Mister President, last February, on the first anniversary of the Ukraine war, you wrote a long post on Twitter, in which you retraced the origins of the current Russia-West rivalry and, in doing so, you emphasized the role allegedly played by NATO policies in the outbreak of the current conflict. Can you explain better to the Italian public how, in your opinion, the current clash came about?

Well, during the Second World War the West partnered with Russia to fight Germany and together they won – they defeated it. But immediately after the defeat of Germany, the West decided that Russia was the new enemy and in order to contain it they set up NATO, whose purpose was to confront Russia. So, naturally, Russia reacted by setting up the Warsaw Pact. The West, even though Russia had been its partner, has always regarded Russia as an enemy and prepared itself to fight against it. When Russia disbanded the Warsaw Pact and allowed many of the former socialist republics to be free, the West’s reaction should have been the dismantling of NATO. Instead, NATO started to recruit Russia’s former republics, like Ukraine and others, asking them to join the alliance and to confront Russia. So, [over the years] the pressure against Russia has grown, with Russia feeling increasingly uncomfortable because it doesn’t want NATO to be close to its borders. But NATO kept on pushing towards Ukraine, a former USSR’ member. You know, if Ukraine ever joins NATO, that would mean that the Alliance would border with Russia. Since NATO is against Russia, naturally Russia cannot feel comfortable about that. They keep saying that Ukraine should join NATO but strangely they don’t accept it as a member. Why? Because if Ukraine becomes a member, and a war against Russia breaks out, then NATO would have to be at war with Russia. It would be a total war between East and West. In short, NATO doesn’t want to go to war with Russia. NATO only wants to weaken Russia through Ukraine, which is used to test Russia’s capacity to defend itself. Of course, Russia reacted by preempting before there was a total confrontation, deciding to move into Ukraine where most of the population was Russian. This means that Ukraine is at war with Russia, but also that NATO is safe – because Ukraine is not a NATO member, and NATO is not obliged to wage war on Russia. On the other hand, NATO feels like it has the right to supply Ukraine with weaponry and money so that Ukraine can fight against Russia, can weaken it, can test Russia’s strength. As a result, you can see the destruction caused by the war in Ukraine. Had Ukraine joined NATO, the war would have been between NATO and Russia. But here NATO is safe because it can actually indirectly fight against Russia through Ukraine. Ukraine is suffering but the West keeps on supplying it with money and weaponry so as to fight Russia, to strength-test it, and to weaken it. I think this is something inherent among Western Europeans: they’ve always been at war. They like to go to war, they’re prepared for war at any time, and NATO is meant to fight wars. So, this is an opportunity for them to also test their own capacity, but Ukraine becomes a victim. I think it is very unfair. I mean, if NATO is against Russia, then NATO should fight against Russia. But if NATO does so, there would be a world war. In any case, the West is trying to turn the conflict into a world war by helping Ukraine to seek for support from the rest of the world. They sent the president [Zelensky] and his wife all over the world to seek support so that the world is now divided in two: those supporting the West, those against the West. They are working to another Cold War-like confrontation. So, as to recap, it was the Western countries that began [the rivalry] by setting up NATO and regarding Russia as their enemy. Of course their systems are different, with one being democratic and the other being autocratic, but countries have the right to have whatever system they like. If you set up a huge military alliance to confront Russia, this can only create fear in Russia and encourage it to establish its own Warsaw Pact-like organisation.

Mister President, in the same thread you also claimed that this war could mark the beginning of the World War Three. I agree with your point – I do think there is a kind of world war going on –, but I’d like to know your opinion on this: couldn’t this world war have started somewhere between the 2008 Russo-Georgian War and the 2014 Color Revolution in Ukraine?

Well, when the Russians decided to dismantle the USSR, they weakened themselves, they could no longer confront the West. The reaction of the West to that should have been the dismantling of the NATO, as Russia was no longer posing a problem to the West. Instead of that, NATO got stronger by gathering all those countries that were once members of the Warsaw Pact. So, the aggressiveness of NATO is very obvious. When Russia objected to Ukraine joining NATO, the West said “ok, you can join us”, but it delayed its entry because it knew that if Ukraine ever joined the Alliance, if Russia attacks, NATO would have to fight back. This is the picture and, in my opinion, this is a provokation. Russia didn’t invade Ukraine initially, Russia allowed Ukraine to be free, but the Ukrainian government started to be influenced by the West, which wanted Ukraine to join NATO. For what purpose? Do you want to go to war against Russia? NATO is an anti-Russia military alliance and you are asking Ukraine to join it. This a provokation. This is why Russians had no choice. They took a preemptive action, otherwise they would have to wait until the outbreak of world war. The West now wants the whole world to be against Russia, that’s why they are now busy sending the president and his wife all over the world to gain support. They managed to split the world in two, pro-Russians and anti-Russians, and, I mean, this is the policy and the thinking of the West all the time. We need to accept that some peoples are different, some systems are different, but they have the right to be free. The West speaks a lot about freedom, but what freedom is if people aren’t allowed to be free, to choose their own system? For example, you didn’t like Saddam Hussein and you invaded his country to change his regime. If the West wants peoples to be free, should let them to choose their own systems.

In this context of ongoing repolarisation of the world system in opposing blocs, which resembles more and more the Cold War era, how does Malaysia position itself?

When I was prime minister we decided that we wanted to live friendly with all the countries of the world, irrespective of their ideology, because Malaysia is a trading nation and we need to trade with the whole world, we cannot and we don’t want to antagonize any country. This is why we don’t want to join the West nor the East. That was our policy then and I think it still is, except for the fact that we don’t want to join the anti-Russian sanctions.

Why?

You know, China stands with Russia and if we join the anti-Russia coalition, there would trade-related sanctions applied on us by the Eastern bloc. We would lose. China is our biggest trade partner and is unlikely to join the United States. Conversely, China is likely to remain with Russia. So, if we confront Russia, China and likeminded countries, we would lose huge amounts of trade. Considering that we depend on trade for our prosperity, I don’t think our government wants to take any sides by accepting to sanction Russia.

Dr Mahathir Mohamad during the interview.

Mister President, recently you intervened at the Future of Asia Forum, where you spoke about Ukraine War, great power competition and de-dollarisation. Let’s start with the first two points. You criticised the Western powers’ attempts to enlist the Global South and you called for the liberation of “Asia from Western domination”. Until today, the Western attempts to convince the Global South’s key countries to join the anti-Russian front have been unsuccessful. I would like to know why, in your opinion, the Global South hasn’t been siding with the West on the Ukraine War.

The West wants to split the world in two, them and the Eastern bloc, but that is a form of confrontation that doesn’t contribute to the stability of the world. If there’s world stability, there can be trade and possibilities of development for all. But the United States is more interested in confrontation, it wants puppet countries to be enemy of each other, it wants enmities to continue. I’ll give an example. Saudi Arabia and Iran have always been unfriendly to each other and not because of religion, but because of power competition. The United States wants the Saudis to keep opposing Iran, to be their enemy, and its regional policy raised the possibility for Iran to take military actions against Arab countries. This has always been the policy of the West. But recently something strange happened: the Chinese leader Xi Jinping went to Iran and to Saudi Arabia, convincing them to restore diplomatic relations. He has shown that the Chinese want peace between these two nations, while the West wants war between them as part of this global split the West aims for. Can you see the difference? On one hand you have the West running down Russia, China and other countries, and promoting opposition. On the other hand you have the Chinese who truly want to achieve peace between confronting countries. Why? Because, I think, the war is profitable for the West, as the Western countries are the ones that produce weapons, which are later sell at high prices. Look at Ukraine: it is armed by the West, with the American government buying weapons from American producers. It’s a very good business when there’s war, but if there is no war there is no business. And let’s think of rebel groups across Africa and the Middle East; they’ve very sophisticated weapons. Where do they get them? They cannot produce them by themselves. They’re getting them primarily from the West, with the United States being the biggest supplier and with Russia also playing a role.

At the same forum, you suggested to create an East Asian currency. Can you tell us more about this project? What is the idea behind it?

