The End of Pakistan's Double-Games in Afghanistan: New Age Islam's Selection, 20 June 2016
New Age
Islam Edit Bureau
20 June 2016
• The End of Pakistan's Double-Games in Afghanistan
By Helena Malikyar
• Syria Is Obama’s Shame
By Hisham Melhem
• Sistani And Saudi Arabia: Relations To Face Sectarianism
By Hassan Al Mustafa
• Christmas Will Come Early For Putin If Britain Votes To Leave EU
By Dr. Azeem Ibrahim
Compiled By New Age Islam Edit Bureau
-----
The End of Pakistan's Double-Games in Afghanistan
By Helena Malikyar
19 Jun 2016
Julian Huxley once wrote that "a nation is a society united by a common error as to its origins and a common aversion to its neighbours".
If there is any truth to Huxley's remark, the recent bloody border clashes between the Afghan and Pakistani military forces illustrate the common aversion of the Afghans towards their antagonistic eastern neighbours, Pakistan.
The incident, which left three border guards and two children dead on the Afghan side of the Torkham crossing in eastern Afghanistan, stirred anger throughout the country.
Transcending internal differences, Afghans poured into streets in protest and some began marching towards Torkham to render support to the Afghan National Army.
A video clip has gone viral on the social media, showing a group of men, claiming to belong to the Taliban forces, declaring war on Pakistan and urging others to join in defending Afghanistan's honour and territorial integrity.
Face-Saving Attempt
Many Afghan observers think that the incursion was a face-saving attempt by Islamabad to divert domestic attention from its recent setbacks, particularly the US drone attack that killed Taliban leader, Mulla Mansour, in Pakistani territory.
Other disconcerting events of late include the US shift of policy, indicating the end of favouritism to Pakistan, and the opening of Chabahar port, a collaboration of Iran, India and Afghanistan that could isolate Pakistan in regional trade activities.
The seemingly disarrayed, multiethnic Afghan nation came together and showed a common aversion to their aggressive neighbour.
Yet others think that Pakistan was testing the waters and was trying to take advantage of what it perceived as a vulnerable moment in Afghanistan.
A year that has been marked with the highest military and civilian casualty figures and increased political discord in Kabul would probably be an opportune time to settle the disputed border issue.
In either case, Pakistan's calculus proved wrong. The seemingly disarrayed, multiethnic Afghan nation came together and showed a common aversion to their aggressive neighbour.
Beyond a show of unity in the face of foreign aggression, however, the phenomenon signals a wider shift of dynamics in the two neighbours' historically thorny relationship.
The majority of Afghans believe that since the days of the Afghan resistance against the Soviet invasion in the 1980s, Pakistan has been playing a ruthless game of manipulation with both the Afghans and their largest benefactor, the US.
Indispensable Ally
Since 2001, posing as an indispensable ally in the war against terrorism, Pakistan has been benefitting from a lavish US military and development aid, while continuing to provide a safe haven for the Taliban and the Haqqani network.
The two groups have been responsible for tens of thousands of Afghan casualties and more than 3,500 US military and civilian fatalities.
In the political arena too, Pakistan had skillfully presented itself as the key to peace in Afghanistan and in the war against international terrorism, while threatening the Americans that turning away from Pakistan would result in "nuclear terrorism".
Some argue that Pakistan's interference in Afghan's internal affairs is driven by its insecurity about the Durand Line, the disputed border demarcation upon which the Torkham crossing sits.
As soon as Kabul accepts it as the official dividing line, the argument goes, Pakistan will stop its meddling.
While there are ways to resolve the Durand issue through pragmatic and mutually beneficial formulas, Pakistan has been fixated on imposing recognition of the border by Afghanistan without making any concessions.
Pakistan's ambitions, however, are greater. Their doctrine of gaining "strategic depth" in Afghanistan, which is justified by their fear of an attack from India, is one of the reasons for Islamabad's relentless efforts to install a puppet government in Kabul.
The ISI intelligence agency's grossly misguided Taliban project eventually gave birth to various groups of Pakistani Taliban, the survival of al-Qaeda and the harbouring of various Central Asian and Chinese radical groups.
