CPEC AND THE 21ST CENTURY CONVERGENCE OF CIVILIZATIONS

Andrew Korybko

The current century presents a plethora of strategic opportunities for Pakistan, provided that Islamabad knows how to pluck the low-hanging fruit and take the initiative. The steady development of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) is making the country ever more attractive for a wide variety of international partners, some of which have traditionally been aligned with Pakistan, and others which are entirely new and unprecedented. No matter which of the two categories these states fall under, it’s evident that they’re all interested in taking advantage of this game-changing series of infrastructure projects.

Never before has China had a reliable overland trade corridor to the Indian Ocean, and this in turn opens up a wide range of options for the People’s Republic and its economic partners. Moreover, the eventual completion of CPEC will allow Russia and the landlocked states of Central Asia to more easily conduct commerce with the broader Indian Ocean Region, thereby leading to the creation of previously uncharted trade routes which will invigorate each set of partners and profit the irreplaceable transit state of Pakistan. In terms of the bigger picture, each crisscrossing network of economic connections in one way or another is expected to pass through Pakistan by means of CPEC, thereby empowering Islamabad to leverage its crucial geostrategic position in pursuit of its national interests.

The convergence of so many diverse civilizational actors – including Europeans, Russians, Turks, Arabs, Iranians, Chinese, and Africans – in one state is made possible by Beijing’s One Belt One Road vision of global connectivity as manifested through CPEC, and it accordingly allows for Pakistan to mediate over a dialogue of civilizations in the 21^st century. This is a pivotal role of the utmost importance and highest responsibility, and it has the very real potential of transforming Pakistan from a regional leader to a hemispheric Great Power within the next decade. This analysis will thus explore the way in which this grand strategy can be actualized, sequentially describing the overall concept, the various civilizational-connectivity channels, and the challenges that Pakistan can expect to face.

Concept

Abstract:

The economic attractiveness of CPEC serves as an irresistible magnet for all sorts of various actors to utilize its infrastructural connectivity in facilitating their trade objectives, whether it’s enhancing bilateral trade with China such as the EU, Mideast, and African states may naturally be interested in, or in acquiring a convenient outlet to the Indian Ocean such as what Russia and the Central Asian republics desire. The convergence of so many civilizational forces in Pakistan will propel the South Asian state to worldwide importance by gifting its leaders with the impressive potential to serve as the common middle ground between each of them, both literally in terms of CPEC connectivity and figuratively as it relates to the broader dialogue of civilizations concept.

The latter objective is wholly dependent on the former, meaning that Pakistan is unlikely to bring together a wide array of hemispheric interests and actors if the CPEC project isn’t completed or is severely undermined after the fact. Conversely, the completion of CPEC will enable Pakistan to do just that, which thus propels the country’s significance to global heights. The second and largest part of this research will describe the different connectivity channels that CPEC opens up between Pakistan and the rest of Afro-Eurasia, but at this point a lot more needs to be said about the grand strategy behind this exciting endeavor.

Once CPEC becomes fully operational, Pakistan will unofficially become China’s most important gateway to the rest of the world. Although the People’s Republic currently engages in a staggering amount of trade with each of its countless partners, the vast majority of this is conducted via maritime routes which traverse the bottlenecked chokepoint of the Strait of Malacca and the contentious waters of the South China Sea, both of which are uncomfortably vulnerable to an American blockade or similar sort of interference in the event of a conflict between the two Great Powers. It’s mostly for this reason and due to the foresight of Chinese strategists that Beijing decided to pioneer an overland trade route to the Indian Ocean through CPEC, relying on its decades-long and all-weather friendship with Pakistan in order to make this a reality.

Tangible:

Upon completion, CPEC will make Pakistan the most reliable, cost-effective, and fastest route for carrying out trade with China. It’s a much shorter voyage for ships to travel to Gwadar than it is to Guangzhou, and once goods are unloaded at the Arabian Sea port, they can quickly be spirited northwards to the Chinese border and enter the People’s Republic in record time. By cutting days off of the journey and avoiding the possibility of unwanted American naval interference, CPEC is a priceless gift to each of China’s partners and is expected to become one of the most widely utilized overland trade routes in the world. As CPEC becomes more popular, Pakistan naturally becomes more important, and this provides the country with the chance to take on expanded leadership responsibilities in Afro-Eurasia.

Understanding that international trade facilitation between China and each of its partners will become the backbone of Pakistan’s future strategic significance to the rest of the world, the government should take the initiative to host CPEC trade fairs in Gwadar as a means of showcasing its newfound logistical importance. These gatherings could be jointly organized by Pakistan and China’s relevant ministries, and they’d serve the purpose of incentivizing more companies to use this route as additional infrastructure comes online to make it more attractive. Hand in hand with promoting CPEC, Pakistan could also work on an ambitious public relations campaign to rebrand its image by associating itself more closely with this project. If done properly, then this could dramatically reverse the soft power losses that Pakistan suffered across the past two decades when the Western Mainstream Media relentlessly waged information warfare against the country.

It’s crucial that Pakistan takes urgent and visible steps to debunk the foreign-imposed stereotypes that the country is an “exporter of terrorism” and “horrifyingly unsafe”, since this false narrative is a powerful deterrent to the development of enhanced trade ties. With this in mind, it’s advisable that CPEC trade fairs be bolstered by complementary political and socio-cultural forums, events, and conferences that highlight the recent advances in Pakistan’s domestic stability and raise awareness about its civilizational connectivity potential in promoting a multilateral dialogue of peace with each of its partners. Thought leaders (think tank experts, analysts, etc.), journalists, government officials, and civil society representatives from all across Europe, Russia, Central Asia, the Mideast, East Africa, and China should be invited to attend these gatherings in order to network with one another and learn how Pakistan is becoming synonymous with CPEC, peace, and prosperity.

The ideal goal should be for Gwadar to host regular trade fairs and socio-cultural events which culminate in a big-ticket yearly meeting akin in esteemed importance to the Shangri-La Dialogue, except focusing on participation from each of the aforementioned regional actors most likely to partake in CPEC. Given the overt economic focus of CPEC, this prospective headline-grabbing meeting could market itself on bringing together distinguished representatives from relevant institutional actors such as the Economic Cooperation Organization (ECO), the EU, the Eurasian Union, GCC, SAARC, the East African Community, and other ‘non-aligned’ forces such as China, Iran, and Ethiopia, for example. Building off of the common denominator of multilateral trade facilitation through CPEC, the attendees at the “Gwadar Gathering” could then expand upon the subject of conversation to more broadly include security, civilizational, and strategic topics as well, which could thus allow for non-CPEC-participating countries such as India and the US to also take part in this meeting.

Symbolic:

What Pakistan is aiming for is to become one of the centers of the emerging Multipolar World Order, taking advantage of the limitless benefits afforded by CPEC to transform itself from a regional leader to an actor of hemispheric and even global importance. It can only do this by promoting itself as the neutral and well-trusted point of convergence between a variety of different economic actors, which correspondingly enables it to broaden its relevance to the world by highlighting how it could serve as a bridge in connecting each of their larger multilateral interests. There has yet to be (and may very well never be) another state capable of bringing together as diverse of a set of partners as Pakistan can through CPEC, since no other country is as relevant to the collective long-term economic prospects of Europe, Russia, Central Asia, the Mideast, East Africa, and China. Consequently, Islamabad should seize the moment by proactively informing each of its current and prospective partners about the win-win future that awaits them through CPEC, as well as explaining how this directly correlates with their respective grand strategic interests.

Paying special attention to the leading multipolar Eurasian Great Powers of Russia and China, their partnerships with Pakistan fulfill an indispensable soft power role for each of them by serving as a powerful bridgehead to wider engagement with the global Islamic community. Unrecognized by most casual observers, Pakistan is indeed the most powerful Muslim country in the world because of the combination of its nuclear weapons arsenal, enormous conventional military capabilities, provably effective counter-terrorist forces, large population, and the fastest-growing Muslim economy, all of which are going to be greatly augmented by Pakistan’s new global geostrategic position vis-à-vis CPEC. Furthermore, Pakistan is neutral in the American-provoked sectarian wars in the Mideast, having the second-largest Shiite population behind neighboring Iran yet also enjoying very fruitful relations with Saudi Arabia, which thus places it in the enviable and rare position of being trusted by both “sides”. Because of this, Moscow and Beijing’s productive relations with Islamabad reverberate all across the wider “Ummah” and leave a favorable impression in the minds of most Muslims.

It goes without saying that this intangible ‘civilizational credence’ is crucially significant nowadays in order to stem off the US’ divide-and-rule scheme for engineering a ‘clash of civilizations’ to divide the Eastern Hemisphere, ergo the related need for Pakistan to use CPEC as a springboard for encouraging a dialogue about the imminent convergence of civilizations across its territory during a prospective “Gwadar Gathering”. The respected credibility and long-established trust that Pakistan has earned among the global Muslim community can go a long way in helping Russia and China deepen their socio-economic engagements across the Mideast and East Africa. In fact, their relationships with Pakistan could eventually become the model for other Muslim countries’ ties with these two states and accordingly serve as the gateway for strategically broadening these Great Powers’ presence in these regions, with Islamabad cementing the progress that Moscow and Beijing have already made in this regard and ultimately complementing their grand strategies.

Channels

As it was stipulated earlier in the research, the convergence of civilizations and all of the aforementioned concepts are entirely dependent on the multilateral connectivity potential of CPEC, particularly in terms of how it relates to successfully attracting European, Russian, Central Asian, Mideast, East African, and Chinese trade across Pakistani territory. This is the essential prerequisite which must be met in order for Islamabad to proceed with its 21^st-century plans to become a globally relevant Great Power all across the Eastern Hemisphere. Because of how intimately the country’s future is tied to CPEC, and keeping in mind the earlier suggestion that Pakistan rebrand itself to more closely affiliate its international image with this project, the following list elaborates on some of the bilateral CPEC relationships that Islamabad should promote as soon as possible, all of which if actualized would collectively contribute to the convergence of civilizations and consequent multipolar stability:

CPEC-China:

The initial purpose behind CPEC was to provide China with a reliable overland access route to the Indian Ocean by means of its close Pakistani ally, thereby easing the physical, financial, and strategic costs of trade with its European, Mideast, and East African partners per the reasons that were discussed at the beginning of this analysis. CPEC has been developing at a very fast pace, especially the work that’s been done in Gwadar, and the project is already operational despite not being fully completed. As it stands, this is the first of China’s many Silk Road projects to be open for business, even if it’s only partially online at the moment. The reason why this is so important to draw attention to is because Beijing hopes to eventually construct two additional mainland trade routes across Eurasia in order to link the People’s Republic more directly with its European, Russian, and Mideast partners. These are the Eurasian Land Bridge across Russia and an envisioned high-speed railroad across Central Asia to Iran and inevitably to Turkey and further afield to the EU (via the Balkans).

Neither of these has made as much progress as the One Belt One Road’s flagship project of CPEC, and there’s no telling when they’ll ever be fully constructed. The Eurasian Land Bridge is the most spoken about and seriously considered of the two trans-continental routes under consideration, but even this landmark effort of the Russian-Chinese Strategic Partnership is still far from becoming a reality anytime soon. Moreover, both the Eurasian Land Bridge and the prospective Rimland Railroad between China and the EU (by means of Iran, Turkey, and the Balkans) are fraught with significant Hybrid War risks and political sensitivities in the era of the New Cold War, and a multitude of scenarios could arise whereby these routes are either ultimately unconstructed, rendered inoperable, and/or anxiously avoided for one reason or another. With this in mind, there’s no doubt that CPEC will remain the premier New Silk Road project for the foreseeable future, and in the absence of large-scale trading across the Northern Sea Route (which itself is dependent on unpredictable environmental and political conditions), it might even be the only feasible non-Malacca maritime trade route to China for its Eastern Hemispheric partners.

Conceptually speaking, CPEC can be likened to the jugular vein of Afro-Eurasian integration, and it’s expected to be a vital driving force of the emerging Multipolar World Order. At the same time, however, the project’s unrivaled geostrategic significance makes it an irresistible target of subterfuge, which will be touched upon in the third and final section of this research. This is important to keep in mind as all of the subsequent CPEC connectivity channels and resultant convergence of civilizations would disappear if the endeavor itself was put into serious jeopardy by joint US-Indian covert efforts. Therefore, whether it’s consciously recognized or not at this time, the long-term viability of the EU, Mideast, and East Africa’s trade with China is in danger if Washington and New Delhi ramp up their destabilization efforts against Pakistan. This is a highly sensitive political point which may not ever be publicly stated but must nevertheless be discretely conveyed to each of these stakeholders sooner than later so that they can properly comprehend the risks that their American and Indian ‘partners’ are irresponsibly creating for them. The same goes for Russia and Central Asia, which obviously wouldn’t use CPEC to further their trade with adjacent China, but rather to gain direct access to the wider Indian Ocean Region marketplace.

CPEC-EU:

The EU is one of China’s largest trading partners and vice-versa, so it can be confidently anticipated that CPEC will eventually be used to conduct a large amount of bilateral trade between them. It was already discussed how this route reduces the physical, financial, and strategic costs of commerce between these two, and as Pakistan successfully rebrands its national image and more of CPEC’s infrastructural projects come online, it’s expected that European and Chinese companies will come to increasingly rely on this geographically pivotal vector of their relationship. Although an increasing amount of trans-continental overland trade will inevitably be conducted across the Eurasian Land Bridge and Rimland Railroad, neither project is expected to enter into full operation anytime soon, and even when they do, Hybrid War risks and political sensitivities might render them inoperable or make certain states avoid them.

Being the prudent long-term strategists that they are, the Chinese aren’t taking any chances by assuming that either of these two projects will ever replace the EU’s maritime trade with the People’s Republic, which explains why Beijing bought the Greek port of Piraeus (one of the largest in Europe) and is constructing the Balkan Silk Road high-speed rail route from the Mediterranean to Central and Eastern Europe. The intention behind this initiative is to allow China to conveniently trade with these regions via a newly charted southern access route as opposed to having to lengthily circumnavigate the European peninsula and offload goods to them from the Baltic Sea. Beijing wouldn’t be pursuing the Balkan Silk Road if it had full confidence that the Eurasian Land Bridge would mostly replace the EU’s maritime trade with China, so the very fact that the given project is in existence and progressively moving forward should be taken as a sign that China expects more of its EU trade to transit through CPEC instead.

To explain a little bit more in case the reader doesn’t follow, all maritime trade between the EU and China is greatly assisted by CPEC because of the comparatively lesser physical, financial, and strategic costs that it entails as compared to the circuitously longer route through the bottlenecked chokepoint of the Strait of Malacca and the contentious South China Sea. Just like the Eurasian Land Bridge won’t ever fully replace the EU’s maritime trade with China, so too will CPEC never fully replace this mode of trade’s historic reliance on the Strait of Malacca and the South China Sea. Rather, the Pakistani-traversing project offers an alternative route to China which is less susceptible to external interference, while ironically remaining just as dependent on the Suez Canals and Bab El Mandeb. However, the key difference between these western chokepoints and their eastern counterparts is that they’re controlled by Egypt and the GCC, respectively, both of which are on very friendly terms with Pakistan and China, which makes it considerably less likely that they’ll agree to go along with the US’ geopolitical blackmail against either.

CPEC-Mideast:

The next connectivity channel which will be discussed should be divided into Iranian and non-Iranian halves due to several important geographic and strategic differences. Turkey and the Levantine countries could conduct their trade with China just like the Europeans do through the Mediterranean, Suez Canals, and Bab El Mandeb en route to CPEC. If the geopolitical situation allows them to, however, they could also transport their goods overland through Iraq and onwards to the Persian Gulf, from where they could then trade with China just like most of the Gulf Kingdoms do by crossing the Strait of Hormuz and accessing CPEC. The UAE, Oman, and Yemen importantly avoid any of these three chokepoints by having direct maritime connectivity to CPEC, thus giving them the highest degree of flexibility in trading with China and potentially positioning them to function as alternative overland ‘detours’ in the event that the bottlenecks become unpassable.

Iran is in a somewhat interesting place by theoretically having three potential avenues for conducting trade with China. All of the country’s ports except for Chabahar are in the Persian Gulf and thus dependent on the Strait of Hormuz chokepoint. As for the far eastern port in the province of Sistan and Baluchestan, it’s relatively underdeveloped despite India’s commitment to modernize it as part of its ambitious efforts to streamline the so-called North-South Corridor. Chabahar also remains largely disconnected from the rest of Iran’s road and rail networks, making it very difficult for the country to rely on it in times of dire need. Similarly, because of Chabahar’s distance relative to the rest of the country and its economic heartland, it’s unlikely that Iran will properly utilize the commercial possibilities of the neighboring CPEC port of Gwadar anytime soon, though that doesn’t necessarily mean that Tehran’s participation in the project should be ruled out. Iran recently expressed interest in CPEC, and it’s possible that if India follows through on its promises and helps to develop this corner of the country, that it could inadvertently allow Iran to strengthen its connectivity with CPEC.

This is very important because Iran can’t rely on the Rimland Railroad which has yet to even materialize into a concrete proposal, and even if it ever does, Central Asia will always remain a Hybrid War hotspot. Furthermore, although there’s already a roundabout rail route connecting Iran with China via the peripheries of Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan, it’s not economically dependable at this time and is also much longer than simply shipping goods from the country’s western economic heartland across the Persian Gulf to Gwadar and then northwards to China. It’ll take a lot of time before the Rimland Railway becomes a practical option for Chinese-Iranian bilateral trade, so in the meantime, Iran might just have to depend on either entirely maritime routes to China or the shortcut through CPEC. At this point, it’s pertinent to talk about the CPEC-Iran channel and how it could reasonably develop in the future.

It was already written how Iran is unlikely to achieve large-scale direct mainland connection to CPEC due to its infrastructure shortcomings in Sistan and Baluchestan province, so this begs the question of what other types of connectivity are available aside from sailing across the Persian Gulf and Strait of Hormuz to Gwadar. Readers should be made aware that the bulk of Iranian-Chinese trade is through energy resources, and that it’s in this sphere where Tehran could potentially be most useful for CPEC. A $2 billion partially-Chinese-financed Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline is already under construction which will one day transport gas across Gwadar and to Nawabshah, from where it’ll then enter Pakistan’s internal gas distribution network and help power the rest of the country. Interestingly, Russia is also involved in constructing the $2 billion North-South gas pipeline from Karachi to Lahore which will enable Pakistan to import LNG in the future. Taken together and prognosticating the best-case scenario, there’s a chance that Russia and Iran could be convinced to put aside their undeclared energy rivalry and cooperate in helping to bring Gulf gas to China via Pakistan.

For example, following the eventual completion of the Iran-Pakistan and North-South gas pipelines, these successful confidence-building projects could be used as the launching pad for a grander multilateral connectivity initiative aimed at more closely integrating Russia, China, Pakistan, and Iran. Russia, with its globally renowned professional expertise in the gas sector, could modernize and develop an expanded CPEC-parallel pipeline for shipping Iranian gas to China. There’s a lot of technical planning that would be involved with this and it probably wouldn’t see the light of day until midway through the next decade at the absolute earliest, but it’s a promising idea which should at the very least be casually entertained by the expert and professional communities in case it becomes viably attractive in the future. As the 21^st century steadily becomes characterized by Eurasian integration, it’s only a matter of time before this proposal is seriously looked at as a logical way to expand upon CPEC and deepen Iranian-Chinese relations, with the collateral benefit being that Russia and Pakistan could also draw even closer as well.

CPEC-East Africa:

China’s commercial relations with East Africa are taking on a heightened importance in the early 21^st century, representing the most dependable way for the People’s Republic to deal with its overcapacity and thus sustain domestic economic growth and social stability. Contrary to what many Western pundits have alleged, China’s investments in Africa are no longer just one-sided cash-for-resource agreements, but part of a mutually beneficial development partnership whereby Beijing is sincerely committed to seeing its counterparts flourish and prosper. China needs African markets just like Africa needs Chinese infrastructural investments, and this win-win arrangement makes for a perfect match between the two partners. The author extensively explored the nature of Chinese-African relations in his ongoing Hybrid War series at Oriental Review, and the reader is strongly encouraged to reference it for additional detailed information about the nuances of this under-discussed partnership.

As the most generalized summary which can be topically offered in this context, China is constructing four ultra-strategic infrastructure corridors along the eastern part of the continent which could directly link up with CPEC after their cross-oceanic journey to Gwadar. From north to south, these are the Ethiopia-Djibouti railway; the LAPSSET Corridor between Ethiopia, South Sudan, and Kenya; the Standard Gauge Railway (SGR) across Kenya and Uganda; and the Central Corridor (CC) from Tanzania to Rwanda and Burundi. Additionally, there’s also the 1970s legacy project of the TAZARA railway which has recently been modernized and connects the coastal country to its landlocked and copper-rich neighbor of Zambia. It should also be said the SGR, CC, and TAZARA have the very real possibility of laying the foundation for an interoceanic North and South Trans-African Railway bridging the continent’s Indian and Atlantic coasts.

Regardless of how far China’s infrastructure projects go in penetrating the heart of Africa and beyond, it’s indisputable that trade between the two is always growing and will figure ever more prominently in Beijing’s strategic calculus. Due to physical constraints, all bilateral trade must cross the Indian Ocean for some length of distance or another, so it only makes sense that this will be expedited via CPEC and its conveniently located northern oceanic port of Gwadar. In terms of the bigger picture, this means that Pakistan is poised to become the geographic interface through which Chinese-African trade is conducted, which could thus make Islamabad a future player in East African affairs. Being the most powerful Muslim country and the origin of some British-era colonial descendants, Pakistan can leverage its religious and ethnic links along the majority-Muslim East African coast in order to prospect new networking and investment opportunities that simultaneously work out to its own and China’s strategic benefit through the overlapping complementarities of Islamabad’s outreach programs and Beijing’s One Belt One Road vision.

CPEC-Russia/Central Asia:

The last CPEC channel to be discussed is that between Pakistan and its northern partners in Russia and Central Asia. Moscow and its regional allies obviously don’t need to go through Pakistan in order to trade with China, but they do need to utilize CPEC if they are to gain market access to East Africa, South Asia, and ASEAN. Russia doesn’t currently have many economic interests in Africa, but its government is keen to develop the country’s commercial ties with India and ASEAN, neither of which are exclusively dependent on CPEC but could be greatly assisted by it. In connection with this, Russia could potentially access Pakistan via the narrow border that it shares with China between Altai and Xinjiang, through which Moscow is already countenancing the possibility of energy and water pipelines. If Russian decision makers continue to pay attention to this strategic corridor, then it’s likely that they’ll eventually realize that it could also be used for connecting Siberia to the Indian Ocean by means of CPEC and thus facilitating the country’s trade with India and ASEAN.

However, due to India’s jealous jingoism, Moscow can’t openly declare its eagerness to utilize CPEC, hence why it must resort to a curious diplomatic game of denying any official interest or investment in the project, but at the same time remaining silent about the likelihood of private Russian companies using this apolitical infrastructure network. There’s of course no way that Moscow could or ever would prohibit its private citizens and business entities from transporting their goods across CPEC, so India’s obsessive efforts to prevent Russia from using it will inevitably be in vain. Nevertheless, the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs must still play along with India and officially deny that Moscow is involved in CPEC, which is technically the truth because the government itself has no part in it, though the same obviously can’t be said for its private citizens once the project is fully operational and potentially linked to Siberia by means of the Altai-Xinjiang Corridor.

As for the Central Asian republics, they’re not under any such diplomatic pressure to publicly distance themselves from CPEC, and it’s very likely that they’ll take advantage of this project in order to achieve access to the wider global economy and the valuable marketplaces of East Africa, South Asia, and ASEAN. Additionally, CPEC could also potentially open up another avenue for Central Asian-EU trade, as well as commercial interactions with the Mideast, so it’s improbable that the landlocked countries will avoid using it. Even so, India isn’t giving up and has its own ambitions to connect with Central Asia through an overland route across Iran which would serve as an outgrowth of the North-South Corridor, though remembering just how far behind New Delhi is in tangibly actualizing this, one shouldn’t get their hopes up that it will happen anytime soon. Given the Central Asian countries’ close relationship with China, there’s a greater likelihood that they’d defer to using CPEC as opposed to the North-South Corridor for conducting their extra-regional trade, though the latter could still be exploited one day to uncontrollably push Indian goods onto their markets in a desperate bid to displace China’s influence.

Challenges

Absent any external inference, all of the abovementioned scenarios and connectivity channels would likely develop as expected, but appreciating just how significant CPEC is to the emerging Multipolar World Order and the 21^st century in general, there’s no way that the US and India will passively stand by and allow any of this to happen if they can help it. After all, CPEC is the umbilical cord of China’s sustained economic integration with most of the Eastern Hemisphere, and snipping it would deal a death blow to Beijing’s future leadership plans. It’s for this reason why the US-Indian Strategic Partnership is scoping out CPEC and probing its most likely vulnerabilities to exploit, though they’re aware that they must tread carefully and act indirectly since they’d otherwise risk provoking a wider war which could quickly go nuclear if they decided to conventionally attack.

Barring a suicidal “surgical strike” campaign by India or an unthinkable “limited intervention” aimed at cutting CPEC in half through Gilgit-Baltistan (both of which might frighteningly seem attractive to the pro-American Hindutva extremists currently running New Delhi at the moment), the US and India will resort to operating through proxies in order to achieve their grand strategic objective of sabotaging this project. It’s unrealistic to think that either of them could fully stop CPEC at this point, but what they intend to do is raise the economic and security costs of doing business by spiking fears about the route’s safety and thereby scaring away potential companies which might otherwise be eager to utilize this strategic shortcut to China. Pakistan and China are closely cooperating on ensuring CPEC’s security, but it’s impossible for every inch of this network to be under surveillance and control at every single second, and it’s bound that some attacks will be launched against it with time.

What the American and Indian intelligence agencies are depending on is that they can succeed in stirring up enough domestic political disturbances inside of Pakistan that the military is unable to totally commit to protecting CPEC due to much more urgent and immediately prioritized problems, such as dealing with a Color Revolution outbreak in the country’s main cities for example. Concurrent with this, unconventional warfare operatives could provoke violence in Balochistan and the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) using their in-country proxies and Afghan-based terrorists. This was briefly discussed in the author’s end-of-the-year radio commentary and 2017 analytical forecast for South Asia, and it’s an emerging trend which has been warned about for some time but which will acquire imminence as CPEC becomes an ever more prominent vehicle for promoting multipolarity in Afro-Eurasia.

This isn’t to say that every destabilization scenario will succeed or that they’ll play out simultaneously, but just that the risk is evidently there and it’s clear that this warning encapsulates the most likely range of unconventional instruments which the US-Indian Strategic Partnership could conceivably muster in trying to disrupt CPEC. Having said that, Pakistan is stronger than ever before after having finally beaten back the terrorist insurgencies which plagued the country all throughout the first decade of the millennium, and it’s thus more than capable of preemptively dealing with any of these eventualities, to say nothing of properly responding to them after the fact. Despite that, it’s always useful to keep the most probable threats facing one’s country in mind in order to remain alert at all times and mentally conditioned for tackling any trouble the moment that it arises, which is why it’s necessary to discuss the various dangers facing CPEC so as to never be caught off guard in case they materialize.

Concluding Thoughts

CPEC is the cornerstone of China’s One Belt One Road global vision of infrastructure connectivity and its conception of 21^st-century multipolarity, and it’s not an exaggeration to state that it’s one of the most important game-changing projects to ever be attempted in history. Even looking solely at its bilateral Chinese-Pakistani implications, CPEC is an historic expansion of Beijing’s influence into South Asia and an unprecedented direct gateway to the broader Indian Ocean Region. It essentially nullifies the strategic utility of the US’ “Pivot to Asia” by reducing China’s dependency on the South China Sea and Strait of Malacca, both of which Washington has feverishly tried to turn into geopolitical traps for blackmailing Beijing. Proverbially speaking, all of that meticulous planning and billions of dollars of military-strategic investments could go out the window with CPEC, which is why Washington is so furious with the project and decided to team up with New Delhi – which is equally aggravated for its own hyper-nationalist reasons – to try and undermine this corridor through the unconventional means of proxy warfare.

All of this is being done because of the immediate impact that CPEC has on strengthening Chinese-Pakistani relations and Beijing’s strategic presence in the Indian Ocean Region, but the US and India also have more far-reaching goals in mind. It’s clear that CPEC’s full completion will propel Pakistan into becoming the most important transit state in the world due to its role in facilitating China’s trade with the EU, Mideast, and East Africa, as well as Russia and the Central Asian republics’ trade with the “Global South”. As such, a diverse variety of civilizational representatives and interests will be traversing across Pakistan, thereby making the country the focal point for the convergence of civilizations in the 21^st century. No other place in the world is poised to fulfill such a role on the level that Pakistan is, as it’s truly becoming the zipper not just of pan-Eurasian integration, but of Afro-Eurasian integration as well due to the functionality that CPEC will have in enhancing Chinese-African trade.

If properly utilized, the coming years can become a godsend for Pakistan by assisting in its transformation from a regional leader to a hemispheric and potentially even globally influential Great Power, provided of course that Islamabad is keen enough to promote the convergence of civilizations which is destined to take place on its territory. No other state except for Russia comes close to matching Pakistan’s capabilities in managing a dialogue of civilizations, as Moscow lacks the positive historic relations with the Mideast and East Africa that Islamabad has, though it admittedly makes up for it with its long-held ties to Europe and Central Asia. However, while Russia has certainly become a powerful force in the Mideast over the past couple of years and especially through its recent Tripartite partnership with Turkey and Iran, it’s a one-way street in the sense that Moscow’s influence is entering the region but not the other way around (although that’s not necessarily a bad thing), and it still has yet to revive its Soviet-era ties with Africa (if ever).

On the other hand, although Pakistan doesn’t immediately seem to have much in common nowadays with the EU, Russia, and Central Asia, these three regions will naturally be drawn to it by virtue of Pakistan’s strategic geography through CPEC, thereby bringing their representatives and interests into contact with those from China, the Mideast, and East Africa. The brilliance behind Beijing’s project is that it basically serves as a convenient 21^st-century superhighway for facilitating trade between the rest of the world and China, which translates in practical terms to Pakistan becoming the geographic bridge economically connecting these civilizations together. Such a role is inordinately important in the emerging Multipolar World Order and serves the purpose of sustaining a peaceful dialogue of civilizations amidst what will expectedly be an era of American-driven identity conflict (Hybrid Wars) aimed at preventing the integration of Afro-Eurasia. Pakistan is thereby endowed with unparalleled responsibility in making sure that these plans don’t succeed, but for this to happen, its decision makers must fully grasp the global and historic geostrategic significance of their country in taking the lead to promote the converge of civilizations.

Why India is Reviving Baloch Militancy?

PART - I

By Tariq Rizwan

            The recent announcement of Prime Minister Nerendra Modi to support the Baloch cause of separate homeland in Pakistan’s province of Balochistan is quite alarming and against all the international norms. It is clear example of interference in the neighboring Pakistan. The self exiled Baloch leader Brahmdagh Bugti’s brutal acts in Pakistan followed by his desire to get Indian nationality reflects the growing chemistry of expansionist India with Baloch Sub Nationalists (BSNs) to use the later against the CPEC and deprive the people of Balochistan from the immense benefits of the project. Apart from the active support provided to BSNs through Afghan intelligence NDS, Indian effort through media is also an open secret. The ongoing propaganda against Pakistan on Balochistan, while twisting the facts through a website “Baloch Voice” and journals “Sangar Magazine and Sangar Publications” is also a strong indicator of Indian intentions against CPEC. The writers are using cover names like Maj Majeed, Taj Baloch, Sajid Baloch and Zahid Abdullah.

            The fact is that the decade long resistance movement of BSNs is almost over now. Balochistan is awaiting development and prosperity which the ongoing mega project ‘CPEC’ is bound to ensure in near future. Development work on Sea Port, Airport and industrial Zone in Gwadar is in full swing. The government measures like banning non locals from getting the right of vote, local CNICs, industry and business without the support of local residents in Gwadar coupled by the appointment of Hasil Bizenjo as Federal Minister for Port and Shipping augured well in raising the confidence of common man in Balochistan. It is tantamount to overcome the concerns of locals not to be converted into minority. Peace has returned to the province as evident from the passage of first business convoy of fort trucks from Kashgar to Gwadar, peaceful transition of consecutive provincial governments in Balochistan.

            Most of the militants have perished forever; either killed or surrendered to the Law Enforcing Agencies (LEAs). About 1025 militants have surrendered so far to the LEAs since the take of PML (N) government in Balochistan, according to daily DAWN, 26 April, 2016. The demise of late rebel leader Nawab Khair Bux Marri in June 2014 added fuel to the destruction of these outfits and their baseless proxies. The latest but most lethal phase of militancy started after the accidental killing of Nawab Akbar Bugti in August, 2006 giving birth to BRA led by Brahmdagh Bugti. Nawab Bugti was killed in an operation in Chalgri area of Bhamboor hills of Balochistan along with his 37 tribal guards.

            Despite the SNBs’ strive to label him as their comrade and anti - state Baloch leader, the late Nawab Bugti is considered a veteran leader and highly respected figure in the political circles. He had served as Chief Minister and Governor of Balochistan province in the past. He was strong patriot and a leading figure along with then Khan of Qalat Mir Ahmed Yar Khan to receive the founding father of Pakistan, Quaid - e - Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah in Quetta. He was always praised for his role in acceding to the dominion of Pakistan. The famous treaty of accession to Pakistan was inked in March, 1948.

            Like other political figures, Nawab Bugti also fell victim to Gen (Retd) Pervaiz Musharaf policy of extending government writ in remote areas of Balochistan province in mid 2006. Differences developed over a gas royalty issue. The Nawab revolted and took arms. He along with his personal guards went into hiding in the mountains to give fight to the LEAs. In a search operation, he was killed along with his 37 personal guards who all were Bugti tribesmen. His death is considered a great loss to the nation.

            The BSNs have tried their level best to portray the late Nawab as their hero but in vain. Except the latter’s grandson Brahmdagh Bugti who went into self-exile, Afghanistan and then Geneva as refugee, the remaining family has preferred to stay back calm and remained cooperative with the LEAs. As per their tribal traditions, his eldest grandson Aali Khan Bugti was nominated new Nawab of Bugti tribe. Jamil Bugti, the only surviving son of Nawab is battling a legal case in the court to bring the so called killers of his father to the book.   

            The militants’ strived hard, backed by the hostile forces from abroad to exploit him as their hero, but failed abruptly. Besides destroying the government infrastructure, the Baloch militants killed hundreds of innocent non - Baloch people in their so called liberation war during last ten years. The daring LEAs led by FC have flushed out all the militant groups. Baloch militants were either killed or living in exile. They are now part of history.

The BSNs are now part of history. Prominent outfits remained Baloch Liberation Army (BLA), Baloch Republican Army (BRA), Baloch United Liberation Front (BULF) and Baloch Liberation Front (BLF). The left over remnants are operating on papers from abroad with the covert support of foreign powers. BLA and BRA were led by Hairbyar Marri and Brahmdagh Bugti from UK and Switzerland respectively. The later is likely to get the nationality of India as he has already announced to settle in India to the displeasure of most of the ethnic Baloch. India is ready to take and use him against CPEC in future.    Continued

The writer is a freelance journalist

Afzal Guru: Kashmir Movement is Alive

By Sajjad Shaukat

Every year, the martyrdom anniversary of Muhammad Afzal Gur is being celebrated on the 9th of February to pay homage to him, as India secretly hanged him and buried inside the Tihar jail complex on February 9, 2013. His martyrdom resulted into protests in Kashmir and widespread condemnations from various political and human rights organisations. Afzal Guru was convicted in 2001 Parliament attack case and awarded death sentence. Afzal had always denied plotting the attack, which left 14 dead, including five militants.

In the past three years, during his martyrdom anniversary, a complete shutdown was observed in the Indian occupied Kashmir and protest demonstrations were held to demand the return of mortal remains of Afzal Guru.

Call for the strike had been given by pro-freedom leaders and organizations to mark the anniversary of Muhammad Afzal. Indian authorities had arrested Kashmiri leaders, Yasin Malik, Shoukat Bakhshi, Muhammad Yousuf Naqash and Mukhtar Ahmad Waza along with several other Hurriyet activists and lodged them in different police stations and jails. The authorities also placed Hurriyet leaders, Shabbir Ahmad Shah, Muhammad Ashraf Sehrai, Nayeem Ahmad Khan and Ayaz Akbar under house arrest.

