Shooting wars

MUNIR AKRAM 

LAST week, Steve Bannon, the ‘eminence gris’ in the Trump White House, blithely observed that the US will soon be in a “shooting war” in the Middle East. He may be right. Donald Trump’s declared determination to eliminate ‘Islamic terrorism’ implies intensification of several conflicts.

Syria: Trump announced he will fight the militant Islamic State (IS) group, rather than Bashar al-Assad, in Syria, and may commit US ground troops to this fight. This would have aligned US policy with Russia (and Iran). Trump has adjusted his position, endorsing the creation of ‘safe zones’ in Syria. This will put the US at odds with Russia and Iran and erode the tenuous ‘ceasefire’ they imposed after defeating the rebels in Aleppo. The Syrian war is likely to become further extended and more complex.

Iraq: Even if IS is ousted from Mosul and Raqqa, and mopped up in the Syrian-Iraq desert, it will spread elsewhere. Iraq is likely to witness renewed internal rivalry between Shia, Sunni and Kurdish parties and a contest between Iran and a US-GCC coalition for influence in Iraq.

Iran: A ‘shooting war’ between the US and Iran is a real possibility. US Republicans and the military are hostile to Iran. Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu sees Iran as an ‘existential’ threat. America’s Arab allies oppose Iran’s growing influence and interventions in the region. These constituencies are convinced Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran has allowed it to retain nuclear weapons capability and expand its aggressive regional role. New US sanctions have now been placed on Iran after the latter’s missile test last week. Iran’s reactions will provide grounds to ratchet up sanctions and pressure. A US-Iran confrontation — even if short of a shooting war — would lead to intensification of conflicts in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Lebanon, Afghanistan and elsewhere.

Global conflicts and tensions are set to intensify as Trump begins his presidential journey.

Israel-Palestine: Trump appears to have backed away from unconditional support for Netanyahu’s settlements expansion in occupied West Bank. The US embassy shift has also been put in slow motion. Yet, prospects for a two-state solution are fast eroding; the likelihood is rising that Fatah, even Hamas, may be marginalised and replaced by more extreme groups aligned with IS or Al Qaeda.

There are other areas where shooting wars and crises may erupt or be exacerbated.

Ukraine: Fighting has recently resumed in Ukraine between government forces and the pro-Russian opposition in the east, perhaps to ensure the crisis is not ignored as Trump and Vladimir Putin seek to normalise ties. However, Trump has backed away from lifting anti-Russia sanctions unilaterally. The new US UN ambassador repeated US denunciation of Russia’s takeover of Crimea and role in Ukraine. The reset of US-Russia ties is likely to prove more complicated than Trump presumed.

Eastern Europe: Similarly, Nato, pressed by the Baltic states and Poland, has gone ahead with planned military deployments and exercises along Russia’s borders. Trump has stepped back from dismissing Nato as ‘obsolete’. His defence secretary staunchly supports the alliance. Thus, European concerns will have to be factored into the US-Russia ‘reset’. The main bone of contention may not be either Ukraine or the limited Nato military deployment in Eastern Europe but US plans to instal a strategic ballistic missile defence system in Poland.

North Korea: Trump’s claim he will neutralise North Korea’s nuclear and missile programmes is unlikely to be realised. China cannot be pressured to tighten sanctions against Pyongyang to a point that threatens North Korea’s political collapse. Korean unification would bring US troops to China’s borders. A US military strike on North Korea would destroy prosperous South Korea. A regional crisis is, however, brewing due to planned US deployment of the THAAD ballistic missile defence system in South Korea which China and Russia believe would neutralise the strategic nuclear balance.

South and East China seas: From a neutral stance, the US has moved to challenge China’s claims in the South and East China seas. US ‘Freedom of Navigation’ patrols have expanded and 70 per cent of the US navy is now deployed in the Pacific. The US Pacific commander has said his forces are “ready to fight tonight”. The incoming US secretary of state commented in Senate hearings that China’s access to the disputed South China Sea islands could be ‘blocked’ by the US. This was casually endorsed by the White House spokesman. The Chinese responded that to do so the US should be prepared to go to war with China. The US posture may be moderated after sober reflection.

Taiwan: Trump has called into question US endorsement of the ‘One China’ policy, the foundation of Sino-US relations for over four decades. Some Chinese officials have privately declared “the day Taiwan declares ‘independence’ is the day Chinese troops will land on its beaches”. However, Taiwanese fully understand the danger and Trump’s posture is apparently designed to extract trade and other concessions from China rather than actually discard the policy. Still, a Sino-US crisis is possible over trade, missile defence and the South China Sea.

Pakistan-India: Blissfully, South Asia has not figured prominently in the Washington policy turmoil. The US administration will persist in seeking to co-opt India into its strategy to contain China but is likely to be less accommodative of India’s attempts to ‘hedge’ its bets with China, Iran and Russia. India could face problems on trade and immigration. Pakistan will be pressed for cooperation on Afghanistan and terrorism. The US administration is likely to be more decisive in rewarding cooperation and penalising non-cooperation. Trump’s ego may propel him to attempt a mediatory role between India and Pakistan. However, in the event of a Pak-India crisis, the US will side with India. A Sino-US confrontation could result in a knock-on crisis in Pakistan-US ties.

The strategic environment: Today, arms expenditures are rising; military rhetoric is rampant; global and regional cooperation is eroding. After Trump’s election, the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists moved up its ‘Doomsday Clock’ to two and half minutes to midnight. The last Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev observed recently that it “looks as if the world is preparing for war”. He urged world leaders to focus on preventing war, phasing out the arms race and reducing weapons arsenals. Unfortunately, no one seems to be listening.

The writer is a former Pakistan ambassador to the UN.

Published in Dawn February 5th, 2017

Avenging terror

MUNIR AKRAM 

IN a prescient statement to the UN Security Council on Feb 13, Pakistan’s permanent representative, after describing the actions taken to restrain terrorism in Pakistan, asserted: “What Pakistan continues to face today are externally supported terrorists.” As if on cue, successive terrorist attacks occurred in Lahore, Peshawar and Sehwan over the next three days.

Immediately after the atrocity at the shrine of Lal Shahbaz Qalandar in Sehwan, the ISPR spokesman said: “Recent terrorist acts are being executed on directions from hostile powers and from sanctuaries in Afghanistan. We shall defend and respond.” The army chief himself declared: “Each drop of the nation’s blood shall be revenged ... immediately. No more restraint for anyone.”

It is not always easy to avenge terror, or eliminate it, since the terrorists are often unknown or in hiding. This is not so in case of the recent terror strikes in Pakistan. We know the terrorists. The attacks have been claimed by the militant Islamic State group and the Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan’s subsidiary, Jamaatul Ahrar. We know where they are based: in sanctuaries in Afghanistan adjacent to Pakistan’s border. We know the ‘hostile powers’ that have sponsored these attacks: the intelligence agencies of Afghanistan and India.

Revenge is serious business. It must be exacted after cold calculation of the options, their effectiveness and probable consequences.

The sponsors of the terror war against Pakistan cannot be allowed impunity.

As a first step, the Torkham border crossing has been closed. This will punish the Afghan regime economically. But it may not punish the terrorists or their sponsors directly, nor meaningfully restrain their cross-border movement.

This will require full implementation of the plan to ‘seal’ the border with selective fencing, check posts and technological means to monitor cross-border infiltration. Adequate funds must be allocated to implement this plan expeditiously.

The speedy repatriation of the millions of Afghan refugees is another component of ‘defensive’ measures. Many terrorists are hiding in plain sight among the refugees. Repatriation has been slowed by UN appeals and by some Pakistani agencies on the refugee ‘gravy train’. Their resistance must be overcome. People or groups associated with militant movements and drugs and criminal mafias and the relatives of hostile Afghan leaders should be expelled forthwith.

GHQ has initiated a more direct response by demanding from the Afghan representatives in Islamabad that they take action against or hand over 76 identified terrorists who have been provided sanctuaries in Afghanistan. The demand made to Kabul was also conveyed to the US commander of the coalition forces in Afghanistan, since they exercise dominant influence over the Afghan regime and especially the Afghan intelligence agency, which is the main local sponsor of the anti-Pakistan terrorists. American whining about the Afghan Taliban and the Haqqani network should not be entertained until the US obliges its Kabul clients to take action against the TTP and IS terrorists targeting Pakistan.

Sartaj Aziz’s phone call to the Afghan national security adviser to urge cooperation against the ‘common threat’ of terrorism is unlikely to produce any result and may have detracted from the more robust message conveyed by GHQ to the Afghans. Pakistan’s counterterrorism cooperation with Kabul and the coalition to stabilise Afghanistan should be made conditional on their acting against the anti-Pakistan terrorists operating from Afghan territory.

Following the Foreign Office protest after the Lahore Mall atrocity, the Afghan charge d’affaires in Islamabad reportedly argued that the Kabul authorities could not be held accountable since there are large areas of Afghan territory that are outside its control. If this is indeed the case, and the Afghan National Army and the US-led coalition forces cannot act against the TTP and IS ‘safe havens’, Pakistan’s forces should be allowed to cross over and eliminate them. Most of these safe havens are within striking distance of the Pakistan-Afghan border.

If Kabul and the US refuse to act, or to facilitate a Pakistani operation, Pakistan may be left with no option but to take unilateral action against these safe havens and the terrorists hiding there. Other countries, like Iran or Turkey, would not hesitate to resort to such action if targeted by foreign-based terrorists. India is unlikely to use this as a pretext for cross-LoC ‘strikes’, given its vulnerability in held Kashmir.

The sponsors of the terror war against Pakistan — the Afghan and Indian intelligence agencies — cannot be allowed impunity. With the evidence in its hands, Pakistan can move the relevant UN Security Council bodies to have both these agencies declared sponsors of terrorism. At the very least, Pakistan should move the UN to conduct an impartial investigation into the role of these agencies in supporting the IS-linked TTP and its associates, as well as the Baloch insurgents. Pakistan’s agencies should no longer hesitate to reveal their ‘sources’ in establishing the sponsorship of terrorism by the Afghan and Indian agencies.

Nor can India be allowed to attack Pakistan with impunity in the west through Afghanistan. Pakistan should not foreclose the option of extending moral and material support to the ongoing indigenous Kashmiri freedom struggle. This struggle cannot be equated with terrorism; it is a legitimate movement for self-determination and implementation of UN Security Council resolutions. Pakistan’s support to the Kashmiri struggle is now both a political and moral responsibility and a strategic compulsion.

Threats and blandishments from India or its American friends cannot deflect Pakistan from protecting and promoting its own interests, objectives and security. An equitable peace with India — whe­ther in the West or the East — can be negotiated only if Pakistan displays courage and determination.

Everything must be done to avoid US sanctions. But many of the penalties entailed by sanctions have been already imposed against Pakistan, such as the halt in US military assistance and blockage of the so-called Coalition Support Funds. Unless Pakistan changes the equation, the price for restoring American largesse will be acceptance of the Indian-US agenda in South Asia. In the past, when under US sanctions, Pakistan has mobilised nationally to achieve its strategic goals, such as its nuclear and missile capabilities. These capabilities are its ultimate defence against external blackmail and aggression today. Pakistan’s leaders and its people must again rise to face the strategic challenges the nation confronts now.

The writer is a former Pakistan ambassador to the UN.

Published in Dawn February 19th, 2017

Trump’s embarrassment

Dr Zafar Nawaz Jaspal

SINCE the change of Administration in the United States, Washington’s bilateral relations with many countries have been in a state of transformation. President Donald Trump’s perceptions about a few Muslim countries and approach towards allies have initiated a serious debate over the United States foreign and strategic policies. Many analysts concluded that Trump Administration’s policies would undermine Americans interests in the prevalent interdependent world and thereby these policies would encounter serious opposition, internally.
President Trump issued executive order halting US immigration from seven predominantly Muslim countries—Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen—for 90 days. In addition, all refugees were barred for 120 days and the executive order also halted indefinitely refugees from Syria. According to the reports, more than 100,000 visas for foreigners inside and outside the United States were revoked. Realistically speaking, all these countries are victim of United States post Cold War—New World Order.
Washington’s regime change policy in the Afro-Arab world unleashed political instability entailing devastating civil wars in these seven countries. The Civil War facilitated the emergence and strengthening of the religiously radicalized militant groups having global reach. Admittedly, today, these states have sanctuaries of transnational terrorist groups. But banning of US immigration from seven Muslim countries is not a solution to the transnational terrorism. Certainly, discriminatory policies of the Trump Administration amplify the anti-Americanism in the Muslim countries and create a more space for enemies of United States. Moreover, it would facilitate terrorist organizations, such as, Al-Qaeda, Deash, Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan, etc in recruiting the frustrated Muslim youth for their nefarious designs.

The rational Americans instantaneously rejected President’s Trump Executive order. They are convinced that United States cannot adopt isolationists approach in its external affairs during the twenty-first century. They declared Trump’s ban policy as “flat anti-American. Madeleine Albright, former Secretary of State stated: “The statue of Liberty message is in fact one of open arms to welcome the people. I do think there’s tears in the eyes of statue at the moment.” Despite the internal opposition, the Trump team is defending Administration’s ban policy by immensely articulating or using the “National Interest,” “National Security”, “American First” jargons. They have been propagating that for the security of the Americans the execution of the executive order is imperative. On February 4, 2017, at the gala in Florida Trump while answering a question on the immigration issue stated: “We’ll win. For the safety of country, we’ll win.” He tweeted: “The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned.” He is not sparing the adjudicators for the sake of his illogical ban policy.

The executive order unleashed chaos in and around the international airports of the United States. Many Americans protested and approached the Court for the suspension of the executive order. The US District Court Judge, James Robart, halted the enforcement of Trump’s executive order on February 3, 2017. Justice Robart defended his decision by claiming that that Trump’s executive order adversely affects “residents in areas of employment, education, business, family relations, and freedom to travel.” Consequently, the Department of Homeland Security suspended “any and all” actions to implement the immigration order. It resumed’ standard inspections of travellers, as it did prior to the signing of the travel ban’. Though, the Department of Homeland Security obliged to the Court order, the US Justice Department, immediately, rushed to Federal Appeals Court. The Federal Appeals Court also rejected their illegal demand. On February 5, 2017, Federal Appeals Court refuted the US government’s emergency request to resume President Donald Trump’s travel ban.

President Trump and his supporters have been justifying the executive order by claiming that it is intended to protect the United States from the terrorist attacks. Second, Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 “grant the President broad authority to bar or impose conditions upon the entry of aliens.” Third, President has the constitutional authority and responsibility to protect the American people and therefore he can take any decision to ensure the security of the people. Though President of the United States primary responsibility is the National Security, yet he does not violate the Constitution. The suspension of executive order and permission of immigration from seven Muslim countries by the District Court and Federal Appeals Court’s upholding of the decision of lower court underscores the independence of the American judicial system.

To conclude, Trump’s immigration ban stunned the world. It has failed to win the popular support within the US. Many Americans are convinced that immigration ban is against their values and their Constitution. Hence, there is a probability that Trump Administration might revise its immigration ban.

The writer is Associate Professor, School of Politics and International Relations, Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad.
Email: jaspal_99@hotmail.com

Pakistan’s MIRVs prowess

Dr Zafar Nawaz Jaspal

THE sustainability and durability of sovereign defence necessitates perpetual contemplationof the making of modern strategy, invntion of the new weapons, and investment in the defence industry. Pakistan’s mastery in the multiple independently targetable re-entry vehicles (MIRVs) technology would be having a constructive contribution in its sovereign defence arrangement of the state.
Indeed, Ababeel ballistic missile invention and testing manifests that Pakistani military planners are cognizant of the fundamentals of the sovereign defence. Pakistan conducted successfully the first ever test of its new medium-range, surface-to-surface, ballistic missile Ababeel on January 24, 2017. The Ababeel missile is a new entry in Pakistan’s missile arsenal. It uses the MIRV to deliver multiple conventional and nuclear warheads. The MIRV is a very sophisticated missile technology. Except a few technologically advanced nations (United States, Russian Federation and China) majority of ballistic missile capable states, lack MIRV capability. Though India did not conduct the test of ballistic missile having MIRV features, yet it is capable to employ Agni-III and Agni-V for the MIRVs mission. Moreover, India’s Defence Research and Development Organization had already demonstrated India’s capability to introduce MIRVs in its missile arsenal. It had launched multiple satellites from one booster rocket.
The MIRVs is an important force multiplier Vehicle because it provides an option to deliver multiple warheads with a single missile. Hence, it enables the striking power to engage multiple targets with a high level of precision with a few missiles. It simultaneously disrupts or destroys the radars of the adversary. It is very effective against the state, which deploys ballistic missile defence systems. It was rightly opined that: “If a state is worried about the survivability of its limited missile force and anticipates significant attrition of that force by the adversary, MIRVs provide multiple warheads with which to retaliate for every missile that does survive.” Precisely, it is a cost-effective weapon to defeat missile shield.

The Ababeel with a range of 2,200 kilometres — three times the distance between Islamabad and New Delhi — having capacity to engage multiple targets and thereby it would be very lethal for the Indian defences. Michael Krepon rightly pointed out that: “If New Delhi decides to absorb the costs of ballistic missile defences for high-value targets, along with the radars to accompany BMD deployments, these expenses will be in vain.” In simple words Ababeel is a dependable ballistic missile to neutralize India’s ballistic missile defence shield.

The development of MIRV manifests Islamabad’s steady progression from counter-value to counter-force targeting potential for the sake of credible full spectrum nuclear deterrence strategy. Ankit Panda pointed out: “a MIRVed Pakistani strategic capability may stand as a powerful deterrent to India’s retaliatory capabilities, freeing Pakistan up to use battlefield nuclear weapons as a war-terminating strategy without concerning itself with escalation to the strategic level.” Indeed, the MIRVed strategic capability would enhance the National Command Authority’s confidence in continuing the centralized command and control system of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons
In the parlance of strategic theories, introduction of MIRVs would be having both stabilizing and destabilizing consequences. The general perception is that the MIRVs in Pakistani arsenal sustain the prevailing strategic parity with New Delhi, which the latter desires to destabilize. If history is a reliable guide, with the testing of Ababeel, India is likely to do so as well. India’s placing of MIRVs atop its ballistic missile would intensify the current costly arms race between the belligerent neighbours. In theory, arms race is perilous for the strategic stability. Therefore, it’s imperative for both Islamabad and New Delhi to act rationally and negotiate bilateral strategic arms control treaty for the durability of strategic stability in the subcontinent.

Pakistan has been endeavouring to sustain the credibility of its deterrence strategy. Therefore, it is currently investing in ensuring the second-strike capability and also improving the penetrating potential of its nuclear capable vehicles. The development of both Babur-3, submarine launched cruise missile and Ababeel would relieve Islamabad from “use-it-or-lose-it” dilemma. However, it would not be misread that Islamabad would alter its nuclear first use doctrine. The conventional asymmetry between India and Pakistan obliges the latter to retain its first use nuclear option in its nuclear doctrine despite the progression in its second strike capability. To conclude, Islamabad’s vigilant defence planning not only withstands the strategic equilibrium between India and Pakistan, but also ensures the sustainability of strategic stability in South Asia.

The writer is Associate Professor, School of Politics and International Relations, Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad.

Email: jaspal_99@hotmail.com

Re-evaluate NAP’s execution strategy

Dr Zafar Nawaz Jaspal

THE bloody terrorist attacks in Awaran, Quetta, Mohmand, Lahore, Peshawar and Sehwan during the last week have traumatized the entire nation. The resurgence of terrorist activities alarms us about the revival of terrorist networks with the country. Are we losing the battle against radicalised extremists? Even if we are not losing the battle against the terrorism, we are not succeeding in ending the terrorist network. The recent terrorist attacks and subsequent developments manifest that Government of Pakistan needs to reevaluate its National Action Plan’s execution strategy and bilateral relations with Afghanistan.

The Government has adopted both military-centric approach and people-centric approach to destroy terrorist physical and popular centuries. However, the country’s ruling elite has failed to end the political/diplomatic support to the terrorist groups. Hence, despite the successfulof Zarb-e-Azb military operation, terrorist groups were successful to bleed innocent non-combatant Pakistanis. They are having sanctuaries across the border in Afghanistan. According to the intelligence reports terrorist groups have been receiving financial and intelligence support from both Afghan NDS and Indian RAW. Combating the menace of terrorism and quashing terrorist networks necessitate both vigilance, cooperation of the people and convergence of the opinion among the political parties. Secondly, the holistic approach ought to be adopted in the entire country. The government’s reluctance to allow Rangers to conduct an operation against the militant groups in Punjab germinates misperception among the people of Pakistan. The political parties, equally, seem frustrated from the Government’s anti-terrorism efforts. On February 18, 2017, Leader of the Opposition in National Assembly Khurshid Shah expressed his reservations on the implementation of the National Action Plan.

Although the terrorist facilitators belong to our own society, yet they are not effective without the external political and economic support. On February 13, 2017, Pakistan’s permanent representative at United Nations, New York, Dr. Maleeha Lodhi while speaking at UNSC asserted: “What Pakistan continues to face today are externally supported terrorists.” The ISPR spokesman categorically stated on February 17, 2017: “Recent terrorist acts are being executed on directions from hostile powers and from sanctuaries in Afghanistan. We shall defend and respond.” Islamabad shared the intelligence information with Kabul and requested it end the proscribed Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan and its subsidiary Jamaat-ul-Ahrar, sanctuaries located inside Afghanistan. The Afghan diplomats were summoned in General Headquarters in Rawalpindi and handed over a list of 76 “most wanted” terrorists by Pakistan Army. The response of Kabul is not encouraging.

The Afghan Government seems disinclined to support Pakistan. Instead of handing over 76 wanted terrorists, the Afghan government issued its own demand list. “The government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan once again demands Pakistan to take practical measures and initiate effective counter-terrorism efforts against all those terrorist groups which operate in Pakistan and pose a threat to security and stability of Afghanistan.” Kabul’s hostile attitude obliged Islamabad to take punitive actions for sake of security. It announced closing of border crossings and also ordered to show zero tolerance to illegal crossing. Frontier Corps spokesman announced: “Shooting order has been issued to the security forces for those… found trying to enter… Pakistan illegally from any area of the border.”

Pakistan Army targeted the TTP and JuA sanctuaries located near Afghanistan-Pakistan border on the side of Afghanistan. Admittedly, without these inflexible border management arrangements, checking the infiltration of TTP and JuA radicalised terrorists is difficult. It is equally, however, counterproductive. Is the knee-jerk reaction is haphazard and ill-thought-out? It would not only further deteriorate Pakistan bilateral relations with Afghanistan, but also enrage the people living on both sides of Pak-Afghan border. Thus, the repercussions of border management cannot be taken lightly.

The continuity of mistrust between Afghanistan and Pakistan is in the advantage of terrorist syndicate, which freely use former territory for perpetrating terrorist attacks in Pakistan. Realistically speaking, Kabul has lesser control in the peripheral areas of Afghanistan. Therefore, it may not be able to arrest 76 most wanted terrorists hiding in Afghanistan. Hence, instead of simply accusing we chalk out a practical strategy to engage Afghan ruling elite and convince it to restraint its National Intelligence Directorate from cooperating with Indian RAW and supporting TTP and JuA. It is an open secret that India has been using Afghanistan to support terrorist activities in Pakistan. Former US Defence Secretary Chuck Hagel pointed out:” India has always used Afghanistan for its own war and is creating problems against Pakistan from Afghanistan.” Pakistan needs to terminate the nexus between Indian and Afghan intelligence agencies against it.

Simultaneously, one needs to be rational while dealing with Afghan refuges. According to reports the Pakistan’ successfully repatriated 650,000 Afghan refugees. In reality, they are also victim of ‘Great Game in Afghanistan’. They have been living in Pakistan since four decades because of the anarchical situation in their country. The declaring or treating Afghan refugees ‘criminals’ and ‘terrorists’ is neither correct nor wise policy. It does not reflect the correct facts and thereby perilous for Pakistan’s national interest. Precisely, targeting Afghan refuges in Pakistan only divert attention form the actual cause of problem. Therefore, the law enforcement agencies ought to careful in discriminating between criminals and innocents.

In addition, transformation in the global politics is also obliging Islamabad to chalkout a vigilant and realistic domestic and foreign policies for the pursuit of its national interest. Indeed, such a situation necessitates harmonious thinking within the society and state and also obliges ruling elite to take firm and decisive actions against terrorists and their facilitators.
— The writer is Associate Professor, School of Politics and International Relations, Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad.

Email: jaspal_99@hotmail.com

Amnesty reports growing repression across south Asia, ‘excessive’ in Kashmir

By Reader Correspondent

Srinagar: Repression in Kashmir features prominently in Amnesty International’s 2016-17 report on the state of human rights in India, released on Tuesday. The report says that Indian authorities used “repressive laws” to curb freedom of expression and silence critical voices, and “In Jammu and Kashmir, security forces used unnecessary or excessive force against demonstrators.”

In the report, ‘The State of the World’s Human Rights’ — an analysis of the situation in 159 countries, the rights body has accused the Indian state of using “oppressive laws” to silence student activists, academics, journalists and human rights defenders.
The report has highlighted the arrest of Kashmiri human rights defender Khurram Parvez and also drawn attention to the ban on Kashmir Reader newspaper in October last year.
“In July, the state government prevented the publication of local newspapers in Kashmir for three days. In September, Khurram Parvez, a Kashmiri human rights defender, was arrested and detained for over two months on spurious grounds, a day after he was prevented from travelling to a UN Human Rights Council session in Geneva, Switzerland,” the report says.
“In October, the government ordered a Srinagar-based newspaper to cease printing and publication on vague grounds,” it says.

During the civil uprising in Kashmir that erupted after the killing of Hizbul Mujahideen commander Burhan Wani on July 8 and lasted for over six months, during which more than 80 civilians were killed and 13,000 injured, many of them severely in their eyes, the Jammu and Kashmir government imposed a curfew for over two months.

“A suspension on private landline, mobile and internet service providers undermined a range of rights and residents said it left them unable to reach urgent medical assistance,” the report mentions.

Amnesty has, in the report, noted a grim picture of human rights in the whole of South Asia, especially in Kashmir.  The report mentions the role of armed groups fuelling “insecurity” and committing abuses such as abductions and unlawful killings in central and north-eastern India and in the state of Jammu and Kashmir.

“South Asia is seeing a worrying rollback of human rights as various governments invoke sovereignty and security to threaten freedoms, shrinking the space for human rights activists to operate and make their voices heard,” Biraj Patnaik, Amnesty International’s South Asia Director, said in a statement issued with the report.

The report adds, “In India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh, journalists and bloggers have been threatened, intimidated and even killed by non-state actors for exercising their right to freedom of expression. At the same time, across the region, old repressive laws are being used alongside new ones to limit human rights both online and offline.”

Talking about human rights at a global level, Salil Shetty, Amnesty’s head of the global movement, warns that the phrase “never again” has become “meaningless” as states fail to react to mass atrocities.

Nepal: A Memorandum about Indian Permanent Membership of the UNSC

By Sajjad Shaukat

It is misfortune that by ignoring the modern global trends like renunciation of war, peaceful settlement of disputes and economic development, India continues its hegemonic designs by threatening the security of South Asia and Asia in particular and the entire world in general. Besides other neighbouring countries, Nepal is another victim of the Indian hegemonic designs.

In this regard, on 28 Nov, 2016, a memorandum was forwarded by the Greater Nepal Nationalist Front (GNNF) to the UN General Secretary Ban Ki-moon on facts, which disqualify India for attaining permanent membership of the UN Security Council (UNSC).

The memorandum pointed out that these days India is vying for a permanent United Nations Security Council (UNSC) seat. Greater Nepal Nationalist Front (GNNF) would like to register following reservations against Indian candidature for a permanent seat in the esteemed UNSC.

In very recent time, Nepal has been a victim of Indian hegemonic and high handed mentality. India imposed blockade against Nepal at a time when the country was reeling under the affects of devastating earthquake.

Why India was annoyed with Nepal? Because the people of Nepal did not heed Indian advise on promulgating a Nepalese Constitution. India which calls herself the largest democracy refused to accept the mandate of the people of Nepal as the constitution was approved by more than 90% vote of the Constituent Assembly.

India continues to illegally occupy 60000 square Kilo Meters of Nepalese territory lost by Nepal after the signing of sugauli treaty with East India Company on 1816. GNNF will always raise its voice against Indian illegal occupation of Nepalese lands. Not only this, India   is consistently encroaching upon Nepal’s lands  by removing border pillars deliberately. Currently India encroaches more than 97 thousand hectors land of present days Nepal.

