Posts by QamarSyed:

Jerusalem,International Law, and the Occupying Power

August 11th, 2015

 

 

By Syed Qamar Afzal Rizvi.

 

 



The issue of Jerusalem is core to the Arab-Israeli conflict since the Israeli  takeover of East Jerusalem after the 1967 Six Day War between the Arabs and Israel.

Since his becoming as the US president,Obama has had a fawning desire to resurrect the dead Mideast peace dialogue on the urge  and understanding of fostering the two state solution–envisaging ‘East Jerusalem’ as the capital of the would be Palestinian state–advocating West Jerusalem as the ‘would be’ capital of Israel.

This outlook, which the American administration wishes to promote, posts the issue of the sovereignty over Jerusalem as more current than before, in that it does not take into account the Israeli declaration of sovereignty over Jerusalem at large, and turns it into a ‘negotiable issue’.

Undeniably,Obama has also shown his gross disagreement regarding Israeli premier Netanyahu’s policy of  the’ Jewish settlements’ in the occupied Palestinian territories. The US supreme court’s latest verdict of not deciding the fate regarding the sovereignty of Jerusalem(but leaving this issue to be decided by America’s president who is final authority in matters of foreign affairs) in favour of the petitioner born in Jerusalem, seeking the legal status of his native city– has largely demystified the ‘Israeli myth’ that Jerusalem belongs to Israel.

The exercise of providing the answer– regarding the question of Jerusalem’s sovereignty-cum-Jewish settlements–cannot be divorced from examining  the status of the occupying power(Israel) under‘4th Geneva Conventions and the related  ‘international legal regime’.

The Geneva Conventions continue to apply to the Palestinian Territory, including Jerusalem, until the effective end of the occupation. In this respect, Article 6 of the 4th Geneva Convention, which specifies the point at which its application ceases, states that: “In the territory of Parties to the conflict, the application of the present Convention shall cease on the general close of military operations. In the case of occupied territory, the application of the present Convention shall cease one year after the general close of military operations; however, the Occupying Power shall be bound, for the duration of the occupation, to the extent that such Power exercises the functions of government in such territory, by the provisions of the following Articles of the present Convention: I to 12, 27, 29 to 34, 47, 49, 51, 52, 53, 59, 61 to 77, 143…”

The ICRC (the International Committee of the Red Cross) confirms that: “In cases where a territory is occupied, the application of international humanitarian law, in particular the 4th Convention, ceases only with the effective end of occupation or with a comprehensive political settlement of the dispute, in accordance with the rules of general international law.”Until this occurs, no derogation is possible from the rights guaranteed by the 4th Convention. This was affirmed in Article 7, which states that: “no special agreement shall adversely affect the situation of protected persons, as defined by the present Convention, nor restrict the rights which it confers upon them.”

As such, Israel’s claim that application ceases one year after the general close of military operations is also not valid. Israel remains an occupying Power within the Palestinian Territory and is thus bound by the provisions of the Convention. Any claims by the occupying Power with respect to ‘increased’ or ‘broader’ authority in the case of prolonged occupations are also invalid. This argument has been rejected by both the international community and international legal experts and contradicts international law, under which occupation is considered temporary in nature and involves no transfer of sovereignty. The occupation of territory during war does not confer upon the occupying Power ‘state authority’ over the population of the occupied territory or over the occupied territory itself. The rights of the occupant over the territory are merely transitory and are governed by an overriding obligation to respect the existing laws and rules of administration.

With the beginning of the occupation, Israel, the occupying Power, established a military government in the Occupied Palestinian Territory to exert absolute control over the Palestinian population. The two area commanders of the West Bank and Gaza have exclusive formal authority over the area. The commander is the legislator, the head of the Executive, and is in charge of appointing all local officials and judges.

The military commanders have introduced over 1,100 military orders in the West Bank and over 835 in the Gaza Strip. These orders have changed, amended or repealed virtually every law in the Palestinian territory. The occupying Power effected structural changes in the court system and established military tribunals which were responsible for dealing with security related matters, the scope of which has gradually broadened. In November 1981, through a military order, a civilian administration was established for the military government. At the same time, Israel, the occupying Power, has created a dual system of law in the Occupied Territory. Israel has extended some of its laws extraterritorially to the Occupied Territory, applying them only to Jewish settlers and it has established ‘local and regional Jewish councils’.

With the onset of the occupation, Israel, the occupying Power, began to transfer parts of its own population to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including Jerusalem. These Israelis were settled on illegally acquired Palestinian land in what came to be known as Israeli settlements. Such population transfers are explicitly forbidden under the 4th Geneva Convention specifically to prevent ‘colonization and annexation’.

In the initial stage of this process, Israel claimed that the settlements were being built for security reasons. At a later stage, however, more ideological reasons were given to justify this illegal expansionist policy. To date, Israel has transferred more than 350,000 settlers into the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including an estimated 180,000 who live in nine settlements in the illegally expanded boundaries of ‘East Jerusalem’. The Israeli Government provides considerable financial incentives and other forms of assistance to the settlers to encourage them to move to the Occupied Territory. Most of the settlers are armed and, as evidenced by the many incidents of violence perpetrated by them, have been a real and serious threat to the safety of Palestinian civilians.

The transfer of population, coupled with the illegal acquisition of land, the abuse of natural resources and the establishment of a dual system of law, has created a clear situation of colonization in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

The occupation is governed by The Hague Regulations of 1907, as well as by the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, and the customary laws of ‘belligerent occupation’. Security Council Resolution 1322 (2000), paragraph 3 continued: “Calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by its legal obligations and its responsibilities under the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in a Time of War of 12 August 1949;…” Again, the Security Council vote was 14 to 0, becoming obligatory international law.

The Fourth Geneva Convention applies to the West Bank, to the Gaza Strip, and to the entire City of Jerusalem, in order to protect the Palestinians living there. The Palestinian People living in this Palestinian Land are ‘protected persons’ within the meaning of the Fourth Geneva Convention. All of their rights are sacred under international law.

There are 149 substantive articles of the Fourth Geneva Convention that protect the rights of every one of these Palestinians living in occupied Palestine. The Israeli Government is currently violating, and has since 1967 been violating, almost each and every one of these sacred rights of the Palestinian People recognized by the Fourth Geneva Convention. Indeed, violations of the Fourth Geneva Convention are ‘war crimes’.

So this is not ‘asymmetrical situation’. As matters of fact and of law, the gross and repeated violations of Palestinian rights by the Israeli army and Israeli settlers living illegally in occupied Palestine constitute war crimes. Conversely, the Palestinian People are defending themselves and their land and their homes against Israeli war crimes and Israeli war criminals, both military and civilian.

The Israeli High Court took a somewhat different position, recognizing the territories conquered by Israel in 1967 as ‘occupied territories.’ In this respect, the Court recognized the applicability of the Hague Regulations of 1907 as customary international law. However, it largely interpreted the Regulations in a manner that has effectively permitted every action committed by the Israeli military. With regard to the 4th Geneva Convention, the Court refrained from taking a position on the applicability, maintaining instead that the Convention was not justiciable before Israeli municipal courts on the basis that it was not incorporated by the Parliament as ‘domestic law’. Overall, the dominant tendency of the Court has been the non-application of international law and it has often engaged in some forms of ‘legal formalism’ that ultimately diminish the bearing of international law on the actions of the occupying forces.

The veritable truth is that, after the Six Day War (1967), Israel proceeded with the occupation of the remaining Palestinian territories, and it commenced to colonise them, in spite of this action being considered as illegal by the UN and the majority of countries. Some suggested that Israel was only defending herself; for them, the aggression of the Arab countries would have been the cause of the Six Day War and consequently, of the expansion of the State of Israel, but, as outlined by a seasoned international law professor Anthony D’AMATO,“the undeniable fact that the Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact of 1928, as definitively glossed by the International Tribunal at Nuremberg in 1948, has abolished forever the idea of acquisition of territory by military conquest”.

The international community considers the establishment of Israeli settlements in the Israeli-occupied territories illegal under international law, however Israel maintains that they are consistent with international law because it does not agree that the Fourth Geneva Convention applies to the territories occupied in the 1967 Six-Day War. The United Nations Security Council, the United Nations General Assembly, the Intenrnational Committee of the Red Cross, the International Court of Justice and the High Contracting Parties to the Convention have all affirmed that the Fourth Geneva Convention does apply.

The official Israeli legal argument against the application of Article 2( of the 4th Geneva Convention) to the situation in the West Bank is based on a 1971 interpretation by Israeli Attorney-General, Meir Shamgar.  Shamgar believed that the Convention did not pertain to the territories captured by Israel since they had not previously been recognised as part of a sovereign state and could not be considered “the territory of a High Contracting Party.

The Israeli legal argument was dismissed by the International Court of Justice. The Court cited the Geneva Convention’s travaux préparatoires, which recommended that the conventions be applicable to any armed conflict ”whether [it] is or is not recognized as a state of war by the parties and in cases of occupation of territories in the absence of any state of war” as confirmation that the drafters of the article had no intention of restricting the scope of its application.

The war itself is an illegal action; and if self-defence is legitimate, it cannot exceed self-defence as, by doing so, it then becomes a new military aggression, by definition. If self-defence had continued until this military aggression, the occupation of territories during a certain period (the conflict) by no means confers on the attacker the right to retain these territories, nor, a  fortiori, to annex them. However, it is also true that the PLO, the only legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, expressed its consent on several occasions in considering the West Bank (including  Jerusalem) and Gaza, as the territories forming the objective of their territorial claims, that is, the future Palestinian State; a position that was officially adopted in 1988 by the ‘Declaration of  Algiers’.

The majority of UN member states and most international organisations do not recognise Israel’s ‘ownership of East Jerusalem’ which occurred after the 1967 Six-Day War, nor its 1980 Jerusalem Law proclamation, which declared a ‘complete and united’ Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Many’peace pragmatists’ still believe that a ‘stable and sustainable future’– of the city of Jerusalem East or West– lies in the application of UN’s resolution 181(ii). The Resolution recommends ‘’…..the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem administered by the United Nations should come into existence; the City of Jerusalem should preserve the interests of Christian, Jewish, and Muslim faiths’’.

The European Union has stated that Jerusalem’s status is that of ‘corpus separatum’ But the UN’s take on this is that Jerusalem is still the part of Palestine.Both Israel and the Palestinian Authority (PA) claim sovereignty over Jerusalem.Israel demands sovereignty in Jerusalem within the municipal boundaries it has determined.The Palestinian Authority(PA),on its part,claim sovereignty in East Jerusalem,as the capital of the future Palestinian state over the entire area east,north and south of the armistice line of 1949- a judicious and justifiable demand rightly endorsed by the UN’s resolution 181.

“An occupation that has lasted for almost 50 years must end,” Barack Obama’s chief of staff, Denis McDonough, told a conference of liberal activists in Washington. “Israel cannot maintain military control of another people indefinitely,” he added. “Palestinian children deserve the same right to be free in their own land as Israeli children in their land,” he added. “A two-state solution will finally bring Israelis the security and normalcy to which they are entitled, and Palestinians the sovereignty and dignity they deserve.”

The occupying power’s ‘doctrinarianism sponsored by Netanyahu’s brinkmanship’—of deliberately ‘annexing East Jerusalem into the West Jerusalem’ and its forcefully applying policy of occupying the ‘West Bank and the eastern’ Palestinian areas –thereby undermining the scope of the two-state solution via friction between Israeli ‘domestic law and international law regime’—cannot grant  Israel the status of a defacto-cum-de jure state manu militari ‘formed and annexed’ by Israel after the 1967 war.

The Hague based International Criminal Court(ICC) has recently initiated an inquiry regarding Israel’s war crimes in ‘Gaza and the West Bank.Since its inception of the operation ‘Cast Lead’ in Gaza(2008-2009),Israel has been  intermittently launching  the drone strikes in Gaza,causing the death of many ‘innocent civilians’.Similar to dozens of other cases where Israel violated international humanitarian law, these drone attacks failed to verify that the targets were combatants. But as noted by the Human Rights Watch (HRW), “the technological capabilities of drones and drone-launched missiles make the violations even more egregious.”

Comments Off on Jerusalem,International Law, and the Occupying Power

Israel’s Neonationalism versus Reawakening of the Civil Society

August 4th, 2015

Syed Qamar Afzal Rizvi.

 



 

The current Israeli government’s ulterior move of demolishing the Palestinian village of Susiya located in the occupied territories ;and consequently the historic July 24th display– of the Israeli civil society’s remonstrance against this inhumane, illegal, unethical action of an apparently democratically elected government of Netanyahu– is an index of the fact that there seems a brewing tug of ideological war between the Israeli government’s supported notion of ‘neonationalism’ and that  liberal forces and peace motivated segments of the Israeli civil society- ardently engaged in espousing the cause of ‘protection of human rights and civil values’.

The Palestinian village of ‘Susiya’ has existed for hundreds of years, long predating the Jewish Israeli settlement of ‘Susya’, which was founded in its neighborhood in 1983. Written records of the existence of a Palestinian community in its location exist from as far back as 1830, and the village is also found on British Mandate maps from 1917. The Palestinian residents’ ownership of this land is ‘established in law’. Israel deliberately wants to connect the ‘archeological site to a residential settlement’, also called Susya, that flanks the Palestinian town on the far side. The state offered the argument they need to expand the preservation of historical Jewish sites underneath where the Palestinians now live.

A representative for the Susya archeological park told Mondoweiss (an independent Middle eastern website), the expansion is not to continue archeological excavations, rather the land will be used for ‘residential housing’. This estimate has been endorsed by the fact that just after few hours of  the release of  the pending order of the Israeli court,Netanyahu gave official instructions regarding the construction of 300 ‘residential units’ in that area. In between the period 1986-2015, there seems to have been the ‘fourth forced expulsion’ of the Palestinians from Susiya, based on Israeli government’s unwarranted ‘fourth legal petition’.

The evidence advocates that it is not an issue of legal constraint, it is rather an intentional policy with a clear motive: the quiet and strategic transfer of Palestinians out of Area C – as is evident also in the reports of ‘the UN representatives and the European Union’. In rare and stern separate statements, European Union and United States politicians demanded that Israel’s military reconsider its demolition plans. John Kirby, a U.S. State Department spokesman, warned that any demolition of structures in the village would be “harmful and provocative.”  U.S. Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-Calif., sent an open letter, signed by 10 members of the House, to Secretary of State John Kerry, asking him to intervene.

The EU also condemned Israel’s plan, accusing the country’s government of planning the “forced transfer” of Palestinians, Times of Israel reported. The Susiya syndrome shows that the desire of demolition has come from undemocratic quarters of power–the noenatioanlists-cum- ultranationalists,the hardliners and the neoZionists. The surge of a ‘true democratic system’ remains the driving manifesto of the Israeli civil society.Yet the struggle over Israel’s democracy cannot be divorced from the ongoing occupation, nor can it be detached from the continuing conflict between Israel and its neighbors.

The fact of the matter is that the Israeli government policies– under  both the Likud and the labour governments are intrinsically based on unjustified and illegal expulsions of Palestinians from the ‘occupied territories’—seem to have been in blatant compliance of the Israeli doctrines of ‘neonationalism and neoZionism’– weakening or distancing the national institutions from gaining the popular strength of ‘democratic approfondissement or deepening’.

While Netanyahu hails from an ‘ultranationalist group’ in the Likud party, Israel has deepened its hold on the West Bank, adding Jewish settlers to the point where the territory may soon become inseparable from ‘Israel proper’-the neonationalists’ engineered design of the greater Israel. Combined with the Jews in occupied and annexed east Jerusalem, there are some 600,000 Jews living on ‘occupied land’. And yet there have been the blowing winds of moral and ethical social ‘resuscitation in the Israeli educational, peace and human rights communities’.

It has been in this analogy that the civil society in Israel developed in tandem with the realization of the ‘occupation’. Its progressive components have been attacked precisely because they are opposed to its ‘continuation’ and to the value system it embodies. Therefore,the democratic deterioration unleashed by the recent campaign against civil society groups has generated a popular pushback which addresses the most fundamental issues regarding Israel’s guiding values.

Israel’s democratic and ethical reawakening — and consequently its existence in the most profound sense of the term — cannot be secured without ending the most persistent cause of Israel’s democratic crisis extremely evolving in the post 1999 phase(since the continuous dominance of the Likud party in its  parliament (Knesset)– its attempt to continue to rule over another people against their will. But it has become increasingly clear that critics of Israeli government and state policies– the very people often most committed to the idea and reality of Israel as a democracy — are also the targets of the coalition’s policies.

The Netanyahu-led coalition has had arrested and harassed journalists, anti-occupation and anti-military activists; attacked newspapers and media organisations; opened inquiries against NGOs; promoted an obsessive concern with the “delegitimisation” of Israel; and repeatedly flouted supreme-court rulings. It has been under this backdrop that the need for a complete streamlining of public priorities has begun to shift attention away from the ‘security nexus’ that has so totally dominated discourse in the past. The call for accountability of elected representatives (in the Knesset) to voters has given rise to several monitoring groups that have been repeatedly exposing ‘problematic government policies’ and ensured ongoing popular oversight of official actions.

The process of civil society’s reawakening– regulated and accompanied by constructivist,positivist,reformist or evolutionist and cosmopolitan or non-governmental approaches– acts as a counterpoint to the ‘dominant neo-nationalist thinking’. These progressive, substantive, democratic impulses operate beyond the formal realm of ‘centrist approach’ and are engaging the present power structure on a variety of issues. Their definition of democracy is ‘liberal in essence and substantive in practice’. All these patterns of changes reflect on ‘social and political metamorphosis’ that undergoes in the Israeli community. Seen from an ‘international juxtaposition’,  Netanyahu’s ‘ultra vires doctrine’ of the ‘Jewish settlements’ on the Palestinian territories is in no way different from India’s.

Both Israel and India are making blatant violations of human rights. Both are engaged in practicing ‘a fait accompli policy’ of occupying the ‘land by dint of force’. Both do not intended to accept the ‘defacto civil right of the principle of ‘self-determination’ of the Palestinians and the Kashmiris in their homelands.And unfortunately,both the governments in Tel Aviv and New Delhi pay no heed and attention to the ‘honourable voice’ of international law. What the Israeli government must conceive the truth that in this emerging era of global transformation of communication technology backed by the ‘reawakening phenomenon of global civil societies, the old practices of ‘suppression and exploitation negatively sustained by the quest for ‘unlawful annexation of land’, can no longer be accepted by both the local and international civil societies.

The best option available to the Israeli government is to adopt a recourse to ‘democratic peace’ by revisiting the ‘peace norms’ established in the Oslo accord (1993) between the Palestinians and the Jews. The Israeli authorities must review their policies ,keeping in view Henry Kissinger’s words of wisdom:”No foreign policy — no matter how ingenious– has any chance of success if it is born in the minds of a few and carried in the hearts of none.” The first and foremost thinking that the Israeli government of Benjamin Natanyahu needs to change is its modus operandi on the issue of the Jewish settlements—deviously trying to change the ‘demographic realities’ of the respective Municipalities (the Local Councils)existing in the geographical peripheries of the West bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem.

The Israeli conjectured design is to change the present fate of the Palestinian dominant populations in the areas affiliated with the ‘occupied territories’, thereby manipulating the results of the future ‘municipal elections’ in those areas. The International community at large, and the Israeli civil society in particular, can’t be hoodwinked by such ‘negative trajectories’ of the Israeli government. What remains the most ironic fact is that the Israeli governments both in past and present, have been purposely escaping from accepting an irrefutable international truth: that the construction– on the Occupied Territories has– no ‘locus standi’ under international law-reflected in the UN’s manifold resolutions and the decision delivered (in April 2004) regarding the construction of 700 km long Israeli fence on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip) by The Hague based International Court of Justice.

“Israel cannot rely on a right of self-defence or on a state of necessity in order to preclude the wrongfulness of the construction of the wall”. The Court asserted that “the construction of the wall, and its associated régime, are contrary to international law. The Israeli neorealists’ crafted plan of waging an open conflict regime- between ‘Israel’s neonationalist forces and its civil society’–is by all means an alarming sign to stain its ‘national identity’. If not yet prevented or refrained from making such partis pris or practicing  ‘prejudicial policies’ advocated by the ‘totalitarian mindset’– of wiping out the material truth or circumstantial evidence as has been happening in case of Susiya– there  seems much truth in prognostication of foreseeing an ‘enfeeblement via system’s breakdown from within the state- causing great damage to the state edifice.

Comments Off on Israel’s Neonationalism versus Reawakening of the Civil Society

Exceptionalism: Obama’s Exclusive Legacy on Iran

July 27th, 2015

 

By Syed Qamar.
 


Much is being debated and criticized in the American media about president Obama’s decision of striking the nuclear deal with Iran. The question arises here is that what wrong Obama has committed if he, at the occasion of US-Iran nuclear stand-off, via his forceful advocacy of pragmatism- borrowing its ideological moorings from the US doctrine of the ‘smart power’,has adopted such a feature of the foreign policy that is virtually driven and perceived by the US’s Declaration of Independence , the true ‘universalization’ of American values. The deal—justifiably and richly– distinguishes him from his predecessors.

Put historically, the weltanschauung of the US foreign policy, in many ways, is the reflection of four classical approaches: Woodrow Wilson’s ‘idealism’, George Kennan’s ‘containment’, Hans Morgenthau’s ‘realism’ and Henry Kissinger’s ‘realpolitik’.

As for the Middle East-the hotbed of the US foreign policy for the last six decades, Washington seems to have adopted all the above referred approaches- ‘containment and realpolitik’ during the Cold War period; realism and idealism during the post Cold War period. After the end of the Cold War,  president Clinton adopted a policy of ‘double containment’ in the Middle East, thereby containing Iraq and Iran in the East and focusing on engaging its diplomacy in the West– the ‘Mideast peace’ process. Yet Clinton’s policy was subsequently replaced by George W. Bush’s Middle Eastern narrative of the ‘axis of evil’ (Iraq, Iran and North Korea).

The Junior Bush’s Middle Eastern policy also followed a mixture of the twin schools of thought–the doctrine of ‘exporting democracies’ via an idealist frame—while attacking on Iraq through a realist mind. Yet the results of that policies are no secrets to the world.

Under the Democrat Obama,the Washington’s policy choice while dealing with Iran, has been that the Capitol Hill has refuted the former calls of realism by applying a new force of ‘pragmatic liberalism’ in the US’s foreign policy-an Obama’s coup de maitre.

The general impression of the US’s policies in the Muslim world,particularly in the Middle East is: that the US, on the backing of Israel, has had been following an ‘aggressive foreign policy pursuit’. The case of Bush war in Iraq is a glaring example of the Muslims’ feelings of resentment about the US. That the Iraq war was waged without a warranted ‘casus belli’. But in this case of Iran, Obama has not followed Junior Bush’s policy of ‘war mongering’. In the absence of sufficient warrants or concrete evidence regarding the western apprehension that Iran is developing the nukes, Washington has had no better choice than to start a peaceful dialogue with Iran. This Obama’s gesture of a peaceful discourse towards Iran justifiably entitles him as an ‘ambassador of peace’.

In Oslo, in December of 2009, accepting the Nobel Peace Prize, Obama said, “Within America, there has long been a tension between those who describe themselves as realists or idealists—a tension that suggests a stark choice between the narrow pursuit of interests or an endless campaign to impose our values around the world.”

This thinking reflected a new pattern of thinking in the US’s establishment’-the expansion of American ‘credo of exceptionalism’.

“We’ve got a historic chance to pursue a safer and more secure world,” president Obama said, “an opportunity that may not come again in our lifetimes.”

‘’Without a deal, we risk even more war in the Middle East,’’ the president said during an East Room press conference.  “With this deal, we cut off every single one of Iran’s pathways to a nuclear program, a nuclear weapons program,” Mr. Obama said.

There is no doubt that Obama’s ‘nuclear diplomacy’ has tried its level best to curtail Iran from producing the ‘hardcore nuclear enrichment.’’ It also goes without saying that by stopping Iran from the western speculated pursuit of making the nukes, Washington has wisely involved Tehran’s strategic and proactive role in both the regional and international politics. The Iranian strategic regional penetration from ‘Tehran to Gaza’ is an internationally acknowledged reality.

Geostrategically, a new Middle East is in the process of making– characterizing the ‘geopolitics of the opposites’– where Iran and India ties are growing with the rebuilding of relations between Saudia Arabia and Israel.

Though many Sunni governments in the Middle East are not happy with US- Iran ‘nuclear détente’. Despite the seemingly apprehension that Sunni/Shiite fissures may be increased as a result of deal, there is also an argument that is gaining the pace that the governments of the GCC(the Gulf Cooperation Council) may constructively be engaged via Washington’ influence to work constructively with Iran in the region.

For a long and durable strategic affect, Obama’s vision of utilizing the Iranian role in the Middle Eastern politics is probably based on ‘the urge of orchestrating a ‘strategic balance’ in the Middle East accompanied by the justification of Iran’s strategic influence in the region. Surely,Iran has its profound influence in Iraq  Syria and Lebanon whilst it has had its deep clout in the Arab-Israeli conflict via Hezbollah and Hamas. Therefore, Obama’s initiative of Iranian inclusion in the future Middle Eastern scenario is by all means prudent, pragmatic and dynamic.

And yet for the ‘liberal pragmatists and internationalists’, the Obama’s move has to be objectivity seen as a ‘way forward towards the path of harmony and peace’ in this era of expanding globalization-seeking an end to the regime of ‘old antagonism’ among the nations.

Notwithstanding the Israeli feeling of bete noire regarding the deal and the fact that Obama’s Iran- policy may provide some discomforts for the Sunni governments in the Middle east, the deal may act as the ‘safety valve’ against the ‘ongoing proxies’ in the region. Given history of the US-Iran partnership (1965-79) in the Middle East, albeit during the Cold War era of ‘bipolarity’, it reflects that the ‘regional negative politics’ was not out of control. In this context,a joint future US-Iran role may provide positive implications in the region.

