Brig Nadir Mir

Recently, a resolution was passed in the US Congress to divide Pakistan and carve out an ‘independent Balochistan’. With this, an old neocon dream was revived. This time the so-called globalists and propagandists, masquerading as human right activists, are the cheerleaders. Against this backdrop, Colonel Ralph Peter’s map of the ‘New Middle East’ truncating, balkanising every country – Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan – was reproduced. Despite the fact that it was scorned and reviled even at the time of its earlier exhibition.

Neo Con New Middle East Map

It seems that the neocons and influential globalists of America desperately want to initiate World War III. Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger’s interview, If you can’t hear the drums of war, you must be deaf, with Alfred Heinz on November 27, 2011, is a clear expression of this desire.

The neocon-globalist geopolitical wish list – the rationale for the so-called ‘independent Balochistan’ – is as under:

§ Cripple Pakistan by separating Balochistan (46 percent of its territory with large mineral resources, besides the future global port of Gwadar).

§ Balkanised Pakistan forced to give up its nuclear arsenal.

§ Establish India’s hegemony over Pakistan.

§ Leftover US forces in Afghanistan and US controlled ‘new Balochistan’ to act as strategic central position for multi-regions.

§ US controlled Afghanistan-Balochistan to link the Central Asian energy oil and gas pipelines with Gwadar.

§ Delink Pakistan and Iran by carving out Balochistan and obviate the Iran-Pakistan energy/gas pipelines.

§ Establish US military presence in Balochistan for upcoming US-Israeli war against Iran.

§ Block Russia-Pak cooperation with Gazprom (Russian Gas Company) reaching Gwadar.

§ Balochistan and Kurdistan to be artificially created to have imperialist bases in the heartland of Islam.

§ ‘Independent Balochistan’ – a prelude for Kurdistan to break away from Turkey; separate Xinjiang and Tibet from China; Siberia from Russia; and separate Makkah and Madinah from Saudi Arabia.

§ US military presence in Gwadar to control the Gulf. To use the port as an alternative for USA’s 5th fleet based in Bahrain or another fleet if brought near the Gulf.

§ Use Gwadar as a military base for intervention in the Saudi Peninsula.

The rationale of these ill-intentioned pseudo thinkers is absolutely absurd. According to them, since the Pakistani elite is exploiting Balochistan, so it should be balkanised. Those who believe that Balochistan should not be a part of Pakistan are geopolitical imbeciles. Indeed, the propagandists making these claims are clueless about regional realities because:

§ Pakistan: It will fight a war, even a nuclear war of national survival to defend itself.

§ Iran: The Iranian Seistan is part of Balochistan, which the imperialists want to carve out. Therefore, Iran will fight a war in unison with Pakistan to defend Balochistan against the US threats.

§ Afghanistan: The Taliban are winning; the Americans are leaving. No Afghan – not even Karzai – will cede the Afghan territory to become ‘greater independent Balochistan’. Nor can landlocked Kabul take up fights with both Islamabad and Tehran.

§ Turkey: The Turks will support Pakistan and oppose independent Balochistan. Those who are plotting Balochistan also support Kurdistan to balkanise Turkey. Turkey will oppose Balochistan splitting by Nato, even if Nato is foolhardy to play the diabolical game of neocons.

§ Saudi Arabia: The Saudis, too, will support Pakistan and oppose the Balochistan movement.

§ India: It has been supporting the destabilisation of Balochistan and will continue to do so. But for India to overtly support Balochistan can lead to a nuclear war with Pakistan. Besides this can also trigger freedom movements in Kashmir, Khalistan, Assam, Tamil Nadu and a dozen other places. Playing the US-Israel game will spoil its relations with Iran, Russia and China.

§ China: It will support Pakistan. USA’s aim in Balochistan is to block China from Gwadar. Balochistan today, Xinjiang tomorrow! China’s defence begins from Pakistan.

§ Russia: It is Pakistan’s new friend. Besides, the Pak-Iran link is supported by Moscow.

So, the geopolitics of the region negates any viability of an independent Balochistan. In addition, anti-Americanism in Pakistan has a complex dynamic. The US meddling in Balochistan will not create an ‘independent Balochistan’, but will initiate a war, perhaps, leading to World War III.

The situation in Balochistan certainly demands immediate attention. Out of 150 Baloch tribes three major ones Marris, Bugtis, and Mengals have had problems or are in conflict. The issue of Bugtis is greatly linked to the murder of Nawab Akbar Bugti. A fair trial of those responsible is their demand. The Mengals can be communicated with. Some of the Marris leaders are more adamant and would need to be worked on. Pakistan needs to accommodate most of the Balochistan demands and satisfy the people, while ensuring its national interests. Half the demography of Balochistan which is Pakhtun are patriotic like the great majority of Baloch.

Bugti’s killing by Musharraf led to the present Balochistan crisis. The army or the ISI is not responsible. USA and India did not oppose Musharraf’s actions in Balochistan. This was a US-India baited gambit (to lure Musharraf into a crackdown and create turmoil for instigating independent Balochistan). Musharraf was praised by Washington and assured by Delhi of its non-involvement in Balochistan, luring him into the mess Pakistan faces today in the province. For all this time a covert war was being waged for claiming independence of Balochistan. During this period a worldwide network was established. This became overt in February 2012 as war with Iran is near centre stage in 2012. However, those who are planning war against Pakistan must be told that the choice is between peace and total war; indeed, the country will be defended at any price!

Yousaf Alamgirian

It took many years to the foreign media and certain quarters to acceptthat Indian army is busy in brutalities in Held Kashmir. It has killedhundreds and thousands of the innocent Kashmiri citizens during thelast sixty years. Indian government has not let any human rightsorganization to visit IHK to avoid giving them access to the areawhich can lead to unearth its atrocities. India has also failed topunish any of the soldiers involved in the violations. According tothe AP news story India has rejected every request over two decades toprosecute its soldiers in civilian courts in Indian-held Kashmir foralleged rights abuses, including murder and rape.India has never considered Kashmir an area where people can liveaccording norms and values of the civil society. India knows that thepeople of IHK have never liked to remain with it so it always reliedon military might to hold control over it. India and Pakistan foughttwo wars over Kashmir i.e in 1948 and 1965 respectively. Kashmiricitizens have never been fond of being a part of Indian Territory.They have demanded the right of self determination which India alwaysdeclined to give them. AP has rightly narrated that “Indian troopsfaced a bloody liberation movement in the early 1990s. The uprisingand subsequent Indian crackdown killed 68,000 people, but the conflicthas largely subsided with public opposition to Indian rule nowexpressed in street protests”. India’s more than 8 lakh army is deputed in Indian held Kashmir. HadIHK been a peaceful territory India wouldn’t have deputed such a hugenumber of troops there. Reason being the region remains heavilymilitarized. India has been taken as oppressor force in the Kashmir sopeople stand firm for their rights.Not only the Human rights workers have accused Indian troops ofillegally detaining, torturing and killing activists, sometimes evenstaging gun battles as pretexts to kill but Indian civil societyincluding the journalists like Anuditi Roy have many a timeshighlighted violations of the human rights.India instead of giving the Kashmiris right of self determination hasalways maligned Pakistan for the menace. Matter of the fact is thatPakistan Govt has taken many initiatives to promote and establishpeace in not only the world in general but specifically in its ownregion.In fact India is in the habit of accusing Pakistan of arming, trainingand supporting the freedom fighters to whom they call terroristsoperating in occupied Kashmir. Obviously Pakistan has always deniedthe charges which are concocted, baseless and unsubstantiated. Indiangovernment must carry out the survey of over 70 thousand graves offreedom fighters to verify their blame of intrusion.India is facing a number of freedom movements seeking forindependence. India is making rapid legislations, so as to curb the socalled Kashmir movement to whom they call treasonous activity backedby the terrorists. The Terrorists and Disruptive Activities(Prevention) Act (TADA), 1987 and the Prevention of Terrorism Act(POTA), 2002 which according to Indian government, were made tocounter terrorism, but factually it is being used to harass, humiliateand disgrace the public striving hard for their rights especially theKashmiris. But now the time has come when Indian brutalities in HeldKashmir are being echoed the world over. The presence of Indian troopsin IHK reflects Indian hegemonic designs in this part of the world. Soif India thinks that it can hide its atrocious crimes by blaming itsneighboring countries, then she is living in fool’s paradise.The Indian resort to suppress the human voice and depriving thousandsof people from their basic right has always mortified them. It is onrecord that more than eight lakh Indian army has failed to maintainlaw and order in occupied Kashmir. It is just for the face saving thatIndian Govt keeps on maligning Pakistan on different issues. Indiamust realize that one thing which can save any one from internal andexternal fears is uprightness, clarity and national values, whichseems missing on its part.

Reto Stocker

Many Afghans simply say they want to leave their homeland. And they are questioning what has really improved over the past 10 years of conflict. Of course a lot of things have changed. There have been improvements to infrastructure and communications, to name only two areas.

But for the vast majority of the population Afghanistan is still a country at war, and they see little hope of the situation getting better anytime soon. In many parts of the country, and across different social groups, from what we can judge, there is a widespread mood of desperation.

We are increasingly hearing stories of doctors being prevented from doing their work because one or other party to the conflict is not happy if their opponents get medical treatment. This goes to the heart of our mandate and to its commitment to safeguarding the right of everybody who is injured or sick to have safe and timely access to health care.

Part of the role of ICRC (International Committee of the Red Cross) is to help the Afghan Ministry of Health and its staff — in hospitals, rural clinics and health posts. For example, we have made a very large commitment to Mirwais regional hospital in Kandahar, supporting the hospital authorities in all areas of their work for some three and a half million people. And there are the seven ICRC-run physical rehabilitation centers. They have helped more than 100,000 physically disabled adults and children to lead productive lives within society over the past two decades.

Rule-of-law issues in Afghanistan are at a critical juncture. With detainee transfers from international forces to Afghan detention under way, those who are responsible for it have an obligation under international humanitarian law to ensure that detainees will continue to have satisfactory conditions and receive correct treatment afterward.

This is why pre- and post-transfer monitoring is so important and it is the transferring authority's responsibility to do this. Detainees are also protected by procedural safeguards and judicial guarantees whilst in detention. This is where the ICRC can have some influence by sharing its findings confidentially with all parties and advising them about their obligations under international humanitarian law in this regard.

Sustainability also comes in here. Sustainability in the sense that there needs to be an Afghan-run penitentiary system that is able to cope with the increasingly large number of detainees who are going to be transferred into the Afghan prison system before the end of 2014.

I am glad to say that we have had an increasingly coherent and positive dialogue over the years both with international and Afghan officials on detention issues. We also have an ongoing dialogue with the armed opposition — including the Taleban, the Haqqani network and Hizb-e-Islami — about the fact that they, too, have obligations under international humanitarian law to treat detainees humanely.

The ongoing debate about a possible accelerated drawdown of the international troops has consequences for the ICRC in that our dialogue with them on the conduct of hostilities and the protection of civilians has to shift very, very rapidly to the Afghan National Security Forces.

The US and other troop-contributing nations support and mentor the Afghan army and police, and also a multitude of civil defense groups, the latest being the Afghan Local Police. This comes with legal obligations under the Geneva Conventions, to ensure that such forces will respect international humanitarian law at all times, including after the departure of most international troops.

In addition, at such time as discussions about an eventual downsizing of the Afghan security forces are finalized, efforts must go into making this complicated process work, including demobilization and reintegration.

Concerning the civilian population, I knew Kabul as a city of 400,000 inhabitants when I first came here 13 years ago. Now it has around five million people, many of them returnees from Pakistan and Iran. Some came back with skills they could use and have prospered, but others have not. They, together with other impoverished communities — rural farmers and the like — manage to survive partly because of Afghanistan’s war economy.

While having made comparatively few people very rich, it has also trickled down through employment in the security sector or created jobs for day laborers that have made it possible for them to feed their families, for example.

But as this war economy shrinks over the months and years to come, and the interest of the international community wanes, it will affect all sectors of society, including both those who are struggling and those who have got used to a comfortable living. Already, following a massive cut in USAID funding late last year, several big international NGOs have stopped ongoing projects and started to lay off their Afghan staff. And this is just the beginning.

For those aid agencies like the ICRC who will stay for the long term — we've already been here for 25 years — the workload will increase as we try to address the needs of war-affected communities and an increasingly impoverished population. I fear there will still be a lot of work to do well beyond 2014. I wish it were otherwise.--AN