If you ask Americans who their country`s biggest competitor is, many people will tell you China. In a 2012 poll, two-thirds of Americans said they saw China as a competitor of the US, rather than a partner or an enemy. It`s clear why Americans think this. Turn on the TV, and it`s not hard to find a politician or pundit talking about America`s failure to deal with the China challenge Donald Trump in particular. But is China really the competitive threat that Trump and others claim? A new comprehensive report from the World Economic Forum that looks at the competitiveness of 140 countries shows this is actually far from the truth. What`s more, America`s biggest competitors are countries that Americans are not really worrying about. The report defines competitiveness as a set of institutions, policies and factors that determine how productive an economy is basically, the raw materials necessary to ensure a country can grow and improve the lives of its people, from good schools and hospitals to stable banks and support for innovation. By these measures, the US economy looks very good. The report ranks the US third in global competitiveness, behind Switzerland and Singapore. Next is Germany, the Netherlands, Japan, Hong Kong, Finland, Sweden, the UK and then Canada. China is way down the list at 28th, behind Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Malaysia and others. So who is America`s biggest competitor, really? Judging from the report, the best candidate might be Germany, which climbe d one position last year to rank 4th. Germany has sophisticated and innovative businesses and a highly trained and skilled labour force that can really compete with American companies and workers. The other thing that people might find surprising is just how well the US ranks in this report. Despite Trump`s exhortations to `Make American great again, the country still looks pretty good, at least compared to other places in the world.
America`s biggest competitor isn`t China epaper.dawn.com
By arrangement with Washington Post-Bloomberg News Service
Showing posts with label America. Show all posts
Showing posts with label America. Show all posts
America`s biggest competitor isn`t China
US Journalists and War Crime Guilt
With few exceptions, mainstream U.S. news personalities are again selling war to the American people, this time on Syria by asserting false certainty on who launched the Aug. 21 chemical weapons strike and pretending the Syrian government – not the rebels –blocked peace talks, a media crisis that lingers from the Iraq War, as Peter Dyer wrote in 2008. By Peter Dyer
On Oct. 16, 1946, Julius Streicher was hanged, a historical precedent that should hold considerable interest for American journalists who have written in support of “Operation Iraqi Freedom” – the invasion and occupation of Iraq.
Streicher was one of a group of 10 Germans executed that day following the judgment of the first Nuremberg Trial – a 40-week trial of 22 of the most prominent Nazis. Each was tried for two or more of the four crimes defined in the Nuremberg Charter: crimes against peace (aggression), war crimes, crimes against humanity, and conspiracy.
New York Times columnist Thomas L. Friedman.
Julius Streicher, a German publisher and Nazi propagandist who was hanged at Nuremberg after being judged complicit in crimes against humanity. All who were sentenced to death were major German government officials or military leaders. Except for Streicher. Julius Streicher was a journalist.
Editor of the vehemently anti-Semitic newspaper Der Stürmer, Streicher was convicted of, in the words of the judgment, “incitement to murder and extermination at the time when Jews in the East were being killed under the most horrible conditions clearly constitut(ing) … a crime against humanity.”
Presenting the case against Streicher, British prosecutor Lieutenant Colonel M.C. Griffith-Jones said: “My Lord, it may be that this defendant is less directly involved in the physical commission of the crimes against Jews. … The submission of the Prosecution is that his crime is no less the worse … that he made these things possible – made these crimes possible which could never have happened had it not been for him and for those like him. He led the propaganda and the education of the German people in those ways.”
The critical role of propaganda was affirmed at Nuremberg not only by the prosecution and in the judgment but also in the testimony of the most prominent Nazi defendant, Reichsmarshall Hermann Goering: “Modern and total war develops, as I see it, along three lines: the war of weapons on land, at sea and in the air; economic war, which has become an integral part of every modern war; and, third, propaganda war, which is also an essential part of this warfare.”
Two months after the Nuremberg hangings, the United Nations General Assembly passed Resolution 59(I), declaring: “Freedom of information requires as an indispensable element the willingness and capacity to employ its privileges without abuse. It requires as a basic discipline the moral obligation to seek the facts without prejudice and to spread knowledge without malicious intent.”
The next year another General Assembly Resolution was adopted: Res. 110 which “condemns all forms of propaganda, in whatsoever country conducted, which is either designed or likely to provoke or encourage any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression.”
Although UN General Assembly Resolutions are not legally binding, Resolutions 59 and 110 carry considerable moral weight. This is because, like the United Nations itself, they are an expression of the catastrophic brutality and suffering of two world wars and the universal desire to avoid future slaughter.
Propaganda Crimes
Most jurisdictions have yet to recognize propaganda for war as a crime. However several journalists have recently been convicted of incitement to genocide by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. Because there is stiff resistance, especially from the United States, the effort to criminalize war propaganda faces an uphill battle.
However in legal terms it seems relatively straightforward: if incitement to genocide is a crime, then incitement to aggression, another Nuremberg crime, could and should be as well. After all, aggression – starting an unprovoked war – is “the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole,” in the words of the judgment at Nuremberg.
Criminal or not, much of the world now sees incitement to war as morally indefensible. In this light and in light of Goering’s three-part recipe for war (weapons, economic war and propaganda), it is instructive to look at the role which American journalists and war propagandists have recently played in bringing about and sustaining war.
The Bush administration began to sell the invasion of Iraq to the American public soon after 9/11. In order to coordinate this effort President Bush’s chief of staff, Andrew Card, established the White House Iraq Group (WHIG) in the summer of 2002 expressly for the purpose of marketing the invasion of Iraq.
Among the members of WHIG were media figures/propagandists Karen Hughes and Mary Matalin. WHIG was remarkable not only for its recklessness with the truth but for the candor with which it acknowledged it was running an advertising campaign.
A Sept. 7, 2002, New York Times article entitled TRACES OF TERROR: THE STRATEGY; Bush Aides Set Strategy to Sell Policy on Iraq reported: “White House officials said today that the administration was following a meticulously planned strategy to persuade the public, the Congress and the allies of the need to confront the threat from Saddam Hussein….
“‘From a marketing point of view,’ said Andrew H. Card Jr., the White House chief of staff who is coordinating the effort, ‘you don’t introduce new products in August.’” It was as if the “product” – the unprovoked invasion of a sovereign state – was a consumer good, like a car or a TV show. The sales pitch was the manufactured “imminent threat” of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.
In other words, the business of WHIG was incitement to aggressive war primarily through the propaganda of fear. Along those lines WHIG’s most prominent member, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, invoked the specter of an Iraqi-generated nuclear holocaust in a Sept. 8, 2002, CNN interview with Wolf Blitzer:
“We do know that there have been shipments going into Iran, for instance – into Iraq, for instance, of aluminum tubes that really are only suited to – high-quality aluminum tools that are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs. … The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.”
The smoking gun/mushroom cloud images were among the most memorable of all the White House war propaganda. They were generated just a few days earlier in a WHIG meeting by speechwriter Michael Gerson. (Gerson is now a Washington Post columnist.)
The existence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction was central to the Bush administration’s campaign for war. Other important elements were Saddam Hussein’s ties with Al Qaeda and the strongly implied association of Iraq with the tragedies of 9/11. All were false. In propaganda, though, selling the product trumps truth.
Unquestioning Submission
The role played by American mainstream media during the run-up to the invasion of Iraq was marked by widespread unquestioning submission to the Bush administration and abandonment of the most fundamental journalistic responsibility to the public.
This responsibility is embodied not only in Resolution 59 but in the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics as well, which states: “Journalists should test the accuracy of information from all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error.”
The failure of influential American journalists, such as the New York Times’ Judith Miller, to test the accuracy of information played a critical role in the Bush administration’s successful effort to incite the American public to attack a country which was not threatening us.
Though she was far from alone in selling the case for war, Miller — through her seemingly uncritical reliance on dodgy informants — was probably responsible to a larger degree than any other American journalist for spreading the fear of nonexistent Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.
As such she and other influential journalists who failed in this way bear a share of moral, if not legal, responsibility for hundreds of thousands of deaths, millions of refugees and all the other carnage, devastation and human suffering of “Operation Iraqi Freedom.”
Some prominent American media figures, however, went considerably further than simple failure to check sources. Some actively and passionately encouraged Americans to commit and/or approve of war crimes, before and during Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Prominent among these was Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly who – regarding both Afghanistan and Iraq – advocated such crimes forbidden by the Geneva Convention as collective punishment of civilians (Gen. Con. IV, Art. 33); attacking civilian targets (Protocol I, Art. 51); destroying water supplies (Protocol I Art. 54 Sec. 2) and even starvation (Protocol I, Art. 54 Sec. 1).
Sept. 17, 2001: “The U.S. should bomb the Afghan infrastructure to rubble: the airport, the power plants, their water facilities, and the roads” in the event of a refusal to hand over Osama bin Laden to the U.S. Later, he added: “This is a very primitive country. And taking out their ability to exist day to day will not be hard. … We should not target civilians. But if they don’t rise up against this criminal government, they starve, period.”
On March 26, 2003, a few days after the invasion of Iraq began, O’Reilly said: “There is a school of thought that says we should have given the citizens of Baghdad 48 hours to get out of Dodge by dropping leaflets and going with the AM radios and all that. Forty-eight hours, you’ve got to get out of there, and flatten the place.” [See Peter Hart's “O'Reilly's War: Any rationale—or none—will do” Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting, May/June 2003]
Collective Punishment
Another tremendously influential journalist, Pulitzer Prize winner and former executive editor of the New York Times, the late A.M. Rosenthal, also advocated attacking civilian targets and collective punishment in regard to waging war against Muslim nations in the Middle East.
In a Sept. 14, 2001, column, “How the U.S. Can Win the War,” Rosenthal wrote that the U.S. should give Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Syria and Sudan three days to consider an ultimatum demanding they turn over documents and information related to weapons of mass destruction and terrorist organizations.
During these three days, “the residents of the countries would be urged 24 hours a day by the U.S. to flee the capital and major cities, because they would be bombed to the ground beginning the fourth day.”
Right-wing media figure Ann Coulter, on the Sean Hannity Show on July 21, 2006, called for another war and more punishment of civilians, this time in Iran: “Well, I keep hearing people say we can’t find the nuclear material, and you can bury it in caves. How about we just, you know, carpet-bomb them so they can’t build a transistor radio? And then it doesn’t matter if they have the nuclear material.”
This pattern of the major U.S. news figures advocating aggressive wars even predated 9/11. Three-time Pulitzer Prize winner Thomas Friedman published a strident call for war crimes including collective punishment of Serbs and the destruction of their water supplies over the Kosovo crisis:
“But if NATO’s only strength is that it can bomb forever, then it has to get every ounce out of that. Let’s at least have a real air war. The idea that people are still holding rock concerts in Belgrade, or going out for Sunday merry-go-round rides, while their fellow Serbs are ‘cleansing’ Kosovo, is outrageous. It should be lights out in Belgrade: every power grid, water pipe, bridge, road and war-related factory has to be targeted.
“Like it or not, we are at war with the Serbian nation (the Serbs certainly think so), and the stakes have to be very clear: Every week you ravage Kosovo is another decade we will set your country back by pulverizing you. You want 1950? We can do 1950. You want 1389? We can do 1389 too.” [New York Times, April 23, 1999]
These casual — even joking — comments about inflicting war on relatively weak countries came from American journalists and media figures at the very top of their profession. Each was addressing an audience of millions. It is difficult to overstate their influence.
Over the past decade alone, the massive destruction and carnage wreaked by American pursuit of “the supreme international crime” of aggression has been enabled by negligent, reckless and/or malicious use of this influence.
Sadly, the words of Nuremberg Prosecutor Griffith-Jones concerning the propaganda of German journalist Julius Streicher hold considerable meaning today for some of the most prominent journalists in the country which, after World War II, provided the guiding light at Nuremberg: Streicher “made these things possible – made these crimes possible which could never have happened had it not been for him and for those like him.”
In 1947, the United Nations General Assembly passed Resolution 127 in which “the General Assembly … invites the Governments of States Members … to study such measures as might with advantage, be taken on the national plane to combat, within the limits of constitutional procedures, the diffusion of false or distorted reports likely to injure friendly relations between States.”
Unfortunately, more than six decades later, little progress has been made. War propaganda is still legal and very much alive – flourishing, in fact, as demonstrated by periodic calls for one more invasion of a country which has never threatened the U.S.: Iran.
As matters stand today, with the United States still the world’s preeminent military power, the American propagandists who enabled Operation Iraqi Freedom and other wars of aggression have little need to worry about their legal responsibilities under the Nuremberg principles. A strong case can be made, though, that they have blood on their hands.
Peter Dyer is a freelance journalist who moved with his wife from California to New Zealand in 2004. He can be reached atp.dyer@inspire.net.nz .
https://consortiumnews.com/2013/09/05/us-journalists-and-war-crime-guilt-2/
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Humanity, Religion, Culture, Science, Peace
A Project of
Overall 2 Million visits/hits
MQM - Time for Change
According to sources, police had tracked the details of bank lockers while conducting search operation on Altaf Hussain and his relative’s homes.
The sources said that London police has compiled a report based on solid evidences against Altaf Hussain and sent it to Crown Prosecution Service, Dunya News reported.
The Crown Prosecution Service is responsible for prosecuting criminal cases investigated by the police in England and Wales.
Police sources added MQM chief will be part of interrogative process after governmental lawyers’ response.
Two former leaders of the political party provided firm proofs to London police which helped the officials in investigations.
Police officials also claimed that amount of more than one million pounds were recovered during the raid.
London Metropolitan Police and Crown Prosecution Services will present progress report today on Imran Farooq murder case before British Home Secretary Theresa May.
Crown Prosecution Services will hold a special session with the top police officials before meeting the home secretary.
Earlier, Chief of the Muttahida Quami Movement (MQM) Altaf Hussain voluntarily stepped down from his post on June 30 after the raid conducted by London police on his residence but rejoined his post after 6 hours.
-------------------------------------------------
Karachi Pakistan
Simple & peace loving patriotic Urdu speaking citizens [Muhajirs] supported
Mr.Altaf Hussain who in eighties founded MQM to struggle for their
rights. Unlike other political parties lead
by dynastic families of feudal lords
and business tycoons MQM draws its leadership from middle class,
this has many plus points. However unfortunately
the image of MQM has been tarnished due to its zero tolerance
to dissension, which is not only undemocratic but leads to fascism. The mafia
like war with breakaway faction MQM (H) has cost many lives. Hence alleged
involvement of militant wing of MQM in killings, torcher, extortion and other
illegal and anti state activates gets out of control. While people join and
leave other political parties, MQM has only one Way In.. no one can leave
MQM, those expelled, live a quiet life till they breath their last or
die under mysterious circumstances. MQM has monopolized the leadership of
Urdu speaking community, where as diversity is strength of
democracy.
Mr.Altaf Hussein is living in self exile in London Pakistan
Political leaders live exile expelled by rulers but they return
back to their country to lead from front when ever situation improves. Nawaz
Sharif and Benazir are recent examples, though they have kept their business and
wealth in foreign lands they returned back. Benazir Bhutto was well aware of
threat to her life, survived two attempts but it did not deter her, finally embraced
death with honor. Nowhere in the world leaders settle down abroad permanently,
swear allegiance to foreign state and lead political party in their previous country.
This is not only betrayal to the oath of allegiance rendered to the adopted
land but to the people of Pakistan Pakistan Pakistan Pakistan Pakistan Pakistan Karachi Pakistan
It well known that MQM is organized on the lines some what similar to the German Nazi Party. Mr. Altaf Hussain is like "Der Führer", with absolute power and full command over the party. All other party offices are subordinate to his position and depend on his instruction. Rabita Commmitte is like the Reichsleiters ("Reich Leader") directly subjected to the Führer. The Reichsleiters formed the "Reich Leadership of the Nazi Party" (Reichsleitung der NSDAP), which was established at the so-called Brown House, in Munich and MQM equivalent is 90 [Nine Zero]. The political leadership corps in Nazi party encompassed a vast array of paramilitary titles at the top of which were the Gauleiters, who were Party leaders of large geographical areas [see Sector Commandeers, Unit Commanders in MQM]. From the Gauleiters extended downwards through Nazi positions encompassing county, city, and town leaders, all of whom were unquestioned rulers in their particular areas and region. The general membership of the Nazi Party, known as the Parteimitglieder, mainly consisted of the urban and rural lower middle classes. 7% belonged to the upper class, another 7% were peasants, 35% were industrial workers and 51% were what can be described as middle class, MQM with rural base follows almost similar pattern.The sector commanders and others in hierarchy maintain strict watch on people down to street level. Any one going against the party policies is handled with iron hand voices of defiance are silenced. This act as deterrence for other potential dissidents. About ninety police officers who participated in operation against criminals allegedly associated with MQM in nineties have gradually been murdered. The strict military like discipline is visible in telephonic addresses by Mr.Altaf Hussain from
The peace loving people, intellectuals along with young people among Urdu speaking community have to come forward to initially establish a forum or pressure group which could be called MPM [Muthidda Pakistan Movement], Pakistani Qomi Movement [PQM] or any other suitable name with a view to persuade MQM to change its approach, abandon militancy and other illegal activities. This has to be done patiently in soft and reasonable manner not to antagonize but to support, however use of social media may be helpful.
Replacement of word
‘Muhajir’ with ‘Mutehidda’ by MQM did not change its outlook. The Urdu speaking people may stop calling
themselves as Muhajir, they may prefer the title of “Pakistani”. Because they are first
Pakistani and then
Punjabi, Sindhi, Baloch, Pathan or Kashmiri, their adopted homes. Their
language Urdu is the national
language of Pakistan Pakistan Pakistan Pakistan
Must Read:
Altaf Hussain - MQM & Pakistan Politics - Analysis
Letter by Altaf Hussain, Detailed Comments & Analysis: http://goo.gl/zCHDv
- ‘Altaf’s address waste of time’:http://goo.gl/Stixg
- Letter by Altaf Hussain, Detailed Comments & Analysis: http://pakistan-posts.blogspot.com/2011/08/letter-by-patriotic-pakistani-leader.html
- Present political arrangements is trash left by military dictatorship. Elections-2008 were aimed to continue with the puppet rule under US patronage. How elections held with 35 million fake voters [45% of registered voters] can result in democratic government? So what we see now is jus an illusion of democracy... some reforms are suggested... read >>>http://t.co/nWDNNWN
- Peace-Forum: MQM - Time for Change http://peace-forum.blogspot.com/2011/09/letter-by-altaf-hussain-patriotic.html?spref=tw
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Party#Party_composition
- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYLKg5l1QJg
-
MQM - Time for Change: http://goo.gl/bzq2U
Altaf Hussain - MQM & Pakistan Politics - Analysis
Letter by Altaf Hussain, Detailed Comments & Analysis: http://goo.gl/zCHDv
MQM - Time for Change: http://goo.gl/bzq2U
NATO attack on Pakistan: A blatant aggression: Analysis
By Ikram Sehgal: A defence and political analyst.
[Cry wolf is an expression that means "raise a false alarm", derived from the fable The Boy Who Cried Wolf]
The compulsions for survival have driven our leaders over the past decade to allow the US-Pakistan relationship to gradually degenerate into a master-slave relationship. Pakistan is now subjected to various insults across the board periodically; in the past year the vilification of the Pakistan Army and the ISI by key US public officials has become a regular affair. To add injury to the never-ending insults, 24 of our soldiers were brutally murdered by the strafing of four US helicopter gunships; most of them died in the first attack while asleep. While the borders may not be well marked, the map reference coordinates of our position at Salala – two kilometres well inside Pakistan – were well defined; the US and Nato violated standard operating procedures (SOPs) governing coordination with Pakistan.
Universal perception holds that this was a calculated act of provocation for our perceived support for the Taliban. Or was it more than that; the pre-meditated murder being carried out with a more sinister motive? The reaction in the drawing rooms of the elite matched the outrage in the streets, the near universal cry being “enough is enough”. PM Gilani rode the crest of the public anger with his “no further business as usual” stance.
To quote M K Bhadrakumar from a recent article, “Pakistan’s doublespeak (about drones) may be ending. Future US drone operations may have to be conducted factoring in the possibility that Pakistan might regard them as violations of its air space.” What he went on to say was more meaningful, “Washington may have seriously erred if the intention on Friday night was to draw out the Pakistani military into a retaliatory mode and then to hit it with a sledgehammer and make it crawl on its knees pleading mercy.”
The perfunctory “regret” aside, there is not even a hint of an apology; but then, which master has ever apologised to a slave? To its credit, the Defence Cabinet Committee (DCC) did not turn the other cheek as usual. Instead, it decided to (1) close Nato’s supply through Pakistani territory immediately (2) demand the US vacate Shamsi airbase (meant for drone operations) within 15 days and (3) “revisit and undertake a complete review” of all “programmes, activities and cooperative arrangements” with the US, Nato and the International Security Assistance Force (Isaf), including in “diplomatic, political and intelligence” areas. The Federal Cabinet went one up in deciding not to participate in the Bonn Conference that is to be held in early December.
The 140,000 (97,000 US and 43,000 Nato) Isaf troops depend on fuel, food and equipment coming from outside landlocked Afghanistan. Spokesman Lt Gen Keeley insisted that their operations will not be affected because “Isaf uses a vast supply and distribution network to ensure coalition forces remain well-stocked.” Less than half is funnelled through the so-called Northern Distribution Network (NDN) encompassing Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan. Many knowledgeable logistical experts maintain that contrary to Isaf claims the NDN is not adequate for supplies in the longer-term, particularly because heavy equipment, stores and aviation fuel come through Pakistan. Speaking on NBC News, respected US defence analyst retired US General Barry McCaffrey warned that the coalition effort in Afghanistan was “one step short of a strategic crisis. I do not believe we can continue operations at this rate, so we’ve got to talk to them, we’ve got to pay them, we’ve got to apologise for this strike. We have no option, literally.”
To quote my article “Terms of Endearment” published on September 29, 2011, “Our civilian and military sacrifices compare at a ratio of almost 10:1 to all Afghan civilian and coalition forces put together. Is it an amazing coincidence that every time the PPP coalition is in danger of a meltdown, the army and the ISI are put on the block by the US to relieve the existential threat to this inept and corrupt Pakistani government?” This incongruous thought becomes stronger two months later; was the Salala strike meant to bail out Zardari because of the Haqqani memo and or the NRO? Was the helicopter attack meant only as a warning shot, misfiring when a missile hit a billet full of soldiers sleeping off duty, and the high casualty figures raised a storm?
Nevertheless the Nato strike did shift attention from both the memo and the NRO. Unfortunately for Zardari, Husain Haqqani is not present in Washington DC to give events the usual spin about “the danger to democracy”. It would be nice if the president and supreme commander came out personally with a strong statement condemning this murderous attack instead of oblique references through his spokesman. It may not altogether eliminate the pervasive suspicion about his inclinations and motives but it would go some way in partially dispelling the prevailing notion of all this being meant to distract the focus from him.
Teetering perilously on a fail-safe line as a much-vilified partner in the US-led war, continuing without a defined “terms of engagement”, is impossible. Former governor Huntsman (and a Republican presidential candidate) correctly termed our relationship as being one of a “transactional” nature. “Out-of-the-box” thinking must provide for a genuinely productive and meaningful relationship in the future.
People like Sandy Berger and Bruce Reidel have brushed off the Pakistani reaction as being without substance, confidently predicting we will be back “on line” within days – the dangers of our “crying wolf” once too often! The acid test of our political (and military) leaders will be to put national interest before personal salvation. Effective in his own quiet way, Kayani must comprehend the consequences of his remaining a perennial “silent soldier”. While he could possibly have considered fading from the scene as an option (the first year of his three-year extension expired coincidentally on November 27), he has responsibilities not only to the soldiers dying under his command but also to the people of this country.
With the entire Republican slate of US presidential candidates baying for our blood, I wrote two months ago, “The US Congress would do this country the greatest favour if it passes the Bill to cut off aid to Pakistan; this government can than declare freedom! First, we should re-affirm our commitment to continue fighting the war on terror, but on our own terms. Second, we must pull out as many troops as we can from Fata and mobilise the tribal militias as in the past. Third, we must not take any further aid of any kind, economic or military, saddled with conditions. Fourth, we must charge transit fees (and the wear and tear to our infrastructure) at internationally acceptable rates for all goods passing through Pakistani territory.” The Nato containers and oil tankers stuck in Pakistani territory must be allowed through as they present a security threat but no more should be offloaded from ships till we have a suitable agreement for payment of adequate transit fees in place.
To preserve sanity in a future relationship, sometimes a divorce is necessary. Pakistan must disengage from the war in Afghanistan while continuing its own war against terrorism within Pakistan. If the US wants to shed the blood of its young soldiers, propping up someone like Karzai for the next 50 years – that is its call.
Email: isehgal@pathfinder9.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~
A senior Pakistani army official has said a NATO cross-border air attack that killed 24 soldiers was a deliberate, blatant act of aggression, hardening Pakistan's stance on an incident that could hurt efforts to stabilize Afghanistan.
Continuing Pakistan's angry tone, Major General Ishfaq Nadeem, director general of military operations, said NATO forces were alerted they were attacking Pakistani posts, but helicopters kept firing. His comments, from a briefing to editors, were carried in local newspapers on Wednesday that characterized the attack as blatant aggression.
NATO helicopters and fighter jets attacked two military border posts in northwest Pakistan on Saturday in the worst incident of its kind since Islamabad allied itself with Washington in 2001 in the war on militancy.
Fury over the attack is growing, with another protest in the city of Lahore and more tough editorials in newspapers.
The helicopters appeared near the post around 15 to 20 minutes past midnight, opened fire, then left about 45 minutes later, Nadeem was quoted as saying. They reappeared at 0115 local time and attacked again for another hour, he said.
Nadeem said that, minutes before the first attack, a U.S. sergeant on duty at a communications centre in Afghanistan told a Pakistani major that NATO special forces were receiving indirect fire from a location 15 km (9 miles) from the posts.
The Pakistanis said they needed time to check and asked for coordinates. Seven minutes later, the sergeant called back and said "your Volcano post has been hit," Nadeem quoted the sergeant as saying.
Nadeem concluded that confirmed NATO knew the locations of the Pakistani posts before attacking, said The News.
REINVIGORATED MILITARY
The NATO attack shifted attention away from Pakistan's widely questioned performance against militants who cross its border to attack U.S.-led NATO forces in Afghanistan, and has given the military a chance to reassert itself.
Islamabad's decision to boycott next week's meeting in Bonn will deprive the talks of a key player that could nudge Taliban militants into a peace process as NATO combat troops prepare to leave Afghanistan by the end of 2014.
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on Wednesday Pakistan's decision to boycott the conference was "regrettable" but hoped to secure Islamabad's cooperation in future.
"Nothing will be gained by turning our backs on mutually beneficial cooperation," Clinton told reporters in South Korea.
The army, which has ruled Pakistan for more than half of its history and sets security and foreign policy, faced strong criticism from both the Pakistani public and its ally, the United States, after the raid that killed Osama bin Laden.
The al Qaeda leader had apparently been living in a Pakistani garrison town for years before U.S. special forces found and killed him in a unilateral raid in May.
Pakistanis criticized the military for failing to protect their sovereignty, and angry U.S. officials wondered whether some members of military intelligence had sheltered him. Pakistan's government and military said they had no idea bin Laden was in the country.
The army seems to have regained its confidence, and won the support of the public and the government in a country where anti-American sentiment runs high even on rare occasions when relations with Washington are healthy.
More than 1,000 students from a hardline Pakistani religious party protested in Lahore, yelling "Death to NATO" and "Death to America."
"If NATO and America do something like this again, we are going to turn Pakistan into their graveyard," said 23-year-old university student Zahoor Ahmad.
History student Mudassir Durrani said: "This attack is a slap in the faces of the Pakistanis who support America. It is time for secular and religious forces to come together to fight America."
NATO hopes an investigation it promised will defuse the crisis and that confidence-building measures can repair ties.
But the military is firmly focused on NATO, and analysts say it is likely to take advantage of the widespread anger to press its interests in any future peace talks on Afghanistan.
The army is well aware that many Pakistanis believe the war on militancy their country joined has only served U.S. interests while thousands of Pakistani soldiers have died fighting.
"If the military and government are not in sync with the public opinion, they are seen as the bad guys, they are seen as the lackeys of the Americans," said Mahmud Durrani, a former national security chief and ambassador to Washington.
"The leadership has no choice but to condemn it (NATO). The anger in the public is phenomenal."
Exactly what happened at the posts along an unruly and poorly defined border is still unclear.
A Western official and an Afghan security official who requested anonymity said NATO troops were responding to fire from across the border. Pakistan says the attack was unprovoked.
Both explanations are possibly correct: that a retaliatory attack by NATO troops took a tragic, mistaken turn in harsh terrain where differentiating friend from foe can be difficult.
Nadeem was adamant that all communications channels had informed NATO that it was attacking Pakistani positions. "They continued regardless, with impunity," The News quoted him as saying.
(Additional reporting by Chris Allbritton in ISLAMABAD and Mubasher Bukhari in LAHORE; Writing by Michael Georgy; Editing by Paul Tait) http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/30/us-pakistan-nato-idUSTRE7AT0JZ20111130
More, analysis & videos: http://pakistan-posts.blogspot.com/2011/11/us-nato-attack-on-pakistan-analysis.html
Please visit: http://aftabkhan.blog.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
------------------ "كما ثورة ديمقراطية بقيادة الشباب التكنولوجيا ذات صلاحيات تجتاح العالم العربي ، وضاح خنفر ، الجزيرة المدير ...
-
SalaamOne سلام is a nonprofit e-Forum to promote peace among humanity, through understanding and tolerance of religions, cul...
-
Reading remains a gateway to learning and personal development, making the study of books indispensable in contemporary society. “Are t...
