The Lure of Past Glory: New Age Islam's Selection, 05 April 2017
New Age Islam Edit Bureau
05 April 2017
• The Lure of Past Glory
By Rafia Zakaria
• Major Alignments in the Making
By Talat Masood
• A Poet’s Conscience
By Mahir Ali
• Kishori Amonkar Lives On
By Mohammad Shehzad
• Bilawal Needs To Reinvent Bhutto
By J K Wali
• Russia Needs A Helping Hand!
By Iqbal Khan
• EU And Brexit
By Rizwan Ghani
Compiled By New Age Islam Edit Bureau
-----
The Lure Of Past Glory
By Rafia Zakaria
05 April 2017
THAT the castles and museums of the United Kingdom are filled with the treasures of its former colonies is a fact well known to all. Upon entering Windsor Castle one sees the crown (among various others) of the kingdom of Togo. Also on display are other things from other kings: the finery of Maharaja Ranjit Singh stares from inside one glass case; a 500-year-old Persian carpet adorns the cordoned-off centre of another room. The Victoria and Albert Museum (V&A) houses one of Tipu Sultan’s swords and the infamous musical organ carved into a wooden sculpture of a tiger felling a British soldier.
If the British feel any remorse about their plunder, it is not made explicit in the arrangement of such objects. Instead, how these artefacts are curated, presented and lit all seem to reiterate what the British very likely believe: the exemplary safekeeping and artful exhibition is a favour to those to whom these objects belong, who would have otherwise destroyed, smuggled or sold them off.
One of the latest exhibitions mounted in the V&A follows a similar line. Comprised mostly of objects from the museum’s extensive collection, the exhibit titled Lockwood Kipling: Arts and Crafts in the Punjab and London commemorate the career of the man who was father to Rudyard Kipling and the force behind the Mayo School of Industrial Arts, now National College of Arts, in Lahore. It is a tale compellingly told through Kipling’s sketches of local craftsmen, intricately carved doors from Chiniot and beautiful silver inkwells. In one alcove, a movie about Lahore, its colours splashing and vibrant, plays on a loop. The courtyard of the Badshahi Mosque looms on the wall, its frescoes and motifs splayed with high definition intensity before the visitors milling about.
John Lockwood Kipling, of course, did not construct the Badshahi Mosque, and nothing in the exhibition makes any such explicit claim. At the same time, the arrangement of the objects, and the anointing of Lockwood Kipling as a curator, illustrator, architectural sculptor and visionary par excellence presents a very particular thesis regarding the British and their activities in India. Pages from The Journal of Indian Art, his crucial role in the establishment of art schools in Bombay and Lahore, his training of craftspeople, and his conversion of ordinary objects into objects of art all point to the larger premise that the British hold dear: without them there would be no Indian art, and definitely no appreciation of art.
The British attitude towards its former colonies — and now Europe — is one of being inadequately rewarded for its imaginary magnanimity.
This, then, is the more pernicious thesis about empire, increasingly en vogue and cherished in post-Brexit Britain. The day I happened to walk through the exhibit was in fact Brexit Day, the official occasion when British Prime Minister Theresa May delivered the letter to her European Union counterparts. The year since the Brexit vote — and the months to come in which its details will be spelled out — has undoubtedly been one of great uncertainty for the British. Those who voted to leave allege they gave more than they got back, that being in the EU was a raw deal, not quite worth it. There had never been enough reciprocity, never enough gratitude, never much deference or appreciation.
All of these premises are interesting to consider when walking through the Lockwood Kipling exhibit at the V&A and its effusive homage to a man who is feted as doing so much for Indian art. While Britain’s relationship with the rest of Europe was certainly not the exploitative one that defined its colonial enterprise, there are some commonalities of tone and tenor here that are worth noting. Chief among them is the premise that Britons generally give more than they receive. This precept is everywhere in the Lockwood exhibit, in the sketches that show how much the elder Kipling valued the craftspeople he met, and in the colleges he set up so that Indian craftsmanship would endure. It is, in sum, a message to fellow Britons: we have done much ‘good’ in the world, and the world has not paid us back.
All of this is, of course, a lie. The British plundered India, used its natural resources, eviscerated its existing institutions and generally created a hierarchy that they dominated and that enabled them to cart away India’s treasures for the sort of ‘safekeeping’ they still claim to be undertaking. The former colonies who suffered under them have long known these British claims to be untruths; they have also — in the hundreds of years since the British arrived and the 70 since they left — been forced to reckon with the aftermath, with the realisation that the lost glory of the past — whether it was Mughal or Ottoman or Rajput — cannot be the basis of the victories of the present.
Perhaps, for the first time since Partition, Britain is once again in retreat. Seventy years ago, it looked away from India, carrying away its spoils and treasures to the extent it could, leaving behind borders and hatreds that still bleed today. Now, it turns away from Europe with the same sulky petulance, the same attitude of having been inadequately rewarded for its imaginary magnanimity.
This second retreat, however, while different in character and circumstance, suggests an inwards gaze that the British have perhaps not seen since the colonial era. If the British Empire in retreat created revisionist histories that placed colonisers at the heart of the preservation of the subcontinent’s art and heritage, post-Brexit Britain will similarly create ones that suit the purposes of the present. In a supreme irony, the conquering British of the past can, in this sense, learn from those it once conquered — Pakistanis and Indians and others who are used to looking back, indeed, very far back — for consolation and confirmation of their own glory.
Source: dawn.com/news/1324933/the-lure-of-past-glory
----
Major Alignments in the Making
By Talat Masood
April 5, 2017
The favourable global and regional environment, along with deft diplomacy, has opened new avenues of cooperation for Pakistan. Recent positive developments in Pakistan-Russian relations are a reflection of the growing confidence in the country by major powers. It is also a manifestation that India’s deliberate efforts at isolating us have not succeeded.
Today, China is Pakistan’s closest ally and the huge investment and involvement of it in China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) is a demonstration of this unfolding reality. Interestingly, it coincides with China’s expanding role in world affairs that owes largely to its fast growing economy and domestic political cohesion. China’s confidence is reflected in its staunch support of globalisation and the flagship role it has undertaken in promoting a green economy. This is in sharp contrast to Trump’s current policy of undercutting globalisation and thwarting measures to reduce global warming.
Pakistan has strong friends among Muslim countries as well. While facing trying regional and internal challenges, Turkey finds Pakistan its most reliable political ally. The two are also working towards enhanced cooperation in defence- and security- related fields. Notwithstanding that major differences in weapon systems stand as an impediment to closer cooperation. Experience has also shown that, despite the best of political relations when it comes to joint production or development, countries find it difficult to collaborate.
The European Union (EU) is an exception because it is an economic and political union and is presently not facing any external threat. Most European countries despite these advantages prefer to produce as much in the country to provide employment to their people. In case of Pakistan and Turkey, serious efforts should be made to give an impetus to mutual trade and economic relations. Pakistan needs larger investment in fields of infrastructure and industry and could benefit from Turkey’s vast experience in the manufacturing and construction sector.
Former army chief General Raheel Sharif’s appointment to lead the 40-state strong Saudi-sponsored “Islamic military alliance to fight terrorism” is a reflection of the confidence reposed in Pakistan and its armed forces. It is another matter that it has generated controversy due to its political and strategic overtones.
As referred earlier, a new chapter of better relations between Pakistan and Russia seems to be in the offing. It is the most dramatic turnaround since the Cold War when Pakistan was closely aligned with the Americans against the Soviet Union. Several factors seem to have contributed to this encouraging development. Russia has shown interest in joining CPEC and this provides an opportunity for China, Pakistan and Russia to enhance cooperation. For some time now Russia has been showing interest in utilising the Gwadar port to which Pakistan has willingly agreed. Pakistan expects to benefit from Russian investment and technical expertise in the development of the Gwadar port.
It is in mutual interest that Russia becomes an active partner in the CPEC project. Astute observers of the Sino-Russian relations are of the view that Russia’s participation in CPEC and use of Gwadar port would enhance cooperation between the two countries. Already, Russia and China are founding members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) and members of BRICs. Pakistan, along with India, has recently become a full member of SCO and Russia’s membership of CPEC should facilitate in bringing these regional countries closer. Russia which has been facing intense pressure from the United States and the West since its annexation of Crimea and break-up of relations with Ukraine, will find this cooperation a counter move against its isolation.
Moreover, Russia realises Pakistan’s pivotal role in the Pak-Afghan theatre and wants to revive its interest in the region. The hosting of the third regional conference on Afghanistan in Moscow with supposedly 12-member countries as invitees is proof of its growing interest. In a way it is challenging the hegemony of the US in the region, especially with reference to Afghanistan. It is a different matter that this would not be easy — considering the significant presence of US troops and its defence assets in Afghanistan. Moscow is seeking help from the Taliban to counter the emerging threat of Da’ish in Afghanistan and the Chechen Republic. And like other regional countries, it is deeply interested in the end of civil war and return of stability in Afghanistan.
Pakistan’s military cooperation with Russia is gradually picking up. Last year in September Pakistan’s Special Forces and Russia held a joint military exercise in northern Pakistan. This occurred despite India’s declared opposition to it.
Pakistan Army Aviation for many years has been using Russian helicopters and, with better understanding between the two countries, it is possible that we will see more induction of these weapons systems. Russian sale of military equipment to India is on the decline as it switches to the US and Western sources for its new acquisitions and ambitious modernisation programme. Moscow is looking for new markets and Pakistan is one.
This, however, does not imply that Russia does not value its relations with India any less than in the past. The same is true for New Delhi. India has widened its options and leaned heavily on the US to maximise its economic and overall strategic capability to counter China, but maintain close relations with Russia.
In an ironic twist of history, Pakistan’s position that peace could return to Afghanistan only if there is political reconciliation between the Taliban and the Afghan government seems vindicated. In a recent Op-Ed piece in The New York Times former US ambassador to Pakistan and later US Special Representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan, Richard Olson, suggested that the Afghan government should seek political settlement with the Taliban. This shows that on Afghanistan convergence is emerging between Pakistan and US thinking and not surprisingly the mantra of “Do more” is gradually subsiding. A balanced and equitable political outcome of the Afghan conflict should contribute significantly in improving Pakistan-US and eventually Pakistan-Afghan relations.
Islamabad is gradually coming out of the woods and must maintain the momentum of building bridges with global and regional powers for internal stability and peaceful borders.
Source: tribune.com.pk/story/1374395/major-alignments-making/
-----
A Poet’s Conscience
By Mahir Ali
05 April 2017
“YOU’RE a brave man they tell me./ I’m not./ Courage has never been my quality./ Only I thought it disproportionate/ so to degrade myself as others did…” That’s how ‘Talk’ begins, a poem that struck a powerful chord when I first encountered it some 38 years ago. Its conclusion struck even deeper: “How sharply our children will be ashamed/ taking at last their vengeance for these horrors/ remembering how in so strange a time/ common integrity could look like courage.”
‘Talk’ was the third-last inclusion in a slim volume of verse I had picked up, the inscription suggests, less than two months after Pakistan’s first elected prime minister had been sent to the gallows by a thoroughly despicable military dictator whose dystopian obscurantist fantasies — at least that’s what they seemed at the time — had cast a callous pall over the nation.
At the time, it was hard to accept that the pall would (at least partially) endure for decades to come, that what was being done would never completely be undone, that the horrors would never be adequately avenged. And perhaps that is why integrity can still look like courage.
The book in question is titled Yevtushenko: Selected Poems, published by Penguin in 1962, and it remains in print to this day — a testimony to the early promise of a remarkable poet whose appeal transcended all manner of boundaries.
Like Dylan, Yevtushenko Was A Voice Of His Generation.
On April 1, at the age of 83, Yevgeny Yevtushenko died in Tulsa, Oklahoma, where he had been a university teacher for many years — the same day that Bob Dylan finally decided to accept the Nobel Prize in Literature he was awarded last year. In the latter instance, one is inclined to wonder whether the choice of date was entirely coincidental.
There are parallels between the two of them. Both were cast as angry young men in their respective milieus and as spokesmen for their generation. Dylan rejected the mantle. Yevtushenko was more ambivalent. The latter did not sing his verses — although others did — but he was also a dramatic performance poet, and frequently able to fill auditoriums and stadiums with awed audiences.
The Russian poet published his first collection at 19, but truly made his mark in the so-called thaw that followed Josef Stalin’s demise in 1953. Stalin’s funeral, in fact, was a turning point for the 20-year-old Yevtushenko, who recounted in A Precocious Autobiography — published uncensored in France in 1962 — how witnessing the dozens trampled to death on the occasion restructured his attitude towards the tyrant.
Several years later, his poem ‘Stalin’s Heirs’ — “I turn to our government with a plea:/ To double,/ And triple the guard at the grave site/ So Stalin does not rise again,/ And with Stalin, the past.” — Reputedly appeared in the Pravda newspaper only after Nikita Khrushchev’s direct intervention. “We removed/ Him/ From the mausoleum,” the poem concludes. “But how do we remove Stalin/ From Stalin’s heirs?” The question resonated a decade after the dictator’s death, not long before Khrushchev was cast out by men who could indeed be described as Stalin’s slipshod heirs. The tragedy is that it hasn’t quite gone away.
As Yevtushenko subsequently put it, “... Stalin’s greatest crime was not the arrests and the shootings he ordered. His greatest crime was the corruption of the human spirit.” Which is perhaps why his warning never entirely lost its topicality.
The penultimate entry in Selected Poems is ‘Babi Yar’, Yevtushenko’s best-known poem, an extended cri de coeur against Russian anti-Semitism, which begins with a description of the then unmarked site in Kiev where Nazi occupation forces slaughtered tens of thousands of Ukrainian Jews in what is said to be one of the worst incidents of mass murder in the Holocaust. The composer Dmitri Shostakovich incorporated it as the centrepiece of his Symphony No. 13. “No Jewish blood runs among my blood,” it concludes. “But I am as bitterly and hardly hated/ by every anti-Semite/ as if I were a Jew. By this/ I am a Russian.”
In his day, Yevtushenko was both hailed and decried as a dissident, but never ostracised or criminalised by the Soviet authorities. Allowed to travel freely across the world, he was also condemned as a Kremlin propagandist. There is no good reason to suspect he ever seriously compromised his beliefs. He denounced the invasions of Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan, and enthusiastically welcomed the perestroika/glasnost promise of change ushered in by Mikhail Gorbachev.
The quality of his verse may have varied, but there can be little doubt Yevtushenko loved not just Russia but also the Soviet Union, without being blind to its flaws. He mourned its end with: “I didn’t take the Tsar’s Winter Palace/ I didn’t storm Hitler’s Reichstag./ I am not what you call a ‘Commie’./ But I caress the Red Flag/ and cry.”
Source: dawn.com/news/1324927/a-poets-conscience
----
Kishori Amonkar Lives On
By Mohammad Shehzad
05-Apr-17
Few practitioners of classical music can expand the ascending and descending scales of ragas in a systematic way without boring the listeners with repetition. Such artistes can be counted on fingers. Many such maestros are witnessing their sunset. Some have already gone to meet their maker. The grand Kishori Amonkar left this world on April 3, 2017 just a week before her 85th birthday. She had a truly long, successful and productive life — both as a musical genius and as someone who built a formidable legacy.
Many legendary artistes leave this world in adverse circumstances especially when their artistic contributions are already interred. But this was not the case with Kishori. When she was at her peak, she had given the world of music another ‘Kishori’ ie Arati Ankalikar. If a legend is able to groom another legend, that’s an unbelievable measure of success. Besides Arati, Kishori also groomed many artistes who turned out to be great practitioners of music. So, Kishori is not dead. She is alive and her music continues to flourish just like the two icons — Ustad Amir Khan and Ustad Bade Ghulam Ali Khan.
I came to know about Kishori’s music through the columnist friend Ayaz Amir in 2001. He played a CD of her raga hunsdhun. Different fans of Kishori would admire her differently. The first thing that I fell in love with her music was her aakar (the use of sound Aa to vocalize the 7-notes of classical singing i.e. sa re ga ma pa dha ni sa). She needed no support of long esthai or antara. She would sing for 90 minutes and the entire rendition can be in aakar. Her notes were extremely powerful, precise and unwavering. The whole vocalization would be in meendhs (glides). There would be alap in alap but her forte was, there will be alap in vilambit (second movement) too! (This was Ustad Vilayat Khan’s singing.)
In her singing one could feel the notes floating on the horizon. She would sing calmly; won’t rush for taans — even in the CD that Ayaz played, I could have imagined that this lady was singing for herself, not for the audience. It is the latter that had gathered around her but she had no knowledge of their presence. And when YouTube came, this was confirmed. Kishori would close her eyes; she disliked lights or flashes on her face. She would sing in darkness. She would keep on plucking her surmandal. She would not like to mingle with the audience after the performance. She would not grant interviews because that would be a waste of time which should be given to riaz (mandatory practice).
Half of Kishori’s magic was hidden in her surmandal. She would tune it with marvellous precision as if a digital tuner was used. But there were no tuning gadgets. Everything was in her mind. The surmandal is floating in an ocean. The pressure of waves and water is plucking its strings — that’s the feeling she would create by plucking her surmandal.
Kishori, like other stalwarts, had the rare ability to put soul in any raga that she would attempt. In the presence of creators like Amir Khan and Bade Ghulam Ali, she had proven that raga Sampoorna Malkauns belonged to her — just like hunsdhun belonged to Amir Khan and Thumris belonged to Bade Ghulam Ali. Nobody could initiate, expand and conclude Sampoorna Malkauns the way Kishori did. It is literally impossible to present it without repeating Kishori’s phrases.
I got second CD of Kishori from my former boss and friend Ali Tauqeer Sheikh — the climate change expert. She had vocalized lalit pancham. I have played it hundreds of times during the last 16 years. Each time, it would evoke new feelings. Her Bageshri’s bandish Aj Saio Na Jai Birha is full of pathos of somebody’s loneliness. It seems you are listening to the voice of a goddess which is filled with unfulfillable longing.
When Kishori was a new entrant, the world of classical music was being ruled by Bade Ghulam Ali and Amir Khan. Everybody was following them. But Kishori chose her own path. Play the recordings of the three geniuses and you can easily distinguish the traits and intonation styles. Creating a third school of thought in the presence of Amir Khan and Bade Ghulam Ali seemed impossible but she did it. Kishori’s student Arati must be hailed for the same reason. During the life of her guru, she carved her own identity. The credit also goes to Kishori — for imparting the authentic knowledge, which the so-called maestros hide these days.
Source: dailytimes.com.pk/opinion/05-Apr-17/kishori-amonkar-lives-on
----
Bilawal Needs To Reinvent Bhutto
By J K Wali
05-Apr-17
Reinventing a name bigger than the party itself is a precarious task, but one that is needed for the PPP to have any relevance in future politics
The death anniversary of PPP Founder Zulfikar Ali Bhutto was commemorated by the party leaders yesterday with usual rhetoric and populist slogans that ceased being popular decades ago. ‘Zinda hai Bhutto zinda hai,’ once an invigorating rallying cry for the nation being suffocated under military regimes, has now become its own spoof.
The PPP has lived long enough for these chants long affiliated with not only the party but democracy itself, to metamorphose into jibes hurled by the party detractors. And the biggest tragedy is that this materialised within a couple of years of Benazir Bhutto’s death — such was the wretched level of governance that Pakistan had to endure for the five years (2008-2013) of the PPP.
When Benazir was alive, she successfully merged the larger-than-life character of her father with hers, maintaining the electoral value of brand Bhutto even when the Sharifs had detached themselves from Zia’s lap and well and truly arrived at the scene. But following BB’s murder, the PPP lacked that magnanimous, charismatic figure that commanded authority all the while aligning themselves with the party’s grassroots.
Even though Bilawal has the potential, the electoral challenges he and his party have in store are more colossal than what his mother or grandfather had to overcome — at least post 1971.
For starters, neither Benazir nor Zulfikar inherited any backlog of disastrous party policies or electoral failures. In fact, both of them, for the major chunk of their political careers were considered synonymous with democracy itself. Even with the emergence of the PML-N in the 90s, the PPP always maintained its aura of ‘true democrats’ against the peddled ‘military offspring.’
Bilawal, however, has to contend with a PML-N stronger than ever in the country, especially in Punjab and the rise of PTI that has supplanted the PPP as the second biggest party in the country right now. That means that verbal onslaught against the military or self-identifying as champions of democracy is no longer sufficient if PPP is to survive, let alone have any aspirations of ruling the centre in the next two decades.
Of course, the PPP without Bhutto slogans would lose whatever support it has in rural Sindh and hence can’t really do away with it. But rest assured, Punjab isn’t buying brand Bhutto’s merchandise anytime soon. Unless the brand is reinvented.
Whatever buyers Bhutto’s simplistic version of socialism had, were further alienated following Zia’s Islamisation of Pakistan. Notwithstanding Bhutto’s own legislation to excommunicate Ahmadis, PPP’s claims of being a secular party were shattered after its reaction to the murder of Salmaan Taseer in 2011. Nawaz Sharif has since taken up the gauntlet, presenting a secular and liberal vision for Pakistan in words and some progressive legislations. And with the PPP no longer equated with democracy, it has run out of any ideologies it could claim to represent.
Maybe then the PPP needs to follow PML-N and PTI and cease being an ideological party at all. With Pakistani politics not mature enough to support parties demarcated along ideological lines, the only options any aspirants have are populism and performance. The PTI and PML-N, currently have the dibs on the former and latter respectively.
This leaves PPP with the need to merge the two and reform its populism that has banked on Bhutto’s name for decades. If Bhutto can’t be sold as democracy incarnate, then he has to evolve into something more relevant.
For example, the harbinger of Muslim unity who got the Muslim states together in the 70s, four decades before the current model of the Saudi-led Islamic military alliance. This would give him Pan-Islamic appeal as a kind of leader the Muslim world needs right now amidst the many continued predicaments.
To avoid being categorised as mullah appeasers, or Islamists, and to reclaim the liberal vote bank that it is increasingly losing to PML-N (via PTI), Bhutto could be modelled as the ideal Muslim statesman who integrated the Islamic world while upholding the religious minorities as pivotal for the progress of any Muslim state.
Similarly, Bhutto’s role as the ‘saviour of Pakistan’, the founding father of the post-1971 Pakistan, could be highlighted even more. The martyrdom for democracy should be reconsidered for a more direct claim of sacrifice for the masses.
But, of course, this populism needs to be coupled with performance as well. To consolidate rural Sindh, the PPP needs to reconnect with the grassroots and win the party workers again, especially in Punjab. This is where Bilawal needs to invest most of his energy over the next six years, to have a better shot at the elections after next, with any realistic chance at forming the federal government over a decade away.
Revamping a name bigger than the party itself is a precarious task, but one that is needed for the party to have any relevance in future politics. Bilawal needs to reinvent it, for Bhutto to remain alive.
Source: dailytimes.com.pk/opinion/05-Apr-17/bilawal-needs-to-reinvent-bhutto
----
Russia Needs A Helping Hand!
By Iqbal Khan
April 5, 2017
RUSSIA is well on its way to take the lead role in determining how Afghanistan may look like, or may not look like, in medium to long timeframe. It had put in lot of home-work during the period of uncertainties thrown up by American electoral campaign. Now it is cashing on a sympathetic American President. Two earlier smaller level— 4 and 6 nations— consultative meetings have now matured into a Russia (may be China also) led multi-national peace initiative on Afghanistan.
Pakistan will attend forthcoming twelve party conference; Russia has invited representatives of Afghan Taliban as well. Conference shall focus on coming forth with ways and means to bring the Afghan conflict to a close. Beside the host, meeting shall be attended by Pakistan, China, Iran, India and several Central Asian states. America has turned down invitation, on the flimsy pretext that it was not consulted in advance; and faithfully towing “Master’s” line Afghan government is also skeptical about Sino-Russian initiative on pretext that is apparently “in tune with Pakistan’s policy”.
Associated Press has reported that the seven-member Taliban team stayed in Pakistan for a week and met officials to discuss peace efforts. Speaking at a weekly news briefing spokesperson of Pakistan Foreign Office has said that he was not in a position to say whether or not Taliban representatives would attend the meeting. “However, Pakistan firmly believes in an Afghan-led peace and reconciliation process, aimed at bringing all warring factions, including the Taliban, to the negotiating table,” he added.” We hope the deliberations in this meeting would be focused on this objective,” the commented added.
During recent months, Russia and China have been spearheading efforts to revive the peace talks between the Taliban and Kabul. Their efforts, however, are being seen with suspicion in the West, especially in the United States. In this part of the World, Russia and China are increasingly concerned that volatile security situation in Afghanistan could allow Daesh to gain foothold in Afghanistan. Recently, US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has also stated that IS was recruiting people from Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq. Pakistan Army on March 30 took a high level Russian military delegation to Miramshah in order to give them the firsthand account of the country’s anti-terror gains. This is the first time a Russian military delegation has been flown to the region. It suggests warming up of ties between the two countries. The delegation was also briefed on the Pak-Afghan border management. The Russian military officials acknowledged and appreciated Pakistan Army’s achievements in the fight against terrorism and efforts to bring stability in the region. Relations between Pakistan and Russia have seen significant improvement over the past few years with both countries looking to bury their animosities of the Cold War era.
During a recent congressional hearing, General Joselg L Votel, Commander of the US Central Command (CENTCOM), narrated before the House Armed Services Committee that Russia was trying to revive its influence in Afghanistan. He also believed that Russia was providing some sort of support to Taliban in terms of weapons and other things. Earlier Pakistan had warned the United States to step in to resolve the lingering stalemate in Afghanistan otherwise Russia will fill the vacuum. Russia certainly has an interest in Afghanistan, may be it wants peace there due to Afghanistan’s borders with its erstwhile former Republics, which it still considers its area of influence. Assessments regarding spillover of Afghan conflict into these republics are not mere speculative. Through its prudent conduct since 9/11 Russia has established its credentials for instituting an initiative for Afghan peace.
Of late, two interesting articles on Afghanistan have appeared in the American media. Both having strikingly similar assessment about the way American military command behaves and misleads its national leadership about “impending victory”. Stephen Walt in his piece, “Mission accomplished will never come in Afghanistan” carried by “Foreign policy” on March 28 has raised a pertinent question: “Will the Trump administration put American interests first, or President’s own obsession with “winning”?”. Drawing an interesting parallel between winning Afghan war with believing that a “sheep could fly”, Walt of is the opinion that if Trump is biased towards a win, military leadership will continue to tell him that sheep would ultimately learn to fly. And” if you were one of commanders who have overseen US military effort in Afghanistan, force of habit and professional culture would nudge you toward saying “can do” and then designing a new campaign in ovine aeronautics”.
While concluding Walt make a pointed reference towards the US National Security Advisor H. R. McMaster who has had :“personal experience in Afghanistan but he is also the author of Dereliction of Duty, a famous study of the US military’s failure to give its civilian overseers accurate and honest advice during the Vietnam War… The question is: At this point, does he appreciate… the impossibility of trying to teach sheep to fly? And if he has figured this out, will he tell the president?” A day later, another opinion was inked by Richard G Olson, “The Art of a Deal with the Taliban”, for New York Times. Olson was the US ambassador to Pakistan( 2012-15) and t Presidential Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan ( 2015-16).In all likelihood caption of his column is inspired by President Trump’s 1987 book: “The Art of the Deal”. In this book, Trump, then 41, explained the power of psychology and deception — calling it “bravado” or “truthful hyperbole”.
Doing the national duty, Olson pleads: “And make no mistake, it is a war…in 2016, [Afghan] government security forces suffered more than 15,000 casualties and more than 5,000 killed…the insurgency is controlling or contesting 149 of the country’s 402 districts….The Taliban now control more territory than at any time since the US invasion in 2001… Taliban recently captured the Sangin district in Helmand…Not surprisingly, the top US commander in Afghanistan is asking for additional reinforcements”. He cautions “Remember: It was generals like Stanley McChrystal who urged Obama to escalate the war in 2009, to little avail”. Guessing Trump’s likely courses, Olson says “Donald Trump has said very little about Afghanistan… But the tea leaves are not encouraging. On one hand…[Trump] might be inclined to cut US losses and get out. But on the other hand, he’s fixated on “winning” and won’t want to enter the history books as the president who let the Taliban best him”. An interesting paradox indeed!
Like Walt, Olson is also convinced that “As long as the president and Congress will go along, in short, the military will continue to kick the can down the road, even if this does not alter the strategic situation in the slightest and continues to distract and divert the country from more pressing tasks”. To conclude, Olson pins on the ultimate hope: “We have a president who believes in the art of a deal. We should negotiate a hard bargain with the Taliban”. America may not be interested in peaceful Afghanistan, peaceful Afghanistan does not suit its ongoing Asia-Pacific theatrics focused at containing China. Russian may be interest in, at least a notionally, stable Afghanistan. May be its time, for the international community to extend a helping hand to Russia.
Source: pakobserver.net/russia-needs-a-helping-hand/
---
EU and Brexit
By Rizwan Ghani
April 5, 201707
TUSK has given EU guideline on ‘How to Brexit’. European Council President said that UK needs to agree on 3 million EU citizens’ rights in UK, accepting its financial contributions to EU, reassurances for businesses about common standards after Brexit and soft border between Irish Republic and Northern Ireland to protect peace as first step towards trade talks between EU and Britain. He said that trade talks could start within six months. This policy has challenged May’s plans of initiating parallel negotiations with EU member states. Tusk said that EU will act as a bloc and policy of divide and rule will not be allowed to be used against the EU.
By autumn, the 27 EU members will assess the progress of the first phase to go to next phase. To avoid any confusion, he said that the EU will veto the Brexit deal if UK signs bilateral deals with the EU member states. It is not going to be easy to uphold this policy because many countries may act in national interest. The unity of Union is under pressure. Sturgeon, has demanded second independence vote in letter to May.
In her letter she formally demanded the Scottish government be granted power to hold fresh vote on Scotland breaking up the UK, Ms Sturgeon told the PM “the question is not if, but how” a second referendum is secured. On Tuesday, the Scottish Parliament backed the first Minister’s call for a second independence referendum less than three years after the 2014 majority ‘No’ vote. Ms Sturgeon wrote: “It is my firm view that mandate of the Scottish Parliament must be respected and progressed. She has hoped for constructive discussion in response to a question but warned that if that is not possible, she will set out to Scottish Parliament the steps she intends to take to ensure that progress is made towards a referendum. May has to come up with real answers to these challenges. Her party and the government is already being accused of being liars. Tusk has laid out the first phase of the EU policy. Ahead of the summit in April, Hollande has asked May to agree to Brexit terms first, then we’ll talk trade. The French president reiterated position of Merkel and Tusk. It is opined that the major EU powers will hold on to this position for now.
Britain has issued ‘Great Repel Bill’ to deal with the Brexit. The critics have sounded alarm bells over the purpose, powers and practicalities of the bill because it offers little detail and less security. May’s record as Home Secretary has undermined judiciary, justice system of the country. If she gets her way now, most of the laws will be passed without parliamentary approval which will further undermine due process of law and individual freedoms and rights. On the security front, the statement of Fallon, the UK defense secretary, that UK defense role lies with US not EU is going to play into the hands of the EU. He downplayed EU role in NATO ahead of meeting with US counterpart James Mattis. US doesn’t need UK as military power, if UK is one at the global level. So what role Fillion has in mind for UK with US? Is it the role that Blair played in taking UK to Iraq based on lies of WMD? Or carry US policy of perpetual war as oppressive burden on UK’s foreign policy. Fillon’s statement explains London’s anti-Russia stance and May’s pressure on Trump to change its anti-NATO policy.
If UK is going to pursue its own foreign policy on Russia, US and NATO, then it will allow EU to have clear stand on international issues. This will give make China and Russia stronger in the UN and weaken UK’s position at the global level because it will be taken as an ally that will mirror of the US policy. It will weaken UK’s position in the Middle East and Asia which previously used to look to Britain for political and moral support on issues like Palestine, Kashmir and human rights. A lot is going to unfold in weeks and months to come. But what is clear is that average British did not have all this in mind when they voted for Brexit.
Source: pakobserver.net/eu-and-brexit/
---
URL: https://www.newageislam.com/pakistan-press/the-lure-past-glory-new/d/110645