Senator Chuck Hagel and Pakistan: June 13th PLS- From Andrea Barron

[Indhika Jayaratnam]

Very thoughtful reactions to last week’s Discussion Board Question on
the "Obama Doctrine." We are looking forward to your comments on this
week's question:

One issue Senator Hagel discussed was America’s complicated
relationship with Pakistan. Some members of Congress want to cut or
even eliminate aid to Pakistan, claiming that its civilian government
is corrupt and that Pakistani military intelligence has collaborated
with the Afghan Taliban. But the Obama Administration and other
members of Congress say the U.S. has no choice but to continue this
relationship because Pakistan is a nuclear power and success in
Afghanistan depends on cooperation with Pakistan. What are your views
on the US relationship with Pakistan?

[Melissa Rodgers]

As Senator Hagel pointed out, China also needs to be factored into this
equation. If the US does not continue to make friendly overtures to
Pakistan, China certainly will. A further rapprochement between Pakistan
and China with a simultaneous distancing of Pakistan from the US would
likely not be in America's interest. Furthermore, the Pakistani state is
internally divided. To classify the entire population as corrupt terrorist
supporters would be far from accurate. The smartest strategy is probably
to cultivate the friendship of groups open to US help and work through
their influence to improve the situation in Pakistan. Development funding
is key; desperate people do desperate things. Improving the lot of people
in such circumstances is both a humanitarian and security strategy.
Cutting off ties with Pakistan would essentially be to ignore the problem
rather than to seek solutions.

[Christine Hoguet]

I think that cutting off aid would only hurt the wrong people - the poorest populations in Pakistan, and potentially even members of the international community. The best way to get rid of tribalism, jihadism, and anti-western sentiment is education and giving the people of Pakistan the chance for a good life that does not make them see the Taliban etc. as their only way of survival. 

Thus, clearly development aid is essential to get Pakistan on a better path and to stabilize relations between Southwest Asia and the United States. However, in providing aid (and any other service), we must consider the local culture - simply assuming what's best for a different nation or even transplanting American values has obviously not worked and is never going to work. It will only add to the anti-American resentments. 

Nevertheless, development aid cannot just be poured into a region like Pakistan. There have to be commitments on the part of the Pakistani government and people as well. For instance, transparency in the political system, their nuclear efforts, and the secret service are essential, as well as promises not to shelter terrorists.

It is not going to be easy to decide how to allocate and distribute aid funds, but we should strive for helping the people of Pakistan - those who have and want nothing to do with international terrorism - first.

-- 
Christine Hoguet

International Studies / Anthropology major

Case Western Reserve University

[Jenny Baez]

I agree with Melissa.

Anti-western sentiment is increasing at a time when we need alliances
the most. The questions should not be focused on whether to give aid
to Pakistan or not, but rather figure out a way to make sure the aid
reaches the places it needs to go so we can get the most out of these
resources as we deal with the economic domestic issues.
Cutting out the aid completely is ill-advised as it foments the
relationship with Pakistan. The Pakistani government is increasingly
looking to the east for cooperation, negotiating to upgrade their
status in the Shaghai Cooperation Org that forms an alliance with
Russia and other ex-Soviet nations. While this is happening, the US is
trying to implement the European missile defense program to defend
against Iranian threats and has not been able to get Russian
cooperation - with threats of a new arms race. China just published
today that they are backing the Russians against anti-US dominance in
the European region. Our previous alliance with the Czech Rep, a
former strategic location for our defenses is dwindling as well. The
bottomline: we cannot neglect our relationships in the eastern fronts,
and proving aid to Pakistanis a key diplomatic tool to maintain
influence in the region.

JCB

[Kevin Stone]

I think the US relationship with Pakistan is ultimately a relationship between its people. Hagel called affairs in troubled regions only about “common interests.” I think there is the human dimension that is being over looked here. The $10 billion in aid is not just to keep Pakistan at bay; it is to actually provide aid to people who are in need. Everyone seems to claim that the money is being sent there with no results, but the truth is that there are results – just not immediately visible.

 

In my internship at the Institute of International Education, for example, I work with a team that is putting together a proposal worth millions of dollars for a USAID program in Pakistan. The program sponsors a student exchange and will last 5 years.

The Pakistani government is disorganized and corrupt and is the source of our strained relations. It’s possible that the government could be helping the Taliban, but it doesn’t discount the fact that the citizens need the aid. Cutting off the aid would be a symbol of abandoning the people, and our reputation would suffer greatly.

 

I advocate circumventing the government as much as possible in giving our aid. It is clear that many elements of it are corrupt, but this doesn’t justify cutting off the stream of aid. Pakistan is a failed state – of course the money will not be spent as efficiently as we would want. I also advocate targeting the money in a way that provides social justice and education – a way that teaches people how to care for themselves in a way that is befitting to their culture.

 

This will, in the long run, create true friends and allies in addition to more stability in the region.

--

Kevin Stone 

International Relations and International Business Major & Spanish Minor

Valley Residential Senator 

Associated Students Committee On Inclusion and Diversity 

University of San Diego

(425) 306 - 9996

kevin...@sandiego.edu

 

[Kit Whitton]

 Aid to Pakistan comes in a variety forms so that help in given over a wide area. This helps facilitate relationships and goodwill among all levels of society. Similar to Kevin I work with the Council for The International Exchange of Scholars (a division of the Institute of International Education) and we have a special initiative involving increasing the amount of scholars to pakistan. The program is funded by the State Department and constitutes a part (very small) of US foreign policy.

The U.S. has to keep giving aid to Pakistan because at some point in the future there will be a shift in government there and the U.S. wants to have good relationships with the population. The Pakistani Government has very little control outside of the capital, with much of the remaining land be controlled by the military and/or tribal leaders. This leads to power grabs and a lot of instability. Too many wrong moves made by any party could lead to instability on the India/Pakistan border and possible war. Yes, aid to Pakistan is on principal to help those in need but it is much more political and complicated than that.

Kit Whitton

---

Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 22:47:31 -0400
Subject: Re: Senator Chuck Hagel and Pakistan: June 13th PLS- From Andrea Barron
From: kevin...@sandiego.edu
To: international-af...@googlegroups.com

[Adam Portoghese]

If you ask me Pakistan has been a relatively good ally in the United States' recent fascination with Central Asia. A bold claim, I know, but I think that the following points will explain why:

1)The United States cannot logically believe that every country on this planet has the same foreign policy it does. The Pakistani government has far different interests in Afghanistan than the United States. They had helped install the Taliban in order to place a government in power that would protect their western border and halt the influence of Iran and Russia. This new government installed by the US now has the support of India. A country that has not always been on good terms with Pakistan (to say the least). The Karzai regime is now befriending all the countries Pakistan wishes it wouldn't and would cause Pakistan to loss its previous overwhelming influence in Afghanistan. The Pakistani know we are going to leave and honestly don't see much future in Karzai and so are preparing for the aftermath of US and NATO withdrawal.

2) Despite having dissimilar national interests, the Pakistani did help overthrow the Taliban (initially), which is a major mark in their favor, but more importantly they started a civil war on their own soil at the behest of American interests. The Northwest Frontier provinces were never of major concern for Pakistan, until the US began drone strikes. Pakistan has done well in not taking any action that would stop the drone strikes, and merely uses rhetoric which the US is no stranger to.

The moral of the story is that Pakistan is helping the US to the extent of it interests. Should Pakistan receive aid from the United States? Of course they should. If any country needs aid from the United States Pakistan is certainly it. It in addition to providing security assistance, aid is regulated towards education programs, which I belief have the long term effects that a military leader looks for in weapons. Whether or not Pakistan has been a good ally by US standards is irrelevant, because the US currently has interests in the region and Pakistan knows that we have no choice to go through them to achieve anything close to our goals, which is why the US will never stop its aid. If anything the US will increase aid

--
Adam Portoghese

aporto...@elon.edu

adampor...@gmail.com

407-712-3555

Elon University Class of 2012

Alpha Phi Omega- President

Model United Nations- Military Coordinator

Men’s Club Volleyball- Club Officer

[Chalisa Wangsang]

Metaphorically, Pakistan is like the neighbor that you do not like
because he may steal your newspaper in morning or his dog poops on
your lawn. However, you tend to tolerate this neighbor because he
lives in the same community. Albeit, Pakistan and the United States
are not neighbors. But the term "community" can be equated to mean the
world that we both live in. It is vital that Pakistan must keep some
sort of neutral or positive relations with the United States. Positive
relations are maybe a farfetched dream for any administration in the
foreseeing future. However, in hopes that either party would not
disturb the current status quo, we must continue this relation.

The aid that was going to the Pakistan was in hopes to nurture the
democratic process that was infant to the country. The aid was sent in
good hope that the Pakistani government would utilize it in the proper
manner, such as help elections, build infrastructure and boost the
country's general economy. However as we had learned, Pakistan did not
live up to our expectations. The aid was not used in the correct
manner, but at the same time we cannot overrule perhaps the small
percentage that DID go towards to help place the proper political and
social infrastructure within the country. The administration in the
United States should not strive to change Pakistan as proven that the
model in Iraq did not achieve its wanted result (i.e. the smooth
transition from the traditional way of life to America's view of the
future). As Ms. Hussong had pointed out, there are roots that goes
back thousands of years that is apparent within the foundation of the
country. We should not strive to make it into the American model,
because it may have not been structured throughout the years to
support the American model. We should continue to aid Pakistan in
hopes that it would abide with International Laws and be self-
sustainable that their citizens do not have to suffer. This does not
have to be achieved by implementing the American model. There are
other ways to go about it. As I had the pleasure of also hearing
Senator Lindsey Graham talk about this topic, I echo his opinion, "We
can not just abandon Pakistan". We cannot just stop, pull back and
wait and see what will happen. We can reform HOW we continue to aid
Pakistan, but we cannot just abandon the country. The action could
have the potential of undoing the success (little as it may be) that
was already achieved in Pakistan.

[Alena Hontarava]

This past year, budget cuts were made in many sectors: education,
social programs, defense budget, and foreign aid. To the members of
Congress who promote a certain policy where such cuts were made, aid
to Pakistan may seem like an unnecessary luxury, and to a certain
extent they have a point. There is a number of good reasons here in
the U.S. for why this money should never leave the country and instead
be used to solve domestic problems. The majority of U.S. voters would
like their Congressmen/women to represent interests of their states
and not some far away Pakistan that may or may not be harboring
terrorists and plotting evil plans against the U.S.. Many in Congress
follow the opinion of their voters and incorporate that into their
work on the Capitol - this is the only way they can get re-elected.
So. Those members who advocate cutting aid to Pakistan may not
necessarily think that way. And now who is corrupt? Pakistani civilian
government that by now knows better than to get involved with
terrorists or those members of Congress who promote policies that will
later get them re-elected?
As a full-time student with a full-time job during school year, I
would like Pell Grants, SMART Grants, and other federal scholarships
to return to what they used to be on college campuses. If the money
that goes to Pakistan, or a fraction of it, could stay in the U.S. and
help students get through college, I'm all for it. I am against the
aid. At the same time, because I am in college, I can see how there
are always multiple layers involved when it comes to issues and
events. The aid that Pakistan recieves may be setting off a chain of
events that in the future will affect the U.S. and maybe even the
world. Having an ally in a strategically important region and
monitoring their nuclear plants are all good reasons, but there is so
much more to why the aid must continue. All countries give aid to
other countries: France, Norway, Germany, Russia, Sweeden, and China.
If the U.S. defects and cuts or discontinues the aid program, who is
to say that Russia or China will not take advantage of the
opportunity. What the U.S. does, and does well, is finding and keeping
its allies and this is exactly what should happen with Pakistan. The
Obama Administration is right. Cutting or eliminating the aid would be
a mistake and, fighting three wars, the U.S. cannot afford to make
any.

[bob.s...@shaw.ca]

Interesting question, it certainly has many complicated elements built
into it.

The first I see is over the nature of aid and how it's perceived by
people. Aid often starts out with the best of intentions, but creates
many unintended consequences such as distorting the local economy or
fostering corruption, especially when the money that is given does not
end up at its intended area. Even though large amounts of aid is given
to Pakistan, I would be interested to see if those projects were truly
effective at lifting people out of poverty or if they became
unaccountable and unbuilt. This is important to recognize because if
the aid is not effective, it's only accomplishment has been to buy the
support of the leaders of the country. Pakistani citizens will see
this as the US and other Western governments buying influence in their
country, and ultimately leading to further resentment amongst the
population against the West. If this path is continued on, we lose the
battle over hearts and minds. Aid needs to be reflective of the
principles (accountable, effective, sustainable, and engaging) we
strive for in our government.

The second element I wanted to discuss was America's relationship with
Pakistan, which has always been complicated to say the least. The
relationship was originally defined along cold war lines, but took on
a whole new meaning when both India and Pakistan acquired nuclear
weapons. Globally, I still consider the dispute over Kashmir as being
the scariest powder-keg in the world because of the volatility of
emotions on both sides over this issue and the fact that both sides
have nuclear weapons. Although the US was traditionally pro-Pakistan
because of the Cold War, I believe recent efforts by the US to engage
India were incredibly successful (sharing of nuclear technology,
supporting India's bid for a permanent security council seat). Though
this may hurt the US-Pakistani relationship, I believe building
bridges between both groups is essential to defusing this situation
and avoid a nuclear war.

[Jared Pack]

The issue of Pakistani aid is essentially a situation where the United
States is caught between a rock and a hard place, to use a common
expression. On one side, there is certainly no doubt that Pakistan has
not used U.S. aid solely for the purposes that it was intended.
Furthermore, they have not been completely honest or cooperative with
the United States. They have repeatedly shown that they are more
interested in fulfilling their own objectives than working with the
United States to achieve American aims.

That being said, cutting aid to Pakistan would be detrimental to US
security and the security of the Middle East. President Obama,
continuing the foreign policy of his predecessors (a common theme in
US Foreign Policy according to Andrew Bacevich), is correct in his
estimation that the US has no choice. PAkistan is a nuclear power, and
in a world where most of the great nuclear powers have agreed that a
nuclear war should be avoided at all costs, a regime like is in place
in Pakistan cannot be trusted to act as a responsible nuclear power.
Furthermore, Pakistan does play a significant role in Afghanistan
security and success. Pakistan has been a fairly good ally throughout
the years, and we should assume that they will remain a decent ally.
They have helped us thus far in Afghanistan, and it will be vital to
Afghani success once the United states finally is out of that country
for Pakistan to ensure that the region is stabilized and that
Afghanistan is protected from another oppressive, terrorist regime
like Al Qaeda.

Jared Pack

[Chelsea Kelleher]

Pakistan has obviously had issues with corruption since its
independence from Britain and separation from India. The U.S.
government has always known this. However, the situation is even more
complicated due to the corruption and lack of oversight in the ISI,
especially since it the organization that created the Taliban and
currently supports their efforts against India in Jammu and Kashmir. I
doubt that the US would make any harsh public threat against Pakistan,
but it is evident that the US-Pakistani relationship is strained to
say the least from the US's choice to attack the house Osama was in
without informing Pakistan. There is no question that the US is
privately disciplining Pakistan and demanding changes in the goverment/
military/ISI or all three. However, the support of Pakistan is
critical in our military and intelligence efforts against al-Qaeda,
the Taliban and China/China's influence in the region. So, I am
skeptical that the public will see much if any change in the
relationship besides perhaps the State Dept. throwing empty words at
them. But privately, I'm sure there is much turmoil and push for
change by the US.

On Jun 14, 7:58 pm, Indhika Jayaratnam <indhika.jayarat...@twc.edu>
wrote:

[Vitor Hugo Suguri]

I believe that the U.S. has to continue its relationship with Pakistan not only because Pakistan is a nuclear power, but due to the fact that if the US completely abandon Pakistan, the country will become breeding ground for more terrorists, as it happened before in other regions.  In addition, if the nuclear weapons fall into the hands of a government or faction that has the US as an enemy, matters will worsen, and in fact it will create an opportunity for Pakistan to ally themselves with other countries who dislike the United States.  Also, the US must revise its policy in Pakistan in way that the relationship becomes more effective, preventing the corruption problem from getting in the way of the American goals and agenda.   

As it has been mentioned before in the discussion, America can't act in desperation, it has to think of the long term consequences.  

Vitor Suguri
sug...@live.com
1(239) 322-0899 

"The great blessing of mankind are within us and within our reach; but we shut our eyes, and like people in the dark, we fall foul upon the very thing we search for, without finding it." -- SENECA

> Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 19:58:03 -0700
> Subject: Senator Chuck Hagel and Pakistan: June 13th PLS- From Andrea Barron
> From: indhika.j...@twc.edu
> To: international-af...@googlegroups.com

[JoAnna Beth Adkisson]

Foreign relations is definitely not my specialty, but I will attempt to respond from my limited understanding of the relationship between the U.S. and Pakistan.

The United States is in a particularly difficult situation with Pakistan and either choice it makes will lead to a disdain from either side of the argument. However, I agree with the majority of my peers and President Obama in saying that the US truly has no other option at this point but to continue providing aid to Pakistan. This country has seen many years of turmoil seeding in cultural history, religious diversity and political corruption and it is not an easy fix. The US has long been caught up in this mess, but like any "drama", once you get into it, it is hard to get out without severing some very important relationships. 

In our efforts to combat the work of al-Qaeda, it is absolutely essential that we remain in good, or in the least decent, standing in our relationship with Pakistan. This relationship has long been ambiguous, and intentionally so- allowing both countries to turn their heads when need be with the mindset of "what you don't see won't hurt you." Well, it has hurt, and it is secrecy that has brought us to this point of no return. If a new level of transparency can be established and ground rules made, then the relationship will likely be far less volatile and safer for both sides. 

Although I do not have a solution and it seems as though the Obama administration and Congress don't either, I do think out best bet is to remain in good standing with Pakistan. Ultimately, we need each other in ways that are hard for our leaders to explain- hard to explain because they may lack the rationale and ethical soundness desired by their citizens- but are necessary for policy makers to identify. We do stand on a series of commonalities the primary one being our desire to bring down the al-Qaeda regime. This needs to be our motivation and become our common mentality moving forward. 

Thanks, 

JoAnna

--
JoAnna Adkisson

Vice President

Student Government Association

Belmont University

[malberts]

In my opinion it would be a huge mistake to think that the U.S.
should halt or eliminate our aid to Pakistan entirely. Maintaining
a useful and productive relationship with Pakistan is in the best
interest
of the United States no matter how tense relations become.

Rather than proposing to eliminate aid to Pakistan, perhaps it is
wiser
to take a step back and re-evaluate the terms in which the U.S.
provides
Pakistan aid. I think that the United States should set requirements
and
restrictions on how much aid Pakistan receives based on their records
of
human rights violations within their own lands.

I am referring to the very hostile situation among the Pakistan
central
government and the southern province of Sindh. Currently there are
many
problems with the way Pakistan's central government is treating their
own
citizens within Sindh and neighboring Balochistan province. The
United
States should look into these reports of human rights violations and
rethink
the way we just blindly hand Pakistan aid. I think it is a huge
mistake to
support any country that is currently engaged in acts of torture,
abduction,
neglect, abuse and general terror against their own people
as is the case in Sindh, Pakistan at the moment.

The United States should see the value in maintaining a useful
relationship with
Pakistan but they should first see to it that the values that we hold
dear to in this country
extend to the citizens of the nations we choose to provide aid to.

Marc Alberts
University of Central Florida

---------------------------------------
"Families are where our nation finds hope, where wings take dream." -
George W. Bush

On Jun 14, 10:58 pm, Indhika Jayaratnam <indhika.jayarat...@twc.edu>
wrote:

[Wayne P. Wright]

Yesterday afternoon, with nothing to do in particular, I tuned into C-SPAN, as that's the kind of nerd I am. They were airing the repeat of the senate hearing for the president's 2012 defense budget. A particularly interesting confrontation occurred after I had been watching for a half hour or so. Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) inquired of Defense Secretary Robert Gates, "Why do we support governments that lie to us?" Gates plainly responded by saying that we basically have no choice and that governments lie to each other all the time; this is how business gets done in foreign relations.

In general, I am a firm believer in isolationism. I believe that the U.S. does better when it focuses on improving itself from within rather than trying to expropriate cultural values. I admire President Washington's sentiment that the United States should never maintain permanent alliances, believing them to be dangerous. However, Pakistan is a crucial exception to this. A dangerously militant nation with undercurrents of fundamentalism and anti-West thinking simmering, the U.S. government should do all it can to maintain stability in the region, even if this means propping up governments we dislike. Certainly this is a superior alternative to having another Iran in the region.

Parker Wright
________________________________________
From: international-af...@googlegroups.com [international-af...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jenny Baez [jbae...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2011 11:17 AM
To: International Affairs Summer 2011
Subject: Re: Senator Chuck Hagel and Pakistan: June 13th PLS- From Andrea Barron

[MeganW]

I think we are doing the best we can considering the sensitive nature
of Middle East politics. The relationships between Pakistan and India
in particular, not to mention Egypt and Israel, make cutting off
funding from ANY of the countries a dangerous thing. Yes, Pakistan is
host to many extremist groups including Taliban and Al Qaeda, but they
also claim to be putting their effort toward ridding them. As we all
know, the war against terror is not an easy one. It takes a lot of
time, intelligence, and man power that maybe Pakistan is lacking. We
are there ourselves doing work against terrorism, but unless we want
to claim war against Pakistan, we cannot do all the work and we must
continue foreign aid to support Pakistan's fight in their home
country. Anyway, I thought Chuck Hagel was pretty uninformative. I
know enough from the news to recognize when he is simply spewing US
propaganda.

[Lauren Stone]

I believe that it would be a mistake for the United States to cut or eliminate aid to Pakistan.  It is important that the United States maintains their relationship with Pakistan, because our relationship with Pakistan will influence the progress in the War on Terror.  Al-Qaeda and the Taliban continue to conceal themselves in the mountains of Pakistan, while launching attacks against the U.S.-led forces in Afghanistan.  By eliminating aid to Pakistan, the U.S. will no longer able to conduct drone missions to eliminate key al-Qaeda and Taliban members and/or leaders.  Al-Qaeda and the Taliban live among the tribes inPakistan and those tribes want these terrorists eliminated.  Cutting aid will completely eliminate their support for our missions and will no longer give them an incentive to fight against these terrorist groups on their own.  Although bin Laden was found residing in Pakistan, there is still no evidence to suggest that Pakistan was aware of his whereabouts.  The United States plans to continue searching for evidence suggesting that Pakistan knew of bin Laden's hideout.

[Mercado, Edgar]

Just because there are claims citing that the Pakistani government is corrupt or that its military has collaborated with the Afghani Taliban does not mean that the US should  cut off ties wit them. The fact that Pakistan does have nuclear capabilites should make it obvious that the US government should cut off ties or ignore it. As far as the War on Terror is concerned, the Us should continue relations with Pakistan simply because of its geographical proximity to Afghanistan. Ultimately, the idea of the US cutting off ties with the Pakistani governent based on mere speculations of corruption and collaboration with Al Qaeda is irresponsible and in no way indicative of how a global hegemon should act.

 

 

 

Thank You,

Simon Mercado

[Matt Mill]

I think that before we can confront Pakistan's role in this conflict
the United States must first define "success" for the expedition in
Afghanistan. The President usually only speaks of success in vague
terms. "Stability" or "leaving Afghanistan in such a state where it is
not a haven for terrorists," are not really clear nation building
goals. Mix in tribal/sectional conflict, the drug trade, and the
historical fact that a central government has never exercised control
over the Afghan hinterland for more than a generation and you have a
social mess. The United States is in a quagmire which was in a great
degree caused, in my opinion, by the hasty way the Karzai government
and Constitution were set up.
For a government in Afghanistan to be viable there has to be room for
the state to delegate power to tribal warlords. The problem is that
the warlords are already perceived to have a legitimacy that the
Karzai government lacks. Remember that the Karzai government is new,
while the warlords are old. The warlords don't see this as a return to
democracy, they see it as a unification war that they are resisting.
Tribalism isn't something that has to be destroyed, it can be
something that the United States turns to its advantage. Note the
amnesty program that the United States has set up for former
insurgents. Although relatively few mid-level Taliban commanders have
surrendered to US forces, the ones who have did so because of tribal
connections to members of the central government. Men they trusted
told them that amnesty was their best option and they threw down their
arms.

The government of Afghanistan may not be predisposed toward being a
democracy, which the United States needs to recognize. While Democracy
was and should be a central component of success in Iraq, it is more
important to eliminate violent competition among and between tribal
elites in Afghanistan. We need to start looking at options that will
treat the dynamic between Karzai and the warlords like the dynamic
between King John and his barons. The problem then rests with Karzai,
who is some strange cross between Diem and Noriega. If Karzai is
corrupt, if he lacks legitimacy, and if he relies on nepotism,
elitism, foreign armies, and the drug trade to accomplish his
political ends then I am tempted to advocate blowing the whole system
up and starting from scratch. Tribal patriarchs need to be given a
degree of autonomy over their traditional lands. Those administration
areas need to be clearly defined. Afghanistan should resemble a
confederation, rather than the unitary republic it is right now.
Instead of the central government being the only legitimate power, it
should be the first among equal powers. If this is not the case, then
any peace that negotiations achieve will be short lived.

Pakistan is considerably more difficult to figure out, because of its
heavily politicized military and Intelligence Services. The Pakistani
civilian
government, military, and ISI do not always have a unity of purpose.
They are playing power politics, exploiting the conflict in
Afghanistan to destabilize their neighbor, in an attempt to make their
proxies the most powerful political entities in the country. Cutting
off all aid is not the answer, but Pakistan needs to be reminded that
they need us, that Afghanistan is our war and that we are in charge.
Pakistan also needs to be persuaded that it DOES NOT BENEFIT from
destablizing its neighbors. Pakistan believes that a fractured and
weak Afghanistan with overland trade routes controlled by its proxies
is ultimately beneficial to the Pakistani state, but they are wrong.
They hold on to the failed notion that they are best when their
neighbors are weak. If Pakistan would look toward bettering itself and
its neighborhood, rather than trying to destabilize Afghanistan and
India the entire region would be better off. If they did not have
nuclear weapons I would say let them collapse from their own folly.
Now, they effectively hold us hostage.

[Armen Vartanyan]

Senator Hagel made valid points, mostly because they were safe
points. He made it clear that he wanted to distance himself from
ascribing the American system as the perfect world standard. I had
recorded his statements, among them I have:

-Institutions require quality people. No institution survives alone
or is sufficent.
-Economy, unemployment, and confidence levels top priority.
-Coalitions of common interests todays reality (U.N, IMF, World Bank)
-Doctrines will not work (especially in places like the 'Arch of
Danger')
-Democracy not final solution! Each country is different and requires
a different approach.
-Todays troubled regions were yesterdays ignored regions.
-No perfect gov't, system, institution. Ability to self-correct
important. The U.S is going through a period of self-correction.
-Efficent and effective two different things.
-Parties are about philosophy of government.
-Politics reflects society. Polls show lowest level of confidence in
government.

His position on Pakistan was expected and shouldn't be over analyzed.
Can we ignore Pakistan or stop our work in that region? It is already
a known fact that Pakistan is not an ideal partner. Pakistan has more
problems than we care to mention in this discussion as well. Yet how
can we be certain from our limited knowledge of Pakistan's inner
affairs that the house is not divided among those pro-U.S and those
anti-U.S? Can we stand to lose those who still want our ideals or
help? Perhaps its not so much about that as it is that we as a
country have continously bombed areas in Pakistan violating
international borders. Most other countries would have created a
firestorm, and others would have simply used force. However Pakistan
is tolerant in this respect and suffering on a domestic front because
of this. Their leaders are giving concessions to the U.S in some
areas but are still bound by inner powers to serve their ultimate
master - the majority opinion in the top levels of government. The
U.S must keep Pakistan close unless it wants to see a completely
closed off region. Perhaps its like trying to stay afloat with no
clear land in sight. You have two options; to keep trying or to drown
and let it go. For now our foreign policy machine prefers to keep
trying, and I can't see that as being misguided. Should we however
show our ultimate disapproval for the whole Osama fiasco? Of course,
and I hope we find a reasonable and stern way to do that.

On Jun 14, 10:58 pm, Indhika Jayaratnam <indhika.jayarat...@twc.edu>
wrote:

[Jennifer Gardener]

 

It is understandable that some members of Congress would want to eliminate aid to Pakistan because it is believed that they were aware and even permitted Osama bin Laden to take hiding in their country. It would be hazardous for the US to cut off aid to Pakistan. However, I do believe that the US does not have to provide the huge amount of aid that it has previously allocated to Pakistan. The US must maintain a relationship with Pakistan due to its close proximity to Afghanistan for national security purposes.

Jennifer Gardener

---

From: "Edgar Mercado" <mer...@wfu.edu>
To: international-af...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2011 5:25:16 PM

Subject: Re: Senator Chuck Hagel and Pakistan: June 13th PLS- From Andrea Barron

[lea pelletier marcotte]

In the case of Pakistan, I do not believe cutting aid will be the best
answer. First, when aid is cut off, it is usually the population that
suffers, not the governments. It husts the one that should not be
hurt. Second, if the US cuts off its aid to Pakistan, other countries
will seize the opportunity to provide funds and establish a valuable
relationship with this State, which might not be in the US interest,
espeially if it wants to keep an eye on what is going on in this
country.

Finally, as some commentators pointed out already, Pakistan is a very
peculiar State in the sense where the country`s population is very
diverse and there is no real cohesion whitin it. Therefore, Pakistan
has to be carefully «handled», and watched very closely but its
population should not be wholly categorized as terrorists or as
supporting Al-Quaeda. To consider the entire Pakistani population as
such is inaccurate. The US should therefore maintain its ties, both
financial and political, with Pakistan as this would help the US
mantain a good image within the majority of the Pakistanis and/or gain
support.

On 14 juin, 22:58, Indhika Jayaratnam <indhika.jayarat...@twc.edu>
wrote:

[Ivan Ho]

"Second, if the US cuts off its aid to Pakistan, other countries
will seize the opportunity to provide funds and establish a valuable
relationship with this State, which might not be in the US interest,
espeially if it wants to keep an eye on what is going on in this
country."

What? Like who? Not a lot of countries can afford to give aid, especially to Pakistan. There's no value in that. 

[Catherine Gauthier]

Pakistan faces a great challenge and tensions are increasing. I am not sure whether or not Pakistan could find another country to provide funds in the way the U.S. does. But still, there is no doubt other countries or perhaps interest groups would find a valuable relationship with Pakistan (on a smaller scale than the U.S.). The U.S. has an obvious interest of security and control over the region and this why the American government provides funds to the state. Therefore, the question is to determine if security concerns (nuclear power) are high enough to justify such aid.

Unfortunately, moral concerns are not taken into consideration. On ethical grounds, I would rather say we must provide assistance in some way (in respect with the Pakistan's population and culture). Cutting aid to the civilian government because of its unwillingness or incapacity to use funds properly is a too easy excuse to escape from our international obligations to help unfairly harmed civilians.

Catherine Gauthier
Université de Montréal

[Ivan Ho]

 "But still, there is no doubt other countries or perhaps interest groups would find a valuable relationship with Pakistan (on a smaller scale than the U.S.). "

Still the question remains, who?  You're both making broad and general claims, but let's be more specific here, we're all university students. China? Russia? EU? The Saudis?