Current Projects
Should We Rethink Kashmir?
PRIME MINISTER Nawaz Sharif has perhaps done all that he could to draw the international community’s attention to the Kashmiri people’s ordeal. He and members of his large entourage spoke of India-held Kashmir to whoever they met in New York. By all accounts offered by our media services, the Kashmir mission, carried out with unusual vigour, went off well — this despite a slight slip while drafting the press release on the meeting with US Secretary of State John Kerry and the attempt by Pakistan’s enemies to sabotage its efforts by attacking the Indian military camp at Uri. But was the world listening? The question is unavoidable in view of, among other things, the international community’s decision some years ago to delete the Kashmir issue from the list of its concerns. While voices may continue to be raised here and there in sympathy with the victims of oppression in any part of Jammu and Kashmir, the issue has been left to be resolved bilaterally by India and Pakistan. For many years now, the friends of India and Pakistan , and also of the people of Kashmir, have not gone beyond offering help to facilitate a negotiated settlement. Pakistan’s establishment has traditionally held the view that large-scale disorder in the Kashmir valley, gross violations of human rights, or a popular uprising there will oblige the world community to intervene and help the Kashmiri people gain their rights. Despite being tested several times this thesis has not been confirmed. What will happen in future cannot be foretold, but political realism cautions against putting excessive reliance on the international community’s capacity to intervene effectively. The whole of South Asia is paying heavily for the India-Pakistan confrontation. Now that bilateral talks offer the only way to settle the Kashmir issue, Pakistan cannot but continue to give priority to efforts in that direction. That India has responded with frenzied sabre-rattling, belatedly tempered with guile, is not...
Hidden Costs of CPEC
AN important announcement from the government went relatively unnoticed given the atmosphere that prevails, so let me reconstruct a timeline here to give everybody a better idea of what is going on. Last year on April 21, the day after Chinese President Xi Jinping’s visit to Pakistan, the military put out a press release announcing the creation of a ‘Special Security Division for Pak-China Economic Projects’, which would consist of nine army battalions and six wings of civil armed forces, to be commanded by a major general. The force was supposed to be one of several being created for protection of Chinese investments and personnel in the country. The fact that the press release came the day after Xi Jinping’s visit, during which he also met the army high command, suggests that the matter was discussed between them during the meeting. In May, the finance minister told a Senate standing committee that Rs136 billion would be required for completing the military operation in North Waziristan, including the cost of rehabilitating the displaced people, and other security-related expenditures, which according to at least one report included the cost of raising the CPEC security force. The funding was programmed into the budget in June, and a waiver was obtained from the IMF from including this expense in the ceiling on the fiscal deficit, since it was a “one-off” measure. By September of that year, the fiscal deficit target had already been blown by more than Rs100 billion, and the finance minister was busy putting together a package of new, midyear revenue measures to help plug the shortfall. This package became a prior action under the IMF programme, which said in its eighth review that the federal government took measures to contain its expenditures “despite unforeseen expenditures of PRs 53 billion on account of Zarb-i-Azb military operations, hosting of Temporarily Displaced People (TDPs)”. Security expenditure has been growing at an alarming rate over the...
Countering the Indian Narrative
Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif used very specific language in his address before the UN General Assembly on Wednesday. He stated that the struggle of the Kashmiri people is a “legitimate one for liberation from alien occupation”. This phrasing has immense legal significance, perhaps not fully understood by the domestic audience. Let us examine it from an international law perspective. ‘Legitimate’: the word is premised on several UN Security Council Resolutions affirming the right of self-determination of the Kashmiri people. The right does not extinguish with the passage of time, rather its continued denial becomes all the more blatant a violation of international law. Therefore, the Kashmiri struggle is a legitimate one. ‘Liberation’: a struggle for liberation imbued with the legitimacy mentioned above permits the use of force to achieve this goal. International law is a pragmatic genre of law, and no sub-specie of international law is a better example of this than International Humanitarian Law (IHL) or the Law of Armed Conflict. IHL is a pragmatic marriage between the high ideals of humanity and the harsh realities of war, aimed at limiting the brutality of conflict while at the same time recognising that violence is a military necessity in war. India itself actively supported Bangladesh’s independence on this ground. A Kashmiri armed liberation struggle is, therefore, lawful as the Kashmiri right to self-determination is recognised by international law as legitimate. ‘Alien occupation’: where the right to self-determination exists, it can only exist against an occupying power or regime. As India does not have legal title to Jammu and Kashmir, it is unequivocally an occupying power. The Indian claim of title to Kashmir based on the Maharaja’s Instrument of Accession and actions of the 1951 Kashmir Constituent Assembly are of little relevance under international law. UNSC 91 of 1951 categorically states that any action of the constituent assembly “to...
India Pulls Out of Pakistan-Hosted 19th Saarc Summit
India has decided to pull out of the upcoming Saarc summit in Islamabad, said the official spokesperson for the India's Ministry for External Affairs (MEA) Vikas Swarup in a tweet on Tuesday. The announcement comes amid growing tensions between the two nuclear-armed neighbours following the attack on an Indian army base in held Kashmir. "India has conveyed to the current Saarc Chair in Nepal that increasing cross-border terrorists attacks in the region and increasing interference in the internal matters of member states by one country has created an environment that is not conducive to the successful holding of the Saarc summit," said the statement released from the Indian foreign ministry. The statement added that India, under the prevailing circumstances, is unable to participate in the proposed summit in Islamabad. India also claims in the statement that it remains steadfast in its commitment for regional cooperation. Pakistan had offered dialogue to India for the resolution of the Kashmir issue, but the offer was rejected. "Regional cooperation and terror don't go together," said Swarup. The 19th Saarc summit is due to be held in November this year. Pakistan had formally extended an invitation to Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi to attend the Pakistan-hosted 19th Saarc summit. FO terms India's withdrawal as unfortunate The Foreign Office, in its response after India’s withdrawal from the upcoming Saarc summit, termed the Indian announcement as unfortunate in an official statement released. The statement also added that India has not officially conveyed in this regard yet. “Pakistan remains committed to peace and regional cooperation. We will continue to work to that end in the larger interest of the people of this region,” said the statement. The FO’s statement also mentioned India’s support for terrorism in Pakistan. “As for the excuse used by India, the world knows that it is India that’s has been perpetrating and financing terrorism in Pakistan.”...
Blocking of Water by India Will be Act of War: Pakistan
The Adviser to the Prime Minister on Foreign Affairs, Sartaj Aziz, on Tuesday said that the Indus Water Treaty (IWT) was an international agreement and India could not revoke or alternate it unilaterally and if that happened it would be considered an act of war. Speaking in the Senate and National Assembly, Sartaj Aziz noted that the international law stated that India could not unilaterally separate itself from the treaty. After reluctance by the Indian Supreme Court to entertain an application in this regard, there was a possibility that India would not revoke the agreement fully. He said the Indus Commission and the ministry had been asked to brief on this issue and an inter-ministerial group had been formed to identify possible misuse or interference into the treaty by India. The National Assembly on Tuesday passed a unanimous resolution condemning the Indian claim in the UN General Assembly (UNGA) that Jammu and Kashmir was an integral part of India and threats being issued by the Indian prime minister to unilaterally terminate the Indus Water Treaty. Responding to a calling attention notice in the NA, the adviser said there was no provision of suspension in the treaty. “As per sub provision 3 and 4 of provisions of Article 12 of the Treaty, it cannot be altered or revoked unilaterally,” he said. He maintained that Pakistan would not accept Indian aggression in any form and any Indian step for disrupting water flow as upper riparian would carry considerable risk of war and hostilities. “If India tries to violate the treaty, there will be a befitting reaction from Pakistan,” he said. Dr. Shireen Mazari and other PTI parliamentarians who moved the calling attention notice wanted to draw attention towards the Indian government’s belligerent attitude on Occupied Kashmir and threat of unilaterally suspending the Indus Water Treaty. Sartaj Aziz pointed out such an Indian act may also provide China with justification to consider suspension of water of Indian...
The Afghan Refugee Crisis
Afghan refugees in Pakistan constitute the largest and most prolonged refugee population under UNHCR’s directive. Until June this year, Afghans could enter Pakistan without a visa, though Pakistanis required a visa to enter Afghanistan. After a recent mandate was issued to return refugees to their home-country, Pakistan has extended the deadline for a third time till March 2016. By December 2015, Germany hosted around 360,000 Syrian refugees. This year, Germany has pledged an additional 39,987 places for Syrian refugees which makes up about 54 per cent of the EU total. The refugee crisis has caused deep political divisions in the EU and was one of the key reasons for Britain’s exit from the Union. Not all members of the Union are ready to accept their share of the migration burden especially following the terrorist attacks in France and sexual assaults on German women. Even before the refugee crisis, the EU ordered 168,000 illegal Pakistani migrants to leave between 2008 and 2014. From a total of 5 million Syrian refugees, the US has accepted 10,000 refugees, mostly women and children. Their plans to raise that number to 110,000 in 2017 appear to have little chance at coming to fruition with the election of either of the leading presidential candidates. Trump has stated that no Muslims will be allowed in and Hillary said that the US should accept 65,000 refugees. Pakistan has hosted approximately three million Afghan refugees since 1979. The US had allocated $950 million for assisting Afghan refugees and returnees. However, according to a recent report by the US Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, most of that money has been severely mismanaged and lost to corruption. The report specifically mentions a 2013 assessment of a land distribution programme run by the Ministry of Refugees and Repatriation, which found that it was “afflicted by institutional corruption”. Similarly, a report by Amnesty International stated that Afghanistan had...
Rebuilding Relations With Afghanistan
There is today far less attention by the US on Afghanistan as its focus has shifted primarily towards the civil war in Syria and Iraq. The growing threat of the IS in the Middle East, Russia’s more aggressive posture in Europe and China’s growing assertiveness in Southeast Asia are being accorded high priority relegating Afghanistan to a secondary position. Then there is a sort of fatigue about Afghanistan as the war is going nowhere nor its end seems in sight. Infighting between Afghan President Ashraf Ghani and Abdullah Abdullah has been very demoralising for the Afghans and is another reason for US frustrations. War in Afghanistan is not a serious issue during the current presidential campaign either. Trump has been more emphatic as he wants US troops to be withdrawn and Afghanistan left to its fate. Hillary, too, would like the Afghans to take greater responsibility for their security and a less active role for the US. The fate of funding for the war although committed by Nato allies and the US until 2020 cannot be taken for granted. In this scenario the US finds it convenient that India plays a major role in Afghanistan and also protect its interests. Exploiting on these weaknesses the Taliban in the last one year have captured large parts of territory in east and south Afghanistan and have been attacking bases in north as far as Kunduz. In these uncertain circumstances, Pakistan has taken the right step of strengthening border management. After all as a sovereign country it has to protect its interest. It would be advisable if Afghanistan takes reciprocal steps to strengthen its borders rather than raise unwarranted objections by promoting the issue of Durand line. The view held in certain quarters in Afghanistan that Pakistan’s border fortification was a reaction to the Chabahar agreement — signed between India, Iran and Afghanistan, is far-fetched. The real aim of Pakistan as stated clearly by the COAS is to improve security on both sides of the...
Afghanistan Stands to Gain from CPEC Option
The United States has spent billions of dollars in Afghanistan to cushion the sinking ship of the landlocked country’s economy, but there are no visible signs of improvement. An immediate workable solution for Afghanistan to boost its economy is forging better relations with Pakistan. Instead Kabul has resorted to blame game, holding Pakistan responsible for almost all recent terrorist attacks in its territory. According to a report published by the Office of the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (Sigar), created by the US Congress for an independent oversight of Afghan reconstruction projects, multibillion-dollar American investment in Afghan economy was spent uselessly and not followed by any significant results as expected by the international society and the Afghan people. Though the US poured $113 billion into the Afghan economy from 2002 to 2015, the socio-economic situation in the country showed no signs of improvement and continued to worsen, it said. From a total of 44 projects sponsored by the US, only 20 were completed and received by Afghan officials. The report cited different problems for the failure including illicit and unprofessional planning of the programmes and baseless projects that had nothing to do with restoration of the Afghan economy, for instance, the Taliban reintegration support fund. It also pointed to the low efficiency of anti-drug projects on which billions of dollars were spent and stealing of huge amounts of money invested in the construction of schools and hospitals by local officials that mostly gave the projects to companies of their relatives. John Sopko, Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction who reports to Congress on how US aid money has been spent, told Irin news agency that US-funded programmes were successful, but overall reconstruction had been characterised by mismanagement and waste. “Such a scattershot approach has led directly to the current economic crisis. While...
Shanghai Pact Anti-Terror Database Lists 2,500 Suicide Bombers,69 Groups
RATS SCO possesses data on 2,500 suicide bombers and 69 terrorist organizations, the first deputy director of Russia’s Federal Security Service (FSB) said Tuesday. The Regional Anti-Terrorist Structure of Shanghai Cooperation Organization (RATS SCO) possesses data on 2,500 suicide bombers and 69 terrorist organizations, the first deputy director of Russia’s Federal Security Service (FSB) said Tuesday. Sergei Smirnov spoke at the 29th RATS SCO session in southern Kazakhstan. "Today we have a database of 2,500 suicide bombers and 69 organizations. We have initiated the idea of compiling a database and will decide on the formal establishment of the databank at the next [RATS] session," Smirnov said. He noted that despite the timely submission and exchange of information with the use of a comprehensive set of security services, the difficulty remains in locating suspects who change official residential registrations. This article originally appeared on www.sputniknews.com , September 13, 2016. Original link. Disclaimer: Views expressed in the article are not necessarily supported by CRSS.
Stern Bear, Rising Dragon: Russia & China Steadily Grow Defense Cooperation
The past month has seen a marked increase in cooperation between Russia and China on defense and national security issues. And while it's early to speak of a military alliance between the two countries, experts say that as long as the dangers posed by terrorism and US-led unipolarity continue to grow, so too will Russian-Chinese cooperation. This week, Chinese and Russian naval forces began Joint Sea-2016, a massive eight-day series of war games in the South China Sea involving destroyers and other surface ships, submarines, fighters, shipborne helicopters, marines and armored personnel carriers and other amphibious vehicles. Commenting on the exercises, PolitRussia contributor Sviatoslav Knyazev suggested that it's no wonder that much of the international community has focused its attention on the drills, "given that China's neighbors are being actively pitted against Beijing" using sea-based territorial disputes. "The United States is providing demonstrative support for China's neighbors, actively trying to pull Southeast Asia into the its economic, political and military sphere of influence, using the 'divide and conquer' principle." Moreover, Knyazev noted, "the US military is treating the Chinese with open defiance on the open sea." "Against this background," the analyst suggested, "the training of the Russian and Chinese military in the vicinity of the disputed territories is very revealing," serving to demonstrate the growing extent of military cooperation between the two countries. "Their message however, differs fundamentally from that of the US." Speaking to Russian media ahead of the exercises, Vice Admiral Fedotenkov, commander of the Russian forces involved in the drills, emphasized that the Russian-Chinese cooperation "is not directed against anyone, and is intended to protect our mutual interests, to ensure security across the world's oceans. It's a good thing when two countries, two great powers, cooperate; this guarantees peace not only in the...
TOP STORIES
TESTIMONIALS
“
I am also a member of National Assembly’s Standing Committee on Information and Broadcasting. Recently, we held a meeting with the Director General of Radio Pakistan and we told them to initiate such local programs (like Constituency Hour) in regional languages to educate and inform people. Even Indian Radio can be heard in FATA which is being used for propaganda purposes and must be closed. Therefore, we should launch some standard and quality programs like CRSS that will change the taste of the listeners.