BANGKOK: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, was in New York
this week to attend the UN General Assembly. As it turned out, he
embarked on a PR blitz, giving interviews freely and casually to the
international media. The highlight was his call for a `new world order`,
which would see the end of US bullying.
`God willing, a new
order will come and will do away with...everything that distances us,`
Ahmadinejad said on Tuesday. `All of the animosity, all of the lack of
sincerity will come to an end. It will institute fairness and justice.
He
said the world was losing patience with the current state of affairs.
`Now, even elementary school kids throughout the world understand that
the United States government is following an international policy of
bullying,` he said. `I do believe the system of empires has reached the
end of the road. The world can no longer see an emperor commanding it.
It
is not clear what Ahmadinejad`s idea of a new world order looks like.
But he predicts the end of the system of empires, now led by the United
States.
The current world order is being controlled by the
AngloSaxon alliance of the United States and the UK via the Washington
Concensus, which covers globalism, competitive exchange rates,
liberalisation, de-regulation, `democracy` and legal security for
property rights.
The international institutions have evolved since the Second World War to guard and enforce the Washington Consensus.
The
current world order is guided by the United Nations, the World Bank,
the International Monetary Fund, the World Trade Organisation, the US
Federal Reserve and the US Treasury Department, among others with the US
dollar as the anchor of the global financial system.
Former US
president George Bush senior envisaged a new world order while he was
president, though the United States was already the undisputed global
power. In 2009 Henry Kissinger, the former US secretary of state, gave a
TV interview, saying that the crisis in the Middle East would create an
opportunity for Barack Obama to push for a new world order. This
suggests that the United States, which already reigns supreme in the
current order, is not happy with the status quo and wants to push for a
new world order of complete globalism.
The situation in Europe
shows that we`re moving to a new order. Mass demonstrations in Greece
and Spain are taking place as the people are bitterly dissastisfied with
the state of their economies and the high rates of unemployment.
Greece, in particular, is being crucified as a warning to other
countries that resist the advent of the `federation of nation states` or
the `United States of Europe`. If any euro-zone countries do not
abandon their sovereignty, or let go of their control over fiscal policy
and banking, to join a `United States of Europe` they will be left to
decay in the cold as the euro takes flight from their banking systems.
Germany
is not likely to play this game. The mathematics says it all. Germany`s
annual tax collection is 1.2 trillion euros, but its share, or burden,
in bailing out other weak euro-zone states could run up to 2 to 3
trillion euros. The euro-zone crisis, which will need at least 4
trillion in bailout money for the time being, can`t be contained. That
is why the European Central Bank will be printing unlimited euros to
bail out the bankrupt sovereign states and the banking system.
The
`United States of Europe` and Obama`s new world order are from the same
mould. Germany will have no choice but to leave the euro zone because
it can`t afford to bail out the whole of Europe.
This brings us
back to Ahmadinejad`s version of a new world order, which is likely to
be shaped by China, Russia, India, Germany, Iran and other emerging
states. The Middle East is in turmoil. Once it is united, it is likely
to turn its back on a USled new world order to join the China-led new
world order.
We are at a crossroads of unprecedented historic
proportion, with two alliances of global powers at play to forge their
versions of a new world order. This could, unfortunately, have to be
determined by a war.
By arrangement with The Nation/ANN
Saturday, September 29, 2012
Thursday, September 27, 2012
Ahmadinejad slams West`s nuclear `intimidation`
UNITED NATIONS, Sept 26: Iran`s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on
Wednesday accused the West of nuclear `intimidation` in his final speech
to the UN General Assembly which was boycotted by the United States and
Israel.
But the Iranian president steered clear of the toxic remarks about Israel which have sparked mass walkouts at his previous seven appearances before the UN summit.
`Arms race and intimidation by nuclear weapons and weapons of mass-destruction by the hegemonic powers have become prevalent,` Ahmadinejad said in a rare outburst in the rambling 35 minute speech.
`Continued threat by the uncivilised Zionists to resort to military action against our great nation is a clear example of this bitter reality, he added in his only reference to Israel.
The Iranian government faces mounting international pressure over its nuclear drive, which western powers say hides a bid to develop a nuclear bomb.
Iran denies the charge but there has been mounting speculation that Israel could launch a military strike against Iran`s bunkered nuclear facilities.
President Barack Obama told the UN assembly on Tuesday that the United States will `do what we must` to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.
Foreign ministers from the United States, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany will meet in New York on Thursday to discuss the increasingly tense nuclear showdown.
The United States boycotted the UN speech because of his attacks.
`Over the past couple of days, we`ve seen Mr Ahmadinejad once again use his trip to the UN not to address the legitimate aspirations of the Iranian people but to instead spout paranoid theories and repulsive slurs against Israel,` said Erin Pelton, spokeswoman of the US mission to the United Nations.
But the Iranian president steered clear of the toxic remarks about Israel which have sparked mass walkouts at his previous seven appearances before the UN summit.
`Arms race and intimidation by nuclear weapons and weapons of mass-destruction by the hegemonic powers have become prevalent,` Ahmadinejad said in a rare outburst in the rambling 35 minute speech.
`Continued threat by the uncivilised Zionists to resort to military action against our great nation is a clear example of this bitter reality, he added in his only reference to Israel.
The Iranian government faces mounting international pressure over its nuclear drive, which western powers say hides a bid to develop a nuclear bomb.
Iran denies the charge but there has been mounting speculation that Israel could launch a military strike against Iran`s bunkered nuclear facilities.
President Barack Obama told the UN assembly on Tuesday that the United States will `do what we must` to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.
Foreign ministers from the United States, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany will meet in New York on Thursday to discuss the increasingly tense nuclear showdown.
The United States boycotted the UN speech because of his attacks.
`Over the past couple of days, we`ve seen Mr Ahmadinejad once again use his trip to the UN not to address the legitimate aspirations of the Iranian people but to instead spout paranoid theories and repulsive slurs against Israel,` said Erin Pelton, spokeswoman of the US mission to the United Nations.
US - 'do more' demands
`PLEASE, stop this refrain to do more, President Asif Ali Zardari said
in his speech to the UN General Assembly in a thinly veiled reference to
the US and the pressure it has put on Pakistan to squeeze the
sanctuaries that the Afghan Taliban, particularly the Haqqani network,
have on Pakistani soil. Whether the call to end the `do more` mantra
will fall on deaf ears will have much to do with the extent to which the
US and Pakistan can narrow their mutual trust deficit that is very real
and very acute. To be sure, Pakistan has some very legitimate
complaints when it comes to US demands concerning Afghanistan. The US
military in particular has been very stubborn and quick to blame
Pakistan for its failures or lack of success in Afghanistan.
To clamp down on the Haqqanis to satisfy the American timeline of 2014 without regard to the existing conditions or the potential for an unmanageable blowback in Pakistan is to pit a political imperative a dignified exit from Afghanistan against what should be a crucial strategic objectivehelping Pakistan remain stable and the containment of militancy.
There is, though, an unfortunate consequence of the push and push-back vis-à-vis the `do more` platitude: the debate over what should be done against militancy in Pakistan and when it should be done has in part become linked to the Pakistan-US relationship and the post-war future of Afghanistan. As opposed to focusing on whether or not what Pakistan has done to fight militancy is acceptable and a winning strategy, whether the country is less or more secure as a result of the state`s security policy, the question of our very real and critical fight against extremism has been entangled in the messy relationship with the US.
So ordinary Pakistanis are still confused about whether the fight against militancy is for Pakistan`s own survival or for the protection of ties with an unpopular US. The unhappy truth is, Pakistan is not winning the fight against militancy.
And the state needs to do more, much, much more.
But for Pakistan`s sake, not anybody else`s
To clamp down on the Haqqanis to satisfy the American timeline of 2014 without regard to the existing conditions or the potential for an unmanageable blowback in Pakistan is to pit a political imperative a dignified exit from Afghanistan against what should be a crucial strategic objectivehelping Pakistan remain stable and the containment of militancy.
There is, though, an unfortunate consequence of the push and push-back vis-à-vis the `do more` platitude: the debate over what should be done against militancy in Pakistan and when it should be done has in part become linked to the Pakistan-US relationship and the post-war future of Afghanistan. As opposed to focusing on whether or not what Pakistan has done to fight militancy is acceptable and a winning strategy, whether the country is less or more secure as a result of the state`s security policy, the question of our very real and critical fight against extremism has been entangled in the messy relationship with the US.
So ordinary Pakistanis are still confused about whether the fight against militancy is for Pakistan`s own survival or for the protection of ties with an unpopular US. The unhappy truth is, Pakistan is not winning the fight against militancy.
And the state needs to do more, much, much more.
But for Pakistan`s sake, not anybody else`s
The growing divide between east and west
PERHAPS the most important theme of the speeches delivered at the UN
General Assembly on Tuesday was the growing divisions between the West
and the Muslim world. Whatever their national perspective, Presidents
Ahmadinejad, Zardari and Obama all focused on the increasingly
complicated relations between the two sides.
The trouble stirred up in Muslim countries by a profane video on the Internet has highlighted the sensitive nature of these ties.
The Pakistani president, as expected, raised the issue at the UN forum, calling for criminalising such provocative acts by mischievous individuals.
The proof that the outrage of the Muslims had been registered by the US, where the anti-Islam video originated, was provided in a statement by President Barack Obama a few hours before Mr Zardari`s UN address. Mr Obama urged the people to reject hate material, but quite rightly added that the death and destruction that such rejection led to could not be justified.
The gap has widened over time when it comes to America`s love-hate affair with a number of Muslim countries. The Muslim world`s connection with the West is jeopardised by a host of serious problems, including doubts rooted in a past that has spawned suspicions about Americanmotives now. The countries in question have failed to evolve the necessary common language, based on the cultural and religious sensitivities of people on both sides, to address each other. Ever since 9/11 and more particularly the invasion of Iraq in 2003, these sensitivities have become more acute and have reached a point where the nightmare of a clash of civilisations may well turn out to be true if restraint and understanding are not shown at this stage. In looking after its own interests, the US has often adopted an actively aggressive path, with no consideration for the sentiments of the larger public in countries where it has either intervened militarily or interfered in domestic politics.
At the same time, the leadership in many of the Muslim countries, has failed to educate the populadon about the dangers of accepting the extremist narrative. In the current crisis they have been unable to convince their people that by reacting to provocative acts of individuals they are only deepening the divide. Though perceived as a powerless body, the United Nations still remains the right forum for raising issues of cultural and religious differences and for giving room to voices from all over. Without such a debate and interaction between countries, the chasm between the West and the Muslim world will only grow
The trouble stirred up in Muslim countries by a profane video on the Internet has highlighted the sensitive nature of these ties.
The Pakistani president, as expected, raised the issue at the UN forum, calling for criminalising such provocative acts by mischievous individuals.
The proof that the outrage of the Muslims had been registered by the US, where the anti-Islam video originated, was provided in a statement by President Barack Obama a few hours before Mr Zardari`s UN address. Mr Obama urged the people to reject hate material, but quite rightly added that the death and destruction that such rejection led to could not be justified.
The gap has widened over time when it comes to America`s love-hate affair with a number of Muslim countries. The Muslim world`s connection with the West is jeopardised by a host of serious problems, including doubts rooted in a past that has spawned suspicions about Americanmotives now. The countries in question have failed to evolve the necessary common language, based on the cultural and religious sensitivities of people on both sides, to address each other. Ever since 9/11 and more particularly the invasion of Iraq in 2003, these sensitivities have become more acute and have reached a point where the nightmare of a clash of civilisations may well turn out to be true if restraint and understanding are not shown at this stage. In looking after its own interests, the US has often adopted an actively aggressive path, with no consideration for the sentiments of the larger public in countries where it has either intervened militarily or interfered in domestic politics.
At the same time, the leadership in many of the Muslim countries, has failed to educate the populadon about the dangers of accepting the extremist narrative. In the current crisis they have been unable to convince their people that by reacting to provocative acts of individuals they are only deepening the divide. Though perceived as a powerless body, the United Nations still remains the right forum for raising issues of cultural and religious differences and for giving room to voices from all over. Without such a debate and interaction between countries, the chasm between the West and the Muslim world will only grow
UN & Balochistan
THIS is apropos of the news item `UN team spends busy day in Quetta` (Sept 16).
The controversial visit of UN Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances to evaluate the issue of missing persons` has brought Balochistaninto the spotlight as one of the most favourite playfields for hatching international conspiracies.
Earlier this year the US Congress Committee on Foreign Affairs, chaired by Dana Rohrabacher, held an unusual US congressional hearing on human rights abuses inBalochistan, blaming Pakistan`s intelligence agencies for enforced disappearances of Baloch people.
Responding sharply, Pakistan`s National Assembly condemned such a visit as a `threat to the country`s sovereignty` With an independent judiciary, an enlightened civil society, coupled with a vigorous media, the grievances of the Blaoch, be it political or economic, can be befittingly addressed to the entire satisfaction.
Pakistan is confronted with challenges of enormous magnitude that require unity, harmony andmutual respect among all segments of society and state institutions.
As cases of enforced disappearances are in the Supreme Court and the parliamentary committee is also looking into the matter, it is the duty of a mature and responsible media to avoid speculations about the episode.
Let us defeat all conspiracies hatched by our enemies and provide fair ground to the Supreme Court to decide the cases ofenforced disappearances.
INAM ULLAH KHAN Rawalpindi
The controversial visit of UN Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances to evaluate the issue of missing persons` has brought Balochistaninto the spotlight as one of the most favourite playfields for hatching international conspiracies.
Earlier this year the US Congress Committee on Foreign Affairs, chaired by Dana Rohrabacher, held an unusual US congressional hearing on human rights abuses inBalochistan, blaming Pakistan`s intelligence agencies for enforced disappearances of Baloch people.
Responding sharply, Pakistan`s National Assembly condemned such a visit as a `threat to the country`s sovereignty` With an independent judiciary, an enlightened civil society, coupled with a vigorous media, the grievances of the Blaoch, be it political or economic, can be befittingly addressed to the entire satisfaction.
Pakistan is confronted with challenges of enormous magnitude that require unity, harmony andmutual respect among all segments of society and state institutions.
As cases of enforced disappearances are in the Supreme Court and the parliamentary committee is also looking into the matter, it is the duty of a mature and responsible media to avoid speculations about the episode.
Let us defeat all conspiracies hatched by our enemies and provide fair ground to the Supreme Court to decide the cases ofenforced disappearances.
INAM ULLAH KHAN Rawalpindi
`Halt Nato supplies` mantra revived
SLAMABAD, Sept 26: Almost all the mainstream political parties decided
to stay away from a multi-party conference called by Hafiz Mohammad
Saeed`s controversial Jamaatud Dawa, leaving the forum for the
representatives of various Islamic parties and a few other rightwing
groups to evolve a `consensus` on what the strategy of Pakistan and the
rest of the Muslim world should be to deal with the United States on a
despicable video made by an American-based Coptic Christian on the Holy
Prophet (PBUH).
Invitation was extended to every top politician and political party, from Prime Minister Raja Pervez Ashraf to PML-N`s Mian Nawaz Sharif, Imran Khan and leaders of the Awami National Party. But when the meeting started at a hotelin thefederal capital, it became quite evident that none of the mainstream parties and leaders wanted to be represented at a show where an extreme position was expected to be taken on the controversial video and other related issues.
And this is exactly what happened at the forum. Hardhitting speeches to denounce the United States and the West continued to echo throughout the meeting, with every prominent Islamic leader trying to beat the others in his call for taking extreme action against the US. If some called for expelling the American ambassador from the country, a few others threatened to block the Nato supplies for Afghanistan if, according to them, the US president decided against banning the video and punishing its producer.
Hafiz Saeed, whose organisation is on the list of banned groups in the US and remains on the watch-list of Pakistan government, was the most active of all. Primarily it was his show, and often during the course of the speeches he was seen moving from leader of one Islamic group to the other, apparently to make sure that a consensus was evolved on hard-hitting resolutions, not only against theUnited States but also to criticise leaders of many other Muslim countries for their `inaction` on the issue.
Other prominent leaders presented at the conference included JUI`s Maulana Fazlur Rehman, Jamaat-iIslami`s Syed Munawar Hasan, leader of his own faction of JUI Maulana Samiul Haq, Maulana Mohammad Ahmed Ludhianvi, former ISI chief General Hamid Gul, and many others.
In a declaration adopted at the end of what was called `Tahaffuze Hurmate Rasool conference`, prominent Muslim states like SaudiArabia, Turkey Egypt and others were asked to play their effective role in framing a law against blasphemy of all the holy Prophets including Muhammad (PBUH).
`This national consultative conference of leading religious political leaders demands of the Muslim countries` rulers to establish a Muslim United Nations, and a separate unified defence and economic system if the UN and Security Council refrain from framing anti-blasphemy law,` the declaration said.
Frustrated over the lack of extreme action by the Muslim countries, some of the speak-ers called upon the Muslim countries to pull out of the socalled global war against terror and use the `oil weapon` to get their demands met. They said American President Barrack Obama in his speech at UN General Assembly by refusing to ban the blasphemous film had laid the foundation for a `war of civilisations` At the same time some of the Islamic leaders threatened that if the Muslim rulers failed to heed their calls, the `Muhibbane Rasool` (lovers of Holy Prophet) would come out on the street and would not return to their homesuntil these countries were swept by Islamic revolution.
A demand to convene a conference of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation was also made to enable member countries to sit together and plan a unified strategy to counter blasphemous actions of the Western world. They said the OIC should demand the handing over of the blasphemer film-maker to them for trial and meting out punishment.
The speakers described restoration of Nato supplies without getting the drone attacks halted as a collective suicide.
Invitation was extended to every top politician and political party, from Prime Minister Raja Pervez Ashraf to PML-N`s Mian Nawaz Sharif, Imran Khan and leaders of the Awami National Party. But when the meeting started at a hotelin thefederal capital, it became quite evident that none of the mainstream parties and leaders wanted to be represented at a show where an extreme position was expected to be taken on the controversial video and other related issues.
And this is exactly what happened at the forum. Hardhitting speeches to denounce the United States and the West continued to echo throughout the meeting, with every prominent Islamic leader trying to beat the others in his call for taking extreme action against the US. If some called for expelling the American ambassador from the country, a few others threatened to block the Nato supplies for Afghanistan if, according to them, the US president decided against banning the video and punishing its producer.
Hafiz Saeed, whose organisation is on the list of banned groups in the US and remains on the watch-list of Pakistan government, was the most active of all. Primarily it was his show, and often during the course of the speeches he was seen moving from leader of one Islamic group to the other, apparently to make sure that a consensus was evolved on hard-hitting resolutions, not only against theUnited States but also to criticise leaders of many other Muslim countries for their `inaction` on the issue.
Other prominent leaders presented at the conference included JUI`s Maulana Fazlur Rehman, Jamaat-iIslami`s Syed Munawar Hasan, leader of his own faction of JUI Maulana Samiul Haq, Maulana Mohammad Ahmed Ludhianvi, former ISI chief General Hamid Gul, and many others.
In a declaration adopted at the end of what was called `Tahaffuze Hurmate Rasool conference`, prominent Muslim states like SaudiArabia, Turkey Egypt and others were asked to play their effective role in framing a law against blasphemy of all the holy Prophets including Muhammad (PBUH).
`This national consultative conference of leading religious political leaders demands of the Muslim countries` rulers to establish a Muslim United Nations, and a separate unified defence and economic system if the UN and Security Council refrain from framing anti-blasphemy law,` the declaration said.
Frustrated over the lack of extreme action by the Muslim countries, some of the speak-ers called upon the Muslim countries to pull out of the socalled global war against terror and use the `oil weapon` to get their demands met. They said American President Barrack Obama in his speech at UN General Assembly by refusing to ban the blasphemous film had laid the foundation for a `war of civilisations` At the same time some of the Islamic leaders threatened that if the Muslim rulers failed to heed their calls, the `Muhibbane Rasool` (lovers of Holy Prophet) would come out on the street and would not return to their homesuntil these countries were swept by Islamic revolution.
A demand to convene a conference of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation was also made to enable member countries to sit together and plan a unified strategy to counter blasphemous actions of the Western world. They said the OIC should demand the handing over of the blasphemer film-maker to them for trial and meting out punishment.
The speakers described restoration of Nato supplies without getting the drone attacks halted as a collective suicide.
Wednesday, September 26, 2012
Ahmadinejad calls for structural overhaul of Security Council
UNITED NATIONS, Sept 25: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has
called for a complete structural overhaul of the United Nations Security
Council in order to reflect the rule of law in international relations.
Iranian leader made the remarks at the 67th Session of the UN General Assembly on the `Rule of law` at the national and international levels on Monday night.
`The discriminatory privilege, the influential and imposed role of the Security Council as well as [the right of] veto and some of its owners are unacceptable and illegitimate and for that reason the Security Council is incapable of administering justice and main-taining a stable order and security in the world,` Ahmadinejad said.
He called upon all UN memberstates to reach an immediate agreement on a total overhaul of the Security Council in the interests of justice and the nations of the world.
Mr Ahmadinejad pointed fingers at `some veto holders who remain silent over the atomic bombs of the fake Zionist regime (of Israel) or support it, but at the same time hinder the scientific achievements of other nations.
Majority of the five permanent members the United States, Britain and France who wield veto power are allies of Israel, which is a nuclear power posing potential threat to Iran.
`By making false references to the UN Charter and by misusing[the concept of] liberty, they remain silent over insults to the sanctity of humanity and the divine Prophets or they lend support to offenders, infringe on the freedom of others, and allow insults against sanctity and people,` the Iranian President alleged, in an apparent reference to an incendiary anti-Islam film made in the US that triggered anti-US protests across the Islamic world.
Iranian leader made 10 proposals for the better observance of the rule of law in international relations. They include major amendments in the regulations governing the Security Council incorporating the interests of nations and ensuring principles of equality and justice, through the participation of all members of the General Assembly.
Iranian leader made the remarks at the 67th Session of the UN General Assembly on the `Rule of law` at the national and international levels on Monday night.
`The discriminatory privilege, the influential and imposed role of the Security Council as well as [the right of] veto and some of its owners are unacceptable and illegitimate and for that reason the Security Council is incapable of administering justice and main-taining a stable order and security in the world,` Ahmadinejad said.
He called upon all UN memberstates to reach an immediate agreement on a total overhaul of the Security Council in the interests of justice and the nations of the world.
Mr Ahmadinejad pointed fingers at `some veto holders who remain silent over the atomic bombs of the fake Zionist regime (of Israel) or support it, but at the same time hinder the scientific achievements of other nations.
Majority of the five permanent members the United States, Britain and France who wield veto power are allies of Israel, which is a nuclear power posing potential threat to Iran.
`By making false references to the UN Charter and by misusing[the concept of] liberty, they remain silent over insults to the sanctity of humanity and the divine Prophets or they lend support to offenders, infringe on the freedom of others, and allow insults against sanctity and people,` the Iranian President alleged, in an apparent reference to an incendiary anti-Islam film made in the US that triggered anti-US protests across the Islamic world.
Iranian leader made 10 proposals for the better observance of the rule of law in international relations. They include major amendments in the regulations governing the Security Council incorporating the interests of nations and ensuring principles of equality and justice, through the participation of all members of the General Assembly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)