Pakistan doesn't want material assistance from the US, Pakistan Army COAS to US Ambassador

[mmkextreme_1]

Pakistan does not want material or financial assistance from the US, but needs to be trusted and treated with respect, Chief of Army Staff (COAS) Gen Qamar Javed Bajwa told US Ambassador David Hale on Wednesday.

The two had a meeting at the army's General Headquarters in Rawalpindi, where Hale briefed Gen Bajwa on the US's new South Asia policy announced by President Donald Trump a day earlier, according to a statement issued by Inter-Services Public Relations ─ the military's media wing.

While announcing the new Afghan policy ─ which calls for greater troop deployment and Indian involvement in Afghanistan ─ Trump had lambasted Pakistan for offering for offering safe havens to “agents of chaos”.

“We can no longer be silent about Pakistan's safe havens for terrorist organisations,” the US president had said.

Responding to the invective, the army chief said: "We are not looking for any material or financial assistance from the US, but trust, understanding and [an] acknowledgement of our contributions."

According to the ISPR statement, the COAS highlighted the importance of peace in Afghanistan for Pakistan and highlighted the efforts made by Pakistan to that end.

The army chief added that such efforts were "not [meant] to appease anyone but [were taken] in line with [Pakistan's] national interest and policy," the ISPR statement said.

Gen Bajwa further said that collaboration between all stakeholders in the key to bringing the war in Afghanistan to its logical conclusion, the ISPR statement said.

Hale told the COAS that the US values Pakistan's role in the so-called "War against Terror" and seeks the country's cooperation in resolving the Afghan issue, the statement added.

A day earlier, the ambassador had similarly briefed Foreign Minister Khawaja Asif on Washington's new policy and statements made by Trump regarding Pakistan.

During the meeting, Asif had told the ambassador that Pakistan would continue to work with the international community to eliminate the menace of terrorism.

Source: https://www.dawn.com/news/1353431


<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr"><a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Pakistan?src=hash">#Pakistan</a> do not want material assistance from <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/US?src=hash">#US</a> but trust,understanding & acknowledgement of contributions says: COAS <a href="https://t.co/LUZLDQ0vth">pic.twitter.com/LUZLDQ0vth</a></p>— Govt of Pakistan (@pid_gov) <a href="https://twitter.com/pid_gov/status/900361908909256705">August 23, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[PakLFC]

As I said the American's have lost in Afghanistan. They don't have many options on the table left other then blame Pak. 5,000 or so more troops will make no difference in Afghanistan at all. Try 5 million at least. It is the Israeli lobby speaking behind Trump.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

What an awful statement. Pakistan would have been better off not responding at all.

 

[Yossarian]

What an awful statement. Pakistan would have been better off not responding at all.

Should have just said from now on, the US needs to pay cash up front for the transit fees plus Pakistani provided security and transport for the food, fuel, armaments and other supplies that are offloaded at Pakistani seaports and transported through Pakistan to the American forces in Afghanistan. That will clear up all this nonsense of 'US aid' to Pakistan. And oh, Pakistan should double, or triple, these transit fees.

 

[ExpressPacer]

Beyond me why the US fails to recognize that Pakistan weren't given any aid or charity but was instead PAID for the services we provided to the US strategically and physically.

 

[Yossarian]

Beyond me why the US fails to recognize that Pakistan weren't given any aid or charity but was instead PAID for the services we provided to the US strategically and physically.

One word, "Trump".

 

[ExpressPacer]

One word, "Trump".

You're right. I guess Trump really does reflect the average American citizen with his deficiencies in knowledge.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Beyond me why the US fails to recognize that Pakistan weren't given any aid or charity but was instead PAID for the services we provided to the US strategically and physically.

Because they don't need to. Seems Pakistan are happy enough to take the US crap and swallow it so why wouldn't the US politicians take advantage and get some diversionary propaganda out to their citizens? It's not just Trump either, this has been ongoing since the WOT was instigated. Pakistan is effectively a client state of the US, I guess this must be part of the deal for the army to stay in their good books.

 

[ExpressPacer]

Because they don't need to. Seems Pakistan are happy enough to take the US crap and swallow it so why wouldn't the US politicians take advantage and get some diversionary propaganda out to their citizens? It's not just Trump either, this has been ongoing since the WOT was instigated. Pakistan is effectively a client state of the US, I guess this must be part of the deal for the army to stay in their good books.

I suppose so but what infuriates me as a Pakistani citizen is the part where the US brings up the financial "aid" to Pakistan as it were some charity or a favor done to Pakistan.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

I suppose so but what infuriates me as a Pakistani citizen is the part where the US brings up the financial "aid" to Pakistan as it were some charity or a favor done to Pakistan.

Your fury doesn't matter since the "aid" message is meant for US citizens consumption. Seems like Pakistan is comfortable enough that these messages won't create any backlash at home since the majority of the public are probably illiterate.

 

[carbon11]

Well people are now sitting and waiting

Any air strikes in Pakistan or drone strikes anywhere in Pakistan or fata

You will see the anger brew against the Pakistan rulers including these generals


There is no excuse now for drone strike because Pakistan army is in every part of fata now


Any strikes now by USA or escalation will be a complete sovereignty rape , we might as well surrender our nukes and disband our army if they Can't protect the country.

 

[Varun]

Any strikes now by USA or escalation will be a complete sovereignty rape , we might as well surrender our nukes and disband our army if they Can't protect the country.

Between Pakistan and India, Pakistan had first mover advantage to pick an ally after 1947. And they picked the USA. Followed by Saudi Arabia. *shakes head*

The Soviet Union didn't come with half the baggage, if any at all, during their existence and relationship with India.

 

[Abdullah719]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">TRUST & RESPECT touched at peak of COAS Bajwa sb on statement about acknowledgement of efforts not &#55357;&#56496;required from America , &#55356;&#56821;&#55356;&#56816;zindabad</p>— Mohammad Hafeez (@MHafeez22) <a href="https://twitter.com/MHafeez22/status/900580552000098304">August 24, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[English August]

Pakistan is effectively a client state of the US, I guess this must be part of the deal for the army to stay in their good books.

I wouldn't call Pak a client state of the US. It is basically outsourcing its dirty war to Pak and paying it for the services rendered. US has no imperial designs on Pak and doesn't want to rule Pak. That credit in fact goes to China. It has converted Pak into a client state without a shot being fired. The Chinese are more clever than the Americans. Americans at least have to pay. Chinese don't even pay. They are making "investment" in the form of debt, not equity! So Pak has to carry a huge interest burden for all the CPEC projects and pay pre-fixed "above average" prices for things like electricity. Which means they are making Pak pay for making itself a client state. Over time Chinese troops will be stationed in Pak to "protect' its interests in CPEC and they will make Pak pay for it. This trick is as clever as what the East India Company did in undivided India in 1700s and 1800s. They made the local kings / nawabs pay for protection and slowly took over all levers of power. That's what being a client state means.

 

[hussain123]

I wouldn't call Pak a client state of the US. It is basically outsourcing its dirty war to Pak and paying it for the services rendered. US has no imperial designs on Pak and doesn't want to rule Pak. That credit in fact goes to China. It has converted Pak into a client state without a shot being fired. The Chinese are more clever than the Americans. Americans at least have to pay. Chinese don't even pay. They are making "investment" in the form of debt, not equity! So Pak has to carry a huge interest burden for all the CPEC projects and pay pre-fixed "above average" prices for things like electricity. Which means they are making Pak pay for making itself a client state. Over time Chinese troops will be stationed in Pak to "protect' its interests in CPEC and they will make Pak pay for it. This trick is as clever as what the East India Company did in undivided India in 1700s and 1800s. They made the local kings / nawabs pay for protection and slowly took over all levers of power. That's what being a client state means.

Why do you see cpec as a colonial blueprint??pakistan if you go back in history has played a key role in normalising relations btw china and US.unlike the basket case countries pakistan's unique strategic location gives it a lot of leverage to join a side of its picking.it would suicidal for china to lose a nuclear armed muslim power for an utopian colonial project.it makes no sense.waht china is doing now is strengthening pakistan militarily and economically so india always remain ambigious on its distribution and employment of military resources against pak and China.that is its obejective.

 

[hussain123]

What an awful statement. Pakistan would have been better off not responding at all.

This.there is no need to panic.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

I wouldn't call Pak a client state of the US. It is basically outsourcing its dirty war to Pak and paying it for the services rendered. US has no imperial designs on Pak and doesn't want to rule Pak. That credit in fact goes to China. It has converted Pak into a client state without a shot being fired. The Chinese are more clever than the Americans. Americans at least have to pay. Chinese don't even pay. They are making "investment" in the form of debt, not equity! So Pak has to carry a huge interest burden for all the CPEC projects and pay pre-fixed "above average" prices for things like electricity. Which means they are making Pak pay for making itself a client state. Over time Chinese troops will be stationed in Pak to "protect' its interests in CPEC and they will make Pak pay for it. This trick is as clever as what the East India Company did in undivided India in 1700s and 1800s. They made the local kings / nawabs pay for protection and slowly took over all levers of power. That's what being a client state means.

I don't really want to go off on a tangent, because this topic isn't really about China, but if all that was true, how badly does that paint India? Total fail if China managed to pull in Pakistan on such poor terms while India is sat twiddling it's thumbs or fiddling in Afghanistan instead despite all the cultural and proximity advantages.

 

[English August]

I don't really want to go off on a tangent, because this topic isn't really about China, but if all that was true, how badly does that paint India? Total fail if China managed to pull in Pakistan on such poor terms while India is sat twiddling it's thumbs or fiddling in Afghanistan instead despite all the cultural and proximity advantages.

No idea what you're talking about. India has no role to play between Pak and China. It's well known that Ind and Pak are sworn enemies despite being allegedly culturally similar. Remember partition?

 

[troodon]

I don't really want to go off on a tangent, because this topic isn't really about China, but if all that was true, how badly does that paint India? Total fail if China managed to pull in Pakistan on such poor terms while India is sat twiddling it's thumbs or fiddling in Afghanistan instead despite all the cultural and proximity advantages.

China simply took advantage of the situation between India and Pak. China very well knew that Pak would welcome Chinese investment in Pak as a form of shield against Indian aggression.

All of this works in favor of China. The Chinese need lots of resources to continue improving its economy. Pakistan has those resources. China will siphon all of it and will boost its own economy.

I do expect to see Chinese soldiers soon in Pak once the project completes. Somebody has to protect the Chinese investments from terrorists. Red army will do it and Pak will pay for the protection fee.