Featured Post

SalaamOne NetWork

SalaamOne سلام   is   a nonprofit e-Forum to promote peace among humanity, through understanding and tolerance of religions, cul...

Freedom at risk ! آزادی خطرے میں ہے

One of the abiding myths of the last half of the 20th century was that democracy, combined with free trade, would lead to liberal societies and peace between nations.

The leading example of this notion was the United States. And indeed, in the 1950s and 1960s, it did seem to be the Promised Land. To the rest of us, Hollywood films depicted a nation where large cars and suburban homes were every American’s birthright.

During the Vietnam War, some of this image lost its gloss, but the American Dream continued to draw millions to the United States. The rest of the world was told that if we attained democracy and applied the capitalist model, we, too, could aspire to a car in every garage and a chicken in every pot.

And when the Soviet Union went into meltdown a quarter century ago, this was taken as the final victory of the American model over communism. History, as Francis Fukuyama famously announced, was dead. For a brief, euphoric moment, we thought the end of the Cold War would usher in an era of peace and prosperity.

Welcome, then, to the bloody new world of resurgent nationalism and religious extremism. Once suppressed by autocratic rulers allied to either of the two superpowers, these forces are now threatening to tear the world apart.

And yet there are more functioning democracies than ever before, and all of them are part of the global economy.

Take Russia as an example. Here we have a very popular, iron-fisted leader who has presided over a freewheeling capitalist system that has brought Russians an unprecedented level of prosperity. Granted, much of this was due to rising oil prices, and the Russian standard of living is now dropping with falling prices of oil. However, Putin remains personally popular, despite being as autocratic as ever.

Leaders with dictatorial tendencies continue to win elections.
Turkey provides us with another example of a democracy with a flourishing capitalist economy that is being increasingly run like an autocracy by its president, Recep Erdogan. Despite his growing despotic tendencies, Erdogan remains hugely popular, and continues to win elections with healthy majorities.

Finally, Sri Lanka’s Mahinda Rajapaksa is yet another example of an authoritarian ruler who spurns democratic values, and yet remains personally popular. Although he lost the last presidential election in January, this was due more to miscalculation and misplaced faith in his stars than a fall in his appeal.

A call for early polls encouraged the formation of a rare opposition alliance — allegedly backed by India — that defeated the president. But Rajapaksa remains popular with the majority Sinhalese voters, and managed to win 47pc of the popular vote despite the hatred he aroused among the Tamil and Muslim minorities. Now there is a real possibility of the ex-president bouncing back to power in the next general elections.

So how do we explain this popularity of leaders with dictatorial tendencies? Despite trampling over human rights and personal freedoms, they continue to win elections, and enjoy wide public approval. Could it be that their supporters want strong men to maintain order, even by using unconstitutional means? Another reason could be that the majority distrusts the educated, liberal elites who clamour for human rights.

John Grey, in an article published in Harper’s Magazine titled ‘Under Western Eyes’ writes: “That democracy can be a vehicle for tyranny was well understood by earlier generations of liberal thinkers. From Benjamin Constant, Alexis de Tocqueville, and John Stuart Mill through to Isaiah Berlin, it was recognised that demo­­cracy does not necessarily protect individual free­doms…

“Legal and constitutional protections have little force when majorities are indifferent or hostile to liberal values… Most hu­­man beings, most of the time, care about other things more than they care about being free. Many will vote for an illiberal government if it promises security against hardship, protects a way of life to which they are attached, and denies freedom to people they hate.”

Now, of course, few liberals concede that in certain circumstances, democracy can be used as an instrument of oppression against certain sections of the population. In the United States, that flag bearer of democracy, we have seen individual rights steadily circumscribed by the Patriot Act. The fear of Islamic terrorism has been used since 9/11 to curtail liberties, and to impose draconian laws that would not be out of place in a police state.

In Turkey, a conservative Anatolian majority supports Erdogan as he chips away at secular laws, marginalising the Westernised elites who ruled Turkey for decades. If some heads have to be broken, and secular newspapers have to be shut down, so be it.

But secularism by itself is no guarantee of human rights, either. The worst atrocities of the last century occurred under Nazi and communist rule, both entirely secular ideologies. So clearly, there are no certainties, no magic wand to ensure our freedom. What is needed is constant vigilance and a strong resolve.

Freedom at risk
by Irfan Husain, dawn.com
irfan.husain@gmail.com


آزادی خطرے میں ہے!

بیسویںصدی کے دوسرے نصف میں جس تصور نے دنیا کو اپنی گرفت میں لے لیا وہ یہ تھا کہ جمہوریت اور اس کے ساتھ جڑی ہوئی آزاد تجارت لبرل معاشروں اور اقوام کے درمیان امن قائم کر دے گی۔ اس تصور کی اہم ترین مثال امریکہ تھی۔ اس میں کوئی شک نہیں کہ پچاس اور ساٹھ کی دہائی میں ایسا لگتا تھا کہ امریکہ ہی وہ مثالی دنیا ہے جس کے لیے ''Promised Land‘‘ کی اصطلاح استعمال کی گئی۔ باقی دنیا کے لیے ہالی وڈ فلموں نے امریکی سرزمین کے بارے میں ایسی منظر کشی کی جیسے بڑی بڑی گاڑیاںچلانا اور کھلے گھروں میں رہنا ہر امریکی شہری کا پیدائشی حق ہو‘ لیکن ویت نام جنگ کے دوران یہ چمک قدرے ماند پڑ گئی۔ امریکی ڈریم نے بیرونی دنیا کے لاکھوں افراد کے تصوارت پر گرفت جمائے رکھی اور وہ امریکہ کی طرف ہجرت کرتے دکھائی دیے۔ باقی دنیا کو بتایا گیا کہ اگر ہم بھی جمہوریت اور سرمایہ دارانہ نظام اپنا لیں تو ہر گیراج میں کار اور ہر پلیٹ میں چکن ہو گا۔ جب ربع صدی پہلے سوویت یونین کا شیرازہ بکھرا تو اسے کمیونزم پر امریکہ کی حتمی فتح قرار دیا گیا۔ فرانسس فیکویاما (Francis Fukuyama)... بیسویں صدی کا مشہور امریکی سیاسی مدبر... نے واشگاف انداز میں تاریخ کے اختتامی سفر کی نوید سنا دی تھی۔ خوشی اور جوش کے مختصر سے دورانیے میں ہم نے سوچا کہ سرد جنگ کے اختتام کے بعد امن اور خوشحالی کا نہ ختم ہونے والا دور شروع ہونے والا ہے‘ لیکن جب پردہ اٹھا تو نئی دنیا بڑھتی ہوئی قوم پرستی، مذہبی انتہا پسندی اور دہشت گردی کے کانٹوں سے لہولہان تھی۔ اس انتہا پسندی کو کبھی آمر حکمرانوں، جن کا جھکائو دو سپر پاورز (امریکہ یا سوویت یونین) میں کسی ایک کی طرف ہوتا تھا، نے دبا کر رکھا ہوا تھا‘ لیکن اُن کے منظر سے ہٹتے ہی یہ جن بوتل سے آزاد ہو گیا۔ اب یہ ایک آزاد کردہ خون آشام درندے کی طرح دنیا کو بے رحمی سے بھنبھوڑ رہا ہے۔ خدشہ ہے کہ اس کے پنجے دنیا کے حصے بخرے کر دیں گے۔ 
آج کی دنیا میں پہلے سے کہیں زیادہ فعال جمہوریتیں ہیں اور یہ سب کی سب عالمی معیشت کا حصہ ہیں۔ روس کی مثال لے لیں۔ اس کے آہنی رہنما، مسٹر پیوٹن، نے فری مارکیٹ اور سرمایہ دارانہ نظام کو اپنا کر روسیوں کو غیر معمولی خوشحالی سے مستفید کیا‘ اگرچہ اس میں تیل کی بڑھتی ہوئی قیمت کا بھی ہاتھ تھا اور آج کل تیل کی قیمت کم ہونے کی وجہ سے روسیوں کو پھر مشکلات کا سامنا ہے، لیکن سخت گیر آمر ہونے کے باوجود پیوٹن ابھی تک ایک مقبول رہنما ہیں۔ جمہوریت کی دوسری مثال ترکی ہے‘ جو فروغ پاتی ہوئی آزاد معیشت رکھتا ہے؛ تاہم اس پر ایک آمرانہ مزاج کے صدر، مسٹر اردوان، کی حکومت ہے۔ آمرانہ رویوں کے باوجود وہ ملک میں بہت مقبول ہیں اور طویل عرصے سے انتخابات میں بھاری کامیابی حاصل کر رہے ہیں۔ 
سری لنکا کے مہندا راجا پاکسی ایک اور مثال ہیں‘ جنہوں نے جمہوری قدروں کو بالائے طاق رکھتے ہوئے آمرانہ طرز حکومت اختیار کیا اور بہت مقبول ہوئے۔ اگرچہ وہ گزشتہ انتخابات میں شکست سے دوچار ہوئے، لیکن اس شکست میں ان کی طرف سے اندازے کی غلطی، ستاروں پر ضرورت سے زیادہ بھروسہ اور کچھ غیر ضروری اعتماد کا عمل دخل تھا۔ ان کی مقبولیت اپنی جگہ پر برقرار ہے۔ دراصل اُنہوں نے قبل از وقت انتخابات کا اعلان کر دیا اور ان کے خلاف بھارتی پشت پناہی سے بننے والا اتحاد غیر معمولی طور پر فعال ہو گیا، اس سے سری لنکن صدر کو شکست سے دوچار ہونا پڑا۔ اس کے باوجود راجا پاکسی سنہالی آبادی میں بہت مقبول ہیں۔ تامل اور مسلمان اقلیتوں نے ان کے مخالف امیدواروں کو ووٹ دیے لیکن راجا پاکسی مقبول ووٹ کا 47 فیصد حاصل کرنے میں کامیاب رہے۔ اگلے عام انتخابات میں سابق صدر کے پاس دوبارہ اقتدار حاصل کرنے کا موقع ہے۔ 
اب سوال پیدا ہوتا ہے کہ ان آمرانہ رویوں کے حامل رہنمائوں کی مقبولیت کی کس طرح وضاحت کی جائے؟ انسانی حقوق اور شخصی آزادی کی پامالی کے باوجود وہ بدستور انتخابات میںکامیابی حاصل کرتے رہے ہیں۔ کہیں ایسا تو نہیں کہ ان کے ووٹرز اقتدار پر کسی طاقتور شخص کو دیکھنا چاہتے تھے جو امن و امان قائم کرے‘ چاہے اس کے لیے غیر آئینی طریقے ہی کیوں نہ استعمال کرنا پڑیں؟ ایک اور وجہ یہ ہے کہ عوام کی اکثریت تعلیم یافتہ، لبرل اور انسانی حقوق کے علم برداروں کو دل سے پسند نہیں کرتی۔ ''ہارپرز میگزین‘‘ میں شائع ہونے والے اپنے مضمون، ''Under Western Eyes‘‘ میں جان گرے لکھتے ہیں: ''ابتدائی نسل کے لبرل مفکرین کا خیال تھا کہ جمہوریت بھی جبر کا ہی ایک ذریعہ ہو سکتی ہے۔ بنجمن کونسٹنٹ (Benjamin Constant) سے لے کر الیکسز ڈی ٹوکیویل (Alexis de Tocqueville)اور جان سٹیورٹ ملز سے لے کر ایسائیہ برلن (Isaiah Berlin) تک، سب مفکرین کا خیال تھا کہ ضروری نہیں کہ جمہوریت شخصی آزادی کا تحفظ کرے۔ جب معاشرے کے اکثریتی دھڑے لبرل اقدار کے خلاف ہو جائیں یا اُنہیں ان سے کوئی سروکار نہ رہے تو آئینی اور قانونی تحفظ کے پاس کوئی طاقت نہیں رہتی۔ زیادہ تر انسان، اکثر اوقات آزادی سے زیادہ دیگر چیزوں کی پروا کرتے ہیں۔ اگر کوئی آمر بھی ان چیزوں کی فراہمی کا وعدہ کرے، جان و مال کو تحفظ دے تو لوگ اُسے ووٹ دیں گے۔ ایسا کرتے ہوئے وہ اپنی آزادی کو ترجیح نہیں دیں گے۔ ‘‘
ہو سکتا ہے کہ کچھ لبرل افراد یہ تسلیم کر لیں کہ مخصوص طبقوں کے خلاف مخصوص حالات میں جمہوریت کو جبر کے آلے کے طور پر بھی استعمال کیا جا سکتا ہے۔ امریکہ میں جمہوریت کے علمبرداروں نے Patriot Act بنا کر شخصی حقوق کو معطل کر دیا۔ نائن الیون کے بعد سے اسلامی انتہا پسندی کا ہوّا کھڑا کر کے شہری آزادیوں کو سلب کیا گیا اور ایسے سخت قوانین بنائے گئے جن کا تصور صرف ایک پولیس سٹیٹ میں ہی کیا جا سکتا ہے۔ ترکی میں اناطولیہ کا ایک قدامت پسند باشندہ مسٹر اردوان کی اس لیے حمایت کرتا ہے کہ انہوں نے سیکولر قوانین کا خاتمہ کرتے ہوئے مغربی ذہنیت رکھنے والی اُس اشرافیہ کو سائیڈ لائن کر دیا‘ جو کئی عشروں سے ترکی پر حکومت کر رہی تھی۔ سیکولر اخبار نہایت صفائی سے بند کر دیے گئے؛ یہ الگ بات ہے کہ سیکولرازم بھی انسانی حقوق کی مطلق ضمانت نہیں دیتا۔ گزشتہ صدی کا بدترین تشدد نازی اور کمیونسٹ حکومتوں کی طرف سے دیکھنے میں آیا اور یہ دونوں نظریات کے اعتبار سے سیکولر تھیں؛ چنانچہ اس وقت شخصی آزادی کی ضمانت دینے والی کوئی جادو کی چھڑی موجود نہیں۔ ہمیں اس کا تحفظ کرنے کے لیے مضبوط عزم اور پختہ ارادے کی ضرورت ہے۔

- See more at: http://m.dunya.com.pk/index.php/author/irfan-hussain/2015-04-25/11021/74844245#sthash.yTtKITd0.dpuf

Asad killing Syrians with chemical gasses

'They Were Just Struggling to Breathe’
by David Kenner, foreignpolicy.com

BEIRUT — Dr. Mohammed Tennari first saw the six members of the Talib family when they were carried into his cramped field hospital in northern Syria on the night of March 16. They had been taking refuge in the basement of their home in the town of Sarmin when a barrel bomb filled with chemical gases struck their house. The gas, being heavier than air, quickly filtered down into the basement, poisoning the family.

Tennari and his team struggled to revive the three small children, their mother, father, and grandmother, as life slipped away from them, he explained to me in a Skype call earlier this month from his field hospital in Sarmin. Everything smelled of bleach; the doctor himself felt nauseous from the fumes, and one of the nurses fainted. All six family members would die.

“There were no wounds, no bleeding, they were just struggling to breathe,” he said of the attack. “Their lungs were filled with liquid as well — it was suffocation, to the point where the heart stopped beating.”

His description of the Talib family moved several U.N. Security Council members to tears this week, according to U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Samantha Power. The world diplomatic body is not usually known for outbursts of raw emotion, but it’s not hard to understand why Tennari’s story of what he witnessed in Sarmin would elicit such a strong response.

The below video shows the three Talib children limp and non-responsive to medical treatment; two are treated on the body of their dying grandmother, as the field hospital lacked beds for all the wounded.


Tennari, 35, traveled to New York City this month to tell his story to the UN Security Council. A native of Sarmin, he was arrested by the regime early in the Syrian revolt for treating wounded members of the opposition. He was held for two months, and upon being released, moved to the opposition-held areas in Idlib. He eventually ended up running the field hospital in his hometown, which consists of 10 doctors and 30 nurses who work around the clock to treat the victims of the vicious war in northern Syria.

A radiologist by training, Tennari not only must treat the injured with limited space and supplies, but also says he must contend with direct attacks on the field hospital. He said it has been shelled three times by the Syrian regime over the past month, and 18 times over the last year and a half. A report published last month by Physicians for Human Rights found that the Syrian regime was using attacks on medical workers as “a weapon of war,” and that at least 610 medical workers had been killed since the beginning of the conflict.

“They’re aiming for the hospital,” Tennari told FP. “Every time this would happen, the government channels say they’ve reclaimed the hospital from the terrorists.”

This escalation comes as President Bashar al-Assad’s forces have suffered extensive losses in the area. Idlib city, the provincial capital, was captured by a coalition of Islamist rebels on March 28, becoming only the second provincial capital to fall from Assad’s hands during the four-year conflict.

In an interview published April 17 in the Swedish newspaper Expressen, Assad said the “main factor” for the regime losses was “the huge support [for the rebels] that came through Turkey.” He also denied that his forces had used chlorine attacks, saying such accusations were “propaganda … to demonize the president, [and] to demonize the state.”

There is mounting evidence, however, of multiple chlorine attacks in Idlib province throughout last month. Human Rights Watch released a report on April 14 citing evidence that “strongly suggests” Syrian regime forces had launched at least three attacks, and perhaps as many as six, using toxic chemicals, sickening at least 206 people. The toxic gases were reportedly released by barrel bombs dropped by Syrian army helicopters.

The Security Council moved in early March to prevent such attacks. In a rare moment of agreement between the United States and Russia, which vetoed previous measures against the Assad regime, the council passed Resolution 2209 threatening action under Chapter VII of the U.N. charter — which authorizes the use of military force — should any party use chlorine as a weapon.

The question now is whether Security Council members will take action. On March 31, Power said “all evidence” suggested the Assad regime had launched the attacks, and that the United States supports an investigation “so that there can be culpability ascribed to the user of this monstrous weapon.”

Several weeks ago, the permanent five members of the Security Council — Britain, China, France, Russia, and the United States — privately discussed the prospect of establishing an investigation into the use of chlorine, which could establish who was responsible for carrying out the attacks. An ongoing inquiry by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) had established that the toxic agent had been used against civilians — but it has no mandate to identify the perpetrators.

In the past, Russia, backed by China, had opposed any efforts to hold Syrian officials accountable for human rights abuses. In May 2014, Russia and China cast their vetoes to block a U.S.-backed push to authorize an International Criminal Court investigation into atrocities. But one Security Council member said Friday that Russia has engaged in “constructive” discussions with the United States and the other key Security Council powers on the need for holding perpetrators of chlorine attacks accountable for their crimes.

Two Security Council diplomats said the talks amongst the major powers had been suspended a couple of weeks ago, and have been put on the back burner. It remains unclear why, but one Security Council diplomat said that the key players on the body were overwhelmed addressing the crisis in Yemen.

It also remains unclear what kind of inquiry the United States would favor for establishing who is responsible for weaponizing chlorine. Britain, France, and other Western powers have been exploring the possibility of having the Security Council establish a commission of inquiry to determine who has carried out the chlorine attacks. But President Barack Obama’s administration has not reached an internal agreement about the best way to approach the problem.

“We need an attribution mechanism so we know precisely who carried out these attacks; all of the evidence of course shows that they come from helicopters, only the Assad regime has helicopters; that’s very clear to us,” Power told reporters after Thursday’s meeting. “But we need to move forward in a manner that also makes it very clear to all council members, and then those people responsible for these attacks have to be held accountable.

For Majd Khalaf, a coordinator with Syria’s civil defense teams, international help can’t come too soon. The civil defense volunteers provide emergency medical care to injured civilians following an attack. It was Khalaf’s job to coordinate the movement of the multiple teams in Idlib province during the March 16 attack, and ensure they had the necessary supplies to do their job.

Khalaf sees a parallel between the chlorine attacks in Idlib and the previous use of chemical weapons in the Damascus suburbs in 2013. The Assad regime was accused of small-scale chemical attacks against rebel groups in the Damascus suburbs throughout the spring and summer of 2013, which went largely ignored by the international community. The regime then escalated by launching a large chemical attack on Aug. 21 in the rebel-held suburb of Ghouta, killing hundreds of people.

Khalaf fears a similar dynamic of international apathy and regime escalation is playing out in Idlib today. “We are afraid that the bad cycle the regime used before in [the Damascus suburbs], it is now using in Idlib,” he said. “And we are afraid that it will lead to a big tragedy, a big massacre against civilians.”

Foreign Policy’s U.N. senior correspondent Colum Lynch contributed to this report.

China Readies $46 Billion for Pakistan Trade Route- WSJ

A cornerstone of the Chinese investment project will be to develop the Pakistani port of Gwadar, on the doorstep of the Middle East.

A cornerstone of the Chinese investment project will be to develop the Pakistani port of Gwadar, on the doorstep of the Middle East.

Chinese President Xi Jinping is set to unveil a $46 billion infrastructure spending plan in Pakistan that is a centerpiece of Beijing’s ambitions to open new trade and transport routes across Asia and challenge the U.S. as the dominant regional power.

The plan, known as the China Pakistan Economic Corridor, draws on a newly expansive Chinese foreign policy and pressing economic and security concerns at home for Mr. Xi, who is expected to arrive in Pakistan on Monday. Many details had yet to be announced publicly.

“This is going to be a game-changer for Pakistan,” said Ahsan Iqbal, Pakistan’s planning minister, who said his country could link China with markets in Central Asia and South Asia.

“If we become the bridge between these three engines of growth, we will be able to carve out a large economic bloc of about 3 billion living in this part of the world…nearly half the planet.”

Beijing’s primary concern is that instability in neighboring Pakistan and Afghanistan is spilling into China’s predominantly Muslim northwest, and could grow worse with the withdrawal of U.S. troops from the region.

China sees a historic opportunity to redraw the geopolitical map by succeeding where the U.S. has largely failed, building critical infrastructure that could kick-start economic growth and open new trade routes between China and Central and South Asia. A cornerstone of the project will be to develop the Pakistani port of Gwadar, a warm-water port run by the Chinese on the doorstep of the Middle East.

‘If ‘One Belt, One Road’ is like a symphony involving and benefiting every country, then construction of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor is the sweet melody of the symphony’s first movement.’
—Wang Yi, China’s foreign minister
If realized, the plan would be China’s biggest splurge on economic development in another country to date. It aims over 15 years to create a 2,000-mile economic corridor between Gwadar and northwest China, with roads, rail links and pipelines crossing Pakistan.

The network ultimately will link to other countries as well, potentially creating a regional trading boom, Pakistani and Chinese officials say.

The Pakistan program has been described by Chinese officials as the “flagship project” of a broader policy, “One Belt, One Road,” which seeks to physically connect China to its markets in Asia, Europe and beyond.

“If ‘One Belt, One Road’ is like a symphony involving and benefiting every country, then construction of the China Pakistan Economic Corridor is the sweet melody of the symphony’s first movement,” Wang Yi, China’s foreign minister said during a visit to Pakistan in February.

Terrorism-plagued Pakistan is a risky bet for Beijing, however. During the Chinese president’s coming visit, Islamabad is set to announce that it will raise a special security force of thousands to protect the Chinese workers and engineers who will flood into Pakistan to carry out the work alongside locals, Pakistani officials said.

The largest part of the project would provide electricity to energy-starved Pakistan, based mostly on building new coal-fired power plants. The country is beset by hours of daily scheduled power cuts because of a lack of supply, shutting down industry and making life miserable in homes—a major reason for the election in 2013 of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, who promised to solve the electricity crisis.

The plans envisage adding 10,400 megawatts of electricity at a cost of $15.5 billion by 2018. If those projects deliver, plugging the electricity deficit, Mr. Sharif would be able to go into the 2018 election saying he has lived up to his pledge.

After 2018, adding a further 6,600 megawatts is outlined—at a cost of an additional $18.3 billion—that in cumulative total would double Pakistan’s current electricity output.

The plan has gained political momentum—and new funding sources—since Mr. Xi outlined his vision to build modern-day equivalents of the ancient Silk Road between East and West.

Despite the more-muscular Chinese ambitions, U.S. officials say the new economic strategy complements Washington’s vision for the region.

“We think there’s a great amount of potential complementarity between a China-Pakistan infrastructure corridor and the interests we’ve talked about in South and Central Asia for some time,” said a State Department official. The U.S. and China “have coincident interests in seeing a stable, peaceful and prosperous Pakistan.”

Still, Beijing’s plan would dwarf the multibillion-dollar U.S. assistance program in recent years for Pakistan. Under the 2009 Kerry-Lugar-Berman Act, the U.S. poured more than $5 billion in aid to Pakistan between 2010 and 2014, including $2 billion on infrastructure, some of which is still being spent. In the energy sector, the U.S. program is adding some 1,500 megawatts of generating capacity.

Unlike the U.S. approach of giving traditional development aid, which some say has yielded only incremental improvements to Pakistani infrastructure, most of the Chinese money would be spent on a commercial basis, through investments or loans.

Andrew Small, author of “The China-Pakistan Axis: Asia’s New Geopolitics,” said China was reacting to the perceived failure of Western aid to make a significant difference to Pakistan. “The Chinese response is that you haven’t done it on a large enough scale,” Mr. Small said. “They’re saying that it is only by doing it on this kind of big-bang scale that you’re going to have the transformative economic effect that Pakistan needs.”

Gwadar, operated by a state-run Chinese firm, is set to begin commercial operations this year, and one of the deals to be signed by the Chinese president while in Pakistan is a final agreement on building a new international airport there, Pakistani officials said.

Mr. Small said propping up Pakistan economically furthers China’s regional competition with India. China sees Pakistan as a strategic counterweight to India. Conversely, the U.S. is backing India, which President Barack Obama visited in January, as a counterweight to China, despite Washington’s long relationship with Islamabad.

The U.S. aid program in Pakistan is winding down, while American forces have largely pulled out of Afghanistan, where China is trying to initiate peace talks between Afghan President Ashraf Ghani’s government in Kabul and the Taliban insurgents.

Beijing fears that without its intervention, chaos, extremism and economic stagnation in Pakistan and Afghanistan will blow across into its bordering northwestern region of Xinjiang, which has a large Muslim population. China has grown increasingly concerned in the past two years about an surge in jihadist and separatist violence in Xinjiang.

Northwest China is far from the Chinese coast, and shipping goods to and from there through Pakistan would potentially be quicker and cheaper than using any Chinese port, cutting costs and time in half, according to Pakistani calculations.

Beyond the economics of the Pakistan corridor are strategic advantages: China is concerned that too much of its trade depends on the narrow sea channel of the Strait of Malacca, analysts said. In the event of a future war in Asia, the Strait of Malacca could be blockaded by the U.S. Navy or another competing power. Pakistan would provide an alternative land route for Chinese trade.

During his visit, Mr. Xi will sign off on billions of dollars worth of the more-advanced projects in the corridor project, allowing the start of groundwork, Pakistani officials said. In addition the economic corridor framework, more than $10 billion in other new Chinese infrastructure projects for Pakistan are in the works.

Frederick Starr, a professor at Johns Hopkins University and an expert on Central Asia, said the new corridor has potential to link Europe to China through Central Asia and the Caucasus, and reach onward through Pakistan and India to Southeast Asia, a route that he said “will in 30 years be more important even than China’s [current] route to the West.”

Write to Saeed Shah at saeed.shah@wsj.com and Jeremy Page at jeremy.page@wsj.com

Yemen war linked with Syria

Fighting in Yemen is a result of regional crises involving Iran, particularly in Syria and Iraq, where it is fighting in defense of its allies. This war began in the streets, then developed into geopolitical confrontations between an Iranian axis and an Arab Gulf axis. Iran has sacrificed men, and provided arms and funds, out of fear for the survival of the Assad regime, its ally in Syria. It has done the same in Iraq to save its allies. Keep reading>>> http://aftabkhan-net.page.tl/Yemen-war-linked-to-Syria.htm

Iran Nuclear deal: Next Pakistan?

Hardly a week after the Iran deal was announced, the New York Times — which often reflects official US policy — editorially propagated that attention be turned to constraining Pakistan’s nuclear and strategic capabilities. The issue was also covered by other US media.
Image result for nuclear de  pakistan
The NYT arguments, taken from the Indian hymnbook, were not surprising; the timing of the proposal to target Pakistan is significant. If the editorial indeed reflects official US thinking, it would confirm the view of many in Pakistan and the Muslim world that America’s aim is to denuclearise all Islamic countries. With Iran neutralised, Pakistan remains the only nuclear-capable Islamic nation. The world should be made to understand why Pakistan remains ‘obsessed’ with India. Keep reading >>>>>>


  1. Hamid Gul: If India and Iran can sign Civil Nuclear deal with ...

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Lt2CWRwswg
    2 days ago - Uploaded by RVI
    Hamid Gul: If India and Iran can sign CivilNuclear deal with US then ... After VandalizingPakistani ...


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Humanity, Religion, Culture, Science, Peace
Peace Forum Network
Books, Articles, Magazines,  Videos
Over 2 Million hits
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Yemen colonial cauldron

The Yemen crisis cannot be understood in isolation; this is a conflict that requires understanding of the recent history of the region.
If we were to dismiss history, and what has been played out over the decades post Syke-Picot 1916 and view the Yemeni crisis through a reductionist prism, then yes, the crisis in Yemen is about Saudi and Iran using their proxies to fight it out; yes, it is about a Sunni-Shia conflict which risks spreading in the region; yes, it is about the hegemonic ambitions of the Saudis and Iranians; yes, it is about Saudi trying to flex its muscles while Iran is being brought in from the cold as exemplified by the preliminary nuclear agreement in Lausanne; however, anyone with a insight into the region, colonial penetration and global structures, will come to the conclusion that the Yemeni crisis is just another in a series of conflicts in the region, in which colonial powers are embedded with various factions fighting for influence, penetration and a greater say, with local and regional players subordinate to the interests of the international actors. There is integration between the three, as studied in World Systems Theory, with the top layer (the international actors) being the key determinates of how the local and regional actors position themselves. .... Keep reading >>>>>>


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Humanity, Religion, Culture, Science, Peace
Peace Forum Network
Books, Articles, Magazines,  Videos
Over 2 Million hits
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Bernard Lewis, Oded Yinon's Zionist Plans for Division of Middle East and How to counter ? برنارد لويس، عوديد ينون خطط صهيونية لتقسيم الشرق الأوسط وكيفية مواجهة؟

برنارد لويس، عوديد ينون خطط صهيونية لتقسيم الشرق الأوسط وكيفية مواجهة؟

The present turmoil in the Muslim world which affects the world peace is of special concern to Pakistan being a deeply affected country. Pakistan has lost over sixty thousand people in the terrorist attacks while economic cost is estimated to be over  $ 100 Billions. While some terrorists are killed in the US drone attacks in FATA [Federal Administered Tribal Area] along Afghanistan border, majority of victims are civilians, women and children. Pakistan Army has broken the back of Taliban terrorists firstly by evicting them from Swat and almost wiped them out in North Waziristan single handily, while coalition of many nations lead by USA is  fighting them in Afghanistan and Middle East. The US invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan has destabilised the region. Iraq, Syria have been ripped apart, while Islamic State [IS] has emerged as a power player, its neither “Islamic” nor “state” unrecognised by any country of the world. Sudden emergence of IS has shocked the world. Many questions need to be answered, i.e., who is funding IS? Who is supplying weapons? Who is the ultimate beneficiary of Balkanization of Middle East? Who is to benefit form destabilization of Middle East, Afghanistan and Pakistan?
Many political scientists, analysts, thinkers and intellectuals have come up with many possible answers. However to explore the issue deeply from another angle, let’s go back in time, 22 years ago a paper titled; “New Bernard Lewis plan will carve up the Mideast” was published. Amazingly the roots of present turmoil in Muslim world can easily be traced back. The events proposed 22 years ago by Bernard Lewis seems to be implemented systematically with some variations. An imperialist design to dominate the world through intrigue, covert and overt operations and wars.
BernardLewis, is a specialist in oriental studies, the history of Islam and the interaction between Islam and the West. He is especially famous in for his works on the history of the Ottoman Empire. Lewis is a 98 years old British-American historian who is also known as a public intellectual and political commentator. He is the Professor Emeritus of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton University. Lewis served in the British Army in the Royal Armoured Corps and Intelligence Corps during the Second World War before being seconded to the Foreign Office. After the war, he returned to the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) at the University of London and was appointed to the new chair in Near and Middle Eastern History. Lewis is a widely read expert on the Middle East, and is regarded as one of the West’s leading scholars of that region. His advice has been frequently sought by policymakers, including the Bush administration. In his over a 60-year career, Lewis has emerged as the most influential post war historian of Islam and the Middle East. He is notable for his public debates with the late Edward Said, concerning the latter's book Orientalism (1978), which criticized Lewis and other European Orientalists. Selected contents from his work from are reproduced here; it will help the reader to understand the hidden facet of turmoil in the Muslim world.
In 1980, it was warned that the strategy behind then U.S. National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski’s “Arc of Crisis” was a British plan to destroy the nation-state. The outline is here:-
Keep reading <<< http://aftabkhan-net.blogspot.com/2014/10/plan-to-carve-up-muslim-world.html >>>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Greater Israel”: The Zionist Plan for the Middle East The Infamous "Oded Yinon Plan"

The document pertaining to the formation of “Greater Israel” constitutes the cornerstone of powerful Zionist factions within the current Netanyahu government (which has recently been re-elected), the Likud party, as well as within the Israeli military and intelligence establishment.  The election was fought by Netanyahu on a political platform which denies Palestinian statehood. 
According to the founding father of Zionism Theodore Herzl, “the area of the Jewish State stretches: “From the Brook of Egypt to the Euphrates.”  According to Rabbi Fischmann,  “The Promised Land extends from the River of Egypt up to the Euphrates, it includes parts of Syria and Lebanon.”
When viewed in the current context, the war on Iraq, the 2006 war on Lebanon, the 2011 war on Libya, the ongoing war on Syria, not to mention the process of regime change in Egypt, must be understood in relation to the Zionist Plan for the Middle East. The latter consists in weakening and eventually fracturing neighboring Arab states as part of an Israeli expansionist project.
“Greater Israel” consists in an area extending from the Nile Valley to the Euphrates.
The Zionist project supports the Jewish settlement movement. More broadly it involves a policy of excluding Palestinians from Palestine leading to the eventual annexation of both the West Bank and Gaza to the State of Israel.
Greater Israel would create a number of proxy States. It would include parts of Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, the Sinai, as well as parts of  Iraq and Saudi Arabia. (See map).
According to Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya in a 2011 Global Research article,   The Yinon Plan was a continuation of Britain’s colonial design in the Middle East:
“[The Yinon plan] is an Israeli strategic plan to ensure Israeli regional superiority. It insists and stipulates that Israel must reconfigure its geo-political environment through the balkanization of the surrounding Arab states into smaller and weaker states.
Israeli strategists viewed Iraq as their biggest strategic challenge from an Arab state. This is why Iraq was outlined as the centerpiece to the balkanization of the Middle East and the Arab World. In Iraq, on the basis of the concepts of the Yinon Plan, Israeli strategists have called for the division of Iraq into a Kurdish state and two Arab states, one for Shiite Muslims and the other for Sunni Muslims. The first step towards establishing this was a war between Iraq and Iran, which the Yinon Plan discusses.
The Atlantic, in 2008, and the U.S. military’s Armed Forces Journal, in 2006, both published widely circulated maps that closely followed the outline of the Yinon Plan. Aside from a divided Iraq, which the Biden Plan also calls for, the Yinon Plan calls for a divided Lebanon, Egypt, and Syria. The partitioning of Iran, Turkey, Somalia, and Pakistan also all fall into line with these views. The Yinon Plan also calls for dissolution in North Africa and forecasts it as starting from Egypt and then spilling over into Sudan, Libya, and the rest of the region.
Greater Israel” requires the breaking up of the existing Arab states into small states.
“The plan operates on two essential premises. To survive, Israel must 1) become an imperial regional power, and 2) must effect the division of the whole area into small states by the dissolution of all existing Arab states. Small here will depend on the ethnic or sectarian composition of each state. Consequently, the Zionist hope is that sectarian-based states become Israel’s satellites and, ironically, its source of moral legitimation…  This is not a new idea, nor does it surface for the first time in Zionist strategic thinking. Indeed, fragmenting all Arab states into smaller units has been a recurrent theme.” (Yinon Plan, see below)
Viewed in this context, the war on Syria and Iraq is part of the process of Israeli territorial expansion. Israeli intelligence working hand in glove with the US, Turkey and NATO is directly supportive of the crusade directed against the so-called Islamic State (ISIS), which ultimately seeks to destroy both Syria and Iraq as nation states.
Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, March 22, 2015
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Zionist Plan for the Middle East
Translated and edited by Israel Shahak

The Israel of Theodore Herzl (1904) and of Rabbi Fischmann (1947)
In his Complete Diaries, Vol. II. p. 711, Theodore Herzl, the founder of Zionism, says that the area of the Jewish State stretches: “From the Brook of Egypt to the Euphrates.”
Rabbi Fischmann, member of the Jewish Agency for Palestine, declared in his testimony to the U.N. Special Committee of Enquiry on 9 July 1947: “The Promised Land extends from the River of Egypt up to the Euphrates, it includes parts of Syria and Lebanon.”
from
Oded Yinon’s
“A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties”
Published by the
Association of Arab-American University Graduates, Inc.
Belmont, Massachusetts, 1982
Special Document No. 1 (ISBN 0-937694-56-8)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This Scholarly Library of Facts about Domestic & Worldwide Zionist Criminality
The Jew Watch Project Is The Internet's Largest Scholarly Collection of Articles on Zionist History Free Educational Library for Private Study, Scholarship, Research & News About Zionism We Reveal Zionist Banksters, News Falsifiers, PR Liars, Neocons, Subversives, Terrorists & Spies The Jew Watch Project's 1.5 Billion Pages Served Demonstrate Our Focus on Professionalism
An Oasis of News for Americans Who Presently Endure the Hateful Censorship of Zionist Occupation 
http://jewwatch.com

Over
 1000 videos
"Greater Israel" - ZIONIST PLAN FOR THE MIDDLE EAST: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL2VQBdA8x58Fks7Cfxb1qhafArXpo3qJr



* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Humanity, ReligionCultureSciencePeace
Peace Forum Network
Books, Articles, Magazines,  Videos
Over 2 Million hits
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *