Current Saudi-Israeli Ingress By Dr Ikram Azam: New Age Islam's Selection, 26 December 2017
New Age Islam Edit Bureau
26 December 2017
• Current Saudi-Israeli Ingress
By Dr Ikram Azam
• Two People Overlapping Communities
By Irum Maqbool
• Jerusalem Vote at the UN
By Shahid M Amin
• US Rhetoric Uncalled-For
By Malik Ashraf
• Did We All Die Today?
By Kamal Siddiqi
• Powerless Liberals?
By Zahra Sabri
• Aid, Appeasement and Strategic Assets
By Dr Murad Ali
• Pakistan and The US Doctrine
By Shahid Javed Burki
• Of Victims and Perpetrators
By Anita Turab
• Can Trump And Mattis Last?
By David Ignatius
Compiled By New Age Islam Edit Bureau
-----
Current Saudi-Israeli Ingress
By Dr Ikram Azam
December 25, 2017
THE news item about this issue appearing in the Pakistan Observer (Daily), Islamabad, of Saturday 16th December, 2017, set me thinking creatively, in search of the silver lining to the topic, reproduced relevantly below: “Saudi Arabia to have full diplomatic ties with Israel”:(Rayadh – Agencies) which report that: “Amid widespread reports of behind the scene cooperation between Riyadh and Tel Aviv, Saudi Foreign Minister Adel el Juberi says the kingdom has a “roadmap” to establish full diplomatic ties with the Tel Aviv regime’ “Speaking to France 24 television late on Wednesday, Jubir said Riyadh has a plan for normalisation with Tel Aviv if an agreement is reached between Palestine and the Israeli entity”.
The silver lining is the proviso starting with the “if” highlighted by me in bold print — the conditionality of the “agreement between Palestine and the Israeli entity”. In need of explication, does the term “agreement” imply mutual recognition as two sovereign states and friendly neighbours committed to Peaceful Coexistence under the related – relevant UN Resolutions? It is, indeed a consolation that the two sides would first try to work out a solution to the “Israeli Palestinian conflict” …. But what follows is rather disquieting: The Dark Cloud: “Leaked”: Saudis have ‘plans for official ties with Israel’. A secret, undated letter from the Saudi FM to the Crown Prince (which) “sets out plans for the establishment of ties with Israel’. Why? Because: “In mid – November Labanon’s al Akhbar daily published” –– the afore – said letter to the Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman. “After getting rid of the Palestine issue, the two regimes could then focus on their common goal, which is forming an alliance against Iran” –– (‘according to the report’).
The wordings of the news story are regrettable: (i) “Significantly sideline the interests of the Palestinian nation”. ii) After getting rid of the Palestinian issue”, Apart from these linguistic flaws, faults or foible –– call them what you will ––“the common goal of forming an alliance against Iran” –– is most startling –– whatever its geostrategic constraints like: “Their mutual concerns over Iran’s growing regional influence”. It is fervently hoped prayerfully, that: (i) Saudi Arabia will heed the lessons of history, to avoid Egypt’s hasty recognition of Israel with tragic results. (ii) Work vigorously for Muslim unity and thereby normalize its relations with brotherly Muslim Iran. (iii) While recognising that the Jews and Christians are ‘Ahl-al-Kitab’ –– `Brothers of the Book’ Allah’s Monotheistic Book, Iranis are fellow Muslims, (even as Shias). (iv) While Islami Modernization – as defined by Islam, itself – is good for the Muslim World it needs to be distinguished from alienating sensate –– secular materialistic Westernization. (v) Speaking futuristically, Islam is the Muslim – Islami Ummah’s Identity as well as Destiny.
It is gratifying to note, as reported by the Pakistan Observer of Sunday 17th December, 2017, that the initiator, exemplar and pace-setting: “Turkish President Recep Tayyib Erdogan has stated that: “The US Jerusalem recognition is (a) ‘bomb’ in the ME”. Indeed, President Trump’s American Security Council veto of the latest near-unanimous resolution on the Al-Qudus critically sensitive issue has exploded like a nuclear bomb-thanks to his Jewish son-in-law, and the US Jewish lobby. The latest is Turkey’s decision to establish an Embassy in the Palestinian East Jerusalem. Other Muslim States need to follow suit — instead of sidelining the issue, and thereby, stabbing the Palestinian nation in the back. Sadly, there is a divisive distinction between the contemporary Muslim Ummah –– which is self-split and splintered –– and the ideal Islami Ummah which is united and one under Islamic Unison –– “Tauheid –– Wahdat”. The challenge to the current Collective Leadership of the Muslim World today is to strive unitedly in a Perpetually Peaceful Just and Justified “Jihad-al Akbar” to convert /revert the presently split Muslim Ummah into the ideal Islami Ummah, before it is too late. Jerusalem is the God-granted opportunity to initiate this –– Jehad for justice in sovereign fraternal freedom for all and forever! Conclusion: “Say: O people of the Scripture: Come to a word that is just between us and you that we worship none but Allah and that we associate no partners with Him and none of us shall take others as lords besides Allah. Then, if they turn away say: “Bear witness that we are Muslims.” (Al Quran, 64:3). “Mankind was one community and Allah sent Prophets with glad tiding and warmings and with them He sent down the Scripture in truth to judge between people in matters wherein they differed. And only those to whom (the Scripture) was given differed Concerning it after clear proofs had come unto them, through hatred, one to another. Then Allah, by His leave guided those who believed, to the truth of that wherein they differed. And Allah guides whom He wills to the Straight Path. (Path Al-Quran 213 – 2)
Source: pakobserver.net/current-saudi-israeli-ingress/
-----
Two People Overlapping Communities
By Irum Maqbool
December 25, 2017
Today, 25th of December, two different peoples will celebrate the lives and works of two distinct individuals in history: the birth of the Quaid and the birth of Christ. By millions around the globe the latter will be celebrated merrily. By our fellow countrymen and women and historians the former will be celebrated and remembered dearly. Yet by some of our compatriots both will be celebrated equally. Muhammad Ali Jinnah was a man loved and shared by all alike irrespective of religion. Today however his legacy is bracketed by a select few.
Newspapers have frequently reported acts of violence against religious communities of different shades, sad occurrences that are regretted by everyone. But a general ‘social-othering’ sets in from an early age, one that affects all members of the community, even if they are physically safe. In one incident, a 13-year-old school girl I counselled was in psychological distress. She had no friends in class and nobody shared their pens or lunch with her because she was a Christian. More upsetting was the fact that she believed she deserved it and should not complain to any authorities because her parents advised her to be cautious since she was the ‘minority’. An opinion the parents frequently found reinforced. Such cases are not isolated. Another acquaintance who in daily conversations over tea tells me about how things are has often commented on Church activities. From her I know how they celebrate Independence Day at Church and Jinnah’s birthday, and also how they have held vigil for schoolchildren ever since they were martyred in 2014. Despite the social-othering they face, this is their beloved country as much as it is someone else’s.
Jinnah had a special place for people of other faiths in his political decisions and idea of nation. The phenomenal 11th August speech to the Constituent Assembly clearly addressed the ideal place for religious minorities in a country predominantly Islamic. The alienation being inherited generation after generation is making them the ‘other’ in their own country. Rights are not limited to home, source of earning and public places. The fact that there exists a quota in jobs based on faith or that there are universities that grant special seats to them is not a compensation for the estrangement they suffer.
For any individual a sense of belonging is as important as food and water. This is not limited to being a community but being able to be part of the society around them. The whole is greater than its parts, a fact acknowledged by Jinnah. Pakistan is a country of many faiths. But are the followers living together or are they bracketed into like communities sharing space with others they do not identify or communicate with?
Compartmentalisation is a result of conflating, accepting someone’s religious ideology with accepting them as people and as citizens. Interfaith harmony and religious tolerance are issues at the fore around the globe, the lack of which is giving rise to insecurity of minorities as it has throughout history. While religion may distinguish between two peoples it does not have to drive a wedge between them. In other regions of the world, Muslims are facing the same alienation and persecution. The civil war in former Yugoslavia, the massacre in Gujarat and the suspicion that targets women who wear hijabs or of mosques are examples of problems on different ends of the same spectrum.
Jinnah counselled his followers to always have insight and be leaders that represented all. Our shared gratitude and love for Jinnah is a fact that can bridge differences and can lead to making space for every community in this homeland. They belong here and equally bear the grief and celebrate the happiness the nation faces. The foundation of social inclusion is laid by those who need to include those they have previously excluded from their discourse.
Source: tribune.com.pk/story/1592079/6-two-people-overlapping-communities/
----
Jerusalem Vote at the UN
By Shahid M Amin
December 25, 2017
THE UN has acted decisively to reject President Trump’s decision to recognise Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and to move the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. First, the UN Security Council met to take up an Egyptian Resolution which declared that any unilateral decisions regarding the status of Jerusalem would “have no legal effect, are null and void and must be rescinded.” Without specifically mentioning USA, it expressed “deep regret at the recent decisions concerning the status of Jerusalem.” In the 15-member Security Council, the voting was 14 in favour and 1 against. Since USA has veto power, the Resolution could not be passed. However, it was notable that no country at UNSC supported USA.
Its traditional allies like Britain and France voted against it. Russia and China opposed the US decision as well as the 10 non-permanent members of UNSC viz. Bolivia, Egypt, Ethiopia, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Senegal, Sweden, Ukraine and Uruguay. Out of these, Egypt, Italy, Japan, and Ukraine are seen as close to the US, but all of them voted against its decision on Jerusalem. The US was obliged to cast its first veto in six years to quash the Resolution. However, US Ambassador to UN Nikki Haley was defiant and threatening. She said ”the United States will not be told by any country where we can put our embassy. What we have witnessed here is an insult. It won’t be forgotten.” She said that the US had done more than any other country to assist Palestinians, including more than $5 billion in economic, security and humanitarian assistance since 1994.
Next, under a special provision named Uniting for Peace, the UN General Assembly held a rare emergency special session at the request of Arab and Muslim states. Under the UN Charter, a UNGA Resolution is non-binding. Still, such a Resolution is seen as voice of the world and has moral authority. In a crude display of arm-twisting, Ambassador Haley sent letters to UN states warning them that the US would “remember” those who voted for the Resolution criticizing the US decision on Jerusalem. She said that “the president will be watching this vote carefully. We will take note of each and every vote on this issue.” She threatened to cut off US aid to such countries and to the UN itself.
The 193-member UN General Assembly adopted the anti-US resolution by a majority of 128 for and 9 against. 35 countries abstained while 21 were absent. Those who voted against the Resolution were USA, Israel and 7 small countries. Britain and France voted in favour of the Resolution. So did India, even though the Modi government is very close to both USA and Israel. The explanation possibly was that India had traditionally sided with Arab countries on the Palestinian issue. 22 out of 28 EU countries voted in favour of the Resolution, including Germany which in the past abstained on matters relating to Israel.
A close study of the vote suggested that some countries had changed their vote to placate the US by abstaining or remaining absent. Togo was the only OIC member to support USA. Egypt and Afghanistan withdrew their names from sponsorship of the UNGA Resolution. Ethiopia and Ukraine, which had voted against the US at Security Council, chose to abstain or were absent at UNGA voting. Among OIC countries, those who abstained were Benin, Bosnia, Cameroon and Uganda. The 35 abstentions included two big US neighbours -Canada and Mexico- and included Argentina, Australia, Bhutan, Philippines, and Poland, and 5 EU states. The 21 absent states were evidently influenced by US warnings over funding cuts. But some leading recipients of US aid like Egypt, Jordan, Afghanistan and Pakistan refused to bow under pressure. Nevertheless, the substantial majority vote at UNGA was less than expected, due to US arm-twisting.
The UN voting on Jerusalem showed US isolation on Jerusalem. Trump has been boasting that he has raised US prestige in the world but the UN vote proves the opposite. On some other key issues as well e.g. opposition to Paris climate accord, rejection of Iran nuclear accord, and decision to withdraw from international negotiations on migration, Trump has contributed to US isolation.
Trump has a twisted understanding of the rationale for US aid to various countries. It is not charity but US national interests that motivate US aid to these countries. Egypt opted out of military confrontation with Israel under US-sponsored Camp David accords of 1978 for which the US inducement was long-term economic aid. US aid to Jordan is given in recognition of its stabilizing influence as a moderate Arab fortress against extremism. Afghanistan remains today a US battleground and financial aid to strengthen it to resist the Taliban and Islamist extremists is a key US security interest. As for Pakistan, the US saw its importance in 1950s as a key country in containment of Soviet communist expansion. Pakistan’s strategic role continued in 1980s when it served as a frontline country in the anti-Soviet jihad. After 9/11, Pakistan has been the access route for the US military campaign in Afghanistan.
The Coalition Support Fund given to Pakistan is far cheaper for USA than direct involvement of its own troops in the war against terror. Besides, Pakistan has taken heavy financial losses due to its involvement in this war. Supporting Pakistan financially is not a favour but a reimbursement of its financial losses.
Trump has been trying to put pressure on Pakistan for several months to deny any sanctuaries for Afghan Taliban, a charge denied by Pakistan. Some in his administration might argue that the Pakistani role in the recent UN vote on Jerusalem was a further reason for reduction of US financial support for Pakistan. However, the US must be cognizant that countries that receive far more US aid like Egypt, Jordan, South Korea and Afghanistan also voted the same way as Pakistan. The fact that India too opposed USA in the UN vote would be a further reason for USA not to single out Pakistan for imposing any sanctions.
Source: pakobserver.net/jerusalem-vote-un/
----
US Rhetoric Uncalled-For
By Malik Ashraf
December 25, 2017
THE chill in Pak-US relations triggered by the announcement of new Policy on Afghanistan and South Asia by President Trump and the outright rejection of the US view point by Pakistan, continues to persist due to the uncalled-for US rhetoric about safe havens of terrorists in Pakistan and its threatening posture notwithstanding the engagement between the two countries at the diplomatic level and exchange of high level visits. The US vice President Mike Pence during his unannounced visit to Afghanistan said” For too long Pakistan has provided safe havens to the Taliban and many terrorist organizations, but those days are over. President Trump has put Pakistan on notice. As the President said, so I say now: Pakistan has much to gain from partnering with the U.S., and Pakistan has much to lose by continuing to harbour criminals and terrorists.”
The foreign spokesman reacting to his remarks said “The statement is at variance with the extensive conversations we have had with the US Administration. On notice should be those factors responsible for exponential increase in drug production, expansion of ungoverned spaces, industrial scale corruption, breakdown of governance, and letting Daesh gain a foothold in Afghanistan, Also on focus should be: creating peace and reconciliation mechanisms. And finally, externalizing blame should be put on notice.” The statement by Pence negates all the diplomatic norms and principles governing inter-state relations particularly for a country like Pakistan which has been the US ally for so long and had also suffered enormously in the fight against terrorism. The firm response given by the foreign office is justified in view of the continued harshness in US stance and as expected from a self-respecting nation.
The military also reacted befittingly to the rhetoric. DG ISPR Major General Asif Ghafoor talking to a private TV channel said “We need nothing from US but acknowledgement for our contributions, our sacrifices and our efforts for peace in the region. We all know how the war on terror started and how it was imposed upon us. We have fought it as our own war in the best interest of our country. We did whatever we had to in the interest of Pakistan and what we do in the future will also be in our interest. Afghanistan’s war will not be fought again on Pakistani soil. Afghanistan’s war was imposed on Pakistan. Pakistan has repeatedly urged elimination of TTP leadership present inside Afghanistan. US can give India any status it wants to, but any role which gives India permission to work against Pakistan’s interests will not be acceptable to the country. If US extends cooperation to Pakistan, terrorism can be eliminated altogether. We have cleared our areas of terrorists. Afghan forces are responsible for such elements present on other side of the border … they need to chase them,” The position taken by Pakistan in regards to the solution of the Afghan conflict is in conformity with the ground realities. Unilateral actions by Pakistan as expected by the US are not going to succeed. The biggest hurdle is the issue of border management for which honest and credible reciprocity by the US is need. It is an irrefutable reality that more than 40% Afghan territory is under occupation of the Afghan Taliban particularly the areas near Pakistan border. The TTP leadership is also based there and are sponsoring and carrying out acts of terrorism within Pakistan. Another point which needs to be understood by the US is that Haqqanis are Afghans and after the operation Zarb-e-Azb they have gone back to their own territory. The terrorist attacks in Afghanistan are being executed from within the Afghan territory and not by the Taliban allegedly living in safe havens in Pakistan. Until and unless these realities are duly acknowledged by the US no fruitful outcome could be expected in regards to ending war in Afghanistan.
US also needs to revisit its approach for a military solution and involvement of India in Afghanistan because it would neither be acceptable to the Afghan Taliban nor Pakistan. Another inescapable reality is that there can be no peace in Afghanistan without cooperation of Pakistan. Nobody can change geographical realities. Yet another thing that US must understand is that Pakistan would be biggest beneficiary of peace in Afghanistan as peace in Pakistan was inextricably linked to it. Pakistan therefore would be the last country to wish continuation of strife in Afghanistan or support the Taliban for launching attacks within Afghanistan using its soil.
Pakistan has even asked to US to identify where according to her the alleged safe havens existed on its soil and it would take immediate action against them. Pakistan and US can devise an effective collective mechanism to deal with the situation and clearing the haze about the alleged existence of safe havens in Pakistan provided the US is really sincere in restoration of peace in Afghanistan. Under the circumstance Pakistan must brace itself for the negative fallout from the US-Indian nexus. The best option available to Pakistan to neutralize and mitigate the impact of this unholy alliance is to reinforces its relations with the regional countries and seek their support in promoting peace in the region. The renewed efforts to reach out to Iran and warming up relations with Russia, is a step in the right direction. China is already supportive of Pakistan efforts and a stakeholder in peace and implementation of CPEC which makes them natural allies. SCO is yet another forum to be relied upon to enhance prospects of peace in the region and thwarting the conspiracies to destabilise it.
Source: pakobserver.net/us-rhetoric-uncalled/
-----
Did We All Die Today?
By Kamal Siddiqi
December 25, 2017
Who says justice cannot be bought? I am reminded of the emotional speech made recently by our chief justice. Likening the judiciary to Baba Rehmat (a wise old man), he said: “The judiciary is your baba … do not doubt its integrity.” The chief justice said those against whom a judgment had been issued had the right to criticise the motive behind the verdict, but he questioned the insinuations of the “judiciary being part of a plan.”
Please Baba explain to the sister and family of Shahzeb Khan what happened in the case of Shahrukh Jatoi, who seems to have walked away from the gallows. This young man and his associates have been given bail despite the fact that all circumstantial evidence points to the fact that they killed a young man in cold blood. Does the Baba feel that justice is only an option for the rich?
The Peoples Party government of the time under the wise and able leadership of president Asif Zardari, did all it could to facilitate the murderers. It was a close aide of the president who let Shahrukh Jatoi be smuggled to Dubai. Had it not been for the notice taken by the chief justice of that time, the case would have ended there.
On December 27, 2012, this newspaper reported in its article “Murdered in cold blood: For Sindh’s feudals, Karachi lives come cheap” how Shahzeb Khan, the son of a middle ranking police officer was killed because he got into a fight with the guard of Shahrukh Jatoi who had earlier teased Shahzeb’s sister. Despite having come to some agreement, Jatoi and his guards are reported to have killed Shahzeb in cold blood as he drove his car out of the apartment block some time later.
So shameless is the Sindh police that despite the fact that a son of its own officer had been killed, it failed to recover the murderers. It was only after Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry in January 2013 took suo motu notice of the news that appeared in this paper and a programme on Express News that the wheels of justice started to turn. Till that time, despite the passage of a week, the police had been unable to apprehend the killers.
When they did finally make it to the court, one’s blood would boil in the manner these men would parade themselves. They would flash victory signs and smile without any shame of what they had done. It was obvious they had a better understanding of the Pakistani legal system than any one of us.
Between 2012 and 2017, we have seen a farce taking place. In this, the state worked, as usual, against the victims. The family was pressurised into giving a pardon under the controversial Qisas and Diyat Laws, (a gift of another great president General Ziaul Haq) and under which Raymond Davis also won his freedom. It seems only the poor get capital punishment. A survey of the economic background of those hanged over the past few years proves this.
What is the lesson here for all of us? To begin with, the men and women of Karachi have to understand that they can be killed at will by feudal landlords or anyone with any connection to the ruling party of Sindh. Take the case of Ali Hajiano, the serial rapist who also murdered several innocent women. His case continues to linger in the courts. His father is a small time party affiliate.
The Sindh government continues to give protocol to these criminals and law breakers. Most of those who went to receive Sharukh Jatoi came in government cars or cars with no number plates. One way to identify how big a crook a person is in Sindh is by the number of police guards in his protocol, says one journalist. This may not entirely be true but the manner in which police is used and abused by men of questionable characters begs many questions of our CM.
Baba, is this the Pakistan we have struggled and paid taxes for? So that those who pay no taxes and drive their four-wheel drive cars all over us, can bully us with their guards who almost always carry unlicensed weapons. Is it time for us to pack up and move on if we have the option? Lives of the middle-class in Sindh seem to have no value. I wish I lived in Punjab.
Source: tribune.com.pk/story/1592112/6-did-we-all-die-today/
----
Powerless Liberals?
By Zahra Sabri
December 26, 2017
SINCE the Faizabad debacle, numerous opeds have appeared in our English papers despairing over liberal/progressive forces’ apparently infinitesimal level of power in this country and enjoining them to become a more potent force of change. A less emotional assessment may suggest, however, that liberal/progressive forces possess an inordinate degree of power and influence — their street power might be limited, but they surely enjoy a tremendous presence in many kinds of mainstream educational institutions and media groups.
What does the word ‘liberal’ mean in Pakistan today? Many terms have one meaning in the technical/academic sense, and another recognisable one in the non-academic, lay sense. Take the term ‘fundamentalist’. It has a distinct history rooted in the Christian context, making it inappropriate and irrelevant for sophisticated academic analysis of Muslim or Hindu contexts. However, in a casual, everyday sense, many Pakistanis would recognise what style of behaviour or manner of being ‘fundamentalist/fundo’ refers to.
Similarly, while ‘liberal’ technically describes someone who subscribes to liberal notions of civic rights and freedoms and economic policy, in Pakistani lay discourse over the last two decades or so, it has come to take on another distinct inflection. It denotes someone who deems a profound cultural Westernisation of themselves and their surroundings as something positive, and desires and argues for a wholesale application to Pakistan of evolving and dominant rights and freedoms in the liberal West today. Although progressives technically tend to be left of liberal on issues like economic policy, even the category of ‘progressive’ is regularly collapsed into ‘liberal’ in such lay discourse since the two groups often find themselves inhabiting the same social and cultural spaces and taking up similar social causes vis-à-vis traditional/religious norms.
The stamp of liberal desires is unmistakable.
So how helpless and powerless are liberals in Pakistani society? Fact is that in almost all so-called elite educational institutions and in several prominent media houses (especially their English-medium enterprises), the stamp of liberal desires is unmistakeable. The segment of society which increasingly avails the services of these organisations is also not insignificant. It is not to madrasas and Khanqahs that Pakistan’s upcoming middle classes are choosing to send their children to seek education and careers but to organisations linked to the prevailing global economy and that have a Western-liberal orientation. Yet how far-reaching is the impact?
College education is generally seen as a key opportunity for shaping ideology and opinion. Yet even in university departments brimming with liberal/progressive professors, we often see only a handful of students ultimately convinced to offer committed support to liberal/progressive projects. Instead, the overwhelming majority of poor and middle-class students often see liberal politics as an elitist playground with the agents being well-meaning but linguistically and culturally disconnected at best, and supercilious and complacently ignorant about the society around them at worst.
The reception of the English press increasingly suffers from a similar problem. The much-admired work of old veterans notwithstanding, a newer generation of writers and desk staff is causing an image problem for the English press by turning it into an echo chamber of lazily researched rantings on a narrow range of hot-button issues. These ravings often have a disturbingly Orientalist tone that does not go unnoticed even by foreign visitors to the country.
Still, regardless of what people think of this self-avowed liberal class here, liberal ideals enjoy a near-hegemonic status globally and their influence in Pakistan is pervasive. Though religious arguments set barriers against pushing through every kind of Western-liberal legislation, liberals notions and arguments trickle down into mainstream discussions about policymaking on a relatively regular basis and can be seen on all levels of the education system, in media discussions, and framing of mainstream political discourse.
Whether it relates to issues of improving women’s status or the character of democratic institutions, between the limits set by religious law and the status quo as represented by traditional social norms and prevailing political culture, there is a huge space for social and political reform in Pakistan where liberal ideals can be seen as very active.
It is thus tiring to see our liberals paint themselves as much more beleaguered than they really are. It would be better if they formed a more realistic picture of the power and influence they do have in society (which is greater, in fact, than their numbers), and try to act on this opportunity more responsibly and inclusively to better effect. Today, many people in Pakistan who participate in various kinds of liberal politics prefer to distance themselves from the term ‘liberal’, choosing to adopt a dismissive and pejorative attitude towards it. It may not be a bad idea to reflect more deeply on why this might be so.
Source: dawn.com/news/1378798/powerless-liberals
-----
Aid, Appeasement and Strategic Assets
By Dr Murad Ali
December 26, 2017
President Trump’s decision to recognise Jerusalem as Israel’s capital is an unprecedented step and has been considered “a major break with his predecessors”. He did what various presidents, both Republican and Democrat, could not do despite the fact that the US-Israel relationship has mostly remained ‘exceptional’ and ‘unique in history’.
The decision to recognise Jerusalem as Israel’s capital is condemnable and has been rightly criticised even by close European allies of the US. The issue is undoubtedly sensitive and close to the hearts of over a billion Muslims across the world. Irrespective of that, and even if one shuns one’s own biases and prejudices, the decision is a slap on the face of history and international norms, values and obligations.
Although from time to time the US has backed negotiations between Israel and Palestine to give the impression of being a neutral third party, the ties between Israel and the US and the way the US has supported Israel by providing both economic and military aid as well as by extending unflinching diplomatic support at the UN Security Council, International Court of Justice and various other international forums, makes it evident that the US has always sided with Israel – sometimes in blatant violation of international norms and principles.
When David Ben-Gurion proclaimed the establishment of the State of Israel on May 14, 1948, following the end of the British mandate in Palestine, it took the administration of then US president Truman 11 minutes to recognise the Jewish state. Ben-Gurion, the founding father of Israel, later became the first prime minister of the country. Although the US started providing economic aid to Israel, relations were troubled in the early 1950s. Both Truman and his successor Eisenhower realised that getting too close to Israel could harm America’s relations with the Arab world. That is why the US also voiced strong opposition to the Israeli campaign against Egypt in 1956, launched in coordination with France and Britain and known as the Suez Crisis. It was under American pressure that Israel later withdrew from the Sinai.
The US gave considerable economic and military to Israel during the 1950s and early 1960s. The Six-Day War of 1967, though, was a turning point for the US, which thereafter became Israel’s main backer. During the June 1967 Arab-Israeli war, Israel occupied the Sinai, the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, east Jerusalem and the Golan Heights. Israel’s victory over its Arab opponents put it politically, diplomatically and strategically in a much stronger position. It is argued that the triumph of Israel was “an American gain as well, since both Egypt and Syria were close allies of the Soviet Union and their defeat was considered a major blow to Kremlin’s prestige in the region”. There was a consensus that the war was “a disaster of great proportions for Moscow, and a commensurate gain for the United States” in the cold-war background.
This is how the US started to view a strong Israel as a strategic asset against Soviet influence in the region. Consequently, the volume of US assistance to Israel increased enormously during these years. The US was not offering Israel “billions of dollars in military and economic aid merely out of a sense of moral obligation” but because the US now saw Israel as a vital strategic partner. Hence, due to mutual geo-strategic, political and security interests, US economic and military aid to Israel increased markedly in the coming years and decades.
US-Israel ties are usually labelled ‘unique’, ‘special’ and ‘unprecedented’. Regarding the provision of American economic and military aid to Israel over the last nearly seven decades, here are some astonishing facts. The US has allocated Israel a total of over $63 billion economic and over $141 billion military assistance, more than $200 billion in aggregate [as per USAID “US Overseas Loans and Grants” (Greenbook)]. Remember, the total population of Israel is just over eight million and its GDP per capita is $33,700. On account of its GDP per capita, Israel is considered among the 40-50 richest nations in the world.
In the 1990s, the total US aid to Israel was approximately one-third of the entire US foreign aid budget, even though Israel comprised just .001 percent of the world population. Therefore, US aid for Israel is not due to poverty but because of shared geo-strategic and security goals. Most significantly, the Zionist lobby within the US, particularly the extremely powerful and well-organized American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), founded in 1951, is one of the most influential players persuading US foreign policy in favour of Israel.
Israel is also exempted from the various conditions that all other US aid recipients are supposed to fulfil before aid is actually allocated. All other countries receiving US aid are granted the allocated amount in quarterly instalments while aid to Israel has, since 1982, been given as a lump sum at the start of each fiscal year. This exceptional concession enables Israel to reinvest this amount in US treasury notes, allowing it to earn significant money in interest paid by US taxpayers. In order to provide Israel the entire amount in this manner, it costs the US government $50-60 million annually in additional bank charges, which are not deducted from the money given to Israel. Another unique aspect of the ties is that there are no strings attached to US aid regarding how and where to spend it; there is also no resident USAID mission to supervise the aid programme of Israel for Washington’s review.
While US economic assistance to Israel has significantly decreased in recent years; from about $2 billion in 1997 to $46 million in 2008 and ceased after 2011 as it is an OECD member, the case of military aid is altogether different. Under their 2007 Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), a total of $30 billion Foreign Military Financing (FMF) was provided to Israel over the course of the decade, more than a quarter of which Israel was able to spend within the country to further strengthen its domestic arms industry. During their recent MoU signed on September 14, 2016, covering FY2019- FY2028, a total of $38 billion ($3.8 billion per year) will be provided to Israel. This will succeed the current $30 billion MOU, signed in 2007, which will expire at the end of FY2018. The irony is that Israel’s entire defence budget this fiscal year was about $16 billion, so US assistance is approximately a fifth of what Tel Aviv spends on its own military.
Overall, the aid policies of the US towards Israel clearly illustrate how the Americans have consistently allocated substantial economic and military aid for the Jewish state; this is regardless of whether there is a Republican or Democrat president in the White House. However, President Trump has managed to trump his predecessors in appeasing Israel by unilaterally recognising Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, leaving the poor Palestinians red-faced. Again, what is even more embarrassing has been the lacklustre response of the Arab world to this step.
Source: thenews.com.pk/print/260585-aid-appeasement-and-strategic-assets
-----
Pakistan and the US Doctrine
By Shahid Javed Burki
December 25, 2017
How should the policymakers in Islamabad prepare for the world that President Donald Trump has begun to shape? He has already said a great deal about his view of the world and taken several steps to translate his words into action. On December 19, 2017 he launched his administration’s National Security Strategy and while presenting the 68-page document he gave a campaign-like speech at the Reagan Centre. This was the first time that an American president had spoken while the administration announced the strategy. The document that stated the new American world strategy would be consequential for Pakistan. It is designed to reshape the world in which countries such as Pakistan must function. There will be reaction to the strategy and split South Asian nations to go in different directions. China will attract Pakistan and bring it more firmly into its orbit while India will be recruited as a partner in Washington’s ‘contain China’ policy.
A document laying down the US administration’s approach to the world is required by law. It guides Congress for the administration’s view of the world. The doctrine the White House released a few days ago echoed the ‘America First’ approach laid out by Trump is his inaugural speech on January 20. Much of the focus of the document was on China and Russia, the two countries that it said were “determined to make economies less free and less fair, to grow their militaries, and control information and data to repress their societies and expand their influence.” This was unfortunate “since after being dismissed as a phenomenon of an earlier century, great power competition returned.” There is irony in this statement since it is Trump’s America that is upturning the world order that had brought all countries into a framework based on international laws, rules and regulations.
Those who wrote the new policy must be aware of the work of the Greek historian Thucydides who centuries ago predicted that one great power replacing another in leadership role leads to conflict and open war. He presented his thesis when Athens had begun to challenge the dominance of Sparta. The result was war. The United States now faces a rising China, already the world’s second largest economy. Since the Chinese national income is likely to grow at a rate twice as high as that of the United States — six per cent a year against the United States’ three per cent — China will become the world’s largest economy in a decade or so. It is bound to translate its economic power into military strength. How should China be prevented from dominating the world the way the United States had done in more than 70 years since the end of the Second World War?
“China and Russia challenge American power, influence and interests attempting to erode American security and prosperity,” the security statement said. In his statement introducing the strategy document, Trump said intellectual and property theft would be targeted. This was a clear warning to China which American companies have complained about for years. “We will no longer tolerate trading abuse,” said the president.
Washington hopes to fight Beijing on several fronts. Xi Jinping, China’s powerful president who was recently given the status enjoyed by Mao Zedong, has spelled out what is being called ‘Globalisation 2.0’. The Road and Belt Initiative (RBI) spelled out in some detail, at a summit attended by scores of countries this summer, is designed to invest $1 trillion by China in 60 countries. By building, railways, ports, fibre optics cables, oil and gas pipelines, Beijing planned to dominate international commerce. A new global economy would emerge with China at the centre. The Americans had factored themselves out of the global economic equation by walking out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement painstakingly negotiated by Barack Obama, Trump’s predecessor in the White House. The TPP was meant to fashion the global trading system in the image of the United States. In fact, Obama had excluded China from the TPP as its economy was not free; it was still dominated by the state sector. By walking out of the agreement, Trump gave Beijing an opportunity to put its stamp on global commerce.
As articulated in the strategy document, Trump’s vision has four components: protecting the American homeland, protecting American prosperity, preserving peace through military strength and advancing the US influence. But some of these aims were contradictory. Unless the aim was to use its admittedly enormous military strength to establish its dominion over the globe, the only other way was to make the number of global institutions it had helped to establish even more powerful. These institutions could be used to constrain China’s global reach. RBI type of programmes could be regulated with the help of global institutions pursued within agreed legal frameworks. But Trump had begun to attack the international institutional structure, leaving the ground clear for an assertive power such as China to fashion the world to reflect its increasing economic power.
The Greek Thucydides is half right in so far as the tussle of power between the United States and China is concerned. There will not be hot war between the two as was the case with Sparta and Athens. But there is likely to be an economic war and the way it is being fought, America will come out the loser. Also on the losing side will be countries such as Pakistan that are not full participants in the global economy. For them to improve their place, they need a role-based institutional structure and not the one in which issues are settled bilaterally, which is the Trump preference.
Source: tribune.com.pk/story/1592104/6-pakistan-us-doctrine/
----
Of Victims and Perpetrators
By Anita Turab
December 26, 2017
Harassment is common. Most women have learned to take it in their stride within the workplace. Some succumb to pressure when stakes are high and yet others are confronting the harasser and raising alarm. In rare cases, a less empowered victim requests a more empowered sister to deal with the matter. This is not recommended as it can cause a spectacular divide for and against the harassed individual, the gladiator sibling and the alleged harasser (who is now also a victim).
Despite sufficient attention in media, the poking and prodding, lewd jokes and intimidation continue unabated for a majority of women who do not have a choice (voice). Media trial of the rich and famous mute the reality where women face gross harassment every single day. There are unending debates on definitions, masculine norms, powerful men versus timorous girls, ambitious exploitative women and generally what is termed “the way of the world”.
Harassment allegations have flooded Hollywood. Lecherous and non-lecherous men have been named and shamed in the media. Penalties are swiftly imposed after instant social media trials without much room for defence. Victims are scarred for life and celebrities are facing certain death in their careers. Some allegations date back several decades, however, they sound credible enough for public outrage. The American people are shocked at these revelations; the shock is surprising since sexual indiscretion and exploitation are common elements in Hollywood. Politics is also not too far behind in this respect.
It is the year 1998 and President Bill Clinton is in deep trouble. The 49-year-old US president indulged in “improper physical relationship” within office premises with a 22-year-old intern at the White House who was barely 20 at the time of their association. The president expresses considerable remorse and squarely blames his lies on grave misunderstanding of what comprises “sexual activity”. According to Clinton, “acts performed on him” are within given boundaries and distinct from “acts performed by him”. The first lady looks visibly upset, at least when in the public eye. Both victims (wife and intern) write books about the affair and the latter makes considerable monetary gains from televised talk shows.
Abuse of power, harassment and exploitation are clearly lost in semantics as the association between the two is seen to be based on consent. Clinton finishes his second term with the highest approval ratings and the Lewinsky scandal is nothing more than a trifling episode in US history. Public perceptions tolerate the president’s indiscretions despite the enormous gap in age and power dynamics between Lewinsky and Clinton. Moral boundaries of the American people are firmly intact.
