Friday, March 29, 2024
04:04 PM (GMT +5)

Go Back   CSS Forums > General > News & Articles

News & Articles Here you can share News and Articles that you consider important for the exam

Reply Share Thread: Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook     Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter     Submit Thread to Google+ Google+    
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
  #91  
Old Sunday, November 08, 2009
37th Common
Medal of Appreciation: Awarded to appreciate member's contribution on forum. (Academic and professional achievements do not make you eligible for this medal) - Issue reason: CSP Medal: Awarded to those Members of the forum who are serving CSP Officers - Issue reason: Diligent Service Medal: Awarded upon completion of 5 years of dedicated services and contribution to the community. - Issue reason:
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,514
Thanks: 1,053
Thanked 1,681 Times in 873 Posts
AFRMS has much to be proud ofAFRMS has much to be proud ofAFRMS has much to be proud ofAFRMS has much to be proud ofAFRMS has much to be proud ofAFRMS has much to be proud ofAFRMS has much to be proud ofAFRMS has much to be proud ofAFRMS has much to be proud of
Default

Remembering Yasser Arafat

By Tayyab Siddiqui
Sunday, 08 Nov, 2009

So in the Libyan fable it is told

That once an eagle, stricken with a dart,

Said, when he saw the fashioning of the shaft,

“With our own feathers, not by others’ hands,

Are we now smitten.”

— Aeschylus

THE Palestinians will mark the fifth death anniver sary of Yasser Arafat on November 11 with their future still bleak and with no leadership to pull them out of misery and hopelessness. Indeed, their 40 years of struggle to regain their basic rights and usurped territory appears to have been in vain.

They have demonstrated incredible determination and resoluteness in fighting out their enemies and offered unprecedented sacrifices, yet they see darkness on the horizon.

During his life, Arafat’s policies drew criticism, even cynicism, from both friends and foes alike. The disunity and isolation, which has been the fate of the Palestinians since his death as evident from the factional fights between Hamas and Fatah, reveals how critical his presence was to keep them united.

Despite serious setbacks and heavy odds, Arafat considered the dispossessed and besieged Palestinians at par with Israelis. Intifadah I and II presented Israel with the stark choice of either land or peace. Had the Arab states given full support to the Palestinians and/or put pressure on the US, the sacrifices would have borne fruit. Arafat died a frustrated man, but not a failed leader. The greatness of a leader is measured in terms of his commitment to the cause and determination to persevere in his objectives. In this respect, Arafat ranks among the great leaders of the last century.

Arafat not only gave a sense of dignity and identity to the Palestinian diaspora, he also proved that the Palestinians reckon no sacrifice too high in the achievement of their goals. He finally decided to opt for the peace process and signed the Oslo Accords in 1993. The great revolutionary turned into a votary of peace, and in the last decade of his life, carried on his mission for a peaceful negotiated settlement. He did not succeed, not for want of political will or courage but for the perfidy and arrogance of his adversaries.

There is no denying that Arafat made monumental mistakes that brought misery to his people, such as his support to Saddam during the Gulf War, which not only deprived him the support of the Arabs but also resulted in expulsion of almost half a million Palestinian workers from the Persian Gulf states. His refusal to accept the Camp David peace plan presented by President Clinton in the twilight of his presidency in 2000 was yet another misjudgment, which led to a cryptic remark by Abba Eban — “Arafat never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity.”

Clinton, in the last months of his presidency, took the initiative of resolving the Palestinian issue. He called a summit of the two protagonists, Ehud Barak and Yasser Arafat, on July 11, 1995. He presented his peace plan that envisaged return of 94 to 96 per cent of the West Bank, for a ‘non-militarised’ state of Palestine in return for giving up the absolute right of return. Arafat refused to compromise on the basic rights. In his biography “My Life,” Clinton bitterly called this a colossal mistake and wrote, “Perhaps Arafat simply could not make the final jump from revolutionary to statesman.”

The vicissitudes Arafat faced during his 40 years of struggle could have humbled anyone, but he displayed rare qualities of a survivor. He kept the PLO intact, and emerged from each crisis more determined to carry on his mission.

His leadership and policies have been the subject of severe criticism. History will, however, judge him in the context of the backdrop of his struggle, which Arafat explained as follows:

“Many people think that the cause of Palestine resembles that of Vietnam, Algeria or even South Africa. But although there is a resemblance in some aspects, there is some thing entirely unique about our cause … No other country has been confronted with a plan to liquidate its national identity as has happened in the case of Palestine, nor confronted a plan to empty a country of its people as has happened in the case of the Palestinian people. It goes beyond anything previously recorded in modern history.”

I was fortunate to have had quite a few encounters with Arafat, some in hospitable environments, others not so agreeable. But after each meeting, my respect for him increased. My first meeting with him was in Amman in 1970 where I was posted at the Pakistan Embassy.

On September 6, 1970, four international airliners were hijacked by Palestinians led by the legendary Laila Khaled, at a World War II airstrip in Jordan. Of the 600 passengers held hostage, 15 were Pakistani. I received instructions from Islamabad to negotiate their release, being then charge d’ affaires of our Embassy in Amman.

This was my first encounter with Yasser Arafat, lovingly called Abu Ammar by his compatriots.

From Amman, I was transferred to Beirut the following year, and the contacts were revived when the PLO shifted its headquarters to Beirut, where it stayed until 1982 when Israeli invasion forced them to exile in Tunis. My last contacts were during 1997-1999.

Arafat visited Cairo often to attend Arab League meetings, and as Ambassador of Pakistan I had frequent social occasions to meet him. Often we reminisced about the past. Arafat was a broken man, as neither the approach to peace in terms of the Oslo Accord succeeded, nor had the armed struggle borne fruit. He held Arab regimes partially responsible for their failure to put considerable pressure on the US.

Arafat’s struggle for return of the occupied territories and establishing a Palestinian state did not succeed either. But the tenacity and sincerity with which he persevered in his struggle has secured him the noblest niche in history.

The current state of Palestinian despair and fragmentation has been brilliantly summed up by British Foreign Secretary Miliband: “Palestinians feel cheated and abused. The grandiose peace promise is a scam … They talk with Israel but fear they are being robbed of that which they are supposed to be talking about. Palestinian people are losing faith in a fair settlement.”
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old Sunday, November 08, 2009
37th Common
Medal of Appreciation: Awarded to appreciate member's contribution on forum. (Academic and professional achievements do not make you eligible for this medal) - Issue reason: CSP Medal: Awarded to those Members of the forum who are serving CSP Officers - Issue reason: Diligent Service Medal: Awarded upon completion of 5 years of dedicated services and contribution to the community. - Issue reason:
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,514
Thanks: 1,053
Thanked 1,681 Times in 873 Posts
AFRMS has much to be proud ofAFRMS has much to be proud ofAFRMS has much to be proud ofAFRMS has much to be proud ofAFRMS has much to be proud ofAFRMS has much to be proud ofAFRMS has much to be proud ofAFRMS has much to be proud ofAFRMS has much to be proud of
Default

Trust deficit in relations with the US

By Hussain H. Zaidi
Sunday, 08 Nov, 2009

THE message that emerged from the recent visit of US secretary of state to Pakistan is that despite claims of a long-term, multi-faceted partnership, trust deficit continues to characterise the relations between the two countries.

On the part of Washington, the trust deficit is on two counts: One, the suspicion that the security establishment of Pakistan is not going all-out in tracking down Al Qaeda leadership; two, the apprehension that Pakistan’s nuclear material may fall into the hands of terrorists, who may use it against the US. On the other hand, a significant segment of Pakistani intelligentsia continues to suspect that the war against terrorism in which Islamabad is a frontline player is essentially Washington’s war and that all the repercussions of the war on the country’s society and the economy are a ‘gift’ of American ‘friendship’.

Seen in the context of Pak-US relations during the last sixty years, the trust deficit is hardly surprising.

A watershed in Pak-US relations was the conclusion of a mutual defence assistance agreement between the two countries in 1954. This was followed by Pakistan’s joining South East Asia Treaty Organisation (Seato) and the Baghdad pact subsequently renamed Central Treaty Organisation (Cento). These agreements institutionalised Pakistan’s relations with the US and made it a recipient of huge American military assistance.

However, there was an inherent flaw in that relationship: lack of identity of vital interests. Perceptions of Indian threat and its military superiority had driven Pakistan to court America’s friendship. For Pakistan, the membership of the American club gave it the umbrella to shield itself against any Indian aggression. However, the US was not much interested in protecting Pakistan against India. Seato and Cento were created to contain communism, and the US was obliged to help Pakistan only in the event of an attack by a communist power.

Hence, not surprisingly, when war broke out between Pakistan and India in 1965, the US opted to remain neutral and clamped an arm embargo on both countries. For Pakistan, being overwhelmingly dependent on US military assistance, the arm embargo was a stab in the back. The American neutrality brought out the ineffectiveness of Pakistan’s defence agreement with the US and also of Seato and Cento accords. This warranted the need for reviewing Pakistan’s ties with the USA.

Then, again in 1971 Indo-Pak war, the US did not help Pakistan. It merely condemned Indian invasion of the then East Pakistan which was of little help to Pakistan. The US neutrality was in spite of the fact that Pakistan had facilitated the famous secret visit of Henry Kissinger to China a few months before the 1971 war.

During the Z.A. Bhutto government, there was a fundamental shift in Pakistan’s relations with the US. Bhutto had the vision of a powerful Islamic bloc as a counterweight to world powers. During this period, Pakistan left Seato but remained a member of Cento because of its relations with Iran and Turkey who were also its members.

It was left to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 to revive Pak-US relations. The invasion which coincided with the advent of Islamic revolution in Iran was considered by the US as a serious threat to its interests in the region. It was through Pakistan that the US fought its proxy war with the Soviets. Islamabad, of course, was fully rewarded for its services, militarily and economically.

However, in the absence of the Soviet or communist threat, nuclear non-proliferation came to dominate the relations between the two countries as it was at the top of the US foreign policy agenda.

The 9/11 reshaped US foreign policy. Counter-terrorism became the criterion for defining US allies and enemies. This also forced the US to re-define its relations with Pakistan.

Osama bin Laden was believed to be operating in the Taliban-ruled Afghanistan. The Taliban were the creation of Pakistan and until then enjoyed friendly relations with Islamabad. In fact, Pakistan was one of the few countries which had recognised the Taliban regime.

American policy makers knew well that without Pakistan’s support it would not be possible for the US to crush the Taliban and Al Qaeda. In the words of the US secretary of state, “To get at Al Qaeda, we had to end Pakistan’s support for the Taliban. So we had to recast our relations with that country.” That is why immediately after the 9/11 strikes, the US faced Pakistan with the choice, “Either you are with us or against us”.

There was not to be a middle course. Pakistan decided to side with the USA.

Since then South Asia has been the frontline region and Pakistan the frontline state in the US counter-terrorism campaign. The war against terrorism is a drawn-out one, and as long as the focal point of war remains this region, Pakistan will remain a top US ally.

However, once the war is over or the focal point shifts to another region, the party will be over. Then the US will see Pakistan through the glasses of non-proliferation. And this is an area where the two countries have divergent views.

Washington has never approved of Islamabad’s nuclear programme and would like to see it rolled back or capped. Islamabad, on the other hand, has so far resisted all attempts at bringing its nuclear programme to a halt and would go ahead with that.

Despite their convergence of interest — fight against religious extremism and terrorism — the two countries do differ as to the locus of the threat. Pakistan’s immediate threat emanates from the Taliban and it is the Taliban insurgency that the security forces are fighting in Waziristan. The US regards Al Qaeda as its main enemy.

The 9/11 incident was planned and executed by Al Qaeda and not the Taliban, although Al Qaeda leadership was reportedly operating from Afghanistan under the umbrella of Taliban regime.

There is a strong nexus between the Taliban and Al Qaeda as both profess the same ideology of ‘militant Islam’. But they are not the same. Whereas the Taliban are a local organisation, Al Qaeda is a global outfit. The demise of the Taliban will not root out Al Qaeda, though it may weaken it. The Taliban do not pose a direct threat to US security, though they are a menace to Pakistan’s security. For Washington, the dismantling of the Taliban is merely a means to that of Al Qaeda. It may even embrace the Taliban if they cease their support to Al Qaeda.

The US suspects that religious elements in the security establishment of Pakistan have a soft corner for Al Qaeda. It is this suspicion which accounts for stringent conditions contained in the Kerry-Lugar law. In particular, the provisions of the Act relating to strengthening of democracy in Pakistan, non-interference of the armed forces and spy agencies in political matters and civilian control over military affairs are rooted not in US love for democracy in Pakistan but in its perception of the involvement of security forces of Pakistan in terrorism and nuclear proliferation.

Whether this perception is correct or not is beside the point. What is important is that this perception exists. This perception notwithstanding, Washington is aware that without the support of Islamabad’s security establishment, it cannot dismantle Al Qaeda network in the region. For the US, one way out of this dilemma is to make the security establishment completely subservient to the civilian government, which itself does not hold much of a promise.

No doubt, the US has used Pakistan as an instrument to safeguard its interest on several occasions — the most obvious being the campaign against USSR invasion of Afghanistan, and this can be a good reason for suspecting the current US claims of friendship with Pakistan. However, the fact remains that the war against terrorism is Pakistan’s own war, which we have to fight and win with or without US assistance.
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old Sunday, November 15, 2009
37th Common
Medal of Appreciation: Awarded to appreciate member's contribution on forum. (Academic and professional achievements do not make you eligible for this medal) - Issue reason: CSP Medal: Awarded to those Members of the forum who are serving CSP Officers - Issue reason: Diligent Service Medal: Awarded upon completion of 5 years of dedicated services and contribution to the community. - Issue reason:
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,514
Thanks: 1,053
Thanked 1,681 Times in 873 Posts
AFRMS has much to be proud ofAFRMS has much to be proud ofAFRMS has much to be proud ofAFRMS has much to be proud ofAFRMS has much to be proud ofAFRMS has much to be proud ofAFRMS has much to be proud ofAFRMS has much to be proud ofAFRMS has much to be proud of
Default

Climate change vs free trade

By Devinder Sharma
Sunday, 15 Nov, 2009

THE countdown has begun. The forthcoming UN Climate Change conference (popularly called CoP 15) scheduled to be held at Copenhagen on Dec 7-18 is generating tremendous excitement. Climate change has suddenly become the buzzword. As top political leaders are getting ready to descend on Copenhagen, there is surely a thrill in the air.

A handful of international NGOs, which dominate the global debate, have managed to very deftly shift the entire development discourse to climate change. The United Nations (not only UNEP, but all its other arms), the bilateral donor agencies like USAID/DFID, and the global think-tanks like the International Food Policy Research Institute (which are no better than the corporate rating agencies) have for quite sometime been active in putting climate change on the top of the global development agenda. And they have surely succeeded.

In the process, the real issues confronting the world have been very conveniently swept under the carpet. So much so that if you don't talk about climate change you appear to be out of fashion, feel outdated.

I am therefore not amused to see South Asian NGOs, which otherwise swear in the name of poverty, hunger and food insecurity, suddenly riding the climate change bandwagon. Even dalit and adivasi issues are being linked to climate change. I wouldn't be surprised if someone tries to find a correlation between climate change and the gender dimension. This is not only true of India but almost all the civil society organisations in the developing world. In reality, they are looking forward to an opportunity to be there where the action is. I mean travelling to Copenhagen, so that they can tell their colleagues: "yes, I was there."

This reminds me of the euphoria that the world had witnessed before the Earth Summit held at Rio in Brazil in 1992. The Indian media I remember had gone into an overspin before the Rio Summit. Almost all who wrote front page stories on the threats facing the Earth, landed at Rio. Once the summit was over, the journalist came back to their respective countries, and the Earth was forgotten. Environment became a downmarket subject for the media.

Nevertheless, the Copenhagen summit is expected to be somehow different. It is not only about emission standards but if you have been following it carefully, it is all about marketing green technologies and investments. I am not therefore surprised when heads of state talk about Green Technology Revolution on the lines of Green Revolution, not realising that Green Revolution is in a way responsible for exacerbating the climate crisis. In other words, the entire debate has been hijacked by the corporates to suit their business interests.

