Bush OKs fighter sale to Pakistan, promises to sell to India too
by Peter Baker, Washington Post
March 26, 2005
CRAWFORD, Tex., March 25 -- President Bush rewarded a key ally in the war on terrorism Friday by authorizing the sale of F-16 fighter jets to Pakistan, a move that reversed 15 years of policy begun under his father and that India warned would destabilize the volatile region.
The United States barred the sale of F-16s to Pakistan in 1990 out of concern over its then-undeclared nuclear weapons program, but Bush has forged a close relationship with Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf since Sept. 11, 2001, and considers his help crucial in the battle against Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda terrorist organization.
Pakistan initially wants to buy about two dozen aircraft, but Bush administration officials said there would be no limits on how many it could eventually purchase. The
The administration move alters the equation in a part of the world where deep-seated religious and national animosities have resulted in a long, hair-trigger standoff between two nuclear-armed giants.
India and Pakistan have fought three wars in the past half-century and have come close to the brink many more times, most recently in 2002 over the disputed region of Kashmir.
Tensions have eased since then, and Musharraf plans his first visit to India in four years next month.
administration tried to balance the sale by announcing simultaneously that it would allow U.S. firms the right to provide India the next generation of sophisticated, multirole combat aircraft, including upgraded F-16 and F-18 warplanes, as well as develop broader cooperation in military command and control, early-warning detection, and missile defense systems.
"What we are trying to do is solidify and extend relations with both India and Pakistan, at a time when we have good relations with both of them -- something most people didn't think could be done -- and at a time when they have improving relationships with one another," Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said in an interview at The Washington Post.
"If you look at it in terms of the region," she added, "what we are trying to do is break out of the notion that this is a hyphenated relationship somehow, that anything that happens that is good for Pakistan is bad for India, and vice versa."
Critics in Washington assailed the decision, saying the administration would effectively supply both sides in a new arms race in one of the world's most dangerous hot spots, even as it rewards an authoritarian government in Islamabad in conflict with Bush's stated commitment to promote democracy around the globe.
Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh complained that selling F-16s to Pakistan would shift the balance of power in South Asia. "We're greatly disappointed to hear the news," said Gautam Bambawale, minister for press affairs at the Indian Embassy in Washington. "This is probably going to have negative consequences for Indian security and the security environment" of the region, Bambawale said.
Bush called Singh to explain the decision Friday morning from his ranch here, where he is taking an Easter break, aides said. Indian press accounts took note of the U.S. agreement to allow New Delhi to bid for licenses for joint production of state-of-the-art military equipment, calling it the concession paid in exchange for the fighter sale to Pakistan.
The administration move alters the equation in a part of the world where deep-seated religious and national animosities have resulted in a long, hair-trigger standoff between two nuclear-armed giants. India and Pakistan have fought three wars in the past half-century and have come close to the brink many more times, most recently in 2002 over the disputed region of Kashmir. Tensions have eased since then, and Musharraf plans his first visit to India in four years next month.
The aborted F-16 sale to Pakistan in 1990 has been a source of friction between Washington and Islamabad ever since. President George H.W. Bush decided that year that he could no longer certify that Pakistan was not developing nuclear weapons, and so under a 1985 law the aircraft deal was called off. The Clinton administration agreed in 1998 to reimburse Pakistan for much of the money it had paid for 28 planes.
The Bush administration's decision to authorize a new sale was not its first gift to Musharraf, whose forces have engaged in a sometimes criticized search for bin Laden and his compatriots in the border regions next to Afghanistan. For the past three years, it has provided spare parts to keep Pakistan's aging fleet of warplanes flying. In 2003, Bush announced a five-year, $3 billion financial aid package and last year signed a separate $1.3 billion arms package for Pakistan.
Some analysts said the latest Bush move reflected the new geopolitical reality after the Sept. 11 attacks. "In the post-9/11 world, everything is changed," said Lanny J. Davis, the Washington lawyer who brokered the reimbursement deal for Pakistan. "The notion that we shouldn't give Pakistan military parity with India . . . makes no sense anymore given everything Pakistan has done for us."
Stephen P. Cohen, a South Asia expert at the Brookings Institution, said the sale would give Bush more influence in Pakistan. "This gives us leverage on Musharraf in pushing him in the direction of accommodation over Kashmir and other disputes," Cohen said. Pakistan, he added, remained a top priority for Washington: "It's got nuclear weapons, it's in a critical part of the world, and we can't afford to let it go down the drain."
Others accused Bush of selling out his own rhetoric on democracy and playing a risky game that could renew conflict in the region and even push India closer to China. Former senator Larry Pressler (R-S.D.), who sponsored the 1985 law that ultimately forced the cancellation of the original F-16 sale, called Friday's decision "an atrocity" that goes against "everything the Bush administration has stood for."
"This is just a disastrous thing," said Pressler, who now sits on the board of an Indian technology company. "It raises Pakistan, a country that doesn't stand for anything we stand for, to the level of India," the world's largest democracy. "It has nothing to do with fighting terrorism." Instead, he said, "it gives Pakistan a delivery vehicle for its nuclear weapons."
Congressional leaders have also criticized the prospect of renewing F-16 sales given Musharraf's refusal to allow U.S. investigators to interview Abdel Qadeer Khan, the father of the Pakistani nuclear bomb, who for years ran an illicit international ring providing nuclear technology to rogue nations.
Administration officials declined to comment Friday on whether they had won concessions from Pakistan on the Khan investigation. During her visit to South Asia earlier this month, Rice pressed for more access to Khan. Musharraf told a Pakistani television network this week that he was prepared to send centrifuges to the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna for inspection to help determine whether Pakistani technology was used to help Iran develop nuclear weapons.
During her trip, Rice also pushed Musharraf, an army general who took power in a bloodless coup in 1999, to commit to holding elections in 2007, and administration officials cited his assurance in announcing the F-16 sale Friday. But Musharraf has broken commitments to restore democracy before, most recently when he reversed his promise to give up his army office and rule as a civilian.
in·san·i·ty n. 1 a : a deranged state of the mind usually occurring as a specific disorder (as schizophrenia) and usually excluding such states as mental retardation, psychoneurosis, and various character disorders
b : a mental disorder
2 : such unsoundness of mind or lack of understanding as prevents one from having the mental capacity required by law to enter into a particular relationship, status, or transaction or as removes one from criminal or civil responsibility
Like the URL says, this website is about unknown news.
We present a once-weekly wrap-up of news that was underplayed, ignored, or simply lost in the non-stop news cycle. Our news comes only from mainstream, professional journalists or (rarely) other sources we trust entirely, with no nuttiness and no interest in the same news you see everywhere else.
What we believe
We believe in liberty and justice for all, so of course, we oppose many US government policies. This doesn't mean we're anti-American, redneck scum, pinko commies, militia members, or terrorist-sympathizers. It means we believe in freedom, as more than merely a cliché.
We believe you have the right to live your own life as you choose, and others have the equal right to live their lives as they choose. It's not complicated.
We believe freedom leads to peace, progress, and prosperity, while its opposite -- oppression -- leads to war, terrorism, poverty, and misery.
We believe it's preposterously stupid to hate people because of their appearance, their race or nationality, their religion or lack of religion, how they have sex with other consenting adults, etc. There are far more apropos reasons to hate most people.
We believe in questioning ourselves, our assumptions, each other -- and we especially believe in questioning authority (the more authority, the more questions). We believe obedience is a fine quality in dogs and young children, but not in adults.
Like America's right-wingers, we believe in
individual responsibility,
hard work to get ahead,
and stern punishment for serious crimes.
We believe big government should not be blindly trusted.
But unlike most right-wing leaders, we mean it.
Like America's left-wingers, we believe in
equal treatment under law,
war as a last (not first) resort,
and sensible stewardship of natural resources.
We believe big business should not be blindly trusted.
But unlike most left-wing leaders, we mean it.
Like libertarians, we believe it's wrong and reprehensible to arrest people for what they think, believe, look like, wear, eat, smoke, drink, inhale, inject, or otherwise do to themselves.
But unlike many libertarians, we're not obsessed with the gold standard, we don't believe incorporation is humanity's highest achievement, and we don't believe everything in life comes down to dollars and cents. We've read and enjoyed Ayn Rand's novels, but we understand that they're works of fiction.
We're skeptical, and we're sick of so-called 'journalists' who aren't skeptical at all.
A reader asks, what are our solutions?
We propose no solutions except common sense, which is never common. We like the principles of democracy, and the ideals broadly described as 'American'. The US Constitution is a fine and workable framework for solutions, when it's actually read and thoughtfully understood by intelligent statesmen and women. So, no manifestos from us. We don't dream that big, and if there's one thing the world doesn't need it's yet another manifesto.
Our suggestion is: think.
A fact-based instead of faith-based approach leads to solutions for most of the recurring issues of our time, from abortion to global climate change, pollution to universal health care, careful but real regulation of industry and economy, hunger, war, terror, human rights for humans not for corporations, science not religious doctrine in public schools, equal protection and prosecution under law, etc. Approach problems without glorifying stupidity, without demonizing intelligence, and answers usually come into focus.
These pages are published by Harry and Helen Highwater, happily married low-income nom de plumes and rabble-rousers from Madison, Wisconsin (with a few friends scattered around the world helping out).
We try to spotlight news that hasn't gotten enough (or appropriate) attention in American media, along with our opinions and yours.
We bang our keyboards against the wall, because it doesn't hurt as much as banging our heads.
We assume our readers are well-informed before they click here, so we focus on news that's generally unknown or under-reported. We're generally disinterested in such non-news as reports on what politicians might do, may do, or should do, and we don't usually mention the murders, kidnappings, house fires, auto wrecks, celebrity crap, wacky fluff, and other nonsense that's pushed real news right out of the newscasts.
Disclaimer for dummies: Our front page is free from nudity, but we make no promise on profanity. If your surfing is monitored this site might not be safe for work, and you may be shocked, offended, or in trouble with your boss. A link doesn't imply that we agree with every sentence and every sentiment on every site we link to. We use our noggins, and suggest you use yours.
We always welcome comments from readers, and we're especially interested in hearing and considering different perspectives, so please don't be shy. All we ask is that you conduct yourself sanely and civilly, so consider yourself invited to speak your mind. Our email address and other info is on our contact page.
Please don't email us unless you're sending an original communication that you're not sending to anyone or everyone else. If you add us to your mailing list or chat group without asking us first, or if you send "Dear friend" newsletters, or "link exchange" form letters, or if you send a press release every time you add a post to your blog, you're a spammer and we'll soon block your emails. Also, as a matter of security, we don't open emails from strangers which include attachments or have any kind of programming imbedded, and we recommend a similar policy for others. If you're sending us an email, please send it in plain text only.
Our RSS feed of Unknown News headlines is updated whenever we update the site. Click the orange button for more information, or just get the feed at http://unknownnews.org/ RSSfeeds/dailyRSS.xml.
(Enormous and eternal thanksto Doug at mistersquirrel.net, for setting up our RSS feed.)
Our privacy policy has a page of its own, but the short and sweet version is: We're in favor of privacy. We make no effort to track or identify anything about visitors to our website. We never share, trade, or sell email addresses. We never send spam. We never send email, except in response to readers' queries. We never send (or open) attachments of any kind, and we delete un-opened any emails received with attachments.
Anything sent to Unknown News may be published. If you don't want it published, say so plainly. When we publish incoming emails, we edit out the sender's last name and email address — if we slip up (or if you want your full name and email address published) please let us know. Of course, if your email is unambiguously intended only to annoy, insult, or threaten us, we'll publish it with all the details and leave it on-line forever.
