Reading the news piece Zardari expects world to come up with $100bn, I noticed a number of interesting "changes" that have come about considering his new stance on the whole situation.
NEW YORK, Oct 4: Citing the threat posed by militants along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border and the possible economic meltdown, President Asif Ali Zardari has asked the international community to give Pakistan $100 billion in grant to ensure the country’s survival.
“I need your help, if we fall, if we can’t do it, you can’t do it,” Mr Zardari repeatedly said during an interview with Wall Street Journal’s columnist Brent Stephens, published on Saturday.
Asking for money once again? Using the same terrorism card? May be not, may be it is just the reality of our situation and everyone has to deal with it similarly.
In the interview, Mr Zardari also called for a broader free trade agreement with India and said: “India has never been a threat to Pakistan. “I, for one, and our democratic government is not scared of Indian influence abroad.”
Now this is called confidence building measure!
Stephens said in his column that Mr Zardari spoke of the militant groups operating in occupied Kashmir as “terrorists”, adding that he had no objection to the India-US nuclear cooperation pact so long as Islamabad was treated “at par” with New Delhi.
“Why would we begrudge the largest democracy in the world getting friendly with one of the oldest democracies in the world?”
I am going to cry now, he is such a dear.
On Mr Zardari’s request for $100 billion in grant, Stephens says that he “has a simple and powerful argument to make that the world cannot allow his government to fail – not when it’s becoming increasingly plausible that Pakistan itself, with its stockpile of as many as 200 nuclear warheads, could be toppled by Al Qaeda and its allies”.
Ah the nuclear problem, why not end the nuclear threat itself so that nothing can get in their hands.
In asking the international community for infusion of $100 billion into Pakistan’s economy, Stephens said Zardari was keen to insist that it not be described as aid.
“Aid is proven through the researches of the World Bank . . . (to be) bad for a country,” Zardari told WSJ. “I’m looking for temporary relief for my budgetary support and cash for my treasury which does not need to be spent by me.
“It is not something I want to spend. But (it) will stop the
(outflow) of my capital every time there is a bomb. . . . In this situation, how do I create capital confidence, how do I create businessmen’s confidence?”
Are you asking for a loan?
On US-Pakistan differences to conduct the war on terror, Mr Zardari was anxious to downplay any differences with the US. “I am not going to fall for this position that it’s an unpopular thing to be an American friend. I am an American friend,” Zardari said time and again.
American friend! Am I hearing this correctly? Why is there no hue and cry over him selling out? Of being the friend (usually pet) of Uncle Sam? Are we being selective here?
On the incident last month in which Pakistani troops allegedly fired at US aircraft, Zardari told WSJ: “It was merely an incident, and while incidents do happen, they are not important.”
I thought the nation was celebrating it as a sign on the fact that we are still a sovereign nation and no one can violate our territorial boundaries. Sadly, it was just a mistake.
He goes off the record to describe sensitive military subjects, but acknowledges that the US is carrying out Predator missile strikes on Pakistani soil with his government’s consent. “We have an understanding, in the sense that we’re going after an enemy together.”
We are in this together. Why does that not surprise me?
Subscribe