But with 26 countries having experienced Islamic terrorism since January, we need to begin to look at what is common to these attacks. In Australia, the political debate and focus of resources has been on economic isolation or political disenfranchisement of young Muslims. In Europe, the focus is upon the cultural exclusion of Muslims and the development of ghettos with very little opportunity to break through the social class structures. Belgium has been particularly susceptible with the highest per capita portion of foreign fighters, with an estimated who have returned home alongside those who are supporters.
That the remaining perpetrator of the Paris attacks, Salah Abdesalam, was able to evade capture for four months, while presumably living in the same Brussels suburb where he was caught last week, is representative of the challenge. While there may appear to be some commonality in what motivates terrorism across Western countries, these tend to falter when bringing into consideration Islamic nations with homegrown terrorists such as Indonesia, Pakistan and Lebanon.
- The Making of Three Russian Revolutionaries.
- Developing Contemporary Marxism.
- Taking a clear-eyed look.
- Theoretical Numerical Analysis: A Functional Analysis Framework.
In these countries there is no cultural or economic isolation, yet the threat of terrorism is just as great. In Belgium the Sharia4Belgium movement has been blamed for being at the forefront of this effort to change society. In Australia we are reluctant to talk about a religion as being political.
This is a particularly Western secular view built upon an evolving history of the separation of the Christian church from the state. The roots of Christianity are found in a religion persecuted by the state. President Musharraf traveled to India on a peace mission in August , but an agreement for a comprehensive engagement between the two countries was scuttled at the last minute by BJP hardliners. We made several calls to resume negotiations, but New Delhi rejected our offers and initiatives.
In , India resorted to so-called 'coercive diplomacy' and amassed about one million troops on our borders threatening us with war. Realizing the futility of this action, India later partially withdrew its forces from our border. This year in April, Indian Prime Minister Vajpayee offered talks and we reciprocated positively, but soon thereafter India refused to resume a composite dialogue.
Since April, Pakistan and India have taken small steps to restore diplomatic and communication links to the pre-December level, but New Delhi is not ready to talk on Kashmir as well as peace and security in Asia--issues that are at the heart of India-Pakistan tensions.
For its part, Pakistan has made proposals that can form ingredients of a road map for peace in South Asia.
We have offered an agreement for a comprehensive ceasefire between India and Pakistan along the Line of Control--the temporary line that divides Jammu and Kashmir--to encourage a general cessation of hostilities inside the Occupied Kashmir with reciprocal obligations for the Indian security forces and the freedom fighters. Our President has gone a step further and said that we are ready to work for a win-win solution by eliminating options that are not acceptable to Pakistan, the Kashmiris and India.
Campbell Corner - Poetry, Myth, and Philosophy
Despite these proactive and forward-looking overtures, we are faced with the brick wall of Indian rejections. It is because of this never-ending impasse that we have always kept the door open for third party mediation or facilitation. We remain hopeful that this conundrum will be solved. The costs of not addressing the problem are very high. The two countries remain locked in a devastating conflict, while one third of the people live below the poverty line.
Pakistan has played a critical role as a frontline state in the war on terrorism. We took the decision to join with the coalition against terrorism in our national interest. For several decades, Pakistan has been a target of the worst form of terrorism. In the early s, when we decided to fight the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, saboteurs and terrorists played havoc in our urban centers. Ironically, some of the holdovers from the foreign Mujahedin who were fighting against the Soviet Union became a potent threat to us.
Another source of terrorism was an externally-sponsored battle for sectarian turf in Pakistan. The third and the most sinister form of terrorism against our country was sponsored by the Indian intelligence agencies.
As we geared up to fight extremism and promote moderation, we decided to root out terrorism and declared that nobody would be allowed to use our soil for terrorist activities. What is not understood fully is that because of the Afghan war and the prolonged civil war afterwards, Pakistan had to assimilate serious blows and setbacks. Now we are being consumed by the shocks and aftershocks of the war on terrorism in neighboring Afghanistan. The political, economic, environmental and social costs are enormous. Despite these staggering costs, we are taking concerted action to interdict Al Qaeda fugitives and the Taliban regime remnants.
Over 70, of our troops are deployed on the border for this purpose. Effective intelligence and information set-ups have been established. Aerial surveillance has been enhanced. A quick reaction force has been created. Practical measures now effectively halt financial and other support to terrorist organizations. Wide-ranging measures have been taken to marginalize extremists and militants. Several sectarian and extremist groups have been banned and their assets frozen.
Information for Readers and Authors
Madrassa reform has been introduced to acquaint students with modern knowledge along with religious instruction. These measures would go a long war in changing the madrassa culture. Indeed no country has done more in the fight against terrorism than Pakistan.
No other country has made more sacrifices. From President George W. Bush to the leading congressmen and senators, all have singled out Pakistan for praise for the role we have played in stemming the tide of terror. CIA Director George Tenet will tell you that the war on terrorism could not have succeeded without Pakistan's critical help. We support the Bonn process in Afghanistan and the government of President Karzai. But lack of security in Afghanistan remains a cause of deep concern.
- Honour Among Men (Inspector Green, Book 5)?
- User account menu;
- Pursuit home.
- Graph Theory.
- (PDF) ABU SAYYAF, TERRORISM, AND U.S. INTERVENTION IN THE PHILIPPINES | E. San Juan - daysurcatheters.ml.
- Messerschmitt Bf 109F.
- Taking a clear-eyed look?
- GIS Cartography: A Guide to Effective Map Design.
- Uniform distribution of sequences.
- Common Alerting Protocol;
We have urged the Security Council to expand the mandate of the International Security Assistance Force ISAF and extend its operations beyond Kabul and Kunduz so that a semblance of security in the whole of Afghanistan could be created. Both are essential for neutralizing Al Qaeda and starting the task of reconstruction in earnest. Peace in Afghanistan will make that country emerge as a bridge between Pakistan and Central Asia for greater economic cooperation and for routing the latter's vast gas reservoirs to Pakistan and beyond.
Iraq remains an open wound. Daily casualties of American soldiers flashed across the Television screens bring pain and sorrow to your homes. On the other hand, the instability and strife in Iraq fuels Arab anger and creates uncertainty. There is no magic wand to fix the situation in Iraq, but we believe that a speedy political transition enabling the Iraqi people to choose their own government and empowering the UN to conduct peacekeeping operations would promise an early closure of this issue.
In the Middle East, the Quartet's road map--envisaging Israel and Palestine coexisting as two sovereign states side by side in peace and security--has been badly bruised. There is an urgent need to repair it and put it back on track, because what happens in the Middle East has a resonance throughout the Islamic world.
Pakistan has a multidimensional relationship with China, which is strategic in nature. Our perceptions on major global and regional issues fully converge. Our excellent cooperation extends to diverse fields--from political to economic to trade to defense. It is our firm belief that the Pakistan-China relationship is a factor of stability in South Asia. During President Musharraf's visit to Beijing just last week, the two countries signed a Joint Declaration on Directions of Bilateral Relations, which would go a long way in reinforcing an all round and comprehensive partnership in the 21st century.
Traditionally, we have nurtured close ties with the Islamic world where Pakistan is considered to be a key player. Recently, we have taken an initiative to make the member of the Organization of the Islamic Conference a vibrant forum and an effective vehicle for conducting a dialogue with the non-Muslim world. Last, but not the least, today we have our most important relationship with the United States. In the aftermath of September 11, they are puzzled at the anger against the US.
What I can tell you is that the US has been a symbol of liberty and fairplay and a land of equal opportunity. The world would still like to see the US cast in that image. Pakistan and the US have been close allies during and after the Cold War, though our relations have been jolted from time to time by a cyclical pattern.
Today, we can say with satisfaction that our ties are governed by a new architecture encompassing cooperation in the political, economic, and defense spheres. What we are trying to do is to look beyond the war on terrorism and create a long-term, sustainable partnership that will serve our interests in the years to come. In this phase, we are not looking for grants and assistance, but enhanced market access and US investment in Pakistan.
Together, we can work for a more secure and prosperous world. Pakistan is against proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. We had to conduct nuclear tests in , following Indian tests, to restore the strategic balance in South Asia. For our defense, we are maintaining a minimum credible nuclear deterrence. The purpose of this deterrent is to defend ourselves, not to threaten any country. The strategic and conventional balance between India and Pakistan is the best guarantor of peace and security in our region. One: agreed and reciprocal measures for nuclear and missile restraint to prevent deliberate or accidental use of nuclear weapons;.
Two: establishment of conventional arms balance as a confidence building measure between the two countries;. Three: establishment of a political mechanism for resolving bilateral conflicts, especially the core dispute over Jammu and Kashmir. Regrettably, India continues to reject the idea of a Strategic Restraint Regime. India has outlined a "nuclear doctrine" that envisages the development and deployment of a classical 'triad' of land-, air- and sea-based nuclear assets.
Simultaneously, India continues its headlong acquisition of sophisticated weapons systems from abroad and development of multiple missile systems of varying sizes and capabilities. Pakistan does not wish to enter into an arms race with India, which we believe would be destructive for the entire region. For both countries, it would be economically unsustainable and morally untenable.