Blood at the Border: New Age Islam's Selection, 17 May 2017
New
Age Islam Edit Bureau
17 May 2017
• Blood at the Border
By Kuldip Nayar
• Fourth Time’s The Charm?
By Arhama Siddiqa
• Peace by Peaceful Means
By Gulshan Rafiq
• China’s New World Order
By Zahid Hussain
• Benign Ghosts of Lahore
By Syed Rizwan Mehboob
• On Afghan Refugees
By Madiha Afzal
• Trump’s World
By Mahir Ali
• Trump Goes Abroad
By Nasim Haider
Compiled By New Age Islam Edit Bureau
----
Blood at the Border
By Kuldip Nayar
May 17, 2017
WAR is ugly. It becomes uglier when it is between two inveterate neighbours. They go to any extent to harm and humiliate each other. Pakistan has allegedly mutilated and killed two Indian soldiers when they are said to have crossed the Line of Control (LoC). Understandably, India has retaliated and destroyed Pakistan’s posts on the border. Defence Minister Arun Jaitley has condemned the reprehensible and inhuman act saying that “such acts don’t take place even during war. It is an extreme form of barbarism. The whole country has full faith in our armed forces which will react appropriately. The sacrifice of these soldiers will not go in vain.” Condemning the despicable act, Army chief Bipin Rawat, too, has vowed an “appropriate” response.
This has come closely on the heels of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s suggestion that multilateral dialogue on Kashmir was the solution to end the impasse between India and Pakistan. New Delhi is opposed to his view because it believes that Kashmir is a bilateral issue and it should be solved by the two countries while sitting across the table. Beheading soldiers is nothing new. The army on both sides is said to have indulged in it before. What is annoying is Pakistan’s flat denial of the incident. Unfortunately, there was no regret, no grief. The UN probe to verify facts could have been a possibility. But since New Delhi has stopped the International Court at The Hague from taking up a Pakistan complaint against India on the plea that the two countries settle their disputes bilaterally, it could not allow a third party. However, the incident is too serious to be left at that. During earlier incidents, India had evidence to prove that Hafiz Saeed, the Lashkar-i-Taiba chief, who has been placed under house arrest now, was at the border before the clashes. But Pakistan, on its part, had failed to order a probe. Maybe, it is the doing of irregulars! The country is already experiencing violence from within. The TTP is daily killing 20 to 25 Pakistanis and there is no place which is beyond the range of their guns.
When there is unabated domestic violence and when Pakistan is fighting against the TTP in the Federal Administrative Tribal Area, it is not understandable why it should open a front with India. In fact, Islamabad has withdrawn some forces from the Indian border to fight on the west. Therefore, there is no question of unnecessary hype.
New Delhi should realise that Pakistan is its front state. If it ever goes under, India would be directly threatened by the Taliban and face the danger of destabilisation. The policy should be how to retrieve Pakistan from the hopeless situation it is in. A weak Pakistan is a threat to India, which is powerful enough. Any escalation of tension or a suitable retaliation at an appropriate time would only aggravate the situation. Dialogue is the only way to improve and it should never be suspended or downgraded. There is no option to talks. But I am surprised at some irresponsible statements emanating from Pakistan that dialogue between the countries should go on despite skirmishes on the border.
Indian Foreign Minister Sushma Swaraj has shown restraint and maturity and has not commented anything adversely. But the government’s decision to keep the new positive visa policy on hold will only lessen people-to-people contact which is essential for better understanding. Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s statement that business with Pakistan cannot be as usual is understandable and his ordering surgical strikes earlier have had the desired effect.
Yet my experience shows that Islamabad resiles from its rigid stand if and when New Delhi steps back and reflects. We have to learn how to live with an intransigent Pakistan. I recall what Director General of Trade Ismail Khan in Pakistan occupied Kashmir had said a couple of years ago. He said that trade and travel across the ceasefire line would remain suspended until the skirmishes subsided. This was an unwise step which must have hurt Pakistan as much as it did to India. For some reasons, former military officers on both sides have turned out to be more hawkish. Some years ago, I was shocked to hear Admiral Iqbal of the Pakistan Navy reminding India about Muslim rule in the country for 1000 years. Equally jingoistic was the suggestion by a retired Army Major General that the solution to India’s problems with Pakistan was through military action. Both should realise that the engagement of the two countries would not be a street brawl. They have nuclear weapons and the worst can happen.
Civil societies in both the countries have proved to be disappointing. Instead of analysing the situation dispassionately, they have supported the stand of their country. Regretfully, civil society is always on the side of the establishment whenever there is a clash on the border or when a dispute assumes dangerous proportions. Were the two civil societies to put their weight behind peace and call a spade a spade, their voice would be heard.
New Delhi’s estimate that the ceasefire violations were meant to give cover to terrorists to sneak into Kashmir may be true. But the security forces in the Valley are strong enough to chastise them. The fallout of tension affects the people in Kashmir. They feel more insecure and fear the worst. The separatists, including Yasin Malik and Shabbir Shah, do not realize that they are increasingly becoming irrelevant. The same is the case with the Hurriyat. I wish the establishments of both the countries consider the ceasefire line sacred. This has been converted into LoC through the Shimla Agreement. The then Prime Minister, Zulfiquar Ali Bhutto, hailed it as the “line of peace” in an interview to me. And it has been seldom violated for the last three decades. Blood at the border has unnecessarily disturbed the status quo. Soon the two sides should realise that some agreement was necessary.
----
Kuldip Nayar is a veteran Indian journalist, syndicated columnist, human rights activist and author
Source; pakobserver.net/blood-at-the-border/
----
Fourth Time’s The Charm?
By Arhama Siddiqa
May 17, 2017
THE fourth round of intra-Syrian talks were held in Kazakhstan’s capital of Astana from May 3 to 4. Delegations of the ceasefire guarantor states, Russia, Iran and Turkey, took part in the negotiations alongside the Syrian government delegation and representatives of the Syrian armed opposition, the United Nations, United States and Jordan. The diplomatic talks have resulted in an agreement to establish safe zones in Syria in what is hoped will be a big step toward peace in the battle-weary country. A memorandum on the creation of four security zones in Syria was signed during the talks. The Russian Foreign Ministry released the official document on May 6, titled “Memorandum on the creation of de-escalation areas in the Syrian Arab Republic. These safe zones are primarily meant to help distinguish between extremist groups, including the so-called Islamic State terrorists (IS) and Jabhat al-Nusra (Al-Nusra Front), from the armed opposition groups.
According to the document, de-escalation zones will be set up in four regions of Syria. Here checkpoints for the passage of civilians and humanitarian aid and ceasefire monitoring points will also be installed. The use of weapons would be forbidden in the safe zones, allowing for the restoration of infrastructure and essential services and the return of refugees. There will also be observation posts to ensure compliance with the provisions of the ceasefire regime. These will provide free movement of unarmed civilians and humanitarian access to the areas, under guarantor states’ control. The countries acting as the ceasefire guarantors will set up a joint working group on de-escalation ten days after signing the memorandum. It will deal with defining the boundaries of the de-escalation zones and safe zones, among other issues. Moreover, the guarantors shall take steps to complete by 4 June 2017 the preparation of the maps of the de-escalation areas and security zones and to separate the armed opposition groups from the terrorist groups.
The memorandum is to be in force for six months with the possibility of automatic extension for the same period. According to Russian Presidential Envoy on the Syrian settlement, Alexander Lavrentiev, the document could become indefinite. The Syrian armed opposition delegation declared it could not accept the memorandum, saying the establishment of de-escalation zones would threaten Syria’s territorial jurisdiction. It also stated it will not sign anything while Iran remains among the guarantor states. Meanwhile, the United States State Department offered a cautious welcome to the declaration. Their wariness stems from failures of past agreements and the belief that the Syrian regime is incapable of stopping all attacks on civilians and opposition forces. It is not yet clear how the safe zones will be enforced. Russian Colonel General Sergei Rudskoi told reporters that personnel from Russia, Iran, and Turkey will operate checkpoints and observation posts and that other countries may eventually have a role to play too.
It is generally accepted that an overarching solution for the whole of Syria is not yet possible. Despite the opposition losing control of east Aleppo in December, Assad does not have the forces to defeat the rebel troops outright. The war has also broken up into multiple geographical disputes. The devil lies in the details- details which will only add up as things proceed. So far the de-escalation borders have not been confirmed. Specifics about peacekeepers have not been posted. In short nothing concrete is yet in place. Previously, the US was essentially in charge and had completely dictated over all events in the region. Now, however, Russia has very effectively interposed and completely marginalized the US. Another critical new element, one of significant importance could be on-ground, armed monitors as this would further cement the guarantor states’ role in the region. The only way US can come in now is through Turkey- Erdogan’s upcoming May 16, visit with President Trump will be noteworthy. The three major pitfalls of the agreement, apart from opposition’s protest against Iran acting as a guarantor, is the level to which the Russians will impose on Syrian air force compliance, the degree to which jihadi forces linked to al-Nusra but active inside the safe zones would be regarded as legitimate targets by Russia or Syrian warplanes and the paramount problem that all parties do not have one clear definition of who the terrorist is. For example for Assad, every armed group that opposes his rule is a terrorist and must be eliminated. A previous cease-fire agreement that went into effect on December 30 helped reduce overall violence in Syria for several weeks but eventually collapsed. Other attempts at a cease-fire in Syria have all ended in failure. The next round of Syrian peace talks will be hosted by Astana in mid-July, with expert meetings scheduled to be held two weeks beforehand.
A strategic way all parties can look at the current situation is to try and get as many people/parties in the fold of the political process, relying on the theory that the terrorist of today can be tomorrow’s political partner. Any improvement that will save the lives and curb further bloodshed is welcome. That said, one thing is clear: any resolution in Syria cannot be implemented in isolation from the other powers in the world such as the United States and Saudi Arabia. Everyone needs to be on board the same train if lasting peace has to be brought about in the region.
Source: pakobserver.net/fourth-times-charm/
----
Peace By Peaceful Means
By Gulshan Rafiq
May 17, 2017
PEACE has, no doubt, been a rare commodity in International Relations. Nevertheless, scores of efforts has also been made by international community to have a ray of peace in the world. From peace of Westphalia
to the establishment of United Nations, all initiatives were aimed only at one end: Peace. In this regard, there are many approaches to peace building; however, most important of them are two: “positive” and “negative” peace. Johan Galtung, a Norwegian sociologist known as the father of peace studies, made a distinction between both approaches of peace. According to him, negative peace is simply the absence of violence or conflict in an area. The peace, which prevails during the ceasefire, in this sense, is a good example of negative peace. Conversely, positive peace is not only the mere absence of violence; it also entails justice and development for all. To put this into further context, positive peace does not mean the absence of human killings, bombings and war-like conditions as the inevitability of conflict, in such case, remain there but the difference is the conflicts emerge in positive peace are resolved on the basis of cooperation among the parties in a constructive way and meeting the legitimate demands of each side mostly through structural reforms. As a result, positive peace is about cooperating with each other to attain social prosperity through collective efforts. In this sense, Kashmir is such a dispute which needs to be solved on the basis of cooperation.
The territory of Jammu and Kashmir is acknowledged as a disputed zone by United Nations (UN). The issue also has emerged as the greatest humanitarian crisis since decades. The situation, especially in terms of human rights violations and its implications on the regional and global security has raised serious concerns across the globe. Recently, the UN, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and the international community have urged the early resolution of the Kashmir dispute through dialogues given the perils for the regional peace and security.
Pakistan is of the same opinion. Since the start of conflict right after the inception of Pakistan, India itself went to UN for the resolution of Kashmir dispute. Since then, Pakistan has been reminding international community again and again the right of self-determination of Kashmiris. The Muslim community also supports Pakistan’s position over Kashmir, which is the resolution of the issue in accordance with the UN Resolutions. Turkey, in this regard, has been proponent of use of peaceful means to resolve the issue. The Turkish government believes in having a multilateral dialogue to resolve the Kashmir issue. Recently, Turkish president Mr. Tayyab Erdogan, during a TV interview said, “We should not allow more casualties to occur in Kashmir. By having a multilateral dialogue, in which we can be involved, we can seek ways to settle the issue once and for all.” Pakistan has been welcoming Turkey’s offers to mediate the issue. Likewise the recent statement and endeavours by the Turkish president aimed at addressing the human rights issues in Kashmir and the resolution of the Jammu and Kashmir issue were welcomed by Pakistan.
Though Pakistan welcomed the Turkish President’s offer to strengthen the dialogue process among the stakeholders for resolving the Kashmir issue, India virtually rejected it. Mr. Erdogan was in India on a two days visit. His comments on Kashmir were not well received in India as according to the Ministry of External Affairs India, the remarks were contrary to the position of India, which maintains that the Kashmir issue is a bilateral matter between it and Pakistan, and that there is no scope for a third party mediation. In Past, too, Turkey has supported Islamabad’s position on Kashmir at different forums but during the last visit, it was also conveyed to Turkish President that “The entire state of Jammu and Kashmir is an integral part of India.”
Pakistan, a long-standing ally of Turkey, appreciates Turkish call for a multilateral approach to settle the Jammu and Kashmir dispute and for an immediate end to the bloodshed Kashmir. Adviser to Prime Minister on Foreign Affairs, Mr. Sartaj Aziz has already said that India cannot dupe the world by its contradictory claim that it was ready for a bilateral dialogue to resolve Kashmir dispute but Islamabad was no longer credible. India itself has been scuttling all opportunities for a meaningful dialogue since two decades.
Mediation and dialogue are the most effective way of conflict management and peace building among states. The countries have been engaged in dialogue process to resolve the territorial disputes. The Falkland Islands, an archipelago in the South Atlantic Ocean, has remained a disputed land because of controversy that existed over the Falklands’ discovery and subsequent colonization by Europeans. Though a Convention of Settlement was signed between the Great Britain and the Argentine Confederation, as a British overseas territory now, the Falklands have internal self-governance, and Britain takes responsibility for their defence and foreign affairs. The US and the European Union recognize the de-facto administration of the Falkland Islands and take no position over their sovereignty.
India and Pakistan, too, after becoming nuclear states, have realized that the dialogue on all the issues is the only way to ease tension in the region. Peace by peaceful means is possible if the process of dialogues among states is not derailed. Precisely, India needs not to reject Pakistan peace plan and hold dialogue with Pakistan over Kashmir issue.
Source: pakobserver.net/peace-peaceful-means/
----
China’s New World Order
By Zahid Hussain
May 17th, 2017
CHINA recently hosted 29 heads of state and government at the Belt and Road Forum, reinforcing the country’s claim to leadership of an emerging geopolitical and economic world order. The summit conference that also attracted representatives of more than 40 other countries and multilateral financial agencies was the clearest expression yet of China breaking out of its old foreign policy mould that had restrained it from attempting a global role.
China’s multibillion-dollar One Belt, One Road (OBOR) infrastructure development project linking the old Silk Road with Europe, is a manifestation of China’s growing geopolitical ambitions. A brainchild of President Xi Jinping, perhaps, the most powerful Chinese leader after Mao Zedong, OBOR has now been under development for four years, spanning 68 countries and accounting for up to 40 per cent of global GDP.
President Xi’s ambition of propelling China to centre stage of the global power game represents a sharp departure from the approach of previous Chinese leaders who strictly adhered to Deng Xiaoping’s tenet to “hide our capabilities and bide our time, never try to take the lead”. Thus over the past two decades, China has avoided being drawn into global conflicts and has completely focused its energies on development that helped it to become an economic superpower.
China’s push to take the world leadership has come at a time when a strong anti-globalisation wave is sweeping the Western world that is showing a growing tendency of returning to more protectionist regimes. The United States under the Trump administration with its inward-looking approach has virtually abandoned the mantle of globalisation thus ceding greater space to Beijing’s assertion.
It is evident that OBOR is not just about infrastructure development.
It is not surprising that the OBOR initiative is being embraced by a wide range of countries from Asia and Africa to Europe and even South America, notwithstanding some serious concerns about the cost and benefits of the enormously ambitious project. Surely fewer European countries showed up at the Beijing summit because of their reservations over China’s reluctance to open doors to foreign companies.
While addressing the forum, President Xi tried to alleviate concerns about China’s dominance, inviting other countries to take part in the project. China is spending roughly $150bn a year in the 68 countries that have so far signed on to the plan. According to Chinese government figures, around $1 trillion have already been invested in OBOR, with several more trillions due to be invested over the next decade. This way Beijing hopes to find a more profitable avenue for the country’s vast foreign exchange reserves, mostly invested in low-interest-bearing US government securities.
It is evident that OBOR is not just about infrastructure development; one of the major objectives of the initiative is to turn Eurasia into an economic and trading centre, breaking the domination of the American-led transatlantic regime. It is also a manifestation of the changing geopolitics and the realignment of forces, reflecting a move to shift the centre of gravity of trade to the East and establish China’s predominance in global politics.
Indeed, Russia has lent active support to the Chinese initiative indicating a growing strategic partnership between the two countries. Moscow’s major interest is to consolidate its primacy in Central Asia through regional security and a trade bloc.
However, it is willing to accommodate China’s economic and geopolitical interests more than ever because of Western sanctions following the Ukraine crisis. Since 2014, the two countries have reached several high-profiles multibillion-dollar economic and trade deals signalling their close, evolving economic ties. Unsurprisingly, Russian President Vladimir Putin used the forum to lash out at the US and other Western countries over their increasingly protectionist policies.
Surely China considers the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) a “flagship project” in the whole scheme of OBOR. This multibillion-dollar investment programme has added a new dimension to the friendship between Pakistan and China. From purely strategic and security cooperation spanning more than five decades, the relationship has now evolved into a dynamic economic and commercial partnership.
This growing bilateral cooperation comes at a time when China’s rising geopolitical ambition also underscores its concerns about Pakistan’s security and its fledgling economy. Given its geostrategic position, Pakistan has the potential to serve as a nexus for the two routes — the continental Eurasian Silk Road Economic Belt and a Southeast Asian Maritime Silk Road
Although Beijing downplays geostrategic motivations, CPEC represents an international extension of China’s effort to deliver security through economic development. Notwithstanding their growing strategic cooperation, terrorist sanctuaries in Pakistan have remained a major source of worry for the Chinese government. China’s security concerns, especially those that arise from its restive region of Xinjiang, and the Islamist militancy threatening Pakistan’s stability have also been a strong factor in Beijing’s new approach to achieving security through economic development.
This growing Pakistan-China strategic alliance has also exposed the regional geopolitical fault lines. Predictably, India boycotted the Beijing forum citing serious reservations about the project, particularly regarding China-funded development in Gilgit-Baltistan that is linked to the Kashmir dispute. Yet another excuse given by the Indian authorities was that a trans-regional project of this magnitude required wider consultation.
Despite their geopolitical rivalry and long-standing border dispute, trade between India and China has grown significantly crossing $100bn. But there have been some visible signs of tension between the two most populous nations in the past few years with the strengthening of ties between Washington and New Delhi. India has openly sided with the US and Japan against China over the South China Sea issue.
Indeed, the success of the summit has provoked a strong reaction from Delhi. So much so that some leading commentators have called for tougher action to obstruct the OBOR project. “Far from this, CPEC (the life and soul of OBOR) threatens India’s territorial integrity in a manner unseen since 1962,” Samir Saran, a leading Indian commentator wrote in an op-ed piece.
Notwithstanding the scepticism, OBOR is a new geo-economic reality representing an emerging world order. The process cannot be reversed.
Source: dawn.com/news/1333603/chinas-new-world-order
----
Benign Ghosts of Lahore
By Syed Rizwan Mehboob
17-May-17
A few days back, Lahore saw the passing of Suzi — the mighty, magnificent elephant which had been the heartthrob of hundreds of thousands of visitors to the Lahore Zoo for well over four decades.
Although Suzi lived for only half as long as her now-forgotten predecessor at the Lahore Zoo — Lakhi Rani — but her life history has been more eventful in a queer and sinister manner. Her arrival at the zoo coincided with the dawn of the era of ‘prohibitions’ — manifested as prohibition on elephant rides in her case. Kids and adolescents who enjoyed the privilege of elephant ride on Lakhi Rani in 1970s could truly feel the pang and pain of this prohibition — denial to be on top of the world, as it may have seemed to them. Atop an elephant, you would swerve right and left as elephant strode majestically and deliriously, giving the riders fleeting glimpses of romance-drenched Lahore through canopies and foliage of mighty, colonial-era trees that surrounded Lahore Zoo on all sides. You could see many throbbing attractions of the Lahore of swinging 70s, especially the aristocratic, arrogant Flatties Hotel and Free Masons Hall. Prohibition on elephant ride soon after Suzi’s advent in early 80s unfurled a spectre of similar, contiguous prohibitions which actually amounted to denials for slightest quantities of life’s finer joys — tipsy, elephant rides included.
Next victim x was none other than the legendary, artistically built Freemasons’ Hall, located next to the Lahore Zoo, with its aura and ambience of mystery that had existed from pre-partition days. Members of Freemasonry cult shared many values that also came as instinctive to the race of Suzi — the elephants. Acquiescing before a supreme power, namely “The Great Architect of the Universe”; seeking to aid each member of the cult; encouraging them to practice their faith diligently and being accommodating to all has been the hallmarks of Freemason line of thinking. Suzi must have felt cozy and in her true elements at her Lahore Zoo pen that overlooked Freemasons Hall for the later may have reminded her of the happenings in the legendary ‘elusive elephant dancing grounds’, made immortal by Rudyard Kipling’s accounts in The Jungle Books.
But that joy of familiar company for Suzi was transient as major, disturbing events started happening around the serene Lahore Zoo following Suzi’s arrival. Demise of Lahore’s Freemason Hall was first on the list in a surreptitiously swift manner as wild inmates of Lahore Zoo alike Suzi were ostracised from many familiar, benign ghosts of erstwhile Freemasons. What replaced them can be termed real life ghosts who wielded power and authority as Freemasons Hall was converted into alternate seat of authority for successive provincial chief executives along with their ideological coterie. All shapes, kinds and manner of barbed fences, iron barricades, terror-inspiring gadgetry were employed to shield these modern era Freemasons ghosts from what went outside as inmates of the adjoining zoo struggled to figure out what really went inside the re-christened premises.
Deprived of the austere company of her Freemasons friends of yore, Suzi appears to have struggled to find solace in the inmates of the cage next door to her compound, which housed the king of jungle — or the zoo in this case — the ubiquitous lions. Deafening, blood curdling roars of lions of Lahore Zoo for much of 80s and 90s brought much sought after grandeur and glamour to Lahore but that was not to last, palpably due to the jinx of Suzi. An unheard of and unexpected calamity befell the lions of Lahore Zoo whose mighty roars had sent awe and subjugation in and around the zoo precincts for decades. Constant inbreeding and refusal to allow in fusion of some fresh blood in their ranks and hereditary realms resulted in a string of troubled consequences. A pedigree with congenital deformities started becoming regular feature of much respected lions of Lahore Zoo — a phenomenon which drew one thousand explanations, hurriedly contrived by the nervous zoo management.
Only Suzi knew the real reason; it was the same old jinx that had gobbled the Freemasons of 60s and 70s — that was now exacting nature’s revenge and weighty toll from once formidable Lions of Lahore for disrespecting its cardinal commandments and decrees in matters of suzerainty and apportionment of authority.
With her Freemasons friendly ghosts vanished and neighboring jungle kings subdued, Suzi tried to seek peace by going back in times. Zoo visitors in last years of her life could see her standing with half-closed eyes, distractedly accepting proffering of currency notes and always facing Lawrence Road. In all likelihood, reminiscing about the bygone past when colourful escort of the architect of modern Punjab — Sir Henry Lawrence — would have entered the Lawrence Gardens through now forgotten Rivaz Gate that once existed on Lawrence Road. But jinx of Suzi was hardly amenable to allow her these fancy flights of requiem in the colourful, colonial past, enjoyed by her many predecessors along Lawrence Road. Portion of Lahore Zoo touching Lawrence Road was shattered a few years back by a deafening, devastating blast that took heavy toll of life on innocent humans, besides settling unmistakable terror in the timid hearts of zoo inmates.
It is hard to fathom how Suzi braced the string of calamities that befell Lahore Zoo after her arrival — demise of Freemason Hall and replacement of friendly ghosts with their scheming cousins; humbling of the king of the zoo; and a murderous, killer blast of terror. But in all likelihood, the masters of the day finally understood the jinx — much to the combined benefit of men and animals around the zoo — and acted swiftly to set it right. Lawrence Road was renamed — that epitome of colonial, sinful history of Lahore was rightfully consigned to the dustbin, only to be purged through a nobler baptisement.
Jungle elephants are buried — in words of Rudyard Kipling — by their kind in remote, nameless wildernesses after performance of legendary elephant dance. I earnestly hope that Suzi of Lahore Zoo will be the last in the line after Freemasons Hall and the Lawrence Road.
Source: dailytimes.com.pk/opinion/17-May-17/benign-ghosts-of-lahore
-----
On Afghan Refugees
By Madiha Afzal
May 17th, 2017
PAKISTAN wants its Afghan refugees to go home. The repatriation numbers are staggering: more than 600,000 Afghan refugees are said to have returned home from Pakistan in 2016, to a country still under attack by the Afghan Taliban. In April alone, at least 140 soldiers and military officers died in an assault on an Afghan military base, the deadliest such attack since 2001.
The ‘voluntary’ repatriation of Afghan refugees is in truth often forced, achieved by harassment — through police extortion and bribery, raids and confiscation of legal documents, making the legal status of many insecure and temporary. This violates the tripartite agreement between the UNHCR, the refugee agency and the Pakistan and Afghan governments.
The thread that runs through this is Pakistan’s narrative on Afghan refugees — ‘economic burdens’, ‘criminals’ and ‘terrorists’ — the latter being the latest refrain. After the APS, Peshawar, attack, the National Action Plan called for a “comprehensive policy for Afghan refugees, beginning with their registration” — thus linking them with the plan to counter terrorism and extremism in Pakistan.
This conflation of refugees with terrorism is disingenuous (and hypocritical, given our derision of the West’s parallel right-wing narrative on refugees). What is true is that Operation Zarb-i-Azb drove the Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) out of the tribal areas into Afghanistan, from where they are now planning and conducting attacks on Pakistan. But are they Afghan? No. And are they linked with Afghan refugees who have lived in Pakistan for decades? Again, no.
In between the blame game rests the fate of millions.
This narrative furthers our obfuscation on extremism — blaming attacks conducted by the TTP on other countries, mainly India and the US. Refugees serve as yet another scapegoat, a convenient foil that will inhibit the battle against extremism that must be waged within.
For years, Afghanistan has blamed Pakistan for attacks on its soil — planned by the Afghan Taliban, many of whom had taken sanctuary in Pakistan after being driven out of Afghanistan by the US since 2001. Pakistan now blames Afghanistan of the same thing with regard to the TTP.
But these duelling Afghan and Pakistani narratives are one-sided. There is complicity on both sides of their long, complex history — though arguably more on Pakistan’s side. Following the Soviet-Afghan war, Pakistan supported the Afghan Taliban in the ensuing power struggle. The Afghan Taliban had brought forth another dark period in Afghanistan, leading to the 2001 US invasion of the country and the war that followed. To date, Afghanistan alleges that Pakistan allows the Taliban sanctuary on its soil from where they plan attacks on the former country.
On the other hand, Afghanistan would do well to remember that Pakistan has graciously hosted millions of its refugees over the past four decades, even as it has itself been stressed economically, and, more recently, in terms of security. And Afghanistan could also now deny sanctuary to the TTP, but it has apparently not done so.
It is time for Pakistan to change its narrative and, better still, its policy towards the refugees from Afghanistan. From a cynical perspective, driving refugees out further harms the country’s image internationally. But from the more important moral perspective, returning them to a place where they will be insecure is unconscionable.
Pakistan’s policy towards refugees has always been inadequate. Consider the children of Afghan refugees born in Pakistan, for whom this has been the only home they have ever known. They have no path to naturalisation. Of those born in Pakistan, only children of Pakistani parents are legally entitled to citizenship.
Pakistan is not a signatory to the 1951 Convention relating to the status of refugees, which calls for their assimilation and naturalisation. When Afghan refugees are registered here, they can get a Proof of Registration card that recognises them as “Afghan citizens temporarily residing in Pakistan”.
But the Afghan conflict has dragged on for more than 40 years, and there is no end in sight. Given that Pakistan has been home to millions of Afghan refugees for decades, it would do well to offer those who want to stay a path to naturalisation, and economic and social integration.
When Pakistan’s own population is stretched, and many of the country’s own are ‘otherised’ and marginalised, one may wonder whether we can extend our hand to refugees. If we do, we can offer an example to an increasingly xenophobic world intent on closing down borders. We may well find that a nation that takes on the responsibility of others with humanity and empathy finds a clearer path to overcoming its own demons.
Source: dawn.com/news/1333584/on-afghan-refugees
----
Trump’s World
By Mahir Ali
May 17th, 2017
“CAN you believe the world we live in today? Isn’t it crazy?” Indeed it is, Mr President. And guess who would qualify as the primary piece of evidence in making this case.
The quotation above comes from Donald Trump’s recent tête-à-tête with Sergei Lavrov and Sergey Kislyak, Russia’s foreign minister and ambassador to Washington respectively. A photographer for the official Russian Tass news agency witnessed the encounter, but all American media representatives were excluded.
It was, however, The Washington Post rather than any Russian outlet that on Monday reported a far more serious faux pas. Apparently, during the chat Trump revealed to the Russians a piece of highly classified information that had not been shared even with the closest US allies. It related to the militant Islamic State group’s planned use of laptop computers to wreak havoc on aeroplanes — and presumably accounts for the laptop ban on some flights to the US.
Sharing such information with all nations that might potentially be affected would, of course, be the decent thing to do. Equally, it might not be wise to do so in a manner that risks compromising the source. But perhaps that’s too fine a distinction for Trump, who is also quoted as having boasted during his meeting with the Russians: “I get great intel. I have people brief me on great Intel every day.”
The adjective ‘Nixonian’ has given Trump cause for concern.
It’s almost as if he can’t believe his luck in being thrust into a prime position. He’s not the only one. Talk of impeachment has been ramped up since last week’s peremptory dismissal of James Comey, director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), who had lately been seeking extra resources for probing possible collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian state. Should it come to pass, no one would be particularly surprised to find it being declared, in a 4am presidential tweet, as the greatest impeachment ever, with the highest conceivable television ratings.
Comey’s public intervention on the eve of last year’s presidential election, when he declared that Trump’s Democratic rival Hillary Clinton was under investigation once more for email abuse, after having been cleared of inappropriate intent for using a private server during her tenure as secretary of state, likely played a not insignificant role in boosting Trump’s chances. Even though Comey stepped back just days later to declare no grievous offence had been committed, he offered not the slightest hint that the Trump campaign was simultaneously under a far more serious investigation.
Comey’s public statements last year, initially welcomed by Trump, led to comparisons on the Democratic side of the fence between him and J. Edgar Hoover’s disgracefully relentless pursuit of civil rights beacon Martin Luther King Jr, including the suggestion, around the time King received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1964, that he should commit suicide. King refused to bow — even though he felt sufficiently intimidated to suspend direct contact with reputedly communist associates — and was assassinated in 1968, shortly before Bobby Kennedy suffered a similar fate.
Kennedy was attorney general under his brother, John F. Kennedy, when he approved the FBI’s wiretapping of King. Neither brother was a fan of Hoover’s, but dismissing him was out of the question, given how much he knew about the Kennedys’ sexual dalliances. The trove of information to which he had the keys meant that the proto-fascistic Hoover effectively became the FBI’s director-for-life when it was constituted in 1935, after having presided for 11 years over its predecessor, the Bureau of Investigation. His overall tenure added up to almost 47 years, during which the FBI did not restrict itself to fighting crime but also substantially undermined American democracy.
Things changed, to an extent, after Hoover. It was, after all, FBI associate director Mark Felt who turned out to be Deep Throat, the secret whistleblower who served as the primary source for Washington Post journalists Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward, whose reports sealed the fate of the Nixon presidency. And Comey more than once cited Hoover’s crusade against King as a partisan abuse of FBI powers.
The adjective ‘Nixonian’ and the phrase ‘worse than Watergate’, meanwhile, have been bandied about sufficiently in recent days to give Trump considerable cause for concern, not least after he undermined the White House narrative about Comey being fired on Department of Justice advice and suggested his conversations with the director had been recorded.
Trump heads out later this week on his first foreign foray as president, with Saudi Arabia as his first port of call, followed by Israel and the Vatican, after which he will attend Nato and G7 summits in Brussels and Sicily respectively. It’s bound to be a most entertaining journey, and his hardworking minders will no doubt be on red alert. But chances are that the question of whether he’ll ultimately be led out of the White House by men in dark suits or men in white coats will only be reinforced in the process.
Source: dawn.com/news/1333581/trumps-world
----
Trump Goes Abroad
By Nasim Haider
May 17, 2017
As US President Donald Trump starts his first foreign trip, he will make history by stepping into Saudi Arabia, Israel and then The Vatican. Many would ask why the American president opted to break away from the tradition set by American presidents before him who had always toyed with the idea of visiting Canada or Europe as the first leg of their tours.
Trump will no doubt hit the hotspot during a time of turmoil. Saudi Arabia is strengthening an anti-terror coalition at a time when Riyadh and Tehran are trading barbs. An arms deal worth billions of dollars is expected during his trip. The proposed weapons contracts include the Terminal High-Altitude Area Defence anti-missile system, which costs $1 billion. Saudi Arabia will be the second Gulf country after the UAE to have such an advanced defence mechanism.
This visit will clearly give Trump a chance to flex his muscles against a country that his predecessor befriended even though Iran was labelled as part of the axis of evil by Bush. A few eyebrows were raised when Trump included Iran in his executive order that banned travel to the US from a few Muslim countries. Trump has also hinted at breaking the “worst” 2015 Iran nuclear deal, which, he believes, shouldn’t have been signed. It’s ironic that Trump finds his hands tied as the move has been opposed by US businesses that are seeking to make inroads into the Iranian economy.
Eyes should also be focused on his Syria strategy as the US has failed to topple the regime despite enlisting the support of many Arab countries. It will be interesting to see how the Trump administration helps Saudi Arabia against the battle-hardened Houthis in a war that has increasingly become unpopular in Europe and the US due to extreme collateral damage. Saudi Arabia can rightly have high hopes from Trump as his actions have made him a better partner than Obama proved to be. The kingdom is right to expect Trump to reverse the controversial law that has allowed families of the 9/11 victims sue Saudi officials and seek billions in compensation. However, even if Trump promises to look into the issue, it will be little more than diplomatic juggling.
The next leg of the visit will land Trump in Tel Aviv at a time when the Israelis will be marking the 50th anniversary of the Six-Day War that poisoned the Middle East forever and led to Israeli troops taking control of Jerusalem. Trump will arrive in the region when the so-called Arab Spring has sunk some of the arch enemies of Israel into oblivion. Even Hamas is coming to terms with the new realities and has offered a softer stance on the six-decade-old conflict by offering to accept the idea of a Palestinian state which would fall within the borders that existed in 1967. The resistance organisation knows that the Palestinian issue has already been put on the backburner as the media has zoomed in its lenses on the civil wars in Syria and Libya.
During his visit, Trump will hold talks with both Israeli and Palestinian leaders. There is a ray of hope that this visit will mark the beginning of efforts to revive the stalled peace process, which was initiated by Bush only to fall prey to the Zionist agenda. But if Trump reiterates his controversial commitment to moving the US embassy to Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, it will be tantamount to adding fuel to the fire. The former media mogul must know that the world wants to see him standing shoulder-to-shoulder with Netanyahu and Abbas and announcing concrete steps to achieve perpetual peace. This will placate the Palestinians and act as a tranquiliser to Tel Aviv.
Over the years, Israel has tried in vain to develop ties with Muslim countries as it continued its expansionist agenda of terrorising the Palestinians. Around 12 years ago, Israel had publically extended its hand to Pakistan when the then foreign minister Khurshid Mahmud Kasuri met his Israeli counterpart Silvan Shalom in Istanbul.
The mood on the both sides is better reflected, though, in a recent tweet by Defence Minister Khwaja Asif, in response to a fake news article involving nuclear threats to Pakistan by Israel. Khwaja Asif was quick to tweet: “Israeli [defence minister] threatens nuclear retaliation presuming [Pakistan’s] role in Syria against Daesh. Israel forgets Pakistan is a nuclear state too.’’
In the Vatican, President Trump will have an audience with Pope Francis. This meeting will also be remarkable because the two have been at odds on various issues, such as immigration and climate change. The Pope had once remarked that: “anyone, whoever he is, who only wants to build walls and not bridges is not a Christian“. Trump was quick to retaliate by saying that: “for a religious leader to question a person’s faith is disgraceful”.’
It will be strange if Trump avoids an unannounced visit to Afghanistan and Iraq before heading to Brussels to attend summit of an organisation that he had once termed “obsolete”: NATO. The businessman-cum-president is starting his trip after a long consultation with Henry Kissinger. The trophy of the tour could be the revival of the peace process in the Middle East. If Trump succeeds in capitalising on this opportunity, it will not only help him bring the estranged Europeans, Russians and Arabs onboard but also open the doors into the hearts of millions of Muslims who are frustrated by his anti-Muslim rhetoric.
Source: thenews.com.pk/print/204819-Trump-goes-abroad
----
URL: https://www.newageislam.com/pakistan-press/blood-border-new-age-islam/d/111170