But I believe these payments are now made through legalized methods. As the only public official to refuse bribery then, how do you see the standards being set by the current occupants of the White House?
I did not vote for Donald Trump, but he is my president now and I want him to be a successful one. What prospects do you see of the Trump administration moving forward on the US-India relationship? Will the State Department be able to maintain any semblance of coherent policy? Even though the Trump Administration seems to manage by chaos, his appointees on South Asia might advocate for an even stronger US-India relationship than President Obama forged.
Ironically, the Trump Administration could be one of the best friends the Indian people could have. I urge in my book and have urged the Trump administration to declare Pakistan a terrorist state. Why do you believe public opinion in the US is still not very clear on Pakistan, the way it is with Iran or North Korea, when it comes to talking about dangerous states?
That is a very complex, but true statement. It is the favored nation of the Pentagon because Pakistan has allegedly helped us fight terrorists in South Asia. Everyone knows this is false, and that Pakistan harbors terrorists within its borders — and within its own military and the ISI. It is a corrupt and, by many estimations, a failing state. My crusade for my twilight years is to ensure Pakistan is placed in the same category as Iran and North Korea.
It will take citizens waking up to what a tragedy is befalling our democracy. That is to say, lobbyists should be prohibited from raising money for political candidates, political action committees or PACs and independent expenditures.
Lobbyists would still be able to lobby on the merits of legislation, but they would not be able to raise money to influence legislators. Is there still space in American public life for other Larry Presslers — politicians willing to be independent of their parties and take unpopular public stands? Yes, there is hope. But it is going to take a much greater effort on the part of the average citizen. Mankind today is locked in a huge arms race that will only result in possible war and more poverty.
A distinction must therefore be drawn between the ability to achieve possession of a nuclear explosive device, and actual possession of such a device.
Second, a state may possess a nuclear explosive device, and yet maintain it in an unassembled form for safety reasons or to maintain effective command and control over its use or for other purposes. The fact that a state does not have an assembled device would not, therefore, necessarily mean that it does not possess a device under the statutory standard. A judgement concerning possession can only be made upon an evaluation of all relevant facts and circumstances of a particular case.
And it has been enough for certifications to be provided and aid to flow in. As much as Pressler et al wished the amendment to scare Pakistan into submission — it did not. In order to preserve its national interest, Pakistan provided those assurances. But it would be lying if the other party was kept in the dark. In this case, it was mutual reprieve.
If analysed carefully, the amendment favoured the continuation of economic and military assistance to Pakistan. The Pressler amendment made US economic and military assistance to Pakistan conditional upon two certifications, one factual and one judgemental. The second certification was a judgemental finding where the US president was required to testify on the non-proliferation impact of US assistance to Pakistan in reducing the risk of Pakistan possessing a nuclear explosive device.
There are interesting elaborations on both. Although this report did not represent the official view of the State Department, it clearly explained the innuendos in the Pressler language that could have allowed Pakistan to avoid Pressler sanctions had the administration chosen to share it with the Pakistani government. The language of the amendment, however, was ingenious.
This ambiguity enshrined in the language of the amendment also gave the president enough flexibility in case his certifications were later challenged in the court of law.
There is no evidence whether this report was shared with Pakistan. But there is evidence that Pakistan was informed about the Pressler amendment before the Congress passed it in Pakistan was told that it was the only way for continuance of the aid package. Pakistan was also given a clear understanding that the presidential certifications required by the Pressler amendment would be provided for the duration of the aid package. Pakistan was taken on board and gave consent to the passage of the Pressler amendment.
Pressler sanctions were imposed on Pakistan in October However, that too was not a surprise for Pakistan for it had been forewarned.
Facebook Count. Twitter Share. Read more. On DawnNews. Comments 8 Closed. Popular Newest Oldest. May 29, am. Am I to assume it is ok to call one an ally and at the same time develop legislation to punish you.
It is crazy, it was wrong, pure and simple.
0コメント