AFPak dominates PM Manmohan Singh-

Obama talks
Chidanand Rajghatta, TNN, Apr 12, 2010, 04.58am IST
0100090000035900000003001c00000000000400000003010600050000000c02b706364407000
000fc020000000000000000040000002d01000008000000fa02000000000000000000000400000
02d0101001c000000fb020c00090000000000900100000000000202024d532053616e732053657
26966000a0023008a0100000000ffffffffb8c5b901040000002d0102000d00000021050d00416476
6572746973656d656e74009bfeb810030000000000

• Article

• Comments (43)

• Post a comment

• Εµα ι λ τη ι σ αρ τ ι χ λ ε
Print this article
Save this article
My Saved articles

Hotklix this Google Bookmarks

StumbleUpon Reddit
Newsvine Live Bookmarks
Technorati Yahoo Bookmarks
Blogmarks Del.icio.us
Tags:Manmohan Singh|Pakistan|US
&
Manmohan Singh meets Obama in US
WASHINGTON DC: US-India ties appear to be back on track after President Barack
Obama assured Prime Minister Manmohan Singh that Washington fully recognized
India's security concerns arising from the AfPak region and wouldn't do anything
inimical to it since it valued the prospect of a strong strategic partnership with New
Delhi.

Relief, satisfaction, and a renewed confidence was palpable among Indian officials as
they briefed the media on a 50-minute meeting between Obama and Singh on a beautiful
spring afternoon that brought hordes of people to the vicinity of the White House to see
the finale of the cherry blossom festival. It also brought back color to US-India ties with
Obama's assertion of support on various issues after a rather bleak run-up that called into
question that state of play between the two countries.

Among the assurances that the Indian side reported receiving from Obama was that the
US would work through the legal process to provide access to LeT terrorist David
Headley (a sore point with New Delhi) and also seek continued Indian support in the
developmental efforts in Afghanistan.

Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao, who briefed the media on the Obama-Singh meeting
said the US President told Prime Minister Singh that he fully understood India's concerns
about the security situation in the region and assured him that "there is no country in the
world where the opportunities for a strong strategic partnership are greater and more
important to him and the United States" than the one with India.

Obama's assurance came after Prime Minister Singh strongly raised India's concern with
him about Pakistan's relentless pursuit of terrorism as a policy option. "India's interests
are constantly on the US mind," Rao, who was part of the Indian delegation at the
meeting, quoted President Obama as saying.

A Prime Minister who has gained the reputation of being the most pro-American leader
to occupy high office in India stepped up to a Sunday meeting with the US President to
convey to him that New Delhi cannot forgo its strategic and security interests to US
prevarication or Pakistani pressure in AfPak region, especially as both US and India
desired the same end result – the defeat of terrorism.

In this context, Singh had a litany of complaints and grievances that over-ran Obama’s
suggestion to reduce tensions through dialogue with Pakistan. Singh told him that he saw
no will on part of Pakistan to punish the perpetrators of the 26/11 Mumbai massacre even
as terrorists such as Hafeez Mohammed Saeed and Ilyas Kashmir continued to operate
with impunity.

The future of South Asia will be determined by the way the menace of terrorism is
tackled, Singh said, adding this is where the partnership between India and the US would
help. Implicit in his presentation was a call greater pressure from Washington on Pakistan
to crack down on its home-grown and fostered jihadi groups such as LeT.

Rao told journalists that the 50 minute meeting was “extremely positive and constructive”
although the media scrum before the meeting began made much of the stolid body
language on a warm spring day. It was the first meeting between the two leaders after the
Singh State visit last November when Obama hosted an elegant dinner banquet for him at
the White House.

Ahead of the meeting, the Indian side made it clear in unusually blunt language that New
Delhi will not forfeit its core interests in its sphere of influence (read Afghanistan) just
because of Pakistani’s existential paranoia.

Pakistan wants Washington to press India to downsize its growing presence and influence
in Afghanistan because it fears being caught in a pincer. New Delhi believes its interests
in Kabul pre-date the formation of Pakistan; Afghanistan was India’s neighbor before
Pakistan was even a glimmer in its founder’s eye.

Singh conveyed this to Obama, along with the Indian position on various other issues the
two sides don’t see eye to eye, including Washington pandering to Pakistan’s insatiable
hunger for military hardware, and differing perceptions on Iran.

Perhaps aware of the Indian agitation, the White House blocked an hour and 15 minutes
for the meeting (from 1.45 p.m to 3 p.m; although the one-on-one was allotted 45
minutes) more time than for any of the other five meetings scheduled for the day (with
leaders of Kazakhstan, South Africa, Pakistan, and Nigeria).

In fact, the large time slot suggested the agenda for the meeting extended beyond the
nuclear security summit which is the backdrop for some 45 world leaders to convene
here. In many cases, certainly in the case of India, bilateral issues have threatened to
upstage the summit.

The tough language used ahead of the meeting – and the litany of grievances conveyed
by Singh to Obama -- was unusual for New Delhi which has preferred to play a rather
muted role even as Washington has ignored India’s concerns over growing Pakistani
belligerence built on U.S dependence on it for the war in Afghanistan.

But it reflected the frustration in the Indian establishment over US prevarication in

Afghanistan and its pandering to Pakistan’s toxic policies that include backing selective
Taliban factions that remain its proxies. Washington has winked at this, and sometimes
endorsed it, continuing its efforts to get a handle on the situation.
Singh also pushed back at Obama’s pressure on India to seek accommodation with
Pakistan, which Indian officials say was unnecessary considering the prime minister is
ahead of (and often at odds with) the public mood in India when it comes to seeking
peace with Pakistan.

Obama’s schedule for the day suggested the U.S President will convey India’s position to
Pakistan’s Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani who he met some two hours after his
meeting with Singh. Incidentally, the last time a Pakistani Prime Minister met the US
President on a Sunday in Blair House, he was forced to sue for peace – that was Nawaz
Sharief with Bill Clinton on July 3, 1999 during the Kargil War.

g
u
ar
d
i
• News

• Σπο ρ τ

• Χο µ µ ε ν τ

• Χυ λ τ υ ρ ε

• Βυσ ι ν ε σ σ

• Μο ν ε ψ

• Λιφ ε & στψλ ε

• Τραϖ ε λ

• Ενϖ ι ρ ο ν µ ε ν τ

• Τς

• Βλο γ σ

• ςιδ ε ο

• Χο µ µ υ ν ι τ ψ

• ϑο β σ

• Νεω σ

• Ωο ρ λ δ νεωσ

• Πα κ ι σ τ α ν
US military may escalate 'war on terror'
by striking deeper into Pakistan
Foreign ministry warns against 'counterproductive' air strikes and commando raids

Τω ε ε τ τη ι σ

• Σα ε ε δ Σηα η in Islamabad

• γυαρ δ ι α ν. χ ο.υ κ , Wednesday 18 March 2009 15.31 GMT

• λα ρ γ ε ρ | smaller

Αρ τ ι χ λ ε ηισ τ ο ρ ψ
The Pakistan-Afghanistan border in Baluchistan. Photograph: Declan Walsh
Washington is considering expanding its controversial policy of missile strikes and
commando raids deeper inside Pakistan, according to reports this morning.
In what would be a major escalation of the "war on terror", the New York Times reported
that the US may push its firepower into Pakistan's vast, economically backward,
Baluchistan province.
Washington has so far targeted militants based in Pakistan's semi-autonomous tribal
areas, which run along Afghanistan's eastern border. Baluchistan, however, is a "settled"
region and considered a regular part of the country. However, the province, and
especially its capital, Quetta, has long been considered the home of the Afghan Taliban
and an important sanctuary for al-Qaida.
This morning's reports drew a sharp reaction inside Pakistan.
"The United States would be pouring petrol on the 'war on terror' by these methods," said
Munawar Hassan, secretary general of Jamaat-i-Islami, the biggest mainstream religious
party. "The United States has no message of peace for the world, they can only talk
through arms and armaments."
Pakistan has opposed the use of US missile strikes in its tribal area, which have killed
some leading al-Qaida commanders but also led to the death of innocent civilians.
Islamabad complains that the attacks, from unmanned "drone" aircraft operated by the
CIA, are a flagrant breach of Pakistani sovereignty.
"As we have been saying all along, we believe such attacks are counterproductive," said
Abdul Basit, the spokesman for Pakistan's foreign ministry, responding to this morning's
reports. "They involve collateral damage and they are not helpful in our efforts to win
hearts and minds."
The exclusive western focus on the tribal area, which is a hotbed for militants, has meant
that the Afghan Taliban leadership, and its al-Qaida allies, have been able to direct the
insurgency in Afghanistan unmolested from Baluchistan. But expanding operations to
Baluchistan risks creating more volunteers for the Taliban and raising the internal
pressure on the Pakistani government, which has struggled to contain anger over US
attacks in the tribal area.
In September last year, American forces conducted their first known ground raid within
Pakistan, in the tribal area, causing uproar. If Taliban and al-Qaida extremists are in
Quetta itself or other urban areas, missile strikes may not be feasible, so American boots
on Pakistani soil would be required.
The Pakistani authorities, already under pressure from a domestic insurgency, have been
reluctant to stir up further trouble by tackling extremists in Baluchistan, which runs along
Afghanistan's eastern border. According to Kabul, the Taliban founder, Mullah Omar,
lives in Quetta. Northern Baluchistan is populated by Pashtuns, the same ethnicity that is
the biggest group in Afghanistan and makes up most of the Taliban.
Critics have suggested that Pakistan is using Baluchistan to secretly back the Taliban in
Afghanistan, as it sees the regime of Hamid Karzai in Kabul as dangerously close to arch-
foe India – a claim denied by Islamabad. Pakistan's army nurtured the rise of the Taliban,
who swept to power in Afghanistan in the mid-90s. However, after 9/11, Islamabad allied
itself with the west, which resulted in the creation of a Pakistani Taliban, opposed to their
own government.

• Printable version

• Send to a friend

• Share

• Clip
 • Contact us

• λα ρ γ ε ρ | smaller

Email
Close

Recipient's email address

Your first name

Your surname
Add a note (optional)

Your IP address will be logged

Share
Close

• Digg

• ρεδ δ ι τ

• Γοο γ λ ε Βοο κ µ α ρ κ σ

• Τω ι τ τ ε ρ

• δε λ. ι χ ι ο . υ σ

• Στυ µ β λ ε Υ π ο ν

• Νεω σ ϖ ι ν ε

• λιϖε ϕ ο υ ρ ν α λ
 • Φα χ ε β ο ο κ

• Μι ξ ξ ι τ!

Contact us
Close

• Report errors or inaccuracies: userhelp@guardian.co.uk

• Letters for publication should be sent to: letters@guardian.co.uk

• If you need help using the site: userhelp@guardian.co.uk

• Call the main Guardian and Observer switchboard:

+44 (0)20 3353 2000

• Advertising guide

• Λιχ ε ν σ ε / β υ ψ ου ρ χον τ ε ν τ

• World news
• Pakistan ·

• Γλο β α λ τερρ ο ρ ι σ µ ·

• ΥΣ µιλ ι τ α ρ ψ

More news

• Printable version

• Send to a friend

• Share
 • Clip

• Contact us

• Article history

Email
Close

Recipient's email address

Your first name

Your surname
Add a note (optional)

Your IP address will be logged

Share
Close

• Digg

• ρεδ δ ι τ

• Γοο γ λ ε Βοο κ µ α ρ κ σ

• Τω ι τ τ ε ρ
 • δε λ. ι χ ι ο . υ σ

• Στυ µ β λ ε Υ π ο ν

• Νεω σ ϖ ι ν ε

• λιϖε ϕ ο υ ρ ν α λ

• Φα χ ε β ο ο κ

• Μι ξ ξ ι τ!

Contact us
Close

• Report errors or inaccuracies: userhelp@guardian.co.uk

• Letters for publication should be sent to: letters@guardian.co.uk

• If you need help using the site: userhelp@guardian.co.uk

• Call the main Guardian and Observer switchboard:

+44 (0)20 3353 2000

• Advertising guide

• Λιχ ε ν σ ε / β υ ψ ου ρ χον τ ε ν τ

• About this article

Close

US military may escalate 'war on terror'

by striking deeper into Pakistan
This article was published on guardian.co.uk at 15.31 GMT on Wednesday 18 March
2009. It was last modified at 16.07 GMT on Wednesday 18 March 2009.

Latest from world news

• Most viewed

• Λα τ ε σ τ

• Μο σ τ χοµ µ ε ν τ ε δ
Last 24 hours
 1. Bishop 'blames Jews' for criticism of Catholic church record on abuse
2. Language barrier and a president determined to land – theories swirl over Polish air
disaster
3. Richard Dawkins calls for Pope to be put on trial
4. 'They were wiped out. It's our Katyn trauma all over again'
5. Poland in national mourning after plane crash
More top stories

Sisterly sense prevails in the bitter debate on US healthcare

Michael Tomasky: Ghosts of Mississippi
Kyrgyzstan to extend US lease on key airbase
All today's stories
Last 24 hours
1. Google's 'iPad killer' on the way? | Richard Adams (22 comments)
2. Collaborate or dry up, US editors told | Richard Adams (4)

Bestsellers from the Guardian shop

Guardian Black History Wallcharts - Set of 5

Complete set of five wall charts printed on high quality paper.

From: £15.00

• Visit the Guardian reader offers shop

 Γρ ε ε ν & ετη ι χ α λ σηο π π ι ν γ ατ
Γυα ρ δ ι α ν εχοσ τ ο ρ ε

Latest news on guardian.co.uk

Last updated less than one minute ago

• News
Tories gamble on 'We the people' manifesto

• World news
Pakistan nuclear weapons at risk of theft, US warns

Free P&P at the Guardian bookshop

• Good Man Jesus and the Scoundrel Christ

• £14.99 with free UK delivery

• Two for Joy

• £15.00 with free UK delivery

• Browse the bestseller lists

• Sponsored features
•

•
G
• UK

• ΥΣΑ

UK

Browse all jobs

• Development Manager UK
prospect us recruitment.
our client is a us based ngo operating globally to….
c.£45,000.

• Programme Manager - South Asia

haselour house media ltd.
united kingdom.
35.18k to 38.70k per year GBP.

• Direct Marketing Fundraiser

harris hill.
london.
£24,580.

USA

Browse all jobs

• Customer Service Representative

Customer Service Representative Basic Function: Customer Service
 Representative are responsible for making telephone contact (either inbound or
outbound... FL

• Town Administrator
The Town of Middleburg is seeking qualified candidates for the position of Town
Administrator. SALARY RANGE: $75,000-90,000 DOQ/DOE (+) excellent
benefits... VA

• VP Product Management
Indeed.com is seeking a VP of Product Management to lead all of Indeed's
product strategy and execution. The VP of Product will manage all of Indeed's
online... TX

jobs by

Ads by Google
• Obama & Bernanke's War
Secret War On The Dollar Exposed! Washington Doesn't Want You To Know
UncommonWisdomDaily.com

• Artery Clearing Secret

Hugh Downs reports on breakthrough artery clearing secret.
www.bottomlinesecrets.com

• LifeFone® Medical Alert

The Most Trusted Personal Response Service Since 1976. One Month Free!
LifeFone.com

Related information
World news
• Pakistan ·

• Γλο β α λ τερρ ο ρ ι σ µ ·

• ΥΣ µιλ ι τ α ρ ψ
Is
Pakistan hotel blast: CCTV footage of suicide bomber
22 Sep 2008:
Newly released footage shows lorry crashing into Marriott hotel barrier moments before
deadly explosion in Islamabad
More video
11 Apr 2010

The 'Obama doctrine': kill, don't detain | Asim Qureshi

4 Feb 2010

The secret war in Pakistan | Michael Williams

3 Feb 2010

US soldiers and teenage girls among seven killed in bomb attack near Pakistan school
9 Aug 2009

Ministers must explain destruction of 'torture flight' papers, says panel of MPs
Suicide blast rocks Lahore
10 Jan 2008: A suicide bomber killed at least 22 people and wounded another 60 when he
blew himself up outside the high court in the eastern Pakistani city of Lahore today
More galleries

•
POLITICS:
Pakistan Stressed by US Designs on Iran

M B Naqvi

KARACHI, Apr 24 (IPS) - As the crisis around Iran over its alleged nuclear ambitions
assumes an ugly shape, Pakistan finds itself once again, under enormous political
pressure because of aggressive United States policy towards a Muslim country in its
immediate neighbourhood.

Already, the Pakistan government is under fire from powerful Islamist groups and political parties
for supporting the U.S.-led ‘war-on-terror' in Afghanistan, especially in the border areas of North
West Frontier Province.
And now the U.S. is pressing both Pakistan and India to forego the economically advantageous
Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline project and think of other ways of meeting their energy
requirements.

Already the U.S. has told the Pakistan government that it can expect funding and other
assistance if the alternate Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan oil pipeline project is pursued and
the Iran project abandoned.

India is being persuaded by Washington to give up the Iran gas deal, in return for cooperation on
civilian nuclear technology. Indian participation in the project would make the pipeline more
attractive for Pakistan in terms of an annual 700 million dollars in royalties.

On Saturday, Iranian oil minister Kazem Vaziri announced at the International Energy Forum at
Doha, Qatar that Iran, India and Pakistan were close to concluding the seven billion US dollar gas
pipeline deal.

Subsequently, both Pakistan's oil minister Amanullah Khan Jadoon and his Indian counterpart
Murli Deora confirmed the plan, although observers say much can happen in Iran between now
and the actual signing of the tripartite agreement in June.

Said Karachi University professor and international affairs expert Jafar Ahmad: "Superficially, it
looks as if the U.S. is not capable of going to war with Iran. Considering it's unfinished business in
Iraq and Afghanistan, the idea of adding an even bigger country to the list of targets would not
make sense.''

''But on the other hand, the American administration has piled up strong rhetoric and would seem
to be preparing for military action. Some say that the logic of the Iraq war would demand that the
Americans take strong military action against Iran also,'' Ahmad told IPS in an interview.

"Iran is unlikely to prove a soft target like Afghanistan and Iraq and retaliation is certain,'' Ahmad
said. ‘'Pakistan being a neighbour, is vitally concerned and this is a reason why American
pressure is particularly considerable over Pakistan. No military action in Iran can be taken without
some sort of understanding and support from Pakistan.''

"What Iran can do is considerable. It can close the Straits of Hormuz, the narrow neck through
which all oil trade to eastern Asia has to pass can be closed by sinking a few medium-sized cargo
ships. The kind of new equipment that Iran has recently demonstrated makes U.S. naval armadas
in the Persian Gulf vulnerable.''

Then, there is the question of oil. ‘'Should Iran stop exporting oil for an extended period of some
months, it can cause a tremendous upheaval in the oil market. The oil prices will go through the
roof. World economic activity would be severely affected,'' Ahmad said.

''What is truly troubling is that Iran is in a position to hit Israel directly just as Israel is loudly
thinking of making a unilateral attack on Iran,'' said the well-known academic.

A groundswell of opinion is now building up against any support by Pakistan for military action
against Iran that is not confined to Islamist groups alone but also extends to academics,
intellectuals and well-known secular politicians.

Said prominent politician and leader of the National Workers Party, B.M. Kutty: "Pakistan and Iran
are neighbours and we had better not collude with the Americans against that country. No doubt,
there is great pressure on Pakistan to stay aligned with the Americans. But that is not something
that should be taken for granted.''

Kutty said that while Pakistan President Gen. Pervez Musharraf was under pressure from
Washington, it was still possible to put up resistance. ''Pakistan ought to have been able to line up
with those who are against this likely war such as China and Russia. Pakistan's national interests
do not demand any break with Iran,'' he said.

As the Afghanistan experience has shown, by supporting Washington's military adventures,

Pakistan risks exacerbating fault lines that exist between its many ethnic groups, besides
angering the religious establishment.

"Pakistan runs the risk of intensifying its sectarian divide - lining up with the Americans would
jeopardize social peace since large swathes of nationalist opinion in Balochistan, Sindh and
NWFP do not favour any anti-Iranian stance,'' Kutty said. ‘'Pakistan should counsel caution with
its supposed ally America. Any military action in Iran by America or by Israel would cause a
tremendous impact on much of southern Asia and also Central Asia - what forces would be
unleashed cannot be foreseen.''

Said Anis Haroon, general secretary of the Pakistan chapter of the India- Pakistan Peoples
Forum for Peace and Democracy: "Pakistan has no business to support possible American action
against Iran. The official line taken is correct. But it is weak. It should be stronger in favour of
peace and more pro-Iran."

''It is time that Pakistan made it clear that we are not prepared to be pushed around. There is no
case for American military action against Iran,'' she said. ''The whole brouhaha of war has been
created on the basis of what Americans think Iran wants to do. Whether Iran makes a bomb or
not, would depend largely on international situation and has to be seen against the fact of Israel
possessing a large number of nuclear weapons. No Middle East power, which is not part of the
American alignment, can be complacent about that fact.''

''For the longer-term'', Haroon said, ''the Israeli desire to remain the sole nuclear power in the
region is purely self-serving and ill-intentioned. Others cannot go on tolerating it, least of all Iran.''

''The Americans should do a proper cost-benefit analysis on maintaining peace with Iran or going
to war - what outweighs the other is for the Americans to decide. We can only hope and demand
that America opts for peace in the end", said Haroon.

Said former law minister Syed Iqbal Haider: ''The Americans have virtually killed the nuclear Non-
Proliferation Treaty (NPT) by not implementing their part to disarm in good faith, while others are
expected to abjure making nuclear weapons.''

''Pakistan cannot remain unaffected, should aggression be committed against Iran,'' said Haider.
''It will have direct political, social and psychological impact on Pakistan. In an important way it is
directly linked with Pakistan's own social and political peace.''

''Pakistanis have always counted Iranians as their friends and are likely to continue to do so in
future - where Iran is concerned Pakistan has to keep away from the Americans,'' Haider said.
‘'For once, Pakistan should take a strong independent line.'' (END/2006)