[B][I][CENTER][SIZE="5"]Pak-China relations are deep-rooted[/SIZE][/CENTER][/I][/B]


[I]A year-long celebration of Pak-China's 60 years of relations would bring even closer the two peoples[/I]


Ms. Wang Qianting, Bureau Chief for Pakistan of China Radio International (CRI), has said that Pakistan-China friendship was deeper than ocean and higher than mountains.

She was addressing as guest of honour at a special function jointly organised by Radio China Listeners Club (RCLC), Pakistan-China Friendship Association, Malik Saad Shaheed Sports Trust (Regd) Pakistan, on the eve of 60th anniversary celebrations of Pakistan and China relations at the Frontier Model School & College for Girls, Peshawar.

Members of the Chinese delegation, Provincial Minister for Higher Education Qazi Muhammad Asad, Minister for Livestock and Cooperatives Haji Hidayatullah Khan, Secretary-General Pakistan-China Friendship Association (Khyber Chapter) and President of Radio China Listeners Club Syed Ali Nawaz Gilani, Director Frontier Model School Khawjah Waseem, Principal of the School and Secretary of the Trust Amjad Aziz Malik and students attended the function.

In her fluent Urdu, Ms. Wang Qianting said the year of 2011 was being officially declared by both countries as the year of friendship and the function was part of the bilateral relations activity. "I have read much about the people living here who were famous for their hospitality and brotherhood," she added. Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa, she said, was a symbol of friendship between the two neighbours and that is why I was eager to visit here. I loved the way people of Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa treated me, she added.



A year-long celebration of Pak-China's 60 years of relations would bring even closer the two peoples, she said and added, Sino-Pak cultural exchange and development of CRI-DX Council would also be beneficial to our ties. She disclosed that she also has a Pakistani name "Musarrat" which means “joy” and can also talk even in Pashto because of her love with Pakistan and its people.

Ms. Wang Qianting stated that Pakistan-China Friendship Centre which was established by government of People's Republic of China and donated to Pakistan as symbol of friendship was one of the proofs of our love for each other. Diplomatic relations between Pakistan and China were established in May 1951 and since both countries are enjoying friendship at all walks of life and most beautiful part of these relations are peoples-to-peoples contact and twining of some Pakistani cities with Chinese cities.
She assured the girls students that steps would be selected so that they could also learn Chinese language. Ms. Wang disclosed that there was tremendous goodwill and trust between the two countries and they can move towards economic integration.

She disclosed that China Radio International (CRI) was established in 1941 and now working in 61 different languages, including Urdu programme with Chinese language class. The CRI has so far completed 2400 hours duration of its programme, including many on establishing international brotherhood.

She said in last 60 years the two countries have developed a relation of trust and belief and both have great respect for each other. She said while celebrating the 2011 as year of friendship, both the countries will hold a series of commemorative activities covering fields like politics, economy, culture, education, sports and etc. She said CRI has many listeners in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa and we give them great importance. In future many educational and cultural programmes would be aired besides students-to-students visits would be conducted. Haji Hidayatullah Khan and Qazi Asad also spoke on the occasion. They said that different functions in this regard should be arranged by government as well as private organisations, schools, colleges and universities to further strengthen our friendship.

They said that warm welcome presented by the people of Pakistan to Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao during his recent visit to Pakistan was an ample proof of our unbreakable ties.

Syed Ali Nawaz Gilani, Secretary-General Pakistan-China Friendship Association who is also President of Radio China Listeners Club in his Welcome address mentioned about the Pakistan-China relations and role of mass media in development and strengthening of these relationship. He also mentioned about Chinese People's Association for Friendship with Foreign countries (CPAFFC) China and its special relationship with Pakistani counterparts and positive effect on strengthening the relationship at the people’s level. He specially mentioned that Urdu Service of CRI completed 48 years of broadcasting this year, and CRI delegation will also visit Pakistan for their interaction with its listeners.

Gilani also mentioned that Chinese diplomatic mission in Pakistan extended their message of good wishes for this function and plan of other celebrations of Pakistan-China friendship keeping in view the specially relationship of this Province with China. Peshawar and Abbottabad are sister cities with Urumqi and Kashgar and Khyber-Pukhtunkhwa is officially declared as friendly province with Xinjiang Autonomous Region in 2008.

He also mentioned about recently held South Asian Friendship Forum in Sri Lanka which was attended by South Asian Friendship associations with China and from China CPAFFC Vice-President Feng Zuoku, Director-General Ms. Wang Tong, Asian Division Mr. Zhang Peng along with other friends from CPAFFC attended the event.

Gilani also mentioned that CPAFFC President Chen Haosu will be visiting Pakistan this year which will be an important part of these celebrations. Pakistan-China Friendship Association will arrange special function to welcome the honourable guest. Later, special gifts and books were exchanged from both sides.


[B]Syed Ali Nawaz Gilani[/B][/B]

[B][I][CENTER][SIZE="5"]Moving Away from the 'Nuclear Precipice'[/SIZE][/CENTER][/I][/B]

[I]
Surely no philosophical discourse is needed to understand or agree that nuclear weapons are never meant to be used.[/I]


Once driving on a busy New York street a few years ago, I was struck by a bumper sticker with a strange message. It read: “One nuclear bomb can ruin your whole day.” This appeared rather childish if not an ultimate understatement. But taken literally, the message spoke volumes about the nuclear precipice. It will indeed take only one, just one, nuclear weapon, to ruin our day with no other day to follow.

Surely no philosophical discourse is needed to understand or agree that nuclear weapons are never meant to be used. They are only a means of 'deterrence' and to an extent seem to have served this purpose during the peak Cold War period. But one must also agree that the risk of a nuclear catastrophe will continue to loom until the universally acclaimed goal of 'Global Zero' is accomplished.

The Cold War is over, yet tens of thousands of nuclear weapons developed as a means of 'deterrence' remain in arsenals around the world. Together the US and Russia alone possess more than 95 per cent of the world's nuclear weapons. Their command and control systems are still tuned to permit immediate launch. The situation elsewhere is no less alarming.

Woefully, beyond rhetoric, there has been no progress towards a nuclear weapon-free world. The current global nuclear order inspires no-confidence in the nuclear disarmament or non-proliferation agenda which is being followed in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner with scant commitment to the overarching goal of “general and complete disarmament” as envisaged in Article VI of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

If global disarmament is beyond reach today, it is only because the multilateral system is being used to legitimise the strategic interests of only the selected few. Partial efforts at arms reduction and arms limitation do not amount to disarmament. They only take the focus away from the imperative of a nuclear weapon-free world with the major nuclear weapon states telling the world that their nuclear weapons with limited reductions will stay forever while others should do without them – a situation that amounts to telling people not to smoke while you have a cigarette dangling from your own mouth.

Unless a fundamental change is brought in this approach to global security, there is no prospect for a global consensus on disarmament in pursuit of a nuclear weapon-free world. President Obama understands the reality and has admitted that he may not live long enough to see a nuclear-free world, and that the US will maintain a nuclear arsenal “as long as these weapons exist”. This sums up the entire disarmament scenario.

Even the famous 'Gang of Four' consisting of four veteran US policymakers, Henry Kissinger, William J. Perry, George P. Shultz and Senator Sam Nunn as a bipartisan Quartet of individuals with impeccable credentials as 'Cold Warriors,” while questioning the very concept of nuclear 'deterrence' justify that “as long as nuclear weapons exist, America must retain a safe, secure and reliable nuclear stockpile primarily to deter a nuclear attack and to reassure our allies through extended deterrence.”

In an extraordinary series of widely published essays since 2007, the Quartet has been pursuing a determined campaign for global attention to the fact that our world today is “on the precipice of a new and dangerous nuclear era.” According to them, the accelerating spread of nuclear weapons, nuclear know-how, and nuclear material has brought us to a tipping point where reliance on nuclear weapons even as a means of deterrence is becoming increasingly hazardous and decreasingly effective.

While suggesting development of effective strategies to deal with daunting new spectrum of global security threats, the Quartet also consider the US and Russia have no basis for maintaining a structure of deterrence involving nuclear arsenals in ways that “increase the danger of an accidental or unauthorised use of a nuclear weapon, or even a deliberate exchange based on a false warning.” In stating this, they however seem to leave unstated what uses the US nuclear stockpile might have other than deterring a nuclear attack. It appears by applying different yardsticks to different situations, they have chosen a “safe, secure and reliable” nuclear arsenal over a “safe, secure and peaceful” world.

In building their case for non-nuclear deterrence based on conventional weapons, the four former US policy-makers have argued that during the Cold War, nuclear deterrence was useful in preventing only the most catastrophic scenarios but did not deter the Soviet moves into Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968. Nor were the numerous crises involving Berlin, including the building of the Wall in 1961, or major wars in Korea and Vietnam, the Cuban Missile Crisis, or the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. In the case of the Soviet Union too, its nuclear weapons did not prevent its collapse or regime change.



In their view, the US and Russia were “lucky” that nuclear weapons were not used during the Cold War, and the world today had better not continue to bet its survival on continued good fortune with a growing number of nuclear nations and adversaries globally. The Quartet's broad conclusion outlined in its latest essay this March is that “nations today must move forward together with a series of conceptual and practical steps toward deterrence that do not rely primarily on nuclear weapons or nuclear threats to maintain international peace and security.”

The Quartet's most important, indeed insightfully realistic conclusion is the recognition that for some nations, nuclear weapons may continue to appear relevant to their immediate security. According to them, there are certain undeniable dynamics at play-for example, the emergence of a nuclear-armed neighbour, or the perception of inferiority in conventional forces – that if not addressed could lead to the further proliferation of nuclear weapons and an increased risk that they will be used. In their view, some nations might hesitate to draw or act on the same conclusion unless regional confrontations and conflicts are addressed. This requires redoubled effort to resolve these issues.

Interestingly, this assessment is of direct relevance to the India-Pakistan nuclear equation, the only one to have grown up in history totally unrelated to the Cold War and rooted in their legacy of unresolved conflicts and confrontations. This aspect together with a number of nuclear and strategic restraint measures mutually applicable to India and Pakistan found adequate reflection in the outcome of the latest round of a Track Two process called Ottawa Dialogue held at Stanford University's Hoover Institution in Palo Alto, California, from July 6 to 8, 2011.

The Ottawa Process is sponsored by prestigious academic institutions and comprises a distinguished group of academics and retired senior civil and military officials from both India and Pakistan. The Palo Alto meeting hosted by former US secretary of state George Shultz welcomed the recent resumption of high-level India-Pakistan dialogue and formulated an elaborate list of nuclear and other CBMs for presentation to the two governments before their foreign ministers meeting in New Delhi in on July 27.

The idea was to assist the official (Track One) process between the two nuclear-capable neighbours, with a history of conflicts and confrontations, in developing a mutually acceptable framework of nuclear restraint and stabilisation measures, including nuclear risk-reduction measures. Last year, they had made similar recommendations to the two governments which already seem to have found way in their expert-level discussions on “implementation and strengthening of existing arrangements and identification of additional mutually acceptable measures to build trust and confidence and promote peace and security.”

The new list includes a wide range of confidence building measures that could be implemented not only to prevent an accidental launch of nuclear weapons and escalation of conflicts between the two countries but also to stabilise their broader relationship through mutual confidence building and restraint measures. These also include conventional military CBMs/restraint measures and steps to encourage people-to-people engagement.
The Cold War is over, yet tens of thousands of nuclear weapons developed as a means of 'deterrence' remain in arsenals around the world. Together the US and Russia alone possess more than 95 per cent of the world's nuclear weapons.
The Ottawa Group was mindful of the fact that some of the proposed CBMs cannot be undertaken in the absence of stability in other aspects of the relationship but they can, at least, contribute to the creation of a “virtuous cycle;” an atmosphere in which progressively more ambitious steps can be taken in all fields of confidence-building. In the ultimate analysis, however, India and Pakistan representing the most uneasy nuclear equation in today's world will have to move beyond CBMs and purposefully get involved in conflict resolution.

Pakistan's longstanding proposal for Strategic Restraint Regime involving nuclear and missile restraint, conventional balance and conflict resolution will go a long way in promoting nuclear and conventional restraint and mutual stabilisation. Likewise, non-induction of ABMs and other destabilising systems could also serve as an arms limitation measure. Arms reduction could follow in due course later as the two sides build up trust and confidence.

Steady improvement in their relations requires fundamental changes in the way they deal with each other. A clearer framework of principles is needed on the basis of which to organise future relations. India, being the biggest country in South Asia, must lead the way by discarding hegemonic designs in the region.

Both countries also need an informed public dialogue on the subject of the implications of a nuclear conflict in South Asia, and of the opportunity costs which attend the continuation of an uncontrolled nuclear rivalry. Such a dialogue must include discussions on the need and modalities for addressing the underlying causes of their outstanding disputes.

For both India and Pakistan, peace and prosperity must now become the strategic priority. Mutual renunciation of the use of force for settlement of their outstanding disputes, including the Kashmir issue will ensure a stable and peaceful neighbourhood conducive to harnessing the region's vast untapped economic potential.


[B]Shamshad Ahmad
The writer is a former foreign secretary.[/B]

[B][I][CENTER][SIZE="5"]LIBYA (Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya)[/SIZE][/CENTER][/I][/B]

[I]The African Union does not support the Nato-led military campaign targeting Col. Gaddafi's forces.
[/I]


Capital: Tripoli
Area: 1759540 Sq km
Hottest place of the world: Al Azizia situated in Sahara Desert in Libya
Location: In the North Mediterranean Sea, in the South Chad, in the East Egypt and in the West Tunisia and Algeria.

Historical background: Kingdom of Libya gained independence from British and French military administration in 1951. The past bleak picture changed dramatically after 1959 with the discovery of vast reserves of oil and gas in the south. In 1969 Col. Gaddafi toppled King Idris in a military coup, the name was given “Al-Fataha Revolution”. In 1973 Gaddafi declared a “Cultural Revolution” at the grassroots level in the country like, people's committees in hospitals, schools and other work places. In 1973 Libya assumed control over the disputed Aouzou Strip in northern Chad, in the Tabesti Mountain a 70,000 sq km region thought to be rich in uranium.

In 1994 Libya returned the Aouzou strip to Chad. In 1981, the US shot down two Libyan aircraft which challenged its war planned over the Gulf of Sirte, claimed by Libya as its territorial water in Mediterranean Sea. In 1984 United Kingdom broke off diplomatic relations with Libya after killing of British policeman in Tripoli. In 1986, United States bombed on Libyan military bases in urban areas of Tripoli.

In December 21, 1988 Lockerbie incident took place. In 1992, UN imposed sanctions on Libya in an effort to force it to hand over for trial of two Libyans involvement in the blowing up of a Pan Am flight 103 airline over the Scottish town of Lockerbie in December 1988.

In 1999, Libyan Government agreed to hand over Lockerbie suspects for trial in the Netherlands under Scottish Law. United Nations sanctions suspended and diplomatic relations with the UK were restored. In January 31st, 2001, special Scottish Court in the Netherlands found over of the two Libyans accused of the Lockerbie bombing, Abdul Baset Ali Mohammad Al-Megrahi was guilty and sentenced him to life imprisonment and other accused was not guilty and freed.

In August 2009, Al-Megrahi was freed from Scottish prison on humanitarian ground. In 2004, UK Prime Minister Tony Blair visited Libya. In February 2009, Gaddafi was elected chairman of the African Union. In August 2009 Libyans had celebrated 40th anniversary of “Al-Fatha Revolution” at this occasion the chief guest was Prime Minister of Pakistan Syed Yousaf Raza Gilani.

Anti-government move was started in Libya on February 15, 2011. By February 18, most of Benghazi the country second largest city was controlled by the opposition. Protests had spread to Tripoli by February 20.

An interim Government in opposition to Col. Muammar Gaddafi's continued rule was established in Benghazi on March 26, 2011. On March 19, 2011, operation Odyssey Dawn began establishing a No Fly Zone in Libya. In such a bleak scenario, a South Africa-led African Union peace initiative seems to be the best option to end hostilities in the country.

The African Union does not support the Nato-led military campaign targeting Col. Gaddafi's forces, and South African President Jacob Zuma has recently stepped up efforts to broker a peace deal, because both the countries have deep cordial relations.

Another development a United Nations peace envoy to Libya Abdul Elah Al-Khatib is suggesting a ceasefire in the country, to be followed by the immediate creation of a transitional authority made up equally of the government and rebels while excluding Gaddafi and his son.
“Arab Spring” –
eight months on

Tunisian-inspired rebellions have sparked unrest in numerous nations including Libya, where rebels celebrate the “end of Kadhafi era”

Tunisia
Former President Zine el Abidine Ben Ali, who fled to Saudi Arabia in January, is sentenced to more than 66 years in prison in absentia. Nation looks to rebuild its economy under interim leader Beji Caid Essebsi. 1st elections since Ben Ali's departure postponed to October 23.

Egypt
Murder and corruption trial of former President Hosni Mubarak, who stood down in February, is adjourned until September 5.
Ruling military council pushes back parliamentary polls, originally scheduled for September, by up to two months.

Syria
President Bashar al-Assad refuses to step aside, ignoring international pressure to end a bloody 5-month crackdown on pro-democracy protesters, which has cost the lives of at least 2,200 people according to rights groups. Thousands of civilians flee to Turkey and Lebanon.

Bahrain
Shiite-led democracy rallies crushed by authorities and troops from other Gulf nations from mid-March.
King supports proposals for political reform following “national dialogue” but Shiite opposition stays it will boycott next month's by-elections.

Morocco
Nation announces early parliamentary elections for November 25. Monarchy pursues reforms in response to partly-quashed protests inspired by the Arab Spring. Voters approve proposal to limit powers of King Mohammad VI in a July 1 referendum. New constitution to give greater role to prime minister and grant more public freedom.

Algeria
Uprising sparked by rising living costs. State of emergency lifted 19 years after it was introduced.

Protesters still call for better salaries, job prospects and housing despite a series of political reforms announced by President Abdelaziz Bouteflika.

Libya
After four decades in power Moamar Kadhafi refuses to leave power despite an increasingly bloody revolt, leading to the death of one of his sons and the arrest of another on charges of crimes against humanity. Nato-backed rebels celebrate the end of “Kadhafi era” as they enter Tripoli.

Yemen
Protest against President Ali abdulah Saleh intensify as southern secessionists and tribes loyal to sheikh Sadiq al-Ahmar join movement. Saleh, wounded in a shell attack by tribesmen in June, seeks treatment in Saudi Arabia. Al-Qaeda steps up suicide attacks.


[B]Abdul Rasheed[/B]

[I][B][CENTER][SIZE="5"]Karachi is Crying[/SIZE][/CENTER][/B][/I]


[I]To bring peace in Karachi is everybody's wish, but nothing will be achieved without moving in the right direction.[/I]


Karachi's recent violence has exposed a weak and disorganized state of affairs in the city. Karachi being a commercial hub means a lot to Pakistan's economy. Our national economy cannot remain unaffected if this largest city is not peaceful.

Karachi is the largest city of Pakistan with an estimated population of around 20 million. Karachi contributes about 55% to Pakistan's GDP, that is, about US $98 billion, projected to reach $130 billion by 2015 provided peace is restored in the city and its suburbs. All national and international surveys, reports, and analyses confirm that Karachi is the mainstay of Pakistan's economy. Of course,
Karachi's high share in GDP is due to its large industrial base. Karachi has 15,000 formal industrial units in its five industrial zones while there are 360 markets spread all over the city. It is estimated that the daily loss to the national GDP is Rs 2 billion for every hour that Karachi remains non-operational. Violence has forced several established businesses to close permanently. About 40% of businesses are on the verge of collapse because of the recent unrest in Karachi.

Karachi is facing civil war-like situation immaturity and short-sightedness on the part of the political parties have triggered violence in the city. PPP has a vote bank in Karachi, but as a party it has a limited influence. Responsibility in many ways lies with the MQM, because it has the ability to implement its decisions. Meanwhile, a serious threat to MQM's control of the city is emerging, as Pashtun population now is in close parity. It's hard fact and MQM has to realize.

July has been a bloody month. However, this is not the first time when the city has been subjected to ethnic-bloodbaths. The Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM) walked out of the federal and provincial governments and this was a message that peace between the various power-brokers in Karachi would be affected. What happened afterwards Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM) founder Altaf Hussain invited the army to initiate an impartial crackdown on criminal elements, in Karachi irrespective of their political affiliations, to free the metropolis from the grip of armed terrorists.

Addressing MQM activists at the Lal Qila ground in Karachi, Hussain said that the government was duty-bound to contain the seemingly unending killing spree in Karachi.

“[Apart from Rangers] we want the army to take control of Karachi (and launch a crackdown). If they feel that anyone from the MQM is involved (in criminal activities), that person should be arrested,” he said. However, he cautioned the army and Rangers against targeting the MQM alone. “If anyone from the PPP or ANP is found to be involved (in such activity), they, too, should be apprehended,” he said.

The Awami National Party (ANP) has opposed the restoration of the local bodies system of 2001 in Karachi and Hyderabad and the implementation of the commissio-nerate system in the rest of Sindh, terming the move “undemocratic”.

“The ANP considers separate systems for Karachi and Hyderabad and the rest of Sindh as an unannounced compromising step of the government to pave the way for creating a Mohajir province,” ANP President (Sindh) Shahi Syed said while speaking at a news conference at the Mardan House.

He said his party always offered unconditional support to the Pakistan People's Party (PPP) in order to strengthen democracy but it was ignored by the latter in spite of the fact that it was also a coalition partner of the PPP.



A report issued by the Human was quite expected. Over 100 people were killed in a strike that followed the decision. Public transport was badly affected and innocent citizens were indiscriminately killed by sharp shooters of major political parties which mobilise people on the grounds of ethnicity and linguistic identity.

When the events of early July settled, the peace between MQM and Government was again shaken; PPP leader, Zulfiqar Mirza inadvertently expressed his views against Altaf Hussain. Mirza also made some sweeping and irresponsible remarks against the mohajirs who arrived in Karachi after the partition. The statement unfortunately resulted in further violence and killings of innocent people and the loss of private and public property.

With the unofficial alliance of all non-Muhajir representatives and MQM's breakaway factions operating under the guise of Sunni Tehreek, there is a greater likelihood of street battles erupting and getting out of control. PPP controls the federal agencies such as the Rangers and FC but further escalation of violence and tension will have an adverse impact on the democratic and consensual decision-making. Given the current configuration, MQM is rightly worried about being pushed into a corner. But then it cannot totally absolve itself of the responsibility as it was and remains a major actor in Karachi's politics and governance. Karachi's economy cannot function without the inclusion of
Now it is not simply a turf war between drug-peddlers and their racketeers; it has taken a new turn wherein hand grenades are being hurled, rockets are being fired and decapitated bodies are being found in gunny bags.
Rights Commission of Pakistan said that a total of 1,139 people were killed in the city during the first six months of the current year and 490 of them fell prey to targeted killings on political, sectarian and ethnic grounds.

HRCP chairperson Zohra Yusuf, sharing the statistics, observed that a continuous surge in targeted killing reflected the government's inefficiency to handle the situation that was deepening the sense of insecurity among the citizens. She was of the view that the government was not taking decisive action against culprits to appease its coalition partners.

According to the HRCP report, 65 women were killed during the first half of the current year — 24 by their relatives and 26 by unknown assailants. It said that four of the victims were burnt to death, three died on railway tracks; two were killed by robbers and another two by Lyari gangsters. Three women fell victim to honour killing and one was killed by police, it stated.

Separately, the report said, 37 men lost their lives in the ongoing Lyari gang warfare over the past six months. Among the 56 victims of ethnic strife 51 were men and one woman, the rest being children.

According to the report, of the 490 victims of targeted killings, 150 were apparently killed for their association with various political, religious and nationalist parties, 56 for their ethnic background and eight on sectarian grounds.

The statistics show that 250 people killed in the city during the period did not have affiliation with any political party. A total of 139 such killings had been reported during the other communities given the interdependence of economic and social forces. The transport business is largely operated by the Pathans so they simply cannot be isolated from the power matrix and decision-making. As the second largest community, they also have a right to claim their share.

Violence and killings will not change this. The Pakhtun population of Karachi cannot be washed away or, more appropriately, done away with. The Pakhtuns also should not get their rights by indulging in bloodshed. Their struggle has to be political. Of late, it seems, though, as if they have decided to fight their way through, and this will only lead to massacre.



Besides the political settlement, which is the first step towards peace, the state machinery has to be improved to maintain order. The Karachi police is now good for nothing. During Benazir Bhutto's second tenure, it actively played its role to curb violence in the city, which eventually tormented the MQM. Consequently it had to pay a heavy price for that. The hundreds of criminals it had arrested were released from jail through various political deals, some during Nawaz Sharif's second tenure and later through Musharraf's patronage. They came out and methodically killed police officials involved in operations against them and forced others to run away.

These different organisations have deep-seated grudges. So, no one in the police can afford another onslaught on them, and the police is content as being silent spectator. This situation is further worsened by the fact that its personnel are now heavily infiltrated by party sympathisers, largely affiliated with the MQM and other parties. The police is no longer an independent and unbiased organisation to maintain peace in the city.
It has taken an ugly ethnic colour, and the political power-brokers in the city are supporting one or the other warring group. By the looks of it, no law exists in our country. Innocent people are being killed every day.
The Rangers that have been permanently deployed in the city have little knowledge and understanding of the situation as they have lesser interaction with the common man. The police has much more understanding of the social setup and the current state of affairs in the localities prone to violence. The Rangers by its design are not for peace keeping, but should only be employed in emergencies. Their continuous deployment would result in sad and violent incidents such as the killing of the young man in broad daylight. Ever since that gruesome incident, the Rangers feel depressed and are somehow ineffective.

Now the authorities have come up with another alarming decision; the deployment of the Frontier Constabulary in the city. This organisation is almost wholly Pakhtun and trigger-happy. Their induction at the moment Karachi is smouldring is grossly unwise, if not malevolent.

We have described the problem, now we have to look for the solution? One, the MQM has to recognise and come to terms with the new realities of Karachi. This will help it in accepting a political settlement with other communities. Two, Pakhtuns and other ethnicities must have the possibility of getting political representation.

The way to do this is to divide Karachi into five or eight districts with their own local councils. This will allow different ethnicities to have a say in running their day to day affairs. One community having control over all of Karachi through a metropolitan corporation will always be a conflict-ridden body.

Third, the police force, in fact the entire law enforcement mechanism that includes the judiciary and the jails, needs to be built up brick by brick. Relying on the Rangers – who should be withdrawn from the city – or the FC and ultimately the army, could at best be short-term measures. The police has to take control for the law and order to be maintained.



As always, Karachi needs democratisation of power; and robust accountability mechanisms and strengthening of the state as the mediating agent between diverse interests and lobbies. There can be no other alternative to a responsive local government, a municipal police and effective law-enforcement agencies. The notions of cosmetic, brutal “clean-up” operations are recipes for failure for they cannot change underlying imbalances in the state and society. The democratic option is clear. The major political parties will have to agree on a common agenda for reform and negotiate it.
The 141st Corps Commanders' Conference was held at General Headquarters. Chief of Army Staff (COAS) General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani chaired the meeting.

Among other issues, the participants also discussed the security situation in the Country in general and Karachi in particular. The Forum expressed concern over the law and order situation in Karachi and its ramifications / implications on National economy and expected that the measures recently undertaken by the Government would help redress the situation.

An army intervention has never resulted in systemic changes. Karachi is no exception. Above all, it belongs to its resilient, inventive citizens who want peace, security and opportunities. Ending violence in Karachi and creating equitable opportunities should, therefore, become a top priority of political parties. Otherwise, they may fail us once again.

corresponding period of the previous year.

About the victims of targeted killings on political grounds, the report suggested that 77 activists belonged to the Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM), 26 to the Pakistan People's Party (PPP), 29 to the Awami National Party (ANP), 16 to the Mohajir Qaumi Movement-Haqiqi (MQM-H), seven to the Sunni Tehrik (ST), nine to the Ahl-i-Sunnat Wal-Jamaat (ASWJ), two to the Jamiat Ulema-i-Islam and one each belonged to the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N), Jamaat-i-Islami (JI), PML-Functional (PML-F), Jeay Sindh Qaumi Mahaz (JSQM) and Punjabi-Pakhtun Ittehad (PPI). Four members of the banned outfit Sipah-i-Sahaba Pakistan were also killed on political grounds, it said.

The HRCP report observed that in the first six months of 2010, the figures of targeted killings were comparatively low as 109 people had fallen victim to the menace with 34 belonging to the MQM-H, 22 to the MQM, 11 to the PPP, 16 to the ANP, four to the ST and three each belonging to the JI and SSP. The other parties lost one or two of their activists during the period.

According to the statistics of other violent crimes, the report said 123 people were killed on account of personal enmity during the first half of the current year as against 113 reported in the corresponding period of the previous year.

A total of 41 policemen have been killed so far this year compared to 32 gunned down last year in the city, the report said..


[B]Adeel Niaz[/B]

[B][I][CENTER][SIZE="5"]Reforming the UN Security Council[/SIZE][/CENTER][/I][/B]


[I]The importance of the role of the UNO can be gauged from the very fact that it has averted the outbreak of third world war so far.[/I]


The United Nations is the only Intergovernmental Organization (IGO) that is primarily responsible for the maintenance of Peace and security and has the membership of almost all the sovereign states. Its success can be gauged from the very fact that so far it has managed to avert the outbreak of the third world war. The proposed reforms of the United Nations is a buzzword in international politics. The need was felt because of the emergence of new geo-political realities such as:

1. Cold War
2. Emergence of a large number of sovereign States as the result of Decolonization
3. Humanitarian Crisis such as Genocide in Rawanda in 1994 and Ethnic Cleansing in Bosnia in 1995.
4. US preemptive attack on Iraq in 2003 on the pretext of anticipatory self-defense through unilateral interpretation of article 51 of the charter.
5. The Charter needs to reflect the changes that have taken place in international Politics over the years such as:
a. Article 23 mentions Taipei based “The Republic of China” instead of Beijing based “People's Republic of China”
b. The disintegration of the USSR is also not reflected as instead of mentioning Russian Federation, Union of Soviet Socialist Republic is mentioned.
c. The charter allows the member states to take action against the 'Enemy States' – Article 53, 77 and 107 - (Germany & Japan because they were in the enemy camp during the Second World War!!!)

The proposed reforms are divided in two categories – of the Security Council in particular and of the UN in general. I would highlight the reforms of the UNSC in this article.

The UN Charter, article 24, gives the Security Council primary responsibility for maintaining international Peace and security and 'in discharging these duties the UNSC acts on behalf of the member states. Moreover, it has the unique authority to adopt binding decisions under chapter 7 and has monopoly over the use of force. It can also suspend the membership of the defaulting member. Most of all, the permanent members (P-5) have the VETO power.

Currently, there are 5 permanent Members – China, France, Russian Federation, United Kingdom and United States - and 10 non-permanent members. The non-permanent members are elected for 2 years. The geographical representation is distributed as follow:

1) 3 Seats for the African Group
2) 2 Seats for the Asian Group
3) 1 Seat for the Eastern Europe and 2 for Western Europe
4) 2 Seats for the Latin America and Caribbean Region

The proposed reforms need to encapsulate solutions of five key issues i.e. categories of membership, Veto, Regional representation, Size of the Council, its working methods and relationship between the UNSC and UNGA.

The charter was first amended in 1965 when 4 non-permanent members were added and the total membership rose to 15 from 11. Now Germany, Japan, India and Brazil claim to become new permanent members of the UNSC on the basis of their contributions to the UN budget and peacekeeping efforts. These countries formed a G-4 Block. This move led to the demand from other countries from Asia, Africa and Latin for balanced geographical representation.

Meanwhile, a group of like-minded formed an informal 'Coffee club' to counter the expansion of UNSC membership. Its members are Italy, Pakistan, Canada, Mexico, Spain, South Korea, turkey, Indonesia and Argentine etc. Their claim was rooted in article 24 which states that the UNSC acts on behalf of all the member states. Therefore they proposed that instead of creating more centers of powers (Veto Powers), the focus of the reforms should be to make it more efficient body capable of pursuing global priorities. Later on it was metamorphosed into United for Consensus Group (UfC).

Now both the groups counter each other and want to proceed with their respective agendas. These attempts merit careful scrutiny of the facts.

The first problem was to identify and adopt the procedure required to amend the Charter. Since any reform proposal entails Charter Amendment. Therefore it has to be adopted in accordance with the Article 108 which mandates that a resolution should be adopted by the 2/3rd members of the UN membership and ratified by the 2/3rd plus all the permanent members of the UNSC. It means if it is vetoed by even one member, it will not be adopted even if the remaining 191 countries say 'Yes'! The reason to identify that why such a rigid system of amendment is in place is not far to fetch. Actually the framers of the Charter insulated themselves against any prospective amendment that would eventually take away their 'Veto' Status.



At this point, I want to apprise my readers regarding the voting procedure of the General Assembly in order to enable them to appreciate the sophistication of the moves and counter moves made by both the groups.

a. Article 18 explains the voting at the UNGA. It says that each member has one vote and it divides the issues into two categories: Important questions – to be decided by 2/3 majority of the Members Present and Voting – and other question – by the simple majority of the members. It means if 100 members are making up any session, an important question will require 2/3rd of the members present and voting and not of 193 (total membership of the UN)
b. However, the charter could only be amended through article 108 which stipulates even stricter criteria. It mandates that for amendments to come into force 2/3rd of the entire membership will adopt it and further, ratification is required by 128 members including all the permanent members!!!
c. Article 109 lays the procedure for calling the General Conference of the Members of the UN which is 2/3 of the entire membership (128 members) and any 9 Members of the UNSC .But for giving the proposed amendment legal effect, ratification by 2/3rd majority is required including the concurrence of all the permanent members (the Veto power comes into play).

Interestingly, the G4 Countries first attempted to make their way through article 18 in which 2/3rd majority of Present and Voting is the threshold but they were successfully countered by the UfC. The UfC adopted the position that since the expansion of UNSC has charter amendment implications therefore it has to be adopted in accordance with article 108 and not 18.

The first half-baked attempt was made by Mr. Raza Ali, the then President of UNGA, in 1997. It is popularly known as Raza Ali formula. He proposed inclusion of 5 permanent members and 4 non-permanent members – total 9. The proposed distribution of the new permanent members was, one each from the developing states of Africa, Asia and Latin America and the Caribbean and two from the industrialized States. This formula created a lot of controversy over the role of the President of UNGA and eventually he had back off.

In 1998 a mature move was made when the G-4 Countries attempted to have a framework resolution adopted in accordance with article 18. But as explained earlier, the UfC proposed that in order to establish a legal way out, the voting threshold could be establish in accordance with article 18(3) that stipulates that the UNGA will decide the voting threshold of additional questions according to simple majority present and voting. In simple words, it means that if any dispute arises regarding voting threshold the General Assembly can decide the issue through a simple majority. Consequently the proponents backed off.

Now since the reform agenda has to be taken up in accordance with article 108, the main hurdle in the way of G-4 countries is the position maintained by the African Union (AU) that wants 2 permanent seats with veto power. They basis of its claim is the historical neglect of the African continent and also there is no veto power in the entire continent. It is crucial for the G-4 to win the support of African Union in order to meet the threshold of 108. In 2005, they introduced a draft resolution which proposed new permanent members without veto power. But this move failed.
Let us analyze the positions of different stake holders:
a. The G-4 countries are seeking increase in both permanent and non-permanent membership. They are in favour of having the right to veto but they maintain that the veto right, however, should not be a hinderance to the UNSC reforms.
b. The UfC opposes the further expansion in the permanent members of the UNSC as it negates the basic principle of the charter of 'Sovereign equality of all the States.' It proposes expansion of non-permanent members from 10 to 20 and the members are eligible for re-election.
c. The position of AU is referred to as 'Ezulwini Consensus' that is to have 2 Permanent seats with veto power and full privileges and 5 non-permanent seats.
d. One of the main hurdles is the divergent interests and the positions of the leading players i.e. P-5 (Permanent 5).
i. The US supports inclusion of Japan and lately, India.
ii. Russia is opposing veto power for new permanent members.
iii. China waits the emergence of consensus but it attends the informal meetings of UfC.
iv. France and UK has endorsed the G-4's position.
v. NAM supports the expansion in the non-permanent category.
vi. OIC supports the reform proposal that will ensure representation of the Islamic Ummah.



In a nutshell, as long as the AU maintains its demand of being granted the right to veto to the new permanent members, success for G-4 would be a far cry. At present, according to some estimates, the G-4 enjoys the support of 50 to 60 members and 60 to 70 opposes it whereas 60-70 are undecided and forms the critical mass whose support can turn the tables.

At the end it is pertinent to mention that now the issue revolves around number game. If the G-4 manages to get the support of 128 countries including the concurrence of all the veto powers, it will win and the structure of international system will get a radical transformation that will necessitate massive readjustment by the world community at large.


[B]Azmatfarooq_fsp@hotmail.com
Muhammad Azmat Farooq (CSP)[/B]

US-Israel Nexus and Iran
 

[CENTER][B]US-Israel Nexus and Iran[/B][/CENTER]

According to analysts on the Middle East, if Iran goes nuclear, Israel would no longer be able to continue its ambiguous nuclear policy and will have to declare its nuclear weapons.

Muslim World Paradise turned Inferno
Saturday, September 01, 2012

Also, it may ignite a nuclear warfare in the region which will ultimately pose existential threat to Israel. Despite the close alliance between the US and Israel, there appears a dissonance on Iran's nuclear programme. Israeli leadership dismissed the chances that sanctions would now deter Iran or convince it to give up its nuclear programme. It called for stringent actions against Iran by the US, that may include a military or aerial strike.

In March this year, in his address to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, US President Barack Obama, while referring to Iran's ambitions to acquire nuclear technology said: “No Israeli government can tolerate a nuclear weapon in the hands of a regime…that threatens to wipe Israel off the map.... A nuclear-armed Iran is completely counter to Israel's security interests. But it is also counter to the national security interests of the United States.” He also quoted former President of the US, Theodore Roosevelt: “Speak softly but carry a big stick”. This was not only an unequivocal proclamation of the US present stance on Iran but can also be viewed as a warning to the country against its hard-line anti-US and anti-Israel stance.

Primarily, the likely acquisition of uranium enrichment technology or nuclear weapon technology by Iran, in particular, is what rang alarms in the US and Israel about a decade ago. President of Islamic Republic of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmedinejad has been explicitly following an anti-US agenda. Adopting austerity measures at home, the leader is determined to face every economic challenge posed by the US or the international community in the wake of its missile technology and civilian nuclear technology programme. The cost of the sanctions against Iran is 133 million dollars per day. Although, Iran has yet not acquired “nuclear or atomic weapon”, for the US, the nuclear Iran in the Middle East, while strengthening anti-US and anti-Israel elements threatens its greater policy interests in the region. On the other hand, Israel views nuclear Iran an existential threat to the Jewish state.

The US, so far, exercised diplomatic pressure and placed economic sanctions to deter Iran from acquiring and advancing its nuclear programme and warned Iran of grave consequences if the country chose not to abandon its nuclear ambition. Also there have been vociferous reminders that the US would never settle for nuclear-armed Iran and a military attack would be the last resort. However, the recently proposed sanctions were vetoed by China once again.

Apart from nuclear issue, the influence that Iran enjoys over the Strait of Hormuz is also a cause of concern to the US now. About 20 per cent of the world oil trade is done through the Strait of Hormuz. In wake of warnings and threats of a military attack by the US last year, Iran, in turn, had threatened to block the Strait for trade. On the one hand, it alarmed the Israeli policymakers and on the other, it provoked the US to send its aircraft carriers towards the Strait.
Pakistan had been shown the big stick that Obama administration virtually carries in conformity to Roosevelt's saying and issues are yet to be settled between the two states.
The US interest in the region, however, is not limited to Iran. China and Pakistan are also correlated as the two countries enjoy greater stakes and strategic and geographical influence in southern part of Asia. Afghanistan as a matter of fact has already bowed to the US policy interests. Of late, Pakistan had been shown the big stick that Obama administration virtually carries in conformity to Roosevelt's saying and issues are yet to be settled between the two states. China while gaining greater strategic and economic leeway through Gwadar port into the Indian Ocean appears to be a potential threat to the US interests. On the other hand, Pakistan continues to pursue Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline project apparently in defiance of the UN sanctions on Iran. Also, Iran continues to extend its role in Balochistan. The Iran-Pakistan cooperation and the emerging pattern of maritime politics in Indian Ocean extending to Strait of Hormuz, including China as one of the major players would be detrimental to the US ambitions. Together, this poses policy challenges to the US.

Israel on its part has been pursuing a policy of nuclear opacity since 1981 when the country had successfully obliterated Iraqi nuclear reactors. The then Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin had announced that 'Israel, under no circumstances, would allow enemy to develop weapons of mass destruction against Israel. The country would defend its citizens, in time, with all the means at its disposal.' Since then, Israel had pursued a tacit nuclear prgramme, however, Iran's nuclear ambitions posed a challenge to Israel's nuclear weapons technology. According to analysts on the Middle East, if Iran goes nuclear, Israel would no longer be able to continue its ambiguous nuclear policy and will have to declare its nuclear weapons. Also, it may ignite a nuclear warfare in the region which will ultimately pose existential threat to Israel. Despite the close alliance between the US and Israel, there appears a dissonance on Iran's nuclear programme. Israeli leadership dismissed the chances that sanctions would now deter Iran or convince it to give up its nuclear programme. It called for stringent actions against Iran by the US, that may include a military or aerial strike. Although Israel has assurances from the US of a military strike if all else fails, the country is planning to opt for a unilateral military action against Iran in self-defence.
Although Israel has assurances from the US of a military strike if all else fails, the country is planning to opt for a unilateral military action against Iran in self-defence.
Israel, reportedly has established an “Iron Dome” last year. It is a mobile missile-defence system capable of detecting and destroying short-range missiles in flight. The system made by Israel's Rafael Advanced Defence System is designed to counter rockets with ranges of up to 44 miles and provides a cover against Israel's declared enemies, Hamas and Hezbollah. Some reports suspect a possibility of a similar system being used by Israel against Iran if needed in future.

Lately, Iran tested a more accurate short-range missile capable of striking land and sea targets underscoring its capability to hit naval vessels in the Strait of Hormuz if attacked. The successful tests not only alarmed the US and Israel but apparently ignited the already tense situation. A time when election competitors of Barack Obama are proclaiming support to Israel in launching a military strike against Iran, public opinion in the US largely going against Obama's policy over Iran, it appears difficult for the Obama administration to keep “speaking softly” no matter they have been showing the big stick as well. The policy of engagement with Iran, diplomatic pressure and restraint may not appear to be working but that is the only feasible option, for a military strike against Iran would be detrimental for both the US and Israel.

*Nabiha Gul is a researcher and analyst on international affairs and an IR professional.
Email: [email]coldpath1@gmail.com[/email]
Nabiha Gul

A US – led Syria and Beyond…
 

[CENTER][B][COLOR="Navy"][SIZE="6"]A US – led Syria and Beyond…[/SIZE][/COLOR][/B][/CENTER]
From the Geneva recommendations to the six-point peace plan proposed by Kofi Annan, nothing was endorsed with consensus.

Muslim World Paradise turned Inferno
Saturday, September 01, 2012

It is interesting to highlight that both the drafts had a common agenda which favoured a democratic transition at the cost of dismantling authoritarian rule. For this purpose, the notion of a government of 'national unity' (which allows the opposition and those already in the government to share power) was presented. This clearly indicates that the US isn't ready to back a complete 'regime change' and wants to maintain some of the institutions in Syria which will have to abide by its standards of 'human rights'

The Syrian massacre has flooded the news items all around the world. It's been a year since Obama administration, for the first time, called on President Bashar al-Assad to step down and let Syrians have their right of self-determination. However, the obdurate dictator turned a deaf ear to this call. The clash between the 'regime loyalists' (supporters of Assad) and myriad rebel factions has claimed thousands of lives in Syria for almost seventeen months. The roots of this ongoing civil war can be traced to Benghazi, Libya, where Muammar Qaddafi refused to surrender in front of the rebels. His forces were ready to fight and what they couldn't resist was the 'overreached' retaliation by NATO which had entered the conflict on behalf of the rebels. China and Russia allowed the resolution which gave NATO such sweeping powers to pass, but Russia along with South Africa criticised NATO's role after the death of Qaddafi. This dispute in the UN Security Council created an unpleasant atmosphere as there was a disagreement between the members at a time when an agreed response to violence in Syria had to be chalked out. It was Russia which insisted on quelling the pressure from Assad's regime and including the president while deciding any future political set-up for Syria. This was the reason for the appointment of Kofi Annan (the UN-Arab League joint envoy to Syria) in February 2012 who worked on ''mission impossible” (as he himself quotes it). After failing to devise an 'agreed' plan, for a political transition that did not explicitly require Assad's departure, Annan has now resigned. The persistent efforts of Washington to dislodge Assad through negotiations have failed utterly, especially after the resignation of Kofi Annan. The US blames Russia and publicly denounces it for purporting a dictatorial regime. On the other hand, Annan blames the Security Council giants (big western states) for name-calling Russia and China. Other than the obviously disgruntled, Moscow and Beijing, the US shouldn't ignore Brazil, India and South Africa which are also in the list of dissenters this time. All four of them are established democracies.

From the Geneva recommendations to the six-point peace plan proposed by Kofi Annan, nothing was endorsed with consensus. It is interesting to highlight that both the drafts had a common agenda which favoured a democratic transition at the cost of dismantling authoritarian rule. For this purpose, the notion of a government of 'national unity' (which allows the opposition and those already in the government to share power) was presented. This clearly indicates that the US isn't ready to back a complete 'regime change' and wants to maintain some of the institutions in Syria which will have to abide by its standards of 'human rights'.


Moreover, there is an unattended question which inquires about the composition of Syrian opposition factions. The most ripe option is that of 'rebels' being fed by Washington's Gulf allies, Qatar and Saudi Arabia. With the infiltration of al-Qaeda jihadis, increased involvement of Turkey, influx of arms and intelligence support from the US, Assad is likely to depart especially after the defection of Syrian Prime Minister, Riad Hijab. There is nothing better for the US other than deciding an abominable fate like that of Qaddafi for Assad or pushing him behind the bars like Hosni. However, the focus is now on the post-Assad Syria that is a more daunting task, orchestrated a decade ago.

US General Wesley Clerk, former Supreme Commander of Allied Forces Europe, is on record informing US journalist Amy Goodman that within weeks of the terrorist atrocity on 11th September 2001, the then Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld wrote a memo describing “how we're going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran," (after invading Afghanistan). This seems to be somewhat 'real', but delayed plan in the wake of all that is being done to carve out the fate of Syria. However, the failure in Iraq and the 2006 Israeli defeat in Lebanon has compelled the US to alter the old 'core strategy' of direct occupations. It has now embarked upon the mission of encouraging destabilisation, clandestine operations and feeding civil strife in the targeted regions.

With the infiltration of al-Qaeda jihadis, increased involvement of Turkey, influx of arms and intelligence support from the US, Assad is likely to depart especially after the defection of Syrian Prime Minister, Riad Hijab.
Syria is the latest victim in the grip of a bitter conflict in which al-Qaeda-type terrorists have established a foothold similar to the one in neighbouring Iraq. It nurtures armed thugs and terrorists being indirectly supported by the US. The long Turkey-Syria border is one of the main routes for smuggling armed men and weapons into Syria. The Syrians represent the heart of what Jordan's King Abdullah called the “Shia crescent”: Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Iran. It is the opposition of this crescent against Israel which irks Washington and the 'advocates' (Egypt and Jordan) of Israel in the Arab world. Lebanon was bombed and invaded in a US-backed Israeli invasion in 2006, but was repelled by Syrian-backed Lebanese resistance led by Hezbollah. Efforts are now also being made by Saudi Arabia to weaken Hezbollah, the Shi'ite organisation that is being backed by Iran. Iraq is disintegrated and bleeding heavily, with daily sectarian terrorist atrocities. Iran is the target for which Israel and the US are blood-thirsty in order to ensure Israel's hegemony in the region. The post-Assad Syria driven by 'US aspirations' will not only be worse than Iraq, but will also allow the accomplishment of anti-Iranian proxy war under the US, Saudi, Qatar leadership, with the easy consent of Britain, France and Israel.


Not to forget what the naïve rebels who initiated the peaceful uprising wanted — a democratic transition 'without' any foreign intervention no matter how well-intentioned it might be. A ceasefire and political adjustment can include the rebels into the process of negotiation, who are being deliberately turned into terrorists. The idea of militarisation is still strongly condemned, even by the democratic organisations in Syria. The Syrians must accept the fact that they are still not the decision-makers of their country. A glittery illusion from the U.S in the name of human-rights has turned their homeland into a battlefield tilting in favour of Israel.

Fakiha Hassan Rizvi

An ill – piloted muslim world
 

[CENTER][SIZE="6"][COLOR="Navy"]AN ILL – PILOTED MUSLIM WORLD[/COLOR][/SIZE][/CENTER]

Palestine is tired and has given up. Iraq is still burning. Afghanistan has yet to breathe peace. Kashmir stands disillusioned. Lebanon is simmering. Libya has been tamed. Egypt and Syria are being chiseled anew. Pakistan is on ICU resuscitation. Iran is on notice. The Muslim world could not be more chaotic and more helpless. Surely these are critical times for the Muslim world.

Muslim World Paradise turned Inferno
Saturday, September 01, 2012

I remember in the 1980s as he orated against the Soviet Union, President Reagan often quoted from Thomas Paine's Common Sense with his vision of a United States great enough "to begin the world over again.” Indeed, one of his Republican successors did it. President George W. Bush did begin the world all over again. But he turned it upside down. No wonder, we are today living in a difficult and turbulent world.

The ideological polarisation of the cold war in two rival blocs, the East and the West has given way to a new configuration of power in the form of unipolarity unleashing its own security challenges and problems for the world at large. The world now stands divided between the “West and the Rest” and as before, between two unequal halves, one embarrassingly rich and the other desperately poor. While the West is endowed with abundance of wealth and affluence, the
“Rest” that comprises mostly Third World countries representing the overwhelming part of humanity languishes in poverty and backwardness.

Unfortunately, all is not well with the Third World. Most developing countries suffer from serious governance and rule of law problems rooted in their authoritarian and non-representative political culture. Some of them are mired in perpetual intra-state or inter-state conflicts. What is even more disturbing is that the world's two largest regions, Africa and South Asia, both rich in natural and human resources, are the biggest victims of poverty and violence. Both continue to be the scene of endemic instability as a result of conflicts and hostilities, unresolved disputes, unaddressed historical grievances, and deep-rooted communal and religious estrangement.

And the Muslim world is in no better shape. It represents the tragic story of “Medusa”, the ill-piloted French naval ship in the 19th century that ran aground because of its incompetent captain's blunders and his dependence on others for navigational guidance, leaving behind a sordid tale of helplessness, death and desperation. The Medusa's wreck is still out there, lying stuck on the West African coast, and isn't going anywhere. Like Medusa's wreck, the mastless Muslim world is just lying there, aimlessly floating with no one to steer it out of the troubled waters.

The Muslim world is in crisis. Representing one-fifth of humanity with a global land mass spreading over 57 countries, and possessing 70 per cent of the world's energy resources and nearly 50 per cent of world's natural resources, the Muslim world should have been a global giant, economically as well as politically. Rich in everything but weak in all respects, it represents only five per cent of world's GDP. As a non-consequential entity, it has no role in global decision-making, or even in addressing its own problems.

Though some of them are sitting on world's largest oil and gas reserves, the majority of Muslim countries are among the poorest and most backward in the world. Poor and dispossessed, Muslim nations emerging from long colonial rule may have become sovereign states but are without genuine political and economic independence. With rare exceptions, they are all at the mercy of the West for their political strength and survival and are politically bankrupt with no institutions other than authoritarian rule. They have no established tradition of systemic governance or institutional approach in their policies and priorities.

Every ingredient of political life in these so-called sovereign states has been faked; sovereignty is not sovereignty, parliament is not parliament, law is not law, and the opposition parties are as corrupt and wasted as the ruling parties. Even the independence following the colonial powers' handing over of the reins of government to local rulers was not true independence. Other than being members of the United Nations, they remain virtual colonies of the West with no sense of freedom or dignity.

They have no bone, no muscle and whatever wealth they possess, is being exploited by the West. The rulers in today's Muslim world, ironically, without exception, are at the mercy of the US for their political strength and survival, and are responsible for the current political, economic and military subservience of their countries to the West. Their lands and resources remain under “protective” military control of their “masters”, who are also the direct beneficiaries of their oil proceeds and investments.
And the Muslim world is in no better shape. It represents the tragic story of “Medusa”, the ill-piloted French naval ship in the nineteenth century that ran aground because of its incompetent captain's blunders and his dependence on others for navigational guidance, leaving behind a sordid tale of helplessness, death and desperation.
Peace is the essence of Islam and yet the Muslim nations have seen very little of it, especially after the Second World War. Some of the Muslim states are home to foreign military bases, while others have allowed foreign forces to use their territory freely and even to carry out their “operations” at will. There are others selflessly engaged in proxy wars on behalf of others and in some cases against their own people. The tragedies in Palestine, Kashmir, Iraq and Afghanistan represent the continuing helplessness of world's Muslims.

Since 9/11, Islam itself is being demonised by its detractors with obsessive focus on the religion of individuals and groups accused of complicity or involvement in terrorist activities. Islam is being blamed for everything that goes wrong in any part of the world. With violence and extremism becoming anathema to the world's high-and-mighty, Muslim freedom struggles are being projected as the primary source of “militancy and terrorism.”

Global terrorism is now being used to justify military occupations and to curb the legitimate freedom struggles of Muslim peoples. Muslim issues remain unaddressed for decades. Palestine is tired and has given up. Iraq is still burning. Afghanistan has yet to breathe peace. Kashmir stands disillusioned. Lebanon is simmering. Libya has been tamed. Egypt and Syria are being chiseled anew. Pakistan is on ICU resuscita tion. Iran is on notice. The Muslim world could not be more chaotic and more helpless. Surely these are critical times for the Muslim world.

What aggravates this dismal scenario is the inability of the Muslim world as a bloc to take care of its problems or to overcome its weaknesses. Its rulers have mortgaged to the West not only the security and sovereignty of their countries but also the political and economic futures of their nations. Despite material affluence in a few oil-rich countries, there is a widespread sense of political and economic deprivation in the Muslim world. These are all a dreary phenomena for which the rulers of the Muslim world alone are responsible. Thanks to our obscurantist mindset, we have done nothing to secure our future in this alarmingly chaotic world.

It makes no sense in dwelling nostalgically on Islam's past and “lost” glory. For us, the steady erosion of Islamic polity and power, Muslim world's stumbling lurch into western colonialism, and now, total political, economic, social and technological backwardness should be stark reminders of the historical magnitude of the failures of Muslim leadership. We cannot entirely blame the West for the Muslim world's institutional bankruptcy, its political and intellectual aridity, its deficiency in knowledge, education and science and technology, its aversion to modernity and modernisation, and its growing servility to the West.

On its part, the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) that groups together the fifty-seven Muslim states has no role whatsoever in global decision-making. It is naïve to expect the OIC to bring any change to the Muslim world which remains alien to peace, democracy, science and technology, socio-economic development, rule of law, equality, women's empowerment, tolerance, harmony, moderation, fraternity and brotherhood.

The OIC is merely an inter-governmental organisation and cannot be expected to do things that only governments of sovereign states can do. It has neither the credentials nor any operational capacity to be the panacea for the ills of its member-states. Though its ideological basis gives it a unique character, it remains seriously handicapped by the absence of regionality and complementarity in its geo-strategic, political and economic interests.

We just had yet another OIC summit in Makkah last month coinciding with the 26th and 27th day of Ramadan. The only special feature of the event was its consecrated timing which may have not only brought about a new spirit for the otherwise totally non-consequential Muslim world but also given a much needed opportunity to its self-serving rulers for availing themselves of their presence at the holiest Islamic soil to do some compunctious soul-searching while begging forgiveness for the sins they have committed in mortgaging to the West not only the security and sovereignty of their countries but also the political and economic futures of their nations.

Muslim leaders are good at oratory promising to their subject paradises on earth. But the problem is that their self-centred visions will not bring change to societies that are among the most illiterate and most backward. Thanks to our obscurantist mindset, we have done nothing to secure our future in this alarmingly chaotic world. Societal mindsets will change only with political, economic and social advancement of the people. This requires, not 'Oh I See' proclamations but tangible actions at national levels for rationalisation of socio-economic priorities through reallocation of resources with high quality education and scientific knowledge becoming the top most strategic priority in individual Muslim states.

Things will not change unless the Muslim world fixes its fundamentals and puts its house in order. Angels will not descend to help or salvage it. Ironically, they have been busy helping the West. It must take control of its own destiny through unity, mutuality and cohesion within its ranks. Its wealth and resources now being exploited by the West should be used to build its own strength and for its own socio-economic well-being.

The key to reshaping the future of the Muslim world lies in its political and economic independence and military strength with each Muslim nation opting for peace and democracy, and for knowledge and technology as top priority. Only governments rooted in the will of the people, and sustained by stable and accountable institutions can lead the way to genuine and healthy transformation of their societies. Each one of them will have to revamp existing mindsets and opt for peace, progress and harmony through genuine democracy and good and accountable governance.


Shamshad Ahmad
The writer is a former foreign secretary.

The United Nations and Maintenance of International Peace and Security
 

[CENTER][SIZE="6"][COLOR="Navy"]The United Nations and Maintenance of International Peace and Security[/COLOR][/SIZE][/CENTER]

[SIZE="4"][COLOR="Sienna"]Despite the failures of the UN and its inherent shortcomings, it is difficult to imagine a world without such multilateral organisation in which the values of peaceful coexistence through political independence, mutual self-respect and territorial integrity of each country, at least, exist on paper.
[/COLOR][/SIZE]

The United Nations — a successor of the League of Nations — was created in an attempt to reform the contemporary international political order. The outbreak of Second World War convinced the world leaders that the failures of the League of Nations to contribute towards creating a strong international order, with wider acceptability across the globe and that was well placed to address the global problems, sparked the outbreak. After going through the devastation of the war and facing the chain reaction of bloodshed, violence, brutality, hunger, and migration, the victors of the war decided to improve upon the botched experience of the League and thereupon the United Nations was created.

The United Nations officially came into existence when the Charter was ratified by China, France, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, the US and by a majority of other signatories on 24 October 1945 — the day now known as the UN day. The framers of the charter attempted to make the international system more fluid and flexible to respond to the challenges that could potentially threaten 'international peace and security'. The other motive was to freeze the contemporary status quo to ensure their supremacy and to perpetually outcast the 'axis powers — Germany, Japan and Italy — who fought against the allied powers — America, the Great Britain and the Soviet Union. Explicit references to these states, in the form of 'enemy states' could be found in Articles 53 and 77 of the Charter.

The purpose of the UN as per Article 1 of the Charter is:
1. To ensure international peace and security and to take collective measures to that effect;
2.To develop friendly relations among nations;
3. To achieve international cooperation in solving international problems of economic, social, cultural and humanitarian character;
4. To be a centre for harmonising the actions of nations these common goals.
A cursory look at these objectives will reflect the main purpose of the UN — maintenance of international peace and security. In pursuance of these objectives, the principles to conduct inter-state relations have been mentioned in the Article 2, which, interalia, states that the member states must resolve their difference peacefully and shall 'refrain' from using 'force or threat of using force'. This article also restricts the UN to 'intervene' in matters which fall directly 'within the domestic jurisdiction' of the states. This, however, does not preclude the UN from taking action under Chapter VII of the Charter and enforcing its decision upon any state.

The creation of the UN has prompted the debate over the successes and failures of the UN with arguments on both sides abound. Those in favour argue that the UN system has successfully prevented the outbreak of Third World War. Whereas critics support their arguments pointing towards the opaque proceedings on the Security Council — the main decision making body with the powers to enforce its decision under Chapter VII. In order to evaluate the performance of the UN system, first, it is pertinent to understand the infrastructure and the working.

The UN comprises six organs: The General Assembly, the Security Council, the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), the Trusteeship Council, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the Secretariat headed by the UN secretary general. The Security Council has 15 members — five permanent also known as P-5 and 10 non-permanent members with two-year term each. The issues on which the Council deliberates upon are classified into 'procedural' and 'non-procedural' or 'substantive'. The vote on procedural question requires concurrence of any nine members whereas on substantive issues concurrence of nine members including the concurrence of P-5. A negative vote of any P-5 member is called 'veto'. Interestingly, the very question whether any issue is procedural or substantive is itself a 'non-procedural' question and can be 'vetoed'. The proceedings of the Council mostly take place in informal consultations and among the P-5. The lack of transparency is the biggest criticism on its working that is entirely indefensible.

The General Assembly is the true democratic organ in which each of the 193 members of the UN enjoys one vote. Under Article 10, the General Assembly can deliberate upon any issue that comes under the charter except those that are already under discussion in the Council (Article 12) and has the authority to frame 'recommendations'. To a cynic, the assembly is only a debating club as the meaningful actions take place in the Council. However, objectively speaking, the assembly has weight of its own and it is not possible to endlessly resist an issue on which unanimity prevails in the assembly. It has moral authority of its own which is gaining legal leverage under the international law as the time passes. For instance, the 'uniting for peace' resolution has authorised the assembly to take action when the Council is deadlocked.
Since the Security Council comprised all the five powers that have the right to 'veto' any 'non-procedural or substantive question, therefore the Council often became hamstrung due to deadlock among the P-5.
The Secretariat is headed by the secretary general with the powers to conduct recruitments. This is the apex of the international civil service.

The International Court of Justice is the main judicial body to conduct mandatory dispute resolution provided the parties submit to its mandate. It also offers advisory opinion when any question is referred to it by the assembly or the council. The specialised organs can also request an advisory opinion 'on legal questions arising within the scope of their activities'. (Article 96)

The Trusteeship Council has now outlived its utility when the last territory, Palau, has been granted independence in 1993. It's another reason why the whole UN system needs reformation.

The creation of the UN was a different and a far better experiment in international politics than the League of Nations because of various reasons. The League failed because:

1. The responsibility of maintaining international peace and security was not well defined between the Assembly and the Council;
2. The major powers like the US never joined the League and the USSR joined in 1934 only to be expelled in 1939 over its attack on Finland;
3. The world powers were never interested in maintaining durable peace;
4. Decision making was done through 'principle of unanimity' which means every state, big or small, had equal voting rights. This proved highly defective as it invested with the small states, power to wreck the world peace, when it did not have the capacity to maintain it. Therefore, a small power could irresponsibly hamstring the entire organisation;
5. It was dominated by the Anglo-French powers in the absence of the US and the USSR that could have balanced the representation and effect;
6. It was the result of Treaty of Versailles that created a façade of peace which actually proved to be imperialistic in character and therefore, was in nately fragile and short-living.

In contrast, the UN proved to be a meaningful and result-oriented endeavor, aimed at rectifying the shortcomings of the League. Its success, so far, can be gauged by the fact that it is, at least, effectively eschewing the outbreak of another world war. Moreover, many innovative instruments have been developed by the UN such as 'Peace Keeping', 'Pacific Settlement of Disputes' through various means including the International Court of Justice, and hierarchic division of responsibility of maintaining world peace — primary of the UN Security Council and residual of the General Assembly, and finally yet importantly, by securing global economic and social reforms under ECOSOC through specialised and subsidiary organs like World Health Organisation (WHO), International Monetary Fund (IMF), United Nations Education and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) and International Atomic Energy Commission, etc.

Coming back to the main question, maintenance of peace and security, the Charter delegates this responsibility to three different organs: the Security Council with primary responsibility under Article 24, the General Assembly with residual or secondary responsibility under Article 10 and finally, the secretary general under Article 99.

446.jpg

The high hopes of the framers of the Charter soon fizzled out when the differences between the two super-powers grew to an unbridgeable extent. The world was divided into two major power blocs — the communist bloc and the capitalist or the western bloc. Since the Security Council comprised all the five powers that have the right to 'veto' any 'non-procedural or substantive question, therefore the Council often became hamstrung due to deadlock among the P-5. In this scenario, the General Assembly's resolution, Uniting for Peace (377) was a major breakthrough that enabled the assembly to step-in where the Council faltered. It happened during the charismatic stewardship of Mr. Daag Hammarskjold. The Korean question was brought before the Assembly when the Soviet representative boycotted the proceedings of the Council and it was the assembly that authorised the 'Congo Mission'.

The objective analysis of the UN will reveal that there is much to be proud of and a lot remains to be done to enhance its efficacy and effectiveness. It has absorbed the influx of the de-colonised nation-states and has survived the rigours of the cold war and the post war unrestrained uni-polarity. It has promptly acted during Kosovo crisis and actively checked the Serbian aggression; managed to put an end to apartheid in South Africa; swung into action to address the situation in Darfur, etc.

The UN has also helped developing nations obtain funding projects through the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, also known as the World Bank. A related UN agency, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) promotes international cooperation on monetary issues and encourages stable exchange rates among nations. Since the end of the cold war, the UN has become increasingly involved in providing humanitarian assistance and promoting improvements in the health across the globe. The UN has provided relief during humanitarian crises caused by international conflicts, and has responded to the emergencies caused by natural disasters such as floods, hurricanes, earthquakes and wars. The millennium development goals (MDGs) have mobilised the attention, will and resources of the world towards creating a world with better health standards and a sanguine future.

The failures, on the other hand, are also numerous. Primarily the conflict resolution mechanism, particularly at the Security Council has often resulted in a deadlock among the P-5 due to vested interests. The UN has yet to learn how to resist the 'pull' of the US national interests. Many pressing geographical disputes such as Palestine and Kashmir are lying pending even though the world knows who is at fault and to what extent?

Pakistan highly values its association with the UN and has played a very robust role in the entire UN system that far exceeds its actual size and potential. We have joined the non-permanent club of UNSC seventh time. Our high value presence in this most important multilateral forum is in line with our foreign policy due to regional and global geo-political realities – Kashmir issue being the single most important agenda item.

To conclude is to reiterate that despite the failures of the UN and its inherent shortcomings, it is difficult to imagine a world without such multilateral organization in which the values of peaceful coexistence through political independence, mutual self-respect and territorial integrity of each country, at least, exist on paper and these norms themselves could impose a check upon the big powers’ ambitions.

Mian Farooq Kashif
The writer is Washington based research scholar of international politics and diplomacy
[email]Intelligent1pk@hotmail.com[/email]

Pakistan from Welfare State to Security State
 

[CENTER][SIZE="6"][COLOR="Navy"]Pakistan from Welfare State to Security State[/COLOR][/SIZE][/CENTER]
[COLOR="Sienna"][SIZE="4"]
Stephen Cohen in 'The Future of Pakistan' opines that the generals of the Pak army know “that the country is falling behind its peers, notably India, yet there is no consensus as to what has to be done.” Cohen continues that there is also a “remote prospect of an army-led transformation of Pakistan, one in which the generals became true revolutionaries, perhaps along the lines of the Turkish army years ago, or more recently, the Indonesian army.”[/SIZE][/COLOR]

Saturday, September 01, 2012

The Pak army is learning, albeit grudgingly, that a one-dimensional National Security Strategy singularly focused on 'defence' cannot guarantee the longevity of the Pakistani nation-state. One 'D' may have length but has no depth, width or height. Our future depends on three Ds, not one. They are: defence, development and diplomacy. The 'Future of Pakistan' has become a hot favourite both within and outside Pakistan. Experts – and groups of experts – are undertaking detailed scenario analysis weighing a whole host of hypotheses and trying to branch “potential outcomes from them”. Experts – and groups of experts – are “analysing possible future events by considering alternative possible outcomes.” The most frequently debated scenarios are:

SCENARIO 1
The Failed State Scenario: For the past seven years, Fund for Peace, the Washington-based think-tank, has been publishing the Failed States Index. As per the Index, the top-three 'failed states' are Somalia, Chad and Sudan. Somalia hasn't had an effective government since 1991. Economic growth is stuck at under three per cent and the economy is dependent on foreign remittances and the informal sector. The Somali National Army (SNA) consists of 4,000 soldiers and is in no position to rein in widespread anarchy. Additionally, the Somali National Army has failed to keep the northern clans from declaring independence. Can Pakistan become Asia's Somalia? Our economic and governance indicators are moving in that direction except for Pakistan's army, the 617,000 strong, disciplined force. Pakistan will not become Asia's Somalia for as long as the Pak army remains an undivided, disciplined entity.

SCENARIO 2
Balkanisation: Yugoslavia was a country. No more. Yugoslavia split into Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Macedonia, Montenegro, Slovenia and Serbia. Josip Tito, from 1943 till his death in 1980, served as the supreme commander of the Yugoslav People's Army (YPA) holding the rank of marshal of Yugoslavia. Marshal Tito, with 620,000 active duty personnel of the YPA under this command kept, Yugoslavia intact. Within eleven years of Tito's death the YPA clashed with Slovenia Territorial Defence in the Ten Day War. The weakened YPA then took on Croatian forces of independence. And then came the Bosnian War. Can Pakistan become Asia's Yugoslavia? Pakistan will not become Asia's Yugoslavia for as long as the Pak army remains an undivided, disciplined entity.

SCENARIO 3
A theocracy: In 1979, Iran adopted a theocratic constitution and became Jomhuri-ye Eslami-ye Iran. Saudi Arabia has been al-Mamlakah al-Arabiyah as-Su udiyah since the Kingdom was founded in 1932. Can Pakistan become a theocratic state? Pakistan, unlike Iran and Saudi Arabia, is essentially a multi-faith society and the probability of Pakistan becoming a theocracy is very, very low.

SCENARIO 4
Muddling through: If Pakistan isn't going to fail or disintegrate then the probability is high that we will just muddle through – “continue despite confusion and difficulties.” Some experts have also hinted at a 'democratic consolidation' but an almost certain deterioration in almost all elements of national power including economics, social and political but muddle through nevertheless — at least for the foreseeable future.

Stephen Cohen in 'The Future of Pakistan' opines that the generals of the Pak army know “that the country is falling behind its peers, notably India, yet there is no consensus as to what has to be done.” Cohen continues that there is also a “remote prospect of an army-led transformation of Pakistan, one in which the generals became true revolutionaries, perhaps along the lines of the Turkish army years ago, or more recently, the Indonesian army.”

In essence, the Pak army plays the central role in almost every future scenario and the one indicator to be watched is the army's public image and its internal cohesion. The future, they say, “is much like the present, only longer”. Others say that the future will be “exactly like the past only far more expensive and far more chaotic.”

Dr Farrukh Saleem

Who Controls Karachi: Law or outlaws?
 

[SIZE="6"][CENTER][COLOR="Navy"]Who Controls Karachi: Law or outlaws?[/COLOR][/CENTER][/SIZE]

[COLOR="DarkOliveGreen"][SIZE="4"]Politics should ideally be about ideology but in Karachi, over the last ten years or so, it has become more about money.
[/SIZE][/COLOR]
Saturday, September 01, 2012

Whether it is Mumbai, Miami or Karachi, gangs or other criminal outfits start controlling cities when the system does not adjust to rapid economic growth.

Those who live in Karachi; and those who go to the city of lights frequently — whatever the purpose of visit may be — they all know the two things go unabated in the city: killing and extortion. The former needs no explanation as the very word itself is enough to cause goose bumps in one's back. The latter — extortion — perhaps needs a lot more understanding.

Up-to-the-minute definition: Extortion also called blackmail, shakedown, out wresting, and exaction. It is a criminal offence of unlawfully obtaining money, property, or services from a person, entity, or institution, through coercion. What is happening in Karachi is not mere extortion. The very word “exaction” defines the situation precisely.

Exaction refers not only to extortion or the unlawful demanding and obtaining of something through force, but additionally, in its formal definition, means the infliction of something such as pain and suffering or making somebody endure something unpleasant.

Easy money, i.e. the sum of exaction now amounts to the tune of two crore (million) rupees daily. Exaction peaks in Ramazan targeting traders, businessmen and industrialists. Fitra parchis (receipts) are common in Karachi and everybody knows who is behind this parchi system. Exaction or extortion whatever you name it also stands out during new-year eve (December), fiscal year end (June) and Bakra Eid.

Extortionists hurl hand grenades at shops, offices and even bungalows of the riches who declined to pay. This is done so to send a warning to stubborn victim. This also scared others. People pay taxes everywhere in the world. In Karachi people pay double taxes. The collectors are the government and the extortionists.

From August 1-10 more than 4,000 extortion threats were received by business community. All Karachi Tajir Itehad — a forum of megacity traders — claimed billions of rupees losses just because of exaction. Other violent crimes are also rampant. During first ten days of August 153 vehicles were reported commandeered. Some 563 motorcycles were snatched at gun-point or stolen. Likewise, from August 1-10 more than 400 cell phones were either snatched at gun-point or stolen.

The ongoing war between certain groups — both political or semi-political and political-criminal — over control of Karachi has its own toll. More money means more supporters. The more the activists are the more is display of power. The war is for illegal money. The war is for arms and drugs and liquors. The war is for illegal lands, not one or two marlas but thousands of acres and future prime locations. The war is for water supply through tankers that meant for posh areas. The war is for disposal of snatched vehicles. Political parties such as Pakistan People's Party, Muttahida Qaumi Movement, Awami National Party too have stains on their faces.
Land grabbing became a business and getting rid of land grabbers also became a business. Banks hired “collectors”, usually political workers or those with connections, to recover stuck loans and confiscate leased cars from people unable to pay installments.
If there is a bomb threat we have Bomb Disposal Squad. If a vehicle is commandeered we have Anti-car Lifting Cell. If a child is kidnapped for ransom we have Anti-violent Crime Cell. If there is corruption we have anti-corruption cell. Then, why the Karachiites are still deprived of with much-desired “anti-extortion squad” or “anti-extortion cell?”

Some four month ago, Sindh government announced to introduce an anti-extortion law to make all offences relating to money extortion non-bailable. This is a brainchild of our Interior Minister Rahman Malik. The elected government's representatives still do not have any time for necessary legislation in this regard. Instead we have an ordinance promulgated by Governor Sindh Dr. Ishart-ul-Ibad.

This so-called ordinance is not simple as it looks. It's a bit perplexing and mind boggling too. The ordinance declares: any person found using a stolen phone or a benami SIM card — a SIM card registered under someone else's name — to make extortion calls should be sentenced to seven years in prison. The accused once arrested will not have a remote chance of bail from any court of law. Under the new anti-extortion law a statement made before a police officer might be admissible before a court of law. The role of police is not impeccable but shoddy in many ways.

Separately, a joint task force headed by a DIG and having representation from Rangers, Inter-Services Intelligence, Intelligence Bureau and the Federal Investigation Agency had been constituted. An extortion reporting cell has been formed by IG Police Sindh. Citizen Police Liaison Committee is also taking complains of extortion. From January up till now the CPLC has so far received more than 400 complains of extortion from traders and individuals, says spokesperson of the CPLC Ms. Nazish Ayaz.

Federal Interior Minister Rehman Malik has on record revealed that activists belonging to political parties of the PPP-led coalition government of Sindh are to be blamed for the menace of extortion in Karachi. According to interior minister the activists of PPP, MQM, ANP and other parties were involved in extortion in the megacity. He also mentioned People's Amn Committee and Kutchhi Rabita Committee behind heinous crimes.

Politics should ideally be about ideology but in Karachi, over the last ten years or so, it has become more about money. In the 1980s, we were divided along ethnic lines, but they have been slowly erased and replaced by financial ones.

The story of change began in 2002, when Shaukat Aziz rigorously implemented an IMF agenda to liberalise the economy. Banks were pushed into consumer financing, lending was made easy. Banking, telecommunication and real estate grew. Import duties were minimised. Business flourished in computers, cell phones and luxury items. The media promoted new products. Middle class dreams were realised. People started discovering purchasing power. They bought cars, homes, refrigerators, cell phones.

Real estate became a focus in 2002 and this trend peaked by 2004 and 2005. A house that was easily available for one million rupees in 1999 was going for no less than eight million rupees. Food and shopping malls mushroomed. The government started to make new roads, bridges and underpasses to make property more attractive.

For those who were earning legally, there were plenty of places to spend. For those who were not able to jump on the bandwagon, they had their own way of earning from the city: land grabbing and petty crime. Snatch a mobile phone and you get at least Rs. 5,000, mug someone at an ATM and you can get up to Rs. 25,000.

Land grabbing became a business and getting rid of land grabbers also became a business. Banks hired “collectors” — usually political workers or those with connections — to recover stuck loans and confiscate leased cars from people unable to pay installments.

Karachi was already divided on political lines, thus political connections were essential for the recovery gangs. In many cases, settlements were reached at the offices of political parties. Later, recovery gangs became involved in land grabbing. To survive, they needed the protection of a political banner or flag. This is why, more and more political flags were put up on grabbed property or disputed land over the last ten years.

The Rangers have been tasked with security of some of the city's prime property but they also have a stake in the different business, especially the water supply one. A common perception at Karachi University, where the Rangers have been deployed since 1989, is that whenever students demand their removal from campus, a student clash takes place. Many circles believe the same theory applies to the city as well.

Many people believe banned sectarian outfits kill Shias to demonstrate strength and consolidate their support bank, get a piece of the pie. Police investigators cite the 1995-96 rise of the anti-Shia Taliban as linked to the killings of scores of Shias in Karachi. By targeting Shias, these outfits send a strong message to their supporters who then reach for their pockets to make donations. In a tit-for-tat response, many Sunnis have also been gunned down apparently by Shia outfits.

It would be unfair to hold criminals entirely responsible. They could not have come so far without benefiting the parties in return. Financial gains of political parties are not easy to prove. But an evaluation of leaders' assets and their growth in the last 10 years could reveal this side of the story.

From Lyari to Surjani, New Karachi to Orangi Town, party flags have surfaced and people claiming affiliation with different parties have been dictating the rules of business in real estate and other money matters. This was also made possible with the support from the administration, police, Rangers.

It is an open secret that the police and other law-enforcing agencies are beneficiaries. This is why people argue that the lifestyle of many officers does not match their legal sources of income. In some cases, the visiting cards of officers have been recovered from people shot dead in encounters.

Law enforcers are bowing down to the outlaws, thus throwing Karachi to the Frankenstein.

Asad Kaleem

Media Influence on Pakistani Culture and Identity
 

[CENTER][COLOR="Navy"]Media Influence on Pakistani Culture and Identity[/COLOR][/CENTER]

[SIZE="4"][COLOR="Sienna"]Two-Nation Theory is the basis of creation of Pakistan. It states that Muslims and Hindus are two separate nations by every definition; therefore Muslims should have a separate homeland[/COLOR][/SIZE]

Saturday, September 01, 2012

It is human nature to show affection to the land where he is born, grows up and lives. He admires and follows the customs, values and principles of the life designated by the social set-up of the country. He strives to make his homeland a free, secure and a better place to live for himself and the generations to come. In a free country people have the opportunity to speak, act and pursue happiness without unnecessary external restrictions. It is important because it leads to enhanced independence, expressions of creativity and original thought, increased productivity, and an overall high quality of life.

Pakistan came into being with the same thought in the mind of our great leaders who were not agreed to see Muslims living in oppressive conditions without any identity or individuality. Two-Nation Theory is the basis of creation of Pakistan. It states that Muslims and Hindus are two separate nations by every definition; therefore Muslims should have a separate homeland where they can spend their lives according to the glorious teachings of Islam. Mohammed Ali Jinnah's speech at All India Muslim League Conference in 1940 gives a crystal clear concept of Muslims' of that time. “The Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social values and literary thoughts. They neither intermarry, nor dine together, and they belong to two different civilisations which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions.” Today, we are living in a free state, with our own laws, rules and freedom but a question arises here, is it the same Pakistan which our ancestors dreamt of?

As far as the celebrations on the Independence Day are concerned, the nation shows love and enthusiasm for their country but, on the whole situation is different. Every year we celebrate Independence Day on August 14, with excitement, great zeal and passion. Our nation renews commitments to make Pakistan prosperous and strong. Buildings are illuminated and decorated with national flags. Political and civil society organisations arrange rallies, parades and vibrant functions in all small and major cities of the country. Similarly, the electronic media plans wide-ranging programmes, including national songs, talk shows, dramas, quiz, etc. to mark the occasion. The print media carries special supplements, articles, features and highlight the importance of the day and sacrifices rendered by heroes and nation's forefathers for it. These programmes highlight the significance of the day, ideology of Pakistan, importance of identity, goals set for the future and pay tribute to the Father of the Nation, Quaid-e-Azam. Regrettably this enthusiasm remains just for few days.
The role of media is enormous here whereby the extensive promotion of western product brands are forcing consumers in our society to simply reject the local brands and consider them inferior comparing with the foreign brands in the market.
Today the world community comprises more than 180 countries. Pakistan appeared on the world map in August 1947. But in fact since its creation, with every passing year, Pakistan is losing its identity. It's not because of economic and political background, but due to the changing life patterns and thoughts of every Pakistani. It's the individuality or national identity that makes a nation different from rest of the world. Pakistani society is undergoing a massive cultural change rapidly resulting in an identity crisis for Pakistanis. The deep-rooted embedded cultural values in our society are becoming hollow and gradually fading away.

Various catalysts for change are responsible for this scenario including media as the key player. The European and American culture is slowly engulfing our society. The role of media is enormous here whereby the extensive promotion of western product brands are forcing consumers in our society to simply reject the local brands and consider them inferior comparing with the foreign brands in the market.

The programmes telecast through satellite TV channels and on cable TV networks in Pakistan are predominantly western and Indian. The promotion of American, European and Indian culture via dramas, movies, music programmes, skits etc., telecast on various satellite TV channels escalate change in local culture and values. Pakistanis tend to be more appreciative of the foreign cultures being promoted than their local values and trends. Therefore, they prefer adopting these foreign culture hence leading towards a change in our society. Our new generation is so much involved with foreign culture that it's getting away from the local dresses. They cannot differentiate between the two and ready to adopt whatever is shown to them by the media. They hardly know its actual and indigenous values, culture and traditions. And those few who are followers of their own culture are thought to be out-dated or backward.

The undue westernisation is dominating the typical Pakistani culture. For instance, the extended and joint family system, a hallmark of Pakistani culture, is slowly deteriorating. The younger generation seldom cares for their parents and elders. Fascination of English language is so much that many Pakistanis, who are fluent in English, are unable to understand Urdu. Therefore, speaking English language is a status symbol and the people speaking Urdu are considered backward or illiterate. They are creating inferiority complex among those who do not have good command on English but speak excellent Urdu. Further Urdu language is getting unwanted additions due to invasion of foreign words (Hindi and English). A new language which is a mix of Urdu, English and Hindi words is emerging. Similarly, the meal preferences have changed from chapatti and rice to Subway, KFC and McDonalds. Instead of traditional drinks, Pepsi and Coke have found its way into our homes.

Muslims being in majority in Pakistan are losing their Islamic/indigenous values and ultra-modern educational institutions as well as media are gradually inculcating western and Indian values in the younger generation. It seems that Pakistanis, a nation of 170 million, are confused about their ideology, culture and sociology, values, religion, priorities and even enemies.” Unfortunately our own media is playing a significant role in this regard.

Mahathir bin Mohammad, former prime minister of Malaysia is of the view that we live in the age of information technology. There has been and there will continue to be an unending explosion in the field of information technology. Today, we can sit in our homes and watch and hear whatever happens in the world. But what we see, hear and witness is decided by media. Clearly the people, who decide what we should see and hear, hold mammoth power.
As the people who control the media, control our minds and probably control the world. And who control the powerful world media are not the national governments of developing or developed nations but a very few people.
As the people who control the media, control our minds and probably control the world. And who control the powerful world media are not the national governments of developing or developed nations but a very few people. They have an effective weapon in the form of a worldwide television network. Today, they broadcast slanted news, tomorrow they will broadcast raw pornography to corrupt our children and destroy our culture. They are already doing that in Europe. We can control the reception today but not in future. He further says that Malaysia believes in press freedom but with responsibility.

The situation is indeed alarming for the national identity in Pakistan. Therefore firm steps are needed to be taken on regular basis to preserve Pakistan's cultural values and identity.

Apart from government to take measures to control the cultural invasion, the responsibility lies on every Pakistani to own, respect and love this country. We have to believe in our own native values in order to save and secure our identity. Being Pakistani, we should not forget that our homeland made us stand out in the map of the world as an independent nation and provide us the freedom, which many Muslim countries are still striving for today.

If we want to live with honour, dignity and secure our identity, we have to proudly own and love our country. If we want our upcoming generation should breathe freely as an independent nation in the world, then, today we have to work in the best interest of Pakistan. We have to rebuild our characters and minds to take the track which leads Pakistan to the destination our ancestors had dreamt of.

Pakistanis and Pakistani media are required to respect the native traditions and individuality, abide by the rules and regulations of the federation, support the minors/minorities and provide education for all irrespective of their financial and social background, we can bring the change, prosperity in our society and secure our homeland. The intellectuals in media and the political circles have the responsibility to start the debate. It is through repeated exposure that the citizens will start to identify themselves with democratic and liberal values.

To minimize and resist the effects of western and Indian channels, it is suggested that local channels should be strengthened and programmes should have better content. These channels should produce and broadcast quality programmes that could help in the promotion of Pakistani values and traditions and improve the image of Pakistan at international level.

Dr. Anjum Zia

[B][I][U][CENTER][SIZE="5"]Good Governance Defined and Elaborated[/SIZE][/CENTER][/U][/I][/B]


[I]Effective parliamentary system can seek information, ask pertinent questions, analyse reasons behind policy decisions and make governance transparent, responsible and accountable.[/I]


Good governance is the factor that leads to giving the citizens an enabling environment that gives justice, peace and order, welfare facilities (education and health) and economic opportunities that will increase their quality of life and standard of living.

Good governance is based on institutional frameworks. In parliamentary system, where free, fair and impartial elections are held, a parliament emerges which represents the people and is supposed to protect their fundamental rights. The majority party in the parliament forms the government. The parliament passes laws and bills through processes of questions, motions, debates and discussions. It holds government accountable. Effective parliamentary system can seek information, ask pertinent questions, analyse reasons behind policy decisions and make governance transparent, responsible and accountable. The committee system if works in an efficient manner can be a very effective mechanism in improving the quality of governance.

Parliament is the public forum where all important national and other issues and problems can be highlighted, debated and discussed and plausible solutions are put forward to the government for consideration.

Executive is composed of the cabinet headed by the prime minister. Permanent civil service (bureaucracy) executes the decisions and policies of the cabinet. The major responsibilities and functions of the government are as under:

[B]1. Security [/B]
Pakistan's biggest danger is terrorism. Suicide attacks have wrought havoc by killing thousands of innocent citizens. So far the intelligence agencies and the police administration have failed to quell this grave menace. The government has not shown the resolve to arrest this threat.

The foundation or base of terrorism needs to be identified and tackled so that the financers, organisers and operators of terrorism are apprehended, tried and punished. This is an extremely different but a challenging task which needs to be tackled to make Pakistan a safe and secure place to live in.

[B]2. Economy[/B]
Pakistan's economy is in a major crisis. Pakistan's expected growth rate (GDP) last year (2010-11) was 2.52 per cent. It was reduced from 4.52 per cent on account of floods.

Pakistan's biggest expenditure is on debt servicing. This will amount to Rs. 880 billion. Defence expenditure will be Rs. 600 billion (including pension). Civil administration expenditures will be Rs. 400 billion. Development expenditures will be Rs. 280 billion (reduced from Rs. 350 billion).

Tax collection has been earmarked as Rs.1600 billion. The government is trying to raise additional taxes through revised GST and by reducing subsidies and raising oil prices. These measures are now being negotiated between the government and the other parties in parliament.

To promote growth, higher productivity is required in industry, services and agriculture. With shortages in energy and water, and the difficult internal security situation, to increase the growth rate will remain a constant struggle.

Pakistan needs a higher growth rate to provide gainful employment opportunities for young entrants to the labour force. Unemployment rate is 5.5 per cent and needs to be reduced.

Inflation is a very major issue as it affects those who are more venerable in society especially the ones with fixed incomes. Therefore, the government has devised support programmes to assist the needy. Poverty is a major issue confronting the policy makers in Pakistan. With lower growth rates there has been an increase in poverty.

In the long-term Pakistan must address some of the structure challenges such as the low tax/GDP ratio and the low overall productivity in the economy.
[B]
3. Social Sectors Development[/B]
(a) Education: Public spending on education needs to be increased from 2% of GDP to 3-4% GDP. This will become feasible as we raise the overall growth rate of the economy.

Literacy rate must be improved. Substantially enrolment in basic education must be raised. Curriculum needs constant revision and up gradation. Science and technology needs to compete internationally. Teacher training needs to be standardised and institutionalized. Quality of higher education must be upgraded. Scholarship programmes need to be promoted.

(b) Health: Public spending on health needs to be increased from 0.6% of GDP to 1.5% of GDP. Manpower of the health department is composed of approximately 140,000 doctors and 10,000 dentists. The number of the dentist needs to be increased. There is dire need to improve the quality of medical education. Physical facilities i.e. hospitals, dispensaries, rural health centres and basic health units also need overhauling. Different programmes launched by the ministry of health like population planning programmes, drug abuse programme, blindness prevention and aids prevention need to be more effective.

[B]4. Foreign Policy[/B]
There needs to be a full-fledged debate in parliament on foreign policy. After the debate and input from all segments of society, the required changes should be made accordingly.

[B]5. Judiciary[/B]
The Supreme Court of Pakistan after being restored is showing judicial activism. It has taken up constitutional petitions. It has also taken up cases of citizens in distress under the fundamental rights. The courts have become the forum for resolving major national problems. Several thousand cases are pending with the courts. They need to be taken up expeditiously and disposed off.

Quality of governance will improve tremendously if all the organs of state carry out their functions and responsibilities with a view to serve the people.
The writer is a renowned columnist.


[B]Email: [email]qayyumnizami@gmail.com[/email]
Qayyum Nizami
[/B]

[B][I][CENTER][SIZE="5"]Investment in Education and Skill Development[/SIZE][/CENTER][/I][/B]


[I]The economic rationale for investment in education was thus well established by the early 1980s.[/I]


According to the traditional view in the development debate of the 1960s, land, labour and capital were identified as the main factors of production and within these, the focus was on expanding capital by increasing investment to at least 15 per cent of GDP to achieve an average growth rate of five per cent per annum.

By the early 1970s, however, the definition of capital was broadened to include human capital. Investment in education, it was pointed out on the basis of several studies, created better skills and together with research for improved technology, would lead to higher productivity and faster economic growth. The economic rationale for investment in education was thus well established by the early 1980s.

The launch of the Human Development Report by UNDP in 1990 was another landmark in the conceptual framework for development. Pioneered by late Dr. Mahbubul Haq, the report prescribed supplementary criteria for determining performance called the Human Development Index (HDI). The Index built on four indicators: Life expectancy at birth, adult literacy rate, combined primary, secondary and tertiary gross enrolment ratio and GDP per capita, assigned a maximum value of 1 on the basis of which countries are categorized into High (above 0.8), medium (between 0.) and 0.8) and low HDI (below 0.5). This concept emphasized that human development was not just a means to more rapid economic growth but also an end in its own right.

The transition of the world towards a knowledge based economy and growing competition in the wake of globalization, has further magnified the importance of human resources in general and of education in particular as a key element in the process of social and economic transformation. Key indicators of progress in the coming decades will not only include the overall level of literacy, but also the proportion of skilled workers in the total work force, the percentage labour force employed in different sub-sectors of communications and the investment being made in research and technology. Only societies which have acquired the required knowledge and skills will be able to compete in the global markets.

The state of education in Pakistan
Viewed in this context, Pakistan has a long way to go. The facts and main indicators are well known, but the following shortcomings and lags are particularly noteworthy:
Overall investment in education in Pakistan is still very low, despite repeated commitments by successive governments to reach the UNESCO target of four per cent of GDP. Public spending on education in Pakistan, as a percentage of GDP is only 1.8 per cent which is the lowest in South Asia and has in fact declined from the peak of 2.5 per cent reached in the mid 1990s. Several Asian countries had already exceeded by the year 2000 the UNESCO target of four per cent of GDP. India (4.1 per cent). Philippines (4.2 per cent), Iran 4.4 per cent). Thailand (5.4 per cent). Malaysia 96.2 per cent).

Because of a combination of high population growth and low expenditure on education, the average level of adult literacy has moved very slowly from 26 per cent in 1981 to an estimated 57.7 per cent in 2010. If this average is broken down between urban and rural areas, between males and females and between different provinces, the wide disparities reflected in the dismal average becomes even more glaring. The rate of literacy for rural females in 2010 was only 22.5 per cent in Baluchistan, 20.3 per cent in Sindh. 29 per cent in KPK and 40.2 per cent in Punjab, yielding a national average of 34.2 per cent for female literacy. With this level of female literacy, the programme for population control will have only limited chances of success.

Despite a three fold increase in Pakistan's GDP over the last 30 years, there has been no corresponding improvement in social indicators. Pakistan was 127th on the global ranking of the Human Development Index for 2010 among169 countries.

Moving from the quantitative to the qualitative aspects of human development, the situation is even more depressing. On UNDP's Technology Achievement Index based on indicators like enrolment of science students, patents and royalties, and access to telephones, internet and electricity, Pakistan's rank is 0.17, compared to 0.20 for India and Sri Lanka, 0.31 for Brazil, 0.4 for Malaysia and 0.67 for South Korea.
In the past few years, HEC and the Provincial Governments have taken many initiatives in the field of education but there are many structural problems and institutional obstacles that have affected the implementation of well meaning policies and plans in the past.
Similarly on the global Knowledge Economy Index based on information, infrastructure, economic incentives regime, and expenditure on research. Pakistan's rank is 2.24, compared to 3.12 for India, 4.35 for China, 4.16 for Sri Lanka, 5.57 for Brazil, and 6.06 for Malaysia.

It should be clear from the foregoing that a very major effort will be needed on several fronts if Pakistan is to improve not only its overall level of literacy but also its ranking in the above-mentioned areas. The focus of these wide ranging efforts should be: (a) Mobilizing additional resources for investment in education and skill development. (b) paying greater attention to quality of education, and (c) ensuring more effective implementation through major institutional and administrative reforms.

In the past few years, HEC and the Provincial Governments have taken many initiatives in the field of education but there are many structural problems and institutional obstacles that have affected the implementation of well meaning policies and plans in the past. Unless these obstacles are tackled, the new plans and reforms will not yield the expected results and targets. Four such problems areas and obstacles are discussed in this article.

Shrinking fiscal space in the provinces
The most daunting challenge before the economic managers of Pakistan is finding ways and means of raising total expenditures on education to five per cent of GDP in the next few years and ensuring meaningful utilization of these resources to achieve universal literacy in the shortest possible time, to improve the quality of education and vastly expanding opportunities for technical and vocational education.

[B]Quality of education[/B]
Pakistan is currently trapped in a vicious circle of low skills and low productivity. The objective of improving the quality of education is therefore in many ways more important than the issue of overall expenditures or overall literacy levels.

The most important factor in higher productivity is skills and indigenous technological capacity. The expansion in educational facilities must be based on the projected market demand and the imperative of making Pakistan a knowledge-based economy. At present, most of the better educational institutions in Pakistan are producing high school graduates primarily for studying abroad. Many of them never come back. As a result of this brain drain, the country is unable to benefit from the best part of its human resource pool. In comparison, the education systems of both India and China are geared mainly to the domestic market.

The quality of education depends largely on the quality of teachers. The quality of teachers can be improved by recruiting teachers on merit on the basis of periodical competitive examinations and by offering higher grades to teachers with higher qualifications.

Similarly, the system of examination has to move away from memorizing certain lessons to a more systematic assessment of understanding, reasoning, originality and creativity so that the system of teaching, learning and testing becomes an integrated process. At present the conduct of secondary and higher secondary examinations is centralized under various boards of education. Under this system the students are taught by one teacher, the examination papers are composed by another teacher, without knowing what has actually been taught and a third teacher marks the examination papers. There is no provision to include an assessment of the projects undertaken by the students or individual attainments of a student during the year. Examinations are largely based on text books and tend to be quite repetitive. That is why students are not encouraged to go beyond studying (in fact memorizing) certain portion of the text books. Even laboratory experiments are reduced to memorizing relevant passage from the lab manuals.

A gradual shift to the semester system of teaching and assessment in the system of higher education is necessary to improve the quality of education in Pakistan. The conceptual framework of the National Curriculum 2000, prepared by the National Committee, with the participation of many outside experts is a very forward looking document but its implementation has been adversely affected by recent controversies over text books and the Agha Khan Examination Board.
Despite a three fold increase in Pakistan's GDP over the last 30 years, there has been no corresponding improvement in social indicators. Pakistan was 127th on the global ranking of the Human Development Index for 2010 among169 countries.

[B]Inequalities in education[/B]
The third structural issue is the problem of growing inequalities in the system. Inequalities in education are not confined to different literacy rates between urban and rural areas, between males and females and among different provinces. There is also a very high correlation between education and income levels. As households with higher incomes have access to better education and also to technical education, they will naturally capture a larger proportion of the employment opportunities and other benefits in a growing economy. Education inequalities are thus a major cause of growing income inequality and poverty in Pakistan.

According to recent studies, educational facilities in Baluchistan and in rural areas of Sindh are very inadequate. It is absolutely necessary in expanding investment in education to give special attention to districts at the lowest range of the educational ladder. The basic purpose of public spending in education should be to enhance the income earning capacity of the poor and education is the most important starting point for the process of social transformation leading to greater quality and social justice.

Another and more serious form of inequality springs from the strong multi dimensional divide between English medium and Urdu medium systems of education. In the recent past, this divide has been further accentuated by the rapid expansion of madrassahs schools, offering religious education and catering to the educational requirements of low income groups. These three streams of education not only provide education under very different systems but also lead to divergent views and opinions about political, economic and international issues, often hostile to each others. This state of affairs, unless corrected through a more unified system of education, can lead to greater polarization in society, threatening the very unity of the federation.

[B]Reform of educational administration[/B]
One of the most important lessons of successful development experience in other countries is the sequencing of various reforms. Economic and sectoral reforms have yielded positive results only when these were preceded by administrative and institutional reforms that ensured adequate and timely implementation. In Pakistan, most of the educational reforms, action programmes or initiatives have floundered because the bureaucratic structures responsible for their implementation were totally inadequate. An important example of this mis-match was the Social Action Programme launched in 1992 with substantial support from external donors. Allocations for primary education under this programme were doubled over the next five years, but on the average only about half the physical and qualitative targets of programmes were achieved. Total enrolment increased from l 1 to 19 million between 1990 and 2000, and the literacy improved from 36 per cent to only 47 per cent over the same period. Successive evaluation of the programme showed serious inadequacies in their implementation. One such evaluation found that as a result of frequent transfers, the average tenure of the Secretary in the Education Department of Punjab (with primary responsibility for the programme and for a system employing 30,000 teachers) was less than one year. There were also reports about the appointment and transfers of teachers on the basis of political patronage, absence of incentives for good teachers and weak enforcement mechanisms for ensuring discipline and quality of service delivery. The general attitude and mindset of bureaucracy was also reported to be negative. As a result of these assessments, this programme was discontinued in 2002.

The above-mentioned institutional and administrative weaknesses have not however disappeared. Unless these are remedied, other reforms can meet the same fate. Increased allocations can be readily spent by building physical structures through contractors, but the qualitative targets in terms of actual enrolment, the quality of education and more diversified education according to future needs, will remain illusive.

Following the Successful example of setting' up HEC at the Federal level, the possibility of setting up Provincial Education Commissions in the four Provinces should be examined on a priority basis, to take over from the Provincial Education Departments the responsibilities for developing and managing higher education at the provincial level. These Commissions should be staffed by qualified professionals, with security of tenure to enable them to withstand political pressures.

For primary and secondary education institutional reforms have to move in two directions: major decentralization of responsibility from the provincial to the district and lower levels and association of civil society with the planning and implementation of education, including management of educational institutions, at all levels. As is dramatically illustrated by the success of many private NGOs in establishing good quality schools for the poor, there is a growing pool of businessmen, educational experts and social workers committed to the cause of education. They can play a major role in upgrading the quality of public education.

Finally, education is the most important route to overcome unemployment and poverty. That is why the time seems ripe to incorporate in our laws, the right to education as a basic human right and give investment in education the highest priority in managing the Pakistan economy.

[B]The writer is Vice-Chancellor of Beaconhouse National University, Lahore.[/B]

[B][I][CENTER][SIZE="5"]ABBOTTABAD Incident-Drama or Reality[/SIZE][/CENTER][/I][/B]


[I]Who are the supporters of the terrorist groups operating in Pakistan?[/I]


Dr Steve R. Pieczenik says, “Osama was dead in 2001.” He says 9/11 was a farce. Yes, it is true. A person with the inside knowledge of the American intelligence system cannot be wrong. Mr Pieczenik “cannot be dismissed as a conspiracy theorist.”The gentleman has served on important posts with Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan and Bush Senior. He was Secretary of State with the first three. A former US Navy Captain, still works as a consultant for the Department of Defense and is the recipient of two prestigious Harry C. Solomon awards at Harvard Medical School as he simultaneously completed a PhD at MIT. He has a long list of credentials that can be found through internet. He says, “Osama was suffering with Marfan syndrome.” Osama bin Laden died in 2001, “Not because special forces had killed him, but because as a physician I had known that the CIA physicians had treated him and it was on the intelligence roster that he had Marfan syndrome. US government knew Osama bin Laden was dead before they invaded Afghanistan. Bush Junior knew about it, the intelligence community knew about it. CIA physicians had visited Osama bin Laden in July 2001 at the American Hospital in Dubai.”

Marfan syndrome is a degenerative genetic disease for which there is no permanent cure. The illness severely shortens the life span of the sufferer. Then why to dramatize Osama bin Laden's capture, his murder and then throwing the dead body in the sea? What is the message sent out? Who gained and who are the losers?

CIA failed on 9/11. Was it? Zionist plan is gradually revealing. It is a pity that the poor Americans are so naïve that they cannot read in between the lines. They are the mechanised robots. They do not have time to go through the political jigsaw. Most of them only understand what is fed to them by the media, which is primarily owned and operated by the Jews. They are fleecing the people of America who are being practically controlled by Israel. Don't we know who controls the American economy? Don't we know about the owners of US gold reserves? Why destabilisation is being perpetuated in our part of the world? Who are the actors behind the scenes? Who are the supporters of the terrorist groups operating in Pakistan? Are we not aware of the funding channels of these plunderers? The answer is short and crisp. It is the Israeli perpetrators. They are there in the guise of our so-called religious brethren and friends.

So! Where are we, the Pakistanis? Are we being commanded and controlled by the puppets of those who are actually pulling the strings of the so-called” World Superpower”.
Was Osama bin Laden incident in Abbottabad an intelligence failure or was it a failure of the whole governing machinery? Answer is not only easy but also simple to understand.
Was Osama bin Laden incident in Abbottabad an intelligence failure or was it a failure of the whole governing machinery? Answer is not only easy but also simple to understand. USA, by virtue of this amazing Hollywood drama, has achieved the aim of maligning one of the best of armies and a very efficient intelligence organisation which has not only played a major role in throwing out the Russians but has also broken the back bone of the notorious terrorist groups. It is a pity to point a finger at one of the finest fighting arms of the world, which has sacrificed more than 2500 officers only. The killed ratio of officers and other ranks stands at around 1:3. No army has ever sacrificed so much. Even the Americans cannot come closer to this ratio. An organisation which can sacrifice its coveted sons for the soil of Pakistan, can never betray it. It is easy to talk against rather than facing the hardship and shed blood.

Dr. Pieczenik reveals the hidden agenda. In order to enhance the fading popularity, Obama had to do something. Birthing issue was blowing up. His approval ratings were plummeting. The hoax, the drama at Abbottabad had to be enacted. “ He(Obama) had to prove that he was more than American……he had to be aggressive”, said Pieczenik, adding that ”the farce was also a way of isolating Pakistan as a retaliation for intense opposition to the Predator drone programme, which has killed hundreds of Pakistanis. This is orchestrated, I mean when you have people sitting around and watching a sitcom, basically the operations centre of the White House, and you have a president coming out almost zombie-like telling you they just killed Osama bin Laden who was already dead nine years ago,” the whole episode is, “the greatest falsehood I've ever heard, I mean it was absurd.”

Controlling authorities of the Americans are once again bent upon convincing them to sacrifice their sons. They want to put their sons on the altar once more to achieve the ulterior motives. They are dramatising another time like Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. It is a wakeup call for us Pakistanis. It is time now to pin point the 5th columnists. Now is the time to bring to the dock those people with vested interests and a hidden agenda, who are funded by those who are at the tangent with the welfare and progress of Pakistan.

The writer is a defence analyst on TV channals. Presently he is working as Principal, Garrison Post Graduate College for Men, Lahore

[B]Col (R) Khawar Munir Haroon, SI (M)[/B]

[I][CENTER][SIZE="5"][COLOR="RoyalBlue"][B]Indo-Pak Issues[/B][/COLOR][/SIZE][/CENTER][/I]


[I]Both the countries continue to suffer from mutual mistrust and their bilateral disputes remain unresolved and their cooperation circumscribed by severe restrictions and limitations.[/I]


Since independence, Pakistan-India relations have been the victim of oscillations between short-lived periods of euphoria and raised expectations followed by long intervals marked by disappointment, strains, tensions and even armed conflicts. Consequently, both the countries continue to suffer from mutual mistrust and their bilateral disputes remain unresolved and their cooperation circumscribed by severe restrictions and limitations. Here is a brief commentary on the disputes that has plagued the mutual relations of these neighbouring nuclear powers.

[B]Kashmir[/B]
The long-standing Kashmir problem is at the heart of all the hostility and antagonism between insofar the two wars were fought mainly due to Kashmir. The 10-million Muslims of the Kashmir Valley want independence from Indian rule. Pakistan has always supported the noble cause for which Mujahideen are still shedding their blood. After Mumbai attacks, there has been complete impasse and no development was seen on this issue. However, Indian foreign secretary Nirupama Rao recently said that the Indian government has confessed that its policy of not engaging with Pakistan – post 26/11 was wrong. The year 2011 has witnessed the resumption of talks and a number of meetings have been held at secretary and minister levels. Pakistan-India semi final of the 2011 cricket World Cup has also helped proactively to diffuse the tensions.

This is not only in the interest of both countries but is of utmost importance for the whole region as well. Once the main bone of contention between India and Pakistan i.e. Kashmir is removed, then the two arch rivals and “enemies” can become friends and concentrate on socio-economic problems of their peoples within a peaceful atmosphere.

[B]Water[/B]
After Kashmir, the most serious conflict is the water dispute. The water dispute surfaced when the Indian Punjab cut off the flow of waters in April 1948. However, through the efforts of World Bank President Mr. Eugene Black the dispute was resolved and Indus Waters Treaty was signed in 1960. For smooth operation of the treaty a permanent India-Pakistan Indus Commission was established.

Pakistani concern heightened in the 1990s after India began constructing a hydroelectric power project on the Chenab River in the Doda district of Jammu & Kashmir. Since the Chenab is the key tributary of the Indus, Pakistani policy-makers and political commentators feared that India could exert control over the waters. Such control could be used to weaken the Pakistani economy and livestock, or could be used to cause floods in Pakistan by the release of water during times of war.The issue of Kishanganga project and Tulbul Barrage are also important ones.

The concern is escalating because Pakistan's agricultural sector would be greatly affected by the building of dams and by the external control of the waters of several rivers that flow into Pakistan.

In February 2010, both countries started the dialogue process again and the foreign secretaries of the two countries met in New Delhi but the dialogue ended on a bitter note. Pakistan was resolute to discuss the water issue while India was adamant on discussing terrorism. The Indus Commissioners met in April to resolve this issue but nothing concrete came out. India's obdurate behaviour is the biggest hurdle in the amicable settlement of this issue.

[B]Sir Creek [/B]
The Sir Creek is a 96 km (60 miles) strip of water in the Rann of Kutch marshlands. The Rann lies on the border between the Indian state of Gujarat and the Pakistani province of Sindh. Pakistan claims rights, in accordance with the Bombay Government Resolution of 1914, to the entire waters surrounding and fed by the creek. India, for its part, insists that it owns half of the area on the basis of the Thalweg Doctrine pertaining to international law.

In recent years, interest in the delimitation of a maritime boundary in this area has been heightened by the prospect of oil and gas being discovered offshore. Pakistan is insisting on defining the extremity of its land frontier in the Sir Creek area in a manner which will give it control over a larger EEZ. The Pakistani EEZ will be enlarged by around 250 square miles if India accepts the Green Line showing Sir Creek's eastern bank as the land boundary.

In May this year, Pakistan and India agreed to resolve the Sir Creek dispute, keeping in view the interests of both countries. During the final round of talks the focus was on developing a consensus on concluding a joint survey of Sir Creek that was decided during the Musharraf regime.
Pakistani concern heightened in the 1990s after India began constructing a hydroelectric power project on the Chenab River in the Doda district of Jammu & Kashmir.
The dispute over this estuary has hampered exploration for oil and gas and led to the detention of hundreds of fishermen from the two countries when they stray across the poorly demarcated border. Sir Creek needs to be resolved at the earliest, and it can be done if there is flexibility on the past of India.

[B]Siachen[/B]
The Siachen conflict began in 1984 with India's Operation Meghdoot during which it wrested control of the Siachen Glacier from Pakistan and forced the Pakistanis to retreat west of the Saltoro Ridge. India established control over all of the 70 kilometres long Siachen Glacier and all of its tributary glaciers, as well as the three main passes of the Saltoro Ridge immediately west of the glacier—Sia La, Bilafond La, and Gyong La.

The Siachen Glacier is the highest battleground on earth where India and Pakistan have fought intermittently since April 13, 1984. Both countries maintain permanent military presence in the region at a height of over 6,000 metres (20,000 ft). Till now, more than 2000 people have died in this inhospitable terrain.

The conflict in Siachen stems from the incompletely demarcated territory on the map beyond the map coordinate known as NJ9842. The 1972 Simla Agreement did not clearly mention who controlled the glacier, merely stating that from the NJ9842 location the boundary would proceed "thence north to the glaciers."

India turned down a Pakistani proposal seeking the immediate demilitarisation of Siachen, at the recently held talks between the senior defence officials in New Delhi. However, the two sides again came close to striking an agreement on Siachen and Sir Creek during Pervez Musharraf's regime but political upheaval in Pakistan prevented the historic breakthrough.

[B]Afghanistan[/B]
What makes the issue of Indian and Pakistanis actions in Afghanistan so complicated is that both parties have overriding national interests in the situation. For India, there are the issues of interest to a rising regional and global power, including access to valuable resources. Pakistan also has various strategic interests in Afghanistan which are crucial for its existence. Pakistan has seen India's rapid insertion of material support into Afghanistan as a strategic loss. Pakistan asserts that Delhi's consulates close to the Durand Line serve as hubs for aiding the Baluch insurgency. Pakistan thinks that any Indian involvement in Afghanistan is absolutely pernicious for its interests. India has spurned Pakistan's accusations and apprehensions about Indian presence but Barnett Rubin sees Pakistan's concerns over India's involvement in Afghanistan as one of its “legitimate interests.”

In this regard US role is of crucial importance especially after the drawdown announcement made by Obama. If Obama intends to solve the problems of Afghanistan, he would best take a page from his first major foreign policy paper, penned in July 2007. "I will encourage dialogue between Pakistan and India to work toward resolving their dispute over Kashmir," he wrote in Foreign Policy magazine, focusing on long-standing tensions over the contested territory that has led to two wars between the nuclear-armed nations.

[B]Trust deficit[/B]
The absence of trust is the biggest problem between India and Pakistan and anything that addresses this “trust deficit” is helpful in the way forward. The leaders of the two countries should initiate a peace process in which they address each other's concerns including those on Jammu and Kashmir, terrorism, Siachen and Sir Creek water sharing. This is all the more important because the existing suspicions and distrust about each other have been further exacerbated by irresponsible and distorted stories, carried by sections of the media in both the countries.

[B]The Recent Foreign minister- level talks[/B]
The foreign minister-level talks were held between India and Pakistan when Pakistani foreign minister Hina Rabbani Khar visited India in July. Both the countries agreed to keep the peace process between them going. The joint statement was issued at the end of the talks and both the ministers discussed variety of issues. They discussed Jammu and Kashmir, counter-terrorism measures, including progress in 26/11 Mumbai attacks trial in Pakistan, humanitarian issues, commercial and economic cooperation, Wullar Barrage/Tulbul Navigation Project, Sir Creek, Siachen Glacier, peace and security including CBMs and promotion of friendly exchanges.

[B]Outcome of the Talks[/B]
The one firm outcome of the talks between the two ministers was the CBMs on cross-LoC travel and trade. The frequency of Srinagar-Muzaffarabad and Poonch-Rawalkote bus services would be increased; it was decided. Another important decision was to convene separate expert groups meetings on nuclear and conventional CBMs, which has been scheduled to be held in Islamabad in September 2011.India and Pakistan expressed satisfaction on holding of meeting on issues of counter-terrorism, including progress on 26/11 Mumbai attacks



[B]Conclusion[/B]
Both Pakistan and India need to avoid short-sighted policies for points-scoring or securing short-term gains which resulted into bede-villing their relations in the past and diverting their attention from gigantic tasks of eradicating poverty and raising the standard of living of their peoples. The steady improvement between Pakistan and India requires some further changes in the way they deal with each other. India, being the biggest country in the South Asian region must lead the way by discarding hegemonic designs in the region. The extremists in Indian politics and media should also be admonished for their arrogant and aggressive statements because as long as India continues to nurture such elements, its relations with Pakistan will remain marked by mutual mistrust, and non-cooperation. So, it is in the best interest of the whole region that both nuclear powers take all possible steps to solve all the long-standing issues between them.


[B]Prof. Khadim Ali Khan[/B]

[B][I][CENTER][SIZE="5"][COLOR="Blue"]Poor US Economy and Future Prospects[/COLOR][/SIZE][/CENTER][/I][/B]


[I]The Agency officially announced that the US economy is sick, and sick seriously.[/I]


The last month was not good for already stumbling US economy that received another blow from the leading credit rating agency Standard and Poor (S&P) which down-graded its credit rating from AAA to AA+. The S&P almost first time since its existence lowered long-term outlook on the sovereign U.S. debt to the downside, from stable to negative. This means that the position of the world's major currencies - the dollar - is much reduced. Although US government was able to pass a new act that increased the debt ceiling (amount of money the country could borrow), poor economic growth numbers have raised the prospects of another recession in the world's largest economy. The S&P dropped the United States rating one level over concerns that the country's plan to lower deficits does not go far enough. The Agency officially announced that the US economy is sick, and sick seriously. The credit rating downgrade stemmed not only from runaway US deficits and national debt, but also the expectation that America's debt burden will grow heavier in the future. The Managing Director of S&P, in an interview, pointed to Washington's inability to overcome political obstacles and enact aggressive fiscal reforms. S&P lists 5 pillars in its Sovereign Rating Framework as:
The S&P downgrade further fueled these speculations and came at a time when most analysts were busily revising down their growth estimates and talking about the recession.
Institutional effectiveness and political risks, reflected in the political score Economic structure and growth prospects, reflected in the economic score
External liquidity and international investment position, reflected in the external score

Fiscal performance and flexibility, as well as debt burden, reflected in the fiscal score
Monetary flexibility, reflected in the monetary score
(Source: Standard & Poor's Sovereign Rating Framework)

Economists were worried about the possibility of a stalling US economic recovery even before the S&P downgrade. Many reports point towards slowing down of the economy. For example, the Commerce Department's report announced expansion of US economy at an annual rate of 1.3 percent during the second quarter of the year which is pretty low by all standards. The S&P downgrade further fueled these speculations and came at a time when most analysts were busily revising down their growth estimates and talking about the recession. This is a further hit to business confidence and to household confidence. The critics of President Barak Obama term Standard & Poor's rating downgrade as a deeply troubling indicator of America's decline under President Obama. They blamed that his failed policies have led to high unemployment, skyrocketing deficits, and now, the unprecedented loss of nation's prized AAA credit rating.

The downgrading of credit rating of developed economies is not something new. In the past many countries received such downgrades. But with a solid reform program, they were able to pull out of such situation. Five countries, including Canada, Sweden and Australia, managed to regain their AAA rating after falling to AA+, as the United States did last month. But the quickest rating recovery took nine years to materialize, and came after enacting significant reforms to improve finances and boost economic output. The trouble for United States economy is that it has yet to demonstrate the capacity and commitment to change. Given the nature of the debate in the country and the polarization of views around fiscal policy, the S&P indicated that they do not see anything immediately on the horizon that would help an upgrade back to AAA again. The S&P downgrade is not really about the ability of the U.S. to meet its debt payments, it is about the ability of its policymakers to get their arms around the problems, and put the country back on the path of growth, jobs, and prosperity. And until they do that, the United States risk further downgrades.

The S&P report on down grading of US economy has profound psychological and economic effects for the world economy. It sent shock wave to the global economy, as a result, panic ran among global investors and they rushed to get out of risky assets like stocks. In just three weeks (from July 26 through Aug.11) about $6.8 trillion was wiped off the value of global equity markets. This news also did not go well because of America as the biggest debtor. China, Japan and Russia hold U.S. debt in their reserves as part of a financial portfolio. China holds more than one trillion dollar, Japan nearly 900 billion, while Russia holds over $ 150 billion. Total American government owed to its creditors over $ 14 trillion is nearly 100 percent of gross domestic product (GDP). The budget deficit has too long exceeded the rate of 3 per cent for countries with the highest rating, such as Germany and France, for example. In this new situation, investors are going to have to get accustomed to above- normal volatility. Economic uncertainty is going to continue to outweigh the good. The large price swings are indicative of uncertainty in the markets.

It is pertinent to note that the United States has the largest, most diverse and technologically advanced economy in the world. The population of US accounts for only about 4 percent of the world's population but its GDP is 26 percent of the world's total economic output. It is based on the private enterprise system that has only limited government intervention in areas such as health care, transportation, and retirement.

American companies are among the most productive and competitive in the world. In 1998, 9 of the 10 most profitable companies in the world were American (even the non-U.S. exception, Germany's Daimler-Chrysler, has a substantial part of its operations in the United States). Unlike their Japanese or Western European counterparts, American corporations have considerable freedom of operation and little government control over issues of product development, plant openings or closures, and employment. The United States also has a clear edge over the rest of the world in many high-tech industries, including computers, medical care, aerospace, and military equipment.

The United States has considerable natural resources. These resources include coal, copper, lead, phosphates, uranium, bauxite, gold, iron, mercury, nickel, silver, tungsten, zinc, petroleum, natural gas, and timber. It also has highly productive agricultural resources and is the world's largest food producer. The economy is bolstered by an excellent, though aging, infrastructure which makes the transport of goods relatively easy.

In the 1990s, the American economy experienced the second-longest period of growth in the nation's history. The economy grew at an average rate of 3-4 percent per year and unemployment fell below 5 percent. In addition, there were dramatic gains in the stock market and many of the nation's largest companies had record profits. Finally, a record number of Americans owned their own homes. This long period of growth ended in 2001, when the economy slowed dramatically following a crash in the high-technology sector.



Despite its impressive advantages, the American economy faces a number of problems. Most of the products and services of the nation are consumed internally, but the economy cannot produce enough goods to keep up with consumer demand. As a result, for several decades the United States has imported far more products than it exports. This trade deficit exists entirely in manufactured goods. The United States actually has trade surpluses in agriculture and services. When adjusted for the surpluses, the U.S. trade deficit in 2000 amounted to a record $447 billion. The United States has been able to sustain trade deficits year after year because foreign individuals and companies remain willing to invest in the United States. In 2000, there was $270 billion in new foreign investment in

American companies and businesses.
Another major problem for the American economy is the income inequality, with some Americans enjoying very high income levels while others remain in poverty. As the workplace becomes more technologically sophisticated, unskilled workers find themselves trapped in minimum wage or menial jobs. In 1999, despite the strong economic growth of the 1990s, 12.7 percent of Americans lived below the poverty line. There are other wage problems in the United States. Although the economy has grown substantially, most of the gains in income have gone to the top 20 percent of households. The top 10 percent of households earned 28.5 percent of the nation's wealth, while the bottom 10 percent accounted for only 1.5 percent. There is also a growing number of Americans who are not covered by medical insurance.

Although American economy has diversity, services dominate economic activity and accounts for approximately 80 percent of the country's GDP. On the other hand, manufacturing accounts for only 18 percent, while agriculture accounts for 2 percent. Financial services, health care, and information technology are among the fastest growing areas of the service sector. Although industry has declined steeply from its height in the 1950s, the American manufacturing sector remains strong. Two of the largest American corporations, General Electric and General Motors, have manufacturing and production as their base, although they have both diversified into the service sector as well. Meanwhile, despite continuing declines, agriculture remains strong in the United States. One of the main trends in the agricultural sector has been the erosion of the family farm and its replacement by the large corporate farm. This has made the sector more productive, although there has also been a decrease in the number of farmers and farm workers.

Since the middle of the 20th century, the United States has aggressively pursued free and open trade. It helped found a number of international organizations whose purpose is to promote free trade, including the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), now known as the World Trade Organization (WTO). It has also engaged in free trade agreements with particular nations. The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) between the United States, Canada, and Mexico is an example of this. One continuing problem for American companies engaged in foreign trade is that the United States is much more open to trade than many other nations. As a result, it is easy for foreign companies to sell their goods and services in the United States, but American firms often find it difficult to export their products to other countries.
The trouble for United States economy is that it has yet to demonstrate the capacity and commitment to change.


The nation is a net provider of economic aid. It provides $6.9 billion in direct aid to nations. In addition, the United States funds many international organizations. It provides 25 percent of the operating budget of the United Nations and almost 50 percent of the budget for day-today NATO (The North Atlantic Treaty Organization is a military alliance of 19 countries in Europe and North America) operations. Nonetheless, this aid has only a small impact on the U.S. budget. All spending on international affairs, including the costs of maintaining embassies overseas, foreign aid, and support for international organizations, amounted to $19.5 billion in 1999. That was only 0.01 percent of the federal budget. In comparison, in 1999 the United States spent $26.7 billion to fund the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

None of this will help the U.S. standing in the world if the American government is not going to introduce reforms. Already, outside commentators have seen the U.S. debt and the political system's clumsy handling of it as proof of American decline. A debt deal that extends the fraught politics over deficit cuts through the end of this year is likely to keep this painful issue in the headlines. Also, the borrowing authority that the president has been granted will keep the government running only until 2013. In less than two years, this fight will resume again.

[B](Source: Newspapers and internet)
Dr Zafar Mueen Nasir[/B]

[B][I][CENTER][COLOR="RoyalBlue"][SIZE="5"]Could Hiroshima be saved?[/SIZE][/COLOR][/CENTER][/I][/B]


[I][I]By the summer of 1945, the Japanese had virtually lost almost their entire naval and air force and a single air attack on Tokyo had killed around 83,000 people in March.
[/I][/I]

“I have become death, the destroyer of the worlds.” This line from the famous Hindu poem Bhagvat Gita was recalled by the American physicist J. Robert Oppenheimer, on witnessing the first test explosion of the atomic bomb.

After the defeat of Hitler’s Germany in May, 1945, the Allies were concentrating all of their energies and resources on their war against the Japanese in the Pacific; and were urging them to surrender unconditionally or to face “Prompt and utter destruction.” The meaning of “utter destruction” became vividly clear to the whole world when on August 6, Hiroshima became the target of the first atomic bomb without any explicit warning. According to the US estimates, 70,000 to 80,000 people were killed or missing and equal number of people were injured in the initial blast. (The Japanese estimate of casualties is much higher.) Every year, on August 6, when thousands of people get together in the Peace Memorial Park built at the site where the bomb exploded, to remember those who were slaughtered in this lethal attack, they ask themselves whether it was really necessary to bomb their city. For a satisfactory answer to such questions, we need to have a clear understanding of the situation prevailing at that time and the views of those who were at the helm of affairs in those final moments of the World War-II.

By the summer of 1945, the Japanese had virtually lost almost their entire naval and air force and a single air attack on Tokyo had killed around 83,000 people in March. US intelligence agents had successfully broken the Japanese diplomatic codes and were continuously listening to the cable traffic between Tokyo and its embassies all over the world. After the German defeat, all indications suggested that the Japanese had realised the inevitability of their defeat. They were only waiting for some honourable terms of surrender from the Allies. They needed some sufficient pretext for ending the war to satisfy the die hard elements within their army. With the crumbling of the Japanese strength, a full scale US invasion of Japan was also being planned for early 1946. In these circumstances, the US intelligence experts generally believed that the Japanese would agree to surrendered if they were assured that their emperor Hirohito (whom they regarded as a god) would be allowed to remain in office (though with nominal powers similar to those of the British monarch) and would not be tried for war crimes. It was further suggested that such assurances should be accompanied by another military shock, which would come in the form of a declaration of war against Japan by the USSR, followed by a Red Army attack on Manchuria, a Chinese territory bordering on the USSR which was occupied by the Japanese. This Soviet attack was widely expected in August. On July 13, US intelligence officials decoded a message in which the Japanese foreign minister Togo told his ambassador to the Soviet Union that the emperor wanted to end the war and that the main obstacle to peace was the US insistence on unconditional surrender. But the Truman Administration seemed in no mood to take any serious notice of it. The reason was that work on the making of the atomic bomb was feverishly going on and Truman was waiting for its final outcome, before giving any concessions to the Japanese in the form of assurances regarding their emperor.



On July 16, 1945, the first atomic bomb was successfully tested in New Mexico and this changed the whole scenario for Truman, who realised that after possessing the world’s most powerful weapon, he no longer required the Soviet help for ending the war and that he could also use this weapon as a potent threat against the Soviet Union in any future confrontation with it (Because the signs of tensions and differences over Europe were already becoming visible between the two countries.) Moreover, Americans had lost thousands of their soldiers in its war against Japan and the American public opinion was bitterly against giving any concessions to the Japanese government. By inflicting maximum damage on Japan, Truman was hoping to assemble maximum political support for his future political career.
Americans had lost thousands of their soldiers in its war against Japan and the American public opinion was bitterly against giving any concessions to the Japanese government. By inflicting maximum damage on Japan, Truman was hoping to assemble maximum political support for his future political career.

Thus, on the pretext of ending the war at the earliest time and minimizing the loss of further American lives in the war, he authorised the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima on August 6, causing untold destruction and misery. Some analysts argue that it was an attempt on his part to hasten the end of the war, but even they cannot justify the dropping of another atomic bomb on Nagasaki just three days later, because the massive death and destruction brought about by the first bomb was quite sufficient to convince everyone that the Japanese surrender had become inevitable. It is interesting to note however, that even the two dreadful atomic bombs could not force the Japanese to capitulate immediately. They agreed to surrender five days later on August 14, only after receiving US assurances (though in implicit terms) regarding their emperor. It is argued that in case of a full scale invasion of Japan, many more American lives would have been lost. It is impossible to estimate the exact number of US casualties in such a case, but it is quite obvious that if in early April, the US government had given the above mentioned assurances to the already much weakened Japanese army, accompanied by the threat of an imminent Soviet attack, there would have been no need for a full scale US invasion of Japan and thus, the lives of those Americans and Japanese who were killed in the fighting between April and August could have been saved. In simpler terms, the bomb delayed the ending of the war and thus, caused more American and Japanese casualties.

Truman and his Secretary of State Byrnes were the most vocal advocates of the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and their will prevailed. But with the passage of time, it became increasingly clear that many top military officials of that time were not in favour of if, though they did not openly express their dissent at that time. For instance, General Eisenhower, who was the Supreme Commander of Allied forces in Europe during the World War-II and the President of the US from 1953 to 1961, later on recalled in his book “Mandate For Change” that when he came to know from the Secretary of War Henry Stimson that an atomic bomb was about to be dropped on a Japanese city, he had a feeling of depression and expressed his grave misgivings about the whole affair to Stimson “First on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives.”

Even more forceful views on this subject were expressed in his book “I Was There” by Admiral William Leahy, who was President Truman’s Chief of Staff. “…The use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender.…

“…In being the first to use it, we … adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.”

Other prominent figures who regarded the bombing of Hiroshima as unnecessary include General Douglas Macarthur, the Supreme Commander of Allied forces in the Pacific, General George Marshall, President Roosevelt’s Chief of Staff and President Truman’s Secretary of State, General Henry H. 'Hap' Arnold, commander of the US Army Air Forces; Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander-in-Chief of the Pacific Fleet; Admiral William Halsey, commander of the Third Fleet; Curtis Lemay, Army Air Force major general and commander of the 21st Bomber Command; and many others.

The above evidence clearly proves that the Japanese had already been completely humbled down and their destruction of their cities by means of atomic bombs was quite unnecessary. Even then, the Americans used them perhaps, to estimate the extent of their destructive capability, hoping that this information might be useful for them in their future wars. During the recent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Americans were again accused by some quarters of deliberately testing their newly developed weapons on innocent civilians. The debate over the legitimacy of Hiroshima bombing may continue for a long time to come, but every impartial historian is likely to conclude that Hiroshima could surely be saved, because even if the atomic bomb had not been dropped on it, the outcome of the war would have remained the same.


[B]Professor Abdul Rauf[/B]

[B][I][CENTER][SIZE="5"][COLOR="Blue"]At last South Sudan[/COLOR][/SIZE][/CENTER][/I][/B]


[B]South Sudan became a United Nations 193rd member state
[/B]



Full name: Republic of South Sudan
Population:7.5-9.7 million (UN estimate, 2006)
Capital: Juba
Area:619,745 sq km (239,285 sq miles)
Major languages: English, Arabic (both official), Juba Arabic, Dinka, others
Major religions: Traditional religions, Christianity
President: Salva Kiir Mayardiit

South Sudan is bordered by Ethiopia to the east; Kenya to the southeast; Uganda to the south; the Democratic Republic of the Congo to the southwest; the Central African Republic to the west; and Sudan to the north.

Sudan got its independence from joint British and Egypt in 1956. After that the people in south Sudan felt that the promise undertaken at the time of independence was not fulfilled as having the federal form of government and participation of the south in the government. Due to it, army in south Sudan rebelled against north leading towards civil war. The first Civil War (1956-1972) ended when Addis Ababa Agreement signed in 1972 which promised autonomy for the south.

Hardly the agreement was in force when in 1983 the president of Sudan, Gaafar Nimeiry, declared enforcement of Shaira in the whole Sudan even including the south Sudan. It was the start of the second rebellion in South Sudan because promised-autonomy was withdrawn once again. The civil continued from 1983 to 2005 when Comprehensive Peace Agreement 2005 was signed between Sudan People's Liberation Movement (SPLM) and government of Sudan aiming at giving south Sudan democratic share and oil revenues. It was also concluded that a referendum would be held in 2011 for its independence.

In 2005 agreement, the government of South Sudan was formed which would administer 10 states of south. Actually it was the first step towards their seeking independence. In 2011, as promised in Peace Agreement 2005 to conduct referendum, it was done and 99 per cent south Sudan sought for separation. North Sudan was the first to recognize it suddenly after its independence. During this period it is widely believed that more than 1.5 million people lost their lives and more than four million displaced. On 14 July 2011, South Sudan became a United Nations 193rd member state.

Now the further issue rises as how to settle the following issues:
Drawing up the new border
How to divide Sudan's debts and oil wealth
Whether the new country will have its own currency
What rights southerners will have in the north - and vice versa
How vigorously the border will be enforced.

Secondly, south Sudan is rich in oil but most of the oil refineries are situated in North Sudan. It will remain a hot and complex issue due to the division of oil resources which was a main motive behind the independence of South Sudan.



If we compare the independence of South Sudan having a Christian country with other Muslim countries seeking their independence we will conclude that America is only the champion of the rights of the Christian and other religions except Islam. One can quote the example of Kashmir; a long issue claimed hundred and thousands lived but how many more lives will be sacrificed only God knows.

A chronology of key events
1899-1955 - South Sudan is part of Anglo-Egyptian Sudan, under joint British-Egyptian rule.
1956 - Sudan gains independence from joint British-Egyptian rule.
1962 - Civil war led by the southern separatist Anya Nya movement begins with north.
1969 - Group of socialist and communist Sudanese military officers led by Col Jaafar Muhammad Numeiri seizes power; Col Numeiri outlines policy of autonomy for south.
1972 - Government of Sudanese President Jaafar Numeiri concedes a measure of autonomy for southern Sudan in a peace agreement signed in Addis Ababa.
1978 - Oil discovered in Unity State in southern Sudan.
1983 - Fighting breaks out again between north and south Sudan, under leadership of John Garang's Sudanese People's Liberation Movement (SPLM), after Sudanese President Jaafar Numeiri abolishes South Sudan's autonomy.
1988 - Democratic Unionist Party - part of Sudan's ruling coalition government - drafts cease-fire agreement with the SPLM, but it is not implemented.
1989 - Military seizes power in Sudan.
1993 - Revolution Command Council dissolved after Omar Bashir is appointed president of Sudan.
2001 - Sudanese Islamist leader Hassan Al-Turabi's party, the Popular National Congress, signs memorandum of understanding with the southern rebel SPLM's armed wing, the Sudan People's Liberation Army (SPLA). Al-Turabi is arrested the next day.
2002 - SPLA and Sudanese sign agreement on six-month renewable cease-fire in central Nuba Mountains - a key rebel stronghold.
2005 January - North/South Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) ends civil war; deal provides for a permanent ceasefire, autonomy for the south, a power-sharing government involving rebels in Khartoum and a south Sudanese referendum on independence in six years' time.
2005 July - Former southern rebel leader John Garang is sworn in as first vice-president. A new Sudanese constitution which gives the south a large degree of autonomy is signed.
2005 August - South Sudanese leader John Garang is killed in a plane crash. He is succeeded by Salva Kiir Mayardiit.
2005 September - Power-sharing government is formed in Khartoum.
2005 October - Autonomous government is formed in South Sudan, in line with the January 2005 peace deal. The administration is dominated by former rebels.
2006 November - Hundreds die in fighting centred on the southern town of Malakal - the heaviest between northern Sudanese forces and former rebels since the 2005 peace deal.
2007 October - SPLM temporarily suspends participation in national unity government, accusing Khartoum of failing to honour the 2005 peace deal.
2007 December - SPLM resumes participation in national unity government.
2008 June - Southern Sudanese leader Salva Kiir and Sudanese President Omar Bashir agree to seek international arbitration to resolve dispute over Abyei.
2009 June - Khartoum government denies it is supplying arms to ethnic groups in the south to destabilise the region.
2009 July - North and south Sudan say they accept ruling by arbitration court in The Hague shrinking disputed Abyei region and placing the major Heglig oil field in the north.
2009 December - Leaders of North and South reach deal on terms of referendum on independence due in South by 2011.
2010 January - President Omar Bashir says he would accept referendum result, even if South opted for independence.
2011 January - The people of South Sudan vote in favour of full independence from Sudan.
2011 May - North occupies disputed border region of Abyei.
2011 June - Governments of north and south Sudan sign accord to demilitarize the disputed Abyei region and let in an Ethiopian peacekeeping force.
2011 July 9 - Independence day.

[B][I][SIZE="5"][COLOR="Blue"]Pak-German Relations: History of Time-Tested Cooperation[/COLOR][/SIZE][/I][/B]


[I]Germany is Pakistan's fourth largest trading partner and biggest trading partner in the European Union.[/I]


Pakistan is located in one of the most important economic zones of the world. Being a strategic location, at the crossroads of China, the Middle East and Central Asia, with a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with China and Sri Lanka and home to 177 million consumers, Pakistan offers matchless prospects for trade and investment to world community. Besides, Pakistan is traditionally regarded as gateway to Central Asia with ever-growing investment potential and business opportunities being a vast agro-based country with huge mineral and industrial potential.

Above all, Pakistan is full of talent and our industrious manpower has made significant headway in the world labour markets. Pakistani expatriates, as individuals have performed outstandingly in Europe, US and Middle East. Pakistan and Germany enjoy extremely close, warm and historical relations.

Germany is Pakistan's fourth largest trading partner and biggest trading partner in the European Union. Germany has been a reliable partner in trade, development, military, scientific and cultural cooperation. The collaboration between Germany and Pakistan dates back to the creation of Pakistan. Pakistan has the honour of being the first country with which the Federal Republic of Germany entered into bilateral investment treaty in 1959 and to commemorate the 50th anniversary of this treaty another bilateral Trade Investment Treaty was signed in December 2009 to redefine and upgrade their economic relationship in the 21st century. The new instrument is more investment friendly. It builds upon long-standing corporate relations and takes both countries into a new era of mutually beneficial collaboration. Presently, Germany is the eighth largest investor in Pakistan and several German multi-nationals are operating in Pakistan.

Germany is home to 53,668 Pakistani immigrants. It is the third largest country for higher education for the Pakistani students and Germany has been providing scholarships. There are at present 2,000 Pakistani scholars enrolled in German universities for higher studies. As one of the founding members of the Friends of Democratic Pakistan (FoDP), Germany has actively participated in the group's meetings. It pledged Euro 115 million at the Tokyo donors Conference (Euro 80 million provided under Bilateral Development Cooperation).

Germany has also extended active support to Pakistan's initiatives with the EU for providing greater market access to Pakistani exports to EU. German government and German people had contributed generously for flood affected people amounting close to $300 million that included $210 million from ordinary German people. Germany has significantly enhanced the Development Assistance from Euro 64 million in 2007-08 to Euro 145.4 million in 2009-10. This assistance is focused on four priority areas, namely, basic education, primary healthcare, renewable energy/energy efficiency and microfinance/poverty alleviation.

The two countries enjoy remarkable ties during last 64 years but since the last couple of years the relationship is not growing at the historical pace and it needs to rejuvenate the bilateral trade and investment relationship. There is ample space to expand and further strengthen the bilateral relations and cooperation in various fields including economy, education, defence, infrastructure and energy. Germany has expertise in the area of renewable energy and agriculture sector and it could extend cooperation in these two important areas. Pakistan is the third largest milk producing country and Germany can help Pakistan to preserve milk and milk products. Germany can help Pakistan by enhancing counter-terrorism capacity through provision of necessary equipment and training.
Germany has expertise in the area of renewable energy and agriculture sector and it could extend cooperation in these two important areas.
Pakistan and Germany share belief in market forces, private entrepreneurship and free enterprise. The private sector of our country is the pillar of our growth. The multinational companies (MNCs) experience in Pakistan has been a success in terms of their expansion and prosperity. More than 200 multinational companies are already working in the country, with laws guaranteeing full protection. German companies are also well established in Pakistan and their products and technology are highly valued and admired in Pakistan.

Pakistan has abundance of untapped natural resources, rapidly growing telecommunication and information technology industry, an improving transportation network; a well-established banking system with almost 20 per cent stake belonging to foreign banks and above all industrious and quality manpower. Pakistan has offered one of the most competitive packages of fiscal and monetary incentives in the world for investors with an investment climate, rated highly for its business friendliness. All sectors of our economy are open to business and anyone can start business without approval or sanction on hundred per cent equity ownership basis.

Foreign investment is given top priority and it remains fully protected by law. Their yield is one of the highest in the world. By widening the area of prosperity, and spreading the dividends of development through investing in Pakistan it can help catalyse societal change and increases security for all. This is also a win-win scenario for both countries. Pakistan is striving hard to attract investment in many sectors as falling investment-to-GDP ratio is the most critical element of concern. Pakistan has signed bilateral investment promotion and protection agreements with 47 countries of the world to boost investment in productive sectors of the economy to enhance job creation ability of the economy.

Moreover, Special Economic Zones (SEZs) are being established in Pakistan where investors enjoy additional facilities. Investor can freely remit royalty, technical and franchise fee, capital, profits and dividends and can enjoy high rates of return. The government is trying to build a better future, for Pakistan, for the region and the world and Pakistan badly needs partnership with time-tested friend like Germany. The investment treaty signed 50 years ago can rejuvenate and strengthen bilateral relations between two countries.


[B]The writer is the finance minister.
Dr. Abdul Hafeez Shaikh[/B]

[B]A Tale of Events[/B]


[I]When Pakistan came into being the first national tragedy occurred when Quaid-e-Azam expired in 1948. This resulted in the quick change of governments and we became a laughing stock for other countries.[/I]


The nation is going to celebrate yet another independence day in August amid enormous difficulties. We are passing through critical phase of our history. Unending social and economic issues and deteriorating law and order situation have gripped the mind of the people. The question comes to the mind of every individual as to whether we have achieved the objectives for which this country was achieved? The answer is definitely “No”. Everyone is looking towards each other but there is no light at the end of the tunnel. Every government, whether military or civilian, has failed terribly to yank the nation out of the mess it is in. This is a national tragedy that we still have to go a long way to become a nation. Ironically, our society has been polarized to a greater extent. Pakistan's geo- strategic location has rather added to our difficulties. Highly volatile neighbour, Afghanistan, and America's vested interests have also made our country unstable. Resultantly 64 years down the road, we are facing a number of serious national crises, including terrorism, linguistic and ethnic division.

[B]Struggle for Pakistan[/B]
The movement of the Indian partition started when the Englishman Allan Hume helped some Indians to form the Indian National Congress in 1885. At first it did not challenge British control, but in early 1900s a radical group emerged, headed by Bal Gangadhar Tilak, whose aim was to challenge the British rule in India. On the other hand, in 1906 another crucial split took place; a few Muslim delegates left the Indian National Congress, and a faction formed the Muslim League. The reason was that the Muslims were becoming alienated by the increasing Hindu nationalism. They were feeling sense of insecurity because of the attitude of the Congress and its leaders. From 1906 onward, Indian National Congress and the Muslim League started working for safeguarding the interests of their communities.

The circumstances forced the British Parliament to pass the Government of India Act in 1935. The Hindus and Muslims were not satisfied with this Act. During the period of the Indian National Congress' limited rule, the Muslims became the victim of Hindus' wrath. The Indian National Congress resorted to every tactic which was aimed at obliterating the Muslims from the Indian political scene. They were not allowed even to build new mosques. During this phase, the policies of the Congress left no breathing pace for the Indian Muslims. That is why the Muslims celebrated a Day of Deliverance when the Congress rule came to an end. This marked a major shift in the political scene and Muslims and the Muslim League decided not to settle for anything less than a separate Muslim state.
Rule of law is the first prerequisite of the good governance in any country. For this purpose a constitution is framed for running the government affairs. In the beginning of our independence, provincialism, parochialism and sectarianism hovered over the newly formed state.
In 1939 with the start of the Second World War, the circumstances were changed to a greater extent and the British Government in India was forced to reset its priorities. The Indian National Congress responded by quitting the government. They tried to use the war as a tool to force the British to talk to their terms by demanding immediate independence. The British promised to offer independence at the end of the war, and the Indian National Council cooperated perhaps seeing a worse future for India if Britain lost the war, as was looking quite likely in 1940.

After the war, British Viceroy, Lord Mountbatten, managed to negotiate a deal whereby northwestern and the far eastern sections of India became a Muslim state – Pakistan – and the remaining territory a Hindu country. In Kashmir, the Hindu ruler hesitated in deciding whether to join Pakistan or India, but when his Muslim-majority populace responded with violent protests, he chose India. Within a year of gaining independence, India and Pakistan were at war in Kashmir. The first Kashmir war ended in a compromise, but the area remained fortified on both sides. The tension continued between both the countries. Resultantly, war sparked up again for a short time in 1965.

When Pakistan came into being the first national tragedy occurred when Quaid-e-Azam expired in 1948. This resulted in the quick change of governments and we became a laughing stock for other countries. After Quaid's death Liaquat Ali Khan tried to sail the country's ship to the shore but he too was assassinated on October 16, 1951 while addressing a public meeting of the Muslim City League at Company Bagh (Now Liaquat Bagh), Rawalpindi. The real motive behind his murder has never been revealed till today. The killer, Saad Akbar Babrak, who was an Afghan national and a professional assassin from Hazara, was immediately shot dead after the incident in order to conceal the conspiracy.

Another serious issue which came to surface was lack of good governance. Before the creation of Pakistan, British policies caused a split between the Hindus and the Muslims. The Hindus were quicker to side with the ways of the Britishers. On the other hand, Muslims did not take any interest in the national affairs. As a result, the Muslims kept themselves aloof from the government affairs. This national character of the nation continued even after the inception of Pakistan and bad governance was order of the day.

Rule of law is the first prerequisite of the good governance in any country. For this purpose a constitution is framed for running the government affairs. In the beginning of our independence, provincialism, parochialism and sectarianism hovered over the newly formed state. Since 1947 to 1950 no serious efforts were made to frame constitution. The inaugural session of the Legislative Assembly was held on August 14, 1947, in Karachi. For the interim period Government of India Act, 1935, was adopted with a few amendments according to the needs of the country. However, the first phase of the Constitution making was the approval of the Objectives Resolution which Liaquat Ali Khan, the first Prime Minister of Pakistan got passed by the Legislative Assembly on March 12, 1949.

[B]Separation of East Pakistan[/B]
In 1971, strife between the two countries was not the only result of the division of India. Both countries' economies suffered extremely from the social upheaval. The two areas of Pakistan, East Pakistan and West Pakistan, were 1,600 km separate from each other, with India in between. On top of the ethnic and cultural differences (they shared only their religion, Islam), the East Pakistanis were underrepresented in national affairs and less developed. The government was slow to send aid when East Pakistan was hit by a devastating cyclone in 1970. When East Pakistan (being more populous than West Pakistan) gained a majority in the National Assembly, President Yahya Khan delayed convening the NA meeting and sent troops to quell protests in East Pakistan.



In response, East Pakistan declared itself independent on March 26, 1971 and became Bangladesh. Civil war broke out, and lasted until the end of that year, when, in December, India entered the war and aided Bangladesh in freeing itself of Pakistani troops.

After the war, Indian PM Indira Gandhi and Pakistani President Zulfikar Bhutto met in 1972 at Shimla and agreed to work for a peaceful solution to the Kashmir problem. But the rivalry did not decrease, and two years later, in 1974, it entered a new phase when India went nuclear. Our successive rulers too left no stone unturned to put Pakistan on the way of becoming nuclear.

After India's border war with China in 1962, Sino-Pakistani relations greatly improved. When India signed a treaty with the Soviet Union in 1971 and began buying military equipment worth billions of dollars from the Soviets, formerly friendly relations between Pakistan and the Soviet Union stood deteriorated. This, in turn, gave Pakistan an ally in the form of the US, another country hostile to the Soviet Union. The two nations worked together help Afghanistan, financially and militarily, in resisting the Soviet invasion that lasted from 1979 to 1989. Pakistan itself received some aid from the US which was cut off in 1979 earlier due to concerns over Pakistan's nuclear programme.

The end of the Cold War in 1989 changed foreign relations again. The US ended aid to both countries in 1990 and then imposed sanctions after both conducted nuclear tests in 1998. After the ill-fated day of 9/11, Pakistan again became a US ally in 2002 for another operation in Afghanistan. In the meantime, the Kashmir issue continued simmering. Normally, such a border dispute could be settled by bilateral discussions and compromises from both sides. But religious pride, on both sides, makes compromise close to impossible. The armies of both countries are entrenched along the borders of the area, and violence flashes out periodically.

The area has become the focal point for militants from both sides. What's unclear is how much the activities of these militants are aided and abetted by their countries. Both countries insist innocence regarding the crimes of their individual citizens, but accuse the other of harbouring terrorism. Both also accused each other (in 1983) of helping rebels within the others' territory. Pakistan alleges that India aided rebels in Pakistan's Sindh area, and India believes Pakistan aided Sikhs, a religious group that has often run up against India's Hindu government.

After the creation of Pakistan its leaders were caught in the US trap aimed at encircling and preventing former Soviet Union's expansion. Pakistan had three options: First to pursue a non-aligned policy, second to align itself with the Socialist bloc headed by Moscow, and third to join the West, led by the US. However, when Pakistan was reviewing the invitation from Moscow, an anti-Pakistan statement by Soviet's Prime Minister Marshal Stalin during his Delhi visit affected Pakistan's policy. This compelled the Pakistani leadership to tilt towards the West and Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan rejected Kremlin's invitation to visit Moscow. The logic put forward for the pro-West policy was that in Europe and the US there was democracy whereas in former Soviet Union there was a fascist-Communist regime. Moreover, Liaquat Ali Khan is still criticized by the left wing parties for his pro-Western policies and the ban imposed on the Communist Party of Pakistan. However, the pro-Liaquat lobby argues that he had wanted to keep Pakistan neutral in the superpowers' Cold War. This resulted into adverse repercussions, including Soviet help to India, worth mentioning in the 1971 war which led to the Dhaka fall with the open support of India and former Soviet Union.
Another serious issue which came to surface was lack of good governance. Before the creation of Pakistan, British policies caused a split between the Hindus and the Muslims. The Hindus were quicker to side with the ways of the Britishers.
Pakistan adopted a pro-West policy from the very beginning with the hope to be friend of the US and that it will help in ending Indian control of Kashmir and its monopoly in the region. On the other hand, there was also a lobby which dubbed Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan's refusal to visit Moscow, as a wrong decision. These people still consider Liaquat's decision to prefer US over USSR a mistake. Later Pakistan's ties with the US improved after Republican President Eisenhower came to power in 1952. Secretary of State Dulles, pushed Pakistan's case as a close ally, and supported Pakistan's requests for economic and military aid. Pakistan was asked to join the Middle East Defense Organization (MEDO) which later was renamed as Central Treaty Organization (CENTO); and South Asian Treaty Organization (SEATO). Pakistan became a tool of US strategy and policy.

Later in 1979 Pakistan participated in the war against former Soviet Union and forced the latter to pull itself out from Afghanistan. This support from Pakistan gave the US the desired help in the Cold War and Moscow was compelled to pullout its troops from Kabul which was a historic defeat for Moscow. The Soviet Union broke into several states, weakening its strength and making the US the sole superpower which was its major dream. This policy caused grudge in the leadership of the former USSR against Pakistan. Now when Pakistan is facing severe crisis in the war against terrorism as a frontline state, Moscow started supporting terrorism in Pakistan and has been supporting and backing terrorism along with India and Afghanistan. It is blamed by some quarters in Pakistan that the US is also tacitly backing terrorist activities in the country along with some Arab countries.



Pakistan has been beset with two major challenges such as terrorism and weak economy. The terrorists have martyred over 35,000 Pakistanis for which Pakistan deserves high regard and respect. Our rulers' wrong and poor foreign policies have resulted in the new wave of terrorism in Pakistan. Terrorism has badly affected the country politically, economically and security point of view. All the cities are facingthe threat of blasts every day. Peace has become a rare commodity.

The people of Pakistan have been paying heavy price for their role in war against terrorism. Islam is a religion of peace and harmony, while the terrorists have attempted to blemish it. Peaceful means were adopted for combating the extremism which however did not yield the desired results. Resultantly, the government opted for the military operation after taking all the political parties into confidence. Our economy has been hit hard by the global downturn and major chunk of our resources is being spent on maintaining law and order situation. Now after the operation against terrorists in Swat, welfare and prosperity of the people would be focused.

Quaid-e-Azam got a dream translated into a reality within a short span of a few years. Everyone of this country irrespective of age, gender, caste or creed should protect its sovereignty. No country attained independence within a short span of seven years without dropping any blood. However, after the creation of Pakistan, some fanatic Hindus excited Sikhs to massacre the Muslims coming to the new state. This resulted in the ruthless killing of one million people which is a record in the world history. Migration of Muslims at such a large scale is the second event in the Muslim history after the migration of Muslims from Makkah to Madina. Now on the occasion of this Independence Day, the people of Pakistan should make resolve for making this country a citadel of peace, as this is the only way to pay homage to those who embraced martyrdom while migrating to Pakistan. While rejoicing the fruits of freedom, we have not yet been able to clutch the lofty principle of Unity, Faith and Discipline, a magnificent icon of trust which was given to us by the Father of the Nation.


[B]Waseem-ur-Rehman Khan[/B]

[I][CENTER][SIZE="5"][COLOR="RoyalBlue"][B]Good Governance: Where Does Pakistan Stand?[/B][/COLOR][/SIZE][/CENTER][/I]


[I]Governance describes "the process of decision-making and the way by which decisions are implemented[/I]


What is good governance? Good governance is an indeterminate term used in development literature to describe how public institutions conduct affairs and manage public resources in order to guarantee the realisation of human rights. Governance describes "the process of decision-making and the way by which decisions are implemented (or not implemented)".

“The UN Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP) offers a somewhat more comprehensive definition of good governance that includes: participation, rule of law, transparency, responsiveness, consensus-ori-ented functioning, equity, inclusiveness, effectiveness and efficiency, and accountability.”

If we put the country to the test against ESCAP's list of good governance values, we would naturally be depressed. The watchdog media is doing an excellent job in demanding good governance values and being critical of the present government. The main focus is on corruption and transparency from the long list given in the definition. Many other values that make good governance are touched upon rarely. That is where we go wrong. The values of a society are based on its whole social structure and a particular value cannot be seen in isolation.

No analysis of any society gives the complete picture if the political, social and economic perspective is not kept in sight. Otherwise, an impression is created that governance has turned bad overnight and only because of a particular set of politicians. There are a number of factors that have resulted in failure of governance in Pakistan.
Caliph Hazrat Omar (RA) declared that if a dog dies of hunger at the bank of Tigress, he is answerable to Almighty God.
First and the single most important factor is the feudal and tribal culture of our society with heavy reliance on an agrarian economy. The Muslim League's leadership came from the feudal and tribal elite. Other major players in governance were the immigrants, who dominated the bureaucracy and formed the new mercantile class of the country. These ruling classes of Pakistan at the time of independence were not capable of providing good governance values in the modern sense. The same feudal and tribal values with little variation prevail today in sharp contrast to the values of the capitalist democratic system.

Second important factor very much related to the first factor is the absence of transparency in this feudal and tribal system, where “might is right” and merit is undermined by the primary quality: 'loyalty'. Equity has no place in this system as it is based on hereditary position in a society. Even today almost 65 per cent of the population lives in the rural areas where the value system is an overhang of feudal values. This is brought to the cities when the chosen representatives of the rural areas come to power. The urban democratic value system, which is based on individual rights, finds the actions of these feudals and tribal chiefs appalling but do not pause to think that it is not possible to change the governance values without first changing the feudal and tribal relations. Even the urban capitalist society cannot provide all the answers as it cannot give equity. Corruption exists in all developed economies; the difference is of ratio and sophistication.

Third, the early ruling bureaucracy and mercantile class were from the immigrants. No matter where they come from globally immigrants have their own common go-getter culture. As they migrate, their first preference is to settle themselves economically as quickly as possible. In this pursuit, many good governance values are trampled. In their new land they are also free from the social pressures of local society, which keeps a mutual check on each other in a settled society. In the case of Pakistan, the classic example is that of many exaggerated claims of the refugees where people who were from middle and lower classes before partition claimed to be from royal and elite class once they migrated to Pakistan. It is this same class that has used every fair and unfair means to raise its socio-economic status, ignoring every lesson of merit and morality.

Fourth, 30 long years of military dictatorship have not let democracy to take roots in the country. Most elected governments also spent much of their energies in claiming their space from the establishment. In sharp contrast to Pakistan, there has not been even a single martial law in India since its independence and that is the reason for it becoming the world's largest democracy.

And finally so long as Islam is used as a mean of winning election and it is not implemented in its true spirit, good governance will always remain a dream in Pakistan as most of our population which is illiterate and poor will never get its rights, women and minorities will be ignored and looting will become our national character.

Caliph Hazrat Omar (RA) declared that if a dog dies of hunger at the bank of Tigress, he is answerable to Almighty God. Kingship knows no kinship and this has been the order of things right when the first man was born. So far Pakistan has been ruled by democrats and dictators with absolute powers but with no responsibility. Although accountability is the keynote of Islamic character yet it is not only emitted from the constitution of Pakistan but also not found even in the character of the rulers. This is a word unknown to the rulers of Pakistan, unless accountability is introduced with all the seriousness that it demands, the ills and curses inflicting the country will continue.


[B]Dr Najam us Sahar Butt (CSP)[/B]

[B][I][SIZE="5"][COLOR="Blue"][CENTER]Corruption and Politics[/CENTER][/COLOR][/SIZE][/I][/B]

[I]
The government has once again interfered in the SC's efforts to force the investigation of the Rs5 billion NICL scam by suspending FIA official, Zafar Qureshi, within 72 hours of his reinstatement.[/I]



The government has once again interfered in the Supreme Court's efforts to force the investigation of the Rs5 billion National Insurance Corporation Limited (NICL) scam by suspending Additional Director General FIA, Zafar Qureshi, within 72 hours of his reinstatement, giving the reason of talking to media without any authority. Earlier, Qureshi had been brought back to head the investigations when the Supreme Court, on July 1, cancelled his transfer orders and forced the government to reassign the multi-billion rupee NICL scam to him. The Supreme Court had also directed the Director General FIA, to provide full assistance to Qureshi in completing the investigation. However, within 24 hours of Qureshi’s assuming his old assignment, he was removed for talking to the media.

In a move to counter development in the NICL case, Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani, Interior Minister Rehman Malik, PML-Q leaders Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain and Senior Minister Chaudhry Pervaiz Elahi met and the PM suspended Zafar Qureshi who is investigating Moonis Elahi, the Pervaiz Elahi's son; Qadir Gilani, the premier's son and Commerce Minister Amin Fahim for their involvement in the scam. Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani issued the suspension order after the meeting.

While the present regime has never paid heed to misconduct by government officials, Qureshi is the first victim of misconduct, that too on an allegation that could never be proved in black and white.

It is feared that if these people are punished, the present coalition will fail to complete its term in office. This approach proves without any doubt that the PPP-PML-Q alliance is a marriage of convenience. Qureshi was deputed by the SC to investigate a case, which would decide the fate of the PPP government since it was because of the NICL case that the Pakistan Muslim League-Q and PPP formed a coalition to bail out Moonis Elahi. The case was of particular importance to the ruling PPP for two reasons. Firstly, it involved Moonis Elahi, the son of Chaudhry Pervaiz Elahi whose party, Pakistan Muslim League-Quaid's support is critical for the government after the withdrawal of MQM backing. Secondly, the executive appears in no mood to accept the precedence of the judiciary directing it on how to run its affairs. However, Moonis Elahi is of the opinion that political rivalry is the major reason behind his case.

Consequently on July 2, an Establishment Division enquiry was launched against Zafar Qureshi on the plea of talking to media. His reply was not considered satisfactory by the concerned authorities. Qureshi might face the possibility of being dismissed from service for violating the provisions of the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules 1973.

As the SC ordered the government to again make Qureshi the investigation officer of the NICL probe, the government expelled four FIA officials, who had assisted him in the investigation, from the Punjab and posted them in far-flung areas. While cancelling the notification, after observing patience for a long time, Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry had stated that the government should not have removed an honest officer from the investigation. He said the officer had recovered Rs1.75 billion from the swindlers and this was a record recovery in any criminal case. Legal experts are of the opinion that Qureshi's suspension is a clear case of contempt of the Supreme Court, an unparalleled defiance to its order and intensification of confrontation between the state institutions.

However, only the “competent authority” (prime minister) is authorised to approve the suspension of an officer of his rank and that while the ministry was only doing procedural matter like issuing notices and formal suspension orders. Another grade-22 officer, Shafqat Naghmi has been appointed the enquiry officer in this case and his appointment could well prove a harbinger of things to come.

Qureshi was forcefully awaken from sleep at around 2:30am and was served a notice, asking him to explain his position on the allegation that a news run on TV channels that he wrote a letter to the Director General FIA, asking for the return of four FIA officers who were transferred. It has been reported in the press that a minister summoned Zafar Qureshi and gave him four options: leave the country immediately; go on a long leave; tell the Supreme Court in writing that you cannot continue with the NICL investigation for personal reasons; and, if all the three are not possible, then bail out Moonis Elahi. However, Qureshi categorically told the minister that neither would he go abroad or on a long leave, nor would he write to the Supreme Court and that he would complete the process of investigations impartially, independently and according to law.

While the present government has never paid any heed to misconduct by government officials in its tenure, Qureshi is the first victim of misconduct, that too on an allegation that could never be proved in black and white. On the other hand, blue-eyed bureaucrats continue to enjoy lucrative posts with documentary evidences of misconduct in their files. The job of the government is to facilitate and respect the SC's decisions. The single-point agenda of completing its term in office has driven the government from one compromise to the next and from one clash with other institutions to another. Qureshi`s suspension may temporarily give some relief to the Chaudhrys, but is sure to invite the attention of the Supreme Court, which has been trying to create the space for Qureshi to complete his investigation. Surely, there must come a time when enough is enough, when some kind of order has to be restored. Of what use is a government which clings to power at the cost of much that is good and right? In India a government and opposition alliance has been formed against corruption, whereas in our country there is always protection to the corrupt government officials. Pakistan's Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI), out of 178 countries, jumped from 42 in 2009 to 34 in 2010.


JWT Desk

[B][I][CENTER][SIZE="5"][COLOR="Blue"]Married to Traditions[/COLOR][/SIZE][/CENTER][/I][/B]


[I]Several nefarious tribal, rural and even urban societal customs deny the womenfolk their due right of inheritance[/I]


Most veiled and modern women in both conservative and liberal strata of Pakistani society share the same fate of being 'omitted' when it comes to getting their share in the property of their parents or male siblings.

Though many traditions regarding marriage in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan are similar, the trend of inter-family marriages that ensures that the ownership of inherited property remains in the family is equally shared in Punjab and Sindh.

However, one custom peculiar to Sindh is the marriage of a female to the Holy Quran. Although the tradition is not a common practice anymore, it was used to protect the family fortune from going out into the hands of the girl's in-laws by filling a marriage certificate with 'Quran' written in the space for husband's name. This meant the woman would be considered as 'married' and that she would remain in the family home till death.

Various age-old customs are in practice in KP and the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) that deny women their due right of inheritance. One such tradition is the remarrying of a widowed female to her brother-in-law, ignoring any age difference that might be there between the two.
The peshimam (prayer leader) of a mosque in Tank town in the southern part of KP is said to have told his daughter's would-be in-laws that he was against 'selling' her off but they could pay for his daughter's pet cat. He quoted Rs 500,000 as the cat's price. This way he 'justified' accepting "walvur" (Pashto word for bride-money).
A woman being married off to a much younger man is even more common. In some cases, a young widow is forced to tie the knot with a man twice her age and a previously married man.

Defying this custom is not common in the conservative Pakhtun society as it is hard for a woman to live by her own. However, there are a few brave ones who resist this tradition. Gul Meena, 24, a widow, is one such lady who chose to live with her parents (in their home) with her two daughters and a son in their native village in Mardan.

"Only a few months after the death of my husband, my brother-in-law who had five kids asked me to accept him as my new husband. I refused because he was illiterate. I was allowed to leave my in-laws' house only after I eased up on my demand for my husband's share in the agricultural land," Gul Meena tells the media.

She now relies on her husband's pension for the upbringing of her three children.

One tradition common to the tribes in North and South Waziristan, Orakzai Agency and some Afridi tribes in the Khyber Agency is that of demanding money for daughter or sister from the in-laws. This bride-money is considered as repayment for the upbringing and protection of the female since her birth.

There are interesting ways of going about it. The peshimam (prayer leader) of a mosque in Tank town in the southern part of KP is said to have told his daughter's would-be in-laws that he was against 'selling' her off but they could pay for his daughter's pet cat. He quoted Rs 500,000 as the cat's price. This way he 'justified' accepting "walvur" (Pashto word for bride-money).

A religious scholar in Peshawar, Mufti Saifur Rahman terms the practice as "against Sharia" and, therefore, un-Islamic. "Selling females or fixing a rate for their upbringing is against Islamic teachings. It is obligatory for the girl's father or brother to provide her with all the basic facilities till they are married. This isn't a favour that they are doing," he declares.

Mufti Saifur Rahman argues that no excuses are valid in denying one's sister or daughter her due Islamic share. "Some people say that even if they try, their sisters won't accept any share in the inherited property. This is a lame excuse. As a Muslim, give the due share to your sister/daughter and, if she pleases, she can return it to you later," he explains.

It may be mentioned here that the brother-in-law of Maulana Sufi Mohammad, the founder of the Tanzim-e-Nifaz-e-Shariat-e-Muhammadi (TNSM) who led a violent struggle for the enforcement of Sharia in Swat and the rest of the Malakand division and is now in jail, filed a lawsuit against the latter demanding that he should give his sister her due share in the inherited family property. It was like paying Sufi Mohammad in the same coin because he had been talking about Sharia and not yet granted share in the inherited property to his sister.

Advocate Noor Alam Khan, chairman of the non-governmental organisation ‘Voice of Prisoners’, points out that the inheritance and marriage issues in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and FATA are not restricted to the illiterate and rural people because educated Pakhtuns also hesitated to grant rights to the heirs. "We were hired by a well-known professor hailing from Bannu to file a lawsuit against his three brothers who had deprived from inheritance the British family of their fifth brother who married and died in the UK," he recalls.

''The wife and the two children of the deceased UK-based doctor were Muslim converts but his brothers were of the view that their brother had married a Christian woman and, thus, she along with her children was not entitled to Rs. 15 million inherited share of her husband," he says.
Although women in Pakistan are still a long way from attaining their proper inheritance rights, a positive change among the religious-minded and the educated lot is in the offing. Or, so it seems, as a small but growing number of people are willingly giving the due share in the inherited family property to their daughters and sisters.
One of the many ways of avoiding inheritance lawsuits is distancing oneself from one's siblings. In one such complaint filed by a woman in a Peshawar civil court, it transpired that her brothers had tried to prove to the judge that they had given their only sister her share eight years ago. Their argument was that their sister had died a few years after getting the share, and it obviously wasn't true.

The practice of negating inheritance rights to females isn't common only among the commoners. In fact, some people, who are the upholders of the law, also hate sharing their paternal property with their female siblings. A judge in Peshawar was dragged to the court by his sister and stepsisters. After long court proceedings, he lost his case as his remarks through which he labelled his stepmother as his father's mistress were trashed by the court.

The second argument made by the judge that his real sister was not authorised to get her share in the inherited property as she had married without the family's consent was also declared null and void by the court.

Although women in Pakistan are still a long way from attaining their proper inheritance rights, a positive change among the religious-minded and the educated lot is in the offing. Or, so it seems, as a small but growing number of people are willingly giving the due share in the inherited family property to their daughters and sisters. Requesting anonymity, an educated man from Chitral says that his wife, who hails from Gilgit, has received her inherited share in the family property from her brothers. Instead of finding an excuse to deny the women their due inheritance rights, such few enlightened and well-meaning people are trying to ensure that they are just and truthful in their dealings with their women.


[B]JWT Editorial Board[/B]

[B][I][CENTER][SIZE="5"][COLOR="RoyalBlue"]Women Empowerment in Pakistan[/COLOR][/SIZE][/CENTER][/I][/B]


[I]The lives of Pakistani women have changed during the past 30 years and they are more empowered and emancipated than they were ever before.[/I]


Quaid-e-Azam said in a speech in 1944, “No nation can rise to the height of glory unless your women are side by side with you; we are victims of evil customs. It is a crime against humanity that our women are shut up within the four walls of the houses as prisoners.” The lives of Pakistani women have changed during the past 30 years and they are more empowered and emancipated then they were ever before. More and more women are entering the workforce today as their predecessors, who made the first time at the work place and also made life easier for other women, lent them the encouragement to do so.

The supporting and opposing views with regard to working women can be analysed by taking into account various aspects of the society regarding the subject namely the social, legal, religious and the political.

Sociological aspect
Technological advancement has added to the urbanisation of society, yet the old customs and norms often act as impediments to the progress of a modern society. While many advocate women empowerment, others oppose the very idea. There are various reasons of the above stated attitude towards working women. Firstly, a woman who remains at home and can, therefore, look after her children in a much better and productive way. She keeps a check on their studies, is more aware about their everyday activities and is capable of bringing them up in a healthy way. On the contrary, a working woman is always busy in her work schedule leading to neglected children. A change of priorities from children to work makes her negligent towards her children.
The advocates of working women believe that they can contribute to the financial matters of the family. With ever rising prices and inflation, two earning people would surely help run the financial matters of the family.
Secondly, a woman when remains at home is sheltered from the callous attitude of other elements of the society. She is safe at all times and does not face any kind of depression as a result of such unhealthy behaviour towards her. On the other hand, a working woman has to withstand the teasing behaviour of men all the times—from starting her journey to work to the workplace itself. Gender discrimination and harassment at workplaces is common in almost every sector perceived as achievement activity. This leads to high depression levels amongst women shattering their personality and their productivity at work.

The advocates of working women believe that that they can contribute to the financial matters of the family. With ever rising prices and inflation, two earning people would surely help run the financial affairs of the family. Apart from the material gains, working women are self-actualised entities. They are confident as they know how to utilise their abilities best. This inculcates in them a sense of satisfaction and contentment, while the housewife often has a low self-esteem as she is financially dependent on her husband and is mostly considered good-for-nothing.

Legal aspect
Let's take a look at various laws or bill passed regarding women in Pakistan.

The Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act (2010)
The objective of this Act is to create a safe working environment for women, which is free of harassment, abuse and intimidation with a view to fulfilling their right to work with dignity. Harassment is one of the biggest hurdles faced by the working women preventing others who want to work to bring themselves and their families out of poverty. This Act will pave the way for women to participate more fully in the development of the country. This Act builds on the principles of equal opportunity to women and their right to earn a livelihood without any fear of discrimination as stipulated in the Constitution. This Act complies with the government's commitment to high international labour standards and empowerment of women. It also adheres to the Human Rights Declaration, the United Nations Convention for Elimination of all forms of Discrimination against Women and ILO's Convention 100 and 111 on workers' rights. It adheres to the principles of Islam and all other religions which assure women's dignity.

This Act requires all public and private organisations to adopt an internal code of conduct and a complain/appeals mechanism aimed at establishing a safe working environment for all working women.

Prevention of Domestic Violence Act (2008)
The Domestic Violence (Prevention and Protection) Bill was passed unanimously by the National Assembly on August 4, 2009, but the bill lapsed after the Senate failed to pass it within the three months period required under the Constitution.

Legislators from both opposition and government parties told Human Rights Watch (HRW) that even though President Zardari and Prime Minister Gilani supported the bill, it was delayed by unofficial opposition from some ministers.

The Domestic Violence bill seeks to prevent violence against women and children with a network of protection committees and protection officers and prompt trials of suspected abusers.

The measure makes sexual harassment or intimidation punishable by three years in prison, a 500,000 rupee fine, or both. The bill includes protection in public places such as markets, public transport, streets or parks, and more private places, such as workplaces, private gatherings, and homes.

Hudood Ordinance (1979)
The Hudood Ordinance was enacted in 1979 as part of General Muhammad Ziaul Haq's Islamisation and replaced or revised in 2006 by the Women's Protection Bill. The Hudood Law was intended to implement Sharia law, by enforcing punishments mentioned in the Holy Quran and Sunnah for zina, qazf, offence against property, and drinking. As for zina, a woman alleging rape is required to provide four adult male eyewitnesses. The ordinance has been criticised as leading to hundreds of incidents where a woman subjected to rape, or even gang rape, was eventually accused of zina and imprisoned becoming a victim of extremely unjust propaganda.

In 2006, then President Pervez Musharraf again proposed reforms in the ordinance. On November 15, 2006, the Women's Protection Bill was passed by the NA, allowing rape to be prosecutable under civil law. The bill was ratified by the Senate on November 23, 2006, and became law after President Musharraf signed it on December 1, 2006.

Religious aspect
In Islam the importance of women and their success as human beings, is measured with completely different criteria: their fear of Allah and obedience to Him, and fulfillment of the duties He has entrusted them with, particularly that of bearing, rearing and teaching children.

Nevertheless, Islam is a practical religion, and responds to human needs and life situations. Many women need, or wish, to work for various reasons. For example, they may possess a needed skill, such as a teacher or a doctor. While Islam does not prohibit women working outside her home, it does stipulate that the following restrictions be followed to protect the dignity and honour of women and the purity and stability of the Islamic society, the conduct of women, after all, is the backbone of any society:



1. Outside employment should not come before, or seriously interfere with her responsibilities as wife and mother.

2. Her work should not be a source of friction within the family, and the husband's consent is required to avoid later disagreements. If she is not married, she must have her guardian's consent.

3. Her appearance, manner and tone of speech and overall behaviour should follow Islamic guidelines.

4. Her job should not be one which causes moral corruption in society, or involve any prohibited trade or activity, affect her religion, morals, dignity and good behaviour, or subject her to temptations.

The above guidelines clearly show that a woman is not prohibited to go out of her home for the purpose of a job if she has the right intentions.

Political aspect
The political representation of women in Pakistan is higher than India, Sri Lanka and Iran. Pakistan is listed as 45th in the Inter-Parliamentary Union's (IPU) list of women in national parliaments and stood ahead of several developed democracies, including Canada, the UK and the US. The only positive development thus far has remained the relatively large representation of women in the National Assembly, the Senate and provincial assemblies in comparison to other countries. Of the 342 seats in the NA, women now comprise 22.2 per cent of those seats. In the Senate, women make up 17 per cent of the parliamentary seats. This indeed is significant departure from the past considering that women are often discouraged from entering politics. Pakistan is also one of the 30 countries which have a woman as Speaker of the National Assembly.

The political growth of a country requires both male and female participation in the government affairs. Women representation in the government ensures that work is done for the overall good of the woman folk. However, the woman participation in the state structure calls for responsibility on the part of women and requires them with intellect taking up the posts instead of women who have been selected by their male counterparts.


[B]Tabina Sirhindi[/B]

[B][I][CENTER][SIZE="5"][COLOR="RoyalBlue"]Security Crisis in Pakistan[/COLOR][/SIZE][/CENTER][/I][/B]

[I]The security landscape is marred with target killings in Karachi along with the mounting assaults and ambushes by the militants against security forces in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Federally Administered Tribal Areas and Balochistan.[/I]


Pakistan, the world's sixth most populous country and second biggest Muslim one, is facing violence and divided. If the definition of security is a state being free from danger, then it is not applicable to the status quo prevalent in our country. It is an inkling of the worst which is yet to come, as terrorism is the popular cliché to portray our homeland. Even if Pakistan decides to stay in the shallow end of the pool or go out in the ocean. The security landscape is marred with target killings in Karachi along with the mounting assaults and ambushes by the militants against security forces in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Federally Administered Tribal Areas and Balochistan. The abysmal security situation deteriorated further, after the killing of former al-Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden. Be it the assassination of Akbar Bugti, Benazir Bhutto, and numerous suicide attacks in the country puts a question mark on the role of security agencies in Pakistan. As far as the concept of security in Pakistan is concerned, since its existence Pakistan is living in a state of security paranoia whereas signing defence pacts like Southeast Asia Treaty Organisation (SEATO) and the Central Treaty Organisation (CENTO) is a clear depiction of a security less state. Unfortunately, these pacts did not prevent the war of 1965, 1971 and Kargil. To understand the murky security scenario, it is important to sit in a time machine way back to 1980s and one can see that today we are reaping what we had sown in 1990s by taking U-turn in our policy toward Taliban. Pakistan and US continuous intervention in the internal affairs of Afghanistan, and the role of Pakistan as the US most allied ally, playing the central role to arm jihadi groups in Afghanistan is another side of the story. It is their wars and introducing Kalashinkov culture in Pakistan which is now used in students movements, ethnic and sectarian clashes, kidnapping, military government raids, and militant uprising. It is for this reason that Pakistan is ranked as having the highest per capita gun ownership rate in the world, which is an alarming sign of increased intolerance and crime in our society.


Pakistan is ranked as having the highest per capita gun ownership rate in the world, which is an alarming sign of increased intolerance and crime in our society. Pakistan as the US most allied ally, playing the central role to arm jihadi groups in Afghanistan is another side of the story. It is their wars and introducing Kalashinkov culture in Pakistan which is now used in students movements, ethnic and sectarian clashes, kidnapping, military government raids, and militant uprising. It is for this reason that Pakistan is ranked as having the highest per capita gun ownership rate in the world, which is an alarming sign of increased intolerance and crime in our society.
Subsequently, waging of guerrilla war against former Soviet Union's presence in Afghanistan with the US backing, Pakistan was seeking strategic death in Afghanistan to counter Indian activities (though Indian intelligence agencies are working in the form of consulates is still present in Afghanistan). And US wants to withdraw former Soviet Union in order to reach warm water. It can provide US the access to the Central Asian Republics, considered the heartland since the time of Alexander the Great. Gwadar Port and Chinese presence in the Indian Ocean is an eye soar for US, India and Israel. Pakistan is confronted with security crises along with the worst crises in human security chart by Pakistan Institute for Peace Studies. The nature of terrorist attacks in the last three months and their security features reveal a mix trend including suicide attacks, militants killed in the operational attacks by the security forces.

Despite the role of Pakistan as frontline state in the war on terror, Pakistan is still asked, rather pressurised to do more in order to destroy the safe havens (volatile tribal belt), so that Pakistan to get aid which is never used for civilian benefit todate and is purely available for defence purposes by Pakistan Army and all governments. The very word to do more is an emblem of trust deficit between US intelligence agencies and Pakistan intelligence agencies, specifically ISI which is facing undue criticism by the world media and propaganda by the external intelligence agencies working against ISI and our national integration.

It is a universal fact that the intelligence agencies are backbone of any country, and Pakistani media is unknowingly criticising its own security forces which is again a gruesome security threat for the geo-strategic position of Pakistan. Richard Halbrooke said, “there is no way that the international effort in Afghanistan can succeed unless Pakistan can get its western tribal belt under control.” Radicalisation of Pakistani society in Zia-ul-Haq era, misuse of Islam by jihadi groups on the American payroll, are important factors in the deteriorating security of the country. Therefore, lack of check and balance on madrassah system where extremist and fanatic ideas are incarnated in the minds of the poor and illiterate teenage, extreme poverty, unemployment, illegal supply of small and big weapons to masses and lack of government capacity show the precarious nature of Pakistan's stability. As far as the military operation in FATA is concerned, one should keep in mind what Viceroy Lord Curzon at the end of 19th century, “No patchwork scheme will settle the Waziristan problem”. Dialogue with Pakistani Taliban and militant leaders in Balochistan should be the course to address the security issues as both the world wars were settled on the table and not in the battlefield. Furthermore, for the amelioration of security system in Pakistan laws governing the manufacture, sale, transfer and licencing of small arms and ammunition should be given importance and checked vigilantly by the security forces. Role of intelligence agencies should be made more affective, Foreign Office should give the list of foreigners residing in Pakistan to ISI, all the political parties should forge unity of action against security issues under one umbrella, so that the economy of the country prosper in the fields of science and education.


Rabia Basri

[CENTER][SIZE="5"][COLOR="RoyalBlue"][B][I]SINO-PAK Friendship and Cooperation[/I][/B][/COLOR][/SIZE][/CENTER]


[I]Pakistan and China ties are between two nations and not confined to the government only. These relations have gone beyond bilateral [/I]


Pakistan and China decided jointly to celebrate 2011 as Year of Friendship on the occasion of the 60th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic rela¬tionship between them. China and Pakistan are holding a series of activities in the politi¬cal, economic, trade, military, cultural, sporting, education and health fields. As part of this year's celebration, both countries have worked together on organising diverse arrangement of 69 events in diplomatic, cultural and educational areas with an average of five events a month and 14 in May and 12 in November.

Pakistan-China ties are between two nations, not confined to the governments only. These relations have gone beyond bilateral dimensions and acquired broader regional and international ramifications. Friendship and cooperation between them serve the fundamental interests of the two countries and development in the region and beyond. China has reiterated that it always places consolidation and development of relations will Pakistan high on its diplomatic agenda and is firm on the policy of pursuing friendly ties with Pakistan. Beijing is ready to work with Islamabad to further deepen friendship and pass it on to posterity. The Chinese side appreciates Pakistan's longstanding firm support on issues that concern China's core interests.

Chinese PM Wen Jiabao inaugurated the Pak-¬China Friendship Centre in December 2010, which is an icon of our evergreen relationship and a platform for promotion of mutual cultural ties. The founda¬tion of the Centre was laid by Wen in April 2005. It is a gift from the Chinese Government to Pakistanis and has been built at a cost of Rs 2.5 billion in 22 months.

[B]People-to-People and Media Contacts[/B]
China and Pakistan will expand cultural, sporting and people-to-people interactions in a comprehensive manner, and engage in broad contacts between uni¬versities, think-tanks, academic institutions, mass media and film and TV.

China and Pakistan will establish cultural centres in each other's country and will maintain and expand step-by-step 100 youth exchange pro¬grammes and enhance cooperation in young officials training, exchanges between young entrepreneurs and young volunteer services.

China will invite 100 senior middle school/high school students from Pakistan for the summer camp of Chinese Bridge and continue to pro¬vide Confucius Institute scholarships to Pakistani uni¬versity students.

China will provide 500 government scholarships to Pakistan in three years starting in 2011. Both countries will also enhance their cooperation in science and tech¬nology, applied sciences, learning of Chinese and Urdu languages. The Chinese People's Association for Friendship with Foreign Countries will undertake the China-Pakistan Friendship Bringing-Light Tour to Pakistan and provide free surgical treatment for 1000 Pakistani cataract patients in two years. The two sides will open new air routes and increase flights. Today, the historic friendship between Pakistan and China is recognised by the world as a unique and durable relationship having very different cultures and languages, but bound by a common vision for regional and global peace and progress.

For over four decades now, the Pakistan-China friendship has been spread over and cemented in diverse fields of geo-politics, economics, socio-cultural exchange, civil and military infrastructural develop¬ment and other such areas of bilateral cooperation and investment. Perhaps the most outstanding feature of our friendship - and the most important one - is it being deeply rooted and firmly entrenched in the hearts and minds of the people of countries.

For reasons, we are all aware of, the current global environment places tremendous premium on the importance of winning hearts and minds to strengthen relations between countries. Pakistan and China enjoy a unique position of having proven to the world that if people are put at the centre of a bilateral rela¬tionship, it is bound to grow strong and resilient.
In this respect, both governments' sustained emphasis and focus on exchange of and cooperation in information and socio-cultural sectors, such as broad¬cast media, has played a major role in bringing the two countries closer. Today an average 30-year-old Pakistani man or woman would easily be able to recall the beautiful weekend Chinese language films that he/she grew up watching on Pakistani TV. They harbour happy childhood memories of watching colour¬ful Chinese cultural troupes performing in Pakistani cities being broadcasted live on Pakistani TV. They remember with nostalgia the splendid Pakistani TV dramas depicting the historic making of Pakistan's famous Karakoram Highway by Chinese workers and soldiers.

For over four decades now, the Pakistan-China friendship has been spread over and cemented in diverse fields of geo-politics, economics, socio-cultural exchange, civil and military infrastructural develop¬ment, and other such areas of bilateral cooperation and investment.

Many Pakistanis tune into a regular Radio Pakistan transmission to enjoy special programmes on Chinese music and culture. With the objective of projecting our friendship, the Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation (PBC) introduced its 30-minute Chinese service in 1997 that reaches Beijing, Shanghai, Central China and Japan.

The PBC's Chinese service covers daily and weekly news and commentaries in Chinese; daily Pakistani and Chinese music transmissions; special programmes on national days of China; and interviews of visiting Chinese delegations, as well as Chinese students and business community living in Pakistan. With Pakistan and China having established a sustainable broadcast media cooperation case, the two governments are now intensifying their objectives to build on it further.

In this respect, during the first official visit to China of Pakistan's President Asif Ali Zardari in October 2008, Pakistan's Ministry of Information and Broadcasting and SARFT of the Peoples Republic of China signed an agreement for cooperation in the field of radio and TV.

The agreements seek to create an enabling frame¬work consisting of exchange of expertise, technology, skill base, information and ideas, programming con¬tent and other collaborative ventures. In line with this agreement, the information ministry and PTV and PBC - are developing plans for basing resident correspon¬dents in our respective capitals; sharing TV and radio programmes; creating joint productions; exchanging TV and radio producers, news casters, anchor persons, reporters and artists; and conducting reciprocal pro¬fessional training programmes.

[B]New heights in the Pakistan-China bilateral relationship[/B]
Following the establishment of Pak-China diplomatic relationship in May 1951, both countries has attained many milestones in their bilateral relationship. In the era of Ayub Khan, the then foreign minister, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto formalised this relationship at the strategic level. Through his strategic vision, he made Pak-China relationship as an essential and never changing pillar of the foreign policy of Pakistan. The same vision exists even today and Pakistan has maintained it as an inalienable part of its diplomatic relationship.

Pak-China friendship is based on four pillars; geography, history, economics and necessity. Owing to the geographical contiguity, we are neighbours, whereas history has made us friends. Likewise; economics has made us partners, whereas, necessity has made us allies. Pakistan has the honour of recognising this great neighbour soon after it came into being and supported the restoration of its legitimate position in the UN. Later, China helped Pakistan in the construction of a road linking China's Xingjian region with the Gilgit-Baltistan. The strategic partnership between the both countries was initially driven by the mutual needs and to counter the influence of other regional and extra regional powers. Apart from the political connections, both countries had developed military relationship which subsequently led towards creation of a Joint Committee of Economy, Trade and Technology in 1982.

Earlier, Pakistan played a very crucial role in bringing United States and China closer to each other in early 1970s. The opportunities had allowed China to come out from the close door economy and regional politics, thus allowing it to interact with the countries at the global level. Because of that beginning, China later tailored its political outlook, trade and industrialisation and has now emerged as a global power.

The friendship between the two countries has matured into a comprehensive strategic partnership for peace and development in the region and abroad. Over the years, this friendship has survived numerous geo-political and geo-strategic changes which took place at the global and regional level. At the global level, China had always supported Pakistani point of view on the issue of Jammu and Kashmir. Subsequent to Indo-US Strategic Partnership in 2005, Pakistan and China had signed a landmark 'Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation', whereby both committed themselves that “neither party will join any alliance or bloc which infringes upon the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of either nation”, and “would not conclude treaties of this nature with any third party.”

The joint statement issued after the end of prime minister Yousuf Raza Gilani's visit to China last month, termed Pakistan an important state of the region and called for respecting its sovereignty, independence and territori¬al integrity. The statement was based on the formal meetings of prime minister Gilani with the Chinese leadership. Apart from president Hu Jintao and prime minister Wen Jiabao, prime minister Gilani has met with the Chairman of the CPPCC's National Committee Jia Qinlin and State Councillor Liu Yandong. The leadership of the China appreciated the "tremendous efforts and great sacri¬fice that Pakistan has made in fighting terrorism and reiterated its respect and support for Pakistan's efforts to advance its counter-terrorism strategy and safe¬guard its security." Both countries decided to jointly fight the threats posed by terrorism, extremism and separatism.

The two countries noted that terrorism, separatism and extremism were posing seri¬ous threats to regional peace, stability and security and called for substantive cooperation. Both sides agreed to jointly fight these under bilateral and mul¬tilateral frameworks. The Chinese side recognised the tremendous efforts and the great sacrifice that Pakistan have made in fighting terrorism and reiter¬ated its respect and support for the efforts of Pakistan to advance its counterterrorism strategy and safeguard its security, the joint statement mentioned. Pakistan reiterated that it would never allow its ter¬ritory to be used to attack any country and would contin¬ue to support international counterterrorism initiatives.

During the meetings the two leaders reached broad agreement on continuing to work to promote China-Pakistan strategic partnership of cooperation. Both the countries agreed to strengthen communication and coordination in regional affairs, particularly on the hotspot issues such as Afghanistan and regional cooperation.

It pointed that it would be in line with the principles and spirit of the treaty of friendship, cooperation and good neighbourly relations between Pakistan and China signed in 2005. Pakistan also reiterated its firm commitment to the One China Policy and extended support for the cause of China's unification. Both countries agreed to further intensify coop¬eration in infrastructure development, energy and agriculture on priority basis in line with the decisions taken during the visit of Premier Wen Jiabao to Pakistan. Leaders of the both sides also noted the recent progress in mutually beneficial cooperation in the financial and banking sectors. Negotiations between the two countries are underway regarding currency swaps and opening of ICBC branches in Pakistan.

Pak-China friendship is based on four pillars; geography, history, economics and necessity. Owing to the geographical contiguity, we are neighbours, whereas history has made us friends. Likewise; economics has made us partners, whereas, necessity has made us allies.

Pakistan and China also reiterated to continue to enhance mutual trust and cooperation in the military and security fields for peace, security and stability of the two countries and the region. They also agreed to give further impetus to the cooperation in the field of maritime security. The two sides noted the excellent framework for bilateral trade and econo¬mic cooperation in the form of five-year development programme on trade and economic cooperation and the China-Pakistan Free Trade Agreement. The establishment of the China-Pakistan Entrepreneurs Forum will further strengthen exchanges between their busi¬ness communities. The two sides also signed three agreements and memorandums of understanding on cooperation in the fields of economic -assistance, finance and mining.
Prime minister Gilani and the Chinese leadership reviewed with satisfaction the growth of Pakistan-China relations, since the establishment of their ties and agreed that the all-weather and time-tested friendship and multi-dimensional cooperation have become the defining features of these relations. The leaders are firmly commi¬tted to expanding and deepening the strategic partne¬rship, economic collaboration and people-to- people contacts. They agreed that China-Pakistan Friendship Year is an occasion to celebrate the friendshi¬p. Both the countries also reviewed with satisfaction the momentum of activities being maintained in political, economic collab¬oration and people-to-people contacts.

[B]Capt(r) Syed Muhammad Abid Qadri[/B]

[B][I][CENTER][SIZE="5"][COLOR="RoyalBlue"]The Stubborn Colonel[/COLOR][/SIZE][/CENTER][/I][/B]


[I]Some people may argue that the Western military intervention is aimed at grabbing Libya's vast oil and gas reserves, but Qaddafi's stubborn refusal to step down has also facilitated the West in making this intervention possible.[/I]



Having an area of 1,757,000 square kilometres and population of 6,173,579, Libya is North Africa's largest oil producing country, having a society with strong tribal affiliations. The turbulent events taking place in this vast desert country have gripped the world's attention over the past few weeks. When the wind of democracy and change sweeping across the Middle East and North Africa reached Libya, instead of following the footsteps of Ben Ali of Tunisia and Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, Colonel Muammar Al-Qaddafi launched a relentless assault on his opponents describing them as stray dogs, rats, drug addicts and al-Qaeda militants. It was quite obvious that even after more than four decades of authoritarian rule, the fanatical lust for power in this old man was still young. Let us have a closer look at his long despotic rule, characterized by stubbornness, defiance and ruthless suppression of opposition.

On September 1, 1969, while the 79-year-old King Idris of Libya was in Turkey, a group of young army captains, most of whom were in their late 20s, surprised everyone by their swift overthrow of the royal government, taking advantage of the divided opposition and the much discredited old regime.
The new revolutionary government was led by a 27-year-old army officer Muammar Al-Qaddafi, who was inspired by Nasser's style of leadership and aspired to project himself as the new leader of the Arab world, with his socialist policies, anti-Israeli rhetoric and outspoken criticism of the West. In 1971, Libya, Egypt and Syria agreed to form a federation, to promote a mutual military alliance against Israel. On the internal front, besides nationalising the country's oil reserves, all banks were also nationalised and it was decreed that all businesses must be owned by the Libyans. By the mid-1970s, Qaddafi's domestic revolution was coalescing. A decade of economic upheaval began as the government seized most private property and instituted a radically egalitarian welfare state.

Under Qaddafi's leadership, Libya began playing a much more active role in Arab affairs and in international politics. It vigorously opposed the peace accord between Israel and Egypt and joined Syria in the so-called “rejectionist front” in 1978. Besides supporting Palestinian Lib eration Organisation (PLO), Qaddafi was also accused of supplying weapons to the Irish Republican Army (IRA) and to those who carried out the assassinations of Libyan dissidents living abroad.

Libyan relations with the United States began deteriorating in the early 1980s. In 1981, US navy jets shot down two Libyan fighter planes over international waters in the Gulf of Sidra. Libya which regarded the whole region of the Gulf of Sidra as its territorial waters decried the attacks. In 1986, another encounter in the Gulf of Sidra resulted in the destruction of two Libyan ships by the US navy. In April that same year, in response to the heightened terrorism in Europe, allegedly sponsored by Qaddafi's regime, United States bombed several sites in Libya, including Qaddafi's home and Bab Alazizia Barracks resulting in the death of Qaddafi's infant daughter and serious damage to a number of other military installations. In 1992, the United Nations imposed sanctions on Libya for its refusal to extradite two Libyans who were suspected of being involved in the bombing of the Pan-American flight 103 over Lockerbie in Scotland in 1988.
Some reports suggest that it was Qaddafi's government which gave sensitive information to the United States regarding Dr. Abdul Qadeer, resulting in immense international pressure on Pakistan to take action against its most respected nuclear scientist.


For the first 25 years of his rule, Qaddafi had tried to project himself as a heroic leader of the Arab world and self-appointed leader of opposition to the recognised international system. With his outspoken condemnation of Western policies, he had attempted to gain the support and sympathies of the ordinary Arabs and other Muslims. But by the mid 1990s, quite unexpectedly, he began to soften his earlier stance. Decades of disappointment over his failure to engineer Arab unity, added burden of international sanctions and increasing opposition to his rule at home, took a heavy toll on his regime. Tired of his tyrannical rule, some of the best educated Libyans had left the country and settled abroad where they formed opposition groups. Moreover, he had come to power as a staunch advocate of Islam, but with the passage of time, it became increasingly obvious that like most other dictatorial rulers of the region, he also had a selective approach towards religion and staunchly adhered to only those religious teachings which were helpful in prolonging his rule and promoting his worldly objectives. As he parted ways with the religious elite of his country, his version of Islam became increasingly heterodox. As he came under stiff opposition from the Islamist groups, he realised that for the survival of his regime, he would have to join hands with those governments which he had most vigorously opposed during the previous years. Gradually, he began showing his interest in participating in the international system not as a “Rogue state” as the US had labeled his country, but as a law-abiding member of the international community. Thus, in 1999, Libya agreed to hand over the two suspects of the Lockerbie bombing, to stand trial in the Netherlands under Scottish law. Millions of dollars were paid in compensation to the families of the victims. Consequently, the United Nations suspended its sanctions. In order to get closer to the United States, in 2003, Qaddafi announced that he was ready to cooperate with the international community for dismantling his nuclear weapons programme. Some reports suggest that it was Qaddafi's government which gave sensitive information to the United States regarding Dr. Abdul Qadeer, resulting in immense international pressure on Pakistan to take action against its most respected nuclear scientist. The announcement regarding the forsaking of weapons of mass destruction and acceptance of responsibility for the Lockerbie bombing, encouraged the US to normalise its relations with Libya and full diplomatic relations between the two countries were restored in 2006.

Throughout this period, Qaddafi's main pre-occupation was the consolidation of his hold on power. He may be counted among those rulers who regard their countries as their ancestral estates and wish to pass on their power and authority to their sons after their death. Thus, like Saddam of Iraq and Hafez Al-Assad of Syria, he trained and groomed his sons especially, Saiful-Islam to become his successor. During Qaddafi's rule, there was an evident disparity between the Eastern and Western regions of Libya. The Eastern region which has most of the country's oil reserves remained largely neglected and impoverished, while living standards of the people were raised in Tripoli and other Western areas where Qaddafi's own tribesmen are dominant. Quite naturally, the present armed uprising against him started from the main Eastern city of Ben Ghazi.
Under Qaddafi's leadership, Libya began playing a much more active role in Arab affairs and in international politics. It vigorously opposed the peace accord between Israel and Egypt and joined Syria in the so-called “rejectionist front” in 1978.
When rulers like Qaddafi remain in power for an exceptionally long period of time, they become so proud and overconfident that they grow indifferent to the changes taking place around them and begin to believe that no power on earth can remove them from power. The same thing happened with Qaddafi who in spite of witnessing the toppling of the old dictatorial regimes in the neighbouring Tunisia and Egypt, continued to hope against hope that nothing of this sort was likely to happen in his country. If he had been wise enough, he should have voluntarily stepped down, to salvage some of his old image and to prevent the bloodshed of his own people. By describing his opponents as al-Qaeda activists, he hoped to win Western support, without realising the fact that after utilising the old Arab rulers for their own interests for several years, the Western powers are now looking for a new generation of Arab rulers who would apparently have a more democratic outlook, but would be as loyal to the West as were their predecessors. By refusing to bow down to the international pressure to step down, he again hoped to regain popular support in the Arab world by presenting himself as a hero, fighting against colonial and imperialistic aggression. While doing so, he seemed to have forgotten that the masses in the Arab world are not as ignorant and simple as they used to be in the past. With the advent of the Internet and independent media, people are now quite capable of seeing through the tricks and twists of their rulers.

Moreover, the next few weeks and months will also be crucial to expose the West's real intentions behind its apparent desire to see democratic change in the region. The swift Western military intervention in Libya in the form of the no fly zone is apparently aimed at protecting the ordinary Libyan civilians. But if the situation deteriorates in Bahrain, Yemen, Saudi Arabia and Syria, it remains to be seen whether the West will intervene with the same swiftness and if at all it intervenes, will it be for the protection of ordinary civilians or for the protection of their old rulers. Already, hundreds of people have been killed in these countries, but besides issuing some lukewarm statements of condemnation, the West seems to be in no mood to take practical steps for the protection of their civilians. If no fly zone can be so promptly enforced on Libya, why not on Gaza and Kashmir? Such double standards of the West indicate that it has some hidden objectives behind its apparent sympathy for the Libyan civilians. But while condemning the West, it should also be remembered that the UN resolution 1973 had the full backing of the Arab League. Even Russia, China and India did not oppose it. Some people may argue that the Western military intervention is aimed at grabbing Libya's vast oil and gas reserves, but Qaddafi's stubborn refusal to step down has also facilitated the West in making this intervention possible.

[B]
Professor Abdul Rauf[/B]

[B][I][CENTER][SIZE="5"][COLOR="RoyalBlue"]CIA-ISI love affair[/COLOR][/SIZE][/CENTER][/I][/B]


[I]Apparently, the ISI has the upper hand over the CIA, though a heavy cost might incur by that move[/I].


Historically the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) has always worked as credible agency for Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). The subservient relation of ISI with CIA has immensely damaged the reputation of Pak army and Pakistani government. The imposition of US policies in Pakistan through ISI has gravely deteriorated the civilian institutions; in fact the multiple military coups were the result of that strategy.

The terrorist attacks on state functionaries, suicide bombings and killings go in favour of both the agencies, because the war-like situation justifies the presence CIA and its counterpart in the volatile area.

US helicopters frequently violate Pakistan's airspace and kill a number of people in the bordering area with Afghanistan. The CIA stepped up the frequency of drone attacks in Pakistan after the NATO oil tankers were alighted.

The American citizen, Raymond Davis, who killed two Pakistanis in broad daylight and caught by traffic police wardens was identified as a CIA contractor detailed to provide security at the US consulate in Lahore. The United States said that the assignment gave Davis the diplomatic immunity and he should be released immediately.

The CIA and ISI chiefs, Leon Panetta and Lt-Gen Ahmad Shuja Pasha spoke on the phone. The ISI chief asked CIA chief to provide the information about all CIA operatives in Pakistan. Analysts say that in the present scenario ISI and CIA are locked in an intense battle to secure their respective countries' interests in the region.

The CIA reportedly agreed to reveal the required information and allowed more cooperation in its drone strike operations. But it has, so far, resisted the demand to cut down the number of drone strikes targeted within Pakistan, and even after Raymond Davis was released, a drone in North Waziristan killed civilians in large number. Nevertheless, the sharing of information with ISI may hampers US efforts to target enemy combatants even if the move doesn't actually eliminate the possibility of striking innocent civilians.

A meeting between Leon Panetta and Lt-Gen. Ahmed Shuja Pasha took place at CIA headquarter, USA. The American media covered that meeting and reported differently. In fact the three-day visit which was shortened to one day had caused speculations among the media. There was a heated exchange between the heads of the allied secret intelligence agencies. It is quite obvious that ISI intended to use the recent imbroglio of Raymond Davis affair as a bargaining tool on the negotiating table.

Another report of the US media said the CIA had been trying to cooperate with ISI, though it had not removed any personnel from Pakistan. Pakistani intelligence had demanded that the CIA reveal more substance about its operations, the drone surveillance and other activities within Pakistan. Moreover, the ISI asked the CIA to reduce the number of drone strikes in the Pakistani territory.

Apparently, the ISI has the upper hand over the CIA, though a heavy cost might incur by that move. We have yet to see the impact of the current strained relations on military operations and politics in Pakistan. The frequency of drone strikes, an unacknowledged CIA programme that the US considers its most successful weapon against al Qaeda and the Taliban leadership and which relies on at least some Pakistani cooperation, also has fallen, with just nine strikes in March compared to a peak of 22 in September 2010.

But the revelation that armed CIA contractors like Davis, were working in Pakistan deeply angered and embarrassed the ISI. But no matter how bruised the relations become, US-Pakistani ties are too strategic to unravel. The experts of military politics say that most of mess in our soil is created by these two powerful groups. In past CIA operatives were dependent on ISI but Musharraf regime gave CIA all kind of opportunities to set their moving and static base stations in different areas of Pakistan.
The CIA and ISI chiefs, Leon Panetta and Lt-Gen Ahmad Shuja Pasha spoke on the phone. The ISI chief asked CIA chief to provide the information about all CIA operatives in Pakistan.
Now, given the fiery situation in Pakistan, the ISI has started squeezing concessions from US military and CIA. Pakistan Army knows that the US government and the CIA cannot succeed in hunting al Qaeda's leadership and operatives without the cooperation from Pakistan's military and intelligence agencies.

A report in Wall Street Journal says that relations between Washington and Islamabad historically have never been easy, and now they seem to have reached something of a watershed. The fault is not all one-sided. Congressional potentates have made a habit of criticizing Pakistan publicly even when it was cooperating with the US and deploying thousands of troops to fight Taliban, and promised American aid has been haltingly.

Islamabad's US cooperation has also been double-edged. President Asif Ali Zardari allowed the US to increase the number of drone strikes, yet it has made a point of complaining about them publicly to shore up his waning popularity.

The US has a vital national interest in pursuing Taliban and al Qaeda leaders in Afghanistan and Pakistan, both for the sake of the war in Afghanistan and the security of the American homeland. Pakistan can choose to cooperate in that fight and reap the benefits of an American alliance. Or it can oppose the US and face the consequences, including the loss of military aid, drone attacks and others.

The WSJ further adds that in the wake of 9/11, the Bush Administration famously sent Secretary of State Colin Powell to Islamabad to explain that the US was going to act forcefully to protect itself, and that Pakistan had to choose whose side it was on.

It's time to present Pakistan with the same choice again.

[B]JWT Desk[/B]

[B][I][U][CENTER][SIZE="5"][COLOR="RoyalBlue"]Will The Fumes of Islamic Awakening’ Reach Pakistan?[/COLOR][/SIZE][/CENTER][/U][/I][/B]

[I]The claim of the democratically-elected government to ameliorate its relations with Tehran is a matter of concern for the allies of Cairo. The Asian countries have hailed the triumph of Morsi with ecstasy and at a high note. Russia, China and Iran have expressed their desire to strengthen diplomatic ties with Egypt. The situation in Pakistan was no different, but the landmark elections of Egypt were downplayed by the Pakistani media.[/I]


Finally, Egyptians saw that day which they had been eagerly waiting for. Cairo's Tahrir square was once again jam-packed, but this time with jubilant supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood. To claim that their president is a democratically elected one instead of a dictatorial, self-imposed stalwart is not a trivial pleasure for lips that were muted for almost the past 30 years. Morsi secured 51.73% of the votes cast, some 13.23 million votes in total and the former prime minister Ahmed Shafiq secured 12.35 million votes. Mohammed Morsi Eissa al-Ayat couldn't have given a better presidential speech. His first message to his country encompassed around the formation of a democratic constitution and restoration of the parliament that had been once mutilated by the Egyptian military. The US educated engineering professor rose through the ranks of Muslim Brotherhood and has ultimately constructed an unforgettable history for Egypt to remember.

From Cairo to Washington, Morsi was being congratulated with zeal. Washington was happy at the aversion of turmoil in Egypt, but concerned about a government of staunch Islamic nature. The claim of the democratically-elected government to ameliorate its relations with Tehran is a matter of concern for the allies of Cairo. The Asian countries have hailed the triumph of Morsi with ecstasy and at a high note. Russia, China and Iran have expressed their desire to strengthen diplomatic ties with Egypt. The situation in Pakistan was no different, but the landmark elections of Egypt were downplayed by the Pakistani media.
However, among the most jubilant ones' Jama’at-e-Islami (JI) stood ahead in Pakistan. The JI leaders in their speeches said that the victory was a source of inspiration for the Islamic movements across the world. They expressed their optimism for a similar victory of the religious forces in Pakistan. It is interesting to analyse that how compatible is the Pakistani political cauldron with the Islamic political approach.

Muslim Brotherhood (MB) has remained a vital actor at the political stage of Egypt since 1928. With the passage of time it morphed into an irrefutable mouthpiece for those in favour of the reviving Islamic values. However, this wasn't the only purpose which allowed it to penetrate its roots into the masses. It provided services to the people, such as education for boys and girls, inexpensive medical care, financial assistance and vocational training centres.
The contribution of Muslim Brotherhood towards developmental projects made it the centre of attraction for a large number of Egyptians. This helped it to communicate its vision for Egypt along with the portrayal of Brotherhood's ability to deliver on social and economic promises to the Egyptian population. The decade of 1930 to 1940, which brought along with it 'socioeconomic crisis' for Egypt, gave the Muslim Brotherhood an opportunity to add value to its popularity. In addition to this, Hasnul Banna (the founder of MB) practised what he preached which made his personality magnetic and charismatic for his supporters. His efforts commenced as propellants for moral reform and spiritual uplift which were later converted into aspirants of a political change based on Islamic concepts of polity. The great extent to which MB resided in the hearts of the civil society saved it from political extinction several times. This is the reason behind its win in the elections of 2012 even by a narrow margin of 800,000 votes. MB's victory is being hailed by some as the starting point for 'Islamic awakening'.
Morsi secured 51.73% of the votes cast, some 13.23 million votes in total and the former prime minister Ahmed Shafiq secured 12.35 million votes.
On the other hand, Islamic forces in Pakistan are continuing their abjured ambition of aligning politics with religion. Maulana Maududi the founder of Jama’at-e-Islami called for the establishment of Allah's Kingdom considered Muslim League to be an anti-Islamic party. His aim remained to transform Pakistan into Dar-ul-Islam (the land of Islam) although he was initially one of the opponents of the creation of Pakistan. Jama’at was disintegrated after the creation of Pakistan with some of its parts in India and others in Bangladesh after 1971. Since then the self-appointed custodian of Islam has badly lost all the elections it had jumped in. It has been locked into a rivalry with another major Islamic party of Pakistan (Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam). This exhibits their poor political seasoning along with their inability to win the support of the masses. The alliance of religious parties (Muttahida Majlis-e-A’amal) managed to get majority in Khyber Pakhtoonkhwa in 2002.



However, the alliance didn't oust General Pervaiz Musharraf, it also had to join the bandwagon of 'lawyers' movement' in order to achieve this motive. JI's social welfare projects are large in number, but less efficient. It's not pliant towards minorities to an extent that it can appoint a Christain naib ameer for its party (like MB's vice president, Rafiq Habib who is a Christian by faith). Popularity at the grass root levels is ensured by coercion. It is a pity as to how Jama’at-e-Islami has been involved in politicising one of the oldest universities at Pakistan, University of the Punjab.

Even if Islamic democracies progress around the world, Islamic political forces will have to take radical measures to sync up with them in Pakistan. Preaching Islam is not sufficient; it requires a well-orchestrated example in a heterogeneous society like Pakistan to spread religious awareness. A major part of the population is youth which won't be inspired a political party that politicizes educational institutes. People are already distraught with faltering economy and uncomfortable living conditions. Engendering Islamic principles in a country that is already facing innumerable challenges isn't an easy task. Fumes of 'Islamic awakening' will reach Pakistan only if someone is available to imbibe, and that isn't possible until internal Islamic forces win the hearts of the masses.

Fakiha Hassan Rizvi

[B][I][CENTER][SIZE="5"][COLOR="RoyalBlue"]Gwadar Port: Geo-economic and Geostrategic Dimensions[/COLOR][/SIZE][/CENTER][/I][/B]


Gwadar has geostrategic significance as it lies on the conduit of three most commercially important regions of the world. Gwadar has geostrategic significance as it lies on the conduit of three most commercially important regions of the world. The oil rich Middle East, Central Asia bestowed with natural resources, and South Asia having the potential for growth, for this century.


The awarding of the multi-billion dollar contract for construction and operation of Gwadar Port to China Overseas Port Holding Company (COPHC), a state-run Chinese firm, in February this year, has added a new chapter in decades-long Sino-Pak partnership. The project is mutually beneficial for both countries in the region for it will not only give them a corridor for greater commercial activity but will also bring closer the Central Asian countries. It is also expected to earn them a great strategic leverage. The recent agreement is the part of a plan to open up an energy and trade corridor from the Gulf region, across Pakistan to western China.

The transfer of project operations to China caught attention of the international media and triggered discourse on the economic and strategic shift that the presence of China tends to induce in one of the world's major maritime zones. Naturally, it raised concerns of major stakeholders in the Indian Ocean, particularly Pakistan's eastern neighbour, India, and the United States.

It was March 2002, when the groundbreaking of Gwadar Port marked the execution of the decades-old plan of Pakistan to build a deepwater seaport (Panamax port) at its coastline in Balochistan province. Highlighting the paramount geo-economic and geostrategic significance of the port, the then president Pervez Musharraf said:

“The Gwadar port shall provide modern, up-to-date facilities for cargo vessels in line with modern ports. The coastal highway which is also being constructed simultaneously with the port, will provide a very healthy linkage between Karachi and Gwadar ports. If we see this whole region, it is like a funnel. The top of the funnel is this wide area of Central Asia and also China's western region. And this funnel gets narrowed on through Afghanistan and in Pakistan northern areas into Pakistan and goes through Pakistan and the end of this funnel is Gwadar port. So this funnel, futuristically, is the future economic funnel of this whole region. All the top of this funnel, the broad top of the funnel, anything going into it or out of it, Pakistan and Gwadar port provides the real input, the inlet and the outlet into it. There is no doubt that Gwadar port, when operational, will play the role of a regional hub for trade and commercial activity.”

The port was established with the help of a Chinese construction company and the first phase of the project was completed with initial investment of 248 million dollars in a record time of four years. After completion of the first phase of the project, the operational contract was given to the Port of Singapore Authority (PSA) through open bidding in 2007. Owing to some unforeseen reasons, the PSA expressed reservations on investing the agreed amount in five years time. Also, it failed to operationalize the port as expected and agreed in the contract. Later on, Pakistan offered the operational contract to China which the latter rejected.

With the changing dynamics of regional politics and the global shift that has taken places during past couple of years, apparently, three key factors compelled China to opt for taking the operational command of the Gwadar port. First, the increasing US influence in the Asia-Pacific poses considerable economic and strategic challenges to China. Second, Gwadar port provides China with an alternative route and eases its reliance on Strait of Malacca. Third, the expected withdrawal of the US forces from Afghanistan by 2014 is going to provide other countries a room for economic ventures Afghanistan as well as the Central Asian Republics.
The expected withdrawal of the US forces from Afghanistan by 2014 is going to provide other countries a room for economic ventures Afghanistan as well as the Central Asian Republics.
To the US and India, it's quite a perturbing development. The policy analysts in both the countries are wary of China’s greater access to the Indian Ocean through Gwadar as it poses a challenge to the commercial and strategic interests of the US and India. Some quarters in the US referred to China's entry into Gwadar as part of its “string of pearls” strategy which refers to Chinese Sea Lines of Communications (SLOCs) extending from mainland China to Port Sudan straddling over Strait of Malacca, Strait of Bab-el Mandeb, Strait of Hormuz and run through some significant maritime centres, including Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Maldives. It is believed that the array of ports that China has established in the Indian Ocean region, including a port in Hambantota, Sri Lanka; a port in Chittagong, Bangladesh and a port and pipeline complex off Myanmar's coast in Rakhine region; would help the country maximize its control over the commercial and naval activity across the Indian Ocean.

Indian concerns are no different than the America's. India is apprehensive of Chinese presence in Indian Ocean. For couple of obvious reasons, India is also flustered on China's control over a port in Pakistan. Through Gwadar, China would be in a position to invalidate the India-US “counter China strategy”. India also fears that China's growing influence may result in harming Indian interests. Above all, India believes that the port would enable Pakistan to take control of more of the world energy circulation and interdiction of Indian sea-borne trade. However, India seldom mentions its plans to invest profusely in Port of Chabahar in southeastern Iran. The port was partially built by India in 1990s and is located on the flanks of Indian Ocean and Oman Sea.

Criticism and apprehensions apart, economically, the port is expected to be the hub of trade and commerce in the region as it holds tremendous opportunities to boost economic prospects and activity in Pakistan. Pakistan has a coastline of about 1100 km along the shores of Arabian Sea. Total annual trade of Pakistan is about 38 million tonnes out of which 95 per cent takes place through sea. According to projected estimates, Gwadar port will exponentially increase the shipping activity in other ports (Karachi port and Ports Qasim) as well. However, Baloch nationalists have expressed reservations and has severely criticised the decision to provide China access to the Gwadar port. They view it as an unlawful exploitation of the resources and depriving people of Balochistan of their own economic asset. Also, they are sceptical of China's plans believing it would lead to further militarization of the region.

While analysing the future of Balochistan with reference to Gwadar port, Robert D. Kaplan, an American Geopolitical analyst stated:

“One key to its (Balochistan) fate is the future of Gwadar, a strategic port whose development will either unlock the riches of Central Asia, or plunge Pakistan into a savage, and potentially terminal, civil war.”

From a geostrategic perspective, Pakistan will have a strategic depth and access to the finest naval facilities. It may also enjoy greater maritime interaction with the Middle East countries as well. The Chinese naval presence may also meliorate Pakistan's coastal defence. It will also give Pakistan an edge over India, economically and strategically.

China heavily relies on the Middle East for energy resources and hence the country is involved in trade, exploitation and development here and in African region. The Gwadar port can provide the Chinese with a listening post to observe the naval activities of US in the Persian Gulf 460 km further west of Karachi and away from Indian naval bases. In military and strategic terms, Gwadar port can help China to monitor the SLOCs from the Persian Gulf. Gwadar has strategic importance for China as about 60 per cent of its crude supply comes from Gulf countries that are close to Gwadar. Besides, owing to historical affiliations with Indian Ocean region, China considers it its right to be associated with every activity in the Indian Ocean.

Along with opportunities, a number of challenges and risks are also involved in the Gwadar port project for both Pakistan and China. Baloch nationalists' stance towards the project and the continued unrest in Balochistan needs to be dealt with carefully and sensitively. China, while expanding its influence in the Indian Ocean, may also come across the problem of distance for shipping activity. The unrest in Balochistan may also pose some security-related risks and challenges to development activity in Gwadar. Moreover, China needs to be cautious and conscious of its internal economic and political weaknesses which, at certain point, may cause trouble to its greater interests in the Indian Ocean.

As the Gwadar port project will require time to be fully functional, speculations and predictions will keep circulating and resonating in the media and policy circles of major stakeholders. Nevertheless, the port is destined to change the future course of commercial activity in the region.


Nabiha Gul

[B][I][CENTER][SIZE="5"][COLOR="RoyalBlue"]IRAN GAS PIPELINE POLITICS[/COLOR][/SIZE][/CENTER][/I][/B]

[I][COLOR="rgb(65, 105, 225)"]Long-awaited Gas Pipeline agreement has been finally inked by Iran and Pakistan. Both countries signed historic deal partly out of feeling of Islamic solidarity, to take Pakistan out of energy crisis, and partly to frustrate Western countries’ imposed isolation on Iran in the name of nuclear programme.[/COLOR][/I]

The gas pipeline is not the only one that will limit to Pakistan and it is not the only pipeline which is threatened by the US sanctions. In 1992, Tehran had offered assistance in the construction of a gas pipeline to carry Turkmen gas to Turkey and Western Europe through Iran. The idea of such a pipeline, costing $ 3 billion, upset Washington, which tried to sabotage it. Thus under the US pressure, it was announced that the plan was being held in abeyance since international bankers were unwilling to finance a project involving Iran. A fear was also expressed that Iran, for political reasons could turn off energy supplies to Turkey and Europe, thus playing with the future of the two.

In 1995, a reversal for America occurred when Turkish Prime Minister Necmettin Erbakan signed a $ 20 billion natural gas deal with Iran. This deal was scheduled to run for twenty-five years. A pipeline was to be laid to carry initially 3 billion cubic meters of Iranian gas annually, rising to 10 billion cubic meters in 2005.

Confident of their oil and gas wealth, Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan continued to defy Washington's policy of economic boycott of Iran. In December 1997, Iranian President Muhammad Khatami and Turkmen President Niyazov inaugurated a pipeline to carry natural gas from Turkmenistan's Korpeje gasfield to Kord-Kui in northeast Iran. Further to that, in June 1998, the National Iranian Oil Company invited bids for a $ 400 million contract for a 400-kilometer (250 miles) pipeline between the Caspian port of Babol Sar and Tehran, to carry oil supplied by tankers to Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan. The pipeline was designed to handle 200,000 bpd, with Iran exporting the same amount from its Gulf ports to the customers of Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan.

In July 2007, Iranian and Turkish energy ministers signed a memorandum of understanding under which Turkmen and Iranian gas would be exported to Europe through Turkey. Moreover, Turkey would also develop three later phases of Iran's giant South Pars gas field of Tehran's buyback scheme. This MoU was 'a dream come' true for Turkey as she was a pivotal country for the transfer of energy from one part of the world to the other. However, the document drew a quick condemnation from the US State Department. Like his predecessor Erbakan, Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan rebuffed Washington.

Iran-Pakistan (IP) Gas Pipeline is one of the projects in Iranian historical perspective. However, in this project, Pakistan is keeping high ambitions for the resolution of its energy crisis and as a result political stability. Pakistan is short of 4000 MW electricity which has impaired its already shabby economy. Power breakdowns have badly blighted the country's economy by dawdling industrial production, deteriorating the country's agricultural capacity and having a detrimental brunt on business. In a cyclical manner, laying off has resulted in declining purchasing power resulting in reduction of daily- wagers. Hence the poverty level is on the rise. The growing dependence on costly furnace oil, with $ 1 billion per year import, for the production of thermal power continues to raise electricity charges.

Pakistan is keeping high ambitions for the resolution of its energy crisis and as a result political stability.

Once the shortfall is compensated, Pakistan will regain political stability which will be supported by the strengthening of its political economy, enhanced industrial output, bringing back laid off workers, foreign investment and over and above shrink poverty level. The imported gas from Iran would allow the generation of additional 4,123 megawatts of electricity at cheaper rate. It will also restore the 2,232 megawatts of idle thermal power generation capacity that will help, in addition to the domestic gas, for other uses such as manufacturing fertilizer and supplying gas to domestic consumers. While Pakistan would pay Iran $3 billion a year, it would reduce its oil imports by $5.3 billion, resulting in a net annual reduction in energy imports by about $2.3 billion.

The energy crisis in Pakistan has become a question of life and death for the survival of the state. Hence success of the IP project is the dire need for the survival of the country. Once, successful, India which is already facing energy crisis, will give a second thought to rejoin the project what was originally called Iran-Pakistan-India (IPI) Pipeline. After an exchange of MFN status, it will be another milestone in providing the two arch-rivals to resolve their mutual suspicions and conflicts via economic means. Thus it would be another Confidence Building Measure (CBM) that will result in true sense of “A Peace Pipeline”. No doubt, a successful project attracts the attention of every country interested in cashing the booty of a ready-made venture. China can join the project via Pakistan which will in turn bring significant economic benefits from the deal for Pakistan.

The US threat of sanctions against Pakistan is a definite bluff. However, The US can use Saudi Arabia and Qatar to exert pressure on Pakistan to abandon the IP project.

However, there are serious hurdles in the way of IP becoming functional, the most important being a stiff opposition from the US. The US wants to strangulate the Iranian economy through sanctions and imposed isolation on Tehran. While brandishing the threat of sanctions against Pakistan, we need to gingerly weigh their possible effects. At the moment, the US is about to withdraw its troops from Afghanistan and the cheapest way out is via Pakistan. Secondly, peace and reconstruction of/in Afghanistan is in its absolute embryonic stage. Pakistan- being a frontline ally of the US during the war on terror in Afghanistan played a pivotal role in the execution of the US objectives in the region. Be it a Bonn Conference in 2011 or negotiations with the Taliban, it has always been seen that any effort in Afghanistan minus Pakistan is doomed to fail. Therefore, Pakistan's help is a prerequisite in restoring long-lasting peace in the post-2014 Afghanistan. Thirdly, in Pakistan, pro-American sentiments are extremely rare. The US sanctions will add fuel to the fire. Hence, the US threat of sanctions against Pakistan is a definite bluff. However, the US can use Saudi Arabia and Qatar to exert pressure on Pakistan to abandon the IP project. Still, this will depend on what they offer in reciprocation to an already pursued and half completed project.

Gone are the days when the extra-territorial major powers' Cold Wars used to take place in this region. The animosity between Iran and the US is a bilateral issue which must not hinder the development process of other regional countries. Pakistan and India are arch-rivals. But the US ignored this fact and signed a nuclear deal with India. Similarly, any pressure by the US on Pakistan for the IP project will tantamount to the negation of its own trend of bilateralism that she set in this region. For an animosity between Iran and the US, Pakistan must not bear the brunt. Everybody for oneself and God for us all.

[B]The writer teaches at the Department of International Relations, University of Peshawar. [email]syedshaheed@hotmail.co.uk[/email]

Dr Syed Hussain Shaheed Soherwordi[/B]

[B][I][CENTER][SIZE="5"][COLOR="RoyalBlue"]NATO's Thorny Prison Dilemma[/COLOR][/SIZE][/CENTER][/I][/B]


[I]As the majority of coalition forces prepare to withdraw from Afghanistan at the close of 2014, concerns are growing for the future of the detainees they must leave behind.[/I]


During the course of the twelve-year war, NATO troops have apprehended thousands of suspected insurgents, most of whom have been released or transferred to the Afghan authorities. However, renewed fears regarding the prevalence of torture in Afghan custody have compelled ISAF forces to halt the process of handing prisoners over to the Afghan authorities.

In a damning report, released in February, the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) concluded that torture is an "institutional policy or practice" in at least ten of the country's detention facilities. The methods include beatings, suspension from the ceiling and electric shocks. Transferring prisoners to face such conditions is a breach of international law. But as ISAF remains tied to a fixed timetable for military withdrawal, the need to find a legal solution to prisoner transfer, by getting rid of institutional mistreatment, grows ever more pressing.

For the British government, the issue is a particularly thorny one, and its approach to transfers has drawn sharp criticism, both from human rights groups and lawyers acting on behalf of prisoners who faced mistreatment after being transferred from British custody.

On 29 November 2012, Defence Secretary Philip Hammond was forced to re-impose a third moratorium on the transfer of UK-detained prisoners to the Afghan intelligence service (NDS). As of October 2010, the UK had detained 1,399 individuals, of whom at least 487 were transferred to the Afghan authorities. Today, the number remaining in British custody is believed to stand around 70.

Hammond's decision to ban transfers came after two years spent defending the practice of releasing detainees into a penal system where abuse has been described as widespread. The day before a high court hearing into the legality of a previous transfer that had resulted in allegations of sustained abuse, the Defence Secretary obtained new (as yet undisclosed) evidence suggesting that prisoners transferred to Afghanistan's National Directorate of Security (NDS) were indeed at "real risk of serious mistreatment or a flagrant denial of justice".

The ban on prisoner transfer appears to have been vindicated by the new UNAMA report. After interviewing 635 inmates held across 89 detention facilities, UN representatives concluded that the culture of abuse was most prevalent within NDS Kandahar, a key destination for UK-detained prisoners once they have been transferred.

So far, the British government has aimed to minimise the risks facing detainees by using a two-pronged strategy. This strategy involved 'diplomatic assurances' from the Afghan security services that the individuals in question will remain free from harm, while at the same time, monitoring and encouraging the use of surveillance within detention centres.

The practice of striking diplomatic deals regarding torture has long been controversial. Amnesty International has condemned the practice as a dereliction of both states' duty to take the overall threat of torture seriously. The specific focus on the treatment of individual detainees, Amnesty argues, ignores a wider picture of abuse in which confessions are regularly extracted through mistreatment. Amnesty has also pointed out that diplomatic assurances are not legally binding and not only that, but they have no enforcement mechanisms. This leaves the governments involved to voluntarily assume responsibility for investigating breaches and holding perpetrators to account. In the case of Afghanistan, levels of accountability for mistreatment remain very low. According to the recent UNAMA report, over the last 18 months, NATO representatives have reported 80 allegations of detainee abuse to Afghan authorities. To date, Afghan officials have only taken action over one case.

After ISAF nations resumed transfers to these facilities and reduced its monitoring, incidents of torture appeared to rise once again.
Britain's latest agreement with Afghanistan regarding the treatment of prisoners was signed in a low-key meeting between Asadullah Khalid, head of the NDS, and a representative from the British Foreign Office. To say that Khalid is seen by many to be a deeply flawed interlocutor is putting it lightly: he has been described by Canadian diplomats as someone 'known to personally torture people' in a 'dungeon under his guest house'.

The worth of Khalid's assurances against the use of torture is monitored by a team of British military personnel. They conduct interviews with UK-transferred prisoners, questioning them about their detention experience and giving them an opportunity to register any allegations of mistreatment. However, critics argue that British monitoring efforts are at best ineffective, and at worst, lead to a systematic cover-up of abuse. The human rights charity ‘Reprieve’ has documented examples of British monitors finding torture equipment in interrogation rooms, but saying nothing out of fear of 'causing a scene'. More concerning still is that UNAMA this week reported receiving "sufficiently reliable and credible information that officials hid detainees from international observers and held them in underground or other locations"

This is not to say that monitoring does not have an impact. UNAMA observed that some NDS facilities saw a decrease in allegations of torture during the one-year period in which the interviews took place. This corresponded with a decrease in transfers by international military forces and increased monitoring. However, after ISAF nations resumed transfers to these facilities and reduced its monitoring, incidents of torture appeared to rise once again. Monitoring is a useful and necessary stage in the quest to eradicate torture in Afghan detention facilities. It is not, however, a silver bullet.

Britain's repeated bans on prisoner — transfer to the Afghan authorities have led to a shift in strategy when it comes to detentions. Military operations are usually conducted in conjunction with Afghan forces, and it is now the latter that is expected to take charge of any arrests.

But this does not solve the problem of what to do with the prisoners who remain in British custody. Speaking at a press conference in Kabul on Monday, Georgette Gagnon, UNAMA's Director of Human Rights, emphasised the need for the ISAF governments to focus on "deterrents and disincentives to use torture, including a robust, independent, investigation process, criminal prosecutions and courts' consistent refusal to accept confessions gained through torture". Without such deterrents, she said, Afghan officials will have no incentive to cease the practice of torture.

As the date for NATO's withdrawal from Afghanistan draws ever closer, the imperative for coalition governments to encourage such deterrents will grow ever stronger.

[B] (Courtesy: Foreign Policy Magazine)
JWT Desk[/B]

[B][I][CENTER][SIZE="5"][COLOR="RoyalBlue"]On Ties with India[/COLOR][/SIZE][/CENTER][/I][/B]


[I]Historically speaking, Pak-India bilateral relations have predictably been unpredictable. The more both countries seem to make headway the more pitfalls they have to contend with in trying to negotiate this fragile and volatile relationship.[/I]


Just at a time when all was set for the third round of composite dialogue between Islamabad and New Delhi, the incidents at the Line of Control (LoC) upset the applecart. Using these incidents as justification to delay his planned visit to Pakistan, Indian Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh was quick to opine that it was not possible for the Congress-led coalition government to have 'business as usual' with Pakistan.

While the Pakistani leaders, foreign office, media and opinion-makers showed maturity in dealing with the ensuing crisis at the LoC, their counterparts in India resorted to their usual tricks of playing to gallery. Though the composite dialogue process was not halted, which has been the usual practice when faced with spanners in the normalization works, a visible slowdown in the bilateral relations was clearly discernible. New Delhi cancelled the Secretary-level talks to discuss Wullar Barrage issue and put a stopper on making operational the new visa regime. It also ordered Pakistani hockey players to leave the Indian soil immediately.

As a reaction, Islamabad, which was all set to grant the status of Most Favoured Nation to India by December 2012 had to defer its decision.

Before leaving office near the end of tenure, Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar threw light on the main highlights of the PPP-led government's handling of foreign policy at a press conference. On her government's policy towards India during five years in office, she had this much to say:

“There is level of mistrust even in the Indian media. I am disappointed but would not call it a strategic failure. We have walked the talk. We can only conduct our own policy and wait for them to come to us. We need to lead domestic opinion rather than follow. Both countries have invested in improving relations so let us take away ammunition from the naysayer.”
This nicely sums up the situation.

A review of Pakistan's India policy reveals that New Delhi has failed to make good use of extraordinary consensus among the stakeholders in the country on the need of improving relations with its eastern archrival. The following is instructive in this regard:

It was in June 1997 that the composite dialogue framework, which had eight points including Jammu & Kashmir, was launched. Pakistan made progress on composite dialogue framework conditional to the resolution of the core issue of Jammu & Kashmir, while India favoured a simultaneous progress on all issues contained in the dialogue process. Both countries stuck to their traditional stands through the following years till 9/11 happened and changed the regional and global geostrategic landscape.

As global terrorism became a major concern, India joined the bandwagon and tried to portray the indigenous freedom struggle as terrorism, allegedly aided by the safe havens located in Pakistan. The emerging international consensus against terrorism and policy shifts forced Pakistan to review its India-policy. It was for the first time in Pakistan's history since 1947 that Islamabad backtracked from its historic stand on Kashmir during incumbency of General Pervez Musharaf.

Instead of echoing its usual mantra of the UN resolutions being the key to acceptable solution, it accepted the Indian downgrading of the Kashmir issue as bilateral one between New Delhi and Islamabad. The various formulae proposed by Musharraf reflected the country's departure from its traditional stand much to the ire of rightist political and religious parties. The rest is history.

All along the succeeding years, India pegged dialogue with Pakistan with the latter's progress on dismantling terrorist network, it accused Islamabad of harbouring. Each time when both countries picked up the thread where it was broken either it was in January 2004 or 2010, the leaderships of both countries made tall claims of 'opening a new chapter' in bilateral relations. But each time, as history goes by, one minor incident has the potential of derailing the whole process with both countries going back to their earlier positions.
The various formulae proposed by Musharraf reflected the country's departure from its traditional stand much to the ire of rightist political and religious parties.
India's Pakistan policy shows that it has allowed itself to be dictated by past by refusing to visualize the dividends that normalization and peace with Pakistan would bring. It failed to discern a sea change in all elements of national opinion vis-à-vis India. Pakistan's powerful military, whose strategic orientation has historically been anti-India, favoured normalization of ties with New Delhi. General Musharraf's peace overtures reflected a strong desire within the establishment to think out of box to improve ties with their eastern neighbour. Recently, the military identified home-gown terrorism as the biggest threat to national security.

Previously, this 'coveted slot' has been occupied by India. This is a major policy shift, which has taken years to come about starting with Islamabad's fight against terrorism from 2001 onwards.

Secondly, there is a rare consensus among all key political parties in Pakistan to improve relations with India. PML-N, PPP and PTI, which otherwise have deep fissures on political plain, are on the same page and the leaderships of these parties have conveyed their willingness to engage India in productive and result-oriented dialogue. The religious parties that feed on anti-India rhetoric have not been able to get the kind of acceptance they would get in the past. There is a greater realization among the masses as well that improved relations with New Delhi are in Pakistan's interest as it will save precious resources for usage on the uplift of society. It will also give greater space to the armed forces to deal with the menace of terrorism, which has assumed dangerous proportions for the country's stability and security.

In failing to render this consensus into a basis for improved ties on sustainable basis, the Indian leadership has proven to be reactive, lacking depth of vision and courage to put the region on a trajectory of socioeconomic development. A lot depends on the approach of new governments, which would be voted into power in Pakistan in 2013 and in India in 2014 following parliamentary elections, as how they take up the bilateral agenda. Armed with fresh mandate, they would have the political support to begin afresh. What they need to understand is that continued and meaningful engagement is no more a luxury but a strategic need. But only time will tell whether they learn lessons from history or insist on repeating previous mistakes.

[B]The writer is a civil servant and can be reached at [email]amanatchpk@gmail.com[/email]
Amanat Ali Chaudhry[/B]

[B][I][CENTER][SIZE="5"][COLOR="RoyalBlue"]Why Obama's Israel Trip Is One Big Mistake[/COLOR][/SIZE][/CENTER][/I][/B]


[I]Netanyahu insulted the president, backed Romney, and hasn't moved the peace process. Now, White House should not reward behavior like that, not even from an ally.[/I]


Iran is accelerating its nuclear program, Syria's gruesome civil war is beginning to bleed across its borders, Two years after Hosni Mubarak's ouster, Egypt's political transition is, at best, dicey and yet according to deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes, “more important” than all of that “in some respects” is that President Obama take this opportunity to “speak directly to the Israeli people.''

I get the logic of whoever dreamed up the president's trip to Israel this week: Send Obama to reassure the Israelis he's got their back on Iran. Demonstrate he doesn't prefer the Arabs—an impression left in his first term when he visited Cairo but didn't stop by Tel Aviv. Pay his respects at the graves of Israel's fallen and acknowledge the historical artefacts that show Jews' ties to the land. Let them know he really admires their technological prowess. Then maybe Israelis will feel more inclined to make peace with the Palestinians knowing the relationship with their most important ally is solid.

But this trip—the timing and the script—makes no sense. And even more than simply being a big waste of Obama's time at a moment when he has little time to waste, it's burning crucial American political capital that ought to be reserved for moments that truly warrant it.

The White House says the president is going to hear out what the newly – appointed Israeli government has planned. Here's a quick preview: Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon wants to bomb Iran and Housing Minister Uri Ariel wants to build new settlements. If Obama wants to talk about drafting ultra-Orthodox Jews intothe Israel Defense Forces or the price of apartments in Tel Aviv, he'll find an audience. Those relatively marginal issues are what dominated Israel's recent election, not the future with the Palestinians.

Three years ago, Vice President Joe Biden went to Israel tasked with a similar mission—reassure Israelis that Obama loves them. Biden hit all the right notes, saying that the bond between Israel and the United States was “unshakeable” and “unbreakable” so many times that we reporters, who covered that trip, started keeping a running tally. Then as the vice-presidential motorcade was leaving the Yad Vashem Holocaust museum, news that Israel's Interior Ministry had authorized 1,600 housing units in East Jerusalem destroyed what should have been a pure celebration of American-Israeli ties. Biden returned to his hotel to consult with the White House on what to say, leaving Netanyahu waiting awkwardly at his residence for an hour and a half for dinner. When Biden arrived, he issued an unprecedented rebuke that embarrassed the Israeli prime minister, as they sat down to eat.

American-Israeli ties remained sour. Two months after Biden's visit, Obama refused to hold a photo op with Netanyahu when he visited the White House. The next year, when the president agreed to share the stage with Israel's prime minister, Netanyahu lectured him before the cameras in the Oval Office on why Obama's (hardly original) idea that the 1967 borders could be a baseline for peace negotiations with the Palestinians was bunk. In 2012, Netanyahu—frustrated that he couldn't goad Obama into saying when the U.S. would bomb Iran—publicly suggested the president had no “moral right” to stop Israel from taking action itself. All the while, Netanyahu, over the past few years, did nothing to further peace with the Palestinians. He floated via surrogates that he thought Obama was naïve on the Middle East. And he left the strong impression last year that he was rooting for Mitt Romney to win the U.S. presidential election.

In spite of all this, the president is headed to Tel Aviv. The anti-Obama peace-process sceptics can't help but gloat. As Barry Rubin, a conservative, pro-Israel American pundit put it on his Facebook page: “I think we have just won a huge victory … Obama has admitted defeat on trying to bully, manipulate, or pressure Israel.”

The White House doesn't want this trip to be about Netanyahu or his new government. That's why Obama will address Israeli college students in a convention hall rather than speak to politicians in the Knesset. But when it comes to how this trip will be perceived in Israel, it will be all about Netanyahu and his political fortunes. Netanyahu will be seen as the victor in his battle with Obama, rewarded not only for defying—or standing strongly against, depending on one's political perspective—an American president. And Netanyahu will learn one powerful lesson from Obama's visit: I don't have to do anything on the Palestinian issue. I can continue to expand settlements, focus solely on Iran, and insult the U.S. president, and he will still come and thank me with a two-day dog-and-pony show.

It's clear why the White House wants to avoid the thorny Israeli-Palestinian disputes of Jerusalem, settlements, and refugees. Past presidents have expended enormous time and energy on the matter and failed miserably. The last time Obama tried to articulate some guiding principles on borders, he got shouted down by Bibi. The United States “will always continue to be engaged in this process in terms of trying to move it forward,'' Rhodes told reporters in a pretrip briefing that illustrated just how radically Obama has scaled back his ambitions since September 2010, when he said he thought peace could be achieved within a year.

If Obama wants to talk about drafting ultra-Orthodox Jews into the Israel Defense Forces or the price of apartments in Tel Aviv, he'll find an audience.
So why is Obama going? Is it really an attempt at “repairing relations with America's primary Middle East ally” as the Washington Post's Scott Wilson wrote? Or as Jeffrey Goldberg wrote in a column for Bloomberg, to reintroduce himself to Israelis and convey to them that he understands their situation? Perhaps! But if it is, then this is truly a waste of time. Just as Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel—whose nomination was held up by those who worried he wasn't pro-Israel enough—wasn't running for Israeli defense minister, Obama isn't running for Israeli office (or any office for that matter). And anyone who knows Israelis and their current mindset on the Palestinians (Palestinians, who?) knows that a little ego stroking isn't going to get that population behind a peace deal.

That doesn't mean the trip couldn't do some good. While the president is there ostensibly repairing the relationship with Israelis who've felt jilted, Obama may be sending an important signal to Tehran. The message: Just because I can't stand Bibi doesn't mean I won't stand with him in preventing you from getting a nuclear weapon.


Since Obama is making the 12-hour flight, there's one important thing he can accomplish if he wants to achieve something beyond simply making Israelis feel good. When he delivers his speech in Jerusalem, he can remind Israelis that if they want their nation to be a nation like all others—one with internationally accepted borders, no longer targeted by divestment campaigns, and not facing a possible third Intifada—they need to stop saying they have no partner and make peace with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas before it is too late. And if they can do that, he looks forward to coming back a second time as president—when they have a peace deal to sign.


[B]JWT Desk[/B]

[B][I][CENTER][SIZE="5"][COLOR="RoyalBlue"]Afghanistan A Dilemma for China and the US[/COLOR][/SIZE][/CENTER][/I][/B]


[I]As NATO withdrawal from Afghanistan continues, China finds itself in a conundrum. With tensions flaring throughout the Asia-Pacific, the last thing Beijing wants is to face a security threat along its western border. China needs to become more involved in efforts to stabilize Afghanistan. The United States and its international partners thus have an opportunity to provide incentive for China to become a more reliable international security participant.[/I]


[B]The Afghan Element within US-China Relations
[/B]
The US-China relationship is certain to define 21st century international relations to a great degree. As such, the two countries, as well as the world, are scrambling to better understand the relationship. China's complaints about bilateral ties stem from a view that the US is unfair to rising powers and, in particular, disregards Chinese traditions and history. The US position is framed as one where China is an irresponsible stakeholder within the international system.

These portrayals aren't completely inaccurate in either case, but they do not sufficiently define this bilateral relationship. It is indubitable that trust between both the countries is low and that many segments within both countries see each other as opponents. Yet, much of the tension in the US-China relationship is linked to territory, commerce, and relationships throughout the Asia-Pacific region. If we move beyond the Asia-Pacific, then greater opportunity for cooperation exists.

The future of Afghanistan offers an opportunity to these two major powers to work together in furthering Afghan national as well as South and Central Asian regional security. With the majority of NATO forces to leave Afghanistan in 2014, China is realizing that its investments in Afghanistan will be at risk, its Central Asian trade threatened, and its relations with Pakistan strained. In short, China needs to take steps to protect its interests.

The US population has exhausted from war and its politics is focused on domestic problems, and it is consumed with withdrawing its security forces from Afghanistan. However, Washington does not wish to watch Afghanistan fall into absolute chaos. Not only would it be negatively affected by the further loss of life, but it would also make the country's years of investment meaningless and create a security vacuum that may once again require a major US presence.

Thus, China wants to protect its Western border and the US wishes to find a means to enhance Afghan security. This issue can be a basis for building cooperation between the two nations. Unfortunately, neither country is focused on the Afghan issue in respect to the other. That must change.

[B]Bilateral Strategic Cooperation

[/B]Too many in the United States view China as an inevitable strategic opponent, ignoring counterevidence in favour of a quasi-Cold War worldview. Likewise, many analysts in China argue that the United States is a diminishing power, intent on inhibiting China's growth. Neither country should be so easily caricatured as such. Both countries' foreign policy establishments constantly debate how to augment bilateral relations. What both countries need to do is recognize mutual interests. Mutual interests, particularly outside the Asia-Pacific region, should be the source of US-China international cooperation.
The future of Afghanistan offers an opportunity to these two major powers to work together in furthering Afghan national as well as South and Central Asian regional security.
First, each country needs to figure out what costs it is willing to pay for Afghan security. Both countries publicly declare their desire for a prosperous and safe Afghanistan, but neither has made headway in exploring what international institutions it will need in order to reach the desired end. China, given its policies of peaceful development and respect to sovereignty, will resist pressure to step up its involvement in security matters. The US, for its part, will be intensely hesitant about China taking on a more robust role in Afghanistan. Yet the past ten years have proven that when it comes to Afghanistan, what works best is often not what any party favours.

Second, the US and China should immediately initiate both formal and informal dialogues regarding post-2014 Afghanistan. Experts can meet in a Track II setting to formulate policy options, while Track I meetings can follow. These meetings need to be candid and based on past arrangements that proved successful, such as humanitarian assistance and disaster relief operations in Southeast Asia and anti-piracy operations in the Gulf of Aden.

Third, both countries should utilize international institutions in which they have influence. For the US, this means working with its strategic allies to provide continued training for Afghan security forces, foreign aid and private investment. In China's case, it means engaging the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) to mobilize resources throughout Central Asia.

Fourth, both countries need to cooperate in their engagements with both Afghanistan's and South Asian leaders. The US can leverage its relationship with Afghanistan's government to further interaction between China's leaders and their Afghan counterparts. Both countries can engage Pakistan's new government to show a united will that encourages Pakistan to do more to inhibit destabilizing groups operating in FATA.
The US and China should immediately initiate both formal and informal dialogues regarding post-2014 Afghanistan. Experts can meet in a Track II setting to formulate policy options, while Track I meetings can follow.
Finally, India should be brought into talks with respect to its diplomatic operations in Afghanistan and its own investment in the country.


It will be immensely difficult for the US and China to cooperate on Afghanistan. Over the long term, however, these two countries have parallel national interests when it comes to Afghanistan and that must be the basis of all forward movement. Added to the complexities of the bilateral relationship are the intricacies that will be required when working with the Afghan, Central Asian, Pakistani, and Indian governments.


This effort will be more difficult for China, for it will require them to revise their stance on international security engagement. There is no chance that China will send security forces to Afghanistan, but it is equally unlikely that another international force will replace NATO. Thus, China must engage the security situation directly. As such, the US, given its experience in Afghanistan, will have an opportunity to encourage China to take on a more responsible international security role.

Courtesy: The Diplomat
Foreign Writers

[B][I][CENTER][SIZE="5"][COLOR="RoyalBlue"]CHINA & THE GLOBAL ECONOMY[/COLOR][/SIZE][/CENTER][/I][/B]


[I]From outside China, the Bo Xilai trial looks like the Chinese news event of the year, one of the preoccupations of Western media, along with corporate corruption and the clampdown on American and European companies. Yet these issues are no more than sideshows to the most important economic event of recent times; the unveiling and ratification of a major programme for reforms for the next decade. The reforms would bring another great leap forward in China's dramatic ascent.
[/I]

Chinese officials will reveal, this November, how long China will need to make the transition from an investment-led, middle-income country to an innovative, consumer-driven, high-income one and, thus, when it will become the world's largest economy. The challenges that China's new leadership faces in pushing for rising levels of innovation, entrepreneurship and skills will be the main discussion points at the New Champions Summit in Dalian, China, organized by the World Economic Forum. The Summit recognizes that China's degree of success will determine global growth: it will determine whether the twenty-first century will be the Asian century, and whether by mid-century Asia will represent half or just a third.

On paper, the November plenum of the 18th party committee is just the latest in a sequence of party events that celebrate China's new leadership. Yet it is the culmination of a carefully-planned process of deliberation on reforms. It started with the Central Work Conference last year, the second plenum in March, the National People's Conference in June and, most recently, this summer's brainstorming session at the seaside Beidaihe retreat. Historically, third plenums have turned out to be much more than run-of-the-mill events. At the third plenum of the 11th party committee in 1978, Deng Xiaoping launched the market reforms that set China on its industrial course to becoming the world's second-largest economy. During the third plenum of the 14th committee in 1993, under Zhu Rongji, Chinese leadership ratified a “socialist market approach” of combining markets and state decisions, which led to an unprecedented era of industrial growth.

Now with the third plenum focusing on China's next challenge, the aim is to double average incomes by 2020, to achieve 70 per cent-plus urbanization by 2025 and to have the world's largest supply of graduates. If it succeeds, China will quickly surpass America as the world's largest economy. By 2025, it will probably move from middle-income status to high-income status and make around 1 billion of China's 1.3 billion population “moderately prosperous”.

By “deepening reforms in all aspects” across those remnants of the command economy that survived the market push from the 1980s, economic policy will now give priority to structural changes, reinforcing the “socialism with Chinese characteristics.” According to the new premier, Mr Li Keqiang, “China can no longer afford to continue with the old model of consumption and high investment.” Reform, as he puts it, is “the driving force.”

It is, of course, inevitable that as China moves from a focus on export-led growth, it will have to address structural issues, such as restrictions on labour mobility and private credit. In recent years, under the first wave of modernization, China's progress to middle-income status has been astounding. In the first decade of the century, China became the world's largest manufacturer. In 2009, China surpassed Germany as the world's largest exporter. In 2010, it passed the US to become the world's largest car producer.
In the first decade of the century, China became the world's largest manufacturer. In 2009, China surpassed Germany as the world's largest exporter. In 2010, it passed the US to become the world's largest car producer.
China is gradually reducing its role as a processor of lower-value-added technological goods. As a share of national income, services have just overtaken manufacturing, and since 2011 consumer spending has been a bigger driver of growth than investment. In the future, China will depend less on exports to the West. In the last 10 years, merchandise exports to developing economies have already doubled, to 25 per cent. China's portfolio of $110 billion in loans since 2000 rivals that of the World Bank.

For 35 years, China's export-led growth has been spectacular, steering 500 million Chinese out of poverty. But as the World Bank “China 2030” report acknowledged, productivity per worker and income per head are still far below America's, so the second wave of modernization must break China out of that potential “middle-income trap.” Typically, a country's growth slows as soon as its income is among the top 30 in the world. This slowdown occurs because as a country's income rises, it is no longer able to compete on low wages, and it is unable to compete on value-added because of low productivity. Indeed, the “China 2030” report forecasts the loss of 80 million of China's 130 million manufacturing jobs to lower-wage Asia and Africa.

China's leadership believes it can beat the odds. Many economists believe that within fifteen years China will make it to a $20,000 average per capita income by combining its current manufacturing dominance with its future role as the geographic centre of a global supply chain.

Of course, China cannot rely on “one-off” advantages such as the move from an agricultural to an industrial economy, comparatively low-cost labour, and the boost from membership in the WTO. With its urban population expected to expand by 300 million, China knows it will have to move quickly to exploit the “Third Industrial Revolution” from 3D printing and digital design to nanotechnology, biotechnology and genetics, hence its one million research and development workers and its plans for 100 million more graduates. The new growth agenda will need that talent, but it will also need an obsessive focus on innovation, enterprise and social reform. The requirements are:

1. Liberalization of interest rates and the prices of producer goods and utilities;
2. A fairer competitive environment for private enterprises;
3. The opening up of the land ownership and household registration systems;
4. Local government fiscal reforms and the end of an overreliance on highly-volatile land sales through the creation of a solid local tax base;
5. The gradual internationalization of the yuan, most recently with free convertibility with the Australia dollar and the UK currency swap agreement.
Perhaps the most important barriers to long-term success are the disparities in wealth, now being addressed under the premier's desire to “promote social equity.” This is a prompting for tax reforms and plans for better health and welfare benefits. A phrase unfamiliar to the West!
If the United States could increase its share of China's imports from its current 7 per cent to 10 per cent, that increase alone would, over time, boost US exports by an additional $100 billion, and support almost 500,000 new jobs, a win-win for both countries.
But like other emerging market economies, China's success depends not just on a new reforming government, but on a continuously expanding world economy. China's historic decision to join the G-20 was not just a recognition of the country's new status in the world, but the start of a new era of China’s world leadership. Chinese leaders are too shrewd to believe post-2008 stories about the decoupling of the West and the rest. But, with the West looking inwards, recent G-20 meetings have done little to halt the slowdown in world growth from a potential 5 per cent to 3 per cent.


The global way forward is through cooperation comparable to the creation of the liberal trading orders in the years after World War II. The West — once the world's biggest producer and consumer — could stimulate world growth. In the mid-2020s Asia will be strong enough to drive the world economy forward. But today, we are at a transition point. The majority of production is now outside of the West. But with the majority of consumption still in the West, neither the West nor the emerging markets can prosper in isolation from each other. China and America should return to the idea pioneered by the G-20 of 2009: a global growth compact under which China agrees to boost growth, increasing its consumer imports in return for America and Europe boosting growth through expanding investment and infrastructure. Today, inflation is low, there is surplus of savings and if the United States could increase its share of China's imports from its current 7 per cent to 10 per cent, that increase alone would, over time, boost US exports by an additional $100 billion, and support almost 500,000 new jobs, a win-win for both countries.

Instead of struggling through the fallout from yet another failed G-20, heightened cooperation would raise growth, increase employment, raise living standards all round and address poverty — the rocket the post-crisis world now needs.

[B]The writer is former Prime Minister of the UK.
Foreign Writers[/B]

[B]BLUE GOLD THE COMING WATER WARS[/B]


Water is one of the most precious natural resources of our planet. Only 2% of the world's water resources are made up of freshwater. This scarce resource, however, plays a crucial role in all segments of nature, society and economy.
Yesterday, nations went to war for land. Today, our conflicts involve energy. And tomorrow, Brahma Chellaney writes, the battles will be about water. The award-winning author believes that Mark Twain was right when he said, “Whisky is for drinking, water is for fighting over.”

There is “blue water,” “green water,” even “virtual water.” But however labeled, water is the world’s single most important resource. Life is not possible without it. It will likely determine our future.
And it is becoming scarce. In the twentieth century, the world’s population grew by a factor of 3.8 and water use by nine. Today, with the number of people passing the seven billion mark, it should come as no surprise that more than half of humankind lives in water-stressed areas. That figure could increase to two-thirds during the next decade.

At this time, more than a fifth of the inhabitants of this planet do not have easy access to potable water. Scarcity causes illness, thereby making the lack of this resource “the greatest killer on the globe.” There are, incredibly, more people with a mobile phone than access to water-sanitation services. Already, bottled water at the grocery store is more expensive than crude oil on the spot market.

The Yemeni city of Sanaa, now home to two million, will be the first national capital to run dry in this century, if its groundwater reserves are depleted, which could happen as soon as 2025. Abu Dhabi and Quetta, experts believe, might also turn to dust. The international community should expect “water refugees” in just over a decade, Chellaney warns, and there could be two hundred million of them by the midpoint of this century.

So forget deforestation, climate change, or peak oil, and think about the coming crisis over “blue gold,” Chellaney advises. “The golden age of safe, cheap, and easily available water has come to an end in most parts of the world, replaced by a new era of increasing supply and quality constraints.”

*

Water creates instability in surprising ways. For example, Chellaney argues the Arab Spring was about water, at least in the large sense, as it was triggered by rising food prices caused by a “worsening regional freshwater crisis.” The crises caused by a lack of water are sometimes even more intricate and subtle. In one of the book’s more intriguing passages, we learn how South Korea’s persistent water shortages led to the toppling of Madagascar’s leader in 2009, indicating that this commodity can spread trouble from one part of the globe to another.

The real geopolitical challenge of water scarcity will be national competition for rivers, lakes, shorelines, and glaciers—a series of “water wars.” Chellaney’s fine work describes itself as “a study of the global linkages between water and peace,” but most of the book is an examination of the connection between water and conflict. “Hydropolitics” promises to become increasingly contentious and nasty.

So far, no modern war has been fought just over water, but water has been, the author believes, a factor in a number of them. Chellaney contends that the 1967 Six-Day War, for instance, was essentially a struggle for headwaters. Israel, he points out, ended up with control of the sources of the Jordan River, and he notes that Ariel Sharon, in his memoirs, emphasizes the role of water in the conflict. A water war was also hidden in the 1965 fighting between India and Pakistan, in mountainous Jammu and Kashmir. Pakistan’s military objective was to take an area where three rivers collected a substantial portion of their flows. In all, the United Nations counts thirty-seven cases of water-related violence between nations since the end of the Second World War.

Conflict over water arises in large part because it flows from one nation to the next or sits on top of geographical boundaries. Across five continents, there are two hundred and seventy-six transnational river and lake basins separating one hundred and forty-eight countries and accounting for three-fifths of the world’s river flows. Excluding Antarctica, almost half the planet’s land mass is covered by river basins spanning more than one country. And if that weren’t bad enough, there are at least two hundred and seventy-four underground freshwater basins beneath national borders. Some of these aquifers even encompass more than two countries.

Water rivalries (“rival” comes from the Latin rivalis, or “one who uses the same stream”) are growing, with some of them already taking on the character of “silent hydrological wars.” Antagonism and resentment inevitably follow when a dominant riparian, mostly but not always upstream, diverts water with little regard for neighbors, “commandeering shared resources,” as Water, Peace, and War puts it.

At the heart of this book is an analysis of water treaties. The United Nations claims that more than two hundred international water agreements have been signed since World War II, but Chellaney carefully notes that most of these deals are “structurally anemic.” The “toothless” agreements lack dispute resolution mechanisms and even monitoring rules. Moreover, most have no provisions formally dividing water among users and many do not include key basin states.

At this moment, there are only eighteen agreements with specific allocation provisions. Significantly, none of these arrangements was signed this century, and most of them were concluded “when serious water shortages were uncommon.” This suggests to Chellaney that similar deals will be hard to reach in times of increasing water stress.

He makes a good point. The 1997 UN Convention on the Law of the Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses, intended to become the world’s water law, is in trouble. It has yet to come into effect, lacking ratification by the minimum number of countries. Until more states sign on, most rivers and lakes will remain subject to free-for-alls among thirsty populations and nervous national leaders.

*

While Chellaney (whose previous book, Water: Asia’s New Battleground, won the Asia Society’s Bernard Schwartz Award last year) sees water-related conflict as a growing international threat, he does not believe that armed conflict over this one truly indispensable resource is inevitable. But preventing water wars, as he sees it, will require “rules-based cooperation, water sharing, uninterrupted data flow, and dispute-
settlement mechanisms.”

This is right, of course. But agreements by themselves are not enough, particularly given the fact that authoritarianism is endemic in the water-thirsty world.

The issue is highlighted most clearly by the 1960 Indus River agreement, “the world’s most successful water treaty.” In that deal, the Indian democracy generously agreed to allocate four-fifths of the six-river Indus system to downriver Pakistan. The inking of the agreement, however, only convinced the Pakistani political establishment that it had to control the entire river system. Mohammad Ayub Khan, Pakistan’s ruler at the time, wanted to grab the headwaters of the river from India after the signing, thinking the existence of the cooperative arrangement actually justified his country’s aggression.

The agreement, Chellaney points out, “was founded on the opposite logic, that a guaranteed share of the Indus-system waters for Pakistan would ease the territorial dispute and pave the way for subcontinental peace—an assumption that helped sway India to grant the lion’s share of the waters to the lower-riparian party.” But the deal did not in fact work, as Pakistan provoked a war just a half decade later.

In an analogous situation, the People’s Republic of China, the world’s “hydro-hegemon,” is the source of river water for more countries than any other nation. The Chinese control headwaters that are needed by almost half of the world’s population, in Central, South, and Southeast Asia, as well as Russia.

Yet Beijing, which annexed by force virtually all its water resources in the middle of the twentieth century, is building dams at a “frenetic” pace—it has completed an average of one large dam per day since 1949—and obviously seeks to present downriver neighbors with a fait accompli by diverting river flows. Significantly, the country with fourteen land neighbors—thirteen of them co-riparians—is a party to no water-sharing treaties and refuses to begin negotiations on water-sharing with other capitals. “No other country has ever managed to assume such unchallenged riparian preeminence on a continent by controlling the headwaters of multiple international rivers and manipulating their cross-border flows,” notes Chellaney.

Unfortunately, agreements with hard-line states do not ensure solutions to water disputes. As Ronald Reagan told us, the nature of governments matters, and this is evident from the peace along “the world’s most international river,” the Danube basin, which we learn in this important book includes a record nineteen countries. There is tranquility along the vital river because it is lined with democracies.

Yes, the world has a water problem. But it has a bigger problem with authoritarianism. Despots and dictators will use this liquid gold to disrupt peace, accumulate power, and force neighbors to submit.

[B]Gordon G. Chang is the author of The Coming Collapse of China and Nuclear Showdown: North Korea Takes On the World. He blogs about China and Asia for World Affairs.[/B]
[url]http://jworldtimes.com/Article/122013_BLUE_GOLD_THE_COMING_WATER_WARS[/url]
[url]http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/article/blue-gold-coming-water-wars[/url]

[B][I][CENTER][SIZE="5"][COLOR="RoyalBlue"]SOUTH ASIA THE VICTIM OF GLOBAL AGENDA[/COLOR][/SIZE][/CENTER][/I][/B]


[I][COLOR="RoyalBlue"]Pakistan is tangled in the web of foreign factors and domestic conflicts. The US and its Western allies, regional countries, judiciary, media, executive, religious leadership and feudal lords or industrialists, are the stakeholders of power here.[/COLOR][/I]


Unless a contender appeases these stakeholders, it cannot get the power. A realistic analysis of the last three decades reflects that Muslim leaders were either removed or assassinated, turn by turn, in a manner that appears to be 'just and democratic'. Several leaders in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Libya, and now Egypt and Syria are some examples.

While addressing the Arab League, Libya's Col Qaddafi once warned the Arab leaders that “after his 'removal or hanging', their turn would come soon”, over which Bashar al-Assad and others laughed. Today, the noose has tightened against Assad and the turn is waiting for others too. Our political elite must know that when a foreign authority is confiding in you, he will be quick to get rid of you, when not needed.

A common pattern of deaths and assassinations of Pakistani leaders depicts that nationalist leaders have been killed or removed. In Pakistan, present political environment shows domination of regional political parties. These populist leaders are given safe havens in Western states and neighbouring countries, in the name of political asylum. These countries and their allies fund these separatist leaders and do much more covert things for them to weaken Pakistan and to disallow federal political parties to operate in tier areas of interest.

One does not need to go back much in history to observe as to how Liaquat Ali Khan, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, Zia-ul-Haq and Benazir Bhutto were assassinated. They were not killed due to domestic feuds. Their deaths had this commonality that allegedly foreign powers were involved and as such inquiries could not be made public. For the sake of stability of the country, there is a need to examine the pattern of 'removing' leaders, irrespective of their political merit, draw lessons from such incidents.
May 2013 elections in Pakistan can be viewed in the backdrop of international and domestic factors, interests and strategic environment. Pakistan, like most other countries, is a 'relatively' sovereign state. A country that is heavily under debt, and is forced to get loans to repay its loans, and accepts drone attacks obliquely, cannot be termed as completely sovereign.
Nations are prepared to sacrifice their citizens, as for example, in Afghanistan, where soldiers from such distant countries as France and England are laying down their lives for preservation of their national interests. There is no love-hate relationship between countries, but only national interests reign supreme. The United States and allies have their critical national interests in Central Asia as well as South Asia that are followed as a policy and are not changed following a change in government as a valid principle of statecraft. The interests relevant to Pakistan are, firstly, making a vigil at the ability of Russia, China, Iran or the Central Asian Republics (CARs) to dominate Afghanistan or to be able to approach or use 'warm waters' through Pakistan for their power projection or economic advantage. So, Afghanistan will remain destabilized. This interest is also shared by Russia which cannot see NATO forces operating peacefully in its backyard. As and when these national interests of US and Russia will be challenged, it will have a physical reaction by these countries. Consequently, Pakistani leaders who tend to accommodate US and Russia will be supported by them but only till their interests are served.

To keep Afghanistan and Pakistan destabilized, the presently working plan is to roll down insurgency from the line of Hindu Kush Range that horizontally divides Afghanistan into Pushtoon and non-Pashtoon areas. This plan has multiple advantages, as even after NATO departs, the seeds of enmity and revenge between Afghanistan, the Tribal Areas and Pakistan will keep germinating.


Secondly, Iran is an ideological, religious and political enemy of Western forces. In the past, Turkmenistan-Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline project, other natural gas projects, any shipping or trade effort through land or Chah Bahar and Gwadar ports, has been vehemently resisted. Iran borders Balochistan and safe and firm naval, air and land bases or routes for attacking it exist through Balochistan and Mekran Coast. Western allies will be, therefore, seen supporting separatist Baloch movements on 'humanitarian grounds'. Economic development of Mekran region, Riko Dik deposits and improving economic ties with Iran or China will be disliked by the US and it will be of interest to observe if any government in Pakistan dares to venture in this area.

Gilgit-Baltistan (GB) and Balochistan have an interesting commonality for foreign interests. Both are reasonably well-populated by Shias, and both have Chinese intruding into these regions. GB provides access to China to ports, like Afghanistan can provide such access to Russia and CARs. It must be understood that the regions that provide economic or military accesses can never remain peaceful and will have to be sabotaged. The geographic and religious reality will never allow peace and development to these unfortunate regions of Pakistan also, unless a prolific Pakistani leadership is ready to bear the consequences. Only a prudent government that is able to cruise through these predictable foreign interests has chances to bring some relief to the people. All states have right to pursue their own interests legitimately. While we should understand our own and foreign interests, we should have our strategies ready to counter inimical interests and thus win freedom, economic stability and peace for our people.

[B]The writer is an independent researcher. She can be contacted at:munazzakhan_ink@hotmail.com[/B]

[B][I][CENTER][SIZE="5"][COLOR="Blue"]China's Role in Post-Nato Afghanistan[/COLOR][/SIZE][/CENTER][/I][/B]


[I][COLOR="Blue"]While Nato and the US forces are preparing to withdraw from Afghanistan, the Afghanistan government is increasingly interested in boosting its relations with regional powers such as Russia and China. Conversely, both Moscow and Beijing are concerned about the future of Afghanistan after US withdrawal. Mr Karzai's visit to China speaks volumes about Afghanistan's efforts to strengthening its relations with China and fostering regional cooperation on Afghanistan.
[/COLOR][/I]

China also seems interested in Afghanistan and is bracing to play a more engaging role in Afghanistan's security and development after 2014.

Recent media reports suggest that China intends to invest in extracting oil reserves. It must be noted here that the Chinese companies already are the leading investors in Afghan mining sector as well as many other development projects. During his recent visit to China, Karzai attended an economic conference in the northern city of Xian, held talks in Beijing with China's President Xi Jinping and Premier Li Keqiang to boost Chinese investments in Afghanistan as well as the country's role in the efforts for stabilizing Afghanistan.

Afghan president also discussed with Chinese officials the Bilateral Security Agreement between Afghanistan and the US that would allow presence of US forces in the country after 2014. Both sides also signed a number of agreements which would definitely catalyze the economic activities in the country. China also agreed to donate 250 million Chinese Yuans as aid to Afghanistan.

As Afghanistan and the US are inching closer to reach a deal over the Kabul-Washington security agreement, Karzai's move in engaging talks with China and other Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) members is an attempt to address concerns of the regional countries regarding the security agreement and prolonged presence of the US in the region.

China's future role in Afghanistan is highly important in the wake of international efforts to stabilize the country and develop its fragile economy. Afghanistan and China upgraded their relations to “strategic level” last year and Afghanistan was granted the status of observer country in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, which is led by China and Russia. With the US-led international alliance preparing to exit Afghanistan, Chinese officials must have reached the conclusions that the post-2014 security situation in Afghanistan will have a direct impact on China's security.

Closer relations between Afghanistan and China will attract more Chinese aid and investments in Afghanistan which will greatly contribute to the country's economic development and extraction of the vast untapped underground resources. China could also play a crucial role in supporting Afghanistan in developing its armed forces. Given that China is a powerful member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, it can support development of Afghan security forces through the SCO.

Here a question arises that why China is concerned? The most befitting answer to this question is that the regional security is a prime concern for both Russia and China; the two major members of the SCO. Beijing is now cautiously enhancing its engagement in the Afghan conflict. The trilateral summit of China, Afghanistan and Pakistan, hosted by Beijing last year, signalled that the China is more than willing to increase its engagement in Afghanistan's security challenges.

It is believed that armed Uighur separatists, who are demanding independence of Chinese Muslim region of Xinjiang, a province bordering Afghanistan and Pakistan, are being trained at militants' training centres in those bordering areas. With the withdrawal of US and NATO forces from Afghanistan, the Uighur separatists pose a serious concern for Chinese authorities.

After the US and NATO forces leave Afghanistan, the Afghan security forces may still remain engaged in a war with the Taliban. This will allow the 'Eastern Turkmenistan's Independence Movement', considered a terrorist group by Beijing, to seek shelter and find safe havens in Taliban-controlled areas. In addition, they also believe that continued instability in Afghanistan will increase production of opium and, resultantly, drug trafficking into China through the volatile Xinjiang province.


Another serious concern for China is the stability of Pakistan, the closest ally to China. The prospect of a prolonged war in Afghanistan and a possible Taliban resurgence could be seen as a potential threat to stability of Pakistan too. A prolonged turmoil in Afghanistan will unpredictably involve Pakistan, which is considered as a strategic backyard to China. However, instability in Afghanistan would trigger more proxy wars between India and Pakistan on the Afghanistan soil which leaves China in dire straits.

Given a somehow shared approach by China and the United States over the Afghan conflict, it seems that interests of both sides are other than conflicting in the country. As Western countries do, China also wants a stable Afghanistan as a regional economic partner and a crude market for Chinese products. On the other hand, Afghanistan's situation closely affects the central Asian States which are neighbouring China and have direct impacts on Xinjiang. With the US and NATO exiting from the unpopular Afghan war, China is moving in with its multi-billion dollar investments in the economy of Afghanistan.


[B]JWT Desk[/B]