Moonlight
MODERATOR
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2015
- Messages
- 6,406
- Reaction score
- 42
- Country
- Location
Actually, majority of them are grand pas. Btw, After Qaim Ali Shah, kick Shahryar Khan from PCB too. Please!
Pakistan to question exclusion of Islamic countries from anti-terror alliance
- Thread starter Hiptullha
- Start date
Actually, majority of them are grand pas. Btw, After Qaim Ali Shah, kick Shahryar Khan from PCB too. Please!
Abu Zolfiqar
Rest in Peace
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2009
- Messages
- 22,555
- Reaction score
- 22
- Country
- Location
Our stance should be simple and the same stance we opted for earlier this year - Islamic Republic of Pakistan REFUSES to join wars or proxy wars that divide the Ummah. SIMPLE!!!! Same was our response regarding Yemen intervention - which also was none of our business or concern.
If the Arabs were serious about Daish and fighting against it - it would've been over a long time ago. But instead you have an Iraqi military which is INCOMPETENT and unable to secure its own territory. You have Iraqi govt. and regional actors purchasing oil (knowingly or unknowingly) from Daish strong-holds. Those oil wells controlled by Daish should be bombed to kingdom come but nobody is doing it wonder why
The only thing that's needed is to sit the Ayatollahs and IRGC of Iran and the Wahhabis and the Saudi and Qatar establishment in one room.....lock them both in a room and throw away the key until they agree to end their proxy war in Iraq and Syria
then once that's done - you can tell both US/NATO/israel on one hand and Russia/others to bug off and leave Syria alone. Until then, forget about it.
Not Pakistan's problems or concerns. Our problems are only regional, and we are taking care of them systematically.
If the Arabs were serious about Daish and fighting against it - it would've been over a long time ago. But instead you have an Iraqi military which is INCOMPETENT and unable to secure its own territory. You have Iraqi govt. and regional actors purchasing oil (knowingly or unknowingly) from Daish strong-holds. Those oil wells controlled by Daish should be bombed to kingdom come but nobody is doing it wonder why
The only thing that's needed is to sit the Ayatollahs and IRGC of Iran and the Wahhabis and the Saudi and Qatar establishment in one room.....lock them both in a room and throw away the key until they agree to end their proxy war in Iraq and Syria
then once that's done - you can tell both US/NATO/israel on one hand and Russia/others to bug off and leave Syria alone. Until then, forget about it.
Not Pakistan's problems or concerns. Our problems are only regional, and we are taking care of them systematically.
True but this issue was ruined before now again iranian Brigade trying to ruin it .it took almost 6 month to yr to fix this rift i dont think they need us for yemen . Theior performence is very good except few attacks that caused bit loss other wise i am surprised by UAE soldiers they r simply fantastic .Rest pak was helping them covertly but will do it bit openley .we should care iran as iran should care us .
no no u hate every one who create troubles for iran this time u were sleeping case closeI hate everyone who creates problems for Pakistan and he is one of them. As i couldn't find him personally to beat sh!t out of him for embracing Pakistan again and again hence venting my frustration on PDF.
Ok, it's enough for today
HAIDER
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- May 21, 2006
- Messages
- 33,771
- Reaction score
- 14
- Country
- Location
Full details of Saudi-led coalition not yet available: Sartaj
ISLAMABAD: Adviser to Prime Minister on Foreign Affairs Sartaj Aziz admitted on Monday on the floor of the Senate that Pakistan was still unaware of full details of the Saudi-led coalition against terrorism and cautioned parliament against “complicating” the process by “prematurely” discussing it.
Taking note of the remarks, Senate Chairman Raza Rabbani reminded Mr Aziz that “we are discussing the matter in parliament and not at any other forum”.
Mr Aziz could not give satisfactory answers to specific questions of the chairman and some opposition members on the issue.
Tahir Mashhadi of the MQM walked out of the house saying that the adviser had not replied to questions raised in his speech.
“I may clarify that it is not an alliance, but a coalition because alliance is more formal. We will come to parliament once details are available,” said Mr Aziz in reply to the speeches made by senators during a debate on the motion seeking discussion “on the government’s foreign policy with reference to its success and failure”.
“So you have joined a military alliance about which you are still foggy,” the Senate chairman remarked.
The adviser said every country had to decide which activity it was going to participate in, “so there is no compulsion of doing XYZ”.
“We are working out... consultations are in progress to work out as to which kind of activities are we going to participate. There is intelligence sharing, capacity-building ... we are yet to decide which activity is desired. We support every action against terrorism,” he added.
The house witnessed an exchange of remarks between Mr Rabbani and Mr Aziz over the issue of bypassing parliament while taking major decisions.
Adviser could not satisfactorily answer questions of Senate Chairman Raza Rabbani and opposition members on the issue
“You have decided to become part of a coalition without being able to inform parliament about its details?” said Mr Rabbani.
The adviser gave an interesting reply, saying: “All the 34 countries, including Turkey, have done the same thing.”
“I am not interested in 33 other countries. I am interested only in the 34th country which is Pakistan,” the chairman said in a harsh tone.
Asked about the ministry’s viewpoint on the exclusion of four countries, which were subject to terrorism and fighting the militant Islamic State group, from the alliance, the adviser said that the matter would be discussed at the OIC forum in February.
Mr Aziz claimed that the discussion on the proposal had been going on for a couple of months. “So we know a little bit about it. But rest assured that we are not going to deviate from the (foreign) policy and details would be shared with the house when they became available.
He said terrorism was an important issue for the Muslim world and, therefore, they should not pre-judge the matter and allow the process to go on.
“It is important that today all trouble spots are in the Islamic world. If we don’t take the measures, they will come to our side. Our main interest is that IS does not find space in South Asia,” he said. “It is important for us to join (coalition) according to whatever priorities we have.”
Earlier, opposition members criticised the government for not appointing a full-time foreign minister and bypassing parliament over major decisions.
Tahir Mashhadi asked the adviser to tell the house against whom this coalition had been formed. He termed the decision to join the alliance a violation of the decision of a joint sitting of parliament on the Yemen situation.
Saudi Arabia announced on Tuesday that it had forged the 34-nation alliance of Muslim countries for fighting terrorism and extremism, which included Pakistan.
Senior officials at the foreign ministry initially expressed surprise over Pakistan’s inclusion in the new group, and said Riyadh had not taken Islamabad on board. But subsequent developments revealed that Saudi Arabia had been given a secret commitment regarding joining the alliance, about which the Foreign Office was not aware.
CCI: During a debate on a motion, opposition members accused the government of violating the constitution by not convening a meeting of the Council of Common Interests since March.
Hasil Bizenjo of the National Party said that efforts were on to roll back the 18th Amendment which granted greater autonomy to the provinces.
The Minister for Inter-Provincial Coordination, Riaz Pirzada, said the CCI meeting could not be called because of some pressing engagements of the prime minister. He expressed the hope that the CCI would meet by the third week of January.
The chairman referred a private members’ bill seeking restructuring of Ogra to the standing committee concerned. The bill seeking representation of all the provinces in Ogra had been introduced by PPP’s Sassui Palejo.
Published in Dawn, December 22nd, 2015
ISLAMABAD: Adviser to Prime Minister on Foreign Affairs Sartaj Aziz admitted on Monday on the floor of the Senate that Pakistan was still unaware of full details of the Saudi-led coalition against terrorism and cautioned parliament against “complicating” the process by “prematurely” discussing it.
Taking note of the remarks, Senate Chairman Raza Rabbani reminded Mr Aziz that “we are discussing the matter in parliament and not at any other forum”.
Mr Aziz could not give satisfactory answers to specific questions of the chairman and some opposition members on the issue.
Tahir Mashhadi of the MQM walked out of the house saying that the adviser had not replied to questions raised in his speech.
“I may clarify that it is not an alliance, but a coalition because alliance is more formal. We will come to parliament once details are available,” said Mr Aziz in reply to the speeches made by senators during a debate on the motion seeking discussion “on the government’s foreign policy with reference to its success and failure”.
“So you have joined a military alliance about which you are still foggy,” the Senate chairman remarked.
The adviser said every country had to decide which activity it was going to participate in, “so there is no compulsion of doing XYZ”.
“We are working out... consultations are in progress to work out as to which kind of activities are we going to participate. There is intelligence sharing, capacity-building ... we are yet to decide which activity is desired. We support every action against terrorism,” he added.
The house witnessed an exchange of remarks between Mr Rabbani and Mr Aziz over the issue of bypassing parliament while taking major decisions.
Adviser could not satisfactorily answer questions of Senate Chairman Raza Rabbani and opposition members on the issue
“You have decided to become part of a coalition without being able to inform parliament about its details?” said Mr Rabbani.
The adviser gave an interesting reply, saying: “All the 34 countries, including Turkey, have done the same thing.”
“I am not interested in 33 other countries. I am interested only in the 34th country which is Pakistan,” the chairman said in a harsh tone.
Asked about the ministry’s viewpoint on the exclusion of four countries, which were subject to terrorism and fighting the militant Islamic State group, from the alliance, the adviser said that the matter would be discussed at the OIC forum in February.
Mr Aziz claimed that the discussion on the proposal had been going on for a couple of months. “So we know a little bit about it. But rest assured that we are not going to deviate from the (foreign) policy and details would be shared with the house when they became available.
He said terrorism was an important issue for the Muslim world and, therefore, they should not pre-judge the matter and allow the process to go on.
“It is important that today all trouble spots are in the Islamic world. If we don’t take the measures, they will come to our side. Our main interest is that IS does not find space in South Asia,” he said. “It is important for us to join (coalition) according to whatever priorities we have.”
Earlier, opposition members criticised the government for not appointing a full-time foreign minister and bypassing parliament over major decisions.
Tahir Mashhadi asked the adviser to tell the house against whom this coalition had been formed. He termed the decision to join the alliance a violation of the decision of a joint sitting of parliament on the Yemen situation.
Saudi Arabia announced on Tuesday that it had forged the 34-nation alliance of Muslim countries for fighting terrorism and extremism, which included Pakistan.
Senior officials at the foreign ministry initially expressed surprise over Pakistan’s inclusion in the new group, and said Riyadh had not taken Islamabad on board. But subsequent developments revealed that Saudi Arabia had been given a secret commitment regarding joining the alliance, about which the Foreign Office was not aware.
CCI: During a debate on a motion, opposition members accused the government of violating the constitution by not convening a meeting of the Council of Common Interests since March.
Hasil Bizenjo of the National Party said that efforts were on to roll back the 18th Amendment which granted greater autonomy to the provinces.
The Minister for Inter-Provincial Coordination, Riaz Pirzada, said the CCI meeting could not be called because of some pressing engagements of the prime minister. He expressed the hope that the CCI would meet by the third week of January.
The chairman referred a private members’ bill seeking restructuring of Ogra to the standing committee concerned. The bill seeking representation of all the provinces in Ogra had been introduced by PPP’s Sassui Palejo.
Published in Dawn, December 22nd, 2015
Sugarcane
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2011
- Messages
- 21,105
- Reaction score
- 29
- Country
- Location
Only if you had used little bit of brain before making your chaddi wet after looking at flag, you would knew the statement which you are trying to defend in order to prove your loyalty for Habibi is actually in favor of Iran and is against KSA.
As your mind can't go beyond the flags, so i consider you in same category as poster above.
Stag112
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2015
- Messages
- 1,572
- Reaction score
- -28
- Country
- Location
bongbang
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2014
- Messages
- 3,349
- Reaction score
- -4
- Country
- Location
Am I missing something? Where its said about strengthening wahabism? In our country BNP JI Saudi alliance is deep rooted. They are closely observing politics of BD. Before the last one sided election Saudi diplomat reported home that AL is planning for one party gov. And just after AL coming in power 2009 they started dilemma in working visas to Bangladeshis. And beginning of the year they stopped Umrah hajj visas also. But just after joining the alliance they lifted that ban. One news recently insisting BD gov to not ban JI which will be shot in the feet. They are trying all kinds of stuffs here to control BD. So as we are much dependent on them because of religious and working purposes. Imo the present gov should build relation with them and keep on doing the jobs they are doing at home. Also nobody in home taking this alliance seriously just a good gesture. And BD wont work against UN charter, detailed discussion in ministry and parliament, mercenary no way.
Signalian
PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2015
- Messages
- 10,608
- Reaction score
- 305
- Country
- Location
Not true.
Infact KSA has not also accomplished anything, neither have other muslim countries, apart from Pakistan and Turkey. Iran has accomplished a few things in the manufacturing area. Iraq was on its way to build a nuclear reactor in 1981. Syria has survived where Libya and Egypt couldnt and is still a pain for Israel.
Stag112
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2015
- Messages
- 1,572
- Reaction score
- -28
- Country
- Location
No it doesnt SAY anything about strengthening wahhabism.
But you yourself admitted they are helping to strengthen jamaat.
