Pakistani Parliament's Resolution On NATO Supply

[Poet]

Source

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — In a rare show of unity, the government and opposition joined on Thursday to present the United States with a list of stringent demands, including an immediate end to C.I.A. drone strikes, that were cast in uncompromising words but could pave the way for a reopening of NATO supply lines through the country.

After two and a half weeks of contentious negotiations, the main parties agreed on a four-page parliamentary resolution that, in addition to the drone demand, called on the Obama administration to apologize for American airstrikes in November that killed 24 Pakistani soldiers. It declared that “no overt or covert operations inside Pakistan shall be permitted” — a broad reference that could be interpreted to include all C.I.A. operations.

But on the issue of NATO supply lines, the resolution specified only that arms and ammunition cannot be transported through Pakistan, opening the door to the resumed delivery of critical Afghan war supplies like food and fuel for the first time since the November airstrikes. And in practice, arms and ammunition were rarely, if ever, transported in convoys through Pakistan.

“Today’s resolution will enrich your respect and dignity; I assure you that we will get these enforced in letter and spirit,” Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani told Parliament, although he stopped short of declaring when the supply route would reopen.

“We are a responsible nation,” he said. “We know our obligations as well as the importance of the United States.”

A spokeswoman for the State Department, Victoria Nuland, praised the “seriousness” of the Parliament’s debate and added: “We seek a relationship with Pakistan that is enduring, strategic and more clearly defined. We look forward to discussing these policy recommendations.”

Analysts said the resolution, which is essentially nonbinding but establishes a framework for private talks between senior American and Pakistani officials in the coming weeks, signals a new, more pragmatic chapter in relations between the two countries.

“This makes it easier for the government to negotiate with the U.S.,” said Hasan Askari Rizvi, a defense expert based in Lahore. “That is why the government agreed to the opposition demand on drones.”

Still, the demand for an “immediate cessation of drone strikes” has no easy solution. In 2008 Parliament also demanded an end to drone strikes, only for the C.I.A. to continue attacking Taliban and Al Qaeda targets in the tribal belt along the Afghan border.

The Obama administration considers the operations vital to disrupting terrorist and insurgent networks as well as protecting American troops at war in Afghanistan. For Pakistani politicians, however, drones have become a red-line domestic political issue because of public outrage.

The opposition, led by Nawaz Sharif’s Pakistan Muslim League-N party, agreed to back Thursday’s resolution in Parliament only if it contained unequivocal language about drones. The government agreed to the language because it needs broad cross-party support to negotiate a reopening of NATO supply lines — a measure that is privately considered necessary by the political and military leadership, but which enjoys little support among the general public.

“Now two things can happen,” Mr. Askari Rizvi said. “If the drone strikes continue, it will embarrass the government. The other option is for the U.S. and Pakistan to evolve a new framework for the use of drone aircraft.”

Among other measures, the resolution calls for the cessation of unauthorized American military ingress onto Pakistani soil, even for “hot pursuit.”

It states that “no private security contractors or intelligence operatives shall be allowed” — a clear reference to longstanding popular fears that private security contractors are infiltrating the country on behalf of the C.I.A.

The resolution stressed that no verbal agreement regarding national security should be entered into by the government and all such earlier agreements “shall cease to have effect forthwith” — seemingly a reference to the way military deals have been made with the United States in the past. It repeated Pakistan’s desire to obtain a civil nuclear deal from the United States, like the one awarded to India in 2005.

Other clauses dealt with broader foreign policy issues and urged the government to deepen its strategic partnership with China as well as strengthening relations with Russia and the European Union.

It urged Pakistan to actively pursue a gas pipeline project with Iran, despite opposition by the United States.

Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan, the leader of the opposition in the National Assembly, said that all political parties wanted to have good relations with the United States but that “it cannot be an imbalanced relationship.”

“You cannot have a relationship which is tilted toward one country,” he said.

Totally useless resolution by parliament, Pakistani parliament is a rubber stamp. Army and political governments have been using this parliament as they saw fit. They have passed quite a few useless resolutions on drone strike issues and nato supply issues but none of those were ever respected by army, civilian Govt. or their American masters. More or less parliament is only used to put some pressure on Americans, once they get what they want, resolutions are useless bundle of papers. Americans are much clever than them and know that Pakistani parliament holds not superiority over army or civilian Govt. so they are just playing the diplomacy game, they know where real decisions come from and they would soon talk with civilian and army heads.

More or less, we faced much loss than America after this cessation of NATO supply, while America was supposed to be one in loss. Why? Because supply was never stopped, to pour some water on hate flames in Pakistan due to illegal nato invasion and killing of 24 soldiers, our rulers (military and civil) planned this drama, so we faced price hike in this period. Likewise, no one is going to check in future what merchandise is being transported in containers, so "food and accessories" would be weapons and ammunition. There is another report that Americans already stored enough weapons and ammo in early years, they only need oil and food now. Whatsoever, at the end of this war theater here in South-Asia, we would have to act like Cambodia or to dare and shoot whatsoever comes in our air space or sets foot on our land which would annoy the United States of Arrogance, question is what price politicians, army and more than them people can pay for real "freedom"? Discuss.

[s.rwitt]

Poet, why the **** would we transport weapons or ammo by ground convoy? And what kind of weapons would we need to be bringing in? How many rifles do you think we go through?

I love the idea that you think Pakistan should be doing whatever it can to hurt our fight against the Taliban considering the hellacious problems Pakistan is going to have with the Taliban after we leave. Personally, I can't wait. Pakistan deserves it.

[Poet]

Poet, why the **** would we transport weapons or ammo by ground convoy? And what kind of weapons would we need to be bringing in? How many rifles do you think we go through?

I love the idea that you think Pakistan should be doing whatever it can to hurt our fight against the Taliban considering the hellacious problems Pakistan is going to have with the Taliban after we leave. Personally, I can't wait. Pakistan deserves it.

I don't know, but I don't think that you've stored everything from a bullet to WMDs in Afghanistan, looks like Parliament is also aware of the fact that ammo was being transported in NATO supply. I could be less informed but parliament is not.

No Pakistan do not want to hurt your fight against anyone. If you are not forgetting NATO supply was not stopped in our love with Taliban but because NATO helicopters invaded our airspace and killed 24 soldiers and that took about 2 hours time and during that our coward army heads engaged you again and again to stop shelling and you were informed at right time that those were our soldiers no Taliban but you didn't stop. Don't play innocent please.

As far as Taliban problem is concerned, your country's main problem is arrogance. Last time you sowed seeds of militancy and anarchy in Afghanistan and you left without cleaning up your mess, this time if you repeat your mistake, something bigger than 9/11 would happen. I would also blame our military and civil elite for that but they play for you. Best for both Pakistan and US is to plan a safe exit strategy and a safe transfer of "real power" to Afghans, but suddenly you remember that central asian resources are still untapped and you are in occupation of a region which is linked with South-Asia, China, Iran and Central Asia + Russia and then you wish to make permanent bases there which Loya Jirga has not yet allowed. This agenda is dangerous for all neighboring nations whether they are weak like us and Iran or powerful like China and Russia and this agenda is not welcomed by any common Afghan let alone Taliban, so again don't play innocent, have some sense what is happening, save your butt, leave the region and stop listening to war mongers and stop listening to whore of Babylon, if not for us for poor of America and Europe.

[s.rwitt]

I don't know, but I don't think that you've stored everything from a bullet to WMDs in Afghanistan, looks like Parliament is also aware of the fact that ammo was being transported in NATO supply. I could be less informed but parliament is not.

We do have various forms of aircraft, you know?

No Pakistan do not want to hurt your fight against anyone. If you are not forgetting NATO supply was not stopped in our love with Taliban but because NATO helicopters invaded our airspace and killed 24 soldiers and that took about 2 hours time and during that our coward army heads engaged you again and again to stop shelling and you were informed at right time that those were our soldiers no Taliban but you didn't stop. Don't play innocent please.

Well, when you harbor the enemy after they engage your supposed ally it's not too strange that you'll get mistaken for said enemy. Also, after protecting Bin Laden for so many years, the word of the Pakistani military doesn't exactly carry a lot of weight.

As far as Taliban problem is concerned, your country's main problem is arrogance. Last time you sowed seeds of militancy and anarchy in Afghanistan and you left without cleaning up your mess, this time if you repeat your mistake, something bigger than 9/11 would happen. I would also blame our military and civil elite for that but they play for you. Best for both Pakistan and US is to plan a safe exit strategy and a safe transfer of "real power" to Afghans, but suddenly you remember that central asian resources are still untapped and you are in occupation of a region which is linked with South-Asia, China, Iran and Central Asia + Russia and then you wish to make permanent bases there which Loya Jirga has not yet allowed. This agenda is dangerous for all neighboring nations whether they are weak like us and Iran or powerful like China and Russia and this agenda is not welcomed by any common Afghan let alone Taliban, so again don't play innocent, have some sense what is happening, save your butt, leave the region and stop listening to war mongers and stop listening to whore of Babylon, if not for us for poor of America and Europe.

First, you're thinking of the Russians.

Second, Afghans already hold "real power" in Afghanistan.

Third, to suggest that the US has any plans of staying in Afghanistan for geographic positioning or resources is absolutely absurd considering not only the ongoing troop drawdown in Afghanistan, but also the reduction of our military as a whole.

[Poet]

We do have various forms of aircraft, you know?



1: Well, when you harbor the enemy after they engage your supposed ally it's not too strange that you'll get mistaken for said enemy. Also, after protecting Bin Laden for so many years, the word of the Pakistani military doesn't exactly carry a lot of weight.


First, you're thinking of the Russians.

2: Second, Afghans already hold "real power" in Afghanistan.

3: Third, to suggest that the US has any plans of staying in Afghanistan for geographic positioning or resources is absolutely absurd considering not only the ongoing troop drawdown in Afghanistan, but also the reduction of our military as a whole.

1: Salala post was app. 3 km in Pakistani border, what the hell your copters were doing in sovereign air space of a country? Secondly, that area specifically was hot due to pak forces' recent action against Taliban, how could we help Taliban in same area? In fact you killed soldiers who were taking rest from a long operation against taliban. Thirdly, America is only a powerful liar so her lie is respected as truth, otherwise Osama hiding was less than what you did with WMDs lie in Iraq, you are much in trust deficit than us.

2: That's a huge lie. You disrespect Qur'an, your soldiers kill innocent civilians on purpose and your planes drop tonnes of ammo on civilians and what this "powerful" Afghan Govt. does? Protest?

3: I don't know but you sound like a soldier having firm faith in whatever words his Govt. utters. Americans have clearly said that they would not "fully vacate" Afghanistan after 2014. Their exit plan is getting postponed only because they are still fail to get permission from Loya Jirga to make gigantic bases in Afghanistan.

[Tiberios]

I find it extremely funny that Pakistan is making demands to the US considering how poor and unrealiable an ally they have proven several times.

2: That's a huge lie. You disrespect Qur'an, your soldiers kill innocent civilians on purpose and your planes drop tonnes of ammo on civilians and what this "powerful" Afghan Govt. does? Protest?

Kill civilians on purpose? I take it you have some sources to back this up? There have been incidents of some US troops doing so, but these have also been put on trial for their crimes as they should be. The US army doesn't kill civilians on purpose as part of their strategy in Afghanistan. As for the "dropping tonnes of ammo on civilians" statement, I take it you have some good sources for that as well. As s.writt said, there will always be accidents in a war zone. That is sad, but it's unfortunately how things are. Civilian casualties would also be minimized if the Taliban stopped using Afghan civilians as human shields. I don't hear you criticize that tactic. But I guess causing civilian casualties is okay when you are fighting Americans and NATO.

As for the Taliban tactic of human shields:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010...-human-shields

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_465119.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30657714...human-shields/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8519507.stm

http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...894370,00.html

[motiv-8]

2: That's a huge lie. You disrespect Qur'an, your soldiers kill innocent civilians on purpose and your planes drop tonnes of ammo on civilians and what this "powerful" Afghan Govt. does? Protest?

Who is "you" ?

That's complete and utter nonsense. I agree that the USA doesn't deliberately target civilians, but it doesn't actively seek to minimize them either.

You're 100% wrong. Or I guess the US has recently switched strategies to carpet-bombing Helmand and Sangin. Sure you're not confusing this conflict with a similar one in the 80s?

[s.rwitt]

1: Salala post was app. 3 km in Pakistani border, what the hell your copters were doing in sovereign air space of a country? Secondly, that area specifically was hot due to pak forces' recent action against Taliban, how could we help Taliban in same area? In fact you killed soldiers who were taking rest from a long operation against taliban. Thirdly, America is only a powerful liar so her lie is respected as truth, otherwise Osama hiding was less than what you did with WMDs lie in Iraq, you are much in trust deficit than us.

Erm...what I was saying was that we use aircraft to haul in ammunition and weapons...

2: That's a huge lie. You disrespect Qur'an, your soldiers kill innocent civilians on purpose and your planes drop tonnes of ammo on civilians and what this "powerful" Afghan Govt. does? Protest?

Ok, Poet. Please inform me of the way things work in Afghanistan.

We don't disrespect the Quran. In fact while I was guarding prisoners that was the only book they were allowed to have and I wasn't allowed to even touch it.

Our soldiers don't target civilians, apart from the two cases in ten years where a guy snapped and a squad went rogue. Both are being punished for their crimes.

Our planes drop bombs on Taliban positions. Of course there are accidents. They are rare. When the Taliban decide to turn a family's home into a position, refuse to let the family leave, and we have no way of knowing how many people are inside, it's the Taliban's fault, not ours. What would you, as a squad leader, do if your squad was under fire from a fortified position?

The Afghan government gives us rules to operate under. They are the ones who told my squad that we couldn't search Afghans but instead had to observe the ANA do it. They told us that we couldn't search an Afghans' house, but the ANA would instead.

3: I don't know but you sound like a soldier having firm faith in whatever words his Govt. utters. Americans have clearly said that they would not "fully vacate" Afghanistan after 2014. Their exit plan is getting postponed only because they are still fail to get permission from Loya Jirga to make gigantic bases in Afghanistan.

Yeah, because I'm such a fan of Obama

The ongoing troop drawdown is something that I physically saw happening Poet. So is the reduction of our military as a whole. It takes over a year just to go to boot camp for someone trying to join the military. None of this has anything to do with what my government says.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

Our planes drop bombs on Taliban positions. Of course there are accidents. They are rare. When the Taliban decide to turn a family's home into a position, refuse to let the family leave, and we have no way of knowing how many people are inside, it's the Taliban's fault, not ours. What would you, as a squad leader, do if your squad was under fire from a fortified position?

I find it strange that when the same thing happened in Northern Ireland, the building would never be bombed. The IRA was very fond of suddenly sniping British soldiers from buildings. The infantry could return fire and try to storm the building without air support, and if they took casualties, well, too bad. It's better than using explosive weapons buildings full of British citizens on UK soil. And it wasn't like the paramilitaries wouldn't let civilians leave. It was usually that nobody in the building knew paramilitaries were present until they heard shots in an apartment above them, or in the terraced house connected to theirs, or whatever.

Granted it wasn't nearly as intense a conflict as Afghanistan. But far more precautions were taken to prevent civilian casualties. The British government consciously decided its civilians' lives were more valauble than its soldiers' lives. Why aren't Afghans as valuable? I know you feel the ISAF does make reducing civilian casualties a priority, but the ISAF would cause any amount of collateral damage necessary to save one of its soldiers. Why couldn't this squad leader acknowledge that everyone around him signed up voluntarily, knowing the risks, and chance is they would take no casualties anyway, while the poor civilians in the building were here against their will and had no chance whatsoever of surviving an aerial bomb?

[Poet]

Sure, no problem guys as this information is easily available.

It's headquarters are in Muridke.

http://www.cfr.org/pakistan/lashkar-...--taiba/p17882

Also, the leader of LeT has just recently had a very large bounty placed on his head due to new evidence linking his financial involvement to the training camps of the militant wing of the organization. He is currently holed up in Pakistan.

Also, according to this extensive report on the challenges Pakistan faces, the ISI is still openly funding the LeT.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/70694522/P...rsus-Stability

Bounty places on head of Hafiz Saeed is American pressure tactic and nothing else. US officials themselves accepted that they do not have any reliable evidence against him.

That's so ing wrong, it's retarded. It's almost common knowledge that Lashkar-e-Taiba is the semi-official arm of the ISI, they acknowledge that they're being armed by the Pakistan, FFS. Jamat ud Dawa is universally recognized as political arm of Lashkar-e-Taiba.

1: This brings up another point. Why is it that when Lashkar-e-Taiba fights oppression in Indian occupied Kashmir, it's a good thing, but when Balochis fight against much worse oppression by Pakistan, it's a great evil?



2: They are. The American government has done more to combat the TTP then Pakistan ever has. Despite Pakistan's cheat-beating in regards to it's military, can it even beat the TTP?

1: I found that you were very well informed on region's situation whenever you talked but this post proves me wrong, just do a little bit google to know how much Kashmiris have been killed till this date and how much Baluchs have been killed. Rape is one state tactic to humiliate Kashmiris which is never used by Pakistan in Baluchistan. Baluch majority never uttered freedom before the dark decade of Musharraf. This doesn't mean that I being a Pakistani support what our agencies are doing in Baluchistan, yes this is hypocritical politics which makes one type of oppressors better then others. Just like Bush killed app. 600000 people but still Osama was the biggest terrorist.

2: TTP is not Afghan taliban, in case if you do not know. And Americans never did any operation against TTP in Afghan provinces. Pakistan did a lot to fight TTP in Swat and Waziristan and we eliminated them from most of areas, our success cannot be compared with gigantic American failure in eliminating Afghan Taliban.

Jamat Ud Dawa is a part of Lashkar-e-Taiba, they're not mutually exclusive

Yes they are a part but Jamat has been only involved in society welfare activities. In 2005 earthquake, even western governments praised their undaunted determination to serve humanity. Places where Pak army didn't set foot, Jamat's voluntaries go there with humanitarian aid. LeT is the mujahid wing doing operations in Kashmir and those are justified except what they did in Mumbai. Why doesn't your state fulfill what promise Nehru did with Kashmiris, Pakistan and UN? Lets have a plebiscite and move on.

I find it strange that when the same thing happened in Northern Ireland, the building would never be bombed. The IRA was very fond of suddenly sniping British soldiers from buildings. The infantry could return fire and try to storm the building without air support, and if they took casualties, well, too bad. It's better than using explosive weapons buildings full of British citizens on UK soil. And it wasn't like the paramilitaries wouldn't let civilians leave. It was usually that nobody in the building knew paramilitaries were present until they heard shots in an apartment above them, or in the terraced house connected to theirs, or whatever.

Granted it wasn't nearly as intense a conflict as Afghanistan. But far more precautions were taken to prevent civilian casualties. The British government consciously decided its civilians' lives were more valauble than its soldiers' lives. Why aren't Afghans as valuable? I know you feel the ISAF does make reducing civilian casualties a priority, but the ISAF would cause any amount of collateral damage necessary to save one of its soldiers. Why couldn't this squad leader acknowledge that everyone around him signed up voluntarily, knowing the risks, and chance is they would take no casualties anyway, while the poor civilians in the building were here against their will and had no chance whatsoever of surviving an aerial bomb?

Muslims, third world country people, not accepting great agenda of Western powers etc. are the reasons. But it is true, the care which British troops practiced in their fight against IRA, we do not even see the 1/10th of that in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

[Admiral Piett]

Bounty places on head of Hafiz Saeed is American pressure tactic and nothing else. US officials themselves accepted that they do not have any reliable evidence against him.

You were wrong about the LeT in Pakistan.

[Babur]

Yes they are a part but Jamat has been only involved in society welfare activities.In 2005 earthquake, even western governments praised their undaunted determination to serve humanity. Places where Pak army didn't set foot, Jamat's voluntaries go there with humanitarian aid. LeT is the mujahid wing doing operations in Kashmir and those are justified except what they did in Mumbai. Why doesn't your state fulfill what promise Nehru did with Kashmiris, Pakistan and UN? Lets have a plebiscite and move on.

LeT is still a militant group like the Taliban is however.I am not sure what Kashmir got to do with this, perhaps it is time to accept the status-quo?

[Mangalore]

I find it strange that when the same thing happened in Northern Ireland, the building would never be bombed. The IRA was very fond of suddenly sniping British soldiers from buildings. The infantry could return fire and try to storm the building without air support, and if they took casualties, well, too bad. It's better than using explosive weapons buildings full of British citizens on UK soil. And it wasn't like the paramilitaries wouldn't let civilians leave. It was usually that nobody in the building knew paramilitaries were present until they heard shots in an apartment above them, or in the terraced house connected to theirs, or whatever.

Granted it wasn't nearly as intense a conflict as Afghanistan. But far more precautions were taken to prevent civilian casualties. The British government consciously decided its civilians' lives were more valauble than its soldiers' lives. Why aren't Afghans as valuable? I know you feel the ISAF does make reducing civilian casualties a priority, but the ISAF would cause any amount of collateral damage necessary to save one of its soldiers. Why couldn't this squad leader acknowledge that everyone around him signed up voluntarily, knowing the risks, and chance is they would take no casualties anyway, while the poor civilians in the building were here against their will and had no chance whatsoever of surviving an aerial bomb?

The difference is really what prerogatives we follow to pursue war. Civilian causalities were more detriment to UK's effort to pacify Northern Ireland at the time while in Afghanistan dead soldiers are more detriment to our war effort at the home front. Obvious problem is that what our home front wants or does not want might be incompatible what Afghanistan needs or wants.

Yea that made me laugh too. At the end of the day NATO will get its supplies into Afghanistan. Pakistan won't be able to stop drone strikes, but they can argue as much as they want, causes no harm for the US.

As any of you guys checked the maps? NATO did bring alot of equipment by ship. At the very least any other approach is far more expensive and time consuming because cargo aircraft << cargo ship.

Or we could ask Iran if we can use their ports. I'd think they would be happy to oblige us. It's not like we seriously at odds with them.

[Kitsunegari]

Granted it wasn't nearly as intense a conflict as Afghanistan.

Major understatement, only Deadliest Warrior is dumb compare the two

[Burnum]

It's more like that the Pakistani military told the Civilian government what to do, and currently the Civilian government licks the boots of the Pakistani military. Pakistan should be focusing on it's economy and expelling the Pakistani Taliban, not pissing of the USA or obsessing

Our planes drop bombs on Taliban positions. Of course there are accidents. They are rare. When the Taliban decide to turn a family's home into a position, refuse to let the family leave, and we have no way of knowing how many people are inside, it's the Taliban's fault, not ours. What would you, as a squad leader, do if your squad was under fire from a fortified position?

That's complete and utter nonsense. I agree that the USA doesn't deliberately target civilians, but it doesn't actively seek to minimize them either.

[kentuckybandit]

I agree that the USA doesn't deliberately target civilians, but it doesn't actively seek to minimize them either.

I am not taking offense at your statement, but I must say that US forces take many steps to minimize civilian casualties.

[s.rwitt]

It's more like that the Pakistani military told the Civilian government what to do, and currently the Civilian government licks the boots of the Pakistani military. Pakistan should be focusing on it's economy and expelling the Pakistani Taliban, not pissing of the USA or obsessing




That's complete and utter nonsense. I agree that the USA doesn't deliberately target civilians, but it doesn't actively seek to minimize them either.

Really? That's interesting. And how did you arrive at this conclusion?

The share the road policy alone puts our lives at risk in order to protect civilians from collateral damage. I can list far more examples, but we'll start with this one.

[Burnum]

Really? That's interesting. And how did you arrive at this conclusion?

The US government knew that Drone attacks and Night raids were biggest source of Civilian causalities by ISAF in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and disregarded that fact it when they ramped up both programs (Link). In Ahmed Rashid's new book, Pakistan on the Brink, the US admitted to using drones to attack groups of people in North Waziristan, they only suspected of being involved with the militants.

[Dr Zoidberg]

That's complete and utter nonsense. I agree that the USA doesn't deliberately target civilians, but it doesn't actively seek to minimize them either.

And you would know this due to your extensive knowledge and history of what exactly? As compared to s.rwitt who, you know, actually serves and has been to Afghanistan...

[frozenprince]

Bla Bla Bla 'Merica is evil Bla Bla Bla.