Fight kashmir case..

IMRAN Khan will head to New York next week to argue the case of India-held Kashmir before world
leaders at the annual UN General Assembly. It will be his first interaction with the most powerful
international forum that will provide him an opportunity to highlight the plight of a subjugated people.

Most important, however, is how effectively the prime minister conveys the message, even though one
doesn’t expect the UN to deliver justice. Nevertheless, international opinion matters. It is true that the
recent, unprecedented international media reports have exposed the horrifying human rights situation
and use of brute force by the Indian forces in the occupied territory. Yet it requires effective diplomacy to
push the international community into action.

Unfortunately, we are miserably lacking in skills that require maturity and clarity of purpose. What we
have witnessed so far is sheer verbosity that our foreign minister is so fond of indulging in — mainly for
domestic consumption. Commenting on everything and hurling war threats is not a sign of maturity that
one expects from the country’s foreign policy czar.

Should the foreign minister be declaring the Indian chief justice’s ruling on relaxing the lockdown in the
occupied state as Pakistan’s victory? Such pronouncements make light of an extremely serious problem.
He should have been spending more time travelling to other countries to apprise them of the situation in
Kashmir, rather than making frivolous statements every five minutes just to stay in the political limelight
at home. There have been hardly any outings apart from a visit to Geneva for a UN Human Rights Council
session. Surely members of the council did express concern over the appalling human rights situation in
occupied Kashmir, but the outcome appears to have been exaggerated.

ARTICLE CONTINUES AFTER AD

The UNGA provides an excellent forum for PM Khan to present a strong case for the people of IHK.

We were never told, for instance, which 58 countries signed the joint resolution and if there was any
public statement issued by the council condemning the Indian action as being inferred by the
government. It needed the support of only 16 members to call a special session of the council on
Kashmir. That never happened.
Read: PM commends 58 countries, EU over Kashmir cause

Talking of the nuclear war threat is highly irresponsible. We cannot scare the international community
into intervening in the matter. The chaotic state the government is in is also reflected in the bombast of
some other cabinet ministers.

The most prominent jewel in the crown is our railways minister who appears very keen to start a nuclear
war. Instead of taking care of his own department that is in a shambles given the increasing number of
train accidents, he is now preoccupied with national security and foreign policy issues.

Read: Sheikh Rashid’s ‘war’

He recently predicted a nuclear war between Pakistan and India before the end of the year. He has also
claimed that Pakistan has tiny nuclear devices that could be used against the enemy forces. Such utterly
nonsensical remarks on sensitive issues come in handy for those who look for any opportunity to prove
us an irresponsible state. It also greatly harms our cause of fighting Kashmir’s case at international
forums.

More importantly, the government must not reduce the Kashmir situation to a Pakistan-India one. The
very slogan ‘Kashmir will become Pakistan’ could limit our options. It is also against the UN resolution
that had called for plebiscite to allow Kashmiris to decide their own future.

While fighting Kashmir’s case, we must entirely focus on the right of self-determination for Kashmiris and
their human rights. The issue should not be made into a dispute that alienates the people of Kashmir.
Leave it to the Kashmiri people to decide what they want.

More than anything else, the Indian action of annexing the occupied territory and the use of brute
military force to silence eight million people has brought the Kashmir issue onto the international stage.
It has alienated the entire Kashmiri population. Even strict censorship and a complete lockdown have
failed to stop the flow of news regarding Indian state terrorism in occupied Kashmir.
That has certainly moved the public conscience, but not necessarily helped change the policy of states
dictated by their economic and geopolitical considerations. It’s also a fact that over the years, our
international clout has diminished largely because of our political and economic instability. An
unimaginative foreign policy has also added to our predicament. In fact, it’s a policy adrift. Nothing
would please the Indian leadership more than our state of disarray.

The domination of security agencies in determining the policy direction has also been responsible for
limiting our options. Even the cell formed by the government to formulate strategy on Kashmir may find
a diplomatic and political approach constricted by the presence of members of the security
establishment. A bipartisan parliamentary committee would have been more effective in fighting this
battle on both the diplomatic and political fronts. Domestic public mobilisation is, indeed, important, but
it is active international diplomacy that matters more.

It is a great opportunity for the prime minister to reach out to world leaders during the UN session and
fight the case of the Kashmiri people. Imran Khan calls himself the ambassador of the Kashmir cause and
that is what he needs to prove in New York. His speech at the General Assembly should be focused and
powerful in substance. For the limited time allocated to the speakers one needs to be structured and
precise.

The world leaders gathered at the UNGA have little patience for rambling discourses. Given his penchant
for speaking extempore (at which the prime minister is not very good) even at international forums, one
has doubts about the impact he would make. The prime minister will be speaking after Narendra Modi
and one hopes that he doesn’t resort to polemics. Pakistan has a strong case to fight and the UNGA
provides a great forum to make Kashmir’s case forcefully.

Imran Khan is also planning to speak at a public rally in New York meant to draw international attention
to Indian atrocities in held Kashmir. But one hopes that he does not bring Pakistan’s internal political
matters into his address as he did during his official visit to Washington earlier this year.

The writer is an author and journalist.

Cliate crises
THERE is no doubt that climate change is affecting us. Even sceptics seem to have accepted the fact that
the earth is now 1°C warmer than it was in the preindustrial times. Global organisations, such as the UN,
are working to hold the temperature increase at 2°C in the near future, while simultaneously trying to
halt the overall warming by 1.5°C by the year 2100.

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the human-induced global heating is at
the rate of 0.2°C per decade — an alarming rate to say the least.

Most European countries have taken the lead in devising ways to reduce carbon emissions and
environmental pollution. These countries are combating the climate crisis by challenging themselves
through targets set until the year 2030. For example, the UK has targeted to ban fuel-engine cars by 2040
and is investing in the research and development of electrical vehicles as an alternative.

Pakistan became the first country in the world to have set up a full-fledged National Ministry of Climate
Change in 2012. This move was shortly followed by another commendable effort: the issuance of the
National Policy on Climate Change. The policy identified key areas that needed attention and corrective
measures to reduce the impacts of climate change, but it failed to set achievable targets.

ARTICLE CONTINUES AFTER AD

The battle against climate change cannot be fought with ideas alone.

Since 2012, the climate change ministry has been downgraded and restored by successive governments,
all of which have failed to develop the impetus needed to develop a broad-based strategy to deal with
the effects of climate change.

Even though most people, both in the government and among the public, would agree that climate
change is a dire issue that affects them in many ways, they are not sure what they can do in their
capacity to control it. Hence, they end up doing nothing and simply continue with their environmentally
harmful ways.
What is needed from the government is a multi-pronged strategy that will teach the masses about the
dangers of climate change. Though the poor may have already had to endure the effects in the forms of
displacement from flash floods created by rapidly melting glaciers or prolonged droughts, they might not
associate these phenomena with climate change itself. It is imperative that awareness campaigns include
information regarding the effects of climate change and what actions can be taken on a collective and
individual level to reduce its impact.

The government can also benefit from entrepreneurial young minds. Many tech start-ups pair up with
civic rights and human rights organisations for social projects. The government too can emulate this
method by inviting young entrepreneurs and activists to take part in hackathons or boot camps to
generate ideas, gather resources, and educate people about climate change and ways to slow down or
counter the process in Pakistan.

However, the battle against climate change cannot be fought with ideas and targets alone. It also
requires an attitudinal shift among the leadership and the public. While there needs to be a consensus
on a robust and updated policy on climate change, it will eventually be the behaviour and habits of the
people — across all economic groups — that will play a critical role in fighting to reverse the impacts of
climate change. This responsibility towards the environment has been termed ‘eco-consciousness’ —
behaviour or attitude showing concern for the environment.

This attitudinal shift can begin with schools. If the government makes climate change, its impact and the
importance of conservation a part of the science curriculum, not only will it help reduce the burden of
public awareness, it would also produce eco-conscious young men and women.

Individual efforts or actions by members of the public can include reducing meat consumption, which
will help lower the carbon footprint and greenhouse gas emission involved in the upkeep of cattle.
Another step that can be taken is making an effort to reduce plastic waste by cutting down on the use of
plastic products, and recycling waste whenever possible. Simply carrying one’s own washable and
reusable water bottle regularly can go a long way.

After a blanket ban on the use of plastic bags in the federal capital, the Punjab and Sindh governments
also reiterated their commitments to earlier unimplemented bans they had put in place decades ago.
Hopefully, this time, the ban will force the public to switch to more environment-friendly alternatives.
Even miniscule individual changes in our lifestyles can bring about a much larger collective impact. We as
individuals should also try to learn more about our environment and what we can do to conserve it.
Together, we can contribute towards reversing the harmful effects of climate change.

The writer is an environmentalist by profession and a Commonwealth Scholar from Durham University,
UK.

Published in Dawn, September 18th, 2019

Oil and blood....

IT’S unclear whether last Saturday’s devastating attacks on key Saudi Aramco facilities will serve as a
sobering reminder to the kingdom’s ruling family of the price it must pay for its appallingly misguided
military mission in Yemen.

The latter nation’s Houthi militia immediately claimed responsibility, but Mike Pompeo, the US secretary
of state, was equally quick to lay the blame squarely on Iran. The following day, Donald Trump tweeted
that American forces were “locked and loaded”, awaiting “verification” from Riyadh.

The implication was that the House of Saud just had to give the word for its saviour-in-chief to launch
retaliatory strikes, presumably against Iran. Were that threat to be carried out, there’s a reasonable
chance it would unleash the worst war the Middle East has witnessed in recent decades, in a region
already convulsed in seemingly intractable conflicts.

The sites of the Saudi conflagrations are considerably closer to Iraq and Iran than to Yemen, but Pompeo
is reported to have informed Iraq’s prime minister that the attacks did not emanate from Iraqi territory.
And even if Iran was behind the drones and/or missiles that struck the Aramco sites, what are the
chances it would launch them from its own terrain?

ARTICLE CONTINUES AFTER AD

All bets would be off, were a war to be unleashed.

Meanwhile, Riyadh is being circumspect in its allegations, claiming that the weapons were of Iranian
origin without directly blaming Tehran.

It’s hard to believe that the Saudi crown prince, Mohammad bin Salman (MBS), who was instrumental in
unleashing fire and fury against Yemen, would personally be averse to an American attack on Iran,
regardless of the consequences. It is possible, though, that he holds less sway than he did when
recalcitrant journalist Jamal Khashoggi was literally butchered at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul almost a
year ago.

In a related sphere, the current state of relations between MBS and his one-time mentor, Abu Dhabi
crown prince Mohammed bin Zayed, is also unclear. Saudi and Emirati proxies in Yemen have lately been
combating each other, adding a layer of complexity to the already convoluted conflicts in that benighted
country.

The Saudis and Emiratis collaborated in the utterly misguided assault on Yemen, but the UAE has in
recent months signalled a semi-disengagement; it refused to directly blame Iran for attacks on shipping
off its Gulf shores, and has even engaged in a spot of diplomacy with Tehran. Perhaps it recognised its
vulnerabilities earlier than the Saudis, thereby persuading the Houthis to lay off Emirati targets.

Meanwhile, although the blow to Saudi production facilities, which threatened to halve its daily output,
inevitably led to a spike this week in oil prices, the Saudis and the Americans both declared their
willingness to use their substantial reserves to make up for any shortfalls in the global market. All bets
would be off, however, were a war to be unleashed.

Perhaps there’s some consolation to be gained from the impression that Trump, regardless of his
sporadically belligerent rhetoric, is broadly averse to fresh hostilities in the run-up to an election year. Yet
nothing can prevent him from being consistently erratic. He was apparently willing to host
representatives of the Afghan Taliban at Camp David in the week marking the 18th anniversary of 9/11
to sign off on a peace deal alongside Afghan President Ashraf Ghani, but called off the talks after a fairly
routine Taliban attack in Kabul in which the fatalities included a single US soldier.
Shortly afterwards, Trump dismissed his belligerent national security adviser, John Bolton, on the basis
that they rarely saw eye to eye. Bolton is an unrepentant neoconservative notorious for abhorring all
peace treaties and adoring most wars. He has been advocating the invasion of Iran since he was in the
George W. Bush administration, and favoured a similar approach towards Venezuela, Cuba and North
Korea.

His hostility against dealing with the Taliban found some echoes in Afghanistan, where the overwhelming
desire for peace after 40 years of conflict is tempered by fear of a return to the obscurantist brutality of
the 1990s, given America’s virtual acknowledgment that its longest war has been an abysmal failure. Yet
talks are impossible to avoid on any path to a lasting peace.

Bolton’s visceral opposition to the remote possibility of direct talks between Trump and his Iranian
counterpart Hassan Rouhani on the sidelines of this month’s annual UN gathering, now rendered
inconceivable, was perhaps matched only by the feelings of Benjamin Netanyahu, alongside Saudi alarm.
The intensified verbal vitriol was propitiously — or suspiciously — well-timed for the Israeli prime
minister as he went into yesterday’s fraught election, although he had already put into effect his
contingency plan by vowing to annex a large part of the West Bank.

Whatever the immediate future may entail, it can almost be guaranteed that the Middle East will remain
on the boil for a long time to come.