(Pictorial) Beautiful Baltistan

Road to Skardu. — S.M.Bukhari

Sunrise of Indus river. — S.M.Bukhari



Trump’s anti-Iran aggression couldn’t come at a worse time

Trump's entire speech to Muslim world

Now PlayingTrump’s entire speech…
Trump’s entire speech to Muslim world 33:58

David A. Andelman, member of the board of contributors of USA Today, is the author of “A Shattered Peace: Versailles 1919 and the Price We Pay Today.” He formerly served as a foreign correspondent for The New York Times and CBS News. Follow him on Twitter @DavidAndelman. This opinions in this article belong to the author.

(CNN)At first glance, it appears that there are only two clear paths that the US can take when dealing with the Middle East: the Sunni path of Saudi Arabia and the bulk of its Gulf allies, on the one hand; or the Shiite path represented by Iran.

There is the path of dictators — like Egypt’s autocratic Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, the blinkered and aging royal family of Saudi Arabia, and the corrupt and helpless rulers of Iraq — all Sunnis.
By contrast, there is the young and desperately eager majority of Iranians, all Shiites, seeking to drag their nation out from under the yoke of a medieval clerical oppression.
The Trump administration, seduced by an effusive Saudi welcome — in sharp contrast to anything provided his predecessor, Barack Obama — may be taking the wrong road.
The correct, if difficult, third path for America is to straddle between Sunni and Shiite. But going on the evidence of Trump’s first overseas trip to Saudi Arabia and Israel — both firm enemies of Iran and critical of the Obama administration’s perceived warmth towards Iran — this is a path that the President seems determined to ignore.
Such a path is especially important since the landslide victory Friday of Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani in his bid for a second term, and the suggestion that Iran’s Shiite leadership may be preparing for a new and more enlightened future for its people.
Of course, while that new road can be paved with good intentions, we know where such paths can lead. Still, it is of vital importance that we give these youths a chance to explore it.
Rouhani’s 57% victory over his opponents in Friday’s election was clearly a clarion call from the nation’s increasingly young, urbanized and westernized middle class for a recognition of their aspirations for a dramatic break with the past. Yet the Trump administration seems hell bent on ignoring all such cries.
What incentive is there for Iran to move toward peace, toward the West and toward the US if we become known not as peacemakers but simply arms merchants to Iran’s sworn Sunni enemies in Saudi Arabia?
exp Trump's first trip overseas_00002001

Trump visits Saudi Arabia on first trip 06:17
At the very moment Rouhani and his supporters were celebrating his victory, Trump was signing $100 billion worth of arms sales to Saudi Arabia. And hours later, President Trump was telling a hand-picked crowd of Sunni leaders in Riyadh: “Until the Iranian regime is willing to be a partner for peace, all nations of conscience must work together to isolate Iran, deny it funding for terrorism, and pray for the day when the Iranian people have the just and righteous government they so richly deserve.”
It was decidedly not a gesture to the reality that this is precisely what these very Iranian people voted for two days earlier.
Yet under the leadership of the blinkered Trump administration and the Sunni dictators to which it has hitched America’s wagons, these forces of potential progress in Iran are being given few choices but to look elsewhere for weapons to defend their Shiite faith and their nation against the weapons being stockpiled by their Sunni enemies.
And there will be no shortages of potential arms merchants to Iran. We have only to look to the list of nations congratulating Rouhani on his remarkable victory. Russian President Vladimir Putin, China’s Xi Jinping, even the foreign policy chief of the European Union, Frederica Mogherini, weighed in with warm wishes.
But there is more to the new era that may mark the path of Iran. If, as now appears increasingly likely following the weekend’s events in Riyadh, the Sunni-Shiite divide continues to widen, it will have unfortunate consequences for the war on terrorism that President Trump seems so intent to pursue in short-sighted alliance with questionable partners.
For while the battle against ISIS is quite clearly a battle — as President Trump has expressed it — between good and evil, it is also a conflict that has gone on for centuries between Sunni and Shiite.
Today, it is ISIS whose leaders profess the Sunni religion, as did al Qaeda before them and a host of other rebel forces and tribes into a dark and terrifying past. Few forces have been effectively arrayed against them. Kurdish troops have held their own in a succession of bitter and deadly battles.
It is Iran, and its powerful Shiite forces, that — if unleashed en masse against ISIS in their strongholds in Syria and what remains of their holdings in Iraq — could end the reign of terror of ISIS in the blink of an eye.
Trump and his advisers seem to be acting on the ancient pronouncement that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. They simply have been unable or unwilling to identify who could be our real and true enemies, and who our long-term friends.
Iran, apparently, no matter how vocally its people scream for change, will continue to find only deaf ears from Washington to Riyadh.

The ugly truth behind Saudi Arabia’s love for Melania Trump

Anushay Hossain Anushay Hossain

CNN)Donald Trump’s first major trip overseas may be fraught with diplomatic land mines for the President, but the Trump administration can at least comfort itself with the clear hit that Melania Trump has been with the Saudi press.

The fact that Melania is communicating with the media and the public in Saudi Arabia — mainly through what Saudi news reports have deemed her “classy and conservative” fashion choices — works well in the notoriously anti-woman kingdom. Her intense appeal makes sense, considering the first lady represents so much that Saudi citizens find familiar and can relate to, especially visually. Melania walks behind her husband, is quiet and reserved, does not make obvious demands (at least not ones we can hear), and most importantly, she looks beautiful and polished.
All of that should come as no surprise, given whom Melania is married to. After all, how the Saudi government likes women to behave is similar to how Donald Trump has said he likes women to behave. And they both prefer women to look pretty in pictures, rather than hold actual positions of power.
Melania’s husband and the Saudi government also both know and understand the power and value of a good photo opportunity. In fact, fantastic photo opportunities are something the kingdom values and is hypersensitive about, especially ones that are going to be seen around the world.
For them, Melania Trump was perfectly poised in her black Stella McCartney jumpsuit and gilded gold belt. Melania projected a glamorous image for a country where women live under male guardianship, cannot drive, still do not have the full vote, and cannot travel or seek medical attention without male permission.
The Saudi press also appreciated Melania and first daughter Ivanka Trump’s championing of the kingdom’s feminism light, also known by some as “fake feminism” — the same brand of women’s rights Donald Trump likes to promote — which the two did by visiting companies run by women entrepreneurs. Those visits, which Ivanka and Melania made separately, project a false narrative of a government committed to advancing women’s rights.
Although much has been made about the first lady and first daughter not donning the headscarf, that choice really is not as big of a deal as people are making it out to be. Angela Merkel, Theresa May and Michelle Obama all skipped out on the headscarf while visiting Saudi Arabia, and Donald Trump even famously attacked Michelle Obama for insulting “Saudi culture” by showing her hair, something his wife and daughter both just did.
Image result for melania trump in saudi arabia
Even though a much stricter version of the Islamic covering is required by law for Saudi women, wives and female family members of foreign dignitaries do not have to abide by it. That was true when Donald Trump criticized Michelle Obama for not wearing one, and it is still true now that Melania and Ivanka have followed suit.
Follow CNN Opinion

Join us on Twitter and Facebook

The headscarf should be the least of the Trump family’s worries, because the Saudi press have embraced Melania (and to a related but lesser extent, Ivanka) for basically doing for the kingdom what they do for Donald Trump: Provide the perfect cover for misogyny and tyranny by being beautiful, poised and often silent.
In Melania, the Saudi press and the Saudi government found the perfect spokeswoman, who projects a glamorous image that glosses over one of world’s most autocratic and oppressive regimes.
What is not to love? Source

Appeal to CM Gilgit and Commander FCNA

Image may contain: 3 people, text

Gilgit-Baltistan Protests Over Neglecting in CPEC

At the cost of Gilgit-Baltistan where the largest part of the CPEC corridor  (One Road On Belt) is passing through none of the provinces of Pakistan should progress. 

Image result for Gilgit-Baltistan demand share in CPEC

People of Gilgit-Baltistan protests over this negligence with both Pakistan and China and demand equal and rightful share in the development projects. 

West’s Fear of China – Equates Gilgit-Baltistan as Kashmir

It is very interesting to see how does the western think tanks, states, politicians and scholars forget naming Gilgit-Baltistan and unshamingly replace it with Kashmir i.e. the below article in Forbes Magazine by Address Corr. They are mistaken as people of Gilgit-Baltistan may prefer anything but never to be called Kashmiri. This is highly counterproductive to the Western objective to hindering the OBOR initiative of China as they will lose any support of the people of Gilgit-Baltistan (if any exists against the OBOR). 

The modern Silk Road, also known as Chinese President Xi Jinping’s One Belt, One Road (OBOR) plan, was announced in 2013. It includes $46 billion of planned investments in Pakistan. Known as the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), it is under fire from India for running through the disputed territory of Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. As part of the plan, China will also perturb India with its 40-year contract, including for military vessels, at the Port of Gwadar on the Arabian Sea just west of India. Both Pakistan and increasingly China, are acting as geopolitical and military adversaries to democratic India.

But those are not the biggest risks to the CPEC project, according to China, which proffered and then retracted an offer to change the name to mollify India. The biggest risk to China’s CPEC investment, according to the Chinese government document, are security issues, diversity, and even multiparty democracy, as it were, in Pakistan. “There are various factors affecting Pakistani politics, such as competing parties, religion, tribes, terrorists, and Western intervention” the document states. “The security situation is the worst in recent years”.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) allies have committed trillions of dollars, and thousands of lives, in Afghanistan and Pakistan to fight terrorism and support democracy in those countries. So for China to associate “Western intervention” in the same breath with terrorism and “competing parties” is both bizarre and insulting. China has taken advantage of NATO-funded security in Afghanistan, while supporting the Taliban terrorists, for example, to enable their investment in highly-profitable copper mines that will destroy the ancient Buddhist temple complex at Mes Aynak. And now China calls Western intervention part of the problem? Western intervention helped take down the Soviet occupation, and singularly replaced the Taliban government in Kabul with a democracy. Western intervention removed Osama bin Laden from Pakistan. Now China calls Western intervention, democracy, and diversity the problem? The world needs to take a hard look at what China is doing in far-flung corners of the world. It isn’t good.

The leaked December 2015 document on Pakistan is 231 pages long, and titled “Long-Term Plan On China-Pakistan Economic Corridor.” A shorter 30-page document was provided to the Punjab provincial government, which has the dominant ethnicity in the country and where the map appears to place most of the planned industrial development. Neither the 231-page document, nor the 30-page document, were given to other provincial governments according to the Dawn article. I guess they were not central to the $46 billion planning process.

Not only does China call religious and tribal diversity a problem in Pakistan, it appears to give special treatment to Pakistan’s dominant ethnicity, the Punjabis. This is unacceptable in a world that should be promoting, rather than restricting, diversity. But China and Pakistan have the opposite strategy. They tend to suppress ethnic diversity, for example in the “tribal” areas near Peshawar, Pakistan, and in the Tibet and Xinjiang “autonomous” regions. Laws and policy in these areas favor dominant nationalities like the Punjabis and Han Chinese.

According to the document, China is pursuing a control system and electronic monitoring of the Khunjerab border, between Chinese territory and Kashmir. The ethnic minority in that region is the Burushaski, and the monitoring systems are no doubt part of an attempt to staunch the spread of Muslim insurgency from Afghanistan and Pakistan to the Xinjiang “autonomous” region of China, where the Muslim minority is severely repressed.

China is also planning to sponsor a project called “safe cities” in Pakistan that will install scanners and explosive detectors to “cover major roads, case-prone areas and crowded places [] in urban areas to conduct real-time monitoring and 24 hour video recording.” A command center, for which the nationality of staffing is unclear according to Dawn, will gather the resulting data and initiate a response. “There is a plan to build a pilot safe city in Peshawar, which faces a fairly severe security situation in northwestern Pakistan” according to the document. Peshawar is primarily populated by the Pashtun minority, and is a center of the Taliban insurgency. The safe cities program will then be rolled out in Islamabad, the capital of Pakistan, Lahore, the capital of the Punjab province, and Karachi, the main port city of Pakistan. These three cities are above all the three most important political and trade nodes to the government of Pakistan. They are the country’s center of economic and political gravity. The document hints that the data feeds from surveillance equipment in these cities will be shared and possibly recorded. If Chinese personnel occupy the command centers, one should assume that the data will be shared with Beijing as well.

The sanitized version of the Chinese government document is dated February 22, 2017. The full document appears to be focused on extracting agricultural and other raw resources from Pakistan, such as cotton and rice, and exporting Chinese technical capacity. Particular concern is paid to financial and security risks. Tucked into the final sentence in the agriculture chapter, is information that the Chinese government will “[s]trengthen the safety cooperation with key countries, regions and international organizations, [and] jointly prevent and crack down on terrorist acts that endanger the safety of Chinese overseas enterprises and their staff.” The italics are mine, to highlight the question as to whether China plans on enforcing law against terrorism in Pakistan and other countries, and whether this enforcement will primarily or solely be for the benefit of Chinese business. If so, what an admission. It would not be a surprise if the information were intentionally hidden by putting it in the last sentence of the agricultural chapter, of all places.

The document states that “The cooperation with Pakistan in the monetary and financial areas aims to serve China’s diplomatic strategy.” This means that China is offering elements of the Pakistani government monetary and financial incentives to cooperate with China’s diplomacy. And indeed we see that Pakistan is keeping up the pressure on India, a country that threatens China’s westward expansion. Pakistan is seeking membership in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, which is a security organization founded in 2001 by China and Russia that will likely be in increasingly adversarial relations with NATO in the future. Elements of the Pakistani security services, along with China and Russia, also support the Taliban terrorists, which are in direct conflict with NATO.

Pakistanis who care about their independence, security and democracy, erratic as it is, should seriously consider whether they want a large and powerful autocratic country like China so strongly determining their economic, political, and even security future. I wouldn’t. The rest of the world, especially India, which is in such a close and contentious embrace with Pakistan, and NATO countries along with land-bound Afghanistan, which depend on Pakistan for overland transport, should resist the China-Pakistan economic and political alliance. Elements in both countries support the Taliban terrorists. Neither country is a good influence on critical global values like democracy, diversity and human rights. International pressure should be brought to bear on both. Source

بروشسکی: دنیا کی ایک تنہا زبان