Thursday, March 28, 2024
05:35 PM (GMT +5)

Go Back   CSS Forums > General > News & Articles

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

Reply Share Thread: Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook     Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter     Submit Thread to Google+ Google+    
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
  #1  
Old Wednesday, May 30, 2007
mtgondal's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: On earth
Posts: 552
Thanks: 123
Thanked 56 Times in 42 Posts
mtgondal will become famous soon enough
Default World Politics

A breakthrough at last?


THE meeting between the ambassadors of Iran and the US in Baghdad on Monday could well be the turning point that chroniclers often look for when they write the history of nations. After 27 years of stand-off when they refused to have any contact between themselves or enter into a dialogue to resolve problems, the two governments have finally decided to open lines of communication. This move has naturally been welcomed by the world community, especially at a time when Iraq has emerged as a major flashpoint in the Middle East. Monday’s meeting is a tacit admission by the Bush administration, which created the crisis by invading that unhappy country, that it cannot bring peace to the region singlehandedly. Given Iran’s influence in Iraq — Tehran is accused of arming militant elements to retain its hold on the Shia-dominated southern regions — it has now been recognised that no settlement of the Iraqi crisis is possible without Iran’s cooperation. Of course, the talks held at the behest of the Iraqi prime minister have not found the key to a solution. Neither were they expected to. But they have opened the door for a dialogue which, hopefully, will be initiated in the next few weeks. As had been decided before the two sides met, the talks were confined to the violence in Iraq, which it is felt can be controlled if Iran decides to play a positive role in the region. Thus the Shia leader Muqtada al-Sadr, who derives his strength from Iran where he is also believed to seek sanctuary in times of need, has of late exercised restraint in his military activities. He has also expressed his willingness to work with Prime Minister al-Maliki for stability in Iraq. Against this backdrop, the Baghdad meeting was of considerable significance. The two sides traded allegations and counter-allegations but they also exchanged ideas, the most important of which was the establishment of a trilateral security mechanism comprising Iran, Iraq and the US. Although this panel has not been formally announced, the Iraqi press has reported that it will be meeting within a month. If progress is made in this direction, this can be regarded as a breakthrough which could be the beginning of a phase that could see Iraq being durably pacified and eventual American troop withdrawal from that country.

Many hopes are pinned on the Baghdad talks which, it is hoped, will lead to a détente coming in the wake of the opening of a communication line between the two countries which have kept the world on tenterhooks. Since the Iranian Islamic revolution in 1979 — that was followed by the hostages crisis — relations between Washington and Tehran have remained frozen, even though the Islamic revolutionary government managed to normalise its ties with the Europeans and other western powers. This led to a state of imbalance in international politics, given that Iran is a major power in the region and the United States is a superpower with high stakes in the Middle East. Iraq has not been the only bone of contention. A controversy on Iran’s programme of uranium enrichment has also created a serious crisis with the world holding its breath as Washington has kept it guessing whether it is set to launch an attack on Iran’s nuclear installations. This issue was not discussed in Baghdad but may well be taken up now that the ice has been broken.
__________________
Time is like a river.
You cannot touch the same water twice,
because the flow that has passed will never pass again.
Enjoy every moment of life.

I have learnt silence from the talkative, toleration from the intolerant, and kindness from the unkind; yet strange, I am ungrateful to these teachers.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old Wednesday, May 30, 2007
mtgondal's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: On earth
Posts: 552
Thanks: 123
Thanked 56 Times in 42 Posts
mtgondal will become famous soon enough
Default

Contours of European politics

by Ansar Mahmood Bhatti


European politics was not that much unpredictable as it is these days, especially after the change of governments in countries such as Italy, Britain, Germany and now France. The new Italian government under Prime Minister Romano Prodi appears to be different from the previous outfit that was led by a business and media tycoon, Silvio Berlusconi, who perhaps had to pay the price for being a close ally of the US. His downfall was quite eminent as he had gone the extra mile in his pursuit of harnessing stronger ties with Washington. The way Mr. Berlusconi had sided with President Bush and tried to split the fellow European countries on that very issue was not welcomed by the Italian public and the leading EU countries. Berlusconi’s fate was in fact sealed the day he had decided to plunge his country into the war against Iraq by contributing troops to the allied forces. Romano Prodi, a former EU Commission chief and professor by profession, banked heavily on this faux pas and at the end of the day was able to dislodge Berlusconi from the premiership, though with a razor-thin majority.

In Britain, the winds of change have already started blowing with Gordon Brown set to take charge of the highest office. Blair and Bush together inflicted colossal damage on the international community by their totalitarian stance and despotic polices. Blair would be remembered for widespread killings in Iraq on the pretext of war against terror, a factor that has overshadowed his domestic achievements. Nevertheless, the change of guard in the UK would hardly make any difference in terms of Britain’s Iraq policy or, for that matter, any straining of relations between London and Washington because of immense proximity both countries have been enjoying since long. Secondly, their relations are structured through a common ideology of protecting each other’s national interests.

Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel flew directly to Washington soon after replacing Gerhard Schroeder as the chancellor that showed which way the wind would blow in terms of relations between the two countries. Chancellor Merkel was tough on issues like the Guantanamo Bay prison camp and expressed her desire for winding it up. It was a call that fell flat on the White House, yet on other issues both sides had complete unanimity. As compared to her predecessor, Angela Merkel looks more inclined towards the US, suggesting some revolutionary changes in Europe’s overall policy towards the superpower and determining new dimensions of transatlantic relations. The recently held presidential election in France brought to an end 12 years rule of Chirac. Another party man, and a former interior minister with a different mindset and credentials, Nicolas Sarkozy, took charge of the Elysee Palace.

The transition process, as suggested by the French Ambassador in Pakistan, Mr Ragis de Belenet, would be completed when the general elections are complete. “The turnout was high, about 85 percent, highlighting the widespread interest of the population in this election. Mr Nicolas Sarkozy has been elected as the new President of the French Republic for a five-year mandate with 53 percent of the votes against 47 percent for this opponent, Mrs Royal. The electoral process is not completed. In June the National Assembly elections will take place. We have to wait for the results of those elections to have a full picture of the political situation,” he said.

Nicolas Sarkozy, after assuming the office of the president, said: “The French people have opted for a change. I shall be implementing this change because this is the mandate I have received from the people and because France needs it.” The new president is likely to confront many a hard issue in the coming days, a glimpse of which we saw in the form of violent protests in the streets of Paris, partly by the supporters of Mrs Royal and partly by the immigrants, who are afraid of more stringent measures from Mr Sarkozy. Mr Sarkozy’s policy on job reforms and reduction of unemployment rate would definitely be a daunting task for the new government.

The basic challenge for France shall be in the area of external relations. France and the US are likely to fare well as Mr Sarkozy has many soft corners for Washington. “I would not follow Chirac polices” was perhaps the most emphatic way of speaking his heart out for his country’s future ties with the outer world, with particular reference to the US. President Bush wasted no time in calling up Sarkozy to congratulate him on his win in the election. Both the Republicans and the Democrats expressed their happiness over Mr Sarkozy’s victory.

Nicolas Sarkozy visited the US on September 11, 2005, on a four-day tour in which he had spoken to firefighters in Manhattan and business leaders in Wall Street. He was also invited to the White House to meet President Bush, a very rare honour for a mere minister. Nicolas Sarkozy was also against the idea of waging a war in Iraq and maintains a position of early withdrawal of the allied forces from Iraq. One has to wait for his current position on this very subject.

Mood in Ankara looked dismal and disappointing. While it was still recovering from the victory of Angela Merkel, it had another blow in the shape of Nicolas Sarkozy’s win who, like Ms Merkel, does not believe in giving the EU membership to Turkey. Analysts have divergent views on Mr Sarkozy’s opposition to Turkey, and some of them would even relate it to Mr Sarkozy being a half Greek. “I would stand firm in my opposition to Turkey being allowed to join the EU. I could not have been a candidate for the presidency with one view and then changed it having become president,” he said after his visit to the EU Commission. “I do not see the use of raising the issue of Turkey since it is not being discussed now,” said Mr Sarkozy after meeting European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso during his recent visit to Brussels.

Likewise, the process of EU constitution ratification is likely to be affected as President Sarkozy, along with Germany’s Angela Merkel, favours a slimmed down treaty. He would try to clinch an agreement on a reform treaty at the next month’s EU summit. Now that France and Germany are putting their eggs in the same basket, it is very much likely that the idea of an EU constitution might not get through and instead a simplified treaty may be adopted. The Netherlands had already rejected the draft constitution along with France in a referendum held in 2005. I personally do not see any harm even if a slimmed down draft is adopted and ratified, but the question is, where would stand those countries that have already ratified it?

With Nicolas Sarkozy in Paris, Angela Merkel in Berlin, Gordon Brown in London, and a good number of Eastern European leaders on its side, the US appears to have regained an axis of friendship in Europe. This axis has the potential of changing the contours of European politics. However, only time will determine who comes out as the ultimate beneficiary at the end of the day. One thing is for sure, Europe’s integrity and cohesiveness was never ever as vulnerable as it is now.

The writer is a bilingual columnist based in Islamabad
__________________
Time is like a river.
You cannot touch the same water twice,
because the flow that has passed will never pass again.
Enjoy every moment of life.

I have learnt silence from the talkative, toleration from the intolerant, and kindness from the unkind; yet strange, I am ungrateful to these teachers.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old Wednesday, May 30, 2007
mtgondal's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: On earth
Posts: 552
Thanks: 123
Thanked 56 Times in 42 Posts
mtgondal will become famous soon enough
Default

Is pre-emption still the rule?

By Khalid Saleem

One would have thought that having burnt its fingers in the Iraq and Afghanistan adventures, the US would have found it expedient by now to fine-tune its strategic roadmap. In particular, President George W. Bush, his party having lost the majorities in both houses in the midterm elections, should by cold logic have been expected to make a slight detour, if not a U-turn, in so far as his pre-emption doctrine is concerned. This, it would now appear obvious, is not the way the cookie has crumbled, if that is the Americanism one is looking for. The Bush administration has belied hopes – if there were any – that anything in the way of second thoughts is in the offing. If anything, the administration has confirmed that its actions so far have been strictly in accordance with the announced National Security Strategy and that the world – already somewhat edgy on past experience – can lump it and look forward to more of the same.

What a wary world regards as the “Bush pre-emption doctrine” would bear recapitulation. It will be recalled that the National Security Strategy of the US sprung by the White House on an already jittery world was based on the premise that “America is at war”. The document had specifically emphasised the role of “pre-emption” in US National Security Strategy. To quote: “We do not rule out the use of force before attacks occur.” This was evidently meant to provide convenient cover for not only the adventures in Afghanistan and Iraq, but also to similar ventures that may be contemplated in the time to come.

Before one delves into the whys and wherefores of the National Security Strategy of the US, it may be helpful to go briefly over its various contours. So here goes:

* Pre-emption retains its position of va tage in the National Security Strategy. “We do not rule out the use of force ‘before’ attacks occur.”

* North Korea, Iran, Syria, Cuba, Belarus, Burma and Zimbabwe are classed as ‘tyrannies’. “Tyrannies that seek weapons of mass destruction threaten our immediate security interests…We have no doubt that the world is better off if tyrants know that they pursue WMDs at their own peril.”

* “We may face no greater challenge from a single country than from Iran.” Diplomatic efforts must succeed if confrontation is to be avoided, but “military action cannot be ruled out”.

* Washington supports creation of a Palestinian state at peace with Israel. Hamas (that had won a landslide election victory) “must renounce violence, accept Israel and disarm”.

* In South Asia, India and Pakistan must resolve their disputes. The US has noted “an improvement”. There is “a new spirit of cooperation in the dispute over Kashmir”. Strong bilateral relations with India and Pakistan developed of late “gave us leverage to play a constructive role when tensions in the regions became acute”.

* Russia’s efforts to prevent democratic development at home and abroad will hamper its ties with neighbours, Europe and the US.

* “With Pakistan, our bilateral relations have been bolstered by Pakistan’s choice to join the war against terror.” Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have “launched effective efforts to capture or kill the leadership of the al Qaeda network”.

Two things need to be pointed out in this regard: 1) the US National Security Strategy paper is supposed to be issued every year (the lapse of the past few years notwithstanding), 2) it may not be entirely accurate to term the paper issued as a “doctrine” – it can be seen more in the nature of a defence of the administration’s post-9/11 policies intended basically for the domestic audience. The fact that it also serves to put the fear of God into a few errant states can be seen as an additional bonus.

Having said that, one would be justified in averring that the inferences to the regions nearer home would merit closer examination. The reference to Iran, for instance, was in some ways perfunctory, despite the belligerence of the tone. While singling out Iran as the one country from which the US (read Israel) faces the greatest challenge, the strategy paper – though holding out the threat of ‘military action’ – stopped short of foreclosing all options. In effect, it went out of its way to suggest what needed to be done in order to avoid a confrontation. This appeal was directed not only at Iran, but also at the other parties presently engaged in diplomatic efforts to sort out the wrangle. One is free to draw one’s conclusions.

On the issue of Palestine too, the strategy paper left things a bit vague. Starting on a somewhat positive note by reiterating US support for the creation of a “Palestinian state at peace with Israel”, it meandered off into uncharted waters. Having shouted support for establishment of democracy from housetops, the US must understandably have felt a bit shy of directly renouncing the verdict of Palestinian voters. So it opted for the “next best thing”: it slapped impossible pre-conditions for Hamas to fulfil in order to obtain the blessings of the US administration. Hamas was asked to a) renounce violence, b) accept Israel and c) disarm, in order for it to be acceptable at the negotiating table. In other words, Hamas had been asked to discard all its trump cards in advance as a precondition for being allowed to participate in the game! The intra-Palestinian conflict has, in the meantime, served to move the goalposts, much to the delight of the Israelis.

Nearer home, in South Asia, the strategy paper held out no hope for a gentle US nudge in order to keep the much-vaunted peace process on track. For the US to note, as it did, “an improvement” in the situation or “seeing a new spirit of cooperation in the dispute over Kashmir” is neither here nor there. The reference was evidently towards the myriad CBMs that passed through the mill, which are incidentally fast approaching their “use by” date. What was left unsaid was what happens when the sheen of the CBMs wears off and the common man sees them for what they are – feeble efforts at papering-over of cracks in the decaying edifice? Who, then, is going to be left holding the baby?

Direct reference to US relations with Pakistan has centred mainly on “Pakistan’s choice to join the war against terror”. There was also the rather chilling reference to the launching by Pakistan (and Saudi Arabia) of “effective efforts to capture or kill (sic) the leadership of the al Qaeda network”. Surely, there should be more substance to our (strategic?) relationship than just that. Or maybe we have surrendered our prerogative to choose!

The writer is a former ambassador and former Assistant Secretary General of the OIC.
__________________
Time is like a river.
You cannot touch the same water twice,
because the flow that has passed will never pass again.
Enjoy every moment of life.

I have learnt silence from the talkative, toleration from the intolerant, and kindness from the unkind; yet strange, I am ungrateful to these teachers.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old Saturday, June 02, 2007
mtgondal's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: On earth
Posts: 552
Thanks: 123
Thanked 56 Times in 42 Posts
mtgondal will become famous soon enough
Default

Egypt’s pivotal role

By Tariq Fatemi

A TRIP to Egypt last week for a series of meetings with its diplomats, scholars and journalists was a most fascinating and rewarding experience. Egypt has always been an important link between North Africa and the Arab world on the one hand and Europe (and later the US) on the other, playing what many consider to be a pivotal role in the region.