After the Second World War, at Bretton Woods, it was decided that the world’s trade currency had to be the US dollar. There was no reason for that, except for the belief it was very stable. But it isn’t: the US dollar has depreciated a lot since then. The fact is that there’s always a huge demand for US dollars, because if you want to trade you need them. The United States wants the dollar to remain the trade currency because this is good for them and for the dollar, whose value remains high. The problem is that the United States also uses dollars for political reasons: sanctions, asset freezings, etc. The US doesn’t even give money back to countries it doesn’t like. For example: the Afghan government has thirty billion dollars in the US, but the US is not giving them back. It’s unacceptable that you put money in a bank and when you go to withdraw it, the bank says no. I want this policy changed. As you see, the US uses the dollar for political purposes, to apply pressures on whatever country the Americans don’t like. They withdraw investments, they don’t give bonds, they sanction, they put every good in dollars and if you don’t have them you become poor. So, why should we continue to allow the dollar to pressure us? We should create and resort to some other currencies. I proposed an East Asian trade currency only for trade settlements, not for domestic use, which should be based on the value of gold. Currencies should have no political purposes, this is why I proposed it. But the US, of course, opposed this proposal very much. After the Secretary of state talked with the Japanese, they rejected [the proposal] and other countries followed for fear of US reactions.

Returning to the Ukraine War, does Malaysia plan to propose peace initiatives in Ukraine? Recently, Indonesia joined the group of aspiring negotiators.

Look at this war: do you expect Russia to accept defeat? It is a big power fighting against a relatively small power – it won’t accept defeat. Ukraine will not accept defeat either. Under these circumstances the war would continue, with people being killed, countries getting destroyed, and a lot of sufferings for everybody. I believe in a negotiated solution, a peaceful one, in which they can either negotiate, resort to arbitration or go to World Court – let them decide. When you negotiate you can win or lose something, and the same applies to war: you may win or could lose. But in peaceful arbitration nobody gets killed, no country is destroyed. If you go to war hoping that you can win, it will last a long time, with millions people killed, migrations, and whole countries devastated. This is what is happening to Ukraine. Look at what happened to the dam: people are now forced to leave because of the flooding. A lot of damage has been already done. War is not a solution. The only solution I believe in is through negotiation, arbitration or World Court, which is what we did when there were overlapping claims between Malaysia, Indonesia and Singapore. We all won. We went to the World Court and nobody got killed.

Henry Kissinger, one of the greatest strategists of the last century, declared himself pessimistic about the future of the world. He warned that a great war between China and the United States could break out in the next five-to-ten years. What do you think about his thoughts? How do you see the future of the world? How to avoid a new world war?

We set up the United Nations in order to avoid wars, but the moment it was given veto powers and all that, the organisation couldn’t work. The organisation needs to be changed, the veto power has to be removed. I’m not saying it has to happen overnight, maybe over a period of time. Then, there will be a more democratic world. Today, if a country is not democratic, you may invade it as it happened to Iraq. You see? But if they [Westerners] believe so much in democracy that they were willing to fight Iraq because it’s not a democracy, why is it that they don’t want to see the United Nations more democratic? More democratic means everybody has equal rights in any society. You don’t solve problem by allowing the members of the society to fight each other. If you have a problem, you can report it and you go to the Court. The Court decides. In today’s world affairs, there are courts, yes, but with no compulsion and with nobody to oversee. If there were, when there is conflict between nations, they should go to the World Court and they could not go to war. War should be made illegal. That is why we were once trying to remove war as a solution to conflict. Indeed, if there is no solution through war, you have to negotiate, you have to arbitrate, you have to go to a court of law. Then the world will be at peace. Today, what we are seeing, what is happening, is that each country tackles problems on its own. We have situations affecting the whole world, on which everyone agrees, as for example, the COVID Pandemic, yet the world is not united in fighting against pandemic. We have climate change affecting the whole world, whose countries will have to come together to deal with it. And we are also witnessing the collapse of the economic system, with the whole world being hit by it. We need a strong world organization, to which everyone belongs to, and we need to work out solutions around a table instead of going to war. Because war does not solve anything, it only causes people to get killed, countries to get destroyed. And, in the end, you are still confronting each other. You fought against Germany, you defeated it, but that did not end the war: the West set up NATO, the East set up the Warsaw Pact, and so on. That is the wrong approach. I believe that we need to have a very strong international organization, one that can deal with common problems like pandemics, climate change, and the deteriorating world economy. Of course, countries would continue to have their laws, but they would tackle common problems together. Today, countries are trying to solve problems by themselves or by forming groups to fight against other groups. Their approach is always confrontative, but confrontation does not solve anything. 

L'articolo A conversation with Mahathir Mohamad proviene da InsideOver.

Pakistan’s Prime Minister Imran Khan embarked on a two-day visit to Malaysia last week, his second since taking the highest office in August 2018. His visited included a broad agenda focused on expanding investment and boosting Malaysian-Pakistani bilateral ties. 

Khan met with his Malaysian counterpart, Mahathir Mohamad, someone Khan has shown great admiration towards and previously praised for his reform agenda as well. The two leaders discussed a range of issues including the regional and international political situation, collaboration in the fields of science and technology and much more.

Strengthening Malaysia-Pakistan Ties

Though separated by vast swathes of land and large expanses of water, the two countries have found common ground lately on multiple issues. Islamabad has found a close ally in Kuala Lumpur that is willing to back its stance internationally. That support manifested in the form of Malaysia condemning New Delhi’s siege of Kashmir in August, 2019 and denouncing India’s blockade since then. Mohammed criticized this move more than once, even risking his trade relations with one of the largest markets in the world in terms of India.

That eventually led to a fallout as India restricted its imports of palm oil from Malaysia, a major source of proceeds for the southeast Asian republic. In fact, New Delhi was Kuala Lumpur’s seventh largest export destination and sold just palm oil worth $1.5 billion in 2018-19. 

Khan Promises To Boost Trade With Malaysia To Make Up For Kuala Lumpur’s Falling Out With India

Khan, for his part, promised to increase palm imports from Malaysia as a way to compensate for the latter’s losses but Pakistan’s trade with the Southeast Asian country is a mere fraction in comparison to what it enjoyed formerly with India. Nonetheless, Mohammed seems to be undeterred as even in the latest meeting with his Pakistani counterpart, he endorsed his earlier stance on Kashmir. In fact, the text explicitly mentioned the situation in the Indian-held territory of the valley and called for resolving the dispute. 

The Saudi Factor

The growing ties between Malaysia and Pakistan don’t sit too well with another Pakistani ally, Saudi Arabia, which is indicative of the internal rift between rival Muslim blocs. In fact, it was at the behest of Riyadh that Islamabad was forced to back out of the Kuala Lumpur summit in December—which it masterminded and helped organize but could not attend at the last moment due to pressure from Saudi Arabia—dealing an extremely embarrassing blow to Khan’s government. 

Addressing a joint press conference with his Malaysian counterpart, Khan said: “Unfortunately, our friends, who are very close to Pakistan as well, felt that somehow the conference was going to divide the ummah [the global Muslim community]. It was clearly a misconception because that was not the purpose of the conference as evident from when the conference took place.”

“Malaysia and Pakistan will further increase collaborative efforts in international fora in upholding the true values of Islam and in addressing the common challenges facing the Ummah, including Islamophobia and the rights of Muslim minorities,” the joint statement issued at the end of the visit affirmed.

Malaysia, Pakistan And Turkey’s Future Ties: ‘Broad Areas Of Strategic Cooperation’

It continued that “Malaysia and Pakistan together with Turkey will proceed with the initiatives in broad areas of strategic cooperation under the Joint Committee Meeting (JCM) to complement the efforts by the community of the Muslim world.” However, just in the same breath, the text added “while being mindful of the centrality of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and in this regard,” thus trying to placate Saudi Arabia at the same time.

How much of that appeasement worked is yet to be seen, but from the looks of it, Khan seems to be growing impatient on the issue of Kashmir. In Malaysia, he criticized the Muslim community for the lack of unity. “The reason is that we have no voice and there is a total division amongst [us]. We can’t even come together as a whole on the OIC meeting on Kashmir,” Pakistan’s PM was quoted as saying.

These comments came just days after the OIC’s extraordinary meeting that saw the rejection of Trump’s peace plan but again, had no mention of Kashmir. However, some news reports since then have suggested that Riyadh is willing to advance this issue at the Council of Foreign Ministers summit in April.

Kuala Lumpur has also turned out to be a godsend for Islamabad in its dealings with the Financial Action Task Force. The Paris-based watchdog put Pakistan on the grey list for lax regulation on counter-terrorism financing and anti-money laundering over a year ago and has review due this month. And just in time, during Khan’s visit, Malaysia endorsed his guest’s efforts. 

Growing Cooperation On Malaysia-Pakistan Trade And Investment

Even beyond politics, there is growing cooperation between both countries. Malaysia has lately become a major destination for Pakistani expatriates who then send back remittances—a major source of foreign exchange for the embattled economy struggling on the external account front—with 2018-19 inflows amounting to around $1.6 billion. 

In the sphere of investment too, there has been notable progress. Last year Proton—the state-owned company and Malaysia’s second largest automaker—set up an assembly plant in Pakistan with cars expected to roll out in a few months. 

Khan was lucky on his latest visit in that Mohammed graciously let ghosts of the past be set aside. However, in order to truly expand Pakistan’s ties with Malaysia, Islamabad will have to ensure an independent foreign policy that cannot be swayed at the first sign of pressure from another ally. 

L'articolo Pakistan Does Damage Control In Malaysia proviene da InsideOver.

Once hailed as the most successful liberal democratic experiment in the developing world, India is now facing global rebuke after stripping away Kashmir’s special status.

The sudden move came on August 6 when India’s parliament abrogated Articles 370 and 35A taking away the region’s special status. Under these articles, Kashmiris were given partial autonomy and barred non-residents from buying property in the region.

Shortly before and immediately after changing Kashmir’s status, India despatched thousands of troops to the valley. Already, around half a million Indian Army soldiers are stationed in the region.

The revocation promptly followed division of geography – carving the region into, internet shutdown, arrests of political leaders and rounding up of teenage boys. The extra troops helped quell any resistance.

India argued the move was necessary to contain separatism movement and develop the region. But the deployment of extra troops told a different story. Despite total communication blackout, reports of late-night raids, curbs on movement, rape and torture were sporadically reported in the international media.

In October, US House Foreign Affairs Committee’s Human Rights in South Asia-Panel II, Ami Bera called upon the world’s largest democracy to “allow journalists back in [Jammu and Kashmir] to have accurate reporting to see what’s going in the ground.” In the same hearing, University of Westminster Professor Ms. Natasha Kaul lambasted India’s BJP leadership over its fascist outlook towards the region.

Highlighting deaths of protestors in the Jammu and Kashmir valley, Kaul called upon India to acknowledge the atrocities committed against thousands of non-violent protestors.

She said: “The question here is not so much about the Article 370. The fundamental question is here about the consent of the people.”

“If something is being carried out for [Kashmiri] peoples’ welfare or development, then why does it need tens and thousands of troops … why does it have to happen overnight without consulting the people [locals] while placing even the pro-India politicians in prison and then depriving the population the right to say anything.”

She said India’s actions in the valley are egregious human rights violations and against the consent of the people and fundamental principles of dissent in a democracy.

The issue was also raised behind a closed-door meeting of the United Nations Security Council in December 2019.

In a note to the Security Council members, China’s UN Mission said “in view of the seriousness of the situation and the risk of further escalation, China would like to request a briefing of the Council … on the situation of Jammu and Kashmir.”

Although the contents of the meeting were not released, Pakistan’s PM office said “the participants condemned India’s inhuman lockdown of eight million Kashmiris for over 165 days, the egregious human rights violations of Kashmiris by over 900,000 Indian occupation forces.”

India during the meeting claimed the Kashmir issue was an “internal matter” and will be resolved bilaterally between Islamabad and New Delhi.

US Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders also criticized India over its treatment of Kashmiris. “I am deeply concerned about this situation in Kashmir where the Indian government has revoked Kashmiri autonomy, cracked on dissent and instituted a communications blackout. The crackdown in the name of ‘security’ is also denying the Kashmiri people access to medical care,” Sanders said.

He added that “even many respected doctors in India have acknowledged that the Indian government-imposed restrictions on travel are threatening the life-saving care that patients need.”

In England, Jeremy Corbyn tweeted “The situation in Kashmir is deeply disturbing. Human rights abuses taking place are unacceptable. The rights of the Kashmiri people must be respected and UN resolutions implemented.”

The situation in Kashmir is deeply disturbing. Human rights abuses taking place are unacceptable. The rights of the Kashmiri people must be respected and UN resolutions implemented.

— Jeremy Corbyn (@jeremycorbyn) August 11, 2019

India has gone on offense against these leaders. They have called out these global leaders for what they see as interference in their domestic issues.

Malaysia has suffered the worse of India’s bullying tactics after Prime Minister Mahathir Mohammad criticized PM Modi’s Kashmir policy.

Speaking at the UN General Assembly, Mahathir said India has “invaded and occupied” Jammu and Kashmir despite UN resolutions.

“There may be reasons for this action but it is still wrong. The problem must be solved by peaceful means…Ignoring the UN would lead to other forms of disregard for the UN and the Rule of Law,” said Mahathir.

India responded with threats to cut off trade ties with Kuala Lumpur. It announced it will stop importing oil from Malaysia – the world’s second-largest palm oil exporter.

The blatant violations of human rights, and bullying global leaders for their criticism against its policies, India is slowly but surely losing its global goodwill. Under Modi, India has received harsh criticism for some of anti-Muslim policies be it the treatment of Muslims in Kashmir or the Citizen Amendment Act that seeks to disfranchise immigrant from the country.

L'articolo India’s Goodwill Erodes as Global Leaders Highlight Kashmir Issue proviene da InsideOver.

In his sixth visit since assuming office less than two years ago, Pakistan’s Prime Minister Imran Khan was in Riyadh last week to meet with the Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) to “discuss recent developments in the regional context.”

The meeting comes on the heels of the upcoming Kuala Lumpur Summit – an initiative led by the Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohammad. The summit seeks to rival the almost-defunct Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and aims to bring together the leaders of Indonesia, Iran, Qatar, Turkey, Pakistan and Malaysia and counter the anti-Islam narrative around the world.

Mahathir, while announcing the summit claimed to create a united Islamic forum to bring the plight of Muslims especially Kashmiris, Uighurs and the Rohingyas to the forefront and condemn the leaders responsible for these atrocities.

The summit, scheduled between Dec 18-21, plans to build a parallel leadership forum in the Islamic world minus the Saudi Arabia and the UAE to fill the leadership vacuum, has laid bare the simmering rift within the Islamic countries.

The attendees, especially Qatar, Iran and Turkey have publicly criticized Saudi Arabia for its indifference towards the plight of Muslims across the world. Their presence at the summit has irked the leadership of Saudi Arabia and the UAE, and Pakistan has caught itself in the crosshairs.

Reports claim that MBS has raised his displeasure over PM Khan’s acceptance to attend the summit. PM Khan, in a bid to persuade MBS, sent his Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi to Riyadh. But Qureshi failed to convince the Saudi prince. After which, Khan himself flew to Riyadh on Saturday to meet the Crown Prince where he discussed the situation.

But media reports surrounding the meeting suggest that the Saudi leadership communicated their displeasure to Khan’s over his decision to participate in the meeting.

Pakistan and Saudi Arabia may be allies but the two are not equal. Pakistan does not have the diplomatic bravado to challenge Saudi Arabia as it has borrowed more than $6 billion from the country and has currently availed deferred oil purchase facility as well. On the other hand, Saudi Arabia has also made investments into the country’s religious institutions and holds a certain degree of sway over Pakistan’s religious affairs.

But Pakistan under Imran Khan has become increasingly assertive in its foreign policy ambitions and has tried to maintain a degree of neutrality vis-a-vis Iran and Saudi Arabia. Khan recently visited both Tehran and Riyadh to establish a line of communication between the two arch-rivals who were on a brink of an all-out war.

But as Khan was meeting with Crown Prince MbS, Pakistan’s Army Chief was in Abu Dhabi to meet UAE’s Crown Prince Sheikh Zayed. The official announcement following the meeting did not mention the summit but sources privy to the information have claimed that the chief was there to convince the prince who has also shown his displeasure at the Kuala Lumpur initiative.

Although an official statement has not been released yet, certain Pakistani media outlets have claimed that Khan has also decided to abstain from participating in the moot.

The visit by both Khan and Bajwa amplified the degree of Saudi Arabia’s influence on Islamabad in its foreign policy ambitions, but more importantly, it showed Pakistan’s handicapped ability to pursue foreign relations given its reliance on the UAE and Saudi Arabia for financial needs.

L'articolo PM Khan’s Handicapped Foreign Policy Ambitions proviene da InsideOver.