As you know the world is facing an economic crisis which is having
the worst effect on under-developed countries as well as developed
countries in which the sole superpower, the USA, is also included.
Thousands of people have lost their jobs in Pakistan, even educated
people. Every institution or firm is facing financial crisis as a
result of which leave alone hiring new people they can’t even pay
employees who are working with them. There should be contributions
from financial institutions like the World Bank and International
Monetary Fund as they give financial assistance to countries to
sustain or maintain their economic crisis. I hope the World Bank and
IMF will extend the needy support as soon as possible.—Karachi
The nuke fashion
Mr Asif Khattak
We live in an epoch of great upheavals. We find it difficult to
safeguard these strides against clash and contradiction. Despite our
all-enthusiastic voyage to join the comity of global village, the
chances of war cannot be eliminated altogether. On the face of such
challenges, the more realistic the military policy is less are the
chances of war, both general or nuclear
The media-frenzy world of today seems to be much fascinated and
obsessed by powers of nuclear era. However, viewing the more lethal
nature of such armoury, a common bewilderment exists in our mind as
to whether nuclear power means all the war preparedness requires or
the conventional preparedness still holds good. Also strangely
enough, advocacy for the nukes make the pulse of common man,
intelligentsia, and politicians all novice in the art of warfare
Policy-makers of modern times perhaps seem to cherish every strategy
in terms of the magic world of nuclear power. They have reduced the
art of war to a simple formula of striking the enemy faster with a
greater amount of shots in a given time. Victory looks to be of the
one who can dispose off greater power. Military units give the
impression of having been reduced to be called the purely
arithmetical figures / statements in terms of the explosives
available to them. It is not the troops, but the fire that
constitutes the time and space-filling element. Fire conquers the
ground and the troops, instead of occupying the territory, simply
sweeps through it. Such patent solutions may be applicable to
certain situations, but mostly the conventional warfare with
peculiar weapons bear validity.
It would really be bizarre both politically and militarily to make
the military entirely dependent on the use of nuclear power.
Dependence onnuclar weapons obviously involves training and
organization which dictate employment and counter of nuclear tactics
only. Such a military force would readily get struck up, should
other be called for . choice between nuclear and conventional
weapons leads us to understand the issue from another angle. Suppose
reorganization in the police department that results in policeman
being equipped with firearms only and their truncheons and ter-gas
bombs are taken away from them. Naturally, when confronted by a
demonstration they are either to kill or to retreat.—Via email
Probing BB’s death
Syed Ali
As Benazir Bhutto’s die-hard supporters mourn the death of their
leader, they are also asking questions. And the questions are
hard-hitting. Not many would disagree that the death of Mohtarma
Benazir Bhutto is a mystery. Is it planned and intended to remain a
secret? Many assert so. A recent happening that has been deemed by
many circles as an attempt to seal any possibility of the actual
perpetrators being pinpointed is the initiation of investigation by
the UN Commission. Let alone its utility, its very mandate and
independence are under serious doubts by the masses as well as the
foreign policy pundits.
The mandate of the high-geared investigative commission is limited
to finding the cause of death. PPP workers and BB sympathizers are
openly expressing their dissatisfaction with this narrow aim. They
hold that they do not want any repetition of the controversy over
what caused the death— the hook, gunshot or the blast. A futile
debate will once again obscure the attempt to point out the actual
offenders and give rise to heated debate over pointless details.
Many view it as a government-orchestrated drama (or negligence)
which will bear no outcome except affirming what has been already
been “disclosed” by Scotland Yard, another foreign body which came
amidst much noise but left without any whimper. The only difference
is that this time, the party headed by Benazir is in power but of no
consolation to the die-hard supporters of PPP.
Many are raising fingers at the very independence of the Commission.
Its funding by the Government will be the key factor that will allow
the government to influence the scope, process and indirectly, the
findings of the investigation. “This is the government that has
still far not even lodged the FIR of Benazir’s assassination. Now
its officials will coordinate with the UN investigators. This is
self-explanatory.” Another PPP supporter contended. Earlier,
parameters of investigation by Scotland Yard had been demarcated
secretly by the government under Mussharraf. If this precedent is
followed and the Commission is forced to work under the parameters
defined by the state authorities, this will again lead to findings
not acceptable to the public at large. Considering that the UN
Commission enjoys global reputation and respect and the probe in the
assassination of Benazir is replete with mysterious gaps, the
biggest challenge before it is to resolve these contradictions. The
masses are concerned and suspicious. Mere tag of “international
body” would not obliterate their suspicions. —Via email
India’s freedom
Zahid Rashid
I would like to draw the attention of US President Barack Obama
towards his press conference with Indian PM Manmohan Singh on
November 24, 2009.Lavishing praise on Mr. Singh, standing next to
him at the White House presser, Obama said India would play a
“pivotal role” in meeting future challenges in the world, and
US-India ties will be the “defining partnership of the 21st century.
He repeated this stance more than three times. Obama said “ United
States welcomes and encourages India’s leadership role in helping to
shape the rise of a stable, peaceful, and prosperous Asia,”
He further said that Pakistan and India are nuclear-armed rivals
that have fought two wars since their 1947 independence from
Britain, on the disputed Himalayan Kashmir region. The president
refused to be drawn into the tense India-Pakistan relationship.
Obama said “it is not the place” of the United States to try to
resolve the conflicts from the outside. At the same time, he said
America will do what it can to ensure both Pakistan and India feel
secure and able to address the needs of their citizens May I ask the
honorable US president That If all the world is worried about the
terrorism in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and Israel, all the
powerful countries of the world strived to save the Iraqis people
from the brutality (according to them) of Saddam Hussain, why
America is not indulging in the issue of Kashmir’s, why president
refused to be drawn into the tense India-Pakistan relationship?
It is not fair to treat the human being according to his race and
religion. Kashmiris have sacrificed 9, 00, 00 innocent lives,
thousand have lost their homes, and hundreds of them paralyzed due
to the brutal treatment of Indian army. As the case is lingering in
UN from 62 year, but poor Kashmiri still waiting for a miracle from
UN.
And Indian PM Manmohan Singh said that India and America are
separated by distance, but bound together by the values of
democracy, pluralism, rule of law, and respect for fundamental human
freedoms. I was surprised to listen Indian PM when he said that we
have the rule of law and respect for fundamental human freedoms, I
think PM after taking such a delicious dinner in white house forgot
his brutal treatment in occupied Kashmir . Where his army killed
thousands of innocent civilians. India is continuously denied the
right of self- determination of Kashmiris, Mr .PM where your claim
of respect for fundamental human freedoms lies if you are unable to
accept the self determination of Kashmiris people.—Rawalpindi
The Indian factor
Moez Mobeen
A certain section of the Pakistani intelligentsia has termed the
“American-Indian-Israeli nexus” as a figment of imagination of the
rightwing and has rejected the argument of “foreign hand” being the
reason behind the recent wave of bomb blasts and insecurity gripping
the Pakistani State. Infact they go as far as terming the argument
as an outcome of a “conservative-nationalist” mindset which refuses
to accept the ground realities. In this regard foreign minister Shah
Mahmood Qureshi’s explicit statement, accusing India of abetting the
insurgency in NWFP, is a point in case. Assuming that the Makhdoom
of Multan has not had a spiritual revelation, the statement from a
secular PPP stalwart who happens to represent the Pakistani
Government, sets to rest any apprehensions regarding illogical and
irrational arguments being conjured by the rightwing to shape the
debate regarding the war on terror. This is as far as the Indian
factor is concerned. As for the Americans we are clear about the
desperate US desire that Pakistan should continue its military
operation against Islamist militants.
The criticality of such operations to the US was highlighted by the
visit of Obama’s National Security Advisor General James Jones to
Pakistan who linked the success of US military in Afghanistan to
military operations in Pakistan. With the increasing US military
footprint in Pakistan and the history of US disregard for human
rights and international law like lying about WMDs to attack Iraq,
secret CIA rendition centers, drone attacks on Pakistani territory,
prisoner abuses at Abu Ghuraib and Guantanamo bay, it is not going
too far by suggesting that the US is fomenting trouble in Pakistan
to turn the public opinion in favor of the military operations.
Infact US has been known to use its resources to influence public
opinion in the color revolutions of Central Asia and regime changes
in Central America. So the Indo-American nexus is very much behind
the recent unrest in Pakistan and it is important that any informed
debated on the subject takes this factor in to account. —Islamabad
