June 28, 2017

China #Pakistan and #Iran's dirty game in the region.

By: Waris Baloch

China #Pakistan and #Iran's dirty game in the region.

Iran and Pakistan both are on same page when it comes the issue of occupied Balochistan because both have invaded Baloch land.

During the regime of Zulfiqar Ali Bhuttu, in 1973's liberation struggle of Balochistan was on its peak, lead by Nawab Khair Bakhsh Marri and Babu Shero Marri and fellow Baloch guerrilla fighters, Iranian Air force and its army provided fighter jets to Pakistan army which mercilessly killed thousands of Baloch civilians, a huge number of cattle were killed and confiscated. Baloch villages were bombed to ashes. Children, women and entire families were wiped out from the surface of land.

Baloch freedom fighters fought 15 day uninterrupted battle with Pakistan army on the mountains of Kohistan Marri. Pakistan army was supposed to declare its defeat but Iranian jets come to rescue the Pakistani ground troops on the mountains of Kujjul and surrounding areas of Kohlu.

It was #Iran who backed Pakistan militarily and weekend the Baloch resistance by bombing their civilians. Baloch freedom fighters due to lake of ammunition and ration lost the war and were made arrested in a large number where they were kept in concentration camps in Kohlu, Sibi, Zhob, Loralai and Quetta army cantonments. The exact number of abducted and martyred Baloch civilians and armed fighters have never be known but  Baloch locals says approximately 50000 Baloch along with their families were apprehended and 15000 were martyred whereas 10000 Pakistan army personnel were also killed during the face to face battle with Baloch freedom fighters.

Pakistan and Iran both have been collaborating with each other to crush the Baloch liberation movements in the past because they think that if anyone of them (Iran and Pakistan) loses control over Balochistan regions and Balochistan becomes an independence state then both of them will also have no option but to withdraw its forces from #BalochSoil. That's why Pakistan and Iran both are killing Baloch by using different tactics and names.

Pakistan kills Baloch and label them the agents of India, America, Israel and Afghanistan but Iran publicly hangs Baloch from  pro-freedom school of thoughts and labels them drug traffickers and smugglers to avoid the charges of war crimes. Iran has been plying its cards very cleverly by labeling the resistance and uprising of Arab, Al Ahwazi, Kurds and Balochs as drug smugglers. Iran has been trying to suppress the movement of mentioned nationalities by the barrel of the gun but on the other hand supporting the unrest in #Yemen, #Iraq #Labenan #Syeria, #Bahrin, #Saudi Araibia, #Afghanistan and now in #IndianOccupiedKashmir.

Iran is also located in a very strategic location, #Chahbahar port is belongs to Balochistan which is part of #Gwadar also known as #BalochOcean. China and Pakistan are unlawfully building a naval base in #Gwadar despite the warning and resistance by indigenous liberation movement of Baloch people. Iran shows no objections and concern over the so called #CPEC in #Gwadar which indicates that Pak-Iran have share interests and common goals to plunder the Baloch resources and give a military power on Baloch sea and land. Balochistan is the sources of unity and togetherness of Iran and Pakistan because of Balochistan.

The interests of Iran and Pakistan will never collide because their policy makers think a strong Pakistan is in the favor of Iran and in return Pakistan also provides its nuclear weapons and military guidance to Iran to fight United States to protect Chinese interests in #Balochistan region. China had assured Iran and Pakistan that her presence in Baloch territory will boost Jihad in #Kashmir which will benefit Pakistan, Chinese presence also will accelerate insurgency in Afghanistan which also benefits Pakistan and Iran because an economically feeble and politically unstable #Afghanistan is in the favor of Pak-Iran-China. There are undeniable proofs about Iranian infiltration in #Afghanistan where security officials of Afghanistan have been pointing the ginger on Iran that it pumps money to fighters and giving safe sanctuaries to Taliban and other groups fighting against #NATO and Afghan forces. 

The influence of China in subcontinent particularly and in occupied Balochistan specifically is to create its hegemony in the region. It supporting Pakistan and its proxies in the region to counter India, USA and Afghanistan. We have been seen that she aggressively backing Paksitan at all levels in other words #China is undeclared representative of #Taliban #HakaniNetworks and #ISIS because it always been seen convincing Afghanistan to talk with Taliban. Recently China once again offered to host the talks between Pakistan, Afghanistan and Taliban.

In #UnitedStates China twice used its Veto power to save the #Kashmiri leader #AzharMasoud which is also enough proof her involvement in #Kashmir unrest. 

Now Iran also came openly in support of #KashmirJihad that is a crystal clear proof of Iranian diplomatic support to #KashmirJihad. Iranian supreme leader Ayatullah Khamenei's twitt came after a day when United Sate declared #Sayed Sallaudin the #Kashmiri armed group leader as international terrorist. Iran came in the rescue of #Kashmiri armed group sponsored and funded by Pakistan which is also a prove of Pak-Iran nexus in #Kashmir.

Indian government must re-think its policies regarding #Iran because Iran is also an occupied forces in the eyes of Baloch people. If India, USA and Afghanistan, Gulf countries and rest of the world  really wants a stable world with durable peace then they must diplomatically, morally, politically and militarily support Baloch secular forces and their independence struggle.

The liberation of Balochistan and Kurdistan are the only ray of hope in the region because since decades world has been trying to heal the world's peace by terror sporting countries like Pakistan and Iran.

Word powers committed blunders in the past by giving aid and weaponizing Pakistan who's army sheltered the world's most wanted terrorist #Usama Bin Laden for a decade, gives safe havens to #Taliban #ISI and other religious groups. We hope such blunders will not be repeated this time.

Iran accuses US of 'brazen plan' to change its government, violating UN charter


Published June 28, 2017

Associated Press


Iran is accusing U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson of "a brazen interventionist plan" to change the current government that violates international law and the U.N. Charter.

Iran's U.N. Ambassador Gholamali Khoshroo said in a letter to Secretary-General Antonio Guterres circulated Tuesday that Tillerson's comments are also "a flagrant violation" of the 1981 Algiers Accords in which the United States pledged "not to intervene, directly or indirectly, politically or militarily, in Iran's internal affairs."

Tillerson said in a June 14 hearing before the House Foreign Affairs Committee on the 2018 State Department budget that U.S. policy is to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons "and work toward support of those elements inside of Iran that would lead to a peaceful transition of that government."

"Those elements are there, certainly as we know," he said.

Kohshroo said Iran expects all countries to condemn "such grotesque policy statements and advise the government of the United States to act responsibly and to adhere to the principles of the (U.N.) Charter and international law."

He noted that Tillerson's comments came weeks after President Hassan Rouhani's re-election to another four-year term and local elections in which 71 percent of the Iranian people participated. Rouhani is a political moderate who defeated a hardline opponent.

"The people of Iran have repeatedly proven that they are the ones to decide their own destiny and thus attempts by the United States to interfere in Iranian domestic affairs will be doomed to failure," Kohshroo said. "They have learned how to stand strong and independent, as demonstrated in the Islamic Revolution of 1979."

He said Tillerson's statement also coincided with the released of newly declassified documents that "further clarified how United States agencies were behind the overthrow of Mohammad Mossadegh, the popular and democratically elected prime minister of Iran on Aug. 19, 1953."

At the June 14 hearing, Tillerson said the Trump administration's Iranian policy is under development.

"But I would tell you that we certainly recognize Iran's continued destabilizing (role) in the region," Tillerson said, citing its payment of foreign fighters, support for Hezbollah extremists, and "their export of militia forces in Syria, in Iraq, in Yemen."

U.S. lawmakers have long sought to hit Iran with more sanctions in order to check its ballistic missile program and rebuke Tehran's continued support for terrorist groups, and on June 15 the Senate approved a sweeping sanctions bill..

The bill imposes mandatory sanctions on people involved in Iran's ballistic missile program and anyone who does business with them. The measure also would apply terrorism sanctions to the country's Revolutionary Guards and enforce an arms embargo. It now goes to the House.

Senators insisted the new Iran sanctions won't undermine or impede enforcement of the landmark nuclear deal that former president Barack Obama and five other key nations reached with Tehran two years ago.

Joe Biden's Blunt Admission About Clinton's 2016 Bid

June 27, 2017

India doesn’t need bear hugs, it needs Modi to negotiate hard with Trump


Rajrishi Singhal 

1 hour ago

Beyond bear hugs. (Reuters/Carlos Barria)

Time was when bear hugs were associated exclusively with Russians. Today it has become Indian prime minister Narendra Modi’s signature greeting. Amidst speculation over whether he’d display his customary warmth when meeting US president Donald Trump or settle for just a handshake, especially after Trump had publicly (and erroneously) roasted India over climate change, Modi did not disappoint.

So, what’s to read in this public show of affection? Some analysts see this as some kind of a rebuff to Chinese prime minister Xi Jinping, whose lukewarm meeting with Trump was conducted in the backdrop of North Korea’s missile tests. But, that may not be a correct evaluation, given the magnitude and nature of US-China ties. Some other takeaways emerge from the Modi-Trump bonhomie.

Numerous analysts will be poring over documents, statements and speeches over the next few days to figure out who got what from the meeting. Or, in pure transactional terms, who came away with what deal. That will be a mistake. Yes, there was some understanding over Sea Guardian drones and some other assurances, but this meeting was more than that. This was both leaders measuring each other up, gauging body language, and trying to understand where to draw red lines. And, going by the language of the joint communique, it is quite likely that red lines might emerge soon, with varying degrees of thickness.

The tough-talk is only beginning

The tight clinch in the White House’s Rose Garden cannot mask the likelihood of hard positions in trade and business links. In a joint press statement by both leaders, Trump did not mince his words: “I look forward to working with you…to create jobs in our countries, to grow our economies, and to create a trading relationship that is fair and reciprocal. It is important that barriers be removed to the export of US goods into your markets, and that we reduce our trade deficit with your country.”

This is clearly a veiled admonition, putting India-US trade and business relations on notice. India-US two-way trade in goods and services during calendar year 2016 totalled $114.8 billion, with India enjoying a trade surplus of $30.8 billion. Although India’s trade surplus is insignificant when compared with China’s (10 times India’s), Trump probably wants to be seen as acting tough and living up to promises made on the campaign trail.

It is, therefore, quite likely that Trump will push India to provide greater market access for a host of goods and services, including agricultural products, renewable energy resources, and technology. The US pharma industry’s rising crescendo of demands, particularly against India’s recent regulations against exploitative pricing of medical products, has seen aggressive lobbying return to Washington DC, contrary to Trump’s promise of “draining the swamp.” Predictably, senior Republican members of Congress are also influential members of this chorus.

India will now have to build up suitable fortifications against Trump’s likely pressure tactics. It seems Modi did go to Washington armed. Two transactions were highlighted that gives India some leverage. One is SpiceJet promising to purchase 205 passenger jets from Boeing. This, whenever it materialises, is likely to be a big deal, but there are numerous unknown-unknowns: this is a long-term deal and, though SpiceJet has reported net profits for two consecutive financial years, the aviation sector is notoriously unpredictable.

The second pressure point could be Trump’s perception that India will buy more natural gas from the US. India already has long-term liquefied natural gas purchase agreements with three US-based shale producers. Public sector company Gas Authority of India Ltd already has a purchase agreement with Cheniere Energy’s Sabine Pass terminal in Louisiana and with the upcoming Cove Point LNG plant in Maryland. Indian Oil Corporation also has an agreement to buy from another Louisiana-based project: Cameron LNG.

Despite this reality, Trump waxed confident about fresh agreements: “We’re also looking forward to exporting more American energy to India…including major long-term contracts to purchase American natural gas, which are right now being negotiated, and we will sign them. Trying to get the price up a little bit.” If the US is indeed trying to sell more gas to India, it’s clearly Advantage Modi. Gas deals might just be what he needs as an additional negotiating chip.

Things left unsaid

But, what is more interesting is all the stuff that’s been left unsaid. For example, there was no push this time to relax retail investment rules. The US’s current administration has a different set of priorities and it will be interesting to see which sectors get the White House push.

There was no mention of H-1B visas, a vexed issue between both the nations. There is only one line about it in the joint communique: “…India and USA plan to undertake a comprehensive review of trade relations with the goal of…increasing market access in the areas of agriculture, information technology, manufactured goods and services.” Interestingly, it has been juxtaposed with areas in which the US is seeking greater market access.

There is also no reference to climate change or plans for future coordination and cooperation.

Clearly, the new administration under Trump wants to rewrite many rules and repurpose most old relationships. While Modi’s meeting with Trump was better than expected, it seemed to lack the spontaneity and warmth that Modi-Obama exuded. In their first bilateral summit in September 2014, both leaders even promised to take India-US trade to $500 billion.

While that target has now been quietly buried, the communique’s tenor seems to suggest that India-US ties might now move from one deal to another, and Modi might have to pivot from being a global statesman to being a tenacious trade negotiator.

We welcome your comments at ideas.india@qz.com.




Tuesday, 27 June 2017 | Sandhya Jain | in Edit

A resolution to the crisis is still possible as Riyadh and Doha have previously settled disputes through dialogue. Tehran hopes the rift will weaken the GCC and the US-Arab alliance

With a sovereign wealth fund of $335 billion and a miniscule citizenry (12 per cent of 2.5 million residents), Qatar has long enjoyed the luxury of engaging in regional politics without fear of domestic unrest, unlike its neighbours. But on June 5, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt and Bahrain injected high voltage instability in the region by severing ties with Doha over its allegedly “hostile and divisive foreign policy”.

Riyadh, which led the crackdown, demanded that Qatar give up its regional adventurism (read independence) and align its policy with that of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). The Saudi boycott was quickly followed by Yemen, the Maldives, Mauritius, Mauritania, and Haftar-controlled eastern Libya. Like Qatar, Jordan also has strong ties with Israel; it quietly lowered diplomatic representation in Doha. Without a rapid de-escalation of the crisis, Qatar could leave the GCC.

Widely seen as a nudge to Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani to step down, the Saudi action has been closely followed by King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud’s abrupt decision to end the House of Saud’s system of rotating kingship within the clan and establish his own dynasty by appointing his son, Prince Mohammed bin Salman, 31, as crown prince (June 21).

The downsizing of Prince Mohammed bin Nayef, who had excellent ties with Qatar and had successfully dismantled the Al Qaeda’s network in Saudi Arabia, has been accompanied by whispers of Salman abdicating in favour of his son. With many royal family stalwarts sure to be unhappy at the sudden developments in Riyadh, the desert kingdom could itself face more instability than bargained for. In April 2015, Salman had deposed his half-brother, Prince Muqrin, in favour of the now axed Prince Mohammed bin Nayef.

The genesis of the conflict goes back to the late 1990s and early 2000s, when Qatar engaged with Israel, Hezbollah, and Iran, and established itself as a link between international powers and pariah groups. During the US invasion of Afghanistan, Washington reputedly urged Qatar to liaise with the Taliban. After the Arab Spring, Qatar enhanced support to the Muslim Brotherhood, expecting it to emerge victorious (it ruled Egypt for a year till the Army takeover in 2013), which agitated Saudi Arabia and the UAE, which saw the Muslim Brotherhood as a threat to their rule.

Qatar is also accused of ties with Hamas, which controls the Gaza Strip. Its Gulf neighbours insist that Doha expel all Hamas and Muslim Brotherhood members from its soil, freeze the bank accounts of Hamas members, stop supporting “terrorist organisations”, and stop giving Qatari nationality to citizens of the four countries.

Shiite-majority Bahrain, ruled by a Sunni minority, blames Iran for the 2011 uprising that Saudi troops helped to quell. The angry Arab states demand that Qatar degrade diplomatic and economic ties with Iran and expel members of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards from its territory. Doha denies they are even present on its soil; most international observers agree. More pertinently, Qatar and Iran share South Pars, the world’s largest gas field, in the Persian Gulf, so ruining relations is not an option. In fact, Qatar congratulated Hassan Rouhani on his re-election as President of Iran. But Riyadh and Tehran back opposing sides in Bahrain, Syria and Yemen, and seek to curtail each other’s influence in Africa, Asia and the Middle East in general. Doha is caught in the middle.

The current crisis was allegedly triggered by Qatar’s move to quietly pay a ransom of around one billion dollars to the Al-Qaeda and Iran-backed militias in Syria to release Qatari hostages. Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi claims his Government has custody of the money (around $500 million). But Riyadh feels a covert deal undermines its counter-terrorism efforts and encourages militias to take hostages for ransom and political leverage. Yet Qatar helped release US Army Sgt Bowe Bergdahl from the Taliban (May 2014) and US journalist Peter Theo Curtis from Jabhat al-Nusra, then Al-Qaeda’s Syria affiliate (August 2014).

As of now, American policy seems confused. President Donald Trump initially expressed support for Riyadh, where he recently made a whopping $110 billion sale of arms, but was soon informed that the US Central Command’s largest overseas base, which manages all military operations in Afghanistan and the Middle East, and the air war against the Islamic State, is at Al Udeid, in Qatar. He later sold Qatar warplanes worth $12 billion.

The four Arab states have since presented Qatar with a list of 13 demands, including shutting down Al Jazeera television, closing a Turkish military base in Qatar, downgrading ties with Iran, and paying reparations, as the price of removing the blockade of food and trade items across its only land border (with Saudi Arabia).

Worried at dwindling supplies of food items, Qatar turned to Iran and Turkey, both of which sent shiploads of supplies. Ankara said the demand to shut its military base was interference in Ankara-Doha ties and moved fast to augment Turkish presence there.

Qatar has been asked to sever ties with the Muslim Brotherhood, the Islamic State, the Al Qaeda, the Hezbollah, and the Jabhat Fateh al Sham, Al Qaeda’s former branch in Syria, and surrender all designated terrorists on its territory. Qatar asserts there will be no negotiations until the four nations restore economic, diplomatic and travel ties with Doha. Most foreign observers view the demands as too extreme to be acceptable. Moscow feels the dispute will thwart efforts to find a Syria settlement or fight terrorism.

Al Jazeera, Qatar’s state-funded satellite broadcaster that articulates a range of opinions and is immensely popular across the Middle East, has irritated Arab Governments that exercise firm control over their own media. Tensions rose sharply in May after it published an article which quoted Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani as praising Israel and Iran, Riyadh’s regional rivals. Qatar claimed the article was planted by hackers, but few believed it.

A solution is still possible as Riyadh and Doha have previously resolved disputes through dialogue. Tehran, however, hopes the rift will weaken the GCC and US-Arab alliance to its strategic advantage, as it has been anxious over the possible emergence of an ‘Arab-Nato’ ever since President Trump sought to unite Muslim countries against Iran.

Beijing has refrained from taking sides in the conflict, but fears that the unexpected flare-up could threaten its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) as the Saudi-Iran proxy war could spill over into Balochistan, a critical section of its ambitious project. Currently, all roads to and from the Gulf are in turmoil.

(The writer is a political analyst and an independent researcher