Sunday, December 18, 2016
Not So Happy New Year: The Conflicts That Could Lead to WWIII in 2017
Last week, the CFR, an influential US think tank which has many senior US politicians, academics and senior media figures as members, released its annual survey of the "top international concerns" for US national security for 2017. According to the think tank, the most serious dangers include a possible "serious military confrontation" between Russia and NATO, and an escalation of tensions in the Korean Peninsula amid the ongoing military buildup there. Cyberattacks by foreign powers and large-scale terrorist attacks in the US are also serious concerns.
The think tank also cited increased instability in Afghanistan, Turkish-Kurdish violence and an escalation of the war in Syria as important problems, although these conflicts' impact on the US has been categorized as only 'moderate'. Other threats include a possible military confrontation between China and US allies in the East and South China Seas, although the CFR optimistically rated its likelihood as 'low'.The CFR's assessment has prompted National Interest columnist Robert Farley to offer his own take on the major threats to global security in 2017. In a piece for the magazine's site, the columnist suggested that a series of important factors have combined to create a situation where the great powers of the US, Russia and China face "more uncertainty [today] than at any time in recent memory." This uncertainty will force leaders to "navigate" to prevent "several extremely dangerous flashpoints that could ignite, then escalate, conflict" between them, he stressed.
Pyongyang-Washington Standoff
Essentially agreeing with the first danger listed in the CFR's assessment, Farley writes that tension in the Korean Peninsula may very well be among the most dangerous challenges for the incoming Trump administration. Citing Pyongyang's ongoing efforts to build up its nuclear and missile capacities, the analyst suggested that a hawkish approach in Washington including musings about a preventative strike could accidentally lead to all-out war, particularly in case of a North Korean miscalculation to strike first. "As was the case in 1950, war on the peninsula could easily draw in China, Russia, or Japan," the observer noted. This last point has been driven home recently by the Obama administration's decision to deploy anti-ballistic systems in South Korea, a measure China sees as a threat to its security, including its nuclear deterrent capabilities. If the Trump administration continues Obama's line in Korea, tensions in the region aren't likely to abate anytime soon, and could escalate. Wednesday, July 13, 2016 On the campaign trail prior to his election, Trump warned that the US may give up its security guarantees to countries including South Korea and Japan if they do not compensate the US for its assistance and increase own defense spending. At the same time, however, Trump also made headlines when he said he wouldn't rule out negotiations with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un out of hand.
It remains an uncertainty whether he will fulfill his numerous and perhaps contradictory campaign promises on the issue after stepping into office. Syrian Escalation? Syria may well be the second major possible flashpoint, according to Farley. Although the CFR downgraded the conflict's importance to US interests from 'high' to 'moderate', and Farley admitted that the Trump administration seems unlikely to seek confrontation with Damascus and Moscow, the dangers of an accidental collision and subsequent escalation remains. The analyst stressed that "while the most dangerous moments…have passed, US and Russian forces continue to operate in close proximity of one another." Therefore, if either side conducts operations that kill or maim the other's forces, as already happened in September, when a US airstrike killed over 60 Syrian troops near Deir ez-Zor in eastern Syria, this "could produce retaliatory pressures," Farley noted. "Moreover, the presence of spoilers (terrorist groups and militias on either side, as well as a variety of interested states) serves to increase complexity, and the chances for a miscalculation or misunderstanding," he added.
However, other observers disagree with this assessment. Last week, commenting on the Syrian army's liberation of Aleppo, senior Syrian lawmaker Khaled al-Abbud told Sputnik Arabic that with the militants in Aleppo defeated, the US and Europe have essentially lost the card of 'moderate opposition' fighting against Assad. © PHOTO: VANESSA BEELEY Liberated Aleppo Offers Syrian Army 'Keys to the North' Instead, al-Abbud said, the US and Europe do not deny that the rest of Syria's major anti-government strongholds, be it in Raqqa or Palmyra, are occupied by jihadists. "In other words, in the political arena, the only place where differences existed was with respect to Aleppo. Aleppo had been the subject of political wagers." Now, with the city – the last major population center in enemy hands, liberated, there is no effective way for Western leaders to rebrand the remaining jihadists as 'moderates', even if they wanted to do so.
Furthermore, during the election campaign, Trump said repeatedly (to the ire of both his Republican and Democratic opponents) that it would be "wonderful" if Russia and the US could work together in fighting the Daesh (ISIL) and Nusra terrorists in the Middle East. Accordingly, unless he is constrained or contradicted by the State Department or his National Security Advisor –which seems unlikely given his pick of Rex Tillerson and Michael Flynn for the top spots, some form of cooperation, or at least an absence of direct conflict, seems likely. Cyberspace War Next, according to Farley, is the threat of the US-Russian-Chinese skirmishes in cyberspace turning into something more. Pointing to the ongoing scandal over Russia's alleged hacking of the US election (an accusation which Moscow and President-elect Trump have vocally rejected, and which even US intelligence agencies have doubts over), the observer suggested that the US establishment may feel pressure to "respond to what it views as Russian and Chinese provocations." This, in turn, "may end up pushing the US government into costly responses that could create an unfortunate escalatory spiral." While this conflict may not actually threaten a direct military confrontation between the major powers, it may contribute to rising overall tensions elsewhere. However, Donald Trump and his staff have dismissed the CIA assessment on the hack as a "ridiculous" conspiracy theory. Accordingly, here too an objective investigation supervised by the President-elect after stepping into office should help defuse tensions.
India-Pakistan Escalation According to Farley, the Indian-Pakistani border dispute in Kashmir is another Eurasian sore spot that could lead to escalation. Trump's vacillating promises to both sides may lead to a misunderstanding by either to engage in aggressive military operations along the line of control. Accordingly, "if either side decides to escalate, then the US and China could easily find themselves drawn into a conflict." Baltic Bind Finally, essentially echoing the CFR's assessment that a Russia-NATO conflict could begin stemming from "assertive Russian behavior in Eastern Europe," Farley suggested that in the short run, the expected de-escalation between Moscow and Washington under a President Trump could lead to a deadly miscalculation.
The analyst's suggestion that Russia might take unspecified "inflammatory measures" in the region "under the assumption that the Americans will back down" is perhaps the weakest point he, and the CFR, make. Amid the downturn in relations between Russia and NATO over the past two-and-a-half years over the crisis in Ukraine, Pentagon planners and NATO officials have never made clear why Russia would seek to invade the Baltics, which would offer little material gain and only risk global nuclear holocaust.
US-China Hick-ups Finally, Farley's analysis doesn't mention it, but the possibility of a major military conflict between the United States and China seems like a distinct and growing threat – perhaps even more so than it has been under the Obama administration, when the US sent warships to the South China Sea to directly challenge China's claims in the area. Over the past week, Trump accused China of "stealing" a US Navy research drone, angered Beijing by abandoning Washington's 40 plus year One-China policy regarding Taiwan, and even ticked them off over rumors that he may meet with the Dalai Lama, whom the Chinese consider a dangerous separatist. That's not to mention US-China trade – an issue Trump has used all throughout his campaign to suggest that the US may start a war of tariffs with the country. Perhaps understandably, Trump's 'hard bargain' approach has met with intense criticism from Beijing.
The question is: will Trump's business-like approach to diplomacy result in a crisis in US-Chinese relations?
Ultimately, Farley suggested, "uncertainty" is the central factor driving the threat of regional conflicts being escalated into global ones. "No one has a good handle on what the Trump administration will do…on major foreign policy questions. This leaves many countries facing difficult calculations of risk and opportunity." In the interim, in the interest of avoiding conflicts, world powers and their allies might do better to avoid moves that could lead to misinterpretation or disagreement by the other side. Unfortunately, with the US engaged in a bombing campaign against half-a-dozen countries, and the Obama State Department continuing to support conflicts in places including Syria and Ukraine, it remains unclear what kind of shape the world will be in by the time Trump finally steps into office on January 20th.
Read more: https://sputniknews.com/military/201612181048713870-hot-spots-escalation-dangers-2017/
Read more: https://sputniknews.com/military/201612181048713870-hot-spots-escalation-dangers-2017/
Diplomacy 101 for Trump: Don’t mess with one-China policy
By Liu Zhun
At a press conference on Friday, US President Barack Obama brought up some basic foreign policy concepts to enlighten his successor Donald Trump. "The idea of 'one China' is at the heart of their conception as a nation," Obama said. "This goes to the core of how they see themselves, and their reaction on this issue could end up being very significant." Obama suggested that Trump should think through the consequences before he wants to "upend this understanding."
Trump greatly rocked diplomatic protocol by hinting he might challenge the one-China principle, a foundation for all China's diplomatic ties with other countries. His appalling and "unpresidented" statement has raised many eyebrows even among traditional US allies.
French foreign minister Jean-Marc Ayrault said Trump's handling of the Taiwan question was "not very clever." Australia promised it wouldn't change its policy in relation to one China despite Trump's stance. Germany also committed itself to the one-China policy.
As an entrepreneur, Trump must be adept at bargaining, and fully aware of the business norm that no compromise comes with a breach of either party's bottom line.
His irresponsible and provocative remark, on the one hand, could be a continuation of his anti-establishment and unconventional posture, by which he made it to the Oval Office, and on the other hand, is used to put out feelers to test Beijing's determination and resilience to hold its ground in face of major challenges, which might earn Trump some leverage if China sways.
It is for sure that China won't engage in any kind of cooperation with any country that denies or forsakes the one-China policy. There are no priorities ahead of national unity and sovereign integrity on China's national and international agendas. That Taiwan is part of China has formidable support.
China's restrained but pertinent response, such as downplaying the impact of Trump's words and arranging some active moves in the South China Sea recently, must have declared its resolution in defense of its core interests. Trump should face the fact that even at the pinnacle of its strength, the US was not powerful enough to force any country to surrender its core interests, not to mention the current situation.
Trump must understand that although he is committed to making America great again, he cannot make even the first step without forging a steady and beneficial relationship with China, its biggest trading partner, main creditor, and a major power it needs to solicit support from in dealing with international affairs. It is hoped that Trump, after he officially comes to power, will deal with China as reasonably as he is a successful businessman and as wisely as if he is a savvy head of state.
CHINA: ''An untested Trump may add friction''
_-_IMG_1104.jpg/220px-Chinese_flag_(Beijing)_-_IMG_1104.jpg)
US president-elect Donald Trump's inexperience in diplomacy－demonstrated over the weekend after the Chinese Navy's seizure and return of an unmanned US drone in theSouth China Sea－might lead to more confrontations between China and the US as well as fissures between the US and its allies, Chinese experts on international studies warned.
Trump, whose inauguration is five weeks away, took the drone issue to Twitter onSaturday, accusing Beijing of "stealing" the equipment in an "unprecedented act". He posted another tweet on Sunday, saying, "We should tell China that we don't want the drone they stole back－let them keep it!" By then, China and the United States had already agreed on returning the underwater US drone seized on Thursday in the South China Sea, according to statements by thePentagon and China's Defense Ministry.
The drone, a 3-meter-long unmanned underwater vehicle, was launched by USNS Bowditch to collect bathymetric data as well as the water's salinity, temperature and current flow, according to the Pentagon. It was operating about 93 kilometers northwest of Subic Bay off the Philippines, and was Retrieved by a Chinese naval lifeboat to prevent "danger to the safe navigation of passing ships and personnel", China's Defense Ministry spokesman Yang Yujun said in a statementon Saturday. "The Chinese boat adopted a professional and responsible attitude in investigating andverifying the device," Yang said. He added that after identifying the device as belonging to the US, China decided to hand it over in a proper way. "The fuss that the US unilaterally made was inappropriate and did not contribute to af avorable solution to the problem," said Yang. "We express regret over this matter."
China resolutely opposes the US military's long-standing practice of conducting close-in reconnaissance and military surveys within Chinese waters, Yang said, adding, "China will maintain vigilance against the relevant US activities and take necessary measures in response." The USNS Bowditch is an "infamous" military reconnaissance ship that has beensurveying China's coastal waters since 2002, said Ma Gang, a professor at the People'sLiberation Army National Defense University. "Oceanic data is crucial for ship formations, submarine routes and battle planning," Masaid. "Therefore, it is normal for the Chinese Navy to be suspicious of Bowditch's activities given past experience."
Ma said frictions between China and the US would increase if the diplomatically inept Trump continues to undermine China's territorial integrity. "Trump might eventually learn the hard way that China's sovereignty is absolutely nonnegotiable," Ma said. Zhong Feiteng, a senior researcher on relations among major powers at the ChineseAcademy of Social Sciences, said Trump initially hyped the drone issue as leverage againstChina. But he quickly discarded the issue when China and the US resolved it peacefully. "The whole drone fiasco proves that Trump only cares for things that benefit himself, and will abandon them once they lose value," Zhong said. "This must be disheartening for US allies like South Korea and Japan."
Donald Trump: The Russian Poodle
By Nicholas Kristof
In 1972, President Richard Nixon’s White House dispatched burglars to bug Democratic Party offices. That Watergate burglary and related “dirty tricks,” such as releasing mice at a Democratic press conference and paying a woman to strip naked and shout her love for a Democratic candidate, nauseated Americans — and impelled some of us kids at the time to pursue journalism.
Now in 2016 we have a political scandal that in some respects is even more staggering. Russian agents apparently broke into the Democrats’ digital offices and tried to change the election outcome. President Obama on Friday suggested that this was probably directed by Russia’s president, saying, “Not much happens in Russia without Vladimir Putin.”
In Watergate, the break-in didn’t affect the outcome of the election. In 2016, we don’t know for sure. There were other factors, but it’s possible that Russia’s theft and release of the emails provided the margin for Donald Trump’s victory.
The C.I.A. says it has “high confidence” that Russia was trying to get Trump elected, and, according to The Washington Post, the directors of the F.B.I. and national intelligence agree with that conclusion.
Both Nixon and Trump responded badly to the revelations, Nixon by ordering a cover-up and Trump by denouncing the C.I.A. and, incredibly, defending Russia from the charges that it tried to subvert our election. I never thought I would see a dispute between America’s intelligence community and a murderous foreign dictator in which an American leader sided with the dictator.
Let’s be clear: This was an attack on America, less lethal than a missile but still profoundly damaging to our system. It’s not that Trump and Putin were colluding to steal an election. But if the C.I.A. is right, Russia apparently was trying to elect a president who would be not a puppet exactly but perhaps something of a lap dog — a Russian poodle.
In Britain, Prime Minister Tony Blair was widely (and unfairly) mocked as President George W. Bush’s poodle, following him loyally into the Iraq war. The fear is that this time Putin may have interfered to acquire an ally who likewise will roll over for him.
Frankly, it’s mystifying that Trump continues to defend Russia and Putin, even as he excoriates everyone else, from C.I.A. officials to a local union leader in Indiana. Now we come to the most reckless step of all: This Russian poodle is acting in character by giving important government posts to friends of Moscow, in effect rewarding it for its attack on the United States.
Rex Tillerson, Trump’s nominee for secretary of state, is a smart and capable manager. Yet it’s notable that he is particularly close to Putin, who had decorated Tillerson with Russia’s “Order of Friendship.”
Whatever our personal politics, how can we possibly want to respond to Russia’s interference in our election by putting American foreign policy in the hands of a Putin friend? Tillerson’s closeness to Putin is especially troubling because of Trump’s other Russia links. The incoming national security adviser, Michael Flynn, accepted Russian money to attend a dinner in Moscow and sat near Putin. A ledger shows $12.7 million in secret payments by a pro-Russia party in Ukraine to Trump’s former campaign manager Paul Manafort. And the Trump family itself has business connections with Russia.
It’s true that there will be counterbalances, including Gen. James Mattis, the former Marine commander who has no illusions about Moscow and is expected to be confirmed as defense secretary. But over all it looks as if the Trump administration will be remarkably pro-Putin — astonishing considering Putin’s Russia has killed journalists, committed war crimes in Ukraine and Syria and threatened the peaceful order in Europe.
So it’s critical that the Senate, the news media and the public subject Tillerson to intense scrutiny. There are other issues to explore as well, including his role in enabling corruption in Chad, one of the poorest countries in the world. The same is true of his role in complicity with the government of Angola, where oil corruption turned the president’s daughter into a billionaire even as children died of poverty and disease at a higher rate than anywhere else in the world. Maybe all this from Russia to Angola was just Tillerson trying to maximize his company’s revenue, and he will act differently as secretary of state. Maybe. But I’m skeptical that his ideology would change in fundamental ways.
This is not only about Tillerson just as the 1972 break-in was not only about the Watergate building complex. This is about the integrity of American democracy and whether a foreign dictator should be rewarded for attacking the United States. It is about whether we are led by a president or a poodle.
U.S. Politics : Electoral Fallout
Bethania Palma
Bethania Palma Markus
Law professor Larry Lessig claims that at least twenty Republican electors are considering abandoning the President-elect.
US concerned over over minorities’ rights situation in Pakistan
United Sates has expressed serious concerns regarding the state of minorities’ rights in country. The U.S. government also voiced alarm over the plight of minorities in the country. In this regard, the U.S. had specially made mention of the raids carried out targeting the Qadiani community. Pakistan government has been urged to safeguard the basic rights of the religious minorities in the country.
Mark Toner, the spokesperson of the U.S. State Department while talking to the media said that the United States has been frequently voicing its concerns regarding the violation of rights of religious minorities in Pakistan. “In a US international religious freedom report, we have shown apprehensions on Pakistani law which restricts the basic religious freedom rights of the minorities,” Mark Toner stated.
While replying to a question, Mark Toner said that United States is concerned about the raids carried out against the Ahmadi community in Pakistan. The counter terrorism forces had targeted the main headquarters of the Ahmadi community in Rabwah. Forces had arrested four individuals from the Ahmadi community on grounds of publishing their literature. “We believe, such laws are inconsistent with Pakistan’s international obligations,” he further said.
United States Commission for International Religious Freedom report stated: “In 2015, the Pakistani government continued to perpetrate and tolerate systematic, ongoing, and egregious religious freedom violations. Religiously-discriminatory constitutional provisions and legislation, such as the country’s blasphemy law and anti-Ahmadiyya laws, intrinsically violate international standards of freedom of religion or belief and result in prosecutions and imprisonments.”
“Pakistan’s religious freedom environment has long been marred by religiously-discriminatory constitutional provisions and legislation, including its blasphemy laws. For years, the Pakistani government has failed to protect citizens, minority and majority alike, from sectarian and religiously-motivated violence. Pakistani authorities also have failed to consistently bring perpetrators to justice or take action against societal actors who incite violence. In addition, U.S.-designated terrorist organizations, such as the Pakistani Taliban, pose a significant security challenge to the government, targeting Pakistani civilians, governmental offices, and military locations,” USCRIF stated.
Pakistanis, concentrate on the issue of homegrown extremism ,Forget Allepo.
By Taj
 |
| PESHAWAR,PAKISTAN,SCHOOL ATTACK |
The liberation of Aleppo by the Syrian government forces has united two seemingly disparate groups who are essentially using the same sectarian incitements. On the one hand, there are Pakistan’s banned outfits. On the other hand are established and budding members of the civil society intelligentsia who are using the same rhetoric of banned sectarian terrorist organisations in their prejudiced commentary on Syria.
As Pakistanis, we must work focus on our own problems before concerning ourselves with the problems of other countries. This reasonable principle was upheld when our parliament refused to give in to an over-eager Prime Minister who wanted to involve Pakistan in Saudi Arabia’s bombing of Yemen. Unfortunately, that does not seem to be the case when it comes to our selective response on Syria. The lobby that wants us to support the various Al Qaeda and ISIS factions in Syria includes not just our banned organisations but civil society commentators who identify as “liberals”. Amongst the latter group, there are more-loyal-than-the-king courtiers who feel that by supporting Al Qaeda in Syria against the UN-recognized government, they will earn brownie points with their media and NGO contacts in the United States.
They should realise that after the recently concluded elections, the situation has changed. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had made regime change in Syria the central plank of her aggressive foreign policy. She was defeated by President elect Donald Trump who opposed sending further arms to ISIS and Al Qaeda factions who are fighting against the Syrian Government. Both Democratic and Republican members of the US House of Representatives oppose further involvement in Syria. These include Rep Tulsi Gabbard who has recently presented a Bill to the US congress on curtailing arms sales to ISIS and Al Qaeda linked groups in Syria. It seems that our pseudo liberals did not get the memo!
When Muslim brother countries like Saudi Arabia make an alliance with Israel against Syria and the Palestinian cause, we must advise caution instead of jumping in Pakistan must not involve itself in regime change wars. We are still suffering from the last time we embarked on such a project in Afghanistan. The regime change conflict in Syria has been brought by the same Neoliberal-Neocon lobby that brought the world the disastrous regime changes in Iraq and Libya. These two formerly secular countries hosting diverse religious groups and sects have been devastated due to these regime change conflicts. Instead of imposing Western-style democracies, the disparate proponents of regime change have actually created ISIS and strengthened Al Qaeda.
We are now living in a world where the same Al Qaeda that attacked the United States on 9/11 is now being funded by US tax payer monies. Similarly, entrenched Gulf dictatorships and monarchies that have stifled democratic reforms in their own countries are demanding a curious blend of democracy cum theocracy in Syria. The New Times, CNN and Washington Post that cheerlead the illegal invasion of Iraq on the basis of the False claims of WMDs now wants the global community to do the same in Syria.
We are now living in a world where the same Al Qaeda that attacked the United States on 9/11 is now being funded by US tax payer monies. Similarly, entrenched Gulf dictatorships and monarchies that have stifled democratic reforms in their own countries are demanding a curious blend of democracy cum theocracy in Syria. The New Times, CNN and Washington Post that cheerlead the illegal invasion of Iraq on the basis of the False claims of WMDs now wants the global community to do the same in Syria.
As Pakistanis, we should have none of it!
We have still not recovered from the last time a military dictator collaborated with the CIA to launch extremists into Afghanistan for “Regime change” there. At that time, at least some of our liberals opposed such an intervention while the Jamaat e Islami supported it. Now we have pseudo liberals who have gone further than the Jamaat e Islami in supporting GCC-US funded Al Qaeda and ISIS proxies in Syria. There is ample evidence on our social and electronic media where a combination of (pseudo) liberals and sectarian extremists are peddling the most unsubstantiated and irresponsible news reports from biased and invested Western media to incite more violence and hatred against minority sects and religions in Pakistan. Al Jazeera and other opposition groups publically advocated for the genocide of minority sects and religious groups in Syria. In Pakistan our so-called liberals are promoting these hateful and inflammatory materials.
As Pakistanis, we request our fellow citizens to concentrate on the issue of homegrown extremism instead of fanning the flames of sectarian bigotry in Syria. For an objective assessment, we request viewers to study both sides of the conflict and not just rely on discredited media conglomerates like the New York Times. In 2003, Judith Miller of the New York Times lead the campaign for the illegal invasion of Iraq on the basis of False evidence. Instead of simply accepting CNN, Al Jazeera, the New York Times and the Washington Post as the Gospel, we must also objectively see what RT, Syrian News, PressTV, Sputnik etc have to say on Syria.
Similarly, we must also study leading blogs like The Intercept, 21st Century Wire, Consortium News, Global Research.ca, Huffington Post, The Duran and Salon have to say on Syria.
Similarly, we must also study leading blogs like The Intercept, 21st Century Wire, Consortium News, Global Research.ca, Huffington Post, The Duran and Salon have to say on Syria.
Instead of mostly relying on pro-Al Qaeda outfits like the Syrian Observatory of Human Rights (SOHR – a one-man show based in Coventry, UK and NOT Syria), we need to see what prominent journalists like Vanessa Beeley and Eva Bartlett have to say on the situation – unlike SOHR, these journalists actually operate out of Syria and specifically Aleppo.
https://lubpak.com/archives/351684
Muslim cleric banned in Pakistan is preaching in Britain mosques
It is feared that Syed Muzaffar Shah Qadri, who praised the murder of a politician, will incite hatred between Muslims
A Pakistani Muslim cleric who celebrated the murder of a popular politician is in Britain on a speaking tour of mosques. The news has alarmed social cohesion experts who fear such tours are promoting divisions in the Muslim community.
Syed Muzaffar Shah Qadri has been banned from preaching in Pakistan because his sermons are considered too incendiary. However, he is due to visit a number of English mosques, in heavily promoted events where he is given star billing.
Qadri publicly praises Mumtaz Qadri who in 2011 murdered his employer, Salman Taseer, a popular Pakistani politician who spoke out against the country’s blasphemy laws. Qadri was executed earlier this year but to his tens of thousands of supporters he remains a hero who defended their interpretation of Islam.
Mumtaz Qadri was a key influence on Tanveer Ahmed, the Bradford taxi driver who in March stabbed to death Asad Shah. Shah, a member of the Ahmadi Muslim community who ran a convenience shop in Glasgow, was targeted after messages he put out on social media including an Easter greeting to Christians.
His was one of several recent high profile murders in which a Muslim from one community was killed by a Muslim from another community for holding what they considered to be “blasphemous” views. In February, a former Sufi imam in Rochdale was murdered by two Islamic State supporters whom they claimed was practising “black magic”. In May, a Sufi Muslim leader was hacked to death near the north Bangladeshi town of Rajshahi in what police said was an attack by Islamic extremists.
Asad Shah, a Glasgow shopkeeper, was killed by Tanveer Ahmed, who was influenced by the man whose murder of a Pakistani politician was praised by Qadri. Photograph: Rex/Shutterstock
Qadri, considered by many scholars to hold moderate views except on blasphemy, was due to speak at the Falkirk Central mosque in Scotland, but his invitation was withdrawn after a public outcry. However, the Observer has established that he is due to appear at several mosques in England.
The Sunday Post in Scotland reported that Qadri has been labelled a “firebrand” by the authorities in Karachi and barred from preaching his incendiary sermons. He was accused of acting in a manner “prejudicial to public safety and maintenance of public order”. He was banned from addressing crowds in October, according to a legal document seen by the Post.
Video footage on social media sites shows Qadri telling crowds that the killing of Taseer was lawful.
Irfan al-Alawi, international director at the Centre for Islamic Pluralism, a US thinktank, said Qadri received large sums of money for his UK tour and accused him of increasing tensions among different Muslim sects.
“Syed Muzaffar Shah Qadri and the likes of him should not be allowed to enter the UK or Europe because he incites hatred and he claims to be a Sufi, but the message of Sufism is love all and hate none,” Alawi said.
“The Sunni Muslims do not need Pakistani or Indian imams to enter the UK and preach hatred. Just as Zakir Naik was banned, the government should be hard on these preachers of hate and also with the people and mosques which invite them.”
Naik was an extremist Islamist preacher barred from preaching in the UK by Theresa May, when she was the home secretary, in 2011.
Flyers promoting Qadri’s appearances in the UK, obtained by the Observer, confirm that he is due to preach on Sunday in Leicester, in Woking on Boxing Day and in Bolton on New Year’s Eve. It is believed he will also make appearances at other mosques.
None of the three mosques responded to requests for comment.
Haras Rafiq, chief executive of the Quilliam Foundation, said Qadri was the type of preacher who presented new challenges for promoting cohesion in Britain’s Muslim community.
“These are people who may not be extremist in the way that we know Isis or Boko Haram are extremist,” Rafiq said. “But when they apply the blasphemy law to justify the killing of other Muslims for not being the right Muslims then we have a huge challenge. Anybody who supports the murder of another person is dangerous.”
A Home Office spokeswoman said: “We do not routinely comment on individual cases.”
http://timesofahmad.blogspot.com/2016/12/uk-muslim-cleric-banned-in-pakistan-is.html
A Pakistani Muslim cleric who celebrated the murder of a popular politician is in Britain on a speaking tour of mosques. The news has alarmed social cohesion experts who fear such tours are promoting divisions in the Muslim community.
Syed Muzaffar Shah Qadri has been banned from preaching in Pakistan because his sermons are considered too incendiary. However, he is due to visit a number of English mosques, in heavily promoted events where he is given star billing.
Qadri publicly praises Mumtaz Qadri who in 2011 murdered his employer, Salman Taseer, a popular Pakistani politician who spoke out against the country’s blasphemy laws. Qadri was executed earlier this year but to his tens of thousands of supporters he remains a hero who defended their interpretation of Islam.
Mumtaz Qadri was a key influence on Tanveer Ahmed, the Bradford taxi driver who in March stabbed to death Asad Shah. Shah, a member of the Ahmadi Muslim community who ran a convenience shop in Glasgow, was targeted after messages he put out on social media including an Easter greeting to Christians.
His was one of several recent high profile murders in which a Muslim from one community was killed by a Muslim from another community for holding what they considered to be “blasphemous” views. In February, a former Sufi imam in Rochdale was murdered by two Islamic State supporters whom they claimed was practising “black magic”. In May, a Sufi Muslim leader was hacked to death near the north Bangladeshi town of Rajshahi in what police said was an attack by Islamic extremists.
Asad Shah, a Glasgow shopkeeper, was killed by Tanveer Ahmed, who was influenced by the man whose murder of a Pakistani politician was praised by Qadri. Photograph: Rex/Shutterstock
Qadri, considered by many scholars to hold moderate views except on blasphemy, was due to speak at the Falkirk Central mosque in Scotland, but his invitation was withdrawn after a public outcry. However, the Observer has established that he is due to appear at several mosques in England.
The Sunday Post in Scotland reported that Qadri has been labelled a “firebrand” by the authorities in Karachi and barred from preaching his incendiary sermons. He was accused of acting in a manner “prejudicial to public safety and maintenance of public order”. He was banned from addressing crowds in October, according to a legal document seen by the Post.
Video footage on social media sites shows Qadri telling crowds that the killing of Taseer was lawful.
Irfan al-Alawi, international director at the Centre for Islamic Pluralism, a US thinktank, said Qadri received large sums of money for his UK tour and accused him of increasing tensions among different Muslim sects.
“Syed Muzaffar Shah Qadri and the likes of him should not be allowed to enter the UK or Europe because he incites hatred and he claims to be a Sufi, but the message of Sufism is love all and hate none,” Alawi said.
“The Sunni Muslims do not need Pakistani or Indian imams to enter the UK and preach hatred. Just as Zakir Naik was banned, the government should be hard on these preachers of hate and also with the people and mosques which invite them.”
Naik was an extremist Islamist preacher barred from preaching in the UK by Theresa May, when she was the home secretary, in 2011.
Flyers promoting Qadri’s appearances in the UK, obtained by the Observer, confirm that he is due to preach on Sunday in Leicester, in Woking on Boxing Day and in Bolton on New Year’s Eve. It is believed he will also make appearances at other mosques.
None of the three mosques responded to requests for comment.
Haras Rafiq, chief executive of the Quilliam Foundation, said Qadri was the type of preacher who presented new challenges for promoting cohesion in Britain’s Muslim community.
“These are people who may not be extremist in the way that we know Isis or Boko Haram are extremist,” Rafiq said. “But when they apply the blasphemy law to justify the killing of other Muslims for not being the right Muslims then we have a huge challenge. Anybody who supports the murder of another person is dangerous.”
A Home Office spokeswoman said: “We do not routinely comment on individual cases.”
http://timesofahmad.blogspot.com/2016/12/uk-muslim-cleric-banned-in-pakistan-is.html
Pakistan - Quetta inquiry report; terrorism and confusion
By SaleemASethi
More than incompetence and lack of will, it is the incapacity of civilian institutions that comes in the way of their showing a matching performance vis-à-vis the armed forces.
Qazi Faez Isa-led commission into August 8 Quetta massacre has charged the state with incompetence, negligence and failure on multiple counts in its fight against the menace of terrorism. It has also blamed it for utter confusion and lack of an official counter-narrative to fight this long-drawn war against terrorism.
To many there is nothing new except that this time it is formal indictment of the state and that it is official now. Commentators have declared it unique, comprehensive and the most damning report by any commission so far. In many respects, it is. But it seems the report is not as comprehensive as it appears at first glance. Nor it is all-encompassing. It has mostly blamed the civilian side for all the failures. And though the shortcomings pointed out can't be denied, it has left the role of the military side untouched. It hasn’t discussed — in so many words — its contribution to the menace of terrorism becoming an existential threat to the state. And though right in its findings, the report seems at places to have gone out of its legitimate mandate of inquiring into that single unfortunate incident.
But a big step forward it is, no doubt. It has shed light on almost the whole phenomenon of terrorism — and not just that massacre of Quetta lawyers — and how it is being countered at the administrative level. It has pointed to the confusion at the implementation and policy levels. It has identified the ‘one side’ responsible for many of the failures. And it has opened a debate about the lack of counter-narrative that we should carry forward in all earnest.
The buzzwords in the report, therefore, can be summed up as; incompetence, complacency, confusion and lack (of plan, strategy, narrative and, may be, will). But all of these factors can’t be discussed in black and white terms or thrown at the doorstep of politicians (or of one government) alone. There are blurred frontiers.
For one, there is a lack of ‘political will’ on the part of the present government. Yes, it has a considerable vote-bank among the ultra-right mindset, particularly in Punjab. And its MPs and ministers are dependent on the support of, some say, banned organisations and jihadist elements to win elections. PML-N leadership also has a natural rightist bend. These are reasons indeed which are responsible for the slowing down of the action against extremist, terrorist and jihadist groups, particularly in its ideological bastion, Punjab.
But the question is, is it the sole reason? What has made Punjab the ideological HQ of extremist mindset? Who pampered jihadists and sectarian elements there? Why they became so powerful that politicians were compelled to go on their knees and beg support for coming into power, staying there and remaining safe, too? If their continued existence was compromising and weakening politicians’ position and standing, then whose policies and objectives the Punjab-based jihadist groups have been furthering to keep them thriving?
PML-N’s lack of political will and clarity of mind are valid reasons to be sighted for an ineffective and confused approach to tackle the existential threat. But this wasn’t the case with the PPP and its allies, ANP and MQM, as far as fighting terrorism and extremism was concerned. Then why did they fail to put up a decisive resistance to those forces? The fact of the matter is that these three parties weren’t even allowed to reach to the masses and run their election campaigns during the previous elections. Benazir Bhutto and other PPP leaders and workers lost their limbs and lives in this fight; yet the party faced aspirations cast on its patriotism and some of its leaders are accused of sponsoring terrorism. ANP leaders and workers are dying to this day in the terror-hit KP — even in Swat where military is ruling the roost. Why? Who failed in its duties to provide protection to those element who were natural allies of the state and the armed forces in the war against its existence? Who can be held responsible for that?
More than incompetence and lack of will, it is the incapacity of civilian institutions that comes in the way of their showing a matching performance vis-a-vis the armed forces. Police and other law-enforcing and intelligence agencies’ have historically remained weak due to the state’s fixation with external threats and its prioritising of the armed forces. Nobody tried to address this issue whether it was a politician in power or a military dictator calling the shots.
Besides everything else, the civil-military divide within the state stood in the way of presenting a united front to the non-state actors. Even that would have been fine, were there not the presence of this complacency phenomenon among certain elements within state institutions and the miscreants at certain times in the past; or there was no state policy of using miscreants as foreign policy tools.
It is a fact that we can’t identify the true reasons and reach an honest conclusion unless we accept that extremism and terrorism are two sides of one coin. And both of these are byproducts of the states ideological leanings; embedded in religious identity. Whether we accept it or not, a religious-based identity is what the state is promoting even today. Not to say anything about today’s political leadership, which truly believes in the state’s Islamic destiny and which uses Islam for its political purposes, the military leadership is also doing the same in its public discourse.
But this is not just a coincidence or political expediency on their part. This is serving their institutional interests vis-a-vis the civilian side and ensures their continued dominance in the political sphere. This is a well thought-out strategy. Gen Kayani, who signified a change of heart inside the military talked about the state’s ultimate ideological goals during the very first days when he was declaring hometown terrorism as an existential threat. Gen Bajwa pledged solemnly in APS Peshawar on last Friday to strive for the achievement of those goals.
Justice Faez Isa says there is a lack of counter-narrative. And there is a confusion within the Ministry of Interior about its role in combating terrorism. Not as such. The fact of the matter is there is no lack of counter-narrative. There is confusion in this basic thing. At best the state’s counter-narrative can be termed as a ‘variation’ of the prevailing narrative that has been fuelling extremism and which in turn made terrorism a new-norm.
Faez Isa commission also concludes that, “The National Action Plan is not a plan in any structural or meaningful way.” Nothing can be officially more true or damning. NAP in fact is Objectives Resolution — Part 2 — the goals of which apparently are to do away with those who have taken up arms against the state apparatus. The state can look the other way still, if the non-combating lot serves political purposes of vested interest without challenging the state in an armed fashion and embarrassing it.
