1- Pakistan to tell U.S. it won't accept limits
on tactical nuclear arms
2- U.S. Policies Aggravate Pakistan's Dysfunction
3- Obama Sets Sights on Pakistan's Nuclear Program After Iran
4- Iran will not back Syria's Assad 'forever,' minister says
5-Two armed US Predator drones crash in Iraq, Turkey
6- At the U.N., Beijing Begins to Shift Away From Putin
7- Strong Indications Of World War 3 Between The US And China
8- A new Chinese anti-ship ballistic missile is bad news for US aircraft
carriers
9- China's New Spy Airship Hunts Aircraft Carriers
10- Qatar says could intervene militarily in Syria but prefers political
solution
The detail of only Two news is as under >>
(1st)
" U.S. Policies Aggravate Pakistan's Dysfunction "
By " Hussain Haqani.
By inviting Pakistan's Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif to the White House, President
Obama may only have wanted to signal America's continued interest in the
nuclear-armed country. But in Pakistan it reignited the belief that Uncle Sam
simply cannot manage the world without Pakistan's help.
For years, Pakistan's policies have coincided with those of the U.S. only
nominally. Pakistan's support for the Taliban in Afghanistan is the main reason
Mr. Obama had to reverse his decision of pulling out troops from that country.
Pakistan's development of battlefield nuclear weapons also runs contrary to U.S.
plans for reducing nuclear proliferation. Diplomatic statements notwithstanding,
the two sides have very different priorities.
Even after feting Pakistan's democratically-elected leader, it is unlikely that
Mr. Obama's problems in Afghanistan or with Pakistan will end anytime soon.
Although he continues to retain popularity at home, according to recent polls,
Mr. Sharif has little control over foreign policy. Pakistan's powerful military,
currently headed by General Raheel Sharif (no relation to the Prime Minister)
persists with its obsessive competition with neighboring India, which in turn
shapes Pakistan's worldview.
Mr. Obama lost the initiative in Afghanistan by relying on Pakistan's ability to
set up negotiations with the Taliban. He has spent the last seven years
alternating between coaxing Pakistan's leaders with economic and military
assistance and delivering tough messages. The pretense of toughness has lacked
credibility. Diplomacy and inducements have failed because they only reinforce
the Pakistani view that the country's geostrategic importance for the United
States outweighs its resentment of negative Pakistani policies.
Pakistan has received $40 billion in US military and economic aid since 1950, of
which $23 billion were given after 9/11 to strengthen the country's resolve in
fighting terrorism. But Pakistan's focus has always been its rivalry with India,
against whom it has initiated (and lost) three wars, using US equipment each
time.
Americans have several reasons to mistrust Pakistan, which also accuses the U.S.
of being a fair weather friend. Pakistan acquired nuclear weapons while
promising the US it won't go nuclear if it gets US assistance. Pakistan's
ongoing support of Jihadi terrorists is part of Pakistan's effort to expand
regional influence in competition with India, especially in Afghanistan and the
disputed Kashmir region.
Over the last 13 years, many US soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan by the
Taliban and the Haqqani network trained, armed and supported by Pakistan. The
recent surge in Taliban activity, manifested most blatantly during the Taliban
occupation of the Afghan city of Kunduz, is attributed by US and Afghan
officials to Pakistani support.
It seems that while officially Pakistan was helping US and Afghan officials in
peace talks with the Taliban, its covert support was preparing the Taliban for
reoccupying Afghanistan after the completion of the US withdrawal.
In 2009, Congress made aid to Pakistan conditional to specific criteria. The
administration was required to certify to Congress that Pakistan was meeting
American terms in fighting terrorism and diminishing the military's role in
politics. But for several years, instead of certifying that Pakistan was doing
what it was expected, the Secretary of State has invoked the right to waive the
conditions on grounds that continuing aid to Pakistan was necessary for US
national security.
The Obama administration spent its first few years trying to convince Pakistan's
civil and military leaders of the virtues of changing their strategic calculus.
In doing so, they praised Pakistan publicly and expressed optimism every time
Pakistan took a positive step, however small.
Over the last two years, much optimism was expressed over Pakistan's decision to
militarily eliminate terrorist safe havens used by terrorists responsible for
attacks inside Pakistan and against China. But now the administration appears to
have woken up, once again, to the realization that Pakistan's decision to act
against terrorists does not extend to all jihadi groups.
During a recent visit to Islamabad, National Security Adviser Susan Rice
reminded Pakistan of its unfulfilled commitments about helping with the Afghan
peace process. She also asked Pakistan to act against the Haqqani network, which
has been involved in several attacks on American targets including one on the
U.S. embassy in Kabul in 2011.
Washington's complaints against Pakistani support for the Haqqani network are
not new. The former Chairman Joint Chiefs, Admiral Mike Mullen, who met with
Pakistan's army chief 26 times in an effort to ensure consistent Pakistani
cooperation described the Haqqani network as a "veritable arm" of Pakistan's
security services at the end of his tenure.
If things have not changed since 2011, one cannot help but question the
administration's intermittent hopefulness about a turnaround in Pakistani
policies.
Pakistan is the sixth largest nation in the world by population but only 26th by
size of GDP on PPP basis and 42nd in nominal GDP. It has the world's sixth
largest nuclear arsenal and eighth largest army but performs poorly in most
non-military indices. It ranks 146 out of 187 countries in the world on the
Human Development Index, which measures health, standard of living, and
education.
The World Economic Forum's Global Competitiveness Report ranks Pakistan's
primary education at 136 out of 144 countries. The country has one of the
world's lowest tax to GDP ratio, with international aid making up for low tax
collection.
The military and intelligence services that dominate Pakistani national security
decision-making have sacrificed their country's progress and prosperity in their
relentless pursuit of military parity with India. Forcing New Delhi's hand on
Kashmir has become more important than educating Pakistan's children.
American readiness to offer aid has bred dependence and hubris. The US has ended
up as an enabler of Pakistan's dysfunction by reinforcing the belief of its
elite that it is too important to fail or be neglected.
The intermittent cycles of optimism and pessimism about Pakistan have led to
confusion in Mr. Obama's Afghan policy. It is time to finally accept Pakistan's
lack of cooperation in Afghanistan as a given while making plans for that
country. The US would help Afghanistan, and even Pakistan's people, more by
insisting consistently that Islamabad correct its course. Instead of telling
Pakistan's elite how important they are, it might be more useful to stop footing
the bill for Pakistan's failings.
(2nd)
" Obama Sets Sights on Pakistan's Nuclear Program After Iran "
= Pakistan's Sharif to meet Obama at the White House on Thursday
= Leaders to discuss nuclear arsenal, terrorism, Afghanistan
By : Natalie Obiko Pearson & Angela Greiling Keane
After reaching a deal to restrict Iran’s nuclear capabilities, President Barack
Obama may seek to curtail Pakistan’s fast-growing arsenal of atomic weapons.
Obama hosts Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif at the White House on Thursday amid
speculation that their nations are in talks to limit the scope of Pakistan’s
nuclear arms program in return for greater access to technology and fuel for
civilian purposes, similar to a U.S. deal with its arch-rival India. Obama also
wants Pakistan’s commitment to curb Islamic militants operating within its
borders and to play a role in brokering an accord with the Taliban in
neighboring Afghanistan.
The discussions highlight complexities in U.S. relations with Pakistan, a
country that has received more than $30 billion in American aid since 2002 even
though Obama didn’t trust its leaders enough to inform them of the mission there
that killed Osama bin Laden. Last week, Obama cited Pakistan in calling for the
elimination of sanctuaries for Afghanistan’s Taliban fighters.
Sharif told U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry on Wednesday that Pakistan’s
anti-terror operations have improved internal security. Talk of a nuclear deal
percolates amid growing concern over the expansion of Pakistan’s nuclear
arsenal, which along with India’s is the world’s fastest-growing.
“The U.S. and Pakistan, now and historically, have been working toward differing
goals,” said Aparna Pande, a South Asia scholar at the Washington-based Hudson
Institute. “America hopes this deal will calm Pakistan down, make it a better
actor in the region. Pakistan sees it as another way to achieve parity with
India and to keep building nuclear weapons.”
Fourth Reactor
Satellite images indicate Pakistan started up its fourth reactor earlier this
year, making it capable of more than doubling the amount of weapons-grade
plutonium it produces, according to the Institute for Science and International
Security.
More fissile material could give Pakistan the world’s third-biggest nuclear
arsenal in five to 10 years -- behind the U.S. and Russia but twice as large as
India’s -- according to an August report by the Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace and the Stimson Center. India currently has an estimated 90
to 110 nuclear warheads, while Pakistan has about 100 to 120, according to the
Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.
The White House and Pakistani officials have played down reports that the U.S.
is nearing a deal with Pakistan to restrict its nuclear weapons and delivery
systems.
“I would significantly reduce your expectations about that occurring on
Thursday,” White House spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters Tuesday when asked
about the prospect that such a deal may be announced as part of this week’s
visit.
Pakistan’s Foreign Ministry was more emphatic, saying “no deal” is being
discussed and pledging “to maintain a full-spectrum deterrence capability in
order to safeguard our national security, maintain strategic stability and deter
any kind of aggression from India.”
The nuclear issue “probably will be discussed, but I don’t think there is any
mood in Pakistan to yield on that,” Shuja Nawaz, a distinguished fellow at the
Atlantic Council’s South Asia Center, said in an interview. “This is a long
process. Pakistan is not in a great hurry to stop developing the delivery
systems it has.”
Fractious Government
Obama is in a tough spot when engaging with Pakistan given its fractious
government and a political spectrum that ranges from friends of the West to
those who want to destroy anything related to the U.S., Representative Brad
Sherman told Bloomberg reporters and editors in Washington on Tuesday. Sherman
of California is the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
“I don’t think there’s one Pakistan. I don’t think there’s one Pakistani
government,” Sherman said. “But is the Pakistani military fighting and dying to
combat terrorists? Yes. Are elements of the Pakistani military funding and
aiding terrorists? Yes.”
India and the U.S. announced a nuclear cooperation deal in 2005 to lift a
three-decade ban so that India could access civilian nuclear technology and
import uranium for fuel. It was approved by the U.S. Congress in 2008.
Pakistan immediately lobbied for a similar deal, but then-U.S. President George
W. Bush ruled it out, saying India and Pakistan couldn’t be compared.
China’s Help
Pakistan’s past will make it tough to convince the skeptics. In the 1980s, it
accepted Chinese assistance to build a bomb while it was pledging to enrich only
enough uranium to produce power. Abdul Qadeer Khan, the father of Pakistan’s
nuclear weapons program, confessed publicly in 2004 to running a network that
sold technology to Iran, Libya and North Korea.
China this year said it has helped Pakistan with six of the seven reactors
either built or under construction. Most members of the Nuclear Suppliers Group
would consider this a violation of rules, making cooperation with Pakistan
“impossible” unless it agrees to new commitments, said Daryl G. Kimball,
executive director of the Washington-based Arms Control Association.
Still, violations of the rules are common. Russia flouted them to ship fuel to
Indian reactors in 2001. India also ran a secret bomb program and, like Israel
and Pakistan, has refused to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
While China has stopped short of publicly backing Pakistan’s aspirations to join
the Nuclear Suppliers Group, it has questioned the exemption awarded to India
that lets it import uranium from countries including Australia and France.
Any deal is unlikely unless Pakistan agrees to safeguard its nuclear facilities
under international rules and give up its tactical nuclear program, said Najam
Rafique, director at the Institute of Strategic Studies in Islamabad. Pakistan’s
leaders mostly want talks to maintain good ties with the U.S. and China, he
said.
“I really don’t think Pakistanis are very keen to have American technology,”
Rafique said. “It’s just political expediency at this point of time.”