Imran Khan’s Global Priorities and the Entertaining UNGA Address

Source: Waseem Altaf

The moment had finally arrived. Perhaps the moment for which Imran Khan had been dreaming to become the Prime Minister of Pakistan. The moment, which in his mind and in the mind of his followers, had been preordained and predetermined by the Divine power. Perhaps his most remarkable mark on world history, his address to the United Nations General Assembly. And perhaps one of the most entertaining UNGA addresses, right up there with Arafat, Netanyahu, and Gaddafi.

Starting this historic address with his party’s fascist slogan of “eeyaka naabudu wa eeyaka nasta’een” (Thee alone we bow to and thee alone we seek help from), the Prime Minister immediately reminded of his partisan agenda on the global forum. Going well above his allotted time on the forum, the Prime Minister continued to speak for about 51 minutes to make a point, and his self-important mannerism was evident from the start.

However, to the credit of Imran Khan, very few speeches on the forum would have been so personal and passionate. He passionately presented the case for the plight of the people of Kashmir, while taking jabs at the fascist Modi administration. While only Imran Khan could have delivered such an emotional speech, and while Kashmir was one of its more appreciable highlights, it was not without its diplomatic flaws.

Senator Sherry Rehman, the former ambassador to the United States, had criticized the speech for not covering Kashmir in greater detail, as well as failing to remind that it is disputed territory between India and Pakistan. Imran Khan’s speech treats Kashmir as an Indian state in which human rights were suspended. There was no specific mention of the UN Resolutions about Kashmir which had provisions to hold a plebiscite in the disputed state under certain conditions, which included demilitarizing parts of Kashmir occupied by both Pakistan and India.

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Since intellectual and moral dishonesty is the hallmark of the Pakistan Government, so they always conveniently ignore the human rights abuses committed by the Pakistani state. Imran Khan, however, takes it to another level by pretending that India-Pakistan history started with his assumption of office. He again reminded about his disappointment on Modi refusing to reciprocate his gesture for peace. There, of course, was no concrete measure of taking action against terrorism.

Here is the UNGA address of Prime Minister Imran Khan in full.

Only he could have made this speech, though momentarily his mind always wandered to the protest container. He only stopped short of ranting endlessly about the opposition complaining about the corruption in the country and instead attacked the ideas of tax havens, while conveniently forgetting those in his parties holding such secret accounts, especially the ones funding his campaigns, including himself. However, he made an interesting point about wealthy countries not doing enough to block the flow of wealth from poor countries.

He appreciably reminded the world about the problem of Islamophobia and Muslim communities being targeted for their faith around the world. However, he skipped both the mention of Uighur Muslim communities in China and also the Apartheid-like treatment of non-Muslim minority groups in Pakistan.

However, the biggest revelation in Imran Khan’s speech was that blasphemy had become such a major global crisis. As he has done before, he outrageously compared it to Holocaust denial and called on the Western world to sacrifice their ideals of free speech to prevent hurting the feelings of the Muslim community. But for his concern about the offense of Holocaust denial, he was hanging out with the perfectly wrong people during his tour.

During his UN mission to the United States, Imran Khan got together with Turkish President Recep Teyyip Erdogan and Malaysian President Mahathir Muhammad, both of whom had their own theatrics to display at the forum. With folk such as Erdogan and Mahathir with their remarkable record on antisemitism, Imran Khan found the perfect company to launch a campaign for the cause.

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

They got their heads together and decided that the best solution to fight Islamophobia around the world was to establish a BBC type English language TV channel to highlight Muslim issues. As if Al-Jazeera English was not enough.

But probably here’s the reason why we need a new channel to fight selective Islamophobia. She probably forgot the mentions of Yemen.

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Coming back to his UNGA address, while his message on Kashmir was on point, as India’s martial raw deserves global condemnation, he may be sabotaging the cause with his constantly bringing up nuclear war. He said he expected “bloodbath in Kashmir” and “another Pulwama,” while criticizing Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the “Nazi-inspired” RSS, of which he was a lifelong member. Following the mention of nuclear war, he went a step further by creating a hypothetical scenario of a 7-times smaller Pakistan having no choice but to attack India with nuclear weapons to defend itself. And that the confrontation in Kashmir will lead to it. He mentioned that the nuclear war will eventually impact the whole world. He said that “our belief was “la ilaha il Allah” or “There is no God but Allah.”” Who knew what he meant by this.

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Who knew if Imran Khan was trying to intimidate the world or impress them with his brand of “peacemaking” but someone should brief him that the world is more concerned about Pakistan’s nukes, not India’s. This irresponsible threat on such a forum was seen as a brave display of force by many loyalist nationalists back home.

Since Imran Khan is known to be prone to gaffes and emotional impulses, you would expect that saner heads must prevail in the bureaucratic government. However, the Government of Pakistan felt compelled to report and publish the bizarre threat by Imran Khan in writing in this tweet to double down on it.

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Perhaps, those celebrating his hyperbolic speech could learn a thing or two from India’s composed but solid reply to Pakistan’s narrative.

In Pakistan, Imran Khan’s speech is being seen by his nationalist liberal and conservative followers as the irrefutable evidence of his competence as a global statesman. They are also insisting that the military establishment has done the greatest favor to Pakistan by selecting Imran Khan. Despite the dismal performance of his government so far, which has reduced the growth rate of the country by more than half since last year and has seen a surge in foreign debts, his role as a divinely sanctioned Messiah, not only of Pakistan but that of Muslim Ummah, is being reinforced and any opposition to him is seen as traitorous behavior.

Even the otherwise composed military officials cannot contain their partisan excitement by, something which clearly reflects their political involvement and partisan bias. Here is the DG ISPR in full troll mode in response to criticism of Imran Khan’s speech by Muhammad Taqi and Gul Bukhari.

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

The totalitarian nationalists celebrating his speech will fail to even acknowledge the media curbs and the worst crackdown on dissenting opposition in recent history in Pakistan. They probably would like those authoritarian measures to become even worse against anyone who dares to criticize the divinely “selected” Imran Khan.

Imran Khan recently made a comment expressing his disappointment over the lack of response from the international community on Kashmir. As citizens of Pakistan, we are disappointed by world leaders too. For not calling out Imran Khan on his hypocrisy.

Trivializing The ISIS Threat

Source: RT.com

Source: RT.com

Regardless of the factors leading to the creation of the Islamic State or ISIS, there is little debate that it is a disturbing entity.

Even the most shameless Sunni apologists of the terrorist entity could feel some disturbance at their gruesome abuse of the local people in Iraq and Syria. Their treatment of the Yazidi women has particularly been the most chilling for the global conscience. To add insult to injury, they have been systematically wiping out the archeological treasures of the region, which should alarm anyone who treasures human civilization.

This is not an ordinary political and military force and is one that threatens human civilization as much as the more recent menaces in history such as the Nazi Germany, if not worse. This only necessitates forceful and meaningful military action against them involving boots on ground, without which the complete annihilation of ISIS is not possible. Unfortunately, neither President Obama nor any other global power seems to be interested in doing so, primarily because none of them is directly threatened by this terrorist state yet.

The unwillingness to take military action against ISIS is usually met by the resistance due to the fatigue from the several American military operations in the Middle East and around the world. The opponents of military intervention have a point, and for many years, I have held the same position. We should also recognize that many are being very consistent in their criticism of US military intervention over the years, and deserve respect for their intentions and ideological position.

The caucus of the anti-military constituents is significant in the United States and in most Western countries including UK and Canada, despite the widespread dislike for ISIS. The influence of such public opinion makes a possibility of action against the ISIS particularly difficult. But what is even worse, such political narrative often cynically trivializes the ever-growing threat of ISIS, when awareness for the support of more comprehensive action is badly needed.

Probably the main reason for the resistance to military intervention against ISIS among Western liberals is that North America and Europe have no direct threat from it. Fortunately, conservative politicians and voters in the United States are not only concerned about the ISIS threat but are also very much willing to support boots on ground.

Sadly, the opposition to comprehensive military action against ISIS has been simply reduced as a partisan election issue. The choice of not taking comprehensive military action against ISIS is a purely ideological and partisan position of liberal politicians, instead of a defensive strategy. However, President Obama certainly considers it the best way to go.

Conservative US senators such as Lindsey Graham and John McCain make sense in their criticism of President Obama’s recent decision to deploy less than 50 special operations troopers because of the half-hearted nature of the measure. While it is encouraging that the President finally realized that the ISIS threat deserves some boots on grounds, especially to assist the Kurds who are putting up an active resistance, we are a long way from a meaningful remedy.

The possible involvement of ISIS in bombing down a Russian airliner over the Sinai desert, as suspected by US intelligence, is only reflective of how dangerous ISIS and its affiliates have become. It clearly shows that the ISIS, if allowed to grow stronger and more influential, is not far from harming Western interests directly, if the misery of the Kurds, Iraqis and Syrians is not enough to fight this fire. Incidents such as these only strengthen the case of building an international coalition to fight the group, which is the right way to deal with the crisis.

The half-hearted approach adopted by the current US administration to deal with the threat of ISIS is not helping the situation. With a departing President looking to build his legacy as a peacemaker, it is unlikely that the current administration is going to commit to any major campaign. There is not much to expect from a Defense Department that considers the Sharia-enforcing Afghan Taliban as a partner for reconciliation anyway, something for which Pakistani government has been blasted since the Soviets left Afghanistan.

But probably what is even worse is the contribution of liberal and faux pacifists to trivialize the threat of ISIS for partisan purposes in political discourse. While it would help them win an election, it is not going to help in building the necessary public support for taking on the crisis created by ISIS, as was in the case of the operation against Taliban in Afghanistan in 2001. ISIS is far worse than both the Taliban and Al-Qaida and a Democratic President may very well require that support in 2016.

What the liberal and isolationist ISIS cynics don’t get is that whatever way we see the problem, there is no real solution but to deal with it through full throttle military action. Whether ISIS is created due to the actions of the wars started by Bush 43 or a by-product of President Obama’s military strategy in Syria, there is no choice but to deal with the crisis.

You cannot expect to have diplomatic negotiations with the Islamic State as in the case of Iran.

A version of the post was published in The Nation blogs.