Foreign Policy of Dignity

[Vassnti]

Absolutely incredible posts from T-Faz, Develepero and Santro -- this stuff makes it worthwhile to show up and read on this forum.

Needs to be stickied as an example of resonable intelligent, informed debate with the instruction to new members "must be read before posting"

 

[Vinod2070]

The Muslim province was going to be called Pakistan as it would have been a combination of Punjab, Afghania, Kashmir, Sindh & Balochistan.

Chaudhary Rehmat's idea was entirely different though, he asked for three states called Pakistan, Usmanistan and Bangistan.

The name didn't refer to the a separate state initially, just a province but the likes of Rehmat Ali did want a state rather than a province from the beginning.

You linked that quote of Iqbal to "Pakistan". He explicitly debunks the link as I showed here.

 

[T-Faz]

You linked that quote of Iqbal to "Pakistan". He explicitly debunks the link as I showed here.

So what was this combined province of the north western provinces of British India going to be called?

 

[Vinod2070]

So what was this combined province of the north western provinces of British India going to be called?

I am not sure there was even a name decided for it. Can you point out any source for it?

In any case, it had nothing to do with the state of Pakistan as it exists now.

 

[hembo]

I am not sure there was even a name decided for it. Can you point out any source for it?

In any case, it had nothing to do with the state of Pakistan as it exists now.

Vinod, will you give it a rest please, this name issue. It's a wonderfully articulated discussion going on amongst some of the best posters of the forum. Let us not ruin it by bringing in petty issues please.

 

[Vinod2070]

Vinod, will you give it a rest please, this name issue. It's a wonderfully articulated discussion going on amongst some of the best posters of the forum. Let us not ruin it by bringing in petty issues please.

Name was not my concern at any time.

 

[RazorMC]

Muse's posts actually point to a basic truth. The ruling families, dynasties and households have very close relations with the US. As I've mentioned before, the House of Saud (ruling family of KSA) is openly under US protection for their hold on power.
Seeking to use Pakistan's large, sentimental population as warriors, the Gulf States goaded Pakistan into becoming some sort of a breeding ground for mercenaries and other fanatics.

 

[muse]

Friends, the pressure on Pakistan continues, while the US sells the "Iran did it" line and the US Wahabi vassals sell the "Sunni against Shi'ah" line, a number of arab "dignitaries" have ben making their way to Pakistan to entice, cajole and ultimately, bribe, Pakistan into destroying herself for the interests of the US and her Wahabis --- Consider, what is the cause of this instability? Is it anything other than a petty denial of basic, common liberties? This problem has an easy solution, give the people what they want, forget the 7th century and the US as your protector, the people are your protector -- with that legitimacy, you don't need to bribe Pakistan, because if there was real toruble we would be there before you could get an opportunity to ask -- US 5th fleet in Bahrain, could it stop the people?? You think it will be able to protect you from the people??? Better to be see the back of the US, let them go home to their wives and children - good for them good for everybody :

President Says:
Pakistan Desires Peace, Security, Stability in Middle East
'Pakistan Times' Diplomatic Correspondent

ISLAMABAD: President Asif Ali Zardari said on Thursday that Pakistan desired peace, security and stability in Middle East and added that any violent move to destabilize the system would be harmful for the regional peace and stability.

The President was talking to Sheikh Abdullah Bin Zeyed Al-Nahyan, Foreign Minister of United Arab Emirates (UAE) who called on him at the Aiwan-e-Sadr. Senator A. Rehman Malik, Federal Minister for Interior and UAE ambassador in Pakistan, Ali Saif Sultan Al Awani were also present during the meeting.

Pakistan-UAE bilateral relations and regional situation were discussed during the meeting.The President said that Pakistan highly values its cordial and friendly relations with UAE and emphasized upon further augmenting trade ties between the two countries.

The President noted with appreciation that the government and the people of UAE have always readily extended every possible assistance to Pakistan in the hour of need and recalled the assistance by UAE in the earthquake of 2005 and during floods.

Sheikh Abdullah Bin Zeyed Al-Nahyan thanked the President for meeting and expressed the hope that the existing close cooperation between the two countries would continue to grow to the mutual benefit.

He also assured continued support of the UAE government in fighting extremism and revival of the economy that has been hardly hit by the floods and the fight against militancy.

The sweet smell of counter-revolution
By Pepe Escobar


United States Secretary of Defense Robert Gates is in Riyadh to talk to Saudi King Abdullah. The Associated Press told the world's media they should discuss the "Arab upheaval". Then there are all those other cliches - "political reform", oil production, "the Iran threat". But as the Pentagon meets the House of Saud at the current juncture, they can only say one thing: I love the smell of counter-revolution in the morning.

Yes, it smells greater than napalm. And it does smell like victory. The US-Saudi counter-revolution is winning, hands down, against the great 2011 Arab revolt. The House of Saud wanted Hosni Mubarak in Egypt to hang on to power all the way - and so did Washington, who first said the regime was "stable", then bet on Omar "Sheikh al-Torture" Suleiman carrying an "orderly transition", and then, when the collapse was inevitable, reluctantly joined the Tahrir Square crowds.

To prevent Washington from even trying to embark again on the right side of history, the House of Saud had its plan in place to smash the peaceful protests in Bahrain, by invading its neighbor across the King Fahd causeway. This was only possible because a crucial exchange with Washington was already clinched; we get you an Arab League vote for a no-fly zone over Libya, you let us deal with Bahrain (see Exposed: the US-Saudi Libya deal Asia Times Online, April 2, 2011).

As Gates and Abdullah discuss the intricacies of "US outreach" (those dictators that can get away with murder) and "regime alteration" (those they want thrown to the dogs), the current juncture spells out Washington/House of Saud in charge on all fronts - wrong side of history and all.

The House of Saud and Qatar are now (subtly) dictating the "transition" in Libya. This Qatari-Saudi alliance now mirrors the Israeli-Saudi alliance. The House of Saud is also dictating the transition in Yemen - now that the Barack Obama administration has decided to throw President Ali Abdullah Saleh to the dogs (because he was incompetent enough to not kill enough of his people and thus smash their peaceful revolution). Saleh is now worthless as "our bastard" in the American war against al-Qaeda in the Arabic Peninsula (AQAP) even as the Yemeni opposition - which does not trust the Saudis - is being co-opted by corrupt, al-Qaeda-friendly General Ali Mohsen. The US Central Intelligence Agency is merrily accepting bids for Saleh's successor.

Qatar, now more hawkish than the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), is being duly rewarded. A Qatari diplomat should succeed opportunist Amr Moussa as secretary general of the Arab League (Moussa wants an upgrade, as the next Egyptian president). What next? A Qatari secretary general for NATO? Well, they had enough money to buy the 2022 soccer World Cup.

Gates and Abdullah may also talk about the spectacular success of the Pentagon's Africom, which only started proceedings in late 2008 but already has been involved in its first major African war. Who cares that Africom commander, General Carter Ham, now has to explain this war to scores of African Union (AU) member-states, who never wanted his command in their lands in the first place? Even Gates had admitted that the war on Libya was not exactly a US strategic priority.

A House of Saud cabinet meeting, according to Saudi paper Arab News, "expressed appreciation" for a statement by the pathetic al-Khalifa dynasty in Bahrain thanking the Saudis for invading their country; "peace and stability returned to Bahrain as a result of the wisdom of its leadership in dealing with its internal matters". Then everybody yelled and blamed Iran.

Time to be inclusive
The al-Khalifas in Bahrain are definitely succeeding in toppling their own people. If only they could throw 70% of the population into the Persian Gulf and thus rule in peace. They closed the country's only opposition newspaper - al-Wasat - and then reopened it with a pro-Khalifa new editor.

Human rights activists, journalists and bloggers have vanished - or were made to vanish. Businessmen and chief executive officers are being threatened for not firing workers who went on strike. Virtually no one is tweeting or facebooking anymore. Shi'ite families who live in mixed neighborhoods are moving out because they are being threatened every time they are stopped in checkpoints. People are talking in code on the phone. As far as the Obama administration is concerned, Bahrain does not even exist.

Bahrain's descent into the 7th century is Dubai's gain. Dubai will grow up to 4% this year - benefiting from the "turmoil" in the Arab world. The United Arab Emirates (UAE) population will reach 8.26 million; foreign workers are streaming in, many of them from Bahrain.

Qatar and UAE are part of the small, unrepresentative "coalition of the willing" involved in the NATO no-fly zone scam in Libya. Now the British are "urging" these two Arab paragons of democracy to train that motley crew - the eastern Libya "rebels", so they can annex and hold to a few grains of desert sand before some kind of ceasefire is negotiated.

Translation: good business for British "private security companies", as in mercenaries, some of whom have special services experience. Their salaries soon should be paid by Qatar, UAE and Jordan, that land infested with "security officers" and ruled by King Playstation. This proves once more there's only one, non-United Nations resolution 1973-authorized game in town; regime change.

No one can predict what the ramifications of the great 2011 Arab revolt will be in terms of oil production, immigration flows, the relationship with Israel, the attraction of Turkey as a political model, and the future of the al-Qaeda franchise. But as it stands Washington's national security policy still looks and feels like an Orientalist opium dream; we can only deal with the Arab world via a local comprador tyrant/dictator. Quick, more of that opium; we're just so hooked on it.


So why not just annex the whole thing? America could do well with an oil-rich 51st state. Talk about a stimulus package. US citizens could even collect the oil as their taxes. Time to cut the middlemen. Who in the Arab world wouldn't love to answer to Obama rather than those pathetic Abdullahs and al-Khalifas?

 

[muse]

Readers are invited to consider, while the US and her "Arabs" play counter revolutionaries, lest look at what the problem is:

UAE detains second human rights activist

DUBAI: Police in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) have arrested a second human rights activist, after seizing a prominent blogger last week, the activist’s colleague said on Sunday. “Fahad Salem al Shehhi, 38, was arrested yesterday at 7pm in his flat in Ajman,” said the colleague, who did not want to be named, adding that Shehhi was a member of the UAE online political forum, Hewar which is blocked in the country. On Friday, police arrested Ahmed Mansoor, another UAE national who was involved with the Hewar forum, his family said.

Dubai Police Chief Dahi Khalfan Tamim confirmed Mansoor’s arrest, which he said was requested by prosecutors in connection with a criminal case, The National newspaper reported. An Interior Ministry spokesman in Dubai could not be reached for comment. The UAE, a federation of seven emirates headed by ruling families, does not allow direct elections or political parties. The Arab world has been rocked by a wave of pro-democracy protests, which toppled Egypt’s and Tunisia’s leaders and sparked demonstrations in Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman and Saudi Arabia. The UAE, the world’s third largest oil exporter, and Qatar, the world’s top liquefied natural gas exporter, are seen as the least vulnerable to political unrest because of generous government spending programmes. A minimum of two percent of the UAE population will be nominated to vote or participate in an election to its quasi-parliamentary body, the Federal National Council (FNC), this year, though an UAE official has said the percentage could be raised. reuters

 

[SQ8]

Choose any of the ideologies out there.

Nationalism, for a start as long as it is separated from islam. Present Pakistan not as an Islamic country but as a country defined by a shared heritage, cultural and otherwise. Stop extending support to Palestine because its a muslim country. Extend the support because of humanitarian reasons. Instead of harping about muslim brotherhood, let the views be presented as humanitarian or pro-Pakistan.

Socialism/Communism - I dont know how well it works out economically but if pitched hard enough, it has a lot of allure. The more downtrodden the target audience, the more attracted they will be to communism. As I see it, most of the extremist recruitment is among the poor and deprived. Let the hope of better living conditions undercut the pitch of going to heaven that the islamic extremists make.

I dont agree with it but even the french variety of secularism might be used as a counter ideology.

Take Turkey as an example. Use any of the means available to separate religion and state and move forward from that.

I can understand that you feel strongly about using a less edgy ideal of Islam to not only stop the extremists but also negate the damage they have done to the image of Islam.
But as I mentioned in the previous post, moderates will never be able to present themselves as better "muslims" because they wont be fighting the "others". That will seal the deal for the public whos support both the extremists and moderates are vying for.

Musharraf tried that.. the much used "sab se pehlay Pakistan(Pakistan first)" tag.. at the end of the day, we still have ethnic tensions, a section of the Baloch is now hell bent on independence .


Bhutto tried it, ended up trashing the economy and drowning in his own elixir of power, the people, the leadership aren't ready for it. At least not for the socialism that has been attempted before with a seasoning of "Islamic values".

 

[muse]

since when do you need an ideology to confront criminals? No one is stopping anyone from being Muslims, but since when does that mean picking up weapons against the state? That's just a crime, lets deal with in that manner.

 

[SQ8]

since when do you need an ideology to confront criminals? No one is stopping anyone from being Muslims, but since when does that mean picking up weapons against the state? That's just a crime, lets deal with in that manner.

But here is the issue..
many of the criminals here are pretending to be robin hood against the sheriff of Nottingham.
To take out robin hood.. you must first counter the claim of "robbing the rich to give to the poor".

 

[muse]

Lets hope Dr. Taqi is wrong, though I do admire his methodology:



Mercenaries for the Middle East
Dr Mohammad Taqi



“Foreign policy is everywhere and always a continuation of domestic policy, for it is conducted by the same ruling class and pursues the same historic goals”. — The Revolution Betrayed, Leon Trotsky

In his 1983 masterpiece, Can Pakistan survive? The death of a state, Tariq Ali opens the section on Pakistan’s foreign policy during the Z A Bhutto days with the above quote from Trotsky. After duly recognising the limitations of generalising this aphorism, Tariq Ali had noted that many third-world capitals pursue a foreign policy closely mirroring their domestic economic and political policies but perhaps none has done so more grotesquely than Islamabad. Tariq Ali had written:

“One of the commodities exported was labour, and the remittances sent back by migrant workers provided nearly 20 percent of the country’s foreign exchange earnings. It was also reported that 10,000 Pakistani prostitutes had been dispatched to the Gulf states by the United Bank Limited (UBL), to strengthen its reserves of foreign currency. Soldiers and officers were also leased out as mercenaries to a number of states in that region. In some ways it was telling indictment of the Pakistani state that it can only survive by selling itself to the oil-rich sheikhs.”

The Pakistani military establishment’s cooperation with Arab dictators obviously dates back to the Ayub Khan era and the UK and US-sponsored Central Treaty Organisation (CENTO) or Baghdad Pact of 1955. However, the surge in the export of mercenaries that Tariq Ali was alluding to was not because of the western sponsorship of such legions but because Pakistan, in 1971, had declared a moratorium on repayment of its foreign debt and had to look for financial aid elsewhere while the IMF would again agree to a loan (which it eventually did). While one cannot confirm the veracity of the claim about the UBL’s venture, the events of the last several months show that somehow the grotesque mediocrity of the Pakistani establishment keeps repeating its antics, as far as the export of the mercenaries goes.

The Arab spring has created unique geopolitical scenarios where old alliances are falling apart — or at least are no longer trustworthy — while new realities are taking shape much to the discontent of regional autocrats. I have repeatedly stated that Barack Obama’s instinct is to side with the democratic movements in the Middle East and North Africa, without intervening directly, even though cliques within his administration have been able to drag him into the Libyan morass. Obama’s handling of Hosni Mubarak’s fall did not go well with Saudi king Abdullah and the bitter exchange between the two, during a phone conversation, is rather well known. The wily Saudi monarch subsequently concluded that if there were to be an uprising in his courtyard, the Americans would not come to his rescue. And unless a smoking gun can be traced to Tehran, Abdullah is right. With Obama getting re-elected — yes I said it — in 2012, the Saudis have chosen to exercise other options that they have heavily invested in, for decades, to protect their courtyard and backyard.

The Saudis know that it is nearly impossible for any political uprising there to physically coalesce, due to the population centres being geographically far apart, to cause direct threat to Riyadh. But they also know that the democratic contagion can spread at the periphery of the Kingdom, with the oil-rich Eastern province slipping out of control quickly or the disquiet at the Yemeni border keeping Riyadh distracted (the latter was tested by both Gamal Nasser and Iran). The Saudi plan, just as in the 1969 bombing of Yemen by Pakistani pilots flying Saudi planes, is to use the trusted Pakistani troops to bolster the defence of not only the Saudi regime but of its client states like Bahrain.

It is not a surprise then that before Saudi Arabia invaded Bahrain on March 13, 2011, the chief of Saudi Land Forces, General Abdul Rahman Murshid visited Pakistan and before that, on March 9, met General Ashfaq Pervez Kayani. Bahrain had already requested and received assurance for military help from Pakistan in late February 2011. In fact, a leading Urdu paper carried an advertisement from the Fauji Foundation Pakistan on February 25 and March 1, seeking men for recruitment to the Bahrain National Guard. The qualifications sought were the following: age 20-25, height of six-feet or taller and military/security service background especially in riot control, which suggest that enrolment was not exactly for the Manama Red Crescent Society.

After the Saudi army brutally crushed the uprising in Bahrain, the Foreign Minister of Bahrain, Sheikh Khalid bin Ahmed al-Khalifa, met with Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani and the State Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar. While the Bahraini media splashed pictures of the handshake between Ms Khar and Sheikh Khalid, announcing Pakistani support to Bahrain, the actual backing had been pledged by the Chief of General Staff, General Khalid Shamim Wayne, whom the Bahraini minster met on March 29.

In her article titled ‘Bahrain or bust?’, Miranda Husain writes: “Chomsky believes Pakistani presence in Bahrain can be seen as part of a US-backed alliance to safeguard western access to the region’s oil ...The US has counted on Pakistan to help control the Arab world and safeguard Arab rulers from their own populations... Pakistan was one of the ‘cops on the beat’ that the Nixon administration had in mind when outlining their doctrine for controlling the Arab world.” Ms Husain and the American Baba-e-Socialism (Father of Socialism), Chomsky, conclude with the hope that Pakistan should not meddle in the Middle East.

I believe that Chomsky’s reading of the situation in the Persian Gulf is dead wrong. It is the divergence — not confluence — of US-Saudi-Pakistani interests that is the trigger for potential Pakistani involvement there. The Pakistani brass’ handling of the Raymond Davis affair and now its insistence — through bravado, not subtlety — on redefining the redlines with the US indicates that just like the 1971 situation, an alternative funding source to the IMF has been secured. The Pasha-Panetta meeting has raised more issues than it has solved. Pakistani-Saudi interests are at odds with the US and are confluent with each other.

From the Kerry-Lugar Bill to the Raymond Davis saga, the mullahs have been deployed swiftly to create an impression of public support for the establishment’s designs. Last Friday’s mobilisation of the religious parties in favour of the Saudis is the establishment’s standard drill and will be repeated as needed. The Pakistani deep state apparently has decided to keep selling itself to the oil-rich sheikhs. The domestic policy of coercion and chaos will be continued in foreign lands too.

The writer can be reached at mazdaki@me.com

 

[muse]

US and their Arbi Vassals have beenb spreading lies that Iran is causing the unrest in the Arab world -- on 14 April 2011, Sheik Al-Thani emir of Qatar did an inretrview with Wolf Blitzser of CNN - The Emir who hosts US military in his country stated categorically that Iran has no responsibility for these revolutions and unrest and especially no role in the unrest in bahrain and that this problem existed since he was a young boy - I encourage readers to watch this interview and perhaps they will not be fooled by propaganda of tyrants and their sponsors.

 

[muse]

We have said that this Obama person is nothing but a net zero, that nothing has changed so far as the US's imperial project is concerned, in fact it has accelerated - below is a editorial from The Hindu -- Note how cautious the paper is, while it highlights the duplicity of the US and her NATO, it's interesting to note that the editorial has nothing else to say about it


Opinion » Editorial
April 18, 2011
Regime change under UNSC cover

It is now obvious that Nato's purported mission, under United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973, to protect civilians in Libya is expanding into a flagrantly illegal attempt at regime change. With fierce fighting between rebels and government forces reported in the eastern city of Adjabiya and the western one of Misrata, President Barack Obama has stated that a military stalemate obtains. That means Nato has failed to protect civilians and prevent Muammar Qadhafi's ground forces from recapturing key rebel-held areas, with civilian casualties as a tragic consequence. In response, however, Mr. Obama and his main Nato collaborators, French President Nicolas Sarkozy and British Prime Minister David Cameron, have published a joint article in The Washington Post, The Times, and Le Figaro, holding that “it is impossible to imagine a future for Libya with Gaddafi in power” and that “so long as Gaddafi is in power, Nato and its coalition partners must maintain their operations.”

The main problems in this exercise in military adventurism have been caused by the Resolution's lack of a clear political objective; it is the political issues that are now proving the most troublesome for the Alliance. One major miscalculation was the assumption that Mr. Qadhafi might be sufficiently influenced by the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) or the League of Arab States (the Arab League) to consider an agreement with the rebels or even to leave office. The Libyan President's defiant reaction exposed that idea as vacuous. Now Mr. Cameron refuses to rule out the deployment of ground troops, despite the fact that the U.N. Resolution specifically excludes that. The coalition's disarray is further confirmed by France's proposal, with which the United Kingdom disagrees, of a new Resolution; in any case Russia and China are likely to oppose anything that authorises regime change. Nevertheless, the evidence is increasingly clear that, even before they obtained the existing mandate, Washington, London, and Paris wanted only to remove Mr. Qadhafi. The U.S. has since approached various African Union member states about giving asylum to Mr. Qadhafi provided he leaves office. Secondly, at a recent coalition conference, Qatar and Italy pressed for arms supplies to the rebels. The most damaging evidence, however, is that the U.S. has sent an envoy to Benghazi to learn more about the rebel grouping, the Interim Transitional National Council. In effect, going through the U.N. was only a smokescreen for regime change. The Obama administration and its allies are repeating all the mistakes and miscalcuations made by George W. Bush and Tony Blair over the infamous and illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003.