US-Saudi Funded Terrorists Sowing Chaos in Pakistan


Fauzia Qurban
Photo: AP Pakistani sister Fauzia Qurban an ethnic Hazara, tries to hold back her tears as she talks about her brother Ali Raza Qurban, at her family home in Quetta, Pakistan.
Brutal sectarian bloodletting has killed hundreds of Shiite Muslims in Pakistan’s Balochistan province and fired a flourishing human smuggling business in the provincial capital of Quetta.
·

Balochistan, Pakistan – long target of Western geopolitical interests, terror wave coincides with Gwadar Port handover to China.

·

QUETTA KILLINGS: ORCHESTRATION FOR A PAKISTAN SPRING?

·

by Tony Cartalucci

·

Quetta, the capital of Pakistan’s southwest Balochistan province, bordering both US-occupied Afghanistan as well as Iran, was the site of a grisly market bombing that has killed over 80 people. According to reports, the terrorist group Lashkar-e-Jhangvi has claimed responsibility for the attack.

Billed as a “Sunni extremist group,” it instead fits the pattern of global terrorism sponsored by the US, Israel, and their Arab partners Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

Why Balochistan? Gwadar in the southwest serves as a Chinese port and the starting point for a logistical corridor through Pakistan and into Chinese territory. The Iranian-Pakistani-Indian pipeline would enter from the west, cross through Balochistan intersecting China’s proposed logistical route to the northern border, and continue on to India. Destabilizing Balochistan would effectively derail the geopolitical aspirations of four nations.

The terrorist Lashkar-e-Jhangvi group was in fact created, according to the BBC, to counter Iran’s Islamic Revolution in the 1980′s, and is still active today. Considering the openly admitted US-Israeli-Saudi plot to use Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups across the Middle East to counter Iran’s influence, it begs the question whether these same interests are funding terrorism in Pakistan to not only counter Iranian-sympathetic Pakistani communities, but to undermine and destabilize Pakistan itself.

THE US -SAUDI GLOBAL TERROR NETWORK

While the United States is close allies with Saudi Arabia and Qatar, it is well established that the chief financier of extremist militant groups for the past three decades, including Al-Qaeda, are in fact Saudi Arabia and Qatar. While Qatari state-owned propaganda like Al Jazeera apply a veneer of progressive pro-democracy to its narratives, Qatar itself is involved in arming, funding, and even providing direct military support for sectarian extremists from northern Mali, to Libya, to Syria and beyond. (more…)

Wahhabi Doctrine: Origin and the Manifest under House of Saud [2 of 3]


Ibne Saud had widespread ambitions of his own for further consolidation and expansion of his rule. An astute operator, he immediately saw the value of Abdel Wahab’s new religion of naked atrocity for furthering his own aims for power. To put arrangements on a proper footing, a formal compact was signed between Ibne Saud and Abdel Wahab. This compact, which holds undisputed validity even stands till this day.
 ·

 THE WAHHABI DOCTRINE: AN EXPOSÉ

·

by*

 ·

Dear readers of this blog, today I have a story to tell. Very few tell this story as it is. You will need to read this several times and read this with full attention to the subject am talking about. If you do that you will gain a valuable insight which will help to guard you against bad pitfalls.

As I sit with my PC thinking where to start this essay, the TV before me is blaring more bad news.

It reports, as it does every day, that the brave Islamic “terrorists” have shot and killed four helpless women who were junior government functionaries employed to go around house to house delivering polio drops to infants.

God! Why does this killing go on day after day? Who are the“terrorists?”

This is a long, sad story and there is a lot more to explain. A small guy like me cannot tell it all, but perhaps I can offer some hints. Then you can go on and look for more, yourself. Now please sit up and read attentively. Or close this window and find another time to read the rest of this heart-rending tale. (more…)

Will the Taliban opt for peace? [2 of 2]


For the past 35 years Pakistan protected, housed and fed Afghans fleeing wars, occupation and civil strife. Unlike the Iranians, who confined them to camps and strictly policed their movement, Pakistan offered them a hundred other freedoms, such as the freedom of its land, access to schools and colleges etc. In fact, it treated them as part of its national family.
·

 THE PEACE PROCESS ROAD MAP-2015

·

by Zafar Hilaly

·

For the past 35 years Pakistan protected, housed and fed Afghans fleeing wars, occupation and civil strife. Unlike the Iranians, who confined them to camps and strictly policed their movement, Pakistan offered them a hundred other freedoms, such as the freedom of its land, access to schools and colleges etc. In fact, it treated them as part of its national family.

That is not to say that it should have behaved differently but to point out that it acted selflessly, notwithstanding the strain the influx of 3-5 million Afghan refugees placed on its infrastructure and the social fabric of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.

I was stunned therefore that educated Afghans and, in particular, those who attend international seminars and conferences openly denigrate Pakistan, challenge its existence, as their forefathers did when they voted against Pakistan’s membership of the UN, and claimed that all of Pakistan up to Attock rightfully belonged to Afghanistan.

I happened to be sitting next to one of them on a panel discussion in Tangier, in 2010, when he repeated this claim. So I reminded him it was King Abdur Rahman of Afghanistan who had conceded the Asmar Valley and an area of Kafiristan that went with it to Sir Mortimer Durand, in return for a raise in the subsidy the British paid him by 50 percent to 1.8 million rupees, and the right to sell brandy and opium in India.

A deal is a deal”, I stressed, “or else the French could reclaim Louisiana from America and we would have to redraw the map of the world.”

Animated criticism of Pakistan by these mostly Dari-speaking Pakhtun Kabul dwellers and Tajiks, contrasts sharply with their muted and perfunctory condemnation of America when it comes to incidents of rape and torture of Afghans; the murder of innocent civilians and defiling of the Holy Quran or urinating on the corpses of the Taliban by US marines. Even Karzai has more spunk than them.

Similarly, an International Herald Tribune (IHT) report states that the former Afghan defence minister’s son, who runs a trucking/security company, apparently bribes the Taliban not to attack his vehicles, one of this lot incredibly blamed Pakistan for compelling him to do so.

It’s like the Indians, whose soldiers and police murder and rape Kashmiris and then accuse Pakistan of instigating the ensuing protests. It’s not surprising the Indians and the Afghan get on. They truly are ‘birds of a feather’. But, by Jove, if Afghanistan were to revert to fratricide this bunch will rush pell-mell to Pakistan for refuge. Of course, green card holders and other collaborators will be headed for Los Angeles and Langley (CIA).

Hence, when a former colleague returned from an international conference the other day, brimming with complaints of Afghan malevolence towards Pakistan saying he had been profoundly shocked, I suggested he calm down and join the queue of similarly ‘shocked’ Pakistanis.

Afghan history is a sordid saga, replete with intrigue, changing sides and playing one against another. We should have stayed away from Afghanistan. Instead, our fate is now intertwined with a rickety, medieval like kingdom- turned -republic that, for all its riches under the ground, has none above it, including leaders of stature. But it’s too late for regrets. So what of the future?

Scared by the prospect of a return to civil war Kabul and Washington are concerting on peace plans and one is already in the works. Called the ‘The peace process road map-2015,’ and authored by the High Peace Council of Afghanistan, it envisages an Afghan-led effort – “Afghans will be the engines of this peace track,” – with the US having an “input on a number of critical issues, including the terms for initiating negotiations”.

Islamabad’s role ostensibly will be confined to the transfer of Taliban prisoners to Afghanistan or third countries and grant of safe passage to prospective Taliban negotiators. Almost certainly, however, we will be tasked ‘to do more’, including interceding with the Taliban when progress falters since Kabul is convinced the Taliban dance to our tune. Of course, that’s nonsense, as those who have dealt with the Taliban on our behalf will readily aver. So there is every possibility we will end up being accused of being partial to one side or the other.

I recall the Italian foreign office asking me how could we possibly ‘allow’ the Taliban to blow up the Bamiyan Buddhas implying that somehow we could have prevented that outrageous act. “How”, I asked impatiently, “should we have bombed them?”

Nevertheless, the portents for peace may not be as bleak as they appear. True, getting two sides that are at each others’ throats to talk peace is a challenge but by no means insurmountable. The Taliban too are fearful of a civil war that looms if no political solution is found. There is battle fatigue among them too -especially the older lot who yearn for peace.

Current obstacles to the two sides getting together, such as the Taliban’s insistence on talking to the Americans and not Karzai, and Washington’s equally adamant demand that the Taliban accept the Afghan constitution as the law of the land, can be sorted out. In fact, the Taliban have been dealing directly with Kabul regarding a political settlement through three of their most important financiers, Gul Agha, Amir Abdullah and Nasir Haqqani. And the Americans have been talking to the Taliban in Qatar about the release of prisoners without either appearing to be bothered about whether their respective preconditions for talks were met.

What is needed is a framework within which negotiations can take place and a clear roadmap for a political settlement sorted out. And if the ‘Peace process road map-2015,’ is intended to fulfil that need then, properly fleshed out, it could work. The Taliban cannot afford to antagonise the international community endlessly by spurning negotiations.

If they do, they may discover support for their cause waning within the movement, their supporters in Pakistan and Afghanistan and also with financiers in the Gulf states. Moreover, Pakistan seems emphatically committed to international efforts for reconciliation in Afghanistan and has no intention of playing the role of a spoiler.

That said, it’s not the fear of failure at the peace table but the exhilarating prospect of forming governments in the southern Afghan provinces in return for a ceasefire and a modicum of Taliban cooperation with Kabul that has roused the Taliban’s interest. The Taliban will give an arm and a leg to assert unchallenged sway over southern Afghanistan. It will provide them much-needed respite from war, the opportunity to take stock, reorganise and rearm and thereafter to consider their options.

But lest the Taliban think they can march on Kabul, they may have already discovered a great deal has changed since the mid-1990s. The opposition is infinitely better armed and stronger. Reclaiming all of Afghanistan, therefore, is not a viable proposition and an attempt to do so would mark a return of internal fratricide. Moreover, the Taliban’s opponents would be able to call on material and political support from neighbouring states and, of course, the Americans who are already there. Besides, this time Pakistan, having learnt a bitter lesson, will keep studiously aloof.

There is a good chance, therefore, that a more mature Taliban leadership, realising that Afghans are tired of war, and aware of the many benefits to be derived from the regional buy into Afghanistan’s economic viability, will curb their fighting instincts and opt for development rather than war.

That suits Pakistan because, even if the Taliban were victorious in Afghanistan, their proselytising instincts will eventually drive them to take us on. Preventing that and, if it occurs, defeating it should be our foremost goal. As for the Pakistan haters among the current lot in Kabul, by then they won’t matter.

Concluded.

More from Zafar Hilaly on Wonders of Pakistan

1. The unbending Iran 2. Luck Must Go 3. Losing the Horse

Zafar Hilaly is a Pakistani political analyst and diplomat who has previously served as an ambassador to YemenNigeria and Italy. Email: charles123it@hotmail.com
Source  Title image 
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the ‘Wonders of Pakistan’. The contents of this article too are the sole responsibility of the author(s). WoP will not be responsible or liable for any inaccurate or incorrect statements contained in this post.

YOUR COMMENT IS IMPORTANT

DO NOT UNDERESTIMATE THE POWER OF YOUR COMMENT

Wonders of Pakistan supports freedom of expression and this commitment extends to our readers as well. Constraints however, apply in case of a violation of WoP Comments Policy. We also moderate hate speech, libel and gratuitous insults.
We at Wonders of Pakistan use copyrighted material the use of which may not have always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We make such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” only. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.

Will the Taliban opt for peace? [1 of 2]


In the 1965 war between Indian and Pakistan, Afghan King had the intent to support India against Pakistan, ostensibly to gain India’s active support in creating an independent Pashtunistan at the expense of Pakistan’s sovereignty and independence.
The same Afghan students who were the cream of Afghan intelligentsia told me that no doubt the king was in favour of India against Pakistan, however, the people did have a strong emotional attachment towards Pakistan, which made the king desist from his intention of rendering active support to India in the 1965 war.
But it were also the same Afghan students who always claimed that all the areas upto Sindh border were part of Pashtunistan and as such they had every right to claim it back from Pakistan.
·

 UPS & DOWNS OF PAK-AFGHAN RELATIONS

·

by Nayyar Hashmey

·

While I upload this article by Zafar Hilaly (whom I know since so many years; it was the time he was serving as First Secretary of the Pakistan Embassy in Prague, capital of the then Republic of Czechoslovakia and I was doing my doctorate), an Urdu couplet started reverberating in my mind:

Abb wo bhi kaeh rhe haen
Be nang-o-Naam hae
Ye janta tau ghar ko
Lutata kabhi na maen

(Even he too is saying,
I am of no worth.
Had I known this before,
I would never have offered him
My home for refuge)

The story of Afghan-Pakistan relations is mostly a love-hate story.

Both countries hving a common faith, historically have been having parallel resonance as far as the politics in the Indo Pak subcontinent is concerned, and inspite of the fact that Afghan raiders (whether kings, the rulers, regional warlords or tribal chieftans) had the prime objective of scratching as much of gold as possible from the famous gold bird called Hindostan, yet the Muslims here in the area now called Pakistan mostly favoured the attackers merely because they were Muslims.

They in this position thus stood opposite to their own countrymen merely because attackers were co-religionists and it were these feelings of Indian Muslims for the Afghan brothers in faith that made the task of invaders much easier.

Later during the Raj again, all Muslims whether from Afghanistan or from British annexed territories in India’s north western borderlands, mostly coalesced against the British either overtly or at times covertly. However, despite these feelings of Muslim fraternity, Afghan rulers mostly played realpolitik, they sometimes concluded peace deals with the Hindu Rajas, and sometime with Muslim/Sikh rulers of Hindostan, either by accepting reparations from their local adversaries [who were mostly Hindus or later the Muslims followed by Sikhs and the British]. In all such politico-fiscal deals, they mercilessly negated the wishes of Muslims of both Hindostan as well as of Afghanistan.

Wind forward and we reach 1947, when Pakistan inherited the long time historical position. Yet at the time of Pakistan’s admission to the UN as an independent sovereign state, under orders of the former King Zahir Shah, Afghanistan was only country in the world to oppose Pakistan’s admission to the UN as an independent, sovereign state.

In this context, I am to recall my encounters with fellow Afghan students who were then sudying for their higher studies at various campuses of the Prague University and the Schools of Engineering and Technology.

In the 1965 war between Indian and Pakistan, Afghan King had the intent to support India against Pakistan, ostensibly to gain India’s active support in creating an independent Pashtunistan at the expense of Pakistan’s sovereignty and independence.

The same Afghan students who were the cream of Afghan intelligentsia told me that no doubt the king was in favour of India against Pakistan, however, the people did have a strong emotional attachment towards Pakistan, which made the king desist from his intention of rendering active support to India in the 1965 war.

But it were also the same Afghan students who always claimed that all the areas upto Sindh border were part of Pashtunistan and as such they had every right to claim it back from Pakistan.

It is in this backdrop of events and mood in certain groups of the Afghanistan that the relations between the two have at times been negatively affected by issues such as

(1) the Durand Line
(2) 1978–to present war i.e. Mujahideen, Afghan refugees
(3) Taliban insurgency and border skirmishes and (4) the growing influence of India in Afghanistan.

Let’s first take issue of the Durand line:

Afghan Pak border was formally delineated and established after the 1893 Agreement between Mortimer Durand of British India and Amir Abdur Rahman Khan of Afghanistan for fixing the limit of their respective spheres of influence.

Abdur Rahman Khan (between 1830 to 1844 – October 1, 1901) was Emir of Afghanistan from 1880 to 1901. He was the third son of Mohammad Afzal Khan, and grandson of Dost Mohammad Khan. Abdur Rahman Khan was considered a strong ruler who re-established the writ of the Afghan government after the disarray that followed the second Anglo-Afghan war. He became known as The Iron Amir.

The single-page agreement, which contains seven short articles, was signed by Durand and Khan, agreeing not to exercise political interference beyond the frontier line between Afghanistan and what was then British India. Pakistan inherited this agreement after India’s partition in 1947 but there has never been a formal agreement between Islamabad and Kabul.

Sir Henry Mortimer Durand (14 February 1850 – 8 June 1924) was a British diplomat and civil servant of colonial British India.Mortimer Durand negotiated with Abdur Rahman Khan, the Amir of Afghanistan, the frontier between modern-day Pakistan the successor state of British India and Afghanistan. This line, the Durand Line, is named after him and remains the international boundary between Afghanistan and modern-day Pakistan, officially recognized by most nations but an ongoing point of contention between the two countries.

During the 1980s, the Durand Line was heavily used by Afghan refugees fleeing the Communist take-over of their country. Pakistan hosted over 3 million Afghans at various refugee camps, mainly around Peshawar in the KPK province.

Pakistan also became the major training ground for the 250,000 Mujahideen fighters who began crossing into Afghanistan on daily basis to wage war against the Soviet-backed Afghan government and the invading Soviet forces.

After the defeat of the USSR in Afghanistan, a highly unstable situation arose. Different Mujahideen factions started fighting with each other. The law and order situation was worsened to such an extent that nobody was safe.

It was this chaotic environment in the post war Afghanistan that in the 1990s, led to emergence of the Taliban government. The Taliban established friendly relations with Pakistan. However, after the overthrow of the Taliban in late 2001 by the United States and Allies, Afghan-Pakistan relations once again started worsening.

Relations became more strained after the Afghan government began openly accusing Pakistan of using its ISI in aiding the Taliban and other militants. Pakistan denied the allegation and it continues to do so, yet there are number of reports about the Afghanistan–Pakistan skirmishes, which usually occur when army soldiers are in hot pursuit chasing insurgents from each side of the border cross the border back and forth. This leads to tensions between the two states, especially after hearing reports of civilian casualties.

Inspite of this sometime love, sometime hate relationship, both countries, geographically as well as economically are so intricately bound to each other that they remain tied together. It is this reality on ground that motivated the two to sign in July 2010, a memorandum of understanding called the Afghan-Pak Transit Trade Agreement (APTTA).

The two states also signed an MoU for the construction of rail tracks in Afghanistan to connect with Pakistan Railways, which has been in the making since at least 2005.

In October 2010, the long-awaited APTTA was finally inked. It envisages each nation’s shipping trucks into the others; Afghan trucks will be allowed to drive through Pakistan to the Wagah border with India, including to the port cities of Karachi and Gwadar.

In a further step towards the mutual bond of friendship, on November 2010, the two states formed a joint chamber of commerce to expand trade relations and solve problems the traders face.

The APTTA agreement has taken effect after several Afghan trucks delivered fruits from Afghanistan to the Wagah border with India in June 2011.

Completion of the APTTA is to further help the local economies of Afghanistan and Pakistan, by connecting South Asia with Central Asia and the Middle East.

In July this year, Afghanistan and Pakistan agreed to extend APTTA to Tajikistan in what will be the first step for the establishment of a North-South trade corridor.

The proposed agreement will provide facilities to Tajikistan to use Pakistan’s Gwadar and Karachi ports for its imports and exports while Pakistan will enjoy trade with Tajikistan under terms similar to the transit arrangement with Afghanistan.

The agreement was intended to improve trade between the two countries but Pakistan in 2011 delayed Afghan-bound containers after the 2011 NATO attack on Pakistan’s Salala checkpost.

And finally now a personal observation on some of Afghans’ myopic thinking about Pakistan.

A few months back I happened to read comment from a reader at Pakistani blog site which said that the KPK province was gifted by Afghans to Pakistan. In his comment, while the reader had eulogised India, it termed Pakistan’s policies as highly negative which according to the commenter were disturbing the peace in the south Asian region.

I first thought that perhaps the commenter was an Indian becoz I daily receive such comments from many Indian readers on my blog. In response when I sent a counter omment to the said website, the editor of the blog informed me that the said commenter in fact was not an Indian but an Afghan.

I was so startled to know that this Afghan thought so negatively about our country, a country which in the words of the writer (Zafar Hilaly) for the past 35 years has protected, housed and fed Afghans fleeing wars, occupation and civil strife. Unlike the Iranians, who confined them to camps and strictly policed their movement, Pakistan offered them a hundred other freedoms, such as the freedom of its land, access to schools and colleges etc. In fact, it treated them as part of its national family. And in contrast what we got is a scold on international forums as mentioned by Zafar in this post.

Abb wo bhi kaeh rhe haen
Be nang-o-Naam hae
Ye janta tau ghar ko
Lutata kabhi na maen

Contd…

Next: Will the Taliban opt for peace? [2 of 2]

Pages  1  2

Some more posts from Nayyar Hashmey

1. The Motorway and the Dark Ages [in two parts] 2. Salam, Abdus Salam [in two parts] 3. ‘Project Malala’: The CIA’s Socio-Psychological Intelligence [in two parts] 4. Wave of Democratic Revolutions in the Southern Hemisphere 5. Achievers despite heavy odds [in three parts] 6. Rewinding the Tragic Saga 1947 7. The Quaid and the Significance of Pakistan
 Title image  Image next  Image nest to next
Wonders of Pakistan supports freedom of expression and this commitment extends to our readers as well. Constraints however, apply in case of a violation of WoP Comments Policy. We also moderate hate speech, libel and gratuitous insults.

YOUR COMMENT IS IMPORTANT

DO NOT UNDERESTIMATE THE POWER OF YOUR COMMENT

We at Wonders of Pakistan use copyrighted material the use of which may not have always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We make such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” only. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.

Strategy for the South East China Sea: U.S. Bid for Full Spectrum Global Dominance [3 of 6]


Right after the concept finalization of the Project for a New American Century, practical work on its implementation was started a decade before the 9/11 happened. In the Balkans, soon after the  NATO members cooperated with a wide variety of terrorist organizations, including Al Qaeda and Bin Laden’s Mujahideen, the USA financed, trained, and sent arms to the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA/UCK) which was heavily supported by Al Qaeda brigades and which to a large extend was financed by the Heroin trade and trafficking from Afghanistan to Europe and Northern America. 
·

THE DETERIORATION OF THE PRINCIPLES ENSHRINED IN THE TREATY OF WESTPHALIA AND NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY

·

by Christopher Black., James Henry Fetzer, Alex Mezyaev, Christof Lehmann

·

·

Many of these principles and laws were implemented after unspeakable human suffering. Unless this regression into global barbarism is opposed by all necessary popular, political, diplomatic, economical, legal, and if necessary military means, humanity will descend into a state of global barbarism and unspeakable outrages. The most serious deteriorations over the past two decades are:

THE DETERIORATION OF THE PRINCIPLES ENSHRINED IN THE TREATY OF WESTPHALIA AND NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY

The treaty of Westphalia xxii was one of the international legal principles that was used as a guideline for the drafting of the Charter of the United Nations and it is by many considered as thé most important principle of international law with respect to the regulation of bi-lateral and multilateral diplomacy and politics. 

RESPONSIBIITY2PROTECT HAS NO MORAL AND LEGAL JUSTIFICATION. ITS PURE ‘MIGHT IS RIGHT’

The principle of non-interference into domestic affairs and the principle of national sovereignty enshrined in the UN Charter is increasingly being challenged by those who argue, that is the Americans, that the “international community”, again that is the Americans, has a “responsibility to protect” civilians in cases where the government of a sovereign state is not able to protect its citizens, or when the government of a sovereign state is committing severe violations of other principles such as human rights. A resolution that implemented the responsibility to protect was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 2009, in violation of the UN Charter. xxiii

This false responsibility was first termed humanitarian intervention, but it appears that that term could only be used in propaganda when a crisis was already in progress.

The slogan responsibility to protect was coined in order to give this strategy more flexibility so that “intervention” could be used even before the US had succeeded in creating a crisis.

The ”responsibility to protect” (R2P) also had the advantage of claiming to make a moral argument, of course never addressing how the USA came to claim this “responsibility” or why it operates only against its enemies and never its vassals and allies.

Although the guiding arguments for the primacy of human rights and the responsibility to protect “R2P” may sound convincing at first inspection, a closer analysis reveals that the erosion of national sovereignty based on the R2P opens a Pandora´s Box of serious problems.

The first instance where the R2P, which was then still termed humanitarian intervention, was used to override national sovereignty was NATO´s intervention into the internal affairs of Yugoslavia during the Clinton Administration in which the Secretary of State was Madeleine Albright.

It is now a well established and documented fact that the internal conflict in Yugoslavia was initially manufactured by an alliance of Slovenian and Croatian separatists with ties to WWII German National Socialism, with the covert support of the German government and the German Intelligence Service BND xxiv, and the Vatican. The German intelligence service BND provided the first weapons, second-hand Bulgarian AK 47 assault rifles, to Slovenian and Croat separatists.

As the conflict escalated and the country was forced apart along ethnic, and religious lines, the USA and other Western powers became increasingly involved, resulting in NATO´s “intervention” in fact its outright aggression against the Federal Republic, without approval from the United Nations Security Council and in complete violation of the UN Charter and NATO’s own Charter.

NATO member states cooperated with a wide variety of terrorist organizations, including Al Qaeda and Bin Laden’s Mujahideen. xxv The USA financed, trained, and was arming the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA/UCK) which was heavily supported by Al Qaeda brigades and which to a large extend was financed by the Heroin trade and trafficking from Afghanistan to Europe and Northern America. xxvi, xxvii

The war on and dismemberment of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia has according to retired French Brigadier General Pierre Marie Gallois been planned and prepared by European powers in unofficial meetings on a farm in Germany since 1976; more than a decade ahead of the first public Slovenian and Croatian demands for secession from Yugoslavia. Brig. Gen. Pierre Marie Gallois was the French representative to these meetings and has disclosed many of the details in a stunning interview. xxviii, xxix

According to Gallois, one of the principle motivating factors for the covert and subsequent overt war on Yugoslavia was that Yugoslavia was the sole Russian ally in the Balkan region and the last functioning socialist state in Europe. Other motivating factors were that Germany wanted to re-establish its geo-political influence in the region which it had lost subsequent to world wars one and two. Yet another factor was to define a post cold war role for NATO. In fact, so the former French Brigadier General, the war on Yugoslavia provided the model for the war on Iraq and subsequent wars.(ibid.) xxx

The sole correlation between the intervention in Yugoslavia and Serbia, and the still ongoing NATO occupation of Kosovo and human rights is, that a humanitarian crisis was cynically manufactured with the intention to create a pretext for a military “intervention” in fact a military attack, based on the “R2P” the claimed responsibility to protect.

The usurpation by the United States of the role of the United Nations by arrogantly claiming to itself this invented responsibility has resulted in the deterioration of the principles of the Treaty of Westphalia and the UN Charter that both guarantee the sovereignty of nations and the concomitant right of the self determination of peoples.

It is is nothing less than western colonialism once again justified by the “white man’s burden”. In a recent article, Dr. Henry Kissinger discussed whether nations like Syria and other Arab nations would at all qualify for protection against interference into their internal affairs under the principles of the Treaty of Westphalia. xxxi

Kissinger argues, that almost all Arab nations, with the exclusion of eventually Iran, Turkey and Egypt, were nations whose borders had been more or less arbitrarily drawn by former colonial powers and that it was therefore questionable whether they could be defined as nation states that would be protected by the provisions in the Treaty of Westphalia. Iran, Turkey, and Egypt on the other hand, so Kissinger argues, had a long history as nations.

Lehmann has written an article in response to that of Dr. Kissinger. According to Lehmann, Kissinger´s interpretation is representative of the condescending, ethnocentric, colonialist attitude of Western nations towards countries world wide. It is also symptomatic for the social constructionism that guides Western foreign politics. While Kissinger questions the national sovereignty of almost all Arab nations on the basis that their borders were arbitrarily drawn by former colonial powers, he does not mention Israel, whose borders have been arbitrarily drawn by the same former colonial powers. xxxii

Neither does he mention the fact that the United States itself is also an artificial creation resulting from the extermination of the native peoples, the Louisiana Purchase of the south from France in 1803, and Florida from Spain, the War of 1812 against Canada, the war of conquest against Mexico in 1846, the war between two nations the United States and the Confederates states, known as the Civil War in the 1860s and the artificial extensions into Alaska, Hawaii and Puerto Rico.

The most recent example of a successful abuse of the erosion of national sovereignty under the pretense of a manufactured Responsibility to Protect is NATO´s abuse of UNSC Resolution 1973 (2011) on Libya. xxxiii

It can be argued that this Resolution never existed as the UN Charter requires that resolutions have the concurring votes of all permanent members of the Security Council. Russia and China abstained. An abstention is not a concurrent vote. It may be that Russia and China expected that the abstentions were enough to kill the resolution from being passed. Legally they were correct, but regardless whether Russia and China were taking a calculated Risk, or whether Russia, which was then under the presidency of Medvedyev was trying to appease the USA/NATO, which would have left China to deal with the impact of the US and NATO and GCC member states as well as Israel alone, will only be answered by future historical analysis.

What is certain, however, is that both the Russian and Chinese political leadership must have been aware that even though a UNSC resolution arguably is not legally valid unless all Security Council members vote in favor of it, it is a long established political practice that only a veto is sufficient for blocking an intervention. Since the first Russian, then USSR, abstention on UNSC Resolution 4 (1946) on Spain, an abstention has interpreted as not preventing the adoption of the resolution.

The claim that the USA, France and the UK abused the UN Charter was compounded when the US and its allies exceeded even the terms of their own resolution and conducted a war of aggression against Libya. A repetition of this abuse, directed against Syria, has so far been successfully stopped by Russia and China at the Security Council who since have consequently vetoed resolutions on Syria.

 

Contd…

Next: The Deterioration of the Geneva Convention

Pages  1   2   3  4  5  6

Related Posts: 

1. NATO Tied to Muslim Slaughter at Srebrenica (in two parts)

 Source    Title image

YOUR COMMENT IS IMPORTANT

DO NOT UNDERESTIMATE THE POWER OF YOUR COMMENT

Wonders of Pakistan supports freedom of expression and this commitment extends to our readers as well. Constraints however, apply in case of a violation of WoP Comments Policy. We also moderate hate speech, libel and gratuitous insults.
We at Wonders of Pakistan use copyrighted material the use of which may not have always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We make such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” only. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.