But Pakistan could not have become a godfather of sorts to most of the world's terrorist organisations had it not been for the puzzling acquiescence, over the past 15 years, of the United States.
Whether it was a case of prolonged underestimation, a strong and generous Pakistani lobby in Washington, or simply a chaotic AfPak strategy - or lack thereof - the US did not challenge Pakistan's behaviour in any serious and consistent manner.
But, finally this spring, American policy-makers felt the fatigue from Islamabad's double games. In March, the US Congress began to voice doubts about the continuation of the flow of US aid to Pakistan.
In May, Congress passed a bill imposing strict conditions on a $450m aid package to Pakistan and opposed the financing of eight F-16 jet fighters that would be granted to Pakistan through the Foreign Military Financing scheme.
Since 2002, the average annual US aid to Pakistan has been roughly $2bn. In 2010 alone, Pakistan received about $4.5bn in military and development aid from the US. Yet, public opinion polls in Pakistan show that the majority of Pakistanis view the US as an enemy.
The Afghan government's policy of genuinely trying to make peace with its neighbour and changing Pakistan's Taliban game was initiated at the beginning of 2015.
China, a long-time ally of Pakistan, and the US, the biggest donor of Pakistan, got on board, and the Quadrilateral Group - along with Afghanistan and Pakistan - launched a fresh round of peace efforts.
This, along with several regional economic cooperation initiatives involving Central, West and South Asian states provided Islamabad with the perfect opportunity to turn around and abandon its Taliban project.
But, Pakistan missed the chance and stubbornly stuck to its old Afghanistan policy, and the Taliban expanded and intensified its onslaught.
The Afghans' reaction to the recent border incident represents the culmination of over three decades of frustration with Pakistani malfeasance. They have fought the British and Soviet empires against all odds. If pressured and humiliated further, the Afghans might take on Pakistan.
Therefore, while the killing of the former Taliban leader, Mulla Mansour, the imposition of conditions on aid to Pakistan and the expansion of military role in Afghanistan are positive signals in the US policy on Afghanistan and Pakistan, staying the course will be the determining factor in changing Pakistan's behaviour.
Source: aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2016/06/pakistan-double-games-afghanistan-160619065803423.html
----
Syria Is Obama’s Shame
By Hisham Melhem
19 June 2016
It was a moral rational Cri de Coeur for taking steps to end the carnage in Syria, but it was also grounded in equally clear and compelling strategic imperatives. For weeks, scores of State Department officers in Washington and in U.S. embassies in the Middle East have been circulating a draft of a sharply critical “dissent cable” of the Obama administration’s fickle policies towards the tragic war in Syria, and forcefully urging the United States to end its dithering and carry out military strikes if necessary to compel the Assad regime to end its systematic mass murder of Syrian civilians.
About two weeks ago the message titled Syria Policy was posted on the “Dissent Channel” signed by fifty one mostly middle ranking and junior officers who worked over the last five years on aspects of Syria policy, and who were exposed to the daily gut-wrenching accounts that came across their desks of the demoralizing and very depressing depredations, mostly from the Assad regime.
The Dissent Channel was set up during the Vietnam War as a vehicle for officers who had strong political and moral disagreements with official policies, to express their dissent to their senior officials without fear of retaliation.
Although the military recommendations in the dissent message are thoughtful and the signatories believe that “perhaps most critically, a more muscular military posture under U.S. leadership would underpin and propel a new and reinvigorated diplomatic initiative.” It is very unlikely that President Obama, who pursued half-heartedly and with stunning detachment several tentative, incomplete and contradictory approaches to Syria will fundamentally alter his current policy, which involves only criticizing the Assad policies but steering away from undermining him or his regime, and focus instead on containing the threat of ISIS.
A History Of Dissent
During the Vietnam War a number of National Security Council staff, including Anthony Lake, who served later as President Bill Clinton’s first National Security Advisor resigned in protest over the war. During the Bosnian war in the 1990’s, a number of midlevel young officers involved in that conflict resigned out of frustration with the incremental, tentative and very cautious approach to the war, particularly the lack of resolve of the Clinton administration to compel the Serbs to end their atrocities against the Muslim Bosnians.
The Clinton administration continued its muddling through until Serb forces in the summer of 1995 massacred methodically and in cold blood more than 7000 Bosnian men of all ages at the village of Srebrenica. The guilt generated by the shame of Srebrenica, the worst mass killing on European soil since WWII, which tarnished America’s credibility as the leader of the NATO alliance finally forced President Clinton, before the onset of his campaign for reelection to decisively use military power to force the Serbs to accept a political outcome.
President Obama remained immune to the shame of the many Srebrenicas that the Assad regime has committed in Syria
The conscientious objectors to America’s policies towards the wars of Vietnam, the Balkans and Syria have always been midlevel and young officers, maybe because group think and bureaucracy have not jaded them enough, and maybe because of their youth they don’t have burdensome family responsibilities, or because they can find other careers. Senior officials rarely resign over moral and political objections to a president’s policies.
The last senior official to resign over a principled disagreement was Cyrus R. Vance, who quit in 1980 to protest President Jimmy Carter’s decision to attempt to rescue American hostages held in Iran. The Syria crisis led two ambassadors, Fred Hof and Robert Ford in 2012 and 1214 to resign out of frustration with President Obama’s handling of the Syrian tragedy. Former senior officials who served in Obama’s first term including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, and Director of the Central Intelligence Agency David Petraeus have disagreed with aspects of President Obama’s Syria policies, but none of them resigned in protest. Secretary of State John Kerry has called on occasions for a more robust approach to Syria, and he is believed to share some of the views expressed in the dissent message, but he is the muddling through type of a senior official who would never contemplate resignation.
A Slow, Rolling Genocide
President Assad has avoided committing large scale massacres like Srebrenica; he prefers the non-stop grinding methodical killings that produce many a Srebrenica over weeks and months, for Syria has been nothing if not a slow, rolling genocide. After stating that Assad’s “systematic violations against the Syrian people are the root cause of the instability that continues to grip Syria and the broader region”, the draft calls for “a judicious use of stand-off and air weapons, which would undergird and drive a more focused and hardnosed U.S.-led diplomatic process”. Without initiating targeted military strikes to stop the regime’s repeated violations of the Cessation of Hostilities there will be no real ceasefire and no serious negotiations. The draft says the current policies are leading nowhere.
“With the repeated diplomatic setbacks of the past five years, together with the Russian and Iranian governments’ cynical and destabilizing deployment of significant military power to bolster the Assad regime, we believe that the foundation are not currently in place for an enduring ceasefire and consequential negotiations”. The draft correctly states that “an undeterred Assad will resist compromises sought by almost all opposition factions and regional actors. Shifting the tide of the conflict against the regime will increase the chances for peace by sending a clear signal to the regime and its backers that there will not be a military solution to the conflict”.
The draft sees that“ a more assertive U.S. role to protect and preserve opposition-held communities, by defending them from Assad’s air force and artillery, presents the best chance for defeating Daesh (ISIS) in Syria.” Why? Because “the prospects for rolling back Daesh’s hold on territory are bleak without the Sunni Arabs, who the regime continues to bomb and starve”. The draft warns that, “a de facto alliance with the regime against Daesh would not guarantee success: Assad’s military in undermanned and exhausted. Kurdish YPG fighters cannot-and should not- be expected to project power and hold terrain deep into non-Kurdish areas. And, crucially, Syria’s Sunni population continues to view the Assad regime as the primary enemy in the conflict”. The draft correctly states that stopping the regime’s atrocities would have a mitigating impact on the refugee and internally displaced Syrians whose plight “has deeply affected Syria’s neighbors for years and is now impacting our European partners in far-reaching ways that may ultimately jeopardize their very character as open, unified and democratic societies”.
The signatories of the draft re-iterate that “we are not advocating for a slippery slope that ends in a military confrontation with Russia; rather, we are calling for a credible threat of targeted U.S. military responses to regime violations to preserve the Cessation of Hostilities (CoH) and the political track, which we worked very hard to build”. After acknowledging that military action is not a panacea, and after recognizing that there is a risk of further deterioration in U.S.-Russian relations, the draft states, “nonetheless, it is also clear that the status quo in Syria will continue to present increasingly dire, if not disastrous, humanitarian, diplomatic and terrorism- related challenges.” The draft concludes that the “United States cannot contain the conflict with the current policy. In this regard, we firmly believe it is time the United States, guided by our strategic interests and moral convictions, lead a global effort to put an end to this conflict once and for all”.
Moral Clarity In Perilous Times
The dissent cable is a moral indictment of a bankrupt and intentionally deceptive policy, levelled by honourable men and women who saw evil at work and sought to stop it. These fifty one dissenting voices spoke for many more officials, who agreed with them but opted not to sign it for one reason or another. This is the largest number of dissident official voices who have affixed their names to such a document. Fred Hof, a great American patriot, a man of impeccable integrity who always spoke truth to power was succinct and blunt when he wrote “fifty-one loyal and effective officials have risked their careers to protest a policy that is profoundly wrong and fully counterproductive. Their superiors should press President Obama one more time to change his policy. If he refuses, their choice is plain: stand up and publicly defend the indefensible, or resign”. In a separate email to me Fred wrote of the dissent cable that it is “an honorable gesture; one that may resuscitate elements of our reputation among Syrians. But I doubt it will have any effect at all on the President and his entourage”.
In fact, the State Department spokesperson John Kirby totally rejected the recommendation of the dissent cable for the use of judicious force against the Assad regime by stating explicitly that “there isn’t any U.S. effort to target Bashar al-Assad. That’s not part of the calculus.” He added “none of the other options are better than the one we have been pursuing”.
There are many villains in the Syrian tragedy; chiefly among them is Assad and his regime, his enthusiastic allies the Iranians and the Russians and their auxiliary the Shiite militias particularly the Lebanese Hezbollah, and the assortment of ruthless Sunni extremists from ISIS to Jabhat al-Nusra. But, President Obama who reneged on his promises to help the Syrian people and did not deliver on his threat to punish Assad’s use of chemical weapons against Syrian civilians, cannot escape the charge of being complicit in the death of as many as 500,000 Syrians.
Former President Bill Clinton was shamed by the massacre at Srebrenica to move militarily against the Serbs, but President Obama remained immune to the shame of the many Srebrenicas that the Assad regime has committed in Syria. One would hope that years from now when President Obama recalls the victims he could not save at Sandy Hook, Aurora, and Orlando, killed at the hands of tormented individual souls, that only the likes of Dostoyevsky may be able to lay bare to us, he will remember also the thousands of Syrians systematically massacred by the Syrian, Iranian and Russian regimes, that he could have saved had he not withdrawn to a closed and cold universe that not even Dostoyevsky could explore.
Source: english.alarabiya.net/en/views/2016/06/19/Syria-is-Obama-s-shame-.html
--
Sistani and Saudi Arabia: Relations to Face Sectarianism
By Hassan Al Mustafa
19 June 2016
In 2005, I visited the Iranian city of Qom - the largest centre for Shiite scholarship in the world - with Dr Abdul Jabbar al-Rifai, editor of the magazine Contemporary Islamic Issues, who has contributed to the provision of modern interpretations of religious texts. He and I went to meet Jawad al-Shahristani, who represents powerful religious figure Ali al-Sistani.
Shahristani received us with great generosity and took us to his private bureau, where we met alone and talked about the region’s issues, particularly Iraq. At the end of the meeting, he asked me to pass a message to a prestigious Saudi media figure, expressing his appreciation of him and his articles on Iraq. He asked me to tell him that on Sistani’s behalf, he would like to invite him to Qom to introduce him to Sistani’s scientific and charitable institutions.
I thanked Shahristani for his courtesy, and a few days later I met the friend to whom I was supposed to pass the message and invitation. He welcomed the invitation, but apologized for not being able to accept it at the time due to other arrangements and preoccupations.
During the reign of late Saudi King Abdullah bin Abdul-Aziz, a special envoy of the monarch went secretly to the Iraqi city of Najaf, not far from the shrine of Imam Ali bin Abi Talib, which is sacred to Shiite Muslims. He went there to see Sistani, in a private meeting arranged with care and without media. The aim was to establish trust and respect between Riyadh and Najaf, contributing to the fight against sectarianism and provocation between Muslims.
The envoy sent King Abdullah’s regards to Sistani, and conveyed his praise for his rejection of extremism and sectarianism. The envoy invited him on an official visit to Saudi Arabia, where he would be hosted by the Royal Court. Sistani thanked the king and reiterated his support for Muslim unity, his rejection of sectarianism, and the importance of civil peace. He appreciated the invitation, but apologized for not being able to make it due to health reasons.
There is a desire to communicate and build a good relationship based on trust and respect because they are aware of the threat to the region from sectarian conflict in Iraq, Syria and other Arab countries
The high-ranked Saudi official who told me the story of King Abdullah and Sistani said the kingdom appreciated Sistani’s positions in combating sectarianism, and his Fatwas against killings and revenge between Sunnis and Shiites.
He added: “We respect the independence of Sistani in being a religious authority who does not abide by any political diktats, and pursues a policy line independent from Iran, maintaining the Arab character of Shiite Arabs… in addition to [refusing] to implicate Shiites in the ongoing Syrian conflict.”
Mutual Benefit
There is a desire to communicate and build a good relationship based on trust and respect. This is what can be deduced from the above stories, which are publicly disclosed for the first time. Both Najaf and Riyadh have outstretched hands, because they are aware of the threat to the region from sectarian conflict in Iraq, Syria and other Arab countries.
This is confirmed by the story told by Iraqi President Fouad Maasum in an interview with Al-Hayat newspaper. He said Sistani stressed the need for closer ties with Saudi Arabia because “this is in the interest of Iraq,” adding that he transmitted this view to King Abdullah, who described Sistani as “a wise and virtuous man.”
Lebanese religious figure Hani Fahs said: “Sistani and the Najaf authority are a guarantee of moderation and the protection of Arab Shiites.” Fahs told me in Beirut that Sistani was a safety valve for coexistence between Sunni and Shiite Arabs. The Najaf authority does not get involved in politics, except regarding major issues affecting civil peace, the state, the interests and safety of the people, injustice and tyranny.
Independence
Even after the participation of Shiite religious parties in the Iraqi government after the fall of Saddam Hussein’s regime in 2003, the Najaf authority preferred to stay independent. The authority, led by Sistani, said it did not want a religious - or specifically Shiite - state.
Lebanese journalist Jihad Zein, who visited Najaf in 2010, quoted the authority’s sources as emphasizing that they believe in the plurality of a civil state, as they did during the development of the new constitution years ago.
Despite the modesty of his small house and the difficult security conditions, Sistani preserves the tradition of hosting people from different countries who come to visit the shrine of Imam Ali Ibn Abi Talib. After being subjected to security inspection, the visitors sit in a small lounge and wait for Sistani, who comes out and delivers a quick lecture that goes along with the nature of the audience members and their nationalities.
Sheikh Habib al-Jamii, a Saudi Shiite cleric and editor of Sahel magazine, visited Sistani’s home in Najaf several times. He says Sistani has always been keen to draw the attention of young people and visitors to the importance of respecting rules, adding that Shiite Muslims must “maintain their gains in their countries, and work to achieve their goals through peaceful and legal means.”
He also said Sistani often recommends Shiites to “take part in their homelands, not be subject to regional… agendas, and to live with their fellow Sunnis because they are brothers.” Regarding demands and rights, Jamii said Sistani “does not support clashes with government, but rather he calls for the respect of laws and constitutions, promoting the civil state.”
As for the Syrian civil war and the participation of armed Shiite factions there, such as Lebanon’s Hezbollah and Iraq’s Abu al-Fadl Abbas battalions, Sistani’s stance differs from that of Shiite polity led by Iran. He does not support involvement in the war, and only considers those killed defending the shrine of Sayeda Zeinab and its narrow surroundings as martyrs. This position demonstrates Sistani’s independence from Iranian policy.
He urged Iraqis to “help your displaced brothers from the cities of Mosul, Ramadi, Salah al-Din and other cities, and provide them with shelter, money and food without asking them if they are Shiite or Sunni.” He said when the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) “attacked the cities of Iraq, killed and destroyed cities, I issued Fatwas about the necessity of self-defence and protecting sanctuaries against foreigners, not against our Iraqi Sunni brothers.
“When you fight now in Ramadi and other Iraqi cities, you shall be defending your brothers to save them from ISIS. You shall not be conquerors. You shall sacrifice your souls for your brothers against intruders.” These attitudes come in the context of maintaining civil peace and ending sectarian assaults on unarmed civilians.
This leads to say that a balanced relationship with great Islamic authorities, with a profound long-term vision would contribute to the consolidation of coexistence between various components under the wing of the civil state, guaranteeing freedom of belief for everyone without constraints or discrimination.
Source: english.alarabiya.net/en/views/2016/06/19/Sistani-and-Saudi-Arabia-Relations-to-face-sectarianism.html
----
Christmas Will Come Early For Putin If Britain Votes To Leave EU
By Dr. Azeem Ibrahim
19 June 2016
By now it cannot be denied that Vladimir Putin is a gambler. It also cannot be denied that he has been remarkably successful in the gambles he has taken. His adventure in Syria has paid off much better than anyone could have expected – he has secured just the outcome he wanted, and has gained a huge amount international clout while doing so. And he continues to ride high despite his intervention in Ukraine, where, let us not forget, he has achieved what was supposed to be impossible in Europe in the 21st Century: he has annexed an entire province from another European country.
But Putin seems to be lucky even beyond the gambles he has actively chosen to take. And nowhere is this more the case than in Europe. The EU and its previous incarnations have been a bulwark against Russian power. Under the umbrella of NATO and the protection of the United States, Europe has been unassailable militarily from the Russian threat. But specifically under the European common market project, it has also been economically protected from Russian domination. And as the European project has moved Eastwards after the collapse of the Iron Curtain, more and more countries have enjoyed both those protections.
The centrifugal forces which a Brexit would unleash could easily see a number of other member states follow that precedent
But safety, it seems, breeds complacency. Even as Russia is becoming ever more assertive militarily, more and more Europeans, especially in Western countries, seem to have no notion of threat from this resurgence. So much so, that they seem quite happy to let the very international institutions that have guaranteed the longest period of peace in this continent’s history wither away. Most European nations have been spending less than they are required to under NATO arrangements for many, many years. And the European Union is looking increasingly fragile these days.
Many fear that Brexit may well be the straw that breaks the camel’s back. To be fair, it would be a very big straw. Not only is Britain one of the most important countries in the EU, alongside Germany and France, but Brexit will set a very dangerous precedent. And the centrifugal forces which a Brexit would unleash could easily see a number of other member states follow that precedent, now that Euroscepticism is riding high in many member countries.
Putin’s Investment
Putin, for his part, probably cannot believe that his investment in Eurosceptic far-right and left political movements in the last few years could pay off quite so spectacularly. I don’t imagine that when he set out to do this he envisioned that the slow disintegration of the European Union would have been on the cards. More likely, his aim was no more than to stir up trouble to keep Western leaders distracted from his designs on the Middle East, and on the countries he regards as in the Russian sphere of influence: the former Soviet countries.
And yet, here we are: staring down the barrel of the gun. A referendum on leaving the European Union in Britain, France with the real prospect of a Front National president next year, Austria barely having avoided a neo-Nazi president, and every kind of extremism running rampant throughout the continent.
When the Leave campaign in Britain stops pushing anti-immigrant propaganda eerily reminiscent of the Third Reich, they will tell you that this is about “Sovereignty” and “Freedom” from Brussel’s yoke. What they neglect to mention is that sovereignty does not necessarily look like it does for the United States and China. It can also look like it does to Ukraine.
Britain has not had the experience of being a middle-sized country pushed around by forces beyond its control for the better part of 300 years. Brexiters seem to think that outside of the European Union they will have the freedom to do trade and regulation just the way they want to – just like Britain used to have when it was the largest Empire in the world. But those days are gone.
Freedom to do what you want whatever you want to do is not the same as the capacity to do whatever you wants to do – as any broke teenager who moves out of their parents’ house soon discovers. If Britain does not have the maturity to understand this in advance of a potential Brexit, it will suffer the due consequences. But much worse, so will the rest of Europe. Ukrainians will be looking on with dismay. And the Baltics with despair.
Source: english.alarabiya.net/en/views/2016/06/19/Christmas-will-come-early-for-Putin-if-Britain-votes-to-leave-EU.html
URL: https://newageislam.com/middle-east-press/the-end-pakistan-double-games/d/107696