Effects of Uncontrolled, Unscrupulous, and Unchecked Pursuit of National Interests

 

Dr. Umar Khan

khanmomar@hotmail.com

Dr. Khan belongs to a Lahore based Think Tank.

23-5-26

 

Effects of Uncontrolled, Unscrupulous, and Unchecked Pursuit of National Interests

“Our true nationality is mankind.” — H.G. Wells

Since its inception not very long ago, nationalism emerged and spread throughout Europe, creating modern nation-states. The pursuit of national interests was defined as a right—indeed, the purpose—of these newly formed nations, without any mention of scruples. These national states dominated much of the globe, along with all their curses and ills. The world as we see it today, with its current boundaries, is the direct result of this brief phase of human development.

Nationalism, an "infantile disease of mankind" according to Einstein, played a very influential role in history by reducing religious wars and their bloodshed, but unfortunately, it started its own new bloody feuds based on national interests.

The pursuance of national interests became a universal purpose of existence for most nation states, yet its definition and boundaries were neither specified nor limited. This led to an uncontrolled and unchecked quest for national interests that caused even more violence than previous causes of conflict. Unfortunately, this chase is still ongoing, along with its bloodshed and cruelty, although the effective use of semantics and euphemism may have only refined the hypocrisy while sharpening the edges of its brutality.

Philosophers and sociologists forgot to define exactly what legitimate national interests are, nor did they explain the appropriate means to achieve them. Psychologists teach that while it is important to know what to do in life, it is imperative to know what not to do. Unfortunately, nation-states ignored any mention of tactics to be avoided or scruples in this struggle for national interests.

This led to a few powerful vested interests seizing and monopolizing the definition of national interests while forcing and coercing the majority to pursue them violently. Military-industrial complexes, along with other business and some religious interests, have ultimately dominated the political scenes of declared democracies, subtly turning them into pitiless plutocracies—a dangerous development. With the development of media and control over information, this violence and brutality have been sanctified, along with the misery they bring. Dangerous short-term interests of a few are declared national interests against the long-term interests of all. Recent soldiers proudly narrating and laughing at their role in genocides and the rape of their subjugated, helpless captives on TV shows exposes how an educated nation can be turned into beasts while pursuing an unscrupulous definition and pursuit of national interests.

The world pays the price when myopic personal interests turn into "national interests" and are violently imposed. Regrettably we see it happening every day.

This unchecked pursuance of national interests has created havoc around the world, causing catastrophes for many while making a few very comfortable and wealthy. Although it would require volumes to enumerate them all, here I will summarily mention a few:

·       This led to the colonial subjugation and humiliation of hundreds of millions while the world was carved up for the benefit of a few powerful nations.

·       A class of privateers was created, whose ship-robbing was glorified after they paid a share of the loot to the sovereign.

·       Opium wars were fought, and drugs were forced upon a significant population of the world by self-proclaimed civilized nations pursuing "legitimate" national interests.

·       The Nazis got tens of millions killed looking for Lebensraum (living space) for Germans.

·       The Vietnam War, with millions killed, was also fought for national interests.

·       The toppling of multiple governments—something still going on relentlessly—is again the pursuance of national interests.

·       Unending wars have been started after the fall of communism for the same reason, causing millions of deaths and displacements.

·       Now, Israel’s national interests are defined as subjugating and annihilating the Palestinians and their supporters, resulting in the destabilization of seven supporting countries, causing chaos and immense loss of lives. All this has been done for the same "noble" purpose. Torture, rape, and other forms of cruelty are hidden under the same euphemistic garb.

·       The recent unfinished assault on Iran was done for the same reason, and God knows how it will end or what further catastrophe it might cause.

Voltaire warned us that although individual killing is prohibited and punished, collective slaughter is glorified. Unfortunately, we have not been able to remedy this malady in the last 250 years.

We have strict dos and don'ts for individuals to follow, but none for nations with much greater potential to harm—even to end mankind many times over. Just as three centuries ago it was in the national interest of the British to subjugate and loot India, and they went ahead relentlessly, causing immense suffering, so too is it in the interests of a common thief or robber to steal and loot others. But can that be justified? If a small, inconsequential theft is not justifiable, how can the snatching of trillions of dollars of Venezuelan oil be justified?

This legitimacy of pursuing unscrupulous national interests has led to the greatest atrocities and crimes in the history of mankind, surpassing the days of the barbarians and beyond. This cannot go on, as it threatens the very existence of humanity. The greedy and violent nations (for land and resources) must be brought under the law, just as individuals are across the world. Bringing ordinary, jungle-dwelling, uncontrollable humans under some kind of order and law was a great step toward civilization, and now we must extend that control to nation-states as well. Just a reminder: the first laws were enacted only around 10,000 years ago—a moment in geological terms.

The world must form a body with the power to define the legitimate and the unacceptable national interests and draw clear boundaries around the acceptable means to achieve them. Unacceptable and illegitimate modalities must also be clearly defined and stated.

Attacks on other nations, interventions, blockades, breaches of sovereignty, and executions/kidnappings of their leaders must also be declared illegal, requiring forcible resistance.

Perpetrators of false-flag operations by nations having absolute supremacy of firepower must be identified and exposed so that they stop using this treacherous tactic. In addition, a balance of power must be established in places where the germination of violence is a possibility.

The unscrupulous and unapproved violent pursuit of national interests has caused much misery in the past and has the potential to end humanity. This must be labeled illegitimate and unacceptable for the world. The crime-committing country must be ostracized and sanctioned by law-abiding countries.

We do not need great forces for this; the tremendous power of persuasion and legitimacy, along with the decency of a common man (not nations), can take care of this greatest threat to civilization. Fortunately, with the advent of social media, the monopoly over mind-making and consent-manufacturing held by the elite has been seriously shaken and must never be reallowed.

I would like to end with a lovely poem by John Lennon, although I do not see his dream or mine being fulfilled anytime soon:

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace

You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one

“Madness is something rare in individuals — but in groups, parties, peoples, and ages, it is the rule.”
Friedrich Nietzsche

 

khanmomar@hotmail.com

 

 

 

Pakistan Was Made for Pakistanis, Not Imperialists

 

Dr. Umar Khan

khanmomar@hotmail.com

Dr. Khan belongs to a Lahore based Think Tank.

19-5-26

 

Pakistan Was Made for Pakistanis, Not Imperialists

“A nation is not merely a territory; it is the people who unite to build a shared future.”

After the recent Israeli and American assault on Iran, Pakistan, after years of relative irrelevance, moved to the centre stage by arranging a ceasefire and peace talks in Islamabad. After decades of emitting mostly bad news, this was a tremendously positive development, bringing Pakistan into spotlight favorably as a peacemaker helping to end a dangerous war.

After years of political instability, extremism, allegations of exporting terrorism, and a faltering economy, receiving this kind of positive attention was encouraging. However, it also brought back some unpleasant memories. These strange cycles started soon after Pakistan’s inception.

The Muslims of India, after tremendous struggle and against overwhelming odds, managed to create Pakistan — a country where their political and economic rights would be protected from what they feared could become a hostile Hindu-majority India. In Pakistan, Muslims were supposed to have democracy, safety, security, prosperity, self-esteem, and good relations with all neighbors. In Pakistan freedom, human rights, and the collective will of the people was to be the priority.

Muslims in India had been severely abused, marginalized, and left poor and backward. All of this was supposed to be corrected with the creation of the world’s first religion-based state, a process that uprooted millions and caused a big loss of life.

Despite the welfare of Indian Muslims being its primary objective, strange things began happening immediately after Pakistan’s creation. Pakistan became a bulwark against communism, launching campaigns against communists by arresting and persecuting famous figures such as Sahir Ludhianvi and Sajjad Zaheer. The welfare of Pakistanis took a back seat, while this ideological battle became sanctified, earning accolades from the very former colonizers and subjugators responsible for many of the region’s centuries-old problems.

It was only the beginning. The anti-communist world found Pakistan to be its most eager partner, especially after communism was portrayed as inherently incompatible with Islamic beliefs.

At the outset of the Korean War, the bloodiest conflict since World War II, Pakistan supported the allied side without directly contributing forces.

During the Suez Crisis, Pakistan joined the users’ conference supporting the Franco-British-Israeli aggression against newly independent Egypt — an Islamic country. This strange decision by the Pakistani government still affects Egyptian perceptions of Pakistan negatively.

Later, Pakistan joined SEATO and CENTO, officially embracing the cause of the capitalist and imperialist world. It also secretly provided airbases to the United States against the USSR, further deepening its involvement. A U-2 spy plane launched from a U.S. airbase in Pakistan was shot down over the USSR, making Pakistan a target for Soviet hostility — something that may have contributed to its dismemberment in 1971.

During the 1962 Sino-Indian War, Pakistan, reportedly under U.S. pressure, refused to take advantage of India’s military disarray to secure the disputed territory of Kashmir. Interests of Pakistan took the back seat during the rule of Field Marshal Ayub Khan.

In 1971, while facing a terrible civil war at home and yet another financial crisis, Pakistan engineered a diplomatic miracle by helping bring the United States and China together. This single act placed enormous pressure on America’s Cold War rival, the USSR. Despite this invaluable service, and Kissinger’s eagerness, General Yahya Khan secured no meaningful benefits for Pakistan or Pakistanis. Perhaps his legitimacy as an unelected ruler was enough for him.

Later, during the 1980s, Pakistan became a frontline state fighting a proxy war for the United States in Afghanistan against the USSR. Once again, this service was provided under military rule. This landmark war was won by the West at a remarkably low financial cost — less than US$10 billion — not counting the immense price paid by Pakistan and Pakistanis, whose social structure and national fabric were devastated by violence, extremism, drugs, and militancy.

Pakistan is still suffering the effects and complications of that Afghan war.

In modern history, few major conflicts have been fought so cheaply by a superpower. Ironically, America’s later Afghan war became a failure costing over a trillion dollars. General Zia-ul-Haq did, however, secure his legitimacy for a decade — at enormous cost to the nation.

History repeated itself in the early 21st century when Pakistan fought another Afghan war for peanuts, while another military ruler, General Musharraf, gained international legitimacy.

Now Pakistan is involved in another diplomatic miracle by mediating in the U.S./Israeli conflict with Iran, gaining international attention and admiration. After a long time, Pakistan has entered the global headlines positively. Let us see what this brings for ordinary Pakistanis, beyond financial and political bonuses for a few generals.

In these 80 years, despite larger-than-life achievements and participation in international conflicts, Pakistan remains a basket case known for its economic and social crises. Pakistan’s rankings in education, healthcare, infant mortality, per capita income, human rights, democracy, press freedom, judicial independence, and many other indicators remain among the lowest and continue to deteriorate.

Apparently, the state has absolved itself of responsibility toward its citizens while focusing primarily on international affairs.

The situation has become so bleak that, in this supposed land of opportunity and Muslim dreamland, much of the younger generation has lost hope and dreams only of leaving the country to build lives abroad. Many have already left, while others continue trying.

Ironically, alongside this rush to emigrate, traveling on a Pakistani passport has itself become a nightmare because of Pakistan’s poor international standing. This is understandable: no one respects people whose own government appears not to respect them.

Now, Pakistan’s mediation on the highest international stage is strangely represented by an army chief serving on extension and associated with questionable democratic credentials. This has exposed the weakness of Pakistani democracy, often described as “hybrid,” thereby belittling the Pakistani nation itself.

It suggests that Pakistanis supposedly lack the ability to govern themselves and perpetually require a strongman to guide them like a flock of sheep. Ironically, this was the same colonial logic the British used to justify exploitation and domination.

A general running a country’s foreign policy is a profound public humiliation.

Unfortunately, most of Pakistan’s sources of pride and achievement remain military or international in nature. Most civilian achievements occur not because of a supportive environment created by the state, but despite it.

The callousness, disrespect, and contempt shown by the state toward its citizens have become so extensive that merely due to the possible arrival of international dignitaries for peace negotiations, the twin cities of Rawalpindi and Islamabad were effectively sealed for over a week, turning them into giant open-air prisons. This caused tremendous financial losses and severe restrictions on personal freedom for residents.

Will anyone answer for or justify this brutality by the state?

We must ask why Pakistan performs so effectively internationally while failing so miserably domestically. A political entity created to serve and nurture the Muslims of India appears to have lost its direction.

I wish Pakistan would earn appreciation for developing human potential, strengthening its economy, and improving the lives of its citizens rather than for participating in foreign adventures. A country that fails to serve its people and create conditions that allow them to thrive loses its raison d'être — its very reason for existence.

Pakistan has served imperialist interests exceptionally well while neglecting Pakistanis, and this must stop. There has to be an expiry date on prioritizing foreign agendas or personal interests over national interests.

The state of Pakistan must begin focusing on the welfare and interests of Pakistanis instead of reinforcing the arguments of those who claim that the creation of Pakistan was an imperialist project from the beginning.

 We must start measuring all its achievements by evaluating the socioeconomic conditions of Pakistanis, and nothing else, without any distractions.

 

 

khanmomar@hotmail.com

 

 

 

Mentally sick rising in political systems

 

A lunatic gets elected and then reelected in the world’s most powerful country controlling the deadliest arsenal.

A racist, war mongering psychopath gets elected repeatedly in the “only” democracy in the middle east resulting in unending wars, killings and suffering.

Now this combination is endangering the world and survival of humanity with the WW3

Humanity will have to control the hold of demagoguery and hate mongering in the type of democracy that has evolved in the west.

Prevailing form of democracy has to devise ways to counter these dire risks because its present form can lead to end of humanity leaving only cockroaches to survive.

مہلک ترین ہتھیاروں کو کنٹرول کرنے والے دنیا کے سب سے طاقتور ملک میں ایک پاگل منتخب ہوتا ہے اور پھر دوبارہ منتخب ہوتا ہے۔

ایک نسل پرست، جنگ کو جنم دینے والا سائیکو پیتھ مشرق وسطیٰ میں "واحد" جمہوریت میں بار بار منتخب ہوتا ہے جس کے نتیجے میں نہ ختم ہونے والی جنگیں، ہلاکتیں اور مصائب ہوتے ہیں۔

اب یہ دونوں WW3 کے ساتھ دنیا اور انسانیت کی بقا کو خطرے میں ڈال رہے ہیں۔

انسانیت کو مغرب میں جس قسم کی جمہوریت تیار ہوئی ہے اس میں بدتمیزی اور نفرت پھیلانے پر قابو پانا ہو گا۔

جمہوریت کی مروجہ شکل کو ان خطرناک خطرات سے نمٹنے کے لیے طریقے وضع کرنے ہوں گے کیونکہ اس کی موجودہ شکل انسانیت کے خاتمے کا باعث بن سکتی ہے جس سے صرف کاکروچ باقی رہ جائیں گے۔

Pakistan-Saudi Arabia Defence Pact

 

Finally it came out in open how and why out of nowhere Pakistan-Saudi Arabia Defence Pact was signed on 17th September 2025.

It appears to be in preparation for the Israeli/US invasion of Iran.

آخر کار یہ بات کھل کر سامنے آگئی کہ 17 ستمبر 2025 کو پاکستان سعودی عرب دفاعی معاہدے پر کیسے اور کیوں دستخط کیے گئے۔

ایسا لگتا ہے کہ یہ ایران پر اسرائیلی/امریکی حملے کی تیاری تھی۔

Netanyahu’s biggest victim?

 

Racist religious fanatic Netanyahu, PM of Israel since ages, one of the most prominent politicians since half a century has harmed many,

a.      Palestinians.

Tens of thousands or many times more have been killed, maimed, starved and made homeless. The worst genocide of this century absolute catastrophe, holocaust.

b.      US.

From a disciplined extremely powerful state, Netanyahu has made it look like a lackey of a religious based country comparable to a nefarious criminal. Lost much of its aura, standing, stature and respect.  

c.       Israel.

Destroyed a 2 thousand years legacy converting in the eyes of the world from a victim to a brutal genocidal monster. Exposed the abnormal and unbelievable control it exerts over a super power. Many of these might have detrimental effects spanning generations.

d.      The whole world.

By destabilizing the world, exposing it to nuclear threat, jeopardizing the oil market and making the world immune to genocides probably the world’s civilizational development has been severely damaged.

This list might change if he manages to convert these conflicts into nuclear for which he is working hard.

Please help me understand.

Did Netahyahu, Epstein and Trump start the WW3????

 A short lesson of history,

WW2, the world’s bloodiest conflict started on 3rd of September 1939.

For 8 months and 7 days it was called a phony war as there was hardly any fight on the western front.

No one could imagine this would engulf the whole world causing over 66 million deaths and immense sufferings.

Deadliest wars start slow before exploding.

Wondering; Has Netahyahu, Epstein and Trump started the WW3????

تاریخ کا ایک مختصر سبق،

WW2، دنیا کا سب سے خونریز تنازعہ 3 ستمبر 1939 کو شروع ہوا۔

8 ماہ اور 7 دن تک اسے جعلی جنگ کہا گیا کیونکہ مغربی محاذ پر شاید ہی کوئی لڑائی ہوئی ہو۔

کوئی سوچ بھی نہیں سکتا تھا کہ یہ پوری دنیا کو اپنی لپیٹ میں لے لے گا جس سے 66 ملین سے زیادہ اموات ہوں گی اور بے پناہ مصائب ہوں گے۔

مہلک ترین جنگیں پھٹنے سے پہلے آہستہ شروع ہوجاتی ہیں۔

کیا نیتیاہو، ایپسٹین اور ٹرمپ نے WW3 شروع کیا ہے؟؟؟؟

Feet on Ground for the Israeli and American assault on Iran

 

Imperialist’s need local collaborators to help them subjugate nations. These collaborators face the brunt protecting the rich imperialists.

Against Tipu, British used Nawab Deccan and Marathas.

In 2001 Afghanistan, the Northern Alliance provided this service.

In 2011 Libya, Transitional National Council helped imperialists murder Qaddafi permanently destabilizing the country.

Ahmad Chalabi and Iraqi National Congress along with Kurdish Peshmarga provided feet on ground in Iraq for the invaders and destroyed it.

After thoroughly bombing Iran from afar, Israelis and Americans aren’t finding courage to invade it with troops and are in dire need of soldiers who can do the dirty work for them. Kurds refused as did the Baloch and others!!

I hope my worst fear doesn’t materialize…….. 

سامراج کو قوموں کو زیر کرنے میں مدد کے لیے مقامی ساتھیوں کی ضرورت ہے۔ ان ساتھیوں کو امیر سامراجیوں کی حفاظت کے لیے خطرات کا سامنا ہے۔

ٹیپو کے خلاف انگریزوں نے نواب دکن اور مرہٹوں کو استعمال کیا۔

2001 میں افغانستان میں شمالی اتحاد نے یہ سروس فراہم کی۔

2011 لیبیا میں، عبوری قومی کونسل نے سامراجیوں کو قذافی کے قتل اور ملک کو مستقل طور پر غیر مستحکم کرنے میں مدد کی۔

احمد چلابی اور عراقی نیشنل کانگریس نے کرد پیشمرگہ کے ساتھ مل کر حملہ آوروں کے لیے عراق میں قدم رکھا اور اسے تباہ کر دیا۔

ایران پر دور دراز سے بمباری کرنے کے بعد، اسرائیلی اور امریکی فوجیوں کے ساتھ اس پر حملہ کرنے کی ہمت نہیں پا رہے ہیں اور انہیں ایسے فوجیوں کی اشد ضرورت ہے جو ان کے لیے گھناؤنا کام کر سکیں۔ بلوچوں اور دوسروں کی طرح کردوں نے بھی انکار کیا۔

مجھے امید ہے کہ میرا بدترین خوف پورا نہیں ہو گا …….. L

جمہوریت اور جارحیت

"میں تشدد کی مخالفت کرتا ہوں کیونکہ جب یہ بظاہر فائدہ مند نظر آتا ہے تو وہ فائدہ عارضی ہوتا ہے، جبکہ اس سے پیدا ہونے والا شر مستقل ہوتا ہے۔" (گاندھی)

میں چند تاریخی حقائق شیئر کرنا چاہتا ہوں۔

دنیا کی قدیم ترین اور قابلِ فخر جمہوریت، برطانیہ نے 195 میں سے 171 ممالک پر حملہ کیا۔ اس کے علاوہ، اپنے عہدِ تسلط (Hegemony) کے دوران اس نے سینکڑوں جنگیں شروع کیں۔ برطانیہ وہ واحد ملک ہے جس نے امریکہ پر حملہ کیا، اسے فتح کیا اور اس کے دارالحکومت کو آگ لگا دی۔ دلچسپ بات یہ ہے کہ بہت کم لوگ اس تاریخی حقیقت سے واقف ہیں۔

یہ جنگیں درج ذیل مقاصد کے لیے لڑی گئیں:

• دیگر اقوام کو لوٹنے کے لیے ان پر قبضہ اور تسلط۔

• قبضے کے خلاف مزاحمت کرنے والوں کو سزا دینے کے لیے تادیبی مہمات۔

• بندوق اور گولی کے زور پر منشیات (افیون وغیرہ) کو فروغ دینا۔

• تشدد، منشیات یا قحط کے ذریعے کروڑوں اموات کا سبب بننا۔

ایک اور قابلِ فخر جمہوریت، امریکہ نے:

• 1945 سے 2001 کے درمیان دنیا بھر میں ہونے والے 248 تنازعات میں سے 201 میں حصہ لیا یا انہیں شروع کیا۔ یہ تمام مسلح تنازعات کا 81 فیصد بنتا ہے۔

• 100 سے زائد غیر ملکی مداخلتیں کیں۔

• سوویت یونین کے خاتمے کے بعد صورتحال مزید بدتر ہو گئی۔ سرد جنگ کے خاتمے کے بعد امریکہ نے 251 تنازعات شروع کیے یا ان میں شرکت کی۔

میں صرف یہ سوچ رہا ہوں کہ:

• کیا جمہوریت کی موجودہ رائج شکل میں کوئی ایسی فطری برائی موجود ہے جو اسے انتہائی پرتشدد اور جارحانہ بناتی ہے؟

• کیا ان نام نہاد جمہوریتوں کی موجودگی میں کبھی امن قائم ہو سکتا ہے؟

• کیا یہ جمہوریتیں لالچی سرمایہ داروں (Tycoons) کے لیے اثر و رسوخ، کنٹرول اور دباؤ ڈالنے کے لحاظ سے بہت آسان ثابت ہوئی ہیں؟

• کیا برطانیہ اور امریکہ واقعی جمہوریتیں ہیں؟ یا یہ دولت مندوں کی حکومتیں (Plutocracies) ہیں؟ ایسا معلوم ہوتا ہے کہ انہیں بے رحم اور بدعنوان ارب پتی چلا رہے ہیں جو اپنے مالی مفادات کے لیے دنیا کو تباہ کرنے کے لیے تیار ہیں۔

• کیا دنیا انسانیت کی بقا کو لاحق اس خطرے سے مزید دیر تک لاتعلق رہنے کی متحمل ہو سکتی ہے؟

• کیا ہمیں جمہوریتوں کی ازسرِ نو تعریف اور اصلاح نہیں کرنی چاہیے تاکہ انہیں دولت کے بل بوتے پر جوڑ توڑ کرنے والے ان گندے عناصر سے آزاد کرایا جا سکے؟

"تمہیں نہ تو مظلوم بننا ہے، نہ ہی ظالم، لیکن سب سے بڑھ کر یہ کہ تمہیں خاموش تماشائی ہرگز نہیں 

 

Democracy’s psychopathic propensity for violence and belligerence.

 

Dr. Umar Khan

khanmomar@hotmail.com

Dr. Khan belongs to a Lahore based Think Tank.

6-3-26

 

 

Democracy’s psychopathic propensity for violence and belligerence.

“I object to violence because, when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil that it causes is permanent.” Gandhi

 

Would like to share a few historical facts.

World’s proudest and oldest continuous democracy, Britain, invaded 171 countries out of 195.

In addition it started hundreds of wars during its hegemonic days.

Britain is the only country that invaded, conquered and burnt the capital of USA. Interestingly few are aware of this historical fact.

These wars were fought for,

·         Conquering and occupying other nations to loot.

·         Punitive expeditions for resisting occupation.

·         Pushing drugs through the power of gun and bullet.

·         Caused hundreds of millions of deaths through violence, drugs or famines.

US, another proud democracy has,

Started/participated in 201 out of 248 conflicts worldwide during 1945-2001. That is 81% of all armed conflicts.

Over 100 foreign interventions.

It’s the only country that has dropped nuclear bombs on civil populations and has the audacity to call it saving lives.

It got worse after the demise of Soviet Union

US started/participated in 251 conflicts after the end of the cold war.

Just wondering,

·         Is there something inherently evil in the prevalent form of democracies making them extremely violent and belligerent?

·         Can there ever be peace in the presence of these labeled democracies?

·         Are these democracies too easy to influence, control and coerce by the greedy tycoons?

·         Are the UK and US democracies in the first place? Or are these plutocracies? These appear to be controlled by rent seeking ruthless and unscrupulous billionaires ready to destroy the world for their numerical gains?

·         Can the world afford to stay indifferent to this threat to the existence of humanity any longer?

·         Shouldn’t we redefine and reform democracies freeing them from the filthy rich influence peddling manipulators?

 

“Thou shalt not be a victim, thou shalt not be a perpetrator, but, above all, thou shalt not be a bystander.”

 

khanmomar@hotmail.com

 

 

 

غزہ میں خون کی ہولی اور امن کی بساط

 غزہ میں خون کی ہولی اور امن کی بساط

"میں امن کی وکالت کرنے سے باز نہیں آتا؛ خواہ وہ غیر منصفانہ ہی کیوں نہ ہو، وہ بہترین منصفانہ جنگ سے بھی بہتر ہے۔" — مارکس ٹولیئس سسرو

ڈیووس میں عالمی اقتصادی فورم کے موقع پر امریکی صدر ڈونلڈ ٹرمپ مشرقِ وسطیٰ کے لیے اپنے "امن منصوبے" کو آگے بڑھا رہے ہیں۔ اس تجویز کا مرکزی نکتہ ایک "امن بورڈ" (Board of Peace) کی تشکیل ہے جو متعدد ممالک پر مشتمل ہوگا—ایک ایسی ہستی جس کے مقاصد اقوامِ متحدہ کے حریف، بلکہ شاید اسے براہِ راست چیلنج کرنے والے ہو سکتے ہیں۔

اقوامِ متحدہ کی 80 سالہ حدود اور کمزوریاں مختلف وجوہات کی بنا پر بے نقاب ہو چکی ہیں۔ ان کے حل کے لیے، مجوزہ ادارہ ایک سہل فیصلہ سازی کے عمل اور ایک طاقتور نفاذِ نو کے طریقہ کار کا تصور پیش کرتا ہے۔ ایک بین الاقوامی استحکام فورس (ISF)—جو ایک ہی کمانڈ کے تحت مختلف ممالک کی مسلح افواج پر مشتمل ہوگی—اس کے نفاذ کی ذمہ دار ہوگی۔

تاہم، یہ بھاری مسلح اور بھرپور حمایت یافتہ "امن بورڈ" بظاہر اسرائیل کے تقریباً تمام مقاصد کو پورا کرنے کے لیے ڈیزائن کیا گیا ہے، جبکہ فلسطینیوں کو اس جاری تشدد میں ممکنہ کمی کے سوا کچھ نہیں دیا جا رہا۔ عملی طور پر، فلسطینیوں سے یہ توقع کی جا رہی ہے کہ وہ عسکری طور پر غالب اسرائیل کے سامنے مکمل طور پر ہتھیار ڈال دیں، اور ساتھ ہی انتہا پسند آباد کاروں کو ایک "محفوظ اور خوشگوار" قبضے کی دعا بھی دیں۔

اس سے زیادہ یک طرفہ انتظام کا تصور کرنا مشکل ہے۔

فلسطین کی سرزمین، جہاں ہزاروں سال سے مقامی آبادی آباد تھی، پر نوآبادیاتی یورپی طاقتوں کی سرگرم مدد سے دنیا بھر سے آنے والے یہودی آباد کاروں نے طاقت، جبر اور مالی ترغیبات کے ذریعے قبضہ کر لیا۔ ریاستِ اسرائیل کا قیام ایک نہ ختم ہونے والے تنازع کا آغاز تھا—جو وقتاً فوقتاً شدت اختیار کرتا اور تھمتا رہا، لیکن کبھی ختم نہیں ہوا۔

تشدد کو معمول بنانے یا اسے معمولی دکھانے کے لیے نئی اصطلاحات ایجاد کی گئیں۔ فلسطینیوں کے باقاعدہ قتلِ عام کو لرزہ خیز طور پر "گھاس کاٹنے" (mowing the grass) سے تشبیہ دی گئی، گویا اجتماعی موت کوئی ہولناک مذاق ہو۔

گزشتہ دہائیوں میں، اسرائیل کے خلاف مزاحمت کرنے والی تقریباً تمام پڑوسی ریاستوں کو—طاقت یا سیاسی دباؤ کے ذریعے—بے اثر کر دیا گیا، جیسے مصر اور اردن۔ جنہوں نے سر تسلیم خم کرنے سے انکار کیا، وہ تباہ کر دیے گئے: شام، عراق اور لیبیا اس کی عبرتناک مثالیں ہیں۔

امن کے لیے برابری، یا کم از کم برابری کی جھلک ضروری ہے۔ اس کے بجائے یہاں ایک گہرا عدم توازن موجود ہے۔ ایک طرف اسرائیل ہے، جو بلاشبہ دنیا کی طاقتور ترین ریاستوں میں سے ہے اور عالمی سطح پر، خاص طور پر امریکہ پر، گہرا اثر و رسوخ رکھتا ہے—ایک ایسا ملک جس سے باقی دنیا خوفزدہ رہتی ہے۔ دوسری طرف فلسطینی ہیں، جن کے پاس اپنی جانوں، استقامت اور اپنے بنیادی حقوق کے حصول کے لیے غیبی مدد کی امید کے سوا کچھ نہیں۔

مخالفین کے درمیان امن توازن پر منحصر ہوتا ہے۔ ایک فریق کا مکمل غلبہ صرف غلامی—یا کمزور کی مکمل تباہی کا باعث بنتا ہے، جیسا کہ نیتن یاہو کی جانب سے بار بار دھمکیاں دی گئی ہیں۔ امن مذاکرات میں "کچھ لو اور کچھ دو" کا وعدہ ایک سراب ہی رہا ہے، بالکل ویسے ہی جیسے خود امن۔

اس کا قابلِ پیش گوئی نتیجہ کسی نہ کسی بہانے بے بس فلسطینیوں کے بار بار قتلِ عام کی صورت میں نکلا ہے، جبکہ دنیا فلسطینیوں کے خون پر تیزی سے بے حس ہوتی جا رہی ہے۔ اس تنازع کو اسرائیل اور پی ایل او (PLO) یا حماس جیسے "شیطانی" فلسطینی گروہوں کے درمیان "جنگ" بنا کر پیش کیا جاتا ہے—یہ وہ آسان لیبل ہیں جو قبضے کی حقیقت اور غیر متناسب تشدد پر پردہ ڈال دیتے ہیں۔

فلسطینیوں کی اس غیر قانونی سازی اور تشدد کو معمول بنانے کے عمل نے اسرائیلی جنگجوؤں اور بدعنوان سیاست دانوں کو فائدہ پہنچایا، جس سے ان کی مقبولیت اور اقتدار پر گرفت برقرار رہی۔ ستم ظریفی یہ ہے کہ قبضے کے خلاف مزاحمت اسرائیل کے انتہا پسند اور متعصب رہنماؤں کو مضبوط کرتی ہے، جبکہ شریف النفس اسرائیلیوں اور یہاں تک کہ امریکی صدور کو بھی شرمندہ کرتی ہے—جو نیتن یاہو کے معاملے میں بے بس نظر آتے ہیں۔ زیلنسکی کے خلاف ٹرمپ کا تکبر اور نیتن یاہو کے سامنے ان کا جھکاؤ بہت کچھ واضح کرتا ہے۔

حالیہ دنوں میں، 70,000 سے زیادہ—اور ممکنہ طور پر اس سے کہیں زیادہ—بے گناہ اور نہتے فلسطینی مرد، خواتین اور بچے اسرائیل کے ہاتھوں "جنگ" کے نام پر مارے جا چکے ہیں۔ اس نے اسرائیل کو حاصل مکمل استثنیٰ اور بین الاقوامی برادری کی بے بسی یا بے حسی کو بے نقاب کر دیا ہے۔ احتجاج کی آوازیں—جیسے اقوامِ متحدہ کے سیکرٹری جنرل یا فرانسسکا البانیز—کو فوری طور پر تنقید کا نشانہ بنا کر، بدنام کر کے بے اثر کر دیا جاتا ہے۔

یہ بار بار ہونے والے مظالم اس دنیا کو بے حس بنا رہے ہیں جو کبھی قوانین پر مبنی عالمی نظام کی خواہاں تھی۔ اجتماعی تشدد کا یہ تسلسل عالمی نظام کو غیر مستحکم کرنے کا خطرہ پیدا کرتا ہے، جس کے نتائج تباہ کن ہو سکتے ہیں۔ اس تنازع کو، دیگر لایعنی اور طویل جنگوں کی طرح، حل ہونا چاہیے۔

تاریخ ہمیں تکلیف دہ سبق دیتی ہے۔ جنگیں افراتفری کا نام ہیں۔ ہم انہیں شروع تو کر سکتے ہیں، لیکن ان کے رخ یا انجام پر ہمارا قابو نہیں رہتا۔

دونوں عالمی جنگیں درحقیقت ایک ہی تنازع تھا جس کے درمیان دوبارہ مسلح ہونے کے لیے 20 سال کا وقفہ آیا۔ برطانیہ، جو اس وقت دنیا کی سب سے بڑی طاقت تھی، توقع کر رہا تھا کہ پہلی جنگِ عظیم چند ہفتوں میں—زیادہ سے زیادہ 1914 کے کرسمس تک—ختم ہو جائے گی۔ اس کے بجائے، یہ برسوں تک جاری رہی، جس میں کروڑوں لوگ مارے گئے اور ناقابلِ بیان مصائب کا سامنا کرنا پڑا۔

صرف احمق وہ جنگیں لڑتے ہیں جو وہ جیت نہیں سکتے۔ کوئی بھی معقول مبصر موجودہ حالات میں یا مزاحمت کے موجودہ طریقوں کے ذریعے فلسطینیوں کی عسکری فتح کا کوئی امکان نہیں دیکھتا۔ مقبوضہ فلسطینیوں کا انسانی قتلِ عام جاری رہنے کا خدشہ ہے، جس میں کسی بامعنی مداخلت کی امید کم ہی نظر آتی ہے۔

پرعزم اور باہمت لوگ کسی بھی قوم کا سب سے بڑا اثاثہ ہوتے ہیں۔ ایسے ناگزیر انسانی سرمائے کو کبھی بھی ناقابلِ تسخیر مقابلوں میں ضائع نہیں کیا جانا چاہیے اور نہ ہی بغیر تیاری کے یقینی تباہی کے دہانے پر دھکیلنا چاہیے، جیسا کہ غزہ میں ہو رہا ہے۔

مزاحمت کا وجود صرف مسلح جدوجہد کی صورت میں نہیں ہوتا۔ معاشی طاقت، تعلقاتِ عامہ، ٹیکنالوجی اور سفارت کاری اکثر بندوقوں اور بموں کے مقابلے میں نتائج طے کرنے میں بڑا کردار ادا کرتے ہیں۔

خونریزی کو روکنے کے لیے جنگ بندی اور تشدد کا فوری خاتمہ ضروری ہو سکتا ہے، جبکہ ساتھ ہی مجرموں کو بے نقاب کرنے اور ان کے جرائم کی دستاویز سازی کا عمل منظم طریقے سے جاری رہنا چاہیے۔

چین اس کی ایک طاقتور مثال پیش کرتا ہے۔ ایک وقت تھا جب اسے ذلیل کیا گیا، لوٹا گیا اور جبری منشیات کی لت کے ذریعے اپاہج بنا دیا گیا، لیکن اس نے ایک صدی کے دوران خود کو دوبارہ منظم کیا، دوبارہ تعمیر کیا اور وقار و طاقت کے ساتھ عالمی منظر نامے پر واپس آیا۔ ہانگ کانگ—جو افیون کی ذلت آمیز جنگوں کے بعد حوالے کیا گیا تھا—بغیر کسی تشدد کے واپس حاصل کر لیا گیا، جس سے یہ ثابت ہوا کہ عظیم ترین فتوحات وہی ہیں جو بغیر لڑے حاصل کی جائیں۔

اس انسانی قتلِ عام کو ختم ہونا چاہیے۔ کمزور کو اپنی جدوجہد کے وقت اور نوعیت کا انتخاب خود کرنا چاہیے—اور یہ لمحہ وہ نہیں ہے۔ امن، خواہ اس کی بھاری قیمت ہی کیوں نہ ہو، قابلِ غور ہو سکتا ہے اگر یہ نوجوانوں کی جانیں بچائے اور مستقبل کو محفوظ رکھے۔ اس جدوجہد کو اس وقت تک کے لیے ملتوی کیا جا سکتا ہے جب تک برابری حاصل نہ ہو جائے اور وقت و مقام کا فیصلہ مظلوم کریں، نہ کہ ظالم۔

"ایک بے چین امن، بالکل امن نہ ہونے سے بہتر ہے۔" — جیمز میکس ویل

"کبھی کوئی جنگ اچھی نہیں تھی اور نہ ہی کوئی امن برا تھا۔" — بنجمن فرینکلن

The Gaza Bloodbath and the Board of Peace

 

Dr. Umar Khan

khanmomar@hotmail.com

Dr. Khan belongs to a Lahore based Think Tank.

28-1-26

 

 

 

The Gaza Bloodbath and the Board of Peace

“I cease not to advocate peace; even though unjust, it is better than the most just war.”
— Marcus Tullius Cicero

At the World Economic Forum in Davos, U.S. President Donald Trump has been pursuing his Middle East “peace” plan. Central to this proposal is the creation of a Board of Peace composed of multiple countries—an entity whose objectives may rival, if not directly challenge, the United Nations.

The limitations of the 80-year-old UN have indeed been exposed for various reasons. To address these, the proposed body envisions a streamlined decision-making process and a powerful enforcement mechanism. An International Stabilization Force (ISF)—comprising armed forces from different countries under a single command—would be tasked with implementation.

This heavily armed and well-supported Board of Peace, however, appears designed to pursue nearly all of Israel’s objectives while offering Palestinians little more than a possible reduction in the violence they are currently enduring. In effect, Palestinians are expected to absolutely capitulate before a militarily dominant Israel, while also wishing extremist settlers a “safe and pleasant” occupation.

It is difficult to imagine a more one-sided arrangement.

The land of Palestine, inhabited by its local population for millennia, was occupied through force, coercion, and financial inducements by Jewish settlers from around the world, with the active assistance of colonial European powers. The establishment of the state of Israel marked the beginning of an unending conflict—one that has periodically intensified and subsided but never ceased.

Euphemisms were invented to normalize/trivialize violence. The routine killing of Palestinians was chillingly likened to “mowing the grass,” as if mass death were a grim joke.

Over the decades, nearly all neighboring states that resisted Israel were neutralized—through force or political pressure—such as Egypt and Jordan. Those that refused to submit were devastated: Syria, Iraq, and Libya stand as examples.

Peace requires parity, or at least the semblance of it. What exists instead is a profound mismatch. On one side stands Israel, arguably among the world’s most powerful states, wielding immense influence globally—especially over the United States, a country feared by most others. On the other side are Palestinians, armed with little beyond their lives, resilience, and hope for unseen help in securing their basic rights.

Peace between adversaries depends on balance. Absolute dominance by one side results only in subjugation—or outright annihilation of the weak, as repeatedly threatened by Netanyahu. The promised quid pro quo of peace negotiations remains a mirage, much like peace itself.

The predictable outcome has been the repeated slaughter of helpless Palestinians under one pretext or another, while the world grows increasingly numb to Palestinian bloodshed. The conflict is framed as a “war” between Israel and demonized Palestinian groups such as the PLO or Hamas—convenient labels that obscure the reality of occupation and asymmetrical violence.

This delegitimization of Palestinians and normalization of violence serve Israeli warmongers and corrupt politicians, sustaining their popularity and grip on power. Ironically, resistance to occupation strengthens extremist and bigoted Israeli leaders, while embarrassing decent Israelis and even U.S. presidents—who appear helpless in dealing with Netanyahu. Trump’s arrogance toward Zelensky and his deference toward Netanyahu explain much.

Recently, over 70,000—likely many more— innocent and unarmed Palestinian men, women, and innocent children have been killed by Israel under the banner of “war.” This has laid bare the near-total impunity Israel enjoys and the helplessness or indifference of the international community. Voices of protest—such as the UN Secretary-General or Francesca Albanese—are swiftly criticized, discredited, and neutralized.

These repeated atrocities desensitize a world that once aspired to a rules-based international order. Such normalization of mass violence risks destabilizing the global system, with potentially catastrophic consequences. This conflict, like other seemingly endless and senseless wars, must be resolved.

History offers painful lessons. Wars are chaotic. We may start them, but we cannot control their course or their endings.

The two World Wars were effectively a single conflict separated by a 20-year pause for rearmament. Britain, then the world’s strongest power, expected the First World War to end within weeks—by Christmas 1914 at the latest. Instead, it dragged on for years, killing tens of millions and inflicting unimaginable suffering.

Only fools fight battles they cannot win. No rational observer would give Palestinians any chance of military victory under present circumstances or through their current methods of resistance. The human slaughter of occupied Palestinians appears destined to continue, with little hope of meaningful intervention.

Committed and courageous people are a nation’s greatest asset. Such irreplaceable human capital must never be squandered in unwinnable confrontations or exposed to certain annihilation without preparation as is being done in Gaza.

Resistance does not exist solely in the form of armed struggle. Economic strength, public relations, technology, and diplomacy often play a greater role in determining outcomes than guns and bombs.

A ceasefire and an immediate end to violence may be necessary to stop the bloodshed, while systematically documenting and exposing the perpetrators.

China offers a powerful example. Once humiliated, looted, and crippled by forced drug addiction, it regrouped over a century, rebuilt itself, and returned to the world stage with dignity and strength. Hong Kong—ceded after the humiliating Opium Wars—was reclaimed without violence, proving that the greatest victories are those achieved without fighting.

This human massacre must end. The weak must choose the timing and nature of their struggle—and this moment is not it. Peace, even at great cost, may be worth considering if it saves lives of the young and preserves a future. This struggle might be postponed till parity is achieved and time and venue is decided by the oppressed and not the oppressors.  

“An uneasy peace is better than no peace at all.”
— James Maxwell

“There never was a good war or a bad peace.”
— Benjamin Franklin

 

 

khanmomar@hotmail.com