Reflections on Today’s World of Politics

President Trump and young looking Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan met this week at the White House. Trump is master to transform rhetoric into reality as he did to North Korean leader. Both were trying to overcome the historic indifference and prejudice to bridge the ever widening gaps between the reality and perceptions of relationship. If nation’s relationships are based on the simplicity of truth, wisdom, national interest and integrity, one could foresee political compromises as a virtue to foster friendship.  Trump’s body language signaled some positive overtures as America looks for foes and friends to end its occupation of Afghanistan. Pakistan is central to this strategy to facilitate a peaceful and face-saving outcome for America militarism in Afghanistan. Truth is unchanging as it was in 2001 that George W. Bush – an emotionally disturbed and intellectually imbalanced president embarked on military intervention to invade Afghanistan to strengthen his standing before the American masses after the 9/11 events. Truth is the same today as it was almost two decade earlier that America and its NATO allies displaced and killed millions for no other reason except a preposterous and distorted version of warmongering against the poor and helpless people of Afghanistan who had nothing to do with the 9/11 tragedies.  When false assumptions go unchallenged, it breeds more reactionary forces to entrench in violence and destruction.

Bertrand Russell and Alfred Einstein Manifest (1955) called “a war with H bomb might possibly put an end to the human race.”  In 2017, America tested the Mother of Bombs in Afghanistan as if it was an American state. This is how America and NATO destroyed the ancient and peaceful culture of Afghanistan. All wars are dreadful and end up in calamities with ripple effects for centuries to come. It is an evidence of tragic human abnormality that American, Afghan and Pakistani could not unfold humanitarian approaches to resolve the enlarged conflict in Afghanistan. Now, Trump and Imran Khan have come to understand its reality and wisdom of reciprocal forbearance that could usher a just a viable settlement in Afghanistan. But no one should underestimate the prevalent optimistic skepticism linking Pakistan and Afghanistan to a new American policy and practice for change in southwest Asia.

If America has the political, moral and intellectual capacity to honor its commitments, it could resolve the Afghan problems via a peaceful agreement with the people of Afghan and ensuring a legitimate elected system of governance for Afghanistan. It is not the question whether Talaban or President Ashraf Ghani’s party should govern Afghanistan, but the people of Afghanistan must have a participatory and final say in making the peace deal.  Rights of the people and political fairness must be the guiding principles to conclude a peace pact between the US, Pakistan and Afghanistan.  Military interventions never deliver peace and social harmony but destroy all substance that should support the societal progress and future-making.

Imran Khan should be careful to assess Pakistan’s own weaknesses and strength and learn from the past as to what mistakes were made in military collaboration with the US scheme of things in the region. The USAID gimmick or the loans from the IMF are not the viable strategies for national progress and development. Pakistan must strengthen its domestic socio-economic and political productivity, advancements and integration. Its progress is a key to international cohesion and services to the neglected masses. Khan does not appear to have expertise in political change, economic productivity and nation-building. Political corruption is a cancer in the society. He should encourage and engage new generation of educated and intelligent and honest people to participate for building new public institutions, new systems of participatory governance and political accountability in all domains of affairs. Imran Khan will be wise to enlarge his circle of governance by enlisting educated and proactive visionary men of ideas and strategic experts to deliver services to the people and ensure a progressive Pakistan.

Trump to Mediate Kashmir between India and Pakistan – Will He?

As a friendly overture to softening relationship with Pakistan, Trump offered to mediate the Kashmir dispute between India and Pakistan.  Immediately, Indian PM’ spokesperson denied Trump’s assertion of PM Modi ever asking him to discuss Kashmir with Pakistan.  In politics, argument and rebuttals could be pondered with varied logical scales. There is a contrast between what India claims to be and what Pakistan stands for and what the people of Kashmir valley aspire for. If we imply canons of rationality, it could clarify the core of fault lines between tense relationships of India and Pakistan.  If India and Pakistan are sincere to find a cure to the overwhelming cruelty, military tyranny and violations of the basic rights of the people of Kashmir, the global community will view them as leaders of peaceful future-making

For a change, Trump has sensed the rationality of restoring normal ties between the two nuclear rivals. It could help him to gain some numbers in political popularity as he did on North Korea – an unthinkable probability making it thinkable reality for normalization of mutual relationship. Both India and Pakistan and given their competing claims cannot deny the fact that Kashmir is the focal issue to a normal future for the masses in both countries. War is madness if there are people of reason to think about the societal future and wellbeing of the people. Kashmir was never part of India even under the British Raj. In 1947 and 1949 at the UN Security Council Resolutions, the people of Kashmir were promised a referendum (plebiscite) to decide about their future whether to join India or Pakistan.  It is not the domestic territory of India or Pakistan to undo the truth about Kashmir. There is no sense to shed human blood on a precarious experiment whether India administers Kashmir or Pakistanis do. The conflict must be resolved by addressing the humanitarian problems and sufferings of the people of Kashmir. If Trump along with Russia and China could persuade both India and Pakistan to resolve the problem, it could open-up new threshold of peace and harmony in Southwest Asia.

America Needs a Safe Exist from Afghanistan.

For further reading click bellow.

Poor Pakistani Nation, Rich Army

Pakistani Army’s involvement in private businesses has raised some questions in public’s mind. It has taken special significance because Army now own large chunk of the economy and may be impacting private sector economy. Some estimate its empire well over $100 billion. Some questions being raised in public;

Should Army be involved in private businesses at all? After all Army’s charter is to defend the country and not run the businesses.

Should Army’s businesses be taken over by the current Government of Pakistan and auctioned to public?, so that Army could pay full attention to defend the country and not running the businesses.

In 2016 Pakistan Senate was informed about 50 commercial entities run by the Army.

ISLAMABAD: The Senate was provided on Wednesday details of commercial entities being run by various wings of the armed forces in the country.

In a written reply to a question asked by Senator Farhatullah Babar of the Pakistan Peoples Party, Defence Minister Khwaja Asif informed the house that there were nearly 50 “projects, units and housing colonies” functioning in the country under the administrative control of Fauji Foundation, Shaheen Foun­dation, Bahria Foundation, Army Welfare Trust (AWT) and Defence Housing Authorities (DHAs).

According to the details provided in the reply, eight DHAs were established in major cities. These DHAs — mostly created through ordinances — are in Karachi, Lahore, Rawalpindi-Islama­bad, Multan, Gujranwala, Bahawalpur, Peshawar and Quetta.

Besides, there are 16 “projects/units” functioning under the AWT, 15 under the Fauji Foundation and 11 under the Shaheen Founda­tion.

The house was informed that Bahria Foundation was not administrating any housing colony in Pakistan, “however, an offshore tolling type LNG project is under its consideration”.

Bahria Foundation not administrating any housing colony, Senate told

The projects/units being run by the AWT are:

1. Two stud farms in Pakpattan and Okara
2. Army Welfare Sugar Mills, Badin
3. Askari Project (shoe and woollen), Lahore
4. Army Welfare Mess and Blue Lagoon Restaurant, Rawalpindi
5. Real estate comprising three small housing schemes in Lahore, Badaber and Sangjani
6. Askari General Insurance Co Ltd Rawalpindi
7. Askari Aviation Services, Rawalpindi
8. MAL Pakistan Ltd Karachi
9. Askari Guards (Pvt) Ltd, head office (HO) in Rawalpindi

• Askari Fuels (CNG) with HO in Rawalpindi

11. Askari Seeds, Okara
12. Askari Enterprises, Rawalpindi
13. Fauji Security Services (acquired from Fauji Foundation), HO in Rawalpindi
14. Askari Apparel, Lahore
15. Askari Lagoon, Faisalabad.

The projects/units under Fauji Foundation are:

1. Fauji Cereals
2. Foundation Gas
3. Fauji Fertiliser Company Ltd
4. Fauji Cement Co Ltd
5. Fauji Oil Terminal and Distillery Co Ltd
6. Fauji Kabirwala Power Company Ltd
7. Foundation Power Co (Dharki) Ltd
8. Askari Cement Ltd
9. Askari Bank Ltd

• Foundation Wind Energy (I and II) Ltd

11. Noon Pakistan Ltd Lahore
12. Fauji Meat Ltd
13. Fauji Fertiliser Bin Qasim Ltd
14. Fauji Akbar Partia Marine Terminal Ltd, HO in Karachi.

A company under the name of Pakistan Maroc Phosphore SA was set up in Morocco by the Fauji Foundation in 2008.

Similarly, the projects, units and housing colonies under the administrative control of Shaheen Foun­dation, which is a trust of the Pakistan Air Force, are:

1. Shaheen Airport Services
2. Shaheen Aerotraders
3. Shaheen Knitwear
4. Shaheen Complex, Karachi
5. Shaheen Complex, Lahore
6. Shaheen Medical Services
7. Hawk Advertising
8. Fazaia Welfare Education School System
9. SAPS Aviation College

• Air Eagle Aviation Academy

11. Shaheen Welfare Housing Scheme, Peshawar.

The Senate was told that Shaheen Foundation was established in 1977 under the Charitable Endowment Act 1890 “to promote welfare activities for the benefit of serving and retired PAF personnel, including civilians and their dependents, and to this end generate fund through industrial and commercial enterprises”.

Poor Nation, Rich Army

https://www.asiatimes.com/2019/03/article/pakistani-army-moves-into-the-oil-business/

https://www.dawn.com/news/1272211

https://www.aljazeera.com/focus/pakistanpowerandpolitics/2007/10/2008525184515984128.html

posted by f.sheikh

( Interesting talk at Pakistan Institute of International Affairs by a former governmental security official. He lists three security challenges for Pakistan, Mullah, Army and Militants).

On Saturday, July 20, 2019, former Federal Secretary, Inspector General of Police and Director General FIA, Mr. Tariq Khosa, visited The Pakistan Institute of International Affairs, where he addressed the members of the Institute on Internal Security and Governance Challenges confronting Pakistan. He started his speech by explaining that he does not have any political affiliations or any personal agenda. He expressly stated that his lecture did not intend to offend any segment of society. While discussing terrorism and internal security challenges he focused on three ‘Ms’, (i) Mullah; by which he meant religious extremists, who by design deliberately promote a mindset that proliferates violence, (ii) Military; who he said are the big part of the problem, yet they are a bigger solution to those issues, and (iii) Militants, in shape of non-state actors who have eroded the authority of the state. He spoke about the Karachi Operation which started under the command of the Karachi police force, with the support of Intelligence Bureau, in September 2013. 

He explained that since 2013, terrorist incidents in Karachi have declined by 70%. Subsequently, 373 terrorists were killed and 521 were arrested from 2015 till 2018. Unfortunately, the police faced the major brunt of this operation, with a total of 450 police officers who were martyred, 163 in 2013 which reduced to 6 in 2018. Mr. Khosa recounted that it was not the Pulwama Incident which made us change our strategy on the use of non-state actors, but that the decision was taken along with the present government in January 2019, emphasizing that there would not be any non-state actor in the future. However, the efficiency of this policy is yet to be seen. He further explained how the Police Reforms were constituted by the Supreme Court, in a committee of serving IGs as well as nine retired IGs who had served in all the provinces and have come up with a seven-point agenda to reform governance issues.

The reforms gave priority to the concerns of the public against the police. Hence, in 116 districts of the country the police have complaint mechanisms, with the Sindh police mechanism being the most efficient. On Friday, July 19 2019, a briefing was given by the all serving IG’s to the Chief Justice, in which stats of the last two months show that there have been 77,000 complaints that were redressed out of which 57000 were redressed to the satisfaction of the police. This is a huge success for the police, otherwise these cases go to the courts. This improvement allowed 11% reduction in the number of people who go to courts and allowed another 20% reduction in the matters against police going to high court. The new task is improvement of police investigators.

Upon talking about the case of national security he reminded the audience of Pakistan’s national objective which was based upon pursuing social justice through peace and security, as stated by the country’s founding father Muhammad Ali Jinnah. However, Mr. Khosa said that we have lost sight of our national purpose and have ended up becoming a national security state, which will always dominate at the expense of human security and development. Following these concerns, he said that Pakistan does not have a national security policy. Hence, he proposed six points on national security agenda:

1. State needs to get over its insecurity complex,
2. State must abandon support for militant jihadi groups,
3. Rules of law that guarantees human rights,
4. Social justice, issue of have and have nots,
5. National harmony can only be achieved through tolerance,
6. Salience of institutions: get over messiah syndrome.

When answering one of the questions, Mr. Khosa made points regarding the Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA) and the Baloch Republic Army (BRA) stating that their power has broken-down as their leaders fled abroad to London and Geneva. The power has now shifted from the sardars and the main stake holders of Balochistan to the middle-class youth who are now being approached and brought forth by the state to the negotiating table.

When he was asked to elaborate on the The Pashtun Tahafuz Movement (PTM), he said that it is a grassroots movement that was mishandled by the state. The movement has genuine concerns but there is a small faction in the PTM that wants to resort to violence and the state has the right to deal with those who challenge the writ of the state. 

When questioned about the Kulbhushan case, Mr. Khosa claimed that Pakistan and India have been issued a balanced verdict. He emphasised on how there should be a mature dialogue through backdoor diplomacy.

He concluded by reiterating that the National Security Parliamentary Committeeshould be activated and how now is the time to repent for our mistakes and to move forward. He believes in a better future for Pakistan and is hopeful.

Radicalisation, alienation and belongingness – these are the main themes of Fatima Bhutto’s new novel, The Runaways. The novel traces the lives of three young people – Anita, Monty and Sunny – who escape their lives in Pakistan and run away to Iraq during the ascent of the Islamic State.

Fatima Bhutto is the author of a book on poetry, two works of non-fiction, including her memoir Songs of Blood and Sword, and now, two works of fiction. In an interview with The Wire, she talks about why she was drawn towards the lives of radicalised young people, and why she believes they “need to be treated with compassion before they make these terrible mistakes.”

The main theme of your book is radicalisation. Was it the sudden rise of ISIS that drew you to the subject – or was it developments closer to home, in Pakistan, because of which so many Pakistanis have suffered?

Fatima Bhutto: I write because I am disturbed by something enough that it doesn’t let go of me. I am 36 years old, so I remember a time before the ‘war on terror’ had subsumed everything – when the colour of my passport or my religion wasn’t a ticking threat to most people. But a generation of young people have come of age under this oppressive shadow.

Pakistanis have certainly suffered. What can you say to the fathers and mothers of those boys whose blood covers this country? What can you say to Aitzaz Hasan’s family? He was killed protecting 2,000 fellow students from a suicide bomber, using his body as a shield. I am heartbroken that such a sacrifice is paid by the young and the innocent over and over again.

The West doesn’t understand the pain of the non-western world. They have constructed a completely false narrative about radicalism, which conveniently excuses their wars, their occupations, from any role in its creation. You write a novel for many reasons, these are just a few of the things that were on my mind when I sat down to start.

The three protagonists come from different economic and religious backgrounds. Do you believe that a rich Muslim teen today is just as prone to Islamic radicalisation as a poor Christian girl like Anita?

Fatima Bhutto: I wouldn’t call it ‘Islamic’ radicalism at all. Look at the world today – radicalism isn’t the exclusive property of one people or one religion. Young people are vulnerable to anger and violence all over the world.

Radicalism is a reaction spurred by nationalism more than any religious belief – studies have shown this to us again and again. A University of Chicago professor studied every case of suicide terrorism in the early 2000s and found that they were motivated by political beliefs, not religious ones. Look at the 28-year-old terrorist who killed fifty people in New Zealand – it was politics and his hateful interpretation of nationalism that motivated his violent actions.

The stories of your three main characters are very similar to that of Shamima Begum, the British teenager who chose to join the Islamic State. Many in the UK opposed her right to return, saying she didn’t deserve any form of amnesty. In the ‘Runaways’, Sunny is aware of the extreme nature of his decisions, but voluntarily chooses the same path that Shamima did. What do you think is the right way to deal with these young people?

Fatima Bhutto: Look, Shahmima Begum was born in Britain, raised in Britain, educated in Britain and radicalised in Britain. Britain is a part of her journey towards the catastrophic decision she made to run away.

How can it wipe its hands off her? She is a citizen and she has rights. They have a responsibility to try her if she has committed a crime and to rehabilitate her and understand why this happened in the first place.

How is a 15-year-old allowed to board an international flight without a passport? Where were the adults, the authorities to ask, ‘Where are you going?’. I understand she has expressed regret, and she has lost three children before they could walk and talk – I think she has suffered the incredible error of her choices.

These young people, lonely and angry enough to turn against the world, need to be treated with compassion before they make these terrible mistakes. In Sunny’s case in ‘The Runaways’, it’s not the first choice he makes. He tries to find a place, a community that will absorb and understand him but he doesn’t find it. That’s partly why he makes his terrible choice.

Sunny’s incapable local Imam, who fails to see the signs, Anita’s poverty due to the structure of capitalism, and the West’s ‘war on terror’ (described through one character’s arguments)— are these the main reasons that radicalise young people today?

Fatima Bhutto: I think they are a huge part of why young people are so vulnerable today. It’s not religion. That’s what the talking heads in the West keep telling us but they have no experience of what it means to be a Muslim, let alone any actual understanding of Islam.

The West’s war on terror has been hypocritical and it’s been phenomenally bloody. Look at any Western country today – what are they talking about? Migration. They’re terrified of outsiders, but why? These are countries that colonised the world for hundreds of years – hundreds – and now they are completely destabilised by some of those people coming to their shores to live and work?

Full article

posted by f. sheikh