Thursday, September 4, 2014
History as a mirror – a necessary prerequisite for world peace
Confronting one's history is a highly political subject. The Chinese people’s victory in the anti-Japanese war was their first victory in the war against foreign aggression. The victory brought an end to an era in which China had been forced to cede territory and pay forfeits to foreign enemies. It was the start of China's defense of its centuries-old civilization which provided a solid foundation for the rejuvenation of the Chinese people. Reviewing history can reveal valuable lessons.
Patriotism made a substantial contribution to the anti-Japanese victory, so we should carry forward the anti-war spirit with patriotism as its core. The aggression against China launched by Japan brought the Chinese people to the verge of disaster, but aroused their awareness of crisis and sense of mission. Uniting the people of China, the national spirit was reinforced in the anti-Japanese war.
The Communist Party of China (CPC) shouldered the task of saving the country from its peril, and appealed for a united anti-Japanese front based on cooperation between the CPC and the Kuomintang (KMT). Under the umbrella of fighting against Japanese fascism, the CPC and the KMT worked together to counter Japanese aggression. China's war against fascism was inseparable from the wider international anti-fascist effort, and China made a great contribution to world peace.
History, like a mirror, can tell wrong from right. The Japanese government has consistently denied its history of aggression, harming relations between China and Japan. Moreover, the Japanese government advocates lifting the ban on self-collective defense, seriously undermining its international credibility.
The path of Japanese development is determined by its people. The Japanese government should respect the legitimate concerns of its neighboring countries. It is necessary to take history as a mirror and face up to historical realities.
Ukraine and rebels back peace plan, ceasefire from Friday
Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko and the main pro-Russian rebel leader said they would both order ceasefires on Friday, provided that an agreement is signed on a new peace plan to end the five-month war in Ukraine's east. The breakthrough came after a week in which the pro-Moscow separatists scored major victories with what NATO says is the open support of thousands of Russian troops. Speaking on the sidelines of a NATO summit in Wales, Poroshenko said the ceasefire would be conditional on a planned meeting going ahead in Minsk on Friday of envoys from Ukraine, Russia and Europe's OSCE security watchdog. "At 1400 local time (0700 ET on Friday), provided the (Minsk) meeting takes place, I will call on the General Staff to set up a bilateral ceasefire and we hope that the implementation of the peace plan will begin tomorrow," he told reporters. Alexander Zakharchenko, head of the main rebel Donetsk People's Republic, said in a statement his men would also order a ceasefire, from one hour later, provided that Kiev's representatives signed up to a peace plan at the Minsk meeting. There have been local agreements to hold fire, for example during the recovery of bodies from a Malaysian airliner shot down over rebel territory in July, but Thursday's announcements were the first time the two sides have called for a full truce. Rebels still expressed scepticism. Oleg Tsaryov, a senior rebel official, told Reuters the separatist truce would depend on the government providing guarantees, "because in the past we had some ceasefire agreements Poroshenko didn't honor". A source close to Zakharchenko said government forces bombarded Donetsk within 15 minutes of Poroshenko's announcement of the ceasefire plan: "We'll see how the talks go tomorrow, but it won't be easy. All this talk of truce amid more and more shelling." The announcements come a day after Russia's President Vladimir Putin put forward a seven-point peace plan, which would end the fighting in Ukraine's east, bring in outside monitors and aid, while leaving rebels in control of their territory. To keep the pressure up on Russia, a White House official attending the NATO summit said the United States was preparing a new round of economic sanctions, but progress towards a truce could halt new European financial sanctions that EU leaders had been expected to agree on Friday. French President Francois Hollande said the decision on the sanctions package would depend "on the coming hours". German Chancellor Angela Merkel, however, warned that while NATO members wanted a political solution and would talk to Russia about this, "We're also prepared to lend weight to our political demands by imposing further sanctions". There is no sign of a halt in fighting in the east, where rebels have rapidly advanced in the past week, backed by what Kiev and NATO say is the support of thousands of Russian troops with artillery and tanks. Moscow denies its troops are there. COLUMNS OF SMOKE Reuters journalists heard explosions and saw columns of smoke on the eastern outskirts of Mariupol, a government-held port of 500,000 people that is the next big city in the path of the rebel advance. A Ukrainian military source said troops were bracing for a potential attack on the city. Government shells rained down overnight on a residential district of Donetsk, capital of one of the rebels' two self-proclaimed independent states. The West has backed Kiev by imposing economic sanctions on Moscow, but has also made clear it will not fight to protect the country, where pro-Russian rebels rose up in two provinces after Moscow annexed the Crimea peninsula in March. Poroshenko was invited to meet U.S. President Barack Obama, Germany's Angela Merkel, France's Francois Hollande and other Western leaders at the NATO summit in Wales, hosted by Britain's David Cameron. The summit stage was set with harsh words for Russia: "To the east, Russia has ripped up the rule book with its illegal, self-declared annexation of Crimea and its troops on Ukrainian soil threatening and undermining a sovereign nation state," Obama and Cameron wrote in a joint newspaper editorial. But after the announcement of the potential ceasefire, Western officials appeared to take a softer line. German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said he was moderately optimistic that de-escalation could be achieved. The prospect of a ceasefire could also give France an opportunity to reverse a decision to postpone the delivery of a French helicopter carrier warship to Russia, due next month. "What are the conditions (of delivering the ship)? A ceasefire and a political settlement. Today those conditions are not in place," Hollande said. If there were further complications the delivery would be delayed, but the contract would not be suspended, he added. Moscow had accused him of caving in to U.S. political pressure: "France's reputation as a reliable partner that carries out its contractual obligations has been thrown into the furnace of American political ambitions," Russian Foreign Ministry deputy spokeswoman Maria Zakharova wrote on Facebook. CONFLICTING SIGNALS The past few days have seen conflicting signals from both Moscow and Kiev. Putin made a number of belligerent statements over the past week before unveiling his peace proposal on Wednesday and discussing it by telephone with Poroshenko. The Ukrainian leader hinted at a possible ceasefire on his website on Wednesday, but that wording was later dropped. His prime minister, Arseny Yatseniuk, derided Putin's peace proposal as a "deception" and said Putin's real aim was to "destroy Ukraine and restore the Soviet Union". Ukraine has previously refused to discuss any political deal with the rebels, calling them terrorists and proxies of Moscow. But with the hope evaporating of a swift victory, Poroshenko may have felt it is now time to hear the Kremlin's offer. This week the rebels dropped a demand for full independence and said they would accept some kind of special status in Ukraine. That lifts one of the main obstacles to peace talks. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov discussed the ceasefire with his French and German counterparts, and accused Washington of trying to undermine the nascent peace process. Putin's peace offer would leave rebels in control of territory that accounts for a tenth of Ukraine's population and an even larger chunk of its industry. It would also require Ukraine to remain unaligned. Kiev had said last week it would try to join NATO, although full membership is unlikely since several members oppose it. The rebels said they would agree as part of the ceasefire to allow a humanitarian corridor for aid and refugees. The truce would be monitored by observers from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. On the ground, there has so far been no sign yet of any ceasefire. Government forces shelled the southern outskirts of the rebel bastion of Donetsk overnight. BOMB SHELTER Houses in Donetsk's leafy Petrovka district were pockmarked with shrapnel. Residents had sought refuge in a bomb shelter. "I don't think they can reach any agreements now. Each side comes up with conditions unacceptable for the other. And so we get shelled," said Lena, who declined to give her surname. Reuters journalists saw a rebel column including a tank driving south from Donetsk towards the village of Berezovo. Residents said three burnt out military trucks in the village had carried Ukrainian troops that came under attack. Government troops had been on the offensive since Poroshenko took office in June, squeezing the rebels into two provincial capitals, Donetsk and Luhansk. But last week the rebels turned the tide with an advance along the coast of the Sea of Azov. A NATO officer, speaking on condition of anonymity, said NATO believed several thousand Russian troops were in Ukraine with hundreds of tanks and armored vehicles.BY ADRIAN CROFT AND GABRIELA BACZYNSKA
Maryam al-Khawaja’s arrest shows Bahrain at its worst
Sara Yasin
The US and UK should be held accountable for being complicit in human rights violations carried out by countries they are friendly with.On 30 August, the prominent Bahraini human rights defender Maryam al-Khawaja, was detained upon her arrival in Manama, the country’s capital. She risked arrest for the chance to see her ailing father, dissident Abdulhadi al-Khawaja, who is serving a life sentence, and has been on hunger strike since 26 August. Maryam is now being held in remand at Isa Town prison, charged with allegedly assaulting a policewoman at the airport. She was told that she was also facing charges for leading a campaign called Wanted for Justice in Bahrain (which named government officials responsible for torture) and for insulting the king. A dual Bahraini-Danish national, Maryam’s Bahraini citizenship has now been stripped, according to her lawyer. At 26, Maryam is the sort of woman that dictators have nightmares about: she is one of the most prominent voices condemning Bahrain’s ongoing human rights violations, which have only continued in the years following a brutal crackdown on popular protests in February 2011. Maryam’s public face is straightforward, clear and calm, cutting through the regime’s attempts to whitewash its human rights records. The Maryam I know is adept at debating human rights and the ins and outs of Arabic pop music in the same conversation. It’s the qualities that I’ve seen through our friendship that have made me respect her the most: she’s principled, compassionate, tough and stubborn as hell. We became friends for many reasons – but perhaps one of the most striking connections is the mutual experience of yearning too long for a country built through the memories and idealised pictures painted by our parents. For her, it was the picture of Bahrain built through the eyes of her exiled parents during her childhood in Denmark, and for me it was a feeling of being homesick for Palestine, despite being born and raised in the US. Maryam moved to Bahrain at 14, and in an essay for Jadaliyya last year, described watching the country she idealised, a “land of a million palm trees” and “pearl divers and Bahraini men in their local attire catching fish”, being brutalised by the greed of its ruling regime, which, “instead of investing in underdeveloped parts of Bahrain, busied itself in moving landmass from certain areas of the main island and dumping it into the sea to create more land space”. It’s that love for Bahrain that moved Maryam to become an activist, and it’s one of the things that I admire most about her. I remember in February 2012, in the early days of her father’s most high-profile hunger strike, how hard it was for us to get her to stop working and actually sleep. She contemplated risking arrest to fly to Bahrain to see her father, finding it unbearable to be far away from her family during such a difficult time. But she didn’t do it: not because she wasn’t terrified for her father, but because she knew that remaining outside of her beloved country and campaigning internationally was the only way to ensure that the world could understand the repression happening inside of it. Bahrain’s troubles don’t usually make headlines – perhaps eclipsed by strife in the wider region. But Bahrain enjoys a particularly cosy relationship with the west, particularly the US and UK. It is our duty to hold our governments accountable for being complicit in human rights violations carried out by countries that we are friendly with. And it certainly says something that these are the sorts of people that it throws in jail: the members of a family who have devoted their lives to speaking out against injustice.
Jihadists kidnap dozens in north Iraq village
Jihadists kidnapped dozens of residents of a northern Iraq village on Thursday after villagers burned one of their positions along with a jihadist flag, police and witnesses said.
The militants of the Islamic State (IS) group had withdrawn from Tal Ali in Kirkuk province on Wednesday, but returned in force on Thursday and abducted some 50 people, the sources said.
It is not the first time IS has carried out mass kidnappings in Iraq, with the group abducting thousands of civilians as it overran minority-populated northern villages last month, according to human rights group Amnesty International.
Amnesty has accused IS of "systematic ethnic cleansing," including mass killings, of ethnic and religious minorities in Iraq.
A senior UN rights official has said the group is responsible for "acts of inhumanity on an unimaginable scale."
IS-led militants launched a lightning offensive in the north in June, sweeping through much of the Sunni Arab heartland north and west of Baghdad before turning on Christian and Yazidi areas.
Iraqi security forces, now bolstered by thousands of Shiite militiamen as well as Kurdish fighters, have clawed back some ground northeast of Baghdad.
U.S. - Justice Dept. to investigate Ferguson police
The Justice Department is launching a civil rights probe into the Ferguson Police Department after the shooting of an unarmed black teen Michael Brown, setting off days of protests.
Afghan officer claims asylum upon arrival in UK for NATO summit
A senior Afghan National Army (ANA) officer has claimed asylum upon arrival at United Kingdom to participate in NATO Summit in south Wales.
An informed source has said that the army officer Enayatullah Barek was accompanying a delegation of the Afghan government officials including defense minister Bismilalh Mohammadi during the tour to Britain.
The source speaking on the condition of anonymity said the ANA officer abandoned the delegation upon arrival in London and claimed asylum.
Afghan defense officials have not commented in this regard so far.
According to reports, the ANA officer Enayatullah Barek was flag-bearer and was due to accompany Afghan army chief of staff Gen. Sher Mohammad Karimi in NATO summit in Wales.
This is not the first time that senior Afghan officials are seeking asylum during official trips outside the country, specifically in European countries.
Several security officials, government employees and diplomats have not returned back to Afghanistan following their official tours.
ISIS trying to expand its influence in Pakistan, distributes pamphlets
Former President Asif Ali Zardari asks for rescheduling Chinese President’s visit
http://www.ppp.org.pk/
Former President Asif Ali Zardari has expressed deep regrets over the inability of all to end the standoff in Islamabad that has resulted in the most unfortunate setback to our relations with China manifested by the postponement of the scheduled visit to Pakistan of the Chinese President. He called upon the government to seek an immediate rescheduling of the visit of Chinese President. Mr. Zardari also called for an immediate and peaceful resolution of the frustrating standoff in the federal capital.
Chinese President Xi Jinping cancels visit to Pakistan
http://www.thenewstribe.com/
In Pakistan a Soft Coup Stalls
When protesters converged on the Pakistani capital of Islamabad to demand the resignation of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, many were quick to see the hand of the military pulling the strings behind the scenes. Sharif, who became prime minister in 2013 after Pakistan’s first full transition of power from one democratically elected government to another, irked the army during his first year in office. He put former military ruler Pervez Musharraf — who overthrew Sharif in a 1999 coup — on trial for treason. He tried to carve out an independent foreign policy — the traditional preserve of the army — including promising better relations with India. The protests, led by cricketer-turned-politician Imran Khan and cult religious leader Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri looked like a means of putting Sharif in his place. Then, with Sharif refusing to resign and the protesters turning increasingly violent over the weekend, the showdown appeared to be following a familiar course. If Pakistan became ungovernable, the Pakistan army would be “forced” to intervene and take over to restore order. It had happened before. In 1977, General Zia-ul-Haq seized power ostensibly to end a political crisis. Throughout the 1990s, elected governments were repeatedly changed as political parties moved through a revolving door pushed by squabbling politicians and spun from on high by the army and its Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency. This time around, however, events are not following the script. In what could become a watershed for Pakistan’s fragile democracy, civilian politicians are fighting back. Political parties, with the exception of Khan’s Tehrik-e-Insaf (PTI), rallied behind the government. PTI’s own president, Javed Hashmi, broke with his leader to accuse him of acting on the behest of the army in the hope of forcing fresh elections. A statement released by the army — which appeared to draw equivalence between the mob besieging Islamabad and the elected government — was quickly called out by the English-language media. The army statement advised the government against the use of force and said that if the situation were not resolved quickly, it would play its part “in ensuring security of the state” — an apparent warning that it could take over. In response, a remarkably forthright editorial in Dawn pointed out that “it is the government that is supposed to give orders to the army, not the other way around.” The Nation also declared the army to be out of line and pointed out that the military would not hesitate to use force if violent protesters besieged its own headquarters. On Tuesday, the government called a joint session of both houses of parliament to reaffirm support for democracy. So what happened to the script? Has Pakistan’s democracy matured to the point where civilian governments can no longer be so easily dismissed? The answer may not be entirely clear for a few days or weeks yet, and will depend on Sharif’s own ability to show flexibility in accommodating opponents inside and outside of parliament. Or did this coup, by other means, stumble not just because of the resistance of the democrats, but also because the military itself was hesitant about delivering the fatal blow? Are some parts of the security establishment eagerly cheering on Khan and Qadri while others ready themselves to settle for a weakened prime minister still in place? After all, retaining the trappings of democracy would avoid the international disapproval and U.S. sanctions that might follow an outright coup. (Officially, the army denied backing the protesters in a statement that insisted it was an apolitical institution.) Pakistan’s security establishment — a term that covers everyone from army chief General Raheel Sharif, to his fellow Corps commanders, to the ISI, to retired officers who may or may not be acting under official orders — is notoriously opaque. All that can be said, then, is that Khan has been useful to the security establishment in the past, but either has a tendency to go his own way, or draws his support from particularly hard-line elements. A few years ago, for example, Khan became one of the most vocal campaigners against drone strikes in Pakistan’s Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) and against the U.S.-led campaign in neighboring Afghanistan. His campaigns were particularly useful to an army that liked to tell the United States that domestic opinion — albeit domestic opinion it had helped manufacture — prevented it from doing more against Islamist militants. Yet more recently, his insistence on holding peace talks with the Pakistani Taliban annoyed some in the army who believed they should be fought more aggressively. Khan’s commitment to defending the people of FATA was conveniently forgotten as soon as the Pakistan army launched its own military operation this year in North Waziristan, which produced one million internal refugees. In the run-up to the elections, Pakistani media suggested that Khan was a particular favourite of Lt. Gen. Shuja Pasha, then head of the ISI. The former cricketer, not well known for his critical thinking, happily espoused the army narrative that all of Pakistan’s problems could be blamed on its corrupt politicians, while disregarding the military’s own powerful role in setting policy. Yet moving Khan from a single issue player as an anti-drones campaigner to the national political stage proved extremely hard even for a powerful intelligence establishment with many friends in the media. Khan picked up genuine support from those tired of existing political parties, particularly from a younger, urban generation. His unseen friends in the security establishment made sure he was given ample coverage in the Pakistani media, while the international media duly promoted a man with a glamorous international playboy past and pukka English. But he could not win. Rightly or wrongly, Pakistan has a U.K.-style, first-past-the-post system in which the mastery of constituency politics matters more than overall voting percentage. Sharif’s Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) has taken years to build and foster its constituency. In the 2013 elections, it came out nearly 100 seats ahead with an absolute majority in parliament. During this year’s protests, Khan tried to accuse Sharif of having won only through massive rigging. In reality, he was so far ahead that even if PML-N victories had been overturned in some constituencies, Sharif would still have won — a view borne out by subsequent opinion polls giving him a strong showing, particularly in the heartland Punjab province. Khan’s failure to bring out enough supporters in the elections was repeated in this year’s protests. Even after he joined forces with Qadri in the hope of bringing out the masses in a “revolution” against the elected government, neither man could muster the numbers they needed. In a country with a population of more than 180 million, the number of protesters laying siege to Islamabad rarely went past a few thousand. Neither Khan nor Qadri could ever really have hoped to be taken seriously as leaders of a true revolutionary movement on behalf of ordinary people without challenging the role of the military establishment, which consumes more than a quarter of the annual budget. Yet despite his lack of numbers, Khan continued to insist on the resignation of the prime minister rather than trying to extract concessions and withdraw to fight another day. Perhaps he was given a false idea from some within the security establishment that the army would move in his favor, force Sharif to resign, and call fresh elections that he expected PTI to win. Certainly, his former political ally, Javed Hashmi, gave that impression when he told the Pakistani media that Khan himself cited army support and promised elections in September. Or perhaps his failure to rally enough discontent gave the army cold feet. Either way, barring any new surprises, the coup by other means appears to have run its course. It was a tawdry affair. An elected government and prime minister were chastened by a mob — a mob, moreover, that was very possibly encouraged by the military. The concessions Sharif made to the army in the course of the showdown will become clearer in the coming weeks, particularly if Musharraf is allowed to leave the country. Khan’s intransigence and willingness to put his personal ambition above support for democracy badly tarnished his reputation. The army came away looking less than sure-footed and perhaps fragmented. Yet remarkably, the fragile democratic transition survived. It is now up to Sharif — who has a reputation for autocracy and a tendency to rely on family members — to make the parliamentary system work and ensure his government is properly accountable to the electorate by delivering good governance. http://warontherocks.com/2014/09/in-pakistan-a-soft-coup-stalls/By Myra MacDonald
Pakistan: Former President Zardari meets PML-Q leaders
Pakistan: PTI’s men of honour
Pakistan: The economic cost of the two sit-ins
Pakistan's Parliament Joint Session : PPP Senator Raza Rabbani speaks
Read More-http://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2014/09/04/national/parliament-joint-session-political-authority-compromised-by-inviting-army-says-raza-rabbani/
Pakistan: True Lies
Pakistan: Habib Wali Muhammad passes away at 90
The Express TribuneFamed singer Habib Wali Muhammad passed away on Thursday at the age of 90, after being treated for his illness in Los Angeles for the past few days, Express News reported. Born in 1921 in Rangoon – present day Myanmar, Habib’s family later moved to Mumbai. Though he belonged to an industrialist family, he always showed keen interest in music. He also won a singing competition in Mumbai which had more than 1,200 participants. His family later moved to Pakistan in 1947. Habib was trained by Ustad Latafat Ali Khan in formal singing and rose to fame after the release of his song “Lagta nahi hai dil mera” which was a poem of Bahadur Shah Zafar. Other famous songs of Habib include “Kab mera nasheman ahl-e-chaman” and “Gulshan mein gawara karte hain”. He also sang numerous patriotic songs as well as a few tunes for the film industry.
Pakistan: Reconciliation and parliamentary supremacy
Imran Khan unhappy with Azadi March attendance
Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI) Chairman Imran Khan has expressed dissatisfaction over the performance of the party’s Rawalpindi chapter and its six MPAs for not bringing enough people to the sit-in.