Dawn – Pakistan rejects India’s efforts to portray ‘normalcy’ in occupied Kashmir

Pakistan “categorically rejected” on Sunday Indian government’s attempts to “portray normalcy in India-occupied Jammu and Kashmir”.

Naveed Siddiqui

Islamabad Capital Territory – Pakistan, 08 September 2019. A press release issued by the Foreign Office today said that despite the Indian government’s claims, occupied Kashmir was still under a lockdown while Kashmiri leaders remained under house arrest.

“Indian-occupied Jammu and Kashmir continues to be the largest prison in the world with the heaviest deployment of Indian occupation forces since the coercive, unilateral and illegal Indian actions of August 5, 2019 aimed at altering the internationally recognised disputed status of IOJ&K and changing its demographic structure to preempt the results of a UN plebiscite,” the press release read.

The Foreign Office also termed Indian reports that portrayed two farmers, who had inadvertently crossed the border in August, as terrorists as a “farcical attempt”.

“This was despite the fact that the incident was discussed during the weekly military hotline contact between both sides on August 27, 2019 when Indian authorities acknowledged that they were inadvertent crossers and informed Pakistan that routine formalities are taking place after which they will be returned.”

On August 21, two farmers in Azad Jammu and Kashmir, identified as Muhammad Nazeem, 21, and 30-year-old Khalil Ahmed, had unintentionally crossed the Line of Control near Hajipir while they were out for cutting grass.

Last month, Indian External Affairs Ministry spokesman Raveesh Kumar had claimed that Pakistan was trying to create “an alarmist situation” after Indian media, citing unidentified Indian intelligence sources, said that Pakistan-trained commandos have allegedly entered Indian waters to attack port facilities in western Gujarat state.

Pakistan Army spokesperson Major General Asif Ghafoor had rubbished the claims. Yesterday, the military’s media wing had also issued a press release on the matter and said that the Indian media’s reports were “yet another attempt to fabricate facts”.

The Foreign Office press release issued today highlighted that Islamabad had “sensitised the international community” about India’s efforts to raise a false flag operation to divert attention from the situation in occupied Kashmir and blame Pakistan for “[India’s] indefensible actions”.

The statement also denounced “a false and fabricated story”, where Indian authorities had “blamed deaths of some Kashmiris in [the occupied territory] on ‘Pakistani militants'”. The statement referred to a briefing by Indian army officials that was held on 04 September.

Kashmir issue is a dispute left from history

A Chinese delegation led by Foreign Minister Wang Yi, which came to Pakistan on a two-day visit, said that Beijing “opposes any unilateral actions that [would] complicate the situation” in occupied Jammu and Kashmir, a press statement said on Sunday.

A joint press release issued by foreign ministries of Pakistan and China, said that the former briefed the Chinese delegation on the situation in India-occupied Kashmir, that has been under a strict lockdown for the past month, “including [Islamabad’s] concerns, position, and urgent humanitarian issues”.

The Chinese side assured Pakistan that it was paying “close attention” to the situation developing in the occupied territory, the press release said. Chinese delegation further said that the “Kashmir issue is a dispute left from history” and must be solved according to the United Nations resolutions.

https://www.dawn.com/news/1504213/pakistan-rejects-indias-efforts-to-portray-normalcy-in-occupied-kashmir

The Hindustan Times – UN Security Council to discuss J&K in closed-door consultation today

China on Wednesday threw its weight behind its all-weather ally Pakistan’s call for convening an “urgent meeting” of the Security Council to take up the agenda item “India-Pakistan Question” to discuss the situation in Jammu and Kashmir following India’s decision to end the state’s special status and split it into two Union Territories.

Yashwant Raj and Rezaul H Laskar

Washington DC/New Delhi, 16 August 2019. The UN Security Council is set to take up the situation in Kashmir during closed door informal consultations on Friday, instead of the open and formal meeting Islamabad sought along with the right to address it, people familiar with developments said on Thursday.

China on Wednesday threw its weight behind its all-weather ally Pakistan’s call for convening an “urgent meeting” of the Security Council to take up the agenda item “India-Pakistan Question” to discuss the situation in Jammu and Kashmir following India’s decision to end the state’s special status and split it into two Union Territories.

China’s statement backing Pakistan’s call for the meeting said the 15-member Security Council should hold “closed consultations under the agenda ‘India-Pakistan Question’” and invite the Department of Political and Peace-building Affairs and Department of Peace Operations to brief the body.

If China had wanted a broader formal meeting, it would have said so instead of seeking “consultations”, the people said.

“The UN Security Council will discuss the Jammu and Kashmir situation behind closed doors most likely on August 16,” Poland’s permanent representative to the UN and current Security Council president, Joanna Wronecka, was quoted as saying by Geo News channel. Poland holds the Security Council’s rotating presidency for August.

Russia’s acting UN envoy, Dmitry Polyansky, told reporters that Moscow did not object to the holding of such a meeting but that the issue should be discussed behind closed doors. Security Council members need to coordinate their positions first because the Kashmir issue hasn’t been on the agenda for quite a while, he added.

“Consultations” and an “open” or a “closed meeting” are technically and substantively different, reflecting the gravity of the issue.

According to the UN’s definitions, both open and closed meetings are formal meetings of the Security Council, though closed meetings are not open to the public and no verbatim record of statements is kept and the council issues a communiqué. Consultations are informal meetings of the council members and aren’t covered in the repertoire.

The Security Council holds such consultations frequently, sometimes thrice a week, and members can raise any issue and several topics can come up at these discussions.

China has inserted Kashmir into the agenda and it will be one of them on Friday, the people cited above said. The session will neither be recorded nor telecast live and Pakistan won’t get to address the members, they added.

France had even proposed the council should discuss the issue in a less formal manner, known as “any other business”, next week, Reuters quoted unnamed diplomats as saying.

Russia has already said India and Pakistan should address their differences bilaterally, a position also adopted by Poland and the European Union. The US, too, has ruled out mediation on the Kashmir issue and called for a dialogue between India and Pakistan.

A letter sent by Pakistan’s foreign minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi to the Security Council president on August 13 said a representative of the Pakistani government should be allowed to join the meeting. Experts said if this request were to be accepted by the council, an Indian representative would also have to be allowed to participate in the discussions.

The experts said much depends on the format of discussions and their outcomes – such as whether there is a binding or non-binding resolution and whether the minutes are recorded.

The people cited above also said that though Pakistan had tried many times to internationalise the Kashmir issue, the situation on the ground had changed since the Indian government’s decision on August 5 to revoke Jammu and Kashmir’s special status.

“In the past, such efforts to internationalise the matter were aimed at discussing the status of Kashmir. This is no longer the case now as the status has changed,” said a person who did not want to be identified.

The people noted that Pakistan was persisting with efforts to portray a “doomsday picture”, including Prime Minister Imran Khan’s public remarks and tweets, and Qureshi’s letter to the Security Council.

Qureshi wrote in his letter that the situation in Kashmir poses “an imminent threat to international peace”. Qureshi also referred to Hizbul Mujahideen commander Burhan Wani, killed by security forces in 2016, as a “popular resistance leader”.

“There is, furthermore, a clear and present danger that India will provoke another conflict with Pakistan to divert attention from its recent actions in Jammu & Kashmir,” Qureshi wrote in the letter.

He added, “Pakistan will not provoke a conflict. But India should not mistake our restraint for weakness. If India chooses to resort again to the use of force, Pakistan will be obliged to respond, in self-defense, with all its capabilities.”

The Indian government hasn’t formally responded to the remarks by the Pakistani leadership and the people cited above said the changes in Kashmir were purely an internal issue.

https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/unsc-to-discuss-j-k-in-closed-door-consultation/story-GmHC9IZPUEz3MACePTsDkN.html

The News – India needs third-party mediation on Kashmir conflict: Global Times

Beijing – China, 03 August 2019. The US is not the first country to offer to mediate on Kashmir conflict. Former South African President Nelson Mandela and incumbent Norwegian Prime Minister Erna Solberg had also offered third-party mediation.

But India has paid no heed to any offer, which has escalated tensions in Kashmir, according to an article published by Global Times, a widely circulated Chinese newspaper.

Perhaps India should try to understand why the international community generally supports improving India-Pakistan relations through peaceful negotiations.

That’s because, during the more than 70 years of disputes, the two countries have always lacked an effective channel of negotiation. Clashes have erupted along the Line of Control, which had cost many innocent people’s lives.

Under such circumstances, China has always supported international mediation because the peace and stability of South Asia is of great importance. If the India-Pakistan disputes lead to war or even a nuclear confrontation, then the two peoples will become innocent victims. China’s national strategy and interests will be seriously harmed as well.

For example, the China-proposed Belt and Road Initiative will face severe challenges in South Asia if the region suffers from war. China supports all countries, including the US, that sincerely aim at promoting peaceful negotiations between India and Pakistan, because this is also in line with China’s own interests.

https://www.thenews.com.pk/latest/507250-india-needs-third-party-mediation-on-kashmir-conflict-global-times

South China Morning Post – Hongkong Sikh wants to change attitudes towards ethnic minorities, while also being first doctor in city to wear a turban

Medical student Sukhdeep Singh, 23, is on a mission to empower ethnic minority youth, starting with an NGO he set up with other young professionals

Stephanie Tsui

Hong Kong – Special administrative region – China, 11 May 2019. Sukhdeep Singh, 23, is used to getting stares. “It’s because I’m so handsome,” he says, chuckling. At nearly 1.9 metres, Singh naturally stands out from most Hongkongers, but he believes his height is not the only reason he is considered different.

“Some people who assume I don’t understand Cantonese would comment on my turban in front of me, and on the MTR, people would rather squeeze themselves into more crowded rows than take the empty seats next to me.”

Singh is a final-year medical student at Chinese University. When he graduates next year, he will become one of a handful of Sikh doctors in Hong Kong, and the first to be wearing a turban. While not all Sikhs wear turbans, Singh dons one as an article of faith and to keep his uncut hair tidy and clean. He has been letting his hair grow since he was about nine as a show of faith.

“The sad reality is, when I’m wearing scrubs and a lab coat, I get treated differently. If I’m wearing normal clothes, no one would believe I am a medical student,” says Singh, who is one of about 12,000 Sikhs in the city.

“Patients might develop a different perspective on people with turbans in Hong Kong when they see me, a turbaned doctor, and, hopefully, start to view other ethnic minorities differently.”

Born and raised in Hong Kong, Singh grew up surrounded by Cantonese speakers, including his own father, a civil servant. But he only realised the importance of speaking the language when he enrolled in medical school.

“Patients look at me strangely, and that’s normal. But whenever I speak to them in their own dialect, their faces light up.”

Although he struggled with Cantonese vocabulary at first, Singh is now fluent in the language and able to write in Chinese. He is determined to eventually “speak like a local”, saying: “If I really am a Hongkonger, I should embrace every part of the culture.” In the coming year, he hopes to improve his Mandarin to serve more patients.

While he has overcome communication barriers, Singh continues to be wary of the way patients perceive him, and keeps his beard tied and tucked in a low bun.

“At home, it’s always free flowing, but at the hospital, I keep it up because you don’t want to scare sick patients even more. As a community, we still need to address these sensitive issues through education.”

Ethnic minorities who wear religious clothing, such as turbans and hijabs, often face discrimination, says Shalini Mahtani, founder and CEO of The Zubin Foundation, which aims to improve the lives of people in such communities in Hong Kong.

“They’re often told they’re smelly, people don’t want to sit next to them on public transport. It’s particularly obvious when they’re on a packed MTR.

“At the workplace, other employees may complain about ethnic minorities bringing in food that ‘smells funny’ or ‘bad’.”

Citing a 2018 study by the foundation, Mahtani also gives the example of how many local kindergartens would not welcome ethnic minority children because they believe they are “lazy”, “stupid” and require too much attention from teachers.

But she expresses hope that professionals like Singh will help raise the profile of ethnic minorities.

“Having more visibility for ethnic minorities is very important.”

She also believes more can be done to raise awareness of ethnic minorities among Chinese Hongkongers.

“I don’t think we’re doing a good job,” she says.

Last year, Singh and other young professionals founded Pargaas, a non-profit organisation that hopes to empower ethnic minority youth. Pargaas holds workshops on higher education and self-improvement.

“If we want to improve the number of ethnic minority kids getting into higher education, you need an organisation that can help them improve basic skills like CV writing. There weren’t many educated Sikhs who could run an organisation like Pargaas, but now there are,” Singh says.

He adds that Pargaas is also building a database on the characteristics of the Sikh community to look at what needs to be improved.

“We want to achieve harmony and to help others understand our culture. I just hope people on the receiving end would listen with open hearts.”

https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/society/article/3009452/sikh-hongkonger-wants-change-attitudes-towards-ethnic

The Asian Age – Foreign policy options after May 23 verdict

In India, the Narendra Modi government’s changes in foreign policy are both cosmetic and substantive.

K C Singh

Op/Ed, 8 May 2019. It may be useful to analyse the possible impact on Indian foreign policy of the looming May 23 Lok Sabha results. Three possible scenarios are a government led by the BJP, perhaps without a majority on its own; or a similar alliance led by the Congress; or an alliance led by a Third Front leader, albeit supported by either the BJP or the Congress.

A less likely, but not improbable, scenario could be a BJP-led government under someone other than Narendra Modi.

A similar debate has begun in America as a battery of Democrats have lined up to challenge President Donald Trump. In particular, the entry of Joe Biden, vice-president under Barack Obama, has sharpened the debate due to his legacy and experience. But Democrats don’t simply want to return to the past or the Obama track. The Economist notes “rumbles of revisionism”.

Broadly there is a consensus on the need for restraint as an evangelical pursuit to change the world and endless wars have depleted America’s wealth and ill-served intended aims. They also agree foreign and domestic policies must not be in silos as the US, when peddling democratic values abroad, must not ignore corruption and kleptocracy.

Finally, they debate whether foreign policy making needs to be democratised rather than conducted under notional congressional oversight. The recent move to limit the President’s war-making powers points there.

A Democratic administration may return the US to the Paris Accord on climate change, rejoin the nuclear deal with Iran, albeit with suitable tweaking, return to the Nato alliance without ambiguities, and so on.

Yet some elements may have been changed by President Trump irreversibly, like the bipartisan consensus on Sino-US relations is trade and investment with China needs new terms of engagement. This has implications for World Trade Organisation (WTO) reform.

In India, the Narendra Modi government’s changes in foreign policy are both cosmetic and substantive. The first relates more to hugging and protocol aspects that a new incumbent can immediately change, but can be expected to be persisted with by a re-elected Modi government.

The second falls under following headings: India-USA relations; China-Indian relations; Pakistan and the “zero terror” policy; countering radical Islamic terror and Jammu and Kashmir; Gulf and Iran.

It is noteworthy that the consensus on foreign policy, which last broke over the India-USA nuclear deal in 2008, largely shattered in the past five years due to the highly personalised, and hyper-nationalistic diplomacy of Mr Modi. Berating the Opposition while abroad, albeit on the pretext of addressing the Indian diaspora, began its collapse.

India’s readjustment to the post-Cold War world began with the P V Narasimha Rao government in 1991. Between him, the Atal Behari Vajpayee-led BJP government of 1998 and the Manmohan Singh-led UPA-1 in 2004, there was continuity in style and content.

The USA was wooed while retaining strategic independence, China engaged to incrementally expand areas of convergence, putting disputes on hold, Pakistan unsuccessfully but repeatedly tested to wean it away from terror sponsorship and accept confidence-building measures as a precursor to dispute settlement, J&K handled with a combination of hard and soft approaches, and finally a balance maintained in India’s policy towards the Gulf, Iran, West Asia and Israel. India also had a more active “Look East” policy, renamed “Act East” by the Modi government.

Essentially, you act only after you look, so it was the 1991 policy continued, to balance China, help craft a new Asian security architecture through building blocks like Asean Regional Forum, East Asia Summit and even the Quad, comprising four democracies straddling the Indo-Pacific, Australia, India, Japan and the USA.

A non-BJP government may begin by toning down the excessive bonhomie towards the Trump administration, which has openly backed Mr Modi, ensuring “wins” before and during the Lok Sabha polls. It is unimaginable that Pakistan would hand back IAF officer Abhinandan Varthaman, while Mr Modi is still threatening Pakistan, unless the USA-Saudi-Emirati interlocutors assured the Imran Khan government that this was merely domestic posturing.

Mr Modi claimed his threat, apparently nuclear, got Pakistan to comply. If threats worked, why did not India get consular access to Kulbhushan Jadhav, detained for espionage, and had to go to the International Court of Justice at The Hague?

Similarly, the rushed listing of Masood Azhar, that some reports said China was reluctant to concede during the Indian election, had a USA role, about which they reminded India when seeking Iran’s isolation. Earlier, the UAE had conveniently deported or extradited individuals during the Rajasthan and Lok Sabha polls as these were required to nail the Congress for corruption.

Desirable as cooperation is for combating corruption and terrorism, it must be balanced against insulating India’s elections from foreign interference. After all, Russia is similarly accused in America, which President Trump denies but the Robert Mueller report implicitly confirms.

A non-BJP government, particularly a Congress-led or supported one, may examine what, if any, were the trade-offs. First, Indian non-retaliation was conspicuous when the US imposed duties on Indian products. Second, the US pressuring India to distance itself from Iran and Russia.

Strategic independence, a core value on which our foreign policy rests, appears under pressure, if not compromised. But worse is foreign powers backing their favourites.

Pakistan is another case in point. Treating J&K as a pure law and order issue and Pakistan as a lunatic asylum impervious to anything but shock treatment of “surgical strikes” is brazen use of neighbourhood policy for communal-baiting domestically.

It may or may not win elections, but it leaves a poisoned chalice for a successor government, although it’s unlikely Pakistan policy will return to the romance of the Gujral-Vajpayee-Manmohan period. But no counter-terror policy can work which alienates a minority exposed to jihadi propaganda via the Internet, employment in the Gulf and travel.

The Sri Lankan Easter massacre is a warning of what awaits India. ISIS and its “caliphate” uprooted from Syria-Iraq is mutating and re-planting wherever fertile ground is available. Africa, particularly Sahel, is harbouring fleeing and new adherents, which the April 29 video of its leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi will fuel.

Niger, Mali and Burkina Faso have seen escalating attacks. British intelligence is tracking 10,500 jihadists in Sahel. How can India escape when BJP leaders are churning the communal pot for their electoral khichdi? The next government has a Herculean task to return the genie to the bottle, and counter politicisation of the military.

Hopefully, India’s voters will reject this dangerous gambit and its creator, Mr Modi, whom The Economist has dubbed “Agent Orange”.

The writer is a former secretary in the external affairs ministry.
He tweets at @ambkcsingh.

https://www.asianage.com/opinion/columnists/080519/foreign-policy-options-after-may-23-verdict.html

Tolo News – USA – Russia and China reach ‘consensus’ on Afghan peace

United States, Russia and China envoys said they support a second round of intra-Afghan dialogue in Doha.

Siyar Sirat

Kabul – Kabul Province, 26 April 2019. The trilateral meeting between special envoys of United States, Russia and China in Moscow on Thursday ended with a “trilateral consensus” on the Afghan peace process, reads a statement released by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation.

It was the second trilateral consultation on Afghanistan in Moscow, in which US Special Representative Zalmay Khalilzad, Chinese Special Envoy Deng Xijun, and Russian Presidential Representative Zamir Kabulov discussed the current situation in Afghanistan and the ongoing peace process.

According to the statement, the three sides agreed on the following matters:

  • The statement reads that the three sides respect the sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity of Afghanistan as well as its right to choose its development path. The three sides prioritize the interests of the Afghan people in promoting a peace process.
  • The three sides support an inclusive Afghan-led, Afghan-owned peace process and are ready to provide necessary assistance. The three sides encourage the Afghan Taliban to participate in peace talks with a broad, representative Afghan delegation that includes the government as soon as possible. Toward this end, and as agreed in Moscow in February 2019, we support a second round of intra-Afghan dialogue in Doha (Qatar).
  • The three sides support the Afghan government efforts to combat international terrorism and extremist organizations in Afghanistan. They take note of the Afghan Taliban’s commitment to: fight Daesh and cut ties with Al-Qaeda, ETIM, and other international terrorist groups; ensure the areas they control will not be used to threaten any other country; and call on them to prevent terrorist recruiting, training, and fundraising, and expel any known terrorists.
  • The three sides recognize the Afghan people’s strong desire for a comprehensive ceasefire. As a first step, we call on all parties to agree on immediate and concrete steps to reduce violence.
  • The three sides stress the importance of fighting illegal drug production and trafficking, and call on the Afghan government and the Taliban to take all the necessary steps to eliminate the drug threat in Afghanistan.
  • The three sides call for an orderly and responsible withdrawal of foreign troops from Afghanistan as part of the overall peace process.
  • The three sides call for regional countries to support this trilateral consensus and are ready to build a more extensive regional and international consensus on Afghanistan.
  • The three sides agreed on a phased expansion of their consultations before the next trilateral meeting in Beijing. The date and composition of the meeting will be agreed upon through diplomatic channels.

https://www.tolonews.com/afghanistan/us-russia-and-china-reach-%E2%80%98consensus%E2%80%99-afghan-process

The Hindu – Analysis: The trouble with playing politics with foreign policy

Varghese K George

New Delhi – India, 14 March 2019. The current domestic hostilities over foreign policy questions, and public litigation of those make mature policy-making an uphill task for India.

“On some issues, there has always been a consensus in this country. And foreign policy is one of those. As far as foreign policy is concerned nothing has changed,” Atal Bihari Vajpayee, the first BJP Prime Minister, told Lok Sabha in 1999.

In the years that followed, the conduct of foreign policy has increasingly become a contentious topic in Indian politics. Hyperactive TV anchors and social media explosion have played their roles in this heightened frenzy over foreign policy questions.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi made a muscular foreign policy approach a part of his politics from the 2002 Gujarat State election campaign onwards.

Rahul Gandhi has taken a leaf out of Mr. Modi’s book. “Weak Modi is scared of Xi [Xi Jinping, Chinese President]. Not a word comes out of his mouth when China acts against India.

NoMo’s China diplomacy: 1. Swing with Xi in Gujarat. 2. Hug Xi in Delhi. 3. Bow to Xi in China,” Mr. Gandhi said on Twitter, after China blocked, for the fourth time, a move in the U.N. Security Council to list JeM chief Mazhood Azhar as a global terrorist.

He is trying to question Mr. Modi’s claims of a strident policy towards its hostile neighbours, Pakistan and China. JeM had claimed responsibility for the Pulwama terrorist strike that killed at least 40 Indian soldiers on February 14.

“With China having blocked our bid to designate Masood Azhar a global terrorist, the question on every Indian’s mind is, what was the use of all the swinging with Modi and President Xi,” the Congress said on its official Twitter handle. “A terrorist responsible for such bloody murders is let off the hook again by the BJP,” it claimed.

Congress’ chief spokesperson Randeep Surjewala and former Union Minister Manish Tewari also targeted Mr. Modi on China.

Mr. Modi had targeted his predecessor Manmohan Singh for alleged weaknesses on the international front before he became Prime Minister.

Though Pakistan has been a constant trope in his politics, Mr. Modi also used incidents such as the arrest of Indian diplomat Devyani Khobragade by the United States to argue it was all happening because of Mr. Singh’s “weak leadership.”

Mr. Singh also had to deal with pressure from partners such as the Trinamool Congress, the DMK and the CPI (M) on key foreign policy issues, some he won, some he lost.

Once he became Prime Minister, Mr. Modi’s results have been mixed. His China policy vacillated, from bonhomie with Mr. Xi to military escalation in Doklam to reset of friendship.

With surgical strikes and cross-border raids in Pakistan, Mr. Modi has been successful in protecting his image on the western front, but with China, things have been complicated.

Under Donald Trump, the USA’s Asia policy is also less than reassuring for India. Mr. Trump has clubbed India and China in the same category of protectionist states on several occasions.

His management of China challenges Mr. Modi’s strongman claims. Mr. Gandhi wants to bring that to the front-burner, and question Mr. Modi’s triumphant claims with regard to Pakistan.

It is not that there were never disagreements in India on foreign policy in the earlier periods. But they were muted and discussed politely. The current domestic hostilities over foreign policy questions, and public litigation of those make mature policy-making an uphill task for India and could hamper the country’s international standing.

https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/analysis-the-trouble-with-playing-politics-with-foreign-policy/article26534151.ece

The Telegraph – Uighurs in China: Should we believe what we see?

Those who have fled detention centres describe oppressive conditions, but visitors see inmates laughing and learning

Neha Sahay

Calcutta – West Bengal – India, 05 March 2019. What is real and what is fake in news coming out of the Muslim-dominated province of Xinjiang is difficult to find out. Through January and February, diplomats and journalists from 30 countries, including India, visited the restive region, home to a violent separatist movement.

The foreign visitors were taken inside Xinjiang’s notorious camps where Uighurs are detained for months till they accept the Communist Party’s ideology. Those who have managed to flee have described the oppressive conditions inside: the overcrowding, the contempt for anything traditionally Uighur or Islamic.

But photographs in State-run newspapers of these foreigners’ visits showed inmates laughing with the visitors; or seated in classrooms learning Mandarin or vocational skills. At one camp, the inmates danced for the visitors to the tune of “If you’re happy and you know it, clap your hands.”

Some inmates even told the visitors they had approached these “vocational education and training centres”. the official term for these camps, on their own. All of them said they had viewed and forwarded jihadi videos on the internet.

These videos had made them hostile, even violent, towards non-Muslims. One man said he stopped sending his kids to school and beat his wife when she objected.

Concerned at these changes, family members and friends had reported them to village officials or the police. Informed that forwarding such videos was a crime, they applied to be admitted to these centres.

“Had I not done so, I would have become a terrorist,” said one woman. Once they are proficient in Mandarin, China’s laws and a vocational skill that would help them earn, they would be able to leave the centre, they told the foreigners.

The delegates were also taken around Xinjiang. Curiously, wherever they went, they found Uighurs busy playing traditional musical instruments or dancing and chatting with Hans, the majority race in China, who have been systematically settled in Xinjiang.

In contrast to this propaganda was the blog by a Han student about her holiday in Xinjiang last October. She went as a curious tourist; her experiences there shook her. It was the National Holiday week; outside every house was the national flag.

The red flags, the security men and machines everywhere, the uniformed vigilante groups of local businessmen patrolling with long bats marred the “vibe” of the local architecture, she wrote.

The blog also described her meeting with two young Uighur civil servants. Shocked by their choice of jobs, she found, after spending time with them, that their concerns were no different from any Chinese youngster trying to make a career.

In fact, one of them who taught Mandarin to his fellow Uighurs was convinced that this would help them get jobs and avoid extremism.

Everywhere, there were separate queues for Uighurs and outsiders. Uighurs had to get their identity cards checked at every point. But “thanks to my Han face, I could start my trip as a typical, carefree tourist,” she wrote.

What chilled her to the bone was an encounter with a Han cop curious about what she was doing in this disturbed region. When she gushed to him about the local architecture, he replied: “Do you really think the architecture is pretty? These are Uyghur-style buildings.

We are against that.” As they chatted, he grew suspicious, even doubting that she was a student in spite of having seen her ID card. Back in her hostel room the girl was full of “terror and guilt”. How did the Uighurs cope with the “atmosphere of control” all the time, she wondered.

https://www.telegraphindia.com/opinion/uighurs-in-china-should-we-believe-what-we-see/cid/1686191

The Telegraph – World asks India, Pakistan to show restraint

In India’s and Pakistan’s immediate neighbourhood, too, there were similar calls

Anita Joshua

New Delhi – India, 28 February 2019. After the diplomatic offensive and outreach by both India and Pakistan since the Pulwama terror attack, it was the turn of countries across the world on Wednesday to reach out to the two nuclear-powered neighbours with just one message: Exercise restraint.

Chinese foreign minister Wang Yi, who was in session with his Indian and Russian counterparts at the RIC trilateral in Wuzhen when word came of Pakistan’s retaliation to India’s “pre-emptive” strike on Tuesday, said Beijing was worried about the growing tensions and urged both India and Pakistan to exercise restraint and avoid further escalation.

“As a common friend of India and Pakistan, we hope that the two sides can find out the truth through dialogue, control the situation, solve problems and jointly safeguard regional peace and stability,” he said, offering to play a constructive role.

Russia, according to the media secretary of President Vladimir Putin, is closely monitoring the situation and is concerned about the “aggravation of relations” between India and Pakistan and calls on both sides to show restraint.

In a related statement, the Russian foreign ministry also called on both sides to step up efforts to resolve problems through political and diplomatic means, offering Moscow’s help in strengthening the counter-terrorism potential of both New Delhi and Islamabad.

British Prime Minister Theresa May addressed the issue in Parliament; expressing deep concern and calling for restraint by both sides to avoid further escalation.

“We are in regular contact with both countries, urging dialogue and diplomatic solutions to ensure regional stability. We are working closely with international partners, including through the UNSC, to de-escalate tensions and are monitoring developments closely,” she said.

Expressing anxiety at the “deteriorating situation”, France urged India and Pakistan to de-escalate and said its embassies in both countries were being mobilised to help French citizens.

The US, which was busy with President Donald Trump’s meeting with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un in Hanoi, was the only P-5 country to not react officially to Wednesday’s developments.

But secretary of state Mike Pompeo had spoken to the foreign ministers of both countries after India’s pre-emptive strikes and advised restraint while asking Pakistan to take urgent action against terrorists operating from its soil.

From India’s and Pakistan’s immediate neighbourhood too, there were similar calls, with Nepal, Sri Lanka, the Maldives and Iran worried about how further escalation could affect the region.

“As the current Chair of Saarc, Nepal, while underlining the importance of peace and stability in South Asia, calls on both sides to exercise utmost restraint and not engage in actions that would threaten peace and security in the region.

It also urges them to seek solution through dialogue and peaceful means in order to ease tension and normalise the situation,” Nepal’s foreign ministry said in a statement.

Iranian news agency IRNA quoted foreign ministry spokesperson Bahram Qasemi as expressing deep regret over spike in tensions and the military showdown between India and Pakistan.

He said the two countries should keep in mind the complicated conditions in the region, marked by increasing insecurity and instability and foreign intervention.

Condemning terrorism in all its manifestations, the Maldives urged both countries to exercise utmost restraint and preserve peace and stability in the region. “It is important to seek a speedy resolution to the current crisis through diplomacy and dialogue,” the Maldivian foreign ministry said in a statement.

https://www.telegraphindia.com/india/world-asks-india-pak-to-show-restraint/cid/1685910?ref=india_india-page

Dawn – Pakistan foreign policy 101

Ashraf Jehangir Qazi

Op/Ed, 26 January 2019. Foreign policy is the external aspect of national policy. It covers the whole gamut of global, regional and neighbourhood developments, movements and strategies.

When national policy is substandard it puts a ceiling on the success of foreign policy no matter how good it is.

Similarly, given the external dependency of Pakistan’s national policy, it cannot achieve its goals without a prioritised and resourced foreign policy.

Some aspects of external policy are primarily dealt with by specialised ministries, departments and services.

But the Foreign Office should not be held responsible for the negative consequences of bad decisions it had no part in taking. This often happens and is always at the cost of the national interest.

This is obvious. Yet in practice it is usually ignored. Why? The main reason is the unwillingness of corrupt or weak governments to take any risks for good governance, including good foreign policy.

This is the soft state syndrome. It is often a prelude to a failing state. It precludes serving the national interest. Powerful vested interests define the national interest and make foreign policy. What is to be done?

If the political system is made participatory and inclusive it will eventually find the right answers. If it remains elitist, exclusive and exploitative it will not. Changing the system, however, involves risk-taking.

Pakistan has 10 major external relationships. Primarily: India, China, the US, and Afghanistan; and significantly: Iran, the GCC countries, Russia, the European Union (which still includes the UK,) the Central Asian states, and the UN.

India is Pakistan’s major adversary. China is Pakistan’s only strategic partner. The US is still the world’s mightiest and only comprehensive global power. Afghanistan is a force multiplier for Pakistan’s security or insecurity. Iran confronts Pakistan with critical choices.

The GCC countries are a major source of remittances and ‘brotherly’ assistance which almost always entails an embarrassing price.

Russia in partnership with China is a significant counter-force to the US and its alliance with India. Moreover, it has the potential to bring about a less imbalanced Russian policy towards India and Pakistan.

The EU is a major market and the Pakistani community in the UK (and the US) can be a foreign policy asset.

Central Asia can provide ‘strategic depth’ to Pakistan’s connectivity-based diplomacy. Improving cooperation with Russia can help here also.

The UN may seem irrelevant. It is not. It is where a country’s image, profile and voice are confirmed and contested. It is the forum in which the credibility of a foreign policy is measured. Its agencies, funds and organisations can be important knowledge-intensive and problem-solving assets.

Due to space limitations only Pakistan’s four ‘primary’ relationships will be very briefly commented on.

India: The core issues for Pakistan are progress towards a Kashmir settlement acceptable to opinion in the Valley and radically improving the horrendous human rights situation there. For India it is Pakistan’s use of “terrorist proxies”.

These core issues need to be addressed to the satisfaction of each other if dialogue is to be meaningful. Finding common ground for a negotiating process to be sustainable is a challenge.

Indian interference in Balochistan is a fact. However, the Balochistan ‘problem’ is not of India’s making. It is due to institutionalised bad governance and exploitation over decades.

Pakistan should continue to extend its hand of cooperation irrespective of a lack of response from India. It should keep the LoC quiet as best it can. It should build on the Kartarpur initiative. It should extend normal trading or MFN rights as promised. This is arguably a WTO obligation also.

Pakistan should offer travel, communications, confidence and security-building (including regular nuclear and water-management) discussions and proposals. Let India take its time to respond. Pakistan cannot lose by being consistent and reasonable.

Realistic rather than provocative narratives need to be developed. The people of both countries need to get to know each other more directly instead of through warped images.

Differences need to be contained, addressed and reduced through a realistic working relationship. This will enable South Asia to meet the survival challenges of the 21st century.

The leaders of both countries should make appropriate statements, stay in touch, and unfold a range of innovative initiatives. If India demurs, even after its elections, that is its problem.

China: The BRI and CPEC are golden opportunities for Pakistan. But they are not magic wands. Moreover, no other country is willing to invest on such a scale in Pakistan.

Pakistan needs to look after its own interests without making disconcerting public statements. It needs to assure the Chinese that it is a reliable economic and strategic partner.

The China agenda

Chinese concerns are growing. They need to be addressed. Chinese and Pakistani ‘dreams’ need to be integrated into a shared vision through mutually reinforcing policies. The BRI is the context for CPEC. Similarly, CPEC is the context for the transformation of Pakistan.

Sensitive issues can be dealt with confidentially, judiciously and on the basis of complete mutual trust.

The US: It is a strategic ally of India. India is focused on Pakistan. The US is focused on China. America cannot be a strategic partner for Pakistan. But its friendship is beneficial while its hostility is harmful. Pakistan must work with the US for an Afghan settlement, in consultation with China.

Afghanistan: Pakistan cannot eliminate India from an Afghan settlement process. Nor should it try to. If Pakistan plays its cards right it will always have a stronger hand than India in Afghanistan.

The Afghan Taliban despite their current military successes are not the future of Afghanistan. Unless they cooperate for a settlement they cannot become a 21st-century asset for Pakistan.

India is justly regarded as a large neighbour with a small heart. Many Afghans see Pakistan similarly despite the massive Afghan goodwill accumulated during the Soviet occupation. Why?

Pakistan need not create a two-front situation for itself. Being large-hearted towards a smaller neighbour is actually good strategy. Specific issues are more easily resolved when the fundamentals are okay.

The writer is a former ambassador to the US, India and China and head of UN missions in Iraq and Sudan.

ashrafjqazi@gmail.com

www.ashrafjqazi.com

https://www.dawn.com/news/1459874/pakistan-foreign-policy-101

Published in: on January 27, 2019 at 5:30 am  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , , ,