Mending Pakistan India Relationship

Both Pakistan and India are nuclear power, have fought various wars and constantly live in state of war ever since they got independence from British Raj in 1947. Economists are of the consensus that had the two countries lived like peaceful neighbors, abstained from spending billions of dollars annually on procurement of lethal arsenal and invested money on the development; these would have been the most prosperous economies of the world. It would not be wrong to say that the British Raj left a thorn, Kashmir, which has been constantly exploited by the United States. Let the readers keep one point in mind that Hindus have not accepted partition of subcontinent and openly say that they would not allow another partition of India on the basis of religion (apartheid of Kashmir).

As Indian delegates attended the Kartarpur corridor groundbreaking ceremony, Minister for External Affairs Sushma Swaraj announced that India will not attend the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (Saarc) conference if it is held in Pakistan. She brushed off any possibility of improvement in relations between India and Pakistan, despite the opening of the Kartarpur crossing. "Until and unless Pakistan stops terrorist activities in India, there will be no dialogue and we will not participate in Saarc [conference]," asserted Swaraj. Owing to India's refusal to attend, Pakistan will not be able to convene the event for the third year now. Participation of all member states is mandatory for the convening of a Saarc summit.

Saarc summit remains in limbo for the third year running due to India’s refusal to attend a meeting in Pakistan. Islamabad was to host the 19th summit of the regional bloc in November 2016, but India on that occasion forced its cancellation by first pulling out of the meeting on the pretext of “increasing cross-border terrorist attacks in the region and growing interference in internal affairs of member states by one country”, because of which it claimed the environment was “not conducive to the successful holding of the 19th Saarc summit in Islamabad”. India was later joined by its regional allies Bangladesh, Afghanistan and Bhutan, all of whom also pulled out citing concerns about terrorism and external interference in an implied criticism of Pakistan. Pakistan has not been able to convene the event for the third year now because of a virtual Indian veto.

Saarc summits, as per the charter of the body, are to be held once a year or more frequently as required by the situation. The summits are held on a rotational basis in alphabetical order of the names of member states. However, summits could be held only on 18 occasions in Saarc’s 33 years of existence. Most of the postponements have taken place in the last 17 years. Although there have been different reasons for the delays and rescheduling, including bilateral disputes and internal problems of member states, India has been the most common cause in these postponements, if not all. At least on two occasions the hold-ups were because of Pakistan-India disputes.

India refused to attend the 11th summit on the pretext of a coup in Pakistan and the 12th summit because of the prime minister’s schedule. India on those occasions used the participation card to pressure the hosts. The longest delay was on the occasion of the 11th summit hosted by Kathmandu. On that occasion the summit scheduled for November 1999 was held in January 2002 after delay of nearly two years and two months. On five occasions in the past the venue had to be changed for hosting of the conference — 3rd, 4th, 5th, 15th and 16th summits.

This time India is insisting that it would not agree to a meeting in Islamabad as long as it does not see any visible progress on its concerns about terrorism. Pakistan has time and again denied the allegations and has on several occasions offered dialogue to address the outstanding issues. The functioning of Saarc appeared to have the silent support of everyone except India. Saarc summits once scheduled, after obtaining the concurrence of all the member states, must go ahead even if the heads of state or government of one or two members do not find it convenient to attend. No member should be allowed to hold Saarc to ransom. Using internal developments in one member state to disrupt the Saarc process should be unacceptable.

There is a need to oppose any attempt to dilute the principle of sovereign equality of member states, as all members are equal partners. Saarc members should use its platform to resolve their political differences. All problems that afflict the region must be sincerely addressed and resolved. Sweeping them under the carpet can never be the answer. The only wise and courageous choice is to resolve all disputes and differences on a durable basis, those solutions based on justice and fair play can be durable. Peace and tranquility is essential for the progress of South Asia. Nothing can be achieved as long as there is tension and hostilities among any members.

Pakistan condemns terrorist attacks and joined the international coalition in the campaign against terrorism. The country itself has been a victim of terrorism. The concerted campaign against terrorism must also identify and examine the causes that breed terrorism, that derive people to hopelessness and to desperation. It is equally important that a distinction was maintained between acts of legitimate resistance and freedom struggles on one hand and the acts of terrorism on the other.

This article was originally published in Pakistan & Gulf Economist

Axis of Evil

Just the other day someone sent me this picture and its caption is ‘Axis of Evil’. I, as a Muslim, was shocked to see the flag of Saudi Arabia along with the flags of three other nations who are notaries for their atrocities. Britain ran colonies for nearly two centuries. United States dropped two atom bombs on Japan in World War II and currently master minding proxy wars in many countries. Israel, controlled by Zionists is modern day ‘Merchant of Death’.

I sat down to put the pieces of jigsaw puzzle together and was completely disgusted to find out how cunningly these three countries have dragged Saudi Arabia into this axis. Saudi Arabia is often accused for financing the terrorists/proxy wars. The critics have reasons to blame Saudi Arabia that supported Sadam Husain of Iraq for waging war on Iran that was spread over nearly 10 years 

The point became crystal clear when I heard the echo of one of the latest statements of the US president, “Saudi Arabia can’t live without us (Americans) for more than two weeks”. This statement came soon after Crown Price of Saudi Arabia was accused of killing a Saudi Journalist in Turkey. Some critics say President’s statement was aimed at building pressure on the Crown Price that was also followed by accusing him of master minding assassination of the Journalist. 

Now let us try to find an explanation for the presence of Saudi Arabia in this axis of evil. A point to ponder is that the other three countries have joined hands to topple regimes/destroy countries they don’t like. The most common US manta is ‘Regime Change’. Ironically Toney Blair, past UK prime Minister made his country subservient to the United States by propagating presence of mass destruction in Iraq, which later proved a hoax call.

Israel is the brainchild of the British Colonial that followed ‘Divide and Rule policy’. Though, Britain was the prime architect of creation of a Jewish State, but it was fully supported by the United States in brining Jews from many countries and settling them there. While Jews are flourishing in Israel, Palestinians are living in the biggest open air jail, Gaza.

Iran-Saudi Arab animosity is being exploited by the Zionists, who have brain washed the Monarchy to believe that Iran is bigger threat as compared to Israel. This mantra has enabled United States and other European countries in selling billions of dollars arms annually to Saudis. The dishonest western media often accuses Saudi Arabia for using these arms in Yemen and other countries against the local population.

Finally United States kneels down before Iran

The United States announced to re-impose sanctions on Iran. President Donald Trump unilaterally pulled his country out from an agreement signed by big powers with Iran. The US government threatened countries to bring down their oil imports from Iran to zero or face similar sanctions. Many critics fail to understand the logic of President Trump as they strongly believe that he will not be able to achieve much by re-imposing sanctions.

Some analysts say that the US administration wishes to maintain a delicate balancing act with the waivers by ensuring the oil market has sufficient supply and avoid a politically damaging spike in fuel prices. The US also wants to ensure that Iran doesn’t collect enough revenue that the US sanctions become irrelevant. Countries that get waivers will be required to pay trough an escrow accounts in their local currency. That means the money won’t directly go to Iran, but will be allowed to use it for buying food, medicine or other non-sanctioned goods from its crude customers.

Let us first of all find the rationale behind re-imposition of sanctions on Iran by the US. I will prefer to use a quote. It says the re-imposition of sanctions on Iran by the US are aimed at achieving two targets: 1) quashing its nuclear ambitions and its ballistic missile program, but also 2) weakening its financial strength to support groups fighting proxy war in Syria, Yemen, Lebanon and other parts of the Middle East”.

Some analysts say that the US has imposed proxy war on the above stated countries for establishing its hegemony in Middle East and North Africa (MENA). The US efforts are aimed at weakening these countries so that they don’t become a potential threat for Israel, which has faced humiliating defeat in Lebanon. Hezbollah, a Lebanon-based resistance group smashing Israel’s military supremacy is often termed a terrorist outfit and alleged for receiving funds and military hardware from Iran.

No sooner did these sanctions became effective, the US confirmed granting waivers to eight countries, allowing them to continue to import oil from Iran for the next six months. The countries include South Korea, Japan, India, China, Turkey, Taiwan, Italy and Greece. The waivers will facilitate these to continue to import oil, although there is a great deal of disagreement among analysts over how much Iran’s exports will fall.

This waiver means that the supply situation will ease further. Reportedly Iran’s oil exports will stabilize at around 1 million barrels per day, and could even increase again in the coming months because Japan and South Korea have hardly been buying any Iranian oil lately. Receiving the waivers will allow them to continue buying. To be sure, not everyone agrees on this point, some believe the hawkish government in Washington will make other efforts to curb Iranian oil export.

Announcement of waivers, are a defeat of the US, seemingly backtracking a policy to cut Iran’s oil exports to zero. However, the Secretary of State Mike Pompeo continues to play the famous US mantra, “maximum pressure” campaign will continue and that the administration hopes to get to zero. The waivers were granted to countries that “need a little bit more time,” he said. 

I am also obliged to refer to what has been said by Professor Frank N. von Hippel, former assistant director for national security in the White House Office of Science and Technology. He said that it was a terrible mistake for the Trump Administration to pull the US out of the agreement between the P5+1+EU and Iran, commonly referred as Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

“The US has lost credibility with the other permanent members of the UN Security Council, Germany and the EU”. He also warned, “If Iran reacts by ending its own compliance with the JCPOA, we might be on a path to war. The US does not need another unnecessary and costly war”.

Who killed Jamal Khashoggi?

The killing of Jamal Khashoggi - a Washington Post columnist and a critic of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MbS) - has sparked global outrage and pitched the world’s top oil exporter into crisis. The incident has put the West’s relationship with Riyadh into sharp focus, given scepticism about Saudi Arabia’s shifting explanations of the killing at its Istanbul consulate.

To calm down the situation, Riyadh announced arrest 18 persons as part of its investigation into the case, which include a 15-man security team that Turkey says flew in hours before the killing. Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir said that those behind the killing would be prosecuted in the kingdom and that the investigation would take time. In my opinion investigators may be misled or forced to release an incorrect report based on the reports of Western media, controlled by the Zionists. Even a person of ordinary wit can identify the culprits, if the motive of killing is established.

In many countries, especially where monarchy/dictatorship prevails over, the rulers don’t like critics. Sooner than later such persona non grata are either put in jail or assassinated. Though, United States claims to be the largest democracy, it also does the same in the name of regime change, two of the most talked about names of the present era are Sadam Husain of Iraq (hanged) and Mursi of Egypt (put in jail). In this part of the world where I live, killing of politicians and journalist is too common. Therefore, killing of Khashoggi is not surprising. However, the storm being created in a cup of tea needs a little deeper probe because his assassination according to spy agencies is ‘elimination of an agent when he became redundant’.

Khashoggi was working for one of the most famous and powerful media house of the United States and his prime target was MbS, who already has enough enemies within his family and kingdom. MbM’s most dangerous trait is ‘Iron man’ who just can’t tolerate criticism. Therefore, assassination of Khashoggi can be termed ‘killing two birds with one stone’. Elimination of MbS may have become all the more necessary because the United States finds him the biggest hurdle if economic sanctions have to be imposed on Saudi Arabia.

Killing of Khashoggi in Turkey and making the details public through the courtesy of Turkish president can also be termed a point worth probing. The United States does not like Tayyib Erdogan, as he is emerging as a leader of Muslim Ummah and biggest threat for Israel.  If one can recall King Faisal of Saudi Arabia had emerged as a leader of Muslim Ummah in seventies, but very soon he was assassinated by his own nephew within the Kingdom.

To the utter disappointment of the United States and Israel manta ‘Iran is a bigger threat for Saudi Arabia as compared to Israel’ has failed. Iran applied all the restraints and gave Saudi Arabia the status of leader of OPEC, whenever there was any discussion about increasing/decreasing crude oil output. It is necessary to remind the readers that it is often alleged that during Iraq-Iran war, Saudi Arabia finance Iraqi assault and also didn’t make any effort to stop the war between two Muslim countries.

Now coming to the most important part, who killed Khashoggi? Though, MbS may not like this expression, Saudi Arabia does not have the capacity to undertake such assault in another country. The two prime suspects can be CIA and Mossad, which have been undertaking such operations in other countries. Two stories which hit headlines of international media are killing f Iranian nuclear scientists in UAE and killing of ObL in Pakistan. It is alleged that the first operation was done by Mossad and the second operation was undertaken by CIA.

The logical conclusion of killing of Khashoggi seems to be that it was aimed at eliminating MbS, the assassination was done in Istanbul to initiate a war between Saudi Arabia and Turkey and to also impose economic sanctions Saudi Arabia. The Donald Trump has recently claimed that Saudi Arabia can’t live more than two weeks without the support of United States. The sole surviving super power no longer needs Saudi oil but remains adamant at selling more arms to the monarchy by dragging it in a direct war. Proxy wars seems to be getting over because in most of the countries the prime supporter of wars is facing humiliating defeat, these include Afghanistan, Iran and Syria.   

x

Bailing out Pakistan by IMF or plunging it deeper into debt trap

The critics of Prime Minister Imran Khan are firing all sorts of shots at him. The biggest blame is that the person who didn’t want to approach International Monetary Fund (IMF) has conveniently bowed down rather than making an effort to live without the crutches of lender of last resort. Khan has been critical of borrowing during his election campaign, might be that he failed in understanding the gravity of situation. Let everyone try to find a logical reply to the basic question, will abstaining from borrowing from IMF save Pakistan from committing default? The immediate and logical reply is a big no because the countries that were most likely to extend supporting hands have done the contrary.

Therefore, it is imperative for the ruling regime to strike the best deal and it is also the responsibility of the opposition to help the incumbent government to have consensus on a home grown plan to make debt servicing sustainable. Let PML-N and PPP leadership not forget that they ruled the country for 10 years and supported each other under the much talked about ‘Charter of Democracy’. The country would have not faced the present crisis, had they followed ‘prudent policies’, contained extravaganzas and corruption and supported flight of capital from Pakistan. The ongoing investigations indicate that Pakistanis have parked billions of dollars outside Pakistan, own properties and doing thriving business in many neighboring countries.

After the victory in election, Khan was assured support by United States and Saudi Arabia and told not to approach Iran. Now it is evident that that these countries were willing to extend financial support to Pakistan, only if it agrees to support their geopolitical agenda. The US was prompt in instructing IMF not to lend any money to Pakistan to pay off Chinese debt. The much talked about Saudi oil facility and credit has not come to Pakistan, till this article is going into print. In such a hostile environment Pakistan has no option but to approach IMF and accept its stringent conditions.

Two of the most contentious issues faced by Pakistan are growing current account deficit and shrinking foreign exchange reserves. Therefore, the first target is establishing a ‘lifeline’ before the patient goes into coma and chances of recovery diminish. It may also be kept in mind that issue of ‘Certificate of Health’ by IMF also facilitates in borrowing from other multilateral lenders that include the World Bank, Asian Development Bank (ADB) and International Finance Corporation (IFC). This may also pave way for disbursement of loan by Islamic Development Bank.

Those who do not believe in my narrative, should look at the movement of US$-Rupee parity over the last few days. Till it was not clear that Pakistan will approach IMF and would also receive an encouraging reply, stock market kept plunging and the benchmark index of Pakistan Stock Exchange kept registering erosion of a magnitude that was hardly witnessed in the recent years. However, the situation started reversing after Finance Minister, Asad Umar met IMF Chief. Though, a lot of clarifications are yet to be made, the commitment by multilateral lenders have started pouring in. Someone has said it right that the markets are impervious to emotional appeals, and investors cannot be inspired or persuaded, other than through the cold inducements of gain and loss.

The likely IMF bailout package is certainly not enough to pull Pakistan out of the ‘default like situation’.  However, it offers the space to take corrective steps and put the economy on track. The next but biggest challenge will be to undertake much delayed structural reforms. Almost all the previous governments have promised that while approaching IMF but many failed in fulfilling the commitments.

I will not hesitate for a second in saying that Imran Khan is the propagator of change but he is still surrounded by those who are known for maintaining status quo. Pakistan suffers from ‘confidence deficit’ that is a far bigger threat as compared to budget or current account deficit. What needs to be done is comparatively straightforward and the best path forward can be mapped out quickly as well as the PTI leadership has no shortage of competent people to make Imran Khan’s dream come true.

Khan has a strong social media team that can play a pivotal role in changing the perception, but the real issue is to change the ground realities. What need to be managed urgently right now are the fundamentals not the perceptions. That is where the prime minister’s focus is immediately required.

To put the country on the fast growth trajectory, it is necessary to point out that IMF recipe of raising electricity and gas tariffs, hiking interest rate and withdrawing subsidies could prove fatal blow to country’s economy. It is known to all and sundry that Pakistan suffers from cost pushed inflation that also renders ‘Made in Pakistan’ goods uncompetitive in the global markets. Unless exports are boosted containing current account is not possible. Boosting remittances may bring some additional dollars, but producing exportable surplus and attaining competitive advantage is a must.

PML-N and PPP regimes are known for extravaganzas and wastages; PTI has to follow austerity by discouraging import of luxury items. In a country where a huge percentage of population lives below the poverty line, there is no room for import dog food, luxury cars, expensive mobile phone. Let Pakistan follow the models that enabled Turkey and many other countries to bid farewell to IMF. The citizens of Pakistan ought to thank IMF for the 18 assistance program, but will also have to learn to live within means. It is not difficult but needs solid commitment and support by all the political parties.

Can re-imposition of sanctions on Iran by United States cause any disruption in oil trade?

With 4th November 2018, the date for re-imposition of U.S. sanctions against Iran drawing closer, uncertainty about how much of global oil supply will be affected is running high. Mixed signals are coming from some of Iran’s biggest oil customers. Analysts fear that uncertainty is likely to linger on even after the sanctions become effective. There is a need to understand the motive behind the US decision.

There is growing consensus that the US decision is based on achieving three key objectives: 1) weakening Iran economically to stop it from becoming a regional power. Both the US and Israel have learnt that an economically strong Iran is the biggest hurdle in maintaining their hegemony in the region, 2) by creating rift between Saudi Arabia and Iran, the US also succeed in selling more arms to Saudi Arabia, which has been brainwashed to an extent where the monarch considers Iran a bigger threat as compared to Israel and 3) the biggest beneficiary of high oil price is the US that has attained the status of largest oil producing country.

According to energy sector analysts, if crude price plunge below US$50/barrel most of the US shale companies will go bankrupt. It is on record that in the past when crude price touched US$147/barrel the number of active rigs rose to around 1,600. When the price plunged to less than US$40/barrel the number of active rigs declined to less than 600. Therefore

One of the objectives of western media, controlled by the Zionists, is to keep the level of uncertainty high by promoting geopolitical crises. By keeping level of uncertainty high, speculators are facilitated and one thing has been proved without any doubt that even the hawkish statements of the US present keeps oil prices volatile.

This volatility also keeps many economic super powers subservient to the US. There are credible evidences that the association of Japanese refiners has suspended its crude oil purchases from Iran and South Korean refiners have also stopped buying Iranian crude in the hope that Washington will grant the heavily import-dependent nation a sanction waiver.

Reportedly, India’s largest refiners have not ordered any Iranian crude for November deliveries, which suggest that India might follow other countries buying oil from Iran. One can’t ignore a fact that the deadline for purchasing oil cargoes for November delivery is still a couple of weeks away. Earlier, India had indicated to use its currency to settle oil transactions with Iran.

The European Union has come up with a mechanism to continue buying oil and oil products from Iran, but analysts are skeptical about how effective it will be. The mechanism basically means transactions will use the barter principle rather than money—a mechanism the USSR used during the Cold war. Since a transaction is a transaction, with or without money, the U.S. could expand sanctions to cover barter deals also.

Some close observers of the situation warn that despite all the rhetoric from Washington, things in Iran are not as bad as being portrayed by the western media. The country has the resources to withstand the crisis. Reportedly Iran has enough to handle 1.85 million bpd in exports, and Iranian insurers are sure to provide coverage, the uncertainties continue.

After entering into different controversies, the US president has hit Saudi monarch below the belt by saying that its rule could no last beyond two weeks without the US support. Analysts say that after facing defeat in Syria and Iraq, the US seems adamant at dragging Saudi Arabia into some proxy war and putting all the blame on Iran.

Do the US citizens know how many people have been killed using tax payers’ money?

A few days back I posted a blog “US: Peace Broker or War Monger” and my conclusion was “United States is the biggest war monger”. This morning I read one of the most popular Global Research 2017 articles, its tile is “US has killed more than 20 million people in 37 victim nations since World War II. This prompted me to arrive at another conclusion “The US Citizens have hardly bothered to find out where tax payers’ money is being used”. I have taken extracts from this article to remind the US citizens to open up their eyes and try to stop the government from spending their money on wars.

After the catastrophic attacks of 9/1, monumental sorrow and a feeling of desperate and understandable anger was inculcated in the American psyche. A few people at that time attempted to promote a balanced perspective by pointing out that the United States had also been responsible for causing the same feelings in people in other nations, but they produced hardly a ripple. Although, Americans understand in the wisdom of people around the world empathizing with the suffering of one another, such a reminder of wrongs committed by their government was soon overshadowed by an accelerated “war on terrorism.” The efforts of US citizens must continue to develop understanding and compassion in the world. Hopefully, this article will help in addressing the question “How many 9/11s has the United States caused in other nations since WWII?”

The causes of wars are complex. In some instances nations other than the US may have been responsible for more deaths, but if the involvement of United States appeared to have been a necessary cause of a war or conflict it was considered responsible for the deaths in it. In other words they probably would not have taken place if the US had not used the heavy hand of its power. The military and economic power of the United States was crucial.

This study reveals that US military forces were directly responsible for about 10 million to 15 million deaths during the Korean and Vietnam Wars and the two Iraq Wars. The Korean War also includes Chinese deaths while the Vietnam War also includes fatalities in Cambodia and Laos.

The US citizens are probably not aware of these numbers and know even less about the proxy wars for which the United States is also responsible. In the these wars from 9 million to 14 million people have been killed in Afghanistan, Angola, Democratic Republic of the Congo, East Timor, Guatemala, Indonesia, Pakistan and Sudan.

But the victims are not just from big nations or one part of the world. The remaining deaths were in smaller ones which constitute over half the total number of nations. Virtually all parts of the world have been the target of US intervention. The overall conclusion reached is that the United States most likely has been responsible since WWII for the deaths of 20 million to 30 million people in wars and conflicts scattered over the world.

To the families and friends of these victims it makes little difference whether the causes were US military action, proxy military forces, the provision of US military supplies or advisers, or other ways, such as economic pressures applied by the US. They had to make decisions about other things such as finding lost loved ones, whether to become refugees, and how to survive.

The pain and anger spreads even further. Some authorities estimate that there are as many as 10 wounded for each person killed in these war. Their visible, continued suffering is a continuing reminder to their fellow countrymen. It is essential that Americans learn more about this topic so that they can begin to understand the pain that others feel. Someone once observed that the Germans during WWII chose not to know, the US citizens must not allow history to say this about them.

Let every reader keep this in mind that gathering the actual count of deaths is not easy. The collection of data was undertaken with full realization of this fact. These estimates will probably be revised later either upward or downward, but undoubtedly the total will remain in the millions.

Indian Frustration or War Mania

According to news reports, New Delhi has called off a meeting between the Pakistani and Indian foreign ministers on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly, just a day after confirmation.

The reason for cancellation of meeting was stated by Indian External Affairs Spokesperson Raveesh Kumar, "unclean intentions" on Pakistan's side. He said, "It is obvious that behind Pakistan's proposal for talks to make a fresh beginning, the evil agenda of Pakistan stands exposed and the true face of the new Prime Minister Imran Khan has been revealed to the world in his first few months in office," he said. "Any conversation with Pakistan in such an environment would be meaningless."

Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi termed the development "unfortunate", saying, "We had already told India that if they take one step towards us, we will take two. However, it seems that they faltered after taking just one step."

PPP Senator Sherry Rehman sent a Twitter condemning the move, saying, "Shame that on International Peace Day, India has refused to talk peace with Pakistan in even a routine manner at the UN on the sidelines of the General Assembly." "Running from talks won’t change the fact that this time Indian repression in Kashmir has been noticed in a UN report ", she added.

The Indian arrogance can be attributed to a recently signed agreement between the US and India that would pave the way for New Delhi to buy advanced American weaponry and to share sensitive military technology, strengthening their military partnership as both powers warily eyes the rise of China. The countries also promised to hold joint land, sea and air military exercises in India next year.  

On the day Jim Mattis, the US Defense Secretary had said, “Today’s fruitful discussion illustrated the value of continued cooperation between the world’s two largest democracies. We will work together for a free and prosperous Indo-Pacific.”

If I refer back to the visit of Jim Mattis, Defense Secretary and Mike Pompeo, State Secretary, despite the friendly handshakes and flattering remarks exchanged as the two met with their counterparts, their counties remain deeply skeptical of each other.

The US is worried about how willing India will be to openly counter China as the Chinese expand their influence in the waters between the Indian and Pacific Oceans. It is also unhappy about India’s reluctance to cut trade relations with Iran.

India views the Trump administration as erratic, and it is troubled by the United States’ recent barriers to trade, which threaten to impose tariffs on Indian goods and force New Delhi to import more American products.

I would also attribute Indian attitude as assign of frustration, because the US has failed in convincing Pakistan to allow Indian goods to pass through for Afghanistan and Iran. It is irony of fate that the US remains dependent on Pakistan for the passing of NATO supplies. The US has not forgotten the adversities faced after Pakistan put a temporary embargo on the movement of NATO supplies.  

US attempt to contain Iranian oil export aimed at keeping crude prices high

I have often wondered why the US is adamant at containing oil export from Iran. This morning I have found some clue after reading the weekly email sent to me by Oil &Energy Insider, captioned “A Crucial Period for Oil Markets”. It covers many news but two most important for me are: "Oil prices rose this week on the back of continued outages from Venezuela and Iran. The EIA also warned “We are set to enter a 'crucial period' for oil markets”.

The report also gave details that U.S. Energy Secretary Rick Perry held two high-profile meetings, one with his counterpart from Saudi Arabia and the other with his Russian counterpart. These meeting were aimed at ensuring ample supply of crude oil after re-imposition of sanctions on Iran become into effect in November. Perry praised OPEC as a whole and Russia for responding to higher prices by increasing production, even using the word “admiration” as something the cartel and Russia deserved for their efforts to keep oil prices under control. For my readers understanding the US objective will become much clear after reading the following details.

By pulling itself out of the agreement with Iran, the US aims at achieving multiple objectives, the top of the agenda item being initiating the hype for the change in regime in Iran. The sole purpose of the US is to cripple the Iranian economy to an extent that could lead to regime change. However, observers familiar with Iranian politics have warned this is an unlikely outcome. Crippling Iranian economy will also please Saudi Arabia, which has been brainwashed to the level for singing the manta, “Iran is a bigger enemy as compared to Israel”.

Another key US objective is to mend its relationship with Russia. While the US administration has been trying to bring down Iranian oil export to virtually zero, it is encouraging Russia to keep its production at the highest level to ensure there will be enough oil even when Iran’s exports slump. There is a need to understand the shift in the US policy towards Russia. The situation is particularly interesting as U.S.-Russian relations are at a historic low but Russia is one of the world’s top oil producers, enjoying the power to control global oil supply and prices.

According to Russian Energy Minister Alexander Novak, the global oil market remains fragile because of production declines and geopolitical unrest. “This is huge uncertainty on the market – how the countries located in Europe and Asia Pacific region, which buy almost 2 million barrels per day of Iranian oil will act. The situation should be closely watched, to make the right decisions,” said Novak. He also said Russia could step in if the market needs more supply. Russia has potential to raise production by 300,000 barrels per day.

Worries of OPEC, led by Saudi Arabia are multiple. OPEC has cut its 2019 oil demand forecast because of economic uncertainties arising from Sino-US trade war. The 1.41 million barrels per day (bpd) demand growth forecast is 20,000 bpd lower than last month’s figure. “Rising challenges in some emerging and developing economies are skewing the current global economic growth risk forecast to the downside,” said an OPEC report.

The protests and riots in Iraq’s oil-rich southern region are flaring up again, potentially posing a threat to the country’s record oil export levels. Some companies have taken their foreign workers out. Production hasn't been hit yet, but if anyone facility goes down, the production loss could be as high as 800,000 bpd, so it's a big story to watch. Global experts also highlight that the lack of spare capacity makes such an outage especially worrisome. They also say that the real problem right now is limited availability of options to absorb shocks.

Within the US, Hurricane Florence is battering the coast of North and South Carolina, but there very little fallout is expected for the oil market since no oil refineries or upstream production facilities are located in those states. But if the Hurricane travels further inland into the Appalachian region, it could curtail shale gas production.

The US shale companies emerge clear winners. They took advantage of relatively high oil prices in the second quarter to lock in hedges beyond 2019. Permian shale drillers increased 2020 hedging by 431 percent in the second quarter of this year, an indication that E&Ps are worried about pipeline bottlenecks stretching beyond 2019. The quantum of hedging appears unusual. The risk of hedging is that some companies could eliminate upside exposure if pipelines are completed on time and oil prices rise.

It may not be wrong to infer that after minimizing oil exports from Libya and Venezuela, the next likely US targets are Iran and Iraq. It is also evident that in the US pursuit to keep oil prices high, it is fully supported by Saudi Arabia and Russia. A point to be watched microscopically is how many countries succeed in acquiring US exemption to buy oil from Iran?

US: Peace Broker or War Monger

On Friday, 14th September 2018 I was among the audience who were invited by Institute of Business Administration (IBA) Karachi to a talk led by Dr. Moeed Yusuf, Associate Vice President, Asia Centre, United States Institute of Peace. The other two worthy speakers were former Defence Secretary of Pakistan (Rtd) Lt. Gen. Tariq Waseem Ghazi and former Chairman of Pakistan Nuclear Regulatory Authority, Jams­hed Hashmi.

Dr. Yusuf spoke about his latest book ‘Brokering Peace in Nuclear Environments: U.S. Crisis Management in South Asia’, in which he studied environments where nuclear weapons were present which changed the dynamics of any crisis. He also proposed the theory of ‘brokering of peace’, and crisis management in the regional nuclear environment of Pakistan and India.

Dr. Moeed said, “My findings suggest that you will always have stronger third parties who want to influence the crisis because they are worried that things may escalate to the nuclear level. These third parties will show up on their own; for instance the US exaggerates the risk of nuclear escalation because of the lesson it drew from the Cold War which was that nuclear war, if it ever happens, will happen not because countries deliberately want it, but despite them not wanting it.”

“It is not that Pakistan and India want the third party,” he elaborated. “However, when the third party shows up to offer mediation and help mitigate the crisis, Pakistan and India recognize they do not have any dependable bilateral ties to bank on. Also, both states then tend to force the third party to deliver concessions rather than directly engage with the opponent. Both Pakistan and India try to use the third party, in this instance the US, to get concessions.”

Tariq Waseem Ghazi disagreed with this model. According to him, there is a general disregard from India’s side to engage with Pakistan on a bilateral level as well as in the presence of a third party, whether it be the UN, the US or China. “Indians say everybody else is irrelevant and wish to solely dictate the terms of engagement. In the last 10 years we have been trying to do exactly what Moeed has been proposing for crisis resolution and conflict prevention, but no proposal from us has been acceptable to India.”

Jams­hed Hashmi was of the opinion that the US tends to do more harm than good when trying to deescalate crises between Pakistan and India. “The US will continue to ‘broker’ conflicts and we have to accept that. However, nowhere during this brokerage has the biggest point of contention between Pakistan and India — Kashmir — ever been debated on or the crisis resolved.”

Having listened to the worthy speakers, a question came to my mind, is US a peacekeeper or a war monger? With reference to Pakistan I am witness to many frustrating experiences with the US. Some of these include unwillingness of the strongest super power to mediate in the resolution of Kashmir issue, which is often termed flash point. The super power didn’t play any role in stopping East Pakistan becoming Bangladesh. The US first used Pakistan along with Taliban to fight USSR troops in Afghanistan and post 9/11 Pakistan was used against Taliban. Over the years ‘do more’ manta continues. Now Afghans have been brain washed to a level where they consider Pakistan a foe rather than a friend.

During the cold war era, India was provided military hardware by the US to equip it to fight against China. The US also facilitated India to attain the status of regional super power. The program has been further accelerated after the commencement of work on China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). The relationship between Iran and India are being supported to counter relationship between Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. A closer look in the neighborhood shows proxy wars going on in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen and Lebanon for years.

Based on Pakistan experience and ongoing US proxy wars in the region, one is forced to arrive at a conclusion that US is not a peacekeeper but warmonger. Having said this, I would like to thank Dr. Moeed for providing an opportunity to the newly elected government of Pakistan to understand the paradigm shift in US foreign policy, imposing itself as a peace broker on Pakistan and India. My suggestion to the Indian government is also to engage with Pakistan directly, rather than asking the US to mediate.  

Pakistan Stock Exchange witnesses 22 percent decline in daily trading volume

With a modest recovery in the first couple of days, the benchmark index of Pakistan Stock Exchange (PSX), lost most of the gains posted recently. The week ended 7th September closed at 40,855 points, down 2.1%WoW. Showcasing all the tell-tale signs of a highly volatile, illiquid (average daily trading volume shrinking  by 22%WoW) and dampened near term outlook, investors remained cautious. The news impacting the market included: 1) a number of crucial and time sensitive decisions for the new government where clarity is awaited and 2) growing risk of a cyclical downturn in consumption led demand where monetary tightening and high fuel prices suggest reduced spending. Other news affecting investors’ sentiments were: 1) US Secretary of State Michael Pompeo stating that his visit to Islamabad led to an agreement that it’s time for the United States and Pakistan to deliver on their commitments, 2) the central bank announcing auction of Rs5.15 trillion worth Market Treasury Bills and Pakistan Investment Bonds during the four remaining months of the current calendar year, 3) Prime Minister Imran Khan approving 46% increase in gas prices as proposed by OGRA, along with ordering steps to control annual gas theft of Rs50 billion and 4) President on the advice of the Prime Minister reconstituting the Council of Common Interests (CCI), and constituting the Cabinet Committee on China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CCoCPEC). Volume leaders for the week were: BOP, KEL, AGL and EPCL. While the gainers were led by: ABL, KAPCO, UBL, KEL, the laggards included: PIOC, DGKC, CHCC and NCL. Volatility is expected to mar investors’ sentiments over the coming weeks because of some difficult to comprehend decision, also lacking prudent thinking. Accumulating positions on dips and tactical sector switching could yield returns. Overall, market participants will be closely monitoring policy decisions, particularly regarding gas and electricity tariff hikes (proposed by OGRA and NEPRA with ECC's formal decisions pending) and near term measures to curtail the external account deficit.

Ballooning current account deficit (CAD) due to the hefty debt repayments have led to a mammoth external financing gap (US$20.42 billion for FY18) as insufficient external inflows (US$14.35 billion loans in FY18) plunged the foreign exchange reserves held by State Bank of Pakistan to US$9.79 billion, down US$6.34 billion during FY18. Going forward, an estimated CAD of US$17.8 billion for FY19 with additional drags from upcoming redemption of Eurobond and commercial borrowing repayments are likely to push gross external financing to US$22.44 billion for FY19. In this regard, inadequate external inflows estimated at US$13.45 billion (excluding bailout financing should translate into a net shortfall of US$8.84 billion by the end of FY19, plunging the reserves to unsustainable levels. Moreover, for recent policy makers, the path to possible remedies for the prevailing BoP shortfall include: 1) approaching international debt market, 2) investments from non-residential Pakistanis, 3) Chinese bailout, 4) 'gifts' from friendly countries, and 5) eventual IMF financing facility. With each mode of financing carrying inherent benefits and associated risks, GoP conceding to another IMF financing facility along with accompanying caveats (with the sole purpose of improving on external vulnerabilities). Under an IMF facility, GoP could likely tap in other external avenues as well as fetch better yields in international debt market to create a blend of financing to bridge the external gap.

Pakistan’s largest exploration and production company OGDC has announced its FY18 earnings at Rs78.74 billion (EPS: Rs18.31) as compared to R63.80 billion (EPS: Rs14.84) for FY17, up 23%YoY. The Board of Directors has also approved payment of a final dividend of Rs2.5/share, taking the cumulative full year payout to Rs10/share for the year. The results are above market expectations on account of higher gross profit, translating into higher profitability. Net sales were up 19%YoY mainly due to the hike in international oil prices by 25%YoY and depreciation of Pak rupee by more than5%, despite falling hydrocarbon volumes. Exploration expense were reported at Rs16.19 billion, may be due to recording of a previously suspended well at Ranipur. The quantum of other income was almost at the level of previous year. During 4QFY18 fourth earnings rose to Rs21.92 billion (EPS: Rs5.10) from R16.21 billion (EPS: Rs3.77), on the back of favorable macro/oil price shifts, overcoming the drop in volumetric output (gas volumes were stagnant but oil volumes declined by more than 7%YoY). At present the scrip is being traded at a heavy discount to its 3 year historical price. While the likely positive is further hike in international oil price, the dry wells in Baluchistan or a decline in global oil prices could pose risks to the profitability of the Company.

The decline in petroleum, oil and lubricants (POL) sales plunged by 18% MoM/46%YoY during August 2018 as volumetric offtake declined to 1.35 million tons, proving to be the lowest monthly for sales since February 2007. The lofty decline was observed in FO sales falling by 46%MoM/79%YoY. Along with this retail fuel segment also tapered (HSD and MOGAS sales also posted decline of 20%MoM/38%YoY and 1%MoM/11%YoY) respectively, the 8MCY18 cumulative volumes also declined by 18% YoY. Among all the products, only MOGAS recorded a 3%YoY increase, while HSD/FO offtake declined 7%MoM/45%YoY, sapping growth from overall sales. Sizeable shifts in market share PSO, APL, and HASCOL during 8MCY18 was observed as smaller unlisted players were seem to be claiming bigger chunk in the pie.

Some of the worth mentioning corporate announcements were: 1) National Foods (NATF) announced its 4QFY18 result posting consolidated EPS of Rs4.37 up 100% YoY as compared to EPS of Rs2.19 for the corresponding quarter last year. Sales improved by 13% YoY, while distribution cost declined by 18% YoY. Earnings were considerably up despite 1) increase in administrative expenses by 75% YoY, 2) hike in financial charges by 37% YoY, 3) decline in gross margins and 4) fall in other income by 65% YoY. NATF also announced cash dividend of Rs3.75 per share along with issue of 20% bonus shares. 2) Engro Polymer and Chemicals (EPCL) informed PSX that the Company has decided to enter Hydrogen per Oxide business through a Greenfield manufacturing facility with a CAPEX of US$23 million, funded through internal cash generation. 3) Pak Suzuki Motor announced that it would stop production of its much sought-after and low-priced Mehran from next year.

Reinvigorating capital market of Pakistan

The newly installed government in Pakistan faces a mammoth task of reinvigorating capital market of the country. This should be among the top five most important items of the economic agenda. The fiscal consolidation requires some other unpopular measures that include: 1) improving tax collection to bridge budget deficit, 2) containing extravaganzas for spending more on development, 3) boosting exports by making Pakistani manufacturers/exporters competitive in the global markets and 4) privatizing state own enterprises to save one trillion rupees which these units swallow annually. Since the role of the government is to facilitate the business community in making fresh investment for the creation of new job, stock exchange is one of the most important institutions that play a key role in the mobilization of capita. An effort has been made to review the factors affecting the performance of Pakistan Stock Exchange (PSX) and suggest the impetus to make it more vibrant. To read details please click http://www.pakistaneconomist.com/2018/09/03/reinvigorating-capital-market-of-pakistan/

Race for the position of next President of Pakistan

 The five-year term of incumbent President of Pakistan, Mamnoon Hussain, elected by the previous ruling party Pakistan Muslim League, Nawaz Sharif faction (PML-N), ends on 9th September 2018. He is eligible for re-election for the second term, but has declined to participate in the election.

The election for new president has been scheduled for 4th September 2018. In Pakistan, president is elected by the Electoral College, which comprises of Senate, National assembly and the provincial assemblies. Each member cast his/her vote at the respective assemblies to elect the next present.

The three candidates, who have filed their nomination papers for the election of president, are Arif Alvi nominated by the ruling party, Pakistan Tehreek Insaf (PTI). He has also won one seat in National Assembly. Aitzaz Ahsan is a former senator of Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) from Punjab. Maulana Fazal-ur-Rehman, chief of JUI(F) is the joint candidate of Muthaida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA) and PML(N). It is worth mentioning that Maulana was not elected by the voters from two of the constituencies of his own hometown Dera Ismail Khan. It appears that he is playing the final gamble to fetch the post of President of Pakistan to save his dignity, whatever is left.

PTI is not likely to face any competition in winning the presidential elections because the opposition that came in assemblies bragging to be a strong opposition and claiming to give a tough time to PTI and its allies is proving a house of cards. They could not remain on the same page regarding nomination of the joint candidate. The complacency of PTI is based on the fact that it already enjoys support of 346 members of the National Assembly, Provincial Assembles and Senate. PTI is also backed by MQM(P), GDA, PML(Q) and Baluchistan Qaumi Movement.

The irony of the fate is that the opposition failed in arriving at consensus on the name of the joint candidate. To disassociate PML(N) take refuge behind the allegation that Aitzaz Ahsan in one of his public speech during the election campaign used some derogatory remarks Kulsoom Nawaz, wife of convicted prime minister Nawaz Sharif. PPP seems adamant by not pulling out Aitzaz Ahsan to make Maulana a joint candidateof the opposition. If one peeps into the history, Maulana has enjoyed support of both PPP and PML(N), which kept him Chairman of Kashmir Committee.

The lust for power of Maulana is evident from his recent visit to Karachi and seek support from MQM(P). Both the parties extended their hospitality but very politely expressed their stance; they are already in alliance with PTI.

If one examines the prevailing scenario carefully the PTI confidence is not out of the place. Due to the opposition in complete disarray, soon PTI, allied parties and their vote bank throughout the country will be celebrating victory of presidential election. All the credit will not only go to all the alliance parties for supporting PTI, but historian will also write that opposition offered the position to PTI by not showing its unity.

Moral of the story is that Maulana Fazal-ur-Rehman has enjoyed his days and time has come for him to announce retirement from politics and confine himself to religious preaching to develop interfaith harmony, if he can. He accused Pakistan Army for ‘engineered election’ and also made efforts to convince elected members not to take oath.

Time for mending US Pakistan relationship

It is becoming visible that the US administration has already started applying undue pressure on Pakistan. The Foreign Secretary is scheduled to visit Pakistan during first week of September. In the past the US mantra was ‘do more’, which is likely to get louder as the newly elected government has taken charge.

The first evidence came when the US issued instructions to the IMF to be more cautious in lending money to Pakistan. Ironically this announcement came without taking into account many ifs and buts. The recent handout of the US administration further spoiled the already deteriorating relationship. It has therefore become imperative for the US administration to revisit its foreign policy towards Pakistan.

Let it be clearly understood by the US administration that the public pressure on the government has been on the rise to bid farewell to the US proxy war in Afghanistan. The masses now openly ask the reasons for the presence of thousands of troops in Afghanistan, the US had announced to pull out its troops from Afghanistan by 2014. Even at that time I had written a blog that troops will stay in Afghanistan forever and the prediction came true as the number of troops has increased rather than reducing.

I had also written that the US has lost war in Korea and Vietnam in the past and was on losing spree in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan. The US must accept its defeat in Afghanistan and pull out its troops immediately. The newspaper reports indicate that more and more area of Afghanistan is being recaptured by anti US fighters, enjoying the support of local population. The control of Afghan regime that shrank to Kabul is now shrinking to Presidential Palace only.

Many geopolitical analysts have the consensus that after the decision to pull troops the US administration is getting jittery about the safety of its soldiers as well as military hardware. It can’t be ruled out that the anti-US forces may allow evacuation of troops in exchange for military hardware. The hardware that was accumulated in Afghanistan in more than four decades can’t be moved out in weeks or months. The US had used Pakistan backed fighters in repulsing USSR troops and again expects Pakistan to provide a shield as the retreat of troops and military hardware starts.

The analysts fear that retreat may not be as easy as being perceived by the US administration. I am sure that the US administration is fully cognizant of the fact the Anti US fighters are now backed by global and regional super powers and all of them would not like to miss the opportunity to settle their accounts. The real issue is that the US troops can’t move an inch without the local support as they are not familiar with the terrain. This inadequacy was one of the prime factors of the US defeat in Korea.

Establishing peace in Afghanistan is as not as easy as being perceived by the US administration. The presence of local war lords and fighters supported by the US troops make the jigsaw puzzle more complicated. One of solutions, which may not be acceptable to the US administration, is destruction of all the US owned military hardware in Afghanistan. However, it creates a situation chicken or egg first.

For the safe exit of the US troops and avoid anarchy/civil war after the departure of US troops, the US must consider destruction of military hardware. It is also suggested that Pakistan should not get involved in any adventure. The US has started the war in Afghanistan and it will have to ensure peace after the withdrawal of its troops. Trillions of US dollars, tax payers’ money, have been wasted in four decades. If the British crown can let its colonies get independence why can’t the US accept it defeat and pull out troops from Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria?

Examining the likely facets of Pakistan’s new foreign policy

The stage is being set for the oath taking of Imran Khan as Prime Minister of Pakistan. Concurrently the names to head finance, foreign affairs and defense ministries are being finalized. These three ministries are critically important as these will set the pace of economic development and contain cross border terrorism.

In one of my earlier posts I have outlined the top priorities for Asad Umar, the finance minister in waiting. While he is expected to keep his focus on two prime deficits, budget and trade, the influx of foreign exchange to meet debt servicing will be dictated directly by foreign policy. Most probably funds will be released on the instruction of Saudi Arabia and United States or China will have to extend more loans to facilitate Pakistan payoff loans obtained in the past.

The US, which in the past had been more than gracious in advising International Monetary Fund (IMF) to lend money to Pakistan, now seems very hostile. In the prevailing scenario, Pakistan has no option but to approach other friendly countries, Saudi Arabia and China that can extend soft-terms loans to avoid default.

Reportedly, Islamic Development Bank (IDB) has been instructed by Saudi Arabia to lend US$4 billion to Pakistan after Imran Khan takes oath as country’s next prime minister. The offer was made immediately after a statement by Asad Umar that Pakistan would decide on whether to seek a bailout from IMF or friendly nations such as China and Saudi Arabia. A point yet to be clarified is whether the loan by IDB would be in addition to a three-year US$4.5 billion oil financing facility for Pakistan activated in July 2018.

Umar has expressed intention to seek a US$12 billion bailout package from IMF. However, after the response of the US president, other contingency arrangements have to be made. The PML-N government, which also enjoyed godfathering of Saudi Arabia, has left Pakistan with huge burden of external loans resulting in balance of payment crisis and massive depreciation of Pak rupee.

It goes without saying that global and regional super powers have special interest in Pakistan. The US is heavily dependent on Pakistan for logistic support for the combat troops stationed in Afghanistan. Pakistan also provides transit facilities to Afghanistan. In the prevailing scenario ‘do more’ mantra of the US goes on but it can’t afford to antagonize Pakistanis to disrupt NATO supplies. Despite being a super power, the US suffers from ‘bitten once shy twice’ situation that happened after attack on Salala post.

While the US considers Pakistan a partner in war against terrorism only, China has substantial economic interest in Pakistan. At no point in time China can afford a situation where pace of work on China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) may be jeopardize. Over the last one year Chinese loans have kept Pakistan afloat and support of any magnitude in the future can’t be ruled out. As the economic interest of China grows in Pakistan, it will also have to extend military support to save the country from any aggression. While President Trump may not be aware of this fact but the US administration is fully cognizant that any retaliatory move will allow China to get sold footing in Pakistan.

Whether people accept it or not, Saudi Arabia, India and Iran are three regional super power and all the three wish to maintain cordial relationship, but at their own terms. A past mistake of India to bid farewell to Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline project has caused it colossal losses. Even investment of millions of dollars in the construction of Chabahar Port in Iran by India has not provided it and efficient and effective access to Afghanistan. India is keen on the construction of Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India (TAPI) gas pipeline, which will also pass through Pakistan. Therefore, India is obliged to maintain minimum working relationship with Pakistan. In this endeavor it is support by Iran also.

Maintaining cordial relationship with Iran and Saudi Arabia is a must for Pakistan. The country can’t afford any hostility with either of the countries because it encourages terrorists to use its province, Baluchistan for cross border terrorism under the disguise of Baluchistan liberation movement. Some of the quarters allege that in the past terrorist using Baluchistan as safe sanctuary were provided fund and arms by the US through the courtesy of Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Arabia has enjoyed good relations with Nawaz Shariff and its concerns with the change of government are natural. Imran Khan has expressed to adopt a more independent course and also expressed willingness to mediate in improving relationship between Saudi Arabia and Iran but, it becomes a nightmare for Saudi Arabia that Pakistan develops cordial relationship with Iran.

In a phone call with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, Khan has accepted an invitation to visit Tehran. Reportedly, Saudi Crown Prince has also expressed intention to visit Pakistan soon in a bid to strengthen bilateral relationship.

“We want to improve ties with Iran. Saudi Arabia is a friend who has always stood by us in difficult times. Our aim will be that whatever we can do for conciliation in the Middle East, we want to play that role. Those tensions, that fight, between neighbors, we will try to bring them together,” Khan said.

It is not an easy situation for Khan to handle. Saudi Arabia has welcomed US President Donald Trump’s withdrawal from the 2015 nuclear agreement that curbed Iran’s nuclear program and his efforts to economically strangle the Islamic republic with harsh sanctions.  Saudi Arabia has not forgotten that Pakistan’s parliament rejected in 2015 a Saudi request to authorize Pakistani troops to participate in its troubled military campaign in Yemen.

Appointment of Ms. Shirin Mazari as Defense Minister, also becomes a source of concern for the monarchy. She had openly criticized in a series of tweets the fact that Pakistani general Raheel Sharif commands the 41-nation, Saudi-sponsored Islamic Military Counter Terrorism Coalition (IMCTC). She had asserted that Pakistan should not cooperate in Saudi Arabia’s alleged pursuit of a US agenda and should instead forge ties to Iran and India.

Khan will have to follow the collective wisdom of maintaining cordial relationship with global and regional powers. However, he will also have to safeguard Pakistan’s sovereignty. Pakistan should not be made subservient to any country for seeking bailout packages. He will also have to nurture the culture of living within means, rather than enjoying extravaganzas on borrowed money.

United States leading wars around the globe

Just the other day I received this article in my mail box. I read it repeatedly and then decided to share with my readers. Many people outside Pakistan may have read it but still I want more people to read this.

Our attention has focused for the past 18 months on the alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election. If true, these seemingly heinous acts are said to strike at the very roots of American democracy. Understandably so. Someone spending $95,000 to prise out of the Democratic National Committee vaults details of how Debbie Wasserman-Schultz tried to rig the primaries in Hillary Clinton’s favor constitutes a grave threat to the integrity of the American electoral process. When we add to that offense the outrageous release of the transcript from Ms  Clinton’s highly lucrative chat with the financial heavies at Goldman Sachs, our heads swoon at the audacity of the perpetrators. So dense is this thicket, so heavily freighted with consequence, that the most diligent mind struggles to absorb it all during the lazy dog days of summer.

                       An effort to escape from this unnatural burden led me to boldly take the risk of flying UNITED toward a salubrious destination. The serenity of those ‘friendly skies’ provided the leisure to contemplate other recent news – in particular, the doings of the United States in upholding the principles of national sovereignty and political freedom elsewhere in the world. A short list of the places where we have been active follows.

Cheers

Michael Brenner

mbren@pitt.edu

1.       In ENGLAND, Trump aggressively promoted Boris Johnson as a brilliant leader despite his direct challenge to Prime Minister Theresa May last week.

2.      Also re. ENGLAND, Sam Brownback, the US ambassador for international religious freedom, protested to the British Ambassador the jailing of racist agitator Tommy Robinson who targets Muslims

3.       In SCOTLAND, Trump lashed out at Nicola Sturgeon, the leader of the Scottish National Party, with a barrage of highly personal insults.

4.       In GERMANY, Trump has striven to weaken the position of Chancellor Angela Merkel through denunciations of her judgment and domestic policies

5.       IN POLAND, the Trump administration has lent its full support to the ultra-nationalist, anti-democratic government when it was facing opposition to its autocratic moves

6.       In HUNGARY, it has done the same in support of Prime Minister Viktor Orban

7.       In SAUDI ARABIA, Trump warmly embraced Crown Prince Mohammed ben-Salman despite his shake-down of other Saudi leaders and dangerous crack-down on the Shi’ite community

8.       In ECUADOR, Washington has encouraged current Prime Minister Lenin Moreno to pursue a vendetta against former President Rafael Correa because of the latter’s social democratic policies and unwillingness to kow-tow to American business interests

9.       In NICARAGUA, the United States is backing the campaign to overthrow the democratically government of Daniel Ortega

10.   In BRAZIL, the Trump administration gave its full public backing to the ‘constitutional’ coup against Prime Minister Dilma Rousseff because of her independent foreign policy line on issues that went against the grain of American policies and her mild challenge to American financial interests

11.   In ARGENTINA, the CIA/FBI connived with political foes of then president Cristina Kirchner to resurrect long discredited accusations that she was implicated somehow in the 1994  bombing of a Buenos Aires synagogue ascribed (probably falsely) to Iran. That contributed to her loss in a run-off to  Mauricio Macri – scion to one of Argentina’s biggest fortunes and graduate of Columbia Business School. 

The week after his inauguration Macri flew to New York to cede $6.5billion dollars to Wall Street hedge funds which had speculated in Argentine debt in 2001 and was being hotly contested in the courts. He also submitted to a Washington demand that he give the U.S. armed forces basing rights in PATAGONIA. The Pentagon evidently sees the base as strategic counter to a move by Russia, China or Iran to threaten America by striking through the soft underbelly of the Western Hemisphere. That is in violation of the Argentinian constitution. But, then again, isn’t that what indebted friends are for?

12.   In HONDURAS, the United States strong-armed the OAS not to penalize the government of President Juan Orlando Hernandez for its blatant rigging of the election last year

13.   In BOLIVIA, the U.S. has been conspiring with business interests and the oligarchical elite to overturn the government of reformist President Evo Morales. In the recent past, the American ambassador coordinated their efforts to topple Morales through orchestrated demonstrations in the mining and business hub of Santa Cruz.

14.   In PARAGUAY, Washington encouraged the oligarchical establishment to usurp the powers of the Presidency by impeaching the first progressive head of state in over 60 years. In 2008 the voters chose Fernando Lugo, a former Roman Catholic Bishop whose reformist policies were anathema to landed interests and big business. His governing as a Gospel Christian could not be tolerated. He therefore was duly impeached on absurd trumped-up by a simple majority vote of the Colorado Party opposition in the legislature. The elites' economic performance while in office since 1945 had as its greatest accomplishment the maintenance of the world’s only railroad still fueled by wood – evidently an attraction of some sort to the Obama administration in its promotion of a neo-Liberal economic order. 

15.   In VENEZUELA, the United States has used every weapon short of military force to overthrow the democratically elected government of President Nicolas Maduro

16.   In UKRAINE, the United States continues its military, financial, and political support for President Poroshenko whose was brought to power by an American orchestrated violent coup against his democratically elected predecessor

17.   In RUSSIA, the United States pursues a relentless campaign of slander against the democratically elected government of President Vladimir Putin and provides direct support via its embassy to opponents

18.   In LIBYA, the United States and its European allies have arbitrarily attempted to impose an ersatz government lodged on a yacht in Algiers harbor that has no popular support or legitimacy 

19.   In SYRIA, the United States has stationed troops against the will of the sovereign government in Damascus and provides material support to jihadist opponents (al-Qaeda & Assoc) fighting to overturn it.

20.   In IRAN, Trump leads a thinly concealed campaign to overthrow the current government

21.   In YEMEN, the United States has chosen sides in a civil war that involves participation in a homicidal air campaign carried out by Saudi Arabia and other outside parties

22.   In the PHILIPPINES, Trump personally has bolstered President Rodrigo Duterte in his program to build a lawless autocracy

23.   In SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA, the United States is actively involved in the internal politics of a dozen or so countries

24.   In LEBANON, The United States has been relentlessly engaged in a campaign to consolidate the power of its US-dependent government led by Rafik Hariri and to undercut Hezbullah and President Aoun

25.   In AFGHANISTAN…..

26.   In IRAQ…

25 -  INFINITY

Then, lest we forget, there are the sub rosa programs of the United States to strengthen democracy world-wide. One: the comprehensive surveillance of electronic communications globally. The product upon occasion makes its way into the hands of our favorites in the political game of other countries. Two: we regularly conduct drone strikes on persons WE determine are a menace to somebody else’s welfare and serenity, e.g. in Pakistan, Libya. By some stretch of the imagination, killings by HELLFIRE missile on their own soil, too, might be considered political interference. Three: more specifically, cyber attacks on sensitive computers and data banks, e.g. STUXNET in Iran