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
Showing posts with label Afghanistan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Afghanistan. Show all posts
Sunday, March 25, 2012
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.
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
Istanbul Conference – A Partial Focus On Afghan Stability by Bassam Javed
The year 2011 has opened new vistas for Afghanistan as concerted efforts being put in by all stake holders have provided a glimmer of hope to achieve what has eluded Afghans for too long: stability, peace, development and prosperity. The year not only marks the end of the decade of foreign intervention in Afghanistan after eviction of Taliban from Kabul but is also turning out to be a decisive year wherein strategic accords are being worked upon to create Afghan peace and stability by the time US-led forces are withdrawn.
Two conferences are coming up in this regard; one in Istanbul on 2 November and the other in Bonn on 5 December to augment and support Afghan efforts in building peace, developmental infrastructure and prosperity in Afghanistan. Here, we will be focusing on Istanbul Conference that will be attended by regional countries comprising ‘Heart of Asia’ and some other members of the international community. The aim of the Istanbul Conference as projected in the preparatory conferences held elsewhere in Oslo and Kabul was to define a vision for regional peace and development through participants’ commitments for a stable and independent Afghanistan and to discuss regional economic cooperation.
Notwithstanding the urgent need to stabilize Afghanistan, the half hearted and un-coordinated peace efforts undertaken by various stake holders independently have failed. Also, the withdrawal time line of the foreign forces has not been worked out. With these two major shortcomings, holding of Istanbul Conference does not appear to be in consonance with other dynamics required for Afghan stability. More so, instead of articulating modus operandi to extract solemn and formal pledges from participating countries the draft declaration focuses on erecting a new architecture to oversee peace process, stability, development and prosperity in Afghanistan. This architecture will be composed of fourteen countries from South and Central Asian and the Middle East. The selection of the countries is liable to be challenged by countries bordering Afghanistan at the very start of the conference as some of these countries do not share borders with Afghanistan.
The conflicting objectives of Istanbul Conference i.e. one relating to Afghanistan and the other on the regional countries dilute the importance of each other. The draft document projects that the internal stability of Afghanistan can be achieved utilizing external initiatives through a regional architecture tantamount to give an impression that all of Afghanistan’s problems are external. Going by Istanbul document will mean that focus on progress and reconciliation, resurrection of Afghan governance, return of refugees from Iran and Pakistan, endorsement of peace process and Afghan sovereignty by the countries bordering Afghanistan, has been over ridden by focus on corroboration and support by a larger group of countries on regional agreements that would derive out of the Conference. Not only this, there is a move by the US to create a ‘contact group’ of countries to consult on Afghan security. The original agenda may also be hijacked by the US as it is feared that the Conference will be utilized to devise a mechanism for speedy withdrawal of foreign forces from Afghanistan. The forums of purported regional architecture and creation of the contact group will not deliver on Afghanistan since bilateral strategic issues between some of the countries forming the core groups will spoil the Afghan peace stabilization process.
The critical issue faced by Pakistan and also by Iran has been completely side lined in the draft Istanbul Conference prepared is the presence of millions of Afghan refugees that has tremendously burdened the respective economies. The draft declaration has no mention about the fate of those refugees. Also, to the detriment of both Pakistan’s and Iran’s security interests, the document also equates immediate neighbors like Pakistan and Iran with distant neighbors like India. The document also enhances the role of India in Afghan affairs.
Pakistan shares 2560 Kms long border with Afghanistan and its security gets affected by events in Afghanistan. The Istanbul Conference will do well by focusing only on an all acceptable declaration that establishes principles accompanied by an implemental plan for a sustained economic assistance from international community to built and develop Afghan infrastructure. In the context of Pakistan’s interests, the draft document prepared by Turks for Istanbul Conference does not cater for them. Pakistan has always been proud of its decades old relationship with the Turks. Both the countries have been of great strength to each other in times of crises. What compelled Turkey to off-set Pakistan’s interest in the draft document is not known. May be Turkey wanted to win back the West’s confidence that spiraled down for its firm and moral stand on Palestinian issue and the Middle East through extra regional agenda on Afghanistan. But then should it be done in complete disregard of the interests of its age old friend, Pakistan?
Two conferences are coming up in this regard; one in Istanbul on 2 November and the other in Bonn on 5 December to augment and support Afghan efforts in building peace, developmental infrastructure and prosperity in Afghanistan. Here, we will be focusing on Istanbul Conference that will be attended by regional countries comprising ‘Heart of Asia’ and some other members of the international community. The aim of the Istanbul Conference as projected in the preparatory conferences held elsewhere in Oslo and Kabul was to define a vision for regional peace and development through participants’ commitments for a stable and independent Afghanistan and to discuss regional economic cooperation.
Notwithstanding the urgent need to stabilize Afghanistan, the half hearted and un-coordinated peace efforts undertaken by various stake holders independently have failed. Also, the withdrawal time line of the foreign forces has not been worked out. With these two major shortcomings, holding of Istanbul Conference does not appear to be in consonance with other dynamics required for Afghan stability. More so, instead of articulating modus operandi to extract solemn and formal pledges from participating countries the draft declaration focuses on erecting a new architecture to oversee peace process, stability, development and prosperity in Afghanistan. This architecture will be composed of fourteen countries from South and Central Asian and the Middle East. The selection of the countries is liable to be challenged by countries bordering Afghanistan at the very start of the conference as some of these countries do not share borders with Afghanistan.
The conflicting objectives of Istanbul Conference i.e. one relating to Afghanistan and the other on the regional countries dilute the importance of each other. The draft document projects that the internal stability of Afghanistan can be achieved utilizing external initiatives through a regional architecture tantamount to give an impression that all of Afghanistan’s problems are external. Going by Istanbul document will mean that focus on progress and reconciliation, resurrection of Afghan governance, return of refugees from Iran and Pakistan, endorsement of peace process and Afghan sovereignty by the countries bordering Afghanistan, has been over ridden by focus on corroboration and support by a larger group of countries on regional agreements that would derive out of the Conference. Not only this, there is a move by the US to create a ‘contact group’ of countries to consult on Afghan security. The original agenda may also be hijacked by the US as it is feared that the Conference will be utilized to devise a mechanism for speedy withdrawal of foreign forces from Afghanistan. The forums of purported regional architecture and creation of the contact group will not deliver on Afghanistan since bilateral strategic issues between some of the countries forming the core groups will spoil the Afghan peace stabilization process.
The critical issue faced by Pakistan and also by Iran has been completely side lined in the draft Istanbul Conference prepared is the presence of millions of Afghan refugees that has tremendously burdened the respective economies. The draft declaration has no mention about the fate of those refugees. Also, to the detriment of both Pakistan’s and Iran’s security interests, the document also equates immediate neighbors like Pakistan and Iran with distant neighbors like India. The document also enhances the role of India in Afghan affairs.
Pakistan shares 2560 Kms long border with Afghanistan and its security gets affected by events in Afghanistan. The Istanbul Conference will do well by focusing only on an all acceptable declaration that establishes principles accompanied by an implemental plan for a sustained economic assistance from international community to built and develop Afghan infrastructure. In the context of Pakistan’s interests, the draft document prepared by Turks for Istanbul Conference does not cater for them. Pakistan has always been proud of its decades old relationship with the Turks. Both the countries have been of great strength to each other in times of crises. What compelled Turkey to off-set Pakistan’s interest in the draft document is not known. May be Turkey wanted to win back the West’s confidence that spiraled down for its firm and moral stand on Palestinian issue and the Middle East through extra regional agenda on Afghanistan. But then should it be done in complete disregard of the interests of its age old friend, Pakistan?
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Clearing misunderstandings for peace in Afghanistan by Abdul Zahoor Khan Marwat
Recently, Pentagon released the summary of an inquiry into the death of a US serviceman, Army Major Larry Bauguess, who was shot dead in an ugly incident at the Pak Afghan border on May 9, 2007.
At that time, officials in the US military had claimed that the killing of the US major was part of a plot allegedly hatched by the Pakistan Army. This, according to them, was done to avenge the death of Pakistan Army personnel who were killed in friendly fire by the US forces.
Reports about the incident said that a trilateral meeting was taking place at Teri Mangal, attended by Pakistani, Afghan and US officials. After the meeting, when the US major was boarding a helicopter to leave, a man in militia uniform opened fire on him. The US troops returned the fire, killing not only the gunman but also six innocent bystanders.
Now the inquiry has found that the US serviceman was killed by a lone attacker, who had no connection to the Pakistan Army or the country’s intelligence agencies. The summary of the report said: “This appears to have been a premeditated event on part of the initial shooter. There is little evidence to support collaboration with the Pakistani militia or military”.
The summary of the inquiry has been welcomed by all elements who want to see better relations between the US and Pakistan and those who are working in this direction. Thus, the importance of the Pentagon’s report in removing Pak-US misunderstandings cannot be overlooked as it presents stubborn facts.
There has been a plethora of charges that have been levelled against the Pakistan Army and its intelligence agencies, which is not surprising given the volatile geopolitical situation in the region and conflicting interests of several countries.
One allegation is that Pakistan Army had sheltered bin Laden in Abbottabad. Considering the consequences of such a move, it is unfathomable why Pakistan would ever do so.
Again, it has been repeatedly claimed that Pakistan Army is supporting the Taliban factions in their fight against the foreign forces in Afghanistan.
No concrete evidence has ever been presented in this regard while statements of disgruntled elements within the Afghan armed forces and Taliban cannot be relied upon.
The charge of sheltering the Quetta Shura also remains unproven. Where is it located? Most experts say in this era of GPS, satellites and sophisticated listening devices, any spot on the face of earth cannot remain hidden for long.
The charges of helping the Haqqani group to attack the US embassy in Kabul have been retracted. It has also been proven that the ISI was not involved in the Mumbai attacks.
Meanwhile, a retired Indian general has praised the Pakistan Army after it quickly returned the intruding Indian helicopter, saying that Pakistan Army was a highly professional institution that conducted the helicopter episode in a responsible manner.
At the root of many allegations is the absence of a clear understanding of regional situation and players. The recent volley of charges against the Pakistan armed forces and intelligence agencies has certainly not been helpful in creating a better understanding between Pakistan and the US. But the Pentagon report will be helpful in removing the distrust.
Both countries should work together to bring peace in the region and that could be done quietly, avoiding the historically negative influence of some neighbouring countries.
At that time, officials in the US military had claimed that the killing of the US major was part of a plot allegedly hatched by the Pakistan Army. This, according to them, was done to avenge the death of Pakistan Army personnel who were killed in friendly fire by the US forces.
Reports about the incident said that a trilateral meeting was taking place at Teri Mangal, attended by Pakistani, Afghan and US officials. After the meeting, when the US major was boarding a helicopter to leave, a man in militia uniform opened fire on him. The US troops returned the fire, killing not only the gunman but also six innocent bystanders.
Now the inquiry has found that the US serviceman was killed by a lone attacker, who had no connection to the Pakistan Army or the country’s intelligence agencies. The summary of the report said: “This appears to have been a premeditated event on part of the initial shooter. There is little evidence to support collaboration with the Pakistani militia or military”.
The summary of the inquiry has been welcomed by all elements who want to see better relations between the US and Pakistan and those who are working in this direction. Thus, the importance of the Pentagon’s report in removing Pak-US misunderstandings cannot be overlooked as it presents stubborn facts.
There has been a plethora of charges that have been levelled against the Pakistan Army and its intelligence agencies, which is not surprising given the volatile geopolitical situation in the region and conflicting interests of several countries.
One allegation is that Pakistan Army had sheltered bin Laden in Abbottabad. Considering the consequences of such a move, it is unfathomable why Pakistan would ever do so.
Again, it has been repeatedly claimed that Pakistan Army is supporting the Taliban factions in their fight against the foreign forces in Afghanistan.
No concrete evidence has ever been presented in this regard while statements of disgruntled elements within the Afghan armed forces and Taliban cannot be relied upon.
The charge of sheltering the Quetta Shura also remains unproven. Where is it located? Most experts say in this era of GPS, satellites and sophisticated listening devices, any spot on the face of earth cannot remain hidden for long.
The charges of helping the Haqqani group to attack the US embassy in Kabul have been retracted. It has also been proven that the ISI was not involved in the Mumbai attacks.
Meanwhile, a retired Indian general has praised the Pakistan Army after it quickly returned the intruding Indian helicopter, saying that Pakistan Army was a highly professional institution that conducted the helicopter episode in a responsible manner.
At the root of many allegations is the absence of a clear understanding of regional situation and players. The recent volley of charges against the Pakistan armed forces and intelligence agencies has certainly not been helpful in creating a better understanding between Pakistan and the US. But the Pentagon report will be helpful in removing the distrust.
