Terrorism on the Rampage, By Shahid M Amin: New Age Islam's Selection, 30 June 2017
New
Age Islam Edit Bureau
30 June 2017
• Terrorism on the Rampage
By Shahid M Amin
• China as International Peace Broker
By Mashaal Gauhar
• The Bourgeois Trap
By Aasim Sajjad Akhtar
• China and Trump’s Indo-Pak Meddling
By M Ziauddin
• Judicial Activism — Not A Dirty Word
By Saroop Ijaz
• Business In The Time Of Escalating Tensions
By Muhammad Ali Ehsan
• Indo-US Prosperity Pact
By Prof D Suba Chandran
• Human Rights ‘Propaganda’
By Munir Ahmed
Compiled By New Age Islam Edit Bureau
----
Terrorism on the Rampage
By Shahid M Amin
TERRORISM is on the rampage in several parts of the world. In Pakistan, terrorist incidents took a heavy toll in Parachinar and Quetta on June 23, 2017. About 85 people were reported killed. There was also a gun attack targeting police officials in Karachi that left four policemen dead. An army spokesman linked the incidents to “sanctuaries across the border” in Afghanistan. He warned that “stringent action” will be taken against illegal border-crossers. Responsibility for the Quetta car bomb blast was claimed by Jamaatul Ahrar, but the militant Daesh made a similar claim. Interior Minister Chaudhry Nisar was reported as telling the Chief of General Staff that incidents of such nature spring up every time the Pak-Afghan border is opened up. He also said, “It is strange that every time there is any incident of terrorism in Afghanistan, they are quick to blame Pakistan for it. However, there is no discussion in international forums about the terrorism that comes to Pakistan from across the border.”
Against the above background, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi paid an important visit to Islamabad on June 25. He had earlier visited Kabul where he held discussions with the Afghan Foreign Minister and National Security Adviser. For the first time, China made an offer to mediate between Pakistan and Afghanistan, whose relations have been severely strained due to accusations made by each other of involvement in terrorist incidents. After his discussions in Islamabad, it was said that a bilateral crisis management mechanism between Afghanistan and Pakistan will be evolved to enable the two sides to maintain timely and effective communications in case of any emergencies.
China also proposed a trilateral mechanism for cooperation for peace and reconciliation in Afghanistan and coordination of counter-terrorism actions between Pakistan and Afghanistan. China wants to place special focus on economic cooperation. In a joint press briefing, Wang Yi and Foreign Policy Adviser Sartaj Aziz agreed on the need for reviving the QCG process to create a conducive environment for talks between Afghan government and the Taliban. The Quadrilateral Coordination Group consists of Afghanistan, Pakistan, USA and China, which was formed in January 2016 for reconciliation in Afghanistan through direct peace talks between the Taliban and Afghan government.
Earlier, a spokesman for Afghan President Ashraf Ghani said that China had desired to take on a role as mediator between Pakistan and Afghanistan. Two weeks ago, there had been a suicide truck attack in Kabul killing over 150 people for which Afghanistan had put the blame on Pakistan. No group including the Taliban had claimed responsibility for the attack. Ghani has often accused Pakistan of waging an “undeclared war” against Afghanistan. Last week, there was a meeting between Ghani and Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif on the sidelines of SCO Summit in Astana where they agreed to use the QCG mechanism as well as bilateral channels to undertake specific actions against terrorism. China has a special interest in ensuring that its ambitious One Belt One Road goes ahead unimpeded by security issues arising from Pak-Afghan tensions. China enjoys good relations with both Pakistan and Afghanistan and is better placed than any other country to play a mediatory role. However, peace in Afghanistan cannot be ensured unless Afghan Taliban agree to join such a process. There is no indication that they are willing to do so except on their own terms.
Terrorism raised its ugly head in Saudi Arabia this week when, shockingly, the holiest Muslim shrine, the Grand Mosque of Makkah, was the seeming target. On June 24, Saudi security forces disrupted a plot to attack the Grand Mosque. It is particularly crowded in the month of Ramadan when pilgrims from all over the world congregate there. The Saudi security forces launched raids in Jeddah as well as two areas in Makkah. There was a shootout with a suicide bomber who blew himself up, leading to the building’s collapse, causing casualties, including six foreign pilgrims. The Interior Ministry said it had thwarted the terrorist plan by those who had “obeyed their evil and corrupt self-serving schemes managed from abroad whose aim is to destabilize the security and stability” of Saudi Arabia. Five suspects were arrested. Since 2014, there have been periodic terrorist incidents in Saudi Arabia, claimed by ISIS (Daesh).
Terrorist incidents have also hit Britain recently. On June 19, a white driver rammed his van into Muslim worshippers of a Mosque in London, causing one death, and many injuries. He was heard shouting “I am going to kill all Muslims. You deserve it. I did my bit.” Remarkably, the assailant was saved from lynching by Imam of the mosque. British Prime Minister May said the attack was “every bit as sickening” as other recent terrorist attacks. However, no condemnation came from President Trump who is usually quick to condemn every act involving Muslim terrorists. Islamophobia is growing in the West.
A shocking instance was that of a Hijab-clad Muslim girl in Virginia, USA, who was killed on June 18 by a white supremacist, soon after attending prayers in a mosque. Anti-Muslim crimes in USA rose sharply in 2015, and increased a further 44% from 180 to 260 in 2016. Terrorism is growing alarmingly in the West as well as in Muslim societies. Its causes are diverse, but must be condemned unreservedly by all right-thinking people. Terrorism is the greatest menace that humanity is facing at this time.
Source: pakobserver.net/terrorism-on-the-rampage/
----
China as International Peace Broker
By Mashaal Gauhar
30-Jun-17
In an unprecedented move, the Chinese government has proposed to mediate between Pakistan and Afghanistan in a bid to defuse escalating tensions between the two countries.
During his visit to Islamabad and Kabul last week, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi underlined the need to improve bilateral ties — an essential prerequisite for developing a coordinated counter-terrorism strategy between Pakistan and Afghanistan and to bringing peace to the region.
This follows from the informal discussions held between Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and Afghan President Ashraf Ghani at the recent Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) Summit in Kazakhstan.
Speaking to the press in Islamabad, the Chinese Foreign Minister added that Afghanistan, Pakistan and China will revive discussions through the Quadrilateral Coordination Group comprising Afghanistan, Pakistan, the United States and China to create a conducive environment for talks between the Afghan government and the Taliban. Formed in January of last year, the Quadrilateral Coordination Group was set up with the objective of achieving peace in Afghanistan.
These steps highlight China’s emerging role as a broker for peace and stability in a region riven by intractable conflicts. Earlier this year, China offered to help in resolving a diplomatic row between Bangladesh and Myanmar. Additionally, China has expressed an interest in acting as a mediator between Pakistan and India over the longstanding Kashmir dispute.
Notably, China also has expressed interest in quelling conflagrations beyond its immediate sphere of influence. For instance, in March this year, China offered to host talks between Saudi Arabia and Iran.
With both countries convulsed by terrorist violence, the relationship between Pakistan and Afghanistan remains fraught with challenges. Deteriorating relations between Pakistan and Afghanistan struck a new low when Pakistan closed the 2,600 km Pak-Afghan border in February this year after an attack on the sacred Sehwan Sharif shrine in Sindh which killed over a hundred people.
This deadly attack came after a series of assaults by militants, many of which are believed to have emanated from militant bases in Afghanistan.
Though the border was recently reopened, this temporary closure adversely impacted diplomatic relations and resulted in sharp economic losses for both countries.
Afghanistan too has been the victim of militant assaults: in May, Kabul was rocked by a suicide attack which killed over 65 people. Demonstrations in the wake of this attack added pressure to the country’s fragile political order.
As relations between the countries continue to worsen, the resolve to craft a political solution takes on greater urgency. Last week, Pakistan’s Permanent Representative to the UN Dr Maleeha Lodhi articulated concern over Taliban “safe havens” within Afghanistan.
As China’s expanding role in international diplomacy proves regional economic integration not only results in greater prosperity and social development — but can also help engender peace
During a tense debate with her Afghan counterpart, she informed the Security Council that continued reliance on military operations without an accompanying political strategy would unleash further violence.
At this critical time, China is well-placed to act as a stabilising force in a region plagued by volatility. China remains heavily invested in both countries: in Pakistan its diverse investments range from large scale construction projects to telecommunications. In Afghanistan, China has brought in unparalleled foreign investment with a 30-year license to develop the Mes Aynak copper mine for over $3billion.
China has also initiated key infrastructure projects in both countries: China’s development of and 40-year lease over Pakistan’s Gwadar port represents a vital gateway to the Arabian Sea, which can provide China and Central Asia access to the Persian Gulf and Middle Eastern markets.
China’s development of Afghanistan’s railway network, linking the two countries via Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan is also set to have a transformative impact on trade in the region.
These projects form part of China’s ambitious One Belt One Road Initiative which aims to create trade networks across Asia, linking the continent to African and European markets.
As China’s expanding role in international diplomacy proves, regional economic integration not only results in greater prosperity and social development but can also help engender peace.
At the Security Council last week, Ambassador Lodhi held out hope for a resolution between Pakistan and Afghanistan claiming, “We are confident that, whatever our differences in the past, in the end, the deep bonds of religion, culture, history and geography between Pakistan and Afghanistan will assert themselves and produce an era of peaceful and mutually beneficial cooperation between our nations.” A trusted partner of both countries, China could act as the catalyst in making this a reality.
Source: dailytimes.com.pk/opinion/30-Jun-17/china-as-international-peace-broker
----
The Bourgeois Trap
By Aasim Sajjad Akhtar
June 30th, 2017
LET’s get this straight: the last few days of Ramazan see death and destruction in Quetta, Parachinar and Bahawalpur — reflecting the state’s utter failure to protect the life and liberty of its citizens — and our Eid gift is an announcement by the highest state functionaries that their ‘top priority’ is the security of Chinese lives and property.
Cue outrage amongst the ‘educated’ public? Not quite. We know that Pakistani officialdom has always been obsessed with ‘security’ and that the state — both our own and others to whom we are even more loyal — has generally been considered far more worthy of defending than ‘the people’ that are nominally the subject of public policy. But where, in this story, is the heroic bourgeoisie that provides leadership in society?
The history of the Western nation-state is, indeed, the history of the bourgeoisie. We read about this class fighting for liberation from feudalism, the church and the empire in the English, French and American revolutions. The modern system of government featuring the ‘rule of law’ and the immutable rights of every individual citizen is widely known as ‘bourgeois’ democracy.
Where Is The Heroic Bourgeoisie That Provides Leadership?
A deeper reading of history confirms that the bourgeoisie has contributed far less to the establishment of democratic institutions in society than the working class, former slaves, women and other segments originally excluded from ‘citizenship’ in the polity. Ironically, this explains why large numbers of people in Western societies internalised ‘bourgeois’ values and contemporary Western states can be considered somewhat answerable to ‘the people’.
The bourgeois story in Pakistan — and other post-colonial countries — is even more tortured. To this day, democratic values have not been internalised by the ‘educated’ segments of society. They may not accept it at face value, but Pakistan’s bourgeoisie remains committed to caste (let alone class) privilege, is generally contemptuous of the ‘backward’ masses, and has little patience for the messiness of democracy.
These attitudes can be traced to the colonial genesis of the polity. The native bourgeoisie was junior partner to the British — if not employed by the state it thrived in private occupations such as law and medicine. Even when this native bourgeoisie decided it wanted self-rule, it remained largely committed to the bureaucratic paternalism that was the hallmark of the Raj. The ‘brown’ sahib replaced the ‘gora’ sahib and the rest is history.
There are variations in the story — the Indian bourgeoisie institutionalised a form of democracy while its Pakistani counterpart remained stubbornly faithful to (military) authoritarianism. But the long-term process of democratisation of society is far from complete in either country, and the bourgeoisie is largely responsible.
The truth is that privileged classes in society can never be expected to willingly relinquish their privilege. As suggested, the process of democratisation in Europe, North America and other ‘advanced’ societies (read: white settler colonies) is explained by the struggles of the downtrodden who demanded their share from a bourgeoisie that was content to keep ‘democracy’ within ‘respectable’ limits. These societies continue to be blighted by racism, patriarchy and classism and the struggle for democratisation continues.
In the subcontinent, this struggle is even more urgent; arguably the single biggest imperative is to critically question the notion that the bourgeoisie is always a progressive force. To the contrary, it is indirectly responsible for the rise of right-wing extremism and its continuing appeal, despite the claims of the ‘educated’ segments that they represent the major resistance to millenarian ideologies.
These ideologies have proliferated precisely because they promise — alongside eternal salvation — opportunities for upward mobility, opportunities that the bourgeoisie has for the most part been unwilling to concede to any social strata other than its own.
Indeed, a certain segment of the bourgeoisie has itself been the face of extremism. Take the highly educated leaderships of right-wing groups like the BJP and Jamaat-i-Islami. Thus we now have a society in which the bourgeoisie itself is divided; on the one hand are the self-styled liberals whose lineage can be traced to the (Western) modernists of the colonial era; on the other are numerically preponderant conservatives who wish for Pakistan to conform to the ideals of the Khilafat (and India to Hindu raj).
Both factions claim to speak for ‘the people’, but, instead, are committed to an authoritarian state and capitalist globalisation, unwilling to lead a process of democratisation which could involve surrendering at least some of their privilege. It is easy to claim to be the vanguard of an ideal while living in luxury in Lahore or Karachi, as peripheries like Parachinar burn. Those who recognise the need for substantial social change would be better off eschewing the myth of bourgeois leadership once and for all.
Source: .dawn.com/news/1342231/the-bourgeois-trap
----
China And Trump’s Indo-Pak Meddling
By M Ziauddin
30-Jun-17
Pakistan has termed as “completely unjustified” the US move to declare Syed Salahuddin, chief of the Hizbul Mujahideen, a Specially Designated Global Terrorist.
India on its part said, “It does vindicate India’s longest-standing position that cross-border terrorism is behind disturbance created in Kashmir since last year.”
The US, however, seems to have done what it did to placate India without actually doing anything meaningfully substantial with regard to the on-going freedom struggle inside the Indian Occupied Kashmir (IOK)
Salahuddin’s services for the struggle over the last three decades notwithstanding he is not as relevant to the struggle today as he was until about 2014.
Today the face of the struggle is the martyred Hizbul Mujahideen Commander Burhan ud din Wani. It is in his name that the stone-throwing youth of IOK have up the ante in the IOK. And you cannot deny a martyr anything worldly by designating him as a global terrorist. And there is no cross-border element in this totally indigenous freedom struggle that is being waged by the unarmed IOK youth.
The warming up of relations between India and the US since 2005 seems to have been dictated, in the case Washington, by the US desire to use India to halt the advancing China from challenging American global hegemony while in the case of India, by New Delhi’s desire to use the super power to deny the people of IOK the freedom they are seeking from the Indian yolk and also help it expand its foot-hold in Afghanistan.
India would be left holding the empty sack in Afghanistan if Pakistan were to simply abandon the Afghan Taliban for good — which is what needs to be done urgently
Since the two seem to be driven by different motivations for getting cosier the possibility of either of the two succeeding in their respective objectives appears to be open to question.
Several commonalities do exist between the United States and India and provide a seemingly genuine platform for cooperation between the two. Both are democracies, both are against global terrorism and the economies of both are driven by the market, though in differing degrees.
And according to a policy paper titled “Transforming India from a balancing to leading power”, released by the Atlantic Council, a US think tank, ahead of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s US visit this week, the two countries also see eye to eye on their approach towards Beijing so far.
“Both nations realize the need to ensure that Beijing behaves in accordance with the rules of the liberal, post-war institutional order that the US helped build. As current and potential naval powers, the two countries must have unfettered access to international sea-lanes that Beijing intends to constrict.
“This leads to a broader, mutually beneficial reason for a coordinated policy towards China, a nation ostensibly not averse to flaunting a boosted militarism that could be dangerous to the security of both the US and India in the foreseeable future.
“It is vital for American interests in Asia to have India as an economic and strategic ally. However, for this relationship to work, President Trump will have to demonstrate his commitment to building a positive environment within which the Indian-American relationship can flourish”.
“It is likely that the Indian policy making elite and body politic will expect President Trump to continue along the same path as his predecessors, and expect him to honour existing bilateral agreements.
“Furthermore, India would want the continuation of the recently signed nuclear agreements as well as the US India Defence Technology and Trade Initiative, which the White House may review in the near future.”
On the other hand, according to the same policy paper President Trump has advocated several policies that could harm Indian interests and potentially negatively affect the trajectory of US-India ties.
“To begin with, restrictions on work and education visas could antagonise India, with US-bound engineers set to suffer.
“Trump has also emphasised the need to bring processes back to the US that could cost Indian export of services heavily.
“With Indo-American trade already stagnating over the past few years, Trump’s policies give no room for this trade to grow in the future. This will be a worrying factor for India.
“Environmental policy is another potential area of disagreement between the two countries. India has been a champion for renewable energy and has also shown a commitment to combating climate change, as is evident in its position on the Paris Agreement.
“India has long appealed for the Kashmir issue to be solved bilaterally without international interference. Yet, in his statements, Trump has offered to mediate on the Kashmir dispute between India and Pakistan; New Delhi may not appreciate such involvement.
“Indian policy makers will be wary of Trump’s policies towards Pakistan, and any decisions taken by the administration would go a long way toward determining the warmth of US-India relations.
“India would also want cooperation with the US on regional issues such as the Afghanistan conflict.
“Spillover from the destabilisation in Afghanistan threatens to affect Indian security, which should be considered by the Trump administration before taking action in the country.”
Describing India as a “key piece in the jigsaw” for the US, the policy paper points out that during Barack Obama’s tenure, in order to woo India, he promised to support India’s bid for a UN Security Council seat, but did not put it to any practical action and asks will Trump take substantial steps to facilitate India’s UNSC bid? It is hard to tell.
According to Yu Ning of Global Times (Being a pawn for US containment strategy a trap for India) in an era when emerging countries have been playing an increasingly important role in global affairs, if India, an important participant in two non-Western organisations — the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation and BRICS — can firmly stand together with China in striving for more discourse power, it will be helpful for New Delhi to realise its big power ambitions. Moreover, India would be left with holding the empty sack in Afghanistan if Pakistan simply abandons the Afghan Taliban for good, which is what needs to be done urgently as Islamabad’s previous experience of living with a Taliban ruled Kabul was not all that happy.
Source: dailytimes.com.pk/opinion/30-Jun-17/china-and-trumps-indo-pak-meddling
----
Judicial Activism — Not A Dirty Word
By Saroop Ijaz
30-Jun-17
Judicial activism has become a controversial word in Pakistan owing largely to the post lawyers’ movement era of Justice (retd) Iftikhar Chaudhary. However, in its true meaning and spirit, it has a long history of acting as a counter-majoritarian instrument, ensuring rule of law and equality.
Earlier this month, Chief Justice of the Lahore High Court, Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, issued a verdict on the matter of the Christian Divorce Act in Pakistan. He began the operative part of his judgement by saying, “This court is to adjudicate matters in accordance with the Constitution and the law and there is no room for personal interest, belief, passion and inclination.” This was a refreshing exception from sermonising and personal-preference- and ideologically-driven opinions that sadly have come too often from superior courts, particularly the Supreme Court in recent years.
The facts of the case were simple, a Christian man wanted to divorce his wife without making a nasty accusation of adultery. The Pakistani law as it stood allowed Christians to divorce on the grounds of adultery, change of religion and cruelty amongst a few others. Hence, ruling out the possibility of an amicable or even dignified end to a marriage. More significantly, it often leads to no exit from a physically and emotionally abusive marriage, in overwhelming number of cases for women trapped in such contractual obligations. Misogyny in Pakistan is not limited to a religion or a culture, and in this particular instance it was legitimised by the law. Not by any scriptural law but rather by an undemocratic and discriminatory amendment by Ziaul Haq, undertaken without any discussion with the Christian community.
The intention of Ziaul Haq was to keep the Christian divorce law stagnant by repealing section 7 of the Christian divorce act in 1981. Section 7 mandated that the Pakistani courts will act on the principle of English divorce courts, hence ensuring that our law evolves with the English law, particularly given that the Christian minority community in Pakistan might not have sufficient legislative voice. The LHC judgement traces the evolution of the law in Christian majority countries and demonstrates how almost all countries have a ‘no-fault’ divorce law i.e. a divorce on the grounds that the parties to the marriage feel that relationship is ‘irretrievably broken’.
The judgement has struck down the amendment made by Ziaul Haq in 1981 and restored section 7 of the Christian divorce act, hence making the ‘no fault’ divorce a ground for annulling a marriage. Responding to the argument that public policy should discourage divorce, the Chief Justice while agreeing in principle articulates the caveat, “it is the public policy to terminate dead marriages.” These are powerful, progressive and legally binding words from the court in a patriarchal, tribal society where there is immense pressure to perpetuate unhappy and exploitative unions to preserve imaginary notions of ‘honour’. The court interprets the right to life and liberty to include the right to choose a spouse and to opt out of a stifling marriage.
The impact of this judgement and the reasoning will influence and inform jurisprudence in Pakistan beyond the area of Christian matrimony. The court reminds the Pakistani government and Parliament of its obligations to safeguard the rights of religious minorities articulated in the Constitution as fundamental rights and principles of policy and Pakistan’s international law commitments such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
The LHC judgement on the Christian Divorce Act opens the door for re-consideration — on the touchstone of constitutionalism, international human rights standards and inclusiveness — of all statutory amendments made by unelected military dictatorships
Article 20 of the Constitution, as a fundamental right, provides that every citizen shall have the right to profess, practice and propagate his religion. The principle of policy under Article 36 provides that the state shall safeguard legitimate rights and interest of minorities. Despite the binding nature of our commitments, the Pakistani courts have generally avoided relying on international human rights framework, alongside skirting over promises made in the principles of policy in the Constitution. The LHC judgement, alongside the June 19, 2014 judgement by the then Chief Justice Tassadduq Hussain Jilani, set down the framework for progressive, liberal and inclusive interpretation of Constitutional guarantees and international standards regarding rights and equal citizenship of religious minorities in Pakistan.
The LHC judgement also addresses the manner in which the Christian divorce act was amended by Ziaul Haq’s regime and says, “It is important to underline that historically the impugned amendment was introduced not through a democratic and participatory constitutional legislative process but was more of a surgical intrusion during the dark undemocratic period of our Constitutional history.” This opens the door to consider all statutory amendments made by unelected military dictatorships on the touchstone of constitutionalism, international human rights standards and inclusiveness.
It is dispiriting to note that the regressive amendment (like numerous other Zia amendments) did not receive the attention of successive governments and it took a judicial intervention to rectify the wrong. One of Pakistan’s finest judges, Justice Shah has demonstrated that activism based on constitutional principles, progressive and feminist thought and universal human rights is possible and of course, much needed. The judgement should lead to a national conversation on the rights of religious freedom, gender discrimination and mutilation of our laws by unelected despots.
Source: dailytimes.com.pk/opinion/30-Jun-17/judicial-activism-not-a-dirty-word
-----
Business in the Time of Escalating Tensions
By Muhammad Ali Ehsan
June 29, 2017
Twenty weeks into his presidency, Donald Trump continues to keep the world confused and guessing on how and what he would do to keep it together. More focused on North Korea’s nuclear threat and China’s militarisation of the South China Sea, the Trump administration is finding little time to pay attention to other brewing problems in Asia — one of which is the rising tensions in the Indo-Pak ties.
In his typical businessman-like style, the US president went overboard to please Narendra Modi and instead of utilising the significance of his office to maintain a sense of balance between the two arch-rivals and nuclear powers in the subcontinent allowed the weighing scale to tilt and dip heavily in India’s favour. Never before has a US president sharing a platform with an Indian leader has so demonstratively disregarded and disengaged from the huge sacrifices Pakistan has given (not even a passing mention) serving the US interests in the region. From fighting against the Russians in Afghanistan to the post 9/11 fight in the war on terror Pakistan’s sacrifices are recognised and acclaimed the world over.
Why has the US been so insensitive and callous? Was doing business and selling US weapons and equipment to India more important than acting as a manager of good India-Pakistan ties? If Trump could do nothing to improve them, at least he and his administration should have resisted from making them more difficult and intolerable.
Promoting Donald Trump’s ‘business- like return on investment foreign policy’ his two advisers, H R McMaster and Gray Cohn, wrote last month in The Wall Street Journal that “the world is not a global community but an arena where nations, non-governmental actors and businesses engage and compete for advantage…Rather than deny this essential nature of international affairs, we embrace it.”
This statement made by the trusted advisers of the Trump administration was already setting the tone for the visit of the Indian PM to Washington. In a Trump-induced atmosphere of international relations that holds the economic and ‘business interests’ more dearly than the political, regional and global interests, the two leaders happily embraced each other in a business-style hug after a one-on-one meeting and delegation-level talks at the White House. Prior to this, the US State Department had declared Hizbul Mujahideen chief Syed Salahuddin a specially-designated global terrorist. India may be extremely pleased with the American response and overjoyed and relieved on the anti-Pakistan contents of the official joint statement, asking Pakistan to “ensure that its territory is not used to launch terrorist attacks on other countries,” and to “bring to justice the perpetrators of the 26/11 Mumbai, Pathankot, and other cross-border terrorist attacks” but Pakistan and all that it has done over the years to serve American interests was not.
While PM Modi was giving a bear hug to President Trump in Washington, in a great display of enduring friendship between the two countries, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi was curbing regional fears and raising hopes during a shuttle diplomacy visit to Pakistan and Afghanistan. His efforts to establish a ‘crisis management mechanism’ was well in time and in line with China’s policy of safeguarding and protecting its infrastructure spending on the Belt and Road Initiative and promoting peace in the region. On the one hand are the Americans that are least flexible and more selective in their demands and extending unilateral diplomatic and military rewards to the Indians in the region, the Chinese on the other hand are more concerned about equal distribution of opportunities and to do that are fast laying a claim on the power, wealth, diplomatic engagement and to the regional leadership in South Asia. Brokering the recent deal between Pakistan and Afghanistan is a reflection of how China cannot afford to have an insecure environment in the region.
The main diplomatic tool that China is likely to use in the foreseeable future is its own security grouping — Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO). Regardless of what Washington may decide and do it is from the platform of SCO which now has India and Pakistan as well as its members that China will push forward ‘the Chinese guided order in South Asia and Central Asian States.’
The foreign ministers’ visit showed that China is deeply concerned with the failing Afghan government which is finding it difficult even to provide security within its capital. Just last month in Kabul, the deadliest attack in the 16-year Afghanistan civil war took the lives of 90 innocent people and left 400 others wounded. Call it confusion or call it neglect — the Afghan war on which America still spends $3 billion a month — is making no headway. In fact, had Washington been more mindful of national interests of all the countries and encouraged India only to promote economic and business interests and discouraged it against developing any intelligence and military interests in Afghanistan, the world would not have witnessed the unnecessary proxy showdown in the region, resulting in the loss of many innocent lives.
China’s Pak-Afghan initiative is a welcome development. A timely Chinese political punch to an existing regional order that is Washington designed to contain China through a diplomatically and militarily empowered India. The foundations of this order have been moved by the latest Chinese initiative and only time will tell whether Afghanistan will continue to act as an Indian pawn and resist Chinese diplomatic brokering or together with China, Russia, Central Asian states and even India allow this region to embrace peace, develop and grow under a Chinese guided and directed regional order.
For the political and military leadership in Pakistan, the present US-India partnership only means further raising the bar of our national security that cannot be allowed to be compromised. Identifying and disrupting threats will continue to be our leadership’s biggest challenge.
We can no more have our national security dependent on the goodwill of the US that under the Trump administration is growing more and more diplomatically erratic. Washington today reaches out to various states not as the guarantor and protector of its own created world order but as a business leader that is not shy of creating a dogged regional strategic environment based not on the balance of power but US business interests.
We cannot allow India to spread terrorism in Pakistan through its covert network of terrorist operators that infiltrate Pakistan through Afghanistan. It’s not the flyovers and motorways that is Pakistan’s priority now — ‘if everything is a priority nothing is a priority’ — Pakistan needs a completely secure western border to block and shield against Indian recruited physical interference from there. Reinforcing our security we can have speedy results on intelligence-based operations all over the country like the Indians themselves.
To sum up our growing relationship with China and our joint investment in the mutual security relationship with the Asian giant will stand out as riposte and counterweight to the now very ominous ant-Pakistan US-Indian designs. Pakistan is not the threat that India will face in future — that threat will come from the IS and also from Iran when New Delhi’s business interest clash with those of Washington there.
Source: tribune.com.pk/story/1445566/business-time-escalating-tensions/
----
Indo-US Prosperity Pact
By Prof D Suba Chandran
30-Jun-17
A joint statement — titled ‘United States and India: Prosperity through Partnership’ after the much-awaited Modi-Trump meeting projects the intent between the two countries. Clearly, it highlights the homework undertaken before the summit, and the authors of the statement have taken care in addressing the interests of both leaders and two countries. Keeping the rhetoric away, how much meat is there in the statement? Outside the statement, are India and the US finally ready to leap forward and make the relationship truly strategic?
The second question is important, given the reservations on Trump. A section inside India has been apprehensive about Trump’s inward looking approaches, especially the slogan ‘make America great again’, and its implications for India. Besides, Trump did make few statements on climate change and India, which did become a cause of worry.
First, let us keep the rhetoric and stories of personal chemistry away. India and the US may be two big countries and share liberal values. As Trump mentioned in his statement, both the constitutions begin with “the same three beautiful words: We the people”. Trump took an extra step and said: “I am thrilled to salute you, Prime Minister Modi and the Indian people for all that you accomplishing together.” But those issues do not matter in the real politic. Strategic relationship is all about content and not ideals and values.
Clearly, India and US have divergent road maps. Yet, there are areas convergence, keeping in mind each other’s sensitivities and yielding to it partially. More importantly, they have succeeded in zeroing in those areas which are a win-win for both. India’s external ministry needs to be congratulated for its homework; the summit was productive and broad based; and not obsessed on few issues — terrorism, China and Pakistan.
Second, economy and trade are likely to become an important bilateral issue for both in the next decade; hence, occupies substantial part of the joint statement. Trump didn’t fail to mention India’s order of 100 new planes from the US that will support “thousands and thousands of American jobs”. So would be other purchases on the defence sector as well.
India and the US are likely to expand this process further and more announcement are expected when Trump’s daughter Ivanka leads the US delegation for the Global Entrepreneurship Summit to be held later this year in India. Modi in his statement said: “We consider the USA as our primary partner for India’s social and economic transformation in all our flagship programmes and schemes. I’m sure that the convergence between my vision of a new India and President Trump’s vision for making America great again will add new dimension to our cooperation.” The joint statement has a long list of items under “increasing free and fair trade” – covering job creation, review of trade relations, Indo-US energy ties, cyber cooperation etc.
More announcements are expected when Trump’s daughter Ivanka leads the US delegation for the Global Entrepreneurship Summit to be held later this year in India
Third, no other issue would have brought them together as the defence purchases by India. Trump is only too happy to sell as much as he could, for it is all about “American jobs” for him; for India, it adds power to its arsenal. The joint statement underlines the pledge between the two countries to “deepen defence and security cooperation” building US “recognition of India as a Major Defence Partner”.
Fourth, both Trump and Modi converged on Afghanistan; the statement says: “President Trump welcomed further Indian contributions to promote Afghanistan’s democracy, stability, prosperity and security.” India will only be too happy to have an enlarged presence in Afghanistan. India has already made investments towards this. The tricky question for India would be — if New Delhi is asked to support the Afghan process by providing Indian ground troops. The debate today in India is more nuanced than the previous years on the subject.
Fifth, on China, the US is cautious. Given Trump’s position towards China, the joint statement did not cover much on the subject, but did address each other’s concerns. On the Indo-Pacific, the point on reiterating the importance of respecting freedom of navigation and calling nations “to resolve territorial disputes and maritime disputes peacefully” is clearly related to South China Sea. Another point on “bolstering regional economic connectivity through the transparent development of infrastructure... while ensuring respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity” is clearly supporting India’s position on the OBOR. While US may play a cautious role in the OBOR, India will do the same with South China Sea dispute. Both will be cautious.
Finally, on Pakistan, a section India would like to consider the statement calling on Islamabad to “ensure that its territory is not used to launch terrorist attacks on other countries” as a highlight. Unfortunately, there is an extra focus in India about the mentioning of terrorist groups in the statement, including Hizbul Mujahideen. The above narrow focus by a section in India on Pakistan and terrorism does not do justice to the larger issues.
The recent summit highlights a continuation in the Indo-US strategic path. Perhaps, as Modi hinted in one of his earlier visits to the US, the hesitations of history is finally over for India.
Source: dailytimes.com.pk/opinion/30-Jun-17/indo-us-prosperity-pact
----
Human Rights ‘Propaganda’
By Munir Ahmed
30-Jun-17
I am confused if I should label as surprising or shameless the Pakistani Foreign Ministry’s silence on our losing battle on human rights violations in the European parliament.
About two weeks have elapsed since the EU parliament debated and passed a resolution against human rights violations in Pakistan. Yet, there is no word on this from the Pakistan government. It seems Pakistan has not taken this matter seriously.
On the other hand, the Indian media has reflected the EU Resolution as a big success for India against Pakistan, especially in the context of Kulbhushan Jadhav who has been sentenced to death by Pakistan for espionage. The Indian government and their media were shouting out the case of Jadhav, who was sentenced to death in April 2017 by a military court. Unfortunately, Pakistan was once again silent.
When the Indian media was propagating that Jadhav was sentenced without giving him any access to consular services which is in breach of international law, even then Pakistan was silent.
When India was pushing the move against Pakistan in the EU parliament, Pakistan was found sleeping even after the resolution had passed.
Pakistan’s deep silence is not ironic, but is in fact meaningful support to the Indian stance. Despite criticism from every nook and corner, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif never uttered a word at any international platform or global forum on Kulbhushan Jadhav and his terrorist activities in Pakistan.
Many believed that Nawaz Sharif’s silence over the matter was meaningful support to India. Meanwhile, the Pakistani Army carried out a trial and announced a sentence against Jadhav.
Many have questioned the silence of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif on the Kulbhushan Jadhav issue.
The question is if the Prime Minister and his government are not on the same page with the Pakistan Army even on this matter of national security or if this is a complete failure of diplomacy on another front — the human rights situation in Pakistan?
The recent lobbying by India and the EU Parliament's adoption of a resolution condemning Pakistan’s “human rights violations” will certainly mount pressure on Islamabad not to execute Kulbhushan Jadhav
Whatever it is, the consequences would be too immense to handle in the near future. This might significantly impact our trade with the EU and other countries. There may also be a further decline in the already diminishing space for Pakistan in the international arena.
Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif needs to speak up in favour of the military court’s decision, mobilise the government, and give a wake-up call to sleeping foreign missions for active diplomacy on the issue.
Our poor nation spares billions of rupees every year for diplomacy and lobbying on various issues. Pakistan’s foreign missions are funded very heavily but whenever Pakistan needs them to produce, they fail to defend the country against the aggressive moves of rival countries and fail to effectively propagate Pakistan’s stance.
Attorney-General of Pakistan Ashtar Ausaf Ali in his comment on the issue said, “A lot of disinformation has been spread by India to hurt the standing of Pakistan in the international community.”
Spreading misconception about the human rights situation in Pakistan may be the Indian way of diplomacy. What exactly is Pakistan’s strategy in propagating its stance over the situation? What is the role of the human rights ministry in Pakistan and abroad?
Millions have been spent on the international visits of Federal Minister for Human Rights Kamran Micheal and his ‘blue-eyed boys’. What is the outcome of his visits and who will question his performance as well as the performance of the ‘baboos’ sitting in the ministry?
Will the Standing Committees on human rights, foreign affairs, and trade and commerce of the National Assembly and Senate take notice of the situation or will everything be ignored?
We must not forget that the EU granted us the GSP Plus status in 2014 which was linked to the improvement of the human rights situation in the country. Most importantly, the EU attached to it the condition to ban death sentences in Pakistan.
The recent lobbying by India and the EU parliament’s adoption of a resolution condemning Pakistan’s “human rights violations” will certainly mount pressure on Pakistan not to carry out the death sentence of Indian spy Kulbhushan Jadhav. If Pakistan goes ahead with its sovereign decision, how will this impact the status of GSP plus?
While we need to think about accountability for the failure of the foreign office and the human rights ministry in the propagation of favourable position of Pakistan on human rights, we must also take up a vigorous and inclusive strategy to safe guard our trade interests in the framework of the GSP plus status.
Source: dailytimes.com.pk/opinion/30-Jun-17/human-rights-propaganda
-----
URL: https://www.newageislam.com/pakistan-press/terrorism-rampage-shahid-m-amin/d/111717