Pakistan US Ties Reset (JR 193)

Pakistan US Ties Reset (JR 193)

Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan enjoyed a warm visit to Washington this week, with his hosts, from President Donald Trump to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Sen. Lindsey Graham, all affirming the importance in particular of cooperation between the U.S. and Pakistan in Afghanistan. For a Pakistani government that viewed Khan’s visit as an opportunity to reset a relationship that suffered immensely during the early months of the Trump administration, it was an encouraging sign. The bilateral relationship has indeed come a long way since 2017 and 2018, when Trump threatened a harder line on   tweeted angrily about Islamabad’s “lies and deceit,” and suspended American security assistance. The main reason for this about-face is rooted in Trump’s increasingly urgent desire to end the long war in Afghanistan—a war he often criticized before becoming president and has never seemed comfortable continuing, even when he announced a new South Asia strategy in August 2017 that entailed staying the course. ..

General Qamar Javed Bajwa, Pakistan's powerful military chief, accompanied the prime minister, along with intelligence chief Lieutenant-General Faiz Hameed. Khan and his delegation also held meetings with US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, US congressional leaders, and the heads of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.

For Trump, one of the most significant outcomes of the Washington visit by PM Khan and the military leadership will be Islamabad's renewed commitment to finding an inclusive and peaceful end to the long war in Afghanistan. For Pakistan, the visit has been a win on two fronts. First, Khan has been able to generate significant positive momentum through the visit while his government faces stiff opposition at home. This will help Khan in Pakistan.

Secondly, Pakistan's leadership has engaged directly with the Trump administration at the highest level, something seen as key in building a working relationship. It has also fought its case on counterterrorism efforts, action under the Financial Action Task Force, and Pakistan's regional priorities both at the White House and on Capitol Hill. Faced with a short timetable on reaching an agreement before the September [Afghan] presidential election, Washington sees an intra-Afghan dialogue and a ceasefire as essential towards finalising a withdrawal, which will be crucial in Trump's reelection bid next year.

Imran Khan has indicated that Pakistan will exert maximum pressure on the Taliban to agree to an intra-Afghan process. It's also significant that the PM mentioned that Pakistan would like the Taliban to be part of an inclusive presidential election. This indicates that the timeline of concrete action on Afghanistan will be swift in the coming months.

In recent months, the Trump White House has decided to aggressively pursue peace talks in Afghanistan and to enlist Islamabad as a key partner in helping launch and sustain negotiations with the Taliban. Pakistani government sought an audience with Trump and White House contacts of the Saudi connection arranged a meeting .The administration agreed and invited Khan to Washington in large part to recognize and reward Pakistan for its help with the Afghan reconciliation process over the past year, bringing U.S. government officials and Taliban representatives together for multiple bilateral talks in Qatar. However, despite this progress, it would be premature to conclude—as many in Islamabad would like to—that the relationship with Washington has been reset. A restoration of security assistance, a resumption of highlevel dialogue or other signs of repaired relations are not on the horizon anytime soon. In essence, from the Trump administration’s perspective, the U.S.-Pakistan relationship may have improved, but that doesn’t mean a much with Trump. Washington’s two core priorities with Pakistan are Islamabad’s assistance in Afghanistan and Pakistani counterterrorism efforts.

To be sure, the Trump administration is open to broader cooperation, particularly when it comes to trade and investment. During Khan’s visit, an official White House statement, and Trump himself, made reference to U.S.-Pakistan trade cooperation, while Khan met with both the secretaries of the treasury and commerce. However, for the Trump administration, there’s little real interest in truly broadening the scope of the relationship until it believes Pakistan is doing more on the Afghan reconciliation and counterterrorism fronts. The U.S.-Pakistan relationship may have improved, but that doesn’t mean a reset is in order—or that Trump even wants one. This leads to the second reason why a reset isn’t in the cards: Islamabad is unlikely to deliver in a way that satisfies Washington. The Trump administration wants Pakistan to convince the Taliban to agree to a cease-fire and to formal negotiations with the Afghan government. Yet Taliban insurgents have categorically rejected these demands and appear to be interested only in a deal with Washington that involves the withdrawal of U.S. troops. The Taliban, of course, enjoys ample leverage and comes into talks from a position of renewed strength. It is waging intense battlefield offensives, holds more territory than at any time since the U.S. invasion following 9/11, and most importantly has little urgency to conclude a deal. This means that any entity—even one like Pakistan that has close ties to the Taliban, and considerable leverage over it—will struggle to get the insurgents to agree to American demands. Similarly, Washington wants Islamabad to take irreversible steps against terrorist groups in Pakistan that target both Afghanistan and India. It has not been satisfied with Pakistan’s recent  moves which have involved the arrests of dozens of militants . Third, the U.S.-Pakistan relationship remains beset by tensions rooted in fundamental policy differences. Despite recent bumps in its ties with India, Washington remains committed to forging a deep, strategic partnership with New Delhi, Pakistan’s bitter enemy. Similarly, Islamabad is closely allied with China, Washington’s top strategic rival. In effect, Washington and Islamabad enjoy deep partnerships with  —a geopolitical reality that constrains closer U.S.-Pakistan cooperation. Indeed, hypothetical scenarios that could actually boost bilateral ties—such as Washington scaling down its ties with India and easing up on pressuring Islamabad to detain terrorists who target India, or Islamabad pivoting away from Beijing—are not in the offing. More broadly, each country pursues foreign policy objectives throughout Asia that go against the other’s interests: Pakistan seeks to limit the influence of India, while the U.S. is pursuing an Indo-Pacific strategy that is meant to push back against China. Finally, the Trump administration does not support the type of diplomacy that one would expect to see in a rebooted relationship. It prioritizes bursts of transactional diplomacy over sustained and formal dialogue. In effect, there’s no going back to the early years of the Obama administration, when the two sides launched an albeit short-lived strategic dialogue, focused on a variety of topics, not all of them security-related. The Trump administration simply isn’t interested in investing the resources in such broad and extended exchanges, which, if they were to take place, could go a long way toward generating more confidence and goodwill for a relationship that badly needs new infusions of both, even after Khan’s positive visit.

The "do more" rhetoric has gone away; it has just gone a bit softer. Whereas in the past this message would be delivered forcefully and threateningly, this time around it was likely conveyed gently, with Trump and other US officials inviting Islamabad to take its assistance in Afghanistan to another level. What's next with the Taliban talks depends on Islamabad's next move, and more importantly how the Taliban responds. Washington's asks of Islamabad have become more ambitious. It's one thing for Pakistan to simply bring the  Taliban  to the table. It is a very different thing for Pakistan to convince them  to agree to demands - a ceasefire and talks with Kabul - that it has consistently and categorically rejected to this point.

The bottom line is that while Khan’s trip to Washington may have been full of smiles and good vibes, and it may have even solidified U.S.-Pakistan cooperation in Afghanistan, it shouldn’t be mistaken for a reset in troubled ties. This newfound comity can’t mask the reality that U.S.-Pakistan relations are still in need of major repair . The demands from Washington have not changed. While it is significant that the US has publicly acknowledged Pakistan's efforts in pushing the reconciliation process and initial steps to curb militant groups, privately the US would have rehashed its menu of concerns and sought commitments on them.

Afghan Peace Process: July, 30, 2019: THE Afghan peace process has entered a crucial phase, making it even trickier for Pakistan. As many had anticipated, Afghanistan remained the main point of deliberations held between the Pakistani and US leaderships in Washington, D.C. last week. Prime Minister Imran Khan has pledged to pursue the Afghan Taliban leadership to initiate talks with the Afghan government.

During the prime minister’s visit, most US leaders and officials acknowledged and appreciated Pakistan’s role in bringing the Afghan Taliban to the table for talks. The US administration didn’t use the mantra of ‘do more’ this time, but politely requested Pakistan to continue playing a constructive role in the Afghan peace process. Pakistan’s leadership categorically agreed to take up the task. On the other hand, the Taliban have also indicated that they will accept the invitation of meeting the Pakistani prime minister. The meeting will indicate how much influence Pakistan still has over the Taliban.

So far, the Taliban’s position on the option of direct talks with the government of President Ashraf Ghani has remained stiff. However, they had indicated that if their negotiations with the US succeed, they would then initiate negotiations with other Afghan stakeholders including the Afghan government. Yet it remains to be seen whether or not they change their position on initiating a separate talks channel with Kabul. In the event they show reluctance and deny Pakistan’s request, will Pakistan adopt a coercive approach? If so, it will be interesting to see how it affects the Taliban’s relationship with Pakistan.

For Pakistan, restoring its relationship with the US is important not only for speeding up economic recovery but also for rebalancing its regional geostrategic position. The country had been suffering because of its dissimilar approaches towards the Afghan Taliban and other militant groups. In recent years, it has tried to diversify its strategic partnerships, ranging from Moscow to Beijing, and Istanbul to Riyadh, which also entailed some valuable defence partnerships. But it appears as though the policymakers did not see these partnerships as a counterbalance to growing US unfriendliness. The strengthening strategic partnership between India and the US also affected the Pakistani establishment’s policy choices, forcing it to review its approaches towards Afghanistan and the Taliban.  

Pakistan, however, has reviewed its approaches before taking more losses. The country is set to gain in the whole process as India has failed to develop its relevance in the Afghan peace process. On this ground alone, Pakistan’s establishment considers it a major achievement. Similarly, the US offer of mediation over the Kashmir issue has put pressure on Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. It has happened at a time when the Trump administration was not comfortable with India’s recent multibillion-dollar deals with Russia, and trade tensions between the two nations were rising.

Mr Khan’s visit to the US is bringing the country back onto the regular diplomacy tracks. To keep this momentum, the government has to deliver on Afghanistan. The probability of direct talks between the Taliban and Kabul would be one challenge, but influencing the former to commit to a lasting ceasefire could prove another daunting task.  .

For Pakistan, the Taliban will remain a challenge at both stages. The US and other major global actors, including China and Russia, are relying on Pakistan — and if the Taliban refuses to listen to Pakistan, it would be a disaster for the establishment. It is a known fact that many Taliban field commanders are not happy with Pakistan, and the Taliban leadership resists Pakistani pressure citing this as their argument. What can Pakistan do in such a worst-case scenario? Arrests of dissenting elements when they enter Pakistan would be an option, which has been used in the past. Many commanders apparently still have families inside Pakistan, and the government can use this factor as a tool.

Pakistan might also have other options to pressurise the Taliban leadership. The Haqqanis could be effective in the Taliban decision-making process, but they have a limit to their influence. Can Pakistan envision a complete disconnect with the Taliban? This is a tough question, but the Taliban too cannot afford to say goodbye to Pakistan. It will be a test case for the prime minister and military leadership to fulfill the international community’s expectations — ie to make a deal possible between the Taliban and other Afghan stakeholders.

US PAK relations: Aug., 22, 2019:

"Pakistan should aspire a working relationship with the US, which is cordial and dynamic, not curtailing our sovereignty and national interest," Ambassador Khokhar said at a guest lecture organized here by Islamabad Policy Research Institute (IPRI).

Ambassador Khokhar, who served as Pakistan's envoy to Dhaka, New Delhi, Washington and Beijing before becoming Foreign Secretary in 2002, emphasized on finding areas of convergence between Pakistan and the US including trade, energy, transport, and especially education to expand the scope of collaboration

Ambassador Khokhar said Pakistan's relationship with the US could not be analysed in isolation since the international order was in flux with China rising phenomenally, Russia re-asserting itself, and the middle East in extreme turmoil. He pointed out that India was also an important actor influencing Pak-US dynamics as the US expected India to be a partner in the containment of China. In this regard, Pakistan's overall endorsement of the Belt and Road Initiative might also be problematic for Washington, he added.

Ambassador Khokhar said Afghanistan remained a main issued of interest for the US since there was a realisation in Washington that there was no military solution to the issue. On rising tension in Indian Occupied Kashmir, the Ambassador remarked that war was neither an option for India nor for Pakistan due to their nuclear capabilities.

Vice Admiral Saddique said Pakistan's relationship with Washington was generally hyphenated with India and Afghanistan and emphasized that "working together would accrue mutual benefits, whereas, antagonism would serve neither party".

Evaluating the Trump Administration’s Pakistan Reset By Madiha Afzal on Oct 25, 2020 10:01 am Editor’s Note: Pakistan has bedeviled multiple U.S. administrations, proving itself a necessary but often hostile partner with regard to U.S. counterterrorism and U.S. policy in Afghanistan. Madiha Afzal, my Brookings colleague, examines the evolution of U.S. policy in Pakistan and how it changed during the Trump administration. She argues that the current transactional approach has brought benefits, but additional changes are necessary to make the relationship more fruitful and sustainable in the years to come. Daniel Byman *** Looking back over the past four years, the Trump administration’s Pakistan policy can be divided into two phases: bilateral relations that were decidedly strained for the first two years of the administration and, since 2019, a far more positive relationship marked by cooperation on the Afghan peace process and attempts, with limited success, to boost the relationship on other fronts. The reset that occurred in 2019 was due not to Trump’s impulsiveness, but to a transactional approach driven by Pakistan’s usefulness in the Afghan peace process. It is an approach that has had its advantages, but it has run into obvious limits as well. Seven Decades of U.S.-Pakistan Relations Pakistan and the United States established diplomatic ties on Aug. 15, 1947, the day after Pakistan gained independence. It was a close relationship for the new country’s first few decades, especially as U.S. relations with Pakistan’s archrival, India, were relatively cold. In many ways, 1979 marked a turning point for both countries, and Afghanistan became a defining feature in their relationship over the next four decades. After the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan that year, Pakistan became party to the Soviet-Afghan conflict and used U.S. and Saudi money to train and arm the mujahideen. In 1989, when the Soviets exited Afghanistan, the United States left the region, fueling a visceral sense of American abandonment in Pakistan and a sense that America could not be trusted. The U.S. relationship with India has been a second defining factor in the U.S.-Pakistan relationship. Pakistan has been sensitive about growing U.S.-India bilateral ties since the 1990s. In 1998, the Clinton administration imposed costly economic sanctions on Pakistan (to its considerable angst) for testing its nuclear weapons in response to India’s nuclear test. Concerns about U.S. preferences on the subcontinent persist. According to a 2015 Pew poll, 53 percent of Pakistani respondents said they believed U.S. policies toward India and Pakistan favored India; only 13 percent said they favored Pakistan. After the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Pakistan joined the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan. Pakistan allowed NATO access to supply routes through the country and received considerable military and security assistance in return. President George W. Bush named Pakistan a major non-NATO ally in 2004. Relations cooled during the Obama administration as concerns grew about Pakistan’s safe havens for the Taliban and the presence of al-Qaeda in the country. This history has, for many Pakistanis, fueled the belief that Republican presidents are better than Democratic presidents for the U.S.-Pakistan relationship. A Low Point and a Reset Enter the Trump administration and Trump’s focus on his campaign promise of getting U.S. troops out of Afghanistan. The relationship with Pakistan for the first two years of the administration was characterized by an almost-singular focus on U.S. concerns about Pakistani safe havens for the Haqqani Network. The administration said it would make economic ties contingent on Pakistan taking action against militant and terrorist groups. Things soured further in January 2018, when Trump accused Pakistan of “lies and deceit” in its relationship with America, tweeting that it took U.S. aid for nothing in return. The administration cut off $1.3 billion in U.S. security assistance following Trump’s tweet. By the fall of 2018, the Trump administration seemed to have calculated that an exit out of Afghanistan would not come via a military victory. Trump appointed Zalmay Khalilzad as his special envoy to Afghanistan, and Khalilzad began the painstakingly slow work of the Afghan peace process. Though Trump had engaged in a war of words on Twitter with Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan just a few weeks before, Trump wrote Khan a letter in the fall of 2018 asking for help with the Afghan peace process. Khan, who had long argued for political reconciliation in Afghanistan, was forthcoming. The seeds for a reset had been sown. Pakistan produced Mullah Baradar, the deputy leader of the Taliban who had been in Pakistani custody. His release helped jump-start the peace process, and Baradar became the Taliban’s chief negotiator. In many ways, Pakistan was uniquely positioned to help, enjoying leverage with the Taliban and a working relationship with the United States. Khalilzad has visited Pakistan at least 15 times in the past two years. Pakistan considers the U.S.-Taliban deal signed in February a product of its help, and Khalilzad has publicly acknowledged Pakistan’s help with the process numerous times. The hoped-for reset in the bilateral relationship was acknowledged formally during Imran Khan’s visit to Washington in July 2019, when he and Trump first met and hit it off. In a presidency where personalities have mattered a great deal, it was clear that these two celebrity-turned-populist politicians enjoyed meeting each other. They have since developed a personal connection, meeting again on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly in the fall of 2019 and at the World Economic Forum in early 2020. During the first meeting with Khan at the White House, Trump offered to mediate between India and Pakistan on Kashmir, setting off alarm bells in New Delhi—India almost immediately responded that Kashmir is a bilateral issue between India and Pakistan. Trump also called for dramatically strengthening trade ties between Pakistan and the United States. America is Pakistan’s top export destination, but these trade gains have yet to be realized. Nevertheless, the bilateral reset has sustained. Pakistan is now helping with the intra-Afghan peace process as well, though it was not obvious that Pakistan would remain involved in this phase. Trump’s messaging on Pakistan has been scrupulously positive since the reset, something the country appreciates as it seeks to move past an image associated with terrorism. The United States has given Pakistan $8 million to help its fight against the coronavirus; Pakistan returned the favor with a goodwill gesture of personal protective equipment donations. China’s growing presence in the region, and the United States’s willingness to tolerate Beijing’s close economic and strategic ties to Pakistan, has also reassured Pakistan that major powers value its partnership. The Advantages and Limits of a New Approach Trump’s relatively hands-off approach to India and Pakistan has had benefits, but it has also run into limits. While Pakistan welcomed Trump’s July 2019 offer to mediate the Kashmir dispute, that pronouncement may have done more harm than good. Some Indian political analysts surmised that it might have accelerated India’s revocation of Kashmir’s autonomy, announced just a couple of weeks later, on Aug. 5. More broadly, Trump’s approach to the region has largely decoupled India and Pakistan, which has generated less concern from Pakistan about the U.S.-India relationship. India’s lack of a role in the Afghan peace process has also allayed Pakistan’s fears. Trump even mentioned his “very good relationship” with Pakistan on his visit to India—a comment that Pakistan appreciated (and that New Delhi did not like, but let go). The Trump administration has also taken a different tack in trying to influence Pakistan. Rather than using direct assistance as a tool to drive Pakistan’s actions—which would have a limited effect given Pakistan’s economic relationship with China—the Trump administration has relied on other tools to affect Pakistan’s behavior. Most notably, the administration moved to change Pakistan’s status with the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), an international watchdog that monitors terrorist financing, in February 2018. Pakistan was placed on the FATF increased monitoring “grey list” in June that year; the designation impedes economic investment into the country and causes it financial harm. (Pakistan had also been placed on the grey list in 2008, and from 2012 to 2015.) In its bid to avoid being blacklisted, Pakistan has since 2018 taken actions against militant groups—including placing economic sanctions on Lashkar-e-Taiba and sentencing the group’s leader, Hafiz Saeed, to 11 years in prison for terrorist financing. The Khan government has made it a key goal to come off the grey list, passing legislation to help its case. In its latest review this October, FATF announced that Pakistan has made “significant progress” and has largely addressed 21 out of 27 action items; it will remain on the grey list and has until February 2021 to address the remaining requirements. While the FATF listing is multilateral and therefore a less direct policy tool than U.S. assistance, many observers in Pakistan still perceive it as a U.S. instrument, and it is driving growing backlash in a public that perceives Pakistan’s greylisting as unfair. Although Trump has been criticized for playing fast and loose with America’s alliances and cavorting with its foes, his Pakistan policy reveals a practical side. This more transactional approach has yielded results for the United States on the Afghan peace process and has largely been received well by Pakistan since the reset. Yet the limits of Trump’s rhetoric and lack of homework before making pronouncements are also apparent. The trade gains Trump promised Pakistan have not materialized. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross visited Pakistan in February 2020, but the United States has had trouble investing in Pakistan due to “Pakistan’s significant business climate issues, including regulatory barriers, weak intellectual property protections, and discriminatory taxation,” according to the State Department. With the FATF, the Trump administration has chosen an economic tool more effective than aid to encourage Pakistan to crack down on terrorist groups. So far, this approach has worked. Pakistan is eager to shed its image associated with terrorism and increasingly recognizes that global stature is driven by economic ascendance rather than strategic importance. Yet with the United States making a deal with the Taliban and giving it legitimacy, many Pakistanis have wondered why Pakistan is still maligned for its relationship with the group. The Trump administration has not offered Pakistanis the clarity they need on that front. The Next Administration If Joe Biden is elected president this November, he will find a different U.S. relationship with Pakistan than the one he left behind with the Obama administration four years earlier, partly because Pakistan has changed but also because of changes in the region and the Trump administration’s unique approach to the country. The road to the U.S. reset with Pakistan in 2019 came through Afghanistan. Pakistan’s closeness with a rising China has offset some of Pakistan’s existential angst about its relationship with the United States. Trump has, against all odds, successfully balanced the U.S. relationship with Pakistan and India in a way that doesn’t worsen Pakistan’s paranoia, and the administration’s reliance on the FATF listing as a tool has also proved effective in goading Pakistan to take action against militant groups. Yet this approach is piecemeal and opportunistic. The next administration will need to round out America’s Pakistan policy, to make it comprehensive and take a longer term view. This is especially true as the United States seeks to withdraw troops completely from Afghanistan—for the first time in more than four decades, the two countries may be looking at a bilateral relationship not driven by Afghanistan. The U.S.-Pakistan relationship, long dominated by strategic concerns, can become a productive one for both countries, if redefined carefully and with an open mind.

New Zealand Mosques’ Attacks, Who are Dividing the World on Religious Lines By Sajjad Shaukat (JR14SS34)

New Zealand Mosques’ Attacks, Who are Dividing the World on Religious Lines By Sajjad Shaukat (JR14SS34)

At least 49 people have been killed and more than 40 others wounded in the terror attacks at two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand on Friday (March 15, 2019) after a gunman opened indiscriminate fire at Muslim worshippers.

A 28-year-old Australian man, namely Brenton Tarrant was arrested by the police, who was charged with mass murder, using an automatic weapon and began firing. On Saturday (March 16, 2019), he appeared in court. Police also arrested two other men and one woman in connection with the attack—two of whom remain in custody. 

Police said that two IEDs (improvised explosive devices) were found in a car and neutralised by the military.

New Zealand’s Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said: “The assault on the mosques appeared to be a well-planned terrorist attack…This is, and will be, one of New Zealand’s darkest days”.

Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison also confirmed that the suspect charged with murder was an Australian citizen and described him as “an extremist, right-wing, violent terrorist”.

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said on Saturday (March 16, 2019) that attempts had been made repeatedly to tighten New Zealand’s gun laws, but all had failed. She elaborated that the suspect had “travelled around the world with sporadic periods of time spent in New Zealand—New Zealand intelligence services had been stepping up investigations into far-right extremists—The individual charged with murder had not come to the attention of the intelligence community nor the police for extremism.”

According to reports of the Western media, “Attack apparently broadcast live on social media while, New Zealand’s authorities declined to discuss the potential motives behind the attack, but, the social media accounts in the name of Brenton Tarrant were used to post a lengthy racist document in which the author identified the mosques which were later attacked—an account linked to the gunman posted a link to an 87-page racist manifesto which was filled with anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim ideas and explanations for an attack. The text is called “The Great Replacement”, a phrase that originated in France and has become a rallying cry for European anti-immigration extremists. The suspect said he had begun planning an attack after visiting Europe in 2017 and being angered by events there.”

In this regard, Al Jazeera pointed out:  “In the manifesto, the shooter praised the US President Donald Trump and Anders Brevik -the Norwegian white supremacist who murdered 77 people in Norway in 2011. The 74-page dossier, hailed Trump as a symbol of renewed white identity and common purpose…also claimed that he had brief contact with Breivik and had received a blessing for his actions from the mass murderer’s acquaintances…Trump, whose rhetoric is sometimes aligned with the far-right in the US, condemned the horrible massacre in a post on Twitter…A spokesperson for the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) told Al Jazeera the sources of politically motivated violence in Australia are diverse-encompassing anyone who believes that violence is a justified means to further their political interests, which can include extreme right-wing ideologies”.

However, the shootings at two mosques in Christchurch cannot be seen in isolation. These terror attacks are part of a deliberate conspiracy to divide the world on religious lines. So, it needs in-depth analysis to know the real motives of the entities which are in collusion to complete their hidden agenda at the cost of the international community.

It is notable that since September 2015, when Russian-led coalition of Iran, Iraq, the Syrian army-the National Defense Forces (NDF) and Lebanon-based Hezbollah in support of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has been achieving successes in Syria and Iraq by retaking several regions from the occupation of the CIA-Mossad led rebel groups and ISIS militants after their failure to topple the Assad government—proving links of Al-Qaeda’s Al-Nusra Front and ISIS with America and Israel, Israeli Mossad with the cooperation of some CIA agents started terrorism-related attacks in the US and Europe.

There is also an interrelationship of the terror attacks in the US, Europe, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Philippines, Iran etc., and elsewhere in the world, which were false flag terror attacks, conducted by Mossad in connivance with the agents of Indian secret agency RAW and those of the vulnerable CIA operatives.

Through all these false flag terror operations, the US, Israel and India wanted to obtain their covert aims against Russia, China, Pakistan and the Muslims. Mossad had also provided the US President Donald Trump with an opportunity to manipulate various terror assaults of Europe and America to win the US presidential election and to reunite America and Europe, as a rift was created between America and its Western allies, especially Europe on a number of issues, including NATO and trade. The fanatic President Trump had left no stone unturned in implementing anti-Muslim policies, while speaking openly against the Muslims and Syrian immigrants. 

In this connection, Russian President Vladimir Putin’s successful diplomacy surprised the Israel-led America and some European countries who wanted to oust the Assad regime to obtain the greater interests of Israel.

In response, taking note of various developments and some other ones such as reluctance of NATO countries to support America’s fake global war on terror,  acceptance of Syrian refuges by the European countries, especially Germany, criticism of the controversial Turkish-EU refugee deal by a number of human rights groups, the EU rule to boycott goods produced in Israeli settlements on the West Bank, Britain’s decision to leave the European Union (EU), after the referendum (Brexit) on June 24, 2016, prospects of Scotland and some other countries for separation from the EU, and the divide between the elite class which run multinational companies with the direct or indirect control of the Jews and the general masses who are suffering from multiple problems in wake of differences on the refugee crisis, Syrian war, Greece’s weak economy, violent protests against the labour laws in France etc.—the chances of European Union’s disintegration and a rift among the NATO countries, as noted in the recent past by the “Stop NATO protests in Europe were quite opposite to the Israeli secret interests.

Hence, Israeli Mossad which was in collaboration with the vulnerable CIA operatives organized terror assaults in the US and Europe. As part of the double game, these terror attacks were conducted by these secret agencies, particularly Mossad with the assistance of the ISIS terrorists who used the home-grown terrorists of these countries.

Owing to the irresponsible approach of the Western leaders and their media, far right-wing parties and “Stop Islam” movement in the West, especially in Europe has been becoming popular by largely attracting their people. Right-wing parties in a growing number of European countries have made electoral gains. The right-wing parties range across a wide policy spectrum, from populist and nationalist to far-right neofascist.

Other aims of Tel Aviv ware to muster the support of America’s Western allies against Russia in relation to the Syrian war, as US-led countries like France, UK also started airstrikes in Syria and Iraq, under the cover of targeting ISIL.

To what extent President Trump wants to obtain Israeli illegitimate goals at the cost of Muslims and the patriot Americans could be judged from the terrorism-related assaults which occurred in the Spanish city of Barcelona on August 17, 2017 and in her town of Cambrils on August 18, 2017. After condemning the terror attacks and offering US assistance to Spain, the US President Trump suggested “fighting terrorism by executing Muslims with bullets dipped in pigs blood.”

When American President Trump’s extremist policies were strongly criticized inside America and around the world, including America’s Western allies, his advisers, neoconservatives and Israeli-backed officials directed him to implement dual strategy of the former President George W. Bush and Barrack Obama, with the aim to keep the US and Western allies, particularly Europe united against Syria, Russia, China, Pakistan etc., while covertly continuing anti-Muslim rhetoric so as to safeguard the interests of Tel Aviv.

Nevertheless, Israel succeeded in its sinister designs. Notably, backing out from his earlier statements, American President Trump has changed his policy regarding trade war in connection with China and Europe

Here, it is mentionable that Machiavelli advises the rulers to have a lion-like image outwardly, and act upon the traits of goat inwardly. He also suggests them foreign adventures and the use of terror to obtain their goals. In his sense, a good ruler should be a good opportunist and hypocrite. While echoing Machiavelli, Morgenthau points out that sometimes, rulers act upon immoral activities like deceit, fraud, falsehood and even murder to fulfill their selfish aims.

President Trump has begun acting upon the discarded theory of the past in the modern era. It could be judged from his trip of Trump to the Middle East. Backing out from his earlier statements—banning the Muslims from entering the United States, vetting of the Muslims—blocking visas being issued to anyone from Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen—strict conditions for the citizens from Afghanistan, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt and Lebanon, in Saudi Arabia, in his address at a regional summit in Riyadh, on May 22, 2017, President Donald Trump called for “Muslim unity in the fight against terrorism…a battle between good and evil…U.S. wants a coalition of nations who share the aim of stamping out extremism…This is a battle between barbaric criminals who seek to obliterate human life, and decent people of all religions who seek to protect it,” as he explained.

Like Bush and Obama, Trump described Islam as “a religion of peace” and did not use the contentious phrase “radical Islamic terrorism,” as he frequently had in his speeches. Instead, he called on the Muslim leaders to honestly confront “the crisis of Islamist extremism and the Islamist terror groups.”

Setting aside the Israeli-led US state terrorism and CIA-backed terror attacks in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Yemen and other vulnerable Islamic countries, Trump singled out Iran, accusing Tehran of contributing to instability in the region. He supposedly said, “From Lebanon to Iraq to Yemen, Iran funds, arms and trains terrorists, militias and other extremist groups that spread destruction and chaos across the region.” Keeping Israeli covert agenda in his mind, Trump also stated that all the Muslim nations should boycott Iran, and also pledged to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for peace of the region.

Trump’s address was a mixture of calls for Israeli-Arab peace and a defense of Israel from threats in the region, including from the groups allied with the Palestinian cause.

President Trump also encouraged NATO-like alliance of Saudi Arabia, which includes the Sunni countries against Shia states, especially Iran and Yemen. It was formed on the instructions of Washington. As after the US-led invasion of the Afghanistan, Iraq, airstrikes on Libya and promotion of war in Syria had been clearly exposed, therefore, America revived the old phony global war on terror to secure the illegitimate interests of Tel Aviv, whose major aim was to deceive the Muslims.

Otherwise, it well-known that without bothering about criticism of the US-led Western countries and the Islamic World, including some law-makers and politicians at home, Trump Administration announced the opening of the US Embassy in Jerusalem on May 14, last year. President Trump implemented his decision of December 6, 2018 by officially recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and reversed nearly seven decades of American foreign policy and set in motion a plan to move the United States Embassy from Tel Aviv to the fiercely contested Holy City.

It is of particular attention that it is owing to the encouragement of the President Trump that the Israeli regime officially declared their status as “the Jewish State” where only Jewish people have rights to self-determination.

Despite the revival of the fake global war on terror, some developments disappointed the Israelis. In this regard, Russia-Turkey alliance to fight the ISIS, victory of the Russian-led alliance over the CIA-Mossad-led rebel groups and ISIS terrorists, including Trump’s announcement to withdraw forces from Syria, Senate’s resolution against Trump regarding withdrawal from Saudi war in Yemen, Qatar-based direct talks between America and the Afghan Taliban with a view to withdrawing the US-led NATO forces from Afghanistan which has, rapidly, increased the cost of war, bringing about multiple internal crises, affecting the ordinary Americans and Western citizens, particularly those of Europe might be cited as example.

Meanwhile, US intelligence agencies, especially FBI has continued the so-called investigation that Russia and President Putin authorized the hacking of the November 8, 2016 US presidential election aimed to help Donald Trump to win it. Both Putin and Trump have denied the charges. In this respect, differences between CIA and FBI also frustrated Tel Aviv.

Besides, Tel Aviv wants to intensify the new Cold War between the US-led West and Russia so as to avoid the two-state solution of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, as some European countries have also been emphasizing on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to stop the expansion of West Bank settlements and restart a negotiation process for the two-state solution of the Israeli-Palestinian issue in wake of the debate between the Zionists and non-Zionist Jews in relation to the two-state solution of the issue.

Earlier, on January 15, 2016, France who is staunch supporter of the two-state solution of the Israeli-Palestinian issue conducted a summit in Paris which was attended by 70 nations. In a statement, delegates at the summit also restated their commitment to the two-state solution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and emphasized on them to restart negotiations. Palestinians welcomed the conference, but Israel called it “rigged”.

It is also of particular attention that by pursuing the double standards of America in its worst form, President Trump also intends to favour India, while opposing the nuclear weapons of Pakistan. However, like Obama, Trump has brushed aside the ground realities that Indian extremist Prime Minister Narendra Modi led by the ruling fundamentalist party BJP has been implementing anti-Muslim and anti-Pakistan agenda, while encouraging Hindutva (Hindu nationalism). Encouraged by the BJP, assaults on Muslims, Christians and other minorities by the Hindu extremist parties might be cited as instance. India which has strategic partnership with Israel has perennially been manipulating the double game of the US-led West regarding world phenomena of terrorism in connection with Pakistan and Afghanistan.

As part of the double game, based in Afghanistan, operatives of CIA, RAW and  Mossad which have well-established their collective secret network there and are well-penetrated in the terrorist outfits like ISIS, Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and their affiliated Taliban groups are using their terrorists to destabilize Tibetan regions of China, Iranian Sistan-Baluchistan and Pakistan by arranging the subversive activities. In this context, China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) is their special target. Recent acts of terrorism in Afghanistan and Pakistan’s Balochistan province are part of the same plan.

It is noteworthy that, taking cognizance of the growing threat of global terrorism which has been dividing the Western and Islamic nations on cultural and religious lines since 9/11, American and European governments had already started inter-faith dialogue especially between the Christian and Muslim nations. The main aim of such a dialogue was to create interfaith harmony among various religious communities. In the recent years, many conferences were held in various countries in which scholars from Islamic states also participated with a view to creating cultural understanding and interfaith cooperation among major religious communities. But, all these measures proved fruitless due to a deliberate anti-Muslim campaign, launched by the Indo-Israeli lobbies, resulting in obstacles in global interfaith harmony. America and its allies continued to kill many innocent civilians in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kashmir and Palestine through heavy aerial bombardment and ground shelling in the name of war on terror. The occupying forces have been using every possible technique of state terrorism in these territories which have become the breeding grounds of a prolonged interaction between freedom fighters and state terrorists, thwarting global interfaith harmony.

It is because of these developments that a greater resentment is being found among the Muslims who think that America in connivance with the Indo-Israeli lobbies is sponsoring state terrorism, directly or indirectly from Kashmir to Palestine.

In this context, on October 19, 2007, the special issue of South Asia Multidisciplinary Academic Journal, under the caption-‘Working for India or against Islam? Islamophobia in Indian American Lobbies’ had written, “In the past few years, Indian American community has gained an unprecedented visibility in the international arena and now constitutes influential ethnic lobbies in Washington. Among other factors, Hindu aligned with Jewish pressure groups in relation to the war against terrorism and to further the India-Israel-US strategic partnership play a major role in exaggerating Islamophobic overtones in the Indian American lobbies”.

Another regrettable point is that irresponsible attitude of Indian, Israeli and some Western  politicians has introduced dangerous socio-religious dimension in their societies by equating the “war on terror” with “war on Islam” and acts of Al Qaeda with all the Muslims. Their media have also been contributing to heighten the currents of world politics on cultural and religious lines with the negative projection of Islam.

In order to obtain their sinister designs, Mossad, RAW and CIA operatives have also been assisting ISIS, Al Qaeda and similar terror outfits which have accepted responsibility in relation to various terrorism-related attacks on Christians in Egypt and some African countries, including some Western countries.

While, like other European countries, especially France, Mossad wanted to accelerate persecution of Muslims, hate-crime against them and also to compel the Britain to make discriminatory laws against them. So, besides other similar terror attacks which targeted places of worship of the Muslims in various countries, the terror assaults at two mosques of Christchurch are part of the same policy of Israel, which has been implemented by Mossad.  

As regard the recent war-like situation between India and Pakistan, which started in the aftermath of the false flag Pulwama terror attack in the Indian Occupied Kashmir (IOK), tension which involves the risk of nuclear war still exists, as the extremist government of the BJP led by the Indian fundamentalist Prime Minister Modi has refused the mediatory role of any country, while continuing war hysteria against Pakistan in wake of acceleration of shelling across the Line of Control (LoC), which has resulted into many casualties in the Pakistani side of Kashmir. On the other side, Pakistan’s armed forces are on high alert to give a matching response to any Indian prospective aggression or war. Earlier, Indian Air Force conducted pre-emptive air strike near the town of Balakot, close to the border with Pakistan’s sector of Kashmir on February 27, 2018, claiming that Indian fighter jets targeted the camp of Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM) and killed 350 militants—the group whom New Delhi blamed for the Pulwama attack. Next day, in response, Pakistan Air Force launched aerial strikes at six targets in the IOK and shot down two Indian fighter jets and captured Indian pilot Wing Commander Abhinandan Varthaman who was released as a gesture of peace and handed over to the Indian authorities. It resulted into diplomatic victory of Islamabad over India. Prime Minister Modi who has directed the Indian security forces to accelerate atrocities in the IOK, wants to obtain various nefarious designs, especially to suppress the Kashmiris’ war of liberation and to win the general elections 2019 at the cost of Pakistan. On the other side, Western media and their high officials are insisting upon the settlement of the Kashmir issue. 

Nonetheless, like the fanatic President Trump, Israeli extremist Prime Minister Netanyahu who also intends to win the forthcoming elections at the cost of Palestinians, continues state terrorism on the occupied territories of the Palestinians. Both Prime Minister Modi and Prime Minister Netanyahu have been confused due to the above mentioned developments which do not favour Tel Aviv and New Delhi like the past, while, still some CIA agents, Indian RAW and particularly Mossad want to divide the world on religious lines. Like Israel, India also wants to keep its control on the Occupied Kashmir through state terrorism and to avoid its solution.

Although overtly President Trump has softened his external policy regarding Muslims and Islamic countries, yet covertly, he is acting upon the conspiracy of Mossad and RAW, which is also, intentionally or intentionally, being followed by America’s Western partners against the Muslims. If not checked in time by the peace-loving Muslims, Christians, Hindus, Jews and Buddhists, these policies of the President Donald Trump who is particularly completing the extremist agenda of Israel are likely to result into more recruitment in the militant outfits, especially in the ISIS group. Israel, who will never accept the two-state solution of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, will prefer to seek the final revenge by bringing about a major war between the Muslim and the Christian worlds or to cause a major war between Russia and the US-led some Western countries, which will convert the entire world into holocaust.

We may conclude that although agents of CIA, RAW and Mossad are in collaboration which managed various terrorism-related assaults in the US and Europe and elsewhere in the world, yet Mossad is, particularly, behind the terror attacks at the two mosques of Christchurch. In these terms, they have been radicalizing the Western nationals and the people of the Islamic World by dividing them on religious lines. When at present fanatic leaders are ruling over the US, Israeli and India, their connivance may culminate into ‘clash of civilizations’, especially between the Western Christians and the Muslim World.   

Sajjad Shaukat writes on international affairs and is author of the book: US vs Islamic Militants, Invisible Balance of Power: Dangerous Shift in International Relations

Email: sajjad_logic­@yahoo.com