All Parties Hurriyat Conference (G) Chairman Syed Ali Geelani, in a statement had denounced the arrests and vowed that the Kashmiris were struggling for their basic right and would succeed in their mission at the end of the day.

In their statements and meetings, all the leaders of the freedom movement of Kashmir paid glowing tributes to the martyr Muhammad Afzal Guru who sacrificed his live for the Kashmir cause.

Even, the Sikh organization, Dal Khalsa President H S Dhami, while paying tributes to Muhammad Afzal Guru on the eve of his second martyrdom anniversary, in a statement in Amritsar criticized India for failing to hand over his mortal remains to his wife.

In fact, the very tragedy of Kashmiris had started after 1947 when they were denied their genuine right of self-determination. They organized themselves against the injustices of India and launched a war of liberation which New Delhi tried to crush through various forms of brutalities.

It is notable that since 1947, in order to maintain its illegal control, India has continued its repressive regime in the Occupied Kashmir through various machinations.

However, various forms of state terrorism have been part of a deliberate campaign by the Indian army and paramilitary forces against Muslim Kashmiris, especially since 1989. It has been manifested in brutal tactics like crackdowns, curfews, illegal detentions, massacre, targeted killings, sieges, burning the houses, torture, disappearances, rape, breaking the legs, molestation of Muslim women and killing of persons through fake encounter.

According to a report on human rights violations in the Indian Occupied Kashmir, since 1989, there have been deaths of 1,00000 innocent Kashmiris, 7,023 custodial killings, 1,22,771 arrests, 1,05,996 destruction of houses or buildings, 22,776 women widowed, 1,07,466 children orphaned and 10,086 women gang-raped/molested. Indian brutal securities forces have continue these atrocities.

While, Indian forces have employed various draconian laws like the Jammu and Kashmir Disturbed Areas Act, and the Armed Forces (Jammu and Kashmir) Special Powers Act and Public Safety Act in killing the Kashmiri people, and for the arbitrarily arrest of any individual for an indefinite period.

Besides Human Rights Watch, in its various reports, Amnesty International has also pointed out grave human rights violations in the Indian controlled Kashmir, indicating, “The Muslim majority population in the Kashmir Valley suffers from the repressive tactics of the security forces.

In its report on July 2, 2015, the Amnesty International has highlighted extrajudicial killings of the innocent persons at the hands of Indian security forces in the Indian Held Kashmir. The report points out, “Tens of thousands of security forces are deployed in Indian-administered Kashmir…the Armed Forces Special Powers Act allows troops to shoot to kill suspected militants or arrest them without a warrant…not a single member of the armed forces has been tried in a civilian court for violating human rights in Kashmir…this lack of accountability has in turn facilitated other serious abuses…India has martyred one 100,000 people. More than 8,000 disappeared (while) in the custody of army and state police.”

In this respect, European Union has passed a resolution about human rights abuses committed by Indian forces in the Indian held Kashmir.

It is mentionable that in 2008, a rights group reported unmarked graves in 55 villages across the northern regions of the Indian-held Kashmir. Then researchers and other groups reported finding thousands of mass graves without markers. In this respect, in August, 2011, Indian Jammu and Kashmir State Human Rights Commission officially acknowledged in its report that innocent civilians killed in the two-decade conflict have been buried in unmarked graves.

Notably, foreign sources and human rights organisations have revealed that unnamed graves include those innocent persons, killed by the Indian military and paramilitary troops in the fake encounters including those who were tortured to death by the Indian secret agency RAW.

Meanwhile, like the previous year, Pakistan’s recent serious and sincere effort at the annual session of the United Nations—the speech of Pakistan’s prime minister, highlighting the Indian atrocities, Kashmir dispute and demanding its solution has infused a new spirit among the Kashmiri people.

But, New Delhi is still showing its intransigence in order to resolve Kashmir dispute with Pakistan by neglecting the fact that Kashmir remains a nuclear flashpoint between both the neighbouring countries.

Nevertheless, this time, the very day has come at time when the people of Kashmir have accelerated their legitimate struggle in the aftermath of the martyrdom of the young Kashmir leader Burhan Wani by the Indian security forces in the Indian Occupied Kashmir (IOK) in wake of continued sieges and prolonged curfews. Since July 8, 2016, Indian forces have martyred more than 150 innocent persons who have been protesting against the martyrdom of Burhan Wani and for liberation of their land.

By manipulating the false flag terror attacks at a military base in Uri and Baramulla, the BJP-led Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has also intensified war-hysteria against Pakistan. After deployment of heavy arms and weapons at the Line of Control (LoC), Indian forces have increased troops and continue shelling in Pakistani side of Azad Kashmir. And Pakistani troops are giving matching response to Indian unprovoked firing across the LoC and are well-prepared for Indian another surgical strikes, as threatened by Indian new army Chief Army Chief Gen. Dalbir Singh Suhaag. New Delhi’s main aim is to deflect the attention of the international community from the new phase of Kashmiri Intifada, while pressure has been mounting on the Modi government both domestically and internationally to resolve the issue of Kashmir with Pakistan.

In response, Pakistan’s Army Chief Gen. Qamar Javed Bajwa on January 5, 2016 rejected claims by his Indian counterpart Gen. Bipin Rawat about “so-called surgical strikes” and their possible recurrence.

According to ISPR, Army Chief Gen. Qamar Bajwa made it clear that “Pakistan Armed Forces were fully geared to respond to any aggression by India.”

It is of particular attention that like the teror asaults at Pathonkot air base, in Mumbai and at Indian parliament were orchestrated by the Indian security agencies to obtain several sinister designs against Islamabad such as suspention of the process of Pak-Indian dialogue, shift of blame game to Pakistan’s primary intelligence agency ISI etc. While, on July 19, 2013, the Indian ex-investigating officer Satish Verma disclosed that terror-attacks in Mumbai in November 26, 2008 and assault on Indian Parliament in January 12, 2001 were carried out by the Indian government to strengthen anti-terrorism laws.

Nonetheless, Indian authorities are not willing to talk with Kashmiri people on political grounds. New Delhi reached to a conclusion that only bullet is the right way of dealing with Kashmiris, demanding their right of self-determination. Surprisingly, Indian successive governments are trying to ignore the dynamics of the freedom movement of Kashmiris for the sake of their alien rule.

Undoubtedly, the martyrdom of Muhammad Afzal Guru infused a new spirit into the Kashmir movement keeps is alive today. His martyrdom anniversary provides an opportunity to ponder over the fact that various countries of the world got independence by sacrificing their precious lives. On this vary day, the best way to pay homage to the hero of Kashmir movement, Muhammad Afzal Guru is that all the Kashmiris must renew their pledge to take the war of liberation to its logical end.

Trump on Whose Extremist Agenda?

By Sajjad Shaukat

During and after the presidential election campaign, taking note of the US new President Donald Trump’s religious bigotry, racialism and extremist statements such as calling a “ban on Muslims entering the United States”, “Islam hate us”, opposition to the Muslim refugees, especially from Syria etc., some writers, researches and bloggers, including American politicians have called him a “crazy person”, while some called him a “mad man.”

In fact, American President Donald Trump is neither a “crazy person” nor a “mad man”, as he is acting upon the extremist agenda of Israel and India (Under Prime Minister Modi) without bothering for its dangerous consequences which could envelop the entire world, including the US herself.

When he took oath as the American president, it was expected that being the president of the superpower, Trump would soften his attitude and would behave with responsibility. But, no such a change has emerged in his political character, as he seems determined to follow the Indo-Israeli extremist agenda against the Muslims and the Islamic World.

In this respect, through the executive order, President Trump on January 27, 2017 blocked visas being issued to anyone from Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. Trump also announced strict conditions for the citizens from Afghanistan, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt and Lebanon. In his first interview with the ABC News, President Trump elaborated, “We’re going to have extreme vetting in all cases. And I mean extreme. And we’re not letting people in if we think there’s even a little chance of some problem.”

Althouth a federal judge temporary suspended the executive order on February 4, this year restoring travel for refugees and the people from seven Muslim countries, yet the Justice Department filed papers saying that it would seek to have the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit block the judge’s decision. US President Trump lashed out at the judge James Robart in a Twitter post and wrote“The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned!”

However, the executive order which he stated was part of an extreme vetting plan to keep out “radical Islamic terrorists…the very threats our soldiers are fighting overseas”—also established a religious test for refugees from Muslim nations, especially from Syria. Trump also ordered that Christians and others from minority religions be granted priority over Muslims.

President Donald Trump’s anti-Muslim order faced severe criticism inside America and around the world, particularly Europe in wake of protest-rallies.  

In this regard, a memo signed by 900 of the State Department diplomats opposed Trump’s ban on refugees and citizens of seven Muslim-majority nations from entering the US has been delivered to top officials, as CNN reported on February 1, 2017. The memo warns that such a policy will not keep America safe, but it will harm efforts to prevent terrorist attacks—the ban will not achieve its stated aim of to protect the American people from terrorist attacks by foreign nationals admitted to the United States.

White House press secretary Sean Spicer, when asked about the memo at a press briefing, told the federal employees who backed it to “either get with the program or they can go.”

Besides the resignations of some high officials, Donald Trump relieved the acting US attorney general Ms. Sally Yates, after she told justice department lawyers not to defend his executive order banning entry for people from seven Muslim-majority countries.

While, world leaders, especially those of American European and western allies, EU president and prominent figures including human rights groups have blasted US President Donald Trump's travel ban from the seven Muslim-countries from entering the US as divisive, illegal, insulting and discriminatory—violation of the US constitution and the United States’ obligations under the Geneva Convention on refugees.

Chancellor Angela Merkel said, “The necessary and decisive fight against terrorism in no way justifies a general suspicion against people of certain beliefs, in this case people of the Muslim faith or from a certain origin…these actions, according to my beliefs, are against the core idea of international aid for refugees and international cooperation.”

French Foreign Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault stated that welcoming refugees was “a duty of solidarity…terrorism doesn’t have a nationality; discrimination is not an answer.”

In response to Trump’s ban on Muslims, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said that those fleeing persecution, terror and war would be welcomed in Canada. Turkish Deputy Prime Minister Mehmet Simsek also expressed similar views.

Pakistan’s Interior Minister Chaudhry Nisar denounced Trump’s travel ban, saying, “it won't affect terrorists. Instead, it will increase the miseries of victims of terrorism.”

British Prime Minister Theresa May who took a harsh anti-immigrant stance in her former position as Home Office secretary and was now leading Britain’s exit from the EU had refused to harshly condemn the ban and revoke her invitation asking Trump to make a state visit to the UK. In response, Britons launched a petition calling for the invitation to be suspended, which has since garnered over one million signatures, and thousands marched in protest of Trump’s executive order and May’s inaction in cities throughout the U.K. May has compelled to clarify that she believes Trump's policy is “divisive and wrong”.

Human rights activists also denounced Trump’s actions, describing them as officially sanctioned religious persecution dressed up to look like an effort to make America safer. And the American Civil Liberties Union described it as a “euphemism for discriminating against Muslims.”

Despite criticism of the new immigration policy to discriminately target the Muslims and his Islamophobic intentions, US President Trump remains firm on his extremist stance.

It is well-known fact that since the creation of the state of Israel through the Balfour Declaration (1917) which was a conspiracy of the Zionists, the British government and the US against the Palestinians, America has been supporting the fundamentalist regimes of Israel at the cost of the Muslims.

In this context, American various presidents encouraged Tel Aviv’s state terrorism on the Palestinians, occupation of their regions, including those of Syria and Jordan.

Once Henry Kissinger stated “legitimacy is not natural or automatic, but created.” Under the cover of the 9/11 tragedy, the US President George W. Bush who was in collaboration with the neo-conservatives and the Zionist Jews, orchestrated the drama of global war on terror to obtain the illegitimate interests of Israel by targeting the Islamic countries and persecution of the Muslims. Bush who used the words, “crusade against the evil-doers” adding to the perception that the ongoing ‘different war’ against terrorism is actually a war against the Muslim.

By justifying the unjustified war on terror as part of the anti-Muslim approach, and with the assistance of its Western allies, American President Bush and President Barack Obama deliberately created chaos in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Egypt and Syria including other Islamic countries such as Somalia, Yemen etc. where Washington was indirectly involved to obtain the religious, political and economic interests of the Zionist Jews and Israel through illegitimate tactics. During the phony global war on terror US-led Western forces killed millions of innocent persons in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Egypt and Syria. In connivance with the Israeli Mossad, Indian RAW, American CIA utilized a global network of secret prisons, foreign intelligence agents and torture centers in various Muslim countries, including Belgium, Bagram (Afghanistan), Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo and ships where torture was conducted directly by the CIA and FBI operatives. Besides encouragement to the Israeli brutal tactics on the Palestinians and those of India in the Indian occupied Kashmir, CIA conducted Shia-Sunni violence in Iraq and Pakistan. Now, terror-attacks on sectarian lines could also be noted in Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Syria, while, CIA which created Al-Qaeda, also formed the Islamic State group (Also known as Daesh, ISIS and ISIL) and Al-Qaeda’s Al-Nusra Front in accordance with the double game of America.

If dual strategy of Bush franchised Al-Qaeda, Obama’s double game franchised both Al-Qaeda and ISIS in advancing the extremist agenda of the Zionist Jews, Israeli lobbies and the neoconservatives.

Meanwhile, since September 2015, unexpected developments such as Russian-led coalition with Iran, Iraq, the Syrian army-the National Defense Forces (NDF) and Lebanon-based Hezbollah in support of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, retreat of the CIA-supported rebels and mercenaries after their failure to topple the Assad government, proving links of Al-Qaeda’s Al-Nusra Front and ISIS with America and Israel, Russian President Vlamir Putin’s clear-cut statement, indicating the Zionist regime in the US and Israel for their “phony war on ISIS” surprised the  Israel-led America and some European countries who wanted to oust Assad.

When Russian-led Syrian forces stared retaking cities, especially the Aleppo by defeating the rebel groups and the ISIS militants who began fleeing, Israel and America were greatly disappointed. Particularly, the agents of Mossad who were in collaboration with some of the CIA operatives and ISIL militants arranged terror attacks in Paris, Brussels, Orlando, San Bernardino, Nice, Munich and Berlin.

Besides obtaining a number of sinister designs such as getting the assistance of Europe for US in relation to the Syrian civil war, persecution of the Muslims, creation of chauvinism against the Muslims in Europe, propagation of the so-called threat of Islamophobia etc., Israel’s main aim was to ensure the victory of the extremist President Donald Trump in the presidential race, who manipulated various terror assaults in the US and Europe in fueling anti-Muslim racialism to get the sympathies of a majority of the ordinary Americans who did not have much time to go into depth-analysis and had been instigated by his emotional speeches, statements and false hopes. Another major aim of Mossad was to give impetus to the far right-wing parties and nationalist entities in wake of “Stop Islam” movement in the West, especially in Europe, which are becoming popular by largely attracting their people—have also made electoral gains.

After facing defeatism in Syria by Russian-led forces, in retaliation, Mossad also conducted several terrorism-related attacks in Turkey, Iraq, Syria, Egypt and elsewhere in the world through ISIS. While in case of Somalia and some African countries—splitting away of a hardliner-faction Al-Shabaab which is an offshoot of the Islamic Courts Union, though the US defined Al-Shabaab as Al-Qaida’s ally, claimed responsibility for several terror assaults on the Christians. It is what extremist regime at Tel Aviv wanted.

Notably, when, Obama’s anti-Muslim policies were clearly exposed, before the end of his tenure, President Obama wanted to rectify his blunders. In this context, on December 23, 2016, the US abstained and allowed a UN Security Council resolution, condemning Israeli settlement construction in the occupied territories of the Palestinians to be adopted, defying extraordinary pressure from the Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s government which was already in alignment with the President Donald Trump who harshly criticized the Obama’s policies on the settlement issue and reiterated his support for Israel, while questioning the effectiveness of the UNO, saying, “it’s just a club for people to have a good time.”

President Trump who remains firm to move the US embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, is supportive of settlers by pledging that the Palestinians would no longer have a platform at the UN when he becomes president on January 20, this year, said, “We cannot continue to let Israel be treated with such total disdain and disrespect. They used to have a great friend in the U.S…the beginning of the end was the horrible Iran deal, and now this (U.N.)! Stay strong Israel, January 20th is fast approaching!”

On the same day, US Secretary of State John Kerry had also disclosed reality and issued a desperate final warning to Tel Aviv by pointing out, “The settlement building policies being carried out by Israel’s government on occupied land and applauded by Donald Trump were destroying hopes for peace between Israelis and Palestinians…is jeopardizing Middle East peace.” He explained, “The two-state solution is now in serious jeopardy…if the choice is one state, Israel can either be Jewish or democratic, it cannot be both…the most extreme elements” of Israel’s Right-wing were shaping the country’s future and strangling the prospect of a two-state solution.” 

It is noteworthy that in accordance with the extremist agenda of Israel, Trump administration has imposed sanctions on Iran on February 3, this year. Earlier, the hardliner President Trump had stated that he would abandon the Iran nuclear deal. However, Tehran responded by saying that the sanctions were in violation of the nuclear agreement, calling them illegal and extraterritorial.

As regards South Asia, by pursuing the double standards of the US in its worst form, President Trump also intends to favour India, while opposing the nuclear weapons of Pakistan. True to his own extremist and fanatic approach, Trump has brushed aside the ground realities that Indian extremist Prime Minister Narindra Modi led by the ruling fundamentalist party BJP has been implementing anti-Muslim and anti-Pakistan agenda, while encouraging Hindutva (Hindu nationalism). He ignored the facts that besides Muslims, BJP and other extremist outfits have also been targeting the minorities, especially the Christians and their places of worship. Trump is also silence over Indian moves like promotion of religious and ethnic chauvinism in India, creation of warlike situation with Pakistan, perennial atrocities on the innocent Kashmiris in the Indian-occupied Kashmir.

Taking cognizance of maltreatment of minorities by the fanatic Hindus, and forced conversions of Christians and Muslims in Hindus by the extremist Hindus, in the recent past, more than 200 Indian writers, authors, scientists, artists, filmmakers, film-stars etc. decided to return their national awards in protest to rising Hindu extremism, while more than 100 persons have returned their rewards. Former Indian military personnel have also started returning their medals, criticizing the policies of the BJP government.

President Donald Trump is also silence over the facts that under Modi rule, New Delhi accelerated unprovoked firing at the Line of Control in Kashmir and Working Boundary across Pak-Indian border, as unresolved issue of Kashmir remains a nuclear flashpoint between Pakistan and India.

Undoubtedly, the US President Trump seems determined to fulfill extremist agenda of Israel and that of India. As part of the double game, based in Afghanistan, operatives of American CIA, Indian RAW and Israeli Mossad which have well-established their secret network there, and are well-penetrated in the terrorist outfits like ISIS, Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and their affiliated Taliban groups are using their terrorists to destabilize Tibetan regions of China, Iranian Sistan-Baluchistan and Pakistan’s Balochistan by arranging the subversive activities. In this connection, the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) is their special target. Especially, in the recent past, ISIL claimed responsibility for acts of terrorism in Pakistan’s Balochistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh, which are part of the same scheme against the Muslims.   

It is of particular attention that it is due to the Islamophia, created by the anti-Muslim and racist President Trump that on January 28, 2016 a mosque in Texas was destroyed by setting to blaze by cause unknown. It shows that more assaults on the Muslims and their places of worships, including their buildings are expected under Trump’s presidency, as Israeli Mossad is availing the opportunity.

In this regard, six people were killed and eight wounded when gunmen opened fire at a Quebec City mosque (at the Islamic Cultural Centre) in Canada during prayers on January 29, 2016 in what Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau called a “terrorist attack on Muslims”, and condemned the same. The shooting came one day after Trudeau said Canada would welcome refugees.  A right-wing French-Canadian student Alexandre Bissonnette who was known for his activity on social networks in support of Marine Le Pen, a French nationalist politician who opposes Muslim immigration was identified who opened fire at the mosque.

It is worth-mentioning that addressing the US Congress on September 24, 2015, Pope Francis said, “No religion is immune from forms of individual delusion or ideological extremism…we must be especially attentive to every type of fundamentalism. A delicate balance is required to combat violence perpetual in the name of a religion, an ideology or an economic system…every life is sacred.”

Taking note of America’s non-acceptance of the Syrian refugees, Francis reminded the law-makers by remarking that the United States “is part of a larger whole on America in the Americas, where immigration is a deeply rooted part of history…we, the people of this continent, are not fearful of foreigners, because most of us were once foreigners.”

At this crucial juncture, some American and western political leaders should stop irresponsible statements by equating the war on terror with war on Islam, and acts of Al Qaeda and ISIS with all the Muslims. Their media should also be brought under control through appropriate legislation or law, as freedom of expression does not mean the introduction of dangerous socio-religious dimension in their societies by dividing world politics on cultural and religious lines with the negative projection of Islam which is a religion of peace, and prohibits any kind of terrorism like other religions.

If not checked in time by the peace-loving Muslims, Christians, Hindus, Jews and Buddhists, the rigid and racist policies of the President Donald Trump who is completing the extremist agenda of Israel and India are likely to result into more recruitment in the militant outfits, particularly in the ISIS group, inspiring the extremist Muslims for more terrorism-related attacks. This Mossad-RAW-Trump cabal could also culminate into civil war in the US who is already facing multiple internal crises which are owing to the prolonged war on terror (And in Afghanistan). While the world has already been radicalized on religious lines, this cabal can bring about a major war between the Muslim and the Christian worlds.

Sajjad Shaukat writes on international affairs and is author of the book: US vs Islamic Militants, Invisible Balance of Power: Dangerous Shift in International Relations

Email: sajjad_logic_pak@hotmail.com

Courtesy Veterans Today

Think tank explains why India loathes CPEC

By Shahbaz Rana

ISLAMABAD: India’s opposition to the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) stems from its fear of internationalisation of the Kashmir dispute and the growing influence of China in the Indian Ocean, says a new report by one of the most influential global think tanks.

“There is considerable concern within India that China, which has been neutral on Kashmir since 1963, can no longer be so now that its economic and security interests in these territories are growing in stake,” says a report by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (Sipri) — a Sweden-based think tank.

Lt Gen Aamir invites India to join CPEC

The report — titled “Silk Road Economic Belt – considering security implications and the EU-China cooperation prospects” — argues that India does not want a mediating role for China in these disputes.

It is the first report by any global think tank that has discussed in detail the Indian concerns on CPEC. The report has also shed light on implications of the ‘One Belt One Road’ initiative on security dynamics and its compatibility with the EU interests.

The Sipri report says CPEC has raised political temperatures between India and Pakistan. “India strictly opposes CPEC, and while the Economic Belt is not a harbinger of a new conflict, it has so far intensified historic competition over influence in South Asia,” note authors of the report.

The report argues that there is a factual and conceptual objection to CPEC in India. The factual objection is that India does not want to internationalise the Kashmir dispute it has with Pakistan. Chinese activity in the disputed areas automatically makes it a stakeholder in these disputes.

At the conceptual level, CPEC allows China to gain a toehold in the Indian Ocean through direct access to the Arabian Sea. There remain concerns that this might develop a military dimension at some stage, according to the report.

Modi spoke India’s mind over CPEC

Since territorial compromise from either India or Pakistan is a political suicide for any of the ruling parties, it remains to be seen whether CPEC will contribute to a resolution of this dispute or further fan the flames. There is also a concern in India that China will use Gwadar port to observe Indian naval activity and possibly even exploit it for an expansion of China’s own naval presence.

There is also concern in India that while CPEC in the short and medium term could be an opportunity to generate jobs and growth in Pakistan, over the longer term its strategic consequences could reshape the regional balance of power in favour of China and limit India’s geopolitical reach.

The assertiveness and swiftness of Chinese actions in the South China Sea have implanted a preoccupation among China’s critics in India that if China gains a foothold in the Arabian Sea and, as an extension, in the Indian Ocean through Gwadar, it might make national interest claims in India’s maritime sphere too. “After all, if Gwadar grows to be the immense port China envisions it to become, China will need to take on a bigger direct or indirect security role,” it says.

The Sipri report noted that unlike in India, CPEC has not raised concerns in Afghanistan. Afghanistan is open to all regional initiatives that could reactivate its ailing formal economy, whether that is by way of CPEC or India-led efforts to connect with the Afghan economy through the Chabahar Port in Iran. Iran has not opposed CPEC and has expressed strong interest in the Belt and Road Initiative.

However, the report argues that Afghanistan is unlikely to benefit from CPEC unless Kabul-Islamabad relations improve. For this to happen, Pakistan’s security concerns with regard to Afghanistan need to be assuaged. The authors note that CPEC has the potential to exacerbate three fault lines in South Asian security.

Four reasons why CPEC will not be another East India Company

The first is between China and India themselves. The second is between China-Pakistan on the one side and India on the other. The third is between China and India and its partners – the US, Japan and, to a lesser degree, Vietnam. The region of Balochistan is being geopolitically instrumentalised by these various players, they added.

It says that this is an evidence that CPEC has contributed to political and security bloc formation, but the bloc rivalry between the US-India and China-Pakistan exists regardless of CPEC. CPEC has merely strengthened the strategic Chinese-Pakistani alliance.

China’s reliance on CPEC means that it needs a stable and amicable Pakistan, underlines the report. “The Silk Road Economic Belt initiative may become one of the cornerstones of Asian economic growth and integration, and eventually of closer political and security cooperation among states, but the pathway to this scenario is long and fraught with obstacles,” it says.

Published in The Express Tribune, February 3^rd, 2017.

Refocus on Kashmir Solidarity Day

By Sajjad Shaukat

Although since 1990, the 5th of February is being celebrated by Pakistanis and Kashmiris as ‘Kashmir Solidarity Day’ to pay homage to Kahsmiri martyrs and to show solidarity with the freedom fighters who are demanding their legitimate right of self-determination, as recognized by the UN resolutions, yet this time, the very day has come at time when the people of Kashmir have accelerated their legitimate struggle in the aftermath of the martyrdom of the young Kashmir leader Burhan Wani by the Indian security forces in the Indian Occupied Kashmir (IOK) in wake of continued sieges and prolonged curfews. Since July 8, 2016, Indian forces have martyred more than 150 innocent persons who have been protesting against the martyrdom of Burhan Wani and for liberation of their land.

By manipulating the false flag terror attacks at a military base in Uri and Baramulla, the BJP-led Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has also intensified war-hysteria against Pakistan. After deployment of heavy arms and weapons at the Line of Control (LoC), Indian forces have increased troops and continue shelling in Pakistani side of Azad Kashmir. And Pakistani troops are giving matching response to Indian unprovoked firing across the LoC and are well-prepared for Indian another surgical strikes, as threatened by Indian new army Chief Army Chief Gen. Dalbir Singh Suhaag. New Delhi’s main aim is to deflect the attention of the international community from the new phase of Kashmiri Intifada, while pressure has been mounting on the Modi government both domestically and internationally to resolve the issue of Kashmir with Pakistan.

As regards the background, during the partition of the Sub-continent, the people of the state of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) which comprised Muslim majority decided to join Pakistan according to the British-led formula. But, Dogra Raja, Sir Hari Singh, a Hindu who was ruling over the State of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K), in connivance with the Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and Governor General Lord Mountbatten joined India.

The design to forcibly wrest Kashmir began to unfold on August 16, 1947, with the announcement of the Radcliffe Boundary Award. It gave the Gurdaspur District—a majority Muslim area to India to provide a land route to the Indian armed forces to move into Kashmir. There was a rebellion in the state forces, which revolted against the Maharaja and were joined by Pathan tribesmen. Lord Mountbatten ordered armed forces to land in Srinagar.

When Pakistan responded militarily against the Indian aggression, on December 31, 1947, India made an appeal to the UN Security Council to intervene and a ceasefire ultimately came into effect on January 01, 1949, following UN resolutions calling for a plebiscite in Kashmir to enable the people of Jammu and Kashmir to determine whether they wish to join Pakistan or India. On February 5, 1964, India backed out of its promise of holding plebiscite. Instead, in March 1965, the Indian Parliament passed a bill, declaring Kashmir a province of India-an integral part of the Indian union.

The very tragedy of Kashmiris had started after 1947 when they were denied their genuine right of self-determination. They organized themselves against the injustices of India and launched a war of liberation which New Delhi tried to crush through various forms of brutalities.

It is notable that since 1947, in order to maintain its illegal control, India has continued its repressive regime in the Occupied Kashmir through various machinations.

However, various forms of state terrorism have been part of a deliberate campaign by the Indian army and paramilitary forces against Muslim Kashmiris, especially since 1989. It has been manifested in brutal tactics like crackdowns, curfews, illegal detentions, massacre, targeted killings, sieges, burning the houses, torture, disappearances, rape, breaking the legs, molestation of Muslim women and killing of persons through fake encounter.

According to a report on human rights violations in the Indian Occupied Kashmir, since 1989, there have been deaths of 1,00000 innocent Kashmiris, 7,023 custodial killings, 1,22,771 arrests, 1,05,996 destruction of houses or buildings, 22,776 women widowed, 1,07,466 children orphaned and 10,086 women gang-raped/molested. Indian brutal securities forces have continue these atrocities.

In fact, Indian forces have employed various draconian laws like the Jammu and Kashmir Disturbed Areas Act, and the Armed Forces (Jammu and Kashmir) Special Powers Act and Public Safety Act in killing the Kashmiri people, and for the arbitrarily arrest of any individual for an indefinite period.

Besides Human Rights Watch, in its various reports, Amnesty International has also pointed out grave human rights violations in the Indian controlled Kashmir, indicating, “The Muslim majority population in the Kashmir Valley suffers from the repressive tactics of the security forces.

In its report on July 2, 2015, the Amnesty International has highlighted extrajudicial killings of the innocent persons at the hands of Indian security forces in the Indian Held Kashmir. The report points out, “Tens of thousands of security forces are deployed in Indian-administered Kashmir…the Armed Forces Special Powers Act allows troops to shoot to kill suspected militants or arrest them without a warrant…not a single member of the armed forces has been tried in a civilian court for violating human rights in Kashmir…this lack of accountability has in turn facilitated other serious abuses…India has martyred one 100,000 people. More than 8,000 disappeared (while) in the custody of army and state police.”

In this respect, European Union has passed a resolution about human rights abuses committed by Indian forces in the Indian held Kashmir.

It is of particular attention that in 2008, a rights group reported unmarked graves in 55 villages across the northern regions of the Indian-held Kashmir. Then researchers and other groups reported finding thousands of mass graves without markers. In this respect, in August, 2011, Indian Jammu and Kashmir State Human Rights Commission officially acknowledged in its report that innocent civilians killed in the two-decade conflict have been buried in unmarked graves.

Notably, foreign sources and human rights organisations have revealed that unnamed graves include those innocent persons, killed by the Indian military and paramilitary troops in the fake encounters including those who were tortured to death by the Indian secret agency RAW.

Indian authorities are not willing to talk with Kashmiri people on political grounds. New Delhi reached to a conclusion that only bullet is the right way of dealing with Kashmiris, demanding their right of self-determination. Surprisingly, Indian successive governments are trying to ignore the dynamics of the freedom movement of Kashmiris for the sake of their alien rule.

But, New Delhi is still showing its intransigence in order to resolve Kashmir dispute with Pakistan by neglecting the fact that Kashmir remains a nuclear flashpoint between both the neighbouring countries.

In this context, Egbert Jahn in his book, “Kashmir: Flashpoint for a Nuclear War or Even a Third World War?” has pointed out, “The Kashmir conflict is embedded in the wider conflict over the incomplete creation of nations and states on the Indian subcontinent, which during the east-west conflict even threatened at times to escalate into a nuclear world war between Pakistan and the USA on the one side and India and the USSR on the other. Until now, there have been three wars between India and Pakistan over the Jammu and Kashmir: in 1947–49, 1965 and 1999… finally, the Indo-Chinese border war of 1962…after these wars…and could unexpectedly again lead to a regional and under certain circumstances…even a major nuclear war or a Third World War.”

Meanwhile, like the previous year, Pakistan’s recent serious and sincere effort at the annual session of the United Nations—the speech of Pakistan’s prime minister, highlighting the Indian atrocities, Kashmir dispute and demanding its solution has infused a new spirit among the Kashmiri people.

Nonetheless, by exposing the myth of Indian claim of the largest democracy and double standard of the US-led western countries which still remain silent over the Indian injustices, Kashmiris, living both sides of the LoC observe ‘Kashmir Solidarity Day’ to pay homage to Kahsmiri martyrs and to show solidarity with the freedom fighters, and to protest against the Indian illegal occupation of Jammu and Kashmir. On this very day, Pakistanis and Kashmiris across the globe express solidarity with the freedom fighters of Kashmir, demanding their legitimate right of self-determination from India which continues various forms of state terrorism in order to suppress their popular movement. The observance of the Kashmir Solidarity Day’ keeps the issue of Kashmir alive.

  

The Defunct Tehreek- e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP)?

By Atta Rasool Malik

The once considered ruthless TTP is almost dead now. The back ground of most of the TTP leadership shows that they were not Islamists. They neither attended any religious seminary nor touched upon the basic principles of Islam. These leaders included Hakimulla Mehsud (late), Abdullah Mehsud (late), Fazlullah (sitting Amir based in Afghanistan), Sheikh Khalid Haqqani (Naib Amir based in Afghanistan), Shakeel Ahmed Haqqani, Muslim Khan, Tariq Afridi alias Gider (late), Shahryar Mehsud, teacher Waliur Rehman Mehsud (late), Khan Said Sajna, Abdul Wali Mohmand, Asmatullah Muawiya alias Punjabi, Mufti Hassan Swati, Mangal Bagh Afridi and Adnan Rasheed etcetera. As per the military sources claim and endorsed by the locals, operation “Zarb-e-Azb” has successfully destroyed the militant edifice in our tribal belt, FATA. The TTP remnants have been left with a negligible space to hide and almost absconding either in remote western parts of the country or the adjoining Afghan border territory.

After dislodging by Pakistan Army from the tribal area, the TTP has recently started a new way of proxy war through a malicious propaganda to brainwash the tribesmen against their homeland and Armed Forces. Out of frustration, they are targeting the two nation theory, founder of Pakistan Quaid - e - Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the first Prime Minister Liaqat Ali Khan, Islamic character of the Pakistani constitution and trying to raise doubts against Pakistan movement. They are exploiting minor excesses of government and Pakistan Army in the area to create a favourable space for them in the area. They are carrying out the campaign through anonymous writings and leaflets in the area.

            Suffered from the earlier setback, the militants are bent upon destroying Islam by misusing it for their personal agenda. Their claim of being Islamists, seem to be a hollow one. On the eve of ongoing military operation, the country’s prominent clerics declared TTP an un-Islamic militant group and declared Pakistani constitution according to Islam. Maulvi Kifayatullau of JUI - F, in one of his talk show said that Pakistan’s constitution is totally Islamic as it was signed by his former party leaders Sheikh Shabir Ahmed Usmani and Mufti Mehmud, after getting satisfied that it was Islamic in letter and spirit as reflected in the preamble of 1973 constitution.

Keeping in view our institutional and military strength, Pakistan is considered the “Fort of Islam” and greatly respected by the Muslim Umma across the globe. Our society is purely Islamic as compared to the class society in neighboring India. Our past history including the wars fought with India and the role played against former Soviet Union in Afghanistan with our meager resources is a true reflection of Islam. The text of our present constitution declares Pakistan as “Islamic Republic of Islam” and “sovereignty over the entire universe belongs to Allah Almighty” and that “any law repugnant to Islam will be declared null and void”. Moreover, the constitution declares that “steps will be taken to enable the Muslims of Pakistan, individually and collectively, to order their lives in accordance with the fundamental principles and basic concepts of Islam”.

After Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Iran, Pakistan is the third Islamic country in the world. The TTP remained unsuccessful to impose its own brand of Islam and malign Pakistan. Their brutal acts against the minorities on both sides of “Durand Line” reflect their extremist brand of thoughts which they are linking with Islam. The blast in Peshawar Church, attacks against the Shia community in Kurram Agency and Punjab as well as the destruction of historical Budha statues in Bamyan province of Afghanistan in the past are evident of their frustration. All such acts are neither Islamic in nature nor human.

The militants prejudice for sectarian and political objectives can be understandable which led them to join hands with the enemies of Islam and Pakistan. Their ideology is based on intolerance and unconstitutional ways of injustice and barbarity.

The writer is freelance journalist