Several days ago, Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf went to China for a five day visit. During that visit the Chinese showed him various weapon systems and Shaukat Aziz went ahead to say that Pakistan was going to defend China against any American attempt to besiege it. Basically, Pakistan and China strenghtned political and military ties even further. Above that news has been leaking out that China is planning to help Pakistan modernize its nuclear program.

Right after the visit to China President George W. Bush landed in Islamabad. Pervez Musharraf and Shaukat Aziz were not there to greet him at the airport. In the past Musharraf had always gone the extra mile to greet President George W. Bush when he got off of Air Force One. Some say it was because of security concerns. This is ludacris considering the fact that many opposition leaders were under arrest so many protests were unable to take place. American government officials including President Bush had come to Pakistan before and they were greeted by Musharraf. Pervez Musharraf had sent his daughter to greet President Bush, but he himself wasn't there.

During the day Shaukat Aziz didn't make much of an apperance with Bush. It was another odd thing because Shaukat Aziz and President Bush are considered to be quite close to each other. This was the first time that Skaukat Aziz didn't come and meet with President Bush too closely.

When talking to President Pervez Musharraf, President Bush sternly said that Pakistan should do more destroy Al Qaeda. President Bush didn't even bother signing any trade agreements with Pakistan that day. As a matter of fact, those trade agreements weren't even in the interest of George W. Bush.

So what exactly happened? One can say it was just a repeat of when President Clinton had come to Pakistan. President Bush simply came just to say we should do more against Al Qaeda? That we are a steadfast ally on the war against terrorism? He came all the way from Washington D.C. to say that? Has George W. Bush ever realized how many of our troops have been lost in this war against terror yet he is asking us to do more? Does he realize that because of the ISI, the US has a massive number of terror suspects and custody and that Al Qaeda as an organization has been fractured? And does he also realize that he gave Pakisan peanuts in comparison to what he has handed India?

I am not saying that George W. Bush should give us more. No, what I am saying is that Bush made a pointless trip: he simply lectured us. He could have done that at a press conference at Washington DC yet he chose to do it here. He refused to sign any free trade agreement, he refused to offer help on the Kashmir issue, and he insisted we do more against Al Qaeda. India on the other hand was given massive amounts of rewards for only one thing: they neighbor China and are willing to sell their souls to go against the Chinese empire.

The question: is the honeymoon between Pakistan and America finally over? In my opinion, it is. And what should we do? Instead of crying about, we should move on. Let us start to rebuild relations with Iran and cancel the Indian pipeline deal. Let us get closer to China and build stronger economic relations with them. Let us get economically and militarily independent from the US in general. What do you guys think?

Some of this is already happening, however Pakistan should continue to milk the relationship as much as it can, without going overboard with theatrics of snubbing the US. Pakistan and China are already working on increasing the nuclear coop. The 15% increase in the Chinese defence budget is an indication that they have not taken this new US-India deal very lightly. They clearly see how the US is trying to tie them down with India and in turn they will do their level best to tie India down with Pakistan. So help to Pakistan from China is a no-brainer.

Secondly, Pakistan should actually focus on issues like the BIT with the US. The economic boost is more important for Pakistan than having nuclear cooperation from the US just so we can tell the whole world that Pakistan and India get similar treatment.

Pakistan and China will both work to make sure that the bonus that the Indian nuclear weapons program gets through the fast breeder reactors is neutralized by increasing coop between each other. There are certain limitations with that, but even within those limitations, Pakistan can have a fairly effective nuclear arsenal to counter India.

Musharraf needs to ensure that his own survival does not become a liability for Pakistan by continous toeing of the US line even though its hurting Pakistan's interest in the long run. I suspect Afghanistan will get plenty hot in the coming months.

As far as long term US-Pak relations are concerned, I think most of us were cautious about it anyway. Pakistan should basically use this relationship to get as much financial support as possible, but leave the security to be handled between itself and China.

Having said that, fighting terrorism is in the interest of all parties; Pakistan, USA, China.

Try and milk the US get freebees and then show them the middle finger. Any unstability in the region e.g Iran will have a adverse effect on Pakistan.

No need to mention China, because China has, is and will always be a Pakistani best friend.

Lets hope that we are not forever in need of friends and in the near future will have FLEXIBILITY of picking options/friends in the near future. China and Pakistan are no longer in the days of the 70s. Both have other considerations which may impact Chinese support for Pakistan in the future. Our leaders need to be aware of this.

No matter how powerful and independent you get you still need friends and its always good to be more friends.

Chinese support for Pakistan has always been there, we had counter terrorsim excersies with them last year and now that thier north western regions are being developed we are in even better position along with Gwader project. In the 1970s China wasnt well off, now with bettering of both economys we can launch projects like JF17 etc.

I would say the high of our relationship is stil to come let alone diminishing.

There is a growing indication that the Indian lobby is working against Pakistan around the clock. If you see the news media almost around the world, there is growing negative image for Pakistan without any reason.

I think this article says it quite well really. We in Pakistan need to understand that in the long term it is India that the US is interested in. As long as this 'war on terror' is going on the US will do us a favour now and again, but i predict that the days of the Pressler ammendment are never too far away.

We need to restrict our eelations to trade and economics with the US. Ultimately any 'strategic' relationship will be one sided (strategic for the US only) and to our detriment.


Bush visit to Pakistan, India may have done harm: NYT



By Masood Haider

NEW YORK, March 7: Saying that President Bush’s visit to “Pakistan and India may have done real harm”, the New York Times chided Mr Bush for “sticking” President Musharraf with the unwelcome task of explaining to Pakistanis why his friend and ally, Mr Bush, had granted favourable nuclear terms to Pakistan’s arch-rival, India, while withholding them from Pakistan.”

“It has left him (Gen Musharraf) less likely to do Washington any special, and politically unpopular, favours on the terrorism front,” said the Times in a stinging editorial: “Mr Bush’s Asia Road Trip.”

“So when Mr Bush agreed to carve out an exception to global non-proliferation rules for India, it should have been obvious that Pakistani opinion would demand the same privileged treatment, and that Mr Musharraf would be embarrassed by Mr Bush’s explicit refusal to provide it,” the Times observed.

“The spectacularly misconceived trip may have inflicted serious damage to American goals in two vital areas, namely, mobilizing international diplomacy against the spread of nuclear weapons and encouraging Pakistan to take more effective action against the Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters operating from its territory,” the newspaper asserted.

Reflecting on the timing of the nuclear deal in the backdrop of the Iranian crisis, the Times said: “The nuclear deal that Mr Bush concluded with India threatens to blast a bomb-size loophole through the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. It would have been bad enough on its own, and disastrously ill-timed, because it undercuts some of the most powerful arguments Washington can make to try to galvanize international opposition to Iran’s nuclear adventurism.”

However, it underscored that “the most immediate damage was done on Mr Bush’s next stop, Pakistan. Washington is trying to persuade Gen Pervez Musharraf, the Pakistani military dictator, to defy nationalist and Islamic objections and move more aggressively against Pakistani-based terrorists. This is no small issue because both Osama bin Laden and the Taliban’s leader, Mullah Mohammad Omar, are now believed to operate from Pakistani soil.”

Lambasting Mr Bush for the treatment he meted out to the Pakistani leader, the newspaper said: “It’s just baffling why Mr Bush travelled halfway around the world to stand right next to one of his most important allies against terrorists — and embarrass him.”

“India and Pakistan are military rivals that have fought each other repeatedly. They have both developed nuclear weapons outside the non-proliferation treaty, which both refuse to sign. When India exploded its first acknowledged nuclear weapons eight years ago, Pakistan felt obliged to follow suit within weeks,” the New York Times said.

While saying that “Mr Bush was right to say no to Pakistan,” the newspaper said: “It would be an unthinkably bad idea to grant a loophole to a country whose top nuclear scientist helped transfer nuclear technology to leading rogue states. Granting India a loophole that damages a vital treaty and lets New Delhi accelerate production of nuclear bombs makes no sense either.”

Asserting that Mr Bush should have just stayed home, the Times said: “There is a lot of good a president can do on a visit to another country: negotiate treaties that enhance American security, shore up a shaky alliance, generate good will in important parts of the world. Unfortunately, President Bush didn’t do any of those good things on his just-completed visit to Pakistan and India and may have done some real harm.”

I think we Need To Move our self completely to china rathar than half way to china and half way to usa

i dont understand what the heck is wrong with our govt..each n every govt works more or less under yanks influence..


i say ...##### em up..and go for china..thats the long term solution..and also see france..germans..etc...rather than relying on yanks.

Easy Bro. I Say We Move Closer To The Chineas and the European Union In Terms Of Trade Ties But This Dosent Mean We Dont Trade With The US. We Must Contine Trade With Them Because Of Their Lifting Of Sanctions We Are Are Doing Well.

The Ties With The US Should Stay As Long As It Is To Our Interest. Which Wont Last Long But Their Is Nothing Taking Place In The For seeable Future Which Will Have Sanctions Placed Upon Us.

Along Side EU & China. There Is South America, Africa And Rest Of Asia. With These Continents We Must Tie Friendship. For A Better Econimical Future.