Nuclear Security Summit 2016

Mohammad Jamil


In the forthcoming summit, discussions will be held on the evolving (nuclear terrorism) threats.
Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif will represent Pakistan at the forthcoming nuclear security summit to be held in Washington from March 31 to April 1, 2016. Though the United States has not been consistent about its stance on Pakistani nuclear arms, yet the former has assured the international community that Pakistan is capable of protecting its nuclear weapons. In a policy statement on Pakistan’s nuclear programme, the US State Department said: “Islamabad is well aware of its responsibilities with respect to nuclear security and has secured its nuclear arsenal accordingly.” A few days before the summit, the prestigious Harvard Kennedy School has released a report reviewing global security measures, which stated: “US officials have reportedly ranked Indian nuclear security measures as weaker than those of Pakistan and Russia.” The report concluded that Pakistan’s nuclear security arrangements were stronger than India’s.

Observers are of the view that the US does not want Pakistan to shut down its nuclear programme; however, it does want Islamabad to reduce the size of its arsenal. There is a perception that Pakistan is being subjected to renewed pressure to freeze its nuclear weapon and ballistic missile capabilities. Adviser to Prime Minister on Foreign Affairs Sartaj Aziz, who represented Pakistan at talks in the first week of March, however, insisted that Islamabad would not accept any unilateral curb on its programme. Any reduction must also apply to India and it must address the conventional imbalance between the two countries. In the past also, Pakistan had taken the position that if India signed the CTBT and NPT, Pakistan would also sign. Being a sovereign country, Pakistan should take its own decisions, without being pitted against India.

Having said that, Pakistan is a responsible state and has contributed towards global efforts to improve nuclear security and nuclear non-proliferation measures, which is being acknowledged by the US and the IAEA. Last week, US Under-Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Rose Gottenmoeller told a congressional panel: “Pakistan has really done an excellent job of establishing a progamme for nuclear security.” The Nuclear Security Summit process was initiated by President Barack Obama. In his speech in Prague in April 2009, he had underlined security of nuclear materials as a priority of his administration. He had set the target for securing all vulnerable nuclear materials from the world within four years. Since then three Nuclear Security Summits have taken place in Washington in 2010, Seoul 2012 and The Hague in 2014, but to no avail.

This will be the fourth and concluding summit as President Obama completes his final term this year, and it is to be seen as to how his successor would deal with the issue. In the forthcoming summit, discussions will be held on the evolving (nuclear terrorism) threats, and highlight steps that can be taken together to minimise the use of highly-enriched uranium, secure vulnerable materials, counter nuclear smuggling and deter, detect, and disrupt attempts at nuclear terrorism. Notwithstanding several threats to international security looming over the entire issue of international terrorism, the spectre of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is a source of concern and alarm. But the US had signed a civil nuclear agreement with India whereby India would enjoy the rights of those states that had signed the NPT.

In the cover story of the Newsweek of mid-September 2009 titled “Learning to love the bomb”, Jonathan Tepperman had tried to prove that nuclear weapons may make the world a safer place to live in. Adlai Stevenson once said: “Nature is neutral. Man has wrested from nature the power to make the world a desert or to make the deserts bloom. There is no evil in the atom; only in men’s souls.” It is an irrefutable fact that nuclear technology has the potential to have a tremendous positive impact on the day-to-day lives of nearly every individual because it allows doctors and scientists to combat disease through diagnosis and treatment of cancers and other ailments. However, the potential has not been exploited in full. That point aside, the big powers have arrogated to them the right to decide about the quantity and kind of nuclear weapons developing countries would have.

The US leadership would like other countries not to develop nuclear arms, and destroy whatever arsenal they have because it feels that nuclear weapons represent gravest threat to the security of America. But those countries that feel their security is threatened by a hostile neighbour or warmongers also seek to develop nuclear arms to counter hegemonic designs of big powers or those having an edge in conventional weapons and forces. Since big powers wish to have the monopoly of nuclear devices they do not have the moral high authority to convince other countries not to produce atomic bombs and destroy the existing ones. The problem is that the US has double standards, one for its strategic partners and the other one for the rest of the world. Israel is an undeclared atomic power, yet America would not like to see Iran or any Arab country develop nuclear arms to face the security challenges that they have.

However, there is another threat looming large on the horizon. If Donald Trump wins the GOP party nomination and is elected as president of the United States, he may roil Pak-US. relations that are on a positive trajectory at the present. While responding to a question during a presidential debate, Trump said that if he were elected to the White House, he would keep the country’s troops in Afghanistan to protect Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal. “I think you have to stay in Afghanistan for a while, because of the fact that you are right next to Pakistan, which has nuclear weapons and we have to protect those,” he said. He had once suggested that the US should seek India’s help to secure Pakistani nukes. In fact, the so-called civilian nuclear deal between the US and India has disturbed the balance of power in South Asia. At the time of concluding agreement with the US, India had stated that further nuclear tests would not be necessary, yet it started paving the way to conduct such tests.

Putting Afghanistan on Track

Tariq Rizwan

We have been listening and witnessing Afghan war for almost five decades since our birth. Several generations have doomed since the breakup of political crisis in Kabul; quick successions of President Dawood, President Amanulla  Khan and Zahir Shah followed by full-fledged invasion of USSR. The invasion of Afghanistan caused an exodus of Afghan Refugees in Pakistan and Iran. Next destination of the expansionist USSR was either Pakistan or Iran to reach the warm water. Man proposes God disposes, collective efforts of Pakistan & Iran and daring nature of Afghan Mujahideen with US\West financial and weaponry support defeated the USSR designs and pushed back the communist monster to disappear in its own ashes.  

Ditched and left out by US/West in a fragile state, the warring Afghans continued fighting with one another instead of stabilizing their gains in Afghan Jihad. The Madrassa students “Taliban” led by Mulla Umer had driven all the Mujahideen groups and captured Kabul. Though fighting continued with elements in the north and Northern Alliance put up some resistance yet Taliban were able to annex most parts of Afghanistan quickly and introduced Islamic system in the country. After 9/11, Taliban were ousted by US led ISAF in 2001 and established administration of own choice with a Quetta based pro - Zahir Shah Teacher, Karzai as President of the new administration. Afghan Taliban dispersed and continued its proxy under the command of Mulla Umer. Mulla Umer is no more alive but his group has defacto rule on almost 70% area of Afghanistan. President Ashraf Ghani government has no writ in most parts of the country. US & ISAF troops became exhausted and left Afghanistan except some US airbases & air bases without developing and bringing lasting peace in the war torn country.  

The war - dependent economy in Afghanistan is worsening day by day.  Afghanistan’s economy slowed down dramatically from an average of 10% in 2003-12 to only 3% in 2013-15. The prevailing anarchy and fragile infrastructure in Afghanistan is in the news almost every day, and it is hard to escape the images of worst hit villagers caught in the middle of the conflict. With a growing Taliban insurgency centered in the south, East and Southeast, the violence continues to escalate. Analysts believe that too much aid, especially in the insecure regions of Afghanistan, has led to more instability. Money has siphoned off by corrupt government officials, which fueled anti-government sentiment in the people who were supposed to benefit from that aid. On the other hand, regions that were relatively stable received much less aid than unstable areas.  Afghans think that it is not the Taliban who are winning rather it is that the Kabul government which is losing. Kabul government is viewed as corrupt and predatory. A US researcher Wielder says that interaction with local Afghans reveal that most Afghans think “when Taliban were in charge there were fewer problems. We didn’t have these warlords, and at least we had some form of justice. And the police then weren’t ripping us off.” 

The problems of Afghanistan include overinvesting in warlords who were the actual cause of Taliban birth, illiterate young generation, lack of women empowerment, lack of government & business infrastructure and fear among the international donors and investors. Aid and military support cannot resolve all these problems. Political stability, secure environment and foreign investment can produce job opportunities and bring prosperity to Afghanistan. In Afghanistan, only 23.5 percent of the population above 15 years old is literate, while the rate for women is even worse at 12.6 percent. At 36 percent, Afghanistan’s enrollment of girls in primary schools is low compared with 90.4 percent in Iran, 67 percent in Saudi Arabia, and 62 percent in Pakistan. Other impediments that hinder women’s education are violence against women, underage marriages, forced marriages, economic problems, and marriage as a solution to family disputes (known as baad).

As a quick-fix solution, we basically re-armed all the warlords who were willing to fight the Taliban. But they were the very ones who gave birth to the Taliban in the first place, since people were so fed up with the warlords. Most Afghans held them accountable for most of the instability of the previous 20 years. So very quickly we brought back to power some of the most unpopular and discredited individuals from the past, and they became the backbone of this new government that many Afghans see as part of the problem, rather than part of the solution.

Afghans are fed up of continued fighting and have become more security conscious over a period of time as is the case with international community. US is fast shifting its focus from Central Asia and South Asia towards Asia - Pacific to counter the growing Chinese-North Korean threat to its interests in the region thus affecting its focus on Afghanistan. Facing crises in Middle East, reduction in oil prices, empowering moderate new generation, Saudis have became more neighbors-centric and undermined to a greater extent its interest in Afghanistan. Warring parties became less dependent on Saudi finances and investment. Iran and India are developing its own infrastructure by developing Chabahar Port to pass on business to Central Asia using Western Afghan routes. Pakistan has allowed China to develop China - Pak Economic Corridor (CPEC) which is the shortest route towards Chinese Xinxiang Province, Central Asia and even Russia. 

There are reports that Mulla Umer’s successor Mulla Akhter Mansoor has been killed in Balochistan in US drone strike. It is yet not confirmed but if confirms will be a great setback to the upcoming peace talks between Tehrik - e - Taliban Afghanistan. Reportedly, he was coming from Iran when targeted in Noshki area, Balochistan on Saturday 21 May 2016. Indeed, Afghans should come out of their ashes and think seriously for peace and prosperity of the country. It is the real time for economic enhancement, prosperity of the region and the neighboring countries including Pakistan, Iran, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan as well as the extra regional powers to put their interests aside and work sincerely for “Afghans’

owned and led” solution to the Afghan dilemma. Though the weak Hizb-e-Islami of Gulbadin Hikmatyar joined Ashraf Ghani government yet the fresh Taliban pre-condition shows that US may play a pivotal role by withdrawing its troops from Afghanistan as per the desire of Taliban faction to prepare the ground for a meaningful dialogue between the sides. Sitting Afghan government may be asked to come out of Northern Alliance and their foreigner mentors to show flexibility and give some reasonable share in government to the Pashtun groups in South, East and North East of Kabul. Doing so, the warring factions may be convinced and brought on negotiating table to resolve the issue once for all.     

The writer is a freelance journalist based in London

Prospective Terror Attacks in Europe and the US

                                    

By Sajjad Shaukat

European and American intelligence officials and counterterrorism experts and analysts have been predicting prospective terror attacks in Europe and the US which would be conducted by the Islamic State group (ISIS or ISIL). Experience of the recent acts of terrorism show that general masses start pointing fingers at the ISIS, without going into depth to know as to who (Entity) is behind this outfit, as to what the aims that entity wants to achieve, and what is the secret game in this respect.

Some days before the ISIS in a video message threatened France, Egypt Air Flight MS804 disappeared from radar screens on May 19, this year with 66 people on board after taking off from Paris-15 French citizens were among the passengers. Security officials and analysts suggest that the ISIS could be behind this crash of the plane.

In a new message on May 21, the ISIS has threatned to launch attacks on the US and Europe during the Islamic holy month of Ramadan, which will begin in early June, this year.

The chief of France’s intelligence agency DGSI, Patrick Calvar warned on May 10, 2016 that “Clearly, France is the most threatened and we know that Islamic State [ISIS] is planning new attacks” in the country.

Germany’s Criminal Police Office (BKA) has issued a clear warning of possible attacks by the ISIS at the Euro 2016 football tournament in France.

In this regard, Director of America’s national intelligence agency, James Clapper revealed on April 25, 2016 that ISIS has clandestine cells in the UK, Germany and Italy, which carried out the deadly March terrorist attacks in Brussels and the outfit was plotting to attack these countries.

In a speech in Hanover, Germany, while emphasizing EU-US unity, American President Barack Obama said on April 25, “These terrorists are doing everything in their power to strike our cities and kill our citizens, so we need to do everything to stop them.” Calling the ISIS the most urgent threat, Obama elaborated, “Europe, including NATO, can still do more…Germany has provided trainers and financial assistance to local forces but its military is not involved in airstrikes against ISIS in Iraq and Syria.”

On February 14, 2016, CIA Director John Brennan warned that ISIS attacks on “U.S. soil is inevitable.”

During his appearance with the National Border Patrol Council’s Green Line radio show on May 15, 2016, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald J. Trump has predicted that refugees with ISIS-funded cell phones will conduct another 9/11-like terrorist attack in the US.

However, before the November 13 terror attacks in Paris some intelligence agencies had also warned about these assaults and that warning was manipulated by Israel, as Tel Aviv wanted to obtain a number of secret aims owing to various developments. In order to revive the global war on terror, the neo-conservatives, Zionists and Israel needed the backing of the whole Europe against the Russian-led coalition of Iran, Iraq, the Syrian army-the National Defense Forces (NDF) and Lebanon-based Hezbollah, which had broken the backbone of the US-CIA-assisted ISIS terrorists, Al-Qaeda’s Al-Nusra Front and the rebels who have been fighting to oust the Syrian President Assad’s government and against the current Iraqi regime as part of America’s double game to obtain Israeli interests. Moscow also exposed the smuggling of oil by ISIS-controlled regions of Iraq to some European countries and inaction of their governments including America in this respect.

It is worth-mentioning that some EU member states had officially started recognizing a state of Palestine, and ignored Israeli protests. Besides France, the Belgian parliament had approved a resolution on February 9, 2016, calling for official recognition of Palestine as a state. The positive impact of this recognition was that EU pressure was growing on Tel Aviv to for the two-state solution of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute and to restart a negotiation process.

Some other developments like reluctance of NATO countries to support America’s fake global war on terror and acceptance of Syrian refugees by the European countries, especially Germany and the EU rule to boycott goods produced in Israeli settlements on the West Bank irritated the Israelis.

In this context, connections of the Israeli secret agency Mossad are also noteworthy. In March 2015, Iraqi Special Forces pointed out that they had arrested several ISIL’s foreign military advisors, including American, Israeli and Arab nationals and four foreign passports in an operation in Mosul. Last year, a senior aide to Russian President Vladimir Putin also stated that Mossad is training ISIL terrorists, operating in Iraq and Syria. Meanwhile, arrest of Israeli Col. Shahak in Iraq, his admission, proving links of Al-Qaeda and ISIS with America and Mossad and medical treatment of the ISIS warriors in the Israeli hospitals might be cited as instance. ISIS which was already being assisted by the CIA and Mossad was directed to send its militants in Paris and in connivance with the home-grown terrorists to conduct terror attacks in Paris.

Mossad links with the ISIS terrorists can also be judged from the fact that this terrorist outfit conducted several suicide assaults and bomb blasts in Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Afghanistan. But, it did not target Israel.

Nevertheless, Israel achieved its several sinister designs in the post-Paris attacks phenomena and after the shooting at San Bernardino, California. Like the drastic aftermath of 9/11 tragedy, rulers and politicians of the US and European countries, including their media started misguiding their general public by creating chauvinism against the Muslims.

As regards the anti-Muslim policy, on January 18, 2015, while singling out only Muslim women British Prime Minister David Cameron announced that Muslim women who fail to learn English to a high enough standard could face deportation from Britain. He also suggested that poor English skills can leave people “more susceptible to the messages of groups like Islamic State (IS).” Earlier, Trump had called for a ban on Muslims, entering the United States.

After the Paris terror attacks, Israel-led America also obtained the support of its Western allies (NATO) against Russia. And as part of their ambivalent policy, American jet fighters and those of its Western coalition started targeting the ISIS terrorists in Iraq and Syria.

But, with the acceleration of threat by ISIS, some of the European leaders began empathizing upon the solution of the Palestinians issue.

In this connection, hours after the Paris tragedy, the Swedish Foreign Minister Margot Wallstrom
said that “to counteract the radicalization, we must go back to the situation in the Middle East of which not the least the Palestinians see that there is no future: we must either accept a desperate situation or resort to violence.”

Meanwhile, Russian President Vladimir Putin displayed as to how fight the ISIS and Al-Qaeda, as Russian military compelled these terrorist groups to vacate most of the regions of Iraq and Syria. On March 14, 2016, Putin’s announcement to withdraw most of the Russian forces from Syria, after strengthening the Assad regime, while emphasizing upon the political solution of the Syrian crisis gave a setback to the US-led Western allies.

In these circumstances, on March 22, 2016, with the help of ISIS and Mossad, Israel again targetted Europe by arranging the Brussels blasts in order to avoid the settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian issue, and to implicate Syria-based ISIS—to thwart the UNO-backed ceasefire agreement about Syrian war which was brokered by the major powers including Russia and the US and to cause a major rift between Russia and the US-led NATO, while provoking the Western Christians against the Muslims. Notably, in the beginning of February, 2016, in the first Vienna meeting on Syrian crisis, the US Secretary of State John Kerry had agreed to keep the Syrian president in power (Contrary to previous demand of regime change) and for a unified state of Syria.

It is of particular attention that after the terror attacks in Paris and Brussels. Israel succeeded in obtaining its clandestine designs. Europe has been put on high alert and these subversive acts are being taken as attacks on the whole continent. In one way or the other, European politicians, especially right-wing leaders and their media are misguiding the general public against the Muslim World by exaggerating the so-called threat of Islamophobia. Owing to their irresponsible approach, right-wing parties and “Stop Islam” movement in the Western countries, particularly in Europe are becoming popular by largely attracting their people. Besides, Muslims in the continent are facing severe backlash in form of attacks on them and threats (In some countries) in wake of anti-Muslim protests. Without caring for human rights, several Muslim refugees have been expelled from various European countries.

Although Israel succeeded in its secret aims after the Brussels attacks, yet some developments have frustrated its rulers. In this connection, besides a number of human rights groups, particularly Amnesty International in its press release on April 1, 2016 has criticized, the controversial Turkish-EU refugee deal by pointing out, “Large-scale forced returns of refugees from Turkey to war-ravaged Syria expose the fatal flaws in a refugee deal signed between Turkey and the European Union…all forced returns to Syria are illegal under Turkish, EU and international law.”

Protests and violence have become commonplace at the Greek border, where more than 50,000 refugees have been stranded since Macedonia and other Balkan countries shut their borders in February. On May 7, 2016, hundreds of pro-refugee activists who came to Brenner mountain pass from other Italian regions as well as from Germany, Italy and Spain spurred unrest in protest of the closure of the Austrian-Italian border. However, these double standards of the US-led West will result into recruitment of more terrorists by the militant outfits like ISIS on global and regional level. This is what Tel Aviv wants.

Differences have arisen among the European countries in relation to the refugees and the asylum-seekers. Austria’s plan to build a fence along its border with Italy has been met with disapproval by Italy and Germany.

Besides some EU countries, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, while criticizing Austria’s controversial new laws said that he was “concerned that European countries are now adopting increasingly restrictive immigration and refugee policies…such policies and measures negatively affect the obligations of member states under international humanitarian law and European law.”

A rift has been created between the West and Turkey, the close ally of NATO. On May 8, 2016, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has kept up his rebuke of European nations, accusing them of dictatorship and cruelty for keeping their frontiers closed to migrants and refugees fleeing the Syrian conflict. He clarified that “Turkey would not meet a EU demand for his country to reform its anti-terrorism legislation.”

And on February 10, 2016, President Erdogan lashed out at the US over its support for Syria’s main Kurdish group, saying, “The failure to recognise the Democratic Union Party (PYD) as a terrorist group is creating a “sea of blood” in Syria. He explained, “The PYD, on which the US relies to battle so-called Islamic State (ISIS or Daesh) in Syria, is an offshoot of the banned Kurdistan Workers’ Party.”

In the meantime, in the March, this year, Syrian fighters with the support of popular volunteer combatants liberated more towns from the ISIS militants’ control like the Thayyem Oil Field, especially the ancient city of Palmyra, and may recapture the group’s self-proclaimed caliphate-capital in Raqqa.

As part of the US double game, Syrian rebel groups on April 12, 2016 launched a major offensive on positions of the ISIS and were able to recapture key areas in Syria’s northern province of Aleppo. In order to show to the international community and Western public that America is fighting against the ISIS terrorists, US has accelerated air strikes on the ISIS-controlled regions.

As per CIA directions, in Aleppo city, shell and mortar attacks by the Al-Nusra Front, ISIS and the rebel groups have continued on the Kurdish neighborhood of Sheikh Maqsoud. ISIS is also reported to have continued firing rockets across the border into the Turkish town of Kilis. In the pretext, the Turkish military is retaliating with shell fire.

It shows that the US and Israel have created a very complicated situation in Syria and the vulnerable countries of the Middle East including Turkey by making a vicious circle of terrorism; so that American-Israeli covert aims to divide Syria in accordance with the CIA-prepared Plan B could be justified, which could also get the favour of the Western countries which are already biased against Assad’s government.

It is mentionable that the US-led West, especially Europe has already started a new Cold War with Russia. The US has decided to station permanently additional troops in Eastern Europe as part of NATO move to defend the continent against the presumed threat of Moscow. In this context, on May 4, 2016, the US Defense Secretary Ashton Carter declared that the Pentagon had to “prioritize deterrence” against Russia and accused Moscow of “nuclear saber-rattling.”

In response, Moscow also responded that it would send 30,000 Russian troops along its western and southern borders. 

America’s former Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel who had previously criticized the White House for mishandling the crises strategically stated on May 10, 2016 that NATO’s plans to deploy four battalions to the Baltic states could lead to another Cold War with Russia.

Although Cold War has revived between the US-led West and Russia, yet some recent developments have further disheartened the Zionist-Israeli-led America.

On May 2, 2016, US Secretary of State John Kerry who opened a second day of talks in Geneva, stated, “The United States and Russia have agreed to make sure that there is more accountability to enforce the cessation of hostilities on a day-to-day basis.” On May 3, 2016, after negotiations, Moscow and Washington agreed for a ceasefire in Aleppo.

While as part of American dual strategy, fighting continued in Aleppo, because Israeli Mossad and American CIA did not forbid the ISIS terrorists and the rebel groups from attacking the Syrian army.

At the same time, Kerry changed American previous stance to keep Assad in power and warned Syria’s government on May 3, 2016 that they face an August 1 deadline for starting a political transition to move President Assad out, or they risk the consequences of a new US approach toward ending the 5-year-old civil war.

The US and Israel think that before Syrian forces-backed by Russia occupy more territories, especially Aleppo which is strategically important and is industrial capital of Syria, rebel groups and ISIS should be given a free hand to continue fighting.

Besides, movement of the left-wing parties which welcome the refugees is also becoming popular in the West, particularly Europe in response to the far right-wing groups.

British Prime Minister David Cameron had sparked a furious row over the contest for the May 5, 2016 election of London mayoralty after he accused Labour candidate Sadiq Khan of sharing a platform with Islamic extremists and a supporter of the ISIS. During the debate in the House of Commons, Angry Labour MPs accused Cameron of racism. Despite it, Londoners elected their first Muslim mayor of Pakistan’s origin Sadiq Khan by defeating the Conservative rival Zac Goldsmith-a wealthy Jew.

America’s anti-Muslim and pro-Israeli Trump has become the nominee of the Republican Party which has still to confirm his candidacy. While, leaders of his own parties are opposing his nominee, due to his extremist statements during the election-campaign in wake of secret documents leaked by the Panamanian law firm Mossack Fonseca, which pointed out on May 9, 2016 that Trump empire is linked to 32 offshore companies, including the real estate project Trump Ocean Club International Hotel and Tower in Panama—and thus, avoided taxes. Earlier in statement, Sen. Bernie Sanders had criticized US Hillary Clinton for supporting the Panama Free Trade Agreement as Secretary of State. He explained that the agreement, which “he opposed, opened the door to greater tax evasion by Americans.”

The TTIP leak by Greenpeace on May, 2, 2016, relating to a sweeping free trade agreement under negotiation by the EU and the US has shown how US can pressure EU to compromise health and the environment under trade deal.

On May 1, 2016, in connection with the Congressional investigation, CIA Director Brennan said that documents which could link Saudi Arabia to 9/11 terrorists should be kept classified.  

It is also of particular attention that US internal problems such as curtailment of liberties, failure of the Obamacare, criticism of Hilary Clinton about contributions of election-campaign from Wall Street backers, email-scandal etc. disappointed the Obama Administration. While in wake of the election-campaign, Republicans and American public have also been criticizing the government of Democrats and CIA for America’s (NATO) longest war in Afghanistan, facing defeatism, useless proxy wars under the cover of global war on terror and US heavy cost of war which caused serious financial crisis, adding to the dilemmas of Americans.

Owing to its confused policies, at present, the Obama Administration is pressing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to agree for the two-state solution of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. A majority of the intellectuals and analysts of the West have also been emphasizing upon the settlement of this dispute.

In a speech to the Israel advocacy group J Street, American Vice President Joe Biden remarked on April 18, 2016, “I firmly believe that the actions that Israel’s government has taken over the past several years…the steady and systematic expansion of settlements, the legalization of outposts, land seizures…are moving us and…Israel in the wrong direction.”

Even, a debate has started between the Zionists and non-Zionist Jews for the two-state solution of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. On March 21, 2016, in a speech in Utah, the only Jewish Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders had sparked controversy by saying, “The US should be even-handed and must not always say that Netanyahu is right.” He criticized Israel’s treatment of Palestinians, condemning the expansion of West Bank settlements and blasting Prime Minister Netanyahu’s withholding of tax dollars from Palestinian authorities and called for an end to the economic blockade of Gaza. Earlier, in an interview with the New York Daily News on April 1, 2016, Sanders remarked about Israel with blood libel in relation to the August 2014 Israeli war in the Gaza Strip by elaborating that Israeli forces bombed apartment houses and hospitals and “killed 10,000 Palestinian civilians..Israel’s force was more indiscriminate than it should have been.”

Here, it is also notable that since the fundamentalist party BJP led by the Indian Prime Minister Narindra Modi came to power in India, it has been implementing anti-Muslim and anti-Pakistan agenda. India which have strategic partnership with Israel has perennially been manipulating the double standards of the US-led West regarding world phenomena of terrorism, Pakistan, China, Afghanistan etc., while exploiting their anti-Muslim approach to obtain Indo-Israeli secret designs. Both Tel Aviv and New Delhi have been equating the ‘wars of liberation’ in Palestine and Kashmir with terrorism, and under the cover, accelerated state terrorism on these controlled territories. Their main purpose is to divert the attention of the West from their own atrocities, while employing delaying tactics in the solution of these issues.

Particularly, fast growing economic power of China coupled with her rising strategic relationship with the Third World, and especially Pakistan—after signing of the agreement, ”China-Pakistan Economic Corridor” has irked the eyes of Americans, Indians and some major European countries.

The US-led European countries’ double standards are likely to provide Israel with an opportunity to manipulate the situation to conduct more terror attacks in Europe and the US so as to implicate Syrian-based ISIS.

Nonetheless, the above mentioned developments like differences among the EU countries, refugee crisis and to fortify the US alliance with the Western countries, particularly Europe, to divert the attention of American public from internal problems, prolonged war on terror etc., and especially to avoid the solution of the Israeli-Palestinian issue, Mossad can avail the vicious circle of terrorism to arrange terror attacks in the US and Europe.

Therefore, instead of pursuing secret states’ strategies of the past in the modern era, Western counterterrorism experts and policy makers must follow realistic approach by thinking on these lines. They need to detect the role of Mossad which would continue to target Europe and the US by conducting terror attacks through the ISIS terrorists. They must also seek solution of the Syrian and Palestinian crises, including the Kashmir dispute. While, loyalist Americans,  non-Zionist Jews and peace-loving citizens of every other religious community should play their positive role for world peace by stopping the division of the international community on religious and cultural lines.  

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

India’s Kashmir Map Issue

By Sajjad Shaukat

In the earlier this month, the draft bill which was up for public consultation was published on the Indian home ministry’s website. It suggests that anyone distributing a map the Indian government deems to be wrong and could be liable for a billion-rupee fine and jail time. Through passage of this bill, the Indian government would be able to penalize individuals and organizations who depict Jammu and Kashmir as a disputed territory as per the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolutions.

Pakistan foreign ministry on May 17 has expressed serious concerns to the UNSC) and UN secretary general through letters with regard to the Indian government’s efforts to introduce a controversial ‘Geospatial Information Regulation Bill’ in the Indian Parliament which aims to restrict geographical depictions of India and disputed Kashmir to those that are government-approved. The letters elaborated that in violation of UNSC resolutions, the official map of India has been depicting the disputed territory of Jammu and Kashmir as part of India which is factually incorrect and legally untenable. The letters also called upon the UN to uphold the UNSC resolutions on Kashmir and urge India to stop such acts which are in violation of international law.

In this respect, Pakistan’s foreign office spokesman pointed out “We have urged the international community and the United Nations to fulfill their commitment with the people of Jammu and Kashmir by holding an independent and impartial plebiscite under UN auspices.”

It is notable that during the partition of the Sub-continent in 1947, the ruler of Jammu and Kashmir, Hari Singh, in connivance with Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and Governor-General Lord Mountbatten, had decided to join India, quite contrary to the wishes of the majority of Kashmiris.

When a contention arose between India and Pakistan on the Kashmir dispute in1948, India took the issue to the United Nations Security Council and offered to hold a plebiscite in the held Kashmir under UN supervision. On February 5, 1964, India backed out of its promise. Instead, in March 1965, the Indian Parliament passed a bill, declaring Kashmir a province of India.

While passing through various phases, the struggle of Kashmiris which has become an interaction between Indian state terrorism led by the Indian security forces and war of liberation by the freedom fighters, keeps on going unabated.

Despite the employment of various forms of state terrorism by the Indian security forces, war of liberation intensified since 1989.

A report on human rights violations by Indian Army and its paramilitary forces in Indian-held Kashmir disclosed that since 1989, there have been deaths of 93,274 innocent Kashmiris, 6,969 custodial killings, 117,345 arrests and 105,861 destructions of houses. Indian brutal security forces have orphaned over 107, 351 children, widowed 22,728 women and gang raped 9,920 women.

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. Under the Jammu and Kashmir Disturbed Areas Act, and the Armed Forces (Jammu and Kashmir) Special Powers Act and Public Safety Act, security forces have extraordinary powers to shoot suspected persons.”

Particularly in 2008, a rights group reported unmarked graves in 55 villages across the Indian occupied Kashmir. In this context, in August, 2011, Indian Jammu and Kashmir State Human Rights Commission (SHRC) 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 organizations including Association of Parents of Disappeared Persons (APDP) have pointed out that unnamed graves include thousands of innocent persons, killed by the Indian military and paramilitary troops in the fake encounters including those who were tortured to death.

It is mentionable that leader of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and Prime Minister of India Narendra Modi has taken various steps to strengthen Indian illegal control on Kashmir. The Modi regime hurriedly decided to forcibly annex disputed territory of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, uncovering its intentions to wrap up the article 370 of the Indian constitution which ensures a special status to J&K. Therefore, United Nations Military Observer Group India and Pakistan in New Delhi was asked to vacate official accommodation. In fact, BJP government‘s long term strategy is to affect demographic changes in the Indian occupied Kashmir by composition of the region—predominately with Hindu population.

During one year of People’s Democratic Party (PDP)-BJP alliance government in the Indian Occupied Kashmir, BJP in aid of RSS has furthered its agenda of complete integration of Kashmir into India. Though legal experts of India and IOK High Court have clarified the permanent status of Article 370 of Indian Constitution, BJP’s agenda of trifurcations is still on table. In this context, BJP is in hot pursuit of Mission 44+in IOK Assembly elections 2020. However, short of that, BJP and RSS are busy in changing religious identity of the State. For example, special concessions were given to expand the horizon of Amarnath Yatra to project that Hindus have greater stakes in IOK than Muslims.

Special efforts are being made for demographic engineering in the State. For instance, West Pakistan Refugees have been recruited in the Indian Armed Forces from IOK quota. Allocation of lands for separate cities for repatriating Hindu Pundits and allocation of INR 2 million for rehabilitation of each Pundit family in the Valley are aimed at creating Hindu constituencies in a thorough Muslim region of the Valley through delimitations.

Kashmiri Hurriyat leadership has been suppressed by the PDP-BJP government by not allowing them to organize rallies for demanding freedom and expressing love for Pakistan. Their leaders were detained in Police Stations or kept under house arrests during all important events.

Detention of Masarat Alam, even after acceptance of bail by IOK High Court, exhibits coercive mechanics of Indian forces/police in the State.

Indian malicious intent is evident from the blame game against Pakistan for every internal security issue, merely to avoid serious dialogue on bilateral issues as well as the humanitarian crisis in Kashmir. Pakistan is committed to the just and democratic solution of the Kashmir issue, which is plebiscite, however, India has never been serious in resolution of the dispute, neither through bilateral dialogue nor involving third party mediation nor by abiding by the UN resolutions.

Nevertheless, India’s Kashmir map issue shows that New Delhi is quite non-serious in settling the Kashmir dispute with Islamabad. Hence, the US-led major powers must take action on Indian negative measures, as Kashmir remains the nuclear flashpoint in South Asia.

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@yahoo.com

Reinventing politics of ‘70s and ‘90s

Mohammad Jamil

The opposition in Pakistan is poised to pressurise the government through public rallies to frame Terms of Reference (ToRs) for the judicial commission. The ruling party of the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) has also decided to start a public contact campaign, and has announced that the prime minister would address public meetings throughout Pakistan, starting with Imran Khan’s home ground, the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Amazingly, both sides of the divide give no sense at all if they are posturing, as normally political parties do at the time of the elections.

On Friday, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif addressed the nation, and to defuse the pressure, announced that he would write a letter to the Chief Justice of Pakistan regarding the formation of an inquiry commission to probe the allegations in the Panama Papers leaks. The ministry of law and justice immediately issued a notification, which also mentioned the ToRs that have already been rejected by the opposition parties.

In addition to examining the information related to the involvement of Pakistani citizens, persons of Pakistan origin, and legal entities in offshore companies in Panama or in any other country, the judicial commission would also look into the involvement of former and present holders of public office in getting their bank loans or those of their immediate family members written off using political influence. The opposition leaders have rejected the ToRs, and the formation of the commission under the Pakistan Commission of Inquiry Act 1956, which they allege is being done for ulterior motives. Another point being raised is that instead of confining the probe to the present and past rulers, the commission has been assigned many tasks, such as probing thousands of persons and entities who got their loans written off. The opposition parties demand that the government include the investigations by international auditors and forensic experts in the ToRs.

Prime Minister Sharif, who is otherwise mostly calm and composed, lost his cool and made personal attacks on his opponents during the address to the nation. It was an ill-advised speech, which was reflective of the mentality of his advisors. Without taking Imran Khan’s name, he made personal attacks, and passed acerbic remarks against Khan. After the Kargil episode when differences had emerged between civil and military leadership, the then PML-N information minister and a few others had advised Sharif to ‘fix up’ some generals to show them who the ‘boss’ was. In his address on Friday, Sharif asked who would question those who overthrew his government, registered a case of plane hijacking, and passed the 17th amendment. It appears that his advisors are upping the ante, and reinventing the politics of 1970s and 1990s, fraught with extreme dangers.

Leader of the Opposition Khursheed Shah, Chairman Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf Imran Khan and other leaders have rejected the ToRs, which they argue should have been decided with the consent of the opposition parties. According to the renowned legal and constitutional expert, Salman Akram Raja, the process of probing 220 people whose names have been mentioned in the Panama Papers may take 50 years. Instead of confining the probe to the present and past rulers, the commission has been assigned many tasks such as probing thousands of persons and entities who got their loans written off using their clout with the ruling parties. Though the information minister, Pervez Rashid and other PML-N leaders say that the proposed judicial commission has been mandated to appoint international auditors and forensic experts, that has not been included in the ToRs issued by the government.

Meanwhile, the PML-N has decided to take the matter to the people of Pakistan and chalked out a plan to hold public meetings throughout Pakistan. It has to be mentioned here that in 1977 the Pakistan National Alliance had taken out rallies against poll-rigging, and as a reaction to that, the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) also started staging rallies, which led to confrontation and loss of life. The PPP had agreed to hold re-election on 35 seats, but due to prolonged talks the law and order situation had become serious, and the country was facing anarchy. It was in this backdrop that General Zia-ul-Haq imposed martial law in Pakistan. There is a perception that statements by the COAS General Raheel Sharif have been instrumental in the alteration of stance by the government, resulting in the decision to form a commission to be headed by the Chief Justice of Pakistan.

On last Tuesday, General Sharif said: “Across the board accountability is necessary for the solidarity, integrity and prosperity of Pakistan, and war against terror cannot be won unless the menace of corruption is uprooted. Pakistan’s armed forces will fully support every meaningful effort in that direction, which would ensure a better future for our next generations.” He offered all-out cooperation of the armed forces to purge the country of the scourge of corruption. He declared that there was a need to have across the board accountability, and he started it from his own institution. Within 48 hours of the above-mentioned statement, six military officers were dismissed from service after a court of inquiry found them at fault. One three-star general, one two-star general, three brigadiers and one colonel were sacked for abuse of authority and amassing illegal wealth; and their ranks and benefits have also been revoked.

Last year, General Sharif had also given go-ahead to the National Accountability Bureau for inquiry into the DHA scam, involving brothers of the former COAS, Ashfaq Pervez Kayani. In August 2015, two retired generals were punished for corruption amounting to Rs 4.3 billion in the National Logistic Cell, forfeiting their ranks, decorations, medals, honours, awards, seizure of pension, recovery of personal gains, cancellation of service benefits and all other allied facilities. With his actions, General Sharif has proved that there is no ‘holy cow’ that cannot be touched or talked about.

A test case for Pakistani politics

Mian Saifur Rehman

As Opposition and certain segments of public opinion are building up momentum, relying upon the Panama Leaks’ chapter relevant to Pakistani politics, it has of course become a test case for Pakistani politics more so for the incumbent Nawaz Sharif government.

The latter is, however, making use of all democratic options to dilute the anti-Nawaz momentum like contemplating Track II discussions with some Opposition parties, starting from the ‘soft; Opposition leaders through people who have their presence in both the camps.
Now the situation has evolved in such a manner that the onus of responsibility to resolve the issue overwhelmingly lies on the Prime Minister and time is the key factor to the outcome of the current political imbroglio — the longer it persists, more intense it becomes. It would be best for the PML-N government to contain its tempo and find a way out soon.
The overall opinion formed during discussions at different thinking forums is that Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, should have contented himself with the fact that his name was not directly mentioned in the Panama documents and, as such he should not have gone for the option of addressing the nation.
According to these circles, the PM’s addresses to the nation explaining his own position followed by PML-N top leaders jumping into the fray, has further complicated the controversy.
Instead, the things should have been handled with extra caution and sagacity since political solutions are not to be tackled with aggressive reactions and responses. And now the PML-N has adopted an altogether different route as the previous aggression has been replaced with the PML-N’s flippant attitude towards the Opposition as if the PML-N leadership were of the opinion that the impact of the Panama Leaks will fade away.
The ground realities are, however, going the other way round as the impact of Panama Leaks is not fading away especially over the repeated disclosures. And though it doesn’t mean that this impact is specifically anti-Nawaz, the government being the main vehicle of state power just can’t absolve itself of the basic responsibility of dealing with an imbroglio-like situation.
Moreover, the current situation is different from what it was when the PTI launched its 2014 sit-in. The PM should realize the ground realities as they prevail now. If vast majority of political parties and religious groups decide to work together to challenge the PML-N, the latter will have to come across greater difficulties.
One way to dilute the situation is taking into consideration the Opposition's current stance towards the form and function of the proposed inquiry commission and its ToRs as well as Opposition’s stand that there are some inherent shortcomings in the Act VI of 1956 which, according to Opposition leaders in general and renowned lawyer Aitzaz Ahsan in particular, doesn’t adequately empower an inquiry commission to thoroughly probe and conclusively determine any complex question or an issue like Panama Leaks probe.
In these circumstances, the government can weigh the option (or suggestion) of forming an inquiry commission on the lines of the framework of General Elections-2013 Inquiry Commission Ordinance 2015 after finalizing its ToRs in consultation with the Opposition.
The thinking forums are also of the opinion that the government has to watch against the perception that has been built up recently that there is growing strain in civil-military relations against the backdrop of perceived anti-military propaganda suspected to be floated by the federal government echelons.
Actually certain people within the federal government had misread the army chief’s statement calling for an end to corruption as pressure tactics against the government and hence this perception or misperception.
In this entire scenario, the government’s obligations stand multiplied as it has to look after many fronts including the most crucial front of Madrassah reforms and societal mobilization for countering extremism and terrorism which may be put on the back-burner if PML-N opts not to isolate itself from strong and influential religious segments at this moment because of its fight for survival.

The Bangla justice

Mian Saifur Rehman

Justice is a global phenomenon based on universal principles of natural justice. It is, therefore, unrealistic to divide justice into regional justice or into Bangladeshi justice, Indian justice or for that matter American justice (a la Guantanamo Bay).

Some time back, an Indian Home Minister, while commenting on Mumbai attacks, expressed his desire before the press that the culprits must be brought to ‘Indian justice’. Isn’t it a mockery of the basic concept of justice that too in a country that claims to be the biggest democracy of the world? Can a democracy be termed real, genuine democracy if it doesn’t cater to the universal principles of justice?

The answer is, of course, in the negative. And now, the world has witnessed yet another example of mockery of universal justice in the shape of execution of 70 plus- year-old Jamaat Islami (JI) leader in Bangladesh (BD), Matiur Rehman Nizami. This act of ‘Bangladeshi justice’ seems to be inspired by the concept of ‘Indian justice’. For sure, it draws inspiration and motivation from ‘Indian justice’ as Nizami’s hanging (he is the 4th JI leader hanged in BD on the same count) was the utmost desire of some anti-Pakistan Indian leaders as well as their ‘disciples’ in BD’s higher echelons.

The only crime committed by JI leader Nizami and his other three colleagues hanged some time back was that they opposed the separation of eastern wing from the rest of Pakistan. They were true lovers of Pakistan, the same Pakistan whose creation was conceptualized by Bangali leaders who were in the forefront of Pakistan Movement.

It is saddening to note that such harmless people were hanged that too following a trial which, according to international jurists’ public proclamation, was not conducted strictly in accordance with proper legal procedures. According to these jurists whose opinion has appeared in the media, serious lacunae have been found out in the trial proceedings. The standard practice throughout the world in such improper legal proceedings is that the accused is given benefit of doubt. But, in the case of this JI personality, neither benefit of doubt was given nor was his age factor and commitment to religious style kept into consideration. The verdict seems to have been announced in haste as well as under pressure from the government of Sheikh Hasina Wajid which holds sway over the judiciary through the parliament. According to legal experts of the region, parliament holds some levers of authority over judiciary in Bangladesh.