Trump is grossly misled on Pakistan, here it is how?

By Atta Rasool Malik

On 21 August 2017, U.S. President Donald Trump spelled out his long awaited ‘Afghan Policy’ while addressing American officers and soldiers at historic U.S military base, Fort Myer, Virginia. His speech was televised nationwide during prime-time in the United States.  Millions of others around the globe also listened to American President live on TVs and YouTube. Here in Pakistan, he was followed with a lot of interest and keenness because people of Pakistan are greatly affected by the war in their neighborhood.

American President was praising his men for their great sacrifices but deep down in his heart, he knew his men were not winning in Afghanistan. Therefore, he was unable to give the timeframe for likely completion of the task in Afghanistan or conditions under which to define success or failure. As regards Pakistan, he looked more like Indian PM Mr. Narendra Moodi.

Trump could identify only one reason for not winning in Afghanistan; it was Pakistan. To him, terrorists were enjoying safe haven in Pakistan. However, he did not explain why Pakistan wanted to fail America in Afghanistan?

Trump took very long to issue policy guidelines to Americans troops engaged in war in Afghanistan. Probably, he was too occupied and busy on the domestic front. Whether it was fear of impeachment and inquiries or he was being influenced by ‘interest groups’ to continue fighting in Afghanistan; a policy which he had described it as “disastrous” during his election campaign. Trump was now ‘educated’ that American presence in Afghanistan is essential to safeguard the US might against emerging and resurging powers. CEO’s of influential Multi-National Companies benefiting from the war in Afghanistan might have also assured support for entrapped and worried Trump. Therefore, finally, Trump has announced the continuation of Afghan war with renewed vigor.

Trump repudiated his early stance and declared without any shyness that the United States of America is there in Afghanistan ‘not to rebuild Afghanistan or construct democracies in far away lands’. They were there to kill terrorists; read Afghan Taliban. For the first time, American President says he does not stand for values which the Americans have lecturing us all along for many years; human rights, women empowerment, and democracy.

Americans Troops identify the only section of Taliban; Afghan Taliban as terrorists. These are the people who resist American presence in Afghanistan.  Americans have no problem with another half of Taliban; Pakistani Taliban who are fighting the state of Pakistan. These anti-Pakistan Taliban are rather facilitated by Afghan’s NDS and India’s intelligence agency RAW in Afghanistan. Pakistani Taliban, actually; a proxy of India, are killing innocent children and women in markets, schools, churches and mosques of Pakistan. Resultantly Pakistan has lost over 60,000 people and approximately $100 billion of the worth of material losses in this war on Terror.

In Europe and America there are lobbying firms and surprisingly these are legal. These firms are ready to further the cause of any country, group, and mafia for money. They mislead academia and influence state officials for money. They don’t have the moral integrity to stand for truth. They are clearly tasked to tarnish the image of Pakistan. Indian lobbies are particularly very effective in Washington. They twist the data, misinform and deceive the decision and opinion makers of USA. Trump administration has been misled to believe that the only cause of failing in Afghanistan is Pakistan. Americans have failed to appreciate the actual causes of resurgent Taliban. People in Afghanistan view the absence of justice and rampant corruption in government offices deadlier than Taliban.  

Propagandists and lobbies have changed the image of an infamous killer and butcher, current PM of India, Mr. Narendra Modi as peace loving leader of India. Americans officials have forgotten that Mr. Narendra Moodi was barred from visiting EU and USA for a decade for gross human right violations. India is a caste ridden racist country where lives of minorities are like hell. School going Kashmiri girls and boys are insulted and blinded with pellets guns on a daily basis. Yet Trump looked upon India as a peaceful nation and inspiring democracy.

Americans have decided to empower India in Afghanistan forgetting that Indians are not neighbors of Afghanistan. They are only there in Afghanistan to bribe and instigate Afghan officials against Pakistan and create instability in Pakistan. This miracle is due to lobbying firms, MNC’s appetite for Indian Market and availability of Indians cash for import of weapons. The situation is shameful for humanity. Even the top World leaders cannot call spade a spade for petty interests. This is clear moral bankruptcy. It is ‘unprincipled realism of Trump’.

Americans are known for their poor understanding of the region. Their differentiation of friend and foe is faulty. American prefers fluency in English over populace support, honesty, and competence for high posts in the Afghan government. Consequently today American troops enjoy very little public support in Afghanistan. They are perceived as occupiers, rather than facilitators of peace and development.

Afghan Taliban don’t need shelters and safe haven of Pakistan. They control large areas [over 45%] in Afghanistan and roam freely. On the contrary, due to courage and sacrifices of Pakistan armed forces, Pakistan has re-established the writ of the state over entire tribal areas, FATA. American President has all the satellites at his disposal. He should indicate where are the safe heavens.

Pakistan is fighting the terrorists with utmost power. Pakistan has lost many senior military officers including general officers and their children in this fight. This is a sufficient proof of our sincerity. Pakistan has since long abandoned the idea of militias, though the USA is still relying on proxies and contractors. Pakistan has fully disciplined and well integrated armed forces. It has long range missiles and sufficient credible nuclear deterrence with a political will and national consensus to use all weapons in case of a real threat.

American President should not sermon people of Pakistan to commit to civilization, order, and peace. People of Pakistan are not savages. They are already committed to faith, peace, and order and proud of their civilization.

Academia/ intelligentsia of Pakistan does not view America as a hostile country. The USA helped Pakistan build nuclear weapons by turning blind eye to development of our nuclear weapons. Pakistan also acknowledges and appreciates USA help at many difficult occasions. Pakistan is annoyed but a not enemy of United States. Americans despite their dominant position in world politics and vast influence, did not help resolve Kashmir and water issues with India.  Rivalry with India has ruined Pakistan’s economy and it continues to fund proxies and terrorism in Karachi and Baluchistan.

It is also baseless Indian propaganda that Pakistan is allowing Chinese or Russian naval bases at Gawader. CPEC has been over sensitized by Indians. It is a purely an economic project. Pakistan only desires to uplift its infrastructure and overcome energy crisis.

Pakistan has no problem with Americans new found love with India. Every country has a right to pursue its national interests.  Americans think that India is their strategic partner and it would stand against China or Russia, it is absolutely fine with us. Americans would know the Indians more clearly very soon.

Trump has reminded India making billions of dollars from the United States from trade and on other pretexts to contribute more in Afghanistan.

 Looking forward to seeing Indians and Americans troops ‘killing terrorists’ together in Afghanistan.

  Author hails from semi tribal areas of Pakistan. Holds M Phil Degree in International Relations from National Defense University Islamabad. He can be reached at attarasul@hotmail.com. Twitter: @malikattarasul

US Stuck In the Graveyard of Empires

By Ishaal Zehra

Media reports claim that the American President, Donald Trump, has let loose to his advisers who were tasked to craft the new US strategy in Afghanistan, blasting them strikingly for their startling failures in America’s longest war in Afghanistan. According to some senior officials, he even suggested firing the war's top military commander Gen. John Nicholson during a tense meeting at the White House on the pretext of “not winning the war”. Officials said Trump pointed to maps showing the Taliban gaining ground, and that Defense Secretary Mattis responded to the president by saying the US is losing because it doesn't have the strategy it needs.

Trump is the third US president dealing with the Afghan war. Former presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush went through multiple strategies over the course of their presidencies to try to stabilize Afghanistan. What set Trump apart in the July meeting was his open questioning of the quality of the advice he was receiving. Trump's national security team has been trying for months to come up with a new strategy he can approve, but all in vein.

Though the president is surely not a pro when it comes to keeping personal comments and feelings out of politics. And he surely is lousy while speaking in public. But he was absolutely right to snub the military brass for daring to ask for a very large troop and budget increase for the stalemated Afghan War that has commanded a price of $1 trillion to date.

Of course, the unfortunate generals are not really to blame. They have been forced by the last three presidents to fight, as Eric Margolis defines in his recent article, a pointless war at the top of the world that lacks any strategy, reason or purpose – and with limited forces. Where they are not even allowed to admit defeat by lightly-armed Muslim tribesmen. The truth is that America was blundered into the Afghan War under President George W. Bush who needed a target for revenge after the humiliating 9/11 attacks.

Gen. Nicholson, during a testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee in February, has called the war a "stalemate" and said he needs a "few thousand" additional troops. Heading into its 16th year, the war in Afghanistan is the longest war in the US history.

Retired Adm. James Stavridis, a former head of NATO and an NBC News analyst, suggested the delay in finalizing a strategy has hurt US efforts in the war.

"The situation in Afghanistan is not improving, but I think it's hardly irretrievable at this point, and what the president needs to be doing is deciding on the strategy," Admiral Stavridis said.

"What is hurting the process at the moment is this back and forth about do we stay or do we go, how many troops," he added. "Any commander is going to be incredibly handicapped in an environment like that. So I think the fundamental problem here is lack of decisiveness in Washington, specifically in the White House."

Though, officials say the president's team has coalesced around a workable Afghan strategy, where it had presented him with other options as well such as complete withdrawal. Trump, however, appeared to have been significantly influenced by a meeting he recently had with a group of veterans of the Afghanistan war, and he was unhappy with the options presented to him.

Lindsey Graham, member of the Senate Armed Services Committee reiterates that, "If the president doesn't listen to the generals, like Gen. Nicholson and he goes down the road that President Obama went, Afghanistan is going to collapse". "Here's my advice to the president — listen to people like Gen. Nicholson and McMaster and others who have been in the fight."

Trump had better come up with a better idea. Eric Margolis suggests the absolute solution to end the 17-year war in his recent article which I endorse is to emulate the example of the courageous Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev. He pronounced his Afghan War unwinnable, told his angry generals to shut up, and ordered the Red Army out of the war in Afghanistan.

Dear America: It’s Your Turn to ‘Do More’

By Ishaal Zehra

“We need to give attention to the important role Pakistan plays in the Afghanistan issue, and respect Pakistan's sovereignty and security concerns”, said the Chinese State Councilor Yang Jiechi over a telephone conversation with US State of Secretary Rex Tillerson on August 23.

“China stands ready to keep communication and coordination with the United States on the Afghanistan issue … and political dialogue is the only solution to the Afghanistan issue,” Yang further said while exchanging views with Tillerson on the current situation of Afghanistan. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Hua Chunying also gave a strong statement accentuating that “Pakistan was on the front line in the struggle against terrorism and had made great sacrifices and important contributions in the fight.”

After China’s strong message, Russia also has resonated similar sentiments following Trump’s daft allegations on Pakistan.

Russian Presidential Envoy to Afghanistan Zamir Kabulov slammed Trump’s Pakistan strategy and insisted that Islamabad is “a key regional player to negotiate with. Putting pressure on Pakistan may seriously destabilize the region-wide security situation and result in negative consequences for Afghanistan”.

Meanwhile in Pakistan, the civil and military leadership has expressed serious reservations over the new US policy on Afghanistan. Consultations at the highest levels concluded that Pakistan will not give in to any American pressure or demands. It has been conveyed to the US administration through diplomatic channels that Pakistan will set her strategy for a peaceful Afghanistan in line with her own national security policy.

It is also heard from a horse’s mouth that Islamabad has set its own strategy to deal with the new US strategy. Pakistan, they said, has warned the US of possible pull-out from the Afghan reconciliation process if Washington didn’t change its approach.

According to media reports, Pakistan has told US Ambassador David Hale that neither was Islamabad dependent on Washington for its defense system nor did its economy need American financial assistance. Islamabad has sent a clear message to Washington: Shifting the blame for your own failure in Afghanistan and arm-twisting won’t work anymore.

“Pakistan is not looking for any material or financial assistance from [the] United States but needs trust, understanding and acknowledgement of its contributions in the war against terror,” US Ambassador David Hale was told, when he called on Gen. Bajwa in Rawalpindi. “We have done a lot ... and shall keep on doing our best, not to appease anyone but in line with our national interest and national policy,” Gen. Bajwa was quoted in an army press statement later on.

The signals emanating from White House, Capitol Hill and mainstream media on ‘US policy on Afghanistan’ point to a rather frustrated and confused mindset. Trump made a speech as the C in C of US military and expected rhetoric should be seen in that perspective, his speech also addressed a divided domestic polity.

Logically, if the US led military alliance of 46 countries could not break the surge of insurgency over a period of 16 years, even after spending almost one trillion dollars, what do they expect from Pakistan? Pakistan Army, on her part, has done a tremendous job by successfully fighting against terrorism on her soil. As Laurel Miller, former US State department official who remained special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan from 2013 to June 2017, argues that “it’s not that there’s no leverage on Pakistan but the Pakistan is not going to change her perception of her own national security interests based only on American pressure. There has to be something that attracts the Pakistan to cooperate in a positive way with the United States.” But she also thinks that president Trump strategy has missed the “key element of any semblance of a political strategy for Afghanistan that could bring stability to the country and could give Pakistan another regional player and opportunity to see the potential for their own interests to be satisfied.”

International community should also ponder on the prolonged Afghan conflict and needs to support Afghanistan in achieving a broad inclusive political reconciliation, support the Afghan people in pursuing a development path that suits their own national conditions and support the Afghan government in increasing it capability to fight forces of extremism and terrorism. Time has come to realize the strategic environment in Afghanistan and find a political solution to the imbroglio by taking all stake holders on board, there is simply no other way.

THE US DILEMMA by Lt General Tariq Khan

By Lt. General Tariq Khan (Retired)

The US finds it does not know how to dismount the tiger.

The US is finding the war in Afghanistan a little too hot for its liking and why not; it was a war that remained in search of strategy and failed to find it. It’s not that I wish to gloat, nor that I want to say ‘I told you so’, but that one is forced to respond when confronted with accusations that the US failed in Afghanistan on account of Pakistan.

• That we were a tricky two-faced partner. Since I was closely associated with this conflict for a number of years and since I am aware of the things that happened, it is only right that people such as me must speak for Pakistan just as we fought for Pakistan.
• That a hundred and fifty thousand NATO troops have been overwhelmed by the imagined hoards that Pakistan sent across the border, challenges my professional understanding of the situation.
• That this is the same border that neither Afghanistan recognises and resists its management or fencing, of course, cannot have escaped US attention.
• That Pakistan has seven times the number of posts than Afghanistan and the US combined does not seem to make any headway.
• That Afghan communication systems are functioning despite Pakistan’s repeated requests that they be shut down while Pakistani SIMs are down and out is another moot point.
• That three Generals of the US Army promised additional border deployment with a US brigade across the North Waziristan Border remains a promise unfulfilled and forgotten.
• That the US unilaterally up-staked and left Nuristan and the Kunar Valley, one of the most dangerous areas on the border, creating a vacuum is a question that only they can answer.
• That Pakistani dissidents were given safe havens in this vacuum and encouraged to attack Pakistan is for all to see and take note of.
• That the MOAB (Mother of all Bombs) accounted for 14 Indians from Kerala amongst the causalities was never a surprise for us.
• That India is permitted to have so many conciliates along the Border, and none are processing visas is an obvious aberration.
• That Pakistan suffered horrendous terrorist attacks from Afghanistan through these bands of militants organised and facilitated in Kunar is a no brainer.

Pakistan has been a so-called “ally,” although we have:

• captured the maximum al-Qaeda operators than all countries combined
• have lost 70,000 of our citizens
• have the highest military causalities
• our officer dead and wounded to troop ratio is the highest in the world
• our generals to troop causalities is unprecedented

The cost of war has devastated the infrastructure, caused millions of citizens to be displaced and has affected the economy to the tune of $ 100 Billion. It has cleared 48,000 sq kms of its soil, secured 3,500 kms of lines of communication (LoC), re-established the writ of the government in these areas, allowing people to return home, the armed forces are popular and the borders controlled. But then even as I narrate this, it also saddens me.

Do the Americans not know this? Are we just a victim of not having a narrative, a victim of a bad image or slanderous Haqqani shooting off his mouth? Could it be as simple as that? No, that is not possible and I am convinced, that no amount of logic, no amount of reasoning will change the US posture towards Pakistan.

The bias and the prejudice is despite what the US knows; the posture taken is premediated and deliberate and we must have been factored into some distant objective the US may have in mind and, therefore, action initiated against us must be a way to arrive at that objective.

The story of the safe havens we are accused of nurturing is so close to the engineered narrative about the weapons of mass destruction that were allegedly discovered in Iraq and now such a predictable US method to madness i.e. create a false casus-belie, broad caste it, respond to it with physical force.

However, at the moment, I still feel that US is going through the motion of the good cop-bad cop routine and if we can stare them down effectively, they may back down. Remember, the US is a bully and the bully can never be appeased; the more you please, the more arrogant he gets. So, we are warned in the first part of the new US manoeuvre, while in the second part, we are to expect a troop surge of 4,000 troops to make a total of 12,000 men. In the confused and tentative objectives of this two-pronged strategy, the US is looking for its relief, its coup de grace, and conclusion to its military adventure in Afghanistan.

How?

The troop numbers cannot win back the 40% of space already lost, in fact, that cannot sustain the space they already have. I see these troops now resorting to fire-power, bombings and long range artillery with a high ratio of airborne component. The nature and character of this force does not appear to have a ground-holding capacity. So, I can only conclude that it is intended to punish the Taliban from a distant. If that be true, to what purpose?

To me, it appears that it endeavours to put the US in a better position to negotiate a power transfer. To me, it looks that this ‘Unity’ Government is about to be ditched. To me, it looks that the Taliban have won a place at the table where they can secure the ways and means to be the future legitimate government of Afghanistan. To me, it also seems that the Indians may be the next US proxy and who might be foolish enough to take on this role.

I hope they do.

My hopes are founded on the likely outcome of such a stupidity if it ever comes to it.

Coming to Pakistan; we are about to lose our privileged allied status.

Were we ever privileged? Did we discover any advantage or draw anything out of such a relationship?

I think it is time to sever this relationship that has, in fact, cost as so much. We hear of all the money and funds that the US taxpayers gave to us. I, for one, am thankful for their assistance – I would like to say to the people of the US that we are grateful for their contributions.

However, what did we get and should we always be told of what are obligations are on account of it?

Well, here are the bare facts, taking the year 2009 as a constant, we have received from the US a total of $ 61 Billion.

Working on another constant of 180 million people, this translates to $10.30/ head. Surely, we can do without this $10.30, even if it did get to the people.

We have also received, a total of $14 Billion since 2002 till today.

Against a 175 Billion national economy, this hardly amounts to .5% of our GDP.

Like I said earlier, we are thankful for whatever we received and would never want to look a gift horse in the mouth, but in no way, do we feel that we are obligated due to such an insignificant amount or for that matter any amount, nor is the US entitled to make unreasonable demands on account of it, nor can we put our sovereignty or what remains of it, at the disposal of the US, because of it?

We are not for sale.

Having lost the war in Afghanistan, which they now wish to blame Pakistan, having parked our enemy in our back yard, having closed an eye to how we have been attacked from areas under their control and now being threatened for some ulterior motive, we must seek a suitable response.

In my mind, the US will do what it has decided to do regardless of any explanations we have, any reasoning, narrative or argument that we present. Whereas, our response lies mostly lies in the domain of diplomacy and in garnering support from friendly countries as far as possible, yet we must reserve the right and the option of responding in a reciprocal a manner if it comes to a physical conflict.

We should be wary of the total lack of support from the Islamic countries and the so called Ummah, as they have amply displayed, and rely on ourselves more than anyone else.

My recommendation is a warning to Afghanistan that any hostile activity emanating from its territory will be taken as an act of war. That we shall respond by causing as much damage as we can in Kabul, Jalalabad, Kandahar and Bagram. We have the range, capability and capacity; they should be wary of testing it.

This may deter any adventure the US has in mind, never beg a bully!!!!

Pitching China Might Just Be Shooting The Breeze

Ishaal Zehra

It all started with the visit of the exiled Tibetan spiritual leader, ‘Dalai Lama’ to Tawang district in Arunachal Pradesh earlier this month. For those who do not know the geographic importance of Arunachal Pradesh, it is an eastern Himalayan state administered by India but claimed by China as Southern Tibet.

China lodged a diplomatic protest with India when the Dalai Lama began his visit to Arunachal Pradesh on April 4, noticing that his visit will rather have a negative impact on Sino-India ties, visibly cautioning New Delhi not to use the exiled spiritual leader to undermine Beijing's interests. Iterating its displeasure at the visit almost a week after it ended, Chinese foreign ministry clearly indicated it has not bought what India has been saying– that the trip was religious in nature or the Tibetan leader is free to travel and doesn’t plan his itinerary at the behest of the Indian government.

As if this was not enough, the Indian chief minister of Arunachal Pradesh, Pema Khandu, told Reuters on April 5 that he regarded the land on the other side of the border as Tibet, not China. "As far as the boundary issue is concerned, I have also maintained that we don't share our boundary with China, but we share our boundary with Tibet," Khandu said.

This isn’t the first time India provoked China. India has been repeatedly doing so over the past year. Last year, in October, it was Modi inviting US Ambassador Richard Verma at Tawang for the monastery’s annual festival. He even established the official nature of the invitation by appointing minister of State in Home ministry, Kiren Rijiju as his escort. This was the first time a US ambassador to India visited Arunachal Pradesh.

In April 2016, again, China was deliberately provoked with the statement of US consul general in Kolkata, Craig L. Hall who said that “US is absolutely clear that Arunachal is Indian territory”. Chinese foreign ministry strongly objected to it, saying “China is firmly opposed to the US diplomat’s actions, which will damage the hard-earned peace and tranquility of the China-India border region. Any responsible third party should respect efforts by China and India to seek peaceful and stable reconciliation, and not the opposite”. Here ‘peace and tranquility of the border region’ was a clear diplomatic reference (or may be a caution) to the Sino-India border agreement of 1993.

This provocation is not happening again and again without intention. There is a reason why Verma visited the northeastern state. The Dalai Lama did not suddenly woke up after a hibernation of few years and realized that he should visit his birth place. This all signifies at a time when New Delhi’s ties with Beijing have been strained not only over the Chinese raising obstacles to Indian membership of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), but also for the cover provided to Pakistan in multilateral bodies – the OBOR – the CPEC.

Interestingly, China reacted back to India on Wednesday after it announced that it has "standardized" official names for six places in Arunachal Pradesh and termed the move as a "legitimate action". Though Indian media dubbed this move as China's revenge against Dalai Lama's visit to the disputed region, Long Xingchun, Director at the Centre for Indian Studies at China West Normal University, said the standardization of names demonstrates China is less likely to make concessions in border negotiations with India. Writing in the state-run Global Times daily, Long said Beijing was magnanimous in not retaliating against New Delhi's provocations, rather it was a way to convey Beijing's resoluteness in not making any concessions to New Delhi in border talks.

Prem Shankar Jha is his article on the subject thoughtfully analyzed what India can conceivably gain from forcing China to take a stand on an issue that would much rather bury Sino-India calm? “What will India do if China decides to seize some part of Arunachal — the Tawang tract for example — by force? Will it fight another border war with China in terrain where, apart from having a much larger army, China enjoys all the advantages of terrain and logistics? Given the hyper-nationalism that has begun to grip the Indian middle classes today, Modi will have no option but to do so”, suggests Jha.

Carrying the same thoughts in mind, Long Xingchun said some "radical" Indians were naive in thinking that New Delhi could out-do Beijing in armed clashes. In fact, India, which had more advantages in the 1962 war with China, should learn from its "erroneous strategic judgements".

This leads to the question, does India has any chance of winning such a war? Jha says one does not have to look far to see that a war against China is the very last thing that this war weary and nearly bankrupt country now wants. So why is Modi taking India into such dire peril? When logic fails to provide an answer, one must turn to illogic. The only explanation that makes even a modicum of sense is a bruised ego. China has ignored repeated attempts by India to make it withdraw its objections to India joining the NSG. Apparently rejection is something that Narendra Modi is unable to take. Now the real catch in all this scenario is that the question which failed to strike Modi’s mind is, how it all will conclude if Xi Jinping might also have the same problem?

CPEC Moving From Discussion To Solutions

By Zulfiqar Qazilbash

CPEC is a major Chinese project closely related to its One Belt, One Road initiative that aims to boost Asian trade internally as well as externally. The initiative is ambitious on an unprecedented scale. It dwarfs the Marshall Plan which rebuilt Europe after the Second World War. It will impact about 65 per cent of the world’s population, about one-third of the world’s GDP, and about a quarter of all the goods and services the world moves. We are fortunate to be part of it. However, it is time for Pakistan to move from discussions around the project into developing a national vision that takes full advantage of the opportunities presented. Much is at stake if we do not do this in an accelerated time frame. Following are some of the major areas that need to be addressed:

Environment: Environmental cooperation is usually a major part of such agreements but this component has yet to be addressed. This is a problem since it has been estimated that once trade starts flowing up to 7,000 trucks a day will pass through the ecologically sensitive Khunjerab Pass and generate up to 36.5 million tons of Co2 emissions en route to Gwadar.

All experts agree that the emissions will melt the northern region’s glaciers and negatively impact agriculture and food and water security of our growing population. We need a solution and one that has not been discussed so far is to use the project to facilitate the migration of our transportation sector to first hybrid and then electric power. This will have three major benefits. The repowering station requirements of CPEC transport vehicles moving to electric power will accelerate and enable the early migration of our remaining transportation infrastructure to renewable energy. Oil-related products currently account for approximately a third of our annual imports. It will free us from the circular debt problem associated with them. Secondly, it will open up opportunities for the private sector to set up micro hydroelectric plants in G-B, AJK and K-P and small-scale solar and thermal power plants in Punjab, Sindh and Balochistan that generate power for the vehicle repowering stations along the route.

Thirdly, if properly regulated this could allow communities to be brought together in common economic interest to service the traffic passing through their area (repowering stations, food outlets, workshops, hospitals, etc). The vested economic interest will enhance security and provide more confidence to the Chinese sponsors to increase investments along this corridor.

If environmental impact is not addressed then as factories get built in the economic zones, the pollution will further exacerbate our problems of climate change. This is a great concern given that according to PWSER research, Pakistan is on track to experience an African-style, large scale water famine as early as 2025.  The only solution is massive water storage projects which can also generate cheap renewable hydropower electricity for our residential, agricultural and industrial sectors.  Currently, 35 per cent of our energy is oil based which requires foreign exchange externally and has led to circular debt internally. The suggested projects will generate a lot of employment and most of the large-scale construction could be locally managed minimising foreign exchange requirements which depreciate the local currency. We should seek assistance from the Chinese to set up a regional carbon trading market that finances a lot of these renewable energy projects. Ideally we should have been debating and finalising a comprehensive programme put together by our government to address this upcoming crisis before this time. In our democracy, an endeavour this big will take time to educate and build national consensus and then it will take more than a decade to implement this programme.

Industrial development: CPEC is a game changer and opens up trade between the Central Asia and the Middle East, Africa and Europe. Its major purpose is for China to increase its trade with these regions by improving and simplifying logistics and transportation. Currently imports into Europe from China account for about $450 billion which has room to grow in a $7 trillion market. As trade increases along this corridor, it would be foolish if Pakistan did not develop its own national strategy to cooperatively capitalise and cash in some of the economic opportunities presented. However our current exports are dominated by textile and organic commodities with low value addition. Clearly, our current corporate and SME sectors is by and large not ready to address this upcoming opportunity and we are in danger of being swept aside.

An illustration of what can happen is found in many marginalised communities who are situated along the Iran trade corridor in Balochistan or the Afghan trade corridor in K-P and get no visible benefit from the passing trade. Under the Obama Administration, USAID had announced a $40 million project called SME-A for intervention that provides technical assistance to 6,000 SMEs in the areas of textile, ICT, light engineering, hospitality, minerals, leather, logistics and packaging. Given what’s at stake, the government should seriously consider taking a piggy back ride on this initiative and expand collaboration if it continues in the Trump administration. It should consider taking it over if for some reason the US backs off the project.

Regional hub: CPEC provides an unprecedented opportunity to Pakistan as it fulfills its geostrategic potential as the gateway of trade between Central Asia to the Middle East, Africa and Europe. It is ideally situated to become the defacto maritime trade hub between the Europe and Asia. A regional hub provides many opportunities other than logistics and transportation including legal, financial, marketing, business communication and other services.

China has created the Asian Infrastructure and Investment Bank and the Silk Road fund to support this realignment of global trade with roles loosely defined around the World Bank and IFC. Many new institutions will be required for instance similar to the World Bank International centres for Settlement of International Disputes. Pakistan is in an ideal position to develop these capacities if our government provides the enabling environment for it through capacity development programmes, enlightened legislation and policies. Our argument would be that Karachi is more suited location wise than Mumbai or Colombo and cheaper than Singapore to address these needs. Pakistan has in the past shown the ability to set up world-class institutions that serviced global trade and can rise up to the challenge if it puts the right people in charge. In time, the acquired competencies and broader understanding of the benefits would give us the political will to overhaul our internal justice system and inefficient bureaucracy. Ranked at 106/113 in the WJP Rule of Law Index, this is something we badly need.

In conclusion, CPEC is a game-changing opportunity for Pakistan. Global pundits are looking at the multi-trillion dollar investments being made by China and saying that its effective utilisation is key to the success of this vision. Similarly, for Pakistan, if we do not evolve a vision of how we use this improved infrastructure and realignment of global trade in this region for our benefit, and execute on it effectively we are in danger of being left behind. Indeed it will be a shame if we do not rise to the opportunity and fashion national consensus on an inclusive strategy that leverages this project to propel a major part of our population, and not just a few families, into the economy of the 21^st century.

Published in The Express Tribune, March 30^th, 2017.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.

CPEC: Regional impact

Dr Zafar N Jaspal

Since the announcement of China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) project in April 2015, Islamabad and Beijing have been endeavouring to construct and operationalise its infrastructure as soon as possible. Both sides are cognizant to the immense dividends of the project. Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif categorised it as a “game changer.” Chinese also consider it imperative for their “One Belt, One Road” initiative. Simultaneously, the adversaries of both nations have been struggling to sabotage the project. Therefore, both sides need to remain vigilant to the implicit and explicit challenges to the project.

CPEC project has amplified Pakistan’s pivotal role in the connectivity of West Asia, Central Asia and South Asia. Though, Pakistan and China would be the main beneficiary of the project, yet other regional actors would be equally benefit from the operationalisation of the project. Islamabad always advocate that without increasing economic cooperation among the regional actors, the Central, West and South Asiannations could not resolve their economic challenges. The regional organizations such as South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation and Economic Cooperation Organisations primary objective is to promote trade between/among the members of these organizations. The member nations of these organizations are economically underdeveloped and also encountering socio-political challenges. Perhaps, without economic stability, the political stability is a wishful thinking. These nations need mutual cooperation for the sake of their socio-economic improvement. Hence, CPEC would be having positive consequences for the members of regional organizations.

Islamabad is encouraging the neighbouring states to invest in the CPEC project. Indeed, the neighbouring states investment enhances the significance of the project, but it also has constructive impact on the investors’ economies. On April 21, 2015, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif stated: “it is catalytic project that will help us combine the geo-economic streams of our countries. The corridor symbolizes our commitment to create win-win partnerships which threaten none and benefit all.” Precisely, CPEC would be having dividends for the entire region.

The ruling elite of the neighbouring countries, except India, also expressed their immense confidence in the CPEC project. On March 1, 2017, Pakistan successfully held the 13th Economic Cooperation Organization (ECO) Summit at Islamabad. The participants in the ECO expressed their resolve to enhance the regional connectivity. Therefore, they endorsed the theme of the summit—“Connectivity for Regional Prosperity.” Certainly, without regional connectivity, the ECO members cannot resolve their socio-economic problems.

The CPEC has a potential to revolutionize the regional cooperation in the fields of socio-economic development, trade, shipping, road and railway transportation, communications, industry and banking. It would also encourage tourism in the region. The CPEC project seems very advantageous for the ECO member states. It is because one of the main objectives of ECO is “development of transport & communications infrastructure linking the Member States with each other and with the outside world.” Importantly, out of 10 ECO member states 7 are landlocked. The operationalisation of CPEC routes would provide shortest route to sea at least 6 members of ECO. In addition, CPEC would also facilitate the Eurasian trade.

The 13th ECO Summit Islamabad Declaration states: “Welcome in this regard CPEC as a far-reaching initiative that would act as catalyst for development of entire region.” Perhaps, CPEC would enhance ECO-wide connectivity in terms of transport and transit; telecommunications; cyber; and all forms of energy; as well as people-to-people exchanges, including through regional tourism arrangements.

Pakistan with the assistance of China has been building Gwadar Port. The port obviously holds enormous promise for neighbouring countries and regions such as Afghanistan, China, West Asia, Central Asia and Eurasia. The successful implementation of the CPEC would provide Turkey, Iran and Pakistan access to Central Asian States, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan-Russian Federation and Europe through China. The shipping, trucking and logistics industry of these states would have immense opportunity to grow after operationalisation of the CPEC. Certainly, this unprecedented sea and road link would have far-reaching positive geo-economic dividends for the entire region.

To conclude, the region is primed for a network of rail and road linkages besides sea routes, energy, and trade corridors. Thus, operationalisation of CPEC definitely leads to a new era of regional socio-economic stability through enhanced regional cooperation for development.

— The writer is Associate Professor, School of Politics and International Relations, Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad.

Email: jaspal_99@hotmail.com

Refocus on India’s Water Terrorism on the Water Day

                                    

                                                                 By Sajjad Shaukat

Every year, World Water Day is celebrated on March 22 on global level, focusing attention on the water crisis as well as the solutions to address it.

An international day to celebrate freshwater was recommended at the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development. The United Nations General Assembly responded by designating March 22, 1993 as the first World Water Day.

Each year, this very day highlights a specific aspect of freshwater. In 2015, World Water Day has the theme “Water and Sustainable Development.” Similarly in 2016, the day pointed out various aspects of water.

Although Pakistan also celebrates World Water Day, yet its case is different from other countries, as India has stared water terrorism against Pakistan.

It is notable that since the 9/11 tragedy, international community has been taking war against terrorism seriously, while there are also other forms of bloodless wars, being waged in the world and the same are like terrorism. Political experts opine that modern terrorism has many meanings like violent acts, economic terrorism etc., but its main aim is to achieve political, economic and social ends. Judging in these terms, India’s water terrorism against Pakistan is of special consideration.

In March, 2011, speaking in diplomatic language, Indus Water Commissioner of India G. Ranganathan denied that India’s decision to build dams on rivers led to water shortage in Pakistan. He also rejected Islamabad’s concerns at water theft by New Delhi or violation of the Indus Water Treaty of 1960, assuring his counterpart, Syed Jamaat Ali Shah that all issues relating to water would be resolved through dialogue. However, ground realties are quite different from what Ranganathan maintained.

Besides other permanent issues and, especially the dispute of Kashmir which has always been used by India to malign and pressurize Pakistan, water of rivers has become a matter of life and death for every Pakistani, as New Delhi has been employing it as a tool of terrorism to blackmail Pakistan.

In this regard, Indian decision to construct two hydro-electric projects on River Neelam which is called Krishanganga is a blatant violation of the Indus Basin Water Treaty. The World Bank, itself, is the mediator and signatory for the treaty. After the partition, owing to war-like situation, New Delhi deliberately stopped the flow of Pakistan’s rivers which originate from the Indian-held Kashmir. Even at that time, Indian rulers had used water as a tool of aggression against Pakistan. However, due to Indian illogical stand, Islamabad sought the help of international arbitration. The Indus Basin Treaty allocates waters of three western rivers of Indus, Jhelum and Chenab to Pakistan, while India has rights over eastern rivers of Ravi, Sutlej and Beas.

Since the settlement of the dispute, India has always violated the treaty intermittently to create economic crisis in Pakistan. In 1984, India began construction of the Wullar Barrage on river Jhelum in the occupied Kashmir.

In the past, the issue of Wullar Barrage has also been discussed in various rounds of talks, being held under composite dialogue process between the two rivals, but Indian intransigence has continued. In the mid-1990s India started another violation by constructing the Baglihar dam on the Chenab river. In 2005, Pakistan had again sought the World Bank’s help to stop construction of the Baglihar dam. Although WB allowed India to go ahead with the project after a few modifications, yet it did not permit the interruption of the agreed quota of water flow to Pakistan.

In 2008, India suddenly reduced water flow of the Chenab river to give a greater setback to our autumnal crops. Islamabad on September 17, 2008 threatened to seek the World Bank’s intervention on the plea that New Delhi had not responded to its repeated complaints on the issue appropriately. But, India did nothing to address the problem.

However, New Delhi has been using water as an instrument to pressurize Islamabad with a view to getting leverage in the Pak-India dialogue especially regarding Indian-held Kashmir where a new phase of protests against the Indian illegitimate occupation has accelerated. In this respect, the then Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi had said on February 8, 2010 that Pakistan’s case on Kashmir and water was based on truth, and the government would fight it with full strength.

Indian diplomacy of water terrorism could also be judged from some other development. Online reports suggest that New Delhi has secretly offered technical assistance to the Afghan government in order to construct a dam over Kabul River which is a main water contributor to Indus River.

In fact, India wants to keep its control on Kashmir which is located in the Indus River basin area, and which contributes to the flow of all the major rivers, entering Pakistan. It is determined to bring about political, economic and social problems of grave nature in Pakistan.

In this context, China Daily News Group wrote in 2005: “Another added complication is that in building a dam upstream of Pakistan, India will possess the ability to flood or starve Pakistan at will. This ability was witnessed in July of 2004 when India, without warning, released water into the Chenab river, flooding large portions of Pakistan. The history of conflict between these two nations makes it possible for New Delhi to use nature as a real weapon against Islamabad.”

According to an estimate, unlike India, Pakistan is highly dependent on agriculture, which in turn is dependent on water. Of the 79.6 million hectares of land that makeup Pakistan, 20 million are available for agriculture. Of those 20 million hectares, 16 million are dependent on irrigation. So, almost 80% of Pakistan’s agriculture is dependent on irrigation.

It is noteworthy that many of Pakistan’s industries are agro-based such as the textiles industry. Besides, 80% of Pakistan’s food needs are fulfilled domestically. Thus an interruption of water supply would have broad-ranging effects. For example, when the country suffered a drought from 1998 to 2001, there were violent riots in Karachi.

It is mentionable that half of Pakistan’s energy comes from hydroelectricity, and at present, our country has been facing a severe crisis of loadshedding which is the result of power-shortage in the country. During the recent past summers, people in a number of cities like Karachi, Lahore, Multan, Faisalabad etc. lodged violent protests against the loadshedding, culminating into loss of property and life.

It is of particular attention that Pakistan’s Federal Minister for Water and Power Khawaja Asif warned on February 10, 2015 that although the electricity shortage in the country would be overcome within two to three years, the scarcity of water is another issue looming in the country.

While, Pakistan has already been facing multiple challenges of grave nature coupled with a perennial phenomenon of terrorism like suicide attacks, bomb blasts, targetted killings etc., committed by the militants who are being backed by Indian secret agency, RAW, New Delhi also employs water as an instrument by increasing its scarcity, making life too often miserable for Pakistanis with the ultimate aim of creating poverty which could produce more terrorism in turn. And, India is likely to deepen differences among Pakistan’s provinces over various issues which are directly or indirectly related to water.

Nonetheless, Islamabad must include water as a major focus of agenda in the future dialogue; otherwise India is likely to continue its water terrorism against Pakistan.

Sajjad Shaukat writes on international affairs and is author of the book: US vs Islamic Militants, Invisible Balance of Power: Dangerous Shift in International Relations

Email: sajjad_logic@yahoo.com

Kashmir: Distress of the Amritsar Treaty

By Sajjad Shaukat

The very distress of the people of Jammu and Kashmir started on March 16, 1846 when the Treaty of Amritsar was signed. Under the Treaty, British colonialists sold Kashmir along with its people e to a Dogra Hindu, Gulab Singh for 7.5 million rupees. The Treaty of Amritsar which was signed by Gulab Singh, Hardinge, Currie and Lawrence had common cause among the parties with the aim to end the Muslim rule in Jammu and Kashmir. Gulab Singh thus became the founder and first Maharaja of the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K).

As a consequence of the Treaty of Amritsar, a reign of terror was unleashed by the Dogra dynasty on the Kashmiris. During the Dogra rule (1846-1947), Kashmiri Muslims were leading so miserable life that it was difficult to differentiate them from beasts. Slave labour, heavy taxes, capital punishment for cow slaughter, and living under constant terror was order of the day.

In this regard, Yousaf Saraf in his book, ‘Kashmiris Fight for Freedom’ calls it “free forced labour” and “instead of donkeys and horses, Kashmiri Muslims were used for transportation of goods across the far-flung areas.” Atrocities of the Dogra regime could also be judged from the book of Sir Walter Lawrence, ‘The India We Served’. While describing the pathetic picture of the Kashmiris, he writes, “Army was employed in forcing the villagers to plough and sow, and worse still, the soldiers came at harvest time and when the share of the state had been seized” and “there was very little grain to tide the unfortunate peasants over the cruel winter.”

On April 19, 1931, the ban of Eid Khutba ignited widespread demonstrations in the Jummu city. For the first time, people openly opposed the oppression. On July 13, 1931, thousands of people thronged the Central Jail Srinagar. As the time for obligatory prayer approached, a young Kashmiri stood for Azan. The Dogra soldiers opened fire at him. In this way, 22 Kashmiris embraced martyrdom in their efforts to complete the Azan.

The people carried the dead and paraded through the streets of Srinagar, chanting slogans against Dogra brutalities. Complete strike was observed in the city, which was followed by weeklong mourning. This incident shook the whole state and the traffic from Srinagar to Rawalpindi and Srinagar to Jammu came to halt.

However, upon these ruthless killings, the Kashmiri leadership realized the need to form a political party, Muslim Conference (MC) with a view to waging struggle for their freedom. Later, in 1934, state’s first elections were held and MC won 10 out of 21 seats, and after two years in 1936, it succeeded in getting 19 out of 21 seats. Indian Congress was upset with this situation and tried to create division in the ranks of Kashmiri leadership. Afterwards, on July 19, 1947, MC passed a resolution to merge Kashmir with Pakistan, considering the geographical proximity—majority of Muslim population (77%), language and cultural relations of Jammu and Kashmir.

During the partition of the Sub-continent, in 1947, the ruler of Jammu and Kashmir, Hari Singh, in connivance with Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and Governor-General Lord Mountbatten, had decided to join India, quite contrary to the wishes of the majority of Kashmiris.

When a contention arose between India and Pakistan on the Kashmir dispute in1948, India took the issue to the United Nations Security Council and offered to hold a plebiscite in the held Kashmir under UN supervision. On February 5, 1964, India backed out of its promise. Instead, in March 1965, the Indian Parliament passed a bill, declaring Kashmir a province of India.

While passing through various phases, the struggle of Kashmiris which has become an interaction between Indian state terrorism led by the Indian security forces and war of liberation by the freedom fighters, keeps on going unabated.

Despite the employment of various forms of state terrorism by the Indian security forces, war of liberation intensified since 1989.

A report on human rights violations by Indian Army and its paramilitary forces in Indian-held Kashmir disclosed that since 1989, there have been deaths of 93,274 innocent Kashmiris, 6,969 custodial killings, 117,345 arrests and 105,861 destructions of houses. Indian brutal security forces have orphaned over 107, 351 children, widowed 22,728 women and gang raped 9,920 women.

Besides Human Rights Watch, in its various reports, Amnesty International has also pointed out grave human rights violations in the Indian-controlled Kashmir, indicating, “The Muslim majority population in the Kashmir Valley suffers from the repressive tactics of the security forces. Under the Jammu and Kashmir Disturbed Areas Act, and the Armed Forces (Jammu and Kashmir) Special Powers Act and Public Safety Act, security forces have extraordinary powers to shoot suspected persons.”

Particularly in 2008, a rights group reported unmarked graves in 55 villages across the Indian occupied Kashmir. In this context, in August, 2011, Indian Jammu and Kashmir State Human Rights Commission (SHRC) officially acknowledged in its report that innocent civilians killed in the two-decade conflict have been buried in unmarked graves. Notably, foreign sources and human rights organizations including Association of Parents of Disappeared Persons (APDP) have pointed out that unnamed graves include thousands of innocent persons, killed by the Indian military and paramilitary troops in the fake encounters including those who were tortured to death.

It is notable that leader of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and Prime Minister of India Narendra Modi has taken various steps to strengthen Indian illegal control on Kashmir. The Modi regime hurriedly decided to forcibly annex disputed territory of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, uncovering its intentions to wrap up the article 370 of the Indian constitution which ensures a special status to J&K. Therefore, United Nations Military Observer Group India and Pakistan in New Delhi was asked to vacate official accommodation. In fact, BJP government‘s long term strategy is to affect demographic changes in the Indian occupied Kashmir by composition of the region—predominately with Hindu population.

During People’s Democratic Party (PDP)-BJP alliance government in the Indian Occupied Kashmir, BJP in aid of RSS accelerated its agenda of complete integration of Kashmir into India. Though legal experts of India and IOK High Court clarified the permanent status of Article 370 of Indian Constitution, BJP’s agenda of trifurcations is still on table. However, short of that, BJP and RSS are busy in changing religious identity of the State. For example, special concessions were given to expand the horizon of Amarnath Yatra to project that Hindus have greater stakes in IOK than Muslims.

Special efforts are being made for demographic engineering in the State. For instance, West Pakistan Refugees have been recruited in the Indian Armed Forces from IOK quota. Allocation of lands for separate cities for repatriating Hindu Pundits and allocation of INR 2 million for rehabilitation of each Pundit family in the Valley are aimed at creating Hindu constituencies in a thorough Muslim region of the Valley through delimitations.

Kashmiri Hurriyat leadership had been suppressed by the PDP-BJP government by not allowing them to organize rallies for demanding freedom and expressing love for Pakistan. Their leaders were detained in Police Stations or kept under house arrests during all important events. Detention of Masarat Alam, even after acceptance of bail by IOK High Court, exhibits coercive mechanics of Indian forces/police in the State.

Nevertheless, this time, the very day has come at time when the people of Kashmir have intensified their legitimate struggle in the aftermath of the martyrdom of the young Kashmir leader Burhan Wani by the Indian security forces in the Indian Occupied Kashmir in wake of continued sieges and prolonged curfews. Since July 8, 2016, Indian forces have martyred more than 150 innocent persons who have been protesting against the martyrdom of Burhan Wani and for liberation of their land.

By manipulating the false flag terror attacks at a military base in Uri and Baramulla, the BJP-led Indian Prime Minister Modi has also acceletated war-hysteria against Pakistan. After deployment of heavy arms and weapons at the Line of Control (LoC), Indian forces have increased troops and continue shelling in Pakistani side of Azad Kashmir. And Pakistani troops are giving matching response to Indian unprovoked firing across the LoC and are well-prepared for Indian another surgical strikes, as threatened by Indian new army Chief Army Chief Gen. Dalbir Singh Suhaag. New Delhi’s main aim is to deflect the attention of the international community from the new phase of Kashmiri Intifada, while pressure has been mounting on the Modi government both domestically and internationally to resolve the issue of Kashmir with Pakistan.

In response, Pakistan’s Army Chief Gen. Qamar Javed Bajwa on January 5, 2016 rejected claims by his Indian counterpart Gen. Bipin Rawat about “so-called surgical strikes” and their possible recurrence.

According to ISPR, Army Chief Gen. Qamar Bajwa made it clear that “Pakistan Armed Forces were fully geared to respond to any aggression by India.”

Indian malicious intent is evident from the blame game against Pakistan for every internal security issue, merely to avoid serious dialogue on bilateral issues as well as the humanitarian crisis in Kashmir. Pakistan is committed to the just and democratic solution of the Kashmir issue, which is plebiscite, however, India has never been serious in resolution of the dispute, neither through bilateral dialogue nor involving third party mediation nor by abiding by the UN Resolutions.

Returning to our earlier discussion, the Treaty of Amritsar is the genesis of the distress of the Kashmiris, and their war of liberation keeps on going, and will continue until they get their legitimate right of self-determination.

Sajjad Shaukat writes on international affairs and is author of the book: US vs Islamic Militants, Invisible Balance of Power: Dangerous Shift in International Relations

Email: sajjad_logic@yahoo.com