Ishaal Zehra
Hilarious, but true. Government of Bangladesh, or should I say Shaikh Hasina’s government, arranged the 4th phase of honouring the “Foreign Friends of Bangladesh” who supported the liberation war. The grand ceremony was held on 15th December 2012 at Bangabandhu International Conference Centre where Bangladesh conferred awards on 65 more foreign friends for their outstanding contributions to the country's Liberation War 41 years ago.
This was the fourth time of awarding foreign friends since the government first conferred "Bangladesh Liberation War Honour" posthumously on Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi on July 25, 2011. In the second phase, Bangladesh awarded 83 with the honour on March 27 and 61 more in the third phase on October 20 this year.
As per the joint press briefing, earlier, at the foreign ministry, Foreign Minister Dipu Moni confirmed sixty-three personalities and two organizations from 10 countries to receive the award on December 15. Among them, 49 are from India and the rest are from the USA, Russia, France, Australia, UK, Sweden, Sri Lanka, Nepal and Bhutan.
Speaking at the same press briefing, State Minister for Liberation War Affairs Capt (R) AB Tajul Islam said the government has invited Indian President Pranab Mukherjee to receive the award at his convenient time. The date of his visit will be confirmed by the two foreign ministries later. On the basis of sneering rumors of few Pakistani receiving the award it was asked whether any individual from Pakistan will come to receive the award this time, Dipu Moni said their names would be on the list in the next phase.
One can only speculate if any of Pakistani would take such HONOUR. Leave Pakistani’s aside this whole event is a shame for every sane Bangladeshi as well. Conferring awards to those who are a party to a war which was the outcome of a conspiracy theory is an idiotic thing or another conspiracy in the offing. Bangladesh war conspiracy is a known fact today.
It is a reality that Pakistan has been a traditional enemy of India. The high echelons in the Indian leadership never accepted the division of Sub Continent. Hence, it wasn’t surprising that India took the opportunity of weakening Pakistan by supporting the Bangladesh liberation movement. Former Indian foreign secretary Mr. Dixit is on record saying, "We helped in the liberation of Bangladesh in mutual interest, it was not a favour," As per a senior RAW intelligence officer, “Bangladesh was the result of a 10 year long promotion of dissatisfaction against the rulers of Pakistan”. Thus, helping Bangladesh was not an instantaneous decision of India rather it was a carefully designed strategic plan that was executed in exact precision. Unfortunately, after the liberation, things did not go the way India had planned.
It was then the Indian leaders knew that the only party that was able to meet the Indian strategic demands in Bangladesh is Awami League. From. Sheikh Mujeeb to Sheikh Hasina, they never stopped keeping relations with Awami League and provided all sorts of support to them. According to some well-informed observers, India provided Tk. 300 crore to Awami League to win the 1996 election (Weekly Shugondha, 26th April, 1996). So these so-called awards might be actually a plea to beg their masters further support and possible favors.
Since 1971, Bangladesh has become an "alienated" and "dependent" state with tiny influence in the comity of nation. Geographically it is surrounded by India from three sides but authoritatively completely encircled in her hegemonic sphere. And the total Shaikh family of AL regime leaves no stone unturned to continue this hegemony.
Interestingly, Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina Wajed refused to attend the D-8 Conference held in Islamabad, unless Pakistan tendered an apology for what she called “the genocide of Bengalis.” Probably as a show of complete obedience towards her Indian well wishers. Although the Hamood-ur-Rehman Commission identified the underlying causes for the 71 tragedy where the Commission criticized the then political and military leaders for their ineptness, it also debunked the propaganda by New Delhi that 2 to 3 million Bengalis had been killed by Pakistan Army. Rather the civil war and the killings of West Pakistanis by Mukti Bahini guerrillas were the two main ignored reasons for that huge genocide.
Besides Hamood-ur-Rehman Commission there are numerous published reports out now which negates the Indian well propagated make beliefs of 1971 war where Pakistan Army was the sole dictator and the only evil. The declassified US reports, Indian military officers account, Pakistan military officers account, General Niazi’s memoirs, Sharmila Bose write ups are only a petty reference of the unending list. Published books and articles as Subversion in East Pakistan, by AMK Maswani, Second Thoughts on Bangladesh, narrated by a repentant rebel, and Bangladesh Today—Indictment and a Lament, by the distinguished East Pakistani intellectual Matiur Rahman proclaim how the East Pakistanis were made the victims of a vast scheme to give up a part of their own country.
Henry Kissinger’s voluminous work, The White House Years, adds heavily to the account. When the relevant written material is placed beside the events that took place before, during and after the war, the analysis exposes the US hand in fomenting rebellion by the Awami League against the State, assisting India in raising, arming and deploying the Mukti Bahni terrorists in East Pakistan, then provoking the war and devising a quick defeat for Pakistan.
Sarmila Bose, a Senior Research Fellow in the Politics of South Asia at the University of Oxford, through a detailed investigation of events on the ground contextualizes and humanizes the war while analysing what the events reveal about the nature of the conflict itself. The story of 1971 has so far been dominated by the narrative of the victorious side. All parties to the war are still largely imprisoned by wartime partisan mythologies. Her book challenges assumptions about the nature of the conflict, and exposes the ways in which the 1971 war is still playing out in the region. As a matter of fact, this whole honour and award drama is just a mere extension of the Indian chess moves in the region where Sheikh Hasina, unfortunately, is just a pawn progressing in the directions of her master mind.
Bangladesh after 41 years of independence is still going through a transition period (like all third world countries) struggling to provide its citizens with social justice, equality, quality education, better living standards, fair independent judiciary, free and fair election. Would it not be appreciable if the government focuses on her people miseries rather give awards to foreign friends of some political party. Basic fundamental rights of citizens come much earlier than such staged dramas. I am sure the original friends who really want to see a prosperous Bangladesh will surely adore the idea.
Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Monday, November 26, 2012
Supremacy of Constitution
Dr Raja Muhammad Khan
Tuesday, November 13, 2012 - In his statement of November 10, 2012, Prime Minister Raja Pervez Ashraf categorically denied any sort of clash or confrontation between the state’s institution, particularly Pak Army and the superior judiciary; the Supreme Court of Pakistan. He said in his statement that, “there was no clash between the state’s institutions.” While giving this statement, he was clearly referring to the developments taken place in the last one week, after statements of Pakistani Army Chief and Chief Justice of Pakistan on November 5, 2012. The academic circle, the analysts and mature media men are of the opinion that, it was a mere coincidence that, Army Chief and Chief Justice addressed their respective audiences on the same day and contents of their statements were also released on the same day.
In both statements, there was nothing extra-ordinary said by both chiefs, which media projected as a likely clash or confrontation between the superior judiciary and the high command of Pak Army. Both chiefs emphasized on the supremacy of Pakistani Constitution and preeminence of law. Therefore, there was nothing wrong with the contents of the statements, except the perception and interpretation made by some of the media anchors and pseudo scholars and so-called analysts of national and international politics. The positive aspect is that, both the ruling and opposition parties have taken the statements in a positive spirit. Their interpretation of the statements was the supremacy of Constitution and additionally the Parliament is supreme over the institutions.
Analyzing the statement of General kayani; he boldly accepted the past mistakes, made by all institutions or individuals and stressed to take a re-start for a better future, free from the past mistakes. Recognizing the need of constructive criticism, he discarded the conspiracy theories which are based on rumours, unfounded information or intended disinformation to create ill will or to defame any institution may be; military or civilian. There can be no second thought that Pakistani armed forces draw their strength from the masses of the country, being national armed forces.
Therefore, those forces; domestic or international trying to draw wedges between people of Pakistan and its armed forces anyway are involved in a severe transgression, hence must abstain from doing that. Corollary to this, creating cracks and distinction between ‘leaders and the led’ is yet a bigger misdemeanor, hence cannot be tolerated. Looking at the contemporary armed forces, such acts are unbearable everywhere. How come, the head of an institution afford conspiracies against his institution and then commands that too? Harmony and concord among the rank and file of the armed forces is the most needed element.
The concept of “Esprit de corps” which promote a sense of shared fellowship, enthusiasm, and devotion to a cause among the members of armed forces is the hallmark of Pakistani armed forces. It is indeed the real strength of any army. Today, Pak Army is battling against an unpredictable enemy, who can attack at anytime, from anywhere and on anyone in Pakistan. Can Pakistan afford divided armed forces, lacking the trust and respect of masses? Any sensible Pakistani would say no to it. Conspiracy against armed forces of Pakistan, especially Pak Army is not new. Every time, the conspirants have been devising new modes and tactics to create a rift either; among its members or between masses and the Army. Army Chief had the moral responsibility to point out such ill designs, which he did on November 5, 2012. There was no point of exploiting these real and intimate concerns by the head of an institution.
Regarding the fixation of national interests, all responsible stake holders in Pakistan need to sit together for defining the national interests of the state of Pakistan, which are then, defended by armed forces at all means. Since Constitution of the country is supreme, therefore, anyone, who might have committed an offense, has to be dealt by the rule of law. For the blame of any retired member of armed forces, the institution can neither be held responsible nor should be defamed. Let the law to take care of those responsible for any wrong doers. The whole statement revolves around supremacy of the constitution and to avoid the weakening of institutions; military or civil and to stop campaign against the military as an institution.
In the address of Chief Justice, there was no rejection of Army or armed forces as an institution or undermining their roles. Rather he too was emphasizing on the supremacy of Constitution and the rule of law. His statement that, “missiles and tanks never guaranteed stability and security of a country” does not mean that they are not required. But upholding the international law would stop the nations from making use of such a dangerous option for the security and safety. Otherwise, Chief Justice fully understands that, global politics is essentially based on power politics, the idea propelled by the realist school of thought. There is no second thought that a country needs strong armed forces for its defense and security. How can Pakistan survive without its armed forces and strategic arsenals?
Therefore, instead of polluting the masses through misinterpretation and provoking institutions against each other by giving misleading statements, Pakistani media should play positive roles also. Rather spying GHQ, SC or at time Parliament, which benefits enemies of Pakistan only, they should concentrate on the real issues, facing the people of Pakistan. How many poor people are being killed in Karachi and Quetta on daily basis? Has our anchors really tried to expose those forces behind these killings and their real objectives? The real objectives are clear that, these killings are meant to destabilize Pakistan. Who is doing that and through whom, why media is hesitant to point out those. Indeed, the overnight rise of media without having gone through the evolutionary process of refinement and fixation of a clear code of conduct is more damaging the national image, rather making positive contributions. This aspect needs real attention.
—The writer is Islamabad based analyst of International Relations.
Tuesday, November 13, 2012 - In his statement of November 10, 2012, Prime Minister Raja Pervez Ashraf categorically denied any sort of clash or confrontation between the state’s institution, particularly Pak Army and the superior judiciary; the Supreme Court of Pakistan. He said in his statement that, “there was no clash between the state’s institutions.” While giving this statement, he was clearly referring to the developments taken place in the last one week, after statements of Pakistani Army Chief and Chief Justice of Pakistan on November 5, 2012. The academic circle, the analysts and mature media men are of the opinion that, it was a mere coincidence that, Army Chief and Chief Justice addressed their respective audiences on the same day and contents of their statements were also released on the same day.
In both statements, there was nothing extra-ordinary said by both chiefs, which media projected as a likely clash or confrontation between the superior judiciary and the high command of Pak Army. Both chiefs emphasized on the supremacy of Pakistani Constitution and preeminence of law. Therefore, there was nothing wrong with the contents of the statements, except the perception and interpretation made by some of the media anchors and pseudo scholars and so-called analysts of national and international politics. The positive aspect is that, both the ruling and opposition parties have taken the statements in a positive spirit. Their interpretation of the statements was the supremacy of Constitution and additionally the Parliament is supreme over the institutions.
Analyzing the statement of General kayani; he boldly accepted the past mistakes, made by all institutions or individuals and stressed to take a re-start for a better future, free from the past mistakes. Recognizing the need of constructive criticism, he discarded the conspiracy theories which are based on rumours, unfounded information or intended disinformation to create ill will or to defame any institution may be; military or civilian. There can be no second thought that Pakistani armed forces draw their strength from the masses of the country, being national armed forces.
Therefore, those forces; domestic or international trying to draw wedges between people of Pakistan and its armed forces anyway are involved in a severe transgression, hence must abstain from doing that. Corollary to this, creating cracks and distinction between ‘leaders and the led’ is yet a bigger misdemeanor, hence cannot be tolerated. Looking at the contemporary armed forces, such acts are unbearable everywhere. How come, the head of an institution afford conspiracies against his institution and then commands that too? Harmony and concord among the rank and file of the armed forces is the most needed element.
The concept of “Esprit de corps” which promote a sense of shared fellowship, enthusiasm, and devotion to a cause among the members of armed forces is the hallmark of Pakistani armed forces. It is indeed the real strength of any army. Today, Pak Army is battling against an unpredictable enemy, who can attack at anytime, from anywhere and on anyone in Pakistan. Can Pakistan afford divided armed forces, lacking the trust and respect of masses? Any sensible Pakistani would say no to it. Conspiracy against armed forces of Pakistan, especially Pak Army is not new. Every time, the conspirants have been devising new modes and tactics to create a rift either; among its members or between masses and the Army. Army Chief had the moral responsibility to point out such ill designs, which he did on November 5, 2012. There was no point of exploiting these real and intimate concerns by the head of an institution.
Regarding the fixation of national interests, all responsible stake holders in Pakistan need to sit together for defining the national interests of the state of Pakistan, which are then, defended by armed forces at all means. Since Constitution of the country is supreme, therefore, anyone, who might have committed an offense, has to be dealt by the rule of law. For the blame of any retired member of armed forces, the institution can neither be held responsible nor should be defamed. Let the law to take care of those responsible for any wrong doers. The whole statement revolves around supremacy of the constitution and to avoid the weakening of institutions; military or civil and to stop campaign against the military as an institution.
In the address of Chief Justice, there was no rejection of Army or armed forces as an institution or undermining their roles. Rather he too was emphasizing on the supremacy of Constitution and the rule of law. His statement that, “missiles and tanks never guaranteed stability and security of a country” does not mean that they are not required. But upholding the international law would stop the nations from making use of such a dangerous option for the security and safety. Otherwise, Chief Justice fully understands that, global politics is essentially based on power politics, the idea propelled by the realist school of thought. There is no second thought that a country needs strong armed forces for its defense and security. How can Pakistan survive without its armed forces and strategic arsenals?
Therefore, instead of polluting the masses through misinterpretation and provoking institutions against each other by giving misleading statements, Pakistani media should play positive roles also. Rather spying GHQ, SC or at time Parliament, which benefits enemies of Pakistan only, they should concentrate on the real issues, facing the people of Pakistan. How many poor people are being killed in Karachi and Quetta on daily basis? Has our anchors really tried to expose those forces behind these killings and their real objectives? The real objectives are clear that, these killings are meant to destabilize Pakistan. Who is doing that and through whom, why media is hesitant to point out those. Indeed, the overnight rise of media without having gone through the evolutionary process of refinement and fixation of a clear code of conduct is more damaging the national image, rather making positive contributions. This aspect needs real attention.
—The writer is Islamabad based analyst of International Relations.
Thursday, August 30, 2012
Our cultural and spiritual ethos
Mohammad Jamil
Quaid-i-Azam had envisioned Pakistan to be a modern progressive state, rooted in the eternal values of our religion and at the same time responsive to the imperatives of constant change. In his address before the Constituent Assembly on 11th August 1947, he outlined his vision about Pakistan, and vowed to fight corruption, bribery and black marketing, and asseverated not to tolerate jobbery and nepotism. In fact, it was well thought-out first policy statement in which he had given guidelines and the parameters within which constitution of Pakistan should be framed by the representatives of the people. However, the most remarkable part of this speech was his assurance to the people of Pakistan including minorities that their fundamental rights, liberties and freedom would be well-protected. “You are free; you are free to go to your temples; you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place or worship in this State of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed that has nothing to do with the business of the State”, he declared before the constituent assembly.
The people of Pakistan, being proud inheritors of traditions of great Sufis, saints and poets who fostered the message of peace and brotherhood over the centuries wish to establish a tolerant society with a view to uniting the nation. Fortunately, the social contract of Pakistan and its cultural foundations blended with the characteristics of Sufism tend to accommodate the dissenting thoughts and opposing beliefs. The main strength of revered Sufis was their passion for interfaith harmony and readiness to engage in dialogue, and hold followers of other religions in high esteem. They approached the opposing faiths with an urge to learn and understand the rationale of that belief system/faith and the path of reaching the God. And they treated other religious communities kindly and gently. In order to fight the growing menace of religious extremism and sectarian divide leading to violent killings and ethnic and sectarian intolerance, it is imperative to highlight the teachings of great Sufi Saints.
Many Muslim rulers who ruled India had shown tremendous reverence to Sufi saints who were kind and generous to all human beings irrespective of their religion, ethnicity and creed. Thus, they were a source of unity and harmony between followers of different religions. Founder of the Mughal empire, Zahir-ud-Din Muhammad Babar (1483-1530) in his memoir Tuzk-e-Babri had advised his son Humayun that “India is a big country inhabited by various nationalities, ethnic groups and followers of different religions; and he should mete out equal treatment to all”. In fact, many Muslim rulers were inspired by the Sufi Saints. Moinuddin Chishti (1141-1230) was also known as Gharib Nawaz who was the most famous Sufi saint of the Chishti Order of the Indian Subcontinent. The initial spiritual chain or silsila of the Chishti order in India comprising Moinuddin Chishti, Bakhtiyar Kaki, Baba Farid and Nizamuddin Auliya constitutes the great Sufi saints of Indian history. Today Hindus, Sikhs and followers of other religions also visit their shrines to pay their homage and respect. Ali Hajvery (Data Gang Bakhsh) was also famous for his generosity that had made contribution to peace and harmony in the society. Abdul Qadir al-Gilani (1077–1166), was a renowned Muslim saint and was the founder of the Qadriya order, the most tolerant and charitable of the Sunni order of the dervishes. He is held in veneration by Muslims of the Indian subcontinent where followers call him “Ghaus-e-Azam”. Maulana Jalaluddin Rumi had envisioned a universal faith, embodying all religions, because he understood that the cause of every religious conflict is ignorance. “Rumi implies that religiosity consists in something other than outward religions. Real belief is apparent only on the inside of a person, which is not visible. Therefore, Rumi makes it clear that the religion of love involves loving the eternal and invisible source of existence,” wrote M. Este’Lam in ‘Rumi and the Universality of his Message’.
It is an established fact that the religion brought by a prophet always contained an ideology to arouse the slumbering masses against the status quo, but with time it lost its revolutionary appeal and became a customary or classical religion with the distortional manoeuvrings of the clergy, the reflections of customs and traditions and instinctive inclination of the people towards dogmas and doctrines rather than its essence and spirit. Sufi poetry is impressive with an appeal to all segments of the society. Sufi poets used local metaphors understandable to the common people. They lived in the communities they belonged to, and highlighted problems faced by common masses regardless of their ethnic origin, creed and religion. In Punjab, Sufi poets Bulleh Shah, Waris Shah and Shah Hussian were revered by the people of all religions and ethnicities. In Sindh, Shah Abdul Latif Bhitai, Sachal Sarmast, Lal Shahbaz Qilandar; in Balochistan Mast Tawwakali and in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa Rehman Baba were Sufi poets who gave message of tolerance, peace and harmony and made contributions to enrich our culture.
Culture is the accumulation of a nation or its people’s spiritual, mental, moral, artistic, historical values and principles. A nation must identify and collect its cultural resources, reject the obsolete stuff, select the productive elements, refine them and convert them into a force or energy to inspire, guide and direct its people to improve their society, attain highest moral standards and then march towards achievement of scientific and technological developments. In order to inspire someone to achieve exalted position, it is essential that his strong points be identified, highlighted and realized to him. Similarly, to attract the people to Islamic ideology, the status of man with God, the high ideals set out for him, his advantage over other creations must be clearly pointed out so that he is released not only from the ‘prison’ of self but also from the confines of doctrinal cults. It is not our intention here to compare Sufism with other schools of thought, but to acknowledge the role Sufi Saints and poets have played in creating peace and harmony in the society.
Wednesday, August 29, 2012
Rohingya Muslim massacre
Dr. Raja Muhammad Khan
There live approximately 800,000 Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar, forming 4% of the Burma’s total population. Contrary to this official data of Myanmar Government, neutral sources claims that, the total Muslim population is more than double the government estimates. It is worth noting that, Burmese Muslims, commonly known as Rohingya Muslims, settled in this part of the world in 7th and 8th century from Arab. Nevertheless, they had the legal status of Burmese minority until 1970s. In 1982, through constitutional amendment, the Military Junta of the country declared them as non-Burmese. Thereafter, Military Junta, started gradual exploitation of this Muslim population to include; denial of their personal and religious freedom and fundamental human rights. Owing to these inhuman acts, thousands of Rohingya Muslims to fled to the neighbouring countries too. After 9/11, the persecution of Rohingya Muslims has increased many folds.
Though, traditionally, the Buddhist population and successive governments in Myanmar have been discriminatory towards this Muslim population. However, the current phase of massacre of Rhingya Muslims, started in June 2012, has been the worst. During this phase, Burmese Buddhists in collaboration with their security forces unleashed, unprecedented terrorism on this ill-fated Muslim population. Independent sources did not mention any particular reasons for the massacre, except that, on provocation of their Monks against Muslims. Independent sources say that, on June 3, 2012, hundred of Buddhists attacked and slaughtered eight Muslims returning to Rangoon in a bus after visiting a Masjid in the Arakan province. An eyewitness narrates that, after killing these Muslims, “the culprits were celebrating triumph spitting and tossing wine and alcohol on the dead bodies lying on the road.
After having seen some of the recent videos and pictures of these brutal killings of the Burmese Muslims, one wonders, as Burmese Buddhists are really human beings or wild creature and is this message of peace Lord Buddha gave them. They have crossed all limits of being merciless. During the current wave of terrorism, Buddhists have killed thousands of the Rhingya Muslims cold bloodedly. Some insiders claim that number of killings could be as much as 20,000. According to a report of London based human rights organization, Equal Rights Trust, “The military has (of late) become more actively involved in committing acts of violence and other abuses against the Rohingya including killings and mass arrests.”
Indeed, “Amnesty International and the Human Rights Watch have protested that instead of stopping the violence by the Rakhine gangs, the Burmese military has joined them in killing, setting thousands of homes on fire and conducting mass arrests of Muslims. President Thein Sein, lately being lionized by the West as a reformer, has a simple solution to the problem: Expel all the Rohingya or turn them over to the UN as refugees!” This statement leaves no doubt that, this massacre is indeed state sponsored. According to a New York based Human Rights Watch report, Myanmar security forces openly fire on Rohingya Muslims, committed rape and stood by to watch the Buddhists killing Muslims. According to this organization, Myanmar security forces have, “unleashed a campaign of violence and mass roundups against the Rohingya.” After the recent genocide of the Burmese Muslims, even United Nations considers that, Rohingya Muslims are, “one of the worlds’s most persecuted minorities.” UN resolution of 11 December 1946 declares, “genocide, whether committed in time of peace or war, is a crime under international law, and that all signatories of UN convention will cooperate to prevent genocide in order to liberate the mankind from such an odious scourge.”
Unfortunately, neither UNO nor the civilized world of 21st century has initiated any action or raised voice against this worst human massacre in Burma. All major world human rights organizations are silent, despite watching the horrific videos and pictures of this unprecedented genocide of Muslims at the hands of Buddhist terrorists. So much so, the Myanmar Pro-democracy western darling, Aung San Suu Kyi, did not condemned these acts of brutal killings of the Muslims by Burmese military and the Buddhist terrorist. This Nobel Prize winner said in a press conference in London that, “ethnic conflict plaguing the country” should be investigated and “dealt with wisdom.” She also believes that this Muslim community should be pulled out from the country.
Though Amnesty International has demanded the Myanmar Government and the Parliament to amend or repeal the 1982 Citizenship Law, so that, Rohingyas should get citizenship of a country, where they have lived for centuries. However, this is unlikely to happen. The reason is obvious, the Burmese Military Junta, the Buddhist Monks and civil political parties appears to be unanimous on this aspect that, Rhingyas Muslims have to be pulled out from Myanmar. UN Charter guarantees the basic right to live to all human beings. Rhingyas Muslims are living in Myanmar since centuries. How can they be dislodged from this country and which other country in the world will accept them as its citizens, if not acceptable to Myanmar.
The need of the hour is that, should not UNO, hold emergency session of either UNSC or UNGA over this Muslim massacre. Had there been any other religious entity affected, there would have been outcry all over the globe with possible UN (US) humanitarian intervention by now. Since US, EU and all major global players have their interests in the natural resources of Myanmar, thus, no one would like to displease the current ruling Junta, which is all set to bring democratic reforms, desired by US and West. On its part, Myanmar rulers found this most convenient time to unleash reign of terror on the Muslims of Burma, as it knew that, the so-called western and U.S human rights organizations will be mum along with their Governments. Nevertheless, the blood of Muslims is on sale, thus, everyone can shed it. Amazingly, together with rest of the world, Muslim Ummah has become insensitive too, which is a real tragedy.
Tuesday, August 28, 2012
Will MoU help bridge Pak-US trust deficit?
Brig (retd) Farooq Hameed Khan
While government circles hailed the MoU signing as a turning point in Pak-US ties, some politicians termed it as a document of ‘surrender’ or even Pakistan’s ‘death warrant’. Or was the MoU more of ‘Must Obey US’ set of conditions rather than an ‘understanding’ between two sovereign nations?
Few questions arise. Is the MoU tilted in US’ favour? Does this document safeguard Pakistan’s security interests? Did the US exploit Pakistan’s grave financial crisis to force a favourable deal on its terms and conditions? Was the draft document vetted/approved by the Parliamentary committee on national security?
Pakistan’s Ministry of Defence has the responsibility to act as a Central Coordination Authority to regulate and monitor the implementation of the supply route to Afghanistan. Pakistan is also required to ensure facilities for the security and quick transfer of the cargo and keep US government informed about the monitoring and transit points of the cargo.
When the US Charge D’ Affaires, Richard Hoagland announced the release of the long withheld 1.18 billion US dollars of Coalition Support Fund(CSF) just after the MoU signing ceremony, he sounded as if it was a great favour or reward to Pakistan for reopening the Nato supply routes. If US held back our legitimate CSF dues to arm twist Pakistan, what is the guarantee that such a blackmailing act will not be repeated any time its interests are threatened in future? Smart loopholes in the MoU may indirectly facilitate smooth weapons/equipment support to US/Nato forces. Although MoU disallows shipment of lethal military equipment for US/Nato in Afghanistan, such a restriction does not apply to equipment destined for Afghan National Army (ANA). Will some of lethal hardware under cover of ANA not end up with US/NATO as ultimate user?
While the parliamentary resolution called for a ban on transportation of lethal military supplies from Pakistan’s territory including airspace, the MoU is silent over the issue of use of our air corridors for this purpose. Does this not imply a blanket cover for US transport aircraft to carry weapons/ammunition across Pakistan’s skies? It thus makes an ideal combination - non-lethal equipment via Pakistan’s Ground Lines of Communication (GLOC) and lethal supplies through its Air LOC.
The US/Nato plan to train and equip around 250,000 strong ANA that would take over Afghanistan’s security after 2014. How would Pakistan’s concerns be satisfied that weapons destined under cover of ANA are not diverted to fuel Baloch insurgency, the Tehreek-e-Taliban (TTP) militants in Fata or Maulvi Fazlullah led TTP fighters based in Afghanistan’s Kunar/Nuristan provinces? The new agreement, reportedly applies to US/Nato supplies that have yet to arrive at Port Qasim. Thus thousands of US/Nato containers/trailers that were loaded with heavy military stuff and remained stranded in and around Karachi/Port Qasim since November 26 last, stand released to move towards Afghanistan.
Is it therefore not ironical that as in past, US/Nato’s logistic shipments through Pakistan will continue to fuel US drones that kill or maim Pakistani tribals in Fata? While we large heartedly allow weapons to equip Afghan security forces, the evidence of ANA involvement in cross border attacks on Pakistan Army cannot be ignored. Can the US/Indian Army trained ANA be trusted that it would not direct the same guns against Pakistan in case of any conflict on the western borders?
It was expected that the MoU would address the critical issue of US financial compensation for repair/rehabilitation of the damaged road infrastructure, which unfortunately is silent about the same. Pakistanis would have been satisfied had our negotiators clinched a quid pro quo in form of reasonable transit fees as per international trade practices on the lines that the US struck deals with central Asian states of northern distribution network.
Around 100,000 US/Nato containers are estimated to move out of Afghanistan in next two years. Since Pakistan Railways would also most likely bear the burden of transporting heavy US/Nato equipment to Karachi, then US must agree to a financial package for supporting our rail infrastructure if it desires a smooth withdrawal.
Will the arrival of newly nominated US Ambassador Richard Olson spell more trouble for Pakistan? His statement during US Senate confirmation hearing that squeezing Haqqani network in coordination with Islamabad is his top most priority may not be prudent approach while embarking on the new assignment and putting back on track a derailed relationship. The contradictions in US approach in dealing with Haqqanis are clearly visible. While it engages the Haqqanis secretly for a peace deal but wants Pakistan Army to attack the network’s so called sanctuaries in North Waziristan. It wants Pakistan to bring Haqqanis on negotiation table, but dangles the sword of declaring the network a terrorist organization.
After spending 90 billion US dollars in eleven years occupation of Afghanistan, if US/Nato have not secured Kabul, then why blame Pakistan for their own military failures? That the trainers failed to build trust with those they trained is evident from killings of over two dozen US troops by Afghan Army and police in 2012 alone.
Should a breakthrough in Pak-US relations be expected after DG ISI’s visit to Washington? Unless US addresses Pakistan’s security concerns related to drone attacks, US interference in Balochistan, support to Baloch insurgents/TTP militants from Afghanistan based training camps/sanctuaries, cross border attacks as well as guarantees of not repeating Abbottabad and Salala, there is little hope of early return to business as usual.
Will the MoU help to bridge Pak-US trust deficit? It led to restoration of NATO supply routes that ended the post Salala standoff. The MoU was also a first step towards much needed transparency in Pak-US relations. But mutual trust and respect still remain dream goals in a highly strained and fractious relationship.
The question that however baffles all Pakistanis is: When there is never a free lunch for Pakistan, why should we provide all meals free for US till 2015 and even later?
UK-based DFID survey
Nazia Nazar
A so-called Gallup survey report with the caption that ‘37 per cent Baloch favour independence’. It could have been better to title the story that ‘67 per cent Baloch oppose independence’. It is not understandable as to why this report was carried by the newspaper when even the DFID has not so far been placed on its website. Such surveys by the West do have purpose, and more often than not these are concocted through selecting the samples of their choice. However, there is doubt whether the survey under reference was at all conducted or not, as one can find self-contradictions in the report. There are also glaring mistakes in calculation, which goes to prove that the survey is farce. Of course, this seems to be an effort to undermine Pakistan through the ‘Free Balochistan’ movement supported by the US and London-based organizations. It has to be said that Marri, Mengal and Bugti areas make a fraction of the total area and population of Balochistan, and the majority of other sardars are die hard Pakistanis. And of course, patriotic Pashtuns alone make about 50 per cent of the population.
Yet there are efforts to whittle away the nation-state by stirring turmoil and violence to achieve their evil designs. The ‘Baloch Society of North America’ is emblematic of the US meddling in Pakistan’s Balochistan province. Fomenting separatist movements along Pakistan’s western border has been on US geopolitical drawing board for years. In a 2006 report by Carnagie Endowment for International Peace titled ‘Pakistan: the resurgence of Baloch Nationalism’ is also a case in point. On page 4 of this report, it was suggested that the Baloch rebels should be used against both Islamabad and Tehran. But there a few sane voices also. In a recent treatise, Tony Cartalucci, a geopolitical researcher and writer based in Bangkok stated: “Arming militants is only half of the overall strategy for defeating targeted nation-states. Subverting national institutions and replacing them with those interlocking with the neo-imperial uni-polar order is the other half. The usual suspects, the US State Department-funded National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and its various subsidiaries, found all across the theater of 4th generation global warfare, are busy at work in Pakistan’s Baluchistan province as well”.
Cartalucci also stated that the US State Department’s National Endowment for Democracy has been at work building up Balochistan’s civil society network. Featured on ‘Baloch Society of North America’s’ website, Rohrbacher again openly admits that only now that the US needs a point of leverage against the Pakistanis has the plight of the Baloch people become an issue – an issue that will be used to serve US geopolitical objectives throughout Central and Southwest Asia. Rohrbacher repeatedly states that the Pakistanis were friends of the US but are now “enemies.” The same could be said of the Afghan resistance he accompanied for 2 months in the 1980’s who are now being occupied and killed in droves by the US. The Baluchi opposition might take note of how quickly the US goes through its friends.
Balochistan is rich in minerals and other resources; it lies at the crossroads of China, India and Iran. The strategic implications are that big powers as well regional countries eye this region, as it represents a convergence of conflict between East and West with potentially catastrophic implications. And it has potential of becoming a flash point leading to another world war. It is true that Balochistan is rife with ethnic and sectarian violence, and the contradictions are being exploited by the enemies of Pakistan. But there is a redeeming feature that dissident Baloch sardars are losing the grip on the Baloch youth who believe that Baloch community’s real stakeholders are no more those traditional power centres, namely, the compulsive exploitative and suppressive sardars and chieftains, and the self-styled deceitful nationalists? The stakeholders are now the commoner Baloch youths, who are not ready to live as serfs and slaves.
They are restive, struggling to emancipate. And it is their struggle that needs to be supported by every conceivable means. They require educational facilities that they should get at any rate, even at the cost of incurring the anger of entrenched powers centres that deem they have descended from heavens with some divine right to rule and reign over the Baloch commoners. They require jobs and opportunities to grow, to flourish and prosper, which they should get in any event. The precious billions pouring into the provincial treasury should cease landing in privileged pockets under one cloak or the other. That prized dough must go into establishing schools, universities, professional colleges and technical institutes for the commoner Baloch children to be educated and groomed in various professions and skills to be respectable earning citizens. Baloch youths should be helped by way of easy loans and grants to help them fork out into diverse businesses and trades.
It has to be mentioned that there are 50 members in the Balochistan Assembly and almost all of them are ministers. They all are preoccupied with earning money and do not have political will to have dialogue with the angry Baloch. Army’s contributions in the social progress of Balochistan are too well known which include Chamalang Education Program, Sui Education City, Gwadar Institutes of Technical Education and Kassa-Hills Marble Project. Measures have been taken to sustain these projects which have contributed positively towards better education and creation of jobs for common people particularly in remote areas of Balochistan.
In 2010, the passing out parade of 4,000 cadet officers took place in different cities of Balochistan simultaneously, where all 4,000 cadets commissioned in the ceremonies hailed from Balochistan. During the last three years, military leadership has devoted special attention to Balochistan, and established schools and dispensaries to provided education and health facilities out of its own resources. Provincial and federal government should focus on implementation of the Balochistan package, which will help remove misgivings about the government.
Monday, August 27, 2012
US visit of ISI DG
Dr. Raja Muhammad Khan
General Zaheerul Islam, Director General Inter Services Intelligence Agency has successfully concluded his week-long US visit. It was the first US visit of Gen Zaheer as DG of ISI, since he assumed charge in March this year.
According to the confidential US sources, “all concerning issues were discussed,” in the meeting between ISI chief General Zaheerul Islam and US officials, especially the Director of CIA, General (retd) David Petraeus during the recently concluded visit of the former. Indeed, this was a significant visit by ISI chief as there remained a wide gulf in the Pak-US relationship, following the incidents like; Raymond Davis, OBL killing and Salala Military post attacks. Through this high-level visit of General Zaheerul Islam, Pakistani side clearly conveyed its concerns on various issues bothering either side.
Besides meeting CIA head, General Petraeus and special envoy of President Obama on Pakistan and Afghanistan, Mark Grossman, during this visit, the DG ISI had meetings with Deputy Director CIA Mike Morell, Senate Intelligence Committee chairperson Senator Dianne Feinstein, House Intelligence Committee chairman Mike Rogers. Senator John Kerry also had a short meeting with Gen Zaheer. Lt Gen (R) Douglas Lute, President Obama’s special adviser for Afghanistan and Pakistan also met Gen Zaheer. While discussing a renewed counterterrorism strategy, CIA head General David Petraeus, emphasized Gen Zaheer for more cooperation against Al-Qaeda fugitives. Pakistan, however is already providing all out assistance and support to coalition in Afghanistan.
Indeed, any success of US in Afghanistan so far has been because of Pakistan. Had Pakistan not been cooperative, this all would not have been possible. Since the visit was after a deep distrust and tense relationship, therefore, there were many speculations made as to the outcome of the visit. However, according to US officials, “The discussions between General Zaheer and Director Petraeus were substantive, professional, and productive. Both leaders reaffirmed their commitment to work together to counter the terrorist presence in the region that threatens both US and Pakistani national security.”
It was a focus visit of DG ISI and in his meeting with the US officials, especially CIA Director, he clearly conveyed the Pakistani concerns on two special aspects. One; ISAF and Afghan forces are not taking any action against the safe heavens of Pakistani Taliban (TTP) and other militant groups, fled to Afghanistan, sequel to military operations in Malakand, Swat and other agencies of FATA. Defence analysts even anticipate that, these militants have the backing of host forces deployed along the Pak-Afghan border once they attack Pakistani military positions or on the villagers on Pakistani side. Two; CIA was clearly conveyed by Zaheer that drone attacks on any part of Pakistan are unacceptable. As confirmed by US officials, it was clearly told to US that drone attacks have caused more damage to Pakistan, rather killing the foreign militants residing along Pak-Afghan border or in NWA.
Pakistan considers that over the years drone attacks have enhanced the number of militants, who then attack Pakistani security forces and installation, considering them as US ally after finding US forces inaccessible to take revenge. Moreover, in the so far over 350 drone attacks, over 3000 innocent Pakistani have been killed with a diminutive number of militants or Al-Qaeda operatives. Pakistan demanded US to give this technology to Pakistan and share intelligence about the hard-core terrorists in the area, against whom Pakistan will act itself. However, US is loath over the technology transfer to Pakistan, which Pakistan sees as a notion of distrust. In any case, Pakistan has logically convinced US for the negative aspects of the drone attacks, which US officials acknowledged even. As per the Reuters, on drone attacks, “Pakistan remained firm on its stance” that, there will be “no compromise,” on the sovereignty of Pakistan.
Some of the misleading media reports, both in Pakistani media and abroad have wrongly projected that, perhaps, Pakistan and US have agreed to undertake a Joint Operation codenamed “Tight Screw” on either side of Pak-Afghan border, in which US boots on ground were envisaged. In this regard, Pakistan security establishment has categorically denied any deal with US. Rather, during his meeting with Director CIA, Gen Zaheer clearly told US that, “Pakistan will not allow American boots on its soil for any operation and whenever an offensive is launched, it will be done by us.” Nevertheless, Pakistan has also clarified to US that, currently, it is simplly impossible for Pakistan to launch a fresh offensive in North Waziristan Agency. Pakistan is not in love affair with Haqqanis. However, for the peace and stability in Afghanistan and for greater regional stability, it would still emphasize US to engage Haqqanis and Taliban politically, rather pushing them to the wall. US must seal Afghan side of Pak-Afghan border in order to stop the Haqqanis or other militants from getting into Afghanistan or else entering Pakistani side.
Owing to its own domestic compulsions and resource constraint, Pakistan cannot launch military operation in NWA. In fact, the Pakistani military establishment has long been resisting the US demand of a military operation in NWA. How can Pakistan strike a deal with US on this military operation at this critical time of its relationship with US? Such an act will have serious repercussions and public rebuke, which military establishment cannot afford.
While spreading such misleading information, media could have acted more maturely. It indeed is bad on the part of media to project such unfounded information for the cheap popularity of ‘New Breaking Campaign’ to take lead from other channels or new papers.
Such un-investigated and un-analyzed reports amount to creating a hate among the masses for ISI and the armed forces of Pakistan, which traditionally some elements have been doing. Question arises, after all, why Pakistani media always negatively propagate events of such strategic significance. Cannot they find and project positive side of the story, unless paid heavily. Or else, they write and speak on behalf of anti-Pakistan forces. Media itself should find such blacksheep among its rank and file to have its own credibility established both at domestically among the masses as well as internationally.
From the perspective of realist school of thought, the visit of Gen Zaheerul Islam was a complete success. Clearly and cleverly, he conveyed to US authorities, a message which addresses the core of Pakistan’s national interests. After keeping the NATO and US supplies suspended for almost over seven months, Pakistan resumed it with a clear understanding as to what would be the future line of action; does and don’ts. This visit of DG ISI has further clarified the US, as what is Pakistani position on some of the key issues, which US views differently, indeed, contradictory to Pakistani stance. Regarding the personality of Gen Zaheerul Islam, he hails from a traditional military family and is known for his professionalism, bravery and being a straightforward soldier with a clear perception of Pakistani national interest and his responsibilities towards those.
Academia, media and analysts should assess the incidents and events in their true perspective before putting across to general public and international community. Otherwise we will be regarded a confused nation. According to AFP reports, Gen Zaheer delivered US authorities “two loud and clear messages.” One; no American boots on Pakistani soil and two; drone attacks will be taken as violation of its sovereignty, hence must be stopped.
Analysts feel that, these were the real and long-standing demands of people of Pakistan rightly put across by DG of ISI.
The message conveyed to US by Gen Zaheer was clear and concise; therefore, let us hope that, there is a positive Pak-US engagement in the days to come.
However, as a nation, we need to correct our perception about our armed forces, who are giving their blood for the comfort of the nation and masses.
Besides, we should not repeat the words of our enemies, against the first line of defense of our country (ISI). Let us be realist and loyal to ourselves at least.
We have a dream!
Sunday, March 25, 2012
US-Israel Nexus: Danger to Peace
by Ishaal Zehra
The headlines of nearly all colossal newspapers carried the same tag line on that particular day, they said “President Barack Obama had a clear message in his speech to the powerful American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) On March 4, 2012: It's war.” Critiques say by addressing this powerful pro-Israel lobby, Obama actually delivered messages to multiple political audiences: Israel, Iran, Jewish voters, a restless Congress, a wary international community and the three Republican presidential contenders in line.
For Iran, President Barack Obama says that he would not hesitate to attack Iran to keep it from getting a nuclear bomb. And for Israel, it’s just a mere hope that his forceful assurance will discourage Israel from launching a unilateral strike that could ignite the Middle East and drag the U.S. into war.
Interestingly, Obama offered the lines Israel wanted to hear, framing the Iranian threat as a problem for the entire world, and asserting Israel's right to defend itself how it sees fit. Alternatively, this tough note can be considered as a whip up to the Republican criticisms that he has been too tough on Israel and too soft on the Islamic republic which according to him has had crossed a red line. But his summing up of speech said the other way, “America's national security is too important. Israel's security is too important," he said, to sustained applause by the crowd. Closing tag of his speech was a line from a predecessor, Theodore Roosevelt, which said: "Speak softly, but carry a big stick."
Earlier, talking to The Atlantic magazine, the American president cautioned that 'when the US says it is unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon, we mean what we say'
In his vociferous remarks on nuclear Iran, Obama told the magazine that Iran and Israel both understand that "a military component" is one of a mix of options for dealing with Iran, along with sanctions and diplomacy. Probably, Pakistan has been warned in harsh words and shown strong displeasure for the IPI pipeline Project just incase Iran does not have any other support in the region. What so ever, at the core it is always United States’s bullish assertion that the United States will never settle for containing a nuclear-armed Iran or fail to defend Israel.
To understand American interests in the region, I would rather mention Mr. M. Hossein Bor’s believe that America has a greater appeal in the region even beyond one can judge. (http://asiapacificreporting.blogspot.com/2012/02/no-peace-in-balochistan-without.html) Pakistan, Iran and China all are connected in this great game. Bor, being the one with deep subject matter expertise in foreign trade and investment in Southwest Asia, perfectly accounts for foreign hands in Balochistan activism. According to Bor, “there are many interrelated issues at play. When one discusses Balochistan, you are discussing a way to contain China. You are also discussing economic relationships between Iran and Pakistan. And, you are talking about energy security for the U.S. and its allies.”
With respect to China, Bor says that the strategic and economic importance of Baluchistan cannot be underestimated: “If (the Chinese) build their port in Gwadar, they will have a land route from Western China to the Indian Ocean. This is of strategic interest to the United States because Chinese ships would have a direct route to China and no longer have to transit past the Indian and American navies. Whereas, talking about Iran: “Iran is an empire and they are using Baloch lands to try to become the dominant regional player. The Iranians are using the Strait of Hormuz as a chokepoint for a huge percentage of the world’s oil. They also are building a pipeline to Pakistan which violates U.N. sanctions. Such growing Iran-Pakistan cooperation is a major concern.” In his mind, an independent Balochistan extending from Karachi to the Strait of Hormuz would not only contain an emerging Iran but also provide a long-term security guarantee against China, Iran, and Pakistan emerging as revisionist maritime powers in the region.
Relating all this together, Iran, Pakistan, China & Afghanistan all are the victims of this game. For Iran, Obama clearly stated that he understood that Israel cannot "tolerate a nuclear weapon in the hands of a regime that denies the Holocaust, threatens to wipe Israel off the map, and sponsors terrorist groups committed to Israel's destruction." where, Israelian PM Netanyahu, before heading to Washington for a meeting with American President, distinctly underlined that Obama had refused to rule out military action, while emphasizing that Israel had the right to "defend itself by itself." For the troubled Pakistan, America has lately been holding a big rigid stick with a proper order chart in hand which she insists to be appropriately followed or else the consequences are severe. The all messed up Afghanistan has already given up in front of United States, whereas China alone is so far the only one playing safe, but stakes are high for China too if considered levelheadedly. At this time the only viable preference would be a likeminded block to oppose America’s supremacy in our region. While Pakistan, China & Iran should collectively craft future plans for energy sharing and economical advancement for the three. Afghanistan may join the team if she wishes too. This would be beneficial for them as well the region as a whole.
http://paktribune.com/articles/US-Israel-Nexus-Danger-to-Peace-242881.html
The headlines of nearly all colossal newspapers carried the same tag line on that particular day, they said “President Barack Obama had a clear message in his speech to the powerful American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) On March 4, 2012: It's war.” Critiques say by addressing this powerful pro-Israel lobby, Obama actually delivered messages to multiple political audiences: Israel, Iran, Jewish voters, a restless Congress, a wary international community and the three Republican presidential contenders in line.
For Iran, President Barack Obama says that he would not hesitate to attack Iran to keep it from getting a nuclear bomb. And for Israel, it’s just a mere hope that his forceful assurance will discourage Israel from launching a unilateral strike that could ignite the Middle East and drag the U.S. into war.
Interestingly, Obama offered the lines Israel wanted to hear, framing the Iranian threat as a problem for the entire world, and asserting Israel's right to defend itself how it sees fit. Alternatively, this tough note can be considered as a whip up to the Republican criticisms that he has been too tough on Israel and too soft on the Islamic republic which according to him has had crossed a red line. But his summing up of speech said the other way, “America's national security is too important. Israel's security is too important," he said, to sustained applause by the crowd. Closing tag of his speech was a line from a predecessor, Theodore Roosevelt, which said: "Speak softly, but carry a big stick."
Earlier, talking to The Atlantic magazine, the American president cautioned that 'when the US says it is unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon, we mean what we say'
In his vociferous remarks on nuclear Iran, Obama told the magazine that Iran and Israel both understand that "a military component" is one of a mix of options for dealing with Iran, along with sanctions and diplomacy. Probably, Pakistan has been warned in harsh words and shown strong displeasure for the IPI pipeline Project just incase Iran does not have any other support in the region. What so ever, at the core it is always United States’s bullish assertion that the United States will never settle for containing a nuclear-armed Iran or fail to defend Israel.
To understand American interests in the region, I would rather mention Mr. M. Hossein Bor’s believe that America has a greater appeal in the region even beyond one can judge. (http://asiapacificreporting.blogspot.com/2012/02/no-peace-in-balochistan-without.html) Pakistan, Iran and China all are connected in this great game. Bor, being the one with deep subject matter expertise in foreign trade and investment in Southwest Asia, perfectly accounts for foreign hands in Balochistan activism. According to Bor, “there are many interrelated issues at play. When one discusses Balochistan, you are discussing a way to contain China. You are also discussing economic relationships between Iran and Pakistan. And, you are talking about energy security for the U.S. and its allies.”
With respect to China, Bor says that the strategic and economic importance of Baluchistan cannot be underestimated: “If (the Chinese) build their port in Gwadar, they will have a land route from Western China to the Indian Ocean. This is of strategic interest to the United States because Chinese ships would have a direct route to China and no longer have to transit past the Indian and American navies. Whereas, talking about Iran: “Iran is an empire and they are using Baloch lands to try to become the dominant regional player. The Iranians are using the Strait of Hormuz as a chokepoint for a huge percentage of the world’s oil. They also are building a pipeline to Pakistan which violates U.N. sanctions. Such growing Iran-Pakistan cooperation is a major concern.” In his mind, an independent Balochistan extending from Karachi to the Strait of Hormuz would not only contain an emerging Iran but also provide a long-term security guarantee against China, Iran, and Pakistan emerging as revisionist maritime powers in the region.
Relating all this together, Iran, Pakistan, China & Afghanistan all are the victims of this game. For Iran, Obama clearly stated that he understood that Israel cannot "tolerate a nuclear weapon in the hands of a regime that denies the Holocaust, threatens to wipe Israel off the map, and sponsors terrorist groups committed to Israel's destruction." where, Israelian PM Netanyahu, before heading to Washington for a meeting with American President, distinctly underlined that Obama had refused to rule out military action, while emphasizing that Israel had the right to "defend itself by itself." For the troubled Pakistan, America has lately been holding a big rigid stick with a proper order chart in hand which she insists to be appropriately followed or else the consequences are severe. The all messed up Afghanistan has already given up in front of United States, whereas China alone is so far the only one playing safe, but stakes are high for China too if considered levelheadedly. At this time the only viable preference would be a likeminded block to oppose America’s supremacy in our region. While Pakistan, China & Iran should collectively craft future plans for energy sharing and economical advancement for the three. Afghanistan may join the team if she wishes too. This would be beneficial for them as well the region as a whole.
http://paktribune.com/articles/US-Israel-Nexus-Danger-to-Peace-242881.html
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
"US Has Lost Sleep for Balochistan"
Bossy US & Pakistan: No Love Lost
by Ishaal Zehra
Eddie Walsh, foreign correspondent of Al Jazeera English, in his article “Should the US support an independent Balochistan?” interestingly writes “Over the last few months, a small faction of congressmen, minority Afghan groups, Baloch nationalists, and their supporters have laid out the framework for an alternative US policy approach for Southwest Asia. This alternative policy centres on backing remnants of the Northern Alliance and Baloch insurgents, who seek to carve out semi-autonomous territories or independent states from Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iran.
While supporters of this new approach are motivated by a variety of interests, they appear unified in their rejection of what they see as three cornerstones of the Obama administration's current regional policy approach: 1) Normalising relations with Pakistan's government and military; 2) Incorporating the Taliban into the current Afghan political system; 3) Overly accommodating an emerging Iran.”
Although, things might not be evident in their favor today but they seem quite consistent in their approach. They do not (yet) have broad support for their initiative, however the campaign is maturing and garnering increased attention in Congress and beyond. The point can be proved with the three recent high-profile events: a Balochistan National Front strategy session in Berlin, a US congressional hearing on Balochistan, and the introduction of a Baloch self-determination bill before the US Congress.
A glimpse into Balochistan region confirms the large number of militant, insurgent and sectarian attacks in 2010. It is a region torn apart with separatist organisations attacking the state, sectarian and ethnic attacks, and crime, including kidnapping for ransom. The issue of Balochistan is turning sensitive, and this sensitivity comprises of two main reasons. One, the real and unattended grievances of the Baloch people (not the made up one by few Pakistani journalists). Second, hype created by the media, which actually seems in coherent with the greater foreign plan against Pakistan. Media is an instrument which is being exercised by every nation to mould the situations for the purpose of acquiring desired results. Unfortunately, a chunk of Pakistani media is not exercising this approach while dealing with the important and sensitive issues like Balochistan.
Here the role of US is also an interesting point to debate. American double standards are visible as a day light. Surprisingly their lost love for Balochistan is quite evident by their documented resolution. The Representatives from California presented a resolution regarding Balochistan’s precarious condition asks for the independence of Balochistan from Pakistan on the basis of right of self rule, and the bill unexpectedly has been passed by the US Congress.
The congressmen seem quite eager in interfering in Pakistan’s internal issue while on the other hand they have closed their eyes from the real and persistent issue of Kashmir. Point to ponder is as to why Kashmiries have been denied right to independence on the basis of right of self rule? Nobody dares ask India to let the Kashmiries exercise their right to hold free and impartial plebiscite? The reply is simple, Kashmir issue does not fall in between their plan of carving out semi-autonomous territories or independent states from Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iran.
To understand Balochistan, one simply cannot look at it through the Afghanistan-Pakistan (US’s AfPak) box. Mr. M. Hossein Bor, as the only witness of Baloch ethnicity to speak at the recent Balochistan public hearing before the United States Congress, agrees to this. Not only he was the lone witness able to speak as a Baloch, he also was the only one with deep subject matter expertise in foreign trade and investment in Southwest Asia. And interestingly his testimony sheds light on the unrealized strategic and economic opportunities that an independent Baluchistan would provide to Americans, including the ability to contain a rising China and an emerging Iran, prevent an adversarial Pakistan from achieving strategic depth in Afghanistan, and ensure Baloch-American economic prosperity through new energy and mineral resource agreements in future.
The Pakistani Embassy made it clear that “Balochistan’s affairs and issues are an internal matter of Pakistan, and it is for the people of Pakistan and our democratic institutions to address these [issues].”
“We would advise those behind this resolution to reserve their concern and solicitude for problems closer to home. Needless to say, provocations such as these will seriously impact the Pakistan-US relations. We value this relationship but not at the cost of our dignity, sovereignty and territorial integrity,” the Embassy statement added.
locking it up, It’s high time, foreign finger prints traced in Balochistan should be brought upon in media with concrete proves and let the Baloch people know who is playing the game at the cost of their precious blood and national prosperity. And may be Pakistan, Iran & China should also move a symbolic resolution on forceful acceding of California and Texas to Mexico about a century back, after all they are the victims to this great game of great America.
by Ishaal Zehra
Eddie Walsh, foreign correspondent of Al Jazeera English, in his article “Should the US support an independent Balochistan?” interestingly writes “Over the last few months, a small faction of congressmen, minority Afghan groups, Baloch nationalists, and their supporters have laid out the framework for an alternative US policy approach for Southwest Asia. This alternative policy centres on backing remnants of the Northern Alliance and Baloch insurgents, who seek to carve out semi-autonomous territories or independent states from Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iran.
While supporters of this new approach are motivated by a variety of interests, they appear unified in their rejection of what they see as three cornerstones of the Obama administration's current regional policy approach: 1) Normalising relations with Pakistan's government and military; 2) Incorporating the Taliban into the current Afghan political system; 3) Overly accommodating an emerging Iran.”
Although, things might not be evident in their favor today but they seem quite consistent in their approach. They do not (yet) have broad support for their initiative, however the campaign is maturing and garnering increased attention in Congress and beyond. The point can be proved with the three recent high-profile events: a Balochistan National Front strategy session in Berlin, a US congressional hearing on Balochistan, and the introduction of a Baloch self-determination bill before the US Congress.
A glimpse into Balochistan region confirms the large number of militant, insurgent and sectarian attacks in 2010. It is a region torn apart with separatist organisations attacking the state, sectarian and ethnic attacks, and crime, including kidnapping for ransom. The issue of Balochistan is turning sensitive, and this sensitivity comprises of two main reasons. One, the real and unattended grievances of the Baloch people (not the made up one by few Pakistani journalists). Second, hype created by the media, which actually seems in coherent with the greater foreign plan against Pakistan. Media is an instrument which is being exercised by every nation to mould the situations for the purpose of acquiring desired results. Unfortunately, a chunk of Pakistani media is not exercising this approach while dealing with the important and sensitive issues like Balochistan.
Here the role of US is also an interesting point to debate. American double standards are visible as a day light. Surprisingly their lost love for Balochistan is quite evident by their documented resolution. The Representatives from California presented a resolution regarding Balochistan’s precarious condition asks for the independence of Balochistan from Pakistan on the basis of right of self rule, and the bill unexpectedly has been passed by the US Congress.
The congressmen seem quite eager in interfering in Pakistan’s internal issue while on the other hand they have closed their eyes from the real and persistent issue of Kashmir. Point to ponder is as to why Kashmiries have been denied right to independence on the basis of right of self rule? Nobody dares ask India to let the Kashmiries exercise their right to hold free and impartial plebiscite? The reply is simple, Kashmir issue does not fall in between their plan of carving out semi-autonomous territories or independent states from Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iran.
To understand Balochistan, one simply cannot look at it through the Afghanistan-Pakistan (US’s AfPak) box. Mr. M. Hossein Bor, as the only witness of Baloch ethnicity to speak at the recent Balochistan public hearing before the United States Congress, agrees to this. Not only he was the lone witness able to speak as a Baloch, he also was the only one with deep subject matter expertise in foreign trade and investment in Southwest Asia. And interestingly his testimony sheds light on the unrealized strategic and economic opportunities that an independent Baluchistan would provide to Americans, including the ability to contain a rising China and an emerging Iran, prevent an adversarial Pakistan from achieving strategic depth in Afghanistan, and ensure Baloch-American economic prosperity through new energy and mineral resource agreements in future.
The Pakistani Embassy made it clear that “Balochistan’s affairs and issues are an internal matter of Pakistan, and it is for the people of Pakistan and our democratic institutions to address these [issues].”
“We would advise those behind this resolution to reserve their concern and solicitude for problems closer to home. Needless to say, provocations such as these will seriously impact the Pakistan-US relations. We value this relationship but not at the cost of our dignity, sovereignty and territorial integrity,” the Embassy statement added.
locking it up, It’s high time, foreign finger prints traced in Balochistan should be brought upon in media with concrete proves and let the Baloch people know who is playing the game at the cost of their precious blood and national prosperity. And may be Pakistan, Iran & China should also move a symbolic resolution on forceful acceding of California and Texas to Mexico about a century back, after all they are the victims to this great game of great America.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)