Wednesday, August 10, 2022
EDITORIAL: The U.S. Relationship With China Does Not Need to Be So Tense
China, economically ascendant, has become increasingly assertive in pressing its economic,
political and territorial claims. The United States, which long treated the country as something of a charity case, now regards it as a rival and, increasingly, as a threat. While some tension is inevitable, the rhetoric in both nations has taken a bellicose turn. There is little trust or cooperation even on issues of clear mutual interest, like combating the Covid-19 pandemic or addressing climate change.
The hardening on both sides was on full display this week. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi made a provocative visit to Taiwan to underscore America’s support for its democratic government, and China mounted an overheated response, staging military exercises that encroached on Taiwan’s airspace and territorial waters to emphasize its determination to establish sovereignty over what it regards as its own. China announced on Friday that it also would suspend communication with the United States on a number of issues, including climate change and efforts to prevent drug trafficking.
It is in everyone’s interest for the two most powerful nations on Earth to find ways of easing these tensions. Over the past half century, beginning with President Richard Nixon’s seminal visit to China in 1972, the leaders of the United States and China have repeatedly chosen to prioritize common interests above conflict. Building this relationship, for all its flaws, has contributed much to the world’s stability and prosperity.
The Biden administration has ditched the xenophobic rhetoric of the Trump White House, but it has not offered its own vision for striking a balance between competition and cooperation. Instead, it has conducted America’s relationship with China largely as a series of exercises in crisis management, imposing sanctions for China’s human rights abuses in Xinjiang and Hong Kong while seeking its cooperation on Covid, climate change and the war in Ukraine.
There are several concrete steps the United States could take that might help improve relations.
First, instead of relying on punitive trade policies rooted in fear of China as an economic rival, the United States needs to focus on competing by investing in technical education, scientific research and industrial development. It is past time for President Biden to make a clean break with the Trump administration’s failed gambit of bullying China into making economic concessions by imposing tariffs on Chinese imports.
On Tuesday, Mr. Biden is expected to sign the CHIPS Act, which includes nearly $53 billion to support domestic production of semiconductors, the building blocks of the digital age. This might be described as taking a page from China, except the United States was the first great practitioner of this kind of industrial policy.
The United States also needs to move past the old idea that economic engagement would gradually transform Chinese politics and society. Instead of trying to change China, the United States should focus on building stronger ties with China’s neighbors. Fostering cooperation among nations with disparate interests — and in some cases, their own long histories of conflict — is not an easy task, but recent history teaches that the United States is more effective in advancing and defending its interests when it does not act unilaterally.
Taiwan is an important part of that project. Ms. Pelosi’s visit was ill timed. The Biden administration’s most urgent foreign policy priority is helping Ukraine to defeat Russia’s invasion, and the Taiwan contretemps makes it only harder to persuade China to limit support for Russia. The substance of Ms. Pelosi’s message to Taiwan, however, was on the mark. The United States has long supported the maturation of Taiwan’s democracy, and it is in America’s interest to treat Taiwan as a valued ally.
The United States has long maintained a policy of “strategic ambiguity” with regard to Taiwan, selling arms to its government while declining to make any outright security commitments. Arming Taiwan remains the best way to help. But clarity could help, too.
Tensions over Taiwan are rising for three interlinked reasons: The self-governing island has become more democratic and defiantly autonomous; China, under the authoritarian leadership of Xi Jinping, has become more bellicose; and the United States has responded to both trends by offering Taiwan stronger expressions of support.When Mr. Biden said bluntly in May that the United States would defend Taiwan against a Chinese attack, aides insisted he didn’t mean to shift American policy.
But the White House should be clear that America’s commitment to recognize only a single Chinese state — the “one China policy” — has always been premised on the mainland’s peaceful conduct toward Taiwan.
Neither of these efforts — strengthening the American economy and building stronger alliances — is meant to isolate China. To the contrary, they offer a stronger basis for the Biden administration and its successors to engage China on issues where there are real differences but also real possibilities for progress, especially climate change.
Treating China as a hostile power is a counterproductive simplification. The two nations occupy large chunks of the same planet. They do not agree on the meaning of democracy or human rights, but they do share some values, most important the pursuit of prosperity.
The uncomfortable reality is that the United States and China need each other. There is no better illustration than the cargo ships that continued moving between Guangzhou and Long Beach, Calif., during Ms. Pelosi’s visit — and will continue long after her return.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/06/opinion/pelosi-taiwan-biden-china-policy.html
political and territorial claims. The United States, which long treated the country as something of a charity case, now regards it as a rival and, increasingly, as a threat. While some tension is inevitable, the rhetoric in both nations has taken a bellicose turn. There is little trust or cooperation even on issues of clear mutual interest, like combating the Covid-19 pandemic or addressing climate change.
Pakistan: A Hapless Victim Of Terrorism Or Rawalpindi’s Machinations? – OpEd
By Nilesh Kunwar
Islamabad is constantly complaining about being a ‘victim’ of terrorism and available data on terrorist acts in Pakistan and resultant loss of life and property due to the same indisputably validates this lament. However, despite its repeated allegations that terrorist violence in Pakistan is being orchestrated by India and even churning out countless dossiers, which according to Islamabad contain “irrefutable evidence” to buttress its claim, these haven’t evoked any meaningful response from the international community, and the reason is simple. Contrary to Islamabad’s allegation of global apathy and vested interests of the international community, the fact is that despite being high on rhetoric, its claims aren’t supported by any credible evidence.
A classic example of Islamabad’s wild insinuations concerns the anti-Pakistan Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan [TTP] terrorist group operating from Afghan soil. Prior to fall of the Hamid Karzai government, Islamabad consistently accused India’s spy agency Research and Analysis Wing [RAW] and its Afghan counterpart National Directorate of Security [NDS] of sponsoring and TTP and using it as a proxy to orchestrate terrorist activities in Pakistan.Soon after Pakistan’s protégé Afghan Taliban seized power in Afghanistan, the then Information Minister of Pakistan Fawad Chaudhry proudly told the media during a press conference that “We should be satisfied to know with regards to the TTP, that for the first time the process of Indian funding [to them]-which had been going on for a long time, has ended and at this time they [TTP] are in disarray.”A confident Chaudhry even went on say that “These internal challenges are not a problem for us. Our [belief] is that once they [TTP] stop having a funding stream from abroad, then it will be a big blow for them and the rest we will handle ourselves.” However, rather than suffering a “big blow,” as the interior minister had prognosed, attacks on security forces by TTP escalated to unprecedented levels and the “the rest we will handle ourselves” assurance turned out to be a damp squib as just two months after the fall of Kabul the then Prime Minister of Pakistan Imran Khan announced that Islamabad was negotiating a peace deal with this terrorist group.
Considering the fact that this terrorist group is besides being responsible for killing and injuring hundreds of army men and para military force personnel, also has the blood of 134 innocent students and 14 staff members of Army School Peshawar on its hands, this is indeed an iniquitous compromise.
Another typical example of blaming others for its internal woes can be seen Islamabad’s insistence that Washington is responsible for the problem of terrorism bedevilling Pakistan. In his tedious 2019 United Nations General Assembly [UNGA] speech, the then Prime Minister Imran Khan said, “We joined the war against the Soviets in the 1980’s. Pakistan trained the then “mujahedeen” at the behest of the Americans. The Soviets called them terrorists; the Americans called them freedom fighters. Then, Soviets left, US packed up. Come 9/11, now that we had to join the US and tell the same indoctrinated people this is now not a “freedom struggle” but “terrorism”. They suddenly saw us as collaborators; it became a nightmare & they turned against us.”
However, while Khan’s heart-breaking narration was a statement of facts, albeit craftily worded and that it failed to evoke any sympathy was obvious for several reasons. Firstly, America’s proxy war against the erstwhile Soviets in Afghanistan by using radicalised Islamists was both immoral and meant only to serve its own vested interests, but yet, Pakistan’s dictator cum President Gen Zia ul Haq still allied with Washington. Isn’t it a fact that Gen Zia did so just for the sake of making a fast buck through lavish US aid packages- remember the famous 1981 “peanuts” barb that he used to express displeasure over a $250 US million aid package”?
Secondly, it’s inconceivable that an experienced military man like Gen Zia was unaware that by serving as Washington’s minion and taking on the responsibility of radicalising and training ‘mujahideen’ at behest of the Americans, he was actually turning the country into a veritable breeding ground for religious indoctrination. To say that locals were insulated from the consequences of this dangerous indoctrination initiative that spawned religious extremism is, to say the least, denying the obvious.
Former Pakistan President and ex-army chief Gen Pervez Musharraf’s revelation endorses this inference. In an interview given to Der Spiegel in 2010, he proudly admitted that “We poisoned [the minds of] Pakistani civil society for 10 years when we fought the Soviets in Afghanistan in the 1980s. It was jihad and we brought in militants from all over the world, with the West and Pakistan together in the lead role.” [ Emphasis added]. Now with a man who’s served both as President and army chief himself admitting that under Gen Zia’s dictatorship, even ordinary Pakistanis were radicalised, would it still be appropriate to apportion full blame on Uncle Sam for the country’s woes?
Gen Musharraf also admitted that “In 1979, we had introduced religious militancy in Afghanistan to benefit Pakistan, and to push the Soviets out of the country. We brought Mujahideen from all over the world, we trained them and supplied weapons to them. We trained the Taliban, sent them in.” Not only this, Musharraf also went on to concede that “They were our heroes. Haqqani was our hero. Osama bin Laden was our hero. Ayman al-Zawahiri was our hero [Emphasis Added].” With such radicalised entities admittedly being hailed as heroes in Pakistan, it’s not at all surprising that religious fundamentalism took root and spread like wild fire there.
In saying that after 9/11, “we had to join the US [in the war against terror” [Emphasis added], Khan deliberately misled the international community. Thefact of the matter is that the US didn’t elbow-twist Islamabad into doing so – au contraire, it was the then Pakistani President Gen Musharraf, who in return for generous doles from the US, himself decided to jump onto America’s bandwagon! Most importantly, what Khan didn’t disclose in his impassioned UNGA speech was that how did terrorists, who were merely ‘hired guns’ and had no independent means of sustenance, not only survive but even flourish after the US left Afghanistan till 9/11. The answer to this puzzle isn’t too hard to find as Khan himself did so during his 2019 US visit by admitting that “we still have about 30,000-40,000-armed people who have been trained and fought in some part of Afghanistan or Kashmir”! [Emphasis added].
Furthermore, by contending that after joining the US led war on terror, Pakistan had to “… tell the same indoctrinated people [terrorists] this is now not a freedom struggle but terrorism,” Khan has willy-nilly confessed that the terrorists who fought the Soviets in Afghanistan in the garb of ‘mujahideen’ were being patronised and sustained by none other than the Pakistan army’s spy agency Inter-Services Intelligence! He left no doubts whatsoever on this issue when he admitted that “They [terrorists] suddenly saw us as collaborators; it became a nightmare and they turned against us.” [Emphasis added].
While Rawalpindi nurtured terrorist groups as ‘strategic assets’ for waging proxy wars against its neighbours and encouraged radicalisation and sectarianism, the people of Pakistan were the ones who had to face the blow-back of this perverse strategy in the form of terrorist attacks. so, in retrospect, it’s abundantly clear that Pakistan army’s ‘strategic asset’ policy of romancing terrorist groups has expectedly backfired. Surprisingly, it didn’t learn a lesson and brazenly disregarding Washington’s requests, continued to host Afghan Taliban for a decade with high hopes that after coming to power, Kabul would serve as an obedient and pliable vassal of Pakistan.
To doubly ensure this, Director General of ISI Lt Faiz Hameed air dashed to Kabul and secured influential government positions for members of Rawalpindi’s favourite and most trusted protégé- the Haqqani network. However, after coming to power, Afghan Taliban refused to play ball, and one of the first things it did was to disregard Islamabad’s request and unconditionally release more than 2,300 TTP fighters imprisoned in Afghanistan jails, including the terrorist group’s former deputy chief Maulvi Faqir Mohammad.
However, this was not all. To indicate its disagreement regarding the alignment of Pak-Afghan border as delineated by the Durand Line, the Taliban uprooted portions of the border fencing erected by Pakistan army and even used physical force to stop the fencing work. After Pakistan army carried trans-border strikes against TTP terrorist facilities inside Afghanistan, Chief Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid hit back and warned its erstwhile benefactor by saying “Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan [IEA] calls on the Pakistani side not to test the patience of Afghans on such issues and not repeat the same mistake again, otherwise it will have bad consequences.”
While feeling sorry for the people of Pakistan who are facing the consequences of Rawalpindi’s self-debilitating ‘strategic asset’ strategy, one is reminded of Hillary Clinton, who as US Secretary of State had way back in 2011 during her Pakistan visit, cautioned the Pakistani establishment by saying, “You can’t keep snakes in your backyard and expect them only to bite your neighbours,” and predicting that “You know, eventually those snakes are going to turn on whoever has them in the backyard.”
So, rather than blaming foreign forces for acts of terrorism inside Pakistan, it would do Islamabad a lot of good to look inwards and rein-in Rawalpindi. However, since Pakistan “is not a country with an army, but an army with a country,” this could indeed be a tall order!
https://www.eurasiareview.com/09082022-pakistan-a-hapless-victim-of-terrorism-or-rawalpindis-machinations-oped/
#Pakistan - Imran Khan’s youth squad - A lost generation
PTI chief Imran Khan’s social media teams were given free hand to spread intolerance and hatred for a number of years. Among the targets were PTI’s political opponents, independent media houses and media persons. The campaign to spread intolerance reached new heights during the years when the PTI was on the same page with the establishment. Over time tens of thousands of youth were brainwashed and hundreds turned into active ‘Insafias’.
The unfortunate comments on Lasbela helicopter crash have led the ISPR to condemn the “highly unacceptable and regretful social media campaign” causing “deep anguish and distress among the families of martyrs and rank and file of the armed forces”. The FIA has been tasked with locating, arresting and taking legal action against those involved in running the negative social media campaign. But can legal action against a few change the mindset of tens of thousands?
Mr Khan’s word is gospel truth for the PTI youngsters with mobile phones. If what he says goes against facts, there must be something wrong with the ‘so-called facts’, the youngsters firmly believe.
Most of the PTI youth have little knowledge of the country’s history, politics or economy. Mr Khan has inflated their egos by stressing that the possession of a smartphone is enough to enable them to understand what is going on in the country or the world at large. All they need is to switch it on to receive guidelines directly from Mr Khan or the party’s social media teams. All the youngsters know about politics is that those who disagree with PTI are enemies. PPP leader Asif Zardari is the biggest “bimari” (illness), Prime Minster Shehbaz Sharif is a shoe polish named Cherry Blossom, and JUI(F) chief Maulana Fazlur Rehman is Diesel. Those who pose as ‘neutrals’ are accused of having conspired with the USA to overthrow Mr Khan’s government.
The PTI is not doing politics, the youth are told. It is in fact fighting a jihad against Yazidiat . Everyone among the PTI’s youth is a soldier who must wield his smartphone as a weapon in the battle. The latest guideline coming from Mr Khan says Pakistan is facing fascism today in the form of rule by a “cabal of crooks and their handlers” brought to power through the US regime change conspiracy. What is needed is for the state to launch an all-out campaign to inculcate tolerance in society. The use of religion for political gains should be discouraged. The policy to promote favourites should be abandoned.
https://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2022/08/08/imran-khans-youth-squad/
#Pakistan - Political Funding
The Free and Fair Election Network’s (Fafen) call to the parliament to make electoral reforms surrounding the issue of uncontrolled and unaccounted-for funding of electoral campaigns needs to be seriously considered by both the upper and lower houses.
In the current Elections Act 2017, there is no clear definition of what constitutes electoral funding. The issues with this are endless. For instance, are rallies to drum up support looked at for their funding sources? Where does the money for the constant power shows come from? Similarly, there is no clarity on how much money is being spent on the day of elections, and where this comes from.
Currently, all major political parties benefit from this lack of oversight. All of them have financial heavyweights both within and outside the party that provide money, with the public at large having no understanding of what is expected in return. In case they are active political workers, this could result in an important position being granted. If these backers are outside the party, could this then imply that political parties have to grant favours to big businesses or stakeholders which might end up disadvantageous to other related actors?
To be clear, funding and the process of give and take and political funding is a crucial part of politics the world over; this is not to imply that any major political actor is engaging in any wrongdoing. However, there has to be some modicum of control and transparency in this process, as these political parties then form governments that have the future of Pakistan at stake.
Electoral funding is an important issue that requires discussion and debate among political actors. But there is no doubt that we need tighter regulation around the issue and the best place to start this discussion is in the parliament.
https://www.newsweekpakistan.com/category/latest-news/
عمران خان نے غیر ملکی فنڈنگ پر وطن دشمنی کا بیانیہ اختیار کیا، فیصل کریم کنڈی
ترجمان پیپلز پارٹی فیصل کریم کنڈی نے کہا ہے کہ عمران خان نے غیر ملکی ممنوعہ فنڈنگ پر وطن دشمنی کا بیانیہ اختیار کیا۔
چیئرمین تحریک انصاف کی پریس کانفرنس پر ردعمل دیتے ہوئے رہنما پیپلز پارٹی کا کہنا تھا کہ عمران خان بتائیں عارف نقوی کے ذریعے کتنے ارب کی منی لانڈرنگ کی؟
انہوں نے کہا کہ بیرون ممالک سے فنڈنگ تمہاری ہوئی، تمہارے خلاف سازش کون کرے گا؟
انہوں نے مزید کہا کہ ریاست 2014 سے 2018 تک عمران خان کی فنڈنگ کی تحقیقات کرے۔
https://jang.com.pk/news/1122219
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)