The year is 2016 and numerous allegations have surfaced against presidential candidate Donald Trump. In his own words (later described as locker room talk), he boasts of groping married women without hesitation. The campaign is smeared with accusations by harassed women ranging from recent to distant past. Ironically, he is facing Hillary as his opponent. Trump is elected with a majority that appears comfortable with his bad behaviour. Women who claim to have been harassed by Trump are forgotten.
What are the boundaries between harassment and inappropriate behaviour? Can current limitations regarding harassment be applied retrospectively when suchlike conduct was common? And it appears to be common from the large number of victims coming forward now. Do apprentices often sexually entice powerful men to get ahead in their careers? Can grownup adult men be enticed at all? Do victims often fall victim because this is the only way forward in a vicious cycle of ambition and exploitation? Why is Trump so popular despite being a confirmed perpetrator?
Harassment today is as grey as smog-filled air in a world clearly divided between men and women. Victims and perpetrators exist on both sides and occasionally within the same individual. And harassed women will continue to suffer while the debate rages on.
Source: tribune.com.pk/story/1592585/6-of-victims-and-perpetrators-2/
-----
Can Trump And Mattis Last?
By David Ignatius
December 26, 2017
AS Vice President Pence fawningly praised President Trump’s achievements at a Cabinet meeting last Wednesday, the camera caught Defence Secretary Jim Mattis shuffling his papers, adjusting his water glass and fidgeting in his seat until the adulatory speech ended. As this year winds down, Mattis remains the good soldier, seated at Trump’s left and guarding his flank, trying to avoid the political fracas of this presidency. He’s the rare Trump appointee who doesn’t seem to have been damaged by his proximity to power. His Pentagon is a force for stability at a time when so many other American institutions are stressed.
Mattis’s only problem may be this bipartisan popularity: He’s the Trump official who’s admired by people who don’t like Trump. That rubs some Trump enthusiasts the wrong way. Former White House adviser Stephen K. Bannon is said to view Mattis as too close to the traditional foreign policy establishment. But Trump himself seems respectful of the retired Marine general he likes to call “Mad Dog.” The chivalrous Mattis is an unlikely partner for Trump. He’s a Stoic, with an almost superstitious dislike for the spotlight. It’s notable that he has avoided gloating this year about victory over the Islamic State, recalling Gen. Ulysses S. Grant’s refusal to visit Richmond after its collapse to the Union Army in 1865. Mattis clearly abhors the political parlour games that are part of Trump’s Washington.
Mattis watched the near-dismemberment this year of Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, his friend and ally. After White House leaks about Tillerson’s prospective firing, Mattis seemed to embrace him more closely in interagency debates. The controversy around Tillerson was a reminder that there’s no “adult swim” in this administration; Trump owns the pool. Rumours of Tillerson’s death proved premature: He’s still the administration’s point man on North Korea, travelling to Canada last week to discuss new pressures on Pyongyang, including blacklisting ships that have been evading sanctions. Perhaps by keeping Tillerson in place, Trump perversely wants to show that reports of his troubles were just more “fake news.”
Trump insiders still predict that Tillerson will depart sometime in the new year, and that he will be replaced by CIA Director Mike Pompeo. The open, gregarious Pompeo would be an easier fit with Trump, and he appears to have developed a solid working relationship with Mattis as well. Whether Mattis and Pompeo can work well as a team may be crucial for the administration. Mattis will have continuity at the Pentagon during this period of global turmoil. Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Joseph F. Dunford Jr. and Vice Chairman Paul Selva were recently reappointed to additional two-year terms. Patrick Shanahan was confirmed as deputy defence secretary in July; the former Boeing executive is beginning to shape acquisitions and technology decisions, two areas where Mattis is weak.
The rest of Mattis’s team is finally in place. John Rood has been named undersecretary for policy, a key job to which Mattis had once hoped to appoint former ambassador Anne W. Patterson. (She was nixed after opposition from Senator Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) among others; Cotton’s rumoured appointment to head the CIA if Pompeo leaves might be awkward for Mattis). Adm. Joe Kernan, a former Navy SEAL, is undersecretary for intelligence. Ellen Lord, a former chief executive of Textron, is undersecretary for acquisitions. The trickiest challenge for Mattis next year will be North Korea. The defence secretary backs Tillerson’s strategy of diplomatic pressure; the goal is slow asphyxiation. But Trump wants military options, too, and the Pentagon is working hard to deliver them. Dunford must be prepared for a possible North Korean nuclear-missile launch, anytime.
John Hamre, a former deputy secretary of defence, recently cautioned colleagues at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, which he heads, that a high-level administration official had admonished him that “we are running out of time on North Korea.” To which Hamre responded: “What the hell are you talking about? . . . Everyone in Washington should just calm down. Stop working ourselves up to a fevered pitch with breathless rhetoric that has no policy direction. We have lived with this before, and we will live with it now.”
Will Mattis offer similar patient counsel, born of his experience as a battlefield commander? Will a new secretary of state be as effective a partner for Mattis as Tillerson has been? Can Mattis remain so widely respected, among Republicans and Democrats, without drawing the wrath of a peevish, prideful president? Those are some of the Pentagon puzzles for 2018. Mattis has been reckoned as a force for calm, but it may be that the storm is only just beginning.
Source: pakobserver.net/can-trump-mattis-last/
-----
URL: