Why do we insist on ignoring what stares us in the face? The suicidal fanatics who threaten to kill us in the name of their perverted brand of Islam are not refugees from Syria, or deranged zealots from the mountains of Pakistan: they are, with only very few exceptions, men and women who were born in our hospitals, educated in our schools and who grew up in our cities. The men who carried out the attacks in London in 2005 were born and raised in Leeds, Bradford, and Huddersfield. The men alleged to have carried out the Paris attacks last week were born and raised in Belgium and France. The men who murdered Lee Rigby two years ago were both born in London to Christian parents from Nigeria. Many of the attackers were already known to the police. Some had records as petty criminals. Others had clear links to identifiable terrorist groups. So as we still struggle to comprehend the crime that was committed in Paris last Friday night, perhaps we should start by examining what is going on under our noses. That means asking difficult questions about why some young men growing up in Europe feel so alienated from the society in which they live that they want to destroy both it and themselves. In particular, it means thinking about the way our leaders use words like "we" and "they". The scholar Ian Buruma put it admirably: "We know that a dangerous minority of young people are attracted by reasons to die. What is needed badly is a superior reason to live." It might also be useful to acknowledge the past. In the words of the Harvard professor Stephen Walt: "Decades of misguided U.S. and European policies have left many people in the Arab and Islamic world deeply angry at and resentful toward the West. Those policies include the West's cozy coddling of various Arab dictators, its blind support for Israel's brutal policies toward the Palestinians, and its own willingness to wage air campaigns, employ sanctions, or invade Middle Eastern countries whenever it thinks doing so...

By: Andrew Korybko The mainstream media myth about Pakistan carries little factual weight and purposely neglects the country’s rising geopolitical importance in Eurasia Perverted in the Western imagination as a backwards land of terrorism and poverty, the mainstream media myth about Pakistan carries little factual weight and purposely neglects the country’s rising geopolitical importance in Eurasia. Far from being a lost cause, the country is actually one of the supercontinent’s most important economic hopes, as it has the potential to connect the massive economies of the Eurasian Union, Iran, SAARC, and China, thereby inaugurating the closest thing to an integrated pan-Eurasian economic zone. Russia recognizes Pakistan’s prime geopolitical potential and has thus maneuvered to rapidly increase its full-spectrum relations with the South Asian gatekeeper. Russia’s overarching goal, as it is with all of its partners nowadays, is to provide a non-provocative balancing component to buffet Pakistan’s regional political position and assist with its peaceful integration into the multipolar Eurasian framework being constructed by the Russian-Chinese Strategic Partnership. The first part of the article deals with the ‘zipper’ concept of how Pakistan can bring together four of Eurasia’s most prominent economic entities, and then it proceeds to an examination of the budding Russian-Pakistani Strategic Partnership. Part II looks at the topic from a completely different angle, and brainstorms the three most probable ways in which the US can attempt to offset everything that the multipolar is trying to build in Pakistan. Zipping Together The Blocs Pakistan is uniquely poised to zip together a variety of economic blocs, taking advantage of both its convenient geography and China’s grand investment vision to make it happen: Eurasian Union: The Russian-led trade organization also comprises Belarus, Armenia, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan. The latter two theoretically move its potential...

Last week, a group of journalists, academics and civil society members from Afghanistan were invited to what was informally known as a ‘Track 1.5/2’ exchange, hosted by the Centre for Research and Security Studies (CRSS). Dawn spoke to Barry Salaam, a media professional and human rights activist, who visited Islamabad for the dialogue, and asked him about the prospects for peace between the two neighbours in the context of the changing regional security situation. Q: Why do you think, from an Afghan perspective, have relations between Pakistan and Afghanistan taken a turn for the worst? A: The Afghan president took a lot of flak at home over trusting Pakistan and trying to get a security agreement signed between our two intelligence agencies. [Earlier this year] he took the level of cooperation to a whole new level, assuming that Pakistan was willing to bring the Taliban to the negotiating table. What we got in return was absolutely the opposite: Pakistan concealed the death of Mullah Omar and allowed Taliban to select his replacement on Pakistani soil while terrorist attacks and atrocities reached an unprecedented level, especially in Kunduz province Unfortunately, the popular feeling in Afghanistan is that the more we trust Pakistan, the worse the situation will get in terms of Taliban attacks. Q: How do the people of Afghanistan – many of whom have lived in Pakistan for a long time – feel and what steps can be taken to end the distrust between the two sides? A: Afghans, especially those who have lived in Pakistan, love the Pakistani people and have friendly relations with them. But they see the military establishment and the agencies as the main factor that is fuelling war and tensions in Afghanistan. To improve relations, the Pakistani government should abandon its double standards as far as insurgents are concerned. Islamabad should come to terms with the idea that the Taliban ideology should be defeated in the region. If they take genuine steps to this end,...

Gwadar in Pakistani Balochistan and Chahbahar in Iranian Balochistan are located almost at the mouth of the Gulf of Hormuz through which pass 35 per cent of the world’s seaborne oil shipments and 20 per cent of oil traded worldwide. More than 85 per cent of these crude oil exports go to Asian markets, with Japan, India, South Korea and China being the largest destinations. The two ports are separated by less than 200km. It is, therefore, necessary that Pakistani geopolitical strategists monitor closely the progress on the Chahbahar project so as to ensure that Islamabad’s geo-economic interests are not compromised in any way when the Iranian port becomes operational. India is helping develop the Chahbahar Port, which will give it access to the oil and gas resources in Iran and the Central Asian states. Tehran plans to use Chahbahar for transhipment to Afghanistan and Central Asia. India, Iran and Afghanistan have signed an agreement to give Indian goods, heading towards Central Asia and Afghanistan, preferential treatment and tariff reductions at Chahbahar. India has also finalised a plan to build a 900km-long railway line from the Afghan province of Bamiyan to Chahbahar port. Chahbahar provides India an easier land-sea route to Afghanistan. New Delhi has already spent $100 million on building a 220-km road in the Afghan province of Nimroz. The road will be extended to Chahbahar. With sanctions against Iran likely to be lifted soon and seemingly justifiably worried by the launching of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), an energy and infrastructure project costing $46 billion, India, perhaps, would like to move swiftly to get the Chahbahar port operational at the earliest. Iran has also proposed a free-trade agreement with India. Indian exporters want to build on the already existing significant trade relations with Iran, using the free-trade zone being developed near Chahbahar to increase exports to the Central Asian states. The Chahbahar port is central...

Peshawar, Pakistan: a suicide bombing has torn through a police cadet parade and scores of people are dead. I arrive to find fresh blood staining the ground. A mangled motorcycle is strewn across the road. Cars are burned out and upended; shop windows are shattered. Bits of human flesh are embedded in the shrapnel-marked walls of surrounding buildings. Be’er Sheva, Israel: two buses have exploded. There is shattered glass, twisted wreckage and a convoy of ambulances ferrying the dead and wounded. There is already talk of reprisals against the Palestinian militants who have carried out this attack. Southern Thailand: Islamic separatists have taken shelter inside a mosque after launching a series of violent raids. In the preceding months there have been killings, bombings, beheadings. Now the Thai military open fire killing all inside the building. Soon after, I walk through the still smouldering mosque. There is blood dripping from the overhead fans. These are just some of the acts of terrorism I have covered as a reporter over the past 15 years. To this list I can add similar attacks in Egypt, Afghanistan, Gaza, Indonesia, China. This has been the pattern since al-Qaida targeted the United States on September 11 2001. Now we have the events in Paris and we are told this is war. What are we thinking? It has been war for more than a decade. For people living in Afghanistan, Pakistan or parts of the Middle East it has been even longer. We are rightly stunned and appalled at the loss of life and the brutality in France. But sadly, we should not be surprised. Just a day a before the Paris attacks, more than 40 people were killed in suicide bombings in Beirut. These were the deadliest acts since the end of Lebanon’s civil war in 1990. Only a month ago more than 100 people died in a terrorist attack in Ankara, Turkey. The country has been torn apart by violence this year. In July dozens were killed in a suicide bombing in Suruç. Now, we are told this is war? It was war...

Peshawar, Pakistan: a suicide bombing has torn through a police cadet parade and scores of people are dead. I arrive to find fresh blood staining the ground. A mangled motorcycle is strewn across the road. Cars are burned out and upended; shop windows are shattered. Bits of human flesh are embedded in the shrapnel-marked walls of surrounding buildings. Be’er Sheva, Israel: two buses have exploded. There is shattered glass, twisted wreckage and a convoy of ambulances ferrying the dead and wounded. There is already talk of reprisals against the Palestinian militants who have carried out this attack. Southern Thailand: Islamic separatists have taken shelter inside a mosque after launching a series of violent raids. In the preceding months there have been killings, bombings, beheadings. Now the Thai military open fire killing all inside the building. Soon after, I walk through the still smouldering mosque. There is blood dripping from the overhead fans. These are just some of the acts of terrorism I have covered as a reporter over the past 15 years. To this list I can add similar attacks in Egypt, Afghanistan, Gaza, Indonesia, China. This has been the pattern since al-Qaida targeted the United States on September 11 2001. Now we have the events in Paris and we are told this is war. What are we thinking? It has been war for more than a decade. For people living in Afghanistan, Pakistan or parts of the Middle East it has been even longer. We are rightly stunned and appalled at the loss of life and the brutality in France. But sadly, we should not be surprised. Just a day a before the Paris attacks, more than 40 people were killed in suicide bombings in Beirut. These were the deadliest acts since the end of Lebanon’s civil war in 1990. Only a month ago more than 100 people died in a terrorist attack in Ankara, Turkey. The country has been torn apart by violence this year. In July dozens were killed in a suicide bombing in Suruç. Now, we are told this is war? It was war...