Tuesday, January 31, 2017
Full Text of Syrian Draft Constitution Proposed by Russia
Last week, a draft Syrian constitution, prepared by Russian experts, was presented to the Syrian opposition during the settlement talks in the capital of Kazakhstan. Head of the Russian delegation Alexander Lavrentyev underlined that Russia is not interfering in the consideration of the constitution but is presenting the draft to the opposition simply in order to accelerate the process.
According to the document obtained by Sputnik, the Syrians have declared their intention to "ensure security, independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of the state; live in peace and friendship with other peoples to successfully establish a civil society; build a legal democratic state governed by the rule of law as expressed by the will of its people; ensure a decent standard of living for all in accordance with a just economic and social order."
According to the document proposed by Russia, Syria may adopt the draft constitution after a nationwide referendum on the issue is held.
© PHOTO:
Draft Constitution
Basic Principles
The draft constitution removes the word "Arab" from the official name of the country.
"The Syrian Republic is an independent sovereign state based on the principle of the rule of people by the people and for the people, the rule of law, social solidarity, respect for the rights and freedoms and equality of rights and duties of all citizens regardless of any differences and privileges. The names of the Syrian Republic and Syria are equal."
The draft constitution proposed by Russia envisages that Syria respects all religions and suggests equality of all religious organizations before the law.
According to the document, Arabic is the official language of the Syrian Republic, while "Government agencies and organizations of the Kurdish cultural autonomy shall use Arabic and Kurdish equally."
"Each region shall have the right to use another majority language in addition to the official language as is regulated by the law, if such use was approved by a locally held referendum," the draft constitution reads.
The political system of the Syrian state "shall be based on the principle of political pluralism, and exercising power democratically by secret ballot."
Moreover, "Ideological diversity shall be recognized in Syria, no ideology shall be proclaimed as State ideology or as obligatory."
"The [Syrian] State shall ensure security and protect the rights and freedoms of national and religious minorities."
According to the draft constitution proposed by Russia, Syria denounces terrorism in all its forms and will ensure the protection of its territories and population against terrorist threats.
"Syria denounces war as an infringement on other countries' sovereignty and a means to resolve international conflicts," the document reads, adding that the Syrian army is prohibited to perform "military or militarized activity outside the domain of state power."
The draft constitution says that the territory of Syria is "indivisible, inviolable and integral," while "state borders may be changed only after a referendum among all Syrian citizens."
Legislative Authority
According to the text of the Russia-proposed draft Syrian constitution obtained by Sputnik, the "legislative authority is assumed on behalf of the Syrian people by the People's Assembly and the Constituent Assembly in the manner prescribed by the Constitution and applicable laws."
"Members of the People's Assembly shall be elected by the public, secret, direct and equal vote."
The draft constitution proposes a four-year People's Assembly term from the date of the first meeting.
All Syrians who are 18 years old and older, and meet the conditions stipulated in the Election Law, can vote.
The Election Law will include provisions that ensure "the freedom and safety of voters, the right to choose their representatives and the integrity of the electoral procedures; the right of candidates to supervise the electoral process; liability for those who abuse the will of the voters; identifying the regulations of financing elections campaigns; organization of the election campaign and the use of media outlets."
According to the document, the People's Assembly is allowed to approve laws; call an election of the Syrian President; perform a vote of no-confidence to the government; ratify international agreements; approve international treaties and agreements, as well as grant privileges to foreign companies; approve general amnesty, and decide whether to terminate the mandate of an Assembly member.
Executive Authority
"The President of the [Syrian] Republic is the guarantor of the independence, unity and territorial integrity of the country," according to the document.
According to the draft constitution proposed by Russia, the Syrian President is elected for the term of seven years by Syrian nationals "on the basis of universal, equal and direct suffrage by secret ballot."
The President of Syria is not allowed to hold the office for more than two consecutive terms, according to the document.
To be elected as the president of the country, a Syrian citizen, who must be over 40 years old, must receive more than one half of votes. If no candidate receives a majority of votes, a rerun will be carried out between the two candidates who receive the largest number of votes.
The Syrian President is also the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, according to the draft constitution.
"The President of the [Syrian] Republic may be removed from office by the Constituent Assembly only after the People's Assembly brings against him charges of high treason or another grave crime, and the legality of such charges and of the procedure for bringing them up have been confirmed in the Supreme Constitutional Court's resolution," the draft constitution proposed by Russia reads.
The full text of the constitution has been made available to Sputnik.
The Abnormal Presidency of Donald Trump
For Ghassan and Sarmad Assali, naturalized Americans from Syria, 14 years of efforts to bring their family to the United States from Damascus unraveled this weekend at the stroke of Donald Trump’s pen.
They had applied in 2003 for Ghassan’s two brothers and their families to join them in Allentown, Pa., where Ghassan works as a dentist. Finally, last month, after an interview in Jordan, the relatives were granted immigrant visas. The Assalis bought and furnished a house for them.
“They landed at 7:45 a.m. Saturday,” said Sarmad, who goes by the name Sue. “We got a call from Philadelphia airport telling us if you’re waiting for somebody they’re not coming out. My husband said, ‘You’re joking.’ ” The family was sent back to Damascus, arriving Sunday night.
Of course, Trump cares nothing for the plight of the Assalis’ Damascus relatives, who arrived about 15 hours after the president signed an executive order on Friday suspending all immigration from Syria and six other mainly Muslim countries, and barring entry of Syrian refugees indefinitely. In fact, he cares nothing for Syria. Trump’s airy mention of creating safe zones in the war-ravaged country was an example of how the American president’s word — the basis of global stability since 1945 — has already ceased to mean anything. It’s noise.
Trump insisted his decision was designed to keep America safe, but the measure was rushed, uncoordinated, sloppy, arbitrary and punitive — the work of an impulsive man driven by anti-Muslim prejudice. Hatched by his inner circle in contempt of normal procedure, it has provoked a crisis. Trump has fired the acting attorney general who questioned its legality.
People are now stranded, many diplomats at the State Department outraged (Trump has told them to quit), allies agitated, artists and athletes disgusted by this un-American act. Former President Barack Obama, scarcely out of office, has dissented.
As my colleague Scott Shane noted, citing studies by Charles Kurzman, a sociologist at the University of North Carolina, no one since 9/11 “has been killed in the United States in a terrorist attack by anyone who emigrated from or whose parents emigrated from Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen.”
A draft dissent memo circulating at the State Department noted that, “A vanishingly small number of terror attacks on U.S. soil have been committed by foreign nationals who recently entered the United States on an immigrant or nonimmigrant visa.”
It said: “We are better than this ban.” As Benjamin Wittes, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, observed of Trump’s order on the Lawfare blog: “This is not a document that will cause hardship and misery because of regrettable incidental impacts on people injured in the pursuit of a public good. It will cause hardship and misery for tens or hundreds of thousands of people because that is precisely what it is intended to do.” And here we get to the president’s character, doubly important when, as in the Trump White House, personality dominates process. For well over a decade Trump hosted a successful TV show that hinged on a spectacle of controlled cruelty — his summary dismissal of a contestant with the words “You’re fired!” All the action built toward the tantalizing moment when Trump brought down the guillotine. No doubt the experience offered him insights into the human fascination with power, as well as the human capacity for pleasure in others’ suffering. Certainly, in just 10 tumultuous days as president of the United States, Trump has demonstrated a streak of gratuitous cruelty. There is no other explanation for such a pointless measure that inflicts so much pain. Here in Britain a petition started this weekend against a planned State visit later this year by Trump has already gained some 1.5 million signatures. The government of Prime Minister Theresa May, desperate for Trump’s favor to offset its Brexit travails, has had to scramble to reassure British dual nationals who may have an Iraqi passport, for example, that they can enter the United States. Sir Mo Farah, the British Olympic gold medalist who was born in Somalia, and whose family lives in the United States, wrote: “On 1st January this year, her majesty the Queen made me a knight of the realm. On 27th January, President Donald Trump seems to have made me an alien.” The measure has given many this feeling they no longer belong. Sanam Naraghi-Anderlini has British and Iranian passports, holds a green card, has an American husband and two American children, and works in Washington as executive director of the International Civil Society Action Network. She told me she’s unsure if she should travel to Germany in a few days on business. “It’s just insane,” she told me. “May talks about Churchill, but it feels like she’s appeasing Trump.” Trump does not retreat. He does not admit mistakes. That is not his style. This month, in tweets, he has written, “Are we living in Nazi Germany?” and he has accused two prominent and dissenting Republican senators of “always looking to start World War III.” Impetuosity allied to cruelty combined with immense power equals trouble. The current storm would cause a normal man who’s a neophyte in a big job to reflect on other approaches. But is anything about Trump normal?
Chris Christie finally dares to criticize Donald Trump — he most unpopular governor in New Jersey history
At a press conference on Tuesday, Christie said he “doesn’t disagree” with Trump’s executive order to block refugees from entering the United States, but that “the rollout of this executive order was terrible — the way people were not involved or consulted. There was confusion in the enforcement that went on here.” Chrisitie stopped short of blaming Trump for the chaos of the ban’s implementation.
“I think the president’s intention here is right,” Christie said, according to NJ 101.5 Radio. “And the president deserved much better than the rollout he got of this plan. I think that’s what caused a lot of mistakes that were made. And those mistakes were unacceptable.”
Trump’s order has elicited a strong backlash, mostly from Democrats but also from some Republicans. The executive order suspends the refugee program for 120 days and bars Syrian refugees from entering the United States indefinitely. Nationals from seven predominately Muslim countries — Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen — are prohibited from entering the country for 90 days.
Christie further cautioned Trump’s inner circle against formulating national security policy based on “generalizations.”
“Look, my view would be that this should be based upon intelligence that we gather about particular groups and countries,” he said.
The New Jersey governor also said he believed green card holders already go through “extreme vetting,” according to a transcript posted by NJ 101.5 statehouse reporter Michael Symons.
In late 2015 when Trump called for a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States” in the wake of the San Bernardino terror attack, Christie railed against his then rival for president. “We do not need to endorse that type of activity, nor should we,” Christie had said during an appearance on conservative talk radio show. “You do not need to be banning Muslims from the country. That’s, in my view, that’s a ridiculous position and one that won’t even be productive.” During that same November 2015 interview, however, Christie said the U.S. should not accept any Syrian refugees — not even “orphans under the age of 5.’’
Prior to his making comments on Tuesday, Christie hadn’t held a press conference in nearly five months — since before the beginning of the trial in connection with the George Washington Bridge closures (which resulted in the convictions of two of his allies). Christie’s decision to finally speak to the press and criticize his onetime ally comes as he wins the dubious distinction of being the least popular New Jersey governor in recent memory.
According to a new Quinnipiac survey released on Tuesday, Garden State voters disapprove of Christie’s job performance by a 3-to-1 ratio “among every party, gender, education, age or racial group except Republicans.” Fifty-three percent of the Republicans polled disapproved of Christie’s performance, with only 39 percent of the GOP-ers surveyed approving. In comparison, just 7 percent of the New Jersey Republicans surveyed disapproved of Trump with 87 percent approving.
