The ‘special relationship’ between the UK and the US is elusive. Trump’s visit to Britain nailed the optics of an empire that was wilting under the weight of an ‘unequal’ relation

Romance and nostalgia surrounding the grandeur of the British empire in the 19th and 20th century is predicated on “the empire on which the sun never sets.” This pomposity was extended to include emerging America in the mid-19th century to posit the Anglophone domain, as noted by Alexander Campbell in 1852, “To Britain and America, god has granted the possession of the new world; and because the sun never sets upon our religion, our language and our arts…” Subsequently, the two world wars of the 20th century changed the global narrative and the churn of history left the British empire to hold on and cast its equation with the US in a Churchellian expression, “special relationship.” Befittingly, British Prime Minister Theresa May sought “a new special relationship”, while not one to be left out, US President Donald Trump added his own to the lexicon by claiming the bilateral relationship to be, “the highest level of special!” However, the stark reality of the two nations clutching the straws of history was inevitable as Trump made his state visit to the UK as May was in the last week of her notice period.

The usual blusters, clichés and gaffes notwithstanding, the visit nailed the optics of an empire that was wilting under the weight of an “unequal” relationship that besets any relationship with the US President Donald Trump. The quintessential English “correctness” of May helped her mumble over the contentious issues between the two nations, namely, on how to handle Iran, China or even Brexit. Even the ostensibly “nasty” past of the once-American and now the Duchess of Sussex, Meghan Markle, was providentially avoided as she was on maternity leave. Yet, the cracks in the sovereign outlook and intrusions into the domestic affairs of the UK by Trump, had all the hallmarks of a very “Un-English” inelegance and mannerism. From opining on members of the royal family, the mayor of London, Opposition leaders, Brexit negotiations, to even his own preferences for the next incumbent of the 10 Downing Street — Great Britain was made to look rather pedestrian and beholden to its “special” ally.

Undercurrents of suspicion across the Atlantic have simmered for long and even the victory in World War II was marred with private concerns in the UK, over the ruthless negotiations done by the US, to extend crucial support during the war to its “special” ally. Beyond the exacting commercial terms enforced on the post-war UK, the US denied support to its “special” ally on Suez Canal, leading to its humiliating retreat. In 1983, the US invaded Grenada in the Caribbean, then supposedly a member of the British Commonwealth. Even the reciprocal disinterest in both the Vietnam war and later, the Falklands, owing to their individual compulsions militated against the publically postured alliance. The US Secretary of State during the Vietnam War, Dean Rusk, had famously told a British journalist on the cold feet developed by the British Government in contributing military wherewithal: “When the Russians invade Sussex, don’t expect us to come and help you.” Deep in the psyche of the Trans-Atlantic world, only the fear of the “others” in the Cold War era kept the portents of “special relationship” going — but the writing was always on the wall, and with the advent of the businessman-turned-President,   the worms came out of the woodwork.

Serendipitously, a 2003 British comedy film, Love Actually, has a role played by Hugh Grant as the Prime Minister of Great Britain, who stands up to the roughshod antics of the visiting US President. In it, the British Prime Minister calls the bluff on the “special relationship” by saying on the podium with the US President by his side, “I love that word relationship. Covers all manners of sins, doesn’t it? I fear that this has become a bad relationship. One that is based on the President taking exactly what he wants and casually ignoring all those things that really matter to Britain. We may be a small country, but we’re a great one too” and then adds for good measure, “A friend who bullies us is no longer a friend. And since bullies only respond to strength, from now onward, I will be prepared to be much stronger. And the President should be prepared for that.”

Unfortunately, in 2019, none of that happened and May stood meekly by the side of the US President as he railed against the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, by calling him a “not good mayor who had done a poor job.” He then added, condescendingly and lordly, that the mayor had criticised the “representative of the US that can do so much good for the UK.” Further, with the British Prime Minister acquiescing, Trump went on to call the head of the Opposition party, Jeremy Corbyn, a “negative force.” Completing the picture of servility was the final comments by May, addressed to both the Mayor of London and Corbyn, about the “greatest alliance” that “ensures our safety and security and the safety and security of others around the world, too.” That May was no Winston Churchill or even Margaret Thatcher was all too clear and visible.

Trump merrily waded into the bitterly divided waters of Brexit with his own opinions on its (mis)handling, while making the protocol exception to meet the divisive figure of Nigel Farage at the US Ambassador’s residence. He reiterated Brexit “will happen and it probably should happen”. A hapless empire was left with a visiting US President telling them about his personal preferences for the next Prime Minister in Boris Johnson or Jeremy Hunt.

Clearly, the days when a blunt Margaret Thatcher could stand up to the Yankee Republican President, like Ronald Reagan, who while urging her to go slow on Falklands, was told off chillingly by the ‘Iron Lady’: “I didn’t lose some of my best ships and some of my finest lives to leave quietly.” Since then, the sun has indeed firmly set on the empire’s “greatest alliance.”

(The writer, a military veteran, is a former Lt Governor of Andaman & Nicobar Islands and Puducherry)

Writer & Courtesy: The Pioneer

Twenty-two years after Beijing took over the administration, it wants its writ to run in the city state.

When the United Kingdom surrendered control of Hong Kong to the People’s Republic of China (PRC) in 1997, it was a momentous occasion with China assuring the world that as part of regaining control of the island city, it would respect legal and cultural differences. The process of ‘Sinafication’, as China absorbed the highly westernised entity into its legal and administrative processes, would be gradual. That was apparent in the title of Hong Kong as a Special Administrative Region. It retained its unique British-style legal system, people still drove on the left side of the road and it had an independent immigration system and currency. While Hong Kong was undeniably Chinese, it participated separately in international and sporting events.