In more recent times, Egypt has been in the forefront of the US effort to maintain regional peace with Israel, promote “moderate policies” in the Middle East and contain the spread of extremism.

President Hosni Mubarak has governed Egypt ever since Anwar Sadat’s assassination in October 1981. He has used “an iron fist in a velvet glove” policy to ensure both political order and economic development. Though the status of human rights has improved, Egypt does not yet enjoy a democratic dispensation. The justification advanced is that the government is engaged in the war on terror.

On the economic front, Mubarak’s effort has been to broaden the base by promoting local and foreign investment. A process of successful privatisation has started, the stock exchange has been revived and reform programmes with the IMF and the World Bank, have been signed and implemented.

Egypt is also fortunate in having Ahmad Abu al-Gheit, an extremely intelligent, highly experienced and articulate diplomat as its foreign minister. He has succeeded in building a relationship of trust with the Bush administration that enables him to speak out with unusual candour, thereby giving Egypt’s diplomacy considerable credibility.

I was privileged to get a unique insight into the principles and priorities that drive the country’s leadership. The foreign minister strongly believes that as a powerful and developed country in the region, it is Egypt’s destiny to lead on issues of critical importance. His words remind one of what Dr Henry Kissinger was fond of saying, that there could be no war in the region without Egypt and there could be no peace without Syria.

It was emphasised that the country’s foreign policy has always been subject to strong conflicting trends. There are those who advocate the primacy of an African and Euro-Mediterranean orientation, while others believe passionately in the traditional Arab-Islamic orientation. But the leadership is convinced that the country’s salvation lies in forging a healthy mix of both, ensuring a balance between the two requirements, so that the country can have greater opportunities and wider room for manoeuvre.

If in the fifties and sixties the focus was at ending colonialism and helping national liberation movements, the current policy emanates from the requirement of its peace treaty with Israel and from Sadat’s dictum that the 1973 war should be the last war involving Egypt. Resultantly, the treaty is virtually a “cold” peace, without trade or other relationships. Many Egyptians have also become hostile to anything beyond a formal relationship with Israel, especially in the face of the latter’s brutal policies against the Palestinians and its refusal to even countenance a dialogue with Syria.

It goes to the credit of the Egyptian leadership that it recognised early on that the US invasion of Iraq in March 2003 was having a highly negative impact on the region. It may have extended logistical support to the US invasion, but Foreign Minister Gheit has not shied away from telling his American counterpart that current US policies in Iraq are counterproductive.

This has not been easy, given that Egypt and the US enjoy the closest of relations on a number of issues. Egypt was described during the Clinton administration as “the most prominent player in the Arab world and a key US ally in the Middle East”. The two countries have a convergence of interests in many areas, whether in maintaining regional stability or countering and eliminating extremism and terrorism. In all this, the US wishes to ensure that the “friendly regimes” in the region, especially those that possess massive oil and gas resources, are kept stable and strong.

Military cooperation between the US and Egypt is possibly the strongest aspect of their strategic partnership. General Anthony Zinni, the former chief of the US central command (Centcom) once said: “Egypt is the most important country in my area of responsibility because of the access it gives me in the region.” US military assistance to Egypt has always been considered part of the administration’s strategy of ensuring continued availability of Persian Gulf energy resources and to secure the Suez Canal, which serves both as an important international oil route and as a critical route for US warships transiting the Gulf.

This accounts for the fact that Egypt has so far received more than $50 billion dollars officially since 1978. This has not only contributed to the modernisation of its armed forces and the acquisition of sophisticated weapon systems, but has also enabled the country to engage in important and worthwhile economic projects, in both the agricultural and industrial fields. An opportunity to see some of this was provided on a visit to the “Smart City.” An impressive metropolis of elegantly designed, modernistic buildings, it has brought together the world’s best known IT-related companies, that are likely to make the country the regional leader in this field.

Notwithstanding the extensive cooperation between Cairo and Washington, the latter’s unilateralist policies have nevertheless caused considerable strain in relations between them. The Egyptians are not too enamoured of the Bush administration which they feel has gone out of the way to give a carte blanche to Israel, while exhibiting contempt for Arab sensitivities.

Therefore, on some issues, such as Sudan and nuclear proliferation, Cairo has adopted a somewhat independent line, leading political commentators to describe it as Egypt’s Gaullist foreign policy, meaning cooperation with the US on strategic issues, while maintaining some distance and a degree of independence on tactics and approaches.

Some scholars told me that a couple of years ago, the issue of democracy had become an irritant in ties with the US. While this was welcomed by liberal sections, President Mubarak was not happy with what he suspected was Washington’s encouragement of anti-regime politicians. However, as soon as the US waded deep into the Iraqi quagmire, Washington pulled back, abandoning any pretence of supporting advocates of democratisation in Egypt. When the government decided to crack down on political opponents and dissidents, the Bush administration chose to look the other way, which led liberals and human rights advocates to accuse Washington of betrayal.

However, despite occasional friction between the two countries, US-Egyptian relations under Mubarak have remained strong. In fact, ties between them have evolved beyond the Middle East peace process, becoming an independent bilateral relationship in its own right. The US looks at Egypt as a powerful voice of moderation in the Arab world and as influential enough to persuade others to align themselves with the US.

Some Egyptians do, however, admit that Cairo’s refusal to send troops to Afghanistan and Iraq in peace stabilisation missions had upset Washington. Public opinion in Egypt has swung sharply against continuing American occupation of a fellow Arab country.

My week in Egypt coincided with major developments in the region and this added to the range and depth of my exchanges with the locals. The turmoil in Lebanon was obviously a major story in the Egyptian media, with sharply divided opinions. The government was supportive of the Lebanese army’s efforts to end the turmoil; but sections of the public opinion were sympathetic to the Sunni Islamist group, called the Fatah Al-Islam.

The situation in Palestine, with daily reports of Israeli air strikes, accompanied by kidnapping of Hamas leaders, including government ministers, left the Egyptian government in an untenable situation. Iran too remained in the spotlight when the UN nuclear inspectors confirmed that Tehran had failed to meet another deadline to stop enriching uranium.

In fact, Iran occupies centre-stage on the radar screens of the Egyptian establishment. The Islamic regime is looked upon with deep suspicion for the leadership is convinced that Iran is up to no good and that Tehran is channelling its resources into groups and organisations that are determined to overthrow the conservative pro-US regimes in the region.

Egypt has, therefore, been using its political influence as well as its civil and military intelligence to counter the activities of pro-Iranian groups. The election victories of Hezbollah and Hamas carry little credibility with the leadership, which accuses these parties of promoting Iranian interests, at the cost of larger Arab interests.

As if Iran’s political activity were not enough of a concern for Egypt, Tehran’s nuclear programme has added to its worries. Cairo is convinced that Iran’s ultimate objective is to acquire nuclear weapons that will enable it to bring the Gulf into its sphere of influence. At the same time, Cairo wants to use international concern about Iran’s nuclear programme to remind the world that Israel’s possession of nuclear weapons is also a matter of concern to the region.

On December 25, 2006, the Egyptian foreign minister called for an end to “nuclear double standards”, where sanctions are imposed for enriching uranium but where the Israeli nuclear programme is not subject to any control by the IAEA.

Some Egyptians still reminisce about the 1950s and 1960s, when Gamal Abdel Nasser dominated the Arab world and the African continent. The Egyptians saw themselves then at the centre of three “circles”: the African, the Arab and the Islamic. This permitted Egypt to play the great powers against each other and assume the leadership of the non-aligned bloc. But this is an altogether different world, with the days of the Cold War gone forever. Egypt’s foreign policy may lack the flair and exuberance of the Nasser years, but it goes to the credit of its current leadership that its policies are grounded in realism and pragmatism, aimed at promoting its national interests.

The writer is a former ambassador.
__________________
Time is like a river.
You cannot touch the same water twice,
because the flow that has passed will never pass again.
Enjoy every moment of life.

I have learnt silence from the talkative, toleration from the intolerant, and kindness from the unkind; yet strange, I am ungrateful to these teachers.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old Thursday, June 07, 2007
mtgondal's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: On earth
Posts: 552
Thanks: 123
Thanked 56 Times in 42 Posts
mtgondal will become famous soon enough
Default

Mediawatch
Thursday,June 07, 2007


By Blair's last chance

The pressure of world events, along with the matter-of fact approach taken by Germany under its chancellor, Angela Merkel, may explain why this year's summit of the Group of Eight industrialised countries seems to have arrived almost out of the blue. This does not mean, of course, that there has not been the usual advance argument and lobbying. It just means that we have been spared much of the public aggravation often generated by the preparatory small print.

All that ends today when the eight leaders gather at Heiligendamm. That this resort was once the preserve of the former East Germany's political elite, serves to highlight the vast changes that have taken place since these meetings were first instituted 32 years ago. But this year's summit also takes place at a time of unusual political transition. The new French President, Nicolas Sarkozy, will be making his debut on the international stage. President Bush has only 18 months remaining in office and his authority is already in decline, irrevocably damaged by Iraq and the loss of Congress to the Democrats. And, assuming that he does not override Russia's constitution, Vladimir Putin will have handed over to someone else by this time next year.

Heiligendamm, however, will also be where Tony Blair, now the doyen of the group, takes his leave from the international top table. He has been much criticised for the protracted timetable of his farewell and the self-indulgence of his world tour. There were other, more dignified, ways for him to have bowed out. But surely few would begrudge him this last chance to push for progress on the two causes that he has driven in the international arena almost from the start.

Mr Blair's commitment to tackling climate change and poverty in Africa has been among the most positive aspects of his tenure. He has been tireless in his advocacy of these causes, understanding that a co-ordinated international effort is imperative. To that extent, this year's summit agenda, in which climate change is the main theme and Africa also features prominently, owes much to the priorities set by Mr Blair at Gleneagles. Ms Merkel, as a former German environment minister, is eminently qualified to pick up the baton.

While there is broad agreement about aid for Africa -- even if too many have regrettably failed to honour their promises -- climate change is another matter. Here, Germany set an ambitious, but not unrealistic, programme based on undertakings that have generally been adopted in Europe. Yet, as the foreign secretary, Margaret Beckett, stressed yesterday, the talks are likely to be fraught. This is because, as so often, it is the leader of the richest and most energy-profligate country who is still to be convinced.

There were positive and negative signals from Washington last week when President Bush specifically addressed climate change. He appeared to accept that there should be a "new global framework", indicating that the US might now be prepared to be part of a multilateral approach. Against this, he proposed new talks in the autumn outside the UN structures that already exist to negotiate a follow-up agreement to Kyoto. The US is also reluctant to sign up to either a reformed carbon trading scheme or targets for cutting emissions.

Tony Blair has so far received precious little recognition from Mr Bush for his support, most notably over Iraq. And Mr Blair's transparent failure to exert much influence in Washington has damaged his credibility at home. The US President could help his old friend on both counts if he were to help facilitate a climate change agreement at Heiligendamm. He would hand Ms Merkel a triumph, Mr Blair a worthy legacy -- and the world a new belief in joint action to avert this global threat.

The Independant

June 6

http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=59400
__________________
Time is like a river.
You cannot touch the same water twice,
because the flow that has passed will never pass again.
Enjoy every moment of life.

I have learnt silence from the talkative, toleration from the intolerant, and kindness from the unkind; yet strange, I am ungrateful to these teachers.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old Thursday, June 07, 2007
mtgondal's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: On earth
Posts: 552
Thanks: 123
Thanked 56 Times in 42 Posts
mtgondal will become famous soon enough
Default

Troop surge in Iraq will prove counterproductive


GHULAM ASGHAR KHAN
Thursday, JUNE 07, 2007



Last month, President George W Bush said publicly what his top aides had been discussing privately for weeks. It was a talk about a transition to a different configuration after the recent troop-surge in Iraq.
America is a country known for plans A, B, C or 1, 2, 3 and so on depending upon the strategic failures at the global levels. When pressed if he was talking about plan-B of the post-surge strategy, he referred to the Baker-Hamilton Report (BHR) whose authors were earlier ridiculed by the New York Post as “surrender monkeys.”
The same BH plan now seems to be official White House policy. The plan briefly envisaged the training of Iraqi army, US Special Forces missions against al-Qaeda, and a diplomatic opening to Iran that would ultimately facilitate the reduction of US forces in Iraq. The big question is whether the BHR could regain the bipartisan ground on which the Iraq Study Group framed its recommendations last December.
Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi told The Financial Times that though he favoured a plan for eventual withdrawal of US troops, immediate pulling out would lead to chaos and civil war. Syrian foreign minister Moallem expressed similar views.
The trouble with Bush is that he knows little, but he thinks that he knows everything, and that has unfortunately been the hallmark of his political career. Had the BHR been taken seriously when it was submitted, the Bush administration would not have faced the dilemma, because now a vast majority of the Americans is for an immediate withdrawal.
Against all these deliberations the US Defence Department notified on May 8, 2007 that a big posse of 35,000 soldiers would be sent to Iraq for the upcoming round of deployments with a view to protracting the surge for quite sometime. The evolution of surge into an escalation is uncalled for and predictably fatal for the US troops in Iraq.
When Bush announced this surge in January, many saw it as a bold, and perhaps the last attempt to snatch the initiative in Iraq. In a bid to control a dismal situation, Bush put himself on the same escalation treadmill as President Johnson had done during the Vietnam War. Their logic is the same; although the US occupation of an alien country had brought only a deepening conflict with absolutely no prospect of success.
As the Iraq war goes on with no end in sight, there are frequent comparisons with the Vietnam war that ended in 1975 with the victory of the Vietnamese and humiliating retreat of the Americans, lifted by helicopters from the roof of US embassy in Saigon.
The new conventional wisdom is that Bush, however grudgingly, has now accepted key recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group (ISG); there is a growing conviction that continued deployment of US troops at current levels through 2008 is no longer politically viable. Perhaps, Washington does not realise that the downfall of “civilised” states tends to come not from direct assaults of foes, but from internal decay combined with the consequences of exhaustion in long drawn wars.
While the escalation in Iraq might have its internal logic, the external reality is that it is counterproductive. Since the implementation of the surge plan, the US forces have not been able to quell the attacks on US as well as the coalition forces, nor has it eliminated the sectarian divisions.
In fact, the move now threatens the US national security and is a contributory factor in the US failure in Iraq. The military readiness for US ground forces is at an all time low; so low that serious questions have been raised about the US ability to conduct any other ground operations beyond those to which they now are already committed. Even with US Secretary Defence Robert Gates extension of deployments to 15 months, the current deployment’s timeline cannot possibly be maintained.
Strategically, a troop increase is not necessarily a successful tactic to bring stability to Iraq. During the first three months of the surge there has been a substantial increase in the number of attacks against the US troops. The suicide attacks and other violence have increased. The month of May saw the death of 127 American soldiers, the third highest monthly total since the war began in March 2003. The only higher casualty months were April and November when 135 and 137 were killed in Fallujah. There are no hopeful signs in the Month of June, when 16 soldiers fell in the first 3 days.
Despite that, Bush administration officials maintained this week that the US presence in Iraq could last decades, drawing an analogy with South Korea where the US troops have been stationed for more than half a century.
Never has an administration reached for its dictionaries more regularly to redefine reality to its own benefit. Speaking at a press briefing on Wednesday, White House spokesman Tony Snow said that President Bush believed that the situation in Iraq and the larger war on terror were going ‘to take a long time’ and that a long-term US presence in Iraq would be required, even after the Iraqis took over the major security functions. Snow added that the president thinks the US shall have to maintain an “over-the-horizon” support role to react quickly to major challenges and crisis in the region.
White House has often denied existence of any plan-B for Iraq, but it turned out that Pentagon has thought about what to do if plan-A, the ‘surge’ didn’t work. Plan-B would involve retaining a series of military bases around Iraq with some 30,000 to 40,000 soldiers. It would have them stay for decades under the excuse that they would train Iraqi troops and deter neighbouring countries like Iran and Turkey from sending their armies into the country.
This hardly is a new idea. For the last many years, the neocons have advocated the establishment of American bases in Iraq to police the region and make the area safe for Israel. Apparently, the US administration jumped into the Iraqi quicksand with a dual purpose, securing Israel and controlling the vast oil wealth in the Middle East. Presently, the US has major military installations in Saudi Arabia that have generated considerable opposition among the Saudis and in the rest of the Arab world.
This implies that, if the US maintains a strong military presence in Muslim countries, it would continue to generate hatred and terrorism that have already devoured the world peace. Permanent or long term bases in Iraq will only bring more fire and the brimstone to the world. The only way to avert the looming catastrophe is to leave the Middle East to the Middle Easterners.

http://www.nation.com.pk/daily/jun-2007/7/columns3.php
__________________
Time is like a river.
You cannot touch the same water twice,
because the flow that has passed will never pass again.
Enjoy every moment of life.

I have learnt silence from the talkative, toleration from the intolerant, and kindness from the unkind; yet strange, I am ungrateful to these teachers.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old Saturday, June 09, 2007
mtgondal's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: On earth
Posts: 552
Thanks: 123
Thanked 56 Times in 42 Posts
mtgondal will become famous soon enough
Default

An enigmatic relationship


Shamshad Ahmad
Satureday, JUNE 09,2007



Despite the chequered history of their relationship, Pakistan and the US have been friends and allies for nearly sixty years now. For much of its history, however, this relationship has lacked continuity, a larger conceptual framework, and a shared vision beyond the "narrowly based and vaguely defined" issue-specific priorities.
From the early days of its independence, Pakistan had a direction clearly charted for its future relationship with the US by the value system that it cherished, and indeed by Quaid-e-Azam himself. Speaking to the first US ambassador to Pakistan on February 22, 1948, Quaid-e-Azam described Pakistan and the US as equal partners in defence of democracy and freedom.
Emerging from the trauma of sub-continental turmoil, the young state of Pakistan, imbued with Islamic values and a moderate and progressive outlook, gravitated naturally to the pole that stood for freedom and democracy in that intensely bi-polar world.
In making that deliberate choice, Pakistan was guided not only by the Quaid's vision but also by its over-riding security and economic interests. On its part, the US looked at Pakistan and its special geo-political importance as a strategic asset in its "containment" policy against Soviet expansionism.
It has been a curious relationship which never had any conflict of interest and yet experienced interruptions in its intensity as well integrity. The "hinge" was purely one of mutual expediency as both sides were always aiming at different goals and objectives to be derived from their relationship.
For Pakistan, the issues of security and survival in a turbulent and hostile regional environment and its problems with India were the overriding policy goals in its relations with Washington. The US policy interests in Pakistan, on the other hand, have traditionally encompassed a wide range of regional and global issues, especially nuclear and missile proliferation, India-Pakistan hostility, drugs trafficking, democracy, human rights, and economic reform.
Unpredictability has been another consistent feature of this relationship. The US would lose interest in remaining engaged in any cooperation once it achieved its objectives vis-à-vis Pakistan. Pakistan was either consigned to benign neglect or hit with a succession of punitive sanctions that left in their trail resentment and a sense of betrayal.
In the early 50s, with growing concern about India's designs against our independence, we negotiated a "mutual defence agreement" with the US (1954) and by 1955; we had joined Western Alliances, SEATO and CENTO in the hope that they will provide strength to us in our quest for survival. This was a clear expression of our choice for freedom and for security. Our experience, however, did not match our expectations.
As a result of these alliances, we did receive nearly $2 billion in US assistance from 1953 to 1961, including $508 million in military aid. But when it came to defending ourselves against India in 1965 and then again in 1971, we were left all alone, and in the process lost half the country. This tragedy, indeed, was the worst that could happen to any independent country in contemporary history
In the mid-1970s, we were again disappointed when the US and other Western countries failed to appreciate our apprehensions from India's unchecked nuclear ambitions. The US pressurised France to cancel a deal for supply of a reprocessing plant to Pakistan. Limited US aid as then resumed in 1975, but was suspended again in 1979 by the Carter administration in response to what was alleged as Pakistan's "covert construction of a uranium enrichment facility."
Following the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in late 1979, Pakistan again became a key ally of the US and also the front-line state in the last and decisive battle of the Cold War which hastened the collapse of the Soviet Union and its symbol the "Berlin Wall." In return, we were paid in 1981 a five-year $3.2 billion aid package.
As soon as the Soviets pulled out, the US just walked away leaving Afghanistan and its people at the mercy of their fate. Once the war was over, we were also left in the lurch with a painful legacy in terms of a massive refugee influx and a culture of drugs and guns, commonly known as the "Kalashnikov" culture, which has almost torn apart our social and political fabric.
In the years that followed, the US not only turned a blind eye on our strategic concerns vis-à-vis India but also started bringing us under greater scrutiny and pressure for our legitimate nuclear program. We faced an unfair punitive approach under its congressional laws on nuclear proliferation and human rights.
The 1985 Pressler Amendment the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 banned economic and military assistance to countries engaged in nuclear weapon programs. Similarly, two other amendments, the Symington Amendment and the Glenn Amendment also invoked sanctions against countries that tried to elude IAEA safeguards on nuclear materials and technology or against countries that conducted nuclear tests. Pakistan was the target of these laws.
During the 1980s, when we were fighting America's War against the Soviet Union, we were allowed waivers from these Amendments despite the fact that our nuclear program was a known reality and the US knew that Pakistan was enriching uranium. However, the Pressler Amendment sanctions were imposed on us in 1990 when the US saw Pakistan had no further role to play in its global strategies. In May 1998, the US imposed full restrictions on all non-humanitarian aid to both India and Pakistan after their nuclear tests.
Since then, the Pressler Amendment sanctions have found many exemptions and waivers, most notably under the Brown Amendment and especially the two Brownback Amendments, the latter of which give the US president permanent authority to waive the sanctions under the Symington and Pressler Amendments that banned all military and economic assistance to Pakistan since 1990.
Shortly after the 9/11, President Bush lifted completely the economic and military sanctions against both India and Pakistan, which had been imposed for their nuclear tests. Since then, Pakistan is again a close and pivotal ally of the US and has been extending full cooperation in the war on terror. Billions of dollars being pumped into Pakistan for the services it is rendering to the US in its "war on terror" have brought no change in the lives of the people of Pakistan. They remain mired in socio-economic vulnerabilities and politico-constitutional chaos.
In Pakistan, anti-Americanism has been growing largely because of the US support for a military dictatorship in the country. In fact, there is a general feeling all over the world that the US was never a "steadfast and reliable" friend and that over the decades, the US neglect and "self-serving" exploitation of its friends had contributed to most of the current problems in different parts of the world, including our own region.
Our people hope this perception will change with the change of incumbency in the White House next year. They welcome the recent bipartisan calls by US lawmakers for unfettered democracy in Pakistan through "free and fair" elections without which they fear there could be a void which would be filled by extremist parties that have otherwise traditionally fared poorly in Pakistan.
Howsoever enigmatic, US-Pakistan relationship is an important equation. Despite ups and downs, this relationship has remained fundamentally strong and enduring. It is time for both sides now to set a better bilateral perspective for this relationship on the basis of mutuality and sovereign equality.
US-Pakistan relations will stand or fall based on whether they benefit the people of Pakistan or any particular regime or ruler. US engagement with Pakistan must go beyond the war on terror. It must reach out to democratic and liberal forces and the business community in our country, and also the younger generation in Pakistan, which may resent US power but not its ideals. And in their success alone lies the very future of "enlightened" moderation in this country.
The US must also bear in mind that its flawed policies on Pakistan could lead to its total alienation from its 160 million people just as it alienated itself from the people of Iran in the late 70s. A people's trust once lost can never be regained. One historic lesson that the US must not "unlearn" is that its excessive reliance on authoritarian regimes and military dictators will not serve its long-term interests nor promote regional and global stability.
It must help Pakistan return to the path that meets its people's democratic aspirations and socio-economic needs. Only such a course will make Pakistan its strong, stable, moderate and reliable partner in pursuit of common goals and in defence of shared values.


http://www.nation.com.pk/daily/jun-2007/9/columns1.php
__________________
Time is like a river.
You cannot touch the same water twice,
because the flow that has passed will never pass again.
Enjoy every moment of life.

I have learnt silence from the talkative, toleration from the intolerant, and kindness from the unkind; yet strange, I am ungrateful to these teachers.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old Tuesday, June 19, 2007
mtgondal's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: On earth
Posts: 552
Thanks: 123
Thanked 56 Times in 42 Posts
mtgondal will become famous soon enough
Default

Changing political climate


Kuldip Nayar
Tuesday,June 19,2007

Although consigned to the heap of their discredited past, the two Bangladesh leaders - former prime ministers Sheikh Hasina and Khaleda Zia - are as important today for the country as they were yesterday. There is, however, one difference. Then they drew power from the office they occupied, either as prime minister or opposition leader. Today, their strength is because of political parties they head: the Awami League by Sheikh Hasina and the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) by Khaleda Zia.
Unfortunately, they have reduced their respective party to personal fiefdom, with no internal democracy, no accountability. Since they do not think they are answerable to anybody, no amount of exposure of their corruption and that of their relatives and associates has made them to quit. Bangladesh has endured corruption and criminality for so many years. If those who are responsible for it were to escape punishment, the society or politics would suspect that the cleansing was selective. Whatever has become public is enough to make them withdraw from public life. It is believed that the Election Commission may soon draft necessary rules to debar such persons from the polls.
It is, however, unfair to paint Hasina and Khaleda with the same brush. However wanting, Hasina has a long record of sacrifices and sufferings. Her father, Sheikh Mujib-ur-Rahman, founded the Awami League, which had deep roots. The party is intertwined with the country’s liberation struggle and its culmination. But then, Hasina is not the party. She has, in fact, pulled it down from the pre-eminent position it enjoyed. On the other hand, Khaleda’s BNP, was started by her husband General Zua-ul-Rahman who, no doubt, was part of the liberation struggle but said to have flinched when it came to saving the Sheikh from assassination. Khaleda never stirred out of cantonment and, therefore, the BNP never reached the grassroots.
Her sons, as their acts of corruption reveal, used the party for their own ends. What surprises me is that even the top functionaries in the two parties have continued to play to the tune of the two ladies. Members in each party are so afraid that they dare not question their leaders so long as they are present. Even the stalwarts feel that their party will not go far without them. It is a Catch-22 situation: you cannot do one thing until you do another thing, but you cannot do the second thing until you do the first one. Anything meaningful will fail if the two ladies do not cooperate. The army, which is behind the caretaker government, is said to have hinted to both to leave the country and stay out until after the elections, which are scheduled to be held at the end of next year. At one time, Khaleda was willing to live abroad provided her son, Tariq, facing the charges of swindling the country of enormous amount of money, accompanied her. The arrangement fell through because the two countries she preferred, Saudi Arabia and UAE, refused to give her a visa. Lately, Sheikh Hasina’s return to Bangladesh has made Khaleda stay put. Still, she is too vulnerable to say ‘no’. Even otherwise, her stock and that of her party has hit rock bottom. But she is keenly watching what is happening to Hasina and both are reportedly in touch with each other.
Hasina is a hard nut to crack. She or, for that matter, the Awami League has support in every hamlet in Bangladesh. It is the Indian National Congress of the old days. Yet, the serious instances of corruption involving Hasina and her close relations may make her ask for a reprieve. The government is waiting for that moment. At one time, it appeared as if she had decided to stay in America with her daughter for some years.
But then the smell of elections brought her back. The manner in which she was restrained in London from traveling to Dhaka and ultimately allowed to return home revived her image in the media, much to the embarrassment of the caretaker government. Probably, Hasina could have been handled better. She could have been given a choice, either to face the numerous charges of corruption against her and her family or agree to quit politics for some years. Murmurs in her party have begun to be heard. A few days ago two or three of party stalwarts told on her face to go while the going was good. It is reported that she is considering the option of going to America this July. If Hasina does not quit - Khaleda has ceased to matter much - there is a possibility of a third force emerging. It may be a long, uncertain haul. But there may be no other option. Mohammed Yunus, the Nobel Prize winner, was a better bet. He would have attracted liberal elements from the Awami League, the Left and the intellectuals to present a viable alternative. But he was too quick to throw his hat in the ring and too quick to withdraw, leaving his admirers and supporters high and dry.
Clean and intelligent Kamal Hussain is emerging as an alternative. He was the first Bangladesh foreign minister. He was close to the Sheikh. Kamal’s long tenure and popularity in the Awami League was cut short by Hasina who suspected him of challenging her. His fault was that he was insistent on introducing internal democracy in the party. What goes against him is that he has not soiled his hands at the grassroots politics. Kamal knows he will need to do that if Hasina remained in command. The Awami League may rally around him in her absence. The opposition to him may come from the party’s second rung of leadership. But since it does not have a clean record, it has no credentials to fight against Kamal.
The third rung of the Awami League leadership is idealistic but raw. Kamal who has stayed in public life without making compromises may attract this rung. If this happens, it would be a good development for the country. Much will depend on Hasina’s decision to quit. If she does not, it looks as if Kamal is determined not to let the present opportunity go waste. He may forge a front of such parties and intellectuals who believe in running the country on principles and who want to break away from personal and power politics in which Bangladesh has remained stuck.
The army may accept the third force because it would have the satisfaction of not leaving the country to those who had dirtied the Bangladesh waters. Still the people would have to make the choice between the third force and the recalcitrant Awami League at the time of election. One only hopes that people will make the right choice.

E-mail: knayar@nation.com.pk

http://www.nation.com.pk/daily/jun-2007/19/columns4.php
__________________
Time is like a river.
You cannot touch the same water twice,
because the flow that has passed will never pass again.
Enjoy every moment of life.

I have learnt silence from the talkative, toleration from the intolerant, and kindness from the unkind; yet strange, I am ungrateful to these teachers.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old Wednesday, June 20, 2007
mtgondal's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: On earth
Posts: 552
Thanks: 123
Thanked 56 Times in 42 Posts
mtgondal will become famous soon enough
Default

The failing Muslim world




By Najmuddin A. Shaikh
wednesday,June 20,2007


RECENT developments in the Muslim world have further fragmented Muslim states and exacerbated the sectarian and ethnic divides that are increasingly becoming the dominant determinant of politics in these countries. It has happened most dramatically in Palestine. In place of a united struggle for a Palestinian state we now have a Hamastan and Fatahstan in Gaza and the West Bank respectively.

Ridding Gaza of Fatah elements is now underway. In the West Bank, frustrated Fatah fighters are searching out and eliminating Hamas supporters. An amnesty for Fatah declared in Gaza is not likely to hold because Gaza, cut off from the rest of the world, finds itself starved of funds and foodstuff.

Egypt, the neighbour best placed to help Gaza, will be reluctant to do so, given its fears of a Hamas leadership that owes much to its indoctrination by Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood. In any case, the border currently remains closed and will reopen only when EU observers return and can satisfy Israel that weapons and other objectionable material are not being shipped into Gaza. Iran and Syria might want to help but their ability to do so will be limited. Islamists — many of them billionaires — in the Gulf might want to give Hamas their zakat but will have difficulty converting their cash donations into the essentials of life that Gaza needs.

One part of the American response to this development was an announcement that the US would contribute 40 million dollars to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) which has been providing food and other aid to the Palestinians. Possibly much of the UNRWA assistance will now focus on Gaza and its one and a half million inhabitants, but even so the spectre of famine looms large. The principal source of food will be UN handouts.

Reports now emerging suggest that given clan and local loyalties among Palestinians and the long period for which Israeli policies minimised interaction and movement between Gaza and the West Bank, the residents of the two areas have become two different people. The current separation is only an implementation of a reality that had come into being.

There is talk in Washington, as reflected at the Condoleezza Rice’s press conference that now the Israelis will have a negotiating partner in President Mahmoud Abbas and that progress can, therefore, be made towards the talks that the roadmap had visualised. But Israeli settlements now cover 40 per cent of West Bank territory, and Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is in no position to concede the evacuation of even a small part of these settlements.

Fragmentation in the Muslim world has had its first concrete manifestation in Palestine. Iraq, Lebanon and Afghanistan may well be in line to fall victim to this so-called “separatism” in Palestine. Is this an exaggerated fear?

In Iraq, the second bombing of the holy shrines of Imam Ali Al-Hadi and Imam Hassan Al-Askari in Samarra has led to the destruction of at least 13 Sunni mosques, including a particularly revered one in the Shia city of Basra. Moqtada Al-Sadr has issued a call for the Shias to march to Samarra next month to protect the shrines. Such a procession will pose a daunting security challenge to the beleaguered Iraqi security forces and the Americans since it will pass through a Sunni-dominated area where passions are running high following the attacks.

Other unresolved problems such as the revision of the constitution to give the Sunnis a fair share of power, the adoption of the law on the division of oil revenues, the rescinding of the current law on debaathification, etc remain as contentious as ever.

On the Kurdish front, the deadline for deciding the fate of oil-rich Kirkuk is fast approaching and the Kurds appear intent on ensuring that it is made part of Iraqi Kurdistan along with large swathes of what were Kurdish majority areas in Nineveh province. The reaction of the Sunnis in Mosul is indicative of the fierce resistance such a step would face.

There is no doubt that these fissures existed in Iraqi society since long. There is also no doubt that until the Americans at the end of Desert War in 1991 incited the Shias to rise against their oppressor, relative sectarian harmony prevailed in Iraq.There is no doubt that the Kurdish question has bedevilled Iraq since it was created but there is also no doubt that the current state of affairs came about only because in the aftermath of the 1991 Desert War the Americans created and enforced the no-fly zones. Following the 2003 invasion, they did nothing to check the growth of the peshmerga as the Kurdish army and the acquisition by the Kurds of all the trappings of an independent state.

No other group is as beholden to the Americans in Iraq as the Kurds. No other group feels that it can call upon the Americans, in return for the assistance they provided pre- and post-2003, to help the Kurds realise their aspirations, despite what the Americans may feel they owe to Turkey.

There is now a civil war in Iraq and fragmentation is only a matter of time. The Americans, even if they had the staying power and the will, would not be able to prevent it. Neither would Iraq’s neighbours, who, although they recognise the dangers of such fragmentation, distrust one another and cannot agree to cooperate.

In Lebanon, divisions over the question of an international tribunal to investigate the assassination of former Prime Minster Rafik Hariri have led to a virtual paralysis. The fight against the extremist groups in the Palestinian refugee camps has now exacerbated the Sunni-Shia divide within the Lebanese population. Sunni secularists led by late Prime Minister Hariri’s son find themselves more and more dependent on extremist Salafist groups as they contend with what has become a monolithic Shia movement led by Hezbollah’s Hassan Nasrallah.

A return to the era of fiefdoms seems to be around the corner with the Maronites, the Druzes, the Shias and the Sunnis each carving out their own areas of influence and the Palestine refugee camps becoming a haven for extremist forces from all over the Muslim world. Syria, of course, will try and retain its influence while the French and the Americans will support the factions that they have been associated with in the past.

In Afghanistan, the paucity of “boots on the ground” has led to more and more civilian casualties in the south and southeast of the country, encouraging the belief that the war on the Taliban is, in fact, a war on the Pashtuns. In the north, Rashid Dostum is now reasserting his influence. He was responsible for ethnically cleansing the north of the Pashtuns (who had been settled there for many generations) on the ground that they were Taliban supporters.

Now he has raised the banner of revolt against the Pashtun governor. The central government is apparently unable to cope with the situation. In Herat, an influx of refugees thrown out by the Iranians — about 100,000 in the last few weeks — has not yet affected the prosperity that this province has enjoyed thanks to Iranian generosity. The perception is growing that for Herati Tajiks, an association with the Iranians and a sundering (if necessary) of ties with the rest of Afghanistan may be the best path to economic development.

What lessons does this have for Pakistan? Do we have the same vulnerabilities and can they be similarly exploited by external forces or exacerbated by our own short-sighted policies? Let’s face it. If Iran has problems in Sunni Balochistan and Seistan or in Iranian Kurdistan we have an alienated Balochistan where the situation is exacerbated by the ethnic divide between the Baloch and the Pashtuns on the one hand and the locals and settlers on the other.

In the Frontier, as also in the Pashtun belt in Balochistan, extremism is no longer confined to the tribal areas but is spreading to the settled districts with alarming rapidity. No success seems to have attended the efforts at development in the area despite the announcement of large grants for the purpose, including one of $750 million over a five-year period promised by the Americans.

Thousands of people have thronged the streets in support of the Chief Justice as a symbol of the Pakistani people’s desire for the implementation of the rule of law and for an end to army rule. It is a movement of the urban middle class. It is a movement that has so far avoided being seen as the tool of political parties. It is a movement that has belied cynics who have often stated that the Pakistani people lack political maturity and that their emotions usually take a turn towards violence because of their intolerance of dissent or disagreement.

If these demonstrations are seen as an expression of the will of the people then it would seem that free, fair and transparent elections with full accountability would represent the answer to Pakistan’s problems. All the issues we have require political solutions and wise leadership by popularly elected leaders.

But, there are also some unfortunate ground realities. In the early phase of such democratisation, the politicians would require the full support of the institutions that have hitherto ruled the country directly or indirectly.

Changing the mindset of extremists who pose the greatest threat to Pakistan’s existence as a moderate state must be preceded by a change of mindset in the institutions that have wittingly or unwittingly fostered extremism and which continue to see it as the guarantor of their continued exercise of power.

On the other side, the powers that be must also recognise that a new force has emerged in Pakistan. If Pakistan is to be preserved, the validity of the demands of this new force must be acknowledged. Failing to do so or resorting to opportunism of the past will make us yet another in the number of Muslim countries ready for fragmentation.

It may be of interest that a recent article in Foreign Policy gives a detailed analysis of the countries that a group of experts have determined can be regarded as “failing states”. This places Pakistan at 12th position while Afghanistan ranks eighth with Sudan and Iraq topping the list. Even Bangladesh is at the 16th position. We can dismiss this as anti-Pakistan propaganda, but even if we do, we should see what we can do to address the kernel of truth on which this assessment is based.

The writer is a former foreign secretary.

http://www.dawn.com/2007/06/20/op.htm#top
__________________
Time is like a river.
You cannot touch the same water twice,
because the flow that has passed will never pass again.
Enjoy every moment of life.

I have learnt silence from the talkative, toleration from the intolerant, and kindness from the unkind; yet strange, I am ungrateful to these teachers.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old Wednesday, June 20, 2007
mtgondal's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: On earth
Posts: 552
Thanks: 123
Thanked 56 Times in 42 Posts
mtgondal will become famous soon enough
Default

Dynamics of Pakistan-EU relations




Ansar Mahmood Bhatti
Wednesday,June 20,2007


Despite being the world’s emerging economic and political giant, Europe has never been a priority for Pakistan in terms of forging new partnerships and exploring more European markets for our products. Pakistan has to pay a heavy price for its single-track approach in the shape of restrictions on its products and now ban on PIA flights to some European countries. The Europeans would largely disagree with the contention that the ban on PIA flights was a sequel of any retaliatory act, but they had reservations on Islamabad’s decision of buying Boeing planes instead of Airbus. “It is true that the French government was very disappointed in 2003, when PIA decided to order eight Boeing-777s and not A-340, as it has been a trusted customer of the European Airbus. Now you have to know the EU restrictions effect on PIA’s fleet, except its Boeing-777s. This decision has been taken by the European Commission on the unanimous recommendations of the EU Air Safety Committee. It is a decision taken purely on technical grounds,” said Regis de Belenet, the French ambassador to Pakistan, in an interview.

President Musharraf’s meetings with the European Parliament members were part of Pakistan’s efforts towards allaying the Europeans’ apprehensions and persuading them for joint business and investment ventures. He had met the bigguns of the EU, including Commission President Jose Manuel Barraso, Foreign Policy chief Javier Solana, EU Parliament President Josep Borrell and of course the then Belgian Prime Minister. But his most important meeting was with the Union’s Foreign Affairs Committee, which is said to be composed of mostly pro-Indian MPs, strongly in favour of a serious and elaborated engagement with what they call the world’s largest and thriving democracy. Their understanding was that India had the ability of overtaking Japan as the third largest economy in the world in the near future. Chris Patten, former EU Commissioner for External Affairs, once remarked; “If there is a natural partner for Europe in South Asia, then surely it is India.”

The EU Foreign Affairs Committee is a powerful internal body whose recommendations have significant bearing. For example, this committee played a central role in concluding the third Generation Agreement with Pakistan in 2004, after which the EU committed to increase the level of bilateral cooperation, mainly in the fields of science, technology and trade-related matters. The said agreement nevertheless had to come across many turbulent times during the course of formal approval. This was because of the Foreign Affairs Committee’s strong opposition, which wanted to link approval of the improving with the upgradation of human rights and political reforms. But the 9/11 incidents changed many things and Pakistan surfaced as a frontline state in the war against terrorism. The Foreign Affairs Committee was forced to withdraw its demands and allow smooth passage of the third Generation Agreement by the EU Parliament.

Being privy to some such meetings, which took place in Brussels, and a debate on this subject in the European Parliament in Strasbourg, I can share with readers the mistrust and doubts the then foreign affairs committee had about Pakistan’s internal situation, especially after the military takeover in 1999, and its persistent opposition to the signing of the agreement.

After President Musharraf’s interaction with the committee members, things however improved, particularly with regard to EU investments in Pakistan. President Musharraf had made it clear to the committee that Pakistan was an ally and therefore should be treated as such, adding, “We need trade and not aid.” He specifically mentioned two areas where according to him the EU could extend support: one education and another women’s empowerment. He had informed members of the committee that women had 33 percent seats in parliament which, according to him, was a gigantic step towards women’s empowerment in Pakistan. Nonetheless, these two sectors still remain the most neglected areas and despite huge aid, their condition is deteriorating with each passing day. No doubt, 33 percent seats in parliament are occupied by women, but whom actually do they represent? They are in fact a continuation of the same old feudal system, proponents of which take it as their inherent privilege to rule this country.

On the contrary, Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz, during his meeting with Baroness Emma Nicholson, Chairperson of the European Parliament Foreign Affairs Committee, who visited Islamabad in June 2006 in connection with preparing her report on Kashmir, had said that the European Union should play a meaningful role in facilitating a peaceful settlement of the Kashmir dispute, adding that it was hampering the normalisation process between Pakistan and India. Shaukat Aziz also recognised that the EU was a flag-bearer of the independence of nations and human rights in the world and it should play its role in ameliorating the suffering of the Kashmiris. The Nicholson report nevertheless has given birth to new controversies with regard to relations between Pakistan and the European Union. I would dilate, in detail, on that report and its aftermath effects in the later part of this article.

Another factor playing a dominant role in straining of relations between the two sides happens to be the casual attitude of our government functionaries, right from top to bottom. A former European ambassador once shared with me an unseemly situation he and his business delegation came across when they were invited to meet Shaukat Aziz. “We reached the meeting place well on time but were made to wait for about half an hour, and then suddenly the prime minister appeared from a corner and rushed straight to his seat without even shaking hands with any of us. Then during the whole proceedings, he treated us like kindergarten kids and as if we were there to beg for something!” The ambassador said that the delegates took a highly negative impression of this whole episode and decided to have second thoughts about their investment plans.

The story does not end here. The OIC foreign ministers’ meeting held in Islamabad was a show that surprised many, particularly the Europeans the most, when the High Commissioner of the Republic of Cyprus was not even allowed to attend the conference. This is for the first time that a country, invited by the organisers, was disallowed from taking part in the conference proceedings. This happened because of Pakistan’s close relations with Turkey and Turkish Cyprus, which is recognised only by Turkey.

Islamabad and Ankara are tied in strong bonds of relationship and their mutual cooperation on all issues has been excellent, yet it does not mean at all that in this pursuit, diplomatic norms and ethics are shelved. Pakistan duly recognises the Republic of Cyprus and therefore should have allowed its High Commissioner to attend the OIC conference as a distinguished guest like others. Cyprus, as we all know, is a member of the European Union and preventing an EU member from participating in an important event is in no way a judicious step and would certainly cast an adverse impact on Pakistan-EU relations.

(To be continued)

The writer is a bilingual columnist based in Islamabad

http://www.thepost.com.pk/OpinionNew...03180&catid=11
__________________
Time is like a river.
You cannot touch the same water twice,
because the flow that has passed will never pass again.
Enjoy every moment of life.

I have learnt silence from the talkative, toleration from the intolerant, and kindness from the unkind; yet strange, I am ungrateful to these teachers.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

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

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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Religion Of Islam MUKHTIAR ALI Islamiat 3 Friday, April 03, 2020 10:31 AM
Islamic Information safdarmehmood Islamiat 4 Thursday, June 28, 2018 08:09 AM
The Globalization of World Politics: Revision guide 3eBaylis & Smith: hellowahab International Relations 0 Wednesday, October 17, 2007 03:13 PM
What Is The New World Order?? MUKHTIAR ALI International Relations 1 Monday, January 08, 2007 09:39 PM
Hans Morgenthau's "Fourteen Points" Survivor International Relations 0 Sunday, August 06, 2006 02:21 AM


CSS Forum on Facebook Follow CSS Forum on Twitter

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

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