Discussion in 'Internal Security' started by A.V., May 16, 2011.
more details below :- news.outlookindia.com | Have No Position on Kashmir Issue: Arab League
That's against there measiahh pakistan. pakistan is thakedar and leader of islamic world, These arab countires should listen to there master
Thats an internet joke , i get it but well said.
strange that the arab world is realizing many stark facts from inside their cosy king beds , they see in india a stable and vibrant nation who has more pluses in the future for them than any rogue state.
One more fact being India close relationship with Israel can be a possible issue,India distancing itself from Palestine issue can be a big blow for arab world if they supported any kashmiri resolution.
Anyway india have lot of friends in Arab ready to act for our interest's the latest being Libya.
now this what show us how other countries are now respecting India and are worried enough to not to put their hand ind indian matters.
This shows our influance that we are getting due to these high gdp and economical boom
Arab League says it cannot be in league with (kashmiri) separatists
Arab League says it cannot be in league with separatists - India - DNA
The powerful Arab League has dealt a severe blow to the separatists after it refused to take sides and speak on the Kashmir issue.
â€œArab League has no position to speak on the Kashmir issue. We hope bloodshed ends and peace prevails,â€ Dr Ahmed Salem Al-Wahishi, Arab League ambassador said on the sidelines of a peace conference in Srinagar.
The statement comes 10 days after moderate Hurriyat Conference claimed that Organization of Islamic Countries (OIC) has decided setting up of a human rights commission to probe the alleged abuses in Kashmir.
OIC assistant secretary general Abdul Aleem had met moderate Hurriyat Conference chairman Mirwaiz Umar Farooq in Brussels on May 5 and announced establishing a human rights panel for Kashmir. The move had caused much discomfort to New Delhi.
But the Arab League envoyâ€™s statement is likely to relieve New Delhi since the members of the Arab states form the majority group within the OIC. Moderate Hurriyat Conference has observer status in the OIC.
Dileep Padgoankar, who heads the three member interlocutorsâ€™ team, said they have begun to see the light at the end of the tunnel. He however refused to comment on the suspension of former Hurriyat chairman Moulana Abbaas Ansari after his meeting with the interlocutors.
J&K governor NN Vohra, who was the chief guest at the conference, said the people of the state have a high stakes in peace and normalcy. â€œThere is an imperative need for everyone to ponder over the unfortunate happenings of the last over two decades and take every required step to reverse the trend to restore the shining glory of the state,â€ he said.
That's what they say but do the opposite. The OIC summits are quite an example where they somehow always manage to vote against us. How is that? Good to know that AL is interested in cultivating ties to us but not in a way where they provide "aid" to the Thekedar of Islam and at the same time expect us not to look at how these thekedars use this money.
Thats a temporary feature based on the current times when the world wants to shy way from anything related to terrorism.
The aftermath of OBL killing is just one of the many factors that will govern diplomacy currently only to see at a later date being reversed.
If you look historically, the Arab League has never actually addressed the Kashmir issue. To be accurate, this is not a change in ArabLeague stand but a reiteration of the same. If you do a backdate search on Arab League resolutions, there are none on Kashmir. Not to mention that India has been an observer of the Arab Leauge since atleast 2006 if I remember correctly.
On the other hand OIC has been the forum of mainly rhetorical support to Kashmir but even they have recently come to the conclusion of making it a bilateral dispute. Although important exception can be made to Syria, Iraq under Saddam, Egypt under Gamal Abdel Nasser and Yasser Arafat of the PLO that supported the Indian stand on Kashmir - a byproduct of the soviet camp and Nehru/Indira Gandhi's diplomacy.
Ofcourse the other turn around is the EU which has traditionally been much more active on this issue and were co-sponsors with the Pakistan for declaring India an HR violator in early 1990s on Kashmir. This also had the US backing and had this not been stopped by Iran and other countries like Iraq and Syria in the early stage, the resolution would most likely have passsed.
Ejaz the MRCA deal,Geelani iteration about laden and add to that the US screwing the Paks(the US I think is closing avenues for the Pakistanis to divert the issue) all these might have contributed to it.Why the hell is GOI tolerating meetings like these in the first place
I was under the impression that Arab League had changed its stance until I was corrected by someone. It seems that the Arab League really never took up the Kashmir issue in its meetings as an agenda item. Note again I am talking about the "Arab League" as a political organisation and not individual countries. Like I mentioned earlier, only Iraq, Syria, Egypt under Gamal Abdel Nasser and PLO's Yasser Arafat due to the Soviet camp affinity openly supported India on Kashmir. The rest either kept neutral or favoured Pakistan alongwith the US and UK patronage on plebescite and so on.
Here is a quote from a 2007 article
And yes there seems to be an increase in traffic by international envoys, artists, businessmen and religious leaders since around November last year. Its probably because GoI is interested in showcasing Kashmir and it genuinely is confident of the on the ground situation there.
Here is another report from a Kashmiri paper on the large number of foreign visitors to Kashmir.
OBL was never the deciding factor of supporting terrorism. His ideology was to eliminate Western armies from Middle Eastern countries. However, the terrorists he created do not see down this lane alone. Their ideology is to invade, strike and eliminate every other non-Islamic state and establish their 7th century desert empire. Afghanistan was a solid living proof of that before Bush invaded the country.
Until OBL was alive, there was covert unsaid support among Arabs. Having traveled in Arab countries, I have sought a lot of responses vis a vis this ideology. And shockingly many people actually find his (not the anti-American but the Taliban-based) branches quite positive. It was shocking. The one good thing Abottabad operation did was get loonies who think like this, to rethink all over again due to the fact that US can strike them as well.
