The blind men of Pakistan

From madrasa to media, the Pakistani awam is being disserved

As the Pakistani army prepared for battle in South Waziristan, a spate of articles appeared in the Urdu press, which while recognizing the combatants as “extremists”, ascribed to the notion that these were merely people who had been led astray by the conjuring of an evil power. This is a theme that has resonated well with the media since major operations commenced against the Taliban. Hence Operation Rah-e-Rast — Operation Right Track — in Swat.

With regard to the operations in South Waziristan, the October 19, 2009 editorial of the Urdu newspaper, the Daily Ausaaf typifies the kind of mindless harangue dished out by Pakistan’s vernacular media on the subject.  Replying to it would be futile and unnecessary to the readers of this blog.

That Pakistan can do no wrong is a foregone conclusion and cannot be debated. Therefore, if things are going wrong, it is most likely the work of Pakistan’s enemies.  The same indoctrination follows the people, from madrasa to media.  The shackles of indoctrination cannot be broken until Pakistan’s terror consortium of the maulvis, ISI and army comes to terms with the rapidity of diminishing returns in such mindless propaganda.

Today those groups that waged jihad in Kashmir have turned their guns on their masters on the streets of Rawalpindi and Lahore.  The army is in an all out war against the very Taliban it nurtured.  Baluchistan is in the middle of a secessionist uprising. Anti-Shia groups that surfaced as a result of oil money from Saudi Arabia have complicated Pakistan’s relations with Iran.

Who is bleeding by a thousand cuts?

An excerpt of the October 19, 2009 editorial of the Daily Ausaaf is enclosed below.  The entire original editorial in Urdu can be read here:

October 19, 2009

The Daily Ausaaf

The South Waziristan Operation: The Real Enemy also needs to be dealt with decisively

The main cause of this war is the perpetuation of the policies of the former dictator, Pervez Musharraf, as a result of which the real enemy remains hidden. This enemy doesn’t openly confront us, but does so through its agents, who are unfortunately tied to our own existence.

These agents promote the interests of the real enemy by attacking the nation. In actuality, the real force behind this war is the United States, which is being aided by India and Israel in order to destabilize Pakistan.

The roles that the United States has assigned India in Afghanistan are quickly becoming clear. From Afghanistan, India, with the assistance of the United States and Israel, attacks Pakistan at every possible level.

The several Indian missions spread across the length and breadth of Afghanistan have been established for this very purpose. These counsels are a threat to our nation, and it is through them that India provides financial and military support to extremists and terrorists.

It is a wonder that these activities are being conducted under the very nose of the United States, which claims that is it fighting a war against terrorism. However, under the US’s protection, India provides financial support and weapons to terrorists who attack Pakistan.

There is consensus among America, India and Israel to destabilize Pakistan. There is also information that the US and NATO have closed some of their checkpoints near the border, due to which terrorists from Afghanistan are able to enter into Pakistan freely.

It is clear therefore, that the US also wants Pakistani armed forces’ operation in South Waziristan to fail. But this is wishful thinking. It is not easy to defeat the Pakistani Army. The army enjoys the support of the entire nation.

It is amply clear that the US, India and Israel want to weaken Pakistan economically, politically and militarily in order to alienate its people and denuclearize the nation.

Pakistan needs to appreciate the fact that in its war in South Waziristan, it is confronting not only the terrorists, but also the big powers that are their backers. We will not be able to win this war without understanding who the real enemy is and neutralizing their designs against Pakistan.

Email this •   Share on Facebook

Filed under: Foreign Policy, India, Iran, Kashmir, pakistan army, Sipah-e-Sahaba, Tehrik-e-Taliban, Terrorism, World, Afghanistan, baluchistan, daily ausaaf, India, Iran, isi, israel, jihad, Kashmir, NATO, pakistan media, pervez musharraf, Saudi Arabia, South Waziristan, Swat, taliban rah-e-rast, urdu, usa

Reconnecting with Iran: My article in Pragati

India’s independence on foreign policy has taken a beating during the last five years of UPA rule.  For the sake of a nuclear deal that now, ironically,  sits in the new US administration’s cold storage, the UPA sacrificed India’s reputation in the congress of developing nations by voting against Iran — not once, but twice — at the IAEA.   I make the case for reversing the current trajectory of our relationship with this important Islamic republic in this month’s Pragati .

… India’s engagements with the United States, and increasingly with Israel, amidst Iran’s growing isolation post-9/11, affected the ability of the two countries to collaborate on areas of mutual interest, including energy security and stemming the growth of Sunni extremism in the region. During this period, two events effectively put paid to the momentum gained by the New Delhi Declaration – India’s voting against Iran at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in 2005 and India’s launching of the Israeli reconnaissance satellite TecSAR (“Polaris”) in 2008.

The UPA’s naiveté with regard to relations with Iran will come back to haunt the nation. India’s voting against Iran at the IAEA was perhaps the biggest strategic foreign policy blunder since the turn of the millennium. It was less a reflection of India’s conviction against nuclear proliferation and more an evidence of America’s coerciveness, effectively tying the Indo-US nuclear deal to India’s vote.

Read more about it on Pragati ( PDF, 2.2 MB)

Filed under: America, Foreign Policy, India, Iran, Nuclear Energy, Politics, Published work, Terrorism, World, iaea, India, ipi pipeline, Iran, iran-pakistan-india, israel, nuclear deal, Obama, polaris, usa

US – UAE Nuclear Deal

Very quietly, the United States and the United Arab Emirates have signed a deal that will allow the UAE to develop nuclear reactors and obtain nuclear fuel from the US, under the 123 Agreement framework. Under the agreement, the UAE, which is already a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), will be subjected to nuclear safeguards inspection from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and will forgo the right to enrich/reprocess spent Uranium fuel. The whole nuclear program of the UAE will apparently be under US management, pending IAEA approval.

Since its birth in December 1971, the UAE has experienced massive economic growth on account of its petroleum reserves. This initial economic growth gave rise to two main economic power centers in this federation of seven emirates — Abu Dhabi, the capital of the UAE and largest emirate by area, whose revenues are driven by oil, and Dubai, the most populous emirate, whose revenues are driven by trade and financial services.

Economic growth lead to investments in infrastructure and construction, resulting in the arrival of hoards of blue – and white collar workers, primarily from the Indian subcontinent, to fill the employment vacuum. This sustained population growth, particularly in Dubai, has forced the UAE to consider alternative sources of energy. By some estimates, UAE’s demand for electricity is likely to rise to 40,000 megawatts (MW) by 2020. However, UAE’s energy sector is projected to be capable of meeting only about 50% of this demand.

The 123 Agreement is yet to be ratified by Congress, and will still need to be approved by the President of a new US administration. Barack Obama has not publicly stated his views on the issue. The deal has already met with vociferous disapproval from members of Congress. Rep. Brad Sherman, the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade subcommittee, said:

“Any (nuclear cooperation) agreement between the United States and the UAE should not be submitted to Congress until, at a minimum, the UAE has addressed the critical issue of transshipments and diversion of sensitive technologies to Iran.”

If that’s the Congressman’s line of thought, then this is yet another classic example of the kind of cluelessness that has come to typify the thinking of successive US administrations on matters concerning the Middle East. Indeed, Iran is the one country that can be counted on to get irked by the proposed deal.  Relations between “Shi’a” Iran and “Sunni-Arab” UAE have always been icy.

A major bone of contention between the UAE and Iran is with regard to the Abu Musa and Lesser Tunb islands, unilaterally occupied by Iran, but claimed by the UAE. The Abu Musa archipelago lies within the strategic Straits of Hormuz corridor, an area vital to the petroleum driven economies of the Arabian Peninsula. In addition, as Anthony Cordesman points out, there are two specific areas of concern for Abu Dhabi — (a) the presence of a significant Iranian immigrant (potential “fifth column”) population in the UAE, and (b) the strategic proximity of Dubai and Sharjah to the old Iranian port-town of Bandar Abbas. The vulnerability of the northern emirates’ shipping channels to Iran’s airbase in Bandar Abbas is a source of worry for UAE’s rulers.

For its part, Iran can’t be too pleased with the cosiness exhibited smaller Arabian Peninsular countries like the UAE and Qatar towards the United States. US military bases in the UAE, like those in Jebel Ali and Al Dhafra, and UAE’s ambivalence towards the US invasion of Iraq can’t have helped matters much either.

This nuclear deal is a bad idea — not because of an alleged UAE-Iran nexus, but because the UAE will be susceptible to an Iranian military assault either if Iran-UAE relations deteriorate, or if Iran has its back to the wall in any future US-Iran military confrontation. The UAE can ill afford be in a military conflict with Iran — the repercussions will be felt far beyond the region, given that expatriates make up about 80% of the total population of the UAE.

Allowing the accumulation of nuclear material in a politically and militarily weak country situated in the most unstable region on earth, and in the proximity and cross-hairs of Iran, is foolish. To think that this will impress upon Iran the virtues of towing Washington’s line with regard to nuclear technology is an exercise in naiveté. Far from making the UAE politically and strategically more secure, the deal will prove to be an albatross around Abu Dhabi’s neck.

Filed under: 123 Agreement, Abu Musa, America, Barack Obama, Business, Dubai, Iran, Nuclear Energy, Politics, UAE, United Arab Emirates, World, 123 Agreement, Abu Dhabi, Abu Musa, ahmedinajad, brad sherman, ctbt, Dubai, iaea, Iran, npt, Nuclear Energy, qatar, sharjah, sheikh mohammed, straits of hormuz, tehran, UAE, United Arab Emirates, United States, US, Washinton