A Pakistani paper's coverage of Kerry's visit there

[karynnj]

"He said he would introduce the bill for $1.5 billion annual aid to Pakistan over the next 10 years in the Senate after he returns to the US.
“The focus of the bill is to make it clear to the people of Pakistan that they are at the centre of our policy,” he said. “It means that we want to build schools, roads, health clinics and create jobs,” he said. “It is a clear signal that US values its relationship with Pakistan and seeks long-term relationships not with a single government but with the people.”

Kerry said the collateral damage in the US drone attacks was unacceptable. He pledged to report Pakistani concerns to the relevant quarters in the US on his return.

“I am confident that people will review it carefully,” he said, but also added that terrorism did not begin after the drone attacks.

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2009\04\14\story_14-4-2009_pg1_5

(It will be interesting to hear more of what Kerry said and thinks about Pakistan.

[karynnj]

1. Here's a better article

and it has a very nice photo. http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/Politics/14-Apr-2009/US-generating-ill-will-Pakistan

[Mass]

2. Interesting to see that Pakistani reporting is about as biased as US one.

The reporting concerning the drones and the links to the aide is touted in very different views depending on the papers.

http://www.sindhtoday.net/south-asia/86690.htm
Kerry says drone attacks not encouraging terrorism (Well he did not say exactly that. He said the drones did not start terrorism

http://regionaltimes.com/14apr2009/frontpagenews/precondition.htm
Pre-conditions for US aid not acceptable: President & PM
—John Kerry assures Pakistan of US aid & cooperation

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2009%5C04%5C14%5Cstory_14-4-2009_pg1_5
No conditions on aid: Kerry

And UPI is reporting too:

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/04/13/US-Sen-Kerry-visits-Pakistan/UPI-94241239632507/

Pakistani Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani told Kerry that Pakistan doesn't want the United States to base aid considerations on a campaign against militants, Pakistani newspaper Dawn reported.

Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari said he urged quick passage of a bill on reconstruction in Pakistan and work out a strategy to terrorism, the newspaper said. Working its way through the U.S. Congress is a bill that would triple economic assistance for Pakistan to $1.5 billion a year.

Kerry's visit comes one week after Pakistani leaders met with U.S Navy Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Richard Holbrooke, the administration's special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan.
...

Anyway, it seems the two blocking points are the drones attacks and the strings attached to the aide. Not sure how it will go. There are many ways to put conditions on the aide, but it is a difficult question. Pakistan needs the aide, but can the US get something in return. I am curious how it will go.

[karynnj]

3. Interesting analysis

It is interesting that the UPI simply quotes what Dawn reported. It is also interesting to see - as you pointed out that even from what is reported, that they are cherry picking the Senator's words. The fact that Kerry said they want effectiveness measures DOES mean that if they misuse the money in year one, those measures will be cited to demand changes before money is given in year 2. The Pakistani PM is also playing games - saying that money given with any strings will generate ill will. He needs to be told that his saying that will generate ill will in the US.

On the drones, I think Kerry went as far as he could. He says that he will convey their opinion back in DC and he went out of his way NOT to argue the need or effectiveness. My guess is that a President Kerry would have ended this - even knowing that their would be a backlash as the right wing and many Democrats would gladly trade many innocent Pakistani lives for a much smaller number of American ones. Drones by definition do not put Americans at risk in the operation - even though if they push more people to join the insurgents, they indirectly do.

[wisteria]

4. It is very interesting how this has all been reported - on both sides.

I would think that in some ways this whole situation is very frustrating to the Senator who has to be very careful what he says and what he does. He can only listen and report back to the WH what he has heard. But I have to wonder what it was Holbrooke said or perhaps implied that lead to the PM's comments. Pakistan needs this aid, but the PM seems to want to just antagonize the US with his comments. Perhaps, he is frustrated with the recent actions of the US, but he should be a lot more diplomatic in the future.
I don't want to stir up trouble, but does anyone know if our SOS is planning a visit to Pakistan anytime soon? I understand why Senator Kerry has made this visit, but the comments of the PM should have been directed to our SOS.

[karynnj]

6. Holbroke is representing the State Department and Obama

Kerry clearly does have to be careful in what he says and just as he did when Bush was President, he has to make clear that he is not representing the President. The latter can be an advantage - here he is obviously more conciliatory than Hobrooke was. (I assume that Kerry was briefed and knew the situation with Holbrooke.) So far, our SoS has not really been active in the areas where there are envoys - though she did go to Israel.

But on the aid package, it looks like it is a matter of emphasis. He did NOT say that they will get 10 years aid no matter what they do - which is what I would call no ties. What he did do was emphasize that we want to help the Pakistani people (not government) and he spoke of building up trust. I would think being in this position - seen as the top foreign policy person in the Senate and informally as a close ally of Obama's, he gets to be in a position of outreach that he is likely excited by.

Also, just as it would be wrong to over emphasize his power to change foreign policy decisions, it would be wrong to underestimate it. After all, Obama moved to most of Kerry's positions. Given that I doubt he did it based on his view that Kerry was astute in finding the positions that voters wanted, I think it has to be that he sees Kerry is very very often right. (What will be interesting is that Kerry clearly is troubled by the drones. It will be interesting if Obama decides they are counter productive.

[wisteria]

7. Right now President Obama does not view the drones as counter productive.

The only thing we can do is wait and see.

[karynnj]

8. Exactly - which is why it is interesting

that Kerry did not defend the use and said that he would convey their views.

I think the big difference was Kerry's personal experience in Vietnam seeing that not only are people killed, but it really makes it impossible to win hearts and minds. The combination of real morality and that experience makes him very unusual on these issues. I think Obama is closer than many - but the only reason for thinking that was that he and Kerry voted for an amendment that banned cluster bomb sales, while Clinton, Biden and Dodd - the other potential Presidential candidates voted against it.

It does sound like Kerry will bring up the issue. It is good that he is there to make the case - as well as he always does, on an issue like this.

[wisteria]

9. I suppose it is possible that some of the leaders in Pakistan know that Kerry

is a free thinker and has his own point of view on issues concerning foreign policy. Maybe that is why the PM felt he could speak out as he did regarding the aid.

[beachmom]

10. Hi Karynnj! Actually, John Kerry supports the drone attacks. More details from ABC News:

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blotter/International/Story?id=7336839&page=4

But he also believes in a covert campaign that has pounded the tribal areas with some 40 missile attacks launched by unmanned aerial drones operated by the CIA. Those attacks have, largely, inspired anti-Americanism across the country.

"I've looked at them very very closely. And I asked for a CIA briefing to go through every single attack and understand the targeting and what the results really were. And I've also checked them against what they know here and the judgments they've made. And I would have to tell you that the answer to that is, I believe, yes, they have been worthwhile, and as complicated as it is, I think it's made us safer." Kerry said, going farther to acknowledge the CIA role in the attacks that most U.S. officials are willing to do on the record.

Kerry argued the drone attacks had been "ginned into a political tool" in much of Pakistan, but were actually popular in the tribal areas, so long as they did not cause civilian casualties and targeted foreign fighters, usually Arab, who are living among the Pashtun villages along the border.

"The fact is that many people out here understand that that is making their lives safer," he said."

Indeed, one tribal resident who spoke to ABC News agreed with Kerry.

"I am against the current drone attack policy. I think there should be at least one or two drones in every province," he said.

The whole article is very interesting:

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blotter/International/Story?id=7336839&page=1

Clearly, Kerry supports both military and civilian aid in the area.

[karynnj]

11. Hi Beachmom,

Thanks for this far more informative statement on this. I obviously took the comments made when they sometimes hit civilians and inferred things that were not true. The paragraph you highlighted is very interesting - as is the one below it.

[wisteria]

12. Yes, thanks for this additional information. I will have to give the entire idea of drones more

thought. From reading Kerry's comments and this ,("ginned into a political tool"), it appears some of us here in the US have fallen for the ruse also, including myself.

[wisteria]

5. I am curious also. n/t