Your Federal Quarterly Tax Payments are due April 15th Get Help Now >>

final-project-media-laws by ajizai

VIEWS: 39 PAGES: 179

									            CHAPTER 1
 ALEENA NAGHMAN: Geostrategic and geopolitical
  significance of Pakistan for America, Pak- US relationship,
  Drone attacks- History
 AYESHA YAQUB: Evolution and rise in demand of drone
  attacks, why America uses drones?
 ANUM SAEED: NATO Background
 AMARA TANVEER: Statistics, Analysis of Raymond
  Davis Case


                                              By Aleena Naghman

          The geostrategic significance of Pakistan attracted the American policy makers to
          establish diplomatic relations with Pakistan in 1947. Located at the northwestern part of
          the Indian subcontinent; the region of Pakistan interests United States to enclose the
          growing China, the nuclear Iran, ‘terrorist’ Afghanistan and the favorable market of
          India.1 Pakistan is a junction of South Asia, West Asia and Central Asia, a way from
          resource efficient countries to resource deficient countries. The world is facing energy
          crisis and terrorism. Pakistan is a route for transportation, and a front line state
          against terrorism. Security and Business are two main US interests in the region while
          Pakistanis playing a front line role against terrorism.

          Today the political scenario of the region is tinged with pre emption policy and US
          invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, Iran’s nuclear program, India’s geopolitical muscles
          (new strategic deal with US) to gain the hegemony and to counter the ‘The Rise of China’
          which has earned all the qualities to change Uni-polar world into Bipolar world. America,
          the super power of this uni-polar world wants to physically appear in Afghanistan and has
          its eyes on Iran.2 Consequently, Pakistan becomes important for US because it is an
          immediate neighbor of both countries. United States has very skillfully decided to
          develop diplomatic relations with the strategically located Central Asian country Pakistan
          to facilitate its foreign policy agendas concerning other nations and entities in the region.

          History of Pakistan-United States Relationship:

          The relationship of Pakistan and United States bears its roots in the Cold War, the South
          Asia regional politics of the 1950s, US concerns about Soviet expansionism and
          Pakistan’s desire for security assistance against a perceived threat from India. In the
          beginning of 1950’s when United States became concerned about Communist influence


in Central Asia, it began to support Pakistan as a Cold War ally in the region. Always
having the viewed Islam as inimical to atheist Communism, the US saw Pakistan as an
important counterbalance to the rising influence of the USSR in neighboring India and
Afghanistan. This drove the Mutual Defense Agreement 1954 between United States and
Pakistan. By 1955 Pakistan strengthened its ties with the West by joining two defense
Pacts namely South East Asia Treaty Organization and the Central Treaty Organization.
As a result of these alliances, Pakistan received nearly $2 billion as US aid including
$508 million for military between 1953 to 1961. The pro-American sentiments soared
high in Western side of Pakistan in the decade of 1960s. Pakistan when American aid
was directed more towards West Pakistan which caused an uproar and feeling of distrust
in East Pakistan. However, United States did not provide military support to Pakistan in
the 1965 Indo-Pak was over Kashmir as promised in the alliance of South East Asia
Treaty Organization and the Central Treaty Organization. This spawned a feeling among
Pakistanis that United States was no longer a reliable ally.

Limited U.S. in 1975 aid was resumed, but was suspended again in 1979 by the Carter
Administration in response to Pakistan’s secret construction of a uranium enrichment
facility in response to India’s nuclear weapons program. Therefore, in the mid 1970s
American aid to Pakistan had already started declining due to Bhutto’s secret pursuit of
nuclear technology during the concluding year of his regime. Following the Soviet
invasion of Afghanistan in late 1979, Pakistan was again viewed as a frontline ally in the
effort to block Soviet expansionism. In 1981, the Reagan Administration negotiated a
five year, $3.2 billion aid package with Islamabad. Pakistan became a transit key country
for arms supplies to the Afghan resistance, as well as a camp for some three million
Afghan refugees. Between 1971 and 1974 Pakistan became an important ally for US
during the cold war and United States supported Pakistan, despite the arms embargo.
Pakistan assisted also President Richard Nixon in making his first visit to Peoples’
Republic of China.

End of Cold War:

With the collapse of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the cold war came to an end
and Pakistan’s assistance was no longer needed. Thus, the relationship with Pakistan

quickly deteriorated since the Soviets were the only reason the two countries came
together in the first place. It was then once again that US focused on Pakistan’s nuclear
program. Relations between the two countries soured as the US changed its bilateral aid
policy towards its former close ally. In April 1979, the United States suspended most
economic assistance to Pakistan over concerns about Pakistan’s nuclear program under
the Foreign Assistance Act. Within a brief period, all channels of bilateral aid to Pakistan
were shut down. Indeed, US-Pakistan bilateral relations went to the level of indifference
and covert hostility in the post-cold war period. US economic aid fell from well above
$500 million a year to less than $100 million a year.

Pressler Amendment 1985 and After:

The renewal despite of US aid and close security ties and while many in Congress
remained troubled by Pakistan’s nuclear weapons program. The Pressler Amendment
added to the Foreign Assistance Act, requiring the president to certify to Congress that
Pakistan does not possess a nuclear explosive device during the fiscal year for which aid
is to be provided. Pakistan’s aid by US continues flowing, however, as the
administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush certified Pakistan each year
until 1990. In August of 1990 sanction started with the Pressler Amendment. This
legislation, enacted in 1985, required certifying by U.S. President that Pakistan did not
possess nuclear weapons; without certification, Pakistan would lose most of its military
and economic assistance from the United States. In 1990 the President refused to certify
Pakistan, not coincidently the first year that the US no longer needed the Pakistani
cooperation. In 1992, the relations between US and Pakistan plummeted further when US
ambassador Nicholas Platt, warned Pakistan of being included into state sponsors of
terrorism list, in case it continued to support militants causing trouble in India.

In 1995, Benazir Bhutto visited United States and requested President Bill Clinton to lift
the embargoes on Pakistan and launch a joint operation to eradicate militancy from the
region. As a reaction to Bhutto’s proposal, Brown amendment, which provided for the
delivery of $368 million of military equipment purchased but not received by Pakistan
before the imposition of Pressler amendment sanctions in 1990, was passed; however, the
sanctions on arms were not lifted. In 1998 Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif conducted

           nuclear test in Balochistan, in retaliation to similar tests conducted by India, which
           invited the wrath of Clinton’s administration on both the countries. President Clinton
           imposed sanctions under Glenn amendment on India as well as Pakistan. Glenn
           amendment included suspension of aid, including economic development assistance,
           credits and credit guarantees by the US government, US bank loans to the governments
           of India and Pakistan, loans from international financial institutions, such as the IMF and
           World Bank, and exports of dual-use nuclear or missile items. However, in July of 1998,
           US lifted the sanctions on both the countries for purchasing agricultural products from
           US farmers. Later in the year President Clinton exercised his waiver on lifting restrictions
           on the activities of US banks in Pakistan.

           War on Terrorism:

           After the attacks of September 11, the United States lifts some sanctions placed on
           Pakistan after the 1998 nuclear tests and the 1999 military coup.3 On account of the
           September 2001 attacks on US, President George W. Bush encouraged Pakistan to
           become their ally in the war against terrorism. Initially Pakistan tried to strike a
           negotiation deal with Taliban and al Qaeda members to handover Osama bin Laden to
           American authorities. However, when negotiations failed, Pakistan allowed American
           army to use its military bases for launching attacks on Afghan soil. President Pervez
           Musharraf confessed that the country had no option but to support United States as it had
           threatened Pakistan of “bombing it into stone age” if it did not join the fight against al
           Qaeda. Simultaneously in 2001, US officials introduced a bill to lift all the sanctions,
           previously imposed on Pakistan under Pressler and Glenn amendments. President
           Musharraf, under strong US diplomatic pressure offered President Bush agreed upon
           Pakistan’s “unstinted cooperation in the fight against terrorism.” In the US led anti-
           terrorism coalition Pakistan became a vital ally. In October 2001, large amounts of U.S.
           aid began flowing into Pakistan. United State in 2003 officially forgave $1 billion worth
           of loan it had granted to Pakistan in a goodwill gesture and appreciation for Pakistan’s


           President Bush designated In June 2004, Pakistan as a major non-NATO ally of the
           United States under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961. Pakistan has been a source of
           nuclear proliferation to North Korea, Iran, and Libya may complicate future Pakistan-US
           relations.4 The succession of drone attacks in Pakistan began since 2004 by the United
           States government on Pakistan, controlled by the Central Intelligence Agency. These
           attacks are primarily part of war on terrorism, initiated by US, to defeat Al-Qaeda and
           Taliban militants in Pakistan however, they have killed more civilians than terrorists.
           Since 2004, US army has launched a variety of drone strikes on the north-western side of
           the country. The drone strikes plan to target Pakistani Taliban and supporters of al Qaeda,
           however, the strikes have also resulted in latge civilian deaths and caused much
           opposition from Pakistanis. A report was issued in 2007 in which Pakistan was accused
           of using aid money provided by US to Pakistan for its cooperation on war on terror,
           for strengthening its defence against India.

           11th June US Airstrike on Afghan-Pakistan Border:

           On June 11th, 2008, a US attack on the Afghan-Pakistani border killed 10 members of the
           paramilitary Frontier Corps. The Pakistani military condemned the attack as an act of
           aggression, souring the relations between the two countries. Pakistan has repeatedly
           condemned drone attacks as they are an infringement of its sovereignty, also resulting in
           civilian deaths including women and children, which have further enraged the Pakistani
           government and people. On October 4th, 2008 “The Washington Post” reported that there
           was a secret deal between the US and Pakistan allowing these drone attacks. Pakistani
           foreign minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi denied its credibility.

           Kerry Luger Bill 2009 and After:

           The famous Kerry-Lugar Bill, which invited much controversy and criticism, was passed
           in the October of 2009. The bill entailed the approval of granting $7.5 billion of non
           military aid, if the command of the country accepted certain condition.5 The bill clearly
           showed that US’s distrust in Pakistan’s military authority and considered Pakistani


Taliban more intimidating than Afghan Taliban, amongst many other essential points. In
2010’s beginning of the year, Pakistan Army in a joint operation with US intelligence
agencies captured Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, a famous Taliban commander, from the
tribal belt of Pakistan. The achievement of the operation was hailed by the United States
and Pakistan was praised for its greatest cooperation.

Raymond Davis Incident 2011:

2011 In the beginning, Raymond Davis, a CIA agent in Pakistan killed two Pakistani men
in Lahore, claiming that they came to steal from him. Davis was taken into supervision
for killing civilians, however, American officials claimed that he was permitted to
diplomatic immunity and must be released straight away. Raymond Davis was in a
while acquitted of the murder charges and was sent to United States.

Analysis (by Amara Tanveer):

Don’t locate ball in Court’s court. If the FIR will pathetic, court cannot do anything. If
Raymond was a diplomat then why government took so much time to declare this and
what about statement of Shah mehmood qureshi about fake documents of resistance of
Raymond? America wants special rule for itself and different rules for others. Our
government may be beggar to America but people are not, people are not slaves of
America. Why no one explaining that this whole issue of “the courts” is a huge and
distract side show that everyone has bought into. As they have no authority in this
matter? People would try to locate angles that are positive for both the countries rather
than just to do the point scoring. Let’s be ambassador of this country rather than being
broker for any other country. All the intellectuals should value its countries laws, culture
and ethics especially where they live or at the end they would not be left even with moan.
For the reference we should consult the History.

“Heard Malik in Geo saying that I expect they release Davis and then you would see
what happens. The results would be more hate for the Americans. So let’s try to bring
solutions rather than self criticism”

The US and Pak government care to clarify what “official business” this person was
transporting guns and driving around in a non-embassy car. The case is not whether he
has resistance or not but rather if the resistance can be applied in his exacting case. If the
USA accepts he was on representative consular business then that really opens up can of

Osama Bin Laden Operation 2011 (by Aleena Naghman):

May of 2011, Al-Qaeda’s leader Osama bin Laden was killed in an operation conducted
by US Navy Seals in Abbott bad, Pakistan. Claimed by President Barrack Obama, the
information pertaining to the action conducted in Abbott bad was not shared with
Pakistan Army. However, the claimed of ISI that the operation was conducted jointly, a
claim which was blatantly denied by President Asif Ali Zardari. Since 2001, the war on
terror started, Pakistan has received an estimated amount of $20 billion from United
States; however, in the wake of OBL’s raid US withheld $800 million of aid to Pakistan.
There is growing concern about U.S. drone attacks directed at Taliban and al-Qaeda
elements inside Pakistan that also caused significant collateral damage. The role of
American military contractors and the unilateral U.S. raid on Osama bin Laden’s
multipart inside Pakistan are especially contentious.

The U.S. is vexed by Pakistan’s ties to the Taliban, whether Osama bin Laden was
harbored by elements in the Pakistani government and/or security service, charges of
endemic corruption in the government, and difficulties coordinating U.S. military policies
with Pakistan’s army. To be successful, U.S. strategy must be settled on understanding
Pakistan’s objectives as well as those of the United States. Arriving at a complementary
strategy requires identifying zones of agreement and pursuing objectives with
negotiations sensitive to the most intense preferences of both parties. This is not to
suggest that Pakistan be supposed to accommodated at the expense of U.S. interests, but
U.S. policy will be extra effective if it is based on an understanding of Pakistani interests.
US interests in Pakistan expand well beyond the immediate war in Afghanistan or the
fight against al-Qaeda. Left unchecked, Pakistanis demographic realities and fast-

        growing nuclear program will almost certainly make it an even more unmanageable
        challenge in decades to come. Now is the time for swift and decisive U.S. action.6

        NATO Attack on Salala Agency 2011 and After:

        US-Pakistan relations plummeted again when 24 Pakistani soldiers died in an air
        strike by the US Army. Afghan and US officials claimed that the firing was a result of the
        attack launched from the Pakistani side of the border, however, the Pakistani military and
        government denied the claims. As a result of the attack, Pakistani government
        ordered US army to evacuate Salala air base which was being used to launch offensive on
        Taliban and militants. Moreover, the government also halted Nato supplies for United
        Sates. America has established its bases in Pakistan right after the 9/11 attacks. NATO
        and American forces are dependent on Pakistan for the supplies to continue the ongoing
        Afghan war. After suspension of the supplies, Pakistanis in a strong position to threaten
        the Allied forces in Afghanistan for its larger interests.

        Since the beginning of 2012, various political parties along with the military command of
        the country, met and held discussions on restoring Nato supplies. Diplomats from United
        States also tried to reduce the friction. Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani said that the
        supplies were blocked without any pressure and will be restored with consensus.
        Moreover, Nato Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen urged Pakistan to reopen
        Nato ground supply routes to Afghanistan. However, Rasmussen also said that Pakistan
        had not been invited to the crucial 25th Nato summit to be held in May in Chicago.


                               DRONES: EVOLUTION AND RISE IN DEMAND

                                                    By Ayesha Yaqub

           WHAT ARE DRONES?

           Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), or drones, are unmanned aircraft that are either
           controlled by ‘pilots’ from the ground or that fly autonomously, following a pre
           programmed mission. The ‘drone’ nickname comes from the constant buzzing noise that
           some drones make in flight. There are many different types of military drones, but they
           fall into two main categories: those that are used for reconnaissance, surveillance and
           intelligence purposes (ISTAR in the military jargon)7, and those that are also armed and
           can be used to launch missiles and bombs.


           The evolution of drone attacks was World War 1. Then, they went on to be used in the
           Vietnam War as well. Then the next step was the 9/11 incident whereby drones gained
           extreme demand all of a sudden as power to counter terrorism activity. The most
           important features presented through the analysis of the 9/ 11 incident were:


           The originating idea for Unnamed Aerial Vehicles also known as Drones came from an
           attack by the Austrians on Venice in 1984. Austrians used balloons loaded with
           explosives that were directed towards Italy. Although these balloons do not define
           today’s drones but their concept was strong enough to perpetuate the efforts to combine
           the winged aircrafts and embodiments of explosives and form a device that could fly
           explosives for military purposes.

           The first pilotless aircrafts were built during and after the first world war intended for use
           as “aerial torpedoes” or what we would now call “cruise missiles”. This led to the
           development of radio controlled techniques’ (RC) pilotless target aircraft. In September


           1916 the Hewitt Sperry Automatic Airplane, otherwise known as the ‘flying bomb’ made
           its first flight, demonstrating the concept of an unmanned aircraft.


           America formed bases of drone attacks in Pakistan to support its counter insurgency
           operations for war on terrorism. There has been no proper media coverage on how drones
           have been affecting the civilians of Pakistan, their animals, their breed, their agriculture
           and the oxygen that the Pakistani people breathe in is polluted by the Americans in the
           form of drones.


           During World War II, Nazis developed a UAV to be used against nonmilitary targets.
           The first large scale production of purpose built drone was the product of Reginald
           Denny. In World War II a different approach was taken: the Navy launched a new
           program, called Operation Anvil, to target deep German bunkers using refitted B-24
           bombers filled to double capacity with explosives and guided by remote control devices
           to crash at selected targets in Germany and Nazi controlled France.8

                                  WHY AMERICA IS USING DRONES?

           Drones were initially used by the American’s in the name of self-defense. However, as
           analyzed through the overwhelming influence of the drone attacks on Pakistan’s
           economy, military and social welfare, this comes in contradiction. Self-defense only
           comes when there is a “clear” and “imminent” danger from the Pakistani side and
           considering the Salalah air base attack on the 24 soldiers that were killed in Pakistan, no
           such evidence of an imminent danger was perceived or reported by the agencies.


           The United States has not been particularly forthcoming with Pakistan about the drone
           attacks and has not sought to reach an agreement amenable to both sides. Mutual distrust


persists between these the two countries. Reports in western media that the Pakistanis
have been dragging their feet on the creation and operation of fusion cells on both sides
of the border add to this distrust. Despite public statements to the contrary, the CIA and
the ISI are unable to resolve their communication problems and create confidence in each
other’s ultimate aims in the area. As long as the war in Afghanistan rages on, and until
Afghanistan and Pakistan return to a better understanding of each other’s concerns and
needs, the drone war will likely continue and add to the instability in the region.


Drones armed have been used by the US in Iraq (since 2002) and Yemen (2002), by the
US and UK in Afghanistan (from 2001and 2007 respectively), by the US Central
Intelligence Agency (CIA) in Pakistan (2004) and by Israel in Gaza (2008-09). Since
2010 the use of armed drones by the US in North West Pakistan has become particularly
intense. Out of a total of 297 drone strikes by the CIA in Pakistan since 2004, over a third
occurred in the first eight months of 2010. Recently, war logs from Afghanistan leaked to
The Guardian revealed how much Reaper is being used. According to the paper the
Reaper drone “is increasingly the coalition’s weapon of choice against the Taliban”.
Although the US is currently in the driving seat with drone use, Britain is in no way
uninvolved. According to The Guardian, up until July 2010 British Reaper drones have
fired weapons 97 times in Afghanistan.

                                   NATO BACKGROUND

                                       By Anum Saeed

   NATO logistics- the Afghan war refers to the efforts of the NATO international Security
   Assistance Force to deliver vital fuel, food, hardware and other logistic supplies to
   Afghanistan in support of the War in Afghanistan 200. Delivery of equipment is done
   using a combination of air transport and a series of overland supply routes. There are two
   tracks which pass through Pakistan, and several other routes which pass through Russia
   and the Central Asian states.

   Since Afghanistan is a country which is surrounded by lands, supplies must pass through
   other countries in order to reach it should be shipped by air. Air shipping is very
   expensive so NATO forces tend to rely on ground routes for non-lethal equipment. This
   is primarily accomplished either by shipping goods by sea to the Pakistani port of
   Karachi, or by shipping them through Russia and the Central Asian states.


   There are two routes of NATO supply from Pakistan to Afghanistan, these were started in
   Karachi Pakistan’s Principle Port which is on the Arabian Sea, one route which crossed
   the Khyber Pass from it enters Afghanistan Torkham and terminates at Kabul from Kabul
   it supplies Northern Afghanistan, this route is around 100 miles long.

1) Torkham is a border crossing which is a crossing between Pakistan and Afghanistan right
   on the Durand Line of the border, it is the busiest port of the entry between these two
   countries it serves as a major transporting and shipping, In Pakistan, Torkham lies at the
   end of the N-5 National Highway that is connected to Peshawar in the east. Torkham is
   only five kilometers west of the summit of the Khyber Pass.
2) The other route passes from Baluchistan Province which crosses the border at Chaman
   and end at the Khandar in the South of Afghanistan.

   NATO used these routes to supply to transport fuel and other supplies but the weapons
   are not supplied from these two routes, Pakistan routes provide most of the fuel for

NATO efforts in Afghanistan. The military in 2007, was burning 575,000 gallons of fuel
per day and the 805 of the fuel came from Pakistani refineries. At Bagram and Kabul air
bases, the fuel storage capacity was less than 3 million gallons.


In November 2011, drone strikes were halted and after NATO forces killed 24 Pakistani
Soldiers in the Salala incident. Shamsi Airfield was departed of Americans and taken
over by the Pakistanis. In North Waziristan Agency said that about 350 to 400 oil-tankers
and containers carrying fuel and different type of edibles for the NATO forces passed
through the volatile tribal region via the Bannu-Mir Ali and Miramshah-Ghulam Khan
routes every day, the government functionaries responsible for discouraging illegal
transportation of fuel, food items and construction material to Afghanistan are getting
their share and had thus turned a blind eye towards the issue.


Pakistan’s bold decision to suspend NATO supplies had caused some negative impact on
the routine activities of the US-led forces in Afghanistan. Tension rises as Pakistan cuts
off the US supply line, Pakistan blocked a vital supply route for U.S. and NATO troops
in Afghanistan The blockade appeared to be a major growth in tensions between Pakistan
and the United States. A permanent strike of supply trucks would place massive strains
on the relationship between the two countries and hurt the Afghan war effort. Even a stop
is a reminder of the influence Pakistan has over the United States at a crucial time in the
9-year-old war.

Banning NATO supplies had adversely affect us due to US imposed restrictions, trade
and aid cuts and resultant similar actions by countries and IFIs under US influence,
United States is taking drastic measures because Pakistan is geographically very
important for NATO supply having both a large land border and close by sea ports along
with the air bases under NATO is for Afghan war.

Moreover, the cost supplies movement by Arial route or land route from Russian estates
is exponentially high where as Turkish Parliament did not allow the movement so
Pakistan is left with a key role. This role is further elevated given Pakistan Army’s
involvement in Afghan- Russia war and their retained expertise not only on the local
terrain but also militia. Opening up of routes and trade routes open a lot of many trade
avenues in the region giving a cheap land connection to India, Pakistan, Afghanistan and
Russian estates.

                                         DRONE ATTACKS – HISTORY

                                                By Aleena Naghman

           Drones are not completely new but were developed in the mid-twentieth century and used
           mainly by the military for surveillance. Surveillance drones were used extensively by
           NATO forces in the Balkans conflicts and by the US in the Gulf War in the 1990s. Israel
           used reconnaissance drones in Lebanon in 1982, and again in 1996 to guide piloted
           fighter bombers to targets. It was during NATO’s 1999 Kosovo campaign that according
           to Wing Commander Andrew Brookes (RAF Ret’d) “they started to think about the
           utility of strapping a missile to the UAV which led to the [Predator drone] armed with
           Hellfire missiles”. By the time of the terrorist attacks in the US on 11th September 2001
           (9/11), firing missiles from drones had only just become possible. The first time a missile
           was fired from an armed drone in an attack was in Afghanistan, less than a month after
           9/11. In 2002 US drones were used to fire a missile at Al-Qaeda suspects in Yemen and
           at targets in Iraq before the start of the war there. Over the years the production and use
           of drones has increased exponentially with around 40 countries now developing or using
           them according to Professor Dave Webb.

           Since 2006, the Pentagon’s drones flights increased from about 165,000 hours to more
           than 550,000 now, with the annual budget allocation growing from $1.7 billion in 2006 to
           $4.2 billion in 2010. Over the same period, the US military’s drone fleet has gone from
           just under 3,000 to more than 6,500, a number that Department of Defense officials
           expect to grow significantly over the next five years. The Pentagon now has some 7,000
           aerial drones, compared with fewer than 50 a decade ago, and asked Congress for nearly
           $5 billion for drones in the 2012 budget.9

           Drone Attacks in Pakistan:

           The United States’ unannounced and unacknowledged war against Pakistan in the form
           of drone attacks launched from sites in Afghanistan and Pakistan continues to be a source
           of political unrest in the region. It has fortified opposition to the United States among the


people of Pakistan, especially in the hinterland, where it has become a symbol of what
many consider an unequal partnership between the United States and the government of
Pakistan. Compounding the confusion about the legality of such attacks and the anger
directed against them is the behavior of the Pakistani authorities, who publicly condemn
these attacks and privately condone them. It is widely believed, though hard to
corroborate with concrete evidence, that the Pakistani military and civil authorities abet
these attacks or have abetted them in the past.

Since 2004 United States has often targeted North West Pakistan with drones in the name
of “War on Terrorism” campaign. According to analysis completed by the New
American Foundation for the period 2004 to 2011, some two hundred and ninety seven
strikes have taken place inside Pakistan, specifically in the Federally Administered Tribal
Areas, or FATA, that form a buffer zone between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Most of the
strikes have occurred in the area of North or South Waziristan, where Afghan Taliban, Al
Qaeda, other foreign militants, and the Tehreek-eTaliban, Pakistan (TTP) have had their
main bases. The flights originate from bases inside Afghanistanor the Shamsi air base in
Pakistan, and are controlled by CIA personnel in the United States. The Obama
administration has ratcheted up the numbers of attacks, with over one hundred thirteen
attacks in 2010 alone, nearly twice the reported attacks in 2009.Both the numbers of
attacks and their effects are hard to pinpoint, and the fatality rate is suspect, as the United
States anonymously claims a far higher number of militant, rather than civilian, deaths.
Civilian deaths have reportedly been on the decline in recent years, as better intelligence
and more precise weaponry allow the United States to target militants inside FATA more
effectively. Pakistan’s official position indicates opposition to the attacks, which are seen
as an infringement on Pakistan’s sovereignty.

There have been cases, however, such as the 2009 attack that killed TTP leader Baitullah
Mehsud, in which the Pakistani government has openly praised such operations. Both the
Foreign Minister of Pakistan and its Prime Minister celebrated the attack against Mehsud
without any criticism of U.S. actions, proclamations that were in stark contrast with
earlier official denunciations of drone activity inside FATA. The Pakistani government
has often taken more pointed positions toward drone attacks that have created difficulties

in the US-Pakistan relationship, and have fueled public anger against the United States,
especially in Pakistan’s hinterland. Following an attack outside FATA in the Bannu
district, for example, Pakistani Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani issued a statement to
parliament strongly condemning the attacks as “intolerable.” Against this background of
uncertainty and mixed messages, key factors affecting drone attacks and their future
begin to emerge. These include the historical relationship between FATA and Pakistan,
the nature and state of US-Pakistan relations, the legal basis for drone attacks, and what is
likely to emerge in the period between 2011 and 2014, as the United States and coalition
forces prepare to draw fighting forces out of Afghanistan.


                                    By Amara Tanveer

The White House moved to lift some of the privacy from its worldwide drone
movements, freely acknowledging in a significant verbal shift that the U.S. uses the
unmanned planes to conduct targeted killings as a matter of national security.The
targeted-killing movements have long been an open secret here. But officials aren't
allowed to talk about the movements freely, and a violent debate has raged within the
Obama management over saying more about them. Human-rights groups also have
pressed for a more public accounting.

Discharging the concept that the US drone attacks in the Afghan, Pakistan, Somalia and
other targeted geographical areas cause the deaths of unarmed civilians, Obama
management's top terrorism consultant further repeated, targeted strikes conform to the
standard of division, the idea that only military objectives may be intentionally targeted
and that civilians are protected from being intentionally targeted. With the first-time
ability of remotely piloted aircraft to exactly target a military objective while minimizing
security damage, one could argue that never before has there been a weapon that allows
us to distinguish more effectively between al-Qaeda terrorist and innocent civilians.

Mr. Brennan saying, "Fortunately, for more than a year, due to our discretion and
precision, the U.S. government has not found credible evidence of collateral deaths
resulting from U.S. counterterrorism operations outside of Afghanistan or Iraq."

US counter terrorism consultant John Brennan disclosed that first time that US drones
have killed civilians. But he said "It is exceedingly rare, but it has happened."

This is just not true says the UK based Bureau of Investigative Journalism the group that
keeps the best count of victims from U.S. drone strikes in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen
and Somalia. Since 2004, U.S. has killed about 2,500-3,000 people in Pakistan, about 479
and 811 were civilians, 174 of them children.

                        Through a research and a CIA report,
                     CIA Drone Strikes in Pakistan 2004 to 2012

                                  Total US strikes: 321
                                   Obama strikes: 269
                           Total reported killed: 2,429 - 3,097
                           Civilians reported killed: 479 – 811
                              Children reported killed: 174
                           Total reported injured: 1,169-1,281

                       US Covert Action in Yemen 2002 to 2012
                                Total US strikes: 41 - 128
                             Total US drone strikes: 31 - 67
                             Total reported killed: 294 - 651
                            Civilians reported killed: 55 - 105
                               Children reported killed: 24

                      US Covert Action in Somalia 2007 to 2012
                                Total US strikes: 10 - 21
                              Total US drone strikes: 3 - 9
                             Total reported killed: 58 - 169
                            Civilians reported killed: 11 - 57
                             Children reported killed: 1 – 3
Blowback from civil rights and human rights groups is likely to grow in direct proportion
to any increase in targeted killings. Organizations such as the Human Rights Watch have
raised pointed questions regarding the apparent lack of accountability and transparency.
Others question if the United States is setting a negative pattern that will be invoked by
other nations acquiring similar technology, such as China and Russia. Experts point to
several factors showing that an expansion of U.S. targeted killings in the near term is
likely. Drone strikes and special operations raids put fewer Americans in harm's way and
provide a low-cost alternative to expensive and cumbersome conventional forces. The

           CIA requested broader targeting powers for its drone campaign in Yemen, particularly
           the ability to execute strikes based on suspicious, “signature” patterns of behavior. This
           has been an essential element of the U.S. program in Pakistan. Experts say the new
           authority, if granted by President Obama, would be a significant shift in U.S. policy in
           Yemen, where the CIA is currently only allowed to employ “personality” strikes on
           specifically                                     identified                       targets.

           Shakil Afridi Case:

           The doctor went to Abbottabad in March, saying he had procured funds to give free
           vaccinations for hepatitis B. Bypassing the management of the Abbottabad health
           services; he paid generous sums to low-ranking local government health workers, who
           took part in the operation without knowing about the connection to Bin Laden. Health
           visitors in the area were among the few people who had gained access to the Bin Laden
           compound in the past, administering polio drops to some of the children. Afridi had
           posters for the vaccination programme put up around Abbottabad, featuring a vaccine
           made by Amson, a medicine manufacturer based on the outskirts of Islamabad. In March
           health workers administered the vaccine in a poor neighbourhood on the edge of
           Abbottabad called Nawa Sher. The hepatitis B vaccine is usually given in three doses, the
           second a month after the first. But in April, instead of administering the second dose in
           Nawa Sher, the doctor returned to Abbottabad and moved the nurses on to Bilal Town,
           the suburb where Bin Laden lived."10


           On 24 may Shakil Afridi was sentenced to 33 years in jail under the organization of tribal
           impartiality, Pakistan’s aggravation already unstable relationship with the United States.
           After Us troops killed Osama Ben Laden he was arrested on May 2011 in the town of
           Abbott bad where he planned a fake vaccination program in the expect of obtaining DNA
           samples to verify the al Qaeda leader’s attendance. But he was convicted for sedition


           over supposed ties to Lashkar-e-Islam and not working for the CIA and for which the
           court said it did not have authority. As Idress Kamal said in his one statement that:

           “We filed an appeal beside his conviction and challenged his judgment and the charges
           leveled against him and who heads the Quiet Association and an anti-militancy civil
           society group that has taken up”.

           All the charges leveled beside him were unfounded and Shakil Afridi had no links with
           Lashkar-e-Islam. The section led by warlord Mangal Bagh, is generally feared for
           extortion and kidnappings in the tribal area of Khyber, where Shakil Afridi worked for
           years. But the main point is that 1 whole year he was misplaced and no one know that
           where was he.

                                                TimeLine: NATO

          30 Sept 2010: Nato helicopters kill two Pakistani soldiers, prompting nearly two-week
           border closure in protest
          22 April 2011: Supplies to Nato forces in Afghanistan halted for three days in protest
           over drone attacks
          2 May: US announces Bin Laden's death and says Pakistan not warned of raid
          2 June: Top US military chief Adm Mike Mullen admits "significant" cut in US troops in
          10 July: US suspends $800m of military aid
          22 Sept: Outgoing US Adm Mullen accuses Pakistan of supporting Haqqani militant
           group in Afghanistan; denied by Pakistan11


           In 2010, Pakistani troops fired caution shots at the two NATO helicopters, which
           responded with a pair of missiles that shattered the post and killed 2 of the soldiers and
           injured the 4 others. Pakistan then blocked a very important supply route for US and
           NATO troops in Afghanistan in clear revenge for the supposed cross-border helicopter


strike. US apologized for the deaths and hurtful of the Pakistani paramilitary troops. Nato
overseas and defence ministers meet to talk about a future new "strategic concept" and
mission declaration for the association and drawn up by Secretary General Anders Fogh

Then new "strategic concept" is settled at Nato summit in Lisbon. The conference also
reaches agreement on organization of missile defence shield for Europe and
accomplishment a new level of sympathetic with Russia in the development and endorses
2014 as date for removal of Nato troops from Afghanistan.

