显示标签为“could”的博文。显示所有博文
显示标签为“could”的博文。显示所有博文

2011年6月6日星期一

Should (Could) America and Pakistan’s Bond Be Broken?

在 ServiceModel 客户端配置部分中,找不到引用协定“TranslatorService.LanguageService”的默认终结点元素。这可能是因为未找到应用程序的配置文件,或者是因为客户端元素中找不到与此协定匹配的终结点元素。
在 ServiceModel 客户端配置部分中,找不到引用协定“TranslatorService.LanguageService”的默认终结点元素。这可能是因为未找到应用程序的配置文件,或者是因为客户端元素中找不到与此协定匹配的终结点元素。

Within days of the American raid deep inside Pakistan that killed Osama bin Laden, Pakistani officials travelled to Beijing and asked their “Chinese brothers” to operate a strategic port on the Arabian Sea. They also said the two countries were planning oil pipelines, railroads and even military bases in Pakistan for the Chinese Navy.

The Pakistani officials had already advised their neighbors in Afghanistan — where Americans have committed billions of dollars and lost more than 1,500 lives since 2001 — that Afghanistan would be better off placing long-term bets on an ascendant China, rather than a declining United States.

With the tortured marriage clearly in trouble, Islamabad has sent signals that it is ready to start seeing other people. Can Washington afford to do the same? And just how far could Pakistan get by playing the field?

With Bin Laden dead and the White House determined to get the bulk of American troops out of Afghanistan as quickly as possible, some in Washington make the case that the ties that bind the United States to Pakistan are no longer so strong, and that the allegiances that have entangled them over the past decade could be rearranged.

There are new dynamics now at play, noticed by analysts who liken this era to the years immediately after the cold war. For decades, fears of Soviet expansion had brought the United States and Pakistan into a tight embrace, but those ties weakened and ultimately broke once that threat had passed. Similarly, an American withdrawal from Afghanistan could put greater distance between the two nations and allow ties between Washington and New Delhi to grow.

“As we begin to rely on Pakistan less to get supplies into Afghanistan, America’s axis with India will continue to strengthen,” said Bruce O. Riedel, a former C.I.A. official now at the Brookings Institution. If this happened, he said, it would only be natural for Islamabad to try to grow even closer to China and Saudi Arabia, two longtime allies and trading partners.

But even then, there would be limits on how much America might suffer. Some experts say that a network of new regional relationships with Pakistan actually might help America pursue its deepest interests in the region.

Don’t expect an open break tomorrow, of course. For the moment, the United States and Pakistan remain bound to each other. As long as war rages in Afghanistan, the United States will rely on routes in Pakistan to ferry in military supplies, and to keep pressure on militants in Pakistan’s tribal areas. And the Pakistani government still needs the billions that come each year from Washington to, among other things, keep pace in its arms race with India.

Once the war in Afghanistan winds down, though, the relationship could change. Some analysts foresee a new Great Game for dominance in the region, with stakes like billions of dollars in mineral wealth in Afghanistan, access to vital shipping lanes, and a need to monitor the longstanding tensions between India and Pakistan.

Some experts say that a bit of breathing room in the American-Pakistani relationship — managed responsibly — might be just the right therapy for the partnership. In the 10 years since Sept. 11, 2001, both the Bush and Obama administrations have made dozens of official visits to Islamabad to implore, lecture or demand that Pakistan sever ties to militant groups, even attaching strings (without ever really pulling them) to billions of dollars in annual aid. Pakistan’s reaction seems to have been little more than resentment of its dependency on Washington, and a determination to pursue an independent course, whether by hiding some of its intelligence agency’s activities or by openly hinting at taking another partner, like China.

One question, however, is whether China sees such a partnership quite the same way.


View the original article here

2011年5月10日星期二

Parliament could become wedding venue, MPs say

 9 May 2011 Last updated at 22:29 ET  Catering facilities could be opened up to the public when the Commons is not sitting The Palace of Westminster could host wedding receptions under plans to cut Parliament's subsidised catering bill.


The Commons Administration Committee has suggested even the historic Westminster Hall could be hired out for private functions at £25,000 a time.


Dining areas including the Terrace alongside the River Thames may also be opened to the public.


They are among proposals aimed at halving the £5.7m annual loss made by the catering operation at Westminster.

Security question

The cross-party committee of MPs said that healthier lifestyles and stricter working practices had reduced formal lunching and left Parliament's four main dining rooms underoccupied.


Although steps have been taken to cut losses, including prices rises last year to raise an extra £1.27m, the committee said it was reasonable to maintain some subsidy for the 13,000 people working at Westminster, given Parliament's irregular hours and long recesses.


The MPs said it was "neither feasible nor desirable" to allow members of the public access to facilities when the House was sitting.


But their report added: "We are, however, not opposed in principle, and so long as any concerns raised by the Serjeant at Arms about security can be overcome, to opening the Strangers' and other facilities to the public on non-sitting days, including weekends and recesses, if all costs can be covered and the service offered profitably.


"Again, so long as a security concern is dealt with, we believe that allowing public access to the Terrace Pavilion for an afternoon tea service for those who have taken tours would raise revenue for the House and contribute in a minor way to the strategic goal of promoting public knowledge and understanding of the work and the role of Parliament through the provision of information and access."

Gunpowder plot

Opening up the facilities to the public would need the approval of the House of Commons, House of Lords and the Queen.


Another committee headed by the Speaker would have to decide whether to share these facilities with outsiders.


Westminster Hall hosted the trials of Charles I and the Gunpowder Plot conspirators, and the lying in state of monarchs and former prime ministers William Gladstone and Sir Winston Churchill.