May be I am missing something.
bongbang
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2014
- Messages
- 3,349
- Reaction score
- -4
- Country
- Location
Yes Saudis and BAL has some historical animosity. Saudis didnt want creation of BD. And kept on all kinds of support to Pak. Even after creation of BD they proposed naming BD Islamic Republic. Our main enemy is pakistan oriented group JI. They were historically doing all kinds of complaints to Muslim world to detach BD and brought all types of closest wahabi ideologies. BNP founder Zia was also quite popular there due to his initiatives of mixing religion with politics.
asad71
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- May 24, 2011
- Messages
- 6,863
- Reaction score
- 4
- Country
- Location
Saudi Arabia’s alliance of 34 | Pakistan Today
Saudi Arabia’s alliance of 34
Columns CommentABOUT 1 HOUR AGO BY YASMEEN AFTAB ALI
A wake up call
‘It was nothing short of a Saudi Royal decree. Its compulsory acceptance is inbuilt religiously, economically and also for very private reasons of brotherly humility for the never ending dole-outs by the current ruler, calling upon it subjects, more so the government in Pakistan to be on the front line of the Saudi conjured coalition to defend what it calls Islamic interest as franchised by it under the brand name of Wahabism, having proved to be more divisive and destructive than anything else in Islam,’ states Wajid Shamsul Hasan, former High Commissioner of Pakistan for Britain.
Pakistan claimed unawareness of joining any such alliance when news broke. From being unaware to welcoming the alliance took barely a few days and exclusion of parliamentary discussion to decide upon this hugely important issue. However, some sanity remains, whereas a local newspaper reports quoting FO spokesman Qazi Khalilullah writes that Pakistan is part of the alliance against terrorism, “We are participating in this alliance against terrorism. The only thing that needs to be decided is the extent of our participation in various activities of the alliance.” (December 18, 2015)
In the meanwhile, Saudi Arabia is taking onboard opposition parties of coalition countries to lobby for their cause. The same report quotes Asif Ali Zardari with Senator Rehman Malik and some family members to be in Saudi Arabia upon an invite.
What is the alliance about? Is it about terrorism or is it about extending Saudi Arabia’s area of influence?
Two extremely valid points raised by Adam Taylor need attention: “Perhaps the most damning criticism of the alliance is just how vague it is. Jubeir has said that “nothing is off the table” when it comes to the alliance, which will not only have a military component but also tackle terror funding and ideology. What that means in practice is anyone’s guess. The exclusion of Shia nations in an alliance designed to represent the Islamic world seems to reinforce the belief that Saudi Arabia’s alliance is motivated by a sectarian rivalry with Iran and not terrorism. The problem is that sectarianism often feeds further into extremism. And while this new alliance may appear to target terrorism, it’s not hard to see it as an extension of the Saudi-led coalition currently fighting in Yemen – a war that sums up the sectarian quagmire currently engulfing the Middle East.”(Washington Post, December 17, 2015)
“General Raheel Shareef should treat it as a direct threat to his crusade against terrorism. As this would pump in more foreign sectarian money and arms for the different groups proxy-ing for various foreign masters on behalf of Daesh or against it,” says Wajid Shamsul Hasan. “Most importantly, our emphasis should be that lessons need to be learnt from history. Never in recent history any war coalition/military alliance or an axis opposing it, has resulted in restoring peace. We have seen the aftermath of 9/11, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Algeria, Lebanon, Vietnam etc. Millions got killed, economies destroyed, dislocations of populations, miseries all around—peace is only restored at the negotiating table and only there issues are settled.”
Lest we forget, Pakistan is the second largest country having Shia population. Such an alliance in exclusion to any Shia country will inevitably lead to a worse situation of sectarian violence in Pakistan.
Brigadier Rashid Ali Malik, Chairman APSAA is bull’s eye when he says, “Pakistan by any stretch of imagination is not Mideast. Pakistan is totally involved in its own war for survival. India can never be trusted. Pakistan cannot take sides in any Sunni-Shia war. Pakistan at best can play an advisory role.” Yes, Pakistan must play a conciliatory role, that of a mediator. Not as an aggressor or a partner in terms of inflicting aggression on another state. Wajid Shamsul Hasan is on the same page, “Pakistan should urge upon all the Muslim countries to join hands and invoke the United Nations into action. It should ask the Arab League and OIC to wake up to get down to resolving the issue. After all it is an Arab issue fast escalating into sectarian conflict.”
A day after Wajid Shamsul Hasan gave his opinion, Al-Jazeera broke the news that the fifteen members of UN Security Council agreed upon a draft resolution calling for peace conference in January and ceasefire, and adopted unanimously. Let us hope something positive comes out of this that can be implemented being acceptable to all involved.
This is not the first time Saudi Arab wants Pakistan to fight its war. In Yemen, Pakistan refused to fight the war for Saudis and rightly. On March 30, 2015, facing the same decision for Yemen on behalf of Saudi Arabia, in my op-ed I had written and its worth repeating here as the ground realities remain the same, still: “Pakistan has its plate full of its share of problems. Homegrown terrorism, sponsored terrorism, an untenable border between her and Afghanistan, a hostile neighbour, and its army engaged in a war within its borders that needs to be fought with single-minded focus. This is just the tip of the iceberg. Then there are practical considerations: Does Pakistan has the surplus troops to send to Yemen? Can we undertake this venture when we are at war on our own home ground? It was therefore with a huge sigh of relief that many read Khawaja Asif’s statement that Pakistan would not participate in a conflict that could divide MuslimUmmah. In addition to it came another positive statement that, ‘Pakistan is ready to facilitate the end of conflicts in the Islamic world with a pragmatic view that involvement in conflict could aggravate fault-lines in Pakistan.’ I think similar must be the stance of Pakistan in case of Syria.
The thirty two countries announced magnanimously in the coalition of 34 are: Saudi Arabia, Jordan, UAE, Pakistan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Benin, Turkey, Chad, Togo, Tunisia, Djibouti, Senegal, Sudan, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Gabon, Guinea, Palestine, Comoros, Qatar, Cote Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Maldives, Mali, Malaysia, Egypt, Morocco, Mauritania, Niger, Nigeria, Yemen.
Read that list carefully and you will see only Pakistan and Turkey with armies of strength in number and quality. “Pakistan needs to remember that none of the members of 34-country alliance has an army that could qualify to be better than red tag. The whole brunt would fall on the shoulders of Pakistan and Turkey. Let Turkey decide what it wants to do, Pakistan should be firm that it can’t be part of fratricidal conflict whatever money Saudis offer.”(Wajid Shamsul Hasan)
Pakistan must also keep in mind while taking the decision, that Pakistan needs Russia and Iran on their side in the upcoming China-Pakistan Economic Corridor. With USA’s overtures to India, converging of interests between Russia-China-Pakistan is the call of the future. Iran has her own interests as the corridor definitely works for Iran opening up the reach to the east. China, seen as Pakistan’s ‘all-weather friend’ will not like to see the project yet again being placed on the backburner at the cost of playing ‘tea-boy’ to Saudi interests. “The world’s largest explosives manufacturer, Beijing Auxin Chemical Technology Limited, is all set to establish a plant in the country. The company will manufacture emulsion explosives which will “meet the future demand of explosives and blasting accessories in the light of CPEC, large-scale mining and hydroelectric projects.” (The Diplomat, October 14, 2015) This is only one example.
‘Why is Pakistan coming down so heavily on the Saudi side when this opens up big risks in its relations with its large and powerful neighbour, Iran? The answer has much to do with Pakistan’s economic troubles. A terrorist insurgency and the government’s inability to deal with it has also scared off any foreign investors who might have injected money into the ailing economy. An energy crisis has slowed down work in factories and offices, and importing oil has become increasingly expensive. With dwindling reserves of foreign currency, Pakistan has been surviving from one IMF loan to the next, with some additional respite in the form of American reimbursements for money spent on the Afghan war. Pakistan has always been dependent on American aid, whether in the form of development funds or F-16s. Now the American money is dwindling and Pakistan must look elsewhere for financial support.’ (The American Interest, March 15, 2014)
The cost Pakistan is paying and will continue to pay for God knows how long, for choices made by Zia to succumb to USA’s need to counter Russia in Afghanistan in raising the Mujahedeen with USA, UK and Saudi Arabia as its funders, rechristened later as Taliban, should be a lesson in history. Pakistan is facing a war on terror within its borders that has cost thousands of lives of civilians, army and police personnel. It has damaged the social fabric of the country and economy has been a heavy casualty. Pakistan must not repeat the disastrous mistake the second time round.
Terrorism has different faces; it can be ethnic, sectarian, religious based so on and so forth. Is Wajid Shamsul Hasan right when he says, “Besides giving our people jobs, chopping their heads off whenever need be, hosting their palaces to our VIPs, doling out chunks of theirzakat money to keep us surviving on their ventilators, its major threat to our existence is its violent and suicide-bomber cult of Wahabism.”
This is a wake-up call for those in power.
Saudi Arabia’s alliance of 34
Columns CommentABOUT 1 HOUR AGO BY YASMEEN AFTAB ALI
A wake up call
‘It was nothing short of a Saudi Royal decree. Its compulsory acceptance is inbuilt religiously, economically and also for very private reasons of brotherly humility for the never ending dole-outs by the current ruler, calling upon it subjects, more so the government in Pakistan to be on the front line of the Saudi conjured coalition to defend what it calls Islamic interest as franchised by it under the brand name of Wahabism, having proved to be more divisive and destructive than anything else in Islam,’ states Wajid Shamsul Hasan, former High Commissioner of Pakistan for Britain.
Pakistan claimed unawareness of joining any such alliance when news broke. From being unaware to welcoming the alliance took barely a few days and exclusion of parliamentary discussion to decide upon this hugely important issue. However, some sanity remains, whereas a local newspaper reports quoting FO spokesman Qazi Khalilullah writes that Pakistan is part of the alliance against terrorism, “We are participating in this alliance against terrorism. The only thing that needs to be decided is the extent of our participation in various activities of the alliance.” (December 18, 2015)
In the meanwhile, Saudi Arabia is taking onboard opposition parties of coalition countries to lobby for their cause. The same report quotes Asif Ali Zardari with Senator Rehman Malik and some family members to be in Saudi Arabia upon an invite.
What is the alliance about? Is it about terrorism or is it about extending Saudi Arabia’s area of influence?
Two extremely valid points raised by Adam Taylor need attention: “Perhaps the most damning criticism of the alliance is just how vague it is. Jubeir has said that “nothing is off the table” when it comes to the alliance, which will not only have a military component but also tackle terror funding and ideology. What that means in practice is anyone’s guess. The exclusion of Shia nations in an alliance designed to represent the Islamic world seems to reinforce the belief that Saudi Arabia’s alliance is motivated by a sectarian rivalry with Iran and not terrorism. The problem is that sectarianism often feeds further into extremism. And while this new alliance may appear to target terrorism, it’s not hard to see it as an extension of the Saudi-led coalition currently fighting in Yemen – a war that sums up the sectarian quagmire currently engulfing the Middle East.”(Washington Post, December 17, 2015)
“General Raheel Shareef should treat it as a direct threat to his crusade against terrorism. As this would pump in more foreign sectarian money and arms for the different groups proxy-ing for various foreign masters on behalf of Daesh or against it,” says Wajid Shamsul Hasan. “Most importantly, our emphasis should be that lessons need to be learnt from history. Never in recent history any war coalition/military alliance or an axis opposing it, has resulted in restoring peace. We have seen the aftermath of 9/11, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Algeria, Lebanon, Vietnam etc. Millions got killed, economies destroyed, dislocations of populations, miseries all around—peace is only restored at the negotiating table and only there issues are settled.”
Lest we forget, Pakistan is the second largest country having Shia population. Such an alliance in exclusion to any Shia country will inevitably lead to a worse situation of sectarian violence in Pakistan.
Brigadier Rashid Ali Malik, Chairman APSAA is bull’s eye when he says, “Pakistan by any stretch of imagination is not Mideast. Pakistan is totally involved in its own war for survival. India can never be trusted. Pakistan cannot take sides in any Sunni-Shia war. Pakistan at best can play an advisory role.” Yes, Pakistan must play a conciliatory role, that of a mediator. Not as an aggressor or a partner in terms of inflicting aggression on another state. Wajid Shamsul Hasan is on the same page, “Pakistan should urge upon all the Muslim countries to join hands and invoke the United Nations into action. It should ask the Arab League and OIC to wake up to get down to resolving the issue. After all it is an Arab issue fast escalating into sectarian conflict.”
A day after Wajid Shamsul Hasan gave his opinion, Al-Jazeera broke the news that the fifteen members of UN Security Council agreed upon a draft resolution calling for peace conference in January and ceasefire, and adopted unanimously. Let us hope something positive comes out of this that can be implemented being acceptable to all involved.
This is not the first time Saudi Arab wants Pakistan to fight its war. In Yemen, Pakistan refused to fight the war for Saudis and rightly. On March 30, 2015, facing the same decision for Yemen on behalf of Saudi Arabia, in my op-ed I had written and its worth repeating here as the ground realities remain the same, still: “Pakistan has its plate full of its share of problems. Homegrown terrorism, sponsored terrorism, an untenable border between her and Afghanistan, a hostile neighbour, and its army engaged in a war within its borders that needs to be fought with single-minded focus. This is just the tip of the iceberg. Then there are practical considerations: Does Pakistan has the surplus troops to send to Yemen? Can we undertake this venture when we are at war on our own home ground? It was therefore with a huge sigh of relief that many read Khawaja Asif’s statement that Pakistan would not participate in a conflict that could divide MuslimUmmah. In addition to it came another positive statement that, ‘Pakistan is ready to facilitate the end of conflicts in the Islamic world with a pragmatic view that involvement in conflict could aggravate fault-lines in Pakistan.’ I think similar must be the stance of Pakistan in case of Syria.
The thirty two countries announced magnanimously in the coalition of 34 are: Saudi Arabia, Jordan, UAE, Pakistan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Benin, Turkey, Chad, Togo, Tunisia, Djibouti, Senegal, Sudan, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Gabon, Guinea, Palestine, Comoros, Qatar, Cote Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Maldives, Mali, Malaysia, Egypt, Morocco, Mauritania, Niger, Nigeria, Yemen.
Read that list carefully and you will see only Pakistan and Turkey with armies of strength in number and quality. “Pakistan needs to remember that none of the members of 34-country alliance has an army that could qualify to be better than red tag. The whole brunt would fall on the shoulders of Pakistan and Turkey. Let Turkey decide what it wants to do, Pakistan should be firm that it can’t be part of fratricidal conflict whatever money Saudis offer.”(Wajid Shamsul Hasan)
Pakistan must also keep in mind while taking the decision, that Pakistan needs Russia and Iran on their side in the upcoming China-Pakistan Economic Corridor. With USA’s overtures to India, converging of interests between Russia-China-Pakistan is the call of the future. Iran has her own interests as the corridor definitely works for Iran opening up the reach to the east. China, seen as Pakistan’s ‘all-weather friend’ will not like to see the project yet again being placed on the backburner at the cost of playing ‘tea-boy’ to Saudi interests. “The world’s largest explosives manufacturer, Beijing Auxin Chemical Technology Limited, is all set to establish a plant in the country. The company will manufacture emulsion explosives which will “meet the future demand of explosives and blasting accessories in the light of CPEC, large-scale mining and hydroelectric projects.” (The Diplomat, October 14, 2015) This is only one example.
‘Why is Pakistan coming down so heavily on the Saudi side when this opens up big risks in its relations with its large and powerful neighbour, Iran? The answer has much to do with Pakistan’s economic troubles. A terrorist insurgency and the government’s inability to deal with it has also scared off any foreign investors who might have injected money into the ailing economy. An energy crisis has slowed down work in factories and offices, and importing oil has become increasingly expensive. With dwindling reserves of foreign currency, Pakistan has been surviving from one IMF loan to the next, with some additional respite in the form of American reimbursements for money spent on the Afghan war. Pakistan has always been dependent on American aid, whether in the form of development funds or F-16s. Now the American money is dwindling and Pakistan must look elsewhere for financial support.’ (The American Interest, March 15, 2014)
The cost Pakistan is paying and will continue to pay for God knows how long, for choices made by Zia to succumb to USA’s need to counter Russia in Afghanistan in raising the Mujahedeen with USA, UK and Saudi Arabia as its funders, rechristened later as Taliban, should be a lesson in history. Pakistan is facing a war on terror within its borders that has cost thousands of lives of civilians, army and police personnel. It has damaged the social fabric of the country and economy has been a heavy casualty. Pakistan must not repeat the disastrous mistake the second time round.
Terrorism has different faces; it can be ethnic, sectarian, religious based so on and so forth. Is Wajid Shamsul Hasan right when he says, “Besides giving our people jobs, chopping their heads off whenever need be, hosting their palaces to our VIPs, doling out chunks of theirzakat money to keep us surviving on their ventilators, its major threat to our existence is its violent and suicide-bomber cult of Wahabism.”
This is a wake-up call for those in power.
Signalian
PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2015
- Messages
- 10,608
- Reaction score
- 305
- Country
- Location
wahabism was the fuel that mujahideen were fuelled on to rout USSR from Afghanistan. It has led to extremism inside Pakistan. KSA further funded madrassas and mosques to preach wahabism. The friday sermons by local molvis of the mosques became hate speeches against the government instead of preaching fundamentals of islam. Another gift of KSA was OBL to Pakistan.
Now the hate speeches have been banned, madrassas are being scanned,monitored and closed. Extremism is being dealt with. Extremism also found its way into army and some officers planned to bring revolution of khilafat and what not, eventually caught and thrown out. Brainwashed individuals who are captured by the Army and interrogated know nothing about basics of islam.
KSA double standards can be seen already by not including 3 muslim countries. Iran is not all clean too but why create a division by side-lining it and Syria and Iraq.
Pakistan is already dealing with heavy blows since 2001 and its almost 15 years now, the war against extremists is still continuing. Pakistan should lay down its conditions first:
1. First priority should be given to Pakistan for eliminating TTP etc from its soil. All the muslim countries should send weapons, aid, equipment, funds to PA to finish the war that PA is fighting since past 15 years.
2. If India shows any aggressive moves on Pakistan borders or threatens to attack Pakistan, all the muslim countries in this alliance break all trading ties with India and deport the Indian workforce from the gulf to India.
3. All the muslim countries should raise the Kashmir issue in UN alongwith Pakistan and ensure that this conflict is settled.
4. KSA should stop funding madrasas and mosques in pakistan which results in extremism.
5. The anti-terrorism force of the alliance should either be headed by Pakistani officers or Turkish officers even if the HQ is in KSA.
6. All the muslim countries in the alliance should bring forward their Armed forces manpower and weapons dedicated to fight under this alliance so the other allied countries dont carry extra load.
Since this list can never see the light of the reality and the Sunni-Shia conflict can never be solved between muslims, Pakistan should move along diplomatically without making any promises.
Now the hate speeches have been banned, madrassas are being scanned,monitored and closed. Extremism is being dealt with. Extremism also found its way into army and some officers planned to bring revolution of khilafat and what not, eventually caught and thrown out. Brainwashed individuals who are captured by the Army and interrogated know nothing about basics of islam.
KSA double standards can be seen already by not including 3 muslim countries. Iran is not all clean too but why create a division by side-lining it and Syria and Iraq.
Pakistan is already dealing with heavy blows since 2001 and its almost 15 years now, the war against extremists is still continuing. Pakistan should lay down its conditions first:
1. First priority should be given to Pakistan for eliminating TTP etc from its soil. All the muslim countries should send weapons, aid, equipment, funds to PA to finish the war that PA is fighting since past 15 years.
2. If India shows any aggressive moves on Pakistan borders or threatens to attack Pakistan, all the muslim countries in this alliance break all trading ties with India and deport the Indian workforce from the gulf to India.
3. All the muslim countries should raise the Kashmir issue in UN alongwith Pakistan and ensure that this conflict is settled.
4. KSA should stop funding madrasas and mosques in pakistan which results in extremism.
5. The anti-terrorism force of the alliance should either be headed by Pakistani officers or Turkish officers even if the HQ is in KSA.
6. All the muslim countries in the alliance should bring forward their Armed forces manpower and weapons dedicated to fight under this alliance so the other allied countries dont carry extra load.
Since this list can never see the light of the reality and the Sunni-Shia conflict can never be solved between muslims, Pakistan should move along diplomatically without making any promises.
Syria - still a pain for Israel ??
I cannot see how Syria can pose any threat to Israel. In the past 10 years Israelis are conducting air raids on Syria with impunity.
Signalian
PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2015
- Messages
- 10,608
- Reaction score
- 305
- Country
- Location
If Israel had the power to completely eliminate Syria, it would have done so by now. Israel knows that Syria is a threat because it's backed by Iran and Iran is anti Israel.
The air strikes are not only conducted by Israel but NATO too. Still Syria stands.
Anyways I'm not pro Syria. I'm pro Israeli to some extent just because of their tactics and operational capabilities which are excellent. Thy fight for their survival and the way they do it is extra ordinary.
We don't want to eliminate Syria,we want Sunni jihadist and shia jihadist keep fight each other,Our attacks are directed towards those directing weapons against us.
Similar threads
- Article
