Friday, July 7, 2017
Malala Yousafzai, Girls’ Education Advocate, Finishes High School
By
The 19-year-old Pakistani woman attended her last day of secondary school in Birmingham, England, on Friday, a milestone for the activist who has fought for girls’ education. She said on her new Twitter account that she would begin traveling next week to the Middle East, Africa and Latin America to meet with girls.
“I enjoyed my school years, and I am excited for my future,” she wrote in her blog. “But I can’t help thinking of millions of girls around the world who won’t complete their education.”
Ms. Yousafzai became the youngest winner of the Nobel Peace Prize in 2014, having risen to international prominence as a voice against Islamist violence. She escaped to Britain in 2012 after being shot in the head by the Taliban when she was 15.
She founded the Malala Fund in 2013, an advocacy organization to ensure girls’ education worldwide. In April, she visited Lancaster, Pa., and Ottawa, Canada, as the first two stops on her world tour.
She plans to attend college but has not said where. In an interview with Teen Vogue in April, she said she was as nervous about college as any other recent graduate.
“It is quite a good moment because you live without your parents and you live in a college, and that’s the exciting part,” she said. “After that I’m not sure what I’m going to do in terms of career, but I’m really sure that I’m going to be focused on the Malala Fund and the work we do for girls’ education, so that’s going to be my mission.”
Nawaz, Imran two sides of the same coin: Bilawal Bhutto
“Nawaz Sharif and Imran Kahn are two sides of the same coin. One wants to remain in power while the other is trying to come into power,” said PPP leader while addressing a public rally in Mehmoodabad, Karachi where by-polls in PS-114 is scheduled to be held on July 9.
“Both have indulged in politics of money,” he added.
Bilawal said that his party advocates the interests of the poor people while no other cares about them. “The youth is unemployed and this is a challenge.”
Karachi, the PPP leader said, is called mini Pakistan and people of all the different ethnicities of the country live in this constituency. “It is an area where labourers and working class reside and those who have always given sacrifices for the noble causes.” Bilawal went on to say that his party has strong bonds with the people of this area as his mother Benazir Bhutto and his grandfather Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto had also visited the neighbourhood in the past and he is visiting it for the first time.
Recalling the May 12, 2007 carnage in Karachi, the PPP leader said: “People of this area have suffered many times including during the the 12 May bloodbath.”
Pakistan’s ‘Love Us Or Else’ Strategy – Analysis
In itself the argument sounds simple, however, in reality it is not.
For the last six decades, ever since Pakistan first became an American ally in 1954, the country’s leaders have periodically used this argument with their American interlocutors and counterparts.
In an op-ed in the New York Times, Stephen Hadley and Moeed Yusuf argue that instead of using “sticks” the United States “must understand and address Pakistan’s strategic anxieties.” This according to the authors means addressing Pakistan’s fears about Indian presence in Afghanistan and helping resolve the Kashmir dispute.
A former Pakistani official argues that if all “players” in Afghanistan “have their preferred militant outfits” why should Pakistan “give up on its long-held assets?” Pakistan, according to this argument, is simply protecting its own interests in a hostile environment. Further, China’s $46 billion investment through CPEC (China Pakistan Economic Corridor) is cited as demonstrating that Pakistan has a strong ally and hence United States “is in no position to influence Pakistan’s security policies in a meaningful way.” Growing Russian involvement in Afghanistan is cited by another recent piece to make the argument that with the help of China and Russia, Pakistan will be able to “reduce or even neutralize” any global coercion or attempts at isolation.
At a recent event, Pakistan’s top diplomat in Washington DC, claimed that there are no terrorist ‘sanctuaries’ in Pakistan and asserted that the Haqqani network and the Afghan Taliban were not Pakistan’s proxies. The theatrics may fool some people but if you listen closely you could be mistaken for believing you were back in the 1950s if not the 1980s.
After decades of using jihad as a lever of its foreign and security policy, Pakistan’s intelligentsia and its officials prefer to live in denial instead of acknowledging the reality. Instead of changing their policies the argument being made is that Pakistan has no option but to support jihadi groups like the Haqqani network and the Taliban. Rather than admitting that it is Pakistan’s own policies that have led to its isolation, the argument being made is that Washington’s close ties to India have led it to move away from Pakistan. Pakistan, however, is not concerned as it has China and Russia to depend upon and is no longer dependent on American aid or military equipment. Hence, any ‘tough love’ approach by Washington has its limits and the U.S. should be careful otherwise it will soon have no leverage over Pakistan.
To those who have followed Pakistan’s foreign policy and U.S.-Pakistan relations these arguments are not new.
At periodic intervals whenever Pakistan’s leaders feel that the U.S. is getting too close to India or exerting pressure on Pakistan to change its policies, they complain of American betrayal, assert that the Americans will lose any leverage they have on Pakistan and brandish close ties with China.
Throughout the 1950s and 1960s Pakistan’s first military ruler General Ayub Khan warned his American counterparts – from President Eisenhower to Kennedy to Johnson –that Pakistan may turn to China if the U.S. becomes too close to India. Generals Zia through Musharraf continued to make similar arguments to their American counterparts. Reference to the United States as a ‘Fair-weather ally’ and China as an ‘All weather ally’ was another way of applying pressuring on the Americans.
Pakistan’s ties with the Soviet Union were never as deep as its relations with China primarily because of close ties between India and the Soviet Union. However, at periodic intervals, during the mid-1960s and then again from the early 2000s Pakistan has attempted to build ties with Russia. In 2003 President Musharraf went on a three-day trip to Moscow to strengthen bilateral relations with Russia and his successor President Asif Ali Zardari visited Russia in 2010 and 2011.
Pakistan’s leaders tout Chinese and Russian involvement in the Afghan peace talks, growing military relationsbetween Russia and Pakistan in addition to Chinese investment to argue that Pakistan does not need American aid and assistance and that if the United States wants to retain Pakistani friendship Washington should avoid any talk of ‘tough love.’
The reality is different and something Pakistan’s leaders are reluctant to acknowledge.
Pakistan is a hard currency deficit country. For the last three years Pakistan’s exports have been in steady decline. Remittances from overseas workers make up almost half of Pakistan’s import bill and there has been a decline for the last two years. There are those in Pakistan who view CPEC, initially valued at $46 billion, as the panacea of all its problems. What is forgotten is that CPEC, like other projects under China’s One Belt One Road (OBOR) Initiative is primarily made up of high interest loans and as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) warned the “repayment obligations that come with this investment will be serious.” The Economist called CPEC ‘Pakistan’s misguided obsession with infrastructure’ instead of focusing on the structural problems facing Pakistan’s economic growth.
Pakistan faces crises on multiple levels – societal, political and economic – and none of these will be resolved by closer ties with China or Russia. Whenever Pakistan has faced an economic crisis or a natural disaster the first country to offer assistance has always been the United States, not China or Russia. Whenever Pakistan has sought assistance from the IMF, it is Washington not Beijing that has been the key player. Finally, Pakistan’s military today depends primarily on American support.
Pakistan’s leaders have over the years mastered the art of gaming the United States. Periodic threats by American administrations to suspend aid are countered by Pakistan threatening to turn to China or Russia for aid and support. This has almost always resulted in American officials once again offering aid and assistance in order to keep Pakistan as an American ally. Instead of changing Pakistan’s strategic calculus, American policies have only helped reinforce Pakistani belief in the centrality of their country to global order.
Instead of buying into arguments that there is no solution in Afghanistan without accepting Pakistan’s strategic interests or that the United States has no leverage in Pakistan, the U.S. should jolt Pakistan’s leaders into facing the realities of their domestic failures and the elusiveness of their dream of regional pre-eminence through terrorism.
Pakistan - Unspoken truth -
By Senator Rehman Malik
The historians will not forget to write about the worst miseries and killings in the Muslim world in the recent past starting from Indonesia to Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Indian occupied Kashmir, Middle East and right up to Ankara. Ironically, the UN and world powers have opted to become silent spectators and have deliberately shut their eyes for their vested interests.
Evaluating and reviewing the tragic history and sufferings of the Muslim world led me to believe that those charismatic Muslim leaders who spoke for the unity of the Muslim world were eliminated in very mysterious ways and circumstances.
Shaheed Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto tried to create unity and to bring Muslim countries to one forum so that they could solve their problems by themselves but he and the other Muslim leaders who played a role for this cause met their fate through unnatural deaths. Shaheed Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto hosted the Islamic Summit in Lahore in 1974 where Muslim leaders gathered to exhibit solidarity with one another, which was a landmark moment in the history of the Muslim Ummah. Fearful of the strength of a united Muslim Ummah under the charismatic personality of Shaheed Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, vested powers used General Zia ul Haq – the handler and confidante of USA – to first topple his government and then to kill him. Similarly, King Faisal bin Abdulaziz Al Saud was assassinated by his nephew Faisal bin Musaid who was also killed simultaneously to keep the real facts buried forever in history. It is strongly believed that Yasser Arafat was poisoned. In my presence, this message was conveyed to a diplomat posted in UK to be conveyed to Yasser Arafat. This fact was later confirmed through his post-mortem report. Similarly, Muhammad Anwar el-Sadat was assassinated on 6 October 1981 during the annual victory parade held in Cairo to celebrate Egypt's crossing of the Suez Canal by those who became Jehadis and one of them was Al Zawahiri, current leader of Al-Qaeda.
During the same period of uncertainty across the Muslim world, the Iranian Revolution took place, that overthrew the Pahlavi dynasty under Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, which was actually an anti-socialism move in the region.
With each passing day, the Muslim world is being pushed towards an uncertain future by design and in line with the perceived post 9/11 World Order. Analysing the new geo-political order, I find no other reason but the thirst for power and to control rich resources, especially oil and the pipelines and sea-lanes that connect them to global markets. As we know and understand, the Middle East contains 40% of the world's gas reserves, whereas OPEC countries currently hold 71.5% of the global reserves and more than 30% of the oil exporters are Muslims. So, it is a fight to meet the materialistic interests even at the cost of millions of innocent human lives. Many were optimistic and I was also wondering as to what the policy of the newly elected US President Donald Trump be? His opinion on the war against terror, his vision on the war in Iraq and his initiatives towards peace in Afghanistan were all points of interest.
