As Pakistani lawmakers squabbled in Parliament over the future of its rollercoaster relationship with the United States, Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani said his country wants to improve its relations with Washington – but on the basis of equality, mutual respect and benefit.
In an informal chat with US President Barack Obama on the fringes of a global nuclear security summit in the South Korea capital, the premier, however, said that Parliament would formulate the future course of his country’s foreign policy.
Pakistan-US relations touched their lowest ebb following a cross-border air raid by US troops on Pakistani border posts in the Mohmand tribal region on November 26, 2011 that killed two dozen troops.
In reaction, Pakistan plugged the key Nato supply routes, got the Shamsie airbase vacated and decided to reconfigure its relations with the US. Parliament is currently debating fresh terms of engagements proposed by an all-party, bicameral parliamentary committee.
Formal talks between Obama and Gilani would take place on Tuesday evening. And according to the White House in that meeting the US president would seek to put strained relations with Pakistan on a more even footing.
“There obviously has been a fairly turbulent period in US-Pakistan relations over the course of the last several months,” US Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes told reporters in Seoul on Monday. “We’ll want to address the state of the relationship.”
He said Obama would assure Gilani of “our continued interest in counter-terrorism cooperation” with Pakistan and stress shared interests in stabilising neighboring Afghanistan.
Rhodes said: “When we step back, we’ve continued to make significant progress against our core interest with regard to Pakistan, which is putting al Qaeda on a path to defeat. And that remains our focus.”
He said Obama would also discuss with Gilani plans for a transition to an Afghan security lead in Afghanistan and US support to an Afghan-led reconciliation process.
Rhodes was quick to dismiss Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s warning on Monday of growing instability in the West’s relations with Pakistan. “I’m not sure that he has any particular insight into Nato’s relationship with Pakistan,” he said.
“I think NATO has had a relationship since the beginning of the Afghan war, because we have a shared interest with Pakistan and there not being violent extremist groups within their border and instability in Afghanistan,” Rhodes said.
Apart from his meeting with Obama, Premier Gilani on Monday also had formal and informal meetings with other world leaders – Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono and Turkish Prime Minister Recap Tayyip Erdogan. In these meetings bilateral relations, with particular reference to trade ties, were discussed.
Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh also said ‘hello’ to his Pakistani counterpart when the two leaders saw each other prior to a dinner hosted for the summit participants, according to Press Trust of India.
“The prime minister said hello to Gilani,” PTI quoted Indian sources describing it as a ‘meet and greet’ encounter. Indian and Pakistani sides have said that no formal meeting has been scheduled between Singh and Gilani but at the same time they did not rule out a ‘pull aside’ meeting during the summit.
Published in The Express Tribune, March 27th, 2012.
COMMENTS (10)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
If you can say you are responsible then it is not such a huge step to wanting parity....Next PAK will believe that it should be a permanenate member of the UNSC with veto power.
When you are one of the poorest, most uneducated and weak countries on earth, you dont negotiate with a super power but you do as what they tell you to do.
Pakistan cannot expect any ties with the U.S. "on the basis of equality, mutual respect and benefit." The U.S. sees Pakistan as its "military contractor state" that it is supposed to fill U.S. orders for its war in Afghanistan, and for allowing U.S. Predator drones to bomb Taliban or pro-Taliban tribesmen on its territory! That is the only equality the U.S. can accept, which in simple terms means: "We give you the money; we decide what services we want from you in return!" To the U.S. "parity" means: "You are my paid servant. Do what I tell you!"
Furthermore, parity or equality in relations cannot exist for these reasons: a) 98% of Pakistanis hate the U.S., and don't want to have any relations at all - according to published polls. b) The Pakistanis believe their government is corrupt, and that its politicians work with the U.S. to fatten their wallets. c) The U.S. believe that the Pakistani ISI is colluding with Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, finances them, arms them, and keep them well-trained militarily to use as proxies in a war with India scenario. d) The U.S. wants to maintain a foothold presence in Afghanistan to have some influence in Central Asia, but Pakistan doesn't, and the Afghans won't allow that. The U.S. is still in Afghanistan because it spend $ 10 billions a month in the military effort and in bribes to Afghan and Pakistani officials. But the bribes won't last forever! e) The anti-American hostility in the Muslim world is too high to allow any good relations between any Muslim country and the U.S., and it will get worse as the war in Afghanistan continue, the threats against Iran continue, the U.S. depiction of any anti-American Muslims as terrorists continue, and as the Muslim clerics blasting of those U.S. tactics in mosques and the mandrassas continue!
Conclusion: The U.S. and Pakistan are "unfit partners," and the relations can get only worse - not better! This is an indisputable fact supported by history, culture and religion. Nikos Retsos, retired professor
Sure!
When you are a hair on the elephant's tail, you can't demand parity from the elephant. The best that you can do is to let the people of your country close the NATO routes for you. THEY HAVE OFFRED TO DO THAT. Why don't you accept that offer. After all the people are speaking directly, not through 'elected' representatives. What more could you want?
How about parity with joe average American in minority rights, no force conversion, no blasphemy law, good law and order, good economy, no support to non state actors, 24/7 power supply for joe average Pakistani then we will talk parity otherwise keep on dreaming? Talk is cheap, walk the talk is difficult. Reminds me old parable Kahan Raja Bhoj Kahan Gangu Teli
Parity in Ties! I will die laughing!
You want parity? Does that mean that civilian and political leaders can talk nice to Pakistan and cut private deals behind doors and then turn around and bad mouth Pakistan for public consumption? Does that mean their leaders can talk about being committed to fighting terrorist, gets lots of money from Pakistan, and then be discovered providing shelter to the leaders of the terrorist? Does that mean the USA can initiate "investigative fire" on Pakistani soldiers and then publicly vilify Pakistan without an investigation when the Pakistani soldiers return fire. If so - the USA will say no because they prefer to sleep soundly at night.
what a joke
I always see broken record demands but I've never once seen how Pakistan intends to hold up their "equal" end of the bargain.