Got queries regarding the new U.S. policy on Afghanistan & Pakistan ?

Any queries related to new U.S. Afghanistan & Pakistan policy can be submitted to State Dept. representative in Pakistan on:

http://statedept.connectsolutions.com/conx

They will be duly answered on March 31. Advance level questions have a better chance of getting answered. So think something intriguingly "advanced" :)

Leadership not IMF is the issue...

... a few excerpts from Yousaf Nazar's opinion published in DAWN, October 29, 2008

PAKISTAN’S current economic meltdown is a crisis of competence if judged in light of the recent past. In the context of history, it represents a colossal failure of the establishment’s long-term foreign and economic policies.

The government continued Musharraf’s Washington-centric foreign policy. Yet, in the hour of its greatest need, the US not only ditched Pakistan but a third-ranking state department official publicly humiliated its ‘friend’ by saying that the Friends of Pakistan “wouldn’t throw money on the table”. This wasn’t surprising given Condoleezza Rice’s more subtle remarks earlier on Sept 26: “We are very engaged with Pakistan, through the international financial institutions, to help Pakistan as it takes the difficult decisions that it is and must take on economic reform.” Translated: Pakistan should go to the IMF and reform its economy.While the US pressure on Pakistan to go the IMF has political undertones, it is also true that Pakistani rulers’ historic tendency to indulge in profligate spending and corruption has left them with few sympathisers despite the much trumpeted ‘geostrategic’ importance of Pakistan.

The US has historically directed most of its ‘aid’ to make Pakistan fight its wars. The aid has been primarily used for military purposes (e.g. Pakistan’s arms purchase orders in 2006 alone totalled $5.1bn) but the indirect cost of the conflicts since 1980 has been catastrophic, although some people continue to believe in the ‘benefits’ of such ‘aid’.

The ‘aid syndrome’ stymied any serious effort to reform the economy. Infrastructure investments and tax reforms were neglected because the so-called austerity programmes advocated by the multilaterals hit subsidies but not the pockets of vested interests. Oil and food subsidies played a major role in Asia and the European Union respectively in keeping the prices low because the governments had fiscal space, of which Pakistan never had much. Cutting fat in defence and establishment expenditures and taxing the rich were not high on the multilaterals’ reform agenda as the focus was usually on indirect taxes (e.g. sales tax) that inevitably hit the lower-income groups.

But what is the point in complaining about the US’s ‘real agenda’ or the IMF’s ‘conditionalities’ when the country’s leaders are unwilling to tighten their belts and undertake necessary reforms and are known to own assets worth hundreds of millions of dollars abroad? Confidence and credibility are important issues and cannot be wished away.

Full article at Random Thoughts

Blogged with the Flock Browser

British Policy 1835

http://www.english.ucsb.edu/faculty/rraley/research/english/macaulay.

Imran wants re-look of US' Pak policy

Imran Khan, is arriving in the US this week on a week-long tour to ''urge'' powerful lawmakers and influential policymakers to have a serious re-look at the US' Pakistan policy. He would also brief them about his assessment of the ground realities in Pakistan, specially the North West Frontier Province. This is the first visit of a major Pakistani politician after the assassination of the former Pakistan Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto last month. During the first few days of his visit beginning January 22, Imran Khan, head of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf party, would be spending time at the Capitol Hill meeting some of the key Congressmen including Senate Majority Leader, Henry Reid, and policymakers. Organizers of his schedule in Washington said Imran Khan would also meet members of several key Congressional committees, which play an important role in formulating US policy towards Pakistan, in both Chambers - the Foreign Relations Committee and the Armed Services Committee. ''They need to know the ground realities. Up till now the only input they have got on the ground realities is either from the (Bush) Administration or from the Government of Pakistan, both of whom have given them (lawmakers and policymakers) wrong information. Look where we are today, a real crazy situation,'' Ali Zaid, International Co-ordinator of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf party, told NDTV in an interview on the eve of his arrival. ''We are going to tell them that the United States needs to reevaluate and re-look at the way this administration deals with Pakistan,'' he added. However, Khan has indicated he would prefer not to meet any official from the Bush Administration, as he blames (its) policies have been mainly responsible for the sharp rise in extremism and militancy in his country. ''Imran Khan has no meeting with anybody in Bush Administration. This Administration is on its way out. They have just got seven-eight months. Instead we are meeting the lawmakers and policymakers who advise the administration on what to do,'' said Zaidi, who spends his time between California, Dubai and Karachi. Zaidi said during his meetings, Khan would urge the Administration to ask Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf to have a policy of ''engaging'' the people of NWFP and not ''bombing'' them. ''You do not need to have peace talks with the extremist. But you need to have the people of the area engaged in a dialogue. By collateral damage, you are actually creating more extremism. This is not the way to fight the war on terror,'' Zaidi further said sharing the views of his party leader. ''You need to befriend them and invest in them. You can't earn peace by bombing them. This would be his message,'' he said. Khan would also be articulating his views at various other meetings - think tanks, universities and also with Pakistani expatriates. He is scheduled to address meetings at the prestigious American University, Columbia University and Center for Strategic and International Studies, one of the biggest think tank on the Hill. He would also address a breakfast meeting of Asia Society in New York. At least two large meetings with the expatriate Pakistani community have been organized in New York and New Jersey. Source: NDTV

Hillary Clinton proposes joint oversight of Pakistan nukes

MANCHESTER, New Hampshire, Jan 6 (AFP) - US White House hopeful Hillary Clinton late Saturday said she would propose a joint US-British team to oversee the security of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal if she is elected president.

“So far as we know right now, the nuclear technology is considered secure, but there isn't any guarantee, especially given the political turmoil going on inside Pakistan,”

she said during a Democratic debate here. If elected president, the US senator said,

“I would try to get Musharraf to share the security responsibility of the nuclear weapons with a delegation from the United States and, perhaps, Great Britain, so that there is some fail-safe.”

This guy has proven himself a real 'Security Risk' for this country. He dragged this country into such a situation. Are we going to get rid of our insane commando or will let him to ruin this country for his own RULE ?

Blogged with Flock

US wants Benazir as pakistani PM or turning the guns towards pakistan?

for details see the following link

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=30760&sectionid=351020401

plz comment wht u perceive from it