Right-Wing Divided: Parties such as the JI and JUI Are Wary Of the Newcomers By Aasim Sajjad Akhtar: New Age Islam's Selection, 15 December 2017
New Age Islam Edit Bureau
15 December 2017
• Right-Wing Divided: Parties such as the JI and JUI Are Wary Of the Newcomers
By Aasim Sajjad Akhtar
• Character-Building
By Amin Valliani
• Equality As Moral Imperative
By Faisal Bari
• A Time for Action, Not Words
By Aijaz Zaka Syed
• The Jerusalem Problem
By Dr Ramesh Kumar Vankwani
• Triumphalism, Pakistani Style
By Asha’ar Rehman
• Understanding Americans!
By Dr Haider Mehdi
• Understanding Cultural Relativism
By Syed Mohammad Ali
• Decency Won
By Chris Cork
• ICC’s Case against US in Afghanistan
By Sultan M Hali
• Legality of US Decision On Jerusalem
By Dr Muhammad Khan
Compiled By New Age Islam Edit Bureau
----
Right-Wing Divided: Parties such as the JI and JUI are wary of the newcomers
By Aasim Sajjad Akhtar
December 15, 2017
WHEN Donald Trump made the umpteenth provocative policy statement of his presidency last week by declaring that the US would recognise Jerusalem as the capital of the state of Israel, it was reasonable to expect that the religious right across the Muslim world would front a ferocious reaction, with Pakistan no exception.
Well, it hasn’t happened yet, at least not in our land of the pure.
This is intriguing, especially in the immediate aftermath of the Faizabad Dharna, which for many signalled the culmination of the religious right’s rise to a position of almost unchallenged cultural hegemony. Why has the religious lobby made no attempt to capitalise on a clearly emotive issue and further consolidate the gains made by Rizvi & co?
Parties such as the JI and JUI are wary of the newcomers.
At least part of the answer was provided by an Islamabad High Court judge immediately after the Dharna was called off. In lambasting the compromise, including the role of the army in brokering it, the learned judge indicated that state personnel and institutions — some of whom constitute what we call the ‘establishment’ — are hardly on the same page about Islam, and what posture the state of Pakistan should adopt towards the religious right.
The differences within the state are not reducible to a simplistic binary, namely ‘does the state want to continue patronising the religious right or not?’ Religion is so deeply entrenched in the body politic that there is no question of a wholesale shift in the state’s historic policy of politicising it. It is much more meaningful to interrogate the extent and nature of conflict within the state about how to use religion in politics, including the thorny matter of which religio-political forces are to be patronised and in what way.
It is not rocket science that the rise of the Mumtaz Qadris and Khadim Rizvis of the world has coincided with the (relative) falling out of favour of more puritan sects that were previously the dominant bearers of public religiosity. It follows that state personnel sympathetic to different religio-political movements do not see eye to eye with one another about the manner in which Islam should guide the affairs of the state.
In short, the actually existing state is anything but a monolith. Thought about intuitively, the state is comprised of many individuals in a great many number of institutional and geographical settings with varying histories and localised imperatives. With this in mind, it makes sense that state personnel with long-term ties to, say, Deobandi groups are not thrilled at the fact that Barelvis are currently enjoying more favour at the highest echelons of the security apparatus.
Parties such as the Jamaat and JUI and their supporters within the state are watching over their shoulder as new kids on the block like the TLYRA make gains — both with the establishment and in terms of political visibility in society. The MMA’s revival confirms as much.
All of this makes for even more volatility moving forward, but it does clarify things for progressives: the right-wing is far from united, and religio-political organisations and their backers within the state are as likely to confront one another as they are to take on those at the other end of the ideological spectrum. In fact, given that the current power struggle is almost exclusively an intra-right affair — even Punjab’s mainstream electoral contest is between the right-of-centre PML-N and right-of-centre PTI — it is worth noting that it is often from within such otherwise depressing conjunctures that change is triggered.
Previously, left-wing revolutionaries were alive to internal contradictions in the structure of power, and would pounce at the moment when these contradictions were at their sharpest. Today’s progressives must remember that even though the right is very powerful in today’s Pakistan, it is also hopelessly divided — as are state functionaries that have always used religion as a weapon to defang the left at home, and undermine its ‘enemies’ outside the country.
In part the notion that the state and religious right are omnipotent is one that progressives themselves tend to reinforce via unending narratives circulating in society. Certainly the fear factor of the establishment and religious right is indisputable, especially given that there is almost no recourse to the killings, disappearances and other forms of violence that are visited upon progressive activists.
Yet surely repression can also be read as desperation to contain the growing number of voices who want to see the country head in a different direction. As I noted earlier, the problem is less that the forces of reaction are unchallengeable and more that the forces of progress are unorganised. Exposing the myth of right-wing unity is the first step towards building a progressive alternative — and such an alternative might even garner the support of many within the complex animal that is the Pakistani state.
Source: dawn.com/news/1376620/right-wing-divided
----
Character-Building
By Amin Valliani
December 15, 2017
AS long as we are alive in this physical world, our mind is like an open road for all kind of thought traffic. Thoughts usually pass through the mind but some are strong enough to make a person act upon them. They become actions and if the same action is repeated over time, they turn into habits and finally become part of one’s character.
Thus, thoughts are key to the whole process of character-building. They are at the bottom of all progress and retrogression, all success or failure, all good and bad happenings and all that is desirable or undesirable. It is a simple psychological law that any type of thought, if entertained for a sufficient length of time, will finally burst forth into action. Many heinous crimes such as murder, theft, robbery, terrorist acts etc are at times committed in this way. Therefore, in the realm of the mind, every individual must learn how to manage his or her thoughts.
Every act of life is preceded and given birth to by a thought. The act repeated forms habits, and habits determine character.
Every individual must learn how to manage his or her thoughts.
If a wrong action is committed, our character will move in the wrong direction whereas a righteous action will make us righteous. Therefore, each one of us needs to be watchful, mindful, conscious and, above all, courageous enough to nip nefarious thoughts in the bud.
Though it is difficult to free the mind from the incessant flux of unwanted thoughts, the Holy Quran suggests to believers: “And if an evil whisper comes to you from Satan, then seek refuge with Allah. Verily, He is All Hearer, All Knower” (7:200).
The spark of a matchstick can be extinguished by a little effort, instead of allowing a flame to leap high and turn into a raging fire.
Similarly, nipping negative thoughts at the first instance would be easy rather than dealing with the eventual consequences. It is further clarified by an example: in a local bank, a cashier handles cash in the millions. He reads about a man who suddenly became rich through speculation on the stock market. A thought surfaces in his mind to invest the funds he has charge of. The very moment the thought of using funds belonging to others enters his mind he instantly nips the thought in the bud, otherwise it would grow into such proportions that it would become more and more difficult to control.
Likewise a young person is out with some of his companions for a pleasant evening. A suggestion is made by one of his friends to dine and wine together in a nearby restaurant. The young person does not realise the fact that the greatest strength and nobility of character always lies in taking a firm stand and doing the right thing. He goes along with his other companions. The act is repeated a number of times and ultimately causes him to become addicted to drinking.
Humans, by nature, are weak and usually remain in a fix. The Holy Quran enjoins man to seek the right path at every moment of his life. This enhances his true worth by improving his thoughts and subsequently his character.
In his famous saying, the Holy Prophet (PBUH) says that the best of you in Islam are those who are most excellent in character. If a person bears good moral character, he is dear in his society, likewise dear in the eyes of Allah. This is opposed to one who is undesirable for society, and likewise undesirable in Allah’s eyes.
Character is an inbuilt property that defines the apparent individual nature. It is not physically overt to everyone but builds within through right guidance, education and environment. It is manifested in an individual’s dealings while interacting with society.
We all are part of society and therefore, society has every right to form an opinion about our conduct. Seventh-century Makkan society, in which Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) was born and grew up, was a pagan society. But that society formed an opinion about the Holy Prophet’s character.
He was above board in every respect; therefore, society called him As Sadiq (true) and Al Amin (trustworthy).
There are many contributing elements which help form the individual’s character but by far the most important underlying element is the force of thoughts. Every conscious human act is preceded by a thought. The dominating thoughts determine dominating action.
The acts repeated crystallise into habit. The aggregate of our habits is one’s character.
A desire for noble character is the essence, indeed the sum and substance of all religious teachings. This depends on managing thoughts at the core.
Source: dawn.com/news/1376621/character-building
----
Equality as Moral Imperative
By Faisal Bari
December 15, 2017
A WEEK ago it was reported that a mother of three, near Hafizabad, suffocated her children, aged two to five years, before trying to commit suicide by slitting her own throat. Police said that the family had been having financial difficulties and the last dispute broke the camel’s back.
It is hard to even imagine what must have been going through the mind of the mother in the days and months leading up to the decision to kill her own children. Let us not even try to imagine that.
The event is horrendous. But this is not the first time such an event has been reported in recent months and, sadly, it will not be the last. What I find even more horrendous is where society and the media have been incessantly talking about the dharna, resignations of ministers, not to mention the Sharma-Kohli marriage, the killing of three children by a mother has not generated any debate in this society. Especially, when it should be evident to all who live in this society that we are all responsible for what happened. We are all culpable. We are all guilty.
Looking after the interest of the weakest in society must be a part of any basic social contract.
Does a society mean something more than just a number of people living together? Does living together impose any rights and responsibilities on all of us? It seems that irrespective of any governance system we might agree on, the rules of the game we might set, institutional structures we might construct and most importantly, irrespective of the ideology that we might subscribe to, looking after the interests of the weakest in the group must be a part of the basic social contract in any society. How can it be otherwise?
If you derive your morality from a religion, and it can be any religion, caring for weaker members of the society would be a duty. If you are a socialist, the claims of equity and equality will be very serious claims for you. If you are a liberal, and it can be a liberal of any sort, creating an effective welfare state would be an important tenet for you: for Rawlsian liberals looking after the interest of the weakest in society is an important way of thinking about justice itself. If you are a communitarian, claims regarding welfare of others would be serious claims for you. Only if you are an extreme libertarian, more extreme than even the Nozick type of libertarian, would you deny the importance of looking after the weakest members of society. But, clearly, there are no libertarians of that hew in Pakistan.
Over the last three decades, inequality has increased significantly and opportunities for social mobility seem to have decreased substantially in Pakistan. But a lot of this is by design and not by default. State policies of liberalisation, privatisation, reducing deficits and right-sizing government have all contributed to increased inequality and reduced social mobility.
When private health and private education are allowed to flourish, the rich withdraw from using public services. The rich access better quality private services while the poor have to rely on, in general, the poor quality services provided by the public sector. This, by definition, increases inequality, entrenches existing social and economic structures and increases the probability that the same structures will be reproduced in the next generation as well.
If the rich can drink bottled water and the poor can only drink poor quality state-provided tap water, health outcomes between the rich and the poor are bound to differ. And the difference will ensure further increases in inequality over time.
Private sector-provided job opportunities depend on skills and education, and people are fired when they are not able to pull their weight: there is no job security in most private sector-provided jobs. Given this situation, returns from job markets become more uncertain and risky. People with marketable skills can get high returns but people who do not have any skills or education or whose skills might not be in demand are likely to face hard times. If the state does not provide unemployment benefits and an effective welfare net, increased privatisation and liberalisation would lead to significant misery for all those whose skills and expertise are not in demand.
One could argue that despite this, it might still be worth our while to privatise and liberalise the economy: if we can get higher growth rates, even the cost of higher unemployment and misery for groups whose skills/ education are not in demand might be worth paying. But this begs the larger question: why would the state not focus on creating a safety net especially when it is clear that it is its policies that are contributing to increased inequality and inequity in society as well as increased misery for many?
What is equally surprising, if not more so, is that the issue of increasing inequality and inequity has never become a major issue in societal debates. Why are people not concerned about the issue and why has media been relatively quiet here? Should inequality not have been one of the top policy and reform issues in the public imagination? If it were, the media would cover it as well. Should political parties not have had this issue as the central one in their manifestos and debates?
How does one move forward on the issue? Society has to accept that we have a responsibility towards each other. We have a special responsibility towards those who cannot, for one reason or another, take care of themselves. The mother who, given her financial problems, killed three of her children, needed the state and society to live up to their responsibilities and duties. But all of us failed her. All of us had a part in the murder of those children. Will we ever wake up to acknowledging and delivering on our responsibilities?
Source: dawn.com/news/1376624/equality-as-moral-imperative
-----
A Time for Action, Not Words
By Aijaz Zaka Syed
December 15, 2017
Donald Trump’s decision to ‘recognise’ Jerusalem as Israel’s capital comes exactly a century after Arthur Balfour, the British foreign secretary and later the prime minister, announced the creation of a Jewish homeland on Palestinian land. A century separates the American and British perfidy. But the underlying sentiment remains the same, giving away something that is not theirs to give away in the first place.
The sheer injustice and brazenness of this whole business and the continuing colonial hubris is simply breath-taking. And you thought colonialism was long dead and buried!
Who are the Americans and the British to give away the Palestinian’s homeland, homes, holy cities and their very identity to people born in Europe, Russia and America? As if the century-long oppression and dispossession of Palestinians in their own land with the blessings and support of the world powers was not enough, now they must suffer the indignity of being divested of Al-Quds, which is home to Islam’s third holiest mosque.
Jerusalem is not just another city. Sacred to the followers of all three Abrahamic faiths – Islam, Christianity and Judaism – the ancient city has been at the heart of the Palestinian existence and Islamic identity.
This is why – notwithstanding all that has happened over the decades as part of the Zionist colonial project to take over and occupy the whole of Palestine, making Palestinians strangers in their own land – no one else, including successive US administrations, ever dared to endorse its designs and aggression against the holy city of Jerusalem.
As an angry Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has emphasised, Jerusalem is the ultimate redline for the world’s 1.7 billion Muslims and no one would be allowed to cross it. This is why, despite Israel’s growing assertions and antics to ‘Judaise’ Jerusalem and project the holy city as its ‘capital’, the rest of the world continues to respect the special status of the city, maintaining their diplomatic missions in Tel Aviv.
But then again, Trump, with his devil-may-care attitude goes, eyes wide shut, where angels fear to tread and says and does things considered unthinkable by his predecessors and much of the Western world.
Besides, given the chaos and strife reigning in Muslim lands, especially the disunity in the Arab-Muslim ranks, Trump and his Israeli friends and allies wouldn’t have been wrong to conclude that there couldn’t be a better time to steal Jerusalem. Indeed, things would not have come to such a pass if the Arab and Muslim world had not stood around and silently endured the atrocities and humiliation that was repeatedly inflicted by Israel and its patrons for all these years.
Over the past few years, thanks to the efforts of Israel and its allies and the Arab and Muslim world’s increasing preoccupation with the conflicts in Syria, Iraq and Yemen and more pressing domestic concerns, the question of Palestine has receded further into the background.
Above all, it was the international pressure on Palestinians to give up ‘violence’ and embrace peace and the so-called two-state solution that brought Palestinians to this point – a political wilderness.
More than anything, it was the bullying of Uncle Sam – the principal architect of the two-state solution – and his allies that persuaded Palestinians to end their freedom struggle for the chimera of their own state. And look where it has brought Palestinians. Today, they have no homeland, no freedom and no rights. Why, they have even been deprived of the very struggle that offered them their self-respect and identity as Palestinians, keeping Israelis perpetually on the edge.
Having long promised Palestinians and Arabs a “viable and peaceful Palestinian state, side by side with Israel”, the US has quietly and shamelessly gone back on decades of commitments. In doing so, it has violated the historic UN resolution of 1980, backed by 14 members of UN Security Council – except, of course, the US – that recognises the special status of Jerusalem and demands Israel to withdraw from the holy city.
The international community, including America’s European allies, also regards the old city of East Jerusalem as occupied territory and says Jerusalem’s final status must be negotiated, not unilaterally declared. In rejecting all this with casual insouciance, the US has also shown us what it thinks of its historical relations and alliances with the Arab and Muslim nations.
But it is futile to cry over the spilt milk. After all, there are no permanent friends and foes in the world of international relations, only permanent interests. The question is: what are the Arabs and Muslims going to do in response to this great betrayal?
Not surprisingly, a majority of Muslim nations have been swift in issuing regulation denunciations of Trump’s decision. However, Muslims around the world are not likely to be propitiated by these perfunctory statements and resolutions anymore.
The outpouring of popular anger and outrage from Morocco to Malaysia over the past few days demands credible and effective action in response, not mere words. The time for business as usual has passed. That is the message from the streets – from Egypt to Indonesia. And the Muslim nations attending the emergency summit in Istanbul on Wednesday seem to have heard and acknowledged it.
The Istanbul communiqué declaring East Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine is historic in this sense. The 57-member Organisation of Islamic Cooperation has asserted that it considers Trump’s declaration of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel “null and void legally” and views it as an attack on the rights of the Palestinian people.
It goes without saying that the Istanbul declaration, symbolically significant as it is, will not alter the geopolitical realities of the occupied Palestine or the Middle East. Palestinians will remain occupied and powerless as ever. The Arab and Islamic world will need to go beyond eloquent speeches and long-winded resolutions to challenge the status quo and confront the Israeli occupation.
In a way, we all ought to be grateful to Trump for putting an end to this whole circus of ‘peace process’ and the ‘two-state solution’. As Israeli writer Gideon Levy argues that Trump has exposed the masquerade that has been going on in the Middle East for the past half a century.
On the other hand, the US action serves as a rude reminder to Palestinians about the stark reality of their predicament. Long lulled into apathy and inaction by international assurances of peace and justice, Palestinians have just been reminded that there is no alternative to resistance and fighting for their freedom and rights.
The US move should serve as a rallying point for Palestinian unity and taking firm and concerted actions until their objective is achieved. The Muslim call for action and solidarity with Palestinians is welcome. But this must translate into credible action, such as the total economic and political boycott of Israel and efforts to get Palestinians their due. Clearly, the two-state solution is dead. It is, perhaps, time for one state with equal rights for Palestinians and Israelis.
When all’s said and done, no one can help Palestinians until they decide to help themselves. They have waited long enough and in vain for international assistance and action. It is time for Palestinians to take charge of their own destiny.
Source: thenews.com.pk/print/256176-a-time-for-action-not-words
-----
The Jerusalem Problem
By Dr Ramesh Kumar Vankwani
December 15, 2017
At a time when the 100th anniversary of the fall of Jerusalem was being observed, US President Donald Trump’s decision to recognise Jerusalem as the capital of Israel sparked unrest throughout the world.
In December 1917, British forces captured Jerusalem, the city of peace, from the Ottomans. Prior to World War I, annexing conquered territories through the use of force was a common practice. But in 1928, France and the US supported an international agreement under which signatory states promised not to use war to resolve any dispute or conflict. The Pact of Paris, which is officially known as the General Treaty for Renunciation of War as an Instrument of National Policy, still remains in effect.
British had achieved the legitimacy to rule Palestine under a mandate entrusted by the League of Nations. According to the mandate, the administration of Palestine was bound to safeguard the interests of local communities in connection with the development of the country. Britain, under the Balfour Declaration, also vowed to support the rights of Jewish people to have a “national home” within Palestine. Moreover, the Balfour Declaration called for the protection of the civil and religious rights of the existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine.
At the time, the US foreign policy also seemed to revolve around the Balfour Declaration. On September 1922, a joint resolution was passed by the US Congress to garner support for a homeland in Palestine for the Jewish people. But the resolution also categorically mentioned that this should not be happened at the expense of other cultures.
On November 29, 1947, the UN General Assembly adopted the UN Partition Plan for Palestine in Resolution 181. The resolution recommended the formation of sovereign Arab and Jewish states and the internationalisation of Jerusalem. Back then, Jerusalem was not part of Israel because, according to the UN Resolution 181(ii), the historical city of Jerusalem had to be established as a separated body and administered by the UN.
Just after the declaration for the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948, a regional war erupted that enabled Israel to occupy the western part of Jerusalem and almost 60 percent of Arab territory allocated for the state of Palestine. Although the UN didn’t legitimise the Israeli occupation, the Israeli Cabinet in 1949 declared West Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, endorsed by the Israeli parliament, the Knesset. However, the international community kept their diplomatic missions in Tel Aviv. On the other hand, a majority of Muslim countries, including Pakistan, refused to recognise Israel.
After the end of the Arab-Israel War 1967, Israel managed to capture the entire city of Jerusalem as well as more territories of the surrounding Arab countries to expand its borders. To condemn the Israeli aggression, Resolution 242 was unanimously adopted by the UN Security Council on November 1967. The resolution called for the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from the occupied territories. This UN resolution is considered to be the most widely affirmed initiative to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict. It also led to the signing of various peace treaties among Israel and the neighbouring Arab states, including Palestine, Egypt and Jordan.
In July 1980, the Knesset passed the Basic Jerusalem Law to declare that “Jerusalem, complete and united, is the capital of Israel”. The controversial law was a setback for the global efforts to restore peace in the region. In response, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 478 on August 1980 to declare the Basic Jerusalem Law null and void. The resolution also called upon member states to withdraw their embassies from Jerusalem. The resolution was passed with 14 votes in favour of it and none against it while the US preferred to abstain from voting on the matter.
However, the influence of Israeli lobbies in the US Congress resulted in the adoption of the Jerusalem Embassy Act in 1995. Contrary to the UN resolutions and international laws, the act called for the relocation of the US embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem by May 31, 1999. On practical grounds, the law remained unimplemented for more than two decades by various US presidents – including Bill Clinton, George W Bush and Barack Obama – who repeatedly claimed a presidential waiver on the issue after every six months.
Today, the international community has shown solidarity with the people of Palestine. The UN, the EU, the Arab League, Canada, China, Russia, Turkey and even the peace-loving citizens of the US have opposed the controversial decision to destabilise world peace. As the only superpower, the US must play a critical role in implementing the UN resolutions to resolve the Palestinian crisis peacefully rather than complicating the issue any further. The US must also convince the Israeli leadership that the creation of an independent Palestinian state is also in the best interest of Israel.
Source: thenews.com.pk/print/256180-the-jerusalem-problem
----
Triumphalism, Pakistani Style
By Asha’ar Rehman
December 15, 2017
IT has to be one of the most appalling images in the world. The victors shaming, ridiculing, making fun of their victims — the vanquished — in a statement meant to establish their superiority. The kind of triumphalism that is conveyed through stories from far and near in Pakistan in which the killers are not just content with defeating, exterminating their opponents, but where they must now break into joyous dance to put their seal on the conclusion for all times to come.
The trait comes naturally to people. It has to be gradually subdued in favour of decency, of good sense. I remember how as young boys we would be ever so keen to mock and ridicule the side we had just beaten in a cricket match. The banter would give way to taunts and often it would all end up in physical confrontation. But slowly we started to appreciate the others, more as partners over and above their coarse appearance as the opposition with whom we had to vie for some impermanent honours.
Slowly, we realised that we could learn from those with whom we locked horns, to use an animal phrase. We would now be eager to concentrate on how — and how beautifully — they did it. We respected them and apparently and hopefully this made better human beings out of us.
What kind of a reaction can one expect from a powerful ruler who thinks he has been vindicated by the court over a pet project of his?
This was a lesson that everyone was supposed to learn. But there were, of course, those who learnt it late and those who may still be in the process of securing the wisdom in these mutual stand-offs, eg, the winners who must set ablaze the camps of a losing opponent after an election to stamp their authority. Or those who are always up for that most obvious oxymoron of all occasions called celebratory fire.
Those who are still learning the merits of being sober in victory are spread all over. In recent times, a specimen of them in good supply was to be found on Twitter and other social media sites. In this particular case, these practitioners’ triumphalism emanated from the court snub that Mian Nawaz Sharif had received by way of his disqualification. This set hordes upon hordes from the opposite party to take to the internet to repeat the old bad ritual in which the winner is allowed to embarrass the loser in the most banal manner. It continued for so long that eventually even some of those who have had their own history of making fun of others cried out for an end to hostilities.
There were, however, those who could justify it then and justify it after a year or two of continued incessant taunting of the party in power — on the basis that the ruling party itself had its own star practitioners of the lowly art of triumphalism that is favoured by all here in all post-win scenarios. These old boys have yet not discovered the merit of ending it on a polite note, and can only appreciate the finer points of an opponent after the latter has crossed over to their camp. Unless that happens, the more appropriate word for those lining up across the battle lines in Pakistan would be ‘enemies’.
A charter between two big political parties may not herald a true democratic order with all its prerequisites. For the weak-hearted though, it could signify the coming of an age where the bilateral bashing that the two parties had been indulging in would be kept in check and the people would consequently have a less noisy neighbourhood to live in.
The problem is not when the two sides act as if they are not beholden to the grand democratic principles listed in the charter. The real issue is that even the more basic calls raised by an acute sense of superiority are not resisted. There are actually so many moments in everyday life when we can demonstrate that the desire to be graceful in victory is as much alive in the ‘others’ as it is in us. These opportunities are not cashed in on. The Pakistanis cannot mock it. They cannot even pretend to be graceful.
The act is even more difficult to perform for those who have the image of an angry man to cater to. Take the case of the angry younger man who has been playing a perfect foil to a sober-looking elder brother for so many decades.
Suppose the younger brother is the chief executive of a region or a province. Suppose he has forever sold to the people — to the party, to the bureaucrats who must serve him and to the media at large — the defining image of an administrator who stands no nonsense.
Now suppose that chief executive is questioned by a group that says one of his projects could have dire consequences for a city that the powerful man has been firmly in control of for ages. Now think about a situation where the powerful man has been allowed by a court to carry on with the project after having been briefly stopped from executing it in certain parts of the city by the same group of his critics.
What kind of a reaction do you expect from a powerful ruler who thinks he has been vindicated by the court over a pet project of his? He is obviously not the one who has learnt to give due respect to the opponents early on in the cricket field. He is not someone who would be bound by any new trends of accepting the opposition point of view with due solemnity and certainly not capable of setting a new tradition of his own. He is likely to unleash his own brand of triumphalism on the people he is sure to have vanquished. The illusion fits perfectly with the scheme. It must not be challenged.
Source: dawn.com/news/1376623/triumphalism-pakistani-style
-----
Understanding Americans!
By Dr Haider Mehdi
December 15, 2017
If you wish to understand Donald Trump, you will have to understand the collective consciousness of the common Americans in the context of an overall national psyche. There are two fundamentals to the American psyche, that is, of the majority of Americans, barring a few of them invaded by multi-culturalism and a global wave of wider and expansive universal political awareness. But this is a rare commodity and, by and large, the entire nation is ‘one-dimensional’, sharing rigid and determined social and political attitudes that have remained untiredly unchanged over the decades of American existence, specifically in the aftermath of the WWII and the emergence of the US as the dominant global military and economic power.
The first fundamental is that the majority are overly obsessed by the idea of ‘appearance’, and this is of a psychological-political dimension: Americans wish to be seen as generous, kind and charitable, democratic and tolerant, politically correct and global in their political-cultural outlook. Hence, America has a culture of social-cultural conformity that is unshakably voluntary — nearly everyone shares the same views and attitudes over almost every social and political norm: “We’re number one!” There are hardly any diametrically opposed opinions on most political or social issues.
The second is the unmitigated desire for ‘power’. Americans on an individual level are fiercely egotistical and uncompromisingly ‘individualistic’. This, in fact, reinforces the culture of conformity. These two factors are intertwined because one supports the other making it impossible to have simple compromises on any social or political issues. There is rigidity in the overall American individual and collective behaviour which is uniquely American in character and is impossible for outsiders to understand.
Thus, the resultant national geo-political perspective on world affairs is that the US must be the dominant economic and military power in the world. If attaining this requires war, covert interventions, propaganda and psychological warfare, political and economic destabilisation of other countries, or regime changes, so be it! American citizens stand behind their successive governments to do their duty for ‘American democracy’, capitalism and in the service of white nations and neo-imperialism.
That brings us to the understanding of Trump as the beholder of the promise to his nation: Make America Great Again. Restore lost American prestige in the changing world of the 21st century. Demonise Islam and destabilise Muslim countries. For others, use tactical strategies to pressure them into compliance with American goals. Contain China and Russia. Sabotage the Palestinians by political deception and supporting brutal aggression. Raise Narendra Modi to the level of political sainthood irrespective of the Indian genocide of Kashmiri Muslims — so that India can be used to contain China and help America steal Afghan natural resources. Bribe the Middle Eastern and Egyptian leaderships. Bomb Africa. Keep promoting military conflicts in Asia, Africa, the Middle East, and Latin America so the US can sell more arms and get richer, and continue to be the dominant power in control of international political and economic institutions.
Hence, we can understand why Trump is all charged up over North Korea: to assure his troubled citizens that their president is a tough military commander-in-chief. The president will destroy a dictator who dares to challenge American hegemony. The president will restore American dominance even if it entails killing a million people and wiping a nation off the face of the earth. The president knows what the American people want and will surely ‘Make America Great Again’. (Just remember to vote Trump into the White House again in 2020.)
This is another uniquely American phenomenon: hardly a year in office and preparations are already underway to win the next presidential election. Again and again, the world suffers the consequences of the American democratic system wholly focused on raising political campaign funds from wealthy donors who expect political favours, often impacting government policy. And then there are the other policy decisions made to placate the ‘base’ so that they vote favourably once more. There is a Trump on every street of America, all bent on ‘Making America Great Again’ at the cost of violence against global humanity. This silent majority doesn’t wish to come out vocally in favour of Trump, fearful of the ‘appearance’ of being racists, reactionaries or ultra-right wing political activists.
Imagine the rationality of Trump’s assumed threat of the North Korean nuclear threshold of a few warheads against American military might and massive nuclear power. It is so simple to conceptualise that the North Korean leadership’s drive for nuclear capability is only meant to insure their country’s territorial safety, security and existence. The concept is called ‘Mutual Deterrence’. The logical question is: would the US have invaded Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria if all of these countries had acquired a nuclear threshold and weapons of mass destruction? Indeed, Pakistan has been spared the same fate because it acquired a nuclear threshold at an appropriate time.
And a question directly to the incumbent US president: What about Israel? Why did the Americans secretly arm Israel with nuclear weapons? So by the same token, why can’t North Korea and Iran equip themselves with the kind of military and nuclear power that has proven to be a military deterrent? Peace at an affordable cost, isn’t it so?
In view of this discussion, consider the enormity of the military power and the massive nuclear arsenal at the disposal of the US president. Among its fleet, the US Navy has 10 Nimitz class aircraft carriers (nuclear-powered) with 50-year life spans. Consequently, these aircraft carriers are operational 24 hours a day around the world, giving them the military capability of destroying the entire world 17 times over. Each of these has approximately 3,140 military personnel, 2,800 air crew and around 90 state-of-the-art aircraft on them. Not only that. The 2017 Estimated Nuclear Warhead Inventory indicates that the US has a stockpile of 4,018 nuclear warheads. Out of them, 1,393 are deployed. Imagine that the US has nearly 800 military installations in more than 70 countries and territories abroad. In addition, there are more than 200 army, air force, marine and naval bases in the US itself.
Ironically, the US military-industrial complex also sells more arms around the world than the entire world together. Obviously, this has direct military-political repercussions vis-à-vis the American role in interstate conflicts and their resolution. Global peace has been subjected to US economic and business interests since the emergence of the US military-industrial complex and its world-wide reach.
Make no mistake: Trump is in the driver’s seat with his eyes on the next presidential election. He is fully cognisant of the psyche of the American people. He is aware that his slogan ‘Make America Great Again’ rings a bell in the hearts and minds of the majority. Trump is playing the cards of hidden racism implicit in the American psyche and demonstrating a muscular military approach against its fabricated adversaries to show that the US’s global military political dominance is at the core of his political career consistent with the nation’s emotional domain.
Expect no mercy. Humanity is in for another rough era. The Jerusalem move is just an indication of what is to come. Wait to see the coming fate of the Palestinians, Afghans, Libyans, Iraqis, Syrians, and the people of Africa and Latin America. The American president is all out to ‘Make America Great Again’ in his own particular way: full of hatred, aggression and bullying dominance directed at will against all at home and abroad — unless the world is prepared to do what the Pakistani Air Force Chief recently said: If a US drone flies over Pakistan, we will shoot it down.
Donald Trump does not need allies. He deserves nemeses — for his political behavioural reform and discipline.
Source: tribune.com.pk/story/1584231/6-understanding-americans/
-----
Understanding cultural relativism
By Syed Mohammad Ali
December 15, 2017
Manipulating cultural differences to divide and exploit people remains unfortunately widespread in our world today. Cultural difference reflects attempts to make sense of varied human experiences and circumstances, and therefore, different values, norms and traditions of people around the world should be appreciated rather than being feared.
Early attempts to grapple with culture, necessitated by colonial expansion, categorised cultural difference based on the idea of evolution. Cultural evolution ranked diverse cultures based on a problematic Eurocentric notion of civilisation. Soon thereafter, a new breed of anthropologists came to the fore, however, who criticised the evolutionary perspective, and instead began promoting the idea of cultural relativism.
The idea of thinking about culture relatively was championed by the Polish American migrant Franz Boas, who advocated the need to pay attention to specific histories of different peoples to understand cultural differences. Boas became a fierce critic of the notion of cultural evolution and its assumption that different cultures around the world can be simply ranked according to distinct and uniform stages of development (savagery, barbarism and civilisation).
Instead, Boas argued that different cultures were understandable only within specific cultural contexts. He also argued that understanding a specific culture requires learning about its unique history. He suggested that cultural values, norms and symbols all derived from the unique historical development of a given group of people. The anthropological approach used by Boas to understand world cultures thus became known as historical particularism.
Boas and his disciplines made important contributions to the growing field of anthropology in the early 20th century. Boas did research amongst Native Americans in Alaska and helped create a much deeper appreciation of their culture. His work also helped to achieve a measure of equality for Eastern European immigrants to the US.
In Boas’s time, individual races were still thought to have specific physical, mental and cultural properties. Besides being an early critic of Nazism, Boas attacked racist pseudoscientific studies linking race and intelligence. Anthropology’s primary task, according to Boas, is to help understand how individuals within a specific group create a distinct culture, and in turn how this specific of culture influences the individuals which ascribe to this culture.
Historical particularism encountered one major problem however. If a specific historical context is vital to understanding culture, then how can one make any generalisations about the phenomenon of culture and search for patterns of culture which extend individual cultures? Boas had many students who also became important thinkers and further developed his ideas on culture. Amongst them was Margaret Mead, who tried to look for patterns of culture beyond individual societies, by asserting that differences between people are usually cultural differences imparted in childhood. Her influential work Coming of Age in Samoa pointed out how adolescent girls in Samoan culture were treated quite differently then Western civilisations, due to which there was less angst associated with the process of growing up in societies such as Samoa. By implication, Mead also showed how gendered behaviour patterns are not universal truths but extremely malleable, and reflect different cultural values. While some of Mead’s descriptions of Samoan life were later criticised, she made the important contribution to highlighting the importance of culture in personality development, and she also became a leading voice for 20th century Western feminism.
Many later thinkers have debated and refined these ideas further, including those from the so-called ‘developing world’ itself. Yet, the above insights into culture have proven valuable in understanding what makes cultures unique and why, and in turn how cultural variations impact other aspects, such as the role of women and men within a given society. The notion of cultural relativism remains significant within the contemporary world, where cultural difference often provokes suspicion and resentment, rather than curiosity and appreciation.
Source: tribune.com.pk/story/1584220/6-understanding-cultural-relativism/
----
Decency Won
By Chris Cork
December 14, 2017
This was not supposed to happen. President Trump did not want it to happen and so did all those that voted for Roy Moore in the Alabama US Senate elections. Many members of the Republican Party, however, though few loudly, paradoxically did want it to happen and by a slim margin but not small enough to trigger a recount, Democrat candidate Doug Jones won. Trump, in an unusually civil Tweet, acknowledged the win with some grace saying “…a win is a win” — and so it is.
It is decades since the Democrats won anything in Alabama and Jones came from behind to take a victory that is marginal but significant. Right up until the polls opened Moore was pegged as the winner. But black voters came out in strength, an unknown number of white voters decided that they would rather not vote than support an accused paedophile that was likely to be the subject of a Senate Ethics Committee investigation if he won — and then there was Harvey Weinstein.
Harvey Weinstein? Yup, and the #MeToo movement that has reached far beyond abused women making a stand and bringing down the great but far-from-good. The Jones win is linked to that backlash, the retaking of space by yes, decent ordinary people. It is a step along the way to making America great again, but only a step, and Jones is already being seen by some as an aberration, he won because Moore was just so odious that he was unelectable, and Alabama will revert to type when his re-election comes due. Possibly, but the marker is now down and the historic misstep that America took with the election of Donald Trump can be righted. ‘Can’ but not ‘will’. One swallow does not a summer make, and Jones is going to have to survive in the feral world of the Senate which is going to mean voting with Republicans on occasion.
As these words are written the defeated Moore is refusing to concede defeat, but the numbers are stacking up and the likelihood is that Jones is in by a (fattish) whisker. What this is not is a win for the Democrats per se, and it cannot be a reliable predictor for the mid-term elections, but from this far-away perspective this is a small step in the direction of repairing the damage done to Brand America in the course of a year of the Trump presidency.
It is almost impossible to calculate just how far and how fast America has fallen in the eyes of a wider world, how it is devalued and losing respect as the Trump juggernaut rolls on, cutting ties, retreating from treaties and wrapping itself in the flag to stand — considerably shorter and without the gravitas — tall in the eyes of a leader who may well be delusional and is clearly untroubled that he is on record as being happy to ‘grab pussy’ just because he is famous and can get away with it. There is no such concrete evidence in the case of Roy Moore but there is enough credible detail in the form of the statements by those that say they were abused by him to make him sub-par as a candidate and perhaps also delusional.
On 5th October, The New York Times published a story detailing allegations about Harvey Weinstein. On 8th October, it was announced that his Board of Directors had sacked him. By 16th October, the #MeToo Hashtag was viral and remains so to this day with women coming forward almost daily to expose those that assaulted them. There are going to be more heads to roll and not just in the entertainment industry.
Political heads are piling up in the basket below the #MeToo guillotine; and the voters of Alabama just dropped the blade on the neck of one of those that imagined himself immune, unable to be touched by modern realities. He had not in any sexual sense abused any of those that voted to let go the rope, but he had pushed their ‘decency’ buttons and they duly obliged and did the decent thing. Off with his head. It was worth staying up for. Make America great again…please.
Source: tribune.com.pk/story/1583278/6-decency-won/
----
ICC’s Case against US in Afghanistan
By Sultan M Hali
December 14, 2017
The International Criminal Court (ICC) is an inter-governmental organisation and international tribunal that sits in The Hague in the Netherlands. The ICC has the jurisdiction to prosecute individuals for international crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. The ICC began functioning on 1 July 2002, the date that the Rome Statute entered into force. The Rome Statute is a multilateral treaty which serves as the ICC’s foundational and governing document. States which become party to the Rome Statute by ratifying it, automatically become member states of the ICC.
The ICC is intended to complement existing national judicial systems and it may therefore only exercise its jurisdiction when certain conditions are met, such as when national courts are unwilling or unable to prosecute criminals or when the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) or individual states refer situations to the Court. Unlike the International Court of Justice, the ICC is legally independent from the United Nations. However, the Rome Statute grants certain powers to the UNSC, which limits its functional independence. Article 13 allows the Security Council to refer to the Court situations that would not otherwise fall under the Court’s jurisdiction (as it did in relation to the situations in Darfur and Libya, which the Court could not otherwise have prosecuted as neither Sudan nor Libya are state parties).
The ICC has been accused of bias and as being a tool of Western imperialism, only punishing leaders from small, weak states while ignoring crimes committed by richer and more powerful states.
41 UN member states have neither signed nor acceded to the Rome Statute. Some of them, including China and India, are critical of the Court. US President Bill Clinton signed it but failed to have it ratified by the US Congress, which is mandatory. Thus the relationship between the ICC and the US is tumultuous.
The US Department of State argues that there are “insufficient checks and balances on the authority of the ICC prosecutor and judges” and “insufficient protection against politicized prosecutions or other abuses”. The current law in the USA on the ICC is the American Service-Members’ Protection Act, 116 Stat. 820, nicknamed the “Hague Invasion Act” or the “Invade the Hague Act”, which forbids the United States from cooperating with the ICC in cases that may involve US nationals.
The Armed Forces of USA and its Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) have been accused of being responsible for heinous crimes pertaining to gross human rights violations in Afghanistan. Heretofore, the ICC was unable to pursue allegations against the US because of the anomaly of the US not being a member of ICC and the court avoided direct confrontation with the US government.
In a turn of events, the global criminal court has decided to take on the world’s dominant military power. ICC prosecutor Ms. Fatou Bensouda has sought permission for court judges under article 15 of the Rome Statute to authorize an investigation into these possible crimes since May 1, 2003 (dateline when Afghanistan joined ICC). Although ICC is bound to hear cases only against its member states but it is hearing the case against USA (which is not a member state) due to the fact that crimes are taking place against its member state i.e. Afghanistan.
It is uncertain how the case will proceed because the Bush Administration was so concerned that the ICC would try to assert power over US personnel that it went to extraordinary lengths to guard against that possibility. It sought immunity agreements from member States using foreign assistance as leverage. It blocked U.N. peacekeeping resolutions at the Security Council because they did not include ICC immunity clauses. It even worked with Congress to enact a law–-still on the books—authorizing the US to use military force to rescue its personnel from The Hague should one ever be detained by the court.
The US has also been accused of outsourcing the responsibilities of security in Afghanistan to private security agencies of the ilk of Blackwater, one of whose former employees Raymond Davis created mayhem and a diplomatic crisis in Lahore in January 2011. CIA is also alleged to be exploiting private militia like Khost Protection Force (KPF), Afghan Security Guards (ASG) and Kandahar Strike Force (KSF) among others to hunt and kill Taliban. All such private militias mostly comprise Afghan nationals but due to having special links with CIA, they behave as if they are above the law in Afghanistan. NATO forces are also using them to avoid the direct brunt of human rights violations in Afghanistan. This does not absolve CIA from assuming responsibilities.
There is a strong possibility that the US may refuse to cooperate with the ICC but could agree to take up the cases of gross violations or human rights abuse for trial within its own judicial system. Even that will be a victory for human rights activists.
ICC’s bold initiative is relevant for Pakistan, which could take up the case of the victims in Indian Occupied Kashmir (IOK). India may not be a signatory to the Rome Statute and by extension, a member of ICC but Pakistan should strongly support Afghanistan in its pursuit of justice while picking up the cudgels for exposing Indian atrocities in IOK. Major powers like the US and their allies like India should be taken to task for violating human rights. No one is above the law.
Source: pakobserver.net/iccs-case-us-afghanistan/
----
Legality of US Decision on Jerusalem
By Dr Muhammad Khan
December 14, 2017
Following the Trump’s astounded announcement, declaring Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, there have been quite evident signals against the decision from European Union, Russia, China and rest of the world, weary of the US hegemonic strategy. United States never expected such a snubbing response from European Union (EU) at least. After such a rebuffing response from EU, there is a realization of global isolation against the decision at Washington and Tal Aviv. During his visit to Brussels, Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israel Prime Minister suggested Europe to follow the US and recognize the Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.
In his first visit of the Europe, after the controversial announcement of President Trump, he said in a statement at Brussels that, “I believe that all or most of the European countries will move their embassies to Jerusalem, recognise Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, and engage robustly with us for security, prosperity and peace.” It was very shocking for him once his statement and suggestions for EU were overruled sternly by this organization. Mogherini, an EU Minister responded Netanyahu in the words, “He can keep his expectations for others, because from the European Union member states’ side this move will not come.”
Ms Mogherini had a long discussion with the Israeli Prime Minister and clearly told him about the EU stance. The minister clarified to Benjamin Netanyahu that, EU is looking for a two states solution and being the largest donor of Palestinians, would like “international consensus” as far the status of Jerusalem is concerned. It is worth mentioning that, once United Nations Organization passed the resolution 181 for the creation of Israeli state in 1947, ‘Jerusalem was declared an international city, part neither of the future Jewish state nor of the Arab one.’
Legally, the one sided decision of United States, recognising Jerusalem as the capital of Israel should not be of any worth and meaning. More so, once there are UN resolutions already passed on this particular city by this international body, which stand valid even today. The unilateral US decision has no legal value for rest of international community to follow. Rather, based on UN resolutions, the Trump’s decision has to be questioned by entire international community. It was again very encouraging that UN Secretary General has shown his displeasure over the decision.
Tracing the history of Israeli occupation of Palestinian areas, UK and France, the former colonial powers are responsible for creating this mess in the entire Middle East. For creation of illegitimate State of Israel at the heart of Arab through Belfour Declaration 1917, it was British Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour who wrote a letter Lord Walter Rothschild, a leading figure in the British Zionist community on November 2, 1917. The letter (framed in British Museum today) was all about to establish a Jewish homeland in the Arab Heartland.
After 100 years of this declaration, the British has the morale responsibility to oppose the American decision, confessing the historical blunder, which caused millions of deaths. British Foreign Secretary was bold enough to oppose the decision, however, Prime Minister Theresa May was diplomatic once she said, “Our position has not changed. The status of Jerusalem should be determined as a negotiated settlement between the Israelis and the Palestinians and Jerusalem should be a shared capital.” Alongside EU, it will be an appreciated decision of British, if the former Colonial power formally opposes the US decision.
On December 2, 2014, the French Parliament recognised the status of Palestine as a state with an overwhelming majority (331vs 151). Even after the Trump’s move, President Macron was daring enough to unequivocally oppose the Trump’s decision. He said, “It is preferable not to multiply initiatives because they end up cannibalising each other.” He called it “a danger to peace. If France decided to put right the historical wrongs, Britain should follow the suit, rather taking dictates from Washington.
Although, the OIC in its Special Session held in Turkey has rejected the Trump’s decision, there was absence of most of the heads of states in this session. The OIC resolution says, “[We] consider that this dangerous declaration, which aims to change the legal status of the [city], is null and void and lacks any legitimacy. Now, Muslim countries in addition to a whole lot of others that are allied with the Palestinian cause will recognise Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine.”
Let there be a united Muslim front, which convert this challenging situation into an opportunity for the resolution of all outstanding issues of the Muslim world. The stance of Turkey and Iran are bold and logical. Let’s hope that other Muslim states follow these two states and put pressure on US and Israel for a just cause of the people of Palestine. Since US decision has no legal value therefore all international forums must be used to condemn the decision and pave way for resolution of Palestinian dispute as per UN resolutions.
Source: pakobserver.net/legality-us-decision-jerusalem/
-----
URL: