Tuesday, March 31, 2015

The Great Game in Afghanistan (A 21st-Century Update)







 


Call it an irony, if you will, but as the Obama administration struggles to slow down or halt its scheduled withdrawal from Afghanistan, newly elected Afghan President Ashraf Ghani is performing a withdrawal operation of his own. He seems to be in the process of trying to sideline the country’s major patron of the last 13 years -- and as happened in Iraq after the American invasion and occupation there, Chinese resource companies are again picking up the pieces.
In the nineteenth century, Afghanistan was the focus of “the Great Game” between the imperial powers of that era, Britain and Czarist Russia, and so it is again.  Washington, the planet’s “sole superpower,” having spent an estimated $1 trillion and sacrificed the lives of 2,150 soldiers fighting the Taliban in the longest overseas war in its history, finds itself increasingly and embarrassingly consigned to observer status in the region, even while its soldiers and contractors still occupy Afghan bases, trainAfghan forces, and organize night raids against the Taliban.
In the new foreign policy that Ghani recently outlined, the United States finds itselfconsigned to the third of the five circles of importance.  The first circle contains neighboring countries, including China with its common border with Afghanistan, and the second is restricted to the countries of the Islamic world.
In the new politics of Afghanistan under Ghani, as the chances for peace talks between his government and the unbeaten Taliban brighten, the Obama administration finds itself gradually but unmistakably being reduced to the status of bystander. Meanwhile, credit for those potential peace talks goes to the Chinese leadership, which has received a Taliban delegation in Beijing twice in recent months, and to Ghani, who has dulled the hostility of the rabidly anti-Indian Taliban byreversing the pro-India, anti-Pakistan policies of his predecessor, Hamid Karzai.
How to Influence Afghans
Within a month of taking office in late September, Ghani flew not to Washington -- he made his obligatory trip there only last week -- but to Beijing. There he declared China “a strategic partner in the short term, medium term, long term, and very long term.” In response, Chinese President Xi Jinping called his Afghan counterpart “an old friend of the Chinese people,” whom he hailed for being prepared to work toward “a new era of cooperation” and for planning to take economic development “to a new depth.”
As an official of the World Bank for 11 years, Ghani had dealt with the Chinese government frequently. This time, he left Beijing with a pledge of 2 billion yuan ($327 million) in economic aid for Afghanistan through 2017.
The upbeat statements of the two presidents need to be seen against the backdrop of the twenty-first-century Great Game in the region in which, after 13 years of American war, Chinese corporations are the ones setting records in signing up large investment deals. In 2007, the Metallurgical Corporation of China and Jiangxi Copper Corporation, a consortium, won a $4.4 billion contract to mine copper at Aynak, 24 miles southeast of Kabul. Four years later, China National Petroleum Corporation in a joint venture with a local company, Watan Oil & Gas, secured the right to develop three oil blocks in northwestern Afghanistan with a plan to invest $400 million.
In stark contrast, 70 U.S. companies had invested a mere $75 million by 2012,according to the Afghanistan Investment Support Agency. What Washington policymakers find galling is that China has not contributed a single yuan to pacify insurgency-ridden Afghanistan or participated in the U.S.-led International Security Assistance Force in that country, and yet its corporations continue to benefit from the security provided by the presence of American soldiers.
In the other equally important realm of soft power, when it came to gaining popularity among Afghans through economic aid, New Delhi outperformed Washington in every way. Though at $2 billion, its assistance to Kabul was a fraction of what Washington poured into building the country’s infrastructure of roads, schools, and health clinics, the impact of India’s assistance was much greater. This was so partly because it involved little waste and corruption.
Continuing the practice dating back to the pre-Taliban era, the Indian governmentchanneled its development aid for the building of wells, schools, and health clinics directly into the Afghan government’s budget. This procedure was dramatically different from the one followed by the U.S. and its allies. They funneled their aid money directly to civilian contractors or to approved local and foreign nongovernmental organizations with little or no oversight. The result was massive fraud and corruption.
By funding the building of a new parliamentary complex on the outskirts of Kabul, the Afghan capital, at the cost of $140 million, India provided a highly visible example of its generosity. This gesture also served to set it off publicly from its regional rival, Pakistan. It has, after all, been a functioning multiparty democracy since independence (except for a 19-month hiatus under emergency rule in 1975-76). In contrast, the military in Pakistan has overthrown its civilian government three times, administering the country for 31 years since its founding in August 1947 following the partition of British India.
That partition took place in the midst of horrendous communal violence between Hindus and Sikhs on one side and Muslims on the other, resulting in an estimated 750,000 deaths and the migration of 12 million people across the freshly delineated borders between the two newly formed countries. Within two months of this unprecedented bloodletting, war had broken out between the new neighbors when the Hindu Maharaja of the Muslim-majority native state of Kashmir joined predominantly Hindu India.
A United Nations-brokered ceasefire came into effect in January 1950. By then, India controlled about two-fifths of Kashmir and repeated its earlier promise that, once normal conditions returned to the disturbed province, a plebiscite would be held in all of Kashmir in which its inhabitants could opt for either India or Pakistan. That plebiscite did not take place because of subsequent Indian foot-dragging. Pakistan’s attempts in 1965 and 1999 to alter the status quo in Kashmir militarily failed. Little wonder that relations between the two neighbors, which openly declared themselves nuclear powers in 1998, have remained tense to hostile, punctuated by periodic exchanges of fire across the heavily militarized border in Kashmir.
A Great Game in the Neighborhood
After the U.S. drove the Taliban regime from Kabul in 2001, a contemporary version of the great game emerged in Afghanistan, as Pakistan and India became involved in a proxy war there. Most of the Taliban’s leaders fled to Pakistan, then ruled by General Pervez Musharraf who was also the chief of army staff. In Pakistan, they were protected by the military’s intelligence service, the powerful Inter-Services Intelligence directorate. Following the almost wholesale diversion of Washington’s military and intelligence resources to invade and occupy Iraq in March 2003, the Taliban leadership, headed by Mullah Muhammad Omar, started rebuilding its movement.
The direct election of Hamid Karzai in 2004 as president of post-Taliban Afghanistan buoyed New Delhi. Karzai had spent seven years in India as a university student. During his stay, he became fluent in Urdu and Hindi, as well as an addict of Bollywood movies and North Indian cuisine. He also came to admire the country’s democratic system. Within two months of assuming the Afghan presidency, he paid a state visit to India.
As the Afghan Taliban, led by its Pakistan-based leadership, regrouped and rearmed, and its insurgency against the Kabul government gathered momentum, relations between Karzai and Musharraf turned testy. To defuse the situation, they met in Islamabad in February 2006. Karzai handed the general a list of Taliban militants, including Mullah Omar, allegedly living in Pakistan. When no action followed -- with Musharraf later claiming that most of the information was old and useless -- his government leaked the list to the media.
On his part, Musharraf started complaining about an anti-Pakistani conspiracy being hatched by the Afghan defense and intelligence ministries, each run by pro-Delhi figures. In an interview with Newsweek International in September, Musharraf claimed that Mullah Omar was actually in the southern Afghan city of Kandahar, which meant that “the center of gravity of this [Taliban] movement is in Afghanistan.” Karzai retorted, “Mullah Omar is for sure in Quetta in Pakistan... We have even given [Musharraf] the GPS numbers of his house... and the telephone numbers.”  And so it went.
Last month, in an interview with the Wall Street Journal, Musharraf, now confined to a villa in the Pakistani port city of Karachi, pointed out that India and Pakistan were then in a proxy war on Afghan soil that fed the conflict there. The role his government and the subsequent ones played in nurturing the Taliban and allied militant groups operating in Afghanistan, he argued, was a legitimate counterweight to the acts of rival India. “There are enemies of Pakistan that have to be countered,” he said. “Certainly if there’s an enemy of mine, I will use somebody [else] to counter him.”
Given this zero-sum relationship between the two leading South Asian nations, the increasingly bitter quarrel between Karzai and Musharraf (and his successors) proved music to the ears of policymakers in New Delhi. They were also aware that their country was already far ahead in the Afghan popularity sweepstakes. According to a2009 opinion poll done by the Afghan Centre for Socio-Economic and Opinion Research, for example, 91% of Afghans had a somewhat or very unfavorable view of Pakistan. The corresponding figure for India was 21%.
During his second term as president, Karzai capitalized on this popular sentiment. In October 2011, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and he signed an agreement for a “strategic partnership” in which India was, among other things, to “assist, as mutually determined, in the training, equipping, and capacity-building programs for Afghan National Security Forces.”
Pakistani leaders, who regard Afghanistan as their country’s backyard, were alarmed. Their apprehension increased when a news item in the Dubai-based newspaper, the National, cited a report in Jane's Defense Weekly that up to 30,000 recruits from the Afghan security forces were to be flown to India for training over a three-year period. There, they would be equipped with assault rifles and other small arms. Later, rocket launchers, light artillery, and even retrofitted Soviet T-55 tanks might be transferred to them.
There was great anxiety in Islamabad at the prospect of future Afghan commanders being indoctrinated by its mortal rival when Karzai had rejected repeated Pakistani offers to train Afghan army cadets at its military academy. This drove Pakistan’s military strategists to firm up their plans for a worst-case scenario: a two-front assault on the country from India in the east and an Indian-Afghan military alliance in the west.
To their relief, the figure mentioned by Jane's Defense Weekly proved to be wildly inflated. During a Karzai visit to India in December 2013, the two governmentsannounced that the 350 army and police personnel then being trained there annually would be raised to 1,000 in the future and that the focus of their training would be on counterinsurgency and counterterrorism operations. Islamabad was no less relieved to learn that, facing increased security risks in Afghanistan, a consortium of Indian companies had scaled back its investment to mine iron ore there from a projected $10.3 billion to $1.5 billion.
On the China front, invited by President Xi, Karzai attended the summit conference of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization in Beijing in June 2012. There the two leaders issued a joint statement on a “China-Afghanistan Strategic and Cooperative Partnership.” Three months later, China’s internal security chief, Zhou Yongka, visited Kabul and signed a range of Sino-Afghan economic and security agreements that included the training of a modest 300 Afghan police officers over the following four years.
A year later, during another Karzai visit to Beijing, Xi announced a grant of 200 million yuan ($32 million) to Afghanistan for 2013 and offered to host the annual 14-nation regional conference on Afghanistan, the first of which had been held in Istanbul in November 2011.
And so the stage was set for a major twist in both the Great Game in Asia and its limited version being played in Afghanistan. 
The China Card
A telling irony is that Afghan President Ghani has been America’s favorite, especially given the spats that Washington had with Karzai, who regularly denounced U.S. air strikes, banned night raids in his country, and refused to sign a bilateral security agreement that would keep U.S. forces there for up to a decade or more.  On taking office, Ghani promptly signed the agreement, and then tried to neutralize its impact by actively courting China and Pakistan.
As a start, Ghani made sure to arrive in Beijing just before the Fourth Ministerial Conference of the Istanbul Process on Afghanistan began on October 31, 2014. In his talks with Xi, he reportedly expressed his readiness to confer with the Afghan Taliban and urged the Chinese leader to encourage the Pakistani government to pressure the Taliban’s leaders into peace talks with his administration. He evidently got a receptive response.
Unlike Washington, which has had wildly fluctuating relations with Islamabad, Beijing has a lot more leverage there. Pakistan regards China, its main supplier of arms, as an all-weather ally of the first order. In May 2011, when Pakistan protested that Washington hadn’t given the slightest hint that it would launch its clandestine operation to kill Osama bin Laden in Abbottabad, there was silence in capitals across the planet -- except in Beijing. It supported Pakistan’s complaint. This led that country's ambassador to China, Masood Khan, to describe Sino-Pakistani relations in the most laudatory of terms. “We say it is higher than the mountains, deeper than the oceans, stronger than steel, dearer than eyesight, sweeter than honey, and so on.”
China has its own security concerns. It is increasingly worried about Islamist radicalism among its Uighur population in the autonomous region of Xinjiang adjoining Pakistan. Menacingly, the Islamic State has vowed to “liberate” Xinjiang. Beijing is eager to see training camps run by Uighur Islamist terrorists along the Afghan-Pakistan border shut down, which can only be done with the active cooperation of the Afghan Taliban and its ally, the Pakistani Taliban.
In line with his foreign policy of giving first priority to neighbors, Ghani traveled to Islamabad in late November. There, after meeting with Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, he broke diplomatic protocol by calling on General Raheel Sharif, the powerful chief of army staff, who has the last word on matters of national security. His gesture alarmed the pro-India lobby in Afghanistan, but was applauded by Pakistan’s officials and media.
Later Ghani suspended an order for heavy weapons Karzai had placed with India. In a further sign that he was disengaging himself from India’s embrace, he has so far shown no interest in visiting New Delhi. “Ashraf Ghani is a balanced man,” remarkedMusharraf, adding, “I think he’s a great hope” for Pakistan.
Nawaz Sharif has responded positively, altering a long-held Pakistani policy of encouraging the Taliban to stick to a hard line on peace talks. The December 16th killing of 132 Pakistani students, most of them the children of army officers, at the Army Public School in Peshawar helped this process. The leaders of the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan, a homegrown organization close to the Afghan Taliban, masterminded the massacre. In its wake, Sharif declared that there were no longer “good terrorists” and “bad terrorists.”
Ghani welcomed that statement. Reversing Karzai’s policy, he ordered his security forces to begin working closely with their Pakistani counterparts to pacify the badlands along the Afghan-Pakistan border. General Sharif reciprocated by visiting Kabul and holding high-level talks with Afghan officials.  Ghani then further changed his country’s policies by sending a symbolic six Afghan army cadets to Pakistan’s military academy for training.
In this way, Ghani seems to be creating an environment conducive to the holding of formal peace talks with the Taliban later this year. If so, a new chapter could unfold in war-torn Afghanistan in which the Chinese role would only grow, while the United States might end up as a footnote in the long history of that country.

In search for peace: The long road from Kurram to Australia











Debris of villages and two dozen checkpoints are distractions on the road that leads to Parachinar. These reminders of the conflict within are mitigated by the majesty of a white peak—Koh-e-Sufaid—and fields greener than the imagination.
The recovery in this area has been slow ever since the Thall-Parachinar-Sadda highway reopened after a sectarian conflict a few years ago. There is cautious movement of both Shia and Sunni tribes in each other’s territory. The young people have started looking for newer diasporas in search of a better future, which is not always possible through legal means.
More than 117 deaths have been recorded from Kurram Agency in at least two shipwrecks around the coast of Australia in the years following the conflict. Residents say the unrecorded deaths run into the hundreds but no trusted statistics are available.
Tribal elders and residents estimate that more than 2,800 men aged between 25 and 35 years have left for Australia. Seven members of Imtiaz Hussain’s family (not his real name) left after 15 of them were shot dead in a single day. “The situation around here is volatile,” he explains. “Everybody wants a better life.” It is difficult to understand why they are citing economics as motivation for fleeing given that violence seems to have informed their decision to leave. Of course, it is undeniable that jobs and business are shaky even though there is relative calm these days. And even though they hear of hundreds of their young men stranded in camps for illegally entering a foreign country, the desperation persists. “If anyone else gets a chance he will still try to get out.”
This year Pakistan has ranked sixth on the asylum seeking index of the United Nations, with 26,300 applications, a fourth consecutive annual increase. 847 applications are just for Australia and New Zealand.
Paying to leave Parachinar is complicated; and thus many people are in line, waiting to scrounge together enough. The humble tractor is now being seen in an altogether different light now—less as an implement to till the field and more as a cash cow to cross the waters.
A tractor costs roughly Rs0.7 million. People who anticipate they will need cash invest in the machine by paying yearly installments, explains Israr. And even though the tractor eventually sells for the much lesser price of Rs500,000, it has become a ticket to Australia.
But not just the young people of Parachinar are leaving. There is another category locally referred to as the “02” who make up the major chunk of those who are looking to migrate. The origin of word “02” comes from the dialing code of Kurram Agency, explains Baram Hussain. “These [02s] include migrant workers from the tribal agency who were asked to leave the Gulf Countries.” If you ask him why they returned, his curt reply is simply that they “were from Kurram” as if geography and belonging explain it all. But his elliptic reply has resonances with larger sectarian conflict within the Arab world.
Those who have managed to settle abroad are sending much-needed money home, Imtiaz says, pointing to a large newly painted four-story house. “They are an inspiration for what lies beyond the conflict.”
Under the shadow of a Chinar, schoolchildren gather to play during recess with heavily armed guards protecting the premises.

What’s wrong with the world of Islam?









By Ayaz Amir

Look at the mess Muslim states are making of their affairs. From Tunisia to Yemen, Syria and Iraq to Afghanistan, the whole world of Islam is in turmoil. Pakistan has its own share of troubles, a unique republic with serviceable nukes in one hand and one of the world’s toughest begging bowls in the other, a republic that in its more ecstatic moments dubs itself a Fortress of Islam. Is this a problem of culture, of genes, of history?

Once upon a time Islam had a golden period. But long ago so did the Egyptians, the Phoenicians, the Assyrians, the Mongols, the Tatars and the Huns? Can past glory be an excuse or a sufficient fig-leaf for present day weakness and failure?

History records the rise and fall of civilisations. But it also shows the revival of declining nations and their regeneration in other forms. In Europe the so-called Dark Ages were followed by the revival of learning and the rebirth of knowledge in the Renaissance. Christianity had its Reformation. Turkish nationhood found fresh expression in the republic founded by Mustafa Kemal. The China of today is not the China of the Boxer Rebellion or the Opium Wars.

Why has there been no similar movement in the world of Islam? For close to 500-600 years why has no fresh breeze wafted through its musty and cobweb-laden corridors? Why has it been left behind in the quest for knowledge and the discovery of new scientific frontiers?

Islamic regions sit on the crossroads of history, the Middle East, Central Asia and South West Asia, the pivot of the world in many histories. That is one reason for their continuing importance. Another is oil and the related phenomenon of the petrodollar economy – the denomination of the world oil trade in dollars and the surplus investment of oil-earned dollars in American treasury bonds, the source of easy credit for the US economy.

This is the grand swap that underpins the US-Saudi relationship –American guarantees of security for the House of Saud and Saudi Arabia’s agreement way back in 1973 to set the price of oil in American dollars.

(This is a vast subject by itself. The important thing is that without the petrodollar economy the American economy would find itself in deep trouble. Saddam Hussein’s sin was not the mythical possession of weapons of mass destruction but his determination to shift the pricing of Iraqi oil from the dollar to the euro.)

Look at that grand assemblage of Arab leaders gathered under the umbrella of the Arab League in Sharm-el-Sheikh. Would anyone miss a heartbeat over their deliberations? Field Marshal el-Sisi’s proposal of a joint Arab army is less a serious proposal than an attempt to pander to Saudi sensitivities. His regime after all is being propped up by large handouts from Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the UAE and Kuwait.

In the Iran-Iraq war – which lasted for eight years and drained both Iran and Iraq – the same kingdoms and sheikhdoms gave money to Saddam Hussein. The Iraqi dictator repaid the favour by invading Kuwait. This is a measure of modern Islamic statesmanship. 

Today Saudi Arabia is worried about the rise of Iranian influence across the Middle East. Contributing decisively to the spread of this influence was the American invasion of Iraq. Was there even a squeak from Saudi Arabia at the time, if no more than a whisper in American ears, that the Americans were sowing the wind? But hatred of Saddam Hussein blinded the Saudis to the consequences of what the Americans were doing. Today they are reaping the whirlwind – and trying to stop the spread of Iranian influence by launching a bombing campaign against the Houthis of Yemen (whom they take to be Iranian proxies which they are not).

The Saudis would be wise to restrict their newfound martial ardour to air strikes. If they make the mistake of a ground invasion it may evoke – who can tell? – the spectre of Afghanistan. Pakistan of course would be wise to restrict its support to the kind of rhetoric which comes so easily to Pakistani lips – sanctity of the Holy Mosques and the sacred defence of the territorial integrity of Saudi Arabia, rhetoric not a whit dampened by the circumstance that neither the two Holy Mosques nor the territorial integrity of the kingdom are under any kind of threat.

Saudi Arabia is attacking Yemen; it’s not the other way round, the Houthis not by word or gesture showing any intention of marching into the extended desert of the Hejaz. But one would have a hard time guessing this from Pakistani official pronouncements, the foreign secretary indeed, in a rush of excitement, explaining that every Pakistani was ready to die for the sake of the defence of the two Holy Mosques. The question thus is worth repeating: who is contemplating an attack on the holy shrines? 

Pakistan, as it takes no special genius to figure out, is caught between the dictates of common sense and the pulls of dependency. Most Pakistanis agree that we have no business in Yemen. A Saudi ground attack would in itself be an act of folly and for Pakistan to participate in that folly makes no sense. But equally there’s the fear of alienating the Saudis, the remembrance of favours past and perhaps favours to come weighing heavily on the minds of the civilian and military leadership. Pray to God therefore that the Saudis stick to their air strikes. We can neither afford Saudi displeasure nor the risk of any foolhardy intervention.

Oman, next door neighbour to Yemen, is keeping its distance from this conflict. But Oman is on surer ground than Pakistan, because it does not depend on Saudi largesse.

There’s not much comfort in any of this. Muslim states, with few exceptions, seem to be the playthings of outside forces, not masters of their own destinies. A nuclear deal with Iran would be in everyone’s interests. But the Arab kingdoms fear the further rise of Iranian influence. Israel’s potent nuclear arsenal causes them no sleepless nights but Iran, for reasons going back into history, is the stuff of their nightmares.

Similarly, a deal on Syria would be in the interests of the world of Islam. What business is it of anyone’s to want the ouster of Bashar al-Assad? But the Saudis committed themselves to this path as did Recep Erdogan of Turkey and even when it has become obvious, even to the benighted, that the alternatives on offer – from the Al-Qaeda surrogate, the Nusra Front, to the Islamic State – are worse than anything that Assad represents, the Saudis and the Turkish leadership can’t bring themselves to accept this.

So where lies the problem, in the culture or the history? The Renaissance, as already mentioned, took the form of the revival of learning. Islamic revivalism has taken such forms as the writings of Maulana Maudoodi in Pakistan and Sayed Qutub in Egypt, and in the rise of such organisations as AlQaeda and its even more distilled essence, Daish or the Islamic State. To match Rousseau and Voltaire we thus have the beacon of the faith, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and the Caliph Abubakr Al-Baghdadi of the Islamic State.

When the last trumpets sound and the final accounting of things is done, what will weigh heavier in the divine scales: all the oil of the Arab world, and the wisdom accompanying it, or the books written, the works of art produced, even the music composed, that have enlarged the mind, and given wing to the imagination, of our species? 

Yemen conflict: Neutrality no longer an option for Pakistan?










MUHAMMAD AMIR RANA 

The growing concern that Pakistan’s direct involvement in the Yemeni crisis could have grave consequences for its internal security and sectarian harmony are valid. It will widen the sectarian divide in the society and the risk of sectarian violence will increase.
The existing complex militant landscape of the country will open up spaces for ultra-sectarian groups like the self-styled Islamic State (IS).
In that context, a rational and sensible choice for Pakistan could be to stay away from the Yemeni conflict and not become a party in it. But is this option available for Pakistan? If yes, what would be the cost of being impartial?
The Saudis have deep influence inside Pakistan’s state institutions and have gradually been encroaching into spaces that impact public spheres. Saudi Arabia is among the three countries that have had an important place in Pakistan’s foreign policy determinants.
Compared to Saudis, the US and China enjoy less privilege in Pakistan although they also have an influence over the latter’s internal political and military issues. The Saudis have at times played a mediatory role in resolving the civil-military and other political crises in Pakistan.
Take a look: Yemen conundrum
It is not difficult to understand how the Saudi influence increased in Pakistan. Though historically Pakistan has tried to keep a balanced relationship with the Middle Eastern states, especially with Iran and Saudi Arabia, its tilt towards Riyadh started after military dictator General Ziaul Haq took over the government.
However, Pakistan had tried to avoid any confrontation with Iran at the cost of its warm relations with Saudi Arabia. But maintaining a balanced relationship with the two countries has always been a tricky task.
To keep the strategic and diplomatic balance of this three-way equation in its favour, Saudis provided not only economic assistance to Pakistan at many critical occasions but also diplomatic support on critical issues including Kashmir, Afghanistan and Pakistan’s nuclear program.
They also strengthened their ties with Pakistan’s military, political establishments and religious elites to an extent where they have become movers and shakers in Pakistan’s internal affairs.
The sectarian view of the Saudis holds a central place in defining their bilateral and strategic relations with the Muslim countries.
Countries like Pakistan, which are in a process of democratic transition and where sectarian tendencies have not yet encroached into national political discourse, face a dilemma in their relations with Saudi Arabia.
Pakistan’s political parties have different sectarian credentials and may look towards Riyadh differently when in power.
The Saudis’ views about the previous government of Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) and its leadership are not a secret. The Saudis did not hide their feelings towards ‘Shia and Iran-friendly’ government of the PPP and refused to supply oil on deferred payments. The cut in oil supplies had worsened the economic crisis in Pakistan during the PPP government.
That pushed the PPP government towards Tehran. The signing of the Iran-Pakistan (IP) gas pipeline project in 2013 was a strategic move by the former president Asif Ali Zardari to create some geo-economic balance in Pakistan’s relationship with Tehran and Riyadh.
Iran has built its part of the pipeline as per the agreement and gas supply will not take much time to start if Pakistan also completes its section of the pipeline. Iran believes the present Pakistani government is delaying the pipeline project under Saudi and US pressure.
Apart from sectarian and other considerations, the IP gas project was one of the reasons behind the surge in cordial relationship between the Saudis and the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) government.
The Saudis provided US $1.5 billion in unconditional financial assistance to Pakistan early last year as a goodwill gesture.
The PML-N government can get more assistance if it continues serving the purpose of the Riyadh. But this might not be easy for the government because public sentiments are not in favour of Pakistan’s Saudi-influenced involvement in the Yemeni crisis.
Many political leaders are insisting that Pakistan must play the role of a mediator between Iran and Saudi Arabia. There is no doubt that Pakistan can make diplomatic efforts to reduce the diplomatic stress between these two countries, but the recent military action in Yemen has reduced chances for that.
The Saudis are on a diplomatic offensive to influence their close allies including Pakistan and would not allow them to hold a neutral position over the Middle East crisis.
Not only the countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) but other African and Asian countries, including Turkey, and even the US and Western allies of Pakistan are supporting the Saudis’ venture in Yemen.
This is a “crucial moment” of decision-making for Islamabad in terms of weighing its options especially when the option of neutrality is not available.
While the economic and strategic costs of neutrality will be high, taking sides could have its own sectarian and security-related implications.

Bill Gates telephones Former President Zardari

https://mediacellppp.wordpress.com

Bill Gates, Chief of Bill & Mellinda Gates Foundation, telephoned former President of Pakistan and Co-Chairman Pakistan Peoples Party Asif Ali Zardari today evening to discuss the efforts against the eradication of polio in Pakistan and the world over.
World’s top soul waging a mission against polio shared with Asif Ali Zardari his vision about making the whole world free from the disease.
Asif Ali Zardari informed Bill Gates about the anti-polio programme vigorously pursued by the PPP government for five years all over Pakistan since 2008 to 2013. He said anti-polio campaign is being continued across Sindh and the provincial government of PPP is taking every step to provide protection to the polio workers in every nook and corner of the province. He said every effort is being taken to ensure the success of anti-polio drive so that our future generations are completely free from polio.

Yemen Crisis & Pakistan - Rent a country

In the wake of the worsening crisis in Yemen and Saudi Arabia’s decision to secure its influence through air strikes on the former, Pakistan became part of the story. The news about Pakistan’s reported participation in the air strikes against Yemen created ripples at home and for the right reasons. A quiet observer would have noted the initial almost unanimous public disapproval from a cross-section of Pakistan’s intelligentsia, civil society and political groups.
The overwhelming concern came from both Sunni and Shia communities, considering the Yemen-Saudi conflict is rooted in the regionalization of Yemen’s local politics, fostered by the predominantly Sunni Saudi Arabia in its battle for influence over the region vis-a-vis Shia Iran.An overwhelming majority of strategists and experts in Pakistan rejected the idea of partaking in the conflict owing to the country’s own diverse sectarian populace and armed Deobandi groups already massacring Shia minority in different parts of the country. Any support for a particular side would have a lethal impact on the ongoing anti-Shia terrorism at home.
However, the most worrying fact was that most of the news about Pakistan’s possibility of joining military aggression against Yemen was coming from foreign sources including the Saudi media. Pakistan’s Foreign Office gathered mettle to speak on the issue too late in the day, that too extremely vaguely. In her one liner, the Foreign Office Spokesperson just said that Pakistan was still considering the Saudi invitation to participate.
This came before The Guardian reported on March 26, “As Saudi Arabia began pounding the rebels with airstrikes, countries from the Middle East to Pakistan were said to be prepared to commit troops for a ground assault”. The news item went on to report, referencing Saudi TV channel Al-Arabia, “…the kingdom had lined up 150,000 soldiers in preparation for a ground offensive, with Egypt, Pakistan, Jordan and Sudan also ready to commit troops”. The government of Pakistan kept denying the dispatch of its troops or aircrafts as part of the Saudi-led offensive.
Meanwhile, speaking on the floor of the House in National Assembly, Pakistan’s Defense Minister said Pakistan was committed to the defense of the land of Hijaz and the home of two Holy Mosques. Similar sentiments were later reiterated by the Co-Chairperson of the supposedly ‘liberal’, progressive, pro-minorities and anti-sectarian political party, Pakistan Peoples Party. His statement came after lobbyists of Pakistan Muslim League as well as those of the military establishment started parroting arguments in favour of the Saudi strikes, and why Pakistan’s participation was necessary for its own long-term goals.
The surprise came from Pakistan Tehrik-e-Insaf head Imran Khan – the otherwise considered a ‘poster boy of the establishment’ – who said in no uncertain terms that jumping in the wars that are not ours would harm Pakistan’s interests further as they have done in past. A similar statement came from the Quaid of MQM who alongside criticizing the proposal of partaking the offensive, reminded of Pakistan’s own sectarian pressures and host of internal problems that needed attention rather than poking nose in foreign battles. With no reference (thankfully) to the ‘defence’ of the holy cities, Imran Khan and Altaf Hussain made themselves conspicuous among the rest of the rusted political lot and the establishment fraught with self-serving interests rooted in Saudi Arabia.
The ‘defence of the Holy Mosques’ argument, propagated by the lobbyists of ruling elite – comprising military establishment, its surrogate politicians and the political groups who have been hostage to the antics of former two and are kowtowing them as survival tactics – is as preposterous and farfetched as possibility of a democratic system in the Kingdom. To date there has not been any statement of intent by the rebellious groups (which are not only Houthis) of Yemen to invade the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia or to inflict any harm to the two Holy Mosques. Moreover, there is no apparent threat to the ‘territorial integrity’ of the Kingdom as yet, for which the PMLN, the PPP and the military establishment are having sleepless nights.
If someone was happy and satisfied with the reports about Pakistan’s possibility of joining the Saudi-led coalition forces to attack Yemen, it was Pakistan’s Deobandi, takfiri, anti-Shia militant organisations like Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (LeJ) and Ahl-e-SunnatWalJamaat (ASWJ). Going by the official social media accounts of ASWJ, they were praising the government and the military for taking the ‘right decision’ for saving the territorial integrity of the Holy Land as well as for ‘teaching the lesson’ to Shias who they think should be excommunicated from Muslim ummah.
The pro-establishment and pro-Saudi lobbyists have been giving a host of arguments in favour of the attack on Yemen including remittances from Pakistani laborers in Saudia whose fate depends upon how happy the Saudis are with Pakistan. References have been given of huge remittances that come from Saudia to the tune of $17 billion. One did not hear any reference to the conditions of Pakistani labor in the Kingdom that showan utter disregard of any veneer of human rights. No reference is given to Saudi princes’ disdain for Pakistan’s law that prohibits hunting of endangered species. The way they bribe Pakistan’s law enforcing set up and manipulate legal process in their favour is another story that needs separate discussion.
Despite repeated cries from rights activists about the violation of human rights and absence of labor laws or any framework that safeguards the interests of the workers, neither the otherwise too-sensitive-about-human-rights West nor the Pakistan government has ever followed up on the issue with the Saudi authorities. I still have to see official initiative from Pakistan to negotiate either the extradition of Pakistanis on death row in Saudi Arabia, or at least the due process of law for them with right to fair trial and adequate counsel. Pakistani laborers, it seems, are just a means of extracting money as remittances, for our state that is not much bothered about their rights and living conditions.
Another ridiculous argument given by Asif Ali Zardari was his party was committed to democracy and since Yemeni rebels had obstructed a democratic system, the Saudi government was probably rightly attacking them militarily. Such an intelligent thought. The democrats of PPP supporting democracy in Yemen through military strikes led by the ‘democratic’ Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Really? One expected better from PPP.
Those who were irked by a trending hash-tag on social media about renting an army might be a little relaxed now. This is not an army available for rent. It is an entire country with a highly self-centered and self-serving ruling elite that is available on cheap rent.

Yemen conflict: Pakistan is sitting on a time bomb






Khalid Muhammad

This past week has been like no other in Pakistan’s history. We are used to watching our own country projecting conspiracy theories and rumors as information, but rarely is there a national debate on whether Pakistan should be involved in someone else’s war. This week has been dominated by the Saudi invasion of Yemen and the role of the Pakistani armed forces in that war.
Let’s start with the basics and work our way forward.
On Wednesday morning, we all awoke to find that Saudi Arabia had launched massive airstrikes against the Houthis rebels in Yemen. The airstrikes are concerning because they are not against someone who threatened the Saudis, invaded Saudi Arabia or launched any attacks against Saudi assets. Well, that last point is where the problem starts.
The “President” of Yemen has always been appointed by the Gulf Coordination Council (GCC), never elected by the people of Yemen themselves. The previous president, President Saleh, spent 33 years on the throne before being shown the door by a transfer of power agreement overseen by the GCC. President Hadi was helped to the chair through that same agreement. Both of these presidents have been very close to the royals in Riyadh and the boys in Washington. The word that we like to use is “puppet.”

Background
The Houthis started as a cultural force in the early 1990s to stem the spread of the Saudi Salafi teaching into Yemen. In 2004, they transformed into a political force when the US invaded Iraq. Since then, they have fought against the Saleh government. In 2011, they took advantage of the Arab Spring throughout the Middle East and moved to Sana’a to oust Saleh from office. In September 2014, they took control of Sana’a with the support of the same president that they had ousted from office. In the same month, they signed the Peace and National Partnership Agreement with President Hadi to bring economic, social and political reforms that were promised during the 2011 revolution.
When the Hadi government didn’t deliver, they forced him out of office last week. This week, President Hadi fled the country from this palace, yes I said palace, in Aden to Riyadh and the Saudis initiated their airstrikes on the Houthis.
Now, if that were the whole story, this would be easy to understand... but it’s not.
While the Saudis are displaying their air superiority against the rebels, they have never been so moved to do so against al-Qaeda Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), which is considered to be the most technologically advanced and expert branches of the terrorist organization. They have also not been willing to pull out a slingshot against the local factions of ISIS that exist in Yemen, but then they aren’t willing to fire up all that US defense equipment to assist the international coalition in Iraq that is fighting ISIS either. So let’s not talk about that just yet.
The argument in this case, this specific case, is being framed as an Iranian expansion into “Arab affairs.” The Saudi military and the token contingents from other countries are being motivated and activated to fight the growth of Iran’s influence through a small rebel force that only wants to stop the Saudi influence in their country. We’ll come back to this in a little bit.
What isn’t being talked about is the Bab al-Mandab strait that links the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden. The strait is the fourth largest checkpoint in the world, trafficking close to 3.8 million barrels of oil and petroleum products per day. That was in 2013, so we can only assume what those numbers are today.

The Coalition
Since Wednesday, the Arab and international media has been talking about the grand coalition that has been formed to fight against the usurpers of power in Yemen, but in all aspects the coalition isn’t grand at all.
In addition to Saudi Arabia’s 100 aircraft and 150,000 ground troops there’s Kuwait (15 jets), Bahrain (15 jets), Qatar (10 jets), UAE (30 jets), Jordan (6 jets), Morocco (6 jets) and the promise of support from Egypt and the prodding of Pakistan to involved their troops. The international media, following the Arab media, has been reporting that Pakistan is already involved in the conflict with air and naval power, which isn’t correct by any stretch of the imagination.
Let’s keep in mind that the Egypt’s just received a $4 billion donation from the Saudis right before the conflict started. Let’s also keep in mind that General Sisi, calling him President is just a farce, is Riyadh’s man in Cairo standing firm with Saudi objectives in return for the position that he has been gifted.
The United States, where the announcement of the air strikes was made by the Saudi ambassador, is providing logistical and intelligence support. Support gained from the Special Operations team that was operational, and quickly airlifted out, of Yemen. The Houthis have also taken control of the US embassy in Sana’a and laid their hands on a massive storehouse of intelligence information about operations, deals and agreements with the Saleh and Hadi governments within Yemen, which you can expect to be used when the time is right.
Here’s where things get funny. The Iranians are working with the United States against ISIS and have been successful in retaking Iraq cities from the rebels there. Now, the US commander on the ground there is refusing, yes refusing, to call in air strikes against ISIS position until the Iranian militias are removed from the battlefield. A longer-term nuclear negotiation is also extremely close to being closed with Iran, expected next week, which could ease international concerns over an Iranian nuclear weapons program.

Why this was Expected
No one was caught off guard when this started… well, expect for the media and most of the population of the world that doesn’t follow current affairs.
Everyone knew that Saudi was going to make a play against Iran. They have repeatedly publicly expressed their dissatisfaction with the US cozying up to the Iranians. They have not been a supporter of the nuclear deal that was being negotiated, even though it might bring some stability to the region.
Disgraced US General David Petraeus, while speaking at a conference in Iraq, spoke out against Iran calling them a greater threat to world security than ISIS. I call Petraeus disgraced, for those playing the home version of the game, because he leaked confidential information to a Miami journalist, that he was having an affair with, for a tell-all biography. This comes on the heels of Benjamin Netanyahu’s “fiery” speech in the United States Congress decrying Iran as the threat to global security, much like he did to a Congressional committee many years ago about Saddam Hussein and Iraq. His exact quote was that “the world and the region would be a better place without Saddam Hussein in power.” I would hope that someone would ask him how he feels about ISIS taking Saddam’s place.

The Iran Card
No one is saying that Iran is free and clear in this equation. The Iranians are masters of covert support to rebel groups ranging from Hamas to Hezbollah and the Balochi insurgents in Pakistan. But with so many things moving in their favor in the past few months, it would be sheer stupidity by Tehran to involve themselves in something that could set their improved diplomatic position permanently backward.
Are the Iranians supporting the Houthis rebels? We don’t know. We do know that the insurgency was a natural response to Saudi influence in their country. We do know that they have gained military strength over the years. But we can’t draw a direct line between the rebels and Iran, as we can in other cases.
But with Iran in the mix, the conflict can widen. Iran has Russia and China as long-term partners. Russia doesn’t have the greatest relationship with Saudi Arabia after some threats that were made by Prince Bandar prior to the Sochi Olympics in relation to their support of Syria. Iran is also a neighbor of Pakistan, where they have sponsored militant Shiite and Balochi separatist groups.

Pakistan’s Predicament
Pakistan sits on a time bomb in this situation. The Sharif brothers are heavily indebted to the Saudi royals for providing the shelter during their exile. They are also indebted for the oil and capital that has been provided to their government in times of need, whether the nation has seen any benefit from the “kindness” or not. The instinct of the Sharifs is to embroil the Pakistani armed forces into a battle that will cripple Pakistan.
For GHQ, the problem is much larger. The TTP, Sunni extremist groups and extremist madrassas’ funding is all traced back to Saudi Arabia and the same GCC countries that are standing in an alliance together against Yemen. The Army is already engaged against the terrorists in the FATA region and working with the Sindh Rangers to clean up Karachi, while watching the border with India for any untoward advances. To move, or even commit forces, at this time would destabilize the gains achieved against the terrorists and weaken the operations in other parts of the country.
It also has the potential of straining our relations with China, one of our strongest and most trusted partners. The Chinese have already publicly condemned the action in Yemen and are no doubt putting pressure on Islamabad to stay out of the conflict. With their massive investments, economic and military relationships with Pakistan, China has the ability to keep Pakistan out of the conflict with the threat of withdrawing their support.
And I’d like to give a word of advice to those who are demanding that Pakistan join the fight… where was Saudi Arabia when it the time came for Pakistan to battle terrorism?
It’s very easy to talk about what they have done for us, but keep in mind the problems that we have with terrorism, fundamentalism and extremism all find their roots back to Saudi Arabia and the GCC.
The game board is confusing and strewn with flags from many countries. The best thing for Pakistan to do is stay out of it. We have no interest in joining a war between two Muslim countries, no matter what our relationship may be with either. Pakistan has already paid the Saudis back for all that they have done for o