Sunday, January 7, 2018
#China - Trump and Kim trade "nuclear button" threats unhelpful
By Curtis Stone
On Tuesday, U.S. President Donald Trump threatened the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) on social media, saying that he too has a “nuclear button” on his desk and his button is “much bigger” and “more powerful.”
“North Korean Leader Kim Jong Un just stated that the ‘Nuclear Button is on his desk at all times,’” Trump tweeted. “Please inform him that I too have a Nuclear Button, but it is a much bigger & more powerful one than his,” the U.S. president said.
Trump’s outburst on social media comes after Kim Jong Un, the top leader of the DPRK, declared in a New Year’s Day speech that his nation is a nuclear power, which “no force and nothing can reverse.”
“In no way would the United States dare to ignite a war against me and our country,” Kim said. “The whole of its mainland is within the range of our nuclear strike and the nuclear button is on my office desk all the time.”
 |
| to order a Coke. |
In fact, Trump does have a red button on his desk, but its purpose is much more benign. In an interview with The Associated Press, Trump revealed its purpose: to order a Coke. “With the push of a red button placed on the Resolute Desk that presidents have used for decades, a White House butler soon arrived with a Coke for the president,” the AP reported.
Social media users were quick to troll the U.S. president for bragging about the size of his nuclear button. “Also there’s a red button for Diet Cokes,” said The New York Times’ Maggie Haberman. “No no that one brings Diet Coke. You have to use the phone for the nukes,” said The Daily Wire’s Ben Shapiro. “Is it right next to the Diet Coke button? Please be careful!” wrote actor and comedian Kumail Nanjiani.
But on a more serious side, the “mine is bigger than yours” hostility from the U.S. president is unhelpful. “Spoken like a petulant ten year old,” said Eliot Cohen, a professor at Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS).
As one of the most powerful countries in the world, the United States has an important role to play in promoting peace and prosperity.
China has stressed that the Korean Peninsula nuclear issue should be resolved peacefully through dialogue and consultation. Just yesterday, China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs encouraged dialogue. “We encourage the two sides, as major parties concerned, to resume dialogue and build mutual trust and make concrete effort to bring the issue back to the right track of settlement through dialogue and consultation at the end.”
We will unleash “fire and fury” against you. The U.S. military is “locked and loaded.” We will “totally destroy” you. My “nuclear button” is bigger (and better) than yours. Such threats are not conducive to building trust and resolving the thorny issue. As Cui Tiankai, China’s ambassador to the U.S. pointed out, the U.S. should refrain from making threats and do more to find effective ways to resume dialogue and negotiation.
Watchdog group calls on Saudi Arabia to release local journalist
The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) has called on Saudi Arabia to release a local journalist who was reportedly arrested this week after criticizing the government.
Saudi activists and media reported that Saleh al-Shehi, a columnist for Arabic-language daily al-Watan, was detained on Wednesday over various articles and television appearances, including one in which he accused the royal court of corruption in distributing land.
Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, who has launched reforms over the past two years to foster economic diversity and cultural openness, ordered the arrest of more than 200 people, including princes, ministers and billionaires, last year. He said he was going after corruption but critics saw the move as a consolidation of power.
Resistance to his economic agenda and assertive foreign policy has been treated harshly, according to civil liberties monitors, who say freedom of expression is increasingly constrained.
“Despite promises of reform and moderation from Saudi Arabia’s emerging leadership, it is clear from Saleh al-Shehi’s arrest that repression as usual continues,” Sherif Mansour, CPJ’s Middle East and North Africa program coordinator, said in a statement late on Friday.
“Saudi authorities must release al-Shehi immediately, and Saudi leaders should ensure that the press is able to freely report on all issues of public interest.”
The government’s Center for International Communication did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Reuters could not independently confirm that Shehi had been arrested.
Saudi cleric held after refusing to support Qatar blockade: Reports
Family member says Salman al-Odah has been held in solitary confinement for four months.
A Saudi cleric has been imprisoned without charge for the past four months after refusing to publicly support the blockade on Qatar, Human Rights Watch said.
The rights group on Sunday said that local authorities had also imposed travel bans on 17 members of Salman al-Odah's family after he was detained in September 2017.
A family member told HRW that Odah was being held in solitary confinement because he refused to comply with an order to tweet out support for the Saudi-led blockade of Qatar.
He instead opted for a tweet calling on reconciliation between the different countries: "May God harmonise between their hearts for the good of their people."
Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Egypt imposed a blockade on Qatar in June, accusing Doha of supporting "terrorists" and having close ties with Iran. Qatar denies the allegations.
Family members said that two men who arrested Odah identified themselves as state security, searched his house, and ignored repeated requests to show a warrant.
Odah is among dozens of dissidents, writers, and scholars detained in mid-September as part of a crackdown against those acting "for the benefit of foreign parties against the security of the kingdom and its interests".
HRW's Middle East director Sarah Leah Whitson said that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman's economic and societal reforms are bound to fail if Riyadh continues "arbitrary arrests" of any opposition.
"If Mohammed bin Salman wants to show that a new era has begun in Saudi Arabia, a refreshing first step would be the release of activists and dissidents who have never been charged with a recognisable crime and should never have gone to jail in the first place," said Whitson.
Activists have circulated lists of more than 60 people being held, though Saudi authorities have not released information about their cases.
Other prominent detainees in the group arrested include economist Essam al-Zamil, academic Mustafa al-Hasan, writer Abdullah al-Malki and dozens of other scholars.
Odah's brother Khaled was also arrested after he tweeted about his brother's detention and he continues to be held by Saudi authorities.
Riyadh carried out another wave of arrests in early November of Saudi princes and prominent businessmen in a bid to allegedly clamp down on corruption in the Gulf Kingdom.
Saudi courts have convicted at least 25 prominent activists and dissidents since 2011. Many faced sentences as long as 10 or 15 years, under charges designed to criminalise.
Reactors for Saudi Arabia are bad business and dangerous diplomacy
BY VICTOR GILINSKY AND HENRY SOKOLSKI
The last thing the Middle East needs is more nuclear technology. But a coterie of Washington “experts,” recently assembled on behalf of Saudi Arabia, argues otherwise and seem to have the ear of the Trump administration. Energy Secretary Rick Perry visited Saudi Arabia in December, and the State Department is taking steps toward signing a U.S.-Saudi nuclear umbrella agreement required by United States law as a preliminary to selling the country nuclear power reactors. What is worse, the White House is hinting it would not insist that Saudi Arabia accept the “gold standard,” that is, that it promise not to reprocess irradiated fuel to extract plutonium or enrich uranium — activities that open the door to rapid acquisition of nuclear weapons.
Such an agreement would severely undermine U.S. anti-proliferation policy. Our 2009 agreement with the Saudi’s neighbor, the United Arab Emirates, includes the gold standard (who would be freed of it if we don’t include it in subsequent Middle East nuclear cooperative agreements). The pro-export crowd counters that Saudi Arabia is different — that if we don’t sell on easier terms, then Russia and China will. Most important, they say, is that we “maintain U.S. leadership” in nuclear power technology to be able to influence the international export rules. In other words, to keep other suppliers from selling on lax terms, we ourselves have to sell on lax terms. What seems to have happened is that the prospect of tapping into Saudi money has drowned out proliferation concerns.
Despite all the brave talk about reviving U.S. nuclear industry and gaining thousands of jobs, even an accommodating agreement with Saudi Arabia is not likely to result in U.S. power reactor sales. The White House is promoting Westinghouse technology. But Westinghouse is now a Japanese company. Any sale would involve a minimal U.S. manufacturing components and thus few U.S. jobs. But even that prospect is unlikely in view of Westinghouse’s current status. Because of its gross mismanagement of the only two U.S. nuclear construction projects, Westinghouse was forced into bankruptcy. The Saudis will almost certainly turn instead to the Korean contractors whose experienced construction teams are coming off a successful four-reactor project in the UAE. The Saudis want a U.S. nuclear agreement because Korean technology has a U.S. component and it would be awkward for the Koreans to sell it without U.S. approval. Realistically, if we soften the rules we will weaken nonproliferation, but likely end up empty handed.
It wouldn’t be the first time. Our government has a long history of romancing potential customers with lax nuclear agreements, only to have them turn elsewhere. The most glaring example is India. George W. Bush legitimized India’s stiff-arming of the Nonproliferation Treaty, in the illusion that we would thereby gain tens of billions in reactor sales and thousands of jobs. A decade later — nothing.
There is another similarity with the India experience. In that case, although the U.S.-India agreement was ostensibly about civilian nuclear power technology, it had obvious weapons implications. The Bush White House congratulated itself, naively, one might add, on supporting a strategic counter to a nuclear-armed China. In the Saudi case the public talk is again about the country’s need for reactors to provide electricity, but it’s obvious that the Saudis’ principal motive for obtaining nuclear technology is to develop a nuclear weapons hedge against a potentially nuclear-armed Iran. And, again, there appears to be a feeling among the pro-nuclear export Washington “experts,” a group heavy with retired flag officers and ex-defense officials, that this might be a good idea. It is, in fact, a dangerous idea.
We can expect the Trump White House to try calm congressional concerns over permissive treatment of the Saudis, insisting Riyadh has no intention of pursuing enrichment, and perhaps that it has given private assurances. It will argue that the Saudis are proud rulers and cannot be expected to sign away what they regard as their rights, and so on. But if we leave the Saudis with the option to enrich uranium, we can be sure they will exercise it. Among other things, that would wipe out the possibility that President Trump could ever deliver on his promise to get a “better” deal than Obama did that would end Iran’s enrichment program.
We should also remember that national governments come and go, and those that replace them inherit a nation’s nuclear assets. If, when Iran was a friend, we had sold the Shah the 23 Westinghouse reactors we were hoping to, they would now be in the hands of the current Iranian government, undoubtedly including fuel facilities. Today, we should be careful in our assumptions about the future of an absolute kingdom, which despite its highly advertised attempts to modernize remains a 21st century anachronism.
Our government’s international energy policy is out of date, too, blinded by decades-old Atoms for Peace rhetoric regarding the need for nuclear power in “energy-hungry” parts of the world. Nuclear energy, once thought to be a key to modernization of a society, is just a very expensive way of producing electricity, with environmental advantages over fossil fuels, but also with worrying safety and security issues — ones that have prompted several advanced countries to abandon it.
The supporters of a Saudi nuclear energy program insist their motive is to bring peace and prosperity to the Middle East. The test of their good faith is whether they will support, as did the UAE, the nuclear export “gold standard.” This should be the standard for all civilian nuclear power exports.
Pakistan - Tribute paid to Noorjehan, Sibtain Fazli
Along with a successful singing career, Noorjehan also had a successful acting career. The Lok Virsa Mandwa Film Club paid tribute to the legendary singer and to film director Sibtain Fazli by screening their 1952 classic ‘Dupatta’ on Saturday.
Fazli and Noorjehan began their film careers in British India. There, Fazli had made a name for himself with classics such as ‘Shama’, ‘Ismat’ and ‘Mehndi’. While he migrated to Pakistan in 1947, it took him five years before releasing another film. ‘Dupatta’, in 1952, was thus his debut film in a new country.
A new country also allowed Fazli to veer away from being typecasted for making family films. His career in Pakistan thus saw films such as ‘Anka Ka Nasha’ and ‘Do Taswereen.’
Noorjehan had already made her mark as an actor and singer before partition, ruling hearts in Lahore, Kolkata and Mumbai.
After she migrated to Pakistan from Mumbai in 1947, she resumed where she had left off, starring in 13 films. However, she gave up acting in favour of playback singing after 1961 hit Ghalib. Her last film as a playback singer was Sakhi Data and passed away in December 2000.
‘Dupatta’, Produced by Aslam Lodhi and Subtain Fazli with the musical score by Feroz Nizami, was a musical and saw the first screen collaboration between Fazli and Noorjehan.
The cast included Noorjehan (as a singer and a leading lady), Ajay Kumar, Sudhir, Ghulam Mohammad, Azad, Nafees Begum and Yasmin (also known then as Zareena). Hakeem Ahmad Shujah is credited for the script. APP
US, Russia back India in bid to stop terror funding by Pakistan
Elizabeth Roche
India says US and Russian support had ensured that the Financial Action Task Force called on Pakistan to report on action it was taking to curb terror funding.
Baloch leader hails Donald Trump for placing Pakistan on Special Watch List
"The US has taken the right step in highlighting the mistreatment of religious minorities in Pakistan," Quadri said, in a statement.
She emphasised it was important to explore the implications of Pakistan's identification as a state that violates the religious freedom of its citizens.
"The US is effectively saying that the systematic oppression of religious minorities in Pakistan has assumed alarming proportions," Naela said.
"Forced kidnapping and conversion of Hindu girls, imprisonment of innocent Christians in false blasphemy cases, and the plight of Pakistan's Shias are also known to the world community, systematic denial of equal rights to minorities are indeed established facts," she added.
The Baloch activist warned if Jihadi groups further expand in Pakistan, it would help their redeployment across the world.
"But the US and the world community has to expand its notion of a violation of religious freedom to be able to understand how the syncretic religious belief of Baloch people is being corroded through a systematic state-sponsored programme motivated by the Wahhabi-Deobandi ideology that champions jihad across the world," Naela warned.
"Once these groups succeed in Balochistan, they will be redeployed elsewhere. The world community should, therefore, stand with nationalist forces in Balochistan," she added.
She said the jihadi experiment in Balochistan already has international implications because Pakistan is allowing space to the Islamic State, which not only carries out attacks in Afghanistan, but on nationalists in Balochistan as well.
"It also allows Pakistan to whitewash and repackage the Taliban as a moderate, reasonable group that needs to be accommodated in the Afghan Government. It is time the world community took note of the many games Pakistan plays," she said.
The Baloch leader emphasised that denial of religious freedom in Pakistan was posing serious implications of this for regional peace and stability.
"What perhaps is less understood is how the denial of religious freedom is corroding the mainstream Muslim community of Pakistan and the serious implications of this for regional peace and stability. Consider, for instance, the case of Baloch people," Naela said.
"We are Sunni majority living together with Shia Balochs, Hindu, Sikh and Christian Balochs for centuries, still we are protecting graves of our Jews who had to flee after Pakistan's occupation on Balochistan," she added.
Naela accused Pakistan of using Balochistan for providing safe havens to the terrorist groups and giving them military training.
"Pakistan is not only using Balochistan as a place to safely park and train the jihadi wing of its army, but it is also using them to terrorise the Baloch people, destroy their syncretic faith and society, erase their symbols of tolerant and syncretic faith, and lure Baloch youth to the jihadi camp to weaken our resolve to fight for Balochistan's independence," the Baloch activist said.
On Thursday, the United States placed Pakistan on a special watch list for "severe violations of religious freedom."
This came in the backdrop of US President Donald Trump criticising Pakistan for not doing enough to combat terrorism, in a strongly-worded tweet.
The US Department of State on Thursday also re-designated Burma, China, Eritrea, Iran, North Korea, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan as "countries of particular concern," in accordance with the country's International Religious Freedom Act for having engaged in or tolerated systematic, ongoing, and egregious violations of religious freedom.
#Pakistan - End forced disappearances now!
By Hassan Javid
So, the United States will no longer be providing Pakistan with military aid. For the past week, in response to a tweet by an American president who, if Michael Wolff’s account in Fire and Fury is to be believed, is utterly unsuited to the office he occupies, the airwaves have been saturated with rebuttals, condemnations, and dismissals by officials and various talking heads who have taken umbrage at the accusations that have been made against Pakistan.
All of this seems terribly important, and perhaps it is, but it is difficult to focus on such grand questions of seemingly global import when such blatant injustice and cruelty continues to be perpetrated much closer to home. In what has become a chillingly routine occurrence, two students at Karachi University, Mumtaz and Kamran Sajidi, were allegedly picked up by unknown government agencies and have simply disappeared like so many hundreds before them. Once again, no information has been given to explain or justify this abduction, although speculation on the matter suggests that the two brothers may be being punished for their involvement in activism seeking the release of another ‘disappeared’ student, Sagheer Baloch. If the experiences of the ‘lucky’ few who disappeared and were subsequently returned are anything to go by, Mumtaz and Kamran are likely to be ruthlessly interrogated and possibly tortured during their forced imprisonment.
Is it too much to ask that the citizens of this country be protected from the arbitrary exercise of power by the state? Is it unreasonable to expect that people be allowed to peacefully express their opinions and beliefs without fear of persecution at the hands of the self-appointed custodians of the national interest? Should there be genuine cause for concern or suspicion regarding the activities of individuals involved in protest and dissent, is it not possible to deal with the matter in accordance with the law and have the accused be presented before a court of law where their guilt, or lack of it, can be properly ascertained? What is possibly accomplished by ruining the lives of innocent young men and women who only sought to exercise their democratic right to protest? Can it really be argued that these people constitute a massive risk to the security of one of the most militarised countries in the world?
Forced disappearances and torture are not the hallmarks of stable, secure, or civilised state. They are indicative of a blatant disregard for the rule of law and utter indifference towards the liberties and safety of the people. Tactics of this kind, designed to frighten, intimidate, and ultimately silence those who question the powers-that-be, are deployed not only because of the lack of accountability and transparency that allow the latter to act with impunity, but also because of the ultimately dysfunctional nature of the institutions – judicial, law enforcement, and parliamentary – that might otherwise be expected to deal with alleged violations of the law and, much more importantly, act to defend the rights of those who dare to stand up to and criticise the government and its policies. Indeed, it may not be too farfetched to suggest that undermining these institutions, and impeding their development and consolidation through the strengthening of democratic rule and norms, is something that is actively pursued as a matter of policy by those military and civilian elites who continue to benefit from the absence of any meaningful mechanisms through which their power can be constrained.
For all their posturing and rhetoric, whether it is when responding to the bluster of Donald Trump or trading barbs with India, the self-proclaimed architects of Pakistan’s future stand utterly exposed; isolated internationally, viewed as a pariah state by the global community, always dependent on foreign patrons for day-to-day survival, beset with unrest and instability of both external and internal origin, held hostage by millinerian zealots on a routine basis and, most damningly of all, seemingly forever at war with its own citizens, Pakistan stands on the brink of utter failure, a salutary example of what happens when muddled strategic thinking is lauded as genius and self-destructive policies are celebrated as being visionary. Whatever the state might want to believe, the fact of the matter is that Pakistan is both unstable and insecure, and cracking down on peaceful activists does nothing to address the systemic problems that continue to drag the country down.
While it may be cliched to suggest that power corrupts, this adage nonetheless perfectly captures the current state of affairs in Pakistan. For corruption does not just imply financial wrongdoing; it also refers to the inevitable mental degeneration that occurs when those in charge mistake their power for the ability to reshape reality as they deem fit. The toxic combination of paranoia and ruthlessness that characterises the conduct of the deep state is only worsened by the belief that the course of action it pursues is always correct, which in turn makes it even harder to engage in the sort of introspection and reflection needed for structural reform of the kind that will be required to build a more peaceful and prosperous Pakistan. Before they go around rounding up and punishing young men and women whose only crime is asking questions and deviating from the failed script parroted by the establishment, the powers-that-be would do well to ask how they themselves have contributed to Pakistan’s malaise.
Mumtaz and Kamran Sajidi, Raza Khan, and all the other hundreds of people who have gone missing over the past decade must be returned to their homes. If there are any allegations against them, they must be evaluated in a court of law and if there are not, or if those who have been missing have been mistreated, those responsible for their forced incarceration must be held accountable. To do otherwise would be to leave an indelible stain on this country’s conscience, one that will never be erased and for which posterity will judge us harshly.
Pakistan must put a stop to Hafiz Saeed to ensure better future, says Husain Haqqani
Haqqani, said that Pakistan has to make changes in its attitude and establish better relationship with India Former Pakistani diplomat and renowned author Husain Haqqani talked openly about the relations between the tension that is brewing between India, Pakistan and USA in an exclusive interview with News Nation.
Haqqani, said that Pakistan has to make changes in its attitude and establish better relationship with India.
He said, "The negative image that Pakistan has created all over the world is the result of their own wrongdoings. If they want to change the image of Pakistan then they have to change their agenda. At the same time, we have to take initiative to improve relations with our neighboring countries."
He further said, "If Pakistan does not take any initiative to curb Hafiz Saeed and other terrorist organizations soon, then it will take a long time to build a positive image in the international community."
On the Kashmir issue, Haqqani said, "It is important to resolve the Kashmir issue for that India-Pakistan has to build friendship, only after that rest will follow.'
At the same time, when the former diplomat was questioned about the relations between Pakistan and China, he said, "China supports Pakistan because it wants to maintain a pressure on India." If Pakistan don’t understand these things, then relations with its neighbors will only turn bitter. I hope hey change their thinking soon.”
Haqqani, also adevised the media of both India and Pakistan to stop promoting inciteful content and said, "The media of India-Pakistan also need to make changes in their way. The media of both the countries speak extensively on the Indo-Pak issue, which should not be the case. Such talk provokes people of both countries; therefore, it is important to avoid such provocative content.”
On the US relations with Pakistan, he said, "America does not have any special love for Pakistan, it is only because they benefit from the ties.”
#Pakistan - Removing Shaheed Benazir Bhutto’s picture from BISP logo condemned
Pakistan Peoples Party Parliamentarians Secretary Information and member of the National Assembly Doctor Nafisa Shah has condemned the act of removing Shaheed Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto’s picture from Benazir Income Support Program logo. She said that this act of PML-N is malevolent and it proves that usurper dictator Zia’s endeared still have bitter feelings for Shaheed Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto.
Issuing this statement from Media Office Islamabad, Doctor Nafisa Shah has said that Benazir Income Support Program was passed by the parliament to pay tribute to the services, sacrifices and struggles of Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto for constitution and democracy.
Furthermore she said that Nawaz Sharif wanted to end the program but due to the protest of international donor agencies he could not. Doctor Nafisa Shah said that strong protests will be held against this decision in the National Assembly and Senate. Doctor Shah said that Nawaz Sharif was dictator Zia’s blue eyed boy so he appointed former dictator Pervez Musharraf’s near and dear one as the chairperson of Benzair Income Support Program. The ones who are trying to erase Benzair Bhutto’s name will soon be erased themselves from the pages of history, she concluded.
https://mediacellppp.wordpress.com/
Trump’s Saber-Rattling And Pakistan’s Dilemma – OpEd
Several months ago, a couple of caricatures went viral on social media. In one of those caricatures, Donald Trump was depicted as a child sitting on a chair and Vladimir Putin was shown whispering something into Trump’s ears from behind. In the other, Trump was portrayed as sitting in Steve Bannon’s lap and the latter was shown mumbling into Trump’s ears, “Who is the big boy now?” And Trump was shown replying, “I am a big boy.”
The meaning conveyed by those cunningly crafted caricatures was to illustrate that Trump lacks the intelligence to think for himself and that he is being manipulated and played around by Putin and Bannon. Those caricatures must have affronted the vanity of Donald Trump to an extent that after the publication of those caricatures, he became ill-disposed towards Putin and fired Bannon from his job as the White House chief strategist in August last year.
Donald Trump is an impressionable man-child whose vocabulary does not extend beyond a few words and whose frequent typographical errors on his Twitter timeline, such as ‘unpresidented’ and ‘covfefe’ have made him a laughing stock for journalists and social media users alike. These spelling mistakes reveal that though fond of watching news and talk shows on the American conservative television channels, like the Fox News, but Trump isn’t much of a reader.
It is very easy for the neuroscientists on the payroll of corporate media to manipulate the minds of such puerile politicians and to lead them by the nose to toe the line of political establishments, particularly on foreign policy matters. Nevertheless, it would be pertinent to mention here that unlike dyed-in-the-wool politicians, like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, who cannot look past beyond the tunnel vision of political establishments, it appears that Donald Trump is familiar with alternative news perspectives, such as Steve Bannon’s Breitbart, no matter how racist and xenophobic.
Though far from being its diehard ideologue but Donald Trump has been affiliated with the infamous white supremacist ‘alt-right’ movement, which regards Islamic terrorism as an existential threat to America’s security. Trump’s recent tweet slamming Pakistan for playing a double game in Afghanistan and providing safe havens to the Afghan Taliban on its soil reveals his uncompromising and hawkish stance on terrorism.
Many political commentators on the Pakistani media are misinterpreting the tweet as nothing more than a momentary tantrum of a fickle US president, who wants to pin the blame of Washington’s failures in Afghanistan on Pakistan. But along with the tweet, the Trump administration has also withheld a tranche of $255 million US assistance to Pakistan, which shows that it wasn’t ‘just a tweet’ but a carefully considered policy of the new US administration to persuade Pakistan to toe Washington’s line in Afghanistan.
Several months ago, a couple of caricatures went viral on social media. In one of those caricatures, Donald Trump was depicted as a child sitting on a chair and Vladimir Putin was shown whispering something into Trump’s ears from behind. In the other, Trump was portrayed as sitting in Steve Bannon’s lap and the latter was shown mumbling into Trump’s ears, “Who is the big boy now?” And Trump was shown replying, “I am a big boy.”
The meaning conveyed by those cunningly crafted caricatures was to illustrate that Trump lacks the intelligence to think for himself and that he is being manipulated and played around by Putin and Bannon. Those caricatures must have affronted the vanity of Donald Trump to an extent that after the publication of those caricatures, he became ill-disposed towards Putin and fired Bannon from his job as the White House chief strategist in August last year.
Donald Trump is an impressionable man-child whose vocabulary does not extend beyond a few words and whose frequent typographical errors on his Twitter timeline, such as ‘unpresidented’ and ‘covfefe’ have made him a laughing stock for journalists and social media users alike. These spelling mistakes reveal that though fond of watching news and talk shows on the American conservative television channels, like the Fox News, but Trump isn’t much of a reader.
It is very easy for the neuroscientists on the payroll of corporate media to manipulate the minds of such puerile politicians and to lead them by the nose to toe the line of political establishments, particularly on foreign policy matters. Nevertheless, it would be pertinent to mention here that unlike dyed-in-the-wool politicians, like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, who cannot look past beyond the tunnel vision of political establishments, it appears that Donald Trump is familiar with alternative news perspectives, such as Steve Bannon’s Breitbart, no matter how racist and xenophobic.
Though far from being its diehard ideologue but Donald Trump has been affiliated with the infamous white supremacist ‘alt-right’ movement, which regards Islamic terrorism as an existential threat to America’s security. Trump’s recent tweet slamming Pakistan for playing a double game in Afghanistan and providing safe havens to the Afghan Taliban on its soil reveals his uncompromising and hawkish stance on terrorism.
Many political commentators on the Pakistani media are misinterpreting the tweet as nothing more than a momentary tantrum of a fickle US president, who wants to pin the blame of Washington’s failures in Afghanistan on Pakistan. But along with the tweet, the Trump administration has also withheld a tranche of $255 million US assistance to Pakistan, which shows that it wasn’t ‘just a tweet’ but a carefully considered policy of the new US administration to persuade Pakistan to toe Washington’s line in Afghanistan.
China-Pakistan military ties set to get even closer as ‘iron brothers’ eye new alliance
By Catherine Wong
Once dubbed “iron brothers” by the now retired vice-chairman of China’s Central Military Commission Fan Changlong, the two countries have steadily increased cooperation on military and defence matters in recent years as they seek to counter the perceived threat from rivals India and the United States.
Here are the five major areas in which they have worked together:
First Djibouti ... now Pakistan port earmarked for a Chinese overseas naval base, sources say
JF-17 fighter jet
Designed in China and assembled in Pakistan, the JF-17 Thunder combat aircraft was introduced in 2011 with the aim of providing the Pakistani air force with a low-cost alternative to its ageing fleet of Dassault Mirage III/5 fighter jets by 2020. In the years since, however, the jet – produced by Pakistan Aeronautical Complex and Chengdu Aerospace Corporation – has experienced its fair share of turbulence, having crashed in both 2011 and 2016.
Despite its dubious safety record Islamabad has pitched the JF17 as an affordable jet fighter for developing countries, and in 2015 secured its first export deal with an undisclosed Asian country.
China and Pakistan agree to push forward economic corridor plan after dam deal scrapped.
Secret submarines
In 2016, Beijing agreed to sell Pakistan eight modified diesel-electric attack submarines by 2028 in a deal valued at between US$4 billion and US$5 billion.
While there have been no official reports of exactly what vessels will be involved, analysts have said they are likely to be lighter versions of the People Liberation Army’s Type 039 and Type 041 Yuan-class conventional attack submarines.
The vessels will be supplied by China Shipbuilding Trading Company, and Beijing is expected to extend a long-term low-interest rate loan to Pakistan to cover their cost.
Naval exercises Last month, the navies of China and Pakistan held their fifth bilateral exercise in waters off the coast of Shanghai.
Intended to develop interoperability between the two forces, the joint manoeuvres involved China’s Jinzhou frigate and Pakistan’s Saif frigate.
Beijing also dispatched J-11 fighters, JH-7 fighter-bombers, KJ-200 early warning aircraft and various ground forces, while Pakistan sent its JF-17 Thunder jets and early warning aircraft.
China and Pakistan to use yuan in bilateral trade Fighting terrorism
During their first ever trilateral foreign ministers meeting in December, China, Pakistan and Afghanistan agreed to enhance cooperation to improve regional stability and boost their economies.
China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi said the three countries had reached complete consensus on fighting terrorism, and that China would “fully leverage” Xinjiang – its westernmost and most restive region – as a base for economic cooperation. Beijing hopes that increased stability in Afghanistan and Pakistan will allow it to better control Xinjiang’s borders, and also provide more security along the route of its massive intercontinental trade and infrastructure development plan known as the “Belt and Road Initiative”. Pakistani and Chinese troops have taken part in many joint exercises, while military leaders from the two countries have pledged to work together to maintain peace in the region.
High-level defence talks
In August, Chinese General Fang Fenghui, a former chief of the Joint Staff Department under the Central Military Commission, held high-level talks with Pakistan’s Chief of Army Staff General Raheel Sharif. The meeting took place after the establishment of a “quadrilateral mechanism” for such dialogue between China, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Tajikistan.
At the meeting, Fang said China was willing to deepen cooperation with Pakistan in all relevant areas, including capability building and enhancing regional security.
Raheel said Pakistan would crack down on known terrorist groups like the East Turkestan Islamic Movement and protect the security of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor.
Gingrich: 'Elites' don't know how to deal with Trump freezing Pakistan aid
Former Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) slammed "elites" in an interview broadcast Sunday for not knowing how to deal with the Trump administration's decision to freeze government aid to Pakistan.
"It has so thoroughly shocked the elites that we actually are going to protect America, and defend America, and that we're actually going to render judgement," Gingrich told radio host John Catsimatidis in an interview on AM 970 in New York.
"That is such a shocking moment for a lot of our elites that they don't know how to deal with it."
The former Speaker's comments came days after the Trump administration announced that it would suspend nearly all security aid to Pakistan, potentially affecting as much as $1.3 billion in annual aid, according to The New York Times.
The State Department had earlier held up $225 million in military financing from Pakistan over the administration's frustration with the state for not doing enough to combat Islamic terrorism.
Critics are concerned that the move by President Trump could mean the U.S. loses an ally in the region. The U.S. ratcheted up funding for Pakistan to combat Islamic militants following the 9/11 attacks.
The U.S. has sent over $33 billion in foreign aid to Pakistan since 2002, which Trump said has provided the U.S. "nothing" in return, saying the Pakistani government has failed to crack down on the Afghan Taliban and its affiliated groups within the country's borders.
"If you kick us in the shin, we're not going to pay you," Gingrich said Sunday.
Pakistan Is a Problematic Ally, But Trump Cutting It Off Won’t Change That
By Jonah Shepp
The Trump administration announced on Thursday that it was suspending nearly all security assistance to Pakistan, citing what it described as insufficient action by that country to combat the terrorist organizations such as the Taliban-connected Haqqani network that plot attacks in Afghanistan from its soil.
The decision could affect up to $1.3 billion in aid, including $1.1 billion in so-called Coalition Support Funds provided by the Pentagon to help pay for counterterrorism operations, along with $255 million in military funding from the State Department. Pakistan will not receive any American military equipment while the freeze is in place. However, State Department spokesperson Heather Nauert said the exact amount of funding to be frozen was not yet determined and that exceptions could be made on a case-by-case basis. Non-military funding such as economic and humanitarian aid is not affected.
The State Department also added Pakistan to its special watchlist of countries engaging in “severe violations” of religious freedom — a designation Pakistan’s government quickly decried as politically motivated.
President Donald Trump hinted at this freeze in his Afghanistan strategy speech last August and in an angry tweet on New Year’s Day, in which he accused Pakistan of giving the U.S. “nothing but lies & deceit” in exchange for $33 billion in aid since 2002. Pakistan has quibbled with that $33 billion figure, noting that the CSF component was no gift but rather “compensation for services rendered” and that not all funds allocated for aid to Pakistan have actually been disbursed. Pakistan’s prime minister Shahid Khaqan Abbasi described the proposed cuts as bewildering, claiming that the amount of aid his country had actually received from the U.S. was “very, very insignificant,” amounting to less than $10 million a year over the past five years.
The administration says Pakistan can get its security aid restored on the condition that it cut contact with extremist groups and reassign agents of its troublesome military intelligence agency (the Inter-Service Intelligence) with links to these groups. U.S. officials also want access to a member of the Haqqani network Pakistan captured during an October raid in which it freed a Canadian-American family being held hostage by them.
That Pakistan has served as a safe haven for terrorist groups is not really in dispute: After all, Osama bin Laden lived for six years in Abbottabad, a city that also hosts a major military academy, before being killed by Navy SEALS in 2011. Pakistan denied knowing he was there, but the idea that nobody in the country’s military or intelligence establishment had a clue simply beggars belief. Some members of the ISI are known to sympathize with militant groups like the Taliban, and the agency or elements within it have been suspected of abetting terror plots in Afghanistan and India.
The problem with labeling Pakistan qua Pakistan a sponsor of terrorism is that it may assume too much about the stability, cohesion, and reach of the Pakistani government. The terrorist groups that operate in Pakistan are mostly based in the country’s northern regions, between the porous border with Afghanistan and near the disputed territory of Kashmir. Islamabad has consistently had trouble governing this nigh-ungovernable region, which has been racked for decades by violence, crippling poverty, widespread illiteracy, and the kind of extremism that feeds off such conditions.
Even if Pakistan were a highly functional state, policing these nigh-ungovernable mountains would be a challenge. Unfortunately, it’s not: It’s a weak state, with less than complete control over its territory and fragmented authority among its agencies, particularly the unaccountable ISI. That weakness is sustained by poverty, ethnic divisions, and the growing influence of radical Islamic thought, promulgated in religious schools funded by Saudi Arabia.
The more complicated reality is that parts of the Pakistani state are very much sponsors of terrorism, while other parts are trying their best to fight it. That’s one reason why most observers doubt that cutting off Pakistan’s access to U.S. military aid will compel it to change its behavior: Even if it really wanted to meet Trump’s conditions, it probably can’t. Most Pakistanis hate the Taliban and other terrorist organizations, but they don’t exactly love the country that has been drone-bombing them for the past 13 years, either. Rallying Pakistan’s vast, fragmented military and intelligence community around the principle of unwavering cooperation with the U.S. would be a Sisyphean task.
Meanwhile, the Pakistanis in the anti-Taliban camp find Trump’s allegations of “lies and deceit” galling. Islamabad-based journalist and counterterrorism researcher Arsla Jawaid writes for CNN that for all its faults, the country has poured an awful lot of blood and treasure into the war on terrorism, making halting but meaningful progress in recent years, while thousands of Pakistani civilians have been killed by Taliban terrorists and American Predator drones alike. Factoring in the economic toll of helping the U.S. prosecute the forever war on its soil, Jawaid argues, the costs to Pakistan of being a U.S. ally have vastly outweighed the American aid it has received.
Even critics of Pakistan who support getting tougher with our problematic ally doubt that suspending aid will make much difference. Writing in the Washington Post, Indian journalist Barkha Dutt points out that an aid cutoff is a price the Pakistani military is willing to pay in order to pursue what it sees as Pakistan’s national interest rather than that of the U.S., whereas the American war effort in Afghanistan remains heavily dependent on supply routes through Pakistan, making it hard for leaders in Islamabad to imagine us abandoning them entirely. Unless the U.S. is willing to reroute its Afghan supply lines, while also backing Pakistan’s elected civilian government in its longstanding power struggle with the military, Dutt doubts that Trump’s move will have much effect.
In any case, we know that putting financial pressure on Pakistan doesn’t compel it to change its ways because the Obama administration tried it, repeatedly and to no avail. As Georgetown professor C. Christine Fair explains at Foreign Policy, Pakistan holds all the cards here, because we need them more than they need us. Not only is Pakistan a critical link in our supply chain to Afghanistan, it’s also got the fastest-growing nuclear program in the world, the security of which is already terrifyingly spotty. The global security threats posed by insolvency, instability, or economy or political collapse in Pakistan are such that we can’t cut it off completely without raising the specter of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists.
For its part, Pakistan has been preparing for a suspension of American aid for years, after all the other times we have threatened or attempted one. The country has cultivated other financiers, including Russia and China, as the dollar value of U.S. aid has declined in recent years. The Pakistanis can afford to gamble here, figuring that either Washington will eventually become too scared of loose nukes to let our purchased influence there deteriorate any further, or Beijing will step in to fill the gap. Secretary of Defense James Mattis told the press he was not concerned about the possibility of Pakistan cutting off our routes to Afghanistan in retaliation, which so far it has not indicated it will do. An anonymous official told Reuters on Friday that the administration was examining steps to mitigate the impact of such a retaliatory measure, which they acknowledged could be quite severe, but these “risk mitigation plans” are not fully developed. Judging from these remarks.
In keeping with his foreign policy doctrine of scuttling any transaction that does not get the U.S. enough bang for its buck, Trump appears to be balancing the cost of our aid to Pakistan against the help we’re getting from them and concluding that this deal is simply not worth the money. But accounting for the full range of costs and risks inherent in cutting Pakistan loose, along with the likelihood that this punishment won’t prove corrective, the balance sheet begins to look messier. America’s strategy in Pakistan has been on the wrong track for a long time, but that doesn’t mean Trump’s approach will put it on the right one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)