Pakistani politics, a messy affair

Why is Pakistani politics so insipid? With no charismatic leaders to look up to after the country’s founder, parties floundering in their unkept charters and distinctions between left and right shrinking, it is no wonder that a majority of Pakistanis give the ballot box a miss.


Coupled with the irregularities in the electoral system that have finally been identified and being worked upon, the prospect of voting in elections seems daunting, to say the least.


Right leaning parties are abundant but most of these are just reactive blocs who have found it difficult to provide real services to people, thereby failing to enhance their political clout. That is why, the thumping of liberal parties in all Arab Spring revolts by offshoots or even clones of the Muslim Brotherhood can never be replicated over here. Why? Because building schools, hospitals and having real substance to show up for political rhetoric is important — people judge you by your feats, not by your harangues against the West, India or Israel.


Are there any genuine leftist parties in Pakistan? The question is critical since in any political system, parties on the left and right of the political spectrum make the electoral process so much more enthralling for people in addition to making it more debatable. If truth be told, not a single political party in the country can identified as being leftist. Without any steps taken to empower labourers in market transactions coupled with the absence of relatively every institute that can be subsumed to be part of a welfare state, no political party can be identified as working for the marginalised. Rather, each one has a definite mix of feudal, military and industrial elites.


What can the average Pakistani do to try to make sense out of this messy affair? Well, for one, they would have to really make their representatives work to implement their manifestos when in power. Two, they must draw inspiration from the Arab Spring. Doing the latter is important since the Arabs have finally awakened from their long slumber to challenge a status-quo that had been stagnant for more than four decades. Three, they must try their best to break this constricting nexus of feudal-military-industrial alliance. Only then can they find an Erdogan (the incumbent premier of Turkey) here to be respected, followed and rallied around.

Nuclear Iran is not in Pakistan’s interest

Since the International Atomic Energy Agency issued its latest findings on Iran’s nuclear program and activities, policy-makers in the West and the United States in particular are weighing their options on how to respond to Iran’s continued defiance of its Non-Proliferation Treaty obligations.



The Islamic Republic’s nuclear program has possible military dimensions and its stated “peacefulness” lacks credibility. Alarm bells in Israel have been ringing for a long time and a pre-emptive strike on Iran’s nuclear sites seems imminent. Not much is being discussed in Pakistan about the implications of a nuclear Iran, precisely due to Pakistan being consumed by its own problems with the on-going political turmoil and its relations with the United States.


This is an alarming development not only for the geopolitical balance in the Middle East, but also for South Asia. A nuclear Iran is not in Pakistan’s interests. Considering that Iran’s regional interests do not align with those of Pakistan, a nuclear Iran has serious implications of greater belligerent behaviour, regional hegemony and bullying. Even though Pakistan is a nuclear state and any nuclear aggression towards us will be deterred, it would immensely reduce our leverage in relations with Iran—if any.


Being the only Muslim nuclear country, a nuclear Pakistan still has some symbolic value in the eyes of the Muslim world. Even though we are economically weak and, at the behest of foreign financial institutions and governments, our national defence posture will take a deep slide with a nuclear armed state on our western border.


The interests of Pakistan and Iran clash in Afghanistan, and Iran’s relations with our key ally in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia, remain rocky. In the event of a military confrontation between Iran and the West, Pakistan and an unstable Iraq would be the most effected countries due to the spill-over from a potential war. At this time and most likely in the near future, at least Pakistan cannot further bear the burden of a refugee influx. In addition, India’s improving relations with Iran is also mind-boggling for our India-centric attitude and policy. Not that I am justifying this historic posture of ours, this attitude is still wide-spread in the security establishment. We must take that into account.


An ideologically inclined state, Iran’s sectarian outlook and ambitions of regional hegemony will create further divides in the Muslim world and the Middle East in particular. One should also not forget that Iran has played a role in inciting sectarian violence in Pakistan, supporting various Shia factions against their Sunni counterparts. Attaining nuclear status would strengthen Iran’s position and possibly its belligerence in fuelling the sectarian strife.


Iran’s offensive, nonsensical and aggravating statements and position only furthers the prospect of more wars in this region. Just recently, Saudi Arabia Prince Turki al-Faisal, who was the former chief of Saudi Intelligence, expressed the Kingdom’s desire to develop nuclear weapons to counter a future Iranian threat. “It is our duty toward our nation and people to consider all options” he was quoted as saying.


This is a serious development that could spark a potential arms race in the Middle East. We could engage in an intellectual debate about the rationality of these state actors and their willingness to use nuclear weapons—if they attain the capability—but the thought of them going nuclear sends a chill through the rational mind. Many in the West also fear that a nuclear Iran will become bolder in the use of its proxies, namely Hamas and Hezbollah.


It is imperative that Pakistan convene a meeting of the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) to pressure Iran into abandoning its continued defiance of its international obligations – the NPT and the United Nations Security Council Resolutions. Pakistan, along with its allies in the Middle East, should pressure Iran to come to the negotiation table and respect its UN obligations. To avoid a potential arms race in the Middle East and a dooms-day scenario where there may be a nuclear exchange – either by states or through non-state actors – Pakistan should jump on the bandwagon into pressurizing Iran.


Pakistan could not care less about addressing the fears of the West. I suggest this because this is in Pakistan’s vital national security interests and everything should be done to avoid being sandwiched between two nuclear states. We also need to look out for our regional interests in the Middle East. A nuclearised region could have devastating human and economic implications for the region and the world. Pakistan cannot afford either in its current state of weakness.

Pakistan maintains top slot in Google search for 'sex'

Narrowing the analytics for the search term to just 2011, Pakistan maintains the number one position, followed by India and Vietnam.

With over 20 million internet users and growing fast, Pakistan has managed to secure the number one slot for searching the term ‘sex’ globally for all years.

According to a 2010 Fox News report, Pakistan had outranked all countries in Google searches for pornographic terms last year. Narrowing the analytics for the search term to just 2011, Pakistan maintained the number one position, followed by India and Vietnam.

Islamabad featured in the top 10 cities worldwide to search the word ‘sex’ in September and December 2011.

Provincial capital Lahore also featured in the top 10 cities for the months of January, March, April, May, June, July, September, October, November and December 2011.

The months of February and August (Ramazan) were the only two months in 2011 that did not feature any cities from Pakistan in the global ranking.

How does Google Trends work?


Google Trends analyzes a portion of Google web searches to compute how many searches have been done for the terms entered, relative to the total number of searches done on Google over time.

To rank the top regions, cities, or languages, Google Trends first looks at a sample of all Google searches to determine the areas or languages from which they received the most searches for the first term. Then, for those top cities, Google Trends calculates the ratio of searches for the term coming from each city divided by total Google searches coming from the same city.

The city ranking and the bar charts alongside each city name both represent this ratio.

Google Trends uses IP address information from server logs to make a best guess about where queries originated.

Pakistan turning away from bald eagle and towards red dragon

Pakistan is turning away from the US and looking east for its future partnerships, with the president now firming up the country’s friendship with China.


Asif Ali Zardari hailed the strengthening ties between the two countries on Saturday as he met with Chinese State Councillor Dai Bingguo. The senior official was visiting Pakistan to mark the 60th anniversary of bilateral diplomatic relations and the conclusion of the China-Pakistan Friendship Year.

The visit came shortly after Beijing and Islamabad finalized a $1.6 billion currency swap agreement which will allow the two countries to boost their trade relations and decrease the involvement of the dollar. Currently China-Pakistan trade stands at $10 billion a year, but Dai has called for that figure to be increased to $15 billion over the next three to four years.

China is strengthening its role as a regional leader, and Pakistan is among key targets for Beijing’s influence building strategy. It is investing in a number of big construction projects in the country, including the Karakorum Highway and Gwadar Port, both of which will improve China’s transport links with energy-rich Gulf nations. It will also help Pakistan develop its nuclear power industry.


The Chinese army also regularly performs joint war games with Pakistani forces. Islamabad is seeking China’s military support against its long-time rival, India, while China needs a stable and well-defended Pakistan to stop any future incursion into its territory of extremists from volatile Afghanistan.


The visit comes as Pakistan distances itself from its long-time strategic ally, the US. The year 2011 was a difficult one for relations between Islamabad and Washington, with a number of incidents contributing to the deterioration. The downward spiral started in January when a CIA contractor killed two men but later evaded punishment because families of the victims were paid blood money. The case caused anger in Pakistan when the US said the perpetrator had diplomatic immunity and demanded his release.

In May, US commandos raided Pakistan’s territory and killed Ossama bin Laden, who had been living in the country for several years. Islamabad was given no warning of the operation, which angered the Pakistani military. Washington said if it had informed Pakistan’s government in advance, the Al-Qaeda leader would have been alerted, enabling him to escape.

In November, a US air strike on a Pakistani border post killed 24 troops who were mistaken for Taliban militants. It took the Pentagon a month to reluctantly admit their part of the blame for the deadly mistake and offer apologies. However, the Pakistani military do not appear to consider the case closed.

The Americans also have their share of grudges against Pakistan, from the alleged embezzlement of military aid to alleged support for Taliban attacks in Afghanistan, to harboring bin Laden. With relations between the allies deteriorating, Pakistan has more and more incentive to turn away from the US as its key partner and side with China, which challenges American influence in the region.

............................................................................................
Imran rocks Karachi:
They came, they saw, he conquered

As Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI) continues to swell both in size and stature, so do the suspicions around the party’s ‘genuineness’ persist with political rivals and critics wary of the establishment’s role behind Imran Khan’s unstoppable rise.

“PTI is getting closer to the establishment with every passing day,” alleged Mushahidullah Khan, Pakistan Muslim League-N’s (PML-N) information secretary.

“Suspicions about its genuineness have gained momentum with the induction of over thirty-five seasoned politicians in PTI.” Many of the recruited politicians worked with former president Pervez Musharraf, he added, hinting that it was telling of the party’s close ties with the security establishment.A part from Imran’s critics, some political analysts believe that each and every party to enter the political sphere has remained under the hood of the establishment in the past. PML-N MNA Khawaja Asif even once admitted in a television talk show that his party was a tool in the hands of the establishment in the late 80s and early 90s.

“Currently it is hard to find evidence whether parts of the establishment are proactively supporting PTI or not,” said political writer and human rights campaigner Harris Khalique. But the patterns in which Imran Khan is being propped up are comparable, if not entirely similar, to instances in the past when parties ranging from the Convention Muslim League in 1962 to the PML-Q in 2002, he added.

“The establishment, supported by the urban-affluent-middleclass sentiment, wants the incumbent government out at any cost and Imran wants to be in power at the earliest.

”Some pundits, like Khalique, believe that that Imran, who is now 59, is too ambitious to wait for another two electoral cycles.

“This is exactly the reason Imran is embracing the Qureshis, Kasuris, the Legharis, the Mehrs and the Tammans,” said Haris Khalique.

Muddassir Rizvi of the Free and Fair Election Network (FAFEN) observed, “Perception is more important than reality in politics.”

Although Fafen has yet to gauge the political atmosphere in the country, the question over whether Imran was being propped up by the establishment still remains inclusive, Rizvi said.

PTI Information Secretary Shafqat Mehmood, however, rejected the allegations by Imran’s critics, terming them a futile effort to decrease his rising popularity. In the past, he said, “Every political party remained a part of the establishment.”

Ishaq Khan Khakwani, a former federal minister in Shaukat Aziz’s cabinet, who has also recently joined PTI, said the establishment was not capable of amassing people for Imran’s rallies.

“PTI enjoys public support rather than the support of the establishment,” conceding that even though that was the case, the establishment has always been vital in creating a government and sometimes also in achieving its desired results in elections.

Published in The Express Tribune, December 26th, 2011.

Imran vows to make Pakistan an Islamic welfare state

Imran’s tsunami sweeps Karachi

He didn’t wave any magic wand nor did he present any specific solutions to the myriad of problems facing the country, yet everything Imran Khan said and every promise he made at a massive rally here on Sunday was cheered on and applauded. The reason was simple: his supporters believed he was their only hope.

The chairman of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf proved once again, after his party’s mammoth rally in Lahore, that he is now a crowd-puller as a sea of people flocked to the venue of the PTI’s rally near the Quaid-i-Azam’s mausoleum.

The mood was festive with hundreds of party flags being waved in the breeze by a mixed audience from across the class, ethnic and age divide.

Unveiling his road map for the country’s betterment, he said that if his party came to power the first and foremost priority would be to end corruption in 90 days as it had pushed the country to a point of no return. He said he would set up an e-government system, which would “automatically eliminate corruption from society”.

He admitted that the task was very difficult but with will and determination it could be achieved. He said that if the nation “is with me I would bring about a qualitative change”.


KARACHI - Imran Khan’s tsunami after conquering Lahore swept through Karachi on Sunday, where tens of thousands of people assembled at the call of the PTI leader who unfolded his future plans to cleanse the country from rampant corruption and to make it an Islamic social welfare state.

Addressing the mammoth PTI flag-waving near mausoleum of Father of the Nation Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah, Imran Khan, in his 4-minute speech, decaled that if voted into power he would end the corruption in 90 days and give new policies to provide justice and social empowerment to the people.

The PTI had organised public gathering at Bagh-e-Jinnah, adjacent of Quaid-e-Azam’s mausoleum on the day of Father of the Nation’s birth anniversary.

Imran Khan termed the gathering more successful than the one PTI had organised in Lahore. Thousands of charged and emotional party workers were chanting slogans of ‘Prime Minister Imran Khan’ and hoisted the party flags to express their sentiments. Imran Khan promised the nation on Quaid-i-Azam’s birth anniversary that he will fulfil the dream of the Founder of the Nation, saying ‘I will do what Quaid-i-Azam wanted to do and he wanted to make Pakistan a prosperous state’. Imran Khan said: “I promise on Quaid-i-Azam’s birth anniversary that I will do what the Quaid-e-Azam wanted to do.”

Imran, in his speech punctuated with loud slogans of the cheering crowd and national songs, said he would introduce a strong justice system in Pakistan under which free justice would be provided to the poor. “Quaid-e-Azam never wanted you to bow before anyone, I will ensure that you don’t have to bow before anyone.”

The PTI Chief said he would bring a team that will be selected on merit to transform Pakistan into a welfare state. He said this team would function under Jehangir Tareen to present economic policies, labour policies, tax reforms, education policies as well as foreign policies before the nation. There will be a policy paper on all issues, he added.

“During Tehreek-e-Insaf rule a civil system will be introduced which will ensure that even Imran Khan’s car is stopped for overspeeding.” He said Tehreek-e-Insaf would root out corruption and rectify the system.

Imran said a Chinese company wanted to bring $19 billion investment to Pakistan but could not do so due to the worst law and order situation in Karachi. “You don’t need a rocket science in Pakistan, just bring a team of honest leaders that undertakes its own accountability,” he asserted.

He promised that the major corruption will be eliminated within 90 days of coming into power. Pakistan suffers a loss of 300 crores per day, he regretted.

Imran Khan said that he wanted to play a match with President Zardari but unfortunately he was retired hurt. “The days of Zardari’s rule are numbered, so do not worry.”
Speaking about Balochistan, he said: “We will seek forgiveness from Balochistan people and remove their grievances by developing the deprived province.”

Announcing about PTI’s next public meeting, he said ‘the next stop for the tsunami will be Quetta on March 23’.

Imran apologised to Baloch people and said the he will provide them their rights.

Imran Khan took the podium with a verse from the Qur’an and said “God we only ask help from you.”

He said “People said the rally will be a flop. Are there Sindhis, Pathans, Punjabis, Mianwalis here at this rally? We have Hindus, Parsis and Christians. Merry Christmas. Today was Quaid-e-Azam’s birthday. I won’t say anything bad about any political party. But Mian Sahib said let’s play a 10-over match. Mian Sahib, hurry, before you are unable to get a team. Today, I want to welcome Javed Hashmi. You are a brave man. I also want to congratulate Shah Mahmood Qureshi. Another wicket is going to fall. Sardar Assef Ali also wants to join Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf.”

Imran said “People ask me what’s your roadmap. I’m going to give you a roadmap. When I went to Britain at the age of 18 i was surprised to observe that the poor are fed. There was no difference in hospitals between the rich and poor. The first Islamic welfare state was Khilafat-e-Rashida.”

He said “Even animals have rights in the West. A police officer was sent to prison for torturing a police dog. We will provide justice in villages. We promise that the government will provide a lawyer for those who can’t afford it. There are more talented players than myself. There are more intelligent people than myself. People said I coudn’t be the best bowler because you aren’t talented. I wanted to make a hospital so that people could go there and get treated for free. They said you can’t make the hospital. I wanted to make a university, they said you can’t do it. Today that university is offering degrees. They said forget it, you don’t know politics. They made fun of me and my colleagues. But I didn’t let that spoil my dreams of a better Pakistan. We want one educational system in Pakistan. God has always fulfilled my dreams. And He will also fulfil this one too. How will we do this? I promise I will give you a great team. Did I choose a good cricket team for the World Cup. That team will also be on merit.”

“Pakistan will not need to beg for aid. Selection in the Civil Service will be on merit. Police officials will also be chosen on merit. We will bring a better labour policy. PTI will stand along with the labourers. All policies will be constituted for the lower 50 per cent of the people. There is the Pakistani Punjab and Indian Punjab. Indian Punjab produces 3 times as much yield as the Pakistani Punjab. In India, they facilitate their farmers free or at least cheap electricity. Our biggest asset is our expatriates, who don’t want to come to Pakistan because of the law and order situation in the country. Their lives are threatened. We had a rich expat from Russia. He stayed at a hotel here but was kidnapped.”

Imran said “Average income of Singapore has increased. Muhathir Muhammad also increased the average income of his nation. No one will be given a ticket in this party till they disclose their assets so that we know how they’ve amassed their wealth. Curbing corruption is very easy, providing education is more difficult. Pakistan suffers a loss of Rs 300 billion daily. We will computerise the government with e-government because you can’t bribe a computer.

Tens of thousands of people, including women and children, converged in Karachi on Sunday for Imran Khan’s massive rally seeking a ‘change’ in the country, with the organisers dubbing it as a ‘tsunami’.

All roads leading to the Quaid-e-Azam park, the venue of the rally adjacent to the mausoleum of Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah, were jammed with buses, trucks, cars, motorcycles and pedestrians who were eager to reach the place.

Mindful of the response to Imran’s call for Karachiites to attend the rally in large numbers and show their support for a change in the country and against corruption, the organisers had set up giant video screens outside the park for people who could not find a place inside.

A sea of people, including women, children and even the physically challenged, stood shoulder-to-shoulder braving the afternoon heat and several hours into the night as they listened to Tehreek-e-Insaf leaders’ speeches.

The Quaid-e-Azam Park was swamped by people carrying the red and green PTI flags and wearing party caps. People had started converging at the venue since morning, hours before the rally was to begin.

“We are here because of Imran Khan. We believe he can make a better Pakistan and bring changes,” shouted Maleeha, a hijab-clad woman who had come with her fiance to the rally.

Zainab, another young woman dressed in jeans and T-shirt, said many people now know that Imran Khan was the last hope for Pakistan. “We all believe only he can turn around this country and rid it of corruption and extremism. He can bring about better governance.”

The presence of large number of women and youth at the rally was a big triumph for the organisers who had set up separate enclosures for the women, families and youth.

Shahdab Kabir, a disabled person who came to the rally with his brother on a wheelchair, said he came to show Imran that the people of Karachi supported him and his manifesto. “It is not only time for a change in Pakistan but also in Karachi,” he said.

The organisers, with the assistance of local administration, had set up special walkthrough security gates and body scanned each and every participant before they entered the rally venue.

Asif Khan, a party worker, added that “we believe in Imran Khan and the fact that a senior (PPP) politician like Javed Hashmi has now joined us shows people believe in Imran and want change in the next elections.”

Karachi for the last two decades has been the stronghold of the MQM, the only party in the last two decades to manage massive rallies in the city.
Over 100,000 people rallied in support of cricket hero-turned-politician in Karachi on Sunday.

Pakistani Army Denies Coup Plans

Pakistan’s army chief has denied accusations that the military is working to oust the country’s civilian government amid tension over a secret memo sent to Washington earlier this year about an alleged coup, the military said Friday.

The memo scandal has heightened long-standing tensions between the army and the government at a time when the country is struggling to deal with a violent Taliban insurgency, a stuttering economy and deteriorating relations with its most important ally, the United States.

On Thursday, a visibly angry Mr. Gilani told a state function he believed a conspiracy to bring down his government was under way. He didn't give details but was widely believed to be referring to a move by opposition politicians in the Supreme Court to investigate Mr. Gilani's administration for its alleged role in seeking Washington's help to neuter the power of the Pakistan army.

Prime minister's conspiracy'

comments jolt Pakistan
A sense of foreboding gripped the country on Thursday as a showdown between the civilian arm of the government and the army-led security establishment looked imminent, with the Supreme Court also making it abundantly clear that instead of backing off from the so-called `memogate` scandal, it would like to take it to its logical conclusion.

GOVERNMENT, ARMY ON COLLISION COURSE

PAKISTAN WAS ABUZZ FRIDAY WITH POLITICAL RUMOR AND INTRIGUE ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF A LOOMING CLASH BETWEEN ELECTED LEADERS AND THE MILITARY AFTER PRIME MINISTER YOUSUF RAZA GILANI SAID HE BELIEVED PLOTS WERE UNDER WAY TO TOPPLE THE GOVERNMENT.

"GOVERNMENT, ARMY ON COLLISION COURSE," READ THE HEADLINE OF THE MAIN STORY ON THE WEBSITE OF DAWN, A LEADING ENGLISH-LANGUAGE NEWSPAPER IN PAKISTAN. "GILANI TAKES ARMY HEAD ON," SAID THE TOP ARTICLE ON THE WEBSITE OF THE NATION, ANOTHER MAJOR DAILY.

The papers appeared to be interpreting Gilani's comments Thursday, in which he said there were "conspiracies and intrigues being hatched to pack up the elected government," as an implicit attack on Pakistan's powerful military, which has seized power from civilian authorities a number of times in the country's history.

Mr. Gilani also lashed out at the army, reminding its leaders that they are subordinate to the civilian government —rare comments that have caused a furor in Pakistan and fueled talk of an impending clash between the military and civilian arms of the state.

Despite Mr. Gilani's comments, Pakistan's army is only subordinate to the government in theory, while in practice it operates with wide autonomy. The Defense Ministry, in a statement to the Supreme Court, admitted it has no authority over the army. The country's generals have directly ruled Pakistan for half its 64-year history as a nation state, most recently for a decade before 2008 elections that brought the PPP to power.

Gilani said Thursday that no institution "can be a state within a state" and that "every ministry, including the Ministry of Defense, is answerable to the Parliament of Pakistan."

The Pakistani military denied Gilani's claims Friday, issuing a statement saying the "Army has and will continue to support democratic process in the country."

Dead general brings history debate alive for MPAs

KARACHI: 

General Zia-ul Haq may have died 23 years ago but his spectre still looms large on Pakistani politics. On Wednesday, Education Minister Pir Mazharul Haq was asked in the Sindh Assembly whether it were true that O’ Level students are being taught from a book in which the dictator has been given a more favourable profile than Zulfikar Ali Bhutto.

It was surprising to learn from Haq that an education department committee is working on “set[ting] the record straight” by “deleting anti-democratic material including the [sic] notorious dictator General Zia”. It would also introduce “pro-democracy and anti-dictatorship” lessons in textbooks.

Who fills the global power vacuum?

The question of who will fill the global power vacuum has never before been felt as acutely as it is today – or in as many different arenas of politics and economics simultaneously.

Today, after a week’s geopolitical drama driven by the Palestinian bid for statehood at the UN, it is evident that the global power vacuum is not limited to economics and the Eurozone alone.  Rather, the world is facing a vacuum of leadership in each of the economic, diplomatic and strategic arenas – and what’s filling this vacuum is a mixture of the good, the bad, and the highly unpredictable.  Years from now, this may yet be seen as a period of global creative destruction – a transition away from a false and iniquitous stability towards a more sustainable, diversely founded equilibrium of global interests.  In the meantime, the process of filling the vacuum is likely to be volatile, dangerous, and deeply disorienting.

Peril and paranoia in the new Middle East

The year of the Arab Awakening is drawing to a close with an ominous air of peril and paranoia hanging over the Middle East. A movement of genuine promise for more legitimate and accountable government for the peoples of the Arab world is in danger of being overwhelmed by the forces of tyranny, corruption, fundamentalism and conflict. From Syria to Egypt to Libya, Palestine, Israel and Iran, resistance to peaceful change is manifesting itself in ways new and old – and all in the context of a global re-alignment of power that few in the region yet recognize. Preventing the four central challenges of the Middle East – Iran, the Arab Awakening, Energy Security, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict – from turning into conflicts with global implications will be a task far more for the countries of the region themselves than at any time in recent memory. For this new reality the parties are almost completely unprepared.

This was confirmed during a visit last week to the Gulf where the collapse of trust between adversaries – as well as allies – was on stark display. Arab leaders expressed as much distrust of each other as they did of their ascendant rivals, the Persians and the Turks. The minimum demands of the Palestinians are as distant as ever from the maximum on offer from the Israeli government. And for a number of regional leaders buffeted by the extraordinary changes forced by popular movements from Syria to Tunisia, a key lesson appears to be lesser, not greater, openness to representative government. The Middle East, more than any other region of the world, gives validity to the old joke that even paranoid schizophrenics have enemies. But to the very real perils arising from deeply divergent interests among Arabs, Turks, Persians and Israelis is now added a degree of heightened paranoia that threatens to multiply the perils with consequences reaching far beyond the region itself.

Critical to understanding the new strategic landscape is an appreciation of the degree to which the United States – since Suez, the arbiter of war and peace in the Middle East – is on course for a long-term disentanglement from the cares and conflicts of the region. While its commitment to Israel certainly – and to its Arab allies less so – long has been more than just a matter of security, it is evident that a Middle East less critical as a source of oil will be one less able to claim the extraordinary expenditure of blood and treasure made by America over the past half-century. As a consequence of technological advances leading to new discoveries and new sources of oil and gas, the next oil shock will likely be one more defined by the growing irrelevance of the Middle East to the United States – however much the region’s ability to disrupt international oil markets will remain.

The Arab Awakening. To appreciate the depth of change in the politics of the Arab world over the past year, it is enough to look at non-Arab Turkey’s leadership role in the management of its current challenges – from Egypt to Libya to Israel and now Syria. Arab leaders are looking with fear and jealousy to the prospect of their region’s politics being dominated by three outsiders – Turkey, Iran and Israel. From Tripoli to Cairo to Damascus, hard-line resistance to genuine representative government is making a self-fulfilling prophecy of the darkest warnings of anarchy and Islamist ascendancy being the winners of the Arab Awakening. Even after the fall of governments in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, and Yemen, critical momentum still eludes the broader push for change.

Among the monarchies and sheikdoms, the pace and depth of reform are reflective more of an attempt to do the minimum needed to assuage popular sentiment, rather than acknowledging the need for profound changes in the relationship between governed and governors. A bloody endgame in Syria is increasing fears of a sectarian civil war, drawing in outsiders in yet another intervention. An absence of political legitimacy is being joined by a power vacuum, within and among the countries of the region, suggesting that the focus of the regimes in the year ahead will be a defense of the realm at all costs.

Iran. The recent IAEA report on Iran’s nuclear program has triggered another round of speculation about an Israeli attack on suspected nuclear sites in Iran. The Iranian nuclear challenge has been a pre-eminent hard security focus in a period otherwise defined by economic crises and political convulsions. The U.S. commitment to the Libya campaign was circumscribed, in part, by the Pentagon’s priority monitoring of threats – both conventional and unconventional – emanating from Iran. Tehran, of course, maintains that its programme serves solely peaceful purposes, such as power generation and medical research. However, there are widespread concerns over possible military dimensions, particularly when viewed in conjunction with Tehran’s developing missile capability and alleged work on warhead technology.

Paranoia towards the actions of Iran is reaching a fever pitch in the Gulf and Israel. Gulf countries are as concerned about Iran’s meddling in their internal affairs as about its nuclear weapons program (that their own domestic policies towards their Shia minorities are giving Iran fertile ground to meddle in seems rather less appreciated by them). Combine this with Israel’s growing fear of Iran reaching a point of no-return in its nuclear weapons program (something they’ve been warning about since 2005 and one day of course will be true), and the stage is set for confrontation, either deliberate or accidental.

Looking to Iran’s domestic politics, many have questioned whether persistent elite infighting suggest any meaningful regime fragility – particularly in light of the Green Movement’s demonstration of deep and broad opposition to the regime. The reality is likely to be different – and less encouraging of change. A principal source of resilience for the regime has been its ability to apply effectively the lessons of the Shah – his rise as well as his fall. A proliferation of power centres – however much beset by rivalries between the President, the Supreme Leader, the clerical elites, the Revolutionary guards, and the military – share a fundamental fate in having everything to lose from a democratic Iran with an accountable and legitimate government, and everything to gain from sustaining the status quo.

Iran will therefore remain the wild card in the secular trend towards a West less dependent on – and less preoccupied with – the Middle East. Resolving the struggle between Iran’s strategic and tactical interest in a nuclear deterrent and Israel’s in maintaining the existing nuclear balance of power in the region is the one question that won’t be left to the region itself.

The terrible price paid in blood and treasure for the Wars of 9/11 in Afghanistan and Iraq, combined with the effects of an economic crisis that now threatens a decade of stagnation in the U.S., may well make America appreciate the virtues of evolution, and accept that our ultimate goals can only be met in imperfect stages. The alternative policy of forced conversion of adversaries, based more on paranoia than true peril, is likely only to be achieved at the price of conflicts with potentially calamitous consequences – for the Middle East as well as for America itself.

Energy Security. The estimates of the future U.S. dependence on non-North American sources of oil are as dramatic as they are under-appreciated. The share of U.S. oil imports from both OPEC more broadly and the Gulf, in particular, has collapsed since the 2007-09 financial crisis, replaced largely with Canadian and domestic crude. In 2008, the U.S. imported an average of 2.370 million barrels per day (bpd) from the Gulf and 5.954 million bpd from OPEC as a whole.  In 2010, the average was 1.711 million bpd from the Gulf and 4.906 million bpd from OPEC.

Of course, even after departing Iraq and gradually reducing its dependence on Middle East oil, Washington will maintain a substantial force presence in the Middle East, and the capability rapidly to enlarge it as needed. However, the wider context of U.S. strategic repositioning towards Asia, Pentagon budget cuts, and public hostility in host states will challenge this force posture at a time of heightened tensions and uncertainty throughout the region. If the Middle East’s energy security game is in the midst of profound change with dramatic strategic consequences for the future U.S. commitment to the region, so are the dynamics of the region’s political and security challenges.

Exclusive: Pakistan army wants Zardari out but not a coup

Pakistan's powerful army is fed up with unpopular President Asif Ali Zardari and wants him out of office, but through legal means and without a repeat of the coups that are a hallmark of the country's 64 years of independence, military sources said.

Tensions are rising between Pakistan's civilian leaders and its generals over a memo that accused the army of plotting a coup after the U.S. raid that killed Osama bin Laden in May.

"Who isn't fed up with Zardari? It's not just the opposition and the man on the street but people within the government too," said one military source who asked not to be named.

"But there has to be a proper way. No action is being planned by the army. Even if we tried, it would be very unpopular and not just with the government and the opposition but most Pakistanis too."

The Pakistani military spokesman declined comment.

General Ashfaq Kayani has pledged to keep the military out of Pakistani politics since taking over as army chief in 2007.

Any coup -- Pakistan has had three since independence in 1947 -- could further tarnish the military's public image which has already taken a battering after the bin Laden operation, widely seen in Pakistan as a violation of sovereignty.

But the army remains the arbiter of power and analysts say it has plenty of ways to pressure Zardari to step down, especially if a link is established between him and the memo, which sought the Pentagon's help in averting a feared coup.

Businessman Mansoor Ijaz, writing in a column in the Financial Times on October 10, said a senior Pakistani diplomat had asked that a memo be delivered to the Pentagon with a plea for U.S. help to stave off a military coup in the days after the raid that killed al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden in May.

Ijaz later identified the diplomat as Pakistan's ambassador to Washington, Husain Haqqani, who denied involvement but resigned over the controversy. No evidence has emerged that the military was plotting a coup and the Pentagon at the time dismissed the memo as not credible.

Friction between Pakistan's civilian government and military have bedeviled the nuclear-armed South Asian country for almost its entire existence, with the military ruling for more than half its 64-year history after a series of coups.

In the past the army has asked Pakistani civilian leaders to resign and influenced judicial proceedings against them.

Haqqani's resignation was seen by many analysts as further weakening the civilian government, which is already beset by allegations of corruption and incompetence in the face of many challenges, including a weak economy and a Taliban insurgency.

MEMOGATE

Zardari returned to Pakistan this week from medical treatment in Dubai that raised speculation he would resign under pressure from the military over what has been dubbed "memogate."

Although his position is largely ceremonial, he wields considerable influence as leader of the ruling party and his forced departure would be a humiliation for the civilian leadership and could throw the country into turmoil.

One of the military sources suggested that no direct action would be needed against the government because it had already made so many mistakes.

"If the government is digging its own grave, we are not going to look for spades," the source said.

The military has reasserted itself after a November 26 NATO cross-border air attack killed 24 Pakistani soldiers and the memo has also given it political ammunition.

In a statement submitted to the Supreme Court, which is looking into a petition demanding an inquiry into who may have been behind the memo, Kayani said it was a serious matter which required an investigation.

"We want anyone involved, be they in government or elsewhere, to be punished. But it is not for us to do anything. If the army moves to do anything it would have national as well as international repercussions," said another military source.

"So that is not likely. Anything that has to be done has to be done by the Supreme Court."

Officials from Zardari's ruling party have played down friction with the military and say they don't fear a coup.

But they fear that some judges in the increasingly aggressive Supreme Court dislike Zardari and could move against him.

"I am not bothered about the army. I think they are acting very sensibly and would not derail the system at the moment," a senior ruling party leader told Reuters.

"The worry probably would be what the Supreme Court does. They look in a mood to manipulate things."

The government's anxiety over memogate was highlighted in comments made by Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani on Thursday.

"Let me make clear to you today that there are intrigues, conspiracies afoot to pack up the elected government," he said in a speech at the National Art Gallery.

1971 War: Origins of the Conflict

The Setting:

The partition of the Indian Subcontinent in 1947 created two independent countries: India and Pakistan. India, which became independent on 15 August 1947, stood for a secular, equitable polity based on the universally accepted idea that all men are created equal and should be treated as such. Pakistan, which officially came into existence a day earlier, was based on the premise that Hindus and Muslims of the Subcontinent constitute two different nationalities and cannot co-exist. The Partition created two different countries with most Muslim majority areas of undivided India going to the newly created nation, Pakistan (Land of the Pure). Pakistan was originally made up of two distinct and geographically unconnected parts termed West and East Pakistan. West Pakistan was made up of a number of races including the Punjabis (the most numerous), Sindhis, Pathans, Balochis, Mohajirs (Muslim refugees from India) and others. East Pakistan, on the other hand, was much more homogeneous and had an overwhelming Bengali-speaking population.

The Roots of Discord:

Although the Eastern wing of Pakistan was more populous than than the Western one, political power since independence rested with the Western elite. This caused considerable resentment in East Pakistan and a charismatic Bengali leader called, Sheikh Mujibur Rehman, most forcefully articulated that resentment by forming an opposition political party called the Awami League and demanding more autonomy for East Pakistan within the Pakistani Federation. In the Pakistani general elections held in 1970, the Sheikh's party won the majority of seats, securing a complete majority in East Pakistan. In all fairness, the Sheikh should have been Prime Minister of Pakistan, or at least the ruler of his province. But West Pakistan's ruling elite were so dismayed by the turn of events and by the Sheikh's demands for autonomy that instead of allowing him to rule East Pakistan, they put him in jail.

Origins of the Crisis

The dawn of 1971 saw a great human tragedy unfolding in erstwhile East Pakistan. Entire East Pakistan was in revolt. In the West, General Yahya Khan, who had appointed himself President in 1969, had given the job of pacifying East Pakistan to his junior, General Tikka Khan. The crackdown of 25 March 1971 ordered by Tikka Khan, left thousands of Bengalis dead and Sheikh Mujibur Rehman was arrested the next day. The same day, the Pakistani Army began airlifting two of its divisions plus a brigade strength formation to its Eastern Wing. Attempts to dis-arm Bengali troops were not entirely successful and within weeks of the 25 March massacres, many former Bengali officers and troops of the Pakistani Army had joined Bengali resistance fighters in different parts of East Pakistan.


The Pakistani Army conducted several crackdowns in different parts of Bangladesh, leading to massive loss of civilian life. The details of those horrific massacres, in which defenceless people were trapped and machine-gunned, is part of Bangladeshi history. Survivors compare it to the Nazi extermination of Jews. At the same time, the Pakistani Administration in Dhaka thought it could pacify the Bengali peasantry by appropriating the land of the Hindu population and gifting it to Muslims. While this did not impress the peasantry, it led to the exodus of more than 8 million refugees (more than half of them Hindus) to neighbouring India. West Bengal was the worst affected by the refugee problem and the Indian government was left holding the enormous burden. Repeated appeals by the Indian government failed to elicit any response from the international community and by April 1971, the then Indian Prime Minister, Mrs. Indira Gandhi, decided that the only solution lay in helping Bengali freedom fighters, especially the Mukti Bahini, to liberate East Pakistan, which had already been re-christened Bangladesh by its people.

Pakistan felt it could dissuade India from helping the Mukti Bahini by being provocative. The Pakistan Air Force (PAF) in East Pakistan took to attacking suspected Mukti Bahini camps located inside Indian territory in the state of West Bengal. In the Western and Northern sectors too occasional clashes, some of them quite bloody, took place. Pakistan was suggesting that should India continue with its plans it should expect total war as in 1965. Only this time, the Pakistanis would concentrate their forces in the West and thereby aim at capturing as much as Indian territory as possible. The Indians, on the other hand, would be fighting a war on two fronts (while at the same time keeping a fearful eye on the Chinese borders). Given this scenario, the Pakistanis felt that India at best would be able to capture some territory in East Pakistan and lose quite a bit in the West. In the end, the Pakistanis knew that the Western powers would intervene to stop the war and what would matter is who had the most of the other's territory.


Confident that another war would be as much of a stalemate as the 1965 Conflict, the Pakistanis got increasingly bold and finally on 3 December 1971 reacted with a massive co-ordinated air strike on several Indian Air Force stations in the West. At midnight, the Indian Prime Minister Mrs. Indira Gandhi in a broadcast to the nation declared that India was at war with Pakistan. As her words came on in million of Indian homes across the Subcontinent, the men at the front were already engaged in bitter combat...


India Invaded Pakistan In 1971 Without Provocation: Know The Facts, And The Enemy

Pakistan—Time for some facts on India’s 1971 invasion of Pakistan.

First of all, there was no ‘Indo-Pakistan war of 1971′.

That’s a misleading description.


India INVADED Pakistan in 1971. Use the right words because there is a big difference.
Pakistani history books, official and private, need to be corrected.


There was a full-fledged, one-sided invasion across an international boundary. And it was an unprovoked invasion, preplanned. A foreign country exploited a chaotic election in Pakistan to launch a snap attack without warnings.

Remember: there was no Lashkar-e-Tayyeba in 1971, nor was there an armed freedom struggle in occupied Kashmir. There was no excuse of ‘terrorism’. India invaded Pakistan to hurt and kill as much Pakistanis as possible simply because India saw a good opportunity and seized it.
To this day, India deliberately uses the term ‘India-Pakistan war of 1971’ to avoid admitting what it actually was: an unprovoked of another country. Unfortunately, Pakistanis at all levels use the same description.

The Indian role in 1971 war is the dirtiest Indian secret. It’s been effectively hidden from the world. The Indians never discuss how they invaded Pakistan in that year. And Pakistanis discuss everything except the foreign invasion across international borders. The reason this invasion remains unknown is because of our inability in Pakistan to show the world what really happened.

This did not start out as a Pakistan-India war. It was a Pakistani election gone bad and political parties resorted to violence to make a point. Elections go bad everywhere and sometimes they get violent. It happened in Pakistan in 1971. India saw an opportunity in internal Pakistani chaos and invaded Pakistan across the international border without any provocation from the Pakistani side.

India exploited the fact that the Pakistani military was not on alert and that we did not have enough soldiers at that time in East Pakistan. Why weren’t there enough Pakistani soldiers to defend the territory against a foreign invasion? East Pakistan was geographically disconnected from the rest of the country. But more importantly Islamabad never thought that India would launch such a brazen attack on Pakistan without any reason, especially when Pakistan was a member in several US-led defense pacts. Pakistani planners miscalculated in believing they could rely on an ally such as the United States for help. [Indian government documents released this month show that Washington not only ditched Pakistan but also secretly told New Delhi it would support India in case China entered the war to help Pakistan.]

India’s blatant war of aggression was not a chance happening. It was meticulously planned. Two years before the ‘war’, India started secretly recruiting local peasants in areas of East Pakistan adjoining India. In two years, these recruits became foot soldiers for a terrorist militia known as Mukti Bahini that sprung into action as soon as the Indian army began the invasion. Indian soldiers and their terror militia went on a rampage, murdering Pakistanis on linguistic basis [Urdu, Bengali] to feed chaos and pitch Pakistanis against one another. This provided a cover for wanton killings by Indian soldiers because all killings ended up being blamed on Pakistan.
Wrong Pakistani political and military decisions helped the Indian invaders. Here is an excellent brief written by Mr. Mushtaq Sethi that helps in understanding the Indian proxy militia:
“Mukti Bahini were not just another insurgent force: on the contrary, their original core consisted of defectors from the former East Bengal Regiments of the Pakistani Army, who reached the Indian soil and also those Hindus who had fled East Pakistan and crossed over to India and had returned after having received complete training in the art of guerrilla warfare. They were soon reinforced by a considerable number of volunteers, mainly students, then during April and May, Pakistan had purged Bengalis from the armed forces. Many others defected, while those who remained were not trusted. Result was that the combat effectiveness of Pakistani units suffered considerably. Once in India, together with other volunteers from East Pakistan, they were trained and organized into six new East Bengal Regiments in June 1971. By November 1971, the Mukti Bahini was reinforced by the addition of three artillery batteries as well as a small flying service (operating two Aérospatiale SA.316B Alouette III helicopters, one DeHavilland Canada DHC-3 Otter and a single Douglas DC-3 Dakota transport). They were counting up to 85,000 and their order of battle during the war in December was as follows:

K Force/Brigade, consisting of 10th and 11th East Bengal Regiment and No.3 Field Battery- S Force/Brigade, consisting of 2nd and 4th East Bengal Regiment, and No.1 Field Battery- Z Force/Brigade, consisting of 1st, 3rd, and 8th East Bengal Regiment, and No.2 field Battery.”

The Indian terror militia was dismantled as soon as the war ended with the surrender of the outnumbered Pakistani units. India crowned its invasion with orchestrating a secession, declaring the occupied Pakistani lands an independent country.

If Pakistan does not and cannot trust India, it is because of India’s treacherous unprovoked invasion in 1971. India set many examples later that prove it won’t miss an opportunity to hurt Pakistan when possible. The Indian ruling elite, especially the minority Hindi-speaking bigots in northern India, have wanted to destroy Pakistan since our independence in 1947. They have some strange notion that Pakistani territories somehow belong to them according to their religious history. Some of them cannot forget ten centuries of our rule in the region and have a deep fear and loathing of anything Pakistani. If there is a war in Afghanistan, India would be the first to exploit it to send saboteurs into Pakistan from the Afghan soil. If the European Union decides to allow importing Pakistani textiles, Indian diplomats would spring into action to object. Indian writers, analysts and commentators in the US and anywhere else in the world are the first to launch anti-Pakistan diatribes whenever there is a chance to do it.

It’s a deep seated hate for Pakistan in the north Indian Hindi-speaking belt. And this hatred was at the heart of India’s decision to invade Pakistan in 1971.

Yes, we committed mistakes in our internal politics in 1971 that helped the Indian enemy in its designs. But we have learned those lessons. What is important now is that every Pakistani man and woman understand that our homeland faced a treacherous invasion and a blatant aggression across international borders in that year. Whatever our own mistakes domestically, that cannot justify a blatant war of aggression by a foreign country exploiting our internal situation.

Know the history. And know your enemy.