Mullah Mansur’s Killing: The Iranian Link: New Age Islam's Selection, 25 May 2016

New Age Islam Edit Bureau

25 May 2016

•  Mullah Mansur’s Killing: The Iranian Link?

By Abdul Hadi Mayar

•  The Taliban Tightrope

By Zahid Hussain

•  Enhancing Nuclear Transparency

By Rizwan Asghar

•  Unite and Fight To Reclaim Pakistan

By Dr Akmal Hussain

•  Donald Trump Vs Hillary Clinton

By S P Seth

Compiled By New Age Islam Edit Bureau

-----

Mullah Mansur’s Killing: The Iranian Link?

By Abdul Hadi Mayar 

 25-May-16 12

While international and regional news sources are prominently hinting at Balochistan and Pakistan factor in the killing of Mullah Akhtar Mohammad Mansoor, the chief of the Afghan Taliban, none of them have noticed a fact. That Mansoor -- if his killing is confirmed -- was killed while travelling from Iran, and on his way to Quetta from the Taftan border point. This apparently inconsequential fact reveals a great deal, not only about the killing of the Taliban supremo, but also about the use of Pakistani territory by Afghan insurgents, and suspicions and mistrust between Pakistan and the Afghan government or the United States in this regard.

While the United States and the Afghan government have again lamented presence of the Afghan Taliban inside Pakistan, the latter has seriously resented the drone strike in its territory as violation of its sovereignty.

Mansoor, according to reports, entered Pakistan from Iran at 03:00 p.m. on Saturday, May 21, 2016, hiring a taxi for Quetta at the border town of Taftan. He was killed in the purported drone strike in Kuchaki or Ahmadwal area of Naushki district at 04:30 p.m. Almost all Afghans travelling to or from Iran use the same Chaman-Quetta-Taftan route for plying between Afghanistan and Iran. Therefore, the question of Pakistan government or security agencies providing shelter if the Afghan Taliban leaders also use the same route for their journey to and from Iran does not carry much weight.

The border between Pakistan and Afghanistan is admittedly porous, and Afghans have lived for several generations inside Pakistan, or its semi-independent tribal area, travelling to nook and cranny of the country, living even in Sindh and Punjab provinces, and having full command on local languages. Even an alleged Indian agent, Kulbhushan Yadav, was arrested on the same route while travelling from Iran to Afghanistan just a few months ago. Similarly, dozens of illegal Afghan immigrants were suffocated to death while being shipped to Iran in an oil container several years ago.

It is also an open secret that due to rampant administrative corruption, securing of passport or other identity documents has never been a problem in Pakistan, Afghanistan, or even India, from where Yadav ostensibly obtained a fake Indian passport with Iranian visa stamped on it. Afghans living in or travelling through Pakistan are mostly Pashtuns, and they can be hardly differentiated from the local Pashtuns of Quetta or the Federally Administered Tribal Areas. It is very much possible that these Afghan Pashtuns also have anti-Afghan government militants among themselves. Therefore, the question of Pakistan harbouring Afghan insurgents also does not make much sense.

Pakistan government’s objection to US drone-strike inside its territory does have a point. The pilotless US planes could also target Mansoor inside Iran or Afghanistan as he traversed the three neighbouring countries. By hitting him inside Pakistan, the US Special Forces -- not CIA as per the US claim -- tried to assert several things, which Secretary of State John Kerry and other US and Afghan officials divulged consciously or unconsciously in their statements after Mansoor’s killing.

As regards Pakistan using its clout over Afghan Taliban in the quadrilateral arrangements or in previous frameworks, the matter is understandable as the country has been hosting Afghan mujaheedin groups and even financing and arming them on behalf of the United States and other world powers for several decades. All liberation and resistance struggles in the world have such windows from neighbouring countries, which are necessary for brokering peace, as has been witnessed in the case of Afghanistan, particularly in the Qatar peace process or peace overtures under the Quadrilateral Cooperation Group (QCG). Pakistan could certainly be given grace marks in the handling of Afghan turmoil and the war on terror, if there is no international politicking or adverse regional nexuses.

Another remarkable point to cite in the killing of Mullah Mansoor is his visit to Iran. What was the reason for which he had proceeded to Iran, and why that link is not highlighted if all fingers are being raised towards Pakistan? If Mansoor was so confident that he visited Iran without any escort, it means he enjoyed the trust of someone on that border, and it must have certainly not been his first visit, as he crossed the Iranian border into Pakistan and hired a taxi for Quetta alone like a man fully versed with the process would do.

If international media hints at Mansoor’s confidence in travelling through Pakistan “without any convoy or security guards”, why are they not making the same objection to his similar travel inside the Iranian territory? And, if US officials claim that US Special Forces, not CIA, conducted the drone strike or if the Afghan intelligence says that Mullah Mansoor was under strict surveillance, then could it be without a tip from inside Iran, where Mansoor is supposed to have spent some time before being targeted in the US drone strike.

Abdul Hadi Mayar is an Islamabad-based freelance journalist

Source: dailytimes.com.pk/opinion/25-May-16/mullah-mansurs-killing-the-iranian-link

----

The Taliban Tightrope

By Zahid Hussain

25 May 2016

THE killing of Mullah Akhtar Mansour signals a more aggressive US policy stance, as hopes of the Afghan Taliban coming to the negotiating table fade. The death of the recently elected Taliban leader, who had only just managed to consolidate his authority over the group, has given a new twist to the festering Afghan crisis. That the attack was carried out well inside Pakistan’s territory has worsened the predicament — exposing Pakistan’s vulnerability in balancing an alliance with the United States with maintaining relations with the Afghan Taliban.

Authorised personally by President Obama, the strike marks the most significant American incursion into Pakistan since the 2011 US forces raid that killed Osama bin Laden. By striking in Balochistan — hitherto off-limits for remote-controlled Predators — the US has signalled its willingness to extend the war against Afghan insurgents to targeting sanctuaries within Pakistan, including the Taliban leadership council headquarters, or the Quetta Shura.

It remains a mystery when precisely Pakistan was informed about the strike. US Secretary of State John Kerry stated that Pakistan was notified, although it is not clear whether the notification was given before or after the attack.

According to official US statements, Mullah Mansour was targeted on Saturday afternoon on the main RCD Highway, which connects Pakistan with Iran; despite this confirmation, Pakistan’s Foreign Office remained silent for almost 24 hours. Predictably, Pakistan has accused the United States of crossing the ‘red line’ and claimed the attack was a violation of its sovereignty, while failing to offer any plausible explanation to account for the presence of the insurgent leader on its soil.

However, most intriguing are reports that Mullah Mansour was returning from Iran and travelling on a Pakistani passport, which raises some serious questions about the Taliban’s Iran connection. Another intriguing question is who provided the ground intelligence to the US for the precision strike that killed the Taliban leader and his driver.

Mullah Mansour’s death has further exposed the confusion in Pakistan’s Afghan policy.

This is surely a huge blow to the Taliban — still reeling from news of the death of their founder and supreme leader, Mullah Omar — and is bound to trigger a new battle for succession that may further fragment the group. This incident has occurred at a time when the militia is extending its control over Afghan territory and testing the mettle of Afghan security forces. It may also be the reason the Taliban are hardening their negotiating position with the Afghan government.

It was obvious that the new leadership was not willing to participate in any peace efforts without some preconditions — creating an embarrassing situation for Islamabad, that was expected to bring them to the negotiating table. The escalation in civilian casualties from insurgent attacks in Afghanistan brought the relationship between Pakistan and Afghanistan to new lows.

The incident has further exposed the confusion in Pakistan’s Afghan policy. Islamabad has long argued that the only way to end the war in Afghanistan is to bring the Taliban into the mainstream. It has repeatedly rejected calls to take military action against the insurgents — whose support networks operate freely within Pakistan — stating that all diplomatic options must be exhausted first. But it has failed to deliver on its promise, claiming that insurgents need incentives to join the peace process. Those incentives were never clearly defined, which has lost Islamabad a lot of credibility as a facilitator.

Pakistan has also been accused of reneging on its pledge — made during the quadrilateral talks and a key component of the peace process’ road map — to take action against the irreconcilable insurgents. There are fewer takers of the argument that Pakistan does not have any influence over the Taliban leadership.

The shift in US policy has compounded Pakistan’s dilemma, drastically limiting its options. There is nothing Pakistan can do if the US expands its drone operations to take out more Taliban commanders. Meanwhile, any use of force against Taliban leaders could trigger a wider conflict – potentially bringing the Pakistani and Afghan Taliban together; a nightmare scenario for the security establishment. There are several candidates for the Taliban leadership, but no obvious successor. Neither of the two deputies who may take charge in the immediate aftermath are proponents of peace and reconciliation.

Many observers believe that the void will further strengthen the position of Sirajuddin Haqqani, leader of the most powerful insurgent faction. Having been elevated to the position of deputy to the now deceased leader, his influence seems to have increased due to his role in rallying the support of other senior leaders for Mullah Mansour. His elevation to the top could be a red flag for the US, who consider him an extremely dangerous insurgent commander with strong links to Al Qaeda; Pakistan’s alleged patronage of the Haqqani network has been a major source of tension between Islamabad and Washington.

However, most observers believe that the leadership mantle will fall on the shoulders of Mullah Omar’s eldest son, Mullah Yaqub, who was the main challenger to Mullah Mansour before he accepted a senior position within the Taliban hierarchy. Nonetheless, it is not clear how effective he will be as the Taliban’s supreme commander.

It remains premature for the Obama administration to declare the death of Mullah Mansour as a ‘game changer’ and a ‘milestone’ for Afghanistan’s elusive peace process. There is little indication that the militia will change its hard-line position on peace talks after the death of its leader. In fact, there might be an escalation of insurgent attacks in Afghanistan, with each faction attempting to establish its dominance. One major concern is that if the Taliban fragment, it could strengthen international jihadist groups as more hard-line elements join the likes of the militant Islamic State group and Al Qaeda.

This will have serious repercussions for Pakistan that seems to have little control over the Afghan Taliban who have themselves established strategic depth inside Pakistani borders. With no clear strategy in place, tough times are ahead for Pakistan that is fast losing its balance on the tightrope it walks on with the United States and Afghanistan.

Zahid Hussain is an author and journalist.

Source: dawn.com/news/1260492/the-taliban-tightrope

----

Enhancing Nuclear Transparency

By Rizwan Asghar 

In 1944, famous Danish physicist Niels Bohr sent a letter to US President Franklin D Roosevelt, warning him about the urgent need to control fissile materials by reaching an understanding at the international level. A year later, in July 1945, the US carried out the first-ever nuclear test, ushering the world into the nuclear age. After the Soviet Union conducted nuclear tests in 1949, Bohr sent another letter to the United Nations, emphasising the need to bring greater nuclear transparency as a means to build mutual trust among nuclear powers. Today, 70 years after Bohr’s first warning, regulation of the use of fissile material remains a distant dream. As of December 2013, the global stockpile of fissile material is estimated to be above 2,000 metric tonnes, which is enough to make tens of thousands of new nuclear weapons. There are an estimated 17,000 nuclear weapons globally, with the US and Russia together holding more than 16,000 of these weapons.

The lack of precise information regarding the exact number of nuclear weapons, their delivery systems and quantity of fissile material remains a major issue. Due to nuclear secrecy in most nuclear weapon states, much uncertainty surrounds the estimated figures.

Over the past decade, the issue regarding the level of nuclear secrecy has become a serious subject matter in deliberations by the General Assembly’s First Committee at the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conferences (RevCon) and the Preparatory Committee (PrepCom) sessions. Some ‘recognised nuclear-weapon states’ voluntarily submit reports on their nuclear activities but there is absolutely no transparency in the non-NPT states. During the Cold War era, nuclear secrecy was considered necessary for security. However, in the emerging era of nuclear terrorism, the lack of transparency has become a danger.

After 1998, these concerns led the NPT review process to enhance the transparency of the nuclear disarmament process. In 2000, the NPT RevCon agreed upon ‘13 fundamental disarmament steps’, calling upon all member states to increase transparency and submit regular reports on nuclear disarmament commitments. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon included nuclear transparency as the most important agenda item in his nuclear disarmament proposal in 2008.

He urged all nuclear weapons states to report information about their fissile material stocks and nuclear arsenal to the UN Secretariat. However, his proposal was not heeded. In 2010, the NPT RevCon also took up the need to ensure nuclear transparency. In the 2012 and 2013 sessions of the NPT Preparatory Committee, two coalitions of states presented ‘working papers’ on transparency. This initiative once again caused global attention focus on the need to improve transparency regarding exact quantities of fissile materials and their production history.

The utmost secrecy surrounding Pakistan’s nuclear programme has become a matter of serious concern for the international community, particularly since 2003. Nuclear experts criticise Pakistan’s nuclear security establishment for lack of transparency on its nuclear policies and practices that only fuel uncertainty and more fear.

On the other hand, Pakistan’s Strategic Plans Division (SPD), the secretariat of the Nuclear Command Authority, has always criticised the western media for slanted coverage of Pakistan’s nuclear activities. In the Pakistani media, information is generally shared only with ‘friendly’ analysts and journalists. Such lack of transparency may allow terrorist organisations to exploit weak links in the security of our nuclear arsenal but many Pakistani strategic thinkers remain in a state of denial regarding this threat. More or less the same culture of secrecy prevails in India and North Korea.

Earlier, I have argued on these pages that a fine balance between global responsibility in the nuclear security area and national sovereignty must be created to counter the emerging threat of nuclear terrorism. There are examples where countries have shared highly sensitive information with one another, including, under the Open Skies Treaty, the Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) programme and the agreement on conventional forces in Europe. The main goal of greater transparency is to restore public confidence by ensuring international accountability.

Many Pakistani analysts, unduly opposing this goal, need to realise that transparency does not entail disclosure of sensitive information about design and engineering of warheads. Pakistan’s nuclear security managers must not feel uncomfortable while sharing official and reliable information about the exact number of nuclear weapons and fissile material stockpiles so that measurable progress can be made toward nuclear disarmament.

In the post-Cold War era, the search for hegemony through build-ups of nuclear arsenals should have given way to the need for acquiring collective security and the goal of a world without nuclear weapons. Many international forums, including the international Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) Commission, the Tokyo Forum, the International Panel on Fissile Materials and the International Commission on Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament have stressed the dangers of huge nuclear arsenals and fissile material stocks being shrouded in secrecy.

Five NPT weapon states — the US, the UK, France, Russia and China — met in London (2009), Paris (2011), Washington DC (2012) and Geneva (2013) to discuss issues of increasing nuclear transparency and taking confidence-building measures in this regard. Some unilateral progress in improving nuclear transparency has been witnessed over the past few years but universal support is necessary to pressurise all nuclear countries to share information about their arsenals.

As a first step, all nuclear weapon states should officially declare the total number of weapons in their nuclear arsenals in the 2015 NPT RevCon, along with the commitment to release subsequent annual updates. Civil society activists and media in all nuclear weapon states must fearlessly pressurise their respective governments to take this first step. Ensuring nuclear transparency is a global responsibility and Pakistan must not shy away from playing its part in fulfilling that responsibility.

Rizwan Asghar is a research scholar and a former visiting fellow at the Monterey Institute of International Studies, California.

Source: dailytimes.com.pk/opinion/01-Jul-16/enhancing-nuclear-transparency

----

Unite And Fight To Reclaim Pakistan

By Dr Akmal Hussain 

So, finally the military has launched its long awaited operation against extremists in North Waziristan. This is the largest military offensive so far in a war that has been raging for over a decade but which has been largely unrecognised as such by successive governments as well as society. After sustained precision targeted air strikes, a ground assault is about to begin. The ongoing operation could be a turning point in this war. If the political leadership and the people of Pakistan rise to the occasion, it could also be a watershed moment in the history of Pakistan. In this article, I will discuss the main features of this potentially historic moment and the challenges before the leadership, civil society and military to actualise the great potential this moment offers.

Who are the extremist groups in North Waziristan that the military is engaging in battle? Reportedly, there is a network of various foreign and local militant groups. According to Mr Zahid Hussain, the well-known author and journalist, the foreign militants include al Qaeda, Uzbek and Chechen groups, the East Turkestan Islamic Movement manned mainly by Chinese Uighur militants, and Libyan Islamic fighters. The local militant groups, in a loose alliance, include the Taliban operating from North Waziristan, South Waziristan and from hideouts across the border in Afghanistan (the assumption that ‘good and bad Taliban’ are distinct entities that can be dealt with separately has been proved to be invalid). According to recent newspaper reports, a large number of militants in North Waziristan have escaped and are escaping into Afghanistan, which is why Pakistan’s army chief is reported to have asked Afghanistan to plug the gaps on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border to prevent Pakistan-based militants from finding refuge across the border.

This network of foreign and local fighters will now face the devastating power of one of the finest fighting forces in the world: the Pakistan army in conjunction with the Pakistan air force. In terms of professional training, the quality of leadership in battle and the commitment to sacrifice their lives for the homeland, the Pakistan military is second to none. The nation can be proud of them as they go forward to defend the country.

As the nation and its armed forces join battle, it may be helpful to define the nature of the adversary as well as what it is that is being defended. The Pakistan Taliban conglomerate has explicitly stated that they aim to overthrow Pakistan’s constitutional order, take over the state and impose their own ideology on the people of Pakistan. In the pursuit of this objective they have, over the last few years, in carefully planned commando operations attacked key military installations of each of the three armed forces of the country: the GHQ of the army, the Mehran airbase of the navy and the Kamra airbase of the air force. They have also attacked installations of the Inter Services Intelligence (ISI), the civilian intelligence outfit the Intelligence Bureau (IB) and the training academy of the anti-terrorist police unit in Lahore as well as the army’s elite counter-terrorist commando unit headquarters in Tarbela.

Additionally, the Pakistan Taliban have earlier assassinated senior military officers including the General Officer Commanding (GOC) in charge of operations in South Waziristan. In a recent grisly demonstration of their psyche, they beheaded Pakistani soldiers as they prayed in a camp in South Waziristan and then subjected their severed heads to unspeakable indignities, later uploading a video of the whole atrocity on their website.

Extremist militant groups have also mounted gun and suicide bomb attacks on political leaders of Pakistan with the most tragic being the assassination of the widely loved Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto, which sent shock waves of pain and sorrow across the country. This was followed by a series of murderous attacks on leaders of the ruling Awami National Party (ANP) in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa during the period 2007 to 2012 as well as the target killing of the federal minister of minority affairs. The total casualties since 2003 have been estimated at 40,000 and the financial losses of terrorism, both direct and indirect, may be as high as $ 40 billion according to one estimate.

At a strategic level, the Taliban had, over the years, established control over North Waziristan, parts of South Waziristan and Mohmand Agency. Not only had they effectively captured significant swathes of FATA but had also penetrated some of the major cities of Pakistan with their armed cadres, weapons and ammunition storage sites and training centres. Karachi is a case in point where they have established no go areas, linked with crime syndicates, and are competing with the armed wings of some mainstream political parties for control over resources and power. Such was their operational capability that they were able to mount a deadly attack on Karachi airport, attacking aircraft in airport hangars and conducting pitched battles on runways with security forces.

On a political level, the Taliban won sympathisers in some of Pakistan’s mainstream political parties and, on an ideological level, penetrated or terrorised into submission some of the television channels, print media and middle class strata of civil society. In the face of this systematic attack by militant extremists on the state of Pakistan, their attempt to cripple its economy and terrorise its society, no country can survive without bringing to bear all its human and material resources, civilisational values and an unshakeable national resolve to resist. This is why the nation must stand behind Pakistan’s military as it marches forward to defend Pakistan and our way of life.

What is it that the nation and its armed forces aim to defend? In the immediate sense, we are saving our homeland. On a deeper level are the core values of the pursuit of self-discovery through enlightenment (what Iqbal called khudi), love, tolerance and humanity. These civilisational values shape our apprehension of religion, our forms of social life, our link with the past and our aspirations for the future — indeed they constitute the core of our experience of nationhood. These values also lead to the norms that underlie the institutional structure of Pakistan’s democracy: the value of human life, individual freedom, justice, education and human welfare.

It is of crucial importance in the present conjuncture that our core values of pursuing knowledge, love and humanity are directly counterposed to the value preferences revealed by the Taliban. Their actions and modes of governance in the areas of Pakistan where they have established their writ demonstrate that they are driven not by knowledge of religion but ignorance of religion; theirs is the domain not of education but bigotry, not of tolerance but coercion of the other, not of the nurturing of freedom and creativity but of its violent suppression. It is not surprising that, in their weapon of choice (the teen-aged suicide bomber) and in their treatment of prisoners of war (beheading followed by subjecting the severed heads to indignities), the Taliban demonstrate not a value for life but its utter degradation.

 In their battle tactics, as much as their strategic aims, they indicate that they have extruded humanity from their being and wish to establish not a state based on religion but a demonic republic of fear, darkness and violence. They aim to create not a rule of mercy but of oppression. Thus, in defending Pakistan against the Taliban, our military is not just defending the territorial integrity of the state but also our human integrity, our very being as a nation.

This is a moment of reckoning. If the nation unites and shows a resolve to stand behind the military as our soldiers sacrifice their lives for all that we stand for, we will Insha’Allah prevail. Ordinary citizens have made up their minds to stand with those who are defending the country. It is time for the leadership to do the same. This is no time for Mr Imran Khan and Mr Qadri to distract the nation from this war of survival by marching on Islamabad. They ought to put the interests of the nation above personal political interests. At the same time, let the prime minister take leadership of this war, the war for the soul of Pakistan. Let him mobilise the will of the nation, to defeat the adversary not just in the hills of Waziristan but also in the cities. Let him recognise the heroes, the soldiers who inspire the nation with their deeds of valour. He should be giving medals to soldiers who distinguish themselves in battle. How many have outstanding achievements to their credit but have gone unrecognised publicly?

Let songs of poets and singers echo in every household as they did in 1965 saluting troops and civilians for their resolve. Let Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif bring together the knowledge and love of his people to reclaim Pakistan by also defeating the ideology of hate, bigotry and brutality that is propounded by the Taliban. Both democracy and development require a state and the establishment of order within it. Let the lion roar by uniting the nation to wage this war so that we may survive and prosper.

Dr Akmal Hussain is a distinguished professor of Economics at the Forman Christian College University

Source: dailytimes.com.pk/opinion/01-Jul-16/unite-and-fight-to-reclaim-pakistan

----

Donald Trump vs Hillary Clinton

By S P Seth 

25-May-16 21

There are jokes galore about Donald Trump as ‘president’ of the US, precisely because it has been considered unlikely until now. The joke could easily be on those making fun of the US electoral drama, with Trump being centre stage as the ‘pretend’ president. This is captured well in a Sydney Morning Herald cartoon, which shows a man kneeling and addressing his God pleading that he was only kidding when he said, “Wouldn’t it be hilarious if Donald Trump became president...” And normally it would be hilarious because you wouldn’t expect Americans, who are among some of the smartest people in the world, to even consider the idea of Trump as president of the United States.

But things are getting serious now, with Trump emerging as the presumptive Republican Party presidential candidate. So much so that some of the party heavyweights felt so revolted that they declared their intention not to attend the Republican Party convention where Trump might be anointed the party’s candidate, though they are now talking of party unity. Indeed, there was even a suggestion that Mitt Romney, the 2012 failed Republican presidential nominee, might be put up as an independent to deny Trump the prospective candidacy. But the Republican Party is coming around to the idea of Trump as their candidate, however distasteful it is to the party establishment.

As of now, opinion polls seem to suggest that in a straight presidential contest between Hillary Clinton and Trump, the former might prevail, though the margin in her favour appears to be shrinking. But don’t bet on it. One important reason, as we have seen so far with the Trump campaign, is that he is merciless in lampooning his rivals, which is outside the limits of anything seen before. For instance, Ted Cruz was a “liar”, Marco Rubio was “little Marco”, Jeb Bush was “low energy” and so on.

 And his appreciative and admiring audience liked such caricaturing of the political class for whom they have come to have a pretty low opinion. Trump projected himself as an outsider without any political baggage. Trump as ‘outsider’, with his self-promotion as a successful businessman, was the sort of person to fix up the ‘broken’ political system without wanting any financial returns, being already a billionaire in his own right.

In other words, Trump is not a corrupt politician involved in wheeling and dealing, and hence was free to say things that needed to be said, which the country’s political class tended to avoid because they were all compromised. And this sort of silent conspiracy among the political class had brought the country to its low point with dangers all around, with friends and foes taking the US for a ride.

For instance, Muslims, inside and outside the US, are a menace and must be kept out. The migrants, particularly the Mexicans with nearly 12 million of them considered illegals and more and more of them flooding in, would need to be walled off. The US’s western allies have lived off American security umbrella for years without making any worthwhile contribution to their defence. Japan has been piggy-riding the US defence machine ever since the 1950s, with no obligation to share US burden. As for Saudi Arabia and the Gulf monarchies, their contribution in the Middle East is to stoke fires of Islamic fundamentalism.

It is not that what Trump says is true but he is articulating the disparate anxieties of many Americans, promising that he will make America great once again. How he will do is not important at the present. What is important is that he is saying these things and, in the process, highlighting the corrosion of the ruling political class. And that makes him a darling of many people, particularly the middle aged and older whites who simply feel disempowered and sometimes even strangers in their own country. Again, it is not the reality but they perceive this as their reality.

And he is also popular among many white blue-collar workers who believe that they have lost their jobs and prospects from cheaper manufactured and imported goods from low-wage economies, like China and other developing countries. Indeed, these whites are becoming the new ‘blacks’ (economically speaking), looking to the state for help and handouts. Romney, the last Republican presidential candidate referred to them as among “freeloaders.” Writing in National Review recently, Kevin Williamson, was contemptuous of them as deadweight. He said, “The truth about these dysfunctional, downscale communities is that they deserve to die.

Economically, they are negative assets. Morally, they are indefensible…Forget your sanctimony about struggling Rust Belt factory towns…The white American underclass is in thrall to a vicious, selfish culture whose main products are misery and used heroin needles.” He goes on, “Donald Trump’s speeches make them feel good. So does [opium derived] OxyContin.” In other words, Trump’s rhetoric and rant make poor whites feel empowered.

Bernie Sanders also appeals to the American underclass but his message is more sophisticated to lift them economically by positing their misery against greed of the Wall Street, meaning the higher end of the town. The danger is that Sanders’ supporters might either shift their votes to Trump or simply not turn up to vote if Clinton, as seems most likely, becomes the Democratic presidential nominee. And that will only help Trump. Based on such arithmetic of grassroots white support, Trump has a very good chance of winning the presidency in a straight race with Clinton.

However, despite her lack of charisma and political baggage of her husband’s presidency, as well as her own dubious record as secretary of state, Clinton has been going about her task with considerable diligence and calculation. She has been trying to forge a coalition of African-American, Latino and other minority groups. And she is positing herself as champion of women’s rights. Indeed, she wants to be seen as making history to become the first woman president, and is urging the country’s ‘sisterhood’ to make that a reality by voting for her. It will make history if she were to become the country’s president, as with Barack Obama as the first African-American president of the United States.

It is not working as smoothly because many young women are not buying into this narrative as part of a continuing struggle for women’s liberation. But she does have electoral advantage over Trump among women voters.

The opinion polls seemed to suggest that Clinton is likely to prevail in a straight contest with Trump, though her lead appears to be shrinking. But wait till Trump has finished with his hatchet job of digging up dirt and spreading it all around. For instance, on her credentials as a champion of women, he has dubbed her as “enabler” in her husband’s sexual peccadillos. As for courting African-Americans, Bill Clinton’s record as president in terms of a big hike in their prison population, and Hillary’s enthusiastic support of it, is bit of a black mark against her. But she is still likely to get majority black vote any way. Overall, it is going to be a close contest, and don’t be surprised if Trump manages to prove that he is for real, and not just a fictional character.

S P Seth   is a senior journalist and academic based in Sydney, Australia

Source: dailytimes.com.pk/opinion/25-May-16/donald-trump-vs-hillary-clinton

URL: https://newageislam.com/pakistan-press/mullah-mansur’s-killing-iranian-link/d/107408