Anti-Islamic nations court Saudi kingdom!

Anti-Islamic nations court Saudi kingdom!




The recent political developments around Mideast reveal that Saudi Arabia, like Israel, feels miserable without the official courting of the USA. However, Saudi Arabia is trying to show a rift with USA over Iran and Syria. 


Saudi Arabia is clamoring for a major role in shaping the region. They feel they deserve that.The way the Iran nuclear talks were handled particularly rankled the Saudis.

For the first time in diplomatic history of Saudi Arabia, the birth nation of Islam sees America as a big enough storm, upsetting all Saudi calculations for the region and world at large to control the Shi’a nations.


Saudi Arabia which obediently stood behind the USA in whatever the super power did or did not, including attacking Islamic nations from Afghanistan to Libya is now unhappy that the CIA-Pentagon refuses to attack Iran and Syria as expected by Saudi led Sunni Arab nations.


Increasingly vocal in its frustration over recent US policies in the Mideast, a frantic Saudi Arabia is strengthening ties elsewhere, seeking out an alignment that will bolster its position after it was pushed to the sidelines this year.


Yet, Saudi Arabia cannot afford to reveal whole truth about Sept-11 hoax, because that would expose the land of Holy sites to global criticism for its role in joint anti-Islamic operations. .


US allies are now the target of Saudi Arabia and they would stand gains from such revision of Saudi attitude.

In doing so, the strategists of Riyadh is aiming at  making USA small in the world eyes so that Washington would  return to Saudi fold  with an early attack on Iran and Syria.

After all, USA and Saudi Arabia have been close allies for decades now, Riyadh has promoted US links even by sacrificing its legitimate veto handle on UNSC, thereby remaining a stooge of USA, for no credible reason.

In October, Saudi Arabia stunned diplomats when it rejected its first ever seat on the UN Security Council without veto. The Saudi Foreign Ministry blasted the council for an “inability to perform its duties” in stopping the war in Syria. The problems in Mideast today is clear negligence on the part of the world, who continue to watch the suffering of the people without taking steps to stop that suffering.

The Saudis are particularly annoyed that the USA and Britain did not follow through with threats to punish Assad’s government over the use of WMD- chemical weapons. Those decisions caused similar uproar in France for Hollande, who many at home believed was left hanging as the only Western power to pledge military support.

Unlike the USA, the French have resisted suspending non-lethal aid to the rebels and show no signs of changing course. Hence Saudi Arabia picked  it a close anti-Syria ally.


Hence France was the special guest of Saudi Arabia as the French president visited the kingdom as important guest.

US State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said the U.S. and Saudi Arabia “share the same goals” of ending the war in Syria and preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, but she stopped short of endorsing a Saudi role at the bargaining table with Iran.

The US-Russian backed talks dubbed Geneva 2 are aimed at reaching an agreement on a transition to end the war which has claimed an estimated 126,000 lives since March 2011 and displaced millions of people.






French President Francois Hollande and Saudi King Abdullah held talks on Sunday the 29th December on escalating tensions in the Middle East, with a focus on Lebanon and Syria, during a visit also aimed at boosting commercial ties. Hollande said in an interview that Paris and Riyadh share a “will to work for peace, security and stability in the Middle East.

Hollande’s visit is his second since taking office in May 2012  and his defense minister has been three times, most recently after the announcement of a 1.1 billion euro ($1.4 billion) contract with the Saudi navy.

With an entourage of French executives from the lucrative defense and energy sectors, including four ministers and 30 top French business figures, President Francois Hollande arrived in Riyadh for a flurry of accords and contracts that have been in the works for months. During their meeting , King Abdullah expressed his concern over the situation in both Iran and Syria to Hollande, and he praised what he called France’s “courageous” position on these matters..

Hollande also highlighted several commercial contracts that had been signed throughout the year and said he and King Abdullah talked about other possible areas of cooperation, like nuclear energy.

The two leaders, meeting at the king’s luxurious Rawdat Khurayim farm, 60 kilometres (37 miles) northeast of the capital, both expressed concern over Iranian interference in Lebanon and the region. Hollande highlighted both aspects of the relationship during the visit, underscoring for reporters the number of diplomatic issues that the two countries agree on and noting that trade between the two had doubled in the past 10 years to 8 billion euros ($11 billion) in 2013.

Hollande noted that Saudi Arabia has become France’s “top client in the Middle East” with trade exceeding eight billion euros ($11 billion) in 2013, including French exports worth three billion euros. The balance of trade remains in Riyadh’s favour on the back of its oil exports to France. Hollande also highlighted contracts won by French companies in the oil-rich kingdom, including Alstom’s Riyadh metro deal.

The two countries with  different views on Islam also find themselves unexpectedly aligned in resistance, if not outright opposition, to US policy on Syria’s civil war and Iran’s nuclear program. The Saudi King highlighted a “convergence” of positions between the two countries on several issues. Abdullah expressed his concern, even anxiety, about regional crises — Iran, Syria, Lebanon and Egypt — and praised France’s courageous position on these key dossiers.



Hollande said he and King Abdullah were on the same page in terms of finding a “definitive solution” to Iran’s nuclear drive as well as on the crisis in Syria. He reiterated that any transition in Syria “must not result in the prolongation” of Assad’s regime..

Radical Islamist groups have taken on an increasingly prominent role in the Syrian conflict. Hollande also met with Syrian opposition leader Ahmed Jarba. Syria opposition, weakened by many factors now, urged to join peace talks. He urged the Syrian opposition to take part in a peace conference in Geneva in January aimed at brokering an end to the country’s civil war.

The French have been clear that they share Saudi fears that US and Russian concerns over Islamic militants could leave Assad the victor in any peace deal.


Francois Hollande ended the year with 24 hours of high-level meetings with the Saudi leadership in a visit intended to showcase commercial and diplomatic strength. Hollande noted that the two countries’ relations had deepened in recent months, in part because of their agreement on the crises in the region, including Syria’s civil war and Iran’s nuclear program.

France has been one of the strongest backers of the Syrian moderate leadership, and Hollande had pledged military support against Syrian President Bashar Assad until both the United States and Britain backed away. On Iran, the French shouldered their way into the negotiations with Iran, demanding a better deal and warning that the Tehran government needed careful monitoring. 

The Saudi ambassador to Britain, Prince Mohammed bin Nawaf bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, recently described the policies of some partners like USA toward Iran and Syria as a “dangerous gamble,” while calling for the kingdom to be more assertive internationally after decades of operating in diplomatic shadows. Saudi Arabia is prepared to act on its own to safeguard security in the region, as many of the West’s policies on both Iran and Syria risk the stability and security of the Middle East, this is a dangerous gamble, about which we cannot remain silent, and will not stand idly by.

The bluntly-worded warning was the latest in a series of public statements by senior Saudi figures expressing displeasure with US and Western diplomatic initiatives towards Syria and Iran. Citing Iran’s backing for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s regime, he said “rather than challenging the Syrian and Iranian governments, some of our Western partners have refused to take much-needed action against them. The West has allowed one regime to survive and the other to continue its program for uranium enrichment, with all the consequent dangers of weatherizationThe Saudi ambassador slammed the West for its reluctance to offer decisive help to Syrian rebels, vowing to continue support for the Free Syrian Army and the Syrian opposition.

In a thinly veiled jab at US President Barack Obama, the Saudi ambassador said USA refused to attack Syria’s regime on the pretext of chemical weapons.  After the regime was accused of firing chemical weapons, Obama threatened punitive military strikes  but did not act. But in the end,  with no proper evidence of regime use of WMD,  he pursued a diplomatic agreement in which Damascus promised to give up its lethal arsenal of chemical agents.

Riyadh feels all diplomatic talks with Iran may “dilute” the West’s will to confront both Damascus and Tehran, and as a result, Saudi Arabia says it has no choice but to become more assertive in international affairs: more determined than ever to stand up for the genuine stability Mideast region so desperately needs.” We will act to fulfill our global responsibilities, with or without the support of our Western partners.”

Saudi and France say they will continue to back the rebels fighting to overthrow Assad, in contrast with the Obama administration’s hesitation. The Saudi monarchy cannot fathom the fact that Assad might survive this crisis and then turn against them. They reject this possibility and are willing to do what they can to make Assad go.


What the Saudis won’t do is send in their own well-equipped armed forces, because it could empower the Saudi military to turn against them as happened elsewhere during the Arab Spring. The Saudis also watch with trepidation at the warming ties between Iran and the West.


Saudi, Syria, Lebanon 


The Syrian conflict, which has claimed more than 120,000 people and spawned a regional refugee crisis, has become in many ways a proxy fight pitting Saudi Arabia and other Sunni-led Arab states against Shiite powerhouse Iran, a major supporter of Assad.


Francois Hollande ended the year with 24 hours of high-level meetings with the Saudi leadership in a visit intended to showcase commercial and diplomatic strength.


Syria’s increasingly fractured opposition has said Assad must step down as part of any deal, which Damascus rejects.


Lebanon was at the top of the Saudi-France agenda amid heightening tensions in Beirut and Hollande later met with Prime Minister Saad Hariri, a strong critic of the Iran-backed Shiite Hezbollah movement, which is fighting alongside President Bashar al-Assad’s forces in Syria’s civil war. Hariri, the son of former premier Rafiq Hariri, who was assassinated in a massive car bomb in February 2005, lives outside Lebanon due to security fears.  Lebanon’s armed forces are woefully under-equipped and face multiplying security challenges, underlined by the blast that killed Chatah, although officials played down any link with the Saudi aid pledge. Hariri highlighted the importance of French support of the Lebanese state in particular the Lebanese army.

Hollande  pledged to “meet” any requests by the Lebanese government to arm the army. His comments came as Lebanon’s President Michel Sleiman announced from Beirut that Saudi Arabia had pledged $3 billion for the Lebanese army to buy French equipment.





Unfortunately, Saudi Arabia has given the world the impression that it cannot tolerate Shii’te Iran and Sunni Syria ruled by a Shi’te president. Riyadh is annoyed with a rising Turkey, an impressive Islamic Iran, hates Sunni Syria because it is ruled by a Shiite while it promotes Shi’ite Bahrain ruled by a Sunni leader and sent it’s military there to defend the Sunni ruler against the Arab Spring, there.

Until recently, Saudi leaders rarely voiced public criticism of their Western allies in a decades-long partnership. But Washington’s decision to pull back from military action in Syria and its backing for an interim nuclear deal with Iran has dismayed the oil-rich Saudi kingdom, which views Tehran as a dangerous regional rival.

If Saudi leaders take Americans for granted, it is their own fault only. The CIA that controls even Saudi intelligence would verily proceed along its own hidden agendas. Saudi can do nothing about it.

Washington has strived to downplay any suggestion of a rift with Saudi Arabia.  Senior American officials have traveled to the Gulf recently to reassure allies, including Saudi Arabia. And the US partnership, which includes billions in defense contracts, would likely endure beyond the current tensions.

A closer Saudi-French relationship could mean more of those lucrative deals go to Paris.

The Saudi obsession that they will be sold out to the Iranians in a grand bargain makes them want to be in these meetings to ensure that does not happen. Iran would never agree to any talks involving the Saudis, but that wouldn’t stop the kingdom from trying.

Saudi Arabia  should revise its pro-west and anti-Islam polices to aid the enemies of Islam. In stead of trying for war against Iran or Sunni Syria,  Riyadh would do well  by creating infrastructure to defend Islam, Muslim nations, and global Muslims- maybe called Islamic Security Organization (ISO) 

As a close of USA-UK terror twins, none  would trust Saudi Arabia. Many think Riyadh is only trying to  get back to US hold after a while.

Unless it undertakes steps to secure Islam,  it cannot claim leadership of  entire Islamic world. 

Hypocrisy is no good for Saudi Arabia and other Arab nations as it harms Islam.  


India : Common-man’s party to form government in Delhi

മലയാളം: ഡെൽഹിയിലുള്ള ജന്തർ മന്തറിൽ നിന്നുള്ളൊര...

മലയാളം: ഡെൽഹിയിലുള്ള ജന്തർ മന്തറിൽ നിന്നുള്ളൊരു ദൃശ്യം (Photo credit: Wikipedia)


The Giant Observatory can be recognised as jus...

The Giant Observatory can be recognised as just a giant version of a spherical sundial. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)


NDMC Building, also known as the Palika Kendra...

NDMC Building, also known as the Palika Kendra, Delhi, India. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)






India : Common-man’s party to form government in Delhi 






Delhi has created history of a sort.






Reports suggest that the most Delhiites want Common-man’s (Aam Aadmi) party to assume power.




Under immense pressure from people of Delhi, the Common-man (Aam Aadmi) party has at long last decided to  form  their first ever government in Delhi state.




Thus, ending days of uncertainty, the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) has declared that the party is ready to form the government in Delhi, with crucial support from one of its two main enemies, the Congress. The party has also announced that Arvind Kejriwal, under whom the party won 28 seats in the 70-member Delhi assembly, will be the chief minister.




Earlier, the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) sought the views of the people to decide whether or not to form a government in Delhi in the face of a split verdict. AAP founder leader Arvind Kejriwal said the public opinion would be sought until the weekend, and a final decision on government formation would be taken Dec 23.




Clearly, the public immensely pressured the AAP to assume power to serve the people with full dedication. There is a general feeling that Delhiites have rejected both the rich national parties Congress and BJP and want to see the new party Common-man’s Aam Aadmi (AAP) to govern them.  People are deadly disillusioned with all national parties that ignore concerns of common people and promote the rich and mafias.




The AAP won 28 seats in the 70-member Delhi assembly, and was invited to try form a government after the Bharatiya Janata Party, which finished with 31 seats, declined to do so as it lacked majority support. BJP somehow managed to win more seats than the AAP in Delhi but that party is scared of AAP so declined to stake claims for forming a government as requested by the Delhi Lt. Governor. .


The Congress party was routed in the Delhi elections, winning only eight seats. It offered outside support to the AAP. The Hindutva based BJP, the single largest party with 31 seats in the 70-member house, has declined to form a government. The AAP netted 28 seats and was invited by the Delhi Lt. Governor to form the ministry, but has sought time to reply.

The Congress, in a bid to slight the BJP, announced that its eight legislators would prop up the AAP. The AAP then said it would seek public views on whether or not it should take Congress support.  The Congress gave its “best wishes” to the AAP and asked it to fulfill the promises it made to the voters. A miffed BJP denounced the AAP decision, terming it a “betrayal of the people”.




Yesterday , the Aam Aadmi Party said that the final announcement on whether it will form a government in Delhi would be made Monday after the party gets the opinion of Delhiites.


AAP leader Arvind Kejriwal told reporters here:  “A lot of public meetings are going on Sunday, including four in my own constituency New Delhi. We will make the declaration Monday morning only after we get the opinion of the people, this is for the first time that such a thing is happening in India. Earlier, the common man’s role was limited to just voting but we are going out to them and making them feel empowered,” he added. “We are the talk of the town. This is true democracy.”







Has the AAP thus begun with breaking one of its very first promises, which was to not form an alliance with either the BJP or Congress? Absolutely no! The party leaders did not rush to form the government when the Lt. Governor invited them to form the government after the BJP said no to him.




AAP is only assuring the people of Delhi their willingness to obey them to govern the state and fulfill all poll promises by combating corruption. . The overwhelming public response — via SMS, IVRS, emails, and at public meetings — is in favor of taking support from the Congress to form a government in Delhi.




Sisodia, an  AAP spokesman and a senior figure in the AAP who is tipped to become a minister in the new government said: “We fought the elections under his leadership and it is the opinion of all the 28 MLAs that he (Kejriwal) will be chief minister of Delhi”. “There are some rumors that someone else might become the chief minister, and Kejriwal might play a different role. But the party has decided that he will be the chief minister,” Sisodia added that of the hundreds of thousands who responded to the AAP referendum, around 157,000 people in Delhi, or 74 percent of those who took part in the exercise in the capital, wanted the party to take power. Besides soliciting responses on the social media and through SMS, the AAP also held some 280 public meetings across Delhi. In 257 of them, the majority voted for an AAP government, he said.

The weekend just gone by alone saw 272 videographed public meetings where the people were asked if the Congress’ help should be taken. According to party sources, an overwhelming majority, almost 80-90 per cent, of the people said AAP should form the government. The party has got responses from over 6.5 lakh people through SMS, interactive voice response (IVR), Facebook and the AAP web site, she said. “We have held public meetings in all the wards. The promises made by Arvind  were read out to the public and they were then asked to raise their hands if they wanted AAP to form the government by taking support of the Congress. Almost everywhere, barring a few places, people were in favor of AAP forming a minority government. However, we will be able to make an announcement only on Monday after going through all the video recordings,” an AAP spokesperson said on 22 December. .

Arvind Kejriwal, the former civil servant who resigned his job to work for the common people’s genuine causes, led AAP to a shock victory of sorts, has already said his one-year-old party would fulfill its strong manifesto, declaring some of the things in it can be implemented within hours of forming the government.

After five days of a referendum when people were asked to say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ on whether AAP should take power, Kejriwal announced that an overwhelming majority in the capital had given their thumbs up. Kejriwal said that there are around 1.19 crore voters and we have collectively received around 10- 12 lakh responses, which in a way give an indication of the view of the electors.”Majority of the people wanted us to form the government, and now I am going to meet the Lt. Governor to inform him that AAP is ready to form the government in Delhi,” Kejriwal said.

Arvind Kejriwal said: We will request Lt Governor Jung to see if swearing-in can be done at Jantar Mantar, the venue of Hazare led peaceful struggle for anti-corruption Lokpal Bill to be passed in the parliament. As the party’s campaign to elicit a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ from people in the capital on government formation entered its final phase, the AAP said that most voters favored an AAP government. “Majority of the feedback we have received is ‘yes’,” spokesperson Ashwathi Muralidharan told IANS..




Kejriwal rebuffed allegations that AAP was hesitant to form government as it was not sure whether it would be able to fulfill the promises made in its election manifesto. “We will deliver whatever we assured in our manifesto.  The manifesto was prepared after wide consultations and a lot of thought went into it. Moreover, the people of Delhi are expecting much more from us and we will perform. A lot of time has been lost in the process to form government. If we do form government, the date to pass the Lokpal bill will have to be shifted by around a week. But we will definitely pass it,” said Kejriwal.




Before the Delhi assembly elections, Kejriwal had claimed that his party, if voted to power, would pass the Jan Lokpal Bill at Ramlila Maidan, the venue of some strong rallies and fasts in support of the anti-graft legislation, here Dec 29.






Although Congress  feels sigh of relief  as BJP is kept out of power,  it still want sot settle score with AAP that unseated most powerful party of India in Delhi  and playing negative role in bring the BJP to power in  Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Chhattisgarh.  Anna Hazare and Kejriwal cut plenty of votes from Congress vote bank which fell into BJP vote bank.




Common man Party is still unwilling to get support of both Congress and BJP, for, they would use it to suit their agenda, while, and Congress party may withdraw support at a crucial juncture.




A honest, decent and caring governments the need of the hour  not only in Delhi but  entire nation  where uncertainly  of the  rightful existence for common people depends  much on a much needed corruption free and price controlling system.




Delhiites are sure the new Common-man Party would realize the rightful dreams of Delhi state. On the strength of its performance depends the formation of AAP at national level to gear up for the next year’s parliamentary polls. Already Congress and BJP as well as other national parties are deeply worried about the prowess of Aam Aadmi.




The politicians and mafias enjoy power and the illegally made wealth, and now jointly fear the rise of Common Man in Delhi.












د. عبد راف 


BY DR. ABDUL RUFF COLACHAL has been an educationist, Columnist-Commentator  on world affairs Expert on Mideast AffairsChronicler of Foreign occupations & Freedom movements (Palestine, Kashmir, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Xinjiang, Chechnya, etc.) Chancellor-Founder of Centor for International Affairs(CIA);   Former university Teacher;  Editor:INTERNATIONAL OPINION; FOREIGN POLICY ISSUES; Author of books;website: mail: 91-8129081217—(Account: No 62310377429 – CIF No: 78215311481- State Bank of Hyderabad, India)


Realignment between USA and Cuba?



Realignment between USA and Cuba?




Before we debate on emerging new US diplomacy towards Cube one simple question needs to be asked right here.


Is American imperialism capable of changes?


Can one expect US leadership respect humanity at large and to formulate humanist policies against capitalism, imperialism?


When American imperialists are losing world status step by step, now it is communist Cuba, one of the strongest US opponents, seeking better relations with its major foe.


New beginning?

In a speech given on 22 December  before the National Assembly as the final plenary session of the year came to a close, the Cuban president recalled that Havana has expressed to Washington “on multiple occasions” its willingness to maintain a “respectful dialogue on equal terms, without compromising the independence, sovereignty and self-determination” of Cuba.

Although nothing new trend in international relations should surprise anybody, Cuban President Raul Castro, the heir-brother of revolutionary Fidel Castro who was known for his anti-Americanism, has called for “civilized relations” with the United States, saying the two countries should respect each other, especially their differences.

It seems Nelson Mandela after his death has just played a unity role in bringing together former global enemies by patching up their differences.

Even before the “meet” of Obama and Raul, Americans and Cubans are already on talking terms. In recent times, the relations between the two neighbors have shown signs of improvement of late, although some stumbling blocks to reconciliation remain.

It has come to light now that both countries have been in talks to for constructive cooperation.  However, strategists on both sides doubt their intent.  Castro said Cuban and American officials had met several times over the last year to discuss practical matters, such as immigration and the re-establishment of a postal service.


Fidel Castro, an ally of Soviet Union and opposing USA, is known for his bold action in 1963 “Cuban Missile Crisis” by threatening to push the missile button targeting America. Had he pushed the button perhaps that would have resulted in another world war.

Castro and Obama’s brief, unprecedented handshake awakened some expectations about bilateral relations, though neither government gave any importance to the matter, considering it a normal example of civil behavior.

In talking about relations between Washington and Havana, whose political differences go back more than 50 years, Castro did not, however, mention his greeting to US President Barack Obama in South Africa at the Memorial for the late South African leader, Nelson Mandela.

Broken Ties

Cuba is once of reaming communist regimes on the face of the earth.  Washington has failed to coerce Havana to change the system by allowing US multinationals to enter  and  control Cuban economy, but Cuba has vehemently opposed the great idea of CIA. .

To those countries that are blacklisted by the CIA for opposing USA for whatever reasons, Americans insists on the norms of shared values for any true relationships.

The US broke off relations with in 1961 after the revolution and maintains an economic embargo against the island. Although Washington keeps making some concessions of Cuba the relations have remain cold even after the end of Cold war.

President Raul Castro said the US should drop its demand for regime change on the communist-run island. That would allow both sides to continue work on improving relations. Castro’s comments in a rare public speech follow a public handshake with President Obama at the memorial ceremony for Nelson Mandela in South Africa earlier this month. We do not ask the United States to change its political and social system.”


Castro explained that the relations should be civilized and he warned: “If we really want to make progress in bilateral relations, we have to learn to respect each other’s differences and get used to living peacefully with them. Otherwise, we are only ready for another 55 years like the last. “If we really want to make progress in bilateral relations, we must get used to coexisting with them peacefully,” the president said during an address broadcast Saturday on state television. Castro told legislators at the closing session of the parliament in the capital, Havana that they do not ask the United States to change its political and social system, “nor do we agree to negotiate over ours”.

Castro again offered the US government the option of a “respectful dialogue” that would not compromise the island’s sovereignty, and said the two countries can establish “civilized relations.”  Castro said: “If in recent times we have been able to have certain discussions on subjects of mutual benefit…we believe we can resolve other matters, establish civilized relations between the two countries, as our people and the vast majority of US citizens and Cuban emigrants would wish” .

Raul Castro, 82, took over from his brother, Fidel, in 2006, pursuing Fidel’s polices. Fidel had serious health problems and was never able to come back to power. Two years later, he resigned and transferred control permanently to Raul Castro, who has since carried out a program of economic reforms, which has helped efforts for relations with the US to be improved. But critics say the pace of change has been too slow, not to the liking or standards of the Americans. But Castro warned:”The reform process in Cuba cannot be rushed or it will lead to failure”.

Among the most recent changes announced by Raul Castro is the end of restrictions on private individuals to buy new and second hand cars.  Cuban communist program is to restrict people to one car so that process of equality opportunities is on.

Now anyone with enough money will be allowed to order the vehicles from a government dealer. Until now, only those who were given a previous government authorization were allowed to buy cars in Cuba.

Many Cubans oppose the US embargo, arguing that it attacks the economic resources of Cuba’s people rather than its government. Economic damage resulting from the embargo is probably at least partially responsible for endemic food shortages and transportation difficulties in Cuba. Food imports from the United States have increased in recent years despite the embargo, resulting in slight improvements in this situation.

Academics outside of Cuba have also criticized the embargo for its effects on food, clean water, medicine, and other economic needs of the Cuban population. It has also been linked to shortages of medical supplies and soap which have resulted in a series of medical crises and heightened levels of infectious diseases. It has also been linked to epidemics of specific diseases, including neurological disorders caused by poor nutrition and blindness.


US interests

USA and Cuba, located in the same time zone, do not have common ideology as they do not share American values. Also, distance between USA and Cuba is 777 miles or 1250 KM (kilometers) and 538.21 meters.


Yet, the United States of America and Cuba have a long history of close economic and political ties. Though Cuba had been a Spanish colony for nearly 400 years, the island had developed increasing trade links with the United States during the 19th century. In December of 1898, Spain ceded control of Cuba to the US following its defeat in the Spanish-American War.


Plans for purchase of Cuba from the Spanish Empire were put forward at various times by the USA. As the Spanish influence waned in the Caribbean, the United States gradually gained a position of economic and political dominance over the island, with the vast majority of foreign investment holdings and the bulk of imports and exports in its hands, as well as a strong influence on Cuban political affairs.


As it could not purchase Cuba from Spain, the USA later assisted Cuba in its liberation from Spain in 1902, yet frequently intervened in Cuban political affairs. There was substantial US investment in Cuban production of sugar and tobacco for export, and in tourism, as well as preferential access for Cuban exports to the USA. By 1926 US companies owned 60% of the Cuban sugar industry and imported 95% of the total Cuban crop.


The Cuban Revolution of 1959 saw the overthrow of General Fulgencio Batista and the rise to power of Fidel Castro. The U.S. government formally recognized the new Cuban administration, but relations were to deteriorate rapidly as the Cuban government passed the first Agrarian Reform Law, allowing for the expropriation of large-scale (largely American-owned) land holdings.


The US embargo against Cuba is an economic, commercial, and financial embargo imposed on Cuba on February 7, 1962. The embargo was enacted after Cuba expropriated the properties of United States rich citizens and corporations.


In 1999, US President Bill Clinton expanded the trade embargo even further by ending the practice of foreign subsidiaries of U.S. companies trading with Cuba totaling more than US$700 million a year.


At present, the embargo, which limits American businesses from conducting business with Cuban interests, is still in effect, making it one of the few times in history that United States citizens have been restricted from doing business abroad, and is the most enduring trade embargo in modern history. Despite the existence of the embargo, the United States is the seventh largest exporter to Cuba (4.3% of Cuba’s imports are from the US).


In November 2001, US companies began selling food to the country for the first time since Washington imposed the trade embargo after the revolution. In 2002, former U.S. President Jimmy Carter became the first former or sitting U.S. president to visit Cuba since 1928


Following his 2004 reelection, George W. Bush declared Cuba to be one of the few “outposts of tyranny” remaining in the world. Tensions heightened as the Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs, John R. Bolton, accused Cuba of maintaining a biological weapons program


Bolton identified the Castro government as part of America’s “axis of evil,” highlighting the fact that the Cuban leader visited several US foes, including Libya, Iran and Syria. Cuba was also identified as a State Sponsor of Terrorism by the United States Department of State. The Cuban government denies the claim, and in turn has accused the U.S. of engaging in state sponsored terrorism against Cuba.


The Cuban government denies the claim, and in turn has accused the U.S. of engaging in state sponsored terrorism against Cuba


On September 8, 2006, it was revealed that at least ten South Florida journalists received regular payments from the US government for organized media programs


In April 2009 US President Barack Obama began implementing a less strict policy towards Cuba. The U.S. president had stated that he is open to dialogue with Cuba, but that he would only lift the trade embargo if Cuba has political change. In March 2009, Obama signed into law a Congressional spending bill which eased some economic sanctions on Cuba and eased travel restrictions on Cuban Americans.


At the 2009 5th Summit of the Americas, President Obama signaled the opening of a new beginning with Cuba. On 27 July 2012, Raúl Castro said that the Cuban government is willing to hold talks with the United States government to “discuss anything”. On December 10 2013, in an unprecedented move at a state memorial service for Nelson Mandela, Barack Obama and Raul Castro shook hands.


Cuba goes Kremlin



The Cuban Revolution which propelled Fidel Castro to power on January 1, 1959, initially attracted little attention in Moscow. Soviet premier Nikita Khrushchev asked his advisers to consult Cuba’s Communists who reported that Castro was a representative of the “haute bourgeoisie” and working for the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency. In February 1960 Khrushchev sent his deputy Anastas Mikoyan to Cuba to discover motivations of Castro against USA and Mikoyan returned from Cuba with the opinion that Castro’s new administration should be helped economically and politically. ‘


Washington’s increasing economic embargo led Cuba to hurriedly seek new markets to avert economic disaster. Castro asked for help from the Soviets and in response Khrushchev approved the temporary purchase of Cuban sugar in exchange for Soviet fuel. This deal was to play a part in sustaining the Cuban economy for many years to come.  The defense of Cuba became a matter of prestige for the Soviet Union, and Khruschev believed that the U.S. would block all access to the island whether by sea or air.


Khrushchev agreed on a deployment plan in May 1962 chiefly in response to NATO positioning their nuclear missiles in Turkey in 1958, and by late July over sixty Soviet ships were in route to Cuba, some of them already carrying military material.


In a televised address on October 22, U.S. President John F. Kennedy announced the discovery of the installations and proclaimed that any nuclear missile attack from Cuba would be regarded as an attack by the Soviet Union and would be responded to accordingly. Khrushchev sent letters to Kennedy on October 23 and 24 claiming the deterrent nature of the missiles in Cuba and the peaceful intentions of the Soviet Union. On October 26, the Soviets offered to withdraw the missiles in return for a U.S. guarantee not to invade Cuba or support any invasion and to remove all missiles set in southern Italy and in Turkey. This deal was accepted and the crisis abated.


Castro was not consulted throughout the Kennedy-Khrushchev negotiations and the unilateral Soviet withdrawal of the missiles and bombers wounded Castro’s pride and prestige.


The missile crisis had a significant impact on the countries involved. While it led to a thaw in US-Soviet relations, it significantly strained Cuban-Soviet relations.


With Cuba’s proximity to the United States, Castro and his regime became an important Cold War ally for the Soviets. The relationship was for the most part an economic one, with the Soviet Union providing military, economic and political assistance to Cuba. After the establishment of diplomatic ties with the Soviet Union after the Cuban revolution of 1959, Cuba became increasingly dependent on Soviet markets and military aid becoming an ally of the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Moscow kept in regular contact with Havana, sharing varying close relations until the collapse of the bloc in 1991. After the demise of the Soviet Union, Cuba entered an era of economic hardship.


A US arms embargo had been in force since March 1958 when armed conflict broke out in Cuba between rebels and the Batista government. In July 1960, in response to the expropriations by the Cuban government, the United States reduced the Cuban import quota of sugar by 7,000,000 tons; the Soviet Union responded by agreeing to purchase the sugar instead, and Cuba took further actions to take over American businesses. In response to Cuba’s alignment with the Soviet Union during the Cold War, President John F. Kennedy extended measures


Following the Cuban Missile Crisis, Kennedy imposed travel restrictions on February 8, 1963, and the Cuban Assets Control Regulations were issued on July 8, 1963, under the Trading with the Enemy Act in response to Cubans hosting Soviet nuclear weapons, which led to the Cuban Missile Crisis. Under these restrictions, Cuban assets in the U.S. were frozen and the existing restrictions were consolidated.


When Gorbachev came to power in March 1985, Cuba remained an important Cold War propaganda tool for the Soviet Union. Economic investment and trade in Cuba was at its highest; in 1985 trade between the two nations accounted for over 70 percent of Cuba’s entire trade. The two nations continued to collaborate on projects in the sciences, technology, sports, and education.  However, throughout the Gorbachev era diplomatic relations cooled until the collapse of the Soviet Empire in 1991 and the termination of Soviet-Cuban relations.

Heightened tensions best characterize diplomatic relations between Cuba and the Soviet Union throughout the Gorbachev era. The introduction of Gorbachev’s reforms of perestroika, glasnost, and his “new thinking” on foreign policy set off an economic crisis in the Soviet Union, opened up the Soviets and their allies to increasing internal criticism from dissidents, and sparked an ideological conflict with Fidel Castro’s regime.


The collapse of Soviet Union and end of socialism in Europe resulted in the end of Cuban-Soviet relations and great isolation and economic hardship in Cuba.



An Observation

Whether or not Americans would trust the Cubans or take their words seriously is the moot question now to expect any drastic changes in US-Cuban relations. .




د. عبد راف 

BY DR. ABDUL RUFF COLACHAL has been an educationist, Columnist-Commentator  on world affairs Expert on Mideast AffairsChronicler of Foreign occupations & Freedom movements (Palestine, Kashmir, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Xinjiang, Chechnya, etc.) Chancellor-Founder of Centor for International Affairs(CIA);   Former university Teacher;  Editor:INTERNATIONAL OPINION; FOREIGN POLICY ISSUES; Author of books;website: mail: 91-8129081217—(Account: No 62310377429 – CIF No: 78215311481- State Bank of Hyderabad, India)


Terrorism is caused by anti-Islamic forces. Anti-Islamism is more dangerous than “terrorism”.  Fake democracies have zero-tolerance to any criticism of their anti-Muslim and other aggressive practices.

English: A map of Balawaristan, with its three...

English: A map of Balawaristan, with its three constituent regions (Brooshal, Dardistan and Baltistan), as well as the region of Siachen Glacier (currently administered by India). (Photo credit: Wikipedia)


Location of province XY (see filename) in Pakistan

Location of province XY (see filename) in Pakistan (Photo credit: Wikipedia)


Satellite view of the Siachen Glacier, Kashmir...

Satellite view of the Siachen Glacier, Kashmir. Image obtained by the Landsat 7 Enhanced Thematic Mapper Plus Instrument (Photo credit: Wikipedia)


United Nations' map of Jammu and Kashmir, acce...

United Nations’ map of Jammu and Kashmir, accepted by the Kashmiris and the Pakistani government (Photo credit: Wikipedia)


The Siachen Glacier area is the smallest orang...

The Siachen Glacier area is the smallest orange area. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)






South Asia: Removal of military threat to Siachen Glacier














The speedy climate change taking place across the globe m not only because of global green gas emissions but also by terror wars perpetrated by US led NATO rogue states fighting Islam under garb of war terrorism.




The military operations and other activities by the forces now occupying Siachen Glacier lying between Pakistan and Jammu Kashmir, now under India occupation, in South Asia, have threatened to harm the  environmental hazards  lading to climate change.  




Militarizes want wars and care a damn about the terrible fallout of terror wars o for the people and environment. Rulers seeking to get political mileage out by showcasing their rhetoric power, often fall into the trap of military strategists and click the war button, killing including people and harming environment and destroying properties worth trillions of world top currencies.




Military blood thirst can only be equated only with money hunger of politicians who willingly play into the military hands and allocate huge resources on non-productive and destructive wars and get a share of funds.




NATO wars on Islam in energy rich Mideast has caused devastating damages to the climate. So are the nuclear reactors pumping out poisonous gases into the atmosphere, besides the attacking the people of the region through radioactive stuff.




Siachen Glacier lying between India and Pakistan as part of Jammu Kashmir is being badly militarized by Indian forces as part of illegally occupying JK.




Extended over stay of military forces has harmed the region badly. Environmentally sensitive zone of Siachen is fast going to become the biggest garbage dump that can turn this large source of drinking water into pollution-spreading tool in the region.




The Siachen Conflict, sometimes referred to as the Siachen War, is a military conflict between India and Pakistan over the disputed Siachen Glacier region in Kashmir. A cease-fire went into effect in 2003. The conflict began in 1984 with India’s successful Operation Meghdoot during which it gained control of the Siachen Glacier (unoccupied and not demarcated area). India has established control over all of the 70 kilometres (43 mi) long Siachen Glacier and all of its tributary glaciers, as well as the three main passes of the Saltoro Ridge immediately west of the glacier—Sia La, Bilafond La, and Gyong La. Pakistan controls the glacial valleys immediately west of the Saltoro Ridge. India gained more than 1,000 square miles (3,000 km2) of territory because of its military operations in Siachen.




The Siachen glacier is the highest battleground on earth, where India and Pakistan have fought intermittently since April 13, 1984. Both countries maintain permanent military presence in the region at a height of over 6,000 metres (20,000 ft). More than 2000 people have died in this inhospitable terrain, mostly due to weather extremes and the natural hazards of mountain warfare.


The conflict in Siachen stems from the incompletely demarcated territory on the regional map. The 1972 Simla Agreement did not clearly mention who controlled the glacier, merely stating that from the NJ9842 location the boundary would proceed “thence north to the glaciers.” UN officials presumed there would be no dispute between India and Pakistan over such a cold and barren region.


The Indian army controls all of the 70 kilometres (43 mi) long Siachen Glacier and all of its tributary glaciers, as well as the three main passes of the Saltoro Ridge immediately west of the glacier—Sia La, Bilafond La, and Gyong La—thus holding onto the tactical advantage of high ground.


The Pakistanis control the glacial valley just five kilometers southwest of Gyong La. The Pakistanis have been unable get up to the crest of the Saltoro Ridge, while the Indians cannot come down and abandon their strategic high posts.


The line between where Indian and Pakistani troops are presently holding onto their respective posts is being increasingly referred to as the Actual Ground Position Line (AGPL)


Since September 2007, India has welcomed mountaineering and trekking expeditions to the forbidding glacial heights. The expeditions have been meant to show the international audience that Indian troops hold “almost all dominating heights” on the important Saltoro Ridge west of Siachen Glacier, and to show that Pakistani troops are not within 15 miles (24 km) of the 43.5-mile (70 km) Siachen Glacier


Ms Benazir Bhutto, the first woman PM of Pakistan, visited the area west of Gyong La as the first premier from either side to get to the Siachen region. On June 12, 2005, Indian PM Manmohan Singh visited the area, calling for a peaceful resolution of the problem. In 2007, the President of India, Abdul Kalam became the first head of state to visit the area.




After the Kargil War in 1999, India decided to maintain its military outposts on the glacier, wary of further Pakistani incursions into Kashmir if they vacate from the Siachen Glacier posts without an official recognition from Pakistan of the current positions.




The heavy military presence in the Siachen area has so far resulted in loss of ice mass at the terminus, heavy deposits of carbon on glaciated ice and increased absorption of solar radiation that were believed to be main cause of unexpected avalanche in Gayari sector of Siachen area.




The official record stated that since their first meeting in January 1986, the military secretaries of the two countries have so far held a total of 12 rounds of negotiations on the issue of Siachen Glacier.






The satellite images taken with the help of Italy based organization showed 4.3 km ice line retreat and presence of glacier lakes that are enough evidence to prove that glacier is fast melting and shape of snout is constantly changing due to transboundary pollution effects in the Siachen area.




Following an avalanche on April 7 that killed 124 soldiers of the 6 Northern Light Infantry and 11 civilians, then Pakistan Army Chief, General Kayani also remarked that it was time to demilitarize the Glacier. International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) estimated that, on the Indian side alone, over 2000 lbs of human waste are dropped daily into crevasses. Clothing used in warfare is washed at hot sulfur springs near the Indian base camp, and toxic residue flows freely into the Nubra River.  It said Siachen lacks natural biodegrading agents, so metals and plastics simply merge with the glacier as permanent pollutants, leaching toxins like cobalt, cadmium, and chromium into the ice. This waste eventually reaches the Indus River, affecting drinking and irrigation water.




Amidst the disagreement between Pakistan and India, an interesting idea bereft of emotion and politics, purely based on science was mooted by the Institute of Multi-Track Diplomacy (IMTD) in Washington DC. IMTD has come up with the idea of setting up of a joint Siachen Science Centre (or Centres) based at the University of Srinagar and Muzaffarabad.




A study conducted by the State Council for Science, Technology and Environment of the Himachal Pradesh state of India, revealed that 67 per cent of the Himalayan glaciers have shown retreating trends.






Pakistan and India would realize the intensity of the environmental threats due to increasing human and military activities in the Siachen glacier.  Both possible war threat and environmental disorder in the Siachen Glacier zone are the prime reasons for leaderships on both sides to seriously address the issue of threat to the glacier. Both the governments need to consider establishing ‘Science Park’ and non-military zone on the Siachen Glacier. Now this is high time to again explore such proposal seriously.






As Siachen zone is becoming a dangerous spot for the survival of living beings around, Pakistan sought both India and Pakistan to jointly demilitarize the zone. But India, always showcasing the Big Brother attitude to its neighbors,  rejected the peace offer and declared its decision to stay militarily there, destabilizing the natural and environmental conditions.




Sensing future problems, Pakistan has been pushing for demilitarization of Siachen but India has maintained that this cannot take place without proper authentication by both sides of the present troop positions on the Glacier.




Advisor to Pakistan Prime Minister on National Security and Foreign Affairs Sartaj Aziz has repeatedly asked India to withdraw troops from the Siachen Glacier claiming that they posed a “serious threat” to Pakistan’s environment.  But, as usual, the Army rubbished Pakistan’s demand for withdrawal of troops from the Siachen Glacier saying it would not move out from the strategically important icy heights.






The India team military would not like to move out from the Glacier as it is of strategic importance to us and in the last several years, we have taken several steps towards maintaining the environmental equilibrium there.  The Army has not changed its views on the importance of the strategic heights which have been under Indian physical control since 1984 after the Army launched to Operation Meghdoot to occupy them. In the recent times, the Army has worked towards using new and renewable energy sources such as solar and wind energy to meet its energy requirements in the glacier areas and DRDO has also taken up work in this direction.




As a matter of fact, the Himalayan glacier feeds the river system that sustains life and economic activity in both countries. Environmentalists have long been warning that glacial melting caused by human activity would bring catastrophic changes in this region’s weather patterns. Initially spells of droughts and floods will have a profoundly disruptive impact on the area’s agrarian economies, followed by an acute water scarcity. Needless to say, the Nature does not recognize territorial claims by one or another country. Degradation of the glacier’s environment should be as worrisome for India as it is for Pakistan.

The presence of Indian forces on Siachen Glacier is harmful to the environment. Pakistan is facing a water shortage and Indian forces are damaging the virgin snow of Siachen on daily basis‚ which is one of the largest sources of Pakistani waters. Items of daily use disposed off by thousands of Indian soldiers are threatening the very existence of the glacier.




Indian and Pakistani troops are face-to-face at Siachen for years in freezing temperature, since Indian troops occupied the major portion of Siachen in 1984. Before this act of Indian aggression, the glacier was a demilitarized zone, scarcely visited by human beings. Pakistan had to move its troops to the glacier as a necessity to halt further advancement of Indian troops. Ever since Pakistan has pursued restoration of status quo ante. Demilitarization of Siachen would mitigate the water scarcity of both the countries.


It is worthwhile to note that despite both countries staking claims to the glacier, located in the occupied and disputed Jammu and Kashmir region, the Line of Control demarcation never covered Siachen. It was left alone, apparently, because of its uninhabitable conditions until India decided in April 1984 to surreptitiously send its troops to set up posts on some of Siachen’s advantageous heights. India asserts its  rights  to the Glaciers  on the strength of its illegal occupation of JK.


Learning about the Indian occupation a week later Pakistan asserted its own claims, taking control of other adjoining important points. They have since remained locked in a mindless standoff with more soldiers dying from weather and height-related causes than fighting the other side.




In an interview with Radio Pakistan recently, Pakistani PM’s Adviser on National Security and Foreign Affairs, Sartaj Aziz, expressed concern over a little discussed but vital aspect of Pak-India military standoff atop the Siachen glacier. Calling for troop pullout, he said that the presence of Indian troops -and by way of response Pakistan’s- is a threat to Pakistan’s environment, and one of its main sources of water.




Sartaj Aziz talked of thousands of Indian troops disposing of items that, he said, threaten melting of the glacier. Pakistani troops, of course, also contribute to degradation of Siachen’s environment. For over nearly three decades, both sides have been firing ordnance at each other, and using helicopters for transportation of men and equipment as well as to launch surprise raids. Surely, they also light fires to cook and bathe or simply to stay warm. Such activities combined with greenhouse gas emissions by Indian and Chinese coal-fired power plants and industries threaten to melt the glacier faster than most estimates predict.

It is of great urgency that the Glaciers are left alone to themselves. It is about time New Delhi recognizes the threat the Siachen standoff poses to the two countries, peoples and their livelihood. India may be relatively better placed to pay a huge price in terms of lost lives and financial burden required by military presence on Siachen, but it must also think of the longer-term cost of damaging the environment and resultant climatic upheavals. The concern it has been expressing about pullback to the pre-1984 positions can be addressed provided the problem is only of a trust deficit, as declared, and not a desire to consolidate control of the disputed glacial territory. The sticking point has been India’s stance that in the event of its troops pullback, Pakistan will move up to occupy its present positions. That can be resolved through a satellite surveillance agreement. The glacier must be declared a demilitarized zone.




Presence of Indian forces on Siachen is, indeed, a big issue and should be resolved as soon as possible. According to environmentalists‚ glacial retreat on Himalayas and Karakorum ranges has accelerated during the recent years because of human presence on the glaciers.




There cannot be two opinions of the humanity that military threat to Siachen Glacier lying between India and Pakistan must be removed by demilitarizing the sandwiched zone.




Militaries have no rights to destroy the very important climatic zone Siachen Glacier in order to showcase their terror prowess.




Removal of military threat to Siachen Glacier generally would contribute to the good will of people on both sides and  peaceful situation in  South Asia:






د. عبد راف 


BY DR. ABDUL RUFF COLACHAL has been an educationist, Columnist-Commentator  on world affairs Expert on Mideast AffairsChronicler of Foreign occupations & Freedom movements (Palestine, Kashmir, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Xinjiang, Chechnya, etc.) Chancellor-Founder of Centor for International Affairs(CIA);   Former university Teacher;  Editor:INTERNATIONAL OPINION; FOREIGN POLICY ISSUES; Author of books;website: mail: 91-8129081217—(Account: No 62310377429 – CIF No: 78215311481- State Bank of Hyderabad, India)




Pakistan’s National Sovereignty and US Military Aid

The coat of arms of Pakistan displays the nati...

The coat of arms of Pakistan displays the national motto, Īmān, Ittiḥād, Nazm. (Urdu Faith, Unity, Discipline). (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

President George W. Bush is welcomed by Pakist...

President George W. Bush is welcomed by Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf to Aiwan-e-Sadr in Islamabad, Pakistan, Saturday, March 4, 2006. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Pakistani guys on the Deira docks in Dubai

Pakistani guys on the Deira docks in Dubai (Photo credit: CharlesFred)






Pakistan’s National Sovereignty and US Military Aid












USA continues to be unilateral and also dictatorial in its external behavior in the conduct of coercive foreign policy.




No nation can live only for foreign aid and if a government looks around for foreign aid it loses genuine national pride as well as people’s sympathy. Pakistan cannot function as corporate organization- it is a nation of people who care for self-respect and national proud. 




The greed of Pakistani regime has landed nation into anti-Islamic trouble- deep indeed! People of Pakistan are right if they think their nation has been mortgaged to US imperialists. 




Americans have destabilized and insulted Pakistan by exploiting the selfish leaders of Islamabad for years now, looking to the West for daily bread.   




Americans claim full immunity from local laws abroad wherever they are and whatever crimes they commit.




However, American citizens are punished for their crimes committed inside USA. Why should US terrocracy then insist on special VIP treatment for their brand operative criminals abroad?




Washington has systemically refused sovereign equality to what they conifer insignificant nations, like India and Pakistan.   




Americans have broken every law on Pakistani lands where Pakistanis are sure to be punished for the crimes.  Even former president Pervez Musharraf is facing criminal charges, especially for his ordering of terror attack on Lal Mosque in Islamabad, killing ruthlessly many Muslims, including the Imam there.




But American criminals say they cannot be arrested or punished by Pakistani regime, police or courts because of the aid in arms they receive from Pentagon on the recommendations of the CIA.  


They also insist on their prerogative to target Muslims in Pakistan, killing them by drone attacks ignoring the sovereignty aspect of Pakistan.




So long as the Pakistan leaders, media lords, senior journalists, military-intelligence officials  continue to get their visas to USA every atrocity on Pakistani population and every harm  done for Pakistani sovereignty would be tolerated by Pakistani regime.




This is the clear message the world gets from Pakistani regime and media. But Pakistan uses its media to create anti-Americanism not to protect the national sovereignty as an independent nation but only to get some more terror goods from Pentagon and favors from American multinationals for Pakistani businessmen.






If promotion of the Pakistani rich at the cost of national sovereignty is the key policy of Pakistan, should it need polls at all? Cheating people and shaming the nation is not a good thing for the regime to undertake, not an Islamic nation.




Should an Islamic nation behave like a wicked dummy piece? 




Clearly, since the regime and media lost their voice to defend Pakistani sovereignty as their prime duty, only people of Pakistan can now step in to make both American and Pakistani regimes realize the simple fact that they rule for the people and not against them. 




Pakistani regime must stop unnecessarily worrying about terror goods directly from USA or/and Afghanistan but think only about the welfare of people of the nation. 






Pakistani nation should wake up before it is too late for that!






د. عبد راف 


BY DR. ABDUL RUFF COLACHAL has been an educationist, Columnist-Commentator  on world affairs Expert on Mideast AffairsChronicler of Foreign occupations & Freedom movements (Palestine, Kashmir, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Xinjiang, Chechnya, etc.) Chancellor-Founder of Centor for International Affairs(CIA);   Former university Teacher;  Editor:INTERNATIONAL OPINION; FOREIGN POLICY ISSUES; Author of books;website: mail: 91-8129081217—(Account: No 62310377429 – CIF No: 78215311481- State Bank of Hyderabad, India)




Terrorism is caused by anti-Islamic forces. Anti-Islamism is more dangerous than “terrorism”.  Fake democracies have zero-tolerance to any criticism of their anti-Muslim and other aggressive practices. 


Amid opposition boycott in Bangladesh, Hasina pushes poll as scheduled

English: Seal of the Prime Minister of Bangladesh

English: Seal of the Prime Minister of Bangladesh (Photo credit: Wikipedia)








English: Begum Khaleda Zia, former Bangladesh ...

English: Begum Khaleda Zia, former Bangladesh Prime Minister and chairperson of Bangladesh Nationalist Party, is photographed as she appeared as the chief guest in a book opening ceremony on 1 March, 2010 at the Diploma Engineers Institute, Dhaka. বাংলা: সাবেক প্রধানমন্ত্রী ও বাংলাদেশ জাতীয়তাবাদী দলের চেয়ারপার্সন বেগম খালেদা জিয়াকে একটি বইয়ের মোড়ক উম্মোচন অনুষ্ঠানে অংশ গ্রহণ করতে দেখা যাচ্ছে। ছবিটি ১ মার্চ, ২০১০ তারিখে রাজধানীর কাকরাইলে অবস্থিত ডিপ্লোমা ইঞ্জিনিয়ার্স ইন্সটিটিউট থেকে তোলা। (Photo credit: Wikipedia)








One fails to understand what exactly Bangladesh aims at, although, true, anti-Islamism seems to guide the regime and its media for quite some time now.




As it stands now Bangladesh is heading for general poll in January, ruling Awami League party is quite happy to win it since the BNP-led 18-party opposition alliance is boycotting it protesting against  Hasina’s regime party’s misrule.


PM Hasina is trying to make Bangladesh her party property. Four free and fair polls have been held under caretaker governments in the past two decades, but Hasina scrapped the system in 2011 — arguing that it was unconstitutional and could pave the way for military coups. The prime minister has instead formed an interim multi-party cabinet which includes her allies.


The main opposition Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), led by two-times ex-premier Khaleda Zia, has been demanding that Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina quit and make way for a “non-party and impartial” chief executive to oversee the polls. It believes any polls held under Hasina will be rigged.


Bangladesh’s 18-party opposition coalition led by Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) confirmed it would boycott a general election scheduled early next year, making the announcement hours before the nominations deadline and plunging the country into renewed political uncertainty.


The BNP and its allies demand that Hasina step down to make way for a neutral caretaker government to oversee the polls, as in the past.  But Hasina has rejected the demands for her resignation and is determined to hold the poll as scheduled, insisting it is a constitutional requirement.


The BNP announced the decision amid growing street protests-turned-violence that has left 51 people dead since late October and a string of strikes that have paralyzed large parts of the country. Some 80 people have been killed since late October when the BNP-led opposition launched protests, strikes and transport blockades to pressure Hasina to resign.


But the Hasina regime seems to be got a shot in its arm because opposition boycott will leave her party and partners easy win again.  Obviously, Hasina, now a very shrewd politician, has expected this turn of events of opposition boycott to sweep the poll without any opponents in the field.


Happy about the emerging positive poll environment in their favor, the ruling Awami League is determined to go ahead with the polls, even though the opposition Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) and its 17 allies have vowed to boycott them unless Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina quits beforehand.


Unanimous election of candidates has become common in Bangladesh with just one candidate contesting for the constituency.  There will be no need for balloting in 151 constituencies for the January-5 parliamentary election as only one valid candidate is found in those seats each after the final scrutiny.  The BD Election Commission, a total of 151 parliamentary constituencies from across the country got lone candidates as the BNP-led 18-party alliance is boycotting the polls. The number of unopposed winners may rise further and cross 151, a number necessary for forming the government, an EC official told UNB wishing anonymity.   Of them, 127 candidates are of the ruling AL, 18 of HM Ershad’s Jatiya Party and one of Anwar Hossain Manju-led Jatiya Party-JP, three of JSD (Inu) and the rest two of Bangladesh Workers Party.




The unopposed winners is going to surpass that of the largely-boycotted Feb-15 (1996) controversial election when 49 BNP candidates were elected uncontested.   In the Feb-15 (1996) one-sided election, 49 BNP candidates were elected MP uncontested. The election in 10 constituencies could not be held due to widespread violence. BNP won 279 parliamentary seats out of 290 in the sixth general election as it was largely boycotted.




Later, however, no candidate was elected unopposed in the four participatory national elections – 1991 (fifth), 1996 (seven), 2001 (eight) and 2008 (ninth) after the fall of HM Ershad’s regime.  But In the scrapped 2007 January 22 election, 18 candidates of BNP were elected uncontested. The election was cancelled after the 1/11 political changeover. In the 1988 fourth national election, 18 candidates were elected uncontested, while 11 candidates elected unopposed in the 1986 third election.






With poll nominations closing late Friday, the Election Commission said 154 seats in the 300-seat parliament have only one candidate each on the ballot paper, and 127 of the 154 are from the Awami League. Awami League allies are contesting another seven seats alone, meaning the ruling party or its allies need only win 17 of the contested seats to win a majority and stay in power.


The opposition, led by Hasina’s rival Khaleda Zia, has said it fears the premier will try to rig the vote in a country plagued for decades by coups and political upheaval, and vowed to boycott the poll.




The BNP extended a 72-hour nationwide transport blockade to press its demands. Further, widespread violence over the death sentences handed down to opposition leaders led by Mollah by a controversial war crimes court  of Hasina earlier this year left more than 150 people dead, making 2013 the most violent since the country gained its independence from Pakistan in 1971.




Meanwhile, former ruler Hussain Muhammad Ershad said his Jatiya Party, the country’s third largest and a key ally of the ruling Awami League, would not contest the January 5 elections, following in the footsteps of the opposition alliance. “Since all parties are not contesting, so the Jatiya Party will also not participate in the polls,” Ershad told reporters, adding that a “proper environment” was absent for the elections. The announcement came as fresh violence erupted across the country between police and bomb-throwing opposition supporters over the elections, leaving another seven people dead.




At least 59 people have now died in street violence since late October, when the opposition launched a series of protests, strikes and transport blockades. It is trying to force Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina to quit making way for a neutral administration to oversee the polls, as happened in past elections and has instead formed an interim multi-party cabinet which includes her allies.




Of the total, 21 have been killed since November 25, when the election date was announced, sparking a fresh round of opposition protests. Another protester died in the western town of Natore during clashes between hundreds of BNP supporters and ruling party activists, police said. “There is no question of us filing nominations for the January 5 election under the present circumstances. We’re not going to take part in the January 5 elections,” Shamsher Mobin Chowdhury, a BNP vice president.. Chowdhury said the BNP and its 17 smaller allies including the country’s largest Islamic party would only change their minds “if the polls are organized by a non-party, neutral government”. Chowdhury said the uncontested seats have “set a new mark in election fraudulence” in the country. “It’s totally farcical. The government is implementing a blueprint to rob the people of their voting rights. The country’s largest-circulation Bengali daily Prothom Alo said “Bangladesh is creating new history in election scandal” .


At least eight senior figures from the BNP have been arrested in recent weeks on suspicion of instigating violence. Chowdhury said the eight along with hundreds of grassroots opposition activists were detained on “false charges” and most other leaders were now in hiding.


Dozens of rail services have been suspended after opposition activists uprooted tracks, torched coaches and attacked trains with bombs. Late Sunday, a train was derailed, with seven coaches falling off the tracks, shutting the link between Dhaka and the major cities of Chittagong and Sylhet. As nominations close at 5 pm on Monday, the election officials said no BNP officials had filed by midday.


The government has been under intense international pressure to resolve a standoff over the general election set for January 5 amid a worsening of political violence that has left at least 80 people dead since late October.


The USA urged protesters to halt the “senseless violence” and called on rival political parties to hold talks to resolve the crisis and pave the way for “free and fair elections”. UN chief Ban Ki-moon and US Secretary of State John Kerry called Hasina last week to stress the need for talks with the opposition to resolve the election standoff. A senior UN envoy, the assistant secretary general for political affairs Oscar Fernandez-Taranco, visited the country from December 6 to try to broker talks between the major parties, but nothing tangible happened. India sent its foreign secretary.


The UN human rights chief Navi Pilay condemned the deadly street clashes and called for dialogue between political leaders to end “destructive brinkmanship”. “Such levels of violence are deeply shocking for the Bangladeshi people, the vast majority of whom want — and deserve — a peaceful and inclusive election,” said Pillay, the High Commissioner for Human Rights. “Whatever their differences, political leaders on both sides must halt their destructive brinkmanship, which is pushing Bangladesh dangerously close to a major crisis.”


Fake democracy


One does not know if Bangladesh is moving towards  a terrocracy without polls so that Hasina can continue life time in office


Bangladesh has witnessed at least 19 coups since August 1975 when Hasina’s father Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, the country’s founding leader, was assassinated. But now Hasina has knit close ties with military and hence does not fear soup now.


The BNP has said it was still ready for dialogue to resolve the crisis but has accused the government of targeting its leaders.


With the opposition parties boycotting, Bangladesh’s ruling party is set to win most of the seats in an upcoming election even before votes are cast, nomination figures showed Sunday, in a further blow to the credibility of the boycott-hit polls.


It is high time the Supreme Court stepped in to clear the Dhaka mess first by cancelling the poll schedule as null and void.






د. عبد راف 


BY DR. ABDUL RUFF COLACHAL has been an educationist, Columnist-Commentator  on world affairs Expert on Mideast AffairsChronicler of Foreign occupations & Freedom movements (Palestine, Kashmir, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Xinjiang, Chechnya, etc.) Chancellor-Founder of Centor for International Affairs(CIA);   Former university Teacher;  Editor:INTERNATIONAL OPINION; FOREIGN POLICY ISSUES; Author of books;website: mail: 91-8129081217—(Account: No 62310377429 – CIF No: 78215311481- State Bank of Hyderabad, India)




Terrorism is caused by anti-Islamic forces. Anti-Islamism is more dangerous than “terrorism”.  Fake democracies have zero-tolerance to any criticism of their anti-Muslim and other aggressive practices.


India follows Zionist wall step at Kashmir LOC

United Nations' map of Jammu and Kashmir, acce...

United Nations’ map of Jammu and Kashmir, accepted by the Kashmiris and the Pakistani government (Photo credit: Wikipedia)




India follows Zionist wall step at Kashmir LOC








Armed with nukes arsenals and  a large scale conventional terror goods with the backing of veto rogues, India plays havoc in the lives of Kashmiri Muslims by brutally controlling them.   


Jammu Kashmir got fragmented into two in 1947 when India, after it got independence from Britain, invaded this sovereign nation, making the citizens the semi—salves of New Delhi and since then brutally occupies it.


The historic LOC military posts between India and Pakistan divide the Kashmiris between Pakistanis and Indians.  Now, prompted by Zionist fascist regime’s wall inside Gaza Strip to separate Palestine from Israel even while Israel military keep attacking the besieged Palestinians, India also seriously thinking of similar apartheid wall at LOC to crush the Kashmiris.


The construction is part of a plan India is working on to construct 41-metre-long and 10-metre high concrete wall along the LoC and 197-kilometre-long wall along the working boundary in Sialkot sector.


The construction along the LoC is not only violation of international laws but also a direct attack on the United Nations that has declared the region a disputed territory.


Indian military can just squeeze the Kashmiri Muslims inside the terror wall.


Annoyed and angered by Indian move for wall inside Kashmir, Kashmiris in J Azad Kashmir, now under Pakistan control, have raised objection to the fanatic c Indian scheme.


A protest rally was held in Azad Kashmir on Sunday the 13th December against the Indian plan of construction of a concrete wall along the Line of Control (LoC) and the working boundary in Sialkot sector.


The rally was jointly organized by the Kashmiri refugees of 1989 and the Pasban-e-Hurriyat- a local organization working in Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK) for the Kashmir cause. The protesters carrying banners and placards marched from the Central Press Club to Gharipan Chowk shouting anti-India slogans like “We want freedom” and “go India go”.


While addressing the rally, Chairman Pasban-e-Hurriyat Uzair Ghazali said that India was following the footprints of Israel to divide Kashmiris permanently as the latter did with Palestinians.


Jammu and Kashmir People’s Conference leader Mushtaqul Islam said that India has occupied the state of Jammu and Kashmir at gunpoint and now it is constructing another “Berlin wall” to divide the Kashmiris straddle the region.


This illegal construction is unacceptable for the Kashmiris living across the LoC. Islam urged Kashmiri and Pakistani leaders to protest against the illegal construction of the wall. Meanwhile, AJK Finance Minister Chaudhry Latif Akbar addressing at a press conference slammed the Indian move saying the AJK government after consultation with the federal government will raise the issue at international forums to put pressure on India to halt the construction.


It is shocking that the international community watches   the Indian terror shows with sympathy instead of urgently step in to set the peace process right and let Kashmiris live peacefully without walls and Indian military.




President Obama’s policy of double standards on human right violations, in fact, does harm the Kashmiri Muslims who continue to  suffer under perpetual Indian military brutality.


Where exactly is the UN human rights unit?





د. عبد راف 


BY DR. ABDUL RUFF COLACHAL has been an educationist, Columnist-Commentator  on world affairs Expert on Mideast AffairsChronicler of Foreign occupations & Freedom movements (Palestine, Kashmir, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Xinjiang, Chechnya, etc.) Chancellor-Founder of Centor for International Affairs(CIA);   Former university Teacher;  Editor:INTERNATIONAL OPINION; FOREIGN POLICY ISSUES; Author of books;website: mail: 91-8129081217—(Account: No 62310377429 – CIF No: 78215311481- State Bank of Hyderabad, India)




Terrorism is caused by anti-Islamic forces. Anti-Islamism is more dangerous than “terrorism”.  Fake democracies have zero-tolerance to any criticism of their anti-Muslim and other aggressive practices.