Nabeela, A Little Known ‘Malala’ of Pakistan

Meet Nabeela, a 9-year old girl from Pakistan’s restive Federally Administered Tribal Area (FATA). Nabeela Rehman is little known in the world and not an international youth icon like her compatriot, Malala Yusufzai who has achieved a lot of fame, exposure, awards and accolades, something that few could have achieved at the age of 16 years. Whereas, Nabeela  has quietly travelled all the way to Washington from Waziristan with her father and brother to appear before United States Congress and get an answer to a simple question: Why is her grandmother not with her today?

The horror story of Nabeela goes like this; we were collecting vegetables when my grandmother called me inside. I saw drones and then heard the noise, dum, dum, dum,” Nabeela Rehman, 9, told the lawmakers and others who had gathered at the Rayburn House Office Building to listen to her and other survivors of her family. On 24 October, 2012, Nabeela was playing outside her home in Ghundi Kala, North Waziristan, when missiles hit her family’s fields. The drone strike killed Nabeela’s 60-year-old grandmother, Mamana Bibi, the village’s only midwife.

Nabeela tried to run, but her body was too badly burned. She had to be rushed to the hospital with shrapnel wounds. Her elder brother, Zubair, 13, was taken to Islamabad and then to Peshawar, for surgery to remove shrapnel from his leg. Nabeela’s little sister Asma, 7, has had problems hearing ever since.

“Everything went dark. I heard a scream. It could have been my grandma. I could not see. I was very scared and tried to run but could not. I felt something in my hand. It was blood. I was very scared,” Nabeela told the lawmakers.

It is worth mentioning here that, despite overcoming incredible obstacles in order to travel from their remote village to the United States, Nabeela and her family were roundly ignored. At the Congressional hearing where they gave testimony, only five out of 435 representatives showed up. There was no one to answer their question, and few who cared to even listen. President Obama, who met Malala at his Oval office, was spending the same time meeting with the CEO of weapons manufacturer Lockheed Martin.

Nabeela and Malala are equally innocent and victims of terrorism and counter-terrorism. The biasedness against Nabeela signifies the western approach in picking and framing the victim of their choice. Moreover, this implies the selective humane approach between the two victims; the latter one is being used by western propaganda machinery.

Nabeela and her family certainly do not meet the criteria for militancy. They’re innocent, and their lives are not worth any less than victims of terror groups like Teherike Taliban Pakistan (TTP). Western Supporters of Malala are often seen as ignorant to the plight of collateral victims of drone strikes. Supporting victims of Taliban does not mean that they should be abandoning the victims of deadly drone strikes.

Nabeela and Malala are two Pakistani girls born in restive regions of North Waziristan and Swat of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Province in Pakistan. Malala, who is now 16, was shot in the head on 9 October, 2012, while riding a bus from school in her home town of Mingora. Malala was flown to England after the shooting for extensive surgeries to repair her skull. Joined by her family, she now lives in Birmingham, England, where she returned to school in March this year. Malala later became an icon thanks to the benevolence of western media and bigwig politicians. Malala rose in prominence, giving interviews in print and on television, and she was nominated for the 2013 Nobel Peace Prize.

Malala’s Wikipedia profile illustrates her overwhelming achievements in past two years; she has received 26 national-international awards and accolades since 2011 till date. A full page is needed to mention her achievements here.

Malala Yousafzai spoke before the United Nations in July 2013, and met with Queen Elizabeth II in Buckingham Palace. In September she spoke at Harvard University, and in October met with U.S. President Barack Obama and his family. Her Nobel Prize nomination petition was first signed by no less than Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

On the other hand, poor Nabeela returned her home in Pakistan without much fanfare. Nabeela, a victim of US drone strikes has not got the adequate western media coverage, shows selective, biased attitude of western media and governments. It showcases how the western media, governments, and elites differentiate between the two innocent victims of brutal terrorism where one is being created as an icon and the other is ignored to put the gory truth under carpet.

Malala’s reception at home has been somewhat more mixed. Pakistani daily Dawn columnist Huma Yusuf summarised three main complaints of Malala’s critics: “Her fame highlights Pakistan’s most negative aspect (rampant militancy); her education campaign echoes Western agendas; and the West’s admiration of her is hypocritical because it overlooks the plight of other innocent victims, like the casualties of U.S. drone strikes.” Journalist Assed Baig described her as being used to justify Western imperialism as “the perfect candidate for the white man to relieve his burden and save the native”. Malala was also accused on social media of being a Western stooge and a CIA spy.

Her book, I am Malala co-authored by prominent British Journalist Christina Lamb (Order of British Empire) is ranked second on Amazon’s best seller’s chart, is already banned in Pakistan’s private schools due to anti-Islam, anti-Pakistan content.  Renowned journalists — Ansar Abbasi and Talat Hussain — criticised her for showing a complete disregard for the sentiments of Muslims besides creating a doubt in their articles that a 16-year-old could actually write such an in-depth analysis on international relations.

Suffice it to say here that this teen age girl, Malala from a small town of Pakistan is ‘wittingly or unwittingly’ being used by western propaganda machine for their own benefits who have no love for Nabeela or millions of other Malalas in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa or elsewhere in Pakistan.

 http://radianceweekly.in/portal/issue/assembly-elections-outcome-will-reflect-peoples-mind/article/nabeela-a-little-known-malala-of-pakistan/

Why hasn’t the United States Cleansed Syrian Swamp Yet?

What exactly the United States wants in Syria has been thought by many at many a time? And many more have questioned the exact motive of the United States in the protracted civil war in Syria. After the eruption of the anti-Assad revolt in 2011 the country got entrenched in an unrelenting civil war. More than 1,00,000 people are confirmed dead, millions including many women and children are fatally injured, and millions have taken refuge in neighbouring countries.

It was believed that after the chemical weapons attack on civilians in the rebel-held Damascus suburb of Ghouta on 21 August 2013 which killed hundreds of civilians including many children, the United States will finally be pushed to take punitive action against the government of Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad. However, after weeks of bickering it seems that the US will now settle down with Russian mediated plan of seizure of Syrian chemical weapons, something also agreed by Al-Assad.

It is evidently apparent that the United States does not want Islamists to rule Damascus after the fall of Al-Assad. An overdriven Sunnite win in Syria will lead to the empowerment of an Islamist-led Sunnite government in Syria. However, it’s clear that after getting rid of the Muslim Brotherhood-led government in Egypt through a bloody coup, the US won’t allow the formation of another Islamist government in the biggest country of the Levant.

The United States is still not in a hurry to find quick solution to the crisis in Syria. Almost a year ago, President Obama warned that any use of chemical weapons by Syrian regime would cross a “red line”, hence raising the likelihood of US intervention. And Obama declared “red line” has already been trespassed by Bashar Al-Assad in Damascus. After analysing the whole conflict it is empirically clear that the United States would only opt for the solution of Syrian crisis that suits its hegemony and Israeli survivability in the post-Assad Syria.

Despite its so-called expressions of dismay and concern over what is happening in Syria, the Israelis would prefer Bashar Al-Assad or another “strongman”, as opposed to a “democratic” government in Damascus. With another “strongman” in power the Israelis know what to expect but with an Islamic leaning “democratic” government in Damascus the four-decade long imposed truce in Golan will definitely come into question.

The United States and Israel would do their best to nullify the Sunnite consolidation of power in Syria in particular and in the Levant in general. The Shiet-Sunnite division suits the broader western vision of the Middle East. The defense of Israel is the prime objective of the United States and other western states. Sunnite consolidation in Syria will lead its march first towards occupied Golan Heights and then to Lebanon, Jordan and finally to Jerusalem. The United States fears that United Sunnite Power will finally march towards Israel, ‘its spoiled child in the Middle East’. Syrian events would directly impact the outcome of the Iraqi state where Shiets have taken over power after US invasion.

Stalemate in Syria will further prolong the bloody civil war and will finally turn the already divided and dysfunctional state into a country of many militias based on different ideologies and sects. A post Al-Assad Syria without national military will turn out to be another Lebanon where Syrian air and land borders will be under the mercy of Israel like Lebanon, the West Bank and Gaza.

After closely watching the unfolding of Arab awakening events in the Levant and Iraq, its reversal in Egypt and looming reversal in Tunisia with its tiding effect on the other regional countries and blocks, I personally reckon that the West in general and the United States in particular do not want to end the conflict in the Levant and in Iraq for the broader regional schematic.

The longevity and escalation of Syrian conflict has imploded the underbelly of the region when long under carpeted Shiet-Sunnite strife came out in open on the streets. The escalation of conflict will further divide the people of the region and will especially clench the countries with a significant Shiet and Sunnite population mix.

Post US invasion, Iraq is already gloomy with sectarian killings where local politicians have already divided the region on sectarian line. The Syrian conflict has escalated the political tensions further among ordinary people and divided the citizenry on sectarian leanings. Lebanon is another country which is feeling the brunt of Syrian conflict where Shiet Hezbollah came out into the open to fight with the Syrian regime and the Sunnites of Lebanon are backing the opponents of the Syrian regime.

The vision of anti Al-Assad regional countries differs from the US and Israeli vision of the region. The United States does not want stable and powerful countries and blocks in the region who can question its hegemony in the regional matters. Common anti-Iran stand among the anti-Assad forces does not necessarily bring them towards a unified Syrian approach. The only country with which the US has common interest on the regional issues is the state of Israel. Israel would want an aggravated regional conflict so that it can rein the region without forthcoming military threat to his hegemony in the said region.

If we go back and revisit the history pages of events in the Levant and Iraq, we find that the pre-eminence of the regional powers can only solve the problem of the said region. These lands were initially divided to suit the indirect western control of the region’s natural resources and later the inexorable, continued existence of the Israeli state.

Suffice it to say here that prolonged-unresolved Syrian civil war is in the best interest of the United States and Israel. The US would only intervene decisively when it gets sure about the favourable outcome of a post Al-Assad Syria. 

http://radianceweekly.in/portal/issue/muzaffarnagar-riots-bjps-grand-strategy-for-delhi-at-play/article/why-hasnt-the-united-states-cleansed-syrian-swamp-yet/

United States eyes a Shi'ite-led West Asia

The tumultuous Middle East is going through a bloody transition where it is increasingly difficult to draw a line between friends, foes, allies, and adversaries, through its origins can be found on the regional map and the creation of nation-states by victorious Western powers after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire.

The actions of the United States-led Western block helped shape present-day Sunni monarchies and despots around the pivot of the oil-rich Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and two secularist non-Arab regional powers, Turkey and Iran. They stabilized the Middle Eastwith the help of their allies in order to extract the region's mineral resources.

While Iran after Ayatollah Khomeini's 1979 revolution stepped out of the Western regional alliance, recent talks between with the US and Iran are signaling its re-entry. On the other hand, Turkey, a longtime partner of the US-North Atlantic Treaty Organization, under the moderately Islamic leaning AK Party is appearing to be leaving its US hegemonic alliance.

In the process of establishing regional hegemony, Western powers eliminated all the challengers that tried to defy the status quo that has guaranteed the easy flow of oil. The rise and fall of Iran's former prime minister Mohammad Mossadegh and Iraq's former president Saddam Hussein were in the same trail.

A pivotal moment in changing the balance of Sunni-Shi'ite power was the hanging of Saddam on December 30, 2006. Saddam was not hanged on just any day but rather at the start of Iraqi Sunnis' celebration of Eid al-Adha (the Feast of the Sacrifice), a major Islamic holiday. In many experts opinion, this was done as an intentional slight to Sunnis and to demonstrate a marked shift of power in Iraq, from Saddam's Sunni rule to the post-2003 Shi'ite regime.

The rise of Islamic-leaning political parties in the Sunni Middle East is posing the greatest challenge to United States backed pro-status quo block. The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Libya, Hamas in Palestine, En-Nehda in Tunisia, the Justice and Development Party in Morocco, Al-Islah in Yemen, and the AK Party in Turkey; all these moderate Islamic leaning political parties are challenging the decades-old regional balance.

The populist revolts of the Arab Spring, where many Western backed pro-status quo despots were overthrown, has posed a significant challenge to the durability of the status quo. The United States-led Western block succeeded in turning around the revolution in Egypt with the help of the powerful military and feloul [those connected with the former Hosni Mubarak government] by staging bloody military coup a against democratically elected president, Mohammad Morsi, yet the sustainability of military regime is highly questionable amid daily reports of massacre and torture. Many Islamist movements, from Turkey to Tunisia, believe that the West has adopted a hypocritical attitude towards Egypt - as it was the case in Algeria.

Tunisia, where the Arab Spring of 2011 started, is also witnessing intrigue against the anti-status quo En-Nehda Party, forced to resign from the government by leftist groups and those in favor of the status-quo after it won the first free and fair elections in the country's history.

Saddam's last words were especially important: "Down with the traitors, the Americans, the spies and the Persians." Not only were his executioners merely agents of neighboring Shi'ite Iran, but by pairing "Americans" and "Persians" he also asserted that Iran was acting in concert with the United States.

The United States was perfectly willing to intervene militarily in Libya against Muammar Gaddafi, a Sunni. But despite intense pressure, Washington has held back on the question of intervening in Syria where the regime is dominated by Alawites, a Shi'ite offshoot. Israel, too, seems to favor the maintenance of the Bashar al-Assad regime.

It is pertinent to say that in Lebanon, Israel has not killed Hassan Nasrallah, Hezbollah's secretary general, but in Palestine and elsewhere many top leaders Hamas have been killed at the hands of agents from the Israeli secret service. The Israeli intelligence agency Mossad can hit leaders all over the world but cannot find a leader right next door? The answer must be that Israel and Hezbollah might have some backdoor understanding.

US rapprochement with Iran will pave the way for the emergence of a new alliance where Iran, Iraq, al-Assad's Syria and Hezbollah will be the new allies of United States and West with Zaydi Shi'ites in Yemen and Ithna-Ashari Akhbari Shi'ites of Bahrain.

Washington foresees the inevitable collapse of the decades-long status quo and is working to create a new Shi'ite-based Middle East where Shi'ite-led regimes will be its future allies. The days of axes of evil and resistance are now numbered as the new alliance between the US and Shi’ite regimes emerge in the energy-rich region. 


http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MID-02-301013.html