An American Advocate for Muslims By Akbar Ahmed: New Age Islam's Selection, 03 June 2017
New
Age Islam Edit Bureau
03 June 2017
• An American Advocate for Muslims
By Akbar Ahmed
• Opportunity Out Of Tragedy
By Ashraf Jehangir Qazi
• Back To Barracks?
By Irfan Husain
• A Dearth of Female Journalists in Balochistan
By Shezad Baloch
• Who Is Winning In Afghanistan?
By M Ziauddin
• The Gloves Come Off
By Babar Sattar
• Target Iran
By Khalid Bhatti
• Collective Ignorance of US Elite
By Mahrukh A Mughal
Compiled By New Age Islam Edit Bureau
-----
An American Advocate for Muslims
By Akbar Ahmed
03-Jun-17
I first visited Luther College, situated in a small bucolic Iowa town in America’s heartland, in 2004.I had been invited to deliver a public lecture on Islam as the College’s first-ever high-profile Muslim speaker. My host was Professor Robert Shedinger, author of Jesus was a Muslim. The Iraq war had started and the fallout from 9/11 was still unfolding. Islamophobia was on the rise. But the College’s all-embracing Lutheran spirit filled the air and its senior scholars and leaders received me with the finest of Midwestern hospitality.
Thirteen years later, I had the privilege of returning the favor by welcoming Dr. Todd Green, one of Luther College’s most prominent scholars on Islam, to my office in Washington, D.C. Currently completing an assignment at the Department of State, where he is studying Islamophobia in Europe on behalf of the U.S. government, he presented me his most recent book, The Fear of Islam: An Introduction to Islamophobia in the West (Fortress Press 2015).
Dr Green’s study is a veritable guidebook to Islamophobia, taking a sophisticated, yet accessible approach to analyzing and explaining this toxic phenomenon. We learn how Islamophobia is propagated in the West today and how it negatively impacts everyday Muslims. We also learn about how Islamophobia has become a veritable industry with networks which are now global and backed by big money.
Green’s The Fear of Islam opens with an analysis of the Runnymede Trust report, Islamophobia: A Challenge For Us All (1997), for which I served as a Commissioner, and which established the term Islamophobia in the public discourse. Green then dives into the historical roots of Islamophobia and discusses how a series of recent events in the US and Europe have reawakened the beast of Islamophobia in Western society.
In the US, Islamophobia today can be tied directly to 9/11 and the shock of America being attacked on its own soil, as well as the subsequent War on Terror, writes Green. He argues that, in addition to the challenges posed by the 9/11 attacks themselves, the Bush administration propagated Islamophobic narratives to help build support for the War on Terror, which of course went on to wreak havoc on our part of the world.
Green postulates that Bush’s logical framework for intervening in the Muslim world to confront terrorism, which is also reflected in the 9/11 Commission Report (2004), argues thus: "Islam alone is what gives rise to the disease, so Islam alone must be the source of its cure. Since the United States lacks the means to ‘cure’ Islamist terrorism, all that it can do is fight it with unprecedented force."
Contemporary Islamophobia in Europe, Green argues, finds its triggers not in the 9/11 attacks, but rather in a series of separate events. The Rushdie Affair, the Theo Van Gogh murder, the bombings in London and Madrid, and the Danish cartoon controversy, combined with both rising secularism and a growing Muslim population throughout Europe since World War II, have fed into heightened Islamophobic rhetoric. Today, Islamophobia runs rampant on the continent.
Green also discusses the distorting effects of the media in shaping Western conceptions of Islam. For instance, when the Western media does a story about Pakistan, the focus is often on violent extremists. But, as Green writes, ". . . By choosing not to air stories about Pakistani Muslims who fight for women’s rights or who provide health care to the poor, the network creates the impression that extremist or violent Muslims are the norm in Pakistan."
Islamophobia can only be countered in the long-run if people keep speaking out against it and countering misinformation about Muslims
Green sees the road ahead for countering Islamophobia as challenging. The negative impacts of Islamophobia have already set in for Muslims in the West, as their civil liberties have been curtailed and hate crimes against them have spiked. The War on Terror, meanwhile, has shredded societies in our own backyard. Not all hope is lost in Green’s eyes though for the Muslim community. He concludes the book with a series of interviews discussing how to confront Islamophobia. He also discusses the incredible outpouring of support emerging for the Muslim community in the West. However, he and his interviewees explain, Islamophobia can only be countered in the long run so long as people are speaking out against Islamophobia, countering misinformation about Muslims, and working to build bridges between Muslims and non-Muslims.
Green has had to face Islamophobia and the wrath of so-called "professional Islamophobes" head-on himself, even as a non-Muslim. He admitted that in this political climate, it is exhausting being a scholar on Islamophobia. The Islamophobes have even attacked his wife, crossing all sorts of personal and professional boundaries.
Green complains that there is a dropping off of liberal arts students and cutting of fund for their programs. However, he remains on the front lines fighting Islamophobia, even taking a group of students from Luther College to Europe every year to study Islam there.
I tried to cheer him up by saying next time he feels depressed about the attacks on him, he should think of Muslim scholars like me who face far more pressures than he can imagine.
May Dr.Green, driven by the Lutheran spirit that so warmly welcomed me to his Iowa campus thirteen years back, continue to resist the attacks of the Islamophobes and continue taking the lead in fighting Islamophobia and intolerance during these difficult times.
Source: dailytimes.com.pk/opinion/03-Jun-17/an-american-advocate-for-muslims
----
Opportunity Out Of Tragedy
By Ashraf Jehangir Qazi
03-Jun-17
THE Kabul water-tank blast killed 90 people and injured 400 or more. The final death toll may be much higher. This is reportedly the biggest suicide attack since the US invasion in October 2001. The obscenity has happened in the month of Ramazan. No organisation has yet claimed responsibility.
The Afghan Taliban have denied their involvement. Pakistan has condemned the attack and its leadership has condoled with the families and government of Afghanistan. The Afghan NDS (Afghanistan’s ISI) has blamed the Haqqani network and further alleged that its sponsors in Pakistan were responsible. Without evidence this charge is irresponsible. The US, however, has consistently insisted the ISI provides facilities and services to the Haqqani network. Pakistan rejects these allegations
Afghan intelligence is known for its hostility to Pakistan and many in Pakistan believe it is influenced by India. President Ashraf Ghani and Chief Executive Abdullah Abdullah, who are bitter partners/rivals, share the general Afghan belief that Pakistan is responsible for the resilience and successes of the Taliban against the Afghan armed forces. Pakistan insists the Taliban of Afghanistan must participate in any Afghan settlement process for it to be durable. Even though the Taliban are no puppets of Pakistan they are not very well disposed towards India. This is allegedly one reason Pakistan will not take any serious action against them and their associates.
Our diplomats will continue to gallantly shoulder the inevitable blame.
The security apparatus in Afghanistan supports the Pakistani Taliban in retaliation for Pakistan’s support for the Afghan Taliban. Despite differences of focus, both Taliban support each other. Tactically, the Afghan Taliban do not target Pakistan and the Pakistani Taliban do not target Afghanistan. Strategically and ideologically they are one, except for splinter groups who have joined up with the militant Islamic State group. They are both supported by elements in the security establishments of both countries who enjoy immunity and impunity. This is an indefensible situation which can never benefit Pakistan.
Adding to this explosive mix is the decision of Trump to send 5,000 US soldiers for training, assistance and advisory services as well as black operations in Afghanistan (and possibly Pakistan.) This will inevitably be another doomed US mission. The next few days will indicate whether or not the US associates itself with the latest Afghan accusations against Pakistan. If so, this will have consequences for US-Pakistan cooperation.
While China supports Pakistan vis-?-vis India it will not choose between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Whatever the status of formal denials, a policy of denial cannot of itself reduce the risk of regional isolation for Pakistan. In addition, Pakistan’s policy of involvement with the Arab Nato/military alliance against Iran is adding to its regional isolation. Who makes such consistently incompetent policy? Certainly, not the Foreign Office! Nevertheless, our diplomats will continue to gallantly shoulder the inevitable blame! Maybe that is why we don’t need a foreign minister. He would only get in the way of a failing foreign policy.
Pakistan’s relations with India, the US, Iran and Afghanistan are at rock bottom. Do we expect China to burden itself with the task of compensating for Pakistan’s foreign policy deficit? But this is really a national policy deficit. There is nothing China can or should do about that. Meanwhile, a domestically and internationally besieged Trump may be looking for ‘a splendid little war’ — with North Korea, Iran, inside Afghanistan or even another Abbottabad! — to force the support of an increasingly bewildered and embarrassed American public for a ‘war president’. This would also scotch the threat of impeachment. In such a scenario, the US may make exacting strategic demands of Pakistan that could impair its relations with China.
What if the US demanded military access to Gwadar holding out the bait of significantly increased military and financial assistance, much greater access to US markets, more robust pressure on India for productive dialogue on a Kashmir settlement, less pressure on Pakistan on account of nuclear proliferation and alleged terrorist sanctuaries and safe havens, encouraging massive Saudi/Gulf assistance and investment in Pakistan matching that from China, etc? Could Pakistan be persuaded to de-prioritise CPEC, Asian connectivity and strategic cooperation with China? Maybe not.
China offers golden longer-term benefits and opportunities to Pakistan. The US may offer more attractive short-term but undependable longer-term assistance. This may perversely suit corrupt Pakistani elites — many of whose future plans do not include Pakistan. But it can never suit the people of Pakistan who will, in good times and bad, remain forever faithful to their only country.
Moreover, in every conceivable scenario Pakistan will always be a distant second best strategic choice for the US compared to India. This is not the case with China. But can China rely on Pakistan’s longer-term national interests to determine its national and foreign policy choices? Elite interests are always presented in the garb of national interests. Moreover, frank public discussion of current policies is discouraged and strong policy criticism is often criminalised by a criminal elite. Accordingly, the real national interest has seldom prevailed.
In 1971, West Pakistan buried the Quaid’s Pakistan. Rump Pakistan has refused to draw any policy lessons from that tragedy — or from other national humiliations since. The so-called intellectual classes and media savants seem to accept this situation as the standard political norm in Pakistan. Intellectual indifference towards leadership betrayal and corruption defines our politics. Julian Benda’s La Trahison des Clercs (the treason of the intellectuals) normalises every betrayal.
Finally, whoever rained down the recent hell on the people of Kabul — and we may never learn their identities — are undoubtedly enemies of the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan, of all Muslims, of Islam, of the Prophet (PBUH), and of God. Whatever the context, precedents, background, cause and explanations, this was the work of the devil himself, just as similar acts are anywhere in the world. The only silver lining of this dark and bloody cloud is an opportunity for genuine and comprehensive cooperation between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Given minimally competent and committed leadership this is not a difficult task. Is even this too much to expect?
Source: dawn.com/news/1337088/opportunity-out-of-tragedy
----
Back To Barracks?
By Irfan Husain
June 3rd, 2017
IN the immediate aftermath of the Manchester suicide bombing, troops were seen on the streets of a major British city after many years.
But the government was quick to assure citizens that the soldiers were under the orders of police officers, and would not operate independently. In Pakistan, it is difficult to imagine circumstances under which even a young army captain would take orders from a senior police officer.
In the US, when a popular general, Stanley McChrystal, denigrated president Obama in an interview, he had to resign. In Pakistan, a major general can send out a controversial tweet, and not face action.
Ruling generals have left behind a bigger mess.
I could cite endless examples of generals being kept on a short leash by governments in other countries to highlight the imbalance in the relationship here in Pakistan. Civil-military ties here have been fraught for many years. In most countries, few know the names of their army chiefs; here, periodic meetings of corps commanders are covered on the front pages of national newspapers.
The problem began early on when politicians squabbled for nearly a decade after Partition before they could agree on a constitution in 1956. The reason for the delay was that if the document had incorporated the universal democratic principle of one-man, one-vote, power would have passed to the more populous East Pakistan, something West Pakistani politicians and bureaucrats were not willing to accept.
This, combined with other political turbulence, caused a power vacuum to develop, one soon filled by Gen Ayub Khan in 1958 following a coup that marginalised the entire political class. Following a popular movement, he was replaced in 1969 by Gen Yahya Khan who led Pakistan into a disastrous civil war. He was followed by Gen Zia in 1977 who lasted 11 ruinous years. Then came Gen Musharraf who was in the saddle from 1999 to 2008.
One point to recall is that three of the four wars Pakistan has fought were caused by these generals: the wars of 1965, 1971 and the Kargil fiasco would not have been launched had the military not been in charge.
Most Pakistani students could recite these facts off the top of their heads, so why am I walking down this well-trodden path? Simply to underline the reality of the military’s dominance over the country’s politics for much of its existence.
As we have noted, the ascendancy of the military has taken place due to the perceived incompetence and corruption of the political class. Never mind that once in power, the officer class takes full advantage of its control of the levers of power to feed at the public trough, just as they accuse politicians and bureaucrats of doing.
Direct control and self-censorship in the media prevents the public from being informed of the security establishment’s wrongdoing, so in millions of eyes, the army is seen as a disciplined, honest force compared to our squabbling and venal politicians. Hence the periodic appeals to our generals, often amplified and orchestrated by sections of the media, to intervene.
This is clearly a victory of hope over experience: each time the generals have taken over, they have left a bigger mess behind. And yet, as we have been hearing over the last few years, the cry for the ‘third umpire’ to step in retains its potency.
But beyond catering to the hard-wired beliefs of democrats, does this imbalance of power really matter? Yes, it does. A democratic dispensation permits us to boot a poorly performing elected government out. This option is simply not available under a dictatorship.
Even a flawed democratic system gives people a voice that is not available to them under martial law. Freedom of speech and assembly are basic rights that, again, are denied us under a dictatorship.
But in desperately poor countries like Pakistan, most people are more interested in employment, access to clean water and uninterrupted electricity. These needs trump political freedom and human rights.
Given our long experience of military rule, the army has learned lessons, just as politicians have. Basically, generals have come to realise that they have no magic wand to solve the country’s many problems. After seeing their predecessors forced out in humiliation, and the reputation of their beloved institution sullied, they have decided not to intervene directly again. After all, if they retain their clout, why stage coups?
The lesson politicians have learned is that like it or not, the military is a power they have to cope with. And if they want to reclaim the space the generals have seized over the years, they will have to up their game, and stop squabbling with each other. Good governance will reinforce their legitimacy and right to govern.
And over a period of time, it might even send the army back to the barracks.
Source: dawn.com/news/1337085/back-to-barracks
-----
A Dearth of Female Journalists in Balochistan
By Shezad Baloch
June 3, 2017
The lack of women journalists in the newsrooms of conservative Pakistan is depriving more than half the country of representation and a voice in the media. In larger metropolitan areas, you will come across a few women journalists, but in many areas of the country you won’t find a single one. In developed countries such as the UK and the US, issues of gender disparity in the newsroom were being acknowledged and addressed as far back as the late 19th century, when large numbers of women began working in newsrooms to support themselves and their families. In the 20th century, women also began to make inroads into the heretofore male-dominated realm of newspaper publishing.
The Vietnam War was the first war that woman covered in significant numbers. Some women found that their very visibility meant they were noticed at press conferences and their questions were often answered first. However, even when they were paid to write from and about a woman’s perspective, women faced prejudice and suspicion from the American military, the Vietnamese forces and even their male colleagues. Some women were reluctant to cover human-interest war stories, both because of the stereotype that women were more attuned to the “human side” of war, and because these stories were more likely to be cut. The number of women who refused to write as women or complained about being assigned according to gender stereotypes suggests that the problem was not so much gender differences as out-and-out sexism.
Some women journalists agree with the idea that female journalists offer a different, more “human” perspective on the news, but many reject that notion, insisting that news is news, regardless of who covers it. While women have increasing influence in newsrooms all over the developed world and are even starting to gain a foothold in many developing countries, Pakistan still has a very long way to go before it can claim to have anything approaching gender equality in the newsroom. Certainly, there are women journalists being hired as news presenters and hosting political talk shows, but female reporters still encounter outdated stereotypes on a daily basis. Being judged as a “cute face for TV” or “too ugly for TV” is still very much a part of a female journalist’s reality and personal appearance continues to play a major role in determining whether a woman gets hired or not.
As bad as career prospects are for women journalists in Pakistan as a whole, the situation is much worse in Balochistan. Sharing a long, porous border with Iran and war-torn Afghanistan, the province comprises almost 44 per cent of the total landmass of the country. Beset for decades by militancy and sectarian violence, it faces a daunting array of problems, from extreme poverty to substandard healthcare and a poor educational infrastructure.
To global players, Balochistan’s strategic location, the multibillion-dollar CPEC projects, and the area’s potential as an international gateway for trade and commerce warrant making the province the focus of significantly more attention than it has enjoyed in the past.
Yet while there is clearly a lot going on in the province, there is precious little in-depth coverage of it in the media. And while Quetta-based reporters do cover some stories, those reporters are overwhelmingly male. Incredibly, there are almost no trained women reporters in a province where many of the worst problems — war, militancy, natural disasters and poor health and education infrastructure — disproportionately affect women and children.
The dearth of women journalists in Balochistan is symptomatic of a larger problem — the society’s disregard for women’s voices and women’s problems in general. Since 2006, a warlike atmosphere has prevailed in the province, yet detailed stories about the suffering endured by families, and about women and children in particular, are extremely rare. The problem is not simply indifference to the plight of women and children, though that clearly plays a role. In this highly conservative society, it is hard for a woman to talk to a male reporter and next to impossible for a male reporter to approach a woman unless she is accompanied by a male chaperone. So even when there is a desire to cover such stories, societal norms get in the way.
In the entire province there are mere seven women journalists, constituting less than one per cent of the total number of journalists in Balochistan. Of those seven, one has left the country while the remaining six are based in Quetta and assigned to covering routine news stories within the radius of downtown and the outskirts of the city. Outside of Quetta, in the 31 outlying districts of the province, there is not a single practising woman journalist. Given the workload and time constraints under which these six women work, it is understandable that they rarely, if ever, get to cover women issues. Even with the best will in the world it would be difficult for them to dedicate the necessary time and attention to more in-depth, women-focused stories. Adding insult to injury, these six women have to endure not just a heavy workload and tight deadlines but also the lowest pay among their colleagues.
There are additional constraints on women journalists in Balochistan. Given the lack of security and the volatile political climate, covering night shifts can be a problem for them. In a society where it is unusual for an unaccompanied woman to move freely, especially at night, the security threat provides media outlets with ample reason not to hire women. I personally believe this is a grave injustice. Journalism needs women. It needs women covering the news, and women — their lives, their families, their problems and their concerns — covered by the news. Women’s concerns are, after all, human concerns. They deserve equal treatment from the journalistic profession. Anything less is an insult to freedom of expression and a violation of human rights.
Rather than looking for excuses not to hire women, the profession should be seeking out solutions that would provide them with a safer work environment. Instead, the open bias in favour of male reporters means that women get no encouragement either from their families or the media outlets to join the profession.
It is not just societal pressure that makes the environment difficult for woman reporters. Low pay, long work hours and a six-day workweek also have a negative effect on the number of women joining the profession. Factor in the generally unsupportive environment for all journalists, male and female, in Balochistan and the picture becomes even clearer. The province boasts over 150 newspapers, but a mere 15 have proper offices. The rest can only publish when they receive advertising copy from the government of Balochistan, a major source of income for newspapers. This means that most of the newspaper editorial policies are subject to government influence. And this in turn, results in a lack of open discussion and the suppression of news stories on sensitive issues, such as the deteriorating law and order situation.
With problems like this to contend with, is it any wonder that issues such as the dearth of women journalists in Balochistan and poor coverage of stories relating to women and children in the province never rise to the top of the agenda?
Source: tribune.com.pk/story/1425881/dearth-female-journalists-balochistan/
----
Who Is Winning In Afghanistan?
By M Ziauddin
June 3, 2017
Intriguingly, no group has claimed responsibility for Wednesday’s terror attack in Kabul’s city centre which has taken the lives of over 90 people and left nearly 350 injured. The Taliban have denied involvement and so far ISIS has maintained a mysterious silence. But Afghanistan’s intelligence agency blamed the Taliban-allied Haqqani Network for the attack. And by association the Kabul government passed the blame directly on to Pakistan. And Pakistan, on its part, has vehemently denied the charge. Clearly, no one seems to have any clue about the identity of the perpetrators.
Lately, our war-torn neighbour has continued to suffer from suicide attacks with increasing frequency. The coalition government in Kabul seems to have no idea how to control the menace while the 350,000-strong government troops trained and equipped by the US have so far proved to be no match to the rag-tag terror groups that roam the country- side unchecked, challenging the writ of Kabul regime all over.
So are the Taliban winning the war in Afghanistan? The Kabul government seems to have virtually surrendered. But that leads one to the most basic question: is the world’s sole superpower losing war in Afghanistan? Unthinkable? But the way Washington has been handling this over 15-year long war that has cost it so far billions and billions of dollars makes it almost impossible to believe that it is winning the war. Perhaps the US has virtually lost the war and is currently only trying to save face by discussing the pros and cons of sending more troops.
Two experts on Afghanistan, Andrew Shaver and Joshua Madrigal, in an article published in the Sept 22, 2016 edition of Foreign Affairs state that by a variety of indicators, ‘ISAF and the Afghan government it supports are losing the war’.
Quoting data recently released by the Pentagon to one of the authors, the article maintains that the violence in Afghanistan following Obama’s 2009 troop surge had remained at levels vastly exceeding those observed during the initial years of the war.
“Meanwhile, measures of insurgent activity, from kidnappings to weapons sales, have remained at levels at or above those observed when the United States “surged” troops into the country. Perhaps most alarmingly, since 2010, when ISAF began tracking combat outcomes on a consistent basis, the number of insurgent attacks resulting in the deaths of Afghan police officers and soldiers has continued to steadily climb.
“These trends call into question the logic of further extending the presence of US troops in Afghanistan. For years, available evidence has suggested that decisive victory over the Taliban is not possible. Outside of permanently stationing forces in Afghanistan, it is unclear that the United States can prevent the Taliban’s eventual forceful reclamation of large swathes of Afghan territory. Although the costs associated with a complete US withdrawal from Afghanistan are potentially quite high, they may be unavoidable. Furthermore, there are additional costs associated with remaining engaged. Even as the prospects of a victory in Afghanistan have waned, the United States and its partners have continued to fight, and it appears that ISAF is now fighting to avoid ultimate failure. Yet this too is surely a losing proposition. It is time to engage seriously with the question of whether the benefits of delaying a withdrawal outweigh the costs of doing so.”
Indeed, what can another 3,000-5,000 US troops do in such a situation? Sameer Lalwani, another Afghan expert, discussing this question in a column published in the May 25, 2017 edition of the same magazine, proposes state building, reconciliation, containment, and basing. In the opinion of Lalwani each strategy contains distinct goals, its own theory of victory, and unique costs and risks.
“State building, reconciliation, and basing all put the United States on course to potentially commit hundreds of billions to the Afghanistan project over the next decade…Thus, even if Trump approves of the increased American military presence in Afghanistan, there remains plenty of debate to be had over the strategy for which these troops are used.”
Source: tribune.com.pk/story/1425873/who-is-winning-in-afghanistan/
-----
The Gloves Come Off
By Babar Sattar
June 3, 2017
The PML-N has bared its fangs. Nehal Hashmi stated without mincing words what many Noonies have said tongue-in-cheek. He warned those in service of the state (ie those due to retire at some point) – who are seeking to hold Nawaz Sharif to account and making his life difficult – of dire consequences and of making Pakistan unliveable for them.
The PML-N’s fulmination is triggered by the JIT not being overawed while grilling the PM’s relatives. Public officeholders are, after all, expected to behave as the Emperor’s servants and not exhibit the audacity to interrogate him or his kin.
We have repeatedly heard the bogus argument that legal accountability must make way for political accountability in dealing with elected representatives. We heard the PPP make this argument when Yousaf Raza Gilani was put in the dock for letting his personal loyalty to Asif Zardari trump his duty to comply with court orders. We are now being told by Noonies that the skies might cave in if the JIT asks the PM’s kin tough questions about how they made their billions, and if based on such report the Supreme Court sets the ball for the PM’s disqualification rolling.
“The more things change, the more they stay the same”, Jean Baptiste Karr had written. Have the Sharifs come full circle after a coup, almost a decade of exile (and self-reflection?) and a decade of being back in Pakistan and being re-intoxicated by power, pelf and sycophancy? Remember the late 1990s, the PML-N’s boasts of its ‘heavy mandate’ and how insufferable it had become?
Before finding trouble with Musharraf, NS had locked horns with CJP Justice Sajjad Ali Shah. There are many versions of that story. One starts with differences over the elevation of two high court judges to the SC. They had heard cases against the Sharifs during the PPP’s second term and had perhaps not been very accommodating. NS didn’t want them in the SC and Justice Shah did. Ultimately, Justice Shah prevailed. But the fight continued. At its centre was Sharif’s power, and his ability to entrench it.
NS promulgated the 14th Amendment that deleted the infamous Article 58(2)(b) (used to fire governments back then). Justice Shah suspended the amendment. NS spoke against CJP Shah, which led to Shah issuing a contempt notice to the PM. The contempt hearings were tense and the bench headed by CJP Shah was visibly hostile. NS appeared in court, but that didn’t make the contempt proceedings go away. On a subsequent hearing of the matter, the PML-N physically attacked the SC to intimidate the judges.
As Justice Shah was taking on the PM, he had managed to offend a majority of his fellow judges. Ultimately, there was a coup within the SC with a majority deciding to suspend their own chief. (The PPP made Justice Shah the CJP bypassing senior judges and so there was a legal argument against his appointment). When a majority of the judges turned on Shah, he was removed as CJP and cut down to size. President Leghari also had to go. The PM won. And the PML-N got away scot-free for its premeditated attack on the SC.
Senator Nehal Hashmi was too explicit in issuing threats and has been punished for being stupid with his choice of words. But a range of PML-N leaders (including Saad Rafiq and Rana Sanaullah) echo the same message implicitly: that the SC and the JIT are being unfair to NS, the entire Panama enterprise is a conspiracy to snatch power from the Sharifs, and that the PML-N won’t take penal consequences flowing toward their leader lying down. What is this public messaging for if not to influence the outcome of a legal matter whose determination is pending before the SC?
A legitimate criticism of rule of law is that law is an instrument of power used by elites to sustain and entrench themselves in power. Even when the constitution promises equality before law, the promise doesn’t translate into equal treatment of individuals by components of the criminal justice system – ie police, courts etc. The NRO case during the PPP’s term and now the Panama proceedings are a breath of fresh air because they are exceptions to the rule that ruling elites are not to be held to account.
Our governance system is broken because our public officeholders don’t think of themselves as trustees exercising state authority on behalf of and for the benefit of ordinary people. They think of the country as their personal estate whose largess they can dispense at whim. Our institutions remain weak, as power elites controlling them don’t wish for them to become larger than individuals or able enough to curtail the ability of elites to distribute patronage arbitrarily.
In this backdrop, the Panama case was about two things: whether NS owns hidden assets that he cannot account for and is thus liable to be disqualified; and what the SC can do while exercising its Article 184(3) jurisdiction. Many opposed to the PM’s immediate disqualification in the matter weren’t necessarily mesmerised by the Sharif money trail fable. They were arguing that throwing out a PM without due process would not be in accordance with law. This is what a majority on the Panama bench also held.
The counter-apprehension (also noted in the Panama judicial opinions) was that our ‘system’ isn’t geared toward holding a sitting PM to account. If the matter were to be decided by the ordinary criminal justice system, it would bend over backward to acquit the PM. It was thus that the judges, who didn’t disqualify the PM immediately, took the Hawala route and ordered an investigation under the SC’s supervision. This was essential to ensure that the PM’s accountability neither comes to be seen as a witch-hunt nor an exercise in bailing out the PM.
The alleged VOIP calls by the Registrar SC to heads of the SECP and State Bank have now raised a question mark over the JIT’s composition. The court order in the Panama case said that the JIT shall include “a nominee” each from the State Bank and SECP, to be nominated by their respective heads, and such names to be placed before the bench in chambers for “nomination and approval”. If the Registrar SC asked the SECP and State Bank, as alleged, to nominate pre-identified individuals, such request wasn’t in accordance with the SC order.
Was the Registrar SC instructed by the Panama bench to ensure nomination of the identified persons by the SECP and State Bank? Would the SC issue instructions contrary to its order? If the SC had specific individuals in mind, it could simply appoint them as JIT members instead of ordering the SECP and State Bank to make nominations. And if the Panama bench didn’t issue such instructions and the Panama implementation bench wasn’t constituted till early May, on whose behalf was the Registrar SC making calls on April 27 as recorded in the SECP’s letter of April 28?
Was the SECP’s letter documenting the registrar’s request placed before the Implementation Bench when it convened on May 4 and rejected individuals nominated by the SECP and State Bank? Was it aware of the registrar’s request when it later handpicked the same individuals for JIT membership whose nominations were requested by the SC registrar? While the PML-N has a vested interest in impugning the JIT’s integrity, the SC and the people of Pakistan have a vested interest in ensuring that the process through which our highest court holds a sitting PM to account remains beyond reproach.
The chief justice did the right thing in taking cognizance of Hashmi’s harangue. It is to prevent obstruction of justice and seek implementation of court orders that the contempt power exists. But it is motivated by the need to affirm public faith in the integrity and neutrality of the judicial process. This phone call matter has handed a smoking gun to the PML-N, which it will use without refrain to impeach the JIT’s integrity and its findings should they go against NS. The SC must address the issue. As they say, justice is not only to be done but must also be seen to be done.
Source: thenews.com.pk/print/208258-The-gloves-come-off
----
Target Iran
By Khalid Bhatti
June 3, 2017
The message that came out from the US-Arab-Islamic summit was to isolate, tame and weaken Iran to combat terrorism in the Middle East. If the purpose of the summit was to send a clear message and signal to Isis and other reactionary militant groups, then the wrong message has been send to the wrong side. One wonders how Iran’s isolation and weak position can help eliminate Isis.
The big question is: if the aim and goal of this summit was to create unity among the Muslim-majority countries to target the reactionary Isis and other militant groups, why were Iran, Iraq and Syria excluded? The answer is simple. This summit and the Islamic Military Alliance were aimed at Iran and its proxies – Hezbollah, Houthis and the Assad regime. The fact is that Iran itself is fighting against Isis.
Isis is targeting Iran’s interests and its allies. This policy to isolate and target Iran will only intensify the proxy war and this could lead to a direct military confrontation between Iran and the Saudi-led alliance. The prospects of peace, stability and an end to the bloody civil wars in the Middle East are not promising.
The Middle East will continue to bleed. The political, sectarian and religious divide will widen as all hopes of rapprochement between Iran and Saudi Arabia are dashed. No end to the dirty civil and proxy wars in Yemen and Syria appears to be in sight. Millions of people will continue to live a miserable life in the refugee camps. A whole generation of Syrian, Yemeni, Libyans and Iraqis will grow up in an atmosphere of fear, destruction and civil war. The strategic and national interests of the different powers reign supreme. So who cares about the people?
Stalin once remarked that the first casualties in a war have always been a tragedy while rest are just statistics. That is exactly what is happening in the Middle East. The Saudis made it clear that they will continue their offensive in Yemen to crush the Houthis and to install a handpicked puppet regime. This can only happen if the Saudi-led coalition wipes out Houthi rebels. This seems difficult, if not impossible, at this stage. This means that the armed conflict will drag on. The bombings will continue along with the suffering of the civilian population.
On the other hand, Iran is determined to help the Houthi rebels continue their rebellion. The same applies to the situation in Syria, where the Americans, Saudis and their allies wanted to see Assad dead. But Iran, Russia and, to some extent, China want to keep him alive to safeguard their interests. It matters little how long this bloody conflict goes on and how many innocent people become victims to this madness and conflict of interests.
President Trump never hides his dislike for Iran. He has openly opposed the nuclear deal with Iran. He wants to roll it back. He expresses his love for the state of Israel. President Trump backtracked from the longstanding US position of the two-state solution to the Palestine-Israel conflict. He gave a free hand to Israel to occupy more Palestinian land to build new Jewish settlements. Apart from other issues, he exploited anti-Muslim sentiments among a section of the American population to win the presidency. And yet, he received a red-carpet welcome in Saudi Arabia. Why? Because he choose to side with Saudi Arabia against Iran.
President Trump came with a clear aim to make sure that every government, movement and group threatening US and Israeli interests in the Middle East is targeted. Iran, Hezbollah, the Assad regime and Houthis pose this threat. So it is not surprising that he singled out Hezbollah and Hamas as terrorist organisations; both groups are fighting against Zionist policies of occupation and expansionism.
Hezbollah poses a military and political challenge to the mighty Israeli war machine. One of the most modern war machines in the world failed to defeat Hezbollah in the last military conflict. Israel and the US strongly believe that without isolating and taming Iran, it will be possible for them to defeat Hezbollah. Both Israel and the US were hoping that a change of regime in Syria would logistically and strategically weaken the guerrilla outfit. Everyone expected that the Assad regime will not last long. But the regime succeeded to survive because of the wrong and flawed policies of US imperialism. The Americans used the most reactionary forces in the region to oust a secular regime: Isis was created and managed to gain control in large areas.
And now, the same powers that facilitated the rise of Isis in the region are telling us that they will defeat Isis and will bring peace and stability in the region. US imperialism is responsible for the spread of terrorism and extremism in the region. The policies of the US to establish its hegemony and complete domination in the region played a destabilising role. The US intervention, its continued support to the repressive regimes, the Israeli occupation and proxy wars created the conditions in which the reactionary forces flourished. The US used these reactionary forces to destabilise the anti-Israeli regimes in the Middle East.
The battle to dominate the region and to increase influence so as to protect interests will intensify between the big powers and their regional allies. The people will pay the ultimate price of this dirty power play.
Source: thenews.com.pk/print/208260-Target-Iran
----
Collective Ignorance of US Elite
By Mahrukh A Mughal
FOR years, the political elites have governed America for their own benefit and to the detriment of the American people. The national mythology insists there is no ruling class in the United States, and that a democratic majority of the people is in charge of the society and state. However, if we look at the history of election results and the subsequent foreign policies of the ruling classes there emerges a frightening picture. Political scientists have been studying what voters know and how they think for well over 65 years.
The results are astonishing. Voters generally know who the president is but not much else. They don’t know which party controls Congress, what Congress has done recently, whether the economy is getting better or worse (or by how much). In the 2000 US Presidential election, most voters knew Al Gore was more liberal than George W Bush, but significantly less than half knew that Gore was more supportive of abortion rights, more supportive of welfare state programs, favoured a high degree of aid to blacks, or was more supportive of environmental regulation. Why voters know so little is a serious question in terms of ignorance and may be what democracy creates bad incentives. The majority of the people of this country have been conditioned to believe whatever their government tells them. That is why, the most one hears as American in times of crisis is, ‘I am raising the flag to give support to the cause. What cause? The cause of murdering others. Tragically, when a terrorist attack of same sort occurs, the same people cry out loud, we are civilians, and we had nothing to do with in foreign policy of the United States.
American people never ask their leaders: That what was the real conflict with the former Soviet Union during cold war era? Why 3 million Vietnamese were killed by America? Who pushed inhabitants of Hiroshima and Nagasaki into extinction? Who has killed over 1 million Iraqi babies from food and medicines deprivation? Which country has turned Afghanistan into Uranium wasteland and thus uninhabitable? Which country has also turned areas of Iraq, Kosovo, Serbia and Bosnia uninhabitable? Why Palestinians and Kashmiris are being suppressed? Whether the American public is unaware of the world affairs or there is a political apathy or alienation in general is a serious problem that need to be understood and resolved by the American political leadership.
Whether motivated by exceptionalism, isolationism, triumphalism or sheer indifference, the United States has somehow failed to equip a significance percentage of its citizenry with the basic information necessary to follow international events, let alone participate in formulating and executing the foreign policy that is an essential component of self-government in a healthy modern democracy. This may be the failure of educational system at every level, when it comes to understanding the world we live in. It is no wonder, then, that Americans find themselves easily and frequently bewildered by phenomena that spin quickly out of control – the various ongoing crises in the Middle East; The conflict between Russia and Ukraine; The spread of the Ebola virus in West Africa; the catastrophic symptoms of climate change to name a few. A basic lack of awareness and understanding among the public makes it even harder for policy makers to formulate positions that will attract widespread public support and perhaps influence the outcomes.
The staying of the 2016 election might have appeared to some people to be absolute chaos, but it was perfectly scripted. Conservative movements were set up as a scapegoats for a crash that globalists had created. Trump evinced marked hostility to U.S. alliances, free trade agreements, support for human rights and democracy overseas and other long standing features of American internationalism. Trumps decision to strike Syria displayed arrogance, not toughness. It was the most irresponsible act of Trump circus presidency. Trump is doing what Obama refused to do-bombing a sovereign nation. The bombing strike was simply punishment. It achieved nothing. It was an act of war on a Sovereign nation-triggered without congressional authorization.
Trump’s populist promises are being abandoned. The foreign policy elites and corrupted politicians are regaining control. Trump has handed his foreign policy over to the generals, his economic policy to Goldman Sachs alums, his domestic policies to Paul Ryan and the republican right. Trump’s early election campaign arrogance regarding illegal immigrants was clearly manifested, however, he was defeated by the courts and a little softened his policies. There was a huge pressure from a large number of companies which were challenging his stance. The world is rapidly changing and the US ruling elite cannot move forward with their idea of arrogance.
Source: pakobserver.net/collective-ignorance-us-elite/
-----
URL: https://www.newageislam.com/pakistan-press/an-ameri-advocate-muslims-akbar/d/111391