India having ties to Arab League doesn't make them think that way. We have diplomatic ties with Pakistan as well. Does that change anything? Nothing. It is their constant Pakistani affiliation to Pakistan due to common "culture" along with OIC's adamant stand is what caused us to develop strong ties with Israel. And boy, did we make an excellent decision on that!
EU is a toothless tiger now. It has no stand and its power source has dissolved. It can maximum be an arms salesman and technology hub. It's opinion also matters little anymore. They continue to call Kashmir a disputed territory and have the audacity to meet the separatist terrorist called Geelani in first place (it is astounding how India doesn't show anger on this itself--but then, with this government, it is not that surprising). So whether it sponsors any Pak government anymore doesn't matter until it becomes a cause of terrorism in our country.
True. But the Palestinian issue is a dead goose now. Even Arabs don't support it. GCC countries only half-heartedly post news about "Israeli atrocities" these days. Except Pakistanis and Afghans, not even the Arabs are interested that much any longer. On the other hand, J&K is a waiting game. All India has to do is get a decisive, sincere government and keep waiting. Time is by our side as we see the threat to Kashmir start crumbling.
Let me distinguish the two here. OBL was able to capitalise on genuinge grivenaces that the Arab world had. These were mainly the dispropotionate support to Israel on the Palestinian issue, the stationing of US troops in Saudi Arabia after the first Gulf War, the US support to autocratic regimes in the GCC and Egypt and what led to an explosion in AQ recruitment spree - the Iraq invasion and occupation.
This does NOT mean that there is support for OBL's tactics which revolved around two main things (1) Justification of killing civilians inclusing women and children (2) Justification on using suicide bombings . Both are explicitly declared forbidden in Islamic theology. The way OBL went around this - and remember he wasn't an Islamic scholar - is to use a political reason. Basically saying that American weapons kill so many women and children in Palestine, so we can do the same to the US. Not a theological justification - but a political one.
This is one of the reason why there is disbelief among many muslims and arabs even today that OBL would have done the 9/11 attacks. Which may be techinically correct that he may not be directly behind it but the fact is that his minioms like KSM e.t.c. did it and tried to justify it.
And what is OBL's main purpose to attack the US?
He tells this quite clearly in many of his Arabic interviews before 9/11 and the one that he did right after it. The aim was "provoke" the US to angrily lash out against the Muslim world, and draw it into a longdrawn war in Afghanistan vis a vis the USSR. Ofcourse that strategy failed in 2001. But Bush's invasion of Iraq was a perfect recipe to restart the same process. The long drawn war and incresing ecnomic costs would weaken the US and force it to stop supporting Arab autocratic regimes. And once the US support to these Arab regimes would go, we would then be able to topple these regimes and establish "Islamic" govt.s
Ofcouse if the Arab Spring currently going on stays on track, it would go further to show how margnisalised OBL has become.
Not sure what you mean by that but Pakistani-Indian ties are nothing compared to Indo-Arab ties. They are completely different and as a block they actually form our largest trading bloc, next to our largest remittance earning bloc and not to mention our biggest energy suppliers. Not to mention security and military-to-military relations we had with Iraq for example.
And again common "culture" with Pakistan? You might speculate that common "religion" factor but that again is an ideological way of looking at geopolitics. That is not what the policy planners sitting in Egypt or Iraq or GCC countries think. I think the better way to explain the change is use a realist perspective. The fact is that during the Cold war we were pretty much in the soviet camp. Israel along with GCC countries and Pakistan was in the US camp. While we had Iraq, Syria and Egypt until Gamal Abdel Nasser on our side supporting us. Its unfortunate that we basically were in the loosing camp and Iraq was bombed to smithereen in 1991 while Syria is an economic basket case. And ofcourse Egypt switched to the US in the 1970s. Pakistan had the backing of the US most of western Europe:UK, France, Germany e.t.c and ofcourse other countries that were firmly in the US camp like Turkey and Saudi Arabia.
Post coldwar India started normalising relations with all these countries. Israel was ofcouse one of the first which we recognised in 1992 after the PA accords. We needed urgent military upgrades after the USSR and it was very much beneficial. And soon after it was under the last years of the NDA govt. that plans of upgrading diplomatic ties with Turkey and Saudi Arabia - former cold war countries of the opposite camp were put in action. The UPAI picked up the ball and there is a definite "partnership" in play since MMS visit to Saudi Arabia. If some former diplomats are to be believed - it was not just the Israeli or US pressure but the Saudi/GCC pressure that finally pushed India to take the call on voting against Iran on IAEA. Ofcourse, I can't confirm this but if true, it shows the links that we have behind the scenes.
But on topic, Arab League making this statement is nothing new. OIC chaging its stand would be something new.
The EU was still the most important block that pushed for HR violator designate against India in the 1990s and even later. OIC offers rheotorical support and nothing else. But the EU on the otherhand have regular conferences and meetings, they invite dissdents and sepratists and give wide press coverage to the issue. It might not change the ground realities, but it obviously generates press coverage and affects India's public diplomacy.
I think we are pretty much nearing the end of Kashmir issue. The contours will be LoC=IB with some form of autonomy. To the valley if not to the entire state. But only time will tell.
What the main focus should now be of GoI is to have the same sort of visits and visibility of POK. These delegations and media should be allowed to visit Gilgit Baltistan and other regions of Kashmir in Muzaffarabad and Mirpur and allowed to freely meet people like they have done on the Indian side.
You may be right in your assesment, the implication of the statement made at this juncture can be drawn to a parallel of the PAF air chief saying he wont let pakistan's down.
Its just not the statement alone and what they said,
Its not even so much than the time
Its the need to release such a statement at this very point couples up as a very important endorsement.
Separate names with a comma.