<p>The three principal characters in Afghanistan theatre &ndash; the government, Taliban and the United States &ndash; are in favour of talks to end the more than 16-year-old bloody war. But so deep runs the suspicion that the dominant parties do not want to enter into a direct dialogue. The Taliban is ready to talk to the United States but is opposed to dialogue with President Ashraf Ghani government. The US, on the other hand, does not want direct talks with the Taliban. It wants the Taliban to hold talks with the &ldquo;legitimate&rdquo; Afghanistan government. President Ghani has once again reiterated his government&rsquo;s desire to hold talks with Taliban, but the militant organisation is not amused. So, where does that lead to?</p>

<p>The US, which has renewed its offensive on the Taliban in recent months after President Donald Trump committed to an open-ended conflict in Afghanistan in August last year, would not like to be seen as surrendering and admitting defeat if it were to hold talks with the Taliban. In a marked departure from his call during presidential electioneering for an early US withdrawal from Afghanistan, Trump has sent more troops in recent months as he vowed &ldquo;a fight to win&rdquo; when he unveiled his administration&rsquo;s strategy for the war-torn country. President Trump stands to invite ridicule if his administration jumps the gun and enters into a direct dialogue with the Taliban at this stage. Therefore, the US wants Afghanistan to do the bidding on its behalf. &nbsp;</p>

<p>President Ghani knows too well that the US forces would not be there forever as there is increasing pressure from the families of the American soldiers and the people to make an early exit from Afghanistan. Since 2001, when the Taliban were dislodged from power, the Afghan war has cost 2,400 American lives and $1 trillion. Ghani has gone on record admitting that the Afghan National Army will not last more than six months if the US were to withdraw its forces. He even feared the collapse of the government. Aware of this danger, President Ghani is desperate to start negotiations with the Taliban. By offering to recognise the Taliban as a legitimate political group, proposing a ceasefire and release of prisoners and holding &ldquo;unconditional&rdquo; talks, shows his desperation.</p>

<p>The Taliban, which is facing an onslaught from the US forces, wants an early ceasefire to have a much-needed breather. Since last year, it has lost several of its top commanders besides a large number of foot soldiers. It smells twin advantages if talks with the US became a reality. Not only will it escape the intensified fury, it will put the US on the back foot. For the Taliban, it will be a win-win solution as it will enter into dialogue with an upper hand. If the dialogue reaches its logical conclusion, it stands a chance to be accepted as a political group and who knows return to power. But if talks collapse, it will have enough time to recoup and recalibrate its strategy. Moreover, the Taliban does not consider Ghani government as a powerful adversary which it can easily run over in the event of US troop withdrawal.</p>

<p>It remains to be seen if all the major parties are prepared to shift their stance. And even if they do, the chances of an early solution look unlikely as long as Pakistan does not relinquish its support to groups like the Haqqani network.&nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p><em>(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)</em></p>


President Ghani is desperate to start negotiations with the Taliban by offering to recognise the Taliban as a legitimate political group, proposing a ceasefire and release of prisoners and holding “unconditional” talks.

The three principal characters in Afghanistan theatre – the government, Taliban and the United States – are in favour of talks to end the more than 16-year-old bloody war. But so deep runs the suspicion that the dominant parties do not want to enter into a direct dialogue. The Taliban is ready to talk to the United States but is opposed to dialogue with President Ashraf Ghani government. The US, on the other hand, does not want direct talks with the Taliban. It wants the Taliban to hold talks with the “legitimate” Afghanistan government. President Ghani has once again reiterated his government’s desire to hold talks with Taliban, but the militant organisation is not amused. So, where does that lead to? The US, which has renewed its offensive on the Taliban in recent months after President Donald Trump committed to an open-ended conflict in Afghanistan in August last year, would not like to be seen as surrendering and admitting defeat if it were to hold talks with the Taliban. In a marked departure from his call during presidential electioneering for an early US withdrawal from Afghanistan, Trump has sent more troops in recent months as he vowed “a fight to win” when he unveiled his administration’s strategy for the war-torn country. President Trump stands to invite ridicule if his administration jumps the gun and enters into a direct dialogue with the Taliban at this stage. Therefore, the US wants Afghanistan to do the bidding on its behalf. President Ghani knows too well that the US forces would not be there forever as there is increasing pressure from the families of the American soldiers and the people to make an early exit from Afghanistan. Since 2001, when the Taliban were dislodged from power, the Afghan war has cost 2,400 American lives and $1 trillion. Ghani has gone on record admitting that the Afghan National Army will not last more than six months if the US were to withdraw its forces. He even feared the collapse of the government. Aware of this danger, President Ghani is desperate to start negotiations with the Taliban. By offering to recognise the Taliban as a legitimate political group, proposing a ceasefire and release of prisoners and holding “unconditional” talks, shows his desperation. The Taliban, which is facing an onslaught from the US forces, wants an early ceasefire to have a much-needed breather. Since last year, it has lost several of its top commanders besides a large number of foot soldiers. It smells twin advantages if talks with the US became a reality. Not only will it escape the intensified fury, it will put the US on the back foot. For the Taliban, it will be a win-win solution as it will enter into dialogue with an upper hand. If the dialogue reaches its logical conclusion, it stands a chance to be accepted as a political group and who knows return to power. But if talks collapse, it will have enough time to recoup and recalibrate its strategy. Moreover, the Taliban does not consider Ghani government as a powerful adversary which it can easily run over in the event of US troop withdrawal. It remains to be seen if all the major parties are prepared to shift their stance. And even if they do, the chances of an early solution look unlikely as long as Pakistan does not relinquish its support to groups like the Haqqani network. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Opinion: Afghanistan wants peace with Taliban but will it come?

<p>As India and China vigorously jostle for influence in the tiny Himalayan nation, Nepal&rsquo;s new Prime Minister KP Oli has a hard task at hand to do a balancing act. But his early days as prime minister indicate a tectonic shift towards China. Even during elections, he maintained an aggressive pro-China line so as to reduce dependence on India. He used nationalism as a major election plank, which many believe went down well with the masses who voted the left alliance to a comfortable majority, causing discomfiture in the Indian establishment. This was wary of the return of the communist regime. In fact, there are reports that China played a crucial role in ensuring the victory of the left alliance in the elections.</p>

<p>In keeping with his words during electioneering, Oli has dropped enough hints of his government&rsquo;s pro-China tilt. In an interview to Hong Kong&#39;s South China Morning Post, he was more forthcoming when he said that he wanted to &ldquo;deepen&rdquo; ties with China and get more leverage in his dealings with India &ldquo;in keeping with the times&rdquo;. &nbsp;The statement will certainly not please the Indian establishment which had sent its foreign minister Sushma Swaraj immediately after the election results to mend ways with the new government.</p>

<p>The crafty Oli seems to have made a well-thought-out statement to drive a hard bargain with India. The election manifesto of the left alliance speaks volumes about the intent of the new government. It says that the India-Nepal Peace and Friendship Treaty 1950 will be scrapped and a new treaty will be negotiated. &nbsp;The two countries are deadlocked over the issue for several years whether to amend the treaty or replace it completely.&nbsp;</p>

<p>The ties between India and Nepal deteriorated during Oli&rsquo;s first stint as prime minister when he blamed India for the unofficial economic blockade which stopped essential goods from entering Nepal from India, a charge New Delhi denied. &nbsp;An angry Oli then signed a trade and transit agreement with China with an aim to end India&rsquo;s monopoly over Nepal&rsquo;s supply of daily essentials which further created bitterness between the two countries. Oli was also miffed with India&rsquo;s diplomatic intervention in the country&rsquo;s constitutional process in 2015 when New Delhi sought to accommodate demands of the Madhesis who launched a violent struggle to have greater say in the federal system. He often blamed New Delhi for the circumstances which led to his resignation following the political crisis over the Madhesi issue.</p>

<p>Therefore, there is no element of surprise as Oli plays the China card shrewdly. &nbsp;&quot;We have great connectivity with India and an open border. All that&#39;s fine and we&#39;ll increase connectivity even further, but we can&rsquo;t forget that we have two neighbours. We don&#39;t want to depend on one country or have one option,&quot; he said in the same interview. It should be recalled that Oli in his previous avatar as prime minister had inked a deal with China to extend Tibet rail network to Kathmandu and created special economic zones for Chinese firms, infuriating India.</p>

<p>Oli should realize that he can&rsquo;t afford to keep all his eggs in one basket. He will need to be pragmatic to balance both India and China. &nbsp;India is still Nepal&rsquo;s biggest trade partner. In fact, the two-thirds of Nepal&rsquo;s trade remains with India and the Himalayan nation is heavily dependent on the latter for its everyday needs. Therefore when asked how he wanted to work out relations with India, Oli said: &nbsp;&quot;We&#39;ve always had excellent relations with India. There were some elements in the Indian establishment that caused some misunderstanding, but Indian leaders have assured us that there will be no interference in the future and we will respect each other&#39;s sovereign rights&rdquo;. &nbsp;There is no doubt that he is still smarting from his unceremonious ouster and yet to reconcile.</p>

<p>Oli is aware that both India and China want to expand their influence in the region and he would like to use this to his country&rsquo;s advantage. The only difference is while India has always considered Nepal as a natural ally based on the close historical ties, China is ensnaring the region by dolling out lollipops to the world&rsquo;s one of the most impoverished countries by building roads, and trade and transit corridors. But Oli would do well to be careful and understand China&rsquo;s designs. In the past, several countries like the Maldives and Sri Lanka cosied up to China eyeing massive investments but ended up into a debt-trap.</p>

<p>Both India and Nepal need to reconcile and a make a fresh rapprochement to iron out their differences and bring the ailing relations back on track. Given the historic and cultural ties, the two countries can&rsquo;t afford to be like oil and water.</p>

<p>(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)</p>


Given the historic and cultural ties, Nepal will need to be pragmatic to balance both India and China.

As India and China vigorously jostle for influence in the tiny Himalayan nation, Nepal’s new Prime Minister KP Oli has a hard task at hand to do a balancing act. But his early days as prime minister indicate a tectonic shift towards China. Even during elections, he maintained an aggressive pro-China line so as to reduce dependence on India. He used nationalism as a major election plank, which many believe went down well with the masses who voted the left alliance to a comfortable majority, causing discomfiture in the Indian establishment. This was wary of the return of the communist regime. In fact, there are reports that China played a crucial role in ensuring the victory of the left alliance in the elections. In keeping with his words during electioneering, Oli has dropped enough hints of his government’s pro-China tilt. In an interview to Hong Kong's South China Morning Post, he was more forthcoming when he said that he wanted to “deepen” ties with China and get more leverage in his dealings with India “in keeping with the times”. The statement will certainly not please the Indian establishment which had sent its foreign minister Sushma Swaraj immediately after the election results to mend ways with the new government. The crafty Oli seems to have made a well-thought-out statement to drive a hard bargain with India. The election manifesto of the left alliance speaks volumes about the intent of the new government. It says that the India-Nepal Peace and Friendship Treaty 1950 will be scrapped and a new treaty will be negotiated. The two countries are deadlocked over the issue for several years whether to amend the treaty or replace it completely. The ties between India and Nepal deteriorated during Oli’s first stint as prime minister when he blamed India for the unofficial economic blockade which stopped essential goods from entering Nepal from India, a charge New Delhi denied. An angry Oli then signed a trade and transit agreement with China with an aim to end India’s monopoly over Nepal’s supply of daily essentials which further created bitterness between the two countries. Oli was also miffed with India’s diplomatic intervention in the country’s constitutional process in 2015 when New Delhi sought to accommodate demands of the Madhesis who launched a violent struggle to have greater say in the federal system. He often blamed New Delhi for the circumstances which led to his resignation following the political crisis over the Madhesi issue. Therefore, there is no element of surprise as Oli plays the China card shrewdly. "We have great connectivity with India and an open border. All that's fine and we'll increase connectivity even further, but we can’t forget that we have two neighbours. We don't want to depend on one country or have one option," he said in the same interview. It should be recalled that Oli in his previous avatar as prime minister had inked a deal with China to extend Tibet rail network to Kathmandu and created special economic zones for Chinese firms, infuriating India. Oli should realize that he can’t afford to keep all his eggs in one basket. He will need to be pragmatic to balance both India and China. India is still Nepal’s biggest trade partner. In fact, the two-thirds of Nepal’s trade remains with India and the Himalayan nation is heavily dependent on the latter for its everyday needs. Therefore when asked how he wanted to work out relations with India, Oli said: "We've always had excellent relations with India. There were some elements in the Indian establishment that caused some misunderstanding, but Indian leaders have assured us that there will be no interference in the future and we will respect each other's sovereign rights”. There is no doubt that he is still smarting from his unceremonious ouster and yet to reconcile. Oli is aware that both India and China want to expand their influence in the region and he would like to use this to his country’s advantage. The only difference is while India has always considered Nepal as a natural ally based on the close historical ties, China is ensnaring the region by dolling out lollipops to the world’s one of the most impoverished countries by building roads, and trade and transit corridors. But Oli would do well to be careful and understand China’s designs. In the past, several countries like the Maldives and Sri Lanka cosied up to China eyeing massive investments but ended up into a debt-trap. Both India and Nepal need to reconcile and a make a fresh rapprochement to iron out their differences and bring the ailing relations back on track. Given the historic and cultural ties, the two countries can’t afford to be like oil and water. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Opinion: Will KP Oli be able to humour both India and China?

<p>It had to happen one day. Pakistan&rsquo;s predicament reminds one of the famous statement of Abraham Lincoln: &ldquo;You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.&rdquo;</p>

<p>And it took 15 years for a US President to realise that his country was being taken for a royal ride by none other than its strategic ally in the name of the so-called fight against terrorism.</p>

<p>&#39;&#39;The United States has foolishly given Pakistan more than 33 billion dollars in aid over the last 15 years, and they have given us nothing but lies &amp; deceit, thinking of our leaders as fools. They give safe haven to the terrorists we hunt in Afghanistan, with little help. No more!,&#39;&#39; President Donald Trump tweeted, rattling Pakistan on the New Year day.&nbsp;</p>

<p>The tweet sent shivers down the spine of Pakistan&rsquo;s civilian and military leadership as they huddled to grasp its impact. Pakistani Prime Minister Shahid Khaqan Abbasi was forced to advance a meeting of the National Security Committee by a day which was attended by top cabinet ministers and military chiefs. In all likelihood, the National Security Committee met at the instance of the army chief as army generals had met separately before the all-powerful meeting. At the end of the three-hour-long meeting, the committee came out with a terse statement shying away from commenting on Trump&rsquo;s tweet. The statement released by the prime minister&rsquo;s office expressed &ldquo;deep disappointment&rdquo; at comments made by US officials over the past few months.</p>

<p>&ldquo;Recent statements and articulation by the American leadership were completely incomprehensible as they contradicted facts manifestly, struck with great insensitivity at the trust between two nations built over generations, and negated the decades of sacrifices made by the Pakistani nation,&rdquo; it said.</p>

<p>Earlier, Pakistan foreign office summoned U.S. ambassador David Hale and sought his explanation behind Trump&rsquo;s angry tweet.</p>

<p>Pakistan has been on the boil since the storm caused by Trump tweet battered the country. Anti-Trump protests have engulfed almost the entire Pakistan with several political religious groups taking out rallies. Cricketer-turned-politician Imran Khan too joined the issue by saying that Pakistan lost 70,000 lives and $100,000 billion due to the US war on terror. Khan, who once tormented the best of the batsmen in the world during his playing days, seems pretty weak on mathematics as the figure of monetary loss quoted by him is beyond the realms of possibility.</p>

<p>The US put the screws on Pakistan by announcing the next day of Trump tweet that it would continue to withhold military aid worth $255 million to its former strategic ally. The statement from the National Security Council spokesman was equally lethal. &quot;The President has made clear that the United States expects Pakistan to take decisive action against terrorists and militants on its soil, and that Pakistan&#39;s actions in support of the South Asia strategy will ultimately determine the trajectory of our relationship, including future security assistance.&quot;</p>

<p>It appears that the Trump tweet storm is unlikely to die down soon and more is in the offing for Pakistan. The statements from US officials are self-explanatory.&nbsp; Following up on Trump&rsquo;s tweet, the White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders accused Pakistan of playing a &ldquo;double game&rdquo; on fighting terrorism and said: &ldquo;They can do more to stop terrorism and we want them to do that.&rdquo; Earlier, the U.S. Ambassador Nikki Haley said at the United Nations that &ldquo;They work with us at times, and they also harbor the terrorists that attack our troops in Afghanistan.&rdquo; At the State Department on Tuesday, spokeswoman Heather Nauert said Pakistan knew what it needed to do, including taking action against the Haqqani network and other militants. Pakistan needs to &ldquo;earn, essentially, the money that we have provided in the past in foreign military assistance,&rdquo; she said.</p>

<p>The writing on the wall was clear since Trump assumed the presidency of the United States in January last. Even before becoming the president, Trump had been dropping enough hints, but Pakistan failed to read the messages which were not only explosive by explicit as well. The rhetoric was soon replaced with stern warnings after Trump assumed power. But Pakistan continued to live in a fool&rsquo;s paradise that the US could not bypass it as long as its forces remained engaged in Afghanistan.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Afghanistan is proving to be a political liability for the US. If it stays longer, it faces strong backlash back home and if it withdraws, the country will fall to the Taliban.&nbsp; It&rsquo;s a classical case of entering a blind alley but not knowing how to come out of it. Whatever may be its political designs, the US has been sucked badly into a country where exit routes are not easy and not too many. Already the US has lost 2,300 of its men. And it has cost the US more than 110 billion dollars since its forces first landed in Afghanistan in October 2001. The US has been fuming over Pakistan&rsquo;s alleged support for Haqqani network militants, who are allied with the Afghan Taliban. Afghanistan has time and again resented the presence of Afghan Taliban fighters in Pakistan who carry out deadly attacks in the war-torn country and return to the safe sanctuaries there. Whatever may be the political compulsions in the past, the new administration has realized that the Afghanistan war can&rsquo;t be won as long as Pakistan continues with its support to the Taliban and Haqqani groups.</p>

<p>In fact, the US patience had started thinning since it found that the most-wanted terrorist and al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden was being provided a safe sanctuary by Pakistan in the garrison town of Abbottabad. Pakistan should have smelt a rat when the US special commandos smoked out Laden in 2011 in an operation kept secret from the then Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif government.&nbsp; To add insult to injury, the then-Taliban leader Mullah Mansour was killed by a U.S. drone strike inside Pakistan five years later. No self-respecting nation can allow its territory to be breached in a manner as the US did. But Pakistan was forced to digest this humiliation, not once, but twice. But the lure of dollars far outweighed the heap of ignominy.</p>

<p>It remains to be seen whether the Trump tweet will bully Pakistan into changing its policy and withdraw support to the militant groups. Otherwise, as things stand today, the honeymoon between the US and Pakistan seems all over and it is a matter of time when the divorce will be formalised.&nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p><i>(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL).</i></p>


It remains to be seen whether the Trump tweet will bully Pakistan into changing its policy and withdraw support to the militant groups. Otherwise, divorce is imminent.

It had to happen one day. Pakistan’s predicament reminds one of the famous statement of Abraham Lincoln: “You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.” And it took 15 years for a US President to realise that his country was being taken for a royal ride by none other than its strategic ally in the name of the so-called fight against terrorism. ''The United States has foolishly given Pakistan more than 33 billion dollars in aid over the last 15 years, and they have given us nothing but lies & deceit, thinking of our leaders as fools. They give safe haven to the terrorists we hunt in Afghanistan, with little help. No more!,'' President Donald Trump tweeted, rattling Pakistan on the New Year day. The tweet sent shivers down the spine of Pakistan’s civilian and military leadership as they huddled to grasp its impact. Pakistani Prime Minister Shahid Khaqan Abbasi was forced to advance a meeting of the National Security Committee by a day which was attended by top cabinet ministers and military chiefs. In all likelihood, the National Security Committee met at the instance of the army chief as army generals had met separately before the all-powerful meeting. At the end of the three-hour-long meeting, the committee came out with a terse statement shying away from commenting on Trump’s tweet. The statement released by the prime minister’s office expressed “deep disappointment” at comments made by US officials over the past few months. “Recent statements and articulation by the American leadership were completely incomprehensible as they contradicted facts manifestly, struck with great insensitivity at the trust between two nations built over generations, and negated the decades of sacrifices made by the Pakistani nation,” it said. Earlier, Pakistan foreign office summoned U.S. ambassador David Hale and sought his explanation behind Trump’s angry tweet. Pakistan has been on the boil since the storm caused by Trump tweet battered the country. Anti-Trump protests have engulfed almost the entire Pakistan with several political religious groups taking out rallies. Cricketer-turned-politician Imran Khan too joined the issue by saying that Pakistan lost 70,000 lives and $100,000 billion due to the US war on terror. Khan, who once tormented the best of the batsmen in the world during his playing days, seems pretty weak on mathematics as the figure of monetary loss quoted by him is beyond the realms of possibility. The US put the screws on Pakistan by announcing the next day of Trump tweet that it would continue to withhold military aid worth $255 million to its former strategic ally. The statement from the National Security Council spokesman was equally lethal. "The President has made clear that the United States expects Pakistan to take decisive action against terrorists and militants on its soil, and that Pakistan's actions in support of the South Asia strategy will ultimately determine the trajectory of our relationship, including future security assistance." It appears that the Trump tweet storm is unlikely to die down soon and more is in the offing for Pakistan. The statements from US officials are self-explanatory. Following up on Trump’s tweet, the White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders accused Pakistan of playing a “double game” on fighting terrorism and said: “They can do more to stop terrorism and we want them to do that.” Earlier, the U.S. Ambassador Nikki Haley said at the United Nations that “They work with us at times, and they also harbor the terrorists that attack our troops in Afghanistan.” At the State Department on Tuesday, spokeswoman Heather Nauert said Pakistan knew what it needed to do, including taking action against the Haqqani network and other militants. Pakistan needs to “earn, essentially, the money that we have provided in the past in foreign military assistance,” she said. The writing on the wall was clear since Trump assumed the presidency of the United States in January last. Even before becoming the president, Trump had been dropping enough hints, but Pakistan failed to read the messages which were not only explosive by explicit as well. The rhetoric was soon replaced with stern warnings after Trump assumed power. But Pakistan continued to live in a fool’s paradise that the US could not bypass it as long as its forces remained engaged in Afghanistan. Afghanistan is proving to be a political liability for the US. If it stays longer, it faces strong backlash back home and if it withdraws, the country will fall to the Taliban. It’s a classical case of entering a blind alley but not knowing how to come out of it. Whatever may be its political designs, the US has been sucked badly into a country where exit routes are not easy and not too many. Already the US has lost 2,300 of its men. And it has cost the US more than 110 billion dollars since its forces first landed in Afghanistan in October 2001. The US has been fuming over Pakistan’s alleged support for Haqqani network militants, who are allied with the Afghan Taliban. Afghanistan has time and again resented the presence of Afghan Taliban fighters in Pakistan who carry out deadly attacks in the war-torn country and return to the safe sanctuaries there. Whatever may be the political compulsions in the past, the new administration has realized that the Afghanistan war can’t be won as long as Pakistan continues with its support to the Taliban and Haqqani groups. In fact, the US patience had started thinning since it found that the most-wanted terrorist and al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden was being provided a safe sanctuary by Pakistan in the garrison town of Abbottabad. Pakistan should have smelt a rat when the US special commandos smoked out Laden in 2011 in an operation kept secret from the then Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif government. To add insult to injury, the then-Taliban leader Mullah Mansour was killed by a U.S. drone strike inside Pakistan five years later. No self-respecting nation can allow its territory to be breached in a manner as the US did. But Pakistan was forced to digest this humiliation, not once, but twice. But the lure of dollars far outweighed the heap of ignominy. It remains to be seen whether the Trump tweet will bully Pakistan into changing its policy and withdraw support to the militant groups. Otherwise, as things stand today, the honeymoon between the US and Pakistan seems all over and it is a matter of time when the divorce will be formalised. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL).

Opinion: Is the honeymoon between Pakistan and the US coming to an end?

<p>The international terrorist Hafiz Saeed has been repeatedly thumbing his nose at the Pakistani establishment as well as at the United States, but Islamabad remains obdurate in not taking any action against him and several other terrorists. On several occasions, the US expressed its displeasure and concern, and nudged Pakistan to arrest and charge Saeed for his crimes. But Pakistan has always looked the other way around. What is that which is preventing Pakistan from booking Saeed at the expense of its fragile ties with the US?&nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>There can be only two plausible reasons. Either Pakistan is impotent and afraid of the might of Saeed or it is a well-thought-out plan of action to get even with its now estranged ally. Saeed, who carries a $10 million American bounty on his head for terror activities, is a U.N. and United States designated terrorist. Moreover, India has blamed Jamaat-ud-Dawa (JuD) chief for the 2008 Mumbai attack that killed 166 people, including six Americans.</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;Pakistan has been at the receiving end ever since the Donald Trump administration took over in January last year. President Trump has been particularly hard on Pakistan since he was on his campaign trail. There is no doubt that there has been a tectonic shift in American policy of late as the US desperation grows because of Pakistan&rsquo;s failure to rein in militants ensconced in its backyard.&nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>The ties between Pakistan and the US had started straining during the Barack Obama administration.&nbsp; It all began with the killing of al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden by US special forces in May 2011 on Pakistani soil in an operation kept secret from the then Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif government. The US, which had launched a massive manhunt for Laden, mastermind of the deadly September 11 attacks, was shocked that he was being provided a safe sanctuary by Pakistan whom it considered a strategic ally in its fight against terrorism. Even though, the US chose to maintain a fa&ccedil;ade of relationship with Pakistan because of its interests in Afghanistan.</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;But all that seems to be over now! &quot;We will defeat radical Islamic terrorism when I&rsquo;m president. We will stand shoulder to shoulder with India in sharing intelligence and keeping our people safe mutually,&quot; Trump had said during electioneering. And true to his words, one can notice a paradigm shift in the new US dispensation as far as the battle against Islamic militants is concerned. From here onwards, one can expect a no-nonsense US policy on terrorism which should be a major cause of worry for Pakistan, which continues to host several militant groups hostile to both India and the US.&nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>Unlike his predecessors, there is an increasing likelihood of Trump seeking to reshape the decades-old policy towards Pakistan by linking US aid to its commitment against terrorism. Today the US administration has announced withholding $255 million in aid to Pakistan.&nbsp; Though a pittance, the message is loud and clear that the US is dissatisfied with the obstinacy shown by Pakistan in not taking substantive action against terrorist networks that continue to flourish there with the full support of the administration.</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;Pakistan has been the recipient of more than $33 billion in aid since 2002. And it has done precious little to rein in militants. The US frustration seems to have reached the point of no return as President Trump in his August address said:&nbsp; &quot;We have been paying Pakistan billions and billions of dollars at the same time they are housing the very terrorists that we are fighting.&quot;&nbsp; Since then he has dispatched his top diplomatic and military advisors to Pakistan -- Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis &ndash; who read out the riot act to senior officials of Pakistan. But thus far, Pakistan does not seem to have been rattled by such warnings.</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;On the contrary, not only did it free Saeed from the so-called &ldquo;house arrest&rdquo; with the lame excuse that the Lahore court did not merit his detention, it went on to justify his release. To rub salt into the wound, its foreign office spokesperson Mohammad Faisal said that Islamabad was committed to the implementation of United Nations Security Council 1267 sanctions regime on terrorists and had taken several steps in this regard.</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;If that was not enough, Pakistan allowed Saeed to open the first office of his political group Milli Muslim League (MML) in Lahore. Saeed has also declared his political ambitions by announcing that his organisation JuD would contest the 2018 general elections under the banner of the MML. Ironically, according to Pakistani government records, the MML is the offshoot of the banned Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and JuD. In fact, Saeed was showered with flower petals as he openly toured several areas in full public glare.</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>Can it happen in any civilised country that a UN-designated terrorist is allowed to roam free? But anything can happen in a rogue country like Pakistan which even allows a terrorist group to launch its political party and let it contest the elections. The MML-backed candidate had secured the fourth position with 6,000 votes, double than that of Pakistan People&rsquo;s Party (PPP) and Jamaat- i-Islami combined in a by-election in Lahore&#39;s NA-120 constituency last September. The seat had fallen vacant when the then Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif had to resign, following his disqualification by Pakistan&#39;s Supreme Court.</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>It is hard to digest that Saeed would have been allowed to open the office of MML without the consent of the government of the day and that too when the US had expressed its strong concerns and said in a statement that it hopes Pakistan &quot;does the right thing&quot; in not allowing that to happen and added that it &quot;want(s) to make...clear so that everybody knows&quot;, that the US has put a bounty of $10 million on Saeed, the founder of the Lashkar-e-Toiba (LeT).&nbsp; It is an open secret that Saeed has the full backing of Pakistani army which has been at loggerheads with the government.</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;The question then arises whether Saeed has the tacit support of the Pakistani establishment or it is too afraid to take action against him as he is being backed by the army. Pakistan Army chief Gen Qamar Javed Bajwa came in full support of the Mumbai terror attack mastermind when he appeared before a parliament forum last month and said that Saeed, like every other Pakistani, had the right to raise the Kashmir issue. It is a known fact that the army enjoys far greater power than the elected government in Pakistan and no government can afford to go against the wishes of the army. Whatever may be Pakistan&rsquo;s reason to prop up Saeed, but one thing is certain. Pakistan is in for a rude shock in the coming months.</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p><em>(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)</em></p>


Either Pakistan is impotent and afraid of the might of Saeed or it is a well-thought-out plan of action to get even with its now estranged ally, the US.

The international terrorist Hafiz Saeed has been repeatedly thumbing his nose at the Pakistani establishment as well as at the United States, but Islamabad remains obdurate in not taking any action against him and several other terrorists. On several occasions, the US expressed its displeasure and concern, and nudged Pakistan to arrest and charge Saeed for his crimes. But Pakistan has always looked the other way around. What is that which is preventing Pakistan from booking Saeed at the expense of its fragile ties with the US? There can be only two plausible reasons. Either Pakistan is impotent and afraid of the might of Saeed or it is a well-thought-out plan of action to get even with its now estranged ally. Saeed, who carries a $10 million American bounty on his head for terror activities, is a U.N. and United States designated terrorist. Moreover, India has blamed Jamaat-ud-Dawa (JuD) chief for the 2008 Mumbai attack that killed 166 people, including six Americans. Pakistan has been at the receiving end ever since the Donald Trump administration took over in January last year. President Trump has been particularly hard on Pakistan since he was on his campaign trail. There is no doubt that there has been a tectonic shift in American policy of late as the US desperation grows because of Pakistan’s failure to rein in militants ensconced in its backyard. The ties between Pakistan and the US had started straining during the Barack Obama administration. It all began with the killing of al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden by US special forces in May 2011 on Pakistani soil in an operation kept secret from the then Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif government. The US, which had launched a massive manhunt for Laden, mastermind of the deadly September 11 attacks, was shocked that he was being provided a safe sanctuary by Pakistan whom it considered a strategic ally in its fight against terrorism. Even though, the US chose to maintain a façade of relationship with Pakistan because of its interests in Afghanistan. But all that seems to be over now! "We will defeat radical Islamic terrorism when I’m president. We will stand shoulder to shoulder with India in sharing intelligence and keeping our people safe mutually," Trump had said during electioneering. And true to his words, one can notice a paradigm shift in the new US dispensation as far as the battle against Islamic militants is concerned. From here onwards, one can expect a no-nonsense US policy on terrorism which should be a major cause of worry for Pakistan, which continues to host several militant groups hostile to both India and the US. Unlike his predecessors, there is an increasing likelihood of Trump seeking to reshape the decades-old policy towards Pakistan by linking US aid to its commitment against terrorism. Today the US administration has announced withholding $255 million in aid to Pakistan. Though a pittance, the message is loud and clear that the US is dissatisfied with the obstinacy shown by Pakistan in not taking substantive action against terrorist networks that continue to flourish there with the full support of the administration. Pakistan has been the recipient of more than $33 billion in aid since 2002. And it has done precious little to rein in militants. The US frustration seems to have reached the point of no return as President Trump in his August address said: "We have been paying Pakistan billions and billions of dollars at the same time they are housing the very terrorists that we are fighting." Since then he has dispatched his top diplomatic and military advisors to Pakistan -- Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis – who read out the riot act to senior officials of Pakistan. But thus far, Pakistan does not seem to have been rattled by such warnings. On the contrary, not only did it free Saeed from the so-called “house arrest” with the lame excuse that the Lahore court did not merit his detention, it went on to justify his release. To rub salt into the wound, its foreign office spokesperson Mohammad Faisal said that Islamabad was committed to the implementation of United Nations Security Council 1267 sanctions regime on terrorists and had taken several steps in this regard. If that was not enough, Pakistan allowed Saeed to open the first office of his political group Milli Muslim League (MML) in Lahore. Saeed has also declared his political ambitions by announcing that his organisation JuD would contest the 2018 general elections under the banner of the MML. Ironically, according to Pakistani government records, the MML is the offshoot of the banned Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and JuD. In fact, Saeed was showered with flower petals as he openly toured several areas in full public glare. Can it happen in any civilised country that a UN-designated terrorist is allowed to roam free? But anything can happen in a rogue country like Pakistan which even allows a terrorist group to launch its political party and let it contest the elections. The MML-backed candidate had secured the fourth position with 6,000 votes, double than that of Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) and Jamaat- i-Islami combined in a by-election in Lahore's NA-120 constituency last September. The seat had fallen vacant when the then Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif had to resign, following his disqualification by Pakistan's Supreme Court. It is hard to digest that Saeed would have been allowed to open the office of MML without the consent of the government of the day and that too when the US had expressed its strong concerns and said in a statement that it hopes Pakistan "does the right thing" in not allowing that to happen and added that it "want(s) to make...clear so that everybody knows", that the US has put a bounty of $10 million on Saeed, the founder of the Lashkar-e-Toiba (LeT). It is an open secret that Saeed has the full backing of Pakistani army which has been at loggerheads with the government. The question then arises whether Saeed has the tacit support of the Pakistani establishment or it is too afraid to take action against him as he is being backed by the army. Pakistan Army chief Gen Qamar Javed Bajwa came in full support of the Mumbai terror attack mastermind when he appeared before a parliament forum last month and said that Saeed, like every other Pakistani, had the right to raise the Kashmir issue. It is a known fact that the army enjoys far greater power than the elected government in Pakistan and no government can afford to go against the wishes of the army. Whatever may be Pakistan’s reason to prop up Saeed, but one thing is certain. Pakistan is in for a rude shock in the coming months. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Opinion: US blocks aid but Pakistan still backs Hafiz Saeed. Why?

<p>Can China be a trusted ally in the global war against terrorism? The question assumes significance as China continues&nbsp;giving steadfast protection to the chief of Pakistan-based Jaish-e-Mohammad Masood Azhar. The country has gone so far as to prevent&nbsp;the United Nations Security Council from declaring Masood Azhar as a global terrorist.</p>

<p>India has accused the JeM and its top leader, Masood Azhar, of masterminding several attacks, including a deadly assault on an Indian air base in January last year. Six Indian soldiers, as well as five gunmen who stormed the Pathankot airbase, were killed.</p>

<p>China&rsquo;s opposition to proscribing Azhar is perplexing given that Jaish-e-Mohammad has already been blacklisted by the 15-nation Security Council of which China is one of the five permanent members. If China is party to the decision to outlaw JeM, then its decision not to let its leader bracket in the same category is beyond any logic.</p>

<p>It is high time the United Nations reconsider its original charter which gives veto power to five permanent members under which any one permanent nation can prevent the adoption of any substantive resolution. The rule of the majority of the five permanent members should follow. Otherwise, the international community will always be found wanting in its fight against terrorism due to double standards by some countries.</p>

<div class="ui-state-default">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>China is the lone wolf in the Security Council.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=China is the lone wolf in the Security Council."><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>This is the second time in as many years that China has blocked a combined bid by the United States, France and the United Kingdom to declare Azhar a global terrorist saying &ldquo;there is no consensus&rdquo; in the 1267 Committee of the UN Security Council. &nbsp;Where is the question of consensus if one country (read China) continues with its unwavering support for a dreaded terrorist like Azhar just only to please its ally Pakistan? Evidently, China is the lone wolf in the Security Council.</p>

<p>Last year also, it was the odd nation out in the 15-member Security Council to thwart India&rsquo;s bid to place Azhar on the 1267 sanctions list that would have entailed his travel ban and freezing of assets. India&rsquo;s application had the approval of all the other 14 members of the Security Council. Needless to say, China is misusing its veto power.</p>

<p>China&rsquo;s support for Azhar, therefore, raises suspicion about its commitment to fight terrorism. Barely a few months ago, it was a signatory to the Xiamen Declaration which had called upon the international community to establish a &quot;genuinely broad&quot; international counter-terrorism coalition. Not only that, it was also a party to a decision of the five-member BRICS nations summit which called for decisive action against militant groups based in Pakistan terming them as a security concern in the region.</p>

<div class="ui-state-default">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>Both Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammad are anti-India groups based in Pakistan and have routinely carried out militant attacks in Kashmir and elsewhere in the country.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=Both Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammad are anti-India groups based in Pakistan and have routinely carried out militant attacks in Kashmir and elsewhere in the country."><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>The groups named in the declaration included Taliban, (Islamic State), Al-Qaeda and its affiliates, including Eastern Turkistan Islamic Movement, Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, the Haqqani network, Lashkar-e-Taiba, Jaish-e Mohammad, TTP and Hizb ut-Tahrir. Both Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammad are anti-India groups based in Pakistan and have routinely carried out militant attacks in Kashmir and elsewhere in the country.</p>

<p>India has accused LeT of carrying out the deadly terror attacks in Mumbai in 2008 in which at least 166 people were killed. JeM is also accused of masterminding the audacious attack on Indian Parliament in 2001. Masood Azhar is undoubtedly the prized asset for Pakistan. Not only has he meticulously planned several terrorist attacks against India, he has succeeded in creating an army of jihadis who are ready to lay down their lives at his command.</p>

<p>His importance lies in the fact that&nbsp;Pakistan government along with its army and notorious Inter-Services Intelligence had made several attempts to get him released from a jail after he was arrested in Kashmir in 1994. Five years later, the Indian government was forced to release him and two others - Mushtaq Ahmed Zargar and Omar Sheikh -&nbsp;in exchange for the safe release of passengers of the Indian Airlines flight -814 which was hijacked and taken to Kandahar in Afghanistan.</p>

<div class="ui-state-default">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>If Azhar is declared a global terrorist, the government of Pakistan will be forced to arrest him and seize his assets.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=If Azhar is declared a global terrorist, the government of Pakistan will be forced to arrest him and seize his assets."><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>If Azhar is declared a global terrorist, the government of Pakistan will be forced to arrest him and seize his assets. This is something the government does not want for two main reasons. Azhar has in the past threatened the government of violence if it made any such misadventure. Secondly, he enjoys the support of the Pakistani army.</p>

<p>Therefore, the Pakistani establishment is cagey while taking any action against him, because it does not have the spine to challenge its own army. China, too, understands the predicament of its all-weather ally. &nbsp;Therefore, it has been repeatedly blocking any attempt to outlaw Azhar even at the expense of its own image. For, China has in the past made several statements that there should be no double standards on counter-terrorism. China&rsquo;s action belies its alleged commitment against terrorism.</p>

<p>It should be understood that China has its own compulsions as far as protecting Azhar is concerned. It is more to do with returning favours to Pakistan. Pakistan has in the past come to the rescue of China in the powerful Organisation of Islamic Cooperation which was critical of the latter&rsquo;s repression of the Muslim Uighur community in Xinjiang province.</p>

<p>In the last two years, hundreds have died in unrest in Xinjiang. Activists have accused China of curtailing commercial as well as cultural activities of Uighur. In fact, a 2013 report of the Amnesty International was highly critical of China&rsquo;s handling of the situation in Xinjiang. It said authorities criminalised &ldquo;what they labelled &lsquo;illegal religious&rsquo; and &lsquo;separatist&rsquo; activities&rdquo; and clamped down on &ldquo;peaceful expressions of cultural identity.&rdquo;</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>China does not want to walk along with the rest of the world in the fight against terrorism.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=China does not want to walk along with the rest of the world in the fight against terrorism." target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>As far as terrorism is concerned, China&rsquo;s definition is completely at variant with the world. While the world recognises the exiled Dalai Lama as the Tibetan spiritual leader, China considers him as a &ldquo;dangerous separatist&rdquo;. The Nobel Peace Prize recipient, who fled into exile in India in 1959 after a failed uprising against Chinese rule, has repeatedly said that he is simply seeking genuine autonomy for his homeland.</p>

<p>China is accused of turning a blind eye to more than 150 Tibetans who have publicly immolated themselves over the years. Beijing is miffed with New Delhi for allowing Dalai Lama live in India. And that is also one of the reasons why it has been stonewalling New Delhi&rsquo;s attempts to sanction Azhar to get even with it.</p>

<p>It is amply clear that China does not want to walk along with the rest of the world in the fight against terrorism. It chooses to define terrorists according to its own understanding as has been the case with Pakistan. It is high time China realises the perils of differentiating between terrorists. Otherwise, it risks global isolation.</p>

<p><em>(Disclaimer: The author writes here in a personal capacity).</em></p>


China risks global isolation if it does not realises the perils of differentiating between the terrorists

Can China be a trusted ally in the global war against terrorism? The question assumes significance as China continues giving steadfast protection to the chief of Pakistan-based Jaish-e-Mohammad Masood Azhar. The country has gone so far as to prevent the United Nations Security Council from declaring Masood Azhar as a global terrorist. India has accused the JeM and its top leader, Masood Azhar, of masterminding several attacks, including a deadly assault on an Indian air base in January last year. Six Indian soldiers, as well as five gunmen who stormed the Pathankot airbase, were killed. China’s opposition to proscribing Azhar is perplexing given that Jaish-e-Mohammad has already been blacklisted by the 15-nation Security Council of which China is one of the five permanent members. If China is party to the decision to outlaw JeM, then its decision not to let its leader bracket in the same category is beyond any logic. It is high time the United Nations reconsider its original charter which gives veto power to five permanent members under which any one permanent nation can prevent the adoption of any substantive resolution. The rule of the majority of the five permanent members should follow. Otherwise, the international community will always be found wanting in its fight against terrorism due to double standards by some countries. China is the lone wolf in the Security Council. × This is the second time in as many years that China has blocked a combined bid by the United States, France and the United Kingdom to declare Azhar a global terrorist saying “there is no consensus” in the 1267 Committee of the UN Security Council. Where is the question of consensus if one country (read China) continues with its unwavering support for a dreaded terrorist like Azhar just only to please its ally Pakistan? Evidently, China is the lone wolf in the Security Council. Last year also, it was the odd nation out in the 15-member Security Council to thwart India’s bid to place Azhar on the 1267 sanctions list that would have entailed his travel ban and freezing of assets. India’s application had the approval of all the other 14 members of the Security Council. Needless to say, China is misusing its veto power. China’s support for Azhar, therefore, raises suspicion about its commitment to fight terrorism. Barely a few months ago, it was a signatory to the Xiamen Declaration which had called upon the international community to establish a "genuinely broad" international counter-terrorism coalition. Not only that, it was also a party to a decision of the five-member BRICS nations summit which called for decisive action against militant groups based in Pakistan terming them as a security concern in the region. Both Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammad are anti-India groups based in Pakistan and have routinely carried out militant attacks in Kashmir and elsewhere in the country. × The groups named in the declaration included Taliban, (Islamic State), Al-Qaeda and its affiliates, including Eastern Turkistan Islamic Movement, Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, the Haqqani network, Lashkar-e-Taiba, Jaish-e Mohammad, TTP and Hizb ut-Tahrir. Both Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammad are anti-India groups based in Pakistan and have routinely carried out militant attacks in Kashmir and elsewhere in the country. India has accused LeT of carrying out the deadly terror attacks in Mumbai in 2008 in which at least 166 people were killed. JeM is also accused of masterminding the audacious attack on Indian Parliament in 2001. Masood Azhar is undoubtedly the prized asset for Pakistan. Not only has he meticulously planned several terrorist attacks against India, he has succeeded in creating an army of jihadis who are ready to lay down their lives at his command. His importance lies in the fact that Pakistan government along with its army and notorious Inter-Services Intelligence had made several attempts to get him released from a jail after he was arrested in Kashmir in 1994. Five years later, the Indian government was forced to release him and two others - Mushtaq Ahmed Zargar and Omar Sheikh - in exchange for the safe release of passengers of the Indian Airlines flight -814 which was hijacked and taken to Kandahar in Afghanistan. If Azhar is declared a global terrorist, the government of Pakistan will be forced to arrest him and seize his assets. × If Azhar is declared a global terrorist, the government of Pakistan will be forced to arrest him and seize his assets. This is something the government does not want for two main reasons. Azhar has in the past threatened the government of violence if it made any such misadventure. Secondly, he enjoys the support of the Pakistani army. Therefore, the Pakistani establishment is cagey while taking any action against him, because it does not have the spine to challenge its own army. China, too, understands the predicament of its all-weather ally. Therefore, it has been repeatedly blocking any attempt to outlaw Azhar even at the expense of its own image. For, China has in the past made several statements that there should be no double standards on counter-terrorism. China’s action belies its alleged commitment against terrorism. It should be understood that China has its own compulsions as far as protecting Azhar is concerned. It is more to do with returning favours to Pakistan. Pakistan has in the past come to the rescue of China in the powerful Organisation of Islamic Cooperation which was critical of the latter’s repression of the Muslim Uighur community in Xinjiang province. In the last two years, hundreds have died in unrest in Xinjiang. Activists have accused China of curtailing commercial as well as cultural activities of Uighur. In fact, a 2013 report of the Amnesty International was highly critical of China’s handling of the situation in Xinjiang. It said authorities criminalised “what they labelled ‘illegal religious’ and ‘separatist’ activities” and clamped down on “peaceful expressions of cultural identity.” China does not want to walk along with the rest of the world in the fight against terrorism. × As far as terrorism is concerned, China’s definition is completely at variant with the world. While the world recognises the exiled Dalai Lama as the Tibetan spiritual leader, China considers him as a “dangerous separatist”. The Nobel Peace Prize recipient, who fled into exile in India in 1959 after a failed uprising against Chinese rule, has repeatedly said that he is simply seeking genuine autonomy for his homeland. China is accused of turning a blind eye to more than 150 Tibetans who have publicly immolated themselves over the years. Beijing is miffed with New Delhi for allowing Dalai Lama live in India. And that is also one of the reasons why it has been stonewalling New Delhi’s attempts to sanction Azhar to get even with it. It is amply clear that China does not want to walk along with the rest of the world in the fight against terrorism. It chooses to define terrorists according to its own understanding as has been the case with Pakistan. It is high time China realises the perils of differentiating between terrorists. Otherwise, it risks global isolation. (Disclaimer: The author writes here in a personal capacity).

Opinion: China drags its feet on fight against terror

<p>Pakistan has been a reluctant player in the global war against terrorism. This is not something which is not known to the world. But the frequent flip-flops by world powers have only emboldened Pakistan to carry out with its state policy of sponsoring terrorism with impunity.</p>

<p>With unflinching support from its all-weather ally China, which has often misused its position of veto power at the Security Council, Pakistan does not give two hoots to reported threats or warnings. Pakistan has, once again, thumbed its nose at India and the United States by releasing terror mastermind Hafiz Saeed from house arrest.</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>Pakistan may fend off criticism by saying that it is the court which has decided to free him and not the government.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=Pakistan may fend off criticism by saying that it is the court which has decided to free him and not the government." target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>Pakistan may fend off criticism by saying that it is the court which has decided to free him and not the government. But it surely cannot escape blame for not presenting its case properly in the court, facilitating Saeed&rsquo;s release from house arrest. &nbsp;In fact, India has presented voluminous evidence to Pakistan for his role in the deadly 2008 Mumbai attacks. Pakistan&rsquo;s feeble defence that Saeed&rsquo;s release could invite economic sanctions did not cut ice with the court.<br />
&nbsp;<br />
Hafiz Saeed&rsquo;s release is no doubt a setback for India, but it also sets Pakistan on a collision course with the United States which has announced a $10 million bounty on his head over the 2008 Mumbai attack that killed 166 people, including six Americans. It should be recalled that the United States Department of the Treasury had designated Saeed as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist under executive order 13224 in May 2008 before the Mumbai attacks happened.</p>

<p>And a month later, November 26, 2008, Mumbai attacks, Saeed was also individually designated by the United Nations under UNSCR 1267. Ironically, Saeed had been moving freely in Pakistan, ranting against India and the United States for more than eight years before his so-called house arrest in January this year. That Pakistan has allowed him to carry on with his anti-Kashmir agenda speaks volumes about its so-called seriousness as far as the war against terrorism is concerned.<br />
&nbsp;<br />
Had the US been really serious about Saeed, it could have easily put pressure on Pakistan to act. But Saeed is a lesser threat to the US in comparison to India. That explains the reason why the US is not matching its words with action. The case in point is al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden who was smoked out from his safe compound of Abbottabad in Pakistan&#39;s Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province in May 2011 by the US elite forces. The US had named Laden as the chief conspirator of the deadly September 11, 2001, attacks.</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>Saeed has presented himself before the media and the people of Pakistan several times. If the US wanted, it could have easily eliminated Saeed.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=Saeed has presented himself before the media and the people of Pakistan several times. If the US wanted, it could have easily eliminated Saeed." target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>The US announced the bounty on Saeed in 2012 for information leading to his arrest and conviction four years after he was designated as a global terrorist. But the leader of Jamaat-ud-Dawa (JuD), which has been a front for the Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) militant group, had been roaming free and giving hate speeches against India and the US.</p>

<p>While it took nearly 10 years for the United States to locate and kill Laden, Saeed has presented himself before the media and the people of Pakistan several times. If the US wanted, it could have easily eliminated Saeed. Who is playing the joke as far as the bounty on Saeed is concerned? Pakistan or the United States, or both!</p>

<p>The US reacted to Saeed&rsquo;s release by making a supine statement. &ldquo;The Pakistani government should make sure that he is arrested and charged with his crimes,&rdquo; U.S. State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert said.<br />
&nbsp;<br />
It was only after India launched a major diplomatic drive against Pakistan for allowing the release of Sayeed that the US tempered its language the next day. A White House statement warned of repercussions for US-Pakistan relations and for Pakistan&rsquo;s global reputation unless it took action to detain and charge Sayeed.</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>President Donald Trump has been vociferous in his criticism against Pakistan for its failure to take action against militants engineering attacks on Afghanistan and India from its safe sanctuaries.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=President Donald Trump has been vociferous in his criticism against Pakistan for its failure to take action against militants engineering attacks on Afghanistan and India from its safe sanctuaries." target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>Unlike the US State Department, the White House statement was very critical of Pakistan and warned that the relations between the two countries depended largely on the latter&rsquo;s conduct. The White House said Pakistan&rsquo;s failure to charge Saeed sent &ldquo;a deeply troubling message about Pakistan&rsquo;s commitment to (combating) international terrorism,&rdquo; adding that it also was counter to Pakistan&rsquo;s claim that it did not provide sanctuary to militants.<br />
&nbsp;<br />
Unlike his predecessor Barack Obama, President Donald Trump has been vociferous in his criticism against Pakistan for its failure to take action against militants engineering attacks on Afghanistan and India from its safe sanctuaries. &ldquo;We can no longer be silent about Pakistan&rsquo;s safe havens for terrorist organisations,&rdquo; Trump said while unveiling his administration&rsquo;s policy for South Asia in August, adding that Pakistan would have &ldquo;much to lose&rdquo; if it did not comply. But such warnings have had little effect on Pakistan.<br />
&nbsp;<br />
There is no doubt that Pakistan has, of late, fallen out of favour of the United States which accuses it of pocketing billions of dollars meant for anti-militant operations against Afghanistan. The US is fighting a war in Afghanistan against the very militants who have been trained and financed by Pakistan, and who continue to find safe sanctuary in Pakistan after carrying out attacks in Afghanistan.</p>

<p>The ties between the US and Pakistan have worsened further after the later moved closer to China in the last few years.<br />
&nbsp;<br />
If President Trump really wants to live up to his image and his words, then he should decide once and for all whether to continue ties with a country which has been playing a double game as far as the war against terrorism is concerned or to amend his administration&rsquo;s decades-long carrot and stick approach.</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>Non-NATO ally status is conferred on countries which have a strategic working relationship with US forces but are not members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=Non-NATO ally status is conferred on countries which have a strategic working relationship with US forces but are not members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation." target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>To begin with, Trump can revoke Pakistan&rsquo;s non-NATO ally status. Though symbolic, it will deal a big reputational blow to Pakistan. Non-NATO ally status is conferred on countries which have a strategic working relationship with US forces but are not members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.</p>

<p>The then George Bush administration had designated the non-NATO ally status to Pakistan in 2004 for helping the US in its fight against al Qaeda and Taliban militants in Afghanistan. If Pakistan is still unmoved by this action, then President Trump will have to take a final call what Mr Bush famously used the phrase after the 9/11 attacks that &ldquo;Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.&rdquo;</p>

<p><em>(Disclaimer: The author writes here in a personal capacity).</em></p>


Donald Trump should decide whether to continue ties with Pakistan or revoke Pakistan?s non-NATO ally status

Pakistan has been a reluctant player in the global war against terrorism. This is not something which is not known to the world. But the frequent flip-flops by world powers have only emboldened Pakistan to carry out with its state policy of sponsoring terrorism with impunity. With unflinching support from its all-weather ally China, which has often misused its position of veto power at the Security Council, Pakistan does not give two hoots to reported threats or warnings. Pakistan has, once again, thumbed its nose at India and the United States by releasing terror mastermind Hafiz Saeed from house arrest. Pakistan may fend off criticism by saying that it is the court which has decided to free him and not the government. × Pakistan may fend off criticism by saying that it is the court which has decided to free him and not the government. But it surely cannot escape blame for not presenting its case properly in the court, facilitating Saeed’s release from house arrest. In fact, India has presented voluminous evidence to Pakistan for his role in the deadly 2008 Mumbai attacks. Pakistan’s feeble defence that Saeed’s release could invite economic sanctions did not cut ice with the court. Hafiz Saeed’s release is no doubt a setback for India, but it also sets Pakistan on a collision course with the United States which has announced a $10 million bounty on his head over the 2008 Mumbai attack that killed 166 people, including six Americans. It should be recalled that the United States Department of the Treasury had designated Saeed as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist under executive order 13224 in May 2008 before the Mumbai attacks happened. And a month later, November 26, 2008, Mumbai attacks, Saeed was also individually designated by the United Nations under UNSCR 1267. Ironically, Saeed had been moving freely in Pakistan, ranting against India and the United States for more than eight years before his so-called house arrest in January this year. That Pakistan has allowed him to carry on with his anti-Kashmir agenda speaks volumes about its so-called seriousness as far as the war against terrorism is concerned. Had the US been really serious about Saeed, it could have easily put pressure on Pakistan to act. But Saeed is a lesser threat to the US in comparison to India. That explains the reason why the US is not matching its words with action. The case in point is al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden who was smoked out from his safe compound of Abbottabad in Pakistan's Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province in May 2011 by the US elite forces. The US had named Laden as the chief conspirator of the deadly September 11, 2001, attacks. Saeed has presented himself before the media and the people of Pakistan several times. If the US wanted, it could have easily eliminated Saeed. × The US announced the bounty on Saeed in 2012 for information leading to his arrest and conviction four years after he was designated as a global terrorist. But the leader of Jamaat-ud-Dawa (JuD), which has been a front for the Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) militant group, had been roaming free and giving hate speeches against India and the US. While it took nearly 10 years for the United States to locate and kill Laden, Saeed has presented himself before the media and the people of Pakistan several times. If the US wanted, it could have easily eliminated Saeed. Who is playing the joke as far as the bounty on Saeed is concerned? Pakistan or the United States, or both! The US reacted to Saeed’s release by making a supine statement. “The Pakistani government should make sure that he is arrested and charged with his crimes,” U.S. State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert said. It was only after India launched a major diplomatic drive against Pakistan for allowing the release of Sayeed that the US tempered its language the next day. A White House statement warned of repercussions for US-Pakistan relations and for Pakistan’s global reputation unless it took action to detain and charge Sayeed. President Donald Trump has been vociferous in his criticism against Pakistan for its failure to take action against militants engineering attacks on Afghanistan and India from its safe sanctuaries. × Unlike the US State Department, the White House statement was very critical of Pakistan and warned that the relations between the two countries depended largely on the latter’s conduct. The White House said Pakistan’s failure to charge Saeed sent “a deeply troubling message about Pakistan’s commitment to (combating) international terrorism,” adding that it also was counter to Pakistan’s claim that it did not provide sanctuary to militants. Unlike his predecessor Barack Obama, President Donald Trump has been vociferous in his criticism against Pakistan for its failure to take action against militants engineering attacks on Afghanistan and India from its safe sanctuaries. “We can no longer be silent about Pakistan’s safe havens for terrorist organisations,” Trump said while unveiling his administration’s policy for South Asia in August, adding that Pakistan would have “much to lose” if it did not comply. But such warnings have had little effect on Pakistan. There is no doubt that Pakistan has, of late, fallen out of favour of the United States which accuses it of pocketing billions of dollars meant for anti-militant operations against Afghanistan. The US is fighting a war in Afghanistan against the very militants who have been trained and financed by Pakistan, and who continue to find safe sanctuary in Pakistan after carrying out attacks in Afghanistan. The ties between the US and Pakistan have worsened further after the later moved closer to China in the last few years. If President Trump really wants to live up to his image and his words, then he should decide once and for all whether to continue ties with a country which has been playing a double game as far as the war against terrorism is concerned or to amend his administration’s decades-long carrot and stick approach. Non-NATO ally status is conferred on countries which have a strategic working relationship with US forces but are not members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. × To begin with, Trump can revoke Pakistan’s non-NATO ally status. Though symbolic, it will deal a big reputational blow to Pakistan. Non-NATO ally status is conferred on countries which have a strategic working relationship with US forces but are not members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. The then George Bush administration had designated the non-NATO ally status to Pakistan in 2004 for helping the US in its fight against al Qaeda and Taliban militants in Afghanistan. If Pakistan is still unmoved by this action, then President Trump will have to take a final call what Mr Bush famously used the phrase after the 9/11 attacks that “Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.” (Disclaimer: The author writes here in a personal capacity).

Opinion: In releasing Hafiz Saeed, Pakistan challenges India and US

Author

Zee News Rajasthan

Editor

Vikas Khanna

Home

Live Tv

Latest

World

India

Business

Entertainment

Sports

Opinions

Videos

Photos

Gravitas

Lifestyle

Science

Tech

Rajasthan News in Hindi: In-depth coverage of Rajasthan Crime, Political News, Education, Rajasthan Weather Update and Latest Rajasthan News on Zee News Rajasthan.