US shares Afghan concern
The top NATO commander Gen. David Petraeus has said that Afghanistan’s
President Hamid Karzai's recent complaints that the war should focus on
militant leaders hiding in neighboring Pakistan instead of Afghan villages
doesn't mean the government no longer supports the US war strategy. He
shared Karzai's concern about threats across the border in Pakistan but
said the Pakistanis deserve credit for waging what he described as an ''impressive
counterinsurgency campaign'' during the past 18 months. The Karzai government
has been increasingly vocal in recent days about the need to destroy Taliban
and al-Qaida sanctuaries in Pakistan.
Afghan National Security Adviser Rangin Dadfar Spanta has argued that
US support of Pakistan amounts to nurturing the terrorists' ''main mentor''
and that the Afghan people are no longer ready to pay the price for the
international community's miscalculation and naivety. In a wide-ranging
interview with The Associated Press and two other news agencies, Petraeus
said it's natural that the Afghan government wants to take more of a lead
role in the handling of its own national affairs.
He said he's seeking clarification on the blunt criticism from Afghan
governmental officials, but does not think the comments reflect diminished
Afghan support for his counterinsurgency strategy, which aims to provide
security and earn the trust of the Afghan people.
According to Petraeus, he has drafted operational guidelines to implement
Karzai's goal of having Afghan police and soldiers take the lead in the
country's 34 provinces by 2014 as security allows. It remains unclear whether
the Afghans will be ready to handle their own security, even four years
down the road. Talk of a 2014 date enables politicians to tell their war-weary
publics that the conflict will not drag on indefinitely, draining resources
at a time of economic hardship and rising death tolls. It also sends a
signal to the Afghans that the Western commitment to the country will extend
beyond July 2011, when President Barack Obama says he will begin withdrawing
US troops.
Indian aid offer
India on Tuesday offered another 20 million dollars in flood aid to
Pakistan, the country's foreign minister said, boosting efforts to build
goodwill between the estranged neighbours.S.M. Krishna told parliament
a fresh installment of 20 million dollars would boost India's total aid
contributions for Pakistan to 25 million dollars. Meanwhile, after a fortnight
of dragging its heels, Pakistan on Saturday refused to directly accept
India’s offer of flood relief worth $5m, suggesting, instead, that the
aid be routed through the UN.
We hope that India does so, for Pakistan’s need is dire and delays
in assistance can mean the difference between life and death for millions.
It is for this reason that we must also reflect on the Pakistani stance.
It is a matter of record that India’s offer was acknowledged by Prime Minister
Yousuf Raza Gilani. Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi said in New York
that the Pakistan government appreciated and had accepted India’s initiative.
As recently as Friday, Information Minister Qamar Zaman Kaira said that
the offer had been accepted. The foreign ministry, however, maintained
throughout that the matter was still under discussion, and these claims
were borne out by the weekend decision.
One wonders why there is so much confusion among the ranks of those
who represent the government. It appears that despite Pakistan’s desperate
need for aid, in the end political considerations were given precedence
over the welfare of the citizenry. The latter requires immediate assistance
regardless of its source. Pakistan may have benefited if it had recognised
that, given its tense ties with India, particularly after the 2008 Mumbai
attacks, the offer constituted a confidence booster in terms of the possibility
of improved relations in the future, something which has been attempted
for some time now. True, Pakistan chose the middle ground. It has not outright
rejected India’s offer. But in choosing this route, it has exposed itself
to allegations of political cynicism and ungraceful behaviour from the
Indian press and public, particularly since India made the offer as a result
of domestic criticism that its government was allowing political considerations
to override humanitarian concerns.
Obama not Muslim
US President Barack Obama has said he isn't worried about a recent
poll showing that nearly one-fifth of Americans believe he is a Muslim."The
facts are the facts," said Mr Obama, who is a Christian. In an interview
broadcast on NBC Nightly News, the president blamed the confusion over
his religious beliefs on "a network of misinformation that in a new media
era can get churned out there constantly."
A poll released earlier this month by the nonpartisan Pew Research
Centre showed that 18% of people believe Mr Obama is Muslim. That
was up from 11% who said so in March 2009. Just 34% said Mr Obama
is Christian, down from 48% who said so last year. In addition, only about
one third of Americans surveyed correctly describe Obama as a Christian,
a sharp decrease from the 48 percent who said he was a Christian in 2009.
The Pew survey was completed in early August, before Obama waded into
a controversy over a proposed Muslim cultural center and Mosque near the
site of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks in New York. Proponents of the project
met fierce opposition from conservative politicians and those who say it
is offensive to families of the nearly 3,000 people killed in the September
11 attacks by Al-Qaeda militants. Obama turned what had been mostly a local
issue into a national debate when he said he believed Muslim Americans
had the same right to practice their religion as other US citizens and
supported their right to build the center in lower Manhattan.
Advocate of the divine faith
Nation special feature
In the name of God, the Lord of Grace, the Ever Merciful Who speaks
better than he who calls people to God, does what is right, and says, ‘I
am one of those who have surrendered themselves to God’? Good and evil
cannot be equal. Repel evil with what is better, and he who is your enemy
will become as close to you as a true friend. Yet none will attain this
except those who are patient in adversity; none will attain it except those
endowed with truly great fortune. If a prompting from Satan should stir
you up, seek refuge with God. He alone is All-Hearing, All-Knowing. (Clearly
Expounded; Fussilat: 41: 33-36)
This part of the surah concludes by painting an image of the advocate
of the divine faith, describing his personality, discourse and fine manners.
God’s Messenger, and indeed every advocate of God’s way, are called on
to adopt such ways. The surah began by describing the hostile attitude
of those called upon to accept the faith and how they met this call with
arrogance. Now, the advocates of divine faith are being told what course
to follow, regardless of how their advocacy is met and how their efforts
are received.
An advocate of the divine faith must put his addressees face to face
with reality. He has to confront people’s deviation, ignorance, and inflated
appreciation of their own deeds, as also their instinctive abhorrence of
being told that they are wrong. He is opposed by people’s determination
to serve their own interests and maintain positions that might be threatened
by the principle of equality of all people, which is basic to divine faith.
To face all this as part of the task of advocating divine faith is indeed
very hard. Yet it is something truly great: "Who speaks better than he
who calls people to God, does what is right, and says, ‘I am one of those
who have surrendered themselves to God’?"
Taking all this into account, a word of advocacy, calling on people
to believe in God’s oneness, is the best word that may be said on earth.
It is at the forefront of good words that are raised to God in heaven,
provided it is endorsed by good action and confirmed with self-surrender
to Him. Thus, such advocacy becomes pure and sincere, free of self-interest.
The advocate’s aim is merely to discharge his duty by presenting the divine
message. Once he has discharged his duty, he should not care whether his
words are rejected or whether people are rude or boastful in their denials.
He is merely presenting what is good, which puts him in the higher position.
Anyone who opposes him entertains evil, and, as such, is far below an advocate
of God: "Good and evil cannot be equal." Advocates of the divine message
cannot return evil with its like. A good deed cannot be equal in its impact
or value to a bad one. Patient perseverance, forbearance and rising above
the desire to return evil with its like eventually brings people back to
their senses. Their earlier hardness softens and they become friendly:
"Repel evil with what is better, and he who is your enemy will become as
close to you as a true friend."
This rule proves true in the overwhelming majority of cases: a stormy
attitude will be replaced by calmness, fury by cordiality and arrogance
by humility. All this may result from a good word, a soft tone and a smile
to meet the fury of one whose anger gets the better of him. Had such a
person been met with a similarly furious approach, he would only be more
quarrelsome and completely lose his self-control.
Such a forbearing attitude requires a great heart, one that can forgive
when it might otherwise return evil with its like. Such ability is necessary
for forbearance to be effective. Otherwise, forbearance may be thought
a mark of weakness. If the party resorting to evil feels that a kindly
attitude results from weakness, he will not respect it. Indeed, kindness
will not have any effect on the matter. Moreover, such kindness and forbearance
are limited to personal insults and injuries. When the attack is leveled
at believers’ faith, trying to turn them away from it, then every form
of resistance should be employed, or else, we remain patient in adversity
until God makes His judgment in the matter.
God, man’s Creator, knows the keys to each and every heart, as well
as its abilities and qualities. He knows where and how Satan can penetrate
his machinations. Therefore, He protects the advocates of His message from
stirred up anger as we face what excites the fury of even the most forbearing
of us. Yet this too is a difficult road to follow, requiring that we submit
here, as in every situation, to divine directives, to the exclusion of
all else.
================
China's Discreet Hold on Pakistan's Northern Borderlands
By Selig S. Harrison
While the world focuses on the flood-ravaged Indus River valley, a quiet
geopolitical crisis is unfolding in the Himalayan borderlands of northern
Pakistan, where Islamabad is handing over de facto control of the strategic
Gilgit-Baltistan region in the northwest corner of disputed Kashmir to
China.
The entire Pakistan-occupied western portion of Kashmir stretching
from Gilgit in the north to Azad (Free) Kashmir in the south is closed
to the world, in contrast to the media access that India permits in the
eastern part, where it is combating a Pakistan-backed insurgency. But reports
from a variety of foreign intelligence sources, Pakistani journalists and
Pakistani human rights workers reveal two important new developments in
Gilgit-Baltistan: a simmering rebellion against Pakistani rule and the
influx of an estimated 7,000 to 11,000 soldiers of the People’s Liberation
Army.
China wants a grip on the region to assure unfettered road and rail
access to the Gulf through Pakistan. It takes 16 to 25 days for Chinese
oil tankers to reach the Gulf. When high-speed rail and road links through
Gilgit and Baltistan are completed, China will be able to transport cargo
from Eastern China to the new Chinese-built Pakistani naval bases at Gwadar,
Pasni and Ormara, just east of the Gulf, within 48 hours.
Many of the P.L.A. soldiers entering Gilgit-Baltistan are expected
to work on the railroad. Some are extending the Karakoram Highway, built
to link China’s Sinkiang Province with Pakistan. Others are working on
dams, expressways and other projects.
Mystery surrounds the construction of 22 tunnels in secret locations
where Pakistanis are barred. Tunnels would be necessary for a projected
gas pipeline from Iran to China that would cross the Himalayas through
Gilgit. But they could also be used for missile storage sites.
-----------------------------------------
Pakistan denies giving Gilgit Baltistan to
China
ISLAMABAD: The Pakistan Foreign Office has strongly denied the news
propagated in the US and Indian media claiming that ‘Galgit Baltistan’
region had been handed over to China. "The Chinese were working on landslide,
flood hit areas and on the destroyed Korakoram Highway with the permission
of Pakistani Government," said Foreign Office spokesman Abdul Basit on
Tuesday.
Selig Harrison in his article, published in the New York Times,
wrote that on invitation of the Pakistani government ‘seven to eleven thousand’
Chinese soldiers had entered Gilgit Baltistan area. Referring to
the article, Basit said "The statements are based on incomplete information.
Harrison has an anti-Pakistan mindset and has tried to deform the facts
in his article to sensitize the situation."
-------------------------------------------
Until recently, the P.L.A. construction crews lived in temporary encampments
and went home after completing their assignments. Now they are building
big residential enclaves clearly designed for a long-term presence.
What is happening in the region matters to Washington for two reasons.
Coupled with its support for the Taliban, Islamabad’s collusion in facilitating
China’s access to the Gulf makes clear that Pakistan is not a U.S. "ally."
Equally important, the nascent revolt in the Gilgit-Baltistan region is
a reminder that Kashmiri demands for autonomy on both sides of the cease-fire
line would have to be addressed in a settlement.
Media attention has exposed the repression of the insurgency in the
Indian-ruled Kashmir Valley. But if reporters could get into the Gilgit-Baltistan
region and Azad Kashmir, they would find widespread, brutally-suppressed
local movements for democratic rights and regional autonomy.
When the British partitioned South Asia in 1947, the maharajah who
ruled Kashmir, including Gilgit and Baltistan, acceded to India. This set
off intermittent conflict that ended with Indian control of the Kashmir
Valley, the establishment of Pakistan-sponsored Free Kashmir in western
Kashmir, and Pakistan’s occupation of Gilgit and Baltistan, where Sunni
jihadi groups allied with the Pakistan Army have systematically terrorized
the local Shiite Muslims.
Gilgit and Baltistan are in effect under military rule. Democratic
activists there want a legislature and other institutions without restrictions
like the ones imposed on Free Kashmir, where the elected legislature controls
only 4 out of 56 subjects covered in the state constitution. The rest are
under the jurisdiction of a "Kashmir Council" appointed by the president
of Pakistan.
India gives more power to the state government in Srinagar; elections
there are widely regarded as fair, and open discussion of demands for autonomy
is permitted. But the Pakistan-abetted insurgency in the Kashmir Valley
has added to tensions between Indian occupation forces and an assertive
population seeking greater of local autonomy.
The United States is uniquely situated to play a moderating role in
Kashmir, given its growing economic and military ties with India and Pakistan’s
aid dependence on Washington. Such a role should be limited to quiet diplomacy.
Washington should press New Delhi to resume autonomy negotiations with
Kashmiri separatists. Success would put pressure on Islamabad for comparable
concessions in Free Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan. In Pakistan, Washington
should focus on getting Islamabad to stop aiding the insurgency in the
Kashmir Valley and to give New Delhi a formal commitment that it will not
annex Gilgit and Baltistan.
Precisely because the Gilgit-Baltistan region is so important to China,
the United States, India and Pakistan should work together to make sure
that it is not overwhelmed, like Tibet, by the Chinese behemoth.
(Courtesy New York Times. Selig S. Harrison is director of the Asia
Program at the Center for International Policy and a former South Asia
bureau chief of The Washington Post.
Match fixing saga
By Barrister Amjad Malik
News of the world’s undercover report and latest revelations on spot
& match fixing involving Pakistani Cricket players have startled the
cricketing world. It is turning out to be a deadly development for the
mainstream Cricket, and is disappointing for the those millions who watch
on TV and take interest in this great game and for those who go one step
ahead and pay, travel and watch it live at the ground expecting a fair
and competitive match.
Those accused of conspiracy to defraud the book makers risk being charged
under s.1&5 Criminal Law Act 1977 and may be sentenced up to 10 years
if found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by a court of law. However, ICC
regulatory body as well as anti corruption units will be closely watching
the video evidence and Pakistan runs a risk to receive some sort of rebuke
to curtail and deter corrupt practices if damage control exercise does
not take place sooner than later. Bringing the game into disrepute allegation
on the balance of probabilities will remain hanging on the head of those
accused players and will be easier to prove.
It is my humble opinion that in principle all criminal and ICC investigations
must be cooperated by Govt, PCB and players. Players must be provided full
legal support and if they feel they are innocent, they must take action
as a group privately where state is not a party against the NOTW (News
of the World) for defamation in the high court in Strand. In all Scotland
Yard enquiries, they must be given the benefit of the presumption that
they are innocent until proven guilty by a court of law. Mazhar Majeed’s
role must be critically analysed ad scrutinised to rule out his role of
a coercive whistle blower, so as the role of NOTW reporter to rule out
any targeted victimisation. Dishonesty, direct link between parties who
agree to commit crime, money changing hands, and identification of the
potential victims and quantity of loss are the potential questions to be
answered before the charge of conspiracy to defraud bookies is to be proven
by state prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt. It is a difficult task,
and entrapment is visible in the story, but in UK this sort of practice
is permitted with a caveat if it is in public interest and exposes a criminal
outfit, mafias or corrupt practices. Many are victims but mostly understand
the need to keep a check on certain practices and sting operation is the
only viable route to catch red handed.
In the interest of curtailing damage to the country’s repute and the
game, those named players in the report must be replaced with the fresh
faces, so that the future games and results are devoid of any doubts of
any match fixing allegation. If the players are cleared of any wrong doing
only then, they must be allowed to join the national team after going through
a vetting process by a committee of PCB. Pakistan Cricket Board must act
responsibly as delay tactics with inaction may cost Pakistan their place
in international Cricket as looking at the evidence it seems there is a
prima facie allegations of a spot fixing, if it goes further to a match
fixing is yet to be probed.PCB as a governing body must act vigilantly
and remain distanced from the accused players. If little late, they may
delay the proceedings for a while but God forbid if the players are found
guilty in the end, the loss will be of state if PCB remained adamant and
partisan ignoring the crucial facts & evidence. Their machinery of
discipline must come in action. If the board wishes a head on collision
with the newspaper (News of the World) by suing for defamation, then they
must first know what the paper knows, only then, there is a cause of a
case in such lines, otherwise defamation too must be left on individual
players who are named in the story.
Policy in relation to flag carriers must be strict, needs to be explained
to the players who represent the state and there must be no compromise
and leniency with those who flout the law, rules and regulation and honour
for money. Pakistan as a state needs to look at ‘corruption’ with a new
mind set, contempt and a sheer will to deter corrupt practices in all ranks
and file and it needs to introduce a practical legislation coupled with
a judicial forum which adjudicate such elements and bring them to account
so that the message is strong and no one could get through the net through
coercive measures as is the case in the immediate past, otherwise tomatoes,
eggs, and shoes will be hurled at the heroes who dig our heads in sands
with shame due to their poor actions.
(Barrister Amjad Malik is a Chair of the Association of Pakistani Lawyers
(UK)