From: seeta@eng.wayne.edu (Seetamraju UdayaBhaskar Sarma)
Subject: Re: US && Pakistan (was (Re: Surprising news (
Reply-To: seeta@eng.wayne.edu
Organization: College of Engineering, Wayne State University, Detroit Michigan, USA
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 03:24:24 GMT



Interesting article included below.  It was quite extensive in its review
of all fcaets of the sub-continent -- US relationship.

But I disagree with the comment that the reasons given (below) were the
the prime movers for the US decision (if its real!)...

The US decision is simply based on the following logic...

1	Pakistan very very likely has the bomb (CIA might be sure, but CIA
	cant be relied in such critical matters).
	
2	Pakistan is not just majority sunni, it SHALL BE sunni-ruled FOR ALL
	time to come...  And hence its closeness to saudi arabia is too
	much to handle...
	
3	A pakistani bomb (many an analyst has said this, ad nauseum) is also
	a saudi bomb...

Given the propensity of ISLAMIC govts to cause ``headaches measuring 10 on
the richter scale'' for the west, pakistan's time was bound to come...

The cold war logic was this : an unreliable islamic country on our side
is much better than a guaranteed enemy islamic country :...  Hence
pakistan had MMM-MFN status...

Now, the reaons given below by (XYZ) have only hastened the `decision' a bit,
but it would have come, even if India was a communist country (provided india
maintained a sort of aloofness in general world politics)...

THat's all I had to say...

Seetamraju Udaya Bhaskar Sarma
(email : seetam @ ece7 . eng . wayne . edu)

In article 1h847sINNlvu@overload.lbl.gov, prem@prem.lbl.gov (xyz) writes:
-+>
-+>In article <BzD6zE.Dux@news.fai.com>, balajiv@reno ( ) writes:
-+>|> [read this piece in MNS]
-+>|> 
-+>|> >          Washington Ready to Brand Pakistan a Terrorist State
-+>|> >
-+>|> > The United States government is seriously considering branding
-+>|> > pakistan a terrorist state, Western diplomats in Islamabad said
-+>|> > yesterday.
-+>|> --
-+>|> This is serious stuff. Does this mean romance between US and Pak is over?
-+>
-+>	Most analysts in New Delhi, Washington and Islamabad saw this coming.
-+>
-+>	The United States has been considerably embarrased by the support
-+>	extended by Pakistan to terrorists in India, particularly Kashmir and
-+>	Punjab. The US also viewed with concern, the emergence of Pakistan as
-+>	the world's largest heroin producer, after a successful campaign by the
-+>	DEA in Thailand. However, the main reasons for the US to stick by 
-+>	Pakistan were :	
-+>		1. The Soviet presence in Afghanistan
-+>		2. Moscow's relationship with New Delhi
-+>		3. India's continued pursuit of independent economic 
-+>		   and defence policy (a euphemism for anyone who does 
-+>		   not bend over backwards to satisfy Washington)
-+>
-+>	The end of the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan saw the first signs
-+>	of strain in Washington-Islamabad relations, with the US taking a
-+>	harsher stance on Pakistan's continued support of Khalistani terrorists 
-+>	and Kashmiri militants.
-+>
-+>	The collapse of the Soviet Union had far-reaching effects. In one 
-+>	stroke, the following changes came about :
-+>	    1. The US no longer needed Pakistan's support. It also did not 
-+>	       have any excuse for continuing to provide arms to Pakistan.
-+>	    2. India could no longer depend on Soviet support in foreign 
-+>	       affairs. This led to a considerable softening of India's 
-+>	       stand on several international issues. (To be fair to the
-+>	       foresight of the Indian Foreign Dept, this change in attitude 
-+>	       came about before the collapse of the USSR.)
-+>	    3. Simultaneously, the US needed an Asian ally with the potential
-+>	       to counter China, which was quickly seeping into the power 
-+>	       vacuum created by the end of the USSR.
-+>	    4. Market reforms in India also meant that the US corporations were
-+>	       interested in "investing" there, and it now was in the US' 
-+>	       interest (at least in the interests of major corporations) to
-+>	       provide a secure business atmosphere in India.
-+>	    5. With the end of India's cozy barter-trade arrangement with the
-+>	       USSR, India was again a major player in the international market 
-+>	       for military purchases. India was being wooed by many European
-+>	       suppliers (Dassault/Aerospatiale/Westland/Dornier), and the US 
-+>	       wanted a cut in the action. A chill in the relations with 
-+>	       Islamabad would set the right note to approach New Delhi.
-+>	
-+>	Evidence of Pakistan's support to terrorists was never a factor. The
-+>	US had evidence for years, but was not in a position to act upon this.
-+>	With the situation changing to the point where it became convenient
-+>	to use the evidence against Pakistan, the US suddenly opened the blind
-+>	eye (to mix a metaphor badly!). Now, of course, Pakistan will be made 
-+>	to look like the bad guy, being branded a terrorist state and all that, 
-+>	until events in South Asia make it convenient for the US to support 
-+>	them again.
-+>
-+>	With the reluctance of our "leaders" in India/Pakistan/Bangladesh to
-+>	learn from history, this cycle will continue until we realize that
-+>	we in the sub-continent have much more in common with each other than
-+>	we have with any of the superpowers. No matter what our national 
-+>	identity, we have the welfare of South Asians at heart; something that
-+>	you cannot expect from a superpower which is thousands of miles away.
-+>
-+>	This is not to say that India is now in an ideal position; it is only
-+>	that the current phase in world history makes India more attractive
-+>	than Pakistan to the US. This does not mean that the US will be sincere
-+>	to India for ever. It is crucial for us not to become dependent on the
-+>	US to the extent that they can dictate our policy. However, I am sure
-+>	there are people in New Delhi who will be only too eager to sell out
-+>	to US interests for an attractive price.
-+>
-+>	Prem!