Jerusalem in Trouble By Yasir Malik: New Age Islam's Selection, 20 December 2017
New Age Islam Edit Bureau
20 December 2017
• Jerusalem in Trouble
By Yasir Malik
• Jerusalem Conundrum
By Iqbal Khan
• SCO Summit: an Analysis of Pakistan’s Representation
By Baber Ali Bhatti
• Improvement In K-P Governance
By Hammad Asif
• OIC and the Trump Decision
By Khurram Minhas
• The Growing Wall of Distrust
By Zahid Hussain
• For Peace in Afghanistan
By Saleem Safi
• CPEC: The Long-Term Plan
By Ahsan Iqbal
Compiled By New Age Islam Edit Bureau
------
Jerusalem in Trouble
By Yasir Malik
December 19, 2017
JERUSALEM is home to sacred relics, historic figures and holy sites, shared by the world’s three largest monotheistic faiths. At the same time, it’s at the centre of a power struggle dating back centuries. Jerusalem has been destroyed at least twice, traded hands dozens of times and currently exists in a really contested legal status. The Jerusalem of the Bible is what we refer to today as the ‘Old City’, part of occupied East Jerusalem. These are the Holy Lands home to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, the Western Wall and finally Al-Aqsa mosque. The last two share an area known as the Temple Mount. The Church of the Holy Sepulchre holds two of Christianity’s holiest sites; Calvary – considered the place of Jesus’ crucifixion and the empty tomb where he’s said to have been buried and resurrected.
Judaism sees the Temple Mount as its holiest site and the place which mostly holds God’s divine presence. The Western Wall’s proximity to the original Temple Mount makes it a place of prayer and pilgrimage of thousands of faithful. Finally, the Al-Aqsa mosque considered the third holiest site in Islam sits on top of the Temple Mount, known as Haram al Shareef in Arabic or the noble sanctuary. It’s the site where the Muslim Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) travelled to from Mecca before ascending to the heavens in what the Islamic faith refers to as “The night of Journey”. These sites have lured pilgrims and historians for many generations and have a special place in the hearts of billions around the world. Both Israel and Palestine used to claim Jerusalem as their capital but after Israel seized much of Jerusalem in the Six-Day war in 1967, they’ve been in control of most of city including East Jerusalem, considered “part of the occupied Palestinian territory” and the “Old City”.
Before the war there were five distinct districts that made up of the old city. In the weeks after the Six-Day war, Israeli forces occupied East Jerusalem and bulldozed the ancient Moroccan Quarter to make room for access to the Western Wall. Under International law, none of this land belongs to Israel but still they’ve been controlling the city for the last 50 years. Since the establishment of Israeli state, Palestinians are living under severe persecution by the occupation forces. The annals of Palestinian history in the post-Israeli state declaration period are replete with horrendous events. Intermittent bombings on the Gaza Strip, violence against women, bulldozing houses and disruption of the supply of commodities and building material to occupied areas has the norm of Zionist settlers. In the backdrop of these strident restraints, hundreds of Palestinians have been killed and thousands detained, expectedly, the numbers are set to climb in proportion ahead.
A day earlier, one of the most striking and intensely provoking development in the Middle Eastern politics has been happened as US President Donald Trump, a [notorious] statesman, has taken a shift in his country’s Jerusalem policy. Decades of US commitment to Palestinian conflict finally fell in the lap of Zionists offending thousand millions of Muslims. Breaking down the facts in Trump’s declaration, Trump denied all the retrospective anomalies in Israel-Palestine conflict. Giving absolute legitimacy to Israel’s occupation, Trump blatantly revoked Palestinians right to self-determination and proceedings of the UNSC resolutions. Amidst freezing spirit of the Muslims to the Palestinian cause and their deep-rooted engagements in self-inflicted conflicts, this was a much-awaited and desirous declaration for the Jews. From Jimmy Carter to Barack Obama, no US President unlike Donald Trump dared to officially alter the legal status of Jerusalem fearing the expected backlash by the Muslim community. US has long tried to challenge UN declaration on Jerusalem as protection of Israeli interests has been and still one of the pillars of US strategic policy towards the Middle East.
However, this paradigm shift in the US Jerusalem’s policy has sparked outrage worldwide. With Hamas (a former governing political movement) blatantly rejecting Trump’s declaration and calling for drastic measures, third Palestinian intifada (uprising) has revived. As the tensions grew, clashes erupted in the Gaza Strip near the border with Israel. Four Palestinian have been martyred and around 300 wounded Israeli army firing at the protestors. Clashes have been running since the moment of declaration heightening the intensity as Israeli fighter jets started bombing in Gaza Strip to quell this uprising. Israel’s violation of the international rules and regulations is not a new phenomenon. Since 1947 UN Partition Plan for Palestine, Israel violated 28 UNSC Resolutions and ignored almost 40 non-binding UNSC Resolutions. There has been strong cases of war crimes and illegal occupations against Israel in the UNSC proceedings but Israel could not bear any penalty enjoying US diplomatic and political shelter against the will of the international community. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has cut down all diplomatic channels with the US following the recent Washington’s move.
Source: pakobserver.net/jerusalem-in-trouble/
-----
Jerusalem Conundrum
By Iqbal Khan
December 19, 2017
THE Middle East is entering the culminating phase of post Cold War American vision about this region—Israel pliant Middle East. Trump’s announcement to recognize Jerusalem as capital of Israel was topping of the cake. It prompted an outpour of anger in the Muslim and Arab world. Collective and formalized response was channeled through the summit of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). With the Islamic world itself mired in division, the summit fell well short of agreeing on any concrete sanctions against Israel or the United States. The status of Jerusalem, a city holy to Christians, Jews and Muslims, is perhaps the most sensitive issue in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Israel sees the entire city as its undivided capital, while the Palestinians want the eastern sector as the capital of their future state. And the Pope aired the Christian aspirations.
Successive US administrations have been striving to broker peace deal in the Middle East since the Oslo accords. Trump, too, is working on it through his son-in-law Jared Kushner—a Jew by faith, who has donated to the construction of illegal Israeli settlements in occupied Palestinian land. That speaks of the mindset and the likely trajectory. The UN partition of 1947 had envisaged Jerusalem as a separate “international city.” During the 1967 war, Israel occupied East Jerusalem. Before 1980 a number of countries had their embassies in Jerusalem. But in July of that year, Israel passed a law that declared united Jerusalem as its capital. The UNSC had responded with a resolution condemning Israel’s annexation of East Jerusalem and declared it a violation of international law. By 2006, all countries had moved their embassies out of Jerusalem. In 1995, the US Congress passed a law requiring America to move the embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Since then every US President has declined to move the embassy, citing national security interests. Every six months, the President has used the presidential waiver to circumvent the embassy move. Trump has also signed such waiver.
OIC summit declaration states that the OIC member countries recognize Jerusalem as Palestine’s capital “under occupation”. The leaders “reject and condemn in the strongest terms the unilateral decision by the President of the United States recognizing al-Quds [Jerusalem] as the so-called capital of Israel, the occupying power; reject it as null and void legally, and consider it an attack on the historical, legal, natural and national rights of the Palestinian people, a deliberate undermining of all peace efforts, an impetus for extremism and terrorism, and a threat to international peace and security.” The OIC member states “declare East Jerusalem as the capital of the State of Palestine and invite all countries to recognize the state of Palestine and East Jerusalem as its [occupied] capital.” The statement added that the OIC “holds the US Administration fully liable for all the consequences of not retracting from this illegal decision and regard it as an announcement of the US administration’s withdrawal from its role as a sponsor of peace and its realization among all stakeholders and an encouragement of Israel the occupying power, to continue its policy of colonialism, settlement, apartheid and ethnic cleansing”.
Reflecting the public sentiment of Pakistan, the National Assembly and Senate unanimously adopted strongly worded resolutions, condemning the American decision and demanding an immediate revisit to de-escalate the situation on the ground. Pakistan called upon the UN Security Council to take cognizance of this situation and take steps in accordance with the UN Charter. Pakistan has called upon the US to avoid the potentially grave repercussions in the region and beyond as this decision represents a serious violation of the international law and the relevant UN SC resolutions. “It is a serious setback to the rule of law and international norms. It signals a severe blow to the Middle East peace process as well.”
President of Palestine Mahmoud Abbas warned that there could be no peace in the Middle East until the decision was reversed. He warned that the US had lost its role as mediator in the peace process. He slammed the recognition of Jerusalem, as the capital of Israel, as a “gift” to the “Zionist movement” as if he “were giving away an American city.” Addressing the summit, Prime Minister Shahid Khaqan Abbasi said a sovereign homeland for the Palestinian people with Al-Quds Al-Sharif as its capital remained the only road for the Ummah and the OIC. “We are at the watershed moment again. The question on every Muslim mind today would be whether we can rise above our differences, stand united and give hope to our people, or once again adopt declarations which cannot be translated into effective actions,” he told the conference. Donald Trump has deconstructed the belief that campaign talk and post-campaign actions are two different things. Candidates running for president promise doing things undone by presidents before them, and undo the things done by predecessors. But once in the Oval Office, sobriety takes over the campaign hangover. Not with Trump, however.
Condemnation of Trump’s folly has come from a number of leaders and countries. British PM has called it “wrong.” “This is not the end of civilization as we know it, but the outcome is going to be suffering. A lot of suffering…”, a statement issued by the PM Office said. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson said that the status of Jerusalem was a complicated and sensitive issue and China was concerned that the US decision “could sharpen regional conflict”. Russia is of the view that the conflict between Israel and the Palestinian Authority could be aggravated further by Trump’s move. The UN envoy for the Middle East Peace Nickolay Mladenov said: “The Secretary General has spoken many times on this issue… and he has said that we all have to be very careful with the actions we take because of the repercussions of these actions.””. Pope Francis, said “recognizing the rights of all people” in the Holy Land is a primary condition for dialogue. “The Holy Land is for us Christians the land par excellence of dialogue between God and mankind,” he added.
Trump’s decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel may prove to be the defining controversy of Trump’s first year in office. Israel shall continue to be between the devil and the deep sea, it never wants a one-state democracy as Arabs would outnumber Jews. The two-State solution has East Jerusalem as the capital of a future Palestinian State, endorsed by almost the entire world.
Source: /pakobserver.net/jerusalem-conundrum/
-----
SCO Summit: an Analysis of Pakistan’s Representation
By Baber Ali Bhatti
December 19, 2017
Sixteenth meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization’s (SCO) Council of the Heads of Government (CHG) was held from November 30, 2017 to December 1, 2017 at Sochi, Russia. Since Pakistan and India were admitted as full member of SCO in its 17th summit held in June 2017, this is the first meeting of the SCO member-states’ heads of government in which Pakistan participated as a full member-state. The meeting was intended to focus on the strategy, prospects, and the priorities of SCO’s developmental cooperation.
In this auspicious meeting, Prime Minister of Pakistan Shahid Khaqan Abbasi participated as a head of government and made a remarkable speech. Addressing the summit, Mr. Abbasi emphasized on the peaceful political settlement of issues while assuring that Pakistan is determined to contribute to SCO’s mandate. He maintained that Pakistan is fully committed to eliminate all kinds of terrorism and pointed out that terrorism cannot be identified with any specific religion, country or nationality. He further added that the future of SCO depends on deep multilateral relations, enhancing communication and connectivity through various means. During his comprehensive speech, PM Abbasi not only covered various spheres of SCO’s objectives but also elevated the position of Pakistan by expounding the future direction. Taking into account the whole mandate of SCO, he showed Pakistan’s resolve to make significant contribution to the mandate. Above all, terrorism, which is considered an imminent threat by all states alike and damaged Pakistan the most, was also abhorred and discouraged to be identified with any specific religion, country or nationality. Indirectly, he repudiated the association of terrorism with any country.
Pakistan’s commitment can also be gauged by the fact that Mr. Abbasi proposed various areas to enhance the multi-lateral ties. He proposed to harmonize the laws for the movement of merchandise. He further asked for the removal of tariff and non-tariff barriers. It will possibly enhance the trade corporation among SCO member-states. While adopting the economic approach and talking about the region, Mr. Abbasi asserted that creating synergies between Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and regional stability through available means and investing more in fields of sports, medicine and education is imperative to regional prosperity. This approach implicitly indicates that Pakistan’s regional policies are not just security-centric but are rather all inclusive with special economic orientation, since economic prosperity is the key to solve the problems of people who are suffering from inadequacies.
The Prime Minister comprehensively outlined Pakistan’s commitment to the SCO’s objectives which are to make joint efforts to ensure peace and stability in the region; strengthen neighbourliness among its member states and promote cooperation in different areas including politics, trade, economy, culture, research, technology, tourism and environmental protection. Furthermore, fighting terrorism and extremism with its sincere interest for regional peace, stability, and development is also considered primary goals of SCO. Through its objectives, the SCO hopes to build mutual trust, equality, respect for cultural diversity, and good-neighbourly relations aiming to promote effective cooperation in security, economic, social and trade-related areas.
Moreover, SCO can provide Pakistan with opportunities in both the geo-economic and the geostrategic spheres with the Central Asian Region. The fact cannot be ignored that Central Asia supplies around 11 percent of oil and energy to the world. Pakistan’s involvement in the SCO provides it with an opportunity to satisfy its energy requirements through regional cooperation with Central Asian member-states. Pakistan’s pending energy projects like TAPI (Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India) pipeline, IPI (Iran-Pakistan-India) pipeline, and CASA (Central Asia-South Asia)-1000 electricity transmission projects, which are not completed so far, can get a considerable push through the SCO.
Analysing Pakistan’s vigorous representation by its head of state, a fair conclusion can be drawn that the Prime Minister of Pakistan, via his speech at the SCO summit, paved the way for the much needed push for the ongoing projects by showing Pakistan’s commitments and devotion to SCO’s regionalism. Positive outcome can be expected after the CHG’s meeting and Pakistan’s vital representation. Undoubtedly, SCO can ensure peace and stability in the region by making joint efforts. Pakistan is looking forward to lead such efforts. Pakistan is also committed to implementing all the proposals which were mentioned by Mr Abbasi to serve the multilaterism and goals of SCO. It also seems that Pakistan wishes to advance itself in the club by utilizing the given proposals of cooperation in different realms that can potentially serve the region in terms of peace, prosperity and economic development.
Source: pakobserver.net/sco-summit-analysis-pakistans-representation/
-----
Improvement in K-P Governance
By Hammad Asif
December 20, 2017
Monitoring activities are crucial functions for effective policymaking and implementation. It allows government agencies to try out vigorous solutions to recurring challenges and an evaluation of outcomes to help differentiate effective interventions. One can’t have the right public policymaking without monitoring. Working alongside stakeholders while analysing their development, defining their roles, describing activities, boosting implementation, identifying gaps, outlining risks and enhancing the decision-making comes under the ambit of monitoring, yet it remains largely understated by both advisers and implementers.
In the case of public education monitoring plays a crucial role. Numerous challenges arise because students and their parents have little to no actual input in the relevant policy decisions. Due to the unique settings of the education sector, the burden of responsibility shifts towards regulating government agencies and institutions. They have to make sure that their decisions and actions must contribute directly in improving student learning experience.
Various factors make up the student learning experience. In the context of schools infrastructure, furniture, facilities, academic environment and discipline play a major role. Teachers’ academic skills, experience, professional development and conduct are also important. Above all, the relevancy of the course content, application of technology, class size and pedagogy are significant. Inclusion of all these factors makes monitoring of public education a challenging task. For monitoring activities to be effective, they must have to be overhauling. They are to be carried out, before, during and after each intervention. Timeliness is crucial because only the correct information at the right time can improve decision-making. The scope then becomes extremely diverse. Realising that each obstacle has the potential to reverse all efforts in improving education outcomes raises the stakes.
To illustrate, imagine the scale of public education sector in K-P that has over 28,000 functional schools. The number of teachers and staff employed at these schools is in thousands. Factor in all the employees of education agencies and the number further swells. Making sure that activities of all these agents are monitored to improve performance is an extensive task. The amount of data that is to be collected and analysed is enormous. No one realises the vastness of it better than the Independent Monitoring Unit (IMU). It was established in K-P during the financial year 2012-13 with its first data collection process completed in April 2014.
In the past three years of operation, the IMU has shown strong results in reporting data on key education indicators in a timely, credible and efficient manner. Availability of this data has resulted in decreasing student absenteeism from 48% to 21% and teacher absenteeism from 23% to 12%, opening of almost 450 non-functional and occupied schools and increased provision of basic facilities. The data is also used in design and implementation of incentive programmes for teachers, teacher rationalisation and developing yearly school improvement plans, among others. The directorate of Elementary and Secondary Education has recovered Rs90 million in penalties from absentee teachers.
To handle such vast volumes of data the IMU has now linked the process of monitoring to Online Action Management System (OAMS). It allows for corrective actions by creating a continuous feedback loop. The system currently reports on teaching staff absenteeism with initial results showing a reduction of absenteeism by 3% in pilot districts. By allowing technology enabled monitoring mechanisms, the IMU has set out to reform the public education sector in K-P. Since inception it has undertaken over 8,000 disciplinary cases involving teachers, headmasters and employees of the education department. Moreover, 300 teachers were terminated from service based on absenteeism. The IMU and the OAMS both bring about a turnaround in the public education policymaking and bring to light changes that limit archaic practices in the education sector.
Source: tribune.com.pk/story/1588037/6-improvement-k-p-governance/
----
OIC and the Trump Decision
By Khurram Minhas
December 19, 2017
Formed in 1969, spanning over four continents with 57 member countries, the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), which claims to be a ‘collective voice’ of the Muslim world, has gradually lost its effectiveness due to internal rift and competing national interests among its member states. However, Trump’s recent decision on Jerusalem has presented the OIC another opportunity to revive its effectiveness and respect among the Muslim world.
In reaction to Trump’s decision, Turkey as the chair of the OIC called an ‘extraordinary’ summit. This was the sixth ‘extraordinary’ summit of the OIC since its establishment. During the summit, the OIC appealed to the world to recognise Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine. It also reiterated its support for the Palestinian cause and condemned the violence of Israeli defence forces against Palestinian nonviolent protestors. Palestinian President Mehmoud Abbas also condemned the decision of recognising Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and said that the US has lost its position as a mediator.
However, the current summit seems another episode of the OIC’s lip service over the Palestinian cause. Contrary to emotional claims at OIC forums, some member states have good relations with Israel. For instance, Israel imports more than 77% of its oil from the Kurdish region of Iraq through the Turkish port of Ceyhan. Likewise, due to national and regional security imperatives, the US maintains cordial relations with a majority of the OIC members. Many wait anxiously for the US aid every year. In this backdrop, will OIC member countries abandon their relations with the US or Israel? Will Turkey and Iraq discontinue oil transactions with Israel? The answer is NO.
So what can the OIC do beyond words? Perhaps, the OIC can adopt three concrete and practical measures, which can not only sensitise the Palestinian cause but can also rejuvenate the effectiveness of the organisation. Firstly, the OIC’s extraordinary summit might not break silence of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). Hence, the OIC can call special session of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA). Since 1947, 30 special sessions have been called by the members of the UNSC or the UN general secretary. Among which two were on the Palestinian conflict in 1947 and 1948 by the UK and the UNSC, respectively. It is unfortunate that Muslim countries have never called special sessions either for Palestine or Kashmir. By convening a UNGA special session, the OIC can present a resolution for condemnation of Trump’s decision and Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestine.
Secondly, member states of the OIC can make their own relations with countries, other than Israel and the US, dependent on their reaction to Trump’s decision on Jerusalem at various levels with seriousness. This proactive approach can increase the list of supportive countries for the Palestinian cause and will help in restraining the diplomatic manoeuvring of Israel for recognition of Jerusalem as its capital. The focus should be on passing the resolution in the UNGA against Trump’s decision and Israel’s occupation.
Lastly, the OIC has not remained consistent in sensitising the Palestinian issue. It had passed several resolutions of solidarity with Palestinians in the past but couldn’t practically sensitise and successfully develop a collective approach to deal with the issue. Last year on March 7th, the OIC called its fifth ‘extraordinary’ session in Jakarta and repeated the same words that have been said in Istanbul on December 13th this year. Hence, rather passing more resolutions and convening ‘extraordinary’ sessions, the OIC must practically engage other countries, particularly the Western community, consistently to put diplomatic pressure on the US and Israel for a resolution of the dispute.
It is not expected that another episode of lip service by the OIC could change the fate of Palestinians. The OIC must take practical measures — call a UNGA special session, make relations dependent with other countries on the Palestinian cause, consistently manoeuvre for diplomatic actions — in order to provide hope to the Palestinians whose two complete generations have experienced occupation and repression at the hands of Israel.
Source: tribune.com.pk/story/1587230/3-oic-trump-decision/
-----
The Growing Wall of Distrust
By Zahid Hussain
December 20, 2017
IT is not just about the hostility of the government in Kabul; more troubling is the fact that the adverse sentiments in Afghanistan towards Pakistan are deeply entrenched in the public. The indignation has heightened over the past years, with most people in Kabul blaming Pakistan for their suffering. Those feelings are especially evident in urban and educated sections of Afghan society. There are very few who see Pakistan in a positive light.
This was very clear during my interaction last week with young students at a private university in Kabul. Education is one area that has seen massive progress over the last one decade in this country, despite worsening political instability and the spreading insurgency. Hundreds of thousands of students are enrolled in more than one dozen universities in the city — a marked transformation from the days of the retrogressive Afghan Taliban rule.
Most students I interacted with in a seminar shared similar views about Pakistan being a villain that is responsible for many of Afghanistan’s problems. Among the audience, there were many who were either born in Pakistan or whose parents had lived there as refugees for decades. Many complained about Pakistan supporting the insurgents responsible for the death of thousands of Afghans. Distrust of Pakistan is palpable. It is hard to find anyone in the Afghan capital willing to speak in favour of Pakistan.
Ironically, there are many in the cabinet and several high-ranking officials in the Afghan government who spent a large part of their lives in Pakistan and benefited from its hospitality. The resentment is not restricted to any particular ethnic group — it is across the board. Even former Taliban officials who now live in Kabul have little empathy for the country which once patronised them. One is not sure, however, about public sentiments in other parts of the country.
Of course, it is expedient for our civilian and military leadership to dismiss these growing anti-Pakistan sentiments in Afghanistan as merely inspired by ‘enemy forces’. This state of denial is, however, not helpful in improving our image. Surely, one cannot deny that there has been a concerted campaign to slander Pakistan and make it a scapegoat for everything that has gone wrong in the war-torn country across the border. Yet one must not gloss over our flawed policies and attitude that are stoking public scepticism inside Afghanistan.
One of the major reasons for Pakistan’s growing isolation is that our entire Afghan policy is built around a skewed security paradigm while diplomacy has taken a back seat. Understandably, four decades of conflict in the region and Pakistan’s position as a front-line state has enhanced the role of the security agencies. But the formulation and implementation of policy should not be left entirely to the security establishment.
In fact, there is great need for diplomacy to take charge in times of conflict. Our foreign policy has suffered hugely because of its direction being determined solely by a national security paradigm that must be corrected in light of the fast-changing geopolitics of the region. Indeed, past baggage and Afghanistan being turned into a centre of a new Great Game does not make it easy for our policymakers to tread the tricky path.
But sticking to the old ways may not help deal with the challenges. Irrespective of whichever government is in power in Kabul we need to work with it and to respect its sovereignty. Our obsession with a ‘friendly’ Pakhtun-dominated government in the past has hugely contributed to public resentment against Pakistan.
One understands the concerns of our security establishment regarding India’s growing presence in Afghanistan, but the issue must not be exaggerated so that it clouds our entire decision-making process. What irritates the Afghans most is our insistence on curtailing India’s role in their country. Its very mention is seen as meddling in their internal matters.
Indeed, Pakistani militant groups having been granted sanctuaries across the border and the alleged Indian connection with these terrorist networks has become a major source of tension between Islamabad and Kabul. But there are also allegations of Afghan insurgent groups operating from inside Pakistani territory.
The question regarding Pakistan’s alleged support for the Taliban insurgents is not only regularly raised at official meetings but also questioned by the public. The rise of Taliban insurgents is seen by the younger generation as the most serious threat to the gains made in the field of education. The number of female students reportedly surpasses that of males in most universities and they want this trend to be protected.
It is not only important to improve relations with the Kabul government, but also to bridge the widening gap with the Afghan people. We have failed to take advantage of our geographical and cultural proximity to win public goodwill and strengthen our economic and trade ties in order to neutralise the antagonists. It is not just geopolitics but also geo-economics that should be driving our Afghan policy.
The recent measures taken by Pakistani authorities to send back Afghan refugees and put restrictions on cross-border travel have added to the indignation. Many complain about long queues for visa and difficulties in travelling to Peshawar for medical treatment.
Now many of them are flying to India that is providing a subsidised air travel facility for those requiring medical help. Unnecessary travel restrictions under the pretext of border management have further alienated the Afghans. The move has also affected trade, with Pakistani exporters suffering greater losses.
Although Pakistan remains Afghanistan’s biggest trading partner, the situation may change soon with Iran and Central Asia making significant inroads into the Afghan markets. The move to close down the border for over a month early this year has dealt an irreversible blow to our exports to Afghanistan that had reached between $2 billion and $5bn in 2014.
Such short-sighted and reactive actions have hugely affected our interests in Afghanistan. Hence it is not surprising to see how young Afghans feel about us.
Source: dawn.com/news/1377652/the-growing-wall-of-distrust
-----
For Peace in Afghanistan
By Saleem Safi
December 20, 2017
The road to a stable and prosperous Pakistan passes through Fata, Gilgit-Baltistan, Balochistan and Afghanistan. At present, this road is full of hurdles.
The internal fragile security dimensions and the external involvement in these regions present a direct threat to the peace and stability of Pakistan. Our indifference and apathy to the challenges faced by these regions is criminal. Our ratings-hungry media usually ignores these troubled regions while our vote-bank driven politics also fails to prioritise their problems.
Though we may ignore them, the greedy power politics of the regional and world powers have turned these areas into a hub of conspiracies. The enemies of Pakistan are using these regions as launching pads to play havoc with the country. They know that the socio-political stability and economic future of Pakistan directly depends on these regions.
In my quest to learn and understand these issues, I get to frequently visit Afghanistan – the troubled heart of Asia.
Recently, I was part of a delegation of senior journalists of Pakistan visiting Kabul. The visit was organised by Friedrich Ebert Stiftung (FES). During the one-week stay in Kabul, we had detailed meetings with Chief Executive Abdullah Abdullah, ministers, members of parliament, media persons and leaders of the Afghan civil society. We also met Pakistani diplomats at a dinner hosted by the Pakistan Embassy in Kabul.
If I love any country after Pakistan, it is Afghanistan and its people. I value Afghanistan not only because of my emotional attachment, but because of my firm belief that Afghanistan and Pakistan have a shared destiny. It is my conviction that peace in Pakistan is directly linked with peace in Afghanistan. This is a glaring reality that cannot be denied. Pakistan and Afghanistan are culturally linked, socially connected and geographically interdependent.
During my recent visit, I witnessed that 20,000-30,000 Afghans were at the border at the Torkham and Chaman crossing points on a daily basis. This is in addition to the innumerable people who use the other informal routes along the porous border. Similarly, hundreds of thousands of Afghans are still living all over Pakistan. How it is possible for Pakistan to not get affected by Afghanistan’s internal situation when more than one million Afghans are living in Pakistan, more than 90 percent Afghans cross the border without an official visa, and when Quetta and Kandahar or Peshawar and Jalalabad are only a few hours away?
After my most recent trip to Kabul, I have returned with a heavy heart without much positive to share with my readers. I must admit that political stability and the security situation in Afghanistan are getting worse each passing day.
That does not mean that one sees war and bloodshed everywhere in Afghanistan. Unlike our perceptions, life in Afghanistan is normal. There are big plazas and shopping malls in Kabul and other big cities of Afghanistan. There’s hardly any country whose food is not available in Afghan restaurants. Unlike Pakistan, which could not play all matches of the PSL on home ground, Afghanistan managed to launch its own Cricket Super League and play all matches in Kabul. The Afghans love music and music concerts are regularly organised in Kabul. The music industry is not only providing entertainment to its own people but has also become a source of livelihood for the musicians of Peshawar and Quetta. Parliament is fully functional and the media is as vibrant as that of Pakistan.
However, while previously I would always witness some sort of improvement in life in Afghanistan, this time, I felt either regression or stagnation in Afghanistan‘s socio-economic, cultural and political activities. In addition, I also felt that the general sense of insecurity and fear of terrorism was at a high – highest since 9/11. I also sensed a change in the perception among common people regarding Pakistan. In the past, hatred towards Pakistan was harboured by a specific segment of Afghan society. This time, though, I found that common people were also blaming Pakistan for their miseries. No matter how extreme the differences may be among Afghan leaders, civil society and media, externally they are on the same page in their opposition to Pakistan.
The security situation too seems to be deteriorating, as is political instability – which can be seen in the fact that though the Afghan parliament completed its tenure two years ago, fresh elections could not be held for a new parliament. Rashid Dostum, the former warlord and the current vice president, went to Turkey but could not return to his own country. Similarly, extreme differences exist between President Ghani and his Foreign Minister Salahuddin Rabbani. Though Abdullah Abdullah, the political rival of President Ghani, is part of the government, Anwar ul-Haq Ahady – formerly a strong supporter of Ghani – has launched a movement against the president. He has the support of many governors and ministers of Ghani’s cabinet.
Similarly, Ashraf Ghani and former president Hamid Karzai do not seem to be on the same page. If President Ghani is close to President Trump, former president Karzai is happy to be on the side of Russian President Putin. President Ghani has given a free hand to the Americans in eradicating the Taliban, but Karzai blames the Americans for Afghanistan’s instability. He is even demanding a Loya Jirga for the withdrawal of the foreign troops.
he rise of Isis is another major factor which is deteriorating the already fragile security situation in Afghanistan. Karzai and some Afghan ministers have blamed the US as the main sponsor of Isis. However, quoting drone attacks and Isis casualties as proof, President Ghani and his supporters deny the claims of the Karzai camp. Generally, it seems that every leader and scholar in Kabul is trying to establish his own identity, credentials and ideology.
The Western-backed Afghan government has not yet eradicated the Taliban but Isis has emerged as a strong group capable of causing disruption and terror. Similarly, the US and its allies have not yet withdrawn from the country but Russia and China have made a successful entry into Afghanistan’s internal politics. The proxies of regional powers have not been contained yet, but the proxies of the rest of the world powers have become active.
In spite of all this confusion and uncertainty, Afghanistan’s younger generation still cherishes hope for a peaceful future. Equipped with information technology, this generation has seen the outside world and those successful Afghans who have returned from the West. Inspired by the outside world, this generation hates war and loves art, music and cricket. They are looking for progress, prosperity and employment opportunities, and are fed up of corruption and war-lords. This generation played a decisive role in the election of President Ghani. They are not that pushed about the presence of foreign troops. They are afraid of the Taliban’s activities and would not want the resurrection of the Taliban or Mujahideen era.
In a nutshell, on this visit to Kabul I witnessed confusion, political instability, a dwindling economy and a deteriorating security situation. This dangerous combination has the potential to spread instability in Afghanistan and across the border in Pakistan.
There are two ways to avert any catastrophe. First: Afghan leaders should sit together and sign a new social contract by mutual consent. That will help them resolve the protracted problem of instability. If the Afghan government and the Taliban resolve their differences, there no excuse or justification will be left for the presence of external forces in the country. This would also help end the interference of external powers.
Second, if the first option is not possible due to the presence of external powers’ proxies in the Afghanistan, then a solution will have to be imported. The best way then is for Pakistan, Afghanistan, China and Russia to mutually find a solution in which peace can return to Afghanistan without endangering American interests.
Source: thenews.com.pk/print/258412-for-peace-in-afghanistan
-----
CPEC: The Long-Term Plan
By Ahsan Iqbal
December 20, 2017
Despite political events in the country created by some narrow vested interests, the 7th Joint Coordination Committee (JCC) meeting on CPEC was successfully held on November 21, 2017 in Islamabad.
Our Chinese counterparts showed complete resolve and commitment to successfully complete all CPEC projects in a timely manner. The 7th JCC also officially approved the Long Term Plan (LTP) of CPEC. It is a standard practice around the world that a bilateral agreement cannot be made public unless it is approved by both parties. But unfortunately some cynics in the media tried to generate unnecessary controversy by publishing an incorrect version of LTP. As we promised, we have released the LTP for the public and the media.
The development of any country is based on its industrialisation process. The qualitative difference between the developed and the developing countries is the difference in their degree of industrialisation. Where developed countries have now entered a post-industrial age, developing countries are still struggling to complete their industrialisation process and modernise their economy. The PML-N has believed in and consistently strived for industrialisation of Pakistan. In light of this vision, the PML-N government initiated work on CPEC immediately after coming into power. CPEC has assumed worldwide attention due to its significant contribution towards removing energy and infrastructure growth bottlenecks from Pakistan’s economy. It provides Pakistan a great opportunity to leapfrog to expedite the processes of industrialisation.
The LTP provides a conceptual framework for CPEC up to 2030; it also gives a framework for the industrialisation of Pakistan. To finalise the LTP, the government of Pakistan consulted provinces, federal ministries and their respective technical groups. The plan is completely in line with the seven pillars of ‘Pakistan Vision 2025’; these pillars are founded on the economic principles of inclusive and sustainable development. The seven salient feature of the LTP are connectivity, energy, trade and industrial parks, agricultural development and poverty alleviation, tourism, cooperation in areas concerning people’s livelihood and non-governmental exchanges and financial cooperation. The spirit of the LTP is best captured in the following statement, “...CPEC will greatly speed up the industrialisation and urbanisation process in Pakistan and help it grow into a highly inclusive, globally competitive and prosperous country capable of providing high-quality life to its citizens.”
I will briefly discuss some of the salient features of CPEC’s long-term plan to illustrate its central role in the industrialisation of Pakistan.
Connectivity is the cornerstone of development. It increases the flow of goods, information and people across regions. That is why an integrated transport system is central to the LTP. It includes the construction and development of Kashgar-Islamabad, Peshawar-Islamabad-Karachi, D I Khan-Hakla, Sukkur-Gwadar Port and Dera Ismail Khan-Quetta-Sohrab-Gwadar road infrastructure to improve inter/intra-connectivity in Pakistan and China. The development of Gwadar Port city, Gwadar airport and Easy Bay expressway are going to transform the city of Gwadar into a maritime trade hub and a new smart port city of the region. It will also lead to the industrialisation of Balochistan.
Information technology is critical for development. In this regard, we have laid a cross-border optical fibre cable between Pakistan and China, and agreed to cooperate in promoting technologies of the fourth industrial revolution in Pakistan.
In the energy sector, both countries will enhance cooperation in the fields of oil and gas, electricity and power grids. The focus is on thermal power, hydropower, coal gasification and renewable power generation and modernising power transmission networks. CPEC has already addressed the major energy bottleneck in Pakistan. Almost over half of the 10,000 MW energy added recently to the national grid comes from CPEC.
To build the industrial base of the country, new industrial parks/ special economic zones (SEZs) will be built all over the country. Both countries will cooperate to improve efficiency in the textile and garment industries, both of which are the backbone of Pakistan’s export sector. Engineering-based industries will also be developed in Pakistan.
No country has successfully industrialised without modernising its agricultural sector. CPEC will allow us to modernise agriculture through the introduction of new technologies such as biological breeding, drip irrigation etc. The emphasis is to improve incomes of small farmers by increasing their productivity and efficiency.
Coastal tourism can be a new niche for Pakistan. CPEC will allow us to build coastal leisure and vacationing centres across the Keti-Bander-Karachi, Sonmiani-Ormara, Jhal Jhao, Gwadar and Jiwani routes. CPEC is about cooperation at all levels between both countries, including non-government organisations and people-to-people interactions. For cross-fertilisation of ideas and cultures, exchange of students, tourists and academics will be an integral component of the corridor.
Pakistan and China will be enhancing monetary cooperation between their central banks. Both countries agree on bilateral currency swap arrangements and would prefer making payments in RMB and rupees regarding CPEC projects rather than any third-party currency.
According to the LTP, the implementation of CPEC will take place in three phases, with clear goals. In the first phase, that is – by 2020 – the major bottlenecks in Pakistan’s socio-economic development will be completely addressed and “CPEC shall start to boost the economic growth along it for both countries” (LTP document, p 10).
The second phase will be done by 2025, all the infrastructure of CPEC will be ready and all industrial projects will have been completed. As a result, CPEC will have a major impact on the livelihoods of people living along the corridor. The goals of Vision 2025 will be achieved and there will be more balanced regional economic development.
The third phase of the LTP will mature by 2030. The endogenous mechanisms for indigenous inclusive and sustainable economic growth will be in place in Pakistan. As per the LTP: “CPEC’s role in stimulating economic growth in Central Asia and South Asia [will be] brought into holistic play, and South Asia shall grow into an international economic zone with global influence”.
Pakistan is a democratic country where provincial governments are not just autonomous, but are also led by different political parties which are staunch opponents of each other. The federal government and all provincial governments are united in making the LTP and CPEC a game-changer for Pakistan.
Pakistan is a country full of promise and potential but due to strategic mistakes in the past we haven’t realised our true development potential. The PML-N government is committed to prioritising the economic interests of the country by engaging in the geo-economics – instead of geo politics – of the region through CPEC.
CPEC is a major step taken by Pakistan to transform itself as an economic nation and become hub of trade, commerce and manufacturing in the region. Without industrialisation we cannot resolve many of our socio-economic problems and CPEC is our opportunity to become an industrialised country. The sustainability of this qualitative shift mandates the collective support of all national stakeholders, including the media, to turn this dream project of Pak-China friendship into an everlasting joint enterprise for shared destiny and prosperity.
Source: thenews.com.pk/print/258413-cpec-the-long-term-plan
-----
URL: