Comments on: The “sound and fury” of U.S.-Pakistan ties Perspectives on Pakistan Thu, 01 Oct 2015 19:31:05 +0000 hourly 1 By: prasadgc Mon, 21 Mar 2011 20:35:43 +0000 I guess you’re right. When other countries are hypocritical in adopting UN resolutions selectively, I guess abstaining was the right thing for India to do.

Ganesh Prasad

By: netizen Mon, 21 Mar 2011 18:02:30 +0000 We should not take Western Buzzwords like “democracy”, ”freedom”, ”liberty”, etc too seriously :-)

These are just Buzzwords to push their agenda.

If this weren’t the case the USA would not be subsidizing and propping up the Rogue Terrorist Entity in the neighbhourhood of the largest democracy in the world. For its first 50 years, USA did (just about) every thing to undermine India. Once India started standing up we became “natural allies”.

UN actions are never or very rarely based on principles. Mostly if a dictator has the balls to stand up to the West he is doomed. Dictators that are in the pocket books of the West are protected. Also if you isolate yourself completely, you lose the protection of Russian and Chinese veto power also.

India abstained from the vote, which is the right thing to do. India should not have any grandiose delusions; we are in no position to do international grand standing. Unfortunately the world is not an ideal utopia.

Taking care of security, ensuring economic progress and striking alliances, and trying to work with every one should be India’s practical goals.

By: pakistan Mon, 21 Mar 2011 15:46:06 +0000 Let us imagine fo a minute that India had supported the anglo french and coptic resolution calling for military action against a North African county, what would have been the consequences for the Indian citizens in the middle east? India has demonstrated maturity and a good judgement to vote with China, Russia, Brazil and Germany to abstain. For the first time I salute the Indian Govt. headed by Dr Manmohan Singh.He has placed his cuntry in a different class now and managed to avoid the Napolien advance(called by the semi official German media) in a country which is notorious for terrorists attack in Europe. Gadafi had no friends left after the anglo saxons and the American actors got him to give up nuclear weapons program, which was rendered to him against a heavy payment by the Pakistan Bhutto Govt. Gen Kyani should take note, Sauds have woken up as well!!

It is a game of pokerwhich is always won by the westerns. The arabian diplomacy is unworkable in this game. Chna received its first lesson in diplomacy:

Rex Minor

By: DaraIndia Mon, 21 Mar 2011 08:42:06 +0000 Ganesh Prasad “For what it’s worth, I’m ashamed of India’s cop-out at the UN. I hope India will gain the confidence to vote on principle as the country gets stronger.”

Though I am not greatly enamoured of India’s ‘brilliance’ in foreign policy, I think abstaining was the right thing at the UN vote. None of the others who voted or abstained did so on any great principle but simply in their own national interests. The hypocrisy of the West that opted for use of force is, as you have explained. already exposed. Why do they support public dissent in Libya but oppose it, albeit surreptitiously, in Bahrain? I think I would have respected these countries if they had been consistent. Thereore, I wonder why you consider it a cop-out?

India, which has no love for Gaddafi, has at least maintained a consistent stand – that the wishes of the people are pre-eminent whether it is Egypt, Bahrain or Libya. To me that is a more mature attitude than once again going into another country uninvited and uncalled, all guns blazing and then leaving enough mess around for the rest to clear. Some people never learn. One reason, as per me, that there was relatively less blood shed in Egypt was because outside players did the right thing. Exerted moral and diplomatic pressure but did not provide military force or support to either side.

Unfortunately, the UN is nothing but clay in the hands of the veto bearing countries. Why India wishes to join that club is something I find hard to understand.

By: KPSingh01 Sun, 20 Mar 2011 16:22:34 +0000 Ganesh: “All in all, the events of the last few months have not exactly seen Western news agencies cover themselves in glory. The “third world” media now have a chance to step up and show them what journalistic standards are all about.”

Media in general is biased. What one reads is someone’s personal perspective of an event. Competition drives the media companies in sensationalizing the news to pander to the likes and dislikes of the majority readers. If Hindu or Dawn wrote an honest article about their respective nation’s problem on a consistent basis (in order to appear neutral), they would stand to lose reader loyalty. Readers and views want to see what they like to see – their perspectives. Therefore every media company invariably becomes biased. As an Indian, I like Nadeem Paracha’s articles while I dislike Javed Naqvi’s due to my own inherent bias. I am sure a Pakistani might dislike Pervez Hoodbhoy while appreciating Arundhati Roy due to his perspectives. Commercial system relies on market forces which need to play according to popular sentiments. American news media plays to its audience. So does Al Jazeera. During the cold war era, articles and news about India in the Western media was mostly negative, while Pakistan and China were propped up. Now the whole thing is reversed. There is no effort in providing public with the truth and allowing them to make the judgement. So readers have to sift through news from different newspapers and TV channels to make their own conclusions. It is the reality.

By: prasadgc Sun, 20 Mar 2011 02:01:31 +0000 From the perspective of the US and other Western countries, there seem to be “good revolutions” and “bad revolutions” in the Middle East.

Revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt were “good” by definition because they’ve now succeeded and the people have won. No point debating a fait accompli – might as well side with the victors (“We were with you all along”), never mind the noises the US made in favour of “stability” before Mubarak fell.

Revolution in Libya is “good” because Gaddafi was never a Western puppet.

But revolutions in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar and Oman are “bad” because they threaten “stability” (in other words, “Don’t let your revolution get in the way of our oil”). Hence the crushing of the Bahraini protests by Saudi tanks (with US blessing). All these countries are US allies, and the ruling autocracies cannot be touched, the people’s rights be damned.

And I take back what I said about Al Jazeera being a highly professional journalistic outfit. Their very different coverage of Libya and Bahrain betrays their bias. I guess when the Qatari ruling family is threatened, any news agency based out of Qatar has to toe the line.

Paradoxically, these events make Pakistan look more and more like a shining democracy. I’ve already expressed my admiration for the professionalism and balance of Dawn. I have seen numerous news sites criticise even the army and the ISI, which means that there are lots of courageous people out there. I guess if they can drop their fascination for conspiracy theories, the Pakistani media can be an example to the so-called “free world”.

All in all, the events of the last few months have not exactly seen Western news agencies cover themselves in glory. The “third world” media now have a chance to step up and show them what journalistic standards are all about.

Ganesh Prasad

By: prasadgc Sun, 20 Mar 2011 00:40:23 +0000 Matrixx said:

> What is India’s position on Libyan intervention? By the way she voted with China.

For what it’s worth, I’m ashamed of India’s cop-out at the UN. I hope India will gain the confidence to vote on principle as the country gets stronger. For that to happen, the middle class should become more influential and ensure that the values of decency and fair play are expressed vocally enough to influence public policy.

Ganesh Prasad

By: netizen Sun, 20 Mar 2011 00:39:20 +0000 Pakistan can refuse to take US aid any time. Why is she not doing it? Despite her courting of China, her living expenses are being paid by the USA. Not by China.

By: Mortal1 Sat, 19 Mar 2011 20:54:04 +0000 “Also, the only reason why Pakistan may seem to challenge US at times, is probably due to a solid partnership with China. Pakistan has some sort of warranty coverage in case we loose US as an ally.” Posted by Umairpk

It would be a big mistake to expect China to step in for the US, in case US turns hostile towards Pakistan. Historically, China has propped up economically weak authoritative & military regimes like North Korea, Burma, Zimbabwe, Vietnam, Sudan etc., so that it can exploit them & sell them it’s obsolete weaponry & that’s probably the way it views Pakistan as well. So, while the US & allies can easily revive pakistan’s economy by investing in many of your industries & opening up their markets for pakistani products, China won’t do any such thing since it is interested in selling to Pakistan & not buying from it (case in point, being Pakistan’s $10 bn trade deficit with China & $14 bn surplus with US & allies). Also, China’s strategic partnership with Pakistan, is primarily based on the principle of ‘my enemy’s enemy is my friend’. As trade between China & India grows (expected to touch $100 bn within 2 years) & relations between the two get better, the strategic relationship between China & Pakistan will become increasingly irrelevant & burdensome for China.

By: KPSingh01 Sat, 19 Mar 2011 20:46:22 +0000 Matrixx: “I simply dislike Quadafi but I don’t know the other side at all. Why should anybody support unknowns and in fact they may turn out to be as bad as Quadafi?”

Why do you dislike Gaddafi? There have been many dictators like him – Saddam Hussein, King of Jordan, Tunisian President, Hosni Mubarak, Robert Mugabe, Ayub Khan, Zia Ul Haq, Zia Ur Rehman, Ershad, Pinochet, Saudi Royal family and so on. Why special dislike for Gaddafi and not for others? China is a dictatorship system too – it is an autarchy where a group controls everything. Burma is in the same boat.

The world has to advance. People should not be trapped by self serving dictatorships. The reason why such dictatorships survived because of two things- geo-politics and access to natural resources and sometimes both. Global powers encouraged these dictatorships to get at other powers and needed the resources at the same time. Dictators sitting on top of resources helped provide a stability that they desired for their own needs.

“No real revolution requires outside support.”

Not necessarily. Revolution is not simply protesting on the streets asking for change. Revolution is something that radically changes things and sweeps across cultures. The Hippie phenomenon that swept across the world is a revolution, for example – people fashioned themselves like the people who stared it – bell bottoms, long hairs, high heels and disco music filled with pot, hashish, free fall and so on. Then that died out. Industrial revolution is called as such for the same reason. It changed things forever. The internet revolution is a recent phenomenon as well. Twitter and Google have been the underlying forces that have helped the youth in the Middle East to run the protests without any centralized leadership. This has never happened before. Dictators are clueless as to how to control this new phenomenon. China is looking very worried now.

What we see in the Arab world is not strictly a revolution in the real sense. To wriggle out of dictatorships by protests have happened many times in history. Sometimes such protests have had the need for outside help.

BTW, you are negating the logic used by Pakistan if outside help is not needed for a revolution. Isn’t Kashmir in a situation where you Pakistanis have been compelled to get involved and interfere? Without Pakistan’s help, do you think Kashmir unrest would have come this far? If interfering in Libya is wrong, why is interfering in Kashmir right? I need an honest reason.

“Tell me if you know more about these people.”

Libya was not a single entity before. It had several sections stitched from the Italian and French colonial segments. It is made up of more than 40 tribes. These tribes go by loyalty and balancing each other out. The colonial powers managed to control the region by exploiting the tribal conflicts and rivalry. Gadaffi belongs to a tribe that took dominance. He wanted to curtail the dominance of the tribes on the Eastern part of Libya. He structured his military by filling in his tribesmen in key positions. The region around Tripoli is dominated by his tribesmen. He wanted to break down the tribal system so that he could live with absolute power. His military does have tribal proportions mixed in. Protests came in more from tribal roots rather than any democratic urge. The tribes around the East part of Libya have been dominant before Gadaffi came to power. So they have simply wriggled out of his control. Those who defected from the military also belong to those tribes that hate Gadaffi’s tribe. Now they are almost independent of Tripoli’s control.
Libya’s case is vastly different from that of Tunisia or Egypt even though they all seem to appear similar. It is just that the events in Tunisia and Egypt ended up giving some hope to the tribes that were wanting to escape from Gadaffi’s control. So the events there will take a very different shape compared to the other Arab countries.

“What is India’s position on Libyan intervention? By the way she voted with China.”

India has not been a supporter of Gadaffi all along. His support for terrorism and efforts to build nukes with Pakistan’s help have not been forgotten. So if he is at the receiving end, India has to do nothing. There are thousands of Indians working in Libay’s oil refineries. India decided to stay out of security council voting because it has no say in this matter whatsoever. What mattered was the veto power of Russia and China.

Remember Darfur, any update on that.