Connect with us

Latest

Video

Analysis

Pakistan PM praises China, condemns India and cautions US attitudes in bold UN speech

The eloquently delivered address left little room for ambiguity.

Published

on

1,794 Views

Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shahid Khaqan Abbasi delivered a wide ranging speech to the United Nations clarifying his country’s position on key issues including its burgeoning partnership with China, its desire to bring “hostile” India to the peace table and explanatory warnings against false US assumptions about Pakistan’s role in the war against terrorism, specifically as it relates to the ongoing war in Afghanistan.

The Pakistani Prime Minister began his speech by praising the United Nations for preventing large scale wars from breaking out. However, in a statement alluding to the United States and its allies, Abbasi lamented that “some countries have shown a proclivity to use force against (other) states to settle differences”.

He also warned against building walls against the Islamic world, both in a physical and meteorically sense. This could easily be interpreted as a reference to Donald Trump’s plans to build a controversial border wall between the US and Mexico as well as Donald Trump’s occasionally Modi like defamation of Islam.

After warning of a new Cold War in Europe and conflicts raging from South East Asia to the Middle East, Abbasi turned to specific issues facing Pakistan.

Jammu and Kashmir

The Pakistani Premier stated that “India brutally suppresses Jammu and Kashmir” and in so doing, is engaged in one of the most prolonged illegal military occupations in modern history.

Abbasi stated that from Pakistan’s inception as a nation 70 years ago, it  has faced hostility from India.  Because of India’s intransigence on the Kashmir issue, Abbasi called on the UN Security Council to aid the people of Jammu and Kashmir in realising their democratic right to self-determination and their day to day desire to live free from military occupation.

In spite of multiple attempts on Pakistan’s part to bring India to the bilateral negotiating table, Abbasi said the India’s refusals means that it is of the utmost importance for the UN to bring about a resolution to the situation.

India 

Shahid Khaqan Abbasi called on India to “stop the use of rape as an instrument of state policy”. This is a clear reference to the rape epidemic which has raged in India, particularly against minorities since the electoral victory of the BJP lead by India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

The Premier further stated that Pakistan’s nuclear weapons are merely a deterrent to Indian aggression and that Pakistan seeks to maintain its nuclear arsenal only as a deterrent to what Abbasi characterised as an unpredictable and aggressive Indian regime.

Afghanistan

Turning to Afghanistan, Abbasi proclaimed that apart from the people of Afghanistan, Pakistan has suffered more from the series of wars in Afghanistan dating back to the 1970s,  than any other country on earth. He stated that the suffering has manifested itself in the form of terrorism, an influx of refugees, an influx of drugs and an influx of weapons upon Pakistan’s territory.

The Premier then remarked that “no one desires peace in Afghanistan more than Pakistan”. He then offered an admonishment which directly relates to Donald Trump’s recent criticisms of Pakistan in respect of Afghanistan. Abbasi said,

“Neither the (US led) coalition nor Taliban can impose a military solution on each other”.

Abbasi then called for direct negotiations between the current government in Kabul and Taliban factions as a means to bring peace and stability to Afghanistan.

Relations with the United States 

When US President Trump announced his troop surge in Afghanistan, his remarks at the time heavily criticised Pakistan, accusing Islamabad of harbouring terrorists who destabilise Afghanistan. These remarks were taken as deeply offensive to Pakistan and at the time both Russia and China strongly defended Pakistan’s record of fighting and opposing all forms of local and regional terrorism. China and Russia continue to stand by Pakistan on the whole in respect of its perspective on the crisis in Afghanistan.

Abbasi stated,

“Pakistan’s anti-terrorist credentials cannot be questions….

We took the war to the terrorists and we have paid a heavy price”.

He also said that it is “especially galling to be blamed” for the proliferation of regional terrorism before adding “we are not prepared to be anyone’s scapegoats”.

This latter most statement was clearly directed to anti-Pakistan voices within the United States.

China 

Turning to China, Abbasi stated that China’s President Xi Jinping has clearly articulated the model for economic growth and development that both is appropriate for and embraced by Pakistan.

Saying that eliminating terrorism is vital for Pakistan’s economic future, in words surely crafted to assure China of Pakistan’s commitment to building a stronger, more robust and safer society, Abbasi spoke of Pakistan’s rapid economic growth over the last four years.

The Premier stated that the China Pakistan Economic Corridor has and can further “contribute to our economic upsurge”. He also praised the One Belt–One Road initiative as being particularly crucial and helpful to Pakistan’s future.

After praising Pakistan’s economic partnership with China, Abbasi offered a message of peace and good will to his audience at the United Nations.

SUMMARY 

This was among the most stridently pro-Chinese and anti-US speeches delivered to the UN by a Pakistani head of government in recent memory.

The overall message was that Pakistan is not prepared to accept the blame for America’s failures in South Asia and Afghanistan specially, nor will Pakistan step back from its pragmatic proposals for a Taliban-Kabul dialogue as the most realistic solution to ending the violence in Afghanistan.

For India the message was clear: unless the BJP government ceases its anti-Muslim and by extrapolation, its anti-Pakistan position, Pakistan will have no choice but to sternly implore international organisations such as the UN to intervene in the ongoing disputes between the neighbouring countries.

Finally, Abbasi made it abundantly clear that Pakistan’s most crucial and fraternal partner in economic development as well as geo-political cooperation is China.

The overall message is clear: India cannot get away with aggression, China is now far more important to Pakistan than the United States and lastly, Islamabad is not prepared to accept unfair and nonfactual insults from the inexperienced Trump administration.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of
Mr. Costelol
Guest
Mr. Costelol

Pakistan is now facing something it once supported, it’s own balkanization. The US wants an independent Balochistan. To avoid this they must purge the ISI.

Le Ruse
Guest
Le Ruse

Drain their swamp ??

Mr. Costelol
Guest
Mr. Costelol

Worldwide.

Helen B
Guest
Helen B

Presuming of course that the US wants to end the war in Afghanistan …
I personally doubt they do. There’s the poppy crop, and the minerals to plunder, and the MIC profits …

Mr. Costelol
Guest
Mr. Costelol

The business model is spread war and instability (and finance operations through plunder of local resources), Afghanistan is a wonderful place in this regard. Destabilize China, Russia, Iran, Pakistan, India, Central Asia – spread CHAOS. PNAC strategy means the goal is to destroy all competing nations, and turn them into mini states, micro states (lacking strategic depth- for defense), and fiefdoms, warlord regions. It’s been done in Yugoslavia (that’s the model).

Latest

Every dirty Democrat trick shows in bid to oust Kavanaugh

American democracy truly is mob rule now, and the mob is stupid, with no one taking a moment to truly consider the situation.

Seraphim Hanisch

Published

on

The most amazing thing about what is ostensibly the last minute “Hail Mary” smear campaign by the left against Judge Brett Kavanaugh is how utterly transparently partisan it is. Let’s look at the list of tactics used thus far in this very dirty escapade:

  • Democrat Senator Diane Feinstein sat on this allegation for three months, until after the confirmation hearings were over (and after no other barnstorming tactic during the confirmation hearings worked against the nominee).
  • The accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, is a registered Democrat, and a feminist. RT notes that she appears to have a strong interest in politics.
  • Reports of “death threats” against Dr. Ford have been reported. This is a common feature of any anti-Trump attack, to relate him to some sort of “right-wing” radicalism. This radicalism does not exist among conservatives, but the media is determined to say otherwise.
  • Democrat Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, naturally, believes Ford’s story.
  • Every Democrat senator is in agreement that this matter should table the confirmation vote. Some Republicans were at first but appear to be backing away.
  • A woman Democrat senator,  Mazie Hirono, went on record telling men to “shut up and step up.” It seems abundantly clear that this assumes that there can only be one “step” that the men are expected to do. A second lady senator , Patty Murray of Washington, gave all men a warning against stepping off the plantation by saying “Women are watching.”
  • The Senate Republicans offered a chance for Dr Ford to testify on Monday. She refused, but now she is offering to come “next Thursday” – this is ten days later, past the October 1 start date of the US Supreme Court, and closer to the November Midterm elections.

We interrupt this list to make this point. The issues at hand are threefold.

First, the Democrats and other left-wing activists are terrified that they will lose the “Warren Court”, which is the name of the Supreme Court Justice who was a major left-wing judicial activist that enabled the Court to “legislate from the bench” along liberal policy lines since 1969. If Kavanaugh comes in, even if President Trump is somehow magically removed from office, his mark will remain on the Court for at least a generation. Of course, the removal of President Trump is predicated on the Democrats regaining control of the House, which actually looks somewhat likely if polling data is to be believed, and of course a Democrat Senate. (The actual tiny caveat that the President has done absolutely nothing which warrants impeachment will not be taken into consideration. He is to be eliminated. That is Democrat point number one, and make no mistake.)

Second, if the Judge is confirmed, it will look great on the President’s achievement list and energize his voter base even more than it already is. The result could be that the Senate expands its Republican majority, and gains Trumpian conservatives in its ranks, which would likely help the President continue his really great agenda. A defeat in the House that holds or expands GOP, again with Trumpian conservatives, would solidify this, and make it more difficult to stop Trump’s re-election and further solidification of reforms in 2020.

Third, and probably even more important, is that the possibility of a third seat getting vacated on the Court in the time period between now and 2024 is relatively high. Ruth Bader Ginsburg is the oldest Justice on the Court, and she is a raving liberal. If she retires (which she promises not to do), or if she is retired by the processes of old age, Trump can score a three-peat and get a third constitutionalist justice into the Court and that will signal the closure of one of the biggest avenues of liberal activism.

To return to the list, some of the further characteristics that make this situation patently obvious are these:

  • As reported in The Duran, the smear job is looking a bit ragged around the edges as time goes by. President Trump called Dr Ford’s bluff by saying he is interested in having her come to testify and that it would be “unfortunate” if she didn’t do so. Ford’s response was as shown above, to try and delay this testimony.
  • The Hollywood “sisterhood” is on record defending Dr Ford. For them, she’s right. She said Kavanaugh did this, so she is right. And why? Because she is a woman, a feminist and a Democrat. She is one of them. It would very interesting to know if the sisterhood would stand behind a conservative woman raising such a concern against a Democrat, but we have President Clinton to show how well that all went.

This by no means concludes the list of characteristics, but as noted earlier here, anyone that does even just a little critical thinking about this can see that this issue is no moral outrage, it is strictly partisan hackery, making use of the greatest weapon against conservative men put in use over the last fifty years – the sexual allegation from a woman, who must always be believed, because the woman is always right. 

The unfortunate truth is that this tactic works. It works because most men are actually gentlemen. We honor women, and we are taught to defer to them in America, because that is what a gentleman does. Feminism takes this characteristic of men, especially in modern times who really want to make sure they treat the ladies right, and it throws it back in their face in contempt. It is so bad it even has a physiological effect on men, who are now marrying less, and having fewer kids. There are even physiological changes that result from this abuse.

Further, there is an appalling lack of critical thinking in our society. The British news site, The Independent offers a poll with questions about the Kavanaugh case. The astonishing lack of critical thinking is clearly evident as the reader votes his or her thought and then sees the results for that question. Going through the questions and observing their responses can be very illuminating.

Dr Ford is demanding an FBI investigation, but she has no date, time or location attached to the incident she accuses now-Judge Kavanaugh of perpetrating. Rush Limbaugh did a great job at showing just how absurd this demand actually is, given these glaring areas of non-knowledge and we include some of that transcript below:

What would happen, let’s say — I don’t know — in the last 10 years up to last week if any woman had walked into any FBI office in the country and said the following: “Hi. I’m here to report that I was abused 35 years ago. I was — I was — I was at a party. Uh, I was 15, a little bit to drink, and a 17-year-old guy pushed me down on top of a table and laid on top of me. And then — and then and then I think — I think — a friend came in and did something and anyway they left and I was left locked in the room. And I want to you to investigate.”

Do you think if somebody shows up at an FBI office with that story, if they show up in person with that story, that the FBI is gonna give it any time whatsoever? The agents are gonna look at each other with kind of wary eyes and they’re gonna crack silent jokes to one another. I’m not kidding. You take this out of the realm of a letter to a crazed, partisan United States senator, Dianne Feinstein, and just move this into the victim walking into an FBI office, “It was 35 years, 34 years. I’m not sure where. But I know that when I was 15, I was at a party, and some guy jumped on top of me.”

So let’s say the FBI agent decides to actually take this further and in a very respectful way says, “Well, Miss, were you raped or injured?”

“Uh, no, not really.”

“Did you report this or tell anyone at the time, 36, 35 years ago?”

“Uh, no.”

“What year was this, again, that this happened?”

“Uhhh, I’m not — I’m not sure. I think it was 1982.”

“Where did this happen?”

“I don’t know! I don’t know. I was so traumatized; I don’t remember any of it. I just remember some guy jumping on me and I was drunk and — and I don’t know. But I want you to investigate it.”

“Okay. Ma’am, were there any witnesses?”

“Just the one friend of his that pushed him off, and then they left before he could do anything.”

What would the FBI do with this, if that scenario happened in one of their field offices? I will tell you what they would do: Zip, zero, nada. And the reason for bringing it up this way is to try to shine some kind of a different light on this and try to put this kind of allegation in some kind of context. The president is handling this in a quite fascinating way. He’s saying, “I hope she shows up. I want to hear what she has to say. I really hope she shows up. I’m very interested in what she has to say. We all are. And if she shows up and if she’s credible, why, then we’re gonna have to do something about that.”

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Russian Hierarch explains Ukrainian issue in detail (VIDEO)

A Russian Orthodox Hierarch explores the incursion of earthly politics into the life, pastoral activity and needs of the Orthodox Church.

Seraphim Hanisch

Published

on

RT’s “Worlds Apart” interview program recently interviewed Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfeyev), a hierarch who heads the Department of External Church Relations for the Moscow Patriarchate of the Orthodox Church. The Duran has covered the crisis in Ukraine surrounding the activity of the Ecumenical Patriarch, Bartholomew I, of Constantinople, intended to create a fully independent Ukrainian Orthodox Church. This effort falls completely outside the normal and authorized operating procedures of the Orthodox Church, but to the lay listener it is difficult to understand what the fuss really is all about.

Metropolitan Hilarion and Oksana Boyko do an excellent job with both the answers, but more importantly, the questions, since Ms. Boyko asks the questions that someone who knows nothing about the Church might ask. This situation is completely about politics and not about the true work of the Church, and Met. Hilarion answers these questions very completely and thoroughly.

One of the really interesting points that Met. Hilarion makes is the idea that the Ecumenical Patriarch seeks to bring about the creation of a fully independent Ukrainian Orthodox Church from these four groups:

  • The Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate (which is canonical and which has not requested self-rule, called autocephaly
  • The Ukrainian Orthodox Church “Kyiv Patriarchate”, led by Filaret Denisenko, which is a completely schismatic group. This group, and Filaret, are leading the charge.
  • The Ukrainian Orthodox Autocephalous Church – another schismatic group that is not in communion with Filaret’s church
  • The Greek Catholic Church of Ukraine – and this is truly interesting, because this group is not even Orthodox, but is an Eastern Rite group under the Pope of Rome, and is in fact Roman Catholic.

The notion of bringing together such a disparity of groups is stunning to the Metropolitan, and yet he understands the motives of the men driving this idea, President Petro Poroshenko of Ukraine, Patriarch Bartholomew, and Filaret Denisenko.

While the United States is not mentioned in this interview in any prominent sense, it should be noted that this move also does have strong US support as the American political leadership has been advocating for the Poroshenko government in an effort to continue to surround and isolate Russia. As we have noted elsewhere, this series of moves may well create more problems for Russia, by design.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

James Woods Suspended From Twitter Over Satirical Meme That Could “Impact An Election”

James Woods crushes Jack Dorsey: “You are a coward, @Jack.”

Alex Christoforou

Published

on

Via Zerohedge


Outspoken conservative actor James Woods was suspended from posting to Twitter over a two-month-old satirical meme which very clearly parodies a Democratic advertisement campaign. While the actor’s tweets are still visible, he is unable to post new content.

The offending tweet from July 20, features three millennial-aged men with “nu-male smiles” and text that reads “We’re making a Woman’s Vote Worth more by staying home.” Above it, Woods writes “Pretty scary that there is a distinct possibility this could be real. Not likely, but in this day and age of absolute liberal insanity, it is at least possible.”

According to screenshots provided by an associate of Woods’, Twitter directed the actor to delete the post on the grounds that it contained “text and imagery that has the potential to be misleading in a way that could impact an election.

In other words, James Woods, who has approximately 1.72 million followers, was suspended because liberals who don’t identify as women might actually take the meme seriously and not vote. 

In a statement released through associate Sara Miller, Woods said “You are a coward, @Jack,” referring to Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey. “There is no free speech for Conservatives on @Twitter.

Earlier this month, Woods opined on the mass-platform ban of Alex Jones, tweeting: ““I’ve never read Alex Jones nor watched any of his video presence on the internet. A friend told me he was an extremist. Believe me that I know nothing about him. That said, I think banning him from the internet is a slippery slope. This is the beginning of real fascism. Trust me.”

Nu-males everywhere non-threateningly smirk at Woods’ bad fortune…

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Advertisement

Advertisement

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement
Advertisement

Advertisement

The Duran Newsletter

Trending