Pakistan Press on Abdullah Abdullah, Imran Khan and Donald Trump: New Age Islam's Selection, 29 September 2020
By New Age Islam Edit
Bureau
29
September 2020
• Imran Khan: Peace Is Within Reach In
Afghanistan, A Hasty International Withdrawal Would Be Unwise.
By Imran Khan, Prime Minister Of Pakistan
• Abdullah Abdullah the Harbinger for Peace?
By Ikram Sehgal
• A Different Prime Minister – With a Massive
and Prevailing Narrative
By Syed Nazir Gilani
• Building Pakistan’s Intellectual Capital
By Muhammad Omar Iftikhar
• Trump-Engineered Chaos in the Middle East
By Shahid Javed Burki
-----
Imran Khan: Peace Is Within Reach In
Afghanistan, A Hasty International Withdrawal Would Be Unwise.
By Imran Khan, Prime Minister Of Pakistan
September
26, 2020
An
Afghan Army soldier flashes the peace sign from an armored vehicle during a
training excercise in Herat on Sept. 24. (Jalil
Rezayee/EPA-EFE/REX/Shutterstock)
----
We have
arrived at a rare moment of hope for Afghanistan and for our region. On Sept.
12, delegations from the Afghan government and the Taliban finally sat down in
Doha, Qatar, to begin negotiations toward a political settlement that would
bring the war in Afghanistan to an end.
With the
exception of the resilient Afghans themselves, no people have paid a higher
price for the conflict in Afghanistan than the people of Pakistan. Through
decades of conflict, Pakistan has dealt with the responsibility of taking care
of more than 4 million Afghan refugees. Guns and drugs have also flowed into
our country. The wars have disrupted our economic trajectory and radicalized
fringes of our own society. The Pakistan I had known growing up in the 1960s
and 1970s changed in some deeply unsettling ways.
This experience
taught us two important lessons. First, that we were too closely intertwined
with Afghanistan by geography, culture and kinship for events in that country
not to cast a shadow on Pakistan. We realized Pakistan will not know real peace
until our Afghan brothers and sisters are at peace.
We also
learned that peace and political stability in Afghanistan could not be imposed
from the outside through the use of force. Only an Afghan-owned and Afghan-led
reconciliation process, which recognizes Afghanistan’s political realities and
diversity, could produce a lasting peace.
So, when
President Trump wrote to me in late 2018 to ask for Pakistan’s assistance in
helping the United States achieve a negotiated political settlement in
Afghanistan, we had no hesitation in assuring the president that Pakistan would
make every effort to facilitate such an outcome — and we did. Thus began
arduous rounds of talks between the United States and the Taliban, which
culminated in the February U.S.-Taliban peace agreement. This agreement, in
turn, has laid the groundwork for talks between the Afghan leadership and the
Taliban.
The path we
have traveled to get here wasn’t easy, but we were able to press on thanks to
the courage and flexibility that were on display from all sides. The United
States and its allies facilitated the prisoner exchange between Kabul and the
Taliban. The government of Afghanistan and the Taliban responded to the Afghan
people’s yearning for peace.
The
intra-Afghan negotiations are likely to be even more difficult, requiring
patience and compromise from all sides. Progress could be slow and painstaking;
there may even be the occasional deadlock, as Afghans work together for their
future. At such times, we would do well to remember that a bloodless deadlock
on the negotiating table is infinitely better than a bloody stalemate on the
battlefield.
All those
who have invested in the Afghan peace process should resist the temptation for
setting unrealistic timelines. A hasty international withdrawal from Afghanistan
would be unwise. We should also guard against regional spoilers who are not
invested in peace and see instability in Afghanistan as advantageous for their
own geopolitical ends.
Pakistan
will continue to support the Afghan people in their quest for a unified,
independent and sovereign Afghanistan that is at peace with itself and its
neighbors. Pakistan believes that peace negotiations should not be conducted
under coercion and urges all parties to reduce violence. Just as the Afghan
government has recognized the Taliban as a political reality, it is hoped that
the Taliban would recognize the progress Afghanistan has made.
Like the
United States, Pakistan does not want to see Afghanistan become a sanctuary for
international terrorism ever again. Since 9/11, more than 80,000 Pakistani
security personnel and civilians have laid down their lives in perhaps the
largest and most successful fight against terrorism. But Pakistan continues to
be the target of attacks launched by externally enabled terrorist groups based
in Afghanistan.
These
terrorist groups pose a clear and present danger to global peace. We hope the
Afghan government will take measures to control ungoverned spaces inside its
territory from where terrorist groups are able to plan and carry out attacks
against the Afghan people, the international coalition forces stationed in
Afghanistan, and other countries in the region, including Pakistan. Like the
United States, we do not want the blood and treasure we have shed in the war
against terrorism to be in vain.
It is also
time to start planning for the “day after” — how can the world help a postwar
Afghanistan transition to sustainable peace? How do we create conditions that
will enable the millions of Afghan refugees living in Pakistan, and other countries,
to return to their homeland with dignity and honor?
My vision
for Pakistan prioritizes development and prosperity for my country and our
region through connectivity and economic diplomacy. Our recent investments in
key economic connectivity projects can be harnessed to complement efforts for
regional integration between South and Central Asia. Our initial discussions
with the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation on these issues
have been encouraging. It is heartening that the United States and Pakistan are
of one mind on the importance of a “peace dividend” for ensuring a sustainable
peace in Afghanistan.
For
Pakistan, regional peace and stability remain key to realizing the collective
aspirations of our people for a better future. We are committed to multilateral
collaboration to achieve this.
The first
step toward that peace has been taken in Doha. Not seeing through the
Afghanistan peace process or abandoning it for any reason would be a great
travesty.
----
Imran Khan is prime minister of Pakistan.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/09/26/imran-khan-peace-is-within-reach-afghanistan-hasty-international-withdrawal-would-be-unwise/
-----
Abdullah Abdullah the Harbinger for Peace?
By Ikram Sehgal
September
29, 2020
Abdullah
Abdullah a three-times presidential contender.
-----
The total
military expenditure in Afghanistan since the war began in 2001 is $822bn,this
includes the US Department of Defence, State Department, USAID and other
government agencies. The real costs might be much higher. The considerable
human cost includes2,300 US soldiers killed and 20,660 wounded, not counting
those traumatised who cannot find their place in society again. According to
Ghani since he became President in 2014 more than 45,000 members of the Afghan
security forces and over 100000 civilians have been killed, not counting the
casualties of the Taliban.
After Daud
Shah toppled his cousin King Zahir Shah and declared himself the first
President of the Afghan Republic in 1973, relations with Pakistan became tense.
To counter with this emerging threat on its western borders Pakistani President
Z A Bhutto tasked Commander IGFC Brig (later Maj Gen) N K Babar. A number of
Afghan students were given training by one of my childhood friends Maj (later
Lt Col) Salman Ahmad of SSG in two camps in Pakistanin 1974, among them Ahmad
Shah Masood. Along with Salman in the Kandahar region during the Afghan war was
Sher Muhammad Abbas Stanikzai, now the Taliban’s political leader heading their
delegation in the peace talks in Doha. Trained in the Indian Military Academy,
he was commissioned in the Afghan Army. Joining the Mujahidin during the 80s he
was in their Military Committee set up by Salman (codename “Col Faizan”). More
than any other Pakistani serviceman in our history Salman has fought multiple
times more battles for Pakistan in East Pakistan in 1971 and during the entire
Afghan war against the Soviets. Hesays among all the Afghans Stanikzai
accompanied him most in military operations against the Soviets. Incidentally
Salman took Sandy Gall making his famous BBC documentary, “Allah Against the
Gunships”.
The peace
between the Taliban and the US signals a rigorous withdrawal of US forces from
Afghan soil in line with President Trump’s policy of ‘America first’. Not happy
with the situation the US military would like to keep a foot in the Afghan door
by leaving behind some troops
A distant
dream for many years, peace is now within reach. In February 2020 the US
reached a pragmatic agreement with the Taliban, while also signing a
declaration with the government of Afghanistan to start an intra-Afghan peace
process. Notwithstanding the structure of the peace agreement and its fault
lines, without the help of Pakistan as a go-between this agreement would not
have been reached. With its own stake in the civil war in Afghanistan Pakistan
had also to learn its lesson. Pakistani politicians and military professionals
have been putting their money and effort on the Pashtun horse in the race for
changing the power balance has cost our country dearly. A flood of Afghan
refugees created economic turmoil that has adversely affected our growth rate
and other economic indicators. In addition, the militarization of our society
fed by stolen US weaponry meant for Afghanistan took a new turn. Flourishing in
Pakistani seminaries, ”Jihadism ”financed with external funds resulted in the
rise of a Pakistani Taliban force as an off-spring of the Afghan movement.
Instead of recognizing the danger that was brewing in the underdeveloped and
unruled tribal areas Pakistani military and intelligence put their trust and
money in the Pashtun component of the Taliban movement, thus alienating the
Taajik and Uzbek elements of Afghan society.
To add to
this a cruel and selfish newcomer Gulbuddin Hekmatyar was sent into the war in
the 1990s by Pakistani intelligence, Basically a Karuti from Paktia Province,
Hekmatyar alienated Ahmad Shah Masood and others, at various times fightingboth
against and aligning himself with almost every other group in Afghanistan. He
ordered frequent attacks on other rival factions to weaken them in order to
improve his own position in the post-Soviet power vacuum. His internecine
rivalry led to his arranging the arrest of Ahmad Shah Masood in Pakistan in
1976 on so-called spying charges. Masood and Hekmatya ronce agreed to stage a
takeover operation in the Panjshir valley-Hekmatyar at the last minute refused
to engage his part of the offensive, leaving Masood open and vulnerable.
Masood’s forces barely escaped with their lives.
India is
not the friend Afghans would like to believe, Afghanistan only used them as a
means to an end, a convenient platform for conducting a proxy war at someone
else’s expense, first at Soviet Union’s cost and then the US, with Afghanistan
taking the brunt of the death and destruction that ensued. Afghans cannot seem
to perceive the ruling BJP’s hatred of muslims in India, incidentally most of
whose ancestors came from Afghanistan.
The
Pashtun-Tajik problem started in 1929 when Habibullah Kalakani, as Tajik leader
who was a kingmaker and the power behind the Afghan throne whose advice was
binding on the king, overthrew King Amanullah Khan because he would not scale
back his reforms openingthe Afghan society to western norms. Because of differences
with Amanullah Khan, the long time C-in-C Nadir Shah had earlier gone into
exile. From the border areas, now mostly comprising Pakistan, Nadir Shah
created a Mehsud and Waziri tribal Lashkar and defeated Habibullah Kalakani’s
forces. He then executed Kalakani and many members of his family by firing
squad. Unfortunately the Lashkar then went on a rampage north of Kabul in the
Tajik area, pillaging and looting, they committed many atrocities. The
bloodfeud has lasted nearly a 100 years. It is time to heal the wounds of the
past. With a mixed parentage ofa Pashtun father and Tajik mother, Dr. Abdullah
Abdullahis best equipped to do this.
Our unwise
policy in Afghanistan during the 1990s allowing the US to use our ports, roads,
air bases and other amenities added to our human and economic cost and
alienated the Taliban also within Pakistan, Pakistan is still having to bear
the residuals of this failed policy. Nevertheless, Pakistan’s remaining
influence was still enough to help bringing the Taliban to the negotiating
table. Just a week ago after another period of harsh negotiations, the peace
talks between the Taliban and the Ghani government, there are severe doubts if
the two sides can agree on anything – that much was immediately clear during
the very first meeting. The severe attacks of Taliban groups at Afghan soldiers
and security personnel only displays the continuing rift between the two. An
additional difficulty is the fact that the anti-Taliban side is divided in
itself; Both the first and the second presidential election – both severely
marred – brought a close run for power between Ghani and Dr. Abdullah Abdullah.
While Ashraf Ghani returned to Afghanistan after 24 years in December 2001
after leaving his posts at the UN and World Bank to join the new Afghan
government as the chief advisor to President Hamid Karzai on 1 February 2002.
Abdullah Abdullah was a senior member of the Northern Alliance working as a
close adviser to Ahmad Shah Masood before 2001. After serving as the Foreign
Minister for nearly five years he stood against President Karzai and Ashraf
Ghani even twice (last time in 2019) and every time came second according to
the official counting. Based on the doubts that the handling of the election
and the vote counting were manipulated he rejected the official results and got
himself has sworn in as separate president.
During the
“Afghanistan Re-Connected” dialogue series organised during the 2007-2012
period by the prestigious US think tank East West Institute (EWI), I was
designated as the EWI Director for Brussels and Berlin, I was privileged to
have long conversations with both Ghani and Dr. Abdullah Abdullah. Both have
tremendous grasp of both domestic and international issues, while Ghani tends
to be abrasive at times Dr Abdullah was always more cool, suave and
accommodating. On a flight back from Berlin to Dubai, Dr Abdullah was by
coincidence sitting next to me. When asked why he did not constructively engage
with Pakistan, his reply stumped me, “Even if we want to, will Pakistan talk to
us?” When I approached the powers-that-be in Pakistan about Dr Abdullah
Abdullah being far more pragmatic than other Afghans but seeming to have a
genuine grievance with Pakistan that needed assuaging, I was given a “shut up”
call!.
In the
aftermath of the first several controversial days of peace negotiations Dr.
Abdullah Abdullahis now visiting Pakistan. As a young doctor he served briefly
in Pakistan in 1985-86. This belated visit gives us unique opportunity to
rethink and perhaps rectify our former Afghan policy. Pakistan needs a peaceful
Afghanistan, they are our neighbours and this fact won’t change at any time in
future. As the connecting link to Central Asia and Russia. Afghanistan plays an
important role in the water and energy policy of the region and without peace
no progress in those domains is possible. CPEC (and its extension to Iran)
makes Afghanistan a vital link to Central Asia. Most of the 2 million or so
Afghans would go back home if there was peace and a chance for a better life,
this would certainly ease our economic burden.
The peace
between the Taliban and the US signals a rigorous withdrawal of US forces from
Afghan soil in line with President Trump’s policy of ‘America first’. Not happy
with the situation the US military would like to keep a foot in the Afghan door
by leaving behind some troops. In the aftermath of US withdrawal, fighting
might still go on. We cannot afford the existing govt structure in Afghanistan
to collapse and return to a vacuum in governance, so a fair-sized contingent of
US troops must remain for some time. Ashraf Ghani serves the USbetter than
Abdullah Abdullah and that is why the vote counting came out in his favour.
However Abdullah Abdullah is more a ‘son of the soil’ than Ghani, who sooner or
later will return to the US. It would also suit Afghanistan and the region if
it had a rather independent government. In a growingly interconnected world the
present peace process, with India attempting to sabotage it by all means
possible, is not only in the interest of all the countries of the region but is
certainly justified in our interest.
The Foreign
Office (and more so the ISI) must be applauded for arranging this extremely
important and tremendous breakthrough.As the possible harbinger for peace,
welcome to Pakistan Dr. Abdullah Abdullah!
-----
Ikram Sehgal is a defence and security analyst
https://dailytimes.com.pk/671966/abdullah-abdullah-the-harbinger-for-peace/
-----
A Different Prime Minister – With a Massive and
Prevailing Narrative
By Syed Nazir Gilani
September
29, 2020
Prime
Minister of Pakistan, Mr. Imran Khan
-----
Chinese
representative Mr. Hsueh said at the 1012th meeting of the UN Security Council
held on 15 June 1962 that, “Let me express the hope that the people of India
and the people of Pakistan will face the problem of Kashmir not only with warm
hearts, but also with cool heads”. A warm heart and a cool head, of course
would see India and Pakistan through the present and future estrangement.
Engagement is the final instrument used in the settlement of disputes.
India has
wronged the people of Kashmir living on its side of cease fire line and
according to a test of compliance laid down by Netherlands at the 611th meeting
of the Security Council held on 23 December 1952, it has “loaded upon itself a
very grave offence, against the other party (Pakistan), against the United
Nations and against the right of the people of Jammu and Kashmir to
self-determination”. Therefore, Prime Minister of Pakistan, Mr. Imran Khan had
to be different at the 75th Session of UN General Assembly on 27 September
2020.
Prime
Minister was different to his first address made at the 74th session of UN
General Assembly held on 27th September 2019. He was different in style and his
narrative on Kashmir was massive and prevailing. His team in the PM house and
in the foreign office had worked hard to make it, more than the old flex of the
diplomatic routine.
We have not
challenged India on her agreements made with the Government of Jammu and
Kashmir before going to UN Security Council and have not called out Government
of India on the conditions under which a temporary admission into Kashmir had
been granted to its forces
The UN –
Kashmir desk in the foreign office and people in other intra-agency disciplines
working on Kashmir, did not repeat the copy paste habit but have been very
imaginative. Prime Minister quoted “reports of the United Nations High
Commissioner for Human Rights, communications from the Special Rapporteurs of
Human Rights Council, statements from human rights and civil society
organizations” in making a case for the besieged people of Indian occupied
Kashmir.
It was for
the first time that various constituents in the broad constituency of evidence
against India were flagged by the Prime Minister. One could see a refreshed
input in the statement. It is important that we acknowledge and present the
broad spread of evidence. Acknowledging OHCHR, Special Rapporteurs, human
rights and civil society organizations (NGOs) has been a commendable and smart
move. It dignifies the merits of the narrative, in Kashmiri’s favour. India of
course would not have such constituents to back up her case.
Pakistan
could not and as admitted by Human Rights Minister, Mme Shireen Mazari, has
failed to follow upon the Prime Ministers address made at the 74th session of
UN General Assembly in September 2019. Genuine concerns and criticisms were
made in Kashmir and in Pakistan. Even the Kashmir Committee has failed to take
its first concrete step. There is no doubt that we do not have a comprehensive
policy on Kashmir except ticking the old dotted lines. If we perpetuate it and
fail to construct a robust follow up on the speech made by the Prime Minister
at the 75th session of UN General Assembly on 25 September 2020, we would be
allowing India an easy nudge pass and landing ourselves in a cul de sac.
India would
be at the UN Security Council from First January 2021 and has a chair for two
years. Imagine, if the case would have been the “Jammu and Kashmir Question”
India would have considered many options to outmanoeuvre Pakistan. It is a gift
from those leadings minds at the UN SC who changed the title to “India-Pakistan
Question” at the 231st meeting of the Security Council held on 22 January 1948,
that India can’t consider any options to wrong the Kashmir case. It does not
however, mean that India does not have options and would not invoke the
political philosophy of Chanakya.
Prime
Minister of Pakistan has set out the Kashmir case. It entails our serious
follow up and this could be a distributed follow up from Islamabad to
Muzaffarabad, Civil Society Organizations, Diaspora and taken to every Kashmiri
living in any part of Jammu and Kashmir and in any part of the world. The
challenge at hand is to find a ‘proportionate’ and a ‘pointed’ response to
vacate the Indian unlawful actions of 5 August 2019 and thereafter.
We need to
reconsider that while petitioning the UN Security Council under article 35 of
the Charter, both parties have averred that their bilateral engagements under
article 33 had failed. It was not correct. The remaining important mechanisms
of “arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or
arrangements or other peaceful means of their own choice” have not been
exhausted. We have not challenged India on her agreements made with the
Government of Jammu and Kashmir before going to UN Security Council and have
not called out Government of India on the conditions under which a temporary
admission into Kashmir had been granted to its forces.
There is an
urgent need that we seek the rehabilitation of Entry Permit required for Indian
citizens for visiting Kashmir which was unlawfully rescinded by the Prime
Minister of Jammu and Kashmir on 31 March 1959. We have an experienced
Ambassador Munir Akram at the UN in New York and he could start opening up on
this demand. We would help him to construct a narrative.
The other
most important work which needs our immediate attention is the advice given by
Canada at the 235th meeting of UN Security Council held on 24 January 1948,
“that we should afford security to the people of Jammu and Kashmir”. Canadian
representative General McNaughton proposed, “to afford security to the peoples
of Jammu and Kashmir under some authority which will be recognised by everyone
concerned as strictly impartial”.
Prime
Minister, his team in PM House, people in the foreign office and in the
intra-discipline agencies have come out very cool and prevailing at the UN
General Assembly. There has to be a well distributed follow up. India would not
sit idle.
-----
Syed Nazir Gilani is President of London based
Jammu and Kashmir Council for Human Rights – NGO in Special Consultative Status
with the United Nations
https://dailytimes.com.pk/671959/a-different-prime-minister-with-a-massive-and-prevailing-narrative/
-----
Building Pakistan’s Intellectual Capital
By Muhammad Omar
Iftikhar
September
29, 2020
The
intellectual capital is one of the three main forms of capital that includes
physical capital and financial capital. Where physical capital (buildings,
equipment) and financial capital (stocks and bonds) are important for
establishing a company, the intellectual capital moves the company forward.
Intellectual capital comprises of three broad categories. They are human
capital, relational capital, and structural capital.
Human
capital includes knowledge and skills, experience, competencies, vocational
qualifications, employee engagement, emotional intelligence, education,
creativity, and entrepreneurial spirit among others. Relational capital
includes formal and informal relationships, social networks, partnerships and
alliances, trust, brand image, customer loyalty and engagement, licensing
agreements, and joint agreements. Structural capital comprises organizational
culture including values, social capital, and management philosophy; processes
followed to achieve goals, and intellectual property including brand name,
confidential data, patents and copyrights, and trade secrets.
It is
imperative to see that all these three forms of capital: physical, financial,
and intellectual needs to be interconnected to achieve organizational goals. A
company may function with a combination of physical and financial capital but
it will only grow and progress when intellectual capital is added to the
equation. Pakistan is blessed with a large number of youth including the
millennials who are pursuing their higher education at universities and
business schools. Therefore, the need of the hour is to produce such business
graduates who know how to build a company and make it a successful enterprise.
Today, with
several specializations being offered in MBA programs, students are focused on
studying the degree program of their interest. This calls for a holistic
approach to streamline the academic disciplines that provide new avenues for
the students to explore
In this
regard, close attention must be given to developing the students’ cognitive
capabilities and their understanding of how to apply their learning. The
concept of rote learning must be abolished for good. It leads to nowhere except
for enabling students to earn good grades. Interestingly, grades have become a
secondary concept in the 21st century practical framework. Companies require an
intellectual capital that can utilize their skills to add value to the many
facades of an organization and take forward its operational and strategic objectives.
Universities and business schools must restructure their curriculum to include
more courses that have a practical outlook. The curriculum should include only
twenty percent of classwork. The remaining eighty percent should be a
combination of real-life case studies and students performing practical work.
This practical work akin to a final-year Capstone Project should be part of the
second year bachelors’ curriculum. Until the students do not enter the field,
hold discussions over various topics with industry experts and professionals
and understand what is happening outside of their textbooks, they will not
comprehend what they study during their degree programs. As we head into 2021,
the objective of universities should not be to produce graduates but
intellectual capital that helps the corporate sector evolve their business
operations.
During the
1940s to 1990s, students were compelled to rote learn course content and
reproduce them in examinations. The objective was to secure a job. Today, with
several specializations being offered in MBA programs, students are focused on
studying the degree program of their interest. This calls for a holistic
approach to streamline the academic disciplines that provide new avenues for
the students to explore. Moreover, the educational infrastructure of the
intermediate level must be revamped. Students must undertake one subject in
their second year that is based on practicalities. For instance, the students
must be asked to choose any company situated in their city of residence in
Pakistan and study its structure. The course could be termed as “Corporate
Relationship Management” which enables students to undertake a research study
on a company, interview its key people, study the organizations’ mission and
vision along with what benefit they are providing to the customers. This will
help students step out of their comfort zone, interact with industry
professionals, and prepare themselves to handle the similar activities they
will be performing when studying BBA or BS degree programs. A complete
streamlining of academic processes and course structure needs to be developed
in this regard. It will revolutionize the academic sector and add value to the
students’ learning.
----
Muhammad Omar Iftikharis an independent researcher,
author and columnist
https://dailytimes.com.pk/671958/building-pakistans-intellectual-capital/
-----
Trump-Engineered Chaos in the Middle East
By Shahid Javed Burki
September
28, 2020
Geography
matters a great deal for Pakistan. Its own creation was the result of geography
working with two other developments that needed resolutions before the British
could leave their Indian colony. These developments were the renewed strength
of ethnicity defining nationhood and geopolitics. When the British after the
conclusion of the Second World War recognised that with their reduced global
presence they could not continue to administer a large colony such as India,
they decided to leave. They left in a hurry in the summer of 1947, dividing the
Indian colony into two parts: a predominantly Hindu India and a predominantly
Muslim Pakistan. But religion as the basis of nationhood did not lead to
stability.
The new
Pakistani state found that religion could not create a nation; ethnicity was a
much more powerful factor in determining nationhood. A quarter century after
Pakistan was born with two wings — East and West — on either side of India, the
eastern side left to become Bangladesh. With little left to bind itself to
South Asia, Pakistan began to search for other attachments. Still not convinced
that religion was at best a weak way to support nation-building, it turned to
the Middle East to anchor itself. But the Middle East had its own weaknesses;
these were revealed in detail in the way Donald J Trump looked at this part of
the world.
There are
some analysts who believe that Trump is not beyond creating a foreign crisis to
shore up his chances in the elections. The Middle East is one geographic space
where he may be contemplating some kind of military play. China could be
another but that would involve a costly confrontation Trump’s America may not
be prepared to embark on. It will be in the Middle East that Trump is most
likely to strike. In the Middle East, if Trump acts to have a foreign adventure
help him in the elections, Iran will be the most likely target.
As Jackson
Diehl, a Washington Post contributor, wrote foreign leaders read polls and some
of them are sprinting to take advantage of Trump’s willingness to tolerate
initiatives they know would be unacceptable to Joe Biden if he were to move
into the White House. “None are running faster than Benjamin Netanyahu — who,
along with Vladimir Putin, has already been the biggest international
beneficiary of the Trump administration.” The Israeli Prime Minister fighting
hard at home to escape being formally charged for corruption is also looking
for foreign adventures to divert domestic attention. He is already involved in
two activities, both audacious and risky. One is to annex 30% of the West Bank
it occupied in 1967 under the guise of President Trump’s dormant Middle East
plan developed by Jared Kushner, Trump’s devout Jewish son-in-law. The other
involves Iran, a favourite Trump target and also that of his Secretary of
State, Mike Pompeo.
In the past
few weeks, according to Post’s Diehl, “Israel has apparently been conducting
what amounts to a slow-motion, semi-covert military campaign against Iran’s
nuclear and missile programmes, and perhaps other industrial and infrastructure
targets as well. Mysterious explosions and fires have struck a key centrifuge
production facility, a military base where missiles are produced, as well as
power plants, aluminum and chemical factories, and a medical clinic. Last week,
a fire erupted at the port of Bushehr on the Persian Gulf, destroying seven
ships.” The Israelis were not particularly shy about distancing themselves from
these activities. “I’m surprised the Israelis have not been more circumspect
about this,” said Dennis Ross, a former senior Middle East expert in several
past Washington administrations.
On
September 15, 2020, the Trump administration took a long step in the attempt to
reshape the Middle East. On the lawn of the White House it signed an agreement
between Israel and the Persian Gulf states of Bahrain and the UAE. These were
called “Abraham Accords”. They were aimed primarily against Iran. Liberal
commentary in the United States saw the accords bringing trouble to the Middle
East. The most consequential result of the policy the accords represented would
be “reinforcement of harsh authoritarian rulers; the deepening of US
entanglement in a sectarian conflict among Sunni and Shiite regimes; and the
marginalisation of the issue on which Israel’s future most depends: relations
with the Palestinians,” wrote The Washington Post in an editorial titled, “A
Lopsided Middle East Strategy”. The newspaper continued with its assessment of
Trump’s approach to the Middle East. “More than any other previous president,
Mr Trump has lavished attention and support on the Arab monarchies. He has
backed their disastrous war in Yemen, sold them weapons over congressional
objections, and excused their brutal domestic oppression. To Mr Netanyahu, he
gifted the move of the US Embassy to Jerusalem without asking anything in return.”
Would this
policy succeed in bringing about change in the way Trump has conducted himself
in the Middle East? Most experts see trouble. With all the hostility Washington
has shown towards Tehran, there has been no change in the approach the Islamic
regime has pursued in its neighbourhood. Not only that, Iran has quadrupled its
stockpile of enriched uranium in response to Trump’s withdrawal from the
multinational accord limiting its nuclear programme. Iran is now closer to
going nuclear than ever before. If that happens, it would start a nuclear race
in the Middle East.
The next
big step Trump would like to see taken is to bring about a “dawn in the new
Middle East” is for Saudi Arabia to follow its small neighbours and sign a
peace with Israel. But the kingdom may not be ready for this: it has an
attachment for the Arab Peace Initiative it sponsored in 2002 that promised
statehood for Palestinians.
Several
experts expect more trouble in the Middle East: perhaps an October surprise
such as military action against Iran. To quote from Cohen again: “Trump is
about mirages, not new mornings. His October surprise could include an American
military clash with Iran that serves to strut Trump’s stuff.”
https://tribune.com.pk/story/2266072/trump-engineered-chaos-in-the-middle-east-1
-----
URL: https://newageislam.com/pakistan-press/pakistan-press-abdullah-abdullah,-imran/d/122979
New Age Islam, Islam Online, Islamic Website, African Muslim News, Arab World News, South Asia News, Indian Muslim News, World Muslim News, Women in Islam, Islamic Feminism, Arab Women, Women In Arab, Islamophobia in America, Muslim Women in West, Islam Women and Feminism