Dawn Editorials (with Summary and Vocabulary)

 

DAWN EDITORIALS

January 14, 2024 (Sunday)

Day’s Vocabulary

• Achaemenid.        relating to the dynasty ruling in Persia from Cyrus I to Darius III (553–330 BC)
• Fervour.      intense and passionate feeling
• Congruity. in agreement or harmony
• Force majeure.    unforeseeable circumstances that prevent someone from fulfilling a contract
• Rapprochement.            (especially in international relations) an establishment or resumption of harmonious relations
• Stems.         originate in or be caused by
• Invariably. in every case or on every occasion; always
• Entail.          involve (something) as a necessary or inevitable part or consequence
• Fissured.    having long, narrow cracks or openings
• Vortex.        a mass of whirling fluid or air, especially a whirlpool or whirlwind
• Junkets.      an extravagant trip or celebration, in particular one enjoyed by a government official at public expense
• Robust.       strong and healthy; vigorous
• Impunity.  exemption from punishment or freedom from the injurious consequences of an action
• Eloquently.           in a fluent or persuasive manner
• Ergo. therefore
• Egged.          urge or encourage someone to do something, especially something foolish or risky
• Utter.            complete; absolute
• Enigmatic. difficult to interpret or understand; mysterious
• Satirical.    the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues
• Paranoid.   unreasonably or obsessively anxious, suspicious, or mistrustful
• Precarious.           not securely held or in position; dangerously likely to fall or collapse
• Simmer.      (of water or food) stay just below the boiling point while being heated
• Venture.     a risky or daring journey or undertaking

Pak – Iran relations

Summary

• Iran and Pakistan have a long history of cultural and political ties.
• Iran was the first country to recognize Pakistan in 1947.
• The two countries share linguistic and cultural similarities, with Persian being an important language in both.
• Despite the positive relationship, tangible bilateral cooperation is far below potential.
• Some blame US sanctions on Iran, while others cite a lack of political will.
• Three key areas for potential cooperation are energy, border security, and trade.
• The Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline agreement has been stalled due to sanctions.
• Both countries need to work together to manage cross-border terrorism.
• Informal trade has flourished, but formal trade has been hindered by sanctions.
• Recent developments, such as the Iran-Saudi rapprochement and growing Iran-China ties, could help boost Pakistan-Iran relations.
• The Gwadar and Chabahar ports could be complementary.
• Extending the CPEC to Iran could be beneficial.

Article

Iran is a vast country spanning an area more than twice that of Pakistan with a population nearly one third of ours. Rich in natural resources, Iran possesses the second largest gas reserves, fourth largest crude oil reserves and significant non-fuel mineral resources. The people of Iran, called Persia until 1935, are deeply proud of their history, culture and language.

Historically, Iran is an ancient land, with recorded history dating back to 550 BCE, when Cyrus founded the first Persian empire, the Achaemenid, the fourth king of which, Darius, expanded the borders of the empire to include territories from Anatolia to the River Indus. The Sassanid empire ruled Persia for nearly nine centuries from 224 BCE to 651 CE. Towards the end of this empire, Muslim Arabs and Persians came face to face in the Battle of Qadisiya, in 636 CE, germinating a lasting rivalry. Since 1979, Iran is an Islamic Republic. At no point in this historical journey of over 2,500 years, the nationalistic fervour of the Iranian people ever diminished.

In history, language, art and culture, there has been considerable congruity between the Persian mainland and the territories of Pakistan. The Persian language spread to India in the 16th century when the Mughals adopted it as the court language. Allama Iqbal is well known in Iran as Iqbal-i-Lahoori. Much of the poetry of Ghalib and Iqbal, as indeed the national anthem of Pakistan, are in Persian.

Iran was the first country to recognise Pakistan, on Aug 14, 1947. Iran is also the country that hosted the first embassy of Pakistan abroad. Over the decades, Pakistan and Iran have maintained cordial relations. Notably, barring a few irritants, there is no major dispute between the two countries.

Tangible bilateral cooperation is far below potential.

Despite this enormous goodwill, the tangible bilateral cooperation is far below potential. Some argue that the US sanctions imposed on Iran had undermined prospects for bilateral cooperation, while others blame the absence of political will on either side. On balance, the positives of the relationship far outweigh the negatives, and can thus help the relationship flourish to its full bloom. In this regard, three issues — energy, border, and trade — are of critical importance.

As Pakistan’s neighbour, Iran should have been a natural choice for sourcing our energy needs. The Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline agreement (IP) was signed in 2012, but fell victim to US and UN sanctions. The successful conclusion of the Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA) in 2015 raised hopes but unilateral withdrawal of the US from the deal in 2018 kept Iran under US sanctions. In 2022, the Financial Action Task Force also blacklisted Iran. These factors have stalled Pakistan’s efforts to implement the IP project.

Iran has often hinted at imposing penalties on Pakistan for not implementing the IP agreement. For its part, Pakistan has tried to invoke force majeure, mainly because of US sanctions which is a factor beyond Pakistan’s control. Going forward, both countries will be advised to work towards finding a way to legally circumvent US sanctions given that gas is not a sanctioned commodity.

Another priority area is to better manage the border, which Pakistan calls one of ‘Peace, friendship and love’. While this is certainly a border between two friends, some militant groups routinely indulge in cross-border terrorism. One such group was Jundullah, a Sunni militant organisation whose leader was executed in Iran in 2010. Since then, the organisation’s members have operated under different names, including Jaish al-Adl. The BLA is also active in the area, possibly with foreign support. Kulbhushan Jadhav of India, who committed espion­age and sabotage, was also apprehended in Balochistan. Since all this can aggravate misunderstan­dings, it is important for Iran and Pakistan to enhance coordination on cross-border issues.

The two countries, despite being neighbours, have also not been able to boost bilateral trade. Ostensibly, the reason is the absence of payment mechanisms or regular banking channels due to US sanctions. While there is insignificant formal trade, informal trade has flourished. Two steps taken recently are likely to boost formal trade: a check on smuggling and the opening of a border market at Pishin-Mand crossing point. Border markets and barter trade should be encouraged to sidestep economic sanctions on Iran.

The recent rapprochement between Iran and Saudi Arabia brokered by China and the growing Iran-China economic relations can greatly help us boost our own economic and commercial ties with Iran. In this regard, the potential of Gwadar and Chabahar ports being complementary must also be utilised fully. It would be worthwhile if China and Pakistan consider the possibility of extending CPEC to Iran.

Healing Pakistan

Summary

• Healing a nation is a complex process that requires patience, faith, and the right leadership.
• Transparency and honesty are essential for building trust and starting the healing process.
• Pakistan's leaders have often promised to heal the nation but have been caught up in cycles of anger and revenge.
• The author suggests that the new government come clean about its spending on the media in order to regain public trust.
• Pakistan is like an ailing patient who has received many treatments but is still not well.
• The author compares Pakistan's leaders to doctors who are more interested in money than in their patients.
• The author believes that Pakistanis deserve to know who has been feeding them lies and propaganda so that they can make informed decisions about who to trust.

Article

Quarantining during Covid in another country without your tools of comfort is tough. Of course, I am grateful for the support system I did have, like (but not limited to) my sister’s dog, who kept me company when no one else could and accompanied me on walks. My time outdoors allows me to reflect on things like wellness and healing — issues that have weighed heavily these past few months. I wondered if I could take heed of a doctor’s prescription and apply it to our ailing country.

It stems from a conversation I had with a doctor wherein I asked why I should proceed with his prescription. No pill is without side effects and in my experience, medicine invariably impacts a part of the body it wasn’t intended for, usually the gut. Is it worth it, I asked, in this specific instance when I was not in pain? He said the answer didn’t lie solely in the medicine.

I had presented him with symptoms, he ran tests and examinations after which he diagnosed and prescribed treatment. Another doctor could offer another prescription based on the same tests, he explained. Ultimately, I would have to take the medicine and see how I feel and work with him until I felt better. It wasn’t a one-size T-shirt that fits all, he said. Often a patient doesn’t see results in five days and either abandons treatment or seeks another opinion. Sometimes it is a quick fix like a pill for a headache but often the road to wellness takes time and requires patience and faith.

You see where I’m going with this.

Those attempting to cure Pakistan are not transparent.

Many leaders speak about healing a nation but what does it actually entail?

I don’t imagine I’ll see a greater leader than Nelson Mandela in my lifetime. His endorsement of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the work it did in investigating human rights abuses committed during the apartheid regime between 1960 and 1994 tends to overshadow his commitment to public health. He lost a son to AIDS and talked publicly about the need to normalise the disease like TB, cancer etc, removing shame from it. Mandela’s advocacy on AIDS helped save millions of lives and transformed health in Africa.

Mandela is equally known for forgiveness — of his opponents and his prisoners. In a 1998 conversation with former US president Bill Clinton he said: “You know, [the oppressors] already took everything. They took the best years of my life; I didn’t get to see my children grow up. They destroyed my marriage. They abused me physically and mentally. They could take everything except my mind and heart. Those things I would have to give away and I decided not to give them away.”

Here in Pakistan, our leaders have faced much injustice at the hands of the establishment but have they chosen forgiveness? The Charter of Democracy was an attempt but it stands fissured today. Leaders vow to heal the nation but then get caught up in a vortex of anger driven by revenge. I believe we’re witnessing it now under the guise of ‘making amends for past wrongs’ and will probably see a new level of anger if/when Imran Khan returns to power.

Pakistan is an ailing patient who has received all sorts of treatments but it’s also kept in some comatose state or life support. Those attempting to cure it are not transparent about their plans because, let’s admit, they are not qualified to treat it. They remind me of some doctors I have encountered: in it for the money, not the patient.

Pakistan is like me and the growing number of people being diagnosed with an autoimmune disorder where the body mistakenly attacks itself. I recognise I have agency in choice and the right doctor to guide me to my wellness but I’m unconvinced about the folks in line to treat Pakis­tan next.

Writers on these pages offer sound prescriptions on how to treat the fractured economy and other matters of governance. I’m daring to offer the new government a tiny prescription for the media, which is deeply polarised and mistrusted. I suggest the next information minister come clean and show just how much money the state has spent on nurturing relationships with journalists and media owners — from press junkets to funding “journalists” to promote their policies rooted in declaring XYZ as unpatriotic.

The next government can lead by example and tell us what they spent when they were in power last with a vow never to do it again. This will help (re)gain the public’s trust and begin Pakistan’s journey to healing from the toxic illnesses that lies and deceptive propaganda have caused. Pakistanis deserve to know who has fed them these stories so they can make informed decisions about who they choose to trust.

Viva South Africa

Summary

• South Africa has taken Israel to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) over its actions in Gaza. Legal experts believe South Africa has a strong case. The ICJ's decision may be influenced by political factors rather than legal merit. Some countries, like the US, UK, and Germany, have been supportive of Israel.
• South Africa's actions have highlighted the lack of support for Palestinians from other Muslim countries.
• The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) has been largely silent on the issue.
• Some countries, like Turkiye, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, UAE, and Bahrain, have offered words of support but little else.
• Pakistan has been particularly quiet on the issue.
• The author praises South Africa for its actions, calling them "heroic, principled, and ethical."

Article

South Africa has shown the way to the impotent Organisation of Islamic Cooperation member-countries by taking Israel to the International Court of Justice in The Hague and presenting a robust case for a ruling against the Zionist state which has executed a genocide with impunity so far.

Given the composition of the ICJ, in the end any verdict given by the court may represent the compulsions of the 16 judges and the stance of their countries of origin on various issues rather than the merit of the arguments presented before it.

But as things stand this weekend, many independent legal experts are lauding South Africa’s preparation for and presentation before the court, and feel that the case stands established. The political compulsions referred to were listed very eloquently in a TV interview by US Jewish academic Norman Finkelstein, who vehemently opposes Israeli policies towards the Palestinians.

For example, he said that among the permanent members of the UN Security Council who have seats on the ICJ the position of the US and UK was very clear with slight ambiguity about France’s stance, given different Macron statements at different times.

True to Mandela’s spirit, South Africa has gone and stood in the corner of the oppressed.

Equally, Prof Finkelstein was unsure with Russia’s vulnerabilities on Ukraine and China’s on Uighurs, the judges from the two countries would vote against Israel for fear of opening the door to similar charges and cases against their own countries.

Ergo, notwithstanding the merit of the case by the excellent South African legal team, he suspected the decision may go in Israel’s favour by a small majority. For further details, look up his interview which is available online. This by no means is a foregone conclusion but his breakdown and analysis carried weight.

In any case, even a verdict calling for an immediate ceasefire may have amounted to naught. Israel lost the moral argument within weeks of its Gaza campaign after the Hamas attacks of Oct 7 last year, but has carried on relentlessly, egged on by unconditional support from the US and its Western allies and has been immune from global outrage at daily images of its slaughter in Gaza.

In Europe, Germany has been particularly active with its own government leaders and through the German EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen to plead Israel’s case. Both have seemingly remained blind to the Gaza genocide, compelling some commentators to say Germany wants Palestine and Palestinians to atone for the sins of Nazi Germany by quietly submitting to the ongoing genocide.

True to Nelson Mandela’s spirit, South Africa has gone and stood in the corner of the oppressed. In doing so, it has tried to reciprocate how the Palestinians stood by it through the PLO during the African National Congress’s (ANC) long struggle against the apartheid regime when it was termed a ‘terrorist organisation’ by the US and other Western powers.

South Africa’s decision to move the ICJ reflected very badly on the member states of the OIC, the ummah, which have extended little support even rhetorically to the Palestinians in the face of a genocidal Israeli assault. To be honest, reflected badly is an understatement. It shamed them.

From Turkiye and Saudi Arabia to Egypt, UAE and Bahrain words have come to varying degrees but nothing more substantial. The less said about the Pakistani position the better. Despite each of these countries’ disagreements with the US in other areas, they seem helpless in taking a robust line for the Palestinians because, it seems, they fear annoying Washington.

After the 1973 Middle East flareup, the Ramazan War, (Israel called it the Yom Kippur war), when President Nixon asked Congress for $2.2 billion in emergency assistance to Israel, the Organisation of Arab Oil Exporting Countries imposed an oil embargo targeted mainly at the US.

This quadrupled the price of oil in the international market. Higher oil prices inevitably led to higher commodity prices and side by side with spurring inflation also slowed growth. The impact on Western economies was soon to be felt as energy shortages were also rampant.

Today the memory of those days is fast fading aided by the utter disinterest in, and apathy towards, the Palestinian victims of genocide among the US allies in the ‘Islamic’ countries in the Middle East with vast oil and gas reserves and immense wealth, mostly kept in US and other Western banks. All this as Biden pumps in bombs, military equipment worth some $15bn to facilitate Israeli atrocities.

The ‘Islamic’ countries/entities that are speaking up for the Palestinians such as Iran, Yemen and Lebanon’s Hezbollah and possibly Syria, which their supporters call the Axis of Resistance, have limited ability to do more as they have long suffered crippling US-led international sanctions.

While Iran was sanctioned on grounds of pursuing a nuclear weapons programme and supporting international terrorism and its own often poor human rights record, the others have faced isolation on not dissimilar grounds, apart from the nuclear arms charge.

Israel’s hugely disproportionate response to the Hamas attack on Oct 7 last year, during which the Zionist state has targeted women, children and all infrastructure in Gaza with the aim of rendering it uninhabitable and forcing the Gazans out, and the Western support to it, have opened up a huge divide between the Global South and the North with the latter backing the genocide in the name of right to self-defence.

For now, some countries in Latin America and most notably South Africa have taken concrete measures, so to speak, to put their money where their mouth is. The horror the rest of the world feels may be reflected in the UN General Assembly votes on a ceasefire but that is how far it is prepared to go. To so many, what South Africa has done is heroic, principled and ethical.

Maulana’s bet

Summary

• Maulana Fazlur Rehman, a Pakistani religious leader, visited Afghanistan to try to repair the relationship between Pakistan and the Taliban.
• It is unclear whether he was successful in establishing a direct communication channel with the Taliban's supreme leader.
• The Pakistani government has distanced itself from his visit and his announcement about resuming talks with the TTP.
• The Taliban are suspicious of Pakistan and are reluctant to abandon terrorist groups that could threaten Pakistan.
• Pakistan is using all conventional channels to approach the Taliban, but track two diplomacy through religious clergy has not been successful.
• Maulana's visit is likely to increase Taliban influence within Pakistan and could create challenges for the Pakistani government, including border security, trade, and the repatriation of Afghan refugees.

Article

Maulana Fazlur Rehman’s visit to Afghanistan was an ultimate attempt to repair the torn relationship with the Taliban. Pakistan hoped that maulana could help establish a direct communication channel with the Taliban’s supreme leader, Mullah Hibatullah Akhundzada, who has remained secretive, like his predecessors, for enigmatic reasons. Whether maulana was successful in creating such a channel remains a mystery. However, Pakistan’s Foreign Office promptly distanced itself from his visit and his announcement about resuming talks with the banned Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP).

Maulana may have had several motives for visiting Afghanistan, both political and related to his personal security. The Jamiat Ulema-i-Islam-Fazl (JUI-F) benefited significantly from the US-led invasion of Afghanistan, securing power in coalition provincial governments in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan while promising Taliban-style governance in those provinces. He may be expecting a similar outcome, hoping that a warm reception by the Taliban regime could further solidify his position in these two provinces. Additionally, maulana and other JUI-F leaders are under threat from the Islamic State Khorasan (IS-K) and the TTP. A satirical social media post by a prominent journalist aptly captures maulana’s potential ambitions, suggesting that a direct meeting with Akhundzada might deter the TTP from attacking him and his colleagues.

Maulana’s visit was surrounded by controversy from the outset. His followers in Pakistan portrayed it as an official Taliban invitation, but Taliban spokespersons denied this, stating that the visit was at his own request. Despite this, maulana attempted to appease the Taliban leadership by drawing questionable analogies between the situation in Gaza and the Taliban’s ban on girls’ education in Afghanistan. Informed sources claim that maulana might have carried a message from the Pakistani establishment, but the Taliban leadership remained largely inflexible in their stance regarding the TTP. They advised him that negotiations with the TTP were the only viable solution and should proceed without interference from Pakistani security agencies.

Pakistani journalists and religious scholars who recently returned from Afghanistan reported that the Taliban leaders are paranoid about the future of their regime, and their fingers are still hovering over the trigger. They suspect potential threats from their immediate neighbours, including Pakistan. This distrust might explain their reluctance to abandon terrorist outfits with transnational reach. The TTP, once a close ally during the Taliban resistance, has become a strategic tool in their hands, now directed against Pakistan.

Maulana’s visit to Afghanistan was surrounded by controversy from the outset.

Perhaps the Taliban aim to maintain controlled chaos along the Durand Line, keeping it volatile enough to deter the Pakistani military from blocking trade flows while still facilitating Pakistan’s access to Central Asia. However, this strategy is precarious. Such tactics are familiar to Pakistan and have countermeasures at the ready should tensions escalate.

The Taliban regime would know that conflicts rarely remain at a steady simmer. They know how quickly escalation can spiral out of control. The surprise Taliban offensive, launched while their team was still negotiating with the US, serves as a reminder of how quickly internal and external political-strategic landscapes can shift. Their initial misreading of the potential for internal resistance and the US’s response to their actions kept them at the doors of Kabul for a few days. Their entry into the capital without a fight was also a surprise for their fighters.

While some Taliban leaders accuse Pakistan of allegedly supporting IS-K, their reasoning can be attributed to a similar paranoid outlook. They conveniently overlook the fact that IS-K is just as ideologically driven as their own ranks and is actively instigating violence within Pakistan’s borders. With such a distrustful mindset, the Taliban are unlikely to offer Pakistan genuine assistance and will ultimately remain suspicious of every initiative it undertakes.

Pakistan is using all conventional channels to approach the Taliban and still believes that track two diplomacy through religious clergy can work a miracle. The belief is that if a direct communication channel with Mullah Hibatullah had been created, the state institutions would have convinced him to abandon the TTP and their vision of strategic connectivity with the region. However, Mullah Hibatullah and his close aides are very cautious and see Pakistan’s institutions through the similar lenses of common Afghans. Pakistani madressahs and clergy have come under the influence of the same perception.

Using religious scholars for diplomacy would not be helpful. Pakistani scholars may have a different take on some religious and political issues, but they believe in the Taliban narrative more than in the Pakistan state narrative. Though the Deobandi madressah and political leadership have not sworn formal allegiance to the Taliban head, in their sermons and writings, they refer to Mullah Hibatullah as ‘Ameerul Momineen’ (Leader of the faithful), and they do not waste any chance to defend Taliban policies.

Before maulana’s visit to Afghanistan, Pakistan had sent a delegation of well-respected religious scholars for confidence-building measures. They were also well-received by the Taliban, but they have yet to achieve any tangible results from their visit. Instead, the visit proved counterproductive as the Taliban and the TTP embraced them while using their religious decrees to justify their violent campaigns.

Any unsuccessful diplomatic venture through religious channels proves counterproductive as it creates a negative impression of the state and its institutions among the people inspired by the Taliban.

Maulana’s visit will likely face a similar fate and potentially increase Taliban influence within Pakistan. He might exploit the visit during his electoral campaigns, but his real test would begin if he succeeded in securing a government in Balochistan. Even a coalition government led by maulana’s representative would multiply challenges for Pakistan, including border security, visa-free movement at Chaman, the repatriation of Afghan refugees, trade, and the Taliban’s support for the TTP.

The Taliban would likely expect a similar response from maulana, which is precisely what Pakistan has been demanding from them.