Quantcast
Channel: Eurasia Review
Viewing all 73742 articles
Browse latest View live

Israel Accuses Ma’an News Of Incitement

$
0
0

The Ma’an TV channel was banned from playing inside Israeli prisons on Friday, as the Israel Prison Services (IPS) claimed the channel was inciting Palestinian prisoners against Israel.

The alleged ban was first reported by the head of the Palestinian Committee of Prisoners’ Affairs, Issa Qaraqe, who told Ma’an that the news of the ban came from Palestinians inside Israeli prisons who said IPS officials decided to ban the channel after accusing the Palestinian news channel of “inciting and harming the security of Israel.”

Qaraqe added that the Palestinian prisoners said they were dependent on the Ma’an TV channel for their main source of news on Palestine and deeply resented the IPS officials’ decision. “Ma’an is a national TV channel that has focused on the prisoners’ cause and their communication with their families, while broadcasting solidarity sit-ins and activities,” Qaraqe said, adding that the decision by Israeli authorities was arbitrary and a larger part of Israel’s war against Palestinians. Editor-in-Chief of Ma’an News Agency Dr. Nasser Lahham said that Ma’an TV, one of the most popular media channels in Palestine, “never considered pleasing Israel or any other side.” “We have always been this way and we will continue to be this way,” Lahham added.

The spokesperson for Fatah-affiliated prisoners and former prisoners Nashat al-Wahidi said that the decision revealed the “ugly terrorist face” of the Israeli government, and warned that the move signals an increase in “racist Israeli policies targeting the lives of Palestinian prisoners.” Al-Wahidi pointed out that other Palestinian and Arab TV channels have also been banned in Israel’s prisons, including Palestine TV and al-Arabiya.

The Palestinian Authority (PA) Minister of Justice Ali Abu Diad also joined the condemnation of the ban in a statement, saying that the move was a “new violation against the cultural, social, civil, political, and humanitarian rights of prisoners.” “Palestinian national television channels broadcast the truth and express the just cause of the [Palestinian] people while working according to international laws in order to achieve rights in freedom, independence, ending the [Israeli] occupation, and establishing an independent state,” Abu Diad said.

Meanwhile, Abed al-Nasser Farawneh, a Palestinian official in the PA’s Ministry of Prisoners’ Affairs called the decision an attack on Palestinian media aimed at banning the Palestinian national message and increasing the isolation felt by Palestinian prisoners.Farawneh highlighted that Ma’an news has centered its coverage on the myriad of human rights abuses and crimes committed against Palestinians, which should not be considered incitement. “Ma’an TV is a voice for those who do not have one and a screen to those looking for truth and credibility,” Farawneh said. He added that the decision was made amid an increase of solidarity demonstrations across the occupied West Bank in support of hunger-striking Palestinians held inside Israel’s prisons, a topic which Ma’an News Agency has covered extensively.

A mass solidarity hunger strike among Palestinian prisoners in Israel has been ongoinging for weeks in support of three hunger-striking prisoners currently held in administrative detention — an Israeli policy of detention without charge or trial almost exclusively used against Palestinians, as Bilal Kayid, a prominent PFLP member, entered the 46th day of his hunger strike Friday.

Tensions rose further in prisons across Israel as the number of hunger-striking prisoners protesting Israel’s arbitrary detention of Palestinians reached 100 participants on Wednesday, as Israeli prison authorities continued to crackdown on the prisoners in an attempt to force them into halting their hunger strikes.

The decision by IPS officials has followed a long line of incidents in which Israeli authorities have accused scores of Palestinian journalists and activists of incitement against the Israeli state since a wave of violence erupted across the occupied Palestinian territory and Israel in October, including detaining dozens of Palestinians for reportedly inciting against the Israeli state in their Facebook posts. According to prisoners’ rights group Addameer, 7,000 Palestinians were held in Israeli prisons as of May, seven of whom were Palestinian parliament members.


Dalits, Muslims And The Holy Cow – OpEd

$
0
0

By Aijaz Zaka Syed*

Since the change of guard in India two years ago, it has been one hell of a ride for the great republic. Extraordinary events and developments have been unfolding at such a breathless pace that one has lost the capacity to react to them.

When Mohammed Akhlaq, a 52-year old farmer and father of an Indian Air Force engineer, was beaten to death by his lifelong neighbors in Dadri, a sleepy village in Uttar Pradesh less than 30 km from the power center of Delhi, over “beef eating” rumors a year ago, the news sent shockwaves across India and around the world.

The usual suspects have been administered many such beatings and even lynched since but they have barely created ripples. Call it indifference on the part of media and administration or helplessness of victims that such ‘incidents’ do not raise eyebrows anymore, let alone invite action against the guilty.

In the new and ‘Modi-fied’ India, stray animals loitering on the streets are more secure and protected than humans.

No wonder the guardians of holy cow get bolder and more blasé by the day. And why wouldn’t they? They are given to believe that they enjoy the political patronage at the highest level in the land and can get away with murder. And they do.

But targeting Muslims, who have all but lost all self-respect, sensitivity and capacity to respond to such attacks and abuse is one thing and taking on the assertive Dalits, the low caste communities, is quite another.

Given their increasing powerlessness and political dispossession, India’s Muslims are forced to lie low and offer little resistance even when faced with attacks like Dadri. No wonder the Dadri killing was soon followed up by the lynching and hanging of two Muslim cattle hands from Jharkhand, one of them barely 15 and many other such episodes.

Even as I write this there are reports of two Muslim women being beaten black and blue by a mob in the presence of cops in the BJP-ruled Madhya Pradesh on the rumors of “possessing beef.” Someone even filmed the obscenity and posted it online. The wretched women were beaten up for nearly 30 minutes until one of them collapsed. And, yes, the duo has been charged with “illegally selling meat” after police “recovered” 30 kgs of buffalo meat from them!

Are these the ‘good times’ the voters were endlessly promised in 2014? Where is India headed? Are we still living in the 21st century?

Try doing the same to Dalits and you will get the taste of your own medicine, as the BJP in Gujarat and at the center is discovering.

In response to the brutal public flogging that a Dalit family received at the hands of the cow protectors in Gujarat last week, Dalits shut down the entire state and other parts of India. Some of them came up with novel protests like unloading truckloads of dead cattle and rotting meat in front of government offices.

The Dalit reaction has been so swift and overwhelming that the prime minister and the top BJP leadership that is yet to own up Gujarat and apologize for Dadri had to quickly swing into action tendering unconditional apology. This even as turning the Indian Penal Code on its head, Akhlaq’s family was charge-sheeted for ‘cow killing’ in UP!

But then that is the power of Dalits. Unlike the weightless and rudderless Muslims, Dalit voices can shatter the glass ceiling in Delhi, wrecking governments and many a political career. In view of the looming polls in UP, Gujarat and elsewhere, the BJP can take no chances with this influential section of the electorate. The Gujarat incident has also shattered the carefully constructed Hindutva myth, portraying Dalits as the “foot soldiers and protectors” of Hindu society, and not as the oppressed lot stuck at the lowest rung of the inhuman social order perpetuated over centuries.

Since the BJP came into being in the late ‘70s and especially since VP Singh implemented the Mandal Commission recommendations, shaking up the entire political and power structure, the Parivar has been aggressively trying to expand its support base among Dalits and other backwards.

On the one hand, it has been busy appropriating Dalit icons like Ambedkar who despised the communal hierarchy that Hindutva represents. On the other hand, it has been using Dalits and other groups as cannon fodder in the campaign against Muslims and other minorities. It is hardly a secret that Dalits had been successfully used during the 2002 Gujarat pogrom and other communal conflagrations.

Despite the fact that for centuries Dalits have been treated as lowest of the low, their ‘Hinduness’ is discovered during times of communal strife.

From the worst form of social and communal apartheid to rape, murder and casual violence, Dalits have for centuries suffered every indignity and crime imaginable.

Of late though to neutralize the politically conscious and economically empowered Dalits, the RSS has been making a conscious attempt to “accommodate” the community by discovering Dalit icons like Suhaldev in UP, painting him as the ‘savior of Hindus’ against ‘Muslim invaders’.

Incredible as it may sound, 800 years of Muslim rule is now being blamed for the oppression and persecution of Dalits.
This is a clever, double whammy that seeks to drive Dalits away from Muslims whose egalitarian society and beliefs have always attracted the oppressed lot. Since the mass conversion of Dalits to Islam in 1980s in Tamil Nadu, disingenuous ways have been found to keep the “flock” together.

But you can’t fool all the people all the time. The politically savvy and informed Dalits have begun to see through the game.

The Rajkot flogging should come as a wake-up call to Dalits and all dispossessed communities. If they thought only Muslims needed to worry about the new wave of Hindutva militancy and vigilantism in the name of cow, they were clearly mistaken.

As the history of Hitler’s Germany would attest, the vicious run of fascism never ends with one community or group. They will come for everyone, until there is no one left.

There is a desperate need for Dalits, Muslims and all right thinking people who believe in the idea of an inclusive India to join forces against the growing threat of fascism.

Unfortunately, for all the feel-good talk of Dalit-Muslim unity and the realization that the two communities have for long been at the receiving end from the same forces, little has been done to build bridges and alliances between the two groups.

This talk of unity has at best remained at the level of Dalit and Muslim intellectuals and activists. The unity has remained elusive even during the rule of Mayawati-led Bahujan Samaj Party, which depends crucially on the support of Dalits and Muslims in UP. Perhaps both Muslims and Dalits are to blame for this. Be that as it may, the two communities need to wake up at least now to the shared threats. Better late than never.

The Muslims in particular must get out of their comfort zone to reach out to Dalits and other marginalized groups and communities. They cannot tackle the coming threat on their own. The very future of India as a secular and pluralist democracy is at stake. We need to stand together to fight the darkness that is fast closing in. We are in this together.

80 Percent Of Foreign Students In Russian Higher Educational Institutions From Former Soviet Republics – OpEd

$
0
0

Russian officials are proud that their country continues to attract foreign students. This year there are some 237,500. But four out of five of them – 79 percent – are from former Soviet republics and less than one percent are from Western Europe and North America combined.

Those statistics are provided by Aleksandr Gromov of Moscow’s Higher School of Economics in a new article (ioe.hse.ru/data/2016/07/13/1116424276/%D0%A4%D0%9E7.pdf) that is summarized at iq.hse.ru/news/187164580.html).

He points out that more than a third of the foreign students in Russian higher educational institutions come from a single country (Kazakhstan) which supplies 36 percent of all of them. Students from Uzbekistan and Ukraine form 11 percent each. Half of the students from beyond the borders of the former USSR come from Asia, with slightly over half of these from China.

Two-thirds of the foreign students pay for their coursework and so represent an attractive catch for these institutions, Gromov points out. Those who are in Russia on scholarship are “typically people from the former union republics” rather than from what he and other Russians still call “the far abroad.”

Just over half of the foreign students – 52.3 percent – are in undergraduate programs. Thirty-eight percent more are in specialist training programs that may or may not lead to a degree. Ten percent are in masters’ programs. The most popular fields of study are medicine, economics, administration, and the humanities.

The foreign students in Russia are highly concentrated in the two capitals and in a small fraction of the higher educational institutions of the country: Eighty percent of foreign students are enrolled in ten percent of these higher schools. The leader, with more than 5,000 foreign students, is as was the case in Soviet times, the Russian University of Friendship of the Peoples.

The Great Hillary Moment – OpEd

$
0
0

Hillary Clinton may not be known as a great orator, but her solid performance in delivering an eloquent and powerful acceptance speech at her party’s national convention earned her high marks with the national audience, some of whom are still skeptical about her trustworthiness and command ability.

Turning a leaf in America’s male-dominated politics, Clinton’s nomination by the Democratic Party to be the next US president is, of course, a historic landmark that is bound to boost the position of women in today’s American society, where gender inequality and discrimination against women is a major issue.

A relative latecomer to women’s rights among the western societies, the United States of America might soon join Germany, England, Argentina, and several other countries led by women, assuming that Clinton will succeed over her republican nemesis, Donald Trump, whose male-chauvinistic behavior has already alienated many female Americans. Without doubt, Clinton’s victory would be a huge leap forward for the cause of women in America, who are severely underrepresented in the high echelons of private and public sectors.

To clinch her party’s nomination, Clinton fought a long and hard battle with the progressive Bernie Sanders, who was clearly prejudiced against by the party leadership, in light of the e-mail disclosures on the eve of the party’s convention — that immediately sowed division in a party intent on strong unity. It was therefore somewhat unsurprising to see Clinton in her much-anticipated speech not only acknowledge Sanders, she also vowed to work with him on reducing college tuition and lifting the education debt burden on millions of young Americans. Clinton also somewhat echoed Sanders by pledging to hit the Wall Street and wealthy with more taxes, in sharp contrast to Trump who favors tax breaks for the rich and financial de-regulation.

Indeed, the contrasts between the two major party nominees could not be any greater, they have opposing policies on immigration, wage increase, and a host of other domestic and foreign policy issues, such as the Iran nuclear deal, favored by Clinton and strongly opposed by Trump, and it will be interesting how her party’s convention can improve Clinton’s standing at the polls, which suggest Trump ahead by a few percentages.

If this turns out to be a tight race, then it is perfectly possible that the two “third parties,” namely, the Green Party and the Libertarian Party, might make a difference, perhaps to the detriment of the Democratic nominee, who is a party centerist pressured from both the left and right wings of her party, which explains Clinton’s mixture of national security and pro-labor themes in her narrative.

For the moment, however, Clinton and her supporters are basking in the rewards of a well-organized, albeit initially fractious, convention that featured a rainbow of white and minority speakers, compared to the white-dominated Republican convention. Conveying a positive message of hope through a rational discourse, Clinton projected a presidential demeanor and in no uncertain term rebuked her rival’s Islamophobic stance that has stigamtized America’s Muslims. She was preceded by the basketball great Karim Abdul Jabbar, as well as the parents of a Muslim soldier killed on the line of duty, thus sending a clear message that this party does not advocate Islam-bashing.

Simultaneously, Clinton in her speech managed to present a more personable account of her background and roots, recalling her orphan mother’s tough upbringing and her long commitment to children causes. She portrayed Obama’s presidency as highly successful and vowed to continue his legacy, given the importance of replicating the Obama coalition that led to his gaining 51 percent of popular votes in the two presidential races he won. With a strong economy, blessed by low energy prices, the US is not in a state of crisis as depicted by Trump, who gave a mostly negative nomination speech that was, in fact, quite pathetic by the sheer absence of any concrete ideas for the economy.. Clinton did a masterful job of debunking Trump’s vacuous “I can fix the problems” by reminding the audience that collective efforts by the whole nation is required in order to tackle its various problems.

Confronted by the darkly, even fascistic, political tendency reflected in Trump’s presidency, Clinton and her party should be careful not to miss the real sources of Trump’s strength that appeal to the uneducated white Americans and their sociability.

Clinton’s rationalist discourse may have many advantages but it also harbors the weakness of sounding like an incremental conventional politician who has been around the block too long to strive for deep structural change. Trump’s populistic anti-politics clearly resonates with a segment of American voters, who might act as catalysts for Trump’s victory, which would be disastrous by the standards of American democracy, given Trump’s neo-fascistic tendency and his authoritarian style. Whereas Trump preaches a politics of exclusion and discrimination, Clinton’s message at the convention was that she will strive for listen to and understanding of the other, i.e., a compassionate democratic cause.

Abundant And Diverse Ecosystem Found In Area Targeted For Deep-Sea Mining

$
0
0

In a study published in Scientific Reports, scientists discovered impressive abundance and diversity among the creatures living on the seafloor in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone (CCZ)–an area in the equatorial Pacific Ocean being targeted for deep-sea mining. The study, lead authored by Diva Amon, a post-doctoral researcher at the University of Hawai’i at Mānoa School of Ocean and Earth Science and Technology (SOEST), found that more than half of the species they collected were new to science, reiterating how little is known about life on the seafloor in this region.

“We found that this exploration claim area harbors one of the most diverse communities of megafauna [animals over 2 cm in size] to be recorded at abyssal depths in the deep sea,” said Amon.

The deep sea is where the next frontier of mining will take place. A combination of biological, chemical and geological processes has led to the formation of high concentrations of polymetallic “manganese” nodules on the deep seafloor in the CCZ–an area nearly the size of the contiguous United States. These nodules are potentially valuable sources of copper, nickel, cobalt and manganese, among other metals, which has led to an interest in mining this region. All of the potential polymetallic-nodule exploration contracts that have been granted in the Pacific are in this region, according to the International Seabed Authority.

This study, part of the ABYSSLINE Project, was the first to characterize the abundance and diversity of seafloor-dwelling animals, a key component of deep-sea ecosystems, in an exploration claim area leased to UK Seabed Resources Ltd (UK-1) in the eastern portion of the CCZ.

Using a remotely operated vehicle, the research team surveyed the seafloor at four sites within the UK-1 exploration contract area and at a site east of the UK-1 area to estimate abundance and diversity of the ecosystems.

The preliminary data from these surveys showed that more animals live on the seafloor in areas with higher nodule abundance. Further, the majority of the megafaunal diversity also appears to be dependent on the polymetallic nodules themselves, and thus are likely to be negatively affected by mining impacts.

“The biggest surprises of this study were the high diversity, the large numbers of new species and the fact that more than half of the species seen rely on the nodules–the very part of the habitat that will be removed during the mining process,” said Amon.

Exploitation plans are pushing ahead even though knowledge of the seafloor ecosystem in this region is still limited.

“In order to more effectively manage the area and mitigate the environmental impacts of deep-sea mining in the CCZ and within the UK-1 contract area, baseline knowledge of the abundance, diversity, and species ranges of megafauna–a key component of this ecosystem–is essential,” said Craig Smith, oceanography professor at UHM SOEST and ABYSSLINE lead investigator.

The ABYSSLINE team will be publishing many more papers about the seafloor biology of the CCZ, with forthcoming papers from UHM scientists including an atlas of megafauna from the UK-1 exploration contract area, a study documenting extremely high diversity in the community of macrofaunal community (crustaceans, worms, mollusks and other invertebrates between 2 and 0.3 cm in size) in the UK-1 exploration claim area.

India’s Digital Revolution Poised To Propel Services – Analysis

$
0
0

The India Stack – connecting bank accounts, unique ID numbers and mobile phones – will deliver massive productivity in services.

By Nandan Nilekani*

Conventional wisdom for the future of India is that we must grow like China, Japan and South Korea. That we must build large companies creating thousands of jobs and exporting goods. I believe that domestic consumption, not exports, will drive India’s growth. The economy will be services-led and not manufacturing-led. Small businesses will lead rather than large corporations.

Serendipitously, this condition has arisen at a time when the globalization trend is reversing. Jeffrey Immelt, CEO of General Electric recently noted, “Globalization is being attacked as never before.” He talks about how the whole era of globalization of the last 40 years is under threat. Protectionism is growing around the world.  Brexit is the latest proof of the challenge. Countries no longer want to participate in global formations. Trade deals are slowing down. The WTO has not cut a deal in many years and the Trans-Pacific Partnership and Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership are stuck in all kinds of wrangling. Fundamentally, globalization is slowing.

Value of global trade has come down in the last six to seven quarters. Data as tracked by The Economist shows global trade is falling. The Baltic Dry Index indicates a dramatic drop in freight prices, a proxy suggesting globalization is slowing down. India’s exports standing at $22.17 billion in June have slowed for the 18th consecutive month.

In the meanwhile, a key component of delivering services, the mobile phone, is becoming the universal electronic product in everybody’s hands. India is selling 25 million smart phones per quarter and the anticipation is 700 million smart phones in hand by 2020. Internet penetration is growing. With 332 million internet users, India is now the second largest internet market ahead of the US.

Another building block in India is the Aadhaar number – the world’s largest digital infrastructure for establishing unique identity. The system has 1 billion people, and in less than six years, it can already authenticate 100 million transactions per day. The world has only a dozen platforms that can handle a billion users and those include Microsoft Windows, Microsoft Office, Facebook, WhatsApp, Android and YouTube. Aadhaar is the only billion-user platform outside the United States and the only government one.

India's Internet Penetration Connected: With 331 million users, India is the second largest internet market, ahead of the United States. (World Bank Development Indicators and www.trai.gov.in)

India’s Internet Penetration
Connected: With 331 million users, India is the second largest internet market, ahead of the United States. (World Bank Development Indicators and www.trai.gov.in)

Designed in 2009 as an online identity platform for all Indian residents, Aadhaar provides open Application Programming Interfaces, or APIs, which can be integrated easily into any electronic device. These APIs enable online authentication using a fingerprint or iris. Recently Samsung introduced an Aadhaar-compliant tablet with a camera that in a single click performs iris authentication.

With the 2014 introduction of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Jan Dhan Yojana for financial inclusion, more than 290 million bank accounts are linked to Aadhaar today, and several billion dollars of benefits and entitlements have been transferred to people’s bank accounts electronically in real time. Jhan Dhan (J) for bank accounts, Aadhaar (A) for identity and the mobile phone (M) form the JAM trinity

The arrival of New Age platform aggregators – from Amazon and Flipkart for small merchants to Uber and Ola Cabs for taxis – will create a huge digital footprint that could be leveraged by individuals and businesses to secure credit. Such platform aggregators will also create jobs, not as monolithic large organizations, but as millions of small entrepreneurs connected to a platform.

India's Growing Consumption Big market: Domestic consumption continues to grow in India, soon to surpass China as the world's most populous country, even as exports slow (data.gov.in)

India’s Growing Consumption
Big market: Domestic consumption continues to grow in India, soon to surpass China as the world’s most populous country, even as exports slow (data.gov.in)

These platforms enabling seamless transactions give the service economy a big boost. India is the largest young country in an aging world and will continue to have a young population for the next 25 years, whereas China has started aging. Indians will either migrate or do outsourcing work. Care providers around the world will come from India. There will be doubling of GDP growth in housing, education, health – all services. Services are labor intensive and their incremental return on capital is much faster than manufacturing. And then there will be services like tourism that create jobs – Thailand, for example, has 25 million international visitors per year and India has only 8 million.

Another factor is that manufacturing trends are changing dramatically. Robotics, 3D and automation are changing industry. Automation will hit manufacturing before India can catch up. Manufacturing is becoming a high-end, capital-intensive activity and as such won’t contribute to job creation. Manufacturing outsourcing trends, too, are reversing with operations, like those of Foxconn, going back to the West. Such automation and outsourcing reversals are going to happen in every industry and, fundamentally, manufacturing is getting squeezed as the future of manufacturing will be very high-tech, very automated.

Many economists have suggested that India should copy China, but it cannot. When China started its development journey, it had no established competition. Global overcapacity challenges India. For example, China has steel capacity of 822 million tons, and India has 86 million tons. Recently the India government had to protect its steel industry by introducing minimum import pricing. Normal competition without tariffs will be difficult in many sectors.

India’s manufacturing and agricultural sectors are fragmented due to excise and other taxes and also due to a lack of infrastructure, cold chains, storage processing and more. Yet India has a single market for banking, telecom, insurance and capital markets. Consider, to launch an insurance policy or a mortgage in the United States, one must go to 50 regulators. In the European Union one must go to all member countries. China has a single market, but no free movement of labor. India’s combination of a free market for labor combined with single market for services is the reason why services is the country’s biggest growth area. The only place where India can achieve economy of scale is in services. This is apparent in the dramatic growth of service tax.

India's Growth in Services Services, not manufacturing, to the rescue: In India, service taxes are growing faster than excise collections (indiabudget.gov.in)

India’s Growth in Services
Services, not manufacturing, to the rescue: In India, service taxes are growing faster than excise collections (indiabudget.gov.in)

The India Stack – a set of programming interfaces built on the trifecta government-created people’s bank account  of Jan Dhan, Aadhaar and mobile phones – in brief JAM – enables paperless, presence-less and cashless transactions. The Reserve Bank of India introduces Unified Payment Interface on July 31, allowing all payments to be made by mobile phone, which backed by JAM will lead to dramatic leaps in productivity.

Dramatic consequences will follow creating thousands of startups and billions of dollars of capitalization. Four shifts will happen: First, banking at scale because everything a bank can do, individuals can do on a mobile phone.  Second, investment at scale – people can buy a mutual fund on the phone with one click. Third, credit at scale where entrepreneurs can get a loan with just by click by aggregating their own data. And fourth, skilling at scale – as platforms happen, India will have thousands, millions of people gathering skills to operate in this new economy with great strides in reading and math literacy happening at scale.

World trade may be shrinking and barriers may be emerging among nations, all making movement of labor difficult. India with its vast unified market, youthful labor force and growing digital platform-backed services alone is poised to build a new power economy.
*Nandan Nilekani, former chairman of UDAI, which launched Aadhaar, is now chairman of EkStep Foundation, which is focused on enabling learning opportunities. This essay is adapted from a speech he delivered at Microsoft Think Next 2016 in Bengaluru on June 23, 2016.

 

Red State China? Why China (Sort Of) Likes Trump – Analysis

$
0
0

By Jacques deLisle*

(FPRI) — If China had a vote in the US presidential election, would it cast its ballot for Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?  The question is both provocative and not reliably answerable, and it has become more resonant amid reports that Russian government hackers, possibly seeking to help Trump’s candidacy, were behind the Wikileak of Democratic National Committee emails that brought down Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz and rattled fragile Democratic Party unity on the eve of the convention.  Ordinarily, China’s preference is unquestionably for continuity in power of the incumbent party (and, where possible, the incumbent president) in the United States.  But, in China as in the United States, 2016 may be no ordinary year.  Does China share the alleged proclivities of the leader of its fellow authoritarian neighbor to the north and incipient partner in some aspects of global affairs?  Very likely not.  Are we seeing with Trump in authoritarian China in 2016 a strange echo of what we saw with Obama in liberal Europe in 2008—a US presidential candidate locked in a seemingly close race at home who enjoys strikingly stronger support in a foreign region that is vital to US interests?  Almost certainly not.

But, in this election, China does seem less unambivalently or uniformly opposed than usual to the possibility of a win by the out-of-power party’s candidate.  Why would the notion of a victory by the non-incumbent party’s candidate be less clearly unwelcome to China—and, particularly, to relevant Chinese elites—than in other election cycles?  Why would this be so when the possibility of a Trump presidency is unusually and profoundly alarming to many Americans, including, especially, many of those Chinese elites’ US counterparts?  Why would this be the case when the candidate in question has been, at times, highly critical of China, subjecting Beijing—particularly on trade issues that long have been a major focus of China’s US policy—to a dose of the invective he frequently directs toward perceived enemies and rivals?

Chinese sources offer several explanations for what appears to be a more-than-ordinary openness to a change of party in the White House, ranging from possible to highly plausible, from frequently cited to relatively rarely noted in policy-relevant circles in China.  Many—perhaps all—of them account for the unusual pattern of Chinese views about the US’s extraordinary 2016 presidential election.

Some Caveats: What are “China’s” Views, and What do We Know?

Before taking a tour through the possible wellsprings of “China’s” attitudes about a potential Trump win, some caveats and qualifications are in order.  First, there is no one “Chinese” view of Donald Trump, or of Hillary Clinton.  “China” and “Chinese” are in quotation marks for a reason.  Unsurprisingly, views vary within and across groups in China, from upper-tier political elites, to foreign policy intellectuals, to well-educated and relatively worldly elites, to ordinary citizens.  And Chinese who hold similar views on bottom-line questions of the relative acceptability of the two major party candidates may—and do—hold those views for different reasons.

Second, we do not know, in any aggregate sense, what “China,” or “Chinese,” or any significant, identifiable group of Chinese, think about the two US major party candidates, much less why they find one or the other comparatively appealing or unappealing.  Our evidence is anecdotal, selective, or second-hand.  China, of course, has no equivalent of the US’s hypertrophic public opinion polling industry.  And, even if it did, it would not likely offer much on the Chinese public’s views of the US presidential election (although a handful of unscientific online polls by Chinese media showed much higher favorability ratings for Trump than for Clinton).  We also face a dearth of more-than-impressionistic or methodologically rigorous assessments of the views of informed or influential Chinese elites.  China’s top leadership has not expressed official positions—or publicly revealed its inner thoughts—on whom it would like to see prevail in the US presidential context or why.

Third, there is the question of salience.  Which Chinese views about US presidential politics should we care about?  Top leaders and the organs within the Chinese party-state that handle foreign policy or that have portfolios that significantly affect, or are greatly affected by, US-China relations are the most salient.  But, conclusions about their views must be somewhat limited because they are based largely on inference, indirect evidence, or difficult assessments of the extent to which what they say reflects what they think.  And, even in China’s authoritarian system, they are not the only group that matters for China’s US policy or foreign policy.

China’s foreign policy thinkers and experts on the United States—in think tanks, at universities, inside the party-state, and elsewhere—are another highly significant group.  They reflect, and influence, the regime’s perspectives.  Especially in not-for-attribution conversations, they also provide insight into officials’ and leaders’ views.  This group and a wider community of China’s educated elite—a cohort that encompasses journalists and commentators in China’s old and new media—include astute observers of the views of more “ordinary” Chinese citizens.

The views of those “ordinary” citizens warrant more attention than in the past.  Of course, China is not an electoral democracy, with the mechanisms for citizens’ preferences to affect policy that liberal-democratic institutions and processes provide.  And even in robust democracies, ordinary citizens’ views on other countries’ domestic politics and foreign policies often have only limited or indirect impact on their own state’s foreign policy.  But informed observers of China increasingly accept—and Chinese authorities themselves assert—that public opinion is a factor in Chinese foreign policymaking.  And policy toward the US appears to be a relatively high salience issue for the Chinese public—that is, ordinary Chinese (especially relatively affluent and educated Chinese) seem to have opinions about the United States and its politics and policy.   In the absence of more democratic channels for public input, the most strongly held—and stridently expressed—opinions among the public are more likely to have an impact.  Through China’s engaged—and, at times, enraged—netizens, these views receive widespread exposure in China’s social media and become more visible to elites and wider publics in China and abroad.  Whether as a matter of genuine belief or disingenuous and self-serving invocation, Chinese officials and commentators cite popular views as constraining factors in Beijing’s policy choices.

A (Limited) Departure from Baselines: China’s Usual Preference for Continuity

In addition to these caveats concerning methodology and interpretation, a more substantive limitation must be attached to the claim “China” is relatively favorable to the challenging party in the US 2016 election: this reflects only a judgment that Chinese views are relatively open to the idea of a victory by the out-of-power party, compared to past Chinese norms.  That is, they are less unabashedly “pro-continuity” than they usually are.  The baseline from which views in 2016 appear to depart notably—but not radically—is one of a marked preference for the party that holds the presidency in the US continuing in office.

The prevailing view among US China watchers, and consistent with my experiences in China in the run-up to the past several US presidential elections, has been that “China”—at least, the regime and mainstream, policy-relevant intellectuals—has strongly favored continuity in the Oval Office, with the exception of 2008, when positive views toward the prospect of an Obama presidency were notable, particularly among prominent Chinese international relations experts and “America hands.”

To be sure, many electoral cycles have offered idiosyncratic reasons for China to prefer continuity.  In 1980, the incumbent Jimmy Carter had reestablished diplomatic ties with China and faced an avowedly tough-on-communism (and pro-Taiwan) challenger in Ronald Reagan.  By 1984 and 1988, China generally saw US-China relations as having gone reasonably well during Reagan’s presidency, and seemed to have little to gain from a switch in parties, particularly when the 1988 election pitted former US representative to China George H.W. Bush against an opponent, Michael Dukakis, with little foreign policy record or experience.  For China, the 1992 election broadly reprised the 1988 contest, with candidate Bill Clinton’s criticism of the Bush administration for being too soft in responding to the bloodshed at Tiananmen in 1989 giving China’s rulers (if not many other groups of Chinese) reasons to favor a Bush victory.  By 2000, the Clinton administration had won favor in China for accommodating China’s entry into the World Trade Organization—a factor that promoted positive views of Al Gore, particularly among China’s policy-relevant elites.

In 1996, 2004, and 2012, China issues were of relatively low salience in the US presidential election, and, at least among Chinese rulers and policy elites, initial concerns about the then-incumbent president’s “anti-China” policies had faded amid the experience of good (or, in 2012, tolerable) US-China relations during the years immediately preceding the election.  Clinton’s formal linkage of China’s trading privileges to improvement in China’s human rights record had proved evanescent, and had given way to lower-temperature negotiations over China’s WTO entry.  George W. Bush’s early promise to be a staunch defender of Taiwan’s interests was eclipsed by his administration’s demonstrated willingness to slap down of Taiwanese president Chen Shui-bian’s Beijing-provoking gambits.  More ambiguously, Chinese concerns about Barack Obama’s perceived “oversteer” in response to criticism in the US that he was too accommodating in his 2009 visit to China and his administration’s “anti-China” (as China saw it) “pivot” to Asia had faded somewhat by 2012, with the pivot or rebalance bringing only modest change in US deployments and commitments, and the bilateral relationship rebounding somewhat from the initial 2010-11 spike in tensions over disputes in the East and South China Seas.  In these three elections, opposition candidates Bob Dole, John Kerry, and Mitt Romney offered little to turn Chinese preferences against acceptable or relatively congenial incumbents.

Such context-specific factors provide a partial explanation.  But they do not seem adequate to account fully for China’s consistently pro-continuity leanings.  Their limitations appear more significant now that Chinese observers of American politics have learned to discount the rhetoric of presidential campaigns, especially the tendency of candidates from the out-of-power party to criticize the incumbent administration for being too soft on China.  Knowledgeable Chinese and foreign observers have a strongly held—if admittedly subjective—sense that China (or, at least, the foreign policy-relevant or policy-relevant cluster in China) has a deeper and broader preference for continuity in the Oval Office that underlies and extends beyond individual election-related reasons to prefer the party in power.  Whether this reflects a preference for predictability in dealings with the sole superpower, or the high priority attached to a stable (if not always favorable) international environment for China to pursue its policy goals, or relative comfort with the “devil you know,” or other items on a long list of overlapping possible motivations, the conventional—and seemingly valid—wisdom is that China favors continuity in US presidential election politics.

The outlier case has been 2008, when the possibility of an Obama victory and a transfer of the presidency from the Republicans to the Democrats was viewed with relative equanimity in China.  John McCain faced a relatively chilly reception because of what Chinese observers saw as troublingly hawkish views.  To them, McCain showed an excessive eagerness to use force abroad that chafed against Chinese foreign policy nostrums emphasizing respect for sovereignty and opposing ostensibly benign interventions, and the Chinese foreign policy goals and interests with which those principles coincided.  McCain’s perceived approach contrasted sharply with candidate Obama’s criticism of Bush-era military ventures that had brought US forces troublingly close to China’s periphery.  Among relatively liberal-minded Chinese intellectuals, Obama’s candidacy held an additional, special appeal.  That a member of a racial minority could reach his nation’s highest office was a compelling idea—all the more so given the implausibility of such a development in China.  Among a broader group of Chinese policy intellectuals, Obama’s stated preference for a more rule-governed international order was attractive, both normatively and as a position that—compared to McCain’s perceived agenda and the George W. Bush legacy—could better accord with China’s national interests.

Unusually potent policy-based preferences conducive to China’s finding an out-of-power party victory less disagreeable have been present in the 2016 electoral cycle.  But so have several other, more striking considerations.

Trump Through a Chinese Looking Glass

Why might policy-relevant actors in China be less averse to Trump than they typically have been to US presidential candidates from the non-incumbent party?  Why do members of China’s political establishment and foreign policy intellectuals seemingly view the prospect of President Trump with less trepidation than do their American counterparts?  Recent conversations with academics, think-tank researchers, officials, journalists, and other Chinese, discussions with fellow US observers of Chinese politics and policy, inferences from Chinese officials’ statements and media reports, and other sources—the regrettably fragmentary and impressionistic information that is the basis for the analysis offered here—point to multiple, diverse and not-always consistent factors.  They reflect the many faces of Donald Trump, as perceived by relevant Chinese audiences.

Trump the Businessman. For those in China who are especially concerned about China’s international economic interests or who continue a long Reform-Era tradition of assigning a high priority to economic issues in China’s foreign relations, “Trump the businessman” holds some appeal.  From this frequently proffered perspective, the hope is that Trump will emphasize the economic aspects of the bilateral relationship, which have remained relatively positive in recent years despite a growing list of complaints from the US side, including intractable issues of intellectual property protection, mounting concerns about tilted playing fields that benefit domestic Chinese firms and disadvantage US and other foreign competitors in China, recurrent charges of currency manipulation, WTO-violating trade practices, and so on.  Trump’s apparently pervasively economic perspective on foreign policy—seemingly viewing even venerable US security alliances in cash-flow terms—suggests to Chinese observers that the potentially positive-sum business side of US-China relations would predominate in Trump’s China policy and China-affecting foreign policy.

To be sure, Trump’s periodic threats to impose duties of up to 45% on Chinese imports have hardly been well-received in China.  But there is considerable skepticism about whether Trump would be able or inclined to follow through, not least because Chinese—and other—assessments conclude that such measures might do more harm to the US, whether through relatively direct impact on US consumers, or through more indirect effects on US businesses that would suffer reduced opportunities or retaliation, or via a WTO dispute process in which China would have a strong case.

At least if concerns about sanctions are discounted, Trump policies might seem preferable for China to the alternative.  For Chinese policymakers and Chinese policy analysts, Hillary Clinton’s relatively new-found skepticism toward the Trans-Pacific Partnership and trade liberalization agreements more generally has narrowed the gap between the candidates on economic issues that matter to China.  More fundamentally, the focus on the economic aspects of bilateral ties that China expects would characterize businessman Trump’s foreign policy generally would be preferable (in the view of many in Chinese policy circles) to the emphasis on the more fraught issues of international security that have dominated recent US-China relations and that observers in China and elsewhere assume would be a more central focus for a US administration headed by former Secretary of State Clinton.

Trump the Deal Artist. A second, somewhat related reason—often cited by Chinese observers and experts—for relatively positive views of Trump in Chinese policy circles is the belief that Trump will be a pragmatist, willing to make deals.  From this perspective, the prospect of a US president who is relatively uninterested in lecturing or hectoring China on human rights, democracy, and so on, or reassuring US allies of Washington’s commitment to support them in the face of increasingly China-driven dangers, would be a refreshing change.  So, too, a US leader who shares what some Chinese and foreign observers see as the non-ideological (despite superficial rhetorical posturing), and narrowly interest-based bargaining mentality of Chinese leaders would be a potentially appealing interlocutor.

For some stridently nationalist and America-skeptic elements in China, the notion of Trump as the self-impressed but inept and attention-span-challenged hero of The Art of the Deal—the sort of character recently depicted by the book’s ghostwriter and other critics of Trump’s business career—is potentially enticing.  In this darker vision—one only rarely articulated by Chinese sources, a Trump who has been an un-self-aware failure in many of his business ventures, and who is naïve and inexperienced but supremely self-confident—or deeply uninterested—in foreign policy, is potentially an easy mark.  He offers China, and its skilled and knowledgeable negotiators, an extraordinary opportunity to make highly favorable deals, particularly in areas where US and Chinese interests conflict.

Trump the Constrainable. Relative openness to the idea of a change in the party of the presidency in the United States in 2016 has not meant a thoroughgoing abandonment of the venerable Chinese preference of a relatively high degree of stability in US-China relations.  For the many in Chinese policymaking and policy-intellectual circles who—despite concerns about the recent state of US-China relations—view radical discontinuity as troublingly risky, there is solace in the idea that President Trump will be less of a bull in the China shop than his statements during the campaign superficially suggest.

Experienced Chinese observers have seen strident criticisms of China from presidential contenders—especially from the out-of-power party’s candidate—quickly evolve into more moderate, status quo-preserving policy positions from presidents.  A good many of them view Trump’s threats of trade sanctions and other perceived “anti-China” statements as more of the same.  And Trump’s rhetoric has hardly been consistently critical of China.  The three-minute video of Trump saying “China” that went viral during the primary campaign reveals Trumpese to be a tonal language—with the audiovisual collage of angry and admiring utterances skewed only modestly toward the former (and with the latter sometimes framed by additional words, as in, “I love China”).

Some of China’s America hands and foreign policy analysts join members of the US Republican Party leadership in believing that robust institutions of American democracy, including the constitutional separation of powers, will constrain any attempted Trumpian excesses.  This assessment may be unduly optimistic and an instance of whistling past the graveyard, but it has a good number of adherents in policy-relevant circles in both China and in the GOP.

Some Chinese observers who closely watch US foreign policy expect, or at least hope, that a President Trump—recognizing his lack of expertise, or reflecting his lack of interest, in the field—ultimately would turn to familiar faces from past Republican administrations to shape his China policy and his China-relevant foreign policy.  On this view (shared by some US analysts), Trump’s purported reliance on his own formidable brain and Trump’s reported reliance on the obscure (in China policy circles) and strongly China-criticizing Peter Navarro as his key sources of advice on China policy is a passing phase.  In this analysis, while some members of the Republican foreign policy establishment may have permanently estranged themselves from a Trump administration by signing an open letter of opposition or taking other hard-to-reverse steps, some of their peers still have an opportunity to secure China-related policymaking posts in a Trump administration and will seek them, whether out of party loyalty, patriotism, or a desire for power and influence.

Trump and the American Comeuppance. Two factors that have not loomed very large in Chinese explanations of why Trump holds some appeal in China are worth noting because they seem—and in the views of some Chinese observers clearly do—resonate broadly (if perhaps shallowly) in China, with audiences ranging from top political elites to ordinary citizens.  One of these is the idea that the surprising—indeed, stunning—success of Trump in sweeping through the Republican primaries and emerging with a solid chance to win the presidency shows that the supposed virtues and strengths of the US democratic system that American presidents and foreign policy officials have so often touted to China and lauded as superior to China’s system are not all that they have claimed to be.

In this Chinese narrative (parts of which have appeared in state-linked Chinese media), Trump’s progress has revealed several profound failings in the US system (with the significance of each shortcoming varying among different Chinese audiences): Trump has succeeded with an agenda that includes elements of racism, misogyny, Islamophobia, and apparent contempt for many of the political values that US official and unofficial sources have long criticized China for not implementing, thereby undercutting the US’s ability to wield those values as a soft-power club against the Chinese regime; Trump’s support among the US electorate reflects the deep dissatisfaction of many Americans with a political system that has failed to meet their needs and desires for economic opportunity, physical security, and so on; and Trump’s potent outsider campaign, and the political chaos, intraparty rancor, and tincture of violence that has accompanied it, show the weakness and dysfunction of US political institutions and, by contrast, the strengths and virtues of China’s political institutions.

Trump has reinforced such views in China with his offering of what in Mao’s time would have been called a “self-criticism” of the United States.  Most prominently expressed in his July 2016 interview with the New York Times, Trump’s stated view is that the United States has no business criticizing other countries’ records on civil liberties because the US has “a lot of problems,” and is so “bad” on those issues, that it is not “a very good messenger.”  He therein echoes an argument long made by official Chinese statements on human rights conditions in the US and in China, and validates with broader Chinese resentment—and rejection—of perceived US claims of moral superiority and US efforts to meddle in China’s internal affairs.

Trump the Populist Strongman. The other image of Trump that has not been central to Chinese views about him or the US election, but that is widely (if unevenly) resonant and makes Trump somewhat appealing in China, is his persona as a populist strongman.  For China’s current rulers, Trump’s expressed admiration for their predecessors’ handling of Tiananmen may not offer the bromance that he appears to feel toward Vladimir Putin, but any authoritarian tendencies or ambitions in Trump are hardly the cause for concern among China’s top leaders that the idea of a Trump presidency gives heads of government in liberal democracies allied or aligned with the United States.  And Trump’s populist critique of the contemporary United States, and the out-of-touch and inept elites who rule it, dovetail nicely with the Xi Jinping leadership’s mounting rejection of Western values and institutions, and its touting of a China Dream as a preferable, and more suitable for China, alternative to the American Dream.

As some elite Chinese observers see it and as man-in-the-street media interviews sometimes found, Trump’s populist critique also resonates with ordinary Chinese citizens—and does so in ways that the Chinese regime is not so likely to welcome.  On this assessment, for the many millions of Chinese who have not fared especially well during China’s long boom, or  who face new worries amid China’s flattening growth rates and other economic troubles, Trump’s grim portrait of the US’s economy and society speaks to their concerns about their own lives: the system is rigged in favor of the powerful, wealthy and well-connected; ordinary people do not have a fair chance at success; experienced conditions and hopes for the future are not what they once were; Trump’s reality TV show-like campaign was a rare opportunity for the disenfranchised to feel like they had a chance to participate politically; and so on.  The possibility that Trump’s populism is bundled with an authoritarian bent need not be disqualifying for this audience.  For many economically insecure and lower-status Chinese, liberal democracy is not a compelling near-term goal, and arguably populist—and undeniably popular—reformist leaders in China have hardly been anti-authoritarian (a point most poignantly illustrated by Zhao Ziyang’s association with “neo-authoritarianism” during Reform-Era China’s most hopeful period for reform in the latter half of the 1980s).

Trump the Isolationist. For those in China who envision and advocate a rising China exercising much greater influence in Asia, and who see long-entrenched US strategic doctrine—including a robust US security role in the Western Pacific—as an impediment to China’s ambitions or “rightful” role, much in the skeletal oeuvre of Trump foreign policy ideas offers a tantalizing prospect.  Trump’s pledge to “put America first” is often read in China—as in the United States—as a call for retrenchment of US commitments abroad, a significant rejection of postwar American internationalism, and a possible harbinger of a new era of (relative) isolationism.  So, too, does Trump’s insistence on greater burden-sharing by the US’s security partners in East Asia (and elsewhere), his talk of making even treaty-based commitments to allies’ security contingent on their performance of somewhat uncertain obligations, his stated view that the US could perform its international security functions with forces based closer to home, and his apparent comfort with the possible consequences that Japan, South Korea and others might react to such US moves by engaging in potentially destabilizing measures of self-help (including acquiring nuclear weapons).

For Chinese who would welcome US retrenchment, and a reduction of US-underpinned constraints on Chinese power, as an opportunity for China’s expansion, Trump’s apparent positions look like a potentially game-changing opportunity—albeit one that comes with dangers for China in a region where China’s rising power and ambitions are already viewed with great suspicion.

The Donald the Destroyer. Among Chinese perceptions of Trump, there is a much darker variant on the “American comeuppance” and “Trump the isolationist” themes—one not often voiced by Chinese policy intellectuals or Chinese officials, but one that does make its way into their accounts of what others think and into media accounts of “China’s” views of the US 2016 election.  This is the vision of “Donald the Destroyer”—a man whose reckless policies at home and abroad will hasten the otherwise long-term process of the US’s relative decline, or trigger the US’s absolute—and possibly rapid—decline as a global power.  On this vision, radical policies or radically inconsistent policies from Trump could shatter the confidence of the US’s friends and allies in East Asia and elsewhere, diminish the US’s material capacity and normative stature, and undermine the domestic foundations of US international power—or at least go a considerable distance toward doing so.  For some of China’s more hardcore offensive realists (in the international relations theory sense of the term) and most ardent nationalists, who chafe at the US’s strategic preeminence (and, for some, the US’s soft power advantages), the chance that a Trump presidency will have the dire effects that Trump’s most strident critics in US foreign policy circles predict is a prospect to be welcomed, albeit with some trepidation.  It is a more thoroughgoing and extreme form of the Chinese views of Trump the America-firster isolationist.

Trump the Agent of Change. A final pair of “visions of Trump” have been especially prevalent and seemingly influential among Chinese foreign policy elites and relatively mainstream to liberal foreign policy intellectuals.  The first of these sees Trump as an agent of change in US-China relations (as in other things), and sees this as a good thing or at least potentially a good thing.  Like some of the US voters drawn to Trump’s message of disruption but not necessarily to his policy prescriptions, some relevant Chinese are sufficiently unhappy with the status quo that their motto could be “since it ain’t (gonna be) fixed, break it.”

On this view, US-China relations have deteriorated in recent years to a sorry state: security issues, verging on—or reaching—strategic rivalry have come to dominate the relationship, amid what Beijing regards as an “anti-China” pivot or rebalancing toward Asia, rising frictions over maritime disputes in the South China Sea and US Navy operations in the area, Chinese perceptions of heightened US backing for the Philippines, Vietnam, and Japan in their conflicts with China, and, most recently, US moves to deploy the THAAD missile defense system in South Korea; perennial discord over human rights and related issues, which have spiked anew amid an ongoing crackdown on China’s rights protection lawyers and civil society more broadly, new restrictions on the Internet, and an ominous new law targeting foreign NGOs in China; persisting concerns (despite progress and commitments made at an Obama-Xi summit) about cybersecurity and Chinese hacking of US commercial and government computer systems; and long-standing US complaints about unfair Chinese foreign trade and investment policies and practices that have recently evolved into broader and more politicized battles over new institutions, such as the Chinese-led Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, which the Obama administration sought unsuccessfully to persuade US allies not to join, and the US-led TPP and its China-led rival Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, which the Obama administration portrayed as a contest over whether the US or China would write the rules of the world economy for the twenty-first century.

In this environment, “change” can—and to some relevant Chinese does—seem more likely to be good than bad.  On optimistic readings, Trump the businessman or Trump the dealmaker may live up to hopeful expectations about how new US leadership might shift the focus and improve relations.  On more skeptical assessments, even unhelpful disruption (perhaps only after a period of continuing or worsening problems) may get the troubled relationship out of the rut—or ditch—in which it is now stuck.

Trump the Not-Hillary. Finally, and relatedly, much of Trump’s appeal in China’s foreign policy circles (and, on Chinese expert and media accounts, in wider circles of Chinses society as well) is—in yet another peculiar parallel to views of Trump supporters in the US—that he is “not Hillary.”  As in the US, high levels of anti-Hillary sentiment in relevant circles is an uneasy mix of substantive policy issues and years of accumulated demonization.  Whatever its origin, an abiding distaste for Hillary is what has done much of the work of making Trump seem more appealing, or at least less comparatively appalling, in China.

The Chinese anti-Hillary indictment includes many counts, splayed across many years.  In 1995, when then-first-lady Clinton declared at the United Nations Fourth World Congress on Women in Huairou (near Beijing) that “human rights are women’s rights, and women’s rights are human rights,” she aligned herself—in the eyes of Chinese critics—indelibly with an irritating and overreaching US practice of lecturing China on human rights and, thus, with an “ideological” approach (as one Chinese foreign policy expert put it) to China policy.  As Obama’s Secretary of State, she was, in the common Chinese understanding, the principal architect of the US “pivot” to Asia—seen by many in China a quasi-containment policy that did not become more palatable when relabeled as a policy of “rebalancing.”  Then-Secretary Clinton’s speech at the ASEAN Forum in Hanoi in 2010 is the locus classicus of current US policy on the South China Sea, which includes commitment to the principles of freedom of navigation, open access to Asia’s maritime commons, and respect for international law in the South China Sea, and which has underpinned, in a common Chinese assessment, a series of ongoing US actions detrimental to China’s vital interests: US Navy freedom of navigation operations near landforms claimed by China; US condemnation of Chinese island-building activities on disputed landforms; and US support for the arbitration claim over disputed maritime rights that the Philippines brought against China, resulting in a stunning, and Chinese outrage-provoking, loss for China in July 2016.  Although she later repudiated the agreement during her hard-fought primary contest with Bernie Sanders, Hillary faced blame for the TPP initiative which rankled in China, thanks in large part to the Obama administration’s “anti-China” framing of the ambitious trade accord.

In the common Chinese account, President Hillary Clinton could be even worse than Secretary of State Clinton and the Obama administration in which she had served.  In this view, Hillary was the hawk in Obama’s cabinet, on China policy as well as on other foreign policy issues affecting China’s interests.  As president, she could be expected to be tougher on China than Obama had been, and to pursue a more muscular foreign policy agenda in general which would bring more frequent or more serious challenges to China’s interests and aims.  On the eve of her nomination as the Democratic Party’s standard-bearer, even the possible bright spot of her rejection of TPP had been cast in renewed doubt, with long-time Clinton confidant and Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe suggesting that relatively limited amendments could prompt Clinton to revert to supporting the China-excluding mega trade pact.

A handful of Chinese observers have suggested—not implausibly—that sexism might be a modest factor in Chinese aversion to Clinton, and correlative tolerance for Trump.  Women have made only relatively modest cracks in the glass ceiling of China’s male-dominated elite politics.  And a common Chinese political trope holds that women at the apex of power bring bad results.  While the long history of Chinese politics contains male villains aplenty, seemingly outsized condemnation has targeted Empress Wu Zetian (for ruthlessness and usurpation of a role properly belonging to men), the Dowager Empress Ci Xi (for presiding fecklessly over the collapse of China’s last dynasty, and opening the door to China’s century and half of humiliation at the hands of foreign powers), and Mao’s wife and Gang of Four leader Jiang Qing (for her central role in the Cultural Revolution that caused so much disruption and destruction within the memory of many Chinese).

…But Not Riding on the Trump Train…

None of this means that China—or foreign policy-relevant constituencies in China—are pro-Trump.  China’s foreign policy-relevant elites do seem less unmitigatedly pro-incumbent party than usual, and they, and other informed observers, believe that other Chinese (including those above and below them—national leaders and ordinary citizens—who matter in Chinese foreign policymaking) also are deviating from the usual pro-continuity norm, but this does not tell us that the prospect of a Trump presidency is more appealing than the prospect of a Hillary Clinton presidency.  Apparent pro-Trumpism is epiphenomenal to a remarkably sharp and, in the end, quite possibly overstated anti-Hillaryism.  At least those Chinese foreign policy experts and officials who engage frequently with their US counterparts seem, in significant numbers, to understand the potential dangers of a Trump presidency for China’s interests and how a Trump administration could be much worse for China than a Clinton administration (even assuming the accuracy of relatively bleak Chinese views of Clinton’s likely policies).  Many of them believe—and other glimpses of leadership preferences suggest—that China’s leaders share some of their understanding of the potential perils of Trump in power.

The Chinese catalogue of acknowledged, serious risks of a Trump presidency includes: Japan and South Korea, unable to rely as before on the US security umbrella, will build up their own militaries or seek to acquire nuclear deterrents—developments that would be destabilizing for the region and problematic for China’s security interests; a US administration headed by a president largely aloof from the details of US-China relations and much of foreign policy, but thin-skinned and prone to lash out in response to perceived slights or challenges abroad, could mean a volatile international environment for China and US-China relations—something that Reform-Era Chinese leaders have generally abhorred; the “anti-China” side of Trump might prevail, imposing trade sanctions or undertaking other acts of disruption that would harm both sides and put China to tough policy choices about how to respond; and, most broadly and fundamentally, a sharp decline in the US role in the Western Pacific and in the world more generally could lead to a loss of US-provided international public goods (specifically, promoting stability, order, and openness from which China has benefitted), to a void of power, leadership, and responsibility that China is not yet ready to fill, and to widespread uncertainty and instability as lesser powers scramble to find their footing in a changed security environment.

If Trump wins, an urgent and vital question will be whether Chinese foreign policy experts and intellectual elites, with their sober appreciation of the risks a Trump victory will bring, will have the ear of those who matter most politically in steering China’s foreign policy through newly choppy waters.  Surely one of the lessons of the unexpected rise of Trump to become a serious contender for the American presidency is that US policy intellectuals and the US political establishment were dangerously out of touch with some of those who matter for setting the course of US foreign policy—Republican primary voters and, later, the general  electorate.  An analogous disconnect may exist in China.  Among US China experts, there is considerable worry that the Chinese with whom US experts in academia, think tanks, and government most densely and openly interact, and who do seem to appreciate the complex and difficult challenges a Trump presidency could bring, have seen their influence and opportunity for input wane under Xi Jinping—who has shifted authority from relatively expert and technocratic bodies in the state toward the party and leading “small groups” (often headed by Xi), and from the relatively liberal-minded and cosmopolitan cohort of thinkers and advisers who have been frequent and trusted interlocutors for American officials and experts toward less accessible holders of more conservative, US-confronting, and, in some key respects, likely less well-informed views of the United States and international affairs.

About the author:
*Jacques deLisle
is director of the Foreign Policy Research Institute’s Asia Program and the Stephen Cozen Professor of Law at the University of Pennsylvania.

Source:
This article was published by FPRI.

Claims Are ‘Untrue’ That US DoD Official Supported Attempted Turkey Coup – Pentagon

$
0
0

By Terri Moon Cronk

Turkey is a key United States ally and any suggestion of a Defense Department official supporting a recent military coup there is unfounded, Pentagon Press Secretary Peter Cook told reporters Friday.

Cook reiterated a statement issued today by Army Gen. Joseph L. Votel, commander of U.S. Central Command, who said in a release today, “Any reporting that I had anything to do with the recent unsuccessful coup attempt in Turkey is unfortunate and completely inaccurate.”

Again quoting Votel, Cook added, “‘Turkey has been an extraordinary and vital partner in the region for many years. We appreciate Turkey’s continuing cooperation and look forward to our future partnership in the counter-ISIL fight.’”

DoD Condemns Coup

The United States has repeatedly condemned the failed coup in Turkey and it continues to convey its absolute support for Turkey’s democratically elected civilian government and democratic institutions, Cook emphasized.

Turkey is a close NATO ally and a vital member of the counter-ISIL coalition, said Cook, noting the U.S. military has worked very closely with its Turkish allies for decades to counter a wide range of threats to common security.

“At all levels of our military hierarchy, we are in regular communication with our Turkish counterparts. As General Votel said at the Aspen Security Forum in Colorado yesterday, Turkey’s been an extraordinary and vital partner, and any reports that suggest [he] expressed support in any fashion for the actions of Turkish military officers who undertook illegal military action against the Turkish government are factually inaccurate,” Cook told reporters.

Defense Secretary Ash Carter and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Marine Corps Gen. Joe Dunford have made clear previously, Cook said, that “any suggestion anyone in the department supported the coup in any way would be absurd. We look forward to continuing our close cooperation with Turkey going forward.”


Brexit Blues In Central Europe – Analysis

$
0
0

Eurosceptic rhetoric among Hungary, Poland and other Central Europe EU newcomers belies strong attachments.

By Joji Sakurai*

Anti-immigration leaders may applaud the victory in Britain favoring exit from the European Union, but many in Central Europe will regret a weakening European Union. Despite dislike for some EU policies, leaders in Hungary, Poland and Czech Republic remain too dependent on the union to wish for its demise.

Hungary’s right-wing firebrand prime minister, Viktor Orban, wasted no time after Britain voted to leave the European Union to crow vindication for his anti-migrant stance and blame a “disorderly” EU for the Brexit result. Days later, his chief of staff said that were Hungary to hold its own plebiscite on EU membership he would vote to leave. Across Central Europe’s former communist EU newcomer states of Hungary, Poland, Czech Republic and Slovakia, where far-right sentiment is surging, leaders followed Orban’s lead to bash the EU. Slovakia’s conservative premier Robert Fico blasted EU migrant policy, calling for “fundamental changes,” and Poland’s Jaroslaw Kaczynski, head of the ruling Law and Justice Party, urged a new European treaty because “federalist concepts lead to unhappiness.”

To hear the rhetoric, one might assume that “Huxit” or “Czexit” – departures by Hungary or the Czech Republic – may be around the corner. Don’t be fooled. Central Europe’s Visegrad group countries –named after the 1991 alliance forged in the Hungarian town by the same name – are deeply attached to the EU, if not exactly Europhile then Euro-dependent. This is among the reasons why these nations are in mourning over Brexit. By weakening the EU, the British referendum poses a direct threat to the economic efflorescence that, thanks to the scorned EU itself, has allowed them to outperform the rest of the bloc. Poland’s economy grew 3.5 percent last year; Hungary’s 2.9 percent, although it shrank unexpectedly in the first quarter of this year; the Czech Republic expanded 4.3 percent; Slovakia, 3.6 percent. Overall, the EU grew 1.9 percent in 2015.

Orban and Kaczynski may sound like French far-right leader Marine Le Pen and Dutch ultranationalist Geert Wilders, but they do not want to demolish the EU. Circumstances, if not conviction, put them at least for now on opposite sides of history regarding the most pressing question their peoples face: the future of Europe. Le Pen and Wilders could not be more jubilant by Brexit – in it, they see hope for their dream of dismantling Europe’s union. For Orban and the other Visegrad leaders, Brexit is a calamity with deep negative implications for their economies, political aspirations, strategic and diplomatic priorities, and their demographics and labor markets. Before the Brexit referendum, Hungary took out a full-page advertisement in Britain’s Daily Mail, signed by Orban: “Hungary is proud to stand with you as a member of the European Union.”

The European project in general – and Britain’s role in particular – has been crucial to the Central European success story, a tale drowned out by headlines on Orban’s latest Muslim-bashing rants. The biggest economic benefit for EU newcomers, which joined in the 2004 wave of expansion, has been access to the European common market: Fellow EU countries buy about 80 percent of exports from Central Europe. Free movement of workers in the EU – especially to Britain – boosted their economies, easing unemployment pressures and providing remittances. Poles living in Britain send home €1 billion every year. True, Central Europe has suffered brain drain, but a more significant long-term factor is that when young workers leave for richer, more sophisticated economies many often return with top-class skills to help fuel growth and innovation – a brain re-gain.

EU structural and cohesion funds account for a big chunk of these countries’ GDP: Hungary is allocated €34 billion for the 2014-2020 funding period and Poland, the largest net recipient, €115 billion. The departure of Britain, which last year contributed about 8.5 percent of the EU budget, after application of its rebate, means smaller cash inflows. The economic benefits are reflected in post-Brexit polls that show strong majorities in the grouping’s countries preferring to remain in the EU, notably 64 percent in Hungary and 70 percent in Poland.

The attraction has gone both ways. Foreign investment is surging into the Visegrad group countries. And isolationist talk from Orban and Kaczynski belies the fact that all countries of the group have by and large created reasonably benign environments for EU investors, despite some hostile policies such as “crisis taxes” on foreign banks and utilities that grabbed most headlines. Backstage, Hungarian policymakers have nurtured business-friendly programs, building a liberal market culture, robust legal frameworks for investors and a streamlined web-based bureaucracy – as Orban struts before the cameras. The country also developed sophisticated financial and manufacturing sectors, a lure for foreign direct investment.

So when one talks about Hungary and other Visegrad countries being “euro-sceptic,” an understanding is required. In this case the term does not mean, in the mold of Nigel Farage, who led Britain’s Leave campaign, being against the EU. It means being opposed to perceived excessive interference on domestic policy from Brussels and a sense of being treated like a child at a table of grownups by founding member states.

And this is another reason why Brexit is bad for Central Europe’s young EU members: Britain was the Visegrad group’s main ally in pushing precisely this line on interference and using its clout to argue for an EU in which no member is side-lined by Brussels decision-making. The irony is that a stronger EU with Britain inside has been Hungary’s and Poland’s best hope for achieving a weaker EU of limited powers.

At a strategic level, Brexit is a deep blow to Poland, Czech Republic and Slovakia because London shared their Atlanticist vision as a guarantor of security in the face of an increasingly aggressive and volatile Russia. Germany, dependent on Russian energy supplies, has an interest in maintaining a more accommodating approach to Vladimir Putin, whereas Britain has backed Poland’s calls for continued sanctions against Russia and stationing NATO troops in Central European countries that border Russia. Meanwhile, Orban does not share Poland’s gut-felt antagonism to Russia, playing a Machiavellian game of courting both Putin and the West.

There’s a last trenchant irony to ponder in Central Europe’s response to Brexit. Orban’s declaration that Britain voted to leave because of the EU’s failed migration policies was sleight-of-hand. The migrants that Farage and his cohorts fume about are not really Syrians, but Hungarians and Poles. Brexit held sway not chiefly due to Farage’s grandiose defiance to a higher power in Brussels, but because millions in Britain’s northern industrial rust-belt felt that eastern and central Europeans were stealing jobs. And this is a final reason why Central Europe is experiencing Brexit blues, despite their anti-EU venting. One of Poland’s first reactions to the referendum was to declare it would work to protect the interests of the 800,000 Poles living in Britain – the country’s second-largest immigrant group. Both Orban and Kaczynski predictably said there should be no rush to open Britain’s exit negotiations – putting them at odds with many EU leaders who push for a quick, even punitive, divorce. Kaczynski even echoed calls in Britain’s Remain camp for a second referendum – and lashed out against a tide of anti-British venom flowing from the EU leadership elite, condemning a “hysterical response,” perhaps startling for a leader on the record as warning that migrants carry dangerous “parasites.”

Much of the uncharacteristic go-slow caution may be down simply to fear: Kaczynski and other Visegrad leaders are in no hurry to see Britain leave because that could mean millions of workers from their countries returning home – a recipe for stagnation.

*Joji Sakurai is a journalist and essayist based in Piran, Slovenia. His work has appeared in the Financial Times, New Statesman, npr.org, Oxford Today, the International New York Times and other publications.

Pakistan Air Force: Options And Challenges – OpEd

$
0
0

In today’s world, air supremacy plays a vital role in achieving Military Objectives. The Pakistan Military has always been mindful of its meager resources and preferred quality over quantity.

The Pakistan Air Force is considered one of the best in the world due to its qualitative selection and professional excellence. The maintenance of this equilibrium depends on the continuous upgrading of its fleet.

The Pakistan Air Force currently operates a fighter force comprising F-16s, Dassault Mirage IIIs and 5s, Chengdu F-7s, and JF-17s. F-16s, with their tactical nuclear delivery capabilities, play a particularly important role for Pakistan in bolstering its conventional abilities against India. The Indian lobby is trying to isolate Pakistan within Washington’s power corridors, which may jeopardize the sale of more F16 to Pakistan. If so, Pakistan should seek to purchase Sukhoi Su-35 fighter jets that are far more advanced than the F-16s. The Russian-made jets could be a great asset for Pakistan Air Force.

The general comparison between the Russia’s Su-35 Fighter and America’s F-16 Fighting Falcon shows that with properly trained pilots and support from ground controllers or AWACs, the Su-35 is an extremely formidable threat to Western Aircraft.

Over the years, the F-16 has evolved from a lightweight visual range dogfighter into a potent multi-role warplane that flies a gamut of missions ranging from the suppression of enemy air defences to air superiority. Though it has been operational since 1980, the “Falcon” continues to evolve and will remain in service with the US Air Force and other militaries for decades to come.

But while the F-16 remains a potent fighter, potential adversaries have caught up—the latest Russian aircraft like the Sukhoi Su-35 can match or exceed the Falcon in many respects. The F-16 doesn’t have the latest upgraded massive active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar nor can the F-16 usually lob the AIM-120 missile from high speeds and altitudes.

The US Air Force F-16s are not currently fitted with an AESA and are at a severe disadvantage versus the Su-35 or other advanced Flanker derivatives. With an AESA, the F-16 could probably hold its own against the Su-35 at longer ranges—but it would still be a challenge. At shorter ranges, it comes down to pilot skill and the performance of each jet’s high off-boresight missiles. The advent of missiles like the R-73 and AIM-9Xhave turned visual range fights into mutually assured destruction scenarios.

While the Su-35’s thrust vectoring gives it an edge at very low speeds, it’s not an insurmountable problem for an expert F-16 pilot—who knows how to exploit his or her aircraft to the fullest—to overcome. The bottom line is that the Su-35 is an extremely capable aircraft. With regard to the F-16s or Su-35s, the matter of Pakistan of adding additional fighters to its current fleet might come down to mundane matters of what is financially feasible.

Currently, the Indian Air force (IAF) is far larger with about 740 combat aircraft versus the Pakistan Air Force’s (PAF) approximate 400 aircraft, but everything is not as it seems.

What at first glance seems overwhelming odds against the PAF on closer examination does not seem as overwhelming. For instance, the IAF has far lower serviceability of its aircraft. Their pilot training as evidenced by Red Flag exercises with the US is also not yet up to par with the PAF and their maintenance crews are not as diligent. Their present Russian/Soviet technology is generally less reliable and less effective and a large part of their fleet of MiG-21s and MiG-27s are outdated.

PAF aircraft are either of Western stock or Chinese and are far more maintenance friendly. Pakistan has also been upgrading their aircraft massively and have incorporated a complex combination of technology from across the globe – from China to Brazil, from South Africa to the US. PAF pilot training is on par with the best in the world and its maintenance crews are trained on the level of Western maintenance crews.

The large number of IAF crashes because of low level of maintenance crew is indicative of this acute problem with one of the highest crash rates among Air Forces of the world. What compounds this problem is the age of large sections of the Indian fleet, which has large numbers of MiG-21s and MiG-27s that are, besides the Bisons, highly outdated and are sometimes referred to as “Flying Coffins” by their pilots.

Pakistan, on the other hand has a better pilot-to-aircaft ratio than the IAF — meaning it could sustain a greater sortie rate over a protracted conflict. PAF aircraft are also “pimped” in that they have been extensively modified. Thus, while on paper PAF is flying ancient Mirages that were bought second-hand from the Australians, when one actually examines any such model, one is surprised at how extensively they have been rebuilt – almost from scratch and the hardware is extremely lethal.

Other than the secretive BVR AAMs, the PAF has extensively incorporated the strike element into its Mirages, at a level only matched by the IAF’s Mirage-2000s and Su-30 FLANKERs, and even then some of the equipment has no IAF equivalent.

Pakistan should continue its policy of quality over quantity as it is the only way to keep an equilibrium in its hostile environment and to secure the nation’s existence. Additionally, Pakistan should keep all options open as sovereignty and independence comes first, rather than becoming affiliated to a particular group or alliance.

*Saima Ali works for Strategic Vision Institute and can be reached at saima@thesvi.org

Pentagon Says Assessing If Airstrike In Syria Accidentally Claimed Civilian Lives

$
0
0

By Terri Moon Cronk

U.S. Central Command has begun an assessment to determine if a U.S. airstrike yesterday near Manbij, Syria, resulted in unintentional civilian deaths, Pentagon Press Secretary Peter Cook told reporters Friday.

“That assessment is still in its early phase and we do not have all the facts at this time and we do not have any conclusions,” the press secretary said.

The assessment was prompted by Centcom’s internal reporting, he said, adding that the assessment “only highlights the seriousness with which our forces take the issue of civilian casualties and the obligation to protect innocent lives on the battlefield.”

The United States and its coalition partners have taken exceptional measures to minimize the risk to civilians in the conflict with the Islamic State of Iraq and The Levant, he said.

Serious Issues

“It’s important to contrast the seriousness with which we treat these issues, the care we take to protect innocent lives and our accountability and transparency with the enemy that we are fighting,” Cook said.

“ISIL has launched a series of attacks in Iraq and Syria in which civilian deaths were not an unintended consequence; civilian deaths were the intent,” he said.

ISIL, Cook said, “has proudly claimed responsibility for attacks just this month that have killed hundreds of innocent civilians, including the July 4th attack in Baghdad that killed more than 140 people, and a bombing just this week in Al-Qamishli, Syria, that killed more than 40.”

ISIL has also claimed responsibility for horrific terror attacks Iraq and Syria, he added.

“We will continue to work hard every day to execute our mission, while doing our best to minimize the risk to innocent civilians, and to be transparent and accountable about those efforts,” Cook said. “We do not expect ISIL to do the same.”

There have been a total of 202 allegations of civilian casualties during Operation Inherent Resolve, according to a DoD spokesman.

Of those 202 allegations, 143 were deemed to be not credible. Of those deemed credible, 23 allegations remain open and 36 have been closed. The 36 closed allegations resulted in the announcement of a total of 55 civilian deaths and 29 civilian injuries, the spokesman said.

Croatia-Serbia Tensions Escalate Into Diplomatic War – Analysis

$
0
0

By Sven Milekic and Milivoje Pantovic*

Relations between Croatia and Serbia have plunged in recent days amid exchanges of inflammatory protest notes and harsh statements from politicians on both sides.

The latest crisis has been prompted by day-to-day internal political issues in both countries – and by the fact that both countries are led by conservative, if not nationalist, politicians, experts said.

Tension is also expected to escalate even more in coming weeks as Croatia gears up for the annual anniversary celebration of its victorious 1995 military operation, Oluja, (Storm), on August 5, marking the day when the Croatian military quashed a Serb revolt in south-west Krajina region.

This operation, celebrated in Croatia as much as it is mourned in Serbia, has been a cause of major ethnic tensions and disputes between the two countries for years.

“We have a process of returning to nationalism on both sides. Both sides are ‘grooming’ their anti anti-fascist traditions,” Zoran Gavrilovic, director of the Bureau for Social Research in Belgrade, told BIRN on Friday.

Relations between Croatia and Serbia have plunged in recent days amid exchanges of inflammatory protest notes and harsh statements from politicians on both sides.

The latest crisis has been prompted by day-to-day internal political issues in both countries – and by the fact that both countries are led by conservative, if not nationalist, politicians, experts said.

Tension is also expected to escalate even more in coming weeks as Croatia gears up for the annual anniversary celebration of its victorious 1995 military operation, Oluja, (Storm), on August 5, marking the day when the Croatian military quashed a Serb revolt in south-west Krajina region.

The latest diplomatic salvoes were preceded by months of pressure from EU-member Croatia on EU would-be member Serbia, designed to force Belgrade to change or abolish its law that gives Serbian courts jurisdiction to prosecute crimes committed anywhere in the region during the Yugoslav wars of the 1990s. For years, this law has been another point of dispute in the region.

Tensions escalate quickly after truce:

Croatian President Kolinda Grabar Kitarovic and Serbian Prime Minister Aleksandar Vucic initially tried to improve matters by signing an agreement on improving bilateral ties between the two countries at the end of June.

The agreement was designed to enhance protection of each other’s minorities, define the state borders between the two countries and help solve ongoing problems that burden their tricky relationship.

But relations suffered a new blow on July 18 after the EU officially opened negotiations with Serbia on Chapters 23 and 24 of its accession talks, after which Croatian officials demanded again that the controversial war-crimes law be struck down.

“Serbia has an obligation to change the law on war crimes… this stems from the criteria of the EU and, if Serbia wants to join the EU, it will have to be abolished,” the Foreign Minister in Croatia’s current “technical” government, Miro Kovac, said on July 21.

Kovac claimed the Serbian authorities were well aware that they had to change the law but were “acting in front of their public and saying they don’t want to do it”.

Kovac warned that if Serbia issued new indictments about alleged war crimes committed by veterans of the Croatian independence war, “harsh measures from Croatia will subsequently follow”.

Already tense relations were worsened on July 27, after a group of Croatian right-wing nationalists disrupted a rally marking the anniversary of an anti-Fascist [mainly ethnic Serbian] uprising in 1941 in the village of Srb against the Independent State of Croatia, NDH [the Nazi puppet state which governed Croatia and much of Bosnia during World War II]. This was strongly criticized by Serbia.

The situation also worsened after Croatian courts on July 26 annulled the verdict issued by the Yugoslav communist courts in 1946, convicting Croatian Catholic leader Archbishop Alojzije Stepinac of Zagreb of collaboration. [Stepinac had praised the establishment of the NDH in 1941.]

On July 28, the Croatian courts also ordered a retrial for Branimir Glavas, a former Croatian army general found guilty in 2009 of torturing and murdering Serb civilians in the city of Osijek in 1991. He had been sentenced to ten years in prison.

Exchange of bitter diplomatic notes:

The two countries exchanged several diplomatic protest notes on July 26, 28 and 29.

After receiving a protest note from Serbia regarding the case of Archbishop Stepinac, Croatia’s Foreign Minister on Wednesday accused Serbia of trying to destabilize it.

“It’s a petty attempt to destabilize Croatia in a sensitive period after the dissolution of the parliament and before the celebration of ‘Storm’. This is a recipe from the 1990s, reminiscent of [Serbian wartime President Slobodan] Milosevic and the Greater Serbian aggression,” Kovac said.

Kovac told Serbia to stop interfering in Croatia’s internal affairs, calling the protest note about Stepinac “a made-up story” and adding that the controversial Archbishop was “a clear victim of the Communist regime”.

However, Serbia declined to back off. Reacting angrily to the abolition of the Glavas verdict, Serbian Prime Minister Aleksandar Vucic on July 28 said the position of Serbs in Croatia, as well as that of all Serbs west of the river Drina [i.e. in Bosnia as well as Croatia], was getting worse by the day.

“Our job is to make decisions responsibly and rationally, not to show that type of hatred that we feel elsewhere. We need to act responsibly, seriously and calmly,” Vucic said, adding that he could not understand the reason for the verdicts on Glavas and Stepinac.

Meanwhile the Serbian ambassador in Croatia, Mira Nikolic, refused to accept one of the Croatian diplomatic notes on Thursday, complaining of its “inappropriate” content.

Serbian Foreign Minister Ivica Dacic said the ambassador had refused to accept the note because it insulted the whole Serbia.

“We will continue with our policy of good neighborly relations but we will protect our interests,” Dacic told an impromptu press conference on Thursday.

“We believe that this is a clear continuation of Croatian policy which goes towards the rehabilitation of not only the NDH, but also criminals from the last war [in the 1990s].

“On this occasion, as well as at the incidents in Srb and many other incidents that have escalated in Croatia in recent times, we have delivered a protest note to Croatia,” Dacic recalled.

In its newest protest note on Friday, the Croatian Foreign Minister called on Serbian officials “not to use the vocabulary of the failed Yugoslav communist system and aggressive Greater Serbian policy from the 1990s that was military and morally defeated.”

Croatian political analyst Zarko Puhovski told BIRN on Friday that the exchange of angry messages from both sides reflected the fact that neither side “understands reality.

“The reality is that [as an EU member] Croatia is institutionally superior as it never was before,” he said.

“Croatia doesn’t understand that and doesn’t know how to behave and not to react to provocations, while Serbia simply can’t stand that Croatia is superior and simply provokes it.”

Puhovski concluded that the quarrel had nothing to do with the campaign for the September parliamentary elections in Croatia, explaining it more as “a long present phenomenon that will continue to exist” long after the elections are over.

Gavrilovic in Belgrade saw things differently. “Both states have failed to cleanse their societies of fascism. There is fascist-ization of society both in Serbia and Croatia,” he said.

“However, I do not think that it is as brutal in Serbia as it is in Croatia,” he concluded.

Google Maps Reverts To Soviet-Era Place Names In Crimea

$
0
0

(RFE/RL) — U.S. tech giant Google has reinstated existing Soviet-era place names on online maps of Russia-annexed Crimea after it angered Moscow by changing them to correspond with names that Ukraine hopes to adopt in future under its “decommunization” law.

Google Maps had briefly changed about 900 Crimean place names, using names Ukraine plans to give to towns and streets under legislation passed in Kyiv last year banning Soviet symbols — part of a campaign that Russia has called “Russophobic.”

However, under a resolution adopted by Ukraine’s parliament in May, the new names do not take effect until Kyiv restores control over Crimea, which Russia took over in March 2014 after sending in troops and staging a referendum widely dismissed as illegitimate.

Google’s press service in Moscow said in an e-mailed response that it has restored the existing names, and included links to Russian-language Google maps showing towns such as Sovyetsky (Soviet) and Krasnogvardeiskoye (Red Guard). It did not immediately explain its reasons.

The names appeared to have also been restored on the Ukrainian-language version of Google Maps. Under decommunization, Sovyetsky is to be renamed Ichkiy and Krasnogvardeiskoye is to be called Kurman.

Google’s changes had been swiftly condemned by Russia, whose communications minister suggested that it was illegal. The head of the Russian-imposed government in Crimea, Sergei Aksyonov, accused Google of producing a “propaganda product rather than real maps.”

Ties between Moscow and Kyiv have been severely damaged by Russia’s seizure of Crimea and its separatists in a war in eastern Ukraine.

Many of the names that Ukraine hopes to give places in Crimea come from the language of the Crimean Tatars, an ethnic minority whose members were deported en masse by Soviet dictator Josef Stalin during World War II and activists say, have faced new repression from Russia since the annexation.

Euro Area Unemployment At 10.1%, EU28 At 8.6%

$
0
0

The euro area (EA19) seasonally-adjusted unemployment rate was 10.1% in June 2016, stable compared to May 2016 and down from 11.0% in June 2015. This remains the lowest rate recorded in the euro area since July 2011.

The EU28 unemployment rate was 8.6% in June 2016, stable compared to May 2016 and down from 9.5% in June 2015, the lowest rate recorded in the EU28 since March 2009. These figures were published by Eurostat, the statistical office of the European Union.

Eurostat estimates that 20,986 million men and women in the EU28, of whom 16,269 million were in the euro area, were unemployed in June 2016. Compared with May 2016, the number of persons unemployed decreased by 91,000 in the EU28 and by 37,000 in the euro area. Compared with June 2015, unemployment fell by 2.114 million in the EU28 and by 1.363 million in the euro area.

Member States

Among the Member States, the lowest unemployment rates in June 2016 were recorded in Malta (4.0%), the Czech Republic (4.1%) and Germany (4.2%). The highest unemployment rates were observed in Greece (23.3% in April 2016) and Spain (19.9%).

Compared with a year ago, the unemployment rate in June 2016 fell in twenty-five Member States, remained stable in Belgium and Estonia, while it increased in Austria (from 5.7% to 6.2%). The largest decreases were registered in Cyprus (from 15.1% to 11.7%), Croatia (from 16.2% to 13.2%), Bulgaria (from 9.7% to 7.2%) and Spain (from 22.3% to 19.9%).

In June 2016, the unemployment rate in the United States was 4.9%, up from 4.7% in May 2016 and down from 5.3% in June 2015.

Creating Frankenstein: The Impact Of Saudi Export Of Ultra-Conservatism In South Asia – Analysis

$
0
0

Continued doubts about the longevity of the Saudi ruling family are fuelled by its Faustian bargain with Wahhabism — a conservative, intolerant, discriminatory and anti-pluralistic interpretation of Islam.1

It is a bargain that has produced one of the largest dedicated public diplomacy campaigns in history. Estimates of Saudi Arabia’s spending on support of ultra-conservative strands of Islam, including Wahhabism, Salafism and Deobandism, across the globe range from $70 to $100 billion. Saudi largesse funded mosques, Islamic schools and cultural institutions, and social services, as well as the forging of close ties to non-Wahhabi Muslim leaders and intelligence agencies in various Muslim nations. In doing so, Saudi Arabia succeeded in turning its largely local Wahhabi and like-minded ultra-conservative Muslim worldviews into an influential force in Muslim nations and communities across the globe.2

The campaign is not simply a product of the marriage between the Al Sauds and the Wahhabis. It is central to Saudi Arabia’s soft power policy and the Al Sauds’ survival strategy. One reason, albeit not the only one, that the longevity of the Al Sauds is a matter of debate, is the fact that the propagation of Wahhabism is having a backlash in countries across the globe, as well as on Saudi Arabia itself. More than ever before, Wahhabism, and its theological parent, Salafism, are being put under the spotlight due to their theological or ideological similarities with jihadism in general, and the ideology of the Islamic State (IS) group in particular.

Speaking at a conference in Singapore, sociologist Farid Alatas noted that madrassas — often funded by Saudi Arabia or other Salafi and Wahhabi groups — fails to produce graduates trained to think critically. “They have not been exposed to [Muslim] intellectuals like Ibn Khaldoun,” Alatas said “That is the opportunity for Salafis and Wahhabis” in the absence of Muslim scholars who would be capable of debunking their myths he added. Alatas was referring to Abd al-Raḥman ibn Muḥammad ibn Muḥammad ibn Abi Bakr Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan Ibn Khaldun, the 14th century historian, who is widely seen as one of the fathers of modern sociology, historiography, demography and economics.

Taking Wahhabism’s influence in Malaysia as an example, Alatas pointed to the uncontested distribution of a sermon by the religious department of the Malaysian state of Selangor, that asserted that women who fail to wear a hijab invite rape and resemble a fish that attracts flies.3

Such attitudes fostered by Saudi funding, as well as Saudi Arabia’s willingness to look the other way when its youth leave the kingdom to join militant groups, undermine Saudi Arabia’s international image and its efforts to create soft power. “It is often alleged that the Saudis export terrorism. They don’t, but what they have done is encourage their own radicals – a natural by-product of Wahhabism, Saudi Arabia’s conservative brand of Islam – to commit their terrorist acts elsewhere. As the radicals leave, so does Saudi money, which funds their violent activities,” said former U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for East Asia, Christopher R. Hill.4

The estimated 2,500 Saudis who have joined IS constitute the group’s second largest national contingent.5

The problem for the Al Sauds is not just that their image is under attack and that their legitimacy is wholly dependent on their identification with Wahhabism; it is also that the Al Sauds since the launch of their Islamist campaign, have often been only nominally in control of it. As a result, the Al Sauds have let a genie out of the bottle that now leads an independent life and cannot be put back into the bottle. Wahhabi and Salafi-influenced education systems played into the hands of Arab autocrats, who for decades dreaded an education system that would teach critical thinking and the asking of difficult questions.

Saudi funding of conservative Islamic learning neatly aligned itself in Pakistan, which has an education system shaped by the partition of British India into predominantly Hindu India and Muslim Pakistan. This emphasis on religious nationalism, where minorities are perceived as being inferior, involved a parochial definition of what it meant to be Muslim in Pakistan.6 The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) reported that Pakistani public school textbooks — circulated to at least 41 million children — contained derogatory references to religious minorities. The perception of minorities as threats was reinforced with the enhanced Islamisation of textbooks in the decade from 1978 to 1988, in which General Zia ul Haq-ruled Pakistan.7

“In public school classrooms, Hindu children are forced to read lessons about ‘Hindus’ conspiracies toward Muslims’, and Christian children are taught that ‘Christians learned tolerance and kind- heartedness from Muslims.’ This represents a public shaming of religious minority children that begins at a very young age, focusing on their religious and cultural identity and their communities’ past history. A review of the curriculum demonstrates that public school students are being taught that religious minorities, especially Christians and Hindus, are nefarious, violent, and tyrannical by nature. There is a tragic irony in these accusations, because Christians and Hindus in Pakistan face daily persecution, are common victims of crime, and are frequent targets of deadly communal violence, vigilantism, and collective punishment,” USCIRF report concluded.8

“By imposing the harsh, literal interpretation of religion exported and promoted by Saudi Arabia, we have turned Pakistan into a drab, monochromatic landscape where colour, laughter, dancing and music are frowned upon, if not entirely banned. And yet Islam in South Asia was once characterised by a life-enhancing Sufi tradition that is now under threat. More and more, we are following the example set by the Taliban,” added Pakistani writer Irfan Husain.9 A Pew Research survey moreover concluded in late 2015 that 78 percent of Pakistanis favoured strict implementation if Islamic law.10

Syed Imran Ali Shah, whose father was murdered when he was a child, was 16 when in 1999 he was admitted to Mercy Pak School in Peshawar, an educational institution funded by Saudi-backed Mercy International Pakistan. Zahid al-Sheikh, the brother of 9/11 mastermind Khalid al-Sheikh, was one of the charity’s executives in the second half of the 1980s and the 1990s, a time when Saudi Arabia joined the United States in financing the Pakistan-based resistance against the Soviets in Afghanistan.11 Syed Imran says his radicalization was spurred by one of his teachers all of whom were in his words Wahhabis. The teacher argued the importance of jihad in his sermons.12 Jihad never figured in the school’s curriculum but students learned to believe that the beliefs and practices of other sects were heresy. ”We teach students the aqeedah (creed) of every sect and tell them as to how and where that aqeedah is wrong so that we can guide them to the right aqeedah,” said Umer bin Abdul Aziz of the Jaimatul Asar madrassa in Peshawar.13 Based on textual analysis of madrassa texts, scholar Niaz Muhammad warned that “no one should claim that their statements about the madrassa curriculum have nothing to do with sectarianism or other forms of religious militancy.”14

In a seminar moderated by Jordanian scholar Nadia Oweidat at the New America Foundation in Washington, D.C., on 3 May 2016, Ahmed Abdellahy, a reformed, former Egyptian jihadist, described being educated in a school system that divided the world into ‘us and them’. ‘Us’ were the Muslims who had been victimised by ‘them’. Abdellahy said he was taught that: ‘they’, the Christians, Westerners and “all the world is against us [Muslims] because we are better than them.” Abdellahy said. He said this was an attitude engraved in generations of children who were expected to accept it at face value. “When I was going to school, the role of the school was to stop you from questioning,” Oweidat added.15 The inability of Abdellahy’s school teachers to answer students’ probing questions and a lack of available literature drove him to the Internet, where militant Islamists provided answers.16

The current backlash of Saudi support for autocracy and funding of the export of Wahhabism and Salafism, coupled with the need to radically reform the kingdom’s economy, means that the Al Sauds and the Wahhabis are nearing a crunch point, one that will not necessarily offer solutions, but in fact could make things worse. It risks sparking ever more militant splits, that will make themselves felt across the Muslim world and in minority Muslim communities elsewhere, in multiple ways.

One already visible fallout of the Saudi campaign is greater intolerance towards minorities and increased sectarianism in countries like Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia and Malaysia. In Pakistan, for example, a U.S. Foreign Service officer, noted that in Saudi-funded “madrassas, children are denied contact with the outside world and taught sectarian extremism, hatred for non-Muslims, and anti-Western/anti-Pakistan government philosophy.”17

The recent shooting in the southern Philippines of Sheikh Aaidh al-Qarni, a prominent Saudi Wahhabi cleric whose popularity is evident in his following of 12 million on Twitter, further suggests that the backlash for the kingdom is not just the Saudi government emerging as a target but also the ulema18 — including ulema who are not totally subservient to the Saudi government. Sheikh Aaidh al-Qarni is a product of the fusion between Wahhabism and the Muslim Brotherhood that produced the Sahwa, a Saudi Salafist political reform movement.

While Philippine investigators are operating on the assumption that the Islamic State (IS) group was responsible for the shooting, Saudi media were quick to report that Saudi authorities had warned the Philippines days earlier that Iran’s Revolutionary Guards were planning an attack.19

A key to understanding the Saudi funding campaign is the fact that while it all may be financed out of one pot of money, it serves different purposes for different parties. For the Wahhabi ulema, it is about proselytization, about the spreading of Islam; for the Saudi government, it is about gaining soft power. At times the interests of the government and the ulema coincide, and at times they diverge. By the same token, the Saudi campaign on some levels has been an unparalleled success, on others, success is questionable and one could argue that it risks becoming a liability for the government.

Problematic Soft Power

It may be hard to conceive of Wahhabism as soft power, but the fact of the matter is that Salafism was a movement that had only sprouted miniscule communities in the centuries preceding the rise of Mohammed ibn Abdul Wahhab, and only started to make real inroads into Muslim communities beyond the Arabian Peninsula 175 years after the death of the 18th century preacher. By the 1980s, the Saudi campaign had established Wahhabi Salafism as an integral part of the global community of Muslims, and sparked greater conservative religiosity in various Arab countries as well as the emergence of Islamist movements and organisations.20 The soft power aspect of it, certainly in relation to the power struggle between Saudi Arabia and Iran, has paid off, particularly in countries like Malaysia, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Pakistan and the Maldives, where sectarian attitudes and attitudes towards minorities, particularly Shiites, and Iran are hardening.

In Indonesia, for example, where recently retired deputy head of Indonesian intelligence and former deputy head of Nahdlatul Ulema (NU), one of the world’s largest Islamic movements that prides itself on its anti-Wahhabism, professes in the same breath his dislike of the Wahhabis and warns that Shiites are one of the foremost domestic threats to Indonesian national security. Shiites constitute 1.2 percent of the Indonesian population, including the estimated 2 million Sunni converts over the last 40 years. A fluent Arabic speaker who spent years in Saudi Arabia as the representative of Indonesian intelligence, this intelligence and religious official is not instinctively anti-Shiite, but sees Shiites as an Iranian fifth wheel. In other words, the impact of Saudi funding and Salafism is such that even NU is forced to adopt Wahhabi language and concepts when it comes to perceptions of the threat posed by Iran and Shiites.21

Wahhabi influence has meant that “the nature of South Asian Islam has significantly changed in the last three decades,” said international relations scholar and columnist Akhilesh Pillalamarri.22 Pillalamarri argued that “the result has been an increase in Islamist violence in Pakistan, Indian Kashmir, and Bangladesh. While governments in South Asia have not initially made the connection between Saudi Arabian money and the radicalization of Islam in their own countries, it is now clear that Wahhabism’s spread is increasing conservatism in South Asia…. As a result, many South Asians are now Wahhabis or members of related sects that practice a form of austere Islam similar to the type found in Saudi Arabia. One of these sects is a conservative movement known as the Deobandi movement, long one of the largest recipients of Saudi funding,23 which, while indigenous to South Asia, is influenced by Wahhabism,” Pillalamarri said.24 He was referring to the Deobandi school of Islam, the most influential sponsor of Islamic education in Pakistan and Afghanistan’s Pashtun belt founded in the 19th century.25

Many of the madrassas were initially Pakistani state sponsored, particularly during Zia’s rule. The funding was part of Zia’s Saudi-backed aim to Islamise the country as a whole. “The global Islamic reassertion spearheaded by Saudi Arabia and Arab petro-dollars was making itself felt in Pakistan. There were unmistakable signs of the Saudi impact on Zia’s locally honed ideological agenda,” says South Asia scholar Ayesha Jalal.26 Zia would handout as gifts and awards the writings of Sayyid Abul- A’la Maududi, a Saudi-backed scholar whose Jamaati-i-Islami party advocated the creation of an Islamic state. Maududi, who was arrested in 1977, was released from prison by Zia’s predecessor, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, at Saudi Arabia’s request. Maududi used his regained freedom to back the coup that would topple Bhutto and bring Zia to power. Maududi was reported to have met with Zia for 90 minutes before Bhutto was executed.27

Zia’s funding of the madrassas dried up when he suddenly died in 1988 in a mysterious plane crash. “We then had to turn to charitable donors at home and abroad for funds to meet our expenditure. How else do you expect us to finance our expenditure?” says Pir Saifullah Khalid, the founder of the Jamia Manzoorul Islamia seminary, a sprawling semi-circular complex of multi-storey classrooms and hostel blocks with a courtyard in the middle, in Lahore Cantonment’s Saddar area.28

The mushrooming of militant Deobandi, Wahhabi and Salafi mosques, often Saudi-funded, has led Pakistani authorities to link scores of madrassas to political violence.29 Hundreds have been closed in the past years. The Crime Monitoring Cell of the police inspector general in Sindh has reported that in 2015, 167 madrassas were closed, of the province’s 6,503 with a collective student population of 290,000. It was also reported that there were another 3,087 unregistered madrassas that cater to approximately 234,000 students.30

Deobandis, like Wahhabis and Salafis, advocate theological conservatism and oppose liberal ideals and values, and like its theological cousins, run the gamut from those who are apolitical and focus exclusively on religion, to militant Islamists who empathise with jihadists and see seizure of power as the way to implement the Sharia and change social behaviour. These various ultra-conservative sects, irrespective of their attitude towards politics and violence, benefit from the fact that with the government’s failing to invest in quality public education, madrassas have turned into institutions of rote learning for the poor. These madrassas evade conveying understanding of the Quran, and are a far cry from the institutions of religious and scientific learning in the first centuries of Islam that produced intellectuals, scholars and scientists.

The luminaries of modern-day, ultra-conservative madrassas, include the likes of Sami ul Haq, the scion of a Deobandi cleric, and former senator who founded the Darul Uloom Haqqania madrassah in the town of Akora Khattak in Pakistan. Ul Haq is widely seen as the father of the Taliban. Ul Haq argued in a book published in 2015 that the Afghan Taliban provided good government, Osama bin Laden was an “ideal man” and that Al Qaeda never existed.31 Ul Haq had vowed not to stop his students from interrupting their studies to join the Taliban and awarded Mullah Omar, the late Taliban leader, an honorary degree. The 2007 plot that led to the killing of prominent Pakistani politician and former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto was believed to have been hatched in meetings in Akora Khattak.32 A senior Pakistani interior ministry official said that, all in all, “most of the terrorist attacks during the last three years could be traced back to madrassas.”33 The militancy among Pakistani Deobandis persuaded more than 100,000 of the movement’s scholars to issue a fatwa (religious ruling) denouncing violence and terrorism as un-Islamic in 2008.34

Columnist Pillalamarri dates the expansion of Saudi and Wahhabi influence in Pakistan to the US-Saudi sponsored jihadist resistance against Soviet occupation in the 1980s that created the basis for the funding of thousands of madrassas, that at the time often offered education, shelter and food to the most impoverished who otherwise may not have had an opportunity to go to school. “Initially, the mushrooming of Wahhabi and Deobandi groups worked to produce mujahedeen [freedom fighters] to fight in the war against the Soviets in Afghanistan. Later, elements of the Pakistani government, notably the Pakistani intelligence agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), saw the spread of Wahhabism as useful in creating jihadist proxies to influence Afghanistan and Indian Kashmir. As a result, despite the end of the Soviet-Afghan war in 1989, the influence of Wahhabism continued to grow in Pakistan,” Pillalamarri said.

Proselytization of Wahhabism was facilitated by an agreement in the 1970s between the Pakistani and Saudi governments to promote the Arabic language and Islamic literature in Pakistan.35 The influx of sectarian, anti-Shiite Wahhabi materials grew exponentially with the jihad against the Soviets in Afghanistan. The International Crisis Group (ICG) concluded that “Saudi patronage has played a particularly important role in promoting jihadi madrasas and jihadi culture in Pakistan.”36

Saudi-sponsored non-governmental organisations like the Muslim World League, which fell under the auspices of the kingdom’s grand mufti but was populated by Muslim Brotherhood operatives and aimed to spread Wahhabism beyond the kingdom’s borders, opened offices across the globe, including South Asia. Wahhabi texts, including translations of the Quran, and the writings of Maududi and Sayed Qutb, were distributed in Muslim communities in the Middle East, Africa, Asia, the United States and Europe. Wahhabi imams (religious leaders) were dispatched to build madrassas with Saudi curricula offering free education to the poor. Wahhabi beliefs were at the same time exported when migrant workers returned home from the kingdom grateful for the opportunity to earn money to support their families.

Once back from the kingdom, many of the workers prayed in Saudi-funded mosques and adopted Wahhabi and/or Salafi practices. “People go to the Middle East and come back thinking a certain way. There’s Wahhabi money flowing in,” states International Relations scholar Amena Mohsin, whose maid in Bangladesh returned from a visit to her village fully covered. “It gives her an increased status. In that area, near Chittagong, by and large everyone supports the Hefazat-e-Islam, a conservative group opposed to Bangladesh’s secular education and women’s rights policy,” she adds.37 Hefazat was founded in 2010 by attendees of Wahhabi mosques in Bangladesh.38

Evident Risks

The risk embedded in the ultra-conservatism of Wahhabism and Salafism is further evident in Bangladesh, a secular Muslim state, with militant Islamists waging a brutal and murderous campaign against liberal and secular intellectuals, bloggers, and publishers, and carries out attacks on Christians, Hindus and Shiites. The attacks were largely the work of Islamic State and Al Qaeda operatives, but were built on the nurturing of a radical, intolerant environment by Saudi-funded institutions and Bangladeshi workers who had returned from the kingdom with a far more conservative and black-and-white worldview.

Saudi influence was also discernible in Bangladesh’s gradual move away from secularism, which was a pillar of the country’s first constitution after it broke away from Pakistan and became independent in 1971. The kingdom only recognised Bangladesh after the assassination of the country’s founder Sheikh Mujibur Rahman in 1975. President Ziaur Rahman two years later removed secularism from the constitution, paving the way for the establishment of formal diplomatic relations with Saudi Arabia. Military leader General Hussain Muhammad Ershad completed the process in 1988 by making Islam the state religion.39 The kingdom reportedly funded Jamaat-e-Islami, a leading Islamist party, whose leaders were charged with war crimes during the country’s war of independence. Several Jamaat leaders were sentenced to death. Saudi Arabia lobbied unsuccessfully in 2013 to stay the execution of Jamaat leader Abdul Quader Molla, but refrained from doing so in 2015 in the case of Muhammad Kamaruzzaman and the party’s general secretary, Ali Ahsan Mohammad Mujahid. Analysts said the kingdom was willing to sacrifice its Bangladeshi political allies in a bid to ensure the country’s support in its regional power struggle with Iran.40

The cooperation with ISI and other Pakistani government agencies and officials turned Saudi Arabia from a funder into a player in domestic Pakistani affairs. Adel al Jubeir who at the time was an official of the Saudi embassy in Washington, told U.S. diplomats at a lunch in Riyadh during a 2007 visit to the kingdom by Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf: “We in Saudi Arabia are not observers in Pakistan, we are participants.”41 US Charge D ’Affaires in Riyadh, Michael G. Foeller, reporting in a cable to the State Department on the Musharraf visit, noted that “the Saudis have an economic hold on Nawaz Sharif…. Sharif was reportedly the first non-Saudi to receive a special economic development loan from the SAG [Saudi Arabian Government], with which to develop a business”.42 He was at the time in the kingdom in exile. Sharif has since become Pakistan’s Prime Minister.

The degree to which Saudi paranoia about Shiites dictated the kingdom’s efforts to influence Pakistani politics through check book diplomacy was evident in State Department reporting on Saudi-Pakistani relations in the waning years of the first decade of the 21st century. One cable, detailing discussions in 2009 between U.S. Acting Assistant Secretary of State Jeffrey Feltman and United Arab Emirates Foreign Minister Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed, quoted the UAE official as saying, “Saudi Arabia suspects that [then Pakistani President Asif Ali] Zardari is Shia, thus creating Saudi concern of a Shia triangle in the region between Iran, the Maliki government in Iraq, and Pakistan under Zardari.” Feltman noted that, in response, there was a pattern of Saudi Arabia withholding pledges in international frameworks for financial support of Pakistan.43

A State Department cable a year earlier in 2008 quoted the Pakistani Deputy Chief of Mission in Washington, D.C., Sarfraz Khanzada, saying that Saudi-Pakistani relations were “under strain” because the Saudis had no confidence in Zardari. Khanzada said Saudi financial assistance to Pakistan had dropped sharply. The Saudis had not provided “a single drop” of oil on promised concessionary terms. Instead, they had given Pakistan a single $300 million check, considerably less than in previous years. “Beggars can’t be choosers,” Khanzada had said, adding that the Saudis were “waiting for the Zardari government to fall.”44 Pakistan’s Ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Umar Khan Alisherzai, told U.S. diplomats in 2009 that “we have been punished by Saudi Arabia because our president talks to the Iranians.”45

Then Saudi Interior Minister Prince Mohammed bin Nayef went a step further, advising U.S. envoy Richard Holbrooke that the Saudis view “the Pakistan Army as the strongest element for stability in the country.” Bin Nayef described the Pakistani military as the Saudis’ “winning horse” and Pakistan’s “best bet.” The Saudi official said that instability in Pakistan or tension between Pakistan and India posed a threat to Saudi Arabia’s stability, because of the 800,000 Pakistani and one million Indians employed in the kingdom.46

Author and former Pakistani ambassador to the United States Hussain Haqqani estimated that Saudi Arabia donated more than $2 billion to the Islamist resistance against the Soviets.47 The investment, alongside that of the United States and others, fundamentally changed Pakistani society and the country’s power structure. ISI, supported by Saudi Arabia and the United States, exploited its role as the recruiter, trainer and operations manager of the Afghan mujahedeen to expand and legitimise ISI’s role as a key arbitrator of Pakistani politics by manipulating the government’s allies and intimidating its opponents.48

Moreover, direct Saudi funding as well as support by the Muslim World League of Jamaat-e-Islami — the Pakistani wing of a movement founded in 1941 by theologian and philosopher Abul Ala Maududi — became a launching pad for Saudi-backed ultra-conservatism into then still communist Central Asia.49

The movement’s Afghan wing was headed by figures who would play key roles in the ultimate defeat of the Soviets and the rise of Wahhabi-influenced conservatism and Islamism in the country. Burhannudin Rabbani, the theology professor, twice became President of Afghanistan. Rabbani’s students included Ahmad Shah Massoud, a legendary Tajik military commander in the fight against the Soviets and Afghanistan’s subsequent civil war, who was killed by Al Qaeda on the eve of 9/11; and Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, a two-time Prime Minister, whose Hezb-e-Islami party received the lion’s share of Saudi funding for the mujahedeen.50

Hekmatyar, the instigator of Afghanistan’s civil war in the 1990s, that in Kabul alone killed more than 50,000 people, was best known for his targeting of those Muslims denounced as idolaters – just like the Wahhabis at the beginning of the 20th century. Hekmatyar spent “more time fighting other mujahedeen than killing Soviets,” quipped journalist and author Peter Bergen.51 Abdul Rab Rasul Sayyaf, a Saudi-funded Wahhabi Islamic Law scholar, politician and warlord, who split with Rabbani and Hekmatyar to form his own group of mujahedeen, is believed to have facilitated Osama Bin Laden’s return to Afghanistan in 198652 after the Saudi was expelled from Sudan and assisted Masood’s assassins.53

Then Pakistani leader Zia-ul-Haq encouraged Saudi charities to build mosques and madrassas for the large number of Afghans fleeing the war to Pakistan as well as for Pakistanis themselves. With little prospect of employment, refugee camps became recruitment centres for Saudi-funded mujahedeen. Volunteers from across the globe were welcomed to train alongside the mujahedeen’s refugee recruits funded by the Muslim World League.54

To help Pakistan alleviate the cost of hosting large numbers of Afghan refugees, Saudi Arabia hired hundreds of thousands of Pakistani migrant workers whose remittances boosted Pakistan’s economic growth. Many of the workers eventually returned home imbued with Wahhabism’s conservative values. The same was true for Pakistani troops enlisted to assist in fortifying the kingdom’s security in a deal mediated by the United States.

“Pakistani workers in the Gulf and their families became either sympathetic or indifferent to Islamization. The expatriate workers were also influenced by Islamist missionaries backed by Saudi Arabia’s Wahhabi establishment during the course of their stay in the Gulf states,” Haqqani, the former Pakistani ambassador, noted.55

A Case in Point

The history of Tashfeen Malik is a case in point. Her experience and that of her family is indicative of the kind of tensions adherence to Wahhabism’s narrow mindset can foster. Malik moved with her parents to Saudi Arabia when she was a toddler. The two decades in Saudi Arabia persuaded the family to abandon their Sufi practices that included visiting shrines, honouring saints and enjoying Sufi trance music — practices rejected by the kingdom’s Wahhabism. The change sparked tensions with relatives in Pakistan, whom the Maliks accused in Wahhabi fashion of rejecting the oneness of God by revering saints. Syed Nisar Hussain Shah, an academic at Bahauddin Zakariya University in Malik’s native Pakistani town of Multan, whose madrassas are known as jihadist nurseries, where she studied Pharmacology, recalls Malik seeking assistance because her conservative norms clashed with more the comparatively more liberal values of her dormitory mates. “She told me, ‘my parents live in Saudi Arabia, and I am not getting along with my roommates and cannot adjust with them, so can you help me?’” Shah recalls.56

While in Pakistan, Malik studied Islam for 18 months at the Al-Huda Institute, a religious school with branches in Britain, the United States, Canada, Saudi Arabia and Sri Lanka that propagates non-violent Wahhabism.57 Students at Islamabad’s Islamic International University, whose mosque was donated by Saudi Arabia and whose foreign liaisons are primarily Saudi universities, are encouraged to attend religious classes at Al Huda.58 Cultural anthropologist Sadaf Ahmad describes Al Huda as a “school-turned-social movement.”59 Former students of Al Huda describe a curriculum that educates them in puritan Islam, encourages them to isolate themselves from the outside world and view it as hostile, and in some cases, brings vulnerable youth to the edge of radicalism. Al Huda’s Toronto branch closed its doors in December 2015 following news reports that four of its students had attempted to join IS.60 After enrolling in Al Huda, Malik donned a hijab, refrained from communication with the opposite sex, and spent most of her time studying the Quran.61

“Women would often weep, overcome by religiosity. We were constantly taught that this path was our choice, but also that not choosing it was the way of sin. Gradually, perhaps because I was far from my family, young and troubled, and my education in Britain had provided me with little secular knowledge, I was completely sucked in… Only in retrospect do I realise that essentially I’d been brainwashed into something resembling a cult… I feel that al-Huda’s literalist, conservative interpretation of Islam, which discouraged criticism or dissent, built a fire. It laid down the kindling, the twigs, the wood, ready for a match. And the flames swept in from two directions. First, from geopolitical events: the discourse of Muslim oppression that has gained force across the world, which Islamic State, among others, uses so powerfully. Yet it also requires an internal fire, something within an individual that will ignite fundamentalist theology into violent action. Most women who leave al-Huda institute are zealous for a while, but the sheer intensity requires so much emotional energy that it invariably fizzles out… This happened to me… Yet there was a time when I was lonely, isolated, a troubled girl with nothing but my all-encompassing faith, when I know that a spark could have been ignited within me. I walked on. Tashfeen Malik lit the fire,” said Aliyah Saleem.62

“All her students, who you would think after coming closer to God, would become more tolerant and at peace, have always showed the opposite result. They became intolerant, judgmental and arrogant instead… There is no real proof to back the theory that Al-Huda brainwashed Tashfeen and others into terrorism, but one thing that is for sure is that Madame Hashmi’s [Al-Huda co-founder Farhat Hashmi] institute promotes unhealthy fanaticism and an orthodox manner of thinking. And that could very well turn one into a cold blooded murderer given just the right push; all in hopes to getting in heaven,” added former student Shamila Ghiyas, who had attended several classes given by Al-Huda co-founder Farhat Hashmi.63

Mosharraf Zaidi, an Islamabad-based columnist who specialises in education issues, argues that if Malik was radicalised while studying in Pakistan, “it was because she was exposed to ways of thinking that these schools have helped to promote. They require people to isolate themselves from modernity [outright] — television is wrong, eating McDonald’s is wrong, mixing with the opposite gender is wrong. And once you establish that isolation, then dehumanising people is easy…and if you leave someone there, you have left them on a cliff.”64

For people like Malik raised in a Wahhabi environment, as well as those who were not, jihadism’s appeal is in part the absolutism that ultra-conservative strands of Islam project. Both apolitical or non-violent ultra-conservatism and jihadism see the acknowledgement of God’s oneness and His sovereignty as the prime drivers of a believer’s life. All other aspects of life, including family relationships, are secondary to that, which explains why adherents of the Islamic State and other jihadist groups often break from their families, as well as their past. Wahhabis dedicate their lives to prayer, study of religious texts and mosque attendance; jihadis add the dimension of holy war. Their dedication is rooted in Ibn Abd al Wahhab’s assertion that “worship of Allah cannot be performed until taghut (polytheism) is denounced and rejected.”65

Educational Vacuum

Al Huda and Malik’s example highlights the educational vacuum in Pakistan, that militant strands of Islam, including Wahhabism, Salafism and jihadism are able to exploit in a country with a poor educational infrastructure and one of the world’s lowest education budgets.66 Pakistan’s some 26,000 madrassas graduate an estimated 200,000 students a year.67 To be sure, the madrassas run the gamut in terms of theological orientation and quality. They also run from mud-walled structures with rote memorisation of the Quran at their core, to sophisticated institutions like Al Huda, to outright jihadi conveyor belts. A Harvard Kennedy School study put enrolment in madrassas at only 7.5 percent of all children enrolled in Pakistani schools. It argued that enrolment had remained constant much of the first decade of the 21st century.68 By contrast, the International Crisis Group estimated that 1.5 million students were enrolled in Pakistani madrassas in 2002.69

Nonetheless, a 2008 cable from the U.S. consulate in Lahore reported that “financial support estimated at nearly US $100 million annually was making its way to (conservative) Deobandi and Ahl-e-Hadith clerics in the region from ‘missionary’ and ‘Islamic charitable’ organisations in Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, ostensibly with the direct support of those governments…”70 U.S. diplomat Bryan Hunt estimated in the cable that up to 200 madrassas in southern Punjab, in towns like Multan as well in Dera Ghazi Khan — a juncture of all four of Pakistan’s provinces — and in the central city of Bahawalpur, served as recruitment grounds for militant Islamist groups.

The consulate’s principle officer, Hunt, reported in his cable to authorities in Washington that the funding had spawned a “network (that) reportedly exploited worsening poverty in these areas…to recruit children into the divisions’ growing Deobandi and Ahl-el Hadith madrassa network from which they were indoctrinated into jihadi philosophy, deployed to regional training/indoctrination centres, and ultimately sent to terrorist training camps in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA).” He said families with a large number of children who face financial difficulty as a result of inflation, poor crop yields, and growing unemployment are targeted for recruitment.71

Hunt said Gulf funding of charitable activities of charities that fronted for groups like Lashkar-e-Tayyaba and Jaish-e-Mohammed that had been proscribed by the U.S. Treasury, had increased the local population’s dependence on extremist groups and undermined the influence of moderate Sufi religious leaders. Hunt said that the charities targeted boys up to the age of 15. The funds, the diplomat said, had officially been transferred to Pakistan to assist victims of a 2008 earthquake in Kashmir and the North West Frontier Province. “Locals believe that a portion of these funds was siphoned to Deobandi and Ahl-e-Hadith clerics in southern and western Punjab in order to expand these sects’ presence in a traditionally hostile, but potentially fruitful, recruiting ground. The initial success of establishing madrassas and mosques in these areas led to subsequent annual ‘donations’ to these same clerics, originating in Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, Hunt said”72

The U.S. diplomat suggested that the influence of officials in key positions in the Pakistan bureaucracy, who were sympathetic to Deobandi and Ahl-e-Hadith, had thwarted efforts by Sufi and other religious scholars to persuade the government to crackdown on extremist funding. “The brother of the Federal Minister for Religious Affairs, and a noted Brailvi/Sufi scholar in his own right, Allama Qasmi, blamed government intransigence on a culture that rewarded political deals with religious extremists. He stressed that even if political will could be found, the bureaucracy in Religious Affairs, Education, and Defence Ministries remained dominated by (former president) Zia ul Haq appointees, who favoured the Deobandi and Ahl-e-Hadith religious ideologies. This bureaucracy, Qasmi claimed, had repeatedly blocked his brother’s efforts to push policy in a different direction,” Hunt reported.73

Describing in detail how Saudi funds were put to work, Hunt reported that “the local Deobandi or Ahl-e-Hadith maulana (religious scholar) will generally be introduced to the family through these (charitable) organisations. He will work to convince the parents that their poverty is a direct result of their family’s deviation from ‘the true path of Islam’ through ‘idolatrous’ worship at local Sufi shrines and/or with local Sufi Peers. The maulana suggests that the quickest way to return to ‘favour’ would be to devote the lives of one or two of their sons to Islam. The maulana will offer to educate these children at his madrassa and to find them employment in the service of Islam. The concept of ‘martyrdom’ is often discussed and the family is promised that if their sons are ‘martyred’ both the sons and the family will attain ‘salvation’ and the family will obtain God’s favour in this life, as well. An immediate cash payment is finally made to the parents to compensate the family for its ‘sacrifice’ to Islam. Local sources claim that the current average rate is approximately Rs. 500,000 (approximately US$ 6,500) per son,” Hunt wrote.74

Hunt said the children were sent to one of up to 200 madrassas located in isolated areas where they are prevented to have contact with the outside world and inculcated with “sectarian extremism, hatred for non-Muslims, and anti-Western/anti-Pakistan government philosophy. Graduates from the school are either employed as clerics and teacher or move on to jihadist training camps.75

The infusion of Saudi money and Wahhabism into Deobandi schools, some of which have produced many of the Taliban’s leaders, including Mullah Mohammed Omar, the group’s supreme commander and spiritual guide who reportedly died in 2013; and Jalaluddin Haqqani, a powerful commander, has changed the very nature of the movement. ‘As Pakistan’s economy and politics have moved towards West Asia, and away from an Indian history and past, its various Islams have also been influenced by these trends. Pakistan’s version of Deobandi Islam is affected by Saudi Wahhabism, and hence it becomes difficult to argue that these madrassas are still in any sense Deobandi… Islam, even Pakistani and Afghani Islam, is now globalised, Wahhabised, as well as affected by geopolitical influences, which have a far-reaching impact on local and domestic Islam,” said scholar of International Relations, S. Akbar Zaidi.76

U.S. Democratic senator Chris Murphy took the example of a possible parent in a small town in northwest Pakistan, to depict her/his vulnerability. “You’re illiterate, you’re poor, you’re getting poorer by the day, unemployment in your village is sky high, inflation is making everything unaffordable, your crop yields have been terrible. And one day, you get a visit that changes your perspective. A cleric from a nearby conservative mosque offers you a different path. He tells you that your poverty is not your fault, but simply a punishment handed down to you because of your unintentional deviation from the true path of Islam. And luckily, there’s a way to get right with God, to devote your son’s life to Islam. And it gets even better, because the cleric’s going to educate your son in his own school, we call them madrassas, and not only will you not have to pay for the education, he’ll actually pay you… And when your son finishes school he’ll get employment in the service of Islam,” Murphy said.77

“And so for thousands of families in destitute places like northwest Pakistan, it’s a pretty easy choice,” Murphy said. “But as you go on, you lose contact with your son. Gradually, the school cuts off your access to him. When you do see him, now and again, he’s changing. And then one day it’s over. He’s not the little boy you once knew. He’s a teenager, announcing to you that the only way to show true faith to Islam is to fight for it against the kafir, the infidels who are trying to pollute the Muslim faith, and against the Westerners who are trying to destroy it. He tells you that he’s going off to Afghanistan, or Syria, or Iraq with some fellow students, and that you shouldn’t worry about him because God is on his side,” Murphy added.78

The parents try to find out what happened at the school for their son to become a jihadist. “You discover the textbooks that he read, that taught a brand of Islam greatly influenced by something called Wahhabism… I tell you this story because, as you know, some version of it plays out hundreds of times every day in far-flung places, from Pakistan to Kosovo, from Nigeria to Indonesia — the teaching of an intolerant version of Islam to hundreds of millions of young people. In 1956, there were 244 madrassas in Pakistan. Today there are 24,000. So these schools are multiplying all over the globe. And don’t get me wrong, these schools, by and large, they don’t teach violence. They aren’t the minor leagues for extremist groups. But they do teach a version of Islam that leads very nicely into an anti-Shia, anti-Western militancy,” Murphy said.79

The pervasiveness in Pakistan of Saudi-backed ultra-conservative-inspired militant Islamist ideology was on full display in the Pakistani capital of Islamabad when authorities opted to shut down all cell phone coverage during Friday prayers to prevent dissemination of a sermon by Maulana Abdul Aziz, rather than detain the jihadist imam. Abdul Aziz, dubbed Mullah Burqa after he tried to escape in 2007 from Islamabad’s Red Mosque at a time that it was besieged by Pakistani military troops, has since been banned from giving sermons. Eight years after the siege in which 75 people died, Abdul Aziz has re-emerged as a seemingly untouchable figure, even if militant groups like Teheek-e-Taliban better known as the Pakistani Taliban that he supports have been significantly weakened in a military crackdown. Abdul Aziz illustrated the degree to which Saudi-backed ultra-conservatism inspired ideology had gained currency in Pakistani society.80

So did two events in early in 2016: mass demonstrations in February and March protesting the execution of Mumtaz Qadri, a jihadist who was an elite Force commando who was convicted to death for killing former Punjab governor Salman Taseer because of his opposition to Pakistan’s blasphemy laws,81 and for carrying out a suicide-bombing of a park in Lahore on Easter Sunday.82 As emergency units rushed to the park where 70 people had been killed and some 300, mostly women and children, wounded police in Islamabad sought to control a 10,000-strong demonstration against Qadri’s execution. Jammat-ul-Ahrar, an offshoot of the Pakistani Taliban said the bombing was aimed at Christians even if the vast majority of the victims were Muslims.

Taken together, the two events suggested that Pakistan’s problem went beyond political violence, to encompass a deep-seated, ultra-conservative and intolerant interpretation of Islam that has taken root in significant segments of society, and has created an environment in which oppression, discrimination and violence against the other is legitimised. The Economist noted that, “the religious hatred it (Jammat-ul-Ahrar) represents has been assiduously cultivated in Pakistan for many years. Saudi money for the building of madrassas (religious seminaries) began to flood into Pakistan during the 1980s with the encouragement of the president at that time, General Zia ul Haq, a Deobandi follower, who saw the country’s Islamisation as his main mission. There are now some 24,000 madrassas in Pakistan, attended by at least 2 million boys. Nearly all adhere to the highly conservative Deobandi sect, whose beliefs are similar to Saudi Wahhabism.” Some analysts put the number of madrassas closer to 30,000. They note that while a majority fall in the realm of the Deobandi, a substantial number subscribe to other interpretations of the faith.83

The magazine quoted Tahir Ashrafi, head of the Pakistan Ulema Council, as saying that 60% of the pupils at madrassas were “not involved in any training or terrorist activities.” In other words, 40 percent may be. “It’s a very complex feeder system. All the remaining 40% are not involved in terrorism or terrorist training, but they could be sympathisers, they could funnel part of their funds to terror outfits, they could aid and abet in various ways,” said Mahmoud, a Pakistani lawyer, businessman and author of a forthcoming book on Islam.84

In the book, Mahmoud recalls that “a bright young woman who worked with my aunt succeeded in penetrating a religious centre in the outskirts of Islamabad. The centre served as an orphanage and school for girls. It taught them a way of jihad. On occasion, young women, teenage girls, really, from the centre would be introduced to teenage boys from other centres. If a boy was to be sent on a suicide mission, he would be married to a girl, and the couple would be allowed to consummate their marriage. The experience was intended to provide the boy a foretaste of the pleasures that awaited him in heaven, the girl an assurance of a place in heaven as the wife of a martyr. If the boy did indeed complete his mission, the girl would be free to remarry. If the boy did not achieve martyrdom, the couple would be kept apart, in purgatory on this earth. Both boy and girl were provided strong incentives to push towards the event of suicide. The centre has been closed, but its cloistered, manipulative spirit endures.”85

The fallout of Deobandi philosophy – a “back to basics movement” in the words of British Deobandi Mufti Mohammed Amin Pando – goes far beyond the realm of South Asia, embedding itself deeply in Muslim minority communities in Europe. A 2016 BBC investigative documentary traced jihadist thinking to a month-long visit to Britain in 1993 by Masood Azhar, a graduate of a Deobandi madrassa called Darul Uloom Islamia Binori Town in Karachi, who headed the Pakistani militant group Harakat ul Mujahedeen. Azhar, a portly bespectacled preacher, son of a Bahawalpur religious studies teacher and author of a four-volume treatise on jihad as well as books with titles like Forty Diseases of the Jews,86 gave 40 lectures during his fundraising and recruitment tour in Britain, and was feted by Islamic scholars from Britain’s largest mosque network. More and more scholars joined his entourage as he toured the country before moving on to Saudi Arabia. His tour included Darul Uloom Bury (Bury House of Knowledge), a boarding school and seminary that was home to Sheikh Yusuf Motala, Britain’s foremost Islamic scholar.87 A passionate and emotive speaker, women reportedly took off their jewellery and handed it to Azhar after listening to his speeches.88

Deobandis, the Muslim sect with the greatest reach in the U.K., control an estimated 40 percent of all British mosques that service an estimated 600,000 people. A substantial number of UK-trained Muslim scholars are graduates of Deobandi institutions. Deobandis trace their roots to a seminary established in 1866, in the Indian town of Deoband in the state of Uttar Pradesh, that was founded in the struggle against British colonialism. The seminary is widely viewed as one of the foremost institutions of Islamic learning, although it consists of a host of departments that focus on the rejection of Christianity, Judaism, Shia Islam, Barelvism and a postgraduate course that teaches loathing of Ahmadis89 a sect is widely viewed by conservative Muslims as heretic, because it recognizes Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as the messiah prophesied by Mohammed. .90 “The theology of the Deoband school…fosters social change and nurtures the ideals of political activism,” noted Islam scholar Ebrahim Moosa. Its adherents run the gamut from political quietists to moderate-minded social activists to militant Islamists like the Taliban.91

With Pakistan becoming a battleground in the proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran in the wake of the 1979 Islamic revolution, Deobandis, funded by Saudi Arabia, launched an anti-Shia campaign. The fiery Deobandi cleric Haq Nawaz Jhangvi, a madrassa graduate who became head of the Jamiat- i-Ulema-e-Islam (JUI), a Deobandi party, is reported to have maintained close ties to Pakistani intelligence92 until he was killed in 1990 by Shiite militants. Jhangvi, who earned his spores with his agitation against the Ahmadis, 93 founded Anjuman Sipah-e-Sahaba (Soldiers of the Prophet’s Companions) with the sole purpose of combating Shiites. With Pakistani Shiites feeling empowered and emboldened by the Iranian revolution, Saudi Arabia was more than willing to generously fund the anti-Shiite campaign.94 As mentioned earlier, Saudi funds were largely routed through the Pakistani military and the ISI.95 The Muslim World League also funded the prominent Indian Deobandi scholar, Muḥammad Manzo̤ or Naumani, who compiled a book of anti-Shiite fatwas that included opinions of Pakistani scholars and was distributed in Pakistan.96

Marouf Dualibi, an Islamic scholar with close ties to Saudi King Fahd was dispatched by the kingdom to help General Zia introduce hudood, the Islamic legal concept of punishment as well as mandatory zakat, a charitable tax, and ushr, an agricultural levy that dates back to early Islam, as well as persuade the Pakistani leader to adopt anti-Shia laws.97 A 1981 report by the Council of Islamic Ideology — an advisory body of clerics and scholars established to assist the Pakistani government in bringing laws in line with the Quran and the example of the Prophet Mohammed – reported that hudood laws were discussed by the Council and the Law Ministry “under the guidance of Dr. Maruf Dualibi, who was specially detailed by the government of Saudi Arabia for this purpose.”98

Pakistani security consultant Muhammad Amir Rana reported that Saudi Arabia in the first decade of the 21st century had donated US $2.7 million to the education department of the municipality of Jhang in Punjab, Jhangvi’s hometown, for the funding of madrassas.99 The Saudi campaign aimed at pressuring the Pakistani government to designate the Shiites as non-Muslims and make Sunni Islam the basis for an Islamic state. This also served to boost the fortunes of the Deobandis, who until then had been a minor presence, at the expense of other Muslim groups, particularly the Sufis.100 “The Saudis injected conservative attitudes into Muslim societies. They infiltrated Muslim societies. It created many divisions and a sectarian culture. It has impacted Pakistan’s social fabric,” Rana said in an interview.101

Sipah-e-Sahab’s membership swelled to a million, including some 5,000 well-trained militants who waged a campaign of terror against Shiites. The group was backed by a fatwa issued by the Deobandi scholar Naumani, that declared Shiites to be non-believers and was endorsed by hundreds of scholars in India and Pakistan. Maulana Wali Hassan, the Deobandi grand mufti of Pakistan, banned Sunni Muslims from marrying Shiites, participating in Shiite funeral rites, burying Shiites in Muslim graveyards and eating meat from animals slaughtered by Shiites even in accordance with Islamic law.102

Saudi Arabia at the same time backed Hafiz Muhammad Saeed, the internationally designated terrorist who founded Lashkar-e-Taibe, one of the largest and most of violent militant Islamist groups in South Asia, because of his longstanding ties to the kingdom and his strong links to the Ahl- e-Hadith103 group that had maintained close bonds with ultra-conservatives like the Wahhabis and Salafis since its founding in the 1920s.104 Saeed, a graduate of an Ahl-e-Hadith madrassa and the King Saud University in Riyadh, backed by Saudi money, founded Islamic schools in which potential jihadis not only studied Islam, but also acquired the computer and communication skills they would need in their militant Islamist career.105

Much of the British Deobandi community has in the wake of 9/11 sought to distance itself from the minority of primarily Pakistani scholars and madrassas that opt for an endorsement of violent jihad. Motala, , in an Urdu-language note to the BBC said that “during the last several decades, I have neither uttered Masood Azhar’s name in my speeches, even by mistake, nor mentioned his group, nor talked about any nihilistic terrorist action.”106 The UK’s Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted), however, concluded on the basis of an unannounced visit to Darul Uloom Bury in January 2016, that its students had a deep understanding of “fundamental British values, such as democracy, rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance for those of different faiths.”107

Yet, the Muslim Council of Britain, widely viewed as the UK’s foremost Muslim umbrella group, in line with Deobandi, Wahhabi and Salafi thinking, declared in April 2016 a position against Ahmadis who are also on the defensive in various countries including Indonesia, Malaysia, Bangladesh, Pakistan and Britain.108 In a statement that paid only lip service to “to pluralism and peaceful coexistence and…the rights of all to believe as they choose without coercion, fear and intimidation,” the Council, in response to requests by unidentified parties for it to take a stand on the persecuted group, stated that “Muslims should not be forced to class Ahmadis as Muslims if they do not wish to do so, at the same time, we call on Muslims to be sensitive, and above all, respect all people irrespective of belief or background.”109 The BBC documentary further linked Scotland’s largest mosque, the Glasgow Central Mosque, 23 years later to Sipah-e-Sahaba that has been banned in Britain because of its deadly attacks against Shiites and other minorities in Pakistan.110

Responding to the MCB statement in The Independent, Waqar Ahmedi, a British Ahmadi, warned that “when Muslims start playing God in this way, religious prejudice, bigotry and hate will inevitably rise – including here in Britain…. They appear content to regard extremists like the murderer of Asad Shah and hate preachers as among their co-religionists, but not those who live by the motto ‘love for all, hatred for none.’ Whatever the theological differences, no individual or institution has any authority to dictate what anyone else can and cannot call themselves. My faith is a matter between me and my Maker. Freedom of belief and the right to self-determination are among the cornerstones of any progressive society. The Prophet Muhammad certainly stood up for those rights — one hopes bodies like the Muslim Council of Britain does too,” Ahmedi wrote. Asad Shah was a popular news vendor in Glasgow who was murdered a month before the MCB statement because of his faith.111

The MCB statement seemed to belie the longstanding rejection of the notion by Britain’s Islamic scholars that Muslim radicalism emanated from the country’s South Asian mosques. The MCB scholars identify Arab Islamists like Mustafa Kamel Mustafa, better known as Abu Hamza al-Masri, a fiery Egyptian cleric, (who preached at London’s Finsbury Park Mosque in London before being extradited to the United States where he was sentenced to life in prison on terrorism charges, and Omar Bakri Muhammad, a Syrian-born Salafist, as the guilty parties.

“These Wahhabi preachers, who operated on the fringes of Muslim communities, certainly played an important role in radicalising elements of Britain’s Muslim youth. But it was Azhar, a Pakistani [Deobandi] cleric, who was the first to spread the seeds of modern jihadist militancy in Britain – and it was through South Asian mosques belonging to the Deobandi movement that he did it,” Bowen said.112

In his lectures during his visit to Britain, Azhar argued that much of the Quran was dedicated to “killing for the sake of Allah”, while a substantial number of the Prophet Mohammed’s sayings dealt with jihad. At the inauguration of a mosque in Plaistow, Azhar dwelled on “the divine promise of victory to those engaged in jihad.” In another public presentation, Azhar argued that “the youth should prepare for jihad without any delay. They should get jihadist training from wherever they can.” His slogan was “from jihad to Jannat (paradise).”113

Birmingham-born Mohammed Bilal, a student in the West Midlands, who left Britain in 1994 to join Azhar’s newly founded Jaish-e-Mohammed (Army of Mohammed), was one of the first Azhar recruited on his UK tour. He died in 2000 as a suicide bomber when he attacked an Indian Army barracks in Srinagar, killing nine people.114 Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh, a student from London, was another. Sheikh gained notoriety as one of the hijackers of an Indian Airlines flight, who demanded Azhar’s release from prison as well of one of the 2002 kidnappers who snatched Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl and beheaded him.115 Rashid Raul, an in-law of Azhar’s, who like Bilal hailed from Birmingham, is widely believed to have been one of the masterminds of the 7/7 attacks in 2005 on London’s public transport system, as well as a failed attempt to again assault the system two weeks later on July 21 and efforts to smuggle liquid bomb-making substances aboard trans-Atlantic flights.116 Waheed Ali, a young Bangladeshi friend of the 7/7 bomber Shehzad Tanweer, reported that he listened to tapes of Azhar’s speeches.117

Jaish-e-Mohammed maintains a semi-legal, public presence in Pakistan itself, despite government assertions that it is cracking down on jihadist groups. A Wall Street Journal reporter on a recent visit to Lahore, a city of 600,000 that is home to the headquarters of the Pakistan Army’s XXXI Corps, visited the group’s four-storey, downtown compound that also houses an affiliated seminary.

Although the group has had several of its seminaries closed down, it is building an even bigger facility on four hectares of land on the edge of Lahore with a new madrassa, crowned with white domes, looming over the surrounding farmland. “We don’t hide who we are. We are a jihadist group,” a cleric affiliated with Jaish-e-Mohammed told the visiting reporter.118 A sign outside another Jaish complex in the Usman-o-Ali madrassa in the central Pakistani city of Bahawalpur says its seminary is “under the guidance” of Azhar.119

Jaish-e-Mohammed’s overt operations despite being proscribed reflect the degree to which the Pakistani military, intelligence and interior ministry has embraced Saudi-backed sectarianism and ultra-conservatism.

“There is a sense of weary resignation hung around the shoulders of reports that the government is struggling, and largely failing, to keep on top of the problem of banned organisations that continue to resurface, remake and relaunch themselves under a new set of acronyms. Many of these groups are decades-old, at least in their original iteration, and almost equally many are either openly sectarian in nature or simply dedicated to the downfall of the democratic state. It is the interior ministry that is ultimately responsible for this sorry state of affairs, and the buck ought to stop at the desk of the interior minister himself — an outcome as likely as rivers ever flowing uphill…. Let us not deceive ourselves — there is no shortage of people in the populace that do support such groups, be it with money or logistical support, and allow them a broad footprint nationwide… Millions are inclined to give succour to these snakes that we keep at the bottom of the garden and which all too often turn and bite us,” commented The Express Tribune.120

Pakistani indulgence of Saudi-backed militant groups impacts Muslim communities far beyond the South Asian nation’s border. In the UK, prominent UK-based Deobandi scholar Khalid Mehmood has frequently been associated with Aalmi Majlis Tahaffuz Khatm-e-Nubuwwat (AMTKN), a militant Pakistan-based group that is also legally registered with the UK Charity Commission. AMTKN, with a history of Saudi backing in its various guises since it first was established in 1953, campaigns against Ahmadis, an Islamic sect widely viewed by conservative Muslims as heretics that is on the defensive in various countries like Indonesia, Malaysia, Bangladesh and Britain alongside Pakistan. As far back as the then, Saudi Arabia intervened to prevent the execution of AMTKN scholars, including Abul Ala Maududi, one of the 20th centuries for most Muslim thinkers, who were sentenced to death for sparking anti-Ahmadi riots in Lahore that led to the imposition of martial law in the city. The clerics were released a year later on a legal technicality.

Back in the UK, prominent UK-based Deobandi scholar Khalid Mehmood has frequently been associated with Aalmi Majlis Tahaffuz Khatm-e-Nubuwwat (AMTKN), a militant Pakistan-based group that is also legally registered with the UK Charity Commission. AMTKN campaigns against Ahmadis. The AMTKN website describes Ahmadis as wajib-al-qati or deserving to die.121 However, the group defines itself on its website as “an international, religious, preaching and reform organisation of Islamic Millat, (a global Islamic nationality irrespective of geographical boundaries. It says that its sole aim has been and is to unite all the Muslims of the world to safeguard the sanctity of Prophethood and the finality of Prophethood and to refute the repudiators of the belief in the finality of Prophet hood of the Holy Prophet Hazrat Muhammad.”122 It has 50 and operates 12 madrassas, mostly in Pakistan, but says it has operations abroad, listing only Mali by name on its website.

The AMTKN group, whose name translates as the Global Congress for the Preservation of the Finality of Prophethood, traces its root to Saudi Arabia’s decision in the late 1970s to deny Ahmadis visas for the pilgrimage to Mecca and call for their excommunication. The Kingdom, leveraging its financial support for Pakistan, including funding of its clandestine nuclear weapons program, got Bhutto to introduce constitutional provisions that obliged the country’s presidents and prime ministers to swear an oath that they believed in the finality of Mohammed’s prophecy and denied the possibility of any prophet after him – provisions designed to move Ahmadis beyond the pale.

Saudi King Faisal advised Bhutto on the sideline of the 1974 Islamic Summit Conference in Islamabad that Saudi aid would be contingent on Pakistan declaring Ahmadis non-Muslims.123 The Muslim World League called two months later on all Muslim governments to excommunicate Ahmadis and bar them from holding sensitive government positions. The Saudis effectively forced Bhutto to reverse his awarding of senior posts to Ahmadis after they supported him in a narrowly won election in 1970. Bhutto’s Minister of State for Defence and Foreign Affairs was an Ahmadi, as were the official overseeing Pakistan’s nuclear program and the commanders of the navy and the air force. Ahmadis were also among the Army’s corps commanders. The Saudi campaign was crowned when Pakistan’s national assembly amended the constitution in 1974 to designate Ahmadis as a minority. Saudi rejection over the years has been supported by the Deobandis.124 .125 Ahmadis have since been banned from calling their houses of worship mosques and greeting one another with the customary words, As-salamu alaikum, Peace be upon you. Pakistani passport applications require Muslims to distance to forswear the founder of the Ahmadi community.

The immediate impact in Pakistan of the campaign was the killing of Ahmadis, burning of their properties and the desecration of their mosques and cemeteries. Little has since changed. In 2011, a AMTKN leaflet in Urdu calling for the murder of Ahmadis that circulated in Pakistan identified a south London mosque, the Stockwell Mosque, as its overseas contact point.126 The mosque at the time denied any association with either the leaflet or AMTKN, even though it is listed as an AMTKN office with the Charity Commission. Four of the mosque’s managers serve as AMTKN trustees. Piles of leaflets in English demanding death for Ahmadis were found by a BBC researcher in the mosque in April 2016.127

Three months later, the group again listed the London mosque as its international address alongside the contact details of its offices in Karachi, Lahore, Rawalpindi, Quetta, and Multan in newspaper advertisements across Pakistan calling during Ramadan for donations to restrict Ahmadi activity; “save Muslims from them;” file lawsuits against them; establish mosques and seminaries in Chenab Nagar, home to the Ahmadi’s main organization, Jamaat-e-Ahmadia; and print anti-Ahmadi literature.128 The ad appeared three weeks after unidentified gunman killed an Ahmadi outside his home in Karachi.129

The ad appeared on the back of years of deadly attacks on the Ahmadis and repeated manifestations of tacit government approval. Two gunmen sprayed an Ahmadi mosque in Lahore in 2010 with bullets. At the same time, two others lobbed grenades and exploded suicide vests in another mosques 15 kilometres away. 95 people were killed and 120 others injured. Days later, gunmen attacked the hospital were the wounded were being treated. “This is a final warning to the (Ahmadi community) to leave Pakistan or prepare for death at the hands of the Prophet Muhammad’s devotees,” the group said in a statement.130

At the time, Punjab’s law minister, Rana Sanaullah, a member of Nawaz Sharif’s Pakistan Muslim League, campaigned openly alongside leaders of Sipah-e-Sahaba in an election during a special election in Jhang. Members of Sipah, flouting restrictions placed on the outlawed group, paraded through the town wielding weapons and chanting bloodcurdling anti-Ahmadi and anti-Shi’ite slogans. Rather than halting the march, police escorted it.131

Four years later, on the eve Eid-al-Fitr, which marks the end of the holy month of Ramadan, a frenzied mob in the city of Gujranwala set Ahmadi homes and businesses ablaze in retaliation for an allegedly blasphemous Facebook post by a young Ahmadi man. While the mob danced and police stood idly by, a fifty-five year-old Ahmadi woman and her two young granddaughters suffocated to death as a result of the smoke. The girls’ pregnant aunt miscarried during the ensuing chaos.132

Taxi driver Tanveer Ahmed took AMTKN’s advice literally when he killed Asad Shah, an Ahmadi shopkeeper in Glasgow, in March 2016. An AMTKN-linked Facebook page congratulated all Muslims on Shah’s death.133 Ultra-conservative and Deobandi prejudice against Ahmadis is weaving itself into the fibre of British society, with Sunnis in Muslim neighbourhoods refusing to greet the minority with the traditional welcome, salaam aleikum ‘peace be upon you, share a meal with them or do business with them.134 Ahmadi butchers who sell halal meat in Britain have seen their business substantially reduced after imams called on their flock to boycott Ahmadi shops.135 Death threats have persuaded the Beitul Futuh Mosque in London and Ahamdi mosques elsewhere in Britain, frequented by the country’s 30,000 followers of the sect, to introduce airport-style security checks at mosques.136

Security measures at Ahmadi mosques and mainstream Muslim rejection of the Ahmadis, along with the anti-Muslim sentiment in Europe, contrast starkly with the role the Ahmadis played on the continent a century ago in forging bridges between Muslims and non-Muslims in Europe. Founded in 1923 as part of the first wave of Muslim emigration to Europe, the Ahmadi mosque was centre of intellectual discussion on issues as divergent as balancing modern daily life with the requirements of Islamic doctrine and the future of Germany and Europe in the wake of World War One. German non- Muslims, disappointed by Christian civilization, sought answers in those discussions and many ultimately converted to Islam.137 One of the mosque’s directors, Hugo Marcus, was a gay Jewish philosopher who converted to Islam.138 Built by a Jewish scholar, Gottlieb Leitner, the Shah Jahan Mosque in Woking, a town 45 kilometres south of London, played a similar role at the time.139

A Poor Return on Investment

Violence in Pakistan in which an estimated 60,000 people have been killed in the last decades, as well as the thousands of deaths in numerous other parts of the world, is likely not what Saudi Arabia hoped to achieve through its campaign to further ultra-conservatism.

A more conservative, intolerant society in which Saudi Arabia held the foremost status as the leader of the Muslim world was. Pakistan is paying the price in terms of lives, Saudi Arabia in terms of reputational damage. The events of March 2016 are the latest to raise questions about the effectiveness of Saudi Arabia’s more than US $100 billion, four-decade long campaign in building the kingdom’s soft power. So do Saudi efforts to harness the kingdom’s diplomatic and military relationships in support of its more assertive foreign and military policies Saudi Arabia came up short in its effort to rally support in early 2016 for its conflict in Iran, following Saudi Arabia’s execution of Shiite cleric Nimr al Nimr, the storming of the Saudi embassy in Tehran and the breaking off of Saudi diplomatic relations with Iran. Only a handful of countries – Bahrain, Sudan, Somalia, Djibouti, and the Maldives – followed Riyadh’s example and ruptured their ties with Iran, as a result of Saudi check book diplomacy. Major players like Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia and Malaysia despite close diplomatic, intelligence and non-governmental ties to the kingdom, rejected the Saudi request, choosing instead to walk a tightrope between Riyadh and Tehran.

The stakes for Pakistan were higher than other Muslim nations not only because of its shared border with Iran, but because of the changing geopolitical dynamics that have come with lifting of Iran’s sanctions. It revived the construction of an Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline as well as Iranian, Afghan and Indian interest in development of the Iranian port of Chabahar. Besides competing with the Chinese-funded Pakistani port of Gwadar, Chabahar would allow Afghanistan to break Pakistan’s regional maritime monopoly and offer India access to energy-rich Central Asia.

Saudi Arabia’s seemingly poor soft power return on investment is not simply that Muslim states largely want to keep their lines open to two of the Middle East’s foremost power. It also is the result of domestic repercussions that governments across the Muslim world fear. Saudi Arabia was taken aback when Pakistan despite massive Saudi financial support for its economy, madrassas, and nuclear program and the kingdom’s assistance in getting Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif out of prison following General Pervez Musharraf’s 1999 coup and hosting him for his seven years in exile; rejected a Saudi request that it support military intervention in Yemen.

Saudia Arabia’s seemingly poor soft power return on investment is not simply that Muslim states largely want to keep their lines open to two of the Middle East’s foremost powers, but also the result of domestic repercussions that governments across the Muslim world fear. Saudi Arabia was taken aback when Pakistan rejected a Saudi request to support its military intervention in Yemen, despite massive Saudi financial support for Pakistan’s economy, madrassas, and nuclear program, as well as, the kingdom’s assistance in getting Nawaz Sharif out of prison following General Musharraf’s 1999 coup and hosting him for his seven years in exile, using Lebanese politician Saad Hariri as an intermediary, Saudi Arabia warned Musharraf that continued good relations depended on the release of Sharif and his family.140

Saudi Arabia had assumed that it had sufficient Pakistani chits to cash in. The kingdom is home to over two million Pakistani expatriates,141 and is Pakistan’s single largest source of remittances.142 Saudi Arabia has come to Pakistan’s aid in times of difficulty, for example, by providing oil on deferred payment when Islamabad was hit by U.S. sanctions after conducting nuclear tests in 1998. In addition, some 1,200 Pakistani troops are stationed in the kingdom.143 Pakistani military foundations recruited retired military personnel to serve as mercenaries in Bahrain during the Saudi- backed crushing of a popular revolt in Bahrain in 2011.144

Yet, with Shiites constituting up to 20 percent of the population in Pakistan and escalating sectarian tensions in recent years, as well as plans for closer economic and energy cooperation with Iran, Pakistan has little choice but to walk a tightrope. Just how tight the tightrope is, was evident in guidelines for coverage of the Saudi-Iranian dispute issued by Pakistan’s electronic media regulatory authority. “Media houses should ideally refrain from airing programs that can result in irreparable damage,” the guidelines said.145

Lack of Oversight

Wahhabism’s proselytising character served the Al Saud’s purpose as they first sought to stymie Arab nationalism’s appeal in the 1950s and 1960s, and later that of Iran’s Islamic revolution. These were tectonic developments that promised to redraw the political map of the Middle East and North Africa in ways that potentially threatened Saudi Arabia’s rulers. Both developments were revolutionary and involved the toppling of Western-backed monarchs. Arab nationalism was secular and socialist in nature. The Islamic revolution in Iran was the first toppling of a US icon in the region and a moreover involved a monarch. The Islamic republic represented a form of revolutionary Islam that recognised a degree of popular sovereignty. Each in their own way, posed a threat to the Al Sauds who cloaked their legitimacy in a religious puritanism that demanded on theological grounds absolute obedience to the ruler.

Ultimately, the Saudi campaign benefited from Arab socialism’s failure to deliver jobs, public goods and services, as well as the death knell to notions of Arab unity delivered by Israel’s overwhelming victory in the Middle East in the 1967 in which the Jewish state conquered East Jerusalem, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, the Golan Heights and the Sinai Peninsula. Moreover, Egyptian leader Gamal Abdel Nasser’s early rupture with the non-Salafist Muslim Brotherhood, led many Brothers to join the stream of migrant workers that headed for the Gulf. They brought their activism with them and took up positions in education that few Saudis were able to fill. They also helped create and staff organisations like the Muslim World League, initially founded to counter Nasser’s Pan-Arab appeal.146 The campaign further exploited opportunities created by Nasser’s successor, Anwar al- Sadat, who defined himself as “the believing president.”147 Sadat in contrast to Nasser allowed Muslim groups like the Brotherhood and Salafis to re-emerge and create social organisations, build mosques and found universities.148

The rise of the Brotherhood in the kingdom sparked a fusion of the group’s political thinking with segments of the Wahhabi and Salafi community, but also accentuated stark differences between the two. Saudi establishment clergy as well as militants took the Brotherhood to task for its willingness to accept the state and operate within the framework of its constrictions. They also accused it of creating fitna or division among Muslims by endorsing the formation of political groups and parties and demanding loyalty to the group rather than to God, Muslims and Islam.149

The Saudi campaign was bolstered by the creation of various institutions including not only the Muslim World League and its multiple subsidiaries, but also Al Haramain, another charity, and the likes of the Islamic University of Medina. In virtually all of these instances, the Saudis were the funders. The executors were others often with agendas of their own such as the Brotherhood or in the case of Al Haramain, more militant Islamists, if not jihadists. Saudi oversight was non-existent and the laissez-faire attitude started at the top.

The lack of oversight was evident in the National Commercial Bank (NCB) when it was Saudi Arabia’s largest financial institution. NCB had a department of numbered accounts. These were all accounts belonging to members of the ruling family. Only three people had access to those accounts, one of them was the majority owner of the bank, Khaled Bin Mahfouz.150 Bin Mahfouz would get a phone call from a senior member of the family who would instruct him to transfer money to a specific country, leaving it up to Bin Mahfouz where precisely that money would go.

In one instance, Bin Mahfouz was instructed by Prince Sultan, the then Defence Minister, to wire US $5 million to Bosnia Herzegovina. Sultan did not indicate the beneficiary. Bin Mahfouz sent the money to a charity in Bosnia, that in the wake of 9/11 was raided by US law enforcement and Bosnian security agents.151 The hard disks of the foundation revealed the degree to which the institution was controlled by jihadists.152 In one instance, the Saudis suspected one of the foundation’s operatives of being a member of Egypt’s Islamic Jihad. They sent someone to Sarajevo to investigate. The investigator confronted the man saying: “We hear that you have these connections and if that is true we need to part ways.” The man put his hand on his heart and denied the allegation. As far as the Saudis were concerned the issue was settled until the man later in court testimony described how easy it was to fool the Saudis.

An ambiguous attitude

One place where refusal to acknowledge Saudi Arabia as the gold standard of an Islamic State is counter balanced by the belief of the quietist trend in Saudi-backed Islamic ultra-conservatism is a two storey, walled building built around a courtyard in an upscale neighbourhood of Islamabad. The building houses the Council of Islamic Ideology (CII), Pakistan’s top Islamic advisory body designed to guide parliament on whether proposed bills comply with the Sharia’a. The Council’s offices hark back a quarter of century to a time when computers with small monitors were far and few between; fax machines dominated; and desks were piled with papers, folders and press clippings and dotted with a battery of telephones.

Two of the council‘s members, in a rare public brawl in a government agency over religion, got into a fist fight in 2015 as the council debated further discrimination against Ahmadis. The council was considering categorizing Ahmadis as apostates, a crime punishable by death under strict Islamic law.

“I am stronger than him… He wants to make the law on Ahmadis controversial, and push the country towards violence,” Maulana Tahir Ashrafi, a controversial, pot-bellied, alcohol-consuming scholar and head of the Pakistan Ulema Council charged after 78-year-old Maulana Mohammad Khan Sherani, the CII chairman and a member of parliament for the Deobandi-affiliated Jamiat Ulema-e- Islam (Fazal) party who adheres to Saudi-backed quietist Salafi principle of unquestioned obedience to a ruler, grabbed his collar and ripped out the buttons.153

Sporting a square white beard and clad in a black turban and vest and white salwar kameez, Sherani cuts a stern figure with his Central Asian features and narrow eyes. He embodies Saudi Arabia’s dilemma: those that it has nurtured and that are closest to the kingdom’s ideology increasingly view it as a country that has betrayed its funding beliefs. “Both Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are Islamic states that do not follow what Islam teaches… Allah did not ordain monarchies,” Sherani asserted in an interview.154

In remarks that deliberately included Saudi Arabia by implication, Sherani described Pakistan as “a security state” in which “those that are in power do what is in their interests… Religious leaders participate in elections to bring rulers closer to the truth. It’s their prerogative not to follow. Those in power play games and have many puppets. The ulema’s responsibility is to keep informing the public and government,” Sherani said.

In a twist of irony, Sherani spoke sitting in his spacious office under a picture of Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the lawyer and politician who founded Pakistan as a secular republic. The irony and difficulty quietist ultra-conservatives have in justifying their support for governments they essentially view as illegitimate was evident in Sherani’s effort to explain his support of the Pakistani government and endorsement of the Al Sauds’ rule. “You obey the rules and do not risk fitna in the community,” he said.

Sherani tied himself into knots as he sought to justify his position. Comparing the government to a blind man standing at the edge of a well, Sherani argued that it was his responsibility to warn the man but not stop him. “It is his responsibility if he does not listen,” Sherani said. When asked if his refusal to stop the man would not make him an accomplice if he fell into the well and hurt or killed himself, Sherani quickly changed tack. In the only time that he smiled during a three-hour interview, he said a better example was a man on a street who asked for directions but then opted not to follow them. That is not my responsibility,” he said.

In a magazine interview after his brawl with Sherani, Ashrafi, referring to the CIIl’s Saudi-backed ultra-conservatism asserted that “there is a dictatorship within the body. The environment is such that no scope for dissent is left.”155 Shortly after the brawl, the council suggested in apparent support of the fact that wife beating in Pakistan is the norm rather than the exception156 that a draft bill in parliament legalize the right of husbands to ‘lightly’ beat wives who refuse to obey their orders or have sex with them. The council had earlier urged parliament to declare nine year-old girls eligible for marriage and replace the Pakistani rupee with gold and silver. The council further denounced a women’s protection bill passed by the Punjab provincial assembly as a violation of the tenants of the Sharia.157

Members of parliament blamed the CII days after its ruling on wife beating for the brutal killing of 18-year old Zeenat Rafiq. Rafiq, one of an increasing number of women killed for asserting their independence, was burnt alive by her mother after she married a man of her own choice. “I have killed my daughter. I have saved my honour. She will never shame me again,” neighbours heard Rafiq’s mother, who had complained for months that her two elder daughters had married men of their choice, shout from the roof her house when she was done.158

Rafiq was but one of an average of 1,000 of mostly female victims of honour killings in Pakistan. A Jirga or council of local elders in the city of Abbottabad where Osama Bin Laden was killed by US forces ordered the killing of a teenage girl that had helped a friend elope. The Jirga dictated the manner of her death. The girl was tortured, injected with poison and then strapped to the seat of a vehicle that was parked at a bus stop as a message to others, doused with gasoline and set on fire.

In parliament, deputies charged that the council had legitimized violence against women and questioned whether it should be allowed to continue to exist. Opposition deputies Aitzaz Ahsan and Farhatullah Babar asserted that “the anti-women bias of the CII as expressed in its recommendations and pronouncements” had “contributed to crimes against women with impunity.”159 So does the breeding of ultra-conservatism among women in the exponential growth of all-female madrassahs. Columnist I. A. Rehman picked up on that when he suggested that a section of society, including women, has been influenced by ultra-conservative opposition to women’s rights to the extent of justifying violence against all those who rebel against unjust constraints.”160

The council has also condemned co-education, demanded that state-owned Pakistan International Airlines hostesses be fully covered, and called for the dismissal of civil servants who failed to say their daily prayers. It declared in 2014 that a man did not need his wife’s consent to marry a second, third or fourth wife and that DNA of a rape victim did not constitute conclusive evidence.

To be fair, parliament has in recent years not acted on any of the council’s positions. Nonetheless, the council forced Marvi Memon, a law maker for the ruling Muslim League, in early 2016 to withdraw a proposal to ban child marriages, declaring the draft bill un-Islamic and blasphemous.161

The history of the council, ironically housed on Islamabad’s leafy Ataturk Avenue, named after the visionary who created modern Turkey as a secular state, charts the increasing influence of Saudi conservatism in Pakistan. Founded in 1962, the council was originally headed by Fazlur Rahman Malik, a liberal scholar, who in the words of Pakistani journalist Farahnaz Ispahani put forward “bold and ingenious interpretation of Islamic themes, including suggesting that drinking of alcohol was permissible, provided it did not result in intoxication.”162

Rahman, who returned to Pakistan from Canada at the invitation of President Ayub Khan to head the council’s predecessor, the Central Institute of Islamic Research, resigned in 1968 frustrated with the success of conservative opposition to his ideas. The council’s conservative instinct was boosted in the late 1970s and the 1980s by Zia ul Haq who needed it to legitimize his effort to Islamicize Pakistani society. It was under Ul Haq that Pakistan enacted hudood, Islamic law’s concept of punishment that involves amputations, whipping and death sentences for crimes such as theft, pre-marital sex, and rape, and that ultra-conservatives interpret as a license to put rape victims at risk of prosecution if he or she cannot produce four upright male eye-witnesses.

In an unprecedented parliamentary debate in 2015 about the council’s role, opposition deputy Pakistan People’s Party’s Farhatullah Babar called for its dissolution because it was “dangerously conservative” and irrelevant. “I am pained that some of the council’s pronouncements have prompted the critics to describe it as something of medieval nonsense at public expense,” said Babar. He cited a long list of “long and frustrating” council proposals that included inscribing the words Allah-o-Akbar (God is Great) on Pakistan’s national flag and charged that the council inspired martyrdom and jihad. Islamist deputies denounced Babar and demanded that he recite verses of the Quran to prove his religiosity.163

The positions adopted by the council were with the exception of the transgenders in line with Saudi policy. Saudi influence was also evident in Pakistan’s feeble attempts to gain some measure of control of the madrassahs that mostly involve boarding schools. Registration with the Pakistan Madrassa Education Board (PMEB), the government’s overall board, established in 2003 to oversee boards that represent the country’s five Muslim schools of thought, and encourage madrassahs to use government syllabi and offer vocational training is voluntary rather than mandatory. Oversight of the five sectarian boards by the education and religious affairs ministries, bulwarks of ultra- conservatism, has proven to be spotty at best.

As a result, the PMEB’s efforts have been largely rejected by the more conservative and militant institutions, many of which have had Saudi financial backing. PMEB chairman Amir Tauseen, estimated 13 years after the board’s establishment that up to 10,000 religious seminaries were not registered. A renewed effort in in 2015 to get madrassas to register, involving newspaper advertisements, failed to convey sincerity by aiming to get a mere 500 institutions to register.164

Traditional culture on the defensive

Gunmen on a motorbike shot dead one of Pakistan’s best known Sufi musicians and scion of a musical dynasty, Amjad Sabri, in June 2016 as he drove his car in the port city of Karachi. Fakhre Alam, the Chairman of the Sindh Board of Film Censors, claimed on Twitter that security authorities had earlier rejected a request by Sabri for protection. The Islamabad High Court (IHC) in 2014 demanded an explanation in a blasphemy case from Sabri and two TV channels who were accused of playing and broadcasting a qawwali, a form of Sufi devotional music, that was deemed offensive because it referred to the Prophet Mohammed.165

The killing claimed by the Pakistani Taliban was the latest in a campaign waged by jihadists as well as non-violent Saudi-backed ultra-conservative interpreters of Islam that has in recent decades stifled popular culture; silenced music; led to the bombing of theatres and video and music shops; and provoked the death of scores of musicians and other artists. Sabri was a target both as a musician and a Sufi, whose shrines have repeatedly been attacked in recent years. His assassination served as a warning to those determined to celebrate and preserve indigenous cultural traditions. Human rights activist Ali Dayan Hasan warned that each killing brought Pakistan closer to being what he termed a Wahhabi-Salafist wasteland.

It is a wasteland that Saadat Hasan Manto, a Muslim journalist, Indian film screenwriter and South Asia’s foremost short story writer envisioned as early as 1954 in an essay, ‘By the Grace of Allah.’ Manto described a Pakistan in which everything – music and art, literature and poetry – was censored. “There were clubs where people gambled and drank. There were dance houses, cinema houses, art galleries and God knows what other places full of sin … But now by the grace of God, gentlemen, one neither sees a poet or a musician… Thank God we are now rid of these satanic people. The people had been led astray. They were demanding their undue rights. Under the aegis of an atheist flag they wanted to topple the government. By the grace of God, not a single one of those people is amongst us today. Thank goodness a million times that we are ruled by mullahs and we present sweets to them every Thursday…. By the grace of God, our world is now cleansed of this chaos. People eat, pray and sleep,” Manto wrote.166

Maulana Amir Siddiqui, the leading imam at Islamabad’s notorious Red Mosque, one of the Pakistani capital’s oldest mosques named after its red walls and interior, is just the sort of mullah Manto had in mind. “Music is a great weapon of Satan used to spread obscenity in society. As music spreads, people will get only further away from the Qur’an,” Siddiqui argued in a sermon in 2015. In an interview, he added that “if there is something that draws a person closer to sin like music does, it is forbidden. All music these days is based on temptation, emotions, and illicit relations between men and women, which can lead to sex and sin.”167

Seven years prior to Siddique’s sermon, students at the mosque’s madrassah launched an anti-vice campaign and marched through Islamabad. They attacked and beat those they accused of running brothels and torched video and music shops. More than a 100 people were killed in fighting between the students and security forces.

Authorities found stockpiles of weapons in the Red Mosque’s compound.

Karachi’s Metropol Hotel, once Pakistan’s prime music venue that hosted the likes of Dizzy Gillespie, Duke Ellington and Quincey Jones, stands today and shuttered and in decay. “The biggest names in the industry, people we grew up listening to, have just completely given up. It’s very disheartening, people walking away, people you think are so successful, gods, the stars and the icons. It’s like Freddy Mercury just decided to open up a restaurant instead of being on stage.” said Sara Haider, a 24-year old rising star who records in her own studio because Pakistani music labels refuse to sign new artists.168

Sabeen Mahmud, a prominent Pakistani social and human rights activist who operated The Second Floor, one of Karachi’s few remaining retreats for artists, gave Sara her first break. The 40-year old was gunned down in April 2015.

Gulzur Alam, one of Pakistan’s most popular folk singers with a fan base that stretches into Afghanistan and across the Pashtu Diaspora, hasn’t performed for years.

Pashtun Youth, raise the red flags of revolution high in your hands, come! Pashtun Youth, raise the red flags of revolution, The land cries for revolution, The revolution that can ensure freedom for all,” reads one of his most popular songs composed in 1987.

Sitting on the floor of a dilapidated music hall in Peshawar in front of empty chairs that have not been occupied for years, Alam recalls how men would sit on one side and women on the other as he enamoured them with his music. People would shower flowers as he came on stage. His voice brought audiences to tears. Yet, under the influence of ultra-conservatives, authorities harassed him and his family and ultimately shut down the concert hall, saying they could no longer ensure public security in the face of violent opposition to expressions of traditional and non-religious culture.

“Now the hall is filled with silence. One feels scared… If you remove culture from a nation, that nation dies. We have a centuries old tradition of music. The traditions have been attacked, murdered. It’s left us all deeply depressed,” Alam says.

Threatening phone calls persuaded him to no longer perform in the Northwest Frontier Province. He tried to find gigs in the port city of Karachi, but there, he faced a different problem: ethnic violence against Pashtuns. The situation was no different in Baluchistan. In total, he moved and his family moved 18 times to evade the threats.

In Karachi, he landed in the firing lines of ethnic violence against Pashtuns and returned with his family and without income to Peshawar where his older brother refused to take him because it would put his family in danger. Alam, his wife and five children, now cram into three dank, dark rooms with no running water. “It’s like falling from the sky to earth,” says Rukhsana Muqaddas, Alam’s wife. “Before this we had a very modern, wonderful life. We used to send our kids to good schools. Now, we can’t afford to educate them at all.”169

Alam recalls performing at a wedding with a group of musicians in the Swat Valley in 2008. They were ambushed by armed men emerging from the bushes on a mountain road as they were returning home from their performance.

“All of sudden men jumped out. They opened fire. Many people were hit, including my friend, Anwar Gul,” a renowned composer and harmonium player. “He died later in the hospital,” Alam said, his voice trailing. Months later he was hit by a car and walks with the aid of a stick ever since. “We humans are social beings, we need friends but so many of them have died and I am now alone. I take sleeping pills to calm my nerves but I believe my death will soon come as well,” he adds.170

In one of the few music shops still open in Peshawar, Alam points to CDs by a host of well-known musicians. “Shah Wali, he’s in Canada; Naghma, she’s in America; and Sardar Ali Takkar, he’s also in America; he’s also in America,” Alam says, pointing a finger at yet another CD. “I’ve had chances to leave and have been offered asylum but I never thought it would get this bad. Now it’s too late, other countries won’t accept us. I gave 35 years to music and I’m 55 years old, I no longer know what to do. I can’t support my family,” Alam says, explaining why he didn’t follow his friends and colleagues into exile.

Alam’s native Peshawar and Swat Valley nestled in the foothills of the Hindu Kush, illustrates the corroding impact of Saudi-backed ultra-conservatism as well as government policies that were supported the kingdom and served its foreign and soft power policies. The region once boasted a vibrant cultural life punctured by concerts, theatre performances, art exhibitions, festivals and poetry recitals. All of that has been replaced by countless madrassahs and ultra-conservative religious and jihadist literature and education curricula. A cultural hub was transformed into a hotbed of inward-looking, intolerant worldviews initially populated by the mujahedeen confronting the Soviets in nearby Afghanistan and their successors, the Taliban.

A study conducted by the Pakhtunkhwa Cultural Foundation, a Peshawar-based group that aims to confront the erosion of culture, concluded that “the Wahabi school of thought gained influence in the society due to political developments and state patronage, and particularly in the wake of the war in Afghanistan. Ideologues of the Wahabi school consider artistic expression against Islam. Groups such as Tablighi preachers sprang up during the period and rendered great damage declaring songs, films and anything artistic to be obscene… The sharp decline in socio-cultural life has created a vacuum that is being filled by religious missionaries…The lack of action of the Pakistani government to support the development of cultural industries, together with the lack of a strategy on the part of the incumbent provincial government to redress the situation, has washed away any other hope for the revival of music and cultural life in Swat,” the study said.171

It documented the end of public concerts, the demise of scores of families of artists, the closure of almost 200 CD shops and dozens of cinemas and the professional death of actors and performers. Clerics set fire in cinemas and exhibition centres. They smashed billboards that displayed females’ images.172 Police harassed cultural institutions across the Swat valley. Missionaries targeted dancing and music at weddings and other events. They argued convincingly in mosques and in street encounters that performances were sinful and that those involved would not only be condemned to hell in life after death. People’s suffering, they reasoned, was God’s punishment for their immoral practices.

Their campaigns were part of Pakistani President General Zia ul-Haq’s Saudi-backed effort to Islamicize Pakistani society and erode secular or more liberal religious expressions of culture. “The school curriculum was designed on the basis of Islamic values and morality. Free expression and creative thinking were discouraged. Music was considered immoral. ‘The State TV channel removed music videos. Instead, Islamic shows held sway. Artistic expressions in all forms were discouraged by various means such as new taxation, ‘forcefully imposed on the film industry’… This new phase introduced the culture of the madrassa and Jihadi literature in Swat, with an education curriculum that glorified Jihad and promoted extremism,” the study said.

Swat Valley counted by 2005 225 madrassahs with thousands of students educated with no marketable skills but those qualifying them to become imams or religious teachers. “Madrassa graduates’ mind-sets have little to appreciate or even tolerate art and secular values in society,” the study added.173

Notions of government inertia if not complicity in branches in which Saudi-backed worldviews have made significant inroads are fuelled by the fact that security forces seldom capture the killers of artists and cultural workers or bombers of shops and cinemas. On the contrary, those branches of government frequently adopt policies that contribute to an environment of increased intolerance. Victims and their families are left to their own devices and often reduced to abject poverty. Islamic scholars who cross ultra-conservative red lines are disciplined by the religious affairs ministry.

Religious affairs minister Sardar Yousuf suspended Deobandi Mufti Abdul Qavi, a representative of the ulema in former cricket player Imran Khan’s Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party, in June 2016 after a picture of him and Qandeel Baloch, a Pakistani Kim Kardashian who achieved stardom as a drama queen with videos of her daily life that often tackled controversial issues, went viral on social media. The picture, in which Baloch donned the mufti’s cap, was taken during an iftar, the breaking of the Ramadan fast, in a hotel room during which the two discussed Islam. Yousuf suspended Qavi’s membership in the committee that sights the new moon to announce the beginning of Muslim holy days as well as a committee populated by representatives of madrassahs as the Islamist Jamaat-e- Islami party that issues fatwas.174

Qavi was no stranger to controversy. The scholar claims to be a major spiritual influence in the life of controversial Pakistani actress, TV host and model Veena Malik whom he first met when the two clashed on live television. Malik caused a stir when she appeared nude on the cover of FHM magazine’s India edition with the initials ISI of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence agency written on her forearm. Malik and her businessman husband Asad Bashir Khan fled in 2014 to Dubai after they were sentenced together with a TV host to 26 years in prison by an anti-terrorism court on charges of blasphemy for re-enacting their wedding in a scene that against the backdrop of religious music seemed to be loosely based on the marriage of the Prophet Muhammad’s daughter.175 Returning to Pakistan two years later, Malik and her husband announced during a visit to Karachi’s Jamia Binoria al Aalmia, a major Deobandi mosque and seminary that propagates Saudi-backed ultra-conservative that she intended to enrol in the institution to get an Islamic education.176

Conclusion

It took the Al Qaeda bombings of residential complexes in Saudi Arabia in 2003 and 2004 as well as a year-long running battle between security forces and the jihadists rather than the 9/11 attacks in New York and Washington, D.C. to persuade the Saudis to really take control of funding of soft power assets worldwide by banning charity donations in mosques, putting the various charities under a central organisation, controlling the transfer of funds abroad, and working with the United States and others to clean out some of the charities — or like in the case of Al Haramain — close them down.177

The problem was that by that time it was too late; the genie was already out of the bottle. At the same time, the soft power /proselytization campaign still served and serves the purpose of countering Iran as Saudi Arabia battles the Islamic republic r for regional hegemony.

The question is how long Saudi Arabia can afford the cost of its support of ultra-conservatism. The domestic, foreign policy and reputational cost of the Al Saud’s marriage to Wahhabism is changing the cost benefit analysis. Tumbling commodity and energy prices are forcing the Saudi government to reform, diversify, streamline and rationalise the kingdom’s economy. Reform that enables the kingdom to become a competitive, 21st century knowledge economy is however difficult, if not impossible, as long as it is held back by the strictures of a religious doctrine that looks backwards rather than forwards, and whose ideal is the emulation of life as it was at the time of the Prophet and His Companions.

Moreover, the rise of IS has sparked unprecedented international scrutiny of Saudi-backed ultra- conservative interpretations of Islam such as Wahhabism and Salafism, that is causing Saudi Arabia significant reputational damage. Increasingly Saudi Arabia’s roots are being seen as similar to those of IS, and the kingdom is viewed as what IS will look like if it survives US-led and Russian military efforts to destroy it.

In sum, the complex relationship between the Al Sauds and Wahhabism creates policy dilemmas for the Saudi government on multiple levels, complicates its relationship with the United States, as well as its approach towards the multiple crises in the Middle East and North Africa. The Al Sauds’ problems are multiplied by the fact that Saudi Arabia’s clergy is tying itself into knots as a result of its sell-out to the regime and its close ideological affinity to more militant strands of Islam.

Ultimately, Wahhabism is not what’s going to win Saudi Arabia lasting regional hegemony in the Middle East and North Africa. Yet, the Al Sauds may not have a secure way of restructuring their relationship to Wahhabism. As a result, the Al Saud’s future is clouded in uncertainty, no more so than if they lose Wahhabism as the basis for the legitimacy of their absolute rule.

The at times devastating fallout of Saudi Arabia’s soft power efforts is visible in Muslim communities across the globe, nowhere more so than in Pakistan. Similarly, the fallout of the inevitable restructuring of relations between the Al Sauds and the kingdom’s ultra-conservative ulema is likely to reverberate beyond the Middle East and North Africa in the Muslim world at large, including in South and Southeast Asia.

Dr. James M. Dorsey is a senior fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, co- director of the University of Würzburg’s Institute for Fan Culture, and the author of The Turbulent World of Middle East Soccer blog and a just published book with the same title.

Source: This article was published at Social Science Research Network

1David Commins, The Wahhabi Mission and Saudi Arabia, London: I. B. Tauris, 2009.
2Sohail Nakhoda, Keynote: Workshop on Islamic Developments in Southeast Asia, Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 15 November 2015; Prince Ghazi Bin Muhammad Bin Talal, “What Has Broken? Political, Sociological, Cultural and Religious Changes in the Middle East over the Last 25 Years”, S R Nathan Distinguished Lecture, Middle East Institute, 17 November 2015, https://mei.nus.edu.sg/themes/site_themes/agile_records/images/uploads/What_has_broken_v.8,_As_Given ,_14.11.15.pdf.
3Farid Alatas, Reviving Islamic Intellectualism, Presentation at RSIS Conference on Islam in the Contemporary World, 28 April 2016, https://www.rsis.edu.sg/event/conference-on-islam-in-the-contemporary-world/. 4Christopher R. Hill, The Kingdom and the Power, Project Syndicate, 27 April 2016, https://www.project- syndicate.org/commentary/us-saudi-arabia-strained-relationship-by-christopher-r-hill-2016-04.
5Ashley Kirk, Iraq and Syria: How many foreign fighters are fighting for Isil? The Telegraph, 24 March 2016, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/03/29/iraq-and-syria-how-many-foreign-fighters-are-fighting-for-isil/. 6Sara Mahmood, Pakistan’s Public Education System: Narratives of Intolerance, The Diplomat, 13 May 2016, http://thediplomat.com/2016/05/pakistans-public-education-system-narratives-of-intolerance/.
7U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, Teaching Intolerance in Pakistan, 2016, http://www.uscirf.gov/sites/default/files/USCIRF_Pakistan_FINALonline.pdf
8 Ibid. U.S. Commission
9 Irfan Husain, Death of diversity, Dawn, 14 May 2016, http://www.dawn.com/news/1258146/death-of- diversity
10 Pew Research, The Divide Over Islam and National Laws in the Muslim World, 27 April 2016, http://www.pewglobal.org/2016/04/27/the-divide-over-islam-and-national-laws-in-the-muslim-world/
11 Nick Fielding and Yosri Fouda, Masterminds of Terror: The Truth Behind the Most Devastating Terrorist Attack the World Has Ever Seen, Gloucestershire: Mainstream Digital, 2011, Kindle edition
12 Umar Farooq, Moosa Kaleem, Nasir Jamal, Ghulam Dastageer and Saher Baloch, Concealed Truth: What is wrong with madrassas? Herald, 1 May 2016, http://herald.dawn.com/news/1153383
13 Ibid. Farooq et al.
14 Ibid. Farooq et al.
15 New America Foundation, A Conversation With A Former Muslim Extremist, 3 May 2016, https://www.newamerica.org/international-security/a-conversation-with-a-former-muslim-extremist/.
16Ibid. New America Foundation
17 US Consulate Lahore, Extremist Recruitment on the Risein southern Punjab, 13 November 2008, Wikileaks, https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08LAHORE302_a.html.
18Joel Guinto, Philippines probes attack on IS-targeted top Saudi cleric, Agence France Presse, 1 March 2016, https://news.yahoo.com/philippines-probes-attack-targeted-top-saudi-cleric-061519615.html.
19Al Hayat, الفيليبينتكشفأسماءإرهابيينخططوالاستهداف «السعودية (Philippines identifies terrorists targeting Saudi), 1 March ,2016 http://www.alhayat.com/Articles/14243379/%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%81%D9%8A%D9%84%D9%8A%D8%A8%D 9%8A%D9%86-%D8%AA%D9%83%D8%B4%D9%81-%D8%A3%D8%B3%D9%85%D8%A7%D8%A1- %D8%A5%D8%B1%D9%87%D8%A7%D8%A8%D9%8A%D9%8A%D9%86- %D8%AE%D8%B7%D8%B7%D9%88%D8%A7- %D9%84%D8%A7%D8%B3%D8%AA%D9%87%D8%AF%D8%A7%D9%81– %D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B3%D8%B9%D9%88%D8%AF%D9%8A%D8%A9-.
20Ibid. Commins
21 Interviews with the author in January and February 2016.
22 Akhilesh Pillalamarri, The Radicalization of South Asian Islam: Saudi Money and the Spread of Wahhabism, Georgetown Security Studies Review, 20 December 2014, http://georgetownsecuritystudiesreview.org/2014/12/20/the-radicalization-of-south-asian-islam-saudi- money-and-the-spread-of-wahhabism/#_edn9
23 Sushant Sareen, The Jihad Factory: Pakistan’s Islamic Revolution in the Making, New Delhi: Hindustan Publishing Corporation, 2005, p. 282
24 Akhilesh Pillalamarri, The Radicalization of South Asian Islam: Saudi Money and the Spread of Wahhabism, Georgetown Security Studies Review, 20 December 2014, http://georgetownsecuritystudiesreview.org/2014/12/20/the-radicalization-of-south-asian-islam-saudi- money-and-the-spread-of-wahhabism/#_edn9
25 Luv Pirri, The Past and Future of Deobandi Islam, CTC Sentinel, 3 November 2009,
https://www.ctc.usma.edu/posts/the-past-and-future-of-deobandi-islam
26 Ayesha Jalal, The Struggle for Pakistan, A Muslim Homeland and Global Politics, Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2014, p. 218.
27Haqqani 2005
28Ibid. Farooq et al.
29Ibid. Farooq et al.
30 Crime Monitoring Cell, Update Details of Registered Madaris in Sindh Province, Home Department, Government of Sindh, undated
31 Sami ul Haq, Afghan Taliban War of Ideology: Struggle for Peace, Islamabad: Emel Publications, 2015. 32Qaiser Sherazi, “Conspiracy hatched at Akora Khattak: FIA”, The Express Tribune, 26 May 2010, http://tribune.com.pk/story/16267/conspiracy-hatched-at-akora-khattak-fia/.
33Ibid. Farooq et al.
34Darul Uloom, Fatwa Against Terrorism, 26 February 2008, http://noblesseoblige.org/2008/02/26/.
35 International Crisis Group, Pakistan, Madrassahs, Extremism and the Military, 29 July 2002, http://www.crisisgroup.org/~/media/Files/asia/south- asia/pakistan/Pakistan%20Madrasas%20Extremism%20And%20The%20Military.pdf
36Ibid. International Crisis Group
37Samanth Subramanian, “The Hit List, The Islamist war on secular bloggers in Bangladesh”, The New Yorker, 21 December 2015, http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/12/21/the-hit-list.
38Ibid. Pillalmarri
39Shahidul Alam, “Tolerating Death in a Culture of Intolerance”, Economic & Political Weekly, 21 March 2015, http://www.shahidulnews.com/tolerating-death-in-a-culture-of-intolerance
40 Interviews with author of Bangladeshi journalist and political analyst, 3 January 2015.
41 The Guardian, “US embassy cables: Saudi influence in Pakistan”, 1 December 2010, http://www.theguardian.com/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/130876.
42Ibid. The Guardian
43The Guardian, “US State Department, US embassy cables: Saudis fear ‘Shia triangle’ of Iran, Iraq and Pakistan”, 3 December 2010, http://www.theguardian.com/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/201549.
44 The Guardian, “US State Department, US embassy cables: Pakistani relations with Saudis ‘strained’”, 1 December 2010, http://www.theguardian.com/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/173954.
45 The Guardian, “US Embassy Riyadh, State Department cables: Saudis distrust Pakistan’s Shia president Zardari”, 1 December 2010, http://www.theguardian.com/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/231326.
46 The Guardian, US State Department, US embassy cables: Saudi royals believe army rule better for Pakistan, 1 December 2010, http://www.theguardian.com/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/207396.
47Hussain Haqqani, Pakistan: Between Mosque and Military, Washington: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2010.
48Ibid. Haqqani
49Ibid. Haqqani
50 Peter Bergen, Holy War, Inc.: Inside the Secret World of Osama bin Laden, New York: Free Press, 2002. 51Ibid. Bergen
52 Lawrence Wright, The Looming Tower, Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11, London: Vintage Books, p. 116-117. 53John Lee Anderson. The Lion’s Grave, London: Atlantic Books, 2002, p. 224.
54Ibid. Haqqani
55 Ibid. Haqqani
56 Declan Walsh, “Tashfeen Malik Was a ‘Saudi Girl’ Who Stood Out at a Pakistani University”, The New York Times, 6 December 2015, http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/07/world/asia/in-conservative-pakistani-city-a- saudi-girl-who-stood-out.html.
57Al-Huda International, http://www.alhudapk.com/, 2016.
58Amna Shafqat, “Islamic University Islamabad: My education in a Saudi funded university”, Pak Tea House, 11 February 2015, http://pakteahouse.net/2015/02/11/islamic-university-islamabad-my-education-in-a-saudi- funded-university/.
59 Sadaf Ahmad, Transforming Faith: The Story of Al-Huda and Islamic Revivalism among Urban Pakistani Women, Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 2009.
60 The Canadian Press, “Al Huda Institute Canada Shuts Doors Following Terror-Related Allegations”, 8 December 2015, http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/12/08/al-huda-institute-canada_n_8752790.html.
61Sara Mahmood and Shahzeb Ali Rathore, “Online Dating of Partners in Jihad: Case of the San Bernardino Shooters”, RSIS Commentary, 18 January 2016, http://www.rsis.edu.sg/wp- content/uploads/2016/01/CO16006.pdf.
62 Aliyah Saleem, “Al-Huda school is an institute of Islamist zeal”, The Australian, 16 December 2015, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/the-times/alhuda-school-is-an-institute-of-islamist-zeal/news- story/3e71ba2b82c906211b7b3b6bc9adc64d?nk=4780091fb72330ac3e9ee1237f733a6f-1450590181. 63Shamila Ghyas, Al-Huda mightn’t be linked to terrorism, but Farhat Hashmi’s misogynistic and Shiaphobic institute is a hub of radicalization, The Nation, 10 December 2015, http://nation.com.pk/blogs/10-Dec- 2015/al-huda-mightn-t-be-linked-to-terrorism-but-farhat-hashmi-s-misogynistic-and-shiaphobic-institute.
64 Tim Craig, Pakistan is still trying to get a grip on its madrassa problem, The Washington Post, 16 December 2016, https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/pakistan-is-still-trying-to-get-a-grip-on-its-madrassa- problem/2015/12/16/e626a422-a248-11e5-9c4e-be37f66848bb_story.html.
65Muhammed ibn Abd al-Wahhab, Kitab Al-Tauhid, The Book of Monetheism, Riyadh: Darussalam Publishers & Distributors, 1996, p. 20.
66 The World Bank, Government expenditure on education as % of GDP (%), 2016, http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SE.XPD.TOTL.GD.ZS.
67 Naveed Ahmad, How Pakistan’s unregulated madrassa system sows division and religious strife, Religion News Service, 22 December 2014, http://www.religionnews.com/2014/12/22/pakistans-unregulated- madrassa-system-sows-division-religious-strife/.
68 Tahir Andrabi, Jishnu Das, AsimIjaz Khwaja and Tristan Zajonc, Religious School Enrollment in Pakistan
A Look at the Data, Harvard Kennedy School, December 2005, http://www.hks.harvard.edu/FS/akhwaja/papers/madrassa_CER_dec05.pdf.
69 International Crisis Group, Pakistan: Madrasas, Extremism and the Military: Asia Report No 36, 29 July 2002, http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/regions/asia/south-asia/pakistan/036-pakistan-madrasas-extremism-and-the- military.aspx.
70 Dawn, 2008: Extremist recruitment on the rise in south Punjab madrassahs, 21 May 2011, http://www.dawn.com/news/630656/2008-extremist-recruitment-on-the-rise-in-south-punjab-madrassahs. 71Ibid. US Consulate Lahore
72Ibid. US Consulate Lahore
73Ibid. US Consulate Lahore
74Ibid. US Consulate Lahore
75Ibid. US Consulate Lahore
76 S. Akbar Zaidi, The Ulema, Deoband and the (Many) Talibans, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 44:19, 9- 15 May 2009, p. 10-11.
77 Council for Foreign Relations, Chris Murphy on the Roots of Radical Extremism, 29 January 2016, http://www.cfr.org/middle-east-and-north-africa/chris-murphy-roots-radical-extremism/p37471.
78Ibid. Council of Foreign Relations
79Ibid. Council of Foreign Relations
80 Rod Nordland, Pakistani Military Deals a Blow to Jihadists but not to Ideology, The New York Times, 17 December 2015, http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/17/world/asia/pakistan-abdul-aziz-radical-islam.html.
81 Dawn, Taseer’s killer Mumtaz Qadri hanged, 1 March 2016, http://www.dawn.com/news/1242637.
82 The Economist, Bomb in Lahore: The hard choice for Pakistan, 2 April 2016, http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21695903-country-threatened-not-just-terrorism-widespread- religious-extremism-hard.
83 Email exchanges with the author on 2 April 2016 of Pakistani scholars.
84 Email exchange with the author on 4 April 2016.
85Mahboob Mohammed, Enlightenment Jihad: The Struggle to Realize the Islamic Reformation, Draft manuscript of forthcoming book provided to the author.
86Pdf9.com, Molana Muhammad Masood Azhar’s Books, 2016, http://pdf9.com/books-of-author-molana- muhammad-masood-azhar-aid-1220.html.
87 Innes Bowen, Masood Azhar: The man who brought jihad to Britain, BBC News, 5 April 2016, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-35959202.
88Raffaello Pantucci, Maulana Masood Azhar in the British Jihad, Hurst, 24 January 2013, http://www.hurstpublishers.com/maulana-masood-azhar-in-the-british-jihad/.
89 Owen Bennett-Jones, Deobandi Variations, Dawn, 21 April 2016, http://www.dawn.com/news/1253337/deoband-variations.
90 Owen Bennett-Jones, Deobandi Variations, Dawn, 21 April 2016,
http://www.dawn.com/news/1253337/deoband-variations
91 Ibid. Moosa, p. 105
92 Zahid Hussain, Frontline Pakistan: The Struggle With Militant Islam, New York: Columbia University Press, 2008, p. 92.
93 Muhammad Qasim Zaman, The Ulema in Contemporary Islam: Custodians of Change, Princeton: Princeton University press, 2002, p. 119
94 Hassan Abbas, Pakistan’s Drift Into Extremism: Allah, the Army, and America’s War on Terror, London: Routledge, 2015.
95 S. V. R. Nasr, Islam, the State and the Rise of Sectarian Militancy in Pakistan in Christophe Jaffrelot (ed), Pakistan: Nationalism Without a Nation? New Delhi: Ajay Kumar Jain for Manohar Publishers & Distributors, 2002, p. 92.
96 Khaled Ahmed, Who killed General Zia? The Express Tribune, 7 December 2012, http://tribune.com.pk/story/476508/who-killed-general-zia/
97 Khalid Ahmad, Can the Taliban be far behind? Indian Express, 21 March 2014, http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/can-the-taliban-be-far-behind/.
98 Council of Islamic Ideology, First Report on Islamization of Laws contained in The Pakistan Code: Vol.1-1836- 1871, Islamabad: Council of Islamic Ideology, 1981.
99Ibid. Sareen, p. 282.
100Ibid. Abbas
101 Interview with the author, 28 June 2016
102 Muhammad Moj, The Deoband Madrassah Movement, Countercultural Trends and Tendencies, London: Anthem Press, 2015, p. 105-5.
103Ibid. Abbas
104 Stephen Tankel, Storming the World Stage: The Story of Lashkar-e-Taiba, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014.
105Ibid. Abbas
106Ibid. Bowen
107 Dale Haslam, Darul Uloom School in Holcombe ‘promotes British values and balances secular curriculum with Islamic education’ – inspectors, Bury Times, 2 March 2016, http://www.burytimes.co.uk/news/14313912.Bury_independent_school__promotes_British_values_and_bala nces_secular_curriculum_with_Islamic_education____inspectors/?ref=mr&lp=19.
108 Athar Akhmad, Muslim sect called ‘less than animals’ , BBC Two, 13 April 2016, http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p03qx6q5.
109 Muslim Council of Britain (MCB), Position Statement: The Muslim Council of Britain and Ahmadis, 6 April 2016, http://www.mcb.org.uk/position-statement-the-muslim-council-of-britain-and-ahmadis/.
110 BBC News, Police probe Scottish mosque figures’ links to banned sectarian group, 31 March 2016, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-35928089.
111 Libby Brooks, Asad Shah killing should be condemned by all Muslims, say Ahmadi community, The Guardian, 7 April 2016, http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/07/asad-shah-killing-should- condemned-muslims-say-ahmadi-community-glasgow.
112Ibid. Bowen
113Ibid. Bowen
114 Emma Brockes, British man named as bomber who killed 10, The Guardian, 28 December 2000, http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/dec/28/india.kashmir.
115 BBC News, Profile: Omar Saeed Sheikh, 16 July 2002, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1804710.stm.
116Nic Robertson, Paul Cruickshank and Tim Lister, Documents give new details on al Qaeda’s London bombings, CNN, 30 April 2012, http://edition.cnn.com/2012/04/30/world/al-qaeda-documents-london- bombings/.
117Ibid. Pantucci
118 Saeed Shah, Despite Crackdown, Some Pakistani Militants Walk the Streets, The Wall Street Journal, 25 April 2016, http://www.wsj.com/articles/pakistans-crackdown-on-islamic-militants-looks-selective- 1461565803.
119Ibid. Shah
120 The Express Tribune, Re-emergence of banned groups, 10 June 2016, http://tribune.com.pk/story/1120361/re-emergence-banned-groups/
121Aalmi Majlis Tahaffuz Khatm-e-Nubuwwat, 2016, www.amtkn.com.
122Ibid. Aalmi
123Ibid. Jalal
124Mohammed Wajihuddin, DarulUloom asks Saudi Arabia to ban Ahmadiyas from Mecca visit, The Times of India, 30 June 2011, http://www.thepersecution.org/world/india/11/06/ti30.html
125 Mohammed Wajihuddin, Darul Uloom asks Saudi Arabia to ban Ahmadiyas from Mecca visit, The Times of India, 30 June 2011, http://www.thepersecution.org/world/india/11/06/ti30.html
126 Kurt Barlin, London mosque accused of links to ‘terror’ in Pakistan, BBC News, 22 September 2011, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-15021073.
127Sajid Iqbal and Noel Titheragde, ‘Kill Ahmadis’ leaflets found in UK mosque, BBC News, 11 April 2016, ttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35928848.
128 Rana Tanveer, Anti-Ahmadi group campaigning for funds through newspaper ads, The Express Tribune, 25 June 2016, http://tribune.com.pk/story/1129892/anti-ahmadi-group-campaigning-funds-newspaper-ads/
129 The Express Tribune, Ahmadi man shot dead in targeted attack in Karachi, 26 May 2016, http://tribune.com.pk/story/1110466/tragic-incident-ahmadi-man-shot-dead-targeted-attack/
130 Omar Waraich, Sectarian Attacks on Lahore Mosques Kill More than 80, Time, 28 May 2010, http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1992630,00.html
131 Ibid. Waraich
132 Iqbal Mirza, Mob attack over alleged blasphemy: Three Ahmadis killed in Gujranwala, Dawn, 28 July 2014, http://www.dawn.com/news/1122143
133 Libby Brooks, Shunned for saying they’re Muslims: life for Ahmadis after Asad Shah’s murder, The Guardian, 9 April 2016, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/09/shunned-for-saying-theyre-muslims-life-for- ahmadis-after-asad-shahs.
134Ibid. Brooks
135 Omar Oakes, Worshippers told at Tooting Islamic Centre to boycott Ahmadiyya shops, Wimbledon Guardian, 14 October 2010, http://www.wimbledonguardian.co.uk/news/8451539.Worshippers_told_to_boycott_Ahma%20diyya_shops/ 136 Athar Ahmad, Muslim sect called ‘less than animals’, BBC Two, 13 April 2016, http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p03qx6q5.
137Joern Wegner, Die erste deutsche Moschee, Eine wechselvolle Geschichte, TAZ, 4 August 2013, https://www.taz.de/!5061890/; Westdeutsche Rundfunk, Stichtag, 26 April 1925 – Ältestenocherhaltene Moschee Deutschlandseröffnet, 6 May 2005, http://www1.wdr.de/stichtag/stichtag-224.html.
138Gerdientje Jonker, The Ahmadiyya Quest for Religious Progress: Missionizing Europe 1900-1965, Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2015, p. 145.
139Roshan Mughal, Unlikely origins, The Express Tribune, 4 December 2011, http://tribune.com.pk/story/300034/unlikely-origins/.
140Ibid. Abbas
141 Shah Faisal Kakar, KSA-Pakistan ties touch new heights, Arab News, 14 August 2015, http://www.arabnews.com/saudi-arabia/news/790986.
142 State Bank of Pakistan, Country-wise Workers’ Remittances, 2016, http://www.sbp.org.pk/ecodata/Homeremit.pdf.
143 Muhammad Anis, 1,180 Pakistan Army personnel present in Saudi Arabia: Kh Asif, The News, 20 January 2016, http://www.thenews.com.pk/print/92465-1180-Pakistan-Army-personnel-presentin-Saudi-Arabia-Kh- Asif.
144 Jean-Luc Racine, Pakistan’s difficult neighbours, Le Monde Diplomatique, March 2016, https://mondediplo.com/2016/03/08pakistan.
145Ifran Haider, Pemra advises TV channels to display ‘caution’ on Saudi-Iran conflict, The Dawn, 06 January 2016, http://www.dawn.com/news/1231171.
146Gilles Kepel, The War for Muslim Minds: Islam and the West, Cambridge/London: Belknap/Harvard University Press, 2004, p. 170 – 173; Madawi al-Rasheed, Contesting the Saudi State: Islamic Voices from a New Generation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007, p. 73-74.
147Bassem Hassan, Egypt: The Continuing Legacy of the Mubarak-Sadat Regime, Al Jazeera Centre for Studies, 8 June 2011, http://studies.aljazeera.net/ResourceGallery/media/Documents/2011/7/30/2011730124542515580Egypt- The%20Continuing%20Legacy%20of%20the%20Mubarak-Sadat%20Regime.pdf.
148Zachary Laub, Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood, Council on Foreign Relations, 15 January 2014, http://www.cfr.org/egypt/egypts-muslim-brotherhood/p23991.
149Laurant Bonnefoy, Salafism in Yemen: Transnationalism and Religious Identity, London: Hurst, 2012, p. 61-3. 150 Interviews with author of senior Saudi bankers in 2001/2002.
151 Interviews with author of senior Saudi bankers in 2001/2002.
152Andrew Higgins, Robert Block, Glenn Simpson, James M. Dorsey, Christopher Cooper and Michael Sesit, The War on Terrorism: Muslim Charities Tied to Terror Are a Risky Target for the U.S./ Saudis Are Asked to Sort Out Religious Promotion and Support of Militants”/ People Feel Targeted for No Reason and That the Americans Are Again Trying a Witch Hunt, The Wall Street Journal, 21 October 2001.
153 Raza Khan, Scuffle breaks out between Maulana Sherani, Ashrafi during CII meeting, Dawn, 29 December 2015, http://www.dawn.com/news/1229401
154 Interview with the author, 16 June 2016
155 Benazir Shah and Abid Hussain, Does Pakistan Need An Islamic Council? The Caravan, 6 June 2016, http://www.caravanmagazine.in/vantage/pakistan-need-islamic-council#sthash.Tm366VHG.dpuf
156 Tahir Mehdi, Reproductive violence, Dawn, 7 June 2016, http://www.dawn.com/news/1263136/reproductive-violence
157 Benazir Jatoi, Punjab’s attempt as Protecting Women, The Express Tribune, 17 June 2016, http://tribune.com.pk/story/1124234/punjabs-attempt-protecting-women/
158 Kathy Gannon, In Pakistan, gruesome ‘honour’ killings bring a new backlash, Associated Press, 4 July 2016, https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/in-pakistan-gruesome-honor-killings-bring-a-new- backlash/2016/07/04/0cfa3e24-41ae-11e6-a76d- 3550dba926ac_story.html?postshare=9971467696176656&tid=ss_tw
159 Amir Wasim, CII Blamed for rise in incidents, Dawn, 10 June 2016, http://www.dawn.com/news/1263920/cii-blamed-for-rise-in-incidents-of-violence-against-women
160 I. A. Rehman, The roots of misogyny, Dawn, 16 June 2016, http://www.ipsnews.net/2016/06/the-roots-of- misogyny/
161 Maryam Usman, Bill aiming to ban child marriages shot down, The Express Tribune, 15 January 2016, http://tribune.com.pk/story/1027742/settled-matter-bill-aiming-to-ban-child-marriages-shot-down/
162 Farahnaz Ispahani, Purifying the Land of the Pure: Pakistan’s Religious Minorities, New Delhi: Harper Collins India, 2016, Kindle edition
163 Ibid. Shah and Hussain
164 Zia Ur Rahman, Fresh efforts being made to affiliate madrassas with PMEB, The News, 26 June 2015, http://www.thenews.com.pk/print/47930-fresh-efforts-being-made-to-affiliate-madrassas-with-pmeb
165 Imtiaz Ali, Famed qawwal Amjad Sabri gunned down in Karachi, Dawn, 22 June 2016, http://www.dawn.com/news/1266514/famed-qawwal-amjad-sabri-gunned-down-in-karachi
166 Saadat Hasan Manto, By the Grace of God (Allah ka bara fazal hay) in Amjad Tufail (ed), Complete and Authentic collection of Manto’s works (Mustanad aur Jama’y Kuliat e Manto), Edition 6, Islamabad: Narratives, 2012, p. 254-258
167 Steve Chao, Pakistan – Music Under Siege, Al Jazeera, 101 East, 20 October 2015, http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/101east/2015/10/pakistan-music-siege-151020115104964.html
168 Ibid. Chao
169 Anne Garrels, Taliban Threats, Attacks Silence Pakistani Singer, National Public Radio, 12 March 2009, http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=101733831
170 Ibid. Chao
171 Muhammad Rome, Study on Effects of War and Repression on Musicians, Performers, and the Public of Swat, Pakistan, Pakhtunkhwa Cultural Foundation/Freemuse, 3 March 2016, http://www.freemuse.org/wp- content/uploads/2016/06/Swat-report2016.pdf
172 Mohammad Shehzad, Pakistan: MMA to ban women’s photography, dance and music, Women Living Under Muslim Laws, 24 February 2005, http://www.wluml.org/node/1905
173 Ibid. Rome
174 Fayyaz Hussain, What really happened when Mufti Abdul Qavi broke his fast with Qandeel Baloch in a hotel? Daily Pakistan, 20 June 2016, http://en.dailypakistan.com.pk/lifestyle/real-story-of-mufti-qavis-breaks- fast-with-qandeel-balcoh/
175 Catherine Shoard, Bollywood star Veena Malik handed 26-year sentence for ‘blasphemous’ wedding scene, The Guardian, 27 November 2014, https://www.theguardian.com/film/2014/nov/27/bollywood-veena-malik- sentenced-26-years-jail-religious-blasphemy-wedding
176 Naeem Sahoutara, Veena Malik seeks to join Jamia Binoria for Islamic education, The Express Tribune, 7 May 2016, http://tribune.com.pk/story/1098873/veena-malik-seeks-to-join-jamia-binoria-for-islamic- education/
177Glenn R. Simpson, Saudi Arabia to Shut Down Group/ Assets of Former Director of al Haramain Frozen: Potential Links to al Qaeda, The Wall Street Journal, 3 June 2004.


France: Calls For Detention Without Trial For Potential Terrorists

$
0
0

By Cécile Barbière

(EurActiv) — French right wing politicians have demanded tougher anti-terror laws, including detention without trial – which the government argues is unconstitutional – after the recent terrorist attacks in France.

The political debate gained fresh momentum after the attack on the church of Saint-Etienne-du-Rouvray on Tuesday (26 July). Two Islamic State-linked militants stormed the church on Tuesday morning and murdered an 84-year old priest before being shot dead by security services.

Right wing politicians, including former president Nicolas Sarkozy, have since called for the legalisation of ‘administrative detention’, or the arrest without charge or trial of terror suspects, in the name of national security.

The French security services currently hold files – known as ‘S’ files – on about 10,000 people that pose a potential threat to the state, from football hooligans to radicalised Muslims.

One of the Saint-Etienne-du-Rouvray attackers, Adel Kermiche, was well-known to the security services. Taken into custody after two attempts to travel to Syria, the 19-year old had been released and was under surveillance.

Rule of law

“When a French citizen tries to leave to join a jihadist group – I speak to you now as a former minister for defence – to fight French troops, what do we call him? A traitor! When he returns he has to be put in a position where he can do no harm […] he has to be incarcerated,” said Hervé Lorin, the president of the regional council of Normandy.

“I call for the introduction of administrative detention for those we judge too dangerous,” he told Europe 1.

The establishment of administrative detention is also supported by the leader of the right wing Les Républicains (former UMP) party, Nicolas Sarkozy. He this week called for all people on the list of S files to be taken into custody.

“We must show no pity. Legal nit-picking, precautions and pretexts for incomplete action are not acceptable,” he said at press conference on Tuesday (26 July).

Desperate times, desperate measures

In an interview with Le Monde on Wednesday (27 July), Sarkozy said that France could not continue with its current legal framework.

Administrative detention would undermine the principle of being ‘innocent until proven guilty’, but for Sarkozy, this would be justified by the current circumstances. “Our system should protect potential victims rather than the probable perpetrators of future attacks,” he said.

“Unconstitutional proposal”

But for President François Hollande, Sarkozy’s proposal is unconstitutional.

“Restricting our liberties, derogating from our constitutional rules will not make our fight against terrorism more efficient and would strike a severe blow to the cohesion that our nation needs,” he said after the church attack on Tuesday.

“Of course we need to examine everything that can be done within the framework of the law, but we will not invent new laws and new systems after each terrorist attack,” the Prime Minister Manuel Valls said on TF1.

“Anyone who says that a new law or system can stop another terrorist attack is wrong and they are lying to the French people.”

The question of preventative detention is judged illegal by the Council of State, France’s highest court. The Council said, “Outside the penal process, the detention of people that pose a radicalisation risk is excluded by the constitution.”

Pokemon Go Hack Allows Players To Stay Indoors

$
0
0

With millions of downloads since its launch a few weeks ago, Pokemon Go has quickly become a popular exercise tool as players around the world head outdoors to battle at gyms and catch roving pocket monsters.

But a few tech-savvy hackers appear to have found a way to circumvent one of the game’s core requirements – the need to go outside – with a unique use of hardware.

The method, which has been widely shared in a new YouTube video, appears to show players locking a smartphone in a box that blocks radio frequencies. They then use a special signal generator and a joystick to manually control the device’s GPS using custom software.

The result: a player can kick back and virtually “stroll” around town without ever leaving home.

But it’s fairly unlikely that armchair PokeMasters will overtake the game. The method involves some fairly pricey and hard-to-find hardware; for instance, a radio-frequency-blocking shield box can cost hundreds or thousands of dollars. And, even if a person could afford the necessary devices, they’d need some serious programming chops to set up the hack.

There’s also the possibility that the new method could get busted. Pokemon Go uses a phone’s pedometer and GPS to measure distance travelled, and the joystick method doesn’t involve any physical steps.

It’s not the first time Pokemon Go players have tried to find a way to stay indoors and play. Some players have hired other people to walk around and level up for them, and at least one user reportedly strapped his phone to a drone and soared around town, Pidgey-style.

Moldova: Lack Of Support For NATO Involvement in Transnistria Dispute

$
0
0

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization is seeing itself tested in one key area – how far the Alliance is willing to go to push back against Russia in the former Soviet republic of Moldova, on NATO’s borders.

A country of roughly 3.6 million people, Moldova initially watched Russia’s incursions into and takeover of territory in Moldova’s much larger eastern neighbor, Ukraine, with unease. Since 1992, Russian military units – officially, peacekeepers – have been stationed in Transnistria, a largely Russian-speaking area bordering Ukraine that declared its independence from Moldovan rule in 1990.

The ardently pro-Western Moldovan Defense Minister Anatol Şalaru argues that it is time these troops got out. At NATO’s Warsaw summit on July 9, Şalaru asked for the alliance to back an attempt to bring in “a multinational civil mission” to Transnistria, “while the Russian army and ammunition are evacuated from our territory, in compliance with its international commitments.”

In 1999, Russia committed itself to withdrawing its troops from both Moldova and Georgia. It justifies its ongoing presence in Transnistria by saying that its 1,500-some troops alone prevent the resumption of armed conflict with Moldovan forces.

Although the United States, NATO’s principal force, has reminded Moscow in the past of its commitment, the Alliance shows no sign of wanting to drive home the point now. But Şalaru has persisted.

At the July 25 opening ceremony for the American-Ukrainian-run Sea Breeze 2016 military exercise in the Ukrainian Black Sea port city of Odessa, he stressed that without NATO’s support neither Moldova nor would-be NATO members Ukraine or Georgia will be able to cope with Russian military aggression.

Yet, aware of NATO’s reserve, this time he broadened his meaning. “When I refer to the support of NATO, I am not referring only to the military dimension, but also the scale of values that NATO is sharing and to which we are aiming also: a functional democracy, rule of law, market economy and citizens who feel safe.”

Moldovan political analyst Dionis Cenușă, however, sees no chance that the Brussels-based alliance, which, at Warsaw, punted on establishing a strong Black Sea presence, will now opt to get involved in a separatist conflict that involves Russia.

“[T]he defense minister’s request has zero value and although, of course, Şalaru’s message has a certain political value, its basic logic is shaky,” argued Cenușă, who represents the Expert-Group, a non-profit think-tank in the Moldovan capital, Chișinău.

“NATO is not in a position to force Russia to pull back its troops from the separatist region,” agreed Paul Ivan, a senior policy analyst with the Brussels-based European Policy Centre and former Romanian foreign ministry official.

NATO has increased its training cooperation with Moldova and devoted one paragraph in its Warsaw summit declaration to its support for Moldova’s defense and other reforms – a change from the past, noted Ivan. Yet, unlike for Georgia and Ukraine, the Alliance has no liaison office for Moldova.

While NATO member Romania, Moldova’s next-door neighbor, with whom it shares close economic and cultural ties, conceivably could promote Şalaru’s proposal, it has not indicated that it will. Romanian media, however, have covered his push for a Russian pullout from Transnistria.

Nor has the rest of Moldova’s government endorsed Şalaru’s proposal. Timing could be a large part of its reticence. After a failed attempt earlier this month, talks are ongoing about a Moscow-proposed “road map” toward restoring exports of Moldovan wine and fruit to Russia, once Moldova’s largest export market.

Tighter cooperation with NATO, arguably, would put a roadblock in that “map.” Russia earlier axed trade ties with Moldova over the latter’s closer ties with the European Union. Already scrambling to boost economic growth, the government has no desire to bring on additional trade worries.

How Şalaru views this lack of political support for his idea is not clear. The minister did not respond to EurasiaNet.org’s request for comments.

By comparison with the South Caucasus’ breakaway conflicts, however, the Moldovan government’s relationship with Transnistria is an unusual one. The region’s de-facto officials are allowed to fly in and out of Chișinău’s airport, as are Russian envoys traveling to visit the pro-Moscow regime in Transnistria’s main town, Tiraspol.

In turn, Transnistria’s separatists allow Moldovan ministers, including the prime minister, as well as ordinary Moldovans, to visit ethnic Moldovan villages under their control. Some villagers from Moldovan-controlled territory even opt to travel into Transnistria for grocery shopping.

Not only groceries can come from Transnistria; most of Moldova’s electricity does as well – transfers the Moldovan economy ministry deems “imports” since Transnistria does not use the Moldovan lei.

After 24 years, few Moldovans see anything peculiar about this. At the same time, most are not necessarily enthusiastic about building closer ties with NATO.

The most recent opinion poll shows that Moldovan support for the Euro-Atlantic alliance is far from robust. In a November 2015 survey, the bi-annual Barometer of Public Opinion, only 16 percent of 1,160 respondents stated that NATO membership “would be the best solution for ensuring the security of our country” – a figure only two percentage points above the 2014 number. Fifty percent of respondents preferred neutrality.

In an April survey by the same organization, 1,143 Moldovans ranked their children’s future, prices and unemployment, rather than war, as their largest concerns.

Moscow appears aware of that. Though Kremlin-loyal media have covered Şalaru’s proposal, no official has commented. Russia’s foreign ministry, however, termed “extremely dangerous” Şalaru’s 2015 claim that Russia is waging a “hybrid war” against Moldova via Transnistria.

Nonetheless, as “a state that considers itself a great power,” and Transnistria’s protector, Russia, which has no interest in NATO’s expansion, could still lash out over the proposal, Cenușă noted.

Ultimately, how to respond will not depend on NATO, emphasized Ivan. “How close NATO will be to Moldova or how present Russia will be in Moldova will mostly be a decision for the Moldovans and their political leaders to take,” he said.

Ralph Nader: Hillary’s Convention Con – OpEd

$
0
0

The 2016 Democratic Convention in Philadelphia was a multi-layered, raucous display of political theater. A host of delegates loyal to Senator Bernie Sanders were inside in large numbers exclaiming “No more war” during former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta’s speech and raising all kinds of progressive, rebellious signs and banners against the Hillary crowd. Although Hillary addressed them directly in her acceptance speech, “Your cause is my cause,” those dissatisfied delegates in the hall saw her rhetoric for what it was: insincere and opportunistic.

She said she’d tax the wealthy for public necessities, but declined to mention a sales tax on Wall Street speculation that could bring in as much as $300 billion a year to support such initiatives. She opposed “unfair trade agreements,” but remarkably omitted saying she was against the TPP (the notorious pending Trans Pacific Trade Agreement backed by Obama that is receiving wide left/right opposition).

She paid lip service to a “living wage” but avoided endorsing a $15 an hour minimum wage, which would help single moms and their children – people she wants us to believe have been her enduring cause. Few people know that it took until the spring of 2014 before candidate Clinton would come out for even a $10.10 minimum wage. News reports noted that Clinton, a former member of Walmart’s board of directors and Arkansas corporate lawyer, was wrestling with how to support $10.10 per hour without alienating her Wall Street friends.

“Caring for kids” doesn’t extend to encircled Gaza’s defenseless children, hundreds of whom were killed by American-made weapons wielded by the all powerful Israeli military. Gaza is the the world’s largest open air prison and under illegal blockade. Remember, as Secretary of State, Hillary fully backed war crimes, condemned by almost all countries in the world. On the stage in Philadelphia, she spoke of backing Israel’s security without any mention of Palestinian rights or the need to end Israel’s illegal occupation of the territories.

It is true, as numerous speakers repeated, Clinton is “most qualified and experienced,” but her record shows those qualities have led to belligerent, unlawful military actions that are now boomeranging against U.S. interests. The intervention she insistently called for in Libya, with Obama’s foolish consent, over-rode the wiser counsel of Secretary of Defense Robert Gates (and his generals), who warned of the chaos that would follow. He was proven right, with chaotic  violence now all over Libya spilling into other African countries. This is but one example of what Bernie Sanders meant during the debates when he referenced her “poor judgement.”

The media coverage of political conventions tends to sink to the level of the circus. The PBS/NPR coverage with some half dozen reporters and two commentators proved to be thin, light, soft and superficial. Otherwise smart media communicators were reduced to very heavy focus on exactly what the Party’s manipulators wanted. “What is Hillary really like?” Of course the stage was filled with frothy admiration, awe and acclamation. But why didn’t the media point out some of the factual omissions, the contradictions to the endless sugarcoating of the nominee?

To her credit, NPR/PBS reporter, Susan Davis, did blurt out that the Convention program was mostly about personality and character with little policy. Reporters did, however, point out that unlike all other candidates, Hillary Clinton has not had a news conference since last December to showcase her supposed experience, qualifications and knowledge!

Why wouldn’t Hillary Clinton, in her attack on Donald Trump, demand the release of his tax returns? Hillary and Bill have regularly released their tax returns. Maybe because Trump would demand Hillary release her secret Wall Street transcripts of her $5,000-a-minute paid speeches to big bankers and other businesses.

To her verbal credit, Hillary Clinton raised the “unpatriotic” charge against too many U.S. corporations (not all she added) when it comes to our country. Born in the U.S.A, grown to profit on the backs of American workers, bailed out by American taxpayers and occasionally by the U.S. Marines overseas, these giant companies have no allegiance to country or community. They are, with trade agreements and other inducements, abandoning America’s workers and escaping America’s laws and taxes.

Hearing the word “unpatriotic” applied to those companies I could imagine these firms’ executives and P.R. flacks shuddering for the only time during her 55-minute address. The stigma of being “unpatriotic” to their enabling native country can have consequential legs for turning public opinion even more deeply against these monetized corporate Goliaths.

Stung by the consistently high “untrustworthy” ratings since polling started asking that question (only Trump exceeds her in most polls), she declared again that no one achieves greatness alone, that it takes us working together, that it “Takes a Village,” alluding to her earlier book. If that is true, then Together must have more power than the Few. “Together” should include workers, consumers, small taxpayers, voters and communities who are excluded from power, from the tools of democracy – electoral reforms and clean elections, more unions and cooperatives, access to justice for wrongful injuries and against crony capitalism and corporate crime and greater citizen empowerment. Does she have an agenda for a devolution of power from the few to the many so that we can be “stronger together,” (her slogan for 2016)? No way. Mum’s the word!

This immense gap has been the Clinton duo’s con job on America for many years. Sugarcoating phrases, populist flattery, getting the election over with and jumping back into the fold of the plutocracy is their customary M.O.

An anti-Hillary campaign button sums it up. Imagine a nice picture of Hillary with the words “More Wall Street” above her head and the words “More War” below her head.

Alert voters could see it coming at the Convention: the militarism for Hillary the Hawk on day four in Philadelphia and the arrival of the corporate fat cats. Or, as the New York Times headlined: “Top Donors Leave Sidelines, Checkbooks in Hand.”

The best thing Hillary Clinton has going for her is the self-destructive, unstable, unorganized, fact and truth-starved, egomaniacal, cheating, plutocratic, Donald Trump (See my column “Cheating Donald”).

That’s where our nation’s two-party political leadership is today. When will the vast left/right majority rise to take over and reverse the eviscerating policies and practices of this political duopoly?

Hillary To Deliver Syria To Jihadists? – OpEd

$
0
0

According to Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy advisor, Jeremy Bash, if Clinton is elected she will order a “re-set” of US policy toward Syria to emphasize the “murderous” nature of the Assad regime. As the Telegraph reports, Hillary Clinton will breathe new life into the “Assad must go” camp. She will likely launch a full-scale US invasion of Syria.

Said Bash:

A Clinton administration will not shrink from making clear to the world exactly what the Assad regime is. It is a murderous regime that violates human rights; that has violated international law; used chemical weapons against his own people; has killed hundreds of thousands of people, including tens of thousands of children.

Of course claims that Assad used chemical weapons on his own people is the long since disproven neocon cri de guerre to push Obama into an attack on the Syrian government. The 2013 gas attack near Ghouta was likely a provocation by the rebels hoping to draw the US directly into their fight.

This “he gassed his own people” line is the Syrian version of Saddam’s “WMDs,” a lie repeated ad infinitum to make the case for war.

As far as violating international law, the entire two year US intervention in Syria is in clear violation of international law. The US has no legal right to bomb Syria.

Clinton’s advisor informs us that as president his boss would involve the US in everyone else’s affairs: “Mrs Clinton believes that problems around the world can more easily be solved when America is involved and in each of those problems or crisis,” he told the Telegraph

If Hillary becomes president and gets her way with a Syria “re-set” the prime beneficiary will be radical Islamists. There literally is no secular, moderate opposition to the Assad government.

How do we know the jihadists will come out on top? Her last great intervention, the “liberation” of Libya should be precedent. Gaddafi was no angel, but until shortly before he was overthrown he was a Washington ally, a secular counterpart to creeping Islamization of the region. After the 2011 “liberation” strongly backed by Hillary, Libya has turned into a hellhole of competing radical Islamist militias and warlords. ISIS and al-Qaeda were unheard of in Libya before Hillary got her hands on it. Now it is rotten with them.

When it comes to Syria, Hillary means war.

This article was published by RonPaul Institute.

Viewing all 73742 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images