Both countries should work together to bring peace in the region and that could be done quietly, avoiding the historically negative influence of some neighbouring countries.
Monday, November 2, 2009
New Iran – New Intentions
Ishaal Zehra
The attack which killed the national Deputy Commander of the ground forces of Iran's Revolutionary Guards (RG), General Noor Ali Shooshtari and the provincial commander for Sistan-Baluchistan, Rajab Ali Mohammadzadeh along with some senior officers and 42 others in a homicide bombing inflicted Iran's worst military casualties in years.
Quick after the mishap, an Iranian military official went as far as to raise the prospect of a possible military offensive into Pakistan against the group blamed for the attack. "There is even unanimity that these operations (could) take place in Pakistan territory," the ISNA news agency quoted MP Payman Forouzesh as saying. While the headquarters of Iran's armed forces blamed the bombing on "terrorists" backed by "the Great Satan America and its ally Britain," Fars News Agency said Sunday.
Islamabad strongly denied the allegations and said the attack was an attempt to "spoil ties" with Iran. "There are forces which are out to spoil our relations with Iran. But our ties are strong enough to counter these machinations," said the Pakistan's foreign ministry spokesman Abdul Basit while dismissing the allegations.
The point to ponder is that, how come Pakistan would be wishing to create unrest in some neighbour while its own house is burning. Pakistan has been the victim of worst type of terror since many years. The war which initially started in Afghanistan was purposely shifted to Balochistan province of ours as a part of the Great Game. Amid the GWOT the active involvement of many countries intelligence agencies in Balochistan was observed. These agencies, while playing with the internal conflicts of the center and the Baloch people, are subversively involved in provision of funds and arms to different armed groups. This has been proved many a times that the outlawed armed groups of Balochistan, BLA and BRA are funded and trained by Indian RAW. Even the websites of BLA and greater Balochistan are updated from India. The role of Indian consulate offices in Afghanistan is suspected since their origin.
Keeping in view the sensitivity of the problem, it is difficult for India to openly support the Baluch insurgency because it may harm her relations with Iran (never bother about Pakistan). If the Indians will come out openly in support of the BLA, anti-Indian elements in Pakistan will quickly bracket New Delhi with the alleged Great Game of the US against Iran.
Indian relation with Iran have generally been viewed by observers as a tightrope walking to balance out her interests in Iran as well with the US. India, knowingly, that sidestepping the international community’s efforts to thwart Iran’s so-called drive for nuclear weapons would only devalue her credibility in the eyes of global power, New Delhi is fast trying to convey an unambiguous message that a nuclear armed Iran is as unacceptable to India as it is to the US, the U.K. or France. Hence, India (a good time’s friend) seems to be all set to dump Tehran to seek new alliances and please her new friends.
Iran is a regional power and an aspiring nuclear state which poses a threat to Israeli expansionism in Middle East. There is no denying the fact that Iran’s nuclear programme has been a persistent worry for both, US and Israel. And the choice between new allies and old friend is getting tough on India. To understand India’s dilemma, it requires a critical view of her relation with both Israel and Iran. There has been a steady strengthening of the India’s relationship with Israel ever since India established full diplomatic relations with Israel in 1992. Ever since then, the flourishing Indo- Israel relationship has gained much potential to make a significant impact on the global politics, by altering the balance of power not only in South Asia but the Middle East as well. Today, India has become the biggest market for Israeli arms with their strategic, defence and intelligence cooperation growing at a rapid pace. Where as, on the other hand, the vast oil and gas reserves of Iran serve magnetic affiliation to the quenching India’s long term thirst for energy. And yet another attraction in Iran’s case is that she offers India access to Afghanistan and Central Asia, side-lining Pakistan.
Given the scenario, India is more likely to tilt towards Israel in future. As regardless of her important ties with Arab countries and Iran, her lure for intelligence consultations with Israel seems a durable one. Until now, India has veered between cooperation and altercation in case of Iran yet in the time to come we may expect India to go along with Israel and US in destroying Iran, one of the country in Bush’s war against his self-selected axis of evil. A nuclear Iran suspected of supporting Palestinians and organizations sympathetic to them, faces a great threat of attack on its nuclear installations. And India would support such an operation clandestinely, while opposing in front of the world, not to annoy Iran because of economic reasons. Amusingly, India’s interest in the proposed IPI gas line project diminished sharply from the time the US-India nuclear deal began to take shape. Probably, the US wants to undermine India-Iran economic relations to such an extent that New Delhi becomes a stakeholder in its plan against Iran.
The geopolitical implications of the collaborations between India, US and Israel are grave and manifold. Despite the denials, India is playing a secret role in US strategy against Iran for past many years. India regardless of having close ties with Iran stabbed her in the back by joining EU-3 on Iran’s nuclear issue. It is no more a secret that EU-3 is no longer acting independently, but as a surrogate of the US. How piteous that a democracy ended up as a deputy of a surrogate. History has witnessed how India once used the friendly ties with Tehran as a ladder to achieve US and European community’s support to secure permanent seat in Security Council. Thanks to her mean and wanton nature which made her vote twice against the same Iran in the IAEA governing board, thus endorsing the US agenda for confrontation with Iran. Nevertheless, the Indian vote against Iran has extensively lowered her global structure and credibility. Despite her close economic and political relations, if India could stab a friendly country like Iran in the back, then she could not be considered trustworthy by other developing countries.
The thriving indo-Israeli relations are posing a direct threat to Iran. Their trade has grown exceptionally over the years, especially after the launch of Israeli spy satellite from the Indian Space center, the tie got even stronger. The launch of TecSAR has considerably enhanced Israel’s intelligence-gathering capability. The satellite is clearly affecting the ongoing conflict in the Middle East, as its ability to produce image in adverse weather and even at night allowed Israel to obtain more information about the Iranian nuclear programme. Though India officially argues that she has commercially utilized her advanced technological capacity but the act brought to light India’s full cooperation to dissuade, isolate and if necessary sanction and contain Iran. Nevertheless, Iran should realize that a friend of your enemy can never be your friend and India has already established herself as Israel’s friend and Iran’s foe at many instances.
It is time that India’s credibility as a friendly democracy should be weighed by other developing countries of the world. The Indo-Israel nexus, under the US patronage, is posing a threat to the Muslim world. All their ambitions revolve around targeting particularly Muslim states that are energy rich and either nuclear or threshold nuclear states. It is high time that the Islamic countries take a unified and concrete step to cater this ghastly menace, or else it might become too late.
The attack which killed the national Deputy Commander of the ground forces of Iran's Revolutionary Guards (RG), General Noor Ali Shooshtari and the provincial commander for Sistan-Baluchistan, Rajab Ali Mohammadzadeh along with some senior officers and 42 others in a homicide bombing inflicted Iran's worst military casualties in years.
Quick after the mishap, an Iranian military official went as far as to raise the prospect of a possible military offensive into Pakistan against the group blamed for the attack. "There is even unanimity that these operations (could) take place in Pakistan territory," the ISNA news agency quoted MP Payman Forouzesh as saying. While the headquarters of Iran's armed forces blamed the bombing on "terrorists" backed by "the Great Satan America and its ally Britain," Fars News Agency said Sunday.
Islamabad strongly denied the allegations and said the attack was an attempt to "spoil ties" with Iran. "There are forces which are out to spoil our relations with Iran. But our ties are strong enough to counter these machinations," said the Pakistan's foreign ministry spokesman Abdul Basit while dismissing the allegations.
The point to ponder is that, how come Pakistan would be wishing to create unrest in some neighbour while its own house is burning. Pakistan has been the victim of worst type of terror since many years. The war which initially started in Afghanistan was purposely shifted to Balochistan province of ours as a part of the Great Game. Amid the GWOT the active involvement of many countries intelligence agencies in Balochistan was observed. These agencies, while playing with the internal conflicts of the center and the Baloch people, are subversively involved in provision of funds and arms to different armed groups. This has been proved many a times that the outlawed armed groups of Balochistan, BLA and BRA are funded and trained by Indian RAW. Even the websites of BLA and greater Balochistan are updated from India. The role of Indian consulate offices in Afghanistan is suspected since their origin.
Keeping in view the sensitivity of the problem, it is difficult for India to openly support the Baluch insurgency because it may harm her relations with Iran (never bother about Pakistan). If the Indians will come out openly in support of the BLA, anti-Indian elements in Pakistan will quickly bracket New Delhi with the alleged Great Game of the US against Iran.
Indian relation with Iran have generally been viewed by observers as a tightrope walking to balance out her interests in Iran as well with the US. India, knowingly, that sidestepping the international community’s efforts to thwart Iran’s so-called drive for nuclear weapons would only devalue her credibility in the eyes of global power, New Delhi is fast trying to convey an unambiguous message that a nuclear armed Iran is as unacceptable to India as it is to the US, the U.K. or France. Hence, India (a good time’s friend) seems to be all set to dump Tehran to seek new alliances and please her new friends.
Iran is a regional power and an aspiring nuclear state which poses a threat to Israeli expansionism in Middle East. There is no denying the fact that Iran’s nuclear programme has been a persistent worry for both, US and Israel. And the choice between new allies and old friend is getting tough on India. To understand India’s dilemma, it requires a critical view of her relation with both Israel and Iran. There has been a steady strengthening of the India’s relationship with Israel ever since India established full diplomatic relations with Israel in 1992. Ever since then, the flourishing Indo- Israel relationship has gained much potential to make a significant impact on the global politics, by altering the balance of power not only in South Asia but the Middle East as well. Today, India has become the biggest market for Israeli arms with their strategic, defence and intelligence cooperation growing at a rapid pace. Where as, on the other hand, the vast oil and gas reserves of Iran serve magnetic affiliation to the quenching India’s long term thirst for energy. And yet another attraction in Iran’s case is that she offers India access to Afghanistan and Central Asia, side-lining Pakistan.
Given the scenario, India is more likely to tilt towards Israel in future. As regardless of her important ties with Arab countries and Iran, her lure for intelligence consultations with Israel seems a durable one. Until now, India has veered between cooperation and altercation in case of Iran yet in the time to come we may expect India to go along with Israel and US in destroying Iran, one of the country in Bush’s war against his self-selected axis of evil. A nuclear Iran suspected of supporting Palestinians and organizations sympathetic to them, faces a great threat of attack on its nuclear installations. And India would support such an operation clandestinely, while opposing in front of the world, not to annoy Iran because of economic reasons. Amusingly, India’s interest in the proposed IPI gas line project diminished sharply from the time the US-India nuclear deal began to take shape. Probably, the US wants to undermine India-Iran economic relations to such an extent that New Delhi becomes a stakeholder in its plan against Iran.
The geopolitical implications of the collaborations between India, US and Israel are grave and manifold. Despite the denials, India is playing a secret role in US strategy against Iran for past many years. India regardless of having close ties with Iran stabbed her in the back by joining EU-3 on Iran’s nuclear issue. It is no more a secret that EU-3 is no longer acting independently, but as a surrogate of the US. How piteous that a democracy ended up as a deputy of a surrogate. History has witnessed how India once used the friendly ties with Tehran as a ladder to achieve US and European community’s support to secure permanent seat in Security Council. Thanks to her mean and wanton nature which made her vote twice against the same Iran in the IAEA governing board, thus endorsing the US agenda for confrontation with Iran. Nevertheless, the Indian vote against Iran has extensively lowered her global structure and credibility. Despite her close economic and political relations, if India could stab a friendly country like Iran in the back, then she could not be considered trustworthy by other developing countries.
The thriving indo-Israeli relations are posing a direct threat to Iran. Their trade has grown exceptionally over the years, especially after the launch of Israeli spy satellite from the Indian Space center, the tie got even stronger. The launch of TecSAR has considerably enhanced Israel’s intelligence-gathering capability. The satellite is clearly affecting the ongoing conflict in the Middle East, as its ability to produce image in adverse weather and even at night allowed Israel to obtain more information about the Iranian nuclear programme. Though India officially argues that she has commercially utilized her advanced technological capacity but the act brought to light India’s full cooperation to dissuade, isolate and if necessary sanction and contain Iran. Nevertheless, Iran should realize that a friend of your enemy can never be your friend and India has already established herself as Israel’s friend and Iran’s foe at many instances.
It is time that India’s credibility as a friendly democracy should be weighed by other developing countries of the world. The Indo-Israel nexus, under the US patronage, is posing a threat to the Muslim world. All their ambitions revolve around targeting particularly Muslim states that are energy rich and either nuclear or threshold nuclear states. It is high time that the Islamic countries take a unified and concrete step to cater this ghastly menace, or else it might become too late.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)