Sino-US and Pakistan — Great Gaming Triangle By Raashid Wali Janjua: New Age Islam's Selection, 10 June 2017
New
Age Islam Edit Bureau
10 June 2017
• Sino-US and Pakistan — Great Gaming Triangle
By Raashid Wali Janjua
• Coalition Options for Pakistan
By Saleem Safi
• Qatar Crisis
By Saman Zulfqar
• Maligning Pakistan for Kabul Attack
By Babar Khan Bozdar
• Rule of Law on Trial
By Babar Sattar
• A Cry for Calm Hands
By Abbas Nasir
• Five Decades of Pain
By Irfan Husain
• The Corbyn Factor
By Khalid Bhatti
• SCO’s New Members
By A.G. Noorani
• Afghan Peace Hinges On Reconciliation
By Mohammad Jamil
Compiled By New Age Islam Edit Bureau
----
Sino-US And Pakistan — Great Gaming Triangle
By Raashid Wali Janjua
10-Jun-17
“When everyone is dead, then the Great Game is finished, not before"
Kim, Rudyard Kipling
The quote highlights the permanence of the Great Game, a term used by a British political officer Arthur Conolly in India in 1840 to refer to the regional conflict between British Empire and Tsarist Russia. Like the fabled Kim of Kipling, the Great Game was as much about external threat as about internal threat.
The empire apparatchiks went about countering every Russian move to make ingress into British sphere of influence with the same alacrity and efficiency as shown while countering rebellions of their colonial subjects. Three concepts of classic international relations theory i.e. internal, external and offshore balancing featured prominently in the British Great Game strategy.
External balancing was ensured through an astute foreign policy relying on a network of external alliances and neutralisation of espionage threats through a 'forward policy', tribal pacification, and presence of buffer entities between the Tsarist Russia and British spheres of influence. In the politically-charged post Crimean War environment, the conquest of Khiva Khanate signalled the heralding of a Victorian-era Cold War. Shrewd diplomatic initiatives like "Granville-Gorchokov Compromise" of 1873 helped douse the fires of impending conflict. Such diplomatic stratagems however resulted in negative peace as conflict drivers remained intact. The offshore balancing was also practiced - both by Russia and British Empire - by placing friendly forces in allied territory that acted as a deterrent. The successful British diplomacy thwarting Franco-German-Russian coalition in 1905 and co-opting Turkey and Persia had resulted in the famous Anglo-Russian Convention of 1907 that ended the Great Game.
As all these games were being played on the Asian chessboard, the British had sedulously consolidated their hold on their most prized possession i.e. British India through political, administrative, and economic reforms. The military pacified internal dissent, while the steel frame of the Raj i.e. Indian Civil Service ensured administrative efficiency and revenue collection with equal aplomb. It was a classic symbiosis of internal, external and offshore balancing at its best. A colonial power that everybody feared or resented had effectively displayed how to survive and neutralise threats to its core interests.
Today, Pakistan is confronted with similar Great Game threats in an era where geo-economics trumps geopolitics, according to some IR experts. The question remains if geopolitics has been completely trumped or have we entered a phase with some sort of a hybrid version of the two?
However, in Subcontinent, where hate pathologies have prevented a diplomatic solution to intractable conflicts, geopolitics and geo-economics will coexist, until the sheer force of geo-economic reality crowds out the historical animosities and irrational hatreds.
A new Great Game is, therefore, challenging Pakistan's political, military, and diplomatic resolve where the strategic competitors on the same old chessboard now include America, China, Russia, India, Iran, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. And China's One Belt One Road (OBOR) initiative constitutes the matrix that features all these countries in a conflictual relationship.
The present US policy in South Asia is a negative variant of the win-win version propounded by Professor Stephen Walt. With India as a regional surrogate pressed into service to derail Chinese OBOR initiative and Afghanistan as a base to destabilise OBOR, the Sino-US rivalry is eerily reminiscent of the Anglo-Russian rivalry in the 19th century.
The Sino-US rivalry is eerily reminiscent of the Anglo-Russian rivalry in the 19th century — with India as a regional surrogate of the US pressed into service to derail Chinese OBOR initiative and Afghanistan as a base to destabilise OBOR
Pakistan will continue to be threatened and destabilised by India. Iran despite its protestations of brotherly love would continue running with the hares and hunting with the hounds in pursuit of its own strategic interests. Indo-Iran commercial ties and Iranian interests in the war-torn Afghanistan in support of its loyal cliques would continue to be a source of concern.
The US attitude towards Pakistan will remain hostage to its own agenda of countering China. But the US needs to resolve its policy paradox in South Asia by abandoning its anti-OBOR approach if it genuinely wants peace in the region.
Surrounded by hostile or estranged neighbours, Pakistan is left with no option but to try the British recipe of success in the 19th century Great Game.
For internal balancing it would need to change from a soft to hard state. The stiffening of the sinews of state through out-of-box administrative and political reforms would be de rigueur even if they entail unpopular decisions and an enhanced clout of the security apparatus of the state.
Maudlin sentimentality should not stand in the way of Pakistan while going for external balancing through military and diplomatic alliances with gulf countries. General (retd) Raheel Sharif's heading the coalition forces would not be enough. Pakistan would definitely need to make a meaningful contribution in troops in order to retain its clout and relevance. It, however, should insist upon clarity of purpose behind the Islamic Military Alliance sans a sectarian bias. The force objectives, command articulation, threat perception, organisational structure, linkage with OIC, and political oversight must be crystal before making any troops' contribution.
India-Pakistan Track Two diplomacy must continue burrowing at the carapace of diplomatic indifference without genuflecting too much at the cost of core interests. The test of Pakistan's diplomacy would be to keep the eastern border quite while the mess on the western border is cleared through simultaneous engagement with Afghan government and Taliban for a negotiated solution acceptable to all stakeholders. The USA must be made to realise that the road to peace in Afghanistan would pass through a Pakistan enabled peace process.
As regards Sino-US rivalry a realistic approach would be not to expect a sea change in each protagonist's approach. Pakistan however should endeavour to present itself as a bridge for peaceful cooperation rather than the arena of conflict between China and US. That indeed would be the true test of its new Great Game strategy.
Source: dailytimes.com.pk/opinion/10-Jun-17/sino-us-and-pakistan-great-gaming-triangle
----
Coalition Options for Pakistan
By Saleem Safi
June 10, 2017
When the Arab coalition was in the making, I wrote in an article on these pages (‘Coalition politics’, January 19) which stated that “another aspect of the coalition is that, though it is being formed by Saudi Arabia, its patron-in-chief is the US. The role of the US has been mentioned in some correspondence between Saudi Arabia and other partners, including Pakistan.”
However, our rulers continued to mislead the nation by assuring them that the US had nothing to do with the coalition. But everything became crystal clear when the foundation meeting of the coalition was named the Arab- Islamic-American Summit.
The nation was also told that Iran would not be on the agenda of the coalition. But the Riyadh Declaration condemned the Iranian’s regime alleged hostile position and vowed to confront Iran. It also resolved to create 34,000 reserve troops to fight against terrorists in Syria and Iraq. So, unlike our rulers’ claims, the conference revealed that the coalition is being led by the US and its focus is not only on Isis and Al-Qaeda but Iran as well. The question is: what should Pakistan do?
Before addressing this important question, I would like to acknowledge my mistake regarding the role of Raheel Sharif in the coalition. Government propaganda and the misleading claims of retired army officers created confusion about Raheel Sharif’s role in the coalition. With some reservations, I had supported the idea that Pakistan should join the coalition, with Raheel Sharif leading its army. I thought that his presence in the coalition would bring Saudi Arabia and Iran closer.
But what I observed in the three days in Riyadh, made me come to the conclusion that Raheel Sharif’s position in the coalition is not as decisive as being claimed in Pakistan. His role in policy formulation and decision-making will be nominal.
Pakistan’s importance can be gauged by the fact that our prime minister was not allowed to address the summit. It would be in our best interests to call back Raheel Sharif and keep Pakistan’s role minimal in the coalition – on the pattern of Turkey and Oman.
Admittedly, both Saudi Arabia and Iran have tremendous importance for Pakistan. The former is the leader of the Arab world and the latter is a close neighbour. Pakistan should keep close ties with both the countries and not become party to the regional proxy war.
Their rivalry has nothing to do with religion, though they use religion and sect for their agendas. History and nationalism play a decisive role in their tussle.
Due to their rivalry, the entire Middle East is in crisis and Yemen and Syria are bleeding. Their proxy war indirectly helps Israel and destabilises Iraq, Syria and Yemen. Both countries can go to any limit in their mutual rivalry. Iran has reportedly strengthened ties with militant groups, approached the Taliban and even become a partner of the US in Iraq. Similarly, the Saudi leadership is ready to flatter Trump and even embrace Israel, but does not give any space to Iran.
We should stay away from this power politics of the Middle East and keep our relations away from influences of religion. We should be rational in our approach, and treat them as they treat us. It is time to give firmly ask them not to drag us in their rivalry. We already have to deal with many crises and cannot afford further proxy games.
It is unfortunate that some segments of our society promote the interests of either Saudi Arabia or Iran. Sectarian inclination or monetary benefits define their loyalties with either power. We should focus on all such forces that promote the agenda of external powers at the cost of domestic peace and stability. Those who are loyal to any other country should not make Pakistan a battle ground of their own wars. These powers should be firmly asked to stop such proxy games inside Pakistan.
It is no more a secret that some religious personalities and some parties in Pakistan are taking money from both these powers. Saudi Arabia sponsors one religious council while Iran invests hugely in another. Alarmingly, even some generals seem to have enjoyed such generosity; Gen (r) Musharraf had openly admitted that his property in Dubai and London was bought with Saudi money. Both these external powers have and feed proxies inside Pakistan; these proxies become overactive when the role of these two powers is questioned.
We should not suffer from an inferiority complex. Saudi Arabia and Iran may have oil reserves, but we are far ahead of them in human freedom, and social and political values. We need to be honest with ourselves and never compromise our core national interests. This is a time of nation-states, a time when national interest – instead of religion – defines priorities. Though religion and sect are being used in foreign policy, no one can base relations solely on these two aspects.
We should be rational and realistic and base our foreign policy on our national interest. We should respect those who respect us and protect the interests of those who protect our interests.
Pakistan needs to draw redlines and liberate its foreign policy from external influences. If Saudi Arabia cannot become the enemy of India for our sake, then why should we target Iran for their sake? The same goes for Iran as well.
Source: thenews.com.pk/print/209656-Coalition-options-for-Pakistan
-----
Maligning Pakistan for Kabul Attack
By Babar Khan Bozdar
June 10th, 2017
THE massive attack in diplomatic quarter of Kabul killed more than 150 people and several wounded. It raises questions on the performance of law enforcement agencies. The attack was deadliest in Afghan capital since last summer when an IS bomber killed 100 peoples in protest and one of the largest to hit Kabul since 2001 intervention. It is strange that, neither Taliban nor ISIS claimed the responsibility of terrorist attack; while it is hypothetically believed that behind this terror attack, Pakistan backed Taliban faction is responsible. This was alleged by Afghanistan’s intelligence service, the directorate of national security in a press conference.
Though, Afghan intelligence agency, despite accepting their failure, labelling attack with Pakistan is against the reality. It is a fact that Pak-Afghan relations are not good. Whatever happened in Afghanistan It was blamed on Pakistan immediately without any evidences and is the common practice of Afghan officials. To prove these allegations false, I am presenting some justified arguments.
The main argument is that Afghan army as well as Spy agency is incompetent. Similarly, NDS is interlinked with many terrorist groups. If they were known that, Pakistan backed terrorist groups are going to explode in the fortified area where there are numerous security check posts , then why not they were caught on these check post? Why Afghan officials didn’t inform Pakistan to take stringent measures against these outfits? How the terrorist reached in such fortified area by crossing all the check post? In this regard, their silence is questionable? Pakistan rejected the baseless statement of Afghan government and hoped that Afghanistan will avoid maligning Pakistan.
The deadliest attack in Afghanistan shattered the walls of Kabul. Peoples from different walks of life condemned this heinous crime against humanity and demanded that the culprits should be behind the bars. Similarly, accusation of Pakistan is also condemned. Today Afghanistan is a staging ground and all the agencies of world are operating there. Afghanistan becomes the hub of all terrorist organizations and Pakistan is the only victim of these outfits because of negligence and ignorant behaviour of current and past Afghan governments. More than 50 thousand civilians and security personals lost their lives in war against terrorism because Afghanistan exports terrorism in Pakistan.
Today, Pakistan is a front-line state in war against terrorism. As Afghanistan is victim of terrorism similarly, Pakistan has faced its spill over effects. Hence, hiding their weaknesses and accusing a responsible state is not a rational approach and continually, adopting same behaviour will undermine the efforts of Pakistan in combating terrorism. As a student of strategic studies, I think that, behind this terrorist attack, the enemy of Afghanistan and Pakistan is same and is within Afghanistan. Due to bitter relations, Enemy is trying to take maximum benefit and use Afghanistan against Pakistan which is not in the favor of peace, prosperity and instability of Pakistan in general and Afghanistan in Particular.
Peace in Afghanistan is a distant dream. There are many reasons behind this. Since Soviet invasion, Afghanistan always remained in state of war. The divide of political parties on the basis of stronghold and role of warlords added fuel to the flames. Moreover, Afghan administration didn’t stepped back and always expressed venom against their neighbours and well-wishers. Today peace in Afghanistan is AT stack due to their double policies. The 40 percent area of Afghanistan is still controlled by Taliban and there is Civil war like situation which has adversely affected Pakistan. Meanwhile, Pakistan is not behind any unpleasant incident happening in Afghanistan, perhaps it is their failure. Moreover labelling allegations against other countries only “signifies a tendency to externalise the internal challenges faced by Afghanistan.” The anti-Pakistan sentiments in Afghanistan are not new phenomenon but it is very old. It is very sad to say that, both Afghanistan and Pakistan governments failed in resolving their basic bilateral issues which are the cause of all problems.
An international conference was held on June 6, 2017 to sort out the political solution of lingering conflict in Afghanistan which was attended by Delegates from around two dozen countries, including the United States, Pakistan, India, China, Russia, Iran and central Asian and European countries, to discuss the current Afghan situation. A Foreign Office official said Pakistan was attending the conference as part of its consistent approach that a solution to the Afghan problem could be found through Afghan owned and Afghan led peace process. He further stated that, this accusatory approach was instigated by those who had no interest in peace and stability in Afghanistan and their malicious agenda is to damage Afghanistan-Pakistan relations and the cooperation initiatives recently gaining momentum.
Who is more benefited from the recent attack? Analysts believed that RAW is behind the Kabul attack. India is trying to kill two birds with one stone. Pakistan and Afghanistan were nearly resuming dialogue process and suddenly Kabul was attacked. As a result, once again deadlock occurs in Pak-Afghan relations. India is trying to isolate Pakistan therefore; it is using all these tactics. The enemy of Peace has succeeded in its mission but Afghanistan should think out of box and stand with Pakistan shoulder to shoulder as peace and stability could be maintained. In a nutshell, the Enemy of Pakistan and Afghanistan is same and in same shape and dress. Now it is a question that whether Afghanistan will recognize its enemy or still it will wear a mask and fire in the air without pinpointing the target?
Source: pakobserver.net/maligning-pakistan-kabul-attack/
----
Qatar Crisis
By Saman Zulfqar
June 10th, 2017
TWO weeks after Arab-Islamic-America summit, the first setback to Gulf unity came in the form of severance of diplomatic relations by Gulf countries Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, UAE, Egypt and Yemen with Qatar. Riyadh closed its borders severing land, sea and air contact with the peninsular state. The Gulf countries accused Qatar of collaborating with extremist groups and supporting the agenda of Iran.
Saudi Arabia and UAE have been critical to Qatar’s alleged support for Islamist movements such as Muslim Brotherhood and Palestinian group, Hamas that rules the Gaza strip. This is the worst diplomatic crisis that hit the Arab world in years. Though, this is not the first time that diplomatic relations are broken off but in 2014, Saudi Arabia, UAE and Bahrain temporarily withdrew their ambassadors due to Qatar’s support for Morsi (Brotherhood) government while Saudi Arabia and UAE were backing the military’s take over. Moreover, Qatar tries to pursue an independent policy such as hosting Hamas’ exiled leadership as well as it also has Afghan Taliban’s office in Doha that gives it leverage in facilitating important conflict resolution process.
It is ironical that US President Trump has backed the efforts of Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries after they cut off diplomatic relations. President’s move came as a surprise as Qatar hosts the largest American airbase in the Middle East, Al Udeid airbase is home to US Central Command that hosts around 10,000 US troops. Qatar has been a key ally of US and has been providing logistic facilities to US to launch attacks against IS in Iraq and Syria.
Qatar is vulnerable to blockade as it is heavily dependent on Saudi Arabia for import of food. Kuwait has not follow the suit and it along with Turkey has offered mediation to resolve the issue and Qatar has shown its willingness to work with mediators to end the dispute. Kuwait also mediated the earlier conflict erupted between Qatar and Gulf states in 2014.
UAE Foreign Minister has made the restoration of diplomatic relations conditional to Qatar’s revision of foreign policy. The Gulf states are bent upon to drive a hard bargain including Qatar’s comparatively less hard stance against Iran, closure of some media channels as well as extradition of some figures belong to Hamas and Muslim Brotherhood from Doha. The move came just after two weeks of the conclusion of Arab-Islamic-America Summit held in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Riyadh declaration expressed the desire of Arab-Islamic leaders to work in collaboration with US to confront terrorism and extremism, as well as achieving peace, stability and development at regional and global level
All these steps mentioned in the communiqué have political connotation. Terrorism and extremism are very difficult to define. There is a consensus to fight against Al-Qaeda and Islamic State but countering extremism is much difficult task because every state and society has different structure that gives rise to extremist thought and ideology and requires different strategies to deal with it.
The Gulf states embolden by President Trump’s visit have taken action against Qatar. The main reason for such punitive action seems Qatar’s close ties with Tehran. Qatar is not the only state but Oman also desires to pursue a neutral foreign policy based on the principles of non-interference in domestic affairs of states. There should be some avenues available to initiate a dialogue process on issues of Syria, Iraq and Yemen. Creating intra-Arab rivalries, taking extreme measures such as land, air and sea blockade is not going to help in reducing conflict and tensions in Middle East rather it is going to heighten tensions in an already volatile and turbulent region. Palestine, the main conflict in Middle East seems forgotten and there is talk of Syria, Iraq and Yemen and now intra-Gulf issue is talk of the day. The Arab world is creating more problems for itself rather than resolving the prevailing issues and the main beneficiary of all these developments seems the State of Israel which has responded to Qatar issue by expressing hope for future cooperation in fighting terrorism.
Source: pakobserver.net/qatar-crisis/
----
Rule of Law on Trial
By Babar Sattar
June 10, 2017
Shahbaz Sharif wants across-the-board accountability as opposed to a singular focus on his family. He is not the first member of our power elite to demand so. When the Swiss cases against Asif Zardari came under renewed focus after the NRO case, the PPP wanted accountability to start from the time of Kane & Able. When Musharraf was to be tried for high treason, his proponents wanted accountability for molestation of the constitution to start from 1947. Our power elites know that if you cast the net wide enough, no one gets caught.
The Panama matter must not be used to persecute anyone. But if the probe is to start somewhere, the first family is the natural choice. There are two conceptual problems with the PML-N’s gripe. One, investigation and prosecution fall within the executive’s domain and thus the responsibility to initiate and continue across-the-board accountability, for now, stands delegated by the people of Pakistan to the PML-N. If that isn’t happening, it is due to the PML-N’s failure or refusal to do so. The PML-N’s bigwigs seem to forget that they are the government, not the opposition.
And two, the judiciary is overseeing the Panama JIT as an exception, not the rule. It has had to do so because our system of checks and balances is neither potent nor functional. Our power elites don’t like public officials exhibiting autonomy and independence. The JIT’s mannerism and exhibition of Hussain Nawaz being in the doghouse was wrong and counterproductive. But can we imagine a JIT not empowered and backed by the SC summoning and interrogating the PM’s children in a matter over which hangs his political fortune?
This however doesn’t mean that, as the SC sits in trial over the Sharifs, it doesn’t itself stand trial before the public for the manner in which it discharges its role as a neutral arbiter responsible for upholding rule of law in Pakistan. There are identifiable challenges the SC is faced with.
One, getting to the truth backed by verifiable facts isn’t always easy. Our culture is defined by a morality wherein loyalty trumps integrity. Simply put, you are expected to lie and disregard principles, if required, to help someone with whom you share bonds of loyalty or love. Such personal morality chokes up our justice system with false testimony, making convictions harder. Can courts reverse the burden of proof or dilute the rights of the accused to inject efficiency into the justice system at the cost of its safety, to neutralise the lack of peoples’ qualms about lying?
Two, our collective consciousness is driven by rhetoric, intrigue, emotion and honour – instead of facts. Often we are more interested in why someone is doing something as opposed to what is being done. This has accelerated our drift to being a fact-free society. But in a country where civil-military power relations are an unfinished agenda and charges of corruption have been repeatedly used to cut civilians to size, who wants to remove the government and why becomes as significant as whether the government has committed the crimes it is accused of.
Three, the rules of the game in the realm of law are different from those in the realm of politics. A voter can decide that Nawaz Sharif isn’t clean in view of disclosures or omissions before him. But courts are constrained by demands of due process. They can’t rule on the guilt of someone on the basis of gut feeling. A vote of no confidence against a PM being driven by the vilest intent suffers from no infirmity. But in a court of law how and why a conclusion is reached is more important than the conclusion reached. That is what rule of law demands.
Since the Panama scandal broke, we have not heard a cogent account of how the Sharifs transferred enormous wealth outside Pakistan. Do PML-N loyalists, who defend NS and his kids unconditionally, not wonder about this? The PML-N is unabashedly alleging that anyone asking NS thorny questions about his wealth, where it came from and how it travelled outside Pakistan is Pakistan’s enemy, as this PM is the only politico committed and able to taking the country forward. This is poppycock. But can a judicial verdict be based on deductive logic?
And four, the history of rule of law in Pakistan is a discreditable one of using the law and its processes to strike deals between competing power elites, as opposed to defining the boundaries of right and wrong and holding the guilty to account. In the past when courts waded into the political thicket and produced partisan consequences, they did so at the expense of public faith in the neutrality and integrity of rule of law and the judicial process. That is why many see the law as a tool for the powerful to settle scores, and not as an instrument of justice.
The Swiss letter case or the many corruption scandals that the SC took cognizance of during the PPP’s rule weren’t taken to their logical conclusion to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. The Musharraf case has been about civil-military relations and not subversion of the constitution. We have seen overthrow of governments being justified and we have seen the SC subsequently rule that it erred when it did so. Will Panama become another enterprise to cut NS to size without taking the issue of corruption to its logical conclusion?
As our investigators aren’t really focused on uncovering hard facts in order to establish the guilt of an accused on the basis of evidence, we find them relying on abusive interrogation, coerced admissions and humiliation through arrests or leaks as their preferred tools. All this helps conduct media trials but does not help with seeking convictions.
Leaking inadmissible testimony of an accused is fast becoming an established practice in high-profile cases. Do the Einsteins who come up with such ideas not realise that this helps the accused? Those who leaked Hussain’s screenshot, and the opposition’s attack dogs who shared it with relish, probably thought they were hurting NS. In reality, they were helping him legally and politically. All NS & Co need to do in the Panama case is to establish to reasonable people that the dice are loaded against them.
The PML-N is building its narrative on questions such as: Why did the SC refuse a judicial inquiry of the Panama matter when the government first requested it if it were to conclude later that the matter is fit for a judicially supervised investigation? Why did the Registrar SC initially reject the PTI’s petition, calling it frivolous, and could he have done so without the CJP’s nod? When the former CJP overrode the registrar’s objections and fixed the matter for hearing, did he take into account extraneous considerations such as the PTI’s threat to lockdown Islamabad?
Why would the SC feel the need to appoint representatives of ISI and MI within the JIT, constituted primarily to investigate alleged white-collar crimes by the PM? What kind of expertise do members of military-run intelligence outfits bring to the table? Who scrutinised and handpicked the civilian members of the JIT and why did the Registrar SC feel the need to fidget with the process to ensure that pre-selected employees from the SECP and SBP appear as nominees of the Chairman SECP and the Governor SBP?
NS & Co have an interest in discrediting the trial. If they succeed (and they have been given much ammunition to work with), whatever verdict the trial produces will hurt constitutionalism, rule of law and democracy in Pakistan. If an elected PM is to be fired by the SC on charges of corruption, it must be done in a manner different from how it used to be done in the 90s – i.e. through a process beyond reproach at least in the eyes of the wide majority of fair-minded Pakistanis who have no unconditional allegiance to any party.
Source: thenews.com.pk/print/209654-Rule-of-law-on-trial
----
A Cry for Calm Hands
By Abbas Nasir
June 10th, 2017
MATURITY in handling domestic as well as international challenges must be presumably a prerequisite for any country’s leaders but glaring recent examples suggest otherwise. Shooting-from-the-hip statements and responses remain dominant.
Perhaps, the only contrasting example came from the Iranians after terrorists launched attacks on the country’s parliament and the tomb of Imam Khomeini who symbolises the 1979 revolution.
The Iranians were quick to acknowledge that all five attackers, who were killed at the two different sites, were ‘locals’ (one can assume that means Iranian nationals) who’d left the country after joining the militant Islamic State (IS) group and had participated in the “crimes carried out by this terrorist group in Mosul and Raqqa (in Iraq and Syria respectively)”.
The Iranian ministers’ reaction to the Tehran attacks shows a level of maturity that has not been seen of late.
A statement by Iran’s intelligence minister, Mahmoud Alavi, added: “The network of this terrorist group has been identified and some of its members have been arrested … We still cannot judge that Saudi Arabia has had a role in this terrorist incident.”
This was remarkable restraint given the temptation to somehow implicate the regional arch-rival in the incident because it hosted a summit of nearly 50 Muslim leaders on the occasion of a state visit by US President Donald Trump with the more or less one-point agenda of demonising Iran.
Just before the summit, the rising Saudi star, Defence Minister and Deputy Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman, who enjoys extraordinary authority, said in a media interview that any conflict to curtail Iran’s influence in the region will now take place on ?ranian soil.
That despite these public declarations of hostility towards Iran by the Saudi hosts and their worthy new ally the US president, the attacks were not blamed on Riyadh spoke of calm statesmanship rather than rattled reaction.
Of course, the foreign minister Javad Zarif took to task President Trump for his statement which while condemning the Tehran terror attacks also said that Iran was reaping what it sowed. Zarif called the statement repugnant and blamed the terror attack on ‘US clients’ (IS).
On the other hand, the Saudi-UAE-led diplomatic spat with Qatar saw the so-called leader of the free world and the current incumbent of the White House immediately come down on Riyadh’s side. Trump said even during his discussion with various leaders in Riyadh ‘all fingers were pointing at Qatar’ for its alleged support to terrorism.
Surrounded as he is by serving and former generals of the US armed forces, he must have later been reminded by horrified aides that Qatar is home to the largest US Centcom military base in the region with some 11,000 personnel stationed there.
It took Donald Trump some 24 hours to offer public support to Kuwaiti Emir Sheikh Sabah al Ahmad al Jaber al Sabah’s mediation efforts and he also offered to host the estranged Gulf rulers at the White House for talks to settle the issue.
Tensions have been simmering since Qatar was seen as supporting (via Al Jazeera Arabic) democratic movements in the Arab world particularly Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood and the now deposed president Mohamed Morsi, both loathed by the Saudis who have thrown their weight behind the dictatorship of President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi. The kingdom’s distaste for any political movement that could potentially upset the status quo in the Gulf is not a secret anymore.
Its ambition to have everyone in the Gulf fall in line seemed to have precipitated the latest crisis and the trigger was an alleged pro-Iran statement by the Qatari ruler which the latter denied and attributed to a hack of his country’s news agency website.
David Hearst, the editor-in-chief of Middle East Eye and the former chief foreign leader writer of The Guardian, writes of a regime change threat hurled at Qatar as a result by Salman al-Ansari, the president of the Saudi-American Public Relation Affairs Committee who reminded the Doha rulers of Morsi’s fate.
Hearst’s Middle East Eye piece also said: “This is an interesting thing to say to an ally providing troops to protect Saudi’s southern border with Yemen. Egypt, for one is not. Or to a government that extradited a political dissident to Saudi on the same day as it was attacked as being pro-Iranian. It’s interesting, too, after King Salman visited Qatar and danced with the emir.
“But perhaps the king is no longer aware of what his 31-year-old son is doing in his name.
“The hacking of Qatar News Agency on May 24 was just the starting pistol. Within minutes of the hack at 12:14 am, Al Arabiya TV and Sky News Arabia quoted the text of the fake material. Within 20 minutes, the networks ran analyses, implications, quotes and tweets.
“According to the Qatari authorities, between 12:51 am and 3:28 am, the networks managed to find 11 politicians and analysts to interview on-air. Fast work for a duty editor ‘reacting’ to a story in the middle of the night. He deserves a raise.
“Another strange coincidence: all of this was preceded by 14 different op-ed pieces in the US press about the danger to regional stability that Qatar represented. This, again, is puzzling because it has been years since anyone bothered to write opinion pieces about Qatar in the US media.”
A paradox is that both Saudi Arabia and Qatar want to dislodge the bloody, dictatorial Baathist regime in Syria supported by Iran and its key ally, Lebanon’s Hezbollah militia, but back very different militant groups often accused of terrorism.
In this undoubtedly explosive and complex regional situation, do the Gulf Arab leaders and their main non-Arab ally Pakistan have the required skills, maturity and statesmanship to defuse the dangers? Don’t you wish we had an answer?
Source: dawn.com/news/1338526/a-cry-for-calm-hands
----
Five Decades of Pain
By Irfan Husain
June 10th, 2017
ALMOST exactly 50 years ago, I was a student at Karachi University when news of the outbreak of a war between Israel on one side, and Egypt, Syria and Jordan on the other, reached our (then) distant campus.
Our Palestinian fellow-students were full of excitement, giving the rest of us news of heavy casualties inflicted on the Israeli Defence Forces. According to them, scores of Israeli planes had been shot down, and destroyed enemy tanks littered the Sinai desert.
Alas, it turned out that they had been merely repeating bombastic Arab propaganda, and the real situation was very different: a large part of the Egyptian air fleet had been destroyed by Israeli jets while parked exposed on runways. The famed Arab Legion had been defeated, and the Israelis had captured the West Bank and East Jerusalem from Jordan. Similarly, Syrian forces had been pushed back from the Golan Heights.
Fifty years later, the territories remain under Israeli occupation.
Fifty years later, all these territories remain under Israeli occupation. The Sinai desert was handed back to Egypt after a peace deal, brokered by the US, was signed in 1979. This effectively detached Egypt from the anti-Israel coalition, allowing Tel Aviv to strengthen its grip on its other conquered territories. The Gaza Strip was evacuated by Israel in 2006 as it found the cost of defending settlers there too high. But its embargo on movement and trade has prevented the Palestinians there from living normal lives.
Since then, Palestinians — with virtually no help from their Arab neighbours — have struggled to maintain a sporadic semblance of resistance. But the imbalance of forces is far too great: Israel, bolstered by huge infusions of US military aid, is far stronger than any combination of its foes. And while the world has paid lip service to the ideal of Palestinian statehood, Israel has blocked every attempt to reach a peace deal.
Israel’s intransigence is rooted in its military might, as well as the open-ended support it gets from the United States. There was a time when Israel’s American patron was less one-sided. After the 1956 Suez War when Israel, supported by France and Britain, captured the Sinai, Dwight Eisenhower, the US president, threatened economic sanctions if the IDF was not withdrawn from the territory it had captured.
In 1975, president Ford said he would cut off military aid if Israel refused to vacate the recaptured Sinai. President Carter during the Camp David talks, made it clear he would downgrade ties if Israel did not sign the agreement. In 1991, the senior president Bush threatened to block $10 billion in loan guarantees if prime minister Yitzhak Rabin refused to attend the Madrid talks.
These examples show that when faced with financial pain, Israel does behave. Unfortunately, 1991 was the last time Israel was seriously pressured by the United States. Since then, there has been a lot of hot air from Washington, but no actual pressure. The legendary Israeli general Moshe Dayan once said: “Our American friends give us money, arms and advice. We take the money and the arms, but ignore the advice.” This is as true today as it was in the 1950s.
When Barack Obama made his famous speech in Cairo in 2009 calling for an end to illegal settlements and to occupation, there was genuine optimism that finally, America would put its weight behind an equitable settlement. But as we later saw, Obama was better at making speeches than delivering on promises.
Poor John Kerry, the secretary of state, spent weeks in trying to push both sides to sit down and talk. But the sticking point was the settlements: the Palestinians rightly maintained that it was impossible to negotiate while the land they were talking about was being grabbed by Israel. And while Obama signed an agreement with Israel assuring it of arms worth $30bn over the next ten years, he failed to threaten to halt military assistance. A carrot without the threat of a stick is pretty useless against Israel.
Currently, under Donald Trump, Israel is calling the shots in Washington. Having put up with a hostile Obama for eight years, Netanyahu can sit back and let America defend Israel’s occupation of Palestine. Just as the UN’s top human rights official, Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein, condemned the occupation, the US has threatened to withdraw from the body he heads.
From Israel’s perspective, the cost of occupation is far less than the cost of withdrawal. The occasional criticism from European states is shrugged off. And apart from formal peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan, it appears to be in de facto ‘alliance’ with Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the Gulf states.
Under these circumstances, there is no military, economic or diplomatic reason for Israel to end its occupation. Short of some unforeseen changes in the Middle East, Israel might still be occupying Palestine 50 years from now.
Source: dawn.com/news/1338522/five-decades-of-pain
---
The Corbyn Factor
By Khalid Bhatti
June 10, 2017
British voters have declared their verdict. They prefer a hung parliament instead of giving a clear majority to Conservatives. It was a devastating night for Prime Minister Theresa May, who fell short of winning the majority to form the government.
The Conservatives have emerged as the leading party, with Labour lagging behind. The Scottish National Party stands third. Both the Conservatives and the SNP suffered losses and Labour Party made gains. The SNP lost more than 20 seats in Scotland. In rural Scotland, the Conservative Party surprisingly won 10 seats, capitalising on a strong anti-independence and pro-Brexit mood that exists in the rural population. The SNP is in a state of shock as two of its biggest stars lost the election. Its former leader and senior parliamentarian Alex Salmonds lost to a Tory candidate.
Ukip has, so far, failed to win a single seat. Ukip lost its appeal as an anti-establishment party to right-wing voters. Even its share of votes fell. The Liberal Democrats have been able to recover some ground they lost in 2015 elections. But they suffered the biggest shock of the night as their former leader and ex-deputy prime minister Nick Clegg lost his constituency.
May’s decision to play the gamble of the snap elections backfired. Nevertheless, the Conservative Party will be able to form a coalition government either with the help of the Liberal Democrats or the Irish DUP. But the dream of a strong and stable government has turned into a nightmare. May’s own position might be at stake. She has emerged as a weak and feeble leader from this election.
Jeremy Corbyn failed to win enough seats to form government or stop the Conservatives from forming a coalition government. But he emerged as a real winner in this election. The Labour Party has been able to increase its votes and seats under his leadership. Corbyn will gain confidence from these results and will adopt a radical, anti-austerity tone on both national and international issues.
This will be a disappointment for all those who wanted to see a Labour government under Jeremy Corbyn. But Corbyn has undoubtedly changed the face of British politics. He will not be prime minister but has proved to be the most radical and pro-people leader in Britain at the present time. The Brexit issue prevented him from obtaining a majority or enough seats to form a coalition government. May’s strategy paid off in this regard. Many voters preferred the Conservatives over Labour because of Brexit negotiations. The British press played its part as well. The media ganged up against Corbyn and tried everything to stop his march towards the victory.
It’s not clear at the moment whether or not he will remain a Labour leader. Blairites desperately wanted to see his back. If he decides to stay, they might launch a fresh campaign to remove him as the leader. There might be a new crisis in the Labour Party on this issue. But it will not be easy for the Blairites to take the party back to Blair’s time. Corbyn rightly pointed out that new centrism is based on an anti-austerity and pro-people agenda.
The resurgence of Corbyn and the Labour Party in the last couple of weeks surprised many. Corbyn turned a generally boring and corporate style election campaign into a lively one. He energised the whole layers of youth and working class people and gave them new hope of change. He is the first Labour leader since the 1990s who stood firmly against austerity, cuts on social welfare, privatisation and, more importantly, against free market economic policies and neoliberalism. He transformed the Labour Party from a pro-capitalist, free market and neo-liberal party into pro-working class and youth party.
Corbyn put forward a clear programme to change economic policies. He called for the nationalisation of railways and other utilities. He wanted to abolish the university tuition fee for students. Every university graduate left behind a debt of GBP 50,000, which he or she had to pay back. He wants to abolish the anti-trade union legislation and protect the workers.
He wants to pursue an independent foreign policy and end the support and sale of arms to all the undemocratic and authoritarian regimes. He wants to stop interventions in the Middle East and other countries.
When he started to talk about democratic socialism, pro-working class and anti-austerity policies, the nationalisation of railways, electricity, gas, postal services and other utilities, the right-wing media unleashed a vicious propaganda to discredit him. He was declared a dangerous socialist and an outdated left-wing populist who was detached from reality. The British media showed its true face and colour to discredit him.
Corbyn’s only crime is that he stood for the many and not for the few. He challenged the capitalist class and its anti-working class policies of free market, austerity and cuts on welfare. It has become a crime to challenge or question the free market economy, neoliberal policies and the political hegemony of the capitalist class. Jeremy Corbyn committed this crime and faced the wrath of capitalist media. But he refused to bow down and change his policies. He dared to challenge the capitalist monopoly and hegemony by putting forward a radical programme and manifesto to solve the basic problems faced by the working class people and the youth.
Even his party colleagues tried to remove him from the party leadership. Blair supporters never hid their hatred and dislike for Corbyn. They joined hands with the right-wing media to discredit him and desperately wanted to keep the Labour Party as a centrist party and continued to support cuts, privatisation and austerity. As a result, Corbyn is fighting two battles at a time. He is facing the Conservatives, the right-wing media and the British establishment on the one hand and his party’s right-wing pro-capitalist rebels on the other.
When May announced the surprised snap elections two months ago, everybody thought that the Conservatives would have a free run. The British media published one opinion poll after the other to prove the point that the Conservative Party is heading for a larger majority. Some commentators even gave the Conservatives the majority. Everybody had written off the Corbyn-led labour Party as unelectable and irrelevant. The results of the local bodies elections last month proved them right. Theresa May and her Conservative Party won with a clear majority.
When May called the snap election, she had two clear objectives to achieve. One was to win a large majority to comfortably negotiate Britain’s exit from the EU. The second was to buy time between the final exit and the next general elections to minimise the impacts of hard Brexit. May was not willing to go to the polls soon after Brexit in 2019. She also wants to strengthen her grip on the Conservative Party to implement her policies. With this election result, she will not be able to achieve any of her objectives. She might face a serious leadership challenge from within the party, and could end up being the first casualty of this election.
Source: thenews.com.pk/print/209655-The-Corbyn-factor
----
SCO’s New Members
By A.G. Noorani
June 10th, 2017
SPECULATION on whether Narendra Modi and Nawaz Sharif, the prime ministers of India and Pakistan, would meet in the Kazakh capital of Astana — which they did — on June 8 was understandable.
However, the question was far less important than the one concerning their role in the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation. There have been newly enrolled at the SCO as full-fledged members, but with expectations, if not, indeed, conditions, which the founder of the club has publicly aired.
Basically, they boil down to two rules for the new members — your basic commitment must be to the institution, the SCO; and, you must not use it as just another arena in which to conduct your diplomatic battles.
China wants Pakistan and India to follow the SCO charter.
This was made all too clear at Beijing on June 1 by the Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson. After pointedly expressing the hope that admission of Pakistan and India would help in improving their bilateral relations, she added, meaningfully, that it was hoped that “India and Pakistan strictly follow the charter of the SCO and the idea of good neighbourliness to uphold the SCO spirit, improve their relations and inject new impetus into the development of the SCO”.
The organisation was founded in 2001 and comprised China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan as full members. It began as the Shanghai Five on April 26, 1996. Uzbekistan joined the SCO in June 2001. Pakistan and India enjoyed observer status along with Iran, Afghanistan, Mongolia and Belarus.
During its summit in Ufa, when Nawaz Sharif and Narendra Modi met, the SCO formally adopted a resolution to begin the process of admission of India and Pakistan as full members. They signed a Memorandum of Obligations on June 26, 2016, at the SCO summit in Tashkent.
It is unlikely that the club will close its membership. Apart from the ones which already have observer status, it is not unlikely that Nepal, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka will also apply for membership.
Sun Zhuangzhi, secretary general of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, wrote last year: “The scope of the group will be expanded from China, Russia and Central Asian countries to South Asia, covering over 60 per cent of Eurasia.”
He was not unmindful of the problems which expansion of membership might create. “The hostility between the two states is unlikely to be dispelled in the short time. Together with their complicated relations with China and Russia, analysts believe their admission may have negative effects on the SCO, bringing more internal conflicts and lowering the level of a mutual political trust and the efficiency of multilateral cooperation.”
China could not have been oblivious to the fate of Saarc. It is dysfunctional, a victim of the estrangement between India and Pakistan and used to settle scores.
India boycotted the Saarc summit that was to be held in Islamabad last year after the Uri attack. It mobilised support from regional countries to ensure the summit could not be held. Its foreign secretary S. Jaishankar said in November 2016 that the Saarc countries could opt for sub-regional initiatives if Pakistan continued to ‘block’ Saarc initiatives. He had in mind matters like regional trade and regional motorways. One would think that such matters are best sorted out bilaterally and quietly.
On Sept 24, 2016, Mr Modi warned Pakistan at a public rally that “India has succeeded in isolating you in the world. We will ramp it up and force you to live alone in the world”.
Such a pursuit of trying to box an adversary into isolation is a wild goose chase. It betrays a profound ignorance of the very nature of the international system. States promote their own national interests. They will support those with whom the interests coincide. They are not in the business of helping other states to ‘isolate’ those whom they dislike.
No two states, even those in close alliance, have identical interests. India cannot secure Pakistan’s isolation. Even states closest to them (Russia and China) keep good their relations with their respective diplomatic adversaries. Two instances will suffice. On June 1 at St Petersburg, President Vladimir Putin spoke to the media after he had met Mr Modi. An Indian correspondent was told, “We do not have tight relations with Pakistan” — no binding alliance. But he sharply asked “with the US do you have (close relations)?” The hint was clear.
At the other end, China’s ambassador to India, Luo Zhaohui reminded an Indian audience in May that China had changed its position on Kashmir. “We supported the relevant UN resolutions before 1990s. Then we supported a settlement through bilateral negotiation in line with the Shimla Agreement.”
The moral is clear — don’t expect others to toe your line. There is simply no alternative to conciliation through a meaningful dialogue.
Source: .dawn.com/news/1338524/scos-new-members
----
Afghan Peace Hinges On Reconciliation
By Mohammad Jamil
June 10th, 2017
AFGHAN President Ashraf Ghani while addressing the Peace Conference on Tuesday said: “Afghanistan is suffering from undeclared war waged by Pakistan.” At the same time he issued an ultimatum to the Taliban, warning them to embrace peace or “face consequences”. Ashraf Ghani has come under mounting criticism over the bombing near Diplomatic enclave in Kabul, the deadliest in Kabul since 2001. The president made a strong plea for peace at an international conference on Afghanistan attended by around two-dozen countries. He said: “Time is running out; this is the last chance: take it or face consequences. If the Taliban did not begin negotiations soon, we would seek new sanctions against it as a sponsor of terrorism.” President Ghani must understand that the only path to peace in Afghanistan is reconciliation, and blaming other countries or hurling threats would not help.
President Ghani seems to be on the road to perdition by toeing India’s line and allowing India to use anti-Pakistan TTP elements and other groups to destabilize Pakistan. He conveniently forgets Pakistan’s contribution and cooperation to get rid of the foreign occupation when it became a front line state against former USSR. Pakistan suffered in men and material during war on terror, and also hosted millions of refugees. He is grateful to India for helping in construction of Parliament building, completion of dam in Herat province which was started in 1970s but stalled due to the civil war. In fact, what India has done for Afghanistan pales before what Pakistan has done for Afghanistan. It would not be wrong to say that former president Hamid Karzai and incumbent President Ashraf Ghani are an ungrateful lot; therefore Pakistan should not to go out of the way to help them.
They do not understand that if American and NATO allies – the best war machine in the world – failed to corral the fleeing Taliban and Al Qaeda rumps in Afghanistan and failed to decimate them, it was they who have to be in the dock, not Pakistan. If the US and NATO forces during 12 years of their stay could not train the Afghan forces to meet the Taliban challenge, how the additional 3000 to 4000 US and NATO troops could help achieve the desired objective. The insurgents responded to the conference by firing a rocket at what they claimed was NATO’s headquarters. It landed inside the Indian ambassador’s residence but no one was hurt. Anyhow, there have been protest demonstrations in Kabul; the protesters, holding a sit-in for five days near the bombing site, had demanded the resignation of President Ghani and security chiefs including national security adviser Hanif Atmar.
But Ashraf Ghani, who like Atmar is from the majority Pashtun ethnic group, firmly rejected the demand. Salahuddin Rabbani, leader of Jamiat-e-Islami and foreign affairs minister survived an attack at the funeral of one of the protesters – Salem Izadyar son of Mohammad Alam Izadyar, the first deputy chairman of the Afghan Senate when a suicide bomb tore through a row of mourners and killed seven more people. Rabbani blamed “terrorists within the system” for the funeral blasts, suggesting that it was an inside job. The government had accused Haqqani Network of carrying out Wednesday’s attack, and said the funeral was targeted by bombers trained at a religious seminary in Pakistan. On one hand they accuse Pakistan of every terror attack in Afghanistan and on the other they expect from Pakistan to help bring the Taliban on negotiating table, despite the fact that international efforts to bring the Taliban to the negotiating table have failed.
Addressing the peace conference President Asharaf Ghani also said: “There are too many players running too many parallel tracks with too little clarity on who they are and what they represent.” Unless President Ashraf Ghani and Abdullah Abdullah come out with a declaration together with sterling guarantees that they are willing to hold peace talks with the Taliban without conditions, the peace would remain elusive in Afghanistan. The militants say no talks are possible until all foreign troops leave. “In the presence of invaders, peace negotiations will mean nothing,” Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid told Reuters. After the bombing on 31 May, hundreds of protesters demanded the resignation of President Ashraf Ghani, and other government officials and functionaries. The government helped fuel public anger when police fired on the protestors killing nine. Analysts say that President Ghani wants to have negotiations but Panjsheri group led by Abdullah Abdullah try to sabotage any effort for peace.
The reality is that the Taliban control large swathes of land in Afghanistan and according to conservative estimates, they control almost 50 per cent Afghanistan territory. According Pajhwok News the Taliban collected land rents from the growers in some areas including Batikot district of eastern Nangarhar province. Having said that, it has to be mentioned that former president Hamid Karzai has caused immense damage to the cause of peace in Afghanistan because of his close relations with India. Earlier, he was almost a non-entity, but when the American and NATO invaders descended on Afghanistan toppling the Taliban, they dug out Karzai from some obscure niche and perched him on the Kabul throne. He was to be a page boy of their spy agency CIA, which the Bush administration had anointed its satrap to rule Afghanistan. He continued with Pakistan-bashing at CIA’s bidding for every wrong in Afghanistan.
Source: pakobserver.net/afghan-peace-hinges-reconciliation/
----
URL: https://www.newageislam.com/pakistan-press/sino-pakistan-—-great-gaming/d/111483