From my position a few blocks from the State Department and the White House, and across the river from the Pentagon, you begin to see signs that the policy change is underway in the STATE position vis-à- Vis his unreliable ally, Pakistan.

Trump administration seems to be willing to take a much tougher line against the seer nation.

The appointment of Lisa Curtis as Senior Director of South Asia and Central Asia in the National Security Council predicts a more punitive approach to Pakistan than the Obama administration, which has given more military and economic aid to Pakistan than any previous administration with the Order to bribe the A country in the fight against terrorists who hide in the sight of their borders.

Instead, Curtis recommends that any future aid to Pakistan be calibrated against Pakistan’s extreme for its support of the Afghan Taliban and the Haqqani network.

Ambassador Haqqani reiterated these recommendations in a July 6 editorial, the New York Times. In other words, more sticks and less carrots.

Now that Curtis is in charge of US policy towards South Asia and apparently has the ear of the national security adviser and the national president of Trump, who is able to initiate and implement these recommendations.

These policy changes are behind schedule. As I put tremendously in my recently published book, Neighbors in Arms: The US Senator’s attempt for disarmament on a nuclear subcontinent, Pakistan should be treated as North Korea – as a thug state.

The only reason why Pakistan is not a totally failed state is that countries like China and the United States. Continue to support it with massive amounts of foreign aid. Unless Pakistan changes its style with respect to terrorism, it must be declared a terrorist state.

In fact, the first Bush administration seriously considered doing so in 1992.
The leaders of Pakistan have essentially corrected us by supporting the war on terrorism with the threats they have to stop to help eradicate the terrorists in Afghanistan.

Meanwhile, we know full well that Pakistan is home to terrorists and many military officials believe that terrorists have infiltrated the ranks of Pakistan. We let Pakistan use US taxpayer money to build its nuclear weapons program.

Why do we allow to use the money of the American taxpayers to the refugio terrorists? Without our money and military supplies, Pakistan would be powerless. Why do we continue to call Pakistan an ally? Why are we still blackmailing?

Amendment Pressler is unjustly blamed for political instability in Pakistan during its period of implementation. Just meaningless: there was a lot of instability in Pakistan before the Pressler amendment.

Critics say that during this period, Iran and Saudi Arabia have begun feeding sectarianism in Pakistan. The truth is that the Pressler amendment slowed down Pakistan’s nuclear ambitions and I think the public’s attention has forced Pakistan to be much more careful and transparent.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *