#Pakistan Foreign Policy

[allthecanadianpolitics]

The governments of India and Pakistan attempted to interfere in Canada's federal elections in 2019 and 2021, Canada's spy agency said in documents made public late Thursday night.

In 2021, the government of India had "intent to interfere and likely conducted clandestine activities," including the use of an Indian government proxy agent in Canada, according to an unclassified summary written by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS).

Two years earlier, in 2019, "Government of Pakistan officials in Canada attempted to clandestinely influence Canadian federal politics with the aim of furthering the Government of Pakistan's interests in Canada," CSIS wrote.

The stark assessments are contained in documents that were tabled as part of the federal commission of inquiry into foreign interference. The public inquiry is examining possible meddling by China, India, Russia and others in the 2019 and 2021 federal elections. [...]

Continue Reading.

Tagging: @newsfromstolenland, @vague-humanoid

[putinskremlinqueen4palestine64]

Western leaders don't care about Islamophobia. They condemn Muslim nations while turning a blind eye on USS Liberty. Israel is their number one ally. Israel has a stronghold over the US government. Just take a look at the foreign policy. The Biden administration does not care about Muslims. Yeah, protests for the Palestinians are happening, but that doesn't mean the Biden administration cares for Muslims.

[discoursets]

“Kasuri also gives us a rare insight into the minds of the Pakistan Army, the contribution of the Foreign Office and his warm but complex relationship with President Musharraf. Blending analysis with choice anecdote, Neither a Hawk nor a Dove gives us a comprehensive and revealing account of Pakistan’s politics and the political compulsions of those at the helm.” 🌱

[xtruss]

Kashmir, Five Years On

Fascist, Hindu Extremist, The Butcher of Gujrat And The World’s Most Wanted Criminal Modi’s Iron-Fisted Approach To The Disputed Region Has Left It More Vulnerable To Local And Geopolitical Threats.

— By Anuradha Bhasin | September 19, 2024

Indian security personnel patrol along a street in Srinagar, in Jammu and Kashmir, on August 15, 2024. Tauseef Mustafa/AFP Via Getty Images

Five years since The Fascist, Hindu Extremist, The Butcher of Gujrat and The World’s Most Wanted Criminal Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government stripped Jammu and Kashmir of its autonomous status, the central government’s iron-fisted approach to the region has left it more vulnerable to regional and geopolitical threats.

While Kashmir Valley, which has withstood the brunt of armed insurgency since 1989, continues to simmer with militancy-related violence, the theater of terrorism has now extended into the otherwise peaceful province of Jammu. Since 2019, at least 262 soldiers and 171 civilians have died in more than 690 incidents, including the February 2019 Pulwama terrorist attack. The unsustainable and disproportionate loss of lives underscores the risks to both regional stability and India’s national security.

In 2019, the Modi government revoked Article 370 of the Indian constitution, which granted the state of Jammu and Kashmir its special status, annihilating the contested region’s symbolic autonomy. Concurrently, the central government also imposed an indefinite curfew in the region and used internet shutdowns and arrests to control and suppress the local population. The result was a transformed landscape. Already scarred by militarization, Kashmir became enmeshed in barbed wire.

This undemocratic exercise, though later stamped and endorsed by India’s Supreme Court, has since spurred further legal changes. For example, the local population no longer has access to exclusive protections that previously allowed only permanent residents of Jammu and Kashmir to apply for government jobs and buy property in the state.

In March 2020, the government repealed 12 and amended 14 land-related laws, introducing a clause that paved the way for a development authority to confiscate land and another that allowed high-ranking army officials to declare a local area as strategically important.

Local residents are appalled at the ease with which government agencies can now seize both residential and agricultural lands in the name of development and security—enabling mass evictions and the bulldozing of houses that are disproportionately affecting Muslim communities and small landowners.

Meanwhile, the ecological fallout from introducing massive road and railway networks, coupled with the addition of mega hydroelectricity projects, is polluting riverbeds and causing villages to sink. Since 2019, there has been a lack of local representation which could act as a buffer against massive development projects, most of which now fall under New Delhi’s governance. Meanwhile, the region’s unemployment rate, as of 2023, remains high at above 18 percent, as compared to the national average of 8 percent.

Over the last few years, the Modi government has also squashed dissent in the region by redirecting the military to maintain surveillance and control of the civilian population. According to the Forum for Human Rights in Jammu and Kashmir, over 2,700 people were arrested in the region between 2020 and 2023 under India’s contentious Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and the Public Safety Act. Those arrested include journalists like Fahad Shah and Sajad Gul, human rights defenders like Khurram Pervez, and prominent lawyers like Mian Qayoom and Nazir Ronga.

Modi’s repressive policies have deepened the trust deficit between Kashmiris and the Indian government. The top-down administration has further sidelined local bureaucrats and police officers, further widening the gap between the central government and local ground realities.

All of this has not only pushed the local population into distress, but also jeopardized India’s already fragile relations with its two nuclear neighbors, Pakistan and China.

The Kashmir Conflict, rooted in the 1947 partition of India, has led to three major wars and several military skirmishes between India, Pakistan, and China. And though the region has always been contentious—India controls more than half of the total land, while Pakistan controls 30 percent, and China holds the remaining 15 percent in the northeast region near Ladakh—Modi’s aggressive handling has further provoked its neighbors.

Following the revocation of Article 370, the region was split into two separate union territories—Jammu and Kashmir forming one and Ladakh forming another, with both falling under the central government’s control.

This redrawing of the region’s internal borders, which signaled New Delhi’s assertions of reclaiming the Chinese-occupied territory near Ladakh—as well as India’s increasing tilt towards the United States—resulted in a deadly clash between India and China in 2020 and another one in 2022. Despite diplomatic efforts to resolve tensions over the disputed Himalayan border, New Delhi has accused Beijing of carrying out “inch by inch” land grabs in Ladakh since 2020.

Meanwhile, Pakistan-administered Kashmir has been rocked by mass protests of its own this year, owing to the country’s political and economic crisis, exacerbated in part by the abrogation of Article 370. Those living in Pakistan-administered Kashmir fear that Pakistan may similarly try to dilute the autonomy of the region.

With refugees flooding in from Afghanistan on its west amidst Imran Khan’s standoff with the Pakistani Army, Islamabad has been on edge and looking for diversionary tactics. The deepening of Pakistani-Chinese relations, including military ties, has contributed to a volatile mix.

But Kashmir’s vulnerability has worsened partly because of India’s own tactical blunders, too. The last decade witnessed a spurt in home-grown militancy, but since 2019 the landscape has been dominated by well-trained militants from across the Pakistani border who have access to sophisticated weapons and technology.

Indian security forces, including paramilitaries and the local police, have turned a blind eye to these emerging threats, especially in the twin districts of Rajouri and Poonch along the border with Pakistan. It is in this area that the impact of terror attacks has been most felt.

The region is home to the nomadic Gujjar-Bakerwal communities and the ethnolinguistic Paharis. These groups are parts of divided families straddling the India-Pakistan border, and this shared cultural linkage between the Indian and Pakistani sides has been weaponized in the past by intelligence networks of both countries.

The Indian armed forces have historically relied on the Gujjar-Bakerwal communities for intelligence gathering in part because of their nomadic lives and deep knowledge of the region’s topography. However, since 2019, the evictions of nomads from forest lands, following the amendment of several land-related laws, as well as affirmative actions for Paharis, a rival ethnic group, have led to the disenchantment of the Gujjar-Bakerwals—and an eventual loss of traditional intelligence assets for India.

Another blunder has been the redeployment of troops from Jammu to the border with China in the northeast, following China’s incursions in Ladakh’s Galwan Valley in 2020. This has left Jammu dangerously exposed to militants who have been infiltrating the region from across the line of control on the western side and carrying out their operations with a fair degree of success.

In 2024 alone, Jammu has witnessed numerous attacks which have resulted in the deaths of 16 soldiers and 12 civilians. In June, for example, the region experienced one of its deadliest attacks when militants opened fire on a bus carrying Hindu pilgrims, killing nine and injuring over 30.

Kashmir’s internal politics has the potential to spill over and push the region into disaster. While India has made some significant strides in international diplomacy under Modi, it tends to neglect the neighborhood where the risks to India’s national security remain the highest. Its diplomatic engagement with China comes in fits and starts but diplomacy with Pakistan remains nonexistent, despite the resumption of a ceasefire in 2021. And while India considers the removal of Jammu and Kashmir’s special status an internal matter, Pakistan sees it as a provocation. All in all, there is a dangerous lack of engagement between the two nuclear rivals in South Asia.

In Theory, the ongoing regional elections in Jammu and Kashmir provide a glimmer of opportunity for the people to choose their own local government for the first time in a decade. However, irrespective of who wins the elections, the local leaders will lack the power to enact meaningful change, given that the region remains under the control of New Delhi following its demotion from a state to two union territories.

For instance, Ladakh does not have a legislative assembly, and while Jammu and Kashmir have an elected assembly, the real powers are vested in the hands of a governor, who was appointed to lead the region by the Modi-led central government. As recently as July, the Indian government ruled to further expand the governor’s oversight powers, delivering a blow to local politicians and voters.

Much more needs to be done to change the status quo. Though it remains unlikely, New Delhi must consider meaningful solutions that could assuage some of the political wounds inflicted by the complete erosion of Jammu and Kashmir’s autonomy, including, for example, the restoration of statehood to the region. In order to win back the trust of Kashmiris, the Indian government must reinstate civil liberties and deliver on its promise to provide economic development and jobs.

To improve the region’s safety, Indian agencies must acknowledge their security lapses and repair their broken intelligence networks. And while the Indian security forces must not lower their guard against terrorist activities, terrorism should not be proffered as an excuse when it comes to the normalization of relations in the neighborhood.

Neither Pakistan, nor India can afford the war which is looming over their heads. Diplomatic negotiations, including over Kashmir, must begin with a sense of urgency.

— Anuradha Bhasin, Managing Editor of Kashmir Times and Author of A Dismantled State: The Untold Story of Kashmir After 370. (Argument:

An Expert's Point of View on a Current Event.)

[mossadegh]

Why would the CIA create pro-Islamic, anti-Zionist, anti-imperialist propaganda? To incite Muslims against Premier Mossadegh, of course

The Mossadegh Project

• CIA Documents on Iran | 1951-1979

[weepingfireflies]

People & countries mentioned in the thread:

DR Congo - M23, Cobalt

Darfur, Sudan - International Criminal Court, CNN, BBC (Overview); Twitter Explanation on Sudan

Tigray - Human Rights Watch (Ethnic Cleansing Report)

the Sámi people - IWGIA, Euronews

Hawai'i - IWGIA

Syria - Amnesty International

Kashmir- Amnesty Summary (PDF), Wikipedia (Jammu and Kashmir), Human Rights Watch (2022)

Iran - Human Rights Watch, Morality Police (Mahsa/Jina Amini - Al Jazeera, Wikipedia)

Uyghurs - Uyghur Human Rights Project (UHRP) Q&A, Wikipedia, Al Jazeera, UN Report

Tibetans - SaveTibet.org, United Nations

Yazidi people - Wikipedia, United Nations

West Papua - Free West Papua, Genocide Watch

Yemen - Human Rights Watch (Saudi border guards kill migrants), Carrd

Sri Lanka (Tamils) - Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch

Afghans in Pakistan - Al Jazeera, NPR

Ongoing Edits: more from the notes / me

Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh/Azerbaijan (Artsakh) - Global Conflict Tracker ("Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict"), Council on Foreign Relations, Human Rights Watch (Azerbaijan overview), Armenian Food Bank

Baháʼís in Iran - Bahá'í International Community, Amnesty, Wikipedia, Minority Rights Group International

Kafala System in the Middle East - Council on Foreign Relations, Migrant Rights

Rohingya - Human Rights Watch, UNHCR, Al Jazeera, UNICEF

Montagnards (Vietnam Highlands) - World Without Genocide, Montagnard Human Rights Organization (MHRO), VOA News

Ukraine - Human Rights Watch (April 2022), Support Ukraine Now (SUN), Ukraine Website, Schools & Education (HRW), Dnieper River advancement (Nov. 15, 2023 - Ap News)

Reblogs with Links / From Others

Indigenous Ppl of Canada, Cambodia, Mexico, Colombia

Libya

Armenia Reblog 1, Armenia Reblog 2

Armenia, Ukraine, Central African Republic, Indigenous Americans, Black ppl (US)

Rohingya (Myanmar)

More Hawai'i Links from @sageisnazty - Ka Lahui Hawaii, Nation of Hawai'i on Soverignty, Rejected Apology Resolution

From @rodeodeparis: Assyrian Policy Institute, Free Yezidi

From @is-this-a-cool-url: North American Manipur Tribal Association (NAMTA)

From @dougielombax & compiled by @azhdakha: Assyrians & Yazidis

West Sahara conflict

Last Updated: Feb. 19th, 2024 (If I missed smth before this, feel free to @ me to add it)

[risingpakistan]

بیرونی قرضوں پر انحصار سے نجات کیسے؟

پاکستان اپنے قیام سے ہی غیر ملکی قرضوں پر بہت زیادہ انحصار کرتا آ رہا ہے۔ اس رجحان میں گزشتہ چند سالوں کے دوران خطرناک حد تک اضافہ ہوا ہے۔ اس وقت پاکستان کے قرضوں کا حجم مجموعی قومی پیداوار کے 90 فیصد تک پہنچ چکا ہے جو کہ مالیاتی رسک اور قرض کی حد بندی ایکٹ 2005ء کی مقرر کردہ 60 فیصد حد سے بھی زیادہ ہے۔ بیرونی قرضوں کے حجم میں اضافے کی وجہ سے گزشتہ بیس سال کے دوران قومی ترقیاتی اخراجات کا حجم 20 فیصد سے کم ہو کر 12 فیصد پر آ گیا ہے جس کی وجہ سے صحت اور تعلیم جیسے اہم شعبوں پر حکومتی سرمایہ کاری مسلسل کم ہو رہی ہے۔ اس طرح یہ کہا جا سکتا ہے کہ ماضی میں ترقی کی شرح میں اضافے کیلئے قرض لینے کی پالیسی کے قومی معیشت پر مثبت اثرات مرتب نہیں ہوئے۔ تاہم یہ بھی حقیقت ہے کہ بیرونی قرضے پاکستان جیسے ترقی پذیر ممالک کو تجارتی خسارے کو سنبھالنے اور اہم شعبوں کو فنڈ دینے کیلئے مالی معاونت کا بنیادی ذریعہ ہیں۔ اس صورتحال میں نئی حکومت کیلئے جاری معاشی بحران سے نمٹنے کیلئے ضروری ہے کہ وہ مختلف ترقیاتی اشاریوں اور جمع شدہ غیر ملکی قرضوں کے درمیان روابط کا باریک بینی سے تجزیہ کرے۔

اس طرح کی جانچ پڑتال ملک کے معاشی بحرانوں سے نمٹنے اور پائیدار ترقی کو یقینی بنانے کیلئے موثر حکمت عملی وضع کرنے کیلئے ضروری ہے۔ ہمارے لئے یہ موازنہ اس لئے بھی ضروری ہے کہ پاکستان کی معیشت اس وقت جس معاشی بحران سے دوچار ہے اس کی بڑی وجہ بیرونی قرضوں کا بڑھتا ہوا حجم ہے جو معاشی استحکام کیلئے خطرہ بن چکا ہے۔ قومی معیشت پر بیرونی قرضوں کے بوجھ کی ایک بڑی وجہ پاکستان کی آبادی میں ہونے والا تیز رفتار اضافہ بھی ہے۔ اس خطرے کا اندازہ اس بات سے لگایا جا سکتا ہے کہ آبادی کے حجم کے لحاظ سے پاکستان دنیا کا پانچواں بڑا ملک ہے جبکہ معاشی لحاظ سے پاکستان دنیا میں 46ویں نمبر پر ہے۔ اس کے برعکس امریکہ، چین اور بھارت ناصرف آبادی کے اعتبارسے دنیا کے تین بڑے ممالک ہیں بلکہ معاشی لحاظ سے بھی وہ دنیا کی بڑی معاشی طاقتیں ہیں۔ یہ حالات معاشی اور مالیاتی نظم و نسق میں خامیوں کی نشاندہی کرتے ہیں۔ واضح رہے کہ دیگر ترقی پذیر ممالک بھی بیرونی قرضوں کو مالیاتی خسارہ پورا کرنے اور ترقیاتی منصوبوں کو فنڈ دینے کیلئے استعمال کرتے رہے ہیں۔ یہ قرضے براہ راست اور بالواسطہ طور پر تجارت، افراط زر، شرح مبادلہ، کھپت، سرمایہ کاری، جی ڈی پی کی نمو اور قرضوں کی ادائیگی جیسے معاشی عوامل پر اثر انداز ہوتے ہیں۔

اس وقت پاکستان جس معاشی بدحالی کے دہانے پر کھڑا ہے اس کا تقاضا ہے کہ بیرونی قرضوں پر انحصار کم کر کے فنڈنگ کے ذرائع کو متنوع بنا کرپائیدار ترقی کو فروغ دینے اور قرض کے انتظام کی صلاحیت کو بہتر بنانے پر کام کیا جائے۔ علاوہ ازیں کرنسی کی قدر میں کمی، افراط زر، سیاسی عدم استحکام اور متضاد اقتصادی پالیسیوں جیسے عوامل کو بھی بہتر بنانے کی ضرورت ہے۔ اس حوالے سے حکومت کو غیر ملکی قرضوں پر کم انحصار کو ترجیح دیتے ہوئے طویل مدتی قرض کے انتظام کی ایک جامع حکمت عملی وضع کرنی چاہئے۔ یہ حکمت عملی موجودہ قرضوں کی ادائیگی، نئے قرضوں کے جمع ہونے کو روکنے اور فنڈنگ کے ذرائع کو متنوع بنانے پر مشتمل ہونی چاہئے۔ قرض لینے کی لاگت کو کم کر کے، قرض کی پائیداری کو بڑھا کر، سرمایہ کاروں کے اعتماد و شفافیت کو فروغ دے کر اور اقتصادی ترقی کو سہارا دے کربیرونی قرضوں کو لاحق خطرات کو کم کیا جا سکتا ہے۔ اس کے لئے آئی ایم ایف اور ورلڈ بینک جیسے روایتی عالمی مالیاتی اداروں سے ہٹ کر غیر ملکی سرمایہ کاری کو راغب کرنا، بین الاقوامی منڈیوں میں بانڈز جاری کرنا، مالی امداد کے متبادل راستے تلاش کرنا مخصوص قرض دہندگان پر انحصار کم کر سکتا ہے۔

چین، بھارت اور جنوبی افریقہ جیسے ممالک فنڈنگ کے ذرائع کو متنوع بنا کر عالمی مالیاتی اداروں کے قرضوں سےنجات حاصل کر چکے ہیں۔ علاوہ ازیں چین کی جانب سے مختلف کرنسیوں میں قرض کے اجراء نے کرنسی کے اتار چڑھاو کے اندیشے کو کم کیا ہے اور سرمایہ کاروں کی منڈیوں کو وسیع کیا ہے۔ ہندوستان کی طرف سے مختلف کرنسیوں میں بانڈز جاری کرنے سے قرض لینے کی لاگت کم ہوئی ہے۔ جنوبی افریقہ کی جانب سے سکوک بانڈز کے اجراء نے اپنے سرمایہ کاروں کی بنیاد کو متنوع بنانے کے لیے اسلامی مالیاتی اصولوں کی تعمیل کرتے ہوئے فنڈنگ کے نئے ذرائع کی اہمیت کو اجاگر کیا ہے۔ بیرونی قرضوں پر معاشی انحصار کم کرنے کے لیے طویل المدت بنیادوں پر ادارہ جاتی اصلاحات کی بھی اشد ضرورت ہے۔ ایسا کرنے میں ناکامی مستقبل کی نسلوں کو بیرونی قرضوں کے بوجھ تلے مزید دبانے کے مترادف ہو گی جسے کسی طرح بھی قومی مفاد میں قرار نہیں دیا جا سکتا ہے۔ اس سلسلے میں ادارہ جاتی اصلاحات کے علاوہ غیر ملکی سرمایہ کاری کو راغب کر کے اور برآمدات پر مبنی صنعتوں کو فروغ دے کر قرضوں کے بوجھ کو کم کرنے میں کامیابی حاصل کی جا سکتی ہے۔ علاوہ ازیں سرکاری عملے کی تربیت اور ٹیکنالوجی میں سرمایہ کاری کے ذریعے بیرونی قرضوں کے استعمال میں شفافیت کو یقینی بنایا جا سکتا ہے۔ ہمیں یہ بات یاد رکھنی چاہئے کہ پاکستان کی خوشحالی کا راستہ پیداواری صلاحیت اور برآمدات میں اضافے، توانائی کی لاگت کو کم کرنے اور زراعت میں سرمایہ کاری کرنے میں مضمر ہے۔

کاشف اشفاق 

بشکریہ روزنامہ جنگ

[kesarijournal]

Unraveling India’s BRICS and BRI Conundrum

In a world where geopolitics often resembles a complex game of 3D chess, India finds itself pondering its next move on a board set by two ambitious projects – the expansion of BRICS and China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Imagine a chessboard, not with mere black and white squares, but a vibrant mosaic of global interests, strategic rivalries, and the occasional pawn aspiring to be a queen.…

[teachanarchy]

What The U.S. News Media Isn’t Saying About Pakistan

[iamadarshbadri]

The Cost of Peace in India-Pakistan Relations

Since their independence in 1947, India-Pakistan relations have sustained mutual animosity towards each other. The bloody partition that caused the death of over a million and displaced over 15 million Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs across borders has left a lasting imprint on the two countries. India and Pakistan fought three major wars in 1947, 1965, and 1971, and the 1999 Kargil conflict. Since…

[allthecanadianpolitics]

Foreign Secretary Syrus Qazi has said that Pakistan was not “surprised” by Canada’s revelations that the Indian government was involved in the killing of Sikh leader Hardeep Singh Nijjar in British Columbia in June this year.

Qazi, who is accompanying caretaker Prime Minister Anwaar-ul-Haq Kakar on a five-day visit to the US to attend the 78th UNGA session, stated this during a media briefing at the Pakistan mission in UN on Wednesday.

“India's terrorism in Canada is not a matter of surprise for Pakistan,” the top diplomat remarked.

The foreign secretary said Pakistan did not find anything unusual in the Canadian PM's allegations as Pakistan had arrested a serving Indian naval officer Kulbhushan Yadav — an operative of the Indian Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) from Balochistan in March 2016.

The Indian spy was later sentenced to death after he was found guilty of espionage and terror activities to destabilise Pakistan. [...]

Continue Reading.

Tagging: @politicsofcanada

[pakistan-affairs]

آخر امریکہ چاہتا کیا ہے؟

امریکہ کے منصب صدارت پر متمکن 80 سالہ صدر جو بائیڈن نے گزشتہ دنوں پاکستان کے ایٹمی پروگرام کے متعلق ایک متنازعہ بیان دے کر ملک میں ایک نئی بحث کا آغاز کر دیا۔ جو احباب پاک امریکہ تعلقات کی تاریخ سے واقف ہیں ان کے لیے اس بیان میں کوئی نئی بات نہیں۔ 1950 کی دہائی میں سرد جنگ کے دوران پاکستان نے روس کے بجائے امریکہ کا انتخاب کیا۔ پاکستان کے پہلے وزیر اعظم قائد ملت لیاقت علی خان نے روس کے بجائے امریکہ کا دورہ کر کے واضح طور پر امریکی اتحادی ہونے کا اعلان کیا۔ لیکن پاک امریکہ تعلقات کی تاریخ دھوپ چھاؤں کی مانند ہی رہی۔ کبھی پاکستان امریکی توقعات پر پورا نہ اترا تو کبھی امریکہ نے پاکستان کی امیدوں کے برعکس اقدامات کئے۔ تاہم پاکستان کی 75 سالہ تاریخ میں امریکہ واحد ملک ہے جو کسی نہ کسی حوالے سے پاکستان کے سیاسی اور دفاعی معاملات میں شریک کار رہا۔ 1954 سے لیکر اب تک مختلف مواقع پر امریکہ نے پاکستان کو امداد فراہم کی۔

ایک زمانہ وہ تھا کہ جب گندم بھی امریکہ سے آتی تھی اور گندم اٹھانے والے اونٹوں کے گلے میں’’تھینک یو امریکا ‘‘کا ٹیگ لگا ہوتا تھا۔ امریکہ کی پاکستان سے محبت کا یہ عالم تھا کہ امریکہ نے اس گندم کے پیسے ڈالر کے بجائے روپوں میں وصول کرنے کی سہولت دی اور ساتھ ہی یہ بھی پیش کش کر دی کہ وہ یہ رقم امریکہ کو ادا کرنے کے بجائے پاکستان میں ہی ترقیاتی منصوبوں پر خرچ کریں۔  1954 میں دونوں ممالک کے درمیان پہلا دفاعی معاہدہ ہوا۔ 1954 سے 1964 تک امریکہ کی جانب سے پاکستان کو 70 کروڑ ڈالر فراہم کیے گئے۔ 1980 کی دہائی پاک امریکا تعلقات کے نئے دور کے آغاز کی دہائی کہلائی جا سکتی ہے۔ 1979 میں روس نے افغانستان پر حملہ کیا تو پاکستان نے اس جنگ کو اپنی جنگ سمجھ لیا۔  ابتدا میں صدر جمی کارٹر نے پاکستان کو 40 کروڑ ڈالر کی پیشکش کی جسے پاکستان نے ’’مونگ پھلی‘‘ کہہ کر مسترد کر دیا۔ 1981 میں صدر ریگن نے پاکستان کو ڈیڑھ ارب ڈالر کی امداد کی پیشکش کی جسے قبول کر لیا گیا۔ 1980 سے 1990 کے درمیان امریکہ نے پاکستان کو 2 اعشاریہ 19 ارب ڈالر کی فوجی معاونت فراہم کی جبکہ معاشی ترقی کے لیے 3 اعشاریہ 1 ارب ڈالر بھی فراہم کیے۔

اس دور میں مسلح افواج کو جدید ہتھیاروں سے لیس کیا گیا۔ امریکہ نے پاکستان کو 40 ایف 16 طیاروں سمیت جدید ہتھیاروں کی ایک بڑی کھیپ بھی مہیا کی۔ اس وقت کے صدر پاکستان، جنرل محمد ضیاء الحق نے امریکی عزائم کو بھانپتے ہوئے پاکستان کے ایٹمی پروگرام پر تیزی سے عملدرآمد شروع کیا۔ مختلف حکومتوں کی تبدیلیوں کے باوجود پاکستان کے ایٹمی پروگرام پر کسی حکمران جماعت نے سمجھوتا نہ کیا۔ پاکستان کا ایٹمی پروگرام ذوالفقار علی بھٹو کا منصوبہ تھا جسے بعد میں آنے والے تمام حکمرانوں نے تیز رفتاری کے ساتھ جاری رکھا۔ یہاں تک کہ جب بھارت نے ایٹمی دھماکے کئے تو خطے میں طاقت کا توازن برقرار رکھنے کے لیے اس وقت کے وزیراعظم میاں محمد نواز شریف نے 28 مئی 1998 کو ایٹمی دھماکے کر کے پاکستان کے ایٹمی قوت ہونے کا اعلان کیا۔ اس وقت کے امریکی صدر کلنٹن نے دھماکے رکوانے کے لئے میاں نوازشریف کو متعدد فون کئے۔ ان پر دباؤ ڈالا۔ 

مبینہ طور پر رقم دینے کی بھی پیشکش کی۔ تاہم انہوں نے پاکستانی عوام کی امنگوں کے مطابق ایٹمی دھماکے کر دئیے۔ پاکستان کا ایٹمی پروگرام ہمیشہ امریکہ کی آنکھوں میں کھٹکتا رہتا ہے۔ ہر امریکی حکمران اس حوالے سے مختلف نوعیت کے بیانات دے کر اپنے خبث باطن کا اظہار کرتا رہتا ہے۔ امریکی صدر جو بائیڈن کا حالیہ بیان بھی اسی سلسلہ کی ایک کڑی ہے۔ پاکستان کی سیاسی قیادت نے بجا طور پر امریکی صدر کے بیان کو مسترد کیا ہے اور پاکستان کے ایٹمی پروگرام کے محفوظ ہونے کے عزم کا اعادہ کیا ہے۔ وزیر خارجہ بلاول بھٹو زرداری کی جانب سے بجا طور پر یہ کہا گیا کہ اگر ایٹمی پروگرام کے غیر محفوظ ہونے کی بات کرنی ہے تو اس کا سب سے پہلا نشانہ تو بھارت ہونا چاہیے جس کے میزائل پاکستان میں آکر گرے جب کہ پاکستان کے ایٹمی پروگرام کے حوالے سے اقوام متحدہ کے کمیشن نے اس کے انتظامات کو عالمی معیار کے عین مطابق قرار دیا۔ میں سمجھتا ہوں کہ امریکی صدر کا بیان ان کے اس ذہنی دباؤ کی عکاسی کرتا ہے جس سے وہ دوچار ہیں۔

ڈیموکریٹک کانگریشنل کمپین کمیٹی کے استقبالیے میں امریکہ کے صدر جو بائیڈن کا خطاب وائٹ ہاؤس کی ویب سائٹ پر شائع ہوا۔ جس میں بائیڈن کے حوالے سے لکھا گیا کہ’’ میرے نزدیک شاید دنیا کے خطرناک ترین ممالک میں سے ایک، پاکستان ہے۔ اس کے پاس موجود جوہری ہتھیار غیر منظم ہیں۔‘ ''امریکی صدر کے یہ الفاظ بدلتے ہوئے عالمی سیاسی منظرنامے کوذہن میں رکھ کر ادا کیے گئے۔ روس یوکرائن جنگ کے دوران روس کی مسلسل بالادستی اور چین کی عالمی سفارتکاری نے امریکی صدر کو شدید ذہنی دباؤ کا شکار کر دیا ہے۔ عالمی منظر نامے پر امریکہ کے کئی پرانے اتحادی اسے چھوڑ رہے ہیں۔ کئی نئے بلاک امریکی طاقت کو چیلنج کرنے جا رہے ہیں۔ روس یوکرین تنازعات کے دوران اقوام متحدہ میں پاکستان سمیت متعدد ممالک کے غیر جانبدار رویے نے بھی امریکی صدر کو جھنجھلا کر رکھ دیا ہے۔ اس امر میں کوئی دوسری رائے نہیں کہ پاکستان کا ایٹمی پروگرام محفوظ ہاتھوں میں ہے۔

پاکستان کی مسلح افواج دنیا کی بہترین پروفیشنل افواج میں شمار ہوتی ہیں۔ پاکستان کی خارجہ پالیسی، توازن اور سمجھ داری کے ساتھ چلائی جا رہی ہے۔ بعض اپوزیشن جماعتوں کی جانب سے دفتر خارجہ پر کی گئی تنقید بلا جواز معلوم ہوتی ہے کیونکہ پاکستانی وزارت خارجہ نے ذمہ دارانہ کردار ادا کیا ہے۔ اس بیان کا خوش آئند پہلو یہ ہے کہ پاکستان کی تمام سیاسی جماعتوں نے یک زبان ہو کر ایٹمی پروگرام کے تحفظ کے عزم کا اظہار کیا اور امریکی صدر کے بیان کو نہ صرف غیر ضروری قرار دیا بلکہ اس کی مذمت بھی کی۔ سابق وزیراعظم عمران خان نے اپنے بیان میں صدر بائیڈن سے کئی سوالات پوچھے جبکہ صف اول کے دیگر سیاسی رہنماؤں کی جانب سے مثبت اور ذمہ دارانہ بیانات انکے ذمہ دار فرد ہونے کی گواہی دے رہے ہیں۔ اس سے یہ بات بھی واضح ہو گئی ہے کہ آنے والے دنوں میں نئی عالمی صف بندی کی جائے گی جس کیلئے نئے کردار کے تعین کیلئے پاکستان کی سیاسی اور عسکری قیادت کو سر جوڑ کر بیٹھنا ہو گا تاکہ ایسی پالیسی ترتیب دی جا سکے جو بدلتے ہوئے عالمی تقاضوں کے مطابق پاکستانی مفادات کا تحفظ کر سکے۔

پیر فاروق بہاو الحق شاہ

بشکریہ روزنامہ جنگ

[steveyockey]

Measuring purely by confirmed kills, the worst mass murderer ever executed by the United States was the white supremacist terrorist Timothy McVeigh. On April 19, 1995, McVeigh detonated a massive bomb at the Murrah federal building in Oklahoma City, killing 168 people, including 19 children. The government killed McVeigh by lethal injection in June 2001. Whatever hesitation a state execution provokes, even over a man such as McVeigh — necessary questions about the legitimacy of killing even an unrepentant soldier of white supremacy — his death provided a measure of closure to the mother of one of his victims. “It’s a period at the end of a sentence,” said Kathleen Treanor, whose 4-year old McVeigh killed.

McVeigh, who in his own psychotic way thought he was saving America, never remotely killed on the scale of Kissinger, the most revered American grand strategist of the second half of the 20th century.

The Yale University historian Greg Grandin, author of the biography Kissinger’s Shadow, estimates that Kissinger’s actions from 1969 through 1976, a period of eight brief years when Kissinger made Richard Nixon’s and then Gerald Ford’s foreign policy as national security adviser and secretary of state, meant the end of between three and four million people. That includes “crimes of commission,” he explained, as in Cambodia and Chile, and omission, like greenlighting Indonesia’s bloodshed in East Timor; Pakistan’s bloodshed in Bangladesh; and the inauguration of an American tradition of using and then abandoning the Kurds.

No infamy will find Kissinger on a day like today. Instead, in a demonstration of why he was able to kill so many people and get away with it, the day of his passage will be a solemn one in Congress and — shamefully, since Kissinger had reporters like CBS’ Marvin Kalb and The New York Times’ Hendrick Smith wiretapped — newsrooms. Kissinger, a refugee from the Nazis who became a pedigreed member of the “Eastern Establishment” Nixon hated, was a practitioner of American greatness, and so the press lionized him as the cold-blooded genius who restored America’s prestige from the agony of Vietnam.

Not once in the half-century that followed Kissinger’s departure from power did the millions the United States killed matter for his reputation, except to confirm a ruthlessness that pundits occasionally find thrilling. America, like every empire, champions its state murderers. The only time I was ever in the same room as Henry Kissinger was at a 2015 national-security conference at West Point. He was surrounded by fawning Army officers and ex-officials basking in the presence of a statesman.

[xtruss]

Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan

Exclusive: Pakistani Leader Imran Khan Says Taliban Can Be America's Partner For Peace

— Published: September 24, 2021 | By Tom O'Connor (Senior Writer, Foreign Policy & Deputy Editor, National Security and Foreign Policy)

In a candid and wide-ranging interview, Newsweek Senior Foreign Policy Writer Tom O'Connor conversed with Prime Minister Imran Khan of Pakistan, a nation that straddles Afghanistan and China both geographically and strategically. Khan discussed his goals and fears for his country and the region, and explained why he believes America must remain engaged in Afghanistan.

This conversation, conducted via email, offers a rare glimpse into one of the world's most troubled regions through the eyes of the leader of one of its most important and influential countries.

Khan rose to fame as a cricket star who led Pakistan's national team to its first World Cup victory in 1992. After his sporting career, he began philanthropic work raising funds for medical facilities and research, and established the populist Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (Pakistan Movement for Justice) in 1996. Through this party, he capitalized on popular dissatisfaction over corruption, religious discrimination and economic stagnation over the course of the next two decades to rise to the forefront of national politics, securing positions in parliament and rising to prime minister in 2018.

For Americans, the leading concern in the region is that the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan in August could empower militant groups seeking to lash out abroad. Khan says he shares those anxieties. But his greatest worry doesn't stem from the Taliban, with which Islamabad has fostered close ties. Rather, it's a slew of other outlawed organizations whose aims are more immediately focused on wreaking havoc in the region.

When it comes to China, the Pakistani leader rejects President Joe Biden's hard line as "unnecessary." Khan sees not a rival but a partner, both for his nation and potentially for the U.S. as well. And at a time when the U.S. is increasingly embracing Pakistan's top rival, India, he emphasizes that Pakistan remains a ready and willing companion in counterterrorism and other endeavors.

Cooperation between the U.S. and all major powers in the region is the only way to avoid catastrophe, Khan says.

This transcript has been lightly edited for clarity.

U.S. troops sit on a wall as Afghans gather on a roadside near the military part of the airport in Kabul on August 20, 2021, hoping to flee from the country after the Taliban's military takeover of Afghanistan. Wakil Kohsar/AFP Via Getty Images

Newsweek: What do you feel will be the immediate impact for both Pakistan and the region as a result of the U.S. military withdrawal from Afghanistan?

Khan: Following the U.S. withdrawal, Afghanistan faces a difficult transition from the past 20 years of a US-NATO supported governance structure. The Taliban appear to have gained control over the entire country, for the first time in 40 years. There is, therefore, a hope that security can be established throughout Afghanistan. A peaceful Afghanistan will be beneficial for Pakistan, opening up possibilities for trade and development projects.

However, Afghanistan faces a humanitarian crisis due to the Covid pandemic, conflict, and the failures of the previous governments. This must be addressed as a priority. Also, we need to work with the authorities in Kabul to neutralize terrorists' groups present in Afghanistan, particularly the TTP [Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan, the country's largest armed opposition group], which has been responsible for thousands of terrorist attacks against Pakistan.

Do you think U.S. credibility and influence in Asia will be affected by the move? Are countries looking to alternative security partners such as China, or might countries seek to cling to a U.S. presence, given the chaos that resulted amid the withdrawal?

For its part, the United States has divested a liability—its costly military intervention—which, as the U.S. President has himself admitted, was not a strategic priority for the United States. Both Pakistan and the United States need to prevent terrorism emanating from Afghanistan. To this end, we should cooperate to help in stabilizing Afghanistan by addressing the humanitarian crisis in that country and supporting its economic recovery. Of course, there may be an immediate negative impact in the U.S. due to the chaotic nature of its evacuation from Kabul. The U.S. has withdrawn voluntarily from Afghanistan. Therefore, I don't think that the U.S. withdrawal will erode U.S. credibility globally in the long term.

As for China, if China offers economic support to Afghanistan, it's natural that the Afghans will accept it. The Taliban have welcomed the prospects of being incorporated in the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor and establishing close relations with China.

However, the U.S. too can play an important and positive role in Afghanistan by providing humanitarian assistance, contributing to Afghanistan's recovery and reconstruction, and cooperating in containing terrorism from Afghanistan. During the Doha peace process, the U.S. established a working relationship with the Taliban. There was direct cooperation between the U.S. and the Taliban during the evacuation process. I believe that the U.S. can work with a new government in Afghanistan to promote common interests and regional stability.

The Taliban on Tuesday announced a caretaker Cabinet stacked with veterans of their harsh rule in the late 1990s and subsequent 20-year battle against the U.S.-led coalition and its Afghan government allies. Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid speaks during a press conference in Kabul, Afghanistan Tuesday, Sept. 7, 2021. Muhammad Farooq/AP Photo

Does Pakistan intend to recognize the new Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan as it did during the previous Taliban takeover, and what kind of developments would you like to see in Afghanistan before establishing such formal diplomatic ties?

The Taliban have established an "acting government" and will no doubt announce a more permanent governance structure later. Pakistan is obliged to engage with the de-facto authorities in Afghanistan to prevent an economic and humanitarian collapse in this neighboring country and the resurgence of terrorism.

Once a government in Kabul establishes control over the entire country, it would legally qualify for recognition. However, Pakistan would prefer to reach a decision regarding recognition of the new government together with other neighbors of Afghanistan.

Among the most pressing concerns for the international community right now is the potential for militant and separatist groups to take advantage of the unrest in Afghanistan to plot attacks against other countries. One example has been attacks against Chinese citizens in Pakistan. Does Pakistan share these concerns, and how do you plan to address them?

There is indeed a plethora of terrorist groups which, taking advantage of the conflict in Afghanistan, located themselves in that country. Pakistan is extremely concerned about the threat of terrorism from Afghanistan, particularly from the TTP, which has conducted thousands of attacks against Pakistan from the territory of Afghanistan with the sponsorship and support of certain hostile intelligence agencies.

The TTP has also been responsible for most of its attacks on Chinese citizens working in Pakistan, perhaps with the support of the East Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM). Pakistan will work with the authorities in Afghanistan to halt TTP and other terrorism from Afghanistan.

While the U.S. is withdrawing from Afghanistan, it has focused more closely on defense ties with other regional countries, especially India. Does this concern Pakistan, given the tensions that exist in Kashmir and India's membership in the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue?

Pakistan desires to promote a comprehensive, not selective, approach to neutralizing terrorists' threats from Afghanistan. We will cooperate with the international community, including the U.S., in this effort.

We understand that the U.S. military support to India is designed to contain China, including through the so-called Quad. Pakistan has its own views on the credibility of this strategy. In our view, India will never confront China, especially not to serve U.S. strategic objectives. India's purpose in arming itself so massively is to establish its hegemony in South Asia and specially to threaten and coerce Pakistan. Seventy percent of all Indian military capabilities are deployed against Pakistan, not China. Therefore, Pakistan has legitimate concerns about the provision of the most advanced weapons and technology to India. Apart from increasing the likelihood of a conflict, an arms race in South Asia will divert both India and Pakistan from investing in socio-economic development and the welfare of their people.

"The current U.S.-China rivalry is unnecessary," says Prime Minister Imran Khan. China's President Xi Jinping, right, shakes hands with Pakistani leader Khan before a meeting at the Great Hall of the People on April 28, 2019 in Beijing, China. Madoka Ikegami-Pool/Getty Images

Pakistan has built a close strategic partnership with China. Is there concern that Pakistan could be caught up in the broader U.S.-China rivalry?

Pakistan's relationship with China is 70 years old. It covers economic, technological, military and other sectors. Throughout this time, Pakistan has simultaneously maintained a close relationship with the United States as well. Indeed, it was Pakistan which first brought the U.S. and China together in 1971. We see no reason for our strategic partnership with China to erode our ability to continue a cooperative relationship with the United States. We believe that the current U.S.-China rivalry is unnecessary and contrary to the interests of both these global powers. Cooperation between them would be beneficial to both and is essential to address the myriad global problems we face—the COVID pandemic, the economic crisis in the developing world and the existential threat of climate change. We hope that both Beijing and Washington will reach the same conclusion in the near future.

The Shanghai Cooperation Organization Council of Heads of State met on September 17. What message did you have for them as it relates to the role of Pakistan and the SCO states in addressing Afghanistan and other regional issues?

We attach importance to the SCO as a regional organization grouping the countries in the Asian heartland. At the SCO Summit, I presented Pakistan's viewpoint about the situation and presented the possible way out to address the challenges posed to the region due to the current situation in Afghanistan.

If India adopts a positive position in relations with Pakistan, the SCO could serve as a useful platform to promote stability and prosperity across this vast area of the Asian Continent.

U.S. President Joe Biden delivers remarks on the end of the war in Afghanistan in the State Dining Room at the White House on August 31, 2021 in Washington, DC. Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

There have been concerns over the pace of progress in China-Pakistan Economic Corridor projects. How has Pakistan's economic alignment with China benefited the country, and do you expect other countries to follow Pakistan's example, or might President Joe Biden's "Build Back Better World" prove a challenge to Belt and Road Initiative projects?

China has already invested around 25 billion dollars under the umbrella of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). Additional projects worth 20 billion are under implementation. Projects worth a further 25 billion dollars are in the pipeline. The COVID-19 pandemic may have slowed the implementation of some projects. However, the CPEC's objectives are being achieved on schedule, and their implementation will be accelerated in the future.

The United States and G7 initiative—"Build Back Better World"—has been welcomed by Pakistan. We do not see this as being in competition with China's "Belt and Road Initiative." It is an initiative which can contribute to building the infrastructure and other projects which are so vital to enable developing countries to achieve their development objectives and the Sustainable Development Goals.

Supporters of the pro-Taliban party shout anti-US slogans at a protest in Quetta on May 2, 2011, after the killing of Osama Bin Laden. Banaras Khan/AFP, Getty Images

This year marked the 10th anniversary of Osama bin Laden's killing on Pakistani soil, and the world just marked the 20th anniversary of 9/11. How would you evaluate the successes and failures of the United States' "War on Terror" over the course of the past two decades?

Al-Qaeda, the organization responsible for 9/11, has been decimated in Afghanistan, largely due to Pakistan-U.S. counter terrorism cooperation over the past 20 years.

However, the root causes of terrorism—the underlying conflicts and disputes, and economic and social injustice—have not been addressed. As a result, the ideology and narrative of terrorist groups have proliferated across several regions of the world, including Africa, and new terrorist organizations have emerged.

In addition, anti-Muslim extremist movements and terrorist groups have emerged in several parts of the world. We see the strongest manifestation of such Islamophobia in India's extremist Hindutva ideology, which has unleashed state-sponsored terrorism against the Muslims of occupied Jammu and Kashmir and the 200 million Indian Muslim "minority."

The world needs a new and comprehensive global counterterrorism strategy to address these new manifestations of terrorism.

Longer term, what do you think the impact of the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan will be on the region? If you look out, say, five years from now, what do you think the most profound difference will be—and what wild card development might change that outlook?

Four decades of war and conflict has had a devastating impact on Afghanistan's economy, society, and polity. There is a ray of hope today to end the "long war" and bring peace, stability and development to Afghanistan and the broader region.

The last thing Pakistan wants is more conflict and turbulence in Afghanistan.

After 20 years of military intervention in Afghanistan, the international community cannot exonerate itself from its responsibilities towards the people of Afghanistan. It must stay engaged with Afghanistan.

It is our hope that Afghanistan will be stabilized, through humanitarian help, economic support, and connectivity and infrastructure projects, and that the U.S., China and Russia will all contribute to pacifying and reconstructing Afghanistan.

On the other hand, if rivalry persists within Afghanistan, and between regional states and global powers, it could lead to a new round of violence and conflict in Afghanistan. This would create new flow of refugees, escalate the threat of terrorism from Afghanistan, and destabilize the entire region.

Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan, In An Exclusive Newsweek Interview.

[sayruq]

Pakistan:

Strongly condemning Israel's assault on the city of Rafah in the southern Gaza Strip, Pakistan said Monday that Tel Aviv is in violation of measures ordered by the UN's top court last month.

The Maldives:

The Maldives on Monday also strongly condemned Israel's "threats to launch a full-scale invasion" on Rafah city. "The forced displacement and inhumane attacks against innocent Palestinians and the obstruction of humanitarian assistance by the Israeli occupation forces is against international laws and regulations and tantamount to war crimes," the said a Foreign Ministry statement from the capital Male.

Afghanistan:

The interim Taliban administration in Afghanistan also joined the chorus against the Israeli attacks on Rafah. "The continuation of brutality of Zionist forces on Rafah city will cause a major disaster and make the ongoing crisis spiral out," the Foreign Ministry in Kabul said.

China:

China’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson said that Israel’s actions in Rafah harm civilians and violate international law. China opposed and condemned Israel’s Rafah actions and it is closely following the developments in the Rafah area. It further urged Israel to stop its military operation as soon as possible and warned of a ‘serious humanitarian disaster’ if Israel continues its ground offensive in Rafah.

Venezuela:

In a statement, the Venezuelan Foreign Affairs Ministry condemned "the actions taken by the Government of Israel within the framework of the expansion of the military offensive in the Gaza Strip toward Rafah, in the far south. "The statement added that this "Israeli Zionist plan aims to continue implementing its criminal and expansionist policy in this area that is home to more than one million four hundred thousand displaced Palestinians."

[tanadrin]

The thing about 9/11 especially is that the thing that prevented another 9/11 from happening was 1) locking the cockpit door on airliners and 2) passengers realizing that if hijackers took over a plane they might die. Nothing the US did as a matter of military or foreign policy in the immediate aftermath mattered one bit, except in a negative direction. Indeed, when the US was in a position to capture bin Laden in Afghanistan they flubbed it—they wouldn’t kill him until years later, in Pakistan, in the kind of operation that didn’t require occupying a whole country.

Even from a totally ruthless utilitarian perspective, militarized responses to terrorism are a huge waste of money and life.