With a nuanced approach
Pakistan-US relations have taken a highly ominous turn with Washington believing that it faces more threat from the Al-Qaeda network concentrated in Pakistan than from Afghanistan. Wasn’t bin Laden discovered in Pakistan and the terrorist network’s second in command Abu Yahya-al-Libbi killed in North Waziristan? Many in Pakistan have condemned Panetta for extending threats and Gen Dempsey for asking Pakistan to do more. What they fail to realise is that verbal attacks cannot shoot down drones and Pakistan does not simply possess the military capability to put an end to them. A more realistic option is destroy the terrorist safe havens in North Waziristan, being used to launch attacks inside Afghanistan. This is also an international obligation. This should be done before the US decides to flush the Haqqanis out on its own. The protest against Salala attack was necessary but it must not lead to measures that help the extremists. Islamabad has to realise that a satisfactory conclusion of the fight against the militants is as important for Pakistan as for the US. For this the Nato routes need to be opened without delay.
The policy of total dependence on the US pursued by Musharraf needs to be abandoned but not replaced by a policy of hostility towards the super power. Islamabad has to learn to retain good relations with countries it does not completely agree with. It has, meanwhile, to improve its relations with neighbours and develop economic and cultural ties with emerging powers and regional groupings. For this Pakistan needs a nuanced foreign policy.
In his address to the SCO, President Zardari again reiterated Pakistan’s desire to be a permanent member of the important regional grouping. Reiterating the sacrifices Pakistan has rendered in the war against militancy won’t earn us a seat the SCO. Our commitment to fight militancy would be questioned as long as terrorist continue to pour into neighbouring countries from sanctuaries inside Pakistan or if Islamabad is seen to be protecting some of the militant groups.
I do not know who has written this article,but it clearly shows that he a big traitor,non muslim and having big investment in USA and Europe..
Dear Gul,
The writer, read the editor of the paper, here is providing a fare and sensible solution to the drone attacks on Pakistan territory. You seems to think otherwise. Do you propose to go on war with US to stop the so called strikes. I think that would not be sensible. So do you have any other solution. Whats wrong if the writer is as king to content the militants in its own territory with its own military establishments. It will save the face of Pakistan in International forum.
Please have some knowledge of politics also before commenting.
Ignorant animal
This is not the time to think and act emotionally. we must think and act what is in the best interest of Pakistan. We must not submit to each and every demand of the US. At the same time we can't afford to antagonize the only super power on which rests our survival and securirty. By disagreeing with the US we must not encourage the terrorists who have been responsible for lots of destruction and killings not only in Afghanistan but also in Pakistan.
This suggestions/advise will not work here but may be in a human society.
Comments are closed.