Mil­i­tary air strikes against Syr­ian Gov­ern­ment

Pakistan Observer - - EDITORIALS & COMMENTS -

MORE than 50 of­fi­cials of the US State Depart­ment have signed an in­ter nal memo, claim­ing that a regime change in Syria was the only way to de­feat the mil­i­tant Is­lamic State (IS) group. The memo calls for tar­geted mil­i­tary strikes against the Syr­ian gov­ern­ment.

There are rea­sons to be­lieve that the so-called ‘dis­sent memo’ would be used as a jus­ti­fi­ca­tion tool to force a transitional gov­ern­ment in Syria be­cause Sec­re­tary of State John Kerry him­self has been ad­vo­cat­ing a more mus­cu­lar US mil­i­tary pos­ture in Syria to force Pres­i­dent As­sad to ne­go­ti­ate a po­lit­i­cal set­tle­ment. Ir­re­spec­tive of le­gal or moral author­ity of Pres­i­dent As­sad to rule, the ques­tion re­mains whether any for­eign coun­try has right to force a regime change in a sovereign coun­try. The US has long been pur­su­ing this ap­proach as a for­eign pol­icy tool and we have seen cat­a­strophic con­se­quences of this pol­icy in Iraq and Libya. This cul­ture of bul­ly­ing is sheer vi­o­la­tion of the in­ter­na­tional law but what an irony that it is be­ing sup­ported by the Congress, state in­sti­tu­tions and some seg­ments of the US me­dia. Un­for­tu­nately, im­por­tant pow­ers are sup­port­ing the Gov­ern­ment and op­po­si­tion in Syria through ev­ery means per­pet­u­at­ing the con­flict whereas they should fa­cil­i­tate dia­logue for na­tional rec­on­cil­i­a­tion. The US, which con­sid­ers it­self as torch­bearer of democ­racy and hu­man rights, should re­view its pol­icy and al­low peo­ple in other coun­tries to ex­er­cise their right to elect or vote out govern­ments.

PAK­ISTAN, a Na­tion born out of a re­lent­less strug­gle by its fore­fa­thers, has of late been in to­tal dis­ar­ray for the sin­gu­lar rea­son of ab­sence of de­ter­mined and self­less lead­er­ship with a vi­sion for the State; a vi­sion which could be trans­lated into in­stant re­al­ity and not just of one sit­ting on the haunches of Gov­ern­ment Ad­ver­tise­ments, hired mouth­pieces, blow­ing trum­pets of suc­cesses and feed­ing the peo­ple with fig­ures of de­vel­op­ment in­dexes of which they see noth­ing on ground, bliss­fully ig­no­rant of tight­en­ing of noose around it by forces in­im­i­cal to the Is­lamic polity.

It re­quires only av­er­age in­tel­li­gence for any an­a­lyst to gather that the Afghan Gov­ern­ment could not have dared at­tack Pak­istani po­si­tion on the prin­ci­pal bor­der post at Torkham with­out a wink from the US even if the in­sti­ga­tors were to be Indians or Ab­dul­lah Ab­dul­lah of the North­ern Al­liance. The mea­sured re­sponse once again has come from the Pak­istan Army rather than the civil­ian lead­er­ship bar­ring a cus­tom­ary sum­mon­ing and protest by the for­eign of­fice still liv­ing in the past mak­ing a be­lated plea to the UN over hu­man rights vi­o­la­tion by the US drone in Pak­istani ter­ri­tory, while Pak­istan’s ad­ver­saries have gone far be­yond.

The politi­cians in Pak­istan when in power are the ones seen to blame Mil­i­tary takeovers as the bane of the coun­try, yet few are able to see the stark re­al­ity that it has al­ways been the ill-bred op­por­tunist po­lit­i­cal class it­self mostly born out of feu­dal­ism and the filthy rich, which ral­lied sup­port for such takeovers given le­gal cover by the Ju­di­ciary in the past. But

THE re­cent cozy­ing up of the US to In­dia is not only un­prec edented, but seems to be in to­tal dis­re­gard of Pak­istan’s sen­si­bil­i­ties. In Modi’s re­cent visit to the US, the tremen­dous ap­plause that the In­dian Prime Min­is­ter re­ceived when­ever he al­luded to Pak­istan – with­out nam­ing it – in con­text of ter­ror­ism and re­li­gious ex­trem­ism, should be an eye opener for Pak­istan. The con­certed ef­forts of the US to in­clude In­dia in the Mis­sile tech­nol­ogy con­trol regime (MTCR): and its un­tir­ing en­deav­ours to put In­dia in the Nu­clear Sup­pli­ers’ Group (NSG) seem to be a par­a­digm shift in the In­dian Amer­i­can re­la­tions.

The ef­forts of the US to make In­dia mem­ber of the NSG, is, of course, in ad­di­tion to US hav­ing en­tered in to a civil nu­clear deal with In­dia in 2006. Mem­ber­ship of NSG, will al­low In­dia to fur­ther im­port and ex­port nu­clear tech­nol­ogy from, and to, the en­tire group of coun­tries hold­ing the mem­ber­ship of NSG. In­stead of main­tain­ing even a sem­blance of even hand­ed­ness vis-a-vis Pak­istan, the US has been ex­cep­tion­ally harsh with Pak­istan. Of the slew of de­mands made from Pak­istan, the most sin­is­ter has been US’s in­sis­tence that Pak­istan re­move its theatre or tac­ti­cal nu­clear weapon de­ployed against In­dia. This de­mand seems es­pe­cially un­fair in view of Amer­i­can fa­cil­i­ta­tion to In­dia on the nu­clear front. The


Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Pakistan

© PressReader. All rights reserved.