Every country has an army, but in Pakistan it’s the other way around — the army has a country. From its inception in 1947, Pakistan has been held hostage by its military. From production of cereals to nuclear bombs, from housing construction to cement manufacture, committing genocide in Bangladesh in 1971 to now hosting and arming ISIS affiliates in Balochistan, Pakistan’s army has ruled the country with an iron grip, despite the veneer of democracy. Once upon a time, military coups in Pakistan were bloodless. If the generals were not pleased with the elected or appointed prime minister, they would simply send in the infamous 111 Brigade headquartered in the capital to the prime minister’s residence, arrest and oust him. The last coup was in 1999 when General Pervez Musharraf overthrew prime minister Nawaz Sharif and exiled him and his family. Then came the U.S. “Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act of 2009”, better known as the Kerry-Lugar bill. It aimed to ensure the American-funded Pakistan armed forces would pay a heavy price if they toppled democratically elected Pakistani governments. The law authorizes instant suspension of $1.5 billion U.S. aid to the Pakistan military if the army overthrows an elected civilian government. Sharif, who won the country’s 2013 elections in a landslide, was in the process of starting peace talks with India, but the military would have nothing of that sort. Peace with India could hit at the fundamental reason for Pakistan’s massive armed forces and curtail them. However, the Kerry-Lugar Bill ensured the army could not simply overthrow the elected government. Instead, critics say, the military employed a new tactic. They relied, among others, on Canadian-Pakistani cleric Tahir-ul-Qadri, who has a cult-like religious following in Pakistan, to help topple the civilian government through mass protests. (Qadri has denied he is backed by the military.) Qadri, who has in the past played a part in backing military juntas in Pakistan, arrived from Canada on July 23 and on August 14 — the country’s Independence Day anniversary — announced a “revolution” march on Islamabad by a million people aimed at toppling the government. He was joined in the exercise by the cricketer-turned politician Imran Khan, who led a parallel procession to protest against what he called rigging in last year’s election. On reaching Islamabad, Qadri’s supporters clashed with police and allegedly beat an officer to death. Newsweek Pakistan reports Qadri has been charged with murder while the Islamabad newspaper The Daily Times reports the Canadian cleric has been charged with treason as well. (Qadri has denied the murder and treason charges.) A former senior official in the Pakistan government described Qadri as “a chameleon with close ties to Pakistani military intelligence.” (Qadri has denied any links to Pakistan’s military intelligence.) Explaining the current crisis, the official said: “The real issue is Nawaz’s willingness to compromise with India. The army wants full control over foreign and national security policy. The generals cannot stage a coup due to fears of international isolation, but they also don’t want to let the civilians govern.” I asked federal Citizenship Minister Chris Alexander if Canada is prepared to strip Qadri of his Canadian citizenship under Bill C-24 and refuse him re-entry into Canada, now that he has been charged in Pakistan. I have not yet received a response, but I am hoping Alexander will. So should all Canadians.BY TAREK FATAH
Wednesday, September 3, 2014
Canadian cleric spurs unrest in Pakistan
How one-time cricket star Imran Khan could help bring down Pakistan’s government
Nearly every recent profile of Imran Khan invariably winds its way to the House of Khan. Above tracks of “winding, rutted roads,” as one journalist commented, the estate extends more than 40 acres, hosting a bevy of lawns, a swimming pool and at least three roving sheepdogs. There resides Khan: the best cricket player in Pakistani history and once among the finest in the world — an “all-rounder” who could bowl and bat with extraordinary skill. After leading a celebrated social life in London, he turned politician some years ago and now leads street protests that may topple the Pakistani government. The Oxford grad’s a man of craggy movie-star good looks and an air of the dramatic. “Clad in a traditional white tunic, he opens the huge, heavy wooden doors to his mansion and apologizes for the brief delay,” The Washington Post’s Richard Leiby wrote when he visited Khan in 2011. For the Guardian, Khan is spotted “sitting alone at a table in the garden of the house … dressed entirely in black.” For the New Yorker, Khan “emerged from the house wearing a gray shalwar kameeze,” and said, “My God, it’s going to be a tough day.” But perhaps Monday was tougher for Pakistan. Khan and his supporters again protested Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, whom they accuse of fixing last year’s election, which Khan’s Movement for Justice party lost. The protests have roiled the capital for three weeks, heightening fears the nuclear-armed country could soon return to military rule. Sharif, for now, is hanging tough. “I will not resign under any pressure and I will not go on leave,” Sharif said, The Post reported. “There shall be no precedent in Pakistan that only a few people take as hostage the mandate of millions by resorting to force.” The drama then took a bizarre turn. The president of Khan’s own political party accused him of colluding with the army to oust the besieged prime minister and set fresh elections later this month. The party official said if Pakistan’s government collapsed, the responsibility would lie with Khan. Khan denied the allegations — and then fired his former associate. “I am disappointed with” him, Khan said, according to local media. It’s another bit a drama for a man who’s no stranger to it. After his cricket career, which included leading Pakistan’s team to its one and only world championship in 1992, he soon married the glamorous daughter of a British billionaire. She was Jewish. And half his age. Though Jemima Khan converted to Islam, their return to Pakistan was rocky and she was subjected to anti-Semitic attacks. But Khan was not the sort to fade into obscurity. He delved into politics and in 2004 divorced his wife, with whom he had two children. “I could never imagine living in London, just making a living out of cricket journalism,” he wrote in his memoir, according to the New Yorker. My wife “knew that. She did not marry a lounge lizard.” There was an anger to Khan. He was mad at his political rivals, whom he called “stooges” and “puppets” of the United States. He was upset at American foreign policy: “All they want is obedient slaves,” he told The Post. But he was most angry at Pakistan’s government. “The whole system has collapsed,” he said. “There is no government today…. The system is destroying the people, but the politicians are getting richer than before.” But isn’t Khan pretty rich himself? What about his chateau? His sheepdogs? His myriad couches, which no matter the profile, he’s always “settling” into? After inviting the New Yorker’s Steve Coll to his house, Khan first lit a fire in a stone fireplace, then “settled on a couch, draped in an orange scarf. A large mirror hung on the wall above his king-sized bed. There was a flat-screen television, an audio system, a rack of compact disks, and a shotgun stored in a case.” And then there’s the hair. It’s a vital piece to the Khanian ethos. Long and unruly and Keith-Richards-esque, it’s unclear where Khan and his hair are going next. But there are signs that he’s not, in fact, going anywhere. The Pakistani army is one of the country’s most powerful institutions; few civilian leaders have been able to trump its power. And if it becomes clear the army has turned against Sharif — and toward Khan — he could have bigger things ahead. “Imran Khan said we can’t move forward without the army,” the Telegraph reports Khan’s former party associate saying. “Imran Khan also said that all the matters had been decided and there will be elections in September.”By Terrence McCoy
Pakistan: Romance In Parliament
The Joint Session of the Parliament kicked off on Tuesday against the backdrop of violent PAT and PTI protestors gathered in Islamabad for almost three weeks. In many ways, it was a historical occasion. Javed Hashmi, after reiterating his support for democracy and openly refusing to become part of any conspiracy against it, announced his resignation from the National Assembly. He arrived and left amidst applause from Parliamentarians across party lines. Aitzaz Ahsan lectured Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif on democratic values. And the Prime Minister sat in his chair and listened; a sight to cherish. Mehmood Khan Achakzai and Maulana Fazl-ur-Rehman did not shy away from adding their two cents to the mix either. But, this was bigger than personalities, bigger than anyone seated inside or outside the Parliament. We witnessed a Parliament united in defiance against forces hellbent on derailing the system under the pretext of change and revolution. We witnessed politicians rise above partisanship answering to the call of their democratic duty; that of preserving the sanctity of the constitution and the institution meant to reflect the collective will of the people of Pakistan. We saw a heavy mandated government seeking validation from the opposition, which rose to the occasion by offering principled support coupled with necessary rebuke. Our past is tarnished with events defined by shortsighted political opportunism, and on Tuesday, the people’s representatives took a leap forward in an attempt to break away from poor traditions, inciting hope by example for a new era of political responsibility and sensibility. It would not be wrong to claim that all in all, it was a good day for democracy.
However, democracy needs more than a single good day. It is a never-ending process, never ceasing to improve and correct, and relies on the collective behavior of both people and their representatives to deliver what is expected from it. The government would do well not to emerge as an arrogant victor. We’d rather see a humbled survivor; an entity which has learnt its lessons well enough not to be forgotten once imminent threat has been averted. The threat of poor performance and undemocratic behaviors is consistent, and it comes from within this country’s Parliamentarians. The conspiracy of complacency, carelessness and dishonesty is hatched in the hearts and minds of our Parliamentarians, not in some dark room crowded with people with dark intentions. Aitzaz Ahsan was right in reminding the PM that the opposition would revert to its original role as soon as this troublesome phase was over. We expect it to. From the government, we expect growth and maturity, humility and engagement, and of course, fulfillment of its many promises.
Imran met Tahirul Qadri in London: Hashmi
Javed Hashmi continues to make disclosures about Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) chairman Imran Khan. In an interview with Hamid Mir during the special edition of ‘Capital Talk,’ Hashmi said Imran Khan had travelled to London and held a meeting with Pakistan Awami Tehreek (PAT) chief Dr Tahirul Qadri.
Hashmi claimed there were discussions in PTI that former ISI chief Lt. General Shuja Pasha was active in Lahore. Javed Hashmi further said that Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Chief Minister Pervaiz Khattak informed Khan that provincial parliamentarians of the party would not be resigning. According to Hashmi resignations were not given happily by PTI parliamentarians. Hashmi was also critical of Imran Khan’s call for the civil disobedience movement.In his conversation with Hamid Mir, Javed Hashmi disclosed that he was not in favour of the Geo News boycott announced by Imran Khan. According to Hashmi he had not boycotted Geo News. “I live in Multan Cantt were Geo News has been suspended which is why I installed a satellite at my residence.” Hashmi said that other PTI leaders including Shafqat Mahmood also questioned the decision to boycott Geo News. In another startling revelation, Javed Hashmi said Imran Khan told him that “They” are saying you had not brought the masses in the sit-ins as per commitment. Tahirul Qadri was unable to attack the parliament. You both have failed, therefore, resignations have not been tendered.
Pakistan: The Imran-Qadri headache
The press conference by Javed Hashmi, the president of the PTI, on August 31 should be an eye opener for all those who still believe in the illusion that cricketing leadership is equal to, if not better than, political leadershipThe political horizon of Pakistan has finally witnessed the emergence of a new pressure group comprising the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf (PTI) led by Imran Khan and the Pakistan Awami Tehreek (PAT) led by Dr Tahirul Qadri. The other day, the latter called both parties political cousins hell bent on altering the political trajectory of Pakistan. Perhaps these parties could not be political brothers because one had a legitimate (electoral) representation in parliament whereas the other was deprived of that privilege. By not countering Dr Qadri’s claim, Khan tacitly accepted it and thereby reduced the status of PTI to that of PAT. Their synchronisation in several aspects showed that both parties share a common agenda in intent and action. One of the more dangerous common tactics adopted by these political cousins was inciting their followers to break the law. Unfortunately, on August 31, 2014 a press release issued by the Inter Services Public Relations (ISPR) at the conclusion of a hurriedly convened corps commanders’ conference, fell short of identifying or showing concern about the incitement, if the ISPR was keen to issue any such statement at all. There are a few other injustices the press release conveyed. For instance, it said, “While reaffirming support to democracy, the conference reviewed with [a] serious concern the existing political crisis and the violent turn it has taken, resulting in large scale injuries and [the] loss of lives.” The question is, why did the conference reaffirm its support to democracy only, why not to the constitution as well? Similarly, why was no support to parliament extended by the conference? Do the corps commanders think that Prime Minister (PM) Nawaz Sharif should resign on the demand of Khan for the sake of democracy even if the constitution does not demand it? Do the corps commanders think that parliament and all the provincial assemblies should be dissolved to meet the wishes of Dr Qadri to realise his revolution? The press release went on to say: “Further [the] use of force will only aggravate the problem.” The question is, how have the corps commanders assumed the role of advisors to the elected government? Even if the corps commanders assumed such a role, they should also have given suggestions to the government about how to refrain the unruly and fully provoked mob from crossing the red line of storming buildings. The aggravation of the problem may be important but the question is: who created the problem? The activities of Sheikh Rasheed, exchanging messages between people, indicate something. If not the army, which institution of state does Rasheed claim his public association with? If not something suspicious, what does the meeting of PTI Vice President Shah Mehmood Qureshi with General (retired) Pervez Musharraf in Karachi a few days ago indicate? If this was to be the quality of the press release, what was the hurry in calling the corps commanders’ conference? In principle, the press release should have mentioned that the corps commanders would not support any unconstitutional act by any party. Second, the press release should have mentioned that the corps commanders would not support any agitation or protest that could undermine parliament. In fact, instead of leaving ambiguities in the press release, the corps commanders should have been clear on their stance on both the constitution and parliament. This was important because the means adopted by the followers of both the PTI and the PAT to access their ostensible rights cannot be confined to them. Furthermore, in the electoral rebound of the PPP and PML-N and in the electoral rejection of pro-Musharraf parties in the past two general elections, there is a point of caution for all those thinking of the introduction of any version of martial law. The press conference by Javed Hashmi, the president of the PTI, on August 31 should be an eye opener for all those who still believe in the illusion that cricketing leadership is equal to, if not better than, political leadership, that a good cricketing sense can also do wonders in politics and that a cricketing hero can be a political hero. From the top of his container, Khan kept on exposing his political naivety and stubbornness. Khan’s words and acts were a blessing in disguise for the political system of Pakistan. One can imagine what would have happened if Khan’s party had secured an overwhelming majority in parliament. The tendency in Khan to listen to no one could have put the whole region in crisis. Did the corps commanders think about that? It is understandable that the youth living in the homes of corps commanders consider Khan their hero but it is not understandable how the same youth (and their parents) are blind to the repercussions of the success of Dr Qadri’s revolution, in whatever form. Khan did an unpardonable act of injustice to the political system by providing the cover of his party to the PAT. Alone, Dr Qadri could not have gone to the extent he has and his followers would not have resorted to breaking the law as they did on August 30. Khan failed to realise that the political treasure he gathered over the past 18 years has been lost in the past 18 days. Many people lament the procrastination of the government in meeting the demands of both the PTI and the PAT. On the contrary, the present indicates that even if Khan’s initial demand (of recounting votes in four national electoral constituencies) were met, August 30 was bound to visit Pakistan. Now, Pakistan must be ready to embrace a new kind of politics, the one originated by the political cousins, the intent and actions of whom were overlooked by the corps commanders.
Pakistan: The law should take its course
Let us be clear, the law was violated in both letter and spirit on the night of August 30 and the days following. The laws that were broken were those of any civilised state or society, but what pushed people to breaking them were the conditions of a society steeped in barbarism and anger. There is no question that in Pakistan for too long has the law been subject to political considerations and applied unevenly; so much so that it has turned into a tool of oppression against minorities and women, the poor and disaffected. The question the protests asked, and that Tahirul Qadri and Imran Khan manipulated for personal gain, was how far does parliament represent the will of the people? Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf (PTI) President Javed Hashmi gave a succinct answer to a joint session of parliament yesterday: “Our political history shows nothing for us to hold our heads up high about...parliament has failed to solve people’s problems,” leaving citizens angry and open to manipulation by demagogues. Parliament failed to correct systemic injustices and this is mostly a failure of the political class. Do we as a nation aim to be governed by law or by mobs and force of arms? That Khan and Qadri were unable to manufacture a popular mass movement to bring down not only the government but the parliamentary system of governance answered that question, but not wholly. Parliament stands, the government stands, and they should, but they must change.
Despite the damage done on Saturday night, there is an opportunity here for the government to begin taking the long road towards the rule of law. Economists are busy toting up the costs, in terms of damage to public property and the virtual standstill the country was brought to, as well as the damage to its international credibility and the confidence of investors and partners in Pakistan’s future. Where one year ago the world saw a return to democratic stability, today even India expressed concern at the seeming inability of the government to enforce the law and manage the writ of the state. Who is responsible for this cost? It is important here to draw a distinction between Khan and Qadri, and the protestors who charged the gates on Saturday night. Their intentions as stated to their followers and to the government were diametrically opposed. One way or another, they were lying to somebody. They assured the government in writing that the protests would remain peaceful and would not move towards the buildings and symbols of the state that it has a responsibility to protect. To their followers they showed coffins and thundered about bringing down the government and the democratic system. Eventually they chose to disregard their word to the government and it responded in the only way possible. The attack on parliament and the subsequent violence of their highly charged followers proved they had no intention of remaining peaceful. They aimed to portray parliament as a symbol of oppression, but it is in fact a symbol of the people’s will, even when said will is invisible. Who else but the people of Pakistan were harmed by the events of August 30, including the police (of whom 150 were injured), the military, and the average citizen? The government on Monday lodged an FIR against Qadri and Khan for, among other things, terrorism and inciting violence, but is so far unable to act on it for political reasons, with the two surrounded by their followers and the government constantly looking over its shoulder fearfully at Rawalpindi. It is time to end this sordid affair and begin enforcing the law irrespective of political considerations and street power. It will be difficult, but the right path has never been easy.
Pakistan: Economic impact of street politics
ISLAMABAD may be shut, but Pakistan is open for business.Factories are humming, raw materials are moving freely on the roads, people are commuting to and from work, cellular communications remain uninterrupted. The rupee has seen some declines, more likely due to developments intrinsic to the markets themselves rather than the crisis. Forex reserves are broadly stable, the stock market has seen good days and bad throughout this affair, and there have been only marginal declines. Even the collection of taxes and recovery of bills in the power sector are normal, despite calls for ‘civil disobedience’. Attempts to spread the rallies to Lahore and Karachi and other cities have floundered and there has been little disruption in day-to-day life anywhere else in Pakistan, with no general strikes, no closures of roads and petrol pumps, schools or offices, no halt in public transport. Beyond this, however, the damage is huge, difficult to quantify, and of a lasting nature. Those looking in from the outside are asking how sturdy the political system in Pakistan really is. Talks with the IMF are at a standstill, and it is likely that the next tranche will be delayed. The World Bank is worried about the future of its massive Country Partnership Strategy, worth $11bn and announced just this April. Meanwhile, government work has ground to a halt, and although the machinery continues to function in the rest of the country, the ministries and secretariats and committees are all on standby. In short, whereas daily life is largely untouched, the strategic outlook for the country has suffered a considerable blow. This is the exact opposite of what street politics is meant to do. Crippling everyday life yields maximum political dividends and leaves no lasting damage, but harming the strategic outlook brings no political rewards and causes lasting damage to the economy. This is why street politics usually targets the operation of daily life in the cities rather than fighting in the streets of the capital. In this case, however, the reverse has happened — we saw fighting in the streets of the capital while it was business as usual everywhere else. It is disheartening to note that this confrontational strategy was used by the PTI, a party that drew ample support from professional and corporate circles — precisely those who are heavily invested in the strategic outlook — and a party that prided itself for its focus on the economy. They should have reconsidered the decision to resort to street politics if they lacked the capacity to credibly wage the fight. Once the passions wane and the rallies disperse, perhaps the party leadership should reflect on the consequences of their actions. There are some amongst them who were hailed as exemplars of professional excellence, and those people will now need to explain the merits of their decisions to a very sceptical audience.
Pakistan: Zardari intends to act as troubleshooter
With the political impasse entering third week, PPP Co-Chairman Asif Ali Zardari has decided to stay in the federal capital and play a role for resolving the crisis created by the situation prevailing in Islamabad.
Sources in the PPP told Dawn that Mr Zardari, who returned from China on Monday, was due to arrive in Islamabad on Wednesday (today) from Karachi.
According to them, he will stay at his residence in F-8/2 sector where he plans to hold meetings with leaders of the PPP and other political parties in a bid to defuse tension, which has gripped the country in the wake of the indefinite sit-ins of the Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI) and the Pakistan Awami Tehrik (PAT).
Demanding resignations of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and Punjab Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif over alleged rigging in the last year’s general elections and killing of 14 PAT activists in Lahore in June, PTI chief Imran Khan and PAT chairman Dr Tahirul Qadri have been leading protests in Islamabad since Aug 15.
Despite being part of the opposition, Mr Zardari’s PPP is supporting the PML-N government because, it says, it wants to save democracy.
According to the PPP co-chairman’s spokesman Senator Farhatullah Khan Babar, Mr Zardari called different political leaders on Tuesday after the joint sitting of parliament.
He discussed the Islamabad situation with Jamaat Islami chief Sirajul Haq, Jamiat Ulema-i-Islam (F) leader Maulana Fazlur Rehman, Pakhtunkhawa Milli Awami Party head Mehmood Khan Achakzai and PML-Q leader Chaudhry Pervez Elahi.
Mr Zardari also talked to PTI president Makhdoom Javed Hashmi, who had earlier announced his resignation from the National Assembly in his speech during the joint session of parliament, alleging that Imran Khan had deviated from the original plan of PTI protest.
The PPP leader had met the prime minister at his Raiwind residence on August 23 and advised him to handle the crisis politically as democracy should not be derailed under any circumstances.
He had also met Sirajul Haq and PML-Q leaders Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain and Pervez Elahi the same day.
Tuesday, September 2, 2014
Ebola outbreak "largest and most severe," but can be controlled: UN
With the "largest and most severe" Ebola virus outbreak advancing in West Africa, the battle against it is losing ground but "this outbreak can and will be controlled," UN officials said Tuesday.
UN Deputy Secretary-General Jan Eliasson, Dr. Margaret Chan, chief of the UN's World Health Organization (WHO), and Dr. David Nabarro, the UN system's senior coordinator in the battle against the disease, were among UN officials briefing the UN General Assembly. They later briefed reporters here.
"This is one of the most serious health challenges we have ever seen in the United Nations," Eliasson said, calling the crisis " critically serious and deeply worrying."
"Not only is it a health crisis but increasingly, a developmental, humanitarian and security crisis, potentially," he said. "The whole UN system is mobilized for action and not only the UN system as such but we will growingly be dependent on actions taken by member states."
"This will be a test of capacity and a test of multilateralism and solidarity with people in need," the deputy secretary-general said, warning that time was critical.
"This is the largest and the most severe and most complex Ebola (outbreak) ever seen in the nearly 40 year history of the disease, " said Chan. "No one, even outbreak responders, even dating back to 1976 to 1995, who have managed those outbreaks, have never seen anything like it."
"Now the outbreaks .. are racing ahead of the control efforts," she said.
"Ebola has become a global threat which requires urgent global efforts in solidarity with the affected countries," the WHO chief said. "The national authorities should take the lead by coordinating all the actors that they can bring to bear that can help us to control the outbreak. That speaks volumes about the need to a well coordinated mechanism, platform to bring together partners."
"This outbreak can and will be controlled," she said. "We know what is needed and we know how to do it."
Nabarro, who is charged with coordinating efforts not only within the UN system but also with other international organizations, such as the International Committee for the Red Cross (ICRC) and Doctors Without Borders (MSF), also was quick to draw a dark prognosis for the immediate future but still expressed optimism, like Chan, for controlling the epidemic.
"In the UN system our job is to catalyze and support ways in which the generosity of all nations can be brought to the communities that need it the most," he said. "For that we will establish platforms at many levels in order to bring in unprecedented support in a dignified and supportive way."
"The outbreak is advancing ahead of us," Nabarro said. "It is accelerating ahead of us."
"We, in our control efforts, collectively, are falling behind," he said. "The more we fall behind and the more the outbreak accelerates ahead of us the harder it is to overtake it and control it."
The experts at the briefing discussed the need for "a major surge in the response."
"Why we want to see that surge in place is so that we can get back in line with the outbreak and ahead of it as quickly as possible," Nabarro said.
He listed 12 points to "this exceptional response," the first of which is to improve understanding of the issue and to mobilize societies around that better understanding of Ebola disease.
"We require responsibility from the whole world with what is a global emergency," said Nabarro.
Tokyo lost the war, and must accept defeat
Wednesday marks the 69th anniversary of China's victory in the War of Resistance against Japanese Aggression (1937-45). It is a day of solemnity that will remind us of myriad feelings. A multitude of people will commemorate the war at many events along with numerous reflections and summarizations that are becoming clearer as time passes. The war of resistance is unforgettable for China and the Chinese people, not only because it was a brutal war which claimed tens of millions of lives, but also due to the cruel fact that the invader is a much smaller country across the sea. It is memorable also because Japan, the aggressor, has continued to make provocative actions toward China and South Korea despite its Waterloo in WWII. China had weathered various hardships and witnessed declining national strength in its modern history, but the aggression of Japanese militarists became the peak in the tragedy of modern times in China. In concerted efforts, China and international anti-fascist forces defeated Japan. However, Japanese people have refused to view China as a true victor. They respect the US and the former Soviet Union but always give the cold shoulder to China and South Korea by ignoring all their requirements surrounding WWII. To continue our victory in the ruthless world war to the end, we need to completely overturn the understanding of Japanese society toward China since the Meiji Restoration in 1868. We should try to gain overwhelming advantages over Japan in major areas. Tokyo only shows respect to countries that have once heavily struck it or possess much greater strategic ability. This has been fully demonstrated by its docility under Washington's military occupation till now and its willingness to be students in front of modern European civilization and the ancient Chinese civilization of the Tang Dynasty (618-907). During the past 69 years since the war's end, China has undergone vicissitudes and seen a historical reversal in its power balance with Japan. China has become the most powerful nation in Asia again. Nevertheless, Japan still boasts core advantages like advanced technology. Therefore, it has developed both a sense of crisis and a superiority complex toward China. The present day is witnessing a fierce geopolitical competition. China and Japan will embark on the road of friendship eventually, which, however, will be peaceful and stable only when China overwhelms Japan in national strength. What we need is a rational Japan that behaves itself and stops serving as a pawn of the US to sabotage China's strategic interests. We need to crush Japan's will to constrain a rising Beijing and only in this way can Sino-Japanese friendship garner a fresh, solid foundation.Liang Jun、Zhang Qian
HRW: Civilian death toll in E. Ukraine rising due to 'indiscriminate and unlawful' shelling
Human Rights Watch has condemned the illegality of Ukrainian actions in east Ukraine, ascribing direct blame to Kiev for the rising death toll in the Lugansk Region, which by local estimates has reached 300 since May.
The organization visited the city on August 20-22, performing a survey of the situation and carrying out interviews with locals who in one way or another were affected by the heavy bombardment, which had people cowering in fear in basements for weeks without water or electricity.
Ever since Kiev’s attempts to retake the city from the local defense forces, massive power cuts, food and water shortages, and network interruptions have taken place. The situation resembles so many other humanitarian crises, with long lines of people queuing for basic supplies – at least those not afraid to leave their basements.
“With communications cut, there is less information available about the situation in Lugansk [Luhansk] than other areas in the east,” Ole Solvang, senior emergencies researcher with the NGO said. “But the truth is, local residents are subjected to terrifying daily shelling, much of it apparently unlawful, and that the number of civilian casualties is steadily rising.”
HRW saw that many attacks failed to distinguish between civilians and combatants, which are a violation of international law and the laws of war.
Evidence of the indiscriminate nature of these attacks could be seen in the use of weaponry not meant for areas where precision is required. Projectiles with 152mm caliber aren’t intended for such missions. Nor are 350mm Smersh rockets and cluster munitions deliver by 220mm Uragan (Hurricane) rockets.
“The use of explosive weapons with such wide-area effects in a city full of civilians is completely irresponsible and will almost inevitably lead to civilian casualties… Whether used by government or insurgent forces, those responsible should be held to account for this callous disregard for civilian life,” Solvang continued.
The local head of the medical examiner’s office, Anatoly Tureevich, told HRW that bodies have been coming in almost daily since May.
“The numbers vary from day to day depending on the intensity of the shelling. On July 21, we received 20 bodies, on July 22 – 5, July 23 – 3, July 26 – 18, August 4 – 17. August 14 was a bad day with 22 people. Ninety-nine percent of the civilians we receive have died from shrapnel injuries.”
These only cover civilian casualties.
While the outright lack of security on the ground made it difficult to establish whether said weapons directly led to civilian deaths, there is little doubt the majority of structural destruction was caused by them.
While Ukraine isn’t party to the Cluster Munitions Agreement of 2008, its use of large-caliber weaponry on civilian areas cannot be ignored, HRW stated, adding that it will recommend that such weapons are not used in populated areas in future.
Among HRW’s other recommendations was for the international community to put pressure on the Ukrainian government to adhere to the rules of engagement and to international humanitarian law, while also urging Russia to do what it can to appeal to the eastern self-defense forces.
The results of the survey indicate that a large majority of attacks on the city were carried out by Ukrainian government forces, while the insurgents were responsible for much fewer and targeted government positions on the outskirts of Lugansk.
An August 18 attack saw shells strike a busy central market, killing four – then striking it again in the coming days, during HRW’s visit.
Evidence, however, also points to an insurgent role in several attacks, one of which was the August 10 incident in Krasny Yar, a village just north of Lugansk, which injured two civilians when a Grad rocket struck from the direction where self-defense forces were allegedly based.
A rough statistic of injuries and fatalities has been compiled by HRW, outlining eight especially severe incidences of shelling having taken place in August – all in the most severely hit Zhovtnevy district, which underscores the very bad luck some civilians have had: medical clinics, schools, exhibition centers and other area structures had been hit, killing dozens and injuring more.
The chief of the district told the organization there were no self-defense forces in the area at the time of those attacks there.
The shelling by the Ukrainian military has only increased since August 13.
Other officials, such as firefighters, compounded the reports of difficulties faced when dealing with the consequences of such heavy assaults.
Although HRW could not get the kind of full account it would have wished, its survey team bore witness to several incidents itself: on the day it visited, one shell truck an apartment block just 200 meters from the group’s location. It counted a dozen more shells on August 21, all striking the central part of Lugansk.
The organization documented craters left after heavy bombardment downtown, some of which were dangerously close to the city hospital.
It gathered harrowing victim accounts of the ordeal undergone by the city’s residents.
In the meantime, the United States continues to place the blame on all escalation on the Russian government, purporting that it has crossed borders, or that it’s controlling the insurgency, and that it had fired upon Ukraine from its own positions near the border.
No evidence of this had been given to date. At the same time, the OSCE observers stationed in the east of the country likewise provided no evidence of Russian military involvement.
ISIS video appears to show execution of U.S. journalist Steven Sotloff
A second American journalist has been beheaded by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) in a video made public Tuesday, according to the SITE Intelligence Group. The video shows the death of Steven Joel Sotloff, 31, by what appears to be the same masked jihadist who killed fellow journalist James Foley, 40, exactly two weeks ago. Sotloff, a Florida-based freelance journalist, had gone missing in northern Syria over a year ago. He appeared at the end of the ISIS video showing Foley’s execution, which warned that Sotloff would be the next to die if the U.S. continued airstrikes against the militant group in Iraq. Sotloff’s execution, despite pleas from his family and promises from the United States to protect American lives in the region, has intensified calls for President Obama to expand the U.S. military campaign against ISIS to include airstrikes in Syria, where the group has its headquarters. The video, which remains unconfirmed by U.S. officials, opens with a clip of Obama speaking two weeks ago in the wake of Foley’s beheading. During the address, the president pledged “relentless” commitment to protecting American citizens and bringing ISIS to justice. The video then shows Sotloff in an orange jumpsuit, kneeling beside a masked militant with a knife at his side. Sotloff makes a statement saying he is paying the price of U.S. airstrikes in Iraq. The masked man then addresses the camera before beheading Sotloff. Later in the video, another man, identified as a British citizen, appears in an orange jumpsuit alongside the fighter in an apparent threat to prisoner’s life. A colleague of the man shown at the end of the video told NBCNews.com that the prisoner is British and an NGO worker. British Prime Minister David Cameron condemned the video as “disgusting and despicable,” according to the UK’s Press Association. He said he would follow up with a full statement later. Sotloff’s family is aware of the video and is grieving, a spokesman told NBC News. Last week, Sotloff’s mother, Shirley Sotloff, released a video begging ISIS to spare her son’s life. “Our thoughts and prayers, first and foremost, are with Mr. Sotloff and Mr. Sotloff’s family and those who worked with him,” White House press secretary Josh Earnest said Tuesday, adding that he couldn’t confirm the authenticity of the video that purportedly shows the execution. State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki said the U.S. is aware of reports of the video. She said U.S. intelligence officials would work to determine its authenticity. “If the video is genuine, we are sickened by this brutal act,” Psaki said. The reported release of Sotloff’s execution video follows a similar one of Foley’s. In the video showing Foley’s beheading, the Islamic militant group threatened Sotloff’s life unless the U.S. halted airstrikes in Iraq. Sotloff was a freelance journalist who worked with Time and Foreign Policy magazines. He was seized in Syria in August 2013 and had not been seen since the video of Foley’s execution. “We are shocked and deeply saddened by reports of Steven Sotloff’s death,” Time editor Nancy Gibbs said in a statement. “Steven was a valued contributor to TIME and other news organizations, and he gave his life so readers would have access to information from some of the most dangerous places in the world. Our thoughts and prayers are with him and his family.” In another statement, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the nation’s largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization, condemned the killing and called for “redoubled efforts by people of all faiths and backgrounds to promote peace and justice.” Florida Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson took a more aggressive stance, saying, “we must go after ISIS right away because the U.S. is the only one that can put together a coalition to stop this group that’s intent on barbaric cruelty.” He later pledged to introduce legislation giving President Obama explicit authority to order airstrikes against ISIS in Syria, according to NBC News’ Frank Thorp. California Rep. Ed Royce, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, also called for the U.S. to work with allies in “targeting ISIS from the the air with drone strikes” and arming “the Kurds on the ground who are fighting them.” But arguably the most blunt reaction came from Illinois Sen. Mark Kirk, who was asked about the ISIS beheading at a veterans event in Chicago. “We should bomb the hell out of them,” said the Republican lawmaker. Obama pushed back against media reports of planned military strikes against ISIS in Syria at a press conference last week, stating that the U.S. “[doesn’t] have a strategy yet.” Obama has yet to comment on the Sotloff execution video, but some Republicans took the opportunity to demand action from the White House. “I think I can speak for all Floridians and all Americans when I say that the time for a strategy is now, and part of that strategy needs to include destroying them,” said Florida Gov. Rick Scott in a statement. Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham took a similar tack. “Mr. President, if you can’t come up with a strategy, at least tell us what the goal is regarding ISIL,” said Graham in a statement. Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, a potential 2016 candidate, lent his voice to the fray as well, accusing President Obama of lacking a foreign policy altogether. “I have no doubt about the President’s sorrow over the two murders of American citizens by ISIS,” said Jindal in a statement. “I am certain that this grieves him deeply. And while grieving is important, it is no substitute for a strategy.” For more than two years, the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) has ranked Syria as the most dangerous place in the world to be a member of the press. Though journalists who cover the war are aware of that risk, said CPJ Executive Director Joel Simon, “being butchered in front of a camera simply for being a reporter is pure barbarism.” “We condemn in the strongest terms possible the murder of journalist Steven Sotloff,” Simon said in a statement. “He, like James Foley, went to Syria to tell a story. They were civilians, not representatives of any government. Their murders are war crimes and those who committed them must be brought to justice swiftly.”By Emma Margolin and David Taintor
US strategy vs. Islamic State: Better right than fast
In her recently published memoir Hard Choices, former Senator Hillary Clinton recounts the meeting, nine days after the election of 2008, when President-elect Barack Obama first asked her to be his secretary of state. He “presented a well-considered argument,” she writes, “explaining that he would have to concentrate most of his time and attention on the economic crisis and needed someone of stature to represent him abroad.” No doubt he meant that sincerely — the U.S. financial system was still deep in crisis — but in the context of events this summer, Obama’s assumption that he would be focused mainly on domestic concerns suggests how little even a president of the United States can claim control of world events. The murders of American journalists James Foley and now Steven Sotloff by the Islamic State have put a very fine point on that. Few U.S. presidents have faced as many disparate foreign-policy challenges as those that confronted Barack Obama this summer. Last month alone, he managed to help remove the too-sectarian leader of Iraq, helped to stand up a more inclusive government there, then launched a campaign of air strikes to support efforts to keep it from folding further into the Islamic State. The month began with a “green on blue” attack in Afghanistan that cost the life of a U.S. general (the first such casualty in 44 years) and ended with a resumption of political hostilities between presidential candidates that took the Afghan government to the brink of collapse on the eve of the U.S. troop withdrawal. Meanwhile “liberated” post-Gadaffi Libya slid further toward chaos, Israel waged war with Hamas in Gaza, and Russia more or less invaded Ukraine. Last week, while most of that was still going on, the president was asked at a press conference whether he would seek congressional approval to take action against the Islamic State in Syria as well as Iraq. He said yes but it would have to wait until specific plans were fully developed in light of all possible variables: “We don’t have a strategy yet.” Widely and in some places willfully taken out of context to mean “I have no idea what we should do”, that quote was the headline everywhere, the talk of the Sunday morning news shows. Of all the many politicians and pundits to castigate Obama for lack of a detailed battle plan, perhaps the most remarkable was Kentucky’s Senator Rand Paul, a libertarian deeply suspicious of U.S. military action, someone who opposed punishing Syria for its use of chemical weapons and who has advocated cutting off all foreign aid. “If the president has no strategy,” he said, “maybe it’s time for a new president.” If that new president were himself, he said, he would call a joint session of Congress and ask for authorization to “destroy ISIS militarily.” In the aftermath of IS’s many outrages against Americans, Iraqis and Syrians alike, the urge to action is natural and proper, as it was after 9/11. Since then more than 6,700 Americans have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, nearly 50,000 came home wounded, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and Afghans died in the wars as well. Some experts plausibly argue that U.S. policies toward Iraq and Syria contributed to the rise of the Islamic State. Such outcomes, ordinary diligence and building the best conditions for success all argue for the greatest care in developing strategy for a region that has been so consistently defiant of U.S. intentions and is now in so fluid a state. Conversations on the sidelines of this week’s NATO summit in Wales and direct talks during a trip to the Middle East by Secretary of State John Kerry and Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel will be aimed at coalition-building, which by all accounts will be critical to defeating the Islamic State. As an illuminating graphic in the Wall Street Journal suggests, the tangle of nations who share an interest in IS’s demise suggests reason for hope that military and diplomatic efforts can and will succeed. The new government in Iraq has already given the region’s most powerful rivals, Saudi Arabia and Iran, something to agree on. This week, for the first time since the election of Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, Iran’s deputy foreign minister flew to Riyadh for talks. Since any strategy will implicate the fate of Russia’s ally Syria, Moscow too may have a role to play, which could draw U.S. and EU policy toward Vladimir Putin and Ukraine into the diplomatic calculus. In short, the global chessboard has never been more three-dimensional, fraught with both peril and potential. In a recent interview with the Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg, former Secretary Clinton observed that the Obama administration’s foreign policy watchword—“don’t do stupid stuff”—was “not an organizing principle,” which is true enough. But given past results and present complications of U.S. policy in the Middle East, it is at least the right place to start. If the forthcoming plan of military and diplomatic attack on the Islamic State manages only to avoid the unintended consequences of previous Western interventions in the region, that will be a strategy worth waiting for.By Jim Gaines
Sri Lanka: Court approves deporting of Pakistani refugees and asylum seekers
The Court of Appeal today gave permission to authorities to send back scores of Pakistani asylum seekers, after the government said they were a threat to the island’s security and public health.
Deputy Solicitor General Janak de Silva asked the Appeal court to lift an earlier suspension of deportations, saying there was evidence Pakistanis were committing crimes and bringing malaria into the country, which was otherwise virtually free of the disease, the Reuters news agency reported.
“Interim relief was vacated and the court has dismissed the application. Now all the asylum seekers are exposed to deportation if government wants,” said Lakshan Dias, lawyer of a 38-year-old Pakistani woman who complained after her husband, brother and father were detained pending deportation.
The court on Aug. 15 ordered authorities to temporarily stop deporting the Pakistanis, after the woman said her family was being forcibly sent home without having their claims properly assessed.
The United Nations refugee agency says 88 Pakistanis have been deported since Aug. 1 in what is has called a breach of international law.
The agency has called for an end to the deportations and demanded access to another 75 detained people who are awaiting deportation.
The Sri Lankan government says the Pakistanis are part of an influx of economic immigrants in the past year who have become a burden on the country’s resources and potentially compromised state and regional security.
Most of the Pakistanis are from the Ahmadiyya Islamic sect. The Ahmadi consider themselves Muslims, but a 1984 Pakistani law declared them non-Muslims and many Pakistanis consider them heretics.
In July, a mob killed an Ahmadi woman and two of her granddaughters in Pakistan after another sect member was accused of posting blasphemous material on Facebook.
According to UNHCR guidelines, members of religious minorities may need protection and require particularly careful examination of their asylum claims.
Sri Lankan authorities deny violating any international laws, saying the country is not a signatory to the 1951 U.N. Refugee Convention.
The number of refugees or asylum seekers rose by 700 percent in the year through June 2014 from the previous year, says the foreign ministry. That included 1,562 asylum seekers and 308 refugees.
Pakistan: PTI agrees to dialogue with govt as Zardari contacts political leaders
The contact among Former president Asif Ali Zardari, Jamaat Islami (JI) chief Sirajul Haq and Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) vice chairman Shah Mehmood Qureshi on Tuesday resulted in PTI’s acceptance of government’s dialogue offer, Dunya News reported.
Sirajul Haq and former Interior Minister Rehman Malik also agreed to resolve the conflict through dialogue.
The ongoing political crisis in the country led politicians to establish contact with each other in a bid to find a democratic solution acceptable to all stakeholders.
Zardari – known for his political reconciliation – contacted Sirajul Haq for consultation. Haq then contacted Shah Mehmood Qureshi. Sources revealed that both leaders agreed to resume dialogue with the government.
Former president then contacted Shah Mehmood Qureshi, Javed Hashmi, Mehmood Achakzai, Maulana Fazlur Rehman and Chaudhry Pervaiz Elahi over the phone and deliberated over the ongoing crisis in detail.
A meeting between Jamaat chief and PPP leader Rehman Malik also took place. Addressing the media, Sirajul Haq said that politics, constitution and democracy face grave threats.
He said that the in-fight should not give an opportunity to seize power to a third force.
Speaker Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Assembly also established contact with Jamaat chief and discussed the political situation.
Pakistan: Former President Zardari discussed prevailing political situation with political parties’ leaders
http://www.ppp.org.pk/
Former President Asif Ali Zardari today (Tuesday) telephoned separately JI Amir Sirajul Haq, Chief of JUI Moulana Fazalur Rehman, PML-Q leader Ch. Pervez Illahi, Pakhtunkhawa Milli Awami Party head Mehmood Khan Achakzai and senior politician Javed Hashmi and discussed current political situation with them.
Afghanistan political crisis casts shadow over NATO summit
http://www.euronews.com/Despite a UN-led audit of votes from June’s disputed presidential election, the threat of further turmoil in Afghanistan hangs over this week’s NATO summit. It follows the collapse of talks on a power-sharing deal, with former foreign minister Abdullah Abdullah’s campaign threatening to withdraw from the political process. It is “at a stalemate” said Mohammad Mohaqeq, one of Abdullah’s vice presidential running mates. “If it continues like this, we don’t see any way out.” Abdullah and his rival, ex finance minister Ashraf Ghani, had agreed to the deal brokered by US Secretary of State John Kerry but it was left to the two campaigns to work out the specifics of power sharing. NATO has faced criticism over civilians killed in air strikes or night raids. Kabul residents nonetheless worry that the departure of foreign forces could lead to worse violence or the return of the Taliban, ousted from power by a US-led invasion in 2001.
PAKISTAN’S TURMOIL ORCHESTRATED BY DOMESTIC AND EXTERNAL ACTORS – ANALYSIS
By Dr Subhash Kapila
The Pakistan Army stands at the centre of facilitating the ongoing besiegement of Pakistan’s democratically elected Government by its political stooges and notably synchronising it with escalation of border clashes on the India-Pak borders.
Pakistan Army’s end-game is patently clear and that is to engage in calibrated escalation of the dubious political demonstrations in Islamabad through its minions, namely, PTI Chief Imran Khan and the parachuted Pakistani Canadian cleric Tahirul Qadri, combined with ceasefire violations escalation on its Indian borders so that a combustible mix occurs justifying any impending military coup.
The Pakistan Army needs to answer as to how these political demonstrators were allowed to penetrate into Islamabad’s ‘Red Zone’ housing the Pakistan National Assembly, PMs House and other constitutional organs of Pakistan. Nobody seems to be asking the question as to how when the security of Islamabad was handed over to the Pakistan Army preceding the siege, how did Imran Khan’s motley crowd succeeded in penetrating the Army -secured Red Zone area.
The infamous 111 Infantry Brigade at Rawalpindi is tasked for the security of Islamabad besides being more famous as the spearhead of all Pakistan Army’s coups against democratically elected governments. Why is it been found wanting to adequately secure Islamabad’s nerve centre of governance? Or, is it that it is being made to wait the calibrated plan of the Pakistan Army to declare Martial Law on the pretext that both Pakistan’s internal security and Pakistan’s external security along the Indian borders stands threatened?
Pakistan’s domestic actors in the ongoing political turmoil are obviously the Pakistan Army and its political stooges like Imran Khan and Qadri who preferred to collude with the Pakistan Army rather than following the constitutional route of seeking redress from the Pakistani Courts.
Noticeably, the present political turmoil seems to be confined to Islamabad only without reverberations in Pakistan’s heartland of Punjab.
Imran Khan’s PTI Party won only thirty four seats in the National Assembly and is disputing rigging in four constituencies. Presuming that even all these four seats are given to PTI by any Election Commission verdict which Imran Khan has not awaited, he still could not overturn Nawaz Sharif’s Government which commands a comfortable majority. Or is it Imran’s claim as the main disputant that massive rigging took place in all the over three hundred plus National Assembly seats?
This flies in the face of verdicts given by European Union’s election observers and also those from the United Nation, both of whom certified that Pakistan General Elections 2013 were by and large fair.
Obviously, Imran Khan has willingly played along the tunes orchestrated by the Pakistan Army and the ISI. This is also revealingly being unfolded by the statements of his own PTI President and that the forced march to the Parliament House which was not on the PTI agenda was ordered by Imran Khan two nights back on instructions from someone. This obviously seems to have been done on the Pakistan Army’s instructions so that political violence is provoked and Pakistan Army has a ready- made ‘cassus belli’.
India would be misreading the situation in Pakistan if led to believe by Pakistan Army press releases that it is not in favour of toppling of a democratic government but the Government should reach a political settlement. Why has the Pakistan Army not insisted that Imran Khan and Qadri should seek judicial and constitutional redress for their political grievances?
Moving to the external actors that come into play in any political crises in Pakistan generated by the Pakistan Army, these are the United States, Saudi Arabia and China. All these three patrons of the Pakistan Army have made substantial investments in the Pakistan Army and the Pakistan Army’s strategic utility to serve their respective strategic investments.
United States-Pakistan Army relationship is a sordid saga of Pakistan’s experiments with democracy being put aside on grounds of American political and diplomatic expediencies. In the instant case too, I have been informally airing that with the impending exit of US Forces from Afghanistan, the United States would prefer that the Pakistan Army is at the helm of Pakistan in terms of political control. The Americans in strategically challenging situation prefer to deal with Pakistan Army Generals.
Saudi Arabia’s regime rests heavily on Pakistan Army shoulders both in the conventional sense and in terms of nuclear deterrence in relation to the Iranian threat. The Saudis have also played politics in Pakistan’s political dynamics by offering sanctuaries in Saudi Arabia for dispossessed Pakistani political dignitaries and also Pakistani Generals.
China gives the impression that it is only a passive spectator in Pakistani politics but we cannot forget that when China cracks the whip as it happened during the Lal Masjid incidents some years back the Pakistan Army swung forcefully into action.
The United States has made perfunctory noise initially that America does not favour any change of a democratically elected Pakistani Government but it now seems to be awaiting a Pakistan Army military take-over. Saudi Arabia and China are content with Pakistan Army being in power in Pakistan.
Regrettably, the Pakistani silent political majority has not made any counter-moves to defeat the Pakistan Army-Imran Khan-Qadri dubious nexus to topple Pakistan’s democracy by unconstitutional methods of political disruption.
Since America and the Army (Pakistan) display no signs of preventing the toppling of a democratically elected Government. The silent political majority in Pakistan can only invoke divine intervention of PBUH The Almighty Allah to instil better sense in the Pakistan Army Generals to forestall the impending military coup which can take place any time.
Political turmoil in Pakistan: China follows the situation in Pakistan very closely
Pakistan: Aitzaz Ahsan - Opposition supports democracy, constitution unconditionally
Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) Senator, Barrister Aitzaz Ahsan said opposition parties support the constitution and democracy unconditionally. Ahsan cautioned that if the government overcame this crisis its ministers would become more arrogant.
Bilawal Bhutto tweets in favor of Javed Hashmi
Pakistan People’s Party co-chairman Bilawal Bhutto Zardari has tweeted in favor of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) President Javed Hashmi.
Javed Hashmi is one of the country’s credible politicians, and has been in news for a few days for his recent acts.
Earlier today, he hurled some allegations on Imran Khan and revealed some interesting stories about the party.
BilawalBhuttoZardari @BBhuttoZardari
Ek bahadur aadmi, Hashmi, Hashmi!
Bilawal in his recent message chanted a slogan in favor of PTI president, which his party’s workers and other supporters used to chant for Hashmi.
Pakistani Protesters Ransack State Television Headquarters
Pakistan’s political crisis deepened on Monday when protesters stormed the headquarters of the state-run television network, causing a temporary lapse in transmission until army troops regained control and secured the building. Hundreds of people, many armed with sticks, ransacked the Pakistan Television building in central Islamabad, smashing vehicles in the parking lots and cutting transmission cables in the newsrooms. The network said that at least 14 cameras had been stolen. The dramatic scenes underscored the growing sense of chaos in the Pakistani capital, which has been paralyzed for more than two weeks by protesters calling on Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif to resign. Mr. Sharif has refused to leave office, but to help bring the capital under control, he has been forced to rely on the military — which ousted him in a 1999 coup. Hours after the attack on the television headquarters, Mr. Sharif held a two-hour meeting with the army chief, Gen. Raheel Sharif (the two men are not related), prompting speculation in some local media outlets that the prime minister had been asked to resign. The government and the army immediately denied the reports; in a Twitter post the military spokesman, Maj. Gen. Asim Saleem Bajwa, called them “baseless.” The protesters are led by the opposition politician Imran Khan and the cleric Muhammad Tahir-ul Qadri, who accuse Mr. Sharif of election rigging and who led thousands of supporters into central Islamabad on Aug. 15. After two weeks of heated speeches and political theatrics, the standoff turned violent over the weekend when thousands of demonstrators burst through police lines amid clashes that left at least three people dead and hundreds wounded. Now groups of protesters are camped on the lawn of the country’s Parliament and outside the prime minister’s official residence — a humiliating image for Mr. Sharif, who only 15 months ago came to power when his party scored a landslide election victory. “We want a revolution,” said Muhammad Zulqarnain, a 25-year-old farmer from Punjab Province wearing a gas mask around his neck and holding a metal bar outside the Parliament building. “We will not leave before we achieve victory.” Mr. Khan, a former cricket star, has had the media spotlight largely to himself since the protests began. Yet Mr. Qadri’s fervent following, which is drawn from his countrywide religious network, has provided the impetus for the protests. The men who attacked Pakistan Television on Monday appeared to be mostly in Mr. Qadri’s camp, as evidenced by their flags and slogans. They met little resistance as they entered the building, and they cheered the army troops as they left. Some demonstrators pulled a portrait of Mr. Sharif from the building and beat it with their shoes. The army’s role as mediator has heightened anxiety in a country where the military has a history of seizing power during times of political strife — fears that were stoked by a prominent defector from Mr. Khan’s Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf party, who warned on Monday that a slow-motion coup was taking place. In a sharply worded speech outside the Parliament, the defector, Javed Hashmi, the party’s former president, accused his former leader of taking orders from the military and its intelligence agencies. “He said we cannot move without the military,” Mr. Hashmi said, referring to Mr. Khan. Hours later, the military rejected Mr. Hashmi’s accusations. The “army is an apolitical institution and has expressed its unequivocal support for democracy,” the military said in a statement. Although the armed forces have resisted the urge to mount a coup, many Pakistani analysts believe that the military is using the crisis to erode Mr. Sharif’s authority. The two sides have a notably troubled relationship. Since Mr. Sharif’s return to power 14 years after the military ousted him, he and the armed forces have repeatedly clashed over talks with the Taliban, relations with India and the treason trial of the former military ruler Gen. Pervez Musharraf. Mr. Sharif, however, has also undermined himself. As the street protests neared in the early summer, he resorted to violence instead of negotiation to deter Mr. Khan and Mr. Qadri. The police killed at least 10 supporters of Mr. Qadri during clashes in June, lending his movement a sense of wounded legitimacy in the eyes of many Pakistanis. Mr. Sharif still enjoys the backing of most of the opposition, which fears that the demonstrations could upend the country’s fragile democracy. Yet the prime minister’s failure to find a negotiated end to the protests has badly eroded his authority and created a palpable sense of drift. Mr. Sharif says he is willing to accede, at least in part, to the demands for electoral reform put forward by Mr. Khan and Mr. Qadri. But he has insisted that he cannot, under any circumstances, accept the calls for his resignation. In the hope of bolstering his standing, the prime minister has called an emergency joint session of the lower and upper houses of Parliament for Tuesday. But if the chaos on the streets continues — during the worst violence, demonstrators threw pavement stones as they clashed with the police, who fired rubber bullets — it could prove hard to attract a strong showing in Parliament. The attack on the television headquarters was symbolically significant because many Pakistanis have strong memories of the last coup, when soldiers seized control of the same building. Mr. Khan and Mr. Qadri denied any involvement in the assault, drawing a disbelieving response from Mr. Sharif’s party. “Both Qadri and Khan are saying these are not their people,” said Marvi Memon, a governing party lawmaker. “Then who are they?” The defense minister, Khawaja Muhammad Asif, indicated the government was preparing to take tougher action against the protesters. “If not mass arrests, selective use of force can be used,” Mr. Asif told Reuters in an interview at his home on Monday. But the protesters insisted they were going nowhere. “We will follow our leader’s orders,” said Usman Ahmad, a 23-year-old barber from Sialkot who wore a badge with Mr. Qadri’s image. “If he says ‘go back’, we will retreat. If he says ‘move ahead’, we will obey the command.”By SALMAN MASOOD and DECLAN WALSH
Pakistan: Dictator Imran?
Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf spent quite a lot of time talking up its democratic and revolutionary party structure before the elections. It was hailed as a party that holds inter-party elections, takes decisions based on comprehensive meetings, and involves all stakeholders in its deliberations; a model party for a new Pakistan. Yet the party’s elected President, Javed Hashmi, has unleashed a deluge of accusations against the Chairman which cast serious doubts on these cherished notions. The party that is crusading against the Sharif ‘monarchy’ is looking increasingly like Imran Khan’s personal fiefdom.
‘I don’t take dictations from anybody and Mr. Hashmi knows it,’ thundered Imran Khan as he announced that Mr Hashmi is part of the party no more. It would appear he doesn’t take non-aggressive dictation (also known as advice or dissent) from his party members either. This comes on the back of the report that three MNAs have been kicked out of the party for hesitating to give their resignations; elected representatives simply discarded for dissenting with the Captain without proper due process. The party has a constitution that promises a fair hearing and a cause to be established before members can be removed. Imran Khan, whose grievance with the government stems from denial of due process in the election tribunals, himself treats the concept with little regard. This doesn’t end here; reservations about the march in the party were bulldozed over, the coalition partner, JI, was similarly sidelined when it protested. His speeches refer to himself, to ‘Prime Minister Imran Khan’. His narrative is built around a spectacular battle between himself and Nawaz Sharif. The party has become a vehicle for Imran Khan; you’re either with him, or you’re against him. When he is unwilling to allow for a democratic party, how can we expect him to formulate a democratic government?
A democracy is built on compromise; a word detested by Khan. The basic idea of democracy is that the whole nation contributes its ideas, morals and policies through its representatives, and then we debate, and compromise to reach a single notion that is known as the ‘collective conscience’ of the nation. The final outcome usually doesn’t resemble the original election mandate, but a negotiated version; an acceptable version, a fair version. That is the essence of democracy; that we cater to everyone, not only to ourselves or those who sound just like us. Imran Khan’s behaviour contradicts everything he claims to stand for. It’s quite a simple question in the end: how will he change the system, if he can’t change himself?
Imran,Qadri's Revolution comes to the headquarters of Pakistan TV
What Protestors Did With An Anchor Uzma... by zemtv As if storming the PM House and assaulting journalists was not bad enough, the ‘leopards and tigers’ of the two dharnas attacked the headquarters of PTV on Monday. Armed with clubs they destroyed equipment, vandalised the building and left staffers traumatised. That they had the technical ability to take PTV off the air would hint at the attack being planned in advance rather than a random outbreak of anger. It took the deployment of Rangers and then the army to clear the building and get the station running again. This is an unprecedented event which appeared to have been staged mainly by supporters of Tahirul Qadri, who had praised the hooliganism before he started lying. Some reports suggest PTI activists also followed the hoard in. Since then both the leaders have denied, in somewhat contradictory terms, that their people were involved. Qadri has said the ‘Awam’, in other words ordinary people, broke in. Why they should do so he did not explain. Imran first insisted that none of his workers was a part of the attack and then said anyone who was would be dismissed from the party. It is clear that Imran and Qadri’s words incited these people to action. What we see is sheer thuggery unleashed by frustrated, angry people whose leaders lack clarity and wisdom. Imran’s denial of responsibility is similar to his claim that the assault on the PM House was not his fault since he and his people were in the background while others led the attack. It is certainly true that Imran has kept a safe distance but that can be attributed to his self-preservation instincts. Everyone heard his calls for the rally to move there and he purposely sent his young “cornered tigers”, armed with sticks and stones, to the frontlines. Now he has called for the Kohsar police station to be stormed if his activists -detained for rioting – are not released. He has taken full and deliberate advantage of an absent government. The police seemed too fearful to take the necessary action to disperse the criminal crowd. The FIRs filed against Imran and Qadri for their role in the attack on parliament may be an attempt to regain the initiative but it is more likely to be a case of too little too late. Still, the assault on the PTV headquarters should be added to the charge sheet.
Pakistan: The economic cost of the two sit-ins
The ongoing sit-in on Constitution Avenue by the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) and Pakistan Awami Tehreek (PAT) is taking a serious toll of the economy. Figures released by several federal ministers including Finance Minister Ishaq Dar vary between 500 to 800 billion rupees during the last 17 days with the business community of the country concurring with these estimates and warning that the toll is rising with each passing day that the political crisis is not resolved. The Finance Minister pointed out that the bulk of the loss - 350 billion rupees - was on account of the stock market, or in other words it was in portfolio investment, which is the most susceptible to political turmoil yet this too has major macroeconomic implications.
Transporters from Karachi port to upcountry areas are reluctant to take any consignments through Punjab for delivery not only in Punjab but also in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KPK) for fear that their trucks may be attacked by angry mobs of PTI and PAT workers. While the consignments may be insured yet most of the trucks are not and the transporters have refused to take the risk. Thus, for example, palm oil importers have been unable to move the product to Punjab and KPK during the past two weeks or so, creating shortages that would soon begin to bite the common man.
Inventories are rising throughout the country and until and unless they are offloaded soon stockpiling would make any additional output/import uneconomic due to shortage of storage facilities that would automatically lead to workers layoff.
No federal ministry is open for business to the general public including the Ministry of Finance and Commerce and therefore business activity remains stalled. And finally the daily wage earners in Islamabad are suffering especially those who were engaged in the Metrobus project as that has come to a complete standstill.
Recent data released by the Federal Board of Revenue indicates that tax collections have exceeded targets for August by over one billion rupees, however, the implications of rising inventories and inability to transport to up-country areas would have major implications for revenue collections in weeks to come. The business community has expressed serious concern over their failure to meet with their foreign clients due to the sit-ins maintaining that they could lose existing clients if they divert their orders to competing businesses in other countries. Once a client is lost it is very difficult to get him back, exporters are warning.
The rupee-dollar parity has also declined as a consequence of the political uncertainty, which implies that imports would become dearer though exports may receive a boost as Pakistani products would now be cheaper than before. However, blocked roads and other transport-related issues would limit the favourable impact of the rupee-dollar parity.
Imran Khan's call of civil disobedience that includes non-payment of electricity bills is also a cause of serious concern as power sector recoveries remain low; and any further rise would automatically lead to a worsening of the power crisis.
While no one challenges the right to protest in a democracy yet the continuing sit-n for over two weeks is exacting a heavy economic toll from the general public and one hopes that the two protagonists begin to move towards resolution of the crisis. Imran Khan would do well to heed his own advice to the government in the matter of the Taliban namely to first negotiate prior to using force. At the same time the onus of concessions in negotiations is on the greater power, which in this case is clearly the government. One can only hope that better sense prevails on both sides and the existing stalemate is breached promptly.
Pakistan's Protests: Method in the madness
According to Javed Hashmi, former President Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf, Imran Khan unilaterally reversed the party’s core committe’s decision not to enter the Red Zone or cross the government’s red line. Hashmi said that Imran has been taking dictation from ‘someone’ other than his party members. Hashmi has gone so far as to claim that Imran has been persuaded by the establishment to tighten the noose around the government’s neck through protests and agitation. And the idea to include Qadri in the protests also came from the same source. Hashmi rebuked Imran for putting democracy in peril by serving the establishment’s agenda. After these revelations, the scales have fallen from Imran’s image. Imran has been accusing Prime Minister (PM) Nawaz Sharif of running the country like a monarch. After Hashmi’s disclosures, Imran himself appears to be an autocratic leader. Stories have been making the rounds about Imran’s undemocratic attitudes within the party. With Hashmi’s expose, the cat is now out of the bag. The manner in which Imran castigated Hashmi after he went public about Imran’s indiscretions shows yet again Imran Khan’s rude side. He has been doing this ever since the sit-in has begun. Imran’s reluctance to negotiate a way out of the crisis and his intransigence on seeking the PM’s resignation were already being seen as signs of a third force directing the course of events.
Imran’s options are shrinking with each passing day and his credibility is eroding as he swings from one crisis to another. He had committed to the authorities he would not enter the Red Zone; he went there. He then committed he would not cross the red line or storm state institutions; he did exactly that. He promised his crowd would remain peaceful; he instigated and spurred them on to aggression through his abrasive and provocative speeches. Then he talks of honesty and insaaf (justice). The protest that went on peacefully for days became ugly on Saturday night when the protestors stormed state buildings with the aim to create the conditions for bringing the government down. The government is on record as having made it clear to both the PAT and PTI that any attempt to invade state buildings would be met with force. The protestors carrying slingshots and sticks were clearly being instructed by Imran and Qadri to forcibly take over the PM’s House. What followed, three deaths and hundreds injured, was as much the result of the protestors’ violating their solemn commitments as the well known roughness the police resorts to once unleashed. The army has been able to keep the mob from entering the PM’s House and parliament but not the PTV headquarters (at least initially). The charged crowd managed to enter PTV on Monday morning, damaging equipment and ransacking the place, which led to a temporary suspension of broadcasting until the army finally arrived and turfed out the occupiers.
We do not know how far Hashmi’s charges of the establishment being responsible for bringing the country to this pass are true. The decision of the Corp Commanders’ meeting to support democracy goes some way towards putting to rest the speculations about the army’s involvement in encouraging the protests. But it has still not entirely allayed the fear of the government’s weakening opening the door to the army’s carving out for itself a larger chunk of control in the arena of security and foreign policy, especially involving India and Afghanistan. The army’s formulation to support the democratic system does not automatically mean it supports the incumbent government too. That is still a grey area so far. To consolidate its political support further, the government in the meantime has called a joint session of parliament today. It has also decided that parliament will remain in session so long as the sit-in continues. This parliament versus street confrontation seems destined to settle parliament’s sovereign status. In any case, a motley crowd of rowdy supporters should not be allowed to overthrow an elected government. The PM’s reiteration of his resolve not to resign at gunpoint will save the country from setting a wrong precedent, and is therefore a welcome step. Amidst this cacophony, the role of the electronic media in broadcasting unsubstantiated rumours is irresponsible and deplorable. If the attack on journalists by the police was wrong and condemnable, the media’s role in jumping to the (wrong) conclusions is as bad.
Pakistan: Imran, Qadri have army, ISI’s backing: Hashmi
Making startling disclosures, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) President Javed Hashmi on Monday quoted PTI chief Imran Khan as saying that “the badge bearers”, a reference to the army, wanted the PTI protesters to move along with Pakistan Awami Tehreek (PAT) leader Tahirul Qadri. Addressing journalists outside parliament, the PTI president complained that he was disappointed with the attitude of the PTI chief. “Imran Khan said we can’t move forward without the army. ... Imran Khan also said that all the matters had been decided and there will be elections in September,” Javed Hashmi claimed, adding that it appeared as if everything had been planned in advance. He further said that “a hijacked PTI has come here”. “We have been held hostage”. Javed Hashmi said while adding that he is still the president of PTI “because Imran Khan did not follow the provisions of the constitution in sacking him”. “Imran Khan should have gone through the party’s constitution first. ...I regret to say that Imran Khan breached every promise he made to me,” the elderly politician said. Making one disclosure after another, he said that Imran Khan did not even have regard for the constitution. Hashmi said he would even sacrifice his life for upholding the sanctity of parliament, Supreme Court and other institutions of the country. He claimed that he will sacrifice his life for the supremacy of the constitution and protection of the state institutions. He said protection of the National Assembly and Senate is part of his faith. Hashmi said parliament is the forum which gives opportunity to the elected representatives from different parts of the country to meet each other. It was the unanimous decision of the party leadership, he said, that we will not go towards the Prime Minister’s House. Hashmi said party leaders Shah Mahmood Qureshi, Jehangir Tareen, Asad Umar, Arif Alvi and Pervaiz Khattak were all agreed on this decision. Hashmi also claimed that a scripted political crisis is being engineered in Pakistan has led to widespread speculation among analysts that a version of the “Bangladesh Model” may be in the works. The “Bangladesh Model”, a soft coup, is based on the idea that the political system must be cleansed of corrupt elements for the welfare of the public, which perhaps has been left incapacitated to elect honest leaders. The model works on the premise that the military and judiciary must intervene to help differentiate the “right” from the “wrong” before it is too late. The model stipulates that democracy that follows such a “cleansing” is therefore of a truer form since the people have been rightly “guided” and are now able to make informed decisions. He also disclosed that Imran Khan forced party members to resign. “I advised Khan not to take any short-cut for the government”, he said. Denying being a part of a conspiracy, Hashmi said Imran guaranteed him that democracy will not be derailed and there wouldn’t be any martial law. “Not only me, but several members of PTI’s core committee expressed concerns that Imran Khan is following someone’s instructions. When we questioned, Imran’s reply was army,” said Hashmi. He also said that Imran told him that PM Nawaz will soon be overthrown by judges, saying a “friendly’ judge” was coming to SC who will expel Nawaz and Shahbaz.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)