حزب مردم بلوچستان Balochistan People’s Party بلوچستانءِ اُستمانءِ گــَل
By Peter Tatchell ; 26-10-2007
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/peter_tatchell/2007/10/irans_antiarab_racism.html
Iran treats its Arab minority as second-class citizens. Now it is planning to hang six of them after rigged trials held in secret.
President Bush justifies his imposition of sanctions against Iran on the grounds that Tehran supports the insurgency in Iraq and is seeking nuclear weapons. Not a word from Washington about the way the Iranian regime is abusing the human rights of its own people. Bush doesn't care about their fate. In this sense, he mirrors the Iranian state.
The charge sheet against Tehran includes the probably true allegation that it is supplying Iraqi insurgents with weapons that are being used to kill US soldiers. But it doesn't include any mention of Tehran's murder of its own citizens. Surprise. Surprise.
US policy on Iran is dictated primarily by selfish geo-political interests. Concern about terrorism and nuclear weapons is, in part, a populist cover. It disguises a secret neo-imperial agenda. Washington's real goal is to extend its sphere of influence, remove a non-compliant regime and guarantee its access to already diminishing global oil supplies (of which Iran holds about 10% of the world's known reserves).
The latest human rights abuses by Tehran are the secret, rigged trials and the imminent execution of six more ethnic Arab Iranians (Ahwazi Arabs) in Ahwaz, the provincial capital of Khuzestan in south-western Iran - homeland to five million Arabs.
The news of their impending executions has been smuggled out of Iran by the men's families and is corroborated the Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), Amnesty International, the Human Rights & Democracy Activists group and by the inadvertent admissions of Khuzestan's prosecutor, Musa Pirbani.
The planned executions are the latest in a series of executions of ethnic Arabs by the racist Iranian state. The most recent hangings occurred on 10 September, when three Ahwazi Arab political prisoners were executed. They were put to death just days after the visit to Iran by Louise Arbour, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, in what appeared to be a calculated defiance of the UN's expressed concern regarding the oppression of Ahwazi Arabs.
The six men currently awaiting execution in Karoon prison, in Ahwaz city, have been moved to a special "death cell" which is reserved for prisoners scheduled for imminent execution.
Their names are: Rasoul Ali Mazrea (65), a UNHCR-registered refugee; Ahmad Marmazi (35), a resident of Ma'shur, father of two children; Hamzah Sawari, 20 years old; Zamel Bawi (son of the Ahwazi Arab tribal leader Hajj Salem Bawi); Abdulemam Zaeri and Nazem Boryhi.
Rasoul Mazrea, along with four other Ahwazi Arabs, was illegally deported by the Syrian government to Iran in May 2006. He is a mandate-holding, UNHCR-recognised political refugee. As a UN-protected person at risk of persecution in Iran, his forced deportation to Tehran was unlawful under international law.
The charges against the six death row inmates include hoisting the Ahwazi Arab flag, naming their children by Sunni names, converting from Shi'ism to Sunnism, and being "Mohareb" or enemies of god, which carries a death sentence. Other charges are "destabilising the country", "attempting to overthrow the government", "possession of improvised explosives", "sabotage of oil installations" and being a "threat to national security."
Last year, Emadeddin Baghi, a leading Iranian human rights activist, in a letter to the chief of the judiciary, Ayatollah Hashemi Shahroudi, argued that the conduct of the trials of Ahwazi Arabs were flawed, the main charges baseless, that no adequate evidence of their guilt had been presented, and that even if they were guilty of the charges laid against them, the charges did not warrant a death sentence under Iranian law.
For defending Arabs, according to the letter of the law, Baghi has himself now been arrested on charges of revealing "state secrets".
These "secrets" include the fact that Baghi has named a man who has provided evidence that has been used against Arabs in 39 different trials. The defendants have claimed that he encouraged them to engage in a bombing campaign. The implication is that he was a police spy and agent provocateur, designated to entrap targeted Arab nationalists so they could be tried and executed. Even though this person's evidence involves admissions that he offered to provide explosives, he has never been prosecuted.
Baghi also committed the unpardonable "crime" of arguing that the Arabs previously executed were never actually directly involved in any bomb attacks but merely talked about violent insurrection or may have had some potential bomb components in their houses. He stressed that even if these allegations were true, these are not offences that carry a death sentence under the Iranian penal code.
These are, apparently, the "state secrets" that Baghi is accused of revealing.
Baghi is a highly respected former newspaper editor. He comes from a family of religious clerics and is a supporter of the Islamic system in Iran, albeit one who advocates democratic reform.
He dared to challenge the regime when it broke its own laws and when it perpetrated injustices against Ahwazi Arabs. His punishment? Summary indefinite detention. The treatment of Baghi shows that the regime acts in contravention of it own aws.
Emadeddin Baghi is not the only person to highlight the victimisation of Ahwazi Arabs and to speak out against their execution. Others have condemned the trials as unfair and appealed for a halt to further executions, including the presidency of the European Council, the UN General Assembly, 48 British MPs, the EU Parliament, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch.
This new wave of executions is the latest in a series of cruel, barbaric, slow-strangulation hangings, designed to intimidate and terrorise the indigenous Ahwazi Arab population into submission.
On 10 January 2007, independent experts appointed by the United Nations Human Rights Council, Philip Alston, the special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, Leandro Despouy, the special rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, and Manfred Nowak, the special rapporteur on torture, issued a joint statement urging the Iranian government to "stop the imminent execution of seven men belonging to the Ahwazi Arab minority and grant them a fair and public hearing".
Despite their plea, on 14 February 2007, Ghasem Salami (41), married with six children, and Majad Albughbish (30), single, were executed in Ahwaz by public hanging. A day later, Risan Sawari, a 32-year-old Ahwazi-Arab teacher, was killed under torture in Karoon prison.
This is in addition to four executions on 24 January 2007 (Mohammad Chaabpour, Abdolamir Farjolah Chaab, Alireza Asakereh and Khalaf Khanafereh); and three previous executions on 19 December 2006 (Malek Banitamim, Abdullah Solaimani and Ali Matorizadeh).
This brings the number of executions of Ahwazi Arab political and human rights activists in the past nine months to at least 13.
The executions are taking place in the context of a brutal clamp-down on Ahwazi Arabs who dare to protest against racism and ethnic persecution. Although the Ahwazi Arab homeland in Iran's Khuzestan province is one of the most oil-rich regions in the world and produces around 90% of Iran's oil production, the local population endures near-African levels of poverty, malnutrition, slum housing, unemployment and illiteracy. Arabs are subjected to political repression, racial discrimination, land confiscation, forced displacement and compulsory assimilation. Their peaceful protests, trade unions, newspapers and political parties have been banned. The Persian majority treat the Ahwazi Arabs as second class citizens, as little more than chattels.
Tehran's neo-colonial and racist policies towards its Arab minority are well documented in a recent human rights report. These anti-Arab policies are tantamount to ethnic cleansing. You can also watch my TV interview with Karim Abdian, executive director of the Ahwaz Human Rights Organisation, where he reveals the barbaric ill-treatment of Ahwazi Arabs by the Persian supremacists in Tehran.
I am part of a new campaign group, Hands Off the People of Iran (HOPI), which opposes both a US war on Iran and the tyranny of the Iranian regime. My motto is: "Neither Washington nor Tehran!"
I recently interviewed Mark Fischer of HOPI and Yassamine Mather of Workers Left Unity Iran. You can watch the interview here. They expose Tehran's generalised assault on the human rights of women, students, workers, gays and minority nationalities - not just the Arab minority, but also the Kurds and Baluchs.
A war against Iran would be another disastrous neo-imperial adventure, which would strengthen the Tehran dictatorship. President Ahmadinejad would play the patriot and manipulate nationalism to rally the population behind him. He would use a US military attack as an excuse to further crack down on dissent in the name of safeguarding national security.
The overthrow of the theocratic police state by the Iranian people - not by US military intervention - is the best way to resolve the nuclear crisis and prevent a needless, unjustified war. With no dictatorship in Tehran, President Bush and the neocons would lose the rationale for a military strike against Iran.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carte blanche | Balochistan, forgotten
indeed!
By Mehmal Sarfraz ;
http://thepost.com.pk/OpinionNews.aspx?dtlid=126617&catid=11
Pakistan
today is on the verge of a civil war. As explained in this space last week,
Pakistan’s U-turn on its Afghan policy has resulted in a catastrophe. The
demons of extremism, unleashed by Pakistan itself, have come to haunt us
today in the form of local Taliban. The Northern Areas and NWFP remain in
focus these days due to the increased militancy. But while all this is going
on, we must not forget another province that is also on fire – Balochistan.
The International Crisis Group (ICG) recently released its report,
‘Pakistan: The Forgotten Conflict in Balochistan’, which once again
highlighted how the Musharraf government tried to tackle a political problem
with military might. This inevitably resulted in an armed resistance by the
Baloch people. The government might label the insurgency as ‘anti-state’,
but it is far from that. The insurgency is the result of the Centre’s faulty
policies from the day Pakistan emerged on the world map.
“Within 24 hours of the creation of Pakistan in 1947, the Khan of Kalat (the
largest ‘princely state’ in Balochistan) declared independence. On April 1,
1948, the Pakistani army invaded and the Khan capitulated. His brother,
Karim, continued to resist with around 700 guerrillas but was soon crushed.
Islamabad merged the four provinces of West Pakistan into ‘One Unit’ in
1954. This was a bid to counter the strength of East Pakistan (which later
became Bangladesh) and the possibility of the minority provinces (Balochistan,
NWFP, Sindh) uniting with the east against Punjab. A large anti-One Unit
movement emerged in Balochistan. To crush this movement the Pakistan Army
again invaded. The Khan of Kalat was arrested and large-scale arrests were
carried out” (Fulcher, Ray, ‘Balochistan’s history of insurgency’, Green
Left Weekly issue number, 693, December 6, 2006).
After the fall of Dacca in 1971, the morale of the whole country had hit
rock-bottom. There were chances that the leftover Pakistan might not be able
to sustain this blow and the restive nationalist forces within the west wing
(which is now ‘Pakistan’) might try to get independence as well. Zulfikar
Ali Bhutto formed his government at the Centre around that time. Being the
first civilian to become both the President of Pakistan as well as the Chief
Martial Law Administrator, Bhutto then embarked on a mission to bring about
national reconciliation. It was in this context that Bhutto got the
nationalists on board. Since Bhutto’s Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) was not
able to win any seat in Balochistan, he let the National Awami Party (NAP)
form the first government in Balochistan, in alliance with the Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam
(JUI), a Pashtun-majority party. Ataullah Mengal became the chief minister
while Mir Ghaus Bakhsh Bizenjo became Balochistan’s governor. The 1973
Constitution was passed with the help of the Baloch leadership. It was
thought that though insufficient, the new Constitution would be able to
provide a semblance of provincial autonomy to the provinces. But this was
not to be. Bhutto still viewed the Baloch and Pashtuns as ‘anti-state’, but
had only made a tactical move of forming a government of nationalists in
Balochistan to give himself some credibility before going to the Simla
Summit in 1972. As soon as his purpose was served, provocation after
provocation was initiated in Balochistan. This perturbed the Baloch
nationalists. When they protested, Bhutto dissolved the NAP government. A
military operation was then launched in Balochistan.
The Baloch resistance movement turned out to be quite formidable and gave a
bloody nose to the military. But due to lack of logistics and other such
factors, the movement ended after a few years. When General Ziaul Haq
assumed power, he tried to pacify things with the Baloch, but even then the
central government did not give much leeway to the provinces. Despite being
a resource-rich region (oil, gas, coal, gold, copper, silver, platinum,
aluminium and uranium, apart from many untapped energy reserves),
Balochistan, the largest province of Pakistan, has largely remained
underdeveloped. The province gets only a small percentage out of the budget
because it has the lowest population, thus it is neglected by the federal
government. This is one of the major reasons for Balochistan’s antagonism
against the Centre. Provincial autonomy is the other major bone of
contention between the Centre and Balochistan. The uneven distribution of
power favours “the federation at the cost of the federal units” (‘Pakistan:
The worsening conflict in Balochistan’, Asia Report N°119 – 14 September
2006, International Crisis Group). Since Pakistan has a Punjabi-dominated
military and government, its other three provinces feel marginalised.
Balochistan suffers the most.
General Musharraf has proved to be yet another authoritarian ruler like his
predecessors. His policies vis-à-vis Balochistan have been even more
draconian than those of the past rulers. A military operation was started in
Balochistan in 2005 during the Musharraf regime. Nawab Akbar Bugti, an
establishment man throughout his life, was killed by the Musharraf regime in
2006, presenting him as a nationalist even though he was not part of the
Baloch nationalist movement. The insurgency gained momentum following
Bugti’s death. Although the Baloch are ready to talk to the government,
provided it guarantees that the province gets its due rights, the Musharraf
regime does not seem willing. In fact, the security forces launched another
military operation in Nushki area of Balochistan just last month. The
establishment has always maintained that its enemy (read India) is fanning
the anti-state elements in Pakistan. Whether it was the separation of East
Pakistan in 1971, the unrest in Balochistan in the 1970s and now, or the
militancy in the tribal areas these days, the establishment is fond of
putting the blame on the ubiquitous ‘foreign hand’ (read Indian hand). This
seems rather ironic given the fact that it was not India that massacred the
people in East Pakistan; it was Pakistan’s army that did that. It was not
India that denied the Baloch their rights; it was Pakistan’s government that
deprived them of their rights. And India did not create the mujahideen; we
did! Instead of admitting that in actuality the internal factors are
responsible for the crises, the establishment resorts to shifting the blame
on the ‘external’ factors. It is high time that the establishment admitted
its own faults rather than blaming outsiders.
Musharraf’s government is not doing things different from previous
governments when it comes to dealing with Balochistan. Its much vaunted mega
projects like the Gwadar port are largely seen as a move to marginalise the
Baloch by introducing settler-colonialism in Balochistan. Due to lack of
educational institutions in the province, a large segment of the Baloch
populace remains uneducated. This handicap has deprived the Baloch people of
their right to acquire high jobs. This is quite evident in the Gwadar port,
where people from other provinces, like Punjab, have got high jobs while the
Baloch are only able to get menial jobs. The same situation persists in
other projects ostensibly started to uplift the living standards of the
people of Balochistan. Worse, the constitutional package, prepared by a body
headed by Wasim Sajjad, that would have given the Baloch a modicum of
provincial rights and addressed some of their grievances is gathering dust.
The same fate has befallen the recommendations for redress of political
complaints. Having alienated the Baloch through patently imprudent acts,
including the killing of Nawab Akbar Khan Bugti, the Centre is trying to
paper over the marks left by its ugly acts by projecting the Baloch’s
struggle for their inalienable rights as a foreign-sponsored insurgency.
Ensnared in the tribal areas, the government can hardly afford belittling
the Baloch struggle by labelling it as anti-state. It must accept the
reality of it as a struggle for just rights and open dialogue rather than
stoking Baloch emotions further.
The writer is a staff member
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most states are source of security, but Iran is source of threat to Baloch
By M. Sarjov Baloch ; November 02, 2007
Baloch are settled in the land and have formed themselves into separate
territory based on political communities.
Baloch face the problem of coexisting with neighbouring groups whom Baloch
could not ignored, because they were next door, as well as groups that are
further away. Natural boundary has divided Baloch from Persian, and that
natural boundary has protected them before the industrial revolution. Time
to time group contact occurred it involved dispute, threat, invasion, and
conquest.The state of Iran was not formed in heaven it is a process of
conquers and imposed will of conqueror on conquered.
In an acceptable State at least five basic social values are expected of the
state to uphold; security, freedom, order, justice and welfare. These
fundamental values are important to well-being and so they must be
protected.
There are other organization in Iranian Balochistan apart from those of the
state; Baloch are a cultural group, religious, linguistic, clan, group that
live within a distinct geographic area called Balochistan(land of Baloch).
In the modern era the state has been involved as the leading institution to
insure these basic values are maintained. State of Iran has failed to
protect non Persian citizen from internal threat. Their way of life and
religion is under threat from the state, their property is not safe.
Security should be of fundamental interest of the state, but Baloch are not
included in the Iranian provided security.
Iranian regime is aggressive and hostile to its neighbours. The Iranian
structure poses a threat to the region.
Other state in the world uphold freedom of their citizen seriously. State of
Iran puts burdens on Baloch such as military service, taxation and other
obligation, what Baloch gain from state is humiliation, strict religion
practice, no cultural right, no equal right, there is no freedom to
cultivate and preserve their language, because Baloch are not Shiite they
can not be trusted by the state to hold executive post.
Most Persians may feel they are not free individually, but under these
circumstances Baloch will never feel free individually, and collectively,
because they were threatened under monarchy regime, today Persian exile
opposition groups have no such agenda to address Baloch grievances in
future.
The state of Iran never felt obliged to uphold equal rights to each cultural
group, establishing and maintaining coexistence and interact on basis of
certainty and predictability. State are expected to uphold order and
justice, but justice in Iran is not a universal law, it is based on local
shirya law and interpreted differently from one mullah to another.
System of government in Iran is the revolutionary that includes one segment
and rejects another segment, and pinpoint one segment in order to demonize
that segment of the society. Baloch are accused anti- revolutionary, British
and American collaborators, therefore they are excluded from Persian
national wealth.
Baloch believe that state of Iran failed to provide minimal standards for
Baloch. The faith of millions men and woman, and children in Iran put into
question the legitimacy of state of Iran. Iran is a territorial state it is
not one nation one state as Persian assume. Iran failed to meet minimal
standards, consequence of that failure should raise question, because these
failure are based on discrimination against Baloch and other non Persian.
The state system is an institution that is not ordained by God or determined
by nature, it is consequence of empire conquest, or colonial territory it is
social organization, some state constituted from many cultural groups, when
majority group is threat to minority international community have
responsibility, not to condemn victim, but to determine who is aggressor.
Some states majority group occupy united nation seat and lobby the greater
powers in order to legitimise their group rule in given state. Persian
control internal and external state power, they appoint judges to reside in
highest court in Iran or diplomat that represent Iran in the united nation
these state justify their unjust through institution like united nation on
basis of state sovereignty.If the united nation is satisfied with Iran rule
to maintain only order in geographical space, but the question is for how
long?
Iran is complex society it is multi-cultural territorial state constitute of
Turk Arab, Baloch, Kurd, Tuekoman, and other religion minorities and every
one of these nations inside Iran territory are sovereign by virtue of will,
and have right to self-determination that is guaranteed by united nation.
Persian are largest group within Iran, but Persians dwell within Persian
territory. Iranian cultural group has maintained their cultural and internal
boundary. For the peace and prosperity to prevail these cultural group must
maintain their internal sovereignty, and govern state through legitimise
mean, institution, social contract. People join state or in some cases
separate themselves from state in order to protect their dignity, if state
of Iran violate Baloch dignity they will defend themselves from the powerful
neighbour that insists on discriminating them on basis of religion,
language, culture, colour, and is occupying their land and denying them
their God given rights to live.
Iranian institutions are eroded and not capable, of generating any hope for
future, Iranian mindset is corrupted, there are 50000 suicide bomber trained
and waiting for Mahdi to assume command and attack the world in order to
impose gods will on non believer. This is a serious dilemma the world has to
face. (“if men define situations as real, they are real in their
consequences, Thomas and Thomas“). Centralistic Mullah-cratic Iran is the
source of disability in the region now, eventually the world, to contain it
now is much easier than to leave it for later, some of us at least within
Iran realize that. The only ray of hope is to decentralise every Iranian
institution, once destabilised replace them with institutions that support a
nations self-determination in order to create stability and predictability.
Baloch have vision for the future that is a safer world democratic region,
because democratic states resolves their differences through negotiation,
rather than blood. Democratic regions trade with each other and reduce
border restrictions. Baloch are suffering from border restriction imposed on
them. And this will create an interstate-dependency between masses and
reduced tension. People see interstate dependence as a source of income,
creating real wealth, and support liberal society.
The contemporary state of Iran has been a war like state, it is the
international communities role to search for permanent peace, the state of
Iran senses that it is losing control on parts of its territory to its own
non Persian nations. Persian are persistent to hold them by use of force ,
the threat may not be real, but consequences are real in term of lost of
life and property.
It is time for the international community to convey strongest messages that
Iran is not Persia, but a territorial sovereign state, with many
nationalities with equal right to Persian, in failing to do so, it wont be
too long before the world will be witness to another genocide.
http://intellibriefs.blogspot.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Balochistan: Another Hot Spot on the Map
October 29th, 2007 ; italiandesi.wordpress.com/
Balochistan is continuously referred to as one of the fronts of the “War on Terrorism” in which our ally, General Musharraf, is waging with US economic and military aid. US officials know very well that some of the F-16’s- courtesy of the US- have been used in Balochistan to bomb innocent civilians, but have stated that it’s not up to the US to dictate how Pakistan uses its weapons.
But we know that “counterinsurgency operations” not only gives way to human rights violations, but is often an excuse to eliminate opponents who stand in the way of larger designs. The dreary and violence ridden landscape of Balochistan is key to Pakistan’s commerce and military objectives. It is Pakistan’s largest province and provides 40% of Pakistan ’s natural gas, 50% of Pakistan ’s mineral productions and is home to some of the largest copper and gold deposits in the world. It is the site of proposed gas pipelines, and its Gwadar Port- being built by China- can help Pakistan be a major player in commerce, as well as offsetting Iranian competition. This port will be the central transit between Central, South, and East Asia, with India keen on the project as well. Moreover, Balochistan is a vital defense point for Pakistan. This is one of the reasons why most of Pakistan’s military installations reside in Balochistan. And the cantonments in Balochistan are exactly where gas exploration and installations sites are.
Musharraf claims that the Gwadar port will bring “development” to Balochistan, but Balochis are skeptical. Despite being a resource rich region, Balochistan comes in last out of all of Pakistan ’s provinces: they receive little of the resource revenues, and see the Gwadar port construction bringing more misery than benefits. They lag behind in education, literacy, and health. As the poorest region in Pakistan, the majority lives under the poverty line, does not have access to potable water, no sanitation, no electricity, and just a thin slice of the population only recently enjoyed the gas that they provide to one of Pakistan ’s richer regions, Punjab. 20% of Balochis have access to potable water, in contrast to 86% for the rest of Pakistan. For decades, Balochis have accused the government of reaping its resources and accumulating wealth, while the Balochi people themselves hardly get anything: “Though Baluchistan covers nearly half of Pakistan, its share of the population-thus, of the total revenue-accounts for less than 10 percent.” Furthermore, “There is rising resentment in the province that despite the fact that its natural gas generates $1.4 billion annually in revenue, the government remits only $116 million in royalties back to the province.” No wonder the Balochis have taken to attacking gas pipelines.
Balochistan has been gripped by five major military operations, starting from 1948 up until the most recent one. The recent campaign has seen a deployment of more than tens of thousands troops. In this theater of warfare, “terrorists,” “miscreants,” and nationalists have been subject to harsh military campaigns unleashed by the Pakistani forces. Though many point to the success of Islamist parties in Balochistan in the 2002 elections as evidence that Islamists are poised to take over Pakistan, the fact is that Musharraf manipulated elections to prop up Islamic parties in an effort to undermine the secular parties and “discredit the nationalism movement by equating it to Islamic fundamentalism and divert international opinion.”
Recently, in the mass media, little has been said about the serious violations of human rights, flagrant disregard for the law, and suffocating repression that Balochis have faced. 700 died from December 2005 to April 2006, of the 900 total who were killed until 2006. Torture, extrajudicial killings, forced disappearances, suppressing and killing political exponents run rampant. The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan’s fact-finding mission found that Balochis were “subjected to indiscriminate bombing,” excessive force by the paramilitary, Pakistani security forces, and intelligence agencies, summary executions, torture, secret detensions, intimidation, and forced disappearances. The commission also found that the government made “misleading statements” to “fan Baloch-Punjabi differences.” The military also justified its presence by furrari camps which didn’t seem to exist. It simply confirmed the suspicion of Balochis who claim that the military was there to protect key gas pipelines and military installations.
A more recent report by the International Crisis Group confirms that the situation is worsening. Since December 2005, at least 84,000 people have been displaced in the Dera Bugti and Kohlu districts- Dera Bugti being the site of a significant cantonment. In July-August 2006, UNICEF found that most displaced persons in the Naseerabad, Quetta, Sibi, and Bolan districts were women and children, 26,000 and 33,000 respectively; “over 80 per cent of the deaths among those surveyed were among children under five.”
Musharraf claims that there is an “anti-development” attitude amongst the Balochis and nationalists, yet the Balochis have not been consulted- nor have their protests been taken into consideration- in a project that is going to bring an estimated 8 million* people to settle in Balochistan for the Gwador project, eventually outnumbering the Balochis who number around 5 million. In terms of Musharraf’s alleged contribution to “bring development” to Balochistan, Balochi point out that the government has long neglected their welfare, and continue to do so, as with the poor relief efforts following the June-July cyclones and floods. And the government touts that it is spending billions for “development,” but they omit the fact that that much of the money goes to the construction of new cantonments.
More disturbingly, the report points out that Musharraf- who calls anyone critical of the Gwadar project as “anti-development” and ironically, “anti-democratic”- has categorically refused to have any sort of dialogue with Balochi political exponents and instead props up Islamist parties since Balochi nationalists are, in fact, seen as the main obstacle to further gas explorations. The report goes on to highlight that hundreds of political activists, students, doctors, and lawyers have been arrested or “disappeared”. Balochis alledge that more than 8,000 to 12,000 Balochi dissidents have disappeared. Yet,
Denying any responsibility of the intelligence agencies, Musharraf placed all blame on jihadi organizations that “lure innocent people to fight for their misplaced causes in Afghanistan, Kashmire, and beyond. He did not explain why secular Baloch and Sindhi nationalists with no affiliation to any religious group constitute the majority of missing persons.
The worst consequence of Musharraf’s realpoliticking is the disillusionment in the political process:
By targeting the Baloch leadership, marginalising secular nationalist parties, sidelining the provincial legislature, forging ahead with contentious development plans and using military force to subdue dissent, the government has shown a disregard for the political process that is now widely mirrored in Balochistan. Many young Baloch have lost faith in politics and picked up the gun.
An observer noted: “Previous insurgencies were led by sardars but today’s insurgency is spearheaded by ordinary, middle-class Baloch”. Nationalist fervour, he said, is driving it; factors such as poverty, unemployment and underdevelopment are of secondary importance. “The insurgents”, he said, include “doctors, lawyers, traders and teachers. They can all make a living but they have chosen to fight because they see their rights violated and [Balochistan’s] resources plundered”.
*Estimates vary, as they always do in situations like these. According to a Virginia Quarterly Review article, The Gwadar Development Authority puts it at 1.7 million; another source says that its more like 4 million, while a PPP (Pakistan People’s Party) provincial assembly member told the International Crisis Group 8 million.
http://italiandesi.wordpress.com/2007/10/29/balochistan-another-hot-spot-on-the-map/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Wilson John ; 10-11-2007
Pervez Musharraf's decision to impose
Emergency in Pakistan looks like his last desperate effort to restore a
semblance of order in a nuclear-armed, jihad-supporting nation propped up by
an imagined identity and foreign aid
President Pervez Musharraf could turn out to be Pakistan's Mikhail
Gorbachev. Single-handedly, in less than 100 months, he has brought
nuclear-armed Pakistan to the brink of anarchy, unleashing sectarian and
extremist tendencies across the country and unravelling political and social
faultlines so deep and wide that the odds of a failed Muslim state in
India's neighbourhood are no more academic.
It could be frighteningly real and its impact would be felt not only in
India but also far and wide. Today's Pakistan is a nuclear armed, jihad
supporting nation propped up by an imagined identity and barrels of borrowed
funds, and on top of it, ruled by a failed General. The only alternatives to
the General are two former Prime Ministers steeped in corruption, running
their political parties like personal fiefdom from the safety of mansions in
salubrious climes in exile.
Ironically, no one realises it more deeply than Gen Musharraf. To give the
devil his due, his decision to impose Emergency on November 3 can be
squarely considered to be his last desperate gamble to put a semblance of
order in a country whose destiny he wanted to re-write as an enlightened
saviour in khaki. In fact, he had only two stark choices when his confidant
and courtier, Lt Gen Nadeem Taj, Director General, ISI, informed him in the
last week of October that the Supreme Court was preparing to annul his
election as the President - resign or impose Emergency. Those who have
observed the General through the past eight years of his regime knew the
choice he would make.
There is no doubt the General is largely responsible for creating the chaos
in Pakistan, supported in no less measure by policy planners in Washington,
and some of us who have been hailing Gen Musharraf as "India's best bet". In
the past one year, there have been enough indications of fickleness in
decision-making. For instance, there was no reason to sack Chief Justice
Mohammed Iftikhar Chaudhry in March this year, but he did, fearing the judge
whom he had appointed could become a stumbling block for his second term as
President.
Ill advised, Gen Musharraf chose to have a showdown with the judge which
boomeranged when the meek judicial officer refused to bend before his cabal
of intelligence chiefs. He could have quietly moved him out under some
pretext. So blind, and deaf, was he to the public dissension that he could
not fathom the street protests that followed the judicial sacking. It was
the first time, after several decades, when ordinary citizens moved into the
streets of Islamabad, Lahore and Karachi to protest the military rule.
The Lal Masjid episode brought him only additional woes. He could have
easily prevented the situation getting out of control. When the seminary
students in January forcibly occupied a children's library in Islamabad,
there were million other better options than surrendering to their demands.
But Gen Musharraf was gambling there as well; he was desperate to prove that
he was still in command. He wanted to create an atmosphere of fear in
Islamabad where foreign missions were located. Burqa-clad girl students of
the seminary, and their male colleagues, were allowed to have a free run of
the streets of Islamabad, threatening video shops, beauty parlours and all
those who were sceptical of their Taliban agenda. Nothing was done to
prevent the religious hoodlums from taking over Islamabad for months.
Not even those who oppose Gen Musharraf acknowledge that the Lal Masjid
episode brought Pakistan face-to-face with the ogre it has been nurturing
for over two decades in silent, secret complicity with the military and
intelligence cabal - the jihadis. The jihadis came from ordinary homes
across Pakistan, raising the banner of Islam, to rule over Afghanistan,
annex Jammu & Kashmir, and "dismember India with a thousand cuts". Without
Pakistan, there would have been no Osama bin Laden. Gen Musharraf played the
game a shade better; he kept the charade of a moderate, liberal face to
camouflage the tested and tried policy of recruiting, training and
supporting jihadi minions for political and strategic gains. They were the
Army's Dogs of War.
In the past eight years, Gen Musharraf and his men have reorganised the
jihadi infrastructure to support his strategic goals in Afghanistan and
India. After September 11 and the so-called global war on terrorism, Gen
Musharraf has only added another unstated objective to the jihadi strategy:
To keep the flag of pan-Islam flying by supporting the regrouping of Al
Qaeda and the Taliban vanquished after the US bombing of Afghanistan. It was
quite obvious to Gen Musharraf and US President George W Bush said as far
back as December 2001 that Al Qaeda and the Taliban were regrouping in
Pakistan, not only in the tribal belts but also metropolitan cities like
Peshawar, Rawalpindi and Karachi, setting up safe houses and training camps
which became a beacon of jihad.
The London bombers, for instance, were trained in Waziristan; today, some of
these camps host recruits from anti-India terrorist groups like
Jaish-e-Moham-med and Lashkar-e-Tayyeba which are waiting for a chance to
return to the killing fields in Jammu & Kashmir and elsewhere in India.
The reason why Gen Musharraf has not been keen on taking on jihadis is that
he knows that a Sunni Pakistan was not really interested in a crackdown on
them whatever the liberal, English media might write in occasional
editorials. He is right. Hardly anyone in Pakistan opposed his decision to
sign a pact of truce in September 2006 with the tribal leaders (it was in
fact with Taliban leader Mullah Omar) who were sheltering the Taliban-Al
Qaeda terrorists. No one came out on the streets when veteran Baloch leader
Nawab Akbar Khan Bugti was brutally killed in August last year; nor were
there any dharnas or petitions when hundreds of young Baloch leaders
disappeared overnight. No one wore black badges or raised banners when
hundreds of Shias were kidnapped or killed in Gilgit-Baltistan when they
protested about some objectionable remarks in school textbooks. The Punjabis
remained indoors.
Gen Musharraf, a Mohajir, has played the Punjabi game quite well, till now
at least. When he was picked up as the Army chief, Mr Nawaz Sharif's idea
was that being a Mohajir in a Punjabi-dominated Army, Gen Musharraf would
remain beholden to him for his position. Gen Musharraf turned the tables by
ousting him in a bloodless coup within a year.
In the next eight years, he has relentlessly browbeaten other provinces,
promoting Punjabi politicians, bureaucrats and judicial officers. He has
been ruthless in putting down the Baloch rebels, the Shias in
Gilgit-Baltistan and Sindhi nationalists. Punjab today remains the most
prosperous and progressive province in Pakistan. With Balochistan, Sindh and
North-West Frontier Province lagging behind in critical economic and social
parameters, the provincial divide has rarely been so apparent and glaring in
Pakistan.
Today's cry for democracy is essentially Punjabi, and hence will prove fatal
for a Mohajir General, holding a sole lifeline from Washington. And what
needs to be remembered is a sobering fact that it is the Punjabis, in
politics, military and in jihad who have been spearheading the hate campaign
against a Hindu India, calling for annexation of Jammu & Kashmir. Even
today, LeT chief Hafiz Saeed addresses (every Friday) large congregations in
the heart of Punjab - Lahore - calling for jihad to free Jammu & Kashmir,
Hyderabad, Junagarh, Bengal, and some part of Punjab (in India).
The next potential fall out is likely to come from the Pakistan Army which
has not faced a similar crisis of leadership and morale ever since the
defeat of 1971. The Army which has always held its public image as a
barometer of its power over the country today faces a public relations
nightmare. Millions today lampoon the military openly and brazenly. Hundreds
are willing to carry out suicide attacks on security forces. Quite a few of
them are from the security forces.
Dissension within the forces is growing. Some of the Corps Commanders are
opposed to the US military and intelligence agencies operating from
Pakistan. There were raised tempers at a Corp Commanders conference when US
Predator bombed madarsas in Bajaur last year, killing over 100 civilians,
many of them children. Mass casualties in counter-insurgency operations have
hit the morale and fighting capability of paramilitary forces like Frontier
Corps.
The surrender of over 200 men and officers recently speaks more about the
morale of the force than the power of terrorist groups. These men had
surrendered even without firing a shot. The Army has officially acknowledged
a loss of 1000 men and officers in the operations against terrorist groups
since 2001. The actual figure could be much more.
A demoralised and confused Army could turn into an injured tiger, returning
to the one sure premise that could restrict its downfall, restore its
credibility in public and unite the force against the common enemy - India.
Gen Musharraf's last gamble could prove to be costly for many of us in the
region.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iranians increasingly concerned about military conflict with US
The Associated Press ; November 10, 2007
TEHRAN, Iran: Ordinary Iranians are
increasingly worried that escalating tensions with the United States and its
allies over Tehran's controversial nuclear program will lead to military
conflict.
Their concerns have grown as Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has
continued to defy international demands that Tehran suspend uranium
enrichment, a process that can produce fuel for a nuclear reactor or fissile
material for a bomb.
Ahmadinejad stepped up his provocation Wednesday when he suggested Iran had
in place 3,000 fully operational centrifuges used to enrich uranium — the
commonly accepted number needed as a platform to begin industrial-scale
production.
In response to this defiance, U.S. President George W. Bush has refused to
take military action off the table as a way to halt the Iranian nuclear
program, claiming Tehran is using it as cover for weapons development — a
charge Ahmadinejad denies.
"I'm really concerned. My family and my neighbors too," said Sepideh Akhavan,
a housewife in Tehran. "It is good to defend our nuclear program but it
should not lead to war because it will only bring destruction."
In recent days, U.S. defense officials have signaled that up-to-date attack
plans against Iran are available if needed. No strike appears imminent, but
average Iranians fear that U.S. military operations under way in neighboring
countries could provide a glimpse into Iran's future.
"We see war and destruction in Afghanistan and Iraq, both of them our
neighbors. I'm worried that we will be the next," said Mohammad Lofti, an
Iranian bank clerk. "War will take Iran decades back."
Bush suggested last month that Iran's alleged pursuit of nuclear arms could
lead to "World War III." Ahmadinejad has rejected such threats as
"psychological warfare" aimed at intimidating Iran to give concessions to
the West.
But Ahmadinejad's fiery anti-Western rhetoric has prompted criticism from
average Iranians and rival politicians who are worried that his tough talk
has needlessly escalated the tension.
"Ahmadinejad has to be at least partly blamed for escalating tensions with
the United States and its allies," said Mahmoud Mehrabi, a university
student in Tehran.
The Iranian president has defied two rounds of U.N. Security Council
sanctions calling on Tehran to suspend uranium enrichment, prompting the
U.S. to advocate even stronger measures at a time when the Iranian economy
is struggling.
Former Iranian President Ayatollah Hashemi Rafsanjani warned the country's
officials last week not to adopt positions that could endanger Iran's
citizens, an apparent jab at Ahmadinejad.
"Under the present sensitive circumstances, one has to avoid immaturity and
not put the people in trouble," said the more moderate Rafsanjani.
Another former president, Mohammad Khatami, has expressed concern that
Iran's current path could mean further trouble for the country in the
future.
"Our country is subject to big threats. Unfortunately, there is concern that
we will face greater problems," the reformist Khatami warned in comments
published in several Iranian newspapers Saturday.
Iran has spent billions in recent years to improve its military and develop
locally made weapons as a deterrent against any possible U.S. attack.
The head of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards Gen. Mohammad Ali Jafari
warned last month that his forces were prepared to strike back with a
"crushing response" if attacked, saying Washington would be "stuck in a
quagmire" worse than Iraq or Afghanistan.
Other Iranian military leaders have warned that Iran has prepared
contingency plans for a counter strike in case of different scenarios if it
is attacked by the U.S. or Israel.
These preparations provide little solace to average Iranians worried about
the death and destruction that would follow a military conflict with the
U.S.
"It is appalling even to think of a war," said Mehrabi, the student. "We
have suffered a lot from wars."