Thursday, 20 April 2006
Reshaping foreign policy
In the post-9/11 era, one has had to see that our relations with other members of the world community have decreased mere to relation for ‘fighting terrorism’. King Abdullah visited Pakistan, the news that we read was “Pakistan, Saudi Arabia vow to fight terror.” Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapakse arrives in Islamabad. The news item appears on the newspapers’ front pages is “Sri Lanka and Pakistan agree to combat terrorism”.
It was the US that added this term to political dictionary in order to legitimise its aggression on Afghanistan and Iraq. In fact the term existed long before but its present shape is the contribution of the USA. Any thing that is against US interest is terrorism. Or put it another way, any one who becomes a hurdle in US’s imperialist designs is a terrorist and to kill him is a “war against terrorism”, no matter that is a person or a nation including woman and kids.
Pakistan’s very ‘bold’ decision of becoming a frontline state has made us a state to make terrorism the centrepiece of our foreign policy. Thus our relations with other states have been reflecting this thing very clearly. We did this at the cost of burning our home.
Theoretically we are a sovereign state so our ruler should behave like sovereign rulers. Let’s keep this phenomenon of terrorism aside and focus on durable relations stressing on economic, trade, tourism etc that will help prosper the nation facing increasing rate of suicides due to extreme poverty. Let’s make relations with other states that can help create some jobs for the youth, the segment of society that is very rapidly becoming a curse for the society by joining the criminals. The increasing crimes including snatching cell phones are committed by the youth mostly. Let’s make relations that can help keep our own home in order. Let’s ask our rulers to first do it and then vow to fight terrorism.
Naimat Khan,
Karachi.
http://www.statesman.com.pk/letters/letter3.htm
April 27 2006 Thursday
Pakistan’s relations with other states
In the post 9/11 era, one has had to see that our relations with the other members of the world community have decreased mere to relation for fighting “terrorism”. Looking on the news that has been publishing whenever any ruler from any part of this mundane comes to Pakistan, one sees a strange phenomenon that we have never seen before. King Abdullah visited Pakistan, the news that we read was “Pakistan, Saudi Arabia vow to fight terror” Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapakse arrives in to Islamabad, the news item appears on the newspapers’ front pages is “Sri Lanka and Pakistan agree to combat terrorism” Now on his visit to Pakistan Yemeni president Ali Abdullah Saleh signs “Accord to fight terrorism” with Pakistan. These are three examples- nearly on all arrivals of different rulers and departure of ours for other state one has had to see the news stressing the same thing, “war on terrorism”, about which we are reminded time and again by our master that “US, Pakistan to continue fight against terror” and “Pakistan strong ally in war on terror”. It was USA that added this term to Political Dictionary in order to legitimize its aggression on Afghanistan and Iraq. In fact the term existed long before but its present shape is the contribution of USA. Any thing that is against the US interest is terrorism. Or put it other way, any one who become hurdle in USA imperialist designs and its designs for world hegemony is terrorist and to kill him is a “war against terrorism”, no matter that is a person or a nation including woman and kids. Now every member of the world community has to side with US and its relations with other state must reflect that “terrorism” is the centre piece of policy of that state. But there are states on the world map that have declined being allied of the US. Besides others the rulers of state like Venezuela and Belarus dared to call the Bush a Global terrorist. Some states like India, a state having balanced foreign policy remained impartial. To the states that declines, the image of an independent and sovereign state depends on its foreign relations or foreign policy. And these relations, who are considered important to a country, are subject to change for the sake of the country’s interests only. We Pakistani are told that it was in our prime interest to raise the slogan of Sub Se Pehlay Pakistan. But we saw that ‘Sub Se Pehlay Pakistan’ means ‘Sub se Pehlay US’s Demands’. The government of Pakistan’s website reads “in wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks on the US, Pakistan boldly decided to join the international coalition against the war on terrorism and became a frontline state in this fight” This very bold decision of becoming a frontline state has made us a state to make “terrorism” the centre piece of our foreign policy. Thus our relations with other states have been reflecting this thing very clearly. We did this at the cost of burning our home. The cost we have been paying for this is evident and very high. In the wake of attacks on the President and Prime Minister, their moment has made the life of the masses extremely miserable. A student of Mass Communication died on her way to hospital due to traffic jam on the day president had come to Karachi. The incident that luckily got coverage otherwise there are dozen others that remain un-reported. We were told the decision of joining allied power was taken due to some reason, the foremost of which was Kashmir disputed. But now the just freedom struggle of Kashmiris is called “terrorism”. In spite of all the composite dialogue that have been taking place with India, she is telling us to make trade and other relations with her while keeping the Kashmir issue a side. The Indian Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh on March 24, 2006 offered a treaty of peace, security and friendship to Pakistan but said linking the Kashmir dispute to normalizing ties between the two countries would be a mistake.” The government is insisting that our role has made the image of Pakistan among the world community highly prestigious. Let’s forget the world community, the very nation with which we sided against Muslims states made our resemblance with a Dog with a bone in his mouth that has obey his master’s orders and keep chasing “terrorists”. The results of our blind compliance to the US demands are evident but the point of concern is that we see nothing ahead more than “terrorism”. Practically the aim of our foreign policy and consequently our relations with other states has been for the cause of countering “terrorism” only as if the only duty of a state has remained to fight international “terrorism”. Great Britain, France, and Australia are on “war against terrorism” so if our president and Premier make statements and sign accords regarding “terrorism” with these allied states it is justified if not legitimized. But it is a matter of laughter as it has become a norm to issue such statement with all and sundry. Even it has become mandatory on the part of rulers to brief any one who pays a visit to Pakistani about our efficient role in the “war on terror”. On March 07 2006, our foreign Minister, Khursheed Kasuri briefed his Spanish counterpart Mihuel Angel Moratinos about “Pakistan’s contribution in the ‘War on terror’, without which it (The war) had been lost.” Moratinos then praised Pakistan’s efforts in the “war on terrorism” and said that Spain would continue working with Pakistan to combat the “menace”. Why would be the not assisting us in this task as we have become the “frontline state”. At least theoretically we are a sovereign state so our ruler should behave like a sovereign state. Let’s keep this phenomenon of “terrorism” a side and focus on the durable relations stressing on economic, trade, tourism etc that will help prosper the nation with increasing rate of suicides due to extreme poverty. Let’s make relations with other states that can help create some jobs for the youth, the segment of the society that is very rapidly becoming curse for the society by joining the criminals. The increasing crimes including snatching cell phone are committed by the youth mostly. Let’s make relations that can help keep our own home in order. Let’s ask our rulers to first do it and then woe to fight “terrorism”.
Naimat Khan Karachi naimatku2003@yahoo.com
http://www.thefrontierpost.com/index.php?main=news&tname=letters&nid=258
Monday, April 24, 2006
Monday,
The retriever-whistle
The post 9/11 era, one has had to see that our relations with the other members of the world community have dwindled to such an extent that today we have only ‘relations for fighting war on terrorism’.
Look at the news whenever any ruler of any country comes to Pakistan. One sees a strange phenomenon that we had never seen before. King Abdullah visited Pakistan, the news that we read was “Pakistan, Saudi Arabia vow to fight terror” Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapakse arrives in to Islamabad, we read “Sri Lanka and Pakistan agree to combat terrorism” Now on his visit to Pakistan Yemeni president Ali Abdullah Saleh has signed an “Accord to fight terrorism” with Pakistan.
These were the three recent examples. But if you go through the news files of the four years since 911, almost everyone who ever came to Pakistan agreed to fight the war on terrorism with us. That is all we have been doing all these years and that is we were told to do even at the ‘payback time’, on George Bush’s visit to the subcontinent; fight the war on terrorism. -NAIMAT KHAN, Karachi, via e-mail, April 15.
No Comments/Trackbacks for this post yet...