Fostering Peaceful and Inclusive Societies: New Age Islam's Selection, 25 December 2017
New Age Islam Edit Bureau
25 December 2017
• Fostering Peaceful and Inclusive Societies
By Dr Amineh Hoti
• Time Is A Healer… I Wish!
By Zafar Khan Safdar
• Extremism on Campus
By Shehnila Zardari
• Is CPEC Enough?
By Tausif Kamal
• Qadri’s Challenge
By Zaigham Khan
• The US and Us
By Syed Talat Hussain
• The Forgotten
By Zarrar Khuhro
• Trump’s National Security Strategy
By Dr Raza Khan
• Trump’s Hydra-Headed National Security Strategy
By Mirza Aslam Beg
• US National Security Strategy & Concerns In Pakistan
By Muhammad Munir
Compiled By New Age Islam Edit Bureau
-----
Fostering Peaceful and Inclusive Societies
By Dr Amineh Hoti
December 24, 2017
Today’s world is dominated by news of potential nuclear war between America and North Korea, what the media sees as ‘President Trump’s outrageous tweets,’ with President Trump’s accusations of ‘false news’ in return, and the blanket label of ‘terrorism’ which is applied selectively, loosely and specifically to certain religious communities, particularly Muslims — with the Rohingyas taking the brunt of the accusation in an ongoing wave of genocide against them. In this atmosphere of confusion and heightened tensions what messages are we giving our innocent children, our enthusiastic students and ordinary people in this world — who are all looking for calm, peace and hope?
It was in this cacophony that I was invited to a conference in Bangkok, Thailand, from the 29th to 30th of November on Fostering Peaceful and Inclusive Societies in South Asia, organised by the UN Office on Genocide Prevention and the Responsibility to Protect. The aim was to bring in religious leaders and actors from South Asia to work out ways to build peace and cultivate the vital idea of inclusiveness in societies.
Over many years of effort, the UN had drawn up a superb, all-inclusive Plan of Action for Religious Leaders and Actors to Prevent Incitement to Violence that Could Lead to Atrocity Crimes. With its key goals of human rights, sustainable development and peace and security, the UN aimed to “leave no one behind.” This was every government’s responsibility and every person’s commitment to their fellow humanity. Mohamed Elsanousi, the director of the Secretariat of the Network for Religious and Traditional Peacemakers, pointed out that the Marrakesh Declaration was inspired by the inclusive Charter of Madina from Prophet Muhammad’s (pbuh) time in the seventh century, which was the first human-rights charter.
It is a formal legal framework and commitment by 250 Muslim leaders and scholars in 2016 which champions “defending the rights of religious minorities in predominantly Muslim countries.” But now, 1,400 years later, we have rampant religious exclusion and violence in the name of religion. How did this gap emerge?
This important work of peace-building was naturally never going to be easy or easily accepted. Peace-builders have always found themselves on the edge of society, sometimes seen as threats, and never fully understood. The conference itself was intended to be held in India, but the organisers said that in this current climate and given India’s right-wing government, some Indians turned down hosting the conference. However, India was represented, amongst the other South Asian nations, by a pleasant young man from the United Network of Young Peace builders called Mridul, a kind-looking nun who belonged to Mother Teresa’s order, a wise Sikh and the Rev David Selvaraj of the Visthar Academy for Justice and Peace, who made some strong points on how we are faced today with walls which, he said, are prejudices as well as the importance of religious leaders using their texts in an intelligent way to heal societies.
But the scene was dominated by Pakistanis, and Elsanousi from Washington, who masterfully conducted the conference and found our table of Pakistani delegates hard to tame. He had lived in Pakistan so he constantly put in ‘Pakistan Zindabad!’ in his address to our table. At this table was seated Dr Shunila Ruth, a vocal Christian Pakistani, Jai Prakash, a seasoned Sindhi Hindu journalist, Dr Sabir, an intelligent blind Christian professor at Karachi University, Dr Ziaul Haq of the Islamic University, an imam called Dr Muhammad Ilyas, just appointed as Seerat chair by the government to promote inclusiveness, Risham, a young creative social media expert from Lahore, Muhammad al Noori and finally myself working on peace education in Pakistan.
We discussed ‘minority’ problems and challenges in Pakistan with passion. We were hard to keep quiet as we all loved Pakistan and, seeking respect for all citizens of Pakistan just as the Quaid-e-Azam had dreamed, we wanted to see positive change and a voice for all religious communities. Prakash said his community had lived in this region now called Pakistan for 5,000 years and he felt deeply connected to its soil. Prakash, Dr Sabir, Dr Ruth and the others all said they were patriotic and worked all their lives for the betterment of their country.
After addressing the challenges, we focused on the many positives happening in peace-building in Pakistan. After I emphasised the need for focusing on both the challenges and the positives, I was voted to represent the Pakistan table. As I recorded the thoughts of the delegates at our table, there were so many positives that I ran out of paper. Contrary to the negative news reports on Pakistan, the reality is that here was a burst of solid good work happening on the ground. The government, I was told, has been vocal on interfaith harmony. They have set up a Ministry for Religious Affairs and Interfaith Harmony. There was another ministry set up for human rights. Out of the National Action Plan an initiative to promote peace came Paigham-e-Pakistan, a policy document for advancing interfaith harmony, which has been signed by 3,000 Ulema.
The Pakistan government has made tremendous and consistent efforts to celebrate the festivals of its religious communities. In education at the university level, the Iqbal Institute for Dialogue and Research was set up in Islamabad and at Forman Christian College, I myself set up the Centre for Dialogue and Action to introduce courses on dialogue and respect for humanity. The Higher Education Commission, the Punjab and K-P police academies, Sindh University and the churches, Mandirs and Gurdwaras make continuous efforts in interfaith dialogue and, particularly the latter, in reaching out, especially to the poor people of all faiths.
I too shared my experience of taking priests, imams and rabbis in Pakistan to engage in interfaith dialogue in the churches located in the slum areas of Islamabad. Dr Sabir informed us about the work of the Karachi-based Interfaith Tree Plantation, which sowed seeds of trees to heal our world and foster peace. In my representation of Pakistan to the conference, I told of the many good works happening in Pakistani society by courageous people. Pakistan has a positive role to play on the national, neighbourly and international scene.
Of course, each country here at the UN conference — India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Myanmar, and Nepal — had its own voice, challenges and potentials, and although the dialogue here was just a start, I felt it was crucial to share some key questions that remained food for thought: Who was going to implement the action plan that the UN had so thoroughly drawn up? In its panel discussion on the Rohingya genocide, where were the voices of the Rohingyas? The conference featured a wonderful story of a monk who had fought for peace and even been imprisoned for a few years for standing up for peace, but where were the Rohingyas in telling their own story?
The problems of our world and the tackling of genocide was not an easy task for the UN. But this body of six people who dealt with such colossal problems as heinous genocide were undoubtedly heroic, many of them highly intelligent, affable and empathetic women, including Gillian Kitley, Dr Azza Karam, Simona Cruciani, Maria Westergren and, last but not least, Adama Dieng.
Source: tribune.com.pk/story/1591444/6-fostering-peaceful-inclusive-societies/
-----
Time Is A Healer… I Wish!
By Zafar Khan Safdar
December 23, 2017
Terrorism has claimed thousands of innocent lives in Pakistan over the last several years, but the APS children’s massacre is the bloodiest in the nation’s recent history. It sparked unparalleled shock across the country and abroad, as people disbelievingly grieved the loss of young children attending an otherwise normal day in school. This national tragedy failed to find words of grief and sorrow, the consolation was meaningless. I happened to attend a few funerals of relatives who died in APS attack. The winter gloom of Peshawar was further exacerbated; city and surroundings were in utter grief that was beyond narration. Everyone was crying in tons before everyone after mentioning the tragedy, and this has continued till day. Responsibility for the massacre was claimed by the banned Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), which declared to have undertaken it as revenge for the ongoing military operation Zarb-e-Azb in Tribal Areas since June 2014.
The government’s policy to root out terrorists has been two pronged and polarized, the government has sought to either negotiate with the TTP in the hope of salvaging peace through a deal, or when such peace deals have failed, the army has launched military operations to exterminate the Taliban, as was the case with the Swat operation in 2009 when the Malakand Accord broke down. The Malakand Accord, which was struck between the Government of Pakistan and the TTP in February 2009, and involved making concessions to the militants including the imposition of a radical form of Shari’a in the Malakand Division, has already exposed the dangers of brokering a peace deal with the Taliban. Following the government’s decision to take the offensive, the military launched airstrikes, and 30,000 troops marched into North Waziristan to take part in the operation against the terrorists. Operation Zarb-e-Azb has successfully been completed by February 2017 after achieving the desired results, replaced with another operation named ‘Radd-ul-Fasaad’ to conduct Counter-Terrorism operations by Rangers in Punjab, to the continue the ongoing operations across the country, focus on more effective border security management, countrywide explosive control and de-weaponisation, and pursuance of National Action Plan.
The dangers inherent in a military operation against the TTP have also manifested themselves through the ugly horror of suicide attacks and blasts that have plagued the country. Pakistan saw a 48% rise in deaths in terrorist attacks in 2009 following the launch of the army offensive in Swat and Waziristan provoking a backlash from the Taliban, with terror attacks having claimed 72,000 lives in the past 14 years. With those numbers in place, Pakistan’s watershed moment was not readily decipherable, but the macabre scene that unfolded in December 2014 in Peshawar was being termed the strongest contender. The brazenness of the APS massacre united all the political parties and military leadership of the country to unanimously condemn the attack and make National Action Plan (NAP) to eradicate terrorism.
The NAP contains 20 points to eradicate the mindset of terrorism to defeat extremism and sectarianism. Unsurprisingly, there is little evidence of progress on many NAP targets. Groups and individuals banned in Pakistan and also blacklisted under UN Security Council (UNSC) Resolution 1267, continue to operate freely. Efforts to regulate the Madaris, curb hate speech and literature and block terrorist financing have been haphazard at best. A reformed and strengthened criminal justice system could have helped to achieve NAP’s objectives.
The government still has an opportunity, albeit fast shrinking, to reverse course and meaningfully overhaul counter-terrorism strategy, but this necessitates revoking major policy concessions to the military. The government should take on that challenge in order to replace an overly militarized response with a revamped, intelligence-guided counter-terrorism strategy, led by civilian law enforcement agencies, particularly the police. Dismantling terror networks, detaining and trying jihadi leaders and foot soldiers, disrupting terror financing and ending radicalization through hate speech and literature will require reallocating limited resources in order to strengthen the capacity of the provincial police forces. While the three basic bodies of law, the Penal Code, Criminal Procedure Code and Evidence Act, need to be modernized, it is even more urgent to build police capacity to enforce them. That capacity has been gravely eroded due to the inadequacy of resources, training, internal accountability and autonomy. The current emphasis on revenge and retribution and the emasculation of fundamental rights and rule of law are undermining citizen confidence in the state to deliver justice, a flawed approach that also fuels grievances that benefit the violent extremists the NAP is aimed at combating.
Despite all its successes, one additional risk arising from these operations is that adjacent Afghan provinces could now become a ‘new North Waziristan’ as Islamist militants pushed out by Zarb-e-Azb have taken refuge there, underlining the problems caused by our failure to get the Afghan government of President Ashraf Ghani on board before launching the operation. This lack of Pak-Afghan cooperation, and the resulting militant safe havens into Afghanistan, is likely to be one reason why no major terrorist leader such as Fazlullah, Adnan Rashid, and Hafiz Gul Bahadur, has so far been killed or captured during the operation. It is true that the presence of right wingers and self-appointed warders of religion who have emptied the Divine from divinity and stand antithetical to everything that God stands for are still the biggest threat. The ruthlessness of these ‘brainless saviours of Islam’ have led Pakistan into its nuclear winter and far from a Pakistani spring being the antidote, an upheaval of great proportions may be required to counter this growing threat to the country’s survival.
Source: pakobserver.net/time-healer-wish/
-----
Extremism on Campus
By Shehnila Zardari
December 23, 201
This year incidents of terrorism in the name of religion by the educated youth drew the attention of many towards growing radicalisation in universities. Incidents of lynching Mashal Khan, Noreen Laghari, a medical student, who was about to blow up a church and in 2015 the attack on Ismaili community by a student of an elite business school are cases in point.
Such a trend doesn’t suggest that universities have been instrumental in nurturing such extreme ideas. However, these incidents do raise concerns about human development experiences of Pakistan’s youth. These also show that education doesn’t prevent militancy. According to the Sindh Counter-Terrorism Department, out of the 500 militants held in Sindh’s jails, 64 hold a master’s degree and 70 a bachelor’s.
The recent incidents have made one thing apparent that madrasas aren’t the only factor leading youth to radicalised ideas. Based on evidence, it is now an accepted fact that Pakistan’s youth is getting radicalised and turning militant in thought and behaviour. The problem isn’t new and has taken decades to grow. During the 1980s the state education went through a change full of Islamic orientation with emphasis on Islamic values while projecting minority faiths as anti-Muslim and hence anti-Pakistan. Zia ul Haq also saw student politics as possible threat to his dictatorial regime. All political parties were banned to function inside universities except the Islami Jamiat-e-Talba. Since it had practically no opposition it managed to sweep the student union elections in 1969, 1970 and 1971 consecutively. Just like the Jamaat-e-Islami and the Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam it became part of the political process and endorsed violent jihad in select situations. The recently founded political party Milli Muslim League is the political face of Jamaat ud Dawa, a banned militant outfit in Pakistan. It is alarming how a banned militant outfit has been allowed to form a political party to take part in mainstream politics. The party will surely recruit youth for running the party affairs which will have a huge negative impact on the educated youth, which believes in democracy and Islam.
The National Action Plan (NAP) calls for registering and monitoring the madrasas, stopping the distribution of extremist literature and blocking the access of banned militant organisations to social media platforms. It is interesting to note how social media has abundantly been used by militants for hate speech and recruitment whereas progressive accounts/webpages have been blocked. NAP has no defined mechanisms as to how the extremist narratives should be countered. There are no clauses which particularly address the issue of stopping extremist groups from working on university campuses.
There is a need to overhaul the systems in the universities by rationalising the courses, academic programmes and the number of students on campus. More importantly, the administration must cleanse the preacher professors and motivational guest speakers brought by the jihadist professors and administrative sympathisers. There is no quick fix. The problem has taken decades to grow and now needs serious efforts to be solved. To stop the growing radicalisation it is important to revamp the entire curricula. The importance of culture and cultural activities should also be instilled in the students. The media should also be engaged in building and promoting a counter-narrative. Above all, political will is needed.
The government has been avoiding taking tough decisions. Organisations like IS are active in the cyberspace for promoting their agenda and recruitment, so collective efforts are required by the government to restrict their activities. Also, it is of utmost importance that the government stops appeasing the religious right as they just did in case of Faizabad dharna. Such appeasement only creates confusion in young minds where they consider that damaging public property, beating police officers and using offensive language is a routine job and will only result in cash rewards or bring praise for being ‘our own brethren’.
Source: tribune.com.pk/story/1583239/6-extremism-on-campus-2/
------
Is CPEC Enough?
By Tausif Kamal
December 23, 2017
The mega project China-Pakistan Economic Corridor however well-intentioned or however substantive, may probably be not enough by itself to transform our Pakistan into a viable, modern and prosperous state. Human societies do not change overnight through concrete edifices alone. Building a modern, dynamic nation is a long, uphill transformatory process, a process of blood and sweat and sacrifices.
For instance, take the case of Marshall Plan. If we go back in history, after the end of the destructive Second World War, America provided huge amounts of economic aid under the Marshall Plan to the vanquished and ruined nations of Germany and Japan in order to rebuild them.
However, it was the steely resolve, never-say-die attitude and relentless hard work of the people of these two nations coupled with the US aid that resulted in their rejuvenation as economic powerhouses. But like the Germans, Japanese and indeed, like the Chinese and other nations, are we Pakistanis willing to pay that price, share that burden for a future that embraces security, prosperity, progress and the welfare of all of our citizens?
Unfortunately, we are currently ranked as low as 140 in the socioeconomic index of the community of nations of the world. To uplift out country from this periphery status to the category of emerging nations we have to do some heavy lifting.
For one, the country has to dramatically increase its production of goods and services (GDP) and must augment its exports to about $50-100 billion annually. To those who say this is impossible to achieve I beg to differ. With motivational wind of CPEC at our backs and with some bitter pills to swallow, we can do it.
Our archaic rules and regulations and our inept bureaucracy that causes hindrances rather than acting as catalyst, corruption rather than transparency and delays rather than speedy completions, must be eliminated or streamlined. We need to learn and adopt from China on project implementation processes, management rules and effective governance.
Secondly, it is a huge blunder to allow religious fanaticism and medievalism, in the name of religious freedom, to run rampant in the country. As we saw in the Faizabad capitulation, it shred to pieces the country’s image, political stability, economy, rule of law and writ of the state. Could such a thing have happened in China?
Thousands of madrasas that are basically set up for religious indoctrination should be converted into thousands of primary schools. The days and months consumed in religious rituals and frenzy can be instead be utilised for productive nation-building activities.
Thirdly, reset the country’s security and foreign policy from one driven by power and proxy wars to a peaceful, trade-driven, mercantile policy with all our neighbours and beyond. Such a policy, already adopted by Asian ‘tiger’ states such as Hong Kong and Singapore would result in huge savings of resources and efforts and trigger ancillary economic activity optimising the CPEC effect.
By applying the above guidelines of a modern mindset, unflinching hard work, relentless determination with tough, specific measures, the CPEC jumpstart can be the inflection point of our history. It has the potential of launching us closer to our destiny of a prosperous, modern, peaceful state — a haven for all our citizens and the leitmotif of Pakistan.
Source: tribune.com.pk/story/1590612/6-is-cpec-enough/
------
Qadri’s Challenge
By Zaigham Khan
December 25, 2017
Like the annual Urs of a saint, there is a predictable seasonality to the politics of Allama Tahir ul Qadri. We are still awaiting, with bated breath, to find out what he has brought for us this season. Five years ago, he was the last hurdle to the milestone of the 2013 election in the snakes and ladders game of Pakistan’s politics. He has again decided to be the last element of suspense before our democratic system muddles its way to the 2018 elections.
Allama Qadri is the founder of Pakistan’s Dharna technology which has dominated the country’s agitation scene since 2013. Unfortunately, like most inventors, he has benefitted the least from his own invention. Can the next Dharna correct the injustice?
A lot of water has flown under the bridges since Qadri’s first Dharna, which he named the Million March. Qadri made the most spectacular display of his technology during his second and Imran Khan’s first Dharna which resulted from the surprising amalgamation of the PTI’s Azadi March and the PAT’s Inqilab March. Both were supposedly two different events taking place without any coordination. As we will learn in this column, the invisible world works in mysterious ways.
Qadri proved an unreliable partner when he left Imran Khan alone on D- Chowk and ended his part of Dharna. He refused to join Khan’s second Dharna, which the PTI’s tigers could not handle alone. We know how Justice Khosa and his bench have dealt with the Sicilian mafia ever since – brandishing freshly minted jurisprudence and second-rate literature at the nation’s criminals.
If Allama Qadri had thought that he was irreplaceable, he should have learnt his lesson by now. A very common Maulvi, raised at small-time madrasas, and having lived a life of anonymity for half a century, has been able to outperform Allama Qadri. Allama Khadim Hussain Rizvi, also a Barelvi scholar, has made an impressive performance in recent by-elections and has forced the resignation of a federal minister. What is worse, the new Allama hurls abuses at our original Allama Sahib, even while making best use of the latter’s technology. Ever seen someone cursing Edison while working under a light bulb?
Those who blame Allama Qadri of being mercurial or unreliable do not know his status or how he makes decisions. It is hard to understand him because there is no one like him in the whole country. Perhaps, there is no one like him in the whole world. You can appreciate his life properly only if you are one of those who often go to shrines and, alongside flowers and sweets, buy books that chronicle the lives of saints. Everything that has happened to him and every action he has taken was preordained, decided at the highest spiritual realm. His birth was foretold and he was named by the most holy person of Islam.
His organisation, Minhaj ul Quran, came from the heavens and he himself was taught for 15 years by Imam Abu Hanifa – founder of the Sunni Hanafi school of Fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence) who lived in the 8th century – in the Alam-e-Roya (the world of dreams). Through his dreams, he remains constantly in touch with the parallel spiritual world that exists side by side with the material universe. Like his worldly existence, Sheikh ul Islam holds a prestigious position in the other world. Almost all his decisions are made in the other universe.
Allama Qadri reached the pinnacle of his political career in September 1999, when he was made head of the Pakistan Awami Ittehad, an alliance of 19 opposition parties, including the PPP. Benazir Bhutto even filled up a life-membership form of Qadri’s Minhaj ul Quran to affirm the partnership.
But soon after Musharraf’s coup, he received a Basharat, a sacred tiding in a dream, that he would soon be the prime minister of Pakistan. He left the alliance to support Musharraf and his referendum. Qadri Sahib stated that “Hazrat Usman was elected through a similar process”. Another leader who left the alliance to support Musharraf was Imran Khan. We know from Musharraf’s interviews that Imran Khan also hoped to be made the prime minister under Musharraf. Incidentally, both Imran Khan and Qadri had only seat each in the 2002-2008 parliament.
Fast forward 17 years and many hundred dreams; Imran Khan is a credible prime ministerial candidate while Qadri Sahib has not shared his latest dream with us. The 24th Amendment and the COAS’ briefing to the Senate have cleared a lot of dust. The amendment has resolved the legal ambiguities emerging out of the census this close to the end of the election cycle. These ambiguities might have thrown the ball again into the Supreme Court. The amendment also shows the resolve of all major political parties to hold the next election on time.
Why then are both the PTI and the PPP encouraging Qadri to go ahead with his Dharna? Because any humiliation to the ruling party so close to the elections suits them. During his 2013 Dharna, Qadri was unable to pull down the PPP government, but he can be counted among one of the many factors that resulted in the PPP’s electoral defeat.
The PPP is in search of new partners in Punjab. It needs some sort of alliance in the province to avoid results that can decimate it from Pakistan’s largest province. Qadri is a sworn enemy of the Sharifs and estranged from Imran Khan. He is a liberal face of Islam, an excellent orator who can pull crowds and can deliver at least a few thousand votes in many constituencies of the province. He can certainly be a suitable ally for the PPP.
It is fashionable in the media to sympathise with Qadri for death of ‘his men’ (though the list included a woman) in the Model Town incident. The case against the Punjab government is in the court and I do not have anything to add to the list of blunders made by the rulers of Punjab. However, in my opinion, Qadri should also be put in the dock for using his spiritual followers so ruthlessly for his political ends.
He prepared his workers to sacrifice their lives before the 2014 Dharna, promising them the ultimate revolution. He made them confront the Punjab Police only to protect some useless barricades in front of his house. What were he and his son doing through the whole night? Why did they not ask his workers to end the deadly confrontation with a brutal police force? Was protection of those barricades some sort of holy war?
Qadris’ men also committed atrocities and violence during the 2014 Dharna. His Sufi Islam is no different from the Sufi Islam of Khadim Hussain Rizvi. It is only his language that is more sophisticated – though equally venomous. He remains off the hook and returns for another Dharna only because non-state actors enjoy parity with the state in Pakistan.
Allama Qadri may not become prime minister in this world, but no one can doubt his status in the other universe. Many decades from now, a young reader, while buying flowers and sweets at his shrine, may also pick a book describing the Allama’s miracles. On the title, he may find my name as the author. I may, by that time, be the information minister in Allama Sahib’s cabinet, in a different universe.
Source: thenews.com.pk/print/260298-qadri-s-challenge
------
The US and Us
By Syed Talat Hussain
December 25, 2017
Pakistan’s relations with the US are facing their moment of truth. Surely, this is not the first time such a moment has arrived; nor shall this be the last. But be sure – and make no mistake about it: this is a very critical one. After US Vice President Mike Pence’s statement from the Bagram base, in which reiterated the do-more or pay-more stance of the Trump Administration, it is abundantly clear that Washington is proceeding with a game plan that is not subject to change despite the recent intense diplomatic, military and intelligence interaction between the two countries.
The game plan may even have its own deadline or cut-off point after which Washington might take unilateral action across the Afghan border into the Pakistani territory. In fact, Pakistan’s informed intelligence circles believe that this deadline is already carved in the stone of the US goal of punishing Islamabad for not paying heed to its warnings. They believe that the implantation phase of the game plan has begun.
Such assessments are borne out by the pattern of vocal threats that the Trump Administration has hurled at Pakistan repeatedly, punctuated by skimpy praise of actions that Islamabad has taken against terrorists groups on its own land. There seems to be a threat-alarm fixed in Washington’s conversation with Islamabad that goes off every four weeks and each time blares louder than the past. VP Pence’s addition to the usual jingoism was the sentence about Pakistan being put on notice. (And of course the concurring applause in the room full of uniformed officers at the military base.)
These are dangerous developments and it was this context that defined the rare appearance of Army Chief General Qamar Bajwa alongside intelligence heads at the Senate in-camera briefing. Other than fast-deteriorating ties with Washington and the looming possibility of the Trump Administration planning strikes inside Pakistan or taking other equally damaging measures against Islamabad following its militaristic rhetoric, not much has changed in our strategic environment. The army high command’s extraordinary rush to orient the civilian setup towards the clear and present dangers hovering on the horizon was focused on getting some debate started on the subject.
So the core issue here is not what the Trump Administration is planning to do but how Islamabad intends to deal with the plan that Washington seems to have taken out of the folds and has begun to wear on its sleeves for everyone to see. So far, Pakistan has done what any country of its size and problems can do when confronted with a superpower that is geared up to mess around. Islamabad has engaged with Washington diplomatically; it has spoken to its friends; and it has kept a calm public posture in the face of extremely provocative statements without mincing its words in reminding the US of its failures in Afghanistan.
That of course has not rolled back or slowed the verbal onslaught from Washington, which is what the Pence statement attempted to highlight: the US is relentless in pushing Islamabad against the wall of compliance to its demands. The coming months, therefore, will require an urgent upgrade in the way Islamabad has so far dealt with Washington’s gunboat diplomacy. Unfortunately, the scope for this upgrade is extremely limited. This is partly because of the fact that when a large state is bent upon locking horns with a relatively small state, the path to avoiding a costly skirmish becomes exceedingly narrow.
The US under Trump is particularly prone to arm-twisting its way ahead. The man and his mannerism has made it impossible to reason and argue – except when the opponent happens to be the size and significance of China or of the business interest of Russia or Saudi Arabia. For Trump, every other country is game in terms of power-punching.
The other reason for which Pakistan’s reaction to Washington’s threatening posture remains limited to making the right kind of noises and polite protests is the fact that the Trump Administration’s excuse to talk tough has resonance in an international community beset with violence and fears about terrorist turbulence in its backyard. When Washington points an accusatory finger towards Pakistan and uses words like ‘criminals’ and ‘terrorists being harboured’, it finds many ready listeners in the world. These listeners don’t have the discretion to detach the stereotypical image of Pakistan as a haven of trouble from the new reality of the gains the country has made against terrorism at great human and material cost. They see a country that has been in the grip of negative news for a long time and co-relate their own fears with the blame that Washington seems bent on fixing at Pakistan’s doorstep.
But even against these heavy odds we perhaps could have changed the world’s receptivity level to our advantage had we spent the last couple of years wisely. We spent them foolishly. We spent them pursuing small-minded PR goals and in fighting useless domestic battles. This led to systematic destruction of serious decision-making that hinged on stable civil-military ties. This made it impossible to imagine, pre-empt, and prepare for real security concerns that some of us were pointing out repeatedly but without anyone paying attention to these call-attention notices.
Amazingly, in the last one-year when the signs had become unmistakable that the Trump Administration was moving full-steam on encircling Pakistan including a nefarious focus on its nuclear weapons, our domestic cat-and-mouse game peaked. Last month’s siege of Islamabad (imagine this happening when Washington was already in hyper-action mode to dent our image as a stable, sane country) was an exemplar of the benighted agendas that completely cut off national debate from the realities facing the country. It is this time wasted in promoting regime-change in Islamabad through command performers like Qadri, Khadim Hussain Rizvi and Sheikh Rashid that is now catching up with the country.
Now civil-military ties are ruptured so deeply that even the most sincere efforts to mend them are bound to be of limited use. The endless tug of egos, turf wars, and Twitter competition at home has made focused debate on strategic issues well-nigh impossible. It is good for national nerves to see the army and the intelligence chiefs in the Senate, but little of consequence can come out of such exercises since the divide and distrust at home is spread far and wide.
Dealing with Washington at this particular point requires a whole-of-nation response but when politicians are hounded, belittled, demeaned and destroyed at will – which continues even today through known paid-pipers and clowns in the media circus – then the goal is really an idle pursuit. A government on its knees, a political class on the run and a judiciary defining rules as it goes along, is hardly the stuff with which to sculpture solid policy.
Washington-Delhi-Kabul is a three dimensional challenge that had always existed but which mutated into an existential threat just when we were playing domestic games that took up all our attention and energies. The terrible triumvirate on our borders is now firing from all sides, and that is not going to change. In fact, it is going to get worse. We don’t control their design and there our choices are limited. But we do control our internal events.
Have we learnt anything from the follies we committed against ourselves and the country in the name of political cleansing? Have we realised how damaging and wasteful these pursuits have been? VP Pence would have thought twice speaking the language that he did had he not seen Pakistan’s managers caught in a bruising war against each other, bleeding themselves by inflicting a thousand cuts – but pretending to be champions.
The US under Trump is a rampaging bully, but we did not have to be so badly cornered as we seem to be now if, instead of trampling upon ourselves all this time, we had been thinking about Washington’s threatening stomp. Will the domestic puppet show end? Will the puppets be locked in the store room they have been unlocked from and unleashed upon this country? Will we let sanity come back? This and not Trump or Pence will determine how well we deal with Washington.
Source: thenews.com.pk/print/260297-the-us-and-us
-----
The Forgotten
By Zarrar Khuhro
December 25, 2017
WE’RE great at hyperbole. Every political march is the longest yet, and participants never number less than a million. Every project is a game changer — whether it be a power plant, a public transport system, a road or even a dispensary — and is guaranteed to usher in an era of prosperity and transform the destiny of this nation. Hyperbole is indeed a national trait, and it’s safe to say that those indulging in it don’t really believe it any more than the rest of us do.
But sometimes even the most bombastic rhetoric isn’t enough, as in the case of the Army Public School Peshawar massacre on Dec 16, 2014. It was indeed the blackest of days; the most horrific of terrorist outrages even for a nation too used to the murder of innocents, too inured to atrocity. The oaths we swore were heartfelt: to take revenge, to seek justice for the innocent dead, to never forget.
There was action too: Zarb-i-Azb was already under way but any lingering voices questioning the need for this military operation were silenced. Military courts were instituted to try terror suspects and the National Action Plan was formulated. The efficacy of the former and the stillbirth of the latter are topics that have been exhaustively debated, and we shall not focus on those.
We can’t bring the 132 children lost in APS Peshawar back.
Three years on we extol what we call the sacrifices of the slain, we call them our little martyrs — and if many of us are uncomfortable with that nomenclature and what it implies, it is perhaps meant to provide some consolation to the parents who will never see their children again save in photographs and memory. To some of them, perhaps this does provide some comfort, but for many others that comfort is too cold. And that’s because this is all they have been given: songs, tableaus and promises.
But what else could be done, one might ask? We can’t bring those children back; we can’t travel back in time and shield their bodies with our own. What is it then that we could do?
We could listen. We could add our voices to those of the parents of the children of APS when they make their only demand, one that they have made time and again to no avail: that there be a public inquiry into the massacre, that the inquiry report we are told exists be released to the public. This is what Shahana Ajoon, a mother who lost her 14-year-old son, demands of us. In an article published this Dec 16, she says none of her questions have been answered.
The parents were promised an inquiry report, but when they approach the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa government to demand it, they are told it exists but cannot be released for security reasons. When they approach the federal government they are told that APS is an army-run school and they have no authority over it.
Shahana says that just a few months after the massacre, due to unrelenting demands from her and other parents, they were invited to a briefing where officers showed footage they claimed to be of slain APS attackers and handlers.
At that point one father stood up and said that he had seen these pictures before, that some of them were in fact of the terrorists who had attacked Bacha Khan Airport.
“Are we being fooled?” asks Shahana. All she wants, she says, is for someone to come out and say, ‘Yes, since I am sitting in this chair, it was my responsibility to protect your children and I failed.’
If you’re asking why these demands are being made now, know that they have been made from the very outset. Two months after the massacre, parents protested outside the school, claiming that they were “being kept in the dark about the investigations”, and demanding a judicial inquiry. They got only assurances, and every subsequent protest has attracted less and less attention, almost as if it were an embarrassment, an inconvenient truth that proves the lie of the loud claims of the state.
Our reaction to this atrocity wasn’t feigned. The horror, the anger and the despair were real, and have not dimmed in these three years. Our tears flowed then and still flow now. And if we feel like this, can we dare to imagine how the parents of those children feel? And then can we imagine that they still have been given no answers? That they are fed only on more pageantry and more promises.
And if this is how we treat those who should be venerated above all, then let’s not feign surprise when the victims of the Kasur child abuse scandal — again a case where the hyperbole is insufficient to describe the horror of it — cry out that they have been denied justice, that they have no recourse but to set themselves on fire outside the Punjab Assembly? What words can we offer them, when we are so utterly devoid of will?
Source: dawn.com/news/1378648/the-forgotten
----- Trump’s National Security Strategy
By Dr Raza Khan
December 24, 2017
US President Donald Trump’s National Security Strategy (NSS) is a relatively new approach to protect the state, its citizens and key interests. The key features of the new NSS include: identification of an extremely dangerous world characterised by rival states and non-state actors; zero-sum international system, lack of trust in universal values and deep faith in American nationalism. The various features of Trump’s NSS have been undergirded by the slogan ‘America First’. Trump’s security strategists have placed economic security at the core of new security strategy.
There are four important pillars of the Trump NSS. These include protecting the country and people, promoting American prosperity, preserving peace through strength and advancing American influence. The last two could prove to be profoundly problematic. Trump’s strategy is to seek security at the altar of other states, whereas history bears testimony to the fact that peace could only be preserved through establishing cooperative associations between and among states. It must also be acknowledged that anarchy has been a key characteristic of the international system. For the international system to be stable there, in the opinion of a section of theorists and experts, ought to be a ‘hegemon’.
As Washington already has sweeping influence around the world, by promoting American influence Trump actually means to circumvent and counter the growing influence of other countries, particularly China. On its part Beijing through initiatives like the One Belt One Road and economically integrating the Eurasian landmass wants to dominate these regions. The US obviously, with a person like Trump at the helm, would not at all let the Chinese to expand their influence as this would mean curtailment of Washington’s sway.
The Trump administration must be given credit for admitting in no uncertain terms that economic security is the heart of NSS. There is a lot of substance in this argument. Emphasising a balance in US economic ties with other countries, specifically China vividly demonstrates the profound concern within the US policymakers regarding the ever-increasing economic prowess of China. The new NSS aims at reducing the trade deficits, particularly with China and has said that Trump wants to level the playing field for American companies. Circumventing China economically by Washington does not augur well for Pakistan, one of the closest allies of Beijing and with whom it is engaged in giving a practical shape to the multi-billion dollar CPEC. Against this backdrop the US opposition to CPEC under President Trump becomes more understandable. By attempting to reduce its trade deficits Washington may politically and strategically destabilise other regions, which ultimately would boomerang on the US.
Ostensibly President Trump has on his mind the incompatibility of US-China economic relations which have been to Washington’s utter disadvantage. In the words of US Defence Secretary Jim Mattis, “the greatest weapon is our strong GDP.” This is an important aspect of the new NSS. The statement holds a lot of water because without a strong GDP the US would not have been able to sustain its military superiority in the world and will not in the future. The Soviet Union despite having more conventional and nuclear weapons than the US did not evade dismemberment because a strong military needs a sturdy economy.
There are key areas of security which the new US NSS has ignored. These include, inter alia addressing the issue of climate change and protecting human rights. President Trump’s NSS is devoid of moral authority. The US superiority has not only been due to its unmatched economic and military power but the belief in moral principles of freedom, justice and democracy. The US could only have comprehensive national security when the most powerful state on the surface of earth shuns its zero-sum approach and acts upon the very ideals which the great founding fathers of America had pronounced nearly 250 years back.
Source: tribune.com.pk/story/1591431/6-trumps-national-security-strategy/
-----
Trump’s Hydra-Headed National Security Strategy
By Mirza Aslam Beg
December 23, 2017
“Trump’s Security Strategy is a farce, because it has no national Security Strategy. It has out-bursts.” – Roger Cohen
TRUMP’S out-bursts grow from his notion of America First, where he merges his existence with passion that defines his National Security Policy: Protect homeland way of life; promote American prosperity; persevere peace through strength; advance American influence in the world; build India as counterweight to China. Trump strategy flows from the above policy. It is a hydra-headed strategy, targeting Palestine, Afghanistan, Iran, China, North Korea and Pakistan in particular. Trump celebrates the 100 years of Balfour Declaration of 1917, which is a public statement issued by the British government during World War I, announcing support for the establishment of a “national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine, then an Ottoman region with a minority Jewish population. It read:
His Majesty’s government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.” Thus Trump has wrecked the possibility of establishing the states of Palestine and Israel, bringing the whole of Middle East to a state of crisis and catastrophe. This would result into decimation and destruction of more Muslim countries like Crusade one, which began in 2001. This is now Crusade Two, “to advance American influence in world through strength.” Therefore chances of peace in Palestine now are remote, because the Arab world has its interests diverted towards war in Syria, Iraq and Daesh and is engaged in managing ravages of Arab Spring, while America, which could negotiate peace, has taken sides with Israel.
Afghanistan: America lost the war in Afghanistan by the year 2010, when they sent Richard Armitage to me, seeking dialogue with Afghan Taliban, who were not ready to be cheated again, as in 1990 and demanded occupation forces withdrawal as the pre-condition for talks. Despite set-backs and gradual erosion of authority, Trump continues to reinforce his defeat through various machinations such as indirect support to Daesh in Afghanistan, thus creating very serious security dilemma to all the neighbouring countries. He is also threatening Pakistan, to contain and curb the rising power of the Afghan resistance, so that he could “build India as the counter-weight to China”, and establish Indian hegemony from Afghanistan to Bangladesh, under the Indo-Pacific Regime. The purpose is “to persevere peace through Strength.”
Iran: Since 1980, Iran has been demonized as a serious threat to the regional countries, yet Iran has emerged resilient and strong despite sanctions, embargoes and trade restrictions, compelling America to find peace with Iran, by signing the nuclear deal. Trump now calls this deal “the worst deal ever been negotiated” and is not ready to sign the waivers on Iran sanctions, and threatens that “the best way to lock-in the Iranian hard-liners for the two decades would be to tear up the deal.” Trump may tear-up the deal, yet he cannot shake-off the resolve and self-confidence of the Iranian people, to “struggle to persevere peace through strength.” China: Trump has called China “the strategic competitor.” Instead of joining hands with China and follow their geo-economic strategy of peace through regional cooperation, he is trying to build-up the Indian counter-weight, against the rising military and economic power of China. The Indian counter-weight, which could not contain and curb Pakistan from rising, now has been assigned the task to contain China, with “United States locked and loaded”, in support of India. A withering super power could do no better than this.
North Korea: With limited nuclear weapon delivery capability, North Korea has been able to deter America, despite possessing a stock-pile of nuclear weapons, most efficient delivery system and a state of the art air defense capability. Yet America has failed to develop a strategy that could build up pressure on North Korea, and is showing a kind of helplessness, expecting China to bring sanity to the North Korean leader. The state of helplessness in case of North Korea, as well as Afghanistan, exposes the hollowness of super-power America, trying to advance their influence in the world, through farce policy initiatives.
Pakistan lies at the centre stage of the regional conflict syndrome. It has to tread carefully protecting its interests, through the support of the people, embodied in the elected Parliament, and building blocks of regional support of Iran-Afghanistan-Pakistan, under the security partnership of China and Russia. Pakistani nation shares with Iran, the will to resist and reject, pressures and threats and continues to rise with sublime dignity of the great civilizations with whom it shares common borders. Pakistan is the Heart of Asia, as late Liaquat Ali Khan reminded the nation and we have to prove to be true to this great heritage.
The Emergency Session of the OIC did not show any seriousness amongst the members of the States. Only a few heads of the State attended. There has been erosion of unity amongst them, and the Arab world in particular has been in a state of disarray after the Arab Spring. Taking advantage of the regional anarchy, America and Israel have struck, which seriously “prejudices the civil and religious rights of the Muslims and other communities of Palestine”. The situation poses a big challenge to the entire Muslim world. Except for Turkey and Iran, none seem to be taking the matter seriously. The UN General Assembly has overwhelmingly voted against Trump’s Palestine policy, and hopefully it would put a check to Israel’s ambition of expanding at the cost of Arab territories for Greater Israel!
Source: pakobserver.net/trumps-hydra-headed-national-security-strategy/
-----
US National Security Strategy & Concerns in Pakistan
By Muhammad Munir
December 23, 2017
US new National Security Strategy announced by President Donald Trump on December 18, 2017 has raised several questions regarding its implication for global and regional geo-politics. The strategy is criticised by various countries as it is contrary to the ground realities and mostly based on US geo-political interests rather than rationality and cooperative order. Many described it confrontational and contradictory and expressive of outdated Cold War mindset. The key message of this strategy is to maintain US dominance through unilateral and anarchic actions to contain the influence of other powers such as China and Russia. Whereas regarding India, the strategy notes that the US would welcome India’s emergence as a leading global power and stronger strategic and defence partner. It will seek to increase quadrilateral cooperation with Japan, Australia and India. Contrary to the ground realities, Trump’s new national security strategy blames Pakistan for allowing militants to operate from within Pakistan and insisted that Pakistan take decisive action against militant and terrorist groups operating from its soil.
Like many other countries the US Strategy also raised concerns in Pakistan. First the US strategy instead of recognizing Pakistan’s efforts for fighting terrorism and its unmatched sacrifices to promote peace and stability in the region has demanded to do more against terrorism. There is no doubt that Pakistan remains committed to continuing its fight against the sympathizers, financers and abettors of terrorism to ensure that its soil is not used for committing violence anywhere. Asking Pakistan to do things which it already has been doing reflects US unthankful attitude towards Pakistan’s colossal loss of valuable lives of more than sixty thousands Pakistanis including sacrifices of thousands of Pakistan’s Armed Forces soldiers and officers. The economic losses to Pakistan economy incurred in the war on terror have been massive as compared to the payments made by the US. No country in the world can pay the value of blood offered by Pakistanis in the war on terrorism.
Secondly the US Strategy warned of a potential Indian-Pakistan military conflict that could lead to a nuclear exchange and urged Pakistan to continue demonstrating that it is a responsible steward of its nuclear assets. Here the US document instead of asking India to ensure strategic stability and resume dialogue with Pakistan to resolve the Kashmir issue peacefully, has urged Pakistan to ensure security of its nuclear assets. Although the fact is that Pakistan as a responsible nuclear state, has put in place, a highly efficient, robust and centralized command and control mechanism to secure its nuclear assets. The safety and security standards of its nuclear arsenal are of international standards.
Balance of power in South Asia revolves around nuclear and conventional arms build-up between India and Pakistan on one hand and the power politics being played by United States, China and Russia in the region on the other hand. The strategic stability is disturbed both by internal and external factors. The internal factors include: unresolved political disputes between India and Pakistan including the Jammu and Kashmir, increased border tension on the LoC and absence of arms control regime. The US strategic tilt towards India reflected in Indo-US nuclear deal and the discriminatory waiver granted to India by the NSG is the major external factor disturbing strategic stability in South Asia.
Thirdly from Pakistani perspective, the US is giving undue importance to India in the region. South Asia’s strategic stability is being undermined by India’s unchecked brutalization of the people of Indian Occupied Jammu and Kashmir and incessant ceasefire violations targeting innocent civilians According to Pakistan’s Foreign Office, destabilizing policies and actions by some countries to maintain their hegemony in pursuit of absolute power are responsible for instability in several parts of the world, including South Asia. Pakistan has been emphasizing time and again that threat to peace and security is the result of complex interplay of geopolitics, unresolved political disputes, and pursuit of hegemonic policies. Non-resolution of the Jammu and Kashmir dispute remains the primary obstacle to peace and stability in the region.
Pakistan is committed to work with the international community towards the common objective of defeating the forces of terrorism and bringing peace in the region. Pakistan has rightly been pointing out that despite substantial US presence; the Afghan soil is constantly being used by elements hostile to Pakistan’s stability. In order to prevent cross border movement of militants and return of Afghan refugees Pakistan is making sincere efforts for effective border management that would require cooperation from the US and Afghanistan.
The US narrative that Pakistan has safe havens for terrorists is totally misleading and contrary to the ground realities. Today Pakistan has emerged as a success story of a state that was able to defeat the menace of terrorism. Definitely now it is the hardest place for terrorists to operate. Those who are raising concerns on the safety and security of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons should know that its strategic assets are protected by a multilayered system of security. It is true that Pakistan does not have any safe haven for the terrorists but yes it has many safe havens constructed to ensure safety and security of its nuclear arsenal.
To conclude, the US National Security Strategy has raised concerns world-wide. The strategy if not abandoned would not only be harmful to several countries but would also harm US itself as well. Pakistan considers this document discriminatory as it does not recognise Pakistan’s sacrifices in counter terrorism and raises undue concerns on the safety and security of its nuclear assets. Further, the way USA is pampering India would destabilize the strategic balance in South Asia. It is an imperative for the US to review this document to make it more balanced otherwise it will not serve the US interests and isolate it further as already it has been reflected in the voting in United Nations Security Council on December 18, 2017 and the United Nations General Assembly on December 21, 2017 against the US on its decision to recognise Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.
Source: pakobserver.net/us-national-security-strategy-concerns-pakistan/
-----
URL: