Naked aggression of Hillary Clinton on Pakistan



By A Khokar    31 October 2009


Although Hillary Clinton has shown some strong diplomacy of US while she was here in Pakistan but where ever she had gone one finds it was her naked aggression on Pakistan. The lady has been sounding a big bugle horn of 7.5 Billions aid to Pakistan and she has not been challenged any where and no one could tell her squarely that Madam; US is doing No favor to Pakistan by giving this money. You are just paying your bill of cost of war on terror.


It is estimated that as a front state and an ally of US in the war against terror, Pakistan has suffered an enormous losses amounting to some 80 Billions. Not to include the instability of its state that Pakistan has got as a result; the destruction of weaves of its society and its infra structures; the ever growing subversive activities of terrorist and prevalent state of anarchy are much bigger scars that Pakistan will keep on wearing for decades to come.


Pakistanis are of the opinion that every country in the US war against terror (NATO and others) that their armies are participating in this war; they are adequately been compensated or paid by US toward their cost affects (including India). Here in Pakistan; although this is a matter between two allies (US- Pakistan). Pakistan is fighting as front state in the war and consequently this country has suffered a lot. A Lollypop of 7.5 billions being offered by K-L bill or now being trumpeted by Hillary on this occasion as some compensation which she prefers to call it an aid by US—- is just a peanut.



Although she has been successful to con us that our war bill claim has cleverly been converted into a aid cum alms bill. In such circumstances US must be condemned for preemptive use of a charming woman like Hillary Clinton against Pakistan that it is against human dignity for unleashing a woman on Pakistan. But US is likely to come out with the statement that US reserve the right to use a softening tool like Hillary Clinton in such a situation where all the option have failed. But under no circumstance is there ever a justification for the preemptive deployment of such softening tool that under the spell of it where audience and addressee are overwhelmed by her charm and they fell flat—- any where by any country.



 What is the out come of this visit? Net results can be said as—- Zero Sum with a Peshawar bomb blast. People Market razed to ground, hundred lives perished and some 250 maimed. Our misery is that it ——-goes on.




Arrogant U.S. Misses the Message From Pakistan’s People

There has always been in American foreign policy circles, a virus called ‘arrogance’, caused by the hereditary assumption that Americans know better than others. Surprisingly, this does not always prove the case, but the condition seems highly resistant to treatment, even by experience.


There seems a high probability that the disease has struck Obama administration policy circles dealing with Pakistan. (leaving aside the case of American relations with Afghanistan.) This administration came to office with a conviction that the Afghanistan problem is a problem because it actually is— a Pakistan problem, Pakistan being a large country possessing nuclear weapons and a great many Pashtuns, assumingly who are the people from whom Taliban are recruited.


Afghanistan is a country with one-sixth Pakistan’s population, with a great many Pashtuns too, harbouring only a 100 or so members of al-Qaida (if we are to believe the American national security adviser, Gen. James Jones) whereas popular opinion in Washington is that Pakistan is rife with them, and the country on its way to becoming a “breeding ground” for terrorists who wish to invade the West, blow it up with nuclear weapons obtained from Pakistani stocks, and establish a new global terrorist caliphate amid the ruins.


It is unknown whether the visiting Secretary of State Hillary Clinton  Pakistan shares so alarmed a view, but she will hear a lot about the damage American pressures are doing to Pakistan, and how fearful the Pakistan populace is, not of the Taliban and al-Qaida, but of the United States.


According to a New York Times article this week, from Jane Perlez in Islamabad, the new fighting there against Islamists “has pleased the Americans, but it left large parts of Pakistan under siege, as militants once sequestered in the country’s tribal areas take their war to Pakistan’s cities. Many Pakistanis blame the United States for the country’s rising instability.”


A recent and serious poll in Pakistan found that 11 percent of the Pakistani respondents say that al-Qaida is the greatest threat to Pakistan today, 18 percent said India, and 59 percent said the United States. This was in August, before the most recent offensives of the Pakistan army against the Islamists in Waziristan and the Swat Valley, and the retaliatory city bombings that subsequently have taken place.


A vocal part of the Pakistan population clearly doesn’t want the United States in the country, and it doesn’t even want the aid the United States is sending. A notorious fact in the past has been that civilian and popular opposition to the U.S. was based on the assumption that American aid was meant to keep military governments in place and buy military cooperation with American policy in the area.


This time, it’s the Pakistani army that doesn’t want the $7.5-billion aid package that the Obama administration has put together; the aid is denounced as meant to interfere in the country’s internal affairs—as indeed it is.


The civilian government of President Asif Ali Zardari, generally thought to be put in place by Washington, “is seen as slavishly pro-American (as well) as unable to cope” with the current situation says Jane Perlez of N Y Times.


The country’s interior minister Rehman Malik was hit with stones by students when after a blast he visited the International Islamic University last week, and it is said that in retaliation the government closed all the schools and universities in Punjab, the most populous province (being reopened gradually since Monday, Oct. 26), “a move that affected Pakistani families like never before.”


To judge from the public statements of Obama counsellors, Pakistan is seen as the great danger in the region, with erratic politics and nuclear weapons—and an active Islamist revolt thereby having the potential to create (according to Obama’s adviser Bruce Riedel), “the most serious threat to the United States since the end of the cold war.”


This would seem why the U.S. wants a government under US thumb to compel the army to fight the Islamists (their own peoples) on their home territory even if this alienates the army and sows hatred of America.


Why Pakistan may not be allowed to deal with its own issues alone, which has a solid civil service and an excellent army, to act in defense of its own security rather than let the U.S. impose its own ideas?


And will this government of Pakistan—–will ever rise to the occasion and possibly see their oppressors in their eyes squarely and put forward their terms that suit Pakistan’s national interests?


Theme source acknowledgment: William