India also casts evil eyes on Nepal’s Terai and through her protégés armed groups, it continue to create disturbances there. Indian efforts to bring demographic changes in Nepal to influence the political landscape would be deterred by GNNF at all costs.

Nepal is not the only country where India is unduly interfering. All countries of South Asia are in fact suffering from Indian hegemony. Whether it is annexation of Sikkim, igniting civil war in Sri Lanka or the separation of East Pakistan (publically acknowledge by Narendra Modi, the prime minister of India). India is being involved in arm twisting of Bhutan and Maldives. India has malicious design against her entire neighbors.

India continues to shed blood of innocent Kashmiries to suppress their voice for referendum which was guaranteed even by UN. Ongoing violence in Jammu and Kashmir and prolonged curfews are a testimony of Kashmiries hatred against India.

How can anyone forget the massacre of at least 2000 Muslims in the State of Gujrat during the tenure of Modi as the Chief Minister? How can anyone forget the plight of Dalits   in   India?  How  can  anyone  forget  that  due  to  extremist  views  of Hindu fundamentalist BJP, minorities are not safe in India and anyone can be killed on fabricated charges.

How can the world forget that large numbers of insurgencies are going on in India? Besides Kashmir, freedom movements are simmering in India from Indian state of Punjab to Indian northeast. To avert world’s attention from her internal weaknesses, India is blaming others and trying to create tense situation in the neighbourhood.

India has established its military camp on Nepali land of Kalapani, despite of the formal opposition by Government of Nepal.

Indian Prime Minitster Narendra Modi has very recently called for the secession of the Balochistan province of Pakistan. The country which is trying to create disturbance in the neighboring country in the broad daylight should not be awarded with permanent UNSC seat at any cost.

We would like to draw attention of UN General Assembly towards 1960s declaration of UN which has urged for the decolonization of the entire world. Despite being a member of UN, India has been colonizing Nepali land. Any move of the UN to award permanent UNSC seat to India my give license to her in continuing colonizing Nepali land.

Through this memorandum, GNNF wants to draw the attention of UN Secretary General on inconsistent policies exhibited by India in her internal as well as external affairs. India is a big and simultaneously a weak and ill country afflicted by many problems which the Indian leadership should try to overcome instead of putting a veil on them. India needs to demonstrate a consistent and responsible attitude in the world before vying for a permanent UNSC membership.

GNNF strongly condemns any Indian move to attain UNSC permanent membership as GNNF is of the view that India would not hold UNSC responsibility. We would like to request the honorable Secretary General to consider the plight of the people of South Asia and to deny India permanent seat in the UNSC.

It is notable that although peace and brinksmanship cannot co-exist in the modern era, yet India seeks to destabilize Asia through its aggressive designs, activated with new arms race.

The US President Barack Obama’s contradictory approach which has resulted into failure of America’s external policy in the Middle East has been meeting the same fate in South Asia. Recall that on September 25, 2008, Obama, while accusing President Bush’s policies in the region, offered it as part of his policy to encourage India and Pakistan to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) and resolve the Kashmir problem to reduce nuclear dangers in South Asia and militancy in the region.

Quite contrary to his commitments, during his first visit to New Delhi, on November 6, 2010 President Obama announced the measures, America would take regarding removal of Indian space and defence companies from a restricted “entities list”, and supported Indian demand for a permanent seat in the UN Security Council including membership of four key global nuclear nonproliferation regimes.

And as part of the double standards, America set aside the Indian poor record regarding the safety of nuclear weapons and materials. Despite, Indian violations of various international agreements and its refusal to sign Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) and Additional Protocol with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Washington signed a pact of nuclear civil technology with New Delhi in 2008. During American President Barack Obama’s visit to India, on January 25, 2016, the US and India announced a breakthrough on the pact which would allow American companies to supply New Delhi with civilian nuclear technology.

In fact, fast growing economic power of China coupled with her rising strategic relationship with Russia, the Third World and especially Pakistan—after signing of agreement, “China-Pakistan Economic Corridor” which is, though for the benefit of South Asia, including the whole region, but, has irked the eyes of Americans, Indians and Israelis. Owing to jealousy, America desires to make India a major power to counterbalance China in Asia. Hence, under the pretext of China factor, America has neglected the Indian hegemonic designs in the region.

Nevertheless, besides Indian sinister aim in other countries like Afghanistan, the memorandum to the UN General Secretary Ban Ki-moon by Greater Nepal Nationalist Front discloses ground realities, based upon facts, and is enough in disqualifying India for attaining Permanent Membership of the UN Security Council.

Modi Led the Gujarat Riots

By Sajjad Shaukat

The 2002 Gujarat riots were a three-day period of communal violence in the Indian state of Gujarat by extremist Hindus under the guidance and command of the Indian Prime Minister Narinder Modi who was chief minister of Gujarat and mastermind the massacre of the Muslims.

Besides previous massacre of Muslims, more than 2500 Muslims were killed in the BJP-ruled Indian state of Gujarat where horrible scenes of arson, mutation and rape were perpetrated by the Hindu extremists against the unarmed Muslims.

Regarding that massive genocide, both Human Rights Watch in 2002 and Amnesty International in 2003 charged the “Gujarat state administration” for involvement in “a massive cover-up of the state’s role in that massacres” and pointed out numerous police officials—specifically ministers, high officials and leaders of the fundamentalist outfits such as VHP, BJP and Bajrang Dal as participants.

While, Modi’s involvement in Gujarat riots is without any doubt. In this regard, Rana Ayub in his book, “Gujarat files- Anatomy of A Cover-up” and Manoj Mitha in his book, “The Fiction of Fact Finding”, and Sreekumar in his Book “Gujarat behind the Curtain” have proved Modi’s involvement in the genocide of the Muslims in Gujarat.

In this context, in an open letter published in “the Guardian” on April 10, 2014, even most well-respected international intellectuals of India held Modi as the main culprit behind the massacre of Muslims in Gujarat.

According to Ashish Nandy, “The Gujarat pogrommes were not just about the number of helpless victims killed (over 3000) and rendered homeless (several hundred thousand). It was about the sheer planning, the brutality, the maniacal genocide that was perpetrated over a population for days on end…Narendra Modi did not only shamelessly preside over the riots and act as the chief patron of rioting gangs, the vulgarities of his utterances have been a slur on civilised public life. His justifications of the riots, too, sound uncannily like that of Slobodan Milosevic, the Serbian president and mass murderer…facing trial for his crimes against humanity. I often wonder these days why those active in human rights groups in India and abroad have not yet tried to get international summons issued against Modi for colluding with the murder of hundreds and for attempted ethnic cleansing. If Modi’s behavior till now is not a crime against humanity, what is?”

In this connection, following Gujarat riots in 2002 and State collusion, a US Commission for international religious freedom (USCIRF) established that the then Gujarat Chief Minister Modi was linked to communal riots in a significant way. It also pointed that Modi’s ministerial colleague Maya Kodnani was fully involved in the massacre of Muslims. Following its findings, the Commission recommended a US visa ban for Modi.

And the Chairperson of the Commission Katrina Lantos Swett went further to recommend India to be placed in Tier 2 countries on religious freedom.  Tier 2 countries are those countries where religious persecution and other violations of religious freedom are either promoted with State connivance or tolerated by the government in-charge  

Notably, a report of the British High Commission in India said that the pogrommes in Gujarat in 2002 “had all the hallmarks of ethnic cleansing and reconciliation between Hindus and Muslims is impossible, while the Chief Minister Modi remains in power.” The report also said, “Far from being spontaneous…this massacre was planned, possibly months in advance, carried out by extremist Hindu organisations with the support of the state government headed by Modi.”

Meanwhile, various investigations failed in indicating the real culprits of Hindu terrorism in Gujarat as they were high officials or police officers of the Indian government. Therefore, the Supreme Court of India had ordered a fresh probe on March 25, 2008, but the same also remains inconclusive due to concealment of evidence against the culprits who are members of the dominating political parties of the country. Since the BJP-led Mod became Indian prime minister, covert interference of his government and those of the fundamentalist parties—BJP and RSS in the investigations of Gujarat riots have kept the case under carpet.

Despite eye witness testimony, implicating the highest elected political officials, justice continues to evade the victims. In a recent development, 70 accused persons of Gujrat pogrom were set free by the court.

It is mentionable that the US government had denied visa to Modi on the basis of his involvement in Gujarat progromme, however, after his election as Indian prime minister, the stance of American government changed to his favour. It shows double standard of America. Washington which also prefers India over Pakistan is providing New Delhi with latest arms and equipments at the cost of Pakistan.

US has set aside the facts that India has broken all the records of violence, genocide and massacre perpetrated on various ethnic and religious groups entailing the community of its own lower castes. Apparently, India claims to be the largest democracy, acting upon the principles of liberalism and secularism, yet in practice, all political, economic and social fields of the country are controlled by the BJP government which itself is under the influence of the RSS, and is fulfilling extremist agenda of the later.

It is surprising that theoretically, Indian Constitution safeguards the rights of minorities, but in practice, ideology of Hindutva (Hindu nationalism) prevails. Hindu majority led by the BJP has shown complete disregard to it, and commit excesses and cruelties against Muslims, Sikhs, Christians and Dalits with impunity.

Hindu politics and culture, dominated by the fundamentalist parties such as BJP, VHP, Shiv Sena and RSS including other extremist outfits have been propagating Hindutva.

Nonetheless, Narendra Modi, the then Chief Minister of Gujarat who masterminded and led the Muslim massacre has, reportedly, destroyed all the documents related to the 2002 genocide of the Muslims. Keeping his past record, it can be forecasted easily that minorities in India will face further persecution and barbarity at the hands of Hindu extremists and more incident of Gurat-like riots will take place as Modi is in power saddles.

Email: sajjad_logic@yahoo.com