Conduct Yourself With Spiritual Politics! By Dr Haider Mehdi: New Age Islam's Selection, 06 January 2018
New Age Islam Edit Bureau
06 January 2018
• Conduct Yourself With Spiritual Politics!
By Dr Haider Mehdi
• Balochistan on the Boil Again
By Abbas Nasir
• Unnecessary Crackdown against NGOs
By Asghar Soomro
• End of Manna
By Irfan Husain
• Limits of American Power
By Zamir Akram
• Trumpicide
By Dr Pervez Tahir
• Unexplained Visit
By Muhammad Usman
Compiled By New Age Islam Edit Bureau
------
Conduct Yourself With Spiritual Politics!
By Dr Haider Mehdi
January 5, 2018
As she was quoted verbatim on the front page of The Express Tribune, the ex-prime minister Nawaz Sharif’s angry, anguished and defiant daughter, Maryam Nawaz, reacting to the recently held All Party Conference in Lahore said, “All PML-N opponents are worth a used tissue paper.” One simply wonders about the use of such language. Did things have to sink so low in the country?
I count myself one among the millions of Pakistani common folks, the Awam, who are the PML-N leadership’s opponents on the basis of political, ideological, philosophical, historical, analytical and above all, moral-ethical reasons based on factual arguments and verifiable authentic evidence. However, let us consider for the sake of argument, the possibility that all of us may be absolutely flawed in our reasoning and understanding of the entire situation in the country at the moment. The question that arises is: are all of us ‘used tissue papers’ worth nothing?
In the English lexicon, a ‘used tissue’ is one that someone has blown their nose in. Do we deserve such disrespect and such an insulting attitude? What kind of politics is this? In a mature and civilised nation, when an elected leader or a leadership is accused of ethical or moral misconduct, political mismanagement, criminal behaviour, the usual and appropriate political behaviour is that such a leader or an entire government resigns or seeks a fresh public mandate by early elections. It is unheard of in a democratic setup that a political party’s leadership insults foes with such derogatory language. That is one set of rules that is obligatory on all political actors.
On another level, the judicial rulings of the nation’s superior courts have a time-honoured binding on all citizens inclusive of the country’s top political leadership. It is a matter of historical record that in all democratic nations, accusing or ridiculing major national institutions is a constitutional crime punishable by severe legal sanctions. And yet, in Pakistan, the disqualified prime minister and his daughter have not only insulted their opponents, they have indirectly accused the superior judiciary and military of forming a political conspiracy against them. This oblique defamation is unfair.
For educative purposes, there is a need to explain why the army is so sacrosanct to this nation’s Awam. I’m incorporating a few extracts from one of my articles written some years ago, showing that it’s an issue of historical concern. My intention is to bring some political enlightenment to our estranged leadership on how our common people view their military establishment and why. Understanding it, hopefully, will take a lot of sting out of the PML-N leadership’s fabrications and rhetoric on the issue and add cognisance to their conceptual comprehension as to why the Awam find their oratory unacceptable.
The Awam’s love affair with its military ‘Jawans in uniform’ is not entirely an emotional, sentimental, historical or psychological matter. It is an existential experience spanning generations since the inception of Pakistan. History has made an immense mental impression on the Awam that has contributed to their everlasting love affair with their uniformed Jawans. Come what may, notwithstanding the endless emotional and symbolic rhetoric in praise of democracy and civilian political-economic ownership of this country, common folks in the street always stand behind the army.
The foremost reason is the fact that successive civilian so-called democratic regimes have violated their public mandates with absolute political contradictions, violations of democratic norms and principles and total disregard for greater public welfare. In Pakistan, democracy has been a mere ‘game plan’ to acquire civilian political-economic ownership of the state by a select few to promote vested interests, organise oligarchic political management structures and collaborate with powerful foreign actors and governments to remain in power.
Consequently, the fundamental necessity of implementing true democratic governance has been ignored. Take, for example, the democratic dispensation in Pakistan. It is ironic that there is no discussion on the management of the economy based on alternative economic models to enhance general public welfare, or to deal with the massive and ever-increasing income inequalities on a national level.
Tragically, Pakistan’s economic development models have been set virtually backwards. The Awam consider the democratic leadership apathetic to their real fundamental issues of daily existence and, in fact, believe that their present-day tragic existence is the direct result of the so-called democratic leadership’s incompetence and mismanagement of national political and economic affairs.
In the last eight years of the so-called civilian democratic dispensation — both the PPP and the PML-N have remained steadfastly committed to oligarchic political structures — the status-quo forces have maintained a non-efficacious political posture as well as a stagnant mindset towards Pakistan’s economic needs and have dominated the entire political spectrum with an unbending ‘rightist’ approach to economic development. Consequently, instead of going forward, the civilian leadership of the few has been going backwards. Political-economic ‘ownership’ of the state by the leadership of vested-interests has turned Pakistan’s democracy into a business enterprise laying siege on national development and depriving the common citizens of their legitimate democratic rights to a just and egalitarian society. The Awam feel justifiably cheated and violated by their chosen national leadership.
What the Awam want is some kind of a subtle discipline in their existence, clarity of purpose and objectives for their democratic regimes. They are in search of an honest, dedicated leadership that exists to serve the country and its people. By and large, Pakistanis are interested in simple, straightforward solutions to their problems.
No wonder then that the Awam in today’s Pakistan hold the armed forces as sacrosanct and look up to its leadership with hope. They believe that the needed societal discipline, clarity of national purpose, straightforwardness of strategy and plain talk are the functions that the forces and the superior judiciary can contribute to a much-needed political reform.
Consequently, Pakistan needs a kind of ‘Spiritual Politics’, which appears to be out of the realm of the present leadership. Spiritual Politics entails rolling back vested interests and personal selfish attitudes, consciously striking down self-serving behaviour, taking into serious consideration the faculties of reason and evidence, and giving appropriate weight to cause-effect relationships. It also means giving due respect and tolerance to diverse opinions, ideological political differences and opponents’ points of view, and above all, to the rule of law — and an absolute end to the massive corruption of political leaders. It also involves grooming self-respect, dignity and integrity towards oneself and towards others.
Imagine how a society would evolve if a leadership conducted itself within the parameters of Spiritual Politics! We would need far less dustbins to throw ‘used tissue papers’, good for nothings, into them!
Source: tribune.com.pk/story/1600839/6-conduct-spiritual-politics/
-----
Balochistan on the Boil Again
By Abbas Nasir
January 06, 2018
THERE is a concerted move to effect a change in the Balochistan government where, a few months ahead of the general election, a political sharing arrangement that has been in place for four and a half years is under threat.
The move became public with the resignation/sacking of cabinet member Sarfaraz Bugti, long seen as a civilian spokesman of the military-led security apparatus dominant in the province, who was one of the movers of the no-confidence motion against the chief minister.
After the 2013 general election, Nawaz Sharif’s PML-N and Mir Hasil Bizenjo’s National Party entered a power-sharing agreement where the CM’s tenure was divided into equal halves. The first half saw Dr Abdul Malik of the National Party in office, with Nawab Sanaullah Zehri assuming power for the final half.
Why the move to oust the elected chief minister via a no-confidence motion just six months ahead of an election?
The two parties were joined by a junior partner, the Mahmood Khan Achakzai-led Pakhtunkhwa Milli Awami Party while the governor’s office was given to Mahmood Khan´s elder brother. With a nationalist Dr Abdul Malik (Baloch) in office, optimism sprouted for peace in Balochistan.
Throughout his tenure, Dr Malik continued to hint that some sort of contact had been established with the estranged Baloch leadership abroad and that a negotiated settlement was possible.
That optimism turned out to be unfounded as some of the hard-line Baloch leadership, with the exception of Brahmdagh Bugti, did not appear to warm to the idea of such a settlement and set tough pre-conditions for any talks, including the withdrawal of all military, paramilitary forces from the province.
Sources close to other separatist leaders suggested that where some of them were open to dialogue which could lead to a ‘respectable’ (face-saving) settlement, as they were also realising that an armed struggle was causing immense hardship to the people, the military — confident of its victory on the ground — scuttled the process.
While the whole truth about events being played out behind a curtain will remain elusive, the changes in Brahmdagh’s stance may substantiate the above sequence. In an interview to the BBC, he expressed his readiness for talks.
In fact, when he appeared flexible on the pre-condition of troop withdrawal, he was slammed by other separatist leaders, even though the separatist groups are not known to operate in tandem or coordinate their actions.
Nonetheless, rather than capitalise on what seemed like a rift between the main separatist leaders, Pakistani authorities appear to have acted with arrogant disdain, and no follow-up happened after an initial ice-breaking contact between Brahmdagh and a minister or two belonging to both provincial and central governments.
This turned out to be an own goal as by end 2016 Brahmdagh publicly expressed gratitude to Indian Prime Minister Modi for raising the Balochistan issue and also announced he and some of his associates would be applying for political asylum in India.
As this episode indicated, the civilian governments in both Quetta and Islamabad are quite powerless in key policy areas in Balochistan. So why then the move to oust the elected chief minister via a no-confidence motion just six months ahead of an election?
Currently, there are two main explanations doing the rounds in Quetta. The first relates to the obvious obsession of those hell-bent on denying Nawaz Sharif any quarter so that the ousted prime minister is unable to get a majority in the upper house of parliament in a few weeks.
In March, half the senators complete their six-year term and retire and their seats will be filled by the electoral colleges. In the current equation, of the 11 (seven general and two seats each for technocrats and women) Balochistan seats that will be up for grabs, PML-N and its allies are expected to pick up seven at least.
This number, coupled with the PML-N’s likely seats from Punjab and the federal capital, will give the party (plus its loyal allies) a simple majority in the Senate, a luxury it has not had in its entire current term in office.
If the PML-N’s Balochistan CM is toppled and his successor is more amenable to advising the governor to dissolve the assembly and similar actions are initiated by PML-N hostile governments in Sindh and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, the senate elections under the current set-up will become very difficult.
Knowledgeable observers say the Balochistan CM and some of his cabinet members have also facilitated the task of their opponents by alienating MPAs. They cite two examples to illustrate their point.
The first is of Sardar Akhtar Mengal, who is also a signatory to the no-confidence motion. “He is nobody’s toady, but the CM who also belongs to Khuzdar has starved Akhtar’s constituency of development funds and spent lavishly on his own.”
Then Development Minister Hamid Achakzai of the PkMAP is accused of diverting unlimited funds to his home district of Killa Abdullah-Gulistan. He is said to have spent nearly two billion rupees building over a hundred small dams there and neglected similar needs elsewhere.
Sanaullah Zehri’s fate lies in the (numerically decisive) hands of JUI-F and given his differences over the Fata merger plan with the federal government, Maulana Fazlur Rehman is playing hard to get. Let’s see who his party supports in the end.
If this situation was not enough of a muddle, another source referred to one more point of friction between CM Zehri and the ‘boys’. This is reportedly caused by the initiative taken by Zehri to restart talks with a foreign mining giant over the Reko Diq project.
The mining giant has already received a favourable verdict in international arbitration after former CJ Iftikhar Chaudhry had cancelled its contract during the tenure of chief minister Aslam Raisani. The ‘boys’, says the source, want to keep politicians away from it.
These power games are being played when the country needs internal cohesion against the backdrop of the US president’s belligerence towards Pakistan and a tense situation on both the eastern and western borders. Hopes for sanity seem to be fading fast.
Source: dawn.com/news/1381054/balochistan-on-the-boil-again
------
Unnecessary Crackdown against NGOs
By Asghar Soomro
January 6, 2018
Since 1945 the NGO sector has been growing worldwide. At present, it is said that there are approximately 10 million NGOs worldwide, out of which only 25,000-30,000 exist in Pakistan. Some countries support their expansion and growth by giving them tax benefits and recognising their work whereas others step up monitoring with stringent legal requirements. For the last few years, Russia and China have been trying to stop foreign funding to their respective countries. Treatment of NGOs in Pakistan has been a mixed experience — supporting and discouraging.
In Pakistan, the NGO sector mainly thrives on foreign funding or the country’s expatriates and little donation come from local sources. Whatever little funding that comes from corporate or private entities is selfish and mainly directed for brand promotion. As a result, heavy reliance on foreign aid agencies has undermined the independence and choices of civil society organisations in Pakistan. Despite the emphasis on sustainability in project documents of every NGO, there is not a single project in the country which has continued functioning once the funding dried up. This clearly points to the strategic mistake the local NGOs have been making and repeating over decades. As a result, there is a trust deficit between NGOs, beneficiaries and the local population in general, not to speak about the mismanagement and bad governance. Hence, NGOs are spineless, mostly a one-person organisation.
Due to the prevailing negative perception, it has been relatively easy for the government to take any unjustified action against the NGOs because the public generally remain aloof and indifferent. Recently, in a bizarre move, the government has advised 21 International NGOs (INGOs) to wrap up their operations without giving them any specific reasons. But there has been no reaction from the public — no hue and cry or protest at all following the decision. There is, however, a split public opinion about it — some people support it because they believe NGOs undermine the sovereignty of the state whereas others think that these NGOs are not involved in any sort of suspicious and illegal activity but they are rather making significant contributions towards development of society in Pakistan, hence such a decision is not well-thought out. Irrespective of the public understanding, the real factor that has caused scrutiny of INGOs in Pakistan is Dr Shakil Afridi, then an employee of one of the INGOs that allegedly helped the CIA in determining the location and identity of Osama bin Laden. He is currently in prison.
However, on the basis of just one incident, it is not a prudent approach to start a crackdown on the NGOs. It is unfair to both recipient and givers of the foreign aid. Apart from criticism on the role of NGOs, these organisations have helped Pakistani people in emergencies like earthquakes, floods and droughts, as well as supported a wide range of activities for improving health, education et al indicators. I personally know of BRAC, a Bangladesh-based INGO, which has reached out to poor communities in uncharted and far-flung areas in Sindh, Punjab and K-P to provide them access to schools. It has closely worked with provincial governments as well as federal entities concerned. Another organisation which has been ordered to close down operation includes the International Relief and Development. The organisation is undertaking an assignment of building 106 modern state-of-the-art child-friendly schools in flood-affected areas of Sindh. Considering the pathetic school infrastructure in Sindh, these school buildings are not less than a blessing for the poor children of Sindh. So, are these activities out of bounds to INGOs? Instead of over-emphasising documentation compliance, the federal government should have taken stock of the situation on the ground because such a decision is likely to hurt the interest of the most vulnerable segment of the population whose needs have been put on the back burner by the ruling elites. Therefore, the federal government should revisit its decision.
Meanwhile, Pakistani NGOs should look at best practices and examples from around the world where civil society organisations have won the trust of communities. They don’t look to foreign donors or the corporate sector for funding but to their volunteers and members. One such example is America. There are around 1.5 million NGOs in the US, which are one of the core strengths of the American society. The US government encourages civil society organisations and individuals by offering them tax benefits. The total contribution the civil society organisations received in 2016 was $390.05 billion. The breakdown of the contributions indicates that three quarter (72%) of the contributions came from individuals, while a meagre percentage of 5% came from corporations. Moreover, NGOs in the US have millions of volunteers who contribute their time for the cause they care about. So, if NGOs in Pakistan wish to grow in influence and importance while remaining relevant to the needs of the communities they have to increase both local funding and volunteers. Otherwise, over-reliance on foreign aid will continue to haunt them in one way or another in the days to come.
Source: tribune.com.pk/story/1601768/6-unnecessary-crackdown-ngos/
------
End of Manna
By Irfan Husain
January 06, 2018
WE’VE been here before: the US imposes sanctions; we work ourselves into a lather; national sovereignty is invoked; and the media goes ballistic.
Then, miraculously, comes yet another regional crisis, and we are friends again. Or, to put it in George W. Bush’s words describing his post-9/11 relationship with Musharraf: “We are best buddies.” These ups and downs have characterised our links with the world’s most powerful state virtually since Pakistan’s creation, and little has changed in the last 70 years.
What has changed, however, is that Pakistan no longer has many friends on Capitol Hill or in the White House. There was a time when a Republican government meant that Islamabad’s voice was heard in the American corridors of power. One reason is that, as Sherry Rehman, our knowledgeable ex-ambassador to Washington, put it, we no longer have a dedicated lobbyist serving our cause in the American capital.
Aid is not bestowed out of benevolence.
But there’s much more than that. Steadily, the friendship between India and the US has become closer, just as India has wooed Afghanistan assiduously. India is seen by most Americans as a tolerant, progressive country free from the militancy that has plagued Pakistan for decades. Never mind that Modi’s BJP government has done its worst to erode India’s secular character. Above all, it is a large market for US arms, machinery and services.
Time and again, top American leaders have accused the Pakistani military establishment of “not doing enough” despite thousands of our security personnel being killed in the fight against Islamist militancy. But never before has an American president so openly used threats and policy directives to express disapproval.
There are many super-patriots who deny the Americans have any cause for complaint. However, if, as we keep repeating, we are on the same page as our US allies in the fight against Islamic militancy, why — as alleged in some news reports — haven’t we allowed them access to the Haqqani network terrorist captured by our security forces when they freed the kidnapped US-Canadian couple a few months ago?
Or, for that matter, why haven’t we succeeded in concluding the trial of those accused of the 2008 Mumbai attacks? And why is Hafiz Saeed still walking free? We forget that when Musharraf was targeted in two assassination attempts, the perpetrators were fast-tracked to the gallows in double quick time.
So like it or not, there is an American narrative that resonates deeply in Congress, the presidency and the media. Of course we have our own version, just as we have our own red lines and security concerns. How to make these two overlap is the conundrum that has soured relations between Washington and Islamabad for years.
For our part, we have much to blame the Americans for. The bloody incident at Salala when over two dozen of our soldiers were killed is one. The Raymond Davis kerfuffle — in which the CIA contractor was spirited away after paying blood money for the men he had killed — is another.
Going further back, there is still a lingering bitterness over the arms embargos imposed during the 1965 and 1971 wars with India. Then there was the 1990 aid cut-off as a result of the Pressler Amendment that prohibited assistance to countries engaged in nuclear arms development. Finally, the 1998 nuclear tests triggered an immediate blockage of whatever remaining aid that had been committed.
So there is much for the Pakistani establishment and intelligentsia to grouse about. But we forget that aid is not some manna from heaven bestowed out of benevolence. Taxpayer dollars are generally sanctioned in pursuit of a policy agenda, and in the US, must be released within the ambit of the law and democratic procedures. Then, of course, Trump is sticking to his campaign promise to his core supporters.
Another issue that we have consistently ducked relates to the constant rise of militancy, and the negative picture it paints of a country in constant turmoil. Recently, an editorial in Dawn mentioned this failure while addressing our inability to bring accused jihadi leaders and organisations to account.
We can say this is our business until we are blue in the face. But the fact is that friends from Washington to Beijing are concerned about our dismal failure to implement rational anti-extremist policies like the ones contained in our unrealised National Action Plan. Take a bow, Nawaz Sharif.
Apart from hoping that saner voices than Trump’s prevail in Washington, we would do well not to take cheap shots for her Indian origin at Nikki Haley, the US ambassador to the UN. She is a senior member of the US administration, and a well-known politician in her own right. For the head of the ISPR to be so unaware of the dynamics of internal American politics is alarming.
Source: dawn.com/news/1381052/end-of-manna
-----
Limits of American Power
By Zamir Akram
January 5, 2018
In his 2008 bestseller The Limits of Power, from which the title of this article is borrowed, renowned American scholar Andrew Bacevich argued that the era of American exceptionalism after the Cold War was over because American “imperialism had over-reached” and could not be sustained. For this Bacevich blamed the “hubris” of the Bush and Obama (“Bush Lite”) administrations, driven by the “sanctimonious” conviction that the rules of the “indispensable nation” be thrust upon the world through its “freedom agenda”, even by force if necessary. After 9/11, the “long war” — an open-ended global war on terror — became the justification to enforce this objective, not only in Afghanistan and Iraq but wherever considered necessary, because the US claimed “the prerogative of waging war when and where it sees fit.” But by 2009, as Bacevich points out, the “global war on terror produced one undeniable conclusion — estimates of US military capabilities have turned out to be wildly over-stated.” Accordingly, Bacevich concluded that “American power has limits and is inadequate to the ambitions to which hubris and sanctimony have given rise.” But his warnings have fallen on deaf ears.
Today under President Trump, the same imperial hubris and sanctimonious arrogance drives American policies with even greater potential for disaster. His national security strategy not only targets the so-called Islamic terrorism but adds China, Russia, North Korea and Iran to the list of enemies while committing even more troops and resources to a futile war without end in Afghanistan, apart from embarking on a costly military build-up. Meanwhile, the American economy sinks deeper into debt worth trillions.
Trump cronies term their security strategy ‘pragmatic realism’. It is anything but that. The reality is that the US is no longer the ‘sole superpower’ and the world is no longer unipolar. With the emergence of China as a global power and a resurgent Russia, the world has become multi-polar which the US cannot dominate any more. Simultaneous American provocations against China and Russia have only realigned these countries against the US. Americans simply cannot compete with both at the same time.
Moreover, Trump’s ‘America first’ policy and bullying of Nato allies has alienated countries like Germany, France and even the usually obsequious Britain, while Turkey is now moving closer to Russia, defying the alliance to procure Russian weapons. Japan, South Korea and Australia are also weighing their security options with the growing vulnerability and unreliability of the American security umbrella. The American empire seems to be crumbling.
Trump’s attempt to play the sectarian card against Iran by backing Saudi Arabia while also encouraging Israel to reverse Iranian ‘influence’ in the region will only lead to even greater violence in the Middle East. The civil wars in Yemen and Syria could spread and engulf the entire region. Moreover, Trump’s rejection of the Iran nuclear deal and Tehran’s allegations of American instigation of civil unrest in Iran, may well derail any attempt to contain nuclear proliferation as well as the spreading regional conflicts. In this environment, the IS terrorists will find ample ungoverned spaces to regroup and reassert themselves.
After 16 years of fighting in Afghanistan, the longest war in American history, Trump seems to have abandoned any attempt to find a negotiated exit. The introduction of more troops as well as the reported building of a military base in addition to the five existing ones, signals that the US has no intention of withdrawing from Afghanistan. Instead, it may want a permanent presence there to increase American pressure against Pakistan, China, Iran and Russia, adding to the turmoil in Afghanistan and further de-stabilising the region. This would be yet another example of imperial overreach, with eventually disastrous consequences for the US.
By far the most dangerous Trump policy today is to risk nuclear confrontation with North Korea. Using threats and insults is not a mature or realistic policy against a Pyongyang regime armed with nuclear weapons and missiles that can destroy American targets even on the US mainland. Demands for a rollback of North Korean strategic capabilities are also futile. The only option is to negotiate an agreement that prevents further escalation and stabilises the situation. Kim Jong-un has called America’s bluff. Trump needs to back down or risk Armageddon.
For the US to seek global ‘full-spectrum domination’ in a multi-polar world beset by several challenges to the US security is a fool’s errand. Moreover, the cost of such hegemony cannot be met by a US confronted by inequality, inflation and debt which, according to Ron Paul, leader of the Conservative Tea Party, has “brought America to the verge of collapse.” With GDP growth at 2.5% compared to China’s growth of 6.8% in 2017, the US simply cannot fund its global agenda.
A clear indicator of American global standing was the recent vote in the UN on the shifting of the US embassy to Jerusalem where the US was isolated in the Security Council and, despite its pressure tactics, received only nine votes, mostly from micro states, in the General Assembly.
But Trump remains oblivious to these limits of US power. He swaggers about offending friends and foes alike. The latest is Trump’s petulant tweet about Pakistan. Suspending aid, which for the most part is really reimbursement for Pakistan’s expenditure on counter-terrorism efforts (Coalition Support Fund), is meaningless because now Pakistan has other options. Trump also forgets that without Pakistan’s cooperation, his campaign in Afghanistan will collapse. Instead of using Pakistan as a scapegoat for their failure in Afghanistan, the Americans need to evolve a cooperative relationship consistent with Pakistan’s security interests. Islamabad has wisely chosen to treat Trump’s tweet with the contempt that it deserves and focus on its own efforts to combat Indo-Afghan sponsored terrorism with American connivance. We should continue to be guided by the wise Arabic proverb: “The dogs bark but the caravan moves on.”
Source: tribune.com.pk/story/1600844/6-limits-american-power/
-----
Trumpicide
By Dr Pervez Tahir
January 5, 2018
The number of Americans taking Trump seriously is declining by the day. Why should then Pakistanis take him seriously? The threatening New Year tweet followed the one in October in which he wanted to thank Pakistan for “cooperation on many fronts.” Earlier in August, he could “no longer be silent about Pakistan’s safe havens for terrorist organisations.” After Trump was elected president, Nawaz Sharif was told that “Pakistanis are one of the most intelligent people.” These very people have now “given us nothing but lies & deceit, thinking of our leaders as fools. They give safe haven to the terrorists we hunt in Afghanistan, with little help. No more!”
Pakistan’s narrative is built around its security concerns. We take Trump seriously because Trump takes India seriously. After the adoption of the General Assembly resolution against his revisionist action on Jerusalem, Trump had left no doubt that there would be consequences for the supporters of the resolution. India was among the supporters. But the consequential tweet is directed at Pakistan. What Trump has put crudely was also Obama’s oblique refrain. But India was not part of Obama’s strategy, as it is with Trump. His own military establishment knows that a ‘no more’ policy cannot succeed without an alternative logistics strategy. Attempts to develop a northern route did not succeed. By alienating Iran, Trump has killed the prospect of using Chabahar, a port developed with the help of India, unless he believes that he could aid and abet a ‘Persian spring’ for a regime change. The Iraq war in 2003 led to the globalisation of al Qaeda. The blood-thirsty ISIS was its off-shoot. It is now spreading its networks around the world. With the prospects of wars in Iraq and Syria coming to an end, a similar fallout is imminent. The theatre is shifting to Yemen. Saudi Arabia seeks Pakistan’s support, which has its own regional concerns.
The Pakistan-US relationship goes back a long way. Both had divergent objectives from day one. Pakistan joined the Cold War alliances, such as the Central Treaty Organisation and Southeast Asia Treaty Organisation to prepare for a military response to India, while the US objective was to contain the Soviet Union. Economic assistance was also sought essentially to strengthen the national power. A strong correlation existed between periods of high growth and inflows of economic assistance. Both stood by their separate strategic objectives when the chips were down in 1965 and 1971. The result was failure and the end of alliances. The success came when one partner, Pakistan, supported the objectives of the other partner in the Afghan war of the 1980s. It was not Pakistan’s war, but its support to the US led to the fall of the Soviet Union. The associated inflows of economic assistance helped achieve high GDP growth. Again the war on terror was not Pakistan’s war in the 2000s. It joined willy-nilly and enjoyed foreign-assisted growth once again. Hence, the charges of double-crossing. In 2010s, especially after the massacre at the Army Public School, the war on terror became Pakistan’s own war. But it has been a hard-sell abroad, despite enormous sacrifices in men and material. And this pre-dates Trump.
What Trump has done is to introduce India as a strategic partner, something unacceptable to Pakistan, despite a huge hole in the external accounts. The worst Pakistan can do will be an overreaction. It should not lose focus on dealing with terrorism at home, while ensuring a smooth political transition. An indigenous austerity policy affecting the rich more than the poor must be part of the transition. The next government will have to put in place a long-term plan of self-sustained growth and development.
Source: tribune.com.pk/story/1600811/6-trumpicide/
-----
Unexplained Visit
By Muhammad Usman
January 6, 2018
MYSTERIOUS visit of Sharif brothers to Saudi Arab spawned a raft of speculations. Its array was wide and wild. First and foremost was of a deal, commonly known as NRO for self-preservation. Mainly its upshot was refuge and escape from fast approaching arm of accountability. Two things lent credence to what was thrown in air. One, an upbeat, buoyant and brisk Shahbaz Sharif, mounting on a specially dispatched royal aircraft. Two, a precedent of deal in case of Sharif family under auspices of Saudi royal family, about two decades ago. Given circumstances, both held no water.
In December 2000, a deal was signed between Sharif family and Musharraf’s government at bidding of Kingdom of Saudi Arab however, there was no dearth of critics who alleged that it was basically former US President, Bill Clinton who wanted to bail out Nawaz Sharif in hour of his ordeal. He asked Saudi royal family to arrange relief. Probably this care was taken to avoid public backlash because being custodian of Holy Mosques, they were held in high esteem widely among Pakistani people nevertheless, this arrangement suited to all parties involved. The deal allowed Nawaz Sharif.to live in exile in Saudi Arab for ten years along with his family. In return, he was obliged not to indulge himself in political activities of any kind during stipulated period. Though it raised many eyebrows however, government argued that this has been done in best interests of the country and people of Pakistan. In 2000, relationship between government of Musharraf and US was estranged.
The deal might have been considered an opportunity to ease tension. On top of this, probably it was difficult for government to say no to Saudi royal family for host of reasons; relative diplomatic isolation, age old greater ties of respect and cordiality and economic overdependence on Kingdom of Saudi Arab etc. Internally a Nawaz Sharif in prison was considered more problematic politically than an inactive Nawaz Sharif in exile for government, sought through a deal under humiliating terms and conditions. Characteristically this aspect might have played a role to cook the deal. No opposition from political parties was expected as almost all political parties including PML (N) constituted main opposition against the government. Media was small and assumed to act softly. At present, situation is diametrically different.
Trump has no love lost for Nawaz Sharif. Possibly his indifference is universal because of his characteristic personality traits albeit our ruling elite is doing its best to catch his eyes. Because of emerging new dynamics in mutual relationship with Pakistan, Saudi Arab would prefer not to demand anything which could tax Pakistan. Internally it is a defining moment. We have travelled a long distance. In process, on name of democracy, our ruling elite has robbed the nation mercilessly. Economically we are in a sinkhole. Institutionally we are in disarray. Education, healthcare and other civic facilities are almost extinct. Corruption is at vertex. Inevitably, we have to suffer all this before overhauling darkest hour of the night. It was the price, we had to pay for innocence, gullibility and stagnation of hapless people. In tug and pull, to our good luck, truth has not only survived but also marched to a position from where it could break out. Dawn is within striking distance. No one who have toiled hard, would like the chance to slip away. NRO would definitely provide breather to dying ruling elite.
Judiciary is in a mood to pay back. Its landmark decision to disqualify Nawaz Sharif has opened the floodgates. Previous NRO was annulled by Supreme Court, being legally untenable. New one may be just a case of summary disposal. Since over a decade, Armed Forces are fighting nonstop on many fronts; terrorism, militancy, gruesome crimes, frequent escalations at Line of Control/Working Boundary, standing up to Do More of USA, Indian intrigues, provision of infrastructure/rehabilitation of IDPs, security of CPEC, relief works and active support in works of national necessity etc. They are on SOS call. These tasks are much beyond their designation. They have done it because other institutions were dysfunctional or incapable. They have given sweat and blood in plenty. Prudently they would not like that this goes in vain. Only way forward is move forward. Their constant conduct is its index. NRO would be retrogressive.
Latest manifestation is statement of COAS on New Year “a momentous year was over. Year 2018 is of immense significance for Pakistan internally and externally with monumental challenges. These are convertible into opportunities. Part we have done, remaining we can and shall do together, Inshaa Allah. Nothing can defeat the spirit of Pakistan”. Imran Khan has been main moving force to bring struggle against corrupt ruling elite thus far. His electoral success seems imminent. He vows to oppose any divisionary move with tooth and nail. His vow is not empty because he symbolizes yearnings and aspirations of people. Media is vibrant and effective. It acts like a watchman of troubled day and night. It will not let any contra step sail through easily. Civil Society is also equally watchful. In midst of such environments, uneventful return of both Sharif was a foregone conclusion.
Source: pakobserver.net/unexplained-visit/
-----
URL: