Monday, August 27, 2012
We have a dream!
Sunday, March 25, 2012
US-Israel Nexus: Danger to Peace
by Ishaal Zehra
The headlines of nearly all colossal newspapers carried the same tag line on that particular day, they said “President Barack Obama had a clear message in his speech to the powerful American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) On March 4, 2012: It's war.” Critiques say by addressing this powerful pro-Israel lobby, Obama actually delivered messages to multiple political audiences: Israel, Iran, Jewish voters, a restless Congress, a wary international community and the three Republican presidential contenders in line.
For Iran, President Barack Obama says that he would not hesitate to attack Iran to keep it from getting a nuclear bomb. And for Israel, it’s just a mere hope that his forceful assurance will discourage Israel from launching a unilateral strike that could ignite the Middle East and drag the U.S. into war.
Interestingly, Obama offered the lines Israel wanted to hear, framing the Iranian threat as a problem for the entire world, and asserting Israel's right to defend itself how it sees fit. Alternatively, this tough note can be considered as a whip up to the Republican criticisms that he has been too tough on Israel and too soft on the Islamic republic which according to him has had crossed a red line. But his summing up of speech said the other way, “America's national security is too important. Israel's security is too important," he said, to sustained applause by the crowd. Closing tag of his speech was a line from a predecessor, Theodore Roosevelt, which said: "Speak softly, but carry a big stick."
Earlier, talking to The Atlantic magazine, the American president cautioned that 'when the US says it is unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon, we mean what we say'
In his vociferous remarks on nuclear Iran, Obama told the magazine that Iran and Israel both understand that "a military component" is one of a mix of options for dealing with Iran, along with sanctions and diplomacy. Probably, Pakistan has been warned in harsh words and shown strong displeasure for the IPI pipeline Project just incase Iran does not have any other support in the region. What so ever, at the core it is always United States’s bullish assertion that the United States will never settle for containing a nuclear-armed Iran or fail to defend Israel.
To understand American interests in the region, I would rather mention Mr. M. Hossein Bor’s believe that America has a greater appeal in the region even beyond one can judge. (http://asiapacificreporting.blogspot.com/2012/02/no-peace-in-balochistan-without.html) Pakistan, Iran and China all are connected in this great game. Bor, being the one with deep subject matter expertise in foreign trade and investment in Southwest Asia, perfectly accounts for foreign hands in Balochistan activism. According to Bor, “there are many interrelated issues at play. When one discusses Balochistan, you are discussing a way to contain China. You are also discussing economic relationships between Iran and Pakistan. And, you are talking about energy security for the U.S. and its allies.”
With respect to China, Bor says that the strategic and economic importance of Baluchistan cannot be underestimated: “If (the Chinese) build their port in Gwadar, they will have a land route from Western China to the Indian Ocean. This is of strategic interest to the United States because Chinese ships would have a direct route to China and no longer have to transit past the Indian and American navies. Whereas, talking about Iran: “Iran is an empire and they are using Baloch lands to try to become the dominant regional player. The Iranians are using the Strait of Hormuz as a chokepoint for a huge percentage of the world’s oil. They also are building a pipeline to Pakistan which violates U.N. sanctions. Such growing Iran-Pakistan cooperation is a major concern.” In his mind, an independent Balochistan extending from Karachi to the Strait of Hormuz would not only contain an emerging Iran but also provide a long-term security guarantee against China, Iran, and Pakistan emerging as revisionist maritime powers in the region.
Relating all this together, Iran, Pakistan, China & Afghanistan all are the victims of this game. For Iran, Obama clearly stated that he understood that Israel cannot "tolerate a nuclear weapon in the hands of a regime that denies the Holocaust, threatens to wipe Israel off the map, and sponsors terrorist groups committed to Israel's destruction." where, Israelian PM Netanyahu, before heading to Washington for a meeting with American President, distinctly underlined that Obama had refused to rule out military action, while emphasizing that Israel had the right to "defend itself by itself." For the troubled Pakistan, America has lately been holding a big rigid stick with a proper order chart in hand which she insists to be appropriately followed or else the consequences are severe. The all messed up Afghanistan has already given up in front of United States, whereas China alone is so far the only one playing safe, but stakes are high for China too if considered levelheadedly. At this time the only viable preference would be a likeminded block to oppose America’s supremacy in our region. While Pakistan, China & Iran should collectively craft future plans for energy sharing and economical advancement for the three. Afghanistan may join the team if she wishes too. This would be beneficial for them as well the region as a whole.
http://paktribune.com/articles/US-Israel-Nexus-Danger-to-Peace-242881.html
The headlines of nearly all colossal newspapers carried the same tag line on that particular day, they said “President Barack Obama had a clear message in his speech to the powerful American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) On March 4, 2012: It's war.” Critiques say by addressing this powerful pro-Israel lobby, Obama actually delivered messages to multiple political audiences: Israel, Iran, Jewish voters, a restless Congress, a wary international community and the three Republican presidential contenders in line.
For Iran, President Barack Obama says that he would not hesitate to attack Iran to keep it from getting a nuclear bomb. And for Israel, it’s just a mere hope that his forceful assurance will discourage Israel from launching a unilateral strike that could ignite the Middle East and drag the U.S. into war.
Interestingly, Obama offered the lines Israel wanted to hear, framing the Iranian threat as a problem for the entire world, and asserting Israel's right to defend itself how it sees fit. Alternatively, this tough note can be considered as a whip up to the Republican criticisms that he has been too tough on Israel and too soft on the Islamic republic which according to him has had crossed a red line. But his summing up of speech said the other way, “America's national security is too important. Israel's security is too important," he said, to sustained applause by the crowd. Closing tag of his speech was a line from a predecessor, Theodore Roosevelt, which said: "Speak softly, but carry a big stick."
Earlier, talking to The Atlantic magazine, the American president cautioned that 'when the US says it is unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon, we mean what we say'
In his vociferous remarks on nuclear Iran, Obama told the magazine that Iran and Israel both understand that "a military component" is one of a mix of options for dealing with Iran, along with sanctions and diplomacy. Probably, Pakistan has been warned in harsh words and shown strong displeasure for the IPI pipeline Project just incase Iran does not have any other support in the region. What so ever, at the core it is always United States’s bullish assertion that the United States will never settle for containing a nuclear-armed Iran or fail to defend Israel.
To understand American interests in the region, I would rather mention Mr. M. Hossein Bor’s believe that America has a greater appeal in the region even beyond one can judge. (http://asiapacificreporting.blogspot.com/2012/02/no-peace-in-balochistan-without.html) Pakistan, Iran and China all are connected in this great game. Bor, being the one with deep subject matter expertise in foreign trade and investment in Southwest Asia, perfectly accounts for foreign hands in Balochistan activism. According to Bor, “there are many interrelated issues at play. When one discusses Balochistan, you are discussing a way to contain China. You are also discussing economic relationships between Iran and Pakistan. And, you are talking about energy security for the U.S. and its allies.”
With respect to China, Bor says that the strategic and economic importance of Baluchistan cannot be underestimated: “If (the Chinese) build their port in Gwadar, they will have a land route from Western China to the Indian Ocean. This is of strategic interest to the United States because Chinese ships would have a direct route to China and no longer have to transit past the Indian and American navies. Whereas, talking about Iran: “Iran is an empire and they are using Baloch lands to try to become the dominant regional player. The Iranians are using the Strait of Hormuz as a chokepoint for a huge percentage of the world’s oil. They also are building a pipeline to Pakistan which violates U.N. sanctions. Such growing Iran-Pakistan cooperation is a major concern.” In his mind, an independent Balochistan extending from Karachi to the Strait of Hormuz would not only contain an emerging Iran but also provide a long-term security guarantee against China, Iran, and Pakistan emerging as revisionist maritime powers in the region.
Relating all this together, Iran, Pakistan, China & Afghanistan all are the victims of this game. For Iran, Obama clearly stated that he understood that Israel cannot "tolerate a nuclear weapon in the hands of a regime that denies the Holocaust, threatens to wipe Israel off the map, and sponsors terrorist groups committed to Israel's destruction." where, Israelian PM Netanyahu, before heading to Washington for a meeting with American President, distinctly underlined that Obama had refused to rule out military action, while emphasizing that Israel had the right to "defend itself by itself." For the troubled Pakistan, America has lately been holding a big rigid stick with a proper order chart in hand which she insists to be appropriately followed or else the consequences are severe. The all messed up Afghanistan has already given up in front of United States, whereas China alone is so far the only one playing safe, but stakes are high for China too if considered levelheadedly. At this time the only viable preference would be a likeminded block to oppose America’s supremacy in our region. While Pakistan, China & Iran should collectively craft future plans for energy sharing and economical advancement for the three. Afghanistan may join the team if she wishes too. This would be beneficial for them as well the region as a whole.
http://paktribune.com/articles/US-Israel-Nexus-Danger-to-Peace-242881.html
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
"US Has Lost Sleep for Balochistan"
Bossy US & Pakistan: No Love Lost
by Ishaal Zehra
Eddie Walsh, foreign correspondent of Al Jazeera English, in his article “Should the US support an independent Balochistan?” interestingly writes “Over the last few months, a small faction of congressmen, minority Afghan groups, Baloch nationalists, and their supporters have laid out the framework for an alternative US policy approach for Southwest Asia. This alternative policy centres on backing remnants of the Northern Alliance and Baloch insurgents, who seek to carve out semi-autonomous territories or independent states from Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iran.
While supporters of this new approach are motivated by a variety of interests, they appear unified in their rejection of what they see as three cornerstones of the Obama administration's current regional policy approach: 1) Normalising relations with Pakistan's government and military; 2) Incorporating the Taliban into the current Afghan political system; 3) Overly accommodating an emerging Iran.”
Although, things might not be evident in their favor today but they seem quite consistent in their approach. They do not (yet) have broad support for their initiative, however the campaign is maturing and garnering increased attention in Congress and beyond. The point can be proved with the three recent high-profile events: a Balochistan National Front strategy session in Berlin, a US congressional hearing on Balochistan, and the introduction of a Baloch self-determination bill before the US Congress.
A glimpse into Balochistan region confirms the large number of militant, insurgent and sectarian attacks in 2010. It is a region torn apart with separatist organisations attacking the state, sectarian and ethnic attacks, and crime, including kidnapping for ransom. The issue of Balochistan is turning sensitive, and this sensitivity comprises of two main reasons. One, the real and unattended grievances of the Baloch people (not the made up one by few Pakistani journalists). Second, hype created by the media, which actually seems in coherent with the greater foreign plan against Pakistan. Media is an instrument which is being exercised by every nation to mould the situations for the purpose of acquiring desired results. Unfortunately, a chunk of Pakistani media is not exercising this approach while dealing with the important and sensitive issues like Balochistan.
Here the role of US is also an interesting point to debate. American double standards are visible as a day light. Surprisingly their lost love for Balochistan is quite evident by their documented resolution. The Representatives from California presented a resolution regarding Balochistan’s precarious condition asks for the independence of Balochistan from Pakistan on the basis of right of self rule, and the bill unexpectedly has been passed by the US Congress.
The congressmen seem quite eager in interfering in Pakistan’s internal issue while on the other hand they have closed their eyes from the real and persistent issue of Kashmir. Point to ponder is as to why Kashmiries have been denied right to independence on the basis of right of self rule? Nobody dares ask India to let the Kashmiries exercise their right to hold free and impartial plebiscite? The reply is simple, Kashmir issue does not fall in between their plan of carving out semi-autonomous territories or independent states from Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iran.
To understand Balochistan, one simply cannot look at it through the Afghanistan-Pakistan (US’s AfPak) box. Mr. M. Hossein Bor, as the only witness of Baloch ethnicity to speak at the recent Balochistan public hearing before the United States Congress, agrees to this. Not only he was the lone witness able to speak as a Baloch, he also was the only one with deep subject matter expertise in foreign trade and investment in Southwest Asia. And interestingly his testimony sheds light on the unrealized strategic and economic opportunities that an independent Baluchistan would provide to Americans, including the ability to contain a rising China and an emerging Iran, prevent an adversarial Pakistan from achieving strategic depth in Afghanistan, and ensure Baloch-American economic prosperity through new energy and mineral resource agreements in future.
The Pakistani Embassy made it clear that “Balochistan’s affairs and issues are an internal matter of Pakistan, and it is for the people of Pakistan and our democratic institutions to address these [issues].”
“We would advise those behind this resolution to reserve their concern and solicitude for problems closer to home. Needless to say, provocations such as these will seriously impact the Pakistan-US relations. We value this relationship but not at the cost of our dignity, sovereignty and territorial integrity,” the Embassy statement added.
locking it up, It’s high time, foreign finger prints traced in Balochistan should be brought upon in media with concrete proves and let the Baloch people know who is playing the game at the cost of their precious blood and national prosperity. And may be Pakistan, Iran & China should also move a symbolic resolution on forceful acceding of California and Texas to Mexico about a century back, after all they are the victims to this great game of great America.
by Ishaal Zehra
Eddie Walsh, foreign correspondent of Al Jazeera English, in his article “Should the US support an independent Balochistan?” interestingly writes “Over the last few months, a small faction of congressmen, minority Afghan groups, Baloch nationalists, and their supporters have laid out the framework for an alternative US policy approach for Southwest Asia. This alternative policy centres on backing remnants of the Northern Alliance and Baloch insurgents, who seek to carve out semi-autonomous territories or independent states from Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iran.
While supporters of this new approach are motivated by a variety of interests, they appear unified in their rejection of what they see as three cornerstones of the Obama administration's current regional policy approach: 1) Normalising relations with Pakistan's government and military; 2) Incorporating the Taliban into the current Afghan political system; 3) Overly accommodating an emerging Iran.”
Although, things might not be evident in their favor today but they seem quite consistent in their approach. They do not (yet) have broad support for their initiative, however the campaign is maturing and garnering increased attention in Congress and beyond. The point can be proved with the three recent high-profile events: a Balochistan National Front strategy session in Berlin, a US congressional hearing on Balochistan, and the introduction of a Baloch self-determination bill before the US Congress.
A glimpse into Balochistan region confirms the large number of militant, insurgent and sectarian attacks in 2010. It is a region torn apart with separatist organisations attacking the state, sectarian and ethnic attacks, and crime, including kidnapping for ransom. The issue of Balochistan is turning sensitive, and this sensitivity comprises of two main reasons. One, the real and unattended grievances of the Baloch people (not the made up one by few Pakistani journalists). Second, hype created by the media, which actually seems in coherent with the greater foreign plan against Pakistan. Media is an instrument which is being exercised by every nation to mould the situations for the purpose of acquiring desired results. Unfortunately, a chunk of Pakistani media is not exercising this approach while dealing with the important and sensitive issues like Balochistan.
Here the role of US is also an interesting point to debate. American double standards are visible as a day light. Surprisingly their lost love for Balochistan is quite evident by their documented resolution. The Representatives from California presented a resolution regarding Balochistan’s precarious condition asks for the independence of Balochistan from Pakistan on the basis of right of self rule, and the bill unexpectedly has been passed by the US Congress.
The congressmen seem quite eager in interfering in Pakistan’s internal issue while on the other hand they have closed their eyes from the real and persistent issue of Kashmir. Point to ponder is as to why Kashmiries have been denied right to independence on the basis of right of self rule? Nobody dares ask India to let the Kashmiries exercise their right to hold free and impartial plebiscite? The reply is simple, Kashmir issue does not fall in between their plan of carving out semi-autonomous territories or independent states from Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iran.
To understand Balochistan, one simply cannot look at it through the Afghanistan-Pakistan (US’s AfPak) box. Mr. M. Hossein Bor, as the only witness of Baloch ethnicity to speak at the recent Balochistan public hearing before the United States Congress, agrees to this. Not only he was the lone witness able to speak as a Baloch, he also was the only one with deep subject matter expertise in foreign trade and investment in Southwest Asia. And interestingly his testimony sheds light on the unrealized strategic and economic opportunities that an independent Baluchistan would provide to Americans, including the ability to contain a rising China and an emerging Iran, prevent an adversarial Pakistan from achieving strategic depth in Afghanistan, and ensure Baloch-American economic prosperity through new energy and mineral resource agreements in future.
The Pakistani Embassy made it clear that “Balochistan’s affairs and issues are an internal matter of Pakistan, and it is for the people of Pakistan and our democratic institutions to address these [issues].”
“We would advise those behind this resolution to reserve their concern and solicitude for problems closer to home. Needless to say, provocations such as these will seriously impact the Pakistan-US relations. We value this relationship but not at the cost of our dignity, sovereignty and territorial integrity,” the Embassy statement added.
locking it up, It’s high time, foreign finger prints traced in Balochistan should be brought upon in media with concrete proves and let the Baloch people know who is playing the game at the cost of their precious blood and national prosperity. And may be Pakistan, Iran & China should also move a symbolic resolution on forceful acceding of California and Texas to Mexico about a century back, after all they are the victims to this great game of great America.
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Indo-Afghan Strategic Pact and Regional Stability by Afia Ambreen
The strategic partnership agreement signed by Afghanistan and India during Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s visit to New Delhi has decisively puts India in the centre stage of the endgame in Afghanistan as it awaits the US and NATO to pull out of that country by 2014.
The emergence of India as a major player in determining the post-ISAF future of Afghanistan is a severe setback to the security of Pakistan’s western border. The agreement contains a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on cooperation in the field of mineral resource development that should upstage China; Indian commitment to assist in training, equipping and capacity building programmes for Afghan security forces and finally the commitment to strengthening trade, economic, scientific and technological cooperation with the landlocked Afghanistan. All of these have, in one way or other, a bearing on national and strategic interests of Pakistan in particular and China in general.
After more than two decades of being virtually marginalised in Afghan affairs, India has made a diffident entry in the wake of ouster of Taleban in 2001 by the US. The Americans initially did not encourage upfront Indian involvement and let it focus on “soft power” — economic aid and trade as one of the largest donors pledging $2 billion for building roads, hospitals, schools and parliament house. Indian PM Manmohan Singh envisioned “Afghanistan’s economic integration with the Indian economy”. The accord signals India’s push for huge oil and mining assets of Afghanistan where China has also shown interest. Singh also hoped that both countries would try to operationalise their trilateral MoU signed with Iran to end Afghanistan’s landlocked isolation and dependence on Pakistan to reach the sea. It brightens India’s chances of bagging a lucrative mining contract for Hajigak, said to be the region’s largest untapped reserve of iron ore, and provides an opportunity to hunt for oil in northern Afghanistan.
The emerging scenario in Afghanistan doesn’t auger well for Pakistan. This was amply reflected in IG FC Maj-Gen Obaidullah Khan Kattak recent address in which he said that India and other foreign intelligence agencies are involved in subversive activities aimed at destabilising Balochistan. Addressing a press conference at FC Headquarters on Friday, he said, “It’s not a groundless accusation, we have solid proof of Indian involvement.” He further informed, “Afghanistan’s soil is being used for subversive activities in Balochistan. We are not blaming Afghanistan rather we have concrete evidences in this regard… We have taken up this issue with Afghan government, NATO and ISAF while Afghan government has assured us of complete cooperation.” The Indian subversive activities in Balochistan have gone unobserved for a long time but now enough evidence is available to indict the Indian government and military for indulging in worst forms of terror breeding. If truth be told, Afghanistan has become the new battle ground for a 64 year old proxy war between India and Pakistan. Both surprising and worrisome, India has emerged as a major proactive player this time. Over the past seven years, she has moved aggressively by offering a range of assistance projects of over $1.5 bn and establishing diplomatic missions throughout Afghanistan. Taking advantage of impoverishment of Afghanistan, New Delhi deployed 4000 spies under the garb of Indian doctors, engineers, scientists, executives and labourers etc. India is also providing well-coordinated military supplies to the northern alliance through the air base in Tajikistan. This includes weapons, equipment and spare parts aimed at strengthening the anti-Pakistan elements and instability in Afghanistan on boil. The Indian footprints in Swat and the Pakistani tribal belt includes Indian currency, Indian bullets, Indian small and heavy explosives, blood banks and all supportive products i.e. special hideouts like tunnels, caves, underground passages to help sustain a long-term war. This technology cannot be available to amateur fighters.
Since Afghanistan is transitioning from insurgency to civil war, an enhanced Indian security presence would only add to the deteriorating situation of security in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The very presence of an Indian force will be a magnet for renewed attacks on foreign forces in Afghanistan and cross-border terrorist activities. Ms. Christine Fair of RAND Corporation unearthing some facts about the Indian consulates in Afghanistan and Iran stated that “it would be a mistake to completely disregard Pakistan’s regional perceptions due to doubts about Indian competence in executing covert operations. That misses the point entirely. And I think it’s unfair to dismiss the notion that Pakistan’s apprehensions about Afghanistan stem in part from its security competition with India. Having visited the Indian mission in Zahedan, Iran, I can assure you that they are not issuing visas as the main activity! Moreover, India has run operations from its mission in Mazar and is like doing so from the other consulates it has reopened in Jalalabad and Qandahar along the border. Indian officials have told me privately that they are pumping money into Baluchistan”. The leading newspaper of Sri Lanka, Daily Mirror, while criticizing the role of Indian intelligence agency RAW, states that among its most ambitious operations that are currently underway, is the move to separate Baluchistan province from Pakistan by supporting the rogue elements. The idea behind Indian intervention into Afghanistan is to keep Pakistan and its intelligence agency on the defensive by fictionalizing and alleging its hand in supporting Taliban or Al-Qaeda militants. That is why, while Pakistan is doing utmost in controlling the state of affairs on border with Afghanistan, it is falling prey to the complex game India is playing to destabilize Pakistan in order to expand beyond its borders and create hegemony in the region.
In a nutshell, Indian presence in Afghanistan whether diplomatic or economic has less to do with reconstruction and more to do with keeping the turf conducive for the workings of RAW against Pakistan. Likewise, New Delhi’s seriousness to increase its military presence in Afghanistan has exposed its hollowness and duplicity for orchestrating the nefarious act. India’s military intervention would only serve its expansionist pursuit while keeping Afghanistan on boil. It is for international community to realize that the security situation and insurgency issue in Afghanistan are not going to be solved until the Indian influence on the Afghan government is neutralized.
The emergence of India as a major player in determining the post-ISAF future of Afghanistan is a severe setback to the security of Pakistan’s western border. The agreement contains a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on cooperation in the field of mineral resource development that should upstage China; Indian commitment to assist in training, equipping and capacity building programmes for Afghan security forces and finally the commitment to strengthening trade, economic, scientific and technological cooperation with the landlocked Afghanistan. All of these have, in one way or other, a bearing on national and strategic interests of Pakistan in particular and China in general.
After more than two decades of being virtually marginalised in Afghan affairs, India has made a diffident entry in the wake of ouster of Taleban in 2001 by the US. The Americans initially did not encourage upfront Indian involvement and let it focus on “soft power” — economic aid and trade as one of the largest donors pledging $2 billion for building roads, hospitals, schools and parliament house. Indian PM Manmohan Singh envisioned “Afghanistan’s economic integration with the Indian economy”. The accord signals India’s push for huge oil and mining assets of Afghanistan where China has also shown interest. Singh also hoped that both countries would try to operationalise their trilateral MoU signed with Iran to end Afghanistan’s landlocked isolation and dependence on Pakistan to reach the sea. It brightens India’s chances of bagging a lucrative mining contract for Hajigak, said to be the region’s largest untapped reserve of iron ore, and provides an opportunity to hunt for oil in northern Afghanistan.
The emerging scenario in Afghanistan doesn’t auger well for Pakistan. This was amply reflected in IG FC Maj-Gen Obaidullah Khan Kattak recent address in which he said that India and other foreign intelligence agencies are involved in subversive activities aimed at destabilising Balochistan. Addressing a press conference at FC Headquarters on Friday, he said, “It’s not a groundless accusation, we have solid proof of Indian involvement.” He further informed, “Afghanistan’s soil is being used for subversive activities in Balochistan. We are not blaming Afghanistan rather we have concrete evidences in this regard… We have taken up this issue with Afghan government, NATO and ISAF while Afghan government has assured us of complete cooperation.” The Indian subversive activities in Balochistan have gone unobserved for a long time but now enough evidence is available to indict the Indian government and military for indulging in worst forms of terror breeding. If truth be told, Afghanistan has become the new battle ground for a 64 year old proxy war between India and Pakistan. Both surprising and worrisome, India has emerged as a major proactive player this time. Over the past seven years, she has moved aggressively by offering a range of assistance projects of over $1.5 bn and establishing diplomatic missions throughout Afghanistan. Taking advantage of impoverishment of Afghanistan, New Delhi deployed 4000 spies under the garb of Indian doctors, engineers, scientists, executives and labourers etc. India is also providing well-coordinated military supplies to the northern alliance through the air base in Tajikistan. This includes weapons, equipment and spare parts aimed at strengthening the anti-Pakistan elements and instability in Afghanistan on boil. The Indian footprints in Swat and the Pakistani tribal belt includes Indian currency, Indian bullets, Indian small and heavy explosives, blood banks and all supportive products i.e. special hideouts like tunnels, caves, underground passages to help sustain a long-term war. This technology cannot be available to amateur fighters.
Since Afghanistan is transitioning from insurgency to civil war, an enhanced Indian security presence would only add to the deteriorating situation of security in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The very presence of an Indian force will be a magnet for renewed attacks on foreign forces in Afghanistan and cross-border terrorist activities. Ms. Christine Fair of RAND Corporation unearthing some facts about the Indian consulates in Afghanistan and Iran stated that “it would be a mistake to completely disregard Pakistan’s regional perceptions due to doubts about Indian competence in executing covert operations. That misses the point entirely. And I think it’s unfair to dismiss the notion that Pakistan’s apprehensions about Afghanistan stem in part from its security competition with India. Having visited the Indian mission in Zahedan, Iran, I can assure you that they are not issuing visas as the main activity! Moreover, India has run operations from its mission in Mazar and is like doing so from the other consulates it has reopened in Jalalabad and Qandahar along the border. Indian officials have told me privately that they are pumping money into Baluchistan”. The leading newspaper of Sri Lanka, Daily Mirror, while criticizing the role of Indian intelligence agency RAW, states that among its most ambitious operations that are currently underway, is the move to separate Baluchistan province from Pakistan by supporting the rogue elements. The idea behind Indian intervention into Afghanistan is to keep Pakistan and its intelligence agency on the defensive by fictionalizing and alleging its hand in supporting Taliban or Al-Qaeda militants. That is why, while Pakistan is doing utmost in controlling the state of affairs on border with Afghanistan, it is falling prey to the complex game India is playing to destabilize Pakistan in order to expand beyond its borders and create hegemony in the region.
In a nutshell, Indian presence in Afghanistan whether diplomatic or economic has less to do with reconstruction and more to do with keeping the turf conducive for the workings of RAW against Pakistan. Likewise, New Delhi’s seriousness to increase its military presence in Afghanistan has exposed its hollowness and duplicity for orchestrating the nefarious act. India’s military intervention would only serve its expansionist pursuit while keeping Afghanistan on boil. It is for international community to realize that the security situation and insurgency issue in Afghanistan are not going to be solved until the Indian influence on the Afghan government is neutralized.
A new chapter in peace process by Dr. Raja Muhammad Khan
According to ‘The Economic Times’, “The chemistry between Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and his Pakistani counterpart Yousaf Raza Gilani seems to work for the volatile India-Pakistan relations.” Indeed, the process of composite dialogue between nuclear armed South Asian neighbours initiated in 1997 and revived in 2004, got derailed following the Mumbai terror attacks of November 26, 2009.
Thereafter, India maintained its pressure on Pakistan for its alleged linkages with the militants operating in India. Pakistan, however, denied this and maintained that, it condemned all terrorist acts committed by any one and rejected any linkage with any militant group. In an environment of accusations and counter accusations, Prime Minister Gillani and his Indian counterpart, Dr Manmohan Singh had a meeting on the sidelines of NAM in Sharm-el-Sheikh, the Egyptian picnic resort in July 2009. This meeting proved as the melting of ice in the Indo-Pak bilateral tense relationship. It was for the first time after Mumbai attacks that, India agreed to delink the cross border terrorism from peace process. Though, the chemistry of this changed Indian stance was different, which rather compelled her to keep silent thereafter. Nevertheless, the diplomatic channels remained operative for the improvement of bilateral relations thereafter, and with little constraints, the process made its way forward.
The Thimphu round of SAARC, (16th SAARC Summit), held in April 2010, further reinforced the peace initiatives, started at Sharm-el-Sheikh between both countries. From Thimphu to Addu, both countries travelled a long distance with lot of CBMs. Apart from the foreign and interior secretaries’ level meetings, there have been ministerial meetings of both countries. So much so, Pakistan has granted MFN status to India before the 17th Summit of SAARC. Indian Prime Minister Dr Singh declared his Pakistani counterpart as the, “Man of peace” and said that, “We have wasted a lot of time in acrimonious debate in the past. The time has come to write a new chapter in relations between India and Pakistan.” He was optimistic of the dialogue process commenced, after the Thimphu moot and emphasized to do more in the coming days for furthering this peace initiative.
Pakistani Premier, Mr Gillani, declared his meeting with his Indian counter part as productive one and said, “We had a good meeting. I hope the next round of talks will be more constructive and open a new chapter in relations between the two countries.” Mr. Gillani said that, during his meeting with Dr. Singh, they had a detailed discussion on all issues, including core issues related to “water, terror, Sir Creek and Siachen.” Either by design or just as a coincidence, the Premier did not make a mention of Jammu and Kashmir issue; indeed, the mother of all issues and the root cause of Indo-Pak sixty-four years of rivalry. Except Sir Creek, all other issues indeed, emanates from Kashmir dispute, thus its resolution is more important before other issues. Indeed, most of other issues would automatically be resolved, if Kashmir issue is settled as per the wishes of its people.
Notwithstanding the microbes, the warmth in the Indo-Pak relationship is really an encouraging step and would be a great confidence building for the region as a whole. Indeed, ever since of decolonization, South Asia has been hostage of Indo-Pak rivalry. Unlike European Union (EU), and ASEAN, the region could not be integrated economically, politically or from security perspective. Resultantly, nothing could be done for the betterment of its inhabitants, forming a sizable portion of the global population. Today, majority of the world’s poor people live in South Asia. Even India has over 50% poor, if global standard of poverty are applied there. Pakistan and other South Asians have almost similar statistics of poverty. Would this beginning of a new chapter in the bilateral relationship of India and Pakistan is really going to change the destinies of 1.4 billion people of South Asia, or fell prey of another 26/11, is quite premature to comment upon. However, one can hope and pray for the best. Nevertheless, this is for sure that, if the leadership of both countries is determined, sincere and visionary, there is no way that, peace and stability of the region can be derailed. This would provide opportunities for economic well being and social integration among South Asian communities. In fact, a perpetual peace and stability would give way to economic prosperity of the region, the most needed factor for the poverty alleviation from the South Asia.
The question mark for a meaning end to this promising beginning is that, do the Indo-Pak leadership really serious to redress the grievances of those, who have been deprived of their basic right to live with freedom, as enshrined in UN Charter. Really they have made up their minds to address the root causes of wars, rivalries and confrontations. Without this preliminary phase, promotion of bilateral trade and commerce may be a temporary phase. Indeed, redressing the core issues, would not allow the non-state actors to through a spoiler for the repeat of incidents like; the 26/11 or attack on India Parliament of December 13, 2001, causing mass mobilization of two nuclear rivals. At times it appears as if the Indo-Pak leadership is mounting on a tree from its top, through weak branches and leaves, rather through a strong stem.
Would the weak top bears the heavy load of South Asian heavy weights, is really a big question mark. It is not that, I am opposing the peace process, but, has not such initiatives proved sand dunes in the past? After all, this is not the first beginning of Indo-Pak peace process in their sixty-four years of independent history. Moreover, through cosmetic measures, let us not befool 1.4 billion people of South Asia. Therefore, let us be realistic in our approach and accept the harsh ground realities for a better South Asian future with peace and stability as its destiny.
For a durable peace in South Asia, we cannot buy the themes which say; “let us promote trade and commerce between India and Pakistan, and leave the resolution of Core issue (Kashmir issue) to our future generation.” Do we really desire that our future generations should suffer too?
Thereafter, India maintained its pressure on Pakistan for its alleged linkages with the militants operating in India. Pakistan, however, denied this and maintained that, it condemned all terrorist acts committed by any one and rejected any linkage with any militant group. In an environment of accusations and counter accusations, Prime Minister Gillani and his Indian counterpart, Dr Manmohan Singh had a meeting on the sidelines of NAM in Sharm-el-Sheikh, the Egyptian picnic resort in July 2009. This meeting proved as the melting of ice in the Indo-Pak bilateral tense relationship. It was for the first time after Mumbai attacks that, India agreed to delink the cross border terrorism from peace process. Though, the chemistry of this changed Indian stance was different, which rather compelled her to keep silent thereafter. Nevertheless, the diplomatic channels remained operative for the improvement of bilateral relations thereafter, and with little constraints, the process made its way forward.
The Thimphu round of SAARC, (16th SAARC Summit), held in April 2010, further reinforced the peace initiatives, started at Sharm-el-Sheikh between both countries. From Thimphu to Addu, both countries travelled a long distance with lot of CBMs. Apart from the foreign and interior secretaries’ level meetings, there have been ministerial meetings of both countries. So much so, Pakistan has granted MFN status to India before the 17th Summit of SAARC. Indian Prime Minister Dr Singh declared his Pakistani counterpart as the, “Man of peace” and said that, “We have wasted a lot of time in acrimonious debate in the past. The time has come to write a new chapter in relations between India and Pakistan.” He was optimistic of the dialogue process commenced, after the Thimphu moot and emphasized to do more in the coming days for furthering this peace initiative.
Pakistani Premier, Mr Gillani, declared his meeting with his Indian counter part as productive one and said, “We had a good meeting. I hope the next round of talks will be more constructive and open a new chapter in relations between the two countries.” Mr. Gillani said that, during his meeting with Dr. Singh, they had a detailed discussion on all issues, including core issues related to “water, terror, Sir Creek and Siachen.” Either by design or just as a coincidence, the Premier did not make a mention of Jammu and Kashmir issue; indeed, the mother of all issues and the root cause of Indo-Pak sixty-four years of rivalry. Except Sir Creek, all other issues indeed, emanates from Kashmir dispute, thus its resolution is more important before other issues. Indeed, most of other issues would automatically be resolved, if Kashmir issue is settled as per the wishes of its people.
Notwithstanding the microbes, the warmth in the Indo-Pak relationship is really an encouraging step and would be a great confidence building for the region as a whole. Indeed, ever since of decolonization, South Asia has been hostage of Indo-Pak rivalry. Unlike European Union (EU), and ASEAN, the region could not be integrated economically, politically or from security perspective. Resultantly, nothing could be done for the betterment of its inhabitants, forming a sizable portion of the global population. Today, majority of the world’s poor people live in South Asia. Even India has over 50% poor, if global standard of poverty are applied there. Pakistan and other South Asians have almost similar statistics of poverty. Would this beginning of a new chapter in the bilateral relationship of India and Pakistan is really going to change the destinies of 1.4 billion people of South Asia, or fell prey of another 26/11, is quite premature to comment upon. However, one can hope and pray for the best. Nevertheless, this is for sure that, if the leadership of both countries is determined, sincere and visionary, there is no way that, peace and stability of the region can be derailed. This would provide opportunities for economic well being and social integration among South Asian communities. In fact, a perpetual peace and stability would give way to economic prosperity of the region, the most needed factor for the poverty alleviation from the South Asia.
The question mark for a meaning end to this promising beginning is that, do the Indo-Pak leadership really serious to redress the grievances of those, who have been deprived of their basic right to live with freedom, as enshrined in UN Charter. Really they have made up their minds to address the root causes of wars, rivalries and confrontations. Without this preliminary phase, promotion of bilateral trade and commerce may be a temporary phase. Indeed, redressing the core issues, would not allow the non-state actors to through a spoiler for the repeat of incidents like; the 26/11 or attack on India Parliament of December 13, 2001, causing mass mobilization of two nuclear rivals. At times it appears as if the Indo-Pak leadership is mounting on a tree from its top, through weak branches and leaves, rather through a strong stem.
Would the weak top bears the heavy load of South Asian heavy weights, is really a big question mark. It is not that, I am opposing the peace process, but, has not such initiatives proved sand dunes in the past? After all, this is not the first beginning of Indo-Pak peace process in their sixty-four years of independent history. Moreover, through cosmetic measures, let us not befool 1.4 billion people of South Asia. Therefore, let us be realistic in our approach and accept the harsh ground realities for a better South Asian future with peace and stability as its destiny.
For a durable peace in South Asia, we cannot buy the themes which say; “let us promote trade and commerce between India and Pakistan, and leave the resolution of Core issue (Kashmir issue) to our future generation.” Do we really desire that our future generations should suffer too?
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
Our ‘ally from hell’: a rejoinder to US hawks
Shireen M Mazari
The Atlantic and the National Journal last week published a story on Pakistan’s nuclear weapons with the title “The Ally from Hell” and proceeded to create the usual scare about our weapons safety and the jihadists waiting to grab these national assets - or even a worse nightmare for the US, the military turning into a jihadist combine controlling these weapons.
Of course there is nothing new in these assertions which emanate from the US periodically - especially in times of worsening relations with Pakistan. One knows only too well the link between the US media and the US state and it is not a point on which more proof is needed. The present story’s timing again coincides with the Pakistan military seeking to delink from the US on certain policy issues as well as President Zardari’s now notorious memo asking the US to save him in power from the Pakistan military in return for total subjugation alongside the destruction of Pakistan’s military intelligence especially the ISI - the permanent bete noir of the Yanks despite the excessive cooperation ISI has been meting out to the US military!
One needs to look at the absurdity of some of the more “serious” and certainly wilder allegations contained in the article. After checking up carefully I discovered that neither the authors nor any other stringer linked to the relevant publications actually talked to or interviewed anyone in SPD or GHQ. Yet a reference is made to General Kayani in the article almost as if the authors witnessed him calling General Kidwai after the Abbottabad incident! This is just one of the many imaginary flights of fancy the article contains.
There is the usual mantra of how the world is anxious about the security of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons and, according to the authors, with good reason because Pakistan is “the epicentre of global jihadism” - of course who fanned it in the aftermath of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan is not mentioned - and foremost supplier of nuclear technology to Iran and North Korea! It is ironic that Pakistan is consistently being accused of supplying North Korea with uranium enrichment technology even though the Korean nuclear programme was plutonium based! As for Iran, it continues to assert that it is seeking peaceful nuclear energy and remains interacting with the IAEA despite the new IAEA chief’s submission to US diktat.
Of course at the end of the day Pakistan broke no international commitments in the alleged supply of nuclear technological information to other countries especially since our programme was also a clandestine one at that time. Again the issue of who is supplying dual use technology to India right now against its NPT commitments and who are the Western states who helped build Israel’s clandestine nuclear programme is something that none of the so-called investigative journalists from the West, especially the US, ever want to discuss in the context of nuclear proliferation.
As for the security of a country’s nuclear arsenal, the US journalists really should examine their own country’s dismal record with planes taking off with live nukes and no one knowing how it happened and where they went! Again, nuclear accidents like Three Mile Island have also happened on US territory. So it would appear if anyone is going to steal nukes the US sites may be the most vulnerable!
The authors also write as if they are privy to information that so far the US government itself does not have - that “these weapons are stored on bases and in facilities spread across the country (possibly including one within several miles of Abbottabad...).” Interesting how they have information that foreign governments do not have despite the US trying for years to gain definitive locations of our nukes!
Then comes the real clincher - what is really eating up the US and Israel: that Pakistan, as the authors point out, “is the only Muslim-majority state, out of the 50 or so in the world, to have successfully developed nuclear weapons”.
Then we have the usual accusations of how the Pakistan military and security services are totally infiltrated by jihadis and their sympathizers - of course this must be a conclusion drawn from the US experience where the US military and administration are totally infiltrated by Zionists and their sympathizers and at present that goes right to the top to President Obama himself.
The icing on the cake is the cited assertion by Graham Allison. His assertions in this article are more amusing than rational. His first assertion that terrorists would steal a nuke and take it to New York makes no sense unless the nuke is stolen from a US site since no terrorist can carry a radioactive weapon through the various security checks and arrive safely carting the weapon to New York. Figure it out! His second assertion is equally mind boggling - that a jihadi group would transfer a nuclear weapon to Iran. Why? Iran has no delivery systems to target the US! Also the jihadi groups being talked about are diehard anti-Shia so why would they give this nuke “gift” to Iran and why would Iran want to deal with such people? There is no evidence for any of these assertions. Allison’s third assertion plays on the instability of the Pakistani state that is the present US mantra - that a militant group would takeover nuclear weapons during “a period of instability or splintering of the state.” Well Allison better tell the US not to attempt such a move in Pakistan; but on a more serious note the fact of the matter is that so far our nukes are more secure than US nukes and militants have enough lethality in terms of conventional weapons as has sadly been shown.
The authors do assert that Pakistan’s weapons are de-mated which seems to reassure them so one would not like to educate them on this issue. But the most hilarious assertion is the claim that Pakistan has begun moving its nukes in “low-security vans on congested roads to hide them from US spy agencies”! Given how the US does not know where the weapons are located, why would we move them in low-security vans and to where?
The whole article, based on conjecture and wild assertions, is meant to target Pakistan and its nuclear assets and is part of a long-term US strategy on this count. The background of the authors is also interesting. Jeffrey Goldberg served in the Israeli Defence Forces and was a prison guard during the First Intifada - so one does not have to imagine too much to understand where he is coming from.
As for Marc Ambinder, the White House correspondent for the National Journal, he has had a psychological battle against obesity and his wife works for the Boston Consulting Group which includes amongst its current and former employees Israel’s extreme right wing leader Benjamin Netanyahu! I rest my case of the US being our “ally from hell”.
The Atlantic and the National Journal last week published a story on Pakistan’s nuclear weapons with the title “The Ally from Hell” and proceeded to create the usual scare about our weapons safety and the jihadists waiting to grab these national assets - or even a worse nightmare for the US, the military turning into a jihadist combine controlling these weapons.
Of course there is nothing new in these assertions which emanate from the US periodically - especially in times of worsening relations with Pakistan. One knows only too well the link between the US media and the US state and it is not a point on which more proof is needed. The present story’s timing again coincides with the Pakistan military seeking to delink from the US on certain policy issues as well as President Zardari’s now notorious memo asking the US to save him in power from the Pakistan military in return for total subjugation alongside the destruction of Pakistan’s military intelligence especially the ISI - the permanent bete noir of the Yanks despite the excessive cooperation ISI has been meting out to the US military!
One needs to look at the absurdity of some of the more “serious” and certainly wilder allegations contained in the article. After checking up carefully I discovered that neither the authors nor any other stringer linked to the relevant publications actually talked to or interviewed anyone in SPD or GHQ. Yet a reference is made to General Kayani in the article almost as if the authors witnessed him calling General Kidwai after the Abbottabad incident! This is just one of the many imaginary flights of fancy the article contains.
There is the usual mantra of how the world is anxious about the security of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons and, according to the authors, with good reason because Pakistan is “the epicentre of global jihadism” - of course who fanned it in the aftermath of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan is not mentioned - and foremost supplier of nuclear technology to Iran and North Korea! It is ironic that Pakistan is consistently being accused of supplying North Korea with uranium enrichment technology even though the Korean nuclear programme was plutonium based! As for Iran, it continues to assert that it is seeking peaceful nuclear energy and remains interacting with the IAEA despite the new IAEA chief’s submission to US diktat.
Of course at the end of the day Pakistan broke no international commitments in the alleged supply of nuclear technological information to other countries especially since our programme was also a clandestine one at that time. Again the issue of who is supplying dual use technology to India right now against its NPT commitments and who are the Western states who helped build Israel’s clandestine nuclear programme is something that none of the so-called investigative journalists from the West, especially the US, ever want to discuss in the context of nuclear proliferation.
As for the security of a country’s nuclear arsenal, the US journalists really should examine their own country’s dismal record with planes taking off with live nukes and no one knowing how it happened and where they went! Again, nuclear accidents like Three Mile Island have also happened on US territory. So it would appear if anyone is going to steal nukes the US sites may be the most vulnerable!
The authors also write as if they are privy to information that so far the US government itself does not have - that “these weapons are stored on bases and in facilities spread across the country (possibly including one within several miles of Abbottabad...).” Interesting how they have information that foreign governments do not have despite the US trying for years to gain definitive locations of our nukes!
Then comes the real clincher - what is really eating up the US and Israel: that Pakistan, as the authors point out, “is the only Muslim-majority state, out of the 50 or so in the world, to have successfully developed nuclear weapons”.
Then we have the usual accusations of how the Pakistan military and security services are totally infiltrated by jihadis and their sympathizers - of course this must be a conclusion drawn from the US experience where the US military and administration are totally infiltrated by Zionists and their sympathizers and at present that goes right to the top to President Obama himself.
The icing on the cake is the cited assertion by Graham Allison. His assertions in this article are more amusing than rational. His first assertion that terrorists would steal a nuke and take it to New York makes no sense unless the nuke is stolen from a US site since no terrorist can carry a radioactive weapon through the various security checks and arrive safely carting the weapon to New York. Figure it out! His second assertion is equally mind boggling - that a jihadi group would transfer a nuclear weapon to Iran. Why? Iran has no delivery systems to target the US! Also the jihadi groups being talked about are diehard anti-Shia so why would they give this nuke “gift” to Iran and why would Iran want to deal with such people? There is no evidence for any of these assertions. Allison’s third assertion plays on the instability of the Pakistani state that is the present US mantra - that a militant group would takeover nuclear weapons during “a period of instability or splintering of the state.” Well Allison better tell the US not to attempt such a move in Pakistan; but on a more serious note the fact of the matter is that so far our nukes are more secure than US nukes and militants have enough lethality in terms of conventional weapons as has sadly been shown.
The authors do assert that Pakistan’s weapons are de-mated which seems to reassure them so one would not like to educate them on this issue. But the most hilarious assertion is the claim that Pakistan has begun moving its nukes in “low-security vans on congested roads to hide them from US spy agencies”! Given how the US does not know where the weapons are located, why would we move them in low-security vans and to where?
The whole article, based on conjecture and wild assertions, is meant to target Pakistan and its nuclear assets and is part of a long-term US strategy on this count. The background of the authors is also interesting. Jeffrey Goldberg served in the Israeli Defence Forces and was a prison guard during the First Intifada - so one does not have to imagine too much to understand where he is coming from.
As for Marc Ambinder, the White House correspondent for the National Journal, he has had a psychological battle against obesity and his wife works for the Boston Consulting Group which includes amongst its current and former employees Israel’s extreme right wing leader Benjamin Netanyahu! I rest my case of the US being our “ally from hell”.
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Absurd Accusations, Pay Nothing
By Ishaal Zehra
Pakistan as a country and Pakistani people as a nation are going through very tough times. John Kerry, the first American politician to visit Pakistan since Osama bin Laden was shot dead in the incident of unilateral action by the US forces on May 2nd 2011, told the country's military and civilian leaders that they could lose billions of dollars in funding if they fail to tackle militant safe havens in the mountainous border areas.
Things have clearly changed after the May 2nd incident of unilateral action in the sovereign independent state of Pakistan, unfortunately, by its own ally in war against terror. How absurd American accusations are that Osama bin Laden was able to hide in the country due to either an official support network or the ‘incompetence’ of Pakistani authorities. Just to let the so-called ally of ours know that we as a nation have full confidence in the high command of the Pakistan Armed Forces and the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). Throwing the entire responsibility on external factors and absolving oneself from any responsibility is absurd as well as ridiculous. Pakistan is not the birthplace of al Qaeda. Taliban and al Qaeda was born in an allusion to US funding for the Afghan mujahidden in the 1980s war against Soviet troops in Afghanistan, it is unfair for Pakistan to own all the blame.
To cover its own failures the US always blamed Pakistan for not doing enough or for harboring terrorists on its soil. These terrorists nurtured by the US for its own objectives and then abandoned could not be get rid off so suddenly. Moreover the high handed US policies and killing of innocent people through indiscriminate bombing made things more difficult and complicated. Intervention in Afghanistan by regional powers like India and Iran further compounded the problem. How can Pakistan overcome such well entrenched insurgents in one of the roughest terrain in the world while its so-called allies and the Afghan government complicated matters and vitiated the atmosphere. This monster of terrorism has engulfed the region and Pakistan is clearly not responsible. Everyone including the US must take its share of responsibility for its own failings.
The contribution of this country in the US-led war against terrorism was always well above average. 248 al Qaeda operatives, among them senior leaders, had been captured by Pakistani armed forces. No other country in the world and no other security agency have done so much to interdict al Qaeda than the ISI and our armed forces. We have lost more or less 35,000 people of Pakistan including our civilian brothers and armed forces.
Pakistan was a peaceful country with a tolerant population till the time the Soviets invaded Afghanistan in 1979, after which the bad days for Pakistan started. The US, apparently, started to feel the pain for the “poor” Afghans. While this is no more a secret now that the US actually had no love lost for Afghan freedom as they themselves are a historic demon who had committed grave atrocities against other countries - not forgetting Japan, Korea, Vietnam and the total elimination of the native American. However this apparent pain was not for freeing the Afghans from Soviet occupation in fact, the US saw a golden opportunity to avenge its humiliation in Vietnam.
Pakistan as a country and Pakistani people as a nation are going through very tough times. John Kerry, the first American politician to visit Pakistan since Osama bin Laden was shot dead in the incident of unilateral action by the US forces on May 2nd 2011, told the country's military and civilian leaders that they could lose billions of dollars in funding if they fail to tackle militant safe havens in the mountainous border areas.
Things have clearly changed after the May 2nd incident of unilateral action in the sovereign independent state of Pakistan, unfortunately, by its own ally in war against terror. How absurd American accusations are that Osama bin Laden was able to hide in the country due to either an official support network or the ‘incompetence’ of Pakistani authorities. Just to let the so-called ally of ours know that we as a nation have full confidence in the high command of the Pakistan Armed Forces and the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). Throwing the entire responsibility on external factors and absolving oneself from any responsibility is absurd as well as ridiculous. Pakistan is not the birthplace of al Qaeda. Taliban and al Qaeda was born in an allusion to US funding for the Afghan mujahidden in the 1980s war against Soviet troops in Afghanistan, it is unfair for Pakistan to own all the blame.
To cover its own failures the US always blamed Pakistan for not doing enough or for harboring terrorists on its soil. These terrorists nurtured by the US for its own objectives and then abandoned could not be get rid off so suddenly. Moreover the high handed US policies and killing of innocent people through indiscriminate bombing made things more difficult and complicated. Intervention in Afghanistan by regional powers like India and Iran further compounded the problem. How can Pakistan overcome such well entrenched insurgents in one of the roughest terrain in the world while its so-called allies and the Afghan government complicated matters and vitiated the atmosphere. This monster of terrorism has engulfed the region and Pakistan is clearly not responsible. Everyone including the US must take its share of responsibility for its own failings.
The contribution of this country in the US-led war against terrorism was always well above average. 248 al Qaeda operatives, among them senior leaders, had been captured by Pakistani armed forces. No other country in the world and no other security agency have done so much to interdict al Qaeda than the ISI and our armed forces. We have lost more or less 35,000 people of Pakistan including our civilian brothers and armed forces.
Pakistan was a peaceful country with a tolerant population till the time the Soviets invaded Afghanistan in 1979, after which the bad days for Pakistan started. The US, apparently, started to feel the pain for the “poor” Afghans. While this is no more a secret now that the US actually had no love lost for Afghan freedom as they themselves are a historic demon who had committed grave atrocities against other countries - not forgetting Japan, Korea, Vietnam and the total elimination of the native American. However this apparent pain was not for freeing the Afghans from Soviet occupation in fact, the US saw a golden opportunity to avenge its humiliation in Vietnam.
The proof is provided by Mr. Zbigniew Brzezinski (National Security Advisor to President Jimmy Carter) in his interviews. He acknowledge the fact that the US worked towards inducing the Soviets to invade Afghanistan through covert actions. Billions of dollars in military aid were provided to the most ignorant, bigoted and obscurantist forces to fight the Soviets. Thousands of criminals were released from prisons in US allied Arab countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Algeria, Tunisia etc to fight a holy war in Afghanistan. Hundreds of Madrassahs were opened to give militant religious education to young Afghan and Pakistanis to indoctrinate them to fight the Soviets. This was all done without any regard to the fact that this monster that was being created will one day attempt to devour its own creator. The area became awash with sophisticated weapons. After the Soviet withdrawal the US and its allies conveniently withdrew, leaving battle hardened warriors looking for another enemy. They found one in the United States. Al Qaeda an organization created by US trained zealots prepared for ten years while the US remained blissfully ignorant, of its plans. The terrorists struck the US on 9 September 2001. The US reaction was immature and beyond proportion. The sympathy wave generated due to the tragic events faded as the US policies became bankrupt and counter productive.
And the Great Satan then started the Great Global Game. Ever since then all what is happening on the world stage is been directed and produced by the Great Satan himself. The war in Iraq lead to Afghanistan is now being purposely drawn in to Pakistan. The Osama’s presence here in Abbottabad just paved a way for further advancement of US plans in the region.
Fortunately for us Pakistanis, the chief outcome of this incident is that Pakistan is now bound to deal with its problems internally. Expectantly it will give a little troubled feeling to the allies of GWOT but humbly it is stated that we cannot afford to put off the flaring self esteem which has aroused in the wake of this costly war.
Collectively, we must acknowledge facts and see our faces in the mirror of history and if the American mirror, unfortunately showing them vandalized then its not Pakistan’s fault.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)