But in 1997, the PRC was not the economic behemoth it is today and Xi Jinping was still a middle-ranking official, destined for great things with the ‘Xi Principles’ still years away. But President Xi, who has now centralised power in himself, possibly sees Hong Kong’s special status as an irritant and a blot on Chinese supremacy. Rather than being an adjunct of China, it is the alternative polarity, where dissent has found a new home. The unique legal system and freedom of speech in the city have led to it becoming a hub of anti-Xi sentiment. While the PRC has effectively stage-managed Hong Kong’s elections in the past few years, there is obviously a feeling that the city-state is like an irritating small dog that keeps barking all night. So recently, Hong Kong’s Chief Executive Carrie Lam proposed a new law that allows Hong Kong to extradite suspects to China, which in other words means a clampdown on the former’s democratic spirit and right to dissent. This has led to hundreds of thousands of Hong Kongers going out in the streets to protest, only two years after the ‘Yellow Umbrella’ rallies effectively shut down the city in October 2017. Those as well as these agitations are against what protestors call the ‘creeping’ Sinafication of the island, which is happening faster and quicker than citizens had anticipated. They want Beijing to respect the differences of the city but unsurprisingly, Xi is tightening his grip and is using the protests to justify that. However, he should be careful that he does not kill the golden goose. Hong Kong’s unique status has made it a major economic and cultural hub that attracts a global workforce. Even though China wants more control, it should be careful not to drive the workforce away. While the country is within its rights to stop the barking, it might be better to learn from Hong Kong and apply a bit of that model to the mainland itself.

Writer: Pioneer

Courtesy: The Pioneer

The Janjaweed don’t care how many people they kill, and none of the most powerful Governments in the Arab world do either. Pro-democracy leaders have been carrying out campaigns but unless they take back control of the streets, it’s all over

It’s like the Tienanmen Square in miniature and maybe not all that miniature. The reported death toll in Khartoum after the recent massacre stands at more than 100, but the whole city is still locked down, with columns of Rapid Support Forces (RSF) vehicles driving through the streets, firing at practically anything that moves. There may be a lot more dead.

The RSF used to be known as the Janjaweed and they are not soldiers; they are professional killers. They are the local solution to the problem any dictatorship faces when it decides to end a non-violent protest by murdering the protesters. By that time your soldiers will usually have been on the streets for a while and will have had personal contact with the people you want to kill.

The ordinary soldiers come from exactly the same society as the protesters and, knowing who these people really are, will by now be quite reluctant to kill them. Dictators know that you must never give your soldiers an order you know they will disobey, because that creates a dilemma for them that they can only resolve by killing you. So you must find some other group to do the massacre. They may just be soldiers you bring in from out of town, who have had no previous human contact with the protesters before the order to kill is given. That’s what the Chinese regime did before the Tienanmen Square massacre in 1989.

They may be special forces troops and secret police, left over from the old dictatorship and long rewarded for abusing and murdering the old regime’s enemies, who will gladly serve a new dictatorship. That’s who General Abdel Fattah el-Sisi used to kill at least a thousand non-violent protesters on Rabaa Square in Cairo after his military coup overthrew Egypt’s elected Government in 2013.

In Sudan that group began as a bunch of camel-herding tribesmen, already at war with the local farmers, who were then recruited by the old regime to torch villages and slaughter their inhabitants in western Sudan. They acquired a taste for rape, pillage and murder and became known as the Janjaweed. They are now called the RSF.

Omar al-Bashir, Sudan’s dictator since 1989, originally created them to carry out a genocide in the separatist western province of Darfur, a crime for which he has been indicted by the International Criminal Court. They were never seen in the capital in those days, but now they have uniforms of a sort and they are all over Khartoum.

They are doing the job that the soldiers of the regular Army may have balked at: Killing enough citizens, more or less at random, to frighten the rest back into submission. The ordinary soldiers’ reluctance was often on display in the early days of the Sudanese revolution, when they sometimes intervened to protect the protesters from the RSF.

The generals, who have now unleashed the RSF, never felt that reluctance themselves. Unlike the private soldiers, they have profited greatly under Bashir’s rule and have no intention of giving up their own privileges and power. They were happy enough to sacrifice Bashir to the protesters (he’s now under arrest and awaiting trial), but they don’t do self-sacrifice.

So they played for time, negotiating a ‘democratic transition’ with the protest leaders while waiting for the support to flow in from other Arab tyrannies. It duly arrived: An immediate gift of $3 billion from Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Egypt to help Bashir’s military heirs buy back support and the promise of political support for any killing that they saw as a necessary part of the process.

The military junta, calling itself the ‘Transitional Military Council’, kept up the facade of power-sharing with the opposition ‘Alliance for Freedom and Change’ right down to last weekend. Last week, the Transitional Military Council (TMC) spokesman said that a deal was almost done: There would be an election in two years and civilians would have a majority of the seats on the interim council.

Then early this week, the Rapid Support Forces/Janjaweed went in shooting and cleared the square in front of Army Headquarters that had been occupied by pro-democracy forces for the past two months. The TMC’s head, General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, declared on state television that the military had decided to “stop negotiating with the alliance for freedom and change and cancel what had been agreed on.” What had changed? Nothing. The military was never negotiating in good faith; it was just buying time. The Sudanese Professionals Association, which spearheaded the nationwide protests, is calling for a campaign of “sweeping civil disobedience to topple the treacherous and killer military council,” but unless it can take back control of the streets, it’s all over. Can it do that? Probably not. The Janjaweed don’t care how many people they kill and none of the most powerful Governments in the Arab world do either.

(The writer’s new book is Growing Pains: The Future of Democracy and Work)

Writer: Gwynne Dyer

Courtesy: The Pioneer

Thirty years after the brutality at Tiananmen Square, China has become a powerhouse nation. But it can’t erase its past

One of the enduring images of protest in the 20th century is that of the ‘Tank Man’. Who he is? Nobody knows but the image of a man standing up to a tank, it’s gun raised in anger, moving to the centre of Beijing likely to fire on Chinese youngsters has become an iconic image of a common citizen protesting Government excess. Unfortunately, the ‘Tank Man’ was unable to stop the Chinese Army from senselessly killing its own 20-year-old soldiers firing at 20-year-old students. We will never know the scale of brutality — China has never revealed the actual death toll and if it were not for hundreds of dissidents escaping to the West, this story might have been buried forever. The demonstrators in the Tiananmen Square were screaming for democracy, communism had collapsed across Eastern Europe and for the young students, it was their turn. The authorities did not get the message about democracy but Chinese leaders realised that without economic progress and more wealth in the hands of the citizens, protests would erupt again. In a way, China’s economic miracle was built on the foundation of the dead bodies of the Tiananmen Square protesters. But what a story of economic growth: China today stands alone in challenging Americas global hegemony with its Belt and Road Initiative, it has a modern-day East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere that Imperial Japan envisaged before World War II, but on a grander scale.

China has substituted democracy for development, its rapid industrial and manufacturing prowess has become the strongest case against democracy, leading many Indians to also believe that democracy is a hurdle to development. We should not let this narrative succeed. As India has proven, democracy can be a force for good in this, the world’s largest multiethnic nation. Democracy gives a voice to the subaltern, and they can roar. China might have grown dramatically but that growth has not been completely even — some have benefited more than others and many have been left behind. The protesters in the Tiananmen Square were not what the Communist Party of India Marxist shamefully called counter-revolutionaries, they were demanding a voice. But China changed as a result and moved away from communism just as much as Eastern Europe did. The protesters did achieve something, not democracy but a changed China. It is up to today’s leaders in China whether they see themselves as a force for good or not.

Writer: Pioneer
Courtesy: The Pioneer

Communist dictatorship survived in China while it peacefully expired in Russia. It still looks solid even today: Xi Jinping effectively declared himself President-for-life. But communist rule in China has now reached the magic age of 70. Is it immortal? Probably not

Another of the five-yearly anniversaries has rolled around and it’s time to write another think-piece about the long-term meaning of the massacre on Beijing’s Tiananmen Square on June 4, 1989. But 30 years later, what is there left to say?

Great changes were already underway in the Communist-ruled parts of Europe in 1989. Mikhail Gorbachev, the reformist Soviet leader, visited Beijing after the students had taken over the square in late April and he obviously thought that the same process was underway in China. Maybe it was, but it was violently aborted — and it has still not recovered.

That’s not what people thought at the time. Hundreds, perhaps thousands of students were killed on the square — the soldiers burned the bodies in a massive pyre right on the square, so there was never an accurate count. Hundreds or thousands more died elsewhere because similar demonstrations were put down in every major Chinese city. And we all thought: This will never be forgotten.

The students weren’t counter-revolutionaries. Their hero, the man whose death they were honouring when they occupied the square, was Hu Yaobang, a life-long communist, a veteran of the Long March, who believed that it was high time to ease up on the controls four decades after the communists took power in China.

For that Hu, the then General Secretary of the Chinese communist party, had been forced into retirement by the party’s hard-liners in 1987. But everybody knew what he wanted and when he died two years later, the students came out to demand it again: Government accountability, freedom of the press, freedom of speech and free trade unions.

The dominant conservative faction in the Chinese communist party responded by killing them and then set out to erase all popular memory of what had happened.  It can’t be done, said all the journalists outside China: They will never be forgiven. The crowds will be back on the streets one of these days and there will be a great reckoning and radical change.

Well, not. Thirty years later, most Chinese millennials are ignorant of exactly what happened in 1989. The older generation remember, but they dare not mention it in public and they are a dwindling minority. Journalist Louisa Lim has accurately described contemporary China as the “People’s Republic of Amnesia”.

Why did this happen and has the notion of a freer future really gone down the memory hole in China? Start with the fact that the Soviet Union was 72-years-old in 1989, whereas the Chinese People’s Republic was only 40.

That extra generation meant that there was nobody still in power in Russia who had actually ordered the deaths of thousands of people.  Not only the revolutionary generation but also the Stalinist generation were gone and by the 1980s, the career communists, who had climbed the greasy pole of power, were mere bureaucrats.

They thought they were hard men, too, but in fact, they weren’t anything of the sort. A few of them tried to carry out a coup and restore communist rule in 1991, but they were actually trembling with fear as they spoke on TV and they were seen off in a couple of days.  Whereas China’s rulers in 1989 still had lots of hands-on experience with killing people. Some of them, like Hu and his successor Zhao Ziyang, were genuine idealists, who felt that the party’s controls must be loosened now that the revolution was an accomplished fact. Zhao actually went to the square at dawn on May 19 and addressed the students, urging them to hold fast to their demands.

“We are already old, we do not matter anymore,” he told them — but Zhao already knew that he had lost the argument and that the communist party leadership had decided to clear the square by force. He had also been stripped of his own position and would live the last 15 years of his life under house-arrest.

The actual massacre was delayed for a further two weeks because the soldiers in Beijing had been fraternising with the students and could no longer be trusted to kill them. It took two weeks to replace them with fresh troops, who knew nothing about what was happening in Beijing and would obediently kill the ‘counter-revolutionaries.’

