US favours democracy in Pakistan: Hillary Clinton

Published: January 13, 2012
Email
US expects Pakistan to resolve its internal matters as per rule of law, constitution; Clinton welcomes Sherry Rehman.  PHOTO: AFP/FILE

US expects Pakistan to resolve its internal matters as per rule of law, constitution; Clinton welcomes Sherry Rehman. PHOTO: AFP/FILE

WASHINGTON: US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says that the United States has concerns about the situation in Pakistan, but stood in favour of the democratic set up in Pakistan, expecting it to resolve the country’s internal matters on its own as per its laws and constitution.

Speaking to reporters after a meeting with the Algerian Foreign Minister, Secretary Clinton said, “It has been our position to stand strongly in favour of a democratically elected civilian government, which we continue to do, and we expect Pakistan to resolve any of these internal issues in a just and transparent manner that upholds the Pakistani laws and constitution.”

She added that she was “delighted” to welcome Sherry Rehman to the State Department during their meeting. Secretary Clinton said that she told Rehman, Pakistan’s Ambassador Designate to the US, that the relationship between both the United States and Pakistan is crucial “to both of our countries, to the future of our people, to the safety and security of South Asia and the world; we recognise there have been significant challenges in recent months, but we are steadfastly committed to this relationship and working together to make it productive.”

In response to a question, Secretary Clinton also condemned the reported video of US Marines urinating on the bodies of Taliban fighters. “It is absolutely inconsistent with American values, with the standards of behaviour that we expect from our military personnel and the vast, vast military personnel, particularly our Marines, hold themselves to.” She added that those who participated or knew about the incident must be held accountable.

On the subject of reconciliation in Afghanistan, Secretary Clinton said, “We don’t have any idea standing here today what the outcome of such discussions could be. I think all of us are entering into it with a very realistic sense of what is possible, and that includes, of course, President Karzai and his government, which, after all, bear the ultimate responsibility and the consequences of any such discussions.”

Next week, Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan Marc Grossman will meet with President Karzai in Kabul, in trip that is believe to deal with preparing grounds for peace talks with the Taliban.

Facebook Conversations

Reader Comments (39)

  • Raj
    Jan 13, 2012 - 7:58AM

    Why Pakistan..why not Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries…

    Recommend

  • Mard-e-Haq
    Jan 13, 2012 - 8:35AM

    “It has been our position to stand strongly in favour of a democratically elected civilian government, which we continue to do, and we expect Pakistan to resolve any of these internal
    issues in a just and transparent manner that upholds the Pakistani laws and constitution.

    Hillary, you mean you are not so strongly in favor of a coup but may find it acceptable if it transpires? So, it’s a matter of comparative strengths? What kind of retarded statement is this from the Secretary of State of the United States? Even our young Ms Hina Rabbani Khar would have come out with a better statement.

    Recommend

  • Noor
    Jan 13, 2012 - 9:33AM

    This world will become a safer place the day US stops being a policeman!

    Recommend

  • Nahmed
    Jan 13, 2012 - 9:39AM

    Americans are in favour of anyone, a dictator or a democrat, who serves their purpose. They are in favor of kingdoms like Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Emirates because they serve them. They want democracy in Pakistan because power hungry and corrupt people serve them well.

    Recommend

  • Mirza
    Jan 13, 2012 - 9:46AM

    US taxpayers have seen that the $15 billions given to Mush’s govt have gone to waste. Perhaps some of that money was used to house OBL’s harmen in an army base. No taxpayer’s money for the protectors of terrorists. We are friends of democratic Pakistan and its masses and provide all economic aid only.

    Recommend

  • Noor
    Jan 13, 2012 - 9:54AM

    Pakistan & world would be safer, if US keeps its nose out of every country’s internal affairs.

    Recommend

  • Mohammad Ali Siddiqui
    Jan 13, 2012 - 10:07AM

    This time US government is late in giving the statement.

    The problem in Pakistan has already been patched up.

    There is no more danger of military coup any more.

    Whatever the change make come, it will come through democratic process.

    Recommend

  • R S JOHAR
    Jan 13, 2012 - 10:11AM

    Democracy or circus show.

    Recommend

  • BS.Detecter
    Jan 13, 2012 - 10:23AM

    ofcourse you do just like you were supporting the dictator before. i would advice to you clinton sahiba to stop interfering in our matters. that will be best for you and best for us

    Recommend

  • Lone Star
    Jan 13, 2012 - 10:25AM

    “US favours democracy in Pakistan” O’ really? “Democracy” where the prices are skyrocketing, where we don’t know even have any energy plan, where the gap between the poor and the richer is getting expand. Democracy where minorities have no rights because democracy require larger number. I would rather have Gen. Ayub’s dictatorship.

    Recommend

  • Karim
    Jan 13, 2012 - 11:08AM

    I recall US has also supported democracy in 1999. However, Army has its own reasons to act otherwise.

    Recommend

  • abbas
    Jan 13, 2012 - 11:38AM

    Ya but financial aid is always provided when thr is a dictator ruling. Not sure how it aligns with your claims of supporting democracy in ths country.

    Recommend

  • Faisal
    Jan 13, 2012 - 11:53AM

    Big favor is that no more favor please

    Recommend

  • Parvez
    Jan 13, 2012 - 11:53AM

    …and four years ago they favoured democracy Musharraf style.

    Recommend

  • A.Khan
    Jan 13, 2012 - 12:04PM

    This is the only thing which stopped military taking over. The ego of military could have otherwise done this quite long ago.

    Recommend

  • antanu g
    Jan 13, 2012 - 12:05PM

    @Noor:
    very true

    Recommend

  • Syed Imran
    Jan 13, 2012 - 12:08PM

    But not a democracy of corrupts

    Recommend

  • Hedgefunder
    Jan 13, 2012 - 12:17PM

    Madam Secretary,
    US has never really been choosy as to who rules this country, as history shows that it has always worked closely with Military Rulers in the Past, and also funded them to their eyeballs for their Foreign Policy objectives.
    All of sudden, they are once more talking about Democracy !!! Possibly Iraq style ?

    Recommend

  • ashok sai
    Jan 13, 2012 - 12:39PM

    @Raj:

    You asked, Why Pakistan..why not Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries…

    Answer : Islamic Bomb !

    Recommend

  • Zafar
    Jan 13, 2012 - 2:33PM

    I remember listening the same statement just before the military coup in 1998 and the people witnessed what it truly meant !!!

    Recommend

  • Pro Bono Publico
    Jan 13, 2012 - 3:56PM

    @R S JOHAR:
    Hillary should focus attention on the health of democracy in the US, where a few days ago, Obama authorized a law that allows jailing “suspects” without trial.

    Recommend

  • j. von hettlingen
    Jan 13, 2012 - 4:18PM

    The people in Pakistan must steer the country away from military rule and forge a strong, democratic parliament. A cilivilan government is viable and the current democratic administration has survived longer than any other in Pakistani history. It’s just the beginning. The bests is yet to come.

    Recommend

  • Jan 13, 2012 - 5:10PM

    Madam Secretary,

    Democracy is fine, however it must not be U.S. defined and prescribed.

    Recommend

  • saeed ahmad
    Jan 13, 2012 - 5:43PM

    Your real motives are very doubtful, Ms Clinton…!

    Recommend

  • Billo
    Jan 13, 2012 - 5:56PM

    Can you please give us the franchise for printing Dolars…. We can term that as credit swap. .

    Recommend

  • Roflcopter
    Jan 13, 2012 - 7:00PM

    US favours whoever is in their interest.

    Recommend

  • zeekhan
    Jan 13, 2012 - 7:05PM

    who the HELL she is..why they interfere in our internal issues??..seriously concerning why our media ask such stupid questions that they respond being a policeman!

    Recommend

  • Raj - USA
    Jan 13, 2012 - 7:32PM

    Whoever favors a military coup do not realize that this time it would not be easy for the military to take over. Irrespective of corruption, the political parties are better organized within themselves and any army takeover will, for the first time in the history of Pakistan, result in a blood bath across the country especially, in Sindh and Baluchistan. The economy will nosedive and the army also knows that it cannot save the economy. The corruption has to be routed out but Army is not the solution. Also, the army will not be able to handle the terrorism situation after the coup. The best option is for the army and civilian government to work together. The army is trying the wrong way to regain its prestige after the OBL incidence and its strategy on the memogate has made things worse. The judiciary has also lost its credibility. Public opinion will change within days after any coup due to the vibrant media when they see the economy nosedives further due to further international isolation.Recommend

  • Billo
    Jan 13, 2012 - 7:59PM

    As opposed to ?…!

    Recommend

  • Cautious
    Jan 13, 2012 - 10:13PM

    LOL – Sounds like many comments are from people who are upset that the USA has the audacity to express an opinion on Pakistan — well hears a “heads up” – people around the World ask the USA it’s opinion on lots of things and US officials get peppered with questions from foreign journalist on a daily basis. Their answers are often taken from a standard playbook and include things like “we support Democracy”. If that upsets you – so be it. It’s not the USA fault that foreign journalist don’t follow your officials around asking their opinions and your whining comes off as a bad case of “sour grapes”.

    Recommend

  • Sajida
    Jan 13, 2012 - 10:59PM

    http://www.salon.com/2012/01/02/endoftheprodemocracy_pretense/?source=newsletter

    End of the pro-democracy pretense

    Recommend

  • Sadia
    Jan 14, 2012 - 12:21AM

    Dear Hillary: Please mind your own business and let us know “WHY” did you guys fund Sunni Ittehad?

    Recommend

  • rk from NY
    Jan 14, 2012 - 4:35AM

    but pakis dont even know what democracy means….

    Recommend

  • Hira
    Jan 14, 2012 - 8:38AM

    Democracy in Pakistan means dynstic politics!

    Recommend

  • LOK
    Jan 14, 2012 - 3:35PM

    How? By talking to military directly? This is a joke.

    Recommend

  • K. Salim Jahangir
    Jan 15, 2012 - 12:18AM

    We do not need any favour. “THE PEOPLE OF PAKISTAN WILL CARVE OUT THEIR OWN DESTINY.” Please stop meddling in our internal matters.

    Recommend

  • Harry Stone
    Jan 15, 2012 - 9:17PM

    As it seems PAK has no understanding of what democracy is and surely not in the same context as the US, then this is a pointless discussion. I think the US would be indifferent to what type government PAK had as long as it stopped exporting terrorism

    Recommend

  • K. Salim Jahangir
    Jan 15, 2012 - 10:59PM

    @Harry Stone……US want democracy every where which is subservient to them…….not anymore.Pakistan is not exporting terrorism rather the US brought mercenaries from all over the world to fight against the Soviet Union & when the war was over these Jehadies were left behind……let the US answer why? Now these Jehadies are called terrorists by them.Pakistan is in fact helping the US & the world at large in flushing them out of this area.

    Recommend

  • Harry Stone
    Jan 16, 2012 - 9:31AM

    @K. Salim Jahangir:

    Why don’t you say 4 or 5 democratic nations that ae subservent to the US……that should be easy for you.

    Recommend

More in World