The Balochistan issue is making headlines again. But this time with a new and unexpected twist. The US Congress hearing and subsequent resolution are generating waves in the Pakistani media. So what is new with that? The Congress foreign affairs committees regularly conduct hearings on several issues. What shook me was that Dana Rohrabacher, the conservative Republican who tabled the resolution, went as far as demanding a separate Baloch state. The resolution may be termed as a ‘stunt’ and a futile attempt to gain political points, but this may spark a debate among opponents of the US-Pakistan aid programme in the Congress and in the administration. If it happens, it will be largely in the favour of Baloch activists in the US. In order to assess the dynamics of the entire situation, we need to understand the extent of Baloch activism in the US.

The Baloch diaspora is politically active in the US; it engages in efforts to promote the Baloch cause among US politicians and policymakers. Unsurprisingly, such “activism” serves the self-proclaimed “leaders” of the Baloch separatist movement which organizes its efforts through NGOs, think-tanks, interest groups and media outlets in order to gain US support in Balochistan’s bid for independence. However, the movement is still in its nascency; financial problems aside, it seems to suffer from infighting which is indubitably connected to its weak leadership. A combination of these factors – foremost the US’s reliance on Pakistan as an ally in combating terrorists – and the current political climate in connection with Iran – make the possibility of strong American support for the cause, highly unlikely.

Similar to the Sikh bankrollers of the Khalistan Movement, the Baloch community in the US is under the impression that certain actions of the US State Department confirm American support for the Baloch cause. These actions include an ongoing effort by the State Department to open a consulate in Quetta and Victoria Nuland’s remarks regarding human rights concerns in Balochistan.  But is this true? I don’t think so. I believe that the American efforts to open a consulate in Quetta have other important reasons like spying on Iran and monitoring China’s aspirations in the province. Regarding Nuland’s statement, I am of the opinion that her remarks carefully, selectively, and opportunistically, focused on the killings and other human rights violations in Balochistan. Moreover, the State Department’s attempt to distance itself from the congressional hearing confirms my analysis.

Still, the Congress option remains. This involves building up enough support in the Congress to pass legislation in order to pressurize the Obama administration to change its policy or at least create a Congressional Caucus on the issue. And according to Dr. Wahid Baloch, President of the Baloch Society of North America, the Baloch have made significant progress on this front. In a recent blog post, Representatives Dana Rohrabacher and Louie Gohmert have stated, “Perhaps we should even consider support for a Balochistan carved out of Pakistan to diminish radical power there also”. Baloch activists have also gained support of Andrew Eiva, a prominent Washington lobbyist, who is of the opinion that America should support freedom and resistance movements all over the world.

According to Eiva:

The Baloch need to pull together 2-3 times more money than they have already raised. They then need to hire a professional lobbyist and draft a legislative mechanism that ties the Baloch cause to five or six other American interests in South Asia. These interests could include the prevention of genocide, stopping the spread of Islamic extremism, promoting an independent and economically viable Afghanistan, mitigating the threat of the Pakistan nuclear program, and countering Pakistani efforts which undermine counter-terrorism cooperation.

However, in my opinion, these goals seem pretty distant and hard to achieve given the current circumstances.

The success of the Baloch activists to garner US support for the cause depends on how well they can unify, mobilize and act in a coordinated manner to achieve their goals. The most uphill task they are facing is that of convincing the Americans that an independent Balochistan is in accordance with their larger interests in the region. This, according to my view, is impossible. The US would never jeopardize its relations with Pakistan to support the Baloch cause. And even if the Baloch are able to blow enough smoke so as to gain support in the Congress, the prospects of any legislation or major American policy shifts in the near future are remote.

In this blog post, I have tried to briefly present the situation in connection to Baloch activism in the US. Similarly, I have concluded that US interests in the region dictate that America’s “special relationship” with Pakistan will trump “Baloch independence”.

However, I do not consider my opinion to be axiomatic and hence I want my readers to consider the important question:

We have Baloch leaders in Pakistan and all over the world but where are their followers?

The author, Umair Khalil, is a researcher at PIIA and a student of Department of International Relations, University of Karachi

Email: umairkhalil07@hotmail.com

We in Russia consider Iran as a very important nation, as a nation that has important influence on the world political climate. We know that during the period of last three decades Iran has achieved a lot in the fields of social development, politics and sports. We do our best to have good relations with Iran as well as with Iranian people. There are almost no political disagreements between Russia and Iran at present. We attach serious importance to the development of mutually beneficial economic and scientific cooperation between the Russian Federation and the Islamic Republic of Iran. In our view, such cooperation is an important investment to the future.

Our cooperation in the field of nuclear energy is one of the core issues of our bilateral ties and of world politics. We in Russia are partisans of nuclear non-proliferation regime. Iran is a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which in our view is an important component of the present-day international world order.

We admit that Iran like every nation signatory to the NPT has a legitimate right to develop a peaceful nuclear programme. Nuclear energy, in our view, is the energy of the future of the mankind. That is why we do cooperate and we will cooperate will Iran in the nuclear field. Iran in cooperation with Russia has already built a nuclear power plant in Bushehr. We have projects to build additional nuclear power plants in that country. But at the same time we admit that the issue is not that easy as it looks. In our view, Iran should cooperate with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The Iranian nuclear programme, although legitimate, should be made more transparent to international verification. Iran should present serious guarantees to the world community that its nuclear programme has no military component. Why? I will be very frank. We do not want to see a power armed with nuclear weapons on our southern border. The very existence of nuclear weapons is a destabilizing factor in itself. That is why we think there is an international problem in the Iranian nuclear programme.

We maintain permanent contact and permanent dialogue with our Iranian colleagues on the issue and are trying to convince our Iranian friends that honest and transparent cooperation with the IAEA is essential. Our dialogue advances with difficulty. We do have disagreements. For example, we cannot agree to the appeals coming from Tehran for the destruction of certain states. But we will continue the dialogue. We are quite convinced that our peaceful approach will be efficient and fruitful. We are convinced that diplomacy can bring all of us to a success. Russia is not alone in its peaceful quest. It is supported by China.

In the past, using only diplomatic means, Libya under Muammar Qaddafi, was successfully convinced to give up its military nuclear programme. The same result was achieved with Brazil. Only by diplomatic means, the world community convinced South Africa to renounce nuclear weapons that it already possessed.

And we oppose in principle, the military solution to international problems. Military means can bring us nowhere. What is the result of military intervention in Iraq? What has been achieved in Afghanistan? And in Libya, after Muammar Qaddafi has been removed, the country that was one of the most stable politically and economically was brought to the verge of civil war.

And what do we have in Iran? Huge territory and very tough people who will not surrender as easily as Iraqis did. The inevitable result of a military operation against that country will be a complete destabilization of the world order on a regional and possibly on the global scale. That is why we prefer to find a peaceful diplomatic solution to this and other international problems.

Andrey V. Demidov is the Consul General of the Russian Federation in Karachi. This was a speech delivered by him in a seminar on ‘Importance of Contemporary Iran in the Middle East and the World’ at The Pakistan Institute of International Affairs on 22 November 2011.

It is literally perfect to assume that the Norway shooting spree on July 2011 did not come by chance, as Europe has been experiencing a wave of loathing for the last ten years throughout the continent. The number of individuals who excessively obsess xenophobic as well as Islamphobic expressions was significantly increased in European metropolitan cities since 9/11 and, as a result, conservatism has grabbed some attention since then. . Indeed, the action by Anders Behring Breivik has translated the inner ambition of conservative individuals into a real political manifestation.

The rise of right-wing politics in western countries is becoming clearer as they are winning too many seats in Parliamentary elections as compared to the 1990s. The racist and nationalistic elements, who advocate far more restrictions on immigration policies, have retained wide sympathizers from Ireland to Italy and from Italy to Norway. In Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Italy and France, hard right-wing and anti-immigrant parties regularly receive more than 10 percent of the vote. According to online statistics; in Norway it is 22 percent, in Switzerland 29 percent, in Italy and Austria they have been in government.

More surprisingly, in Switzerland, the anti-immigrant Swiss People’s Party has been the largest party and continues to be so. In UK, the British National Party has obtained a similar attention. Deducing from these facts and figures, it is my assessment that Europe could be turning back to its medieval era when the conservative parties had had an upper hand in all matters, virtually leading the decision making process. For instance, in UK, the slogan of the ultra-conservative party in the 17th century seemed to be abhorrent and hardly anyone in this modern age would actually tolerate it. ‘If you like a N***** as your neighbour vote for Labour’, such expressions of racism used to be the most fashionable for those days in UK and the conservatives had been in an uneven position in those governments. However, in the wake of the Norway terror attacks, it is safe to assume that a revival of such expressions is inevitable.

Notwithstanding, the sentiments of bigotry are not isolated in Europe alone. There is a strong hatred for Muslims in America too, whereas US itself is a land of immigrants albeit the proportion of Muslims is far less than other immigrants. A British reporter was asked a surprising question by an elderly Los Angeles woman recently. She asked, ‘do you have a child back in England?’ ‘No’, he said. ‘You would better start’ she replied, ‘The Muslims are breeding. Soon they will have the whole of Europe.’ In 2009, the Obama administration warned that the far right-wing parties might be at least dangerous, if not more conservative than Muslim extremists. His conclusion was bitterly denounced by the far right. But what happened in Oslo was fundamentally a demonstration of the Obama administration’s heart burning. The scenario at Norway was not a case of Muslim terrorism. It was, rather, a Christian version of Al-Qaeda which cowardly massacred innocent masses indiscriminately in the name of “a government punishment”.

When the mastermind of that event appeared in the court, he argued that he wanted to save Europe from Muslims and acted only to punish the Labour government in Norway for its relaxed policies on Immigrants. Through these remarks, he obviously revealed the level of Christian fundamentalism in Europe, because Breivik was neither a layman nor mentally unfit (though his lawyer has argued that he was mentally unwell). He bears a strong academic background and is a son of a former Norwegian diplomat.

To sum it all up, the Norway twin incidents were pre-planed and it could be anything, a conspiracy, Christian extremism or even a domestic political struggle but what is more telling is that Anders Behring Breivik is a member of Norway’s second largest party, Fremskrittspartiet – the Progress Party. His party, which was against joining the European Union, had a victory in a Norwegian referendum over a decade ago, resulting Norway not being a member of the EU. The most stated slogan of the Progress Party during that campaign was ‘would you want your daughter to marry a Sicilian?’ Obviously, the party was very much against an inter-marriage attitude in the European mainstream. Empirically, it could be very hard to expect a mismatched interpretation of the horrific incident at the youth camp and the hidden agenda of far right-wing intentions in Europe when the level of xenophobia has already normalized in such a way.

Abdulkadir Suleiman is an Intern at The Pakistan Institute of International Affairs and a blogger. 

The Bonn Conference reminds the world of the active role of Germany at decisive stages, again! The conference was held to provide a road map for the development and re-construction of Afghanistan. The agenda was inclined to strengthen the pre-transition 2014 situation to give sustainability to the post-transition era. The United States entered Afghanistan after September 11 attacks and now wants an acceptable magnitude of stability in the landlocked country. But Pakistan boycotted the conference because of the US led NATO strike on its soil. The attack – which left 24 Pakistani soldiers killed at Salala checkpost, Mohmand Agency – took place barely a month before this significant seating at Bonn.

Bonn, the former capital of West Germany, is also called UN city. It was the meeting place of international actors with Taliban under UN auspices in 2001: Bonn Agreement. Germany is emerging as a major party in the current international debate pertaining to the war against terrorism. Today’s Germany, a country of 82 million, has a history full of tides. But at every stage – regional or international – Germany has been a major player in the arena. The country is dated as fragile with divisions, bruised with European ironies, heavy with the loss of WWI, stubborn with Nazism and she succumbed to the defeat in WWII. Even its flag says about its land, black with soot of history and red with the blood of wars but finally golden with progress.

No matter what the circumstances, bad or feasible, Germany continued its role as a key member and a catalyst at different occasions. The reunified country’s pledge to not abstain from military purposes was the need of the hour because in a global war, one cannot fight with marigolds. The country is eager to provide good offices for mediating with Taliban and efforts are to be continued. Paul Lehrieder, a member of the German parliament, told a media correspondent that he had met the Taliban’s former foreign minister Wakil Ahmad Mutwakal along with other Taliban leaders in Berlin last week and discussed a roadmap for peace in Afghanistan in detail. Lehrieder is a member of the German parliament’s South Asia Friendship Group.

Another German diplomat revealed that former Taliban official Tayab Agha, a close relative of Mullah Omar, was also engaged by the Germans to bring about peace, but the NATO bombing in Pakistan had created many complications.

I got the chance to meet Mr. Lehrieder during my trip to Germany in 2011. He was quite optimistic about offering an olive branch to Pakistan. About the partnership between the two previously estranged countries (Pakistan and Germany) he said, ‘we can help you industrially, socially and strategically.’ To a question by one student of our delegation he replied annoyingly that Pakistan should not blame the US for her problems, as it takes aid from the US.

Gaining pace in the process of assisted negotiations, Germany has asserted its role. Earlier changes in Europe saw Germany as a gigantic voice. It can be said that the element of being decisive is inherent in her veins. As the US has realized, the solution lies with conflict management rather than eradicating the adversary, the superpower will be seeking an assisting hand from Germany. Looking in the past reads, ‘many battles stop at Germany.’ Now it is the time when the bottle (itself) stops at Germany.

Mohammad Qaseem Saeed is a student of International Relations, University of Karachi.

The Global Movement of Moderates was launched in Kuala Lumpur in an international conference on 17-19 January 2012. It was organised by the International Islamic University Alumni Association. A very high profile gathering, it was inaugurated by the Malaysian prime minister, Mohammad Najib Tun Razak who also delivered the opening keynote address. The Global Movement Moderates Foundation was simultaneously launched.

It was said that the Conference was attended by 600 delegates from 36 countries. The delegations were heavily titled towards Southeast Asia. Surprisingly, there were no delegates from the People’s Republic of China, a moderate giant ─ or none that I could spot as the list of delegates was long and had not been circulated. Nor was there representation from the high powered think tanks in India, although some Indian delegates were present. Pakistan was represented by Dr. Fazlur Rahman from the Institute of Strategic Studies, Islamabad and by me from The Pakistan Institute of International Affairs, Karachi. Our ambassador in Malaysia, Masood Khalid, attended many sessions of the Conference.

The Conference sessions ran back to back and every lunch and dinner was graced by speakers. The President of the Islamic Development Bank, the President of the Republic of Maldives, the Foreign Ministers of Indonesia and Malaysia, the Secretary-General of ASEAN, former prime ministers of Malaysia, the Crown Prince of Perak, all spoke. Dr. Mahatir Mohamad gave a humorous dinner talk on: “Global Finance: Building a New International Architecture” in which he urged that global finance should be de-linked from the US dollar and should go back to the gold standard.

The Conference was a call for an inter-civilisation, inter-cultural and inter-faith dialogue. All the speakers upheld democracy and the standard of moderation. And almost all of them drew upon the humane tenets of Islam to describe moderation, decrying fundamentalism and the West’s misguided perception of Islam as an extremist force, especially after the events of 9/11.

There were some academic sessions also which were interesting, like the one on “United States of America and the Muslim World: Charting a Sustainable Future” by W. Scott Thompson, Professor Emeritus of International Politics, Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy. In this session, I intervened to remind Professor Thompson and the audience that the United States had supported dictatorships all over the world, including the Muslim countries. How could there be an “enduring and just peace”, which was the theme of the Conference, unless the United States was true to its idiom of democracy in its foreign policy imperatives? Although it had been suggested from the floor that the United States’ influence in world politics was waning,  it is still the only country which has a world project. Professor Thompson said he liked my phrase “world project”. And agreed that the United States had not only supported but also created dictatorships. He advised me to continue to “have hope.”

In his address on “The Role of Education in Nurturing Education”, Kishore Mahbubani, Dean, Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, Singapore said our mindsets were reflected by the fact that Professor Thompson from the United States was given one and a half hours to speak while the four speakers in his session, all Asians, were allotted only ten minutes each. He urged Asians to start learning from one another instead of turning to the West.

There were two other interesting sessions. In “The Role of Superpowers in the Realignment of Global Power: Between Realpolitik and Soft Power”, Charles Morrison, President East-West Center Hawaii put forward an excellent and concise analysis. Drawing upon my experience of Pakistan in the question and answer session, I pointed out that conventional methods of bringing terrorists to justice through due process had not been successful and a new system needed to be deliberated and evolved to deal with this problem. He universalised the issue by replying that the governments of Mexico and Columbia faced similar problems in their war against the drug cartels.

The finest contribution was made by Sri Lankabhimanya Christopher G. Weeramantry, former Vice President of the International Court of Justice on “Conflict Resolution: The Need for a New Paradigm”. He drew upon his extensive experience of law and justice systems and in its depth, restraint and analysis, it was superb.  I look forward to listening to it again on the Web.

Dr Masuma Hasan is Chairperson of The Pakistan Institute of International Affairs

Imran Khan is riding the waves because he is talking about change à la Obama. Right now he is being propped up ostensibly by the establishment as an acceptable alternative to Zardari or Nawaz Sharif. Unfortunately he has not come out with any concrete answers or a roadmap for improving the economy, creating quality jobs, global bilateral relations, and good governance. Salman and Abrar can whip up a frenzy at his rallies but the question is, “Where’s the beef?”

Some big names as well as the youth, and what are called “burger families”, have rallied behind him. He terms his various rallies as a Tsunami that is out to wipe away the traditional political environment that is the root cause of the way this nation is being governed. This was the same scenario in 1977 when the Pakistan National Alliance was set up against Z A Bhutto till Gen Zia took over. The “primo” leader of PNA was Air Marshall Asghar Khan who was touted as the next Prime Minister. At that time, the big names in the politics of Pakistan were in PNA but the focus was on Asghar Khan.

Nearly two million people lined up on the streets of Karachi when his procession made its way from the airport to Kakri Ground in Kharadar. I was one of those who participated in the procession till the wee hours of the morning. “Is quom ka Asghar jeetay ga; Mazloom ka Asghar jeetay ga” were the slogans that people vociferously chanted. Come Zia and Asghar went into oblivion. Could the same happen to Imran? One still takes with a pinch of salt why political stalwarts of major parties such as Javed Hashmi, Shah Mahmood Qureshi, Jehangir Tareen, Sardar Assef, and Mian Azhar, to name a few, have joined his bandwagon.

The vibrant media where Imran is fortunate to get over exposure may turn out to be his Guardian Angel and enable him to counter any such moves to “push” him into the deep abyss of darkness. That may probably be his salvation. Would there be elections within the next few months? One can rightly be skeptical about the same Tweedledum and Tweedledee getting hold of reins of the government again.

Pakistan needs a non-political technocrat government for three years to once and for all cleaning the malodorous deterioration. This is doable and must be sincerely done. Accountability of the corrupt, whosoever they may be, must be undertaken. How long will Pakistan continue to be hostage to political rogues running the country and deciding on her destiny? Of course Pakistan does not require the Bangladeshi model in toto where ruthless accountability was initiated but then the reins of power were transferred to one of the two Begums and now the same music is being played during the new game of musical chairs.

Meantime, political parties such as MQM, ANP, JUI, and the FATA representatives must get their houses in order and shed their old habits of wrenching maximum benefits for their Parliamentary support as so-called “coalition partners” and in this process becoming cohorts in ultra-violation of the rules and being accused for indulging in corruption, misuse of powers, and ensuring that the malaise continues.

Of course, finally, a message to all democracy lovers in Pakistan. Please ensure that democracy does not take any more revenge on the 180 million denizens as it has done in the last four years. We Pakistanis have had it up to our necks. Please just don’t hide under the shawl of democracy just because you keep promoting that a bad, stinking, juvenile democratic order is better than authoritarian or one-man rule. Yes, you may be right but the bare fact is that the survival of this motherland is at stake, just because democracy has nearly taken its revenge. You all are witness to this happening. Remember, the Fat Lady is about to Sing:

Apnay hont siye hain tum nay, meri zuban ko mat roko

Tum ko agar tofeeq nahi to mujh ko hee sach kehnay do

(The writer is former President, Karachi Chamber of Commerce and Industry)

Email: majydaziz@gmai.com

Consider this question: if you were the policymaker of a country on the verge of an economic catastrophe and involved in a complex political imbroglio with the world’s foremost power, would you attempt to close down ‘the world’s most important oil chokepoint’ (which – according to international law – belongs to no one in particular)? For the sake of peace, personally I would avoid doing so.

I ask the question because Iran has threatened to shut off the Strait of Hormuz, a strategically important shipping passage which links major oil-rich Gulf States to the rest of the world and through which almost one-fifth of the world’s oil passes. According to various analysts, if Iran blocks the Strait entirely, the global oil prices could increase by 50 percent or more in a matter of days. The Iranian decision of obstructing the strategically vital sea route may arise as a result of the latest US sanctions against Iran and mounting European pressure which might lead to the possibility of an oil embargo.

There is absolutely no questioning Tehran’s military capability of blocking the Strait; which, according to Iran, is ‘easier than drinking a glass of water’. The Strait is only 21 miles wide at its narrowest point and according to Roy Jordan of FACTS Global Energy, ‘All it would take for Iran is a few mines … and ship owners and insurance companies would not go up there’. However, Iran should also bear in mind that its own faltering economy relies on at least two million barrels of oil exports which pass through the Strait. A blockage of the passage and possibility of a military confrontation could have severe repercussions on its own battered economy.

My opinion is the Iranian threat presents an insight into the mindset of Iranian policymakers. It represents Iran’s growing economic desperation as the Iranian Riyal continues to plummet against the US dollar (One US dollar now, is worth 18,000 Iranian Riyals). Furthermore, it also epitomizes the recklessness of Iran’s leadership and its disdain for international law. International analysts continue to be at a loss to understand what Iran really wants to do? Whether Iran is bluffing or attempting to increase global oil prices is still unclear.

Nevertheless, if Iran chooses to act aggressively and closes the passage down, its actions will have serious consequences. There are several possibilities as to what might actually happen:

• The blockade can lead the US to launch a physical military strike on the Iranian naval fleet. This physical confrontation can, in turn, lead to a major full-scale war.

• Iran’s actions can also provoke US military forces to assume control of the Strait. This action will definitely be backed by the international community. Any such control would inevitably yield the result that Iran is currently seeking to avoid – an embargo on its exports.

• The Gulf States, in view of their own economic concerns, can help the US to build some sort of security mechanism to monitor the Strait. This would place Iran at a more disadvantaged position.

Although the US and Europe have imposed sanctions on Iran, there’s still a possibility that their efforts could backfire. For example, a penalty on foreign companies dealing with Iran’s central bank could become a cause of escalating international oil prices which could trigger a new wave of global recession. This would be a serious blow to the US government’s decision-making credibility and would also ruin the already-minute prospects of the victory of President Obama’s Democratic Party in the upcoming elections. What needs to be done in this situation is to allow exceptions and the waiver of penalties where there is a threat to US national interests or a possibility of an increase in oil prices. Equally, both the US and the EU should renew pressure on Russia and China to go for stricter United Nations sanctions, the possibility of which is highly unlikely.

The author, Umair Khalil, is a researcher at PIIA and a student of Department of International Relations, University of Karachi

Email: umairkhalil07@hotmail.com

The Pakistan Horizon is the flagship Journal of The Pakistan Institute of International Affairs which we have published continuously since 1948. The July and October 2011 issues have been dedicated to the Arab Awakening and Pakistan’s relationship with China over the past six decades. The contents of the two latest issues of our journal are set out below. Please contact us on piia@cyber.net.pk should you want more details. 

THE ARAB UPRISING, Volume 64, Number 3, July 2011

• Pakistan’s Foreign Policy Survey, Staff Study     1

• The Arab Awakening, Ana Marija Bešker   7

• The Arab Spring:  How Will It Blossom? Karamatullah K. Ghori    13

• US Democracy Promotion and Popular Revolutions in the Middle East: Challenges and Opportunities, Muhammad Ijaz Latif and Hussain Abbas    25

• Unrest and Revolt in the Arab World: Impact on Regional Security, Nazir Hussain    43

• The Arab Spring; Causes, Effects and Implications for Pakistan and Afghanistan, Syed Hussain Shaheed Soherwordi and Anum Ikram   59

• The Libyan Crisis and the UNSC Resolution 1973: Authority, Legitimacy and Prospects, Noor-ul-Ain Khwaja   73

• Pakistan and the World Chronology    93

60 YEARS OF PAKISTAN-CHINA RELATIONS, Volume 64, Number 4, October 2011

• Pakistan’s Foreign Policy Survey, Staff Study     1

• Pakistan-China Relations: An Overview, Riaz Mohammad Khan  11

• Af-Pak and Regional Peace in China’s Perspective: A Critical Appraisal, Zafar Nawaz Jaspal   29

• China and SAARC: Envisaging a Partnership for Development, Fazal-ur-Rahman    51

• Xinjiang, Tibet and the Pakistan-China Strategic Partnership, Samra Sarfraz Khan    67

Past Perspectives of China, Pakistan Horizon Revisited (Vol 64, Number 4 Continued)

• China Today, Ahmed Ali   77

• Women of New China, Madame Li The-Chuan  87

• China Today, Hussain Imam   93

• Education in China, A.B.A. Haleem    99

• Pakistan and the World, Chronology    111

• Documents 129

• Chronicle

The Pakistan Institute of International Affairs (PIIA) has become an exclusive network partner of AGORA Asia-Europe making us the only think tank in Pakistan to have been chosen as partner.

AGORA Asia-Europe is a pioneer network linking leading think tanks in Asia and Europe in order to bring together intellectual communities from Asia and Europe. It is borne out of the need to build a bridge between Asia and the EU and create a dynamic strategy so that both regions can interact credibly in the 21^st century. It will be led and directed by Fundación para las Relaciones Internacionales y el Diálogo (FRIDE), the European think tank for global action based in Spain.

The main focus of AGORA Asia-Europe will be on applied research, joint policy briefs and high quality seminars. While the EU outlook towards Asia focuses on a larger number of priority areas, the Agora will monitor and assess the EU’s performance under five pillars in order to find a mix between the broad political ambitions of the EU and the narrower practical realities of engaging Asia within the EU’s capacities.

The research pillars will be Global Governance and Regional Settings, Security-Development Nexus and Stability, Energy and Climate Change, Trade, Democracy and Human Rights.

The main target groups for high quality research on EU-Asia relations will be:

• The EU institutions in Brussels (EEAS, Commission, Council, Parliament)

• The national governments and parliaments of EU countries

• EU delegations and officials in Asia

• Civil society organisations, NGOs and think tanks dealing with EU-Asia relations as such as well as on issues central to the EU-Asia outlook

• Asian governments and national parliaments (through local partners)

• EU-Asian political parties and business communities; and

• International and local media.

Our contact person in AGORA Asia-Europe will be Dr. Tanweer Khalid, Member of the Council of PIIA, and former Chairperson, Department of Political Science, University of Karachi.

For more information please email Dr Tanweer Khalid on tanweer_khalid@yahoo.com 

Aurat Foundation Pakistan is a member of the South Asian Network for Women’s Empowerment in Development (Sanwed) and I have had the privilege of representing Aurat Foundation at Sanwed’s inaugural meeting in Chennai in December 2005, at the Conference in Kathmandu in June 2010 and at the International Windows Day Conference held in London on 23 June 2006. These gatherings were highly rewarding. They enabled me to meet colleagues and partners, exchange views, and learn about new ideas, projects and initiatives.

Therefore, I was looking forward to this Sanwed workshop which has been organised by Women for Human Rights (Single Women Group) in Kathmandu but, unfortunately, am unable to attend it. However, I should like to put forward my views on the subject of ameliorating the plight of widows, which is our common concern, with respect to Pakistan.

Until the results of Pakistan’s Census of 2011 become available, we have to rely on statistics about widows on the Census of 1998 which I have quoted in the paper I read in the Conference in Kathmandu in June 2010. However, since the population of Pakistan has increased greatly since the last Census, given the pattern population growth, the number of widows must have also risen in the same proportion.

Since the Census of 1998, natural calamities have added to the misery of all women, including widows. The catastrophic earthquake of October 2005, which claimed 75,000 lives, deprived countless women of shelter and livelihoods. Also, after the dust had settled, it was difficult for the victims of the earthquake to relocate their homes, lands, fields, and other properties. In the process, women and children, especially widows, suffered the most in claiming their ownership and inheritance rights.

In two successive years, 2010 and 2011, Pakistan has been inundated by massive floods. Thousands of people have been flooded out of their homes and hearths, desperately seeking dry patches of land, camping in makeshift shelters and tents donated by the international community, living on the dole of philanthropists and donors. The floods of 2010 affected 18 million people and made 14 million people eligible for humanitarian assistance. They washed away or damaged 1.6 million homes, thousands of acres of standing crops and millions of cattle. After the torrential monsoons and floods this year, in some areas the waters have still not receded. It will be a long time before people can return to their homes. As in all calamities, women were the most vulnerable victims.

Last year, Aurat Foundation launched, in the wake of the floods, a worldwide appeal, called the Motherland Flood Relief Campaign for Women and Children. This appeal viewed the catastrophe through a gender- sensitive lens. Our work in the floods-hit areas focused on the specific needs of women, especially their hygiene and medical requirements. We mobilised our volunteers and workers through the network of our Citizens’ Action Committees for Women’s Rights, Women Leaders Groups and District Coordination Committees. We were heartened by the response of our partners who flashed our appeal throughout the world.

We have not been able, so far, to draw up a cogent strategy for dealing with the problems of widows. But Aurat Foundation is the leading women’s empowerment organisation in Pakistan and we work incessantly for women’s rights. Combining our grass roots network with our outreach to women parliamentarians, we have been able to successfully lobby for the passage of many pro-women laws. Some would argue that legislation does not alter negative social perceptions and customs. But we are convinced that pro-women legislation is the first essential step towards securing a better deal for women, including widows.

The latest such legislation, passed unanimously by the National Assembly of Pakistan on 16 November 2010, is called the Anti-Women Practices Bill. It provides for at least 10 years’ imprisonment and a fine of one million rupees for using deceitful means to deprive a woman of her inheritance, up to seven years and a minimum of three years and Rs. 500,000 as fine for giving a woman in forced marriage to settle civil disputes or a criminal liability and up to seven years and a minimum of three years with Rs. 500,000/- as fine for compelling or facilitating the marriage of a woman to the Quran, a practice practised by some feudal families to deprive women of their inheritance.

Other pro-women laws from which widows can also gain protection are:

• Amendment in 2001 of the Citizenship Act 1951, which enables women to pass their citizenship to their children.

• The Criminal Law Amendment Act 2005, which prescribes punishments for crimes committed in the name of honour. Specifically, it prohibits and prescribes punishment for giving women as Badl-i-Sulh or in exchange for peace.

• Protection of Women (Criminal Law Amendment) Act 2006, which makes amendments in the infamous Hudood laws to give women relief by shifting rape and several other offences back to the Pakistan Penal Code.

• Criminal Law (Amendment) Act 2009 which became law in 2010, criminalises sexual harassment of women at work, under which all forms of harassment, verbal or physical, intimidation or creating a hostile working environment, is punishable by imprisonment up to three years or with a fine up to Rs. 500,000 or with both.

• Protection Against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act 2009 (see Urdu text here) which became law in 2010, addresses the issue of harassment of women in all places of work. It applies to women workers in brick kilns, agriculture, industry, markets, public places and as domestic workers. It provides that managements of organisations should institute codes of conduct and prescribes punishments.

• The Domestic Violence Bill 2009 has been passed by the National Assembly but has yet to be taken up by the Senate.

• The Acid Control and Acid Prevention Bill 2011 has yet to be addressed by Parliament.

Aurat Foundation hopes that the above legislation will provide relief and succour to all women, including widows, in Pakistan. We will continue to work towards that end.

This paper was read on Dr Masuma Hasan’s behalf at the Sanwed Consultative Workshop held in Kathmandu on 9-10 Decembe 2011. Dr Masuma Hasan is a Member Board of Governors and Treasurer, Aurat Foundation Pakistan