Brokering Peace In Nuclear Environments
Pakistan and Afghanistan: Relations, Diplomacy, and Security Challenges June 19, 2017
With author and expert panel, INDUS launches new book: “Brokering Peace in Nuclear Environments: US Crisis Management in South Asia”
South Asia is the world’s most dangerous region, with the potential for nuclear war between nuclear weapons states.That is one of the realities Dr. Moeed Yusuf, Associate Vice President of the Asia Center, United States.
Institute of Peace, and an INDUS Expert and Scholar, explores in his new book, “Brokering Peace in Nuclear Environments: US Crisis Management in South Asia.”
On July 15, INDUS—Mobilizing People’s Power hosted Yusuf and Dr. Rizwana Abbasi, Associate Professor at National Defence University, Islamabad, to discuss his latest work and related topics. The event was moderated by Nasir Naveed, INDUS Director of Policy and Planning.
“Brokering Peace in Nuclear Environments” explores the United States’ role in managing an India-Pakistan security crisis through three major crises after the nuclearization of South Asia: the 1999 Kargil conflict, the 2001-2002 military standoff, and the 2008 Mumbai attacks.Yusuf described the current dynamics of the region and the potential for conflict and mediation. A crisis between India and Pakistan can escalate quickly. A third party may not have enough time to intervene and de-escalate.
While answering questions from the audience, Abbasi said that Pakistan should not involve itself in an arms race with India but must focus on a credible deterrence. She added that both India and Pakistan must resume a peace dialogue and that the Lahore Declaration is the best place to start.
At the conclusion of the discussion session, Yusuf answered questions from the media and autographed copies of his book.
Pakistan And Afghanistan: Relations, Diplomacy, And Security Challenges
Pakistan and Afghanistan: Relations, Diplomacy, and Security Challenges June 19, 2017
A discussion featuring the Pakistan and Afghanistan ambassadors to the United States
INDUS-Mobilizing People’s Power, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank, hosted a dialogue on June 19, 2017, between the Ambassadors of Afghanistan and Pakistan to discuss common interests and challenges to their nations’ important bilateral relationship.
INDUS President Athar Javaid welcomed the guests and introduced INDUS. Mr. Shezad Habib, INDUS Special Advisor and sponsor of the event, welcomed the two ambassadors. Dr. Marvin Weinbaum, a member of the INDUS Academic Panel, introduced the ambassadors and moderated the session.
Pakistan Ambassador Aizaz Chaudhary expressed Pakistan’s view that its relationship with Afghanistan is significant, that peace and stability in Pakistan is impossible without peace and stability in Afghanistan, and that it is in Pakistan’s strong interest to see a prosperous, stable, sovereign, and independent Afghanistan. Amb. Chaudhary also noted that Afghanistan cannot blame Pakistan for all its problems and encouraged Afghanistan to act against the terrorists that are attacking it from within.
Afghanistan Ambassador Hamdullah Mohib stated that terrorism is a threat to both Afghanistan and Pakistan. He also noted the statement of his country’s president that Pakistan has imposed an undeclared war on Afghanistan and that Afghanistan and other neighboring states blame Pakistan for exporting terrorism to their frontiers. Amb. Mohib warned of taking Pakistan to the United Nations for sponsoring terrorism in Afghanistan. In response, Amb. Chaudhary cited a recent report from the U.S. Department of Defense that deemed Afghanistan to have the greatest concentration of militants and terrorist groups in the world, noting that such a volatile situation in Afghanistan is worrying for Pakistan.
Amb. Chaudhary then highlighted the need for dialogue, to find a solution to all the outstanding issues between Pakistan and Afghanistan, expressing his hope to restore the quadrilateral peace process and cordially solve the problem.
Amb. Mohib stated that Afghanistan does not know with which Pakistan it should engage—the one controlled by the military or the civilian government. He accused the Pakistani military of policies that use extremism as a foreign policy tool. Amb. Chaudhry said that such statements by the Afghan ambassador clearly violate diplomatic norms and interfere in Pakistan’s internal affairs.
Amb. Chaudhary noted that Pakistan is overcoming security issues, eradicating the Afghan militants that crossed into Pakistan after the bombing of Tora Bora, and improving the national economy, but Pakistan’s recent gains and achievements are at risk if Afghanistan fails to increase its internal stability. He stated that the government in Kabul, far from enjoying full control over the entire country, must deal with a vacuum in governance and lack of administrative units at the district level. He said that terrorist groups, like ISIS, are exploiting this weakness.
Amb. Chaudhry said Pakistan is willing to play its role to bring peace in Afghanistan in any possible way, and, instead of blaming Pakistan, Afghanistan should address its weak governance, corruption, drug trade and economic stress. Rather, both states should show the friendly spirit on display recently in Astana between the Afghan President and Pakistan Prime Minister. There is a dire need for both countries to devise a strategy to coordinate efforts to defeat terrorism.
Pakistan-China-Russia: An Emerging Bloc?
Pakistan-China-Russia: An Emerging Bloc? March 20, 2017
Relations among Pakistan, China, and Russia are growing. Regional developments, uncertain U.S. policy, and Afghanistan’s ongoing challenges increase the possibility of convergence among these three regional states.
On March 20, 2017, INDUS—Mobilizing People’s Power, in coordination with the Woodrow Wilson Center, organized an important discussion on geopolitics in the heart of Eurasia. Michael Kugelman, Asia Program Deputy Director and Senior Associate for South Asia, moderated a discussion by regional experts on recent developments and what might take place in the future.
Speaking first, Arif Rafiq, President, of Vizier Consulting, LLC, explained the recent era of Pakistan-U.S. relations, citing the Raymond Davis and Salala incidents and the Osama Bin Laden operation as harmful to the relationship and producing a consensus within the civil-military leadership in Islamabad that Pakistan needed to diversify its foreign relations and reduce its dependence on the United States. Pakistan began looking for other partners.
With China’s encouragement, Islamabad extended an opening to Russia and other neighboring states like Iran. The Pakistan-Russia relationship is developing. Late last year, the two countries held their first joint military exercises in Pakistan, and Pakistan will receive four Russian-made Mi-35M attack helicopters later this year. Earlier, in 2014, Moscow ended its decades-old arms embargo on Islamabad, and by 2015, there were signs of a convergence in Russo-Pakistan views on Afghanistan along with rumors of Russian talks with the Taliban. In 2016, these were formally acknowledged. (Afghan officials alleged that Russia was supplying or even training the Afghan Taliban.) Most recently, Moscow hosted talks with Beijing and Islamabad on the future of Afghanistan. The United States did not participate.
The realignment of Pakistan’s international relationships, according to Rafiq, suggests the following: a) the U.S. is limited in its ability to generate behavioral change in Pakistan; b) the U.S. underestimated Pakistan’s ability to engage diplomatically; c) the Taliban is a reality and only reconciliation among all the Afghans can bring a durable peace to the country; and d) there is no solution to the conflict in Afghanistan without involving regional states.
Andrew Small, Senior Trans-Atlantic Fellow, Asia Program, The German Marshall Fund, stated that the China-Pakistan relationship has continued to grow while, at the same time, shifting from its historical focus on security issues to include a larger economic component, as evidenced by the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC).
Driving China’s new approach is, firstly, its intensifying strategic competition with the United States. Pakistan, a country short on alliances, serves as a willing partner. Small noted that the Sino-Russian relationship, albeit at a lesser level, is also on a positive and friendly long-term trajectory. Second, China is also concerned about instability in Xinjiang, its northwestern province, and believes that development there and regionally will engender greater stability for itself and its neighbors. Beijing is also pursuing this through security cooperation with other actors in the region. Third, China sees the U.S.-India relationship as much more of a settled strategic fact and, relatedly, an opportunity arising from the weakened U.S.-Pakistan relationship. Fourth, risks to China’s economy have necessitated the push to find markets and investment opportunities abroad, and CPEC has ended up being a flagship project for both countries. As a result, China is helping Pakistan move closer to Russia and has helped facilitate their relationship. Beijing has also encouraged other states to support Pakistan and is in favor of a close Pakistan-U.S. relationship.
China is also expanding its security relationship with Russia, and with Russia’s blessing, China is helping Pakistan access Central Asian states. Regarding a Russian role in CPEC, Small said the critical element is not if the Russian role is formalized; what matters most is whether Russia is helping build ports and pipelines that support Pakistan’s energy needs.
Small maintained that South Asia is not an area of competition between the U.S. and China; it is an area of convergence. Both encourage support for Pakistan in various aspects: China backs the U.S.-Pakistan relationship, and the U.S. encourages Chinese investment in Pakistan. There is also convergence in Afghanistan. Both China and the U.S. would have a central role in peacebuilding in Afghanistan. It is presented differently in public, however, and many people may not believe the U.S. supports CPEC, but this is an area where U.S. and Chinese intelligence agencies have worked with Pakistan since the 1980s. There is also convergence between the U.S. and China in promoting a peace process between Pakistan and India. Nor has the Pakistan-China-Russia relationship crossed the threshold of a significant trilateral grouping. However, if the U.S.-China relationship becomes more competitive, South Asia is a region where that might take place.
Andrew Kuchins, Senior Fellow, Center for Eurasian, Russian, and East European Studies, Georgetown University, argued that a lot has changed in regional relations over the last 25 years, illustrating how dynamic geopolitics and geo-economics are today in the Eurasian heartland.
Regarding the U.S.-Russian relationship, Kuchins pointed to a public interview with Zamir Kabulov, a high-ranking intelligence officer in the Russian government with significant experience in Afghanistan. Kabulov revealed in his interview that Russia is talking to the Taliban, which Kuchins said represented a big change in Russian rhetoric about Afghanistan. Kubulov stated to the interviewer, “We expect Donald Trump to tailor a new American approach to Afghanistan” that considers Russia, China, Iran, Pakistan, and others. He also railed against U.S. military bases in Afghanistan, saying, “We know the reasons for the ongoing U.S. military presence in Afghanistan. Russia will not tolerate this.”
Kuchins believes that Russia wants to be in the Afghan political game, and the change in the Russia-Pakistan relationship advances that goal. The ties may also be driven by closer U.S.-Indian relations, but, according to Kuchins, Russian arms sales to Pakistan are not a direct result, as Russia sells arms frequently. Russia refused Indian requests that it cancel its joint military training with Pakistan. In return, according to Kuchins, Pakistan offered Russia the use of the Gwadar Port, but Russia was not interested because Balochistan is unstable and the port is underdeveloped. Kuchins believes Russia will be careful about its investments and trade with Pakistan so as not to alienate India or China, the two largest purchasers of Russian arms over the last two decades.
As far as U.S. policy, Kuchins concluded that the Trump administration does not have an Afghanistan policy. Nor does it have a policy toward Russia.
The Buck Stops Here: Obama’s challenge to Muslim Americans begins at home (COMMENTARY)
This essay was republished by the Washington Post on February 11, 2016.
By Athar Javaid | Religion News Service
“Right now, many Muslim Americans are worried because threats and harassment against their community are on the rise,” President Obama recently wrote in a commentary for Religion News Service. “We’ve seen Muslim Americans assaulted, children bullied and mosques vandalized, and we’ve heard shameful political rhetoric against Muslim Americans that has no place in our country.”
The president’s words recognize higher levels of anti-Muslim rhetoric and violence in America, the intensification of an Islamophobia that spiked after 9/11.
What is going on?
On one hand, American society is conflating Islam with the group that calls itself the Islamic State and reacting to Muslims in a way reminiscent of its 1940s internment of ethnic Japanese. On the other hand, there is concern that acts of radical Islamic fundamentalists present a threat to the nation.
On one hand, American society is conflating Islam with the group that calls itself the Islamic State and reacting to Muslims in a way reminiscent of its 1940s internment of ethnic Japanese. On the other hand, there is concern that acts of radical Islamic fundamentalists present a threat to the nation.
A nonexhaustive list of such events might start in 2009, when 13 people were killed and 30 were wounded by a lone gunman at Fort Hood, Texas. In May 2010, a car bomb was poised to go off in New York’s Times Square. Recently, two shooters killed 14 people in San Bernardino, Calif. — the latest tragedy among a number far too large.
There is fair and growing angst within American society about the behavior and treatment of Muslims. But the greater concern should be the emergence of a vicious cycle arcing from fear, to grievance, to violence.
Are we already spiraling? While the 9/11 hijackers were foreign nationals, those behind more recent attacks are often American-born or naturalized citizens. Many grew up in this country and even earned college degrees by virtue of their U.S. citizenship.
To prevent similar events in the future, we may be inclined to ask of past perpetrators: “Were you motivated entirely by religious radicalization, or was your anger sparked by mistreatment and disenfranchisement?” Whatever the answer, the required response will involve the Muslim community, a part of which has shown little inclination to address the problem of the radicalized within it.
We’re seeing now that events like those since 2009 make victims of survivors as well as the deceased. Muslim communities in North America and around the globe mourn alongside the bereaved, but with their grief there is also the fear that all who practice Islam will come to be perceived as terrorists. The natural reaction is to turn inward, and as current events show, it is reasonable for Muslims to be fearful.
But it is also reasonable to believe that homegrown terrorist attacks can be prevented, and if we are learning anything, it’s that the best opportunity — and the responsibility — to do so begins at home — first with immediate family members and then friends, co-workers, community members and religious leaders. It ends with law enforcement authorities.
What can Muslims do to break the cycle of violence and Islamophobia?
Work within Muslim communities to identify extremism and radicalization before it culminates in violence. Uniting a community under a common goal can turn strangers into friends and make the communities warmer, more vigilant and safer for everyone. Neighborhood and community watches do this already and are organized for the same purposes — safety and crime prevention. A well-run program can achieve greater socialization, spot early signs of concern and effectively prevent crime without abandoning personal privacy.
American society is made stronger and more resilient when it is a community of overlapping communities and when responsibilities are shared.
“You are not Muslim or American. You are Muslim and American,” Obama said in his RNS commentary, echoing a recent speech at a Maryland mosque. It is as much a statement of fact as it is a challenge, and in both cases, it begins at home.
Athar Javaid is president of INDUS — Mobilizing People’s Power, a Washington, D.C.-registered 501(c)3 tax-exempt think tank and advocacy group dedicated to a progressive and politically stable Pakistan, strong U.S.-Pakistan relations and community integration and civic promotion in the United States. INDUS has no political affiliations in the United States or political ambitions in Pakistan.
Case in Point: An Illuminating example of grassroots leadership
For Saldi Isra, a college professor in West Sumatra, enough was enough when he saw that one of his local provincial representatives traded his ratty motorbike for a flashy sports car. In any case, he was well aware of the rampant corruption and bribery – An aftermath of Indonesia’s push for the transfer of sweeping power to local representatives.
The professor did not loose much more sleep while contemplating on the issue. Instead he got together with a dozen colleagues and students and launched a probe of the local Government records, simply examining the cost of services delivered. Isra was not surprised to find that huge amounts were paid to the officials not representing a corresponding service to the public. Hundreds of students joined Isra’s protest and a dozen newspapers carried headlines detailing the public funds scandal.
Many months went by – After a period of controversy and debate, the prosecutor finally filed charges.
Not knowing whether the judge and the prosecutors will even take the case seriously, the news that the court convicted 43 representatives, nearly the entire provincial legislature for misappropriations of public funds was no less than a modern day miracle.
Amidst masses of people adrift, lost and buried under bureaucracies created to “serve” but actually enslave private citizens can seek to assure adherence or adoption of the laws and regulations.
An example of how the diaspora of a nation can influence the affairs of the country is “The Awareness Committee” at St. Olaf College in North Minnesota that is a non-partisan organization committed to creating an increased awareness throughout the St. Olaf community in the areas of local, national and international political issues and increasing political efficacy among the student population.
Programs and activities sponsored by this committee focus on encouraging lively and informed political dialogue and debate. are encouraged to become involved in PAC activities and attend PAC-sponsored speakers and events. Awareness empowers.