In 2011, UN Security Council approves obligation of no-fly zone over Libya to defend
civilians from Col Gaddafi's forces. Nato agrees to take on blame for enforcing the no-fly
zone. Nato Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen says that Libya missions is
comprehensive for another three months and will persist to be extended for as stretched
as necessary. He says the Gaddafi government be supposed to not try to "wait Nato out".
Then Nato deploys mediators in the north of Kosovo after a border placement with Serbia
was well done down and a Kosovo policeman killed in an attack by local local Serbian
nationalists who reject Kosovo sovereignty. Nato officially ends its Libya task after the
fall of the last Gaddafi stronghold and offers to help the new government with defense
matters. Pakistan halts Nato view supplies to Afghanistan after a Nato attack kills 24 of
its troops. The International Court of Justice system that Greece was incorrect to have
blocked Macedonia's Nato association application in 2008. The decision will make it
harder for Greece to be in opposition to another Macedonian offer.

                                      Overall Analysis

The most convincing part of the study is the portion addressing the question of what the
US and Pakistan be supposed to do now. The suggested template is that Washington
should “stop enabling the Pakistani safety establishment’s dysfunctional authority of
state” and follow democratization as “the only positive alternative”. The one caution that
one has to enter here is that, unluckily, Pakistan’s political division is no less enthusiastic
than the military to the shell out from Washington. The association is transactional as
much because of its nonstop demands for this generosity as Washington’s willingness to

provide it on circumstances that often wound the interests of Pakistan’s people. The
extraordinary paralysis of Pakistan’s political bureaucracy and elite is partly due to
embroidered fears of American irritation kept at a very high stage by visiting American
dignitaries and by micro organization by American officials non- diplomatic and
diplomatic posted to Pakistan.

           CHAPTER 2

     APRIL 2011- MAY 2012

 ALEENA NAGHMAN: Intro, Timelines, Articles, Blogs,
  Magazines, 5 TV channels

 AMARA TANVEER- 6 TV Channels and Conclusion of
  TV Channels

                        INTRODUCTION TO FOREIGN MEDIA

Impact of Media on the Masses:

People heavily depend on the mass media for information about international affairs.
Consequently, mass media plays a crucial role in shaping the mass perceptions of nations.
Zelizer and Allen (2002) quote Navasky who is of the opinion that “it is based largely on
journalism that we make up our national mind. Exposure to news coverage increases
knowledge about international relations and can significantly influence public opinions
towards foreign nations. The media evidently alters the judgment process by the provision of
news frames that help link issues to specific foreign nations. The rationale is to explore the
role of foreign media in framing the image of Pakistan since its closure of NATO supply
route to Afghanistan as an act of reprisal for the November 26drone attack on Pakistan’s two
major check posts; for the public. Thus, to analyze how the United States media presents
Pakistan it is important primarily, to understand the concept of framing.


Framing is an analytical technique which was developed by social psychologists namely
Goffman, Entman and Gitlin to explain the role of news media in defining issues for public.
Entman (1993) defines framing as a means to “select some aspects of a perceived reality and
make them more salient in a communication text, in such a way as to promote a particular
problem definition, casual interpretation, moral evaluation, and/or treatment recommendation
for the item described.” Gitlin defines framing as “persistent patterns of cognition,
interpretation, and presentation, of selection, emphasis and exclusion by which symbol
handlers routinely organize discourse.” News frames are generally constructed around the
concept of sifting through information and being decisive about the information that is to be
kept and ignored. Gitlin has further described framing as a significant social force that
formulates public ideology. It is often referred to as the exercise of power and an essential
element for the hegemonic function of media content. Hence, the definitions of framing
indicate that framing is a term which implies how an event is portrayed in a particular story
or article, it can be identified as a metaphor, exemplar, catch-phrases and depictions which
help in determining the “tone” of media coverage of an event or issue.


On November 25, 2011, two border check posts at Salala in Mohamand were attacked by
NATO aircrafts that killed 24 Pakistani soldiers. Since then the U.S Pakistan relationships
has wrecked souring mutual ties between the two allies. In retaliation Pakistan has halted the
NATO supply route to Afghanistan and has forced U.S to vacate the Shamsi airbase.
However, Pakistan proposed to reopen supply lines provided U.S offered an official apology,
end drone strike on Pakistan and pay $5000 per truck. This decision taken as a reprisal for
violating Pakistan’s sovereignty has frustrated the U.S thus, they are threatening to terminate
the U.S aid to Pakistan. Moreover, President Asif Ali Zardari was disregarded by President
Obama on the NATO summit in Chicago which aimed at discussing international security
and the war in Afghanistan.


The mediums chosen to determine the frame and the stance occupied to explicate the NATO
incident by the foreign media are foreign online newspapers, blogs, magazines and television
with some limitation to the access of foreign political talk shows. The research is focused at
analyzing these frames with objectivity to determine the impact of this tragic incident
worldwide. T will also focus on highlighting the image of Pakistan that runs through the
foreign media suiting their foreign policies.

                                   Timeline for Television

     Time Period          Number                           Television Programs

         Nov 2011-                   1. Fox News: How important is Pakistan to the war on
          Jan2012                       terror
                              3      2. CNN: U.S.: Pakistan border closures haven’t hurt
                                     3. Fox News: McCain on NATO and Pakistan
                                        CNN: US Pakistan's relation 'a mess'
                                     1. BBC: The Commander of NATO led Coalition forces in
                                        Afghanistan, General David Petraeus
       Jan 2012-              2      2. CNN: NATO Committed to 2014 Deadline for Afghan
      March 2012                        Transition; NATO Secretary-General on Afghanistan

                          1. CNN: Interview with Pakistani Foreign Minister Khar
                          2. CNN: U.S. DoD Media Roundtable with Gen.
                             McChrystal NATO Headquarters in Brussels
                          3. CNN: US and Pakistan's Dysfunctional Relationship;
                             Former Pakistani Ambassador to the US Says Pakistan
March 2012-        5         Has Misplaced Priorities; Captain Chesley "Sully"
 May 2012                    Sullenberger Talks About Hudson River Landing and
                             Airline Safety; Imagine a World: Blessed are the
                          4. CNN: Early Starts
                          5. Fox News: President Obama’s News Conference at
                             NATO Summit

                          Timeline for Blogs

Time Period     l                                    Blogs
              r of
                          Title: NATO attack allegedly kills 24 Pakistani troops,
                          prompts Islamabad to retaliate
                          Title: US-led NATO attack on Pakistan worsens Islamabad-
                          Washington ties
                          Title: Furious at Latest U.S. Attack, Pakistan Shuts Down
                          Resupply Routes to Afghanistan “Permanently”
 Nov 2011-     5       4. Huffington Post
  Jan2012                 Title: Pakistan NATO Attack: Military Claims Confusion,
                          Communication Breakdown Hampered Airforce
                       5. Huffington Post
                          Title: Pakistani Army Rejects U.S. Review of Deadly
                          NATO Airstrikes

                       1. Huffington Post
                          Title: Costs soar for new war supply routes
                          Title: Council seeks to undercut critical NATO supplies
 Jan 2012-     3          through Pakistan

March 2012        3. Huffington Post
                     Title: Pakistan Anti-Americanism Complicates U.S. War

                  1. Mother Jones
                     Title: How Pakistan Makes Washington Pay for the Afghan
                     Title: Can US survive without Pakistan’s support?
March 2012-   9   3.
 May 2012            Title: US military supply lines in Pakistan remain stalled!
                     Title: US, Pakistan negotiate reopening NATO supply line
                     Title: Pakistani president to attend NATO summit
                     Title: White House, Pakistan in talks on supply lines

                  7. Huffington Post
                     Title: Obama Meets With Pakistani President Asif Ali
                     Zardari And Afghan President Hamid Karzai
                     Title: U.S. senators vote to tie Pakistan aid to supply routes
                  9. The World
                     Title: The US, Pakistan and that dysfunctional relationship

                      Timeline for Magazines

Time Period   Number of                           Magazines

                          1. Newsweek
                             Title: America’s Pakistan Mess Gets Worse with
                             Alleged NATO Strike
                          2. Foreign Policy Magazine
                             Title: Daily brief: NATO airstrike kills two dozen
                             Pakistani soldiers
                          3. The Atlantic
                             Title: A Hot Flash in the Cold War With Pakistan
                          4. Counter Punch
 Nov 2011-        7          Title: Nato vs Pakistan
  Jan2012                 5. Front Page Magazine
                             Title: Pakistan to Blame for NATO Airstrike
                          6. The Economist
                             Title: Till death us do part
                          7. Counter Punch
                             Title: Endless Needless Deaths
                          1. Counter Punch
                             Title: U.S. Probe of Border Attack Hardened
                             Pakistani Suspicions
                          2. Harvard Political Review
Jan 2012-         3          Title: The Pakistan Dilemma
March 2012                3. Foreign Affairs
                             Title: Talking tough to Pakistan

                          1. The Economist
                             Title: The hardest word
                          2. Counterpunch
                             Title: Sowing the Seeds of Hate in Pakistan
                          3. Newsweek
                             Title: NATO Summit’s Big Loser: Behind Obama’s
                             Snub of Pakistan
March 2012-       5       4. Counterpunch
 May 2012                    Title: Pakistan Pays the Price for Its Defiance
                          5. Newsweek
                             Title: Pakistan Sentences Shakil Afridi to 30 Years,
                             Sends U.S. Clear Signal

                      Timeline for Newspapers

Time Period   Number of                          Newspapers
                           1. New York Times
                              Headline: Tensions Flare Between U.S. and Pakistan
                              After Strike
                           2. The Guardian
 Nov 2011-        3           Headline: Pakistan halts NATO supplies after attack
  Jan2012                     leaves soldiers dead
                           3. Washington Post
                              Headline: Pakistan’s pique and the Afghan war
                           1. New York Times
                              Headline: Pakistan: NATO allowed to ship food
 Jan 2012-        2        2. New York Times
March 2012                    Headline: Pakistani Parliament Demands End to U.S.
                              Drone Strikes
                           1. New York Times
                              Headline: United States Talks Fail as Pakistanis
                              Seek Apology
March 2012-       8        2. Wall Street Journal
May2012                       Headline: Pakistan Hints It Will Soon Reopen
                              NATO Supply Routes
                           3. New York Times
                              Headline: Pakistan Mulls Reopening Border Route
                              For NATO
                           4. Wall Street Journal
                              Headline: Pakistan Defers NATO Supply Decision
                           5. Washington Post
                              Headline: Many will profit if Pakistan reopens
                              NATO supply routes
                           6. Times of India
                              Headline: US supply trucks cross Afghan-Pakistan
                              border: officials
                           7. Los Angeles Times
                              Headline: Pakistanis fear becoming isolated
                           8. Los Angeles Times
                              Headline: Obama's Pakistan gamble fails to pay off

                                   FOREIGN CHANNELS

                                        by Aleena Naghman

1. Channel: Fox News
   Programme Title: How important is Pakistan to the war on terror
   Host: Laura Ingraham
   Guest: Terrorism expert Dr. Walid Phares
   Date: November 27th, 2011
   URL Link:
   In this talk show Dr. Walid Phares calls the NATO attack on Pakistan “friendly fires” and
   believes that only Pakistan is over reacting whereas such “friendly fires” take place through
   the world including U.S, Britain and France. The over reaction that he refers to is Pakistan’s
   decision in retaliation to the attack to halt the NATO supply routes to Afghanistan. Perhaps
   U.S feels it is an overreaction because previously Pakistan ignored their acts of violating its
   sovereignty like the Raymond Davis case and Osama Bin Laden operation. Nevertheless, it is
   also deduced from the conversation that U.S. does not want to apologize and thus, puts the
   blame on Pakistan for a reaction which they had not expected. They blame Pakistan’s
   “overreaction” upon the ‘tensions within the country.” U.S is only putting Pakistan’s alliance
   through a test and has refused to apologize for the attack naming it “friendly fire”. The
   significance of this conversation lies in the fact that U.S. is certainly not ready to take the
   blame for such a deadly attack. It is evident from this show that U.S. is trying to turn the
   tables to avoid getting blamed for this attack.

2. Channel: Fox News
   Programme Title: McCain on NATO and Pakistan
   By: Greta Van Susteren
   Date: December 1st, 2011
   URL Link:

  Pakistani officials have declared the NATO act as a deliberate act of aggression; the U.S. on
  the contrary has rejected this blame by calling it an “unintentional” accident. McCain in his
  interview denying extending an apology opposes the Pakistani blame by blaming Pakistani
  ISI for supporting Taliban and al-Qaida and other terrorists organisations in Afghanistan who
  he claims are killing Americans. A question worth consideration is why Pakistan would help
  U.S. in fighting terrorism in Afghanistan if it so keenly supports the terrorists abiding in
  Afghanistan. Countering the fact that the NATO attack was not acceptable for Pakistan he
  says neither are the killings of U.S soldiers by Taliban. However, the conversation on this
  show establishes that U.S. is telling Pakistan to co-operate with them without complaining
  without accepting that they have violated its sovereignty.

3. Channel: CNN
  Programme Title: US Pakistan's relation 'a mess'
  By: Charley Keyes
  Date: December 9th, 2011
  URL         Link:
  Adm. Martin Dempsey, the Joint Chief of Staff rejected Pakistan’s claim that the November
  26th 2011 attack was planned. Calling Pakistan “partners” the U.S. Chief stated that “warfare
  is really, when you really get down and touch it, it’s just ugly, and its messy, and it’s
  unpredictable, and it’s chaotic, and there’s fog, and there’s friction” and believes that
  Pakistan should show some patience and co-operate with U.S. in this warfare. The objective
  behind saying this was to escape the blame of the attack and to justify it. Furthermore, using
  rhetoric like the afore mentioned quote suggests they want Pakistan to co-operate because
  unpredictable incidents like these might also take place in the future. It also highlights the
  frustration of U.S over Pakistan’s reaction which has come as a blow to them.
  If U.S. advices to incorporate patience and had followed its own rule book the war against
  terrorism would not have started. Prior to the results of any investigation report’s U.S called
  the attack unintentional to avoid culpability for the attack.

4. Channel: CNN
  Programme Title: U.S.: Pakistan border closures haven’t hurt resupply
  By: Charley Keyes and Reza Sayah
  Date: December 9th, 2011
  URL Link:
  This show is an evident proof that the apology for the death of the soldiers killed in the
  NATO attack is not U.S’ priority. On the contrary, they are only concerned with supplying
  their troops n Afghanistan “what they need, when and where they need it.” However, they do
  believe that the route through Pakistan is important for U.S since 30 present of the supplies
  go through that root yet they have told Pakistan we have alternate routes for carrying out the
  supplies to Afghanistan.
  In undertones of displeasure with Pakistan they are using their media to convey that they will
  not extend an apology and Pakistan is not as important as their troops in Afghanistan and if
  Pakistan can’t reopen the routes the have friendly ties with their countries as well.

5. Channel: CNN
  Programme Title: Interview with Pakistani Foreign Minister Khar
  By: Christiane Amanpour
  Date: April 18th, 2012
  URL Link:
  With connotations of mockery Amanpour dispensed questions upon Pakistan’s Foreign
  Minister Hinna Rabbani Khar. Knowing the importance of an apology for Pakistan, who had
  been attacked uninformed, she asked “Is it important to get that apology? Have you gotten it
  yet? And will you demand it.” Ms. Khar very intelligently counter questioned “What would
  it feel and what would it do to the U.S. citizens’ sentiment if they were to receive 24 body
  bags in the United States, saying this was done in accident by the Pakistani troops, who did
  not lose a single limb? What would be the reaction of the United States?” Making U.S. stand

  in Pakistan’s shoes perhaps Amanpour felt similar sentiments and diverted the conversation.
  Nevertheless, it ends with U.S’ concerns for the burnt victims in Pakistan turning a blind eye
  to the numerous innocent people that they have killed.

                                         Foreign Channels
                                       by Ammara Tanveer
1. Channel: BBC
  Host: Evan Davis

  Guest: General David Petraeus

  Date: 09.1.2012
  The Commander of NATO led Coalition forces in Afghanistan, General David

  Well and the reality I think that more time we apparently have to change that opinion because
  I think the actuality is that the momentum that the Taliban had reputed over the route of
  recent years has been upturned in many of the areas of the Afghanistan and will be upturned
  in the other areas as well. But that’s not sufficient, you not only have to turn around the
  momentum, of course we have to take away the safe havens and sanctuaries that the Taliban
  have been able to create over the route of those years that they enjoyed the momentum and
  that’s leaving to entail rough fighting.

  We have upturned the momentum positively in Helmand Province. We were creation the
  turnaround of that in Kandahar Province and again foe fighting back. That’s to be probable.
  We have achieved the same positively around Kabul approaching that safety zone out. The
  fact is by the way is that the irregularly people say well when will the Afghans start taking on
  these safety tasks. They have in Kabul. They are showing the way in safety in all but one of
  the districts of Kabul city.

  But the one thing very important to remember that what in July 2011 actually
  happened. That is a date when a course begins, nothing extra nothing fewer. It is not the
  date when the American armies begin an emigration and appear for the exit and the light to

     switch off on the way out of the room. It is a date when a process of change of some
     responsibilities to some Afghan forces in those areas where the circumstances allow it and at
     a rapidity allowed by the circumstances.12

2. Channel: Fox News
     By: President Obama’s News Conference at NATO Summit
     Date: May 21, 2012
     They agreed to obtain a fleet of distantly controlled aircraft-drones, to make stronger
     intelligence, observation and recognizance. We agreed to carry on air patrols over our Baltic
     associates, which reflect our firm commitment to cooperative defense. They also agreed on a
     mix of straight, nuclear defense and nuclear missile forces, that they require and importantly,
     they agreed on how to give for them, and that includes pooling our capital in these tough
     economic times.

     It will not mark the end of Afghanistan’s challenges clearly and their partnership with this
     vital country. But they are making extensive progress in their core purpose of defeating al
     Qaeda and denying it secure haven and while helping the Afghans to stand on their own. We
     leave Chicago with a clear roadmap. Their alliance is dedicated to this plan to bring this war
     in Afghanistan to a accountable end.

     They also granted on what NATO’s relationship with Afghanistan will look like after 2014,
     NATO will go on to train counsel and assist and maintain Afghan forces as they grow


     stronger. It is been hopeful to see pair countries taking the economic commitments to
     maintain Afghanistan’s development in the years ahead. But the international society also
     spoken support for its hard work to bring calm and constancy to south Asia including
     Afghanistan’s neighbors. Finally NATO agreed to deepen it is collaboration with partners
     that have been serious to pact operations as in Libya and Afghanistan. Their 20 associates
     joined by 30 nations from approximately the world. Europe, the Middle East, North Africa,
     and Asia, each of these countries has contributed to NATO operations in different ways.

     Obama said that cannot win in Afghanistan with the help of Pakistan and so far there has
     been little public conversation at this summit at role of Pakistan in finishing the war and talks
     with President Zardari and asked did you create any progress in reopening the supply lines
     and if the superior tensions with Pakistan cannot be resolved does that put the NATO
     coalitions gains in Afghanistan at jeopardy. As we were went into the summit, and I
     emphasized to him, that what we have emphasized publically and confidentially and they
     think that Pakistan has to be the answer in Afghanistan. It is in our state interest to make sure
     Pakistan is democratic and is wealthy and that is stable.

     That we share a common foe in the extremists that are establish not only in Afghanistan but
     also within Pakistan but also with some of the tensions that have certainly arisen after 10
     years of our military attendance in that region. President Zardari shared with Obama, his
     belief that these problems can be worked through; Zardari didn’t expect the supply line issue
     was going to be solved by this summit. But where actually making hard-working progress on
     it, and I think eventually everybody in the alliance, people of Afghanistan and Pakistan will
     recognize that neither country is going to have the kind of safety and wealth that it needs and
     if they can resolve some of these exceptional issues and join in ordinary purpose with the
     international community to create sure these issues are resolved with extremists. And you are
     main argument that for how to grow the financial system and I knew how to make a lot of
     money for investors. And so, to repeat, this is not a distraction. This is what this campaign is
     going to be about. 13


3. Channel: CNN

     Guest: Gen. McChrystal

     Date: 2.4.2012

     U.S. DoD Media Roundtable with Gen. McChrystal NATO Headquarters in Brussels

     We think that the control of the NATO secretary general will be input on this and we'll be
     operational towards credible and meaningful change which we think it is important. We
     view it as a procedure, not an event, which enables Afghan reinforces and ownership and
     reinforce Afghan sovereignty and which puts Afghans in the lead and liable for their future.

     It is going to be hard days ahead. Brutality is up and I believe violence will continue to rise,
     mainly over the summer times. It is required we roll back Taliban pressure as we move
     towards better safety in the future. Afghan poise is improving and they are a resilient and
     courageous people. But they have been at battle for 31 years and impacted by fighting for 31

4. Channel: CNN
     Date: 21.5.2012
     Program: Early Starts



     The big issue on the plan is Afghanistan and how NATO, U.S. and its associates can get out
     of Afghanistan as planned by 2014. In next year 2013, and at the ending of the year the
     Afghan safety forces are expected to have the main lead in safety and the other nations will
     be assisting and training. But as we know that what they are actually going to be doing is
     irritating to find their role for NATO placement 2014. Obama is actually going to have the
     hat out as to obtain these associates to pay and maintain the Afghan safety forces. The U.S. is
     going to be paying a huge of that with the Afghans putting in their element. But actually
     looking for associates to give up to about $1.3 billion in what the U.S. is saying is that this is
     the way we get out and making certain that Afghan forces can calm the country once NATO

5. Channel: CNN
     Program: US and Pakistan's Dysfunctional Relationship; Former Pakistani Ambassador to the
     US Says Pakistan Has Misplaced Priorities; Captain Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger Talks About
     Hudson River Landing and Airline Safety; Imagine a World: Blessed are the Peacekeepers

     Date: May 17, 2012


     Guest: Hussain Haqqani


     We will go forward. It is good for heads of state. President Zardari will indeed hand and make bigger
     a hand of collaboration and friendship. But we have to appreciate that there are two similar narratives
     here. Pakistanis think that U.S is dishonest and Americans think that Pakistanis do not accomplish
     their end of the good deal and especially in the case of terrorism. It is blame on our neighbor, our


     enemies that Osama Bin Laden was in Pakistan. Pakistani society who do not allow having realistic
     and honest debate about foreign policy.

     We are anxious about the future of Afghanistan as Pakistan has genuine concerns. We do not want
     India to make any kind of presence I Afghanistan so that U.S would not have to tolerate. Pakistan and
     U.S have to discuss that issue with honesty. Pakistan have to discuss its all problems and issues with

     Obama latest proposal for that is $2.5 Billion to Pakistan. And now we have to see that what will
     Pakistan’s President will do, either he pick the money or discuss the issue.16

6. Channel: CNN

     Host: Anderso

     Guest: ROBERTSON

     Date: Feb 3, 2012

     Program: NATO Committed to 2014 Deadline for Afghan Transition; NATO Secretary-
     General on Afghanistan

     The Afghan safety forces by anyone's approximation are a long way from being ready to take over
     and match the Taliban. And it's no top secret that the city dweller death toll in Afghanistan goes up
     year on year. The Afghan safety forces are highly competent. We have seen them grip challenging
     safety situations very well. An accountable leader doesn’t expect the Afghan safety forces to be

     Where they gradually hand over lead blame to the Afghan safety forces they will continue the combat
     operations in support of the Afghan safety forces. But it is sensible to expect that the Afghan security
     forces can get full responsibility for the safety by the end of 2014. All 50 ISAF allies will stay the
     course and persevere the mission throughout the change period until the end of 2014. But step by step
     the operation will change from a focus on fight to a focus on support and depending on the security
     state of affairs on the ground. As regards this well-known report on a Taliban prisoner statement, can
     pledge that the Taliban can't just stay out. Sketch down in a plodding and deliberate process our


     attendance in Afghanistan and will leave at the back a still stronger Afghan refuge force and will take
     full accountability for all the safety all over Afghanistan.17


     The program by BBC on Jan 9, 2012 with the host Evan and the Guest was General David Patraeus,
     their views and thoughts was biased because they think that the Taliban had reputed over the route of
     recent years has been upturned in many of the areas of the Afghanistan and will be upturned in the
     other areas as well. But that’s not sufficient, you not only have to turn around the momentum, of
     course we have to take away the safe havens and sanctuaries that the Taliban have been able to create
     over the route of those years that they enjoyed the momentum and that’s leaving to entail rough
     fighting. But the real fact is by the way is that the irregularly people say well when will the Afghans
     start taking on these safety tasks. They have in Kabul. They are showing the way in safety in all but
     one of the districts of Kabul city. But when a process of change of some responsibilities to some
     Afghan forces in those areas where the circumstances allow it and at a rapidity allowed by the

     But if now talk about the Channel Fox News program by President Obama’s, on May 21, 2012, in
     this program President of U.S said that we cannot win the war in Afghanistan without the help of
     Pakistan then why United states didn’t say apology to Pakistan for the incident of Salala Attack on
     Nov 27, 2011. This program was also biased because in this program President of U.S just said that
     they are sloving problems of Afghan nation but eventually they are not, they are killing innocent
     people un-condemned people. And on the bases of NATO supply through Pakistan they are
     smuggling weapons but that President of U.S didn’t mentioned that thing in his speech.

     Now if we talk about the rest of the talk shows are they biased or not then I must say that all the talk
     shows and the interviews are biased because they never show their show agenda’s and policies and
     their never deny on that they are doing wrong. Because the American thinks that they are rolling back


   Taliban pressure as we move towards better safety in the future. Afghan poise is improving and they
   are a resilient and courageous people. But as we know that what they are actually going to be doing is
   irritating to find their role for NATO placement 2014. Obama is actually going to have the hat out as
   to obtain these associates to pay and maintain the Afghan safety forces. The U.S. is going to be
   paying a huge of that with the Afghans putting in their element. The big issue on the plan is
   Afghanistan and how NATO, U.S. and its associates can get out of Afghanistan as planned by 2014.
   In next year 2013, and at the ending of the year the Afghan safety forces are expected to have the
   main lead in safety and the other nations will be assisting and training.

                                          FOREIGN BLOGS

1. Blog:
   Title: NATO attack allegedly kills 24 Pakistani troops, prompts Islamabad to retaliate
   Written by: Isabelle Zehnder
   Publishing Date: November 26th, 2011
   URL Link:


   As reiterated in myriad articles, Pakistan is outraged by the US airstrikes which caused many
   casualties and deterioration. Therefore, Pakistan blocked vital supply routes for US-led
   troops in Afghanistan and demanded that Washington vacate Shamsi air base used by
   American drones after coalition aircraft allegedly killed twenty-four Pakistani troops at two
   posts along a mountainous frontier that serves as a safe haven for militants. The coalition
   between the two countries seems to be at halt. But, on the other hand, the United States is
   trying its best to negotiate with Pakistan claiming to fight together against terrorism but to
   apologize. Followed by Osama bin Laden’s death, the ties between the two countries are
   deteriorating. U.S. Ambassador Cameron Munter said in a statement that he regretted any
   Pakistani deaths and promised to work closely with Islamabad to investigate the incident.

   Comments: There were no comments posted on this article.

2. Blog:
    Title: US-led NATO attack on Pakistan worsens Islamabad-Washington ties
    Written by: Abdus-Sattar Ghazali
    Date: November 28th, 2011
    URL Link:


    Speaking of the US and Pakistan relations, the NATO attack on Pakistani check posts has
    made situations rather apprehendable. Pakistan told the US to leave Shamsi base in June as
    Islamabad limited US activities after an American raid allegedly killed Osama bin Laden on
    May 2 in Abbottabad. Pakistan is an essential route for 49 percent of NATO's supplies to its
    troops in Afghanistan, according to a NATO spokesman.           About 40 per cent of NATO’s
    non-lethal supplies are transported through Pakistan using Chaman and Torkham border
    crossings. NATO has developed an alternative northern route through central Asian states as
    a possibility for a situation where the Pakistani route is blocked or sealed for that matter. The
    evident impact of the memo episode has resulted already in the weakening of the US-client
    Zardari regime’s position and a further consolidated attitude of Pakistan’s military towards
    the government in Islamabad. This article has an inclination towards subjectivity and being
    citizens of the nation in which we abide, we may agree with the viewpoint presented in it.
    These events provide a justification of Pakistan’s action to choke the NATO supplies.


   “Cutting off the supply lines and drone attacks from Pakistan airfields sounds like a serious
    setback to Nato, but the media isn’t sounding any alarms. Are they just assuming Nato can
    buy the rights to get back to business or do they have other plans?” by Mari Eliza.

3. Blog:
    Title: Furious at Latest U.S. Attack, Pakistan Shuts Down Resupply Routes to Afghanistan

    Written by: John Daly
   Publishing Date: December 1st, 2011
   URL Link:


   Following the 26 November NATO assault on two border posts in Mohmand Agency in
   NorthWest Frontier Province, Islamabad sealed its border with Afghanistan to NATO
   supplies after the allied strikes killed twenty-four Pakistani soldiers. The current situation has
   created a spiraling of many past and present factors. As stated in the article, ground supplies
   are shipped into Pakistan’s Arabian Sea Karachi port and offloaded onto trucks before being
   sent to one of five crossing points on the Afghan border. The most important is Torkham at
   the Khyber Pass and Baluchistan’s Chaman. Therefore, it may be conjectured that the recent
   attack has put all these routes at risk permanently as it is being speculated. Pakistan, being
   the shortest and most economical route has been used for nearly a decade to transit almost 75
   percent of the ammunition, vehicles, foodstuff and around 50 percent of fuel for coalition
   forces fighting in Afghanistan. Among major issues at stake here for ISAF and U.S. forces is
   fuel, all of which must be brought in from abroad at high cost. Despite having a backup plan
   for using the Baltic port through Russia and Kazakhstan terminating in Uzbekistan’s Termez
   on the Afghan border, US still strives to use the Pakistani route as it is much more useful and


   Wayne Shanks on December 01 2011 said “I left ISAF in Aug of 2010...this quote is over a
   year old and may not be accurate..."According to ISAF spokesman Colonel Wayne Shanks,
   there are currently nearly 400 U.S. and coalition bases in Afghanistan, ranging from the
   massive Bagram airbase outside Kabul down to camps, forward operating bases and combat

4. Blog: Huffington Post
   Title: Pakistan NATO Attack: Military Claims Confusion, Communication Breakdown
   Hampered Airforce

Written by: Chris Brummitt
Publishing Date: December 2nd, 2011
URL Link:


The article called “Pakistan NATO Attack: Military Claims Confusion, Communication
Breakdown Hampered Airforce” was published in Huffington Post on 2nd December, 2011,
written by “Chris Brummitt”. Chris Brummitt is an Associated Press bureau chief in
Pakistan. Brummitt in this article very cleverly balances the allegations on U.S. by Pakistan
for the NATO airstrike as he reinforces that Pakistan was aware of the attack. However, he
begins by blaming U.S. as “U.S. officials gave Pakistan soldiers the wrong location when
asking for clearance to attack militants” but later he justifies his beginning as he inserts his
frame for the article when he claims “ Pakistani troops had ‘given the go-ahead’ for the
strikes, The Wall Street Journal reported Friday”.

Moreover, the rhetoric employed is completely anti-Pakistan as he subjectively reports that
Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gillani’s statement of holding U.S. accountable for attacking
Pakistan’s sovereignty by using harsh diction like “he ordered border troops to take a ‘more
aggressive’ posture against ‘intruders’”. He further underpins Pakistan being half at fault for
the attack where he added “Pakistanis were at least partly to blame for the deadly error”.

Nevertheless, depicting his objective reporting skills which are restricted to the favour of
U.S. alone, he has highlighted that Washington has rejected the Pakistani allegations of
NATO attack as a deliberate act of aggression. The article highlights that “the U.S. and
NATO have both launched investigations. Washington has not formally apologized, saying it
would not be appropriate before an investigation into the incident is complete.” The
construction of the latter sentence shows the persistent attitude of U.S. for remaining
unapologetic unless they are officially proven guilty.

Nevertheless, paradoxically, the use of censure terms like “Anit-American” sentiments
among Pakistanis, “Islamic Extremists” for religious groups carrying out demonstrations,

    Burmmitt is successfully sowing seeds of Anti-Pakistan sentiments among Americans. The
    article ends with a view of how Pakistan “has its own interests, chiefly in ensuring that
    whatever regime remains in Kabul after U.S. forces withdraw is friendly to Pakistan, and
    hostile to India, its long-term regional foe. Consequently, Pakistan appears to be in no rush to
    take political risks helping the United States.” Certainly, it refers to Pakistan’s friendly links
    with Taliban and the U.S. concern for maintaining good terms with Pakistan for their final
    equation in withdrawing U.S. forces from Afghanistan in 2014.


   “Thousands of Islamic extremists and other demonstrators took to the streets across the
    country after Friday prayers to protest the Nov. 26 strike. Some called on the army to attack
    the U.S.-led coalition in Afghanistan. The chants were a worrying sign for the West because
    it indicates that anger over the incident is uniting hard-liners and the military."
    The anger is not really uniting hard-liners and the military, but causing those who aren't hard-
    liners to re-think their opinions about NATO and the war on terror. The confusion and anger
    at this point in Pakistan is dangerous, and the fact that it's not only the "Islamic extremists"
    that are out on the streets is the most dangerous part.
    Pakistan needs answers, and needs them quickly” by ERiaz
   “Dear Friends,
    Why do we have an relationship wiht Pakistan at all, they sponsor terrorist that attack India
    all the time, they have provided more information on making nukes bombs to countries
    around the world, and they are dictatorship.
    We should cut all ties with them, no more support, no more trade, and work with India
    instead.It is insane, India is the world largest democracy, and we are allies with one of the
    worst countries in the world that is at a state of war with India.China has moved into
    Pakistian, and let the two of these guys be friends, China will control them, we do not need
    to” by Markrsm
5. Blog: Huffington Post
    Title: Pakistani Army Rejects U.S. Review of Deadly NATO Airstrikes
    Written by: Kathy Gannon and Sebastian Abbot
    Publishing Date: December 23rd, 2011

URL Link:


Kathy Gannon and Sebastian Abbot wrote an article in Huffington Post published on 23rd
December, 2011 named “Pakistani Army Rejects U.S. Review Of Deadly NATO Airstrikes”.
Kathy Gannon was the Associated Press correspondent in Pakistan and Afghanistan from
1986-2005; she is currently the Iran bureau chief designate for Associated Press and
Sebastian Abbot is the present Associated Press correspondent in Afghanistan.

This news suggests that Pakistan has been stubborn at insisting that the NATO attack was an
act of deliberate aggression as it articulates “Pakistan has maintained its troops did nothing
wrong and the attack was a deliberate act of aggression” and rejected the U.S. investigation
report on the NATO attack claiming it bias as “past U.S. probes into border incidents were
biased.” However, the report verifies that “mistakes on both sides led to last month's deadly
attack along the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan.” Nevertheless, the spokesman for
Pakistan Army Maj. Gen. Athar Abbas “rejected the report’s claim that Pakistani troops fired
at American and Afghan forces first, triggering the incident.”

Moreover, it also objectifies the news by presenting views from both the countries including
Pakistan’s expression of frustration over the U.S. refusal to apologize for the deaths of the
soldiers and the acceptance of blame by the U.S. officials and their regret over the death of
Pakistani soldiers. On the contrary, U.S has triedto justify their act by saying “their troops
acted "with appropriate force" in self-defense because they thought they were being attacked
by Taliban insurgents.”

The reinforcement of U.S. being innocent continues throughout the news without
discerningly directly blaming Pakistan. While informing the readers about the accusations
made on U.S. and NATO “of ignoring established rules of engagement aimed at avoiding
friendly fire incidents” by Abbas the writers have managed to counter the blame by quoting
Clark that evidently helps in concealing truth from the audience. Clark innocently

    acknowledged “ U.S. forces failed to determine who was firing at them and whether there
    were friendly Pakistani forces in the area. Clark said U.S. forces used incorrect maps and
    mistakenly provided Pakistan with the wrong location where they said fighting was taking
    place – an area almost nine miles (14 kilometers) away.”

    The news ends with Pakistan’s future plans for dealing with U.S. in “very stern, formal way
    ... with well-defined limits of cooperation.” This end only propagates the arrogance of
    Pakistan without considering the damage U.S. has rendered to its sovereignty.


   “Will we be compensated by these Islamist back stabbers for hiding bin laden ? How about
    compensating the people who died on 911? This islamist country is turning out to be a
    nuisance. I won't raise their status by calling them an enemy. These Lilliputians are no soviet
    union or china” by NeverBendover

   So....they must think that the act was deliberate murder. We trusted them to do their part of
    terrorist control, or at least that was what we are paying them to do. Their army was too
    scared to venture where the terrorist had safe havens……or at least that’s what they were
    saying. The terrorists that they did kill were sacrificial lambs to appease NATO. The ones
    they captured ended in a massive escape. ‘So sorry, we didn’t believe anyone could escape
    from the prison but we stopped all the prisoners from escaping.’
    Let’s destroy every crossing between the two countries. Let’s drop information leaflets in the
    valleys where ‘poppy’ and other narcotic plants are cultivated. Notify all news papers, radio
    stations, the fake government that we will be using weed killer and then plain do it. Enough
    of playing fiddly-wink game. If we are serious then lets do some serious as= kicking.
    They are either committed to the cause or they support the problem. They need to ‘put up’ or
    ‘shut up’ and get the hel out of our way.
    I’m not much for diplomacy after 10 years of ‘square dancing’. Get the job done and come
    home. We will never completely stop the terrorist, but we can put the fear of God in them.
    The next time we have to reach out and touch them……..” by Nightawlk
6. Blog: Huffington Post

Title: Costs soar for new war supply routes
Written by: Lolita C. Baldor and Robert Burns
Publishing Date: January 19th, 2012
URL       Link:


Lolita C. Baldor and Robert Burns wrote a neutral article in Huffington Post on 19th January,
2012 named “Costs soar for new war supply routes” in which they have mentioned in figures
the loss United States has suffered on account of NATO supply routes’ termination by
Pakistan. The writers have acknowledged the loss Pakistan faced by the NATO airstrike and
also encapsulated U.S’ unwillingness at paying additional fee charges.

According to U.S. officials “U.S. military has been shrinking its reliance on the Pakistani
routes, which are used to transport fuel and other non-lethal supplies.” The article is
articulated objectively only reporting what the officials on both sides are proposing and it
also focuses on how the U.S.-Pak relationship is important for both U.S. and Pakistan as
“failure to reinstate those routes would signal a more severe diplomatic breach between the
two countries at a critical time in the Afghan war and the ongoing battle against insurgents
who seek sanctuary on the Pakistan side of the border.”

According to a report provided by the Pentagon the NATO supplies are “now costing about
$104 million per month to send the supplies through a longer northern route. That is $87
million more per month than the cargo moved through Pakistan.” Moreover, the apparent
underlying motif behind presenting a neutral account is to reinforce that U.S feels sorry for
the airstrike that caused a severe loss to Pakistan and also that U.S is innocent since blaming
“the errant airstrikes on a series of communications and coordination errors on both sides.”

Nevertheless, it is a clear message for Pakistan that however “sending NATO convoys
through Pakistan is seen by Washington as a significant piece of the overall U.S.-Pakistani
partnership” and is cheaper yet U.S is not ready to submit to Pakistan’s unacceptable
conditions. Thus, U.S has an alternative northern route that it has also used before when
Pakistan first sacked supply routes.

   Comments: There were no comments under this post.

7. Blog:
   Title: Council seeks to undercut critical NATO supplies through Pakistan
   Written by: Robert Tilford
   Publishing Date: February 17th, 2012
   URL Link:


   The article lays emphasis on Difa-e-Pakistan’s demands to refuse to reopen supply routes for
   NATO forces in Afghanistan. They aimed to stage a “sit-in” protest at Islamabad on Feb 20,
   2012 against the drone attacks and for closure of the supplies to NATO on a permanent basis.
   The popular sentiment in Pakistan is opposed to America for obvious reasons. “The average
   Pakistani hates the United States with a purple passion. The Difa-e-Pakistan group generally
   thinks NATO and the US is the enemy and they openly embrace the ideology of terrorism
   and extremism. This place is a breeding ground of hate. It is a disease that is spreading fast
   throughout the entire country. Why the US maintains diplomatic relations with Pakistan is a
   total mystery to me…” says Gabriel Mohammed of Islamabad, Pakistan. It showcases
   Pakistan as an extremist nation, showing inflexibility and redundant in demanding for
   permanent closure of the NATO supplies to Afghanistan.

   Comments: There were no comments posted under this article.

8. Blog: Huffington Post
   Title: Pakistan Anti-Americanism Complicates U.S. War Effort
   Written by: Chris Brummit
   Publishing Date: March 4th, 2012
   URL Link:


On 4th March, 2012, Chris Brummit wrote an article in Hufington Post whose title suggests
the anti-American sentiments amongst the Pakistanis are responsible for complicating U.S
war efforts as the title says “Pakistan Anti-Americanism Complicates U.S. War Effort”.

Brummit begins by relating the overpowering intensity of anti-Americanism amongst
Pakistanis with the diplomatic efforts of U.S to persuade Pakistan to reopen their NATO
supplies. Under this established theme, his subtext suggests that Pakistani lawmakers don’t
have adequate determination as law making bodies to “support a decision that risks them
branded as friends of Washington.”

Pakistan wants U.S to end drone strikes as a precondition for reopening NATO supplies
which is “complicating” U.S strategies for “winding down the 10-year war just weeks before
a major NATO conference in President Barack Obama’s hometown of Chicago.” The
construction of this sentence determines that Pakistan is putting forth an unacceptable
condition for the U.S.

Analyzing the mistrust that has developed between the two countries post 9/11 Burmmit
enunciates, alliance is the need for both countries as “near-bankrupt Pakistan needs American
aid, America needs Pakistan's support against al-Qaida”. This is an attempt to balance the
prior denoted stance of Pakistan being discriminative paradoxically, enveloping hisown
discrimination towards Pakistan.

The article is only focusing on the nationwide “outrage and retaliation from Pakistan, which
suspended diplomatic contacts and blocked vital land routes for U.S. and NATO troops in
Afghanistan.” The concern for the Western media was never the unprovoked attack on
Pakistan but only its reprisal in the form of blocking NATO supplies and ordering U.S to
vacate Shamsi air base, two significant pillars for U.S in their war against terrorism “efforts”.

The biasness of Chris is further observed in his use of words like ‘hardline Islamist’ and
‘banned’ militant groups who have “staged large rallies around the country against any move
to reopen the supply lines.” He directly blames Hafiz Mohammad Saeed for leading these
rallies and blames him for the “2008 attacks in the Indian city of Mumbai that killed 166

    In an effort to report that few inside Pakistani government or the army believe that a
    permanent supply line blockade could result in international isolation, he adds his partial
    comment by asserting that Pakistan is “worth” it in case it doesn’t reopen supply lines, his
    exact words are “a permanent supply line blockade is ‘worth’ the resulting international

    Towards the latter part of the article Chris discusses that U.S “has increased its reliance on an
    alternate, so called ‘northern’ route, through Central Asia in recent years.” Calling Ayaz
    Amiir, a lawmaker in Pakistan a “maverick” Burmmit quotes him “the possibilities of a
    workable deal are being shortened. They are not going to stop drone attacks, the supply lines
    are not going to open.”

    The article ends with hypothesis that if Pakistan is still blocking supplies to NATO members
    the meeting in Chicago could be overshadowed. His article was an utterly biased piece by
    focusing on extremists present in Pakistan and their influence on the Pakistani government
    and military


   “Time has come for America to come home and stop all aid to the rest of the world. Let these
    countries do what they do best, over populate their land beyond sustainability, oppress
    women, abuse children, kill in the name of their gods and eventially start a nuclear war.
    Please charities, religious groups and the media, spare me the horrific pictures that will
    coming as soon as we pull out. Whether we stay or we go, America will be blamed for all the
    problems in these third world wastelands.So lets save us billions of dollars and let them do
    the despicable things they do..... let Allah look over them, because Americans are sick of it
    !!!” by Bluereality 909

   “The religious schools in Pakistan teach hate and intolerance at an early age. Nothing will
    change until the schools stop their teaching of hate” by Kenz300

   “We need to get the hell out of that region and stop supporting Pakistan and Afghanistan.
    The rulers there are so corrupt and speaking out of both sides of their mouth. They say

   whatever it takes to continue getting American $$$ all the while supporting the radical
   jihadists and taliban. We need to bring our troops home now and put them on our borders if
   Obama is really serious about protecting America” Jelicea2001
9. Blog: Mother Jones
   Title: How Pakistan Makes Washington Pay for the Afghan War
   Written by: Dilip Hiro
   Publishing Date: April 17th, 2012
   URL Link:


   The article is a detailed description of the latest development in the fraught relations between
   the United States and Pakistan. Both countries are locked into an “uneasy embrace” since
   9/11. Military officials have warned that the failure to reopen the Pakistani routes could delay
   the schedule for withdrawing American ‘combat troops’ from Afghanistan. On another level,
   it could be said that the US has violated Pakistan’s sovereignty and now they pay the price
   for it. But, Pakistan and the US are caught in a position where neither is functioning without
   the other. Having taken the moral high ground, the Pakistani government pressed its demands
   on the Obama administration. It is said that an appointed Parliamentary Committee on
   National Security (PCNS) deliberately moved at “a snail’s pace to perform the task on hand”,
   while the Pentagon explored alternative ways of ferrying goods into Afghanistan via other
   countries to sustain its war there. By contrast, a strident campaign against the reopening of
   the Pakistani supply lines led by the Difa-e Pakistan Council, representing forty religious and
   political groups, headed by Hafiz Saeed, took off. Its leaders have addressed huge rallies in
   major Pakistani cities. It was quick to condemn Washington’s bounty on Saeed, describing it
   as ‘a nefarious attempt’ to undermine the Council’s drive to protect the country's sovereignty.
   Meanwhile, the loss of the daily traffic of five hundred trucks worth of food, fuel, and
   weapons from the Pakistani port of Karachi through the Torkham and Chaman border
   crossings into Afghanistan, though little publicized in US media, has undermined the fighting
   capability of US and NATO forces.


   “For years I've said we must level the passageways between the Pakistani Tribal Lands and
    the Afghan border to find out if the Paks were "with us or against us"...They've continually
    used the excuse that the terrorists 'slipped back into Afghanistan' while being
    pursued...destroy those pathways and let's find out once and for all who is kidding who...if
    they're serious they'll chase them to the border and kill them...if not, it's as I've suspected for
    years...Pakistan is our enemy” by HappyG

   “Bin Ladin is dead. It is time for Americans to come home” by Matthew Beaven

10. Blog:
    Title: Can US survive without Pakistan’s support?
    Written by: Muhammad Khurshid
    Publishing Date: May1st, 2012
    URL Link:


    The ties between the United States of America and Pakistan are weakening as a result of a
    series of events. Most significantly the Salala incident and the closure of NATO supplies.
    However, the article explicitly states that “Pakistan is the breeding ground for terrorism” and
    that Pakistan and the US cannot survive without each other’s support. It could be said that it
    is a situation in which both nations are scratching each other’s back as a means to an end in
    their own respects. "I don't see any forward movement because the US isn’t offering anything
    in return," one official said. Another issue is that the terrorists “have been getting fund from
    the United States” and on the contrary, it has been said that a powerful religious group in
    Pakistan wants to “destroy” America. This ambiguity raises a lot of questions related to
    terrorism issues and the blame game the United State has been playing ever since 9/11.
    Nevertheless, Pakistan demands an open apology from the US President and is willing to
    open the NATO supplies but US seems to be “uncompromising”. Instead of apologizing, the
    Americans wanted to settle for invitation to Chicago Summit in order to get the NATO
    supplies operational.

    Comments: there were no comments posted under this article.

11. Blog:
   Title: US military supply lines in Pakistan remain stalled!
   Written by: Robert Tilford
   Publishing Date: May 4th, 2012
   URL Link:


   As a result of the blocked NATO supplies by Pakistan, a U.S. defense official, “There's value
   in continuing to have those discussions, but there’s no sense those talks are going to turn into
   decisions”. Other American sources reveal that it is not good enough for the Pakistani’s who
   wish to basically “blackmail” the US into paying about 3 times that amount. Part of the
   failure to win the war in Afghanistan, besides allowing the cultivation of poppy, which is the
   insurgents main funding source, is seen as Pakistan failure to deal with this issue of providing
   terrorists safe havens and refusing the US military to conduct counter terrorism operations in
   their country to destroy base camps and training facilities. This article is relatively more
   inclined towards bias as compared to the rest of the articles analyzed so far. It is because it
   explicitly states that “It is freaking nuts to reward a country, like Pakistan, with billions of
   dollars in payments, who continues to provide safe havens to our enemies and refuses to
   allow our military supplies to pass through its country at a time when our soldiers are
   fighting and dying in Afghanistan. This is part of the insanity of war.” The article voices out
   opinions on the views and perceptions of the Americans which is lucid in exuberating
   bitterness towards Pakistan.

   Comments: There were no comments posted under this article.

12. Blog:
   Title: US, Pakistan negotiate reopening NATO supply line
   Written by: Sebbastian Abbot
   Publishing Date: May 14th, 2012
   URL Link:


   Analysts have conjectured that the Obama administration is reluctant to apologize for the
   airstrikes in Pakistan as he is in an election year and cannot do so despite the fact that the US
   has tried to make negotiations specifically shedding light on the aid Pakistan receives from
   them. US officials have said in private that they have no intention of stopping covert CIA
   drone strikes in Pakistan because they see as a way to targeting militants in the country who
   pose a threat to the West. The strikes are immensely unpopular in Pakistan because many
   people believe they mostly kill civilians. The issue is complicated by the fact that Pakistan is
   widely believed to have supported some of the strikes in the past, although that cooperation
   has come under strain as the relationship between the US and Pakistan is adulterated. The
   article represents views of analysts as well as the people abiding in Pakistan and shows that
   reality differs for both countries altogether as their motives differ.

   Comments: There were no comments under this post.

13. Blog:
   Title: Pakistani president to attend NATO summit
   Written by: Sebbastian Abbot
   Publishing Date: May 17th, 2012
   URL Link:


   Pakistan’s cooperation with the United States has been hampered over the last eighteen
   months by steadily deteriorating relations as a result of blocking the NATO supplies. Amirul
   Azeem, a senior leader of Pakistan’s largest religious party, Jamaat-e-Islami, said Thursday
   that the group’s supporters would block NATO supplies because of Washington’s refusal to
   honor parliament’s demands. Moreover, Islamist leaders threatened to block the supply route
   if it does reopen. But it is unclear how successful they would be. Anti-American sentiment is
   rampant in Pakistan, but the country’s powerful army has an interest in seeing the supplies
   resume because the move could free up over $1 billion in frozen U.S. military aid.

   Comments: There were no comments under this post.

14. Blog:
   Title: White House, Pakistan in talks on supply lines
   Written by: Julie Pace
   Publishing Date: May 20th, 2012
   URL Link:


   In a short and concise article, it has been stated that Pakistan closed the supply lines in
   November in response to a US airstrike that killed two dozen Pakistani soldiers. The route is
   critical for getting supplies to NATO forces in Afghanistan. Deputy national security adviser
   Ben Rhodes says the U.S. does believe the issue will be resolved but says there is still work
   to be done. On the other hand, President Obama is not expecting to finish negotiations with
   Pakistan over reopening key supply lines during the NATO summit.

   Comments: There were no comments under this story.

15. Blog: Huffington Post
   Title: Obama Meets With Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari And Afghan President Hamid
   Written by: Julie Pace
   Publishing Date: May 21st, 2012
   URL Link:

    “Obama Meets With Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari And Afghan President Hamid
   Karzai” written by Julie Pace on 21st May,2012 discloses that President Obama met Afghan
   President Hamid Karzai and Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari on the sidelines on NATO
   Summit and Obama says “the U.S. is making ‘diligent progress’ on re-opening supply routes
   from Pakistan to Afghanistan.”

    Nevertheless, U.S. officials had indicated Obama would not hold a formal bilateral meeting
    with Zardari as long as the supply route matter remained unresolved. However, Zardari told
    Obama that these issues could get “worker through.”


   “If you want get a feeling of just how corrupt the Pakistani leadership is just google Zardari's
    palace in Dubai. The billionaire owns many other properties around the world including
    lavish horse farms in the UK....yet they are still trying to shake down the Americans for more
    cash” ny Gingerland.

   “Opening the NATO Supply Route will be a suicidal attempt for Pakistani rulers in power as
    the public will toss them off. Public of Pakistan is rightly stuck on two points for the opening
    of that route.
    1. An unconditional apology by US for killing Pakistani troops.
    2. No more Drone attacks and killings of innocent civilians.
    US and NATO badly need to realize the fact that they can not survive in Afghanistan without
    the help of Pakistan nor they can exit from the mess they created in that region without
    Pakistan's help.” By Davinci Mode.
16. Blog:
    Title: U.S. senators vote to tie Pakistan aid to supply routes
    Written by: Susan Cornwell
    Publishing Date: May 22nd, 2012
    URL Link:


    Pakistan has been among the top aid-receivers from the US government and its action of
    choking the NATO routes may lead to serious consequences such as no longer receiving any
    aid. US Senator Lindsey Graham, a top Republican said, “We're not going to be giving
    money to an ally that won't be an ally”. The article states that the United States released $800
    million in aid for Pakistan's military previously but American officials have suggested the aid
    could be restored if Pakistan would display more commitment to counter-terrorism

   operations and opening the route for NATO supplies. The level of annoyance is apparent
   among the American officials on account of Pakistan’s action and US is trying hard to
   convince the Pakistani government to pay heed to their demands. The tone of this article is
   somewhat objective and it reveals facts as they are. Clearly, a love-hate relationship exists
   between the two nations.

   Comments: There were no comments under this article

17. Blog: The World
   Title: The US, Pakistan and that dysfunctional relationship
   Written by: Geoff Dyer
   Publishing Date: May 25th, 2012
   URL Link:


   The article focuses on the erratic relationship between Pakistan and the United States where
   both countries stand at odds with each other on the basis of opening NATO supplies for the
   war against Afghanistan. The article has an undertone of subjectivity where the efforts of the
   US in favour of Pakistan have been reiterated so as to portray a clean image whereas the
   rhetoric used in reference of Pakistan is suggested as “fake”. It explicitly states that despite a
   hypothesized “rapprochement on the supply routes”, President Zardari only had “a few
   moments of conversation” with the US President Barack Obama. It appears through the
   article that that “anti-American sentiments continue to run high in Pakistan, fuelled by
   continued drone attacks” and Pakistan demands of much higher price to open the supplies for
   NATO. However, an “ill feeling” prevails due to this reason. Accompanying this is the fact
   that the oppositions in Pakistan want President Obama to apologize for the November
   incident related to the air-strikes. It seems almost impossible especially when he is in an
   election year. Hence, the gist is that the relations between Pakistan and United States of
   America are at anomalous and “dysfunctional” as a combination of the above mentioned
   factors unless inter-country war is ended and a constructive approach is adopted by both
   nations to make the situation better.


   “The US and Pakistan are at odds about Afghanistan. For Pakistan, Afghanistan seems to
    mean "strategic depth" versus India. And whatever that may mean, it includes keeping
    Afghanistan chaotic enough for any outside player to gain any kind of dominance.
    For the US the goal is to deny anyone from using Afghanistan as a launch pad for attacks on
    its interests. Any President will have to explain to the electorate how they will prevent
    another attack like 9/11, and stabilizing Afghanistan sufficiently is a piece of the puzzle.
    Pakistan            wants              chaos,            US             wants              stability.
    What we lack for a proper analysis is a solid understanding of what motivates those in power
    in Pakistan. Everyone has theories, nobody has a solid enough clue (but I've heard plenty of
    unsolid ones). Why doesn't anyone investigate this and come up with a plausible theory? The
    most plausible I've heard so far is that those in powers in Pakistan fear surrendering power to
    democracy and hence continue to create conflict, for which they're needed, nearby.
    Provoking conflict with India is too dangerous, so provoking the Pashtun and the
    conservative rural areas of western Pakistan against the Pakistani state is key to undermining
    democracy in Pakistan and staying in power. That theory explains everything. The downside
    is: it's a potty theory as well. If it's true, the Pakistani ISI is infantile and needs to be given a
    constructive way out from their paranoia.” By Felix Drost

   “Why Nato forces in Afhganistan needs to pay higher charges for trucks contaning supplies
    for its forces in Afghanistan are:
    600 heavy loaded (contaning nato cargo) trucks passing through same roads daily they are
    damaging the road net work(in Pakistan) for last so many years, these roads needs to be
    Nato had been buying fuel for running its cargo trucks (600 trucks a day) through Pakistan
    and for onwards journey to Afghanistan from gesoline pumps inside Pakistan which was
    selling subsidised gasoline ment only for Pakistani resident living and working inside
    For the safety of trucks (contaning Nato cargo) added security measure like deployement of
    additional police check post and para millitary petrols are to be performed.
    All these acts and measure have created extra burden on Pakistani tax payers so Nato needs

  to burden its shoulders for the expenses that are incurred because of its operation rather than
  trying to pass that to a non Nato nation tax payers” by Zahid.

                                    FOREIGN MAGAZINES

1. Magazine: Newsweek
  Title: America’s Pakistan Mess Gets Worse with Alleged NATO Strike
  Writer: Bruce Riedel
  Date: November 27th, 2011
  URL Link:


  Bruce Riedel’s article called “America’s Pakistan Mess Gets Worse With Alleged NATO
  Strike” was published in Newsweek Magazine on 27th November, 2011. Bruce Riedel, a
  former longtime CIA officer, is a senior fellow in the Saban Center at the Brookings
  Institution. At President Obama’s request, he chaired the strategic review of policy toward
  Afghanistan and Pakistan in 2009.

  The article begins by elaborating the undeniable truth that “America’s relationship with
  Pakistan is crashing”. Bruce has attempted to begin with impartiality by asserting that
  “decades of mistrust and duplicity on both sides are coming to the surface”. Initially he holds
  both contries responsible for the downslide in their relationship especially quoting incidents
  like the Raymond Davis case, Osama bin Laden Operation, assassination of President
  Burhannudin Rabbani and the Taliban attack on the U.S embassy. The tilt in the superficial
  impartiality at the beginning seeps in as he out rightly blames Pakistan for the latter attack on
  the U.S embassy in Kabul saying it was “orchestrated” by Pakistan.

  He reports the death of 24 Pakistani soldiers using the term ‘allegedly’ due to NATO air
  strikes, meanderingly denying it. In a deliberate attempt to further neutralize his stance he
  skillfully draws an analogy between how both countries have been using each other keeping
  aside their intended motifs. He asserts, “This trust gap is the result of decades of mutual

    deceit and lying. Pakistan proclaimed it was our ally against communism or Al Qaeda or
    whatever when what it really just wanted was arms and help to fight India. America promised
    to help democracy in Pakistan and instead backed four brutal military dictators. Ironically,
    the Army believes we have betrayed it over and over again. We have.” Evidently he is
    pointing at the deceit and lying from Pakistan’s end by establishing their acts of betraying
    trust. Nevertheless, in his blame on America we observe undertones of sarcasm for the
    Pakistani military.

    Richard furthermore complains about Pakistan’s ties to the Taliban. He adds “Pakistan’s
    Army backs a medieval monstrosity that would impose a reprise of the Taliban hell of the
    1990s. However, one must not forget that when U.S. had strategic interests in funding
    Jihadists in 80’s, they did so without any moral or ethical questioning. Now, that Pakistani
    Leadership perhaps feel they have a strategic interest in maintaining a pro-Pakistan (Taliban)
    presence in Afghanistan, their strategies should not be questioned either.

    Nonetheless, this article is entirely anti-Pakistan with evident traces in the structure and in
    the citation of events that only favors U.S. in establishing in undertones that Pakistan is a
    state that sponsors terrorism. The concluding sentence of the article is “the U.S.-Pakistan
    relationship is in tatters. It is likely to get even worse now” which would certainly be blamed
    entirely on Pakistan.


   “Well, they've got us by the short hairs as long as we need to move supplies into Afghanistan
    - but that will soon end, if we can believe what we are told. Once that happens, we can tell
    tell Pakistan what they can do with their Radical Islamists, and turn off the money spigot.

    We have a lot more in common with India than we do with Pakistan (i.e. we are both non-
    Islamic democracies, under attack by Islamic militants), and we should pursue closer
    relations with them. If we were to cut off the military aid we have lavished on Pakistan, in
    favor of military aid to India, I believe they would be more than happy to deal with both
    Pakistan and the Taliban in return, and would not mind hosting a few secret drone bases, as

    The Indians have long term experience with Islamic militants, dating back to the Caliphate,
    and its attempts to conquer them. And of course they have a lot of experience dealing with
    cross border terrorism from Pakistan. We therefore have a mutuality of interests here, and we
    should help them in their endeavors every way we can” by Gort51

   “How about this? America doesn't want to let China extend its influence in the region. As
    China can only do so through Pakistan(Considering India is out as a Chinese ally), America
    is 'helping' and 'engaging' Pakistan. The US cares crap about the nukes being used in the
    region and even lesser for Pakistan's development. The faster the Pakis and the Afghans
    understand this and behave accordingly, the better.” By Deltacancri.
2. Magazine: Foreign Policy Magazine
    Title: Daily brief: NATO airstrike kills two dozen Pakistani soldiers
    Writer: Andrew Lebovich
    Date: November 28th, 2011

    URL Link:


    On November, 28, 2011, Andrew Lebovich wrote an article entitled “Daily brief: NATO
    airstrike kills two dozen Pakistani soldiers” in the Foreign Policy Magazine. The sub heading
    of the article “Tragic and Unintended” portrays U.S as innocent, very cleverly amalgamating
    his sympathies for Pakistan by recalling it a “tragic” incident however, simultaneously; he
    maintains to validate that U.S can’t be held solely responsible since it was an “unintended”
    attack. Moving on, he affirms that NATO airstrike “has put further strain on the already tense
    U.S.-Pakistan relationship” which has prompted American officials to reach out to their
    counterparts in Islamabad over their displeasure on Pakistan’s loss.

    The fact that Lebovich is stressing upon Pakistan’s response clarifies his real concern which
    is certainly not Pakistan’s loss but the response which curtailed NATO supply route through
    Pakistan, the order to vacate the Shamsi Air Base and how this reprisal will predictably lead

    to Pakistan’s reduced efforts to help NATO in negotiating a solution to the violence in

    Towards the end of the article, Andrew has employed rhetoric that can certainly embed
    feelings of hatred towards Pakistani’s by emphasizing upon their reaction without logically
    reasoning it out with the Pakistanis’ tragic predicament. This can be substantiated with a
    concrete evidence as he ends the article with what the commander of Tehreek-e-Taliban said
    “America can never be a friend of Pakistan”. The structure of this article fabricated with
    selective statements that suit the author’s anti Pakistan sentiments like Pakistani officials say
    the attack was "unprovoked", Athar Abbas termed NATO's apology “not good enough,”.


   “If Pakistani state is really threatened by terrorists as it often claims, then it must accept such
    deaths as a necessary price to pay for its own survival. Pakistan shelters Mullah Omar’s QST
    and Haqqani’s HQN. Pakistan allows QST and HQN to stage cross-border terrorist raids in
    Afghanistan from locations close to Pakistani border check posts where Pakistani troops are
    manning the posts. Pakistani Army has repeatedly refused to take military actions against
    Haqqani’s HQN and Mullah Omar’s QST. NATO strikes QST and HQN terrorist staging
    points close to Pakistani border check posts where Pakistani troops are. And NATO is to be
    blamed for missing the targets? Instead of holding Pakistan responsible for allowing
    HQN/QST terrorist staging points who kill US/NATO troops, why is US on the back foot,
    apologizing for death of Pak troops?” by Marty Martel.
3. Magazine: The Atlantic
    Title: A Hot Flash in the Cold War With Pakistan
    Writer: Marc Ambinder
    Date: November 28th, 2011
    URL Link:


    Marc Ambinder wrote an article “A Hot Flash in the Cold War With Pakistan” on November
    28th 2011. The articles open with a comment on the downslide on U.S. and Pakistan relations

    owing to the then recent NATO attack on Pakistan’s two check posts. The writer has directly
    blamed Pakistan for opening fire first as it states “the latest bombardment by unmanned
    armed drones launched from Shamsi Air Base inside Pakistan”. On the contrary the U.S
    Deartment of Defense and State “has stopped short of apologizing, since NATO hasn’t
    figured out what provoked the shootings”. This establishes the biasness towards Pakistan.

    U.S has been emphasizing that “it is in their ‘mutual interest’ to maintain a relationship.”
    Ambinder states that “NATO commanders don’t trust the Pakistanis manning border
    positions” and that Pakistan has accused U.S for knowing the locations of the two check
    posts where the soldiers died. Moreover, he has used rhetoric like ‘recriminations’ have
    begun in Pakistani press by ‘using’ the “incident to once again question why Pakistan keeps
    re-engaging with its own ally from hell, the United States, even though the U.S. seems to
    demonstrate a complete lack of respect for Pakistani sovereignty.”

    The discriminative tilt of Ambinder is further observed as         he articulates sentences to
    undermine Pakistan like “as much as it pains U.S. officials to admit it, when they step into
    the shoes of the

    average Pakistani, there is not much to like about our country. A large amount of the money
    sent in aid is consumed by the army, which lives well in an otherwise poor country.”
    According to this article the U.S. is only concerned about Pakistan strategically as “vis-à-vis
    its geographic proximity to Afghanistan and as a stick in the eye of India, with whom the
    U.S. is establishing a strategic partnership to counter Chinese influence in the region.”

    Pakistan is depicted as a beggar hungry for U.S aid as Ambinder says “this incident will not
    end the relationship. Pakistan’s Army, which runs the country, needs its money.” The article
    ends with a few suggestions advising NATO to how humility and return to the cold war.
    Evidently this article is occupied with an anti-Pakistan sentiment while it talks about anti-
    American sentiments amongst Pakistanis. What could be more justifying!


   “For the longest of time we in the US would roll our eyes in disbelief every time that the
    Indians brought up the idea of the out-of-control, terroristic, ISS, and the danger of the

    Pakistani government to World security. My what a different World this would be if we had
    heeded such warnings. I for one welcome an increasingly closer relatioship with India while
    eagerly await the minimization of all contacts (political, military, commercial, social,
    cultural, etc) with the Islamist Pakistanis.” By GWUPete.

   “I think that it is high time to be peace in Pakistan and everybody should start care more
    about the people, not only follow their own interests, but start thinking for the plain
    people! Moving” by Donald552.
4. Magazine: Counter Punch
    Title: Nato vs Pakistan
    Writer: Tariq Ali
    Date: November 28th, 2011
    URL Link:


    Tariq Ali on 28th November, 2011 wrote an article “Nato vs Pakistan” he affirmed that
    NATO attack on Pakistan was “deliberate” since the “Nato commanders had long been
    supplied with maps marking these checkpoints by the Pakistani military. They knew that the
    target was a military outpost.” The accusation that Pakistan fired first was “ferociously
    denied by Islamabad.” This incident followed by continuous attacks on Pakistan’s
    sovereignty in 2011 has only. With undertones of sarcasm he proclaims that “Pakistani
    sovereignty is a fiction” not only for U.S but also for the political leaders of Pakistan who
    have “willingly surrendered their sovereignty many decades ago.” It is now being violated
    openly and brutally is the real cause for concern.

    Furthermore, it informs Pakistan in retaliation has halted NATO convoys to Afghanistan that
    In retaliation and “asked the US to vacate the Shamsi base that they built to launch drones
    against targets in both Afghanistan and Pakistan with the permission of the country’s rulers.”

    With an attack’s impact of such enormity the motives remain a ‘mystery’. Analyzing this
    impact Tariq articulates that “it will create further divisions within the military, further
    weaken the venal Zardari regime, strengthen religious militants and make the US even more

   hated than it already is in Pakistan.” He is reinforcing that this incident will play an intense
   role in deepening the anti American sentiments against Pakistanis. in

   Scrutinizing the purpose behind the incident Tariq deduces that “perhaps it was simply a tit-
   for-tat to punish the Pakistani military for dispatching the Haqqani network to bomb the US
   embassy and NATO HQ in Kabul’s ‘Green Zone’ a few months back.” The NATO attack has
   been followed by the memo-gate scandal which assimilated Haqqani’s resignation as
   Pakistan’s ambassador to The U.S. Nevertheless, the article concludes with disclosing that
   Zaradi stood for “his man” Haqqani and the military wants his head. Succeeding this unrest
   “NATO has entered fray” and the story is not yet over.

   Comments: There were no comments under this article.

5. Magazine: Front Page Magazine
   Title: Pakistan to Blame for NATO Airstrike
   Writer: Ryan Mauro
   Date: November 30th, 2011
   URL Link:


   Ryan Mauro wrote an article on 30th November, 2011. As the title of the article “Pakistan to
   Blame for NATO Airstrike” is self-explanatory of the bias against Pakistan, the article
   reinforces that Pakistan is an aggressive country and “Pakistan’s blocking of the supplies to
   Afghanistan is its most aggressive” reprisal so far. It also suggests that U.S should not rely on
   Pakistan and “should airlift more supplies using allies in central Asia” and should and this
   has led secretly build a supply route through India. Mauro claims that Pakistan is a state that
   evidently sponsors terrorism as he writes “Pakistan’s sponsorship of terrorism recently led
   Afghanistan to form a “strategic partnership” with India, Pakistan’s worst enemy.”

   He further self-assess that Al-Qaeda and Taliban are a threat to Pakistani government whom
   it is providing asylum. Pakistan has also been accused of forgetting U.S favors in undertones
   as he says “Pakistan seems to be treating terrorists more favorably than it treats the U.S.,
   despite the billions of dollars it receives from American taxpayers.” An interesting fact

    remains that U.S. is expecting Pakistan to apologize to U.S for giving refuge to Bin Laden
    not realizing the loss that has struck Pakistan with the NATO attack and the Osama Bin
    Laden raid that impaired Pakistan’s sovereignty.

    The article ends with a clear accusation that Pakistan is supporting terrorists “Pakistan is
    under unprecedented pressure to pick a side and its choosing the side of the terrorists.” It
    helps evaluate the hatred West encapsulates against Pakistan.


   “Pakistan wants the money that flows from the US, but does not want the responsibility that
    goes along with it. Every news agency should be shouting the truth every day until our
    congressional delegates get the picture. Stop making our soldiers fight with one hand tied
    behind their backs. No more safe zones for our enemies. You hid in a mosque and fire at US
    forces, the mosque gets leveled. You run across the border and then turn around and shoot at
    our soldiers, our warplanes will blow you up. If one side is not allowed to shoot back what
    king of a war is that? It's time the US gets serious, it's the only thing Islamists understand” by

   “I still don't understand how the US gives billions of dollars every year to it's enemies.
    Where's the logic?” by Josh.
6. Magazine: The Economist
    Title: Till death us do part
    From: The Print Edition
    Date: December 3rd, 2011
    URL Link:


    The article “Till death us do part” from the print edition of the Economist was published on
    3rd December 2011 not only came as a blow to Pakistan but also to the strategic interests of
    the U.S.-Pak. alliance In this article yet again it is reported that the NATO airstrike on
    Pakistan is termed as an “accident” and a “provocation by Taliban fighters, who enjoy

   sanctuary on Pakistani soil” by the U.S. This infuriated Pakistan reports the article without
   logically understanding the reason for its fury which is that this attack is “a deliberate assault
   on its sovereignty.”

   It further reports that Pakistan in reprisal has sealed the supply routes for NATO to
   Afghanistan, ordered the U.S to vacate the Shamsi Air Base ando also boycotted the BONN
   Conference on Afghanistan in retaliation. Relations look dire. As a result of the incident,
   Pakistan’s government said on November 29th that it would boycott the Afghan talks that are
   about to open Analyzing the severity of incidents between Pakistan and U.S since Osama Bin
   Laden operation the article depicts hope that the allies will get over this issue too. However,
   the incidents have raised anti American sentiments amongst Pakistanis “which could spur
   younger, religiously minded officers, especially those who have not been trained by America,
   to demand a snapping of ties.” This sentence depicts the anti-Pakistan sentiments budding
   amongst the Westerners.

   The article concludes articulating that both countries need each other yet Pakistan is only
   portrayed as a materialist state that has no “alternative to bidding for more lavish American
   aid.” However, America’s need for Pakistan is to get the Afghan Taliban and Haqqani
   network to talks, to do more on counter-terrorism, to allow drones to keep flying in its tribal
   areas and to keep its big nuclear arsenal safely locked up. It seems that Pakistan’s nuclear
   arsenal is also discomforting America.

   Comments: There were no comments at the end of this post.

7. Magazine: Counter Punch
   Title: Endless Needless Deaths
   Writer: Linh Dinh
   Date: December 2nd, 2011
   URL Link:


   Linh Dinh in the article “Endless Needless Deaths” published on 5th December 2011 begins
   by inducting that peace is not in the American vocabulary. The article opens with an account

   of how America has been killing Pakistani’s since the Bush administration in 2004 led by a
   blood practice launched by Obama that killed 24 soldiers in the 2011 NATO attack on
   Pakistan. U.S “doesn’t do apologies” and thus hasn’t made an apology to Pakistan even after
   continuous attacks on its sovereignty. Additionally McCain “threatened” Pakistan to cut its
   aid, accusing Pakistan of supporting terrorists who kill Americans. However, to him the
   martyred soldier were killed in a “fog of war” and was only an accident. This article
   evidently portrays the account of anti-Pakistan sentiments among the Americans.

   It furthers states that Americans have been killing Pashtuns in their own hometown for a very
   long time for crossing an arbitrary line, “when America is the world’s most persistent and
   violent violator of international borders.” However, it is the U.S which is not respecting the
   sovereignty of nations by invading their territory. It also denotes that America is forcing
   Pakistan to “kill its own citizens, Pashtuns and others, as a contribution to the petroleum
   fueled, natural gaseous, opium hazy and totally fogged up War on Terror.”

   The article concludes with a very thought provoking sentence “peace is not in its vocabulary,
   since war is how Washington and Wall Street make their money.” The tone of this article is
   strongly anti-American and pro Pakistan but with logical reasoning of America’s evil

   Comments: There were no comments at the end of this post.

8. Magazine: Counter Punch
   Title: U.S. Probe of Border Attack Hardened Pakistani Suspicions
   Writer: Gareth Porter
   Date: January 26th, 2012
   URL Link:


   The U.S and its investigation reports insist the attack was “accidental”. Pakistani critiques
   have been questioning ignorance of U.S about the Pakistani check post. It is a question worth

   pondering. Some revelations about the Clark report validate that Pakistan’s contentions might
   have been right about U.S concealing the true picture of this incident, persistently calling it
   an “accident”. It also unveils a significant finding that the U.S military was being lazy to stop
   this attack knowing that Pakistani military positions were in fire.

   The title of this article “U.S. Probe of Border Attack Hardened Pakistani Suspicions” is self-
   explanatory about the content of this article which is that a few revelations of the Clark
   investigation report has validated Pakistan’s doubts about the incident.

   The Pakistani critiques claim the failure to check on Pakistani posts as deliberate and not “an
   innocent omission”. Furthermore, Pakistani military pointed out that “U.S. attack on its
   “Volcano” base by U.S. helicopter gunships continued for “as long as one hour and 24
   minutes” even after the U.S. side was informed of the attack on Pakistan’s post and also
   “every soldier in and around the post was individually targeted.”

   According to the timeline in Clark Report, the “Volcano” began nearly 40 minutes after the
   attack Nearly 40 minutes after the attack on border post “Volcano” began, according to a
   timeline in the report, the U.S. Liaison officer to Pakistan’s 11th Corps reported to the
   Special Operations Task Force that U.S. helicopters and a drone had been firing on a
   Pakistani military post. But the Task Force waited for at least 10 more minutes, according to
   the timeline, before informing the Special Forces Unit. Meanwhile, “Pakistani troops were
   being hunted down one by one.”

   This article validates the revelations of the Cark report and hence proves the authenticity of
   Pakistan’s suspicions. It is an objective disclosure of the facts undisclosed earlier.

   Comments: There were no comments on this post.

9. Magazine: Harvard Political Review
   Title: The Pakistan Dilemma
   Writer: Gram Slattery
   Date: 16th January, 2012
   URL Link:


Glam Slattery managed to pull together his strings of hatred for Pakistan by literally blaming
Pakistan for providing deliberate abode to terrorists without factual evidences. It is
undoubtedly understood b both allies that “the interests of the two governments are often in
perfect contradiction.” It further quotes a statement by the “credible” Mike Mullen that ISI is
“supporting the jihadist terror cell Haqqani in its October attack on the American embassy in

Slattery advances to demonstrate an account of his hatred towards Pakistan by blaming the
military for knowing the whereabouts of Osama Bin Laden in Abbottabad and stating that it
has “effectively brushing aside its own ‘deficiencies’ and the ‘impurities inherent’ in its
clandestine system of unsavory partnerships.” Considering the U.S’ comprehension of
Pakistan he adds “given the already murky allegiances of the Pakistani military, it’s no
wonder that the decision by its leaders to scale back its antiterrorism cooperation with the
United States led the US government to drastically cut military aid to Pakistan twice in
2011.” Fundamentally, the article is an endeavor to hold Pakistan worthy of all the disrespect
it is facing in the Western world. But, it is interesting to note how the civilian government of
Pakistan still encompasses their sympathies to give aid to Pakistan whereas they are
determinably against the military for it is taking a stand against their acts of attacking
Pakistan’s sovereignty.

However, U.S believes that soon the “US policy may need to focus on appeasing primarily
military leaders rather than civilian ones.” Moreover, he continues to use words like
“corruption”, “complicity with terror” and “general ineptitude” for Pakistani military and the

In an effort to reinforce that Pakistan is hungry for U.S. aid Gram concludes that “American
funds must be allocated for certain, specified projects and be conditionalized on extreme
transparency. Otherwise, if we fail to correctly reallocate our support funds or to take steps
to realign our relationship with a rapidly changing Pakistan, US monetary aid could once
again fund the whims of the next Pakistani terror cell.” This is alongside warning the U.S to

    reconsider giving aid as Pakistan might invest it in harboring more terrorists. This article is
    an outright depiction of hatred towards Pakistan.


   “Gram,
    I'm not sure if the interests of the U.S. and Pakistan are "in perfect
    contradiction." While your point about the military and civilian
    government growing increasingly connected is spot on, there is still
    common ground that both countries can reach. Though, the fact that Marc
    Grossman's visit to Pakistan was denied by their government is
    discouraging. Nonetheless, the U.S. should continue to exert pressure
    and work to achieving a peace in the region.” By Andrew Seo.
10. Magazine: Foreign Affairs
    Title: Talking tough to Pakistan
    Writer: Stephen D. Krasner
    Date: February, 2012
    URL Link:


    Stephen D. Krasner in his article entitled “Talking tough to Pakistan” culminates the only
    solution he thinks will get Pakistan to co-operate with U.S in making their foreign policy
    successful is to end all assistance to Pakistan. This article clearly depicts the frustration of
    United States over the halting of NATO supplies through Pakistan as a retaliation for
    continuously attacking its sovereignty beginning in 2011 from the Raymond Davis case
    however, the attack on Pakistan’s two check posts that killed 24 soldiers in November, 2011
    has only worsened the already degenerating Pak-U.S. relationship.

    In vivid undertones the writer is accusing Pakistan as a betraying state that is harboring
    terrorists in return for the U.S. aid they receive. This is an attempt at threatening Pakistan for
    being incorporative toward U.S interests as it states “Only by credibly threatening to end all
    assistance to Islamabad can Washington convince Pakistan’s leaders that genuine

   cooperation is in their best interest.” It clearly summarizes that U.S. is focused on imposing
   its will upon Pakistan by hook or by crook. The subjectivity of the article lay bare open in its
   title and sub heading which when joined together forms a sentence that is evident of its
   stance “Talking Tough to Pakistan” to “End Islamabad’s Defiance.”

   Comments: There were no comments at the end of this article.

11. Magazine: The Economist
   Title: The hardest word
   From: The Print Media
   Date: May 12th, 2012
   URL Link:


   “The hardest word” written by an anonymous writer on May 12th 2012, focuses on how the
   relationship between two strategic allies is “paralyzed” and reasons it metaphorically
   comparing the behavior of the two nations with that of “bickering between children” as
   Obama Administration is unable to swallow pride and “apologize” and the Pakistani
   government has refused to reopen its roads for supplying NATO soldiers in Afghanistan,
   after closing them as punishment.

   In April, America’s special envoy to Pakistan, Marc Grossman, left Islamabad, “without a
   face-saving deal.” However, both countries are hopeful to reach an agreement to reopen the
   supply lines so that Pakistan could be invited to the Chicago Summit.

   America is furious at Pakistan for not stopping the Haqqani network based in Pakistan’s
   tribal areas, from pulling off attacks in Afghanistan intended to make “American claims of
   progress there look hollow.” According to the writer the fact that American drone strikes
   often hit the “wrong” jihadi fighters as far as Pakistan is concerned that is, groups with whom
   the armed forces have reached an accommodation in order to battle other outfits it regards as
   more dangerous” is majorly responsible for weakening ties between the two allies.

   The article ends with a heralded solution that “once Pakistan gets the apology it wants, it
   should be willing to allow NATO supplies back through its territory.” Nevertheless, the route
   won’t be free and a transit tax would be imposed on each container. It also highlights
   Pakistan’s willingness to overcome this tension as soon as possible as it quotes a Pakistani
   official “We want to fix this relationship and we want it badly, it is in Pakistan’s national
   interest. But it is just hard to see how we get there.” This article is a neutral account of
   incidents responsible for damaging the relationship between U.S and Pakistan with a solution
   for both countries to stop bickering like children. It accentuates that one word “sorry” could
   change circumstances for both.

   Comments: There were no comments at the end of this article.

12. Magazine: Counterpunch
   Title: Sowing the Seeds of Hate in Pakistan
   Writer: Atif K. Butt
   Date: May 3rd, 2011
   URL Link:


   Atif K. Butt in this article writes about the budding sentiments of hatred amongst Pakistanis
   against U.S. The ongoing decade long Afghan war or the war on terror hasn’t yet defeated
   the Taliban insurgents and has failed to secure a position in Afghanistan, despite spending
   billions of dollars being spent on it by the U.S

   U.S states cannot carry on in this war without the crucial support from Pakistan as Pakistan is
   working as a frontier partner of U.S. in the war on terror. However, the downslide in the
   support from Pakistan is certain owing to the drone attacks within Pakistan’s territory
   violating its sovereignty. Nevertheless, U.S has been reported off and on that these attacks
   are affecting the public opinion in Pakistan negatively.

   If the invested dollars upon drones had been invested on endorsing education the
   predicament of the Pak-U.S. relationship would have been adverse. The drone attacks and
   violations of the international law and Pakistan’s sovereignty might become an immense

   problem for the U.S. and the NATO forces in the days to come. If these drones attacks are
   not controlled Pakistan will persist upon the refusal to reopen NATO supply routes.
   Considering that the article is written by a Pakistani the frame is objective towards Pakistan
   but doesn’t even demonstrate outright subjectivity towards U.S. This is just a call for the U.S.
   to end the drone strikes to mend the already battered relationship.

   Comments: There were no comments under this article.

13. Magazine: Newsweek
   Title: NATO Summit’s Big Loser: Behind Obama’s Snub of Pakistan
   Writer: Bruce Riedel
   Date: May 22nd, 2012
   URL Link:


   The already relapsing relationship of United States and Pakistan has been further sparked in
   Chicago Summit. Senior officials of both country expected that Pakistan’s last minute
   invitation to the Summit would initiate consensus over the reopening of NATO supply routes
   as the reopening will benefit both allies since “Pakistan would get a transit fee for every one
   of the estimated 600 trucks carrying NATO supplies from Karachi to Kabul every day. And
   NATO would have access to a cheaper and more direct route to move equipment and
   supplies in and out of Afghanistan.” However, the circumstances remained adverse.

   The significant role of this article comes into pay as it fortifies that jihadist groups in
   Pakistan and the embedded hatred of Pakistani’s towards America is responsible for
   elongating the closure of supply routes. The blame game has been continuous but with much
   subjectivity. The article further portrays Hafiz Saeed as an antagonist who according to U.S
   is taking advantage of knowing these facts “he knows he has powerful backers in the
   Pakistani Army and the intelligence service, the ISI. He knows America is incredibly
   unpopular in Pakistan, thanks to decades of lousy relations, the drones, and the ‘humiliation’
   of last May’s SEAL raid that killed America’s No. 1 enemy.” Nevertheless, this article is
   ornamented with sparks of hatred and frustration of U.S towards Pakistanis including

    occurrences like Obama’s denial to meet President Zardari on one to one bases and his
    appraisal of Afghani President and ignorance towards the presence of President Zardari.


   “Pakistan is certainly not a friend of the US and in many ways would be more properly
    characterized as an enemy. The war in Afghanistan is meaningless - in hindsight we should
    have used the airforce to decimate the place after 911 instead of invading. That said, our
    efforts have been made that much more difficult by the Pakistanis. Our sole involvement
    with any place ending in "..stan" should be to make it clear that if an attack is launched from
    your soil you will pay a terrible price. Other than that we're going to leave you alone and you
    need to leave us alone.” By Andrew Thorby

   “"....the humiliation of last May’s SEAL raid that killed America’s No. 1 enemy."
    They feel humiliated? They should feel shame, for hiding bin Laden in a luxury ISI
    compound in Pakistan, all these years while taking US money in the billions these last two
    administrations to hunt him and his group down, while the war raged in Afghanistan for bin
    laden and AQ. Nothing more than this shows how very little Pakistan cares for either the ally
    they have been milking billions from the US or the Afghans upon whose soil the US looked
    for bin Laden.” By Sojourneron.
14. Magazine: Counterpunch
    Title: Pakistan Pays the Price for Its Defiance
    Writer: Judy Bello
    Date: May 31st, 2012
    URL Link:


    The article entitled “Pakistan Pays the Price for its Disobedience” refers to Pakistan’s
    determination to continue with the halt of NATO suppl route through Pakistan, a decision
    made in reprisal for killing 24 Pakistani soldiers and attacking Pakistan’s sovereignty. As the
    title suggests Pakistan has the price of disrespect from Obama administration during the

   Chicago summit on account of the two allies being irresolute over the reopening of NATO
   supply route through Pakistan to Afghanistan. A consensus could not be reached because
   America is not obliging to Pakistan’s demand of presenting an official apology upon the
   unprovoked NATO airstrike. Obama also depicted his frustration by not meeting President
   Zardari on a one to one basis and it also appears that “American officials were not shy about
   expressing their displeasure with Pakistan at the Conference.”

   The price that Pakistan paid for defiance was on the second day of the NATO summit when
   Obama demonstrated his displeasure with the Pakistan government by not mentioning
   Pakistan while Zardari was present in the room and by praising the Central Asian countries
   and Russia for providing an alternative to the Pakistan supply route.

   Moreover, Zaradari proposed to reopen the routes even if U.S does not extend an apology or
   terminate drone strikes on Pakistan by paying a price twenty times higher than what the
   U.S./NATO had been paying before the routes were closed, an offer unlikely to be accepted.
   The article corroborates the embarrassment that Pakistan faced and the inconvenience
   extended to U.S by offering them what they want over unacceptable conditions. This article
   emphasizes that Pakistan is only paying the deserved price of defying U.S. as if it is the
   supreme authority, highlighting the anti-Pakistan stance.

   Comments: There were no comments at the end of this post.

15. Magazine: Newsweek
   Title: Pakistan Sentences Shakil Afridi to 30 Years, Sends U.S. Clear Signal
   Writer: Ron Moreau
   Date: May 24th, 2012
   URL Link:


   The article corroborates when the relationship between Pakistan and U.S. is at a furious stage
   Pakistan has sentence a doctor named Shakil Afridi for helping the CIA in getting to Bin
   Laden displeasing the Obama administration but sent a clear message to Washington.” Shakil

    a physician rom the Khyber agency was hired by the CIA “to run a phony hepatitis B
    vaccination campaign in an effort to get blood samples from the several children living at bin
    Laden’s sprawling Abbottabad compound.”

    His frequent absence from his Khyber agency base in early 2011, rose suspicion among his
    friends “that he was having an affair in Abbottabad.” The ‘business’ was to collect blood
    samples that would match the DNA samples of Bin Laden’s family that CIA already had
    “would provide proof that bin Laden or at least his family was living in the compound.
    Furthermore it establishes that U.S has already been patient with Pakistan as the writer
    asserts “U.S. patience with its major non-NATO ally seemed to be running out.”

    Ron Moreau concluding the article is trying to encourage “Pakistan to allow the cargo trucks
    and fuel tankers to begin running again” since he is concerned about the infuriated U.S over
    the closure of NATO supply routes for about six months now. This article revolves around
    yet another conflict in a series between U.S and Pakistan. It is one of the seldom
    objectivepieces from American commentators.


   “"Not surprisingly, the Pakistani Taliban praised the sentence. “In my heart I wanted to kiss
    feet of the political agent for punishing Shakil with a lifelong prison term,” Janfida Wazir, a
    Pakistani Taliban commander from the South Waziristan tribal agency, tells The Daily Beast.
    “Our mujahideen, Sheik Osama’s family, and I are very happy with the great judgment of the
    political agent.”"

    Pakistan is NOT the US ally. They are the ally of bin Laden and his terrorist group, and the
    Taliban. Stop giving them US tax payer money, and let us end this charade of Pakistan's.
    They have shown us in so many ways who they are really the ally of. They are two faced
    scum, playing a double game for years, one American Administration after another.” By
   “Daily Beast says: “Islamabad further annoyed Washington by sentencing the Pakistani
    physician who had aided the CIA in pinpointing the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden to a
    33-year prison term.”

   Reading this article and the comments makes me angry and also sad. I do not know any other
   country in the world, whose citizens are so ignorant of international affairs as American are.
   Imagine the cheek that first USA goes inside a foreign country, conducts an illegal operation
   through an act of aggression and then shows anger when the country in question arrests its
   own citizens for helping USA in this brazen breach of international law. Pakistan has every
   right to arrest, sentence and even execute traitors and collaborators with an aggressor. Did
   USA expect Pakistan to give Dr. Afridi a gold medal for treachery? USA is not Pakistan's
   friend but an enemy and Pakistan will be much advised to stop helping it in its phoney war
   on terror.
   Grow up USA. You are fast losing all friends in the world and be aware of the day, when
   China will demand its money back, which you have borrowed just to survive” by Bashy

                                   FOREIGN NEWSPAPERS

1. Newspaper: New York Times
   Headline: Tensions Flare Between U.S. and Pakistan After Strike
   Written by: Eric Schmitt and Salman Masood
   Publishing Date: November 26th, 2011
   URL Link:


   The article entitled “Tensions Flare between U.S. and Pakistan After Strike” has been
   published in the New York Times on November 26th, 2011 by “Salman Masood and Eric
   Schmitt”. Eric Schmitt is a senior writer who covers terrorism and national security issues for
   the New York Times. He has been reporting on terrorism issues since 2007, including
   assignments to Pakistan, Afghanistan, North Africa and Southeast Asia. The focal point of
   this article is the disintegration of Pakistan and United States relationship specifically since
   the Osama Bin Laden operation by American Navy Seals commando earlier in May 2011.
   This article traces evident frames of how U.S. is counter complaining about Pakistan, holding
   it responsible for attacking U.S. forces as the writers asserts “United States has demanded

    that Pakistan do more to stop militants based in its territory, particularly from the feared
    Haqqani network and Al Qaeda, from crossing into Afghanistan to attack American forces.
    And United States forces in eastern Afghanistan say they have taken more mortar and rocket
    fire from positions at or near active Pakistani military posts in recent months, despite
    complaints to Pakistan about it.” Maleeha Lodhi while analyzing this hostile relationship
    says “the relationship is on a much more slippery slope now. This is as close as you can get
    to a rupture.”

    The significance of the article lies not only in corroborating the death of 25 soldiers by a
    NATO airstrike and how the Pakistani officials have condemned this attack as an
    “irresponsible attack” and an “unprovoked act of aggression” but on how continuously U.S.
    is stressing upon the invalidation of the attack by using rhetoric like “The strikes, ‘which
    Pakistani officials said’ involved both helicopters and fighter jets”. Such rhetoric creates
    doubt for the masses and puts Pakistan’s credibility into question. It also lays emphasis on
    the Pakistani government’s orders to the Central Investigation Agency to vacate the Shamsi
    airbase coupled with the decision of closing two main NATO supply routes into Afghanistan
    which transports 40 percent of NATO supplies to Afghanistan. This decision has come as a
    blow to United States in weakening their relationship with Pakistan.

    Senior American officials have offered their “deepest condolences” on the loss of Pakistan
    perhaps weighing the consequences of Pakistan’s decision to seal major NATO supply
    routes. Nevertheless, this article remains impartial in reporting the NATO attack and
    Pakistan’s important decisions thereafter to protect its sovereignty.


   Educator from Columbia SC has commented on this article that “NATO air strikes are most
    likely induced by Pakistani Army/ISI. US has no control over it.We are being fooled into
    paying more to keep the Pakistanis happy. Some blackmail!” Dated: November 27th 2011.
   Kristmas from Tokyo comments “Let s face it. America is the aggresosor and terrorist state
    that is constantly engaged in undeclared wars, agressions, revolutions, and terror on other
    nations. Wake up and demand our government stop killing and destroying. Everytime they
    do,                something                 worse                 comes              about.

   The US military needs to make a stand against the renegade government that has usurped the
   constitutional republic that was once the USA. We are the terrorists... and that is how the
   world sees it.. but we are brainwashed by a media that intentional puts us to sleep.
   Soldiers you do not have to attack and kill others.. you have a choice. let your conscience
   speak to you... as you will have to answer to the man upstairs, no matter who orders you to
   do what.”

2. Newspaper: The Guardian
   Headline: Pakistan halts NATO supplies after attack leaves soldiers dead
   Written by: Jasmine Coleman
   Publishing Date: November 26th, 2011
   URL Link:


   Jasmine Coleman is a BBC JTS journalist based in London and is also a contributor to The
   Guardian. She wrote an article entitled “Pakistan halts NATO supplies after attack leaves
   soldiers dead” on 26th November, 2011 in The Guardian. The choice of the title is self-
   explanatory in demonstrating Coleman’s biased opinion about Pakistan as she stresses upon
   the halt of NATO supplies by Pakistan in an accusatory tone, rather evaluating the cause of
   NATO air strike that killed 28 Pakistani soldiers.

   The article begins as “Pakistan has accused NATO of killing up to 28 soldiers in an attack on
   an army checkpoint in the north-west of the country, and responded by shutting a vital supply
   route for coalition troops in Afghanistan.” The prejudiced attitude of Coleman is visible in
   these introductory lines as she uses words like “accused” as if Pakistan is solely responsible
   for the deadly attack and further highlighted her main concern that was how Pakistan
   responded to the attack by “shutting a vital supply route for coalition troops in Afghanistan”.

   Furthermore, she discusses that Pakistan is a vital land route for 49% of the forces supplies to
   its troops in Afghanistan and analyzes that the attack is likely to worsen relations between the
   U.S. and Pakistan. Not refraining from upholding Pakistan accountable for worsening the

     relations deliberately since the Osama Bin Laden incident. Nevertheless, the rhetoric used
     throughout the article establishes a doubt about the news resources of Pakistan as she talks
     about Pakistani soldiers who “may have been killed or injured” during an “incident” on the
     border. To anti-Pakistan bodies this attack on Pakistan’s sovereignty is merely an “incident”.

     Comments: In The Guardian there were no comments under this article.

3. Newspaper: Washington Post
     Headline: Pakistan’s pique and the Afghan war
     Written by: David R. Ignatius
     Publishing Date: December 1st, 2011
     URL Link:


     David    R.    Ignatius   is   an American journalist and novelist.      He    is   an      associate
     editor and columnist for Washington Post. An editorial published in Washington Post on “1st
     December, 2012” named “Pakistan’s Pique and Afghan War” by “David Ignatius” evaluates
     the significance of the Bonn Conference held in Germany over the issue of stability in
     Afghanistan. Pakistan had boycott the conference in retaliation to the deadly U.S. attack on
     Pakistan as title suggests “Pakistan’s Pique”. Pakistan’s Prime Minister, Yousaf Raza Gillani
     told Afghan President Hamid Karzai “how could a country whose own sovereignty and
     territorial integrity was violated from the Afghan soil. . . play a constructive role?”18

     The beginning of this editorial involves the reader to ponder over the significance of what
     wrong is Pakistan going to do. It leaves a question coupled with the geostrategic importance
     of Pakistan for America “Pakistan is so angry at the United States that it’s going to . . . what?
     The puzzling conclusion to that sentence is at the heart of the latest squabble in the world’s
     most vexed geopolitical relationship.” The tone and the construction of this first paragraph
     underlines Pakistan as an emotional and an irrational country.


    Ignatius continuous to assess “that Bonn conference is one in which the Pakistanis might
    have played a crucial role (and made some new friends), but they’re staying away.” The
    editorial is framed in an Anti-Pakistan tone as David adds “Pakistan’s expressions of anger
    aren’t surprising, especially for a military that needs to shows the public it’s in charge, after
    the humiliation of the May 2 U.S. raid that killed Osama Bin Laden.” The persistent attempt
    at humiliating Pakistan remains the focal point of this piece of writing. It can be further
    substantiated by undertones of harsh sarcasm as he ends with yet another question that will
    certainly leave Pakistan’s strategic grounds and credibility in doubt for the entire Western
    world. He added “ I don’t get the sense that’s what Pakistani leaders really want? If that’s
    right, then they need to figure out how to climb down the hill, now that they have forcefully
    planted the flag.”

    Nonetheless, it is all an epitome of David’s own aggression towards Pakistan for standing up
    for its sovereignty by closing the NATO supply lines for American troops in Afghanistan.


   Davrick’s comment on this editorial was “Pakistan is extremely angry with the US, which
    isn't surprising. Imagine if Mexican armed forces attacked a US army base on the other side
    of the border, killed 24 soldiers … and then tried to weasel their way out of taking
    responsibility.      How       do      you        think     the      US       would       react?
    That’s about what the Pakistanis feel about the US at the moment.”
   To this comment n123 responded by saying “Except that Mexico does not shelter criminals
    like Bin Laden, Zawahiri and Mullah Omar.”
4. Newspaper: New York Times
    Headline: Pakistan: NATO allowed to ship food
    Written by: The Associated Press
    Publishing Date: February 14th, 2012
    URL Link:


   On February 14th 2012, a news published in New York Times titled “Pakistan: NATO allowed
   to ship food” by “The Associated Press” informed that as an initiative for thawing tensional
   relations with the U.S., Pakistan has allowed NATO to ship food temporarily for a limited
   period. It also states that “the closing has caused problems for coalition forces, which have
   had to spend much more money to get goods to Afghanistan using alternative routes.”

   In an utterly objective tone this news articulates “Pakistan’s Parliament is expected to vote on
   a revised framework for relations with the United States this week that could pave the way
   for the government to reopen the supply line.”

   With all the impartiality it is also reported that Pakistani police detained a U.S. Embassy
   employee for carrying bullets in his luggage but was later handed over to American officials
   the same day.

   Comments: There were no comments under this news article in New York Times.

5. Newspaper: New York Times
   Headline: Pakistani Parliament Demands End to U.S. Drone Strikes
   Written by: Delcan Walsh
   Publishing Date: March 20th, 2012
   URL Link:


   Delcan Walsh exhibiting his objective reporting skills, impartially reported that in a
   discussion in Pakistan’s Parliament officials have reviewed relations of United States with
   Pakistan. As United States is hoping that Pakistan will resume diplomatic relation and would
   reopen NATO supply line, the five page document in Parliament read “No overt or covert
   operations inside Pakistan shall be tolerated” and that “the U.S. must review its footprints in

    Pakistan has been persistent at demanding “an unconditional apology for an American attack
    that killed Pakistani soldiers last November.” The chief emphasis of Pakistan is now to make
    U.S. respect Pakistani “sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity” and that U.S
    should “halt its drone strike campaign in the country’s tribal belt, which has resulted in at
    least 265 attacks since January 2008.”

    Moreover, it also reports that “Pakistani officials say they intend to levy a transit tax on
    American military goods passing through their territory.” Nevertheless, the objectivity of the
    reporter is enveloped in stating the clauses that acknowledge the American concerns of
    “elimination of terrorism and combating extremism,” promotion of peace talks with the
    Afghan Taliban and strengthening security along the notoriously porous Afghan border.

    America is ready to negotiate “tariffs on NATO transit goods but is not willing to end the
    drone strikes as they consider it crucial weapon against Al Qaeda and Taliban extremists
    operating from Pakistani soil. This stance is a clear point out towards America’s suspicion
    that terrorists abide in Pakistan.

    It concludes with ultimately highlighting a prism of pessimism towards Pakistan as it says
    that U.S will not apologize on account of the attack on the American embassy in Kabul. They
    have candidly blamed the attack on Pakistan. The article remains comparatively unbiased as
    it is only reporting the significant progressions that place within Pakistan’s parliament but it
    blames Pakistan for harbouring terrorists.


   If we don't use drones or special ops what is the alternative? Don't do anything until they
    attack us like bin laded did? That is what we would have to do then. Keep killing them in
    there own backyards. If the pakistani don't like it then get control of your country! But they
    can't do that can they? So kill them there until either the pakistani's do the right thing and
    eliminate them or until we either kill them or drive them to someplace else. Oh yes cut off all
    pakistani aid now! They are terrorists themselves! By Rseu.

6. Newspaper: New York Times
    Headline: United States Talks Fail as Pakistanis Seek Apology

Written by: Delcan Walsh, Eric Schmitt and Steven Lee Myers
Publishing Date: April 27th, 2012
URL Link:


As the title of the article “United States Talks Fail as Pakistanis Seek Apology” is self-
explanatory, the authors seek to explore how Pakistan’s diligence over seeking an apology is
the root cause for the failure of ending the “deadlock” between the two states. According to
these writers U.S has a reason for not apologizing and that is the attack on the American
embassy which they have outrightly blamed over the Haqqani network that they think is
harbored by Pakistan. This blame in the first paragraph straight away determines the
pessimistic frame towards Pakistan which is to follow. Nevertheless, a question worth
considering is why had not the America’s apologized before the attack in Kabul in April.
Pakistan was seeking an apology for the prior attack on its check posts in November. Was
America waiting for an excuse to refuse to apologize or was perhaps plotting a plan which
will save it from apologizing?

“American military and intelligence officials concluded the attacks came at the direction of
the Haqqani network “from a base in North Waziristan in Pakistan’s tribal belt.” They further
go on developing the biased frame by asserting that this “confirmed longstanding American
mistrust about Pakistani intentions” and advances calling Pakistan “poison” which “infects”
nearly every other aspect of the strained relationship.

The demands of both sides are a complex web as “Pakistani officials say they cannot reopen
NATO supply routes into Afghanistan that have been closed since November” and the
Americans “in turn, are withholding between $1.18 billion and $3 billion of promised
military aid.” Moreover the writers sarcastically state that Pakistan “assuming it is even
invited” at the Chicago Summit.

“We consider drones as illegal, counterproductive and, accordingly, unacceptable” say
Pakistani officials while for America an end to drone strikes is “crucial in fighting militants
hiding in Pakistan’s border areas.” The major reason deduced behind the prolonged

   indecisiveness is that Mr. Obama is facing re-election this year and Pakistan is due for
   elections in the coming 12 months.

   Nevertheless, U.S. officials believe that Pakistan cannot strike insurgents inside its territory
   thus, U.S cannot halt these strikes. This is the impasse between the two sides. It concludes
   with emphasis upon the NATO routes’ reopening for military support to troops in
   Afghanistan and in the long run to help withdraw tons of weapons and matériel out as a
   major drawdown approaches in 2014. It concludes by calling Pakistan as “problematic” and
   “not as a partner.” This article is reflective of U.S. hostility towards Pakistan as has been
   substituted with afore quoted rhetoric.

   Comments: There were no comments under this article.

7. Newspaper: Wall Street Journal
   Headline: Pakistan Hints It Will Soon Reopen NATO Supply Routes
   Written by: Tom Wright and Maria Aab-Habib
   Publishing Date: May 14th, 2012
   URL Link:


   Pakistan Foreign Minister Hina Rubbani Khar said on 14th May 2012 that it’s time to move
   on and repair relation with U.S. and NATO. America has portrayed immense support to her
   statement which stated that Pakistan has made its point by closing the NATO supply in
   retaliation now it’s time to work on the reopening of the halted supplies. Foreign Minister
   Hina Rabbani Khar made the remarks one day before Pakistani leaders are to discuss ending
   the blockade on NATO supplies in time to attend a NATO summit in Chicago. Islamabad
   shut its Afghan border crossings to NATO supplies after US air strikes killed 24 soldiers on
   November 26, provoking a major crisis in Pakistani-US relations still reeling from the raid
   that killed Osama bin Laden the previous May.

   Pakistan’s decision, after months of political posturing and delicate negotiations, is likely to
   ease strains between Washington and Islamabad if NATO Supply routes open it would lesser

    down the cost of provisions to resupply troops in Afghanistan. More importantly, the
    reopening of Pakistan's borders would ease the process of bringing home at least 100,000
    containers of military goods and 70,000 vehicles that the U.S. and its NATO allies plan to
    withdraw by 2014.

    Pakistani leaders are also scheduled to meet to discuss ending a nearly six-month blockade
    on NATO supplies into Afghanistan ,thousands of trucks are crowding the port in Karachi
    where drivers are fed up and running out of money and missing their families, many of the
    drivers have since abandoned their trucks and returned to their homes. Moreover, the cost
    supplies movement by Arial route or land route from Russian estates is exponentially high
    whereas Turkish Parliament did not allow the movement so Pakistan is left with a key
    role.This article has an neutral frame towards Pakistan because of Hina Rabbani Khar’s
    statement in favor of the reopening of NATO supplies.


   “I hope we do not make use of Pakistan as a transit route in the future. We would constantly
    be blackmailed over other issues with the threat that the Taliban would be allowed to attack
    our convoys.

    Pakistan's provision of a safe refuge for Taliban and Haqqani leaders and fighters reminds
    me too much of North Vietnam's safe refuge. Despite the risks, if we are to remain in
    Afghanistan; then we must move incrementally to remove these safe havens from our
    enemies. Should Pakistan refuse to do this on their own, then we must do it in an inch wise
    fashion. Also, related to Afghanistan we must move aggressively to eliminate the opium crop
    that is a primary source of funding for the Taliban and the corruption in Afghanistan.” By
    John Corse.
8. Newspaper: New York Times
    Headline: Pakistan Mulls Reopening Border Route For NATO
    Written by: Associated Press
    Publishing Date: May 14th, 2012

   URL Link:


   A neutral article in New York Times by the Associated Press was published on May 14th 2012
   in which Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Hinna Rabbani Khar’s statement is held protruding as
   the first step leading to the reopening of the NATO supply route to Afghanistan. According
   to Ms. Khar “government had made its point by closing the route for nearly six months in
   retaliation for American airstrikes that killed 24 Pakistani soldiers.” Although this initiative
   could “risks a domestic outcry in Pakistan” because Washington refused “to apologize for the
   attack, which it says was an accident.”

   The article very objectively discusses with neutral rhetoric that “supply line running through
   Pakistan to Afghanistan will be critical to that withdrawal as NATO pulls out more than a
   decade’s worth of equipment.” The reopening can also ensure “that Pakistan has a role in the
   future of Afghanistan as NATO prepares to retool its strategy there during a conference” to
   be held in Chicago.

   The article ends with reinforcing that United States has “expressed its regret for the soldiers’
   deaths but stopped short of an outright apology” although the two countries “still disagree on
   the circumstances that led American helicopters to strike two Pakistani Army posts on the
   Afghan border, with Pakistan claiming the attack was deliberate.”

   The construction of this article and the rhetoric employed are impartial because everything is
   balanced out with significant statements from both the countries without the author’s
   personal opinion involved.

   Comments: There were no comments posted under this article.

9. Newspaper: Wall Street Journal
   Headline: Pakistan Defers NATO Supply Decision
   Written by: Tom Wright
   Publishing Date: May 15th, 2012

   URL Link:


   Tom Wright in “The Wall Street Journal” has managed to successfully articulate an objective
   news story on 15th May,2012 by the name of “Pakistan Defers NATO Supply Decision”. The
   news story highlights that however the Pakistani officials have not yet disclosed the exact
   time when the NATO supplies will resume yet Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Hinna Rabbani
   Khar has hinted that the “supply routes could soon reopen”.

   Wright exhibits the public opinion of Pakistanis’ completely anti-American reasoning it with
   firm logic pertaining to the continuous “drone strikes on Pakistani territory and the failure of
   Washington to apologize for the Pakistani soldiers’ deaths”. Furthermore, he believes tis is
   one of the overpowering reasons which is “complicating the government's efforts to soften its
   stance on the NATO routes.”

   Talking about Pakistan’s official invitation to the NATO Summit in Chicago, Tom Wright
   reveals “Some analysts in Pakistan said they believed NATO would only have extended the
   offer if they expected Pakistan to lift its suspension.”

   In an optimistic attempt at concluding the news Wright evaluates that “despite the
   deteriorating relationship in recent months, both sides appear keen to improve ties.” As an
   observer, he is right in disseminating that Pakistan need to strengthen its ties with Taliban
   because it does not “want to find itself politically isolated as allied nations prepare for a wind
   down of international operations in Afghanistan in 2014.”


   “Pakistan where all who were there have lost their identity. We had punjabis, sindis and
   others with own culture now all are just muslims with no identity. Pakistanis have no mind of
   their identity ,nation is sold out to saudis now working for arabs and can't be trusted.
   Pakistan has lost its identity.” By Arish Sahani.

10. Newspaper: Washington Post
   Headline: Many will profit if Pakistan reopens NATO supply routes

Written by: Richard Leiby
Publishing Date: May 16th, 2012
URL Link:


“Many will profit if Pakistan reopens NATO supply routes” is the title of an article written
by Richard Leiby on 16th May,2012 in “The Washington Post”. The title of this article
suggests that reopening of NATO supply routes will be beneficial for both Pakistan and the
U.S. This title proposes that Leiby wants us to assess that reopening of the sealed routes
which will not only “ease strains between Washington and Islamabad” but will also benefit
Pakistan. He goes on to substantiate his stance by validating that” Pakistanis in places high
and low — from officials trying to balance the nation’s budget to black marketeers” all want
the war supplies rolling across Pakistan’s borders again.

In an attempt to solidify his argument he goes on stating “Pakistan would reap higher tariffs
and a payout of at least $1.3 billion in withheld “coalition support funds” for its contribution
to the fight against Islamist militants.” To further strengthen the established notion that
reopening of NATO supplies are strongly in favour of Pakistan’s advantage, Leiby presents a
factual account by asserting that “on the macroeconomic level, Islamabad needs help and
$1.3 billion has been penciled into the proposed budget, according to Finance Ministry

Throughout the latter part of the article, he focuses upon how the Pakistani military, Tribal-
area militants and Taliban will benefit from this initiative. Richard Leiby has convincingly
maintained an unbiased stance throughout the article in an attempt to persuade Pakistani
officials to re-evaluate the closure of NATO supply route to Afghanistan.


“Only a handful of politicians in Islamabad are in favour of opening US/NATO supplies.
These corrupt politicians are ignoring the parliamentary decision that US/NATO supplies
should remain closed. Apart from these corrupt politicians, Pakistan have to bear worth 90
billion losses in this “war against terror” and US has paid NO Taxes in this 11 years to war

   for NATO supplies that passes through Pakistan. These 1.3 billion dollars will only go in the
   pockets of these corrupt politicians who are in favour of opening NATO supplies. These
   corrupt politicians neither represent the aspirations of the Pakistani public nor abide by the
   Pakistani parliamentary decision on US/NATO supplies. The general public is facing
   insecurities due to US/NATO supplies resumption which only contributes in militancy in
   AfPak region. The resumption of US/NATO supplies will only increase hate in Pakistani
   public against US and Pakistani politicians which are already unpopular in Pakistan.” By
   Sarwar Karirm.

11. Newspaper: Times of India
   Headline: US supply trucks cross Afghan-Pakistan border: officials
   Written by: Agence France Press
   Publishing Date: May 19th, 2012
   URL Link:


   The news by Agence France Press AFP published in “Times of India” on May, 19, 2012
   titled “US supply trucks cross Afghan-Pakistan border: officials” discusses the conflicting
   accounts of Pakistan letting four trucks to cross the Torkham border into Afghanistan but
   these shipmanets have been declared “diplomatic” since they carry “non-Nato supplies”.

   An anonymous official told AFP that “I can confirm that three trucks have gone to
   Afghanistan and there are also reports about the crossing of the fourth one.” The news also
   states that Pakistani officials have been asked to “finalize an agreement as quickly as possible
   on lifting the blockade on overland Nato supplies to Afghanistan.” Nevertheless, the news is
   concluded with emphasizing upon the negotiations that are still underway between the two
   countries and that “Islamabad has not said when Nato supplies will resume.” This news was
   an unprejudiced account of the recent developments regarding the NATO supplies into


   “NATO must block all trade routes to afghanistan from pakhanastan and allow only essential
    commodities with registered drivers with NATO army to pass after cargo check. We need to
    stem the flow of arms and ammunition's supply to taliban. Next should be to identify the dirt
    roads through satellites for suspected terror movements. NATO must go for a full scale
    invasion after securing the border before their departure in 2014 so that the remaining peace
    keeping troops do not suffer casualty.” By Tarashkan Rudra.

   “NATO must block all trade routes to Afghanistan from pakhanastan and allow only
    essential commodities with registered drivers with NATO army to pass after cargo check. We
    need to stem the flow of arms and ammunition's supply to Taliban. Next should be to identify
    the dirt roads through satellites for suspected terror movements. NATO must go for a full
    scale invasion after securing the border before their departure in 2014 so that the remaining
    peace keeping troops do not suffer casualty.” By Brown American.
12. Newspaper: Los Angeles Times
    Headline: Pakistanis fear becoming isolated
    Written by: Alex Rodriguez
    Publishing Date: May 22nd, 2012
    URL Link:


    Alex Rodriguez’s article “Pakistanis fear becoming isolated” published on May 22 nd 2012
    focuses on how analysts worry that the government’s negotiating strategy could cost Pakistan
    millions in U.S. aid and keep it out of decisions regarding neighboring Afghanistan.

    The article highlights U.S. frustration towards Pakistan firstly because of Pakistan’s” six-
    month blockade of Afghanistan-bound supplies”, secondly because Pakistan has been
    insisting upon “an increase in transit charges from $250 to as much as $5,000 per vehicle”
    which has evidently infuriated U.S. On the contrary it unveils the worrying predicament of
    the Pakistani government as “their government’s negotiating strategy could cost their country
    millions of dollars in American aid and jeopardize its prospects for a voice in Afghanistan’s
    postwar future.”

    Rodriguez inspects the reason for the delayed reopening of NATO supplies is that since the
    elections are nearing; President Zardari is “is avoiding a deal in order to appease opposition
    parties and influential right-wing mullahs who adamantly oppose the NATO convoys
    traveling through Pakistan.”

    Pakistan has been invited to the Chicago Summit but the government’s reluctance “to reach
    an accord on a fee increase more palatable to the Americans could cause lasting damage to
    relations with the U.S. and other NATO nations.” The signs of damaged relationship can be
    evaluated as President Obama has clearly displayed “his unhappiness with Zardari in
    Chicago by publicly thanking Central Asian nations that allow supplies to flow to
    Afghanistan while making no mention of Pakistan.” Moreover, it discloses that the Congress
    is thinking upon freezing       “$650 million in Coalition Support Fund payments —
    reimbursements for costs incurred by Pakistan in battling militants — until Islamabad
    reopens the routes.”

    Alex continues stating the need of U.S. to maintain relations with Pakistan because they
    “need Pakistan’s help in facilitating talks between Afghan officials and the Afghan Taliban
    leaders, many of whom are based in Pakistan.” Islamabad is also seen as an important
    counter terrorism ally. Nevertheless, Alex terms Pakistan a “difficult” ally which symbolizes
    the frustration of the entire Western nation towards Pakistan.

    Towards the end, despite U.S’ apprehension, Pakistan’s trepidation has been revealed that it
    “would start to get isolated” as “as the U.S. withdraws its troops by the end of 2014.” This
    article is ingeniously balanced with the depiction of apprehensions that have encircled both
    U.S and Pakistan over their damaging relationship.


   “Rubbish news, no one fears being isolated in Pakistan, there is no way Pakistan can possibly
    become isolated, it is the only shortest way into Afghanistan, and even after US troops leave,
    Afghanistan will always be a reminder of 911 and the world will need Pakistan.
    The best thing for the US to do is, to realize it can’t bully Pakistan any more, and it should
    stop its charade and the disinformation it spreads about Pakistan using its disgraceful media
    handin glove with the govt just as it did before attacking Iraq and now used to villify Iran.

    Pakistan has very powerful and reliable friends in the region from China, Turkey, and
    Saudia. The Pakistani nations wants to kick the aid bucket and get over that drug, so the
    sooner the better for the nation.
    The only ones fearing isolation are the apologists. No NATO resuuply routes until the US
    stops bullying Pakistan and treats it with the respect it deserves” By Nowthetruth.

   “Pakistanis are correct to be worrying that their negotiating strategy could cost them.
    Americans are fed up with dumping money down a rat hole. When a country can't, or won't,
    keep its territory from becoming a training ground and safe haven for terrorists, it isn't going
    to get much sympathy when others come in and do the job. It's high time we let the
    Pakistanis solve their own problems.” By Alan Morovia.
13. Newspaper: Los Angeles Times
    Headline: Obama's Pakistan gamble fails to pay off
    Written by: David S. Cloud and Kathleen Hennessey
    Publishing Date: May 22nd, 2012
    URL Link:


    As the title of the article advocates that President Obama’s invite to Pakistan in hope for
    conciliation over the reopening of NATO supplies has failed to pay off, the article takes over
    a stance that scrutinizes that the journey of alliance with Pakistan has been “a messy process
    just as it was in Iraq.” He further said that in relation to Pakistan U.S wouldn’t be surprised if
    there won’t be ever a chance to say “this is all done. This is perfect. This is just the way we
    wanted it. And now we can wrap up all our equipment and go home.”

    Moreover, it also reveals that at the Chicago summit Pakistan was however, snubbed but U.S
    had been too kind “not to let Zardari appear completely snubbed” after having globally
    humiliated him by not thanking Pakistan for its years of co-operation in war on terror.

    Nevertheless, the authors have tried to balance the article by evaluating that the mistake lie
    on both ends to avoid further disintegration between the two nations. They assert “Pakistan
    closed the main NATO supply route after U.S. airstrikes hit two border posts Nov. 26 and

killed 24 Pakistani soldiers. Islamabad has demanded an unconditional apology, and more
than $5,000 per truck, up from about $250 in the past, to let supplies flow again. The Obama
administration has refused to apologize, saying both sides committed mistakes, and it says
the new truck toll is far too expensive.”

Comments: There were no comments posted under this article.


Foreign media coverage of international news is predominantly based on each country’s
respective foreign policy. Considering the fact that media in countries all over the world
works as a co-worker of the government and a tool to endorse national standpoint in
international relationships, we observed; the coverage of NATO attacks by the foreign media
specifically American media nurtures anti-Pakistan sentiments. It is noteworthy after an
analysis of various medium of mass media that the foreign media tends to overlook relevant
information in the coverage of international events when it collides with the national agenda.
The clear example being America’s persistence that Pakistan opened fire first at one point
and on the other they insist that the attack was purely unintentional.

It has been deduced from the aforementioned research that foreign media excessively treat
governmental sources as priority plausible, therefore allowing domestic leaders to manipulate
them. This refers to the statements passed by the U.S Chief of Staff and McCain who believe
that everything is fair in warfare and that Pakistan is only over reacting while also blaming
Pakistan for sponsoring terrorists while it has been their ally in war against terrorism.

It seems that presenting one sided pictures is a common practice in American media sinceit
refrains from highlighting Pakistan’s concerns over its sovereignty and the general impact of
the drone attacks throughout Pakistan. Consequently, it enroots amongst the masses in
America that Pakistan supports terrorism despite the fact it has experienced the greatest
number of causalities in the war against terrorism which their media has turned a blind eye
to. These anti-American sentiments amongst American public and masses worldwide were
observed in comments posed under the news items and articles published in various medium
of foreign media.

Moreover, foreign media has expressed that Pakistan’s exasperation is rooted in U.S.’ the
Raymond Davis case and Osama Bin Laden operation. The relationship between the two
states is definitely at steak as Pakistan expects U.S to extend an apology for the NATO
attack, U.S wants Pakistan to reopen the NATO supply routes and Pakistan is
demanding$5000 per NATO truck.

American news admits that Pakistan is at fault and their investigation reports have also
blamed that Pakistan opened fire first. The agony of U.S over Pakistan’s retaliation is the
source of pessimism incorporated in their media towards Pakistan. Nevertheless, the efforts
and sacrifices made by Pakistan to support U.S have all been weighed down in return for the
reimbursements and foreign aid. Pakistan’s sovereignty and its honor is not the concern of
the foreign media. Since the NATO attack on Salala western media have demonstrated their
unequivocal and unambiguous animosity with Pakistan.

The trust deficit in U. S. and Pakistan relations needs to be bridged with , innovative
confidence building measures , and mutual respect for strategic and security interests in the
region of both the countries . This would be very challenging phase in U. S. - Pakistan
relations in years to come. Nonetheless, Pakistan and the US need each other and efforts are
under way to improve their relations.

              CHAPTER 3
           OF NATO SUPPLY

       APRIL 2011- MAY 2012

    ANUM SAEED: Intro, Timeline, blogs, 3 Magazines
    SYED ALI HUR: TV channels and articles


The NATO management of the Afghan war refers to the efforts to deliver very important
fuel, food ,hardware and different necessities provides to Afghanistan in support of the
War in Afghanistan

The Delivery of provides is completed through air tansport and a series of overland
routes, there are two routes that are in Pakistan and a number of o different other routes
that are from Russia , Air Shipping is extremely expensive thus NATO forces be likely to
place confidence in ground routes for non lethal equipment this can be done by either
shipping by the ocean to the Pakistan port of Karachi or by shipping them through

There are two routes of NATO supply from Pakistan to Afghanistan , these were started
in Karachi Pakistan’s Principle Port which is on the Arabian Sea , one route which
crossed the Khyber Pass from it enters Afghanistan Torkham and terminates at Kabul
from Kabul it supplies Northern Afghanistan.

The other route which passes from Baluchistan Province, which cross the border at
Chaman and end at the Khandar in the south of Afghanistan. NATO used these routes to
supply to transport fuel and other supplies but the weapons are not supplied from these
two routes

The Drone strikes were stopped in November 2011 after NATO forces killed 24 Pakistani
Soldiers in the Salala incident. Shamsi Airfield was evacuated of Americans and taken
over by the Pakistanis

Pakistan’s brave decision to suspend NATO supplies had caused some off-putting impact
on the routine activities of the US-led forces in Afghanistan. The Ban on NATO supply
was a big news for the entire world as due to this Pak-US relation was affected a lot, and
it was given a lot of media coverage locally and internationally as well

In this Section we have discussed the entire local media coverage through different
medium such as Blogs, Newspapers and different TV shows through which we can get to

    know that what are the views of our local media and how they showed their analysis
    either in negative way or positive way and what sort of impact they have given to people
    of Pakistan and and to the whole world. Basically we have to see whether our media
    showing the true image to the world or not and what the worlds thinks about us.

         NEWSPAPER                          BLOGS                  TV             MAGAZINES
         ARTICLES                                                SHOWS
1        Express News 26th            Potpourri2 12th Dec        CapitalTalk      MAG        3rd Dec to
         Nov 2011,          “24       2011                       GEO              9 Dec
         Soliders killed In            “The Bone of              NEWS 29th
         NATO Attack On               contention in the          Nov 2011         “ 26 Pak Soldiers
         Pakistan Check Post”         Bonn Conference”           “NATO            Killed In NATO
                                                                 and              Blitz”
2        Express Urdu 26th Nov        Opinion Maker 12th         11thHour         NEWSLINE
         2011, Tribune Take           Dec 2011                   ARY              30th Jan 2012
         :Misscommunication           “48 hours at NATO          NEWS 28th
         May Have Led To              HQs”                       Nov 2011         “US Looking to
         NATO Attack                                             “NATO”           Negotaite with

3        Express Urdu 13th            Pakistan Defense           Sochta           NEWSLINE
         Dec 2011,                    blog “26th Dec             Pakistan         19th March
         America and NATO             2011”                      26th Nov         2012
         hakam hosh sy kaam            Why Obama should          2011 PTV
         laiy                         apologies to               NEWS             “How Reggae
                                      Pakistan                                    Resonates with
                                                                 “NATO”           Pakistan’s Political

4        Jang Urdu 1st Dec            MediaPoint January         : Policy
         2011                         2012                       Matters 2nd
         Reason Of NATO                                          Dec 2011
         Attack                       “Pakistan’s Border         DUNIA
                                      Closures Cost US           NEWS ”
                                      Millions Monthly”          NATO”
5        The Nation 24th              Media Point 29th           To the
         January2012                  January 2012               Point 1st
         “Army Rejects US             “Analysis-NATO             Dec 2011
         Report On NATO               Supply Stoppage            EXPRESS
         Attack”                      Economic And               NEWS
                                      Political Cost For         ‘NATO”


6     The Dawn 3rd            Media point 28th      Cross Fire
     January2012,             January 2012          13th Dec
     “NATOConsignments”       “U.S. Probe of        2011
                              NATO Attack           DUNIA
                              Hardened Pakistani    NEWS
                              Suspicions”           “ NATO”
7    The Express Tribune      Opinion maker 3rd     Hotline
     15thMarch,2012           Feb 2012 “Pitfalls    30th March
     “Tough conditions        in switching NATO     2012
     NATO routes set to       supplies on NDN       WAQT
     reopen “                 routes”               NEWS

8    The Express Tribune     Hotline
     31st May 2012            16th March 2012
     “India fears for                               12th April
     Afghanistan after        “ Opportunities and   2012 Waqt
     NATO pullout”            Priorities of         News
                              Pakistan”             “NATO”

9    The Dawn 13th May        Opinion Maker 23rd    KalTak
     2012                     May 2012 “
     “Isaf chief meets        Clueless At           12th April
     Kayani: Opening of       Chicago”              2012
     NATO routes under                              EXPRESS
     study                                          NEWS

10   The Nation 24th May      Opinion Maker 23      Faisla
     2012                     May 2012“Nation       Apka 10th
     Chicago Summit -         being Sold In The     April 2012
     Pakistani expectations   Name Of National      SAMMA
                              Interest              TV

11   Express Urdu 30th May    Pakportpurri 25th     Capital
     2012                     May 2012 “            Talk 15th
     “NATO Supply ka          Chicago summit:       May2012
     Makhmsa”                 Pakistan defies US    GEO
                              egotism”              NEWS
                                                    “Stance of
                                                    PML-N on

12   Pakportpurri 22nd      NewsBeat
     May 2012 “Two          18th May
     Perspectives on        2012
     NATO Supply Line       SAMMA
     Blockade”              NEWS
                            lines, Pak
                            Army, and
13   Pak Tea House 14th     Straight
     May 2012               Forward
     “National              21stMay
     Sovereignty What       2012
     Sovereignty”           WAQT

14   Pakportpurri`    Apas Ki
     24th May 2012          Baat 15th
     “Proud to be an        May 2012
     Extortionist!”         GEO
15   MEDIA POINT 24th
     May 2012
     “Dr. Shakeel Afridi,
     NATO Extortion
     And American

                               LOCAL NEWSPAPERS

1.     Newspaper: The Express Tribune
Topic: 24 soldiers killed in NATO attack on Pakistan check post

Writer: Iftikhar Firdous/retures
Date: November 26, 2011

The article is much angled towards Americans as in the end it was said that due to attack
the relationship will get more worsen between Pakistan and America. Instead of blaming
U.S. for the attacks, they are making Pakistan feel not to go against Americans as this
attack was mistakenly done by the Americans.


Time to give befitting reply..where is the air force

Time to give befitting reply..where is the air force..

This creates aggression between people as if it is done by the army itself. The point is fair
enough that where would be the army when this is being done by the Americans. This
will create doubt in the minds people.

2.     Newspaper: The Express Tribune
Topic: Tribune Take: Miscommunication may have led to NATO attack

Writer: Mewish rizvi
Date: November 26, 2011

This article was totally in a favor of Americans, as the headline suggests that the attack
that was done by the Americans is due to the miscommunication of American forces. I

mean this is a world of technology and how is it possible that you can attack the other
forces and said it is due to miscommunication.

Comment: It is time that Pakistan’s should change its foreign policy and act as a
sovereign state. We should not take any dictation either from US or any other country in
the world. The bilateral relations should be based on how much a country import
Pakistani made items and not on the basis of eradicating the terrorism. The day Pakistan
will be able to accommodate jobless people in the local market, the crime rate will come
down automatically. Whether there was a miscommunication or not, it does not matter.
Our 22 Jawans of Pakistani Army has been killed and there cannot be any compromise on
that. We must ask US to behave properly or otherwise there will be no passage given for
the NATO supplies or neither US or the NATO will be able to use the Shamshi Airbase.
Enough is enough.

A nice comment is give as we have to review our foreign policy in order to make
Pakistan a better one. Through this we can improve our economic and make Pakistan a
strong one.

3.     Newspaper: Express urdu
Topic: America and NATO hakam hosh sy kaam laiy
Writer: editorial
Date: December 13, 2011

The good piece in which they talk about the dignity of Pakistan, that we are a strong
nation with having an army who are also very powerful, so Americans do not take us as
easy as you thinks. He further criticizes the role of army that they have the technology to
get the drone down but the government do not allow us do this act. It’s very much
supported Pakistan with respect to Americans. The piece directly warns OBAMA to keep
a distance from Pakistan as we do not compromise on our dignity.

4.     Newspaper: Jang urdu
Topic: reason of NATO attack
Writer: Nusrat Mirza
Date: December 1, 2011

In this column he give different angles that why Americans attack to the Pakistani check
post. He said that the attack was not a miscommunication rather it was a planed one.
According to their view the attack was happened because Raymond Davis was in the
custody of Pakistan and they want their man back. He further said that Americans have
the routine to do such acts. They are doing drones attacks on regular basis that challenge
the dignity and morality of Pakistan.

5.      Newspaper: The Nation
Topic: Army rejects US report on Nato attack

Writer: newspaper correspondent
Date: January 24, 2012

The Pakistan Army on Monday rejected the detailed findings of the NATO probe into
the killings of 24 Pakistani soldiers as result of the NATO gunship choppers attack on
two military pickets in Pakistani area, last year. "The fundamental cause of the incident
of November 26, 2011 was the failure of US/ISAF to share its near-border operation with
Pakistan at any level. This obviously was a major omission, as were several others, like
the complicated chain of command, complex command and control structure and
unimaginative/intricate rules of engagement as well as lack of unified military command
in Afghanistan.

In addition to the foregoing, US/ISAF violated all mutually agreed procedures with
Pakistan for near-border operations put in place to avert such uncalled for actions. It also
carried out unprovoked engagement of Pakistani posts located inside Pakistan violating
the US/ISAF mandate which is limited to Afghanistan alone," the statement said. On
Sunday, the Defence of Pakistan Council, a group of right-wing religious leaders
reportedly having close linkages with military establishment had warned of protests if
NATO supplies resumed. Earlier last week, Frontier Corps, a paramilitary wing of
Pakistan Army, had detained 12 Afghan bound containers that were reportedly carrying
oil for NATO forces in Afghanistan under the garb of Afghan Transit Trade. Reportedly,
the military does not agree to the proposals regarding resuming NATO supplies after
imposition of heavy taxes and toughened conditions and wants these supplies to remain
stopped till a formal and unconditional apology is tendered by the US over the NATO
attack. This is much angled towards the Americans as he talked about that Pakistan is
being thief as they gets things from the NATO truck. They sold oil that they get from the
After having clung to a seemingly toughened stance on blockade of NATO supplies, any
backtracking on this issue could possibly draw strong criticism against the military in

6.        Newspaper: The Dawn
Topic: NATO consignments
Date: JANAURY 3RD, 2012

The chaos resulting from Pakistan`s halting of the transport of Nato/Isaf goods is
worsening. Since the decision was taken in protest against the Nov 26 attacks on border
check posts, hundreds of containers carrying goods bound for Afghanistan, and unloaded
before the ban was imposed, have piled up. In the absence of a decision on what is to be
done with these goods, facilities at the Karachi and Bin Qasim ports have been clogged
while the manoeuvring space for materials imported and exported as a matter of course
by Pakistan has also decreased. While the pile-up slowed down in recent weeks as the

passage of ships carrying Nato/Isaf goods came to a halt, Saturday saw the docking at
Karachi port of the US vessel Freedom. Clarity on the issue is urgently required, for
Nato/Isaf goods already stored at various terminals have not been sent on, and neither has
any clear-cut decision on the matter been announced. If Pakistan wishes to cooperate, the
transport of Nato/Isaf goods to Afghanistan could be an effective means of resuscitating
the railways. A good piece in which they discuss about the problem that what problems
are facing Pakistan for the closure of NATO supply as roads and port have been blocked
due to this, he ended with like Pakistan should make a decision whether they open the
line or not.

7.      Newspaper: The Express Tribune
Topic: Tough conditions’: NATO routes set to reopen

Writer: kamran yousaf
Date: March 15, 2012

Islamabad is inching closer to unplugging the Nato supply routes that it had blocked in
protest at the November 26, 2011 deadly Nato air raid on Pakistani border posts in
Mohmand Agency. The supply routes for US-led foreign forces stationed in Afghanistan
are expected to reopen later this month after Parliament approves new terms of
engagements with the United States. The US has privately expressed its 'frustration' over
the delay in the process, as alternative routes for Nato supplies are much costlier than the
land routes of Pakistan. He attempted to play down the hype on whether the high-level
gathering had taken any decision on reopening the Nato routes. Ahead of the session, the
government would also take into confidence the opposition parties, including the Pakistan
Muslim League-Nawaz, about its likely decision to reopen the Nato supply routes. In
Washington, a defence department official, speaking on condition of anonymity, told The
Express Tribune that they have seen media reports about the reopening of Nato supply
routes. The writer said that it is very tough position for the Pakistan that he has to open

the route in anyways. He is angled towards the Americans that they know how get things

Comment: The well rehearsed drama between the Americans and the Pakistanis for the
consumption of domestic as well as external audience has finally come to an end. It was a
foregone conclusion that even a school going kid could see coming …….. ! Pakistan now
needs the money and the spare parts for its F-16s, hence the decision to end the blockade
….. all the rest, like the talk of tough conditions etc. are just a load of crap … ! The new
rules of engagement will probably take a few more years to be drafted, as in a real world
the dollars do the talking.