However, judging from every argument of ‘justified pragmatism’ and analysing from every angle of ‘the liberal optimism’, Obama’s decision– offering new ‘vistas of thinking and new vestiges of partnership’– of providing the Iranian government the opportunity for a responsible sharing role via this nuclear deal—should be seen as an act of ‘political acumen’. And of course, the Muslim community at large, through the lens of the Iranian deal, may not be wrong in its anticipation of seeing president Obama to take an historic stand on the decades old the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Comments Off on Exceptionalism: Obama’s Exclusive Legacy on Iran

Iran’s Nuclear Pact: A Victory for Peace and Global Diplomacy

July 16th, 2015

 

 

By Syed Qamar.



Having been voyaged through the jolts of hopes and despairs between the negotiating parties ;the process– of the Vienna nuclear negotiations seems positively concluded between Iran and the six global powers, the five permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany—heralding a glaring victory for ‘ peace and global diplomacy’, the leitmotiv of the nuclear agreement. The Agreement–  a fruition of the 22 months consecutive efforts of the western diplomacy, the EU’s big three -UK, France and Germany-backed by the US and meaningfully supported by China and Russia—negates the advocacy of realism’.The deal,by casting a multidimensional impact, strengthens the role of global diplomacy.

This nuclear Iranian pact with the global powers sends the message to the world community that the resolution of any ‘political dispute’ can better be managed through ‘poised and sustained dialogue’. This development sets a good precedent for those striving for peace via conflict resolutions.And most significantly, the deal must be providing an anchor sheet to the future of the Treaty on Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). Unfortunately,the NPT review conference-2015 has ended in failure.

The nuclear pact has to be endorsed by the UN’s Security Council. As for the EU’s diplomacy, it is an historic achievement because of the fact that the European diplomacy has had been ardently striving to make such a deal via ‘diplomatic gradualism’,lasting for a period of twelve years.This deal marks the beginning of new era of ‘global diplomacy’.Yet for those western political thinkers who seem to have been the ardent advocates of ‘realism or idealism’,the news of the deal may not be a good departure;but for those who believe in ‘pragmatism and pacifism’,the news of the deal must have been a positive development.

The Vienna nuclear deal seems a win-win situation for both the western diplomacy and Iran.Legally, while accepting Iran’s right to acquire peaceful nuclear access,  the deal has built a stronger role of the UN’s watchdog-the IAEA (the International Atomic Energy Agency).The agreement seems a great breakthrough since it upholds the dignity of international law or the legal international order by revitalizing the role of the United Nations Security Council. Morally,it has uplifted the image of the P5 or the ‘global diplomacy’.And politically, while it provides a better scope of relationship between the Iranians, the Europeans and Americans,at the global level, the deal patches the gulf between the ‘West and the Muslim world’.

With the lifting of the sanctions, the Iranian economy may be flourished.This rebuilding of the Iranian economy, would also result in revitalizing the ‘economy of the European Union’.  Notwithstanding the fact that the global nuclear diplomacy has succeeded in mending the ties between Iran and the West,it has to ward off the negative implications regarding its discretionary practicing of the global nuclear policies. For example,the Vienna nuclear deal has stopped Iran from building heavy water reactors.Yet the West, particularly America has allowed India to do so.

On April 8,2006, I wrote the article in the Dawn Newspaper, Pakistan: Iran’s right to acquire N-power. I argued: ‘’It is a truism that not a unilateral or vertical but a horizontal or multilateral nuclear disarmament is the only key to a safe and secure world order. And the goal of a nuclear free world regime can be achieved not by the use of force but by creating mutual faith and harmony among nations.”

Yet this task of curtailing the ‘nuclear enrichment’– not beginning from ‘Antarctic and northwards, but from south’—will keep the world divided on ‘nuclear thinking’. The world positively needs a new thought—lateral thinking, in the jargon of the emerging challenges to be faced by today’s world. Ironically, the world has set up a system of ‘mutual deterrence’. But it has not grasped the implications of that system’s success.For the sake of our posterity and for the safety of mankind,the international community has to draw ‘a parallel line’ where international law has to seek its fidelity equally from all nations of the world.

And keeping this credo in mind,a ‘nuclear free regime’ must be the equal concern for all nations, belonging to North and South.It is in this context, that the four important  international nuclear instruments or treaties–the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons(NPT);the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty CTBT);the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty(FMCT); and the Anti Ballistic Missile Treaty(ABMT) –need to be comprehensively and pragmatically ‘reviewed’.

Nonetheless,Obama’s televised address reflects on a positive future scenario of improving ties between Washington and Tehran.The US president seems firmed on the scope of the deal.

However,there is hope that the sane minds in the US Congress would not be tilted towards a ‘ polarization’ regarding this sensitive issue. Hopefully, both Republicans and Democrats, by having a unanimous thought, would give a poised approval– of the Vienna agreement by giving ‘peace’ the every chance to survive–espousing president’s Obama’s ‘gallant and astute’ initiative of striking a ‘deal with Iran’.

Comments Off on Iran’s Nuclear Pact: A Victory for Peace and Global Diplomacy

Beyond Ufa: Dispelling the Fog of South Asian Mistrust

July 13th, 2015

 

By Syed Qamar.

 

 



Extrinsically and symbolically the meeting– between the two premiers- India’s Narendra Modi and Pakistan’s Muhammad Nawaz Sharif, on the sidelines of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) summit in Ufa (Russia)– gives the impression that a thaw seems to have begun in their relationship; yet shown from the quantum of misunderstanding, ill faith and skepticism between them, it rightly validates the truth that much ado is required to dispel the fog of ‘ mistrust’ between the two South Asian governments.

The language of the communique reflects on a unilaterally charged Indian perceptivity in terms of the Mumbai attacks, accompanied by a package of soft CBMs to be carried out between the two states; yet  officially there has been no mentioning of Pakistan’s prompt concerns about the settlement of the core issue of Kashmir, and India’s nasty-involvement in making terrorism inside Pakistan via RAW’s network. It is in this backdrop that the public opinion in Pakistan has no positive impression about the way the draft of the communique was finalized between the two sides.

Though it goes without saying that it has been because of a joint diplomatic back-up from both Russia and China that this meeting between the two South Asian leaderships was managed in Ufa. Seen both objectively and pragmatically,  this development seems a ‘quasi -peace venture’.The resumption of a ‘comprehensive  bilateral dialogue’ on the foreign secretaries level, must be the future focus of the two governments.

The Indian prime minister Narendra Modi’s pledge– that he would be coming in Pakistan to participate in the SAARC-2016 summit in Islamabad– is seen as a good omen since that occasion, after a decade, would rightly provide the chance for the two governments-India and Pakistan to streamline the scope of their bilateral relations.  Yet during this period or an interlude of more than a year, there is ample time that the policy mangers of the two sides, must take some important decisions regarding confidence building measures(CBMs) , particularly reducing the tensions along the line of control(LOC).

By all fair deliberations, the Ufa meeting provides both India and Pakistan the twin aspects of ‘challenge and opportunity’ for performing the shared role of ‘collective responsibilities’ in developing an atmosphere of peace, goodwill and understanding . As for India, New Delhi has to understand the fact that its fossilized thinking on the Kashmir issue needs to be revamped, keeping in view the ‘regional and international sensitivities and dimensions’ of the Kashmir view. Therefore, the Indian policy in the Indian held Kashmir(IHK), should no more be displaying a ‘hedonist and tyrannical approach’ .And most significantly,the Indian ‘orchestrated policy of crisis management’–a devious policy doctrine towards Pakistan— hibernating the ‘Kashmir issue or suppressing the cause of the Kashmir freedom’, must no longer be advocated or adopted.

By becoming the member of the SCO, the Indian government has to demonstrate a role of a responsible state that honours the international conventions on Human Rights, and promotes a climate of healthy and positive relations with its neighbours.The Indian government must jettison its old policy of ‘unilateralism’ advocating devious trajectories of ‘proxy-wars and meddling into the internal affairs of other states’.

And while as an emerging and developing economy, the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa), the Indian government should no more foster the policies of ‘economic  and political fundamentalism backed by its designs of territorial hegemony’. India needs to adopt a ‘coherent regional policy’ of expanding its trade relations with its neigbours. .

As for Pakistan, Islamabad has to rightly understand that by joining the SCO, it has to impart a stronger role of grave responsibilities and shared contributions regarding the maintenance of ‘regional peace and security’.

Both India and Pakistan must avail  themselves of this opportunity of ‘mending their fences’, via the SCO forum. There is no doubt that the task of building trust between the two South Asian communities- India and Pakistan, requires a perpetual process of ‘diplomatic gradualism’ respectively supported by the ‘civil and military establishments’ in those states. The  two states’ decades old feelings of acrimony, apathy, suspicion and insecurity– overwhelmed by the ‘defence and security doctrines’– can’t be ended in a year or so. But with the supportive diplomatic role from China and Russia, it is hoped that this task of healing the ‘syndrome of mistrust’ between the two governments, may candidly be facilitated.

On the other hand,the utility of ‘cricket diplomacy’-cum-people diplomacy, must be the policy shrines of providing ‘social discourse’ between the two states. Promotion of cultural, religious and tourism activities, can also be the ‘correct contrivances’ to rebuild an atmosphere of congenial understanding between the two sides. Both India and Pakistan must reasonably focus their future talks on the ‘fair distribution of water’ and the mutual management of  the threat coming from the ‘nuclear waste-radiation’-a scowling danger to the climate health of the South Asian region.

Has not the time come that in this era of emerging ‘cosmopolitanism’, the two South Asian leaderships must review the ‘cost and benefit analysis of the ‘chronic rift’ between them by realizing the very fact that the South Asian citizenry is paying a huge cost– against this simmering Kashmir dispute between the two nations–via conventional and ‘nuclear arms race’– thereby severely compromising the quality of life- a life free from disease, poverty and illiteracy, the dream of millions and millions of the people living in this continent?

Comments Off on Beyond Ufa: Dispelling the Fog of South Asian Mistrust

Resetting Pak-Russia Ties: ‘a Growing Power-Tapestry’

June 24th, 2015

 

By Syed Qamar Afzal Rizvi.

 



 

While critically viewing that the post Cold War era was ushered in by a new game on the world’s chessboard, making rivals as friends; the relations between Moscow and Islamabad could not develop an enriched friendship during the past two decades. And yet a feeling– of resetting the ties beyond the scope of normalization — has had been profoundly registered by both the Russian and the Pakistani establishments.

It has been in this retrospect that the Pak army chief Gen Raheel Sharif’s visit to Moscow makes a new heraldry in the history of Pak-Russia relationship. The visit comes at a time, when the tensions between Pakistan and India have reached at its zenith. The felt- need of revitalization of Russo-Pak relations seems to have marked on a multi pronged level: development, defense, diplomacy and security. And of course, this growing partnership between the two sides is by all means a positive development for ‘regional peace and stability’.

Seen from the Russian perspectives– the post withdrawal of the Nato/ISAF forces from Afghanistan; the growing India-US relations; the possible rise of militancy in the Central Independent States(CIS) via ISIS; the Russia-West rivalry regarding the Ukrainian issue; the Russian interests in selling arms to Pakistan and most importantly Moscow’s prompt concern for Pakistan’s geostrategic position (pivotal for energy and economic route) –are the most driving justifications, espousing this partnership.

And from Pakistan’s point of view, the factors that ardently advocate Pak-Russia partnership are: the Indian aggressive diplomacy towards Pakistan, the growing ties between Washington and New Delhi, Pakistan’s Afghan syndrome , the need of countering a strategy vis-a-vis  India’s nuclear muscling against Pakistan ,and last but not least the Indian exploitation of the Kashmiri freedom cause. Moved by the growing dynamics of the expanding phenomenon of ‘globalization and convinced by the new economic-cum-military exigencies in a ‘multipolar world order’, the Pakistani establishment seems highly justified in having closed links with both China and Russia.

From this growing dialogue between Islamabad and Moscow, Pakistan would be importing the ‘aerospace technology’ from Russia. Both Moscow and Islamabad are agreed to hold the ‘military drills’. The Russian side is candidly pleased to extend its military cooperation with Islamabad by having an agreement to sale the MI-35 attack helicopters to Pakistan. The other areas of bilateral cooperation cover the heath, education, telecommunication and the energy sectors. Both the governments share mutual concerns regarding the cross-border terrorism,drug trafficking and the organized crime networks.

With regard to the diplomatic understanding, the two states have already formed a ‘consultative group’ in the UN, working on a ‘strategic dialogue’. Nevertheless, the ongoing diplomatic efforts between the two governments seem to cast a profound influence on the regional dynamics.

As for India, the growing Pak-Russia relationship is not be a ‘comfortable development’ since it may politically and diplomatically ‘affect the Indian morale’. The partnership would likely to change the course of Indian aggressive diplomacy toward Pakistan. (Unfortunately the Indian establishment yet seems to  have been appreciating the Cold War idee fixe, thereby isolating Pakistan from the East.)

So far as China is concerned the cementing Pak-Russia relations may provide some signs of relief in Beijing in that the ongoing development would pave the way for countering the influence of ‘centrifugal forces’ in the region.

As far as Afghanistan is concerned the revitalizing relationship would provide both the ‘caution’  and comfort . The caution is for the ‘terrorist networks’ while a feeling of comfort may be for the government in Kabul. The ‘non-state actors’ role would be rightly checked and discouraged because of this deal.

And of course for Tehran, the Pak –Russia friendship may be a good omen since Tehran already enjoys the benefit of its friendly relations with Russia. The Russian establishment has facilitated Tehran for its ‘pacification with the West’ via the proposed Iran-West nuclear deal.

Strategically, Pakistan correctly holds the view__ that the growing Chinese- Russian role in the south Asian affairs__ is the ‘key to resolving the present and future crises’ of the region. The time is ripe to change the Cold War ‘caveat’. The fact of the matter is that Pakistan’s foreign policy managers look forward to incorporating  a new equation of ‘power balance’ in the region .

Truly the most driving regional impact– beyond the scope of a deja vu– is the ‘emerging force of trilateralism’, evolving a binding relationship between China, Pakistan and Russia. It is positively believed that that  as a result of these combined efforts between the three states, the process of ‘regional interoperability’ regarding three leading orgainzations: the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation(SAARC),the Association of South East Asian Nations(ASEAN), and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization(SCO),would be positively enhanced. Pakistan may be given a ‘future proactive role’ in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization(SCO). At this juncture,  it appears that a stronger gravitation of Pakistan’s foreign policy comes in the direction of ‘East’  than moving towards the West-an astute ‘paradigm shift’ that is now adopted by Islamabad.

Comments Off on Resetting Pak-Russia Ties: ‘a Growing Power-Tapestry’

India’s Role: The Future of South Asian Peace?

June 4th, 2015

 

By Syed Qamar.

 



Given recent developments, it clearly seems that both India and Pakistan are experiencing the low ebbs in their relations. Undeniably,the scope of future relations between the two South Asian states largely depends on the peace building measures that the two neighbourly states adopt; yet the Indian constant ‘policy irritants’ serve to be the driving cause of undermining the prospects of foreseeable peace in a nuclear South Asia.

Since Mr Modi has taken the charge as the new Indian premier, some policy statements/remarks have badly affected the fate of relations between New Delhi and Islamabad. These Indian negative policy gestures are: the Indian unfair, unjustifiable and egocentric stance on Kashmir; the Indian policy of orchestrating terrorism in Pakistan; the Indian reservations regarding the Pak-China economic corridor; and last but not least the Indian criticism about Pak –US arms deal.

To start with the Indian policy on Kashmir: it is an acknowledged ‘international truth’ that Kashmir is a ‘defacto disputed territory’ between India and Pakistan, solution of which, yet requires to be sought in accordance with the aspirations of the Kashmiri people. Yet the Indian policy for the last 67 years, has been of constantly denying this truth. India, which claims to be the second largest democracy in the world, has made gross human rights violations in Kashmir. Therefore this New Delhi policy in the Indian-held Kashmir has been the root-cause of the souring  relations between India and Pakistan.

Gen Raheel Sharif while addressing the course participants at the National Defense University in Islamabad commented: ”Kashmir is an unfinished agenda of partition and Pakistan and Kashmir are inseparable”. ”While we wish peace and stability in the region, we want a just resolution for Kashmir in the light of the UN resolutions and as per aspirations of the Kashmiris to bring lasting peace in region,” the Pak army chief added.

Truly, the United Nations resolutions are yet valid on Kashmir. But to give a wrong colour to the meaning of the UN adopted resolutions on Kashmir, the Indian government has created a new propaganda that the lands of ‘Azad Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan’ in Pakistan are the part of the Indian held Kashmir(IHK). So they(Azad Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan) are also the part of the Indian territory-a glaring example of the Indian ‘mockery of international law’. By all fair reasons, this ‘hedonist mindset’ of the Indian establishment needs to be changed.

The current Indian venture—that in case of any future terrorist move in India, it would rebound to Pakistan thereby making a terrorist attack on the Pakistani soil —by all means indicates an unreasonable Indian attitude as a democratic state. Pakistan has already lodged its prompt protest regarding RAW’s devious part  in supporting the non-state actors’ role in Pakistan.

Pakistan’s security and intelligence agencies have had gathered ample ‘evidence’ that India has been plotting the ‘proxy war’ in the provinces of Balochistan and  Khyber Pakhtunkhawa thereby also operating its ‘terrorist networks’ in Sindh and Punjab. And furthermore, the recently expressed Indian official stance– of recaliberating its ‘Cold Start Doctrine’ against Pakistan– seems an alarming strategic response since the adoption of such an Indian move shall pave the way for the inception of an ‘unconventional war or asymmetric warfare’ between India and Pakistan.

As for the Indian reaction regarding the Pak-China economic corridor, Narendra Modi’s remark— that it would be ‘unacceptable’—shows enough light on the ‘negative will and volition’ that the Indian premier reserves for it. Given norms of the liberal diplomacy, this Indian statement foils the very hopes that India may play any positive role in the development of economic activity of the region- an evitable imperative for healing the economic sufferings of people of this region.

As regard to the US-Pak arms deal, there appears no logical justification regarding Indian criticism against it. There are manifold precedents that the Indian governments have been making such arms deals with Israel, Russia, USA and France but Pakistan has never been crying over such developments since it honours the very ‘diplomatic decorum’ that the countries have the rights to sign such agreements.

To conclude the argument, one would like to raise the point that the growing climate of peace impediments between Islamabad and New Delhi is by no means  ‘a good omen’ to the future of the South Asian region. Both India and Pakistan badly need to revamp the ongoing atmosphere of ‘mistrust and suspicion’ in their relations by giving the space to the peace diplomacy.

Islamabad’s desire to pace the scope of the relations on the ‘standard of equality’ is but a ‘justifiable demand’. Peace in the region– without peace in Kashmir– is impossible. The earlier the Indian realization of the fact that India’s ‘sustainable durable future in the region and its quest of attaining a fair global image’ is concomitantly related to its ‘peaceful co-existence with Pakistan, the better.

Comments Off on India’s Role: The Future of South Asian Peace?

Haqqani’s ‘Foggy Perception’

April 26th, 2015

 

By Syed Qamar.

 

In his latest piece(Why Are We Sending This Attack  Helicopter To Pakistan?)published in The Wall Street Journal, Mr Hussian Haqqani, Pakistan’s ex ambassador to America, seems to have been crafting his ‘self-popular criticism’ against Pakistani military vis-à-vis the Obama government’s decision of selling 15 AH-1Z viper helicopters and 1000-Hellfire missiles to Pakistan.

Mr Haqqani (a reputed teacher and writer based in the US) has leveled his doubts that the US’s sending equipment would likely be used against ‘insurgents’ in Pakistan(the Bloch insurgents in Baluchistan and those secular activists involved in such activities along the disputed Kashmiri border).He is of the view that the American  military weapons would not be used against ‘tribal terrorists’ in the ‘Fata region’ but be used against India.

That’s a gross oversimplification ; Pakistan’s military has been performing a great mission of fighting (an ‘extrinsically waged- turned an ‘internal war’)against the most dangerous militants– in the world– who are well-equipped with ‘modern arms’ both in ‘South and North’ Waziristan.  But Haqqani has suggested that the Obama administration should verify the ‘deployments’ of the selling armament to Pakistan.

Mr Haqqani’s argument–that being a nuclear state,Pakistan should have no fear against India’s big conventional army–bears no moral,legal and logical justification since there are ‘numerous precedents’ that the nuclear states do sell and purchase the arms to and from other states.Both Washington and Islamabad are mutually engaged in a strategic deal-binding the two states in countering the terrorism. The current initiative– of the US government as regard the selling of Hellfire missiles and the viper helicopters– is a part of the deal. (The US state department has correctly clarified that the terms of the selling arms to Pakistan remain ‘unchanged’.)

Mr Haqqani’s assertion is merely based on ‘speculations and misapprehensions’. By expressing this kind of criticism against Pakistan and its military, Mr Haqqani has shown nothing but depiction of his ‘polarization’ against Pakistan’s army.The fact of the matter is that Mr Haqqani’s perception is ‘foggy and unrealistic’. He seems to have developed a ‘biased approach’ towards Pakistan since his conduct is seen ‘  both doubtful’ and mysterious in the eye of many governmental agencies in Pakistan(in the aftermaths of the Raymond Davis case in Feb 2011 and the US Navy SEALs operation against Osama Bin Laden in Abbottabad Pakistan in May 2011) and therefore, he remains unable to visit Pakistan since 2011.

Comments Off on Haqqani’s ‘Foggy Perception’

India’s ‘Delusional and Centrifugal’ Trajectory about Kashmir

April 7th, 2015

 

 

 

By Syed Qamar Afzal.

 



It has been all about a story of more than sixty seven years now that the Indian establishments(including both civil and military) have been constantly escaping the ‘inescapable truth’ regarding the future of Kashmir’s freedom.

Needless to say, the governments have been changing in both India and Pakistan yet none of them could ever get rid of the ‘Kashmir obsession’.

More than five hundred thousands of Kashmiris have lost their lives in quest of freedom.Sadly, in the post nuclear South Asian phase,the refractory Indian stance has yet remained unchanged despite much changing global order of ‘globalization’,thereby fostering new dimensions of peace, ( as has been evident of the conflict resolutions of ‘East Timor and Kosovo’).

The Narendra Modi’s doctrine– about Kashmir (intrinsically seeking to exclude the very ‘defacto representation’ of the Kashmir Hurriyat Conference from the peace dialogue process between India and Pakistan)–by no means indicates the sincerity of the dialogue initiative at the part of the Indian government since no history of ‘conflict resolution’ has had such precedence that a conflict solution could have ever been sought out without giving the very warranted entry of the ‘local people’ in that ‘particular dialogue’.

That is highly reflective of the fact that India yet seems unable to go beyond its formerly adopted strategy( a delusional and centrifugal policy) regarding the Kashmir issue.

The fact of the matter is:India’s political leadership has to realize the notion of realism that fosters the idea that India has to give a positive space to its formerly adopted policy on Kashmir, thereby sustaining the truth about Kashmir’s freedom – a warranted right of the Kashmiris.

Both India and Pakistan should restart the peace dialogue by means of reinventing the possible pragmatic options about the Kashmir Issue (that is undeniably a nuclear flash point in South Asia).

Time is already ripe for India to ‘demystify its Kashmir myth’. The ongoing ‘doctrinaire Indian policy’– of controlling the hydro-politics-cum-hydro-economics of the Indian held Kashmir vale– should no longer be continued by accepting the real emerging dynamics of the largely awaited ‘South Asian peace notion’.

Comments Off on India’s ‘Delusional and Centrifugal’ Trajectory about Kashmir

Iran-US Nuclear Deal: Iran’s Diplomatic Pragmatism

April 7th, 2015

 

 

By Syed Qamar Afzal.

 



Given the history of the vicissitudes of Iran-US nuclear talks, it appears clear that the Lausanne document’s tentative draft–(to be formally finalized in July) between Iran and the six world’s powers, including the US–is somewhat ‘a win-win situation for both Iran and the US’

As for the US, the would-be agreement seems to be a ‘diplomatic victory’ since the issue had been a source of perpetual turmoil for the US establishment. Strategically, the Israel-US relations remained under ‘great pressure’ because of Iran’s nuclear programme. Globally, the US had to face a situation therein losing its image as the hyper- potent power.

Regionally, the US was to face a much defensive position with its other allies in the Middle East, particularly with Saudi Arabia.

As for Iran, its nuclear program was a symbol of its ‘national prestige and security’ more sensitively entailed by the threat from Israel’s ‘nuclear arsenal’. The Iranian governments– both past and present–have shown great resistance to compromise on its ‘nuclear doctrine'(which in form defended its ‘peaceful nuclear’ mission but in substance , the programme defended its ‘security doctrine’ against Israel).

The fact of the matter is that being signatory of the NPT(the nuclear non-proliferation treaty), Iran has a defacto right to enrich uranium for peaceful purpose. Yet the US did have a trust-deficit regarding Iran’s nuclear enrichment ability(as the American administrations had serious doubt that Iran could make a nuclear bomb in the years to come) , thereby advocating or stipulating Iran to limit its uranium enrichment only for ‘peaceful purpose’.

(Here, it would not be out of focus to mention the fact that some of the US strategists used to cast their view in favour of the ‘Iranian nuclear arsenal’ since this kind of ‘arrangement in the Middle East could have/ would have paved the way for ‘containing the Israeli nuclear bomb’.)

Nevertheless, the impact of the nuclear deal for other negotiating actors: the P5+1 is that the deal has revitalized the scope of ‘multilateral diplomacy’ at the world stage. And finally for Iran, the newly orchestrated agreement serves to be an ‘instrument of economic expediency’ generated and solicited by the impending exigency of ‘diplomatic pragmatism’.

Comments Off on Iran-US Nuclear Deal: Iran’s Diplomatic Pragmatism