An award-winning journalist has presented strong evidence that the Obama administration lied repeatedly and extensively about the events that led to Osama bin Laden’s assassination.
The post Five Fast Facts You Need to Know On the Anniversary of Osama Bin Laden’s Death appeared first on The Free Thought Project.
The world is watching the conflict in the Kashmir region of the India/Pakistan border with bated breath. Not receiving much attention in the mainstream media, is the war breaking out right now on the other side of the globe.
Just last week, Pakistan declared it was “worried” about India’s drone technology, and now the Pakistani military has declared they’ve shot down an Indian drone.
According to The Express UK, the Islamabad military issued a statement yesterday declaring that the craft had been shot down after violating Pakistan airspace. “Pakistan Army troops shot down an Indian spy drone while it violated LoC in Chirikot Sector. The drone has been taken over by Pakistan Army troops. This is 4th drone which has been shot down by Pakistan Army troops in last one year,” the statement read.
This comes just one day after Chinese president Xi Jinping flexed his military muscle in the area of Doklam, a retired lieutenant general from the Indian Army’s Special Forces has claimed. “But war is very much in the realm of reality, and India must be prepared to fight and can ill afford to let its guard down on either the Pakistani or the Chinese front. India must prepare for a two-and-a-half-front war,” said Prakash Katoch.
While Americans fight on social media over whose rights should be taken away and dope up on their antidepressants, other nations are gearing up for a horrific war. Mohammad Faisal, the Foreign Office spokesman for Islamabad, displayed heightened concerns in a weekly media briefing. “India’s development of drone technology is worrying when seen in the larger context of its buildup and expansion of military capabilities in the conventional and non-conventional domains, which are subjecting regional strategic stability to increasing strain.”
As confrontations between the two nuclear-armed nations continue to rise, Pakistan pointed the finger at New Delhi last week for committing 400 ceasefire violations in contested areas. Pakistan has vowed to seek revenge on India for their aggression, while New Delhi points the finger at Pakistan.
As the world quietly goes about their business, Pakistan has vowed to get revenge on India after an attack. The tensions between the two nations are quickly spiraling out of control leading many to wonder if World War 3 will break out in the area soon.
According to the Express UK, the devastating attack from India along the contested border known as the Line of Control (LoC) as tensions between the two South Asian nations flare, a retired soldier has claimed. The LoC splits the region of Kashmir, with Pakistan owning one side and India, the other. The region of Kashmir has been contested by both countries for decades causing high levels of tensions between the neighboring states.
Fayaz Ahmad, a politician from the Kashmir region of India, stated that announcements were made over some loudspeakers on the Pakistan side of Balakote that have declared acts of “retaliation” will take place. “They said that India has killed many of our soldiers, we will take revenge for it after we bury our dead today. People are advised to take safety precautions,” said Ahmad.
Another resident in the region, Naseer Ahmad, spoke of “bombs exploding” and bullets being fired in the midst of heavy shelling. “All one could hear was the sound of bullets hitting tin or bombs exploding. The firing continued from morning till evening. We could see smoke from the hills around us. We are stressed. We don’t know what will happen when it will stop,” said the resident.
On Sunday New Delhi said that Pakistan had been “punished” for its “misadventure”, according to Brigadier Y.S Ahlawat of the Indian Army. “In a befitting reply, the Indian Army has retaliated accurately with heavy fire on the Pakistani posts which were involved in ceasefire violations,” Ahlawat said.
Although India claimed that they were responding to aggression from Pakistan, an Indian resident in the area of the violation insisted that New Delhi started firing on its neighbor first. “The firing started from our side and then the Pakistanis also opened fire,” said the Indian resident.
But both sides have been accused of engaging in violations to the ceasefire that is supposed to be in agreement along the contested border. Both sides also accuse the other of regularly violating the ceasefire agreement in the hotly contested area of the LoC. Late last month, Pakistan terrorist groups were accused of “conspiring to wage a war” against India.
Tensions between the two nations have led to actual confrontations and actions, sparking fears that World War 3 is just around the corner. Since February 22, the two South Asian nations have exchanged fire from both guns and mortars that have forced an estimated 2,600 residents in five villages to desperately flee areas of rising tensions. India recently disclosed that it was forced to evacuate “over 36,000” people from other areas along its border as ceasefire violations between itself and its neighbor continue to mount.
While people in the United States eat Tide Pods and come up with ways to destroy the rights of others, war is breaking out around key parts of the world and most are unaware. And history has shown everyone that once a war breaks out, the US war machine can’t help but make sure they add fuel the fire.
The state of bilateral relations between the US and Pakistan that used to be one of the most faithful allies of Washington, remains in a rather sorry state after Trump’s insulting New Year’s tweet, that left Islamabad thoroughly outraged. Specifically, Trump chose to make his first post in 2018 about Pakistan, noting that:
The United States has foolishly given Pakistan more than 33 billion dollars in aid over the last 15 years, and they have given us nothing but lies & deceit, thinking of our leaders as fools. They give safe haven to the terrorists we hunt in Afghanistan, with little help. No more!
However, the scandal didn’t stop just there, as the head of the press service of the Department of state Heather Nauert slammed Islamabad with allegations that it wasn’t doing enough to put an end to the spread of terrorism. According to this official figure, from now on Pakistan must “earn” the financial support that the West was providing it to keep terrorists at bay. In turn, the sitting United States Ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley rushed to clarify that the withdrawal of any support that Pakistan was getting was in no way connected to its decision to support the UN General Assembly resolution condemning Washington’s unilateral decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. However, you can’t really hide an elephant in plain sight, as it’s obvious that Washington got mad at Pakistan for its commitment to the defense of its fellow Muslims at the international stage. One can recall how Nikki Haley would send out a total of 180 letter of intimidation in late December in bid to force sovereign states into changing their positions on the issues of Jerusalem.
The Pentagon specified that Washington froze at least 900 million dollars allocated to Pakistan for it to be able to carry on its anti-terrorist operations. This explanation was given on 5 January, by the official representative of the office of military cooperation of the Pentagon Patrick Evans, commenting on the decision of the administration of President Donald trump to suspend aid to Islamabad in the field of security.
According to Evans, this decision affects the support provided along the lines of the Pentagon through the Fund support coalition (FPC), while specifying that the US Congress has allocated 900 million dollars to Pakistan, however it wouldn’t receive this sum now. In addition, the United States decided to withhold 255 million dollars that was promised to Pakistan in the 2016 fiscal year under the foreign military assistance. Those funds were supposed to be spent on the acquisition of American-made weapons.
As a response to such steps Islamabad, that is a principal US ally in Central and South Asia and a nuclear power, has decided to challenge Washington for the first time in the history of bilateral relations. Speaking at the Islamabad Institute of Strategic Studies, Pakistan’s Defense Minister Khurram Dastgir Khan announced that his country is planning to suspended all large-scale military operations conducted together with the Pentagon and American intelligence services. These actions coincided with another demonstrative gesture of Pakistan: the Supreme Court of the Pakistani city of Peshawar “out of medical concerns” decided to release from prison the Sufi Mohammad, the founder and leader of the Pakistani radical group Tehreek-e-Nafaz-e-Shariat-e-Mohammadi, that used to fight invading NATO in Afghanistan in 2001.
In interviews with American media sources, unnamed Pakistani officials point out that Islamabad is planning to close a number of transit routes that are used to deliver American men and equipment to Afghanistan, realizing that there is no real alternative to those . One of the commanders of the Pakistani Air Force also suggested that Pakistan’s airspace could be blocked for American military aircraft, including drones.
In turn, Pakistan’s opposition leader Imran Khan urged the government to reduce the level of Islamabad’s relations with the United States, adding that Pakistan must be in a great hurry to get rid of an excess of US diplomatic, non-diplomatic and intelligence personnel operating in Pakistan in order to establish diplomatic parity in accordance with international legal norms.
In his interview for the Guardian Pakistan’s prime minister, Shahid Khaqan Abbasi declared himself mystified by US threats to cut off funding, saying that US financial assistance was “very, very insignificant” and that Pakistan was “on the forefront of the war on terror. He would add that:
I am not sure what US aid has been talked here,as the aid in the last five years at least has been less than 10 million dollars a year. It is a very, very insignificant amount. So when I read in the paper that aid at the level of 250 million dollars or 500 million or 900 million dollars has been cut, we at least are not aware of that aid.
It should be added that American military assistance to Pakistan first started in 1954 under Eisenhower and lasted for almost eleven years, in which the United States provided over 800 million dollars to Pakistan, averaging nearly 75 million dollars every year. However, in 1965, following an arms embargo imposed on Pakistan, President Lyndon Johnson ended US military aid to Pakistan after the outbreak of the first India-Pakistan war. For the next sixteen years, until 1982, Pakistan received little to no support from the United States.
In recent years, bilateral relations between Washington and Islamabad have been deteriorating rapidly as the Obama administration announced new cuts in the assistance Washington was providing to Islamabad in 2016, depriving the latter of 300 million dollars in aid However, while expressing its dissatisfaction with the level of bilateral cooperation with Islamabad, Washington wouldn’t dare to take really radical steps until this year’s notorious tweets made by Donald Trump.
It’s clear that America’s support over the last six decades has failed to transform Pakistan into an obedient puppet of Washington. In fact, it has made Pakistan more resolute in pursuing its goals. Although Pakistan has weathered previous US aid cuts, each past episode in the bilateral relationship has driven the partnership more towards an irreparable trust deficit. The first event that created a Pakistani distrust of the United States was in 1962 during the Indo-Sino border conflict when the Kennedy administration decided to provide India with military assistance.
This year Pakistan is going to conduct general elections, which is going to be pretty unfortunate for Washington. With the persistent growth of anti-American sentiments that was boosted by the recent statements and actions of the Trump administration, any politician who would dare to make concessions to Washington would be perceived as a “traitor” of national interests.
It is noteworthy that despite the difficulties experienced by the Pakistani economy, according to the estimates of a number of international organizations, the year 2017 has actually become the best one in country’s 70-year history, with the GDP growth nearing 4.7%. This allows us to speak of Pakistan as a state that is not going to be treated as a US client regime anymore, no matter how much pressure the US would try to apply on Islamabad.
Therefore, it is too late to impose financial sanctions against Islamabad, which Washington is up to now. The Islamic Republic has long found its wellbeing in its regional allies, that will help it to compensate any financial losses suffered through Washington’s steps. After the release of the new US strategy on Afghanistan and South Asia, experts began to talk about the fact that the recent actions of Americans and the further cooling of relations with the United States involuntarily pushes Pakistan into the embrace of Russia and China, which in the long term can lead to a change to a radical shift in the balance of forces in the Asian region. Considering that Islamabad needs external assistance, it will be happy to receive it from Moscow and Beijing, which are not in Washington’s fan club these days as well.
Martin Berger is a freelance journalist and geopolitical analyst, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
Posted on January 1, 2018, the President of the USA Donald Trump’s tweet about the mistake of providing Pakistan with American financial aid (more than 33 billion dollars over the last 15 years), which was rewarded with “nothing but lies & deceit,” was a significant news event in the world politics of the recently arrived New Year.
Speaking the next day to reporters, the permanent USA representative to the UN, Nikki Haley, clarified that the American president is considering the possibility of ending financial assistance to Pakistan, which gives “safe haven to the terrorists” the Americans “hunt in Afghanistan.”
To get an explanation on the meaning of Donald Trump’s statement, the American ambassador in Islamabad was summoned to the foreign ministry of Pakistan. The head of the foreign policy department of Pakistan, Khawaja Asif, said that Washington was trying to shift the blame to his country for the failure of its own policy in Afghanistan. Stressing the active participation of Pakistan in the fight against terrorism, he recalled that during the war in Afghanistan, the Americans carried out over 57,800 attacks from bases located in Pakistani territory.
Generally speaking, Donald Trump and Nikki Haley said nothing new or worthwhile. Let us recall that, roughly speaking, the same was also said by Donald Trump on August 21, 2017, when (after a protracted silence) he for the first time ever addressed the exceptionally timely and painful for the USA prospects of the 16 year military adventure in Afghanistan.
It is hypothesized that the current portion of American sharpness towards Pakistan is simply the realization of explicit threats from the very same Nikki Haley towards the countries that on December 18 and 21, 2017 (respectively, in the Security Council and at the UN General Assembly) voted in favor of a resolution denying recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.
It appears, though, that the real reason for another manifestation of USA discontent with Pakistan is of a much more serious nature. It is likely that it was the response to an extremely significant event, which took place on December 26 in Beijing, where the “First Dialogue of Foreign Ministers of the PRC, Pakistan, and Afghanistan” was held. In the joint press release on this occasion a number of points are of significant note, in which:
- representatives of Pakistan and Afghanistan congratulate the Chinese “with the successful conclusion of the 19th Congress of the CPC and fully support the proposed by President Xi Jinping” vision of the future of all mankind;
- readiness to deepen cooperation in a trilateral format is expressed, including cooperation in the framework of the ‘New Silk Road’ project, in the fight against terrorism and security;
- it is stated that the peace process in Afghanistan, “supported at the regional and international levels,” should be conducted with the participation of all parties to the conflict including the Taliban, but it must be ‘headed’ by Afghanistan itself;
- the second meeting in the same composition will be held in Kabul “during 2018.”.
The document contains no hints towards the supposedly negative role of Pakistan in the Afghan conflict. It does not mention the fact of the 16-year military presence in Afghanistan of the main world power that has buried there enormous financial resources and sustained high political costs in the process.
Therefore, the American leadership has all the reasons to be upset. All the more so since Washington planned to hold before the end of the last year its tripartite meeting on the Afghan problem, but in the “USA-Afghanistan-India” format. However, something went wrong and the main geopolitical opponent of the USA clearly stole the initiative in the process of a peaceful resolution to the Afghan conflict.
Judging by the contents of the document cited above, its authors assign to India and the USA a fairly indirect role, speaking about the need to maintain this process at the “regional and international levels”.
The participants in the meeting in Beijing designated as the main initiator and ‘leader’ (once again we lay emphasis on this exceptionally important point) ‘Afghanistan itself’.
We must note, however, the remark made on December 27 at a press conference by the FM of the PRC, Wang Yi, that the establishment of a ‘Chinese-Pakistani-Afghan Dialogue’ is not intended to replace other existing international platforms dedicated to this issue. We add that this is simply impossible. The USA and India are not states which will reconcile with the auxiliary role of some ‘regional and international’ forces in the process of resolving the Afghan conflict.
It should also be borne in mind that Pakistan quite explicitly sees Afghanistan as a strategic rear (‘backyard“) in the confrontation with India. Something which the latter will never agree with, we should add.
The position of the pro-Indian forces is quite strong in the Afghan elite, while the Pakistani-Afghan relations face serious problems (including, for the above reason), which have accumulated over the years. Such problems can hardly be resolved in the course of a single ministerial level event.
Meanwhile, Washington, which in recent years has been expressing a clear preference for the development of relations with India (a tweet by D. Trump was named in the newspaper Indian Express “sweet music” (), does not want to completely sever ties with Pakistan and is not going to give it ‘without a fight’ to be under the full influence of the PRC. This in particular is evidenced by the visit to Islamabad by USA Secretary of Defense James Mattis three days after the scandalous tweet by Donald Trump.
However, the remark by the deputy director of CNN Michael Kugelman about this visit (“Congratulations, Secretary Mattis. You’ve become the latest US official to serve as lead vocalist on a hopelessly broken record, apparently, adequately reflects the current state of US-Pakistan relations.
It seems that the Pakistani train leaving the USA has already gained considerable speed and it will not be easy for Washington to hop onto the last car. An article in the Chinese newspaper Global Times aptly titled ‘Trump tweet draws China, Pakistan closer‘ lists the main components of the rapidly developing China-Pakistan cooperation.
All in all, we can state the main thing: games around the issue of control over the territory of Afghanistan, which have lasted for at least two centuries with different participants, will continue after the Beijing ‘Dialogue’. The latest anti-Pakistani attacks by the USA clearly provoked by the aforementioned event are a testimony to this.
Vladimir Terekhov, expert on the issues of the Asia-Pacific region, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
(ANTIMEDIA Op-ed) Any remnants of the notion that Donald Trump is an enemy of the Deep State and ruling establishment were put to rest over the last two weeks as CIA Director Mike Pompeo echoed the Trump’s foreign policy rhetoric and proudly bragged about having the president’s support, passionately advocating the use of “aggressive” and “vicious” tactics.
On Thursday, Pompeo spoke at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies forum, sounding the alarm on North Korea’s nuclear capabilities. Though he distinguished between the county’s capacity to produce a single weapon versus an entire arsenal, he stressed the need to halt the country’s weapons’ ambitions altogether (like Trump and the media, he ignored the reality the North Korea has expressed its openness to negotiation).
Pompeo also stressed the need for Pakistan to aid in the fight against the Taliban, which has thrived in Afghanistan despite the U.S.’ military presence there for sixteen years and previous troop increases.
More telling, however, were Pompeo’s remarks at the University of Texas-Austin last week when he spoke bluntly about the aggressive power he believes the CIA should wield.
The CIA published the prepared remarks in full.
Opening with the topic of “espionage,” which Pompeo described as “the art and science of running assets and stealing secrets,” he stressed that this was the core of the agency’s activities and asserted it was all done in the name “of collecting foreign intelligence to keep America safe. Period. Full stop.”
After establishing the necessity of espionage (a practice the CIA has bungled in the past), he shared his particularly disturbing perspective on the CIA’s approach to ‘keeping America safe’:
“The second thing you must know is that the CIA, to be successful, must be aggressive, vicious, unforgiving, relentless — you pick the word. We must every minute be focused on crushing our enemies and providing unfair advantage for our diplomats, our military and our president.”
Pompeo not only insisted that the CIA’s success depends on aggression and viciousness but he also openly advocated American exceptionalism to the extent that he was willing to create an unfair advantage, which implies breaking rules or subverting justice to get ahead. This statement came in a speech where he also claimed the CIA adheres to the constitution, plays by the rules, and serves a country rooted in “deeply moral” values.
Despite these platitudes, on Thursday, Pompeo expressed his intention to further radicalize the CIA:
CIA Director Mike Pompeo: "We"re going to become a much more vicious agency" @FDD pic.twitter.com/KZl6vBb98g
— John Hudson (@John_Hudson) October 19, 2017
“We’re going to become a much more vicious agency,” he said.
It is not immediately clear how the CIA could possibly be more vicious than it has since its inception, toppling democratically elected governments; installing brutal dictators; imposing ‘vicious’ torture techniques against captives not charged with crimes; infiltrating the news media to manipulate the American public’s perception of reality; forcing mind-altering drugs on innocent people to learn how to control them; infiltrating domestic activist movements (including black rights and anti-war groups); importing Nazi scientists; and arming radicals in schemes that ultimately put the United States in more danger.
Pompeo appeared to justify his opinion that the CIA must be more ruthless with his perception that the agency acts “with a sense of duty, purpose, and righteous resolve,” claiming last week “we’re a lot more effective because of it.”
While speaking in Texas, he also focused in on a longstanding CIA tradition — demonizing Iran.
In keeping with the CIA’s subversion of the Iranian government — its very first mission was toppling the country’s democratically elected leader and reinstalling an autocratic monarch — Pompeo attempted to demonstrate the agency’s moral righteousness by calling out the Middle Eastern country’s Revolutionary Guard. Claiming their purpose is to “perpetuate tyranny,” Pompeo claimed Iran is the largest state-sponsor of terrorism in the world.
In 2017, there is little debate over whether Saudi Arabia, a U.S. ally, is repressive (as Pompeo claims Iran is) and a source of radical, extremist ideology that contributes to the spread of terrorism. There is also evidence to suggest the Arab government funds ISIS. Though Iran’s oppressive regime undoubtedly supports some terror groups, these practices are eclipsed by the Saudis’. Further, in addition to supporting the Saudis’ radical, autocratic regime, the U.S. (the CIA in particular) is directly responsible for the Iranian government it claims supports terrorism; that government rose to power amid the 1979 revolution that rejected the CIA-installed Shah.
Nevertheless, Pompeo’s vilification of Iran served to justify his belief that “[W]hen espionage is done right—when it’s most successful—it’s inherently aggressive, relentless, and risky,” he also claimed.
He also enthusiastically praised Donald Trump, boasting that “whenever we’ve discussed the challenges the Agency is facing, he has given us what we need, whether it’s funding, authorities, or policy guidance.”
Despite some Trump supporters’ misguided beliefs he would be an “anti-war” president, he has continued wars in Iraq and Afghanistan at the expense of civilians, saber rattled against North Korea and Iran (to his ‘credit,’ he has long-criticized Iran), advocated regime change in Syria, and given free reign to the military to conduct its operations.
Though Trump expressed brief opposition to the agency when it circulated narratives about Russia’s role in the election, it is clear the president amounts to nothing more than a cog in the establishment’s machine — like every other president before him.
In fact, in the Trump era, it appears the CIA will continue its longstanding business as usual, wielding brutal tactics and selling them to the public as vital to keeping them safe.
Tellingly, for all of Pompeo’s talk of American principle and morality, he never once mentioned freedom — opting instead to fearmonger and offer security.
Op-ed / Creative Commons / Anti-Media / Report a typo
In May, 2017 the Prime Minister of India refused to participate in the founding meeting in Beijing of the ambitious Belt-Road Initiative (BRI), the network of high-speed rail and deep water port linkages across the Eurasia land mass. The official reason given was that China had gone ahead with her neighbor state and long-term ally, Pakistan, to begin construction of a China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) without first consulting India. To read the statement of Modi and the Indian government it would seem CPEC was tantamount to a China declaration of intent to invade India. It is worthwhile to look at what the China-Pakistan project actually entails.
In 2015 Chinese President Xi Jinping announced a bilateral agreement with the government of Pakistan to construct a network originating from Kashgar in China’s Xinjiang Province in the far northwest of the country that borders Mongolia, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgystan, Tajikistan and of course, Pakistan. The 3200 kilometers of the CPEC go finally through Pakistan via several infrastructure arteries to Gwadar inBalochistan Province on the Arabian Sea near the border to Iran.
As part of the overall BRI project, CPEC is a strategic corridor—one of six main corridors at present—of China’s grand infrastructure enterprise, an enterprise on a scale never undertaken by any nation until now. Across Pakistan a grid of electric power plants, highways and new ports is being built. A sum of $18 billion investment mainly in coal plants in Pakistan, $10 billion in construction of new modern highways and the rest in port and rail construction was mentioned originally when President Xi Jinping first announced the CPEC in 2015. A new Chinese-built modern deep-water port at Gwadar on the Arabian Sea is a keystone of the project. Since initially proposed, the CPEC has grown now to an estimated $62 billion in scope, a huge infrastructure investment for one of the poorest economies in Asia.
A closer look into the various projects of CPEC reveals the most comprehensive investments in Pakistan’s turbulent history since Lord Mountbatten in 1947 carved the British India into two states—predominately Muslim Pakistan and dominantly Hindu India—as the last Viceroy of India, then promptly retired, leaving behind a calculated tinderbox of geopolitical tensions and conflict.
Energy in center
The major component of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor is dealing with the severe electric power shortfalls across Pakistan. The CPEC calls for creation of 17 priority energy projects. One such project is Sahiwal Coal Power Plant, a$1.7 billion state of the art supercritical coal-fired power project–high-efficiency low-emissions. The plant is environmentally compliant with high thermal efficiency to ensure low fuel consumption, also known as “clean coal.”It began electricity generation in July with a total capacity of 1,320 megawatts (MW), from two units of 660MW each. It was constructed by China’s state-owned Huaneng Shandong and the Shandong Ruyi Science and Technology Group and was finished six months ahead of schedule.
The two Sahiwal power units in Punjab province have already reduced Pakistan’s power deficit by 25%, a major economic boost to the nation’s economic capacity.
The CPEC design is to complete a total of over 12,134 MWor megawatts of electricity-generating capacity by 2019, a major boon to Pakistan’s economy. At present the total electric generation capacity of all Pakistan is 20,000 MW according to Pakistan’s Secretary Water and Power, Mohammad YounisDagha, meaning that in less than two years the Pakistani economy will add more than 60% of new electric generation. This is no minor improvement, it is a qualitative leap forward.
The new plants will be a mix of low-emission coal plants and mainly hydroelectric plants, with an added small contribution from solar and wind generation. Most of the new electric generation capacity will be in Pakistan’s Sindh Province which bordersBalochistan province to the west, Punjab province to the north, the Indian states of Gujarat and Rajasthan to the east, and the Arabian Sea to the south. Sindh, which will get 5,580 MW of new power plants, is where Karachi, Pakistan’s largest city and financial hub is situated.Sindh is location of a large portion of Pakistan’s industry and contains two commercial seaports–Port Bin Qasim and the Karachi Port.
For the rest of the CPEC energy grid up-build, Punjab will get 2,940 MW, Balochistan will be given 1,620 MW, Azad Jammu and Kashmir will be given 1,124 MW and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa will be given 870 MW.
Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan
In Azad Jammu and Kashmir, commonly referred to asAzad Kashmir, a new hydroelectric power station, the Neelum-Jhelum hydro power plant, a “run-of-the-river” power plant,will divert water from the Neelum River to a power station on the Jhelum River. The power station will add a significant 968 MW of electric power. The power station part is 96% complete as of this writing and due to begin operation in January 2018. It’s been funded by a combination of the Neelum Jhelum Hydropower Company, by taxes, bond offerings, and secured loans from a consortium of Chinese banks and from banks from the Middle East. Construction was awarded by the Pakistani government to a Chinese consortium CGGC-CMEC (Gezhouba Group and China National Machinery Import and Export Corporation) for both the power station and a later dam with “pondage” storage reservoir. When completed it will add much needed electric power to the region as well as water storage and land irrigation for agriculture.
Azad Kashmir together with the continguousGilgit-Baltistan is referred to by the UN and other international bodies as “Pakistan-administered Kashmir.” The British deliberately left Kashmir borders undefined as a convenient raw sore, keeping friction between India and Pakistan. De facto since decades, Pakistan-administered Kashmir including Gilgit-Baltistan is part of Pakistan. However, this dispute and the fact that China’s China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, of geographic necessity, flows through Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan is the formal reason Modi’s India decided to stay out of the China Belt Road Initiative, much to India’s future economic loss to be sure.
The enormous hydroelectric power potentials of the beautiful mountainous Gilgit-Baltistan, a region given limited self-governing autonomy by Pakistan in 2009, is impressive. With a population of 1,800,000, it is home to five of the fourteen independent mountains over 8,000 metres (26,247 ft) above sea level.
In September 2009, four years before official announcement of the China New Economic Silk Road as it was initially called, Pakistan signed an agreement with the People’s Republic of China for construction of a 7,000-megawatt dam at Bunji in Gilgit-Baltistan. With growing water supply problems across Pakistan, the once-isolated Gilgit-Baltistan is becoming strategic for the future of Pakistan and for South, West and Central Asia as a trade, water and oil corridor Between Pakistan’s Gwadar Port and China’s Xinjiang.
Clearly one reason Beijing voted to accept both Pakistan and India as full members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization last year was anticipation that collectively within the SCO China, India and Pakistan could peacefully resolve the dispute over Kashmir in the context of mutually beneficial economic infrastructure development from the BRI.
In June, 2017, China informed the Pakistan government thatconstruction of the DiamirBhasha Dam in Gilgit-Baltistan would be a part of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor. In 2006 the Asian Development Bank (ADB) had committed to finance the dam but after ten years of stalling, finally backed out under pressure, stating, after a decade, that it was in “disputed territory,” something that clearly reflected the hidden hand of Washington sabotage.
The $14 billion dam when complete will produce 4500 megawatts of electricity through environmentally clean hydropower generation, and store an extra 8 500 000 acre feet (10.5 km3) of water for the country for irrigation and drinking, and extend the life of Tarbela Dam located downstream by35 years. This willprotect Punjab and Sindh downstream from the high flooding of the River Indus.
Rails, Highways, Ports
For China, today dependent on the vulnerable Straits of Malacca for 80% of its oil imports from Africa and the Middle East, construction of a major oil pipeline from Gwadar port on the Arabian Sea. This year construction of a Gwadar-Kashgar oil pipeline that will carry one million barrel per day (1MMBD) Middle Eastern oil to China, will allow China to shift around 17 percent of its oil import away from the Malacca Strait. The new pipeline is due to complete by 2021. In 2015 the Chinese Overseas Port Holding Company (COPHC) took over operation of the Gwadar Port in a lease for 43 years, and Gwadar Port became a formal link between the overland and the maritime sections of China’s Belt and Road Initiative.
Ongoing expansion of the port under the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor project is estimated at $1.6 billion. It will link northern Pakistan and western China to the deep water seaport. Gwadar will also have a floating liquefied natural gas facility as part of a $2.5 billion Gwadar-Nawabshah segment of the Iran–Pakistan gas pipeline project. Gwadar is only 120 miles from the Iranian border. Construction began in June 2016 on the Gwadar Special Economic Zone, which is being built adjacent to the port. The Chinese government is financing much of the port construction via zero interest loans whereby Pakistan must only repay principal.
Estimates are that the Gwadar oil pipeline to Kashgar in Xinjiang China will cut the shipping cost and transit time to half of the current circuitous 12,000 km sea route. It also avoids the geopolitically risky Malacca Strait. China is also building a major oil refinery at the Gwadar port, giving easy access for doing business with Middle East, Africa and Europe with much shorter time and distance.
Since the Obama Administration proclaimed its foolish “Asia Pivot” military redeployment to encircle China in the South China Sea and beyond, China has prioritized its alternatives for energy and military security in event of a future confrontation with Washington, something not at all inconceivable these days. In his 2017 reconfirmation Senate testimony September 27, Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Joseph Dunford declared, “I think China probably poses the greatest threat to our nation by about 2025.” Since Washington declared its Asia Pivot in 2010 as official military doctrine to contain China, China definitely sees the US as China’s “greatest threat.” I can’t say I blame them given all the mischief the US has been making to isolate China over the past seven years.
A recent study by Beijing’s Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies of Renmin University remarks that the building up of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor will not only be a “huge driving force for the development of China and Pakistan, but also in its stimulation of coordinated economic development by closely linking up Central Asian, South Asian, North African and Gulf countries and regions with the economic, trade and infrastructure connectivity and energy cooperation.”
The BRI and the CPEC prime corridor of the BRI is not about making easier a Chinese invasion of India as some Indian and Washington think tanks claim. It is about intelligent building up the economic space, not bombing it down as Dunford, Defense Secretary Mad Man, sorry, Mad Dog Mattis, and others in Washington advocate.
F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
Over the past year, amid Donald Trump"s crackdown on refugees and illegal immigrants, Canada has emerged as a willing safe harbor for those whose welcomes (and visas) in the US had expired. This past January, in response to Trump"s executive order on immigration, Canada"s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau tweeted “To those fleeing persecution, terror & war, Canadians will welcome you, regardless of your faith,” adding that “Diversity is our strength."
To those fleeing persecution, terror & war, Canadians will welcome you, regardless of your faith. Diversity is our strength #WelcomeToCanada
— Justin Trudeau (@JustinTrudeau) January 28, 2017
Unfortunately, it has also emerged to be Canada"s deadly weakness. Recall that on Sunday, in a rare - for Canada - terrorist incident, a Somali man stabbed an Edmonton police constable late Saturday night before trying to ram a truck into a crowd of pedestrians while being chased by police through downtown Edmonton Saturday night. Ultimately, four pedestrians and the officer were injured when the U-Haul truck being driven by the suspect struck them.
A few days later, we now know that if only Canada had a slightly less porous border with the US, the attempted murder could have been avoided because as Reuters reports, the Somali refugee accused of stabbing an Edmonton police constable on the weekend and running down four pedestrians was ordered to be deported from the United States in 2011 by a U.S. immigration judge.
In July 2011, U.S. Customs and Border Protection transferred the suspected terrorist, Abdulahi Hasan Sharif, into the custody of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement at Otay Mesa Detention Center in San Diego, Calif., according to Jennifer D. Elzea, acting press secretary for the ICE office of public affairs. Two months later, on Sept. 22, 2011, an immigration judge ordered Sharif removed to Somalia. Sharif waived his right to appeal that decision.
However, under the previous administration"s lax regime, Sharif was released on Nov. 23, 2011, on an ICE "order of supervision" due to a "lack of likelihood of his removal in the reasonably foreseeable future," Elzea said in a statement. Sharif failed to report to the ICE enforcement and removal operations centre on his scheduled date, Jan. 24, 2012.
"Efforts by ERO San Diego to locate him were not successful," Elzea said, and since Sharif had no known criminal history at the time of his dealings with ICE, he was a low profile target.
Then, some time in 2012, Sharif crossed the border into Canada Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale said Monday in Ottawa. Goodale said Sharif arrived through a "regular port of entry" and obtained refugee status at the time, adding that - just like in the US - in 2012 immigration officials had no reason to red flag Sharif.
Then, in 2015, a complaint led police to probe Sharif’s alleged extremist ideology, but officers found no grounds for criminal charges after what the Royal Canadian Mounted Police described as an “exhaustive investigation.”
* * *
It"s not known at present whether Sharif made an asylum claim while in the United States. If he did, and that claim was rejected, normally Sharif wouldn"t be able to make a claim in Canada under the Safe Third Country Rule, said Calgary immigration lawyer Michael Greene quoted by CBC. But Canada has made exceptions for minors or people with family in Canada, Greene said. "An asylum seeker or potential refugee claimant, even if they"ve been in the U.S., can still in some cases make a refugee claim here," he said.
A spokesperson for the Office of the Minister for Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada confirmed in an email statement Tuesday that Sharif "entered Canada from the United States through a regular Port of Entry in 2012 and was found to be a refugee later that year. "According to U.S. authorities, he was not detained for criminal activity," the spokesperson added.
"In general it is to be noted that only individuals who are inadmissible, including for serious criminality, would be ineligible to make an asylum claim. Being detained for immigration purposes in another country would not prevent someone from being able to make an asylum claim in Canada."
* * *
Fast forward to this week, when Sharif, who faces 11 charges including five counts of attempted murder, made a brief first appearance Tuesday in an Edmonton courtroom wearing an orange jail uniform. At his court appearance, Sharif had bruises on his forehead and cheek that Edmonton police said resulted during two vehicle crashes on Saturday night. A Somali interpreter helped him during the proceedings.
He had a Somali interpreter, although he did not speak. He occasionally looked down or clasped his hands in front of him and still bore facial bruises that police say he sustained while evading capture. A community leader, Mahamad Accord, who did not speak to Sharif but learned about him from the local Somali community, said Sharif was from a Somali ethnic minority and little known in the community.
Sharif’s lawyer, Chady Moustarah, said he had stepped in on short notice to help someone without representation but that the accused would have to find another lawyer going forward. Sharif remains in custody until his next court appearance, scheduled for Nov. 14.
* * *
Will the terrorist incident be a wake up call to Canada? It appears not: Canada"s Public Safety Minister Goodale said that events in Edmonton over the weekend in no way indicate that Canada"s screening process needs to be enhanced, or that the system failed.
Let us recall that for many years, Pakistan has been indirectly included in the management of the protracted conflict in Afghanistan, from where refugees, drugs and weapons flow. Islamabad believes that the civil war in Afghanistan, one side of which is supported by the United States, is destabilizing both the country and the region.
Since June 2014, Pakistani generals have been carrying out large-scale military operations aimed at destroying both foreign and local militias, both in the border zone of the Pashtun tribes in Afghanistan and in the interior of the country, particularly in the metropolitan area of Karachi and the Punjab province. As a result, by 2017, a large proportion of the militants had been “squeezed out” through Hindu Kush in Afghanistan.
At the same time, the federal army is actively engaged in the infrastructure development projects along the border line: Existing checkpoints have been strengthened, additional observation towers have been established, the boundary line has been fenced, and a visa regime has been introduced.
The recently announced “updated” US strategy in Afghanistan and South Asia clearly aims to compel Pakistan to do more in its view in the fight against terrorism. This includes diplomatic, military and financial components. US Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson has stated that Pakistan has changed its status, and from now on, the US viewed Islamabad not as a non-bloc strategic ally, but simply as an ally. As stated by the State Department, sanctions are being planned to restrict the development of Pakistan’s nuclear program to “prevent the weapons of mass destruction from falling into the hands of militants.” In 2017, calls were already being made in Washington to declare Pakistan a “terror-sponsoring state.”
As early as the spring of 2017, the US denied Islamabad a funding of USD 350 million, accusing it of inadequate action in the anti-terrorist campaign.
Following its strategy in Afghanistan, Washington is forcing United States troops to carry out military strikes against terrorists in the interior and southern provinces of Afghanistan. The surviving militants are then squeezed out by the American coalition forces into the southern provinces, and further, across the Durand Line, into Pakistan. In the border areas of Pakistan, in and around the alleged places of shelter for terrorists, the United States is planning to conduct military operations with the support of air strikes of American drones.
Islamabad has given a symmetrical, comprehensive response to Washington’s latest accusations of providing sanctuary for terrorists without recognizing them, and has put forward a series of demands on the United States regarding Afghanistan, thus excluding India’s leading role in the region.
Pakistan has expressed its regret that the United States has ignored the huge number of victims (more than 60,000 killed and wounded), as well as the economic losses incurred, which are estimated at USD 123 billion. In spite of this, Islamabad has confirmed that it will continue its global efforts to combat terrorism, believing that this phenomenon is a threat to all the peoples of the world, and that it will not allow its territory to be used in a war against any country.
Islamabad connects the threat to peace and security to the conflict in Jammu and Kashmir that remains unresolved to date, which, in the view of Islamabad, is the main obstacle to peace and stability in the region.
In actuality, Pakistan defines its position on Afghanistan in the following manner:
- it stands in opposition to an exclusively military solution to the crisis in Afghanistan, stressing that the actions of the United States and the International Security Assistance Force between 2001 and 2014 did not result in peace;
- it calls for a political settlement, considering that only the Afghan-led political settlement process is entitled to leading the country to sustainable peace;
- it declares that the Kabul government must maintain dialog with the Taliban.
Islamabad expressed its readiness to cooperate with the international community in achieving the common goal of promoting peace and stability in the South Asian region. In the spring of 2017, it announced a draft settlement for Afghanistan. In August, military civilian authorities reaffirmed this, stressing, in addition to the importance of eliminating the shelters for the militias in Afghanistan, the need for border management, the return of Afghan refugees from Pakistan and the intensification of the peace process for a political settlement in Afghanistan by providing for the participation of the Taliban in the power structures.
The Parliament, the National Assembly (NA) and the Senate of Pakistan have condemned the “hostile and threatening” statements by United States President Donald Trump and General J. W. Nicholson, the commander of the United States troops in Afghanistan, and at the same time called upon the government of Pakistan to take the following steps, such as:
- the postponement of diplomatic visits between Washington and Islamabad. Representatives of the US administration will only be able to visit Pakistan with the express permission of the federal government;
- the suspension of cooperation with the United States, particularly in areas such as the provision of ground and air links through Pakistani territory;
- the return of all three million Afghan refugees to their homeland;
- the tightening of control over the border (“sealing of borders”) with Afghanistan; the demand for similar action by the Afghan authorities and the command of the United States forces.
At the same time, Islamabad expressed concern at the increase in the number of militants of the proscribed terrorist group Da’esh and a number of other terrorist groups (in particular DTP Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan, Jamaatul Ahrar and others) in the Afghan provinces bordering Pakistan, and demanded that Afghanistan, the United States and its allies close the borders for the leaders of the factions carrying out attacks against Pakistan.
The National Security Committee (NSC) of Pakistan, comprising of cabinet ministers and generals, called upon the Afghan authorities and the command of the United States military contingent in Afghanistan to immediately destroy the terrorist hideouts. The NSC stated that the militants who flee Pakistan freely relocate inside Afghanistan, and that the Afghan authorities are providing them with identification documents to facilitate their movement. From their places of shelter in Afghanistan, such terrorists are attacking border posts in Pakistan.
United States President Donald Trump’s course to isolate Pakistan in the region has proved to be a failure. It is not surprising, therefore, that following the American accusations on Pakistan harboring terrorists, China and Saudi Arabia have approached the United States and the global community to recognize the contribution of Islamabad to the fight against terrorism.
Washington’s reproach against Islamabad has not accounted for the fact that, since 2016, Pakistan has been part of the Islamic Military Alliance (IMA), and Raheel Sharif, a retired Pakistani military general, has been heading the IMA since May 2017. Upon assuming office, Sharif declared his mission of ensuring protection and unity in the Muslim world. Thus, the command of the IMA coalition views the threat of the violation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of one of the member states of the IMA as a military threat to the Muslim world.
Under these circumstances, the anti-Pakistan orientation of the US strategy in Afghanistan and South Asia is clearly appearing as hasty, taking into account, inter alia, the unofficial but nuclear status of Pakistan. In addition, in view of the development of the large-scale infrastructure projects by Islamabad since 2015 as part of the Silk Road Economic Belt, the implementation of which will increase the country’s GDP by 3 per cent (according to the calculations of Pakistani economists), Pakistan intends to firmly protect its country not only from regional and international aggressions, but also from the accusations being leveled against it of providing sanctuaries to terrorists.
Natalia Zamarayeva, Ph.D (History), Senior Research Fellow, Pakistan section, Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.
By Jamie Dupree of PBP.
Former U.S. House IT aide Imran Awan pleaded not guilty Friday to federal charges that he and his wife lied on an application for a home equity loan, as prosecutors dropped hints about a broader probe of Awan and his family members related to their computer work in recent years for Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) and a series of other Democratic lawmakers in the Congress.
A federal judge also agreed to return $9,000 seized from Awan when he was arrested at Dulles Airport in late July, as the feds and Awan’s legal team agreed to ensure that the money is used only to pay for the cost of Awan’s legal defense.
While the existing case against Awan and his wife, Hina Alvi, is related to whether they did not tell the truth on a loan application to a Capitol Hill credit union – documents in the matter again suggested at a larger investigation, possibly relating to more than just matters of bank fraud.
In a letter about evidence in the case, U.S. Attorney Channing Phillips described the probe as one that involved, “voluminous discovery,” citing items that were found in a Congressional office building back in April, which seemingly may have belonged to Awan.
This "laptop bag" found in April could well be the piece of equipment that had drawn the interest of Rep. Wasserman Schultz earlier this year, when she verbally berated the Capitol Hill Police chief at a House budget hearing, demanding that an item be returned to her office.
“I think you’re violating the rules when you conduct your business that way,” Wasserman Schultz said bluntly, as she told the chief that he should “expect that there will be consequences.”
From prosecutors, this evidence letter was the first official confirmation that there were items found on Capitol Hill which had a direct link to Imran Awan.
Still unclear is what exactly that earlier investigation has uncovered.
In a hearing before Federal Judge Tanya S. Chutkan, the judge refused to allow a citizen investigator from Indiana to join the case; he claimed he could provide evidence to the feds that shows a broader misuse of government resources by Awan and his family during their Capitol Hill employment.
Judge in #Awan hearing wants request to grant Awan more freedom in writing. Will issue ruling by Oct 6
— BuckTheSystem (@RiggedSys) September 1, 2017
Awan, his wife, and several of their relatives were barred from the Congressional IT system in February, as Democratic lawmakers quickly fired them from part-time IT jobs – but Capitol Police and investigators have still not formally said what problem led to that decision.
Unlike other Democrats who had employed the family members, Awan and his wife, Hina Alvi, were kept on the payroll by Rep. Wasserman Schultz – Alvi until she returned to Pakistan with their children in early March, while Awan was paid until he was arrested and charged with bank fraud.
Newly released payroll figures from the U.S. House of Representatives show that Awan was paid $5,000.01 as a “shared employee” in the second quarter of 2017 by Wasserman Schultz.
That was more than the $1,494.45 that Wasserman Schultz had paid Awan in the first quarter of this year.
At today’s hearing, Awan’s lawyers asked that he be allowed to venture up to 100 miles from home, as he evidently is now driving for Uber, as a way to make money.
The judge asked for written arguments to be filed on that request. The next hearing for Awan is set for October 6.
Can Pakistan survive a military intervention if it is to be announced yet another link of the so-called “axis of evil”
So the Trump White House is really on the ball now. After suddenly discovering what North Korea has always been, it has done the same with Pakistan, and is trying to cover its essential ignorance by saying how unhappy it is about it.
Rex Tillerson is threatening to cut aid to Pakistan on the grounds that it is “providing safe haven for terrorist groups“. He is careful to say however that this is an ongoing problem, and that as “relations have been deteriorating for several years” the damage was done before his appointment, and is therefore beyond the ability of the present State Department to reverse. This hardly indicates a genuine resolve to counter terrorism, but given the number of terrorists the US sponsors to suit itself this is not surprising.
Pakistan doesn’t seem worried, largely because it has been hearing all this for many years. It has never been a secret that since the Soviets took over Afghanistan in 1979 various groups have found shelter in Pakistan and then managed to arm themselves against the invaders. When the Soviet withdrawal was followed by civil war many combatants again based themselves in Pakistan, as they were never sure whether their friends in Afghanistan wouldn’t become enemies the following day when the pattern of alliances changed, as it frequently did.
Pakistan was always quick to point out that its various governments have not provided direct support, with funds, arms or personnel, to any of these combatants. This may be disingenuous, as Pakistan has also failed to properly investigate a number of murders of former Afghan combatants who have renounced violence and set up shops in Pakistan, and continues to repatriate refugees to areas where fighting is taking place, thus exporting conflict as they have no alternative but to take up arms to defend themselves. But it is up to the US to prove such allegations, and it has failed to do so despite their antiquity.
The reality is that Pakistan is fast becoming just another country which has been played and used by its Western friends. Of course it harbours unsavoury people: it was sponsored to do that. It suited the West to have a bad boy in the region, who could be blamed for everything and used as an excuse, and Pakistan was happy to fulfil that role to secure its own survival in a world where states based on religious preference were frowned upon, and increasingly pressurised to become the liberal democracy Pakistan has never pretended to be.
But now the West has new bogeymen: the same ISIS it happily funds and arms and recruits for, whose oil it buys and whose smuggling routes it controls. Pakistan is small potatoes now. The West doesn’t need an implied threat to other regional countries when these monsters are prowling around, consuming everything in their path, while little Pakistan insists on trying to be a fully-fledged member of the international community and build diplomatic relations with countries like China, who can offer it more than the US can materially.
Tillerson doesn’t care about fighting the Taliban, and Trump promised during his campaign to reduce US involvement in these expensive foreign conflicts. He is telling Pakistan that it is no longer useful in the battles the US wants to wage. So what is the country actually there for? Pakistanis realise the problems answering that question will raise, and are thus protesting about the “false narrative” being presented about their country, but are finding out the hard way that there is always an unacceptable price to pay for friendship with the US, and now it is time to pay it.
From white crescent to two fingers
As is well known, India gained its independence from the UK under the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi. One of the key pillars of Gandhi’s approach was Hindu-Muslim unity: he maintained, in effect, that being Indian was more important than belonging to this or that group of Indians. Muhammad Ali Jinnah’s All India Muslim League initially advocated the same thing, and Jinnah himself created the Lucknow Pact of 1916 which sealed this unity in the form of a demand for self-government which safeguarded Muslim rights.
The British attempted to counter this with the old tactic of splitting the opposition. Jinnah was well aware of why this was being done, but by 1947 was prepared to grant the British the partial victory of creating two new states instead of one, thus making it appear that their hypocritical complaints about “respecting the rights of Muslims” were justified.
If Jinnah’s doctor had been professionally able to tell the world that he was already dying of lung cancer partition might have been avoided. But it also served a deeper purpose. Jinnah is revered amongst Pakistanis (referred to as Quaid-e-Azam, the “Great Leader”, just like Kim Jong-un). But he is seen as the villain of the piece by the many millions who revere Gandhi, and by the British who needed to blame someone else for losing their colony.
India was thus allowed to be independent as long as it ultimately continued to play the Western game. If it didn’t, the bad guys next door would come calling, and would have to answer to the West through them.
Pakistan was always unworkable because the majority Muslim population was on opposite sides of the Indian subcontinent. East Pakistan eventually became independent as Bangladesh, following a war in which it was supported by India, and there are ongoing disputes over the ownership of Kashmir. Its rightful borders are also disputed by Afghanistan, which has never accepted the Durand Line as delineating its own sovereign territory, and much of Pakistan has never been under the control of the central government at all: the heroin-producing areas have always been run by local warlords, who like ISIS are portrayed as invincible warriors by the Westerners who derive such profit from their products.
But the Muslim state wasn’t supposed to be workable, as this would encourage it to make its own decisions. It was merely an irritant to everyone else who might think they could evade Western protection. Everything given to India was matched by support to Pakistan, including nuclear capability derived from the West , whilst it continually endured the sort of governments, civilian or military, which the West continually says it has the right to remove when it suits it.
All this was successful in stopping the spread of Communism to the subcontinent. It has not prevented India emerging as a serious economic power however, at the expense of Pakistan. But other countries take Pakistan seriously, as it has been there 70 years and has industry and exports to offer. Its neighbours are no longer scared of it, and it is seen as relatively moderate in the Muslim world – contradicting the Western narrative about the inherent violence of Islam.
The West has other bad guys it is using to threaten everyone with. It doesn’t need Pakistan when it can blow up a few hotels in India or send the Chinese in to buy everything up. The Muslim state is being left to find a new way to make itself useful. If it doesn’t, it will go the way of so many others, as it doesn’t have the resources to prevent this.
Mirage without the desert
Pakistan was founded as the Muslim Homeland in the same way Israel is the Jewish Homeland. But Mecca and Medina are in Saudi Arabia. Any number of states are now more aligned with the Western narrative about Islam, and thus Pakistan can’t play that card internationally any more.
What other claim does it have to exist? Merely the fact that it is there. Its people are not ethnically different from millions of others who call themselves Indian or Afghan, regardless of which ethnicity they belong to within those national groups.
Nor is there a Pakistani language. It is standard practice for border agencies around the world to distinguish between Pakistani Pakhto and Afghan Pashto when assigning interpreters, but the differences between the two languages are so small the speakers of each don’t realise when a misunderstanding has occurred, and the resulting problem is ignored by those same border agencies.
Do Indian subcontinent Muslims, specifically, need a homeland? They already have them, on either side. The West helped create Bangladesh out of Pakistan, and many Pakistanis have family and fellow ethnics living there. The West also has a vested interest in making Afghanistan work, having intervened to secure this, and to keep it in moderate Muslim hands rather than let the Taliban regain power alone. Returning Pakistan to Afghanistan, which ruled it during the days of Ahmad Shah Durrani, would help achieve this objective if a diplomatic excuse could be found for doing this.
If Pakistan can’t profit from being the bad guy any more it has two choices. It could get even worse on its own account, and thus hasten its destruction in the name of “protecting the world”. Or it could be the good guy, the friend of one and all, and thus hasten its destruction because it serves no purpose. It has goods to offer, but not diplomacy. Getting into bed with Pakistan means getting involved in all its existing conflicts with India and Afghanistan and taking a position on them, which doesn’t help any of its neighbours win other friends, who are more useful in both trade and influence terms.
Therefore Pakistan is continuing to do what it has always been encouraged to do: play all sides at once, simply to keep conflicts going and prevent anyone developing their own resources. The difference now is that it is increasingly making the rules of this activity itself, seeing the West no longer needs Pakistan to do this as it once did. It decides for itself how far it wants to tolerate or help the Taliban and the other combatant groups in Afghanistan. It makes claims to Kashmir when it wants, not when the West wants it to.
Offering its people the same old Pakistan may prevent domestic revolt. It is doing precious little to help it in the rest of the world, but what other choice does it have? Even the old staple of blackmail – “We are your allies, you said we were good, so it will embarrass you if you don’t keep supporting us now” – won’t work when others are using all its old selling points more effectively, and reunification of part of the Indian subcontinent, however that is achieved, will be seen as a positive development by the international community.
Better the Devil you don’t know
Pakistan is seeking another guarantee of its legitimacy, and it is this which Tillerson is really objecting to. Long friendly with China, it is now prepared to allow Beijing to establish a naval base in the country, as a quid pro quo for being allowed to participate in the One Belt, One Road initiative , a supposedly economic scheme which looks remarkably similar to the “Road of Communist Conquest Ending in Australia” we were often warned about during Cold War times.
The idea is that if you allow another country to establish a base in yours, that country has an interest in maintaining the government and state which took this decision. It won’t want another country to take over, and possibly review this arrangement. That’s exactly how the US ended up with so many overseas bases in newly independent countries fighting for their identity, and why the US wants to stop others doing the same, having seen this work.
Pakistan doubtless expected the same benefits when it allowed the US to establish bases there from which to engage in conflict in Afghanistan. The US isn’t using Pakistan for this purpose any more because its presence there provoked anti-American riots led by radical Islamic groups, just like it did in Iran in 1979. The US remembers what happened there, and thinks the same might happen in Pakistan, and from there many other countries. It has scaled back its presence, but Pakistan has been weakened anyway by the experience, and is even less use than it was becoming already.
China needs nothing from Pakistan which it can’t get elsewhere, including a new naval base. In bilateral terms this new friendship exclusively favours China, but it blunts domestic discord because the concept of “Imperialist China” isn’t as evocative as “Imperialist America” because people haven’t had as much experience of it yet. The US would still rather destroy useless Pakistan than allow it to be useful to someone else, but at least this destruction is threatened by Imperialist non-Muslims without rather than radicals within, giving you better odds if you are the Pakistani government.
Pakistan is damned whichever way it looks because it has played the Western game, and thus expected Western protection, throughout its history. However big its army is, whatever deals it strikes, it has nowhere to go and nothing useful to do. The only question is whether other countries are prepared to fight wars over it, which is presently unlikely, or whether China will allow it to remain as a cautionary tale for those who wish to resist its own geopolitical games.
Seth Ferris, investigative journalist and political scientist, expert on Middle Eastern affairs, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.
(SHADOWPROOF) — President Donald Trump’s plan to escalate the war in Afghanistan is largely a continuation of his predecessor’s policy in Afghanistan, including President Barack Obama’s decision to abandon withdrawal of United States military forces in his last year in office.
There was scant opposition to Obama’s pursuit of endless war during his presidency, and now that Trump effectively owns the agenda for war, Democrats have a political opportunity to finally oppose the war. However, at the moment, few are moving to boldly call for a full withdrawal of U.S. troops.
Trump announced the “new strategy” for Afghanistan will involve an approach based on “conditions” instead of a “time-based approach.” Obama’s policy in his last year in office, however, was based on “conditions” and largely why he abandoned plans for withdrawing United States military forces in July 2016.
He boasted of a “new strategy” that involved integrating “all instruments of American power: diplomatic, economic, and military, toward a successful outcome.” But Obama requested that allies commit additional troops to the war when 30,000 additional troops were sent to Afghanistan in 2009. The Obama administration also pledged to work with the United Nations and diplomatic partners.
It is unclear what Trump means by “economic” power, but Obama and Afghanistan President Ashraf Ghani announced in 2015 that “economic reform” was a “central pillar of the national unity government’s agenda.” Obama pledged up to $800 million in “U.S. economic assistance” to spur development.
While one might think Trump’s pledge to “not talk about numbers of troops” or “plans for further military activities” is indefensible, Obama engaged in secretive troop build-ups in Afghanistan. He claimed the combat phase of the war ended but later redefined labels to permit troops to engage in fighting in Afghanistan.
Trump claimed he “lifted restrictions” that were placed on “war fighters,” which prevented the secretary of defense and commanders from “fully and swiftly waging battle.” That is not hugely out of step when it comes to war-making policies.
The Obama administration “loosened” restrictions on U.S. forces in Afghanistan in 2016. As reported by the New York Times, airstrikes no longer had to be “justified as necessary to defend American troops.” Commanders were allowed to use “air power” against the Taliban when they saw fit and forces were allowed to accompany Afghan troops into combat.
Presumably, the biggest departure may be that Trump will give the U.S. military greater freedom to engage in carpet bombing on a scale that may result in the kind of civilian carnage that has occurred in Iraq since he assumed office.
Much was made about a potential expansion of the war into Pakistan without the full support of the country’s government. Recall, Obama launched around 375 drone strikes in Pakistan that injured at least 990 people and killed more than 2,100 people, including so-called militants reportedly targeted. It is not like Obama was granting terrorists sanctuary.
The war in Afghanistan was launched in 2001, as an act of retaliation for the September 11th attacks.
As of August 2016, according to the “Costs Of War Project” at the Watson Institute of International and Public Affairs at Brown University, at least 31,000 Afghan civilians have been killed in Afghanistan. Well over 40,000 Afghan civilians were “seriously injured” since January 2009. The International Committee of the Red Cross treated 9,200 new patients in 2015, and 1,261 were amputees.
It was estimated, as of June 2016, that there were 1.4 million refugees inside Afghanistan and “nearly 1 million Afghans were internally displaced.” There are at least 2.6. million Afghan refugees in over 70 countries.
When Obama was still president, the percentage of civilians in Afghanistan killed by “pro-government forces,” according to the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA), rose dramatically. Since 2013, deaths of children sharply escalated, with 639 deaths and 1,822 injuries documented. The rate of civilian deaths from airstrikes has also skyrocketed in the last two years of the Obama administration.
***
The specifics that depict the human toll of endless war in Afghanistan are what matters. Yet, what Democrats said in response largely suggests they are likely to take a technocratic approach to Trump’s plans instead of pushing for an end to war.
“When President Trump says there will be no ceiling on the number of troops and no timeline for withdrawal, he is declaring an open-ended commitment of American lives with no accountability to the American people,” Democratic House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi declared. “The American people need to know more about the President’s plans and conditions.”
“To what extent is there a comprehensive strategy, including an exit strategy for finally bringing America’s heroes home? Congress looks forward to a comprehensive briefing on the troop increase and overall strategy as soon as possible,” Pelosi added.
Pelosi neglected the record of a Democratic president, who left office with a fairly open-ended commitment to war. She also seems open to another escalation as long as Trump agrees to plan an exit strategy, which could be set years from now.
Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, who is the ranking Democrat on the personal subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said the speech lacked details, substance, and a “vision of what success in Afghanistan looks like.”
On Twitter, Senator Catherine Cortez Masto meekly pledged to ask if Trump’s plan would really make America safer and what it would mean for deployed troops. Senator Tim Kaine tweeted, “The American public deserves more details from POTUS on Afghanistan.”
Senator Bob Casey called for a new Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) in order to make U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Iraq seem more legal while Senator Tom Carper offered tempered praise as he recommended Gen. John Nicholson be kept on as commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan.
Hawkishly, Senator Maggie Hassan largely echoed the warmongering of Trump and stated, “It is critical that Afghanistan does not again become a safe haven for terrorists, and we must constantly adjust to the situation on the ground and maintain a troop presence that can ensure that Afghanistan does not slip backward.”
Support for maintaining a U.S. troop presence was also expressed by Senator Jeanne Shaheen, and she suggested a “fully engaged diplomatic presence,” as well as a “stronger, more resilient NATO” would be critical.
Senator Jack Reed also recommended more emphasis on diplomacy, contending the State Department must be properly staffed and the budget for foreign aid for Afghanistan’s government must not be slashed. And Senator Richard Blumenthal argued, “Military force without forceful effective diplomacy is no strategy,” before he proceeded to endorse a continuation of war.
The closest any Senate Democrat came to strong opposition to continuing war was the statement from Senator Jeff Merkley, where he proclaimed, “Americans are exhausted by a seemingly endless war. We have lost too many brave service members, and we owe all who have served there an extraordinary debt of gratitude. It is time for the president to present a compelling plan for regional stability and an end to American military involvement — not a vague plan to continue the failed strategies of the past.”
From the House of Representatives, Democratic Caucus Chairman Joe Crowley stated, “President Trump has no strategy for ending the war in Afghanistan.” He was disappointed there were no plans announced to “extract” troops from the “volatile region.”
Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur demanded “clarity of objective,” and maintained, “There can be no blank check for war anywhere. Committing more American troops without a clear path forward will not lead to the resolution of this sixteen-year war.”
While Representative Pramala Jayapal suggested Congress should listen to Americans who want to end the war and tweeted, “We need a concerted diplomatic effort to sustainably end the war in Afghanistan and bring our heroes home.”
The strongest Democratic opponent of the announced escalation was Representative Barbara Lee, who was the sole opposition for the authorization of war under President George W. Bush.
“I am deeply troubled by President Trump’s failure to outline a comprehensive strategy to bring an end to our nation’s longest war. After sixteen years at war, one thing is clear: there is no military solution in Afghanistan,” Lee stated. “Any lasting peace in Afghanistan must be secured through diplomacy. Further military engagement will only put our brave servicemen and women in harm’s way while doing little to enhance our national security.”
There were very few Democrats, who indicated they would staunchly oppose escalation. Some even did what Trump probably hopes they will do, which is not oppose him because they recognize war-making is part of a bipartisan national consensus in Washington, D.C.
Nevertheless, for those representatives and senators, who see themselves as part of “The Resistance,” this is no longer “The Good War” that Obama escalated, drew down, and then kick-started again. It is Trump’s war. They have a political opportunity to resist perpetual war under a deeply unpopular and despised president.
By Kevin Gosztola / Republished with permission / ShadowProof.com / Report a typo
This article was chosen for republication based on the interest of our readers. Anti-Media republishes stories from a number of other independent news sources. The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not reflect Anti-Media editorial policy.