So the communist dictatorship survived in China while it peacefully expired in Russia. It still looks solid today: The current leader, Xi Jinping, has just effectively declared himself president-for-life. But communist rule in China has now reached the magic age of 70. Is it immortal? Probably not.

Communist rule in the Soviet Union would probably have survived if the economy had been growing strongly. What brought it down was the insolence of absolute power combined with an abject failure to deliver the goods economically. The Chinese communist regime is very insolent, but it will probably survive as long as it delivers the goods.

However, China has a market economy now and market economies have recessions. The official Chinese growth rate is still six per cent, but the real rate of growth has already fallen to somewhere between three per cent and zero. The next five or 10 years should be quite interesting.

(The writer’s new book is Growing Pains: The Future of Democracy and Work)

Writer & Courtesy: Gwynne Dyer

The US President has walked the talk and removed India  from the preferential trade list. The ball is now in our court

Union Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal could not have expected that soon after the smiles and photo-opportunities ended, he would be thrust into the deep end of India’s trade problems, with United States (US) President Donald Trump keeping his promise to remove India from the General System of Preferences (GSP). This programme allowed Indian exporters access to US markets at zero duties to the tune of $5.6 billion every year. While Trump’s trade wars across the world have focussed primarily on China and the European Union, India has never been far away from his gaze. He had warned that the GSP would be lifted back in March and the US Commerce Secretary even visited India last month in the midst of the elections. The US might have been persuaded to delay any punitive action until the new government was sworn in but that it was single-minded and unwavering was evident from its decision taken hours after Goyal barely took over from Suresh Prabhu at Udyog Bhavan. Goyal will have to use his experience of working in the US as an investment banker to good use now. Trump’s entire economic agenda has been based around removing what he considers ‘unfair’ trade practices by other nations on American imports. This has completely upended the global trade applecart and it is ironic that a President from America’s pro-Capitalist Republican Party has almost torn globalisation asunder. Negotiations with the US will not be easy, it wants more access to the Indian market for its agriculturalists. The US has also complained about sourcing rules for e-commerce firms like Flipkart, now owned by American retail giant Walmart. American financial services firms such as MasterCard have complained vociferously against India’s data localisation laws.

At the same time, India has been a rich hunting ground for American technology and services firms such as Google, Facebook and Uber. And US foreign policy advisors see India as a bulwark against China’s increasing economic and military might, with India being an essential part of the ‘Quad’, a nebulous alliance between Australia, India, Japan and the US. It is essential for the US to realise the strategic importance of India in the coming decades, particularly as the trade wars with China are effectively the first shots in the conflict between the two nations. At the same time, India has to balance some of the US’ more legitimate demands for lower duties and greater access. Goyal, therefore, has a difficult time on his hands, balancing flagship programmes like ‘Make in India’ with Trump’s ego. But he has no options.

Writer: Pioneer

Courtesy: The Pioneer

Britannia once ruled the waves and much of the world, today British polity is in a shambles

When Theresa May exits 10 Downing Street soon most likely having failed to deliver Brexit, it would mean that Queen Elizabeth II would have seen off 14 Prime Ministers. One cannot forget that two of those leaders — Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair — served for over a decade. And Britons are not placing much hope on the choice of leaders that will replace her in the Conservative Party. In such a situation, one would have supposed the Opposition to rise to the challenge but the Labour party is also riddled with strife. While voters in the prosperous south-east of England are still opposed to leaving the European Union and are demanding another referendum, it is almost certain that parties advocating leaving the European Union will do extremely well in, ironically, elections to the European Parliament. Where Great Britain goes from here is anyone’s guess, but it is not going to be a land of milk and honey. At least, England stands a good chance in the cricket World Cup.

Other democracies in the world must learn from Britain that direct democracy, where the electorate is asked to take a decision on a major economic and political issue, is not advisable. David Cameron, the former Prime Minister who called the referendum, will go down in history as being the man who threw the country into turmoil and promptly ran away from the mess he had created. Much has been written about the Brexit campaign on both sides and now movies are being made as well to unequivocally state how easily the ‘leave’ campaign hijacked certain issues and how false narratives can confuse and terrify voters. There is a reason we elect politicians into Parliaments. They have to take the tough decisions. Sure, they should listen to the worries of their constituents but one expects them to be better informed and educated than the average voter and not let emotive issues change the way they vote. The Brexit referendum was a disaster at many levels but it was at its core an abdication of responsibility by politicians. And as the rest of the world is learning that promising your voters that they could eat their cake and have it, too, when those promises depend on someone else acquiescing, is nothing better than lying. The British negotiations to leave the European Union have been torturous for the rest of the world to watch, let alone for British citizens. Britain has produced some remarkable leaders over the years, it might be time for some to emerge again.

Writer: Pioneer

Courtesy: The Pioneer

In 2007, Pakistan spiralled downwards amid violence, political polarisation and economic recession. However, some normalcy was restored. Is it heading that way again?  

On September 30, 1965, the Communist Party of Indonesia — Parti Komunis Indonesia (PKI) — attempted a coup d’etat through a clandestine organisation embedded within the Indonesian armed forces. The PKI was close to the Indonesian nationalist hero and first ruler President Sukarno. PKI’s embedded organisation, the 13th of September Movement, believed that a large portion of the country’s armed forces was anti-Communist and under the influence of the US, which was planning to topple Sukarno.

Sukarno was not a communist himself. In her book, Maoism: A Global History, Julia Lovell writes that he had kept the large PKI on his side to neutralise the influence of the military. Nevertheless, in the early 1960s, as tensions between the military and PKI mounted and the economy began to unravel, Sukarno made an alarming speech in August 1964. Alluding to the developing crisis, Sukarno stated that the country was “living dangerously.”

The 1965 coup attempt was brutally thwarted by anti-communist military factions. The coup was crushed by Major-General Suharto. Adrian Wickers, in his 2013 book, A History of Modern Indonesia, writes that the military gave far-right Islamic and Catholic groups ample space and impunity to carry out some of the worst massacres of the 20th century. A 1977 Amnesty International report suggests that “about one million” Indonesians — believed to be PKI members or sympathisers — were mercilessly slaughtered and these included pregnant women and children.

The Australian novelist Christopher Koch dramatised the carnage in a 1978 novel. The title of the novel, The Year of Living Dangerously, was inspired by Sukarno’s speech. Since the novel was turned into a film in 1982, the expression “year of living dangerously” is often used by writers and journalists to describe a tumultuous year in the life of a country and/or a particularly violent period in which a country spirals into anarchy and unprecedented bloodshed.

If one sets aside 1971’s bloody civil war in former East Pakistan, then the year in which Pakistan lived dangerously (in the context of the mentioned expression) has to be 2007. It is remarkable that the country actually came out of it at all.

The year got off to a terrible start when, in January, an Al Qaeda suicide bomber killed 12 policemen in Peshawar. Then in February, military chief and president Pervez Musharraf suspended the Chief Justice of Pakistan, Iftikhar Chaudhry, accusing him of corruption.

The lawyers’ community rejected the suspension and began a movement. It was soon joined by both big and small Opposition parties, whose rallies were often attacked by riot police. As the movement transformed into a populist anti-Musharraf drive and spread from Punjab to Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, its leaders decided to take it to Sindh’s capital city, Karachi. Karachi’s then largest party, the Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM), was a staunch ally of the Musharraf regime.

The MQM wasn’t happy when the suspended judge and his supporters arrived in Karachi on May 12, 2007. As the judge was waiting at the city’s airport, riots and open gun battles between MQM activists and those belonging to the anti-Musharraf alliance such as the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP), Pakhtunkhwa Milli Awami Party (PkMAP), Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz) (PML-N) and Awami National Party (ANP), erupted on the roads and streets of the city. Government buildings, media outlets, cars and buses were fired upon and torched. Snipers took positions on overhead bridges and mowed down opponents with bullets.

The city came to a standstill as armed men roamed the streets amid dead bodies, abandoned cars and burning motorbikes and buses. According to a May 13, 2007 report by CNN, 33 people were killed and dozens were wounded. The MQM and the Musharraf regime accused the Opposition parties for the violence, whereas the former and most local and foreign news outlets put the blame on the latter and Musharraf.

Then in June, unprecedented monsoon rains in Karachi killed over 200 people. The very next month on July 3, militant clerics and their ‘students’ fired at security forces posted outside Islamabad’s Red Mosque. The mosque and its seminary had been taken over by radical clerics and their supporters, who for months had been harassing the people of the locality on the pretext of “vanquishing anti-Islamic activities.” As tensions between the clerics and the state rose, security forces moved in after it was confirmed that the clerics and their “students” were heavily armed. The major siege took place on July 10 and 11 when Pakistan military commandos entered the building and eliminated the militants.

On July 13, newspapers reported that 102 people had been killed. These included 91 civilians (most of whom were militants holed up in the mosque), 10 soldiers and one ranger. As the political and economic situation continued to deteriorate, while terrorist attacks by Al Qaeda-affiliated outfits increased in number, the exiled chairperson of the PPP Benazir Bhutto, returned to Pakistan in October. A large rally in Karachi that was escorting her from the Jinnah International Airport was attacked by suicide bombers and 124 people were killed in the carnage. Al Qaeda-affiliated groups were suspected of carrying out the attack.

On November 3, Musharraf declared a state of emergency. The same month, sectarian violence in Kurram Agency killed 80 people and Islamic militants began to take over buildings in Swat. On November 22, Pakistan was suspended from the Commonwealth for refusing to lift the emergency. On November 26, PML-N chief Nawaz Sharif returned from exile.

On December, 13 Islamist militant groups formed the Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), which would go on to kill thousands of Pakistanis in the following years. On December 27, suicide bombers assassinated Benazir Bhutto. Dozens perished with her and dozens more were killed in the riots which spread across Pakistan for three days. Enraged mobs ran amok, setting fire to buildings and automobiles, especially in Punjab and Sindh.

Things almost completely fell apart in 2007. However, the country managed to limp back to some “normalcy” but the economy continued to plummet and terrorist attacks became endemic. Things in this respect began to somewhat improve from 2015 onwards. But an economic downturn, the recent spike in terror attacks and intense political polarisation, are once again threatening the country. Are we once again moving towards a year of living dangerously?

(Courtesy: The Dawn)

Writer: Nadeem Paracha

Courtesy: The Pioneer

The re-imposition of US sanctions on Iran is the biggest threat to the Chabahar port. Both India and Iran must muster enough political will and economic rationale to justify its worth

Amid escalating tensions between the US and Iran, Mohammad Javad Zarif, Iran’s Foreign Minister, made a brief visit to New Delhi on May 14 to hold talks with his Indian counterpart Sushma Swaraj on the impact of US sanctions on his country’s oil industry. His trip came soon after he visited the United Nations. Post his visit, Zarif gave an interview to Fox News Sunday, which is being seen as an attempt to reach out to US President Donald Trump, whose disdain for the media as peddlers of “fake news” is not hidden. Zarif then headed to Qatar to attend a ministerial meeting of the Asia Cooperation Dialogue and then to Russia and Turkmenistan. While Zarif was in Russia, President Hassan Rouhani announced that Iran would cease to abide by certain nuclear limitations but stopped short of violating its 2015 nuclear deal. In this context, it is important that the fourth trip of Zarif in this leg is to India and the third after the US cancelled our sanctions waivers for import of Iranian oil.

During his visit, Zarif held discussions with Swaraj on issues of mutual interest, including the situation in Afghanistan, the development of Chabahar port, cooperation in various fields and regional and international issues. Regarding the ongoing US-Iran tensions, India made its stand clear that any decision on oil purchase from Iran will have to wait for the new Government in Delhi. But here, we will focus on issues concerning the implementation of the Chabahar port project — those as a result of the latest round of sanctions, though the port is out of the immediate purview of bans, and in general.

To clear the air, the purpose of the Chabahar port to be developed by India is entirely different from the Gwadar port in Pakistan being developed by China. The Chabahar is strictly an economic project and not a not a strategic-military one. On the other hand, China does not need Gwadar to trade with Central Asia or Russia — it has shorter land routes to conduct business. Moreover, the “String of Pearls” theory on potential Chinese intentions in the Indian Ocean Region isn’t taken seriously by either the bureaucracy or in think-tank circles. It is seen as an American attempt to sow India-China tensions and the term itself is coined in a US Army War College paper.

Though the Chabahar project is a potential game-changer as it offers a getaway to Central Asia and Europe but as of now, its potential remains largely untapped. Additionally, the US sanctions regime has not just delayed the project since the early 2000s but has also been stifling its growth. It is going to take a few years for Chabahar to register success and it is, perhaps, too early to sing paeans about it. To cite an example, the ambitious plan suffered a blow with manufacturers shying away from supplying essential equipment like cranes and forklifts for the construction of the Iranian port even when US sanctions had not kicked in late last year. Indian promises to delivery ratio, too, have been dismal during this Government’s tenure. Further, while greater funds were promised, much smaller amounts have been released.

This writer spoke to Mohsen Shariatinia, an assistant professor of regional studies at Shahid Beheshti University in Tehran, when he said that the “Chabahar is a mega project but it’s too early to judge the success or failure of this project.” Speaking about the Mumbai-Mundra-Kandla-Chabahar-Bandar Abbas shipping line, that connects the Indian city of Mumbai to Iranian southern port cities of Chabahar and Bandar Abbas and which was inaugurated only recently, he said that the main problem with this project was about  financial resources. The Rouhani administration does not have enough money and the private sector has no economic motivation to invest in this line. If the two countries can reach an agreement on financial resources, a major issue would be resolved.

Shariatinia added that beyond the Indian Government, creating the economic justification of Chabahar for Indian companies is also very important. If they can access Central Asian and Russia markets via the International North–South Transport Corridor (INSTC), they can motivate investment and participation for this project. The future of Chabahar will depend on the political will of the Iranian and Indian Government on the one hand and economic justification of Chabahar for Indian and Iranian companies on the other.

Shariatinia added that in his assessment, the importance of the Russian economy is much more than Central Asian economies. If one takes a look at recent developments in Central Asia, one will notice that China is the biggest player and that there is no crucial capability or opportunity within the central Asian economy to be filled by India, Iran or other countries because China is already a dominant country in this geo-economic scene. The Russian market, on the other hand, has a huge potential for Indian businesses and if India can connect its rising economy with another big economy like Russia, it will be a great opportunity to enhance cooperation between Iran and India along the Chabahar. In my assessment, connecting just Indian and Russian economies will create enough economic justification for INSTC and Chabahar project.

This writer spoke to Behrooz Aghaei, ports and maritime director general of Sistan and Baluchistan province. Chabahar port comes under his jurisdiction. He said that despite what appears at first glance, the “Chabahar port’s exemption from sanctions” granted by the US is not going to help the people of Afghanistan. In fact, it increases transit expenses of its commodities by imposing sanctions on ports (which could have been better alternatives economically) and puts further restrictions on Afghan merchants. Analysis reveals that imposing sanctions on Iran’s ports as the most secure and less expensive routes for Afghanistan implies imposing sanctions on Afghanistan itself.

Aghaei says that as far as India is concerned, the significant point is that Indian commodities that transit to Afghanistan don’t have enough trade volumes to rationalise marine and road transportation expenses. Bearing in mind the trade volume of Afghanistan, Russia and CIS countries, which altogether is more than 16 million tonnes, and the insignificant share of Afghanistan, it can be said that without making possible the transportation of all India’s merchandise to the above-mentioned countries through Chabahar port, the so-called exemption of this port does not make any noticeable change in India’s trade. Therefore, Chabahar port’s exemption will only be a competitive advantage for India if all our merchandise for Afghanistan, Russia and CIS countries could be transported through the port without any restriction on banking transactions and insurance.

Aghaei adds that the noteworthy point about Afghanistan is that the exemption of Chabahar port will only be useful if there is no prohibition on vessels carrying merchandise entering and leaving it as well as on commercial transactions of cargo owners, merchants and shipping lines. Particularly banking transactions should be done without limitation.

The US may not agree to it. Its aim to provide a sanctions waiver to Afghanistan is to allow imports into that country. It is not concerned with the profits made by the Chabahar port. But it definitely will have an impact on the growth of the port. While Iran is under sanctions, Chabahar can never realise its full potential of being a route for Indo-Russia trade and trade to Europe via INSTC. Gwadar got a headstart over Chabahar, which was planned earlier, due to the US-Iran tensions and sanctions. Will we see Chabahar lag behind in trade due to it?

(The writer is an independent journalist working on cyber security and the geopolitics of India’s neighbourhood, focussing on Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran and Bangladesh)

Writer: Aveek Sen

Courtesy: The Pioneer

While the US has made several U-turns in brokering peace in Afghanistan, India’s biggest policy failure has been the inability to make its only military base in Tajikistan operational

The Afghanistan peace process has undergone nuanced changes and several U-turns under the Trump dispensation. These are worth reflecting upon.

It is no longer Afghan-owned, led and driven, but steered by an American Afghan Pashtun, Zalmay Khalilzad, who was appointed as Special Envoy in September 2018. Before that, it was Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Alice Wells, who ran the show and held at least three structured meetings with the Taliban at Doha and Islamabad, starting February 2018. She had ruled that the US could hold direct talks with the Taliban only after it had first engaged with the Kabul Government. That priority was overturned by the Khalilzad-led peace process, which has completed six rounds, the fifth being the longest, lasting for all of 15 days. The central issues of the framework accord: a) time-frame for withdrawal of US forces; b) no use of Afghan soil for terrorist attacks on the US and its allies; c) dialogue with elected Government in Kabul; and d) ceasefire. The Taliban wants foreign forces to withdraw in six months and not in one-and-a-half years as the US wants; dialogue with the Kabul Government; and ceasefire only after the withdrawal of foreign forces. According to the Taliban, only two issues — the first two — constitute the framework accord.

In his latest State of the Union Address, US President Donald Trump said, “great nations do not fight endless wars.” Last December, he did a U-turn on Afghanistan. Having been reluctantly persuaded by his Generals to stay the course, in a policy speech in August 2017, he lashed out at Pakistan, saying all it has given the US are lies and deceit after receiving $31 billion and praised India for its constructive role in Afghanistan. The then Defence Secretary, James Mattis, issued a “last chance” ultimatum to Pakistan to act against the Taliban sanctuaries which did not work despite intensified drone strikes in Pakistan. Soon, Trump did multiple U-turns: Embraced Pakistan, criticised India for doing five minutes of work like building libraries in Afghanistan and replacing Wells with Khalilzad an as interlocutor to work out an exit deal with the Taliban.

Pakistan is now a key facilitator and de facto guarantor for the Taliban’s attendance at the peace talks. In 2016, former US President Barack Obama ordered a drone strike against Taliban leader Emir Mullah Akhtar Mansour for playing truant on peace talks. Till 18 months ago, Islamabad used to say it has no control, only some influence on the Taliban, despite all its leaders residing in Karachi and Quetta. It says it has applied unprecedented pressure on the Taliban to open talks with Kabul. Now, Kabul has asked Washington to reveal the nature of the relationship between Pakistan and the Taliban. Mohammad Umer Daudzai, Afghanistan President Ashraf Ghani’s special envoy and head of the High Peace Council, was in New Delhi last week for consultations. He said: “The Taliban team, which is led by Mullah Baradari, is facilitated by Pakistan.” Rawalpindi will be the main benefactor from any peace deal and after the US’ withdrawal, the vacuum will be filled up by “Iron Brothers” China and Pakistan. The absence of threat from Afghanistan would secure the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), currently under terrorist attacks from the Pakistani Taliban in Afghanistan and the Balochistan Liberation Army. Daudzai told his Indian interlocutors that he did not think the Khalilzad peace process could be completed before the presidential elections in September 2019. He should not be surprised if the US postpones elections a third time and appoints an interim Government as suggested by Pakistan with the Taliban on board.

Surprisingly, nowhere in the discourse is there any mention of US retention of its strategic assets in Afghanistan for which President Obama and former President Karzai signed the bilateral security agreement (BSA) in 2014, which provides US troops access to military bases like Bagram and Kandahar until 2024 and beyond. The agreement also states that the key American ally will not abandon Afghanistan militarily and financially for years after 2014, the then deadline for most foreign forces to withdraw. The treaty agreement was initialled by NSA Rangin Dadfar Spanta and US Ambassador Ryan Crocker. Why is the BSA under wraps? And why has the Taliban not raised the issue of foreign bases unless that is part of an unlikely secret agreement between the two?

If the mercurial Trump were to suddenly order troops’ pullout, it could prove catastrophic. James Dobbins, a former US Envoy to Afghanistan, fears it could lead to a civil war — back to 1996. Gen Kenneth McKenzie of CentCom has said Afghan national security forces will dissolve without US support. In 2014, a report published by Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) had made the assessment that ANSF would be capable of resisting the Taliban independently after December 2014 when International Security Assistance Force combat role ended but would require US air support and assistance in casualty evacuation. When Konduz became the first provincial capital to fall to the Taliban in 2014, all hell broke loose in Pentagon, sparking fear of a strategic collapse.

China, Russia and the US this month issued a joint statement saying that “an inclusive Afghan-led peace process will ensure an orderly and responsible withdrawal.” That is not the direction the Khalizad peace process is headed towards.

India has refused to engage with the Taliban because it will not negotiate with Kabul. New Delhi may be a key strategic US partner but in Afghanistan, Pakistan holds the cards. India’s hesitation to start a back channel with the Taliban is unwise at a time when the organisation is known to be praising its development works and economic assistance in Afghanistan. Gen Bipin Rawat has said he favours engagement with the Taliban. India has not succeeded in creating strategic pressure points like activating its only foreign airbase in Ayni in Tajikistan even as Chinese troops are patrolling Wakhan corridor on Tajikistan’s south-east border, 30 km from Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK) to prevent Uighurs from returning to Xinjiang.

India secured operational clearance from Russia to use  Ayni in 2002. It has not deployed combat aircraft but utilises it for airlifting relief and construction material to Ayni and on to Farkhor from where it is trucked to Afghanistan. It has invested $100 million for renovating Ayni and extending the runway to 3,200 m and built three hangars for MiG 29 bombers. Around 100 Indian Air Force personnel are deployed there for maintenance of the airfield. Still, India cannot use Ayni as an operational air base because of the Russia-China-Pakistan axis. It is one of New Delhi’s foreign policy failures, which would otherwise have acted as a strategic fulcrum between Afghanistan and PoK. Modi 2.0 should work on Ayni.

(The writer is a retired Major General of the Indian Army and founder member of the Defence Planning Staff, currently the revamped Integrated Defence Staff)

Writer: Ashok K Mehta

Courtesy: The Pioneer

Uk politicians bless the queen a broken kingdom so now the sun never rises on the british empire again Uk brexit alert!! Stop all your investments/ trade sales deals with uk/british companies who are already sinking in debts so that you do not lose anymore of your assets or lives!

Prime Minister Theresa May and Many UK/British Politicians have betrayed the Queen as well as the good people of the UK and committed treason with lie after lie. Now 31st October 2019 is the extended final European deadline. They introduced the UN Migration Compact and lied about it not being legally binding. Even on smart countries that refused to sign it. Then they will try and rig the EU elections in May 2019. In the meantime they will concoct another anti-Trump hoax AND another fake Russia poisoning/ war threat so that the rest of the world (hopefully NOW…more sane) supports their little Island. They have recently arrested Julian Assange of Wkileaks who with his team only shared the truths and real facts with the rest of the World so that more understanding and more peace can prevail without anymore illegal wars! Julian Assange was forcibly arrested from the Ecuadorian embassy and now the UK Government are preparing to extradite him to the USA so that they can get in the good books of how great they are when they, the UK government and their “un-intelligent” services Christopher David Steele, plotted to destroy President Trump and his election campaign support by creating absolute lies, false Russia links dossier tarnishing Mr. Trump’s character. It is the UK british interferring in the usa elections “not” russia and stopping good american democracy which nearly triggered world war 3 with a peaceful russia and china! The USA government under Donald Trump should also extradite Christopher David Steele and ALL the UK Government ministers/people involved! If USA government wants Julian Assange they should also get Christopher David Steele and his British brainless involved!

The present UK Government has fuelled terrorism not just in the Uk/Europe but across the World with arms sales, regime change soldiers, terrorism funding of groups in Syria, Afghanistan, yemen, Pakistan, Iraq and in India.

The present UK government/many British politicians have fuelled corruption, bribery scams and offshore banking structures for tax evasion benefits for themselves while destroying the lives of good people in the UK and throughout the World. They (The Bank of England) continue to hold (stolen) Venezuela’s Gold reserves of $1.2 Billion that the democratically elected President Nicolas Maduro needs to feed his people and billions of pounds of Indian/ Pakistani black money accounts which would help the governments collect legitimate taxes which would increase the building of rural/urban infrastructures/ education and law systems of both countries.

As Their Brexit unfolds in the coming months and European Countries further boot them out of all businesses/trade deals stop all your investments/ trade sales deals with uk/ british companies who are already sinking in debts so that you do not lose anymore of your assets or lives!

Europe will be safer without UK/British lies, false flag terrorism acts, fake news and war mongering, in fact… the World will be safer if it paid less attention to this little Island which now, they themselves, have made it a “Broken Kingdom”. The many millions of people of the Broken Kingdom are also to blame in many ways starting with whom and what they voted for and elected to be slaves of. They put the British politicians in power to represent them fairly and peacefully BUT they themselves have been betrayed. A lesson for ALL good innocent people across the World and especially now in India Elections…please be very careful when casting your votes at the next elections as you are not just voting for yourselves, you are voting for the future of your children.

The peaceful leaders of the World who wish for more sane lawful ways of life while protecting their own Countries people and their cultures/ customs are President Putin of Russia and President Xi Jinping. They continue to unite good peaceful countries, people in R.I.C.A/SCO with their magnificent vision of OBOR and with unbiased true education with job creations for the people/youth.

The NRIs/PIOs, living the UK after Brexit should take their assets/financial savings out
of Broken Kingdom/British companies/British financial banks and re-invest back into India, Pakistan, R.I.C.A/SCO. It is time to give back more to your motherland and to create more job opportunities and business trade sales so that your Countries people can prosper more peacefully while your children always remember the true history culture and traditions of you and your ancestors who fought to free the Countries lands from the British Raj/British Empire. In the 21st Century with all its technology advancements the Western Mainstream media cannot white wash the real truths with anymore fake news to brainwash or mislead the innocent good true people of this world.

India and Pakistan must peacefully unite on several fronts without having any western political games, western fake news, western false flag terrorism acts or western politicians/businesses
infecting their countries/peoples true values of what is right in this world.

After the India elections of 2019, the new leading party of India must strengthen closer ties with its neighbours of China, Russia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, South East Asia and Middle East. Closer ties should also be made with African Countries and some South American Countries who are not swayed or puppets of western Imperialism. The new USA Companies and Native American businesses should be included once they have been fully verified and licensed by us at the World Homeland Security/Smartechno Group Of Companies with our C8IND Meta Modules software/ Humint hit squad units so that the risks are completely eliminated while the trade and sales deals/projects are successfully as concluded without any losses. We are there increasing peaceful justice and true education for all good peaceful people irrespective of one’s Country, Culture or Religious Beliefs so that more peace prevails so that our children can grow and blossom being more human caring towards each other. It is not hard to make a decision when you know what your “True” values are!

(Writer is Global Chairman and Group President of The World Homelandsecurity/ Smartechno Group of Companies) www. worldhomelandsecurity.one