Developing Ties Between Pak, Russia, China, Iran & the CARS
- Thread starter 53fd
- Start date
Pakistanisage
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2011
- Messages
- 9,450
- Reaction score
- 18
- Country
- Location
Take a THANDI PILL Jello. Everytime a NAYA PANCHI comes in, they try to troll to derail the thread.
But why indians get irritated every time there is positive development between China and Pakistan? Shouldn't india pursue good relation with every country in the world? I guess india is sleeping with the hope of US shoulder ride which does not offer comforting assurance. Too bad, india should choose wisely.
shrivatsa
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- May 24, 2008
- Messages
- 517
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
Why do you try to equate India to a country which has been a lapdog of America(from now on china i suppose) from the day of its inception,specially its funny when it comes from a guy of an irrelevant country. We always have chosen wisely, You should give these advice to people from your (irrelevant)country. You know how Lanka suffered rite it would be much worse for you.
Thorough Pro
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2008
- Messages
- 13,232
- Reaction score
- -21
- Country
- Location
only trolls.
VCheng
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2010
- Messages
- 48,460
- Reaction score
- 57
- Country
- Location
Here is a good article on the state of affairs in the CARs:
from: Central Asia: Make a new plan, Stans | The Economist
Central Asia
Make a new plan, Stans
The biggest instability facing the region’s dictators is the lack of any mechanism to succeed them
Dec 17th 2011 | from the print edition
Far from being at the heart of a happening continent, for much of modern times Central Asia stagnated on the periphery. Now, 20 years after breaking from the Soviet Union, things are changing for the “Stans”. For one thing, huge and growing quantities of oil and gas are being uncovered. Seven-tenths of all the increase in oil output outside OPEC is coming from Central Asia. Led by Kazakhstan, an energy boom is under way.
Partly because of that, pipelines, roads and railways are reshaping the continent. A pipeline opened in 2009 that runs for 7,000km (4,400 miles) from gasfields in Turkmenistan to energy-hungry China. Railway plans are ambitious. China’s schemes would mean that by 2025 a Shanghai resident could reach his tailor in London’s Savile Row by train in two days.
The “central” is being put back into Central Asia. East-west links are forming between Europe and East Asia which may one day knit the Eurasian land mass together. Some, notably America’s secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, talk of the north-south possibilities too. America will need a new regional policy once it pulls its troops out of Afghanistan, and Mrs Clinton’s “New Silk Road” conjures visions of Turkmenistan piping gas to India and the markets of Astana groaning with Afghan fruit.
It is an attractive prospect, but not, at present, a realistic one. It would be crazy to put a pipeline through unstable Afghanistan. Nor has the Silk Road ever flourished without Iran’s participation, something America is hardly likely to promote. As far as Central Asian rulers see it, Afghanistan’s chief exports are militant Islam and drugs.
A greater danger still lies in Central Asia’s domestic politics, in which change has been regrettably absent. With the exception of democratic Kyrgyzstan, where recent bloodshed hardly inspires confidence, Central Asia is run by ex-Soviet strongmen. Islam Karimov and Nursultan Nazarbayev have ruled Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan respectively since 1989, and Emomali Rakhmon has run Tajikistan since 1992. Gurbanguly Berdymukhamedov is a spring chicken, ruling Turkmenistan only since 2006. But he takes after his late predecessor, who had a gold statue of himself revolve to face the sun.
All these men, who dislike each other, have rigged elections, muzzled the media and gone after opponents. The most populous country, Uzbekistan, is perhaps the most repressive. Torture is widespread. In 2005 in Andijan, Uzbek soldiers fired on protesters, killing hundreds if not thousands of them. For a mix of secrecy and repression, however, Turkmenistan takes the biscuit. In July a lethal and suspicious explosion at an ammunition dump outside the capital, Ashgabat, was not reported within the country.
The secular strongmen fear social instability and militant Islam. But conflating ordinary piety with extremism risks bringing into existence the very thing they fear. Meanwhile, nepotism flourishes, stifling growth and creating inequalities. Political energies are chiefly spent securing the interests of immensely wealthy ruling families and a narrow group of oligarchs around them—none wealthier than Kazakhstan’s. Even as they solicit foreign investment, the elites put their own money and mistresses in London or Zurich. Further down the governing apparatus, Soviet habits die hard. One Western adviser calls Kazakhstan’s tax and customs “officially sanctioned rackets”, while the judiciary is up for sale. And Kazakhstan is Central Asia’s most fragrant economy.
Stop fawning
Central Asia, thus, is not as stable as it seems. It might not take much—a powerful earthquake ineptly handled, growing protests by the dispossessed or, especially, a bungled succession—for the brittleness of these nasty, brutish and long regimes to show. Russia and China, competing for energy supplies, will not point this out to autocrats. But European governments should stop letting Central Asian dictators off the hook.
They could start in Kazakhstan, by far the most open place. Mr Nazarbayev spends fortunes on having Western public-relations firms, lobbyists and a former British prime minister, Tony Blair, burnish his image. Britain’s Prince Andrew has been far too friendly with Central Asian dictators as well. Europeans would do better by pointing out that Mr Nazarbayev’s image would shine brighter if he paved the way for a more plural politics—and for a successor who is not one of his family or from his circle of cronies. They should do this before stability suddenly turns to brittleness.
from the print edition | Leaders
from: Central Asia: Make a new plan, Stans | The Economist
Central Asia
Make a new plan, Stans
The biggest instability facing the region’s dictators is the lack of any mechanism to succeed them
Dec 17th 2011 | from the print edition
Far from being at the heart of a happening continent, for much of modern times Central Asia stagnated on the periphery. Now, 20 years after breaking from the Soviet Union, things are changing for the “Stans”. For one thing, huge and growing quantities of oil and gas are being uncovered. Seven-tenths of all the increase in oil output outside OPEC is coming from Central Asia. Led by Kazakhstan, an energy boom is under way.
Partly because of that, pipelines, roads and railways are reshaping the continent. A pipeline opened in 2009 that runs for 7,000km (4,400 miles) from gasfields in Turkmenistan to energy-hungry China. Railway plans are ambitious. China’s schemes would mean that by 2025 a Shanghai resident could reach his tailor in London’s Savile Row by train in two days.
The “central” is being put back into Central Asia. East-west links are forming between Europe and East Asia which may one day knit the Eurasian land mass together. Some, notably America’s secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, talk of the north-south possibilities too. America will need a new regional policy once it pulls its troops out of Afghanistan, and Mrs Clinton’s “New Silk Road” conjures visions of Turkmenistan piping gas to India and the markets of Astana groaning with Afghan fruit.
It is an attractive prospect, but not, at present, a realistic one. It would be crazy to put a pipeline through unstable Afghanistan. Nor has the Silk Road ever flourished without Iran’s participation, something America is hardly likely to promote. As far as Central Asian rulers see it, Afghanistan’s chief exports are militant Islam and drugs.
A greater danger still lies in Central Asia’s domestic politics, in which change has been regrettably absent. With the exception of democratic Kyrgyzstan, where recent bloodshed hardly inspires confidence, Central Asia is run by ex-Soviet strongmen. Islam Karimov and Nursultan Nazarbayev have ruled Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan respectively since 1989, and Emomali Rakhmon has run Tajikistan since 1992. Gurbanguly Berdymukhamedov is a spring chicken, ruling Turkmenistan only since 2006. But he takes after his late predecessor, who had a gold statue of himself revolve to face the sun.
All these men, who dislike each other, have rigged elections, muzzled the media and gone after opponents. The most populous country, Uzbekistan, is perhaps the most repressive. Torture is widespread. In 2005 in Andijan, Uzbek soldiers fired on protesters, killing hundreds if not thousands of them. For a mix of secrecy and repression, however, Turkmenistan takes the biscuit. In July a lethal and suspicious explosion at an ammunition dump outside the capital, Ashgabat, was not reported within the country.
The secular strongmen fear social instability and militant Islam. But conflating ordinary piety with extremism risks bringing into existence the very thing they fear. Meanwhile, nepotism flourishes, stifling growth and creating inequalities. Political energies are chiefly spent securing the interests of immensely wealthy ruling families and a narrow group of oligarchs around them—none wealthier than Kazakhstan’s. Even as they solicit foreign investment, the elites put their own money and mistresses in London or Zurich. Further down the governing apparatus, Soviet habits die hard. One Western adviser calls Kazakhstan’s tax and customs “officially sanctioned rackets”, while the judiciary is up for sale. And Kazakhstan is Central Asia’s most fragrant economy.
Stop fawning
Central Asia, thus, is not as stable as it seems. It might not take much—a powerful earthquake ineptly handled, growing protests by the dispossessed or, especially, a bungled succession—for the brittleness of these nasty, brutish and long regimes to show. Russia and China, competing for energy supplies, will not point this out to autocrats. But European governments should stop letting Central Asian dictators off the hook.
They could start in Kazakhstan, by far the most open place. Mr Nazarbayev spends fortunes on having Western public-relations firms, lobbyists and a former British prime minister, Tony Blair, burnish his image. Britain’s Prince Andrew has been far too friendly with Central Asian dictators as well. Europeans would do better by pointing out that Mr Nazarbayev’s image would shine brighter if he paved the way for a more plural politics—and for a successor who is not one of his family or from his circle of cronies. They should do this before stability suddenly turns to brittleness.
from the print edition | Leaders
An excellent article to a point. An article that accepts the potentials of the project that is most likely to succeed. There are two visions for the neighbourhood one that American corporations come in and skim the wealth of the neighbourhood and another one that envisages the cooperation of all the countries in the neighbourhood for the benefit of the participants.
It is correct to say that systems of governance in these areas leave much to be desired that is a fact that can not be simply ignored. However I would suggest that each country should be left to their own devises. Interference from external forces is not required nor warranted. It is not for the west to dictate who rules where.
The west in the name of human rights and their versions of democracy and in trying to impose or interfere have caused enough death and destruction and outside attempts often even if well meant are often seen to be tribal to their own interests. Yes there will be incidences which upset delicate tendencies but which country has not had bloodshed on the road to democracy. It simply can not be ignored that the Saudi dictators are welcomed in the white house and there are no questions of any worries of democracy or human rights for Arabs.
In our own beloved Pakistan America did not care about our democracy or human rights when Musharaff supported them. Some years 6 or 7 years later when he tried to sway from their diktat Americans became concerned that we Pakistanis should be recipients of democracy a la Benazir Bhutto. Call me a cynic but had she not suddenly become popular with Americans because she would be more amenable to American diktat.
I would like people to remember that Franco who sided with Hitler in the second world war though officially neutral, an army dictator in Spain was allowed to stay in power in Spain for 40 odd years without any need for no fly zones or interference by western vested interests compared to Musharaff’s 8 years.
I would suggest that each country be left to their own devices. Outsiders must not intervene and must not even be seen to intervene and or interfere. The suggestion of interference is because the west wants to steal resources so this article whilst accepting that there is merit in the idea feels that west need to action and therefore should be dismissed for what it is that is propaganda. In any event the russians and china will certainly not allow interference
It is correct to say that systems of governance in these areas leave much to be desired that is a fact that can not be simply ignored. However I would suggest that each country should be left to their own devises. Interference from external forces is not required nor warranted. It is not for the west to dictate who rules where.
The west in the name of human rights and their versions of democracy and in trying to impose or interfere have caused enough death and destruction and outside attempts often even if well meant are often seen to be tribal to their own interests. Yes there will be incidences which upset delicate tendencies but which country has not had bloodshed on the road to democracy. It simply can not be ignored that the Saudi dictators are welcomed in the white house and there are no questions of any worries of democracy or human rights for Arabs.
In our own beloved Pakistan America did not care about our democracy or human rights when Musharaff supported them. Some years 6 or 7 years later when he tried to sway from their diktat Americans became concerned that we Pakistanis should be recipients of democracy a la Benazir Bhutto. Call me a cynic but had she not suddenly become popular with Americans because she would be more amenable to American diktat.
I would like people to remember that Franco who sided with Hitler in the second world war though officially neutral, an army dictator in Spain was allowed to stay in power in Spain for 40 odd years without any need for no fly zones or interference by western vested interests compared to Musharaff’s 8 years.
I would suggest that each country be left to their own devices. Outsiders must not intervene and must not even be seen to intervene and or interfere. The suggestion of interference is because the west wants to steal resources so this article whilst accepting that there is merit in the idea feels that west need to action and therefore should be dismissed for what it is that is propaganda. In any event the russians and china will certainly not allow interference
Well one major factor missing here is that Pakistan can neer reach its true potential without normalising relations with India. Neither CARs, Iran or China can provide the turbo charge in economic growth if Pakistan actually did end up having good relations with India.
The other aspect is that somehow India is a US protectorate. The problem is from independance, Pakistan has been using outside help to resolve the problem in the sub-continent. First it was Pakistan that pretty much joined not one but two US backed alliances and now its pretty much jumped into the Chinese lap.
When you have a fight or argument between brothers inside a house, you keep the fight inside the house and resolve it there. You don't go and get the neighborhood goonda (US or China) to come in and beat your brother up in return for his wealth so that you could get your share. But that is what has been happening since day one in the subcontinent.
Until both Pakistan and India sit together one on one rather than depending on outside support and resolve issues directly, it will not happen.
The other aspect is that somehow India is a US protectorate. The problem is from independance, Pakistan has been using outside help to resolve the problem in the sub-continent. First it was Pakistan that pretty much joined not one but two US backed alliances and now its pretty much jumped into the Chinese lap.
When you have a fight or argument between brothers inside a house, you keep the fight inside the house and resolve it there. You don't go and get the neighborhood goonda (US or China) to come in and beat your brother up in return for his wealth so that you could get your share. But that is what has been happening since day one in the subcontinent.
Until both Pakistan and India sit together one on one rather than depending on outside support and resolve issues directly, it will not happen.
T-Rex
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2008
- Messages
- 9,989
- Reaction score
- -11
- Country
- Location
Now, you sound like america is an evil empire and Pakistan is the lap dog of that evil empire. As an indian do you really mean that or is it one of those mumbai dramas to hide the fact that india is only too happy to be america's 21st century lap dog?
foxbat
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2010
- Messages
- 4,093
- Reaction score
- -7
- Country
- Location
Who said evil.. ??
I think you need to collect your thoughts before using your keyboard.. You are not making any sense here..
It would be good. It would be beneficial for both countries economies. But I think Pakistan can move forward without Indian agreement
asad71
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- May 24, 2011
- Messages
- 6,863
- Reaction score
- 4
- Country
- Location
1. Pakistan is rediscovering her depth in the West and NW - both cultural and military depths. Never-the-less the article seems to bring in a reverse situation for the country from being a "front line" state of the Americans. It is proposed, as if in a repeat of history, to make Pakistan the front line of an ingress from the West or NW, India being the lucrative target.
2. All said and done, Pakistan lying east of the Bolan and Khyber, belongs to SA historically and culturally. These ties may be strained but are too strong to severe.
2. All said and done, Pakistan lying east of the Bolan and Khyber, belongs to SA historically and culturally. These ties may be strained but are too strong to severe.
Indo-US Hidden Agenda in Afghanistan
Date: 13 Jan 2012
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Sajjad Shaukat
When US had invaded Afghanistan in 2001, political analysts had opined that America seeks to control the energy resources of Central Asia by making Osama Bin Laden a scapegoat. But now the sole superpower has included India in its hidden agenda by adding multiple strategic designs against Pakistan, China, Iran and Russia.
In this respect, after the withdrawal of NATO troops from Afghanistan in 2014, US has decided to establish six permanent military bases in the war-torn country. Even Afghan President Hamid Karzai has strongly supported American plan of permanent bases in the strategically located country. US is also holding peace talks with the Afghan insurgent group in Qatar for its long-term scheme in Afghanistan.
Iran fears that US bases in Afghanistan would enhance its ability to gather intelligence on Iran which could give the US a major strategic advantage, if the two countries go to war. Tension between Washington and Tehran soared in December, 2011 after Iranian authorities recovered a CIA surveillance drone which had been launched from Afghanistan. Now, war-like situation exists between Iran and America over the Strait of Hormuz and Tehrans nuclear programme. Notably, on January 8 this year, Iran launched military exercises near its border with Afghanistan.
Meanwhile, US President Barack Obama unveiled a defence strategy on January 5 which calls for greater US military presence in Asia. Obama elaborated that the strategy also calls for the US military to rebalance toward the Asia-Pacific region...even as our troops continue to fight in Afghanistan, the tide of war is receding.
However, US new defence strategy cannot be seen in isolation as it is also part of Indo-US hidden agenda in Afghanistan. First of all, by maintaining its military presence in Afghanistan, America wants to protect the puppet regime of Karzai, and Indian influence in Afghanistan which could be toppled by the successful guerrilla warfare of the Taliban.
India which has already invested billion of dollars in Afghanistan, signed a strategic partnership agreement with that country on on october 5, 2011. Apparently, it is open strategic agreement, but secretly, New Delhi wants to further strengthen its grip in Afghanistan not only to get strategic depth against Islamabad, but also to use the war-torn country in destabilizing Pakistan. For this purpose, American CIA, Indian RAW and Israeli Mossad and Afghan Khad, based in Afghanistan have been sending well-trained agents and militants in Pakistan, who not only attack the check posts of Pakistans security forces, but continuously conducting suicide attacks and targeted killings, ethnic and sectarian violence in our countrycoupled with ground shelling by the US-led forces and air strikes from time to time.
In fact, under the pretext of cross-border terrorism in Afghanistan, safe-havens of militants and Haqqani group in Pakistans tribal areas, CIA, RAW and Mossad have been destablizing Pakistan to denculearize the latter. Especially, regarding Indian activities in Afghanistan the then NATO commander, Gen. McChrystal had revealed: Indian political and economic influence is increasing in Afghanistan is likely to exacerbate regional tensions.
India and US are supporting the Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA) and other Balochi separatist leaders who have taken shelter in Afghanistan, while backing separatist group, Jundollah (Gods soldiers) which is working against the cordial relationship of Pakistan with China and Iran. In the past few years, Jundollah kidnapped and murdered a number of Chinese and Iranian nationals in Pakistan. This insurgent group has been committing acts of sabotage both in Pakistan and Iran. Regarding various suicide attacks in Iran, Tehran had directly accused CIA for funding of that type of terrorism, while diverting the attention of Iran towards Islamabad through secret propaganda. Last year, Irans Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei revealed, The bloody actions being committed in Iraq, Pakistan and Iran are aimed at creating a division between the Shias and Sunnis those who carry out these terrorist actions are foreign agents.
Particularly, Balochistans mineral resources and geo-strategic location with Gwadar seaport, connecting Central Asia have further annoyed America and India because China has already invested billion of dollars to develop this port. However, it is due to multiple strategic benefits that the US which signed a nuclear deal with India in 2008, intends to control Balochistan to encircle China and subdue Iran. The province of Balochistan has also shifted the Great Game to Pakistan which has now become its arena.
On October 15, 2010, Indian Army Chief General VK Singh had openly blamed that China and Pakistan posed a major threat to Indias security, while calling for a need to upgrade countrys defence. Indian former Army Chief General Deepak Kapoor had also expressed similar thoughts.
On the other side, in the recent years, several persons died in the terror-incidents and ethnic riots occurred in various regions of Chinas Xinjiang-the largely populated Muslim province. For all the incidents, India accused Pakistani militants of supporting the insurgency in order to deteriorate Sino-Pak ties. In fact, New Delhi which had given shelter to the Tibetan spiritual leader, Dalai Lama and his militants has been playing a key role in assisting upsurge in the Tibetan and Muslim areas of China. Recently, US President Obama also met Dalai Lama so as to indirectly encourage insurgency in China.
It is of particular attention that, on July 20, 2011, during her trip to New Delhi, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton urged India to be more assertive in Asia as a US ally, and should play a leadership role. She explained, India has the potential to positively shape the future of the Asia-Pacific. On the other hand, while indicating US double game towards Islamabad, She remarked, Pakistan must do more to tackle terror groups operating from its territory being used for attacks that destabilize Afghanistan or India.
Notably, American defence thinkers presume Chinas fast-growing economy and military modernization, and its cooperation with Iran and Middle Eastparticularly strategic partnership with Pakistan as a great threat to Indo-American secret interests.
As regards Russia, it opposes US intention to deploy national missile defence system (NMD) in Europe, while differences already existed between Moscow and Washington over the US-led NATOs attack on Libya. Both Moscow and Beijing have opposed UN incremental sanctions on Iran.
In the recent years, besides, various annual summits of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) which includes Russia, China and four Central Asian states including Pakistan and Iran as observers, on 16 August 2007, in their summit, the leaders of the SCO displayed strength against the US rising dominance in the region. The SCO is seen as anti-western club against the United States as well as the NATO military presence in Afghanistan, near the region of Central Asia.
Pakistan has been rapidly strengthening its relations with Russia and Iran so as to cope with Indo-US hidden agenda. Notably, America had opposed the Iran-India-Pakistan (IPI) pipeline project. So Islamabad and Tehran had signed the IPI without New Delhi as the latter was reluctant in this context owing to its pro-US tilt. Recently, Pakistan refused to cancel Pak-Iranian gas agreement on the insistence of Washington.
Although, tension already prevailed in Pak-US relations since May 2, 2011 when US commandos killed Osama Bin Laden by violating the sovereignty of Pakistan, yet these received a further blow when on November 26, US-led NATO aircraft deliberately carried out unprovoked firing on two Pakistan Army border posts in Mohmand Agency, killing 24 troops. In response, Pakistans civil and military leadership took tough measures such as blockage of the NATO supply to Afghanistan, vacation of the Shamsi Airbase, boycott of the second Bonn Conference on the future of Afghanistan, rejection of US investigation report in relation to the air strikes. Besides, Islamabad also decided to review its engagement with the US. For this purpose, the two-day envoys conference deliberated on the countrys foreign policy on December 12, last year with special focus to redefine the relationship with the United States.
Taking cognizance of Indo-US covert strategy, Pakistan and China have signed multiple agreements to enhance bilateral cooperation in diverse sectors. In this context, during the latest trip of Pakistans Chief of Army Staff Ashfaq Parvez Kayani to China, on January 6 this year, Beijing and Islamabad have pledged to strengthen military ties.
Nonetheless, America is determined to maintain permanent military bases in Afghanistan in order to fulfill Indo-US hidden agenda which is likely to destabilize whole of the Asia.
Sajjad Shaukat writes on international affairs and is author of the book: US vs Islamic Militants, Invisible Balance of Power: Dangerous Shift in International Relations
That's why Pakistan must not reopen transit routes or make it easy for Americans. Pakistan needs to coordinate with Russia and Iran not to allow any American supplies through to Afghanistan
---------- Post added at 04:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:36 PM ----------
Enter Russia as tension rises
The political fault line along the borders of Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq and Syria, from Hindi Kush Mountains in Central Asia to the salty waters of the Mediterranean, started to crack earlier than expected as triggered by the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq.
The day before we were talking about the U.S.-Taliban talks in Afghanistan that led to the reaction of Afghan President Hamid Karzai because of being left out. Since then an awful video was leaked to media showing four American soldiers urinating like barbarian on the dead bodies of supposedly Taliban militants.
The statement made by the Taliban in a few hours’ time in an extremely cold-blooded fashion saying that the video would not damage the talks – despite the prejudgments the other way around – underlined a few factors:
1) Taliban is focused on cutting a deal with Americans and assessed that the video was leaked by those who are against such an agreement; not necessarily Karzai, could be anyone else.
2) The deal they want to cut with Americans is to claim ownership on Afghanistan as soon as possible, since Obama wants to wash his hands out of the rough geography since the elimination of Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden in Pakistan last year. And
3) Knowing the political dynamics of the region, the Taliban assessed the fragility of the situation in Pakistan so does not want to be squeezed in between in the power struggle there.
The day before yesterday we were also talking about the radical political consequences in Pakistan following the ultimatum of the Army led by Gen. Ashfaq Pervez Kayani to Prime Minister Yousuf Gilani; the probabilities include a military takeover of the government. Yesterday President Asif Ali Zerdari left his country “for a scheduled trip” amid rumors the U.S. applies pressure on the Army in order not to topple the government.
But will the Pakistani Army listen to the U.S.? That is another matter, since the main focus of the Americans in the region is Pakistan’s and Afghanistan’s neighbor Iran.
Following the assassination of a nuclear scientist working in Iran’s program for which the Israeli Army spokesperson “shed no tears,” the tension around Iran increased further. The U.S. Navy sent another ship to the Hormuz Strait area, which is the passage for more than one third of the world’s oil exports, amid increased demands for more sanctions on Iran.
It was not a very good day for Washington regarding its sanction demands. The European Union demanded some more time to make its mind up, which in practice means playing with time, and Turkey said clearly that Ankara would only implement United Nations Security Council resolutions on sanctions, which are not very likely to come since China openly objected to it.
And enter Russia... Russian Security Council Secretary Nikolai Patrushev’s interview with Kommersant was something bold, warning the U.S. to avoid a military intervention in Iran, which Israel opts for the opposite. Moscow also warned NATO countries on Syria, including its neighbor Turkey, about a military intervention.
In response, the Turkish Foreign Ministry revealed Turkish Navy intelligence showing that the Russian ship reportedly carrying ammunition and which had been released by the Greek Cypriots the day before on the promise that it would not go to Syria, actually did go to the Syrian port of Latakia where the Russian fleet had a support visit last week. We might have more to see as the tension rises.
Date: 13 Jan 2012
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Sajjad Shaukat
When US had invaded Afghanistan in 2001, political analysts had opined that America seeks to control the energy resources of Central Asia by making Osama Bin Laden a scapegoat. But now the sole superpower has included India in its hidden agenda by adding multiple strategic designs against Pakistan, China, Iran and Russia.
In this respect, after the withdrawal of NATO troops from Afghanistan in 2014, US has decided to establish six permanent military bases in the war-torn country. Even Afghan President Hamid Karzai has strongly supported American plan of permanent bases in the strategically located country. US is also holding peace talks with the Afghan insurgent group in Qatar for its long-term scheme in Afghanistan.
Iran fears that US bases in Afghanistan would enhance its ability to gather intelligence on Iran which could give the US a major strategic advantage, if the two countries go to war. Tension between Washington and Tehran soared in December, 2011 after Iranian authorities recovered a CIA surveillance drone which had been launched from Afghanistan. Now, war-like situation exists between Iran and America over the Strait of Hormuz and Tehrans nuclear programme. Notably, on January 8 this year, Iran launched military exercises near its border with Afghanistan.
Meanwhile, US President Barack Obama unveiled a defence strategy on January 5 which calls for greater US military presence in Asia. Obama elaborated that the strategy also calls for the US military to rebalance toward the Asia-Pacific region...even as our troops continue to fight in Afghanistan, the tide of war is receding.
However, US new defence strategy cannot be seen in isolation as it is also part of Indo-US hidden agenda in Afghanistan. First of all, by maintaining its military presence in Afghanistan, America wants to protect the puppet regime of Karzai, and Indian influence in Afghanistan which could be toppled by the successful guerrilla warfare of the Taliban.
India which has already invested billion of dollars in Afghanistan, signed a strategic partnership agreement with that country on on october 5, 2011. Apparently, it is open strategic agreement, but secretly, New Delhi wants to further strengthen its grip in Afghanistan not only to get strategic depth against Islamabad, but also to use the war-torn country in destabilizing Pakistan. For this purpose, American CIA, Indian RAW and Israeli Mossad and Afghan Khad, based in Afghanistan have been sending well-trained agents and militants in Pakistan, who not only attack the check posts of Pakistans security forces, but continuously conducting suicide attacks and targeted killings, ethnic and sectarian violence in our countrycoupled with ground shelling by the US-led forces and air strikes from time to time.
In fact, under the pretext of cross-border terrorism in Afghanistan, safe-havens of militants and Haqqani group in Pakistans tribal areas, CIA, RAW and Mossad have been destablizing Pakistan to denculearize the latter. Especially, regarding Indian activities in Afghanistan the then NATO commander, Gen. McChrystal had revealed: Indian political and economic influence is increasing in Afghanistan is likely to exacerbate regional tensions.
India and US are supporting the Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA) and other Balochi separatist leaders who have taken shelter in Afghanistan, while backing separatist group, Jundollah (Gods soldiers) which is working against the cordial relationship of Pakistan with China and Iran. In the past few years, Jundollah kidnapped and murdered a number of Chinese and Iranian nationals in Pakistan. This insurgent group has been committing acts of sabotage both in Pakistan and Iran. Regarding various suicide attacks in Iran, Tehran had directly accused CIA for funding of that type of terrorism, while diverting the attention of Iran towards Islamabad through secret propaganda. Last year, Irans Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei revealed, The bloody actions being committed in Iraq, Pakistan and Iran are aimed at creating a division between the Shias and Sunnis those who carry out these terrorist actions are foreign agents.
Particularly, Balochistans mineral resources and geo-strategic location with Gwadar seaport, connecting Central Asia have further annoyed America and India because China has already invested billion of dollars to develop this port. However, it is due to multiple strategic benefits that the US which signed a nuclear deal with India in 2008, intends to control Balochistan to encircle China and subdue Iran. The province of Balochistan has also shifted the Great Game to Pakistan which has now become its arena.
On October 15, 2010, Indian Army Chief General VK Singh had openly blamed that China and Pakistan posed a major threat to Indias security, while calling for a need to upgrade countrys defence. Indian former Army Chief General Deepak Kapoor had also expressed similar thoughts.
On the other side, in the recent years, several persons died in the terror-incidents and ethnic riots occurred in various regions of Chinas Xinjiang-the largely populated Muslim province. For all the incidents, India accused Pakistani militants of supporting the insurgency in order to deteriorate Sino-Pak ties. In fact, New Delhi which had given shelter to the Tibetan spiritual leader, Dalai Lama and his militants has been playing a key role in assisting upsurge in the Tibetan and Muslim areas of China. Recently, US President Obama also met Dalai Lama so as to indirectly encourage insurgency in China.
It is of particular attention that, on July 20, 2011, during her trip to New Delhi, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton urged India to be more assertive in Asia as a US ally, and should play a leadership role. She explained, India has the potential to positively shape the future of the Asia-Pacific. On the other hand, while indicating US double game towards Islamabad, She remarked, Pakistan must do more to tackle terror groups operating from its territory being used for attacks that destabilize Afghanistan or India.
Notably, American defence thinkers presume Chinas fast-growing economy and military modernization, and its cooperation with Iran and Middle Eastparticularly strategic partnership with Pakistan as a great threat to Indo-American secret interests.
As regards Russia, it opposes US intention to deploy national missile defence system (NMD) in Europe, while differences already existed between Moscow and Washington over the US-led NATOs attack on Libya. Both Moscow and Beijing have opposed UN incremental sanctions on Iran.
In the recent years, besides, various annual summits of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) which includes Russia, China and four Central Asian states including Pakistan and Iran as observers, on 16 August 2007, in their summit, the leaders of the SCO displayed strength against the US rising dominance in the region. The SCO is seen as anti-western club against the United States as well as the NATO military presence in Afghanistan, near the region of Central Asia.
Pakistan has been rapidly strengthening its relations with Russia and Iran so as to cope with Indo-US hidden agenda. Notably, America had opposed the Iran-India-Pakistan (IPI) pipeline project. So Islamabad and Tehran had signed the IPI without New Delhi as the latter was reluctant in this context owing to its pro-US tilt. Recently, Pakistan refused to cancel Pak-Iranian gas agreement on the insistence of Washington.
Although, tension already prevailed in Pak-US relations since May 2, 2011 when US commandos killed Osama Bin Laden by violating the sovereignty of Pakistan, yet these received a further blow when on November 26, US-led NATO aircraft deliberately carried out unprovoked firing on two Pakistan Army border posts in Mohmand Agency, killing 24 troops. In response, Pakistans civil and military leadership took tough measures such as blockage of the NATO supply to Afghanistan, vacation of the Shamsi Airbase, boycott of the second Bonn Conference on the future of Afghanistan, rejection of US investigation report in relation to the air strikes. Besides, Islamabad also decided to review its engagement with the US. For this purpose, the two-day envoys conference deliberated on the countrys foreign policy on December 12, last year with special focus to redefine the relationship with the United States.
Taking cognizance of Indo-US covert strategy, Pakistan and China have signed multiple agreements to enhance bilateral cooperation in diverse sectors. In this context, during the latest trip of Pakistans Chief of Army Staff Ashfaq Parvez Kayani to China, on January 6 this year, Beijing and Islamabad have pledged to strengthen military ties.
Nonetheless, America is determined to maintain permanent military bases in Afghanistan in order to fulfill Indo-US hidden agenda which is likely to destabilize whole of the Asia.
Sajjad Shaukat writes on international affairs and is author of the book: US vs Islamic Militants, Invisible Balance of Power: Dangerous Shift in International Relations
That's why Pakistan must not reopen transit routes or make it easy for Americans. Pakistan needs to coordinate with Russia and Iran not to allow any American supplies through to Afghanistan
---------- Post added at 04:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:36 PM ----------
Enter Russia as tension rises
The political fault line along the borders of Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq and Syria, from Hindi Kush Mountains in Central Asia to the salty waters of the Mediterranean, started to crack earlier than expected as triggered by the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq.
The day before we were talking about the U.S.-Taliban talks in Afghanistan that led to the reaction of Afghan President Hamid Karzai because of being left out. Since then an awful video was leaked to media showing four American soldiers urinating like barbarian on the dead bodies of supposedly Taliban militants.
The statement made by the Taliban in a few hours’ time in an extremely cold-blooded fashion saying that the video would not damage the talks – despite the prejudgments the other way around – underlined a few factors:
1) Taliban is focused on cutting a deal with Americans and assessed that the video was leaked by those who are against such an agreement; not necessarily Karzai, could be anyone else.
2) The deal they want to cut with Americans is to claim ownership on Afghanistan as soon as possible, since Obama wants to wash his hands out of the rough geography since the elimination of Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden in Pakistan last year. And
3) Knowing the political dynamics of the region, the Taliban assessed the fragility of the situation in Pakistan so does not want to be squeezed in between in the power struggle there.
The day before yesterday we were also talking about the radical political consequences in Pakistan following the ultimatum of the Army led by Gen. Ashfaq Pervez Kayani to Prime Minister Yousuf Gilani; the probabilities include a military takeover of the government. Yesterday President Asif Ali Zerdari left his country “for a scheduled trip” amid rumors the U.S. applies pressure on the Army in order not to topple the government.
But will the Pakistani Army listen to the U.S.? That is another matter, since the main focus of the Americans in the region is Pakistan’s and Afghanistan’s neighbor Iran.
Following the assassination of a nuclear scientist working in Iran’s program for which the Israeli Army spokesperson “shed no tears,” the tension around Iran increased further. The U.S. Navy sent another ship to the Hormuz Strait area, which is the passage for more than one third of the world’s oil exports, amid increased demands for more sanctions on Iran.
It was not a very good day for Washington regarding its sanction demands. The European Union demanded some more time to make its mind up, which in practice means playing with time, and Turkey said clearly that Ankara would only implement United Nations Security Council resolutions on sanctions, which are not very likely to come since China openly objected to it.
And enter Russia... Russian Security Council Secretary Nikolai Patrushev’s interview with Kommersant was something bold, warning the U.S. to avoid a military intervention in Iran, which Israel opts for the opposite. Moscow also warned NATO countries on Syria, including its neighbor Turkey, about a military intervention.
In response, the Turkish Foreign Ministry revealed Turkish Navy intelligence showing that the Russian ship reportedly carrying ammunition and which had been released by the Greek Cypriots the day before on the promise that it would not go to Syria, actually did go to the Syrian port of Latakia where the Russian fleet had a support visit last week. We might have more to see as the tension rises.
ThePakistanPrince
FULL MEMBER
New Recruit
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2010
- Messages
- 46
- Reaction score
- 0
We must join the CARs and Iran as they are more our historic allies than India ever is.
