Terror of the Witches’ Prophecy: New Age Islam's Selection, 30 May 2017

New Age Islam Edit Bureau

30 May 2017

•  Terror of the Witches’ Prophecy

By Jawed Naqvi

•  Trump’s Riyadh Speech and Its Implications for Muslim World

By Shahid Javed Burki

•  Terror in Manchester

By Dr Naazir Mahmood

•  Strategic Implications of Riyadh Summit

By Shahid M Amin

•  Balance In the Gulf

By Mosharraf Zaidi

•  Can The West Learn From The Past?

By Abdul Sattar

•  Border Politics

Sikander Ahmed Shah

•  Indo-Pak Economic Reset

By Dr Syed Shahid Hussain Bukhari

•  Food Waste

By Munir Ahmed

Compiled By New Age Islam Edit Bureau

-----

Terror of the Witches’ Prophecy

By Jawed Naqvi

May 30th, 2017

IN a phenomenally wired world like ours we should ideally be more enlightened and connected. The reality is the opposite, bordering on the occult. There seems to be more focus on the witches’ prophecy to divine the truth, in a manner of speaking, than on Macbeth’s lurking ambitions.

As revealed with damning proof by Messrs Julian Assange and Edward Snowden, people are being steadily shepherded towards the opaque, to become more bereft of rational reasoning than was their lot earlier.

Consider the readily advocated logic of more pervasive security — as opposed to an honest appraisal of the malaise, say, in the aftermath of the Manchester slaughter. Take any other devastating moment in any other part of the world — the attack on Christians in a bus in Egypt, on the heels of the Manchester carnage. It is not difficult for our frayed minds to grasp the link between the two tragedies.

Stretch the logic further though, and one feels a stubborn lack of comprehension, an inability to see the connection between the drowning of three-year old Alan Kurdi in the Mediterranean Sea on a bad day and the death of Saffie-Rose Roussos, the angelic eight-year-old who died in a Manchester music hall with 21 other mostly young beautiful people.

Jeremy Corbyn saw the link but Theresa May shouted him down. It’s useful to recall what he said just three days after the attack on one of Britain’s most cosmopolitan cities: “Many experts including professionals in our intelligence and security services have pointed out the connections between wars that we have been involved in, or supported or fought in other countries such as Libya, and terrorism here at home.”

That’s exactly what Bernie Sanders and Noam Chomsky have been saying too. Corbyn added, to be sure, that his “assessment in no way reduces the guilt of those that attack our children. Those terrorists will forever be reviled and implacably held to account for their actions”.

Traditionally, jumbling fair with foul is associated with witchcraft. There are no witches, of course, only humans playing their roles while blaming it on the supernatural. Professor Bradley likened the witches’ prophecy in Macbeth to “equivocation of the fiend”, which is a reasonably familiar human trait, is it not? It’s commonly called double-speak.

There are no witches, of course, only humans playing their roles while blaming it on the supernatural.

Three apparitions on the heath brought happy tidings to Macbeth, which are said to have contained the seeds of the hero’s doom, never mind his own lurking ambitions. Shakespeare’s use of the occult (or Bimal Roy’s for that matter) did not preclude rational thinking.

Cassius (like Corbyn in Manchester), we can recall, was quick to identify the material explanation for Brutus’s quandary. It was not the stars up there but human frailties within that nursed many of the world’s failures. The words from Julius Caesar were cushioned in dialectical reasoning, a rare commodity today.

It is difficult to see the Manchester tragedy without reference to Tony Blair and David Cameron who both took turns in stirring the witches’ brew. Ms May was a member of the Conservative establishment that hunted down Muammar Qadhafi, reportedly with the help of those that struck Manchester the other day. Both the former prime ministers equivocated through their teeth to adverse outcomes for their country and the wider world.

The Chilcot inquiry report hasn’t left a fig leaf for Blair to hide his complicity in the destruction of a secular Iraq, a country that could have saved many tragedies, possibly including the cold-hearted attack on the music halls in Manchester and Paris. And no inquiry is needed to determine Britain’s complicity in the ongoing dismantling of a secular Syria. The problem it seems is that all three — Syria, Libya and Iraq — were Cold War allies of Moscow.

History is replete with a range of compelling explanations for Manchester-like calamities. One could go back to Colonel T.E. Lawrence without disturbing the logic of cause and effect to explain the unending terror attacks stalking men, women and children. Without Lawrence setting up a kingdom of the most puritan sect of Muslims the story would be quite different.

My personal starting point to explain Manchester would be in Fez 1981. Often known for witchcraft and sorcery, the Moroccan resort was the venue of an Arab summit — two summits in fact, one failed and the other had to be revived.

When Salman Abedi blew himself up at the concert hall the president of the United States had just won billions of dollars of arms contract in Riyadh, which he followed up by a round of frolicking and sword dance with the Saudi royalty. Moments later, he was meeting his friend Benjamin Netanyahu in Israel when the Manchester terrorists struck. He called the attackers “losers” without saying who the winners were, if any.

Israel and Saudi Arabia were the topic at the Fez summit, but Saddam Hussein, Qadhafi and Hafez al-Assad boycotted it. Representing them instead were their deputies, Tariq Aziz, Abdusselam Jalloud, who later defected against his Libyan boss, and Abdul Halim Khaddam, Assad’s vice president.

The Saudi proposal was carried by crown prince Fahd. He sought a hurried Arab recognition of Israel’s right to exist in return for a Palestinian state. Because of the Cold War or out of stubbornness by the big three, Fahd’s plan was thrown into the dustbin. The Shia-Sunni, Iran-Saudi narrative promoted by Riyadh was an afterthought. Remember that Riyadh’s first quarries, in collusion with Britain, were the Sunni PLO, the Sunni-ruled Iraq and the Sunni-ruled Libya.

An alternative way to understand the pain and suffering set off by mindless killers could require us to accept the witches’ mumbo jumbo: “Double, double toil and trouble;/ Fire burn and caldron bubble./ Cool it with a baboon’s blood, / Then the charm is firm and good.”

Taking the witches’ war dance in Macbeth seriously, as some of us can be lulled into doing, would require us to be looking for a baboon, a fall guy, but where? In Iran? China? Or perhaps in Moscow?

Source: dawn.com/news/1336249/terror-of-the-witches-prophecy

-----

Trump’s Riyadh Speech and Its Implications for Muslim World

By Shahid Javed Burki

May 29, 2017

The high point of Trump’s two-day visit to Saudi Arabia was the speech delivered on May 21st before a large audience of leaders from dozens of Muslim-majority countries in Asia and Africa. The address was prepared by Stephen Miller, a close Trump adviser, known for his distaste of Islam as a religion. The 31-year-old Trump assistant is an associate of Stephen Bannon, another Trump adviser from the extreme, anti-Muslim right of the political spectrum. Both Bannon and Miller are known for their nationalist and populist views, particularly for their opposition to increased immigration from Muslim countries. Both collaborated to write the executive order that banned the entry into the United States of people from seven Muslim-majority countries.

The Trump White House showed extraordinary lack of sensitivity to the growing and negative Muslim sentiment about the new presidency by entrusting to Miller the task of preparing the draft of the Riyadh speech. According to a story in the Los Angeles Times, the initial Miller draft was revised after input from Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law and his senior adviser. In the address, Trump pivoted away from his assessment in numerous campaign speeches in which the candidate spoke of Islam as a religion of hatred. He challenged the Muslim leaders, not just those assembled in the hall where he spoke, but across the Muslim world with 1.6 billion adherents to counter a “wicked ideology” and purge the “foot soldiers of evil” from their societies. He told his audience that “this is not a battle between different faiths, different sects or different civilisations. This is a battle between barbaric criminals who seek to obliterate human life and decent people, all in the name of religion, people that want to protect life and want to protect their religion. This is a battle between good and evil.” He called Islam “as one of the world’s great faiths” and pleaded for “tolerance and respect for each other.”

This was a different tone from the one he used during the campaign. As The New York Times noted, “while in the past Mr Trump repeatedly criticised President Barack Obama and others for not using the phrase ‘radical Islamic terrorism’, his staff sought to ensure that he would not use it before his Muslim audience. The final draft of the speech had him instead embracing a subtle but significant switch, using the term ‘Islamist extremism’. Islamist is often defined to mean someone who advocates Islamic fundamentalism, and some prefer its use to avoid tarring the entire religion.”

It was inevitable that the Trump address would be compared with the one given by President Obama, eight years ago. The then American president addressed the students and faculty of Al-Azhar University, the Cairo-based centre of Islamic learning. While Trump softened his view of Islam — during the campaign he described it as a religion that spread hate especially of the US. In his Riyadh speech he trained his anger on Iran.

The approach Trump is adopting towards the Muslim world will have consequences for years to come. The American president abandoned the United States’ earlier efforts to encourage the Muslim youth to adopt Western liberalism as their guiding ideology. This was the one reason why the Obama administration did not support Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak as he came under pressure from the street during the Arab Spring of January 2011. Mubarak’s fall was preceded and followed by the fall of other dictators. Tunisia saw the departure of the leader who governed his country for decades with a heavy hand. The same fate visited the Yemeni president. This was political cleansing of major proportions. It held out hope for the Middle East’s restive youth. But it also resulted in a prolonged civil war in Syria that has already taken more than half a million lives and half of the country’s population has been displaced. More than a million Syrians have headed to Europe as refugees.

Most observers of political development in the Muslim world have recognised that the well-educated youth who with access to social media were also well-connected with the world outside their own region. They wanted serious political change. They wish to be part of the political and economic system in which they live. They did not like to be excluded as was done by the authoritarian regimes that dominated the western part of the Islamic world. I defined this part as the geographic area that stretches from Morocco to Bangladesh. It houses a billion people, more than half of whom live in three South Asian states — Bangladesh, India and Pakistan. With the exception of Pakistan most of the Muslim-majority countries have weak political systems, tending towards authoritarianism or semi-authoritarianism. Even Bangladesh that initially developed competitive democracy with vibrant political parties has tended towards a system dominated by one political party. Turkey was a flourishing democracy until recently. President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has pushed the country towards authoritarian rule.

Trump has warmly embraced authoritarian rulers, including the President of Egypt, Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, who is presiding over a regime much more authoritarian than the one headed by Mubarak. Placing the Muslim world in the hands of strong leaders who care only about their own survival and their economic well-being means inviting more trouble in the already volatile Muslim world.

Source: tribune.com.pk/story/1421756/trumps-riyadh-speech-implications-muslim-world/

----

Terror in Manchester

By Dr Naazir Mahmood

May 30, 2017

On the eve of May 23, England once again became the target of a terrorist attack. The city was Manchester and venue a musical concert. Most of the casualties were women and children. Of the 22 dead, half were girls below the age of 16. After the attack, the Islamic State took responsibility for the suicide bombing.

The attack was the worst in the UK since 2005, when a series of explosions rocked the transport system in London, killing over 50 people. Manchester is in the northern part of England and has a population of over 2.5 million people. It is one of the largest urban sprawls in the UK. Just like Birmingham, it also has a large concentration of people who are of Muslim and Pakistani origin. But the ratio of Muslims or Pakistanis in Manchester is lower than what it is in Bradford. Though large segments of people with Muslim and Pakistani origins who have been living in the country for generations can be found in many British cities, they prefer to remain isolated and mostly interact with their own people.

There are exceptional cases such as Sadiq Khan, the elected mayor of London, who have been integrated fully into British society. But overall, this integration is hard to find among British Muslims. One of the reasons for this isolation is the tendency among many British Muslims, Pakistanis in particular, to dislike the Western traditions of Europe. They stick to their age-old mores of sectarianism and narrow religiosity.

Though Britain has suffered many attacks at the hands of the Irish freedom fighters in the 1970s, the new wave of the post-9/11 period has overshadowed any previous cycle of terror. There are myriads of groups in Britain that entice disgruntled young minds with their sectarian agenda. Most young Muslims around the world have a lot of reservations regarding their society, rulers, neighbours and the very socio-economic system in which they live or have migrated to. So when they find somebody offering a quick way to heaven, the desire becomes all the more compelling.

It appears that many young Muslims want solutions to their real or perceived problems in an easy manner that does not require much social understanding. To some, the easiest way is to become a suicide bomber. Britain is host to many sectarian outfits. Just visit Birmingham, Bradford, Leeds or Manchester, and you will see places of worships and seminaries belonging to all sorts of denominations and sects, written boldly on their facades.

If you happen to live there or have just landed for education, you will meet preachers who try to draw you to their group. If you refuse to join a group, you will be deemed to be a member of a rival group. Preachers often knock at your doors and you will be compelled to either excuse yourself or join them. That’s how sectarianism is spreading rapidly and those Muslims who prefer to remain aloof from the mainstream have a lot to do with it.

For example, in the terror attacks of 2005 in London, there were at least four perpetrators, with a mastermind, Sidique Khan, leading them. Sidique Khan was born in Leeds. While he looked like a normal young man, he harboured hatred against the British and their way of life. He and his family took full advantage of the British welfare system, especially free healthcare and education. At the same time, they remained in their own shells and mostly interacted with the people of their own ilk who spoke the same language of hostility.

A self-righteous approach towards their own religion and sect or a feeling of superiority about their own ethnic group or race prompts many Muslims and Pakistanis to look down upon the British, or Christians in general.

Similarly, another suicide bomber of the London attack was Shahzad Tanweer who was born in Bradford but grew up in Leeds. He acquired higher education. This was, ultimately, of no use to him owing to his sectarian outlook, which had cancelled any positive impact the education might have had.

Such people don’t see beyond their noses nor do they try to understand that the main purpose of education is to become better human beings and improve society. To understand this, you must be associated and work with the society you live in. This association and cooperation cannot be achieved if one is intoxicated with a sense of superiority for their religion and sect. If hatred is nurtured, terror is the inevitable outcome.

Source: thenews.com.pk/print/207473-Terror-in-Manchester

-----

Strategic Implications of Riyadh Summit

By Shahid M Amin

May 30, 2017

THERE is no doubt that the Saudi Government went all out to extend a big welcome to President Trump. To many observers, this looked highly ironic since it was the same Donald Trump who had, during the Presidential campaign, said that “Islam hates us” and had portrayed Islam as the enemy of USA. He had harped on the threat of Islamist extremism and thus inflamed Islamophobia. Regarding Saudi Arabia, Trump had said that USA was “losing a tremendous amount of money” defending the kingdom. One of Trump’s first acts on becoming President was to impose a travel ban on nationals of seven Muslim States. And yet, on May 21, 2017, Trump was being applauded by Saudi Arabia and fifty Muslim states that had come together for the “Arab Islamic American Summit”.

The explanation for this paradox is that in international relations, states are moved by their national interests, rather than by oratorical jargon or ideological predilections. During Trump’s visit to Riyadh, US firms signed contracts for supply of weapons worth $110 billion. There were also deals for projects in energy and infrastructure, and projections of $350 billion worth of transactions over ten years. US arms sales to Kuwait and other Gulf states will be in addition. Trump exulted that this meant “jobs, jobs, jobs”. These agreements would necessitate a long-term American strategic commitment to Saudi Arabia and Gulf countries. The latter regard this as a welcome departure from the strains in relations that had developed under Obama. Trump described Saudi Arabia as the “magnificent Kingdom” with which the US had age-old ties and he spoke of opening a “new chapter” in the bilateral relationship. Traditionally, Saudi Arabia has enjoyed a protective US security cover, but this had become undependable under Obama. Trump’s visit marks a revival of the old security relationship.

In his much-anticipated speech to Muslim leaders, Trump struck a note of reconciliation. He described Islam as “one of the world’s great faiths.” It was symbolic that the first foreign country he was visiting was Saudi Arabia where he was meeting heads of states of Muslim world. He stressed the commonality of “three Abrahamic faiths” viz. Islam, Judaism and Christianity. In strategic terms, these words showed that Trump, after becoming President, wanted friendship and collaboration with the Muslim world, and had abandoned the collision course with the latter that his pre-election utterances had suggested.

The central theme of Trump’s address to the Muslim world was on fighting terrorism. He was careful to stress that the “war on terrorism isn’t a battle between different faiths”. He acknowledged the efforts and achievements of Muslim countries in battling extremism, who had also borne the brunt of the killings by terrorists. “This is a battle between good and evil.” He wanted Muslim countries not to wait for US help to crush terror groups. They must ensure that terrorists find no sanctuary.

“Drive them out of your places of worship, your communities, your holy land and the earth.” He urged Muslim countries to take the lead in combatting radicalization. In a veiled criticism of Obama and Bush who wanted to impose democracy and Western values, Trump promised that “America will not seek to impose our way of life on others, but to outstretch our hands in the spirit of cooperation and trust.”

Iran was singled out both by King Salman and Trump “for sponsoring terrorism financially and militarily” from Syria to Yemen. This was another strategic dimension of the visit viz. that USA and Saudi Arabia view Iran as the main security threat. The Saudi King had rarely made such a direct public attack on Iran. Trump’s talks in Riyadh have tilted balance of power against Iran. Revolutionary Iran has undoubtedly pursued policies that have destabilized the region. It has used military force to secure its objectives. In Syria, a regime representing 10% of population is oppressing the 70% Sunni majority, with the help of thousands of troops of Iran and Hezbollah, the Shia Lebanese militants armed by Iran. Iran is supporting Shia rebels in Yemen and is also active in Iraq and Bahrain.

Another dimension of Trump’s tour was to revive efforts to promote a solution of the Palestine problem. It has long been an intractable problem but as Egyptian President El-Sisi told Trump: “You have a unique personality that is capable of doing the impossible.” Solving the Palestinian problem can be a peace breakthrough. The US is the only country that can pressurize Israel to show accommodation and Trump could be the American ruler who might do some real arm-twisting.

There is some disappointment in Pakistan that its Prime Minister could not address the Riyadh summit. But neither did the heads of states/governments of Indonesia, Turkey, Bangladesh, Malaysia or Senegal. There was simply not enough time. Moreover, the focus of visit was Middle East and Arabian Peninsula. Our bigger problem is in the context of polarization against Iran. We want to keep out of the cold war between Saudi Arabia and Iran. But the strategic reality is that our alliance with Saudi Arabia is much more important than our relations with Iran. Let us also not forget that since the 1990s, Iran has sought to establish a strategic partnership with India, which is training hundreds of Iranian military personnel.

Source: pakobserver.net/strategic-implications-riyadh-summit/

-----

Balance in the Gulf

By Mosharraf Zaidi

May 30, 2017

The exhibition of pettiness and skulduggery within the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) in the last few days, combined with, essentially, the all-out war between Saudi Arabia and Iran over the last few years have combined to create a highly inflammable and dangerous situation. For Pakistan, these are not matters of mere prosaic issues of international relations or foreign policy. To assess, we must attempt to comb through five dimensions that matter most: economic, spiritual, strategic, propaganda and information wars, and finally, the internal coherence of Pakistan.

Let’s begin with economics. Conservative estimates suggest that at least 1.5 million Pakistanis live in Saudi Arabia, at least another one million live in the United Arab Emirates, and at least another half million are spread across Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain and Oman. In total, no fewer than three million Pakistanis live and work in the GCC. Remittances from Pakistani workers in Saudi Arabia alone make up for about one-third of all workers’ remittances, whilst workers in the UAE make up for another fifth. These funds not only help macroeconomists plug the foreign currency gap, they also enable the families of those workers to live relatively better lives than they otherwise would.

There are no fewer than 15 million direct beneficiaries of worker’s remittances here in Pakistan. Among Pakistan’s key trade partners, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the UAE feature among the top ten sources of Pakistan’s imports, while Saudi Arabia and the UAE also feature among the top fifteen destinations for Pakistani exports. In sum, the GCC countries represent a significant bloc of countries for the macro and micro economy of Pakistan. This simple fact means that any changes or policies that Pakistan adopts viz these states must consider the potential impact. It does not mean that Pakistan should, in fear of repercussions, never make any changes to how it conducts relations with these states. It just means that those changes must cater to the potential economic impact of the GCC countries on oil imports, Pakistani expat labour, their remittances and our foreign exchange reserves.

The second dimension is spiritual. Though it may pain some Pakistanis that public policy can in any way be affected by individual and/or collective spiritual preferences, we must live in the world we live in, rather than one that does not exist. There are three spiritual dimensions here. The first is the strong bond that all Muslims, regardless of sect, have with the Two Holy Mosques. This bond translates into a deep and abiding commitment among many ordinary citizens of Pakistan to protect and defend Makkah and Madinah.

The second spiritual dimension is the deep sense of kinship that some Pakistani Muslims, belonging to the Shia school of thought, have with the institution of the Ayatollah in Iran. The Ayatollah acts as a spiritual steward for many Shias and they derive their political leanings and opinions largely on the weight of the Ayatollah’s pronouncements. The Ayatollah’s Pakistani constituency has been cultivated by Iran robustly and effectively. That is why, for example, we see frequent reports of Pakistani fighters in Iran being feted by the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps.

The third spiritual dimension is the strong commitment of some Pakistani Muslims to Salafi and proto Salafi ideology, which have historically been led by Saudi Arabian scholars. The kingdom has assiduously cultivated a Salafi constituency in Pakistan, and this manifests itself in both non-electoral political narratives and electoral politics across the country.

These three spiritual dimensions have interacted with each other over the years to produce a reasonably flammable set of perceptions related to sectarian affiliation. There have been attempts to counter the poisonous effects of Saudi Arabia and Iran fuelled sectarian hatreds – but the divisions now run deep. Shias have been slaughtered in numbers and to effect. Young, firebrand Shia youth have been delivered to the Ayatollah in hand-knitted baskets. Three generations of firebrand Sunni youth have been convinced to conceive of Shias as mortal enemies to be resisted at all costs. The cost has been high.

Pakistan’s blubbering; fumbling responses to the slow-motion mega-crises of the Middle East is a symptom of uncertainty and confusion stemming directly from the republic having been infected with the disease of its people. But this is not unexpected and should not be the exclusive and singular focus of our critique. Pakistan may have left itself vulnerable to these problems, but the list of enablers and facilitators is long and distinguished.

This brings us to the third dimension: strategic. Iran may be majority Shia and Saudi Arabia may be majority Salafi, but the ruling elite in both countries seeks to perpetuate their rule, not the word of God. The religious affiliations they hold are the instruments, not the objects of their power. Pakistan’s biggest mistake with the GCC and Iran has been its willingness to be used as strategic leverage by other countries, including Saudi Arabia and Iran. Mostly however, the willingness of Pakistan’s military and civilian leaders to offer strategic carte blanche to the US and China has produced strategic blind spots and vulnerabilities. Among the greatest is Afghanistan, and the insecurity in that country. Another is the physical and political accessibility that enemies enjoy to Balochistan – Kulbhushan Jadhav being a case in point. Perhaps least explored of the strategic vulnerabilities Pakistan faces is the emergence of a post-CPEC Pakistan with Gwadar as an alternative to the existing commercial and trade hub of Dubai.

The combination of economic, spiritual and strategic dimensions lays the groundwork for the most visible but most easily forgotten dimension of the Middle East and its impact on Pakistan: propaganda and information warfare. Every day our WhatsApp groups and Facebook timelines are bombarded with messages, images and videos that are designed to inflame our sentiment, and exploit our partialities. None of this is necessarily being done to damage Pakistan, but rather to create pressure on the Pakistani elite to act one way or another. The most undignified version of the propaganda war was in the aftermath of the Haj tragedy two years ago, in which Iran and Saudi Arabia traded pointed barbs and Muslims all over the world, including in Pakistan, were left to choose sides rather than to mourn the dead.

The latest manifestation of the info wars were the mass hacks of Qatari government websites, and the response of the Saudi kingdom and the UAE in blocking the transmission of Al-Jazeera news in their respective jurisdictions. In response to the Trump visit to the kingdom, Iranian Foreign Minister Javid Zarif wrote tweets and an oped in the NY Times. The aggressive push across the Gulf to win the argument is not without impact in Pakistan. These political contests are being debated vigorously here – with significant potential ramifications for this society.

And this brings us to the final and most important dimension: internal Pakistani coherence. The Sunni-Shia disconnect is obvious, but merely avoiding the nightmare of all-out sectarian conflict is no grounds for claiming victory. The greater immediate threat to Pakistan’s internal coherence is institutional, not sectarian. Take a good look at the core of the relationship between Iran and Pakistan, or Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, or the UAE and Pakistan. The civil-military disequilibrium lies exposed in all three. It is this disequilibrium that countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran and the UAE will exploit to their advantage. None of them necessarily with ill intent, but all with potentially devastating effect.

One way to understand the current mess in the Gulf is through the personas of dominant tribal personalities. Prince Mohammad Bin Salman in Riyadh, Prince Mohammad Bin Zayed in Abu Dhabi, and Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad in Doha have proactive, expansionist visions of their influence. As they resolve their differences, Pakistan has only one job. It must stay out of sight, and out of mind. It must steadfastly refuse to take sides, either between the GCC states themselves, or between Iran, and any state opposing Iran.

Pakistan has already paid the price of poor leadership and shoddy strategic thinking. The toxic flames of the current strife are an opportunity to change course. To do so requires coherence and unity at home.

Source: thenews.com.pk/print/207468-Balance-in-the-Gulf

----

Can The West Learn From The Past?

By Abdul Sattar

May 30, 2017

The Manchester attack clearly indicates that the Western policy of bringing democracy through bombs, deaths and destruction and the covert support for extremists is bound to boomerang on the leaders of the civilised world.

The alleged suicide bomber – Salman Abedi – was from Libya. His father has been the part of the so-called mercenaries that fought Colonel Qaddafi. Media reports suggest that his entire family was under the influence of the jihadi ideology propagated by anti-Qaddafi Islamists who were covertly pampered by the Western capitalist world.

Such support to fanatics in Libya pushed one of the richest African states, with excellent human development indicators, towards a conflagration. The Islamists are not alone to be blamed for this destruction. The ruthless Nato bombardment in Libya indiscriminately hit civilian targets – including residential areas, government buildings, water supply and electricity generation facilities – turned the country into a complete ruin.

More than 30,000 people were killed and over 400,000 others were internally displaced. The Arab state has lost over $68 billion in oil revenues alone. Libyan overseas financial assets worth $150 billion have been frozen – over $100 billion of which are being held by Nato countries. The result of this modern plundering is obvious. The Arab state, which had incurred no debts prior to this insurgency, finds itself on the doors of international donors with a begging bowl. In fact, the Qaddafi-led government was a creditor investing in the neighbouring African states.

One may lambast Qaddafi for his outlandish lifestyle or pour scorn on his dictatorial style of government. But no man with a modicum of common sense would deny the strides that Libya’s social sector made under him. Under Qaddafi, the per capita daily caloric intake was 3,144, child mortality rates dropped from 70 per 1000 live births in 1980 to 19 in 2009 and life expectancy rose from 61 years to 74 years during the same period. Adult literacy rate was 89 percent in 2009 (94 percent for males and 83 percent for females). Around 99.9 percent of the youth were literate. Libya had a GDP of $74.76 billion – as compared to Tunisia’s GDP, which stood at $44.43 billion. In 2011, the GDP fell to less than half of Libya’s GDP in 2009 – $34.7 billion.

The West’s love for democracy gifted Syria and Iraq with the monstrous existence of Isis, which is now haunting the Western capitals. The illegal war on Iraq, sectarian conflicts and the Isis insurgency killed or maimed more than a million Iraqis and left millions of people homeless and internally displaced. The West’s overt support for the Free Syrian Army and covert assistance to affiliates of Al-Qaeda and Isis decimated more than 500,000 hapless souls in the war-torn country. It also forced nearly two-and-a-half million children to become refugees. More than seven million people had to flee Syria, including hundreds of thousands who arrived in Europe. Damascus also suffered a staggering financial loss of 255 billion Euros because of the conflict.

Saudi Arabia, a close ally to the US, continues to play havoc in Yemen – one of the poorest countries in the world. Instead of preventing the catastrophe that is unfolding there, Washington and its Western allies are hobnobbing with the ruling elite of Riyadh. Washington and other Western capitals are fuelling further tension between Tehran and Riyadh by arming the Saudis to the teeth – without realising that these flames of war could even incinerate those who fan them.

During the cold war, the Western capitalist states extended blanket support to the extremist jihadis in Afghanistan. This eventually led to the formation of violent militant outfits all over the world. Margaret Thatcher and President Reagan doted on these jihadi outfits, which earned notoriety by throwing acid on women’s faces and introducing inhuman punishments in Afghanistan and elsewhere.

After 9/11, it was assumed that Washington would revisit its policy of turning a blind eye to religious extremism. But it seems that the West has not learnt anything from the past. In fact, these extremists – despite their anti-Western rhetoric – are not opposed to the free-market gospel of the capitalist world. From the Muslim Brotherhood to the Hizbut Tahrir and the Taliban to Isis, all these groups are firm believers of a profit-driven economy. That is why they do not pose any real danger to the Western capitalist order. Arab nationalists like Qaddafi and Assad – who like to keep their natural resources in their own hands – pose a great challenge to the champion of laissez faire.

It is perhaps this factor that prompts the Western capitalist world to dislodge these Arab nationalists instead of focusing on violent jihadis who are ready to shed the blood of innocent people in Western cities. Therefore, they still follow a double standard while dealing with militant groups. They ask Pakistan to crack down on the Haqqani Network but facilitate the establishment of the Afghan Taliban office in an Arab state. They vow to take punitive action when extremists carry out attacks in Western capitals but remain mum when such zealots blow themselves up in the restive Chinese and Russian territories.

The dual standards of the West are not only resulting in terror attacks in the Western world, but are also jeopardising the lives of millions of Muslims who have adopted the Western world as their abode. Instead of revisiting their policy, Western leaders are using the excuse of terrorism to create a bogeyman.

The scapegoating of Muslims in the West will only serve the interests of religious extremists in Muslim countries and far-right groups in the free world. The West cannot achieve peace by destroying countries and supporting elements that are pushing modern states towards anarchy.

Source: thenews.com.pk/print/207471-Can-the-West-learn-from-the-past

----

Border Politics

Sikander Ahmed Shah

May 30th, 2017

IRAN is claiming that 10 of its border guards were killed by long-range guns from across the border in Balochistan on April 26. The attacks, according to Iran, were perpetrated by Jaish al-Adl, an extremist Iranian Sunni militant group active in the Iranian border province of Sistan-Baluchestan. Iran alleges that JA has bases in the border regions of Balochistan.

JA has claimed responsibility for several similar attacks in recent history, which have adversely affected relations between the two Muslim neighbours. This time, however, the rebuke from Iranian state officials has been much stronger, alarmingly taking the form of threats of possible armed retaliation. The Iranian border police voiced its opinion first, stating that “the Pakistani government bears the ultimate responsibility for the attack”. This was followed by a statement from the official spokesman for the foreign ministry of Iran, Bahram Qassemi, who contended that “the Pakistani government should be held accountable for the presence and operation of these vicious groups on its soil”.

The most serious warning, however, came later, a couple of weeks after the attack, when the Iranian armed forces’ chief of staff, Maj-Gen Mohammad Baqeri, issued a stern ultimatum to Pakistan that if these attacks, which were, according to him, being carried out with the support of the US and Saudi Arabia, were to continue, and Pakistan did not act by tightening its control over its own borders, then Iran would target terrorist safe havens across the border in order to protect itself.

To protest this, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs was quick to summon the Iranian ambassador; it also expressed its disappointment by officially emphasising that such statements by Iranian officials were “against the spirit of brotherly relations”. All this unease prompted Javad Zarif, the Iranian foreign minister, to visit Islamabad and, with diplomacy ostensibly prevailing, both countries agreed — yet again — to enhance border cooperation. One of Zarif’s advisers accompanying him informally hinted that Baqeri’s statement was mere military rhetoric targeted at a purely local audience. This seems accurate considering that only the supreme leader of Iran or the Iranian president, with the consent of the former, can initiate any foreign military action and neither of the two has indicated any desire to use force against Pakistan even when national fervour and politicking are high in Iran because of national elections.

Pakistan has made it unequivocally clear that any cross-border attack or movement of Iranian border forces into Pakistan would be a violation of international law. This is an accurate rendition of international law under which armed reprisals by Iran against non-state actors residing in Pakistan would infringe on Article 2(4) of the UN Charter because, without the consent of Pakistan, these attacks would undermine Pakistan’s territorial sovereignty.

Any cross-border attack by Iran into Pakistan would be a violation of international law.

This long-established rule on the use of force has been clearly reiterated by the International Court of Justice on multiple occasions, which has held that a state targeting militant groups residing in another state would only qualify as a legitimate exercise of the right of self-defence by the former under Article 51 of the UN Charter when attacks conducted by such militant groups can be directly attributed to the state in which they are present. This would only be the case if the militia groups in question were de facto organs of the state, under its direct command and control. In other words, state sponsorship — and not state inactivity — would give rise to a right to respond, and Pakistan in no way controls the day-to-day operations of JA.

But the fact that Iran cannot use armed force in Pakistan without the latter’s consent does not mean that Pakistan, by not taking sufficient measures in preventing attacks on Iran from its soil, is not guilty of failing to comply with its state responsibilities as well as disregarding its obligations under international law. Pakistan’s consistent failure to act, if proven, would eventually establish an international wrongful act as outlined under the International Law Commission’s Draft Articles on State Responsibility (DASR), which reflect customary international law obligations. In such a scenario, Iran would be in a position to claim reparations for injuries which could include an acknowledgement of the breach, an expression of regret, a formal apology or even compensation. Under international law, however, armed reprisals cannot classify as a form of reparation and by themselves are a serious breach of the DASR.

Relations between Iran and Pakistan, while not necessarily bad, are tenuous. Geopolitics and some recent regional developments have made diplomacy between the two states quite complicated. Today, opposing pressures and competing interests are driving ties between these two powerful neighbours. JA’s alleged bases in Pakistan, Iran’s warm relations with India, the targeting of Shia minorities in Pakistan by terrorist outfits, Kulbhushan Jadhav’s entering Pakistan through Iran and Pakistan’s acceptance of the lead role in the Islamic Military Alliance which excludes Shia-controlled Iran, Iraq and Syria have all negatively affected diplomatic relations between the two neighbours. Conversely, however, the desire to improve bilateral trade including through the sale of Iranian petroleum imports and Iran’s desire to become a partner in the CPEC project have had a positive impact on ties.

While in a larger context, long-term diplomatic ties between Iran and Pakistan are subject to many influences, currently Pakistan should extend an olive branch by being as vigilant as possible in securing its border with Iran. However, Iran with all its military might and strong domestic writ has been unable to neutralise JA in Sistan-Baluchestan, where the conflict seems to simmer and demands an internal solution achieved through political means. Without Iran addressing the root causes giving rise to this ethno-political conflict domestically, it cannot justifiably expect that Pakistan, with its limited policing capacity, would be able to swiftly rein in and neutralise overseas factions of JA that Iran claims operate within the restive and porous border regions of Balochistan.

Source: dawn.com/news/1336248/border-politics

----

Indo-Pak Economic Reset

By Dr Syed Shahid Hussain Bukhari

30-May-17

Pakistan and India have been at odds with each other for the last 70 years. Both states have fought wars and faced crises that could have escalated into wars. Characterised by the Ex-President of United States, Bill Clinton, as the ‘most dangerous place on earth’, the South Asian region still awaits lasting peace. People of the Sub-continent have constantly been paying up for their respective national security needs but the states have yet to ensure security. Rather, the region is entangled in a security dilemma.

Several attempts have been made to bring peace to the region but none has come to fruition. Both states have extremely divergent claims that seem not to be reconcilable too easily, but efforts have continued from intra-state activists as well as the international community towards this end. Meanwhile, both states have also been using bilateral diplomatic channels to settle their disputes. The only good thing practiced in the past was the continuation of the dialogue process. Sadly, this practice has now been obsolete and most efforts for negotiations stand relinquished due to India’s policy of halting negotiations if and when anything happens against its will. Negotiations are known as the best tool for settlement of disputes between states. One can observe that even the deadliest conflicts and wars have usually ended through negotiations.

Keeping this in view, if one tries to examine the prospects for India-Pakistan dispute settlement, it is observable that India has always refrained from negotiating with Pakistan on the pretext of so-called acts of terrorism in India. Indian policy to suspend bilateral dialogues with Pakistan, without producing a solid proof regarding Pakistan’s involvement in acts of terrorism is the product of increasing extremism in Indian policy circles. While India has always been talking about nurturing of extremism in Pakistan and has pointed fingers at non-state actors in Pakistan, it has never taken care of its own policies that are a manifestation of extremist attitude of Indian state.

Promoting anti-Pakistan sentiments in Indian public has become a state policy, which is very alarming for peaceful settlement of outstanding disputes between the two countries. It is observable that anti-Pakistan sentiments have been enshrined in hearts and minds of Indian public, media, and political parties. Pakistan-bashing has become a tool for Indian electronic media to attract audience, while Indian political parties use anti-Pakistan manifestos for their electoral campaigns.

Some of the recent instances that manifest Indian state’s inability or unwillingness to control such extremist attitudes are the cancellation of Pakistani students’ tour in India; stone-pelting training of Hindu groups to respond to Kashmiri stone-pelters; and threats to Pakistani celebrities regarding performances in India. Another incident that shows the extent of radicalisation of Indian policy circles vis-à-vis Pakistan is former Indian Foreign Secretary Kanwal Sibal’s suggestion that Pakistani soldiers be kidnapped and used to bargain Kulbhushan Jadhav’s release.

 Indian officials are unable to even understand their international obligations. Yet another manifestation of extremism in Indian policy makers at the highest level is the most recent commendation reward given by Indian Army Chief Bipin Rawat to an Indian Major who had tied a Kashmiri boy in front of his military jeep while driving the vehicle in a Kashmiri neighbourhood.

While India has always talked of Pakistan nurturing extremism and has pointed fingers at its support of non-state actors — it has never tackled its own extremist policies

It seems that anti-Pakistan sentiments are being deliberately supported as a state policy. Although Indian policymakers have been aiming at isolating Pakistan, it is foreseeable that projecting such kind of extremist attitude in one’s own public would contribute only to self-alienation. Since neighbours cannot be changed, it would be wise to develop cordial relations with those at your door-step, rather than radicalising your own public in hatred and violence. Indian policymakers must recognise the reality of Pakistan as a prudent state that cannot be undermined through acquisition of weapons or coercive diplomacy. Promoting so much hatred can neither defeat Pakistan nor boost economic development in India. Such an attitude towards Pakistan will prove to be self-defeating for India in its surge for great power status.

Moreover, it may also raise questions on the efficacy of Indian establishment to defend its state against the so-claimed Pakistan-sponsored acts of terrorism. History has proved that despite having better resources at its disposal, Indians have never been successful in subordinating Pakistan, and after the nuclearisation of South Asia such efforts will only prove to be self-destructive. This is an era of economic cooperation and development for Asian nations where mutual cooperation will be a better choice. Pakistan has manifested its positive attitude by inviting India to be part of China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) which shall prove to be a road to prosperity in the region. Therefore, it will be a wise choice for Indian policy makers to adopt a policy of ‘Act North-West’ and open ways for engagement with Pakistan rather than estrangement.

Source: dailytimes.com.pk/opinion/30-May-17/indo-pak-economic-reset

----

Food Waste and Ramzan ul Mubarak

By Munir Ahmed

30-May-17

Pakistan’s markets are flooded with food and their prices are gone up, almost touching the sky, with the onset of Ramazan Mubarak, the Muslim’s holy month of fasting. A month teaches to consume less and to pray more for blessings of Almighty. A month makes the rich Muslims feel the misery of the deprived ones and poor. A month makes every Muslim to thank Almighty for every blessing. A month to do every good deed that is possible. A month to promote voluntary community services for the sake of humanity.  A month makes Muslims to learn the easy ways to earn heavens through prayers and the welfare of people. A month stops killing of human beings by suicide bombing or any other means to earn the Jannah. A month teaches tolerance to listening the conflicting point of view and give breathing space to each other. A month promotes equity, equality and protection of rights for women, minorities, deprived ones, poor and even for animals. A month promotes giving and forgivingness. A month promotes respect and honour for all, without any discrimination of caste, creed, religion, and social status.

I don’t know exactly as how many pages I need to describe the teachings and blessings of this month — the Ramazan Mubarak. And, I don’t know as how many pages exactly I need to describe the rise in all the ill practices being done in the holy month of Ramazan Mubarak in my country. How many of us — the ‘great and extremely pious Muslims’ of Pakistan actually learn, practice and promote the essence of the holy month?

Being a humble Muslim, I feel ashamed on all the malpractices being done in Pakistan which are contrary to the teachings of Islam and the essence of the holy month in particular. It is really shameful for the government that puts a ban on eating openly but can’t do anything to stop extreme price hike in the food items, quite openly. What to say about religious charity? The rich of Pakistan donate billions to mosques and Madaris, the poor remain in rags, hungry and shelter-less in their neighbourhood. The traders and shopkeepers wait for this month to open the gates of their stored stocks and supplies at highly exaggerated prices. The monitoring agencies go blind. No check on profiteering because we are Pakistani Muslims.

Under a repressive whole, the self is divided into inner and outer halves, a situation akin to schizophrenia when the only possible freedom is either to exploit the labour of the other fellow being or to be exploited

I felt a slap on my Pakistani Muslim face when I read the news of reduction in the prices of all essential commodities and food items for the Muslims living in the Kafir non-Muslim countries. The Kafir governments did it in the religious respect and honour of the holy month of Ramazan Mubarak, and to facilitate religious rituality of Muslims of their countries.

If Islam is all about to have a Muslim name or a beard, or living in a country termed as Islamic Republic is sufficient. Don’t we need to be more humane and caring towards the marginalised and under-privileged especially in this month of blessings.

Let’s examine the Pakistan’s great Muslims behaviour towards the supply and demand of the food items. Food — a basic element that every human being needs to survive. A general observation is that in Pakistan the prices of food items go double in the holy month. The consumption per person goes triple for those who can afford it. Ramazan Mubarak is the month for extremely high food waste.

It was also proved in a research supported by the Development Communications Network and conducted by the students last year in Islamabad and Rawalpindi. As many as 50 hotels and banquet halls were engaged in the study. The Islamabad Serena Hotel revealed that commonly their guests waste volume of food that can feed about 200 adults a day at an average of two meals. The food waste go times high in the holy month — approximately 600 to 700 people can eat a day from the wasted food. The reason is buffet iftar/dinner parties that give ‘ample opportunities’ to waste food. If we multiply the iftar-cum-dinner parties in a city any given day, we would come to know the total food waste at an average a day in a city. So, a Muslim country’s accumulated food waste could be calculated quite easily. The total volume of food wasted in the holy month would be very high in Pakistan. I wish if we could drive any mechanism to reduce food waste in Pakistan.

While observing the rituals of the holy month of Ramazan ul Mubarak, just look back when there were no buffet parties and grand Iftar-diners, and every guest was served with reasonable meal in a plate with a privilege to ask more if required. There was no food waste or a very little. Not many poor were left hungry or without clothing or without shelter in the neighbourhood of the rich. Mosques and Madaris were less in numbers, but they were full of faithful and love. There was no hard-lined religious or social segregation. Tolerance and patience comparatively were at high. All types of conflicts were less in number and harmless. Can’t we go back to same traditions of ours?

Source: dailytimes.com.pk/opinion/30-May-17/food-waste

----

URL: https://www.newageislam.com/pakistan-press/terror-witches-prophecy-new-age/d/111333