Drones Case Neg

CMR Impact-- Kashmir

It’s also not too encouraging that Pakistan and India are now rapidly expanding their nuclear arsenals. Pakistan’s nuclear arsenals were developed with Reagan’s crucial aid. And India’s nuclear weapons program got a major shot in the arm with the recent US-India nuclear agreement. It’s also a sharp blow to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Two countries have twice come close to nuclear war over Kashmir, and they’re also engaged in a kind of a proxy war in Afghanistan. These developments pose a very serious threat to world peace, even to human survival. Well, a lot to say about this crisis, but no time here.

In the world viewed through America's lens, "Af-Pak," the catch-phrase of the moment in Washington foreign policy circles, makes a good deal of sense. With 17,000 more American troops en route to Afghanistan, and with the Taliban operating largely beyond their reach in the Pakistani tribal lands, the need to deal with both problems in tandem has become conventional wisdom. Yet focusing solely on what goes in Afghanistan and the largely ungoverned lands south of its border misses a larger, even more difficult reality. After seven years of virtual stalemate in Afghanistan, and with Pakistan looking shaky at best, other, larger powers in the region are placing their bets — and not necessarily on America and its NATO allies. Russia, Iran, China, and India all have vital interests at stake, and all have moved in different ways to hedge their bets. Nowhere is this more true than in the long-running territorial dispute between India and Pakistan over Kashmir. According to new revelations from Steve Coll, an American journalist and author, concerns about the direction of the India-Pakistan nuclear rivalry over Kashmir so unnerved both sides that these sworn enemies launched a secret peace process that very nearly took the issue off the table in 2007. Coll, president of the New America Foundation, revealed in the New Yorker magazine last week that the two sides came so close to agreement that, in the words of one senior Indian official involved, "we'd come to semicolons." Without American mediation — indeed, one former American official told me the U.S. was aware of, but not involved in, the negotiations — these sworn enemies very nearly solved on the the world’s major conflicts. The effect such a peace would have on the region would be profound. Pakistan's unwillingness to accept India's hold on a large part of that northern region led successive governments to use Pakistan's Inter- Services Intelligence agency to train Islamic militants to infiltrate the Indian-rule portion of Kashmir. The ISI already had ties with the Afghan Taliban and other groups there dating to the anti-Soviet resistance. Tolerance of terrorism — as an end to a means winning back Kashmir and maintaining influence in Afghanistan — has poisoned the ISI's reputation and nearly led to war with India in the Kargil region in 1999. On most expert lists of top 5 potential causes of nuclear war, Kashmir is 1, 2, or 3.

CMR Impact I/L—Heg Good

Collapsing civil military relations will destroy the US's superpower status

Foster 97 [Gregory Foster, Professor, Industrial College of the Armed Forces The Brookings Review Fall 1997 Vol.15 No.4pp. 42-45 www.brookings.edu/press/review/fall97/foster.htm]

The implications of this are profound. In the final analysis, the very viability and vitality of the institutions that make up the civil-military triad—their capacity, that is, to cope with and act purposefully on their governing domestic and international environments— depend fundamentally on their ability to measure up to the expectations they have of one another. When these expectations are met, the social glue of trust and confidence that results produces bona fide moral authority. The attendant mutual credibility, acceptance, and legitimation thus engender the unity—of purpose, effort, and action—so essential to executive energy, able governance, and overall strategic effectiveness. Conversely, when these mutual expectations go unmet, the result almost invariably is alienation, distrust, disunity—and, ultimately, strategic debilitation. We are at that point today— notwithstanding our self-absorbed, chest-thumping claims to Lone Superpower status. If we don't act quickly to reverse the situation, we will pay the price in ways that will leave us to reminisce about the glory we once enjoyed.

Consult Pakistan CP

Text: The United States federal government should consult the government of Pakistan over whether the United States federal government should prohibit the presence and use of uncrewed aerial vehicles in Afghanistan.
Pakistan Will Say Yes—Drone strikes unpopular

Xinhua, ’10 [Xinhua, Clinton's Pakistan Visit a Frustrated Move to Restore Trust, 7/19/10, http://english.cri.cn/6966/2010/07/19/1461s583859.htm]

The U.S drone strikes in the tribal region of Pakistan is strongly opposed by the majority in Pakistan including the government, opposition parties and the people, and Islamabad insists that strikes from drones have affected the anti-terror war and increased anti-US sentiments. But the U.S. has never hinted any change in the policy. If it is the case how the U.S. will succeed to remove the trust deficit.

Say yes--Pakistan condemns Obama’s Afghanistan strategy

Tariq, ‘ 9 [Farooq Tariq, Links: International Journal of Socialist Renewal, 12/4/09, http://links.org.au/node/1385]

The Labour Party Pakistan (LPP) condemns US President Barack Obama's Afghanistan policy and demands that all NATO forces immediately withdraw from Afghanistan and stop drone attacks on Pakistan. The Labour Party Pakistan has decided to protest against this new escalation of the war effort in the region. The first protest took place on December 4 in front of US consulate in Lahore. There will be more demonstrations in different parts of Pakistan. Nisar Shah, LPP general secretary, and Farooq Tariq, LPP spokesperson, said that when Obama took office less than a year ago, there were only 32,000 US troops in Afghanistan. By next spring there will be 100,000. Obama has given General Stanley McCrystal, US and Nato commander in Kabul, more or less the numbers of troops he wanted. Obama clearly spelt out to the Pakistan government that ''a safe haven for those high-level terrorists, whose location is known, and whose intentions are clear, cannot be tolerated''. This clearly means more bombs, more drone attacks and more bloodshed in the region. The Labor Party Pakistan leaders said that President Obama has disappointed many who had the illusion that he may bring peace and prosperity for the world. They said that Guantanamo has not yet closed. Secret prisons are still functioning in the US, torture continues, its land mine policy is unchanged and living standards even in US are declining. The war in Iraq is unchanged and the war in Afghanistan is escalating. In Pakistan, the situation is getting worse and worse. The new US Afghanistan policy will mean more terror in Pakistan. Religious fanatics will not be silenced by more drone attacks, but on the contrary it will promote more suicide attacks in desperation.

Consult Pakistan CP—Net Benefit

Relations low now—

Rupee News, 7/12/09, http://rupeenews.com/2010/07/12/pakistan-relationship-with-china-stronger-than-us-ties/

The American relationship with Pakistan is based on immediate need. There is no consistency. The Anti-Pakistan venom that pours out of the US media makes it very difficult for the Pakistanis to trust America. The drone bombings, the sanctions on Pakistan, the threats from US leaders are huge impediments to the countries coming closer. When Hillary Clinton threatened Pakistan, right after the so called strategic dialogue, the relations that were on the mend took a colossal step backwards. Pakistanis of all persuasions were appalled at the threats from Washington.
Consultation key to getting Pakistan on board for Afghanistan

Naryanana, ’10 [Sripathi Naryanan Research Intern, IPCS Strategic Dialogue: Pakistan and United States, #3085, IPCS: Research Institute of India, 8 April 2010, http://www.ipcs.org/article/india/strategic-dialogue-pakistan-and-united-states-3085.html.]

To conclude, the dialogue process could be seen as a measure to bring back Pakistan onboard the Afghan policy of Washington, when Islamabad had a different policy orientation with respect to both the Taliban and Afghanistan as compared to the United States.

Pakistan key to Afghanistan

Iqbal, ’10 [Anwar Iqbal, DAWN.com, 6/30/10, http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/front-page/06-pakistan-key-to-afghan-reconciliation-petraeus-060-rs-01]

WASHINGTON: Pakistan’s involvement in a reconciliation agreement in Afghanistan is essential and the United States needs to further this developing partnership between the two neighbouring countries, Gen David Petraeus told his confirmation hearing on Tuesday. But the new US commander for Afghanistan also told the Senate Armed Services Committee that Afghan President Hamid Karzai had denied reports that he recently met a top leader of anti-Kabul network, Sirajuddin Haqqani. “Pakistani involvement in some form of reconciliation agreement, I think that that is essential,” Gen Petraeus told the committee’s chairman Senator Carl Levin.

Consult Pakistan CP—Net Ben (cont.)

Afghanistan stability key to prevent great power wars

Lal, PhD and political Scientist at RAND, 2006 [Dr. Rollie Lal is a Political Scientist at RAND. She is a South Asia and East Asia specialist, with extensive experience analyzing the foreign relations and internal dynamics of India and Pakistan, the national interests of India and China, and the strategic relations of India, China, and Japan. Rand Publications: “Central Asia and its Asian Neighbors” December 7, 2007 http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2006/RAND_MG440.pdf]

The relationship between the Central Asian states and their neighbors is complex and heavily influenced by the situation in Afghanistan. Afghanistan forms the link between regions, and it has endured a great deal of meddling from various sides, as in the past few decades, the United States, Pakistan, India, Iran, Russia, Uzbekistan, and other countries have attempted to push for a friendly government in Afghanistan. Since September 11, 2001, and the fall of the Taliban, Afghanistan has also gained in importance as a feasible key transport route for increased trade and security cooperation between the countries of Central Asia and India and Pakistan.1 Stability in Afghanistan has had a profound effect on Central Asian security as both religious radicalism and drugs emanating from Afghanistan threaten the region. During the Afghan-Soviet war, the United States in effect, through Pakistan, supported fundamentalist Islamic teachings and military training of Afghan, Pakistani, and other Central Asian militants in an effort to expel the Soviet Union from Afghanistan.2 The growth of Islamic fundamentalism from the Afghan-Soviet war accelerated the spread of a religious ideology throughout the formerly communist countries. The Taliban trained Uzbek, Tajik, and Uighur radicals, spurring the growth of destabilizing fundamentalist movements throughout the region.3 In 1992, leaders of the Islamic Renaissance Party (IRP) fled Tajikistan to take refuge and regroup in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, and Russia.4 During the 1990s, Afghanistan also became a haven for the IMU.5 Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan all moved to support the anti-Taliban Northern Alliance in the 1990s in the hopes of defeating the fundamentalist threat.6 The Central Asian states remain concerned by the continued presence of militants in Afghanistan and, now, Pakistan, and also by the booming drug trade that passes through Afghanistan and Central Asia into Europe and Russia.7 Narcotics flow from Afghanistan via multiple routes in the region to foreign markets, and populations of these transit corridors are increasingly consumers of the drugs as well. Traffickers transport opiates north through Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan on to Russia, and west through Iran and Turkmenistan to Turkey and Europe.8 Tajikistan has made efforts to stem the flow of drugs across its border from Afghanistan, establishing two antidrug agencies in Afghanistan to coordinate military and nonmilitary operations with international troops and Afghan forces in the border areas.9 Since the fall of the Taliban, many local leaders have retained considerable power and maintain some ability to destabilize the Kabul government. In addition, various renegade militant groups and remnants of the Taliban continue to operate in parts of Afghanistan, particularly near the Pakistani border. The ability of these groups to move nimbly across the border to evade counterterrorism forces and border patrols has been a cause for consternation among Afghan border patrols has been a cause for consternation among Afghanistan’s neighbors. Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kazakhstan, and Kyrgyzstan are concerned that Afghanistan could revert to a haven for terrorist training, sending the militants back into their countries to de- stabilize regimes.11 A political vacuum in Afghanistan has traditionally drawn its neighboring countries in to compete for influence. Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan have an interest in fostering trade and transport linkages both with and through Afghanistan, but they face difficulties in maintaining security for the routes.12 Iran has been successful in moving forward with an agreement to trade goods with Uzbekistan through Afghanistan. This agreement has facilitated Uzbekistan’s access to needed ports for export.13

Consult Pakistan CP—Net Ben UQ Extension

Relations low—Pakistan mistrusts US relations with India

Afridi and Bajoria, 7/6 [Jamal Afridi and Jayshree Bajoria, Staff Writer, Council on Foreign Relations, “China-Pakistan Relations,” 7/6/10, http://www.cfr.org/publication/10070/chinapakistan_relations.html?breadcrumb=%2Fregion%2F283%2Fpakistan]

The India-U.S. civilian nuclear agreement compounds Pakistan's distrust of the United States, spurring efforts by Pakistani officials to secure a similar deal with China. In April 2010, China announced its plan to build two new nuclear power reactors in Pakistan. The deal is seen as a violation of the guidelines laid down by the Nuclear Suppliers Group of which China is a member. In a CFR interview, Andrew Small of the German Marshall Fund of the United States, says "in private, Chinese analysts are quite clear that this is a strategic tit-for-tat [in response to U.S-India nuclear deal] and it's a very worrying portent if this is going to be China's approach to the nonproliferation regime in future."

Consult Pakistan CP—Net Ben Impact.

Consulting Pakistan key to prolif, terrorism, and US national security

Pakistan Policy Working Group, ‘8 [Pakistan Policy Working Group, The Pakistan Policy Working Group is an independent, bipartisan group of American experts on U.S.–Pakistan relations “The Next Chapter: The United States and Pakistan,” Brookings Institute, September 2008, http://www.brookings.edu/reports/2008/09_pakistan_cohen.aspx.]

Pakistan may be the single greatest challenge facing the next American President. The sixth most populous country in the world is suffering its greatest internal crises since partition, with security, economic, and political interests in the balance. With such turmoil, we find U.S. interests in Pakistan are more threatened now than at any time since the Taliban was driven from Afghanistan in 2001. The United States cannot afford to see Pakistan fail, nor can it ignore the extremists operating in Pakistan’s tribal areas. Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal (and past nuclear proliferation), al-Qaeda, and the war in Afghanistan keep U.S. national security firmly anchored in Pakistan. Afghanistan cannot succeed without success in Pakistan, and vice versa. As Americans learned to their great sorrow on September 11, 2001, what happens in Southwest Asia can profoundly affect their lives. In the face of this challenge, Washington needs to rethink its approach to Pakistan. If we genuinely believe that a stable, prosperous Pakistan is in our interest, we must be much smarter about how we work with Pakistan and what sort of assistance we provide. As the September 19th bombing of the Marriott hotel in Islamabad demonstrates, there is little time to waste.

Directory: files
files -> Answer True False 2 points Question 2
files -> Integer programming and game theory
files -> 4 Integer Programming
files -> Bpa vehicle Window Repair Scenario #1 task: Procure vehicle window relacement. Objective
files -> Pop Warner History
files -> North Carolina Inclusion Initiative Mapping Where Children with ieps are Being Served Purpose
files -> Fall 2013 Spring 2014 Program Data: Standard 1 Exhibit 4d
files -> Hanban – asia society confucius classrooms network 2010 request for proposal
files -> Northern England’s set-jetting locations

Download 157.71 Kb.

Share with your friends: