ISLAMABAD: The first session of the Pakistan-Turkmenistan Joint Ministerial Commission was held in Ashgabat, Turkmenistan on August 3-4, 2009. The Pakistani delegation was led by Nawabzada Malik Amad Khan, Minister of State for Foreign Affairs. The Turkmenistan side was headed by their Foreign Minister Rashid Meredov.

The Minister of State also called on Mr. Gurbanguli Berdimuhammedov, the President of Turkmenistan and discussed prospects of improving bilateral economic and political relations. He also held sideline meetings with Mr. Annaguly Deryaev, Minister for Oil and Gas Industry and Minerals Resources, and Mr. Ata Gulyiev Nokergvly Hoja Gulyevich, Minister for Commerce and Foreign Economic relations.

A protocol was signed wherein the two countries agreed to speed up the project for supply of Gas from Turkmenistan to Pakistan. In addition to this, the Turkmenistan Government also offered export of electricity to Pakistan.

Both governments decided to form working groups on Commerce & Trade and Food & Agriculture. The group on Commerce & Trade will discuss and finalize the list of goods and services for enhancing bilateral trade between the two countries.

It was also agreed that the business community of both countries will interact with each other to promote trade and investment and joint investment projects. There will be regular exchange of trade delegations and participation in fairs/exhibitions in each other’s countries.

Both countries also agreed to negotiate a transit trade agreement that will facilitate and expand trade volume between the two countries. The working group on food and agriculture will study and identify areas of cooperation between the two countries, including information sharing in agriculture research, seed productions research system, agriculture training, and livestock and fisheries.

The two countries also agreed to activate the forum of political consultations between the two Ministries of Foreign Affairs as well as the agreement on Science and Technology signed in 1994 and to convene the meeting of experts by the end of 2009.

The Turkmenistan Government also thanked the Government of Pakistan for its offer of facilities in the field of higher education, vocational training courses, WTO Rules and Agreements and short term training courses offered by the Government under Pakistan Technical Assistance Programme. NNI

NEW YORK: After seven and a half years of international engagement, Afghanistan is at a very important turning point. The country faces a daunting set of challenges: a ruthless insurgency, comprised of militant groups with different capabilities and objectives; the government still struggles with corruption and delivery of basic services; the country produces 90% of the world’s heroin, with the volatile province of Helmand producing half of the crop; and regional players are still involved and trying their utmost to influence Afghanistan’s future, The Wall Street Journal reported.

On the other hand, the country has seen 9% growth in its economy for the last six years; has held presidential and parliamentary elections in which the majority of the eligible voters participated in the process; thousands of schools have re-opened; and health-care services now reach around 80% of the population. U.S. President Barack Obama has made Afghanistan one of his top foreign-policy priorities, which has led to an alignment of the United States’ efforts from Iraq to Afghanistan. However, unless the indigenous capacity of the Afghan people is developed in a timely fashion and regional players adopt a responsible policy stance toward Kabul, President Obama’s Af-Pak strategy may not be enough to save Afghanistan. There are at least 10 lessons we should learn from Afghanistan’s recent experience.

–Half-hearted support. The international community did not provide Afghanistan the commitment that it deserved after the Sept. 11 attacks. Instead, there was a lackluster approach to everything, including the stability and development of the country. Mistakes were made which led to a decline in public support for the international intervention.

–Lack of institution building. From the outset, there was no interest in building Afghan institutions, so alliances were made with local commanders — the same elements that fostered the emergence of the Taliban. Many of these commanders brought back to power by the West only empowered themselves and isolated the rest of the population.

–Too few troops. The light footprint was not appropriate since Afghans expected much more from their international partners. The West, on the other hand, was frightened that Afghanistan could be become their “graveyard of empires.” Yet Afghans saw the international forces as peacekeepers rather than occupiers.

–Too Kabul-centric. The International Security Assistance Force, established by United Nations mandate, only operated in Kabul during the early phase of the transition, leaving a severe security vacuum that was rapidly filled by the commanders.

–Poor enforcement. The Disarmament Demobilization and Reintegration process was not taken seriously, even though there was a genuine effort by the Japanese who funded the program. Many commanders kept their heavy weapons and only turned in their old scrap.

–See no evil. Mafia-like structures were established, but everyone, including the international community, simply turned their heads the other way, which has led to corruption and the illicit drug trade spreading throughout the country.

–Failure to reconcile. The international community could not get its act together on reconciliation, even though there were several opportunities for dialogue with the opposition. Lakhdar Brahimi, the former special envoy of the U.N. secretary-general, states that this was the biggest mistake of his tenure.

–Too easy on Islamabad. The International Community and particularly the U.S. were deliberately blind toward Pakistan, while all along the terrorist sanctuaries and leadership straddled the Durand Line border. Two Taliban shuras, or councils, still operate from Pakistan and are even known as the Quetta Shura and the Peshawar Shura.

–Little financial support. Afghanistan received an extremely low level of aid per capita. The U.S. and its allies put 25 times more money (and 50 times more troops), on a per capita basis, into postconflict Kosovo. There should have been a serious commitment to rebuild Afghan society and infrastructure.

–Little inclusion. There was a failure to understand the politics of development. Afghans were not put in the driver’s seat or even consulted on local projects. Instead, major foreign companies received the bulk of the funding and clearly failed to deliver.

–In Baghdad’s shadow. Iraq became a big distraction; most of the resources and key personnel from the U.S. were taken from Afghanistan and sent to Iraq.

Some U.S. officials have described the conflict in Iraq as the war of choice and Afghanistan as the war of necessity. The facts on the ground prove this to be true. Al Qaeda was able to plan and finance the Sept. 11 attacks from Afghanistan. The Af-Pak region is also the original nesting ground for al Qaeda; it is where they established strong networks among themselves and where they built relations with local communities and certain state institutions. This region also has the kind of terrain and remoteness that makes it an ideal area for a group like al Qaeda to base itself. Although the U.S. has recently acknowledged the crucial importance of Afghanistan, the country had long been neglected by policy makers because of the war in Iraq. Afghans, meanwhile, had become hopeful about the international community’s engagement and looked forward to a partnership that would help bring stability to the country –instead, Afghanistan received international support that was inadequate to deal with the challenges of a nation recovering from more than 20 years of conflict. Hopefulness soon transformed into disillusionment.

This change in attitude of Afghans was a reflection of events on the ground. The U.S. was winning in Afghanistan for the first two years and the country was in relative peace; the Taliban had disbanded and was no longer an organized fighting force. But avoiding the realities that were forming in Afghanistan changed the situation dramatically. The vacuum in those initial years when Afghanistan was written off as a success story provided an opportunity for the militants to recruit, regroup and rearm themselves across the Durand Line and to conduct attacks against the Coalition Forces and the Afghan government.

With time and ample resources at their disposal, the militants are now putting up stiff resistance. The deteriorating situation in the country has reached a level that can no longer be ignored and Afghanistan once again sees itself at an important juncture. Afghans have welcomed the new Af-Pak strategy since it is seen as an attempt by the Americans to get things right.

The new Af-Pak strategy combines both Pakistan and Afghanistan as one policy unit. The Obama administration has realized that success in Afghanistan is not possible without dealing with the challenges of Pakistan, where militancy and extremism has taken root and where the rear-bases of many of the groups operating in Afghanistan are located. The main insurgent groups that are now fighting in Afghanistan — including the Taliban, the Haqqani Network, Hizb-i-Islami Gulbadin Hekmatyar (HIG), Tahreek-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and al Qaeda — are based out of Pakistan. Some of these groups are allegedly receiving support from official channels within the Pakistani establishment.

The central premise of President Obama’s Af-Pak Strategy is to deliver a deathblow to al Qaeda and other militants, and to make sure that both Afghanistan and Pakistan do not become safe havens for terrorists. This will only be achievable if Afghanistan and Pakistan cooperate with each other, especially on issues such as the increasingly volatile Af-Pak border, where the militants have a strong presence. Among Afghans and elements of the international community, there is increasing apprehension about state institutions in Pakistan and the role they play in regards to the militant safe-havens that exist within their country. The priority that the Obama administration has put on engaging Pakistan has been welcomed by Afghans as it indicates that U.S. policy makers understand the importance of this core issue.

Aside from the regional aspect of the new Af-Pak strategy, there is also an emphasis on developing institutions within Afghanistan to help stabilize the country. Building Afghan military and civilian capabilities is an important element of the new strategy. The emphasis on developing the security institutions of the country has been made clear by the Af-Pak plan and is vitally important to ensure long-term stability in Afghanistan; both the Afghans and the international community know that the presence of international forces in the country is neither sustainable nor ideal.

On the military front, there will be 4,000 extra troops to train the Afghan National Army and additional 17,000 troops to combat the militants, bringing the total number of U.S. troops to 68,000. These additional trainers will help the ANA grow into a much larger force — a boost from 70,000 troops to over 200,000 troops. The additional soldiers will be deployed to southern Afghanistan, which is the stronghold of the insurgents and has seen a serious spike in violence, as well as other areas where the insurgency has made strong in-roads, mostly in the east and certain areas surrounding the strategic center of Kabul. The idea behind this “mini surge” is to make sure the insurgents do not gain anymore footholds in the populace.

The additional troops would also protect the populace from coalition air raids. So far in the conflict, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the Coalition Forces have relied heavily on air assets to make up for their low number of troops on the ground. Many times, air bombardment has led to civilian casualties, which insurgents have used as “political oxygen” to recruit family and tribal associates of the deceased.

The military surge will be accompanied by a civilian one as well. President Obama has announced that there will be an increase in civilians — agricultural specialists, engineers and lawyers among others — sent to Afghanistan to help develop the country’s economy and increase the capabilities of the Afghan government to deliver basic services to the people. The strategy also includes the appointment of an inspector-general who will oversee the implementation of these projects — something that has been a serious issue these past few years due to allegations of corruption and wasted aid money. A focus on the civilian aspect of the situation in Afghanistan cannot be underestimated. The illicit drug trade, dire economic conditions and corruption within the Afghan government are seen as crucial factors contributing to the rising insurgency in Afghanistan. There will also be a greater focus on development efforts in Pakistan, including $1.5 billion in development aid for the next five years.

Despite the potential of the Obama plan, some key challenges remain. There is a risk that “internationalizing” the efforts could have a negative impact on the new strategy. The surge of civilians in Afghanistan could undermine the Afghan government and hurt the process of developing local capacity, something that will be needed for Afghanistan’s long-term future. In the last seven years, $1.6 billion has been spent on technical assistance to help with development and other civilian efforts. This is a huge economic cost and it also shifts the focus from what is really needed — developing local institutions to deal with the challenges directly. If the new civilian surge in Afghanistan is a continuation of this process, this could have dire consequences for improving the capabilities of the Afghan government.

On the regional front, challenges also exist. First, the U.S. will offer economic aid to Pakistan for the next five years, but there is no guarantee that the country will respond sincerely. Given the past money that has been spent on Pakistan and the results that have come of it, it is important this aid have enforceable conditions. Second, the NATO alliance in Afghanistan is a “patchwork of actors” and many of them do not share the U.S. objectives.

The obstacles we face in Afghanistan are serious and ones that we cannot neglect or ignore. Many of the issues are a direct result of opportunities that were missed in the 2002-05 period when the current government was formed. Now the situation has taken a turn for the worse and those same issues that could have been dealt with easily will require more effort and commitment both from the Afghans and the international community. The road ahead is difficult but the alternative of continued instability and strife in this strategic geopolitical region is something that the international community cannot afford. Afghanistan has been abandoned before only to resurface as a much more challenging issue — this time could be no different. NNI

A brigade of ANP ministers circling TV talk shows circuits, never miss an opportunity to pin the blame for the current national crisis — unfolding in the NWFP — on the Pakistani support of Mujahideen during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.

For a moment, let’s overlook ANP’s usual rhetoric of racial victimization, its historical opposition to the creation of Pakistan and its socialist lineage, and focus on bud of its criticism; i.e. Pushtoon are paying through their blood for the Punjab hatched conspiracy of supporting the Americans against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Their rhetoric begs the question: what makes them think, Soviets didn’t had their eyes set on occupying Pakistan next?

Anyone cognizant of ANP’s habit of playing on both sides of fence (like the JUI-F) knows, had Soviets occupied Pakistan, ANP would have cried Bloody Mary over the spillage of Pushtoon blood, followed by signing a peace treaty with the Soviets; only to renounce it after a severe criticism. Then it would have blamed Ayub Khan’s government for the Soviet occupation, because Pakistan fought a war with India.

Ironically, both ANP and JUI-F who could have disrupted the Talibanization during its infancy, looked the other way and pretended everything was hunky-dory. Instead of dealing with the festering menace, both chose to concentrate on grabbing federal ministries and wasted their energies on inconsequential issues like renaming NWFP to Pushtoonkhawa. During their spare time or when Zardari asked, both bashed Punjabis. Of course, until the MQM and Sindhi Nationalists showed their true colors, Punjabis remained their punching bag.

Whether deliberately or otherwise both miserably failed to show the responsibility and leadership expected from them. Even when the monsters were knocking at their door they kept their heads buried in sand, or at best, chased federal ministries. When water ran over their heads, they ran pillar to post blaming any and everyone but themselves for their incompetence. For his part Musharraf with all of power and global support dealt with the Taliban with kids gloves.

Back to ANP’s current scapegoat; i.e. Zia-era support of Mujahideen against the angelic Soviets. Frankly, their rhetoric is plain and simple nonsense. The mistake wasn’t made when Pakistan joined CIA’s war; mistakes were made when every stakeholder disowned the Mujahideen immediately after the Soviets were defeated. Americans didn’t bother to say even goodbye, Saudis saw an opportunity to raise an unaccounted Sunni militia, Arab nations released their Jihadis into Afghan wilderness; and the Pakistanis occupied themselves with pulling legs of successive elected governments.

Instead of helping Afghanistan get back on its feet, whole world moved on to its business. Nobody bothered to rehabilitate the idly sitting army of Muslim fighters who were trained to fight guerilla warfare and nothing else. Not a single dime of financial aid was spent on social recovery projects, like building roads, hospitals or schools. Arab nations turned Afghanistan into a massive dumping ground for the banished, sort of Guantanamo prison on steroids. For example, Osama bin Laden was banished by the Saudis and Ayman al-Zawahiri was dumped in Afghanistan by the Egyptians. With no hope of returning to their native countries, the religiously charged extremists collaborated with the cash strapped locals to form their own style of government.

The dye was cast for the global terrorism. During the lost decade of 90s when Americans were basking in their sole superpower status and Pakistanis were experimenting with democracy, the forgotten religious zealists were looking for new enemies to fight. After beating the Northern-Alliance – raised and nurtured by the Indians, Iranians and Russians – the Taliban set their sights outwards to set the world straight according to their perverted vision. And rest is history.

No matter how hard we imagine: a problem sticks around till we fix it in reality too. The menace of Taliban is a manifestation of collective abandonment of people we used to fight our battles. Let the lesson be learned, never leave the battle ground without cleaning and restoring it first; or its ghosts will haunt, till the end of time. Why the architects of most productive Marshal Plan left the Afghans high and dry to fend for themselves is a trillion dollars question?

However, there is no sense in bickering over who should be blamed for the mess we created in Afghanistan. The responsibility to clean the mess falls upon whole civilized world. Sadly, there are no quick fixes to the problem. If today, we neutralize the Taliban leadership in concert with building roads, bridges, factories, electric power stations, hospitals, police stations, courts, city halls, airports, and most importantly, schools and universities, then hopefully 20 years latter, we could see the initial crop of civilized society in Afghanistan and Pakistani tribal belt.

If shifting blame could rescue the lost generation then there is no better party at the helm than the ANP. If it truly cares for the wellbeing of Pushtoon, then instead of hugging to the ministries tight and blaming whole world for their failures, it should start by bringing its leaders back to their constituencies. Then it should threaten to leave the Zardari coalition, unless the federal government guarantees unrestricted movement of the refugees throughout the Pakistan, including Karachi. Only opportunists take refuge behind racially loaded rhetoric.

Contrary to a view inspired by late Raj fiction, the British valued India as much as they held Indians in contempt. The British Empire on the subcontinent owed far more to the man who saved it around the world, the Duke of Wellington, than to Robert Clive, who has got excessive credit from history. Clive defeated a tottering, self-indulgent Nawab of Bengal; Wellington buried Scindia’s ambitions at Assaye and destroyed Tipu Sultan at Seringapatnam. They were the two most powerful Indian princes of the 19th century, perhaps the only ones who could have checked the British. Indians, said Wellington, were “the most mischievous, deceitful race of people… I have not yet met with a Hindoo who had one good quality and the Mussalmans are worse than they are”. At least he was secular in his prejudice.

When the British Raj was on its deathbed, its great champion Winston Churchill sneered that Indians would never be able to understand democracy. He thought that they would be a disaster and come running back to Mother England. I shall spare you the precise quotations; we don’t want you to get unnecessarily angry on a day when there is so much else to digest. He was not alone. In 1967, the Times of London, now the pipsqueak of a fading power rather than a thunderer of the Empire, wrote the obituary of Indian democracy. It survived.

However, there was a growing view that the 15th general election would leave behind just the kind of mess Churchill predicted.

The Indian voter has just proved once again that those who underestimate India do not understand India.

The most important result of this election is that the elimination of regional parties from national space has begun. This was the message in north, south, east and west where Congress expanded its space at the cost of both friends and foes. Chandrababu Naidu will survive to fight another election, but the votaries of Telangana have probably been marginalised out of reckoning. The Congress did better than Sharad Pawar, grew in Punjab, hammered the Left, aborted Mayawati’s national ambitions and checked Mulayam Singh Yadav. In fact, Mulayam Singh Yadav may face the humiliation of being the unwanted guest at the party for a second time, since the Congress can now afford to sniff at the support he offers. The two regional powers that triumphed, Nitish Kumar and Naveen Patnaik, won because of their individual qualities rather than because of the parties they lead. The Congress and the BJP, between them, will occupy two thirds of the seats in the next Lok Sabha. This is the real game-changer because the next general elections will be a straight contest between these two parties in most of India.

This election was a successful base camp for a much higher ascent. The true Congress summit is the achievement of a single-party majority in the Lok Sabha after the next general election. When this peak was outlined against a still bleak horizon during the Panchmarhi resolution years ago, it seemed a thrust too high, but its moment has come. Just as it did in this election, it will seek to grow at the expense of either ally or enemy. The Congress already had candidates in 14 seats in Tamil Nadu; the next time, it might contest all 39. It will pressurise Sharad Pawar to merge into the parent party or perish. Mamata Banerjee in Bengal might be more resistant, because she knows that she cannot dominate the Congress as much as she can her own party, and total power can be very alluring. But the Congress can live with a variation or two, as long as Mamata does not through self-inflicted wounds revive the Left in Bengal. In any case, there are great pickings elsewhere for the Congress.

It will of course hope to exploit the anti-incumbency factor in the BJP States in the North, particularly if the BJP goes into disarray after its second collapse from high expectations. The last time the Congress had a majority on its own was under Rajiv Gandhi.

The restoration will be in the hands of the son, Rahul Gandhi, who has earned his political legitimacy in this election. Mrs Sonia Gandhi’s role as leader of the party will ebb as the pace of transition speeds up. It is highly likely that at some point there may even be a transition in Government, with Dr Manmohan Singh making way for Rahul Gandhi. Dr Singh has already done more than anyone expected for the party, and he might prefer the comfort of retirement since he has had a serious heart attack.

Will the BJP, suffering from a second unexpected defeat, be able to resurrect its fortunes and face an aggressive Congress? Some things are apparent. It will need to choose the person who can lead the party into the next general election without much delay.

The BJP realised that development and governance were the decisive issues. But although its venerable leader L.K. Advani tried to define the party around modern needs, he was tripped by the rhetoric of those who thought that the country still wanted to hear the war cry of social conflict. The swivel moment of the campaign came when Varun Gandhi, in a flurry of immaturity, revived every toxic memory that Advani wanted the electorate to forget. He compounded the mistake by glorying in its aftermath. BJP leaders realised the danger. The Madhya Pradesh party publicly asked Varun Gandhi to remain in UP, and not bother about the neighbouring State. But the leadership merely distanced itself from the young man, when it should have disowned him.

This is the major lesson for the next leader of the party: India wants peace with prosperity because Indians realise that prosperity cannot come without peace. Narendra Modi may be a powerful and effective leader in Gujarat, but the stamp of one defect will always mar his future. He can be a successful number two at the national level, but will remain a divisive number one.

We have also just witnessed the last election of the older generation. Youth is not just arithmetic; you have to be young in your outlook, and be able to identify with the aspirations of those seeking a profitable place in the international economy, as much as the poor who feel that they are being marginalised in the domestic economy. It is difficult to span both edges of this challenge, but no one said that public life was easy.

Defeat can be a moment of transition, unless you succumb to despair.

ISLAMABAD: Dr. Syed Qandil Abbas, Professor of International Relations in International Islamic University on Saturday said that the US intervention in Pakistan internal affairs was intolerable. Talking to IRNA, he said that Pakistan is a sovereign state and fully capable to run its own affairs.

Expressing his views over the military operation in northwestern district of Swat, Syed Qandil Abbas said that there is a very complex situation in swat, the government had tried all peaceful methods to restore peace in the troubled area, however, the situation instead of improving started worsening.

He opined that military operation was carried out as a last option though it had displaced the people of the area. He was of the view that what actually US is doing in Pakistan is just to keep the government under pressure and wants to convey a message to the other countries of the region such as Iran and China that it can intervene in the internal affairs of any country to establish its unilateral system.

Commenting on the drone attacks led by US on Pakistani soil Qandil Abbas said that these attacks are against the sovereignty of Pakistan. He said the government of Pakistan has been opposing these attacks and the public opinion has also turned against them.

“These attacks have increased the anti American sentiments among the Pakistani people” he said. Syed Qandil Abbas, viewed that Iranian Islamic Revolution is a source of inspiration for Muslim Ummah and has triggered many Islamic movements around the world.

He said that the spread of Islam is unacceptable for the US and that is why it is trying to portray a dark image of Islam. “If you see closely you will come to know that US has been following only one agenda in Iraq, Iran, Palestine and Pakistan, they only want to establish unilateral system in the world”, added Syed Qandil Abbas. “However in my opinion US is not successful in accomplishing its designs and is in a difficult situation”, he opined. NNI

The siege will last in order to convince us that we must choose an enslavement that does no harm in fullest liberty.

(Late Palestinian poet Mahmoud Darwish)

As Palestinians mark Nakba, the catastrophe, signifying the 61st anniversary of occupation of Palestine by the Jewish state of Israel, a question needs to be asked: Is 61 years of Palestinian suffering akin to the holocaust suffered by Jews? In the above question lies the irony of Israel; a nation carved out by the oppressed has become a nation of oppressors.

Theodore Herzel, a journalist, is the father of modern Zionism who toured the world extensively to propagate the idea of a nation for Jews. He worked hard in a mission to explore the possibility of establishing a state for Jews in Palestine. He promoted Zionism through his writings on the international stage. In June 1896, he met the Abdul Hamed II, 34th Sultan of Ottoman Empire in Istanbul, to convince him that Palestine should be handed over to Zionists. But Sultan refused to cede Palestine to Zionists and said, “If one day the Islamic State falls apart then you can have Palestine for free, but as long as I am alive I would rather have my flesh be cut up than cut out Palestine from the Muslim land.”

In 1898, after meeting with German Kaiser Wilham II, Herzel wrote about Palestine, “a perfect beautiful woman, fulfill all our requirements but married.”

The words of Abdul Hamid II came true when Ottoman Empire crumbled in 1918, nine years after his death. Abdul Hamid was the last Ottoman Sultan to rule with absolute power. Sykes-Picot agreement of 1916 is seen by many historians as a turning point in Western Arab relations. According to one of the terms of the agreement, Arabs were promised a “national homeland” through T.E. Lawrence for their support to the British forces against the Ottoman army. British never kept their word. In fact, they negated this promise by issuing Balfour Declaration in 1917 promising “a national home for the Jewish people.” The declaration read, “His Majesty’s government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.”

The Arabs and Christians of Palestine together disapproved of any such move arguing that it could have serious political consequences.

The seed of Israel as planted by Theodore Herzel was watered by fervent Zionist Winston Churcill, who went on to become Prime Minister of United Kingdom in 1940. The seed took shape of a full-fledged tree on November 29, 1948 when United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution to partition Palestine into Arab and Jewish territories. Out of 56 members, 33 voted in favour, 13 against and 10 chose to abstain.

Thus was born the Jewish state of Israel in 1948; 44 years after the death of Theodore Herzel.

The tide of history turned against the Arabs and Muslims once again but Muslims all across the world should not be disheartened. Islamic concept of power can be summed up in three words: rise, fall and renewal. Muslims all across the world are undergoing the second phase of Islamic concept of power. Muslims have ruled Palestine from 630 CE to 1918 with a brief Christian rule lasting only 88 years (1099 to 1187).

With the creation of Israel in 1948, 7 lakh Palestinians became refugees. Dispossessed Palestinians were substituted with Jews who come from different parts of the world carrying knives, guns and explosives against the civilian population. A religious propaganda and allegations based on the myth and the falsification of history and heritage, to form that particular ideological falsehoods peddled by the Zionists provide energy to achieve the necessary human colonial project on the land of Palestine.

In the last 61 years Palestine-Israel conflict, Jewish state has annexed thousands of acres of cultivable land and now it almost holds 78% of Palestine.

It is in this context that Nakba must been seen. Commemorating the anniversary of Nakba, is not merely an occasion to remember those who experienced bleeding, homelessness and fear, killed, burned and jailed throughout the sixty one years, but to raise the voices of millions who refuse to accept the basis on which Israel was created as a state. It is a rejection of the project called a “Jewish state “and a determination for the right of return of the Palestinian people to their homeland.

The tragedy which started with the expulsion of 7 lakh Palestinians now affects the plight of at least 10.5 million Palestinians all across the globe. It is a catastrophe, the largest and the most heinous crime committed against a nation. It is against right and reason, human rights and freedom of people.

When Arabs took the initiative of peace in 2002 Arab Summit in Beirut, they demanded that Israel must go back to June 1967 line of control. There must be an establishment of a Palestinian state with Jerusalem at its capital and right of return of Palestinian refugees as per United Nations Security Council resolution 194. All of this was rejected by Israel.

What more, all these years Israel has secretly continued “Judaization” of Al-Quds (Jerusalem). It is not only Palestinians Muslims who have no access to religious sites but also Palestinians Christians are not allowed to visit their holy shrines.

Everybody knows the role United States has played in Israel-Palestine conflict. Will there be a tilt in President Obama’s administration? Going by the recent news item, one thinks Obama is surely going to change US policy although it may not amount to radical change. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s first planned meeting with President Obama has been called off. Netanyahu was keen to capitalize on his attendance at the annual American Israel Public Affairs Committee conference in Washington to visit the White House but officials have ruled out any meeting because President will not be “in town.” Experts speculate that Obama would not like to continue the Bush legacy of hosting Israeli prime ministers sometimes with just a phone call’s notice!

Jews have always enjoyed special favour under Muslim rule. When Umar, second caliph of Islam entered Jerusalem on foot, he did an agreement stipulating the rights and obligations of all non-Muslims in the holy land of Palestine. Jews were permitted to return to Palestine for the first time since the 500-year ban enacted by the Romans and maintained by Byzantine rulers. The same tradition was followed by was followed by Harun al-Rashid (786-809) who established the Christian Pilgrims’ Inn in Jerusalem, fulfilling Umar’s pledge to Bishop Sophronious to allow freedom of religion and access to Jerusalem for Christian pilgrims.

Jews have forgotten the humane angle of the Muslim rule. How can a people who have witnessed holocaust in the hands of Adolf Hitler tolerate the same kind of madness being leashed by their own government on hapless Palestinians?

TEHRAN: The Chief Minister of Pakistani state of Punjab, Shahbaz Sharif, said in northeastern Razavi Khorassan Province that Pakistan wants stronger cooperation with Iran in the economic and trade sectors, the industry and energy fields in particular. “We are in dire need of Iran’s energy,” Sharif told reporters at the end of his tour of Razavi Khorassan Province.

Sharif said Iran and Pakistan enjoy great potential for expansion of mutual cooperation. He then touched on economic conditions in his country, saying extremism and economy are the main challenges facing the country. NNI

ISLAMABAD: The House of Representatives passed the 2009 Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Pandemic Flu, according to a message received here Friday. There is $1.9 billion for Pakistan, which is $591 million above the Administration request, the message said. There is $597 million for economic assistance including agriculture, food security, displaced persons national and provincial governance, rule of law, and improved access to quality of education, it explained.

This economic package is $100 million above the Administration’s request. There is another amount of $400 million in the Pakistan package for the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Capability Fund which will be available on September 30th, 2009. NNI

BEIJING: Foreign Secretary Salman Bashir visited Beijing for the third round of Pakistan-China Strategic Dialogue held on 12-14 May 2009. The Foreign Secretary has had extensive interaction with the Chinese side, including separate meetings with State Councillor, Foreign Minister, Vice Foreign Minister and Assistant Foreign Ministers. The entire spectrum of bilateral relations was reviewed and views were exchanged on all regional and international issues of common interest.

The Foreign Secretary conveyed the cordial greetings of Pakistani leaders to the Chinese leadership as well as special message from Prime Minister Syed Yousaf Raza Gilani for Premier Wen Jiabao. The Chinese side noted that President Zardari’s three visits to China within a short span of time since taking office were testament to Pakistan’s strong commitment to the advancement of Pakistan-China relations.

During the Strategic Dialogue, both sides emphasized the deep-rooted and abiding nature of the Pakistan-China relationship serving the fundamental interests of the two peoples and the cause of peace and stability in the region and beyond. It was stressed that the security and stability of Pakistan and China was intertwined and indivisible.

China affirmed strong support for Pakistan’s efforts to advance its core national objectives of security and economic development. China expressed full confidence in the national efforts of the leadership, state institutions, and people of Pakistan to address and overcome the challenges of militancy, terrorism and extremism. In the context of defeating the forces inimical to Pakistan’s security and social stability, China conveyed the commitment to further reinforce its political, moral and material support to Pakistan. China expressed full support for Pakistan’s efforts to safeguard its sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity of Pakistan.

The two sides agreed to deepen and broaden the Pakistan-China Strategic Partnership in all aspects. They decided to undertake comprehensive and coordinated efforts to promote region-wide peace, security and stability and reiterated their determination to optimally utilize complementarities for the realization of the vision of common development and shared prosperity. They noted with satisfaction the growth in bilateral trade and economic cooperation through mega projects and agreed to identify pragmatic ways to intensify these bonds. China conveyed renewed assurances of continued support to the process of economic development of Pakistan.

The Foreign Secretary conveyed deep appreciation for China’s prompt action in extending emergency relief assistance to Pakistan to meet the needs of the internally displaced people. As part of the Strategic Dialogue, the two sides also covered a broad range of regional and international issues including situation in Afghanistan, South Asia, global financial crisis, disarmament, cooperation in international fora, and the UN.

It was agreed to further pursue the process of close consultations and cooperation on all areas of common interest at the regional and global planes. The Foreign Secretary also met with Chairman of Board of the China Development Bank Mr. Chen Yuan. He also had interface with the Chinese think-tank community and met separately with the members of the China Institute of International Strategic Studies (CIISS) and the China People’s Institute of International Affairs (CPIFA).

The Foreign Secretary’s delegation included Vice Chief of General Staff Major General Waheed Arshad and senior security representatives, officials from the bilateral and multilateral Divisions of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and members of the Pakistan Embassy in Beijing. NNI

WASHINGTON: The US military for the first time has provided Pakistan with a broad array of surveillance information collected by US drones flying along the border of Pakistan and Afghanistan, US military officials said yesterday. But it is not clear whether the cooperation will continue. US military drones flew a handful of noncombat surveillance missions along the border earlier this spring at the request of the Pakistani government, but requests for additional flights stopped abruptly without explanation, the officials were quoted as saying by the New York Times.

The offer to give Pakistan a much larger amount of imagery, including real-time video feeds and communications intercepts gleaned by remotely piloted aircraft, was intended to help defuse a growing dispute over how to use the drones and which country should control the secret missions flown in Pakistani airspace, US officials said.

In meetings last week with President Obama and other US officials in Washington, President Asif Ali Zardari of Pakistan repeated his insistence that his country be given its own armed Predator drones to attack operatives of Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Pakistan’s tribal areas along the Afghan border. But the US intelligence operatives who fly the armed drones inside Pakistan remain opposed to joint operations with Pakistani intelligence services, saying that past attempts were a failure. Several years ago, US officials gave Pakistan advance word of planned Predator attacks, but stopped the practice after the information was leaked to militants.

“We’re going after terrorists plotting directly against the United States and its interests,” said one US counter-terrorism official. “Nobody wants to gamble with those kinds of targets. We tried a joint approach before, and it didn’t work. Those are facts that can’t be ignored.”

US military officials said yesterday that there was no plan to allow the military to join the CIA in operating armed drones inside Pakistan. They disputed a report in The Los Angeles Times on Tuesday that said Pakistan had been given joint control of armed US military drones inside Pakistan. Obama administration officials are vigorously resisting sharing the drone technology with Pakistani security forces, but officials from both countries said compromises were possible.

US and some Pakistani officials spoke anonymously because the CIA drone operations are classified.

Pakistani officials said Zardari wanted the drone technology partly to tamp down anger inside Pakistan over the campaign of CIA air strikes inside the country, which have killed civilians in addition to more than a dozen Qaeda leaders. If Pakistan had its own Predators, they said, the government in Islamabad could make a more plausible case to the public that Pakistani missiles, not US missiles, were being used to kill militants.

Meanwhile the Los Angeles Times has reported that the U.S. military has flown drones into Pakistan at least a dozen times in recent weeks in cooperation with the Pakistanis as part of a new program, U.S. officials acknowledged Wednesday.

The military conducted test flights in March to demonstrate intelligence gathering capabilities to the Pakistanis. Those were followed by Pakistani requests for additional Predator flights to collect intelligence on suspected militants, said an official from U.S. Central Command, which oversees forces in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The program’s existence was first reported Wednesday by The Times. Officials have told The Times that it represented an effort to have U.S. and Pakistani military officers work together on drones and to persuade Pakistan to fire the drones’ missiles at militant positions.

In response, the Central Command official and other military officers said Wednesday that a formal U.S. proposal for the joint effort did not include the use of armed strikes on suspected militant positions.

“This program is designed to provide an intelligence capability, not a weapons capability,” said the Central Command official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of Pakistani sensitivities about the program.

The government in Islamabad is ambivalent about the program, and strikes by the CIA’s separate fleet of unmanned aircraft have been deeply unpopular with the Pakistani public. The Pakistanis have not requested use of the drones since mid-April, the Central Command official said. The military’s Predator and Reaper drones are always armed with missiles.

Some of the flights over Pakistan involved drones that crossed over the border after armed missions in Afghanistan. Some U.S. military officials have expressed frustration at Islamabad’s reluctance to use the drones offensively. “This is an enhancement that will help you save your soldiers, your people,” one senior officer said he told the Pakistanis. “You will be more credible, you will be more effective.”-ONLINE