نقدی بر عملکرد و اهداف درازمدت بخش فارسی بی بی سی و صدای آمریکا

           

   

  

       

                   

عبدالستار دوشوکی دامنه ا ُفت روز افزون اعتماد مردم به رسانه ملی و گسترش امکانات ماهواره و اینترنتی باعث رویگردانی مردم از شبکه های تبلیغاتی جمهوری اسلامی و روی آوردن آنها به رسانه های فارسی زبان برونمرزی و بخصوص شبکه های خبرپراکنی بریتانیا و آمریکا از جمله بی بی سی و صدای آمریکا و رادیو فردا و شبکه من و تو شده است. گرفتاری تاریخی ـ سیاسی ایرانیان در این برهه نامیمون تاریخی و عدم اعتماد آنها به رسانه های درونمرزی، اقبال خوش یمنی را برای اعمال نفوذ سیاست های درازمدت و استراتژیک دول بریتانیا و آمریکا از طریق استعمال قدرت نرم (Soft Power) یا به اصطلاح دیپلماسی رسانه ای (Telediplomacy) فراهم آورده است. تعجب آور نیست زمانی که در بریتانیا و آمریکا ریاضت اقتصادی تجویز می شود و بودجه همه نهادها و دستگاه ها از جمله مدارس و بیمارستان ها کاهش پیدا می کنند و دهها برنامه رادیویی سرویس جهانی بی بی سی، و حتی صدای آمریکا، به زبانهای مختلف و با سابقه بیش از ٥٠ سال فعالیت، به دلیل کمبود بودجه و کاهش روزافزون مخاطب برای همیشه قطع می شوند؛ بخش فارسی بی بی سی نه تنها قطع و یا کاهش پیدا نمی کند، بلکه یک تلویزیون با بودجه سالانه بالای ٢٣ میلیون دلار به آن افزوده می شود. بودجه بخش فارسی صدای آمریکا نیز با حدود ٢٠٠ کارمند بهمراه ٦٠ کارمند رادیو فردا بسیار بالاتر از این می باشد. متاسفانه تا به امروز حامیان مالی واقعی و دست اندرکاران پشت پرده شبکه من و تو و اهداف دراز مدت آن که ظاهرا با شبکه انگلیسی آی تی وی (ITV) همکاری برنامه ای دارد، در هاله ای از ابهام برای بسیاری از هموطنان می باشد. در بخش "درباره ما" سایت من و تو هیچگونه اشاره ای به اینکه "ما" کی هستیم و از کجا آمده ایم نشده است. نتایج بررسی های اکادمیک و علمی به اصطلاح "اثر سی اِن اِن" (CNN Effect) بعنوان یک مقوله علمی شناخته شده در دنیای رسانه ای بخصوص در جنگ اخراج صدام از کویت، باعث شد دولت های بریتانیا و آمریکا به فکر تاسیس تلویزیون فارسی زبان برای تاثیرگذاری بر روی ایران و ایرانیان بیفتند.

تاریخچه
ادعا می شود آغاز رابطه ایران و بریتانیا به دورانی باز می گردد که نوادگان مغول تحت عنوان سلسه ایلخانیان بر ایران حکومت می کردند. یعنی زمانی که آمریکای امروزی وجود نداشت. وانگهی نقش اهرم های نفوذ و تاثیرگذاری و ابزار قدرت نرم (Soft Power) و قدرت سخت (Hard Power) در زرادخانه سیاست خارجی و دفاع بریتانیای کبیر در این رابطه پرفراز و نشیب تاریخی بر هیچکسی پوشیده نیست. البته این کشور هلند بود که برای اولین بار سرویس جهانی تبلیغات و خبرپراکنی جهت دار را از طریق موج کوتا بسوی مستعمره خود یعنی اندونزی در سال ١٩٢٧ میلادی آغاز کرد. سرویس جهانی بی بی سی بنام "سرویس امپراطوری" پنج سال بعد از آن آغاز شد. دیوید میلیبند وزیر خارجه پیشین بریتانیا در وب سایت خود به نقش بی بی سی در کنار ١٥٠ سفارتخانه بریتانیا اشاره می کند و مشخصا ً به تلویزیون فارسی و عربی زبان بی بی سی بعنوان اهرم نفوذ بریتانیا تاکید می کند. دیوید کامرون نخست وزیر و ویلیام هئیگ وزیرخارجه بریتانیا نیز مشخصا با اشاره به شورا یا مرکز فرهنگی بریتانیا (British Council) و سرویس جهانی بی بی سی، از آنها بعنوان قدرت نرم بریتانیا در تاثیرگزاری افکار عمومی و دیپلماسی جهان یاد می کنند. حتی وبلاگ بانک جهانی به نقل ار جان سیمپسون گزارشگر معتبر و قدیمی بی بی سی به نقش و رسالت دستگاه خبرپراکنی بریتانیا در شکل گیری افکار عمومی مردم جهان سوم اذعان دارد. نقش صدای آمریکا نیز در بسیاری از حوادث جهان از جمله قیام مردم مجارستان در سال ١٩٥٦ میلادی و یا میدان تیانامن در چین و بخصوص تاثیرگذاری بر روی آمریکای لاتین بر کسی پوشیده نیست.

تحقیقات مستند

بر اساس تحقیقات گسترده و مستند پرفسور آنابل سربرنی و دکتر معصومه طرفه (کارمند بخش فارسی بی بی سی و محقق در آن زمان)، بخش فارسی بی بی سی بعنوان آلت تبلیغاتی و آلت جهت دهنده دیپلماسی و فشار رسانه ای در حوادث تاریخی ایران نظیر تبلیغات بر علیه طرفدارن نازیسم هیتلری در ایران، خلع سلطنت رضا شاه، ملی شدن نفت، و انقلاب اسلامی سال ١٩٧٩ میلادی غیر قابل انکار است. رضا شاه که با حمایت بریتانیا به قدرت رسیده بود، در جنگ جهانی دوم اعلام بی طرفی کرد، که باعث تعجب و نارضایتی شدید متفقین و بخصوص انگلیس ها شد. انگلیسها به احتمال همسوئی رضا شاه با هیتلر مظنون شدند. بر طبق شواهد موجود، به همین دلیل بخش فارسی بی بی سی را بر علیه رضا شاه بوجود آوردند تا در برکناری وی نقش مهمی را ایفا کند. در آن زمانی بسیاری از ایرانیان متمول و تحصیلکرده مستمع رادیو برلین بودند.
بر اساس یادداشت رسمی وزارت خارجه بریتانیا مورخ ١٤ آگست ١٩٤٠ میلادی که استراتژی و سیاست بی بی سی فارسی در مورد ایران و دولت ایران را تعیین می کند، تاکیده شده است که این یادداشت و سیاست های مربوط نباید به کارکنان ایرانی یا فارسی زبان بخش بی بی سی نشان داده شوند، یا با آنها در میان گذارده شوند. حال تا چه مقیاس و گستردگی این سیاست عدم اعتماد به کارکنان فارسی زبان بی بی سی فارسی امروزه نیز همچنان پا برجا است، باید تا سی سال دیگر صبر کرد تا اسناد مربوطه طبق قوانین بریتانیا در معرض دید عمومی قرار بگیرند. خواندن نتیجه این تحقیقات مستند و علمی را به هموطنان و بخصوص به آنهایی که گمان می برند بی بی سی فارسی مستقل از وزارت خارجه بریتانیا عمل می کند، توصیه می کنم. اسناد دیکته کردن سیاست خارجی بریتانیا توسط وزارت خارجه بعنوان خبر مستقل به بی بی سی فارسی، با جزئیات تاریخی حتی ساعت دقیق دیکته ها در این سند افشا شده است (بعنوان مثال در صفحه ١٠ و ١١ سند). به نقش بی بی سی فارسی در هدایت و جهت دهی حوادث در ایران (به نقل از جان دان، رئیس وقت بخش فارسی بی بی سی) در نوشتار منتشر شده در سایت خود بی بی سی فارسی نیز تاکید شده است. نقش پررنگ بی بی سی فارسی در جهت دهی انقلاب سال ١٣٥٧ در سمیناری در دانشگاه لندن با حضور مسئولین بی بی سی از جمله صادق صبا (رئیس بخش فارسی بی بی سی)، مقام های سابق ایرانی، مقام های وزارت خارجه بریتانیا و دکتر معصومه طرفه و پروفسور آنابل سربرنی و دیگر محققین و پژوهشگران مورد بررسی قرار گرفت. مضافا ً بعنوان نمونه در گزارش ١٤٢ صفحه ای شورای جهانی (سیاست) حقوق بشر (The International Council on Human Rights Policy) آمده است که در اواخر سال ٢٠٠١ و در جریان حمله آمریکا و بریتانیا به افغانستان، مسئولین سرویس جهانی بی بی سی گزارش تایپ شده ای را از لندن برای خبرنگار خود در افغانستان می فرستند تا آن را بمثابه گزارش مستقیم تلویزیونی خود از افغانستان ارائه دهد (صفحه ٤٤).

انکار مسمتر بی بی سی و حقیقت غیر قابل انکار

البته، علیرغم شواهد و اسناد انکارناپذیر موجود، مسئولین سرویس جهانی بی بی سی و بخش فارسی آن ادعا می کنند که بی بی سی مستقل از وزارت خارجه عمل می کند، چون یک نهاد دولتی نیست بلکه مانند ٩٠٠ سازمان و دستگاه دیگر با فرمان یا امتیازنامه سلطنتی (Royal Charter) مستقل اداره می شود؛ و اینکه منتقدین بی بی سی از درک این مقوله حقیقی و حقوقی عاجز می باشند. اما باید گفت که برخلاف ادعای بی بی سی، اگر به لیست سازمانها و دستگاه های تحت فرمان مذکور رجوع کنیم، می بینیم که بی بی سی در کنار نهادهایی نظیر ارتش سلطنتی بریتانیا، نیروی هوایی سلطنتی بریتانیا، بانک مرکزی انگلیس و غیره قرار دارد. آلیسدیر پنکرتن در کتاب معروف خود بنام "فیلم، رادیو و تلویزیون" از بی بی سی بمثابه "امپریالیسم جدید" یاد می کند و دلایل خود را توضیح می دهد. ملاحظات مشابه و مستدل در کتاب دکتر سایمن پاتر بنام امپراطوری رسانه (Broadcasting Empire) که در مورد حدود نیم قرن فعالیت بی بی سی می باشد بطور جامع و کامل نیز آمده است. نقش تبلیغات (Propaganda) صدای آمریکا در آمریکای لاتین نیز در کتاب دیویا مکمیلین بنام "مطالعات بین المللی رسانه ای" مورد تجزیه و تحلیل قرار گرفته است. نقش سرویس جهانی بی بی سی حتی در تبیین و شکل گیری هویت و احساس ملی بخصوص در آفریقا توسط مدیر مرکز مطالعات خارجی و خبرنگار سابق بی بی سی بنام فلیپ فیسکه د گویا مورد تجزیه و تحلیل قرار گرفته است. در جوابیه اخیر دولت بریتانیا به گزارش جامع پارلمان آن کشور که در سپتامبر ٢٠١٢ به پارلمان ارائه شد، به اهمیت نقش سرویس جهانی بی بی سی در تاثیرگذاری و شکل گیری وقایع بهار عربی و خاور میانه تاکید شده است. البته در این نوشتار کوتاه به استمرار منافع استراتژیک بریتانیا و آمریکا در راستای حفظ یک نظام ( از نوع اصلاح شده) جمهوری اسلامی که کشورهای عربی ناچار شوند از بیم آن سالانه حدود ١٥٠ میلیارد دلار اسلحه از غرب بخرند و به جای مخالفت با اسرائیل و بازپس گرفتن سرزمین های اشغال شده عربی در فلسطین اشغالی، ایران را دشمن اصلی تلقی کنند و علیرغم حمایت مطلق آمریکا از اسرائیل، در خاک کشورهای عربی خاور میانه به حامی اصلی و ولینعمت اسرائیل پایگاه نظامی بدهند، اشاره ای نشده است.

بی بی سی، اصلاح طلبان و حکومت ایران

حمایت ضمنی و عملی بخش فارسی صدای آمریکا و بخصوص بی بی سی از اصلاح طلبان معتقد به جمهوری اسلامی بر هیچکسی پوشیده نیست. بر طبق آینه جهان نمای بی بی سی فقط دو گروه در سپهر سیاست ایران وجود دارند: اصولگرایان طرفدار آیت الله خامنه ای و یا طرفداران احمدی نژاد از یکسو، و طیف های مختلف اصلاح طلبی از سوی دیگر. از آنجایی که اصولگرایان تمایلی به ظاهر شدن برروی صفحه بی بی سی ندارند، جعبه جادویی دولت بریتانیا عملا ً در اختیار اصلاح طلبان قرار دارد تا با استفاده از اکسیژن تبلیغاتی فراهم شده توسط این دستگاه خود را تطهیر و به مردم ایران بعنوان یک آلترناتیو بل القوه عرضه کنند. از نظر بی بی سی، به استثنای تعداد اندکی برانداز در خارج، مردم ایران خواهان سرنگونی رژیم جمهوری اسلامی نیستند. در نتیجه انعکاس خبری و یا تحلیلی چنین خواسته ای در برنامه های متعدد بی بی سی، به زعم این دستگاه خبرپراکنی، به دور از شئون ژورنالیستی بی طرف و بمثابه دخالت مستقیم در امور داخلی ایران در راستای تغییر رژیم (Regime Change) خواهد بود، که نه بی بی سی با آن سنخیتی دارد و نه جزو ارکان سیاست خارجی دولت بریتانیا می باشد. اما حمایت آشکار بی بی سی از یک طیف بخصوص، در جنگ قدرت داخلی، از طریق بها دادن و پرداختن به اندیشه های آنها و اجازه حضور مستمر آنها در برنامه های مختلف تلویزیون فارسی بی بی سی و نادیده گرفتن افکار و تحلیل های طیف های دیگر از جمله برانداز و مخالفان کل حاکمیت و یا حتی طرفداران طیف حاکم و دیگران، خود دلیل مستدلی است مبنی بر دخالت جانبدارانه بی بی سی در تحولات کنونی و بخصوص در جنگ داخلی قدرت بین اصولگرایان و اصلاح طلبان حکومتی، علاوه بر نقض بی طرفی که بی بی سی در حرف مدعی آن است. یکی از شگردهای عجیب بی بی سی و تا حدی صدای آمریکا، دعوت از چهره های ناشناخته، مجهوال العقبه و بی تجربه طرفدار اصلاحات بعنوان تحلیلگر مسائل ایران و جهان است. تنها هنر تحلیلی و کاوشگری این به اصطلاح تحلیلگران، بازخوانی خبر ( و نه کالبد شکافی و تحلیل آن) می باشد. ظاهرا ً شبکه های مربوطه در درون و بیرون بی بی سی و صدای آمریکا این تحلیلگران نابغه اما گمنام و کاملا ً ناشناخته را بصورت مرموز و روزانه کشف می کنند تا با بازخوانی خبر بی بی سی بعنون تحلیل کارشناسانه به خورد مردم داده شود. برنامه هایی نظیر پرگار، صفحه دو و بعبارت دیگر و تفسیر خبر و افق و غیره تبدیل به پلاتفرم تبلیغاتی برای اصلاح طلبان حکومتی شده اند.

صدای آمریکا، اصلاح طلبان و حکومت ایران

بر خلاف بی بی سی که تقریبا ً در بست در اختیار اصلاح طلبان است، در مدیریت برنامه ریزی صدای آمریکا، نگرش های مختلف و بعضا ً متضادی وجود دارد که در برهه های خاصی از زمان منجر به تنش درونی و درگیری و اخراج و استعفاء می شود. وانگهی بر خلاف بریتانیا که فقط یک نهاد یعنی وزارت خارجه بریتانیا اهرم کنترل و نظارت بی بی سی را در اختیار دارد، در آمریکا نهاد ها و مراکز قدرت چندگانه در مدیریت و نظارت صدای آمریکا سهیم هستند، از جمله وزارت خانه های مختلف دولت آمریکا، کنگره آمریکا، نهادهای نیمه دولتی، لابی های پرنفوذ آمریکایی، اسرائیلی، ایرانی، و غیره. بهمین دلیل علاوه بر انعکاس وسیع اندیشه اصلاح طلبی و تبلیغ شارحان و مدافعان این طرز تفکر بعنوان یک بدیل تاثیرگزار و جدی، گاهی نیز صدای مخالفان نظام جمهوری اسلامی از تلویزیون صدای آمریکا و رادیو فردا به گوش می رسد. این نیز به دلیل سیاست دوگانه تهدید و تطمیع (Carrot & Stick) آمریکا در قبال ایران می باشد که بقول معروف همه گزینه های موجود بر روی میز را در جعبه جادویی خود عرضه می کنند. اگرچه جمهوری اسلامی از حمایت بی بی سی و صدای آمریکا از اصلاح طلبان و برنامه های هدفمند آنان کاملا ً آگاه است؛ و به همین دلیل در صدد اخلال بر روی برنامه های این شبکه از طریق پارازیت می باشد.

نتیجه گیری

هر دو بی بی سی و صدای آمریکا فعالیت های اپوزیسیون برونمرزی را تا آنجایی که رنگ و بوی اصلاح طلبی و بازگشت آنها به قدرت بدهد، منعکس می کنند. نمونه های فراوانی در این زمینه وجود دارد از جمله نشست استکهلم و کنفرانس پراگ که خبر و تحلیل آن توسط این دو رسانه بطور وسیعی منعکس شد. اما کوچکترین اشاره ای به نشست نیروهای چپ و یا گردهمایی دهها سازمان و فعال اپوزیسیون در ژانویه امسال در آلمان یا اشاره ای به نشست اخیر تعداد زیادی سازمان سیاسی و شخصیت برانداز که بین ٧ تا ٩ دسامبر امسال به دعوت حزب دمکرات کردستان در بروکسل جمع شده بودند، نشد. چرا؟ اینگونه چراها فراوان هستند، اما تحلیلگران مسائل سیاسی ایران حاضر نیستند خطر کرده و به آنها بپردازند، چون می دانند که اقبال (و شاید افتخار) حضور خود را در بی بی سی و صدای آمریکا در مخاطره خواهند افکند. در طی سالهای اخیر هر دو رسانه برای جذب و استخدام روزنامه نگاران اصلاح طلب از داخل کشور رقابتی "ناسالم" را دامن زدند. وانگهی اپوزیسیون برونمرزی نیز باید از خواب گران بیدار شود و با مقوله عملی و علمی "نقش رسانه ها در شکل دادن افکار عمومی و سیاست" آشنا شود. تاثیرگذاری بی بی سی، صدای آمریکا، رادیو فردا، و تلویزیون من و تو بر منافع دراز مدت جمهوری اسلامی هزار بار بیشتر از پرواز چند پهباد بی سرنشین می باشد. اپوزیسیون نیز باید بداند که اکنون از منظر ارتباطی و رسانه ای خلع سلاح شده است و هیچ گزینه ای برای انعکاس نظرات خود جز گدائی از بی بی سی و صدای آمریکا ندارد. در تحلیل نهایی و حضور عملی در منازل مردم داخل کشور، این بی بی سی و صدای آمریکا هستند که تصمیم می گیرند چه کس و یا کسانی بعنوان اپوزیسیون یا "رهبران اپوزیسیون" به ملت ایرانی معرفی خواهند شد، همانگونه که چلبی ها و کرزائی ها را معرفی و مستقر کردند. بر اساس مستندات و شواهد مستتر در این مقاله، همانگونه که بی بی سی رضا شاه را خلع سلطنت کرد، و سپس دولت دکتر مصدق را سرنگون کرد، و در انقلاب سال ٥٧ صدای انقلاب اسلامی ایران شد، اکنون نیز طرح های استراتژیک و هدفمندی در قلب برنامه های بی بی سی، صدای آمریکا، رادیو فردا و تلویزیون من و تو بصورت نهان و آشکار با اهداف درازمدت در پروسه بهینه سازی (ارائه بهترین آلترناتیو) هستند که ما ٣٠ سال بعد (یعنی زمانی که خیلی دیر شده است) به آن آگاه خواهیم شد.
عبدالستار دوشوکی
مرکز مطالعات بلوچستان ـ لندن
دی ١٣٩١
doshoki@gmail.com

Bhrc (Uk) Strongly Condemns Mashkey Operation And Calls For Immediate Un Intervention In Balochistan

BHRC (UK) calls for immediate UN intervention in Balochistan


BHRC (UK) strongly condemns the massacre of innocent women, children and elderly population of Mashkey area of central Balochistan by the Pakistani military. The brutal and inhumanly actions on the part of Pakistani army commandos started on 24 December with indiscriminate aerial bombardment on civilian settlements in addition of the butchering of 36 civilians by the notorious death squads accompanying the army commandos.

For the last five days the whole Mashkey valley has been blockaded by the forces and no one is being allowed to enter the valley denying a population of fifty five thousand people without provisions and immediate medical cover for injured and wounded.

Taking into consideration the track record of Pakistani military establishment, without any meaningful pressure from the international community, the naked aggression against the civilian population of Mashkey will continue resulting in more miseries, killings and destruction of properties. Therefore, BHRC strongly demands for immediate action by the United Nations to safeguard the lives, honor and livelihood of people in the Mashkey valley.

Baloch Human Rights Council strongly demands from the European Union to take notice of crimes against humanity being committed against the Baloch by the Pakistani state institutions.

BHRC believes that the United States and the UK governments have the moral obligation to prevent the systematic genocide of the Baloch masses by the Pakistani army which has been granted billions of dollars and pounds by them.

Issued by:

Samad Baloch

General Secretary

London, Dated 28 December 2012


http://balochistanhcr.blogspot.se/

What is the Baloch Freedom Charter? Malik Siraj Akbar

A recent report from London published in The News International says that the Balochistan Liberation Charter Coordinating Committee intends to publicize the Baloch Freedom Charter in 2013 in order to address the concerns of those who have been reluctant to approve the document. The Committee said in a press release, “from time to time, we have also heard accusations and assertions being circulated about the contents of the charter that are contrary to the core spirit of the charter itself…any undue delay [in publicizing the Charter] would not serve those interested in liberation struggle but only lead to further confusion.”

The same newspaper had also reported a few days earlier that most Baloch leaders in exile did not support Hyrbyair Marri’s ‘Freedom Charter’ “for consultations to unite the Baloch nationalists on a single platform.”

Mystery shrouds the Baloch Freedom Charter for a number of reasons. It seems to have caused confusion among nationalist leaders over its motivations and substance and raised doubts among the ordinary people about its significance. All Baloch leaders do not seem to be on the same page about the Freedom Charter nor do we see any signs of joint future consultations among all political leaders to finalize the Charter.

What actually is the Baloch Freedom Charter and who are the members of the Charter Coordinating Committee? Nobody knows. Lack of public knowledge about the origins and intentions of the Charter are the basic problem. No body knows who thought of the idea of giving the Baloch people a freedom charter and how the Coordinating Committee was formed. Charters and constitutions are normally tailored by an elected body that represents the wishes of the people. If the Baloch Freedom Charter intends to reflect the aspirations of the Baloch people then it is very important that all segments of the Baloch society should be represented in the first phase of the process (preparing the Charter) instead of the upcoming phase (bringing it to general public attention for feedback).
We are not sure if Mr. Marri’s Freedom Charter is the same as the one published and circulated by British gay rights activist and journalist Peter Tatchell on June 15, 2012. Mr. Tatchell’s Charter is a blend of demands from Pakistan, very similar to what one saw in Sardar Akhtar Mengal’s Six-Point demands to the Pakistani Supreme Court and wishful democratic principles such as equality, land reforms and secularism in the free state of Balochistan. Mr. Tatchell, had also invited public debate and feedback for his Charter. The fundamental problem with Mr. Tachell’s Charter is that it is an imported one that is imposed on the Baloch people from outside. The Balochs should sit down to craft their own charter and future plans instead of getting the work done by outsiders. After all, preparing a charter for a new free country is not the actual challenge for the Baloch. The real challenge begins if and when they acquire freedom. If they wish to run a free state, they also have to learn from now how to manage their own affairs instead of getting their very fundamental documents written by people who have not lived in Balochistan. While the support of non-Balochs is laudable, it is important for the Baloch leadership to prove that their movement is indigenous rather than foreign-sponsored-dictated. The future of the Baloch people should be decided by those who enjoy broad support among the local masses.

The Baloch Freedom Charter came under limelight after Baloch leader Hairbayar Marri visited Bramdagh Bugti, the chairman of the Baloch Republican Party, in Switzerland and presented him the Charter. Photos of similar meetings between Mr. Marri and the Khan of Kalat were also seen in the local Urdu media as well as on the social media. Later on, Mr. Marri seemed to fail in drawing ample support for the Charter among rest of the Baloch leaders.

A Freedom Charter is extremely essential for the Baloch leaders to explain to the world what they are struggling for and what they stand for. They also need to have such a document to tell the people of Baloch what this movement offers them for the future. Without a powerful and convincing document, a nationalist movement is unlikely to gain serious attention and support from the international community. So, it is a good sign that the Baloch leaders have decided to soon publicize the Charter.
The biggest challenge for the Charter, nonetheless, is to be consistent and persistent to the extent that it is taken seriously by the international community. In the recent past, we have seen a number of political gimmicks which provided temporary benefits to some individual leaders but did not contribute to the benefit of the Baloch movement. One such idiotic move was taken six years back on April 18, 2006, by announcing an obscure Baloch government in exile which “nominated His Highness Mir Suleman Dawood Khan as our King, chose the red, green, blue with sun as our flag, and reinstated Kalat as our capital.” In September 2006, the Khan of Kalat once again made headlines over deciding to move the International Court of Justice (I.C.J.) in the Hague against Pakistan for occupying Balochistan. Six years after that announcement, the Khan of Kalat has not made an inch of progress in his pledge to challenge Pakistan at the I.C.J. The latest political gimmick was seen from Sardar Akhtar Mengal, president of the Balochistan National Party, who mimicked the father of Bangladesh freedom struggle, Shiek Mujeeb-ur-Rehman, by presenting Six Point demands in front of the Pakistani Supreme Court.

We hope that the Freedom Charter is not Hairbayar Marri’s moment of personal-heroism. Before freedom, the Charter should unite the nation, respect every leader, accommodate diverse and divergent opinions so that a consensus document about the future of the Baloch people is developed.

This editorial was originally published in The Baloch Hal on December 21, 2012

 

http://gmcmissing.wordpress.com/2012/12/31/what-is-the-baloch-freedom-charter/

It is sad to see the victim to be victimised.

The Shiite Turk tribes (Azari) had ruled Persia since Persia was carved out in 1501 from Islamic Khalifa,  Safavid, Afshar, Qajar, these are Turki Tribes, respectively ruled over the Persia.  Persia was carved out from Ottoman Empire on the claim of Shiite religion. For the first time the English provided canon to Safavid king. The European created Persian in order to open new front line against Khalifa and Shiite became useful allied for European and European succeeded dividing ottoman from Mughal by created Shiite state and defeated Khalifa forces in Europe.

The Persian army was made up from Azari tribes; the Azari has created the Iran. Before Reza shah became the king the Persian army language was unofficially was turkey, the Azar never served in Persian speaking regiment, the Azar had felt shamed degraded if he had to serve in Tajik regiment.  States official languages is another debate for another time, I do not want to open that debate right now.

The Baluchistan became a part of Persia by force in 1927. www.Baluchmedia.org  book/ doc, Persia was invaded by Islam Army more 1400 years ago and Persia became part of Dar-Khlaffa. The Persian civilization and the Persian religion, language had finished.  Since the recreation of Persia in 1555 till 1927 Baluchistan was an independent state.  

The Baluchistan khanate always had diplomatic relations with Ottoman and Mughal empires. The Baluch in Iran are victim of forced annexation to Iran. The Persian has done with the Baluch like every invading army done to invaded nation.  Deprived the Baluch from their traditional industry, self-steam, self-confidence, degraded their history, deprived them from their language, heritage and culture and change their name and even they are not free to choose a name for their children. The Baluch survived for thousands years without Persian and can survive without Iran. The Baluch never been some one else borders protectors, the Baluch has always protected their own borders.

The Iranian cannot tolerate the Baluch cities and personal names in Baluchi. For Iran to provide adequate education for the Baluch is everyone guesses. What Iranian want for the Baluch is a book keeper a guard, servant! The Persian will never put a Baluch on a decision-making post.  It is sad to see the victim to be victimised. The state of Iran is responsible for every short coming in Baluchistan from A to Z.

 

Mehrab. Sarjov

 

http://sarjau.blogspot.se/2012/12/it-is-sad-to-see-victim-to-be-victimised.html

Occupied Balochistan:

 Body of previously missing Baloch students was found in Gedar area near Kalat town on Balochistan on Saturday.

According Balochistan media reports passerbys spotted a body in Gedar area of Kalat and informed authorise. The local administration took the body in control and shifted to hospital where it was identified as that of Hasan Langov Baloch.

Mr Langov was reportedly abducted in February 2009 from Mongchar area of Balochistan along Mehrullah Baloch who is still missing. Two other Baloch activists, Abdul Rauf and Yahya Baloch were shot dead during the same period.

Baloch political parties have term the killing of Hasan Langov the continuation of ongiong abductions and discovery of mutilated bodies of abducted Baloch activists.

According to Voice for Baloch Missing Persons, an organisation striving for the recovery of abducted Baloch activists, over 14000 Baloch have been abducted by Pakistan authorities. Among them over 600 have been killed in custody and their mutilated bodies were found in desolated areas across Balochistan.


Courtesy: Baloch Warna

A Letter by M Akhtar Mengal head-of the Balochistan National Party-BNP-to Sen John Kerry asking-for immediate suspension of-all American aid to Pakistan

BALOCHISTAN NATIONAL PARTY


The Honorable John F. Kerry218 Russell, Senate Office BuildingUnited States SenateWashington, DC 20510

Honorable Senator Kerry,Season’s Greetings and a Happy New Year.At the outset of this letter please allow me to congratulate you on your nomination as the next U.S. Secretaryof State. We are confident that your vast knowledge and experience in Asia, both in peace and conflicts will prove to be a gain for the people around the globe.I am writing to you concerning heightened Balochistan conflict in Pakistan, in your new capacity as secretaryof state and as the co-author of the “Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act of 2009.”As you are very well aware about volatile situation and conflicts in Pakistan and particularly aboutstrategically significant region of Balochistan where the Pakistani Security Forces on Christmas Day havelaunched a scorched earth policy, attacking the town of Mashkay and destroying the nearby tiny hamlet of Mehi in district Awaran.Concerning the decade long human rights violations by the pro-Taliban Frontier Corps, ISI and MI againstunarmed Baloch civilians and human rights defenders, I would like to draw your attention to article 15, section302 of the “Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act of 2009” which is being violated and disrespected.As documented by reputable human rights organizations such as Human Rights Commission of Pakistan,Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, it is very clear that Pakistan's civilian government has lost“effective control and oversight” over a military that is committing widespread atrocities and war crimes insideBalochistan.On behalf of the Baloch people, I request your attention to take notice of these endless atrocities andrecommend strong action including;

 

a)

Freeze all U.S. Aid to the government of Pakistan and the Pakistan Armed Forces,

b)

Put pressure to halt all overt and covert operations against moderate Baloch,

c)

Investigate human rights violation and systematic killings of moderate political leaders, and

d)

Take notice of massive Taliban presence in Balochistan.

 

 

 

 

I look forward to your engagement in resolving the prolonged Baloch-Islamabad conflict

 

 

Yours Sincerely,Mohammad Akhtar Mengal

 

 

President,Balochistan National Party

 

 

Email:akhtarmengal@hotmail.com 

 

پخش زنده برنامه های تلويزيونی --- Live Broadcasting - BBC Persian/Dari

 http://www.bbc.co.uk/persian/tv/2011/04/000001_ptv_live_streaming_map.shtml

This Blog will not be updated for a while, Det här blogget kommer inte att uppdateras på ett tag, اين وبلاگ تا زمان جلسه مجمع عمومی که اوايل آگوست برگذارمی شود و انتخاب هيئت مديره جديد به روز نخواهد شد.

The Board of Baloch Community in Sweden has resigned. This Blog will not be updated for a while until the new board will be selected in early August. Meanwhile, we refer to other Balochi news portals such as:

Baloch Human Rights Council UK

http://balochistanhcr.blogspot.se/

http://www.zrombesh.org/ 

http://www.balochwarna.com/

http://www.balochjohd.com/

http://www.ostomaan.org/

Or just google the words "Balochistan, Occupeid Balochistan, west or east Balochistan" to get hit on a lot of Balochi sites.

　

******************************************************************************************************************

Styrelsen för "Baloch Community - Sweden" har avgått. Det här blogget kommer inte att uppdateras på ett tag tills den nya styrelsen väljs ut i början av augusti månad. Under tiden hänvisar vi till andra Balochi nyhetsportaler såsom:

Baloch Human Rights Council UK

http://balochistanhcr.blogspot.se/

http://www.zrombesh.org/

http://www.balochwarna.com/

http://www.balochjohd.com/

http://www.ostomaan.org/

Eller googla ordet balochistan så får du träff på en hel del balochi siter.

　

*****************************************************************************************************************

بازديد کننده محترم٬ هيئت مديره انجمن بلوچ کميونيتی استعفاء داده اند به همين دليل اين وبلاگ تا زمان جلسه مجمع عمومی که اوايل آگوست برگذارمی شود و انتخاب هيئت مديره جديد به روز نخواهد شد. تا اطلاع بعدی به شما پيشنهاد می دهيم که برای دريافت اخبار بلوچستان به آدرسهای زير مراجعه نمائيد.

Baloch Human Rights Council UK

http://balochistanhcr.blogspot.se/

http://www.zrombesh.org/

http://www.balochwarna.com/

http://www.balochjohd.com/

http://www.ostomaan.org/

Aerial bombardment in several areas of Kohistan Marri, dozens of people killed and injured: Baloch National Voice

Occupied Balochistan: A spokesperson of the Baloch National Voice (BNV) has said that Pakistani Gunship Helicopters and fighter jets have started bombing civilian population, under the directions of IG FC, in Kohistan Marri region, here on Sunday.

According to a statement of the Baloch National Voice, the Pakistani fighter jets and gunship helicopters carried out bombardments in Bhambor, Trataani, Taddari and surrounding area of Kohistan Marri region, in Balochistan. The BNV said that the fresh bombardment and operation started after the IG FC (Inspector General of Frontier Corps) had asked the federal government of allow the use of air-strikes in Balochistan. “The IG FC’s request has been entertained and being implemented”, said the BNV statement.

The statement of the BNV further read that due the whole-day bombardment over a dozen people including women and children have been killed and injured – also several livestock have been killed due indiscriminate shelling from Pakistani security forces’ check posts and aerial bombing. “The enemy forces want to eliminate the Baloch nation that is why they’re using latest lethal weapons including cluster bombs, napalm and other chemical weapons to contaminate the air with poisonous gas making it extremely difficult for the local population to breath in fresh air”, said BNV in their statement.

The Pakistani security forces have laid anti-personnel mines on all the roads that link Kohistan Marri to other cities of Balochistan, hence people are unable to take the wounded to doctors – they are left stranded in appalling conditions, read the BNV statement adding that the local people says crops are ready for harvest but the Pakistani security forces issued warnings that people will be shot dead if they do the harvesting. According to the BNV such preventive actions taken by Pakistani security forces do not only cause loss millions of rupees but it is also aimed to economically bankrupt the Baloch people. The BNV has requested the International media and analysts to visit Balochistan, especially the affected areas, including Kohistan Marri to witness and observe the Pakistani atrocities.

“As a Baloch representative Organisation we had invited the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to Balochistan so that she could observe the ground realities herself. Although expressing concern over Balochistan issue appreciable but International Organisation instead of fulfilling their responsibilities are impractical with regards to Balochistan issue, which encourages the enemies of the Baloch people to continue its genocide strategies in Balochistan without any fear and hesitation”, read the BNV statement.

The BNV appealed the UN and all other democratic and civilised nations of the world to take notice of Balochistan issue and support the Baloch National Freedom movement which in accordance with International principles. The international community should immediately take action against the Baloch enemy state [Pakistan], which is responsible for endangering world peace.

Courtesy: DailyTawar

http://www.balochwarna.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=3569

The author has a PhD from the University of London. He has also worked as a visiting Professor in History at the University of Balochistan, Quetta (2008 – 2011). Having an association with the Baloch national movements of 1970s and 80’s, and years of working and studying at several universities in different parts of the world (United Kingdom, Sweden, Germany, Afghanistan, Iran and Pakistan), both his life trajectory and his work in the field of research give him a unique perspective on ethnicity and the ethnic nationalism. His most known publication is the “Baloch Nationalism Its Origin and Development”, published by Royal Book Company, Karachi, in 2004. This book is undoubtedly a valuable work which provides the reader with a nice collection of references and a selected bibliography about the Baloch and Balochistan. Currently, he is teaching “Balochistan studies” at “the Institute of Languages in Business” in Munich, Germany. He can be reached at: info@balochistanstudies.com

Professor Dr. Taj Mohammad Breseeg

Baloch and the right of self-determination

Abstract

The principle of self-determination forms the most pragmatic basis of reconciling group identity within the community of nations and facilitates governance models that promote stability and regional security. Since the British occupation (1839) and the forced merger (Iran-1928, and Pakistan-1948) of the Baloch land, the question of the right to self-determination is raised. In the last two decade, many peoples and states obtained their independence, sometimes in a diplomatic way, sometimes after armed struggle. The republics of the former Yugoslavia, the Baltic states of former Soviet Union, East Timor, Kosovo and the South Sudan a few to be named. So what about the Baloch? With a population around 15 million people, the Baloch people nowadays are the largest ethnical group in the south-west Asia, without an appropriate future. Are the Baloch entitled to have an own state? In this article not only juridical but inevitably political aspects of the Baloch question as well, will be dealt with.

Right of self-determination

Following a Congressional hearing, earlier this year, on the human rights situation in Balochistan, debate on the question of right to self-determination for the Baloch, came to the international spotlight again. On February 17, 2012, a resolution introduced by a Republican Congressman from California, Dana Rohrabacher and co-sponsored by House Representatives Louie Gohmert and Steve King, asserting that the people of Balochistan that are “currently divided between Pakistan, Iran, and Afghanistan, have the right to self-determination and to their own sovereign country[1],” adding that they should be afforded the opportunity to choose their own status among the community of nations.

What is the right of self-determination? During the early 20^th century, the Baloch began to consider the concept of right to self-determination, a notion introduced by the British amid the division of the Baloch country among themselves and their neighbouring countries (Iran and Afghanistan). Since then the Baloch nationalist movements have been trying to establish their legitimacy by appeals to nationalism and the right of self-determination throughout Balochistan. Their demand for the right to self determination relates to the collective right of the people.

After the end of the Cold War, there was a strong revival of interest in national self-determination among political theorists and international legal theorists. Today, with many ‘nations without states’ asserting their right to self-determination, what can political theory tell us about identifying nations and specifying principles (and practices) of national self-determination?

The idea of a right to ‘collective self-determination’ is a difficult one – how can a group, as opposed to an individual, have a ‘right’? To argue that a nation has a right to self-determination is, some might argue, to overlook what rights are, and who can claim them. The right to self-determination is a collective right, exercisable only by groups, and allows those groups to choose their sovereign political status freely. It is enshrined in Article 1 of the UN Charter and restated as a founding principle of numerous other conventions. There are two facets to the right of self-determination: first, the external aspect, which relates to the nature of a group’s status in international law, and second, the internal aspect, which relates to the right of a group to choose a system of governance within the territory that it purports to define. Groups that seek to assert a right to self-determination must establish a distinguishable culture, a history of independence or self-rule in an identifiable territory, and a will and capability to self-govern.[2]

Self-determination initially has its roots in the decolonization process when the people of colonial territories called for the creation of a new political order which would express their political will and enable them to achieve their economic, social and cultural development goals. It has been a legitimate demand to liberate a country from the yoke of the colonial rulers. In fact, it “served well those who sought to dissolve empires”.[3]

Historically, in the early 20^th century, W. Wilson and V.I. Lenin came out forcefully in support of the right of national self-determination for linguistic and colonised peoples.[4] The First World War resulted in the dismemberment of the Austro-Hungarian, Czarist, German and Ottoman empires. By the year 1922, many independent states came into being in central Eastern Europe. In place of the Congress of Berlin came the League of Nations, from which non-Europeans were not excluded. After the Second World War, the process of decolonisation began in earnest. Between 1945 and 1960, much of Asia and Africa secured their freedom by various peaceful and violent means. Since then, the number of independent states grew by nearly 50 percent, from approximately 120 to 190 in the mid-1990s.[5]

The UN defines the 'people entitled to 'self-determination' as those living under colonial rule.[6] People in sovereign states which were democratically ruled, were not entitled to further 'self determination'. This decision was taken in two General Assembly rulings. These are: "UN General Assembly Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples (1960) and the UN General Assembly Declaration of Principles of International Law concerning Friendly relations among States" (1970).[7] These declarations affirmed the territorial unity of sovereign states. The 'self-determination' principle should not be interpreted in such a manner as to dismember the territory or political unity of sovereign states, which were conducting themselves in compliance with the principle of equal rights, and had a government which represented the whole people with no distinction as to race, creed or colour.[8]

The principle of self-determination has now often been propagated to acquire a sovereign independent nation state for an ethnic group in a multi-ethnic state. In this respect, however, unlike the case of former colonial lands, such claims need not necessarily include an external recognition of a new statehood, according to the “UN Declaration of Human Rights”.[9] Instead, the claim may focus on the internal aspects of self-determination, including the right to a particular form of self-governance such as autonomy or federalism. In practice, however, the possible outcome of an exercise of self-determination will often determine the attitude of governments towards the actual claim by a people or nation. While claims to cultural autonomy may be more readily recognized by states, claims to independence are more likely to be rejected by them. Nevertheless, the right to self-determination is recognized in international law as a right of process (not of outcome) belonging to peoples and not to states or governments.[10]

Resolution 1514 however contained an important restriction, article 6 states: "Every attempt directed to a whole or partial destruction of the national unity or territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the aims and principles of the UN Charter." According to this clause, colonies have the right of self-determination, however respecting the existing borders. This is also known as the principle of territorial integrity. The territorial borders, drawn by the former colonial occupants are respected by the new formed states, in the international practice.[11]

However, the meaning and application of the idea of the right to self-determination evolved, and it obtained a larger content during the course of the twentieth century. On the occasion of the 25th anniversary of the United Nationsin 1970, resolution 2625 was adopted. In this resolution an enumeration of the state of affairs in international law is given, the text of resolution 1514 is more or less repeated. Also the principle of territorial integrity is raised, however, there is added that protection of the territorial integrity is only valid for a state that "conducts itself in accordance with the principle of equal rights and self-determination and is ruled by a government that represents the whole population belonging to the country without distinction as to race, creed or colour." In other words, protection of the territorial integrity is no longer an automatism. When a state doesn't respect human rights (internal self-determination), then protection of territorial integrity can lapse and an external right of self-determination can 'arise'. "A right of secession exists when a people is subject to colonial, foreign, or any other form of domination." "There is no respect for territorial integrity of a state when the national- or territorial unity turns out to be a fiction, to justify in fact colonial- or foreign domination" according to the reporter of the UNO sub-commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities.[12] The prevailing doctrine also provides in a similar possibility to break through the principle of territorial protection.

It is worth mentioning that in international law there is no international constitution which dominates the states, starting point remains the sovereignty of the state. Moreover, there is no international police force who can exact compliance of resolutions or international agreements. In this way the UNO doesn't have legislative capacity like national legislators have. Compliance and creation of international law is mostly effected by the international state practice. When analyzing a possibly right of self-determination in international law, it is therefore important also to take a look at this international 'customary law'. Customary law in national law consists out of two elements, the opinio juris and the practice. In international law we can derive the opinio juris from the treaties and resolutions, which are in the end created and signed by the states themselves. For deriving the international practice we just have to see how states conduct themselves. In the field of decolonisation the international conduct of states was very obvious; self-determination via decolonisation of western colonies was effected. Hereby, self-determination had become a concrete right.[13]

Focusing solely on the existing positive international law, Balochistan is not a traditional colony nor occupied by a western colonial power, moreover, the territory, is spread over 3 countries. This means, that the right on an appropriate state for the Baloch by resolution 1514 is being blocked, merely because of the right of maintenance of territorial integrity of the countries Pakistan, Iran and Afghanistan. Although on the first sight the Baloch do not have the right of an independent Balochistan as a whole, there can be situations within the individual states which are very relevant for the right of self-determination. For example the republics of the former Yogoslavia and the Baltic states of former Soviet Union, were not traditional colonies, still they became independent.

In the Baloch case, as in many others, the claim of self-determination involves the assertion of autonomy or independence by ethnic groups within already-established sovereign states. With this in mind, how can one explain an “external recognition” to the Baloch and others, who are demanding an outright independence, while their case is viewed as “internal self-determination” in accordance to the existing international law? As argued by Bucheit, “the degree of oppression determines the available remedy, varying from protection of minorities up to the ultimate remedy of secession.[14]

In the international practice there are compelling examples in this respect. Under the international law, if a state fails to protect or respect the human rights of its citizens or the people under its rule, then that state is not allowed to disguise its atrocities by claiming sovereignty and referring such violation as an internal matter in order o continue repression and violation of human rights. For example: the imposition of “No Fly Zone” by the Security Council for Kurds in Kurdistan against brutal forces of Iraq, and also when Serbia used force to suppress Kosovars, the Security Council acted by adopting numerous resolutions, and finally authorised the NATO for aerial bombardment of Serbian forces to prevent human catastrophe are instances that involved direct international action.[15]

In comparison to the Baloch case, the independence of East Timor and the Baltic States of former Soviet Union, offer a good parallel. The East Timor was a Portages colony and as the colonial power decided to leave the area, according to the UN rules on former colonies, the administration would have been passed to the UN until a referendum. But instead of that East Timor was invaded and occupied by the Indonesian armed forces, just few days, after its independence in 1975. On July 17, 1976, the country officially became a province of the Republic of Indonesia. The people of East Timor fought against this occupation for 24 years. Finally, with the intervention of the International Community, on 30th August 1999, a referendum was held for East Timor self-determination. Defying threats and intimidation by Indonesia’s army and its East Timor puppet pro-Indonesia militias, the majority of East Timorese voted for freedom.[16]  On 20^th May 2002, this tiny territory achieved independence from its giant neighbor Indonesia.

When the Baltic States seceded from the former Soviet Union, the international community viewed their situation as qualitatively different from other Soviet Republics, because of their prior existence as independent states-a status which was undone by a coerced treaty of annexation. Based on this argument, the Baltic people were able to define their circumstances as a form of alien occupation, adding a legal force to their political claims to self-determination. Likewise, Balochistan had remained an independent state before the Pakistani invasion and occupation, and it was annexed to Pakistan under a forced treaty. 

The essence in both cases was that for the people, there no longer, was a possibility to escape within the existing states, the violence and discrimination. Juridical or political alternatives were not available or exhausted, and the only remedy left was secession by means of forming their own states. In both cases, the state violated human rights of a distinct group in a serious way and so eventually lost their right to territorial protection.

The Baloch people, like the people of East Timor and the Baltic states of former Soviet Union, view themselves as an occupied people and have done so since March 27, 1948, when the Pakistan armed forces invaded Balochistan. They never voted to join Pakistan. On the contrary, the Baloch parliament voted unanimously against the incorporation, into the new state of Pakistan. Therefore, the concept of alien occupation and alien subjugation are very relevant to the Baloch and the legalization of their claim, the right to self-determination.

As argued, the right to se

lf-determination is central to the concept of people (nation) and its affirmation of national cultural specificity. Its importance lies in the right of choice.[17] Whether self-determination means the restoration of independence or greater regional autonomy within a federal Pakistani or Iranian states, is a matter of choice for the Baloch people. As it is the international practice, the best way to resolve the Baloch issue would be for these states to authorize an internationally supervised and monitored referendum to allow the people of Balochistan to freely and democratically determine their own future, so that the outcome of a people's choice should not affect the existence of the right to make a choice.

 

---

[1] The Express Tribune, February 18^th, 2012

[2] A. D. Smith, National Identity, pp. 73-74; Inayatullah Baloch, The Problem of Greater Baluchistan, pp. 8-10.

[3] Amitai Etzioni, "The Evils of Self-Determination",  in: Foreign Policy, no. 89, Winter 1992-93, p. 21.

[4] V. I. Lenin, The National Liberation Movement in the East, Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1974, pp. 233-37; G. E. Fasnacht, Acton’s Political Philosophy. An Analysis, London, 1952, pp. 126-139.

[5] Greerups Förlag AB, Gleerups Skolatlas, Uppsala: Gleerups, 1993.

[6] Per Ahlin, och Pål Wrange, Folkens Självbestämmanderätt, (Right of Self-determination of People), i serien "Världspolitikens Dagfrågor", Stockholm: Utrikespolitiska Institutet, 1990, pp. 8-9.

[7] Ibid., p. 4.

[8] Ibid., pp. 7-8.

[9] Ibid., pp. 8-9.

[10] http://www.unpo.org/article/4957

[11] ICJ Reports (1975) pp. 38-40, paras. 79-83., see also p. 36, para. 70.

[12] Gross Espiel, H.: The right to self-determination, New York, 1980, p. 14

[13] ICJ Reports (1975), p. 36, para. 71.

[14] Bucheit, L.: Seccesion, the legitimacy of self-determination, Yale, 1978, p. 222.

[15] Daskalovski, Zidas. Claims to Kosovo: Nationalism and Self-Determination. In: Florian Bieber & Zidas Daskalovski (eds.), Understanding the War in Kosovo. L.: Frank Cass, 2003. ISBN 0-7146-5391-8, pp. 13-30.

[16] United Nations, The United Nations and East Timor: SelfDetermination through Popular Consultation (United Nations Department of Public Information, New York, 2000) pp. 6-10.

[17] http://www.unpo.org/article/4957

http://www.zrombesh.org/

Challenging the monopoly on force — Mir Mohammad Ali Talpur

COMMENT: Challenging the monopoly on force — Mir Mohammad Ali Talpur

The present conflict in Balochistan is essentially a war of attrition and cannot be otherwise because of the vast difference in the power balance between the opposing forces

Whenever Balochistan’s woes are trumpeted publicly by the state, Baloch people expect intensification of repression and atrocities because it relies solely on coercion for the ‘resolution’ of all problems. Civilian governments have always played second fiddle to the army’s agenda and the present surge of interest in Balochistan is unequivocally tilted in favour of strengthening a ‘security state’. On his visit to Quetta, Prime Minister Gilani’s boast of achievements for Balochistan were a lame NFC Award, a crippled Aghaaz-e-Huqooq programme and an ominous opening of the Ormara naval academy. Needless to say, naval academies and cadet colleges are not institutions of learning but are instruments for strengthening the security state and the glut of these in Balochistan is to ensure more militarisation to thwart Baloch demands for rights.

The Inspector General of the Frontier Corps Balochistan, speaking to media representatives claimed, “In the military operation of 2006-07, militant camps had been finished but following the 2008 elections a political government came, army was withdrawn and some cantonments were dismantled that helped militants to reorganize.” On the contrary, the truth is that camps could not be eliminated; moreover, this political government since its inception has helped the army to plan, prosecute and perpetrate the worst forms of atrocities in Balochistan. He believes that military operations are the solution for Balochistan and threatens, “Tit-for-tat action will be taken against those elements which are hell bent on dismembering Pakistan.”

Supposedly, they view their in force ‘abduct and dump’ policy as different from tit-for-tat. Then to justify their systematic abduct and kill policy, he expressed his frustration with the judicial system’s low conviction rate. The state mistakenly hopes what it believes are a few hundred foreign funded insurgents will be wiped out soon if enough systematic brutality is employed against the people.

The IG also said that the fararris, i.e. Baloch insurgents, are maintaining 121 camps in Balochistan and the break up was as follows. The Baloch Liberation Army was running 40 camps, the Baloch Republican Army 26, the Baloch Liberation Front 19, and another 30 camps were in Afghanistan. Elaborating on attacks by insurgents, he said that in 2012 alone, 575 subversive attacks took place in Balochistan. Of these, 258 strikes were claimed by Baloch insurgents and in all 254 people, including 57 FC troops, two army soldiers and 20 policemen were killed.

Without active and widespread support from the people, the guerillas cannot survive and the existence of such a large number of guerilla camps all across Balochistan would simply not be possible; verily, the guerillas are the fish and the people the sea. During the 1973 insurgency, people never let the army get wind of the guerilla camps, hideouts or movements. They generously shared provisions and continue to do now too; frustrated, the army vented its anger on the people then as it does now.

The army and the FC desire and demand a monopoly over the use of force in Balochistan and do not countenance opposition to their right to exclusive use of force as an instrument of their punishment policy. Initially, the Baloch spontaneously challenged this monopoly but now the potent element of systematic and organised opposition combined with political consciousness has entered the equation that has frightened the state out of its wits, and therefore, it has unleashed unrestrained terror against the Baloch.

With a monopoly on force, the state wants to occupy land and destroy, kidnap and eliminate all its perceived foes, unrestrained and with impunity. The state does not tolerate a challenge to its monopoly on the use of force, although it often shares it with its ‘strategic assets’ and favourite urban groups. It is now confronted by the Baloch who have realised that unless this monopoly is shattered, their lives and rights will always be endangered. The dawning of this realisation among the people in general is the reason that the fish can safely survive in the sea of the freedom-loving Baloch.

The security state’s basic philosophy is to retain its monopoly on force and cow people into submission so that the establishment’s agenda of exploitation can be implemented and the elite and its factotums may loot unimpeded. The Baloch challenge to this monopoly on force has jeopardised the establishment’s plan; therefore, the army and FC have gone all out against the Baloch to reassert their monopoly but they have not only been thwarted in their attempts but have also lost ground and have therefore resorted to brutal and inhuman tactics against the Baloch.

The present conflict in Balochistan is essentially a war of attrition and cannot be otherwise because of the vast difference in the power balance between the opposing forces. The Pakistan army is backed by the resources of a state bent upon getting more resources from Balochistan for furthering its ‘security state’ status and playing an important role in the region, which in reality is beyond its means and capacity. On the other side is the Baloch guerilla with a bare minimum of weapons and resources fighting for his people’s rights with the support of the people. The result of this conflict is apparently a foregone conclusion for some because of the enormous difference in today’s strength of the opponents, but a majority of the Baloch believe otherwise.

Afflicted by a paranoid mindset, arrogance and its erroneous assessment of its worth for the world, Pakistan, though apparently strong, is not as strong as it was a decade ago; it is now riven by internal conflicts and self-created external problems. The Baloch today are more united than ever and there is a more widespread support for the fighters not only across the entire spectrum of Baloch society and but also area wise, than ever before. They have learned their lessons from the bitter experience of past numerous military operations and adapted well to changed circumstances. There is a better use of international forums and media by the activists here and abroad. The international support for them is materialising faster than expected, though not via the supposed 20 foreign intelligence agencies the IG mentioned, but by countries worried about human rights abuses in Balochistan and the danger that Pakistan poses for world and regional peace by its support for its strategic assets. The tables are slowly but surely turning in favour of the Baloch.

The writer has an association with the Baloch rights movement going back to the early 1970s. He tweets at mmatalpur and can be contacted at mmatalpur@gmail.com