As much as CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA global national media have tried to sell the idea that far-right authoritarian, militaristic dictatorships are DEMOCRACIES----they of course are not. Let's look over last century at the installed STRONG MEN tied to global banking 1% continuous wars under the guise of DEMOCRATIZING what were already civilized societies....as is happening today in America.
'The army controls one-third of all heavy manufacturing and owns more than $20.7 billion in assets, including more than 12 million acres of public land, according to some estimates'
This is the state of AMERICA due to CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA few decades of dismantling all of our American civil society expanding a massive military/surveillance complex inside our sovereign borders
Pakistan's Military-Democracy Complex
By Faisel Pervaiz
South Asia Analyst, Stratfor
South Asia Analyst, Stratfor
- Pakistan's power-sharing deal between civilian and military leaders will keep the potential for a military coup low.
- Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif will pragmatically accommodate the army by giving Gen. Raheel Sharif substantial influence over the country's foreign policy and national security.
- However, terrorism, the army's economic interests and the conflict in Afghanistan will ensure Pakistan's military a prominent political role through 2016.
The Pakistani military has always played an important role in Pakistani politics. For nearly 70 years, the army has defined the country's national security priorities, sometimes from the seat of government itself, and many commanders have been placed in prominent economic and political positions. In keeping with that tradition, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif appointed Gen. Raheel Sharif as the chief of army staff, the most visible and powerful position in the country, in November 2013. The general wasted no time gaining influence in Pakistan's foreign and defense affairs.
This is certainly not the first time a general has attained such power in Pakistan, and it is unlikely to be the last. However, civilian leaders such as the prime minister are gaining political power of their own lately, using the military to reinforce their burgeoning democratic ideals. This satisfies the military's desire for influence while also lowering the likelihood of a coup, but the military will nonetheless try to maintain its relevance in the economy and the government, all while continuing its historical role as protector of the country.
A History of Military Rule
Islamabad is no stranger to military rule; the army has actually been in charge for a combined 33 years of Pakistan's 68-year history. In 1977, for example, Chief of Army Staff Gen. Zia-ul-Haq capitalized on domestic political unrest and began an 11-year tenure as president by overthrowing Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, who was tried on charges of politically motivated murder and was hanged in April 1979. In October 1999, when Sharif, the prime minister at the time, fired then-Chief of Army Staff Gen. Pervez Musharraf for his role in the Kargil War against India, Musharraf overthrew Sharif in a bloodless coup. He arrested Sharif, tried him in court and banished him from politics until 2007, when he returned from exile in Saudi Arabia.
Several factors contributed to the military's dominance in Pakistan. After achieving independence, Pakistan inherited only 17 percent of colonial India's revenue streams but 33 percent of the military, giving the armed forces — already the most organized entity in the new country — considerable advantage in the new government. Kashmir, the only Muslim-majority state left in India after the Partition, was another contributing factor. Its Hindu maharaja, the state ruler, delayed deciding which state to join, but when Pakistani tribal militias aided by Pakistani soldiers invaded Kashmir, the maharaja agreed to join India in exchange for protection against Pakistani forces. Last, from Pakistan's perspective, India's refusal to allow a plebiscite in Kashmir only reinforced the need for South Asia's Muslims to have an independent homeland.
These factors informed two beliefs that have profoundly shaped Pakistan's political development — namely, that India is an existential threat and that the military must be Pakistan's guardian against that threat. It is little wonder, then, that Pakistan became a national security state during its early years, subordinating economic and democratic development to military improvement and tilting the balance of power away from civilian rule.
Military rule also constructed a coherent national identity for Pakistan. Composed of diverse ethnic and linguistic groups, including the Pashtun, Punjabis, Sindhis, Balochis, and Bengalis, Pakistan was inherently diverse. The military feared that representative democracy would empower these groups, weakening the centralized authority necessary to build the fledgling nation. The military therefore opted to unite Pakistan under the religion of Islam. The further partition of Pakistan's eastern territory in 1971 into the independent nation of Bangladesh reaffirmed the perception that India, which assisted the Bengali independence movement, and ethnic regionalism were threats to national sovereignty.
By adopting Islam, the military could use jihadist proxies as a tactic of asymmetric warfare to match India's greater military capabilities as well. And it did, first by dispatching Islamists to undermine the secular Bengali independence movement. Later, with the aid of $3.2 billion in U.S. funds, President Zia-al-Haq trained, armed and dispatched mujahideen from Pakistan to Afghanistan to fight in the Soviet-Afghan War. After the Soviets retreated in 1989, Islamabad continued to employ its jihadist strategy, using the Taliban in Afghanistan to gain strategic depth and to have an ally in case it went to war with India. Ultimately, the military employed some jihadists to gain influence in Afghanistan and others to fight Indian forces in Kashmir.
Empowering Islam over secular ideals stunted democratic development and safeguarded the military's political power, but it also contributed to the rise of Pakistan's domestic militancy. Currently, the military — and the country — is reaping what it sowed, as the very militants they trained have since turned on the state. The most recent example of this was the incident at Bacha Khan University, in which extremists from the Pakistani Taliban killed 21 people Jan. 20.
In light of such history, Gen. Sharif's sudden rise to political prominence could be disconcerting for the government. Many of the conditions under which previous coups occurred — economic stagnation, weak civilian institutions, complications with India — are relevant today, while escalating Taliban attacks continue to threaten Pakistan's national security.
But even though the military is the most powerful institution in the country, the potential for another military takeover of the government is low. First, the military's image was tarnished by Musharraf's controversial nine-year tenure. His decision to liberalize the media early in his term helped to undermine his efforts to sack Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry in March 2007. Media coverage shifted public opinion against Musharraf, and the Supreme Court reinstated Chaudhry four months later. Musharraf's decision to suspend the constitution on Nov. 3, 2007, further galvanized public opinion against him, and, by extension, against military rule.
In 2008, the coalition government led by Asif Ali Zardari of the Pakistan People's Party moved to impeach Musharraf. He could have dismissed the government, but instead he listened to his chief of army staff, Gen. Ashfaq Kayani, and the army corps commanders, who advised against taking such a drastic measure. The episode suggests that the military had grown more sensitive to public opinion and more accepting of the democratic forces that constrain civilian political parties. Accordingly, Musharraf resigned to avoid impeachment, and the military safeguarded his passage into self-imposed exile in London. (When Musharraf returned in 2013, an election tribunal banned him from running for office, ending his political ambitions. The military did not intervene to challenge the court's decision.)
Second, Prime Minister Sharif is a pragmatist — something that lowers the chances of a coup. Mindful of the events of 1999, he will accommodate the army's desire for influence. For example, after winning his third term in 2013, he tried expanding civilian control over defense. But the protests of August 2014 — in which Tehreek-e-Insaaf party leader Imran Khan demanded that the military dismiss Sharif's government on charges of election fraud — forced the prime minister to give back some influence over foreign policy and national security to the military.
Moreover, Kayani, Gen. Sharif's predecessor as chief of army staff, set a precedent for a reduced, albeit still prominent, role for the army, closing the Inter-Services Intelligence's political cell, removing officers from government posts, and generally withdrawing from daily public administration. Kayani wanted to improve the army's reputation in the aftermath of Musharraf's resignation and recognized the wisdom in letting the civilian government handle the country's economic and energy challenges. He also served under former President Asif Ali Zardari, whose administration completed its five-year term in 2013 before peacefully ceding power to Sharif's administration, a first in Pakistani history.
Though the likelihood of a coup is low, there are other factors that suggest the military will remain politically powerful, beginning with the army's vested economic interests. The army controls one-third of all heavy manufacturing and owns more than $20.7 billion in assets, including more than 12 million acres of public land, according to some estimates. The army is also a conduit for current and retired officers to serve in a range of industries, such as banking, manufacturing, farming and insurance. So-called welfare foundations, however, are the main instruments through which the military manages its business interests. For example, the Fauji Foundation serves more than 9 million beneficiaries and operates Fauji Cereals, Foundation Gas, and the FF Seed Multiplication Farm, which harvests sugarcane.
THE ABOVE IS THE MIRROR OF WHAT IS HAPPENING IN US BUSH/OBAMA-------PATRONAGE TO THOSE TIED TO MILITARY JUNTA.
The military uses the same rationale to justify its economic role that it has used for its political intervention — namely, that politicians are corrupt while the military is not. Furthermore, the fact that terrorism is one of Pakistan's biggest problems creates a natural opening for a military presence. Gen. Sharif's perceived success in tackling endemic crime in Karachi, in prosecuting the anti-militant Operation Zarb-e-Azb that has brought militant attacks to a six-year low, and in handling the December 2014 school shootings in Peshawar have made him tremendously popular.
Because the perceived threat from India has historically justified the military's dominance in Pakistan, Prime Minister Sharif's attempts to strengthen diplomatic, energy, security and trade ties with New Delhi — and ultimately re-orienting India's image domestically to that of a rival instead of an existential threat — is aimed at improving civilian institutions relative to the military, at least incrementally. In the meantime, as the United States seeks to manage an escalating insurgency in Afghanistan, the warm reception Gen. Sharif received during his unofficial visit indicates that Washington sees the Pakistani army as a crucial partner in its Afghan strategy. Still, the relationship and support between Pakistan and the United States will likely vary in the coming years as the United States tries to focus on other pressing foreign policy matters in 2016, such as developments in the Middle East and its relations with Russia.
Ultimately, Prime Minister Sharif's gamble paid off. Despite being the most popular public official in the country, Gen. Sharif recently announced that he will step down as chief of army staff at the end of his term in November 2016, setting another democratic precedent for his successor and a small victory for civilian rule. Of course, it is too early to say whether the civilian-military dynamic marks a fundamental shift in the politics of Pakistan. But how the balance between the generals and the prime minister plays out is critical for Pakistan's relations with India, for managing militant Islam and for overall stability in South Asia.
We have shouted for these few decades against the RIGGING AND FRAUD inside US elections as CLINTON/BUSH global banking 1% neo-liberals/neo-cons gained power in each US state. The rigging of elections in US is done by local county/city election boards controlled by US state boards of election. We identified here in Baltimore where the local police department was allowed to break chain of custody of election ballots cast in each voting district in Baltimore----in military juntas like PAKISTAN these same election frauds occur under the guise of the military assuring honest voting.
WE CANNOT FIX BALTIMORE-----THE 99% OF PAKISTAN CANNOT FIX PAKISTAN WHEN THE ELECTIONS ARE CONTROLLED BY THE FOXES SAYING THEY ARE SIMPLY GUARDING THE HEN HOUSES.
Is Pakistan ready for a genuine democracy?
Throughout Pakistan's history, not a single political organisation has attempted to carry out the reforms needed to uproot the entrenched tribal political structure in place in the country
June 15, 2018
The word democracy is derived from two Greek words: “Demos: meaning people and” Kratos “which means power. In general, it means the rule of the people, where they select their own representatives who then form a government based on the will of the people.
However, in Pakistan, democracy seems to mean something else. Here parliamentarians take measures based on their own vested interests, focusing instead on enriching themselves. This election cycle is significant because it is the first time in history that a second consecutive democratically elected government has completed its mandate, and it is imperative that this march towards a true democratic system of governance continues in the future as well.
This has been the longest period in our history that Pakistan has not suffered through a military coup and the focus should now turn to improving our democratic system itself. While Pakistan may have a formal constitutional and democratic structure, the current feudal and tribal dynamics of the country mean that the next general election will be won by a political party that will have a list of candidates with strong family ties or considerable wealth, instead of candidates that might be better qualified.
At the national level, Pakistan’s political structure is not ready for a genuine democracy. Throughout its history, not a single political organisation has attempted to carry out the reforms needed in order to uproot the entrenched tribal political structure in place.
There are two main reasons why this has never been done before and is not likely to happen at any time in the foreseeable future either. First, all major political parties draw a large section of their supporters from the tribal and feudal sections of society. Any attempt to challenge the existing social and political structure would not only challenge their interests, but would also alienate local groups that maintain their political power through such structures. Second, the majority of the country’s middle and economically challenged class has become accustomed to the current political structure, to the point where even a hint of radical reforms and a promise of true equality is considered a threat by the masses.
Interestingly, there hasn’t been any international pressure to change Pakistan’s flawed democracy either
Our society is divided over ethnic, tribal and sectarian lines, yet in a truly democratic system, these considerations should not matter, as every member of our society has the right to stand for elections. However, the people in power do not see the benefit in disturbing a system that ultimately works in their favour.
On the other hand, Pakistan’s civil society remains weak and has seldom tried to force the ruling elite to reform the current political structure in place. During the last seventy years, none of the civil society groups has ever participated in effort to force the state to change the existing political structure in place that only serves to undermine the weak and defenceless.
Interestingly, there hasn’t been any international pressure to change the current system in place either. Countries with close ties to Pakistan, particularly the United States and China, never saw a democratic Pakistan as feasible for its regional geopolitical security and interests. The US has no qualms in working with the establishment to achieve their regional goal, while China and Saudi Arabia, haven’t pushed for any liberal democratic reforms either. Apparently, they feel that a democratic Pakistan might impede their ambitions for the region.
Even though most people are averse to the idea of change, or are too helpless or disorganised to initiate a revolution in the country, our youth, which comprises of over 30 percent of our population, might prove to be the instrument for change our country needs. They should start by taking an active role in the political dynamic prevalent in our country and fight for the common man’s right for representation and equality. They can also initiate programs of accountability, where people doing good work are rewarded, and those taking undue advantage of the system are exposed and prosecuted.
While everybody agrees that a true democratic system of governance is a prerequisite for a prospering economy, the current challenges faced by Pakistan make it difficult for us to achieve this ideal in the foreseeable future. However, this is not to say that there isn’t anything that can’t be done. A look at the history of almost every prosperous nation in the world will reveal the great obstacles they had to cross, and the adversity they had to face in order to get to where they are today. In the end, overcoming these hardships gave them the strength to progress as a nation, and achieve the impossible.
One final reference to THE WHISPERING ROOM one that is factual is today's US JUSTICE DEPARTMENT being staffed by global banking 5% freemason/Greek players working for team ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE global 1% OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS. That is who our US JUSTICE DEPARTMENT has been throughout CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA and as such they are not enforcing US RULE OF LAW ---they are serving as a PAKISTANI-style intelligence agency working for KNIGHTS OF MALTA/TRIBE OF JUDAH.
That is exactly what all international media has written about for several decades as regards the fight for a 99% of sovereign citizens inside these militarized nations----MOVING FORWARD here in US CITIES DEEMED FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES.
'On the other hand, Pakistan’s civil society remains weak and has seldom tried to force the ruling elite to reform the current political structure in place'.
'Maryam Nawaz, the daughter and political heir apparent of the ousted prime minister, goes as far as calling Mr. Khan a “stooge” and “pawn” of the military and its intelligence agencies. Mr. Khan dismisses such criticism'.
This is what a militarized society looks like----if our 99% of US WE THE PEOPLE keep allowing MOVING FORWARD----the global 1% simply install these military junta as government and indeed they work only for those global 1% with no regard or intention of 99% civil rights liberties, or allowing REAL DEMOCRATIC ELECTIONS.
THE IDEA A 'KHAN' IS A POPULIST IS ABOUT AS RIDICULOUS AS TODAY'S US FAKE 'POPULISTS' ALL TIED TO GLOBAL BANKING 1%.
As the 99% of Pakistani citizens understand---there is no movement towards DEMOCRATIC reforms with candidates like KHAN---just as in US with our fake OUR REVOLUTION crowd on left and LIBERTARIANS on right. KHAN is global 1% OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS for Asia.
Imran Khan Warms to Pakistan’s Military. His Political Fortunes Rise.
Supporters of Imran Khan at a rally in Lahore, Pakistan. With general elections expected in July, Mr. Khan is vying to lead the next government.
CreditK.M. Chaudary/Associated Press
By Salman Masood
- May 6, 2018
With general elections expected in July, Mr. Khan made a spirited claim to lead the next government when he addressed thousands of his supporters who had gathered in the politically important city of Lahore a week ago. The rally kicked off the election season, and other political parties have begun campaigning around the country.
Mr. Khan — a populist with whose nationalist appeal rests in part on an anti-American platform — is the main challenger to the political party of former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, who was ousted last year by the Supreme Court after a corruption inquiry. Mr. Sharif was barred from holding public office, and he faces a verdict next month on corruption charges.
With Mr. Sharif looking at possible jail time, and several leaders of his party, the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz, ensnared in corruption investigations, Mr. Khan says his time has arrived. He presents himself as an alternative to what he calls a corrupt political elite, and says he will work to improve education, health and the environment.
His prospects have brightened in light of his warming ties with the military, which controls the main levers of power in Pakistan and has dominated foreign and security policies for decades. Mr. Sharif’s efforts to assert civilian control over the military during his last term failed, turning him into an intensely hated figure among the military establishment.
Mr. Khan, on the other hand, has no qualms about working with the military.
“I think a democratic government rules from moral authority,” Mr. Khan said in an interview at a party office in Lahore. “And if you don’t have moral authority, then those who have the physical authority assert themselves. In my opinion, it is the Pakistan Army and not an enemy army. I will carry the army with me.”
Mr. Khan has opposed the military’s operations against Taliban insurgents in the tribal regions and its cooperation with the United States. Still, he has developed closer ties with the military.
In recent months, the army chief, Gen. Qamar Javed Bajwa, has increased his clout, while dissenting voices in the country have come under greater pressure and restrictions on the media have increased.
Mr. Sharif has accused the army and judiciary of working together to have him removed from office, depriving his party of a level playing field in the general elections. Both the military and the judiciary deny the allegations, which Mr. Sharif repeated last week at a rally in Punjab Province.
In the coming election, the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz party “will be up against forces that cannot be seen,” Mr. Sharif said, in a veiled reference to the military’s intelligence agencies.
Hasan Askari Rizvi, an analyst based in Lahore, said Mr. Khan’s political stock has risen as his relationship with the military has gotten closer.
“Imran has realized that if you want to run Pakistan, you have to work with the military because of the internal and external challenges,” Mr. Rizvi said. “By fighting with the military, you cannot run the state.”
Those relations have improved despite Mr. Khan’s long opposition to the military’s operations against Taliban insurgents in the tribal regions bordering Afghanistan and its cooperation with the United States.
“I hear all this stuff about how the army is influential in Pakistan. The army depends on one man. Whoever is the army chief, the army policy goes the way of the army chief,” Mr. Khan said in the interview.
Supporters of former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif protested Supreme Court rulings against him.CreditFaisal Kareem/European Pressphoto Agency
Mr. Khan then praised General Bajwa.
“It’s the first time that I am seeing an army chief saying time and again that ‘I will ensure free and fair elections,’ which is the one thing that we want. That’s all I want. This is music to our ears.”
Mr. Khan blames what he calls the corrupt and inept civilian leadership of the past for the imbalance in civilian and military relations. He is also critical of neighboring India and Afghanistan, saying their hostility toward Pakistan forces the military to play an outsize role in the country.
With adversarial neighbors, “clearly, the military will have a bigger say in the security policy,” he said. “But I don’t blame the army. I blame the most corrupt governments whose main concern has only been making corrupt money and protecting the corrupt money. They could easily have taken a more assertive role in foreign policy.”
He added: “I have very clear foreign policy objectives, and where there are security concerns of the army, we will address them. We will sit down. It is our army.”
Mr. Khan has been a bitter critic of the United States, and in recent years, the Pakistan military has also veered away from its traditionally close ties with the United States, looking toward China and Russia.
Critics say Mr. Khan is pandering to the military.
Maryam Nawaz, the daughter and political heir apparent of the ousted prime minister, goes as far as calling Mr. Khan a “stooge” and “pawn” of the military and its intelligence agencies. Mr. Khan dismisses such criticism.
In the last elections, in 2013, Mr. Khan’s party won 33 of the 342 seats in the National Assembly. But he remained the key opposition figure, keeping Mr. Sharif off balance through a mix of street agitation and court petitions, which finally led to Mr. Sharif’s dismissal last July.
“I think we should take Imran Khan much more seriously this time,” said Zaigham Khan, a political analyst and newspaper columnist. “He is not alone.”
No one knows better than our Indian global 1% OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS that the US has been captured and controlled by ROBBER BARON global 1% OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS and India as other Asian nations tied to FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES played a big part in sacking and looting our US Treasury through systemic frauds.
THE KHAN family as MAYOR OF LONDON a city declared a FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE ONE WORLD CITY a few decades ago.
What we are seeing from those global 1% ASIAN OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS is that FLIPPING OF EARTH'S ECONOMIC AXIS------KHAN is aligning with China and Russia because Eastern nations are where MOVING FORWARD ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE will be stationed. The US MOVING FORWARD as a tribute state colonial entity is of no interest for global 1% ASIAN families like the KHANS.
'Mr. Khan has been a bitter critic of the United States, and in recent years, the Pakistan military has also veered away from its traditionally close ties with the United States, looking toward China and Russia'.
PAKISTANI military is no more MUSLIM then EGYPTIAN or MYANMAR----they all work for those global 1% ASIAN OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS who are tied to being ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE for only the global 1%.
So, this is the political structure MOVING FORWARD in US CITIES DEEMED FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES---like Baltimore and our US 99% of WE THE PEOPLE will be the same as third world Pakistan/Myanmar/Egypt in constantly having to fight for a REAL DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY.
Russia is heading back to being far-right STALINIST taking with it those EASTERN BLOCK nations----remember, for thousands of years INDIA has been that gateway region between Eastern and Western Europe-----in MOVING FORWARD this region is now looking EAST.
Pakistan's relationship with the US is getting frosty — and it's warming up to Russia
Mar. 5, 2018, 6:55 PM
ISLAMABAD (Reuters) - As US influence in Islamabad wanes, Pakistan's former adversary Russia is building military, diplomatic and economic ties that could upend historic alliances in the region and open up a fast-growing gas market for Moscow's energy companies.
Russia's embrace of Pakistan comes at a time when relations between the United States and its historical ally are unraveling over the war in Afghanistan, a remarkable turnaround from the 1980s, when Pakistan helped funnel weapons and US spies across the border to aid Afghan fighters battling Soviet troops.
Though the Moscow-Islamabad rapprochement is in its infancy, and it is neighbor China that is filling the growing void left by the United States in Pakistan, a slew of energy deals and growing military cooperation promise to spark life into the Russia-Pakistan relationship that was dead for many decades.
"It is an opening," Khurram Dastgir Khan, Pakistan's defense minister, told Reuters. "Both countries have to work through the past to open the door to the future."
The cozier diplomatic ties have so far focused on Afghanistan, where Russia has cultivated ties to the Afghan Taliban militants who are fighting US troops and have historic links to Islamabad. Moscow says it is encouraging peace negotiations.
Both Russia and Pakistan are also alarmed by the presence of Islamic State (IS) inside Afghanistan, with Moscow concerned the group's fighters could spread towards central Asia and closer to home. In Pakistan, IS has already carried out major attacks.
"We have common ground on most issues at diplomatic levels," Pakistan's Prime Minister Shahid Khaqan Abbasi told Reuters. "It's a relationship that will grow substantially in the future."
During a trip to Moscow last month by Pakistan's foreign minister, Khawaja Asif, the two countries announced plans to establish a commission on military cooperation to combat the threat of IS in the region.
They also agreed to continue annual military training exercises that began in 2016 and followed the sale of four Russian attack helicopters to Pakistan, as well as the purchase of Russian engines for the Pakistan Air Force's JF-17 fighter jets that Pakistan's military assembles on its own soil.
The detente has been watched with suspicion by Pakistan's neighbor and arch-foe India, which broadly stood in the Soviet camp during the Cold War era. In the last two decades, the close Russia-India relationship has been underpinned by huge arms sales by Moscow to a country it calls a "strategic partner."
"If the Russians start backing the Pakistanis in a big way at the political level, then it creates a problem for us," said Sushant Sareen, a leading expert on India's relations to Pakistan and Afghanistan with New Delhi-based Observer Research Foundation.
India's foreign ministry did not respond to a request for comment on Russia's ties with Pakistan, but has previously said that its own relations with Moscow have stood the test of time, and that the two nations are building up defense and energy relations, including collaboration on nuclear reactors in India.
Russian overtures to Pakistan offer a badly needed diplomatic lifeline for the South Asian nation as it faces growing friction with Western powers over its alleged links to militants.
At US urging, and with backing from Britain, France and Germany, a global financial watchdog, the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), last month decided to place Pakistan back on its watchlist of countries with inadequate terrorist-financing controls, potentially hurting Pakistan's fragile economy.
The US move, which Islamabad angrily dismissed as an effort to "embarrass" Pakistan, followed Washington's announcement in January to suspend $2 billion in military assistance.
Asif, Pakistan's foreign minister, said his nation made a historical error by "tilting 100 percent" to the West and was now eager build alliances closer to home with the likes of China, Russia and Turkey.
"We want to correct the imbalance of our foreign policy over 70 years," Asif told Reuters. "We are not divorcing that relationship (with the West). But we want to have a balance in our relationships, we want to be closer to our friends in our region."
Army personnel drive up to their base beside the ski resort in Malam Jabba, Pakistan February 7, 2017.
Thomson Reuters Defence minister Khan said Pakistan's military, which has historically been heavily reliant on US weapons and aircraft, may have no choice but to ramp up purchases from the likes of Russia.
The cooling relationship with Washington is already pushing Islamabad closer to China, which is investing about $60 billion in infrastructure in Pakistan. But analysts say Pakistan is wary of becoming overly dependent diplomatically on Beijing.
Pakistan is among several nations that have been courted by Moscow after falling out with Washington, including the Philippines and Qatar, but Russia's long-term aims for the Pakistan relationship are unclear, according to Petr Topychkanov, a senior researcher at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.
"It's not very transparent, even in Russia," he said. "There is no serious public debate, there is no detailed explanation to the Russian public about what Russia wants in Pakistan."
Russia's foreign ministry did not immediately respond to a request for comment about Moscow's increasingly close relations with Pakistan.
Russia and Pakistan are negotiating potential energy deals worth in excess of $10 billion, according to Pakistani energy officials.
Asif said four to five huge power projects "will cement our relationship further."
Russia last month appointed an honorary council in the Pakistan's northern Khyber Pukhtunkhwa province, where its companies are in talks to build an oil refinery and a power station.
But the biggest deals focus on gas supply and infrastructure to Pakistan, one of the world's fastest growing liquefied natural gas (LNG) import markets.
"On a strategic basis, Russia is coming in very fast on the energy side," said a senior Pakistani energy official.
In October, Pakistan and Russia signed an inter-governmental agreement (IGA) on energy, paving the way for Russian state-giant Gazprom to enter negotiations to supply LNG to Pakistan.
The talks are expected to conclude within three months and Gazprom is considered "one of the front-runners" to clinch a long-term supply deal, according to the Pakistani official.
Based on two monthly LNG cargo deliveries, that deal would be worth about $9 billion over 15 years, he added.
There is also growing confidence that a gas pipeline due to be built by Russia, stretching 1,100 km (680 miles) from Lahore to the port city of Karachi, will go ahead.
US sanctions against Russian state conglomerate Rostec, as well as a dispute over North-South pipeline transport fees, have held up the $2 billion project since it was signed in 2015.
The North-South pipeline would be the biggest infrastructure deal by Russia since early 1970s, when Soviet engineers constructed the Pakistan Steel Mills industrial complex.
A Russian company, according to defense minister Khan, is eying up a deal to take over the disused Soviet-built steel mills.
Here is poor global banking 1% hedge fund IVY LEAGUE Johns Hopkins partnered with Brookings Institution PRETENDING any of global banking 1% Clinton neo-liberalism is LEFT CENTER. Left center is a political term that would indicate there is something DEMOCRATIC happening inside a sovereign nation. These few decades of CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA capturing both our US right and left wing major parties killed our sovereign elections. There is nothing NEW LEFT in Egypt as well as the ARAB SPRING was simply that ALT RIGHT ALT LEFT global technology corporation players bringing 99% of Egyptian citizens really wanting REFORMS----wanting a real DEMOCRATIC structure----just as in Pakistan. The Egyptian are billionaires as are Pakistani military junta because they work for global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS. Hopkins in international journalism as here in Baltimore PRETENDING there is anything SOCIAL BENEFIT happening from Egypt's ARAB SPRING.
Egypt’s New Left versus the Military Junta
- Juan Cole
- Social Research: An International Quarterly
- Johns Hopkins University Press
- Volume 79, Number 2, Summer 2012
- pp. 487-510
- View Citation
We will take this week to discuss in detail what life is like in third world military JUNTA governance since that is the goal of MOVING FORWARD US CITIES DEEMED FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES. Our US 99% of WE THE PEOPLE have all last century of education about how those third world overseas nations' 99% of citizens have been fighting as hard as they can to GET RID OF GLOBAL BANKING 1% MILITARY JUNTAS----why would our US 99% of citizens allow the same to be installed today in US?
Also, any US media outlet allowing these articles written by a STANFORD or JOHNS HOPKINS appear in a journal called INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC ACCURACY ---------is FAKE NEWS
'Views and links appearing in material published or distributed by the Institute for Public Accuracy do not necessarily represent the opinions of the board or staff of IPA.
Funders of the Institute for Public Accuracy include:
Unitarian Universalist Veatch Program at Shelter Rock
Susan Adelman and Claudio Llanos
Madison Community Foundation
Stewart Mott Charitable Trust
Wallace Global Fund
Lucy and Isadore B. Adelman Foundation
IPA also receives financial support from individuals'.
Egypt’s Struggle Against Counter-Revolution:
Role of Junta, U.S. and Saudi Arabia
November 22, 2011EMAD MEKAY, emekay at stanford.edu
Mekay is a John S. Knight Journalism Fellow at Stanford University and has covered much of the Egyptian uprising. He said today: “The Egyptian military junta managed to fool many Egyptians when they took over after the fall of Mubarak by convincing them that they will be true to their word and hand over power to civilian rule in six months. That hasn’t happened. Instead, over the past ten months the military refused to hand over power, refused to hold Mubarak regime members to task, allowed many of them to go back to control positions they held in the past, mismanaged the economy and eventually made their true intentions clear. The military want to act as a caretaker of the entire Egyptian state by promoting a supra-constitutional document that gives them a special and untouchable position in drafting the future of the country. The military are very close to the Pentagon and it is hard to imagine that they were taking these steps without consulting their buddies in Washington, D.C. The military junta may be trying to protect its economic empire in the country which they built under Mubarak’s 30-year rule.”
SEIF DA’NA, dana at uwp.edu
Seif Da’Na is an associate professor of sociology and international studies at the University of Wisconsin-Parkside specializing in the Mideast and North Africa.
He said today: “The constitutional reform and the so-called ‘Ultra Constitutional Principles’ proposed by Egypt’s ‘Higher Military Council’ are only a heading for a rather more acute conflict. Not only Egypt, but the whole region has been experiencing a political re-grouping and a fierce counter revolution. Due to the potential regional and global political and economic consequences of the ongoing Arab revolts, various local, regional, and global forces are leading the fierce counter-revolution. So, the people of the region are not currently facing their despotic regimes only, or what’s left of it, but regional and global powers as well. One regional power is the Saudi regime: Saudi Arabia’s military intervention in Bahrain, hosting Ben Ali, the ousted dictator of Tunisia, and conspiring against the Yemeni revolution, as the chants in the streets indicate.
“Egypt’s Higher Military Council’s policies (holding military tribunals for activists, undemocratically dictating the formation and the composition of the ‘Constituent Assembly’ etc.) has been increasingly seen by Egyptians and the people of the region as a tool of counter-revolution.
“While the counter-revolutionary forces might not give up easily and might continue to fight fiercely in the days and months to come, and while the regimes, whose heads were overthrown, were not entirely dismantled, thus providing vital tools for counter-revolution, the new political culture in the region and the collapse of the image of the despotic oppressor, makes it extremely difficult and very unlikely to maintain the status quo. This might just be another round of a long historical process that seems irreversible.”
On Jan. 25 of this year, the day the Egyptian uprising began, Da’Na was featured on an Institute for Public Accuracy news release stating that the protests represented the “beginning of a new era.“
Thailand was taken on as a FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE under Trans Pacific Trade Pact so as with almost all Asian and Arabic nations tied to FEZ----comes the status of a ruling MILITARY JUNTA. As we stated earlier-----these smaller Asian nations having served as destinations for what were US CORPORATIONS these few decades will be released back to China no matter what a TRADE AGREEMENT states.
So, where in the world is a government NOT a military JUNTA? Officially, US and Western Europe----both MOVING FORWARD to being just that.
How did all those overseas nations with FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES end up having a military junta as a ruling class? Thank that WORLD BANK/IMF----getting ready to be handed our US treasury as economic collapse MOVES FORWARD. TRUMP acting like a clown is simply adding to that NEED for MILITARY JUNTA control of US.
Saturday, 26 August 2017
More on the military junta ruling the United States
Goodbye ‘President’ Trump; hail ‘President’ Mattis
US Defense Secretary Mattis takes effective charge of US foreign policy, but leads US down a blind alley
ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE SMART CITIES as deep, deep, really deep state is MOVING FORWARD this goal of US military JUNTA.
Thailand Is in Danger of Becoming an Established Military Dictatorship
By Charles Parkinson
April 7, 2016 | 11:59 am
Thailand has moved one step closer towards entrenched military rule in recent days, after the governing junta granted sweeping powers of arrest and detention to military personnel, drawing harsh criticism from civil society groups and the US government in the process.
Under the terms of the new order, soldiers from the rank of sub-lieutenant and above have the authority to arrest and detain anyone suspected of one of 27 crimes, including extortion, human trafficking, and labor abuse. They are also permitted to search properties without a warrant.
The powers were granted on March 29 by Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha, a retired army general who as the head of the junta -- known as the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) -- has overseen feverish persecution of political dissent.
NCPO spokesman Col. Piyapong Klinphan last week told the Bangkok Post the order was aimed at preventing and suppressing crimes that imperil peace and public order, or that could sabotage the economy.
The move drew rebuke form six prominent civil society groups, including Human Rights Watch (HRW), Amnesty International, and the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), who released a joint statement on Tuesday branding the new powers "in contravention of human rights and the rule of law. The new order will "almost certainly lead to violations of Thailand's international human rights obligations," they said.
According to Brad Adams, Asia Director at HRW, the order leaves Thailand at a "pivotal point" that demands urgent intervention from the international community to prevent the rights situation in the country deteriorating further. Adams called for strong public statements from foreign governments and the United Nations to condemn the ongoing excesses of the Thai military.
"General Prayut and his colleagues should be made to understand that if they continue down this course of increasing rights abuses, the Thai government's relations with allies around the world will suffer," he told VICE News.
One government agency to speak out was the US State Department, whose East Asia spokeswoman Katina Adams this week called on the Thai government to limit the role of the military in internal policing and to allow civilian authorities to carry out their duties.
"This includes returning the prosecutions of civilians to civilian courts and providing adequate due process and fair trial protections," she said.
Since coming to power almost two years ago, the NCPO has taken an increasingly repressive approach to government critics, with re-education camps established, civilians tried in military courts, and restrictions on foreign journalists tightened.
"Those who peacefully challenge military rule, including journalists and human rights defenders, face harassment, intimidation, threats, and arbitrary detention," said Andrea Giorgetta, Director of Asia Desk, Southeast Asia at FIDH.
That repression has reached extreme levels, with a political activist facing up to seven years in prison on sedition charges over a Facebook post in which she appeared holding a red bowl with a message from ex-Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra written on the side. The military subsequently confiscated almost 10,000 more of the bowls from the offices of three former MPs affiliated with Shinawatra.
Shinawatra, whose political movement is associated with the color red, was deposed in an earlier coup in 2006 and is avoiding corruption charges in exile, while his sister Yinluck was removed from power by the current junta, having swept to election victory in 2011.
Thailand's jolts between civilian and military rule in recent years have been attributed by analysts to a battle between the entrenched Bangkok-based elite and the popular rural-based political movement of Shinawatra, whose social programs directed at countryside communities have provided him with unwavering support among impoverished farmers, even in the face of compelling evidence of his involvement in graft.
The elite have long established ties to both the monarchy and the military, and are the major pillar of support for the current regime. Notably, the NCPO has come down hard on acts seen to offend the dignity of the monarchy — a "crime" known as lèse majesté — with one man threatened with decades in prison for insulting the king's dog on Facebook.
The May 2014 coup was the 19th the country has seen since Thailand formally established democracy in 1932, and the NCPO has said elections slated for 2017 cannot go ahead until a new constitution is established. In late March, the NCPO unveiled a final draft constitution that would allow the military to hand pick the country's senate and potentially select a prime minister.
On Thursday, the US Embassy in Bangkok's spokesperson Melissa Sweeney urged the Thai government to lift restrictions on civil liberties "to allow for an open and robust debate on the draft constitution" ahead of a referendum on its acceptance in August.
"As a longtime friend of the Kingdom, we want Thailand to emerge from this transition period as a strengthened, sustainable democracy that reflects the views of all Thais and protects fundamental freedoms," Sweeney told VICE News.
Thailand's move towards increasing authoritarianism and the possible rooting of the military in the legislature has come at a time when neighboring Myanmar is being lauded for emerging from the political wilderness of almost half a century of military rule.
In December, Myanmar's National League for Democracy (NLD) won a historic election, having battled years of marginalization and repression from the ruling junta. While the constitution adopted by the junta in 2008 guaranteed the military 25 percent of the seats in both the upper and lower houses of the country's Assembly of the Union, it could not prevent the NLD winning control of both houses.
Responding to an earlier version of Thailand's draft constitution — which only included a partially appointed senate — Thaksin Shinawatra drew a stark comparison between the country he once led and its neighbor.
"In reality, it would be like Myanmar before its political reforms. There would be a prime minister, but the real power would be in some politburo above him and the economy would suffer. No other government would want to touch Thailand," he told the Guardian in February.
The powers recently conferred on the military offer little to suggest he is wrong.