Pakistan - The root of child labour
By Adnan Adil
The brutal torture of Tayyaba, a 10-year-old housemaid, in Islamabad has triggered the advocacy of child rights in the media and higher judiciary. Although it is a noble aim, the overwhelming support for child rights on its own does not provide an adequate explanation of the issue. We must take into account the overall context of child labour.
More than being influenced by lack of awareness or the inadequate legal framework to regulate these rights, child labour in Pakistan is an outcome of excruciating poverty, mainly concentrated in the rural areas.
The Pakistan Institute of Labour Education and Research (Piler) tells us that child labour in the country has quadrupled during the last two decades. The government is so indifferent to the issue that it has not conducted a survey on child labour since 1996. Credible estimates put the number of child workers in Pakistan at 15 million.
The bitter reality is that the under-priveleged make their children work in the homes of rich and middle-class people because they cannot afford to feed them. Child labour is a matter of survival, not an option for the poor. Official surveys and statistics are a testament to this fact.
According to the statistics of the Ministry for Planning, Development and Reform, 29.5 percent of the country’s population – or around 55 million people – live below the official poverty line of Rs3,030 per month. Ironically, a small middle-class family would spend this amount on one meal. However, a poor worker is most likely to make do with this meagre amount to address his family’s monthly needs.
Hunger – an inevitable consequence of extreme poverty – is quite visible in our rural areas. International surveys reflect this situation. According to the 2016 Global Hunger Index, 22 percent of Pakistan’s population is undernourished. Pakistan ranked 107 out of 118 developing countries. It was worse off than India, which ranked 97th on the index.
The actual magnitude of misery is much higher than the official figures suggest. A person earning even twice the official figure of Rs 3,030 cannot afford two meals a day for himself for a month, let alone other essentials. A more realistic approach would involve categorising all those who live below the poverty line and earn less than Rs 6,000 per month (or $2 per day). By this standard, more than half of our population or at least 100 million people live below the poverty line. Another 30 percent of the population teeters at the poverty fence. This means around 160 million people in this country survive on a bare minimum of funds.
It would be naive to expect poor people to either keep their children at home or send them to school. Most children from poor families are forced to find jobs and fulfil the needs of their families. It comes as no surprise that 25 million primary school-age children are out of schools. Many of them are toiling away at some job or the other.
A large segment of the poor survive under subhuman conditions. The children and women of these families work as domestic help. They eat the leftovers of the rich or the middle class. They wear second-hand clothes and live in areas covered with litter and sewage. When they fall ill, they turn to quacks for medical assistance. At every step, they are humiliated and insulted.
The existence of the dispossessed is considered a norm forstate and society. We may not like to admit it but the rich do not consider the poor to be human and are unlikely to grant them their rights. Poverty is deemed a matter of fate. It is believed that the poor are destined to be poor. They are not entitled to a decent life and should therefore serve the rich.
The concentration of wealth and income within a small segment of society is the root of poverty. While the elite may differ on religious interpretation in a host of matters, there is a consensus on the sanctity of owning property and wealth. In 1990, the Federal Shariat Court declared land reforms un-Islamic.
Today, not a single mainstream political party stands for the fair distribution of wealth and income and the welfare of the downtrodden.
The state practically perpetuates dispossession and misery of the public. Many acres of state land that lies uncultivated is allotted to win the loyalties of the civil and military bureaucracies but cannot be distributed among the landless farmers. In the last 30 years, no development funds were made available for more than 4,000 katchi abadis in Punjab while billions of rupees were spent on luxury projects.
The state’s complicity in marginalising the poor is visible in all spheres. More than 80 percent of labourers receive less than the government-fixed minimum wage and are deprived of social security benefits. But no state institution springs into action to protect their needs. When the application of law affects the interests of the elite, the state gets cold feet. The focus is on rhetoric and showing off rather than on the substance.
Child rights cannot be protected and child labour cannot be abolished by addressing the symptoms. The poverty faced by 80 percent of the population also needs to be cured.
Second collective deportation of rejected asylum seekers from Germany arrives in Afghanistan
A group of rejected Afghan asylum seekers deported from Germany has landed in Kabul following protests Monday night at Frankfurt Airport. More than 100 people gathered to demonstrate against the forced repatriations.
A group of between 100 and 250 people demonstrated against the first so-called "collective deportation" from Germany this year.
"We are protesting against deportations to a country like Afghanistan," said Sarmina Stuman of the Afghan Refugees Movement, who organized the demonstration.
Deportations to a war zone are inhumane and irresponsible, said asylum advocacy group Pro Asyl and the "Paritätische Wohlfahrtsverband," an independent welfare association.
The group of 26 young men left Frankfurt late Monday night. The group consisted of convicted criminals and single men, who had been living mainly in Bavaria, Baden-Württemberg and North Rhine-Westphalia.
Germany to deport 11,900 Afghans
Of the approximately 250,000 Afghans living in Germany, about 11,900 were required to leave the country from mid-December, according to the German Interior Ministry. It was part of a new plan after Germany signed a memorandum of understanding with Kabul.
The agreement came after pressure from Interior Minister Thomas de Maiziere to speed up the asylum application procedures of people considered to have little chance of being granted asylum.
The so-called "collective deportations" are controversial in Germany because large parts of Afghanistan remain violent and it is not on Germany's official list of "safe countries of origin."
This was the second collective deportation of Afghans, after a mid-December charter flight carried 34 rejected asylum seekers to the Hindu Kush. Among those deportees were criminals, but there were also Afghans who had lived in Germany for years, as well as members of religious and ethnic minorities.
Group Linked to Syrian War Recruiting Banned in Pakistan
By Mehdi Jedinia and Sirwan Kajjo
Federal counterterrorism authorities in Pakistan have banned a local charity that is suspected of luring recruits to battle alongside Iranian-backed fighters supporting government forces in Syria’s civil war.
The ban on Ansar ul-Hussain, reported by Pakistani media last week, took effect on Dec. 30, according to the website of the National Counter Terrorism Authority (NACTA), which monitors terrorist organizations in the country. The ban makes it illegal for the group to operate in Pakistan.
Abdul Qayyum, chairperson of the Senate Defense Committee and leading member of the ruling Muslim League party, told VOA that following the ban, Pakistan is further pursuing “if any other network is involved in recruiting people for Syria within Pakistan.”
Little publicized in Pakistan, Ansar ul-Hussain, which bills itself as a Shi'ite humanitarian organization, has quietly been luring and sending Shi’ite youths from several northwestern areas in Pakistan to Iran, where they are trained to fight and then sent to Syria, according to media reports and local intelligence officials.
Ansar ul-Hussain has been skilled at avoiding surveillance, but Pakistani authorities say they were able to detect its recruiting activities.
“We have a very effective system of tracing and eliminating terrorism within the country,” said Qayyum, a retired lieutenant general. “That’s the reason we were able to catch and ban Ansar-ul-Hussain.”
Islamabad's counterterrorism measures have been widely criticized by many Pakistani politicians and U.S. lawmakers for being largely ineffective. As militant groups continue to flourish in Pakistan, the government is facing threats of increasing diplomatic isolation from some U.S. lawmakers over its inability to curb homegrown militancy and the threat it poses to its neighbors.
Pakistani media reported last year that more than 1,000 Pakistanis are fighting in Syria alongside Iran’s elite Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).
The recruited Pakistanis are reported deployed in the “Zaynabiyoun Brigade” in Syria, which is comprised of Pakistani fighters recruited from inside and outside Pakistan, including Pakistani students in Iran, analysts told VOA.
The recruited Pakistanis are reported deployed in the “Zaynabiyoun Brigade” in Syria, which is comprised of Pakistani fighters recruited from inside and outside Pakistan, including Pakistani students in Iran, analysts told VOA.
“There are a number of Pakistani Shia who are in Iran,” said Phillip Smyth, a researcher at the University of Maryland who focuses on Iran’s role in the Syrian war. “At times, they are there for religious learning, and these types are more easily recruited due to the Islamic Republic's mixing of ideology and religion.”
Tehran says its forces are in Syria to protect the Zeinab Shrine in Damascus, a Shi'ite holy site. But since 2011, Iran has been a major backer of the Syrian regime in its war with rebel groups across the country, at first sending advisers, then forces from the IRGC – expanding far beyond the shrine area.
The Pakistani fighters’ presence is known inside Syria, according to watchdog groups monitoring the fighting. Pakistani fighters have been spotted with pro-Iranian militias, including Iran’s proxy, the Lebanese Hezbollah.
“The primary role of Pakistani militia is to fight in areas around Damascus,” Ahmed Khaddour, a media activist from eastern Damascus, told VOA, talking of where pro-Iranian forces are prevalent.
Pakistani recruits for the Syria fight are often lured to Iran by social media, Smyth said.
“This has been done on Twitter and on Facebook,” he said. “It often involves posted phone numbers where potential recruits could call in and state their abilities and see if they were applicable to be recruited.”
Pakistani recruits are promised financial incentives and Iranian citizenship, analysts say. The IRGC organized a rally in Tehran last summer to honor fallen Pakistani fighters in Syria.
“We have thousands of fighters in the brigade…fighting in front lines,” Abu Talib Musawi, a Pakistani fighter in Syria, told the Tehran-based conservative Panjera magazine. VOA could not independently verify his account.
A Facebook page, which bears Ansar ul-Hussain name, lambasted the Pakistani government’s decision to ban the organization. The page pledges allegiance to Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
“We are proud that you are our leader,” the Facebook post reads.
Pakistan, fearing U.S. visa ban, cracks down on militant group
The sudden house arrest of a high-profile Islamist cleric in Pakistan on Monday sparked peaceful protests Tuesday by his followers, who condemned it as a government effort to appease the Trump administration after it banned visitors and refugeesfrom seven Muslim-majority countries over the weekend — and a top presidential aide hinted that Pakistan could be added to the list.
Supporters of Hafiz Saeed, the fiery leader of the Jamaat-ud-Dawa movement, claimed the move by Pakistani officials had also come at the behest of India, Pakistan’s Hindu-led rival and neighbor. The group zealously opposes India’s claim to the disputed Kashmir border region, and a previous militant group led by Saeed, Lashkar-e-Taiba, was blamed for the 2008 terrorist siege that killed 164 people in the Indian city of Mumbai.
“There was pressure coming from the U.S. on Pakistani authorities to either arrest Hafiz Saeed or face the sanctions, and the government succumbed to that pressure,” Nadeem Awan, a spokesman for Saeed, said in an interview Tuesday. The U.S. government offered a $10 million bounty for Saeed’s arrest in 2012.
At one rally in the capital Tuesday, about 200 supporters burned representations of the American and Indian flags and repeatedly chanted, “We are Hafiz Saeed!” One speaker praised Saeed as a champion of the needy and insisted that his supporters are “civilized citizens” who only perform relief work and “carry out no illegal or anti-state acts.”
Pakistani officials dismissed suggestions that they had moved against Saeed under foreign pressure, insisting they were only implementing the terms of a United Nations resolution that declared Saeed’s group a terrorist organization after the Mumbai attacks. They also criticized Trump’s new visa restrictions, which Pakistan’s Interior Minister Chaudhry Nisar said would “not affect terrorists, but the victims of terrorism.”
Many Pakistanis agreed with that assessment of Trump’s move. One analyst, Mosharraf Zaidi, wrote in the News International newspaper Tuesday that the ban “is going to launch a thousand narratives of victimhood, of seething rage, and of hatred.” He praised the American protesters who have criticized their president, adding that “tomorrow, the list may include our country too.”
Still, there was no clear explanation for the abrupt decision to confine Saeed, who has been arrested and released several times in previous years and accused but never convicted of extremist activities. He has regularly preached impassioned anti-government and anti-India sermons to large crowds without being stopped by police, and he has a wide popular following. The group’s assets were frozen two years ago but it has never been banned, and Saeed could be freed in six months.
The news of his detention was greeted in India with a heavy dose of skepticism. Many on social media noted that Saeed had been previously detained and speculated that Pakistan was reining him in now as a sop to the new American president. Indian authorities have long demanded tougher action against him and others accused of carrying out or orchestrating anti-India violence.
“Only a credible crackdown on the mastermind of the Mumbai terrorist attack and terrorist organizations involved in cross-border terrorism would be proof of Pakistan’s sincerity,” said Vikas Swarup, the spokesman for India’s Ministry of External Affairs.
Some Pakistani analysts also questioned the timing of the arrest and attributed it to pressure from Washington, noting that Trump’s chief of staff, Reince Priebus, said the ban might be extended to Pakistan and other countries that have had “similar problems” with terrorism as the seven countries originally placed on the list — Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and Sudan.
But others said they doubted the Trump administration would add Pakistan to the visa ban without first adding Saudi Arabia, another longtime ally that was also the origin of most of the 9/11 hijackers. Instead, they suggested that Islamabad was looking for a way to improve ties with India after months of tension and violent episodes in Kashmir, which led to harsh accusations on both sides.
“This is something India has wanted for years, and it was a major stumbling block to resuming dialogue,” said Rifaat Hussain, a professor of government and public policy at the National University of Sciences and Technology. “There was also a feeling that Hafiz Saeed had gotten too big for his boots and was becoming a nuisance. This was mostly a desire for a restart.”
Up to a point, though, the rhetoric of Saeed and other anti-India agitators has long helped bolster Pakistan’s domestic crusade and high-cost military buildup against a country it views as an existential enemy and nuclear rival. Pakistani officials are especially wary ofIndian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, a lifelong Hindu nationalist, and concerned about Trump’s substantial business investments in India.
Many Pakistanis would find little disagreement with the chants and arguments of Saeed’s supporters on Tuesday, who denounced India’s military oppression of Kashmiris and cast its growing friendship with the U.S. as a conspiratorial alliance against Muslim interests.
“The new U.S. president has time and time again declared India a best friend of the United States and is following upon the desires of that friend,” Awan said. “But if our rulers want to please the United States, they can’t. Pakistan has done a lot for the U.S., but it always pressures Pakistan to do more.”
#PTI's IMRAN NIAZI on #TravelBan - Foot In Mouth
PTI Chief Imran Khan has also weighed in on the case of Muslims being banned in the US and taken a ludicrous stand on the issue. The PTI Chief suggested that he was in favour of extending Trump’s Muslim ban to include Pakistan at a rally in Sahiwal on Sunday. His reasoning was that this would improve the fortunes of the country by ensuring that there was no brain drain. If Pakistanis cannot leave the country, according the Imran Khan, the country can solve all of its problems.
The best (worst) part of the entire debacle is that Mr Khan is blissfully ignorant of the implications of what he said. His suggestion equates Pakistan with countries that are wracked by terrorism to the point of utter collapse, instead of defending Pakistan’s oft-maligned reputation. The diplomatically disastrous statement has also sent ripples of excitement in the Indian media. What generations of Indian governments, diplomats and media houses have attempted to do – isolate Pakistan – is what Imran Khan wants to achieve single-handedly.
This is without even touching on the fact that Mr Khan himself got to travel the world, to play cricket, to go to university, and his sons also live abroad.
The rebellious no-fear attitude works wonders on the cricket field or even on the streets as an opposition politician, but might quickly unravel into something detrimental for the country at large if Imran Khan was to be at the helm of affairs in government. While the government and even the PPP is bending over backwards to maintain good diplomatic ties with the US, this leader wants us to burn all bridges and reject all that travelling has to offer Pakistani’s including jobs, education, remittances, trade, scientific and artistic exchange and links to families settled in the US.
In an ironic twist of fate, it seems that Imran Khan’s ‘wish’ might soon come true anyway. The White House has already hinted at the ban being extended to Pakistan, even after the loosely worded and unclear ‘extreme vetting’ had already been announced.
A prominent politician advocating that the US ban Pakistani’s just confirms their image of Pakistan being regressive and uncivilised.
Imran Khan has consistently led his supporters to confusion and chaos. The PTI relies on a large support base that lives abroad, and in one fell swoop they have been alienated. Such a lack of tact is maybe why the party might not be ready for a majority in the parliament in the next election.
Donald Trump’s own ascendancy to power and subsequent edicts should serve as a reminder for all who think that voting for a brash and unpredictable ‘non-politician’ (someone who has not always participated in conventional politics) is a smart idea.
Bilawal Bhutto Warns, Trump Travel Ban Will Create 'Host Of Hostilities'
"As far as the ban is concerned, I believe it only has detrimental effects on the countries it has included and if that is extended to Pakistan it will create a whole host of hostilities," Mr Bilawal told a Washington audience on Monday.
Mr Bilawal said including Pakistan in such a list "would also be a very negative indicator that the United States is turning away from those very ideals that it stood for", adding that, "I hope that this is not the new normal." He said there was a lot of uncertainty and externally about what the future policies are going to be and he would like to hold on to the wait and see approach.
The alleged Muslim ban "seems to be extremely controversial decision" of the current Administration, added the Pak leader.
"I know by interaction, by finding common ground, studying in other peoples universities, learning about a shared culture, history we find the common ground. A few criminals should not be allowed to spoil the situation for everyone," he said.
"It is very discouraging for those out there in the Muslim world fighting radical extremism because people (put) their lives on the line on a daily basis to do so, to fight for what they believe in, not Americans ideals or freedom," he said.
Mr Bilawal said he was extremely encouraged to see in what he described as another side to America.
"The outpouring of support for the people affected by this ban is a very positive message sending to the world. I do hope that this issue will be shorted out very soon. Because this is sending a wrong message and is shrinking the space for those of us out there fighting Islamic extremism on the front lines," he said. "I feel for the citizens of all these countries who have been thrown into chaos through these (executive orders)," he said.
COMPLETE SPEECH OF CHAIRMAN BILAWAL BHUTTO AT USIP – #BILAWALUSIP
Thank you for inviting me to speak here today. It is an honour to have the opportunity to speak to the best and the brightest minds in Washington DC, and I am grateful to both the United States Institute of Peace and the Heritage Foundation for affording me the time and place.
I believe we are all taking stock of the deep change going through our world today, and as I stand here the faultlines between ideas, nations, and comforting certainties cut through the globe from one end to another. Without a doubt, history will remember this time as a deeply dividing era, where a shared vision of order and interdependence has been replaced by angry nationalisms and hard red lines that exclude. This in my view, must not be the new normal.
I say this because this is a worrying moment for Muslim countries/demographic, and even more so for the millions dispossessed by conflict and deprivation. The failures of the international order, now in worse disarray than ever before, have left almost a generation without shelter and what I call guaranteed liberties. The spread of terrorism and violent extremism has redefined our lives in ways we could not imagine, with multiple Ground Zeroes threatening to burn down the rubble of our hard fought freedoms.
Such tumult either readies the spine for hard choices, or tosses commitment out the door. I for one, know which side of history some of us will stand.
Ladies and gentlemen! we in Pakistan too have fought a very hard fight for our women and men to vote, and we continue another fight now, for our we in Pakistan too have fought a very hard fight for our women and men to vote, and we continue another fight now, for our millenials and children to breathe air free of insecurity, hate and extremisms. Today, when I see around me a world polarised by dangerous inequalities and tribalisms, it is troubling to see a retreat to the insular as the one defining response to a fear of the unknown and the other. This shrinks the space for moderate, progressive Muslims like myself to fight for open minds and common ground.
Pakistan Story
I speak for one such nation, known and otherized in Washington as both a partner and a frenemy. Many of you with experience and better wisdom, know that Pakistan is not one colour, let alone a purveyor of terror, which it is often reduced to in a thumbnail sketch of its identity and brand. So when in this great city, my country’s image is painted into a monochrome, I worry that perhaps the world has chosen to misjudge us, while we too have not done such a great job of telling our story.colour, let alone a purveyor of terror, which it is often reduced to in a thumbnail sketch of its identity and brand. So when in this great city, my country’s image is painted into a monochrome, I worry that perhaps the world has chosen to misjudge us, while we too have not done such a great job of telling our story.
What I do know is in this moment, Pakistan has much to say and contribute. Against a long history of authoritarianism, we as a nation of 200 million people, have put our faith in democracy and constitutionalism. Indeed for many of us, it is not a term that we take lightly. We can’t just toss it around as a five-year process that brings us to power/ but instead must nourish as that very thing, that many from my party and my family, the PPP/ died defending as the essential flame that lights our path in illiberal times.Indeed for many of us, it is not a term that we take lightly. We can’t just toss it around as a five-year process that brings us to power/ but instead must nourish as that very thing, that many from my party and my family, the PPP/ died defending as the essential flame that lights our path in illiberal times.from my party and my family, the PPP/ died defending as the essential flame that lights our path in illiberal times.
Without buying into the victim narrative, let me just say that we in Pakistan know what it costs to fight a long war. My mother, Benazir Bhutto, Pakistan’s twice elected Prime Minister, led us fearlessly into fighting the next great battle of this millennium. She went into a public campaign against terrorism, and with her face to the sun, went down fighting. This is the price we pay every day, in soldiers and civilian lives, yet we have not veered from her heroic path nor walked away from commitments made to Pakistan.
As an emerging democracy, which I am proud to say my party did the heavy lift on building, we are doing everything in our power to turn a corner. We have in my father’s term, created a huge new social contract for Pakistan, in the hope of readying it for better governance, in the shape of the 18th Constitutional Amendment. This has re-tooled the federation to be more fiscally responsive to the needs of the provinces, and the people who are still desperately in need of the state’s social services. By devolving a decisive chunk of power to the national parliament and its provincial assemblies, our government paved the way for reviving the broken structures of local governance, but we have a long road ahead of us.
Am painfully conscious of all the work we have to do to make a dent in the circle of disrepair our education and health sectors have fallen into. In fact, if there’s one thing that keeps me awake at night it is the state of public health services, and the staggering demographic that is still not in schools or remains unemployed after college.
REGION
I am not one to over-sell our strategic location, but it does pivot us at a unique node of many potential regional collaborations. Yet instead of passing on the dividends of connectivity we remain trapped in its nemesis, the corrosive flame of conflict.
It is indeed a failure of the region’s leadership that South and Central Asia is unable to grow its potential as an economic and energy powerhouse. It is also a failure of the international community’s stated commitment to peace that we see no great powers rushing to nudge India and Pakistan to resolve one of the oldest dispute on the UN’s roster of forgotten flashpoints. I point to Kashmir, which is the most glaring bone of dangerous contention between two nuclear neighbours.
While it has become the norm to put it aside as an intractable problem, I see no future of prosperity or stability for the region when hundreds of thousands of Kashmiris are left behind by the march of a manufactured illiberal consensus of silence.
Afghanistan is another place which is crucial to Pakistan’s stability. We are very clear that Afghan leaders are the only people, the only people, who can craft new bargains for their government between the resistance and others. At every point since democratic governments have taken hold in Pakistan, we have strived to bring whatever leverage we have on the Taliban fighters to the table, but it cannot be Pakistan’s sole responsibility. Today we are open to playing any constructive role in Afghanistan’s sputtering peace and reconciliation process as long as Kabul takes the lead. Nothing Islamabad can do will hold as a political bargain if the Afghans are not able to triangulate the leadership of such a deal themselves. It is entirely up to the Afghans to ensure that freedoms gained by women and civil society and constitutionalism are not rolled back, but it looks very difficult for them in the absence of unity in Kabul, security in the rest of Afghanistan, and economic depth to meet the crisis that the UN is talking about since last week. For over thirty years Pakistan has hosted and welcomed Afghan refugees and students. In a world where borders are closing to distressed victims of conflict, we have never closed our doors, even when we could not afford the camps and the fallout of war that followed. Our encounter with America in Afghanistan began in the Soviet jihad, but now we are left alone to fight off its terrible harvest of terror, guns and extremism.bargain if the Afghans are not able to triangulate the leadership of such a deal themselves. It is entirely up to the Afghans to ensure that freedoms gained by women and civil society and constitutionalism are not rolled back, but it looks very difficult for them in the absence of unity in Kabul, security in the rest of Afghanistan, and economic depth to meet the crisis that the UN is talking about since last week. For over thirty years Pakistan has hosted and welcomed Afghan refugees and students. In a world where borders are closing to distressed victims of conflict, we have never closed our doors, even when we could not afford the camps and the fallout of war that followed. Our encounter with America in Afghanistan began in the Soviet jihad, but now we are left alone to fight off its terrible harvest of terror, guns and extremism.
Islamic extremism is not a tap that can be turned on and turned off. It leaves entire countries in chaos, struggling with scant resources to fight off the narrative and the conflict, the guns and the narcotic trade that such wars bring with it.
I am always amazed at the narrow lens through which a country like Pakistan is viewed here in policy circles, and when an impossible task is not “completed” or ticked off as mission accomplished in a box, we are told that failure came down because we pulled the rug.
That is not a serious view of a world undergoing serious conflict, especially where the advance of groups such as Daesh, or ISIS, as they are known is a factor we all have to contend with. Any counter-terror plan, or CVE initiative, needs sustained partnerships, implicit trust, and a willingness to see the strategic landscape as complex, changing and long-term. But in Afghanistan we saw billions of dollars poured down a huge multi-country effort as a long war with no end, with constant shifting goals and strategies. At every point, as the neighbor with the open border, we said don’t do this, don’t play favourites in Afghanistan, because we learnt not to do that the hard way. But no one heard us. We were just the partner who could be held responsible when nothing else worked.Daesh, or ISIS, as they are known is a factor we all have to contend with. Any counter-terror plan, or CVE initiative, needs sustained partnerships, implicit trust, and a willingness to see the strategic landscape as complex, changing and long-term. But in Afghanistan we saw billions of dollars poured down a huge multi-country effort as a long war with no end, with constant shifting goals and strategies. At every point, as the neighbor with the open border, we said don’t do this, don’t play favourites in Afghanistan, because we learnt not to do that the hard way. But no one heard us. We were just the partner who could be held responsible when nothing else worked.
Afghanistan makes its own decisions. Because when someone else does that, whether donor or hegemon, the results are almost always disastrous.hegemon, the results are almost always disastrous.hegemon, the results are almost always disastrous.
Where do we go from here with Pakistan-US relations going through a new cycle?
It’s a new cycle because I get the sense we are the dispensable ally once again. All I want to say is that whenever the international community has called on Pakistan to take a stand, at every turn of history we have given our shoulder to the wheel of jointing effort and manpower. But I don’t want to make today’s intervention about our bilateral relationship, because it will go where it will go. These are uncertain times in America’s policy establishment as well, so it is best to see which way the leaves fall.
I know you all eager to hear about what is happening in Pakistan today. WE are fighting the largest inland war against terrorisim and violent extremism, and it seems that we are doing this entirely on our own. This always has to be coordinated national effort, and the PPP has always led this fight even when no one in Pakistan was ready to even talk about these challenges. We led the military offensive on Swat in the spring of 2009, when the Taliban were advancing in a dangerous new attack on Pakistan’s terrain in the north. We were actually able to forge a national consensus in parliament and jointly to take this battle to its logical conclusion. At no point did we imagine it would be over in a decade or even longer, but we never imagined that we would be left to fight it all along our borders as well as inland.
We leave partisan politics at the border, but I do believe that we need to do better on the civilian component of fighting violent extremism. The military has been busy clearing terrain in North and South Waziristan, and in the south, the province of Sindh that my party governs has been fighting back with unprecedented resolve, but we still need clarity and focus on pockets of the Punjab.resolve, but we still need clarity and focus on pockets of the Punjab.
The famous National Action Plan that all political parties committed to after the heinous attack on Army Public School in Pehsawar by the Taliban still needs much work, and more resources. It needs the federal government to face off against militants who have gathered strength since the days of General Ziaul Haq and the Soviet jihad with more decisive action. This is not the time for anyone to give up fighting this war, and in fact it is time we took the fight to next level, which is concerted leadership against extremists, against hate speech, against people who make bargains with militants.
It is with this in mind that I say democracy is the answer for Pakistan, where no majorities ever vote in extremist religious parties, but it seems the world is shrinking the space for the constitutional protections we all hold dear. We will not tap into hate as a vote-getter, we will always strive to fight for protections for women, for minorities, for the most vulnerable, whether they inherit the earth or not. In a planet that is under severe stress by conflict and climate change, I am very clear for instance, that we have to lead the way in educating our people in the value of this earth’s depleting resources.In a planet that is under severe stress by conflict and climate change, I am very clear for instance, that we have to lead the way in educating our people in the value of this earth’s depleting resources.
For Pakistan, and even India and Asia, climate change is a very real danger, with my country actually on the frontline of recurring natural disasters, flooding and draughts. As one of the ten most water-stressed countries of the world I know Pakistan cannot afford to be cavalier about shared resources, so I hope the current government in India does not repeat its threat of using of human entitlements such as water, as a weapon. Some of you may recall that one of the world’s most successful water treaties actually holds down the distribution agreements between India and Pakistan, brokered by the World Bank in the 1960s, enduring several wars, as well as the fog of cold peace. Threatening this Treaty’s abrogation is one example of how extremist postures in the region are failing the people of South Asia, blocking us from realizing our potential as an engine of Asian and global growth. Our sheer population explosion in South Asia, already home to one-fifth of humanity, puts us in no position to normalize the language of war and exclusion as a policy tool, yet temperatures are rising all round.is a very real danger, with my country actually on the frontline of recurring natural disasters, flooding and draughts. As one of the ten most water-stressed countries of the world I know Pakistan cannot afford to be cavalier about shared resources, so I hope the current government in India does not repeat its threat of using of human entitlements such as water, as a weapon. Some of you may recall that one of the world’s most successful water treaties actually holds down the distribution agreements between India and Pakistan, brokered by the World Bank in the 1960s, enduring several wars, as well as the fog of cold peace. Threatening this Treaty’s abrogation is one example of how extremist postures in the region are failing the people of South Asia, blocking us from realizing our potential as an engine of Asian and global growth. Our sheer population explosion in South Asia, already home to one-fifth of humanity, puts us in no position to normalize the language of war and exclusion as a policy tool, yet temperatures are rising all round.world I know Pakistan cannot afford to be cavalier about shared resources, so I hope the current government in India does not repeat its threat of using of human entitlements such as water, as a weapon. Some of you may recall that one of the world’s most successful water treaties actually holds down the distribution agreements between India and Pakistan, brokered by the World Bank in the 1960s, enduring several wars, as well as the fog of cold peace. Threatening this Treaty’s abrogation is one example of how extremist postures in the region are failing the people of South Asia, blocking us from realizing our potential as an engine of Asian and global growth. Our sheer population explosion in South Asia, already home to one-fifth of humanity, puts us in no position to normalize the language of war and exclusion as a policy tool, yet temperatures are rising all round.
I know that the world is facing multiple traumas, many of them from economic or social turbulence. Countries such as China are stepping into economic leadership forums in Asia, projecting the kind of soft power that the United States once invented. In Pakistan we welcome all such investments in our economic growth, and hope that this enduring relationship is not seen as a site for great power competition.great power competition.
Without putting too fine a point on it, I do want to say that we in Pakistan are not the problem. In fact, we see ourselves as part of a future where solutions are joint, inclusionary and sustainable. The United States is our largest trading partner, and has been a beacon of freedom and democracy for many of us growing up in a dystopian world. I only hope that this new millennium does not bring with it darker times for the growing world disorder, where humanity is not often seen as a core value, but trumped too often by security as a negotiable side-show.inclusionary and sustainable. The United States is our largest trading partner, and has been a beacon of freedom and democracy for many of us growing up in a dystopian world. I only hope that this new millennium does not bring with it darker times for the growing world disorder, where humanity is not often seen as a core value, but trumped too often by security as a negotiable side-show.
I honestly believe that it is easiest to be generous when there are no challenges to comfort or peace. A nation’s character only gets tested when it is under stress, and must make serious choices. It is those choices that will lay out the way we will deal with each other as nations, as states and as individuals. I am confident that through the democratic process, despite its imperfections, Pakistan will find its way through the dark.easiest to be generous when there are no challenges to comfort or peace. A nation’s character only gets tested when it is under stress, and must make serious choices. It is those choices that will lay out the way we will deal with each other as nations, as states and as individuals. I am confident that through the democratic process, despite its imperfections, Pakistan will find its way through the dark.
Thank you for listening so patiently. I look forward to interacting with you through the hour.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)