A Comparative Study of Editorial Treatment of the Washington Post & the New York Times (Duration 2008-2012)

Portrayal of Pak-US Relations Issues in Elite American Press: A comparative study of Editorial Treatment of The Washington Post & The New York Times (Duration 2008-2012)

Researcher Supervisor Shehla Jabeen Dr. Abdul Wajid Khan Roll No-08, Assistant Professor Ph.D. Scholar (Media Studies) Department of Media Studies

In partial fulfillment of the requirement of the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Media Studies (Session 2012-2015)

Department of Media Studies The Islamia University of Bahawalpur

Declaration of Student

I, Shehla Jabeen, hereby declare that this Dissertation has been written by me in it’s entirely on the basis of my research work under the sincere guidance of my supervisor Dr. Abdul

Wajid, Department of Media Studies, The Islamia University of Bahawalpur. No portion of this dissertation has been copied from any source. No portion of the research, presented in this Dissertation, has been submitted fore for any degree or qualification in this or any other University or educational institution.

Shehla Jabeen Ph.D. Scholar

iii

Supervisor’s Certificate

It is hereby certified that the thesis entitled, “Portrayal of Pak-US Relations Issues in

Elite American Press: A Comparative Study of Editorial Treatment of The

Washington Post & The New York Times (Duration 2008-2012)” is based on original work carried out by Shehla Jabeen and that has not been previously presented for the higher degree. Shehla Jabeen has done his work under my supervision. She has fulfilled all the requirements and qualified to submit the accompanying thesis according to the prescribed format for the degree of Doctor in Philosophy (Ph.D) in Media Studies.

Dr. Abdul Wajid Khan Supervisor

Department of Media Studies, The Islamia University of Bahawalpur (Approval Certificate)

It is certified that the Ph.D Thesis of Shehla Jabeen entitled, “Portrayal of Pak-US

Relations Issues in Elite American Press: A Comparative Study of Editorial

Treatment of The Washington Post & The New York Times (Duration 2008-

2012)”has been approved by the examining committee for the requirement of Ph.D in

Media Studies.

Supervisor …………………………………………………………….

External Examiner …………………………………………………………….

Chairman …………………………………………………………….

Date …………………………………………………………….

Dedicated to

My benign mother who’s constant

Support and caring changed this

World into a rare Eden

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Praise and thanks to Allah Almighty first, who gave me courage to complete my work. All respect of His Holy Prophet (PBUH) who enabled us to recognize our creature.

I want to expose my heartful thanks to my advisor Dr. Abdul Wajid Khan, for accepting my request to become my supervisor. Thank you Sir for supervising my Doctoral Research. I am extremely fortunate to have your guidance and mentorship through the doctoral programme. His valuable pieces of advice and encouraging behavior enabled to complete my research work. Dr. Abdul Wajid

Khan is a perfect teacher cum-friend.

I am highly grateful to Chairman Dr. Sajjad Ahmad Paracha for his cooperative and encouraging attitude. Frankly speaking, Prof. Paracha looks hard in first glance but I found him quite humble, God fearing and students loving teacher.

He never leaves the students with half understanding of concepts of theories and research methods.

I am very much indebted to Chairman Dr. Zahid Yousaf, University of

Gujrat, and PhD Scholar Ahtsham-ul-Haq for their support to complete this project.

vii

I am highly thankful to PhD Scholar and visiting faculty member of Islamia

University Bahawalpur in Media Studies Department Ghulam Safdar helped me to complete my research work.

I owe thanks to Arfan Mahmood for extending sincere efforts and advices in building my future.I also acknowledge to my colleagues and friends Dr. Rehana

Ashraf, Mona khurshid, Semia Khurshid, Farah Anjum, Ayesha Rafiq, Maryam

Fatima and my Aunty Nusrat and Uncle Khurshid Nemat Ali who’s morally support me during this research project.

I wish to express my deep sense of gratitude to my dear Uncle Brig(R)

Professor Dr. Abdus Sattar Head of the Pathology Department CMH College

Lahore who supports and encourage me at every step of my life.

This acknowledgement would be incomplete unless and until I offer my humble veneration to my affectionate mother who always pray for me. Also thanks to my younger sister Shumaila and Brother Arslan for their affection.

Last but not least, I again thank to all whom I have mentioned and whom I have not mentioned for helping me in completing this work.

Shehla Jabeen

viii

Table of Contents

Sr. Contents Page No No.

1 Abstract 1

Chapter 1: Introduction

1.1 Introduction 3

1.2 Significance of Study 7

1.3 Significance of Time Period 8

1.4 US Policy towards Pakistan 9

1.5 Pakistan Foreign Policy 11

1.5.1 Pakistan Policy towards USA 13

1.6 Rationale of Selected American Newspapers 14

1.6.1 The Washington Post 14

1.6.2 The Policy of The Washington Post 15

1.6.3 The New York Times 15

1.6.4 Policy of The New York Times 16

1.7 Editorials of Newspapers 16

1.8 Importance of Editorials 17

1.9 Objectives of Study 17

Chapter No 2: Historical Backgrounds

2.1 Historical Backgrounds 21

22 2.2 Pak-US Relations During Ayyub Era (1952-1969)

2.3 General Yahya Era (1969-1972) 25

26 2.4 Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto and U.S (1972-1977) 28 2.5 Pakistan Relations with U.S in Zia period (1979-1988) 29 2.6 Pak-U.S Relations in Democratic Government (1988-1998) 31 2.7 Era of General Musharraf and Relations with U.S. (1999-2008) 32 2.8 Post 9/11 and Pak-U.S 40 2.9 Benazir Bhutto Assassination 2.10 End of Musharraf’s Tenure “Critical Period” for Pakistan 45

2.11 Musharraf’s Resign and U.S urges stability 46

2.12 Major incidents during 2008 47

2.13 Major Incidents in 2009 48

2.14 Major Events in 2010 51

2.15 Major Incidents in 2011 54

2.16 Major incidents in 2012 55 Chapter 3: Literature Review

3.1 Literature Review 58

Chapter 4: Theoretical Framework

4.1 Theoretical Framework 78

4.2 Framing Theory 78 Chapter No 5: Research Methodology

82 5.1 Research Methodology 82 5.2 Hypothesis

5.3 Research Questions 82

5.4 Unit of Analysis 83

5.5 Issues to be Studied in Research 83

5.6 Study Period 84

5.7 Census of Study 84

5.8 Data Measurement 84

5.8.1 Quantitative Measurement 85

5.8.2 Qualitative Measurement 85

5.9 Coding Sheet 85

5.9.1 Positive 85 5.9.2 Negative 85

5.9.3 Neutral 85

5.10 Criteria of coding slant 86

5.11 Inter Coder Reliability 86

5.12 Data Analysis 87

Chapter No 6: Data Interpretation

6.1 Data Interpretations 89

Chapter No 7: Discussions

Research Question 1: How much coverage is given in both 149 newspapers about under studied issues in their editorials?

Research Question 2: What is the manner of treatment of both 150 American newspapers regarding the issue of war on terror?

Research Question 3: What kind of treatment given by both 151 American newspapers on the issue Drone Attacks in Pakistani territory?

Research Question 4: What image of Pakistan portrayed by both 153 American newspapers regarding the issue of Osama Bin Ladin Assassination in Pakistan by US?

Research Question 5: What kind of treatment given by both 154 American newspapers on the issue of NATO Supply through Pakistani territory?

Research Question 6: What is the stance of both American 155 newspapers towards Pakistan on the issue of Afghanistan as an important factor of Pak-US relations?

Research Question 7: What is the behaviour of both American 157 newspapers regarding US aid to Pakistan?

Research Question 8: What image of Pakistan portrayed by both 158 American newspapers regarding Intelligence sharing?

Hypothesis 1: It is more likely that Washington Post gave more 159 treatment to Pak-US relations as compare to New York Times.

It is more likely that both American newspapers gave opinion 160 against the stance of Pakistan government on under studies issues of Pak-US relations.

Hypothesis 3: It is more likely that American press portrayed 160 negative image of Pakistan as ally with US.

Chapter No 8: Conclusion

8.1Conclusion 162

166 8.2Suggestions for Further Research 168 Annexure A References 177 Annexure B Coding Sheets 193 Annexure C Pakistan Foreign Policy 200 Annexure D US Foreign Policy 218 Annexure E Editorials Quotes

xii

List of Tables

Table Title Page No.

Editorial treatment of Washington Post on the issue of War Table 6.1 89 on Terror in Pakistan

Editorial treatment of New York Times on the issue of War Table 6.2 91 on Terror in Pakistan

Comparison of Editorial treatment of Washington Post and Table 6.3 93 New York Times on the issue of War on Terror in Pakistan

Editorial treatment of Washington Post on the issue of Drone Table 6.4 95 Attacks in Pakistani Territory

Editorial treatment of New York Times on the issue of Drone Table 6.5 97 Attacks in Pakistani Territory

Comparison of Editorial treatment of Washington Post and Table 6.6 New York Times on the issue of Drone Attacks in Pakistani 99 Territory

Editorial treatment of Washington Post on the issue of Osama Table 6.7 101 Bin Ladin Assassination in Pakistan

Editorial treatment of New York Times on the issue of Table 6.8 103 Osama Bin Ladin Assassination in Pakistan

Comparison of Editorial treatment of Washington Post and Table 6.9 New York Times on the issue of Osama Bin Ladin 105 Assassination in Pakistan

Editorial treatment of Washington Post on the issue of NATO Table 6.10 107 Supply through Pakistan

Editorial treatment of New York Times on the issue of Table 6.11 109 NATO Supply through Pakistan

Comparison of Editorial treatment of Washington Post and Table 6.12 New York Times on the issue of NATO Supply through 111 Pakistan

Editorial treatment of Washington Post on the issue of Table 6.13 113 Afghanistan as Factor between Pak-US Relations

xiii

Editorial treatment of New York Times on the issue of Table 6.14 115 Afghanistan as Factor between Pak-US Relations

Comparison of Editorial treatment of Washington Post and Table 6.15 New York Times on the issue of Afghanistan as Factor 117 between Pak-US Relations

Editorial treatment of Washington Post on the issue of US Table 6.16 119 Aid to Pakistan

Editorial treatment of New York Times on the issue of US Table 6.17 121 Aid to Pakistan

Comparison of Editorial treatment of Washington Post and Table 6.18 123 New York Times on the issue of US Aid to Pakistan

Editorial treatment of Washington Post on the issue of Table 6.19 125 Intelligence Sharing among Pakistan and USA

Editorial treatment of New York Times on the issue of Table 6.20 127 Intelligence Sharing among Pakistan and USA

Comparison of Editorial treatment of Washington Post and Table 6.21 New York Times on the issue of Intelligence Sharing among 129 Pakistan and USA

Total Editorials Treatment of Washington Post on the issues of War on terror, NATO supply, Afghanistan as factor Table 6.22 between Pak-US relations, US aid to Pakistan, Drone attacks, 131 Osama assassination in Pakistan and Intelligence Sharing among Pakistan and USA

Total Editorials Treatment of New York Times on the issues of War on terror, NATO supply, Afghanistan as factor Table 6.23 between Pak-US relations, US aid to Pakistan, Drone attacks, 133 Osama assassination in Pakistan and Intelligence Sharing among Pakistan and USA

Total Editorials Treatment of Washington Post and New York Times on the issues of War on terror, NATO supply, Table 6.24 Afghanistan as factor between Pak-US relations, US aid to 135 Pakistan, Drone attacks, Osama assassination in Pakistan and Intelligence Sharing among Pakistan and USA

Table 6.25 Descriptive Statistics 140

Table 6.26 Hypothesis Test 1 143

xiv

Table 6.27 Chi-Square Tests 144

Table 6.28 Chi-Square Tests 146

List of Figures

Page Figure Title No.

Editorial treatment of Washington Post on the issue of War on Figure 6.1 90 Terror in Pakistan

Editorial treatment of New York Times on the issue of War on Figure 6.2 92 Terror in Pakistan

Editorial treatment of Washington Post and New York Times on the Figure 6.3 94 issue of War on Terror in Pakistan

Editorial treatment of Washington Post on the issue of Drone Figure 6.4 96 Attacks in Pakistani Territory

Editorial treatment of New York Times on the issue of Drone Figure 6.5 98 Attacks in Pakistani Territory

Editorial treatment of Washington Post and New York Times on the Figure 6.6 100 issue of Drone Attacks in Pakistani Territory

Editorial treatment of Washington Post on the issue of Osama Bin Figure 6.7 102 Ladin Assassination in Pakistan

Editorial treatment of New York Times on the issue of Osama Bin Figure 6.8 104 Ladin Assassination in Pakistan

Total Editorial treatment of Washington Post and New York Times Figure 6.9 106 on the issue of Osama Bin Ladin Assassination in Pakistan

Editorial treatment of Washington Post on the issue of NATO Figure 6.10 108 Supply through Pakistan

Editorial treatment of New York Times on the issue of NATO Figure 6.11 110 Supply through Pakistan

Total Editorial treatment of Washington Post and New York Times Figure 6.12 112 on the issue of NATO Supply through Pakistan

Editorial treatment of Washington Post on the issue of Afghanistan Figure 6.13 114 as Factor between Pak-US Relations

Editorial treatment of New York Times on the issue of Afghanistan Figure 6.14 116 as Factor between Pak-US Relations

xvi

Total Editorial treatment of Washington Post and New York Times Figure 6.15 on the issue of Afghanistan as Factor between Pak-US Relations 118

Editorial treatment of Washington Post on the issue of US Aid to Figure 6.16 120 Pakistan

Editorial treatment of New York Times on the issue of US Aid to Figure 6.17 122 Pakistan

Total Editorial treatment of Washington Post and New York Times Figure 6.18 124 on the issue of US Aid to Pakistan

Editorial treatment of Washington Post on the issue of Intelligence Figure 6.19 126 Sharing among Pakistan and USA

Editorial treatment of New York Times on the issue of Intelligence Figure 6.20 128 Sharing among Pakistan and USA

Total Editorial treatment of Washington Post and New York Times Figure 6.21 on the issue of Intelligence Sharing among Pakistan and USA 130

Total Editorials Treatment of Washington Post on the issues of War on terror, NATO supply, Afghanistan as factor between Pak-US Figure 6.22 relations, US aid to Pakistan, Drone attacks, Osama assassination in 132 Pakistan and Intelligence Sharing among Pakistan and USA

Total Editorials Treatment of New York Times on the issues of War on terror, NATO supply, Afghanistan as factor between Pak-US Figure 6.23 relations, US aid to Pakistan, Drone attacks, Osama assassination in 134 Pakistan and Intelligence Sharing among Pakistan and USA

Total Editorials Treatment of Washington Post and New York Times on the issues of War on terror, NATO supply, Afghanistan Figure 6.24 as factor between Pak-US relations, US aid to Pakistan, Drone 136 attacks, Osama assassination in Pakistan and Intelligence Sharing among Pakistan and USA

Figure 6.25 Hypothesis Test 1 144

Figure 6.26 Chi-Square Tests 145

Figure 6.26 Chi-Square Tests 146

xvii

List of abbreviations

NAP: National Acton Plan

OIC: Organization of Islamic Cooperations

IDA: Islamic democratic Alliance

FMF: Foreign Military Financing

NATO: North Atlantic Treaty Organisation

PCO: Provisional Constitutional Order

GDP: Gross Domestic Product

IMF: International Monetary Fund

MW: Mega Watt

PPP: Pakistan People’s Party

PMLN: Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz Group

MNA: Member National Assembly

CM: Chief Minister

NRO: National Reconciliation Order

PMLQ: Pakistan Muslim League Qaid-e-Azam Group

xviii

ANP: Awami National Party

UN: United Nations

NWFP: North-West Frontier Province

TNSM: Tehreek Naffaz Shariat Muhammdi

LTTE: Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam

LHC: Lahore High Court

FC: Frontier Corps

ISPR: Inter Service Public Relations

US: United States

USA: United States of America

IDP’s: Internally Displaced Persons

TTP: Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan

GOP: Government of Punjab

SSP: Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan

GHQ: General Headquarter

FIA: Federal Investigation Agency

ISI: Inter Service Intelligence xix

CIA: Central Intelligence Agency

NAB: National Accountability Bureau

ECL: Exit Control List

OGRA: Oil and Gas Regularity Authority

AML: Awami Muslim League.

NGO: Non-Governmental Organization

MQM: Mutahida Qumi Movement.

IB: Intelligence Bureau.

CID: Criminal Investigation Department

GST: General Sales Tax.

SEATO: South East Asian Treaty Organization

Abstract

Pakistan is first Islamic Atomic Power and second largest in Populated country in Muslim World after Indonesia. Pakistan has always been preferred to make friendly and peaceful relations with all countries of the world. Pakistan and USA has long journey of relationship since the birth of Pakistan in 1947. The present study explored the Pak-US relations in term of War on terror, US drone attack in Pakistani territory, Osama Bin Ladin Assassination in Pakistan by US, NATO supply through Pakistan to Afghanistan, US Aid to Pakistan, Afghanistan as factor between Pak-US relations and Intelligence sharing among Pakistan and America. The study was based on content analysis and editorials of two American newspapers The Washington Post and The New York Times were examined from 2008 to 2012 during Pakistan People’s Party regime. This research study was conducted in the light of Framing Theory. It was census study and all editorials were examined during the period five years. Results of this study showed that US press gave more space to Pak-US relations during 2008 to 2012 and both newspapers published 264 editorials regarding Pak-US relations on the issues concern in which The The Washington Post published 147 editorials and The New York Times published 117 editorials about Pak-US relations. Furthermore, on all issues except intelligence sharing and US Aid to Pakistan, American press portrayed negative image of Pakistan whereas on the issue of US Aid to Pakistan American press support Pakistan. On the issue of Intelligence sharing both newspapers wrote editorials as neutral. Hence overall treatment of both newspapers about all issues were against Pakistan and both American newspapers portrayed negative image of Pakistan.

Keywords: US press, Pak-US relations, War on terror, Drone attacks, Osama Bin

Ladin Assassination, NATO supply, Afghan factor, US Aid, Intelligence Sharing.

Chapter No.1 Introduction

1.1 Introduction

In this present age, mass media has got the major significance at national and international level. People become aware about different happenings around the globe with the help of media. Every media organization has its own policy regarding highlighting nay issue and is more interesting to search out media policies regarding any issue which leaves its impact on the relations among the countries at international level

(Ali & Shahid, 2012).

For media researchers, to check media treatment of national, international issue and foreign policy is very interactive. A large number of researches regarding media policies highlighting have been conducted. According to results, all researches shows different relationship that goes to positive and sometimes negative. In the era of global village, all states have formed political setup that leads that state in the world. For development and to fulfill need, cooperation, collaboration, co-existence have more importance. How to make relationship with other countries for the benefits and make better understandings among the nations are called foreign policy. Quaid-e-Azam

Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan gave the fundamental principal to devise foreign policy in these words; “To live peacefully and maintain cordial and friendly relations with other countries” (Amin, 2010).

With the birth of new state, Pakistan tends towards United States with respect to foreign policy. Political relations among Pakistan and USA were established in 20

October 1947. With the beginning, Pakistan has given more importance to make better relations with United States and Pakistan considered this relationship more important by keeping in view of international situation and geographical location at that time. Quaid-i-

Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah welcomed American Ambassador with the key aimed to have better relationship among both countries and key partners in promoting democracy on equal basis (Haq& Khan, 2011).

Due to economic and security concern, after the independence Pakistan showed its inclination towards American Block and America was also looking friend in this region for its own interests because of Russian hegemony in this region. At many steps, various treaties signed among Pakistan and America and military assistance were also offered by USA (Sial, 2007).

Actually Pak-US relation is based on economic and military assistance. At start

Pakistan decided to be part of American block instead Russian block. In early decades of

20th century, there were two main super powers of the world named United States of

America (USA) and Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). In this way world divided into two camps. Pakistan was in American block due to the formally signatory of

CENTO and SEATO in 1950’s. During the war of Pakistan and India in 1965, USA suspended military supply to both countries whereas Pakistan was totally relying on

USA. In 1971 once again USA disappoint Pakistan when Pakistan appeal for stopping

Indian interference in Eastern Pakistan. Not only this, US also suspended economic assistance once again when Pakistan started Nuclear Weapon program in 1979 (New

York Times, April 7, 1979).

In result of 9/11 attacks, US blamed to Al-Qaida as terrorist attack in USA.

President of that time George W. Bush ordered war against terrorism and decided to attack on Afghanistan to arrest or assassinate Al-Qaida leader Usama Bin Ladin blamed that were hiding in there. This time was as critical exam for Pakistan to decide and

President Musharraf decided to stand with US in war against terrorism. Since the birth of

Pakistan, the relationship between Pakistan and America turned to many ups and downs.

National interests were the key elements for the both countries. During cold, after 9/11 incident Pakistan became strong allies of US as US opened new volume of relationship with Pakistan.

As a result of 9/11, US once again started to look at Pakistan to start new relationship and providing assistance on some demands that were included;

1) Stop Al-Qaida operation in Pakistani border and end of logistical support for

Usama and other terrorists.

2) Pakistan will provide landing and flight facilities for intelligence and military

purposes.

3) In Pakistani areas, where necessary, US and allied forces will be allowed to take

operation against terrorist.

4) Intelligence information will be shared with US when necessary.

5) All terrorist acts must publically censure.

6) People’s movement across border should be stopped and fuel supply should be cut

off to Taliban.

7) Pakistan must break association with Taliban government. (9/11 Commission

Report, 2004)

Pakistan government lead by General Pervaiz Musharraf accepted the American demands unconditionally and became the Non-NATO ally with the America and also gained the status as front line ally against the US lead war against terror. During General

Musharraf’s regime Pakistan fully supported the United States and after he left the office the forthcoming president Asif Ali Zardari who was also co-chairman of the ruling party

Pakistan Peoples’ Party continued Musharraf’s policies for the United States. Pakistan supported the United States in war against terrorism and during Zardari regime various incidents also made the relations critical including the killing of Pakistani citizens in

Lahore by an American diplomat Raymond Davis in Lahore, US operation in Pakistani city Abbotabad and assassination of Osama Bin Ladin, killings of the Pakistani soldiers at

Salala Check post in US attack resulting the blockade of the NATO supply through

Pakistan. (Zahid and Ali, 2012)

The Media plays a vital character in building image of different societies as

Navasky noted “it is based largely on journalism that we make up our national mind”

(Navasky cited in Zelizer & Allen 2002).

The current research study aims to explore the issue concern highlighted by “The

New York Times” and “Washington Post” during the period January 2008 to December

2012. The study explore whether the topics under discussion framed as stereotypical or given prominence in the media. The study is aimed to determine the relationship between the two countries during the civil leader Asif Ali Zardari.

1.2 Significance of Study

A steady, law based Pakistan effectively attempting to counter Islamist militancy is viewed as basic to US interest. Current top US concerns with respect to Pakistan incorporate provincial and worldwide terrorism; Afghan soundness, political strength and democratization; atomic weapons expansion and security and terrorism issues.

The year 2008 bring terrible situation in Pakistan that became more horror in the end of

2008 due to the death of Ex- Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto on December 27, 2007.

Terrorist besieging and other activist assaults have turned into a close day by day scourge in 2008.

In general elections 2008, Pakistan People’s Party won majority of seats and make government with coalition led by Asif Zardar. The new civilian government indulgence welcomed by US leaders. In July, US President George W. Bush welcomed and hosted Pakistani Prime Minister Syed Yousaf Raza Gillani at White house and both leaders issued a joint statement reaffirming the Pak-US “Strategic partnership”.

Geographically, Pakistan situated in South Asia having borders with India, Iran,

Afghanistan and China. Due to this notable geographical location, US wish to developed close relations with Pakistan in term of politics and combating terrorism.

The current studies aim to explore the treatment nature of two leading newspaper of America i.e. “The New York Times” and “The Washington Post” towards Pakistan.

During this time span; Jan 2008 to Dec 2012 within the context, different events occurred in Pakistan like President Elections, Asif Zardari’s elected as New President, blasts at

7 different places, military operations, NATO supply through Pakistan, Afghanistan as a factor between Pakistan and US, Osama assassination and drone attack etc.

Pak-Afghan border has remained same with issues of Taliban and Al-Qaida.

Counter terrorism reported that due to no effective opposition and operations along with

Pak-Afghan border, Al-Qaida is able to plan attack on US. This report effect on Pakistan in standing with US. (Isaac Kfir, 2007).

On the issue of 9/11, Pakistan & U.S becomes ally. American declared Pakistan front line ally against war on terror. US assure Pakistan for technical support during this war. Pakistan faced many challenges in term of loss of economic, military and humanity loss and relations between Pakistan and America became ups and downs. It’s history of

US media to support American government on foreign policies. If government supports any country, the media portrayed it as positive while if US government becomes enemy of any country, the US media portrayed negative image of that country. The Researcher select proposed topic to check the US Media’s policy regarding Pakistan when American government was supporter of Pakistan. So this study is very important and will be informative about Pak-US relations and US Print Media treatment during 2008-2012.

This study will be helpful for Media Practitioners, academia and for policy makers.

1.3 Significance of Time Period

The present study “Pak-US relations during Asif Ali Zardari’s regime” intends to find out the relations with United States i.e. from Jan, 2008 to December 2012 when

Pakistani president Asif Ali Zardari completed its tenure as president. During PPP period various ups and downs were seen between both countries as war on terrorism started by

8 the US and its allies, continuous terrorist attacks in Pakistan and suicide attacks in

Pakistan.

Became ally with US, it was blamed that Pakistan providing sanctuaries to

Taliban in FATA region. US forces in Afghanistan, started air attacks in Pakistani regions by making the issue of presence of terrorist groups that causes killing many innocent people. US military supply from Pakistan repeatedly hit by militants in Pakistan.

Food energy crises in Pakistan caused turn the poorer and prices soared. By electing first women speaker of National Assembly, Pakistan makes the history in 2008.

During this period Al-Qaeda’s head Osama Bin laden assassinated in Abbottabad,

Pakistan. US drone attacks in Pakistan and killings of innocent Pakistanis, NATO supply through Pakistan to Afghanistan. Intelligence sharing with US, Afghanistan as a factor between Pak-US relations and US aid to Pakistan in various terms is also having importance during the selected time period.

1.4 US Policy towards Pakistan

Pak-US relations celebrating 69 anniversary of relations since the birth of

Pakistan in 1947. Pakistan has historically ally with US from the time of action against

Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Anyhow Pak-US relations remain somewhat unsettled over regional dispute and Pakistan’s nuclear program. USA provided financial aid and loans on debt relief and is major military supplier to Pakistan (US-Pak history relations, cited in USA official website, 2016).

Nawaz Sharif made visit on 2013 after that US Secretary John Kerry announced reinvigoration of Pak-US strategic dialogue for long term, foster and more comprehensive partnership to cooperate in key shared interests such as economics, counter terrorism, energy, education, defense and strategic stability (US Report, 2016).

After 9/11 attacks on US, Al-Qadia led close Pak-US relations on security and stability in Asia. Pakistan has cooperated with US in counter terrorism efforts since 2001 and captured more than 600 Al-Qaida members and their ally group members. US has made strong security relationship with Pakistan (US Report, 2016).

USA is Pakistan’s biggest bilateral trading partner. In the financial year 2014-15,

Pakistan export to all countries were estimated $24.59 billion and import $41.43 billion.

US passed enhanced partnership with Pakistan act usually referred to “Kerry Lugar Bill” in October 2009 which aim to establish long term relations with Pakistan and since the pass of that bill, US has provided $1 billion in emergency humanitarian assistance and for disasters like floods in 2010. According to US States report 2016;

“U.S. civilian assistance to Pakistan facilitates cooperation fostering a more stable, democratic, and prosperous Pakistan and region, which is in the interest of both countries. It is focused on five priority areas: energy; economic growth, including agriculture; community stabilization of underdeveloped areas vulnerable to violent extremism; education; and health. These priorities were determined in consultation with the government of Pakistan. ------and policy consultation; led to the launch of the Pakistan Private Investment Initiative (PPII), which will provide seed funding to small- and medium-sized enterprises in Pakistan; built or reconstructed roughly 1,000 schools; and funded about 1,100 kilometers of roads in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) and Khyber

Pakhtunkhwa. In January 2015 the U.S. pledged $250 million to help Pakistan facilitate the relief, reconstruction, and return of FATA communities displaced by counterterrorism operations.”

In term of US Security assistance to Pakistan United States report (2016) stated that;

“U.S. security assistance to Pakistan is focused on strengthening the counterterrorism (CT) and counterinsurgency (COIN) capabilities of the Pakistan security forces, and promoting closer security ties and interoperability with the United States. U.S. security assistance has directly supported Pakistan’s CT operations in the FATA. Foreign Military Financing (FMF) ($265 million in FY 2015) promotes the development of Pakistan’s long-term COIN/CT capabilities, particularly in FATA, and improves Pakistan’s ability to participate in maritime security operations and counter-maritime piracy. International Military Education and Training (IMET) assistance to Pakistan ($5 million in FY 2015) enhances the professionalism of Pakistan’s military and strengthens long-term military relationships between Pakistan and the United States.”

1.5 Pakistan Foreign Policy

The foreign policy of Pakistan seeks to protect, promote Pakistan’s national interests in the international domain. Foreign ministry contributing towards safeguarding

Pakistan and promoting development agenda for prosperity and progress. Pakistan foreign policy guiding principles follow the broadcast talk of Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad

Ali Jinnah to the USA people in February 1948 with the following goals that

contribution to the promotion of peace and prosperity among the nations of the world. Pakistan will never be found lacking in extending its material and moral support to the oppressed and suppressed peoples of the world, and in upholding the principles of the United Nations Charter. (Quaid-e- Azam, 1948 cited at PFP, 2016)”

Constitution of Pakistan also make sure the guidelines to conduct foreign policy in article 40 of constitution that;

“The State shall endeavour to preserve and strengthen fraternal relations among Muslim countries based on Islamic unity, support the common interests of the peoples of Asia, Africa and Latin America, promote international peace and security, foster goodwill and friendly relations among all nations and encourage the settlement of international disputes by peaceful means. (cited at PFP, 2016)”

Pakistan foreign policy originally directed to the pursuit of national goals seeking stability through international cooperation and peace. Policy also emphasis on economic diplomacy to take advantages offered by the process of globalization to face the challenges of current century. Policy also aimed to make image of Pakistan as moderate society in the world.

Furthermore, Pakistan foreign policy aimed to promote internationally recognized norms of global relations. Relations with countries with the concept of respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity of all states and no interference in internal affair of other countries with peaceful and non-aggression settlement of disputes. Always, it is motive of Pakistan to make friendly and peaceful relations with all countries of the world.

By following the guiding principles laid down by founding father of Pakistan and constitution of Pakistan, objectives of Pakistan foreign policy are;

 Promoting Pakistan as progressive, moderate and dynamic Islamic country.

 Developing friendly and peaceful relations with all over the world especially with

major powers and neighbor countries.

 Safeguarding national security, geo strategic interests including Kashmir.

 Safeguarding the interests of Pakistani Diaspora abroad.

 For regional and inter cooperation, ensuring the optimal utilization of national

resources.

1.5.1 Pakistan Policy towards USA

With the core objectives of Pakistan foreign policy includes strong and friendly relations with US due to many factors. Pakistan is ally with US especially in war against terror. In term of war on terror, Pakistan is strong ally with US and providing full support to eradicate terrorism not only from South Asia but also from all over the world. In term of Drone attacks, Pakistan has policy that it is interference in its internal territory in which many innocent people have lost their lives. So US drone attacks must stop in

Pakistani territory. On the issue of NATO supply through Pakistani territory, it is

Pakistan policy that Pakistan is providing way for supply so it should be given respect and suitable rent. In term of afghan as factor between Pak-US relations, it is policy of

Pakistan that it has always support Afghanistan for its development and promotion of lives. Pakistan want peace in Afghanistan and is non-NATO ally with US. In term of intelligence sharing, Pakistan always shared necessary information with US forces to

13 eradicate terrorism and maintain peace. In term of Osama Bin Ladin assassination,

Pakistan has cleared that it has no information about presence of Osama Bin Ladin in

Abbatabad and US should must inform Pakistan before taking operation against Osama and in term of US Aid, Pakistan has gained loss in term of lives, and economy in war on terror. For development and major ally with US it is necessary to get reward in term of

Aid for the development of country and standing up country on its feet (PFP, 2016).

1.6 Rationale of Selected American Newspapers

In the current study, researcher focuses on two leading American newspapers that include “The Washington Post and The New York Times”. These two newspapers are considers leading newspapers of America. Altshcull stated that leading newspaper or elite newspaper can be examined by its independency, objectives, responsibility and circulation (Altshcull, 1984). The researcher chooses “The Washington Post and The

New York Times” of America because these both newspapers fulfill this criteria that fall in elite press.

1.6.1 The Washington Post

This newspaper includes one of the most circulated newspapers of US and considers as elite newspaper with heavy circulation. Sometimes, it is written as “The

Post”. The started history of this newspaper goes back more than century old and this newspaper was started in 1877. Its majority circulation is in Washington DC that is also the capital of America. This newspaper writes news specially emphasis on political, national and international news.

The publication of this newspaper is in both color and black and white printed photographs with caption. It has maintained sections containing the National news, international news politics, features, columns business, stock exchange, arts, showbiz, science, information technology, local news, and sports and classified. This newspaper also won Pulitzer prizes in 1991, this includes six separate Pulitzers awarded in 2008. Its circulation is 474,767 daily.

1.6.2 Policy of “The Washington Post”

Editorial shows the policy of newspaper. The editorial policy of “The Washington

Post” revolves round the following objectives.

 Telling the truth is the major objective of the newspaper and tries it best to search

the truth and tells the public with objectivity.

 News related to the national interests and important news of America and

international affairs with all over the world.

 Observing the decencies that mandatory upon private gentleman.

 Printing in such a way that catches reader’s interests including young and old.

1.6.3 The New York Times

The New York Times is popular newspaper of America that is published from

New York City and distributed not only nationally but internationally. This newspaper is owned by The New York Times that published 15 other newspapers also. International

Herald Tribune and The Boson Globe are also publishing under the umbrella of New

York Times. It is widely circulated newspaper in the USA. Ochs Sulzberger Jr. is

15 publisher of this group that’s family controlled the paper since 1986.Politician and journalist Henry Jarvis Raymond and Former Banker George Jones started The New

York Times with the name New York Daily Times in 1851. Later on in 1857, this newspaper changed its name by “The New York Times”. Its circulation is 1,865,315 daily.

1.6.4 Policy of “The New York Times”

The policy of this newspaper is to print upper left cover of front page “All the news that’s fit to print”. This paper organized into different sections includes opinion, news, features, articles, investigative reports, business, stock exchange, arts, showbiz, science, information technology and sports as well.

1.7 Editorials of Newspapers

Carl G. Millar defines editorial as “An essay written on a current issue in which an effort is made to organize the opinion of the reader according to the point of view of the writer (Waldrop, 1948)”

Development of public policy issues could be examined by editorial that provide unique opportunity. Individual’s opinion explicit and editorial is written according to the view of newspaper or editor that set the character of newspaper (Daughterty & Warden,

1979, Wiese, 1988, Mughees, 1993). Actually, editorial reflects viewpoints of owners of that newspaper. Editorial may offer opinion possibly political in manner or current knowledge may be summarized into subject of interest of readers. Editorial contribute to formation of opinion in the readers about any core issue (Dijik, 1988).

1.8 Importance of Editorials

Editorial page considered as most important page of newspaper. This page contains columns, articles and editorials. Besides columns and articles, editorials considered more important part of this page that conflict the policy of newspaper. To conduct this research study, the researcher that’s why selected editorials of two American leading newspapers i.e. “The Washington Post” and “The New York Times” to check how these both elite and well known newspapers treated Pak-US relations issues during the period of 2008 to 2012. As Dijk (1998) stated editorial reflect the policy of organization and it contribute in formation of readers opinion regarding any issue, the researcher prefer to check the editorials of the selected newspaper to check the slant of newspaper policy regarding Pak-US relations.

1.9 Objectives of Study

 To finds out the US mainstream print media treatment towards Pak-US relations

issues.

 To investigate and examine the editorial treatment and extent of treatment given

to under studied issues during the selected time period.

 To analyze the both American newspapers stance towards Pakistan’s government

stance bout under studied issues in the selected time period.

 To explore the total editorial treatment the of both American newspapers

regarding war on terror in Pakistan

 To analyze the stance of both American newspapers regarding war on terror in

Pakistan

 To explore the total treatment of both American newspapers regarding Drone

Attacks in Pakistani territory by US

 To examine the stance of both American newspapers regarding Drone attacks in

Pakistani territory.

 To find the overall treatment of both American newspapers regarding NATO

Supply through Pakistani territory.

 To explores the both American newspapers media stance regarding NATO Supply

through Pakistani territory.

 To analyzes the overall treatment of both American newspapers regarding Osama

Bin Ladin Assassination in Pakistan by US.

 To explores the stance of both American newspapers regarding the Assassination

of Osama Bin Ladin in Pakistan by US.

 To examines the both American newspapers treatment regarding Afghanistan as

factor between Pak-US relations.

 To analyzes the stance of American press regarding Afghanistan as factor

between Pak-US relations.

 To know about both American newspapers editorial treatment about US aid to

Pakistan. 18

 To examines the stance of both American newspapers regarding US aid to

Pakistan.

 To explore the total treatment of both American newspapers regarding

Intelligence sharing among Pakistan and Untied States.

 To examines the stance of both American newspapers regarding intelligence

sharing among Pakistan and USA.

Chapter No.2 Historical Background of Pak-US Relations

2.1 Historical Background

The journey of Pak-US relations is continue since the birth of Pakistan and have more than six decades have been passed away. This journey consisted on many ups and downs in relations common blinking episodes of close corporation and jagged resistance sparkly engagement and separation in global and regional geopolitics. This relationship fall in tensions in fifties, in eighties and first decade of 20th century in the incident of

9/11. Pak-US relations broadly speaking with the same wavelength during the presidency periods of Eisenhower, Nixon and Reagan but in the administrations of Kennedy,

Johnson, Carter, Bush and Clinton, difference has been marked and significant. The era of cold war among USA and USSR was the time of birth of Pakistan and whole world was divided into two groups i.e. US and USSR at that time Pakistan prefer to join US camp (Iftikhar Malik, 2008).

Pakistan achieved independence in 1947 as a result of partition of the sub-continent from the British colonial empire. At that time the whole world was divided into two blocks i.e. the soviet and US blocks. At that scenario Pakistan followed a more pro- western policy and established friendly relations with US, when Prime Minister Liaqat

Ali Khan visited USA in 1950. His visit injected bitterness into relations with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). At that time policy of Pakistan was pro-western whereas India defined his own foreign policy and keep away non-aligned attitude.

Pakistan was newly burn and have no much resources and was in search of strong friend that could help Pakistan in defending from India and claim the territory of Kashmir. Not

21 only this, but financial resources was also needed to develop new establish country and supporting infrastructure and modernization of state and its armed forces.

In the early stage of establishment, Quaid-e-Azam sent representatives to US for military and financial assistance. After the war, US was in reconstruction of its occupied in Western Europe and Japan was doing efforts in South Asia for development and other

Middle East counties. In the initial years of Pakistan after establishment, US was less interesting in getting involved in South Asia in emerging conflicts. On the other hand,

Pakistan wanted strong relationship with US to confront India over Kashmir. Pakistan assumed a great importance because of its geographic and strategic location in the region because India had adopted to put its weight in the soviet bloc. So, U.S. needed Pakistan to access South Asia in order to complete the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic (USSR).

2.2 Pak-US Relations During Ayyub Era (1952-1969)

When Eisenhower came into power in US in 1952 the relations between and US improved. Pakistan extend its hand towards America to become ally and could support for Middle East security in return it demand for economic and military support to boost up failed economy of the state. Political situation in the country was weak and bureaucratic and military management was getting stronger. American government was receptive of Pakistan position and claimed to stand against USSR. In 1954 Pakistan joined the Middle East Defense Organization. Joining of this defense organization was formally announcement to become ally of US block and to get aid from America.

Pakistan joined South East Asian Treaty Organization (SEATO) in 1955 with the aim to increase security in Asia against communist alignment. At that time, the role of Pakistan

22 in these both organizations was not clear that how Pakistan will participate its role in case of conflict. But this ally able Pakistan to make stronger relations with US and get more aid in term of currency or military.

After that Pakistan become member of Baghdad Pact Organization in 1955 that later on known as CENTO. Iran, Iraq and Turkey were already under the umbrella of US.

The role of this organization was as earlier to arrange security in Middle East. This was precaution in Middle East against Communist. At the end neither SEATO nor Baghdad pact amounted a good deal militarily. As Pakistan joined these two organizations lead by

US gave sold reason to Pakistan to clime US for resources. Ayyub Khan stated in his book named “Friends not Masters” that Pakistan had become most allied ally in Asia

(Dennis Kux, cited in Hafiz 2003). Pakistan disappointed when US provide military assistance to India when Indian’s war wake with China. It was sure that this technology and weapons were going to be used against Pakistan. This situation hurt the government and people of Pakistan. President Ayyub Khan expressed these views in his book “The

Pakistan US Alliance: Stress and Strains” that friendly relations were going to break with

US in these words.

“US decided to rush arms to India in a quite unjustified manner, in the wake of the clash between India and China. Pakistan has reservation over this development. This extraordinary assistance to India could be a source of concern among the neighboring countries of India, as it might create a security risk for the relatively smaller neighbors (Ayyub, 1964).”

Keeping in mind its military requirements because of a strong enemy and

Kashmir issue, Pakistan decided to establish friendly relationship with China as it was the

23 only country in the region that could side with Pakistan, in case of its clash with India.

Pakistan’s gesture of good-will was reciprocated by China as India was the common enemy of both countries. Pakistan and China signed many agreements based on mutual co-operation in military, economic and political fields. These relations between Pakistan and China were not approved by US, Pakistan was persuaded by various means even threats that its relationship with China might give way to bad consequences. According to

Hannan (2006) US tried to influence Pakistani government to abandon its friendship with

China. Ayyub was asked to change his pro-china policy as Pakistan was member of

SEATO, and by maintain good relations with a communist country, Pakistan was violating terms of the agreement.(Noshina, 2000).

The relations with US during Ayyub era stimulated substantial military and economic assistance to Pakistan. At that time the key development of Pakistan was the military assistance aid that stated in 1954 and increased in 1957 by $500 million that was the result Pakistan joined regional define organization and become ally with US. In his era, Ayyub Khan made strong relations with US from 1958 to 1959 and considered better relationship among US and Pakistan. Ayyub government offered US to setup intelligence facility in NWFP currently formally known as Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KPK) so that US could operate surveillance flights over the Soviet Union from Peshawar (Kundi, 2009).

Pakistan’s close relations with China was the main trouble for US. In 1962, Indian and China had fourth was in which China beat India and given a bloody nose. In this way, Pakistan move to make stronger relations with China to make itself strengthen in order to make its position more powerful. In the war of 1965 between Pakistan and India,

US setback knowing that Pakistan was totally dependent on US arms and India did not use any US arms. Soviets speeded up arms supplies to India. Pakistan gained air superiority by using US supplied F-86 Sabers and F-104 Star fighters. Pakistan’s old enemy King Zahir of Afghanistan ensured safety of Pakistan’s Western borders, allowing

Pakistan to remove it troops from that border. Iran opened her airfields to Pakistan Air force. China moved her troops close to Indian border but US stopped supplies forcing

Pakistan to sue for peace offered under Soviets. It was the first betrayal by US (Burke,

1973).

2.3 General Yahya Era (1969-1972)

In March 1969, Army Chief General Yahya pull down the government of Ayyub

Khan and took the over the power of Pakistan. Since 1958, country had been in military rules. Political power was increasing and different movement was being stronger especially in Eastern Provence of Pakistan i.e. Bangal. General elections held in 1970 and

Awami League got majority seats in elections in Eastern Pakistan and military government did not handed over the power to the selected political party. This causes civil war in 1971 and India get benefit and stated war in December 1971. Massive blood shed supervised by India. Pakistan asks her old time ally US for help. US tell Pakistan 7th

Fleet is on its way. Now after 25 years declassified documents revealed that US deliberately wanted to break Pakistan to appease India. It was the second betrayal by US.

(Khan, Shaheen, Irshad, 1972).

After the fight of fifteen days, due to Indian cleverness, the east portion of

Pakistan separate and state of Bangladesh established. For US, relationship with China

25 was important to make stronger position against Vietnam. US with its concerns neglected internal domestic issues of Pakistan and allowed dictator to have control in East Pakistan.

It is admitted that President Nixon had mentioned to existence strong pro-India lobby in

US and due to this reason he was not capable to move troops to save East Pakistan

(Saleem, 2007)

Due to American non-support, Pakistan beard big loss in the war with in Indian in

1971. Near about 90000 soldiers were made prisoners by India and Eastern part of

Pakistan declared as independence state and Western part of the country handed over to the Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, the first elected Prime Minister of the western part of Pakistan

(Burky, 1973).

2.4 Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto and U.S (1972-1977)

As the control handed over to Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, he initially focused his attention to normalize the domestic situation of the country. Pakistan signed some ceasefire with India. Bangladesh recognized as independence state by Indian and 90000 prisoners were returned back. In 1974, India executed underground nuclear test and it was challenge for Pakistan. In this way, Pakistan started to get nuclear fuel reprocessing plant from France and huge water facility from Germany. During Bhutto’s era, Pakistani government made balanced foreign policy to make relations with Russia, China and

USA. Not only had this but Pakistan focused to make better relations with Arab and

Middle East countries. Restrictions of aid grant were sanctions placed on Pakistan during the administration of Ford and Jimmy Carter’s. In 1977 Bhutto called general elections in which he gained land slide victory (Sherin Tahir Kheli& Staudenmaier 1982).

During Bhutto government, country had to settle down the issues with India, recognized Bangladesh as an independent state. During these developments, new strains arose between Pak-U.S relations, when Pakistan made an attempt to search for nuclear program as a response to Indian nuclear device test of 1974. This became an issue of concern for the U.S administration and economic and military restrictions were positioned on Pakistan. Prime minister, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto made serious attempts to change the mind of the American policy-makers with respect to economic and military sanctions on Pakistan. (Arif, 1984)

In American Pakistan relations: Documents quotes views of Bhutto as follows,

“Our position should be well known. In the last two and a half years, we have spoken on the subject many times. The embargo however-remains. Recently, although there was tension between Turkey and Greece and literally speaking, there was war in Cyprus, yet the United States, administration thought it fit to go to Congress and say that it was in United States administration thought it fit to go to congress and say that it was in United States’ interest to continue to supply arms to Turkey and to Greece. Pakistan has been singled out for this embargo”.

American government put pressure on Pakistan to stop its nuclear program. But

Bhutto claimed the public speak that USA was at the back the resistance movement and wanted to punish his government for starting nuclear program. Army seized power in the country third time in 1977 and General Zia-ul-Haq promised for elections but as the time passed the made his grip more better on government and started trail against Bhutto that led Bhutto hanging for suspected crime in 1979. This is what happens to those who oppose US. US also pass Symington law thereby stopping aid to countries pursuing

27 nuclear technology. These developments were not approved by the USA and military aid that had been revived in 1975, once again suspended Carter administration in April, 1979, as a provision of the FAA --- Foreign Assistance Act. (Peter R. Blood, 2002)

2.5 Pakistan Relations with U.S in Zia period (1979-1988)

Zia strengthened his hold on government after hanging Bhutto. To give his government credibility, he used the cover of Islamic reformer. In this period, US government makes closer relations with Indian government and Pakistan more or less lonely due to military dictator. On the issue of nuclear, Zia continued the previous program of Bhutto in acquiring and rising capabilities for nuclear weapons. Pak-US relation took U-turn when Russia entered into neighbor country Afghanistan in 1979. US contact to Pakistan to support local communist government in Afghanistan. US administration prepared border covert action program and CIA was instructed to give military weapons to Afghanistan fighters later on known as “Mujahedeen”. CIA funneled all aid to Afghans through Pakistan’s Intelligence Service ISI (Dennis Kux, 2002).

The value of Pakistan cooperation increased to support the covert war in

Afghanistan in the time of Reagan administration in White House. It is to be said that at that time, Pakistan made camp for more than three million Afghan refugees and it was troubling issue for Pakistan that caused many internal issues in Pakistan.

US considered Pakistan as valuable ally at that and ignored developing nuclear as well human rights mistreatment by Zia regime. Defeating USSR in Afghanistan, make

US administration more prominent and it was big loss for Russia in term of body and

28 economy. Supported by CIA and ISI, Mujahedeen were fed up with costs of war and covert operations in 1988. At the result, Russia ready to decent migration from

Afghanistan. Pakistan proved useful for US and as a result, Russia agreed to retreat in

1988 (Jamshed Nazar, 2003)

2.6 Pak-U.S Relations in Democratic Government (1988-1998)

India quickly jumps ship and prostates before US.... Pakistan is ignored by US.... relations suddenly become cold. President Zia killed in air crash which many in Pakistan believe was a work of CIA... Military rule continued in Pakistan till 1988 when general elections were held in the country and civil government and democratic constitution reinstituted. Daughter of Zulifiqar Ali Bhutto (Benazir) and Muhammad Nawaz Sharif were the leaders of Islamic democratic alliance. This alliance was actually military creation aimed was to maintain their control on national politics for long time. Daughter of Zulfiqar Ali, took over the leadership of her father’s party named Pakistan People’s

Party. Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif contested four general elections with full wide- ranging political violence during next decade for winning. Due to this reason, Bhutto government and Sharif government was dismissed by president. Fall of government major reasons included nepotism, incompetence and corruption (Kronstadt, 2006)

In next twelve years, domestic government became unstable and four successive government dissolved after one another in which army always played important role.

Pakistan People’s Party won elections two times and Benazir Bhutto became the Prime

Minister from 1988 to 1990 and 1993 to 1996. Whereas Nawaz party enjoyed government from 1990 to 1993 and 1996 to 1999. Due to mismanagement, political

29 instability and US sanctions created large economic loss and government rented heavily from international lenders. During this unstable democratic government, Pak-US relations went through a transition, depending upon the US interest in the region. .US is the sole super power...either you are with the US or you are dead. Until 1990, after the

Afghan war, large amount in dollars aid stated by the US to Pakistan. In October 1990 more than five hundred million dollars military and economic aid approved for year 1991 was frozen due to pass without certification. It was time when Pakistan was the third biggest loner from US (Kux, 2001).

In 1998 Indian government tested several nuclear devices and this event created new turn in Asia. At that time, Clinton government put pressure on Pakistani government to avoid doing from tit for tat nuclear tests. The nuclear exploded of Indian was threat for

Pakistan and was sign of attack on Pakistan from India. On Indian nuclear test, whole world was silent. Perhaps US order to keep silent against Indian nuclear test, Pakistan respond by doing nuclear tests in answer of Indian tests. At the results of Pakistani test,

US imposed sanctions on Pakistan. It was third disloyalty by USA (Junaid, 2005).

After the nuclear tests from India and pressure from US, Pakistani government came under the pressure and after the decision, detonated nuclear tests after two weeks.

Now, new race of nuclear power was started between Pakistan and India. This thing brought another wave of sanctions from international community. Not only this, but it also put pressure on weak political economy of Pakistan. Though US was unhappy by the nuclear test by Pakistan but it had maintain friendly relations with Pakistan because of interest in the region (Amna Mehmood, 2003).

In mid-1998, US had new interest in Afghanistan after the attack on American embassy in Tanzania and Kenya and near about two hundred people were killed in these attacks and blamed an organization led by Usama Bin Ladin that were former Saudi

National and was living in Afghanistan. America used its influence on Pakistan to make sure Taliban to hand over criminal over the US. As a result, Taliban refused this and new war started in this region. In start of 1999, Pakistan wanted to make good relations with

India but a limited war stated in Kargil between Pakistan and India. India increased its pressure and on the request of Pakistan, America intervened and armies of both countries retreated to their prewar position. It was in the interest of US to keep the sovereignty of

Pakistan intact, as it was the only way to exert its influence in Afghanistan (Powell,

2003).

At the end of Kargal war, Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif tried to arrest military commander but military came into power for the fourth time and led by General

Pervaiz Musharraf.

2.7 Era of General Musharraf and Relations with U.S. (1999-2008)

General Pervaiz Musharraf topples Nawaz Sharif’ government. On October 12,

1999, At the time of Musharraf took power, the economic situation of Pakistan was in trouble. Pakistani currency rupee was descending, funds that was given by foreign had been exhausted and uncontrolled corruption was damaged the infrastructure of country.

Even after 53 years of independence country was still stressed to make stable political system and financial infrastructure that would generate sustainable development and improve quality of life of people. According to American perspective, Pakistan was going

31 closer to “Failed State” and for the Washington policy maker, Pakistani nuclear and missile programs were constant concern. With this point of view, American administration, more or less supported Musharraf to make more stable economy in

Pakistan (Peter R. Blood, 2002).

Pakistan as always agrees...... now people in Pakistan see a 4th betrayal in the making as US assures India that it will help India fight "terrorism" in Kashmir a veiled threat that Pakistan will suffer same fate as Afghanistan... No one realizes that the terrorism in Kashmir is by Indian army....Look at the statistics.... tens of thousands of

Kashmir is slaughtered by Indian occupation forces....yet when Kashmir is fight the

Indian army they are labeled terrorists...by that token George Washington was a terrorist,

Charles DE Gaulle was a terrorist, Nelson Mandela was even declared a terrorist by racist

South Africa. Pakistan is always there when US needed her...but US did not reciprocate.... we are a very emotional nation.... we love our friends but nobody likes to be betrayed... (Peter R. Blood, 2002).

2.8 Post 9/11 and Pak-U.S

9/11 attacks took radical turns in Pak-US relations. US changed its policy regarding Pakistan with new dimensions. These attacks gave serious surprise to Bush administration. In return US government decided to take strict action against terrorism.

With the aim to eradicate terrorism from its roots, US appealed to the whole world to join

U.S. to eradicate the threat of terrorism. At that point Pakistan also once again became ally with USA in war against terror. But in military establishment and general public of

Pakistan were still in doubt about reliability of relationship with America. In-fact

America became trustworthy ally with Pakistan till time that no strong lobby activated against Pakistan in USA and Pak-Indo getting united on specific issue and relation convergent in this region. At that time, interest of Pakistan and India diverged and in

USA, specific lobby start acting against Pakistan (Touqir Hussain, 2005).

As per US comments, Osama bin Laden’s organization declared as terrorist organization executed successful attacks in Washington and New York in September

2001. Bush administration asked the clear question to the word with the slogan that “Are you with us or against us”. At this state, initially, 40 nations agreed to start war against terrorism. Pakistan is also to be said to join coalition against terrorism. Musharraf administration, which were supporter and backer of Taliban since its beginning took U- turn and toward America against war on terror. Later on, Musharraf claimed that there was threaten from America that if will not support us, then your county will be put into back stone age (Nazar, 2006).

The US government dramatically changed its relationships with Pakistan, after

9/11 incidents. This era was based on mutual benefits of both countries. After bombing

“front line state” Pakistan helped America in capturing hundreds members of Al-Qaida organization and allowed USA to operate military operation from its air, sea and island to eradicate terrorism. It gradually helped America in meeting its objectives of destroying the terrorist slots. To became ally with USA and allow using its territory against terrorism, Pakistan economic position improved. The American President George Bush administration proposed a five year, included military aid package to support Pakistan’s security. President Musharraf acknowledge the payments in his book “In the Line of

Fire”: “We have captured 689 and handover 369 to the US. We have earned bounties totaling millions of dollars” (Musharraf, 2004).

Pakistan has been negatively portrayed for being a breeding ground of terrorist.

Pakistan is held responsible for the infiltration of military. Despite the fact is that

Pakistan is made all possible attempts to cooperate with US in the war on terror, but still

Pakistan’s efforts are neither approved by US policy makers, nor the US media, print as well as the electronic media.

Pak-US relations since the attack of 9/11 were based on main constitute that both countries will work together against global war against terrorism. USA will cooperate

South Asian states to enhance stability. USA shall help Pakistan in strengthen political, social, domestic and economic development. Better understanding will be created among the both nations of America and Pakistan and both countries will help each other in intelligence, military and law enforcement.

To become ally with USA and working against extremist groups, Pakistan has increases its border security and continuously operating tribal areas of Pak-Afghan borders. At starting operation by Pakistan army against Taliban in Waziristan, Sectary

U.S. Colin Powell and on January 10, 2004 that at responding Musharraf to USA is a good sign and U.S. administration is happy and appreciates conducting military operations against these threats (Najam, Hamiyou, 2012)

USA continue work with Pakistani government to monitor and take effective actions against Jaish-e-Muhammad, Lashkar-e-Taiba and other groups. Not only this, but

Pakistan tries it best to control different terrorist groups to cross line of control. In this war of terror, Pakistan beard huge human loss at the cost of fighting against terrorism. To make secure Pakistan and Afghanistan, USA working with these states to make border secure that has poor control over the decades. U.S. aid aimed to making both countries more secure so that they could prevent violent element from moving undetected places to cross the border. For this purpose, three countries make military commission to help military and border security forces to watch and control the movement of terrorism groups to achieve the shared goals. USA provides Pakistan latest technology for counter terrorism and providing facility latest training and equipment’s of fingerprint system to get control over terrorism. Training for investigation and operations also was given to

Pakistan by USA (Najam Rafique, 2004).

Foreign Military Financing (FMF) grant in term of military assistance used to purchase US advanced military equipment’s for maintenance and training. To providing instruction and training, America military team came Pakistan. Pakistan and US army conducted joint military and naval exercises to enhance professional changes in both militaries. After 9/11 attacks on US, Pakistan provided support to USA for anti-terror coalition. US defense department admitted that Pakistan have given US unprecedented level of support by allowing USA army to do military operations from the land of

Pakistan, identifying extremists, securing the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan.

American top officials frequently praised Pakistan anti-terrorism efforts. US military and law enforcement agencies became engaged to assist Pakistani security forces to track Al-

Qaida and Taliban fighters in local territory of Pakistan in 2000. In spite of recognizing

Pakistan’s efforts open heartedly and despite Pakistan’s full support to USA in eradicating terrorism, US never encouraged with deep heart.

According to Kronstadt (2005), “some analysts call Musharraf’s efforts cosmetic, ineffective and the result of international pressure”. Pakistan considered being a foundation for several native radical organizations and the state continuous to bear from sectarian violence and anti-terrorism at home. Killing of nationals and many suicide attacks made the whole world to believe that Pakistan is an unsafe place. Bloody failed attacks on Musharraf to kill him and other tries to kill top Pakistani officials US became keener to streamline the security problems in Pakistan, which led to the training

Pakistan’s security personnel by US. This step was taken in view the mutual interest of both countries. (Kronstadt, 2005).

In 2002, US provided military exercises and trainings set to aid Pakistan to improve its capabilities in term of counter terrorism. Pakistan declared as non NATO ally of by Bush administration in 2004. Pakistani role in US led anti-terrorism campaign was the result of restoration Pak-US security ties of world war era. (Nayak, 2005).

In 2007, Pakistan suffered a lot destabilizing in development, political crises and emergency public statement that destabilized status of military government and

Musharraf surge domestic Islamist militancy following the march Judicial crises and in

July the issue of Red Mosque in Islamabad, in October re-elections and return of Bhutto to Pakistan and state of emergency imposed and in December, the assassination of

Benazir Bhutto while returning Pakistan from self-imposed exile all these events led lot

36 of Washington-based critics and Bush administration mostly trusting support for

Musharraf as American ally (Bruce Riedel, 2008).

In March, 2007 judicial crises began with Musharraf due dismissed Chief Justice of Pakistan Iftikhar Muhammad Choudhry on charges of misconduct and nepotism.

According to different analysts, Musharraf did this due to safe his presidential ship and chief of army staff. July 2007 seen as major political defeat for Musharraf. August 2007

Musharraf came close to declaring state of emergency. This month of august gave one more indication that Supreme Court would not be submissive of military rule and could spoil Musharraf’s political plan. In this way, Supreme Court ruled that former Prime

Minister Nawaz Sharif could return back to Pakistan after long exile. Government immediately arrested him in corruption cases when Nawaz Sharif attempted to return.

Changes made under emergency remain controversial due to dismissal of many Supreme courts Justices (Hafeez, 2008).

“President Musharraf and Former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto had negotiations on a power-sharing arrangements that could facilitate Musharraf’s continued national political role while also allowing Bhutto to return Pakistan from self-imposed exile, potentially to serve as Prime Minister for a third time. The Bush administration reportedly encouragement such an agreement at the best means of both sustaining Musharraf’s role and strengthening moderate political forces. US official belief that Pakistan’s moderate forces should work together to bring constitutional and democratic rule. On October 18, 2007 Benazir Bhutto returned to Pakistan after more than eight year self- imposed exile and was welcomed by thousands of supporters in Karachi. Bhutto enjoy significant public support in the country, especially in rural Sindh, there

were signs that many PPP members were ambivalent about her return and worried that her credibility as an opponent of military rule has been damaged through deal-making with Musharraf. Only hours after Bhutto’s arrival in Karachi, two blasts near her motorcade---likely perpetrated by at least one suicide attacker------145 people dead, but Bhutto was unharmed. In this case perpetrators are linked to Al-Qaeda and other extremists in Pakistan. Without offering evidence, Bhutto herself implicated elements of Pakistan’s own security apparatus in the attack. (As cited in Jabeen et.al, 2010, p.24)”

Political uncertainly and Islamist related militancy created unrest in Pakistan in

October 2007. It was saying that Musharraf would impose martial law through emergency announcement. On asking possibility, Secretary Rice said on November 1 that

“quite obvious that US would not be supportive of extra-constitutional means” and described Washington’s view that Pakistan should create atmosphere of fare elections.

On the next day US central command Admin William Fallon met with Musharraf in

Islamabad and warned that to imposed martial law in the country and said that it would create Pak-US relations at risk. It is also claimed that at time US diplomats was receiving warnings from Pakistan officials that emergency declaration is forthcoming. In returned of this report, the reaction of US officials was muted and some local seniors politicians argued that it will be proceed. At a result, on November 3, 2007, by addressing late night in TV channel Musharraf declared a state of emergency. In his speech, Musharraf said that country was under the threat form extremism. He also claimed Pakistani media responsible for worsening circumstances. He said that emergency was necessary for the benefits of country. In his speech, he compared his action with Abraham Lincolin’s

38 wording “sweeping violation of constitutional limits” is attempt to protect the amalgamation (Musharraf, 2006).

This emergency put harsh and immediate impact on independence of media.

Different private TV channels and rations stations starting condemned against

Musharraf’s policy and blacked out against working Musharraf administration and government announced new order regarding media that any channels would be banned if it report “defame or bring ridicule” against military or government. According to this order, by violating this order, media owners will bear one year prison sentence of five million rupees as fine. After declaring emergency, for many days, different local and international media like BBC remained off air in Pakistan (Sattar, 2009).

Emergency create problems for government as US called emergency declaration in Pakistan, set back the state from democratization process. Different countries criticize on this event. Pakistan foreign ministry said international community should understand the political situation of Pakistan and Musharraf is committed to full civilian self- governing rule and holding of elections. At the end of 2007, Musharraf lifted the emergency on December 15 with the claimed that complete restoration of constitution.

By addressing again to nation he said “emergency was declared as a last resort___ against my own will___ in order to defeat a conspiracy to derail the democratic process”. The laying foundation of real democracy also took credit to Musharraf. Under acting PCO,

Musharraf issued many decrees and amendments in Pakistani constitution. In amendments, this was also included that Musharraf’s this act of employing emergency will not be challengeable in court. On 28 November 2007, Musharraf leaved his post of

39 army chief and Pakistan military commander. Musharraf relinquished his post by handing over his hand-picked successor to General Ashafaq Kayani. In his emotional speech,

Musharraf said to Kayani “You are the savior of Pakistan” in ceremony, hundreds of politicians, civilians and senior military officers watched from the stand as unsmiling

Musharraf. “I am proud of this army and I was lucky to have commanded the world’s best army. I will no longer command but my heart and my mind will always be with you

(Musharaff, 2008)”

2.9 Benazir Bhutto Assassination

On December 2007, former prime minister and Opposition leader Benazir Bhutto assassinated in Rawalpindi when she was returning back from her speech to large crowd.

She fired from gun and suicide bomb blast. Bush administration showed condolence and sympathy and strongly condemned cowardly attacks. This assassination elicited widespread condemnation around the whole world. Next day, body of Benazir Bhutto interred in her ancestral village of Ghari Khuda Bukhsh in Sindh. Savior rioting occurred in Karachi and other cities. Bhutto’s circumstances remain controversial. Even initial reports were conflicting. According to government sources, neither bullets nor shrapnel causes her death and said she was killed by hitting to latch on vehicle’s sunroof while videos showed that a gunman shot three fires near Bhutto’s vehicle. Explosion at that time causes more than 20 nearby stander dead (Iexplore, 2007).

Many oppositions seniors politicians and observers clamed Musharraf for providing insufficient security to Bhutto. Overall Bhutto’s assassination make directly or indirectly government as causes of Bhutto’s death. By a local newspaper, in an article

40 only one neutral panel of foreign experts would hold weight with people. By international pressure, on December 30, Musharraf agreed to investigate this event by foreign experts and after three days announced that British Scotland Yard would play role in this investigation. At this point U.S. welcomed Musharraf’s decision and offered for any assistance if Pakistan requested it. Soon, government officials blamed on Taliban and blamed militant Baitullah Meshud for Bhutto’s killing by a taped call whereas Meshud denied in involvement in killing. Taliban spokesperson said that attack was pre-planned conspiracy and done by government agents. US counter terrorism officials blamed that

Al-Qaida and Pakistani based allies were behind this assassination (Nazar, 2009).

US offers to provide security to Bhutto but Musharraf refuse request that her security be bolstered. US also offered many Pakistani officials to provide protections but these were not employed due to fear of Bhutto’s family and with the fear that they will be prominent for extremists. Not only Al-Qaida but many religious extremist groups seen to have had motive for assassinating Bhutto. These groups includes Jaish-e-Muhammad,

Lahkar-eJhangvi, Sipah-e-Sahaba and Lashkar-e-Taiba scheme thinking out of control in

Pakistan (Zahid, 2012).

On August18, 2008 Musharraf addressed to the nation and post his resignation. He said that all allegations that are imposing to him are totally false. Furthermore, he said that he is not afraid against charges against him and not shy to face these kinds of allegations. He said politics of disagreement must come to an end as an alternative policy of settlement be pursued. In his speech he said;

“For me it is always Pakistan first. Immediate measure be taken to arrest the economic downturn. Nation has the resilience to withstand any challenge. I is not time to show bravado, but to get serious as country’s dignity is at stake. For 44 years I have safeguarded the country and will continue to do so.No charge sheet can stand against me. Not even a single charge can be proven against me as I have full trust in Allah Almighty and I did everything with the belief of Pakistan First. (Musharraf, 2008)”

Musharraf said all the decisions were taken with the consultations of all stakeholders.

“All stake holders, whether they were soldiers, politicians, bureaucrats, members of civil society, Ulema were consulted in all decisions. “I have nothing to worry about the charge sheet”. He has mixes thoughts to do something for the country to bring it out of crisis.

Parliament could be saved from horse trading. Relations between different institutes of states will never be same again even if implementation fails. It is the right of government to take charge against him and he has full right to defend himself, Musharraf said. He categorically added that “Impeachment is their (government’s) right and to face it, is my right”. He was confident that no charge has proved against him and nor he is afraid.

“I believe that no charge sheet can stand against me because I never did things for my own self but for my country. I am not afraid of impeachment because not a single charge can be proved against me. I have no guilt on my conscious for nine years rule. I am leaving with this satisfaction that I did my best with honesty and responsibility (Musharraf, 2008)”

During his tenure, Musharraf defended the performance of government in the areas especially people’s empowerment, development in heath sector, social sector, economy and education besides the war on terrorism.

“We held elections twice. The senate, national assembly and local government, all completed their terms. This is the essence of democracy. I am proud of all these achievements, all done for Pakistan and its people (Musharraf, 2008)”

In the response of allegations, he said that he has not done anything wrong and has ability to face any charges against him. He said he pursued reconciliatory approach and done nothing personal. After elections in 18 February, people had new hopes from the new selected government.

“Unfortunately all my appeals towards reconciliation and to address the complicated issues fell on deaf ears. All my efforts unfortunately failed” it was the wording of Musharraf. “Certain vested interests began an atmosphere of confrontation and of vendetta; they blamed me of hatching conspiracies from Aiwan-e-Sadr.”

Musharraf said there were free and fair elections held in February and all political parties ensured their presence. “Had it been a conspiracy, we would not have done it,” budget passed in the presence of healthy opposition without any hitch.

“I publicly announced support to the government and offered to share all my experience with them to help address complicated issues it was confronting. The coalition considered me a problem and not a solution” Musharraf Said. “Are they afraid of me or my obligations under the constitution?”

Musharraf said that believed on the slogan of “Pakistan first” and still he is believed on it.

“I have fought two wars for Pakistan and still have the same spirit for my country.”

“I took power of the country when it was at the brink of being declared a failed state,”

Musharraf count economic achievement since he took the control. He argued that since that some wrong allegation has against him. He said that in the last eight months,

GDP increased with seven percent and reached to 180 billion with 17 billion US dollars in foreign exchange reserves. Revenue collection in different terms was 1000 billion.

Stock exchange index increased 16000 point and exchange rate hovered around Rs. 60 for the past decade. All these things indicate the robust economy. Dollar rate plunged at

Rs. 77, investors are fleeing the country, no new investment is coming and money is going out.

Musharraf said his government tried its best to facilitate poor people and control the house hold things which common man need. The things were out of control. Due to robust economy of Pakistan, all global economy has been slowdown. He admitted that due to faster grown in industry and economy, electricity demand rose rapidly and demand and supply did not make its balance and shortage of electricity increased. 3000 MW electricity was added in system but it was not enough to meet the demand. At time electricity was generated 14000 MW whereas now electricity is being generating 10000.

Its mean that no proper planning is done as the demand of electricity increased.

Musharraf regretted that due to vitiated atmosphere, unfortunately negative impact on all sectors of economy.

Furthermore he said that since last nine all the areas were addressed and appropriate measures were taken to improve working capacity. He said that before his era, only M2 motorway was constructed whereas now uncountable roads of whole

44 country has been made and updated. He said “Whosoever says that our policies for last nine years were faulty and unsatisfactory, should not damage Pakistan”. Furthermore he said “it is time to forget about the past and focus on future. The government should find solutions for the problems and take the country forward.” There is no essence of democracy now”. Furthermore adding he said that only in his era local government system empowered people at grassroots level. He said in 1990’s there was no identification id internal issues and there was internal structure. But in his tenure,

Pakistan made its prominent identification in the world and at all plate forms its name is taken with respect. He argued that after earthquake, over 80 countries participated in

Donor’s conference and as an alternative of need for US 5 billion dollars and world community pledged US 6.5 billion recreation of its structure.

2.10 End of Musharraf’s Tenure “Critical Period” for Pakistan

Every king has limited time to do his government. At least he leaves designation.

President Musharraf gave his resignation on 18 august 2008. His resignation end critical period of Pakistan history: British Foreign Secretary David Miliband. Pakistan political leaders called on Miliband to come together to make sure new civil government on course with economic and security policy. He also called for early election of successor to Musharraf.

David Miliband said in his statement that

"The announcement... by President Musharraf that he is standing down as president brings to a close a critical period in Pakistan's history and its relations with the UK and other countries Pakistan is a vital friend of the

UK and it is essential... that it has a strong and democratic government with a clear mandate and programme for thoroughgoing reform of its social, political and economic structures."

Furthermore, Miliband appreciate Musharraf’s time and his working style on different issues like economy, fighting against terrorism, eradicating corruption and promoting dialogue with old enemy India. He further said that;

"But reform depends above all on legitimacy, and that is why the UK has been at pains to stress the importance for Pakistan of strong institutions rather than strong individuals, and why we believe a strong democracy is key. The responsibilities on political leaders in Pakistan are now significant. They need to come together to ensure that the recently elected government carries forward an economic and security agenda consistent with the long-term interests of the Pakistani people."

He continued his wording that the former colonial power in Pakistan, Britain strongly committed with Pakistan, no doubt in term of aid but also cooperated and will cooperate in term of security with new government. He said, we will be clear about new partnership between Pakistan and Afghanistan. He added "I look forward to the early election of a new president in Pakistan to take forward the important shared work that binds our two countries together".

2.11 Musharraf’s Resign and U.S urges stability

As Musharraf resigned from the post of President, the world leaders urged stability and unity in Pakistan. Being partner with west in war against terrorism, world countries urged to continue its assistance against war on terror. American National

Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndore said on behalf of US president that

"President Bush looks forward to working with the Government of Pakistan on the economic, political and security challenges they face and paid tribute to Musharraf for his efforts in the democratic transition of Pakistan as well as his commitment to fighting Al-

Qaeda and extremist groups".

Condoleezza Rice, the US Secretary said in her statement that "a friend to the

United States and one of the world's most committed partners in the war against terrorism and extremism.

Afghanistan, whose President Hamid Karzai has had strained relations with

Musharraf amid a surge in Islamist extremist violence, said it hoped the move would help strengthen the civilian Pakistani government."

Karzai’s spokesman Homayun Hamidzada said in an interview that we will continue our cooperation in fight against extremism and terrorism with Pakistan because it is necessary for the both countries (International Crises Group Asia Briefing, 2008).

2.12 Major incidents during 2008

February 11, 2008: It was believed that Pakistan’s ambassador in Afghanistan have been kidnapped by Taliban militants.

April 19, 2008: Taliban release a video to Pakistani ambassador that was hired in

Afghanistan as a hostage.

June 11, 2008: American airplanes bombing on Pakistani border checkpoint caused 11 soldiers death.

October 1, 2008: US military stuck a missile in Pakistani village in border area that caused 6 people death. They claimed that it was the house of Taliban member.

2.13 Major Incidents in 2009

January 1, 2009: Drone attack in Pakistani areas of South Waziristan resulted 4 dead.

January 2, 2009: Another drone attack from USA in South Waziristan that caused 4 deaths.

January 21, 2009: US declared that new government will increase non-military aid to

Pakistan but Islamabad should accountable in term of security along with Afghan border areas. Documents will release soon according to the foreign policy of USA after the

Barak Obama assumes office.

January 23, 2009: In result of US drone attacks, 10 people killed in North Waziristan and

8 people killed in South Waziristan. It was the first attack after the charge of new US administration.

January 27, 2009: US drone attacks will continue in Pakistan. US defense Secretary

Robert Gates said.

February 3, 2009: NATO supply disturbed due to militants blow up bridge on the read of

Peshawar torkham read that make connection among Pakistan and Afghanistan. Ten trucks burnt on Peshawar Torkhan road that was coming back after delivering NATO supplies to Afghanistan.

February 10, 2009: US President Barack Obama said we will not gave safe hand to terrorists in tribal areas of Pakistan.

February 13, 2009: Dianne Feinstein (US senate intelligence committee chairwomen) said US predators flown from Pakistani base whereas Pakistan denied the claim.

February 14, 2009: US made drone attack in South Waziristan that resulted 28 people dead and there is said that most of them were foreigners.

February 16, 2009:US drone attack in Khurram Agency that claimed 30 suspected

Afghan Taliban dead and it was camp of terrorists.

March 1, 2009: US drone attack in South Waziristan and 8 people killed in this attack.

March 25, 2009: US made drone attack in South Waziristan as resulted 8 people killed.

All of them claimed as suspected to be foreign fighters.

March 27, 2009: US president Obama announced new Pak-Afghan strategy and announced that $1.5 billion as aid for development work in Pakistan will be passed soon.

April 6, 2009: Mike Mullen (US Admiral) said Taliban top leadership is hiding in Quetta,

Balochistan.

April 8, 2009: US drone attack near Wana and 3 people killed.

April 14, 2009: USA and Afghanistan disapproved Niazm-e-Adal regulation.

April 19, 2009: US drone attack in South Waziristan and 3 people killed on a Taliban hideout.

April 22, 2009: American Secretary of State Hilary Clinton said Pakistani government abdicating to Taliban. Rehman Malik said reason of unrest in Balochistan is involvement of Indian and Afghanistan.

May 9, 2009: US drone attack in South Waziristan, and 10 people dead in this attack.

May 11, 2009: United Nations said, near about 360000 people migrated from their areas in result of military operation and these migrated people are living in the various camps in province. Suicide bomb blast in security check post of Darra Ada Khel and 10 people killed.

July 3, 2009: US drone attack in South Waziristan and 10 people killed in this way.

July 8, 2009: US drone targeted TTP hideouts and Taliban convoy in South Waziristan at resulted 48 Taliban members killed.

August 21, 2009: US drone attack in North Waziristan and 8 people killed in this attack.

September 7, 2009: US drone attack in North Waziristan and killed more than five people.

September 8, 2009: Another drone attack in North Waziristan killed ten people.

September 14, 2009: Drone attack in North Waziristan and killed 4 people.

September 24, 2009: Drone attack in North Waziristan that killed 10 people. US Senate passed Kerry Lugar Bill.

September 29, 2009: US drone attack in South and North Waziristan and killed 9 people.

September 30, 2009: US drone attack near Mir Ali, North Waziristan and killed 6 people.

December 26, 2009: Drone attack in North Waziristan in which 6 people killed. Bomb blast in Karachi near Muharram procession in which 26 people injured.

Source: (https://humaimtiaz.wordpress.com/timeline-pakistan-2009/)

2.14 Major Events in 2010

January 19, 2010: US drone attack in Deegan, North Waziristan in which 6 people killed and 2 injured.

January 29, 2010: US drone attack in North Waziristan in which 5 people killed and many injured.

February 2, 2010: US drone attack in Dattakehl Tehsil, North Waziristan in which drone fired 18 rockets and in this attack 17 people killed.

February 16, 2010: It was reported that Taliban top administrator, Mullah Abdul Ghani

Baradar has captured in combined operation of US and Pak army in Karachi.

March 2, 2010: US drone attack in Miranshah, North Waziristan in which 5 people killed.

March 16, 2010: US drone attack in District Dattakhel, North Waziristan in which 7 people killed and more than 3 people injured.

March 17, 2010: Another US drone attack in North Waziristan in which 10 people killed and 2 people injured.

March 23, 2010: Drone attack in North Waziristan in which at least 6 people killed. 51

March 27, 2010: Drone attack in North Waziristan in which 4 people killed.

April 14, 2010: Drone attack near Miranshah, North Waziristan in which 4 people killed.

April 25, 2010: Terrorist attack near Talangang Chakwal in which 4 policemen killed and

12 NATO oil tankers burnt. Drone attack in Miranshah in which 7 people killed.

May 3, 2010: Drone attack in North Waziristan in which 4 people killed.

May 4, 2010: In failed Time square bombing case Pak-US citizen Faisal Shahzad arrested.

May 19, 2010: A trailer burnt in Chaman that was carrying NATO supplies.

June 10, 2010: US drone attack in Miranshah, North Waziristan in which 3 people killed.

June 19, 2010: Drone attack in Mir Ali in which 12 people killed.

June 27, 2010: Drone attack in Miranshah, North Waziristan in which 6 people killed.

September 4, 2010: Drone attack in Miranshah, North Waziristan in which 5 people killed.

September 7, 2010: Drone attack in Kohat in which 20 people killed and more than 90 injured.

September 15, 2010: Drone attack in North Waziristan and 17 people killed in this way.

September 19, 2010: Drone attack in Datta Khel, North Waziristan in which 5 people killed.

September 23, 2010: US court sentenced Dr. Afia Siddiqui to 86 year correctional facility.

September 26, 2010: Two drone attacks in North Waziristan in which 7 people killed and

NATO helicopters crossed into Pakistan region that killed 30 supposed agitators.

September 28, 2010: Drone attack in Angoor Adda, South Waziristan in which 4 people killed and 3 injured.

October 3, 2010: Militants attack on NATO oil tankers depot in Islamabad in which 6 people killed.

October 6, 2010: 35 NATO oil tankers burnt in Nowshehra and 22 tankers burnt in

Quetta. On the same two drone attacks in North Waziristan in which 9 people killed.

October 8, 2010: Drone attack in Charkhel, North Waziristan in which 8 people killed.

October 9, 2010: 29 oil tankers burnt in Sibi, Balochistan and the same day, Pakistan reopen the route for NATO supply.

October 26, 2010: Two drone attacks in Datta Khel in North Waziristan in which 8 people killed and many injured. Asma Jahangir won Supreme Court elections and elected as first women president bar association.

October 28, 2010: Drone attack in Datta Khel, North Waziristan in which 7 people killed.

November 3, 2010: Three drone attacks in North Waziristan in which 13 people killed.

November 7, 2010: Drone attack in North Waziristan in which 13 people killed and many injured.

November 17, 2010: Drone attack in North Waziristan in which 20 people killed and many injred.

November 21, 2010: Drone attack in North Waziristan in which 6 people killed and many injured.

December 15, 2010: Drone attack in Spalga near Miranshah, North Waziristan in which 4 suspected killed.

December 17, 2010: Three drone attacks in Khyber Agency in which 54 people killed and many injured.

December 19, 2010: Attack on NATO oil tankers that’s were going from Peshawar to

Bagram in which 1 person killed and 2 injured.

December 20, 2010: Attack on NATO tankers and 1 killed and 2 injured.

Source:(https://humaimtiaz.wordpress.com/timeline-pakistan-2010/)

2.15 Major Incidents in 2011

January 27, 2011: A US ambassador, Raymond Davis, executes two men on a motorbike in Lahore professedly in self-preservation while a buddy of the negotiator, who is likewise an American native, pulverized to death a bicycle rider in an attempt at manslaughter occurrence, taking after the shooting.

May 2, 2011: Death of Osama bin Laden: The US Navy Seals killed Osama bin Laden in the city of Abbotabad.

June 24, 2011: The cell phone of Osama bin Laden's courier is reported to contain contacts with Harakat-ul-Mujahadeen, suggesting potential ties to Pakistan's intelligence agencies.

November 26, 2011: A NATO assault on two Pakistani fringe checkposts in Salala in the

Baizai subdivision of Mohmand Agency in FATA execute 24 fighters of the Pakistan

Army.Source: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_in_Pakistan)

2.16 Major incidents in 2012

August 6, 2012: On the same day militants attacked on NATO supply truck in north west area of Pakistan.

September 17, 2012: NATO supply trailer driver killed in bomb exploded on read side in

TorKham road Peshawar.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist_incidents_in_Pakistan_in_2012

Pak-US relations in the historical background showed that the relationship between both countries depends on the common interests of both countries. During

(1959-1968) US required intelligence and surveillance flight facilities against Soviets

Union, international relations with Chinese (1970-72) secret operation against Red Army in Afghanistan (1980-88). In recent era war against terrorism has extended best hand forward regarding economic and military aid and support for unelected military dictators.

In this critical situation, Pakistan has grown progress from aid from US, IMF and World

Bank. Pakistan has gained better achievement in balancing nuclear with India its extensive missile and nuclear program. Anyhow, the future will tell that how Pak-US relations will lasts and how much Pakistan get reward for cooperation with US against war on terror (Nazar, 2003).

Chapter No.3: Literature Review

3.1 Literature Review

Literature review shows that how much work has been done on the topic of concern. Literature review is fundamental step of research. The reviewing the existing literature, researcher come to know some points. What has been done? Which parts of related topic have been discussed? Which parts of related topic are needed to be explored? To conduct any research, review of existence literature is necessary.

Ali &Shahid (2012) explored the Pak-US relationship in Pakistani elite press. By using the content analysis technique, Agenda setting role, and classifying key issues study explored the relationship between two countries i.e. Pakistan and USA. To explored the relationship among Pakistan and USA, study focused on Afghanistan, India and terrorism since the 9/11 incident till the death of Osama Bin Ladin in May 2011. This study was based on Pakistani and American press. In this way Pakistani newspaper The

Dawn and American newspaper The New York Times were analyzed. The Study concluded that Pakistani press has given more treatment as compare to American press.

The results of study showed that during the selected period, selected newspapers of both countries showed maximum negative behavior regarding Pak-US relationship.

Furthermore Study concluded that American media does not support foreign policy of their country whereas Pakistani media support state policy on critical issues but in less ratio.

Yousaf and Ali (2012) stated that generally Pakistani media do not support the policy of government whereas US media particularly do not support the government policy regarding foreign policy. By using content analysis method, they analyzed two newspapers of Pakistan and America. The study was based on agenda setting theory and the time period was 2008 to 2012. They checked the stance of Pakistani government and

American government regarding drone attacks in Pakistani areas, war on terrorism, and

Chinese Russian, Iranian and Indian influence on two-sided relations of USA and

Pakistan were focused. Regarding above mentioned issues, the study concluded that newspapers of both countries shows unhappy behavior. It is also concluded that Pakistani media gave more treatment as compare to American media.

Sultan (2012) also focused Pak-US relations and discussed media agenda setting role in Pak-US relations. To check the role of newspaper regarding Pak-US relations and by using the agenda setting theory, he tried to explore the slant of newspapers of both countries. The study was based on content analysis in which The Dawn was selected from Pakistani press and The Washington Post form American press to check the stand point of Pakistani and American government in the matter of political, religious and war on terrorism. As concern with these issues, study concluded that newspapers of both countries showed unhappy behavior. The study disapproved the foreign policy of both countries and found that Pakistani newspaper gave more treatment as compare to US media on the issues concerned.

Khan (2011) stated that US should revisit its policy regarding drone attacks in

Pakistani territory and work mutually with Pakistan in counter terrorism and must understand the difficulties that is facing Pakistan after the 9/11. US should value

59 international laws and human rights to maintain peace not only in South Asia but also round the world.

Iqbal (2011) conducted study to explore the role of US media in eradicating terrorism. Study was based on content analysis and US news magazines selected as data source. The study concluded that US media portrayed negative image of Afghanistan and it is said to be that it is main hug of extremism and safe place for Taliban and Al-Qadia.

Furthermore, US media presented Islam and Islamic countries negatively.

Mughees (2010) explored the image of Pakistan in US elite media during 1980 to

1990. He selected The New York Times for this purpose. In its treatment, newspaper opposed Pakistan nuclear program and also opposed the US policy to give military aid to

Pakistan. Whereas, newspaper gave favor US policy regarding Pakistan position on

Afghanistan. He stated that US press especially The New York Times does not unavoidably to follow the policy maker of America. His study concluded that American policy regarding Pakistan especially in case of The New York Times somewhat advocative and somewhat adversarial.

Pande (2010) stated that during the period of 2001 and 2002, the mainstream media treatment of America was war journalism and treatment of conflict instead of US efforts to maintain peace in South Asia. In this duration, US media found in highlighting war, clash and violence issues that related to conflicts from the other nations at global level.

Khan & Safdar (2010) argued that USA do not enjoy favorable and positive position in media of Pakistan and USA has negative image in Pakistan after 9/11

60 incident. They conducted content analysis study of two Pakistani newspapers one Urdu and one English. The basic theme of the study was to explore the US image in Pakistani media including politics, Pak-US relations, war on terror and nuclear issues. The study was conducted on the basis of conformity theory. The study concluded that US is portrayed as enemy in Pakistani press regarding the selected issues. Furthermore study concluded that Pakistani press not willing to trust US and the same tone is measured in

US press that using hard tone concerning Muslims predominantly Pakistan.

Lodhi (2009) argued that there are mistrust and doubt in PAK-US relations. To achieve mutual interests, both countries should understand the importance of each other.

Cooperation among both countries is necessary and is benefit for both states.

Haq& Khan (2008) argued that in war against terrorism, Pakistan faced more suffering due to sharing large border with Afghanistan and its proximity. Pakistan gained heavy loss in term of finance and lives in war against terrorism.

Khan & Safdar (2008) put light on the issue that at international level, US has faced sever image particular in Islamic world. Focusing on western media, Said (1987) stated that in majority, western media is anti-Islam and western media portrayed Islam as aggressive religion and pained for both civilizations and individuals.

Lisa Curtis (2008) conducted research entitled, “Pak-US relations” that published in American journal named “The Foundation of Heritage”. She argued that the gap is increasing between Pakistani religious groups and militants targeting Pakistan. Pakistan army is trying to pull up the terrorists along with the border of Afghanistan. In this way

US should help Pakistan and US army should be ready to help Pakistan with equipment

61 and training so that these terrorists should wipe out from the state of Pakistan. US direct military interruption in Tribal areas is terrible. Such US involvement may create problem for Pakistani government and political balance may disturb in the favor of religious extremists. So Pakistani army should lead and US must follow the values and constancy of Pakistan. It will increase relationship between US and Pakistan army.

Friedman (2008) in his well-expressed work, Al-Qaeda, Afghanistan and the

Good war, discussed the US strategies to abolish Al-Qaeda and war against terrorism with respect to attack on Iraq. While assessing the challenge of guerrilla war in

Afghanistan, he argued that Pakistan’s policies and capabilities could bring shift to the

Afghanistan’s situation.

Khan (2007) analyzed the image of Pakistan in U.S Newspapers’ editorials in order to test the media conformity theory. He noted biasness among American writers.

Ali & Khalid (2008) investigated the portrayal of Muslim world in U.S elite newspapers.

They evaluated the pro, anti and neutral American Muslim countries and found negative image of Muslim countries in U.S media.

Siraj (2007) discussed the framing in U.S media reports relating to foreign policy issues. He concluded that U.S media confirm the foreign policy due to U.S interests.

Noshina (2007) in her article “US media framing of Foreign Countries Image: An

Analytical Perspective”, views that US media gave substantial favorable treatment to the countries where its political, economic, and military interests are involved. The US media supported US policies on foreign affairs and portrayed the foreign countries images according to the government’s interests. Moreover if US media countered government

62 policies, it was subsidiary depending upon the US concerns and nature of government and media differences on those issues.

Baum & Potter (2007) discussed relationship between foreign policy, mass media and public opinion. They found that public opinion and foreign policy both showed as progressed but yet not agreement or compromise made between stake holders. Anyhow, media can play important role in figure out public opinion that may influence the foreign policy.

Elkon (2007) presented the model about foreign policy relations with other issues of international affairs. This study was the merger of international and mass media theories. In his study, he focused on US media and its role during the Bosnian crises during the 1992 to 1995. To know about the policies of US media, two elite newspapers were selected that were The Washington Post and Wall Street Journal. Furthermore, study examined the headlines of two American newspapers The Washington Post and

USA Today. The study concluded that there were relationship among media contents, public opinion and foreign policy at various level of international crisis.

Ali (2007) checked the treatment of Muslim world in US media. In this way he selected US magazines News Week and Time for the period of ten years. He prepared a coding sheet and categorized sheet into three categories. These categories include US allies, US enemy and neutral counties. For this purpose, the selected twelve Muslim countries. He placed Pakistan as neutral country. In this study, he examined that total

1943 articles were published during the selected period of ten years i.e. from 1991 to

2001. Sample size of this study was 219 articles of twelve countries. The treatment of

63 both magazines showed greater percentage of disapproving and negative treatment of selected twelve Muslim countries. Overall negative treatment was greater than the positive treatment. But for the Pakistan, gave positive treatment due to the pro-western policies and Pakistani leadership during the period of 1991 to 2001.

Ali (2007) analyzed Pak-US relations in US magazines on the issue of counter terrorism. The study was on the basis of content analysis with the core objective to know about the image of Pakistan in US media in war against terrorism and track of Pak-US relations in American press. The study focused on US policy regarding military strategy against terrorism, economic aid, social development and war on terrorism in Pakistan.

The study concluded that US media preferred US interests and gave positive image of those countries where US have some interests. Not only this, but study concluded that US media gave more Pro-US treatment than pro-Pakistan treatment in spite that Pakistan has more effects in war on terror and military operation against war terrorism in tribal areas of Pakistan.

Godges (2007) thrashed out the factors of complicating and delaying the preferred

American goals in their war against Al-Qaeda and Taliban.

Sattar (2007), in his book “Pakistan’s foreign policy: (1947 to 2005) a concise history” broadly confers the foreign policy of Pakistan from her birth to 2005. He illustrates the Pakistan’s diplomatic, economic and defense relations to the world and particularly to the neighbors in different circumstances.

Siraj (2006) stated that in US media, Pakistan treated as West versus Islam. This point has been highlighted by different scholars. Like Said (1997) said that no other ethnic group or religious is targeted as Muslims are ascribed in mainstream media.

Evans (2006) said that all the Muslims are not terrorists. He treated this issue as positive and favorable to some extents. He concluded that all the Madrassas are not school of terrorists. Majority of madreassas gave the opportunity to learn about religion and are not threat. These Madrassas provide education millions of poor children in the

Islamic world. He suggested to European and American policy makers that Madarassas offers significant ground of public peacekeeping and it is chance that Muslim Leaders of tomorrow do not see the West as their enemy naturally aggressive to all Muslim institutions

Barbara (2006) argued that many scholars tried to match Islam with terrorism. In any term they categorically affirmed that conflicts and clashes of civilization was the base of 9/11. By giving the example he stated that in the article entitled “Feverish pretests against the West” the writer concluded the causes of these crisis rooted back in the old age of rivalry between Christianity and Islam.

Siraj (2006) portrayed the Western media treatment by adopting the techniques of propaganda about Muslim countries and building the images of Christian and Muslim communities. He his study he particularly described the broadcasting of CNN.

Siraj (2006) argued that American media portrayed Pakistan as enemy country before the incident of 9/11 and on the other hand portrayed as friend after the 9/11 incident. In US press, before the 9/11 incident, Pakistan was given less and unfavorable

65 treatment and after the 9/11, Pakistan was given as favorable, encouraging and friendly treatment.

Luther & Miller (2005) stated that media contents that go against the political elites and social power holders usually merged in the news. He stated that how media frame any event that have more significance in society for the detailed considerate for the real issue.

Auerbach & Elkon (2005) explored the role of US elite print media like The

Washington Post and The New York Times in the formation of US policy about foreign concern. In his study, he focused on humanitarian interests, security interests and power interests. The study analyzed the Bosnian crises and showed that both of newspapers condemned the government policy. In this way, The Washington Post played more critical role as compare to New York Times. On the one hand, newspaper played watchdog role over US supervision whereas on the other hand, twofold role of newspapers were seen.

Lovay (2005) in research article argued the role of Pakistan in war against terrorism as an US ally with respect to strategic culture and myths of Pakistan before and after 9/11. Researcher also discussed the Kashmir clash and nuclear program of Pakistan to analyze its policies and actions to balance of power in the region.

Yioutas & Segvic (2004) argued that any issue that media framed initially, intimate that how this issue will be portray by the media in future. After the 9/11 incident, interview of Israeli Prime Minister was telecast that was intimation that how this issue will be followed. After that interview, Al-Qaida and Taliban considered as alleged that

66 were involved in 9/11 attacks. It is found that after 9/11 incident, this issue given more treatment and Pak-Afghan relations turn to another way with the aim war against terrorism.

Munshi& Vender (2004) analyzed the responses related to the issues of 9/11 from the point of view of Middle Eastern and Asian countries all consequences and impact. By examining the media as tool of war fare and construction of public opinion through electronic media they analyzed the American view point and rest of the world. They found that media played important role in highlighting any issue and making public opinion.

Philip (2004) conducted research to analyzed how world work. He argued that it is critical due to analysis adopted by the media and policy makers both effect how to cover any issue and frame it in the front of world that there is threat posed by radical

Islamist extremists. He criticized the clash of civilization theory be Samuel Huntington.

In this way, work should be done other variation so that calm the clash between west and

Islam.

Fischer and Fischer (2004) in their book “Pakistan under Siege – Pakistan after

September 11th, 2001”, highlighted the Pakistan’s place after the obnoxious incident of

11 September. He also exposed role of Taliban, terrorists, attacks, apprehension with

India and Musharraf supervision. Responsibility of Pakistan in so-called War against terrorism and its relations to Afghanistan after 9/11 has been analyzed on large degree in the Eastern and Western academia.

Cheema (2003) in his extensively research work “The challenges of Terrorism after September 11: A Pakistani Perspective”, elaborated the terrorism and its categories and visions. He also examined the impact of terrorism on Pakistan’s dominion and economy while focusing on relations with US, India and Afghanistan. He found that

Pakistan suffered tremendous scratch in economic, social and security measures.

Ahmad (2003) analyzed the origin of militancy, notion of Jihad and loom of elite class of Muslim world and developments in Muslim societies. He discussed that Muslim countries need instant reforms to restore the despondent condition of their people.

Ahmar (2003) debated on the impact of terrorism after 9/11. He focused on the challenges faced by Pakistan, cause of terrorism, American war in Afghanistan and Iraq and opportunities to struggle against terrorism.

Khatri (2003) presented the pains and difficulties faced by the world in skirmishing terrorism. He discussed the post 9/11 scenario of south Asia for Pakistan’s economic and strategic views and recommended that economic and social developments can squeeze the wave of terrorism.

Saroka (2003) stated that in determining public discernment towards foreign policy and foreign affairs, media plays important role. These events are mostly results of media treatment and take place beyond personal experience. He discussed different factors that effects in making foreign policy. He analyzed the relationship among foreign policy, public opinion and the contents of media of USA. Furthermore, the concept of agenda setting relationship between media foreign affairs and public opinion. In his study, he particularly, point out the media foreign policy and public opinion.

Abrahamian (2003) argued that after the 9/11 incident, The New York Times started new section named “A National Challenge”. This section appeared for four months. In this section, editor discussed the world wide treatment that rooted back in consequences of 9/11. During that specific period of time, many articles were published that were the headings related to these.

 Mosque and State

 The age of Muslim War

 Dreams of Holy War

 The Core of Muslim Rage

 Defusing the Holy Bomb

 Two Views. Can the Koran condone the Terror

 How Islam and Politics Mixed

 The deep Intellectual roots of Islamic rage

 A head on Collision of Alien Cultures

 Barbarian at the gates

 This is a religious war and Divine inspiration the core of Muslim rage.

 Feverish protests against the west

In his study, Abrahim mian point out the American national interest after the cold war that lead media and foreign policy into new directions that setup new phenomenon after the incident of 9/11. In this way, American media started propaganda against

Muslims and Islam.

Hussain (2003), in his paper showed chronological background of terrorism. He also highlighted different approaches of perspective and future trends in terrorist attacks.

Thomas (2002) stated that there is flexibility found in Christianity whereas there is lack of flexibility in Islam. For media researchers, to find the relationship among foreign policy and media is very lively topic. In this way many of the studies have been conduct in the topic concern. Results of different studies showed positive relationship and some of negatives. In his study he found that who third party influenced on relationship between two countries. History showed that Pak-Afghan relation has fluctuated since the birth of Pakistan. In 1979 the invasion of USSR in Afghanistan, the relationship between

Pakistan and Afghanistan gone through some dramatic change due to the involvement of

USA. He tried to explored how Pakistan take U-turn about its foreign policy after the

9/11 incident. It was the exam for policy makers to how formulate such policy and strategies to cope challenges of such incidents. This stage assisted government elites of countries to take some consideration decisions. The role media has become topic of debates in the time of war and peace. The studies about mass media started during the

30’s of twentieth century. Media influenced on different factors. According to Marxist approach, media support only elite class. In the modern era, media faced pressure of economic corporation which destroy the objectivity for media organization.

Navesh (2002) argued media involved in every stage of making foreign policy. At the matter of national and international levels, media is considered as political direction.

Political leaders discussed the complexity of media at the time of external matters.

Furthermore, Public relation advisors and media advisors are consulted by the

70 administrators to pursue for support concerning matter under discussed. Decision making process of foreign policy takes place as product created by the media.

Mazari (2002) argued that U.S – Indo strategic relationship is a direct intimidation for Pakistan’s strategic and nuclear assets.

Ashraf (2002) analyzed the post 9/11 opportunities and strategies of Indian foreign icy. He concluded that India is dynamically pursuing the rewards of war against terrorism in the area to crack down Pakistan.

Cole (2002) in the article “Pakistan Foreign and Domestic Policy Since

September 11th, discussed the background and relationship of Pakistan to Islamic militant groups. He examines intensely the steps of President Musharraf taken after the incident of

September 11. He reported that government of Pakistan tried to secularize the country but result was not clear hitherto.

Herman & Chomsky (2002) stated that journalists should have national interests and professional norms. There should be objectivity and free from personal interests.

Furthermore they stated that journalist performance in fact circumstance dependent.

Peake (2001) argued by discussing the role of agenda setting in American foreign policy that presidency is the major agenda setter in American foreign policy.

Robinson (2001) stated that US foreign policies are formed by keeping in mind the interests and priorities of the country.

Robinson (2001) argued that US foreign policy concerned with the national interests. Not only has this but also threated faced by the national security. Media gave weight to address conflicting matters.

Jacobsen (2000) categorized conflicts in to three phases. According to him, these three phases includes pre-violence, violence and post violence. He stated that treatment of pre-violence and post violence is insignificant. “Since treatment of conflicts that might explode in violence is unlikely to boost ratings, threes conflicts are usually ignored.”

Whereas treatment of post violence is minimal as he stated is that “Mine clearing is only news if Princess Diana is doing it.” However, the in post violence treatment tends towards negative, corruption, mismanagement and failed project. The more expensive and risk reporting is during the violence phase. In this phase it may decide different factors such as “A host of different factors, most of which have nothing to do with humanitarian need such as geographic proximity to Western countries, costs, logistics, legal impediments like visa requirement, risk to journalists, relevance to national interest and news attention cycles”.

Gulls (2000) argued that the studies of 80’s and 90’s decades on foreign relationship of media seem at conflict situations. During the 80’s and 90’s decades,

American media followed again manipulative model as in 50’s. During the gulf war, daily information was the daily briefings conducted by British and American in Saudi

Arabia. The projection of information for journalist is by their own in which they coordinates with their sources.

Kim (2000) conducted research study entitled “The New York Times and The

Washington Post: Comparative news treatment of the Kwangju and Tiananmen Pro-

Democracy movements”. The finding of study shows that American both newspapers gave more favorable slant to Tiananmen movement and compare to Kwangju movement due dependence of media on US government strategy to verify position towards these two movements.

Mermin (1999) stated that US media preferred political and foreign issues news stories. Most of the journalists turn into politicians and government officials for the purpose of news making and decisions about the news for publishing.

Poornanda (1998) conducted research entitled “Treatment of South Asia in two leading US newspapers”. He stated that during the period of 1992 to 1996 American media gave very auxiliary reporting to the developing poor developed countries especially countries of South Asia. He conducted research on “Washington Post” and

“Los Angeles Times”. These leading newspapers gave treatment to depressing stories rather than positive ones of South Asian countries.

Livingson & Eachus (1995) argued that media professionals attach themselves to politicians and government officials for news gathering purposes and considers them as a source of news.

Cowing (1994) portrayed media sketch that “There is far more real-time war than ever before”. Media has potential to present any event. It depends that how this image is portrayed by the media. “The main principle is: no pictures, then no serious treatment of a conflict”. It is reality that foreign news focused on conflicts. Many of conflicts, only few are highlighted by the media. So highlighting few conflicts depends on different

73 factors that related to the concerns of humanitarian. Technologies which used media organization put more quality in treatment and influenced on that treatment.

Going (1994) discussed about agenda setting and policy making in media. He stated that media shape the agenda but do not form the responses of strategy makers. He argued that while making policy, television reporting cannot be victorious in production any differences. Routine treatment is not more important for policy makers then the events which are more significant and indicate to them.

Mughees (1994) conduct research study entitled “The present consistent pattern of

Islam and US media”. In his study he putted the words of Hackett (1991) that after the cold war against USA and Russia, Islam will be next threat for US media. He concluded that Islam is misinterpreted by western media.

Gowing (1994) argued that media persuad policy makers and diplomats regarding different matters in their presentation policy making about foreign affairs. In this way media and policy makers work together. It is give-and-take influence and is not a one way process. Furthermore, he stated that media presentation shape policy agenda. Media treatment does not matter but the issue that is more important for the masses and political elites.

Mughess (1993) to check the policy of US elite newspapers, Mughees conducted research study, the results of the study showed that on the issue of Afghanistan, New

York Time internationally sustain US foreign policy as compare to The Washington Post and Los Angeles Times. On the other hand, issues related to Pakistan, in term of military,

74 economic aid and nuclear program Los Angles and The New York Times apposed US foreign policy as compare to Washington Post.

Hoge (1993) believes that "the new media's task has been made more difficult by an absence of clear, steady cues from Washington (...) the press traditionally has covered international affairs from the perspective of America's perceived interests".

Mughees (1993) referred the study of Sigal (1973) and Hess (1981) that newspaper support the official relates to the foreign policy of states. They also gave sold proofs of relying media official sources for foreign affairs exposure. This reliance on official sources may make clear what appear to be support. This media addiction starts government-media-elites ties that resulting in reluctance on part to offend it sources and government and elite use media to take advantages.

Mughees (1991) conducted study on US media. In his study, he concluded that

US foreign policy towards Pakistan on the issues of economic and military aid, The New

York Times editorials took stand point against US foreign policy towards Pakistan.

Newspaper policy had pro Indian bent and exposed Pakistan from stand point of the US-

India relationship. Portrayed of Pakistan in the New York Times is not good as newspaper presented the image of Pakistan as undemocratic, Islamic fundamentalist and shaky which merging nuclear power of the region.

Buihari (1989) conducted study entitled “Asian News in four US newspapers”. In his study he chose The New York Times, Washington Post, the Christian Science

Monitor and The Los Angeles times. Study concluded that US newspaper highlight those news which relates to the interest of USA. News related to China, Pakistan, Japan and

Korea, US newspaper gave more priority to US concerns. As the US policy changed in respected region or country, newspaper also gave slant according to their government policy that goes in the favor of US.

Mujahid, 1970 cited in Mughees, 1993 also in Noshina 1998) In a study on

“Treatment of Pakistan in three US magazines” Mujahid concluded that US media showed more interest in Pakistan’s foreign affairs than in internal ones. Indo – Pakistan and Pak US relations were given a considerable treatment. He further asserted that, in US news magazines the treatment about foreign affairs special concern to Pakistan was sympathetic.

Chapter No. 4 Theoretical Framework

4.1 Theoretical Framework

Theory predicts that how one thing causes another thing. Theory insist researcher to confine research area. Theory expends the knowledge. It provides general theme and insist the researcher to verify that theme. Kaye (2000) stated that “A good theory helps to guess what will occur in future by give useful approaching into how the fact being studied works”. Every study according to its objectives has some theoretical structure.

Theory linked the research with the basic theme. Theory provides background to solve the problems. In the current study, research want to explore Pak-US relations issues in elite American press The Washington Post and The New York Times. The present study conducted under the light of “Framing Theory”.

1) Framing Theory

4.2 Framing Theory

Framing is a technique that has been widely used in the field of mass communication research. The term framing refers to the way an event is portrayed in a particular journalistic item, e.g. an article, story or an editorial. Under the notion of

"Framing', the researcher intends to explore the nature of framing of Pakistan's US relations in American elite press i.e. The New York Times and The Washington Post.

A sociologist, Erving Goffman (1947), who pioneered the theory of framing, put forward the concept that frames give background cues charitable order and meaning to multifaceted troubles, measures and proceedings. The frames could be political, social, cultural or ideological. The presentation of any issue refers as the Frame of event.

Tankard (1992) stated that framing is ability create an image bout any event in form of text or visual presentation. Frame define a situation to highlight issue to set the forms of debates.

Gitlin (1980) stated media frames as constant patterns of interpretations, presentation of selection, cognition and exclusion by which data handles through verbal or non verbal discussion.

Entman (1993) stated the presence of absence of certain key words determine the frame of event.

In this research work, the researcher wants to analyze how much treatment is given to Pakistan – US relation during the PPP Regime by the US elite print media The

Washington Post and New York Times, by telling people what to think and how to think about the Pakistan’s government stance on Pak-U.S relations issue from Jan 2008 to

December 2012.

The framing techniques:

 Metaphor: giving the new meaning to program or event by comparing it

something else.

 Stories: It refers to legends or myths. An event is portrayed by using some kind of

myth to make it memorable.

 Traditions: Refers to the patterns which define organizations to produce

organizational values by using rituals and rites.

 Slogans: It refers to catchy words that present subject in familiar fashion and

make it memorable.

 Contrast: Portrayed subject in such manner what it is not.

 Spin: To talk about subject to gave it negative or positive connection

To reduce the complexity of an event, framing is necessary tool. The theory is related to the topic of research “Portrayal of Pak-US relations in American elite press”. This research study will check the theory of framing that how American press frame the under study issues of Pak-American relations during the period of 2008 to

2012, Pakistan People’s Party regime.

Chapter No.5 Research Methodology

5.1 Research Methodology

Methodology is way that a researcher follows to achieve the results. For the current research, the researcher chooses the methodology of content analysis to analyze the hypothesis and research questions. In content analysis methodology, content may be written words or visual presentation of anything. In daily life, content analysis any means of communication employed by people who communicate society. Content analysis is systematic approach in which data is collected and analyzed by using the standard principles and method to achieve the results.

5.2 Hypothesis

H 1: It is more likely that The Washington Post gave more editorial treatment to Pak-US relations under study issues as compare to New York Times.

H2: It is more likely that both newspapers gave opinion against the stance of Pakistan

Government on under studies issues of Pak-US relations.

H 3: It is more likely that both American newspapers portrayed as a whole negative image of Pakistan in their editorials.

5.3 Research Questions

1) How much treatment is given in both newspapers about under studied issues in

their editorials?

2) How both newspapers treated the issues of terrorism in their editorials?

3) What kind of treatment given by American press on the issue of Drone Attacks in

Pakistani territory?

4) What image of Pakistan portrayed by American newspapers regarding the issue of

Osama Bin Ladin Assassination in Pakistan by US?

5) What kind of treatment is given by both American newspapers on the issue of

NATO Supply through Pakistani territory?

6) What is the stance of both American newspapers towards Pakistan on the issue of

Afghanistan as important factor of Pak-US relations?

7) What is the behaviour of both newspapers regarding US Aid to Pakistan?

8) What image of Pakistan portrayed by both newspapers regarding Intelligence

sharing?

5.4 Unit of Analysis

All the editorials of both American newspapers The Washington Post and The

New York Times considered as basic unit of analysis during the period of 5 years from 1st

January 2008 to 31st December 2012 Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) regime.

5.5 Issues to be Studied in Research

i. US Drone attacks in Pakistani Territory

ii. War on terror and its implications for Pakistan iii. NATO Supply through Pakistan to Afghanistan iv. Intelligence Sharing with US

v. Osama's Assassination in Pakistan by US Navy Seals vi. Afghanistan as a factor between Pak-US relations vii. US aid to Pakistan

5.6 Study Period

The current study explored the Pak-US relations during the Pakistan People’s

Party (PPP) regime. In this way, editorials selected from The Washington Post and The

New York Times from 1st January 2008 to 31st December 2012 period of 5 years.

5.7 purposive Study

In the current study, researcher examined the all editorials published in The

Washington Post and The New York Times related to Pak-US relations and choose the specific issues during the period of 05 years from 1st January 2008 to 31st December

2012. In this way purposive sampling technique used to select the editorials related to concerned issues.

5.8 Data Measurement

For the current research study, the researcher used the measurement of

Quantitative and Qualitative.

5.8.1 Quantitative Measurement

Quantitative measurement refers to the measurement that can be measured in figure. For example total number of published articles related to Pak-US relations includes in Quantitative measurement.

5.8.2 Qualitative Measurement

Qualitative measurement refers to the measurement that cannot be measured in figure. For example who we determined that US press written any editorial related to

Pak-US relation is in the favor of Pakistan, against Pakistan or neutral.

5.9 Coding Sheet

To analyze the data, the researcher designed coding sheet. Furthermore, researcher divided coding sheet into three categories Positive, Negative and Neutral.

5.9.1 Positive

Editorial considered positive if it favours the Pakistan Government stance on the under study issues in Pak-US relations.

5.9.2 Negative

Editorial considered negative if it overall impression is unfavourable about stance of Pakistani government on the under study issues of Pak-US relations.

5.9.3 Neutral

Editorial considered neutral if it has no positive or negative representation of

Pakistan on the issues of concern.

5.10 Criteria of coding slant

The researcher analyzed all editorials of The Washington Post and The New York

Times from 1st January 2008 to 31st December 2012 and coding their slant into three distinct categories i.e. positive, negative and neutral. The criteria of coding slant of

American newspaper’s editorials were as follows;

a. If the no of negative paragraphs in the entire editorial would be more than the

positive or neutral paragraphs then the entire editorial would be coded into

negative.

b. If the number of positive paragraphs more than the number of negative or neutral

paragraphs in the entire editorial then the whole editorial will be coded into

positive category.

c. If the number of neutral paragraphs in the editorial will be more than that of

negative or positive paragraphs then the whole editorial will be treated as neutral

with regard to Pak US relations.

5.11 Inter Coder Reliability

For reliability, the researcher herself read carefully all the editorials of both

American newspapers The Washington Post and New York Times. Furthermore, for inter coder reliability, editorials were sent to 10 experts including Professor, Associate

Professor, Assistant Professor, Lecturer and Ph.D. scholars for code the editorials. In this way, the researcher apply the evaluated formula of inter coder reliability to know about the reliability of coded data.

5.12 Data Analysis

After categorized the data into three categories i.e. Positive, Negative and Neutral, the researcher analyzed the data to conclude results. In this way, researcher uses

Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) software for analysis the results to maintain objectivity and data presented in table with quantity and percentage and

Microsoft Excel software used for making graphs and charts. Furthermore, for composing whole thesis, researcher used Microsoft Word software.

Chapter No.6: Data Interpretation

6.1 Data Interpretations

Table 6.1: Editorial Treatment of The Washington Post on the issue of War on

Terror in Pakistan

Positive Newspaper Total Negative Neutral Editorials No’s. % No’s. % No’s. % Washington Post 57 10 18 35 61 12 21

Note: The above table shows the editorial treatment of US newspaper “Washington Post” on the issue of War of Terror in Pakistan. During the period of 5 years i.e. from 1st of

January 2008 to December 2012, The Washington Post published total 57 (100%) editorials regarding the issue of war on terror in Pakistan. The result shows that The

Washington Post published 10 (18%) editorials in the favour of Pakistan regarding war on terror in Pakistan. The slant of these editorials favours the Pakistani policy and become ally with US, it trying to eradicate terrorism not only in Pakistan but also in all over the world. On the other hand, The Washington Post written 35 (61%) editorials against the Pakistan regarding war on terror. The slant of these editorials shows that

Pakistan is not doing as good as ally with US regarding war on terror. Whereas 12 (21%) editorials shows the neutral behaviour of US newspaper The Washington Post regarding

Pakistan’s role in war on terror. Hence the most of the editorial treatment of The

Washington Post on the issue of war on terror in Pakistan during the selected period become negative.

Figure 6.1:Editorial treatment of The Washington Post on the issue of War on

Terror in Pakistan

Washington Post: War on Terror

Neutral Positive 21% 18%

Negative 61%

Demographic treatment of The Washington Post on issue of War on Terror shows that

Most of the Editorials published in The Washington Post during the period of 5 years i.e.

2008 to 2012 showed negative behavior of Pakistan as ally with US in eradication of terrorism.

Table 6.2: Editorial treatment of The New York Times on the issue of War on

Terror in Pakistan

Positive Newspaper Total Negative Neutral Editorials No’s. % No’s. % No’s. % New York Times 26 2 8 15 58 9 35

Note: The above frequency distribution table shows the editorial treatment of The New

York Times on the issue of war on terror in Pakistan. During the period of 5 years i.e. from 1st January 2008 to 31st December 2012, The New York Times published total 26

(100%) editorials on the issue of war on terror in Pakistan. From the total treatment, The

New York Times published 2 (8%) editorials in the favour of Pakistan and appreciates the Pakistani government and army to eradicating terrorism in Pakistan. On the other hand, The New York Times published 15 (58%) editorials against the Pakistan and said that Pakistan is not trying to eradicate terrorism but also supporting to terrorists. Whereas

The New York Times published 9 (35%) editorials as neutral on war on terror in

Pakistan. Hence The New York Times published most of the editorials against the

Pakistan government stance on issue of war on terror in Pakistan.

Figure 6.2: Editorial treatment of The New York Times on the issue of War on

Terror in Pakistan

New York Times: War on Terror Positive 8%

Neutral 35%

Negative 57%

Demographic treatment of The New York Times on issue of War on Terror shows that

Most of the Editorials published in The New York Times during the period of 5 years i.e.

2008 to 2012 showed negative behavior of Pakistan as ally with US in eradication of terrorism.

Table 6.3: Comparison of Editorial treatment of The Washington Post and The New

York Times on the issue of War on Terror in Pakistan

Total Positive Negative Neutral News Paper Editorials No's. % No's. % No's. % Washington Post 57 10 18 35 61 12 21 New York Times 26 2 8 15 58 9 35 Total 83 12 14 50 60 21 25

Note: The above frequency distribution table shows the total editorial treatment of both

US newspapers The Washington Post and The New York Times on the issues of War on

Terror in Pakistan. During the selected period, The Washington Post published total 57

(100%) editorials and The New York Times published 26 (100%) editorials regarding the issues of war on terror in Pakistan. The Washington Post published 10 (18%) editorials in the favour of Pakistan and The New York Times published 2 (8%) editorials in the favour of Pakistan. On the other hand, The Washington Post 35 (61%) editorials against Pakistan and The New York Times published 15 (58%) editorials against Pakistan. Furthermore,

The Washington Post published 12 (21%) editorials as neutral and The New York Times published 9 (35%) editorials as neutral. In this way, both US newspapers mostly published editorials against the Pakistan. By examining the whole treatment of both newspapers, table shows that out of 83 (100%) editorials of both newspapers, 12 (14%) editorials found positive, 50 (60%) editorials found negative and 21 (25%) editorials found neutral on the issue of war on terror in Pakistan.

Figure 6.3: Editorial treatment of The Washington Post and The New York Times

on the issue of War on Terror in Pakistan

Total Editorial Treatment of The washington post & the new york times on the issue of War on Terror 100% 100% 100 90 80 70 61% 58% 60 50 Washington Post 35% 40 New York Times 30 21% 18% 20 8% 10 0 Total Positive Negative Neutral Coverage

Demographic treatment of The Washington Post and The New York Times on issue of

War on Terror in Pakistan shows that Most of the Editorials published in The Washington

Post and The New York Times during the period of 5 years i.e. 1st January 2008 to 31st

December 2012 showed negative behavior of Pakistan as ally with US in eradication of terrorism.

Table 6.4: Editorial treatment of The Washington Post on the issue of Drone

Attacks in Pakistani Territory.

Positive Newspaper Total Negative Neutral Editorials No’s. % No’s. % No’s. % Washington Post 15 5 33 8 53 2 13

Note: The above frequency distribution table shows the editorial treatment of The

Washington Post on the issue of Drone Attacks in Pakistani territory. According to the results, during the selected period of 5 years, The Washington Post published total 15

(100%) editorials on the issues of Drone attacks in Pakistani territory. The table shows that The Washington Post published 5 (33%) editorials in the favor of Pakistan regarding drone attacks in Pakistani territory. On the other hand, 8 (53%) editorials published against Pakistan and 2 (13%) editorials published as neutral. Hence The Washington Post published most of the editorials against the Pakistan government stance regarding the issue of Drone attacks in Pakistani territory.

Figure 6.4: Editorial treatment of The Washington Post on the issue of Drone

Attacks in Pakistani Territory.

Washington Post: Drone Attack

Neutral 13% Positive 33%

Negative 54%

Demographic treatment of The Washington Post on issue of Drone attacks in Pakistan shows that Most of the Editorials published in The Washington Post during the period of

5 years i.e. 1st January 2008 to 31st December 2012 showed negative behavior of Pakistan as ally with US in drone attacks in Pakistani territory.

Table 6.5: Editorial treatment of The New York Times on the issue of Drone

Attacks in Pakistani Territory.

Positive Newspaper Total Negative Neutral Editorials No’s. % No’s. % No’s. % New York Times 11 3 27 2 18 6 55

Note: The above frequency distribution table shows the treatment of The New York

Times on the issue of drone attacks in Pakistani territory. According to the results, The

New York Times published total 11 (100%) editorials regarding the issue of drone attacks in Pakistani territory. Table shows that The New York Times published 3 (27%) editorials in the favor of Pakistan, 2 (18%) editorials against the Pakistan and published 6

(55%) editorials as neutral on the issue of drone attacks in Pakistani territory during the selected period of 5 years. Hence regarding drone attacks issues, The New York Times published most editorials as neutral.

Figure 6.5: Editorial treatment of The New York Times on the issue of Drone

Attacks in Pakistani Territory.

New York Times: Drone Attack

Positive 27%

Neutral 55% Negative 18%

Demographic treatment of The Washington Post on issue of Drone attacks in Pakistan shows that Most of the Editorials published in The Washington Post during the period of

5 years i.e. 1st January 2008 to 31st December 2012 showed negative behaviour of

Pakistan as ally with US in drone attacks in Pakistani territory.

Table 6.6: Comparison of Editorial treatment of The Washington Post and The New

York Times on the issue of Drone Attacks in Pakistani Territory.

Total Positive Negative Neutral News Paper Editorials No's. % No's. % No's. % Washington Post 15 5 33 8 53 2 13 New York Times 11 3 27 2 18 6 55 Total 26 8 31 10 38 8 31

Note: The above frequency distribution table shows the overall treatment of The

Washington Post and The New York Times on the issue of drone attacks in Pakistani territory during the selected period of 5 years. Table shows that The Washington Post published total 15 (100%) editorials and The New York Times published 11 (100%) editorials on the issue of drone attacks in Pakistani territory. The Washington Post published 5 (33%) editorials in the favour of Pakistan and The New York Times published 2 (27%) editorials in the favour of Pakistan regarding drone attacks issue. On the other hand, The Washington Post published 8 (53%) editorials against Pakistan and

The New York Times published 2 (18%) editorials against Pakistan on the issue of drone attacks. Whereas The Washington Post published 2 (13%) editorials as neutral and The

New York Times published 6 (55%) editorials as neutral on drone attack issue. By examining the overall treatment, table shows that both newspapers published total 26

(100%) editorials regarding drone attacks issue through which 8 (31%) published in favour of Pakistan, 10 (38%) published against Pakistan and 8 (31%) published as neutral. Hence both US newspapers published editorials against Pakistan on the issue of drone attacks during the period of 2008 to 2012.

Figure 6.6: Editorial treatment of The Washington Post and The New York Times

on the issue of Drone Attacks in Pakistani Territory.

Comparision of Editorial Treatment of Washington Post & New York Times on the issue of Drone Attacks 100% 100% 100 90 80 70 55% 60 53% 50 Washington Post 40 33% New York Times 27% 30 18% 20 13% 10 0 Total Positive Negative Neutral Coverage

Demographic treatment of The Washington Post and The New York Times on issue of

Drone attacks in Pakistan shows that Most of the Editorials published in The Washington

Post and The New York Times during the period of 5 years i.e. 1st January 2008 to 31st

December 2012 showed negative behaviour of Pakistan as ally with US in drone attacks in Pakistani territory.

100

Table 6.7: Editorial treatment of The Washington Post on the issue of Osama Bin

Ladin Assassination in Pakistan

Positive Newspaper Total Negative Neutral Editorials No’s. % No’s. % No’s. % Washington Post 16 1 6 11 69 4 25

Note: The above frequency distribution table shows the treatment of The Washington

Post on the issue of Osama Bin Ladin assassination in Pakistan during the period of 2008 to 2012. According to the results, The Washington Post published total 16 (100%) editorials regarding Osama Bin Ladin assassination. During the selected period, The

Washington Post published 1 (6%) editorials in favour of Pakistan. 11 (69%) editorials against Pakistan and 4 (25%) editorials as neutral on the issue of Osama assassination.

Hence, The Washington Post published most of its editorials against Pakistan regarding the issue of Osama Bin Ladin assassination in Pakistan.

101

Figure 6.7: Editorial treatment of The Washington Post on the issue of Osama Bin

Ladin Assassination in Pakistan

Washington Post: Osama Bin Ladin Assassination Positive 6%

Neutral 25%

Negative 69%

Demographic treatment of The Washington Post on issue of Osama Bin Ladin

Assassination in Pakistan shows that Most of the Editorials published in The Washington

Post during the period of 5 years i.e. 1st January 2008 to 31st December 2012 showed negative behaviour of Pakistan as ally with US regarding Osama Bin Ladin assassination in Pakistani territory.

102

Table 6.8: Editorial treatment of The New York Times on the issue of Osama Bin

Ladin Assassination in Pakistan

Positive Newspaper Total Negative Neutral Editorials No’s. % No’s. % No’s. % New York Times 10 1 10 8 80 1 10

Note: The above frequency distribution table shows the editorial treatment of The New

York Times on the issue of Osama Bin Ladin Assassination in Pakistan. According to the results, The New York Times published total 10 editorials during the selected period of 5 years. From which, The New York Times published 1 (10%) editorials in the favour of

Pakistan. Furthermore, 8 (80%) editorials written against the Pakistan and 1 (10%) editorials as neutral on the issue of Osama Bin Ladin assassination. Hence, The New

York Times written most of the editorials 8 (80%) against the Pakistan on the issue of concern during the period of 2008 to 2012.

103

Figure 6.8: Editorial treatment of The New York Times on the issue of Osama Bin

Ladin Assassination in Pakistan

New York Times: Osama Bin Ladin Assassination

Neutral Positive 10% 10%

Negative 80%

Demographic treatment of The New York Times on issue of Osama Bin Ladin

Assassination in Pakistan shows that Most of the Editorials published in The New York

Times during the period of 5 years i.e. 1st January 2008 to 31st December 2012 showed negative behaviour of Pakistan as ally with US regarding Osama Bin Ladin assassination in Pakistani territory.

104

Table 6.9: Comparison of Editorial treatment of The Washington Post and The New

York Times on the issue of Osama Bin Ladin Assassination in Pakistan

Total Positive Negative Neutral News Paper Editorials No's. % No's. % No's. % Washington Post 16 1 6 11 69 4 25 New York Times 10 1 10 8 80 1 10 Total 26 2 8 19 73 5 19

Note: The above frequency distribution table shows the total editorial treatment of The

Washington Post and The New York Times on the issue of Osama Bin Ladin

Assassination in Pakistan. According to the results, The Washington Post published total

16 (100%) editorials during the selected period of 5 years in which 1 (6%) editorials written in the favour of Pakistan, 11 (69%) editorials written against the Pakistan and 4

(25%) editorials written as neutral on the issue of Osama Bin Ladin Assassination in

Pakistan. Furthermore, on the same issue, The New York Times published total 10

(100%) editorials during the selected period of 5 years. From which, The New York

Times published 1 (10%) editorials in the favour of Pakistan. Furthermore, 8 (80%) editorials written against the Pakistan and 1 (10%) editorials as neutral on the issue of

Osama Bin Ladin assassination. Hence, The New York Times written most of the editorials 8 (80%) against the Pakistan on the issue of concern during the period of 2008 to 2012. Both newspapers written total 26 (100%) editorials on the issue of Osama Bin

Ladin assassination in which 2 (8%) written in favour of Pakistan, 19 (73%) written against Pakistan and 5 (19%) written as neutral. Hence overall editorial treatment of both newspapers on the issue of Osama Bin Ladin assassination against the Pakistan.

105

Figure 6.9: Total Editorial treatment of The Washington Post and The New York

Times on the issue of Osama Bin Ladin Assassination in Pakistan

Comparision of Editorial Treatment of The washington post & the new york times regarding the issue Osama Bin Ladin Assassination

100% 100% 100 90 80% 80 69% 70 60 Washington Post 50 New York Times 40 30 25% 20 10% 10% 6% 10 0 Total Coverage Positive Negative Neutral

Demographic treatment of The Washington Post and The New York Times on issue of

Osama Bin Ladin Assassination in Pakistan shows that Most of the Editorials published in both newspapers i.e. The Washington Post and The New York Times during the period of 5 years i.e. 1st January 2008 to 31st December 2012 showed negative behaviour of

Pakistan as ally with US regarding Osama Bin Ladin assassination in Pakistani territory.

106

Table 6.10: Editorial treatment of The Washington Post on the issue of NATO

Supply through Pakistan

Positive Newspaper Total Negative Neutral Editorials No’s. % No’s. % No’s. % Washington Post 14 4 29 7 50 3 21

Note: The above frequency distribution table shows the editorials treatment of The

Washington Post on the issue of NATO supply through Pakistan. According to the results, The Washington Post published total 14 (100%) editorials during the selected period of 5 years. From the total 14 (100%) editorials, The Washington Post published 4

(29%) editorials in the favour of Pakistan, 7 (50%) editorials against Pakistan and 3

(21%) editorials as neutral on the issue of NATO supply from Pakistan. Hence, The

Washington Post published most of its editorials against Pakistan on the issue of NATO supply from Pakistan territory.

107

Figure 6.10: Editorial treatment of The Washington Post on the issue of NATO

Supply through Pakistan

Washington Post: NATO Supply

Neutral Positive 21% 29%

Negative 50%

Demographic treatment of The Washington Post on issue of NATO Supply through

Pakistani territory shows that Most of the Editorials published in The Washington Post during the period of 5 years i.e. 1st January 2008 to 31st December 2012 showed negative behaviour of Pakistan as ally with US regarding NATO supply through Pakistani territory.

108

Table 6.11: Editorial treatment of The New York Times on the issue of NATO

Supply through Pakistan

Positive Newspaper Total Negative Neutral Editorials No’s. % No’s. % No’s. % New York Times 28 11 39 12 43 5 18

Note: The above frequency distribution table shows the editorials treatment of The New

York Times on the issue of NATO supply through Pakistan. According to the results, The

New York Times published total 28 (100%) editorials during the selected period of 5 years. From the total 28 (100%) editorials, The New York Times published 11 (39%) editorials in the favour of Pakistan, 12 (43%) editorials against Pakistan and 5 (18%) editorials as neutral on the issue of NATO supply from Pakistan. Hence, The New York

Times published most of its editorials against Pakistan on the issue of NATO supply from

Pakistan territory.

109

Figure 6.11: Editorial treatment of The New York Times on the issue of NATO

Supply through Pakistan

New York Times: NATO Supply

Neutral 18% Positive 39%

Negative 43%

Demographic treatment of The New York Times on issue of NATO Supply through

Pakistani territory shows that Most of the Editorials published in The New York Times during the period of 5 years i.e. 1st January 2008 to 31st December 2012 showed negative behaviour of Pakistan as ally with US regarding NATO supply through Pakistani territory.

110

Table 6.12: Total Editorial treatment of The Washington Post and The New York

Times on the issue of NATO Supply through Pakistan

Total Positive Negative Neutral News Paper Editorial s No's. % No's. % No's. % Washington Post 14 4 29 7 50 3 21 New York Times 28 11 39 12 43 5 18 Total 42 15 36 19 45 8 19

Note: The above frequency distribution table shows the total editorial treatment of The

Washington Post and The New York Times on the issue of NATO supply through

Pakistan. According to the results, The Washington Post published total 14 (100%) editorials during the selected period of 5 years in which 4 (29%) editorials written in the favour of Pakistan, 7 (50%) editorials written against the Pakistan and 3 (21%) editorials written as neutral on the issue of NATO supply through Pakistani territory. Furthermore, on the same issue, The New York Times published total 28 (100%) editorials during the selected period of 5 years. From which, The New York Times published 11 (39%) editorials in the favour of Pakistan, 12 (43%) editorials written against the Pakistan and 5

(18%) editorials as neutral on the issue of NATO supply through Pakistani territory.

Hence, The New York Times written most of the editorials 12 (43%) against the Pakistan on the issue of concern during the period of 2008 to 2012. Both newspapers written total

42 (100%) editorials on the issue of NATO supply through Pakistani territory in which 15

(36%) written in favour of Pakistan, 19 (45%) written against Pakistan and 8 (19%) written as neutral. Hence, overall editorial treatment of both newspapers on the issue of

NATO supply is against the Pakistan.

111

Figure 6.12: Total Editorial treatment of The Washington Post and The New York

Times on the issue of NATO Supply through Pakistan

Comparision of Editorial Treatment of The washington post & the new york times regarding issue of NATO Supply

100% 100% 100 90 80 70 60 50% Washington Post 50 43% 39% New York Times 40 29% 30 21% 18% 20 10 0 Total Coverage Positive Negative Neutral

Demographic treatment of The Washington Post and The New York Times on issue of

NATO supply through Pakistani territory shows that Most of the Editorials published in both newspapers i.e. The Washington Post and The New York Times during the period of

5 years i.e. 1st January 2008 to 31st December 2012 showed negative behaviour of

Pakistan as ally with US regarding NATO supply through Pakistani territory.

112

Table 6.13: Editorial treatment of The Washington Post on the issue of Afghanistan

as Factor of Pak-US Relations

Positive Newspaper Total Negative Neutral Editorials No’s. % No’s. % No’s. % Washington Post 19 4 21 10 53 5 26

Note: The above frequency distribution table shows the editorials treatment of The

Washington Post on the issue of Afghanistan as factor of Pak-US relations. According to the results, The Washington Post published total 19 (100%) editorials during the selected period of 5 years on the issue of Afghan as factor between Pak-US relations. From the total 19 (100%) editorials, The Washington Post published 4 (21%) editorials in the favour of Pakistan, 10 (53%) editorials against Pakistan and 5 (26%) editorials as neutral on the issue of Afghan factor between Pak-US relations. Hence, The Washington Post published most of its editorials against Pakistan on the issue of Afghanistan as factor between Pak-US relations.

113

Figure 6.13: Editorial treatment of The Washington Post on the issue of Afghanistan

as Factor of Pak-US Relations

Washington Post: Afghanistan as factor of Pak-US Relations

Neutral Positive 26% 21%

Negative 53%

Demographic treatment of The Washington Post on issue of Afghanistan as factor of Pak-

US relations shows that Most of the Editorials published in The Washington Post during the period of 5 years i.e. 1st January 2008 to 31st December 2012 showed negative behaviour of Pakistan as ally with US regarding Afghanistan as factor between Pak-US relations.

114

Table 6.14: Editorial treatment of The New York Times on the issue of Afghanistan

as Factor of Pak-US Relations

Positive Newspaper Total Negative Neutral Editorials No’s. % No’s. % No’s. % New York Times 21 11 52 7 33 3 14

Note: The above frequency distribution table shows the editorials treatment of The New

York Times on the issue of Afghanistan as factor of Pak-US relations. According to the results, The New York Times published total 21 (100%) editorials during the selected period of 5 years on the issue of Afghan as factor between Pak-US relations. From the total 21 (100%) editorials, The New York Times published 11 (52%) editorials in the favour of Pakistan, 7 (33%) editorials against Pakistan and 3 (14%) editorials as neutral on the issue of Afghan factor of Pak-US relations. Hence, The New York Times published most of its editorials in favour Pakistan on the issue of Afghanistan as factor of

Pak-US relations.

115

Figure 6.14: Editorial treatment of The New York Times on the issue of Afghanistan

as Factor of Pak-US Relations

New York Times: Afghanistan as factor of Pak-US Relations

Neutral 14% Positive Negative 53% 33%

Demographic treatment of The New York Times on issue of Afghanistan as factor of

Pak-US relations shows that Most of the Editorials published in The New York Times during the period of 5 years i.e. 1st January 2008 to 31st December 2012 showed Positive behaviour of Pakistan as ally with US regarding Afghanistan as factor of Pak-US relations.

116

Table 6.15: Comparison of Editorial treatment of The Washington Post and The

New York Times on the issue of Afghanistan as Factor of Pak-US Relations

Total Positive Negative Neutral News Paper Editorial s No's. % No's. % No's. % Washington Post 19 4 21 10 53 5 26 New York Times 21 11 52 7 33 3 14 Total 40 15 38 17 43 8 20

Note: The above frequency distribution table shows editorial treatment of The

Washington Post and The New York Times on the issue of Afghanistan as factor of Pak-

US relations. According to the results, The Washington Post published total 19 (100%) editorials during the selected period of 5 years in which 4 (21%) editorials written in the favour of Pakistan, 10 (53%) editorials written against the Pakistan and 5 (26%) editorials written as neutral on the issue of Afghanistan as factor between Pak-US relations.

Furthermore, on the same issue, The New York Times published total 21 (100%) editorials during the selected period of 5 years. From which, The New York Times published 11 (52%) editorials in the favour of Pakistan, 7 (33%) editorials written against the Pakistan and 3 (14%) editorials as neutral on the issue of Afghanistan as factor of

Pak-US relations. Hence, The New York Times written most of the editorials 11 (52%) in the favour of Pakistan on the issue of concern during the period of 2008 to 2012. Both newspapers written total 40 (100%) editorials on the issue of Afghanistan as factor between Pak-US relations in which 15 (38%) written in favour of Pakistan, 17 (43%) written against Pakistan and 8 (20%) written as neutral. Hence, overall editorial treatment

117 of both newspapers on the issue of Afghanistan as factor between Pak-US relations is against the Pakistan.

Figure 6.15: Total Editorial treatment of The Washington Post and The New York

Times on the issue of Afghanistan as Factor of Pak-US Relations

Comparision of Editorial Treatment of The washington post & the new york times on the issue of Afghanistan as factor between Pak-US Relations

100% 100% 100 90 80 70 60 52% 53% Washington Post 50 New York Times 40 33% 26% 30 21% 20 14% 10 0 Total Coverage Positive Negative Neutral

Demographic treatment of The Washington Post and The New York Times on issue of

Afghanistan as factor of Pak-US relations shows that Most of the Editorials published in both newspapers i.e. The Washington Post and The New York Times during the period of

5 years i.e. 1st January 2008 to 31st December 2012 showed negative behaviour of

Pakistan as ally with US regarding Afghanistan as factor of Pak-US relations.

118

Table 6.16: Editorial treatment of The Washington Post on the issue of US Aid to

Pakistan

Positive Newspaper Total Negative Neutral Editorials No’s. % No’s. % No’s. % Washington Post 14 7 50 4 29 3 21

Note: The above frequency distribution table shows the editorials treatment of The

Washington Post on the issue of US aid to Pakistan. According to the results, The

Washington Post published total 14 (100%) editorials during the selected period of 5 years on the issue of US aid to Pakistan. From the total 14 (100%) editorials, The

Washington Post published 7 (50%) editorials in the favour of Pakistan, 4 (29%) editorials against Pakistan and 3 (21%) editorials as neutral on the issue of US aid to

Pakistan. Hence, The Washington Post published most of its editorials in favour Pakistan on the issue of US aid to Pakistan.

119

Figure 6.16: Editorial treatment of The Washington Post on the issue of US Aid to

Pakistan

Washington Post: US aid to Pakistan

Neutral 21% Positive 50%

Negative 29%

Demographic treatment of The Washington Post on issue of US aid to Pakistan shows that Most of the Editorials published in The Washington Post during the period of 5 years i.e. 1st January 2008 to 31st December 2012 showed Positive behaviour of Pakistan as ally with US regarding US aid to Pakistan.

120

Table 6.17: Editorial treatment of The New York Times on the issue of US Aid to

Pakistan

Positive Newspaper Total Negative Neutral Editorials No’s. % No’s. % No’s. % New York Times 16 9 56 5 31 2 13

Note: The above frequency distribution table shows the editorials treatment of The New

York Times on the issue of US aid to Pakistan. According to the results, The New York

Times published total 16 (100%) editorials during the selected period of 5 years on the issue of US aid to Pakistan. From the total 16 (100%) editorials, The New York Times published 9 (56%) editorials in the favour of Pakistan, 5 (31%) editorials against Pakistan and 2 (13%) editorials as neutral on the issue of US aid to Pakistan. Hence, The New

York Times published most of its editorials in favour Pakistan on the issue of US aid to

Pakistan.

121

Figure 6.17: Editorial treatment of The New York Times on the issue of US Aid to

Pakistan

New York Times: US aid to Pakistan

Neutral 13%

Negative Positive 31% 56%

Demographic treatment of The New York Times on issue of US aid to Pakistan shows that Most of the Editorials published in The New York Times during the period of 5 years i.e. 1st January 2008 to 31st December 2012 showed Positive behaviour of Pakistan as ally with US regarding US aid to Pakistan.

122

Table 6.18: Comparison of Editorial treatment of The Washington Post and The

New York Times on the issue of US Aid to Pakistan

Total Positive Negative Neutral News Paper Editorials No's. % No's. % No's. % Washington Post 14 7 50 4 29 3 21 New York Times 16 9 56 5 31 2 13 Total 30 16 53 9 30 5 17

Note: The above frequency distribution table shows the total editorial treatment of The

Washington Post and The New York Times on the issue of US aid to Pakistan. According to the results, The Washington Post published total 14 (100%) editorials during the selected period of 5 years in which 7 (50%) editorials written in the favour of Pakistan, 4

(29%) editorials written against the Pakistan and 3 (21%) editorials written as neutral on the issue of US aid to Pakistan. Furthermore, on the same issue, The New York Times published total 16 (100%) editorials during the selected period of 5 years. From which,

The New York Times published 9 (56%) editorials in the favour of Pakistan, 5 (31%) editorials written against Pakistan and 2 (13%) editorials as neutral on the issue of US aid to Pakistan. Hence, The New York Times written most of the editorials 9 (56%) in the favour of Pakistan on the issue of concern during the period of 2008 to 2012. Both newspapers written total 30 (100%) editorials on the issue of US aid to Pakistan in which

16 (53%) written in favour of Pakistan, 9 (30%) written against Pakistan and 5 (17%) written as neutral. Hence, overall editorial treatment of both newspapers on the issue of

US aid to Pakistan is in the favour of Pakistan.

123

Figure 6.18: Comparison of Editorial treatment of The Washington Post and The

New York Times on the issue of US Aid to Pakistan

Comparison of Editorial Treatment of The washington post & the new york times on the issue of US aid to Pakistan

100% 100% 100

70 56% 60 50% Washington Post 50 New York Times 40 31% 29% 30 21% 20 13%

0 Total Coverage Positive Negative Neutral

Demographic treatment of The Washington Post and The New York Times on issue of

US aid to Pakistan shows that Most of the Editorials published in both newspapers i.e.

The Washington Post and The New York Times during the period of 5 years i.e. 1st

January 2008 to 31st December 2012 showed positive behaviour of Pakistan as ally with

US regarding US aid to Pakistan.

124

Table 6.19: Editorial treatment of The Washington Post on the issue of Intelligence

Sharing among Pakistan and USA

Positive Newspaper Total Negative Neutral Editorials No’s. % No’s. % No’s. % Washington Post 12 3 25 2 17 7 58

Note: The above frequency distribution table shows the editorials treatment of The

Washington Post on the issue of intelligence sharing among Pakistan and America.

According to the results, The Washington Post published total 12 (100%) editorials during the selected period of 5 years on the issue intelligence sharing among Pakistan and

USA. From the total 12 (100%) editorials, The Washington Post published 3 (25%) editorials in the favour of Pakistan, 2 (17%) editorials against Pakistan and 7 (58%) editorials as neutral on the issue of intelligence sharing among Pakistan and USA. Hence,

The Washington Post published most of its editorials as neutral on the issue of intelligence sharing among Pakistan and USA.

125

Figure 6.19: Editorial treatment of The Washington Post on the issue of Intelligence

Sharing among Pakistan and USA

Washington Post: Intelligence Sharing

Positive 25%

Neutral Negative 58% 17%

Demographic treatment of The Washington Post on issue of intelligence sharing among

Pakistan and USA shows that Most of the Editorials published in The Washington Post during the period of 5 years i.e. 1st January 2008 to 31st December 2012 showed neutral behaviour of Pakistan as ally with US regarding intelligence sharing among Pakistan and

USA.

126

Table 6.20:Editorial treatment of The New York Times on the issue of Intelligence

Sharing among Pakistan and USA

Positive Newspaper Total Negative Neutral Editorials No’s. % No’s. % No’s. % New York Times 5 0 0 3 60 2 40

Note: The above frequency distribution table shows the editorials treatment of The New

York Times on the issue of intelligence sharing among Pakistan and America. According to the results, The New York Times published total 5 (100%) editorials during the selected period of 5 years on the issue intelligence sharing among Pakistan and USA.

From the total 5 (100%) editorials, The New York Times published 0 (0%) editorials in the favour of Pakistan, 3 (60%) editorials against Pakistan and 2 (40%) editorials as neutral on the issue of intelligence sharing among Pakistan and USA. Hence, The New

York Times published most of its editorials against Pakistan on the issue of intelligence sharing among Pakistan and USA.

127

Figure 6.20:Editorial treatment of The New York Times on the issue of Intelligence

Sharing among Pakistan and USA

New York Times: Intelligence Sharing Positive 0%

Neutral 40%

Negative 60%

Demographic treatment of The New York Times on issue of intelligence sharing among

Pakistan and USA shows that Most of the Editorials published in The New York Times during the period of 5 years i.e. 1st January 2008 to 31st December 2012 showed negative behaviour of Pakistan as ally with US regarding intelligence sharing among Pakistan and

USA.

128

Table 6.21:Comparison of Editorial treatment of The Washington Post and The

New York Times on the issue of Intelligence Sharing among Pakistan and USA

Total Positive Negative Neutral News Paper Editorials No's. % No's. % No's. % Washington Post 12 3 25 2 17 7 58 New York Times 5 0 0 3 60 2 40 Total 17 3 18 5 29 9 53

Note: The above frequency distribution table shows treatment of The Washington Post and The New York Times on the issue of intelligence sharing among Pakistan and USA.

According to the results, The Washington Post published total 12 (100%) editorials during the selected period of 5 years in which 3 (25%) editorials written in the favour of

Pakistan, 2 (17%) editorials written against the Pakistan and 7 (58%) editorials written as neutral on the issue of intelligence sharing among Pakistan and USA. Furthermore, on the same issue, The New York Times published total 5 (100%) editorials during the selected period of 5 years. From which, The New York Times published 0 (0%) editorials in the favour of Pakistan, 3 (60%) editorials written against Pakistan and 2 (40%) editorials as neutral on the issue of intelligence sharing among Pakistan and USA. Hence, The New

York Times written most of the editorials 3 (60%) against Pakistan and The Washington

Post published most editorials as neutral on the issue of concern during the period of

2008 to 2012. Both newspapers written total 17 (100%) editorials on the issue of intelligence sharing among Pakistan and USA in which 3 (18%) written in favour of

Pakistan, 5 (29%) written against Pakistan and 9 (53%) written as neutral. Hence, overall

129 editorial treatment of both newspapers on the issue of intelligence sharing among

Pakistan and USA is neutral.

Figure 6.21:Comparison of Editorial treatment of The Washington Post and The

New York Times on the issue of Intelligence Sharing among Pakistan and USA

Comparison of Editorial Treatment of The washington post & the new york times on the issue of Intelligence Sharing

100% 100% 100 90 80 70 60% 58% 60 Washington Post 50 40% New York Times 40 30 25% 17% 20 10 0% 0 Total Coverage Positive Negative Neutral

Demographic treatment of The Washington Post and The New York Times on issue of intelligence sharing among Pakistan and USA shows that Most of the Editorials published in both newspapers i.e. The Washington Post and The New York Times during the period of 5 years i.e. 1st January 2008 to 31st December 2012 showed neutral behaviour of Pakistan as ally with US regarding intelligence sharing with US.

130

Table 6.22: Total Editorials Treatment of The Washington Post on the all under research issues of War on terror, NATO supply, Afghanistan as factor between Pak-

US relations, US aid to Pakistan, Drone attacks, Osama assassination in Pakistan and Intelligence Sharing among Pakistan and USA

Washington Post

Total Issues Positive Negative Neutral Editorials 57 10 35 12 War on terror (17.54%) (17.54%) (61.40%) (21.05%) 15 5 8 2 Drone Attacks (10.20%) (33.33%) (53.33%) (13.33%) Osama Bin Ladin 16 1 11 4 Assassination (10.88%) (6.25%) (68.75%) (25.00%) NATO Supply from 14 4 7 3 Pakistani Territory (9.52%) (28.57%) (50.00%) (21.42%) Afghanistan as Factor 19 4 10 5 between Pak-US relations (12.92%) (21.05%) (52.63%) (26.31%) 14 7 4 3 US aid to Pakistan (9.52%) (50.00%) (28.57%) (25.00%) Intelligence Sharing among 12 3 2 7 Pakistan and USA (8.16%) (25.00%) (16.66%) (58.33%) 147 34 77 36 Grand Total (100%) (23.12%) (52.38%) (24.48%)

Note: The above frequency distribution table shows the total editorial treatment of The

Washington Post during the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) regime on the issues of War on terror, NATO supply, Afghanistan as factor between Pak-US relations, US aid to

Pakistan, Drone attacks, Osama assassination in Pakistan and Intelligence Sharing among

Pakistan and USA. According to the results, during the period of 5 years, The

Washington Post published total 147 (100%) editorials about the issues concerned in which 34 (23.12%) editorials were in the favour of Pakistan, 77 (52.38%) editorials were against Pakistan and 36 (24.48%) editorials were neutral. Hence during the period of 5

131 years from 2008 to 2012, The Washington Post by covering the all 7 issues of concern

Portrayal negative image of Pakistan as ally with US in its editorials.

132

Figure 6.22: Total Editorials Treatment of The Washington Post on the all under research issues of War on terror, NATO supply, Afghanistan as factor between Pak-

US relations, US aid to Pakistan, Drone attacks, Osama assassination in Pakistan and Intelligence Sharing among Pakistan and USA

Editorial Coverage of Washington Post on all issues

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 Total Editorials 20 10 Positive 0 Negative Neutral

Demographic treatment of The Washington Post on issues of War on terror, NATO supply, Afghanistan as factor between Pak-US relations, US aid to Pakistan, Drone attacks, Osama assassination in Pakistan and Intelligence Sharing among Pakistan and

USA among Pakistan and USA shows that Most of the Editorials published in The

Washington Post during the period of 5 years i.e. 1st January 2008 to 31st December 2012 showed negative image of Pakistan as ally with US regarding all issues of concern.

133

Table 6.23: Total Editorials Treatment of The New York Times on the all under research issues of War on terror, NATO supply, Afghanistan as factor between Pak-

US relations, US aid to Pakistan, Drone attacks, Osama assassination in Pakistan and Intelligence Sharing among Pakistan and USA

New York Times

Total Issues Positive Negative Neutral Editorials 26 2 15 9 War on terror (22.22%) (7.69%) (57.69%) (34.61%) 11 3 2 6 Drone Attacks (9.40%) (27.27%) (18.18%) (54.54%) Osama Bin Ladin 10 1 8 1 Assassination (8.54%) (10.0%) (80.00%) (10.00%) NATO Supply from 28 11 12 5 Pakistani Territory (23.93%) (39.28%) (42.85%) (17.85%) Afghanistan as Factor 21 11 7 3 between Pak-US relations (17.94%) (52.38%) (33.33%) (14.28%) 16 9 5 2 US aid to Pakistan (13.67%) (56.25%) (31.25%) (12.5%) Intelligence Sharing among 5 0 3 2 Pakistan and USA (4.27%) (00.00%) (60.0%) (40.00%) 117 37 52 28 Grand Total (100%) (31.62%) (44.44%) (23.93%)

Note: The above frequency distribution table shows the total editorial treatment of The

New York Times during the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) regime on the issues of War on terror, NATO supply, Afghanistan as factor between Pak-US relations, US aid to

Pakistan, Drone attacks, Osama assassination in Pakistan and Intelligence Sharing among

Pakistan and USA. According to the results, during the period of 5 years, The New York

Times published total 117 (100%) editorials about the issues concerned in which 37

(31.62%) editorials were in the favour of Pakistan, 52 (44.44%) editorials were against

Pakistan and 28 (23.93%) editorials were neutral. Hence during the period of 5 years

134 from 2008 to 2012, The New York Times by covering the all 7 issues of concern

Portrayal negative image of Pakistan as ally with US in its editorials.

135

Figure 6.23: Total Editorials Treatment of The New York Times on the all under research issues of War on terror, NATO supply, Afghanistan as factor between Pak-

US relations, US aid to Pakistan, Drone attacks, Osama assassination in Pakistan and Intelligence Sharing among Pakistan and USA

Editorials Coverage of New York Times on all issues

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 Total Editorials 20 10 Positive 0 Negative Neutral

Demographic treatment of The New York times on the issues of War on terror, NATO supply, Afghanistan as factor between Pak-US relations, US aid to Pakistan, Drone attacks, Osama assassination in Pakistan and Intelligence Sharing among Pakistan and

USA among Pakistan and USA shows that Most of the Editorials published in The New

York Times during the period of 5 years i.e. 1st January 2008 to 31st December 2012 showed negative image of Pakistan as ally with US regarding all issues of concern.

136

Table 6.24:Comparison of Total Editorials Treatment of The Washington Post and

The New York times on the issues of War on terror, NATO supply, Afghanistan as factor between Pak-US relations, US aid to Pakistan, Drone attacks, Osama assassination in Pakistan and Intelligence Sharing among Pakistan and USA

Washington New York Rank Issues Total Post Times Order War on Terror and Its 57 26 83 1st implications for Pakistan NATO Supply through Pakistan 14 28 42 2nd to Afghanistan Afghanistan as Factor Between 19 21 40 3rd Pak-US Relations US Aid to Pakistan 14 16 30 4th US Drone Attacks in Pakistani 15 11 26 5th Territory Osama's Assassination in 16 10 26 6th Pakistan by US Intelligence Sharing with US 12 5 17 7th 147 117 264 TOTAL

Note: The above frequency distribution table shows the total editorials treatment of both

American newspapers i.e. The Washington Post and The New York Times regarding the all 7 issues of concern including war on terror, NATO supply from Pakistani territory,

Afghanistan as factor between Pak-US relations, US aid to Pakistan, Drone attacks in

Pakistani territory, Osama Bin Ladin assassination in Pakistan by US and Intelligence sharing among Pakistan and US. The table shows that both American newspapers The

Washington Post and The New York Times given more treatment to the issue of “war on terror” and published total 83 editorials during the selected period of 5 years during the

PPP regime and ranked this category as 1st. On the issue of “NATO supply” from

Pakistani territory, both newspapers published total 42 editorials and ranked this issue as

137

2nd. On the issue of “Afghanistan as factor between Pak-US relations” both newspapers published 40 editorials and ranked this issue as 3rd. On the issue of “US aid to Pakistan” both newspapers published 30 editorials and ranked this issue as 4thin treatment. On the issue of “Drone attacks” both newspapers published 26 editorials and ranked this issue as

5th in treatment. On the issue of “Osama Bin Ladin assassination in Pakistan by US” both newspapers published 26 editorials and ranked this issue as 6th in treatment and on the issue of “Intelligence sharing among Pakistan and USA” both newspapers published 17 editorials as ranked this issue as 7th in treatment. In this way, The Washington Post published total 147 editorials on all 7 issues of concern in the period of 5 years from 2008 to 2012 and The New York Times published 117 editorials on the all 7 issues of concern.

Furthermore, both American newspapers The Washington Post and The New York Times published total 264 editorials on all 7 issues of concern related to Pak-US relations during the period of 5 years from 1st January 2008 to 31st December 2012 during the Pakistan

People’s Party (PPP) regime.

138

Figure 6.24: Comparison of Total Editorials Treatment of The Washington Post and

Total Coverage of The washington post & the new york times regarding all issues

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 Washington Post 10 0 New York Times Total

Demographic treatment of The Washington Post and The New York times on issues of

War on terror, NATO supply, Afghanistan as factor between Pak-US relations, US aid to

Pakistan, Drone attacks, Osama assassination in Pakistan and Intelligence Sharing among

Pakistan and USA shows the Editorials published by both newspapers i.e. The

Washington Post and The New York Times during the period of 5 years i.e. 1st January

2008 to 31st December 2012 on Pak-US relations during the Pakistan People’s Party regime.

139

Table 25: Descriptive Statistics

Minimu Maximu Std. N m m Mean Deviation Skewness Std. Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Error Editorial Treatment of The Washington 57 1 3 2.04 .626 -.023 .316 Post on the issue of War on Terror Editorial Treatment of The New York 26 1 3 2.27 .604 -.171 .456 times on the issue of War on Terror Editorial Treatment of The Washington Post on the issue of 15 1 3 1.80 .676 .256 .580 Drone Attacks in Pakistan Editorial Treatment of The New York times on the issue of 11 1 3 2.27 .905 -.647 .661 Drone Attacks in Pakistan Editorial Treatment of The Washington Post on the issue of 16 1 3 2.19 .544 .189 .564 Osama Bin Ladin Assassination in Pakistan Editorial Treatment of The New York times on the issue of 10 1 2 1.80 .422 -1.779 .687 Osama Bin Ladin Assassination in Pakistan

140

Editorial Treatment of The Washington Post on the issue of 14 1 3 1.93 .730 .113 .597 NATO Supply through Pakistani Territory Editorial Treatment of The New York times on the issue of 28 1 3 1.79 .738 .370 .441 NATO Supply through Pakistani Territory Editorial Treatment of The Washington Post on the issue of 19 1 3 2.05 .705 -.074 .524 Afghanistan as Factor between Pak-US Relations Editorial Treatment of The New York times on the issue of 21 1 3 1.62 .740 .774 .501 Afghanistan as Factor between Pak-US Relations Editorial Treatment of The Washington 14 1 3 1.71 .825 .625 .597 Post on the issue of US Aid to Pakistan Editorial Treatment of The New York 16 1 3 1.56 .727 .942 .564 times on the issue of US Aid to Pakistan Editorial Treatment of The Washington Post on the issue of 12 1 3 2.33 .888 -.797 .637 Intelligence Sharing among Pakistan and USA

141

Editorial Treatment of The New York times on the issue of 5 2 3 2.40 .548 .609 .913 Intelligence Sharing among Pakistan and USA

142

Table 26: Hypothesis Test 1

Hypothesis 1: It is more likely that The Washington Post gave more treatment to

Pak-US relations as compare to New York Times.

Washington New York Issues Post Times War on Terror and Its implications for 57 26 Pakistan NATO Supply through Pakistan to 14 28 Afghanistan Afghanistan as Factor Between Pak-US 19 21 Relations US Aid to Pakistan 14 16 US Drone Attacks in Pakistani Territory 15 11 Osama's Assassination in Pakistan by US 16 10 Intelligence Sharing with US 12 5 TOTAL 147 117

N= V1+V2

Where N is the total numbers of editorials,

V1 is the total editorial treatment of The Washington Post

V2 is the total editorial treatment of The New York Times

So,

264=147+117

Here R is the result in term of number of editorials that The The Washington Post published more than The New York Times

R=V1-V2

30=147-117

V1 (147) > V2 (117)

143

So it is shows that The Washington Post published overall more editorials on Pak-US relations are compare to New York Times.

Figure 26: Hypothesis Test 1

Total Coverage on Pak-US Relations 160

140

120

100

80 147 60 117

0 Washington Post New York Times

Hypothesis 2: It is more likely that both American newspapers gave opinion against the stance of Pakistan Government on under studied issues of Pak-US relations.

In Row: Total editorial treatment of The Washington Post on all issues

In Columns: Total editorial treatment of The New York times on all issues

Table 27: Chi-Square Tests

Asymp. Sig. (2- Value Df sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 26.296a 4 .000

Likelihood Ratio 27.272 4 .000

Linear-by-Linear Association 1.486 1 .223

N of Valid Cases 117

144

For the value of Chi-Square

2 n  (O  e ) 2   i i  2 2  =   and under Ho  ~  ,(c1)(r1) i1  ei 

Chi-Square = 26.296 P-value = 0.000

The above cross tabulation shows the association among the attributes of the assumed hypothesis according to the population American Print media The Washington

Post and New York Times. The Chi-Square test is used to check the significance of the association. The value of Chi-Square is 26.296 and the P-value for the test is 0.000 shows there is significant association among the attributes at 5% level of significance.

Figure 27: Hypothesis Test 2

145

Hypothesis 3: It is more likely that American press portrayed negative image of

Pakistan as ally with US.

In Row: Total editorial treatment of The Washington Post on all issues

In Columns: Total editorial treatment of The New York times on all issues

Table 28: Chi-Square Tests

Asymp. Sig. (2- Value Df sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 26.296a 4 .000

Likelihood Ratio 27.272 4 .000

Linear-by-Linear Association 1.486 1 .223

N of Valid Cases 117

a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 5.26.

For the value of Chi-Square

2 n  (O  e ) 2   i i  2 2  =   and under Ho  ~  ,(c1)(r1) i1  ei 

Chi-Square = 26.296 P-value = 0.000

The above cross tabulation shows the association among the attributes of the assumed hypothesis according to the population American Print media The Washington

146

Figure 28: Hypothesis Test 3

147

148

Chapter No.7: Discussions

Research Question 1: How much coverage is given in both newspapers about under studied issues in their editorials?

The current research study explored the Pak-US relations during Pakistan

People’s Party regime. According to the results, both American newspapers i.e. The

Washington Post and The New York Times regarding the all 7 issues of under study including war on terror, NATO supply from Pakistani territory, Afghanistan as factor between Pak-US relations, US aid to Pakistan, Drone attacks in Pakistani territory,

Osama Bin Ladin assassination in Pakistan by US and Intelligence sharing among

Pakistan and US. The table shows that both American newspapers The Washington Post and The New York Times given more coverage to the issue of “war on terror” and published total 83 editorials during the selected period of 5 years during the PPP regime and ranked this category as 1st. On the issue of “NATO supply” from Pakistani territory, both newspapers published total 42 editorials and ranked this issue as 2nd. On the issue of

“Afghanistan as factor between Pak-US relations” both newspapers published 40 editorials and ranked this issue as 3rd. On the issue of “US aid to Pakistan” both newspapers published 30 editorials and ranked this issue as 4thin coverage. On the issue of “Drone attacks” both newspapers published 26 editorials and ranked this issue as 5th in coverage. On the issue of “Osama Bin Ladin assassination in Pakistan by US” both newspapers published 26 editorials and ranked this issue as 6th in coverage and on the issue of “Intelligence sharing among Pakistan and USA” both newspapers published 17 editorials as ranked this issue as 7th in coverage. In this way, The Washington Post

149 published total 147 editorials on all 7 issues of concern in the period of 5 years from 2008 to 2012 and The New York Times published 117 editorials on the all 7 issues of concern.

People’s Party (PPP) regime.

Research Question 2: What is the manner of treatment of US press regarding the issue of war on terror?

The present research study explores the Pak-US relations issues in American elite press during the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) regime from 1st January 2008 to 31st

December 2012. The researcher chose editorials of The Washington Post and The New

York Times to know the opinion of American press about role of Pakistan as ally with

US on the issue of War on terror and its implications for Pakistan, NATO Supply through

Pakistan to Afghanistan, Drone attacks in Pakistani Territory, Intelligence Sharing with

US, Osama's Assassination in Pakistan by US Navy Seals and Afghanistan as a factor between Pak-US relations and US aid to Pakistan. The researcher chose the all editorials related to the Pak-US relations during the selected period of 5 years. According to the results, both US newspapers The Washington Post and The New York times on the issues of War on Terror in Pakistan during the selected period, The Washington Post published total 57 (100%) editorials and The New York Times published 26 (100%) editorials regarding the issues of war on terror in Pakistan. The Washington Post published 10

(18%) editorials in the favour of Pakistan and The New York Times published 2 (8%) editorials in the favour of Pakistan. On the other hand, The Washington Post 35 (61%)

150 editorials against Pakistan and The New York Times published 15 (58%) editorials against Pakistan. Furthermore, The Washington Post published 12 (21%) editorials as neutral and The New York Times published 9 (35%) editorials as neutral. In this way, both US newspapers mostly published editorials against the Pakistan. By examining the whole treatment of both newspapers, it is concluded that from total 83 (100%) editorials of both newspapers, 12 (14%) editorials found positive, 50 (60%) editorials found negative and 21 (25%) editorials found neutral on the issue of war on terror in Pakistan.

In this way the answer of research question “What is the manner of treatment of US press regarding the issue of war on terror?” is that in quantitative treatment, The Washington

Post published more 57 (100%) editorials as compare to The New York Times that published total 26 (100%) editorials during the selected period of 5 years. Furthermore, in qualitative treatment, The Washington Post portrayed more negative image of Pakistan as it published 35 (61%) editorials against Pakistan as compare to The New York Times that published 15 (58%) editorials against Pakistan as ally with US on the issue of War on terror.

Research Question 3: What kind of treatment given by both American Newspapers on the issue Drone Attacks in Pakistani territory?

The second issue of concern in this research study was Pak-US relations in term of US drone attacks in Pakistani territory portrayed by both American newspaper The

Washington Post and New York Times. According to the results, The Washington Post published total 15 (100%) editorials and The New York Times published 11 (100%) editorials on the issue of US drone attacks in Pakistani territory. The Washington Post published 5 (33%) editorials in the favour of Pakistan and The New York Times

151 published 2 (27%) editorials in the favour of Pakistan regarding US drone attacks in

Pakistani territory issue. On the other hand, The Washington Post published 8 (53%) editorials against Pakistan and The New York Times published 2 (18%) editorials against

Pakistan on the issue of drone attacks in Pakistani territory with the arguments that it is necessary to eradicate terrorism and make this world free form terrorism. In editorials of both newspapers it was argument that Pakistani tribal areas are safe paradise for terrorists and Pakistan has no such ability to defeat them, so this was responsibility of US to attack on North West areas of Pakistan with drone technology to finish terrorists. Whereas The

Washington Post published 2 (13%) editorials as neutral and The New York Times published 6 (55%) editorials as neutral on drone attack issue. By examining the overall treatment, it is concluded that both newspapers published total 26 (100%) editorials regarding drone attacks issue through which 8 (31%) published in favour of Pakistan, 10

(38%) published against Pakistan and 8 (31%) published as neutral. Hence both US newspapers published editorials against Pakistan on the issue of drone attacks in

Pakistani territory during the period of 2008 to 2012 with the argument that US drone attack in Pakistani territory are in the favour of both countries Pakistan and US. By examining the contents in Quantitative manners, it is concluded that The Washington

Post published 15 (100%) more editorials as compare to The New York Times11 (100%) on the issue of drone attacks in Pakistani territory. In Qualitative manner, The

Washington Post written most of its editorials against Pakistan with the ratio of 8 (53%) and The New York Times written majority of its editorials as neutral with the ratio of 6

(55%). Whereas by examining overall treatment of both newspapers, majority of editorials of both newspaper was against Pakistan with the ratio of 10 (38%) of total 26

152

(100%). In this way on the issue of drone attacks in Pakistani territory, The Washington

Post written most of its editorials against Pakistan and The New York Times written most of its editorials as neutral but overall treatment of both newspapers were against Pakistan on the issue of drone attacks in Pakistani territory.

Research Question 4: What image of Pakistan portrayed by both American newspapers regarding the issue of Osama Bin Ladin Assassination in Pakistan by

US?

The third issue of concern in this research study was Pak-US relations in term of

Osama Bin Ladin assassination in Pakistani territory by US portrayed by both American newspaper The Washington Post and New York Times. According to the results, The

Washington Post published total 16 (100%) editorials during the selected period of 5 years in which 1 (6%) editorials written in the favour of Pakistan, 11 (69%) editorials written against the Pakistan and 4 (25%) editorials written as neutral on the issue of

Osama Bin Ladin Assassination in Pakistan. Hence The Washington Post written most of its editorials 11 (69%) against Pakistan on the issue of Osama Bin Ladin assassination in

Pakistani territory. The Washington Post argued that it was weakness of Pakistan that Al-

Qadia leader was living under the nose of Pakistan even near army Naval academy but

Pakistan was not aware about it. Furthermore, on the same issue, The New York Times published total 10 (100%) editorials during the selected period of 5 years. From which,

The New York Times published 1 (10%) editorials in the favour of Pakistan furthermore,

8 (80%) editorials written against the Pakistan and 1 (10%) editorials as neutral on the issue of Osama Bin Ladin assassination. Hence, The New York Times written most of the editorials 8 (80%) against the Pakistan on the issue of concern during the period of 2008

153 to 2012. Both newspapers written total 26 (100%) editorials on the issue of Osama Bin

Washington Post written more 16 (100%) editorials on the issue of Osama assassination as compare to The New York Times that written 10 (100%) editorials on the issue concern. In this way total treatment of both newspapers was 26 (100%) editorials during the period of 2008 to 2012. In Qualitative point of view, The Washington Post wrote 11

(69%) editorials against Pakistan and The New York Times written 8 (80%) editorials against Pakistan. In this way both newspapers wrote 19 (73%) editorials from total 26

(100%) against Pakistan on the issue of Osama Bin Ladin Assassination in Pakistani territory by US.

Research Question 5: What kind of treatment given by both American newspapers on the issue of NATO Supply through Pakistani territory?

The forth issue of concern in this research study was Pak-US relations in term of

NATO Supply through Pakistani territory to Afghanistan portrayed by both American newspaper The Washington Post and New York Times. According to the results, The

Washington Post published total 14 (100%) editorials during the selected period of 5 years in which 4 (29%) editorials written in the favour of Pakistan, 7 (50%) editorials written against the Pakistan and 3 (21%) editorials written as neutral on the issue of

NATO supply through Pakistani territory to Afghanistan. Hence The Washington Post wrote most of its editorials against Pakistan on the issue of concern. Furthermore, on the

154 same issue, The New York Times published total 28 (100%) editorials during the selected period of 5 years. From which, The New York Times published 11 (39%) editorials in the favour of Pakistan, 12 (43%) editorials written against the Pakistan and 5 (18%) editorials as neutral on the issue of NATO supply through Pakistani territory. Hence, The New

York Times written most of the editorials 12 (43%) against the Pakistan on the issue of concern during the period of 2008 to 2012. Both newspapers written total 42 (100%) editorials on the issue of NATO supply through Pakistani territory in which 15 (36%) written in favour of Pakistan, 19 (45%) written against Pakistan and 8 (19%) written as neutral. Hence, overall editorial treatment of both newspapers on the issue of NATO supply was against the Pakistan. In quantitative point of view, both newspapers published total 42 (100%) editorials through which 14 (100%) published in The Washington Post and 28 (100%) published in The New York times on the issue of NATO supply through

Pakistani territory. In Quantitative approach The New York Times has given more treatment to this issue as compare to Washington Post. Whereas in Qualitative point of view, The Washington Post wrote most of its editorials 7 (50%) against Pakistan and The

New York Times also written most of its editorials 12 (43%) against Pakistan. In overall qualitative approach both newspapers wrote 19 (45%) of their editorials against Pakistan from the total of 42 (100%) editorials on the issue of NATO supply from Pakistani territory to Afghanistan portrayed negative image of Pakistan.

155

Research Question 6: What is the stance of both newspapers towards Pakistan government stance on the issue of Afghanistan as an important factor of Pak-US relations?

The fifth issue of concern in this research study was Pak-US relations in term of

Afghanistan as factor between Pak-US relations portrayed by both American newspaper

The Washington Post and The New York Times during the time period of 1st January

2008 to 31st December 2012. According to the results, The Washington Post published total 19 (100%) editorials during the selected period of 5 years in which 4 (21%) editorials written in the favour of Pakistan, 10 (53%) editorials written against the

Pakistan and 5 (26%) editorials written as neutral on the issue of Afghanistan as factor between Pak-US relations. In this way, The Washington Post wrote most of its editorials

10 (53%) against Pakistan with the argument that Al-Qadia and TTP leaders was hidden

Pak-Afghan border area of Waziristan territory and there are training camps of militants.

And these militants cross the border easily and create disturbance for US and NATO army in Afghanistan. Furthermore, on the same issue, The New York Times published total 21 (100%) editorials during the selected period of 5 years. From which, The New

York Times published 11 (52%) editorials in the favour of Pakistan, 7 (33%) editorials written against the Pakistan and 3 (14%) editorials as neutral on the issue of Afghanistan as factor between Pak-US relations. Hence, The New York Times written most of the editorials 11 (52%) in the favour of Pakistan on the issue of concern during the period of

2008 to 2012. Both newspapers written total 40 (100%) editorials on the issue of

Afghanistan as factor between Pak-US relations in which 15 (38%) written in favour of

Pakistan, 17 (43%) written against Pakistan and 8 (20%) written as neutral. Hence,

156 overall editorial treatment of both newspapers on the issue of Afghanistan as factor between Pak-US relations was against the Pakistan. In Quantitative point of view, both newspapers wrote 40 (100%) editorials from which The New York Times written more editorials 21 (100%) as compare to The Washington Post that written 19 (100%) editorials on the issues of concern. While in Qualitative point of view, The Washington

Post wrote most of its editorials 10 (53%) against Pakistan and The New York Times wrote most of its editorials 11 (52%) in favour of Pakistan on the issue of Afghan as factor between Pak-US relations. Overall qualitative point of view, treatment of both newspapers fell down in the category of against Pakistan with the 17 (43%) editorials.

Research Question 7: What is the behaviour of both American newspapers regarding US aid to Pakistan?

The sixth issue of concern in this research study was US aid to Pakistan portrayed by both American newspaper The Washington Post and The New York Times during the time period of 1st January 2008 to 31st December 2012. According to the results, The

Washington Post published total 14 (100%) editorials during the selected period of 5 years in which 7 (50%) editorials written in the favour of Pakistan, 4 (29%) editorials written against the Pakistan and 3 (21%) editorials written as neutral on the issue of US aid to Pakistan. In this way, The Washington Post wrote most of its editorials 7 (50%) on the issue of US aid to Pakistan in the favour of Pakistan with the argument that Pakistan is suffering economical loss and have poor economy. In this way US aid to Pakistan is necessary and help for Pakistan to recover its economic burden. Furthermore, on the same issue, The New York Times published total 16 (100%) editorials during the selected period of 5 years. From which, The New York Times published 9 (56%) editorials in the

157 favour of Pakistan, 5 (31%) editorials written against Pakistan and 2 (13%) editorials as neutral on the issue of US aid to Pakistan. Hence, The New York Times also wrote most of the editorials 9 (56%) in the favour of Pakistan on the issue of concern during the period of 2008 to 2012. Both newspapers written total 30 (100%) editorials on the issue of US aid to Pakistan in which 16 (53%) written in favour of Pakistan, 9 (30%) written against Pakistan and 5 (17%) written as neutral. Hence, overall editorial treatment of both newspapers on the issue of US aid to Pakistan is in the favour of Pakistan. In Quantitative point of view, both newspapers published 30 (100%) editorials on the issue concern in which The New York Times published more editorials 16 (100%) and The Washington

Post published 14 (100%) editorials. In qualitative point of view, The Washington Post published most of its editorials 7 (50%) in the favour of Pakistan and The New York

Times also published most of its editorials 9 (56%) its editorials in the favour of Pakistan.

In this way both newspapers published 16 (53%) editorials in the favour of Pakistan out of 30 (100%) editorials on the issue of US aid to Pakistan.

Research Question 8: What image of Pakistan portrayed by both American newspapers regarding Intelligence sharing?

The seventh issue of concern in this research study was Intelligence sharing among Pakistan and USA portrayed by both American newspaper The Washington Post and The New York Times during the time period of 1st January 2008 to 31st December

2012. According to the results, The Washington Post published total 12 (100%) editorials during the selected period of 5 years in which 3 (25%) editorials written in the favour of

Pakistan, 2 (17%) editorials written against the Pakistan and 7 (58%) editorials written as neutral on the issue of intelligence sharing among Pakistan and USA. In this way, The

158

Washington Post wrote most of its editorials on the issue of concern as neutral.

Furthermore, on the same issue, The New York Times published total 5 (100%) editorials during the selected period of 5 years. From which, The New York Times published 0

(0%) editorials in the favour of Pakistan, 3 (60%) editorials written against Pakistan and

2 (40%) editorials as neutral on the issue of intelligence sharing among Pakistan and

USA. Hence, The New York Times written most of the editorials 3 (60%) against

Pakistan and The Washington Post published most editorials as neutral on the issue of concern during the period of 2008 to 2012. Both newspapers written total 17 (100%) editorials on the issue of intelligence sharing among Pakistan and USA in which 3 (18%) written in favour of Pakistan, 5 (29%) written against Pakistan and 9 (53%) written as neutral. Hence, overall editorial treatment of both newspapers on the issue of intelligence sharing among Pakistan and USA remained neutral. In quantitative point of view, both newspapers published total 17 (100%) editorials in which The Washington Post published more editorials 12 (100%) as compare to The New York Times that published

5 (100%) editorials on the issue of intelligence sharing. While in Qualitative point of view, The Washington Post published 7 (58%) editorials as neutral and The New York

Times published 3 (60%) of its editorials against Pakistan. By examining overall treatment of both newspapers, 9 (53%) treatment remained neutral on the issue of intelligence sharing among Pakistan and USA during Pakistan People’s Party regime.

Hypothesis 1: It is more likely that The Washington Post gave more treatment to

Pak-US relations as compare to New York Times.

The current research study discussed about Pak-US relations portrayed by the

American press. In this study, Pak-US relations checked in different angels and explored

159 the stance of American press on the issues of War on terror and its implications for

Pakistan, Drone attacks in Pakistani territory by US, NATO Supply through Pakistan to

Afghanistan, Intelligence Sharing with US, Osama's Assassination in Pakistan by US

Navy Seals and Afghanistan as a factor between Pak-US relations and US aid to Pakistan.

The researcher assumed hypothesis 1 Quantitative point of view. So, The Washington

Post published total 147 editorials (See Table 26) during the Pakistan People’s Party

(PPP) regime from 1st January 2008 to 31st December 2012. On the other hand, The New

York Times published 117 editorials in this specific period about Pak-US relations.

Hence the hypothesis “It is more likely that The Washington Post gave more treatment to

Pak-US relations as compare to New York Times” is true.

Hypothesis 2: It is more likely that both American newspapers gave opinion against the stance of Pakistan government on under studies issues of Pak-US relations.

The hypothesis 2, researcher assumed qualitative point of view and Chi-Square test applied to check the assumed hypothesis. The values of Chi-Square for the test showed 26.296 and P-value is 0.000 showed significant associations among the attributes at 5% level of significance. So the hypothesis “It is more likely that both American newspapers gave opinion against the stance of Pakistan government on under studies issues of Pak-US relations” is true.

Hypothesis 3: It is more likely that American press portrayed negative image of

Pakistan as ally with US.

The hypothesis 3, researcher assumed qualitative point of view and Chi-Square test applied to check the assumed hypothesis. The values of Chi-Square for the test

160 showed 26.296 and P-value is 0.000 showed significant associations among the attributes at 5% level of significance. So the hypothesis “It is more likely that American press portrayed negative image of Pakistan as ally with US” is true.

161

162

Chapter No. 8: Conclusion

8.1 Conclusion

The present research study explored Pak-US relations issues in American elite press during the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) regime from 1st January 2008 to 31st

December 2012. The researcher chose editorials of The Washington Post and The New

York Timesto know the opinion of American press about role of Pakistan as ally with US on the issue of War on terror and its implications for Pakistan, NATO Supply through

Pakistan to Afghanistan, Drone attacks in Pakistani Territory, Intelligence Sharing with

US, Osama's Assassination in Pakistan by US Navy Seals and Afghanistan as a factor between Pak-US relations and US aid to Pakistan. The researcher chose the all editorials related to the Pak-US relations during the selected period of 5 years. Especially study focused on image of Pakistan being ally to US mission on war on terror with regard to editorial treatment of US elite press in order to frame Pakistan. This research study was theoretically linked with Agenda Setting Theory and Framing Theory.

The current research study was based on content analysis, the researcher analyzed the editorials published on the selected issues relating to Pak-US relations in the

American press. Unit of analysis was entire editorials published during 1st January 2008 to 31st December 2012 and researcher read every paragraph of editorials and coded into three slants. Slant of the frame were positive, negative and neutral. No sample was taken from the newspapers content as all the editorials published on the selected issues during the time period of the study were analyzed so it was a census study.

163

It is concluded that both newspaper of USA The Washington Post and The New

York Times published total 264 editorials on Pak-US relations during Pakistan People’s

Party (PPP) regime from 1st January 2008 to 31st December 2012. From the total of 264 editorials, 147 published in The Washington Post and 117 published in New York Times.

In this way, quantitative point of view The Washington Post published more editorials as compare to New York Times.

On the issue of war on terror, The Washington Post published 57 editorials, on the issue of NATO supply through Pakistani territory to Afghanistan published 14 editorials, on the issue of Afghanistan as factor between Pak-US relations published 19 editorials, on the issue of US Aid to Pakistan, published 14 editorials, on the issue of US drone attacks in Pakistani territory published 15 editorials, on the issue of Osama Bin Ladin

Assassination in Pakistan by US published 16 editorials and on the issue of Pak-US intelligence sharing published 12 editorials. By summing up all The Washington Post published total 147 editorials in the period of 5 years from 1st January 2008 to 31st

December 2012.

The New York Times gave treatment to the issue of war on terror in 26 editorials during the selected period of five years. On the issue of NATO supply through Pakistani to Afghanistan, The New York Times published 28 editorials, on the issue of Afghanistan as factor between Pak-US relations 21 editorials, on the issue of US Aid to Pakistan, published 16 editorials, on the issue of US drone attacks in Pakistani territory published

11 editorials, on the issue of Osama Bin Ladin assassination published 10 editorials and on the issue of Pak-US intelligence sharing published 5 editorials. In this way The New

York Times published total 117 editorials during the selected period of five years.

164

In qualitative point of view on the issue of war on terror, The Washington Post published most of its editorials against Pakistan and same policy is followed by New

York Times. Pakistan is ally with US since the birth of Pakistan but in this journey of 69 years, Pak-US relations seen many turns. At every stage, US prefer its interests and

Pakistan faces many difficulties as ally with US. But this relation seen every season sometimes these relations goes more friendly and strong and sometimes threes relations goes breakup on crucial circumstances. On the issue of war on terror, American press show negative image of Pakistan of Pakistan with the argument that Pakistan is not serious about eradication of terrorism and in hidden supporting to Taliban, Al-Qaida and other militants groups.

On the issue of US drone attacks in Pakistani Territory, The Washington Post wrote most of its editorials against Pakistan and show the negative image of Pakistan with the argument that Pakistan is safe state for terrorists and paradise for terrorist’s leaders. Pakistan have not such technology to fight with them on mountain areas so US drone attacks are necessary for killing terrorists in Pakistani North West areas. Whereas on the same issue The New York Times wrote most of its editorials as neutral. In this way, by analyzing the both newspapers, overall treatment of American press goes to against Pakistan as from to 26 editorials 10 editorials gone to against Pakistan, 8 in favour of Pakistan and 8 as neutral.

On the issue of Osama Bin Ladin Assassination in Pakistan by US The

Washington Post and The New York Times both newspapers wrote against Pakistan and showed negative image of Pakistan with the argument that how it is possible that Osama

Bin Ladin was living in Pakistan near army and government and army of Pakistan was

165 not aware about it. Both newspapers wrote 19 editorials against Pakistan out of 26. Both newspapers stated that Pakistan is not working seriously as ally with US.

On the issue of NATO supply through Pakistani territory to Afghanistan, The

Washington Post and The New York Times both American newspapers wrote most of their editorials against Pakistan with the argument that Taliban and other militants groups create disturbance and destroy many of NATO trucks and have given heavy loss to US.

As 19 editorials out of 42 were against Pakistan and portrayed negative image of Pakistan regarding NATO supply through Pakistani territory.

On the issue of Afghanistan as factor between Pak-US relations, The Washington

Post wrote most of its editorials against Pakistan and portrayed negative image of

Pakistan as ally with US. The Washington Post argued that there are terrorists training camps in Pakistan and there is no secure border. In this way terrorists easily cross the border and gave lost to NATO forces in Afghanistan. On the other hand, The New York

Times wrote most of its editorials in favour of Pakistan on the issue of Afghan as factor between Pak-US relations. Hence overall treatment of both newspapers showed the negative image of Pakistan as both newspaper published total 17 editorials against

Pakistan out of 40.

On the issue of US Aid to Pakistan, Washing Post wrote most of its editorials in favour of Pakistan with the argument that Pakistan has bear loss in term of economy against war on terror, so US aid will cover that losses to Pakistan and Pakistan will be able to make development in country. On the same issue The New York Times also wrote most of its editorials in the favour of Pakistan with the arguments that US Aid is

166 necessary for Pakistan as Pakistan’s economy is in poor condition and there is need to

Aid Pakistan for maintain its position in term of development.

On the issue of intelligence sharing, both American newspapers wrote most of their editorials as neutrals. As both newspapers wrote 9 editorials as neutral out of 17 editorials.

By the analyzing the both American newspapers The Washington Post and New

York Times, it is concluded that American newspaper showed the negative image of

Pakistan. As from the total of 147 editorials, The Washington Post wrote 77 editorials against Pakistan and showed negative image of Pakistan on all seven issues of concern about Pak-US relations. Same policy is followed by The New York Times and out of 117 total editorials 52 editorials wrote against Pakistan and showed negative image of

Pakistan.

8.2 Suggestions for Further Research

The researcher has recommended the following areas to explore further in the future research on this topic;

 The same research study can be conducted in a comparative analysis of Pakistan

and US print media.

 The electronic media treatment to the issue relating to Pakistan and US relations

can be studied in the further research.

 The study can investigate the front pages news stories published in the US

mainstream press regarding the Pakistan and USA relations.

167

 The Portrayal of Pakistan Army can be measured in the US print media with

regard to war on terror and its implications for Pakistan.

 The Osama Bin Laden assassination in Pakistan can also be examined in the

comparative study of Pakistan and US elite press.

 The Image of USA before and after the OBL assassination can also be examined

in the US and Pakistani Press comparatively.

168

169

References:

Ali,E. & Shahid, K .(2012). Media and Foreign Policy, A study of Pak-US Relations in US & Pakistani press post9/11 era (2001-2011.)US: Lap Lambert publishing.

Arif, K. (1984) Documents on China-Pakistan Relations. Lahore: Vanguard

Altchul, Herbert J. (1984) Agents of Power: the Role of the news media in human affairs. New York, London: Longman.

Amna Mehmood, (2003). “American Policy of non-Proliferation towards Pakistan: A Post Cold War Perspective,” Pakistan Horizon, Volume 56, Number 1, p. 55.

Amin, S. (2010). Pakistan’s Foreign Policy: A Reappraisal. 2nd Ed. Karachi. Oxford University Press.

Ayub Khan, (1964). Stresses and Strains published in Foreign Affairs.

Burke S. M. (1973). Pakistan’s Foreign Policy: An Historical Analysis, London, Ely House Publishing.

Bruce O. Riedel (2008) Retrieved on 10-8-2016 from http://www.cfr.org/staff/b4962

Comsky, N. (2004). Media Control The Spectacular Achievements of Propaganda. (2nd Edition) Lahore: Vanguard Books.

Cole R., and Banning S. (2006). Network TV News' Affective Framing of the Presidential Candidates: Evidence for a Second-Level Agenda-Setting Effect through Visual Framing. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly Summer, 313-328.

Dennis Kux, ‘A Ride on the Roller Coaster’, in Hafeez Malik (ed.), 2003, Pakistan: Founders’ Aspirations and Today’s Realities. Karachi: Oxford University Press.

Dennis Kux (2002). The United States and Pakistan 1947-2000. Political Science Quarterly. Vol.117, No.1. Pp.135-136

170

Daugherty, D and Warden, M. (1979). Prestige press editorial treatment of the Mideast during 11 crisis years. Journalism Quarterly, 56, 776-782.

Dijk, V. (1998a). Ideology. A Multidisciplinary Study. London: Sage.

Dijk, T. A. (1998b). Towards a theory of context and experience models in discourse processing. In H. van Oostendorp and S. Goldman, (eds), The Construction of Mental Models During Reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum

Dijk, V. (1988). News as discourse. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawtrence Erlbaum Associates.

Dijk, V. (1988b). News Analysis Case Studies of International and National News in the Press. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Durrani, S. (2005). Comparison of pictorial images of Pakistan and India in Newsweek and Times (pre and post-9/11). Institute of Communication Studies, University of Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan.

Entman, R. (1993). Projections of power: Framing news, public opinion, and U.S. foreign policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Entman, Robert M. (1993). Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm, Journal of Communication 43(4), pp.51-58.

Gans, H. (1979). Deciding what is News, New York: Pantheon Books.

Gitlin, T. (1980). The whole world is watching: Mass Media in the making and unmaking of the new left. Berkely, Los Angeles and London: University of California Press.

Goffman, E. (1974). Frame Analysis: an essay on the organization of experience. New York: harper & Row.

Herman E. S. and Noam Chomsky (2002) Manufacturing Consent, Pantheon Books, 1988

Hussain, ijaz. (1998), Kashmir Dispute: An International Law Perspective, National Institute of Pakistan Studies.

171

Hanan, A. M. (2006). The media-foreign policy relationship: Pakistan’s media image and U.S. foreign policy. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, York University, Canada.

Haq N.U., & Khan M. N. (2011). Editorial, Daily Times, March 29, 2011, eds., “Recent Trends in Pak-US Relations,” IPRI Factfile, September 12, 2011, http://ipripak.org/factfiles/ff137.pdf (accessed Mar 21, 2012), 4

Iftikhar Malik (2008). The history of Pakistan. Greenwood Press. London.

Isaac Kifr (2007). The Crisis of Pakistan: A Dangerously weak state. Middle East Review of International Affairs. Vol. 11, No.3. Pp.78.

Iqbal, K. (2011). The seesaw of Pak-US relations. Retrieved from http://nation.com.pk

JamshedNazar, (2003) “A History of US-Pakistan Relations,” 12 December 2003, available from http://www.chowk.com/articles/6843; Internet; accessed 11 November 2007.

JabeenMusarrat, Mzahar Muhammad Saleem, and Goraya, Naheed (2010) “Trends and challenges in Pak-US relations Post September 11.” South Asian Studies, Vol. 25, No. 2, 2010.

Junaid, S. (2005) Terrorism and Global Power Systems, Oxford University Press.

Johnson-Cartee K. (2005). New Narrative and News framing: constructing political reality. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/framing_(social_sciences)

Kundi M.A. (2009). US Pakistan relations under Khan (1958-69): Impact on South Asia. A research journal of South Asian Studies. Vol.24, No.2. Pp.192-203.

Kaye, B.K., &Medoff, N.J. (2000). A theoretical perspective for the worldwide web. The worldwide web: A mass communication perspective. London: Mayfield Publishing Company.

Kheli S.T. (1982). US strategic interest in South West Asia.

172

Kux, D. (2001). The United States and Pakistan 1947-2000. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Kim, S. T. (2000). Making differences: US Press Treatment of the Kwangju and Tianmen pro-democracy movements. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 77 (1), 22-36.

Kronstadt, K.A., (2005). Pakistan-U.S. Relations Congressional Research Service, February 10, 2006.

Khan, A. (2011). The Image of Pakistan in Prestigious American Newspaper Editorials: A Test of the Media Conformity Theory. Strategic Studies, (XXVIII) 2&3.

Khan, Shaheen. Irshad. (1972). Rejection Alliance? A case study of US – Pakistan Relations (1947-67). Lahore: Feroze Sons Ltd

Lippman, W. (1922). Public opinion. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company.

McQuail, D. &Windahl, S. (1993). Communication models. New York:Longman.

McQuail, D. (1994). Mass Communication Theory an Introduction (Third Edition). London: Thousand Oaks. New Delhi: SAGE Publications.

Mughees-uddin. (1993). Elite press editorial farming of US foreign policy: The case of Pakistan and the New York Times, the The Washington Post and the Loss Angeles Times (1980-1992). (Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis): The University of IOWA.

Malik, Hafeez. (2008). US Relations with Afghanistan and Pakistan, Karachi: Oxford Press.

Musharraf, Pervez. (2006). In the Line of Fire. Simon & Schuster.

Mughees-uddin. (1992). Editorial treatment of US foreign policy in the New York Times: The case of Pakistan (1980-90). Unpublished paper, presented at AEJMC convention in Montreal (Canada) on August, 7, 1992.

173

Mughees-Uddin (1993). Image of Pakistan in the The New York Times(1980-1990). Pakistan Vision. Vol.11. No.1, Pp.12-43

Mughees-uddin. (1997) The case of Pakistan (1980-1990): Editorial Treatment of US Foreign Policy in The New York Times. Quarterly Journal, 4(2), 33-68.

Musharraf, Pervez. (2008). In the Line of Fire: A Memoir. UK: Simon and Schuster.

Musharraf P.(2004) “A Plea for Enlightened Moderation: Muslims must raise themselves up through individual achievement and socioeconomic emancipation,” Washington Post, 1 June 2004, A23.

Nazar J. (2006). A History of US-Pakistan Relations,” 12 December 2003, available from http://www.chowk.com/articles/6843; Internet; accessed 11 November 2007. http://defence.pk/threads/gen-rizwan-akhtar-paper-on-us-pakistan- relations.335553/#ixzz4H15lLFK6

Noshina, S. (2000). Editorial treatment of U.S. image in the two English dailies, “The Pakistan Times,” and “the Dawn”, with special reference to the Soviet military intervention in Afghanistan 1979-88. Unpublished master’s of Philisophy thesis, University of the Punjab, Lahore.

Najam R. (2004). Pak-US relations in contents of war against terrorism. Strategic Studies Vol.8, No.2.

Nayak, Polly. (2005). U.S. Security Policy in South Asia, Since 9/11 – Challenges and Implications for the Future, Asia –Pacific Centre for Security Studies. (Occasional paper Series – Feb. 2005.

Najam R., Humayun F., (2012) “Washington and the New Silk Road: A New Great Game in Asia?”.Strategic Studies, Vol. XXXI and XXXII (Winter 2011 and Spring 2012), Institute of Strategic Studies, Islamabad, pp.5-8.

Peter R. Blood (2002). Pakistan: A country study. Retrieved on 10-8-2016 from https://books.google.com.pk/books?id=DRMTO7mn7hIC&pg=PR17&dq=Muha

174

mmad+Zia-ul- Haq+military&hl=en&sa=X&ei=z3adUKcW0b7RAcLkgIgK&redir_ esc=y#v=onepage&q=Muhammad_Zia-ul-Haq_military&f=false

Powell (2003). Retrieved on 10-8-2016 from http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/09/ politics/powell-calls-his-un-speech-a-lasting-blot-on-his-record.html

Poornananda, D. S. (1998) Treatment of South Asia in two leading US Newspaper. Media Asia, 23930, 161.

Pak-US History (2016) Retrieved on 16-08-2016 from https://history.state.gov/countries/pakistan

PFP (2016) Retrieved on August 16, 2016 from http://www.mofa.gov.pk/content.php?pageID=Foreign%20Policy

Sattar, A. (2009) Pakistan’s foreign policy: 1947- 2009. 2nd edition, Karachi: Oxford University Press

Shiekh, Mughees-ud-Din (1997). ‘Editorial Treatment of US Foreign Policy in the New York Times: The Case Study of Pakistan (1980-90), National Development and Security Quarterly, No. 2, 1997.

Shirin Tahir-Kheli and William Staudenmaier (1982) “Saudi-Pakistan Military Relations”, Orbis, Vol.26, No.1, Pp. 155-71.

Saleem, N. (2007, April). U.S. Media Framing of Foreign Countries Image:an analytical perspective. Canadian Journal of Media Studies, pp. 134-135

Siraj, S. A. (2006). Image of Pakistan in the US Media Exploring News Framing (Doctoral dissertation). University of Southern Illinois, Carbondale, USA.

Sial (2007) a concise History, Karachi: Oxford university press.

175

Sultan, M. S. (2012). Portrayal of Pak-US relations in Elite Press of Pakistan and United States during Raja Pervaiz Ashraf Regime (June 2012-December 2012). Journal of Mass Communication Journalism, 3(2), 149. doi:10.4172/2165- 7912.1000149.

Tankard, J. W., Severin, W.J. (1992). Communication theories: Origins, methods, and uses in the mass media. New York & London: Longman.

Touqir Hussain, (2005) “Special Report # 145 – US-Pakistan Engagement - The War on Terrorism and Beyond,” 16 August 2005, available from www.usip.org; Internet; accessed on 10-8-2016. Source: http://defence.pk/threads/gen-rizwan-akhtar- paper-on-us-pakistan-relations.335553/#ixzz4H15AHdFT

The 9/11 Commission Report, 2004.

The New York Times, April 7, 1979.

US report (2016) US policy towards Pakistan. Retrieved on 16-08-2016 from http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3453.htm

Waldrop, Gayle A. (1948). Editor and Editorial Writer. New York, Toronto; writer, Rinehart.

Wikipedia (2011) retrieved on 12-12-2012 from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_in_Pakistan

Wiese, M. J. (1988). Teacher judgment in student evaluation: A comparison of grading methods. Journal of Educational Research, 82, 10-14.

Wordpress (2009). Retrieved on 25-10-2013 from https://humaimtiaz.wordpress.com/timeline-pakistan-2009/

Yousaf M., Ali, E. (2012) Treatment Of Pak-Us Relations In Elite Press Of Pakistan And Us During The Democratic Government Of Pakistan People’s Party; March 2008 To February 2012 (Media & Foreign Policy Perspective).

176

Zelizer B. & Allan S. (2002). Journalism after September 11. London & New York: Routledge.

Zahid and Ali, (2012). Treatment of Pak-Us Relations in Elite Press of Pakistan and Us during the Democratic Government of Pakistan People’s Party; March 2008 To February 2012 (Media & Foreign Policy Perspective) IOSR Journal (Nov. - Dec. 2012). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/the_New_York_Times http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Post

177

178

Coding Sheet Newspaper: The Washington Post Issue: War on Terror

Sr. Date Positive Negative Neutral No 1 01-01-2008  2 03-01-2008  3 04-01-2008  4 05-01-2008  5 07-01-2008  6 11-01-2008  7 13-01-2008  8 28-01-2008  9 12-02-2008  10 20-02-2008  11 22-02-2008  12 16-03-2008  13 26-05-2008  14 14-09-2008  15 27-10-2008  16 02-12-2008  17 05-12-2008  18 27-12-2008  19 26-01-2009  20 09-02-2009  21 15-03-2009  22 29-03-2009  23 12-04-2009  24 26-04-2009  25 10-05-2009  26 11-05-2009  27 02-06-2009  28 22-06-2009  29 29-09-2009  30 01-10-2009  31 04-10-2009  32 08-10-2009  33 11-10-2009  34 14-10-2009  35 22-10-2009  36 02-12-2009  37 15-12-2009  38 17-12-2009  39 15-01-2010  40 09-04-2010  41 05-05-2010 

179

42 10-05-2010  43 26-07-2010  44 28-07-2010  45 23-08-2010  46 03-10-2010  47 17-12-2010  48 07-01-2011  49 10-01-2011  50 06-03-2011  51 10-03-2011  52 01-05-2011  53 13-05-2011  54 23-06-2011  55 08-04-2012  56 15-06-2012  57 12-09-2012 

180

Coding Sheet Newspaper: The New York Times Issue: War on Terror

Sr. Date Positive Negative Neutral No 1 12-01-2008  2 13-06-2008  3 18-06-2008  4 28-07-2008  5 10-09-2008  6 17-09-2008  7 23-11-2008  8 14-12-2008  9 28-03-2009  10 30-03-2009  11 04-04-2009  12 04-05-2009  13 04-10-2009  14 30-10-2009  15 19-11-2009  16 10-12-2009  17 03-01-2010  18 23-01-2010  19 27-07-2010  20 14-01-2011  21 04-03-2011  22 10-04-2011  23 24-09-2011  24 27-09-2011  25 04-08-2012  26 11-10-2012  27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

181

Coding Sheet Newspaper: The Washington Post Issue: Drone Attacks

Sr. Date Positive Negative Neutral No 1 10-04-2009  2 27-04-2009  3 03-05-2009  4 27-05-2009  5 13-04-2010  6 13-04-2010  7 26-04-2010  8 15-09-2010  9 23-04-2011  10 22-09-2011  11 25-09-2011  12 15-07-2012  13 07-09-2012  14 02-11-2012  15 30-12-2012  16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

182

Coding Sheet Newspaper: The New York Times Issue: Drone Attacks

Sr. Date Positive Negative Neutral No 1 11-08-2009  2 17-05-2009   3 14-08-2011  4 15-08-2011  5 19-08-2011  6 06-12-2011  7 31-01-2012  8 07-05-2012  9 04-05-2012  10 14-06-2012  11 26-12-2012  12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

183

Coding Sheet Newspaper: The Washington Post Issue: OBL Assassination in Pakistan

Sr. Date Positive Negative Neutral No 1 14-10-2008  2 24-04-2009   3 05-05-2011  4 08-05-2011  5 11-05-2011  6 12-05-2011  7 15-05-2011  8 21-05-2011  9 01-06-2011  10 18-03-2011  11 19-03-2012  12 04-08-2012  13 27-05-2012  14 30-05-2012  15 14-06-2012  16 02-11-2012  17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

184

Coding Sheet Newspaper: The New York Times Issue: OBL Assassination in Pakistan

Sr. Date Positive Negative Neutral No 1 26-07-2009  2 03-05-2011  3 11-05-2011  4 12-05-2011  5 14-05-2011  6 15-05-2011  7 16-05-2011  8 24-09-2011  9 02-12-2011  10 11-05-2012  11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

185

Coding Sheet Newspaper: The Washington Post Issue: NATO Supply

Sr. Date Positive Negative Neutral No 1 01-02-2008  2 30-04-2008   3 04-05-2008  4 02-03-2009  5 14-09-2009  6 20-09-2009  7 15-11-2009  8 20-06-2010  9 01-10-2010  10 16-12-2010  11 16-08-2010  12 08-03-2012  13 17-07-2012  14 23-07-2012  15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

186

Coding Sheet Newspaper: The New York Times Issue: NATO Supply

Sr. Date Positive Negative Neutral No 1 14-01-2008  2 07-07-2008   3 11-07-2008  4 19-08-2008  5 21-08-2008  6 23-11-2008  7 04-02-2009  8 13-03-2009  9 19-03-2009  10 19-05-2009  11 27-09-2009  12 14-12-2009  13 18-02-2010  14 24-03-2010  15 01-01-2010  16 14-06-2010  17 28-06-2010  18 12-10-2010  19 16-12-2010  20 27-12-2010  21 13-01-2011  22 29-07-2011  23 29-07-2011  24 14-10-2011  25 15-10-2011  26 18-05-2012  27 02-07-2012  28 06-07-2012  29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

187

Coding Sheet Newspaper: The Washington Post Issue: Afghanistan as Factor b/w Pak- US

Sr. Date Positive Negative Neutral No 1 17-02-2008  2 06-06-2008   3 22-03-2009  4 28-03-2009  5 19-04-2009  6 04-05-2009  7 06-05-2009  8 13-12-2009  9 17-03-2010  10 27-04-2010  11 26-07-2010  12 19-07-2010  13 20-04-2011  14 15-06-2011  15 15-06-2012  16 05-09-2012  17 07-09-2012  18 02-11-2012  19 25-11-2012  20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

188

Coding Sheet Newspaper: The New York Times Issue: Afghanistan as Factor b/w Pak-US

Sr. Date Positive Negative Neutral No 1 02-03-2008  2 22-09-2008  3 29-09-2008  4 23-11-2008  5 08-12-2008  6 20-04-2009  7 31-03-2009  8 01-05-2009  9 06-05-2009  10 08-05-2009  11 04-12-2009  12 11-12-2009  13 13-08-2010  14 12-09-2010  15 23-01-2010  16 13-07-2010  17 14-10-2010  18 20-10-2010  19 19-12-2011  20 31-10-2012  21 04-11-2012  22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

189

Coding Sheet Newspaper: The Washington Post Issue: US Aid to Pakistan

Sr. Date Positive Negative Neutral No 1 27-04-2008  2 06-06-2008  3 14-08-2008  4 28-03-2009  5 29-03-2009  6 05-05-2009  7 30-05-2009  8 15-03-2010  9 12-08-2010  10 17-08-2010  11 29-08-2010  12 06-09-2010  13 12-09-2010  14 12-07-2011  15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

190

Coding Sheet Newspaper: The New York Times Issue: US Aid to Pakistan

Sr. Date Positive Negative Neutral No 1 02-10-2008  2 23-07-2009  3 19-08-2009   4 08-12-2009  5 27-07-2010  6 04-08-2010  7 18-08-2010  8 21-08-2010  9 28-08-2010  10 20-10-2010  11 11-11-2010  12 18-11-2010  13 06-03-2011  14 29-07-2011  15 05-08-2011  16 24-09-2011  17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

191

Coding Sheet Newspaper: The Washington Post Issue: Intelligence Sharing

Sr. Date Positive Negative Neutral No 1 18-02-2008  2 20-02-2008  3 06-06-2008  4 02-08-2008  5 23-02-2009  6 29-09-2009  7 17-02-2010  8 17-02-2010  9 04-03-2010  10 15-03-2010  11 11-05-2010  12 30-11-2010  13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

192

Coding Sheet Newspaper: The New York Times Issue: Intelligence Sharing

Sr. Date Positive Negative Neutral No 1 19-01-2008  2 02-10-2008  3 01-08-2010  4 08-07-2011  5  6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

193

194

Pakistan Foreign Policy

Pakistan’s Foreign Policy seeks to protect, promote and advance Pakistan’s national interests in the external domain.

The Foreign Ministry contributes towards safeguarding Pakistan’s security and advancing Pakistan’s development agenda for progress and prosperity following the guiding principles laid out by our founding fathers.

Guiding Principles of Pakistan’s Foreign Policy

Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the Founder of Pakistan and its first

Governor General, in a broadcast talk to the people of the USA in February 1948, outlined the following goals of Pakistan’s foreign policy:

“Our foreign policy is one of friendliness and goodwill towards all the nations of the world. We do not cherish aggressive designs against any country or nation. We believe in the principle of honesty and fair play in national and international dealings and are prepared to make our utmost contribution to the promotion of peace and prosperity among the nations of the world. Pakistan will never be found lacking in extending its material and moral support to the oppressed and suppressed peoples of the world, and in upholding the principles of the United Nations Charter.”

The Constitution of Pakistan also lays down guidelines for the conduct of foreign policy of the country. Article 40 of the constitution provides that:

195 goodwill and friendly relations among all nations and encourage the settlement of international disputes by peaceful means.”

The foreign policy of Pakistan is primarily directed to the pursuit of national goals of seeking peace and stability through international cooperation. Special emphasis is laid on economic diplomacy to take advantages offered by the process of globalization as also to face challenges of the 21st century. Our foreign policy is also geared to project the image of the country as a dynamic and moderate society.

The foreign policy of Pakistan seeks to promote the internationally recognized norms of interstate relations, i.e. respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity of all

States, non-interference in the internal affairs of other State; non-aggression and peaceful settlement of disputes. Pakistan has therefore always sought to develop friendly and cordial relations with all countries of the world.

Foreign Policy Objectives

In light of the guiding principles laid down by the founding fathers and the constitution as also aspirations of the people of Pakistan, the objectives of foreign policy can be summarized as under:

Promotion Pakistan as a dynamic, progressive, moderate, and democratic Islamic country.

Developing friendly relations with all countries of the world, especially major powers and immediate neighbours.

Safeguarding national security and geo-strategic interests, including Kashmir.

196

Consolidating our commercial and economic cooperation with international community.

Safeguarding the interests of Pakistani Diaspora abroad.

Ensuring optimal utilization of national resources for regional and international cooperation.

A Year in Review

1. The year 2012-2013 witnessed continuing challenges for our immediate neighbourhood and beyond. The situation in Afghanistan remained unstable having a negative spill over on Pakistan’s domestic security environment. The broader Middle

East region experienced major political transformations with the after shocks of the so- called Arab spring still being felt.

2. The country also continued to grapple with some wide ranging challenges including the continuing threats of terrorism and extremism. Nonetheless, we remained steadfast in our resolve and carried out an active foreign policy that sought engagement and cooperation with the international community in order to fulfill our aspirations for development, peace and security.

3. The major focus of our foreign policy was on promoting cooperation and improved relations with all our immediate neighbors. This “regional pivot” was based on a broad political consensus of all segments of the society. We took initiatives for the normalization of relations with India in all spheres. Although no progress could be recorded on the core issue of Kashmir, the two countries took measures to normalize their trade relations and liberalize the visa regime.

197

4. Our state policy demonstrated our sincere commitment to peace and stability in

Afghanistan. We are facilitating an Afghan-owned and Afghan-led process of reconciliation as the date for the withdrawal of NATO forces approaches. Pakistan is also supporting various reconstruction and development projects in Afghanistan, and improving its bilateral relations in the political, economic and commercial domains.

5. We are seeking mutually beneficial relations with Iran manifested by the numerous agreements that have been signed between the two sides, the high point being the conclusion of the Iran-Pakistan Gas Pipeline deal. Our traditional goodwill and historic relations with Turkey are also being translated into a concrete political and economic partnership.

6. The past year saw further consolidation of our strategic partnership with China which touched a new height of friendliness and cooperation, epitomized by the exchange of numerous high level visits and conclusion of bilateral agreements.

7. In terms of global outreach, we took a proactive approach and reached out to all the major power centers. With the United States, our relations are being upgraded from transactional to collaborational. The US remains one of the most important development and investment partners of Pakistan. The irritants in the relationship were also managed in a prudent and practical manner.

8. With the European Union, the concerted efforts of the Government paid off in the form of “Autonomous Trade Preferences” by the EU, paving the way for an eventual

GSP Plus status for Pakistan. The opportunities created by trade access to the European

198 market will create numerous jobs and lift millions of Pakistanis out of poverty.

9. Pakistan’s relations with the Russian Federation have entered into a new phase of congeniality. We have managed to shed the baggage of the cold war and made progress in evolving a forward looking and mutually beneficial partnership. Our engagement with

Japan, the Republic of Korea and ASEAN states as well as our traditional fraternal ties with countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council also retained their positive trajectory.

10. On the multilateral front, Pakistan continued to play an active and constructive role in the United Nations, including as a non-permanent member of the Security Council.

Two high level events on counter-terrorism and peacekeeping were held during

Pakistan’s presidency of the Security Council in January 2013.

11. Regarding strategic issues, Pakistan continued to act with restraint and responsibility and strengthened its export control architecture bringing it in line with the best international standards and practices. While seeking regional strategic stability and a level playing field in South Asia, we were supportive of all non-discriminatory measures for non-proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction and their means of delivery.

12. In the modern world economic diplomacy is an integral part of the interstate relations. Pakistan’s location at the confluence of interlocking regions and civilizations of

South Asia West Asia, Central Asia, Gulf Region and China, offers the closet proximity to word’s largest markets. Being at the intersection of East Asia and the Middle East naturally endow Pakistan with promising geo-economic possibilities as a transit corridor for energy pipelines, trade and tourist flows. Our diplomatic Missions are actively

199 striving to translate these opportunities for the economic benefit of the country by promoting exports and by facilitating foreign investment.

13. Pakistan today is a confident, responsible and well integrated member of the international community. We do not harbor any aggressive or hegemonic design and aspire to live in peace and harmony with all nations of the world. Socio-economic development in a peaceful and secure neighbourhood remains our top most priority. The conduct of our foreign policy in the years to come will continue to be based on these ideals.

200

201

US Foreign Policy towards Pakistan

U.S.-PAKISTAN RELATIONS

The United States has had diplomatic relations with Pakistan since its creation in

1947. Prime Minister Sharif made an official visit to the United States in October 2013, shortly after Secretary of State John Kerry announced the reinvigoration of a U.S.-

Pakistan Strategic Dialogue to foster a broader, long-term, and more comprehensive partnership and facilitate concrete cooperation on core shared interests such as energy, economics, counterterrorism, defense, strategic stability and education. Secretary Kerry and National Security and Foreign Affairs Advisor Sartaj Aziz chaired the most recent

Strategic Dialogue Ministerial in Islamabad in January 2015.

The September 11, 2001, attacks in the United States by Al-Qaida led to closer coordination between Pakistan and the United States on security and stability in South

Asia. Pakistan has generally cooperated with the United States in counterterrorism efforts and since 2001, has captured more than 600 al-Qaida members and their allies, and the

United States maintains a strong security partnership with Pakistan. The horrific

December 2014 attack by the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) against an Army-run school in Peshawar had a catalytic effect across Pakistan and led to the adoption of a 20- point National Action Plan (NAP) to counter terrorism.

Bilateral Economic Relations

The United States is Pakistan’s largest bilateral trading partner. In FY 2015 (July

2014 - June 2015), Pakistan's exports to all countries were estimated at $24.59 billion and

202 its imports at $41.43 billion. During this same fiscal period, $18.72 billion was remitted back to Pakistan by overseas workers, 14.4% from the U.S. It is estimated that at least

500,000 members of the Pakistani diaspora reside in the United States. In FY 2015, the

United States accounted for approximately 16% of Pakistan’s exports, the second largest market behind the European Union, and $1.20 billion of its imports. Bilateral trade between the United States and Pakistan exceeded $5.1 billion in FY 2015. The United

States is also one of the top sources of foreign direct investment to Pakistan, with $209 million in FY 2015. Pakistan has taken steps over the years to liberalize its trade and investment regimes, either unilaterally or in the context of commitments made with the

World Trade Organization (WTO), the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the

World Bank. It is relatively open to foreign investment, but its ranking in the World

Bank’s Doing Business Index remains low, largely due to energy, security, and governance challenges. In May 2014, following Prime Minister Sharif’s visit to

Washington, the U.S. and Pakistan established a Joint Action Plan to expand bilateral trade and investment over five years. In March 2015 the United States and Pakistan organized the third U.S.-Pakistan business opportunities conference, headlined by

Secretary of Commerce Penny Priztker and Finance Minister Ishaq Dar in Islamabad.

Major U.S. investments are concentrated in fast-moving consumer goods, construction, chemicals, energy, transportation, and communications.

U.S. Civilian Assistance to Pakistan

The U.S. Congress passed the Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act (often referred to as “Kerry-Lugar-Berman,” or “KLB,” after its co-sponsors) in October 2009 in order to demonstrate the U.S. long-term commitment to cooperation with the Pakistani

203 people and their civilian institutions. Since the passage of KLB, the U.S. government has committed over $5 billion in civilian assistance to Pakistan, and also over $1 billion in emergency humanitarian assistance for disasters like the 2010 floods.

U.S. civilian assistance to Pakistan facilitates cooperation fostering a more stable, democratic, and prosperous Pakistan and region, which is in the interest of both countries.

It is focused on five priority areas: energy; economic growth, including agriculture; community stabilization of underdeveloped areas vulnerable to violent extremism; education; and health. These priorities were determined in consultation with the government of Pakistan. The U.S. implements programs with Pakistani partners, including the government of Pakistan, civil society, and private sector actors, to increase local capacity and promote sustainability of efforts. To date, U.S. contributions have added over 1,600 megawatts to Pakistan’s electricity grid through infrastructure upgrades, rehabilitation, and policy consultation; led to the launch of the Pakistan Private

Investment Initiative (PPII), which will provide seed funding to small- and medium-sized enterprises in Pakistan; built or reconstructed roughly 1,000 schools; and funded about

1,100 kilometers of roads in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) and

Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. In January 2015 the U.S. pledged $250 million to help Pakistan facilitate the relief, reconstruction, and return of FATA communities displaced by counterterrorism operations.

U.S. Security Assistance to Pakistan

U.S. security assistance to Pakistan is focused on strengthening the counterterrorism (CT) and counterinsurgency (COIN) capabilities of the Pakistan security

204 forces, and promoting closer security ties and interoperability with the United States. U.S. security assistance has directly supported Pakistan’s CT operations in the FATA. Foreign

Military Financing (FMF) ($265 million in FY 2015) promotes the development of

Pakistan’s long-term COIN/CT capabilities, particularly in FATA, and improves

Pakistan’s ability to participate in maritime security operations and counter-maritime piracy. International Military Education and Training (IMET) assistance to Pakistan ($5 million in FY 2015) enhances the professionalism of Pakistan’s military and strengthens long-term military relationships between Pakistan and the United States.

Pakistan's Membership in International Organizations

Pakistan and the United States belong to a number of the same international organizations, including the United Nations, World Trade Organization, International

Monetary Fund, and World Bank. Pakistan is not a signatory of the Nuclear Non-

Proliferation Treaty.

Bilateral Representation

The U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan is Richard G. Olson. Other principal embassy officials are listed in the Department's Key Officers List.

Pakistan maintains an embassy in the United States at 3517 International Court

NW, Washington, DC 20008 (tel. 202-243-6500). It has consulates in Los Angeles, New

York, Chicago, and Houston.

More information about Pakistan is available from the Department of State and other sources, some of which are listed here: Source http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3453.htm

205

Foreign policy goals

Permit me to begin by outlining four broad areas that constitute our foreign policy priorities towards Pakistan today:

-- working together in the global war on terrorism,

-- helping the states of the area to enhance regional stability,

-- aiding Pakistan to strengthen economic, social, political, and

democratic development, and

-- building bridges between our two nations' peoples in order to

foster greater mutual understanding between us.

With regard to the global war on terrorism, Pakistan has, since that terrible day in

September 2001, become one of the United States' most important partners in fighting this most challenging of wars. We are working closely and cooperatively with the government of Pakistan to neutralize the remnants of al Qaeda and the Taliban that remain in the region.

Our two nations have coordinated among intelligence, law enforcement, finance, and military authorities successfully to apprehend well over 500 suspected al Qaeda and

Taliban operatives to date, including Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and Ramzi Bin al-shibh.

Pakistan ranks fourth in the world in the amount of terrorism-related assets frozen. We look forward to continued cooperation by the government of Pakistan in the United

Nations and other fora on terrorist finance issues.

206

The government of Pakistan is also working against extremist groups and has recently increased its border-security patrols, operating now even in the mountainous, historically off-limits tribal areas of the Pakistan-Afghanistan border.

We continue to work with the Government of Pakistan to monitor the effectiveness of actions taken to curb such extremist groups as Lashkar-e-Taiba, Jaish-e-Mohammed, and others. These groups pose a serious threat to Pakistan, to the region, and to the United

States. We are particularly concerned that these banned organizations are re-establishing themselves with new names.

The Government of Pakistan has taken many steps to prevent extremist groups from crossing the line of control in Kashmir. We are asking it to continue to enhance these efforts.

The United States will continue to support Pakistan's counterterrorism efforts by providing funding for enhanced border security, including training, equipment, road- building, and logistic support. Investing in Pakistan's capacity to interdict terrorists has begun to pay off. Last month, Pakistan forces killed eight and captured 18 suspected al

Qaeda and Taliban, along with foreigners and local tribesmen, on the Afghan border.

This was followed a week later by detention of 32 people suspected of collaborating with or harboring Taliban remnants.

Pakistan is bearing its share of the human cost of fighting the war on terror.

Approximately two dozen of its soldiers have been killed in such operations. We are mindful that some of the steps taken by the Government of Pakistan have generated controversy and opposition from some quarters here in Pakistan. But, as we have seen so

207 vividly - whether in Karachi, where Pakistani security guards were killed in front of our

Consulate, or just a few days ago in Riyadh, where innocent Arab men, women and children were murdered in their compound -- terrorists and extremists threaten all of us - in this part of the world and in the United States.

The second of our major goals vis-à-vis Pakistan and its neighbors is to help enhance regional stability. Simply put: what happens in South Asia matters to the United States, and it matters to the world. The population of this region is vast; and so is the amount of weaponry - including nuclear - that exists. But it is also the region of the world with perhaps the highest level of untapped human and economic potential anywhere - potential that, if fully exploited, could change the international economic and social landscape in fundamental ways.

In order to realize the full potential of Pakistan, India, Afghanistan, and the other countries in South Asia, regional political and military stability must be ensured. This is one of the highest foreign policy priorities for this U.S. Administration. We are spending much time these days on helping to foster better ties between Pakistan and Afghanistan and between Pakistan and India. Both relationships are fraught with historical tensions and mistrust. But I believe that some good progress is being made on both fronts.

With Pakistan and Afghanistan, we are working with both sides to help them to secure border areas that have for decades been porous. Our goal is to aid both in preventing violent or criminal elements from moving across undetected or from finding safe-haven, particularly in remote, inaccessible areas. To this end, we have established a tripartite military commission among Pakistan, Afghanistan, and the U.S.-led coalition forces and

208 civilian leaders to help coordinate military and border security operations along the border, and to improve their effectiveness in achieving our shared goals of halting cross- border terrorist movements. We are also working with the Pakistan Ministry of Interior to expand border security capabilities.

With regard to Pakistan and India, the United States is today in the enviable position of enjoying excellent and cooperative relations with both. We do not view our relations with

Pakistan and India as a zero-sum game, and my sense is that Pakistan and India are coming to accept that America's good relations with both countries is in fact a net positive for all three nations. The U.S. hopes India and Pakistan will move forward with the implementation of those confidence-building measures that both nations have agreed upon during the past month, and to engage in serious discussions on those items - restoration of air links, train travel, and visa issuance - that require further agreement on modalities.

The U.S. believes that expanding the potential for cross-border trade -- whether through bilateral talks in areas such as civil aviation or through regional SAARC initiatives; and increasing contacts and confidence among ordinary citizens -- whether through medical exchanges, easier border crossing, or sports events - are all measures that can help to create the more positive atmosphere that is the sine qua non of tackling the difficult political issues that divide India and Pakistan.

With regard to the issue of Kashmir, there is no doubt that violence there must be reduced; ending violence in Kashmir remains a key goal. For our part, we will continue

209 to look for ways to encourage peace in Kashmir - a lasting solution to this difficult issue can only come through political dialogue and negotiation, not through violence.

Related to the issue of regional stability in the broadest sense is the matter of nuclear and weapons proliferation. We remain confident that Pakistan will continue to comply with existing non-proliferation treaties and regimes to which it has adhered, as well as to other commitments made.

A third priority area in which we are involved is helping Pakistan to strengthen its economic, social, political, and democratic development. We are currently undertaking a multi-billion dollar, multi-faceted assistance program that we hope will ensure the stable and balanced development of Pakistani society. This program, which I will detail in a moment, includes development assistance, balance-of-payment support, debt rescheduling and forgiveness, and agricultural, trade, and investment support. USAID has returned to Pakistan with major assistance programs in such areas as education, health, governance, and micro-finance. The American Business Council based here in Karachi is an important testament to the success American companies have had in Pakistan.

Pakistan's commitment to the further advancement of democracy and human rights is central to its efforts to build a stable, positive future for its people. America wants to see strong Pakistani democratic institutions and practices, including a National Assembly that plays a vigorous and positive role in governance and an independent judiciary that promotes the rule of law. We hope that the case of Javed Hashmi and others in the judicial system will be handled in a fair and transparent and with due regard for fundamental rights, including those of speedy public trial, access to counsel, and family

210 visitation. Democratic institutions are required if Pakistan is to thrive economically and to develop into a stable, moderate Islamic state. Some of our USAID money is directed at this goal of strengthening democracy, good governance, and the rule of law. In fact,

USAID just awarded a grant to improve the links between the provincial and national legislatures, civil society organizations, academics, think tanks, and the press.

A fourth area of U.S. interest is our desire, particularly in these troubled times, to increase understanding between the people of the U.S. and Pakistan. There is currently much too much mistrust and lack of understanding between us; for our part, we are intent on working to reduce these gaps. As people coming from different cultures and historical experiences, we may not always agree with each other; but we must continue to strive to listen better, and to attempt to understand the other's point of view.

To this end, we are continuing to expand our cultural and exchange programs, one of the important ways in which we can build bridges among our citizens. Although it is true that we have, for legitimate security reasons, tightened visa and entry procedures to the U.S., and while we are intent on enforcing laws with regard to the length and status of stay, the

United States remains open to visitors from all nations - for education, for tourism, and for business.

U.S. Assistance to Pakistan

I would like now to describe in some detail our assistance programs to Pakistan today.

They reflect all of the policy goals I have discussed, and are, I believe, a testament to

America's commitment to build a strong, deep, and long-term relationship between our two nations.

211

Since 9/11 and the resumption of an assistance relationship, the United States has provided a multi-billion dollar, multi-faceted assistance package to Pakistan. This has included a cash grant of $600 million, and forgiveness of $1 billion in Government of

Pakistan debt owed to the U.S. Government. Our strong bilateral economic assistance program includes in addition to these significant outright grants and debt relief, many targeted USAID initiatives, U.S. Department of Agriculture grants and credits, and broad trade and investment support. Our security assistance programs include assistance to help

Pakistan secure its border with Afghanistan, counter-narcotics and law enforcement programs, counter-terrorism programs, international military education and training, and foreign military financing. We are also working closely with multilateral institutions, including the IMF, World Bank and Asian Development Bank, to leverage the significant resources needed to reform Pakistan's economy and to alleviate poverty.

For fiscal year 2004, the year beginning on October first of this year, the Bush administration is seeking an appropriation from the Congress of approximately $400 million dollars. This includes $200 million in Economic Support Funds that will help ease Pakistan's debt burden, $75 million in development assistance, child survival, and health funds, $75 million in foreign military finance to help support Pakistan's military and security preparedness, and $38 million to enhance the effectiveness of Pakistan's efforts in border security, law enforcement development, and counter-narcotics. We hope that Congress will appropriate these funds shortly.

As you are all well aware, President Bush has made a commitment to President

Musharraf to seek a further $3 billion in aid over the five years beginning in fiscal year

2005, that is, starting in October 2004. While details of this program are currently under

212 discussion between our two governments, it is expected that half this amount - or approximately $300 million a year - will be for economic and development assistance, while an equal amount will go towards security and military aid. Again, we are hopeful that the Congress will appropriate these funds.

Permit me to highlight a few of the programs we are currently undertaking. Among the most exciting and important are USAID's ever-expanding programs that are focused on four sectors - education, health, governance, and micro-finance.

Through a five-year, $100 million agreement with the Ministry of Education (signed in

August 2002), USAID is helping to improve Pakistan's educational system, with particular emphasis on expanding access for girls; training teachers and administrators to raise the quality of public and private school instruction; improving national youth and adult literacy programs; testing and using distance education methods; and developing more public-private partnerships to increase community involvement in primary education. The project focuses particularly on Sindh and Baluchistan provinces, two regions with very poor social and economic indicators that have received less government and donor attention over the years.

USAID is also implementing a five-year partnership with the British government, the

UN, and the Government of Pakistan to expand availability of quality reproductive health services, particularly in rural areas. The U.S. commitment to the health sector overall is for $115 million over five years.

With regard to fostering more participatory, representative, and accountable governance,

USAID is working with Pakistan to strengthen four key institutions: national and

213 provincial legislatures, district governments, civil society organizations, and independent media. Here, our commitment is for $38 million over three years.

Finally, the U.S. is committing $53 million over five years to increase access to and availability of micro-credit and micro-finance services, especially in impoverished and underserved rural areas. Soon USAID will offer a scholarship fund to allow deserving but poor Pakistani students to attend the nation's premier business and agriculture universities.

It is, however, important to recall that economic prosperity does not come from direct assistance alone. We also recognize the vital importance that trade and foreign investment play in economic development. For this reason, U. S. Government agencies, including our Export Import Bank and our Overseas Private Investment Corporation, are providing hundreds of millions of dollars in credit facilities, insurance, loans, and loan guarantees in order to support the importation of American products and the extension of credits by American banks to finance projects and companies in Pakistan. Research also plays an important role in promoting prosperity, and our Trade and Development Agency has funded studies on the construction of a desalinization plant in Karachi and the development of a secondary mortgage market to ease housing shortage problems in

Pakistan.

We also have a growing array of security assistance programs. In the wake of 9/11, we initiated a $73 million program to help Pakistan secure its border with Afghanistan against trafficking in weapons, drugs, and other contraband and infiltration by terrorists.

The program includes the development of a Ministry of Interior aviation wing with five

214 helicopters and 3 fixed wing surveillance aircraft, delivery of over 1,000 vehicles, communications equipment, and other commodities, and construction of border outposts.

Related training and technical assistance also are being provided. We also are expanding programs in the Federal Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) with $24 million for construction of roads to provide law enforcement access and promote economic development in currently inaccessible areas, and $1.5 million for construction of outposts, training and other commodities.

We also continue to provide Pakistan with counter-narcotics and law enforcement development assistance. Our counter-narcotics program focuses on sustaining Pakistan's remarkable success in opium crop reduction in the Northwest Frontier Province, which has declined substantially over the past 10 years with the help of alternative crops, aggressive eradication, road building, irrigation, and potable water programs. Our law enforcement assistance program provides an array of training, technical assistance, and some commodities to enhance law enforcement capabilities.

In addition, we are working with Pakistan to enhance its capacities to counter terrorism by providing innovative technologies for use at airports and training and equipment to implement a standardized fingerprint system. We also are helping to train and equip federal and provincial units responsible for counter terrorism investigations and operations.

In terms of military assistance, Foreign Military Financing (FMF) grant money is to be used for the purchase of US military equipment, maintenance, and in some cases, training. A total of $75 million was included in the FY02 Supplemental Appropriation to

215 support the Pakistan Armed Forces' purchase of aerial transport, surveillance and communications equipment. During FY03, the U.S. Government provided $49.5 million dollars in FMF grant funding plus an additional $175 million dollar supplemental grant for a total of $224.5 million dollars. In August 2003, Pakistan accepted an offer to purchase 6 C-130 cargo aircraft from the United States. That purchase was funded by $75 million dollars in U.S. FMF grant money.

Importantly, a program providing U.S. military training courses for Pakistani military personnel was resumed in November 2001 following a 10-year hiatus. Courses are usually U.S. military training programs attended by Pakistani students but may also include US training teams coming to Pakistan to provide instruction. Pakistan received $1 million in training grants in FY02 and a further $1 million FY03. This has greatly enhanced the professional exchange between our two militaries and our inter-operability in international peace-keeping missions.

Conclusion

These are some of the important programs currently being implemented by the U.S. to help Pakistan realize its own development goals. The amounts of aid are impressive, and the United States and Pakistan are developing multi-year programs that testify to a mutual renewed commitment to a strong and enduring bilateral relationship.

This is an important time in U.S. relations with Pakistan, and in our relations in this part of the world more generally. As most of you are no doubt aware, President Bush gave an important speech last week in Washington, in which he spoke of the importance of democratic development globally and described U.S. policies as a "forward strategy of

216 freedom." The President added that, as we watch and encourage reforms and development in various parts of the world, we are mindful that modernization is not the same as Westernization. Representative governments in different parts of the world will reflect their own cultures and their own historical experience. "They will not, and should not, look like us," said the President.

President Bush concluded his address by making the following points, which in fact describe our vision for successful societies throughout the world. He said, and I quote:

There are essential principles common to every successful society, in every

culture. Successful societies limit the power of the state and the power of the

military -- so that governments respond to the will of the people, and not the will

of an elite. Successful societies protect freedom with the consistent and impartial

rule of law, instead of selectively applying the law to punish political opponents.

Successful societies allow room for healthy civic institutions -- for political

parties and labor unions and independent newspapers and broadcast media.

Successful societies guarantee religious liberty -- the right to serve and honor

God without fear of persecution. Successful societies privatize their economies,

and secure the rights of property. They prohibit and punish official corruption,

and invest in the health and education of their people. They recognize the rights

of women. And instead of directing hatred and resentment against others,

successful societies appeal to the hopes of their own people.

217

These are words and ideas upon which we can all reflect. None of our societies is perfect.

We can all improve in many areas. And through an open and frank dialogue, we can learn from, and help each other to realize the goals we share.

It is in this spirit of cooperation and good will that the United States is committed to continuing to strengthen and deepen the ties between our two nations.

Thank you for your attention, and thank you for the privilege of addressing you this evening.

Source: http://2001-2009.state.gov/p/sca/rls/rm/26277.htm

218

219

War on Terror and its implication for Pakistan

1-(The Washington Post Editorial entitled, The Future of Pakistan, dated, 01-01-2008)

There is no law and certainly no order in my country. What happened this past week has shaken every Pakistani. Benazir Bhutto was no ordinary person. She served as prime minister twice and had returned to Pakistan in an effort to restore our country to the path of democracy. With her assassination I have lost a friend and a partner in democracy.

2-(The Washington Post Editorial entitled, Whose ‘Terrible Tragedy’ in Pakistan, dated, 03-01-2008)

The Dec. 28 front-page story "Clinton, Obama Seize on Killing," concerning the death of Benazir Bhutto, quoted Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton as saying: "Certainly on a personal level, for those of us who knew her, who were impressed by her commitment, her dedication, her willingness to pick up the mantle of her father, who was also assassinated, it is a terrible, terrible tragedy."

Aside from the fact that Ms. Bhutto's father, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, was not assassinated -- he was hanged by the government of President Mohammed Zia ul-Haq in 1979 -- the tragedy is that neither Ms. Bhutto nor her father nor their successors guided their country toward democracy. The government of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto (president, 1971-73; prime minister, 1973-77) contributed to religious extremism by adopting a constitutional amendment in 1974 declaring that members of the Ahmadiyya sect were not Muslims. Mohammed Zia ul-Haq (president, 1978-88) cultivated conservative, religious and anti- Western elements in the population. Ms. Bhutto's terms as prime minister (1988-90 and 1993-96) were marked by inaction and corruption.

3-(The Washington Post Editorial entitled, Crooked Roads to Democracy, dated, 04-01- 2008)

Democracy was meant to be the antithesis of feudalism. Popular sovereignty was to supplant divine right; free elections to supplant dynastic succession (a progression Americans have not completely mastered either). It is clear that Bilawal meant to put the

220 best gloss on his mother's dictum. He, like she, would avenge the political murder of a parent not with violence but through the ballot box. Nonetheless, his unmistakable assumption of aristocratic entitlement clangs against his professed fealty to democratic means.

And in Pakistan, that means accepting both the enduring presence of feudal politics and the preeminent role of the military, Pakistan's one functioning national institution, as a guarantor of the state -- even (as in another secular Islamic country, Turkey) at the cost of giving it extra-constitutional authority. It also means accepting the reality that Pervez Musharraf, however dubious his democratic credentials, is not to be abandoned because his fall would unleash the deluge.

These are hard days for democracy. That is not a reason for giving up on it. It is a reason for the prudent acceptance and nurturing of local variants, however imperfect.

4-(The Washington Post Editorial entitled, The Duty My Wife Left Us, dated, 05-01- 2008)

Both have the effect of empowering small groups within countries and weakening the nation-state.

The United States has often tried to impose its own narrative onto events in foreign lands. Frequently this story line -- of a struggle between Islamic radicals and secular democrats, for instance -- is a mask for these more basic battles. Whatever the failings of Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, his successor will surely have to deal with the rise of Pashtun nationalism, which is the underlying base of support for the Taliban.

5-(The Washington Post Editorial entitled, The Deepest Political Divisions, dated, 07-01- 2008)

I pray that the next president, when taking the oath of office, will have uppermost in mind not the need to scare us but, rather, the need restore our faith in the American idea. That idea is based on our sense of unity and our commitment to one another. That idea is 221 grounded in belief in democracy and burnished by our sense of responsibility to generations past and still to come. This is the glue that enabled us to overcome partisan political differences in earlier decades and to keep our nerve in the face of adversaries far more potent than those we face today. Combine faith in our traditions with the confidence to search for value in others, and we will have a far stronger platform for American leadership than any appeal to fear.

6-(The Washington Post Editorial entitled, Should This Parade Have Been Stopped? dated, 11-01-2008)

The original Islamic movement spread its doctrine by a combination of military action and compassion. Charity was a key tenet. This is largely why Hamas and Hezbollah gain a degree of popular support in the areas they control. That ingredient is missing in the al- Qaeda/Taliban approach to the world. To them, winning hearts and minds means, "Agree with us or else." That is largely the reason that the U.S. government dropped its early "for us or against us" approach. It has taken us some time, but we seem to be recovering from that approach.

If I were directing the U.S. strategic information campaign, I would spend my dollars on collecting photos of the Muslim innocents al-Qaeda has killed and putting below them quotations from the Koran decrying such practices. These advertisements would appear in every newspaper and TV station in the Muslim world where I could buy print space or air time.

We may not be losing the war on terrorism, but we are not doing all that we can to win it.

7-(The Washington Post Editorial entitled, why Al-Qaeda Is Losing, dated, 13-01-2008)

Everyplace where al-Qaeda has gained some measure of control over a civilian population, it has quickly worn out its welcome.

It may well happen in Pakistanas a reaction to the killing of Bhutto.

We preach some values that are viewed as alien and threatening to the traditional order of things. Our popular culture is seen as decadent at best and downright threatening at worst 222 in traditional cultures. Our message isn't selling. We can't change what we are, nor would we want to. No matter how much the government may disapprove, the government's official propaganda will be overwhelmed by the deluge, both positive and negative, from the popular media. We need to accept this fact and move on, rather than waste more millions on strategic communications "charm campaigns."

8-(The Washington Post Editorial entitled, No More Coups: What Bush Must Tell Mushraff, dated, 28-01-2008)

What worries the visiting Pakistanis is that the Bush administration, which has stubbornly continued to support Musharraf even as his support in Pakistan has melted away, will tolerate an attempt to suspend or rig the election, despite its recent rhetoric about wanting a free vote. Their aim is to persuade Washington to choose a genuinely free election over Musharraf -- and to press that priority now, before it is too late.

9-(The Washington Post Editorial entitled, No More Coups: How Pakistan’s Proliferators Could Help in Pyongyang, dated, 31-01-2008)

The official answer in Islamabad is that Pakistan's sovereignty would be affronted by letting U.S. intelligence agents cross-examine him. Khan is regarded as a national hero, and the United States is widely hated in Pakistan for invading Iraq and Afghanistan and for its insensitivity to civilian casualties. If Musharraf wanted to cooperate, however, he could permit the International Atomic Energy Agency to interrogate Khan, as former Pakistani prime minister Benazir Bhutto had suggested, or Musharraf could find out what Khan knows and give the United States the information it needs to confront the North Koreans.

Many Pakistanis say Musharraf is stonewalling because he and some of his army generals collaborated with Khan and fear exposure. Another possible explanation is that the documentary evidence does not exist. Still another is that Musharraf changed his position on the centrifuges and invented the "facts" in his memoir to curry favour with the Bush administration; by strengthening its case against North Korea, in this view, he hoped to

223 offset dissatisfaction in Washington with his ineffectual performance in combating al- Qaeda and the Taliban.

10-(The Washington Post Editorial entitled, No More Coups: A Crises Foretold, dated, 12-02-2008)

In the past few days, warnings about two critical threats from Pakistan have been sounded repeatedly in Washington. First, al-Qaeda is rapidly growing stronger in the de facto sanctuary it enjoys in Pakistan's north-western tribal areas, and is close to acquiring the capability to launch new attacks on the United States. Second, reputable polls show that Pakistanis will vote overwhelmingly against President Pervez Musharraf in parliamentary elections Monday -- but the government plans to rig the balloting to prevent that outcome, at the risk of triggering massive protests and violence.

In short, thanks to Mr. Musharraf, the danger of another Sept. 11 is real, as is a violent and destabilizing confrontation between Pakistan's army and the moderate democratic forces that ought to be joining it in the fight against al-Qaeda. Yet the Bush administration continues to publicly insist that Mr. Musharraf is "indispensable" to Pakistan -- a stubborn and illogical position that is serving only to heighten the twin dangers.

The administration itself is reporting the Pakistani threat against the U.S. homeland. Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell testified to Congress last week that al- Qaeda was acquiring "the last key aspect of its ability to attack the U.S.," by bringing Western recruits to its Pakistani bases for training.

11-(The Washington Post Editorial entitled, Pakistan’s Victory: A Democratic Vote gives a decisive rebuke to Pervez Musharraf and Islamic Extremists, dated, 20-02-2008)

Voters in Pakistan on Monday delivered an overwhelming message of rejection to Pervez Musharraf, the ex-general who the Bush administration has been insisting is "indispensable" to U.S. policy. By giving a large majority in parliament to moderate parties that strenuously opposed Mr. Musharraf during more than eight years of autocratic rule, Pakistanis rendered his new presidential mandate illegitimate. They

224 reduced the governing party to a rump and stripped several of its top leaders of their parliamentary seats. Mr. Musharraf's only honourable response to the election results would be to resign. The Bush administration, meanwhile, needs to quickly adjust to the Pakistani political reality that it has been stubbornly resisting.

12-(The Washington Post Editorial entitled, Pakistan’s Victory: A Milestone on the Road to Democracy, dated, 22-02-2008)

Pakistan faces and fights this menace with full dedication. How could we not? Al-Qaeda and its affiliates have declared war on the civilized world, and the moderate government and people of Pakistan are prime targets. Some have questioned our commitment to the fight against extremism. In fact, more than 1,000 Pakistani troops have lost their lives fighting al-Qaeda and Taliban forces over the past four years, and 112,000 troops are fully engaged in the regions along our border with Afghanistan. We will continue to work closely with our long time American allies in our common struggle to rid Pakistan and the world of militant extremism

13-(The Washington Post Editorial entitled, The Problems are Real, but So Is the Progress, dated, 21-03-2008)

Huge mistakes were made by the Musharraf regime in the tribal areas. Even Musharraf admits that his government's 2006 peace deal with the Taliban was a disaster that gave the Taliban a huge advantage in the Pakistani tribal areas and greatly weakened the NATO effort in Afghanistan. (Inexplicably, the United States publicly endorsed the deal, perhaps as part of its generally pro-Musharraf policies.)

But it seems a large overstatement to see the militants in the tribal areas as a threat to the rest of Pakistan. Pakistan's problems -- including terrorism -- are monumental, and its future is uncertain. (A bright spot in recent years has been a quietly improving relationship with India.) But Pakistan, the world's second-largest Muslim nation, is too big and its civil society -- with its deeply established political parties, its free press, its vibrant and very visible lawyers, its thousands of nongovernmental organizations, its

225 huge business community, and its own moderate Muslim leaders -- too extensive to in fact become "the world's most dangerous nation."

14-(The Washington Post Editorial entitled, The Things We Have to Fear, dated, 26-05- 2008)

In Pakistan's Northwest Frontier province, where al-Qaeda has bases, support for Osama bin Laden plummeted from 70 percent last August to 4 percent in January. That dramatic drop was probably a reaction to the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, but it points to a general trend in Pakistan over the past five years. With every new terrorist attack, public support for jihad falls. "This pattern is repeated in country after country in the Muslim world," writes Mack. "Its strategic implications are critically important because historical evidence suggests that terrorist campaigns that lose public support will sooner or later be abandoned or defeated."

15-(The Washington Post Editorial entitled, The War in Pakistan: US Attacks on Taliban and Al-Qaeda targets are risky—and necessary, dated, 14-09-2008)

The Bush administration has relied on Pakistan's government and army to combat Taliban and al-Qaeda networks based in the country's tribal territories along the border with Afghanistan. The result has been the strengthening of both networks in the rugged and virtually lawless region; a steady increase in Taliban assaults on U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan; and ominous reports that al-Qaeda is using its bases to prepare for new attacks on Western targets, including the United States. By now it is clear that Pakistani army and security forces lack the capacity to defeat the extremists -- and may even support some of the Taliban commanders. Pakistan's army has arranged truces with some of the extremists that don't preclude them from fighting in Afghanistan. U.S officials say that the Pakistani intelligence service was complicit in a July 7 suicide bomb attack on the Indian embassy in Kabul.

16-(The Washington Post Editorial entitled, Wrong Way to Pakistan, dated, 27-10-2008)

American combat forces to freely conduct raids into Pakistani territory, a move that President Bush authorized in July, the United States intends to pressure Pakistani leaders

226 to step up the fight against militants ensconced in the borderlands. But this policy threatens cooperation between the two countries, possibly to the breaking point.

Pakistani insurgents, initially staggered by the U.S. reaction to the Sept. 11 attacks, have rebuilt their organizations in the border regions; from those havens, they launch attacks against U.S. and allied forces in Afghanistan. The 80,000 to 120,000 Pakistani troops that have engaged the insurgents since 2003 have been funded by the United States at a cost of $1 billion a year. Yet whether it is because troops are ill-equipped, poorly trained or unmotivated, operations have been inconsistent and incomplete.

The cooperation of the Pakistani military and its intelligence services, working with a civilian government, remains indispensable. At the moment, however, the Pakistani people offer no support; polls reveal that fewer than 20 percent of Pakistanis view the United States favourably.

17-(The Washington Post Editorial entitled, The Sovereignty Dodge: What Pakistan Won’t Do, the World should, dated, 02-12-2008)

The new civilian government did not train or assist the Pakistani terrorist organizations that probably carried out last week's attacks in Mumbai. Nor is it his fault that al-Qaeda, the Taliban and other dangerous groups operate in Waziristan and the Federally Administered Tribal Areas of western Pakistan, from which they launch attacks on U.S. and European forces trying to bring peace to Afghanistan.

Would such an action violate Pakistan's sovereignty? Yes, but nations should not be able to claim sovereign rights when they cannot control territory from which terrorist attacks are launched. If there is such a thing as a "responsibility to protect," which justifies international intervention to prevent humanitarian catastrophe either caused or allowed by a nation's government, there must also be a responsibility to protect one's neighbours from attacks from one's own territory, even when the attacks are carried out by "non-state actors."

In Pakistan's case, the continuing complicity of the military and intelligence services with terrorist groups pretty much shreds any claim to sovereign protection. The Bush

227 administration has tried for years to work with both the military and the civilian government, providing billions of dollars in aid and advanced weaponry. But as my Carnegie Endowment colleague Ashley Tellis has noted, the strategy hasn't shown much success. After Mumbai, it has to be judged a failure. Until now, the military and intelligence services have remained more interested in wielding influence in Afghanistan through the Taliban and fighting India in Kashmir through terrorist groups than in cracking down. Perhaps they need a further incentive -- such as the prospect of seeing parts of their country placed in an international receivership.

18-(The Washington Post Editorial entitled, Reckless Words on Pakistan, dated, 05-12- 2008)

Robert Kagan's bellicose statements toward Pakistan were reminiscent of the black-and- white thinking of the Bush administration: Either you wipe out the terrorists or we will. But does Mr. Kagan really think that any country in the world can wipe out the terrorists in Pakistan without the help of the Pakistani establishment? I think not.

By contrast, an invasion of Pakistan would turn the Pakistani establishment against those carrying out the invasion. Defeating terrorism requires sensible talk and not the knee-jerk bullishness of President Bush, Mr. Kagan and others.

19-(The Washington Post Editorial entitled, Pakistan is Fighting Terrorism, Not Denying it, dated, 27-12-2008)

The government of Pakistan is committed to the war on terrorism and to confronting the plague of extremism within its

Borders, in the tribal areas and on its frontiers.

20-(The Washington Post Editorial entitled, A War on Pakistan’s Schoolgirls, dated, 26- 01-2009)

The unfolding disaster in Pakistan demands an immediate response both from the Pakistani government and the international community. Pakistan must accept its responsibility to take urgent action to protect the rights of women and to curb the 228

Talibanization of the country. Any intervention must be based on upholding Pakistan's commitments under its own constitution and under international human rights instruments that it has ratified. The various branches of government -- the legislature, executive and judiciary -- must work in concert to address this situation in a comprehensive manner.

21-(The Washington Post Editorial entitled, Losing Hearts and Minds in Pakistan, dated, 09-02-2009)

President Asif Ali Zardari gave a frank assessment of the challenges that Pakistan faces, as well as outlining the need for U.S. support in improving education, housing and health care ["Partnering with Pakistan," op-ed, Jan. 28]. Mr. Zardari stated that his country is "at war" and that "remarkable progress has been made in our battle against the Taliban and al-Qaeda."

In the past six months, villages bordering Afghanistan have been bombed with little care for civilian casualties or property. More than 200,000 Pakistanis have been forcibly displaced, and the United Nations warns of a very serious humanitarian situation. When we were visiting Peshawar last month, displaced families told us that they had to leave their homes and crops behind, caught between a violent insurgency and a government intent on rooting out militancy by any possible means. The government is quickly losing support of its population.

Until the protection of civilians becomes a priority for both Pakistan and the U.S. government, President Zardari will not, as he claimed, "get the job done."

22-(The Washington Post Editorial entitled, The War within Islam, dated, 12-04-2009)

The recent U.S. strategic review, as well as learned tomes and countless op-ed columns, depict the struggle in the desolate Afghanistan-Pakistan frontier as being rooted in fierce nationalism, the region's ancient warrior culture, the failures of nation-building and the rebirth of jihadist terrorism.

229

The Pakistan video is unlikely to change their minds. They have good arguments about pursuing achievable U.S. goals in a time frame that is acceptable to the American public. But it will force them to look at the consequences of that kind of realism.

Moreover, the scene shot in the Swat Valley -- a region the Pakistani government turned over to the Taliban in February rather than continue fighting there -- offers its own cultural commentary on Obama's attempts to reach out to the Muslim world. In his speech last week in Turkey, he declared that the United States is not "at war with Islam."

23-(The Washington Post Editorial entitled, Sound the Alarm: What does the Obama administration hope to accomplish by publicity warning of a Pakistani collapse, dated, 26-04-2009)

Pakistan was facing an existential threat -- and that its government and Army were not facing it. "I think that the Pakistani government is basically abdicating to the Taliban and to the extremists," said Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.

The administration is proposing billions in new aid dollars -- was a measure of the desperation that seems to have infected the Obama administration's dealings with Pakistan's weak civilian government and obtuse military leadership.

The loud U.S. warnings did provoke the Zardari government and Gen. Kiyani to say that they would fight the Taliban if it continued to advance; the black-turbaned fighters subsequently withdrew from one district on Friday. Pakistani officials say that the public support needed for the military offensive Washington wants won't be forthcoming unless Pakistanis believe that their government has tried all peaceful options. It is certainly the case that Pakistanis as well as their government must embrace the fight against the Taliban as their own, and not as a proxy war for the United States. It is also true that, apart from mounting missile strikes by remote-controlled aircraft, there is little the United States can do directly to defeat the Pakistani Taliban; the administration must try to work through the government and army.

230

24-(The Washington Post Editorial entitled, The War within Islam, dated, 10-05-2009)

"I'm pleased that these two men, elected leaders of Afghanistan and Pakistan, fully appreciate the seriousness of the threat that we face and have reaffirmed their commitment to confronting it," President Obama declared at the White House in front of Zardari and Karzai, whom his aides had previously accused of abdicating to the Taliban (in the case of Zardari), or refusing to confront corruption (Karzai). Added Obama: "The United States has made a lasting commitment to defeat al-Qaeda but also to support the democratically elected sovereign governments of both Pakistan and Afghanistan. That commitment will not waver. And that support will be sustained."

25-(The Washington Post Editorial entitled, Hold and Build: How to make sure a Pakistani offensive against the Taliban does not go to waste, dated, 02-06-2009)

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton warned that Pakistan's government was "abdicating to the Taliban" even as senior American officials scrambled to persuade that government and its army to take on the extremists. The administration got its wish: Since May 7 the army has been engaged in a concerted offensive to recapture the Swat Valley, along with neighbouring areas. Over the weekend it claimed to have cleared the region's capital, Mingora, and to have killed more than 1,200 militants. Though the army's claim that it would finish the job within a few more days sounded dubious, U.S. military and intelligence officials told The Post's Karen DeYoung that the offensive had delivered a setback to the Taliban and, along with U.S. airstrikes, undermined the security of al- Qaeda's nearby sanctuaries.

26-(The Washington Post Editorial entitled, The Frontier against Terrorism, dated, 26-06- 2009)

In Pakistan today, democracy must succeed. The forces of extremism must be vanquished. Failure is not an option; not for us, not for the world.

231

27-(The Washington Post Editorial entitled, Forward in Pakistan: But Shakily. Here are two ways the United States can promote more progress, dated, 19-09-2009)

The government of President Asif Ali Zardari remains inefficient and unpopular; its opponents claim it has returned to the corruption that in the 1990s earned Mr. Zardari the sobriquet of "Mr. Ten Percent." Even the recent gains could come undone if civilian and military authorities are unable to establish a competent administration and policing force in Swat and other recaptured areas.

There are two ways the Obama administration and Congress can push Pakistan further in the right direction in the coming weeks. The first is the new civilian aid program, passed by the Senate last week, which would provide $1.5 billion for education, energy and other development programs for the next five years. As much as feasible, the administration must direct this aid to specific projects, rather than simply dump it into the Pakistani government's coffers.

28-(The Washington Post Editorial entitled, Sorting out Our Options in Afghanistan, dated, 01-10-2009)

Afghanistan but also begin sending arms and men to assist the Taliban of Pakistan. Over time, this assistance would enable the Pakistani Taliban to expand its fight against the government of Pakistan. This could destabilize Pakistan and greatly raise the risk that Pakistan's nuclear materials, or even entire weapons, might come under the control of Islamic radicals -- the Taliban, al-Qaeda or perhaps other elements.

29-(The Washington Post Editorial entitled, A Savy Swat Strategy, dated, 04-10-2009)

What did the Pakistani army do differently? It stopped trying to buy peace with the Taliban through deals that inevitably collapsed. In May, as the Muslim insurgency was spreading out of Swat toward the capital of Islamabad, the army finally decided to crack down, for real.

30-(The Washington Post Editorial entitled, How to Aggravate Pakistan, dated, 11-10- 2009)

232

The conditions in the House bill were much harsher, and the final bill passed by Congress had the tone of a diktat. Kerry tried to soften the House language, but sharp words remained: Pakistan wouldn't get military aid unless it "demonstrated a sustained commitment" against terrorism by showing it was "ceasing support" to terrorist groups and "dismantling terrorist bases" in Quetta and Muridke (where Lashkar-i-Taiba operates).

Although Pakistan's intelligence service has had past contacts with these groups, this public congressional scolding was guaranteed to upset Pakistani military and intelligence officers. They argue that their soldiers are dying in the fight against the Taliban and other extremist groups, and they don't need hectoring from Congress. Pakistan's fight against the Taliban was vividly evident in Saturday's terrorist assault on the military's headquarters in Rawalpindi.

The Pakistani side is hardly blameless. The military may be peeved that the bill leans toward a civilian government it doesn't fully trust. It's possible, too, that Pakistani intelligence chiefs still are playing a double game with the terrorists. But that's hard to square with their actions in recent months -- their successful assault on the Taliban in the Swat Valley and their planned offensive in Waziristan.

The only benefit I can see here is a perverse one: It may actually be easier for the Pakistani military to battle the Taliban and al-Qaeda if it's seen by the public as standing up defiantly to American pressure. There's no better cover for a pro-American policy, after all, than bashing Uncle Sam.

31-(The Washington Post Editorial entitled, How to Aggravate Pakistan, dated, 11-10- 2009)

It's a classic example of the law of unintended consequences: Congress triples its assistance to Pakistan as part of a deepening strategic relationship. But members of Congress, always eager to tell other countries what to do, insert conditions that Pakistanis find insulting. As a result, rather than welcoming American aid and friendship, Pakistanis are indignant at U.S. meddling.

233

When I was in Islamabad a week ago, the Pakistani press was dripping with anti- American outrage. And last week, the Pakistani military and parliament were both protesting U.S. interference. All this in response to legislation that was meant to symbolize U.S. support for Islamabad's growing firmness in fighting al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

Strangely, this uproar seems to have taken the Obama administration by surprise, with senior officials initially denouncing as inaccurate a Tuesday The New York Times story that reported Pakistani anger and opposition to the bill. Richard Holbrooke, the administration's special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, should have seen this one coming.

Some of the popular anger in Islamabad is being manipulated by the Pakistani military, which should know better than to toss a match in the dry tinder of the U.S.-Pakistani relationship.

32-(The Washington Post Editorial entitled, The Taliban Threat: as Pakistan finally faces the truth, with the United States stand down? dated, 14-10-2009)

Adopting such a strategy would condemn American soldiers to fighting and dying without the chance of winning. But it would also cripple Pakistan's fight against the jihadists. With the pressure off in Afghanistan, Taliban forces would have a refuge from offensives by Pakistani forces. And those in the Pakistani army and intelligence services who favour striking deals or even alliances with the extremists could once again gain ascendancy. After all, if the United States gives up trying to defeat the Taliban, can it really expect that Pakistan will go on fighting?

33-(The Washington Post Editorial entitled, An Afghan Strategy: President Obama balances more troops with a limited mission, dated, 02-12-2009)

In Pakistan, generals and civilian leaders will hesitate to join the fight against the Afghan Taliban if they believe the United States itself may give it up in two or three years. Mr. Obama stressed that his administration was committed to a long-term strategic partnership with Pakistan; in fact, the success of his strategy will probably hinge on

234 whether he can strengthen what is now a shaky partnership to the point that Pakistan, the United States and Afghanistan fully unite against the Islamic extremist groups on both sides of the border.

34-(The Washington Post Editorial entitled, A Pakistan on the verge of greatness, dated, 15-01-2010)

Pakistan was in grave condition, strained by terrorism and a ravaged economy. Countering the effects of a decade of dictatorship requires bold actions, some of which are unpopular. I am working with Parliament to run a country, not a political campaign. The goal of our democratic government is to implement policies that will dramatically improve the lives of Pakistanis. In time, good policies will become good politics.

Terrorists do not want Pakistan to succeed. They want to distract us from preparing for a stable and prosperous future. After a suicide bomber killed 75 people in north western Pakistan this month, U.S. media reports noted that "the militants' objective is to sow terror among the general population in hopes of putting more political pressure on President Asif Ali Zardari's government to back down." But militants underestimate us. Just as our people refuse to be terrorized, our government refuses to be derailed from its course of fiscal responsibility, social accountability and financial transparency.

35-(The Washington Post Editorial entitled, Rescuing Pakistan’s young fighters, dated, 09-04-2010)

The second issue is the continuing failure of Pakistan to provide public schooling for all children, irrespective of gender or socioeconomic condition. Private foundations make a valiant effort, but the enormous need will be met only when the government commits to a universal system and compulsory attendance. It is conservatively estimated that more than 25,000 madrassas, or Islamic schools, operate in Pakistan. Many would cease to exist if all children attended school.

36-(The Washington Post Editorial entitled, Terrorism’s new hub in Pakistan, dated, 05- 05-2010)

235

Over the past 18 months, Pakistan's army has conducted major offensives in six of the seven tribal agencies that border Afghanistan. But the seventh agency -- North Waziristan -- has been left alone. In part, that is because it is home to the Afghan Taliban networks of Jalaluddin Haqqani and Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, who have close relations with the military and the Inter-Services Intelligence directorate (ISI). It has also been left alone for good tactical, if poor strategic, reasons -- the army has struck deals with the Pakistani Taliban in North Waziristan not to attack Pakistani forces. Until recently, these deals have held.

But Pakistan's counterterrorism strategy, which has been extensively praised by American generals, is now coming apart at the seams -- all because of North Waziristan.

A sense of despair and helplessness has come to grip the Pakistani public, which faces more suicide bomb attacks each day than even the Afghans next door. Major cities like Peshawar, where more than 100 police officers have been killed this year, are under siege by the Pakistani Taliban. Now it seems Pakistani militants are also involved in global jihad.

North Waziristan is the hub of so many terrorist groups and so much terrorist plotting and planning that neither the CIA nor the ISI seems to have much clue about what is going on there. A year ago, the Pakistan Taliban under Baitullah Mehsud ran a semi-disciplined terrorist movement from the tribal areas that bombed and killed Pakistanis with dastardly methodicalness. Mehsud was killed last year in a U.S. drone strike. What is left is anarchy, as groups and splinter groups and splinters of splinters operate from North Waziristan with no overall control by anyone, not even Jalaluddin Haqqani.

37-(The Washington Post Editorial entitled, Terrorism’s supermarket, dated, 10-05-2010)

The British government has estimated that 70 percent of the terror plots it has uncovered in the past decade can be traced to Pakistan. That country remains a terrorist hothouse even as jihadism is losing favor elsewhere in the Muslim world. From Egypt to Jordan to Malaysia to Indonesia, radical Islamic groups have been weakened militarily and have lost much of the support they had politically. Why not in Pakistan? The answer is simple:

236

From its founding, the Pakistani government has supported and encouraged jihadi groups, creating an atmosphere that has allowed them to flourish. It appears to have partially reversed course in recent years, but the rot is deep.

For a wannabe terrorist shopping for help, Pakistan is a supermarket. There are dozens of jihadi organizations: Jaish-e-Muhammad, Lashkar-e-Taiba, al-Qaeda, Jalaluddin, Siraj Haqqani's network and Tehrik-e-Taliban. The list goes on. Some of the major ones, such as the Kashmiri separatist group Lashkar-e-Taiba, operate openly via front groups throughout the country. But none seem to have any difficulty getting money and weapons.

The Pakistani scholar-politician Husain Haqqani tells in his brilliant history "Pakistan: Between Mosque and Military" how the government's jihadist connections date to the country's creation as an ideological, Islamic state and the decision by successive governments to use jihad both to gain domestic support and to hurt its perennial rival, India. Describing the military's distinction between terrorists and "freedom fighters," he notes that the problem is systemic. "This duality . . . is a structural problem, rooted in history and a consistent policy of the state. It is not just the inadvertent outcome of decisions by some governments." That Haqqani is now Pakistan's ambassador to Washington adds an ironic twist to the story.

38-(The Washington Post Editorial entitled, stalled help for Pakistan: congress’s damaging impasse on tariff reduction, dated, 26-07-2010)

The terrorist presence in Afghanistan and Pakistan is a vital national interest of the United States. Yet even where U.S. troops and their regional allies clear insurgents from the countryside, the job is at most half-done.

39-(The Washington Post Editorial entitled, A US Ally that nurtures terrorists, dated, 23- 08-2010)

While faced with a growing domestic terrorist threat, Pakistan continues to provide sanctuary and support to the Quetta Shura, the Haqqani network, the Hekmatyar group and al-Qaeda. And while the documents recently disclosed by WikiLeaks contained

237 information that was neither new nor surprising, they did make public further evidence of the close relations among the Taliban, al-Qaeda and Pakistani intelligence.

40-(The Washington Post Editorial entitled, Pakistan’s untamed frontier, dated, 3-10- 2010)

When U.S. helicopters mistakenly killed three members of Pakistan's Frontier Corps near the Afghan border, American Special Forces were training members of that same force on how to use radios, sniper rifles and other counterinsurgency tools at a remote base here.

Pakistanis and Americans don't talk much about this joint training camp, northwest of Peshawar about 20 miles from Afghanistan. But the program is a symbol of the weird duality of the relationship -- a mix of public distance and private cooperation that's awkward for both sides.

"We have good relations; it's going very well," Col. Ahsan Raza, the camp commander, said when I visited Tuesday afternoon, two days before the fatal U.S. cross-border attack. But the Pakistani commandant was eager not to appear too close to America, stressing that the U.S. trainers were supplying technical skills, not running the show.

Both sides view the program here as a success story. But the joint effort masks a tension that is only likely to deepen in coming months.

41-(The Washington Post Editorial entitled, A War’s cycle to nowhere, dated, 17-12- 2010)

"We will continue to insist," Obama said Thursday, "that terrorist safe havens . . . must be dealt with." But the truth is that we are unable to get the Pakistanis to do more and we'd cause a political crisis if we did the job ourselves. So the enemy will continue to have a cozy place to hide.

42-(The Washington Post Editorial entitled, Pakistan’s civil war, dated, 07-01-2011)

238

Crime has appeared to gain an alarming amount of approval in Pakistan. Though thousands attended Mr. Taseer's funeral, a broad alliance of the country's clerics issued a declaration praising the murderer and warning that those who mourned Mr. Taseer would also be regarded as anti-Muslim. Significantly, Mr. Zardari and senior members of his party have said nothing since the slaying about the anti-blasphemy law, and Mr. Zardari himself did not attend the funeral for security reasons.

43-(The Washington Post Editorial entitled, Pakistan’s moment of truth, dated, 11-01- 2011)

It was not the first attack to support the conclusion that jihadists are infiltrating Pakistan's military, whose long-standing support for militant Islam has created a Frankenstein's monster. When Pervez Musharraf was president, he survived two assassination attempts by army and air force officers. One of them, Ilyas Kashmiri, a former army commando who has become an al-Qaeda operative, is thought by U.S. intelligence to be as deadly a terrorist leader as Osama bin Laden. In 2007, a Pakistani army officer carried out a suicide bombing against the Pakistani army's elite Special Services Group.

Pakistan's generals protest that they are fighting terrorists and that the best proof is that they are taking casualties. True. At the highest levels, the military understands that it has to fight Islamic militants. But it continues to try to make distinctions among the terrorists, wavers in its determination and remains obsessed with gaining strategic depth abroad - while its country is going up in flames.

44-(The Washington Post Editorial entitled, In Pakistan’s standing up to extremists, dated, 06-03-2011)

The United States are to work together against terrorism, we must avoid political incidents that could further inflame tensions and provide extremists or opportunists with a pretext for destabilizing our fledgling democracy.

45-(The Washington Post Editorial entitled, how Pakistan could cut a casualty toll, dated, 10-03-2011)

239

The increase in improvised explosive device (IED) attacks in Afghanistan is due in part to the increased engagement of U.S. forces there over the past year. But the abundance and firepower of these terrible weapons is also due to the ready availability of ammonium nitrate, a key explosive ingredient that is illegal in Afghanistan but legal and unregulated across the border in Pakistan.

I have visited with several courageous young service members from Pennsylvania who were lucky enough to survive but experienced terrible injuries like those described in the article due to IEDs in Afghanistan. Many Pakistanis have also fallen victim to ammonium nitrate-packed IEDs used by extremists in their own country. Pakistan must do more to restrict the use of ammonium nitrate and its transport to Afghanistan.

46-(The Washington Post Editorial entitled, Pakistan missesa message, dated, 13-05- 2011)

The Obama administration had tried everything to persuade Pakistan to crack down on terrorism, including threats and special-assistance packages, but none of it seemed to work. Why wasn't Pakistan getting the message?

The question posed by Holbrooke in his final hours as U.S. representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan looms even larger now. Despite years of American requests that Pakistan dismantle al-Qaeda and its allies, it turns out that Osama bin Laden had been hiding for six years near a military training academy two hours north of Islamabad.

A catalogue of these U.S. pleas, assembled from interviews with knowledgeable officials, makes disturbing reading. Washington has been passing the same message, through two administrations: The Pakistani military promises action but hedges its bets; the United States pledges cooperation but acts unilaterally. As the problem festers, mutual mistrust increases.

Pakistani officials assured the American visitors that the Haqqani network "will not be provided with any support by any agency of Pakistan," a source recalls. But U.S. officials believe the Haqqani network's contacts with ISI continued. It remains the deadliest insurgent group in eastern Afghanistan.

240

Another warning came on Dec. 2, 2008, from Gen. Mike Hayden, then CIA director, a week after the Nov. 26 terrorist attack in Mumbai. Hayden warned Pakistani officials that there was "no doubt" that the attack was the work of Lashkar-i-Taiba, a Kashmiri separatist group with a "close nexus" to the ISI. He demanded that Pakistan close Lashkar-i-Taiba training camps and dismantle its infrastructure. That never happened.

47-(The Washington Post Editorial entitled, Pakistan’s military crises, dated, 23-06-2011)

Pakistan's military has traditionally been seen as a secular and disciplined organization. But the evidence is now overwhelming that it has been infiltrated at all levels by violent Islamists, including Taliban and al-Qaeda sympathizers.

There is also strong evidence of a basic shift in the attitude of the Pakistani military. Last month, Pakistan's ambassador to the United States, Husain Haqqani, was invited to speak at the country's National Defense University. Addressing a large gathering of officers, Haqqani asked the audience, "What is the principal national security threat to Pakistan?" He offered three categories: "from within “India," and, "the United States." A plurality voted for the third option.

It's more than emotional. It is an indication that radical Islamist ideas - with America as the great Satan - are now reflexive for many in Pakistan's military.

48-(The Washington Post Editorial entitled, a war of Patience, dated, 12-09-2011)

"The key is strategic patience, which is hard for us Americans. We need it here, we needed it in Iraq and we certainly need it with Pakistan."

War on Terror and its implication for Pakistan

1-(New York Times, Editorial entitled, New Role in Pakistan: Lessons for Washington, dated, 11-01-2008)

''U.S. Considering New Covert Push within Pakistan'':

241

I was dismayed to read that the administration is even thinking of sending troops into Pakistan. Even someone with the most basic intelligence and knowledge of Pakistan would tell it that sending troops into Pakistan will only strengthen the forces opposing the United States and will destabilize the government of Pakistan, no matter who leads it.

The extension of United States and NATO military operations into Pakistan in pursuit of Al Qaeda and the Taliban is nothing more than the normal prosecution of the war on terrorism that began in Afghanistan. We should move rapidly to engage the enemy, and destroy him and his bases. We have pampered the Pakistanis far too long, and need to move forward with attacks on enemy positions in Pakistan, and secure the nuclear arsenal that belongs to the Pakistanis.

2-(New York Times, Editorial entitled, a dangerous Place, dated, 13-01-2008)

There is enormous confusion about what happened Tuesday night on Pakistan’s border with Afghanistan. Pakistani officials say that American air and artillery strikes killed 11 of their Paramilitary troops, and some are angrily demanding an end to all military cooperation.

Pakistan have a host of grievances against the Americans, all made far worse by the Bush administration’s decision to back President Mushraff long after he had squandered all of his popular support--- and any claim to loyalty.

3-(New York Times, Editorial entitled, Pakistan and Terrorism, dated, 18-06-2008)

Pakistan and the United States are partners in the fight against terrorism. The solution to the difficulties we encounter in the federally administered tribal areas is to adopt to broad-based approach consisting of negotiations wean hostile neutrals away from extremism, providing the people of the federally administered tribal areas with opportunities to better their lives and use of force wherever needed against those irreconcilably wedded to violence.

4-(New York Times, Editorial entitled, a fresh start with Pakistan, dated, 28-07-2008)

242

Mr. Bush needs to use this visit to recast relations -- making clear that he is committed to strengthening both Pakistan's democracy and its ability to fight extremism. That will require a lot more economic assistance and more carefully monitored military aid.

For their part, Pakistan's civilian leaders must provide more honest and effective governance. They must tell their voters that extremism also threatens Pakistan -- and that this is not just America's fight.

5-(New York Times, Editorial entitled, US Airstrikes in Pakistan, dated, 10-09-2008)

What unpropitious timing for America to attack Pakistan at the dawn of new democratic elections (''U.S. Attack on Taliban Compound Kills 23 in Pakistani Border Area,'' news article, Sept. 9).

In a Pentagon-commissioned, five-missile airstrike that was hardly coincidentally timed, Washington's agenda was clear: to alert Islamabad that allegiance in the war on terrorism is a non-negotiable item.

How the airstrikes resonated among the Pakistani public, however, was far different: the new president of Pakistan, Asif Ali Zardari, remains a United States stooge. Is this an effective way of supporting a fledgling democracy, by undermining its leadership mere hours before taking office?

Furthermore, this is hardly an effective way of undermining fundamentalism; if anything, the airstrike breeds more, not less, extremism. Give the tribal regions, instead, an alternative to militancy and help Islamabad do the same.

Where illiteracy and unemployment abound, give them something to work toward. And do it more strategically than with ill-timed airstrikes.

6-(New York Times, Editorial entitled, not at War with Pakistan, dated, 17-09-2008)

The United States is not at war with Pakistan and that despite all its political, social and economic troubles, Pakistan is an independent country.

243

The decision to conduct raids within Pakistani territory without seeking the permission of its government makes a mockery of international law and flies in the face of established protocols of interaction and conducting business among sovereign nations.

Apart from setting a truly dangerous precedent, President Bush's unilateral decision has contributed materially to further destabilizing the embattled country and heightening the volatility of its northern borders. One begins to wonder who is really living in the Stone Age.

7-(New York Times, Editorial entitled, the Good War is not worth fighting, dated, 23-11- 2008)

Terrorism is not the key strategic threat facing the United States. America, Britain and our allies have not created a positive stable environment in the Middle East. We have no clear strategy for dealing with China. The financial crisis is a more immediate threat to United States power and to other states; environmental catastrophe is more dangerous for the world. And even from the perspective of terrorism, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are more lethal.

8-(New York Times, Editorial entitled, Terror is the Enemy, dated, 14-12-2008)

United States will not violate the human rights accords to which we are a party. We must also devise a policy that aligns the interests of Afghanistan, India and Pakistan while isolating the terrorists that threaten them all. We must seek common ground with many states around the world against our universal threats -- global terrorists and pirates, the proliferation of nuclear and biological weapons and civilian catastrophes -- even if, in other contexts, these nations are our adversaries.

The ''war on terror'' is not a nonsensical public relations slogan, however unwelcome this conclusion may be to Pentagon planners or civil-liberties advocates. The notion of such a war puzzles us -- after all, who would sign the peace treaty? -- Because we are so trapped in 20th-century expectations about warfare. But success in war does not always mean the capitulation of an enemy government (as we have seen in Iraq); rather, it varies with the war aim.

244

In a war against terror, the aim is not the conquest of territory or the advancement of ideology, but the protection of civilians. We are fighting a war on terror, not just terrorists. That is evident from the list of targets in the attacks in Mumbai, India, in which national liberation terrorists from Kashmir were apparently the outsourced operational arm of a global network with far more ambitious, and more anti-Western, objectives. The Mumbai terrorists did not even bother to issue demands; what they sought was terror itself.

Mexico is potentially our Pakistan -- a failing state on our border that can provide haven for our adversaries, at least some of whom will be privatized terrorists. Imagine a poorer, less-democratic Mexico; then imagine it harboring extortionists with a small arsenal of deliverable nuclear or biological weapons. This may be a long-term threat, but it requires immediate assistance and cooperation.

But Pakistan is our Pakistan, too, and not just India's or Afghanistan's problem. ''Homeland security'' is a dangerous solecism when we are fighting a global adversary that moves easily across borders. If terror is our adversary, then our own health system, for example, is only as secure as the most vulnerable health system overseas that might spawn an epidemic that could quickly reach our shores.

9-(New York Times, Editorial entitled, The Remembered War, dated, 28-03-2009)

Mr. Obama confronts many challenges. He must persuade the Pakistani intelligence service to stop underwriting the Taliban and the Afghan government to eradicate corruption. He also must persuade NATO to contribute more to the war effort -- if not combat troops in Afghanistan, then trainers or development aid.

10-(New York Times, Editorial entitled, Radio-free Swat Valley, dated, 30-03-2009)

The United States may be able to help Pakistan prevent this, however, by supporting Pashtun opposition to the extremists. The Pashtuns who oppose the Taliban need protection. The extremists have gunned down, bombed and hanged those who have worked against them. It would help to improve the government's schools in the region and thus reduce the appeal and influence of Taliban-run madrassas. And by building

245 roads and creating jobs and business opportunities for the Pashtuns, the Pakistani government, with American help, could counter the money and other material blandishments offered by the extremists.

11-(New York Times, Editorial entitled, Pakistan and the Taliban, dated, 04-04-2009)

Pakistan's political and military leadership are in complete agreement to fight terrorism in all its forms and manifestations. Anything that goes wrong in Afghanistan is not Pakistan's doing. We need to learn from our omissions and errors and move forward toward the common objective of dismantling the terror infrastructure.

12-(New York Times, Editorial entitled, Still Unfinished Business, dated, 04-05-2009)

President Obama has correctly refocused American attention on Afghanistan and Pakistan, the real front in the war on terror.

13-(New York Times, Editorial entitled, 10 steps to victory in Afghanistan Pakistani Patronage, dated, 04-10-2009)

Continued Pakistani dealing with the Taliban would reflect Islamabad's judgment that it is going poorly enough that bets still must be hedged. Third, an end to the relationship would eliminate one of the biggest paradoxes in the rationale for the counterinsurgency: the Pakistani government that our efforts in Afghanistan are supposedly helping to save is assisting the forces from which we are trying to save it.

14-(New York Times, Editorial entitled, Mrs. Clinton in Pakistan, dated, (30-10-2009)

Hillary Rodham Clinton's first trip to Pakistan as secretary of state was never going to be easy. The day she arrived, extremists detonated a car bomb at a crowded market in Peshawar that killed at least 100 people

The fact that many of the extremists are on Pakistan's territory and threatening Pakistan's government has not shifted that thinking or mitigated that resentment.

246

A good part of this, of course, is the failure of Pakistan's government, which has still not adequately explained that this is not just America's fight. But the United States is also to blame. For eight years the Bush administration coddled the Pakistani Army at the expense of the rest of society.

Mrs. Clinton challenged Pakistan's government to do more to shut down Al Qaeda, but she was, rightly, determined to use this visit to also broaden the relationship.

It has become another focus of popular resentment. The Army and some Pakistani news media whipped that up with disingenuous complaints that the legislation (Islamabad was consulted beforehand) compromised Pakistan's sovereignty by conditioning disbursement on adequate civilian control of the military.

If Washington is ever to enlist Pakistan as a reliable ally, it is going to have to do a much better job of explaining itself. And it is going to have to insist that Pakistan's leaders start explaining the real stakes to their citizens and the real benefits of an alliance with the United States. Mrs. Clinton's trip was an important start -- but only a start.

15-(New York Times, Editorial entitled, How to Mend Fences with Pakistan, dated, 10- 12-2009)

Pakistan has paid an enormous price in blood and treasure. But this is a price we are willing to pay. Every day across our land, cowards distort our religion of peace, Islam, by slaughtering innocent people. Three thousand civilians, including my wife, Benazir Bhutto, and 2,000 soldiers and police officers have been killed in the last eight years. Just last week 40 people died in a mosque while at Friday prayers, including 10 children. This is our war as well as America's.

16-(New York Times, Editorial entitled, States of Conflict: An Update, dated, 03-01- 2010)

Pakistan and Afghanistan dominated American military and foreign policy. Which themes emerged over the last year?

247

In Pakistan, 2009 was the year of the offensives. The country was still very turbulent, but major government military initiatives in the Swat Valley and South Waziristan reflected a new determination against the Pakistani Taliban. Unfortunately, the Taliban responded in its own brutal way with an intensification of suicide attacks against civilians, killing hundreds.

17-(New York Times, Editorial entitled, Pakistani Fundamentalists, dated, 14-01-2011)

The assassination of the liberal and secular Gov. Salman Taseer in Pakistan, and the subsequent glorification and support for his confessed Islamic fundamentalist assassin by thousands of young, religiously conservative lawyers and others, have grave implications for United States war strategy and policy in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Since the assassination, most established political and military leaders have kept quiet and have not denounced these actions. This is concrete evidence that they have been intimidated and politically influenced by the now stronger and younger Islamic fundamentalists.

Thus, Pakistani military and political leaders are unable and/or unwilling to stop supporting Taliban and other Islamic militants and to fight effectively against those militants based in Pakistan who attack across the border into Afghanistan. Consequently, in spite of vast economic and military assistance to Pakistan and Afghanistan, the United States and its allies have little chance of prevailing over the Taliban in Afghanistan.

18-(New York Times, Editorial entitled, States of Conflict: An Update, dated, 10-04- 2011)

Pakistan recently suffered two high-profile assassinations -- of the former governor of Punjab Province and the minister of minorities -- and its civilian government remains quite weak. Fortunately, the military continues to consolidate control in the tribal regions and surrounding areas where Pakistan's own insurgents have been strongest. The big question for 2011 is whether it will do the same in the border areas that provide sanctuary to the Afghan Taliban.

248

19-(New York Times, Editorial entitled, In Defence of Pakistan, dated, 27-09-2011)

To this day, no evidence of the Pakistani intelligence agency's support to the militants of the Haqqani network or any other group has been provided to the government of Pakistan, and the agency has categorically denied having any links to them. If there is any evidence, the best course would have been to discuss it with Pakistan, an ally in the war on terrorism. Pakistan's policy has always been to seek a more intensive engagement with the United States.

20-(New York Times, Editorial entitled, Another Threat in Pakistan, in sheep’s clothing, dated, 04-08-2012)

Hizb-ut-Tahrir's ultimate goal is a global caliphate -- an Islamic political and religious domain -- across the entire Muslim world, and Pakistani researchers suggest that it has targeted Pakistan as a potential starting point. Several weeks before Brigadier Khan's arrest last year, Pakistani intelligence warned the government that the movement was planning an Arab Spring-style uprising.

And last March, Pakistani news organizations published a report that Brigadier Khan had said the movement was ready to take over anytime, having equipped itself with a new constitution and shadow government. The report was attributed to a prosecution witness.

21-(New York Times, Editorial entitled, Malala Yousafzai’s Courage, dated, 11-09-2012)

The Pakistani Taliban was quick and eager to take credit for Tuesday's attack. Malala ''has become a symbol of Western culture in the area; she was openly propagating it,'' a spokesman, Ehsanullah Ehsan, told The Times. If she survives, the militants would try again to kill her, he vowed.

DRONE ATTACKS

1-(Washington Post, Editorial entitled, a short fuse in Pakistan, dated, 10-04-2009)

, I heard more clarity from the young tribesmen than from the elite at the embassy reception. The young men advised that America should channel its aid through the tribal

249 chiefs, known as maliks, rather than the corrupt Pakistani government. It should help train the Frontier Corps, a rough-hewn tribal constabulary, rather than rely on Pakistani army troops who are seen as outsiders. To curb the militant Islamic madrassas, the United States should help improve the abysmal public schools in the region.

2-(Washington Post, Editorial, entitled, a short fuse in Pakistan, dated 10-04-2009)

Pakistan seems like a Molotov cocktail waiting for a match. Its ruling elite bickers over politics, while out on the streets Taliban insurgents step up their suicide attacks. Its military plays the role of national conciliator even as it worries about Muslim revolutionaries in its own ranks. Meanwhile, the United States, Pakistan's historic friend and benefactor, is symbolized in the popular mind by unmanned drones that cruise over the western frontier assassinating Taliban militants by remote control.

3-(Washington Post, Editorial, entitled, 60 Miles from Islamabad, dated 27-04-2009)

If the Indian Army advanced within 60 miles of Islamabad, you can bet Pakistan army would be fully mobilized and defending the country in pitched battles. Yet when the Taliban got that close to the capital on Friday, pushing into the key district of the Buner, Pakistani authorities sent only several hundred poorly equipped and under paid constabulary force.

4-(Washington Post, Editorial, entitled, Moment of Truth in Pakistan, dated 03-05-2009)

U.S. officials is that recent events have been a wake-up call for a Pakistani elite in denial about the Taliban threat. One top civilian official said that he was less worried now than three weeks ago, because the military and civilian leaders in Islamabad have realized the danger they face. The Pakistani military has begun an effort to push back the Taliban, with mixed results. The Taliban responded fiercely to an assault Tuesday in Buner and seized three police stations, kidnapping dozens of police and paramilitary troops.

5-(Washington Post, Editorial, entitled, Colin Powell’s Truths, dated 27-05-2009)

250

President Obama continues the targeted killings of terrorists by drones in Pakistan and the rendition of terrorists to friends less punctilious in their application of the Geneva Conventions. It is hypocrisy -- but hypocrisy in the national interest.

6-(Washington Post, Editorial, entitled, in defence of drones: The laws of war and the right to self-defense, dated 13-04-2010)

Within days of taking office, President Obama authorized the deployment of unmanned drones to strike terrorism suspects in remote areas of Pakistan. Although first employed during the Bush years, drone attacks have been used increasingly during the Obama administration. They have, in short, become a centerpiece of national security policy.

They have also triggered fierce criticism by some who equate them with illegal assassinations or "unlawful extrajudicial killing." The administration until recently had not responded, but on March 25, State Department legal adviser Harold Koh offered a welcome and robust defense. In a lengthy speech before the American Society of International Law, Mr. Koh, an unflinching critic of Bush administration anti-terrorism tactics during his years in academia, cited domestic and international law as foundations for the program. The United States is engaged in an "armed conflict" with al-Qaeda and its affiliates, Mr. Koh asserted, and "individuals who are part of such an armed group are belligerents and, therefore, lawful targets under international law."

Mr. Koh's reaffirmation of the right to self-defense -- even outside the confines of an existing armed conflict -- is particularly important. The Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) after Sept. 11, 2001, empowered the president to pursue those responsible for the attacks, including al-Qaeda and the Taliban. That authority may wane with time. But the right of self-defense is inherent and may be exercised against current and future enemies that pose an imminent threat, including those operating outside of traditional combat zones.

7-(Washington Post, Editorial, entitled, No Secrets in the Sky, dated 26-04-2010)

The United States has long tried to maintain plausible deniability that it is behind drone warfare in Pakistan, a country that pollsters consistently find is one of the most anti-

251

American in the world. For reasons of its own, the Pakistani government has also sought to hide the fact that it secretly agreed to allow the United States to fly some drones out of a base in Pakistan and attack militants on its territory.

8-(Washington Post, Editorial, entitled, Pakistan’s earnest ‘threat’, dated 23-04-2011)

When did the phrase "Stop killing us" become a "threat"? While the world's superpower directs its robots to drop bombs on a smaller nation, an April 12 front-page headline reads, "Pakistan threatens to restrict CIA strikes."

George Orwell's doublespeak is alive and well in the military-industrial complex, which apparently includes major media companies such as The Post.

We witnessed blowback from such operations on Sept. 11, 2001. We fail to learn from our mistakes, so we repeat them. Let's get our robot drones and bombs out of Pakistan.

9-(Washington Post, Editorial, entitled, Drone dependence, dated 25-09-2011)

In our view the legal situation is straightforward. It's been clear for more than a decade that al-Qaeda is a transnational organization that seeks to wage war against the United States from multiple foreign bases; especially in areas where national sovereignty has broken down, a U.S. military response is justified. It would be helpful if Congress would clarify this by passing legislation that renews the authorization of military force and stipulates that it can be used against al-Shabab and other al-Qaeda branches.

10-(Washington Post, Editorial, entitled, Drone strike vs. Diplomacy, dated 07-09-2012)

The Aug. 30 news article "U.S. confirms Haqqani leader's death in airstrike" reported that the United States had confirmed the death of Badruddin Haqqani, the third-ranking official of the Haqqani network. Two days later, the front-page article "Officials split over Haqqani network," reported that the Obama administration is divided over whether to designate the Haqqanis as a terrorist group, because to do so would complicate the rapprochement with Pakistan that led to the reopening of vital U.S. military supply lines into Afghanistan and a prisoner exchange agreement. There also is a concern that the designation could hinder a possible settlement with the Taliban. 252

First, why is the United States targeting people who are not members of terrorist organizations for drone assassinations? Second, how does designating the Haqqanis as a terrorist organization complicate relations with Pakistan or a final settlement with the Taliban any less than killing the Haqqanis' third-ranking member?

11-(Washington Post, Editorial, entitled, Drone war, dated 02-11-2012)

Mr. Volker asks "what we would say if others used drones to take out their opponents" - such as Russia in Chechnya or China in Tibet. The answer is twofold: Other nations will inevitably acquire and use armed drones, just as they have adopted all previous advances in military technology, from the bayonet to the cruise missile. But the legal and moral standards of warfare will not change. It's hard to imagine that Russian drones would cause more devastation in Grozny than did Russian tanks and artillery, but if used there they would surely attract international censure.

12-(Washington Post, Editorial, entitled, the drone war’s failure, dated 30-12-2012)

The excellent Dec. 25 front-page article "Yemen tries to cover up drone hits" demonstrated that the United States has not learned the lesson taught by Pakistan. I recently travelled to Pakistan as part of a Codepink delegation to witness the impact of U.S. drone strikes in the country's northern territories, and it quickly became clear why the Pew Research Center reported in June that 74 percent of Pakistanis now consider the United States an enemy.

One attorney who has been interviewing youths held by Pakistani authorities for having links to extremist organizations told us that their "primary motivator is the U.S. drone strikes. They breed anger, hatred and desperation." The same dynamic is clearly at work now in Yemen.

We may think that we are winning by killing "terrorists," but the victory will be overshadowed in the longer term by the consequences of a Yemeni government that is distrusted by its own constituents and by a populace that believes "the enemy of my enemy [the United States] is my friend."

253

DRONE ATTACKS

1-(New York Times, Editorial, entitled, more than Missiles, dated, 11-08-2009)

The drone strike came after months of improved cooperation between American and Pakistani intelligence officials. Mr. Mehsud and his network have orchestrated a bloody reign of terror across Pakistan and are blamed for the 2007 assassination of Benazir Bhutto, the former prime minister, and last year's bombing of the Marriott Hotel in Islamabad, which left more than 50 people dead. Permanently removing him from the picture would be an obvious victory.

2-(New York Times, Editorial, entitled, the CIA and Drone Strikes: to build credibility, the agency needs to acknowledge civilian casualitieis, dated,14-08-2009)

The strikes have long been controversial in Pakistan, fueling anti-American sentiments. Washington’s refused to be more transparent about the program is counterproductive. It should provide as much public detail as possible, including casualties. Pakistan’s government needs to end its duplicity: privately allowing the strikes, yet publicly condemning them.

3-(New York Tines, Editorial, entitled, No secrets in the sky, dated, 26-04-2010)

The United States has long tried to maintain plausible deniability that it is behind drone warfare in Pakistan, a country that pollsters consistently find is one of the most anti- American in the world. For reasons of its own, the Pakistani government has also sought to hide the fact that it secretly agreed to allow the United States to fly some drones out of a base in Pakistan and attack militants on its territory.

4-(New York Times, Editorial, entitled, Drones Alone are not the Answer, dated, 15-08- 2011)

We can help Pakistan with logistics, transport and intelligence; Pakistan can help us by deploying security forces and improving local government on the ground. Drone strikes targeting Qaeda leaders and other terrorists would be conducted by mutual agreement.

254

5-(New York Times, Editorial, entitled, A Spotlight on Drone Strikes in Pakistan, dated 19-08-2011)

In Pakistan the military is in the problem. After all, Osama bin laded was found and killed in a city that also hosts one of country’s largest military academies. Is there any doubt that the Pakistani army and intelligence services were aware that the No.1 enemy of America was living under their noses.

6-(New York Times, Editorial, entitled, Pakistan Fans the Flames, dated, 06-12-2011)

Pakistan is refusing to help calm public fury -- or help figure out what led to a NATO attack that left 24 Pakistani soldiers dead. It has rejected American entreaties to participate in a joint investigation. On Monday, it boycotted an international conference in Bonn that laid plans for Afghanistan's future. Both moves are self-defeating.

The United States needs Pakistan's cooperation -- as grudging and duplicitous as it is. Islamabad controls supply routes for American troops in Afghanistan (they were closed in retaliation for the attack), and it is essential to negotiations with the Taliban. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta quickly offered condolences. President Obama waited eight days to overrule Pentagon concerns and telephone President Asif Ali Zardari of Pakistan to say the deaths were regrettable and accidental. We share frustrations over Pakistan, but that delay further fueled the crisis.

7-(New York Times, Editorial, entitled, Drones for Human Rights, dated, 31-01-2012)

DRONES are not just for firing missiles in Pakistan. In Iraq, the State Department is using them to watch for threats to Americans. It's time we used the revolution in military affairs to serve human rights advocacy.

8-(New York Times, Editorial, entitled, A Drone too far?Dated, 04-05-2012)

U.S military forces and the U.S. public face direct threats of violence from organizations organizing and operating ungoverned areas of the world, particularly, the tribal regions of Pakistan but also parts of Yemen and Somalia. Regional governments are either unable or unwilling to confront these dangers. 255

9-(New York Times, Editorial, entitled, Accountability on drone attacks dated 07-05- 2012)

The present CIA drone attacks in Pakistan launched in direct opposition to the wills of the Pakistani people and government, are chilling example of how the tragic events Sep 11, 2001 continued to justify stretching the rule of law to accommodate to expansion of the “war on terror” into countries where the United States is not at war. Indeed the Bureaueof investigative journalsm at City University of London has estimate that as many as 3000 people have been killed in covert drone strikes in Pakistan, U.S drone program expanding under the Obama Administration, it’s time for U.S taxpayer to demand greater transparency and accountability.

10-(New York Times, Editorial, entitled, how Drones Help Al-Qaeda, dated,14-06-2012)

Drone strikes are causing more and more Yemenis to hate America and join radical militants; they are not driven by ideology but rather by a sense of revenge and despair. Robert Grenier, the former head of the C.I.A.'s counterterrorism center, has warned that the American drone program in Yemen risks turning the country into a safe haven for Al Qaeda like the tribal areas of Pakistan -- ''the Arabian equivalent of Waziristan.''

NATO Supply through Pakistan to Afghanistan

1-(Washington Post, Editorial, entitled, the NATO Emerging in Afghanistan, dated, 01- 02-2008)

NATO's decision just over a year ago to take on security responsibility throughout Afghanistan has brought 10,000 additional Canadian and British and other European troops to the south, partnered with roughly 1,000 Australians. This allowed U.S. forces participating in the NATO mission and Operation Enduring Freedom to focus primarily on countering the insurgency in the east along the Pakistan border and to increase training of the Afghans. To strengthen this effort, President Bush decided last year to send 3,500 additional U.S. troops and $10.2 billion in development and security support to Afghanistan. Many allies joined this effort.

256

2-(Washington Post, Editorial, entitled, Taking back the frontier, dated, 01-05-2008)

The most dangerous place on Earth -- the Pashtun tribal belt straddling Pakistan's border with Afghanistan -- is about to get more dangerous. As the summer offensive by al- Qaeda and the Taliban against U.S. and NATO troops gets underway in Afghanistan and the militant groups threaten to resume their attacks on Pakistan's army, the newly elected government in Islamabad needs the support and patience of the Bush administration rather than Washington's single-minded desire for military solutions.

3-(Washington Post, Editorial, entitled, time to deal in Afghanistan, dated, 14-09-2009)

The United States, NATO, the European Union and others have invested massively in stabilizing that country over the past eight years, and they should not abandon it because the Taliban is proving a tougher foe than anticipated. But there is still a large gap between the goals the Obama administration is outlining and the means available to achieve them. This gap is best closed not by sending in tens of thousands of more troops but, rather, by understanding the limits of what we can reasonably achieve in Afghanistan.

4-(Washington Post, Editorial, entitled, a strained, and crucial, alliance, dated, 01-10- 2010)

This has been a week when frustration on both sides boiled over. A new book by Bob Woodward, "Obama's Wars," quoted President Obama warning of a "cancer" of terrorism in Pakistan. U.S. drone attacks over the tribal areas were reported to be at a record level. And U.S. helicopters, which have been firing across the border in "hot pursuit" of insurgents, hit three Pakistani soldiers by mistake early Thursday. The Pakistanis responded by halting NATO supply trucks at the Khyber Pass.

"Pakistan is not a walkover country," warned the senior ISI official. If the United States continues its cross-border attacks, he said, "I will stand in the way of the convoys myself."

5-(Washington Post, Editorial, entitled, Impenetrable Pakistan, dated, 17-07-2012)

257

There are trickling across the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan this month, thanks to the latest patch-up between the Obama administration and Islamabad's fractious menage of generals and elected politicians. The reopening of the supply route will facilitate the massive withdrawal of U.S. troops and equipment from Afghanistan scheduled to take place between now and the end of 2014, and it will allow Pakistan to collect more than $1 billion in deferred compensation from Washington. It heads off an irrevocable breach between the two nations.

Pakistani soldiers were killed in an exchange of gunfire with U.S. units along the border. Eventually, Islamabad settled for a renewal of the previous fee of $250 and a half-hearted "apology" from Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.

6-(Washington Post, Editorial, entitled, Democracy and sacrifices, dated, 23-07-2012)

Pakistan enthusiastically welcomed NATO's use of Pakistani supply routes for almost a decade and halted access only to protest the deaths of 24 Pakistani soldiers by NATO troops in an unprovoked attack at Salala in November. As soon as the United States apologized, trucks began to move once more.

Allegations of "political dysfunction" overlook the fact that Pakistan has rebounded from decades of U.S.-backed dictatorship with a robust democratic process, including the first civilian parliament to finish a five-year term, a thriving civil society and an independent judiciary. Pakistan will hold free and transparent elections within this year.

NATO Supply through Pakistan to Afghanistan

1-(New York Times, Editorial, entitled, the Taliban Rising Trade, dated, 11-07-2008)

The swelling forces of Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters in Pakistan's border region pose a grave threat to American and NATO troops in Afghanistan. They also pose a grave threat to the Pakistani people. Pakistan's Taliban militias, like their Afghan counterparts, are trying to impose their harsh medieval version of Islamic law. More than a thousand Pakistanis have been killed in terrorist attacks in the past year, mostly in the border areas where radical Islamic fighters are strongest.

258

The United States also needs to work with Pakistan's new government to establish spending priorities and to ensure that any future aid is channeled in ways that would strengthen the civilian government and allow it to regain control over a military that has too often been a law unto itself and intelligence services that seem far more loyal to the extremists than their own government.

2-(New York Times, Editorial, entitled, Pakistan without Musharraf, dated, 19-08-2008)

, these extremists serve Pakistan's strategic interests. In reality, as The Times has extensively reported, these militants kill American and NATO soldiers, Indian diplomats and Pakistani civilians.

3-(New York Times, Editorial, entitled, Afghanistan on Fire, dated, 21-08-2008)

The number of United States and NATO casualties is mounting so quickly, that unless something happens soon this could be the deadliest year of the Afghan war. Kabul, the seat of Afghanistan's pro-Western government, is increasingly besieged. And Taliban and foreign Qaeda fighters are consolidating control over an expanding swath of territory sprawling across both sides of the porous Afghanistan-Pakistan border.

There is no more time to waste. Unless the United States, NATO and its central Asian allies move quickly, they could lose this war. The following steps need to be taken in the coming weeks.

4-(New York Times, Editorial, entitled, The Pakistan Test, dated, 23-11-2008)

The major city of Peshawar is now controlled in part by the Taliban, and this month alone in the area an American aid worker was shot dead, an Iranian diplomat kidnapped, a Japanese journalist shot and American humvees stolen from a NATO convoy to Afghanistan.

5-(New York Times, Editorial, entitled, Afghan Supplies, Russian Demands, dated, 04- 02-2009)

259

Militants bombed a bridge in the Khyber Pass region in Pakistan, cutting off supply lines to NATO forces in neighboring Afghanistan. This poses a serious problem for President Obama, who has said that he wants more American troops in Afghanistan. But troops need supplies.

6-(New York Times, Editorial, entitled, Pakistan’s war of choice, dated, 24-03-2010)

Things are complicated, as always in this fractious land. Pakistan's resolve is clearest against its own internal enemies. And while its will to pursue the Afghan Taliban has grown, its policies are changing incrementally, not fundamentally. It is rebuilding trust with America only slowly. And its obsession with India will continue to constrain its ability and willingness to act against the groups that threaten the NATO mission across the Afghan border.

First, though, give credit where credit is due. Pakistan has become deadly serious about its own insurgency, loosely referred to as the Tehrik-i-Taliban. Total Pakistani troops in the North-West Frontier Province, Baluchistan and the tribal areas now number about 150,000, up from 50,000 in 2001. In addition, there are 90,000 paramilitary troops of the Frontier Corps in the area, and they are far better equipped, paid and led than in years past.

As I toured the nerve center of the Pakistani military in Rawalpindi, Maj. Gen. Athar Abbas, the army's spokesman, recited an impressive list of statistics. The army now has 821 posts on the Afghan-Pakistan border, as opposed to just 112 manned by NATO and Afghan forces on the other side. Pakistan carried out 209 operations in 2009 of brigade size or larger (that is, involving at least 3,000 troops), twice as many as in the previous two years combined. Convoys bringing supplies for the NATO mission in Afghanistan used to be preyed on frequently by terrorists and thieves; but as a result of the improved security, NATO is now losing only about 0.1 percent of the goods it ships across Pakistan.

7-(New York Times, Editorial, entitled, The Latest Crises, dated, 12-10-2010)

260

Another crisis is roiling American-Pakistani relations after NATO helicopters mistakenly fired on a border post and killed Pakistani soldiers last month. Islamabad then closed a major supply line for NATO troops in Afghanistan; last week, extremists torched fuel trucks waiting at the border crossing. A new White House report said that Pakistan's Army is refusing to go after Taliban groups targeting American forces.

After a joint Pakistan-NATO inquiry concluded last week that the Pakistani troops were ''simply firing warning shots'' when the Afghan-based helicopters crossed the border, the United States apologized. Pakistan has since reopened the crossing.

8-(New York Times, Editorial, entitled, On Borrowed Time, dated, 16-12-2010)

The president is expected to argue that, with about 140,000 American and NATO troops now on the ground, there has been progress in Afghanistan, most notably pushing back Taliban forces from around Kandahar, the Taliban's spiritual base and the country's second-largest city.

Even as Pakistan's army vows to take on militants spreading chaos and mayhem inside Pakistan, the intelligence service still sees the Afghan Taliban as a way to ensure influence on the other side of the border and keep India's influence at bay. It is a dangerous game, based on a flawed premise. American officials say the Taliban, Al Qaeda and other groups increasingly act like a syndicate, sharing know-how and colluding when needed. General Kayani, whose previous job was heading the ISI, should certainly know that.

The Obama administration has said and done many of the right things to build a long- term relationship with Pakistan, including cultivating top military leaders and providing long-term development aid. And not all of the news is grim. Last week, Pakistan and American forces jointly launched a successful cross-border operation. The number of American cross-border drone attacks into Pakistan have also increased significantly, while Islamabad's protests have been comparatively muted.

9-(New York Times, Editorial, entitled, Save Energy, Save Our Troops, dated, 13-01- 2011)

261

A NATO oil tanker truck was blown up by insurgents at the Pakistan-Afghanistan border last week, and while no one was injured, the incident temporarily closed the Khyber Pass, the main supply artery for Western troops in the Afghan theater. This has become an all- too-routine occurrence; in the last nine years some 1,000 Americans have been killed on fuel-related missions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

10-(New York Times, Editorial, entitled, Détente on Supply Routes, dated, 06-07-2012)

NATO supply trucks began crossing into Afghanistan on Thursday after the United States and Pakistan ended their latest self-defeating crisis. It took way too long, but the compromise agreement is the best news in months. It gives both sides a chance to halt a further slide in their troubled, mutually dependent relationship.

Both countries needed a deal and got something for it. Pakistan closed the road from the port of Karachi to the Afghan border -- NATO's vital supply route -- seven months ago after a NATO airstrike in the border region killed 24 Pakistani soldiers. Not satisfied with American statements of regret, Islamabad demanded a formal apology. The White House and the Pentagon balked, in part because American officials believed an apology would absolve Pakistan of blame for its mistakes in the incident.

Intelligence Sharing with US

1-(Washington Post, Editorial, entitled, The Challenges in Pakistan, dated, 20-02-2008)

Mr. Devine used the intelligence community's failure in Pakistan to score points for intelligence reform. But his argument in fact reveals America's inability to use both trained diplomats and the intelligence community to succeed in Pakistan.

2-(Washington Post, Editorial, entitled, Pakistan’s Worrisome Pullback, dated, 06-06- 2008)

Pakistani army officials have told Washington that they will continue to deploy the Frontier Corps and other paramilitary units along the long, porous border with Afghanistan, but they are poorly equipped, badly trained and have lost every major

262 engagement with militants so far. The U.S. military is training and equipping these nearly 100,000 troops but has rejected Pakistani requests to equip four to five new units.

3-(Washington Post, Editorial, entitled, a strategy for Pakistan: The United States must support the new democratic government but also do what is needed to stop al-Qaeda., dated, 02-08-2008)

Mr. Gillani argues that rather than acting unilaterally, U.S. forces should share intelligence with Pakistan so that it can strike al-Qaeda and Taliban targets. The problem is that, as the prime minister acknowledges, Pakistan lacks the capacity to act and is not likely to obtain it anytime soon. Moreover, intelligence provided to Pakistan may be misused: The CIA believes that some militants have been tipped to U.S. raids by Pakistani intelligence.

4-(Washington Post, Editorial, entitled, The View from Pakistan's Spies,dated, 29-09- 2009)

, the ISI is a close partner of the CIA. Officers of the two services work together nearly every night on joint operations against al-Qaeda in Pakistan's tribal areas, perhaps the most dangerous region in the world. Information from the ISI has helped the CIA plan its Predator drone attacks, which have killed 14 of the top 20 targets over the past several years.

5-(Washington Post, Editorial, entitled, Taliban on ice; Pakistan helps capture a top insurgent leader. Is it the beginning of a trend? Dated, 17-02-2010)

U.S. strikes have twice eliminated the top leader of that faction, which has become a mortal enemy to the Pakistani elite. That could only raise the pressure on Islamabad's intelligence service to help deliver the militants who most concern U.S. forces.

Pakistan has cooperated in just one arrest; its military has declined to move against Taliban bases near the border. But Mr. Baradar's capture is nevertheless the biggest blow dealt to the Afghan Taliban leadership since 2001. If it is the beginning of a trend, rather

263 than an isolated incident, then the odds of success for Mr. Obama's Afghan surge have just gotten a lot better.

6-(Washington Post, Editorial, entitled, Terrorists in the cross hairs, dated, 17-02-2010)

The raid in Karachi was conducted jointly by the CIA and Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency, both of which kept the lid on the operation for more than two weeks, until it was disclosed Monday by the New York Times.

7-(Washington Post, Editorial, entitled, With Pakistan, slowly building trust, dated, 04- 03-2010)

In the upbeat White House version, the first big success for the Obama administration's new Afghanistan policy has come not in the battle of Marja in Helmand province but in Islamabad. Officials cite Pakistan's cooperation with the CIA in capturing and interrogating top leaders of the Afghan Taliban, and Pakistan's new dialogue with India.

8-(Washington Post, Editorial, entitled, did Baradar know about Times Square plot? Dated, 11-05-2010)

"The CIA was denied direct access to Baradar for about two weeks after his arrest, and has since worked alongside Pakistani interrogators who continue to control the questioning. But officials said they have learned nothing from Baradar that could be used to track down other Taliban leaders, or inform the planning of U.S. military operations."

Osama's Assassination in Pakistan by US Navy Seals

1-(Washington Post, Editorial, entitled, Forget the Bin Laden Fixation, dated, 14-09- 2008)

I'm a supporter of Sen. Barack Obama's presidential bid, but I really wish he'd get over his obsession with killing Osama bin Laden ["Economic Crisis Dominates Debate," front page, Oct. 8], as well as his threat to do so by military action in Pakistan against that country's wishes. President Bush was similarly fixated on Saddam Hussein and Iraq, and look where that got us.

264

Why should we be so intent on making Osama bin Laden a martyr, thereby spawning more devoted terrorists to be used by some ambitious new al-Qaeda leader?

2-(Washington Post, Editorial, entitled, The Accountability Question; The right way to deal with torture's legacy, dated, 24-04-2009)

Once you start down that road, where do you stop? Should Bill Clinton, Sandy Berger and their team have been held criminally or civilly liable for dereliction of duty after 3,000 people died in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, given that they knowingly allowed Osama bin Laden to flee Sudan for sanctuary in Afghanistan? What if the next administration believes that Barack Obama is committing war crimes every time he allows the Air Force to fling missiles into Pakistan, killing innocent civilians in a country with which we are not at war?

3-(Washington Post, Editorial, entitled, our challenge to Pakistan, dated, 05-05-2011)

A pall descended over Islamabad as the world learned of Osama bin Laden's death. Once again Pakistan was in the cross hairs of a terrorism-weary world, this time accused of sheltering the planet's most-wanted terrorist. Osama bin Laden's Abbottabad hideout has put the lie to the perception of improved relations between Pakistan and the United States since the Obama administration took office, and largely scuttled the goodwill Islamabad had accrued for its own fight against terrorism.

The United States and its European allies are pressing Pakistan to come clean on how and when bin Laden arrived in Abbottabad and to reassure the world of its commitment to fight terrorism. Some in Congress will continue questioning the level of civilian and military assistance to Pakistan, especially in light of this week's blow to al- Qaeda. Others already envision an end to the war in Afghanistan.

But these are the least of Pakistan's problems. The CIA shattered Pakistan's intelligence establishment's confidence with its ability to hunt and kill bin Laden right under the nose of the Inter-Services Intelligence directorate. Yet the ISI's real worry is that the next item on the CIA's agenda could be one of the two Taliban leaders the United States holds most directly responsible for the insurgency in Afghanistan, and who are believed to be hiding

265 in Pakistan: Mullah Omar or Sirajuddin Haqqani, head of his eponymous terrorist network. And if the CIA found bin Laden, then it could probably find everything it wants to know about Pakistan's nuclear arsenal.

It has become clear that since 2009 the CIA has built an infrastructure of intelligence gathering and operational capability that opened up Pakistan's underworld of jihadists, spooks and terrorists. There are no more secrets. Worse yet, the United States can act at will to kill, capture or destroy in Pakistan - even in an army town.

Pakistan's strategic calculus has long been shaped by its rivalry with neighboring India. Because it had never done well against India on the battlefield, Pakistan's military turned to jihadi fighters and terrorists to further its interests against India and in Afghanistan. This strategy worked because the ISI ran a tight ship, protecting the country's secrets. But it can no longer afford such complacency.

Pakistan realized all this after Raymond Davis, an alleged CIA contractor, shot two armed men who were trailing him in January. The diplomatic crisis that followed his arrest seriously damaged U.S.-Pakistan relations. The Pakistani press reported that Davis was operating in Lahore unbeknownst to the ISI and was gathering information on the terrorist group Lashkar-i-Taiba. The ISI worried about the specter of CIA agents running operations in Pakistani cities and against a terrorist group that most perceive to be a pawn of the Pakistani government.

The ISI used the Davis imbroglio to reduce the CIA's footprint in Pakistan. It did not want more Davises poking around every nook and cranny - exactly the kind of legwork that led the CIA to bin Laden.

Pakistan now has two options. It can become less cooperative with the U.S. counterterrorism campaign and in Afghanistan, and try to weaken the CIA in Pakistan. This would put Islamabad on a collision course with Washington; if the Davis affair is any indication, the resulting tension between the intelligence agencies will make it difficult for the nations to conduct business as usual. (Islamabad will also, of course, have

266 plenty to juggle if another terrorist attack takes place soon in the West and is traced back to Pakistan.)

Or, Pakistan can conclude that its borders are too porous to Western intelligence for the likes of al-Qaeda, the Haqqani network and Lashkar-i-Taiba to safely organize, recruit and carry out attacks. Since Islamabad can no longer protect its jihadist and Taliban assets, it should reassess its strategic calculus and abandon a foreign policy that relies on jihadist adventurism.

If history is any guide, Pakistan cannot be relied upon to make the right decision. In the coming weeks, Islamabad is likely to hunker down in reaction to bin Laden's death and then go after the CIA's eyes and ears around Pakistan. But there is a window of opportunity for the West to nudge Pakistan to reevaluate its foreign policy. However narrow the opening, it is worth exploring.

Doing so would require the United States to react to this latest Pakistani transgression in a new way. Washington should not credit Pakistan for helping with hunting down bin Laden and then turn around and freeze relations and scale back assistance. Rather, Washington should continue its assistance programs and bilateral engagement to show Pakistan a path to a normal, long-run relationship with the United States. Meanwhile, it should engage Pakistan's civilian and military leadership at the highest levels to push for a change in foreign policy. America's confidence and Pakistan's anxiety and vulnerability at this critical moment create an opening to push U.S.-Pakistan relations in a new direction.

The writer is a professor of international politics at Tufts University's Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy. He served as senior adviser to the State Department's special representative on Afghanistan and Pakistan from 2009 to 2011.

4-(Washington Post, Editorial, entitled, the post-bin laden calculus, dated, 08-05-2011)

U.S. troops in Afghanistan should be quickly brought home, say some in Congress. Aid to Pakistan should be slashed or ended, or its government compelled to act decisively against the Islamic extremist groups in its territory. The Obama administration is saying

267 that the Taliban should now break with what remains of al-Qaeda and begin negotiating a settlement with the Afghan government.

The presence of Osama bin Laden in a military town has reinforced the notion that Pakistan is playing a "double game," supporting some extremist groups even while it helps the United States fight them. In fact the Pakistani elite are themselves divided between those who favor alliance with the West and a secular democracy, and others who cling to the strategy of supporting terrorist groups as a way to exercise influence in Afghanistan, weaken India and hedge against a U.S. withdrawal from the region. The Obama administration may now be able to leverage Pakistani concessions - such as help against other al-Qaeda leaders in its territory. But the "double game" is likely to continue, because Pakistan's own war over its identity is far from over. By cutting off aid - in particular economic aid - Congress would only weaken the pro-American side in this fight.

5-(Washington Post, Editorial, entitled, the plot thickens in Pakistan, dated, 11-05-2011)

The Pakistani town of Abbottabad seems to have been the perfect place to "hide in plain sight." Not only did officers at the Pakistani military academy there apparently miss spotting Osama bin Laden so did a team of U.S. Special Forces trainers that, according to Pakistani officials, was based there from September to December 2008.

What angers U.S. officials is that the ISI may be helpful with one hand, but with the other assists groups that threaten Americans. One example is the Haqqani network, the deadliest Taliban faction in eastern Afghanistan; another is Lashkar-i-Taiba, a Kashmiri group whose alleged links with the ISI will be explored in a trial scheduled to open next week in Chicago.

The fact that bin Laden lived for so long under the military's nose, as it were, has prompted some stinging commentary in Pakistan, such as this riposte in the newspaper Dawn last week from columnist Cyril Almeida: "If we didn't know, we are a failed state; if we did know, we are a rogue state. But does anybody really believe they didn't know?"

268

And what happens next, as the United States begins to exploit the "treasure trove" of information found in bin Laden's compound? Among other things, that cache may reveal what, if anything, Pakistani officials knew, and when they knew it.

6-(Washington Post, Editorial, entitled, Getting tough with Pakistan, dated, 12-05-2011)

The killing of Osama bin Laden has produced new waves of commentary on the problem of Pakistan. We could all discuss again its selective policy toward terrorists, its complicated relationship with the United States and its mounting dysfunctions. But there is more to this opportunity than an opening for analysis. This is a time for action, to finally push the country toward moderation and genuine democracy.

"It's like a person, caught in bed with another man's wife, who is indignant that someone entered his house," one Pakistani scholar, who preferred not to be named for fear of repercussions, told me.

This strategy has worked in the past. In 2009, the Obama administration joined forces with Sens. Richard Lugar and John Kerry to triple American aid to Pakistan's civilian government and civil society - to $7.5 billion over five years - but with measures designed to strengthen democracy and civilian control over the military. The military reacted by unleashing an anti-American campaign, using its proxies in the media and parliament to denounce "violations of Pakistan's sovereignty"

7-(Washington Post, Editorial, entitled, What a 're-set' can do, dated, 15-05-2011)

Pakistan enjoyed a chokehold on supplies for American and other allied forces in Afghanistan. A trickle of the vast logistical requirements of the war came in from the north, by air through Kyrgyzstan. The Pakistani leadership exploited its near-monopoly to extract massive aid from Washington and to limit American operations across the porous frontier region joining Pakistan and Afghanistan.

8-(Washington Post, Editorial, entitled, Pakistan's toll unappreciated, dated, 21-05-2011)

269

The May 14 front-page story "Pakistan's spy chief offers to quit"detailed the repercussions within the Pakistani government and military of the U.S. operation that killed Osama bin Laden.

9-(Washington Post, Editorial, entitled, Handling Pakistan, dated, 01-06-2011)

One month after the killing of Osama bin Laden, the danger of a rupture in relations between the United States and Pakistan appears to have passed, for now. No evidence has been found that senior Pakistani officials knew of the al-Qaeda leader's presence in the town of Abbottabad, and the army and intelligence chiefs have pledged to find anyone who may have helped him.

10-(Washington Post, Editorial, entitled, Bin Laden's plot to kill Obama, dated, 18-03- 2012)

Before his death, Osama bin Laden boldly commanded his network to organize special cells in Afghanistan and Pakistan to attack the aircraft of President Obama and Gen. David H. Petraeus. "The reason for concentrating on them," the al-Qaeda leader explained to his top lieutenant, "is that Obama is the head of infidelity and killing him automatically will make (Vice President) Biden take over the presidency. . . . Biden is totally unprepared for that post, which will lead the U.S. into a crisis. As for Petraeus, he is the man of the hour . . . and killing him would alter the war's path" in Afghanistan.

The terrorist leader urged in a 48-page directive to Atiyah to focus "every effort that could be spent on attacks in America," instead of operations within Muslim nations. He told Atiyah to "ask the brothers in all regions if they have a brother . . . who can operate in the U.S. (He should be able to) live there, or it should be easy for him to travel there."

11-(Washington Post, Editorial, entitled, caught in the cross fire, dated, 27-05-2012)

270

As Pakistani Ambassador Sherry Rehman told us, "Pakistan assisted more than anyone else, but this is an issue about the law, and we can't have people contracting with foreign agencies." Jonathan Pollard, an American, is serving a life sentence for spying for Israel, a U.S. ally. The differences outweigh the similarities, however. Mr. Pollard sold highly classified secrets. Shakil Afridi, 48, had access to no secrets. The United States enlisted him to help track down a mass murderer whom Pakistan was bound, under U.N. resolutions, to do everything in its power to apprehend. Americans wonder why Dr. Afridi is not being treated as a hero - and why no one in Pakistan has been punished for knowingly or unknowingly allowing Osama bin Laden to live peaceably in a military garrison town for so long.

Osama's Assassination in Pakistan by US Navy Seals

1-(New York Times, Editorial, entitled, the Losers Hang on, dated, 26-07-2009)

President Obama spoke to the Muslim world from Cairo University, Osama bin Laden released a long statement on Islamic Web sites and on Al Jazeera. As the Egyptian Middle East expert Mamoun Fandy noted: ''Obama beat Osama hands down. Ask anyone about the content of Obama's speech and they will tell you. Ask them what Osama said and most people will say, 'Did he give a speech?' ''

2-(New York Times, Editorial, entitled, The Long-Awaited News: The death of Osama bin Laden reflects strong leadership and painstaking intelligence work, dated, 03-05- 2011)

The news that Osama bin Laden had been tracked and killed by American forces filled us, and all Americans, with a great sense of relief. But our reaction was strongly tinged with sadness. Nearly a decade after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the horror has not faded, nor has the knowledge of how profoundly our lives were changed.

Even as we now breathe a bit more easily, we must also remember that the fight against extremists is far from over. Al Qaeda may strike back, or other groups may try to assert their rising power. The reports of how Bin Laden's lair in Pakistan was discovered and breached, the years of intelligence-gathering and the intensive planning for this raid, are

271 all a reminder of just how hard this work is and how much vigilance and persistence matter.

Leadership matters enormously, and President Obama has shown that he is a strong and measured leader. His declaration on Sunday night that ''justice has been done'' was devoid of triumphalism. His vow that the country will ''remain vigilant at home and abroad'' was an important reminder that the danger has not passed. His affirmation that the ''United States is not and never will be at war with Islam'' sent an essential message to the Muslim world, where hopes for democracy are rising but old hatreds, and leaders who exploit them, are still powerful.

Mr. Obama rightly affirmed that this country will be ''relentless in defense of our citizens and our friends and allies'' -- but ''true to the values that make us who we are.'' Maintaining that balance is never easy, and this administration has strayed, but not as often or as damagingly as the Bush team did. Much will be made of the fact that the original tip came from detainees at the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. There is no evidence that good intelligence like this was the result of secret detentions or abuse and torture. Everything suggests the opposite.

The full story has yet to be told, but a few things struck us from the early reporting. The president's decision to order a raid on the compound -- the only way to gather proof of Bin Laden's death -- rather than destroying it from the air, showed guts. The memory of President Jimmy Carter's failed hostage rescue mission in Iran had to have been on the mind of everyone in the White House.

On Sunday night, Mr. Obama gave Pakistan faint praise for some unspecified cooperation, but the facts are damning: The most hunted man in the world was living in a $1 million compound, an hour's drive from Islamabad, Pakistan's capital, and close to both a military training academy and a large military base.

On Monday, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton was doing the diplomatic thing, we suppose, by talking about how the United States is committed to its partnership with

272

Pakistan. We hope that she and the president are a lot tougher in private with Pakistani officials and doing some very hard thinking about how they will manage this relationship.

After this, how can anyone keep a straight face -- or keep from screaming -- when Pakistani officials claim they have no idea where the Taliban's Mullah Muhammad Omar or dozens of other extremist leaders are hiding?

Mr. Obama made only passing mention of the war in Afghanistan, which was ordered to root out Al Qaeda and its Taliban hosts. After President George W. Bush turned his sights on Iraq, the effort faltered badly. President Obama's ''surge'' is showing some progress. The Taliban have been pushed back from Kandahar, but they are not close to being defeated. Afghans are alienated and disgusted by the Karzai government's corruption and incompetence.

Bin Laden's death should be a warning to Taliban leaders and fighters that the United States is not giving up. The Obama administration should capitalize on that message of strength and seriously explore whether there is a political deal to be cut with the Taliban: one that doesn't send Afghan women and girls back to the Dark Ages or reopen the country to Al Qaeda. But also one that helps bring a decade of American fighting closer to an end.

Bin Laden's death is an extraordinary moment for Americans and all who have lost loved ones in horrifying, pointless acts of terrorism. As fresh as those wounds still are, though, we were struck by how irrelevant Bin Laden has become in the streets of Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Bahrain and Syria, where people are struggling for freedom.

Mr. Obama should use this moment to clearly state American support for all in the Muslim world who are yearning for peaceful, democratic change. Their victory will be the true defeat of Bin Laden.

3-(New York Times, Editorial, entitled, A Coda to 9/11: Cheers and Reflections, dated, 03-05-2011)

273

''Bin Laden Killed by U.S. Forces in Pakistan, Obama Says, Declaring Justice Has Been Done''

The amazing news that Osama bin Laden is dead transcends the often petty nature of our domestic politics. Just as in World War II, good has overcome evil. A particular thanks must go out to all those who have worked so hard over the past 10 years to make Osama bin Laden's death a reality.

President Obama kept his word, and we will never again have to witness new videos of Osama bin Laden gloating or threatening our freedom. It has been a painful 10 years since we were attacked -- with the ever present reminders of that day in the absence of our loved ones. The symbol of that vicious attack is now dead.

While I feel like celebrating, I also want to honor and remember the many brave men and women who lost their lives in the pursuit of our enemies. My heartfelt thanks to them and to President Obama for persevering.

In his speech on Sunday, President Obama reasserted a commonly heard refrain: that Bin Laden's death is a stroke of justice for those murdered in Al Qaeda's heinous attacks. We should ask ourselves if justice for those killed on Sept. 11 and in our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq can be achieved by a killing, or if it can even be achieved at all.

It pains me to see our idea of justice perverted into an expectation of reciprocal murder. Our ''revenge'' will never restore our dead to their loved ones, and it will never heal the suffering caused by their loss.

I hope that we will re-examine our commitment to those whom we've lost and find justice instead in combating hatred and violence wherever they are found. We owe it to the memory of our lost loved ones, and we owe it to ourselves

News of the death of Osama bin Laden is cause for great happiness and great pause. A man responsible for nearly 3,000 deaths has been killed. Justice has been served.

Yet the families and friends of the victims of 9/11, more so than others, will forever have to deal with the loss of the loving embrace of their loved ones. Therefore, they must 274 know that their struggle is ours, and even while we rejoice in this news, we do not forget their struggle. We are, as President Obama noted, ‘‘United as one American family.''

We need to congratulate and thank President Obama, the Central Intelligence Agency and particularly all the military people involved in the Navy Seal mission that finally meted out justice to Osama bin Laden.

Bin Laden's death brings some closure to the families and friends who were lost on 9/11, and, as former president George W. Bush stated, sends a clear message to all terrorist groups that the United States will not rest until all those involved in the 9/11 attacks are killed or brought to justice.

As we are joyful and thankful, we now need to be even more vigilant than ever. Those still running Al Qaeda and affiliated terrorist groups will surely seek revenge in order to establish Bin Laden as a martyr.

The other lesson from this episode is that Pakistan, our so-called ally, cannot be trusted. The Pakistani intelligence service must have known that Bin Laden was hiding in plain sight right near a military academy and did nothing whatsoever about it.

My 15-year-old son shook me awake after 11 p.m. on Sunday to tell me the news: ''Osama bin Laden is dead!'' This same boy barely remembers the 9/11 attacks, but still grasped the significance of Bin Laden's death.

Ground zero is our backyard, and we talk often about that awful shimmering day, and all that it has wrought for America. Knowing that the man who caused such suffering is dead brings both solace and melancholy, but most of all a sense of relief.

4-(New York Times, Editorial, entitled, Bad Bargains, dated, 11-05-2011)

Osama bin Laden was living in a specially built villa in Pakistan. I wonder where he got the money to buy it. Cashed in his Saudi 401(k)? A Pakistani subprime mortgage, perhaps? No. I suspect we will find that it all came from the same place most of Al Qaeda's funds come from: some combination of private Saudi donations spent under the watchful eye of the Pakistani Army. 275

Why should we care? Because this is the heart of the matter; that's why. It was both just and strategically vital that we killed Bin Laden, who inspired 9/11. I just wish it were as easy to eliminate the two bad bargains that really made that attack possible, funded it and provided the key plotters and foot soldiers who carried it out. We are talking about the ruling bargains in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, which are alive and well.

The Pakistani ruling bargain is set by the Pakistani Army and says: ''We let you civilians pretend to rule, but we will actually call all the key shots, we will consume nearly 25 percent of the state budget and we will justify all of this as necessary for Pakistan to confront its real security challenge: India and its occupation of Kashmir. Looking for Bin Laden became a side-business for Pakistan's military to generate U.S. aid.

As the Al Qaeda expert Lawrence Wright observed in The New Yorker this week: Pakistan's Army and intelligence service ''were in the looking-for-Bin-Laden business, and if they found him they'd be out of business.'' Since 9/11, Wright added, ''the U.S. had given $11 billion to Pakistan, the bulk of it in military aid, much of which was misappropriated to buy weapons to defend against India.''

5-(New York Times, Editorial, entitled, Demanding Answer from Pakistan, dated, 12-05- 2011)

While the killing of Bin Laden was an important success, a greater achievement would be to transform United States-Pakistani relations into a true partnership that fights terrorism, advances a reasonable Afghan settlement and helps stabilize the region.

6-(New York Times, Editorial, entitled, Pakistan after Bin Laden: The killing shows why the U.S. can't trust Pakistan, and why it can't just walk away, dated, 14-05-2011)

There are many more extremists hiding in Pakistan. While Pakistani leaders publicly rail against American drone strikes, they privately tolerate them. Washington needs Islamabad's cooperation to supply troops in Afghanistan. The best hope for getting out of Afghanistan is some political deal with the Taliban. Pakistan can help facilitate such a deal or undermine it.

276

President Obama needs to leverage this moment. Many Pakistanis are furious about the raid on their territory. Parliament held an unusual session on Friday, demanding answers from the spy chief who accused Washington of conducting a ''sting operation on us.'' But many are also outraged by the fact that Bin Laden managed to hide in their country for so long. ''Could the self-appointed custodians of the national interest themselves be the greatest threat to national security?'' wrote Cyril Almeida of the Dawn newspaper. The television journalist Kamran Khan declared, ''We have become the biggest haven of terrorism in the world.''

7-(New York Times, Editorial, entitled, What Holbrooke Knew, dated, 15-05-2011)

At this time, with Pakistan relations in a crisis and Afghanistan under review, our country could use a dose of his wisdom.

Holbrooke opposed the military ''surge'' in Afghanistan and would see the demise of Bin Laden as an opportunity to go into diplomatic overdrive. He believed strongly that the only way out of the mess in Afghanistan was a peace deal with the Taliban, and his team was secretly engaged in outreach to figures linked to the Taliban, Marton says.

''Reconciliation -- that was what he was working toward in Afghanistan, and building up the civilian and political side that had been swamped by the military,'' Marton recalled. ''The whole policy was off-kilter, way too militarized. Richard never thought that this war could be won on the battlefield.''

Nasr says that Holbrooke's aim for Afghanistan was ''not cut-and-run, but a viable, lasting solution'' to end the civil war there. If Holbrooke were still alive, Nasr says, he would be shuttling frantically between Islamabad and Kabul, trying to take advantage of Bin Laden's killing to lay the groundwork for a peace process.

As for Pakistan, Holbrooke told me and others that because of its size and nuclear weaponry, it was center stage; Afghanistan was a sideshow.

''A stable Afghanistan is not essential; a stable Pakistan is essential,'' he noted, in the musings he left behind. He believed that a crucial step to reducing radicalism in Pakistan

277 was to ease the Kashmir dispute with India, and he favored more pressure on India to achieve that.

Holbrooke was frustrated by Islamabad's duplicity. But he also realized that Pakistan sheltered the Afghan Taliban because it distrusted the United States, particularly after the United States walked away in 1989 after the Soviet pullout from Afghanistan. And renewed threats of abandonment won't build trust.

Rather, Holbrooke poured his soul into building a relationship not only with Pakistani generals but also with the Pakistani people, and there were modest dividends. He helped improve C.I.A. access to Pakistan, which may have helped with the raid on the Bin Laden compound. And he soothed opposition to drone attacks, Nasr noted.

''He was treating them as a serious player, not as if you're just having a one-night stand but as if there might actually be marriage at the end of the relationship,'' Marton said.

It's a vision of painstaking diplomacy toward a strategic goal -- peace -- and it's what we need more of. President Obama said wonderful things at the memorial service for Holbrooke. But the best tribute would be to listen to his advice.

8-(New York Times, Editorial, entitled, Patience, Not Punishment, for Pakistan, dated, 16-05-2011)

Osama bin Laden was living less than a mile from Pakistan's national military academy has raised serious questions about the efficacy of Pakistan's military and intelligence services and brought into sharp focus the weakness of the Pakistani state.

Washington cannot separate its military relationship with Pakistan from its political relationship: America needs Pakistan's cooperation to permit the smooth withdrawal of the majority of American troops from Afghanistan before 2012, while the Obama administration must disentangle itself from the Afghan war to help ensure the president's re-election. And there can be no peace in Afghanistan without a modicum of Pakistani assistance.

278

9-(New York Times, Editorial, entitled, Can Russia Help Us Withdraw from Afghanistan? dated, 02-12-2011)

America’s relations with Pakistan have been steadily deteriorating ever since a Navy Seals team killed Osama bin Laden near Islamabad in May. Matters became still worse in September, when Adm. Mike Mullen, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, accused Pakistan's intelligence agency of supporting an attack on the American Embassy in Kabul. And on Saturday, the relationship hit a new low when a NATO airstrike mistakenly killed two dozen Pakistani soldiers, and Pakistan retaliated by shutting down supply routes to Afghanistan that crossed its territory.

10-(New York Times, Editorial, entitled, how Pakistan Lets Terrorism Fester, dated, 11- 05-2012)

On the anniversary of Osama bin Laden's death last week, Pakistan was the only Muslim country in which hundreds of demonstrators gathered to show solidarity with the dead terrorist figurehead.

We still don't know who enabled Bin Laden to live freely in Pakistan. Documents found on computers in his compound offer no direct evidence of support from Pakistan's government, army or intelligence services. But even if Bin Laden relied on a private support network, our courts should be focused on identifying, arresting and prosecuting the individuals who helped him. Unfortunately, their priorities seem to lie elsewhere.

In Pakistan, most of the debate about Bin Laden has centered on how and why America violated Pakistan's sovereignty by unilaterally carrying out an operation to kill him. There has been little discussion about whether the presence of the world's most-wanted terrorist in a garrison town filled with army officers was itself a threat to the sovereignty and security of Pakistan.

Pakistanis are right to see themselves as victims of terrorism and to be offended by American unilateralism in dealing with it. Last year alone, 4,447 people were killed in 476 major terrorist attacks. Over the last decade, thousands of soldiers and law

279 enforcement officers have died fighting terrorists -- both home grown, and those inspired by Al Qaeda's nihilist ideology.

Afghanistan as a factor between Pak-US relations

1-(Washington Post, Editorial, entitled, In Defense of Hamid Karzai, dated, 17-02-2008)

Afghanistan faces huge challenges, not least because Pakistan's creeping invasion continues. The last thing Afghanistan needs at this critical juncture is to be distracted by an anti-Karzai campaign mounted by foreign visitors.

2-(Washington Post, Editorial, entitled, You’ve Got to Execute, dated, 19-04-2009)

When Obama finished announcing his Afghanistan-Pakistan policy, he returned to the advisors gathered behind him and said “Okay, now you have got to execute”.

3-(Washington Post, Editorial, entitled, A crises out of Reach? dated, 04-05-2009)

The administration began by treating Pakistan as an adjunct to its strategy for Afghanistan, because Pakistan's western tribal territories serve as bases for the Afghan Taliban and al-Qaeda. Yet in the past month Pakistan suddenly has seemed to tip toward collapse as the Taliban rapidly expanded toward Islamabad while the country's army and weak civilian government dithered

4-(Washington Post, Editorial, entitled, Too big to fail? 13-12-2009)

In Pakistan, a weak and unsavory civilian president, Asif Ali Zardari, seems with U.S. help to be prodding his duplicitous military to abandon its complicity with al-Qaeda and the Taliban and fight them as an existential threat to Pakistan and Afghanistan.

5-(Washington Post, Editorial, entitled, why the US must talk to the Taliban, dated, 17- 03-2010)

Afghanistan and its neighbors are convinced, despite President Obama's references to a gradual withdrawal, that U.S. and NATO forces will begin a total pullout next summer.

280

The United States and NATO have said they support "reintegrating" low-level Taliban adherents with the Kabul government, but the Obama administration has not decided about the main demand of Afghan President Hamid Karzai: talking to the Taliban leadership. NATO countries, whose populations increasingly oppose the war in Afghanistan, have already publicly supported this move.

Yet Pakistan's military clearly wants a role in shaping Afghanistan. Islamabad had given the Taliban leadership sanctuary since 2001, but in recent weeks the military has arrested several key Taliban leaders who went around the generals and the intelligence service and were using Saudi Arabia as an intermediary to talk to Kabul. Still left alone, however, are Taliban hard-liners who could promote Pakistan's security needs in future dialogues with Kabul?

The Obama administration must start asserting major diplomatic pressure to ease regional tensions. It needs all of Afghanistan's neighbors to agree on a common position of non- interference.

The longer the United States and NATO delay about whether to talk to the Taliban, the greater the turmoil will be in and around Afghanistan. Risks of a wider conflict will grow, an opening that al-Qaeda and other extremist groups will press.

6-(Washington Post, Editorial, entitled, Stalled help for Pakistan; Congress's damaging impasse on tariff reduction, dated, 26-07-2010)

If Afghanistan and Pakistan are vital to national security -- and they are -- there is no excuse for the continued wrangling. The fact is that both sides have a point. We don't want to set up American-sponsored sweatshops where we are trying to win hearts and minds, and flexible standards could help prevent that. But it seems a bit surreal to be planning against exploitation on an impoverished frontier where any job is better than none at all. Mr. Van Hollen has said that he is open to compromise, but it will probably take a strong Obama administration push with the rest of the House Democrats to reassure Mr. Grassley. This bill needs to pass.

281

7-(Washington Post, Editorial, entitled, the real cause of Senate gridlock, dated, 19-07- 2010)

Pakistan and Afghanistan to protect internationally recognized worker rights, including the rights of association and collective bargaining, without unrealistic requirements that would only repel investors and undermine the program's potential success. The administration should embrace the Cantwell bill, push the House to recede on its approach and so take on labor union leadership.

Without that move, creating jobs in Pakistan and Afghanistan takes a back seat to union politics.

8-(Washington Post, Editorial, entitled, Upping the antein, dated, 20-04-2011)

There's new momentum from Afghanistan and Pakistan as well. Pakistani Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gillani visited Kabul last weekend to meet with President Hamid Karzai. They upgraded plans for a "joint peace commission" that, crucially, will include Gen. Ashfaq Kayani and Lt. Gen. Ahmed Shuja Pasha, the chiefs of Pakistan's army and intelligence agency, respectively, who accompanied Gillani to Kabul. The message is that Pakistan wants to help broker a peace deal, now.

9-(Washington Post, Editorial, entitled, Bridging the U.S.-Pakistan Afghan divide, dated, 15-06-2012)

Afghanistan's future matters much more to Pakistan than to the United States. This elemental truth is forgotten in U.S. deliberations about how best to leverage Pakistan to achieve a political settlement in Afghanistan. Pakistani military and intelligence services have demonstrated that they are willing to risk ties with Washington to achieve a friendly government on their western border - a government that most Afghans and Washington would oppose. This is the central roadblock to U.S.-Pakistani relations and to a stable Afghanistan.

Pakistan's leaders will continue to seek U.S. assistance even as they tirelessly pursue a government in Kabul that, after most U.S. troops withdraw in 2014, will be friendlier to

282 them than to India. If the Pakistanis fail to ensure this negotiated outcome, they will employ allies to upend an Afghan government that they deem unfriendly.

Pakistan has a poor track record of controlling its proxies in Afghanistan, but its proxies are considered better than the alternatives. Pakistani military and intelligence services are holding a losing hand that they cannot lay down, while Washington's cards grow weaker with time.

10-(Washington Post, Editorial, entitled, calling terrorists, dated, 05-09-2012)

The Pakistan-based Haqqani network has launched attacks against the U.S. Embassy in Kabul and the nearby headquarters of the U.S.-led military coalition. It bombed India's embassy and staged multiple assaults against hotels known for hosting U.S. nationals. It tried to assassinate Afghan President Hamid Karzai. It has close ties with al-Qaeda. As recently as Saturday, it detonated a truck bomb near a bazaar outside a U.S. base, killing at least a dozen civilians and wounding scores more.

The Obama administration is nevertheless having trouble deciding whether the Haqqani group should be designated as a foreign terrorist organization under State Department guidelines, which would pave the way for tough financial sanctions. That an internal debate reportedly goes on just days before a congressionally mandated Sept. 9 deadline for a decision is another reflection of the incoherence of U.S. policy toward both Afghanistan and Pakistan.

11-(Washington Post, Editorial, entitled, Drone strikes vs. diplomacy, dated, 07-09-2012)

Pakistan that led to the reopening of vital U.S. military supply lines into Afghanistan and a prisoner exchange agreement. There also is a concern that the designation could hinder a possible settlement with the Taliban.

12-(Washington Post, Editorial, entitled, the price of abandoning Afghanistan, dated, 02- 11-2012)

Consider also that the impending U.S. withdrawal provides little incentive for Pakistan's military to revisit its ambitions in Afghanistan. Although the Taliban increasingly 283 threaten Pakistan, the Pakistani military and intelligence services continue to make distinctions among groups of Taliban and jihadis and considers some of them strategic allies. Pakistan is still clinging to hopes of greater influence over Afghanistan with the help of various Taliban factions after the withdrawal.

13-(Washington Post, Editorial, entitled, what we'll need in Afghanistan, dated, 25-11- 2012)

The principal terrorist concentrations in South Asia are in Pakistan's federally administered tribal areas. Al-Qaeda and affiliated groups have sought safety in Afghanistan primarily in Konar and Nuristan provinces. U.S. forces could target terrorists without maintaining a ground presence in three ways: using armed Predator drones, special mission units or precision-guided munitions dropped from manned aircraft. Without bases in Afghanistan, the tyranny of distance rules out the first two options; the requirement for accuracy and certainty rules out the last.

Afghanistan as a factor between Pak-US relations

1-(New York Times, Editorial, entitled, Afghanistan. Pakistan. Forgotten, dated, 02-03- 2008)

The next president will have to rally America and the world to ''fight them over there unless we want to fight them over here.'' The ''over there'' is not, as President Bush has claimed, Iraq, but rather the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Afghanistan's fate is directly tied to Pakistan's future and America's security. When President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan concluded that we were not serious about finishing the job in Afghanistan, he began to cut deals with extremists in his own country.

2-(New York Times, Editorial, entitled, 'Running out of Time', dated, 22-9-2008)

President Bush's decision to authorize Special Operations forces in Afghanistan to go after militants in Pakistan's lawless border region was a desperation move. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, admitted earlier this month that America and its allies were ''running out of time'' to save Afghanistan. 284

The Pentagon also needs to quickly come up with a better strategy in Afghanistan. Commanders warn that Mr. Bush's promise to send 4,500 additional troops falls far short. We fear that Admiral Mullen is right: there isn't much time left -- on either side of the border.

3-(New York Times, Editorial, entitled, the most dangerous job on earth, dated, 29-9- 2008)

But money is worthless, as the seven years since 9/11 have demonstrated, unless some basic things change. One is the double game played by Pakistan's spy agency, the Inter- Services Intelligence (I.S.I.), in an apparent effort to ensure Afghanistan remains weak.

4-(New York Times, Editorial, entitled, a wartime presidency, on two fronts, dated, 23- 11-2008)

The war on terrorism by focusing on winning the war in Afghanistan and eliminating Al Qaeda's and the Taliban's sanctuary in Pakistan. He recognizes that these two countries have become the center of Al Qaeda's activities and of the violent Islamist extremism that challenges the real values of Islam.

On Jan. 20, he will take over at a pivotal point in negotiating Iraq's status of force agreement with the United States, in the middle of a winter military campaign in Afghanistan, and during a political, security and economic crisis in Pakistan. None of these issues will wait for America to deal with its financial problems. And no one involved believes that the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan's northern territories can be fully won, or even transferred to Afghan and Pakistani hands, by even the end of President Obama's first term. For at least the next two to three years, the war will intensify, and virtually all of the additional burden will be borne by the United States.

5-(New York Times, Editorial, entitled, Focusing on Afghanistan and Pakistan, dated, 31- 03-2009)

285

The president clearly understands that the greatest threat to our nation resides in Pakistan, the strategy he unveiled last week has the potential to escalate rather than diminish this threat.

While the Obama administration's plan and rhetoric recognize the vital need to confront this threat, the decision to send 21,000 additional troops to Afghanistan before fully confronting the terrorist safe havens and instability in Pakistan could very well prove counterproductive.

6-(New York Times, Editorial, entitled, Obama's Logic Is No Match for Afghanistan, dated, 06-12-2009)

''Along its border,'' of course, means across the border -- a k a Pakistan. Obama never satisfactorily argued why more troops in Afghanistan, where his own administration puts the number of Qaeda operatives at roughly 100, will help vanquish the far more substantial terrorist strongholds in Pakistan. But even if he had made that case and made it strongly, a larger issue remains: If the enemy in Afghanistan, whether Taliban or Qaeda, poses the same existential threat to America today that it did on 9/11, why is the president settling for half-measures?

7-(New York Times, Editorial, entitled, the state of the war, dated, 13-08-2010)

We believe that the United States has a powerful national interest in Afghanistan, in depriving Al Qaeda of a safe haven on either side of the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. This country would also do enormous damage to its moral and strategic standing if it now simply abandoned the Afghan people to the Taliban's brutalities.

8-(New York Times, Editorial, entitled, states of Conflict: a final update, dated, 19-12- 2011) Pakistan has seen some slight political progress since the military dictatorship ended in 2008. And the rise of the Pakistani Taliban appears to have been checked by the Pakistani Army. But extremist violence and assassinations continue, and civilian control of the country is weak. A recession -- set off by the financial crisis in the United States -- has set back the country's economic trajectory. And elements in the government and

286 security service appear to be playing a double, if not triple, game in Afghanistan. The United States has less and less confidence that Pakistan can be viewed as an ally.

9-(New York Times, Editorial, entitled, Invitation to a Dialogue: Afghan-Pakistan Woes, dated, 31-10-2012)

The deterioration of the situation in Afghanistan has been the inevitable result of America's continuation of the very dynamic that led to the Sept. 11 attacks -- hefty, decades-long military assistance to Pakistan, which it used to incite proxy militants to crush socioeconomic reform at home and commit aggression against its neighbors.

10-(New York Times, Editorial, entitled, Sunday Dialogue: Pakistan-Afghan Options, dated, 04-11-2012)

The possibility of victory was in fact precluded when both the Bush and Obama administrations made it dependent on the support of Pakistan, which, as you put it so well, ''supports jihad in Afghanistan, Kashmir and Indian cities'' -- and has been doing so for over 40 years.

In this historical perspective, your call for a precipitous withdrawal from Afghanistan is quite simply a forfeiting of the game to Pakistan. Why should the Afghan people have to pay for the United States' insistence, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that Pakistan is an ally when it is in fact an enemy? And how will the American people emerge more secure if we leave behind the Pakistani-fostered jihadist safe havens that inflicted such agony on our nation?

Terrorism in our region and around the world is not financed through American military assistance, as alleged by Mr. Cappelli. Terrorism is financed by the unrestricted production and sale of illegal drugs.

Pakistan wants nothing more than a stable, peaceful and economically viable Afghanistan. These goals will be achieved only through Afghanistan's transition to a real and functioning democracy. Pakistan is committed to helping Afghans realize this goal.

287

US Aid to Pakistan

1-(Washington post, Editorial, entitled, Sunday Dialogue: Try ‘Pakistan First’, dated, 27- 04-2008)

"The basic failure in priorities" in Bush's war on terrorism lies "in the fact that our monthly investment in Iraq is $10 billion a month and $2 billion a month in Afghanistan," writes David Abshire, a GOP elder statesman, in "A Call to Greatness," a new book intended to set the agenda for the next presidency. When a Republican White House loses a seasoned foreign policy thinker such as Abshire on a key issue, it has big problems.

2-(Washington post, Editorial, entitled, In Pakistan, Intolerance That Feeds Extremism, dated, 14-08-2008)

When Pakistan condones the persecution of Ahmadis, it emboldens extremists, who are just as active in Punjab and Sindh as in the North-West Frontier Province and the Federally Administered Tribal Areas.

Increasing U.S. aid without guaranteeing religious freedom will not prevent extremists from controlling Pakistan's national agenda.

Too much is at stake concerning U.S. interests and Pakistan's stability for this problem to be side-stepped.

3-(Washington post, Editorial, entitled, Pakistan's Critical Hour, dated, 05-05-2009)

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has asked Congress for $497 million in emergency funds to stabilize Pakistan's economy, strengthen law enforcement and help the refugees. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has asked for $400 million in aid to the army, funds that would be monitored by U.S. Central Command.

But delays are dangerous. Congress should authorize these funds quickly, giving the Obama administration tools to convince the Pakistani people that it is standing behind them. Immediate aid, and providing U.S. helicopters for the army's use, would shore up

288

Pakistanis' resolve and could help persuade the army to accept the counterinsurgency training the United States has offered for the past year (but which has been refused because of the army's focus on India).

Other legislation before Congress would provide $1.5 billion a year to Pakistan for the next five years. But the extensive conditions -- as varied as improving relations with India, fighting the Afghan Taliban and allowing the U.S. interrogation of Pakistani nuclear scientists -- are too much for any Pakistani government to accept and survive politically.

Pakistan is deteriorating. Congress should pass the emergency funds quickly and, at minimum, offer the first year of the $1.5 billion without conditions to foster stability between the two sides at this critical juncture and ensure that the powerful right wing here has no excuse to once again decry U.S. aid as politically motivated. At the least, U.S. lawmakers should stipulate that aid for Pakistani and Western aid agencies involved in development, particularly agriculture, education and job creation, should not be conditioned.

4-(Washington post, Editorial, entitled, A Better Bargain for Aid to Pakistan, dated, 30- 05-2009)

Faced with a Taliban offensive and the threat of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal falling into jihadists' hands, the United States is proposing to spend an additional $1.5 billion each year until 2013 on civilian aid programs and to increase funding for Pakistan's security forces. Last month in Tokyo, international donors pledged $4 billion to help Pakistan.

U.S. officials and the public want to know whether these massive sums will be spent wisely. "We've sent money in the past," House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Howard Berman (D-Calif.) told an interviewer this month. "It has been stolen."

5-(Washington post, Editorial, entitled, a chance to build trust in Pakistan, dated, 12-08- 2010)

289

U.S. action to support Pakistan's relief efforts may help improve America's image among a population that generally resents the United States. Washington's $55 million aid pledge makes it the largest donor among the international community. U.S. Chinooks -- seen as angels of mercy after the 2005 earthquake -- are helping Pakistanis over flood-ravaged mountains and plains, and represent both U.S. ability to help Pakistanis and the Pakistani military's willingness to work with its U.S. counterparts. This collaboration will go a long way toward building relationships among rank-and-file service members. The head of Pakistan’s air force is visiting the United States this week to see joint air exercises in Nevada. Such encounters will educate people and help both countries dispel false notions about each other.

6-(Washington post, Editorial, entitled, Flooded; A tragedy of unimaginable proportion in Pakistan demands an international response, dated, 17-08-2010)

Of the $460 million requested by the United Nations for initial aid, about half has been given. And time is of the essence. Nearly 8 percent of the population has been displaced, and the monsoon season is not over.

"Waves of flood must be met with waves of support from the world," Mr. Ban said after his tour. Already, the United States has provided $76 million in aid, which includes dispatching helicopters to help with food drops and offering food vouchers. But much more is needed to help the displaced, prevent the spread of disease and rebuild the ravaged areas after the monsoon season ends.

7-(Washington post, Editorial, entitled, enough to make you weep, dated, 18-08-2010)

You could read about 20 million homeless flood victims in Pakistan. Then, only a few pages away, you could read about people lined up down the block to pay $29 for a dozen cupcakes.

8-(Washington post, Editorial, entitled, the case for aiding flooded Pakistan, dated, 29- 08-2010)

290

The Obama administration has made a good start on flood relief. The U.S. government has contributed $90 million in disaster assistance, nearly triple the amount from the next- largest donor, according to U.N. figures. The United States also has a Marine force stationed offshore, to help with relief and military contingencies should the country veer toward chaos.

But U.S. private assistance has been modest so far. You can contribute to U.N. relief efforts with a text message (text "SWAT" to 50555), but a U.N. spokesman says this appeal has produced only about $100,000 in U.S. private donations. A similar text- contribution effort by the Red Cross has raised only $10,000 for Pakistan, compared with $32 million harvested for Haiti in a similar campaign, the Atlantic's Web site reports.

Yes, I know that Haiti is close to our shores, but even so, the disparity in aid is striking: The United Nations says that it has received $11.2 million in U.S. private aid for Pakistan, which is dwarfed by the $211 million that Americans donated to U.N. relief for Haiti. Overall donations to Haiti were a stupendous $2.5 billion, so much money that relief agencies have had difficulty spending it effectively.

9-(Washington post, Editorial, entitled, In Pakistan, a flood of aid and mistrust, dated, 06- 09-2010)

With international financial institutions and the U.S. government assembling at least $3 billion to help rebuild Pakistan's devastated infrastructure, it is time for our kleptomaniac rulers to get their act together and make efforts to restore withering public trust.

The Obama administration has done sterling work in its contributions and in prompting the international community to do more. Now, it should help Pakistan plan for the future. Sen. John Kerry has noted that "by helping Pakistan do it right, the U.S. can have a positive and lasting impact." First and foremost, Pakistanis need to know how the aid is going to be spent.

10-(Washington post, Editorial, entitled, Pakistan's flood-relief plan, dated, 12-09-2010)

291

The floods have affected more people -- 20 million -- than were affected by the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, Hurricane Katrina and the earthquake in Haiti combined. The cost of rehabilitation and rebuilding could exceed $15 billion.

11-(Washington post, Editorial, entitled, Squeezing Pakistan, dated, 12-07-2011)

Confirming a report in the New York Times, White House Chief of Staff William M. Daley said in a television interview Sunday: "Until we get through these difficulties, we'll hold back some of the money that the American taxpayers have committed to give." Some $800 million - out of $4.5 billion in annual aid - appears to be at stake, including reimbursements for Pakistani military operations against the Taliban and other insurgents in its tribal territories.

The administration seems to be calculating that further aid to Pakistan will be wasted - and impossible to justify to Congress - unless it can be seen to get results. Yet its practice of making its demands in public raises questions. Anti-American sentiment is already running high in Pakistan, and leaders who favor cooperation with the United States are under siege. Announcing that funds will be held back "unless and until we see certain steps taken," as Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton put it in congressional testimony last month, may only intensify the resistance.

US Aid to Pakistan

1-(New York Times, Editorial, entitled, Terror Creeps into the Heartland, dated, 23-07- 2009)

Unfortunately, the United States has acted in ways that have often empowered the militants. We have lavished more than $11 billion on Pakistan since 9/11, mostly supporting the Pakistani Army. Yet that sum has bought Pakistan no security and we no good will.

In that same poll, 59 percent of Pakistanis said that they share many of Al Qaeda's attitudes toward the United States, and almost half of those said that they support Al Qaeda attacks on Americans.

292

2-(New York Times, Editorial, entitled, Providing Aid to Pakistan: A View from Capitol Hill, dated, 19-08-2009)

American taxpayer dollars for military assistance to Pakistan are spent on items that will help combat Al Qaeda, the Taliban and other terrorist groups, as opposed to equipment that could fuel an arms race in South Asia.

2-(New York Times, Editorial, entitled, Rage and Floods in Pakistan, dated, 04-08-2010)

Washington has pledged more than $10 million in relief aid. The government says that more than 300,000 meals prepared according to Islamic tradition have been delivered to Pakistani officials for the relief effort. American helicopters directed by Pakistan's Interior Ministry have rescued more than 700 people and transported nearly 12,000 pounds of provisions to flood victims.

3-(New York Times, Editorial, entitled, Pakistan's Unfolding Disaster: An Urgent Call for Aid, dated, 18-08-2010)

Washington is doing better than other donors, providing badly needed helicopters for rescue and supply missions, prefabricated bridges and more than $70 million in relief and resettlement funds. It should be rallying other countries, as well as private organizations and individuals, to do their fair share. But surely this country, as the richest donor with the greatest strategic interest in Pakistan, could do a lot more right now.

4-(New York Times, Editorial, entitled, Some Help for Pakistan, dated, 21-08-2010)

Pakistan needs more help now and will need much more in the weeks and months ahead. This week the world -- finally -- began waking up to the devastation wrought by monsoon flooding that has already affected 20 million people.

The United States and the United Nations deserve credit for raising the alarm and twisting arms. At a special General Assembly session Thursday, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton pledged to increase American aid by $60 million, to $150 million, and she pressed other nations to do their share. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon announced that donors had so far contributed $230 million, or about 60 percent of the 293

United Nations' appeal for disaster relief -- up from less than 50 percent a few days earlier.

5-(New York Times, Editorial, entitled, A Plea to Aid Pakistan, dated, 28-08-2010)

Pakistan needs our help because its people are suffering. We are interconnected, and our shared dignity rests on how we treat our fellow human beings.

6-(New York Times, Editorial, entitled, A Girl, a School and Hope, dated, 11-11-2010)

The United States has provided $18 billion to Pakistan in aid since 9/11, yet Pakistan's government shelters the Afghan Taliban as it kills American soldiers and drains the American Treasury. Meanwhile, only 8 percent of Pakistanis have confidence in President Obama, according to the Pew Research Center. That's not even half as many as express confidence in bin Laden.

7-(New York Times, Editorial, entitled, U.S. Aid to Pakistan, dated, 18-11-2010)

Our Access English micro scholarships program provides English-language instruction -- and a chance for a better future -- to more than 5,000 economically disadvantaged Pakistani students every year. In higher education, we are investing some $20 million a year in Fulbright scholarships to bring Pakistani students to colleges and universities in the United States. Our Access and Fulbright programs in Pakistan are the largest in the world.

The Kerry-Lugar legislation, which authorizes $7.5 billion in assistance over the next five years, represents our unmistakable commitment to engagement and partnership with the Pakistani people. We are hard at work every day providing just the kind of hope and opportunity that, as Mr. Kristof so cogently argues, is the best antidote to the hateful and violent ideology of Osama bin Laden and his ilk.

8-(New York Times, Editorial, entitled, the $110 Billion Question, dated, 06-03-2011)

294

What are we doing spending $110 billion this year supporting corrupt and unpopular regimes in Afghanistan and Pakistan that are almost identical to the governments we're applauding the Arab people for overthrowing?

Transparency International rated the regime of President Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan as the second most corrupt in the world after Somalia's. That is the Afghan regime we will spend more than $110 billion in 2011 to support.

9-(New York Times, Editorial, entitled, Set Preconditions for American Aid to Pakistan, dated, 05-08-2011)

When we are facing a debt crisis here at home, we can ill afford to continue funneling $2 billion a year in military assistance to a country that provides refuge and support to militant groups attacking American soldiers in the region, and fails to protect the fundamental human rights of its oppressed minorities, including Hindus, Christians and Ahmadis.

Unfortunately, even civilian aid to Pakistan is misused, including money intended for the education system, which ends up financing government textbooks and curriculums that promote hatred toward religious minorities and the West.

Therefore, any appropriations for Pakistan, whether military or civilian, must be subject to strict preconditions, and the Pakistani government and military must be held accountable for their actions.

295