8.      Newspaper: The Express Tribune
Topic: India fears for Afghanistan after NATO pullout

Writer: AFP
Date: May 31, 2012

WASHINGTON: India called Wednesday for greater coordination with the United States
on Afghanistan, voicing fear that militants would gain strength once Western forces pull
out. India is one of the most vocal supporters of continued engagement and has given
Afghanistan more than $2 billion since the US-led invasion in 2001 overthrew the
Taliban regime, which sheltered virulently anti-Indian militants. Ahead of high-level
annual talks between India and the United States on June 13, Nirupama Rao, New Delhi's
ambassador to Washington, said the two nations have been holding talks on building "a
stable, democratic and prosperous afganistan." "These consultations must be
strengthened," Rao said at the Atlantic Council, a think tank. India's involvement in
Afghanistan has enraged neighboring Pakistan, which helped create the Taliban regime
and accuses its historic rival of seeking to encircle it. The United States has welcomed
India's contributions in Afghanistan but some US policymakers believe that Pakistani
intelligence has maintained links to Islamic extremists due to a fixation on New Delhi's
influence. "NATO has to stay the course in Afghanistan until we are absolutely confident

that the Afghan army and the armed forces of Afghanistan are in a position to meet the
Taliban threat," he said.


Real game will be starting now. Who are Taliban (good taliban) .Pushtu speaking locals.
In Afghanistan 52% population are Taliban.In democratic governments majority rules. If
they are denied major role in the government, Karzai is in trouble, Clouds of civil war are
gathering.India is a regional power, must help Karzai with Indian army. I would love to
see grave yard of Indian army.situation is getting more interested, China is looking in to
built biggest air force base in Northern area of Pakistan

This is more off a aggression over India but reality is that India is making progress and
therefore they are not compromising in their economy with Americans. So Pakistan also
makes their policy better.

9.     Newspaper: The Dawn
Topic: Isaf chief meets Kayani: Opening of Nato routes under study
Writer: Baqir Sajjid Syed
Date: may 13, 2012

Ahead of the Nato summit in Chicago, top military commanders from Pakistan and the
united States-led Isaf held negotiations on Saturday to review 'operational matters'
straining their cooperation and search for a way out of the impasse following last year's
border post attack. Pakistan, reports suggest, is almost ready to reopen Nato's supply
routes, which could possibly win Islamabad a seat at the Nato meeting on Afghanistan
scheduled for May 20 and 21 in Chicago. Sources said the two sides discussed the
suspended Nato supply routes, which the US Department of Defence says remains a
"Matter of strategic concern". Islamabad started negotiating new terms of engagement
with Washington after the completion of a parliamentary review that had been initiated

after the border attacks, through which it intends to define the red lines vis-à-vis respect
for sovereignty, formalise counter-terrorism cooperation and seek remuneration for the
use of its territory for supplies for Nato mission in Afghanistan. There is incentive on
both sides to resolve the impasse over the NATO supply route. Prime Minister Yousuf
Raza Gilani has convened meetings of his cabinet and its defence committee next week to
debate how to repair relations with the United States in time to attend the key NATO
summit in Chicago. It was a well written piece in which it’s a point that there is no need
of army to deal with the policy of the country. No matter what have done army should be
place on the borders.

10.    Newspaper: The Nation
Topic: Chicago Summit - Pakistani expectations!

Writer: Azam Kahlil
Date: May 24, 2012

This piece is very much against the Pakistan as it is said that Pakistani expectations were
get ended in the Chicago summit. He further added that “Pakistan was represented by a
fairly weak amateur team, as both Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar and Ambassador
Sherry Rehman lack the skill that is needed to be successful at such high-profile
meetings” he further added that Pakistan economic is also in a bad position to talk with
the Americans. He further said that “Washington has realized that a democratically-
elected government cannot allow its national interests to be bartered for peanuts” as the
piece goes the writer again angled himself to the Pakistani side as he said that if
Americans do not apologies from Pakistan than how can Pakistan maintain a long
relationship with them.

11.    Newspaper: Express urdu
Topic: NATO Supply ka Makhmsa
Writer: Asad-ulla-Galib

Date: May 30, 2012

Basically this was written in urdu and the writer talks about that we have to open the
supply line of NATO. He said it’s like a trade between America and afganistan by the
route of Pakistan, and if Pakistan wants to close the NATO supply than they also cut their
trade from the other countries. This article is very much towards the Americans.
Although he said very interestingly about nato the words that he used for the NATO are “
NATO supply na ho gae tahri kear ho gai, mai is wo hadi kaho ga jo na nigli jati hai na
ugli jati hai” he further added “ yani Pakistan ki kya majal jo America ko gotny taikny
par majbore kar daiy” the whole column emphasis Pakistan to reopen the supply lines as
America is doing fight against war on terror.

Concluding comments:

All of the three medium are going side by side. Some of the newspaper have the same
owner that of the news channel like jang group is associated with that of geo group, and
express channels with that of the express newspaper. We have same writer that are
working as anchors and write article for the same paper. Newspaper and news channels
have the same policy that not to give the show the true image of the picture or remains
stick to the one side of the story and not show the other one. As discuss early we find so
much of the stuff when news is fresh and gradually as the time passes it give his wroth.
But all of sudden we will again come to the previous news. So the media is not
independent in Pakistan and they are working only to make money. We find same
coverage in the Pakistani newspapers as we find in the channels coverage. One fine
newspaper we find that give more or less a true picture is off “The Dawn” which are
working for the betterment of the country and show true picture to the world. the tone is
different between English and Urdu newspaper as we find emotional tactics in Urdu
editorials and column. This is of the reason that many of us read Urdu newspaper and as a
Muslims we are emotional by blood, we think less and works more. So it is basic
ideology of the Urdu newspaper to write in emotional language.

                                     LOCAL BLOGS

 1 Blog: Potpourri2

TITLE: The Bone of contention in the Bonn Conference

 WRITER’S NAME: Hamid Waheed
 PUBLSIHED DATE: December 12, 2011

 The New world order takes us to new height of bluffing when we see the declaration of
 international Afghanistan Conference in Bonn held on 5 December 2011.The concluding
 statement says "Today in Bonn, we solemnly declare a strategic consensus on deepening
 and broadening the partnership between Afghanistan and the International Community
 founded at the Petersberg ten years ago. The writer talks on a very good tone as he said
 that if America considers Pakistan to be much closed to Afghanistan and very helpful to
 them than they have to make fell Pakistan in the same way. He is very direct in the sense
 that all know Pakistan has a major role in this war but due to abrupt behavior of America
 this should disturb the situation. Building on the shared achievements of the past ten
 years, and recognizing that the security and well‐being of Afghanistan continue to affect
 the security of the entire region and beyond, Afghanistan and the International
 Community strongly commit to this renewed partnership for the Transformation Decade".
 Moreover how the conference did achieved broadening through absence of Pakistan the
 most important neighbor remained a million dollar question. The SUMMARY of the
 report issued in June 2011 says that the security situation in most parts of Afghanistan is
 deteriorating, with the exception of some of the big cities and parts of the central region.
 The absence of Pakistan from Bonn conference was felt as Pakistan is the most important
 neighbor of Afghanistan which can play a role in its stabilization. The group believing in
 strategy of pressurizing Pakistan through blame game has once again prevailed. The
 situation demands that those who believe in peaceful and long lasting solution of
 Afghanistan according to the wishes of its people must take the bull by horn before it gets
 too late.


2.BLOG: opinion maker

TITLE: 48 hours at NATO HQs

PUBLSIHED DATE: December 12, 2011


Following the Bonn Conference, we were invited to visit the NATO Headquarters at
Brussels to cover the NATO Foreign Ministers' Conference on Afghanistan. I entered the
NATO Headquarters with mixed feelings; on the one hand was the anger and angst at the
NATO attack on the Pakistani military check-post taking a toll of 24 lives from the
Pakistan military; simultaneously I thought it was a good opportunity to put across
Pakistan's viewpoint to NATO. On arrival at Brussels, we directly went to the NATO
Headquarters, where Oana Lungescu, the NATO Spokesperson and Ambassador Dirk
Brengelmann, NATO Assistant Secretary General for Political Affairs and Security
Policy delivered a pre-ministerial briefing and responded to our questions candidly. On
querying regarding the effects of decision of Pakistan's Defence Committee of the
Cabinet to block NATO supplies into Afghanistan, NATO replied that it would have a
telling effect on the operations in Afghanistan. On inquiry, whether a joint investigation
between Pakistan and NATO was taking place, NATO informed that each side was
conducting its own inquiry. After a meeting of the Foreign Ministers of ISAF to discuss
Afghanistan and plans to gradually transfer security control to Afghan forces before
foreign combat troops plan to withdraw by the end of 2014, NATO Secretary General
and US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton jointly unveiled the logo for the NATO
conference in Chicago May 2012. the writer is not much to say and he is like explaining
the event not giving any information.

3.BLOG: Pakistan Defense blog

TITLE: Why Obama should apologise to Pakistan

PUBLSIHED DATE: December 26, 2011


Hours of November 27, US-Nato and Afghan forces based in Afghanistan's Kunar
province engaged a Pakistani military outpost in Pakistan's tribal agency of Momand. In
quick succession, Pakistan convened a parliamentary commission to determine whether
and how Pakistan will remain engaged with the United States. Pakistan's Ministry of
Foreign Affairs recalled all of its ambassadors to hold a high-level strategic discussion
about how Pakistan should refashion its relations with the United States. So why does the
United States steadfastly refuse to do the right thing and issue a clear apology to Pakistan
and its citizenry in and out of uniform? Like Pakistanis, American officials and citizens
alike are war weary and angry. Just as Pakistanis are deeply aggrieved that US forces
killed 24 of their soldiers, Americans are increasingly outraged that thousands of troops
have been killed or maimed in Afghanistan at the hands of Pakistan's proxies. Although
Pakistan has told the IMF to take a hike, most informed Pakistanis concede that it will
again have to approach the IMF sooner rather than later. The writer is very much angled
towards the Pakistan as wait for the apology. He explain the word of Cameron munter
which said that in urdu “humey both afosos hai” which clearly indicates the aggression
that he do not want to say sory to the Pakistan. He said that American should rectify this
act and made apology to the Pakistan.

4 .BLOG: MediaPoint

TITLE: Pakistan’s Border Closures Cost US Millions Monthly

WRITER’S NAME: Ragina Tayman
PUBLSIHED DATE: January 2012


In late November 2011, Pakistan shut down two key military border crossings in
retaliation   to   a   U.S.   airstrike   that   killed   two   dozen   Pakistani   soldiers.

Islamabad's decision to shut down those two key Pakistan border crossings have resulted
in the U.S and NATO using alternate routes to get critical supplies, including fuel and
food to our troops serving on the front lines. U.S. - Pakistan tensions remain high and
Pakistan has not offered to restore the prior transport arrangement. Leaders in Pakistan
have long complained about the U.S. drone strikes into their country. The U.S. insists
Pakistan fired first. Thousands of trucks and other vehicles are stranded on the Pakistan
side of the border, unable to move much needed food, clothing, supplies and other goods
to the civilian population in Afghanistan.

5.BLOG: Media Point

TITLE: Analysis-NATO Supply Stoppage Economic And Political Cost For US

WRITER’S NAME: Regina Tyman
PUBLSIHED DATE: January 29, 2012

Pakistan's Border Closures Cost US Millions Monthly Something you won't hear being
discussed on the news or by pundits just about anywhere is what it is currently costing the
United States and NATO Forces to move much needed war supplies to our troops in
Afghanistan. In late November 2011, Pakistan shut down two key military border
crossings in retaliation to a U.S. airstrike that killed two dozen Pakistani soldiers.
Islamabad's decision to shut down those two key Pakistan border crossings have resulted
in the U.S and NATO using alternate routes to get critical supplies, including fuel and
food to our troops serving on the front lines. U.S. - Pakistan tensions remain high and
Pakistan has not offered to restore the prior transport arrangement. Leaders in Pakistan
have long complained about the U.S. drone strikes into their country. Although the strikes

are targeting militants hiding along the Pakistan border that repeatedly launch attacks
against NATO troops in Afghanistan, on November 26 one such drone strike hit two
Pakistani border posts. The U.S. insists Pakistan fired first. Needless to say the stand-off
is not good for Pakistan - U.S. relations, which have been on shaky ground for quite some
time. Insurgents routinely use Pakistan as a sanctuary, especially along the border with
Afghanistan. Thousands of trucks and other vehicles are stranded on the Pakistan side of
the border, unable to move much needed food, clothing, supplies and other goods to the
civilian population in Afghanistan. It much of to the Americans side as this writer trying
to say that U.S did not do any wrong thing and its Pakistan who are not opening the
supply line. No such aggression is being used by the writer towards the Americans.

6.BLOG: media point

TITLE: U.S. Probe of NATO Attack Hardened Pakistani Suspicions

PUBLSIHED DATE: January 28, 2012


The Pakistani military leadership's response to the U.S. report on its helicopter attack on
two Pakistani border posts Nov. 26 assailed the credibility of the investigation by Air
Force Brig. The Pakistani critique questions the claims that the U.S did not know about
the Pakistani border posts, that the combined U.S.-Afghan Special Forces unit believed it
was under attack from insurgents when it called in air strikes against the two border
posts, and that a series of miscommunications prevented higher echelons from stopping
the attacks on the border posts. The Pakistani analysis does not repeat the assertion made
by Gen. Ashfaq Nadeem, the director general for operations, in the aftermath of the
attack that the coordinates of the two Pakistani border posts had been given to the
u.s.military well before the incident of Nov. 25-26. The Pakistani critique asserts that two
or three U.S. aircraft had been operating in the area daily, and that U.S intelligence had
questioned Pakistani officials in the past even about changes in weaponry in its border
posts. The Pakistani critique charges that it is "Not possible" that the failure to check on

the Pakistani posts was "An innocent omission". Despite the fact that U.S.and ISAF
officials had already been informed about the assault on the Pakistani bases "At multiple
levels by the Pakistan side", the Pakistani analysis charges, "Every soldier in and around
the posts was individually targeted." The Clark report's account of U.S. responses to
being informed by Pakistani officials that their bases were under attack does nothing to
allay Pakistani suspicions about the claim that the attack was unintentional.

7.BLOG: opinion maker

TITLE: Pitfalls in switching NATO supplies on NDN routes

PUBLSIHED DATE: February 3, 2012


A nice article written by hali, he is very much directed to Americans as he gives so many
points which feel that American was not on the right part. This peace is very much angled
towards the Americans. He shows his aggression in words by blaming Americans on this
incident. The summary show us how he handles this piece. Following the NATO led
attacks on Pakistani military check post at Salala well within Pakistan territory, which
resulted in the slaughter of 24 Pakistan military personnel forced the government of
Pakistan to stop the NATO supply routes transiting through Pakistan to Afghanistan.
NATO has been banking on utilizing the Northern Distribution Network, hosted by
Central Asian States to enable movement of NATO supplies and troops to Afghanistan.
According to US estimate, currently, 48 percent of NATO supplies were going through
Pakistan. Pakistan's decision comes at an opportune time for Russia, whose envoy to
NATO, Dmitry Rogozin, shortly afterwards threatened a review of Russia's cooperation
on Afghanistan if the US and NATO failed to address Moscow's concerns over US
missile defense plans in Europe. NATO has been unable to bring in fuel across the
Pakistan border since late November, when Islamabad imposed a blockade and choked
off a major supply artery for the 130,000-strong American-led force. As fuel becomes

scarcer and pricier in the Afghan capital Kabul, many are pointing the finger at NATO
for buying up oil products domestically to make up for blocked supplies from Pakistan.

Comment by a person:

We should pulled out ,All our U.S Troops out of Afganistan Nation agreed!! The Hell
with you we don"t Need your Help From U.S.A. ! We Will Cut off your $$$$ off
completly too! You are on your own too! The War is Enlesses war agreed!! Is alot of Bull
too! Yor don"t want our Help from U.S.A. Nato Counties too! You Just want our Money
agreed! We See the Picture too! We Are Talking about in the States true!
Cities,Towenships. towns too! And Counties in 50 States too! This complant for our
Defence Department of U.S.A. of Armed Forces of U.S.A Military too! True!!! Let"s
Pulled them all of our Soliders out of Afganistan Nation Immeadly now before to late to
stop the War agreed!!!!

This is written by an American and it shows an aggression towards the American
government that we do not want a war. On the other hand he is blaming Pakistan that
they are not helping us instead of getting so much money. He said that pull up the
soldiers or otherwise it will be too late.

8. BLOG:

TITLE: Opportunities and Priorities of Pakistan

WRITER’S NAME: Hamid Waheed
PUBLSIHED DATE: march 16, 2012


Many think tanks and scholars label Pakistan as a nation on collapse and a failed state.
Pakistan ranked number 12 on a list of the "Most failed states", according to an annual
report published by Foreign Policy magazine in 2011.The amount of corruption,
misdirected leadership and forecasting of intellectuals would have synergized for a

normal nation to actually collapse but what keeps Pakistan from sinking is a question,
which can only be answered by the nature. Geographically, NATO supply route issue has
proved Pakistan stands as the most logical and economical out let to the world. Despite
serious differences with world powers operating in Afghanistan the U.S leadership finds
Pakistan, the most important country. The SWOT analysis shows that way to progress
only lies in moving with the nature and polishing the natural gifts provided to Pakistan.
God has gifted Pakistan with geographical location of being natural bridge for the world
and a climate for agriculture. The writer talk about the geographical important of Pakistan
and through his words it seems that he trying to say that Pakistan should keep the relation
with the Americans because this will help Pakistan to improve the economic situation.

  9.   BLOG: Opinion Maker
TITLE: Clueless At Chicago
PUBLISHED DATE: 23rd May 2012


The Article is written by S M Hali in the Blog opinion maker in this article the writer
starts from the Salala attack, Pakistan expressed the anger and anxiety of the nation by
taking some major steps the NATO supply route was blocked. Shamsi air Base in
Balochistan, supposedly in use by CIA for operating drone attacks was shut down and the
US personnel asked to leave it the Bonn Conference was boycotted and a formal apology
was wanted from USA. Six months later while the world was moved on sans Pakistan,
likening our protestations to Shakespeare's "Full of sound and fury-signifying nothing."
The straw that broke the proverbial camel's back was the NATO Summit at Chicago.

One is reminiscent of George Orwell's political satire: Animal Farm, where the sheep,
after the takeover of the farm by the animals, are initially taught the slogan "Four legs
good! Two legs bad!" but after the compromise and sell out to the humans, they are
taught a new slogan: "Four legs good! Two legs better!" After the Parliament had decreed

in line with the recommendation of the Parliamentary Committee on National Security
that an apology from the US for the unprovoked attack at Salala was a requirement to
reopening the NATO supply routes, the general public in Pakistan is being reminded by
its      suave   Foreign      Minister         that   "Pakistan   must      move      on".

The Defence Minister, waking up from his slumber like Rip Van Winkle, now
remembers that blocking the NATO supply route is in contravention to international law
and humanitarian considerations, while NATO comprises not only US but 27 other
nations, including Pakistan's long trusted friend Turkey, which reportedly facilitated
Pakistan's invitation to Chicago. He has conveniently ignored the fact that the same cash
strapped US is paying an arm and a leg for the 6000 miles long Northern Distribution
Network but will not pay a fraction for the 500 miles long supply route through Pakistan.
The meeting with NATO's Secretary General was missed, but reportedly all others apart
from Karzai were to bear pressure on Pakistan.

      10. BLOG: Opinion Maker
TITLE: A Nation being Sold In The Name Of National Interest


The article is written by S M Hali in Opinion Maker Blog the writers starts from the
NATO attack on Salala Border Post which had killed 24 brave sons of Pakistan for which
the Obama administration is not prepared to tender any apology whereas apology was
offered to Afghans for burning of the Quran and then again for night raids killing about
15 people including old, women and children. The convicted Prime Minister of a red
economy country went with an associates of about 100 people who stayed at the most
expensive places in town not giving any impression that Pakistan is in a bad shape and
has no financial resources to bail out any of its vital and strategic industries like Steel
Mill, Pakistan International Airlines, railways, power shortages and unemployment rising

by the hour. David Cameroon invited him knowing that he was a lame duck and they
could extract anything from him to benefit the NATO allies and the US. While Gillani
was in the UK, his associates back home in Pakistan had sounded the green light.

Who is going to ensure the safety and security of the State and the people of Pakistan
Raymond Davis would be back drones would glide over our skies like hawks and striking
any sign of life in FATA or now maybe in Pakistan, Balochistan in particular. In such an
possibility, people of Pakistan expect the Army leadership to save the honour and dignity
of the state and the people. Long live Pakistan and the people of Pakistan may Allah rid
us from those who are out to sell us in the name of 'National Interest' and husan 'beauty'
of democracy.

  11. BLOG: pakportpurri

TITLE: Chicago summit: Pakistan defies US egotism

WRITER’S NAME: Jawad Raza Khan
PUBLSIHED DATE: may 25, 2012


Pakistan is undeniably under huge compression especially after discontinuing NATO
supplies, since the dejected Salala incident. The defiance shown by Pakistani nation is
exceptional in history, here I must confess that Pakistan has to open this supply route but
this planned or unplanned delay has indeed gave Pakistan some sort of a moral tonic in its
existing dismal state. The proven fact is that in a country like Pakistan, media cannot be
trusted as true reflection of mass desire, courtesy Mr. Dollar. On one hand, US is not
ready to apologize for our 24 braves who were ruthlessly killed by US led NATO forces
but on the other side, it is more than astonishing to see some shameless advertisements on
all private media channels with a common phrase USAID from American people to
Pakistani people to build Pakistan. Truly speaking it's more than a shameful act by our
media tycoons who are extremely busy in making money while emotionally killing
citizens of Pakistan. The situation of Pak-US relations can easily be summed up with this

sentence "He's such a big gun in the office; they're planning to fire him! It's about time
for Pakistan to stand on principles, there is no such suggestion to be at war against NATO
but an opportunity given by the sacrifice of our 24 valiant soldiers, who had risen to the
occasion, wants to see Pakistan rising with grace and honor, definitely from heavens. A
hard hitting article in which he directly blame the Americans of what they are doing, he
also blame Pakistani media of not showing the true picture of this and a good point that
he made was that our media is begin sold to the Americans.

Comment by a person:

       TMH On May 25, 2012 at 4:49 a.m

What a beautiful hard hitting article, which a first denouement of the selling out of our
electronic media for few
dollars and towing policy of our frenemy. These peoples must be taken to courts for
being treacherous to Pakistan. I WOULD LIKE TO KISS THE HANDS WHO WROTE

He talk about that we should have to make our policy better, his aggression towards the
corrupt people and love to his nation are seeing in this.

    12. BLOG: pakportpurri

TITLE: Two Perspectives on NATO Supply Line Blockade

WRITER’S NAME: Nasim zehra
PUBLSIHED DATE: May 22, 2012


Nasim seems to have done a hard work to make it interesting to the reader or maybe she
is present over to cover the summit so we can understand she have give good points with
respect to the government but it is a good piece of paper as we get good coverage on what
was happen over there. The summary clears us all how she writes. The Chicago summit
that fell in the middle of hard negotiations between two troubled allies generated both
tensions and an opportunity for both Pakistan and the United States to steer forward the
negotiations. Day one at the summit was dominated with the straight forward story, put
out in leading US newspapers quoting US officials, that the US administration for not
opening of NATO supply lines Pakistan's President Zardari gets no bilateral meeting with
President Obama. The bottom-line was that that there was no meeting ground between
the two as Pakistan presented its demands. By contrast day two was dominated by
Pakistan clearly presenting its position on Afghanistan ranging from Pakistan's
commitment to regional peace, stability and trade, to the setback from the Salala attack to
the sacrifices made by Pakistan and the parameters set by Pakistan's parliament for
negotiating the reopening of NATO supply routes. Before the NATO meeting on
Afghanistan began a very brief exchange of pleasantries between the Pakistan and US
Presidents also took place. The US president again spoke of the need for Pakistan to
"Play its very imortant role in Afghanistan." Significantly soon after the President's
address, the NATO Secretary General said NATO invited Pakistan to the summit because
it sought "Positive engagement with Pakistan," appreciated Pakistan's commitment to
Afghan peace and was hopeful about Pakistan reopening the NATO supply lines.
Pakistan's participation in the Chicago summit has helped the troubled Pakistan-US
relations move a step forward towards some resolution. However in the middle of hard
negotiations on the NATO supply routes, the US decided to use a 'no meeting with
Obama' pressure to force Pakistan to re-open the routes. While remaining committed to
facilitating NATO's role of ensuring security and stability in Afghanistan, Pakistan made
its case of having the right to pursue its own national interest too. Meanwhile by
indicating before the summit that Pakistan was willing to open the NATO supply routes
and then by subsequently attending the Chicago summit, Pakistan has retrieved some of
the negotiating space that it lost by unnecessarily prolonging the parliamentary process
and unwisely asking for a US delay in publicly apologizing over Salala.

Comment by a person:

      Yasmeen

Of the two, Imran Malik’s perspective is more aligned with ground realities. Nasim
seems to have done a lot of sugar-coating to a bitter tablet, probably because she was
present there to cover the Summit and had to crank out something which was at least
palatable, if not not awe-inspiring.

My 2 cents would make it 2 1/4th perspectives, but here goes:

* There will be no worthwhile apology coming from US (unless even a forced tongue-in-
cheek one can make us smile)
* Drone attacks are not coming to a halt anytime soon, at least not until until US starts
sleeping with the Taliban again.
* The NATO Summit is more of a face-saving for the awaam back home, rather than to
secure any political mileage.
* PK continues its act that it specializes in – the leaders negotiate/grab as much dosh as
they can and lose all leverage.
* This is close and NATO supply lines are to be opened soon, the dog’s life continues to
deteriorate for the awaam.
* What little political leverage PK had built up early this year has been lost due to
behind-the-scene financial haggling.
* PK has retrieved no negotiating space or saving grace by attending the Summit.
However, it will help in doing the spade-work required for minimizing the reaction
expected from Imran Khan and the general population when the supply lines are opened
soon. Some say that the “soft opening” of supplies have already started, before the
Summit was over.

A very nice comment is made that if Americans are going to take sorry for this attack
they will do it but they do not have any plan to do this. On the other hand if they are
serious to resolve the issue they should immediately stops the drone attacks but they are
going. So Americans will do what they have too.


  13. BLOG: Pak Tea House
TITLE: National Sovereignty What Sovereignty
WRITER’S NAME: Raza Habib Raja


Before the current wave of drone attacks which have evoked these cries of national
sovereignty, we had the issue of military action in Swat and also the in the tribal areas.
Come to think of it, the drone attacks though conducted by US forces are generally more
accurate      and       end       up      killing      some       of       the      militants.

If viewed from the later perspective, the drone attacks target militants without engaging
our military whose usage would have been far more costly, both in terms of human loss
as well as from political ramifications. Even if on purely technical terms, one assumes
drone attacks to be a violation of sovereignty it is not the kind which is really injurious to
Pakistan's interests. What we forget is that drone attacks, or so called violation of
sovereignty, would not have been needed had we shown some political will to tackle the
issue of militancy ourselves. If we are so reluctant to use our own military against our
"Own" people than what is wrong with drone attacks? The stance becomes even more
illogical when seen in the context of our blames on US for being the perpetuator of the
"Original sin" of nurturing Jihadists in 1980s for the purpose of defeating Soviet Un ion.

  14. BLOG: pakportpurri`

TITLE: Proud to be an Extortionist!

WRITER’S NAME: Yasmeen ali

PUBLSIHED DATE: may 24, 2012


US Senators John McCain and Carl Levin, the chair and ranking members of the Senate
Armed Services Committee, said US must not pay $5000 per truck as demanded by
Pakistan, for supplies to troops in Afghanistan, which McCain called extortion. Talking
of principles is not very pretty when one has been on a killing spree, killing children,
civilians and older people-the more the merrier. Talking of principles is not very pretty
when an American citizen goes trigger happy causing deaths and when his hide is saved
on basis of the very Shariah Laws US curses. Talking of principles is not very pretty
when US decides to unilaterally attack Abottabad for Osama Bin Laden. In case you
missed my dear McCain, we are not the only ones pointing out your 'lack of principles
here'.LINK: I thoroughly enjoyed your bout of diatribe McCain, obviously, you have a
lot of growing up to do! The free(almost) ride lasted all these years McCain, but there's
nothing in this world as a free lunch, is there? You had a great party while it lasted, but I
guess, you get off the bus right here (or horse, if you are not off already). It is very good
article and very informatics as she directly talks about the strategies of America. As us
senators said that they do not pay $5000 for a truck means that they are not compromises
on their policy and do not make feel to Pakistan that Americans can come under the
influence, so Pakistan should have to change their policy in order to get the aid form U.S.

  15. BLOG: media point

TITLE: Dr. Shakeel Afridi, NATO Extortion And American Principles

WRITER’S NAME: written by editor
PUBLSIHED DATE: may 24, 2012


In an interview with CBS's "60 Minutes", in Jan 2012, Panetta acknowledged that Afridi,
a doctor in Abbottabad, the town where Bin Laden was found, had in fact been working
for US intelligence, collecting DNA to verify the 9/11 mastermind's presence. Hillary

Clinton said Dr Shakil Afridi provided key information to US before the Abbotabad
operation, adding that he served for the interest of both Pakistan and the US. Clinton said
Pakistan has no basis for detaining Dr Shakil. "Afridi's daring act to help bring Osama
bin Laden to justice deserves proper recognition. He should not to be abandoned by the
White House. President Obama should personally intercede," Rohrabacher said in a
statement. Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations, Rohrabacher recently introduced a Congressional resolution to award
Afridi the Congressional Gold Medal for his bravery and sacrifice for helping the United
States locate and identify bin Laden. Pakistan leaders continue to show the US they are a
hard-core, two-faced enemy not worthy of the $ 2.2 billion in foreign assistance the
Obama Administration plans to give them next year," Levin and McCain said what Afridi
did was "The furthest thing from treason. It was a courageous, heroic, and patriotic act,
which helped to locate the most wanted terrorist in the world - a mass murderer who had
the blood of many innocent Pakistanis on his hands."Dr. Afridi set an example that we
wish others in Pakistan had followed long ago. "At a time when the United States and
Pakistan need more than ever to work constructively together, Dr. Afridi's continuing
imprisonment and treatment as a criminal will only do further harm to US-Pakistani
relations, including diminishing Congress' willingness to provide financial assistance t0
Pakistan." Mona Afridi, the jailed doctor's wife, accused America of abandoning her
husband, adding: "They have used him like a piece of tissue paper and thrown him in the

Concluding comments:

The NATO coverage of blogs is totally different than that of the channels coverage, as
different channels have different policies to work on and have different barriers to be
followed. But the blogs have different criteria like one can easily share their thoughts
without any such limitations. Although we also find some person that by reading their
piece one can easily understand what they are trying to say that, like if we take the
example of S.M. Hali he is very much angled towards America, and make feel to the
reader that America is doing a fair job and seriously work on war of terror. For example

in his article “clueless in Chicago” talks about how Pakistan is helpless over there, they
do not have the plan what have to say or what are they going for. A very well written
article by Yasmeen with a title “Proud to be an Extortionist!” talks about the aid that is
given by the Americans. She said that there is no free lunch in the world which is a true
thing; you have to pay to buy things. Pakistan is doing much for the Americans and
Pakistan paying much than the so called aid is giving to them. They are disturbing their
economy, their infrastructure; we face killings everyday because of the drone’s attacks.
So the article is very much angled and gives the true facts and figure. So we find a very
good coverage at the blogs, like we find talks through every month after the incident was
happened. We find very good articles on Media point with the angled coverage of
Pakistan and like in the same way we find good writers at potpourri blog. But again I will
find that they are going site by site with the electronic media as we find loads and lots of
article in the month of may, so in the case of electronic media. Even the writers do not
talk much on what should be the foreign policy of Pakistan with respect to other countries
as well. No one talk about what would be the stance of Pakistan if this type of incident
will happen in the future.

                                  LOCAL CHANNELS

1.     Program Name: Capital Talk
Topic: nato and pakistan
Channel / Source: Geo
Aired On: 29 november 2011
Host: Hamid Mir
Guest: Doc Tanvear Ahmad khan, Mr. Tariq Fatemi, Raheem-ulla-yousafzai, Brg.
Mahmood Shah, Gen.Talal Masood


Hamid mir starting the show by saying that the Bonn conference is about to come and we
have to see what measure Pakistan will take as NATO attacks on Pakistan forces. The
tone of Hamid Mir is off to much of to the American side as he asked from Raheem that
don`t u thing that America is doing a mistake or not. Raheem yousafzai give a very good
answer that mistakes cannot be repeated again and again which is very true. Second time

again Hamid Mir asked question from Tariq Fatemi that is this mistake or not. Mr fatemi
give a very decent answer that it’s a world of technology and one should be not
neglected, if NATO believe that it is done by mistake then they are wrong, he give the
reference to the drone attacks that they said when they go for the drone attack they have
the believe that no civilian would killed than how is this possible that this attack is done
as a mistake. Doc Tanvear said that it a message given to Pakistan that they have other
option also as if they do not help Americans in the war. He said that it a state of
depression for Obama as elections are on their way to come so it a big message to
Pakistan that to help America in all way. The hsow is going on one sided as Hamid Mir is
not making the counter questions. Raheem Yousafzai said that it also the neglect ion of
Pakistan government as they are not making the protest of the attacks as they wanted to.
General Talal Masood is of the view that they have to wait for the proper investigation to
be done as it seems that he is supporting America. I mean how many times we have to
wait for the investigation, every time it is said that wait for the investigation. It was a nice
show as guest make a very logic points but it seems that Hamid Mir do not want to make
them speak against America and it seems that it is against the policy of geo to go against

2.     Program Name: 11th hour
Topic: NATO
Channel / Source: ARY News
Aired On: 28 NOVEMBER, 2011


Waseem badami starts a very good show as he starts off with explaining the ISPR report
on the attack that how many killed in previous NATO attacks. Later the shows change
totally as Mufti Naeem starts discussing Shia and SUNI, I mean whats the point to
include mufti in the show as they all are being already sold to Americans, and what is the

point to discuss Islam in the show that is more on Nato coverage. Masood sharief the
person from PTI make a very good point that we will not find any things from the dollars
but at the same time we will. As we are not in a position to get rid from America but we
have to make some policies against them. Faisal sabzwari said we have to make some
polices now that what steps we will have to take to quit from the war, and it is not easy
for us. Haji adeel make a very good point that it is due to us that we our self make this
forces, these Taliban and again when America get off from the Afghanistan then again
who will look after Pakistan. It seems that all the three guests are confuse that what will
have to be done wether to quit from the war or to get rid from the friendship of Pakistan.
It was a good show as each member of the party makes their own comments and not
engaging their party stance and talk about the Pakistan. It was a nice talk but no one talk
about the foreign policy of Pakistan that what steps should be taken to save the
sovereignty of Pakistan.

3.     Program Name: Sochta Pakistan
Topic: NATO
Channel / Source: PTV News
Aired On: 26 november, 2011
Host: Moeed Pirzada
Guest: Muhammad Ziaudin, Moshraff zaidi, Riffat Hussain, Ejaz haider

Although it is a PTV show but moeed pirzada goes straight and the tone is very much
against the Americans. He said that is it is a mistake that how can NATO be so wrong on
this. Riffat hussain said that it is message give by Americans to Pakistan that they give a
message to them that if they do not corporate with us we can make our actions single
handedly. A very good point rose by Ejaz Haider that we have to expect such things from
the Americans. He give a reference to the American solider Major Begus who was killed
in 2007 by Pakistani solider that how American media pot rate at that time and how they
are covering this incident by blaming Pakistan as a terrorist country. Zaiduin made a
very good point that it was our strategic fault as we give hands to America in Russian
war. We had not reviewed any policies at that time and hence the situation goes worse.

Although it was a nice show but moeed did not talk about against the government and not
against the Americans. He did not talk about the policies that what should be the policy
for Pakistan in the near future.

4.     Program Name: Policy Matters
Topic: NATO
Channel / Source: Dunia News
Aired On: 2nd December, 2011
Host: Naseem Zahra
Guest: Ayaz Amire, Gen.Talat Masood, Dr.Riffat Hussain, Tariq Fatemi, Gen.Ather

Ayaz mir starts off with a very good point as naseem Zahra asked that what your opinion
that if we gets quit from friendship with Americans. He made a very good comment that
we have to stay cool and calm as wait for the right time and make the right decision, and
not to get emotional on this issue. Talat masood again supporting the America as he said
that every reaction has a counter reaction as if Pakistan makes any decision which is not
liked by the Americans then yes they will do something which is against us. It seems that
he is being a citizen of America. Ayaz mir made a very good point that when the incident
of 9/11 take place Americans get frustrated that how one can attacked us and they did not
take any country into consideration on the war against Afghanistan. So yes Pakistan is
being attacked and we should not take any power into consideration that whether we
close the NATO supply or not. Naseem Zahra made very good point that what should be
our policies against America, what stance we will take on this. Fatemi also give a good
point that we have to review the policies with America. A nice talk is going as ayaz mir
said that we have to make mature policies on the relationship with them. As it is true that
America is a super power but it is true also that without Pakistan America will not get
success. Gen ather abbas give very brief detail about the route and the policy which had
been done with the NATO but again he is not clear as he is not suppose to blame
Americans for this incident.

5.     Program Name: To the Point
Topic: NATO
Channel / Source: express news
Aired On: 1st December, 2011
Host: shahzeb khanzada
Guest: Pervez Musharraf


Khanzada starts off with a nice show as he relates many incidents like memo gate scandal
and other things, then he move on for blaming army as he do not response to the act. He
then projects out the Osama-bin-laden incident. He basically trying to say that our army
is not responding to the situation but he does not know that it is not alone the army who
take the decision. He point out the one line policy that we have to maintain the one line
policy that no other force take action within the other state. Prevaiz musharaf said that we
have to make diplomatic response as well as military response; we have to make
defensive response. He made a very good point that how do u feel that Director General
ISI went to London without informing the president but musharaf role it down in a very
nice way. It was a nice show as he talks about the policies. A nice decent talk which clear
so many things but I think it should be better.

Comment by a person;

Look at Iran they are under economic sanctions for the last 30 years and they shoot down
the most modern drone of the US. Pakistan is Nuclear power but shame on such people
like Musharf who are disgrace for the brave people of Pakistan.


It was nice comment given by a person that if Iran is capable to get off the drone than
why not we. Like we are the one who helps Iran inn their atomic system and if they have
resources than it’s a fact we do have more resources than Iran but the truth is that Iran are
not dependent on America but we are and I think we will remain in the coming years.

6.     Program Name: Cross Fire
Topic: NATO
Channel / Source: Dunya news
Aired On: 13 December, 2011
Host: Mahreen Bhukari
Guest: sheikh Rasheed, Zia Hamid, Mahreen Anwar.

Mahreen started the show in a very nice way. She links the history to that of the zial-ul-
haq regime and tells the true history of mujahidin. Although she use some inappropriate
words but it was nice starting of a show that how American government aided Pakistan to
make mujahidin to fight against Russia. She moves on with a valid point that there is no
need of army staff to sit in the meetings. Army has no right to make interference in the
parliament decisions. Zia hamid is off the view that that army is trying to change the
policy not the government of Pakistan and on the other hand sheikh rasheed talk about
the route of Pakistan with respect to the war. Mahreen was not clear what is she going to
say. Mahreen made a very good point that it a time for the government to review the
national security strategy. It is said by the PPP in 2008 that they review this policy but it
was not happen at this day. By watching this show it seems that army and government are
in the fight and no one is happy with the other. Zia hamid also give reference to the letter
of Muhammad malik , he said Pakistan should change their foreign policy. It is of the
truth that the uncertainty in Pakistan is also because of this NATO supply.

Comment by a person:

every new govt have their own foreign policy...and it flip flops all the time..Pakistan has
so much talent and wisdom but no one had the ability to put it together...everyone is
leader and problem is too many leaders...I think time have come to try something
new...and that is IMRAN KHAN..

Analysis of the comment:

It is good comment given like we do not have the foreign policy. Every new government
makes their own ways to get money and make corruption in the country. If we want to be

get strong, we have to make our polices. We have so many resources but we need a true
leader to utilize those resources.

7.     Program Name: Hot line
Topic: NATO
Channel / Source: Waqat News
Aired On: 30 march, 2012
Host: Faisal Rehman
Guest: Akram Zaki, Tahir Khan, Gen.rtd.Hameed Gul

Show started with a point that it is wrong that it is not the army who make the policy of
Pakistan but it is also true that policy would not be made without the interference of
army, as if we take this point with respect to the defense of Pakistan than we should take
army into consideration. Tahir khan made a very good point that American makes the
global policy that use less army and more technology and this is why we have more drone
attacks in Pakistan which I think a very good point made by him. The show move to the
inner conflicts like what opposition thinks on this, what stance would take by Pakistan-
difae-consil. Hameed gul makes a clear point as he is challenging government that they
are not in the favor of opening NATO supply. It was a good show but not up to the mark.
We have to select a leader who makes serious actions on such type of incidents.

8.     Program Name: Hot line
Topic: NATO
Channel / Source: Waqat News
Aired On: 12 april, 2012
Host: Faisal Rehman
Guest: Aslam Rizvi, Waseem Ahmed, Tahir Khan

This show is aired after the speech of Hena Rabbani Khar in which they clear Americans
that what would be the Pakistani policy in order to open the NATO supply line. As the
show progress it was clear that American should stop the drone attacks in order to reopen

the NATO supply line, and if they do not go for the attacks than what should be our
stance on this, as on the other hand Obama said that if we take consideration the security
of America then we will take any action against this which mean they would not stop
drone attacks. They discus it in a general way and not give the positive and negative
aspect of this opening of NATO supply. They did not show what we lost in the last 4 to 5
years by the name of war.

9.     Program Name: Kal Tak
Topic: NATO
Channel / Source: Express News
Aired On: 12 april, 2012
Host: Javaid Chuadry
Guest: Lt.Gen (R) Hameed Gul Former Chief ISI, Sheikh Rasheed Ahmed President
AML, Mehreen Anwar Raja PPP and Anwar Baig Khan PML-N –

He starts the show by giving example of Panama where Americans kills 18 students
during the protest against Americans and this continued for 36 years and then America
withdraw themselves for Panama, and then he relates this to Pakistan as we are not a
nation. The show start is a good way but mahreen anwer make disturbance and said that
Americans are right what they are doing. It more of the parties fight that was started in
the show later on. No one had talk about the economic crises due to this war.

10.    Program Name: Faisla Apka
Topic: NATO
Channel / Source: Samaa tv
Aired On: 10 april, 2012
Host: Asma Shayrazi
Guest: Mushahid-ul-allah khan, saeed younis, shah mahmood qureshi.

She stars of with the same strategy like she give the history of the show and then mushaid
tells about their stance on the NATO and discuss on the party issues rather to discuss of
NATO supply on the other hand shah mahmood said that it is a executive decision that
was taken by PM and it was not the decision of the parliament and further explains that is
America is ready for unconditional sorry to Pakistan. Shah mahmood said that they have
to review their policy not with respect to the America but throughout the world. He made
very good comments that we do not have the solution to any problems. The same things
are repeated in this show and not even a single point is new, and again the talks move to
the inner parties conflicts.

11.    Program Name: Capital Talk
Topic: Stance of PML-N on NATO supply route.
Channel / Source: Geo
Aired On: Tuesday, May 15, 2012
Host: Hamid Mir
Guest: CH.Nisar Khan

Starting with the show hamid mir asked from CH. Nisar that the decision have been made
to reopen the supply line of NATO what will you said on this. CH.Nisar said that he do
not know about this as PML-N is not on board on NATO. I mean it is not possible that
the opposition do not know that what is happening in their country or else they are
playing a safe game of not considering themselves in the decisions. He further said that it
is very shameful for us that we have the army chief in our joint meeting which clearly
indicates that not our government is with the U.S. but also the army. According to my
opinion army are for the defense purposes of the country. So it is valid point that has been
raised by CH. Nisar that army chief is also there to help the America. Although CH.Nisar
justifying that Nawaz Sharif is the one who do not come under the influence of
American`s which is indeed not true. Later on the show Hamid Mir shifted their talk to
the contempt of court case not asking any counter question about the chief of army staff
as it might seen that he do not want to talk more about this and seems that he is covering

the logical point that have been raised by CH.Nisar. The show move to the personal talks
about CH.Nisar and the speaker of national assembly Doc. Famida Mirza, and the last
talk were on the Imran Khan as it seems that Hamid Mir is supporting Imran Khan. I
mean only a 4 minute talk on NATO supply among the 39 min show. It seems that Hamid
Mir gets a call from the producer that it was enough to talk on this issue as Geo group is
funded by the U.S. He ended up his show by giving reward to Nawaz Shairf as he paid
money for the case of missing people. Instead of showing different viedo of Imran Khan
he should talk about the foreign policy of Pakistan and give suggestion on this rather to
go on personal talks.

12.    Program Name: News Beat
Topic: NATO supply lines, Pak Army, and our Politicians
Channel / Source: Samma
Aired On: Friday, May 18, 2012
Host: Fareeha Idress
Guest: Sheikh Rasheed

Fareeha Idress starting a show in a nice way by giving a brief history that how this
NATO supply has been closed down by the Pakistan government. She also relates this to
the drone attacks. On the other hand sheikh Rashid also talk in a very brief way and said
that the NATO supply will remain closed. He also relates this to the corruption and
blames the government. Fareeha Idress also raise a point that budget will be coming so to
cover the deficit of the budget government need money. Although Sheikh Rashid are very
much in the political system but he went wrong when he said that if NATO supply will
open he will raise protest with difa-e-Pakistan council. Difa-e-pakistan council again has
lot of banned person name but again he covers himself that if they will go for violation I
will not become their part but yes I m with them. Although Sheikh Rashid say that
NATO supply will not be open but he do not give any facts and figure why it should be
remain closed. The talk then again move to towards the personal interest of the parties
and being the anchor of the show Fareeha Idress should talk on the foreign policy of

Pakistan, should give different opinions on this. According to me it was a nice show but
many of the points are missing. It seems that these talk show are to make their rating
higher than that of the other ones.

13.    Program Name: Straight Forward
Topic: NATO supply lines
Channel / Source: Wakt News
Aired On: May 21, 2012
Host: Batool
Guest: General Qayaum, Tanvear Ahmed.
Gen.qayum made very good points that we have lobby over here in Pakistan which thinks
that we are nothing with the Americans. Tanvear explains the geographical importance of
Pakistan and said that they have to make their way to Iran through Pakistan which is a
very easy way to the Americans. It is off the view that we face diplomatic defeat as well
as military defeat. General qayuam makes a clear point as he is challenging government
that they are not in the favor of opening NATO supply. It was a good show but not up to
the mark. We have to select a leader who makes serious actions on such type of incidents.

14.    Program Name: Apas Ki Baat
Topic: NATO supply lines
Channel / Source: Geo News
Aired On: May 15, 2012
Host: Muneeb Faroq
Guest: Najam Sethi

Starting off the with very informal the anchor make a joke to najam related to his tie
which is not to be done as you are doing a very serious show. The analysis that was done
by najam sethi makes it feel that they have connections with the super powers that are
working in this scenario. As muneeb give references to his previous show in which he
made some points and that this will be happen in the coming year make it very obvious

that he has some connections. The way he makes analysis seems that he knows
everything. I do not what type of bird he have who talk like humans and give him all the
information to him. He then moves on to discuss nawaz sharief which I think not a time
to discuss him. It was like not a talk show. He said that Pakistan has no power to make
comments to other which is very a pro-American.

                                  LOCAL MAGAZINES

1.     Magazine: MAG
Topic: 26 Pak Soldiers Killed In Nato Blitz
EDITOR: Mir Javed Rehman
Date: 03dec-09dec

It was simple information given into the magazine. No aggression is involved and having
no such angled either to U.S. or Pakistan.

2.     Magazine: Newsline
Topic: US Looking to Negotiate With the Taliban

Date: January 30, 2012

In this article the writer give very good points that as America are failed in their fight
with Taliban decided to have talks with them. He gives the example of Qatar talk that
was held between Taliban and America over the Afghanistan issue. The writer is very
much against towards America. He also said that after the Taliban the Americans are now
going towards the Haqqani network. This is only because they wanted to attach with
Pakistan and do not want let go the Afghanistan. He further said that Americans will like

to drop out their forces from Afghanistan by the end of 2014, so they are trouble as
elections are about to come.

3.      Magazine: Newsline
Topic: How Reggae Resonates with Pakistan’s Political Climate

WRITER: Aman Mazher
Date: march 19, 2012

Cameron Munter, the US ambassador to Islamabad, dropped the bombshell that an air
corridor through Pakistan had been available to the US-NATO forces for transportation
all along, even while official quarters and televangalists vehemently and repeatedly
denied all such claims. Such is the state of the nation - contradictory policies, practices
and assertions, half-truths and outright lies. Who is to argue then that only mass
confusion, delusions and paranoia will stem from such a disjointed narrative and from the
situation that prompts it. Dr Rizvi agrees with the assertion that the primary source of
contradiction is the fact that the audience for policy actions is often not the people of
Pakistan - who are fed on a staple diet of anti-American and anti-Indian diatribe - but
patron states, in our case the US, with whom the government wants to leverage support to
negotiate strategic alliances. "Different power centres, mismanaged priorities and a lack
of coherence in the policy matrix are the factors which have landed us in this quagmire.
The military has to maintain smooth relations with the US because of a range of
compulsions. But that's not what we're telling the public. This lack of public buy-in on
key policy matters is not workable." The retired general believes the only solution lies in
moving away from the narrative of the security state and into the realm of social security
for the people and the country. Senior psychiatrist Dr Muhammad Amin spoke of what
such contradictions in the body politic could induce in the public mind: "If we keep
saying one thing and doing another for long periods of time then such a condition could
lead to cognitive dissonance." Dr Amin further explains that such psychological
conditioning causes all sorts of stress disorders in public. From the above summary of the

article it’s clear that the writer has a negative tone towards Americans. As he writes that
Munter dropped a bomb shell states that he has very much aggression towards the
Americans. Although he also talk about the policy related stuff towards Pakistan but the
tone is very much towards Americans.

Concluding comments:

The magazines have not much detail coverage on NATO, as most of the magazines are
for the fashion and family one. But some that we find are very much negative towards the
Americans. They talk point to point and give good points. The article from Rahmullah is
Newsline Magazine is very much intresting as he talks about what America wants
Pakistan and other world in the near future. So this medium were lack in the coverage.

                           Concluding comments

Electronic media is always helpful to give knowledge, information to the mass.
Although Pakistani channels have very limited reach to the audience. We have
limited news channels due to which people sometime see the one side of the picture
and do not know the basic reality of the news. Some of the channels are heavily
funded by the Americans and as well as Indian, so the audience does not know what
picture gives them a true story. Pakistan is undeniably under huge compression
especially after discontinuing NATO supplies, since the dejected Salala incident.

Experts are evaluating the situation on hourly basis, giving news and theories with
pessimistic approach leaving audience hopeless (most of them). Bonn conference,
Shamsi Air Base and Chicago moot all are discussed at length, but what is really
unheard off is something which should have been discussed with pride and grace. Our
media may call this nation as a shameless bunch of different mobs, but in reality what
has certainly ensued since then, is amazing. All our pseudo- intellectuals were of the
opinion that Pakistan will not be able to take on the challenge of blocking NATO
supplies for more than 10 days but this great nation has responded with such a
strength that has forced our corrupt leaders to think twice before opening the NATO’s
line of communication.

The talk shows that we usually see are not up to the mark. They only make their
rating higher and motivate themselves to earn profit and money. If we talk about the
NATO coverage that is being done by the media was not up to the mark. The GEO
group is the supporter of American for example if we talk about the Hamid Mir show
“capital talk” which was on NATO. It was a 39 min show in which only 10 min. is
given to the NATO. None of the talk show talk about the policies of Pakistan that
what should be the policy of Pakistan towards American, no one can talk about the
solution of the problems. All talk shows turn into the personal fights of different
parties. Although some of the shows are nice that talk about the what stance should
Pakistan take like if we take example of PTV show “SOCHTA PAKISTAN” you
surprise to hear that although it’s a government channel but the host MOEED
PIRZADA take a show in a very nice way, he talk about the policies related to
Pakistan although he did not involve any government official but indeed it was a good
show. I was surprise to see that a talk show on ARY news with a name“11th Hour”
include mufti in the program which their stance that how people should react on this
incident, I mean what’s a point to include a mufti which only supports aggression
among people. Another example of show “APASE KI BAAT” which on air on geo
are totally a mess. Najam sethi give their analysis before an incident will going to
happen, I mean I do not know what kind of bird he has that talk in the language of
human and tells him everything which will going to happen in the future. Not aonly
the channels that had been sold to the Americans but also some of the person for
eample Gen. Talat Masood always talk in the favour of Americans, he never took
Americans wrong, like in two or three different shows his stance is totally against the
Pakistan and always support the Americans. Same is the case with Mahreen Anwar
the political person of PPP. The coverage were not good as the NATO incident was
happen in November and we saw a good coverage till the month of December, but in
January another issue is open that of Baluchistan and the whole discussion were
shifted to that issue as it seems that NATO incident would never being happened.
According to my analysis are working on their own policy and it depends on them
what to show and what to not. They are working for the profits not to give
information and showing the true picture to the world.

             CHAPTER 4


   AYESHA YAQUB: Conclusion, editing, formatting,
    compilation, table of contents and main pages of the project.



Pak-US relationship has been on a nose-dive since blockade of US made NATO Supply
routes from Pakistan to Afghanistan in April 2011 as already discussed in chapter 1. US
has more likely decided that Pakistan has a much deafening role in this issue as also
viewed by Hilary Clinton’s Pak-disoriented speech in the latest Indian conference even
though having full account of the already tormented relations between India and Pakistan.

Strained relations between both countries i.e. Pakistan and United States have fuelled
speculation on the criteria of future alliance where the weaker stand is that of the
Pakistani government being a developing country with less economic resources than the
US. As this Western presence ebbs, Pakistan, whose tribal areas are considered home to
Taliban and other militants, will be key in shaping Afghanistan’s future where the supply
routes have been a major sticking point.

Strategies of a country’s alliance with foreign countries depend upon the variables of:


No matter how much Pakistan be right in its decision to stop NATO supplies, it has to
face the consequences of American policy making, America being on top of the aid
providers to Pak economy. One twist would be that of budget for the year 2013-2018 i.e.
Pakistan has to pass the new budget for which it requires American aid and not opening
NATO routes would consequently mean no future aid as already highlighted by the US

However, the Pakistani approach has been well-planned out as it has played safe in the
eyes of the Pakistani nationals and the wide ranging Islamists etc by banning the supply
route in consent to preserving the “integrity, security and defense of Pakistan”
according to exception of article 19 of the constitution of Pakistan. The American Bill

says that Pakistan’s aid has been made subject to their co-operation. The stakes are
really high as this sensitive issue challenges the economy of both countries. However, the
question lies that would Pakistani government put its state’s integrity at stake with the US
policies, while also keeping in mind the previous lop-sided record of US’ assistance in
the recent issues of Raymond Davis, Osama Bin Laden, Aafia Sidiqi and Shakil Afridi


Every country needs a foreign policy. Policies are often determined by vested interests or
developed over a long period of gaining multi-party consensus and it doesn't seem to be
enough to point out shortcomings in policies. The foreign policy does not change for
every other incident that takes place, be it NATO’s Salalah attacks or Afghan war etc.

The policies are for the future 5 or 10 years. Foreign policy should include Pakistan’s
relations with Iran, Nepal, China, Sri Lanka and Turkey prior to relations with the US and
Western countries in order to strengthen its support at home in the Asian region that will
benefit Pakistan in the long run.


Countries have to have regional allies but along with that, there is a need to have sane
policies to tackle with the problems resulting from the alliance e.g. Pakistan’s demand on
supplementing the roads affected by the NATO trucks in carrying tons of supply every
day cannot be given secondary importance.

However, the lack of policies does not render it the vigilance that needs to be put into this
issue. The resistance against NATO is not from the government but the army due to the
involvement of RAW agents. India thought that Pakistan will have a diminished role in
the final equation of the Afghan War.


Dismembering the NATO supply to Afghanistan eventually leads to the elimination of
US combat troops posing security against war on terrorism. Consequently, making the

US stop their aid to Pakistan’s growing needs for development of national interest.
Pakistan’s placement on the globe is very strategically planned. America formed bases of
Drone attacks in Pakistan. Therefore, Pakistan is in a strong geo-political position to
threaten the US.


The quality of leadership is very important in the governance paradigm of not only
relations with foreign states but also with that of the natives living within the territorial
boundary of a particular state. It is important for us to analyze the standard of credibility
entrusted upon the officials by the locals of the area keeping in mind the flabbergasting
incidents that appear on the headlines, most definitely that of Prime Minister Yusuf Raza
Gillani’s Contempt of Court on not writing a letter to the Swiss authorities on reopening
of President Zardari’s cases which gives a shady impression at the motives of the officials
themselves as discussed by the outburst of local and foreign media at the time. Therefore,
PPP alleged government of Pakistan should keep a control and order situation on the
media outburst since the PEMRA amendment 2007 has failed to do so.


Pakistan is undoubtedly rich in its natural resources of coal, gas, oil, minerals, mining,
uranium and water etc which caters to fewer audiences as the means of extraction and
usage are very rare and few. The foreign invader is usually attracted to such a treasure of
natural resource and a structure open to industry and economic boost lacking just the
adequate infrastructure needed. This is another passage of manipulation thus employed
by the invader in setting foot on the area to make the Pakistani’s feel that they are being
helped by superior powers of science and technology but rather fed blindness in the game
of vested interests.

                                             CHICAGO SUMMIT 2012

           If presented as an “implementation summit” at which the alliance’s leaders could assess
           the progress of the program agreed during the Lisbon Summit in 2010 and designed to
           speed up NATO’s adaptation to the new security challenge, the Chicago Summit may in
           fact be an historical moment for the future of the alliance and for the transatlantic
           relationship as viewed by         Rabah Ghezali in his article posted on 17th May 2012 in
  entitled as “A Chicago Road To Perdition”.

           The indication of the US to change its perspective on global security is more evident than
           ever. President Obama’s strategies of defense given the defense strategy report in early
           January, Washington made it crystal clear that U.S. defense policy is “shifting from the
           North Atlantic towards Asia”. Europe remained at the core of Washington’s security
           concerns since the Second World War. However, the challenges coming from the
           Chinese Republic have been on US’ major agenda lately.

           DEFENSE 2012

           This document will be used to analyze the parallelism of the above discussed foreign and
           local media coverage on the NATO issue with the factual groundwork of policies and
           agenda’s as shown in the President’s assertion and how far the reporting of this has been
           kept in consideration by foreign and local journalism.

           In the strategic plan of reviewing and improvising global relationships of US with other
           nations, the new diplomatic defense policies highlighted in the PDF of “Sustaining US
           Global Leadership- Priorities for 21st Century Defense, January 2012”20, the US
           presidential and executive consent to the strategy has been shown that vests interests
           within the circumference of the American global policy circle as says President Obama:


               “I am determined that …we emerge even stronger in a manner that preserves
               American global leadership, maintains our military superiority and keeps faith
               with our troops, military families and veterans.”

           The chapter entitled “The White House- Washington 2012, 3rd January 2012” gives
           account of President Barack Obama’s stance on the defense strategy as:

               “Our nation is at a moment of transition. Thanks to the sacrifices of our men
               and women in uniform, we have responsibly ended the war in Iraq, put
               Al’Qaeda on the path to defeat- including delivering justice to Osama bin
               Laden- and made significant progress in Afghanistan responsibility…”

           The sacrifices of American men and women in uniform thus remain honest with the
           American side rather than preserving world peace as will be discussed later in the coming
           chapters. The language of the report is so obliviously explaining the American agenda
           and its faith in America’s input on war against terrorism that is exemplified with
           “delivering justice to Osama Bin Laden” and the Afghanistan “responsibility”.

           President Obama has thus unveiled the recommendations of a Defense Department study
           group that he said would produce a military that is “agile, flexible and ready for the full
           range of contingencies and threats”. That would be accomplished by smaller increases
           in defense spending, a policy telegraphed by Obama’s 10-year budget projections for
           fiscal 2012, which were $105 billion less than his 2011 blueprint21. The “contingencies”
           and “threats” posed emerge from the rapid global development and China’s threatening
           capability to emerge as the next hegemonic force against Uncle Sam’s ruling Court in the
           name of preserving World Peace as says the report:

               “This review has been shaped by America’s enduring national security
               interests. We seek the security of our Nation, allies and partners. We seek the
               prosperity that flows from an open and free international economic system. And
               we seek a just and sustainable international order where the rights and


   responsibilities of nations and people are upheld, especially the fundamental
   right of every human being.”

Ironically, the preservation of fundamental rights of free speech as mentioned in the 1st
Amendment to the US constitution pertains only to US media which can easily
pronounce Pakistan’s anti-American agenda’s and sustained war with Al’ Qaeda as ally.


The importance and significance of the report given by US Secretary of State Defense
and the strategies of Obama Administration of preserving “world peace” are important in
analyzing the Pak-US relationship as it provides ample evidence of the US government’s
lop-sidedness on defense against terrorism that has confined itself within the walls of the
US territory rather than to the larger context of the global world. The structural form of
this defense strategy exerts full pressure upon US allies and non-allies that the US can
wage war against any state which asserts signs of danger against the US or targets world


The defense report given by the US structurally denies co-operation with any factor
posing threat to the US integrity and defense. No signs of cooperation were shown from
the US side in the incidents of NATO attack on Salalah airbase primarily and also the
recent incident following the attacks was the Shakil Afridi case where the alleged US
officials accused Pakistan for its non-co-operation.


Before these incidents, in 2011, the incidents of Raymond Davis and Osama Bin Laden’s
assassination were major examples of US’ non-cooperation with the Pakistani officials,
much to the accord of our ruling government as well which posed signs of ignorance and
non-vigilance in making the US comply with swapping of Aafia Sidiqui with Raymond
Davis. No action was taken by the Pakistani government in arresting this undercover US
agent for carrying an unlicensed weapon and taking lives of innocent Pakistani citizens.

If the Pakistani government denies the responsibility of peace-keeping in its own region,
then the foreigner is not to be held responsible for its ravenous attacks. The maintenance
of peace at home is important to devise credibility and trust between the government and
the locals. If the government does not help its people in times of war and crisis then who
are they to look up to for their welfare. However, very unfortunate is the fact, that
however much one denies it, there are interests within interests between the two
governments upon which the integrity of state has been compensated where no measure
was taken or policy devised to stop the attack on Salalah airbase that killed 24 Pakistani


Now interestingly, elections for the next government are very near in both countries,
Pakistan and the US. The defense report for the Obama administration can be one
psychological tactic to make the American public feel safe in the hands of a politically
powerful government. On the other hand, not supplementing NATO’s application of
opening supply routes to Afghanistan is a decision made by the Pakistani government to
gain more credibility in the otherwise lost trust of Pakistani citizens.


Again, no hard and fast conclusion can be given upon the future of this alliance as vested
interests change overnight and govern the governance of the state government which
eventually makes up policies for its public.


                          “TRENDS OF JOURNALISM”

Journalists are answerable to the society and responsible for its socio-economic and
political welfare. They have to ensure the pros and cons of news generated through their
respective mediums e.g. what will be the fall out affect on the geographical locale or
society after a news report has been published or screened etc. Laws on regulation of
news through print and electronic mediums have to be ratified after a certain period of
time to make them applicable for the current constitutional system.


When journalists pertain to angled approaches in the gait of vested interests then it is
known as the media bias. Therefore, it is important to note how an event has been
covered or reported etc. There is an acute inability of media persons to report each and
every thing that reflects the factual information of a particular news. Therefore, they
resort to an angle and usually explain their viewpoint with reference to that context.


The overall picture of news coverage on the NATO issue by local and foreign media
since April 2011 and May 2012 has been lop-sided towards an angular pattern of
behaviour that is not in alignment with the Pakistani government and policies at both
ends. Rather the media is hammering angular dimensions of doubt and propaganda which
is producing anti-American and anti-Pakistani sentiments due to misrepresentation of the
crux issue.

The entire media coverage implies an insidious and a widespread bias contravening the
standards of journalism rather than the news element. The analysis of the writer and
anchor prevails throughout the duration of the write up or interview especially in
coverage of local media channels where the hosts angle up the approach of the guest in
favour of the channel’s policy or interpretation. Because it is impossible to report
everything, selectivity is inevitable which comes according to the vested interests of the
range of a channel or newspaper’s policy.


The legal criteria of accessing information should therefore not be trespassed in the quest
to overtake another newspaper or channel through unauthorized exclusive news footages.
Newspapers like The Independent [UK], New York Times [USA]; The Nation, Dawn and
Express Tribune [Pakistani] reflect the different ways in which media can mould opinions
of the public through factual or self-organized information they have access to.


Article 19 of the Pakistani constitution is stated as follows:

       “Every citizen shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression,
       and there shall be freedom of the press, subject to any reasonable
       restrictions imposed by law in the interest of the glory of Islam or the
       integrity, security or defense of Pakistan or any part thereof, friendly
       relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in
       relation to contempt of court, commission of or incitement to an

Every society of the world is at a different level of development in different countries.
Similarly, the applicability of freedom of speech and criteria for freedom of the press
differs in various countries. Being a journalist, a media anchor or a political talk show
host does not mean that one has the capacity to generalize socio-political debates and
violate the privacy of an individual or a country by any means. Naming people, calling
them with abuses and labeling societies should not be adhered to in the name of one’s
freedom of speech according to the constitution of Pakistan and abroad.

Most of the time situations are not black and white. Sometimes there is fair coverage and
sometimes it is angled by political flavor. This will be discussed in the forthcoming


The criterion, working and policies of the American Press and other foreign press’ as
opposed to the Pakistani press focus on the exposure of the topic and lesser on the
political analysis of the incident deeming it diplomatically more factual and thus more
concrete as compared to counteractive movements against the ruling government by
Pakistani media in Pakistan. This shows the unity in disparity posed by the government’s
media ally.

The in depth analysis of foreign media coverage shows well-articulated articles and other
print coverage’s along with a biasedly stated pro-American dimension to the NATO issue
by the blogs, magazines and TV channels.



      The article entitled “Tensions Flare between U.S. and Pakistan After Strike” has
       been published in the “New York Times” on November 26th, 2011 by “Salman
       Masood and Eric Scmitt”. Maleeha Lodhi (as discussed in chapter 2) while
       analyzing this hostile relationship says “the relationship is on a much more
       slippery slope now. This is as close as you can get to a rupture.” The rhetoric used
       in the headline creates doubt for the masses and puts Pakistan’s credibility into

      Jasmine Coleman wrote an article entitled “Pakistan halts NATO supplies after
       attack leaves soldiers dead” on 26th November, 2011 in “The Guardian”. The
       choice of the title is self-explanatory in demonstrating Coleman’s biased opinion
       about Pakistan as she stresses upon the halt of NATO supplies by Pakistan in an
       accusatory tone, rather evaluating the cause of NATO air strike that killed 28
       Pakistani soldiers.

      Headline given in The New York Times that “Pakistan: NATO allowed to ship
       food” re-enforces no such bias against Pakistan.
      Washington Post’s article entitled “Pakistan’s pique and the Afghan war” by
       David R. Ignatius is yet another example of biased anti-Pakistan attitude which is
       reverberated throughout the content of the article where the writer’s aggression is
       infiltrated in his content.


The content of foreign articles mostly shows clarity of the writer’s vision that is majorly
one-dimensional i.e. in favour of the US government more than in disfavor of what it did
to cause the NATO supply route closure through Pakistan e.g. Tom Wright in “The Wall
Street Journal” has managed to successfully articulate an objective news story on 15th
May, 2012 by the name of “Pakistan Defers NATO Supply Decision”. Wright exhibits
the public opinion of Pakistani’s completely anti-American reasoning it with firm logic.
Moreover, in Times of India, the anti-Pakistan agenda has been taken up which is very
much evident and expected coming from Pakistan’s neighbouring enemy.

Similarly, the news by Agence France Press AFP published in “Times of India” on May,
19, 2012 titled “US supply trucks cross Afghan-Pakistan border: officials” discusses the
conflicting accounts of Pakistan letting four trucks to cross the Torkham border into
Afghanistan but these shipmanets have been declared “diplomatic” since they carry “non-
Nato supplies”. This news was an unprejudiced account of the recent developments
regarding the NATO supplies into Afghanistan.


The significance of the articles lie not only in corroborating the death of 25 soldiers by a
NATO airstrike and how the Pakistani officials have condemned this attack as an
“irresponsible attack” and an “unprovoked act of aggression” but on how continuously
U.S. is stressing upon the invalidation of the attack by using rhetoric like “The strikes,
‘which Pakistani officials said’ involved both helicopters and fighter jets”. Such rhetoric

creates doubt for the masses and puts Pakistan’s credibility into question. The subject
matter is therefore pro-US.

Alex Rodriguez’s article “Pakistanis fear becoming isolated” published on May 22nd
2012 in the Los Angeles Times focuses on how analysts worry that the government’s
negotiating strategy could cost Pakistan millions in U.S. aid and keep it out of decisions
regarding neighboring Afghanistan.


The tone is clear and transparent of the US motives and the belief in the apparent terrorist
image of Pakistan in the international community which is being constantly reverberated
in newspapers like “The Guardian”, “The Independent” and “Los Angeles Times” where
focus on the policies and facts of the news is very less. Whereas, “The New York Times”
and “Wall Street Journal” have been relatives logical and not biased dealing with both
sides of the argument fairly. Surprisingly, coverage in “Time of India” has also been
unprejudiced in the beginning of the issue and carried on to be bias as the problem
transgressed futher.

The article in The Guardian entitled as “Pakistan halts NATO supplies after attack leaves
soldiers dead” by Jasmine Coleman which shows the writer’s biased opinion about
Pakistan as she stresses upon the halt of NATO supplies by Pakistan in an accusatory
tone, rather evaluating the cause of NATO air strike that killed 28 Pakistani soldiers. The
prejudiced attitude of Coleman is visible in these introductory lines as she uses words like
“accused” as if Pakistan is solely responsible for the deadly attack.


International blogs have shown varying kinds. Some of the international literati believes
in fixing things logically which they have explained through moderate language e.g. and the others like have hiked up their language biases against
Pakistan in the NATO issue.


      Kathy Gannon and Sebastian Abbot wrote an article in “Huffington Post”
       published on 23rd December, 2011 named “Pakistani Army Rejects U.S. Review
       Of Deadly NATO Airstrikes”. This headline suggests that Pakistan has been
       stubborn at insisting that the NATO attack was an act of deliberate aggression.

      An article’s headline: “How Pakistan Makes Washington Pay for the Afghan
       War” by Dilip Hiro in the blog Mother Jones is self-explanatory and shows a
       description of the latest development in the fraught relations between the United
       States and Pakistan as a result of Pakistan’s non-coordination.

      Article entitled “US, Pakistan negotiate reopening NATO supply line” in Salon.
       Com written by Sebbastian Abbot is not biased but rather like a straight statement
       which shows its neutral edge.

      Another headline of an article posted on the by writer Geoff Dyer
       states a very interesting pen-down of the Pak-US relationship. The writer gives it
       the title of “The US, Pakistan and that dysfunctional relationship”.


The owners of blogs usually tend to sensationalize news to make it more appealing in the
eyes of the locals and international community for the publicity and better readership of
their blog. Therefore, they usually take out an angle that is not likely in favour of the
opponent party: to create a sense of self-pity for one’s own government or nation for the
local reader; and instigate a response on part of the targeted national audience to speak up
against them so that they can take that in Pakistan’s disadvantage.

However a few blogs do represent the positive side and neutral aspects of logically
devising solutions for the problems like the article published in Oped entitled
as “US-led NATO attack on Pakistan worsens Islamabad-Washington ties” writtern by
Abdus-Sattar Ghazali which has an inclination towards subjectivity and being citizens of
the nation in which we abide, we may agree with the viewpoint presented in it.


An excellent example of usage of biased language can be that of the article published on
banning of NATO supply in Pakistan in dated May 14th, 2012 written by
Associated Press writers Zarar Khan in Islamabad , and Bradley Klapper and Matthew
Lee in Washington entitled as “Pakistan Suggests that NATO Supplies Should Resume”
that sums up the Pak-US relationship on a uni-lateral standing where Pakistan has been
featured as the snooping undercover agent for West-destructing global allies.


The article states that the Salalah incident “fueled already rampant anti-American
sentiment” in Pakistan and plunged the “troubled relations” between the two countries
to an:

   “all-time low, threatening the vital, if spotty, anti-terrorism cooperation
   Washington has received since 2001 in exchange for billions of dollars in
   American aid.”

CHOICE OF WORDS: The choice of words like low, spotty and anti-American are
self-explanatory in developing the general notion of the article’s featuring body. The
article further states that Pakistan not only retaliated by blocking NATO supplies, but “it
also kicked the U.S. out of a base used by American drones targeting Taliban and Al’
Qaeda fighters” in the country’s tribal region along the Afghan border. The use of the
word kick shows the level of vengeance inculcated in the coverage style.


   “Pakistan’s weak, U.S.-allied government sought political cover in dealing
   with the aftermath of the attack by tossing the issue to parliament.”

   “The State Department, unlike the Pentagon or White House, had wanted to get
   an apology out of the way early, one U.S. official said, but the span of time has
   made that a moot point. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Pakistan’s
   foreign minister discussed a possible apology in London in February, but Khar

   wanted the apology to wait until after the parliamentary debate… to make it
   look like the Pakistani parliament had forced Washington’s hand, the official
   said, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss diplomatic maneuvers.


The language of the articles is increasingly blunt and suggestive of Pakistan’s
involvement in the non-cooperation movement against its major financial ally that
supports the country’s growing economic demands as says the article: “Pakistan’s weak,
U.S.-allied government”. Therefore, making the stance of the article inclined towards the
American’s end.


The writers have presented a somewhat vile analysis of the opinion generated within both
countries producing much of the anti feeling for each other. Note that the opinion formers
are the fundamentalist groups in Pakistan VS the lop-sided state policies of the US. It
mentions one group in particular i.e. the Difa-e-Pakistan, or Defense of Pakistan Council
which has been especially vocal in opposing the resumption of NATO supplies and U.S.
drone strikes.

The articles in state that this “group is composed of prominent hard-line
Islamist religious leaders and politicians” which are the only source of opinion cited in
the article. This can further be exemplified with the US view of the Taliban and Al’
Qaeda extremists prevailing within Pakistan and Afghanistan as seen in the Defense

   “In contrast to the murderous vision of violent extremists, we are joining with
   allies and partners around the world to build their capacity to promote security,
   prosperity and human dignity.”

The language of the report is positively moderate in defining the objectives of this new
policy that actually lies in the interests of the American government. The killing of
innocent people, military officials by unconscious action is not the work of nature. The

strategies include a planned framework of ties which led to one another in procession to
not a national, but one political hegemonic goal.

Some in the media have claimed the movement has the tacit support of the Pakistani
military, possibly to pressure Washington. U.S. officials have said in private that they
have no intention of stopping covert CIA drone strikes in Pakistan, which they see as key
to targeting militants in the country who pose a threat to the West. It is noteworthy after
an analysis of various medium of mass media that the foreign media tends to overlook
relevant information in the coverage of international events when it collides with the
national agenda.


Overall, is completely biased and pro-US policy, Oped has an
inclination towards subjectivity, and are more on the factual
side and present news figures. Furthermore, Huffignton Post is yet another angled blog
where the rhetoric employed is completely anti-Pakistan e.g. in the blog article entitled
“Pakistan NATO Attack: Military Claims Confusion, Communication Breakdown
Hampered Airforce” by Chris Brummitt, he reports that Prime Minister Yousaf Raza
Gillani’s statement of holding U.S. accountable for attacking Pakistan’s sovereignty by
using harsh diction like “he ordered border troops to take a ‘more aggressive’ posture
against ‘intruders’”. He further underpins Pakistan being half at fault for the attack where
he added “Pakistanis were at least partly to blame for the deadly error”.

Mother Jones, and The seem fair in their coverage as compared
to the other foreign blogs. Moreover, the comments given underneath the biased blogs are
even more biased than the articles posted. The blogs which do not sensationalize news
have less comments or no comments at all which shows the inclination towards anti-
Pakistani readership abroad.


Foreign magazines have outdone the biasness of foreign media in print medium by giving
direct and indirect remarks on the relationship between Pakistan and America, blaming
most of the factors of adversary on the Pakistani side.


The headlines of foreign magazines show America as an innocent unintender to the NTO
attack in Pakistan. The language of the foreign magazine articles are very pro-US and go

       “Tragic and Unintended” by Andrew Lebovich in the Foreign Policy Magazine.
        The title of the article portrays U.S as innocent, very cleverly amalgamating the
        writer’s diplomatic sympathies for Pakistan by recalling it a “tragic” incident.

       Bruce Riedel’s article called “America’s Pakistan Mess Gets Worse With
        Alleged NATO Strike” was published in Newsweek Magazine on 27th
        November, 2011. The headline of the article calls the Pak-US relationship as a
        “mess” which shows the miscommunication causing misperception at both ends.

       “The hardest word” written by an anonymous writer in The Economist, focuses
        on how the relationship between two strategic allies is “paralyzed” and reasons it
        metaphorically comparing the behavior of the two nations with that of “bickering
        between children” as Obama Administration is unable to swallow pride and
        “apologize” and the Pakistani government has refused to reopen its roads for
        supplying NATO soldiers in Afghanistan, after closing them as punishment.

       “Pakistan to Blame for NATO Airstrike” published in Front Page Magazine is
        self-explanatory of the bias against Pakistan, the article reinforces that Pakistan is
        an aggressive country.


“Pakistan to Blame for NATO Airstrike” published in Counter Punch is self-
explanatory of the bias against Pakistan, the article reinforces that Pakistan is an
aggressive country. Similarly another example of “Endless Needless Deaths” by Linh

Dinh is from the same magazine as well which is very contradictory to the previous as it
says that US has been unjustly killing innocent Pakistani’s and this attack is just another
example to exemplify the strained ties between both countries.

Marc Ambinder wrote an article “A Hot Flash in the Cold War With Pakistan” in The
Atlantic which immediately catches attention to the disintegrated ties between the two
countries at present. The entire content of the article indirectly reverberates the
inconsistency of Pakistani performance in complying with the so-called American aid for
Pakistan’s welfare.

Article published in the Harvard Political Review entitled as “The Pakistan Dilemma”
Gram Slattery is a very notable example of bias and hatred stemming within the write up
of the article, as the writer literally blames Pakistan for providing deliberate abode to
terrorists without factual evidences.


The foreign magazines have shown a drastic bias towards Pakistan and very few writers
actually realize the importance of affecting Pakistani integrity and defense of state
matters caused by the American attacks. This bias is aptly represented in the language
and content of the magazines where Front Line, Front Page Magazine, Foreign Affairs,
Harvard Political Review, The Atlantic and The Economist lead the way for more bias.

Counter Punch includes a majority of biased articles along with a few accounts of
average analysis, those too not coming from American writers. Newsweek is entirely
anti-Pakistan and considers it an end to the already distorted relation between both
countries saying that it is in “tatters”.


The media coverage on foreign TV channels has been relatively lesser than on print
media forums and social media forums.


The analysis of host Evan Davis show on BBC- “The Commander of NATO led Coalition
forces in Afghanistan, General David Petraeus” shows the biased and angular approach of
BBC news which is against the interests of Pakistan. In undertones of displeasure with
Pakistan they are using their media to convey that they will not extend an apology and
Pakistan is not as important as their troops in Afghanistan and if Pakistan can’t reopen the
routes they have friendly ties with their countries as well.


Fox News broadcasted “President Obama’s News Conference at NATO Summit” which
was obliviously explaining American policy against Pakistan. It stated the terms and
conditions on which Pakistan had agreed on the American mission of war against
terrorism and collaboration with one another on missile defense against the international
enemies residing within Afghanistan. The conversation on this channel establishes that
U.S. is telling Pakistan to co-operate with them without complaining without accepting
that they have violated its sovereignty. An indeed angled approach, very pro-US and
solely discussing the US side of the issue.

Gen. McChrystal’s program “U.S. DoD Media Roundtable with Gen. McChrystal NATO
Headquarters in Brussels” on CNN also triggers a very biased approach by the
international community against Pakistan as it discusses the entire incident as a
“procedure” and not as an event. Indeed the US strategy of dealing things mechanically
while staying aloof of the emotional bondages that the Pakistani families shred with their
sons and husbands and fathers and brothers killed due to the NATO attack.

There cannot be any justification given by the US officials to undo that and apparently
they aren’t even interested in doing so as seen through the electronic media news
coverage of NATO attack. Interview with Pakistani Foreign Minister Khar broadcasted
on CNN by Christiane Amanpour posed connotations of mockery where the host
dispensed questions upon Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Hinna Rabbani Khar. Knowing the

importance of an apology for Pakistan, who had been attacked uninformed, she asked “Is
it important to get that apology? Have you gotten it yet? And will you demand it.” Ms.
Khar very intelligently counter questioned “What would it feel and what would it do to
the U.S. citizens’ sentiment if they were to receive 24 body bags in the United States,
saying this was done in accident by the Pakistani troops, who did not lose a single limb?
What would be the reaction of the United States?” Making U.S. stand in Pakistan’s shoes
perhaps Amanpour felt similar sentiments and diverted the conversation.

Nevertheless, it ends with U.S’ concerns for the burnt victims in Pakistan turning a blind
eye to the numerous innocent people that they have killed in their quest for war on
terrorism. The coverage was by far biased and angled against the Pakistani context.



The coverage on NATO varies from medium to medium in the local media. However,
the essential stance of the journalists is more or less the same as they are hammering
complaints against the American troops responsible for attacking the Salalah check
post that killed 24 Pakistani soldiers.

The criterion, working and policies of the Pakistani Press and the counteractive
movements against the ruling government i.e. the Pakistan people’s party represent an
ongoing tussle between the two where there is none but one loser i.e. Pakistan. The
importance of a “free press” and a “strong government” is vital to keeping our
emerging democracy on course. This is not to say the government should passively
remain the subject of slander, if indeed that is the charge against some journalists.

There are fewer ways of pushing back against an unrestrained press that serve
democracy rather than undermine it. There have been a few instances in the history of
Pakistani press which has made the government to wilfully jeopardize its free speech.
However, some journalists and media anchors still remain unmoved in their accounts
of news as seen through local media coverage of NATO supply blocade by Pakistan
to Afghanistan.

The idea of news reporting is to present the news to the general public to let them
form opinions on various issues. In Pakistan, the case is opposite where the media
hammers down its opinion to the public to follow where the jest of overtaking each
other in coverage of news through newspapers and television channels is more than
the objective of reporting itself. The goal should be equip the public to decode the
political leanings of media outlets and detect biases.


          As the Pakistani media has become more influential, government efforts to curtail it
          has become more creative. The language of the newspapers and blogs represent the
          drastic self-destructive dimension the Pakistani media has taken. Flipping through
          Pakistani television channels these days, viewers usually catch glimpses of diverse
          and often contradictory programming only to find go-getting political talk shows,
          ravenous news coverage of brutal terrorist attacks, satirical, anti-government songs
          and cartoons, music videos, extremist religious programming, footage of all the
          controversial kinds which makes up about 90 percent of the reporting and analysis.


          Such variety in media opinion is a legacy of former Pakistani President Pervez
          Musharraf’s decision to privatize and liberalize broadcast and electronic media. Since
          letting the media genie out of the bottle, Pakistani authorities have struggled to draft
          appropriate legislature that can ensure that broadcast content is appropriate, accurate
          and unbiased22.

          The growth of such an independent media has occurred alongside the rise of the
          extremist Pakistani Taliban. Owing to the increased frequency of terrorist attacks in
          Pakistan, particularly since 2007, discussion and legislature pertaining to media
          conduct has focused on the appropriate way to cover disturbing events such as suicide
          bombings but in vain. The fact is that as the Pakistani media industry matures and
          reaches ever-wider audiences, it will need robust and consistent standards.

          1)                                                                                         L
               OCAL ARTICLES


Coverage of NATO attack in local articles has not seen any great dimensions or any
profound biases for that matter. The coverage has been relatively simple as compared
to the foreign media articles that show an outburst to Pakistani reaction at the attack
i.e. banning of NATO supply to Afghanistan through routes from Pakistan. However,
one very notable feature is the siding up with US policy rather than talking more on
the Pakistani stance.


The headlines are relatively simple and not very melodramatic as compared to The
Guardian or The Independent e.g.
      The article entitled “Reason of NATO attack” written by Nusrat Mirza nd
       published in Jang Urdu is also a relatively simple headline.
      Article entitled “24 soldiers killed in NATO attack on Pakistan check post”
       by Iftikhar Firdous in The Express Tribune is surprisingly a low profile
       headline as compared to the other catchy ones in this pro US newspaper .
       example of a catchy headline can be “Tribune Take: Miscommunication may
       have led to NATO attack” by Mehwish Rizvi and both discuss pro-US
       sentiments and lack of agility in Pakistani government.
      Diversion in Urdu reporting can be seen where most of the Urdu articles
       follow the league of the reporting and headline formation of the foreign
       articles. They are pro-Government i.e. pro Pakistani as seen in the headline of
       Jang Urdu editorial “America and NATO hakam hosh sy kaam laiy”.


The language of the articles is angled towards the US side. In November and
December and much time in the recent past, the articles being published in Express
Tribune show that instead of blaming U.S. for the attacks, the articles make the
Pakistani’s feel not to go against Americans as this attack was mistakenly done by the
Americans. Whereas other articles in The Express Tribune state that the attack that
was done by the Americans was due to the miscommunication of American forces
going in positive inclination towards the American’s side.

The Urdu newspapers, Express Urdu and Jag Urdu have shown pro-Pakistani angle
where the writers and editors are constantly stressing on the emotional outcome of the
incident and gradually moving on towards the facts and logical figures by which
America should be reviewing its foreign policy and not act as a global dictator. The
coverage is angled towards Pakistan but not well-explained as compared to English


During most of the start of year 2012 and before, articles in The Nation and Dawn
suggested factual information and did not really remain on any one side, mostly
suggesting importance for Pakistan to take a decision but not being pro-Pakistan for
the lack of vigilance shown by the Pakistani government reverberates in the articles.
The need for devising foreign policies and strategic diplomatic relations based on
mutual benefit treaties is suggestive through the content of the articles.


The overall coverage on local articles was not very satisfactory. Neither can it be
termed as fair or angled. No new dimensions were produced. The language was
however pro US in most English Newspapers e.g. Express Tribune and Pakistan
Today is angled towards the US side. However, Dawn and The Nation are more pro-
government as well as Urdu Newspapers like Jang etc. The coverage was average on
both ends as there is greater readership of Urdu newspapers in Pakistan than the
English ones hammering pro-US sentiments.

2)                                                                                        L

Pakistani blogs cater to the highest majority of articles where comments against the
politicians and the government have been mentioned under the NATO discussion and
comments section. However, one very notable fact (in minority blogs) is the inclusion
of articles from foreign writers and locals that include literate people and capable of
analysis on defense and policy matters where the language used does not shred off

anyone’s clothes but mostly gives implicit references that cannot be termed bias but
logical and referential more to say.


Abuses of the extremist level have been used to highlight the ulterior motives and
vested interest of all Pakistani politicians in the closure and reopening of the NATO
supply route. The references given to the President can be the best sought for in quest
for hilarious jokes e.g. comparing the president and his league to animals like dogs,
and blood sucking leeches in Pak Tea House etc.


S.M. Hali of Opinion appears to have an angled approach towards
America as he approves the US standpoint in its war against terrorism in articles such
as “Clueless in Chicago” which talks about the cluelessness of the Pakistani officials
on having no plan of action in the Pak-US dialogue in Chicago Summit. Media Point
gives analysis of both sides and provides logical standpoint of the issue e.g. articles
“Analysis-NATO Supply Stoppage Economic And Political Cost For US” and
“Pakistan’s Border Closures Cost US Millions Monthly” by Regina Tayman she is
of the view that it is “Needless to say the stand-off is not good for Pakistan - U.S.
relations, which have been on shaky ground for quite some time”. Pak Defense Blog
does not have an important role to play in shaping much opinion; the articles were
mostly dry and hammered same facts and figures.


Yasmeen’s article entitled “Proud to be an Extortionist!” in Pak talks
about the aid that is given by the Americans as discussed before in chapter 3. She
talks about the exchanges at an international level which cannot just cater to a one-
way traffic. National interests of any two countries depend upon foreign policies that
need to be sought out according to the mutual benefit of the two where there can be
“no free lunch” to chomp on i.e. the US should not free-handedly bombard drones in

the face of its anti-terrorism campaign in the world causing hazards to majority
Pakistani citizens every day since 2007.

In addition, it can also be taken as vice versa as Pakistan should not be expecting US
aid if it is not aiding the US in its war against terrorism placed geo-politically near the
border of Pakistan in Afghanistan, which makes sense keeping in mind the variable of
strategic alliance as discussed in the beginning of this chapter. The coverage of blogs
is systematic including articles posted on Media Point, Pak potpourri2 and Opinion
Maker where angles towards Pakistan’s well-being have been taken where few are
against the US policies and more are against the ill-efficiency of the Pakistani
government. However, Pak Tea House is anti-Pakistan and anti-US both whereas Pak
Defense blog is pro-Pakistan but headlines seem very controversial and vague.

3)                                                                                            L

Coverage in local magazines has been very few on the NATO issue that increased the
already messed up relations between both countries.


                                                                                             M
         ir Javed Rehman’s article “26 Pak Soldiers Killed In Nato Blitz” in the MAG
         which is more like title to a news entry.
                                                                                             I
         n the magazine Newsline, an article got published by the name of “US looking
         to negotiate with the Taleban” by RahimUllah Yusufzai which expresses US
         sentiments of diplomacy to negotiate the NATO attack issue.


MAG did not have any rapturous content on biased approach, just simple piece of
information given by the editor. On the other hand, Newsline gave comments on their
anti-American sentiment and the extent of trouble created due to the US involvement
in Pakistan.

Local magazines have covered less on the shifting political ties between America and
Pakistan as they have focused more on fashion and film industry, beauty tips and
other female products etc.

4)                                                                                      L

Very few media anchors in Pakistan are of a logical yet angled view including Moeed
Peerzada and Javaid Chodhry i.e. the resolution of the US Pak conflict through
logical and policy means. Some of the channels are heavily funded by the Americans
and as well as Indian, so the audience does not know what picture gives them a true
story. Pakistan is undeniably under huge compression especially after discontinuing
NATO supplies, since the Salala incident.


Hamid Mir with guests Doc Tanvear Ahmad khan, Mr. Tariq Fatemi, Raheem-ulla-
yousafzai, Brg. Mahmood Shah, Gen.Talal Masood on Capital Talk on Geo give a
tone pertaining to the American side as he asked from Raheem that don’t you think
that America is doing a mistake or not. Similarly another instance of Capital Talk
with Ch. Nisar as guest, Hamid Meer tried discussing the NATO issue but Ch. Nisar
propagated more personal interest related to his party that the “opposition does not
know of what is going on” which is unbelievably funny.


Hamid’s Meer’s stance was angled towards the American side as GEO does not go
against the American policies due to vested interests and US back up for the channel.
The local talk shows show personal fights of different parties on the TV platform
where hosts do not take any measure to avoid the “hate speech” and violence
committed which are an exception to freedom of speech and press under article 19 of
Pakistani Constitution. Where some hosts are angled and biased others show lack of
concern for crux issues like Muneeb Farooq, host of programme “Apas Ki Baat” on

Geo shows overconfidence of information which is actually lack of proper input on
the NATO issue.


However, PTV show, “Sochta Pakistan” gives example of the host Moeed Peerzada
who carries his show in a logical and systematic manner avoiding contingencies and
violence of any kind.


ARY hosted programme “11th Hour” included opinion extraction from a mufti as a
guest on his take on behaviour towards the American offense towards Pakistan. This
angle is completely new to the world of media as the main issue rests in the heavens
somewhere else and the media employs strategies for code of behaviour to the local
public rather than suggesting policy changes to the officials. Talat Masood can be
seen talking in favour of the Americans like in most shows his stance is totally
against Pakistan. Same is the case with Mahreen Anwar from PPP which shows
media bias for working for the profits not to give information and showing the true
picture to the world.


Similar is the case with host Batool from Wakt News which does not broadcast very
profound input or casts famous faces from the political family in Pakistan. Fareeha
Idrees from Samaa Tv showed neutral coverage on the NATO supply closure and
gave some good points on how the closure will affects Pakistan’s economy and the
lack of overcoming budget deficit resulting from it.


Dunya TV anchor Naseem Zahra made good points on what should be our policies
against America, what stance we will take on this through logical and systematic
matters and intellectually discussing the Pak-US ties with guests Ayaz Amir, Gen.
Talat Masood, Dr. Riffat Hussain, Tariq Fatemi, Gen.Ather Abbas. Next in line

comes Mehreen Bokhari whose programme Cross Fire generated quite a few valid
points on the role of the government and military on the NATO supply issue and what
should be the next steps in compromising situations with each other. Her program
kept the attention as she used some high pitched melodrama also which gave the
impression of her anti-US stance as well.


Shahzeb Khanzda’s program on Express News shows a neutral analysis of the issue
by the host. His actions weren’t reflexive and aggressive like what can be compared
to some of the shows on Dunya Tv including that of Mubashar Luqman as well.
Khanzada started off very analytically by relating many incidents like memo gate
scandal and other things to the nose-dive in Pak-US ties, then moved on for blaming
the Pakistan army which shows his anti-government angle. However, the procession
of the show made many things quite clear as they were intellectually dealt with rather
than the emotional anti-US hammer of beliefs.

                              FINAL CONCLUSION

                    UNITED STATES: FRIEND OR FOE?

America has been giving a uni-lateral decision on opening of NATO supply routes to
Afghanistan. The aggrieved is not saying anything but the one attacking is giving the
decision based on its hegemony.


In recent months, the US has been accused of threatening national sovereignty, aiming to
exploit natural resources in Balochistan, trying to seize Pakistan’s nuclear weapons,
establishing military bases, breaking up the country, and promoting India’s regional
interests – in other words, everything except dealing with the global phenomenon of
Islamic terrorism which is by far true. American role in the global development is
manifold being the current hegemonic force of the world and rich with treasure of armour
and troops.

Therefore, it is essential for Pakistan to have a good working relationship with the US
both for economic reasons and to foster regional stability. The relationship has become
too distrustful and too transactional because the two countries cannot align their strategic
priorities. In the long run, they will have to come up with a joint vision for the region in
which Pakistan plays a productive role. In the short-term, it is essential that they keep
working together: for that reason, Pakistan should reopen the NATO supply routes as
soon as possible. If Pakistan doesn't help the US with its troop draw down, it risks
diplomatic isolation from the international community.

Above all, none of the governments in the world want to relinquish the grip they have on
their own military-industrial complex. It is thus possible that governments would rather
have independent but inefficient armies than integrated and capable ones. They want their
own armed forces and their own defense industrial base.


           The possibilities of change are not so bright, at least not in the short-term. A change will
           only come the day that US leaders reconsider the role of hard power in affecting the
           international community and understand that the former should not only be used as a key
           asset in the competition for influence and power in the 21st century. Afghanistan will
           also be an important priority in Chicago as NATO has decided to withdraw its combat
           forces by 2014. To do so in good conditions, the alliance needs to train enough Afghan
           security forces to ensure the stability in the country.


           Pakistan’s displeasure with Washington’s never-ending demands and oscillating foreign
           policy will make it difficult for the US government to help Islamabad manage the Taliban
           insurgency without international cooperation23.

           NATO needs to ensure that the international support for Afghanistan will continue after
           the withdrawal of the coalition does not want its decade-long blood efforts to vanish
           under the threat of the Taliban. Having a clear consensus on this item may not look as
           easy as it seems, not to mention the question of contribution to be brought by each
           country including Pakistan through which the supply routes would be leaded onwards


           The strategic defense policy of the US is very important to note here which prosecutes
           language filled with ulterior motive of securing a high angle in the global economy as
           well as maintaining the supremacy of the world’s apparently most powerful nation by
           means of its treasure of ammunition and riches of military troops it has marching in
           many parts of the world. It goes like:

                    “as we end today’s wars and reshape our Armed Forces, we will ensure that
               our military is agile, flexible and ready for full force of contingencies. In


              particular we will continue to invest in the capabilities critical to future
              success… counter-terrorism; countering weapons of mass destruction;
              operating in anti-access environments; and prevailing in all domains
              including cyber… we will keep our Armed Forces the best-trained, best-led,
              best equipped fighting force in history. And in a changing world that
              demands our leadership, the United States of America will            remain the
              greatest force of freedom and security that the world has ever known”.


          The future of the alliance and its resources does not appear to be among the highest
          political priority in the transatlantic agenda. This Chicago meeting coming five months
          earlier to the U.S. presidential election, has a special incentive for the Obama to make it a
          showcase of his diplomatic know-how. Therefore, at every step there is a vested interest
          which rests in the walls of the White House and can only be understood by one who has
          majored in social politics and politics of stately mind games.


          The entire foreign media coverage implies an insidious and a widespread bias
          contravening the standards of journalism rather than the news element. The analysis of
          the writers and anchors prevails throughout the duration of the write up or interview
          especially in coverage of foreign electronic media channels where the hosts angle up the
          anti-Pakistan approach to a very heightened extent.

          All the foreign channels BBC, CNN, FOX News etc are extremely biased towards
          Pakistan’s response towards the NATO attack. Same is the case with almost 90% of the
          foreign magazines and blogs which include The Economist, The Atlantic, Front Line
          Magazine, and Huffington Post etc that have shown their marvels in
          biased media rather than mass media approach as already exemplified with language and
          rhetorical proofs in detail in the earlier chapters.



The foreign media coverage seems to graphically capture the extent of anti-terrorist
thought in the minds of the international audience. By “anti-terrorist”, I mean “anti-
Pakistan” as the mathematical rules applies that if a=b and b=c, then a=c.
Simultaneously, if Pakistan = hindrance against anti-terrorism and hindrance against
anti-terrorism = destructive for UN defense policy, then Pakistan= destructive for UN
defense policy which produces most of the anti-Pakistan sentiment in the foreign world
promulgated mostly by the US media.

So if the US sees Pakistan as a hindrance to its defense policy, as a destructive element in
its counter battle against terrorism stemming from Afghanistan, then US sees Pakistan as
anti-American as well which is well-articulated in the form of journalistic articles and
blogs as well.


It seems more likely that the majority of local journalists thriving in Pakistan have come
up with patriotic beliefs of saving the Pakistani “integrity” as opposed to the violent
criticism by the foreigners and disrespecting the application for apologize at the Salalah
attack in November 2011.

Pakistani’s as a nation tend to be more emotional than the regular foreigner who lives
apart since the time he/ she gets in touch with an independent world. Therefore, the
bondage that arises amongst one another at the time of adversities cannot be neglected.
However, the focus should solely not be on the bondage and broadcast of patriotism but
rather policy analysis and recommendation for future welfare planning that can help
promote pluralism and diversity in our local press.

The overall analysis of the local media in a nutshell would majorly be that it is
undoubtedly emotional at large, aggressive against the government rather than the
policymaker’s lack of homework, sensationalizes the issue especially Express Tribune
which has remarkably interesting alliterative headlines but again focuses more on the
drama than the fact. On the other hand, there have been journalists and media anchors

and newspapers negotiating the possibilities for a positive change at both ends rather than
hammering the same old tell tale of mischief and distrust at both sides e.g. Dawn and The
Nation, Express News, PTV news and Dunya TV were largely logical and not very
biased in their reporting.

In analyzing blogs, it seems more like a scavenger hunt to find a conspiracy theory in
regard to every issue that comes up. However, this aspect makes the Pakistani blogs more
creative in their statements on political officials which are even more accentuated by the
comments given at the end. The overall picture seems confused and therefore, one can’t
say for sure if the local media coverage was solely angled or solely fair or even if biased,
then what exactly did that bias support, its home rule, the foreign policy or the global
dictator entrenching upon their homeland.


If the government of Pakistan orders an “academic and impartial review” of the
information landscape concerning campaigns in the media, then media ownership policy
can be better reviewed. The importance of devising a plan of action therefore becomes
vital to the role of Pakistani media.

This long-term solution should be taken up by the government giving special importance
to the exceptions of article 19 of the Pakistani Constitution which should not be
transgressed by any means. Strict actions should be taken if journalists use abuses against
the esteem of the government that is the state’s representative after all. The media genie
in Pakistan need to be set to checks and balances, its far-reaching capacity needs to be se
to certain limitations to preserve the integrity of our state.

Once the integrity of our state has been achieved, then we can maintain a sense of
importance and integrity in the global world. Rather than bullying the government for its
actions, recommendations should be given to avoid the ones who are indulging in
hooliganism and destroying the national image on media. Indeed, some of these are
already underway, providing great cause for optimism in these otherwise dark times.

                      INDEX OF CONTRIBUTION

 CHAPTER 1: NATO Background
 CHAPTER 3: Intro, Timeline, blogs, 3 Magazines

 CHAPTER 3: TV channels and articles

 CHAPTER 1: Geostrategic and geopolitical significance of Pakistan for
   America, Pak- US relationship, Drone attacks- History
 CHAPTER 2: Intro, Timelines, Articles, Blogs, Magazines, 5 TV channels

 CHAPTER 1: Statistics, Analysis of Raymond Davis Case
 CHAPTER 2: 6 TV Channels and Conclusion of TV Channels

 CHAPTER 1: Evolution and rise in demand of drone attacks, why America
   uses drones?
 CHAPTER 4: Conclusion
 All the editing, formatting, compilation, table of contents and main pages of
   the project.


To top