Secularism: A concept most misunderstood!

Letsbuildpakistan.com

by:Dur-e-Aden It is almost a sin to mention the word secularism in Pakistan. Suddenly you are bombarded with labels of being pro-western, anti-Islam, ashamed of your values, threat to identity of the nation, as a result of which you are not a true Pakistani or a good Muslim. People associate secularism with the images of clubbing, partying, drinking, promiscuity, prostitution, broken family structure, mental diseases and all other ills that are associated with western culture. The idea being that when these societies moved away from religion, they became materialistic and lost their sense of morality, as a result of which they are suffering from these social disasters today. It is very true that religion is an important source of morality. Some of our basic senses of right and wrong come from religious teachings whether it’s respect for human life, caring for the poor, modesty and respect in personal relationships or refraining from materialistic pursuits of the world; these are very important and valuable concepts that help to build up the character of a person. The misguided idea however, is that to build such a character among people, religion has to be a part of the state structure and imposed on people forcefully. Muslims who demand a religious state forget to notice that it is actually Muslims who prove this idea wrong that secularism is a threat to your religious values. For example, there is a large number of Muslims who live in secular western societies where Islam is not part of the state, yet they don’t do any of the things that are common place in those countries and which we think are not “our values.” Even though Islam is not a part of western governmental structure, this doesn’t mean that it is a threat to the beliefs of Muslims living in those countries. This is a very important point that people need to understand. Secularism merely means separation of church/mosque and the state. In other words, your state and its institutions don’t adhere to a religion. It certainly doesn’t mean that you yourself have to leave your religion. In fact, in a secular society, you will have more freedom to practice your particular interpretation of a religion which is very much limited in a state where anyone ideological religion interpretation is part of the state apparatus. Let’s talk about Pakistan. Here we have Brelvies, Deobandis, Imamis, Ismaelis, Zikris, mystic Sufis, Wahabis and Ahmadis. Now if we want to make Pakistan an “Islamic” country, this means that Islam has to be a part of the state and all its functions, from education, to laws, to foreign policy, to treatment of minorities etc. Now which version are we going to adopt? (Especially when even within one version, there are disagreements. Not all Hanafis agree on everything, neither all Shafi’s). Moreover, what gives one particular version the right to impose itself on others? (I am not even talking about non-Muslim minorities here, just talking about divisions within Muslims). May be if we agreed on what “Islam” is, the argument to make Pakistan an “Islamic” country would be stronger, but considering the diversity that we have within Islam, incorporation of religion with the state is only going to increase resentment among the groups who would be left out, and sectarian violence by those who would consider their version right and others’ wrong. We have already experimented with this bloody business during Zia years when one ideological interpretation of religion became part of the state and now that cancer has engulfed our society. Secondly, the moral degradation of western societies is not a result of secularism. It’s a result of abandonment of religion or other sources of moral ethics in their personal sphere as well, something that we don’t have to worry about. It is because in our society, along with all the modernity, religion is still and will continue to be a very important part of our everyday lives. That is why I think that secularism would be perfect for our society as even though we may differ on complex matters regarding interpretations, there are a lot of commonalities that we take pride in by calling them “our values.” Moreover, if you look at Pakistan today, it’s not an “Islamic” country in the full sense of the word (whatever that means in the first place?). Despite the inclusion of certain religious clauses, our laws are largely secular and so is our society in their everyday lives. We have people wearing niqabs and people wearing jeans, we have women running for Parliament and stay at home mothers, we have people with beards and those who are clean-shaven, we have people listening and performing music and those who tend to refrain from such activities. Now I am pretty sure none of these classes of society would want their way of life to be banned, and that can only happen in a secular society. Otherwise, if you have one religious interpretation guiding the lives of people who come from diverse social and ethnic backgrounds, result will be chaotic. People don’t really like much interference in their personal lives and state should be concerned with matters that affect the society as a whole. Now getting back to “our values” which are always so threatened, I just want to give one example, let’s take drinking. Majority of the Muslims don’t like the idea of legalizing alcohol as it is clearly prohibited by Islam. However, if you want to make a law regarding its prohibition in the country, you can and should make other logical/valid arguments as to why it is harmful, because it causes addiction, drunk driving accidents, can be a cause of increase in domestic violence/abusive families etc. Moreover, other countries ban drugs too depending on how much harm they will cause to a society so there is no clear cut line as to what drugs should and shouldn’t be legalised. As far as minorities are concerned, if they are not discriminated on other more important basic rights, they probably won’t mind as they also understand that sometimes majority considerations are important in order to avoid conflicts. For example, when Muslims live in other countries that do sell alcohol, they might not fully agree with it they have to accept the decision of what the majority wants. My point here is certainly not to say that minority voices are not important or that they should be ignored at the expense of majority. I just want to point out a political reality. Even the most liberal/modern/secular societies haven’t been able to completely remove the influence of religion on their political decisions. It is a thing that people take seriously and you cannot completely erase its influence in the public sphere especially when adherents of one particular faith have such a vast majority (97% Muslims in case of Pakistan). The point that I want to emphasize is that when majority won’t see their values being compromised, they won’t see minorities as a threat and this will stop strong anti-minority feelings to be developed. As a result, more important issues of minorities can be brought to forefront and resolved. Moreover, generally I have observed that minorities in Pakistan don’t have a huge list of demands and I think that they do understand that being in a Muslim majority country, certain practices of Muslims will affect their public life. Still, all minorities want is to be treated equally with regards to other citizens and not discriminated in their day to day affairs on the basis of their identity. This thing can be seen in the West as well that when certain Muslim practices are suddenly seen as a threat to modern, liberal values, it only ends up increasing discrimination against them; whereas Muslims normally just want to have the freedom to go about their everyday lives without being hunted on the basis of their identity. There are certain policies in the west that clearly run against Islamic principles/values, but even if those Muslims disagree with them, changing them at the state level is not a part of their agenda. Politics is a business of compromises as you can never make everyone happy. Using this analogy, I think that minorities in Pakistan would prefer that we give them complete freedom in their private sphere and treat them as equal citizens with regards to fundamental rights that everybody should be entitled to including the right to vote and run for office and have a voice in making of policies. As a result they would also accept and realize that sometimes national policies might be more influenced by majority demands than that of minorities, even when minority voices are listened to and accounted for. A secular, democratic state is what our founders thought Pakistan would grow up to be when this country was born. When our grandparents migrated from across the border leaving everything behind, they came to be a part of the country where in the course of time Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Hindus, not in a religious sense, because that’s everyone’s private matter, but in the political sense, as citizens of the state. A country where everything is being blown into pieces and whose countrymen are always so ready to be at each other’s throat is not the land of pure that was formed after years of struggles. Just as people were united for the formation of this country despite many different ethnic and religious identities, that unity is now needed more than ever to sustain it which belongs to us, all of us, irrespective of our religion, caste or creed. That was the Pakistan that Jinnah gifted us, and that is the Pakistan that we have to get back. It’s ours and God willing, it will remain ours.

America’s Place in the New World

By CHARLES A. KUPCHAN

IT’S election season again, and the main contenders for the Oval Office are knocking themselves out to reassure Americans that their nation remains at the pinnacle of the global pecking order. Mitt Romney recently declared that “this century must be an American century.” Not to be outdone, President Obama insisted in his State of the Union address that “anyone who tells you that America is in decline” doesn’t “know what they’re talking about.”

Mr. Romney and Mr. Obama might overdo it a bit, but they’re actually not far off the mark. Despite two draining wars, sluggish growth and a diffusion of power from the West to China and the “rising rest,” a combination of economic resilience and military superiority will keep the United States at or near the top for decades.

Still, they’re missing the point. The most potent challenge to America’s dominance comes not from the continuing redistribution of global power, but from a subtler change: the new forms of governance and capitalism being forged by China and other rising nations.

The democratic, secular and free-market model that has become synonymous with the era of Western primacy is being challenged by state capitalism in China, Russia and the Persian Gulf sheikdoms. Political Islam is rising in step with democracy across the Middle East. And left-wing populism is taking hold from India to Brazil. Rather than following the West’s path of development and obediently accepting their place in the liberal international order, rising nations are fashioning their own versions of modernity and pushing back against the West’s ideological ambitions.

As this century unfolds, sustaining American power will be the easy part. The hard part will be adjusting to the loss of America’s ideological dominance and fashioning consensus and compromise in an increasingly diverse and unwieldy world.

If American leaders remain blind to this new reality and continue to expect conformity to Western values, they will not only misunderstand emerging powers, but also alienate the many countries tired of being herded toward Western standards of governance.

This transition won’t be easy. Since the founding era, the American elite and the public have believed in the universality of their model. The end of the cold war only deepened this conviction; after the collapse of the Soviet Union, democratic capitalism seemed the only game in town. But the supposed “end of history” didn’t last. Many developing nations have recently acquired the economic and political wherewithal to consolidate brands of modernity that present durable alternatives.

The last 30 years of Chinese development, for example, look nothing like the path followed by Europe and North America. The West’s ascent was led by its middle class, which overturned absolute monarchy, insisted on a separation of church and state and unleashed the entrepreneurial and technological potential vital to the Industrial Revolution. In contrast, the authoritarian Chinese state has won over its middle class, and with reason: its economy outperforms those of Western competitors, enriching its bourgeoisie and lifting hundreds of millions out of poverty.

And in today’s fast and fluid global economy, the control afforded by state capitalism has its distinct advantages, which is precisely why Russia, Vietnam and others are following China’s lead.

The Middle East is similarly set to confound American expectations. Participatory politics may be arriving in the region, but most of the Muslim world recognizes no distinction between the realms of the sacred and the secular; mosque and state are inseparable, ensuring that political Islam is returning as coercive regimes fall. A poll last year revealed that nearly two-thirds of Egyptians want civil law to adhere strictly to the Koran, one of the main reasons Islamists recently prevailed in the country’s parliamentary elections.

And Egypt is the rule, not the exception. If nothing else, the Arab Spring has shown that democratization does not equal Westernization, and that it is past time for Washington to rethink its longstanding alignment with the region’s secular parties.

True, rising powers like India and Brazil are stable, secular democracies that appear to be hewing closely to the Western model. But these countries have democratized while their populations consist mainly of the urban and rural poor, not the middle class. As a result, both nations have embraced a left-wing populism wary of free markets and of representative institutions that seem to deliver benefits only to a privileged elite.

Rising democracies are also following their own paths on foreign policy, foiling America’s effort to turn India into a strategic partner. New Delhi is at odds with Washington on issues ranging from Afghanistan to climate change, and it is deepening commercial ties with Iran just as America is tightening sanctions. Standing up to America still holds cachet in India and Brazil, one reason New Delhi and Brasília line up with Washington less than 25 percent of the time at the United Nations.

Washington has long presumed that the world’s democracies will as a matter of course ally themselves with the United States; common values supposedly mean common interests. But if India and Brazil are any indication, even rising powers that are stable democracies will chart their own courses, expediting the arrival of a world that no longer plays by Western rules.

The 21st century will not be the first time the world’s major powers embraced quite different models of governance and commerce: during the 17th century, the Holy Roman Empire, Ottoman Empire, Mughal Empire, Qing Dynasty and Tokugawa Shogunate each ran its affairs according to its own distinct rules and culture.

But these powers were largely self-contained; they interacted little and thus had no need to agree on a set of common rules to guide their relations.

This century, in contrast, will be the first time in history in which multiple versions of order and modernity coexist in an interconnected world; no longer will the West anchor globalization. Multiple power centers, and the competing models they represent, will vie on a more level playing field. Effective global governance will require forging common ground amid an equalizing distribution of power and rising ideological diversity.

With that in mind, Washington should acknowledge that America’s brand of capitalism and secular democracy must now compete in the marketplace of ideas.

To be sure, even as it adopts a more pluralistic approach, the United States should defend not just its interests, but also its values. It should continue to promote democracy, stand resolute in the defense of human rights and do what it can to stop indiscriminate violence of the sort unleashed by Syria’s government.

But American leaders do their country no service when they trumpet a new American century or topple governments in the name of spreading Western values. Doing so will drive away the very nations the United States needs on its side to confront dangerous pariahs and manage a world in which power is broadly shared.

Standing by its own values while also recognizing that there are alternative forms of responsible and responsive governance would ultimately elevate the nation’s moral authority, making it more likely that other countries would be as respectful of America’s preferences as America should be of theirs.

Charles A. Kupchan is a professor of international relations at Georgetown, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, and the author of “No One’s World: The West, the Rising Rest, and the Coming Global Turn.”

Pakistan: The two nation theory

http://www.marxist.com

Written by Lal Khan

For the last 65 years, the attempt of Pakistan’s ruling class to impose numerous anniversary celebrations aimed at instilling nationhood has failed to resonate with society below. The media-hyped cricket hysteria, the patriotism orchestrated by the state and the distorted history in the school syllabus, whose objective is to foment national pride amongst the deprived and destitute masses has abysmally failed. Their suffering and agony does not leave much room for them to celebrate. The compromising historians make us believe that on March 23, 1940 a resolution was passed that laid the foundations on which Pakistan was created. A similar communal and chauvinistic version of history dominates the scene in India. However, it is not as simple as that. The story of independence as peddled since 1947 is linked to the politics and the interests of the pre- and post-partition elite. Although a successful conspiracy can always finds ways and means of officialising it, there also exists the retribution of history. The concept of the “Muslim nation” does not correspond to the realities and the historical developments that led to this fate. If Muslims were one nation then why does one need a visa for Saudi Arabia or Indonesia? There is hardly any so-called Muslim country where a Pakistani Muslim could enter without restrictions. On the other hand if the question was posed: “When did the Muslims become a distinct nation in the Indian subcontinent?”, it would be impossible for the historians of the confessional state to elicit a common answer. The same is true for the question of the Shi’a-Sunni and numerous other theological interpretations of various shades of orthodoxy representing varying levels of obscurantism. Aren’t the Baloch, Sindhi, Pashtun, Kashmiri and Punjabi nations? What has been missing from the official versions is the real causes of partition and the vested interests that it has served. The central tenet of the British colonial state was the Roman principle of “divide et impera” and religion was amongst the instruments used to execute this policy in connivance with the local elite propped up by the Raj. It was from this elite that the politicians of the Indian Congress and the Muslim League were drawn. The Muslim League was formed by the Muslim aristocracy under the guidance of William A J Archbold, who was a broker between them and the Viceroy and Governor-General of India in 1906, Gilbert John Elliot-Murray-Kynynmound, fourth Earl of Minto. The Congress, on the other hand, was created by a British bureaucrat Allan Octavian Hume in 1885. Most of these native politicians were to satisfy amply Lord Macaulay’s contrivance that he asserted in his 1834 Minute on Education: “Indian in blood and colour, but English in taste, in opinions, in morals and in intellect.” It was the British Raj that introduced the column of religion in the census of 1872. In 1934, the Principal of the Mohammadan Anglo Oriental College, Aligarh, Sir Theodore Morrison wrote, “The Hindus and Muslims were two distinct nations... the Muslims should rest assured that they were not alone in their concern for the preservation of their characteristic civilisation.” Winston Churchill described Hindu-Muslim antagonism as, “a bulwark of British rule in India”, and noted that, “Were it to be resolved, their concord would result in the united communities joining in showing us the door.” In his paper Harijan, Gandhi wrote on April 7, 1946 that, “To accept this unholy combination (of Hindus and Muslims indulging in strikes would mean delivering India to the rabble.” In February 1946 at the peak of the naval revolt against British rule, Jinnah released a press statement to the Bombay Free Press Journal: “I appeal to all Royal Indian Navy men... particularly; I call upon the Muslims to stop and create no further trouble until we are in a position to handle this very serious situation.” The Congress, the Muslim League and the British were inexorably aligned due to the revolutionary situation to preserve capitalism and break class unity and the struggle. This truth cannot be concealed for long from the annals of history. What is even more ironic is that after the massive general strike of February 1946 and the growing revolt within the army, navy, air force and the police, the British were desperate to leave India. Several missions were sent to devise an amicable handing over of power while keeping the exploitative system intact. The Cabinet Mission came to India on March 23 and published its plan on May 16. According to this plan there would have been no partition of the subcontinent. Instead it proposed a confederation of three units with the currency, communications, defence and foreign policy to be dealt with by the central government. Jinnah and the central working committee of the Muslim League accepted the plan after intense deliberations. This was an unambiguous rescinding of the Lahore (Pakistan) Resolution of March 23, 1940. The foremost protagonists of the two-nation theory had discarded it. The secession of East Bengal in 1971 decisively annulled its validity. Congress President Maulana Abul Kalam Azad also accepted the plan. On July 7, the All India Congress Committee approved the plan. However, Nehru taking over the presidency of the Congress from Azad, held a provocative press conference on July 10 and wrecked the plan, paving the way for a bloody partition. The incendiary role of Edwina Mountbatten at the behest of the conservative sections of the English bourgeoisie in Nehru’s outburst stands exposed today. This infuriated Jinnah and the Muslim League that had backed off from the demand for Pakistan with extreme restraint. On July 27, Jinnah rejected the plan and reiterated the demand for partition. Azad wrote about those stormy events in his epic work, India Wins Freedom: “I warned Jawaharlal that history’s verdict would be that India was divided not by the Muslim League but by the Congress.” This partition was one of the most brutal genocides in the twentieth century. Millions were slaughtered, mainly in Punjab and Bengal. Sixty-five years after ‘independence’, almost half of the world’s hunger, poverty, disease and deprivation inhabits this subcontinent. The British Raj’s serious strategists knew well that without partition on a religious basis, the national liberation struggle would not stop at national independence but would go forward on to social liberation, overthrowing capitalism and doing away with imperialist plunder. On March 23, 1931, the legendary martyr of this struggle, Bhagat Singh, at the age of 23, along with his comrades Sukhdev and Raj Guru, were assassinated on the gallows by the imperialists, also in Lahore. In one of his last speeches Bhagat Singh had said, “I reject any freedom where British exploiters are replaced by native elites. The only genuine independence can be achieved through a Socialist Revolution.” That mission still seeks its redemption. History poses this challenge to the new generation. The writer is the editor of Asian Marxist Review and International Secretary of Pakistan Trade Union Defence Campaign. He can be reached at ptudc@hotmail.com [This article was originally published in the Pakistani Daily Times]

What would a Socialist Pakistan look like?

In Pakistan today millions of people feel the pain of hunger and suffer from diseases for which they receive no treatment. Under capitalism medicine, like everything else, is used for exploitation, not for treatment. In a Socialist Pakistan no man or woman will die of preventable disease. No child will go to bed hungry. There will be medicine for everybody.

Consider the state of education. In our country 65 percent of children do not go to school. Millions of children are being denied basic education. I have a newspaper before me. But what good is a newspaper to a person who does not know what is written there? Illiteracy is darkness. It is a crime against humanity. Just like medicine, education under capitalism is regarded as a business. In a Socialist Pakistan education will be free for everybody and illiteracy will be a thing of the past. So useless and degenerate is the bourgeoisie of Pakistan that they cannot even provide the people with electricity. The provision of electricity ought to be a basic right in a civilised society. Yet every day millions of poor families have to suffer the torture of load-shedding [selective power cuts] and outages [power failures]. The crisis of electricity is the direct result of privatisation that was carried out underr a “democratic” regime in 1994-95. The private electricity companies produce far more electricity than they use. The potential is there to provide electricity, but it is not being used. These companies remit profits of between 3 to 4 billion US dollars every year to other countries. And Pakistan is in darkness. Why don’t these companies run on full capacity? It is because it is not profitable enough. In a Socialist planned economy such a monstrous thing would be unthinkable. A Socialist government would begin by renationalising the entire power sector, and also nationalising all the big companies involved in hydroelectric schemes, coal mining, gas, oil and all other fuels. Who produces the electricity in any case? Not the parasitic owners, but the workers. Once we have removed the parasites, we could solve this problem in one hour! Lal Khan The PPP Government is always promising to put an end to load-shedding. But these are empty promises because Nawaz Sharif, Zardari, Gilani and other right-wing politicians are not prepared to tackle the big power corporations. Of course, their houses do not lack electricity! As always, it is the poor people who suffer and the price of electricity is rising all the time, so that the poor people are subsidising the rich. Why should this be the case? Pakistan has huge resources which are not being tapped. In Balochistan there are estimated deposits of 1500 billion cubic feet of gas under the ground, and also vast reserves of coal. Why can’t they use these resources for the benefit of society? Instead, these valuable resources will be plundered by big foreign companies, aided and abetted by their local agents in the governments of Pakistan. Pakistan need not be a poor country. We have plenty of resources, but our corrupt Pakistani ruling class has never been able to use these resources for the benefit of the nation ever since it was established. Just look at how the wealth of Pakistan is being wasted! Sixty percent of the nation’s budget goes to pay the interest on debt. Every year vast sums of money squeezed from the workers and peasants of Pakistan flows out of the country and into the hands of foreign bankers and capitalists. The first measure of a Socialist government would be to immediately cancel all foreign debts. The truth is that these debts have already been paid time and again. Not a single rupee more must be paid to the parasites. In addition, a Socialist government would introduce a state monopoly of foreign trade, and strictly control all movements of money in and out of the country. After paying 60 percent of our national wealth to foreign bankers and capitalists, a further 30 percent is generously handed over to the Pakistani army to pay for new toys for the generals to play with, as well as furnishing them with big houses, flashy cars and fat bank balances. And what is left for the people of Pakistan after all this plunder has taken place? A miserable 10 percent is all that is left over to pay for things like healthcare, education, housing, transport and infrastructure. Only 0.4 percent is spent on people’s health, and a disgraceful 1.5 percent on education. These barbarous figures are a real condemnation of the rotten Pakistani bourgeoisie. Because of this plunder, Pakistan cannot afford to spend money on research and development which is needed to modernise our industry, renew our crumbling infrastructure and exploit our huge natural resources. It is the same story elsewhere in the so-called developing world. Nigeria is floating on a sea of oil, but its people are going hungry. It is not a lack of resources that causes these problems but the barbarous capitalist system itself. I have before me a bottle of mineral water. On the label is written the word Nestlé. This is typical of the situation of Pakistan today. Everything is dominated by giant foreign monopolies, especially the food sector. This means ever higher prices for basic foodstuffs. The capitalists are creating artificial shortages in order to increase prices. For them food is a commodity like any other, something to be used for speculation and profiteering. As a result, millions of people go hungry. A Socialist government in Pakistan would put an end to this barbarism by nationalising the productive forces and placing them at the service of the people. Socialism means production for the satisfaction of human needs and not for the sake of private profit. That is the essential difference between capitalism and socialism. Agriculture is a vital part of our national economy. In the past, the Stalinists talked a lot of nonsense about the domination of “feudalism” in Pakistan. But in Pakistan feudalism was long ago replaced by capitalist relations of production, including in agriculture. The failure of Pakistani capitalism is reflected in the remains of feudal thought and vast landed estates. Everywhere cash dominates. In 1974 Z.A. Bhutto tried to reform agriculture and even proposed to nationalise the land. But this was sabotaged by the feudal lords who handed over the titles of the land to the banks for cash. We will certainly nationalise both the land and the banks, and hand over the land to the people who cultivate it. We will encourage the peasants to enter collective farms where they will cease to be peasants and become agricultural workers with decent wages, houses, and access to schools and doctors, and decent pensions. Large-scale collective farms permit the use of the most modern technology, machinery and irrigation, which will vastly increase agricultural productivity. The application of new methods such as genetic engineering will enable us to grow new kinds of crops. Food shortages and high prices will be a thing of the past. Lenin explained the law of combined and uneven development, which we see very clearly here in Pakistan. You can see the most modern highways next to a peasant hut, which has hardly changed for 1000 years. Only under Socialism will Pakistan experience a real development: a planned economy will mean that modern technology will be freed from the shackles of profits and be placed at the service of human beings. It will be a very easy thing to satisfy everybody’s basic needs. At present, even the most basic human needs are not being met. Sixty percent of children in Pakistan suffer from stunted growth because of malnutrition. Almost 80 percent of our people are living on the verge of poverty. Let us look at yet another crime of capitalism: transport. In order to consolidate their rule over India, the British built the railways which for the first time really united the Subcontinent. That was undoubtedly a progressive step, although it was taken for the purpose of exploitation. But since independence the rotten Pakistani bourgeoisie has destroyed the railways. As a result, we have a chaotic situation on the roads. There are a lot of cars and no roads, and nowhere to park. Our towns and cities are clogged with traffic, with dreadful pollution, noise, accidents and deaths every day. A Socialist government will nationalise all transport and replace the present chaos with an integrated, planned national transportation system, including road, rail, air and sea transportation. The cost of travelling has become prohibitive. A Socialist transport system will provide cheap, efficient and clean transport for all. It could even be possible to have free public transport, at least within the cities. The bourgeoisie is destroying the railways because railways require resources which the capitalists are not willing to provide. The nationalised railways in Pakistan must be under the control of the workers. Let the workers elect the managers! I propose that the Managing Director of Pakistan Railways should be comrade Fazl-e-Qadir. I am sure he will make a better job of it than the present management! [Laughter and applause]. Ever since partition, the ruling class of Pakistan has been telling lies about our history. These lies are taught to children in the schools. They have assiduously built up the cult of Jinnah. But the real history of this land does not belong to Jinnah; it belongs to revolutionaries like Bhaghat Singh [the young revolutionary hero of the struggle against British imperialism who was executed by the British in 1931] [applause]. What has the bourgeoisie achieved in more than six decades? Look around you! See how dirty, chaotic and run-down everything is. There is not even proper sewage. There is a bad smell everywhere. The houses are crumbling. People are forced to live in stinking slums which are not fit for human habitation, while the rich live in palaces. Housing is a basic human need and the present situation is intolerable. As an immediate step to solve the problem of homelessness, a Socialist government in Pakistan will confiscate all empty and unoccupied dwellings, palaces, mansions, etc., and make them available to homeless people. A Socialist government in Pakistan will nationalise all the big building companies, the big cement and brick companies, and the steel and plastic industry. We will launch an emergency crash house building programme aimed at building a million new homes a year. Why should this not be possible? What is needed to build houses? We have plenty of land. There are plenty of bricks and cement lying idle, and much more can be produced. And there are millions of unemployed workers who should be mobilised to build houses, schools and roads. Town planning is non-existent in Pakistan today. Cities like Karachi are a nightmare. They are not fit places for human beings to live in. In a Socialist Pakistan we will guarantee a decent house for every family with plenty of room to live. Rents could be very low or even abolished altogether. In the Soviet Union, housing was practically free, and included free gas, electricity and even telephones. This is entirely possible. A Socialist Pakistan would need to defend itself against enemies – both internal counter-revolutionary forces and foreign intervention. We will therefore require an army, but the army that we require will not be anything like the Pakistani army of today. This is an instrument of repression which is not so much aimed against a foreign enemy as against the people of Pakistan. Just look at the monstrous way they behave in Balochistan and Pukhtunhua! The army top brass have been selected as a special privileged caste. They see themselves as being above the rest of society. They keep the army separated from the people and use it for their own purposes. But the ordinary soldiers come from the working class and the peasantry. They share the same problems. While the top generals live a life of luxury, it is the ordinary soldiers, NCOs and junior officers who are sent to the most dangerous places where they are being killed every day. Thus, the army reflects the class contradictions in society. The army of a Socialist Pakistan will be a People’s Army. We stand for the democratisation of the army and the election of officers. The army must be the servant of the people and not the master. In a socialist Pakistan every worker and peasant will be taught the use of arms and provided with basic military training. There will be a People’s Militia in every factory and every village, willing to fight to the death to defend the gains of the Revolution. This will be a deterrent far more powerful than nuclear weapons! The capitalists are constantly increasing exploitation. They talk about increasing productivity, when in reality what they mean is profitability. The two things are not the same. Actually, there is no future for business students under capitalism. Genuine scientific management will only be possible in a Socialist planned economy, where production will be organised under the democratic control of the workers, together with the best scientists, technicians and engineers. A socialist Pakistan will not require a bloated bureaucratic state like the one that presently devours a huge part of the wealth produced by the working class. The running of society will be done far more cheaply and efficiently by the working people themselves, organized in democratically elected committees, like the soviets in Russia in 1917. The word soviet is a Russian word meaning a council. But we have a perfectly good word in our own language, Panchayat, which means the same thing. The Panchayats will decide everything. They will have far more power than the National Assembly. The ordinary people will have confidence in them – which they do not have for any state institution today. And people will no longer live in fear of the state and the police as they do now. We will not need high court judges. Instead of judges there will be People’s Tribunals in every street, village and factory. That will be far more effective in dealing with crime than the present set-up where people do not trust the police or the authorities. Socialist Revolution means the awakening of the people. Revolution will bring the people to their feet, raising them to the level of true human beings and giving them the perspective of a new life. In a Socialist Pakistan the masses will feel for the first time that society really belongs to them. They will feel that nobody can oppress them. Under capitalism people are not free at all. They are slaves of Capital. This is an inhuman society in which people are encouraged to be greedy and compete against each other in an animal struggle for existence. This unhealthy spirit of competition is even inculcated into the minds of little children in the schools. It is an inhuman and immoral philosophy. Socialism will encourage a different outlook, based on human solidarity, in which people will learn to respect each other and help each other. The relations between men and women will be transformed, on the basis of complete equality. In order to assure the future of the human race, the two main obstacles in the way of progress must be abolished. These obstacles are private ownership of the means of production and the nation state. The present frontiers of Pakistan, in fact, are completely artificial. The American socialist John Reed wrote a marvellous book about the Russian Revolution called Ten Days that Shook the World. In the same way, a Socialist Pakistan will immediately shake all Asia to the foundations. It will be an irresistible beacon to the masses in India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Afghanistan, Nepal, Iran and further afield. A Socialist revolution in Pakistan would very quickly spread to India and Bangladesh. In place of the old artificial frontiers the workers and peasants of the Subcontinent will create a Socialist Federation with full autonomy for all the different nationalities. The establishment of a Socialist Federation of the Subcontinent will put an end to the nightmare of fratricidal wars, national oppression and communalism. It will represent a giant step towards a Socialist World Federation. We will defend the right of self-determination. If the people of Balochistan wish to set up their own state we will not oppose it. However, it is our fervent belief that the interests of all the peoples can best be served by joining together in a voluntary, free and equal Federation. By combining the vast resources of the whole Subcontinent in a democratic socialist plan, we can realise the limitless potential of this land. Under a planned economy a growth rate of ten percent per annum would be a very modest target. This will mean a doubling of the economy within the space of a couple of five year plans. This will be more than sufficient to achieve the total eradication of poverty, homelessness and illiteracy. But the satisfaction of basic human needs is only the starting point of the building of a socialist society. Our aim is to create a society based on superabundance that will enable men and women to develop their full potential as human beings. With the creation of an economy of superabundance, the animal struggle for life will disappear, and with it the material basis of the class struggle. It will transform all aspects of social life, creating the conditions for a genuine cultural revolution. Art, science, literature and music will flourish as never before. When people are freed from want, the state itself will begin to lose its coercive aspect and gradually dissolve into society. A new stage of human development will dawn. In the phrase of Frederick Engels it will be humankind’s leap from the realm of necessity to the realm of freedom.

Mehrangate volcano: 'Asghar Khan moment'

Surely, this is an "Asghar Khan moment" because the ongoing Supreme Court proceedings are centred on the petition filed by him about two decades ago.

Long withheld truths about the working of our Establishment are unfolding in all their dirty dimensions.

But what constitutes the Establishment? In Pakistan's context, it is invariably a group or class of people having institutional authority within the Pakistani society, especially those who control the civil service, the government, the armed forces, and the religious groups and parties: usually identified with a conservative outlook.

One would be only profoundly naïve to deduce that the then-Chairman of Senate of Pakistan, Ghulam Ishaq Khan, was the successor of General Ziaul Haq after the latter died in a C-130 plane crash in Bahawalpur in 1988.

Although, the former became the President of Pakistan, the man who was calling the shots had not ensconced himself in the Presidency in Islamabad but he was still within the four walls of the army headquarters situated in Rawalpindi.

The then army chief, General Aslam Beg, one of the principal characters of the Mehrangate scandal, had allegedly conceived and planned the scheme only to be executed through the most efficient executive arm of the executive: the ISI.

The job of disbursement of money among politicians with a view to depriving the PPP of a victory in the 1990 general election was efficiently carried out by the country's premier intelligence outfit.

The achievement of this "profound" task effected with a lot of finesse and care added a new feather to ISI's cap already having too many feathers thanks to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in the late 1970s.

Since then, both the army and the ISI had taken upon themselves the responsibility of determining what constitutes the national interest.

Working in tandem, both the institutions identified the country's goals and ambitions, whether military or economic.

As considerable disagreement exists in the country over what is or is not in "the national interest," these two institutions or power groups of the Establishment often invoke "the national interests" to justify isolationist and pacifistic policies as to justify interventionist or war-like policies.

Arguably, Kargil misadventure is a case in point.

Since the principal accused in this case is the Inter-Service Intelligence, headed by an appointee of the Chief Executive, and there is its Political Wing established by a civilian prime minister - it would be of interest to the general public why the loot sale made through a private bank remained unexplored for so long.

And why the 'misdeed' of the ISI has come under sharper focus.

Why the simmering Mehrangate volcano has burst with full fury on the national scene now? But the public's right to know the truth in the alleged distribution of public money, a whopping Rs 400 million, by the ISI to ensure the PPP won't come back to the power corridors, should override all other considerations.

Even when the recipients of secret funds vehemently reject the allegations and may turn around to say the whole exercise is aimed at defaming them and undercutting their popularity the task is of finding the whole truth is very much achievable.

But the details spelled out by Younus Habib certainly lift one more layer from this sordid drama.

True, no person with an iota of intelligence would give receipts of receiving the ISI funds and that he would deny the charge with full force.

But the sources of these funds do keep record as a bank will invariably do.

Then, it is also quite plausible that somewhere in the vaults of the ISI there is the record of actual recipients and as to what channel was employed for delivering money to them.

So, the case is not likely to be decided anytime soon, but it is our sanguine expectation that the apex court would go to the bottom of the Mehrangate scam, the guilty would be identified, agencies would be asked to recognise certain 'redlines' and there would be a clear and an unambiguous definition of 'the national interest'.

The greater emphasis of apex court's proceedings should be aimed at contributing to efforts towards the setting up of a 'Truth and Reconciliation Commission' in sharp contrast to Nuremberg Trials and other de-Nazification measures.

Once established through a legislative act, the commission may be empowered to grant amnesty to a person or persons as long as there is full disclosure by the person seeking amnesty.

Indeed, it is a glorious moment of our national history.

Chief Justice of Pakistan has promised to strengthen the institutions, a mission to which the apex court's verdict on the Asghar Khan petition would be a giant step.

East Pakistan, Balochistan, and now Sindh

DAILY TIMES
by:Mohammad Ali Mahar

The PPP was always seen as a ray of hope for the Sindhis for a long time. A kind of last refuge. This administration has brought a common Sindhi to the point where he feels robbed of this hope. If ever there existed a Sindh card, the government has already sold it to its coalition partners for a few years in power

When in the 19th century (1851 AD), Richard Francis Burton wrote about Sindh, he titled his book Scinde, or the Unhappy Valley. And, when Roger Pearce, ICS, penned his memoirs about his experiences in the 20th century Sindh (1938-1948), he named the book Once a Happy Valley. What, one wonders, would a 21st century foreigner title his book were he to venture into today’s molested, manipulated, robbed, unemployed, crime-riddled, dacoit-infested, terrorised Sindh?

Sixteen well-timed bomb explosions on the railway tracks, rocking one end of Sindh to the other, should serve as an alarm bell to those who rule the destiny of otherwise tranquil, though hapless, Sindhis, who never react until an extreme provocation befalls them. What led the slumbered nation to wake up with so much violence needs to be analysed.

I visit Sindh almost every couple of years. As soon as I step outside Karachi, I find the province in worse shape than ever before. I ask people around me to name one sincere politician, bureaucrat, or academic. In response, I receive a blank gaze, as they try to think of one. They can name a few. One elder in a village said to me, “Stop looking for them. Sincere Sindhi leaders have been long been liquidated.” What is left is a miserable lot emasculated through the merciless ‘hidden hands’ or by their greed. Meanwhile, the loot sale of Sindhi resources is on.

The situation is not the work of one day. Throughout the history of Pakistan, except for a brief respite during Zulifiqar Ali Bhutto’s era, Sindh has been denied its fair share in everything. Nawaz Sharif placed a bar on employment in the country in 1996. Ever since that day, the Sindhi youth has seen little in the name of jobs. One sees throngs of unemployed youths loitering in the streets of towns and villages in the province. During the whole Musharraf period, all the economic activity and funds — meaning new jobs — meant for the whole of Sindh, went to the development of the city of Karachi. The dawn of the era at the demise of Musharraf’s misrule has brought forward the bane of nepotism and corruption -- moral as well financial -- where jobs go to either those who can grease the right palms or the scions of the powerful. The poor Sindhi, who is indeed in a vast majority, not related to a political bigwig and with not enough money to buy employment, is jobless as well as helpless. The doors of federal employment are closed to the Sindhi as ever before — statistics produced in parliament in the last few days showed less than a fraction of federal government jobs meant for Sindh-domiciled candidates going to the rightful unemployed.

As regards education and healthcare, the less said the better. To demand those would be tantamount to asking for the stars.

The PPP was always seen as a ray of hope for the Sindhis for a long time. A kind of last refuge. This administration has brought a common Sindhi to the point where he feels robbed of this hope. If there ever existed a Sindh card, the government has already sold it to its coalition partners for a few years in power. The blockage of a bill in the Sindh Assembly against an amendment favouring the division of provinces — a prelude to Sindh’s disintegration in the eyes of a common Sindhi — has only reinforced his sense of betrayal and suspicion of this regime.

The pain hurting the Sindhi body politic is severe, so severe that it has started to be felt even by the far flung Sindhis, forging foreign-based Sindhi organisations such as Sindhi Association of North America (SANA). The natives too view the recent interest of expatriate Sindhis in the affairs and wellbeing of Sindh with renewed hope. The reason the recent conference sponsored by SANA in Karachi has been so very well received is that the common man, as well as the elite in Sindh, have started looking for an alternative. An alternative that could deliver the much needed succour and reforms Sindh so badly craves.

Despite all its good intentions, however, SANA — having held a position of responsibility at its cabinet, I can only speak about SANA — may not be in a position to offer the much needed political support. The reasons being that it is not an organisation aimed for the purpose, and neither is there any desire in the expatriate Sindhis to remote-control Sindh. Whatever the solution, it has to come from within Sindh itself.

And Sindhis understand that too. A very successful rally by the local media mogul, Ali Kazi at Bhit Shah, which was able to gather thousands of people without the support of a political force, may very well have been the fruit of that understanding. But this is what Sindhis can do for themselves. The responsibility also needs to be felt by the real handlers of the destiny of the country.

Zulfikar Ali Bhutto spoke very wisely when he said, in some other context, on September 21, 1968, at the Sindh Convention of PPP: “If this continues...the people will rise in rebellion, and there will be bloodshed and civil war in the country. I am not prophesying. It is logic. I might be accused of spreading rebellion. Well, I will do that, if needed. I fear no one.”

Not learning a lesson from the debacle of East Pakistan has brought Balochistan to the point where it is at the brink of ending its ties with the rest of the country, and the blame is being put on the ‘foreign element’ and the ‘misguided’ Baloch. If the real powers running the country refuse to hear the cries of Sindhis at this time, they would have no one to blame but themselves.

Pakistan Vs. Balochistan

The Huffington Post/
www.thebalochhal.com

By Malik Siraj Akbar

Pakistan has further accelerated violence against its ethnic Baloch minority following an unprecedented hearing of the U.S. House Committee on Foreign Affairs which voiced deep concern over the appalling human rights violations allegedly committed by the army in the country’s largest province of Balochistan. While Pakistan’s foreign office, the embassy in Washington, D.C. and the National Assembly passed a unanimous resolution which “strongly condemned” the hearing by terming it “blatant interference” of the United States into its ‘internal matters,’ rogue intelligence agencies linked to the godlike military have chosen a ruthless path to vent retribution.

On Feb. 13, the bullet-riddled dead body of Sangat Sana Baloch, 27, a prominent leader of the secular Baloch Republican Party (BRP), was dumped in a desolate southern district of Balochistan. The young leader had ‘disappeared’ on Dec. 7, 2009, from a town 50 kilometers away from Quetta, the capital of the gas and gold-rich Balochistan. Considering the pattern of the young leader’s mysterious disappearance which matched with hundreds of previously documented similar cases, Sana’s party pointed fingers at Pakistan’s infamous Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), the secret wing of the army, and its affiliates, for killing the opposition leader.

Sana had been shot 30 times to the head and chest by his captors, family members said.

“This is Islamabad’s reaction to the congressional hearing in Washington which highlighted Pakistan’s crimes against the Baloch,” says Abdul Qadir Baloch, vice chairman of the Voice for the Missing Baloch Persons, a community-based organization comprising of the family members of hundreds of missing activists. The 60-year old-former bank employee joined the campaign after his own 35-year-old son Jalil Reki, BRP’s central information secretary, was whisked away by, he alleges, the spymasters on Feb. 13, 2009.

The BRP demands a separate homeland for the Baloch people.

After two year’s disappearance, Reki’s tortured dead body was eventually thrown on the roadside after Mr. Baloch snubbed official threats to give up the movement seeking the release of the missing persons.

There were no official charges against Mr. Baloch’s son, nor was the latter ever produced before a court of law in these two years to legally defend himself. Pakistan’s judiciary lacks the teeth to bite army agents who abuse their official powers.

In a June 2011 report, the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP), an independent nonpartisan rights watchdog, said the enforced disappearances had created an “acute climate of fear” amongst the civilians and had contributed to the growing alienation of the people from the state and hatred towards the security forces and intelligence agencies under the control of the Pakistan military.

“Young men between 16 to 25 years of age were being particularly targeted. Many of them were either students or unemployed youth. Some of the incidents indicated random picking up of young men, for example, from picnic spots and markets,” reported the HRCP after conducting extensive field research in the conflict-stricken province.

Pakistani authorities have remained engaged since 2004 in brutally suppressing an indigenous uprising, led by the native Balochs, which calls for an end to exploitation and manipulation of their mineral wealth by the dominant Punjabis. What began as a mere demand for maximum internal autonomy until recently, brutal state violence has taken the movement to a point of no-return where the irreconcilable young Balochs seek absolute independence.

The Congressional sub-committee hearing flabbergasted Pakistan by fully backing the Baloch right to self-determination arguing that people had a right to liberate themselves from abusive governments such as Pakistan’s vis-a-vis the Baloch.

“Balochistan deserves our attention because it is a turbulent land marked by human rights violations committed by regimes that are hostile to America’s interests and values,” said GOP Congressman Dana Rohrabacher, who chaired the hearing which was attended by another four Congressmen.

In the aftermath of the hearing, which spotted the loopholes in Pakistan’s justice and governance system, Islamabad — Washington’s inconsistent ally in the war on terror — has not made any promises to work with the international community to steadily halt arbitrary disappearances, torture and targeted killings of political opponents. Instead, diplomats, politicians and even the media in Pakistan have joined hands in calling brutalities against the Baloch as “Pakistan’s internal matter.”

Ironically, Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan, Pakistan’s leader of the opposition, moved a resolution in the parliament on Feb. 13 against the hearing where Human Rights Watch and the Amnesty International representatives also testified and confirmed the misuse of state power against innocent civilians.

Describing the congressional hearing as “totally unacceptable” and “ill-informed,” the Pakistani parliament urged the U.S. Administration to play “a more proactive role” to discourage such events in the future.

“This House strongly condemns the blatant interference in Pakistan’s internal affairs evidenced by U.S. Congressional Foreign Relations Sub-Committee hearing on Balochistan on 8th February, 2012… the holding of such a hearing… cannot but jeopardize the healing process and further inflame public opinion against the U.S. by adding to the prevailing sense of mistrust and suspicion regarding U.S. intentions towards Pakistan,” the resolution warned.

Despite Pakistan’s condemnation of the congressional hearing, U.S. ambassador to Pakistan, Cameron Munter, has repeatedly expressed concern over human rights issues in Balochistan.

“There is no doubt that people in Balochistan are facing human rights abuses,” he said in a fresh interview with a Pakistani newspaper. “U.S. administration should take up the ‘alarming issue’ [of Balochistan] with Pakistani leaders. This is an important issue for us to be discussing with the Pakistani government.”

Ali Dayan Hasan, Pakistan Director at the Asia Division of the Human Rights Watch, who also testified on Feb. 8, takes a blunt position against Pakistan’s objections. He says certain human rights violations, such as torture, do not fall in the category of nations’ “internal matter.” According to him, Pakistan, in spite of being a signatory of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and Convention Against Torture, is not fulfilling its obligations in Balochistan.

“We do not subscribe to the argument that criticizing human rights abusers is interference in internal affairs,” he says, “Torture is a very serious crime which falls under universal jurisdiction … any act of torture or torturer can be held accountable anywhere in the world.”

Mr. Hasan warns Islamabad, “You can’t kill your own people and then call it an internal affair. As long as there is no reaction on the part of the Pakistani government to our reports and recommendations, we will continue to highlight human rights abuses because this is our job and mandate.”

While the Congressional hearing has helped to bring the Balochistan conflict in spotlight, it has also increased the risk of more state-sponsored violence and torture against the Balochs. Seen in the backdrop of the post-hearing killings, the future in Balochistan looks bloody and murky. The congressional event and official expression of deep concern have, unfortunately, generated false but extremely unrealistic expectations among the Baloch youth who have hastily concluded that the U.S. has probably made up its mind to support their “freedom struggle” against Pakistan.

Given the complicated and unmanageable relationship the United States has had with Pakistan, it is clear that Washington enjoys very limited influence on Pakistan. For instance, it has failed to press Pakistan to act like a responsible partner in the War on Terror by cutting links with Islamic terrorist groups. Therefore, it is too naive to hope that the U.S. can truly play a crucial role in ending human rights violations in Balochistan.

Having said that, the U.S. congressional committee, which began the hearing, should now take more responsibility by advancing this initiative to its logical destination by discussing the issue with a broader community of policymakers, defenders of democracy and human rights activists. Dropping the Balochistan issue by the U.S. Congress will remarkably hurt the Baloch who will bear the brunt of what Georgetown University’s C. Christine Fair billed as a “congressional stunt.”

The Obama administration should not suffice with expressing ‘concern’ over the situation in Balochistan. With the testimonies provided by the HRW and Amnesty International, the administration should seriously see what it can do, considering its own limited influence on Pakistan, to stop rights violations and help find out a peaceful political solution to the Balochistan imbroglio.

The administration must not ignore the Baloch because they matter in the region due to their geo-strategic position. After all, they are a secular people surrounded by three countries — Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan — with a staunch inclination toward radical Islam. By weakening the secular Balochs, Pakistan wants to convert Balochistan into a rich soil and a breeding ground for Islamic fundamentalists from all over the world.

Balochistan, East Pakistan and foreign shenanigans

DAILY TIMES
BY:Anushay Malik

When Balochistan ‘voted’ for Pakistan, most of the Baloch tribes were not within the British-administered Balochistan and so were not even part of the decision to form the country

In 1973, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto sent the armed forces into Balochistan to quell the uprising there. This situation would culminate in what is perhaps Pakistan’s least discussed civil war. Roedad Khan’s edited collection of de-classified US State Department papers reveals that Bhutto actually approached US officials asking for their help in resolving the crisis in Balochistan. These officials reported that he seemed “sincere” and at the very beginning at least, their help was limited to conveying correspondence between groups who were refusing to communicate in the context of the conflict. If one were to focus only on the relationship between Bhutto and the US in this case, they would miss the fact that it was only after the legitimate provincial government of Balochistan had been dissolved (by our erstwhile PPP leader), that the resistance began in opposition to what was seen as the writ of the central government and the state.

There are two things happening here — one is the role of the US and one is the specifically national problem within Pakistan. These two can be discussed in their own right but it is important to note that whenever a national conflict arises, it is very convenient for us to forget to point our fingers at ourselves because we are so busy blaming imperialist intervention. Question: is this intervention deeply problematic and do we need to make ourselves less dependent on foreign powers? Yes. However, there is a long history of conflict between the central government and provincial powers, which is not only about the US. Personally, I appreciate all manner of civil, peaceful protest, but saying that no one has a right to talk about Pakistan’s national problems seems to be counterproductive. If the issue of Baloch self-determination has been brought up by the US, does that mean we can never again critically assess the needs of, and problems faced by, the Baloch people?

Perhaps it is easy to forget that the alliance between the national ideology of Pakistan and the ‘right of sovereignty’ that people at a protesting chowk were asking for recently, does not have an easy fit. When Balochistan ‘voted’ for Pakistan, most of the Baloch tribes were not within the British-administered Balochistan and so were not even part of the decision to form the country.

Nonetheless, the promise the country held, and the one that Quaid-e-Azam pushed for initially, was a decentred federation where each province would function autonomously. However, this is not how things played out. Historians writing on Pakistan (and interestingly not included in our school syllabi), have produced many studies showing how this did not actually play out in practice — and the creation of Bangladesh is testament to that. Let us also not forget that when Bangladesh was formed, people in West Pakistan (yes that’s us), and particularly in Punjab, said that Pakistan should not recognise that country because its creation undermined the sovereignty of the state and had been formed in collusion with India. Lesson: we should not only blame our leaders for retrogressive views.

The people making these claims were conflating the legitimate grievances of the Bangladeshis (at that time East Pakistanis) with the illegitimate actions of the Indian state — which were two quite distinct things even if they came together in that one instance. The issue of East Pakistani autonomy had been articulated in terms of language (there were language riots in 1952 in which the rioters were brutally suppressed and West Pakistani newspapers at the time only mentioned it briefly and in passing); the issue of representation in the military, which was being seen as problematic by East Pakistanis everywhere; and crucially, resource allocation, which was being concentrated in the Western wing. Those are the big, macro things we all vaguely know about. On the other hand, the little things that come out of the National Assembly debates of the time include the decision of where to set up television stations (surprise: they were concentrated in West Pakistan); the priority given to refugee reallocation in terms of funds and the set up of employment exchanges in the West; the set up of factories and industry in Karachi through government funds...the list goes on. The point here is that there are so many historical factors that we do not even see that go into the expression of separatist sentiment.

With what seems like a more permanent (fingers crossed) return to democracy, these are questions we now need to think about and pressurise whoever we support to begin thinking about as well: how can the legitimate concerns of provincial powers be addressed? Is it possible for such negotiations to take place not between the military and guerrilla fighters in open conflict (such as happened in Bangladesh in 1971 and Balochistan in 1973) but between political leaders who are dependent on us for our vote?

Whatever we may think within our internal national discussions, history has not vindicated us. Today, there are several books by Bangladeshi nationalists that discuss the country’s history under “West Pakistani colonialism”. And they are not entirely wrong. In the past (and even today), forcing the argument for ‘sovereignty’ down people’s throats has been counterproductive. In the 1950s in Pakistan, Iskander Mirza publicly stated that provincial autonomy was to be equated with the disintegration of Pakistan. As mentioned in the beginning of this article, that is certainly not what Quaid-e-Azam, who surely knew much more and much better than Mirza, had said to the provinces when they joined the country.

This short narrative is not intended to give instruction about the way forward but simply to convey the need to give this issue the seriousness it deserves and not reduce it to an imperialist construct.

The writer is a PhD candidate in the history department at the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London. She can be reached at am114@soas.ac.uk

Jinnah, Imran and Shezan

BY:—Yasser Latif Hamdani
DAILY TIMES

To Jinnah, the question of representation of the legitimate interests of the Muslim minority in United India was a political question and not a religious one. Therefore, a non-Muslim could equally represent the Muslims without any contradiction

The ban on Shezan products by the Lahore Bar Association (LBA) has yet again proved that we are an unthinking, heartless and crooked people as a whole. This ban, which violates at least five of the fundamental rights guaranteed to citizens and other persons under the constitution of Pakistan, is unlikely to be challenged in a court of law because no court of law is going to rule against the high and mighty bar association. The more likely scenario is that the courts will uphold such a bigoted decision and further narrow space for dissent in this country. This writer at least has no hope or faith in Pakistanis of any kind to find it in their hearts to live up to human values of equity and justice, least of all the rabble that passes for lawyers in our time.

Yet I continue to write primarily to set the record straight on two counts. One, the actions of the black sheep that populate this nation state are not and ought not be a reflection on the founder of this nation who — whether our bigots admit it or not — was a man of towering integrity and an inherent sense of justice and fair play and who perhaps is unfortunate enough to be called the founding father of a wretched nation like us. Second, while we are infested with bigots of all shapes and forms, not all of us are like that.

So long as we dare to hope, we are in for constant heartbreak. The all-conquering hero, Imran Khan, claims that he will usher in a new era in Pakistan’s politics by bringing back Quaid-e-Azam’s Pakistan. This hollow promise lured me into supporting the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) for three odd months. Lately, Imran Khan’s party has made common cause with the Jamaat-ud-Dawa (JuD) and other such organisations, which are the antithesis of the fondest hopes Jinnah had for the state he was creating. To make matters worse, the president of the LBA, Chaudhry Zulfiqar Ali, who presided over the ban on the ‘kafir’ (infidel) Shezan soft drink, was supported by Hamid Khan and a bulk of lawyers who identify themselves with the PTI. Apologists for the party now state that Imran Khan has to appeal to a popular base and the Ahmedi issue is only a small matter. It is stated — repeatedly — that Imran Khan is trying to save Pakistan and cannot be bothered with such small matters. May I humbly submit — without offending anyone — that a Pakistan sans Jinnah’s secular vision of equality and justice for all Pakistanis regardless of religion, caste or creed is not a Pakistan worth saving.

While mindful of the sentiments of the people he was leading, Jinnah never made any compromises with bigots. He repeatedly rebuffed Majlis-e-Ahrar’s offers of alliance on the grounds that Majlis-e-Ahrar propagated hate and bigotry against the Ahmedis. On May 23, 1944, Jinnah stated very clearly what his position on the Ahmedi issue was:

“I have been asked a disturbing question, as to who among the Muslims can be a member of the Muslim Conference. It has been asked with particular reference to the Qadianis. My reply is that, as far as the constitution of the All-India Muslim League is concerned, it stipulates that any Muslim, without distinction of creed or sect, can become a member, provided he accepts the views, policy and programme of the Muslim League, signs the form of membership and pays the subscription. I appeal to the Muslims of Jammu and Kashmir not to raise sectarian questions, but instead to unite on one platform under one banner. In this lies the welfare of the Muslims. In this way, not only can Muslims make political and social progress effectively, but so can other communities, and so also can the state of Kashmir as a whole.” (For reference please see Jamil-ud-Din Ahmed, Speeches and Statements, Volume I, pg 148.)

It is reported that one Mr M A Sabir tried as hard as he could to persuade the Quaid-e-Azam to declare the Ahmedis as being out of the fold of Islam. But Mr Jinnah stuck resolutely to his principles and kept on replying: “What right have I to declare a person non-Muslim, when he claims to be a Muslim.”

When in 1943 a resolution was presented in the Muslim League to commit Pakistan to an Islamic polity, Jinnah rejected it and called it a censure on every Leaguer. Jinnah did not let any bigot or expediency dictate his policy; against tremendous pressure Jinnah appointed Zafarullah Khan first to argue Pakistan’s case before the Boundary Commission and then as the foreign minister of the new state. As a gesture that spoke louder than words, he appointed Jogindranath Mandal as his law minister. Mr Mandal, a Hindu, had earlier been nominated by Jinnah on a Muslim seat in the interim government of India. To Jinnah, the question of representation of the legitimate interests of the Muslim minority in United India was a political question and not a religious one. Therefore, a non-Muslim could equally represent the Muslims without any contradiction.

Jinnah’s personal observance (or lack thereof) of religious obligations was well known. He made no effort to hide his thoroughly westernised lifestyle. Repeatedly he told the Muslims that he was not a religious leader and that they should not expect from him anything that his own lifestyle does not conform to. His conduct at political rallies was the same — he did not start his speeches with any religious prayer or supplication. When urged by some ulema (religious scholars) to institute public prayer at League rallies, he replied: “Who is going to lead such a prayer, a Shia? A Deobandi? Who?” This is a far cry from Imran Khan’s recent antics at his jalsas (rallies), including his televised namaz (prayer) during the Lahore jalsa. In fact, Imran Khan’s newfound penchant for starting his speeches with a religious prayer is at odds with his own career as a cricketer and a captain. In 1992, Imran Khan did not begin his speech by the now customary “thanks to Almighty Allah”, though perhaps Imran had more faith than anyone who has led the cricket team before or since. Imran the cricket captain, much like Jinnah the politician, did not wear his religion on his sleeve. Imran Khan the politician is a different story.

Anyone who has even a rudimentary idea about the conflict between the two South Asian greats, Jinnah and Gandhi, knows that Jinnah’s break with Gandhi came over Gandhi’s encouragement of the Islamist Khilafat Movement, which Jinnah considered a bigoted and reactionary undertaking. The Quaid famously told Durga Das that he had nothing to do with the pseudo-religious approach to politics that Gandhi was forwarding. In his otherwise well written book, Pakistan: A Personal History, Imran Khan claims that Jinnah and Gandhi were on the same page vis-à-vis the role of religion in politics. Tragically, this misconception seems to inform the great Khan’s every move these days. At the very least then Imran Khan should stop misleading people like me by making references to Jinnah, so that we may stop hoping and wishing and praying for a new dawn, which seems to be no longer an option or priority for Pakistan’s leaders, including Imran Khan.

The writer is a practising lawyer. He blogs at http://globallegalforum.blogspot.com and his twitter handle is @therealylh

Seeds of 1972 blossomed into Sino-US friendship

By Yu Jincui

This month marks the 40th anniversary of former US President Richard Nixon's icebreaking visit to China.

In 1972, I had lived in China - in Taiwan - and studied Chinese there, but the Nixon visit was my first time on the mainland. One cannot gain much impression of a place when one is limited to official meetings and sightseeing. Still, Beijing and Shanghai then preserved a great deal of the traditional architecture and character that modernization has erased. I had the sense of stepping back in time and into a society that worked at a slower pace than the outside world.

In 1972, China was in the last throes of the Cultural Revolution (1966-76). China was internationally isolated and estranged from both the Soviet Union and the US, both of which it saw as threatening to attack it. China was desperately poor. It sought economic autarky and was not a factor in the global economy. Both Chinese and Americans viewed the Nixon visit to Beijing as a strategic turning point, but neither had any idea how far-reaching its effects would be.

For Americans, who watched the events in Beijing, Hangzhou, and Shanghai on television, the President's visit to China was a voyage of discovery to a land few had known and almost none had seen since the establishment of the People's Republic of China 23 years before. Chinese were told to stay off the streets and keep their peace during the visit. They made no fuss of the visit but were aware that something extraordinary was happening.

The immense prestige of Chairman Mao was invoked to legitimize the strategic reorientation that the visit accomplished. Most but not all Americans and Chinese applauded the statesmanship and vision of their leaders. A few on both sides could not overcome past feelings of enmity and were opposed.

The forces that have made China a respected participant in global governance and a major factor in the global economy were first unleashed in February 1972. Within six years, the very limited Sino-US interaction that the Shanghai Communiqué facilitated led to the process of reform and opening-up that has transformed China, its role in the world, and the world itself.

The Nixon visit showed that China and the US were capable of rising above the major differences we had at the time and cooperating for mutual advantage. February 1972 saw the beginning of a process of rapprochement in which, with much hard work by both sides, the differences between us steadily narrowed.

In the following 40 years, we have developed habits of cooperation to replace the mutual isolation of the past. We have gone from enmity to partnership in almost every field of human endeavor. We have come to respect each other, even as we sometimes differ.

Today, there are still a few serious disputes between the US and China but there is far better mutual understanding, differences are much less, and constructive dialogue takes place between us at all levels. The relationship begun by a few officials on both sides in 1972 has grown to have deep roots in the two peoples.

The past 40 years have brought enormous progress in our relations. There will continue to be incidents, arguments, and twists and turns as we move forward but I see no reason that the next 40 years should not register even more progress.

As the recent visit of Chinese Vice President Xi Jinping to the US illustrates, our leaders now consider it entirely normal to visit and talk to each other. Both Americans and Chinese have come to understand how important it is for our two countries to explore ways to work together to the common advantage. In 1972, we had no relationship at all. Now we are interdependent. Our interactions, non-existent or indirect 40 years ago, are now the most consequential in the world.

We have come a very long way from the hostile relationship of 40 years ago and we should by now have learned not attribute malevolent intent to each other when our only basis for doing so is speculative or a priori reasoning.

The article was complied by Global Times reporter Yu Jincui based on a written interview with Chas Freeman, a retired diplomat who now chairs a global business development firm, Projects International, Inc. He was the principal US interpreter during President Nixon's path-breaking visit to China in 1972. yujincui@globaltimes.com.cn

Balochistan: the ISI and the media

Daily Times
By:Dr Qaisar Rashid
Gradually, the relationship between the media and the ISI turned symbiotic and some quarters of the media took upon themselves the job of defending publicly every act of the ISI

Perhaps the world would have been a better place to dwell in if military solutions to political issues had been successful. In that case, there would have been no need of long-drawn political dialogues and negotiations since they consume time. If the Pakistan Army had solved the Bangladesh problem, its standing on Balochistan would have been valued.

The Arab Spring put a point across effectively that no arm of the state can muffle the voice of the people by coercion — even if the voices were of dissent. The fall of President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt was big news for Pakistan, as his era kept on inspiring the military commanders in Pakistan to take over the civil setup and introduce a controlled parliament. General Pervez Musharraf aped Hosni Mubarak in the political sphere by installing a puppet parliament — though Musharraf also tried to replicate the Turkish model in the social sphere. Anyway, having been ravaged by the Arab Spring, no Arab country is now ready to support — whether politically or economically — a military takeover in Pakistan. Democracy reigns supreme!

A question that irks many Pakistanis is: if a bicycle is stolen from the streets of Bhai Pheru, the news of the theft is broadcast on the national electronic media as breaking news; TV talk shows invite experts to speak on the cause and effect of the theft; judicial activism is called for; national interests are felt threatened; rumours of the tumbling of the government consequently may make the rounds; so why is the media (both print and electronic) silent on the situation in Balochistan?

The decade of the Afghan war (1979-89) might have yielded numerous fruit to Pakistan but it infused one major factor into the socio-political sphere of Pakistan: the overwhelming role of Pakistan’s spy agency, the ISI. The post-1991 era witnessed the ISI poking its nose into every socio-political affair. The role of the ISI during the Afghan war might have made Pakistanis revere it but its role in the post-1991 era has instilled fear in the hearts of Pakistanis. The legal option of ‘preventive detention’ has been successfully — and disgracefully — exploited by the intelligence agencies, including the ISI.

It was not only the socio-political domain that was swept by the ‘ISI-wave’ but also the media. Reporters of several dailies had to rely on the ISI for obtaining new information. The fear of the ISI also helped intensify that reliance. Some, if not many, reporters and editors could not afford infuriating the ISI by publishing news disapproved by it. Gradually, the relationship between the media and the ISI turned symbiotic and some quarters of the media took upon themselves the job of defending publicly every act of the ISI. Some critics think that the flow of funds from the ISI bags to the pockets of certain media people also played its due role. The term ‘lifafa’ (envelope) journalism was also coined. Perceivably, to be on the payroll of an intelligence agency such as the ISI may be a big achievement as the consequent status offers a guarantee of protection, career advancement, economic prosperity and whatnot to the beneficiary. Then why die for a cause such as Balochistan: avoid speaking and writing on such issues and live a long, happy and prosperous life.

Later on, the symbiotic relationship also infested the electronic media. Perceivably, the popularity rating of several reporters, editors and anchorpersons now depend on the information supplied by the intelligence agencies, especially the ISI. The beneficiaries reciprocate by defending all acts of the ISI. One can surmise that the carrot-and-stick policy of the ISI is controlling the media. Against that background, do the Baloch now understand why the issues related to them are not highlighted in (some sections of) the (print and electronic) media?

Another problem is that neither any national daily (Urdu or English) nor any national electronic channel has its head office in Quetta. Consequently, the voice of the Baloch cannot be heard across Pakistan. Otherwise, Pakistanis generally are not so callous as to not pay any heed to the voice of the Baloch.

The word ‘controlled’ is the bane of Pakistan. Certainly, if someone is not ready to be ‘controlled’, he or she can be ‘silenced’. Nevertheless, if journalists and writers are fearful of being ‘silenced’ in case they write and speak the truth, Pakistan cannot be changed. The truth is that the media is compromised on the issue of Balochistan owing to the ISI factor. By the way, what is the worth of this compromised media: just to sell biscuits and burgers? A street hawker can do that and in a better way.

Criticising the role of the ISI does not mean ISI-bashing as propagated by retired army generals appearing as defence analysts on various national TV talk shows. Instead, the point is the job of an intelligence agency — and there are several around, including the ISI — cannot be to construct a ‘controlled Pakistan’; if such is the case, that role should be condemned and resisted by all. In a country where the general trend in the media is to be a chamcha (bootlicker) of the security forces and intelligence agencies, what issue including that of the missing persons can be raised and decided? The sickness called ‘chamchaism’ has frustrated the dream of an independent media.

The obverse side of the argument is that if you exorcise the fear of the intelligence agencies from the heart of the media people, see how the media makes its presence felt in every nook and corner of Balochistan. The media, which is doctored by the intelligence agencies, cannot be considered independent. A Pakistan where a Pakistani has to be scared of the ISI or other intelligence agencies is not worth living in. The grievances piled up in Balochistan have attained a size and importance higher than that of the ISI. Secondly, the life and honour of one Baloch is preferable to the life and honour of the whole of the ISI.

Saudi Arabia in charge of US Policy: Israel cheerleads, Saudi's finance & Cold War lives

By John Stanton

"The Hanbali school, known for following the most Orthodox form of Islam, is embraced in Saudi Arabia and by the Taliban.." Council of Foreign Relations--Islam: Governing Under Sharia, 24 October 2011.

"In August a judge in Tabuk considered sentencing a man to be surgically paralyzed after convicting him of paralyzing another man in a fight two years earlier." Human Rights Watch ,2011.

"In September a Qatif court sentenced two high school pupils to six months in prison and 120 lashes for stealing exam questions." Human Rights Watch, 2011.

Watching, listening, and reading the media coverage, government commentary and think tank analyses on Iran's nuclear capability and the desire by some to destroy it is like taking in Abbott and Costello's Who's on First and Math skits.

The logic behind the entire push for massive military action against Iran makes about as much sense as Costello's math calculations. Abbott's acceptance of it all ("you are hired") is an appropriate analogy for the USA's role in the madness as it is being suckered into another war in mid-east Asia at the insistence of Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, Israel and similar Abbott and Costello governed countries.
f the USA has so much power, why are second and third rate countries in charge of its policies in mid-east Asia?

All statements coming out of the mouths of US government officials signal confusion within the grand brains of the political, economic and military leadership. The US may or may not support a Saudi-Israeli operation against Iran said Secretary of Defense Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman general Martin Dempsey (USA) recently. That is utterly unbelievable.

These are flammable times already and yet government officials, commentators--(and US presidential candidates--the world over are making foolish and unsupported statements about Iran and, hence, are ratcheting up the tension. President Obama says "I can't control Israel (the USA controls/monitors all air traffic routes into and out of Iran). Israeli leadership says "only 500 casualties from an air strike" (using the logic of General Buck Turgeson in the movie Dr. Strangelove). The House of Saud says "cut the head off the snake (Colin Powell, former US Army general, once said this in reference to Saddam Hussein). In 1993 Israel said Iran would have nuclear weapons by 1999. Then they said that Iran would have them by 2001.

The pro-Iranian war movement, and the Iranian leadership itself, would do well to get a copy of The Fog of War, 11 lessons from Robert McNamara, former Secretary of Defense, and watch it repeatedly. One of the points McNamara makes in the film is "I lived the Cold war every day, 24/7".

The Cold War has not ended as popularly reported. It has just shifted focus.

They are all Schemers: Big Plot and Deadly Subplots

In the overall US strategic scheme the Iranian matter as a subplot. The central focus of the story is an attempt by the USA's political, economic and military leadership to answer two questions: How can strategy, policy, operations and tactics (SPOT) be developed now to inhibit the development of China and Russia's instruments of national and international power? What SPOT's are necessary to maintain America's dollar and military dominance even as China and Russia--and to a lesser degree India and Brazil--are developing methods (currency swaps or basket of currencies minus the US dollar) to bypass the foundation of American global dominance-the dollar (and T-Bill)?

Another subplot is "it's about the oil." But the data doesn't quite support the argument. According to the Energy Information Agency there are only two mid-east Asian countries in the top ten that the US imports energy from. Saudi Arabia is in the number two spot with Mexico close behind. Iraq comes in at number seven. Rounding out the top ten are Canada (number one), Venezuela, Nigeria, Ecuador, Angola, Colombia, and Russia (Brazil is number eleven). The USA imports 49 percent of its energy needs. It is not a stretch to say that with the right combination of US political and economic policies, and some sacrifice by the American people, it could wean itself of off Saudi and Iraqi oil.

So, how and why is it that Saudi Arabia is able to shape US foreign policy towards the mid-east Asian region as it does in the face of the Nazi-like rule of its own people? Why do Americans and Israelis so easily sell their souls to the Saud's? Why isn't Saudi Arabia featured at Regime Change Central?

John Macarthur writing in Harper's Magazine (2007) observed that "...I can't shake the idea that the Israel lobby, no matter how powerful, isn't all it is cracked up to be, particularly where it concerns the Bush administrations past and present. Indeed, when I think of pernicious foreign lobbies with disproportionate sway over American politics, I can't see past Saudi Arabia and its royal house...Given my dissident politics, I should be up in arms about the Israel lobby. Not only have I supported the civil rights of the Palestinians over the years, but two of my principal intellectual mentors were George W. Ball and Edward Said, both severe critics of Israel and its extra-special relationship with the United States.

Foreign Agents for Beheadings

According to the Foreign Agents Registration a listing of 30 June 2011, the following US organizations and citizens represented Saudi interests: Hogan Lovela in Washington, DC (foreign policy interpretation of US Congressional legislative actions, lobbying); Ketchum in New York (media relations); International Merchandising Association in Ohio (brand management); Patton Boggs (monitoring US government statements on Saudi Arabia, legislative analysis, lobbying); Qurvis LLC (monitoring US media, spreading positive stories about Saudi Arabia, lobbying, developing Internet-WWW presence).

The US Department of State, Human Rights Bureau, reported that in 2010 Saudi Arabia was an awful place to live unless you are a guy "...no right to change the government peacefully; torture and physical abuse; poor prison and detention center conditions; arbitrary arrest and incommunicado detention; denial of fair and public trials and lack of due process in the judicial system; political prisoners; restrictions on civil liberties such as freedoms of speech (including the Internet), assembly, association, movement, and severe restrictions on religious freedom; and corruption and lack of government transparency. Violence against women and a lack of equal rights for women, violations of the rights of children, trafficking in persons, and discrimination on the basis of gender, religion, sect, and ethnicity were common. The lack of workers' rights, including the employment sponsorship system, remained a severe problem."

Then there is the country analysis done on Saudi Arabia by Human Rights Watch (2011). "Human rights conditions remain poor in Saudi Arabia. King Abdullah has not fulfilled several specific reform promises; reforms to date have involved largely symbolic steps to improve the visibility of women and marginally expand freedom of expression. Authorities continue to systematically suppress or fail to protect the rights of nine million Saudi women and girls, eight million foreign workers, and some two million Shia citizens. Each year thousands of people receive unfair trials or are subject to arbitrary detention. Curbs on freedom of association, expression, and movement, as well as a pervasive lack of official accountability, remain serious concerns.

Iraqi Government Fears Saudi Arabia

Simon Tisdall writing for the Guardian, UK (2010) reported that the Iraqi government viewed Saudi Arabia as a threat to its internal security. " Iraqi government officials see Saudi Arabia, not Iran, as the biggest threat to the integrity and cohesion of their fledgling democratic state, leaked US state department cables reveal. The Iraqi concerns, analyzed in a dispatch sent from the US embassy in Baghdad by then ambassador Christopher Hill in September 2009, represent a fundamental divergence from the American and British view of Iran as arch-predator in Iraq. 'Iraq views relations with Saudi Arabia as among its most challenging given Riyadh's money, deeply ingrained anti-Shia attitudes and [Saudi] suspicions that a Shia-led Iraq will inevitably further Iranian regional influence,' Hill writes. 'Iraqi contacts assess that the Saudi goal (and that of most other Sunni Arab states, to varying degrees) is to enhance Sunni influence, dilute Shia dominance and promote the formation of a weak and fractured Iraqi government.' Hill's unexpected assessment flies in the face of the conventional wisdom that Iranian activities, overt and covert, are the biggest obstacle to Iraq's development."

Saudi Arabia, Syria: History of Dislike

A Muslim News report (2011) reminds that Saudi Arabia and Syria have been at odds with each other for most of their history. As such, the current turmoil in Syria, in which Saudi Arabia and the US are involved on the ground--should be viewed through a historical microscope. Americans are largely deficient on the study of history other than their own. "Syria prides itself as a secular republic and a bastion of Arab nationalism with close ties to Russia. On the other hand, Saudi Arabia is a reactionary monarchy and embodies itself as a caretaker of Islam, while having an extensive bond with the US and Western Europe. True, the rhetoric of the two countries may not correspond with their practice, but the ideological narratives they superficially embrace are in conflict, and much of their foreign policy aims have been at odds."

The US government approach to Syria, as it is with Iran, was largely crafted by Saudi Arabia. This is a country who speaks of the humanitarian crisis in Syria as though it is the USA. It is more intolerant of dissent than the USSR ever was. Of all ironies, the fact that the USA negotiated with the USSR for decades and will not with Iran has to be in the top ten ironies of human history. What it says is that on crucial matters of mid-east Asian matters involving war and oppression, the US political process is influenced and designed by repressive governments represented by American citizens. Young people die and will continue to die as a result of this.

Human Rights Watch notes that "US pressure for human rights improvements was imperceptible. In September the Pentagon proposed for Congressional approval a US$60 billion arms sale to Saudi Arabia, the biggest-ever US arms sale. It is unknown whether the UK made efforts through the Two Kingdoms Dialogue to promote human rights, but if so they had no tangible effect...

Before he died in the World Trade Center on 9/11, the former FBI counterterrorism chief John O'Neill complained to French investigator Jean-Charles Brisard that Saudi pressure on the State Department had prevented him from fully investigating possible al-Qaida involvement in the Khobar Towers bombing in 1996, which killed 19 U.S. servicemen, and of the destroyer Cole in 2000. As with Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf, there's always talk of the Saudis playing a double game with al-Qaida publicly denouncing it and privately paying it off but you don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to understand that the Saudis don't have America's best interests at heart."

John Stanton is a Virginia based writer specializing in national security. Reach him at cioran123@yahoo.com