The UN says the world needs an investment of US $ 200 billion to fight climate change, which is a euphemism for corporate investment, and like proverbial cats you will see the heads of state fighting to get hold of a sizable pie. It is expected that the developed countries might offer the developing countries something between $90 billion and 140 billion per year to be used for clean technologies. Climate change therefore offers bright business opportunities.

Just a few days prior to the Copenhagen conference, the 7th Ministerial conference of WTO is being held at Geneva, from Nov 30 to Dec 2. The general theme of the WTO Ministerial will be The WTO, the Multilateral Trading System, and the Current Global Economic Environment. Surprisingly, the WTO Ministerial is talking in terms of the global economic environment and not climate change. The two international treaties that have hogged the limelight for quite some time are the WTO and the Kyoto Protocol. While one relates to global trade, the other is about climate change. Global trade is not only about economic growth but also seriously impacts climate change. After all, trade is not going to be conducted on bullock carts. It will mean more transportation, which means more burning of fossil fuels and therefore more global warming.

In other words, both the ongoing international negotiations work at a cross-purpose. And yet, no one is talking about the role trade will play in bringing the world to a tripping point. The reason is simple. Any effort to bring in trade in the climate change negotiations will hurt corporate interests.

The World Bank has, through its Global Economic Prospects report, already said that a successful Doha Round completion could generate $291 billion in global economic gains. It of course did not tell us how much the world would have to suffer by way of rise in the average global temperature. So, in other words, the Doha Development Round of WTO paves the way for $291 billion gain, essentially for business and trade, whereas a successful completion of the CoP-15 would mean an additional business opportunity of $200 billion for the manufacturers of green technologies.

In the mid-1980s the OECD had published a study, which had estimated that by the end of 2004, when the WTO Uruguay Round was expected to complete, there would have been an increase of 70 per cent in internationally traded goods as compared to 1992. This of course would mean that more fossil fuels would be burnt to transport these goods across the continents. Already OECD estimates shows that 60 per cent of the world's use of oil goes for transportation, which are more than 95 per cent dependent on fossil fuels.

OECD estimates had also shown that 25 per cent of carbon emissions, with some 66 per cent of this coming from rich countries, are from the global transport sector. When the Doha round comes to a close, I am sure you will agree that the greenhouse gas emissions from transportation would only skyrocket. But we will never be told how much would that be, and what should the world do to usher in green trade.
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old Sunday, November 15, 2009
37th Common
Medal of Appreciation: Awarded to appreciate member's contribution on forum. (Academic and professional achievements do not make you eligible for this medal) - Issue reason: CSP Medal: Awarded to those Members of the forum who are serving CSP Officers - Issue reason: Diligent Service Medal: Awarded upon completion of 5 years of dedicated services and contribution to the community. - Issue reason:
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,514
Thanks: 1,053
Thanked 1,681 Times in 873 Posts
AFRMS has much to be proud ofAFRMS has much to be proud ofAFRMS has much to be proud ofAFRMS has much to be proud ofAFRMS has much to be proud ofAFRMS has much to be proud ofAFRMS has much to be proud ofAFRMS has much to be proud ofAFRMS has much to be proud of
Default

Hillary’s fact-finding mission

By Shahid R. Siddiqi
Sunday, 15 Nov, 2009

AFTER three days of America-bashing that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton endured during her recent visit, she must have carried back an interesting baggage – some realistic and some troubling assessments about how Pakistanis look upon the war on terror that many believe America has imposed on them. If she is honest, she will report to President Obama the disdain that exists in Pakistani streets for America’s thoughtless policies.

She experienced this firsthand. A tribesman from Fata, where fighting rages against the Pakistani Taliban and where American drones kill hundreds of women and children, said to her point blank, "Your presence in the region is not good for peace."

Clinton was here for personally assessing ground realities important for Obama’s future war strategy now under review. She wanted to know the mood of the people, Zardari’s prospects amid public anger against him and reading the mind of Pakistan’s military, which remains the key player in matters related to defence and Afghan war.

Washington has, in the past, turned a deaf ear to sensitivities and opinions from Pakistani civil society and the media about its heavy-handed, counter-productive, insensitive policies that generated public distrust and anger which eventually turned into hatred for America. Obama administration, like others before it, relies for decision-making on Washington-based neoconservatives, military hawks, short sighted diplomats and the so called `experts’ who are either unaware of ground realities, or hide unpleasant facts, telling the administrations only what they want to hear or perpetuate their own distorted visions.

Today, as polls indicate, Pakistanis dislike the US for unreliability, unfriendly policies, patronage of dictators and corrupt and inefficient rulers, interference in Pakistan’s internal affairs, readiness to take advantage of Pakistan at the cost of Pakistan’s security and allying itself with Pakistan’s arch enemy, India. In this backdrop, Hillary’s visit comes as a breath of fresh air. One does not expect a policy change but that she can give a correct input to her administration in relation to Pakistan.

Clinton later told CNN that she anticipated the "pretty negative situation" in Pakistan, but she said "I wanted to have these interactions. ... I don't think the way you deal with negative feelings is to pretend they're not there ..."

She did well to broaden the scope of her visit by meeting a cross-section of civil society. Even though she was sheltered from adverse public opinion, with participants being carefully screened, yet they challenged her on sensitive issues such as drone attacks, mammoth new embassy, suspicious activities of Blackwater, violations of law by American marines, American plans of denuclearising Pakistan and its support to anti-Pakistan elements.

While some of her answers were forthright, to many an awkward question Clinton had no answers. “… [T]his issue is between the leadership of two sides. So let’s not discuss this here,” was her typical evasive line.

On the question of Afghan war, in no uncertain terms was she told by a woman journalist: "We are fighting a war that is imposed on us. It's not our war. It is your war. You had one 9-11. We are having daily 9-11s in Pakistan." And when her contention that the US and Pakistan face a common enemy in ‘terrorism’ was publicly rejected, Clinton admitted that "we're not getting through.”

In a country where 90 per cent people oppose this war, where its fallout turns their lives upside down and where the Afghan Taliban are regarded as national resistance to American occupation this answer is perfectly legitimate. Critical media coverage about American policies caused Clinton to retort that the US would respond “aggressively” to the misreporting by Pakistani media. When this drew immediate response from the media’s spokesperson who said: “We should understand the actual message behind her statement…..”, the US embassy clarified that Clinton was not making any threats. “It has been taken wrong. The word aggressive doesn’t mean that US will take any action…”

Clinton’s meeting with General Kayani, Pakistan’s Army chief was significant. The general’s influence on the presidency is well understood and Pakistan Army is the custodian of nuclear assets. The meeting was aimed to figure out General Kayani’s response to upcoming war strategy, in which Obama would most likely want Pakistan Army to play a role, and discuss the security environment. She must have also tried to make sense of President Zardari’s position in view of the increasing confrontation he faces from the Army on security issues.

A female MNA, Marvi Memon, who refused to meet Clinton, said in an open letter: “…. there are patriotic Pakistanis who will defend the soil before accepting your policies of creating a US fiefdom in Pakistan. As a young parliamentarian, I would only welcome you to Pakistan once we have evidence of your shift in policy so that Pakistan is dealt with as a sovereign country.”

In her meeting with prominent tribesmen in the NWFP, which bears the brunt of the Taliban violence, she heard the same hostile message: Pakistanis do not want American friendship due to its policies, despite offer of a multi-billion-dollar aid package.

Clinton repeated her call for Pakistan to get Al Qaeda leadership. "…… [O]ur best information is that they are somewhere in Pakistan, and we think it's in Pakistan's interests, as well as our own, that we try to capture or kill the leadership of Al Qaeda." Pakistan has consistently denied knowledge about Al Qaeda’s presence on its soil and asked the Americans to point it out if they believe it is here. Recent call for air attacks on Al-Qaeda leaders in Quetta by Anne Patterson, the intemperate US Ambassador in Islamabad in ‘her imperial hubris’ (to borrow a phrase from Eric Margolis) lends credibility to the allegation that America intends to destabilise the situation in Balochistan.

If Clinton kept an open mind and made some sense of the criticism she heard, she should have drawn some important conclusions.

One, there is enormous pent up anger against decades of manipulative American policies towards Pakistan. Two, Pakistanis intensely dislike American intervention in their internal affairs. Three, no government in Islamabad can survive for long that opts to serve the interests of the Americans rather than its own people. Four, Pakistanis would aggressively reject self serving American policies that threaten Pakistan’s interests.
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old Sunday, November 15, 2009
37th Common
Medal of Appreciation: Awarded to appreciate member's contribution on forum. (Academic and professional achievements do not make you eligible for this medal) - Issue reason: CSP Medal: Awarded to those Members of the forum who are serving CSP Officers - Issue reason: Diligent Service Medal: Awarded upon completion of 5 years of dedicated services and contribution to the community. - Issue reason:
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,514
Thanks: 1,053
Thanked 1,681 Times in 873 Posts
AFRMS has much to be proud ofAFRMS has much to be proud ofAFRMS has much to be proud ofAFRMS has much to be proud ofAFRMS has much to be proud ofAFRMS has much to be proud ofAFRMS has much to be proud ofAFRMS has much to be proud ofAFRMS has much to be proud of
Default

Uncertain fate for NRO beneficiaries

By Izzud-Din Pal
Sunday, 15 Nov, 2009

THE Park Lane deal is the latest in the saga of charges of corruption against Mr Asif Ali Zardari and the news about this deal carried by a leading English daily in Karachi in the first week of this month has not so far been contradicted or clarified by the presidency. The deal which came up in 1997 had a basis in fact after all, as the media reports indicate. In the final shape of the deal Mr Asif Ali Zardari and his son Bilawal Ali Zardari are reported to own 30,000 shares each in the company.

For Mr Zardari to serve as a director in the Park Lane Estates Pvt. Limited concurrently with his duties as president is clearly contrary to his constitutional responsibilities as president. Senior lawyer Senator S.M. Zafar said in a TV talk show on November 4 that under Article 43 of the constitution, the president of Pakistan could not hold a profitable position. The president resigns from other posts at the time of taking charge of his office. As mentioned by this writer in this space several times before, even combining the office of co-chairman of his political party also falls in the same category, even though it is not necessarily for profit motives, but it represents a clear conflict of interest.

Meanwhile, this will not be the first time that Bilawal’s name has come up in the context of his family’s dealings. In November 2007, Benazir Bhutto made phone calls from Dubai to loved ones and close associates to get her affairs in order. In her call to Bilawal she informed him about secret bank accounts that held the family’s fortunes. The National Security Agency (NSA) of the US was listening, however, according to Ron Suskind (The Way of the World, 2008), who suggests that the investigators had suspected about the accounts and the ill-gotten reserves of money held in them.

These and other portentous conversations recorded by the NSA gave USA a strong weapon to play games more effectively in arranging Bhutto-Musharraf association of convenience, and protect US interests. All this of course is part of Benazir’s planned return to Pakistan in 2007. On October 18, in a long procession to the mausoleum of Mr Jinnah she faced the possibility of assassination. It was at the time the worst suicide bombing in history of the country.

While she now waited for further developments in her estate in Karachi, the political events started to unfold in quick succession, leading up to the declaration of the state of emergency by General Musharraf on November 3, 2007. Trip to Dubai was an interlude before returning to Pakistan for the national elections. From all reports it is evident that she was quite apprehensive. Her address at the Liaquat Bagh in Rawalpindi made it possible for the assassin to take her life.

The NSA intercepts, however, have longer life as a rule. It is safe to assume that Mr Zardari lives under the shadow of this ‘evidence’ against Bhutto-Zardari family in his dealings with the US.

As for Bilawal Ali Zardari, he is a young man with little experience. Being next in the line of succession as chairman of People’s Party he cannot expect a smooth sailing in the politics of the country. Also Mr Asif Ali Zardari as president has set himself on a course of action which would perhaps make it difficult for him to avoid its consequences.

The February 2008 elections gave a clear verdict against continuation of military rule in any shape or form in the country, and it was felt that General Musharraf was not the man to preside over transition to democracy. The Bush administration also was inclined to review its relations with him. A person to succeed the general, therefore, would have to meet double expectations: support at home and abroad. Mr Zardari was perhaps acceptable to the US as the spouse of Benazir Bhutto, and by virtue of his association with a secular political party. His credentials as a right man for democracy were quite weak, however, though he started to claim succession to the position by indirectly declaring at Punjab Governor’s residence that the next president of Pakistan would be a PPP jayala. But he had to first clear the decks and send the general home, and he did that by using Mr Nawaz Sharif for this purpose. It was the victory of Machiavellian power play over principle.

Those parliamentarians who voted for him obviously ignored the fact that Mr Zardari was taking the office under the shadow of charges of misdemeanour against him, and as a beneficiary of PCO of General Musharraf. Given this fact, he would feel quite comfortable with special powers that came with the position. Perhaps these parliamentarians held no strong views about this issue. All this does not augur well for transition to democracy. With the pre-PCO judiciary declaring many of the special orders established during the military rule as unconstitutional, however, his position and that of his cronies has been exposed.

The Bonaparte has feet of clay -- the NRO and charges of corruption. And blanket amnesty has carried no public support. Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani claims that NRO and NRO Plus are both dead. It is also being claimed, on the other hand, that Mr Zardari would be immune from any legal proceedings against him while serving as president. The NRO provides a limited waiver and might perhaps offer presidential protection from legal action in its framework. The final verdict can be given only by the Supreme Court on this issue. The immunity to the president from prosecution, however, cannot be interpreted as broadly as it is being done in some sections of the media. How can president be given unlimited immunity, for example, for illegal or mala-fide acts committed while in office, which cannot be deemed to be in discharge of his official functions? Or holding any other office which would create conflict of interest in his duties as president?

The developments relating to NRO have been a clear setback for him. He obviously has learned nothing. He now seems to be on his new cycle of cobbling up a survival strategy. He is even ready to offer a key position to Aitzaz Ahsan, an outcast in the party, if he can help him in any manner. The purpose is to skirt around the legal requirements through give-and-take deals by means of what he calls alliance, coalition, or reconciliation. A Machiavellian power play as mentioned above. Even if he succeeds at the level of parliament, he certainly would face a stumbling block at the Supreme Court. A possible reaction at the street level cannot be ruled out as well.

Pakistan has not been very lucky in attracting high quality of leadership to serve its people. At this juncture in its history it could use some of it. Decades of neglect of citizens and the institutions built to serve them are beginning to have their impact. Neglect of agricultural reforms has empowered feudalists and pauperised the peasantry. Ignoring universal primary education is producing a semi-literate population.

The country needs effective governance, in order for the leaders to deliver their services to people. Zardari government, however, is occupied with its survival, on issues related to corruption, perks for cronies, and the legacy of ‘special powers’. Mr Zardari is known to be a friend of friends and there are a lot of them around waiting for his generosity. When he travels abroad, he stays at luxurious six thousand dollars a day accommodations. How many poor could be fed at $1.25 a day for that amount? How can he claim to be a leader of the people, to serve the people and to be guided by the people? He is out of sync with reality.
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old Sunday, November 15, 2009
37th Common
Medal of Appreciation: Awarded to appreciate member's contribution on forum. (Academic and professional achievements do not make you eligible for this medal) - Issue reason: CSP Medal: Awarded to those Members of the forum who are serving CSP Officers - Issue reason: Diligent Service Medal: Awarded upon completion of 5 years of dedicated services and contribution to the community. - Issue reason:
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,514
Thanks: 1,053
Thanked 1,681 Times in 873 Posts
AFRMS has much to be proud ofAFRMS has much to be proud ofAFRMS has much to be proud ofAFRMS has much to be proud ofAFRMS has much to be proud ofAFRMS has much to be proud ofAFRMS has much to be proud ofAFRMS has much to be proud ofAFRMS has much to be proud of
Default

Misjudging media freedom in Pakistan

By Ilhan Niaz
Sunday, 15 Nov, 2009

IN the Reporters Without Borders’ Press Freedom Index rankings 2009, Pakistan is given 159th place out of a total of 175 countries. According to the organisation’s website, the ranks are awarded on the basis of questionnaires that are circulated amongst journalists and media experts. These relate to instances of physical assault/intimidation, indirect pressure in the form of intelligence surveillance and corporate manipulation, official censorship and self-censorship, economic influence, the extent of control of media, etc.

The objective is to assess “the state of press freedom in the world. It reflects the degree of freedom that journalists and news organisations enjoy in each country, and the efforts made by the authorities to respect and ensure respect for this freedom.” Given the survey’s scope and different areas of focus several points emerge.

First, one-party states, theocracies, police states and the like, which practise the systemic suppression of thought and expression and ruthlessly crush dissent are likely to be at the bottom of the list. Pakistan is not a one-party state, neither a theocracy nor a conservative monarchy allied to some religious establishment like Saudi Arabia. Pakistan is also not a police state and if the November 2007 emergency of Musharraf’s fading military regime is any indication such methods are likely to prove counterproductive. Criticism of the rulers and their policies are open and so is the journalistic investigation and exposure of their crimes and misdemeanours.

The openness, volume and severity of this criticism are greater than nearly all other Asian or African countries. While one can certainly detect preferences in the reportage and opinions of Pakistani news channels and newspapers with some being more conservative, others moderate and liberal, this is hardly anything unique to Pakistan. Similar divisions exist in the news media of nearly all industrialised liberal democracies. The fact is that the people of Pakistan, like those of the United States of America, have a choice that they can exercise freely. And yet, Pakistan’s rank in the worldwide press freedom index places it in the same category as Uzbekistan (160), Saudi Arabia (163), Burma (171) and Iran (172). Amazingly, Sudan and the Democratic Republic of Congo tie for 148th place while Afghanistan gets 149th and Qadhafi’s Libya comes 156th.

Second, states that are experiencing insurgency, escalating criminal activity or terrorism are likely to take a battering when it comes to the safety of journalists. The evaluation criteria include acts of violence and oppression perpetrated by non-state as well as state actors on the news media. On this front, one is constrained to admit that Pakistan is not going to do nearly as well as it should though other countries that also face widening insurgencies and unrest like India (105) have a far better position on the list. The general level of insecurity due to the terrorist campaign has placed all of Pakistan’s national institutions under assault or threat of assault. Pakistan’s journalists, more so than their colleagues in other parts of the world, operate at considerable risk to themselves.

Without making any excuses for Pakistan’s unsafe environment it must be said that the situation cannot be worse or even as bad as Afghanistan, where there is no functional state to speak of, or the besieged Palestinian Territories (161) or pirate-warlord dominated Somalia (164) that has been in chaos for the past 19 years. At the same time the degree of media freedom is perceptibly greater in Pakistan than in other trouble spots. The government has often pleaded with the news media to show greater restraint when it comes to covering acts of terrorism. It is also a matter of some interest that terrorist organisations in Pakistan seek to manipulate the freedom of the media to serve their own interests. The Pakistani media also deserves great credit for operating with a high level of freedom in a deteriorating security environment. That said, since the Reporters Without Borders index is called the “Worldwide Press Freedoms Index Rankings” and not the press safety ranking, media freedom should get more weight in the final score than safety.

Third, there is the question of corporate or state ownership of, or influence upon, the media. In countries with a highly developed corporate sector that has branched out into owning and operating news media organisations it stands to reason that the owners will lay down certain policy parameters. Advertising revenues are another source of indirect corporate control.

That the state-owned PTV channels generally support the government line though even here the growing appeal of live programming and competition from the private sector has considerably diluted the viability of old-fashioned censorship. One must also concede that the news media structure is somewhat like an oligopoly with a few well-established media conglomerates well ahead of the rest of the pack. And yet, there are 70 or so privately owned television channels and scores of newspapers that collectively act as a testament to Pakistan’s diversity of opinion and audience. It would take very careful comparative study to determine whether at a structural or operational level Pakistan’s media is more subject to state influence and corporate subversion than the media in the industrial democracies or in the developing world.

Finally, there is the issue of self-censorship and public censorship of press, electronic media and the Internet. Pakistan is one of very few countries where it is possible to openly question national identity, the right to exist as a separate country, national security policy and the public role of religion/ideology. There is a mainstream opinion that stands for a strong national defence inclusive of nuclear weapons and a public role for Islam within a democratic constitutional framework but would be relieved if relations with India were normalised and religious radicalism rolled back.

There are also fringe opinions on the liberal left and the religious right and lobbies for and against a particular line of action on just about any major issue. But that is not very different from lobbies in the United States or the self-censorship exercised by Western media when it comes to covering the Middle East or by the Indian media when it involves Kashmir.

The Internet remains wide open in Pakistan. In contrast, countries like Saudi Arabia and China (168) systematically block websites deemed subversive. Iran, during the recent protests after the presidential elections, took the popular Facebook website offline and is reputed to keep a close eye on what goes on the Internet. While a more thorough study of Internet freedom in Pakistan ought to be conducted it is abundantly clear that on this count it does not fall in the same category as Saudi Arabia, China and Iran.

One can only wonder what methodology would enable Pakistan to be bracketed alongside one party dictatorships, theocratic police states and warlord infested polities on the issue of press freedom. A request for clarification from Reporters Without Borders for Pakistan’s was sought in this regard. A representative from the Asia-Pacific Desk, stated: “Thanks for your comments about the ranking. In fact, it is not a ranking about media diversity or pluralism, but a press freedom violations ranking. The bad situation of Pakistan in the ranking is mainly due to the attacks against journalists by [T]aliban and other groups, but also some restrictions by the state.”

The representative’s clarification raised far more questions than it answered. It was astonishing to find out that the ranking was not about a free media expressing a plurality of views with minimal or no censorship but concerned primarily with press freedom violations. If that is the case Reporters Without Borders should rename its index the Worldwide Press Freedom Violations Ranking. The organisation should also clarify its highly misleading paper on the methodology of its survey given that a country that does well on

multiple fronts can have its entire score ruined by threats made to journalists by the Taliban, other militant groups, and some interference by the government. When more questions were submitted to it asking, for instance, how exactly, going by the Taliban and militancy theory, Afghanistan ended up getting a higher ranking than Pakistan, no response was received. In this particular instance, silence says far more than any number of clarifications could.

Global rankings of all sorts have become a very popular phenomenon. And in some cases these rankings do reflect reality. In terms of Transparency International’s corruption ranking Pakistan’s placement towards the bottom of the list is probably well deserved. In the case of press freedom, however, Pakistan deserves much better than 159th place out of 175.

The writer is a faculty member of the Quaid-i-Azam University, Department of History, Islamabad.
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old Sunday, November 22, 2009
37th Common
Medal of Appreciation: Awarded to appreciate member's contribution on forum. (Academic and professional achievements do not make you eligible for this medal) - Issue reason: CSP Medal: Awarded to those Members of the forum who are serving CSP Officers - Issue reason: Diligent Service Medal: Awarded upon completion of 5 years of dedicated services and contribution to the community. - Issue reason:
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,514
Thanks: 1,053
Thanked 1,681 Times in 873 Posts
AFRMS has much to be proud ofAFRMS has much to be proud ofAFRMS has much to be proud ofAFRMS has much to be proud ofAFRMS has much to be proud ofAFRMS has much to be proud ofAFRMS has much to be proud ofAFRMS has much to be proud ofAFRMS has much to be proud of
Default

Politics by other means

By Dr Rasheed Hasan Khan
Sunday, 22 Nov, 2009

IN the wake of an attack on the GHQ and suicidal bomb blasts in many cities, a military operation in South Waziristan was launched. This is the culmination of the military’s strategic planning to wipe out the bastion of extremism and destroy its operational capability. The first phase of the operation is to complete in two months. As the operation begins to make a successful headway, the Taliban are reacting desperately by unleashing a wave of powerful reprisal bomb explosions in Islamabad and Peshawar in particular. The blasts have caused great damage to life and property but the damage to the morale of the state apparatus and the population at large is greater.

Meanwhile, the US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made a trip to Pakistan amidst great fanfare but had nothing new to say. It was the usual recounting of the immense amount of funds the US had already disbursed and reassuring Pakistanis that much more funds were in the pipeline, subject to satisfactory compliance with US edicts. Her sessions with the media were notable because of the bold and pertinent questions she had to face from the Pakistani newsmen and the university students in Lahore. Her response to many questions was diplomatic rather than factual.

In brief, the message she tried to convey was that the Pakistani establishment was turning a blind eye to the existence of Al Qaeda leadership on Pakistani soil. This mission apart, there was a reiterated reference to aid package of $7.5 billion over the next five years to further American strategy in the region without any demur. She proclaimed the turning of a new page in US-Pakistan relations but only time will tell what the new page has in store for the people of Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Coming back to the situation in the tribal areas, it is imperative to trace the roots of the insurgency in the tribal areas adjacent to the Afghan border. For this, one has to go back to the events of 9/11and immediately afterwards. As Gen Pervez Musharraf has written in his book, President Bush's speech and a phone call from deputy secretary Armitage was enough to bring about a complete U-turn in the regime's policy with regard to Afghanistan and Taliban.

When the US invaded Afghanistan, there was a sudden influx of refugees in the tribal areas. They took shelter there in accordance with the tribal customs governing such matters. Since the US as well as Pakistani leadership were convinced that the campaign in Afghanistan would be over as soon as the Taliban government in Kabul was overthrown, they did not pay much attention to the exodus. But the events did not take place according to their plan. The war in Afghanistan kept raging and the increasing exasperation of the US government forced the Pakistani government to resort to a disastrous military action to oust the Taliban and refugee elements from the tribal areas, especially the Waziristan region.

Many years down the road after that horrendous display of death and destruction, another operation in South Waziristan is now under way to decisively smash the organisational structure of the Taliban. It is clear that the war in the tribal areas is not a conventional warfare fought to capture and hold territory. It is more like a guerilla war. A it happens in a war of attrition, time is exchanged for space to alter the balance of forces.

The war in South Waziristan has entered the third week and the military spokesman is optimistic about the eventual outcome .The objective will no doubt be realised since there is going to be no great effort on the part of the opposing forces to fight battles of fixed positions. The real problem is what happens after that. As long as there is unrest in Afghanistan, it will continue to have its fallout on the tribal areas and the rest of Pakistan. There can be little doubt about that. How and when the problem of Afghanistan is resolved is mainly up to the US and its Nato allies to decide but for Pakistan it is of vital importance to wrap up the operation in Waziristan successful as soon as possible because we cannot afford to maintain troop deployment in forward positions indefinitely. Nor can we afford the mayhem in the cities, an offshoot of the operation, for an indefinite period.

The leadership of the present government, especially the military topbrass, is no doubt familiar with Clausewitz's aphorism: “War is a continuation of politics by other means.” The war in South Waziristan is meant to achieve certain political objectives such as elimination of religious extremists, who had created a mini-state there with a different political system altogether or, in other words, had attempted to separate from Pakistan. Would it not be an appropriate follow-up that necessary steps were taken to do away with the social environment that helped nurture the forces of religious extremism? What will be needed is the creation of a new economy, new social relations and new culture which are compliant with their region’s humane, progressive and glorious traditions.

Since the imposition of Gen Zia's martial law, Pakistani society saw a gradual increase in the preaching of the bigoted, obscurantist version of Islam that ultimately marginalised democratic thought and values . From its womb sprang sectarian killers and suicide bombers. During the last twenty years, those at the helm of the affairs after Gen Zia lacked the vision and did not have the courage to address this potential threat. Now that the problem has been thrust upon us we must squarely shoulder the responsibility of correcting past mistakes and bringing about social, political and economic reforms not only in the tribal areas but in the whole of Pakistan to create conditions inimical to the growth of religious extremism and terrorism. Only then can the use of the military measures have any justification.
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old Sunday, November 22, 2009
37th Common
Medal of Appreciation: Awarded to appreciate member's contribution on forum. (Academic and professional achievements do not make you eligible for this medal) - Issue reason: CSP Medal: Awarded to those Members of the forum who are serving CSP Officers - Issue reason: Diligent Service Medal: Awarded upon completion of 5 years of dedicated services and contribution to the community. - Issue reason:
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,514
Thanks: 1,053
Thanked 1,681 Times in 873 Posts
AFRMS has much to be proud ofAFRMS has much to be proud ofAFRMS has much to be proud ofAFRMS has much to be proud ofAFRMS has much to be proud ofAFRMS has much to be proud ofAFRMS has much to be proud ofAFRMS has much to be proud ofAFRMS has much to be proud of
Default

Can US take China as an equal?

By Karamatullah K. Ghori
Sunday, 22 Nov, 2009


AS it goes for his charm of fensives, President Barack Obama has yet to show that there’s anything more to them than just charm and soft diplomacy. The one he delved into earlier this year, with so much fanfare, with regard to the Muslim world very largely remains a non-starter, more than half-a-year later, with Israel’s hard-line Benjamin Netanyahu viciously thumbing his nose at Obama to scuttle any prospects of a new beginning for US policy vis-à-vis the Muslim world.

Obama’s very first charm offensive, i.e. the commitment to close down the notorious Guantanamo Bay concentration camp, has come a cropper, with Obama forced to eat his own words on its promised deadline for closure.

Undaunted by reverses, however, Obama seemed to be diving into yet another one this week in China, which in more senses than one is now the most important country in the world for him and whatever he may deem of making of his turn at the helm of our world’s only reigning superpower in regard to that country.

China’s astounding economic and industrial leap-frog from a piddling economy, which saw millions perishing in Mao’s ‘Great leap Forward,’ just 50 years ago, to an industrial giant and an economic power house of enormous potential, is now making it a cake-walk for economists to predict that in less than twenty years China will have overtaken US as the globe’s pre-eminent economic leader. That one factor alone must be a powerful incentive for Obama to court the country which figures higher any other on the American economic chart.

On its own part, China too has all the economic impulses to stay on the right side of the US, which is such a huge market for its industrial and consumer goods. When the US economy was hit hard last year by recession and the consumers, per se, tightened their purse strings, China saw 20 million jobs going down the drain because of the drying up of its most lucrative market. China has enjoyed a huge advantage in the balance of its trade with US, largely because of the hunger of American consumers for Chinese goods.

China also has other economic compulsions to stay on a healthy course of economic exchanges and interactions with the US. The bulk of its astronomical 2.2 trillion dollars in foreign currency reserves is held in US dollars, which makes it the keenest country in the world to covet a robust recovery of the sinking green-back.

But it has been a complex and tortuous relationship between the two countries during the past six decades since the founding of the People’s Republic of China. It has been a relationship defying all archetypal definitions and descriptions that normally explain relations between any two countries. It has been much more than a love-hate relationship, with the US traditionally arrogating to itself the role of a concerned and fretting guru whose erstwhile disciple and protégé may have gone awry. It was this guru or big brother narcissism that Barack Obama seemed acutely conscious of the need to shirk and clearly jettison before he set foot on the Chinese soil.

Obama ventured into China within his first year in the White House, unlike all of his predecessors who thought of doing it much later in their office. That was a bold assertion of his own claim that he’s the ‘first Pacific President’ ( meaning one who is prepared to give precedence to the countries of the Pacific Ocean rather than those on the Atlantic, as did most US Presidents who were thoroughly Euro-centric).

In another marked departure from the practice of his forebears, the US president didn’t beat his chest or bang his fists to demand better human-rights performance by China before being feted by its leaders. So conscious was Obama of the need to not offend the Chinese leaders on this issue that he refused to meet the Dalai Lama who was recently in the US. That must have sent a positive signal to his hosts on the prickly issue of Tibet.

Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore’s father figure, in an interview to Michael Elliott of the Time magazine on the eve of Obama’s visit to Singapore for the APEC Summit, was brutally frank in castigating the western fad that the Chinese people were being starved of democracy. Chiding Elliott, Lee said the Chinese people had no fetish for democracy; instead, they had a clear hankering to improve their standard of living through their own effort the way Singapore Chinese or those in Hong Kong and Taiwan have done so eminently.

Lee Kuan Yew spelled out his prophetic vision about the 21st century. ‘The first half of the 21st century—a large part of it—will still be American,” he told another American television interviewer: “But I believe the second half you’ll have to share top places with China and also India.”

Does Obama understand all this, and conscious of it was he trying, in his charm offensive to lay the foundations of a relationship of equality between an awakened and energetic China and an increasingly vulnerable and debilitating US? The odds, however, look not only daunting but discouraging given the present ground realities in the backdrop of the 21st century to which Lee Kuan Yew was alluding.

The most obvious difference between these two countries is their current agendas for the foreseeable future.

Whatever Barack Obama may intone for the record in reference to the US foreign policy in the world, and howsoever he may use his guile and charm to sell it to the world, the US remains aggressive, expansionist and militarist with an agenda of global domination on the strength of its yet unrivalled fire-power and fearsome capacity to decimate those daring to challenge its dictum.

With the political demise of George W. Bush only the policy ‘face’ of US has changed, with a smiling, charming and soft-selling Obama replacing an irascible and jingoistic Bush addicted to shooting-from-the-hip. The essence of the neocon dream of ruling the world and shaping its 21st century thrust according to Pax Americana hasn’t, really, lost much of its verve and vigour.

Obama went to Beijing to canvass support for tougher measures and sanctions against Iran on the nuclear issue. China matters a lot there because the UN Security Council can’t rubber stamp the western countries’ (US, Britain and France) plans to bamboozle Iran without getting Russia and China on board with them. Obama reached Beijing flushed with success in having twisted the arm of Russian President Medvedev and co-opted him to the western agenda.

However, Hu Jintao didn’t concede ground to Obama on Iran, for obvious reasons. Iran is crucial to China, primarily, as a trusted source of oil for its galloping industrial progress. Secondarily, China, over the past six decades has judiciously pursued a pacifist policy to seek peaceful and negotiated settlement of disputes, shunning the rush to use power.

President Hu Jintao, likewise, refused to buckle under enormous pressure from the US to revalue its currency, vis-à-vis the dollar. The par value of the Chinese Yuan has been a perennial source of friction between the two, with US accusing China of deliberately keeping its Yuan low in order to reap an export bonanza. This forced the mainstream American media to lament that Hu Jintao succeeded in micro-managing the Obama agenda in China.

But what the US media doesn’t mention or allude to is the fundamental difference in the mechanism of policies between China and US.

In all the five millennia of its recorded history, China has never been an aggressive or expansionist power. The only instance of an aggressor venturing out of the extended Chinese landmass was that of the Mongols under Chengiz Khan and Halaku. But even those blood-thirsty Mongols mellowed down to become innocuous pacifists once they put down their roots in mainland China and adapted themselves to its culture.

US, in contrast, has been aggressive and expansionist in all 250 years of its existence, fighting more wars, in all parts of the world, than any of its contemporaries. The China-US twain shall have hardly any room to meet, at any juncture in this century or the centuries to come unless this basic chasm in perception of power changes. The present course of policies from Washington and Beijing doesn’t offer much hope or optimism on this account.
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old Sunday, November 22, 2009
37th Common
Medal of Appreciation: Awarded to appreciate member's contribution on forum. (Academic and professional achievements do not make you eligible for this medal) - Issue reason: CSP Medal: Awarded to those Members of the forum who are serving CSP Officers - Issue reason: Diligent Service Medal: Awarded upon completion of 5 years of dedicated services and contribution to the community. - Issue reason:
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,514
Thanks: 1,053
Thanked 1,681 Times in 873 Posts
AFRMS has much to be proud ofAFRMS has much to be proud ofAFRMS has much to be proud ofAFRMS has much to be proud ofAFRMS has much to be proud ofAFRMS has much to be proud ofAFRMS has much to be proud ofAFRMS has much to be proud ofAFRMS has much to be proud of
Default

An ideology with genes of discord

By Shahzeb Khan
Sunday, 22 Nov, 2009

A human genome is to an individual, what an ideology is to a society. As a genome determines an individual’s physical make-up, so does an ideology by dictating what a society must do. Each society at some point in its history consciously adopts an ideology. This, then, is interpreted and reinterpreted, not only by the state but also by anyone who desires to seek a specific response from the people.

The state demands conformity and thus keeps asking people to check their behaviour against what the ideology seeks from them. Every effort is made to sanctify the state ideology so that no one dares to violate it. This ideology forms a centre and it is made clear that any deviation from this centre will only unleash destructive anarchy within the society.

An ideology, if not carefully constructed, can become a Frankenstien’s monster. If it contains seeds of venom, dangerous interest groups can sow them in a society to grow myriad trees of poison. Ideology, thus, can be something inherently dangerous if it carries genes of discord. Unfortunately, the ideology that we adopted as a rationale to secede from India also had these genes of discord. It relied too heavily on religious identity and did not promote pluralistic attitude among the people.

Because of the prime importance given to a peculiar interpretation of Islam in the national ideology, the religion continued to be exploited for political purposes by the Muslim League and other groups for their narrow agendas. The state, whenever it was expedient, brought into play this ideology to demand a favourable response from the people. Be it Ayub Khan’s efforts to win elections against Fatimah Jinnah, or Bhutto’s land reforms, Zia’s referendum to continue his authoritarian rule or Sharif’s nuclear test explosions; at every significant juncture of our political history, the national ideology was manipulated to win society’s sanction.

The narrative that explained the two-nation theory relied solely on the imaginary walls erected between religions by the stalwarts of the Muslim League and the latter-day theorists of this ideology. It was this notion that regimented the masses to make ‘the Hindu’, a non-Muslim, the object of their hatred. The episodes of violence from 1947 cemented their belief of hatred towards the non-Muslims—Hindus and Sikhs. The same rationale that ‘if it is a non-Muslim it is an enemy’ was used to rally the believers against the USSR in the years after 1979. Later, political outfits with extremist tendencies brainwashed marginalised members of society by exploiting the same binary structure of Muslims/non-Muslims.

Simplifying a real problem facing a society is an important task of an ideology. The two-nation theory tried the same in the context of 1947. However, it can no longer disentangle the myriad ends of the intertwining grapevine of extremism in the country. After 9/11 no efforts have been made to present a coherent, convincing narrative which might have presented the country with a much needed ideology, though one was put forth by Musharaf: the notion of Pakistan first and that of enlightened moderation. The ideas were appealing, but his lack of legitimacy resulted in the demise of his prospective ideology for the nation.

Thus, we are going through a phase where we do not have a narrative that coherently explains our present imbroglio. Since, there is no coherent ideology, efforts like playing patriotic songs are not doing the trick they did a few decades ago in the wake of a well-delineated non-Muslim enemy. In one such video being aired it becomes very perplexing to differentiate between terrorists and friendly fighters from the lashkar, when scenes in quick succession show bearded, shalwar-kameez clad, individuals running with AK 47s.

There, then, is a need to come up with a new ideology which addresses, simplifies and answers the present challenges. It should be potent enough to offer a convincing account of what our future can be like if we make it the centre which holds the society together. It should also be able to give us a new identity that helps us move ahead without compromising on our ennobling past. The ideology in the form of a grand narrative should also have the potential to explain our situation to the rest of the world and convince them of our sincerity regarding whatever we pledge to the international community. If we are successful in presenting such an ideology, we shall be able to render irrelevant most of the outfits that bank on an outdated ideology.

A question arises: who is capable of constructing such an ideology, which pulls the nation out of its current decadence and accomplishes everything an ideology can for a society. Let us look at probable contenders: the existing political parties, the army, media, and civil society.

The civil society can never come up with a coherent ideology for a country. By definition, they are not concerned with mega issues. They unite to accomplish certain small-scale community related tasks and can never form networks mapping different communities and cities to present a more nationalistic understanding of collective problems. The army in the Pakistani context cannot present the grand narrative encompassing a fresh ideology because the moment it will step in or take the leading role to present an ideology the support it enjoys today will vanish. It has happened in the recent past. The media is ill-suited to undertake such a grand task on its own. It can only propagate an ideology formed by someone else.

This elimination leaves us with political parties. Their duty it is to present grand ideas addressing the problems of a country. Ideally, if a paradigm shift is required then a revolutionary ideology is required and no revolution has ever come without a political party. We forget that individuals do not bring about a revolution, only parties do. Unfortunately, we do not have a revolutionary party. Unless, we have one we shall continue to frustrate ourselves even more by trying to find isolated answers of connected questions.
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old Sunday, November 22, 2009
37th Common
Medal of Appreciation: Awarded to appreciate member's contribution on forum. (Academic and professional achievements do not make you eligible for this medal) - Issue reason: CSP Medal: Awarded to those Members of the forum who are serving CSP Officers - Issue reason: Diligent Service Medal: Awarded upon completion of 5 years of dedicated services and contribution to the community. - Issue reason:
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,514
Thanks: 1,053
Thanked 1,681 Times in 873 Posts
AFRMS has much to be proud ofAFRMS has much to be proud ofAFRMS has much to be proud ofAFRMS has much to be proud ofAFRMS has much to be proud ofAFRMS has much to be proud ofAFRMS has much to be proud ofAFRMS has much to be proud ofAFRMS has much to be proud of
Default

Nuclear dimension of Pak-US relations

By Tayyab Siddiqui
Sunday, 22 Nov, 2009

HILLARY Clinton’s recent three-day visit to Pakistan, the most intensive and intrusive of any other per predecessor, is likely to cast long shadows over the two countries’ evolving bilateral relations.

The major malady that afflicts the relations between Washington and Islamabad is the trust deficit, which was also observed by Clinton. This has led to a feeling of acrimony between the two states.

Both believe that their concerns are not being addressed. She held wide-ranging talks with both high government officials and representatives of civil society. These meetings no doubt helped her develop a good understanding of Pakistani perceptions about their expectations from the bilateral relations.

While the offer of US assistance to Pakistan (Kerry-Lugar Bill) and its various modalities and conditionalties have irked Pakistanis, the issue is likely to be settled through adequate interaction with the administration and Congress.

The trust deficit problem, however, will continue to rankle and the deficit is not likely to be bridged unless a major exercise is undertaken and mutual concerns, particularly on the nuclear issue, are discussed frankly and remedies sought. Otherwise, the issue may prove intractable and disturb the apple cart.

Pakistan is genuinely perturbed by the reports and statements attributed to US officials, media and think tanks that go beyond the confines of this strategic partnership and appear malafide. Seymour Hersh’s recent report in The New Yorker on Pakistan’s inability to secure its nuclear warheads is just one illustration.

Over last 10 years, Pakistan has, at all levels and to all concerned, provided in detail the range and nature of security measures, the command and control structure and the legislative, institutional, procedural and administrative measures to ensure a fool-proof system.

Still, every now and then, questions are raised and hypothetical threat scenarios painted alleging that nuclear weapons and fissile material stock could fall into the wrong hands.

To ensure uncompromising security, a department — the Strategic Plans Division (SPD) — has been established under the Pakistan army for the security of these strategic assets. 10,000 personnel work with SPD to support this mandate.

Pakistan, as a responsible state and considering the obligations under international law, particularly under UNSC resolution 1540, has initiated legislative measure, currently before the National Assembly, “in order to re-demonstrate through the present law the resolve of the government to continue to exercise full and complete control and security and safety measures over all matters concerning nuclear and space technologies, nuclear establishments, nuclear systems, nuclear materials, relevant personnel and related information, etc.”

To allay the fears and apprehensions of the US, Pakistan voluntarily took the US in confidence. According to reports, US officials conducted a detailed review of the safety and security of Pakistan’s nuclear programme prior to military action in Afghanistan which included options for improving surveillance at sensitive sites, sharing devices to disable weapons and evaluating the reliability of essential personnel and security in the event that weapons must be transported.

During the Bush administration, 100 million dollars were reportedly spent on this highly classified programme to help Pakistan secure its nuclear stockpile.

Pakistan’s record on the nuclear issue has been consistent and transparent. In September, the Center for Non-Proliferation Studies in Monterrey, California, considered certain scenarios regarding Pakistani nuclear safety.

The first was about the potential impact of political instability, the second was the likelihood of nuclear terrorism, and the third related to the consequences of any temporary loss of centralised control over nuclear storage sites.

After analyzing each of these scenarios in detail, the center’s report concluded that public concerns about the security of Pakistan’s fissile material installations and safe custody of its strategic weapons might be overstated.

Notwithstanding Pakistan’s unblemished record, Pakistan welcomed US initiatives to help it secure its nuclear weapons.

The programme paid for training Pakistani personnel in the US and the construction of a nuclear security training centre in Pakistan. According to a New York Times report, a whole range of equipment was given to Pakistan to help secure its nuclear material, warheads and laboratories.

The Pakistan government is said to be reluctant to show American officials how or where the gear is actually used because it does not want to reveal the locations of the weapons or the amount or type of new bomb-grade fuel being produced.

The Pakistanis were suspicious that any American-made technology in their warheads could include a secret “kill switch” enabling the Americans to turn off their weapons.

US officials have complained that the Pakistan government’s reluctance to provide access has limited their efforts to assess the situation and not provided access to the nuclear laboratories where highly enriched uranium is produced.

On its part, there is deep suspicion among Pakistan’s public that the secret goal of the United States was to gather intelligence on how to locate and, if necessary, disable Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal. It is no secret that Pakistan’s nuclear status is not acceptable to US and the West.

Ever since Pakistan detonated its nuclear device in July 1998, all kinds of alarming scenarios have been painted focused on the capacity of Pakistan to guard them well and not let them fall into the wrong hands.

Hersh’s report in The New Yorker, under the sub-title, “In an unstable Pakistan, can nuclear warheads be kept safe,” has caused quite a stir in both Islamabad and Washington.

The report deals with the issue in great detail and inter alia reported that a secret understanding between Pakistan and the US would allow specially trained units to provide added security for the Pakistan nuclear arsenal in case of crisis.

The report has been denied by Foreign Office spokesman, but the Plutzer prize winner stands by this report. In a subsequent TV interview, Hersh disclosed that an elite US Special Forces squad operating in the garb of anti-terrorist escorts is already based in US Embassy in Islamabad.

Despite Pakistan’s sincere and effective efforts to provide total security and secrecy to its nuclear weapons, nightmarish scenarios continue and have gained currency and credibility leading to near-paranoia in Washington. In a recent report in The Guardian, two investigative reporters, Adrian Lerry and Scott Clark, revealed that Bush had been advised to consider sending elite troops to Pakistan to secure its nuclear weapons, if the country were to descend into chaos.

The nuclear safety issue has been a thorn in the side of the two primarily due to a trust deficit and reports that the US may militarily intervene to secure, even seize, control of the nuclear assets, has greatly upset Pakistan, and confirmed their worst fears.

Hersh acknowledged that the Pakistan army is in full control of the nuclear arsenal but that “the Taliban are running Islamabad is not the only concern. The principal fear is mutiny that extremists inside the military might stage a coup, take control of some nuclear assets or even divert a warhead.”

Zardari rightly scoffed at the proposition, regretting that the US is obsessed with the vulnerability of Pakistan nuclear arsenal.

He advised that Obama, instead of fretting about nuclear security in Pakistan, should deal with the military disparity between India and Pakistan for stability in the region.

The US administration should take this advice seriously, if it is sincere in engaging Pakistan as a strategic partner and on a long-term basis.

The Pakistani nation is too passionately attached to its nuclear status, sees it as a source of great pride and any ill-advised move by the US will unravel the entire strategy for peace and stability in this region.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
development of pakistan press since 1947 Janeeta Journalism & Mass Communication 15 Tuesday, May 05, 2020 03:04 AM
Dawn Word List Sureshlasi Grammar-Section 37 Monday, April 22, 2019 12:27 PM
An Indian View of Pak's Liberals Khyber News & Articles 0 Saturday, March 29, 2008 03:05 AM
Dawn Education Expo 2008 hijan_itsme News & Articles 0 Friday, February 29, 2008 11:13 PM
Why United States of Kashmir?- Encounter - DAWN armageddon Current Affairs 0 Friday, January 20, 2006 10:26 AM


CSS Forum on Facebook Follow CSS Forum on Twitter

Disclaimer: All messages made available as part of this discussion group (including any bulletin boards and chat rooms) and any opinions, advice, statements or other information contained in any messages posted or transmitted by any third party are the responsibility of the author of that message and not of CSSForum.com.pk (unless CSSForum.com.pk is specifically identified as the author of the message). The fact that a particular message is posted on or transmitted using this web site does not mean that CSSForum has endorsed that message in any way or verified the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any message. We encourage visitors to the forum to report any objectionable message in site feedback. This forum is not monitored 24/7.

Sponsors: ArgusVision   vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.