What's new

PTI | Imran Khan's Political Desk.

Banday ko confidence to hona chaheyay....kuch kia hua hay to confidence to hona cheyay. :)
jab miyan sab first time kuch achieve kya the tu genral zia k shafaqat hasal karnay k ilawa kya kiya tha?
 
.
Opinion

Isolation

Dr Farrukh Saleem

Sunday, December 08, 2013


12-8-2013_218961_l_akb.jpg


Capital suggestion

The PTI’s brand of politics to secure its vote-bank is proving to be divisive – dangerously divisive. At one level, the PTI is pitching one province against another. At the second level, the PTI is pitching a provincial government against the federal government. At the third level, the PTI is pitching the federal government against Nato countries. At the fourth level, the PTI is pitching the state of Pakistan against the Security Council.

The fundamental question is if the PTI has done a cost-benefit analysis of all this pitching. If the benefits of all this pitching outweigh the costs then we should all be supporting the PTI. If the PTI’s sit-ins are going to make Pakistan stronger and Pakistanis more prosperous we should all be right behind the PTI. But if all this pitching is just an attempt to secure one party’s political interests over and above national interests then this pitching must come to an end.

Here’s the legal consideration: Under Articles 97 and 98 of the constitution of Pakistan “the executive authority of the Federation…” extends to all provinces. If the state of Pakistan gets into an agreement with Isaf, for instance, would the state of Pakistan be able to fulfil its commitments? That becomes an issue of international credibility. Next; under the Security Council’s Resolution 1386 Pakistan is under international obligations to provide logistic support. Do we want to remain part of the international community or not? To the world that becomes an issue of state intentions.

Here’s the PTI’s manifesto: a total of 10,160 words and 55,151 characters. The word ‘drone’ appears two times, ‘health’ 29 times, ‘education’ 16 times and ‘economy’ nine times. It now appears that the PTI is spending 98 percent of its time on drones and the remaining on health, education and the economy combined.

To be certain, under the laws of Pakistan truckers carrying containers to and from Afghanistan are involved in legitimate business. To be sure, PTI workers forcefully obstructing the operation of legitimate business are involved in criminal behaviour – criminal behaviour being encouraged by PTI leaders.

Is the PTI trying to hurt America or Pakistan? The object of foreign policy is to make as many friends as possible. Of the 193 member states of the United Nations we can count all our friends on the fingers of just one hand. Here’s a list of countries that constitute Isaf: Turkey, UAE, Bahrain, Jordan, Malaysia, Albania, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungry, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, UK, US, Armenia, Austria, Finland, Georgia, Ireland, Macedonia, Montenegro, Sweden, Ukraine, Australia, El Salvador, Mongolia, New Zealand, South Korea, Tonga, Singapore and Switzerland. For these countries a total of 24,000 containers and 20,000 vehicles are to be transported back either through Pakistan or an alternative route at the cost of $7 billion.

Isn’t the PTI painting Pakistan into a tight corner? Here’s a look at 66 years of our history: in a non-isolationist mode Pakistan has been stronger and Pakistanis more prosperous. And in an isolationist mode Pakistan has always weakened and Pakistanis poorer. Isn’t the PTI taking Pakistan into an isolationist mode?

What can we learn from Iran; “heroic flexibility”? Do we really want to become the next North Korea or Burma? Is internal chaos in our national interest? Is external isolation in our national interest?

PS: Pre-Isolation Iran – 70 Rial to a dollar. Isolated Iran – 40,000 Rial to a dollar. The day of the interim nuclear agreement the Rial appreciated by 16 percent.

The writer is a columnist based in Islamabad. Email: farrukh15@hotmail.com. Twitter: @saleemfarrukh

befitting reply to defeatist mentality of @farrukhsaleem



Isolation


It is amusing, albeit a trifle irritating too, to see commentators – as opposed to analysts – giving out half truths to try and prove something that is factually incorrect. Farrukh Saleem is a master of using selective data to put forward his subjective views as actual facts.

Ever since Imran Khan and the PTI began implementing their manifesto promises, especially opposition to US drones and their sabotaging of the nascent dialogue process to peace in Pakistan, Saleem has been targeting the PTI with a vengeance. Setting aside what could be construed as a subjective analysis of Saleem’s motivation, let me simply point out some of his inaccurate to blatantly false assumptions in his article “Isolation” (The News, December 8, 2013).

To begin with, the PTI’s politics is not divisive but reflects the national consensus as reflected in the APC resolution. After giving the government time to fulfil the APC mandate and realising that drone attacks were the single impediment to commencement of dialogue, the PTI made a decision to block Nato supplies through Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.

Now how does that pit KP against the other provinces? Absurd. Just as it does not pit KP against the federal government especially since the KP government is not participating in the blockage of Nati supplies and is arresting protestors who may be violating the law. So Saleem is spreading falsehoods that deliberately seek to divide the country on a provincial basis – and he is actually guilty of doing what he accuses the PTI of.

As for national interest versus party interest, while Saleem may feel he alone knows what is in Pakistan’s national interest, the fact is that opposing drones and military ‘solutions’ is in the national interest far more than paying homage to the US, its debilitating war on terror and the mirage of dollars pouring in! The PTI, unlike other political parties, is implementing its commitment to the electorate and the APC mandate.

Incidentally, the PTI has operationalised its manifesto commitments on education, health, anti-corruption, RTI, Ehtesab, depoliticisation of the police, etc in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa so Saleem should not worry about the PTI only focusing on drones. Also, it is not how many times a word is used but the devastating impact of the action that word signifies on peace – because without peace you cannot have development.

The biggest falsehood presented by Saleem is his argument on Nato and Pakistan’s commitment to UNSC Resolution 1386 relating to Isaf and logistical support. Yes Pakistan is bound to obey that and Farrukh Saleem has listed all the Isaf members without pointing out that Nato is not Isaf and to date the UNSC resolutions extend the mandate of Isaf not Nato, which is why Nato always tags the word ‘Isaf’ when trying to justify anything!

In fact, Nato as a collective defence organisation in terms of its legitimacy in the context of the UN system derives this from Article 51 (Chapter VII) and Articles 52 and 53 (Chapter VIII) of the UN Charter. It is a collective defence organisation, and regional collective defence organisations need to operate in the specific region of their membership. It cannot attribute to itself a collective security role which lies only with the UNSC. There is no legitimacy for any collective security organisation other than the UN.

Article 51 of the UN Charter provides a very clear and limited framework for collective defence organisations. Article 52 of the charter relates to regional arrangements in connection with maintenance of peace and security and talks in terms of these organisations coming into being “as are appropriate for regional action.” Also, under Article 53, there can be no action without authorisation of the Security Council except against an enemy state as defined in Article 53:2.

Even within the context of regional organisations, actions have to have a UN mandate and this is where the case of Afghanistan is unclear. Post-9/11, the UN Security Council, through Resolution 1386 (December 2001), sanctioned the International Security Assistance Force (Isaf) for Afghanistan. As stipulated in the Bonn Agreement of December 2001, the progressive expansion of the Isaf to other urban centres and other areas beyond Kabul was duly approved through follow-on UNSC resolutions.

So where did Nato get into Isaf? Did the UNSC initiate Nato’s involvement or did Nato present a fait accompli to the UN secretary general. Clearly, it was not any UNSC resolution that sought Nato involvement. Instead, what is available on record is that Nato informed the UN secretary general, through a letter dated October 2, 2003 from its secretary general that on August 11, 2003 Nato had assumed “strategic command, control and coordination of the International Security Assistance Force – UN Document S/2003/970 Annex I”.

This was followed by another letter from the Nato secretary general to the UN SG informing the latter of the North Atlantic Council’s agreement on a “longer-term strategy for Nato in its International Assistance Force (Isaf) role in Afghanistan. Both these letters were sent to the president of the UNSC by the then UN Secretary General Kofi Annan on October 7, 2003 with the request that they be brought to the attention of the UNSC. So effectively Nato presented the UNSC with a fait accompli.

It was in the face of these developments that the UNSC passed Resolution 1510 on October 13, 2003 in which it acknowledged the October 6 Nato SG’s letter as well as communication from the Afghan minister for foreign affairs and authorised the expansion of the Isaf mandate. But nowhere is there any reference to Nato’s role in Afghanistan. So Pakistan and its citizens are not violating any UNSC resolution by blocking Nato supplies.

Saleem should maintain at least a modicum of rationality even when venting his personal anger against the PTI. As for the falling value of the rupee, this is a result of the continuing corruption and lack of tax collection by successive governments – not a result of the imagined isolation of Pakistan. How conveniently Saleem suffers amnesia on this!

The writer is the information secretary of the PTI.


Isolation - Shireen M Mazari
 
.
PTI has one and only chance to prove itself to the rest of the country.
it wont be easy, Raiwand tigers will do all they can to fail KPK government. but we all know Imran doesnt do easy


Imran Khan Zindabad
 
.

643530-HamidKhan-1386621882-204-640x480.JPG

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court has decided to take up an important petition, seeking ‘verification of thumb impressions’ in some constituencies won by key PML-N politicians in the May 11 general elections.

The petition was filed by Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) chairman Imran Khan who has alleged massive fraud in the elections and called for the verification of voters’ thumb impressions with the help of the National Database Registration Authority (NADRA).

On Monday, the top court admitted the civil miscellaneous petition seeking verification of thumb impressions in four constituencies for preliminary hearing after Imran’s attorney Hamid Khan shot down the objections raised by the Supreme Court registrar against his client’s petition.

The petition filed by Imran on June 8 was returned by the registrar office and the petitioner was asked to approach another forum for this purpose.

A three-judge bench ordered the registrar office to fix Imran’s petition in the Workers Party of Pakistan’s case within seven days for regular hearing. Hamid requested the court that as a first step to check the fairness of the 2013 general elections “the apex court may order verification of thumb impressions in four constituencies: NA-110, NA-122, NA-125 and NA 154”.

The development came a day after Interior Minister Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan invited the parliamentary leaders of all political parties for a brainstorming session on the vote fraud controversy. “We are ready to hold thumb impression verification of voters in all 272 directly elected seats of the National Assembly under the supervision of Justice (retd) Wajiuddin Ahmed of the PTI,” he said in a letter to the parliamentary leaders.

National Assembly Speaker Sardar Ayaz Sadiq was elected on NA-122; Defence Minister Khawaja Asif won from NA-110; Railway Minister Khawaja Saad Rafique defeated PTI’s Hamid Khan in NA-125 and Sadiq Baloch outvoted PTI’s Secretary General Jahangir Tareen in NA-154.

“This will open Pandora’s Box and the nation will know how the PTI’s mandate was stolen,” said PTI leader Hamid Khan.

Source: Vote fraud: Top court to hear PTI’s petition – The Express Tribune
 
.
jab miyan sab first time kuch achieve kya the tu genral zia k shafaqat hasal karnay k ilawa kya kiya tha?
Yaar hum to main stream morosi party hain. PTI nay agar kuch performance di hay to confident to hona chayey na tum logon ko :)
 
. . . . . . . .
Yaar hum to main stream morosi party hain. PTI nay agar kuch performance di hay to confident to hona chayey na tum logon ko :)

bhie itna confidence ha tu bhie NADRA verfication kar lun ..hum tu performance kar b layain tu ap loog votes k chor hain ...aik speaker aur 2 minsters tu urah jayain gay ... wasey pml n walon ko sharam ayi jab nadra ka head ko raat k 2 bajay nikala?

btw ap k performance ka aik namona

 
Last edited:
. . .

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom