iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Obama: Pakistan-U.S. Relations Strained, Balanced Approach Important

By ANNE GEARAN 03/27/12 12:39 PM ET AP

Obama Pakistan Relations
Pakistani Prime Minister Syed Yusuf Raza Gilani, left, poses with U.S. President Barack Obama during their bilateral meeting on the sidelines of the Nuclear Security Summit in Seoul, South Korea, Tuesday, March 27, 2012. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

SEOUL, South Korea — President Barack Obama, closing a nuclear security summit Tuesday, sought a thaw in the diplomatic chill with Pakistan, a critical but difficult U.S. partner whose nuclear weapons and historical links to terrorism make its arsenal among the world's most vulnerable.

"There have been times – I think we should be frank – in the last several months where those relations have experienced strains," Obama told Pakistani Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani.

Their meeting broke a four-month moratorium on direct top level contacts between the United States and Pakistan. Obama and Gilani were among more than 50 leaders who met here to reaffirm controls on nuclear material that might be bought or stolen by terrorists for a bomb. Obama headed back to Washington after the summit ended.

Pakistan is a key U.S. counterterrorism partner and its cooperation is essential for drawing down the American-led war in neighboring Afghanistan. Pakistan's nuclear weapons, developed outside the international standards endorsed by the United States, are a principal reason the U.S. struggles to promote a stable and friendly government there.

Ties with Pakistan deteriorated last year after the military raid that killed al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden, when the United States kept Pakistani officials in the dark about the operation. Relations ruptured further when U.S. forces killed 24 Pakistani forces in November in what the United States says was a case of mistaken identity. Pakistan broke off high-level ties with the U.S. following that incident and launched a debate about new terms of engagement with the U.S., including on the sensitive issue of CIA drone strikes on targets inside Pakistani borders.

Obama said the U.S. and Pakistan are seeking a balanced partnership that respects Pakistan's sovereignty "but also respects our concerns with respect to our national security and our needs to battle terrorists who have targeted us in the past."

Gilani said he was pleased by the reference to sovereignty. He did not address the sidelong reference to the bin Laden raid, which outraged Pakistanis more for its intrusion on Pakistani soil than for the revelation that the 9/11 mastermind was living comfortably outside the country's capital.

The U.S. is eager to resolve the Pakistan standoff and get Afghanistan war supplies moving through Pakistan again, because it has had to spend much more money shipping goods by an alternative route that runs through Central Asia.

The supply line through Pakistan will also be a critical necessity for trucking out equipment as the U.S. seeks to withdraw most of its combat forces from Afghanistan by the end of 2014.

Pakistan would also benefit from patching up relations because it needs U.S. assistance to help keep its struggling economy afloat. The U.S. has given Pakistan billions of dollars in aid since 2001 to enlist its support in fighting Islamist militants, but the relationship has been plagued by mistrust.

Obama's work in South Korea focused on threats posed by North Korea and Iran, and on the ongoing bloody government crackdown in Syria. Obama used the summit to hold separate meetings with leaders of China and Russia and Turkey, players in the Iran and Syria crises. With his South Korean hosts he was especially blunt in confronting North Korea over a planned long-range rocket launch, and vowed that "bad behavior" will not be rewarded with negotiations or aid.

Obama claimed progress in removing nuclear materials and improving security at nuclear facilities around the globe. But he warned "there are still too many bad actors in search of these dangerous materials and these dangerous materials are still vulnerable in too many places."

U.S. intelligence agencies rate the risk of nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism high on the list of global risks – just below threats posed by Iran and al-Qaida.

Pakistan's arsenal has caused concern for intelligence agencies and arms control experts for years. A 2010 Harvard study found that Pakistan's arsenal "faces a greater threat from Islamic extremists seeking nuclear weapons than any other nuclear stockpile on earth."

Alarm rose this year amid political upheaval that threatened the U.S.-backed civilian government.

Abdul Qadeer Khan, the architect of Pakistan's nuclear weapons program, has been accused of running a nuclear black market ring that sold weapons technology to Iran, North Korea and Libya. The ring operated for years before it was disrupted in 2003. Western experts say Pakistan has about 100 nuclear weapons and is in the midst of a rapid expansion of that arsenal.

There is some quiet cooperation between the two nations on securing those weapons. The U.S. has provided Islamabad with millions worth of aid to protect its weapons, including money for intrusion detection systems, advice on designing tiered defenses and training.

But U.S. officials say Islamabad has refused to give the U.S. access to sensitive sites or agree to any formal plan for joint action in an emergency.

Pakistan insists its nuclear arsenal is well-defended, and the widespread fear among many Pakistanis is that the main threat stems not from al-Qaida or the Taliban, but from suspected U.S. plans to seize the country's weapons.

FOLLOW WORLD

SEOUL, South Korea — President Barack Obama, closing a nuclear security summit Tuesday, sought a thaw in the diplomatic chill with Pakistan, a critical but difficult U.S. partner whose nuclear w...
SEOUL, South Korea — President Barack Obama, closing a nuclear security summit Tuesday, sought a thaw in the diplomatic chill with Pakistan, a critical but difficult U.S. partner whose nuclear w...
Filed by Ryan Craggs  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 165
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4  Next ›  Last »  (4 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
NaturalizedTexan
LIBERAL as possible w/out spontaneously combusting
09:52 AM on 03/29/2012
Why don't we back India's effort to take Kashmir? That would keep Pakistan busy, while we invade from the Afghan border - announcing as we do so that WE ONLY WANT TALIBAN & AL QEDA and have NO interest in harming Pakistani citizens?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TedEjr
How can they be Right when they are wrong so much
07:44 AM on 03/29/2012
The body language in the handshake photo says it all.

Honestly, though, from a nationalistic pride standpoint, you really can't fault the Pakistani's too much for their lack of warm feelings towards us.

Put it in perspective, shoe on the other foot, etc.

If Spain was carrying out bombing raids on Basque separatists here, destroying buildings and killing civilians, we would be absolutely livid. And rightly so.

The citizens of all countries feel individual pride in their homeland. Regardless of how tyrannical the government may be. Everyone will say, I am proud to be a "fill in the blank".

Pakistani's are no different.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Spiggy
Playing with the Special Ones since 2009
07:21 AM on 03/29/2012
Pakistan is like the shady neighborhood business owner who wont do business with you until you pay up....and then keeps trying to renegotiate the deal yu already had in place or threatens to pull out.

Pakistan can go "Blank" itself. Close our borders to Pakistani nationals for 10 years and let them get their aid from China from now on. Let's see how they complain about that.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
RobertHenryEller
a micro-bio hp can handle
05:45 AM on 03/29/2012
"Strained." Yeah, that's a word.

"Balanced." Yeah, that's another word.

Diplomatic non-speak. Maybe that's two words.
03:17 AM on 03/29/2012
I'm sure if we gave them a billion or so, relations would improve.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
RobertHenryEller
a micro-bio hp can handle
05:47 AM on 03/29/2012
Musharraf, the last Pakistani leader, retired a billionaire.

How did he do that, on the salary of a military officer and as the president of a poor country?

I just can't figure it out.
12:41 AM on 03/29/2012
"The U.S. has given Pakistan billions of dollars in aid since 2001 to enlist its support in fighting Islamist militants, but the relationship has been plagued by mistrust."

I have no doubt that the Repub Ministry of Propaganda will attempt to say that Obama is hurting our efforts in "The War on Terror ®" by "straining" relations with Pakistan due to his incompetency with our drones.
And of course that nasty business with Bin Laden after the producers of "The War on Terror ®" failed to bring the curtain down after 8 successful seasons of the "Bin Laden, live from Pakistan!!" show, starring Bin Laden, produced by the I.S.I., directed by Pervez Musharraf and co-produced by Bush-Cheney Enterprises with funding by The Organization of Citizens Stupid Enough to Pay Taxes!!!!
07:58 PM on 03/28/2012
why wld we have good relations with that idiotic government who played us while we were under the W regime, I mean they hid OBL!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
05:51 PM on 03/28/2012
I would hope that they are strained! Obama has been attacking our enemies inside their borders for years now! Clear out the terrorists and we can have less strained relations!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
bunty4321r
war veteran
04:11 PM on 03/28/2012
All diplomatic relationship are amenable except relationship with a filthy basically terrorist country and also possessor of nuclear illegal WMDs of unknown number. Some estimate more than 2/3 hundreds and the country that is a regular committal of crime against humanity in Mid-East.

US and Pakistan's normal relationship can be reestablish if Israel's US Foreign Policy maker Junta and advisers refrains from butting in the dialog. no problem is a problem that cannot be solved by dialog. It is this Israel's evil policy to keep on a fighting confrontation with Muslim countries to keep it near to US. As this is the policy of Israel to keep its own prominence and keep Muslim country away from coming closure to American leadership. Hi! Joe Lieberman chairperson AIPAC how did you like the truth being ventilated out to the world.
02:45 AM on 03/29/2012
Israel's fault again is it?....i blame pakistan.
01:38 PM on 03/28/2012
When it comes to the ridiculous claim that Pakistan’s nuclear weapons world's most vulnerable, it would be interesting to ask; Why USA is only focusing Pakistani weapons and not of Israel and India. On top of this any nuclear expert will tell you that weapons of this high sensitive nature are not a basket of bananas, which any country or a group, let alone few ragtag Taliban can come and take it. Pakistani nuclear weapons are guarded by thousands of highly professional and trained commandos day and night. If these were world's most vulnerable, do not you think, that India or USA would have tried to snatch these. As I have mentioned before, Pakistan and for that matter, Iraq, Syria and now Iran have being subjected to demonizing because all these countries are Muslim. Pakistanis are rightly apprehensive of USA. It is not a friend but a wolf dressed as a friendly goat ready to show its teeth, when it is hungry.
But USA knows well, what will happen if it is stupid enough to try any thing so outrageous, as to attack Pakistan because this larger country is not Iraq or Afghanistan.

Thanks.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
05:53 PM on 03/28/2012
yes well agree about India and Israel, but it is the political instability and chance of radical and irrational muslim extremists getting their finger on the button.
07:59 PM on 03/28/2012
uh India is a true ally while Pakistan was helping Osama!
01:37 PM on 03/28/2012
According to a report in McClatchy Newspapers , former U.S. and Pakistani diplomats say that Pakistan's decision to support the war has worsened its own security, dampened exports, reduced foreign investment and tourism and slowed the privatization of its heavily state-controlled industries. All that has led to lower tax revenue, bloated security spending, damage to roads and basic infrastructure and huge costs to care for millions of Pakistanis who have fled the volatile tribal areas and become refugees in their own country.
Then she claims; “The U.S. has given Pakistan billions of dollars in aid since 2001 to enlist its support in fighting Islamist militants.”
In a recent interview with Pakistan's independent Dawn newspaper, Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani said the war has cost Pakistan $68 billion. According to Pakistani government officials, the U.S. financial support — including aid and military payments — has amounted to less than $20 billion since 2001.
Pakistan's already weak roads and communications infrastructure had been damaged by the transportation of NATO supplies through Pakistan and into Afghanistan. He estimated damages to the communication sector alone at $7 billion.
There is a disappointing lack of appreciation of Pakistan's role and sacrifices, both in men and material, in helping the U.S. fight terrorism. Pakistan is being made the fall guy for failures for which others are responsible.
To continue in next comment.
02:16 AM on 03/29/2012
shhhhhhh youre going to blow up their minds with this info, they cant handle it
01:37 PM on 03/28/2012
Huff Post article: Obama: “Pakistan-U.S. Relations Strained, Balanced Approach Important” by ANNE GEARAN 03/27/12 says nothing new but repeats the same anti-Pakistan clichés which are routine in US media. Why it happened is simple. Most US journalists are too ignorant and lazy to make proper research, have never been to Pakistan and have inbuilt prejudices.
ANNE GEARAN starts the article by saying;
“A critical but difficult U.S. partner whose nuclear weapons and historical links to terrorism make its arsenal among the world's most vulnerable”.
If she had made some useful research or read some unbiased analysis by real journalists, she would realize that CIA established Taliban movement with Saudi money to fight the Soviets. Pakistani dictator Zia made a stupid historical mistake by giving bases in the country to help US. I would suggest Anne reads the new book : An Enemy We Created: The Myth of the Taliban / Al-Qaeda Merger in Afghanistan, 1970-2010 by Alex Strick Van Linschoten and Felix Kuehn. She will learn a lot for her next article. Pakistan never had any terrorism inside the country or any historical links to terrorism. There was no terrorism before USA started attacking Afghan people. Since 2001, there have been some 335 suicide attacks in Pakistan as compared to only one previously, according to the Pakistan Institute of Peace Studies, an independent think tank in Islamabad.

To continue in next the comment.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
01:22 PM on 03/28/2012
If Pakistan didn't have nukes we wouldn't even bother talking to them.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
01:12 PM on 03/28/2012
Obama is as gullible and naive as Pakistan is corrupt. We should run every Pakistani out of this country and send them back to their homeland.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
05:54 PM on 03/28/2012
we would have an immediate health care crisis and shortage of doctors!
08:01 PM on 03/28/2012
the worst comment ever
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
02:15 PM on 03/29/2012
glad you liked it, homes
jhNY
Mercy.
12:36 PM on 03/28/2012
I'd like to say something about belaboring the obvious, but it's too obvious.