has not been the experience of the past two decades or more."
So what would they do if
So what would they do if they couldn't count on external aid? Roll over, and allow the radicals to take over? I honestly am interested because it seems that all the US has encouraged here is dependency. It might sound radical to say so, but they sound like a bunch of people on the dole.
I'd be more worried about
I'd be more worried about the strategic relationship between Kyrgyrzstan and the U.S. - Is it true that only Washington is demanding reconciliation between the ex-dictator and the new "color revolution?"
More importantly, will the new regime be willing to keep the base there?
MOSCOW — The Russian
MOSCOW — The Russian government on Friday proposed suspending all adoptions of Russian children by Americans, reacting to a scandal over a 7-year-old boy who was put on a plane by himself this week and returned to Moscow with a note from his adoptive mother in Tennessee saying that she could no longer care for him.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/10/world/europe/10russia.html
The mother said in the note that the boy had severe psychological problems and that she was deceived by the adoption agency into accepting him last September.
The boy, Artyom Savelyev, arrived in Moscow on Thursday on a flight from Washington, and Russian immigration officials immediately took custody of him after he presented them with the note. The boy’s mother, Torry Ann Hansen, of Shelbyville, Tenn., wrote, “I was lied to and misled by the Russian orphanage workers.”
I agree with your point,
I agree with your point, please share with us more good articles.1984 Buick Apollo AC Compressor
Add your comment