The US media was initially hard-hitting on the professed policies of Mr Donald Trump during the election campaign, and all and sundry were talking about his probable hardline stance against CIA but, after hearing the speech of President Donald Trump, my doubts converted into reality and I became certain of the fact that he will follow the policies of CIA more willingly than his predecessors. I was confident that President Donald Trump would work towards peace in war-stricken regions and would bring stability there by reducing the arms race and will work for the unity of nations irrespective of their religious and regional identity by promoting inter-faith harmony. But, unfortunately now I feel doubtful that if he will do so. I had tweeted eight points as advice to President Donald Trump, which were later acknowledged by his office, urging him, inter alia, to fight alongside Muslims against terrorism, not against them. I had also advised him to not fight and condemn the entire Muslim community, as every Muslim is not a terrorist and every terrorist is not a Musli I feel that things are getting worse by the day rather than getting better. The foiled coup in Turkey and the Russia-Turkey conflict, followed by other international incidents has already destabilised the peace process.
An ordinary mind is bound to ask why terrorism is prevalent in Muslim countries only. Why are the forces of ISIS not striking Israel, which is considered the biggest enemy of Islam and Muslims? The reason is simple, because a snake does not bite its own tail. I feel sorry to say that the designers have played their card well and both the Muslim Ummah and their leaders have accumulated fear and subsequently have failed to stand up against conspirators and conspiracies. The Muslim Ummah is fighting against each other in Saudi-Iran proxy wars in Iraq and Syria and so on and so forth, whereas outsiders are taking full advantage of our disunity. This war is slowly and steadily engulfing both the South and the Middle East. This will further escalate the arms race and our country is likely to suffer more in terms of the return of thousands of Pakistani expatriates. In other words, the long awaited destruction through Arab Spring has entered into its final phase and God forbid if things do not settle down, it may drive us to World War III, which would set to be fought in the Muslim region.
Rapid regional developments, series of murders of Muslim leaders and the gradual control on divided Middle East is neither in the favour of Middle East nor in the favour of South Asia. Lastly, I would like to put forward this question; will we keep getting our leaders assassinated? Will we set our course to be slaves of Lawrence of Arabia or any other Uncle Sam again? The situation of Middle East and South Asia is correlated especially in Afghanistan/Pakistan. Hence it needs serious meaningful and result-oriented actions. The sectarian war between Iran and Saudi Arabia must end and they must not allow foreign powers to manipulate their beliefs, which have already taken the lives of thousands of innocent Muslims and thus it does not show a pretty picture for the future of Muslim Ummah. Last but not the least, it is time for the Muslim Ummah to unite against growing future threats, otherwise the Muslim world will continue to remain under trial with anti-Muslim conspiracies and endless accusations. Let me warn the Muslim world that the second Arab spring has started and may or may not lead to World War III, which may be housed in the Middle East. Can the Muslims act wisely to scale it back before it is too late?
Thursday, July 6, 2017
Report: Saudi Arabia has 'clear link' to UK extremism, investigation finds
Saudi Arabia is the chief foreign promoter of Islamist extremism in the UK, a new report has claimed.
The Henry Jackson Society said there was a "clear and growing link" between Islamist organisations in receipt of overseas funds, hate preachers and Jihadist groups promoting violence.
The foreign affairs think tank called for a public inquiry into the role of Saudi Arabia and other Gulf nations.
The Saudi embassy in London says the claims are "categorically false".
Meanwhile, ministers are under pressure to publish their own report on UK-based Islamist groups.
The Home Office report into the existence and influence of Jihadist organisations, commissioned by former Prime Minister David Cameron in 2015, has reportedly yet to be completed amid questions as to whether it will ever be published.
Critics have suggested it could make uncomfortable reading for the government, which has close and longstanding diplomatic, security and economic links with the Gulf, particularly Saudi Arabia.
BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner said he understood the report was "largely finished and sitting on Theresa May's desk", but there was probably a reluctance to publish it because of "embarrassing" content.
'Illiberal ideology'
The Henry Jackson Society is a foreign policy think tank that advocates the robust spreading of liberal democracy, the rule of law and the market economy.
Their report says a number of Gulf nations, as well as Iran, are providing financial support to mosques and Islamic educational institutions which have played host to extremist preachers and been linked to the spread of extremist material.
At the top of the list, the report claims, is Saudi Arabia, the UK's closest ally in the Middle East and biggest trading partner.
It alleges individuals and foundations have been heavily involved in exporting what it calls "an illiberal, bigoted Wahhabi ideology", quoting a number of examples.
In a minority of cases, the report alleges institutions in the UK that receive Saudi funding are run directly from Saudi Arabia, although in most instances the money appears to "simply buy foreign donors' influence".
Britain has a close, long-standing and sometimes controversial relationship with Saudi Arabia, birthplace of Islam and today the world's biggest oil producer and exporter.
Annual bilateral trade is worth billions of pounds, UK exports to Saudi Arabia, notably in defence, employ thousands of people in both countries, and there is close co-operation on counter-terrorism.
But UK and US-supplied warplanes and munitions are being used by the Royal Saudi Air Force to bomb targets in Yemen, sometimes resulting in civilian casualties.
Saudi Arabia also has a much-criticised human rights record. This has prompted calls from some, including Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, for an arms embargo on Saudi Arabia.
But Theresa May has spoken of the economic and security benefits of this alliance and has pushed for closer ties with Britain's Gulf Arab partners.
In a statement, the Saudi embassy in London said any accusations that the kingdom had radicalised "a small number of individuals are baseless and lack credible evidence".
And it pointed out that the country has itself been subject to numerous attacks by al-Qaeda and so-called Islamic State.
It added: "We do not and will not condone the actions or ideology of violent extremism and we will not rest until these deviants and their organisations are destroyed."
The Home Office said it was determined to cut off the funding of extremism but it declined to comment on the think tank's report.
The BBC's Frank Gardner said the report's release comes at a sensitive time with Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain and Egypt all accusing Qatar of supporting extremism - a charge the report says is hypocritical.
The think tank also accuses Qatar of links to terrorism, which it denies.
Arab foreign ministers are meeting in Cairo on Wednesday to discuss possible further sanctions on Qatar, while the Qatari foreign minister will be making his own country's case at a press conference in London.
'Worrying' links
Endorsing the report, Labour MP Dan Jarvis said it shed light on "very worrying" links between Saudi Arabia and the funding of extremism and he called for the government to release its report on foreign funding.
"In the wake of the terrible and tragic terrorist attacks we have seen this year, it is vital that we use every tool at our disposal to protect our communities," he said.
"This includes identifying the networks that promote and support extremism and shutting down the financial networks that fund it.
He said the proposed Commission for Countering Extremism, a new body intended to expose examples of extremism in civil society, should make the foreign funding of UK institutions a priority.
Prime Minister Theresa May, who visited Saudi Arabia in April, has insisted the UK's historic relationship with the desert kingdom is important for British security and trade.
Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has called for the immediate suspension of UK arms exports to Saudi Arabia because of its human rights record and involvement in military action in Yemen.
Pakistan's battle between corruption and accountability - Battle – lost or won
By S Tariq
In the first instance, Mr Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, an undisputed political genius, was tried and executed in what went down in history as a controversial trial, initiated by General Zia ul Haq. It is indeed ironic that a product of this dictator is currently being subjected to investigation.
With each passing day since the commencement of proceedings in the Judicial Academy premises, we have seen a progressive change in the body language of PML-N spokespersons and those appearing before the JIT.
These individuals have become increasingly vitriolic against the investigators, little realising that by doing so they are levelling allegations against the very authority that initiated the probe. The persistent wailing of those being questioned has now become irksome to the point where it may even contribute to losing whatever sympathy they had been able to generate. What is said in this media interaction, is laced with stuff that is nothing short of ridiculous. Take for example Imran bashing – something that has no relevance to ongoing proceedings, except for the fact that it was PTI, which doggedly pursued the Panama Leaks case in the Apex Court. Worry and anger is writ large on the faces of PML-N leadership as the deadline for submission of findings approaches.
Desperation is now so evident that fingers are being indirectly pointed at one of the most revered institutions of the country that has shown marvellous constitutional restraint, contrary to historical precedence. To that end, extensive use of social media is being resorted to in order to spread fake news and rumours. This campaign is nothing short of collaborating with those who are out to undo Pakistan and therefore needs to be stamped out ruthlessly. There is split opinion on summoning of Maryam Nawaz Sharif before the JIT.
I find nothing amiss in this since there are no gender-based preferences or reservations in the eyes of law. I however, am not sure if Wednesday’s appearance of the PM’s daughter will catapult her as an heir to the top slot in PML-N in a smooth fashion, whenever the time comes for such a transition to manifest itself. If and when such a scenario does develop, its successful culmination will depend on the answer to a single critical question – will there be an intra-family power struggle for the throne? While news making events are occurring in the Federal Capital on a daily basis, the Qatari Prince has refused to come to the Pakistani Mission in Doha to appear before members of the investigation team.
The implications of this refusal and whether the member of the Qatari Royal Family would be examined on his own turf, are questions that will perhaps be answered by the time this write up goes to print. Nonetheless, the continuing arrogant Qatari’s attitude, is not likely to provide much help to the Sharif family. In spite of the serious atmosphere surrounding the JIT proceedings, there have been some lighter moments too (if they can be termed as such).
Take for example the reported response by Mr Hussain Nawaz to a question whether he held dual nationality, “I don’t know”, came the reply. Then there was Mr Kirmani’s fiery outburst, which drew a similarity between General Zia ul Haq’s takeover on July 5, 1977 and Maryam Nawaz’s appearance on the same date in 2017 with reference to ‘certain forces’ that were conspiring to sabotage democracy (or words to that effect).
The speaker must have later bitten his tongue on realising that Mr Nawaz Sharif was himself a prodigy of the military dictator, who imposed Martial Law in 1977. So, the nation waits expectantly for July 10, when we expect to see the climax of the Panama epic with all its rhetoric, drama, tears and comedy. This will be a great moment in our national history, where the battle between corruption and accountability will finally be lost or won.
To Win Afghanistan, Get Tough on Pakistan
By HUSAIN HAQQANI
President Trump’s review of American policy in Afghanistan should involve adopting a tougher approach to Pakistan. Although the Taliban are said to control or contest 40 percent of Afghanistan’s territory, Taliban leaders operate from the safety of Pakistan. United States incentives since the Sept. 11 attacks have failed to dissuade Pakistan from supporting the Taliban, and Mr. Trump must now consider alternatives.
Reading Pakistan correctly has not always been easy for American officials. Pakistan was a key American ally during the Cold War, the anti-Soviet jihad in Afghanistan and the post-Sept. 11 operations against Al Qaeda. But for Pakistan the alliance has been more about securing weapons, economic aid and diplomatic support in its confrontation with India. The United States and Pakistan have both disappointed each other because of divergence in their interests in South Asia.
The George W. Bush administration erred in ignoring the regrouping of the Taliban in Pakistan after their defeat in Afghanistan in the aftermath of Sept. 11, considering Pakistan’s cooperation in capturing some Qaeda figures as sufficient evidence of its alliance with the United States.
President Barack Obama’s administration tried to deal with a resurgent Taliban with a surge in troop numbers for a specific period. Mr. Obama deployed armed drones to strike at Taliban targets inside Pakistan, but that proved insufficient in dealing with the leadership living in the Pakistani cities of Quetta and Peshawar.
Gen. Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan’s former military dictator, had secretly authorized the drone strikes, and some of the drones operated from bases inside Pakistan — a policy that continued under his civilian successors. Under his rule, Pakistan audaciously denied having anything to do with the Afghan Taliban or its most sinister component, the Haqqani network.
But the United States presented evidence of Pakistan’s links to Afghan militants just as Pakistan transitioned from military to civilian rule in 2008. As Pakistan’s ambassador to the United States for the new civilian government, I urged Pakistan’s civil and military leaders to engage with Americans honestly instead of sticking to blanket denials.
Islamabad’s response was to argue that Pakistan does, indeed, support insurgents in Afghanistan, but it does so because of security concerns about India, which is seen by generals and many civilian leaders as an existential threat to Pakistan.
But that excuse is based on exaggerations and falsehoods. India has no offensive military presence in Afghanistan and there has never been any evidence that the Afghans are willing to be part of India’s alleged plan for a two-front war with Pakistan.
Afghanistan’s president, Ashraf Ghani, recently asked India to train Afghan military officers and repair military aircraft after frustration with Pakistan, which failed to fulfill promises of restraining the Taliban and forcing them to the negotiating table.
Pakistan’s leaders question Afghanistan’s acceptance of economic assistance from India even though Pakistan does not have the capacity to provide such aid itself. It seems that Pakistan wants to keep alive imaginary fears, possibly to maintain military ascendancy in a country that has been ruled by generals for almost half of its existence. For years Pakistani officials falsely asserted that India had set up 24 consulates in Afghanistan, some close to the Pakistani border. In fact, India has only four consulates, the same number Pakistan has, in Afghanistan.
Lying about easily verifiable facts is usually the tactic of governments fabricating a threat rather than ones genuinely facing one. As ambassador, I attended trilateral meetings where my colleagues rejected serious suggestions from Afghans and Americans to mitigate apprehensions about Indian influence in Afghanistan.
While evidence of an Indian threat to Pakistan through Afghanistan remains scant, proof of the presence of Afghan Taliban leaders in Pakistan continues to mount. Mullah Omar, the Taliban’s leader, reportedly died in a Pakistani hospital in 2013 and his successor, Mullah Akhtar Mansour, was killed in an American drone strike in Baluchistan Province in Pakistan last year.
The United States should not let Pakistan link its longstanding support for hard-line Pashtun Islamists in Afghanistan to its disputes with India.
Both India and Pakistan have a lot of blood on their hands in Kashmir and seem in no hurry to resolve their disagreement, which is rooted in the psychosis resulting from the subcontinent’s bitter partition. The two countries have gone through 45 rounds of summit-level talks since 1947 and have failed to reach a permanent settlement.
Linking the outcome in Afghanistan to resolution of India-Pakistan issues would keep the United States embroiled there for a very long time. The recent rise in Islamophobia in India and a more aggressive stance against Pakistan by Prime Minister Narendra Modi should not detract from recognizing the paranoiac nature of Pakistan’s fears.
The Bush administration gave Pakistan $12.4 billion in aid, and the Obama administration forked over $21 billion. These incentives did not make Pakistan more amenable to cutting off support for the Afghan Taliban.
The Trump administration should now consider taking away Pakistan’s status as a major non-NATO ally, which would limit its priority access to American military technology. Aid to Pakistan should be linked to a sequence and timeline for specific actions against Taliban leaders.
Sanctions against individuals and institutions involved in facilitating Pakistan-based Taliban leaders and pursuing Taliban reconciliation talks without depending on Pakistan could be other measures signaling a firmer United States stance.
Moving away from an incentive-based approach would not be punishing Pakistan. The United States would be acting as a friend, helping Pakistan realize through tough measures that the gravest threat to its future comes from religious extremism it is fostering in its effort to compete with India. Negotiating a peaceful settlement with the Taliban also remains desirable, but it is important to remember the difficulties 21st-century negotiators face while seeking compromise with seventh-century mind-sets.
PPP awaits Z.A.Bhutto presidential reference hearing in SC
More than six years after former president Asif Ali Zardari filed a presidential reference in the Supreme Court (SC) to revisit Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s controversial trial, the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) still awaits a formal hearing.
As the president, Zardari had on April 2, 2011 approached the SC through a presidential reference under Article 186 of the constitution seeking opinion on revisiting Bhutto’s murder trial.
“The PPP had never intended to seek revenge but it wanted to put right a historic wrong and thereby vindicate the position of the founding chairman of the party,” Zardari’s office had said in a statement after he signed a request for the SC to revisit the trial. Forty years ago on July 5, 1977, then army chief Ziaul Haq had overthrown the democratically-elected government of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. The PPP won the 1977 parliamentary elections but a conservative alliance alleged widespread rigging and launched agitation. On July 5, 1977, General Ziaul Haq deposed Bhutto in a coup.
Bhutto was controversially tried by the Supreme Court for authorising the murder of a political opponent.
He was later controversially convicted and executed in 1979.
PPP leader Senator Farhatullah Babar told The Nation that the party was determined to ensure justice for the country’s most popular leader.
“We have been waiting for the SC to act. We cannot pressurise the SC but have been trying to raise the issue as much as we can,” he said. Babar said that Bhutto’s execution was a disgrace to the county’s history and should be corrected. “We have taken the first big step [of filing the presidential reference]. We have been pursuing it and hopefully we will be able to clear Bhutto’s name,” he added. The senator said that the former chief justice, Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhry, threw the case into the deep freezer after preliminary hearing. “We demand that the case should be heard soon,” he stressed.
PPP leader Maula Bux Chandio said that the party was actively pursuing the reopening of the Bhutto execution trial to “expose the killers” but it was for the SC to start the hearing. “Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhry himself remarked that Bhutto did not get a fair trial. There should be an official verdict to clear Bhutto’s name,” he maintained.
Chandio said that the PPP would not go slow on the Bhutto case.
“We want justice for Bhutto. This should be done as soon as possible,” he remarked. When the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) assumed power in 2013, there were speculations that they might withdraw the presidential reference on Bhutto’s execution. However, the PML-N did not touch the case.
Legal expert Tariq Mehmood said that President Mamnoon Hussain had the authority to withdraw the presidential reference.
“Legally he can do it but I don’t think he will do it. He has not done it for around four years so he won’t do it now. It is of course a difficult decision,” he said. In 2011, the PML-N had opposed the idea of seeking reopening of the Bhutto trial but never uttered a word on it after forming the federal government in 2013. In 2011, the PML-N ruled the Punjab province, while the PPP led government in the centre.
Wednesday, on the call of PPP chief Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, the party observed black day to condemn the 1977 coup that ousted Bhutto as the prime minister.
Bilawal accused that extremism, terrorism, Kalashnikov and drug culture were all the nasty gifts of Ziaul Haq’s dictatorship, which “unleashed a reign of terror against democratic, liberal and truly patriotic people of Pakistan.” “July 5, 1977 shall remain a black day in Pakistan’s history because the hopes and aspirations of our nation were crushed by a dictator who remains the root of every evil, which continues to haunt the people,” he said. Meanwhile, PPP Senator Aajiz Dhamra criticised the government for providing “official protocol” to Maryam Nawaz – the daughter of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif – when she appeared before the joint investigation team (JIT) in connection with the Panama leaks case on Wednesday. “This is the difference between the accountability of the Bhutto family and Nawaz Sharif’s family.
Our leadership was baton-charged, while their family is being saluted by police,” he said in a statement. The accountability process, Dhamra said, should be across the board and fair to all. “The Sharif family will have to answer the nation’s questions,” he added.
Wednesday, July 5, 2017
China, Russia team up to challenge the dominance of Western media
In an article published in the Russian newspaper Izvestia on Tuesday, Russian Senator Konstantin Kosachev wrote that the Western mass media distorts information about the intentions of countries as the main weapon in their information war.
According to Kosachev, the main objective behind this distortion is the creation of a myth that portrays certain countries as dangerous aggressors. “Thanks to all these Orwellian statements we are now living in some sort of an inside-out reality,” the Russian senator wrote, according to an English translation of the Russian-language report in RT.
Though Kosachev was talking specifically about how the Western mass media distorts Russia’s intentions, his comments apply to all key potential U.S. rivals, including, and perhaps especially, China, which is often cast as a rising power with malign intentions and commonly singled out as the biggest threat to U.S. hegemony.
His comments also come at a time of profound time change in discourse, as media from all corners of the world battle to gain the dominant position in a fast-changing global media landscape.
On July 4, Lu Xinning, deputy editor-in-chief of the People’s Daily, urged the Chinese and Russian media to work together to break the dominance of Western discourse in a speech at the third China-Russia Media Forum in Moscow, Russia.
Lu said China and Russia should work together to seize the opportunity of this new media era. “As two big powers, strategic collaboration between our two countries is related to global stability. This same logic applies to discourse, which can have a global impact,” Lu said.
Lu noted that in recent years, the Western discourse against China and Russia has been strong and the West is trying to force its Hobbes’s “war of all against all” view on China and Russia, creating a distorted view of the two world powers.
The Chinese and Russian media cannot let others interpret the international order and international rules on their behalf, and should take the initiative in this fierce international competition over discourse, Lu added. “This new media era has redefined the way in which information is disseminated and acquired, creating a rare opportunity for developing countries and emerging market countries to win the right to speak.”
But Lu’s call to action will be far from simple, as one reader pointed out. “No doubt [this effort] will be portrayed in the Western Privileged Press as a vast communist conspiracy against ‘freedom,’ ‘rule of law,’ and of course ‘democracy’ through the spreading of evil propaganda,’ the user wrote on People’s Daily Online. Then added: “[But] I certainly hope this effort helps to refute the false narrative of the 'Empire of the Exceptionals.'”
The Russian senator in his comments also talked about countering a false narrative: “The demagogy about attacks on values and freedoms should be countered with the truth about the geopolitical motives of Western nations’ actions,” Kosachev wrote.
The practice of demonizing other countries in the Western mass media plays a key role in keeping the myth of exceptionalism alive and well, but comes at the cost of other countries’ image and progress. In the U.S., for example, elite policymakers and the mainstream media passionately believe in “American exceptionalism.” They are convinced that the U.S. is a “shining city upon a hill,” morally superior to every other country on earth, and this thinking is reflected in their powerful and influential discourse.
But the tide may be turning. On Tuesday, visiting Chinese President Xi Jinping and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin witnessed the signing ceremony of a media cooperation agreement in Moscow. The agreement, signed between People’s Daily President Yang Zhenwu and Sergey Mikhaylov, director general of Russia’s TASS news agency, will allow both sides to form a comprehensive strategic partnership under the principles of equality and mutual trust. Eighteen other agreements were also signed at the China-Russia media forum in Moscow on July 4.
Merkel: Europe Still Can’t Rely on Washington
German Chancellor Angela Merkel has reiterated earlier remarks that Europe can no longer rely on the United States.
In claiming that EU members — and Europe as a whole — can no longer rely upon Washington, German Chancellor Angela Merkel has issued a call to arms, saying that the continent must take its fate into its own hands.
Just two days before the G20 summit of world leaders, which will include the attendance of the increasingly polarizing figure of US President Donald Trump, Merkel doubled down on earlier remarks, affirming that Europe "really must take our fate into our own hands," according to the Washington Examiner.
Insisting that her pointed remarks are not to be interpreted in any way except literally, Merkel added: "yes, exactly that way," in an interview with the Associated Press.
"It is, for example, open whether we can and should in the future rely on the US investing so much as it is has so far in the United Nations' work, in Middle East policy, in European security or in peace missions in Africa."
A three-time world leader who has been criticized as being too soft on the policies of the current US president, Merkel observed that Trump's anti-globalization posture serves to exacerbate the belief that only "winners and losers" populate the global financial architecture, ignoring the possibility of a "win-win situation" in which all nations benefit.
"While we are looking at the possibilities of cooperation to benefit everyone, globalization is seen by the American administration more as a process that is not about a win-win situation but about winners and losers," Merkel said.
In an interview with the weekly Die Zeit magazine ahead of the upcoming July 7-8 world financial summit in Hamburg, Germany, Merkel stated that — in spite of expected disagreement on the economy, trade and migration — "As G20 president, it is my job to work on possibilities for agreement and not to contribute to a situation where a lack of communication prevails," cited by Reuters.
Merkel criticizes Trump trade policy before G20 Merkel criticizes Trump trade policy before G20
German Chancellor Angela Merkel has criticized the U.S. administration for its zero-sum approach to world trade.
Her remarks were published on the eve of a bilateral meeting with President Trump, and as she prepares to host world leaders for a G20 summit in Hamburg on Friday and Saturday.
"While we are looking at the possibilities of cooperation to benefit everyone, globalization is seen by the American administration more as a process that is not about a win-win situation but about winners and losers," she was quoted as saying in an interview with German magazine Die Zeit published on Wednesday.
Trump has consistently painted the U.S. trade deficit with countries such as China, Germany and Mexico as evidence that America is losing the global economic game.
Merkel told Die Zeit she didn't share the view expressed by Trump advisers that the world was an arena in which nations compete for advantage, rather than a community.
"We don't want just a few to profit from economic advances. Everyone should participate," she was quoted as saying.
Merkel's first meeting with the U.S. president in March turned awkward when Trump appeared to decline to shake her hand.
Trump has spoken out against Germany on several occasions, both on the campaign trail and while in office. He criticized Merkel's decision to welcome Syrian refugees to Germany, accusing her of "ruining Germany," and has slammed the country for running a big trade surplus.
At a meeting with senior European officials in Brussels in May, Trump said Germany was "very bad on trade."
In response to Trump's withdrawal from the Paris climate accord and his tilt towards protectionism, Merkel, who is facing an election later this year, has been championing free trade and cooperation on the environment.
Speaking to the German parliament last week, she said that "anyone who believes they can solve the problems of this world with isolationism and protectionism is making a big mistake."
Putin, Xi message to Trump: US unipolar world is over
Finian Cunningham
The US' strategy has been to isolate Russia internationally. Evidently, it is Washington that is becoming more isolated on the global stage. This week in the run-up to the G20 summit in Germany, the reverse in fortunes could not be more glaring.
While North Korea was openly defying Washington with a breakthrough ballistic missile test, and US President Donald Trump was embroiled in his usual juvenile tweeting antics, Russia and China’s leaders were proudly consolidating their strategic alliance for a new multipolar global order.
Western media won’t acknowledge as much, but the meeting this week in Moscow between Putin and Xi Jinping was of historical importance. We are witnessing a global transition in power. And for the common good.
Russian President Vladimir Putin and his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping bond through an apparent deep sense of mutual respect and wisdom about the political challenges facing today’s world. The two leaders have met on more than 20 occasions over the past four years. President Xi referred to Russia as China’s foremost ally and said that in a topsy-turvy world the friendship between the two was a source of countervailing stability.
On the breaking news of North Korea’s successful test launch of its first Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM), both Putin and Xi called for calm restraint. By contrast, US President Trump took to Twitter to taunt Kim Jong-Un. “Does this guy not have anything better to do with his life?” said Trump in words that could apply more pertinently to the American president.
Then the US and its South Korea ally also launched their ballistic missiles in a military drill aimed as a show of strength to Pyongyang. Kim Jung-Un responded that the ICBM was a “gift for the American bastards” on their Fourth of July Independence Day holiday and that there would more such gifts on the way.
Rather than escalating tensions, Putin and Xi put forward the eminently reasonable proposal that North Korea should freeze its missile tests and the US should likewise halt its military exercises on the Korean peninsula. All sides must convene in negotiations with a commitment to non-violence and without preconditions to strive for a comprehensive settlement to the decades-old dispute.
The contrast in Putin and Xi’s dignified, intelligent response with that of Trump’s petulance is clear proof of Russia and China showing real global leadership, whereas the Americans are just part of the problem.
But the Korean drama was only one illustration this week of how American ambitions of unipolar dominance have become redundant.
The G20 summit prelude of Putin hosting Xi in Moscow was followed by the Chinese president making a state visit to Germany on Wednesday two days before the gathering in Hamburg. Xi and German Chancellor Angela Merkel reportedlysigned new trade deals between the world’s two leading export economies.
“Relations between China and Germany are at their historic best,”said Michael Clauss, Germany’s ambassador to Beijing. “The economic and political dynamic from a German perspective is moving toward the east.”
Of significance too was news this week the European Union is preparing to finalize a major trade pact with Japan.
It is also significant that Japan’s Prime Minister Shinzo Abe called on China and Russia to help mediate the Korean crisis immediately following Pyongyang’s ICMB test launch.
Evidently, Japan, despite being an ally of Washington, is reaching out to a multilateral solution as proposed by Moscow and Beijing.
In so many ways, therefore, whether on matters of security or trade and economy, the world appears to be moving inexorably toward a multipolar format as the most appropriate response to challenges.
Not so from the American point of view, especially under Donald Trump’s leadership. All nations seem to be nothing more than a footstool for the “exceptional” Americans who feel entitled to hector and browbeat everyone else to get what they want.
America’s isolation in the world was glimpsed at the G7 summit earlier this year in May when the other nations awkwardly diverged from Trump on his decision to withdraw the US from the global climate accord. Two months on, the isolation of Washington is even more vivid on the world stage as G20 leaders gather in Hamburg this weekend.
A Bloomberg News headline put it succinctly: ‘Trump risks uniting Cold War allies and foes against him’.
Trump’s quest for “America First” through trade protectionism and his narrow-minded unilateralism toward issues of global security have put America out on a limb as far as the rest of the world is concerned.
Where is the American “team player”, the supposed “leader of the free world”? All the self-proclaimed virtues are being seen for what they always were: overblown, pretentious and vainglorious bombast.
America is seen as nothing more than a selfish, hulking giant. Its trade imbalances with the rest of the world are not because of “rotten deals”, as Trump would have it, but rather because the American economy has ruined itself over many decades. The off-shoring of jobs by American corporations and gutting of American workers with poverty wages are part of it.
When America now talks about upholding international law and security, the rest of the world just laughs with bitter irony. The wars across the Middle East and the sponsoring of terrorism are largely US products of criminal regime-change intrigues. Who is this deluded head-case in Washington?
The same deluded head-case that has “beautiful chocolate cake” with China’s president in a Florida beach resort, and then proceeds to slap sanctions on China and make provocative military incursions on its territory. It’s not just Trump. It’s the whole American political leadership. The American ruling class has become so blinded by hubris that it can’t even see how the world it claims to dominate is collectively shutting the door on it and walking away.
Washington has no answers for today’s world challenges. Because simply put, Washington is the source of many of today’s problems. It has not even the modesty to acknowledge its responsibility. The only thing the US seems capable of is to make current problems fiendishly worse. The Korean crisis is an object lesson.
Presidents Putin and Xi are not scheming to usurp world domination, as Washington would have us believe. Only in Washington would a vision for a multipolar, more democratic global order be construed as something threatening and sinister. That’s because American ambitions of unipolar “full spectrum dominance” are actually threatening and sinister.
The world can be thankful it has genuine leaders in Putin and Xi who are forging ahead to create a multipolar global order. Fortunately, the strategic alliance between Russia and China is underpinned by a formidable military capability. Joint naval exercises this month carried out in the Baltic Sea are a vital insurance policy to back up what Moscow and Beijing are increasingly bold enough to say to the Americans.
That message, as Putin and Xi effectively gave to Trump this week, is that American ambitions of world domination are no longer acceptable and no longer tenable. Washington’s days of bullying the world with its moralizing hypocrisy and military aggression are over.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)