YouTube disrupted in Pakistan as former PM Khan streams speech(netblocks.org)
netblocks.org
YouTube disrupted in Pakistan as former PM Khan streams speech
https://netblocks.org/reports/youtube-disrupted-in-pakistan-as-former-pm-khan-streams-speech-XADMq6Bg
240 comments
> I think the thing that makes me most sad about the internet is how susceptible it is to control and censorship.
To prevent their citizens from listening to one man giving a speech, Pakistan needed to organise blocking all access from ordinary customers to the entire Youtube platform.
That's the smallest thing which works. And your reaction is you are sad because of "how susceptible it is to control and censorship" ?
What if Khan instead wrote a letter to a newspaper? Government can just tear up the letter, and tell the newspaper not to publish it - no need to shut every newsagent and corner store in the whole country. Or if he wrote a book? Government just orders the book pulped, there's no need to shut libraries and close every bookstore.
The minimum effective action was to completely cut off their country from this invaluable resource, loads of Pakistanis who had no intention of viewing the speech are now aware because their favourite clip of a guy getting kicked in the nuts was blocked, or the pop video they liked, or a defence of their preferred way to make a common snack. "Hey, why doesn't Youtube work?" "Oh the government are censoring Khan".
To prevent their citizens from listening to one man giving a speech, Pakistan needed to organise blocking all access from ordinary customers to the entire Youtube platform.
That's the smallest thing which works. And your reaction is you are sad because of "how susceptible it is to control and censorship" ?
What if Khan instead wrote a letter to a newspaper? Government can just tear up the letter, and tell the newspaper not to publish it - no need to shut every newsagent and corner store in the whole country. Or if he wrote a book? Government just orders the book pulped, there's no need to shut libraries and close every bookstore.
The minimum effective action was to completely cut off their country from this invaluable resource, loads of Pakistanis who had no intention of viewing the speech are now aware because their favourite clip of a guy getting kicked in the nuts was blocked, or the pop video they liked, or a defence of their preferred way to make a common snack. "Hey, why doesn't Youtube work?" "Oh the government are censoring Khan".
Just because Pakistan is ham-handedly Streisanding Khan doesn't mean other countries (like China) don't have this down to a science.
Is your contention that China is somehow able to censor individual Youtube videos?
No, China simply doesn't allow the entire platform. Whether it is a video about how to fix your bicycle, about Hong Kong protests, or a song praising President Xi, you can't see it on Youtube from a Chinese residential connection, everything is blocked.
No, China simply doesn't allow the entire platform. Whether it is a video about how to fix your bicycle, about Hong Kong protests, or a song praising President Xi, you can't see it on Youtube from a Chinese residential connection, everything is blocked.
Yet they somehow manage to publish a huge amount of propaganda. They don't simply block the entire platform. They allow a few actors to access it.
If we put on the authoritarian hat, it should be easy for us to tell how easy it is to implement default blocking for all and whitelist a few source IP to everything. No?
I don't think blocking individual videos would be very difficult.
How do you propose they do that without breaking TLS?
Well they don't have to break TLS if they can man in the middle everything and force browsers to use a CA they control.
That’s hypothetically possible but there’s no evidence that China does that. Nor is there any reason to believe that starting to do so would be “not very difficult”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Firewall
I thought it was common knowledge that China has been doing exactly that for decades. I mean, I guess it's possible I've fallen for anti-China propaganda, but I really don't think so.
The only hypothetical part on my part is how easy it would be to block a specific video. I know that blocking a single URL, or keyword matching on the title are common features in off the shelf proxy servers. Add some coding from a competent screen scraper, and you should be able to identify every way a specific video is being sent. I wouldn't be surprised if this functionality was already built in to some products.
I thought it was common knowledge that China has been doing exactly that for decades. I mean, I guess it's possible I've fallen for anti-China propaganda, but I really don't think so.
The only hypothetical part on my part is how easy it would be to block a specific video. I know that blocking a single URL, or keyword matching on the title are common features in off the shelf proxy servers. Add some coding from a competent screen scraper, and you should be able to identify every way a specific video is being sent. I wouldn't be surprised if this functionality was already built in to some products.
"force browsers to use a CA they control" is an essential ingredient. The article you linked mentions they have performed some CA trickery but does not mention anything about them having done it "for decades" and does not indicate that it is a widespread phenomenon.
More explicitly: blocking individual YouTube videos requires control of the routers all traffic flows through AND control over the encryption of that traffic. If they cannot read the encrypted traffic then they do not know when a banned video is being watched. To date they have not exercised that level of control, they have not implemented a way of banning individual videos and it would be difficult for them to implement.
More explicitly: blocking individual YouTube videos requires control of the routers all traffic flows through AND control over the encryption of that traffic. If they cannot read the encrypted traffic then they do not know when a banned video is being watched. To date they have not exercised that level of control, they have not implemented a way of banning individual videos and it would be difficult for them to implement.
Using a CA they control is only essential if they don't want to be caught. However, I would assume most webrowsers in China are using CINIC certs. At that point it would be trivial. Just return a different DNS entry, and have your CA verify it. Sure, pinning might alert some people that something is going on, but what are they going to do about it? I could have done it 10 years ago with WCCP and a bluecoat.
But yes, I was wrong about them openly breaking SSL for decades. Doesn't mean it would be difficult.
But yes, I was wrong about them openly breaking SSL for decades. Doesn't mean it would be difficult.
> Great Firewall
From the page you linked:
“The Chinese firewall is made of transparent proxies filtering web traffic. These proxies scan the requested URI, the "Host" Header and the content of the web page (for HTTP requests) or the Server Name Indication (for HTTPS requests) for target keywords.”
This directly implies that they are NOT breaking TLS. Filtering by the SNI would not allow you to block one YouTube video; it’d only allow you to block entire domains.
> I know that blocking a single URL, or keyword matching on the title are common features in off the shelf proxy servers
Not if the site is delivered over TLS.
From the page you linked:
“The Chinese firewall is made of transparent proxies filtering web traffic. These proxies scan the requested URI, the "Host" Header and the content of the web page (for HTTP requests) or the Server Name Indication (for HTTPS requests) for target keywords.”
This directly implies that they are NOT breaking TLS. Filtering by the SNI would not allow you to block one YouTube video; it’d only allow you to block entire domains.
> I know that blocking a single URL, or keyword matching on the title are common features in off the shelf proxy servers
Not if the site is delivered over TLS.
I was thinking of part that says "Man-in-the-middle attacks with TLS"
The Chinese National Intelligence Law theoretically allows the Chinese government to request and use the root certificate from any Chinese certificate authority,[55] such as CNNIC, to make MITM attacks with valid certificates.
Multiple TLS incidents have occurred within the last decade, before the creation of the law.
On 26 January 2013, the GitHub SSL certificate was replaced with a self-signed certificate in China by the GFW.[56]
On 20 October 2014, the iCloud SSL certificate was replaced with a self-signed certificate in China.[57] It is believed that the Chinese government discovered a vulnerability on Apple devices and was exploiting it.[58]
On 20 March 2015, Google detected valid certificates for Google signed by CNNIC in Egypt. In response to this event, and after a deeper investigation, the CNNIC certificate was removed by some browsers.[59] Due to the removal being based on proof and not suspicion, no other Chinese certificate authority has been removed from web browsers, and some have been added since then.[60]
This type of attack can be circumvented by websites implementing Certificate Transparency and OCSP stapling or by using browser extensions.[61]
The Chinese National Intelligence Law theoretically allows the Chinese government to request and use the root certificate from any Chinese certificate authority,[55] such as CNNIC, to make MITM attacks with valid certificates.
Multiple TLS incidents have occurred within the last decade, before the creation of the law.
On 26 January 2013, the GitHub SSL certificate was replaced with a self-signed certificate in China by the GFW.[56]
On 20 October 2014, the iCloud SSL certificate was replaced with a self-signed certificate in China.[57] It is believed that the Chinese government discovered a vulnerability on Apple devices and was exploiting it.[58]
On 20 March 2015, Google detected valid certificates for Google signed by CNNIC in Egypt. In response to this event, and after a deeper investigation, the CNNIC certificate was removed by some browsers.[59] Due to the removal being based on proof and not suspicion, no other Chinese certificate authority has been removed from web browsers, and some have been added since then.[60]
This type of attack can be circumvented by websites implementing Certificate Transparency and OCSP stapling or by using browser extensions.[61]
What about the 781 vloggers reacting to that video?
They manage ok to censor that type of activity on their approved platforms, and block platforms that don’t comply.
Their dystopian control is rather successful so far.
Their dystopian control is rather successful so far.
Streisanding Khan is to me an extremely bad way of putting this.
Meanwhile if Youtube/Google decide to downrank something into oblivion, nobody will know, and proving it is near-impossible.
A foreign corporation has more control over speech in Pakistan than Pakistan itself.
A foreign corporation has more control over speech in Pakistan than Pakistan itself.
Google being able to censor things is indeed bad for freedom of expression in liberal democracies, but less bad than what authoritarian states do. I trust Google’s respect for freedom of speech more than I trust the Pakistani state’s.
Was this bothering people when PTA was blocking YouTube for years?
Should have simulcast that speech over webtorrent.
In the 90s, you had a few people on the internet, who knew all that stuff, but because the internet was "hard", they (we?) represented the majority of internet users.
Now, they/we are all still here, knowing all the ways of private communications, protocols, etc. + all the new, better ways to communicate privately and securely.
The only difference now is, that a few billions of "normal people" joined us online, and they don't know and don't care about all that, so the propaganda just moved from TV to facebook and youtube.
Now, they/we are all still here, knowing all the ways of private communications, protocols, etc. + all the new, better ways to communicate privately and securely.
The only difference now is, that a few billions of "normal people" joined us online, and they don't know and don't care about all that, so the propaganda just moved from TV to facebook and youtube.
I think the real difference is those same 90's Internet users actually have a lot of power right now, and it's become too hard to cede that. It's easy to argue that power should be distributed when you don't think you have much of a stake in it, a little harder when you command a huge chunk of the national economy and culture. I doubt it's because of the Internet's barrier to entry back then. Are you supposing the ability to set up a SLIP/PPP script is associated with some kind of sensitivity to power imbalances?
Yeah sadly all the old heads that tell me stories of putting think tanks together so that consumers owned their metadata, all the excitement of activism by those few super nerds end up telling it to me from their mansions bought by creating SaaS services or whatever.
I'd say the 90s hacktivists for the most part took the golden handcuffs and left the rest of humanity out to dry. We need like 1000 more Pavel Durovs,
I'd say the 90s hacktivists for the most part took the golden handcuffs and left the rest of humanity out to dry. We need like 1000 more Pavel Durovs,
I think you overestimate how much control we technologists actually have. Takes far more than a few seats on some standards boards.
Even in the early '90s, there was already suspicion of remailers. (Not only among cypherpunks-types; for example, I vaguely recall some relatively mainstream outlet, maybe Michael O'Brien in SunExpert magazine, saying to be skeptical of new anon services.)
>As technologists we haven’t used our positions on technical standards boards, etc., to force protocols that would preserve freedom
there's no such thing because it's in the very nature of protocols to enable legibility and automation which always benefits centralization. (see James Scott, Seeing like a State). The internet, book-printing, even 'crypto', whatever you pick that sounds superficially decentralizing is in actuality re-centralizing because it enables more powerful administration and as such higher forms of organization.
there's no such thing because it's in the very nature of protocols to enable legibility and automation which always benefits centralization. (see James Scott, Seeing like a State). The internet, book-printing, even 'crypto', whatever you pick that sounds superficially decentralizing is in actuality re-centralizing because it enables more powerful administration and as such higher forms of organization.
If anything due to monopolies like YouTube, it's EASIER to restrict access. we have to begin decentralizing compute power
There are smartphones in so many hands around the world and you want to decentralise compute power?
Need to USE that power already there.
Need to USE that power already there.
Those smartphones are forced to use non-open networks (GSM, LTE, 5G) which are riddled with proprietary encryption, back doors, and mandatory built in interfaces to facilitate monitoring by state actors.
How is youtube a monopoly?
I’m going to get pushback but the far right has really made it easy for the common person to look away. All that hate has made it easy to get the general public to not care when privacy is being taken away. They always ruin everything.
I love how this perfectly reasonable observation gets replies that deny it and simultaneously contradict one another. Somehow no one cares. Different replies are claiming that there is no problem, that the problem could be solved only if more users were technical, and that the problem cannot be solved by technologists at all. So, which one is it?
I wonder what if ESNI was invented at around 2010, perhaps before Xi regime.
> I think the thing that makes me most sad about the internet is how susceptible it is to control and censorship.
> So now I guess we’re just supplicants on the internet we created.
Internet was created by DARPA (the military).
It is now used as a weapon to spread disinformation.
> So now I guess we’re just supplicants on the internet we created.
Internet was created by DARPA (the military).
It is now used as a weapon to spread disinformation.
"...we’ve let the forces of government and big business slowly nullify every mitigation we’ve tried"
Who is "we?" The Pakistani government is unilaterally doing this. Surely you don't mean the Pakistani people?
Who is "we?" The Pakistani government is unilaterally doing this. Surely you don't mean the Pakistani people?
I think they definite it “we as technologists”. So technologists then and now. I don’t see you you would end up with your interpretation, whether you agree with GP or not.
This is not the first time that the powers that be in Pakistan are trying to pull this gimmick. The last time they tried (and failed) resulted in a massive BGP blackhole:
https://www.wired.com/2008/02/pakistans-accid/
(edited)
https://www.wired.com/2008/02/pakistans-accid/
(edited)
The damage control by the Pakistani army is pretty crazy right now. Pakistan is on the verge of devolving into mass riots as Imran Khan has a massive fanbase.
For those people who haven't studied Pakistan extensively, the army has always run things, the politicians are just the thin veneer of pretense at democracy as a public face.
The Army and the military forces in general are the people who really control the country.
Pakistan makes a public show of having a parliamentary democracy with elected MPs and such but it's all a farce.
Doesn't particularly matter whether Bhutto, Zardari, Nawaz Sharif, Imran Khan or anyone else.
The Army and the military forces in general are the people who really control the country.
Pakistan makes a public show of having a parliamentary democracy with elected MPs and such but it's all a farce.
Doesn't particularly matter whether Bhutto, Zardari, Nawaz Sharif, Imran Khan or anyone else.
To be fair, they do have "a parliamentary democracy with elected MPs". It's just that those elected MPs have some fairly strict limits on what they are allowed to govern (anything that does not involve the military, which in Pakistan is not a lot).
Of course it doesn't help that the elected MPs have almost exclusively belonged to the same class of robber barons, Imran Khan being one notable exception.
Pakistan actually has a pretty vibrant and critical media, in contrast to (other) military dictatorships. They have a lot of great political satire (that, again, stops short of criticizing the military).
Of course it doesn't help that the elected MPs have almost exclusively belonged to the same class of robber barons, Imran Khan being one notable exception.
Pakistan actually has a pretty vibrant and critical media, in contrast to (other) military dictatorships. They have a lot of great political satire (that, again, stops short of criticizing the military).
So it stops short of criticizing the actual power? That does seem like it can be better than other countries, but it can only be so much if the actual power is u touchable.
Well from time to time they make it pretty explicit too – like under Ayub Khan, Zia-ul-Haq, or Musharraf. About 30-odd of Pakistan's 75 years as an independent country have been explicitly under military dictatorships.
None of their civilian governments have lasted an entire term.
Pretty damning.
Pretty damning.
That isn't correct since 2008. Two have:
• 2008-13 PPP-led coalition government, which transferred power to the
• 2013-18 PML(N) government, which transferred power to the
• 2018-22 PTI (Khan's party) government, which was ousted in its penultimate year by a vote of no-confidence in the National Assembly.
• 2008-13 PPP-led coalition government, which transferred power to the
• 2013-18 PML(N) government, which transferred power to the
• 2018-22 PTI (Khan's party) government, which was ousted in its penultimate year by a vote of no-confidence in the National Assembly.
0. zardari inherits power after his wife's assassination
1. PPP-led coalition government ousted in scandal of zardari's corruption. "mister ten percent", etc
2. nawaz sharif government ousted in scandal of nawaz sharif corruption (maybe that choice of microsoft word fonts in the faked documents for luxury UK real estate was not the best idea ever).
3. people finally "elected" khan
4. khan loses power in parliamentary no confidence vote
none of those are exactly what an outsider would consider to be the normal and orderly transfer of power in an electoral system
1. PPP-led coalition government ousted in scandal of zardari's corruption. "mister ten percent", etc
2. nawaz sharif government ousted in scandal of nawaz sharif corruption (maybe that choice of microsoft word fonts in the faked documents for luxury UK real estate was not the best idea ever).
3. people finally "elected" khan
4. khan loses power in parliamentary no confidence vote
none of those are exactly what an outsider would consider to be the normal and orderly transfer of power in an electoral system
Sure, but I am arguing the strictly technical definition of terms completed by and power transferred between civilian governments.
My own opinion: democracy is hardly a boolean value -- these transfers, faulty and flawed as they may be, did legitimize civilian rule in the public eye.
My own opinion: democracy is hardly a boolean value -- these transfers, faulty and flawed as they may be, did legitimize civilian rule in the public eye.
I think the claim that was being made was that no prime minister has completed a term in office.(5 years)
For your first bullet, the prime minister was kicked out after just over 4 years.
For your second bullet, the prime minister was kicked out after just over 4 years.
For the third bullet, Imran Khan didn't even last 4 years.
For your first bullet, the prime minister was kicked out after just over 4 years.
For your second bullet, the prime minister was kicked out after just over 4 years.
For the third bullet, Imran Khan didn't even last 4 years.
I am well-aware (I live here!) but that is an entirely different claim, and is indeed unfortunately a higher standard Pakistani politics has not yet met.
Also, Khan made the mistake of signing a weapons deal with russia, I think literally 24 hours before Russia invaded ukraine. Within a week he was pushed out of power despite being wildly popular both domestically and internationally. It's not provable, but sure looks like a Very Popular politician being ousted via fast was regime change and he was being made an example to other leaders looking to make unapproved arms deals. I can't make any claims but if you look closely at what happened, the timing, it does not look great.
Of much more practical and immediate concern is the Pakistani military's long standing and increasingly deep technical cooperation with China.
Khan has a large populist support base but it's not exactly accurate to say he's wildly popular, a huge amount of people from Lahore and Punjab and the power base of elites supporting Nawaz Sharif and his friends are deeply opposed to him. They've spent lots of money on political opposition.
And then there's all the Sindhi Bhutto and PPP supporters who don't like him either. He has maybe 45-50% support.
Khan has a large populist support base but it's not exactly accurate to say he's wildly popular, a huge amount of people from Lahore and Punjab and the power base of elites supporting Nawaz Sharif and his friends are deeply opposed to him. They've spent lots of money on political opposition.
And then there's all the Sindhi Bhutto and PPP supporters who don't like him either. He has maybe 45-50% support.
Speaking as an Indian, Sub continent politics is totally messed up. India realised in the immediate events after Independence. Democracy won't survive if feudalism exists along side. It wasn't even that much of a difficult thing to understand, if you are a bonded labor under a feudal you pretty much do what the feudal says, and given the overall socio-economic situation of such places feudals would win anyway(Only feudals have the influence and money to even fight the elections). Though India abolished absentee landlordism, feudalism nevertheless continues. And even till date significant politics of India runs through political dynasties(former and current feudals).
Add to this religion, every few years there is some popular majoritarian religious trend, often loaded with settling scores with the minorities for some imagined victimhood, some battle some king who belonged to your religion lost 800 years back, these are 'pride' related emotional issues on which masses vote. No one cares about education, or improving general standard of living.
Add to this caste, regional and linguistic reasons.
Democracy is mostly a sham even without fixing, because masses don't vote for their own good. To think of democracy in the sub continent, people vote to hurt others than to help themselves. A vote is mostly a downvote in many ways.
Add to this religion, every few years there is some popular majoritarian religious trend, often loaded with settling scores with the minorities for some imagined victimhood, some battle some king who belonged to your religion lost 800 years back, these are 'pride' related emotional issues on which masses vote. No one cares about education, or improving general standard of living.
Add to this caste, regional and linguistic reasons.
Democracy is mostly a sham even without fixing, because masses don't vote for their own good. To think of democracy in the sub continent, people vote to hurt others than to help themselves. A vote is mostly a downvote in many ways.
Not just that, he publicly made claims like "the US thinks they can control us and make our decisions for us, but they can't". Just a couple days after that, he started having problems with parliamentary support, that eventually led to him being ousted.
I would argue that it does matter because the will of the masses is an extraordinarily powerful force and provoking them by ousting someone universally loved like Khan (heck I am a huge Khan fan and wish we had politicians like that in the USA!) can cause huge societal waves.
But I do agree with you, having the pleasure to know some upper class Pakistanis, that the military is the basis of the government.
But I do agree with you, having the pleasure to know some upper class Pakistanis, that the military is the basis of the government.
"the army has always run things"
sounds like Turkia but like 40 years ago
sounds like Turkia but like 40 years ago
And Egypt. And a bunch of countries in Asia.
When you have more guns than money, you get military dictatorship. When you have more money than guns, you get oligarchy.
Sure, but if you have more holy books than guns or money, you get a theocracy.
How's that different for USA? Do you believe Biden has power?
American programs of "war on drugs" and "war on terror" has done a great job of making sure most of their client states are run by beefed up security forces behind a thin veneer of democracy.
The US's involvement in Pakistan is much older and historical than the war on drugs/terror. They were flying U2s out of Peshawar in the 1960s. For a while, Chuck Yeager (yes, that Chuck Yeager) was the US military representative directly to the Pakistani military.
Yes. It doesn't invalidate what I said.
It certainly looks like this from the outside. The establishment has always kept control over Pakistan even when such social change was in the air. I expect the same to happen. Also I'm expecting IK to start dialling it back given the recent riots.
Are you in Pakistan? What are things on the ground like?
Arresting IK right now would be national harakiri. Surely they’re not going to do that?
Arresting IK right now would be national harakiri. Surely they’re not going to do that?
My hunch is that the real geopolitical upheaval of the next 50-100 years will be post-decolonization. A number of these nations were thrown together by a completely foreign power not just with an interest in splitting countries up or grouping them together but doing so in a way that prevents them becoming a peer level opponent.
Absolutely, the neighbor Afghanistan is an example. US tried so hard to enforce democracy but in the end it didn't work. Western Media might say it was unplanned and chaotic evacuation by US but large swath of population supported Taliban and welcomed them.
Conversely, when I was in Iran some 10-15 years ago, a few people mentioned wanting to be bombed/ freed from the government by the US. Our taxi driver in particular seemed to have a rosy mental image of what was going on in Afghanistan, which was quite surprising.
> splitting countries up or grouping them together [] in a way that prevents them becoming a peer level opponent.
Any links to research that shows (a) this was the intent, and (b) shows that it works?
Aren’t there plenty of counterexamples to that thesis (null hypothesis), of more homogeneous nations or island nations where countries haven’t become “first world”. Even the USA is rooted in non-homogeneous immigration.
Any links to research that shows (a) this was the intent, and (b) shows that it works?
Aren’t there plenty of counterexamples to that thesis (null hypothesis), of more homogeneous nations or island nations where countries haven’t become “first world”. Even the USA is rooted in non-homogeneous immigration.
Not really a hypothesis that the British lumped unrelated and rival ethnicities in Africa together for a magnitude of reasons. Most of these were geopolitical to the interests of the metropole and almost none of these border decisions were (initially at least) designed to accurately represent cultural and ethnic identities the way America was colonized for example or the way Europe was shaped by feudalism and war.
That’s the “they weren’t being actively malicious end” with the nation this thread is discussing having been the go to example of this being done. Pakistan only exists to be a thorn in Indias side
That’s the “they weren’t being actively malicious end” with the nation this thread is discussing having been the go to example of this being done. Pakistan only exists to be a thorn in Indias side
> none of these border decisions were (initially at least) designed to accurately represent cultural and ethnic identities the way America was colonized for example
I'm not sure what you're referring to here. American borders were laid out without any consideration for indigenous peoples (the general policy of colonial and post-colonial states towards such peoples being "exterminate them"), and colonial and post-colonial states fought lots of wars over transferring land between them for reasons that boil down to simply "I want more land."
I'm not sure what you're referring to here. American borders were laid out without any consideration for indigenous peoples (the general policy of colonial and post-colonial states towards such peoples being "exterminate them"), and colonial and post-colonial states fought lots of wars over transferring land between them for reasons that boil down to simply "I want more land."
>>Any links to research that shows (a) this was the intent, and (b) shows that it works?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sykes%E2%80%93Picot_Agreement
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sykes%E2%80%93Picot_Agreement
Which part showed intent to “divide and conquer“ or intent to cause internal conflict? I didn’t see any, although I do admit I skimmed (because it was a long read that appeared irrelevant).
And the article surely isn’t corroborating your thesis of mix cultures to force a long-term fail.
And the article surely isn’t corroborating your thesis of mix cultures to force a long-term fail.
Sykes-Picot agreement is as far as things go in diplomatic speak for a proof for this.
Quite literally the western powers cut up borders in mid east, sitting in rooms in Paris, London and Moscow, people who did this didn't even speak arabic, had no idea about ethnic, cultural, religious, political and social make up's of the lands they were cutting up to divide among each other.
Quite literally the western powers cut up borders in mid east, sitting in rooms in Paris, London and Moscow, people who did this didn't even speak arabic, had no idea about ethnic, cultural, religious, political and social make up's of the lands they were cutting up to divide among each other.
> Even the USA is rooted in non-homogeneous immigration.
USA used to be mostly Northern European and christian (protestant), black slaves who were moved there by force or pre European colonization inhabitants were never considered part of the foundations of US. US foundations were anything but non-homogeneous.
Now after WWII, US attempted to replace the racial and religious identity at the heart of "americanship" with some idealistic identity based on american exceptionalism, the american dream and the cult of the american imagery (flag, eagle, colors...). No need to point out that this re-invention of "americanship" is slowly crumbling as we speak. Who knows what will remain of that cohesion in the next 50 years.
USA used to be mostly Northern European and christian (protestant), black slaves who were moved there by force or pre European colonization inhabitants were never considered part of the foundations of US. US foundations were anything but non-homogeneous.
Now after WWII, US attempted to replace the racial and religious identity at the heart of "americanship" with some idealistic identity based on american exceptionalism, the american dream and the cult of the american imagery (flag, eagle, colors...). No need to point out that this re-invention of "americanship" is slowly crumbling as we speak. Who knows what will remain of that cohesion in the next 50 years.
The “Protestant” Northern Europeans in colonial America were anything but homogenous. New England Puritans not only had laws requiring Quakers to stay away, they in fact whipped, mutiliated and even executed those that refused to do so. The four English cultures that settled colonial America were vastly different from one another. The idea that there existed some kind of “US religious identity” upon its founding is profoundly ahistorical, and, in fact, laughable.
You're applying a 21st century post-globalization lens to a 18th century world. Sure, today a German is welcome in France or the UK and seen as more or less equal. In the 1700s, there wasn't even a concept of equality for subcultures within a single country, let alone different cultures in different countries. See Scottish/English relations or Parisian/Occitan relations or Flemish/Dutch relations.
The fact that people of Anglo-Saxon descent and people of Scots-Irish descent had an equal hand in the early US government was remarkable in and of itself, let alone the fact that the Catholic population in Maryland had equal rights under the law from day one.
The fact that people of Anglo-Saxon descent and people of Scots-Irish descent had an equal hand in the early US government was remarkable in and of itself, let alone the fact that the Catholic population in Maryland had equal rights under the law from day one.
> You're applying a 21st century post-globalization lens to a 18th century world.
because we're discussing 20th/21st century geopolitics at first place? Of course I am. Pakistan or India didn't exist in the 18th century, in fact these are British constructs.
> The fact that people of Anglo-Saxon descent and people of Scots-Irish descent had an equal hand in the early US government was remarkable in and of itself, let alone the fact that the Catholic population in Maryland had equal rights under the law from day one.
Yes, fighting against the British empire certainly was an efficient motivator. But still black people and indigenous populations were still left out of what you consider a feat.
because we're discussing 20th/21st century geopolitics at first place? Of course I am. Pakistan or India didn't exist in the 18th century, in fact these are British constructs.
> The fact that people of Anglo-Saxon descent and people of Scots-Irish descent had an equal hand in the early US government was remarkable in and of itself, let alone the fact that the Catholic population in Maryland had equal rights under the law from day one.
Yes, fighting against the British empire certainly was an efficient motivator. But still black people and indigenous populations were still left out of what you consider a feat.
> still black people and indigenous populations were still left out of what you consider a feat
If we concede no feats have been achieved in human history for not being unblemishingly perfect, sure. Fine. We'll leave the term with religion (and madness). Whatever the next rung of achievement is, the highest one in realm of the possible, America's founding matches it.
If we concede no feats have been achieved in human history for not being unblemishingly perfect, sure. Fine. We'll leave the term with religion (and madness). Whatever the next rung of achievement is, the highest one in realm of the possible, America's founding matches it.
The idea of Pakistan was created by Muslim intellectuals, not the British.
Remarkably ignorant post. Like saying that everyone in India/Pakistan/Bangladesh is homogenous because they're all subcontinental "brown" people. The conflict between whites on one hand and Asians/Latinos in modern America pales in comparison to the conflict that existed between different groups of northern european Christians at the time of the founding.
> USA used to be mostly Northern European and christian (protestant)
You are completely ignoring here the huge role that anti-Catholic prejudice had in US history (and the rest of the Anglosphere as well). Indeed, the vast majority of historic anti-Irish sentiment was really anti-Catholic – "Irish" came to mean "Irish Catholic", and Irish Protestants in the US rebranded themselves as "Scots-Irish" (not only those Irish Protestants who had recent Scottish heritage through the Plantation of Ulster – Irish Protestants who lacked any recent Scottish heritage called themselves that too.)
You are completely ignoring here the huge role that anti-Catholic prejudice had in US history (and the rest of the Anglosphere as well). Indeed, the vast majority of historic anti-Irish sentiment was really anti-Catholic – "Irish" came to mean "Irish Catholic", and Irish Protestants in the US rebranded themselves as "Scots-Irish" (not only those Irish Protestants who had recent Scottish heritage through the Plantation of Ulster – Irish Protestants who lacked any recent Scottish heritage called themselves that too.)
N1) no, that phase mostly already happened.
It's what took place after WW2 and was the battle ground for the cold war.
That's a little bit Pakistan can into existence in the first place.
Singapore, Jamaica, heck, even Canada made it's own constitution. Most of Africa (both sub saharan and north saharan), much of the Middle East. Huge portion of the world map.
2) This 'Colonials set everything pit one group against the other' is also wrong. Obviously, there were favourites and artifacts of that, but for the most part, left to their own devices, it would still be tribal chaos in most places.
The presupposition in that anti-colonial statment is that somehow, before foreign intervention, things worked in some meaningful way. In most places, it did not, and, there were previous colonial/external interventions. i.e. Ottoman Empire ruled over much of the Middle East ruthlessly, previous Islamic Caliphates were all over NE Africa with the slave trade for many centuries etc. etc..
Relatively few places are like 'Thailand' with a fairly coherent history.
It's what took place after WW2 and was the battle ground for the cold war.
That's a little bit Pakistan can into existence in the first place.
Singapore, Jamaica, heck, even Canada made it's own constitution. Most of Africa (both sub saharan and north saharan), much of the Middle East. Huge portion of the world map.
2) This 'Colonials set everything pit one group against the other' is also wrong. Obviously, there were favourites and artifacts of that, but for the most part, left to their own devices, it would still be tribal chaos in most places.
The presupposition in that anti-colonial statment is that somehow, before foreign intervention, things worked in some meaningful way. In most places, it did not, and, there were previous colonial/external interventions. i.e. Ottoman Empire ruled over much of the Middle East ruthlessly, previous Islamic Caliphates were all over NE Africa with the slave trade for many centuries etc. etc..
Relatively few places are like 'Thailand' with a fairly coherent history.
You’re 100% right.
Democracies are going to collapse in a lot of places because the people in these places never really wanted democracy or even cared much for it. They were just handed it down because the people the colonizers left in charge were born and bred within the colonizer’s own political systems.
Democracies are going to collapse in a lot of places because the people in these places never really wanted democracy or even cared much for it. They were just handed it down because the people the colonizers left in charge were born and bred within the colonizer’s own political systems.
Good example: https://unherd.com/2021/04/the-culture-wars-of-post-colonial...
Although I think it's not quite about "democracy." Many people don't want liberal democracy. They might be fine with non-liberal democracy: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2016/08/shadi-hamid-on-i...
Although I think it's not quite about "democracy." Many people don't want liberal democracy. They might be fine with non-liberal democracy: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2016/08/shadi-hamid-on-i...
Which arguably may not be a bad thing. Letting the indigenous people of the land govern it according to their own cultural norms and values will allow new and diverse values to flourish.
"Cultural norms" and "diverse values" like the oppression and subjugation of women, or mass government censorship as above? Some nations don't deserve the sovereignty they have. I don't think anyone would shed a tear if the UAE was taken over and replaced by a government that actually guarantees some basic human rights.
You do know that the oppression and subjugation of women and minorities was often brought by colonizers, right? Singapore's anti-homosexual laws, for example, were promulgated by the British. They didn't always bring enlightenment.
Same with India. Homosexuality was an accepted (not necessarily always approved) part of the culture for hundreds of years until the British outlawed it in the 18th Century.
[deleted]
[deleted]
50-100 years is quite a long time; it's already happening at an accelerating rate. Washington is rapidly losing its foothold in Latin America and SEA, France is losing West Africa. The West is in an unprecedented crisis right now and will be unable to compete with the next gen foreign policies coming out of China, Russia, and the many other "enemy states".
China is in the midst of a demographic collapse, and will be struggling with internal issues for decades, they're not going to be a threat. Russia is isolated and may lose most of their energy export revenues. They're not going to be a threat to anyone but their immediate neighbours.
But globalization, that has been enabled by the American military, may be coming to an end. The US armed forces are retooling in a way less geared to policing global merchant shipping. This signals a likely return to more local trade, controlled by regional powers.
We have been lucky to live in the richest, most prosperous era of human history. But the party seems to be winding down, and most of us and our heirs, will be living more modest lives, with reduced travel, diversity of goods, diet, and wealth.
But globalization, that has been enabled by the American military, may be coming to an end. The US armed forces are retooling in a way less geared to policing global merchant shipping. This signals a likely return to more local trade, controlled by regional powers.
We have been lucky to live in the richest, most prosperous era of human history. But the party seems to be winding down, and most of us and our heirs, will be living more modest lives, with reduced travel, diversity of goods, diet, and wealth.
Yeah, that is Zeihan's narrative, very sparsely backed by holistic analysis.
? Did you miss the last 100 years of history?
That already happened. 1/2 after WW1, the other 1/2 after WW2.
That was the story of the 20th century.
We're in a new era now.
That already happened. 1/2 after WW1, the other 1/2 after WW2.
That was the story of the 20th century.
We're in a new era now.
If you think the 20th century was the century of decolonization, you haven't dug very deep.
The Congo is a good example. One year after achieving independence in 1960, its sovereign leader was assassinated and replaced with neocolonial puppets. In the last 60 years, that "independent" country has been brutally exploited by foreign profiteers. A microcosm of the global south during the 20th century.
The Congo is a good example. One year after achieving independence in 1960, its sovereign leader was assassinated and replaced with neocolonial puppets. In the last 60 years, that "independent" country has been brutally exploited by foreign profiteers. A microcosm of the global south during the 20th century.
The DRC is not remotely in any way a colonial vassal.
It's laughable to suggest they could be exploited by 'Colonial Powers' when they can't even get electricity where they need it.
'Outside Force' for exploitation, sure, but it's always been thus.
'Western Influence' - sure, but mostly in the name of 'stability'.
The 'West' can really only benefit from these places when they are stable enough to start to form contracts for export, which most of these places are not. Those that are, and ruled by dictators, fine, as long as it's 'stable' and as a state they play well.
Otherwise, the 'big prize' is when these places are stable enough that they have 'consumers' who can 'consume' iPhones and KFC.
How many iPhones exported to DNC?
How many iPhones can they buy when it's total rampant murder and chaos?
How many can they buy when the are stable, have an industrial base, have banking, laws etc?
Which situation do you think Apple, Google, Amazon, Disney prefer?
It's laughable to suggest they could be exploited by 'Colonial Powers' when they can't even get electricity where they need it.
'Outside Force' for exploitation, sure, but it's always been thus.
'Western Influence' - sure, but mostly in the name of 'stability'.
The 'West' can really only benefit from these places when they are stable enough to start to form contracts for export, which most of these places are not. Those that are, and ruled by dictators, fine, as long as it's 'stable' and as a state they play well.
Otherwise, the 'big prize' is when these places are stable enough that they have 'consumers' who can 'consume' iPhones and KFC.
How many iPhones exported to DNC?
How many iPhones can they buy when it's total rampant murder and chaos?
How many can they buy when the are stable, have an industrial base, have banking, laws etc?
Which situation do you think Apple, Google, Amazon, Disney prefer?
Could you elaborate on "next gen foreign policies"?
Not OP, but I would offer "not sanctioning/embargoing a third of the world"...
BRI, BRICS+, SCO, EAEU/"petroruble".
the post-Washington Consensus
the post-Washington Consensus
The "post-Washingtion consensus" is too fragmented to have any real coordinated actions. BRICS is not some united force willing to work together. BRICS was meant for economies of similar scale to work together. China is already more than three times the size of the other 4 combined.The only thing that aligns all 5 now is generally anti-americanism which isn't much of a unifying force. China and India continue to worsen ties and Russia has become a bit of a pariah. Brazil and South Africa are too far apart from the rest for any meaningful cooperation.
Judging by the global reaction to the Ukraine war, the post-Washington order is less fragmented than the Washington-centric order.
Yes because they have nothing to gain from sanctioning Russia. But they also have virtually no trade with it so whether they sanctioned it or not means nothing. Russia trades mostly with Europe and China, not BRICS. And the sanctions have already clearly dug in.
In theory, they have a lot to gain: brownie points with Washington. Unfortunately, almost no one respects Washington anymore. That ship has sailed.
The end result is that the Russian economy is afloat while the transatlantic power structure is collapsing.
The end result is that the Russian economy is afloat while the transatlantic power structure is collapsing.
Brownie points mean less than nothing. Nations do not upon brownie points, just their self interests. If Brazil sanctioned Russia it would mean nothing and Washington would see it as such.
> Brownie points mean less than nothing. Nations do not upon brownie points, just their self interests.
Except when you behave like this, you end up like Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi -- lynched while their country is destroyed. "Brownie points" with the unipolar superpower is absolutely meaningful as long as they maintain that position. Which they don't anymore, circa 2020 or so.
Except when you behave like this, you end up like Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi -- lynched while their country is destroyed. "Brownie points" with the unipolar superpower is absolutely meaningful as long as they maintain that position. Which they don't anymore, circa 2020 or so.
Saddam and Gaddafi went directly against Washington, they weren't neutral.
What petroruble? Barely any countries are paying for gas in rubles, and the rest of the world certainly isn't.
Maybe he’s been listening to Zaid Hamid too much.
[deleted]
This WSJ article (no paywall) explains the current developments there. I had no idea things are so bad. The inflation is at 42%! https://www.wsj.com/articles/ousted-pakistan-prime-minister-...
They are also out of foreign currency like Sri Lanka. Which accelerates chinas problems, as pakistan is one of its debtors and will likely default on those credits.
I'm sure China will see this as an opportunity as Pakistan hands over some of its BRI infrastructure: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hambantota_International_Por...
How likely is Pakistan to fail?
They have nukes.
They have nukes.
[deleted]
Pakistan is a classic case of what moral bankruptcy looks like when you harbour terror just so you can hurt your neighbours. For decades, they allowed terror camps and bases because it would hurt India and in the process military was under supreme control of the state. All along, US supported them because a) they were always suspicious of India being a Russian ally and b) they somehow thought by some crazy logic that Pakistan is going to be their ally in war on terror.
But then the snake they were growing in the backyard with the hope of hurting their neighbours started biting them. First the collapse in Afghanistan and then decade long war on terror followed by economic stagnation coupled with corruption at the military led the mass to basically become completely robbed.
This is the populous that somehow thought India is their arch enemy and their leaders are all on their side because the state religion Islam was used as a tool. Ya I don’t have much sympathy for them.
But then the snake they were growing in the backyard with the hope of hurting their neighbours started biting them. First the collapse in Afghanistan and then decade long war on terror followed by economic stagnation coupled with corruption at the military led the mass to basically become completely robbed.
This is the populous that somehow thought India is their arch enemy and their leaders are all on their side because the state religion Islam was used as a tool. Ya I don’t have much sympathy for them.
Lets not pretend that there is only a single guilty party here. No doubt pakistan tried to control mujahideen to fight their proxy wars. Just like Indian intelligence has funded the Balochistan insurgency inside Pakistan. This of course all started with US asking Pakistan to setup these mujahideen to counter Russia in 1980.
This is a false equivalency. The extent to which Pakistan used its military apparatus to train militias and other terrorist organizations is unparalleled. There is a reason Osama Bin Laden found a safe heaven.
This is the what aboutism that most politicians toy with when they want to fool the public. But like I said this is a populous that are truly detached and delusional. They brought it on themselves.
This is the what aboutism that most politicians toy with when they want to fool the public. But like I said this is a populous that are truly detached and delusional. They brought it on themselves.
Really its unparalleled? Even by america.
Yes as long as America does not shelter a terrorist while taking billions of dollars of money in the name of “fighting” war on terror?
Yeah no. Pakistan has always used terror as a weapon, in various ways, from the moment it was split from India.
Setting up of the mujahideen gave a semi legitimate veneer to its activities and a funnel for money.
Setting up of the mujahideen gave a semi legitimate veneer to its activities and a funnel for money.
I advise you to sit down and have a serious conversation with some Pakistani people. I don't entirely disagree with you but there are some glaringly ignorant statements that seem to stem from a lack of experience with the actual cultural experience in Pakistan.
would you care to point out at least one "glaringly ignorant statement" backed by a fact that shows it is glaringly ignorant?
You're not wrong about things as they stand.
However, you do conveniently leave out that it was the US toppling the Shah of Iran that resulted in a religious wave taking over the whole region. And it was the US, again, that armed and trained everyone in Afghanistan to the teeth to help them fight the commies. And it was the US, yet once again, that just bailed as soon as USSR collapsed, leaving a massive power vacuum in the Afghanistan, which led to the Taliban takeover.
Pakistani army merely tried to use that power vacuum to their advantage. And it failed miserably, might I add. The army has gotten used to the boatload of USDs for being an war ally, but all the US hatred now is creating fractions within it.
My point is, every country plays this game, and they all play it dirty. Why assign moral bankruptcy to a minor player while completely overlooking the major player that's stirring all the global shitstorms?
However, you do conveniently leave out that it was the US toppling the Shah of Iran that resulted in a religious wave taking over the whole region. And it was the US, again, that armed and trained everyone in Afghanistan to the teeth to help them fight the commies. And it was the US, yet once again, that just bailed as soon as USSR collapsed, leaving a massive power vacuum in the Afghanistan, which led to the Taliban takeover.
Pakistani army merely tried to use that power vacuum to their advantage. And it failed miserably, might I add. The army has gotten used to the boatload of USDs for being an war ally, but all the US hatred now is creating fractions within it.
My point is, every country plays this game, and they all play it dirty. Why assign moral bankruptcy to a minor player while completely overlooking the major player that's stirring all the global shitstorms?
I don’t think you understand geopolitics in that part of the world. Shia dominated Iran has very little influence on Sunni Pakistan. As far as I can recall, Pakistan always had their entire existence centred around anti-India perspective, the war they fought with India over Kashmir in 65 and then over Bangladesh in 71 predates the shah movement. Soms of their most fanatic military leaders were actually before the 71 war.
Every country plays games but not in a self destructive manner. If Pakistani leadership had any sense and if their people were not always fooled by thinking that their leaders are leading a jihad and protecting Islam, they would have realized focusing your entire foreign and economic policy based on the geopolitical rivalry over a piece of land that has less than 1% of total GDP is not a good cause.
Just wait till they have a balance of payment problem. Their reserves are drying up too all because of these stupid economic policies. Instead of doing trade deals with your closest neighbour and one of the largest economic powers, they actively sabotage any economic influence. These people are really stupid.
Every country plays games but not in a self destructive manner. If Pakistani leadership had any sense and if their people were not always fooled by thinking that their leaders are leading a jihad and protecting Islam, they would have realized focusing your entire foreign and economic policy based on the geopolitical rivalry over a piece of land that has less than 1% of total GDP is not a good cause.
Just wait till they have a balance of payment problem. Their reserves are drying up too all because of these stupid economic policies. Instead of doing trade deals with your closest neighbour and one of the largest economic powers, they actively sabotage any economic influence. These people are really stupid.
Control of Kashmir was never about its economic output.
the water from that region is life for more 1-2 billion people in Indian subcontinent, east Asia and china.
Wars this century will be fought over water over in the Himalayas between three nuclear powers no less .
Climate change is not going to just impact the environment, it is going to displace a lot of people , people with guns ands bombs and badly affected by changing environments.
the water from that region is life for more 1-2 billion people in Indian subcontinent, east Asia and china.
Wars this century will be fought over water over in the Himalayas between three nuclear powers no less .
Climate change is not going to just impact the environment, it is going to displace a lot of people , people with guns ands bombs and badly affected by changing environments.
Dude what are you talking about? Fresh water supply in India mainly comes from twelve river system that are to be interlinked. Not from Kashmir.
Punjab in Pakistan depends on the Indus River system and that gets a good chunk of its water from glacial melt in the Himalayas in Kashmir.
From the time of partition and standstill agreement the water disputes from Kashmir is deeply entwined in the conflict.
Hydrological importance of Himalayas for all three countries and others in the region cannot be overstated .
From the time of partition and standstill agreement the water disputes from Kashmir is deeply entwined in the conflict.
Hydrological importance of Himalayas for all three countries and others in the region cannot be overstated .
> the US toppling the Shah of Iran that resulted in a religious wave taking over the whole region
If we're looking for a founding mistake, it's probably the British (and French) betraying the Hashemite king [1][2][3], thereby permitting Wahhabism to take hold. That and the absence of a Marshall Plan for the post-WWII de-colonised world.
> every country plays this game, and they all play it dirty
The Mujahideen plotted attacks on Soviet military targets in Afghanistan. They're analogous to the Taliban post invasion. To my knowledge, the U.S. wasn't knowingly supporting terrorism in e.g. Moscow the way the ISI has supported militants striking Bombay.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hashemites#World_War_I_and_the...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Revolt
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMahon–Hussein_Correspondence
If we're looking for a founding mistake, it's probably the British (and French) betraying the Hashemite king [1][2][3], thereby permitting Wahhabism to take hold. That and the absence of a Marshall Plan for the post-WWII de-colonised world.
> every country plays this game, and they all play it dirty
The Mujahideen plotted attacks on Soviet military targets in Afghanistan. They're analogous to the Taliban post invasion. To my knowledge, the U.S. wasn't knowingly supporting terrorism in e.g. Moscow the way the ISI has supported militants striking Bombay.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hashemites#World_War_I_and_the...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Revolt
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMahon–Hussein_Correspondence
" you do conveniently leave out that it was the US toppling the Shah of Iran that resulted in a religious wave taking over the whole region. A"
The USA supported the Shah, and that's not 'what caused something else'.
Topping Mossadegh was not exactly a democratic move, but the Shah was, and still would be, better than any alternative.
The US supports worse people in Kuwait and Qatar - and at least from a geo/p perspective, it works.
Afghanistan is 100% the 'fault' of Communists. By the 1960's they were a poor backwards country, but not overrun with insanity. This '100's of years of occupation' is rubbish. The British left a long time ago. Young Communists failed in their democratic efforts but were stopped. They tried to overthrow government and failed, and then invited the Soviets in. American intervention during the 1970's was decisive, yes, but very limited. They didn't 'train' zillions of soldiers. It was a few soldiers and a few stinger missiles.
So after mass political chaos, yes, 'thugs' took over, like anywhere else.
As we can see from US 2003 intervention, which didn't result in an ongoing functioning state, what power on earth is going to change that equation? Afghanistan was a bit more like the other 'stans' around it until the Global Communist Insurrections of the 20th century.
The same thing in Chile. A fairy radical communist took over, was popular at the start, introduced some arguably needed reforms but then went way, way overboard. With only 30% of the vote he tried to overule parliament and the judiciary, crashed the economy and was well on his way to being a dictator. Western forces intervened and supported the 'other side' aka Pinochet, who was 'bad'. But on the whole probably not as bad as the alternative. Given the choice between Allende (Stalin-ish) and Pinochet (Putin-ish) the later was probably preferable, and 50 years later it's working out really well.
Arguably the same can even be said about the Shah vs. Mossadegh.
US supported not exactly the nicest people in both S. Korea and in S. Vietnam. We know how S. Korea worked out, and we know how S. Vietnam worked out: thousands executed, 100's of thousands in concentration camps many of whom died. Ruthless (albeit peaceful) authoritarianism to this day.
And with Egypt. US props up the secular Army, which keeps mostly 'hands off' with politics but is the ultimate power there, and that means Egypt is at least 'coherent' and not fully at war with Israel etc..
This assessment of a 'single country stirring the shitstorms' is glib. The world would be a complete shitstorm - or - have been taken over by absolutely ruthless players, were not for US/West, now include S. Korea and Japan in there. It's not all 'hunky dory' obviously, but in 50 years, Saudi Women will have many more rights and it won't come at the cost of total regional war between Israel/Egypt, Saudi/Iran etc. etc..
The USA supported the Shah, and that's not 'what caused something else'.
Topping Mossadegh was not exactly a democratic move, but the Shah was, and still would be, better than any alternative.
The US supports worse people in Kuwait and Qatar - and at least from a geo/p perspective, it works.
Afghanistan is 100% the 'fault' of Communists. By the 1960's they were a poor backwards country, but not overrun with insanity. This '100's of years of occupation' is rubbish. The British left a long time ago. Young Communists failed in their democratic efforts but were stopped. They tried to overthrow government and failed, and then invited the Soviets in. American intervention during the 1970's was decisive, yes, but very limited. They didn't 'train' zillions of soldiers. It was a few soldiers and a few stinger missiles.
So after mass political chaos, yes, 'thugs' took over, like anywhere else.
As we can see from US 2003 intervention, which didn't result in an ongoing functioning state, what power on earth is going to change that equation? Afghanistan was a bit more like the other 'stans' around it until the Global Communist Insurrections of the 20th century.
The same thing in Chile. A fairy radical communist took over, was popular at the start, introduced some arguably needed reforms but then went way, way overboard. With only 30% of the vote he tried to overule parliament and the judiciary, crashed the economy and was well on his way to being a dictator. Western forces intervened and supported the 'other side' aka Pinochet, who was 'bad'. But on the whole probably not as bad as the alternative. Given the choice between Allende (Stalin-ish) and Pinochet (Putin-ish) the later was probably preferable, and 50 years later it's working out really well.
Arguably the same can even be said about the Shah vs. Mossadegh.
US supported not exactly the nicest people in both S. Korea and in S. Vietnam. We know how S. Korea worked out, and we know how S. Vietnam worked out: thousands executed, 100's of thousands in concentration camps many of whom died. Ruthless (albeit peaceful) authoritarianism to this day.
And with Egypt. US props up the secular Army, which keeps mostly 'hands off' with politics but is the ultimate power there, and that means Egypt is at least 'coherent' and not fully at war with Israel etc..
This assessment of a 'single country stirring the shitstorms' is glib. The world would be a complete shitstorm - or - have been taken over by absolutely ruthless players, were not for US/West, now include S. Korea and Japan in there. It's not all 'hunky dory' obviously, but in 50 years, Saudi Women will have many more rights and it won't come at the cost of total regional war between Israel/Egypt, Saudi/Iran etc. etc..
Not entirely the fault of communists. Islamist groups were also agitating in Afghanistan and given Pakistan's trajectory (under Bhutto) would likely have set off a civil war as well.
A narrow rent-seeking elite in a desperately poor country isn't a model for stability which pre-communist take over Afghanistan was.
Just as you can't hand wave at everything with the "it was the US", you shouldn't hand wave at everything as it was the communists fault.
A narrow rent-seeking elite in a desperately poor country isn't a model for stability which pre-communist take over Afghanistan was.
Just as you can't hand wave at everything with the "it was the US", you shouldn't hand wave at everything as it was the communists fault.
Yes, I concede that. Communist agitators broke the ugly system and smashed it on the floor, the pieces have yet to be picked up.
> military was under supreme control of the state
Many would argue the military should be under supreme control of the state. Do you mean the state was under supreme control of the military (i.e., when Pakistan was under military rule)?
Many would argue the military should be under supreme control of the state. Do you mean the state was under supreme control of the military (i.e., when Pakistan was under military rule)?
[deleted]
This commentary is pretending the US had any legit reasons for supporting the corruption and evilness beyond America’s own immediate power hungry thinking.
The story I heard on this is that the US "asked" Khan to play ball on Ukraine/anti-Russia and he basically said no, came out with a statement like "Are we your slaves?" https://www.ibtimes.com/are-we-your-slaves-pakistans-khan-sl... and about 2 weeks later he was removed from office. There's no concrete evidence the US was connected to regime change here but it sure looks that way and it wouldn't be the first time.
That's the propaganda Khan, who was extremely unpopular with both the army and the public, was pushing.
The real reason his PM career was untenable was because (a) he pissed off the Pakistani military by threatening to unilaterally replace the military leader, whose support was the only reason he became PM in the first place, and (b) his party appointed some virtual unknown and definite incompetent (who was a friend of his wife's) as the leader of the Punjab province which has over 50% of the population of Pakistan.
His latter action also angered members of his own party and members of his alliance that saw their own political careers threatened because he took such politically poor actions with half the country's population.
Finally, what would have been astonishing is if Imran Khan (or anyone for that matter), would have completed his term. He would have been the first PM to do so in Pakistan's history.
It really doesn't require a conspiracy theory centered around America to explain something that is the norm in Pakistan.
The real reason his PM career was untenable was because (a) he pissed off the Pakistani military by threatening to unilaterally replace the military leader, whose support was the only reason he became PM in the first place, and (b) his party appointed some virtual unknown and definite incompetent (who was a friend of his wife's) as the leader of the Punjab province which has over 50% of the population of Pakistan.
His latter action also angered members of his own party and members of his alliance that saw their own political careers threatened because he took such politically poor actions with half the country's population.
Finally, what would have been astonishing is if Imran Khan (or anyone for that matter), would have completed his term. He would have been the first PM to do so in Pakistan's history.
It really doesn't require a conspiracy theory centered around America to explain something that is the norm in Pakistan.
That is completely untrue. His party has won all elections by landslide since he was removed in this regime change. [https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/22/asia/pakistan-imran-khan-anti...]
The elections you refer to had PTI winning 46% of the vote, while PMLN won 39% of the vote. This is far too small a difference to be characterized as a landslide, even if this difference resulted in a 15-5 seat split, given that the winning party has less than 50% of the votes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Punjab_provincial_by-elec...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Punjab_provincial_by-elec...
>>> who was extremely unpopular with both the army and the public
Bro, if you want to lie, at least lie at something which can’t be countered by other sources.
Among all the leaders atm, khan is the most popular one. Ever since he was ousted, he has been calling rallies and people are coming out for him. He has pulled biggest crowd in pakistan history. All can be seen on YouTube.
I can’t even read rest of your comment given that I already know that either you are very disconnected from reality or you have some other motive to discredit khan.
Bro, if you want to lie, at least lie at something which can’t be countered by other sources.
Among all the leaders atm, khan is the most popular one. Ever since he was ousted, he has been calling rallies and people are coming out for him. He has pulled biggest crowd in pakistan history. All can be seen on YouTube.
I can’t even read rest of your comment given that I already know that either you are very disconnected from reality or you have some other motive to discredit khan.
> He has pulled biggest crowd in pakistan history. All can be seen on YouTube.
This is the same flawed argument that US Republicans use on why Trump couldn't have gotten 46.9% of the 2020 popular vote, but he did, and is thus, unpopular.
This is the same flawed argument that US Republicans use on why Trump couldn't have gotten 46.9% of the 2020 popular vote, but he did, and is thus, unpopular.
> Khan, who was extremely unpopular with both the army and the public,
If everybody hates him, then censoring him is pointless. I don't know anything about any of these people or parties but what you're saying doesn't pass my sniff test.
If everybody hates him, then censoring him is pointless. I don't know anything about any of these people or parties but what you're saying doesn't pass my sniff test.
Censoring him was dumb (this isn't the first time the succeeding govt censored him). They've really made a hash of it and allowed him to become a martyr.
He was unpopular. Here's a poll from when the no-confidence vote passed (Bloomberg referencing Gallup Pakistan polling).
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-04-13/majority-...
That being said, the only thing that matters isn't just overall support. The groups supporting also matter. And even though Khan had minority support, he has support among the extreme religious right of Pakistan, who are organized enough to shut down the country and motivated enough that they would do that even if it costs damage and lives.
He was unpopular. Here's a poll from when the no-confidence vote passed (Bloomberg referencing Gallup Pakistan polling).
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-04-13/majority-...
That being said, the only thing that matters isn't just overall support. The groups supporting also matter. And even though Khan had minority support, he has support among the extreme religious right of Pakistan, who are organized enough to shut down the country and motivated enough that they would do that even if it costs damage and lives.
The poll you cite doesn't support your earlier claim that he was "extremely unpopular". He may not have had over 50% of the public's support, but his support was near that level. By your own reference, 43% were upset at his removal.
57 > 43.
And this is talking about removing an incumbent. Incumbents almost alway have a political edge. No one wants to throw out an incumbent until things are really bad.
That’s a -14 rating.
And this is talking about removing an incumbent. Incumbents almost alway have a political edge. No one wants to throw out an incumbent until things are really bad.
That’s a -14 rating.
> 57 > 43.
Acknowledged in my original comment.
A -14 difference does not make him "extremely unpopular". Merely less than a majority. A 43% rating is higher than Biden has, but no one would say he is "extremely unpopular".
And then there's the fact that it's a -14 difference between his party and everyone else. Given that "everyone else" includes two other major parties, it's pretty much a given that his party has more support than any other party. In comparison:
- In the last Canadian elections, no party got over 34%. In the last 20 years, no party even got 40%.
- In the last UK elections, Boris Johnson got just over 43%. And only once in the last 20 years did someone get more than that.
If IK's party really had 44% of the public's support, they will likely win any election.
Acknowledged in my original comment.
A -14 difference does not make him "extremely unpopular". Merely less than a majority. A 43% rating is higher than Biden has, but no one would say he is "extremely unpopular".
And then there's the fact that it's a -14 difference between his party and everyone else. Given that "everyone else" includes two other major parties, it's pretty much a given that his party has more support than any other party. In comparison:
- In the last Canadian elections, no party got over 34%. In the last 20 years, no party even got 40%.
- In the last UK elections, Boris Johnson got just over 43%. And only once in the last 20 years did someone get more than that.
If IK's party really had 44% of the public's support, they will likely win any election.
he is massively popular, which is the reason the govt isnt going towards elections.
This WSJ articles sums it up pretty well: https://www.wsj.com/articles/ousted-pakistan-prime-minister-...
are you a dog ;)
I know this kind of reply may trigger a harsh response from HN mods, but this really needs to be said.
You are lying through your teeth.
The plain facts, in no particular order:
1. Imran Khan's party had much larger support in 2013 elections, and that support was suppressed via election rigging. Its impossible to really say wether he would won an outright majority then (probably not), but who knows
2. In 2018, there was massive rigging to ensure that Imran Khan would NOT win an outright parliamentary majority. This was admitted to, PLAIN AS DAY, by one of the crooks who is currently "defence minister" (what a joke). He openly and plainly admitted that he was losing during the count in his constiuency, he picked up the phone and complained to the army chief, and lo and behold - the remaining count miracoulusly went in his favour.
Multiple other examples like this. THE ONLY REASON that the previous opposition were complaining about rigging is because, FOR THE FIRST TIME IN HISTORY, they were handicapped in rigging in their own favour,in their own localities.
3. Imran Khan was extremely unpopular with the public?
Complete hogwash. BEFORE HE EVEN MENTIONED THE US INVOLVEMENT, he held a number of political rallies, in the last week of his premiership. One such rally resulted in A MILLION PEOPLE coming to Islamabad.
A MILLION NEW CELL PHONE NUMBERS were registered in the Islamabad area by telco's during that weekend
So there goes your entire narrative that you were trying to falsely push.
You are lying through your teeth.
The plain facts, in no particular order:
1. Imran Khan's party had much larger support in 2013 elections, and that support was suppressed via election rigging. Its impossible to really say wether he would won an outright majority then (probably not), but who knows
2. In 2018, there was massive rigging to ensure that Imran Khan would NOT win an outright parliamentary majority. This was admitted to, PLAIN AS DAY, by one of the crooks who is currently "defence minister" (what a joke). He openly and plainly admitted that he was losing during the count in his constiuency, he picked up the phone and complained to the army chief, and lo and behold - the remaining count miracoulusly went in his favour.
Multiple other examples like this. THE ONLY REASON that the previous opposition were complaining about rigging is because, FOR THE FIRST TIME IN HISTORY, they were handicapped in rigging in their own favour,in their own localities.
3. Imran Khan was extremely unpopular with the public?
Complete hogwash. BEFORE HE EVEN MENTIONED THE US INVOLVEMENT, he held a number of political rallies, in the last week of his premiership. One such rally resulted in A MILLION PEOPLE coming to Islamabad.
A MILLION NEW CELL PHONE NUMBERS were registered in the Islamabad area by telco's during that weekend
So there goes your entire narrative that you were trying to falsely push.
Interesting that you would claim I’m lying while I provide links to prove by numbers while you don’t.
The best you have is 2013 numbers to make claims about a 2020+ situation. I don’t think I need to say anything else to prove your lies.
What a joke. What reasonable person would point to 2013 numbers to justify their claims about a 2022 election.
The best you have is 2013 numbers to make claims about a 2020+ situation. I don’t think I need to say anything else to prove your lies.
What a joke. What reasonable person would point to 2013 numbers to justify their claims about a 2022 election.
It's a vicarious sort of fun to come across a political debate in which I'm a complete outsider with no prior knowledge, no position, and no bias.
It's like watching a loud public domestic argument between people you've never seen before and never will again.
It's like watching a loud public domestic argument between people you've never seen before and never will again.
I'm not sure who you are, and what you're responding to. Perhaps you replied to the wrong comment?
My post was in reply to the outright lies pushed by asdajksah2123.
But in response to this "gem" of yours later in this thread, to whit:
> The most hilarious thing is that a conspiracy theory that Imran Khan created days before he was ousted with absolutely no evidence at all is supposed to be given any value because he lost a no confidence vote.
The evidence is actualy pretty damning. I'm just going to give a basic cliff notes version:
- the US tried to make a back door deal with the Pak military to give them bases in Pak, post-Afghan withdrawal. In addition to the usual fluff pieces in the NYT pushing this agenda, there was recorded testimony to Congress acknowledging this (all in 2021).
- Imran Khan squashed all of this. Since that point, the US had essentially decided to push for a coup in Pakistan. And this coincided nicely with the personal objectives of the other 2 power centers - namely the military high command, and the other 2 main political parties/crime families. Now you had a collusion of interests between scoundrels.
Since then:
- there were numerous meetings between US officials, and various low-level parliamentarians. All of whom are so low-level that no foreign dignatory has any business meeting with them. Much less having weekend getaways with them in Bhawalpur farmhouses (YES - we have the nitty gritty details)
- tens of millions of US$ was moved to Karachi, from the US to Zardari's crime family, and used to BUY the votes of multiple MPs. These are the very same MP's who then defected. Those defections were then used by the military to push those junior coalition partners in Imran Khan's government to jump ship (I explained in an earlier comment how the military deliberately interfered in the 2018 elections to prevent Imran Khan from getting an outright majority then - THIS is why!)
- THAT was the reason why a MILLION people came to Islamabad to protest - BEFORE Imran Khan even mentioned ANYTHING about the US involvement. The bribery was open and rather disgusting.
- the diplomatic cable mentioned by many IS real. It DOES exist. Otherwise - answer this - why would the military lodge an Official Secrets Act case and threaten THE THEN prime minister with arrest if he publically disclosed the contents?
Mr. Addicted: you're pushing a narrative that has been completely exposed within Pakistan as a pack of outright lies. Its all been exposed and reported upon - in front of 220 MILLION people. The only reason you get to pretend otherwise to a non-Pakistani audience is because nearly all of this investigative reporting was/is in Urdu.
And the cherry on top is now this:
now - even WITH massive anti-Imran vote rigging and himself removed in a coup d'etat, his party has wiped the floor with the opposition in various by-elections - in areas considered absolute strongholds of that opposition.
In a free and fair election - its quite possible that Imran Khan could win 80% of the seats. EIGHTY PERCENT!
Stick that in your pipe, and smoke it!
My post was in reply to the outright lies pushed by asdajksah2123.
But in response to this "gem" of yours later in this thread, to whit:
> The most hilarious thing is that a conspiracy theory that Imran Khan created days before he was ousted with absolutely no evidence at all is supposed to be given any value because he lost a no confidence vote.
The evidence is actualy pretty damning. I'm just going to give a basic cliff notes version:
- the US tried to make a back door deal with the Pak military to give them bases in Pak, post-Afghan withdrawal. In addition to the usual fluff pieces in the NYT pushing this agenda, there was recorded testimony to Congress acknowledging this (all in 2021).
- Imran Khan squashed all of this. Since that point, the US had essentially decided to push for a coup in Pakistan. And this coincided nicely with the personal objectives of the other 2 power centers - namely the military high command, and the other 2 main political parties/crime families. Now you had a collusion of interests between scoundrels.
Since then:
- there were numerous meetings between US officials, and various low-level parliamentarians. All of whom are so low-level that no foreign dignatory has any business meeting with them. Much less having weekend getaways with them in Bhawalpur farmhouses (YES - we have the nitty gritty details)
- tens of millions of US$ was moved to Karachi, from the US to Zardari's crime family, and used to BUY the votes of multiple MPs. These are the very same MP's who then defected. Those defections were then used by the military to push those junior coalition partners in Imran Khan's government to jump ship (I explained in an earlier comment how the military deliberately interfered in the 2018 elections to prevent Imran Khan from getting an outright majority then - THIS is why!)
- THAT was the reason why a MILLION people came to Islamabad to protest - BEFORE Imran Khan even mentioned ANYTHING about the US involvement. The bribery was open and rather disgusting.
- the diplomatic cable mentioned by many IS real. It DOES exist. Otherwise - answer this - why would the military lodge an Official Secrets Act case and threaten THE THEN prime minister with arrest if he publically disclosed the contents?
Mr. Addicted: you're pushing a narrative that has been completely exposed within Pakistan as a pack of outright lies. Its all been exposed and reported upon - in front of 220 MILLION people. The only reason you get to pretend otherwise to a non-Pakistani audience is because nearly all of this investigative reporting was/is in Urdu.
And the cherry on top is now this:
now - even WITH massive anti-Imran vote rigging and himself removed in a coup d'etat, his party has wiped the floor with the opposition in various by-elections - in areas considered absolute strongholds of that opposition.
In a free and fair election - its quite possible that Imran Khan could win 80% of the seats. EIGHTY PERCENT!
Stick that in your pipe, and smoke it!
Then why don’t you post some links here for us Urdu speakers on HN. We do exist you know.
Quite literally hundreds of pieces of investigative journalism, done by some of the most respected true jounalists in Pakistan, each of whom have followings/viewership numbering in the MILLIONS.
Spread across various platforms, from cable news stations (ARY, Bol TV) which broadcast to multiple continents, to youtube podcasts which get million plus views for 2 to 3 news videos, per day, every day.
And you're pretending that you're unaware of any of this? If you are an Urdu speaker as you claim, there's no point asking what rock have you been hiding under. There's no rock big enough to explain such indifferent self-imposed ignorance.
Spread across various platforms, from cable news stations (ARY, Bol TV) which broadcast to multiple continents, to youtube podcasts which get million plus views for 2 to 3 news videos, per day, every day.
And you're pretending that you're unaware of any of this? If you are an Urdu speaker as you claim, there's no point asking what rock have you been hiding under. There's no rock big enough to explain such indifferent self-imposed ignorance.
Not all of us live in Pakistan. I don’t have a TV at home so have to go to my cousin’s house few miles away who gets ARY on satellite. Only just today did I hear about the Secrets Act case from some people at school who had just come from Pak. My cousin did say some stuff about US conspiracy but he and his dad always say that.
Well Selim, assuming you're not trolling, then I would suggest that you look for the youtube channels of established respected journalists, to get a flavour of whats happening currently.
There is no chance of speaking truth on the official airwaves - the other channels threw their lot in with the coup from day 1 (that includes Geo TV, Hamid Mir, etc). Those channels that attempted to have been forcibly shutdown (eg: ARY, and now Bol)
I'll drop just a few recommendations;
- Imran Riaz Khan (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCaszgR2TH3qNw_CxLHAd2SQ)
- Waqar Malik (UK based freelancer, but very dedicated) (https://www.youtube.com/c/WaqarMaliks)
- Haidar Mehdi (ex army officer, now based in Canada, still with links to many current serving high-ranking generals) (https://www.youtube.com/user/shrmehdi)
You will find that people like Imran Riaz Khan (who was imprisoned just a few weeks ago) still have to be careful about what they say (hence repeated allusions to "powerful behind the scenes forces"), but Haider Mehdi and Waqar Malik, by dint of the fact that they are free from kidnapping and torture, have been quite open about calling a spade, a spade.
When it comes to mainstream reporting, then Arshad Sharif and Sami Ibrahim have been quite couragous and steadfast. Both have been targetted by this coup-regime. Sami was actually attacked outside the Bol TV offices (he is the president of the news division). While Arshad has just recently had to go into exile (even though he is from a respected military family, and his brother died while on military duty - combating terrorists).
I would suggest going through some of Haider Mehdi's vlogs from a few months ago to understand how we got here. He has only done a few (Waqar has so many that you wouldn't know where to start)
There is no chance of speaking truth on the official airwaves - the other channels threw their lot in with the coup from day 1 (that includes Geo TV, Hamid Mir, etc). Those channels that attempted to have been forcibly shutdown (eg: ARY, and now Bol)
I'll drop just a few recommendations;
- Imran Riaz Khan (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCaszgR2TH3qNw_CxLHAd2SQ)
- Waqar Malik (UK based freelancer, but very dedicated) (https://www.youtube.com/c/WaqarMaliks)
- Haidar Mehdi (ex army officer, now based in Canada, still with links to many current serving high-ranking generals) (https://www.youtube.com/user/shrmehdi)
You will find that people like Imran Riaz Khan (who was imprisoned just a few weeks ago) still have to be careful about what they say (hence repeated allusions to "powerful behind the scenes forces"), but Haider Mehdi and Waqar Malik, by dint of the fact that they are free from kidnapping and torture, have been quite open about calling a spade, a spade.
When it comes to mainstream reporting, then Arshad Sharif and Sami Ibrahim have been quite couragous and steadfast. Both have been targetted by this coup-regime. Sami was actually attacked outside the Bol TV offices (he is the president of the news division). While Arshad has just recently had to go into exile (even though he is from a respected military family, and his brother died while on military duty - combating terrorists).
I would suggest going through some of Haider Mehdi's vlogs from a few months ago to understand how we got here. He has only done a few (Waqar has so many that you wouldn't know where to start)
Thank you.
>BEFORE HE EVEN MENTIONED THE US INVOLVEMENT, he held a number of political rallies, in the last week of his premiership. One such rally resulted in A MILLION PEOPLE coming to Islamabad.
It just means his base is rabid, not exactly that he's popular.
It just means his base is rabid, not exactly that he's popular.
I don't think you quite understand what the term "popular" actually means.
"Rabid", in the context that you're using it, applies really well to those who keep trying to push a consistent narrative of:
- nothing to see here, move on
- just a few agitated locals, who can't count past 10
- the generals are really good chaps at heart
- don't mind the fact that they are kidnapping politicians & journalists in broad daylight, and subjecting them to CIA-inspired Abu Ghraib style torture
- none of the above in any way confirms that this "deep state" has lost control, and is continuously escalating as it gets continuously desperate
Yes, "rabid" does cover that.
On the other hand, attracting millions to your rallies, winning by-elections in a landslide DESPITE intensive vote-rigging against you, breaking all sorts of viewership records across all platforms (including tagspaces and twitter trends) ...
yes, the term "popular" DOES cover that.
"Rabid", in the context that you're using it, applies really well to those who keep trying to push a consistent narrative of:
- nothing to see here, move on
- just a few agitated locals, who can't count past 10
- the generals are really good chaps at heart
- don't mind the fact that they are kidnapping politicians & journalists in broad daylight, and subjecting them to CIA-inspired Abu Ghraib style torture
- none of the above in any way confirms that this "deep state" has lost control, and is continuously escalating as it gets continuously desperate
Yes, "rabid" does cover that.
On the other hand, attracting millions to your rallies, winning by-elections in a landslide DESPITE intensive vote-rigging against you, breaking all sorts of viewership records across all platforms (including tagspaces and twitter trends) ...
yes, the term "popular" DOES cover that.
This is at least partly true. Pakistan is mostly ruled by the military so keeping them happy is important. That's the actual power centre there.
Prime Ministers of Pakistan don't usually manage to serve out their term https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_prime_ministers_of_Pak...
Prime Ministers of Pakistan don't usually manage to serve out their term https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_prime_ministers_of_Pak...
This information is true
Third world countries blame "US/CIA interference" for their domestic problems so often I wish we were really that competent in projecting power across the world.
Do people really think western powers care that much about Imran Khan's opinion on Russia-Ukraine to pull off a regime change in one of the largest and most unstable countries (that too with nuclear weapons) in the world? It's a tactic for such politicians and countries to make themselves feel more important on the global stage, nothing more.
Pakistan has always been run by its military. Politicians who get out of line quickly get deposed/exiled/assassinated. There is nothing new or surprising with the latest development.
Do people really think western powers care that much about Imran Khan's opinion on Russia-Ukraine to pull off a regime change in one of the largest and most unstable countries (that too with nuclear weapons) in the world? It's a tactic for such politicians and countries to make themselves feel more important on the global stage, nothing more.
Pakistan has always been run by its military. Politicians who get out of line quickly get deposed/exiled/assassinated. There is nothing new or surprising with the latest development.
It's because US interference is actually pretty common.
Here is Wikipedia on this topic, which is actually one of the more "US intelligence friendly" sources out there: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in... This list is endless and shocking.
Pakistan is a big and important country, so their position is actually important. Furthermore, for any empire, it's vital that it gets other smaller countries in line, even if the small country's position would be irrelevant.
The way I see it is that most countries' leaders will always be both popular and unpopular in a significant portion of the country so it is always possible to frame a revolution/coup/insurgence as either a great thing or a bad thing.
I don't know what happened in this case, and in complicated scenarios like these, there are always many factors and forces at play, but it's certainly not unreasonable to think that foreign powers gave a little push in order to see the outcome they wanted in the region.
Here is Wikipedia on this topic, which is actually one of the more "US intelligence friendly" sources out there: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in... This list is endless and shocking.
Pakistan is a big and important country, so their position is actually important. Furthermore, for any empire, it's vital that it gets other smaller countries in line, even if the small country's position would be irrelevant.
The way I see it is that most countries' leaders will always be both popular and unpopular in a significant portion of the country so it is always possible to frame a revolution/coup/insurgence as either a great thing or a bad thing.
I don't know what happened in this case, and in complicated scenarios like these, there are always many factors and forces at play, but it's certainly not unreasonable to think that foreign powers gave a little push in order to see the outcome they wanted in the region.
> Pakistan is a big and important country, so their position is actually important.
To further your point: Pakistan has the 5th largest population in the world, has complicated relationships (including contested borders 20 miles from its capital) with #2 and #1, and has a weak enough economy that a little money can go a long way. I would be shocked if the US weren't applying any force to its politics.
To further your point: Pakistan has the 5th largest population in the world, has complicated relationships (including contested borders 20 miles from its capital) with #2 and #1, and has a weak enough economy that a little money can go a long way. I would be shocked if the US weren't applying any force to its politics.
Heh, "play ball" -- I see what you did there:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imran_Khan#Cricket_career
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imran_Khan#Cricket_career
It was absolutely this. US funds the pakistan army and a high level meeting happened where they threatened to pull out funds if they didnt dispose off Khan.
We have a saying that most countries have an army but in Pakistan the army has a country.
Gaddafi was killed and his sons were murdered in front of him because he threatened petro dollar. before that he was given red carpet in france and even camped in sarcozy lawn.
now Russia and China threaten the petro dollar and I am worried what the US is going to do.
We have a saying that most countries have an army but in Pakistan the army has a country.
Gaddafi was killed and his sons were murdered in front of him because he threatened petro dollar. before that he was given red carpet in france and even camped in sarcozy lawn.
now Russia and China threaten the petro dollar and I am worried what the US is going to do.
> Gaddafi was killed and his sons were murdered in front of him because he threatened petro dollar. before that he was given red carpet in france and even camped in sarcozy lawn.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alleged_Libyan_financing_in_th...
Sarkozy got rid of an inconvenient witness... (the former french president has been indicted for a series of financial crimes related to Libya since).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alleged_Libyan_financing_in_th...
Sarkozy got rid of an inconvenient witness... (the former french president has been indicted for a series of financial crimes related to Libya since).
Sitting in India (presumably) what evidence have you got for this?
Direct funding of Pakistani military forces in recent years is indeed unsubstantiated, but occurred as recently as 2018.
We still provide some significant funding to Pakistan for humanitarian and development (i.e. civilian) efforts. This information is widely available online.
So GP is wrong to be so confident and absolute about their claim that we still fund the Pakistani army, but we do indeed give money to their government, and the Pakistani government is not independent of its army. It’s a messy situation.
Just trying to provide a bit of a more nuanced view before this heavy-handed comment you’re replying to is dismissed outright.
We still provide some significant funding to Pakistan for humanitarian and development (i.e. civilian) efforts. This information is widely available online.
So GP is wrong to be so confident and absolute about their claim that we still fund the Pakistani army, but we do indeed give money to their government, and the Pakistani government is not independent of its army. It’s a messy situation.
Just trying to provide a bit of a more nuanced view before this heavy-handed comment you’re replying to is dismissed outright.
What does the commented being in India have to do with what he said? It is absolutely true Khan didn’t want to cancel the Russia trip when it happened the day of the strike.
We will never know the truth. But it has to be said that the opposition parties that brought about the vote of no-confidence had tried to muster the strength to do so a year prior and failed. They had restarted to talk about a No-confidence vote months before the Ukraine/Russia war and had started to slowly form the alliance to do so [1].
[1] Jan 13 https://www.dawn.com/news/1669107 The vote happened early April
[1] Jan 13 https://www.dawn.com/news/1669107 The vote happened early April
Much like in Egypt (bye bye to the Muslim Brotherhood aligned democratically elected PM) the army in Pakistan get a lot of US $$$ "assistance".
Egyptian here, hello.
Some pretty big quotes should surround "democratically". Also, the Muslim Brotherhood attempted to enact constitutional Sharia Law, something unfavorable even amongst the Muslim-majority populace. If we're going to cherry-pick Egypt as an example here, would be nice to provide the whole picture of what went down (which this comment certainly isn't).
Some pretty big quotes should surround "democratically". Also, the Muslim Brotherhood attempted to enact constitutional Sharia Law, something unfavorable even amongst the Muslim-majority populace. If we're going to cherry-pick Egypt as an example here, would be nice to provide the whole picture of what went down (which this comment certainly isn't).
It is not true that Morsi's government tried to enact Sharia law. Egyptian liberal's overblown fear of Islam resulted in something far worse, a military dictatorship for another 30 years. Morsi was a moderate and was not going to impose sharia. Sisi is an extremist dictator who has jailed thousands of journalists and political rivals.
He was elected by mostly the poor and lower class - his agenda and political leanings was well known - the middle class and elites did not shed a tear when the army stepped in again.
Didn't morsi try to dissolve the judiciary?
And now it's better in Egypt?
It's not an uncommon thing for a justifiable uprising to end up in a place worse than before. It doesn't necessarily mean that it was instigated from the outside for that or some other purpose.
Not liking the results of democracy is not a justifiable uprising.
It is when said democracy cracks down on human rights.
Of course it isn't but dissolving the judiciary still wouldn't have been a good thing.
Ukraine was actually pro-Pakistan on the Kashmir issue and sold them battle tanks. He needs to fire whoever in the Foreign Office advised him to do this.
is this true? I would like to read more about it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan–Ukraine_relations
https://mobile.twitter.com/kanchangupta/status/1497071498825...
https://mobile.twitter.com/kanchangupta/status/1497071498825...
thank you. Good to learn about something I never knew. Probably one of the reason why Indian-related subreddit were agaisnt ukraine but the reddit admins came down and deleted all subreddits that were critical of war, even the massively popular ones
> deleted all subreddits that were critical of war
hmmmmm
Or wait, are you confusing subreddits with threads and admins with subreddit mods? That’s the only way your comment doesn’t read as downright insane.
hmmmmm
Or wait, are you confusing subreddits with threads and admins with subreddit mods? That’s the only way your comment doesn’t read as downright insane.
no, they outright deleted subreddits. Some of these subreddits were long criticized for having genocide material but reddit refused to remove them for "freedom of speech". When they put up a banner criticizing the war, reddit admins removed the subreddit outright.
here is the time article about it https://time.com/6160519/reddit-international-hate-speech-ba...
They refused to ban either subreddit for 2 years but a week after they criticized the war, they were both deleted.
here is the time article about it https://time.com/6160519/reddit-international-hate-speech-ba...
They refused to ban either subreddit for 2 years but a week after they criticized the war, they were both deleted.
And which war were these subreddits critical of?
I got IP banned for my comments on HN! .
These subreddits were against the russia-ukraine war and were stating that NATO pushed them.
more fun fact. typing "zelensky Pan" stops all auto-complete in google since people are searching for "zelensky pandora" but "Putin pan" brings out all pandora papers about it even though Zelensky is twice as much in pandora papers as Putin.
Even google has censored all negative news about zelensky in it's autocomplete.
These subreddits were against the russia-ukraine war and were stating that NATO pushed them.
more fun fact. typing "zelensky Pan" stops all auto-complete in google since people are searching for "zelensky pandora" but "Putin pan" brings out all pandora papers about it even though Zelensky is twice as much in pandora papers as Putin.
Even google has censored all negative news about zelensky in it's autocomplete.
>I got IP banned for my comments on HN! .
Looking at your submission history, I'm shocked that it's taken this long. Dang must be on a holiday.
>These subreddits were against the russia-ukraine war and were stating that NATO pushed them.
So, what you're actually saying is that they were actually not against the Russian war of aggression? Your suggestion that they were simultaneously against the war and also trying to justify it doesn't really add up.
Looking at your submission history, I'm shocked that it's taken this long. Dang must be on a holiday.
>These subreddits were against the russia-ukraine war and were stating that NATO pushed them.
So, what you're actually saying is that they were actually not against the Russian war of aggression? Your suggestion that they were simultaneously against the war and also trying to justify it doesn't really add up.
They have no submissions and this is their only comment.
binnerhn01 is obviously ShivShankaran posting on another user after getting ratelimited
https://news.ycombinator.com/submitted?id=ShivShankaran
https://news.ycombinator.com/submitted?id=ShivShankaran
How much sway does the US have in Pakistan today? They are aligned economically and militarily with China. It’s an honest question. I know US bashing is popular but didn’t Pakistan align with China to move out of the US sphere of influence?
I think if the U.S. had any influence in Pakistan, they would have used it before 2021 to stop the incessant support by Pakistan for the Taliban in Afghanistan. And they would have also used it to have Pakistan hand over bin Laden who was being sheltered in Abbotabad, within walking distance of a Pakistani military academy.
If the U.S. government got zero cooperation from the Pakistani government in those areas, I doubt they have the influence to get rid of the prime minister over some insignificant matter like whatever Khan did.
The most hilarious thing is that a conspiracy theory that Imran Khan created days before he was ousted with absolutely no evidence at all is supposed to be given any value because he lost a no confidence vote. Like every other predecessor in the history of the country.
The reality is that Imran Khan had been anti-USA for years before that. If the U.S. was so worried about Pakistan they would maybe have done something in the year prior where he was eating against the US for his political support.
That whar he’s been doing for half a decade. It makes literally no sense at all.
The reality is that Imran Khan had been anti-USA for years before that. If the U.S. was so worried about Pakistan they would maybe have done something in the year prior where he was eating against the US for his political support.
That whar he’s been doing for half a decade. It makes literally no sense at all.
At some point Pakistanis are going to have to open their eyes to how their politicians use the US as a convenient excuse to blame for all their problems.
not an excuse if it's probably true.. same thing happened when Iraq was invaded, Bush famously said you are either with us or against us
Granted, at that point it was an open secret that the ISI had spent decades recruiting and funding armed and violent Islamic groups.
The enemy of India is my friend, etc.
The enemy of India is my friend, etc.
I believe both countries' govts engage in despicable acts
Yes like the time India trained terrorists to go into Pakistan and attack civilians. Don't both sides this.
I've read reports that literally say that and that India and Iran both engage in such activities but driven by different motivations, Iran uses the threat as bargaining chip, i.e. PK opposes something in UN against Iran, regular people pay the price and current govt looks weak unable to provide security. Similarly India is driven by long term goals such as eliminating tourist economy, supporting separation movements, and other similar nefarious goals. Not saying PK is an exception, it'd be willful ignorance to highlight one country as an outlier when all countries in that region are extensively involved in causing mayhem in other countries through means of espionage and secret funding - regular people dying is just tossed as collateral damage.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Khan is definitely not an American puppet, but I don't think the Biden administration has any grip on Pakistan at this time compared to before. In that region, Biden surrendered Afghanistan to the Taliban, but they also effectively surrendered Pakistan to China some time ago. Pakistan is much more aligned with the BRICS, although they will gladly entertain the US for funding/weapons without delivering anything.
That said, if one is suspicious of American technology being weaponized for foreign policy, then Poland will be the place to watch next year. The Biden administration has every clearly told Poland they want a regime change. The EU is also on board.
That said, if one is suspicious of American technology being weaponized for foreign policy, then Poland will be the place to watch next year. The Biden administration has every clearly told Poland they want a regime change. The EU is also on board.
US has plenty of power to enact regime change, ie destabilize entire countries and/or regions. What the US manifestly lacks is power to bring up a decent replacement regime to provide order around a set of resonant moral values. And so chaos slowly engulfs the world as the sun sets over the American Empire. Chaos age, until the next Empire.
[deleted]
It stinks of interference and that's a pretty big statement to make. No surprises if he's pissed off a few.
Militarizing this country and supporting it as much as the US did definitely already paid negative returns. The geopoliticists in Washington are not particularly competent. It certainly looks like their actions in this region are net negative.
If they were a company, it would have folded from bad decision making.
If they were a company, it would have folded from bad decision making.
[deleted]
> This class of disruption can be worked around using VPN services, which are able to circumvent government internet censorship measures.
Well, here's something for people who insist all VPN services are a "scam". VPNs play an important role by circumventing censorship in countries with more network level internet censorship.
Well, here's something for people who insist all VPN services are a "scam". VPNs play an important role by circumventing censorship in countries with more network level internet censorship.
That's.... not what people criticizing VPNs are referring to.
VPN's privacy claims are a scam. Reselling their own internet connection works, but advertising it that way doesn't.
The customer has no way of having any assurance of a privacy claim, and even past assurances can change at any time, and even if active monitoring or surveillance wasn't being done by the VPN provider, their data center, a third party along the way or the government, the VPN provider would still respond to a court order from the government undermining your privacy. Thats the part people call a scam.
Changing your reported location has nothing to do with that.
VPN's privacy claims are a scam. Reselling their own internet connection works, but advertising it that way doesn't.
The customer has no way of having any assurance of a privacy claim, and even past assurances can change at any time, and even if active monitoring or surveillance wasn't being done by the VPN provider, their data center, a third party along the way or the government, the VPN provider would still respond to a court order from the government undermining your privacy. Thats the part people call a scam.
Changing your reported location has nothing to do with that.
Are you in tech? People have specific reasons for VPN issues. What you’re referring to is not something people have an issue with.
jessaustin(1)
Back in the early 90s we were all about PGP and anonymous remailers and we’ve let the forces of government and big business slowly nullify every mitigation we’ve tried.
As technologists we haven’t used our positions on technical standards boards, etc., to force protocols that would preserve freedom by not providing the capabilities needed for control.
So now I guess we’re just supplicants on the internet we created.