- Durand line between Pakistan & Afghanistan, the real dispute between them
Afghanistan is set to dominate the discussions of NATO 2012 Chicago summit this coming weekend. This all the while when Afghanistan is a tragedy and not one the West is ever going to end particularly if its not going to deal with key issues like the Durand line and Pashtun nationalism.
The Soviet Union were there for most of the 1980′s and had to retreat and the only person who appears to have survived going through there has been Alexander the Great locally still known as Sukindar. Thats not surprising as he was just passing through and not setting up camp for a decade or so, something NATO & the Soviet Union should have both learnt before getting involved.
But you do have to ask what the North Altantic Treaty Organisation(NATO) is doing in South Asia in the first place? South Asia is a mighty long way from the Atlantic and NATO principal region of operation is Europe when it was orginally set-up. Don’t forget the premise of the alliance was to ” keep the Russians out, the Americans in and the Germans down” in Europe.
But its quite clear with US troops running amok, Afghan troops shooting NATO counter-parts, the campaign is clearing losing the hearts and minds of the Afghans. So its time to bring the troops back home. Its been the beginning of the end for NATO in South Asia sometime ago and their own task was accomplished some time ago with Al-Qaida operational activities broken in the region. More particularly with Osama Bin Laden killed though it should not be forgotten he was actually in the neighbouring country of Pakistan when killed by the US.
Unfortunately, its likely to stay this way particularly with the disputed Western boundary of Pakistan underwise known as the
Durand line orginally set-up by British officials in the Raj (see map above). Resolving something like this will involve at least all the powers around Afghanistan which would include Pakistan, China, Iran, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikstan and yes even India. But none of them will be going to the NATO summit, just a number of largely small European states with the US.
One of the things that Pakistan wants is for Afghanistan to recognize the Durand Line. Afghanistan has, throughout history, refused to do so. It was on this basis that it did not recognise the formation of Pakistan in 1947. This habit has continued into the Karzai administration. So you can see why Pakistan, which is under some debatable threat of state failure and disintegration, is so sensitive about the issue.
To compound things we also have Pasthun nationalism along the disputed boundary,with even the suggestion of a new state of Pasthunistan. The map below shows the ethnic concentrations along the Durand line which explains the demands. As a result we have more than a few non-Pashtuns in Afghanistan who are not to psyched about the prospect of being in a state with potentially 11 million additional Pashtuns. In fact, the newly formed United National Front has called for official recognition of the border and the party even has Pashtun members. So some movement is possible in Afghanistan.
But l don’t have much hope for this summit on Afghanistan by NATO, if its not going to deal with the Durand line dispute and Pashtun nationalism demands. Particularly if the main players in the region are not there as well. If these issues and actors are ignored, all peaceful efforts going for the last ten years would go in vain and the whole region once again turn into devastating political turmoil. I personally blame British imperialists like Durand that hatched up such lines in the first place!
Ethnic map of the Pakistan & Afghanistan
May 15, 2012
Mayoral obsession - Thames Estuary Airport
During the recent GLA election period we had a debate at the Institute of Civil Engineers (ICE) where we heard why a Thames Estuary airport is not a viable option for providing additional national hub runway capacity for London and the South-East.
Firstly this is not a new idea at all. Different versions of the same idea have been around since 1943 and been rejected every time. Most recently we’ve had the Mayor’s proposal in Shivering Sands and the Foster proposal in the Isle of Grain to consider.
Secondly, its not clear where the space for the airport actually exists in the Thames Estuary anyway. The coastlines along both Kent & Essex are largely protected, and we have busy shipping lanes and wind farms being constructed. Lets not also forget what the CEO of NATs Richard Deakins recently said of the Foster proposal, that its in the worst position possible for incoming flights into London! Willie Walsh of British Airways has also been quoted as saying “…..its only for the birds”.
The proposal also poses a real threat to the West London economy as Heathrow is responsible for 114,000 jobs and gross value added of £ 5.3 billion. That’s 1 in 5 jobs locally. The reality is that any Thames Estuary airport proposal is only viable if Heathrow is closed and air traffic is forced East. Quite simply, two hubs in London is not viable and it’s not clear that either passengers or the airlines are willing to go there (judging by Medway council’s survey of the airlines and GLA Economics Report ” Come fly with me”.
It goes without saying that the wildlife and local environment impact is huge, with the propsed sites in the middle of one of the most important sites for wild birds in Europe. This could easily cause noise, congestion and pollution problems in outer London suburbs like Bromley, Bexley and Havering as well.
In the meantime, we are seeing better efficiencies in managing airports. For example the A380 double decker planes landing at Heathrow have increased the passenger capacity of Heathrow airport greatly without causing too much local environmental concerns like noise and air pollution. Indeed if you consider available capacity by passenger numbers, there is potential across all the “London” airports. For example at Heathrow another 20 million passengers can be accommodated at the terminals.
In short, this is not the revolutionary new idea we have been led to believe. The space for it is questionable & the Mayor does not have any juridiction over the Estuary anyway. There is also the threat to Heathrow and the West London economy; and of course the biggest question about the threat to the environment in the Estuary. What we need is a different approach altogether which links up the spare capacity amongst “London” airports with better links and connectivity between airports.
For all these reasons and more l’ll be joining the protests outside City Hall on Friday morning against the Mayor’s support for the crazy old idea of an airport in the Thames Estuary.
May 10, 2012
On 3rd May Londoners face a choice between a Labour Mayor and a Tory Mayor. That choice is this simple, and its a clear choice that matters on May 3. It’s a choice between a Conservative party that will carry on ripping off Londoners and a Labour party determined to make you better off.
The Conservative Party has:
-
Pushed Britain back into recession
-
Hiked up bus, rail, Tube, tram and DLR fares
-
Introduced a ‘granny tax’ to fund a tax-cut for the rich
-
Hit young people and students, including scrapped the Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA)
-
Cut funding for childcare
-
Allowed rip-off energy companies to hike up bills
A Labour Mayor of London would:
-
Cut fares, saving the average fare-payer £1,000 over four years
-
Reverse Boris Johnson’s police cuts
-
Create a £30-a-week London EMA for 16-19 year olds
-
Provide grants and loans for childcare
-
Offer Londoners cheaper electricity and heating through a London Energy Co-op
-
Oppose the granny tax paid for by the tax cut for the richest – and freeze Council Tax
The central choice on Thursday is between a Conservative Party continuing to rip you off, or a Labour Party that will make you better off.
Don’t let the Tories get away with it. Vote Labour in London on Thursday.
May 2, 2012
- the destruction of HS2 on Regents Park Estate
At the GLA’s London Assembly, Transport Committee meeting last summer when we investigate the issues around HS2 for London we did not get any representative from HS2 to come along to justify such a major investment even though invited to do so. This when we are quite accustom now to getting Ministers in front of us at our various meetings on London specific issues. So l was keen to see them making their efforts with the community most affected by the proposals inLondon, Euston & Primrose Hill. But there were some real obstacles to getting to the Euston Forum, quite literally. Including only knowing about the event through word of mouth. Even then like many l turned up uninvited to small community hall only to be greeted by a big fellow dressed in black outside. It felt like getting into a night club, with a bouncer outside with a guest-list. Indeed one of the major issues at the beginning of the meeting was who was invited or not and why the apparent secrecy including the exclusion of the local papers.
Lets face it HS2 did themselves no favours by not coming out before the Secretary of States decision to proceed to convince local communities of its need and in particularly why Euston was the favoured terminus in London. This of course would have meant entering the lions den particularly in Camden but nonetheless shown some commitment to informing local communities of what’s being proposed and how the route had been drawn up in the first place. Alas at these meetings we were still stuck at first base on this front, as unsurprisingly members of the community kept asking about how could it all be justified in the first place. Just maybe if HS2 had bothered to turn up to meetings when invited locally and acrossLondon, it would have helped the meetings it subsequently set up as its community and planning forums.
Understandably as a result we had a host of issues arising at both forums from whether we should have had an independent chair for the forums; the terms of reference for the meetings; detailed civil engineering concerns like positioning of shafts along the tunnel route ; damage to urban green areas like St James Gardens and if any assessment of environmental impacts had been made; and not least the compensation to businesses and homes blighted and destroyed by HS2. A whole array of important issues to address but no structure to deal with them all has been found at these meetings. It just appeared to me that the Department of Transport, the main sponsor of the HS2 had not even learnt the lessons of other major infrastructural projects like Crossrail going through London.
Furthermore on day of the Primrose Hill to Kilburn Community Form, the business case for HS2 has been undermined by figures revealed by the NAO that HS1 passengers numbers are a third lower than forecasted particularly of international passengers and thus based on “hugely optimistic assumptions”. Are the projected users of HS2 similarly over optimistic, ones asks oneself? This when we already have the Financial Times(FT) & the Economist magazine already doubting the finances of the whole project and the need for it from a business perspective. On top of being told in such austere times, government spending has to be reined in and brought down, this arm of HS2 is already the most difficult and expensive part of the whole proposal running from Old Oak Common to Euston. It clearly is not being told to do that with special projects like HS2. This while in February the Chancellor, George Osborne was trying to flog off HS2 project to the Chinese on a business trip toBeijingand widely quoted in the FT as one of a number of projects he offered to them to invest in UK plc.
Having now attended two HS2 Community Forums, it tells me everything about how not to conduct community and planning consultations on major infrastructural investments. So it is any wonder HS2 are being taken to judicial review by Camden Council and others with their failure to consult properly on the route; not fully consider impact on underground capacity at Euston; and inadequate environment information as the strategic environment assessment has not yet been carried out. This is clearly going to be a long battle.
The extent of the encroachment of HS2 around Euston Station
May 1, 2012
Offending islamophobic comments in London Elects booklet
Having had a number of constituents complain to me about an offending islamophobic remark in the GLA election booklet on page 9, I have written a letter of complaint to London Elects, the election commissioners of the GLA election on the 3rd of May.
The offending quote from Robert West reads ” I’m backing BNP because they support our traditional christian faith. We need strong leadership to protect our national identity from the threat of Islam “ This is clearly islamophobic in its intent.
In my letter I have asked London Elects to explain how it saw fit to sanction such islamophobic comments. It is simply not good enough for them to tell us it’s not its role to make value judgements about the contents of the booklet from all the various political parties. Such remarks fall foul of Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, as it denotes that all persons of the islamic faith pose a threat to the wider population. This is not only untrue, it is also detrimental to race relations between different faith communities to promote this belief.
Public authorities like London Elects must have due regard to the need to ”eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct that is prohibited under the Act….and foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it” This has clearly not happened in this instance.
All this when l had earlier in the week complained about London Elects permitting political slogans on the ballot paper. Lawyers at London Elect need to consider this again along with how the islamophobic comments were permitted to be published in the first place.
Unfortunately, the damage has been done because the booklet has already hit the door mats of millions of homes! Furthermore the quote from Robert West can also be found on the London Elects website. This at least can be dealt with and must be taken down immediately. You can email them at info@londonelects.org.uk or phone 020 7983 4444 to complain.
Ultimately the best way to counter this injustice now, would be to make sure that the BNP does not get another one of its numbers back into the London Assembly as they did in 2008. For this, we have to make sure that enough people vote across all the political parties to ensure the BNP do not make the 5 per cent threshold needed to get one of their Assembly Member which were only serve to peddle further their islamophobic views.
I hope all readers will go out next Thursday and use their vote to stop this threat and such negatives messages reaching voters again next time round.
April 26, 2012
Previous page
