US to designate Pakistan non-NATO ally

[_Jumper_]

Has India been designated a non-NATO ally?

---------------------------------------------------------------------

<ISLAMABAD, March 18 (Xinhuanet) -- Visiting US Secretary of State Colin Powell said here Thursday the United States would designate Pakistan a "major non-NATO ally".>

<Powell said Pakistan is taking on a number of difficult challenges of counter-terrorism, stopping proliferation, reforms in education and building strong democratic institutions. United States supports Pakistan's determination and courage.>

<The US secretary of state said President Bush is committed to along term partnership with Pakistan. He said Pakistan has important role to play in the region as a peaceful, moderate Muslim nation that has become increasingly democratic.>

<Powell said Pakistan has important role to play in Afghanistan's recovery and reconstruction. The US Secretary of State said as Pakistan and the United States move forward there would be opportunities for greater cooperation in economic fields and military to military activities.>

[Lizz612]

1. The enemy of our enemy...

MUST be our friend! :eyes:

[_Jumper_]

2. How is this inherently a bad thing?

n/t

[IndianaGreen]

8. Pakistan is a military dictatorship

that came to power by means of a coup that toppled a democratically elected government.

The US is planting the seeds for a future blowback.

[_Jumper_]

9. True

But that is par for the course around the world. In this case we at least receive some security benefits, not just cheap labor for corporations.

[varun]

13. Security benefits?

...from a country that has been the worst proliferator of nuclear weapons ever?

...from a country which IS the "Epicenter" of terrorism?

[IndianaGreen]

16. The same security benefits we got when we supported Iran's Shah

The blowback was the Islamic revolution and Ayatullah Ruhollah Khomeini and 444-days of holding American hostages.

[_Jumper_]

18. Musharraf is no Shah

Pakistan is a semi-democratic and semi-free state with no equavilent of SAVAK and a free press. It is moving toward democracy. It is worth backing him as long as he deals with the nuclear profliferation issue. If there is Iran-style blowback in Pakistan it will be a result of fundies riding anti-Americanism to power due to American actions in Israel/Palestine and American actions toward other Muslim countries, not support for Musharraf, who has viewed favorably by 86% of Pakistanis according to the Pew Research Center.

[Quetzal]

23. Some info on Women in Pakistan

Women in Pakistan

Women in politics: According to an article from Inter Press Service, 13 women have been elected to non-reserved, open seats on the 342-seat National Assembly -- nine from Punjab province, three from Sindh, and one from Balochistan. These 13 representatives come on top of 60 other women elected on especially reserved seats in the national legislature for women, quotas established to increase political representation by women. Similarly, 17 percent of seats in each of the four provincial assemblies have also been reserved for women. As many as 11 women have been elected to the provincial legislatures, with only one in the North West Frontier Province (NWFP).

There is one woman in the Cabinet and none in the Supreme Court. During 2001 the Musharraf Government set aside one-third of the seats in the local council elections for female candidates. In 2002, the National Reconstruction Bureau enacted electoral reforms that include the tripling of National Assembly seats reserved for women. According to the Election Commission, 2,621 women competed for 1,867 reserved seats at the district level in 2001. In some districts, social and religious conservatives prevented women from becoming candidates; however, in several districts, female candidates were elected unopposed. Women participate in large numbers in elections, although some are dissuaded from voting by family, religious, and social customs. In districts of the NWFP and southern Punjab's tribal areas, conservative religious leaders lobbied successfully to prevent women from contesting elections or casting ballots. According to press reports, female voters were threatened and their families intimidated from voting and running for office. In October the MMA coalition of religious parties declared that the families of women who voted in NWFP would be fined. Prime Minister Jamali has one female minister and one female special advisor. Provincial governors appointed by President Musharraf also have named women to serve in provincial cabinets.

http://www.onlinewomeninpolitics.org/pakistan/pakmain.htm

Of course, the decree stating that there must be quotas placed for women in the National Parliament was put forward by Musharaff. The Social Conditions for women still needs to improve there, especially in rural areas. However, it is on the right track.

Pakistan did give out Nuclear Secrets to other regimes. I wouldn't go so far to declare it a non-NATO ally unless an investigation by the IAEA was completed and cleared it of its wrongdoing. If it was in violation, then I would like to see a system of checks and balances in place to make sure it wouldn't do it again.

[_Jumper_]

17. It backs terrorism in Kashmir against the Indian occupation

It opposes Al-Qaeda. Kashmiri terrorists aren't our problems.

[varun]

21. I meant "International Terrorism"

I never said anything about Kashmir.

Pakistan has been directly or indirectly involved in terrorism all over the world - from 911 (money was wired to Atta from Pakistan days before 911), to bombings in Kenya, World Trade Center (1993), Bali, Daniel Pearl, and of course in Karachi...

Read on:

http://www.cato.org/dailys/10-19-03.html

...More importantly, while Americans have been searching for WMD and for al Qaeda agents in Iraq, they could have discovered those same threats in Pakistan, a country the Bush administration describes as one of America's leading allies in the war on terrorism. In Pakistan, there are legions of bin Ladin followers; plenty of links between government officials and terrorists; and nuclear weapons that could fall into the hands of anti-American terrorists. This is not speculation.

Indeed, Pakistan, under President Pervez Musharraf -- the general who, in a coup, overthrew a democratically elected government -- and whose military and security services had served before 9/11 as the leading backer of the Taliban, seems to be undermining stability in neighboring Afghanistan. Pakistan also is reportedly harboring Islamic militants, fighting Indian forces in Kashmir and elsewhere, and playing an active role in the proliferation of nuclear weapons, which it has already developed -- unlike Iraq or Iran, the latter another member of the infamous Axis of Evil...
------------------------------------------------------------------
And since you brought up the topic of Kashmir...wonder why Pakistan decided to ban Jem, LeT and HuM (as terrorist organizations) recently, while they were called "Freedom Fighters" before 9/11?

Read this too:

http://www.time.com/time/asia/magazine/2001/0205/kashmir_sb1.html

...Four bearded militants warm themselves at a gas heater in an Islamabad safe house. A wireless set suddenly crackles. "Our boys have entered Srinagar Airport," a grave, distant-sounding voice announces. "Pray for them. It has now been 15 minutes." The voice, speaking in Urdu and broadcasting from deep within India's part of Kashmir, is detailing the progress of a suicide mission by Lashkar-i-Taiba, a ruthless, Pakistan-based militant group waging war to wrest Kashmir from India. The four men in the safe house, also members of Lashkar-i-Taiba, immediately go into fervent prayer. They are not the only ones to receive the radio transmission. Other militant groups in Pakistan can tune into the same frequency. So can the Pakistani military. A phone in the house rings, and one of the militants answers. He is asked what's happening. His reply: "Why don't you find out from your side?" After hanging up, he explains the caller was a Pakistani army colonel....

[Career Prole]

3. I find this absolutely disgusting.

I lost a job I'd held for twelve years over Pakistan and another bush*. I was working for a Lockheed plant (originally owned by General Dynamics) in Abilene, TX fixing machines used for making F-16 parts. We had a contract with Pakistan worth billions that we all were depending on because the cruise missile work had dried up because of the 'peace dividend'. One day the director called an all-hands meeting on the shop floor and announced that the Pakistan contract was gone and there'd be lay-offs. He didn't say why, but it turned out to be because of the Pressler Amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act. (background)http://www.fas.org/news/pakistan/1992/920731.htm
Mind you now, I've no problem with this. I think the defense budget could stand to be slashed deeply today without jeopardizing anything. Approximately 1,500 people were laid off over the next year and the plant closed.
Now, from Sen. John Glenn's testimony in 1992 I've linked to above, we see this explanation of the Pressler Amendment:

ORIGINS OF THE PRESSLER AMENDMENT
On March 28, 1984, this Committee adopted an amendment offered by Sen. Cranston and myself providing that no assistance shall be furnished and `no military equipment or technology shall be sold or transferred to Pakistan' unless the President could first certify that Pakistan does not possess a nuclear explosive device, is not developing a nuclear device, and is not acquiring goods to make such a device. On April 3, 1984, the Committee narrowly voted to reconsider this amendment and adopted instead a substitute offered by Senator Pressler, Mathias and Percy, which tied the continuation of aid and military sales to two certification conditions: (1) that Pakistan not possess a nuclear explosive device; and (2) that new aid `will reduce significantly the risk' that Pakistan will possess such a device. This text, which was enacted on another bill in August 1985, has come to be called the `Pressler amendment.'

This killed my job. If you read the entire document linked, Sen. Glenn testifies that this Amendment had been ignored throughout the Reagan and Bush I administrations when they continued to certify Pakistan as 'non-nuclear' even though there was overwhelming evidence otherwise. It was "soft on terror" President Clinton's administration that finally put the stop-order on the F-16's to Pakistan (and killed my job :))
Now we find out that "tough on terror" bush* the Least has made Pakistan a non-NATO ally and opened up the path to military aid again...despite the fact that we recently discovered that Pakistan sold nuclear technology to North Korea, Libya, and Iran. As yet no F-16's but I wouldn't be surprised if they don't turn those over soon, too.
How very quid pro quo-ish that immediately after Powell cuts this deal the Pakistanis announce that they've surrounded a "high-value target". I can't help but be suspicious over the timing. I'm also suspicious when the same clown who threatened us constantly with mushroom clouds over Manhattan to get the necessary paranoia for his war to peak now makes an ally and peddles arms to the biggest proliferator of WMD's (besides us, of course) ever. All to fight terrorism?
What I see as an interesting possible twist is maybe the reason Libya quite unexpectedly found religion and turned in their nukes was because the nukes they turned over were in crates from Pakistan and they hoped to throw a monkey wrench into the budding love affair between bush* and Pakistan thereby aiding al Qaeda. Bet they were stunned to find out bush* didn't care about Pakistani proliferation. I'll close this rambling post with this Herald Tribune editorial, also part of Sen. Glenn's testimony linked above...it seems eerily prescient now, especially the last line (emphasis mine):



On Proliferation Law, a Disgraceful Failure
(BY JOHN GLENN)
Washington.--It is no secret that I have been at odds with the Reagan and Bush administrations over their record in preventing the spread of nuclear weapons.
I have stated publicly my dismay over the direction taken first by President Ronald Reagan and then by President George Bush in providing aid and arms to Pakistan without requiring concrete actions to stop the Pakistani bomb program, and in building up Saddam Hussein's ability to mount a nuclear and missile threat.
But an examination of the record suggests that there is more than a political or policy dimension to our disagreement. I now believe that actions taken and not taken by the Reagan and Bush administrations in the area of nuclear nonproliferation amount to a pattern of willful misinterpretation of U.S. laws.
Some years ago, Senator Stuart Symington and I amended the Foreign Assistance Act to require a cutoff of economic and military assistance to any country that, after 1977, imported or exported unsafeguarded nuclear enrichment or reprocessing materials, equipment or technology.
Since then only one nation, Pakistan, has been found by a U.S. president to be in violation of this law. America first cut off aid to Pakistan in September 1977, for a reprocessing-related violation. It did so again in April 1979 for a violation of the enrichment provision.
But after the Reagan administration took office in 1981, the law was changed to permit the flow of assistance to Pakistan during the war between the Soviet Union and the Afghan rebels. Over the next decade, aid to Pakistan amounted to more than $4 billion, including the delivery of 40 F-16 fighter planes--an excellent nuclear weapons delivery system--with no assurances that Pakistan would end or reverse its nuclear weapons program.
Indeed, the Reagan administration at one point, publicly parroting the Pakistanis' claim that their nuclear program was peaceful, pressured Congress to change the law--in effect, simply to repeal it--so that aid could be provided to Pakistan. Congress refused, instead moving to suspend the law for a limited time while drawing a new line (no nuclear testing) that Pakistan could not cross without suffering an aid cutoff.
In 1985, following reports that the Pakistani program was progressing, Congress drew a tighter line, the Pressler amendment, that required the president to certify that Pakistan did not possess a nuclear explosive device and that the provision of U.S. aid would reduce significantly the risk of its getting one. The Pressler amendment also stated that such a cutoff would mean `no military equipment or technology shall be sold or transferred to Pakistan.'
What does the record show about the Bush and Reagan commitment to nonproliferation in this case?
In 1981, when U.S. aid began to flow, Pakistan had not produced bomb-grade nuclear material, nor had it manufactured bomb components or repeatedly violated U.S. nuclear export control laws and those of U.S allies. All these provocations occurred at the time of maximum U.S. assistance and continued after enactment of the Pressler amendment.
Did Pakistan suffer an aid cutoff as required by the amendment? No. The deliveries of F-16s and other equipment continued. President Reagan continued to certify annually that Pakistan did not `possess' a nuclear device and (despite all the evidence to the contrary) that continued U.S. assistance would reduce the risk of such possession--this although India had concluded by 1987 that Pakistan had the ability to assemble such a device easily and quickly.
Four years ago, reports were circulating that high-level analysts in U.S. intelligence agencies could not support another presidential certification of aid for Pakistan. Yet in October 1989, President Bush again certified that Pakistan did not possess a nuclear explosive device and that U.S. aid was `reducing incentives and creating disincentives' for acquisition of nuclear explosives.
This disgraceful policy failure appeared to have ended in October 1990, when Mr. Bush finally admitted what had become evident: The president could not certify that the Pakistanis did not have the bomb, and that was tantamount to saying they had it. And nine years of U.S. assistance had helped Pakistan release funds for its nuclear weapons program and given it the means for delivering the weapons.
Shockingly, testimony by Secretary of State James Baker this year revealed that the administration has continued to allow Pakistan to purchase munitions through commercial transactions, despite the explicit, unambiguous intent of Congress that `no military equipment or technology shall be sold or transferred to Pakistan.' These sales may have included spare parts for F-16 aircraft.
These facts alone would be enough to destroy any credibility possessed by this administration and the previous one on the issue of nuclear nonproliferation. Unfortunately, there is more (the details are beyond the scope of this article), including a failure to apply the Glenn-Symington amendment to Turkey despite that country's involvement in helping Pakistan acquire sensitive equipment for enriching uranium.
The Reagan and Bush administrations have practiced a nuclear nonproliferation policy bordering on lawlessness. They have undermined the respect of other countries for U.S. law and have done great damage to the nuclear nonproliferation effort.
Keep this in mind the next time someone in the administration extols the need for military action to deal with some power-hungry dictator seeking to acquire nuclear weapons.
END

[_Jumper_]

4. If it stops profilerating, like it claims it will, this was a good move

The bottom line is that Pakistan is key to winning the War on Terrorism. We have other friends with WMD so that is a non-issue.

Clinton increased terrorism by his selective enforcement of WMD rules. He let Israel and India off the hook yet singled out Pakistan, the lone nuclear majority-Muslim nation, lending cannon fodder for radical Islamists who claim that the US is at war with Islam.

[Career Prole]

5. It would be a good start perhaps...

...except the last three repug administrations have blithely ignored the amendment. You have no problem with bush* tacitly consenting to Pakistan's sale of nukes to, among others, an "axis of evil" member? What a slippery slope that is. I seem to remember another repug turning a blind eye to the WMD transgressions of another nation because they were momentarily helpful...Reagan, Iraq, and Iran ring a bell? Back then Saddam was our pal. Right now, for the moment, Musharraf is our pal.
As for winning the War on Terrorism™, I really need some clarification over how that might be even possible.

[_Jumper_]

6. Pakistan should be held to the same standard as Israel and India

If it is cool for them to have WMD, it is cool for Pakistan to have WMD.

That amendment was prejudiced. Why wasn't it applied to Israel or India?

<You have no problem with bush* tacitly consenting to Pakistan's sale of nukes to, among others, an "axis of evil" member?>

That isn't what his administration did. They probably have taken measures to make sure that it never happens again. If it doesn't happen again, clearly it is in the interest of the US to be friendly with Pakistan (while maintaining friendly ties with India too).

<I seem to remember another repug turning a blind eye to the WMD transgressions of another nation because they were momentarily helpful...Reagan, Iraq, and Iran ring a bell?>

Two dozen nations have or are working to acquire WMD. Ignoring WMD development is a bipartisan problem. The issue is proliferation versus dealing with nations that already have them. We should work to stop proliferation but if we can deal with Russia, France, the UK, Israel, China, and India having WMD we should deal with Pakistan having WMD.

<Back then Saddam was our pal. Right now, for the moment, Musharraf is our pal.>

Saddam was never a real threat to the US. US policy toward him did not backfire.

Pakistan is not momentarily helpful. It is key to reforming the Muslim world since it is a major Muslim state. It is moderate by Muslim standards and is fairly democratic. It also is important in capturing or killing terrorists. Making it an ally is wise. There is no need to make it an enemy simply because it is Muslim.

<As for winning the War on Terrorism™, I really need some clarification over how that might be even possible. >

1) Capture or kill the terrorists
2) Deal with the root causes of hatred of the US
3) Work to weaken the radical Islamist ideology

#2 is unlikely to happen but theoretically, it is possible to win the War on Terrorism.

[Career Prole]

7. Why wasn't it applied to Israel or India?

I certainly don't recall saying that it shouldn't be applied to all. As for the why of it, I'm fairly certain that I don't show up anywhere at all in the line of succession to the Presidency, Mr. Jumper...I'm not prepared to answer that question.
________________________________________________________________

<<You have no problem with bush* tacitly consenting to Pakistan's sale of nukes to, among others, an "axis of evil" member?>>

<That isn't what his administration did. They probably have taken measures to make sure that it never happens again. If it doesn't happen again, clearly it is in the interest of the US to be friendly with Pakistan (while maintaining friendly ties with India too).>

Khan was caught, confessed, and was immediately pardoned. We did nothing. Not even a good scolding. In fact, bush* gave them a promotion of sorts. That smells of tacit consent to me.
"Probably took measures to make sure that it never happens again" may be reassuring to some people, particularly those who trust bush* completely, but I take small comfort from it.
______________________________________________________________

<<I seem to remember another repug turning a blind eye to the WMD transgressions of another nation because they were momentarily helpful...Reagan, Iraq, and Iran ring a bell?>>

<Two dozen nations have or are working to acquire WMD. Ignoring WMD development is a bipartisan problem. The issue is proliferation versus dealing with nations that already have them. We should work to stop proliferation but if we can deal with Russia, France, the UK, Israel, China, and India having WMD we should deal with Pakistan having WMD.>

Jeez this format is getting confusing! :D Bipartisan problem? Absolutely. The other nuclear nations weren't actively peddling the technology to bush*'s Axle Of Elvis. If they had, they should have been spanked. Pakistan sold the stuff...they need a spanking. Bush* gave 'em a cookie instead. That's not very wise, strategically. What if someone else starts auctioning off nukes? It's perceived inconsistencies in policy such as this that foment the discontent that eventually returns to bite us on the ass...inconsistency like we see in our treatment of Israel and Palestine.
___________________________________________________________________

<<Pakistan is not momentarily helpful. It is key to reforming the Muslim world since it is a major Muslim state. It is moderate by Muslim standards and is fairly democratic. It also is important in capturing or killing terrorists. Making it an ally is wise. There is no need to make it an enemy simply because it is Muslim.>>

"Moderate by Muslim standards"...you said a mouthful there, Mr. Jumper. I am extremely skeptical of any plan to "reform the Muslim world". This religion, with its draconian laws and what to our eyes seems to be cruelty and oppression is sacred to millions. They suffer the trials of it and consider it a step on the way to paradise. They are an order of magnitude more "fundie" than our most devout "fundies". How many of fundies could you reform by explaining to them they should be more "normal"? That's a rhetorical question...you know as well as I do the answer is none. If they don't reform at our suggestion that leaves the use of force or some other sanction. Will that get us a bunch of reformed Muslims? No, more realistically that'll get us a new batch of terrorists.
__________________________________________________________________

<<As for winning the War on Terrorism™, I really need some clarification over how that might be even possible. >>


<1) Capture or kill the terrorists>
<2) Deal with the root causes of hatred of the US>
<3) Work to weaken the radical Islamist ideology>

<#2 is unlikely to happen but theoretically, it is possible to win> <the War on Terrorism.>


Unfortunately, #2 is the only one with any real chance of success.
______________________________________________________________



Well, bedways is the right ways for me right now. I have a strong suspicion we'll have to 'agree to disagree' here...up to you.
G'night, Mr. Jumper. :)

[_Jumper_]

10. I'll agree to disagree on that

We are making different assumpations about future behavior. Time will tell who was right.

I'd like to comment on this, though:

<"Moderate by Muslim standards"...you said a mouthful there, Mr. Jumper. I am extremely skeptical of any plan to "reform the Muslim world". This religion, with its draconian laws and what to our eyes seems to be cruelty and oppression is sacred to millions. They suffer the trials of it and consider it a step on the way to paradise. They are an order of magnitude more "fundie" than our most devout "fundies". How many of fundies could you reform by explaining to them they should be more "normal"? That's a rhetorical question...you know as well as I do the answer is none. If they don't reform at our suggestion that leaves the use of force or some other sanction. Will that get us a bunch of reformed Muslims? No, more realistically that'll get us a new batch of terrorists.>

The average Pakistani is similar to a Christian fundie in America. We can live with that. Pakistan has elected a woman prime minister and is more similar culturally to Hindu India than to the more conservative Islamic Middle East. Islamic nations can become secular democracies. Turkey has proven that. Iraqi Kurds are secular and democratic. Balkan Muslims and former Soviet Muslims are secular, although I am not sure whether they are democratic. Regardless, I believe that an affinity for democracy is universal. The question with the Islamic world is secularism. Pakistan was originally founded as a secular democracy. Pakistan and Indonesia will be key to making the Islamic world moderate. If they can't be made moderate, there is no hope in the much more conservative Middle East.

[PsychoDad]

12. Where to start...

Perhaps learning a bit more about what Islam really is would be a good start.

[PsychoDad]

11. 2 and 3 go hand in hand.

The current crusade is going to generate blowback for years to come.

Number 1- the war on terror, is at it's root a war against ideology. Ideas are hard to kill with bullets.. and all we are currently doing is adding more "evidence" for the retoric of the radicals.

2 and 3 are really one in the same.

[fujiyama]

15. .

[fujiyama]

22. So are you saying...

Bush is doing a better job than Clinton in fighting terrorism?

The simple fact is Clinton slapped sanctions on both India and Pakistan after they tested nukes. India has been known to have a nuclear program since 1974 when they tested their first nuke (they called it a "peacefull explosion").

There were additional sanctions placed on Pakistan after the coup. Another major difference between the Pakistani nuclear program and the Israeli and Indian ones is that the former is NOT under a civilian rule.

Another thing to keep in mind is that India was never a major beneficiary of US military hardware in the first place, so the Pressler amendment wouldn't have mattered much anyways even if it had been applied toward India. Also keep in mind that it took until 1994 for the Pressler amendment to get passed. The US knew about the Pakistani nuclear program for years and it basically turned a blind eye to it. While I'm sure the US was never crazy about Pakistan having nukes, it was never really a major concern -- as long as they were useful against the Soviets in Afghanistan.

Israel on the other hand will ALWAYS be treated a bit "differently" than ever other nation. The US has a "special" relationship with it. I'm not interested in debating the merits of this at the moment. It has the served the US good at times, but bad as well.

Ultimately, it is true the US and the West in general had a pretty exclusionary view regarding nuclear proliferation. I would say there were no double standards against Pakistan because they were Muslim. On the contrary, I doubt the US would have cared if the Saudis had developed nukes during the Cold War either. At that time, Islamic terrorism really wasn't a concern and was really isolated to Iran and Hezbollah. The Wahabbi sponsered variety was still unknown (once some western diplomat or intelligence official remarked how "he wished the Shiites would behave more like the Sunnis").

The main problem here is this proliferation of military hardware and who benefits from it -- mainly wealthy defense contractors -- the biggest opponents of any types of military sanctions.

[analogman]

14. Oh goody, another ally!

I feel warm and fuzzy all over. The world is now a safer place because we have a tinpot dictator with nuclear weapons as our "friend".

[_Jumper_]

19. It is better to have him on our side than to have him on Al-Qaeda's side

n/t

[PsychoDad]

20. Not so sure of that...

I think that Pakistan, like all our other "allies" in the mid east is on their own side...

We're just a sugar daddy that helps keep the despot in power and the military hardware coming.