Sunday, May 14, 2017

India's Jadhav ICJ Case; Terror in Balochistan; Trump's Firing of FBI Director Comey

Why has India taken its complaint against Pakistan to International Court of Justice? Will this Indian action internationalize Kulbhushan Jadhav case? What are the risks for India? Can Pakistan use this opportunity to highlight India's use of proxies to commit acts of terror in Pakistan? Will Pakistan accept ICJ's jurisdiction in this matter?



Why did the Taliban and/or ISIS and/or LeJ target Maulana Ghafoor Haideri, a top leader of the right-wing Islamist party led by Maulana Fazlur Rehman? Are they unhappy with the Jamiat Ulema e Islam (JUI) known to be sympathetic to militant groups? Why have been attacking JUI and JI leaders? What do they hope to accomplish by this latest attack?

Why did President Donald Trump fire FBI Director James Comey? Is it really because of his mishandling of the Hillary Clinton email investigation? Or is it an attempt by the Trump administration to impede FBI's ongoing probe of alleged collusion of the Trump campaign with the Russians? Will it backfire on Mr. Trump? What are the chances that the US Congress will move to impeach President Trump?

Viewpoint From Overseas host Faraz Darvesh discusses these questions with panelists Misbah Azam and Riaz Haq (www.riazhaq.com)

https://youtu.be/-vv5s-DoEvg





Related Links:

Haq's Musings

Kulbhushan Jadhav Case

Remembering JI Chief Qazi Husain Ahmad

Hinduization of India Under Modi

Trump Appointments

Panama Verdict

Are Iran and Russia Supporting the Afghan Taliban?

Talk4Pak Youtube Channel

18 comments:

Hema BA (comm) said...

Haq: If India has gone to ICJ for Kulbushan Jadhav it is a good thing because now we have a chance to tell the world that over 10000 Pakistanis have died due to proxy terrorism by India.

I would say good luck to that because you will definitely need lots of luck for ICJ to even hear that with a straight face.

H Clinton: It is time Pakistan wake up to the reality that the snakes it raised expecting only to bite its neighbors are now biting Pakistan itself!

Riaz Haq said...

Hema: "I would say good luck to that because you will definitely need lots of luck for ICJ to even hear that with a straight face."

There is substantial direct and indirect evidence now emerging that shows India is a state sponsor of terrorism in Pakistan. Here are some of the pieces of the evidence of India's support for terror in Pakistan:

http://www.riazhaq.com/2016/10/why-is-india-sponsoring-terrorism-in.html

1. A 2015 London police document revealed as follows:

“Large amounts of cash have been seized from premises associated with the MQM and a significant amount of assets have been identified in the United Kingdom. All of the cash and assets are believed to represent funds provided to MQM by the Indian government or other unlawful activity."

The London Police document said that "both Mr. (Tariq) Mir and Mr. (Mohammad) Anwar (close aides of MQM leader Altaf Hussain) stated that MQM was receiving funding from Indian government".

MQM leader Altaf Hussain has been using militants in Karachi, the economic hub of Pakistan, to launch attacks and destabilize the country.

2. Kulbhushan Yadav, a serving Indian Navy Commander, was arrested in Pakistan's Balochistan province in 2016. Yadav said his purpose was to remain in direct contact with Baloch insurgents and carry out "activities with their collaboration".

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi is now openly supporting Baloch insurgency in Pakistan. The Indian support for Baloch insurgents' terrorism in Pakistan is no longer a secret.

3. Ex US Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel has confirmed based on US intelligence reports that "India has always used Afghanistan as a second front against Pakistan. India has over the years been financing problems in Pakistan".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGvXPgXsKTE

4. Since 2013, India's current National Security Advisor Ajit Doval has been talking about "Pakistan's vulnerabilities" to terrorism and India's ability to take advantage of it. Here are excerpts of his speech at Sastra University:

"How do you tackle Pakistan?.....We start working on Pakistan's vulnerabilities-- economic, internal security, political, isolating them internationally, it can be anything..... it can be defeating Pakistan's policies in Afghanistan...... You stop the terrorists by denying them weapons, funds and manpower. Deny them funds by countering with one-and-a-half times more funding. If they have 1200 crores give them 1800 crores and they are on our side...who are the Taliban fighting for? It's because they haven't got jobs or someone has misled them. The Taliban are mercenaries. So go for more of the covert thing (against Pakistan)..." Ajit Doval, India's National Security Advisor

5. India's intelligence agency RAW has a long history of sponsoring terror in Pakistan. Ex Indian spy R.K. Yadav has documented some of RAW's past successes in Pakistan stretching back to 1960s.


Hema: "H Clinton: It is time Pakistan wake up to the reality that the snakes it raised expecting only to bite its neighbors are now biting Pakistan itself!"


Hillary Clinton has also acknowledged that the US helped breed and feed these snakes when she she said ""Let’s remember here… the people we are fighting today we funded them twenty years ago… let’s go recruit these mujahideen. .....And great, let them come from Saudi Arabia and other countries, importing their Wahabi brand of Islam so that we can go beat the Soviet Union.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XY-BWScpdZw&t=29s


And Modi's NSA Ajit Doval is the Indian snake charmer using these snakes against Pakistan now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYRuk8H5M9E&t=26s

Bhatia said...

The wicked Paki Punjabi Army, which has hanged its own popular Prime Minister Zulfiqar Bhutto on fabricated charges, can't be expected to do any justice for Iranian Resident Indian citizen Kulbhushan Jadhav. Since Kulbhushan Jadhav was staying in Iran with its official Resident Permit & was abducted from Iran, Iran has equal responsibility for his welfare.

Riaz Haq said...

Bhatia: "Since Kulbhushan Jadhav was staying in Iran with its official Resident Permit & was abducted from Iran, Iran has equal responsibility for his welfare."


Why was an "innocent Resident Indian" using a fake Muslim name (Husain Mubarak Patel) to hide his true identity as Kulbhushan Jadhav?

Riaz Haq said...

Serving Indian Navy commander Kulbushan Yadav, operating with fake identity of Husain Mubarak Patel, says in the video that he had been directing various Indian intelligence operations in Karachi and Balochistan "at the behest of RAW", the Indian intelligence agency, and that he was still with the Indian Navy. It should be noted that India is on record as strongly opposing China-Pakistan Economic Corridor Project.

Yadav added that he had played a key role in inciting chaos and terror in Karachi. In interrogations done by the London Police, some top MQM leaders have confirmed receiving support from India's RAW for their criminal activities in Karachi.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0auEKYECyUM

Ravi Krishna said...

Did it occur to you that the claim that he was holding a fake passport is a Paki claim, which may very well be fabricated.

In case you are not aware, ICJ has rejected Paki claim of playing the confessional video. Does that tell something about the credibility of Pak in this case ?

Riaz Haq said...

RK: "Did it occur to you that the claim that he was holding a fake passport is a Paki claim, which may very well be fabricated."

Here's Indian media confirming his fake ID: Kulbhushan Jadhav owned three properties in Mumbai as Mubarak Patel. http://www.firstpost.com/india/kulbhushan-jadhav-owned-three-properties-in-mumbai-as-mubarak-patel-3377702.html Known by the name Mubarak Patel at least to his neighbours, Jadhav or Patel started coming there only in 2006. His neighbours say he used to come there once in a month and lived alone. They never saw him live with his family. This revelation from Jadhav or Patel's neighbour has added a new twist to the claims made by Pakistan. Incidentally, Pakistan Army had claimed that he (Jadhav or Patel) was in possession of multiple fake IDs and was operating under the alias of Hussein Mubarak Patel, with an Indian passport of the said name.

Anonymous said...

Riaz Haq,

You are missing the point. It is only terrorism when Indian or Brahmins are victims.

Fact that India introduced terrorism in S. Asia by creating, arming and training Muktibahini, ShantiBahini and LTTE is irrelevant.

For over 30 years Sikhs have of Delhi have been asking for justice but to no avail, but the Afzal Guru was framed, charged, tried and hanged in a fraction.

Please ignore that the Indian inconsistnecies, what is a little hypocracy among friends.

G. Ali

SyncT2 said...

@G. Ali

Congratulations on 2017 Fragility of States Index. Pakistan is still in top twenty but has shown some improvement although a bit shaky. FfP on Pakistan :

A country’s year-on-year improvement will tend to fall into one of two categories – either a “bounce back”, where a country is not so much improving but rather recovering from a shock that might have worsened its score in previous years (in other words, the country is not necessarily performing well, but simply less badly than last year); or, sustainable improvement, where the country’s improvement is another step forward on a long-term trend of decreasing fragility and increasing stability. In the case of Pakistan, it would appear that there have been some important improvements – for example on economic indicators and even security indicators – however, whether this signifies a trend is less clear, particularly as the Group Grievance indicator continues to rise, counter to the country’s overall performance.

Riaz Haq said...

Here's an interesting critique of the Fragile States Index:

Fragility, it would seem, is a fragile concept. That goes in spades when discussing “fragile states.” The just-released Failed States Index (FSI) has been newly christened the Fragile States Index. The annual rankings list by The Fund for Peace generates howls from academics and policymakers alike for its unclear metrics, its perceived Western biases (African states are generally lumped into “warning” and “alert” categories and none is ranked worse than Greece), and its inability to accurately predict crises in places like Ukraine. It also generates criticisms from foreign leaders, and from their opposition and civil society movements, that hold its rankings as a holy grail of sorts for governments’ performance.

The criticisms of this list come mainly in two forms, one practical and one theoretical: First, some analysts lambast the index because it prioritizes the whole concept of “failed states” as this grave threat to be addressed through renewed state-building, or rather that it divides the world up willy-nilly between strong and weak states, a distinction some say is nonexistent, since there are more capable states with poorly run provinces (Mexico) and less capable states with well-managed provinces (Pakistan). As Michael Mazaar notes in Foreign Affairs, “The obsession with weak states was always more of a mania than a sound strategic doctrine.”

A second criticism is that the list is poorly tabulated and dangerously conflates key concepts in what makes a state a state. This leads to obvious tautologies (like using “violence” as an indicator for an index ostensibly used to predict violence). These critics, including Bridget Coggins, who contrary to Mazaar thinks the concept of failed states can be rescued, take to task its use of, say, refugee flows as an indicator of state strength, since refugees unable to flee (like in North Korea) could be an indicator of either state weakness (people feel unsafe) or of state strength (the state is capable of coercing people not to leave).

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2014/07/14/is-ranking-failed-or-fragile-states-a-futile-business/?utm_term=.376c366399e8

Tambi Dude said...

So what happened today? ICJ not convinced by Pakis ????

jayesh said...

Silence is golden.
Pakistan lead lawyer £5000
Indian lead lawyer INR 1

Riaz Haq said...

TD: "So what happened today?"


It changes nothing as far as Pakistan is concerned.

ICJ's role is limited to the question of deciding on consular access under Vienna Conventions, not on the merits of Pakistan's case against Jadhav and India's sponsorship of terror in Pakistan.


Besides, Pakistan FO has already said that it does not recognize jurisdiction and has the option of ignoring any decisions of ICJ as many other nations have done over the years.


Read the following:

United Nations (UN) member countries have the option of submitting cases for final and binding determination to the International Court of Justice (ICJ); but nothing in the UN Charter or the Statutes of the ICJ guarantees any country full enforcement of any ICJ ruling.

http://amandala.com.bz/news/icj-stats-enforcement-of-icj-rulings/

Riaz Haq said...

https://www.dawn.com/news/1334111

At this stage, it was easier and more likely for the ICJ to favour the Indian request as the threshold for assuming jurisdiction was not very high. Please see below paragraph 15 of the decision:

“15. The Court may indicate provisional measures only if the provisions relied on by the Applicant appear, prima facie, to afford a basis on which its jurisdiction could be founded, but need not satisfy itself in a definitive manner that it has jurisdiction as regards the merits of the case (see, for example, Application of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism and of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Ukraine v. Russian Federation), Provisional Measures, Order of 19 April 2017, para. 17).”

At this stage, ICJ wasn’t even looking to confirm whether the rights sought to be protected by India exist (i.e. consular access to an Indian citizen convicted of activities subversive to the national security of Pakistan).


“42. At this stage of the proceedings, the Court is not called upon to determine definitively whether the rights which India wishes to see protected exist; it need only decide whether these rights are plausible (see above paragraph 35 and Application of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism and of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Ukraine v. Russian Federation), Provisional Measures, Order of 19 April 2017, para. 64)."

ICJ yet to decide on consular access for Jadhav

“43. The rights to consular notification and access between a State and its nationals, as well as the obligations of the detaining State to inform without delay the person concerned of his rights with regard to consular assistance and to allow their exercise, are recognized in Article 36, paragraph 1, of the Vienna Convention. Regarding Pakistan’s arguments that, first, Article 36 of the Vienna Convention does not apply to persons suspected of espionage or terrorism, and that, second, the rules applicable to the case at hand are provided in the 2008 Agreement, the Court considers that at this stage of the proceedings, where no legal analysis on these questions has been advanced by the Parties, these arguments do not provide a sufficient basis to exclude the plausibility of the rights claimed by India, for the same reasons provided above (see paragraphs 32-33).”

No decision on the death penalty

The dispute relates to whether consular access should have been granted by Pakistan and not whether the death penalty is lawful. Please see below paragraph 56 of the decision:

“56. The Court notes that the issues brought before it in this case do not concern the question whether a State is entitled to resort to the death penalty. As it has observed in the past, “the function of this Court is to resolve international legal disputes between States, inter alia when they arise out of the interpretation or application of international conventions, and not to act as a court of criminal appeal” (LaGrand (Germany v. United States of America), Provisional Measures, Order of 3 March 1999, I.C.J. Reports 1999 (I), p. 15, para. 25; Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United States of America), Provisional Measures, Order of 5 February 2003, I.C.J. Reports 2003, p. 89, para. 48).”

Pakistan can still argue on jurisdiction
-----
Pakistan will be given ample opportunity to present its arguments in the next round. Please see below paragraph 60 of the decision:

“60. The decision given in the present proceedings in no way prejudges the question of the jurisdiction of the Court to deal with the merits of the case or any questions relating to the admissibility of the Application or to the merits themselves. It leaves unaffected the right of the Governments of India and Pakistan to submit arguments in respect of those questions.”

Clara S said...

I'm following this case. Even if the "confessional video" is rendered admissible, India will use it against Pakistan. In jurisprudence, Duress is pressure exerted upon a person to coerce that person to perform an act they ordinarily would not perform. The notion of duress must be distinguished both from undue influence in the civil law. In criminal law, duress and necessity are different defenses.

Would Kulbushan have given such a statement willingly and publicly and why would he give a statement willingly? Why didn't his attorney advise him not to comment?

I think Pakistan has a very weak case.

Riaz Haq said...

Clara S: "I think Pakistan has a very weak case"

To the contrary, Pakistan has a very strong case on merits.

ICJ decision to ask Pakistan to delay execution is no more than a temporary reprieve for Jadhav.

ICJ has no jurisdiction other than what international conventions grant it....such as consular access.


Talking about merits which are beyond ICJ jurisdiction, India has no explanation as to what Jadhav was doing using a fake ID....a Marathi Hindu operating with a passport under a Gujarati Muslim name. Why did he need that cover of a businessman using Husain Mubarak Patel as his name?

Now that India has internationalized this case, Pakistan has a platform to tell the world what India is doing using proxies to carry out terrorist attacks in Pakistan.

http://www.riazhaq.com/2016/10/why-is-india-sponsoring-terrorism-in.html

1. A 2015 London police document revealed as follows:

“Large amounts of cash have been seized from premises associated with the MQM and a significant amount of assets have been identified in the United Kingdom. All of the cash and assets are believed to represent funds provided to MQM by the Indian government or other unlawful activity."

The London Police document said that "both Mr. (Tariq) Mir and Mr. (Mohammad) Anwar (close aides of MQM leader Altaf Hussain) stated that MQM was receiving funding from Indian government".

MQM leader Altaf Hussain has been using militants in Karachi, the economic hub of Pakistan, to launch attacks and destabilize the country.

2. Kulbhushan Yadav, a serving Indian Navy Commander, was arrested in Pakistan's Balochistan province in 2016. Yadav said his purpose was to remain in direct contact with Baloch insurgents and carry out "activities with their collaboration".

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi is now openly supporting Baloch insurgency in Pakistan. The Indian support for Baloch insurgents' terrorism in Pakistan is no longer a secret.

3. Ex US Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel has confirmed based on US intelligence reports that "India has always used Afghanistan as a second front against Pakistan. India has over the years been financing problems in Pakistan".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGvXPgXsKTE

4. Since 2013, India's current National Security Advisor Ajit Doval has been talking about "Pakistan's vulnerabilities" to terrorism and India's ability to take advantage of it. Here are excerpts of his speech at Sastra University:

"How do you tackle Pakistan?.....We start working on Pakistan's vulnerabilities-- economic, internal security, political, isolating them internationally, it can be anything..... it can be defeating Pakistan's policies in Afghanistan...... You stop the terrorists by denying them weapons, funds and manpower. Deny them funds by countering with one-and-a-half times more funding. If they have 1200 crores give them 1800 crores and they are on our side...who are the Taliban fighting for? It's because they haven't got jobs or someone has misled them. The Taliban are mercenaries. So go for more of the covert thing (against Pakistan)..." Ajit Doval, India's National Security Advisor

5. India's intelligence agency RAW has a long history of sponsoring terror in Pakistan. Ex Indian spy R.K. Yadav has documented some of RAW's past successes in Pakistan stretching back to 1960s.

Riaz Haq said...

Killing of #US Intelligence Agency #CIA's Dozen+ Informants in #China Has Crippled U.S. #Spying Operations.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/20/world/asia/china-cia-spies-espionage.html?_r=0

WASHINGTON — The Chinese government systematically dismantled C.I.A. spying operations in the country starting in 2010, killing or imprisoning more than a dozen sources over two years and crippling intelligence gathering there for years afterward.

Current and former American officials described the intelligence breach as one of the worst in decades. It set off a scramble in Washington’s intelligence and law enforcement agencies to contain the fallout, but investigators were bitterly divided over the cause. Some were convinced that a mole within the C.I.A. had betrayed the United States. Others believed that the Chinese had hacked the covert system the C.I.A. used to communicate with its foreign sources. Years later, that debate remains unresolved.

But there was no disagreement about the damage. From the final weeks of 2010 through the end of 2012, according to former American officials, the Chinese killed at least a dozen of the C.I.A.’s sources. According to three of the officials, one was shot in front of his colleagues in the courtyard of a government building — a message to others who might have been working for the C.I.A.

Still others were put in jail. All told, the Chinese killed or imprisoned 18 to 20 of the C.I.A.’s sources in China, according to two former senior American officials, effectively unraveling a network that had taken years to build.

Assessing the fallout from an exposed spy operation can be difficult, but the episode was considered particularly damaging. The number of American assets lost in China, officials said, rivaled those lost in the Soviet Union and Russia during the betrayals of both Aldrich Ames and Robert Hanssen, formerly of the C.I.A. and the F.B.I., who divulged intelligence operations to Moscow for years.

The previously unreported episode shows how successful the Chinese were in disrupting American spying efforts and stealing secrets years before a well-publicized breach in 2015 gave Beijing access to thousands of government personnel records, including intelligence contractors. The C.I.A. considers spying in China one of its top priorities, but the country’s extensive security apparatus makes it exceptionally hard for Western spy services to develop sources there.

At a time when the C.I.A. is trying to figure out how some of its most sensitive documents were leaked onto the internet two months ago by WikiLeaks, and the F.B.I. investigates possible ties between President Trump’s campaign and Russia, the unsettled nature of the China investigation demonstrates the difficulty of conducting counterespionage investigations into sophisticated spy services like those in Russia and China.

----------

The C.I.A. has tried to rebuild its network of spies in China, officials said, an expensive and time-consuming effort led at one time by the former chief of the East Asia Division. A former intelligence official said the former chief was particularly bitter because he had worked with the suspected mole and recruited some of the spies in China who were ultimately executed.

Riaz Haq said...

#India's #ICJ mistake means #Pakistan will go to world court on #Kashmir: Justice Markhandey http://DAWN.COM

https://www.dawn.com/news/1334320

Former Indian Supreme Court judge Markandey Katju has said that India's decision to approach the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the case of Indian spy Kulbushan Jadhav is in fact "a serious mistake" on New Delhi's part.

In a Facebook post, Katju, who is also the former chairman of the Press Council of India, was of the opinion that the move had in fact created an opening for Pakistan to approach the ICJ to look at "many other issues", including the Kashmir dispute.

Voicing his concern about India's decision to approach the ICJ, Katju said the reason why Pakistan did not seriously object to the question of jurisdiction was because it may in fact benefit Islamabad on other fronts.

"Now it is certain that Pakistan will approach the ICJ for deciding the Kashmir dispute...Pakistan must be very happy that we went to the ICJ over a single individual's fate, as now they can raise all kinds of issues, particularly Kashmir, in international fora, to which we had always objected till now. By going to the ICJ we may have opened up a Pandora's box," Katju said.