Senate Asian Geopolitics

solojones · Apr 22, 2023

This is more history than modern politics, but it's a really interesting look into an ancient people group in China, Mongolia, and Siberia. They had important roles for women and genetically diverse populations even in local groups.

https://amp.scmp.com/news/china/sci...tically-diverse-empire-and-nomadic-princesses

Just tells you the richness of cultures in China and Mongolia.

Point Given · Aug 12, 2023

The Intercept has a secret cable documenting the US State Department pressuring the the Pakistani ambassador to encourage the removal of the former Prime Minister Imran Khan over his netural stance on the Russian invasion of Ukraine

I've quoted the body of the cable from the Pakistani ambassador published in the article

I had a luncheon meeting today with Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asia, Donald Lu. He was accompanied by Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Les Viguerie. DCM, DA and Counsellor Qasim joined me.

At the outset, Don referred to Pakistan’s position on the Ukraine crisis and said that “people here and in Europe are quite concerned about why Pakistan is taking such an aggressively neutral position (on Ukraine), if such a position is even possible. It does not seem such a neutral stand to us.” He shared that in his discussions with the NSC, “it seems quite clear that this is the Prime Minister’s policy.” He continued that he was of the view that this was “tied to the current political dramas in Islamabad that he (Prime Minister) needs and is trying to show a public face.” I replied that this was not a correct reading of the situation as Pakistan’s position on Ukraine was a result of intense interagency consultations. Pakistan had never resorted to conducting diplomacy in public sphere. The Prime Minister’s remarks during a political rally were in reaction to the public letter by European Ambassadors in Islamabad which was against diplomatic etiquette and protocol. Any political leader, whether in Pakistan or the U.S., would be constrained to give a public reply in such a situation.

I asked Don if the reason for a strong U.S. reaction was Pakistan’s abstention in the voting in the UNGA. He categorically replied in the negative and said that it was due to the Prime Minister’s visit to Moscow. He said that “I think if the no-confidence vote against the Prime Minister succeeds, all will be forgiven in Washington because the Russia visit is being looked at as a decision by the Prime Minister. Otherwise, I think it will be tough going ahead.” He paused and then said “I cannot tell how this will be seen by Europe but I suspect their reaction will be similar.” He then said that “honestly I think isolation of the Prime Minister will become very strong from Europe and the United States.” Don further commented that it seemed that the Prime Minister’s visit to Moscow was planned during the Beijing Olympics and there was an attempt by the Prime Minister to meet Putin which was not successful and then this idea was hatched that he would go to Moscow.

I told Don that this was a completely misinformed and wrong perception. The visit to Moscow had been in the works for at least few years and was the result of a deliberative institutional process. I stressed that when the Prime Minister was flying to Moscow, Russian invasion of Ukraine had not started and there was still hope for a peaceful resolution. I also pointed out that leaders of European countries were also traveling to Moscow around the same time. Don interjected that “those visits were specifically for seeking resolution of the Ukraine standoff while the Prime Minister’s visit was for bilateral economic reasons.” I drew his attention to the fact that the Prime Minister clearly regretted the situation while being in Moscow and had hoped for diplomacy to work. The Prime Minister’s visit, I stressed, was purely in the bilateral context and should not be seen either as a condonation or endorsement of Russia’s action against Ukraine. I said that our position is dictated by our desire to keep the channels of communication with all sides open. Our subsequent statements at the UN and by our Spokesperson spelled that out clearly, while reaffirming our commitment to the principle of UN Charter, non-use or threat of use of force, sovereignty and territorial integrity of States, and pacific settlement of disputes.

I also told Don that Pakistan was worried of how the Ukraine crisis would play out in the context of Afghanistan. We had paid a very high price due to the long-term impact of this conflict. Our priority was to have peace and stability in Afghanistan, for which it was imperative to have cooperation and coordination with all major powers, including Russia. From this perspective as well, keeping the channels of communication open was essential. This factor was also dictating our position on the Ukraine crisis. On my reference to the upcoming Extended Troika meeting in Beijing, Don replied that there were still ongoing discussions in Washington on whether the U.S. should attend the Extended Troika meeting or the upcoming Antalya meeting on Afghanistan with Russian representatives in attendance, as the U.S. focus right now was to discuss only Ukraine with Russia. I replied that this was exactly what we were afraid of. We did not want the Ukraine crisis to divert focus away from Afghanistan. Don did not comment.

I told Don that just like him, I would also convey our perspective in a forthright manner. I said that over the past one year, we had been consistently sensing reluctance on the part of the U.S. leadership to engage with our leadership. This reluctance had created a perception in Pakistan that we were being ignored and even taken for granted. There was also a feeling that while the U.S. expected Pakistan’s support on all issues that were important to the U.S., it did not reciprocate and we do not see much U.S. support on issues of concern for Pakistan, particularly on Kashmir. I said that it was extremely important to have functioning channels of communication at the highest level to remove such perception. I also said that we were surprised that if our position on the Ukraine crisis was so important for the U.S., why the U.S. had not engaged with us at the top leadership level prior to the Moscow visit and even when the UN was scheduled to vote. (The State Department had raised it at the DCM level.) Pakistan valued continued high-level engagement and for this reason the Foreign Minister sought to speak with Secretary Blinken to personally explain Pakistan’s position and perspective on the Ukraine crisis. The call has not materialized yet. Don replied that the thinking in Washington was that given the current political turmoil in Pakistan, this was not the right time for such engagement and it could wait till the political situation in Pakistan settled down.

I reiterated our position that countries should not be made to choose sides in a complex situation like the Ukraine crisis and stressed the need for having active bilateral communications at the political leadership level. Don replied that “you have conveyed your position clearly and I will take it back to my leadership.”

I also told Don that we had seen his defence of the Indian position on the Ukraine crisis during the recently held Senate Sub-Committee hearing on U.S.-India relations. It seemed that the U.S. was applying different criteria for India and Pakistan. Don responded that the U.S. lawmakers’ strong feelings about India’s abstentions in the UNSC and UNGA came out clearly during the hearing. I said that from the hearing, it appeared that the U.S. expected more from India than Pakistan, yet it appeared to be more concerned about Pakistan’s position. Don was evasive and responded that Washington looked at the U.S.-India relationship very much through the lens of what was happening in China. He added that while India had a close relationship with Moscow, “I think we will actually see a change in India’s policy once all Indian students are out of Ukraine.”

I expressed the hope that the issue of the Prime Minister’s visit to Russia will not impact our bilateral ties. Don replied that “I would argue that it has already created a dent in the relationship from our perspective. Let us wait for a few days to see whether the political situation changes, which would mean that we would not have a big disagreement about this issue and the dent would go away very quickly. Otherwise, we will have to confront this issue head on and decide how to manage it.”

We also discussed Afghanistan and other issues pertaining to bilateral ties. A separate communication follows on that part of our conversation.

Assessment

Don could not have conveyed such a strong demarche without the express approval of the White House, to which he referred repeatedly. Clearly, Don spoke out of turn on Pakistan’s internal political process. We need to seriously reflect on this and consider making an appropriate demarche to the U.S. Cd’ A a.i in Islamabad.

Click to expand...

Adam of Nuchtern · Jan 19, 2024

The doohickey remains undefeated.

Lord Vivec · Feb 9, 2024

So Pakistan is having general elections right now. As the resident JCCer of Pakistani origin (someone find darth_boy), I've had my eye on the situation a bit. I'm not going to bore you with a million links, just search keywords for stuff I've said if you want more info or think I'm wrong.

So, a reminder: Pakistan is controlled by the military behind the scenes. Yes, it has civilian governments, but the military holds the "deep state" power and routinely has done coups against civilian governments that don't follow its lead or tries to rein it in. As for the civilian government, there are two large political parties: The Pakistan People's Party (center-left secularists) and the Pakistan Muslim League (center-right conservatives). In reality, the PPP are largely considered to be a nepotist party run by one family (the Bhuttos, run by the current failson) while the PML is a weak party whose leader, Nawaz Sharif, has been ousted several times. Most people have largely negative views of both parties. Imran Khan was a famous cricket player (it's a British game, blame them) founded a centrist populist party called the PTI whose stated goals were to create a welfare state and have egalitarianism. And in 2018, they won big. They became the largest political party in parliament and Imran Khan became Prime Minister.

Pakistan is kind of in a precarious position, geopolitically speaking. India is its main rival, and due to the cold war India fell into the USSR's sphere of influence while Pakistan fell into America's. However, Pakistan was also very strong allies with China. When China and the US were "getting along" post-Nixon, this was fine. But now that there's a new cold war brewing between the PRC and USA, Pakistan has to walk a tightrope. And there are definitely a lot within the military brass there who think that Pakistan should be cozied up to the US because that comes with money and weapons. However that's easier said than done, especially with Bin Laden having been found in Pakistan. When Russia invaded Ukraine, Imran Khan had his government remain neutral on the conflict while India was indirectly supporting Russia. Now all you need to do is look two posts up to @Point Given 's post about what happens next here. The United States let it be known, behind the scenes, that it would be beneficial for Pakistan in the getting money and weapons part if the people whose hobby it is to remove Nawaz Sharif from power were to figure out a way to remove Imran Khan from power.

And that's what they did. In 2022 he was removed from his office via a vote of no-confidence. This was followed by an assassination attempt. After Khan blamed the chief of the army for the attempt, he was arrested on corruption charges. There have been massive protests and riots by supporters of his party. He has since been jailed for "revealing state secrets" because he revealed he had a diplomatic cable which said the US wanted him ousted from power. If this all seems above board to anyone, well I have a quantum tunnel to sell you. So we get back to the election happening right now. As further punishment, Imran Khan's PTI party cannot run under its party symbol, which is how one votes in elections in Pakistan. Every PTI candidate is automatically an independent now, and therefore this insurrection against PPP-PML musical chairs by the PTI ends. Or does it? People there have seen that it's possible to break the dominance the two parties have on politics. But they've also seen the system destroy this attempt with prejudice.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/live...24-live-tight-race-as-vote-results-trickle-in

Point Given · Feb 9, 2024

Thanks to 23andMe plus partition I have some Pakistani descent!

Lord Vivec · Feb 9, 2024

Point Given said: ↑

23andMe plus partition
Click to expand...

worst 23andMe premium product

solojones · Feb 9, 2024

Lord Vivec said: ↑

So Pakistan is having general elections right now. As the resident JCCer of Pakistani origin (someone find darth_boy), I've had my eye on the situation a bit. I'm not going to bore you with a million links, just search keywords for stuff I've said if you want more info or think I'm wrong.

So, a reminder: Pakistan is controlled by the military behind the scenes. Yes, it has civilian governments, but the military holds the "deep state" power and routinely has done coups against civilian governments that don't follow its lead or tries to rein it in. As for the civilian government, there are two large political parties: The Pakistan People's Party (center-left secularists) and the Pakistan Muslim League (center-right conservatives). In reality, the PPP are largely considered to be a nepotist party run by one family (the Bhuttos, run by the current failson) while the PML is a weak party whose leader, Nawaz Sharif, has been ousted several times. Most people have largely negative views of both parties. Imran Khan was a famous cricket player (it's a British game, blame them) founded a centrist populist party called the PTI whose stated goals were to create a welfare state and have egalitarianism. And in 2018, they won big. They became the largest political party in parliament and Imran Khan became Prime Minister.

Pakistan is kind of in a precarious position, geopolitically speaking. India is its main rival, and due to the cold war India fell into the USSR's sphere of influence while Pakistan fell into America's. However, Pakistan was also very strong allies with China. When China and the US were "getting along" post-Nixon, this was fine. But now that there's a new cold war brewing between the PRC and USA, Pakistan has to walk a tightrope. And there are definitely a lot within the military brass there who think that Pakistan should be cozied up to the US because that comes with money and weapons. However that's easier said than done, especially with Bin Laden having been found in Pakistan. When Russia invaded Ukraine, Imran Khan had his government remain neutral on the conflict while India was indirectly supporting Russia. Now all you need to do is look two posts up to @Point Given 's post about what happens next here. The United States let it be known, behind the scenes, that it would be beneficial for Pakistan in the getting money and weapons part if the people whose hobby it is to remove Nawaz Sharif from power were to figure out a way to remove Imran Khan from power.

And that's what they did. In 2022 he was removed from his office via a vote of no-confidence. This was followed by an assassination attempt. After Khan blamed the chief of the army for the attempt, he was arrested on corruption charges. There have been massive protests and riots by supporters of his party. He has since been jailed for "revealing state secrets" because he revealed he had a diplomatic cable which said the US wanted him ousted from power. If this all seems above board to anyone, well I have a quantum tunnel to sell you. So we get back to the election happening right now. As further punishment, Imran Khan's PTI party cannot run under its party symbol, which is how one votes in elections in Pakistan. Every PTI candidate is automatically an independent now, and therefore this insurrection against PPP-PML musical chairs by the PTI ends. Or does it? People there have seen that it's possible to break the dominance the two parties have on politics. But they've also seen the system destroy this attempt with prejudice.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/live...24-live-tight-race-as-vote-results-trickle-in
Click to expand...

Thanks for this succinct summary of what's been going on..typical US imperialism bull****. I like to know what's going on around the world though

Lord Vivec · Feb 9, 2024

What's unreal to me is that right now you have Biden administration officials talking about how the Pakistani elections are not fair nor free and how there needs to be an investigation into attempts to keep PTI out of power after the Biden administration secretly told the Pakistani deep state that they need to remove Imran Khan from office and keep the PTI out of power. Surely Biden's dementia isn't spreading to the rest of the state department?

Lord Vivec · Feb 10, 2024

Despite everything I described above and literally all the obstacles put in the way by the current government and the military, the PTI party got the most seats in this election.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/2/10/what-comes-next-2

Log in or Sign up

Senate Asian Geopolitics

solojones Chosen One

Point Given Manager Staff Member Manager

Adam of Nuchtern Force Ghost

Lord Vivec Chosen One

Point Given Manager Staff Member Manager

Lord Vivec Chosen One

solojones Chosen One

Lord Vivec Chosen One

Lord Vivec Chosen One