Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Sep 22, 2011

The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
vishvak
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5836
Joined: 12 Aug 2011 21:19

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Sep 22, 20

Postby vishvak » 19 Oct 2011 20:38

shiv wrote:No matter how far we push the idea of "tactical brilliance/strategic stupidity" of the Paki military, the fact is that they, at the expense of getting their population to eat grass, remain illiterate and reintroduce polio, lose control of parts of Pakistan, have managed to retain a respectable military capability against India.
...
And they have taken everyone's support to maintain a semblance of parity. And they have done well on the military preparation front.

My 2 paise only. From shoulders of terrorist republic of pakis many powers are aiming guns at India. It is not hidden, but these are the same that stop India doing what Israel did to Lebanon in 2006. These powers share some of the pakistaniyat too, and have retained 'respectable military capability against India' through the barbarian pakis on our borders.

These powers that back pakis are the ones who stop anyone punishing pakis. These powers are backstabbers, pakis are the dagger.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Sep 22, 20

Postby shiv » 19 Oct 2011 20:49

vishvak wrote:These powers are backstabbers, pakis are the dagger.


That actually brings me to a thought I have expressed several times. If Pak goes down on the weight of Indian strength, all those backstabbers will be toast. No matter how big they are today.

jrjrao
BRFite
Posts: 869
Joined: 01 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Sep 22, 20

Postby jrjrao » 19 Oct 2011 22:10

The same maggot by the name of John R. Shit has written the same thing in a letter to the NY Times today:

Punishing Pakistan
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/20/opini ... let20.html

If this John Shit is not on the receiving end of a lifafa from a Paki lobbyist, I will print this BRF page on an leaky ink-jet printer and eat it.

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Sep 22, 20

Postby svinayak » 19 Oct 2011 22:16

Pakistan Replays the 'Great Game'
Mr. Husain Haqqani
FAR EASTERN ECONOMIC REVIEW, OCTOBER, 2005
http://carnegieendowment.org/2005/10/25 ... t-game/r5g

For over two years, Abdul Latif Hakimi regularly telephoned Pakistani and Western reporters and described himself as the spokesman for Afghanistan’s Taliban. He claimed responsibility on behalf of the Taliban for several terrorist attacks. In June, when a MH-47 helicopter was shot down during an antiguerrilla mission in Afghanistan’s Kunar province bordering Pakistan, killing all 16 U.S. troops on board, Hakimi reported the incident to the media before U.S. or Afghan officials. Hakimi’s claims were often exaggerated or even totally fabricated. But no one doubted that he was based in Pakistan and that he spoke on behalf of the Taliban.

Hakimi’s telephone press conferences and interviews, conducted on satellite and cell phones, offered an embellished version of an emerging ground reality. After being toppled from power in the aftermath of 9/11, the Taliban have reconstituted themselves in part of the Afghan countryside as an insurgent force, especially in provinces dominated by the Pashtun ethnic group along the Pakistan-Afghan border.

Since the beginning of 2005, casualties in Afghanistan have been rising. Some 84 American soldiers and 1,400 Afghans have been killed this year, more than any year since the arrival of U.S. forces in 2001. The Taliban insurgency is weak and not yet as threatening as the challenge in Iraq. But Afghan insurgents are clearly getting arms, money and training. Through propaganda of the type waged by Hakimi, the Taliban are also recruiting new members.

When Pakistani authorities announced on Oct. 4 that Hakimi had been arrested in the southwestern city of Quetta, just across the border from the Taliban’s traditional support base of Kandahar, officials in Afghanistan were not impressed. Why had it taken the Pakistanis so long to silence Hakimi when he operated freely in Pakistan for over two years, they asked. What about other Taliban leaders who roam the streets of Quetta and other Pakistani cities and towns quite openly?

Pakistan’s decision to arrest the Taliban spokesman was attributed to relentless U.S. pressure. Days before Hakimi’s arrest, U.S. officials reportedly raised the issue of the Taliban operating freely in Pakistan during meetings with President Pervez Musharraf in New York.

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Sep 22, 20

Postby svinayak » 19 Oct 2011 22:17

COMMENT: Pakistan’s little Great Game — II —Dr Mohammad Taqi
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.as ... 2011_pg3_2

One such consequence of Pakistan’s little Great Game in Afghanistan will be a repeat of 1990s-style civil war, sucking in not only the Afghans but also regional and world powers. The blowback into Pakistan of such misadventure — like the 1990s — is inevitable

Discussing a recent report on Afghanistan by the United States Institute of Peace (USIP) and Jinnah Institute (JI), Pakistan, I had noted last week that nothing kills inquiry and scientific method like prejudicial certitude, and had pointed to the very first sentence of the report: “The importance of Pakistan’s role in Afghanistan and as a US partner in South Asia is indisputable.” This is a pretty strong conviction to form the premise of an analysis of a situation as complicated as Afghanistan.

The report has taken pains to point out that the authors have not editorialised on the views expressed by the 53-strong cohort of the foreign policy ‘elite’ of Pakistan. First an assumption was made and then a sample of individuals was picked that, given its known views and service records, would in all likelihood have corroborated the premise of the study. It is in this context that the makeup, writings and track records of the study’s participants were critiqued, because the same were brandished as their ticket to this ‘elite’ club. And I say picked because the sample is neither randomised (something nearly impossible to do in social sciences research) nor large and diverse enough to reflect the full spectrum of views available on the subject.

Moreover, the line-up was so lopsided against the dissenters — only a handful in the cohort — that it was impossible that the report would have come out with anything but a conclusion supporting the hypothesis adopted ab initio. Whether one calls it a sampling bias or data (in this case opinion) mining, it stacked the deck against the views that would have challenged the preconceptions of the investigators.

Consider a straightforward analogy. To prove that the general population is convinced that regular exercise improves health, if one conducted a study only in a gymnasium selecting the exercise-enthusiasts, how likely is it that analysing this sample would reject the initial hypothesis? This would reflect a blatant pre-selection and selection bias and the outcome would only support the original assumption. Unfortunately, similar cherry picking mars the USIP-JI report.

In non-interventional studies such as reviews and reports, the tools available to the authors and investigators to undo or counter the biases include, firstly, an editorial comment, and secondly, affording prominent space to the dissenting opinion of the participants. In this case, the authors expressly abdicated their responsibility (and right) to opine on the matter at hand. Additionally, the dissenting opinions were not highlighted and remain submerged in the preponderance of views supporting the report’s premise. The cumulative effect is a reporting bias in which only favourable outcomes — opinions in this case — are projected as the only truth harvested from the study’s participants.

By ducking their responsibility to notate the shortcomings of the study and acknowledging the adverse opinion, the study, by design and by default, ended up creating not only a critical appraisal bias but also afforded the authors a plausible deniability in case a political critique — really an inevitability — was launched about the report, which addresses political matters. It would perhaps be naïve of any political commentator or think tank to assume that in the highly charged current geopolitical atmosphere, a report put forth with the stated intent of serving as the Afghan policy template for the civilian leadership in Pakistan, could fly under the radar.

The report notes that the Pakistani state’s objectives vis-à-vis settlement of the Afghan imbroglio, when translated into actionable policy, would lead Pakistan to pursue three outcomes: a) a relatively stable government in Kabul that is not hostile to Pakistan; b) An inclusive nature of such government, which is defined as an entity with adequate ‘Pashtun representation’ that in turn is made synonymous with Mullah Omar’s Quetta Shura Taliban and the Haqqani network’s being part of the new political arrangement; c) Limiting India’s presence to developmental activity, while acknowledging that it does have a part to play in Afghanistan’s progress.

Simply put, the Pakistani desire regarding the future dispensation in Kabul thus is a (relatively) stable government there, which is friendly to Pakistan and free of India’s influence and effectively excludes non-Pashtun Afghans. But given the ethno-geopolitical realities on the ground, when plotted on paper, this thesis gives rise to three other possibilities as well: first is an unstable government in Kabul that is friendly to Pakistan. Second could be an unstable government that is unfriendly to Pakistan. And thirdly, a relatively stable government that is hostile to Pakistan. Each scenario would entail the engagement of the Afghan, the US and allied powers, Pakistan along with its client entities and the regional powers, in a multitude of alignments and realignments.

The sparring between Pakistan and the US has escalated to a point where media, such as the US-based website www.Examiner.com (which also quoted part one of this column) has already stated that Pakistan is at war with the US in Afghanistan. The US Ambassador to Pakistan, Cameron Munter, speaking to Radio Pakistan about the recent terrorist attack on the US embassy in Kabul, has bluntly stated: “There is evidence linking the Haqqani network to the Pakistan government. This is something that must stop.” The US Ambassador to Afghanistan Ryan Crocker and Secretary Defence Leon Panetta reiterated these charges and the latter issued a terse warning too.

If the word from Kabul and President Hamid Karzai’s interview to The Independent, UK, is anything to go by, he is likely to pull a Hafizullah Amin on the US, with the blessings of the Pakistani security agencies and help from the Hizb-e-Islami (Hekmatyar) men that he has surrounded himself with. This is unlikely to go well with the US but more importantly with the non-Ikhwanite Pashtuns as well as the Tajik, Hazara and Uzbek Afghans that Karzai has systematically purged from his government.

The hardening of the US and Pakistani positions points towards a further plunge in their relations and potential unfolding of the scenarios that the USIP-JI have overlooked. One such consequence of Pakistan’s little Great Game in Afghanistan will be a repeat of 1990s-style civil war, sucking in not only the Afghans but also regional and world powers. The blowback into Pakistan of such misadventure — like the 1990s — is inevitable. Understanding, not certitude is what is needed of analysts, whether elite or proletariat. Otherwise, as Kipling had said: “When everyone is dead, the Great Game is finished. Not before.”

(Postscript: Deepest condolences to the Afghans on the brutal assassination of Professor Burhanuddin Rabbani, which shows yet again that the jihadists and their mentors are not partners in peace.)

(Concluded)

The writer can be reached at mazdaki@me.com. He tweets at http://twitter.com/mazdaki

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Sep 22, 20

Postby svinayak » 19 Oct 2011 22:19

http://www.pakhistorian.com/?p=858
American-Taliban Great Game 2001-2011
Ostensibly it was the 9/11 attack in New York that led the US to invade Afghanistan. Many claim that the Afghan invasion was planned way before September 2001. The US leveraged the Tajik led Northern Alliance to oust the Pakhtuns from power. The Taliban regime fell and was replaced by the present Afghan president, Hamid Karzai. As the Bush Administration got bogged down in Iraq and reduced its military presence the Talibs began to control most of Afghan territory. Bharat and America attempted to destabilize Pakistan using fake movements like the TTP which were constructs of RAW and the CIA. The US withdrawal from Afghanistan will begin in July 2011. The Abbotabad raid provided the US the victory needed which would precipitate a speedy withdrawal without the baggage of “Cut and Run”

As Dr. Jamil has pointed out the “Great Game” has been going on for millenia.
ANCIENT PROTO-HISTORY GREAT GAME:
If we take the history back to abt 5000 yrs ago when none had heard about Jews, Greeks, Iran, Russia– Indus river was the boundary between a rich South Asia/Punjab and impoverished West. The Akkadian-Assyrian Arabs, and their Eastern enemy mostly under control of the Elamite (Dravidian’s linguistic cousins). The game was to control South Asian trade surpluses. The Assyrian Arabs had predominant control up to the Indus–they had one tribute paying Hindu king in Punjab-Indus valley–Jibra of Malluhva. Later in history Pre -Greek era, Cyrus/Darius had wrested control of Arab lands plus the area West of Indus. After that we see Sessanid Iran on the rise after a short Greek interlude.
Lesson from all these histories is transparent–locals (now Pakistan+Afghanistan) are the owners. Pakistan controls both sides of the Indus and being a regional power (5th largest army + Nuclear arms), has the responsibility for regional peace. The US and China cannot do a thing without Pakistan. India wants to only defend ” Hindu nationalism” and will be always shy of wars. Pakistan thus directly controls even India’s future being a part of great game.
One sees the critical importance of local players. and the lessons of history (as reviewd by you) supports the future. As it is clear from ancient most history. What has really changed ? India has lost its ancient importance ” farming surpluses” feeder of the west, due to industrial revolution since 1800. India is of no military significance to west or east.
The Latest Great Game:
The new Great Game is not about the control of resources–it is about the prevention of the rise of Muslim Asia.

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Sep 22, 20

Postby svinayak » 19 Oct 2011 22:21

Pakistan and the ‘New Great Game’
http://ipripak.org/papers/pakandnewgame.shtml

Asma Shakir Khawaja


Introduction

Central Asia, comprising Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, and the energy-rich lake called the Caspian Sea, owes its significance to its vast economic potential and its geo-strategic location In the era leading to the break-up of the Soviet Union, several energy-starved countries realized the indispensability of the region to their economic wellbeing. Its economic potential and strategically important location, combined with recent seismic political events, have brought the region centre-stage in the global political scenario. Its political and economic legacies collided with the emerging realities of the post-Cold War transitional period, resulting in conflicts, instability, political turmoil, and a host of multifaceted challenges. At the same time, the proven natural resource potential of the region means unprecedented opportunities, which it can exploit to its own benefit.

The enormous hydrocarbon reserves of the region have tempted both neighbouring and distant nations to plunge into the game of treasure hunt. Each player is endeavouring to outplay the other. Russia, the USA, Iran, Turkey, India, etc., are intent upon gaining a foothold in the region. On the one hand, the Central Asian states need to establish their identity, redefine their political standing in international relations, and chalk out their national strategies to tackle their problems through economic development; on the other hand, the world’s well-established nations are all set to exploit the compulsions of these fledgling states to their own political and economic advantage.

Pakistan is situated at the interface of Central Asia and South Asia and provides these landlocked states with the shortest route to the Arabian Sea. The CAS are in need of economically viable and cost-effective transit and pipeline routes. Policymakers in Pakistan are therefore seeking to make the best possible use of this opportunity by establishing strong links with the region.

The aim of this research project is to present a comprehensive analysis of the evolving dynamics of Central Asia, in an endeavour to understand the scope of the potential benefits it offers to Pakistan. Accordingly, it will incorporate recommendations that could help Pakistan to secure its interests in Central Asia to the maximum extent possible.

Recommendations[131]


· Pakistan can establish bilateral relations with each Central Asian state on individual basis. All of them are following independent foreign policies and want the world to recognize them on the basis of their individuality. The geography, economy, populations, ethnic composition, and resources of all of these states are different from each other.
· Pakistan does not have to wait for peace and stability to return to Afghanistan, before providing transit and pipeline routes to the CAS, and can make a start by improving bilateral trade with the CAS.
· Pakistan should look for multidimensional options to get maximum benefits from Central Asia.
· Pakistan should not favour any particular state in the region.
· Pakistan should not get involved in any conflict, or side with any party involved in the conflict. It should not act as a mediator to solve ethnic conflicts.
· For Central Asia, Pakistan should evolve a neutral and non-aligned foreign policy, based on non-interference and non-intervention. Such a policy will serve its interests better.
· Pakistan’s policy should be based on ‘friendship with all, enmity with none’.
· Pakistan’s relations with regional states should be based on common international perceptions and economic and political interests.
· The Economic Co-operation Organization (ECO) should be made more effective by ensuring its active involvement in the economic development of Central Asia.
· Initially Pakistan can offer the CAS trade routes with minimum transit tariff rates. This cost-effectiveness will strengthen Pakistan’s position in any trade-route competition.
· PIA can start direct flights to all Central Asian states on a regular basis. It needs to develop air transport facilities that meet international standards.
· In order to promote foreign investment in each state, chambers of commerce, stock exchanges, and banks should be established to provide professional guidance needed by the business communities; Pakistan should then work in collaboration with the institutions of these countries.
· Pakistan can promote barter trade with each country in the region on a bilateral basis. It can make a list of goods available in Central Asian states at cheaper rates. The CAS would probably be willing to co-operate in this kind of trade as they desperately want to reduce their dependency on the Russian Federation in every sense.
· Under the banner of various regional organizations, such as the ECO and CICA, Central Asian states and Pakistan can establish various research centres, which will facilitate economic progress and will help in conflict prevention as well. There should be frequent exchange of visits of scholars, cultural representatives, and government officials to develop better mutual understanding. Such an exchange can be established on a regular basis, under sponsorship from the respective governments or by NGOs.
· Pakistan can establish cultural centres in the cities of the CAS, to promote cultural ties and commonalities between Central Asia and Pakistan.
· Pakistan can offer scholarships to Central Asian students in various fields. This will be helpful in building strong ties at non-governmental level. People-to-people interaction is helpful in strengthening bilateral relations. On return to their countries, these students will be ambassadors of goodwill for Pakistan.[132]
· Pakistan and the CAS can co-operate with each other to promote their tourist industries. The exchange of tourists will improve people-to-people relations.
· Pakistani NGOs can start various human development projects in collaboration with Central Asian governments or NGOs for the improvement of human conditions in Central Asia.
· Pakistan’s research institutes can co-operate with their counterparts in Central Asia. It will create mutual understanding between policy-making institutes.
· Completion of various plans for the improvement of transport infrastructure is of utmost important so that Pakistan can put itself forward as the best available option for any transit route for Central Asia.
· Expansion and improvement of the existing railway network is essential for better transportation of goods at cheaper rates. Though it will cost more, it should be accorded greater priority, as it will mean a quantum increase in rail traffic and goods.




svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Sep 22, 20

Postby svinayak » 19 Oct 2011 22:23

http://www.santafenewmexican.com/local% ... reat-Game-

China-Pakistan: A new Great Game?Understanding Your World
Bill Stewart | For The New Mexican
Posted: Sunday, July 03, 2011 - 7/4/11 Comments

In a rapidly changing world, an old relationship has taken on a new dimension. China and Pakistan are forging new and stronger ties that could someday replace those of the U.S. and Pakistan. Some would say "so what?" Let China with its exploding economy and vaulting ambitions take care of the always irritating and often dangerous Pakistanis. We've done it for years, and where has it got us? If China can do better than the U.S., so be it.

If only it were that simple. Together, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India and Nepal form a huge region we generally refer to as South Asia. It is the most populous region in the world, more so than just China alone. India, with more than 1 billion people, lies at the heart of South Asia, so logic dictates that India is the area's most important player. China, however, lies just over the horizon, and with more than 1 billion people of its own, it is the natural anchor of the Far East and Southeast Asia. Complicating the picture is the oil-rich Middle East, which lies just to the west of South Asia. Both China and India covet Middle Eastern oil, essential for their rapidly expanding economies. Pakistan is the natural gateway to that oil as it has a border with Iran and a long Arabian Sea coastline. It also has a border with China, though it is difficult to access. Afghanistan also borders China.

In the 19th century, Britain and Russia were rivals for control of South Asia, especially Afghanistan, because it was the gateway to India, which had become the heart and soul of the British Empire. Czarist Russia wanted to take Britain's place in the Indian subcontinent. That rivalry was known as the Great Game, because its stakes were so high. In the 21st century, we can see the beginnings perhaps of another Great Game, this time between China and India, for control of South Asia, the gateway to the Middle East and its oil.

A short-term complicating factor, however, is the war in Afghanistan and the role played by neighboring Pakistan, once part of British India. The U.S. sees India as its most important long-term strategic partner in South Asia, as well as a natural balance to China. But Washington also needs a close relationship with Pakistan in order to prosecute the war in Afghanistan. Pakistan sees India as its principal enemy and feels the need to maintain relations with all contesting groups in Afghanistan, because one day the war will be over and Pakistan needs to maintain good relations with whoever is in power in Kabul. India, too, wants a friendly Afghanistan in order to keep Pakistan in check.

For many years, Pakistan has maintained close military ties with China, despite massive U.S. military assistance, because both Pakistan and China see their relationship as an essential counter to India's growing power. The U.S. regards the war in Afghanistan as important not only as part of the struggle against terrorism but also because American lives are at stake. But China and India see the war more as an irritating nuisance because it complicates the larger issues of their own development and access to Middle Eastern oil. In that sense, both Pakistan and Afghanistan are important, but not for the immediate reasons of the current war.

Last week, the Financial Times ran a fascinating analysis of the growing China-Pakistan relationship, calling it an alliance. There are reports of Chinese troops along the Line of Control, which divides Indian-held Kashmir from Pakistani-held Kashmir. That disturbs the Indians greatly, as Kashmir is the tinder-box issue that has brought India and Pakistan to war more than once. Essentially, it means that Chinese-Indian rivalries have now crossed the Himalayas. The Chinese also are building port facilities at Gwadar on the Arabian Sea, near the border with Iran. There is oil to consider. In addition, China is spending more than $500 million to upgrade the Karakoram highway, its principal land link to Pakistan.

All this costs money. But then with trillions in reserves, the Chinese have a lot of money to spend, certainly more than the U.S. From Pakistan's point of view, China is a power ascending, while the U.S. is in decline. If a choice has to be made, which will Pakistan choose, Washington or Beijing? That point has not yet been reached, and may not be reached for a number of years. Nor does China seem to be in any particular hurry. But China is noted for its patience. We are not.

William M. Stewart, a former U.S. Foreign Service officer and Time magazine correspondent, lives in Santa Fe.


svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Sep 22, 20

Postby svinayak » 19 Oct 2011 22:25

India and Afghanistan
The Great Game revisited
India and Pakistan are playing out their rivalries in Afghanistan
Mar 22nd 2007 | JALALABAD |
http://www.economist.com/node/8896853

IT IS easy to miss the Indian consulate in Jalalabad. Tucked away on a back street with no flag, it is just a large walled compound protected by bored Afghan guards. There is little obvious activity going on inside. Consular staff say their main job is to issue visas—about one a day, mainly for Afghans seeking medical treatment in India—and to collect exam papers from applicants for scholarships at Indian universities. “There is a lot of time for reading,” concedes one official.

Across town, however, in the Pakistani consulate, diplomats have a very different take on what the Indians are up to here, deep in Afghanistan's Pushtun belt, which Pakistan considers its own backyard. They think the Indians are spying, stirring up ethnic trouble in Pakistan and generally undermining the security of its lightly defended western border.

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Sep 22, 20

Postby svinayak » 19 Oct 2011 22:27

Five futures for Pakistan
http://www.ru.org/future-studies/five-f ... istan.html

Can Pakistan free itself from the pendulum of "general and landlord" and help form a South Asian Confederation? Futurist Sohail Inayatullah looks at five future scenarios for Pakistan.

by Sohail Inayatullah



In this essay, I outline Five futures for Pakistan: (1) the Pendulum continues forever, (2) Collapse, (3) Joining Chindia, (4) the Great Game, and (5) a South Asian Confederation. The most familiar and likely are based on the pendulum of rule by the military and rule by landlord/politicians. However, what is needed is to move from the more likely and less desirable futures to a process of anticipatory democracy where the citizens of Pakistan consider, create and commit to building their preferred future.

DEEP STRUCTURES AND ARCHETYPES
While the assassination of Benazir Bhutto certainly plunged Pakistan into one of its works crisis in decades, the recent successful electionsi appear to have brought hope back again. The extremist parties did poorly,ii and even with a low turn out and election violence, it appears that the latest cycle of military rule is over. But how long will this cycle last?
I ask this question as Syed Abidi iii has made the observation that Pakistan's political system can best be understood as a pendulum between civilian rule and military rule. There have been six such swings, with the seventh toward civilian rule beginning in 2008.
These swings occur because of the deep archetypes in Pakistan's politics. There are four archetypes in Pakistan politics – the general and military rule, the people and peoples' power that overthrows the ruler, the politician-feudal lord, and the bureaucrat who ensures smooth transitions between all these types. Each one of these archetypes has two sides – the general can be protective and moral (the enlightened despot) or can be amoral, staying too long, clinging to power, assaulting human rights and using religion or strategy to stay in power. The feudal lord can equally be protective or can stay too long, and use his or her power for personal gain. The citizen can be chaotic or can bring social capital to the nation. The bureaucracy can be transparent and use their power to create a productive society (green tape) or it can slow the wheels of the nation, using time, money and symbolic power to hold the nation back (red tape).
Given these patterns, what can we say about Pakistan's futures. iv Five are currently possible.

ALTERNATIVE FUTURES

The pendulum continues forever. This would mean that after this particular civilian cycle, there will be another military coup in 7-10 years. Politicians will have some luck in ridding Pakistan of extremist fundamentalists, but old scores between the PPP and the Pakistan Muslim League or between the PPP and the military will still need to be settled. Issues of justice and revenge will continue and just as Pakistan's economy is about to take off, another crisis will set in. Citizens will rally but then when they see no real change will become despondent. “Nothing is possible here,” or a similar catch-phrase will be the inner story. Globalization will not go away but the politics would swing between growth and equity.
Collapse – this is the most feared scenario for all, particularly in the West. Civil war in Pakistan (the provinces going their own way), the inability to stop jihadism, Al Qa'ida or their friends finding some nukes, not to mention the global challenges of climate change, all lead to a slow decline destined for collapse. And if the challenge from the Pakistani and Afghani Taliban is resolved, the frontline will switch to half-century old war in. Capital flies away, economic development slows down and Pakistan becomes a nation of competing tribes. Women in this future are particularly vulnerable as the battle between religious and secularists throughout the Islamic (Arab influenced world) is fought over the “body” of the female. Is she a person unto herself or does the strong male (feudal lord, ruler, mullah) need to protect and control. In the collapse, chaos would reign. Over time, and perhaps even quite quickly, a strong military leader is likely to rise (the Napoleon scenario), but can the great leader unite all the tribes (the challenge facing Afghanistan today)?

Joining Chindia. With India likely to move into the ranks of the G-8 by 2020, gaining a permanent UN Security Council Position, Pakistan's only hope is to link in every possible way with India and China – or Chindia. Certainly Pakistan will favor the China part of the amazing rise, but in any case, in this future, economic growth is far more important than ideological struggles. To move in this direction, the Singapore or Malaysian model may be adopted. This model is characterized by a clear vision of the future, transparency; break up of the feudal system, limited democracy (One party rule) and creatively finding a niche role in the global economy, and then using that to springboard to becoming a global player. However, the India example shows that economic rise is possible outside the East Asian model. In any case, this future is hopeful but requires investment in infrastructure and a favoring of globalized capitalism. Instead of lamenting the colonial past, in this Chindia future, Pakistan creates its own transnational corporations. Politics moves from focusing on old wrongs (Kashmir, for example) to desired futures. Instead of Chindia, Chindistan is created.v

The fourth scenario is the Great Game.vi Pakistan remains a pawn, moved around for the strategic and ideological purposes of the great powers. Whether in proxy wars against the Russians or against 9/11 jihadis or whoever may be next, Pakistan’s capacity to influence its future is low or non-existent. At best, it can only rent out its military, or territory, for others’ battles. In this future (as in the current present), the rental receipts do not lead to even development –they merely enrich those getting the rent, generally the military. The national game becomes not how to transform the great game but how to get a piece of the action, legitimately or illegitimately. Those not part of the money game sing songs of grand conspiracies. These songs take away agency. While Pakistan has a dependency relationship with the rest of the world, citizens have a dependency – child/adult – relationship with the government, expecting it to solve each and every problem, without taking responsibility for their own actions and blaming the government when it fails. At the collective level, Pakistan remains rudderless, evoking the words of the founder, but unable to follow through with action.

5. A wiser South-Asian confederation.vii The challenges Pakistan faces are similar to what other countries in the region face – religious extremism, climate change, poverty, corruption, deep inequity, used futures and less than helpful archetypes – the only way forward is towards an EU model of slow but inevitable integration. While this may seem too positive and far away, it is not impossible. Each country needs the help of others to solve their problems. None can go it alone, and each can learn from the Other. This requires learning, peace and mediation skills in all schools; moving toward the sustainability development agenda; developing agreements in security, water, and energy to begin with; and a focus on the desired future and not on past injustices. Gender equity and systemic and deep cultural levels is foundational for this future. This future also requires an archetype that is neither the male general nor feudal lord nor the rebellious teenager, but the wise person, perhaps the Globo sapiens.viii Fortunately, the south Asian tradition is steeped with wisdom. Can this imagination be drawn on to create a different future? Already in Pakistan, there are hundreds of groups and thousands of individuals working on this vision. What is needed is systemic support for this future, and a move away from focusing on past injustices.

ANTICIPATORY DEMOCRACY
If an alternative future for Pakistan is not created, the pendulum will continue with collapse always being in the background. But this futures creation process cannot be done from above via a planning commission; rather, it must be part of a broader process of anticipatory democracy – citizens, leaders and researchers mapping out alternative scenarios, then analyzing the benefits and costs of each future, visioning the desired, mediating conflicts between the desired, and then creating action learning processes to realize the desired.ix Anticipatory democracy thus can deepen electoral democracy, bringing focus not just to futures Pakistanis do not wish for but more so to those that are desirable.

Sohail Inayatullah is a Professor at Tamkang University, Taiwan; adjunct Professor, the University of the Sunshine Coast, Australia. Member, council of social sciences, Pakistan. He was born in Lahore, Pakistan.www.metafuture.org. email: s.inayatullah@qut.edu.au

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Sep 22, 20

Postby svinayak » 19 Oct 2011 22:29

The “Great Game” in South Asia is Heating Up
by Ted Thornton
http://islamicmiddleeast.nmhblogs.org/2 ... eating-up/


“Some analysts foresee a new Great Game for dominance in the region, with stakes like billions of dollars in mineral wealth in Afghanistan, access to vital shipping lanes, and a need to monitor the longstanding tensions between India and Pakistan.”

Mark Mazzetti, “Should (Could) America and Pakistan’s Bond Be Broken?,” New York Times, June 4, 2011

“Great Game” is a loaded phrase in Middle East history. In 1898, Lord George Curzon, newly appointed Viceroy to India, wrote about what would become known as “the great game” between Tsarist Russia and Great Britain for control over Central Asia:

“‘Turkestan, Afghanistan, Transcaspia, Persia – to many these words breathe only a sense of utter remoteness, or a memory of strange vicissitudes and of moribund romance. To me, I confess they are pieces on a chessboard upon which is being played out a game for the domination of the world.’” (in Ahmed Rashid, Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil, and Fundamentalism in Central Asia(New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2000), 145).

The phrase “great game” (originally coined by a British officer named Arthur Conolly) was updated in the 1990s to what some analysts dubbed the “new great game”: competition chiefly between Russia, the United States, and China (but also with smaller countries like Argentina) to build pipelines for natural gas and oil through Central Asia. (Ahmed Rashid, Jihad: The Rise of Militant Islam in Central Asia(New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2002), 7) As suggested by Mazzetti’s piece, we should add India to the competitive mix.

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Sep 22, 20

Postby svinayak » 19 Oct 2011 22:32

Pakistan in the Great Game

http://www.cssforum.com.pk/general/news ... -game.html
By Tanvir Ahmad Khan(The writer was foreign secretary from 1989-90 and is chairman of the Institute of Strategic Studies in Islamabad)

In a recent article published in this newspaper, I had argued that Pakistan needs to develop a coherent and viable policy for the contingency that since the war is receding in Afghanistan, it may find its new axis in Pakistan. A few days later, the new CIA chief publicly stated that that the axis of military operations would be shifted from the south to the east in Afghanistan. This would be the territory adjacent to Pakistan, except further east in the Kunar province from where the coalition has already notably withdrawn, a situation that has led to fierce attacks by sizeable forces of insurgents on Bajaur and Dir from across the Afghan border. There is a sense of alarm that the latest version of US President Barack Obama’s policy may push Pakistan into the eye of the storm. In opinion pieces written with the worst-case scenario in mind, there are implicit allegations that recent developments constitute the latest phase in a sustained policy of the US to cut Pakistan to size, especially in the nuclear field.

There is, however, another angle from which the evolving situation can be viewed, perhaps with less trepidation. The starting point has to be that the drawdown of American forces does not mean the abandonment of Washington’s vital interests in the huge swath of land that includes Central Asia, Afghanistan and South Asia. Secondly, notwithstanding the current strains in the Pakistan-US relationship, Pakistan will, in the months and years ahead, remain a major concern of American policymakers. In the article mentioned above, I had said that Pakistan ran like a subtext in President Obama’s latest address. There has been ample reiteration of this fact for the simple reason that the new American strategy to safeguard its interests in the region at a much lower cost in blood and treasure would remain dependent upon Islamabad remaining a loyal and compliant ally. So the present delicate situation is more a consequence of Pakistan’s failure to reach an accord with the US on assisting Washington to pursue its political and economic agenda in this part of the world without sacrificing Pakistan’s core interests.

After a frustrating decade in Afghanistan, the US is virtually giving up on nation-building and returning to counterterrorism. The fundamental interests that will be pursued with undiminished zeal would be the survival of a regime, which may include elements from the Taliban that accept decisive American influence. A new factor for this power assertion is the need to control the mining of copper, iron, lithium and other minerals and the denial of the same to others, especially China. This is additional to the unique geopolitical location of the country, which would be defended by an effective American military force stationed in it under a treaty, and an Afghan army totally disproportionate to the country’s economic resources at present. Washington also will not forego the leverage that its military presence in Afghanistan gave it to shape the policies of the Central Asian states rich in fossil fuels and rare Earth elements. Then there is the question of keeping Iran surrounded by states that remain sensitive to American policy. Above all, there is the overriding question of fitting Pakistan into a new South Asian paradigm. The most substantive challenge to American dominance of the global economy has come from Asia. It is of utmost importance to the United States that India continues to remain within the orbit of its influence and that the India-Pakistan contention does not detract from it.

Washington would also not give up the pressure for the transformation of Pakistani state and society, though it has only a limited interest in its historical context or its present complexity. A more robust Pakistani government enjoying mass support would have succeeded in making the United States appreciate its own dilemma. A new report by the Centre for a New American Security describes Pakistan as a “differentiated” polity, requiring a differentiated American policy. WikiLeaks alone will explain why American analysts reach this disturbing conclusion. The present government in Pakistan has to restore national purpose and pride or make room for others who may be able to do it.

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Sep 22, 20

Postby svinayak » 19 Oct 2011 22:34

A SCO Canopy for South Asia
http://pakistan-observer.blogspot.com/2 ... -asia.html

By M K Bhadrakumar

Grand visions take time to realize but they seldom die. They may languish but they regenerate and take new unexpected forms. The ''Great Central Asia'' strategy envisioned by the George W Bush administration is most certainly one such grand vision.

The complex intellectual construct involved many strokes: The US would expand its influence into Central Asia by rolling back Russia's traditional and China's growing influence there. Washington would encourage New Delhi to work as a partner in Afghanistan and Central Asia, and lay a new Silk Route via South Asia to evacuate the fabulous mineral wealth of the land-locked region, consolidate its presence in Afghanistan on a long-term footing, and establish itself along Xinjiang and Russia's ''soft underbelly''. In so doing, it would create the conditions needed to win the ''new great game'' in Central Asia.

The strategy was unveiled in an article in the summer 2005 edition of Foreign Affairs magazine by Frederick Starr, chairman of the Central Asia-Caucasus Institute at the John Hopkins University. Starr proposed a matrix for a "Great Central Asia cooperative partnership for development" with the US taking the lead, the five Central Asian states and Afghanistan entering as the main members, and India and Pakistan participating.

Starr wrote, ''The main idea of the proposal is to take the US control of the situation in Afghanistan as an opportunity, promote optional and flexible cooperation in security, democracy, economy, transport and energy, and, make up a new region by combining Central Asia with South Asia. The United States is to shoulder the role of a midwife to promote the rebirth of the entire region."

A Dream Come True
The Bush administration lost no time adopting the tantalizing idea and integrating it into the US's regional policies. In the event, however, the Bush era got dissipated in the Iraq quagmire and the idea of ''Great Central Asia'' languished. Hopelessly distracted by the economic crisis and the war in Afghanistan, the Barack Obama administration, too, neglected the brilliant strategy. Meanwhile, Russia and China grasped its potential and wondered if only it could be turned on its head.

Russian and Chinese diplomats duly got to work and are now ready to unveil their new avatar in the forthcoming summit meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) in Astana on June 15. To sum up a long story, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov made a terse remark on May 15 following a meeting of SCO foreign ministers in Almaty, Kazakhstan, ''A few days ago, Afghanistan submitted a request to grant it observer status. The request will be considered at the upcoming [SCO] summit.''

What he didn't say was that earlier in the week, Afghan Foreign Minister Rasoul paid a four-day visit to Beijing and discussed his country's proposal with the Chinese government. The Afghans, Russians and the Chinese seem to have acted in concert and with a speediness that probably took the Obama administration by surprise. The US has been consistently discouraging Kabul from any dangerous liaison with the SCO.

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Sep 22, 20

Postby svinayak » 19 Oct 2011 22:36

This is one of the game

The Great Game Renewed? US—russian Rivalry in the Arms Trade of South Asia
TOM LANSFORD
Department of Political Science, University of Southern Mississippi, Long Beach, MS, USA
Abstract
http://sdi.sagepub.com/content/33/2/127.abstract

The terrorist attacks on the United States in September 2001 prompted Washington to re-evaluate its policies in South Asia and reaffirmed the strategic importance of that region. One result of this reassessment has been renewed efforts to supply arms and weapons systems to the region as a means of expanding influence and bolstering support for US actions in Afghanistan. Concurrently, economic pressures and the traditional drive for influence have prompted continued efforts on the part of Russia to expand arms sales as a tool for increasing revenues and maintaining influence. The potential for a dramatic increase in the number and quality of arms in South Asia may exacerbate existing tensions in the area. This article examines the impact of increased arms transfers to the region in the context of an escalating competition between Washington and Moscow to retain or gain strategic influence and to enlarge markets for military sales.

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Sep 22, 20

Postby svinayak » 19 Oct 2011 22:37

China Plays to Win the 21st Century's Great Game
http://www.jinsa.org/publications/resea ... great-game
September 23, 2010

[In the latest JINSA Global Briefing, M.D. Nalapat, Vice-Chair of the Manipal Advanced Research Group and UNESCO Peace Chair as well as Professor of Geopolitics at Manipal University in India's Karnataka State, explains that in the 21st century version of the Great Game, China seeks to replace the U.S. as the dominant player in Asia by manipulating Pakistan to ensure a NATO failure in Afghanistan.]

September 23, 2010

China Plays to Win the 21st Century's Great Game
By M.D. Nalapat

Among the reasons why NATO is losing ground to the People's Republic of China (PRC) in the global geopolitical race is the belief in the permanence of tradition and precedent in world affairs. It is hard to understand that such beliefs still have adherents when it is clear that today paradigm shifts are accelerating and even core conditions are altered beyond recognition within a decade. The PRC is itself an example of such a trend, having morphed several times since its founding in 1949. To understand present day realities in that country and adjust policy, analysts and scholars sometimes need to remove from their memory concepts and information that were valid during earlier stages of the PRC's evolution.

Each decade since 1949 has seen changes in the form and spread of economic progress and societal evolution in China. The first was the consolidation of Chinese Communist Party (CCP) power over the country. The next (1959-1969) was the establishment of Mao Zedong's personal dictatorship over the Party. The third (1969-1979) was reflected in the leadership's efforts at fashioning a strategy for ensuring China's global success - even through an alliance with the United States. The fourth period (1979-1989) saw a reversal of the economic stagnation of the previous three decades. If the fifth period (1989-1999) was exemplified by experimentation with western culture and possible alliances, the sixth (1999-present) saw the growth of a Han nationalism that had as its core objective the restoration of China's historically long-held status as the most developed nation in the world. This sixth period witnessed both the deepening of self-reliance in technology as well as a geopolitical push to wrest primacy from the United States first in Asia and Africa, then in South America and finally in Europe.

Afghanistan, Once Again the Setting for the Great Game

As the PRC has emerged as a serious challenger to American global pre-eminence, it is not surprising that one of the arenas of confrontation is Afghanistan. If this rivalry has not engendered much attention then the reason lies in the fact that the PRC usually goes about the fulfillment of its objectives in as "silent" a way as possible. This is in stark contrast to the United States, which usually advertises its engagements and confrontations in some part to increase the perception of U.S. global primacy.

Those who suffer from the handicap of remembering Kipling believe that the present Afghan situation resembles his "Great Game" that was played out between the British and Russian empires. Current events in Afghanistan are indeed following a well-worn path, but one that resembles less the 19th Century than it does the 20th, specifically the 1980s.

In this age of accelerating change (including in societal mindsets), history seldom gets repeated beyond a 20-year cycle, which in the first half of the current century will shrink further to about ten years. What is taking place in Afghanistan is indeed a repeat of the history that took place when the United States and Saudi Arabia used the Pakistani army to wage an unconventional war against the Soviet Union. Today, the PRC seeks to use that very same military force - the only one to have jihad as its official motto - to carry out the humiliation of what some would term an exhausted super power, the United States.

The new Great Game is being scripted almost entirely by a single PRC entity, the People's Liberation Army (PLA), which has today become a near autonomous player within the PRC governance structure. This represents a considerable change from the past. Both Mao Zedong and Deng Xiaoping kept the PLA on a tight leash, the former making it an accomplice of his depredations on those elements in the CCP core that he regarded as enemies, and the latter succeeded in pushing the PRC out of sight.


Once Jiang Zemin took control of the Chinese Communist Party in the 1990s, however, he began to indulge the PLA, a process that has yet to be checked by his successor. Part of the reason could be that Jiang's own actions established appear to have established a precedent whereby the CCP General Secretary extends his period in formal authority and policy relevance past the mandated retirement age by continuing on as Chairman of the Central Military Commission (CMC). Jiang served 20 months as CMC Chairman after handing over the party baton to Hu Jintao in 2002.

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Sep 22, 20

Postby svinayak » 19 Oct 2011 22:39

THE GREAT GAME :America's Strategy in Central & South Asia
By
Lt. Gen. Eric A. Vas, IA
http://inpad.org/res53.html

In the early 19th Century, when Russian troops started penetrating into Central Asia, the British saw this as a threat to Afghanistan and India. Over the next 100 years British and Russian officers, explorers and military forces took part in a "Great Game", confronting one another over the vast mountainous chessboard of high Asia. The ultimate prize, or so it then seemed in London, was British India. Today, the USA is once again involved in the Great Game in the same region. It does not face any formal military opponent but is fighting Islamic terrorism. This time the prize is not territorial but economic gain: the oil and gas resources of Central Asia.

When the Soviet Union collapsed, the six states of Central Asia became independent republics. The Russians, being well established in the area, were the first to purchase exploration concessions wherever they wanted. They were followed by US, European, Japanese, Chinese and Indian aspirants, who acquired concessions in various states and are now exploring for oil. Today, the only oil pipelines from Central Asia run via the Caspian Sea to Turkey and Russia. . [The Russian firm Gazporon is planning to lay a similar type of gas pipeline between Iran and India through the shallow waters of Pakistan.]. It is unlikely that a major oil discovery in Central Asia could threaten Arab monopoly of the oil market but it would certainly lower the capacity of the Arabs to call the tune in price fixing and export quotas.
Unlike oil, gas is readily available in Turkmenistan. The problem is to deliver it to likely markets. A gas pipeline has to have facilities at the delivery point either to compress the gas [CNG] or liquefy it [LPG] for export in special ships or by road transport. This add to the price. India has gas fields in Gujarat and off-shore Mumbai but the output is not sufficient to warrant the installation of a CNG plant. Northeastern India has viable gas fields but these are not being exploited because there is no demand for this in the northeast, and piping this to the west would make it too expensive. Bangladesh is considering a gas pipeline to deliver 300 trillion cubic feet gas daily to West Bengal.
Currently, India has entered into an agreement with Quatar [in the Gulf] for the supply of CNG by sea to a port in Gujarat. Delivery has been delayed because the off-handling facilities at Gujarat are not yet fully developed. This is likely to open very shortly. Quatar CNG will then be moved by road and rail to retail CNG outlets which are being developed all over India.
Iran already has a direct gas pipeline to Central Asia. It is reluctant to exploit this for two reasons. First, it faces competition from existing piped gas from Turkmenistan via the Caspian to Turkey and from there to Europe, where CNG and LPG is sold at a cheaper rate than Iran could deliver. Second, Iran is keen to develop it own gas resources. China has begun laying oil and gas pipelines across its northern region to the Pacific.
The US is determined not to be left behind in the race for this potential wealth of Central Asia. Relying on its technological superiority and economic resources, it hopes to be the dominant oil and gas power in the region. Months before the 9/11 terrorist attacks, America's UNICOL was negotiating with Afghanistan's infamous Taliban Government for its gas pipeline from Turkmenistan to Pakistan. The US-lead attack on terrorists in Afghanistan delayed UNICOL's plans. But once the Taliban was uprooted and Osama bin Laden and the al-Qaeda dispersed, the laying of the pipeline is taking place at full speed. Pakistan has its own viable gas fields and does not need UNICOL gas for the present. It must therefore be assumed that this pipeline is being constructed to eventually deliver CNG or LPG from a port in Sind or to be piped as gas, by agreement to India. It is evident that this pipeline can never function until there is stability in Afghanistan and peaceful relations are established between India and Pakistan
The US in its on-going war against terrorism in Afghanistan, therefore, has to tread a thin line between India and Pakistan and maintain friendly relations with both. India has no quarrel with US commercial aims in the region. But it refuses to accept General Musharraf's double standards of claiming to fight international terrorism and at the same time giving shelter to local hard-line jehadis and the remnants of al-Qaeda terrorists, whilst supporting cross border terrorist attacks into J&K. America refuses to brand Pakistan a terrorist state but .it has told General Musharraf that militants operating in J&K cannot be termed as freedom fighters. The General has promised that he will close down terrorist camps in Pak Occupied Kashmir [POK] and stop cross border infiltration.
The US has divided the area of military operations in Asia into two clearly separate zones. Its Central Command deals with operations in the Middle East and Central Asia [the area between Turkey and Pakistan]. Its Pacific Command deals with South East Asia and the Far East, [area east of Pakistan, from India to Japan]. When the US opened military relations with India, its army began carrying out joint exercises with the Indian army at Agra and Indian and US naval ships undertook joint escort duties in the Straits of Malacca. The US has made it evident that it intends to treat Pakistan and India even-handedly. It has re-established military ties with Pakistan. Recently, it sold six Hercules C-130 transport aircraft to Pakistan and is preparing to resume military supplies to it. The Bush Administration turned down India's request to hold joint naval exercises in the Persian Gulf; instead, plans are afoot to hold these with the Pakistani navy. America has made it clear that it wants India to confine its military attention to the Pacific Command's zone.

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Sep 22, 20

Postby svinayak » 19 Oct 2011 22:40

Pakistan is losing this great game
December 11th, 2009 · No Comments
http://mustafaqadri.net/wp/articles/pak ... reat-game/

Barack Obama’s surge in Afghanistan worries Pakistan – when the US leaves, it will still have to deal with the Taliban

Mustafa Qadri
guardian.co.uk, Friday 11 December 2009 16:00 GMT

There is more to President Obama’s policy shift in central Asia than more boots in Afghanistan. For Pakistan it represents an escalation of US drone strikes in the tribal areas and continued pressure on its army to immediately engage the Taliban and al-Qaida despite the practical complexities of the task.

The fundamental problem for Pakistan is that Obama’s acceleration of the war against the Taliban has been calculated largely on the basis of domestic US political demands and not those of the region, let alone Pakistan. Already under intense pressure at home from the financial crisis and the unpopularity of the US presence in Afghanistan, Obama must deliver some semblance of victory before he bids for a second term as commander-in-chief in 2012.

The strange paradox of US policy for “AfPak”, however, is that the troop surge represents the storm before the calm. No matter what the rhetoric at West Point was, the message from the Obama administration is that the US will leave Afghanistan in the foreseeable future.

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Sep 22, 20

Postby svinayak » 19 Oct 2011 22:42

The Yanks are leaving, expect a South Asian realignment
August 08, 2011 12:59 AM
By Shahid Javed Burki
The Daily Star
Relations between the United States and Pakistan have continued to fray since a U.S. Special Forces team killed Osama bin Laden in a comfortable villa near a major Pakistani military academy. But the tit-for-tat retaliation that has followed the raid reflects deeper sources of mistrust and mutual suspicion. The latest round has focused on the alleged activities of the Pakistani military’s powerful intelligence agency, Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), in the United States. ISI is accused of watching over the Pakistani diaspora and of sponsoring unregistered lobbyists working to shape congressional opinion.

Indeed, this is not the first time that Pakistan’s relations with the U.S. have been on a slippery slope. In 1965, after helping Pakistan to build up its economy and its military strength, the U.S. walked out over the war with India that Pakistan had provoked by sending “freedom fighters” into Kashmir.

In 1989, following the Soviet Union’s exit from Afghanistan, the U.S. lost interest in what it now calls AfPak – Afghanistan-Pakistan. The Americans began returning to Pakistan, until 1998, when the Pakistani government decided to follow India in testing an atomic bomb. This led to the imposition of U.S. sanctions – and America’s third exit from Pakistan.

That situation remained unchanged when Afghanistan-based Al-Qaeda struck America on Sept. 11, 2001. After receiving a “you are either with us or against us” warning from President George W. Bush’s administration, General Pervez Musharraf’s Pakistan decided to side with the U.S. It severed relations with Afghanistan’s Taliban regime, which it had helped to install five years earlier, and allowed America to use its air space to launch strikes on Afghanistan.



Read more: http://www.dailystar.com.lb/Opinion/Com ... z1bFe3zHkv
(The Daily Star :: Lebanon News :: http://www.dailystar.com.lb)

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Sep 22, 20

Postby svinayak » 19 Oct 2011 22:46

Afghanistan in Chinese Strategy Toward South and Central Asia
http://www.jamestown.org/programs/china ... no_cache=1

Publication: China Brief Volume: 8 Issue: 10May 13, 2008 06:05 PM Age: 3 yrs
By: Tariq Mahmud Ashraf
The resurgence of great powers' interests in Central Asia in recent years is reminiscent of the “Great Game” that ensued in the region in the 19th century between Czarist Russia and Imperial Great Britain. Afghanistan’s geographic location has made it a much coveted strategic pivot in the current Great Game. Notwithstanding the similarities between the two periods, some stark differences stand out prominently: one, there are now significantly more stakeholders in Afghanistan’s security (United States, Russia, Europe, Japan, India and China); two, while the first Great Game was precipitated primarily by Russia’s quest for access to the warm waters and the creation of a buffer between British India and Czarist Russia, the stakes now include oil, hydropower sources, strategic metals, pipelines, transit routes and access to markets. These significantly higher stakes have led to Central Asia assuming military, geo-political, geo-economic and geo-strategic significance for two major blocs—one led by the United States (NATO) and the other by China (Shanghai Cooperation Organization)—vying for influence in the region with seemingly dissimilar interests. “China needs them, Russia wants to control their distribution, and Western powers want to ensure they are not monopolized by Moscow or Beijing” (USA Today, December 15, 2007).



Afghanistan’s strategic location between Central and South Asia is of immense geo-strategic significance for the landlocked countries of Central Asia and its prosperity is inextricably linked to the security situation in Central and South Asia. Immense energy resources and strategic location on China’s western frontier have led to Central Asia being referred to as China’s Dingwei (Lebensraum) [1].



China’s Interests in Afghanistan



The present regional order prevailing in Afghanistan and Central Asia is similar in some ways to what transpired in Europe after the end of the Second World War. The United States and Western European powers, under the NATO umbrella, desire strengthening their presence in the region to counter the growing power and regional influence of both China and Russia while China, like the erstwhile Soviet Union, is aspiring to extend its security perimeter westward by developing close links with the countries in the region and ensuring unhindered access to the energy resources therein.



Some Indian analysts are convinced that China is engaged in a “creeping encirclement” of their country [2]. They see Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iran forming the right or western pincer of this move, Bangladesh and Burma (also known as Myanmar) making up the left or eastern pincer with Sri Lanka acting as the southern anchor and completing the encirclement (refer to Figure-1 in PDF). India’s recent overtures toward Afghanistan, Iran and Central Asia and the development of close ties with these countries appear to be aimed at weakening China’s right pincer and denying Pakistan a secure western frontier (The Hindu, November 7, 2001). Afghanistan figures prominently, therefore, in Chinese and Indian foreign policies. In fact, the decision to establish the first ever Indian military outpost on foreign soil at the Farkhor Air Base in Tajikistan, just 2 kilometers from the Tajik–Afghan border, could well be perceived as an attempt to reduce the impact of the Chinese encirclement (Indian Express, February 25, 2007). According to a Chinese military journal, India’s forays into Afghanistan and the Central Asian arena are “designed to achieve four objectives: contain Pakistan; enhance energy security; combat terrorism; and pin down China’s development” [3]. As in the past, Afghanistan has once again emerged as the “strategic knot” for the region’s security.


svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Sep 22, 20

Postby svinayak » 19 Oct 2011 22:48

Defanged! The Great Game’s changed
May 8, 2011 DC
http://www.deccanchronicle.com/360-degr ... hanged-220

The day the world changed forever. Osama bin Laden. Unarmed. Taken out with one bullet to his head, and a burst of gunfire to his chest.

The golden bullet, that altered the world as we know it.

It ended the life of a Saudi millionaire whose delusional, extremist jihad was fodder to the vituperative, anti-western rhetoric that fuelled Arab anger over Washington’s propping up of a series of unrepresentative governments in the Arab world.

It helped US President Barack Obama reclaim his persona as the silver-tongued orator. He is now Cool Hand Luke with a steady hand on the rudder of his hitherto messy foreign policy boat, a stream of studied photo-ops steadily erasing his imperfections.

Only days after the Abbotabad raid, he is photographed with victims of 9/11 against the backdrop of a monument at Ground Zero; then, pictured alongside US troops returning from a traumatic tour of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan, the promise of a drawdown quietening murmurs over the much reviled surge; pictures released by the White House of an inscrutable Obama watching the Osama endgame in the Situation Room are the final touch. Clearly, there’s little doubt that barring an unforseen catastrophe, the Oval Office is Barack Obama’s for a second term.

That’s the obvious conclusion. Less clear is the fall-out on relations between India’s arch enemy Pakistan — embarrassed over how they have been supposedly outed over the stashing away of bin Laden from prying eyes these last ten years — and the Americans, to all intents and purposes, rattled by mistrustful ways of their ally of 60 years.

How the purported “unhinging” of the partnership between the two nations affects India, which has much to gain if Islamabad reverses years of manipulation and gains an upper hand over Rawalpindi, is open to debate.

In other words, can the discredited civilian leadership take the first baby steps towards independent decision-making, unmindful of interference from the well-entrenched and hitherto hugely respected military and intelligence power centres which have always claimed they know what’s best for Pakistan.

Army chief Ashfaq Kiyani has lost little time in swiftly and publicly saying he disagrees with Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari’s nuclear no-first use policy, pre-empting any move by this unpopular president to cash in on the ordinary Pakistani’s unease over the Abbotabad debacle.

The reworking of the nuke policy would have been the one Zardari gesture that, like former prime minister Nawaz Sharif’s path-breaking Lahore parleys with Indian premier Atal Behari Vajpayee, and former president Pervez Musharraf’s promised nixing of terrorism from Pakistani soil, could break the Indo-Pak logjam post 26/11.

It could win Zardari plaudits in Delhi which, given the present climate, cannot serve up what Rawalpindi has pushed its pliant foreign ministry into asking for — a withdrawal by Indian forces from Siachen or any agreement on Kashmir that would give Pakistan a face-saver.

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Sep 22, 20

Postby svinayak » 19 Oct 2011 22:49

Iran-Pakistan-India natural gas pipeline
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/s ... clnk&gl=us

The construction of pipelines is of paramount importance for the energy policies of Washington, Beijing, Brussels, and Moscow, making the design, budgeting, and implementation of pipeline projects always thorny and controversial. The proposed Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline project (IPI), which would transport extracted gas from the South Pars deposit in Iran to India through Pakistan, is a case in point. The 3,000-kilometer gas pipeline would require a $7.5 billion investment and a multi-stakeholder collaboration. The project, first floated in 1989, has long been delayed because — among other reasons — Iran has routinely demanded gas price revisions and Pakistan persistently asked for higher transit fees. In reality, however, hidden political motivations are the real culprit for the long delay.

The project is once again officially suspended as of the beginning of 2011. According to the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting, Ghabini Ali Reza, director general of Iran’s Gas Engineering and Development Company — a subsidiary of the National Iranian Gas Company — said on February 19 that the construction of the pipeline has been temporarily put on hold. Iran has the second largest quantity of known fossil fuel reserves in the world, giving it the potential to supply energy to a wide range of natural gas importing countries, such as Pakistan, India, and China. Iranian gas is usually supplied via physical pipelines, but the production of liquefied natural gas for more distant markets is another option.

Since the discovery of large reserves in the South Pars field in 1988 the Iranian government has continued to promote substantial export of gas. High earnings from these rich fields are expected from possible sales of extracted gas to Pakistan and India, where energy demand is high and steadily increasing.

In 1995, Islamabad and Tehran signed a preliminary agreement for the construction of a pipeline that would connect the South Pars field to Karachi, Pakistan’s most important industrial center located on the shores of the Arabian Sea. The Iranian authorities understood that both Pakistan and India would use this gas, with Pakistan acting as both an importer and a transit country. In 1999 India and Iran signed a preliminary agreement, and discussions were then held about the construction of the IPI (Iran, Pakistan, and India) pipeline — also known as the “peace pipeline.” It was thought that mutual energy cooperation and the sharing of Iranian gas would bring about a possible thaw in the tense relations between Islamabad and Delhi. On March 16, 2010, the Iranian and Pakistani authorities signed a final agreement in Ankara to construct the pipeline. However, despite earlier expectations, India was not included in the project.

There were also financial issues at stake. Iran stated that Pakistan was unable to put together the necessary financing. The timing of this statement could not have been more inopportune. The Pakistani economy was in a precarious state and the situation became more complicated due to the widespread flooding that subsequently devastated large parts of Pakistan. Finally, the geopolitical implications of events in Central and South Asia — the NATO military operation in Afghanistan and the uprising in Kyrgyzstan — also presented a major obstacle to the effective fulfillment of the energy export and the security plan.

Many external interests need to be taken into account in the IPI pipeline project, especially those of the United States, China, and Russia. India’s wavering attitude toward the project can be largely attributed to U.S. pressure on Delhi to join other pipeline projects and Washington’s downplaying of the potential benefits of the IPI. It stands to reason that a gas pipeline linking Iran, Pakistan and India would have significant geopolitical implications. The countries involved in the IPI pipeline project have varying interests and policies.

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Sep 22, 20

Postby svinayak » 19 Oct 2011 22:51

Pakistan in the vortex of the Great Game
Posted on September 28, 2011 by Lahori
http://lahoreledger.com/2011/09/28/paki ... reat-game/

Pakistan in the vortex of the Great Game. Image via Wikipedia

Those of us who are all too aware of the geopolitical significance of Pakistan. As an important block in bringing stability to Afghanistan and the wider Central Asia which in turn means economic prosperity. As such an escalation of the war into Pakistan is not the course.

At the heart of American foreign policy and the real reasons for being inside Afghanistan is fundamentally dependent on controlling Central Asia. Thus influencing the prosperity and economic growth of The Eurasian triangle. The reason for being in Afghanistan is economic, to revive the American economy which has collapsed as predicted in the late 80?s and in the 90?s. The blueprint for the rationale for war has been Zbigniew Brzezinski and as ever I draw you to his book “The Grand Chessboard”. However, their are those hawkish elements that have strayed away from Brzezinski’s reasoning for hegemonising Central Asia. These hawks seek an American Empire and seek the destruction of countless sovereign nations, some following their own egotistic desires, others promote the agenda of foreign lobby’s and powers. Pakistan was pivotal to win over for Brzezinski and America has known for decades as do all regional powers that stability inside Central Asia rests on Pakistan. An integrated Central Asia connected to Russia, China, Midlde East and to Europe rests on a stable Afghanistan & Pakistan. Both are extremely important interlockking nations. One is the core central block linking the West to Central Asia as well as Africa and Middle East to Asia and the other links this interconnected region of Eurasia with the Far East, South / South East Asia and the warm waters of The Persian and Arabian gulf. Picture a network of modern road and rail infrastructure, oil and gas flowing across these regions from the Caspian Basin. A vibrant economy and the immense trading opportunities that can exist under a supposed American watchful eye is the ticket to revitalise The American Dollar and the economy of The West.

Wishful thinking nevertheless, in reality America knows it can no longer have the entire cake and eat it. The rise of China is inevitable and this is where things went drastically wrong for Ameerica. In the way the Bush administration implemented these grandeur imperial designs to destabilise The Middle East, ignoring Afghanistan and think of ways to contain China . Iraq was a monumental mistake even agreed by Brzezinski and more so the destabilisation of Pakistan. Brzezinski did not see Iraq as a threat and even if the sanctions were lifted with a strong American presence on its doorstep, Iraq would not be switching to the Euro nor would it have posed a threat. Brzezinski describes Pakistan as an absolute key nation to win over and again here Bush and his radicalised administration approached Pakistan in the wrong way altogether. Instead of a partner Bush dictated and forced Pakistan by the scruff of it’s neck to do its bidding and then went about destabilising Pakistan in cohorts with India. This was a fundamental shift in Brzezinski’s grand game. It is clear there were two forces at work in America, one that sought occupation of Afghanistan and then a swift transition to stabilising Afghanistan through Pakistan and creating a stable, integrated Central Asia with America as the sole architect and consequently a major benefector. The second ideology was not Brzezinski’s idea at all, this was a very radical, an irrational war mongering policy of absolute extremism with blatant colonial overtones. Here the White House was undoubtedly hijacked by right wing extremists through strong financial support from important lobby’s namely Indian and Zionist. It seems even today the irrational still have the ability to sway the course of history away from the greater game and continues to further escalate the theatre of war.

In an interview earlier this year Brzezinski was asked with regards to India and Pakistan. Who out of the two was the linchpin or key ally/partner for America and American strategy in the Central Asian region. When India was described as the greater alliance, Brzezinski replied;

“Well if it is then I don’t understand what the Eurasia strategy is because if that is the alliance, then we are not going to solve the Afghan question and if we don’t solve the Afghan question but the conflict continues, how will the relationship between China and Pakistan, which is quite close, be affected by an American-Indian alliance, and what will that do to the prospects for stability on a larger global scale between China and India?”

Stability has to come through Pakistan and treating it as an equal not at the end of a loaded gun “could have” provided America with the strategic depth it wanted. Instead it should be positioning itself to relieve itself not to extend on its misgivings and mis sold calculations. The current spat is a tug of war with the Pro Indian Lobbyist seeking a divided and contained Pakistan serving only Indian interests and leaving Central and West Asia very unstable. The other side are the Pro Brzezinski strategist and remember Brzezinski remains Obama’s chief advisor. Either way America has not succeeded and to salvage any sort of influence and face saving exit, will have to come through Pakistan and respecting Pakistani interests. Politics is like poker whoever has the strongest hand dominates the table regardless of how much chips you have bought. Right now Pakistan is still holding onto its cards and is still in the game and while the American poker face has been very straight faced we know what cards it has in its hands. India or the Zionist can give America additional chips to extend the game but sooner or later this game comes to an end and the better player is one who salvages and does not become obsessive or compulsive and thus risking all.

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Sep 22, 20

Postby svinayak » 19 Oct 2011 22:55

http://www.columnspk.com/pakistan-in-th ... hmad-khan/

In a recent article published in this newspaper, I had argued that Pakistan needs to develop a coherent and viable policy for the contingency that since the war is receding in Afghanistan, it may find its new axis in Pakistan. A few days later, the new CIA chief publicly stated that that the axis of military operations would be shifted from the south to the east in Afghanistan. This would be the territory adjacent to Pakistan, except further east in the Kunar province from where the coalition has already notably withdrawn, a situation that has led to fierce attacks by sizeable forces of insurgents on Bajaur and Dir from across the Afghan border. There is a sense of alarm that the latest version of US President Barack Obama’s policy may push Pakistan into the eye of the storm. In opinion pieces written with the worst-case scenario in mind, there are implicit allegations that recent developments constitute the latest phase in a sustained policy of the US to cut Pakistan to size, especially in the nuclear field.

There is, however, another angle from which the evolving situation can be viewed, perhaps with less trepidation. The starting point has to be that the drawdown of American forces does not mean the abandonment of Washington’s vital interests in the huge swath of land that includes Central Asia, Afghanistan and South Asia. Secondly, notwithstanding the current strains in the Pakistan-US relationship, Pakistan will, in the months and years ahead, remain a major concern of American policymakers. In the article mentioned above, I had said that Pakistan ran like a subtext in President Obama’s latest address. There has been ample reiteration of this fact for the simple reason that the new American strategy to safeguard its interests in the region at a much lower cost in blood and treasure would remain dependent upon Islamabad remaining a loyal and compliant ally. So the present delicate situation is more a consequence of Pakistan’s failure to reach an accord with the US on assisting Washington to pursue its political and economic agenda in this part of the world without sacrificing Pakistan’s core interests.

After a frustrating decade in Afghanistan, the US is virtually giving up on nation-building and returning to counterterrorism. The fundamental interests that will be pursued with undiminished zeal would be the survival of a regime, which may include elements from the Taliban that accept decisive American influence. A new factor for this power assertion is the need to control the mining of copper, iron, lithium and other minerals and the denial of the same to others, especially China. This is additional to the unique geopolitical location of the country, which would be defended by an effective American military force stationed in it under a treaty, and an Afghan army totally disproportionate to the country’s economic resources at present. Washington also will not forego the leverage that its military presence in Afghanistan gave it to shape the policies of the Central Asian states rich in fossil fuels and rare Earth elements. Then there is the question of keeping Iran surrounded by states that remain sensitive to American policy. Above all, there is the overriding question of fitting Pakistan into a new South Asian paradigm. The most substantive challenge to American dominance of the global economy has come from Asia. It is of utmost importance to the United States that India continues to remain within the orbit of its influence and that the India-Pakistan contention does not detract from it.

Washington would also not give up the pressure for the transformation of Pakistani state and society, though it has only a limited interest in its historical context or its present complexity. A more robust Pakistani government enjoying mass support would have succeeded in making the United States appreciate its own dilemma. A new report by the Centre for a New American Security describes Pakistan as a “differentiated” polity, requiring a differentiated American policy. WikiLeaks alone will explain why American analysts reach this disturbing conclusion. The present government in Pakistan has to restore national purpose and pride or make room for others who may be able to do it.

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Sep 22, 20

Postby svinayak » 19 Oct 2011 22:59

China and India: the great game's new players
China's urge to break from the confines of its history is driving it to encroach on Himalayan redoubts and directly challenge India
Jaswant Singh
guardian.co.uk, Saturday 25 September 2010 10.00 EDT
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... great-game

Several thousand Chinese People's Liberation Army troops are stationed in the Khunjerab Pass on the Xinjiang border. Photograph: Peter Parks/Getty Images
Two "great games" currently roil South Asia. In the west, Afghanistan – and what Henry Kissinger calls "Islamist jihadists" – challenges the international order. In the east, a large number of Chinese troops have entered Pakistani-held territory high in the mountain fastness of the Kashmir Karakorams, in the picturesque Gilgit-Baltistan region, not far from the glacial battlefield of Siachen, where India and Pakistan confront each other.

Senge Hasan Sering, from Skardu, the director of the Gilgit-Baltistan National Congress, believes that the number of Chinese People's Liberation Army troops now present "could be over 11,000", as there are also additional "PLA construction corps personnel" deployed. It is here that China is currently investing "billions of dollars in mega projects like expressways, tunnels, and oil and gas pipelines". This, Sering says, is "surely not on account of any overflowing altruism".

The Chinese say that some of their troops are present in Pakistan because of another sort of "overflowing", of which there has been a great deal in this part of Kashmir and in the rest of Pakistan. This year's heavy monsoon rains have wrought havoc in the area, severing road connections, washing away bridges and rendering over half a million people homeless in these mountains – without "dwellings, farmlands, moveable assets" or even "graveyards". This is over and above the many thousands in the Hunza region, who in January lost everything on account of a cloudburst that wiped out several villages and created a highly unstable artificial lake.

Rudyard Kipling's old "great game" now has new contestants. Instead of an expansionist Russian empire confronting imperial Britain, it is now a China hungry for land, water and raw materials that is flexing its muscles, encroaching on Himalayan redoubts and directly challenging India.

China's incursion reaffirms the ancient strategic axiom that "geography is the real determinant of history" – and, as a result, of foreign and security policy, too. Robert Kaplan wisely observes that "Indian geography is the story of invasions from a northwesterly direction" and "India's strategic challenges still inhere in this fact" – which is why Afghanistan, to Indian eyes, is linked to the subcontinent's history, and thus our future.

It is also why there exists an "organic connection of India to Central Asia", the key to that link lying in the Himalayas, which is where the India-China rivalry is currently focused. Fortunately, at least for the present, this rivalry is far less emotional than India-Pakistan relations, having not been born of historical grievances.

The Chinese urge is to break from the confines of their country's history, and thus China's own geography. An assertive and relatively stable China, it seems, must expand, lest pent-up internal pressures tear it apart. A strong and stable India, on the other hand, will always be a status quo power.

It is against this backdrop that the latest contest between India and China must be assessed. Several thousand PLA troops are indisputably stationed in the Khunjerab Pass on the Xinjiang border to protect the Karakoram highway, which PLA soldiers are now repairing in several places. The road, after all, is a vital link in China's quest for direct access to the Arabian Sea. But this is also Indian territory, wherein lies the rub, for the region is now victim to a creeping China acquisitiveness, with Pakistan acquiescing as a willing accomplice.

Despite India's historically established territorial claims to the region, China terms the area "disputed" – a description it has now begun to extend to the whole of the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir. This sort of verbal trickery to hide a strategic objective has been seen before. Indeed, some years back, a planned visit to Indian Ladakh by the PLA's commander of the Lanzhou Military Region was cancelled on the grounds that Pakistan had protested – implying that Pakistan had a legitimate claim to the area.

It would be a mistake to presume that the vast expansion of trade between India and China, currently worth more than $60bn (£38bn) annually (with China now India's largest trading partner), must lead to improved bilateral relations. Even while trade expands, China is attempting to confine India within greatly foreshortened land and sea borders through its so-called "string of pearls policy".

This effort to encircle India by sea with strategically positioned naval stations from Hainan in the east to Gwadar in the west, and on land by promoting bogus Pakistani claims that undermine India's territorial integrity, takes the "great game" to a new and more dangerous level. Indeed, the pincer of Afghanistan and Gilgit/Baltistan poses the gravest challenge to India's statecraft since independence.

More than that, the struggle now underway at the top of the world may well determine whether this will be an "Asian century" or a "Chinese century".

• Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2010

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Sep 22, 20

Postby svinayak » 19 Oct 2011 23:00

Pipelineistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan
By Irshad Salim
http://www.despardes.com/Opinion/salim/ ... oct30.html


Oct 31: Pipelineistan is the golden future: a paradise of opportunity in the form of US$5 trillion of oil and gas in the Caspian basin and the former Soviet republics of Central Asia. In Washington's global petrostrategy, this is supposed to be the end of America's oil dependence on the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). This is of course the heart of the matter in the New Great Game - compared to which the original 19th-century Great Game between czarist Russia and the British Empire was- a childish tin soldier's diversion.

Afghanistan itself has some natural gas in the north of the country, near Turkmenistan. But above all it is ultra-strategic: positioned between the Middle East, Central Asia and South Asia, between Turkmenistan on its northeast and the avid markets of the Indian subcontinent, China and Japan on its east and southeast. Afghanistan is at the core of Pipelineistan.

The Caspian states hold at least 200 billion barrels of oil, and Central Asia alone has 6.6 trillion cubic meters of natural gas just begging to be exploited. Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan are two major producers: Turkmenistan is nothing less than a "gas republic". Apart from oil and gas there's copper, coal, tungsten, zinc, iron, uranium, gold. In short, the Caspian basin is thought to hold the world's third largest oil and gas reserves - much of it still untapped.

The only export routes, for the moment, are through Russia. So most of the game consists of building alternative pipelines to Turkey and Western Europe, and to the east toward the Asian markets. India, Iran, Russia and Israel are all planning to supply oil and gas to South and Southeast Asia through Afghanistan, Paksitan, India.

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Sep 22, 20

Postby svinayak » 19 Oct 2011 23:02

China Enters Great Game in Indian Ocean
Harsh Pant, Japan Times
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/eo20110614a2.html

AP Photo
Revelations that Pakistan has invited China to build a naval base at the strategic port of Gwadar once again underlines widespread anxiety in India and beyond about Beijing's Indian Ocean objectives.
Gwadar is a predominantly Chinese-funded commercial port about 500 km from the Strait of Hormuz and is considered by many as the most significant "pearl" in Beijing's "string" of facilities around the Indian Ocean littoral. Though the Pakistani request has not been entertained by China, at least for now, the Indian Ocean is fast emerging as the main front in the struggle between China and India.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11638
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Sep 22, 20

Postby A_Gupta » 19 Oct 2011 23:18

If I believe National Public Radio, North Dakota shale oil reserves are 400 billion barrels. The technology to unlock these reserves ("fracking") was developed only five years ago. There is a oil rush there that mirrors the California gold rush, and the radio story said that cheap motel rooms there are $600 a night. There is a huge labor shortage, and the radio cited Halliburton corp. asking people to move there, promising $100K jobs for people with a high school education. MacDonald's burger flippers get a signing bonus.

I don't see need for any Central Asian game for the US to be necessary, if the radio story was not exaggerating.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15995
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Sep 22, 20

Postby RajeshA » 19 Oct 2011 23:37

Acharya garu,

you may have inadvertently posted all those great articles in the wrong thread. Perhaps they belong in the Great Game thread!

Rudradev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3524
Joined: 06 Apr 2003 12:31

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Sep 22, 20

Postby Rudradev » 19 Oct 2011 23:40

Arun-ji,

Even as things are, the US domestic energy market doesn't depend on West or Central Asia for its own oil. It gets most of its oil from Canada, Central America and from within its own borders.

The "game" is not to occupy oilfields that will serve the US domestic energy market; it is to control the global supply of oil and gain a strangling leverage over energy-deficit powers like EU/China/India as well as to prevent other brokers from achieving that position of influence. Far too much chance, otherwise, that the Ibn Saud-Roosevelt agreement will finally be discarded and CA/WA oil producers will start pricing their wares in Euros (or RMB further down the line.) Discovery of new oil sources in the US will not affect any of these imperatives.

Rangudu
BRFite
Posts: 1751
Joined: 03 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Sep 22, 20

Postby Rangudu » 19 Oct 2011 23:45

Has anyone seen this hilarious Punjabi video "Aaloo Anday" by a Pakjabi amateur band that uploaded it on Youtube couple of days ago. They poke fun of the jihadi mindset and even joke about Kayani directly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEpnwCPg ... r_embedded

Upendra
BRFite
Posts: 192
Joined: 11 Sep 2011 13:14

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Sep 22, 20

Postby Upendra » 19 Oct 2011 23:46

gakakkad wrote:Intel alliance offers sharia-compliant laptop loans

Intel is working with an Islamic bank to offer consumers Pakistan’s first large-scale hire purchase scheme for personal computers, aiming to increase its market share in the country. The US chip group hopes its partnership with Karachi-based Meezan Bank will boost sales of laptops to buyers


100% pure character who founded the jihadi bank http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Taqi_Usmani

Taqi Usmani... pioneered the concept of Islamic banking in Pakistan when he established the Meezan Bank

He currently teaches Sahih al-Bukhari, fiqh, and Islamic economics at Darul Uloom Karachi and is known for his Islahi Khutbat. He was a key member of a team of scholars which helped declare Ahmadis (Qadianis), as non-Muslims by Pakistan's National Assembly during the era of former Pakistani president, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, in the 1970s. During the presidency of General Zia ul Haq, he was instrumental in drafting laws pertaining to Hudood, Qisas, and Dayiat. He strongly opposed the Women's Protection Bill.

According to a comment piece in The Times, Usmani "believes that aggressive military jihad should be waged by Muslims 'to establish the supremacy of Islam' worldwide." and "Muslims should live peacefully in countries such as Britain, where they have the freedom to practise Islam, only until they gain enough power to engage in battle".


Supporter of persecution of women and minorities and a vocal supporter of terrorism. Truly Pakistani.

Meanwhile Intel should re-brand itself as jihad friendly chip maker, the chip designed to survive a kufr hellfire missile.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11638
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Sep 22, 20

Postby A_Gupta » 19 Oct 2011 23:46

^^^ For the US thread, but I see both from the left and the right, the lapse into US isolationism. The message hasn't reached Washington DC yet, but perhaps the 2012 elections will do it.

Upendra
BRFite
Posts: 192
Joined: 11 Sep 2011 13:14

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Sep 22, 20

Postby Upendra » 20 Oct 2011 00:11

Multatuli wrote:Someone even started a list of people to be beheaded and a few others added to that list. Will these posters please desist! I don't find such posts even mildly funny, it's an insult to the general reader.


What's wrong with that? There is a vocal gang which wants peace with pakistan at any costs. Peace in pakistan is defined as killing of kufrs. I suggested sending these gang members to pakistan to experience peace, some of them known to be in the pay of ISI, as exposed during the Fai spy scandal. Since all humans are equal, why should their lives be more important than mine or my fellow compatriots? Why is that when bombs go off and people die, none of the dead belong to this group. Why should my relatives die and not those of like bhadrakumar, who is a die-hard advocate of pakistani terrorism. As a supporter of equality i want them to face the same set of danger that common Indians are forced to confront daily. Why would you take this as an insult? Equality is never an insult.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54519
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Sep 22, 20

Postby ramana » 20 Oct 2011 00:50

Upendra, Gives new meaning to green technology!

Mahendra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4411
Joined: 11 Aug 2007 17:20
Location: Chronicling Bakistan's Tryst with Dysentery

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Sep 22, 20

Postby Mahendra » 20 Oct 2011 01:02

[youtube]Bqm_vQ0aRi4&feature=related[/youtube]

Hitesh
BRFite
Posts: 793
Joined: 04 Jul 1999 11:31

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Sep 22, 20

Postby Hitesh » 20 Oct 2011 02:17

This is Golden!!!

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=fvwp&v=8R_3vmViFrw&NR=1[/youtube]

How do I embed a youtube video???

Here is the website url: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=fv ... ViFrw&NR=1

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3407
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Sep 22, 20

Postby Cosmo_R » 20 Oct 2011 02:45

Re 'Be-headings' ^^^. IIUC, the remark was to the effect that a list of people be sent to TSP experience the virtues of the islamic republic and to be relieved of their vices. I don't think anyone here was suggesting that this should be a 'hit list'

Funnily enough, this lot on the 'list' have ancestors in the Khilafat Movement of the 1920s:

The Khilafat movement contributed to the emergence of early Indian communism. Many Indian Muslims left India to join the defense of the Caliphate. Several of them became communists whilst visiting Soviet territory. Even some Hindus joined the Muslim muhajirs in the travels to the Soviet areas.[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism_in_India

Interesting how many 'Roys' are involved :) . IIRC, this lot went off to defend the Caliphate and shortly afterwards were killed off by the true believers who considered them 'Godless' :)

somaz
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 37
Joined: 26 Mar 2011 20:18

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Sep 22, 20

Postby somaz » 20 Oct 2011 03:59

on a lighter note, recently on a trip to New Jersey, I visited my nephew's public school in an all white high-income suburb. One of the hall way has flags from 50 odd countries placed on the sides .. lo behold ..the Paki flag was removed in Feb 2011 . Interestingly, his closet friend is a from pak-land, but my nephew prohibited me from asking him his views on this ! small step , but a step in the right direction I think

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3407
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Sep 22, 20

Postby Cosmo_R » 20 Oct 2011 04:05

somaz wrote:on a lighter note, recently on a trip to New Jersey, I visited my nephew's public school in an all white high-income suburb. One of the hall way has flags from 50 odd countries placed on the sides .. lo behold ..the Paki flag was removed in Feb 2011 . Interestingly, his closet friend is a from pak-land, but my nephew prohibited me from asking him his views on this ! small step , but a step in the right direction I think


Just kidding but is your nephew white? ("an all white high-income suburb") :) BTW, what is a "closet friend" ? :)

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21161
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Sep 22, 20

Postby Prem » 20 Oct 2011 06:44

A taste of our own medicine?
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2011\10\20\story_20-10-2011_pg3_1
Pakistan’s concerns centre around Mullah Fazlullah’s faction of the TTP launching attacks on police and paramilitary forces in border areas like Dir and Bajaur. Over a hundred personnel have been killed in the previous three to four months in these attacks. Pakistan claims that Fazlullah and his men, after the rout from Swat in 2009 at the hands of the Pakistan Army, found safe havens in the eastern provinces of Afghanistan. These havens afford the TTP freedom, and local support, to foray into Pakistani territory to carry out attacks against Pakistani security personnel with impunity.
It is fascinating that these assertions of Pakistan sound like an echo of earlier American and Afghan accusations vis-à-vis the Haqqanis and their alleged safe havens in Pakistan. The more alarmist viewpoint sees the deployments on both sides of the border as perhaps an intention on the part of the US to carry out some form of strikes inside Pakistani territory, and a corresponding preparedness on the part of Pakistan to deal with such an eventuality. However, such speculation must be viewed with caution: any such intentions, or action, on the part of the US would almost certainly drain away any semblance of an alliance to fight militancy in the region. Opposing opinion holds that the two sides, i.e., NATO/ISAF and Pakistan have probably come to an agreement such that each side deals with the relevant militants enjoying safe havens within their respective borders. If that is the case, one cannot wish for any better. However, a third, and not unlikely scenario is simply what it seems to be on the face of it: that both NATO and Pakistan, suffering continuing onslaught from militants, have decided to go after their ‘respective’ bad Taliban — the US after the Haqqanis, and Pakistan after the TTP. Is it not ironic then that despite it being common knowledge that all factions of the Taliban protect and support each other, and are united under the al Qaeda umbrella, the two protagonists still choose to make enemies of specific factions whilst ignoring others? In this game so far, it is the militants of every hue that have cunningly gained the upper hand against their divided adversaries, Pakistan and the US. Then again, to be fair, giving a free run to the TTP, i.e. not hunting down Fazlullah despite Pakistan’s identification of militant hideouts in Afghanistan’s eastern provinces, could be a move on the part of the US to persuade Pakistan to gain a different perspective: that of being on the receiving end of militant attacks from safe havens across the border. While it is too early to say exactly which scenario of the above three is playing itself out, the need for Pakistan’s establishment to abandon its strategy of reliance on proxies to gain influence in post-US withdrawal Afghanistan cannot be stressed enough. The chickens came home to roost a long time ago. It is imperative the ostrich retrieve its head from the sand and recognise the calamitous repercussions of continued reliance on militant proxies for perceived strategic advantages. Refusal to ditch the notion of strategic depth, which has demonstrably damaged Pakistan’s reputation internationally, and caused it increasing isolation, could certainly effect the kind of catastrophic consequences for Pakistan that might be impossible to recover from. *


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: DrRatnadip and 53 guests