February 12, 2018 (Ulson Gunnar - NEO) - The US recently included India in its shifting Asia Pacific policy, as part of its Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (often referred to as the "Quad"). The Quad also includes Australia and Japan along with the United States itself.
The nascent alliance is openly arrayed against China, with member states openly declaring their intent to contribute toward containing Beijing's activities in the region and compete against Chinese efforts to establish greater ties with its immediate neighbors. This includes Japan and Australia pledging to more aggressively patrol the South and East China Seas.
For India's part, it seeks to become a greater power within the Indian Ocean. Additionally, New Delhi has increasingly postured its military against China against the backdrop of greater tensions along the Chinese-Indian border.
China appears to be pursuing its own strategy to break out of the Quad's containment policy, including measures to place India in check.
Beijing's Pakistan to Washington's India
Part of this strategy includes growing ties between Beijing and Islamabad. This includes a number of major joint infrastructure projects across Pakistan. Collectively known as the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), the ambitious network of projects connects Gwadar port in Pakistan's Balochistan province on the Arabian Sea with the Pakistani-Chinese border near the western Chinese province of Xinjiang.
Railways and roads provide China with access to the Arabian Sea, eliminating the need to move certain goods past Singapore and through the Strait of Malacca.
CPEC also includes a gas pipeline from Gwadar to Nawabshah which will eventually enable gas imports from Iran.
August 27, 2017 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - For those who know from whence real power flows in America's political establishment, the uninterrupted continuation of America's 16 year war in Afghanistan came as no surprise.
For those voters who believed US President Donald Trump represented the public's desire to withdraw from multiple foreign wars and entanglements and place "America first," President Trump's announcement that not only would that not happen, but that these wars would be expanded, must have come as a surprise. However, perhaps it is the first in a long series of hard lessons for the American public to learn - that no matter who they vote for in Washington, it is clear agendas are decided upon and pressed from elsewhere. The Hill, in its article, "5 takeaways from Trump's Afghan speech," touched upon several points regarding President Trump's recent speech regarding Afghanistan, where the US currently has 8,400 troops deployed, and is poised to deploy thousands more. The Hill reported:
Trump is expected to send nearly 4,000 more troops, but he neither divulged a number nor said how long additional U.S. forces would spend in the country. "We will not talk about numbers of troops or our plans for future military activities,” Trump said. “Conditions on the ground, not arbitrary timetables, will guide our strategy from now on. America’s enemies must never know our plans. . . I will not say when we will attack, but attack we will.”
This is in stark contrast to his campaign promises, which The Hill noted:
“Why are we continuing to train these Afghanis who then shoot our soldiers in the back? Afghanistan is a complete waste. Time to come home!” he wrote on Twitter in 2012.
The Hill also claims:
The United States has about 8,400 troops in Afghanistan now. The forces are on a dual mission of training, advising and assisting Afghan forces in their fight against the Taliban and conducting counterterrorism missions against groups such as al Qaeda and the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS).
And indeed, that is precisely what policymakers, politicians, and military leaders have stated regarding the Afghan conflict for well over a decade and a half - spanning the presidencies of George Bush, Barack Obama, and now Trump. President Trump would claim that the goal was no longer withdrawal within a certain time frame, but would be dictated by conditions on the ground:
“A core pillar of our new strategy is a shift from a time-based approach to one based on conditions. I’ve said it many times how counterproductive it is for the United States to announce in advance the dates we intend to begin, or end, military options."
The "conditions" apparently require the US-backed client regime in Kabul "to take ownership of their future," despite claims that the US is not engaged in "nation building" countries in America's "own image." They are conditions that are - even at face value - contradictory and repetitive of promises made and broken by President Trump's predecessor, former President Obama.
Flirting With Further War in Pakistan President Trump - like Bush and Obama before him - also threatened neighboring Pakistan, accusing the nation of undermining its military presence in Afghanistan. President Trump would ultimately warn:
“We have been paying Pakistan billions and billions of dollars at the same time they are housing the terrorists that we are fighting. But that will have to change, and that will change immediately,” Trump vowed. “It is time for Pakistan to demonstrate its commitment to civilization, order and to peace.”
In reality, the US never invaded Afghanistan nor remains there today to fight terrorism. The organizations that it is allegedly fighting are not funded or directed by Afghanistan, they are funded and directed by the United States' closest and oldest allies in the Middle East - including Saudi Arabia and Qatar.
Instead, the US is occupying Afghanistan for the same reason the British Empire invaded and occupied it multiple times - in a bid to expand hegemony over Central and South Asia.
Afghanistan conveniently borders Iran, Pakistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and even China. A permanent US military presence in Afghanistan and control over the regime in Kabul, gives the US a springboard for direct and indirect geopolitical influence - including military operations - in all directions. Evidence indicates that exploiting this strategic foothold in this manner has already long-ago begun. The US has sought to pressure Iran and Pakistan for decades, with long-drawn plans regarding both nations.
July 1, 2017 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - Two Chinese teachers based in Pakistan's southwest province of Baluchistan were reportedly abducted and murdered by militants from the self-proclaimed "Islamic State" (ISIS).
In reality, the terror attack was very precise in terms of location and purpose, and fits into a larger pattern of violence and political instability that has plagued Pakistan's Baluchistan province and China's ambitions there for years.
US Using Proxies to Disrupt China-Pakistan Economic Corridor
Baluchistan, and more specifically, the port city of Gwadar, serve as the central nexus of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). It is a complex and expanding system of rail, roads, ports, and other infrastructure projects built jointly with the Pakistani government to facilitate regional economic growth - and an integral component of the much larger One Belt, One Road initiative.
The report states explicitly in regards to a possible "hard approach" toward Beijing that:
There are no guarantees that China will respond favorably to any U.S. strategy, and prudence may suggest to “prepare for the worst” and that it is “better to be safe than sorry.” Is it perhaps better to take a hard line towards China and contain it while it is still relatively weak? Is now the time to keep China down before she can make a bid for regional hegemony? Foreign policy realists, citing history and political theory, argue that inevitably China will challenge American primacy and that it is a question of “when” and not “if” the U.S.-China relationship will become adversarial or worse.
What better way to contain China's regional ambitions than to mire economic development in places like Baluchistan with armed militancy, or obstruct it altogether with a US-backed independence movement in the province?
US policymakers have noted just that. In a 2012 paper published by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace titled, "Pakistan: The Resurgence of Baluch Nationalism" (PDF), it would be stated unequivocally that (emphasis added):
If Baluchistan were to become independent, would Pakistan be able to withstand another dismemberment—thirty-four years have passed since the secession of Bangladesh—and what effect would that have on regional stability? Pakistan would lose a major part of its natural resources and would become more dependent on the Middle East for its energy supplies. Although Baluchistan’s resources are currently underexploited and benefit only the non-Baluch provinces, especially Punjab, these resources could undoubtedly contribute to the development of an independent Baluchistan.
Baluchistan’s independence would also dash Islamabad’s hopes for the Gwadar port and other related projects. Any chance that Pakistan would become more attractive to the rest of the world would be lost.
Not only would it be Pakistan's loss regarding the Gwadar port, it would be China's loss as well.
December 16, 2014 (Tony Cartalucci - LD) Taliban militants stormed an army public school in the northern city of Peshawar, killing over 100, including many young students. It is believed up to 10 militants took part in the attack, dressed as soldiers to first infiltrate the school's grounds before beginning the attack. While the details of the attack are forthcoming, the background of the Taliban and the persistent threat it represents is well established, though often spun across the Western media. Who Put the Taliban into Power? Who is Funding them Now? In the 1980's the United States, Saudi Arabia, and elements within the then Pakistani government funneled millions of dollars, weapons, equipment, and even foreign fighters into Afghanistan in a bid to oust Soviet occupiers. Representatives of this armed proxy front would even visit the White House, meeting President Ronald Reagan personally. The "Mujaheddin" would successfully expel the Soviet Union and among the many armed groups propped up by the West and its allies, the Taliban would establish primacy over Kabul. While Western media would have the general public believe the US rejected the Taliban, never intending them to come to power, it should be noted that the Afghans who visited Reagan in the 1980's would not be the last to visit the US and cut deals with powerful American corporate-financier interests. In 1997, Taliban representatives would find themselves in Texas, discussing a possible oil pipeline with energy company Unocal (now merged with Chevron). The BBC would report in a 1997 article titled, "Taleban in Texas for talks on gas pipeline," that:
A senior delegation from the Taleban movement in Afghanistan is in the United States for talks with an international energy company that wants to construct a gas pipeline from Turkmenistan across Afghanistan to Pakistan.
A spokesman for the company, Unocal, said the Taleban were expected to spend several days at the company's headquarters in Sugarland, Texas.
Image: Unocal, now merged with Chevron, had attempted to build a pipeline across Afghanistan in cooperation with the Taliban and with the expressed backing of the US government - then operating under the Clinton administration.
However, it was already claimed by the US that the Taliban had been "harboring" Osama Bin Laden since 1996, and had branded the Taliban's human rights record as "despicable." The Telegraph in an artile titled, "Oil barons court Taliban in Texas," would report (emphasis added):
The Unocal group has one significant attraction for the Taliban - it has American government backing. At the end of their stay last week, the Afghan visitors were invited to Washington to meet government officials. The US government, which in the past has branded the Taliban's policies against women and children "despicable", appears anxious to please the fundamentalists to clinch the lucrative pipeline contract. The Taliban is likely to have been impressed by the American government's interest as it is anxious to win international recognition. So far, it has been recognised only by the UAE, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.
It is clear that to the West, as they were during the proxy war against the Soviets, and during attempts to forge an oil pipeline across Afghan territory, the Taliban remain a tool, not an ally - to be used and abused whenever and however necessary to advance Wall Street and Washington's agenda - a self-serving Machiavellian agenda clearly devoid of principles.
This can be seen in play, even now as the Taliban serve as a proxy force to torment the West's political enemies in Pakistan with and serve as a perpetual justification for military intervention in neighboring Afghanistan.
October 15, 2014 (Ulson Gunnar - NEO) - It would seem only natural that the presumed arbiters of the world would see their greetings and congratulations as the natural pinnacle of success for any they deem a global hero. And such is the case of now Nobel Peace Prize laureate Malala Yousafzai who has been given an audience with US President Barack Obama (also a Nobel Peace Prize recipient) to be congratulated on for having "inspired people around the world with her determined efforts for girls' right to education."
Malala Yousafzai was thrust into headlines when she was attacked and nearly killed in 2012 by Taliban militants in an attempt to stop her advocacy of greater access to education for children, and young girls in particular.
But even as US President Barack Obama offered his empty words of congratulations to the young activist, the United States military and its intelligence agencies were busy along the Afghan-Pakistani border killing "suspected militants" alongside scores of innocent civilians, men, women and children just like Malala Yousafzai herself. In headlines the very same day as President Obama's meeting with Malala Yousafzai it would be reported that 2 more would be killed in a "suspected US done attack."
Killing Civilians in a War Against Militants of America's Own Creation
Admitted by prominent Washington think tank Brookings Institution, it is estimated that for every militant killed, 10 or so civilians also die in US drone attacks. This is amid a conflict with militants that had once fought Washington's proxy war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in the 1980's, a proxy war that saw socioeconomic progress made under Soviet patronage rolled back, including access to education for young girls and women. Such progress was rolled back and replaced by the oppressive, medieval ideology of the fighters the US eventually propelled to victory and power.
So while the US continues the mass murder of Afghan and Pakistani civilians allegedly fighting the very militants it helped thrust into power in the 1980's, the US is "congratulating" Malala Yousafzai for nearly being killed amid danger the West's own media networks knowingly and intentionally put her in to sell news stories.
What if the United States has been waging the wrong war against the wrong enemy for the last 13 years in Afghanistan?
Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times journalist Carlotta Gall, who spent more than a decade covering Afghanistan since 2001, concludes just that in her new book, “The Wrong Enemy: America in Afghanistan, 2001-2014.”
Gall told “On the Radar” that Pakistan – not Afghanistan – has been the United States’ real enemy.
And while Gall’s “book” might be easily dismissed as irrelevant warmongering, it echoes a narrative that was crafted by some of the most notorious policy makers in the US and promoted widely in 2011 across the Western media. This included the BBC’s documentary, “Secret Pakistan,” from which it appears Gall is deriving her premise.
Unraveling the Propaganda
The documentary “Secret Pakistan” can be summed up with two very telling quotes. The first is from Sherard Cowper-Coles, a British diplomat who served as the Foreign Secretary’s Special Representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan from 2009-2010, before that as ambassador to Israel and Saudi Arabia, and now the international business development director of British defense contractor BAE Systems. He claims during the BBC documentary that (44:00):
“…the real military threat is the Taliban – a serious insurgency that’s got nothing to do with Bin Laden. Bin Laden, in operational terms, is utterly spectacularly irrelevant.”
Quite clearly this contradicts the “war on terror” narrative peddled to Western audiences for over a decade and instead suggests that current US, British and NATO operation in Afghanistan has more to do with Western interests in the region than fighting the alleged perpetrators of the September 11, 2001 attack on Washington and New York City.
The next important quote comes toward the end of the documentary where former CIA officer and current fellow at the corporate-funded think-tank, Brookings Institution, Bruce Riedel (57:35) claims:
“…there is probably no worst nightmare for America, for Europe, for the world in the 21st century than a Pakistan that is out of control, under the influence of extremist Islamist forces armed with nuclear weapons.”
This comment, however, is not as straight forward or as truthful as Cowper-Coles’. However, if one realizes that this destabilization Riedel is hinting at is actually the work of the US and NATO done as a pretext to intervene more directly in Pakistan, then it becomes truly telling – and we see the BBC documentary, along with Gall’s recent book, as yet more examples of a corporate-media conjured casus belli.
Baluchistan, Pakistan - long target of Western geopolitical interests, terror wave coincides with Gwadar Port handover to China.
February 18, 2013 (LD) - Quetta, the capital of Pakistan's southwest Baluchistan province, bordering both US-occupied Afghanistan as well as Iran, was the site of a grisly market bombing that has killed over 80 people. According to reports, the terrorist group Lashkar-e-Jhangvi has claimed responsibility for the attack. Billed as a "Sunni extremist group," it instead fits the pattern of global terrorism sponsored by the US, Israel, and their Arab partners Saudi Arabia and Qatar.
The terrorist Lashkar-e-Jhangvi group was in fact created, according to the BBC, to counter Iran's Islamic Revolution in the 1980's, and is still active today. Considering the openly admitted US-Israeli-Saudi plot to use Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups across the Middle East to counter Iran's influence, it begs the question whether these same interests are funding terrorism in Pakistan to not only counter Iranian-sympathetic Pakistani communities, but to undermine and destabilize Pakistan itself.
The US-Saudi Global Terror Network
While the United States is close allies with Saudi Arabia and Qatar, it is well established that the chief financier of extremist militant groups for the past 3 decades, including Al Qaeda, are in fact Saudi Arabia and Qatar. While Qatari state-owned propaganda like Al Jazeera apply a veneer of progressive pro-democracy to its narratives, Qatar itself is involved in arming, funding, and even providing direct military support for sectarian extremists from northern Mali, to Libya, to Syria and beyond.
The current unrest in Balochistan centers around
forced disappearances, kidnappings, targeted killings, assassinations
and terrorism. However, these are merely the tactics of a much broader,
more geopolitically complex war in which the United States and its
Western allies are engaged. Though seemingly insignificant against the
backdrop of all the regional and international crises affecting our
world, Balochistan is, in fact, a nexus: the point at which
diametrically opposing strategic interests converge.
The United States views Balochistan, an area that
encompasses western Pakistan, eastern Iran, and a piece of southern
Afghanistan, as critical to the maintenance of US hegemony in the Middle
East and Central and South Asia. Conversely, China regards the region
as necessary for its own economic and political evolution into a world
superpower. Seen in this way, Balochistan becomes central to the
development of geopolitical power in the 21st Century.
Location, Location, Location
Balochistan is located in one of the most
geographically and politically significant places anywhere in the
world. Not only does the region sit astride three countries which have
become central to Western political and military power projection, it is
also central to the development and export of energy from Central Asia,
access to the Indian Ocean, and a host of other geopolitical
imperatives for both the West and the SCO/BRICS countries. Because of
this, the region has grown exponentially in importance to all the major
powers of the world.
Though the land seems, on the surface, to be inhospitable, it also holds great wealth just beneath the soil.
Aside from what is believed to be a large quantity of natural gas
and/or oil, the earth under the feet of the Baloch people holds vast
quantities of minerals necessary for economic development. Because of
this, the conflict raging in the region takes on the added dimension of
being a resource war, on top of a geographical and political one.
Balochistan’s location has another crucial element
that makes it geopolitically necessary: it sits at the crossroads of the
most important trade routes between West and East. Although, in the
public mind, trade crossroads seem to be a thing of the past (one might
imagine the Silk Road being traveled by camel), in fact, they are
essential to development. Land-based trade, something the Chinese
understand to be a linchpin of their economic and political evolution
into a superpower, is impossible without a stable and dependable
Balochistan, and this is precisely what the United States and the West
seeks to prevent.
This focus on land-based access to trade should
always be seen in the context of energy. China’s insatiable thirst for
oil and gas makes the development of pipelines from Central Asia, Iran,
and elsewhere invaluable to them. The Iran-Pakistan pipeline, the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India (TAPI) pipeline,
and other projects all serve to increase the importance of Balochistan
in the eyes of the Chinese. Additionally, the Chinese-funded, Pakistani
Gwadar Port is the access point for Chinese commercial shipping to the
Indian Ocean and on to Africa. With all of this as a backdrop, one can
begin to see just why Balochistan is so significant to the Chinese and,
conversely, why the United States and its Western puppets seek to
destabilize it.
Western Subversion and Destabilization
The Western imperialist powers have an obvious
interest in preventing a stable Balochistan from emerging. Not only is
the region essential to the Chinese, it is also a major part of the
covert war being waged against both Iran and Pakistan. Terrorist groups
with direct and indirect links to Western intelligence agencies operate
with impunity in Balochistan, a vast area that is nearly impossible to
police. The Pakistani government is not oblivious to the fact that foreign intelligence agencies are behind much of the violence in Balochistan, a fact that was even stated publicly by former President Musharraf.
In fact, Islamabad, though they cannot state it publicly, is aware
that its survival rests on the ability to quell the unrest in
Balochistan, which in turn means they must effectively combat the
foreign-controlled separatism.
In an article published by the Qatari
English-language newspaper The Peninsula, the author cited credible
sources as saying that “the CIA is indulging in heavy recruitment of local people as agents (each being paid $500 a month)”. Additionally we know that the CIA, under the leadership of Gen. Petraeus, has been using Afghan refugees to destabilize Balochistan.
The significance of these revelations should not be understated. The
fact that the CIA is recruiting agents and informants throughout
Balochistan indicates that the US strategy of subversion is
multi-faceted. On the one hand, a network of agents allows for
intelligence and information manipulation while, on the other hand, the
United States engages in terrorism through a variety of terrorist groups
it controls or manipulates either directly or indirectly. As was
reported in Foreign Policy magazine, the CIA and Mossad compete to control Jundallah,
an important fact because it shows the way in which the Western
imperialists use Balochistan, the base of Jundallah, to wage covert war
on Iran, including the assassination of scientists, terrorist bombings
aimed at critical infrastructure, and targeted killings of ethnic
minorities.
Aside from Jundallah, the CIA and its counterparts
(MI6, Mossad, and India’s RAW) are actively engaged in the handling and
manipulation of a variety of other terror groups operating in
Balochistan. The Baloch Liberation Army, headed by Brahamdagh Bugti and
others, has long-standing ties with British MI6 going all the way back
to the early days of Pakistan’s independence. This group is responsible
for countless terrorist actions
in the region, all of which have been aimed at innocent civilians.
This, and other groups like it, illustrates the way in which the United
States and its allies use the weapon of terrorism to create chaos for
the purpose of destabilizing Balochistan, thereby preventing economic
development both for the Balochi people and, by extension, China.
Photo:
In the 1980's US Congressman Rohrbacher (right) would actually travel to Afghanistan
and "fight" alongside the Mujaheddin. It is also reported that he met
Bin Laden and his foreign fighters - making him, like many others
leading the fraudulent "War on Terror,"
quite the hypocrite. The US use of proxy forces to ravage parts of the
world is confirmed, and Rohrbacher's direct role in such ploys is now in Pakistan is
also confirmed. US State Department-funded propaganda front Radio Free
Europe in their article titled, "U.S. Lawmaker Questions Approaches To Pakistan, Afghanistan," memorializes Rohrbacher's role in the US-Soviet proxy war.
....
Political Sabotage
The tactics of subversion are not limited to
terrorism and espionage in Balochistan. One of the most critical
dimensions of this issue is the use of political destabilization through
the US Congress. Lawmakers such as Representative Dana Rohrbacher
(R-CA), who himself has led the anti-Pakistan charge, have argued vigorously for the “right of self-determination of the people of Balochistan”.
Of course, what he means by this is that he, and others who have a
vested interest in the issue, support separatism and the destruction of
modern Pakistan. In so doing, Rohrbacher and other members of the
Congress act, as they always do, as apologists and facilitators of the
US imperial strategy of dividing nations in order to control them.
Rohrbacher, who himself has long-standing ties to Al-Qaeda (former
mujahideen) fighters, is a vociferous proponent of a fiercely
anti-Pakistan agenda, one which treats that nation as a threat to the
United States. Naturally, the only threat Pakistan truly poses is that,
in the course of the development of China, Pakistan has chosen to be on
the side of economic development, rather than allow itself to be
perpetually subjugated to the will of the United States.
The resolution introduced by Rohrbacher, who is the
chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations, called for the US to support Baloch separatism and end
relations with the democratically elected government in Islamabad. He
has repeatedly issued threats and other provocations which have been
correctly interpreted by the Pakistani government as meddling in their
internal affairs. The goal of these resolutions and provocations has
been to make the case, both politically and in the court of public
opinion, that Pakistan is a terrorist state which, because of the
twisted logic of the American people, means that the US should be able
to do whatever it wants to them.
The goals of the Western imperialists vis-à-vis
Balochistan have been, and remain, very simple: destabilize the region
in order to block the Chinese from using it to assert their regional
dominance and continue on the path to economic development. Using the
same, tired tactics of terrorism and political subversion, they hope to
achieve these aims. However, unlike the case of the British imperialist
ruling class of a century ago, the United States must contend with a
Pakistan that maintains a strong current of nationalism, one that
rejects the hegemony of the United States in the region, and one that
has friends internationally. Unfortunately for the Baloch people, the
US ruling class has learned nothing from history and continues to use
them as pawns against their perceived enemy in Beijing. Without a
strong, nationalist government in Islamabad, one that is willing to do
more than just protest US actions, there will be no peace in
Balochistan. Instead, the situation will only deteriorate as the US
elites continue their drive for dominance in the 21st Century, whatever the human and financial cost may be.
....
Eric Draister is an independent geopolitical analyst that maintains StopImperialism.com
which hosts his weekly podcast. He has been a guest on Dr. Webster
Tarpley's World Crisis Radio and has provided analysis on Russia Today.
As Pakistan reasserts national-sovereignty, the US responds with arming & backing Baluchi terrorists. by Tony Cartalucci
April 13, 2012 - Carving up Pakistan by fomenting separatist movements along Pakistan's western border has been on the US geopolitical drawing board for years. As reported in December 2011's, "The Coming War With Pakistan:"
"In a 2006 report by the corporate-financier funded think tank Carnegie Endowment for International Peace titled, “Pakistan: The Resurgence of Baluch Nationalism,” violence starting as early as 2004-2005 is described. According to the report, 20% of Pakistan’s mineral and energy resources reside in the sparsely populated province. On page 4 of the report, the prospect of using the Baluchi rebels against both Islamabad and Tehran is proposed. In Seymour Hersh’s 2008 article, “Preparing the Battlefield,” US support of Baluchi groups operating against Tehran is reported as already a reality. As already mentioned, in Brookings Institution’s “Which Path to Persia?” the subject of arming and sending Baluchi insurgents against Tehran is also discussed at great depth.
The 2006 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace report makes special note of the fact that above all, the Baluchistan province serves as a transit zone for a potential Iranian-India-Turkmenistan natural gas pipeline as well as a port, Gwadar, that serves as a logistical hub for Afghanistan, Central Asia’s landlocked nations as well as a port for the Chinese. The report notes that the port was primarily constructed with Chinese capital and labor with the intention of it serving as a Chinese naval station “to protect Beijing’s oil supply from the Middle East and to counter the US presence in Central Asia.” This point in particular, regarding China, was described in extricating detail in the 2006 Strategic Studies Institute’s report “String of Pearls: Meeting the Challenge of China’s Rising Power across the Asian Littoral.” Throughout the report means to co-opt and contain China’s influence throughout the region are discussed.
The Carnegie Endowment report goes on to describe how the Baluchi rebels have fortuitously begun attacking the development of their province over concerns of “marginalization” and “dispossession.” In particular attacks were launched against the Pakistani military and Chinese facilities. The question of foreign intervention is brought up in this 2006 report, based on accusations by the Pakistani government that the rebels are armed with overly sophisticated weaponry. India, Iran, and the United States are accused as potential culprits.
The report concludes that virtually none of Pakistan’s neighbors would benefit from the insurgency and that the insurgency itself has no possibility of succeeding without “foreign support.” The conflict is described as a potential weapon that could be used against Pakistan and that it is “ultimately Islamabad that must decide whether Baluchistan will become its Achilles’ heel.” This somewhat cryptic conclusion, in the light of recent reports and developments can be deciphered as a veiled threat now being openly played."
Quite obviously, tensions between the US and Pakistan have only further deteriorated, with the West playing victim accusing Pakistan of "double dealing" them during America's decade-long occupation of neighboring Afghanistan and frequent cross-border murder-sprees in Pakistani territory. Pakistan has more recently passed a resolution calling for the cessation of all US drone attacks on Pakistani soil. Additionally, as noted by geopolitical analyst Eric Draitser of Stop Imperialism, Pakistan has also prepared provisions to ban foreign bases on Pakistani soil and stem US covert terrorist activities inside Pakistan operating under the guise of "security contractors."
US Prepares Armed Uprising
The US had frequently answered the reassertion of Pakistani national sovereignty with random drone attacks on civilian populations, but seems now to be shifting into gear for a full-blown destabilization of Pakistan's Baluchistan province. Violence has notably increased in tandem with calls from Western politicians to support the "Free Baluchistan" movement and the establishment of an independent "Baluchistan" carved out of sovereign Pakistani territory.
The most astounding of these most recent calls is US Representative Dana Rohrabacher's "Why I support Baluchistan" op-ed in the Washington Post. Rohrabacher cites the US State Department and Amnesty International - which in reality are one in the same - while accusing the Pakistani government of "violations of human rights." He then, point-for-point, repeats the above mentioned corporate-financier funded US think-tanks regarding Baluchistan's rich natural resources and the strategic location the province's Gwadar seaport serves for the Chinese before admitting that Baluchistan's brief period of autonomy resulted from the British Empire and the Persians carving it up as a buffer state.
Photo: In the 1980's Rohrbacher (right) would actually travel to Afghanistan and "fight" alongside the Mujaheddin. It is also reported that he met Bin Laden and his foreign fighters - making him, like many others leading the fraudulent "War on Terror," quite the hypocrite. The US use of proxy forces to ravage parts of the world is confirmed, and Rohrbacher's direct role in such ploys is now also confirmed. US State Department-funded propaganda front Radio Free Europe in their article titled, "U.S. Lawmaker Questions Approaches To Pakistan, Afghanistan," memorializes Rohrbacher's role in the US-Soviet proxy war.
....
Rohrabacher entirely reveals his hand and the disingenuous concern he hamfistedly feigns in regards to the Baluchi plight when he cites a laundry list of grievances the US has with the Pakistani government and concludes by holding the threat of developing "a closer friendship with India and, perhaps, Baluchistan" over the head of Islamabad. Clearly, just as the British did before them, the US fully plans on carving out a Baluchistan buffer-state to balk Pakistani-Chinese relations, destabilize Pakistan itself, and provide more pressure on Iran's eastern border.
Video: A proposed Iranian-Pakistani-Indian pipeline which would travel through Pakistan's Baluchistan province, would essentially render moot US sanctions on Iran and provide Central, Southwest, and East Asia with Iranian oil. There is now talk of Russia helping to implement the planned project - a project the West is apparently willing to start a war and "Balkanize" Pakistan over to prevent.
....
One point Rohrabacher fails to mention is the planned Iranian-Pakistani-Indian pipleline which would in effect render moot all US sanctions and whose proposed path just so happens to pass through Baluchistan province. Such a pipeline would also converge with a planned logistical network being built by the Chinese from the province's Gwadar port in the south all the way to the Chinese-Pakistani border in the north.
Image: Gwadar in the southwest serves as a Chinese port and the starting point for a logistical corridor through Pakistan and into Chinese territory. The Iranian-Pakistani-Indian pipeline would enter from the west, cross through Baluchistan intersecting China's proposed logistical route to the northern border, and continue on to India. Destabilizing Baluchistan would effectively derail the geopolitical aspirations of four nations.
....
Just like the US used fighters in the 1980's in Afghanistan to fight a proxy war against the Soviets, the US is now planing to use Baluchi terrorists to wage war against both Pakistan and Iran. Rohrabacher is just the latest peddler of a geopolitical ploy long since predetermined, and echos verbatim of calls by Selig Harrison of the Soros-funded Center for International Policy, in editorials like “Free Baluchistan,” and “The Chinese Cozy Up to the Pakistanis.”
US Already Subverting Pakistani Governance in Baluchistan
As in all neo-imperial 4th generation warfare scenarios, arming militants is only half of the overall strategy for defeating targeted nation-states. Subverting national institutions and replacing them with those interlocking with the neo-imperial unipolar order is the other half. The usual suspects, the US State Department-funded National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and its various subsidiaries, found all across the theater of 4th generation global warfare, are busy at work in Pakistan's Baluchistan province as well.
Images: In addition to the annual Fortune 500-funded “Balochistan International Conference,” the US State Department's National Endowment for Democracy has been busy at work building up Baluchistan's "civil society" network. This includes support for the "Balochistan Institute For Development," which maintains a "BIFD Leadership Academy," claiming to "mobilize, train and encourage youth to play its effective role in promotion of democracy development and rule of law." The goal is to subvert Pakistani governance while simultaneously creating a homogeneous "civil society" that interlocks with the West's "international institutions." This is how modern empire perpetuates itself.
....
NED has been directly funding and supporting the work of the "Balochistan Institute for Development" (BIFD) which claims to be "the leading resource on democracy, development and human rights in Balochistan, Pakistan." In addition to organizing the annual NED-BFID "Workshop on Media, Democracy & Human Rights" BFID reports that USAID had provided funding for a "media-center" for the Baluchistan Assembly to "provide better facilities to reporters who cover the proceedings of the Balochistan Assembly." We must assume BFID meant reporters "trained" at NED-BFID workshops.
Image: A screenshot of "Voice of Balochistan's" special US State Department message. While VOB fails to disclose its funding, it is a sure bet it, like other US-funded propaganda fronts, is nothing more than a US State Department outlet. (click image to enlarge)
Image: Far from parody, this is the header taken from the "Baloch Society of North America" website.
....
Perhaps the most absurd operations being run to undermine Pakistan through the "Free Baluchistan" movement are the US and London-based organizations. The "Baloch Society of North America" almost appears to be a parody at first, but nonetheless serves as a useful aggregate and bellwether regarding US meddling in Pakistan's Baluchistan province. The group's founder, Dr. Wahid. Baloch, openly admits he has met with US politicians in regards to Baluchistan independence. This includes Neo-Con warmonger, PNAC signatory, corporate-lobbyist, and National Endowment for Democracy director Zalmay Khalilzad.
Dr. Wahid Baloch considers Baluchistan province "occupied" by both the Iranian and Pakistani governments - he and his movement's humanitarian hand-wringing gives Washington the perfect pretext to create an armed conflagration against either Iran or Pakistan, or both, as planned in detail by various US policy think-tanks.
Should an escalation in violence spiral out of control and the US commit to the complete destabilization of Pakistan, it is a good bet Dr. Wahid Baloch's face will be omnipresent on CNN, BBC, MSNBC, and the likes giving his "expert" opinion on humanitarian violations inside of Pakistan and the need for NATO to intervene. He may even be nominated by his US handlers as "President of Baluchistan" just as long-time US resident and BP, Shell, Total-funded Petroleum Institute chairman Abdurrahim el-Keib was in Libya.
Video: Featured on "Baloch Society of North America's" website, Rohrbacher again openly admits that only now that the US needs a point of leverage against the Pakistanis has the "plight" of the Baluchi people become an issue - an issue that will be used to serve US geopolitical objectives throughout Central and Southwest Asia. Rohrbacher repeatedly states that the Pakistanis were "friends" of the US but are now "enemies." The same could be said of the Afghan resistance he accompanied for 2 months in the 1980's who are now being occupied and killed in droves by the US. The Baluchi opposition might take note of how quickly the US goes through its "friends."
....
There is also the Baloch Students Organisation-Azad, or BSO. While it maintains a presence in Pakistan, it has coordinators based in London. London-based BSO members include "information secretaries" that propagate their message via social media, just as US and British-funded youth organizations did during the West's operations against other targeted nations during the US-engineered "Arab Spring."
Image: A screenshot of a "Baloch Human rights activist and information secretary of BSO Azad London zone" Twitter account. This user, in tandem with look-alike accounts has been propagating anti-Pakistani, pro-"Free Baluchistan" propaganda incessantly. They also engage in coordinated attacks with prepared rhetoric against anyone revealing US ties to Baluchistan terrorist organizations.
....
Geopolitical Implications
While Pakistan lies buried in the news and obfuscated with complexity regarding a myriad of tribes, difficult to pronounce names, confusing geography, and a culture many Westerners do not understand or appreciate, it also lies at the crossroads of China, India, and Iran. It represents a convergence of conflict between East and West with potentially catastrophic implications and even the prospect for a nuclear exchange.
China and Pakistan are more than aware of the West's unfolding geopolitical gambit. China in no uncertain terms has declared that they and Pakistan will "stand with each other `in all circumstances' and vowed to uphold their sovereignty and territorial integrity at all costs." China by now realizes that what can be done to its immediate neighbors will inevitably be done to China itself. The West's recent attack on Russia, meddling it its elections and attempting to trigger a color revolution within Moscow itself, reveals that Wall Street and London's momentum forward is meant to carry them all the way to the end - into both Beijing and Moscow.
The West will continue to whittle away at nation-states around the world by attacking and dismantling indigenous national institutions and replacing them with their homogeneous "civil society" model. They will continue enticing all interested parties to find a comfortable place amongst their global order, while producing unpleasant penalties for all who resist. Such penalties range from economic sanctions to armed militant groups fighting proxy wars on Wall Street and London's behalf.
What has developed, however, is a subtle but ever more apparent pattern of ultimate betrayal - meaning that many around the world are beginning to notice the West's "carrot" is just as bad as the "stick" and regardless of which one that is chosen, the result is the same. A paradigm shift must be made, one from competing parties seeking superiority over one another, to a paradigm of solidarity. And while organizations like BRICS appear to be moving in this direction, at least for the sake of self-preservation, a paradigm shift toward solidarity must begin at the grassroots.
Individuals must make the conscious decision to no longer pay into Fortune 500 corporations and banks, recognize the consolidation of power for what it is and begin seeking human empowerment not through gimmicks like "democracy" and "human rights" but through pragmatic solutions such as technical education, local industry and agriculture, collaborative research and development, and leveraging technology and our human ingenuity to improve our world through inventions and innovations instead of quotas, policies, and legislation.
BBC rewrites 10 years of history and declares Pakistan the new enemy. by Tony Cartalucci
December 4, 2011 - BBC are propagandists whose lies have killed people. Their documentaries are made upon request by special interest groups whose narratives are sewn verbatim into what would otherwise look like a "documentary." With BBC's name attached, it is hoped, these tissues of lies are then able to gain traction and begin rewriting reality. Their recent hit on Pakistan is not the first time they have been caught peddling wholesale lies dressed up as "documentaries." Earlier this year, they also cobbled together "This World: Thailand - Justice Under Fire," where evidence drawn from paid lobbyists of Western-backed opposition leaders and US State Department cables and used to promote Wall Street and London's corporate-financier interests in Thailand.
BBC's two-part "Secret Pakistan" documentary attempts to frame the 10 year foreign occupation of Afghanistan and the lack of progress as the result of "Pakistani duplicity." In reality, even upon watching BBC's "documentary," one can clearly see that the US, UK, and NATO have simply traded places with invading Soviets and now face the same fierce indigenous force fighting against occupation. Indeed, just as Pakistan's intelligence agency ISI supported Afghans during the Soviet invasion, they are very likely to be supporting Afghans now in their current bid for freedom.
However, BBC is entirely unable to establish this and instead, crutches its argument along on false pretenses, such as the Taliban "are" Al Qaeda, that the US, UK, and NATO have a right to be in Afghanistan in the first place, and that Pakistan has some sort of obligation to unconditionally cooperate with these foreign occupiers. While it may be instructive for many to watch the lengthy, two-hour "documentary," there are two quotes from prominent interviewees that give BBC's game away while perfectly summing up the reality of the Afghanistan war.
BBC's "Secret Pakistan" Summed Up in Two Quotes.
Sherard Cowper-Coles was a British diplomat who served as the Foreign Secretary's Special Representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan from 2009-2010, before that as ambassador to Israel and Saudi Arabia, and is now the international business development director of British defense contractor BAE Systems. He claims during the BBC documentary that (44:00), "the real military threat is the Taliban - a serious insurgency that's got nothing to do with Bin Laden. Bin Laden, in operational terms, is utterly spectacularly irrelevant." Quite clearly this contradicts the "war on terror" narrative and instead suggests that current US, British and NATO operation in Afghanistan has more to do with Western interests in the region than fighting the alleged perpetrators of 9/11.
The next important point is garnered nearly toward the very end of the documentary where former CIA officer Bruce Riedel (57:35) claims, "there is probably no worst nightmare for America, for Europe, for the world in the 21st century than a Pakistan that is out of control, under the influence of extremist Islamist forces armed with nuclear weapons." This comment, however, is not as straight forward or as truthful as Cowper-Coles'. However, if one realizes that this destabilization Riedel is hinting at is actually the work of the US and NATO done as a pretext to invade Pakistan, then it becomes truly telling - and we see the BBC documentary as yet another corporate-media conjured casus belli.
Riedel's "Pakistan out of control" is a long planned plot to invade Pakistan.
In a 2007 article from the London Guardian titled, “Bush handed blueprint to seize Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal,” it is stated that fears of destabilization inside Pakistan might prompt the United States to occupy Islamabad and the provinces of Punjab, Sindh, and Baluchistan in an attempt to secure Pakistan’s nuclear warheads.
The report was written by Fredrick Kagan who sits within the American Enterprise Institute (AEI). AEI’s board of trustees represents a wide variety of corporate-financier interests including those of the notorious Carlyle Group, State Farm, American Express, and Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co (also of the CFR). War criminal Dick Cheney also acts as a trustee. Joining Kagan as members of AEI’s “research staff” are warmongers Newt Gingrich, John Bolton, Richard Perle, John Yoo, and Paul Wolfowitz.
Kagan’s report regarding Pakistan’s partial occupation and the seizure of its nuclear arsenal is founded on what may first appear to be a reasonable concern, one shared by Bruce Riedel; the fear of Pakistan collapsing and its nuclear arsenal falling into the wrong hands. According to Kagan’s narrative, Islamic extremists seizing Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal pose as much a threat today as “Soviet tanks” once did, a sentiment that echos Riedel's words in the BBC's "Secret Pakistan."
Bruce Riedel is a former CIA officer and was a senior adviser to three US presidents, including President Obama. His area of focus is the Middle East and South Asia and he is currently a "Senior Fellow" at the corporate-financier-funded (page 19 .pdf) Brookings Institution. It was at Brookings that Ridel would help co-author the 2009 "Which Path to Persia?" a documented conspiracy to overthrow the government of Iran with foreign-backed color revolutions, covert military operations, sanctions, invasion, and even funding terrorists groups including the US State Department listed, French/Iraqi-based Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MEK) and Baluchistani terrorists who straddle the Iranian-Pakistani border.
For those that believe Riedel is nothing more than a paunchy, pencil-pushing "expert" used to pad out BBC documentaries, and that think-tanks like the Brookings Institution are merely dispensing advice and not corporate-approved policy, it should be noted that Riedel's "Which Path to Persia?" has already long since gone operational. It is also noted within the BBC documentary itself, that Riedel was advising the US president regarding Pakistan.
Riedel is indeed right about the threat of a nuclear armed Pakistan being destabilized and falling into the hands of extremists, but by now it should be clear by looking at Riedel's background that these are extremists like those armed by US British and NATO forces in Libya, who were then provided air cover to commit sweeping genocide before handing the nation over to the West's proxy rulers. And in Pakistan, the forces of destabilization are likewise being armed and backed by the West.
US backing terrorists to destabilize Pakistan.
One group amongst this "force," are the Baluchi terrorists that straddle the Iranian-Pakistani border. In a 2006 report by the corporate-financier funded think tank Carnegie Endowment for International Peace titled, “Pakistan: The Resurgence of Baluch Nationalism,” violence starting as early as 2004-2005 is described. According to the report, 20% of Pakistan’s mineral and energy resources reside in the sparsely populated province. On page 4 of the report, the prospect of using the Baluchi rebels against both Islamabad and Tehran is proposed. In Seymour Hersh’s 2008 article, “Preparing the Battlefield,” US support of Baluchi groups operating against Tehran is reported as already a reality. As already mentioned, in Brookings Institution’s “Which Path to Persia?” the subject of arming and sending Baluchi insurgents against Tehran is also discussed at great depth.
The 2006 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace report makes special note of the fact that above all, the Baluchistan province serves as a transit zone for a potential Iranian-India-Turkmenistan natural gas pipeline as well as a port, Gwadar, that serves as a logistical hub for Afghanistan, Central Asia’s landlocked nations as well as a port for the Chinese. The report notes that the port was primarily constructed with Chinese capital and labor with the intention of it serving as a Chinese naval station “to protect Beijing’s oil supply from the Middle East and to counter the US presence in Central Asia.” This point in particular, regarding China, was described in extricating detail in the 2006 Strategic Studies Institute’s report “String of Pearls: Meeting the Challenge of China’s Rising Power across the Asian Littoral.” Throughout the report means to co-opt and contain China’s influence throughout the region are discussed.
The Carnegie Endowment report goes on to describe how the Baluchi rebels have fortuitously begun attacking the development of their province over concerns of “marginalization” and “dispossession.” In particular attacks were launched against the Pakistani military and Chinese facilities. The question of foreign intervention is brought up in this 2006 report, based on accusations by the Pakistani government that the rebels are armed with overly sophisticated weaponry. India, Iran, and the United States are accused as potential culprits.
The report concludes that virtually none of Pakistan’s neighbors would benefit from the insurgency and that the insurgency itself has no possibility of succeeding without “foreign support.” The conflict is described as a potential weapon that could be used against Pakistan and that it is “ultimately Islamabad that must decide whether Baluchistan will become its Achilles’ heel.” This somewhat cryptic conclusion, in the light of recent reports and developments can be deciphered as a veiled threat now being openly played.
Quite clearly when Islamabad accused foreign governments of fueling and arming the unrest in Baluchistan, they were absolutely correct. Seymour Hersh’s report lays to rest any illusions over whether or not America is arming Baluchi rebels. Brookings’ “Which Path to Persia?” report also openly calls for arming and sending Baluchi rebels out against Tehran. More recently, longtime proponent of a Baluchi insurgency, Selig Harrison of the Soros funded Center for International Policy, has published two pieces regarding the “liberation” of Baluchistan itself.
Harrison’s February 2011 piece, “Free Baluchistan,” calls to “aid the 6 million Baluch insurgents fighting for independence from Pakistan in the face of growing ISI repression.” He continues by explaining the various merits of such meddling by stating, “Pakistan has given China a base at Gwadar in the heart of Baluch territory. So an independent Baluchistan would serve U.S. strategic interests in addition to the immediate goal of countering Islamist forces.”
Harrison would follow up his frank call to carve up Pakistan by addressing the issue of Chinese-Pakistani relations in a March 2011 piece titled, “The Chinese Cozy Up to the Pakistanis.” He begins by stating, “China’s expanding reach is a natural and acceptable accompaniment of its growing power—but only up to a point. ” He then reiterates his call for extraterritorial meddling in Pakistan by saying, “to counter what China is doing in Pakistan, the United States should play hardball by supporting the movement for an independent Baluchistan along the Arabian Sea and working with Baluch insurgents to oust the Chinese from their budding naval base at Gwadar. Beijing wants its inroads into Gilgit and Baltistan to be the first step on its way to an Arabian Sea outlet at Gwadar.”
Selig Harrison is also a regular attendee at the “Balochistan International Conference” and frequently reiterates his calls for a “free Baluchistan.” With him is Washington lobbyist Andrew Eiva, a former special forces operator who took part in supporting the Mujaheddin in Afghanistan. He proposes a vision of a bright future where Baluchis will enjoy their gas and oil wealth one day in their own autonomous, free nation. Such encouragement from Harrison, whose Center for International Policy is funded by the Ford Foundation, George Soros’ Open Society Institute, and Rockefeller Family and Associates, or Eiva’s flights of petroleum-fueled fancy at a Carnegie Endowment function – funded by Exxon, Chevron, BP Corporations of North America, the GE Foundation, Shell International, as well as the globalist mainstays of Soros, Rockefeller, and the Smith Richardson Foundation – would be almost laughable if real people weren’t dying and Pakistan’s entire future being put at risk.
With the inclusion of fake-human rights NGOs like Soros' Open Society-funded Human Rights Watch, attempting to tie the hands of the Pakistani government in dealing with these admittedly foreign-armed and backed militants, we can see the trifecta of NGOs, covert military support, and political propaganda destabilizing yet another nation. We also see a clear, over-arching strategy not aimed at Afghanistan, not even aimed at Pakistan, but ultimately aimed at disrupting and ending Chinese interests on their own border. This "trifecta" could also be seen successfully at work in the Southeast Asian country of Myanmar where covert military operations, coupled with foreign-funded NGOs, and political propaganda supplied by fake "democracy icon" Aung San Suu Kyi, were successfully used to stop the construction of a joint Chinese-Myanmar mega-dam in the northern state of Kachin.
Conclusion
Quite clearly then, Riedel's fears regarding Pakistan are somewhat disingenuous. In reality, he knows that the US is willfully destabilizing the country and setting the pretense for wider US and NATO military aggression throughout the region, including the invasion of Pakistan and the seizure of its nuclear arsenal. He also knows that the grand strategy is aimed not at neutralizing the manufactured threat of terrorism, but at containing China, a policy that was openly declared by current US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton within her article titled, "America's Pacific Century."
That BBC produced a two-hour long "documentary" to shoehorn every aspect of the "War on Terror" into the new narrative of "Secret Pakistan" and elude that the war "has a life of its own," is a horrific piece of propaganda aimed at perpetuating, even expanding an already catastrophic conflict. BBC willfully misleads its audience into believing that Pakistan has "betrayed" its Western allies and is partially responsible for the now, thousands of US, British, and NATO troops that have died in the war. In reality, Pakistan is doing what it must against a nation that invaded its neighbor under false pretenses and has conspired within the halls of its corporate-funded think-tanks to subvert, overthrow, and then invade Pakistan. BBC and the corporate media have by far helped send more US, British and NATO troops to their needless death with their lies than any Pakistani intelligence agency.
The words of Kagan, Reidel, and Harrison, who are documented to have conspired against the sovereignty and security of foreign nations, must be spread far and wide. If soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines want to continue fighting with full knowledge that they do so for a corporate-financier agenda to eliminate Wall Street and London's global competitors, so be it. At least they have the right to know what they are really fighting for and for what they may potentially die for. Pakistan can likewise defend itself from this army of mercenaries without disingenuous liars like the BBC twisting reality around and portraying Pakistanis as "duplicitous."
The George Soros-funded Human Rights Watch (HRW) is pulling out the stops to portray the latest spat of violence in Pakistan's southwest Baluchistan province as the result of Pakistani government brutality. The reports emanating from HRW have been compiled by US State Department mouthpiece Radio Free Europe Radio (RFERL) and published in Foreign Policy Magazine. In identical form to the propaganda campaigns being conducted by the nefarious, corporate-serving US State Department in nations across the planet, we see yet another concerted effort to play on the emotions of the liberal-progressives that line the majority of the West's NGO networks.
Image: Human Rights Watch has as much corporate support behind it as did the US Iraq invasion. In many ways, Human Rights Watch uses its "legitimacy" to leverage the very real causes of human rights to justify US meddling, intervention, and regime change. In Pakistan's case, the Baluchistan gambit threatens the very sovereign territory of the nation itself.
....
The Foreign Policy/US State Department RFERL report mentions that the Baluchistan minority is waging the latest in a long series of armed insurrections against Pakistan's Islamabad government, the latest of which is claimed to have started in 2004. The report also describes how the Baluchi minority can be found on the other side of Pakistan's border in Iran as well. In Iran, the Baluchi are claimed to also be subjected to "oppression."
In reality, the unrest in Baluchistan, on both the Pakistani and Iranian sides of the border, has been the subject of US planning, organizing, funding, and outright calls to arm the Baluchi minority to literally take over the province and carve it out of Pakistan's sovereign territory - not for "democracy" or "human rights" but for the expressed purpose of derailing China's investments and logistical networks built in cooperation with the Islamabad government.
In regards to Iran, a 2009 report titled, "Which Path to Persia?" from the Brookings Institution, a Fortune 500-funded (page 19 of PDF) US think tank, talked of arming Iran's Baluchi minority and having them wage war against the government in Tehran. The following passage also makes mention of the Kurdish minority currently running amok between Iran, Iraq, and now Syria's borders.
"For instance, the United States could opt to work primarily with various unhappy Iranian ethnic groups (Kurds, Baluch, Arabs, and so on) who have fought the regime at various periods since the revolution. A coalition of ethnic opposition movements, particularly if combined with dissident Persians, would pose a serious threat to regime stability. In addition, the unrest the groups themselves create could weaken the regime at home. At the least, the regime would have to divert resources to putting down the rebellions. At most, the unrest might discredit the regime overtime, weakening its position vis-à-vis its rivals."
Another such call to arm the Baluchi rebels comes from Selig Harrison of the Soros funded Center for International Policy, who has published two pieces regarding the “liberation” of Baluchistan itself. Harrison’s February 2011 piece, “Free Baluchistan,” calls to “aid the 6 million Baluch insurgents fighting for independence from Pakistan in the face of growing ISI repression.” He continues by explaining the various merits of such meddling by stating, “Pakistan has given China a base at Gwadar in the heart of Baluch territory. So an independent Baluchistan would serve U.S. strategic interests in addition to the immediate goal of countering Islamist forces.”
Harrison would follow up his frank call to carve up Pakistan by addressing the issue of Chinese-Pakistani relations in a March 2011 piece titled, “The Chinese Cozy Up to the Pakistanis.” He begins by stating, “China’s expanding reach is a natural and acceptable accompaniment of its growing power—but only up to a point. ” He then reiterates his call for extraterritorial meddling in Pakistan by saying, “to counter what China is doing in Pakistan, the United States should play hardball by supporting the movement for an independent Baluchistan along the Arabian Sea and working with Baluch insurgents to oust the Chinese from their budding naval base at Gwadar. Beijing wants its inroads into Gilgit and Baltistan to be the first step on its way to an Arabian Sea outlet at Gwadar.”
Harrison is far from an isolated criminal conspirator, as the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace sponsored “Balochistan International Conference,” held annually in Washington D.C., makes incessant calls for “international intervention” on behalf of the Baluchi opposition. Most of the Baluchi opposition leaders live in exile in the US, UK, and France, amongst the myriad of Libyans, Egyptians, Syrians, Thais, Chinese, Iranians, all working with foreign aid to subvert and overthrow the governments in their homelands. A presentation (shown below) gives us a verbatim rehash of the same antics that led up to a military attack on Libya, and similar rhetoric being used to set the ground work for intervention in Syria.
Video: Change Baluchistan to Libya, change the Baluchi names to Libyan names and you can see the same US-funded propaganda that led to Western military operations in North Africa.
….
Selig Harrison is also a regular attendee at these “Balochistan International Conferences” and frequently reiterates his calls for a “free Baluchistan.” With him is Washington lobbyist Andrew Eiva, a former special forces operator who took part in supporting the Mujaheddin in Afghanistan. He proposes a vision of a bright future where Baluchis will enjoy their gas and oil wealth one day in their own autonomous, free nation.
Such encouragement from Harrison, whose Center for International Policy is funded by the Ford Foundation, George Soros’ Open Society Institute, and Rockefeller Family and Associates, or Eiva’s flights of petroleum-fueled fancy at a Carnegie Endowment function – funded by oil giants Exxon, Chevron, BP Corporations of North America, the GE Foundation, Shell International, as well as the globalist mainstays of Soros, Rockefeller, and the Smith Richardson Foundation – would be almost laughable if real people weren’t dying and Pakistan’s entire future being put at risk.
The truth behind the Baluchistan unrest is that these people have been identified, supported, funded, and armed by the West in an attempt to destabilize the governments of both Pakistan and Iran to, as the Brookings Institution report "Which Path to Persia?" puts it, create a form of "coercive pressure" giving the United States leverage over the besieged governments. For this treacherous gambit, thousands of Buluchis, Iranians, and Pakistanis have died. For those who have read the Brookings report or Harrison's rants carefully, they will realize it is all for the sake of geopolitical power and influence on behalf of their corporate sponsors and has nothing to do with "human rights" or "freedom."
