Sunday, January 17, 2016
China - Is Xi Jinping the man to defuse tensions in the Middle East? Landmark visit to Iran and Saudi Arabia revealed
President Xi Jinping is to embark on a whirlwind visit to Iran, Saudi Arabia and Egypt in his first diplomatic trip of the year amidst escalating tensions in the region.
The timing of Xi’s visit – coming as Iran and Saudi Arabia lock horns in their worst conflict in a decade – will thrust China to the forefront of Middle East politics. Beijing will be closely watched as it tries to strike a delicate balance between the feuding Tehran and Riyadh.
Both are key oil suppliers to China and crucial to its going out strategy – the much touted One Belt, One Road development plan.
Xi is expected to use the trip to promote the strategy and secure oil supply in the Middle East.
Xi was scheduled to visit Egypt from January 20 to 22, the Egyptian foreign ministry announced last week.
Iran’s Islamic Republic News Agency also reported last week that Xi would visit within the month.
The trip will include a leg in Saudi Arabia, according to Guo Xiangang, a Middle East expert and vice-president of the China Institute of International Studies.
“The Middle East has been an important region for China because of its energy resources and geopolitical position,” Guo said.
“These three are major countries in the region, that’ s a key consideration in picking them for this visit.”
Guo said selling the One Belt, One Road strategy – an initiative rolled out by Xi that aspires to build a global network of transportation links – was likely to top the agenda.
“Both the road and maritime projects will have to pass through the region, it is a very important passage,” he said.
The Chinese foreign ministry has yet to officially announce the visits, the president’s first to the region. The last time a Chinese president set foot in the region was in 2006, when former president Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) visited Saudi Arabia.
Iran is emerging from international isolation – and sanctions – after signing a deal with world powers including China to limit its nuclear activities.
With Western countries such as the United States set to lift their sanctions on Tehran soon, Guo said the trip could see Xi signing more deals to expand China’s energy imports from the country.
Outside of energy and economics, China has largely avoided diplomatic involvement in the region. But with the feud between Iran and Saudi Arabia continuing, analysts are watching how Xi handles the delicate relations.
“If they had their choice, I think the Chinese side would rather that Xi wasn’t going at a time of such sensitivity, but it was getting to a point where the trip could just end up being delayed endlessly,” Andrew Small, a transatlantic fellow with German Marshall Fund’s Asia programme, wrote in an email.
There were plans for Xi to visit Saudi Arabia and Egypt last year, with Iran to follow on a subsequent trip. But they were quietly cancelled because of the Saudi military campaign in Yemen, according to Small.
But as Iran gets ready to open up, Beijing will now look to “lock a few things in quickly” in a market that was previously uncontested, Small said.
“With Iran poised to open to the world again, there was an imperative to take steps to consolidate that relationship. That’s really the most important stop for Xi on this visit,” he said.
Beijing has maintained close ties with both Tehran and Riyadh and has so far stayed neutral in the spat.
It recently sent a diplomatic envoy, Zhang Ming, to the two countries in an apparent attempt to mediate. But analysts have questioned how far Beijing is willing to go to help de-escalate tensions.
“China has a great interest in containing the current crisis...but other than counselling restraint, China is unlikely to intervene in any other way to de-escalate the crisis,” said Ali Vaez, a senior Iran analyst with the International Crisis Group.
China’s caution about taking on a serious political role in the Middle East is still pronounced while Beijing’s leverage over the situation remained limited, Small said.
“It will be a delicate balancing act for Xi to avoid creating any impression that China is tilting in one direction or the other,” he said.
“But I would expect more progress on the bilateral relationship with Tehran at the moment than with Riyadh.”
Commentary: China plays indispensable role in Iranian nuclear issue
How similar are ISIL and Saudi Arabia?
How does America choose its friends? Saudi Arabia has executed Shia scholar Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr, a critic of the Riyadh regime, along with 46 others, on vague charges of “terrorism” drawing international condemnation.
The monarchy, however, has rejected all criticism, accusing critics of meddling in its internal affairs. And, despite claiming it is calling for peaceful dissent to be tolerated, America is standing by her old ally. Saudi authorities knew the killings would cause global uproar. A note by the director of Saudi security services cancelled military holidays and called for “maximum precaution” until further notice.
Yet the Saudis’ Western allies continue to back them, with British Prime Minster David Cameron defending a secret deal with Riyadh, the Prime Minister even suggesting London’s “relationship” with the country supersedes its human rights record. Saudi Arabia also executed a man alleged to have killed a cameraman working for Britain’s state-run BBC. But was this just a tactical move to prevent condemnation from British media?
http://presstv.ir/Detail/2016/01/17/446098/Saudi-Arabia-Sheikh-alNimr-US-/
Turkey’s Economy Sees Fallout from Terrorism, Russian Sanctions
Terrorism and Russian sanctions have left Turkey’s already struggling economy bracing for the worst.
Tourism seems sure to take hit, analysts say, after a suicide bomber aligned with Islamic State (IS) blew himself up in a crowd of German tourists this week, killing 10. German tourists make up roughly 15 percent of Turkey’s tourism industry, which earns the country $34 billion annually.
“Who will want to come to Turkey now?” asked Refet Kayakiran, a Turkish tourism expert.
“After the bombing, Turkey tourism is finished," he added, noting the rash of German tourism cancellations.
The bombing came as the Turkish economy starts to see the effects of Russian sanctions, which Moscow imposed following a diplomatic row with Ankara over Turkey’s downing of a Russian fighter jet in along the Turkish-Syrian border last November.
Turkey said the jet, operating in support of government forces against rebels in Syria's civil war, entered its air space — a charge Russia denied.
Russia's sanctions are largely aimed at Turkey’s tourist, agricultural and banking sectors.
"Turkey will lose $3.1 billion worth of trade in 2016 due to Russian economic sanctions," Turkish Deputy Prime Minister Mehmet Simsek said last week at a meeting in Washington.
FILE - A woman walks on the beach at sunset in the Mediterranean resort town of Belek in Antalya, Turkey, Jan. 8, 2016.
Kayakiran said the combination of Russian sanctions and terrorism fears will have a ripple effect, hurting not only hotels and resorts, but also shop owners, cab drivers and street vendors, whose livelihoods depend on visitors.
“Making up for these losses may take many years,” he said. “How can you calculate that in numbers?”
Russia has banned the import of Turkish fruits and vegetables, poultry and even salt.
“Russia has 60 percent of our fruit and vegetable exports,” said Burhan Er, the president of the Turkish Fruit and Vegetable Sellers Association. “We lost all of that. Russia is a big market for us.”
Russian Tourists
Moscow also banned the sale of charter vacations to Turkey for Russian citizens.
In Istanbul’s touristy Laleli area, where shops sell mostly leather products, clothes, carpets, and souvenirs, the impact is already seen.
“Business with Russia was already slowing down,” said Laleli businessman Zafer Soylu. “The downing of the Russian jet added to that. Many shops around here will have to close.”
Losing Russian tourists could cost Turkey more than $3 billion a year, according to industry experts. In 2014 alone, 4.5 million Russian tourists visited Turkey.
Food Exports, Energy
The Russian ban on imported Turkish food products will mean financial losses of about $764 million, the Turkish Agriculture Ministry said last week.
Moscow has also suspended a new pipeline project called "Turkish Stream" that was to deliver natural gas exports to Turkey. Russia's state nuclear company Rosatom suspended work on a $20 billion nuclear plant in Akkuyu, Turkey.
Aydin Sezer, a former trade official who represented the Turkish government in Moscow, told VOA that Russian sanctions would cost Turkey more than $12 billion annually — four times Turkish government estimates.
One of Turkey's biggest financial institutions, Is Bankasi, said in a report on the impact of Russian sanctions that exports, along with trade and construction revenue, will be the "hardest hit areas" for Turkey. At best, Turkey's annual losses will be $4.4 billion; in the worst-case scenario, it could reach to $7.3 billion, the report said.
FILE - A money changer counts Turkish lira bills at an currency exchange office in central Istanbul, Turkey, Aug. 21, 2015.
Turkish exports to Russia in 2015 were valued at nearly $4 billion, according to government figures. The top three Turkish export items to Russia are fruits and vegetables, textile products and motor vehicles.
Turkey's imports from Russia were more than $25 billion in 2014 and a little more than $21 billion in 2015. Oil and natural gas imports counted for more than $16 billion in 2014 and almost $13 billion last year. Iron, steel and other metal imports also top the list.
Turkey and Russia have, to varying degrees, long been in a proxy war in Syria, with Russia backing Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and Turkey supporting Assad's Sunni opponents. Turkey has also recently increased its cooperation with the international coalition against IS in Syria.
US Will Keep Iran on the Hook Despite Lifting Sanctions
Regardless of the substantial weakening of anti-Iranian sanctions, the US will continue their fault-finding activity against Tehran to be able to further pressure it for its involvement into the regional conflicts and for its missile developments, Middle East experts told RIA Novosti.
On Saturday, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) confirmed Iran's compliance with the agreement on country's nuclear program and the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) came into effect. Following this, the sanctions regime imposed on Tehran by the United States has been substantially weakened.
However Alexey Fenenko, an associate professor at the Faculty of World Politics of Moscow State University, suggests that the US will continue finding new grounds for pressuring Tehran.
“The US will continue finding new grounds to nag Iran…be it Iran’s missile program, oil or Saudi Arabia,” he told RIA Novosti. “Their task is to keep Iran on the hook.”
The expert recalled that the US signing of the JCPOA was a considerable concession on its part, as Washington was forced to recognize Iran’s right to enrich uranium, which some ten years ago was absolutely inadmissible to Washington's administration.
He noted, however, that the US has lifted only part of its sanctions.
“There are two types of sanctions in the US,” he explained, “those imposed by presidential decrees and those by congressional instruments.”
Following the Iranian Revolution of 1979, the US imposed a number of sanctions against Iran, expanding them in 1995.
The US president has the right to lift only the sanctions imposed by his decrees and to suspend for one year the sanctions imposed by Congress. The sanctions imposed by Congress could be completely lifted only by a corresponding decision of the Congress.
“As far as I understand, the current Congress won’t be overly tempted to do so, meaning the issue is going to be postponed until the end of the presidential elections,” Fenenko explained.
Besides this, the analyst suggested that in case the Republicans get into office, they will review the issue.
“They will look at the sanctions based on their traditional ties with Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States oil business as well as their resentment of Iran,” he said.
His words are echoed by Vladimir Sotkinov, International Affairs expert at the Institute of the World Economy and Foreign Relations and the Institute of Oriental Studies at the Russian Academy of Sciences.
“If anything goes wrong, according to the Western countries, they will continue threatening Iran and imposing new sanctions,” he told RIA Novosti.
“The ground might be any missile tests or any accusations of violation of human rights or, furthermore, support of terrorism,” he suggested.
Read more: http://sputniknews.com/middleeast/20160117/1033285352/iran-us-sanctions.html#ixzz3xWwtRAeZ
Opinion: The new Obama
People respond to Bernie Sanders because they believe him when he says he's fighting for policies, not for himself. He could become a real threat for Hillary Clinton, says DW’s Washington correspondent Ines Pohl.
The Hillary camp is nervous. The unthinkable has suddenly become a possibility. Bernie Sanders – the old man, the self-described democratic socialist – may win the first two Democrat primaries in Iowa and New Hampshire, which traditionally have always been so symbolically important.
That could have traumatic consequences for the Clinton team - just like eight years ago, when Barack Obama was her rival. Once again, an outsider has suddenly come on the scene, and Hillary's empire is showing signs of tottering.
Honesty that comes across well
Bernie Sanders does not have the great wealth needed to finance what is – once again – the most expensive election campaign of all time. He is, however, able to the raise millions of dollars of funding that he needs via small donations from hundreds of thousands of Americans.
People like this 74-year-old candidate. Because he says what he thinks. Because he's an honest man who's not permanently mired in contradictions. And because people believe that he is fighting for a cause and not primarily for himself. Fundamentally, Americans mistrust the White House. This has its roots in the history of the founding of the United States, which is, after all, a story of liberation from arbitrary government.
Regardless of their political persuasion, people are tired of the spectacle in recent years of mutual blockade between House and Senate.
Representing countertrends
Voters have had enough of the complacent political establishment. This is also one reason for the success of the Republican Donald Trump, who presents himself as an "enfant terrible" and as such breaks all the rules, not just those of good manners and decency. People love it, because it gives them the feeling that this is someone who is standing up to and fighting against the might of government.
Sanders, by contrast, stands politically for precisely this strong government. He wants higher taxes and more influence in the fields of education and health. But perhaps this level is still too abstract for this very emotional early phase of election year.
The 74-year-old is most successful among "millennials" - 18- to 24-year-olds. In this demographic, he is way ahead of Hillary, with a 65 percent approval rating. Hillary has only 27 percent. Bernie Sanders even ticks the boxes for some voters who are not generally Democrat supporters.
As befits their age, young Americans are drawn to countertrends. And this old white man is a countertrend in a party where the norm is to be female or black or young. This too might play a part.
Sanders and Trump: Both are taboo-breakers, in very different ways. Trump – racist and sexist. Sanders – credible and combative.
Dangerous outsider
Unlike Hillary Clinton, who has been in the business for decades, these two men have no political scandals in their baggage that the opposition could use to its advantage. Astonishingly, many Americans see Donald Trump's misdemeanors as a purely private matter.
Eight years ago there was an outsider in the running. One who, purely according to the laws of probability, should never have been allowed to win.
Can Sanders really pull off an Obama?
In the upcoming primaries in Iowa and New Hampshire, he may well do. And then things will really kick off.
Obama administration defends Iran deals on prisoners and sanctions
The Obama administration staunchly defended two deals with Iran that came to fruition on Saturday, praising an unexpected prisoner swap and long awaited sanctions relief for the Islamic republic despite criticism from the Republican presidential field.
On Saturday Iran released five US citizens, four as part of a deal with American officials in exchange for the pardon of seven Iranians facing trial or prison terms in the US for sanctions violations.
The releases, including that of Washington Post reporter Jason Rezaian, coincided with the end of sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program, and came days after the release of 10 American sailors briefly detained by the Revolutionary Guard.
“I don’t think we’re thanking Iran with respect to the release of these American citizens,” a senior administration official told reporters late on Saturday. “Our judgment is they were detained in Iran unjustly. The fact of the matter is we had an opportunity to secure their release.”
Earlier, Republicans welcomed the release of the American citizens butexcoriated the Obama administration for both the nuclear pact and its side swap with Tehran.
Donald Trump, the billionaire who leads in the polls, suggested the US gave Iran more than it received. A spokesperson for Speaker of the House Paul Ryan said President Obama had, via sanctions relief, paid “a ransom” for the Americans’ freedom.
Administration officials disagreed, stressing: “This was a unique circumstance.”
“This was not a spy swap,” said one, “this was not an exchange of intelligence assets.”
But the timing of the trade, and of a “separate but clearly associated good-will gesture” release of a fifth American, fed Republican fears that Tehran had used the prisoners as leverage for sanctions negotiations – and that the trade set a precedent of acceding to those who hold hostages.
In Vienna, Secretary of State John Kerry told reporters that discussions to free the Americans had “accelerated in light of the relationships forged and the diplomatic channels unlocked over the course of the nuclear talks”.
The officials who briefed reporters denied that the negotiations were ever linked, even if they developed in tandem. One official said the administration did not want the prisoners “to be used as leverage or a bargaining chip in the nuclear discussions.
“And similarly if those discussions had failed to reach a nuclear deal we did not want to jeopardize their potential release.”
It was reported on Saturday that the implementation of new sanctions over Iran’s ballistic missile tests had been delayed to avoid risking the prisoners’ release.
Only one of the Americans newly freed had departed Iran, the officials said. They added that the US intended to impose the new sanctions over the missile test, even as it removes 400 people from the sanctions list related to nuclear activity.
Kerry hailed the accomplishments of the nuclear talks, saying that as a result “the United States, our friends and allies in the Middle East and the entire world are safer because the threat of a nuclear weapon has been reduced”.
His predecessor as secretary of state, the Democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton, agreed about a safer world but struck a far more critical tone.
“We shouldn’t thank Iran for the prisoners or for following through on its obligations,” she said in a statement. “These prisoners were held unjustly by a regime that continues to threaten the peace and security of the Middle East.”Clinton also noted the continued mystery surrounding Bob Levinson, an American who disappeared in Iran in 2007 and whom the officials refused to speak of except to say they still seek his return. Clinton also said that “Iran is still violating UN security council resolutions with its ballistic missile program, which should be met with new sanctions designations”, and repeated her resolve to “stand side-by-side with our ally Israel”.
Beside Rezaian, whose wife, Yeganeh Salehi, will reportedly be allowed to leave Iran with him, the other Americans released on Saturday as part of the US-Iran swap were pastor Saeed Abedini, Nosratollah Khosrawi-Roodsari and marine veteran Amir Hekmati.
Matthew Trevithick, a writer and researcher who had written for the Atlantic, the Christian Science Monitor, the Wall Street Journal and the Daily Beast, was also released. The reason for his relatively brief detention remains unknown.
U.S. Imposes New Sanctions on Iran After Prisoner Exchange
Less than 24 hours after lifting sanctions against Iran for its nuclear program, the Obama administration announced Sunday that it was imposing new sanctions on Iran for violating United Nations resolutions against ballistic missile tests.
The announcement, which was prepared several weeks ago but delayed by the Treasury Department, was made shortly after a Swiss plane carrying Americans freed by the Iranian authorities departed Tehran. The release of the Americans came a day after Iran and the United States concluded delicate negotiations on a prisoner exchange tied indirectly to the completion of a nuclear agreement.
President Obama on Sunday hailed the agreements with Iran as the beginning of what he hopes will be a new era of constructive relations between two nations, which have been long estranged over ideology and regional ambitions.
“This is a good day,” Mr. Obama said in a televised statement from the White House.
“We have a rare chance to pursue a new path, a different, better future that delivers progress both for our peoples and the wider world,” said Mr. Obama, who has staked his political credibility on the opening with Iran. “That’s the opportunity before the Iranian people. We need to take advantage of that.”
Suicide bomber kills 9 people in eastern Afghanistan
A suicide bomber killed nine people in the eastern Afghan city of Jalalabad on Sunday at the home of a tribal elder when people had gathered to celebrate his son's release from Taliban captivity, local officials said.
The son was killed and at least 12 people, including his father, were wounded in the attack, according to Attaullah Khogyani, a spokesman for the provincial governor.
There was no immediate claim of responsibility.
There have been several bomb blasts in Afghanistan over recent weeks at a time when efforts are underway to restart a peace process with the Taliban.
Islamic State in the same city last week claimed their first attack on a major urban centre in Afghanistan with an assault on the Pakistani consulate that killed seven people.
Pakistan - On militancy and child marriage
by Hassan Javid
What a surprise! Apparently, when it comes right down to it, the much-maligned Pakistani state actually faces very little difficulty in establishing its writ. The crackdown on the Jaish-e-Mohammad’s (JeM) leadership and seminaries in the wake of the Pathankot attack in India arguably demonstrates that Pakistan has both the capacity and the ability to take action against militant outfits as and when it chooses. At the outset, it is important to clarify that this is a welcome step in the right direction; while the usual suspects are busy mewling about alleged capitulation to Indian demands, saner heads on both sides of the border seem to have acknowledged the need to continue with the tentative peace process, and to not let it be derailed by the actions of those inimically opposed to seeing stability and prosperity in South Asia. Nonetheless, given the understandable alacrity with which the government of Pakistan has moved against JeM, it is important to continue to ask two key questions: why was action not taken against groups like the JeM earlier, and why do similar groups continue to act with impunity across the length and breadth of Pakistan?
For decades, analysts in Pakistan and elsewhere have decried the military establishment’s nurturing and deployment of militant proxies in Afghanistan and Kashmir. Independently of the dubious strategic merits of this policy, one very good reason for opposing it was the fact that it generated tremendous amounts of violence, intolerance, and instability within Pakistan itself. The tens of thousands of civilians and soldiers who have died at the hands of terrorist attacks, and the millions who continue to suffer at the hands of religious persecution and discrimination, are testament to this fact.
Since 2014 and the launch of Operation Zarb-i-Azb, many have come to believe that the military establishment has seen the light, and is now responding to the internal threats produced by years of muddled strategic thinking. This is all well and good, except for the perception that the freedom of operation enjoyed by groups like JeM suggests the continuation of a policy whereby the military punishes recalcitrant, erstwhile allies – the ‘bad’ Taliban – while continuing to support and tolerate the existence of those that remain cooperative and quiescent – the proverbial ‘good’ Taliban.
Fighting Islamist militancy in Pakistan was never going to be easy. While it is tempting to believe that military force alone can work, the reality is that a truly comprehensive solution would require an ideological offensive coupled with a genuine desire to address the root causes of violence and radicalization – deprivation, marginalization, and alienation. It will also require a recognition of the way in which all extremist groups, even the allegedly ‘friendly’ ones, contribute towards perpetuating an atmosphere of conflict. Allegations against JeM have existed for a long time. It should not have taken the state so long to react to them and it is imperative that the net now be extended to include other such groups whose existence continues to be tolerated.
Postscript: Two weeks ago, I argued it would be a mistake to view the Council of Islamic Ideology as being an extreme but ultimately irrelevant entity. Given the Council’s tremendous symbolic power, as well as its institutional links to different political parties and religious organizations, the fact that its recommendations are advisory in nature does not mean that they do not carry any weight. The point was proven earlier this week when the Child Marriage Restraint (Amendment) Bill of 2014 was rejected by the National Assembly’s Standing Committee on Religious Affairs and Interfaith Harmony after the Council of Islamic Ideology declared that the law would be ‘anti-Islamic’ and ‘blasphemous’.
It is important to be clear on this point. The term ‘child marriage’ is nothing more than a euphemism for child abuse, and the repugnancy of ‘marrying’ children (almost always girls) as young as nine years of age off to men old enough to be their grandfathers should be self-evident. Under currently existing legislation (dating back to the colonial era with minor amendments in the 1960s), the punishment for ‘marrying’ a child under the age of sixteen amounts to little more than a slap on the wrist. The proposed amendment simply sought to increase the severity of the punishment with a view towards discouraging a practice that essentially results in the sexual exploitation of children.
Last month Maulana Sherani, the chairman of the Council, sought to have Ahmadis declared apostates from Islam. That this would have undoubtedly led to violence and bloodshed is something that could not have possibly escaped the Council’s notice, and it was only a reported intervention by Maulana Tahir Ashrafi that prevented this from happening. Given that the Council of Islamic Ideology appears to be comprised of people who have no qualms about pursuing such a frankly genocidal agenda, it should not be surprising that they would not have second thoughts about subjecting children to a lifetime of cruelty and maltreatment.
Perhaps the worst part of this sordid saga is the obvious cognitive dissonance that is on display. The theological arguments advanced by the Council of Islamic Ideology, rooted in particular readings of Islamic history and scripture, are ultimately theoretical; the reality is that child ‘marriage’ unquestionably leads to injustice and abuse. Take, for instance, the manner in which child brides are bartered to pay debts, retain control of property, and resolve disputes; a reasonable response to such cases would be to unequivocally support any and all measures seeking to bring an end to such practices. Instead, the ideological blinders worn by the Council of Islamic Ideology consistently and constantly lead its members to endorse positions that perpetuate and strengthen a deeply problematic status quo. The Council’s refusal to even countenance a discussion of the context in which their pronouncements are made simply lends credence to the notion that it is full of ideologues more concerned with their own version of doctrinal purity than any broader concern for social justice.
Pakistan - Who is afraid of student unions?
For the reactionary dictatorship to survive, it was necessary to break every enlightened and progressive practice in society. Banning student unions thwarted campus development and student welfare issues.
On January 11, 2016, the normally dormant, lifeless and visionless institution called the Senate did something unexpected and radical even going against its core conservative characteristics. The Senate undid the ban on student unions imposed by the reactionary and vicious dictatorship of Ziaul Haq on February 9, 1984.
During the darkest days under Zia’s monstrous regime all union activity was brutally suppressed. Let us not forget the naked and brutal massacre of the 133 workers of Colony Textile Mills in Multan for standing and speaking up for their basic fundamental rights. This was not an isolated incident. It was merely just the harbinger for many more episodes of bestiality to crush the workers’ and student movement. Banning the student unions was a part of this repressive campaign. The goal was to crush rebellious student movements and to prop up a politics devoid of ideology. This draconian decision put society through a cruel and prolonged suffering period of more than three decades slowly allowing the poison of fundamentalism, sectarianism and ethnic and other reactionary tendencies to seep into streams of society.
Despite political repression of the worst kind there were many incidents pointing towards a generalised student revolt. The most significant was the courageous struggle of the left leaning student union in Nishtar Medical College, Multan. It was met with brutal state oppression, imprisonment, forced migrations and attempts to kill. Subsequently, student unions were banned by a cowardly and despotic regime.
The youth and the students are like a barometer that indicates the prevailing tempo and temperature within society. Students are generally the first to light the spark of revolutionary infernos by which the working class enters the arena of history and can overthrow the system of oppression and exploitation. Many of the revolutions after the Second World War were started by students. The movement of 1968-1969 in Pakistan was one such example, which was ignited after the murder of Abdul Hameed, a student of the Rawalpindi Polytechnic College. The movement transformed into a revolution that engulfed the whole country from Peshawar to Chittagong.
Like all over the world, in Pakistan, educational institutions and student politics was dominated by left wing progressive ideas till the 1970s. There was a pleasant atmosphere in educational institutions and female students participated in political and cultural activities along with males. The reactionary, conservative and fundamentalist forces were miniscule in educational institutions. The coming together of student politics marked the birth of a new party based on socialist ideas — called the PPP — into a mass political force.
For the reactionary dictatorship to survive, it was necessary to break every enlightened and progressive practice in society. Banning student unions thwarted campus development and student welfare issues, damaged the personal growth of students and of healthy debates, and instead of social development through intelligent conversation we have instilled a culture of closed and intolerant minds.
The irony is that the post Zia, so-called ‘democratic’ regimes after 1988 continued his reactionary policies, as the system remained intact, only changing the jargon it was run with and even this was superficial. Democracy has failed to restore student unions. Despite numerous declarations this fundamental democratic demand did not materialise. There is a reason why authorities of the deep state and their political toadies never wanted the student arena to be stirred up again as in the 1960s and 1970s. They would rather keep the masses feeding on the putrid diet of inane television anchors, corporate media statements and distorted histories or being duped by the false promises of the reactionary and obscurantists elements than the youth to be reinvigorated with fresh ideas, inquisitiveness and activism, and breaking the chains of oppression and exploitation. Such ideological betrayals by the PPP leaderships could not be concealed behind the masks of judicial orders cobbled under their governments.
As a result of these betrayals we have witnessed a crushing domination of private schools, colleges and universities with massive profits in the education sector. Students in private and public educational institutions are facing harsh and oppressive administrations, expulsions, frequent penalties and fines, a suffocating environment, conservative curriculum and a very low standard of education. The ethos students are being taught are selfishness, competition and careerism. How can they become healthy members of society? Decline in culture, crimes, drugs, lumpenisation and alienation is an expression of this. Let us not forget that it was during Zia’s rule that the ‘Kalashnikov culture’ and sectarian tensions were implanted in student politics.
The rise of Islamist organisations in student politics after 1972 was primarily the product of the PPP’s leadership’s reconciliation with the system and the state. Abandoning revolution halfway and ideological deviations from the party’s socialist fundamentals led to demoralisation among the workers and youth paving the way for reactionary tendencies. With the connivance of US imperialism, the Zia dictatorship unleashed these fundamentalist vigilantes in educational institutions. Their survival is due to state patronage, as they do not have a strong basis among the students.
The post-Zia period and its controlled democracy merely continued with the super exploitation of the masses that led to even more confusion and alienation from mainstream politics. With commercialised politics, the establishment and moneyed classes will try to impose their hegemony on students similar to the national, provincial and local bodies’ elections. However, this will also lead to ideological discussions and debates on the real issues and, ultimately, revolutionary ideology will triumph over money. Given the misery faced by students, workers and peasants, a mass resurgence of student politics will serve as a school for revolution. The rulers know this and that is why they are terrified of the restoration of student unions. However, there is no real possibility of restoration of student unions by these bourgeois parliaments as they are clubs of the elite in disguise. The students and the youth will have to fight to win this fundamental right.
The students cannot be crushed in the name of degrees and careers for long. There is no doubt the next revolutionary movement in Pakistan will be ignited by the students. The students have to join their struggle for fundamental rights with the struggle against capitalism, which lies at the root of all deprivations. In this great undertaking they will draw correct conclusions on how their salvation lies with the breaking of the chains of the working masses. Only by embracing the might and leadership of the working class can they play a role to turn the tide of history for a future of collective salvation.
The average age of the members of the Central Committee of Bolshevik party that led the great revolution in Russia was 28 years. Their opponents mocked them by calling it a party of children. But historical events proved Lenin right, who said, “He who has youth, has the future.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)